The Project Gutenberg eBook of Slavery as an industrial system
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Slavery as an industrial system
Ethnological researches. Second, revised edition
Author: H. J. Nieboer
Release date: September 23, 2024 [eBook #74463]
Language: English
Original publication: The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff
Credits: Jeroen Hellingman and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net/ for Project Gutenberg (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SLAVERY AS AN INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM ***
SLAVERY
AS AN INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM
ETHNOLOGICAL RESEARCHES
BY
Dr. H. J. NIEBOER
SECOND, REVISED EDITION
THE HAGUE
MARTINUS NIJHOFF
1910
PREFACE.
The present work is a revised edition of my book on slavery as it was
published in 1900.
Preparing this second edition, I saw that the general plan of the book
could remain the same. The details, however, wanted improvement in many
respects. The chapter treating of the geographical distribution of
slavery among savage tribes has been much enlarged, as the information
of which I disposed was far more complete now than when the book was
originally written. The theoretical part, I hope, has also much
improved. A closer study of the subject has led me to alter some
passages and make several additions.
I have also profited by the remarks of my critics, among whom I
especially mention Professor Tönnies (in Professor Schmoller’s
Jahrbücher, Vol. XXV) and Dr. Vierkandt (in Zeitschrift für
Socialwissenschaft, Vol. IV). To these I may add Professor Westermarck,
who, in his work on the origin and development of the moral ideas
(1906–08), discusses at some length the conclusions to which I have
arrived.
The fact that the first edition has been kindly received by the
periodical press has encouraged me to prepare this second edition. I
was happy to notice that my study of some conditions of primitive
culture was valued not only as a contribution to the knowledge of
savage life, but as furthering the understanding of the structure of
human society in general.
I will not conclude this preface without offering my sincere thanks to
my teacher and friend Professor Steinmetz of Amsterdam, under whose
guidance the first edition was written and whose help in preparing the
present edition has been very valuable to me.
Rotterdam, Holland. H. J. NIEBOER.
December 1909.
CONTENTS.
Page.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION xv
This book deals with the general character of slavery as an
industrial system XV.—We confine ourselves to the phenomena of
savage life XV.—The object of ethnology is not only to reconstruct
the early history of mankind, but to find sociological laws
XVI.—Bearing of the results of ethnological investigation upon the
study of social phenomena in general XVI.—Our method: inductive and
comparative XVII.—Ethnographical literature XVII.—This literature
may not be used without a thorough criticism XVII.—“Statistical
method” XVIII.—The facts must serve as a basis whereupon to found
theories, not as mere illustrations of preconceived theories
XVIII.—But we cannot do without leading ideas XIX.—We treat one
subject thoroughly instead of many subjects superficially
XIX.—Writers on the general history of slavery XIX.
PART I.—DESCRIPTIVE.
CHAPTER I.—DEFINITION AND DISTINCTION FROM KINDRED PHENOMENA.
§ 1. Ordinary meaning of the term “slavery” 3
It is necessary to know this meaning of the term, as both
ethnographers and theorists use it in this sense 3.—“Slavery of
women” and “wage-slaves” 4.—Three characteristics of slavery 5.
§ 2. Use of the term “slavery” in theoretical literature 6
Theorists agree that the chief characteristic of slavery consists
in this, that the slave is the “property” or “possession” of his
master.
§ 3. Definition for scientific use 7
We want a sociologically practical definition 7.—The function of
slavery is a division of labour 7.—Voluntary and compulsory labour
7.—The slave the property of his master and compelled to work
8.—“Property” implies compulsory labour 8.—Our definition. Its
advantages 9.
§ 4. Distinction of slavery from kindred phenomena. I Wives in an
abject condition 9
“Slavery of women” as spoken of by ethnographers and theorists
9.—Condition of women among the Australian aborigines. Bad, but not
so much so as has sometimes been supposed 10.—Division of labour
between the sexes not always so unreasonable as at first sight it
seems 22.—Wives in an abject condition show much resemblance to
slaves, but are not slaves, as their chief function is that of
wives and mothers 24.—Slavery proper does not exist when there are
none but female slaves 25.
§ 5. Distinction of slavery from kindred phenomena. II Children
subjected to the head of the family 26
Treatment of children among savages; Dr. Steinmetz’s investigations
26—Patria potestas and potestas dominica 28.—Children, though
entirely subjected to their father, are not slaves, as they occupy
quite another place in the social system 28.—Adopted children
sometimes difficult to distinguish from slaves 29.—Slavery only
exists beyond the limits of the family proper 30.
§ 6. Distinction of slavery from kindred phenomena. III Members of a
society in their relation to the head of the community 30
The subjects “slaves of the king” 30.—A king has never a right of
property over his subjects 31.—Penal servitude occurs in many
countries where slavery does not exist 32.—“Property” better than
“possession” 32.
§ 7. Distinction of slavery from kindred phenomena. IV Subjected
tribes; tributary provinces; lower classes; free labourers 33
“Slave tribes” and “slave districts” inappropriate names for tribes
subjected en bloc and tributary districts 33.—Lower classes. The
lack of details sometimes prevents us from determining, whether a
labouring class consists of free labourers or slaves 34.
§ 8. Distinction of slavery from kindred phenomena. V Serfs 34
Serfdom in Germany 34.—In France 36.—In Rome (colonatus)
37.—Opinions of theorists 37.—Serfs are not slaves, because they
are not the property, in the sense of Roman law, of their masters
38.
§ 9. Pawns or debtor-slaves 39
The slave-state of pawns is conditional 39.—Pawns are not in a
legal sense the property of their masters; but we may call them
slaves, as they take the same place as other slaves in the social
system 40.
CHAPTER II.—GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SLAVERY.
§ 1. Introduction 41
It is not so easy as at first sight it seems, to ascertain the
existence or non-existence of slavery in every particular case
41.—Our method. 1º What if slavery is stated to exist? 42.—2º What
if slavery is stated to be absent? 43.—3º What if our authorities
are silent on the subject? 43.—We confine ourselves to savages
44.—Civilized and semi-civilized influence 45.—Geographical groups
46.—“Positive” and “negative cases” 46.—Use of the past and present
tense 46.
§ 2. North America 47
1. Eskimos 47.—2. Nootka group 49.—3. Tinneh group 50.—4. Algonquin
group 52.—5. Iroquois group 55.—6. Choctaw-Muskoghe group 56.—7.
Dacotah group 58.—8. Oregon group 59.—9. Californians 61.—10. New
Mexicans 63.—Negro slavery among the Indians 69.
§ 3. Central and South America 70
§ 4. Australia 83
§ 5. Melanesia 85
§ 6. Polynesia 97
§ 7. Micronesia 102
§ 8. Malay Archipelago 110
I Malay Peninsula 110.—II Sumatra and neighbouring islands 110.—III
Borneo 112.—IV Celebes 113.—V Little Sunda islands and Moluccas
114.—VI Philippines 115.—VII Madagascar 117.—Semi-civilized Malay
peoples 120.
§ 9. Indo-Chinese Peninsula 123
§ 10. India, Afghanistan, Himalaya 124
§ 11. Central Asia 127
§ 12. Siberia 132
§ 13. Caucasus 136
§ 14. Arabia 138
§ 15. Africa. A. Bantu tribes 138
1. Caffres 138.—2. South-west Bantus 144.—3. East African Bantus
147.—4. Tribes on the Congo and in Lower Guinea 149.—5. Natives of
the Wahuma states 152.
§ 16. Africa. B. Soudan Negroes 155
1. Coast of Guinea 155.—2. Haussa states 157.—3. Central Soudan
157.—4. Upper Nile 157.—Appendix: African Islands 159.
§ 17. Africa. C. Light-coloured South Africans and African
pigmy—tribes 161
§ 18. Africa. D. Hamitic peoples 163
§ 19. Recapitulation 165
PART II.—THEORETICAL.
CHAPTER I.—METHOD AND DIVISIONS.
§ 1. Method 169
Stages of culture; Morgan’s and Vierkandt’s classifications
169.—Distinction of savages according to their general culture as
yet impracticable 170.—Assertions about slavery being universal at
some stages of culture 171.—The existence of slavery probably
mainly depends on the economic state of society 171.—Opinions of
theorists concerning slavery at several stages of economic life
172.
§ 2. Distinction of economic groups 174
We shall inquire next how many positive and negative cases there
are in different economic groups 174.—We shall not give an
ascending series of economic stages. Dargun’s view 175.—Our groups.
1. Hunting and fishing 176.—2. Pastoral nomadism 176.—3, 4, 5.
Agriculture. Principle according to which the 3 agricultural groups
will be distinguished 177.—Trading and cattle-breeding
agriculturists 178.
§ 3. Hunting and fishing, pastoral, and agricultural tribes in the
several geographical districts 179
Our list gives no evidence as to the economic state of the
geographical groups 179.—List 180.
CHAPTER II.—HUNTERS AND FISHERS.
§ 1. Why slaves are not of much use to hunters 190
List of positive and negative cases 190.—The large prevalence of
negative cases must be due to general causes 192.—Scarcity of food
192.—Hunting slaves can easily escape 194.—Living in small groups
194.—Hunting not fit to be performed by slaves because 1º hunters
are highly esteemed 195,—2º hunting requires the utmost application
197.—Hunters and industrial peoples 198.—Why hunters do not keep
slaves performing female labour 199.
§ 2. The slave-keeping tribes of the Pacific Coast of
North America 201
Fishing not nearly so unfavourable to the existence of slavery as
hunting 201.—Most of our positive cases are found on the North
Pacific Coast of North America 203.—Circumstances which may account
for the existence of slavery on the Pacific Coast. 1º Abundance of
food 203.—2º Fishing the chief source of subsistence. Variety of
food 204.—3º Fixed habitations, living in large groups, preserving
of food 205.—4º Trade and industry 207.—5º Property and wealth
210.—The growth of slavery accelerated by these tribes forming a
somewhat homogeneous group 214.—Work imposed on slaves. 1º They
strengthen their masters’ force in warfare 215.—2º They are
employed in hunting, fishing, and work connected with fishing
215.—3º They make canoes and build houses 217.—4º They perform
domestic labour 217.—Why female labour is so highly valued
218.—Women prepare the articles of commerce 218.—Women hold a high
position 219.—Dr. Grosse on the condition of women among “higher
hunters” 222.—Slavery among the Abipones 225.—Tehuelches
226.—Kamchadales 226.
§ 3. Experimentum crucis: Australia 227
We want to prove that the circumstances furthering slavery on the
Pacific Coast of N. America are wanting among the other hunters and
fishers 227.—We confine ourselves to the three great groups:
Australians, Indians of Central North America, and Eskimos
228.—Aboriginal life in Australia. 1º No abundance of food 228.—2º
Variety of food. Fishing not the chief source of subsistence
229.—3º No fixed habitations, small groups, little food preserved.
Improvidence of the Australians 229.—4º Trade and industry not
highly developed 231.—5º Property and wealth play no great part
232.—6º Condition of women bad 235.—7º Militarism does not prevail
to any great extent 236.—Conclusion 236.
§ 4. Experimentum crucis: Central North America 236
1º No great abundance of food 236.—2º They live chiefly by hunting
237.—3º No fixed habitations, rather small groups, food preserved
though not to such an extent as on the Pacific Coast 237.—4º Trade
and industry signify little 239.—5º Property and wealth are little
developed 240.—6º Condition of women better than in Australia, but
not so good as on the Pacific Coast 242.—7º War very frequent
245.—Conclusion 246.
§ 5. Experimentum crucis: Eskimos 246
1º No great abundance of food 246.—2º Fishing their chief source of
subsistence 247.—3º Fixed habitations, groups not very large, food
preserved though not in such great quantities as on the Pacific
Coast 247.—4º The trade exists almost exclusively in exchanging raw
products. Industry highly developed 248.—5º Property and wealth do
not signify much 250.—6º Condition of women not so good as on the
Pacific Coast 251.—7º Militarism does not prevail to any
considerable extent 252.—Only highly skilled labour wanted
253.—Labour dependent upon capital 254.
§ 6. Conclusion 255
Enumeration of the conclusions to which the foregoing paragraphs
have led us 255.—It seems convenient to systematically arrange them
256.—Principal factors: 1º Subsistence is or is not dependent on
capital, 2º Subsistence is either easy or difficult to acquire
256.—Secondary factors: 1º Condition of women 258.—2º Preserving of
food 259.—3º Trade and industry 259.—Militarism 259.—External
causes: 1º Fixed habitations, 2º Large groups, 3º Preserving of
food, 4º Existence of a homogeneous group of tribes
259.—Recapitulation 260.
CHAPTER III.—PASTORAL TRIBES.
§ 1. Capital and labour among pastoral tribes 262
List of positive and negative cases 262.—Non-existence of slavery
not due to an isolated or powerless state of the tribes concerned
263.—Can the positive cases be accounted for by the existence of
agriculture among some pastoral tribes? 263.—Survey of slave labour
among pastoral tribes 263,—and cattle-breeding agriculturists
265.—Slaves not only kept for agricultural purposes 266.—Among true
pastoral tribes slavery, as a system of labour, is of little moment
267.—Subsistence among pastoral tribes entirely dependent on
capital 268.—Wealth and poverty. Free labourers very frequent
268.—The same may be observed among cattle-breeding agriculturists
272.—The characteristic of pastoral life is not the existence of
wealth, but of poverty 272.—Pastoral life does not require much
labour; the men are often very lazy 273.—Among the Larbas pastoral
life is not so easy; but it is warriors who are wanted here, rather
than labourers 275.—In North-east Africa subjection of tribes en
bloc serves as a substitute for slavery 276.—The same is the case
among some pastoral tribes outside North-east Africa 280.
§ 2. Slavery among pastoral tribes 280
We have still to account for the positive cases. We shall first
investigate the influence of secondary internal causes 281.—1º
Slaves sometimes perform domestic, i.e. female labour 281.—2º
Preserving of food has no influence 281.—3º Slavery does not seem
to serve commercial purposes 281.—4º Slaves are often employed in
warfare. Pastoral tribes live in rather small, independent groups;
this, together with their warlike habits, makes reinforcement of
the family desirable 282.—Slaves are also kept as a luxury
284.—Slaves preferred to free servants 284.—What is the difference
between the slave-keeping and the other pastoral tribes? 286.—The
difference consists in external circumstances, of which the
principal are the slave-trade and the neighbourhood of inferior
races 286.—Pastoral tribes are in a state of equilibrium; a small
additional circumstance turns the balance 289.—Recapitulation 290.
CHAPTER IV.—AGRICULTURAL TRIBES.
§ 1. Numbers of positive and negative cases in the three agricultural
groups 292
§ 2. Development of agricultural and development of slavery 293
Slavery considerably more frequent among agriculturists of the
higher stages than among hunting agriculturists 294.—Hunting
agriculturists bear a strong resemblance to hunters 294.—Yet many
hunting agriculturists keep slaves; this will have to be accounted
for by secondary causes 296.—Slavery does not appear to be more
frequent among fishing than among hunting agriculturists 296.
§ 3. Capital and labour among agricultural tribes 297
Where agriculture is carried on without the aid of domestic
animals, subsistence does not depend on capital 297.—One apparent
exception 297.—Agriculture does not require any peculiar skill
298.—Compulsion the only means, in primitive agricultural
societies, of getting labourers 298.—Adam Smith’s view 299.—Cairnes
on cultivation by slaves and by peasant proprietors 299.—Cairnes’
argument does not hold with regard to primitive slavery
301.—“Retail” and “wholesale slavery” 301.
§ 4. Land and population 302
The general rule of the last paragraph does not obtain where all
land has been appropriated 303.—Cairnes’ view 303.—Here again
Cairnes’ argument does not apply to primitive slavery 304.—Loria’s
argument 304.—Loria’s reasoning is not correct in all details, but
in the main he is right 306.—Wakefield’s argument derived from the
conditions of life in the colonies 306.—Merivale on colonization
308.—We shall only speak of self-dependent agricultural countries
310.—Meaning of “appropriation” 310.—Criteria from which we may
infer whether all land has been appropriated 311.—Meaning of “land
fit for cultivation” 312.—We shall confine ourselves to a survey of
land tenure in Oceania 313.—Slavery in Oceania has never prevailed
to any great extent. We shall try to account for this by all land
having been appropriated 314.
§ 5. Land tenure in Polynesia 314
On most Polynesian islands all land has, or had been appropriated.
In Samoa, New Zealand and Savage Island there was still free land.
Manahiki is a doubtful case.
§ 6. Land tenure in Micronesia 321
Almost everywhere in Micronesia all land is held as property.
Mortlock is perhaps an exception.
§ 7. Land tenure in Melanesia 324
On most of the Melanesian islands clearing is a modus acquirendi,
which proves that there is still free land. In Fiji all land has
been appropriated.
§ 8. Landlords, tenants and labourers in Oceania 328
Wherever in Oceania all land is held as property, there are nearly
always people destitute of land 328.—The principal cause of this
fact is probably the arbitrary conduct of chiefs and nobles, who
appropriate the land of their enemies 329,—and even that belonging
to their own subjects 331.—Condition of the lowest classes
destitute of land. They perform the drudgery for the landlords, and
are sometimes heavily oppressed 333.—In Melanesia there are no
subjected lower classes, except in Fiji 338.—Subjected lower
classes exist nearly always where all land is held as property, and
are not found where there is still free land 341.—In some parts of
Oceania the great depopulation has enabled many of the lower orders
to obtain land 341.—The labouring classes of Oceania are not
attached to the soil, but, being destitute of land, are obliged to
apply to the landlords for employment 342.—Position of foreigners
342.—Over-population 343.—Skilled labourers are in a much better
position and sometimes held in high esteem 343.—Oceanic labourers
as compared with debtor-slaves: the former are compelled to work
for others by circumstances, the latter by social regulations
344.—The state of labourers in Oceania would even be worse, but
that they are employed in warfare 345.
§ 9. Transition from serfdom to freedom in Western Europa 346
Our theory must also hold with regard to civilized countries: as
soon as all land is held as property slavery must disappear
347.—Wakefield’s opinion 347.—We shall not enter into a thorough
investigation of this subject 347.—We limit our remarks to England
and Germany 348.—Slavery in Western Europe 348.—Our argument
applies to serfdom as well as slavery, for serfdom too is a system
of compulsory labour 348.—Serfs and free tenants; Freizügigkeit
349.—Inaccurate use of the term “free tenants” 350.—Commutation of
services for money not identical with transition from serfdom to
freedom 351.—Hildebrand’s theory: natural economy leads to serfdom,
money economy leads to freedom 352.—Why this theory is erroneous
354.—Hildebrand’s theory has been accepted by several writers 362.
§ 10. The rural classes of medieval England 362
In the 11th century land was still abundant and servile labour
prevailed; rent in the modern sense and free labourers dependent on
wages were wanting 363.—During the 12th and 13th centuries the
population increased and land became more scarce. Disafforesting
controversy. Free tenants. Commutation. The landlords become mere
receivers of rent instead of agricultural entrepreneurs. Free
labourers 364.—The Black Death of 1349. Labour becomes scarce, much
land goes out of tillage. Oppression of villeins by landlords.
Assessment of wages. The stock and land lease 366.—1450–1550. Rise
of sheep farming. Disastrous consequences: labourers thrown out of
employment, commons and holdings of villeins inclosed and
appropriated by the lords, depopulation, rise of pauperism
369.—Disappearance of serfdom. Copyhold 372.—Conclusion 372.
§ 11. The rural classes of medieval Germany 373
Merovingian period. Most of the land is covered with forests. A few
slaves and lites; most cultivators are peasant proprietors
373.—Carolingian period. Much land is taken into cultivation, yet
land remains abundant. Absorption of the free peasants by the great
proprietors; rise of serfdom and manorial economy. “Freemen
destitute of land” 374.—10th–12th centuries. Rise in the value of
land. The whole of the population can still secure land to live
upon. The class of peasant proprietors disappears. The use of
labour becomes less. Free tenants arise, but free labourers are
still wanting 375.—13th and 14th centuries. Extension of the arable
area. More value than before is attached to uncultivated land.
Rights of common restricted. Scarcity of meat. The use of labour
continues diminishing. Lords set serfs free in their own interest.
Bauernlegen. Free tenants. Obligations become territorial. Free
servants and agricultural labourers 378.—15th century.
Over-population. Reappearance of slavery (?) 380.—16th century.
Evictions 382.—Serfdom in Eastern Germany. Conclusion 382.
§ 12. Open and closed resources 383
Slavery, as an industrial system, is not likely to exist where
subsistence depends on material resources which are present in
limited quantity 384.—All the peoples of the earth can be divided
into peoples with open, and with closed resources. Definition of
these terms. Generally speaking, among the former only can a system
of compulsory labour (slavery or serfdom) exist 385.—Savages with
open and with closed resources 386.—Closed resources in present
Western Europe 386.—Lange on open and closed countries
386.—Regarding secondary causes we shall not enter into many
details 387.
§ 13. Condition of women 388
Slaves often perform domestic, i.e. female labour. Compare Rome and
Mohammedan countries 388.—Domestic labour is not probably among any
agricultural tribe the chief business of all slaves 389.—Slaves
help the women in agricultural labour 389.—“Slavery of women”
389.—Melanesian women held in a slave-like state 389.—Though the
absence of slavery is perhaps one of the causes of this subjection
of women, the latter again prevents the rise of slavery 393.
§ 14. Commerce 393
Numbers of positive and negative cases among commercial
agricultural tribes 394.—The term “commercial tribes” used in a
wide sense 394.—Commerce furthers the slave-trade, requires more
work than would otherwise be wanted, and renders development of
wealth possible 394.—The last point is very important. Luxury
arises: the wants of the slave-owners, and accordingly the use of
slave labour, become practically unlimited 394.—“Wholesale slavery”
in the United States, and among some tribes of Africa and India
395.—We know little as yet of the general effects of trade
397.—Manufactured goods and raw products 397.—Three categories of
commercial tribes 397.—Significance of trade 397.
§ 15. Slaves employed in warfare 398
Instances 398.—Slaves are generally excluded from military pursuits
399.—Causes 399.—Only among some agriculturists of the higher
stages are slaves employed in warfare 400.—The coercive power of
hunting agriculturists is not great enough to admit of the
employment of slaves in warfare 400.—Where political institutions
are more highly developed, employment of slaves in the army becomes
practicable 401.—Military function of slaves in ancient Rome
401.—Slaves holding high offices of state 402.
§ 16. Slaves kept as a luxury 403
The possession of many slaves is indicative of wealth and therefore
considered an honour 403.—Slaves and cattle almost the only luxury
of primitive times 404.—But this does not prove that slaves are a
mere luxury 404.—In many countries part of the slaves are not
productively employed 405,—but we have not found any instance of
none of the slaves being employed for productive labour 405.
§ 17. Other secondary internal causes 406
Preserving of food as a circumstance furthering the growth of
slavery calls for no special remark here 406.—Subjection of tribes
does not seem to occur outside Oceania, except among
cattle-breeding agriculturists 406.—The reason is the insufficiency
of the military power of agricultural savages 407.
§ 18. External causes, especially the slave-trade. Recapitulation. 407
Fixed habitations, living in large groups, and preserving of food
call for no remark here 407.—The slave-trade. Geographical survey
408.—Most slave-keeping agricultural savages are found in those
parts where the slave-trade has been carried on by civilized and
semi-civilized peoples 411.—These savages could not have adopted
slavery, if it were inconsistent with their mode of life
411.—Effect of the slave-trade: it makes the keeping of slaves much
easier, and breaks the vis inertiae 412.—Vicinity of inferior races
does not seem to have any considerable influence here
414.—Recapitulation of the causes of slavery among agricultural
tribes 415.
CHAPTER V.—CONCLUSION.
§ 1. General survey 417
Internal and external causes 417.—Principal internal cause
hindering the growth of slavery: the dependence of subsistence upon
closed resources 418.—Compulsory as opposed to voluntary labour
419.—Why in modern Europe labourers are not held as property
420.—Personal and impersonal compulsion 422.—The working classes of
modern Europe 422.—Slavery cannot exist, even where resources are
open, if subsistence is very difficult to acquire 422.—Secondary
internal causes. Condition of women 423.—Commerce 423.—Subjection
of tribes 424.—Preserving of food 424.—Militarism 424.—Luxury
425.—External causes. Fixed habitations 425.—Living in large groups
425.—Preserving of food 425.—The slave-trade 425.—The neighbourhood
of inferior races 425.—General recapitulation 426.
§ 2. Outlines of a further investigation of the early history of
slavery 427
I The different ways in which people become slaves 428.—II The
different ways in which people cease to be slaves 430.—III
Treatment of slaves by their masters 431.—IV Legal status of slaves
432.—V The attitude of public opinion towards slaves 433.—VI
Different kinds of slaves 433.—VII Slave labour 433.—VIII Serfdom
434.—IX Number of slaves 434.—X Happiness or unhappiness of slaves
434.—XI Consequences of slavery 435.—XII Development of slavery
437.
LIST OF AUTHORITIES 441
GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
There exists an extensive literature on slavery. Many of these works
are intended for philanthropic purposes, viz. to further the
suppression of the African slave-trade, whereas many others contain
historical investigations of slavery among ancient or modern nations.
The present volume will not rank among either of these categories, but
deal with the general character of slavery as an industrial system.
Slavery has played a great part in the social history of mankind.
Social life among most of the ancient nations was based upon slavery,
and in many colonies it subsisted until far into the 19th century. On
the other hand, in the civilized countries of to-day all industrial
operations are carried on with free labour. Whence this difference? Why
have slavery and serfdom gradually declined in the course of European
history, so that at the close of the Middle Ages they had already in a
large degree lost their significance? These problems can only be solved
if we know the conditions necessary for the success of slavery as an
industrial system, and the inverse conditions under which slave labour
must give way to free labour. We shall try to find these conditions, or
at least some of them.
We shall use the comparative method, collecting facts and inquiring
what regularities can be found in these facts, under what general rules
they may be included. But before enlarging upon our method we must say
a few words concerning a limitation we have put upon our subject.
Our book, as the title shows, contains ethnological researches. We
confine ourselves to investigating the conditions which govern the
existence or non-existence of slavery among savage tribes, and the
materials we make use of are exclusively ethnographical materials, i.e.
descriptions of savage tribes.
Ethnology has already made considerable progress, and is taking a
conspicuous place among the Mental Sciences. Yet some ethnologists
still proceed in a somewhat narrow and one-sided manner. They generally
aim at reconstructing the early history of mankind with the help of
ethnographical data. The savages representing primitive man, or at
least man in a more primitive state than we can find by direct
historical research, they draw inferences from the actual state of
savage tribes as to the early state of mankind at large. This kind of
study has been very useful, especially in removing narrow views on
human development which existed at a time, when the traditions of a few
ancient nations were still considered to be the only evidence as to
early history. But this should not be the sole, nor even the main
object of ethnological investigation. It is sociological laws that we
want in the first place. It is certainly interesting to know what
changes have taken place in early history; but it is far more important
to know on what circumstances the existence of each social phenomenon
depends. And for this purpose ethnology can be of considerable use.
Among savages social life is much simpler than among civilized men; the
factors which govern it are comparatively few, and so the effect of
each of them can be traced without much difficulty. We can thus, by
comparing the institutions of many savage tribes, find sociological
laws, several of which will have a wider application and lead us to a
clearer understanding of the conditions which govern the social life of
civilized nations. For instance, the study of moral phenomena among
savages has already given us a deeper insight into morality at large.
The conclusions we arrive at in this book are of two kinds. Some of
them apply to savages only and cannot further our understanding of
civilized life. For instance, we shall see that settled tribes are more
likely to keep slaves than nomadic tribes; but civilized, and even
semi-civilized peoples are hardly ever nomadic. Other conclusions,
however, have a more general bearing. Thus we shall find that slavery
is not likely to exist in those countries, where all land is held as
property. And as this has been the case in Western Europe for some
centuries, we discover one of the principal causes, perhaps the main
cause, why slavery (and serfdom, which is a mitigated form of slavery),
have long since disappeared in these countries.
We do not, however, make any systematic inquiry into the bearing of the
laws found by investigating the phenomena of savage life on the study
of social life among civilized and semi-civilized nations. Where
phenomena of civilized life occur to us which bear a striking
resemblance to what we find among savages, we mention them briefly,
generally in a note. Only in one case we go farther. Where we find that
the relation between land and population is a factor of the utmost
importance in shaping the lot of the labouring classes, it is obvious
that this factor must have played a great part in the social history of
Europe, and therefore we adduce some statements of historians in
corroboration of our view. Yet, even here, it is our object to claim
attention for this factor that is commonly overlooked, and clear the
way for future research, rather than to give a ready explanation of the
decline of serfdom in Western Europe. We are thus justified in making
use of only a small part of the literature on this subject.
As we have already said, we proceed by an inductive, comparative
method. We first collect ethnographical materials. Then we critically
determine the meaning and reliability of the statements of our
informants. We thus see where slavery exists, and where it is absent.
And finally we inquire what are the causes of the observed phenomena.
Some remarks have still to be made on the details of our proceeding.
First as to the ethnographical literature.
We have collected our materials quite impartially, without any regard
to our ultimate conclusions, which, indeed, rest upon a study of the
facts, not upon any preconceived opinion. Though there is, of course,
much ethnographical literature we have not used, our collection is
rather extensive and contains most of the better works. All
geographical groups are properly represented, least of all perhaps
India, most of the literature on which country (so far as wild tribes
are concerned) seems to be wanting in the Dutch libraries. We have
greatly profited by being allowed to make use of Professor Steinmetz’s
schedules, being detailed extracts of hundreds of ethnographical books
and articles, somewhat resembling Spencer’s “Descriptive Sociology”,
but far more complete.
The ethnographical literature may not, however, be used without a
thorough criticism. We shall often meet with very loose and inaccurate
statements, and this book will afford many instances of the careless
use of the terms “slave” and “slavery” by ethnographers. The zoölogist
and the geologist have only to deal with accounts of their
fellow-scientists; but the ethnologist is obliged always to rely on
ethnographers, who often have no notion of ethnology, and sometimes no
notion of science at all. Hence the very bad terminology; hence also
the frequent omission of details which would have been very valuable.
Yet, regarding the very little that has as yet been achieved in
ethnology, we can hardly blame the ethnographers. It is true, if the
ethnographical literature were better, ethnology would greatly profit
by it; but, on the other hand, even with the help of the existing
literature, which, after all, is not so very bad, much more might be
attained than is actually done. And as long as ethnology is still in an
unsettled condition, it is perhaps better that an ethnographer should
have no ideas at all on ethnological subjects, than premature,
quasi-scientific, and probably erroneous ideas. Montaigne, one of the
most sensible men who have ever lived, speaking of his informant on the
cannibals of America, says: “This man whom I had was a simple and rude
man, which is a condition conducive to reliable testimony; for refined
people observe more curiously and observe more things; but then they
gloss them; and in order to force their interpretation on you, they
cannot but change the story a little; they never represent you the pure
facts; they warp and mask them according to the point of view from
which they regard them; and in order to give credit to their judgment
and make you accept their view, they readily add something to the
matter on that side and exaggerate it. A man must be either very
truthful, or so simple that he does not want to construct false
inventions and give them a semblance of truth, and is not riveted to a
theory.” What we want is, as the same writer has it, la matière de
l’histoire nue et informe [1]. An ethnographer should be taught what to
observe and how to observe, and how to record his observations. But
when this ideal cannot be attained, it is better to have an
ethnographer who only knows that every correct statement of his will
interest the men of science, than one whose perceptive faculties are
troubled by preconceived opinions.
We have subjected our materials to a thorough criticism, externally by
comparing in each case the descriptions of the same tribe by different
writers, and internally by inquiring what importance is to be attached
to the statements of each writer, considering the time in which he
wrote, his more or less intimate acquaintance with the people
described, the general character of his writings, etc.
We thus find where slavery exists or formerly existed, and where it
does or did not exist. We always mention the exact numbers of the
tribes with and without slaves in the several geographical groups, and
afterwards also in the several economic groups. We do not intend these
numbers as statistical materials, upon which to base mathematical
rules. We only mean to express the results of our investigations in the
exactest manner possible. Instead of stating: Slavery in such a group
exists in many cases, it is much more accurate to state: Slavery in
such a group exists, so far as our observations go, in, say, 80 cases.
We thus simply follow the method (sometimes miscalled statistical
method) first introduced by Professor Tylor in his article “On a method
of investigating the development of institutions”, and adopted by
Professor Steinmetz in his “Entwicklung der Strafe”.
We inquire next what conditions govern the occurrence of the observed
phenomena. This part of our work is certainly the most difficult, and
it is necessary here to proceed with the utmost caution. Many
ethnologists adopt a rather curious method. They have some theory,
found by deductive reasoning, and then adduce a few facts by way of
illustration. This, however, is quite insufficient. It does not appear
whether all existing facts agree with the theory; there may be many
instances, not mentioned by the theorist, in which his rule does not
hold. The only scientific method is impartially to collect facts and
inquire whether they can be brought under any general rule. If we find
a hypothesis that accounts for many, but not all, of the observed
phenomena, our task is not finished until we have explained the rest by
showing the influence of additional factors. Moreover, the negative
instances must be accounted for as well as the positive. If we account
for the existence of B by the coexistence of A, we must prove either
that in those cases where B does not exist A too is absent, or that in
such cases there are additional causes which neutralize the effect of
A. Ethnological works should not be causeries, as they often are, but
scientific researches.
But we must also be careful not to fall into the other extreme. We
shall never be able to arrive at a true understanding of the facts
without the help of leading ideas. The facts do not arrange themselves
spontaneously; we must try to account for them by hypotheses which seem
a priori plausible. When such a hypothesis occurs to us, we have to
inquire how far it can go to account for the facts, and, of course, to
abandon it if, however plausible it seemed, it proves to be erroneous.
By judiciously selecting our hypotheses we can save ourselves much
futile labour. For instance, when about to investigate the causes of
slavery, it occurs to us that its existence will probably largely
depend on the economic state of society, and we inquire whether this be
really so. If we began with investigating the effect of some factor
that a priori seems to have little connection with slavery, e.g. the
development of aesthetic sentiments, we should be almost certain to do
useless work.
The present volume endeavours to come up to the ideal we have set
ourselves and developed here. A book of the same size as this might
contain a survey of many more subjects connected with slavery. In the
last paragraph it will be shown how very much remains unsaid. We treat
only a small portion of the subject of slavery. But this portion is
treated carefully, and by doing so we think we have arrived at some
conclusions of scientific value, whereas, if we had superficially
treated a wider subject, our work, though perhaps more agreeable from a
literary point of view, would be nearly useless in a scientific sense.
Slavery among savages has never yet been made the subject of any
special investigation. Letourneau’s “Évolution de l’Esclavage” treats
of slavery among all races of mankind, savages included. But he deals
with his subject in quite an insufficient manner. His literature is
rather scanty, and there is no question of any critical inquiry into
the value of his materials. The theoretical part of his work consists
of some entirely unproved assertions; not a single systematic
investigation is to be found in it. Hence his general conclusion is
very meagre and contains only the hackneyed evolutionary series of
slavery,—serfdom,—wage-system,—socialist paradise, to which he adds
“slavery of women” as the very first stage. The scientific value of
this book is very little.
There is another book dealing with the general history of slavery,
Professor J. K. Ingram’s “History of slavery and serfdom”. This writer
confines himself to the historical nations of ancient and modern times;
the savages are excluded. Though he makes many valuable remarks, of
which, as the reader will see, we have availed ourselves, by far the
greater part of his work is purely descriptive. A great difference
between his book and ours is further that he writes “not for scholars,
but for the mass of thoughtful and cultivated men and women” [2],
whereas we appeal to the men of science, not to the public at large.
Yet it is an instructive little book. We only regret that the writer
appears to agree with Comte’s curious theory concerning the relation
between slavery and religion [3].
The general history of slavery is also the subject of a book of
Tourmagne’s. “There are two volumes by A. Tourmagne,” says Ingram,
“entitled respectively Histoire de l’Esclavage Ancien et Moderne, 1880,
and Histoire du Servage Ancien et Moderne, 1879, which bring together
many facts relating to slavery and serfdom; but they are somewhat loose
and uncritical; the author, too, repeats himself much, and dwells on
many topics scarcely, if at all, connected with his main themes” [4].
We are not acquainted with Tourmagne’s book on serfdom: but as to his
Histoire de l’Esclavage we fully agree with Ingram.
PART I.
DESCRIPTIVE.
CHAPTER I.
DEFINITION AND DISTINCTION FROM KINDRED PHENOMENA.
§ 1. Ordinary meaning of the term “slavery”.
In most branches of knowledge the phenomena the man of science has to
deal with have their technical names; and, when using a scientific
term, he need not have regard to the meaning this term conveys in
ordinary language; he knows he will not be misunderstood by his
fellow-scientists. For instance, the Germans call a whale Wallfisch,
and the English speak of shell-fish; but a zoölogist, using the word
fish, need not fear that any competent person will think he means
whales or shell-fish.
In ethnology the state of things is quite different. There are a few
scientific names bearing a definite meaning, such as the terms
“animism” and “survival”, happily introduced by Professor Tylor. But
most phenomena belonging to our science have not yet been accurately
investigated; so it is no wonder, that different writers (sometimes
even the same writer on different pages) give different names to the
same phenomenon, whereas on the other hand sometimes the same term
(e.g. “matriarchy”) is applied to widely different phenomena. As for
the subject we are about to treat of, we shall presently see that
several writers have given a definition of slavery; but no one has
taken the trouble to inquire whether his definition can be of any
practical use in social science. Therefore we shall try to give a good
definition and justify it.
But we may not content ourselves with this; we must also pay attention
to the meaning of the term “slavery” as commonly employed. There are
two reasons for this. First, we must always rely upon the statements of
ethnographers. If an ethnographer states that some savage tribe carries
on slavery, without defining in what this “slavery” consists, we have
to ask: What may our informant have meant? And as he is likely to have
used the word in the sense generally attached to it, we have to
inquire: What is the ordinary meaning of the term “slavery”?
The second reason is this. Several theoretical writers speak of
slavery, without defining what they mean by it; and we cannot avail
ourselves of their remarks without knowing what meaning they attach to
this term. And as they too may be supposed to have used it in the sense
in which it is generally used, we have again to inquire: What is the
meaning of the term “slavery” in ordinary language?
The general use of the word, as is so often the case, is rather
inaccurate. “Careless or rhetorical writers” says Ingram, “use the
words “slave” and “slavery” in a very lax way. Thus, when protesting
against the so-called “Subjection of Women”, they absurdly apply those
terms to the condition of the wife in the modern society of the
west—designations which are inappropriate even in the case of the
inmates of Indian zenanas; and they speak of the modern worker as a
“wage-slave”, even though he is backed by a powerful trade-union.
Passion has a language of its own, and poets and orators must doubtless
be permitted to denote by the word “slavery” the position of subjects
of a state who labour under civil disabilities, or are excluded from
the exercise of political power, but in sociological study things ought
to have their right names, and those names should, as far as possible,
be uniformly employed” [5].
But this use of the word we may safely regard as a metaphor [6]; nobody
will assert that these labourers and women are really slaves. Whoever
uses the term slavery in its ordinary sense attaches a fairly distinct
idea to it.
What is this idea?
We can express it most generally thus: a slave is one who is not free.
There are never slaves without there being freemen too; and nobody can
be at the same time a slave and a freeman. We must, however, be careful
to remember that, man being a “social animal”, no man is literally
free; all members of a community are restricted in their behaviour
towards each other by social rules and customs [7]. But freemen at any
rate are relatively free; so a slave must be one who does not share in
the common amount of liberty, compatible with the social connection.
The condition of the slave as opposed to that of the freeman presents
itself to us under the three following aspects.
First, every slave has his master to whom he is subjected. And this
subjection is of a peculiar kind. Unlike the authority one freeman
sometimes has over another, the master’s power over his slave is
unlimited, at least in principle; any restriction put upon the master’s
free exercise of his power is a mitigation of slavery, not belonging to
its nature, just as in Roman law the proprietor may do with his
property whatever he is not by special laws forbidden to do. The
relation between master and slave is therefore properly expressed by
the slave being called the master’s “possession” or “property”,
expressions we frequently meet with.
Secondly, slaves are in a lower condition as compared with freemen. The
slave has no political rights; he does not choose his government, he
does not attend the public councils. Socially he is despised.
In the third place, we always connect with slavery the idea of
compulsory labour. The slave is compelled to work; the free labourer
may leave off working if he likes, be it at the cost of starving. All
compulsory labour, however, is not slave labour; the latter requires
that peculiar kind of compulsion, that is expressed by the word
“possession” or “property”, as has been said before.
Recapitulating, we may define a slave in the ordinary sense of the word
as a man who is the property of another, politically and socially at a
lower level than the mass of the people, and performing compulsory
labour.
We shall inquire next, whether this notion is a practical one for the
purpose of our investigation, or whether it requires any improvement.
But it may be convenient first to examine, what our theoretical authors
have to say on the subject.
§ 2. Use of the term “slavery” in theoretical literature.
Spencer remarks: “[The captives] fall into unqualified servitude....
They belong absolutely to their captors.... They become property, of
which any use whatever may be made” [8]. Although this may not properly
be called a definition of slavery, it appears that he uses “becoming
property” and “falling into unqualified servitude” (or slavery) as
synonymous expressions.
According to Ingram “the essential character of slavery may be regarded
as lying in the fact that the master was owner of the person of the
slave” [9].
Lippert remarks: “The fact, that one man becomes an object of
possession by another, characterizes the nature of slavery” [10].
Sohm calls a slave “a man who is not regarded as a person, but as a
thing. The slave is left to the discretion of the master, who has over
him the right of property” [11].
Letourneau says: “The rights of the masters over their slaves were
always excessive; they were those of a proprietor over his possession”
[12].
According to Schmoller “the slave is the property of his master” [13].
In the same way, Meyer, speaking of slavery, says that ancient law
recognised an unlimited right of property over men [14].
Jhering also remarks that “the master’s potestas may be called
property” [15].
In the first paragraph three principal features of slavery have been
enumerated. We see that our theorists attach most importance to the
first feature: “property” or “possession” [16]. Whether we can agree
with them will be shown in the next paragraph.
§ 3. Definition for scientific use.
The present investigation is a sociological one; therefore our
definition of slavery has to be sociologically relevant. We have to
ask: What is the social value of slavery? Slavery is an organ in the
social body performing a certain function, and we have to inquire: How
is this organ developed, and how, in the various stages of its
development, does it perform its function? But then we must know first
what this organ and its function are. Thus only can we exclude from our
inquiry organs somewhat resembling slavery, but functionally quite
different from it, and organs wholly different from slavery, but
performing the same function or nearly the same. And this is necessary;
for the inclusion of such organs would create a confusion fatal to a
right understanding.
What then is slavery and what is its function?
The great function of slavery can be no other than a division of labour
[17]. Division of labour is taken here in the widest sense, as
including not only a qualitative division, by which one man does one
kind of work and another a different kind, but also a quantitative one,
by which one man’s wants are provided for not by his own work only, but
by another’s, A society without any division of labour would be one, in
which each man worked for his own wants, and nobody for another’s; in
any case but this there is a division of labour in this wider sense of
the word. Now this division can be brought about by two means. “There
are two ways” says Puchta, “in which we can avail ourselves of the
strength of other men which we are in need of. One is the way of free
commerce, that does not interfere with the liberty of the person who
serves us, the making of contracts by which we exchange the strength
and skill of another, or their products, for other performances on our
part: hire of services, purchase of manufactures, etc. The other way is
the subjection of such persons, which enables us to dispose of their
strength in our behalf, but at the same time injures the personality of
the subjected. This subjection can be imagined as being restricted to
certain purposes, for instance to the cultivation of the land, as with
soil-tilling serfs; the result of which is that this subjection, for
the very reason that is has a definite and limited aim, does not quite
annul the liberty of the subjected. But the subjection can also be an
unlimited one, as is the case when the subjected person, in the whole
of his outward life, is treated as but a means to the purposes of the
man of power, and so his personality is entirely absorbed. This is the
institution of slavery” [18]. We have not much to add to this lucid
description of slavery and its function. The function is a system of
compulsory labour, and slavery is the absorption of the whole
personality of the forced labourer to this end. As this absorption is
properly expressed by the word “property” or “possession”, we may
define the slave as a man who is the property or possession of another
man, and forced to work for him.
This definition, however, on further consideration will show itself
capable of some simplification. For when one man is the property of
another, this implies compulsory labour. The right of property in this
case, the object of it being a man, is a power over that man’s will
too. The Romans recognised this: “The master has not only a right of
property over the slave as over a lifeless thing, but also a power like
that over his son, the potestas dominica, that is a power over the
slave’s will” [19]. The right of property, that is a legally unlimited
power over a man, were useless, if the owner did not influence the
man’s will; and this influencing is equivalent to imposing labour upon
him, labour being taken in the widest sense. A mere physical
possession, such as the preserving of captives for cannibal purposes,
which Letourneau and Spencer make so much of [20], is socially of
little consequence. Possession of human beings, as a social
institution, is that which gets hold of the will of its object. Hence
it follows, that slavery is the fact that one man is the property or
possession of another.
This simplification of our formula has this advantage that, in
inquiring whether in any country there are slaves, we need not ask
whether there is labour imposed on subjected men. When this does not
sufficiently appear, we need not say: We do not know whether slavery
really exists here. When we are told that in such a country some men
are the property of others (except of course the cases of mere physical
possession we have hinted at, which are few and easy to recognise), we
may be sure that they perform some kind of compulsory labour, and are
justified in calling them slaves.
Further advantages of our definition are, that it is the definition
given by many theorists, and that it lies within the limits of current
speech.
In the following paragraphs we shall mark the distinction of slavery
from some phenomena which somewhat resemble it. Of phenomena of this
kind we shall consider only those that most frequently occur; other
questionable cases will be examined in surveying the occurrence of
slavery in the several parts of the globe.
§ 4. Distinction of slavery from kindred phenomena.
I. Wives in an abject condition.
In the first paragraph it has already been noticed, that the advocates
of women’s rights make very great use of the term “slavery”. We shall
see that this equally applies to some ethnographers and theorists
describing the state of women, especially as wives, in some primitive
societies. To give one instance of each of them: Bancroft says of the
Northern Californians: “Although I find no description of an actual
system of slavery existing among them, yet there is no doubt that they
have slaves. We shall see ... that women entitled by courtesy wives,
are bought and sold” [21]. The theorist we shall quote is Letourneau:
“In all very primitive societies woman represents the domestic animals,
the beasts of burden which the more advanced societies possess: she is
indeed treated as a slave, and this certainly is one of the reasons why
slavery has been instituted so late in the course of social evolution”
[22].
We may say that such authors use the word metaphorically (as Letourneau
certainly does); but this does not exempt us from examining, whether
the condition of wives in those cases, where according to them it so
much resembles slavery, is really slavery. We must not, of course,
inquire whether there are instances of female slaves being the wives of
their owners, but whether in any case the wives as such are slaves. In
doing this, we may confine ourselves to observing the condition of
wives among the natives of Australia, as this condition is commonly
described as a striking instance of an abject one. Letourneau remarks:
“In the Australian clans slavery, in the sense in which we use the
word, did not exist; but one half of the social group, the weaker half,
was reduced to servitude; the Australian woman, an indispensable and
despised helpmate, was during her whole life burdened with work,
ill-used, and in reward often eaten by those whom her unavailing labour
had fed” [23]. Schurtz states that the treatment of the Australian
wives is bad [24]. Ratzel expresses the same view: “The position of the
wife in such circumstances is always a low one. That she is positively
considered to be the property of her husband (hence in the Adelaide
district “owner of a wife” means husband) is not peculiar to Australia.
But to this a number of customs are added here, that, more than among
other peoples to which the notion of the wife as a commodity is equally
familiar, place her in the back-ground of public and even of family
life” [25].
Now let us cite some particulars about this abject state of the
Australian wives, as given by ethnographers. For the purpose of
enabling the reader to take a comprehensive view of the matter, we
shall arrange these particulars not according to the different tribes
each applies to, but according to the several phenomena bearing on the
object of our inquiry. This gives the following result:
A. The wife is acquired by the husband without her consent being asked.
So among the Dieri: “under no circumstances has a woman any say in the
choice of a partner”. Powell’s Creek natives: “After being purchased or
captured, the woman is generally taken away to a distance and kept more
or less isolated with her husband for some months, until she
contentedly settles down to the new order of things”. Queenslanders on
Herbert River: wives are acquired by bethrothal as children, by
exchange for a sister or daughter or by capture. N. W. Central
Queenslanders: the marriage can be proposed by the male relatives of
the woman, or a man can exchange his true blood-sister, i.e. by the
same mother, for another’s blood-sister; in both cases the consent of
the whole camp-council is required. Aborigines of N. S. Wales: girls
are often betrothed in infancy, or else given away by their father or
brother without their wishes being consulted; “the women are considered
an article of property, and are sold or given away by the parents or
relatives without the least regard to their own wishes”. Natives of the
Western District of Victoria: betrothal of children is very frequent. A
girl when adult can be asked of her father, without any attention being
paid to her wishes. When two young men have each a sister or cousin,
they may exchange the young women and marry them; the women are obliged
to obey. Southern Australians: the husband most often acquires his wife
by means of a contract with her father. Southern Australians of Port
Lincoln: girls are betrothed long before puberty; when adult they must
follow their intended husbands whether they wish it or not. Tribes of
Central Australia (described by Spencer and Gillen): the most usual
method of obtaining a wife is that which is connected with the custom
of Tualcha mura, i.e. an agreement between two men that the
relationship shall be established between their two children, one a boy
and the other a girl. S. W. Australians: “In no case is the girl asked
for her consent”. Natives of King George Sound (W. Australia): a girl
is often promised to a man years before her birth, but generally she is
acquired by capture. Northern Australians of Port Darwin and the W.
Coast of the Gulf of Carpentaria: “Wives are obtained by gifts of
parents; in the majority of cases female children when born are
promised to men of all ages.... Some men obtain women by stealing them,
generally from other tribes, or get them in exchange for a sister”.
Tasmanians: the girls are betrothed as children; before marriage they
are the property of their father or brother. When the match is broken
off, the girl is again betrothed, without her wishes being consulted.
Brough Smyth, speaking of the Australians in general, remarks: “Men
obtain wives by a convenient system of exchange, by conquest sometimes,
and sometimes a woman is stolen. By what mode soever a man procures a
bride, it is very seldom an occasion of rejoicing for the female”. And
Thomas says: “The process of acquiring a bride differs in different
tribes; she may be exchanged for a sister, the simplest and perhaps the
commonest form; she may be betrothed at, or even, provisionally,
before, birth, but this is usually part of a process of barter; she may
be abducted, either from an already existing, or a prospective husband,
or from her relatives; or she may be inherited from a brother or tribal
kinsman”.
B. The wife is entirely in the power of her husband, and treated
accordingly.
a. Sometimes such general expressions are found, as the wife being her
husband’s “property” or “slave”. So on Moreton Bay: wives are slaves.
On Herbert River: wives are slaves. In N. S. Wales: “the woman is the
absolute property of her husband”. In S. W. Australia: “the state of
slavery in which they [the women] are all held, is really deplorable.”
In Central Australia: the wife is desired by the husband only for a
slave. In Tasmania: the women are slaves and do all the menial work. We
may add Curr’s statement about the Australians in general: The wife “is
not the relative, but the property of her husband”. “The husband is the
absolute owner of his wife (or wives)”. Brough Smyth too remarks that
the husband is called the owner of the wife.
b. He treats her with contempt. In S. Australia women are despised. In
the Moore River District of W. Australia the husband gives his wife
only the offal of the chase. Central Australian men “eat alone, and
throw what they can’t eat to the women”. In N. S. Wales “as her husband
walks along, she follows him at a respectful distance.... If they sit
down to a meal, she still keeps behind and gets her share flung to her
without ceremony”.
c. He may sometimes ill-use and even kill her. On Moreton Bay the wife
is often beaten by her husband, especially when he is drunk with rum.
The Queenslander of Herbert River “treats his wife with but little
consideration, is often very cruel; he may take her life if he
desires”. In N. S. Wales the husband “may do with her whatever he
likes, even to the extent of putting her to death, without any
challenge from social or tribal law.” “The waddy(club) is applied to
their heads in a most unmerciful style, and few old women are to be
seen who do not bear unquestionable marks of the hard usage they have
received.” The Cammarray beats his wife violently for a trifling fault
even a few hours before her confinement. Dawson speaks of the “apparent
hard usage to which the women [of W. Victoria] are subjected”. In S. W.
Australia the method “he [the husband] adopts for correcting her is so
barbarous, that it often occurs that for a single look he pierces her
leg with the ghici, breaks her head with the dauac, and treats her to
other similar caresses”. The natives of King George Sound treat their
wives very badly. In the Moore River District most of the women die a
violent death before they have reached an advanced age. If, after an
unsuccessful chase, the husband finds that his wife has not enough
yams, she is glad to get off with only a flogging. In cases of famine
the women are eaten. In Central Australia women are very badly and
roughly treated. Nobody aids an ill-used woman. “If ... rightly or
wrongly, a man thinks his wife guilty of a breach of the laws which
govern marital relations, then undoubtedly the treatment of the woman
is marked by brutal and often revolting severity.” Tasmanian wives were
often cruelly beaten by their jealous husbands. According to Curr, the
Australian husband may “treat her well, or brutally ill-use her, at his
pleasure.” The wives “are, occasionally, cruelly beaten, or speared,
for even a trifling offence”. Brough Smyth states that “if she shows
favour towards another and be discovered, she may suffer heavy
punishment, be put to death even”. And, according to Thomas, “an erring
wife might be clubbed or speared through the leg on the spot by her
husband, and no one would take much notice of the incident. Indeed, the
injured husband might actually kill her.”
d. The husband exchanges and lends his wife. At Powell’s Creek wives
are sometimes exchanged. In Queensland and S. Australia “it frequently
occurs, that a woman is exchanged, and passes to a number of husbands
in a few years”. The Moreton Bay aborigines lend their wives to each
other and offer them to Europeans. In N. S. Wales “when visitors come
to the camp they are accommodated with wives while they remain; and a
brave chief, who has done much for their tribe by his prowess, gets the
wives of other men sent to him by them as a mark of respect and
friendship. Two men may even agree to exchange wives for a time”. “They
will frequently give one of their wives to a friend who may be in want
of one.” At Port Lincoln the men frequently exchange wives. The S.
Australian husband offers his wife to friends and strangers. Exchange
of wives also occurs in S. Australia. In Central Australia the husband
lends his wife to his friends. When he goes abroad a husband is given
her for the time. A guest is also provided with a wife. Men and parents
prostitute their wives and daughters. “At times a man will lend his
wife to a stranger as an act of courtesy”. Another writer informs us
that “they often bring them [their wives] up to white men and beg of
them to take them”. The natives of Port Darwin “exchange wives
occasionally”. Tasmanian women were offered to whites for payment. A
describer of the Australians in general states that the husband may
“keep her to himself, prostitute her, exchange her for another, or give
her away to any male of the same class as himself”. According to
another writer a young man who has no wife sometimes gets one from an
old man, who is tired of her. And Thomas states: “The Australians were
accustomed to lend their wives to strangers on festive occasions or
during ordinary visits. They might even agree to exchange wives for a
month”.
e. After his death she becomes the property of his brother. Among the
Dieri “the elder brother claims her as she is the wife of his brother”.
On Herbert River the widow belongs to the deceased man’s brother. In N.
S. Wales “when a man dies, his widow is the property of his next
brother”. Among the Kurnai the same custom prevails. In N. Australia “a
widow belongs to her late husband’s brother”. We may add Curr’s general
statement that “when a man dies, his widows devolve on his eldest
surviving brother”.
C. The husband makes his wife work for him. As regards the Dieri we are
told that “the more wives a man has, the more indolent he becomes; as
they do not till the soil, each wife has to go daily in search of food,
gather seeds, roots, and other vegetable products according to the
seasons; the men with a plurality of wives stay at home making weapons,
ornaments and fishing nets from rushes grown on the banks of the
lakes”. At Powell’s Creek “polygamy is common, more so amongst the old
men, who find a plurality of wives useful in hunting for them, and as
carriers when shifting camp, etc.”. On Herbert River the women procure
the food, and for this often make long journeys; they do all the hard
work. The husband makes the frame of the hut; she covers it. When
travelling she carries all that is to be carried. The husband often
keeps the animal food to himself; his hunting has rather the character
of a sport; the procuring of food is entirely incumbent on the wife.
According to Fraser the fate of the native wife in N. S. Wales is very
pitiable. “Married at an early age, she has not only to bear and rear
the children, but she does all the heavy work of the family; in camp,
it is her duty to put up the rude windshelter of sticks and foliage
which serves them as a home, to make a fire and keep it burning, and to
cook the food; on the march, she carries in a bag, resting on her back
and slung from her neck, all their portable property, and seated on
this bag is her youngest child, ... in this bag, in addition to the few
utensils she requires for domestic labours, she has a yam-stick with
which to dig up the numerous native roots which are used as food, a
supply of these and other articles of food required for a meal, a
quantity of native string and hooks for catching fish.... For the ready
kindling of a fire, whenever it is required, she has to carry with her
a smouldering piece of firewood; if she allows this to go out, and thus
puts her lord and master to the labour of getting fire by friction, or
if she in any other way gives him displeasure, he will beat her
severely, even till her body is covered with bruises and her hair is
matted with blood”. At Victoria River Downs Station an old man
generally has many wives, “probably to work and get food for him, for
in their wild state the man is too proud to do anything except carry a
woomera and spear.” In Western Victoria “after marriage the women are
compelled to do all the hard work of erecting habitations, collecting
fuel and water, carrying burdens, procuring roots and delicacies of
various kinds, making baskets for cooking roots and other purposes,
preparing food, and attending to the children. The only work the men
do, in time of peace, is to hunt for opossums and large animals of
various kinds, and to make rugs and weapons.” In S. W. Australia “when,
wandering through the woods, the savage observes that the sky threatens
rain, he enjoins his wife to erect a hut at the place which he thinks
most fit, and where he intends to pass the night”. At King George Sound
the women look very miserable; they do all the work. In the Moore River
District the wife who has not yams enough for her husband is severely
beaten (as quoted above). The Central Australian wife is the drudge of
her husband. About the natives of Port Darwin we get this information:
“The only reason I know of for the practice of polygamy is that, as the
wives have to provide food for their lords and carry all their family
possessions when travelling, the husband can lead a perfect life of
indolence”. Tasmanian women had to procure all sorts of food, except
the kangaroo. Ling Roth quotes a description of a Tasmanian repast:
“Hitherto we had had but a faint idea of the pains the women take to
prepare the food requisite for the subsistence of their families. They
quitted the water only to bring their husbands the fruits of their
labour, and frequently returned almost directly to their diving, till
they had procured a sufficient meal for their families”. Curr,
surveying the mode of life of the Australians in general, remarks:
“Wives have to undergo all the drudgery of the camp and the march, have
the poorest food and the hardest work”. Brough Smyth enumerates as
duties of the wife “building a new camp, getting firewood etc. and on
journeys acting as a carrier for all the worldly goods of her husband.
They are packed on her back, all excepting his war implements, which he
himself deigns to carry”.
This picture, surely, is very black. But, unlike Letourneau, we must
not view the dark side only. We may remark, first that, as it appears
from the foregoing survey, there are with regard to each of the
Australian tribes but a part of the enumerated phenomena on record; the
black picture is produced by blending the dark sides of each into a
whole. And, secondly, the same writers relate some particulars, which
prove that the life of the Australian wife is not all darkness. These
too we shall arrange in the order observed above.
A. In some cases we are told, that the girl’s wishes are to some extent
taken into consideration as to the choice of her husband. On Herbert
River the woman sometimes gets the man she loves; she is then very
happy; sometimes she runs away with the beloved man. In N. W.
Queensland, when a young man and a girl are in love with each other,
and the camp-council is not opposed to it, they elope, live as husband
and wife for some two months, and then return to the camp. In N. S.
Wales a girl, to escape from the betrothed man (oftentimes an old one),
may elope with her young lover; she is then brought back and beaten by
her family, “but it may be that she elopes again and again, and, if at
last they see that she is determined on it, they let her have her own
way”. In Tasmania the woman was stolen from her tribe, but not against
her will. Most often the girl succeeded in getting from her father the
man she wanted; otherwise she had to run away with him. Curr remarks:
“In no instance, unless Mr. Howitt’s account of the Kurnai be correct,
which I doubt, has the female any voice in the selection of her
husband.” This may be true, if we take “voice” in the sense of a
legally recognized right; virtually, however, she sometimes has a
“voice”, as appears from the instances given here. Howitt’s account
which Curr alludes to we have not been fortunate enough to meet with.
According to Brough Smyth “a young man who has engaged the affections
of a girl of a neighbouring tribe, agrees with her to run away at the
first opportunity that offers”. They are then persecuted by the members
of her tribe, as custom and law require, but not energetically. After a
few days the young man and his wife return to his tribe. Except at
first some scolding and muttering his new state provokes little
comment. “His young wife is treated well, and is soon familiar with all
the women of the tribe, to which she has become attached”.
B. a, b. Sometimes the ethnographers tell of much affection existing
between husband and wife. At Moreton Bay there is often a great
affection. On Herbert River “as a rule man and wife apparently get on
very well”. According to Eylmann, happy unions are not unknown among
the natives of South Australia. Fraser remarks about the aborigines of
N. S. Wales: “the kuri or black man is usually kind and affectionate to
his jiu, wife”; “in spite of the hardness of their mode of life,
married couples often live happily and affectionately together to a
considerable age”. On the river Darling, N. S. Wales, according to
Bonney, “although young women are often compelled to marry a man of
whom they know little and often nothing, they generally find happiness
and contentment in their married lives. Quarrels between husband and
wife are rare, and they show much affection for each other in their own
way”. In Central Australia “the women are not treated usually with
anything like excessive harshness”. “Taking everything into account ...
the life of one of these savage women, judged from the point of view of
her requirements, in order to make life more or less comfortable, is
far from being the miserable one that it is so often pictured”. Dawson,
after describing the work imposed on women in W. Victoria (as quoted
above), adds: “But notwithstanding this drudgery and the apparent hard
usage to which the women are subjected, there is no want of affection
amongst the members of a family”. Even Salvado, who so pities the S. W.
Australian wife, remarks: “Sometimes I heard a betrothed man say: I
love her and she loves me”. Of the Tasmanians we are told that they
“treat their women kindly”. Brough Smyth makes this general statement:
“It is hard to believe that even in a lower state the male would not
have had the same feeling of affection for his mate and an equal
jealousy of love as we see among the aborigines now”. In the same sense
Bonwick remarks on the Australian natives in general: “Home life there
was not quite the dark scene some pictured.... Affection is witnessed
between husband and wife, parent and child, tribesman and mate”.
We may add, that the Tasmanian women, though overburdened with work,
are described as a merry and laughter-loving kind of people. And Curr
remarks about Australian women in general: “In every way the female’s
looks to us a hard lot; and yet, notwithstanding, I do not hesitate to
say that they are, on the whole, fairly happy, merry and contented.”
c. The husband does not always enjoy such an entire freedom of action
towards his wife.
Sometimes, for punishing and divorcing her, he must have the consent of
the tribe. So in N. S. Wales, in case of adultery “he may complain to
the elders of the tribe, and they, on cause shown, decree a divorce;
but not if she has children.” According to another writer “the husband
who suspects another of seducing his wife, either kills one or both.
The affair is taken up by the tribe, if the party belongs to another,
who inflict punishment on him.” In W. Victoria “a man can divorce his
wife for serious misconduct, and can even put her to death; but in
every case the charge against her must be laid before the chiefs of his
own and his wife’s tribes, and their consent to her punishment
obtained. If the wife has children, however, she cannot be divorced”.
Here we find also some slight traces of protection of the wife by her
relatives: “A man is allowed to marry his brother’s widow, or his own
deceased wife’s sister, or a woman of her tribe; but he is not
permitted to do so, if he has divorced or killed his wife”. In N. W.
Central Queensland the wife is avenged by her relations. “In the case
of a man killing his own gin [wife], he has to deliver up one of his
own sisters for his late wife’s friends to put to death, he personally
escaping punishment.... A wife has always her “brothers” to look after
her interests”. At the initiation-feasts “each woman can exercise the
right of punishing any man who may have ill-treated, abused or
“hammered” her ... the delinquent not being allowed to retaliate in any
way whatsoever”. If these women are slaves, they at least have their
saturnalia [26].
We even find cases of the wife putting a check upon her husband,
especially in a sexual respect. On Herbert River the wife is furious if
her husband is unfaithful to her. In N. S. Wales “a wife may similarly
complain to them [the elders of the tribe] of the conduct of her
husband, and they may order both the man and his paramour to be
punished”. In W. Victoria “if a husband is unfaithful, his wife cannot
divorce him. She may make a complaint to the chief, who can punish the
man by sending him away from his tribe for two or three moons; and the
guilty woman is very severely punished by her relatives”. “A chief who
has been married under the law of betrothal, is not permitted to marry
another woman for a long time; and should he do so without obtaining
the consent of his wife, there would be constant quarreling”. At Port
Lincoln an old, former wife sometimes forces her husband to desist from
taking a young, new one.
Finally we meet with instances of the wife having a real ascendency
over her husband. On Herbert River the husband is sometimes led by his
wife, and even beaten by her. A curious piece of information we get
about W. Victoria. When a wife treats her husband with such persistent
disrespect or unkindness as to make him wish to get rid of her, he goes
away to some neighbouring tribe and tries to bring about her death by
means of sorcery. The wife, being informed of this, repairs thither and
entreats him to return, and so a reconciliation is effected.
In Tasmania the husband could divorce his wife; but she could also
force him to do so.
d. Exchange of wives does not seem always to take place against their
will. In W. Victoria wives may be exchanged only after the death of
their parents and with the consent of the chiefs, but not if one of
them has children. After the exchange both couples live peacefully
together in one hut, each in a separate compartment. If a man knows
that his wife is in love with another, and he is not opposed to it, she
can be amicably transferred to the other man with the consent of the
chief. At Port Lincoln the men frequently exchange wives; brothers and
near relatives have their wives nearly in common. The wife calls the
brothers of her husband by the name of husbands. This seems rather a
kind of group-marriage than a bartering of wives as of commodities.
These two instances point to the possibility that in other cases too
exchange of wives may be not so arbitrary an action as at first sight
it seems.
As to the lending of wives, in some cases it appears that these offer
themselves to strangers. In N. S. Wales the husband “is quite ready to
bargain with a white man, and with her consent too; for a black woman
considers it an honour to be thus courted by a man of a superior race”.
The Cammarray women prostitute themselves to Europeans for almost
nothing, and among themselves without any shame. In Central Australia
marriage does not impose any obligation of chastity; the wives always
prostitute themselves. In S. Australia women give themselves to
strangers with or without the consent of their husbands. On Moore River
the wives often have connections with young men; the husbands do not
seem to take much notice of it. Moreover, Spencer and Gillen warn us,
that “in many cases in which apparently women are lent (in the sense in
which we use the word, which is the sense in which it is generally used
in this connection) indiscriminately, a knowledge of details would show
that this was not so.... In the nine tribes examined by us we have
found that intercourse of this nature is strictly regulated by custom”.
e. The levirate law sometimes appears in the character of a duty rather
than a right of the deceased man’s brother. Fraser (describing N. S.
Wales) calls it a “refuge” for the widow. Dawson, speaking of the
aborigines of W. Victoria, states: “When a married man dies, his
brother is bound to marry the widow if she has a family, as it is his
duty to protect her and rear his brother’s children”. Salvado speaks of
the philanthropy of the S. W. Australian, who takes upon himself the
care of the wife of an absent friend or parent, or of a brother’s
widow.
C. Among the Kurnai the man must hunt for the sustenance of his wife
and children, and fight for their protection. In Central Australia the
women “have, as amongst other savage tribes, to do a considerable part,
but by no means all, of the work of the camp, but, after all, in a good
season this does not amount to very much, and in a bad season men and
women suffer alike, and of what food there is they get their share”.
The last-cited cases of levirate law, too, show that the subsistence of
the family does not depend on the wife only. Even the instances quoted
under C (p. 15) provide us with evidence that the men perform some kind
of work as hunting the larger animals, making weapons and fishing-nets,
getting fire by friction, etc. And what is said here about the Kurnai
certainly applies to all these tribes: the husband fights to protect
his wife. This being his great and indispensable function, we must not
wonder at his not liking to do other work that women can perform as
well [27].
The division of labour between the sexes is not always so unreasonable
as at first sight it seems. Hore, speaking of the African Wajiji, very
justly remarks: “Much has been said about the unfair division of labour
in such circumstances, but when it is considered that a wild man finds
scarcely anything to his hand, but must himself cut the wood and the
grass to build his house, manufacture his spear and cooking vessels,
take his part in tribal duties, and is frequently compelled to seek
food in long and laborious hunting expeditions, it will be seen that he
often gets his fair share of work” [28]. A similar division of labour
is admirably described by Pinart, as existing among the Indians of
Panama: “I may be allowed to make here a short digression on woman’s
place in the Indian household. It is commonly said by those who have
not lived intimately with the Indians, that they consider woman as a
beast of burden, that to her share falls a life full of troublesome and
fatiguing work, and to the man’s an easy and idle existence. It may,
indeed, seem strange to the superficial observer to see the woman
charged with heavy burdens and the man walking before her carrying
nothing but his weapons. But if the observer will only reflect a
little, he will understand that, whereas the man carries his weapons
only, the responsibility and the safety of his wife and children are
incumbent on him. The Indian’s life is indeed surrounded with dangers;
when traversing a savannah, or forest, a hostile Indian may appear at
any moment; a tiger, a snake etc. may throw himself upon the
travellers. Therefore it is the man’s task to be continually on the
alert, to have his hands and his movements free, in order to be able
immediately to take his arms and defend those who are dear to him. How
often have not I seen the Indian, when about to traverse a river,
making his family stand still, entering into the water and
reconnoitring whether it was not too deep or the stream too rapid; then
inspecting the opposite bank to see whether all was right there; then
crossing the river again, helping his wife and children to pass
through, often even carrying the burdens, and several times re-crossing
the river to transport on his back his wife and children. The river
being crossed, the man again takes the lead with his arms, the wife and
family resume their burdens, and the little caravan continues its way
in the same order” [29].
Another fact, proving that the Australian women are not in every
respect regarded as slaves, is the great influence they often have in
intertribal matters. “The peace-making influence of the women is very
great, and has often been observed among many tribes”. “The
peace-making function of the women is also very characteristically
shown by their being employed as international ambassadresses” [30].
Darwin justly remarks: “We thus see that with savages the women are not
in quite so abject a state in relation to marriage, as has often been
supposed” [31].
The question to be settled now is this: Are these Australian wives, and
accordingly all the wives that live in an abject state, to be called
slaves? Remembering the conclusion we arrived at in the third
paragraph, we may put the question thus: are they objects of
possession? Under B, a, we have quoted several statements of
ethnographers calling them the slaves, or the property, of their
husbands. We must not, however, forget Ingram’s warning against taking
a rhetorical use of the word “slave” too literally. The facts recorded
under B, c, B, d, and C are of more interest to us. The husband may do
with his wife as he likes: ill-use and kill her, overtax her with work,
exchange and lend her. It is but seldom that her relations protect her;
in but very few cases is the man’s power interfered with by the chief
or elders of the tribe. Therefore we cannot but admit that she is the
property of her husband.
Yet there is a reason, why we are not to bring these wives under the
denomination of slaves. We may refer here to the point of view we have
taken in determining the nature of slavery. Slavery is an organ in the
social body, that in a peculiar manner brings about a division of
labour. The Australian wives share the character of this organ as an
object of possession. Yet they are not the same organ; for besides
being forced labourers they are wives; hence it follows that their
relation towards their husbands is wholly bound up with the sexual and
family life: it is their character as women, not as labourers, that
prevails. We may remember here the mutual affection observed in so many
cases by the ethnographers. As the mother of his children, too, the
husband is likely to value his wife. We have seen (under B, c) that in
a few cases she cannot be divorced or exchanged if she has children.
Besides, it is frequently stated, that the Australian aborigines are
very fond of their children [32].
The Australian woman discharges the duties of a wife and a mother, and
besides, to some extent, the work that among other peoples falls to the
share of the slave; therefore she is not a slave. If she were, her
place, in a slave-keeping society, would be entirely occupied by the
slave; but no one will doubt whether in any such society there are
wives. In an evolutionary sense the slave and the Australian wife
differ in this: the Australian wife is a not-yet-differentiated organ,
performing two functions, which at a later stage of development will be
incumbent on two quite distinct organs: the peculiar function of a
wife, and the labour of a slave. This reasoning is not an assertion a
priori, by a biological parallelism, of a development that must
actually have taken place; it is only intended to show the fundamental
difference existing between wives, however abject their condition, and
slaves [33].
We may even go farther and say: Slavery proper does not exist, when
there are none but female slaves. For when females only are enslaved,
the reason probably is, that they are valued as women, not only as
labourers; otherwise males would be enslaved too. So, according to
Meyer [34], in the early stages of ancient history, most of the slaves
were women and their chief function was a sexual one. And even where
such women are not, all of them, actually treated as wives or
concubines, but only kept as labourers, there is no slavery in the true
sense of the word. In such cases, the husband keeps his wife or wives
subjected; this leads to the keeping of numerous subjected females, who
are scarcely to be called wives. But it is always women, as the weaker
sex, who are subjected to the men; subjection of labourers, only in
their quality of labourers, does not exist. The labourers have the
name, if not the state, of wives; this proves that the subjection of
labourers as such, i.e. slavery, is not yet developed.
We have dwelt at considerable length on this distinction between slaves
and subjected wives. There are some more distinctions to be made
between slavery and kindred phenomena; but these will not occupy so
much space and time.
§ 5. Distinction of slavery from kindred phenomena.
II. Children subjected to the head of the family.
There was a time, the time of the good old patriarchal theory, when the
condition of children in the early stages of social life was thought to
be one of complete subjection to the head of the family, the pater
familias, who had over them an unlimited power, extending to the power
of life and death. Carey, among others, holds this view, and very
plainly expresses it. “By nothing is the progress of mankind in
population and wealth made more manifest than by the change in the
relation of parent and child. In the infancy of cultivation the one is
a tyrant and the other a slave” [35].
The adherents of the matriarchal theory have assigned to the Roman-like
agnatic family its place as a later product of history; but to the
question as to how children were treated in an ante-patriarchal state
of culture they have not given much attention.
It is to Professor S. R. Steinmetz that we are indebted for the first
exact inquiry into the early history of the treatment of children. His
conclusions, based upon a large amount of ethnographical materials, are
these:
With most savages rational education is out of the question, the
children soon growing independent, and when young being either
neglected or much petted and spoiled [36]; a lesser number of savage
tribes show some slight beginnings of education without or nearly
without bodily castigation; in a few cases the children are under
strict discipline. In this last set of cases there is to some extent a
subjection of the children. “With the power over the mother the father
gradually acquired the power over the children.” “The patriarch became
master of his children and, whenever circumstances required and allowed
it, introduced a strict discipline over them” [37]. We may therefore
suppose, that there will be instances of children being treated in a
somewhat slave-like manner. We shall presently see that there are a few
such cases on record in Steinmetz’s book.
Among the Apaches the father holds unlimited sway over his children up
to the age of puberty [38].
Tlinkit boys must render unbounded obedience to their parents and
especially to their maternal uncle, to whom, according to the law of
inheritance, they are almost more nearly related than to their own
father. They have to perform the labour imposed upon them, without any
claim to compensation [39].
Of the Botocudos we are told, that the father, being stronger than his
children, compels them to work for him [40].
Among the Aeneze Bedouins the young girls work hard; they drive the
cattle to the pasture-ground; if one out of the herd is lost, they are
severely beaten by their father [41].
Among the Assja Samoyedes the father has a patriarchal power, and
punishes at his discretion and according to custom [42].
In these few cases only is it clearly stated that the head of the
family has an arbitrary power. The value of Zu Wied’s statement about
the Botocudos is much lessened by the same ethnographer telling us that
the children enjoy much freedom [43].
Considering now the state of the children in the cases referred to
here, are we justified in calling it slavery?
The head of the family has power over the children; and so far as it
appears from the particulars given by the ethnographers, this is a
legally unlimited power, that may be called right of property, and is
likely to lead to compulsory labour, as among the Tlinkits and Aeneze
Bedouins it certainly does. The condition of these children may
therefore be expressed by the word “possession”, our criterion of
slavery.
We may even go farther. The condition of slaves is not always very bad;
but however kindly treated, they are slaves, are the property of their
masters. So with children too. They may not be, as in the cases
mentioned above, under strict discipline; yet the father’s, or in a few
cases the maternal uncle’s, power, however moderate a use he makes of
it, may be legally unbounded, not restricted by social rules, not
interfered with by the community. In such a case the head of the family
may be called owner of the child, and is really called so in Roman law,
so clearly distinct from Roman practice. “The patria potestas of
ancient civil law means the full power of the father over the persons
subjected to him (the child, the grand-child by the son, the wife in
manu), the right of death and life (ius vitae ac necis) and the right
to sell into slavery” [44]. “This potestas originally was equal to that
over the slaves” [45].
We see that the term “possession” may well be used here. Yet there is a
reason that induces us not to call these children slaves, a reason
resembling that for which we have excluded the subjected wives. These
children may be called the property of their fathers; but this is not
the whole, nor even the main part of their condition. The relation
between father and child, if it includes subjection, includes much
more. There is mutual sympathy and in many respects a coincidence of
interests; there is respect on the side of the child; there is on the
side of the father a desire to promote the welfare of the child,
however much bound up with egotistical motives. There is also physical
and mental superiority on the side of the father and inferiority on the
side of the child [46]; and this in some cases may bring about a
somewhat slave-like condition of the latter; but this condition is not
an essential part of the relation between father and child; a fortiori
it is not coextensive with the relation, as in the case of the slave.
Biologically expressed: the child is quite another organ, with quite
another function, but in some cases performing in some degree the
function of a slave; therefore it is not a slave. We may add, that the
child is only temporarily subjected; one day he will be a master
himself [47]. This also bears upon the treatment of the child: the
slave is brought up to servility, the child to authority. Children can
never form a subjected class.
As for adopted children, it is not always easy to distinguish them from
slaves. Sometimes they are rather severely treated, especially those
captured in war or kidnapped. Tanner was thus adopted by an Indian of
the Shahnee tribe. The youngest son of this Indian had lately died, and
his wife had told her husband, she could not live if he did not restore
her the child. The husband accordingly went off, and came back with
Tanner whom he had kidnapped. Tanner was adopted on the grave of the
deceased boy, and given an Indian name. But the adoptive father treated
him not at all as a son. He had to do the hardest work, got but little
food, and was often severely beaten. If the mother tried to protect
him, she was beaten too. Finally the father, regardless of the mother’s
wishes sold him to an old Indian woman, who now became his adoptive
mother. She treated him kindly, yet made him cut wood, carry water and
meat, and perform other kinds of labour, which generally were not
imposed upon children of his age. However, he was not a slave. When
full-grown, he was considered by the Indians one of their tribe, and
married an Indian girl [48].
In the second Chapter we shall meet with more instances of captives
being adopted either into the tribe or into one of the families within
the tribe. As long as such persons are children, it is often not easy
to see whether they are slaves or adopted children, for it is not
always stated, as in Tanner’s case, that they are formally adopted. We
must ask then, what becomes of them when full-grown. If they have still
a master to serve, it is clear that they are slaves; for if they are
adopted members of the community, they will be free when adult,
excepting the (most often slight) moral obligations of full-grown
children towards their parents. Other facts proving that the captives
are slaves, are their not taking share in government affairs, when the
tribe is democratically organized, and their being excluded from
marriage with native-born women. With the aid of these criteria we
shall try, in every particular case, to decide whether the captives are
slaves or adopted members of the community. What has been said here of
captives, equally applies to purchased persons.
The last two paragraphs show that there is still something wanting in
our definition. Not every state of possession is slavery; those arising
from family relations are to be excluded. Thus only can we come to a
true understanding of the signification of slavery. For wives and
children may accidentally be forced labourers and the like; the slave
only is ex definitione a subjected person, a forced labourer, an object
of possession. Wives and children there would be, and there are in many
cases, without subjection; slaves there are not where there is not
subjection and compulsory labour. A society that begins to keeps
slaves, develops a new organ with a special, well marked function; and
it is the evolution of this organ we are to trace in the following
Chapters.
Our definition therefore wants an addition. We may now put it so:
Slavery is the fact, that one man is the property or possession of
another beyond the limits of the family proper.
§ 6. Distinction of slavery from kindred phenomena.
III. Members of a society in their relation to the head of the
community.
Bastian, after remarking that in a social community nobody is literally
free, gives a great number of quotations, describing widely different
kinds of subjection, and among these some few, where the subjects of a
despot are called his slaves or his property. “The Siamese are all
(even marked) slaves of their king.” “The subjects of the king of
Djagga are slaves, who may not marry without his consent.” “In Usumbara
all are slaves of the king.” “The absolute rulers dispose of all their
subjects as their property (even without having acquired a right by the
subjects having transgressed the law), and even mark with their badge
the different working-guilds, as is done by the king of Siam.” “The
princes and princesses on the Congo have the right to sell any one who
is not a prince like themselves” [49].
What Bastian means by heaping up these various quotations, without any
order or attempt at an explanation, is not clear. We, however, must not
follow his example, but inquire whether the word “slave” is rightly
used here, whether the subjects of a despot may be called slaves. A few
moments of consideration will show that they may not. For however great
the power of the chief, the king, the despot, in a word the head of the
community, over his subjects, they are not his property. “Property”
supposes a power of the master, pervading the whole life, personal,
domestic and social, of the slave; so great a power over his subjects a
chief never has. The following reasoning will make this clear. Slavery
would not be capable of much development, if it depended upon the
master’s personal superiority only; for slavery to become a social
system, the master’s power over the slave must be recognized by the
society. The slave lives in a society that regards him as a slave;
slavery cannot exist where there is not a society of freemen. Therefore
the despot, however great his power, is not as such a master of slaves.
The slave-owner has the community on his side; the chief has subjects
who themselves compose the community. Looked at from the practical
side, the chief’s power contains much more of voluntary submission than
the slave-owner’s. A chief never has the whole person of the citizens
subjected in his own behalf; he may exact some performances for his
personal benefit, but the restrictions put upon the subjects,
encroaching on their freedom in private life, will generally be
measures taken in the (real or supposed) interest of the community, and
approved of by the community. These restrictions are mutual, and arise
from the social connection itself; this is not, as in slavery, using
one person as a means to the purposes of another definite person. This
yet more distinctly appears, where not a single man imposes these
rules, but the council of citizens. In a communistic society there
would be an entire absence of personal freedom; yet there would be no
slaves, as there would be no freemen whom they could serve.
It need hardly be said, that a chief may keep slaves like any other
freeman. The public power as such, the state, also sometimes keeps
slaves (e.g. the servi publici in Rome). But these slaves are quite
distinct from the main body of citizens.
Sometimes it is stated, that the chief, or the public power, has
slaves, whereas no mention is made of any other slaves. In such cases
the slaves generally become such as a punishment for some offence.
Where such a state of things exists, we may not speak of a
slave-keeping people. For here the power of the government is so great,
that it can avail itself of the labour of the citizens; whether this is
done by imposing an equal amount of labour on all of them, or by
selecting a few persons for this purpose and keeping them in a
slave-like state, does not make much difference. Besides, slavery here
cannot have the same influence on social life it generally has; for
every freeman has to work for himself. This kind of slavery may be
compared with the tread-mill and other kinds of penal servitude
existing in more civilized societies. And we may not speak of a
slave-keeping people, where the only slaves are criminals, who become
the slaves of him who represents the public power, any more than we can
say that slavery exists in those civilized countries, where penal
servitude is still practised.
One more remark has to be added here. Hitherto we have used the terms
“possession” and “property” synonymously as indicating the nature of
slavery. In this paragraph it has been shown, that an essential feature
of slavery is its being recognized by the community. Therefore we
prefer the term “property”, that, better than the other term, conveys
the notion, not only of a virtual subjection, but of a subjection
considered legal in those communities where it exists.
§ 7. Distinction of slavery from kindred phenomena.
IV. Subjected tribes; tributary provinces; lower classes; free
labourers.
We shall meet with instances of tribes, the members of which are bound
to perform some kind of labour for other tribes or for the members of
the latter.
This is not slavery; for slavery is subjection of one individual to
another, and a subjection that absorbs the whole personality of the
subjected; and under such circumstances it is not possible that the
subjected lead a tribal life. Therefore, where the subjected are
described as forming a separate tribe, we may be sure that they are not
slaves. Ingram justly remarks that “the lowest caste may be a degraded
and despised one, but its members are not in a state of slavery; they
are in collective, not individual, subjection to the members of the
higher classes” [50]. What Ingram says here of the lowest caste, often
applies to subjected tribes.
That conquered districts, bound to pay a tribute in kind or money, do
not consist of slaves, is clear.
The foregoing remarks would be almost superfluous, were it not that
some ethnographers in such cases spoke of “slave tribes” and “slave
districts”. This may partly be caused by the natives themselves making
an incorrect use of the term “slavery”. In North Africa the coast
tribes call the inland tribes their slaves, because they keep them
bound by a trade monopoly. In the same regions a chief calls himself
the slave of another chief, to whom he has to pay a tribute [51]. As in
some cases the slaves live together in separate villages [52], it may
be difficult to decide whether we have to deal with slave villages or
with subjected groups. The criterion then is, whether the subjected
people have each an individual master. When we are informed that such
is the case, or that they are bought and sold, we may be certain that
they are slaves.
Lower classes can be of different kinds. Where they are only considered
inferior to the upper classes, or excluded from governmental functions,
it is easy to see that they are not slaves. Greater difficulties are
presented by some other cases. Sometimes a lower class consists of free
labourers. Now theoretically free labourers are easy to distinguish
from slaves: the slave is compelled to work, the free labourer
voluntarily submits to it. But the accounts of the ethnographers do not
always make it clear, which of these two kinds of labourers we have to
deal with in any particular case. When a labourer lives in the house of
his master and is wholly dependent on him, it may be rather difficult
at first sight to decide whether he is free or a slave. Sometimes the
details given are sufficient to settle the question; if not, we shall
have to leave it undecided.
A lower class can also consist of serfs. What they are, and what is the
difference between them and slaves, will be shown in the next
paragraph.
§ 8. Distinction of slavery from kindred phenomena.
V. Serfs.
What we have said of free labourers applies also to serfs: to draw the
theoretical line of demarcation between them and slaves is not so very
difficult; but practically it is not always easy to decide, whether a
subjected class we get some information about consists of slaves or of
serfs; sometimes even, because of the unstable terminology and the
scanty information, it is quite impossible. But there are several
unequivocal cases of serfdom, too, on record in history. Mentioning a
few of these will suffice to give the reader a clear idea of its nature
as distinct from slavery.
In Germany Leibeigene was, in the earliest times, synonymous with
slave. The law placed the Leibeigenen on a level with the domestic
animals. The master had the ius vitae ac necis, an unlimited right to
sell them, the right to exact from them all possible services, to marry
and divorce them. The owner of the Leibeigene was also owner of his
goods and chattels. The lord was responsible for any damages caused by
his servant, as for those caused by his horse, and might claim
indemnity if any one injured his man. But gradually this slavery was
mitigated into a state of subserviency. First the claim to unlimited
services was waived, and on the Leibeigene were imposed definite
Roboten (labour dues) and tributes. He had to work on fixed days, to
perform fixed services, to pay fixed sums. His earnings legally still
belonged to the lord, and the latter succeeded to his goods; but from
the 13th century the lord’s right of inheritance dwindled into a
present (mortuarium). From the 14th century the serfs acquired a
usufruct of the soil they tilled, and so their obligations assumed more
or less the character of a quit-rent. Sometimes they were even allowed
to choose another lord. In the Frankish empire the lords were already
forbidden to sell them abroad; from the 13th century they lost the
right to kill them, and afterwards also the right to whip them. The
church took away from the lord the right to divorce his serfs, if the
marriage had been contracted with his consent. The ius primae noctis
remained longer. Moreover, the relations of the serfs towards others
were gradually recognized by law, at first only as to unjust acts,
later on as to contracts. And so, when at last serfdom was abolished,
the only changes effected by this were: allowing of the right of
emigrating, abolition of the marriage-consent and of the court-services
and personal tributes.
Thus Siegel describes the development of serfdom in Germany [53]. Other
writers come to nearly the same conclusions. According to Brunner,
there was among the Western Germans a class between freemen and slaves,
called Liten or Aldien, a hereditary class, whose position was secured
by law. They had the right of acquiring property and making contracts;
they could by emancipation become fully free, or purchase their own
liberty. To marry they wanted the consent of their lord. They had the
right of feud (Fehderecht), and when they were killed a wergild was
paid, that fell partly to the lord. Their right of inheritance was
originally not recognized [54].
Schröder remarks, that the difference between freemen and subservients
(Hörigen) consisted in this, that the landed possessions of the latter
were smaller and liable to tribute. Moreover, they had no connubium
with freemen, nor any political rights; the wergild paid for them was
one half of that paid for a freeman [55].
In medieval France a similar state of things prevailed. There were no
longer slaves, but serfs. “Serfdom is a transitory stage between
slavery and entire liberty. The serf of the middle ages is not, like
the ancient slave, indissolubly riveted to his condition, deprived of
rights by his very birth, placed on a level with the beasts of burden
of his lord’s estate. Public opinion is favourable to him.” “The facts
agree with the doctrine. The serf has some means of acquiring property;
he may marry and have legitimate descendants, who will succeed to his
goods; he may give evidence in the courts; he may purchase his liberty
by means of his peculium. By getting some profits he is interested in
the cultivation of the soil. Giving his labour to the land, he may
expect to enjoy the fruits of it, by paying fixed tributes. By marrying
his children to free women he secures the liberty of his offspring. By
paying an indemnity he acquires the succession to his father’s
inheritance, and the right of property over his savings.... He may
dispute the tributes (tallies et cens) which the lord levies on the
tenement he cultivates, invoke an enquiry of experts who attest his
means, contract to pay a fixed annuity and so know beforehand what
profit he may depend upon” [56].
With these serfs may be compared the Roman coloni. “The colonatus
consists in this, that men are inseparably attached to a landed
property for the purpose of cultivating it.... This connection with a
determinate estate, from which the colonus might be severed only in
some cases fixed by law, brought about an approximation of the colonus
to the slave (as servus terrae), but also a difference between them, a
security for the colonus, which protects him from the lord’s arbitrary
power. Hence the colonus stands with regard to the lord on the free
footing of one bound only to comply with the yearly canon, annua
functio, a tribute fixed by contract or custom, which he has to pay to
the lord, generally in products of the land” [57].
The foregoing statements once more prove the sufficiency of our
definition of slavery. As soon as the forced labourer is no longer
entirely at the disposal of the lord, the latter being entitled to
fixed services and tributes only, such a state of things is called
serfdom, or colonatus, or subserviency, but not slavery. This agrees
with our definition of slavery. The slave, as we have remarked above,
is the property of his master, whose power is in principle unlimited,
not restricted to fixed performances. Therefore, even if the writers
referred to here called such institutions as serfdom and colonatus
slavery, we are not to do so; but we may regard it as a corroboration
of the conclusion we had arrived at before, that such writers, most of
whom have not made any special research into the nature of slavery,
when they meet with such an institution as serfdom, feel that they are
not to call it slavery.
Now let us look what the theorists have to say on the subject.
Ingram remarks: “The transition to serfdom took place in civic
communities, when the master parted with or was deprived of his
property in the person of the slave, and became entitled only to his
services, or a determinate portion of them. In rural life, where the
march of development was slower, the corresponding stage was reached
when, in accordance with the fundamental principles of feudalism, the
relation between the lord and serf, from being personal, became
territorial” [58].
The first words here perfectly express the truth: when the master loses
“his property in the person of the slave”, he is no longer a
slave-owner. What follows, that the master “became entitled only to his
services”, is less correct; for he who is entitled to all the services
of another is his owner; just the limiting of the master’s right to “a
determinate portion of them” is the change from slavery to something
else. If I may require all the services a man can perform, I am his
owner; if I am restricted to a determinate portion of them, I am not.
Spencer says: “As the distinctions between different forms of slavery
are indefinite, so must there be an indefinite distinction between
slavery and serfdom, and between the several forms of serfdom. Much
confusion has arisen in describing these respective institutions, and
for the sufficient reason that the institutions themselves are
confused” [59].
This consideration, however true, will not prevent us from drawing a
theoretical line of demarcation. Not a single social institution is
practically strictly separated from kindred institutions; yet we cannot
understand such institutions, unless we make a distinction, and not an
“indefinite” one.
Letourneau, after describing the state of the colonus, adds: “In a
word, he was not an object of possession, a slave, but only a
proletarian attached to the soil.” In another passage he remarks that
slavery always undergoes some mitigation in the course of civilization:
“Less and less is the person of the slave himself oppressed; one is
contented with exploiting him, depriving him in a larger or smaller
degree of the fruits of his labour, in a word the slave becomes a serf”
[60].
These quotations may suffice to show that our view of the matter is
held by theorists as well as historians.
The serf, therefore, is not a slave, because he is not the property of
his master, and the particulars of serfdom related by historians
provide us with means of more clearly understanding the practical
meaning of this notion “property”. It means a power that, however
leniently exercised in many cases, is in principle unlimited. Among
many peoples the master may ill-use and even kill his slave, without
the law taking any notice of it. And even where his power is restricted
by social regulations, he may have a right of property, viz. if his
authority be in principle unbounded, and any limitation put upon it
suppose a special legal provision. The slave-owner may do with his
slave whatever he is not by special laws forbidden to do; the master of
a serf may require from his man such services and tributes only, as the
law allows him to require. The slave-owner has a right of property; the
master of a serf has, so to speak, a ius in re aliena. [61]
§ 9. Pawns or debtor-slaves.
In the course of our investigation it will be shown, that among some
peoples a debtor, unable to pay a debt he has contracted, becomes the
slave of his creditor. Sometimes such persons are ordinary slaves; but
pawns or debtor-slaves in the restricted sense (who are of frequent
occurrence in the Malay Archipelago, Dutch pandelingen) are a class
whose slave-state is conditional; they become free as soon as the debt
is paid by or for them; the creditor cannot refuse to accept the money.
Because of this great difference between pawns and ordinary slaves (who
generally have not a right to be ransomed), most ethnographers do not
call the former slaves, but give separate descriptions of slavery and
pawning.
The question arises, and has to be settled here, whether we for our
purpose have to call these pawns slaves. We shall quote here one
description of pawning. Among the Tshi-speaking peoples of the Gold
Coast of West Africa “a pawn is a person placed in temporary bondage to
another by the head of the family ... either to pay a debt, or to
obtain a loan.... When a person is pawned on account of a debt, the
services of the pawn, even should they extend over a considerable
number of years, count for nothing towards the liquidation of the debt;
and a pawn has to serve his master, until the amount of the original
debt with 50 per cent. interest, is paid by the person who pawned him”
[62].
Here the debtor pawns one of the members of his family; among some
other peoples (e.g. in the Malay Archipelago) he pawns himself; this is
not essential. The main fact is that the pawn is in “bondage”, however
temporarily, that he “has to serve his master.” Therefore, as long as
the debt remains unpaid, the pawn is in the same condition as a slave.
He has not to perform a fixed amount of labour, he must serve his
master without any limitation; the master has over him a power that is,
in principle, unlimited. Now we have to inquire: Is this pawn a slave,
i.e. is he the property of his master? In a legal sense the creditor
has not a right of property over his pawn; his right agrees with a kind
of pignus which the Romans called antichresis, i.e. something yielding
profit was handed over to the creditor, who utilized it instead of
receiving the usual interest [63]. Yet the right of the holder of the
pawn bore much resemblance to that of the owner: he had a utilis in rem
actio, a vindicatio pignoris [64]. We, for our purpose, may classify
the pawns among the slaves, if we can prove that sociologically a
system of pawning performs the same function as a slave-system. And
this certainly is the case. The same system of compulsory labour, the
same subjection of the entire person exists, whether the subjected are
perpetually slaves or temporarily pawns, viz. in those cases where, as
among the Tshi-speaking peoples, the master’s power is in principle
unlimited. Where pawns have a fixed amount of work to do, they are
temporary serfs; but where (as is most often the case) no limit is put
to the amount of work the master may exact from them, they are
temporary slaves, and as long as they are slaves, take the same place
as other slaves in the social system.
CHAPTER II.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SLAVERY.
§ 1. Introduction.
Having now determined what is the meaning of the term “slavery”, we are
about to inquire, what is its social signification, what place does it
occupy in those societies where it formerly existed or still exists? As
this book confines itself to ethnological investigations, we shall try
to throw light on this problem with the help of the data supplied to us
by the study of savage races. But then we must first know, whether
slavery exists among all savage tribes, and, if not, whether it is
confined to certain races of men or to certain parts of the world; and
further, whether it is found on all levels of lower culture, or on some
only, and if the latter, on which. The solution of these problems
requires a survey of the occurrence of slavery among wild tribes in the
several parts of the globe. This survey will occupy the present
chapter.
A few words have still to be said about our method of ascertaining the
existence or non-existence of slavery in every particular case.
To one unacquainted with our science the task to be performed now may
seem very easy: we have only to consult the ethnographical literature
bearing on any tribe, and to look whether slavery is mentioned; if it
is mentioned in an affirmative sense, slavery exists; if in a negative
sense or not at all, slavery does not exist. But every one familiar
with ethnographical literature knows that it has not to be used in such
a rough-and-ready manner. The statements of ethnographers are not to be
accepted without much caution and a thorough criticism [65].
The observance of the following rules will, so far as we can judge,
give to our conclusions the highest possible degree of probability.
1º. If it is stated that slavery exists, is this sufficient evidence of
its existence? Our definition, arrived at in the first chapter, lies
within the limits of ordinary language; therefore it is probable that
our informants have used the term in the same sense we attach to it.
There are, however, many cases in which the words “slave” and “slavery”
are applied to something quite different from their true meaning, as
will be seen from our survey of the matter. Thus it is necessary to ask
for more evidence than is given by the mere term “slavery”.
a. If it sufficiently appears that in some tribe there are men
considered to be the property of others, we need not doubt whether
slavery exists.
b. If this is not clearly proved, there is still one particular, that
being mentioned makes the existence of slavery very probable, viz. the
fact that people are bought and sold within the tribe, except of course
women sold for wives. For other kinds of subjected persons, serfs,
lower classes, and subjects of a despot, are not bought or sold, at
least not within the tribe. Beyond the limits of the tribe a man may be
sold without previously having been a slave. Thus some African despots
sell their subjects to Arabian slave-traders; such a sale does not
prove that slavery exists within the tribe. But when a man is sold
within the tribe, either he was already a slave, or he becomes such,
e.g. as a punishment; in both cases slavery is practised by the tribe
[66].
c. If the particulars on record are quite insufficient to determine the
nature of the alleged slave-state, the possibility of a mistake is much
lessened by several writers, independently of each other, stating that
slavery exists.
d. Finally, the general trustworthiness of the writer or writers must
be taken into account.
2º. If we are told that there are no slaves, it is very probable that
slavery really does not exist, for slavery is a phenomenon rather easy
to observe, and the ethnographers are generally inclined to use the
word in a too wide rather than in a too restricted sense. There is no
need here for the extreme scepticism with which we have to receive an
assertion of any tribe having no religion [67]. This does not prevent,
of course, that if we find the existence of slavery denied by a writer
who is generally badly informed, we may reject such an assertion.
3º. The greatest difficulties are presented by those cases in which no
mention is made of slavery. Here the utmost caution has to be observed.
a. If it clearly appears from the description, that there are people
considered to be the property of others, without the word “slavery”
being used, the conclusion is evident.
b. Perhaps some facts are mentioned which make the existence of slavery
highly improbable. We shall see that the main source of slavery is
captivity in war; so, if it is stated that no captives are made, or
that the lot of the captives is something else than slavery, the
non-existence of slavery is probable. But even then it is not quite
certain: there may still be slaves, acquired by other means. Further:
if it is stated that there are no social classes, or if the classes are
enumerated and slaves are not among them, there is a strong presumption
that slavery does not exist. Yet here too there is no certainty; for
slaves, among savage tribes, have not always the aspect of a social
class. The description of the division of labour between the sexes may
also suggest to us the non-existence of slavery. When we are informed
that the men do some kinds of work and the women some other kinds, we
are inclined to think: if there were slaves, their special work would
be mentioned too. But this argument is most dangerous; for the slaves
very often have no special kind of work allotted to them.
We see that none of these criteria prove quite reliable. Yet, taken
together, they give a high degree of probability. And it is not even
necessary that all of them can be ascertained. If an ethnographer,
known to be trustworthy, gives us an elaborate description, pretending
to be a picture of the whole social life of the tribe he describes, it
were a wonder if he had entirely omitted slavery, while it existed; the
more so as this phenomenon is not so difficult to recognize. The same
argument obtains a fortiori, when several such descriptions of the same
tribe exist.
4º. In doubtful cases we may take into account the state of the group
to which a particular tribe belongs. It may be that in the general
descriptions of a group no mention is made of slavery; that, further,
all tribes belonging to this group of which we are well informed prove
to have no slaves. If, then, the information we get concerning a
particular tribe belonging to the same group, is not complete enough to
rely upon, there is a strong presumption that this tribe will be in the
same state as the rest of the group, i.e. that it does not keep slaves.
Under the same conditions we may suppose that a tribe belonging to a
slave-keeping group keeps slaves. The term “group” has to be taken here
in a sociological, not in an anthropological or linguistic sense, and
its application must be somewhat restricted. It must consist of tribes,
that live in somewhat similar conditions and the institutions of which
closely resemble each other; e.g. Australia (the continent) is a group
in this sense, North America is not. It is almost superfluous to add,
that this group-argument may be used only to strengthen existing, but
insufficient, evidence.
We confine ourselves here to the phenomena of savage life; therefore we
shall exclude the semi-civilized peoples. An exact distinction,
however, between these two classes of peoples has not yet been made
[68]; so we are fully aware of the possibility of mistakes, made here
in this respect. As we were not able to apply any exact criterion, we
have more or less followed our general impressions, paying most
attention to the development of political institutions. So for instance
we have excluded the Kabyls of Northern Africa, because their detailed
legal system, as described by Hanoteau and Letourneux [69], proves that
politically they have passed beyond the stage of savagery. And a
developed political organization cannot exist without profoundly
marking such an institution as slavery.
We shall find that several savage tribes have to a considerable extent
been influenced by civilized or semi-civilized nations. In such cases
the question arises: have we to deal here with phenomena of
unadulterated savage life? This question is important and deserves full
attention. We shall see that many savage tribes in their true
aboriginal state have been acquainted with slavery, whereas many others
when first discovered did not practise it; so neither the existence nor
the non-existence of slavery must necessarily be due to foreign
interference; either may be aboriginal, and must be supposed to be so
wherever there is not a strong presumption to the contrary [70]. But
there are also many cases in which foreign influence has undoubtedly
been at work. We must, then, make a distinction. If the influence of
the civilized or semi-civilized nation has led to a, so to speak,
normal development, i.e. a development, which lies within the limits of
primitive culture, we have to deal with a phenomenon of savage life.
For instance, commercial intercourse with a nation of higher
civilization has brought about an accumulation of wealth and a social
differentiation, which render the existence of slavery possible. In
such case we may safely speak of slavery as practised by savages, for
it is the effect of trade in general, not of intercourse with a
civilized nation as such, that we have to deal with here. If, on the
contrary, there has been an abnormal development, i.e. a development
which does not take place in countries inhabited by savages only, the
present condition of the savage tribe has no interest to us. For
instance, measures have been taken by a civilized nation on purpose to
abolish slavery. Then we, for our purpose, must consider the savage
tribe concerned as keeping slaves, and pay attention only to the
descriptions of its institutions as they were before the abolition.
The ensuing paragraphs will show which savage tribes keep slaves and
which do not keep any. The groups into which we have divided the
several tribes are mainly geographical, not intended to answer any
anthropological purpose. As long as the meaning of the term “race” is
so unstable as at present, we think it better not to operate with it.
Our groups are nearly the same as those given by Schurtz in his
Völkerkunde.
At the end of each paragraph its result will be mentioned. The
“positive cases” are the tribes which probably keep slaves, the
“negative cases” those which probably do not keep slaves. Under the
head of “no conclusion” we have given the cases in which the
probability that slavery exists is nearly as great, or as little, as
the inverse probability. The tribes, the names of which are printed in
italics, are those which afford “clear cases”, i.e. where the
probability nearly amounts to certainty.
At the end of the chapter a brief recapitulation will show the
occurrence of slavery among savages in the several parts of the globe.
When, in the following paragraphs, we say: “Such a tribe keeps slaves,”
or: “Such a tribe does not keep slaves,” this does not imply that the
same state of things still prevails. The tribe we speak of may have
died out; or, where slavery existed, it may have been abolished. When
we know that such a thing has taken place, we shall use the past tense.
But in many cases the only information we have got concerning some
tribe dates from many years back; and we do not know what has become of
this tribe in the meantime. Then, not to be obliged always to use such
tedious formulas as: “In Mr. X.’s time slavery existed among such a
tribe,” we shall simply say: “slavery exists.” Whether it still exists
is certainly of much interest to a philanthropist; but to us, for the
purposes we have set ourselves in the present volume, it is quite
immaterial.
§ 2. North America.
1. Eskimos.
Rink’s account applies especially to Western Greenland at the time of
the first European settlement, but may be taken as a general
description of the Eskimos [71]. According to him the family in the
restricted sense comprehended foster-children, widows, helpless persons
adopted as relatives and more or less treated as servants. They were
regarded as subordinate members of the family but never subjected to
any corporal punishment [72]. He then describes their social
organization, but makes no mention of slavery [73]. The question
remains whether these helpless persons are to be called slaves. This
does not very clearly appear; but, happily, we have more detailed
accounts of the several Eskimo tribes.
Crantz, in his description of the Greenlanders, gives many particulars
about their servants. Mothers of illegitimate children are despised;
sometimes a childless person buys her children. When a married couple
have no children or no full-grown children, the husband adopts one or
two orphan boys, who help him in his work and must provide the family
with the necessaries of life. The same is done by the wife with
daughters of others or with a widow. Although the adopted youths are
employed as servants, they are free from any compulsion, and are
regarded as the future lords of the house. The adopted maid-servant or
daughter can leave when she likes. A man will never beat his
man-servant, and were he to touch a maid-servant, he would incur great
disgrace [74]. We see that the condition of these servants is not
slavery. The boy is the future lord of the house, the girl may leave
when she pleases. Servants are only required to occupy the place that
in a normal household is taken up by the children. Labour is not asked
for. “If a man dies without leaving behind relatives, or full-grown
sons, nobody cares for the children, unless one wants a maid-servant.”
A widow must try to get a lodging, in which she does not always succeed
[75]. It is clear that to these Greenlanders slaves would not be of any
use. Nansen, too, makes no mention of slavery [76].
Boas, describing the Central Eskimos, states that among them too
children are adopted and regarded by the adoptive parents as their own
children; so “an elder adopted son has a preference over a younger son
born of the marriage,” viz. as to the right of inheritance. The
following statement still more directly bears on our subject:
“Sometimes men are adopted who may almost be considered servants.
Particularly bachelors without any relations, cripples who are not able
to provide for themselves, or men who have lost their sledges and dogs
are found in this position. They fulfil minor occupations, mend the
hunting-implements, fit out the sledges, feed the dogs, etc.; sometimes
however, they join the hunters. They follow the master of the house
when he removes from one place to another, make journeys in order to do
his commissions, and so on. The position, however, is a voluntary one,
and therefore these men are not less esteemed than the self-dependent
providers” [77]. The last sentence clearly shows that these servants
are not slaves. And as in no other place does Boas make any mention of
slaves, it is certain that slavery does not exist.
Ribbach gives some notes on the Eskimos of Labrador. There is nothing
on slavery in these notes. Describing their dwellings he says: “The
principal family has of course the best place; the servants, widows or
orphans, if there are such, have to content themselves with a place
near the door, where the cold is most severe” [78]. This agrees so much
with the foregoing descriptions, that we may suppose that the same
state of things prevails here.
As little mention is made of slavery in the descriptions of some other
Central Eskimo tribes, as the Frobisher Bay and Field Bay Eskimos [79],
the Kinipetu Eskimos [80], the Tchiglit Eskimos [81], the Eskimos of
the Ungava district [82].
Bancroft says of the Western Eskimos (or Eskimos of Alaska): “Slavery
in any form is unknown among them”. Elliott makes no mention of slavery
[83].
The describers of the Eskimos of Point Barrow, too, have not a word
about slavery. Adoption is practised to a great extent [84]. So the
same state of things probably prevails here as among the other Eskimos.
Some other tribes, belonging to the Eskimo group in the wider sense
[85], may also be treated here.
Amongst the Aleuts, according to Bancroft, the chief “is exempt from
work, is allowed a servant to row his boat, but in other respects
possesses no power” [86]. No more is added bearing on our subject.
Petroff, however, gives a detailed account of slavery among them. The
slaves were prisoners of war and their descendants. The master could
punish the slave with death, could sell and liberate him. Any attempt
to escape was severely punished. [87]. So the Aleuts had slaves.
The Athka Aleuts, according to Petroff, had also slaves [88].
Among the Koniagas or Southern Eskimos “slavery” says Bancroft “existed
to a limited extent.” This is affirmed by Holmberg [89].
2. Nootka group.
The Tlinkits formerly carried on slavery to a great extent. This is
proved by the detailed accounts of several writers [90].
The same applies to the Haidas [91].
Krause, in a short note, speaks of a female slave of a Tsimshian chief.
Niblack states that the Tsimshians acted as middlemen in the slave
trade. Boas describes the legends of the Tsimshians; in these legends
slaves and their occupations are frequently spoken of. Kane, in his
census of Indian tribes states that among the Tsimshians there were
slaves. [92]. Hence we may infer that slavery formerly existed among
them.
Boas, speaking of the Kwakiutl Indians, writes: “All the tribes of the
Pacific Coast are divided into a nobility, common people and slaves.
The last of these may be left out of consideration, as they do not form
part and parcel of the clan, but are captives made in war, or
purchases, and may change ownership as any other piece of property”
[93]. From this statement it appears that the Kwakiutl kept slaves.
Krause says of the Bilballas; “The chief possessed numerous wives and
many slaves; also were these Indians much given to slave-stealing and
the slave trade” [94]. As the Bilballas are reckoned by Bancroft among
the Haidas, amongst whom, according to him, “slavery is universal”, we
may suppose, that slaves were kept by them for their own use, not for
export only.
The many details, given in the works of Sproat and Brown, prove that
slavery existed among the Ahts of Vancouver Island [95].
The Nootkas, among whom, according to Bancroft, “slavery is practised
by all the tribes”, seem to be the same as the Ahts [96].
Bancroft informs us that “slaves are held by all the tribes” about
Puget Sound, and gives several details of their slave system [97].
Slavery also existed among the Fish Indians of British Columbia [98].
3. Tinneh group.
According to Kane, who was well acquainted with this group, “slavery in
its most cruel form exists among the Indians of the whole coast, from
California to Behring’s Straits, the stronger tribes making slaves of
all the others they can conquer. In the interior, where there is but
little warfare, slavery does not exist.” Niblack, however, states that
slavery existed among the interior Tinneh but they “had no hereditary
slaves, getting their supply from the coast” [99].
Of the Kutchins or Loucheux Jones says: “Slavery is practised among
them. Any poor creature who has no friends is made a slave” [100].
Hardisty gives more details; he tells us: “As a rule slavery does not
exist, but the orphan and the friendless are kept in servitude and
treated so harshly as to be really little better than slaves, until
such time as they get big enough and bold enough to assert their
independence, when they are allowed to shift for themselves” [101].
Such ill-treated children, who when full-grown are “allowed to shift
for themselves”, certainly are not slaves. Therefore we may safely
infer, that slavery did not exist here, the more so, as the other
authors [102] make no mention of slaves.
Mackenzie, describing the Chepewyans or Athabascas, states that “they
are constantly at war with the Eskimos, and kill as many of them as
they can, as it is a principle with them never to make prisoners”
[103]. Neither in his notes on the Chepewyans in general, nor in those
on some single tribes belonging to the Chepewyan family, as the Slave
and Dog-Rib Indians, Hare Indians, Beaver and Rocky-Mountain Indians,
does our informant make any mention of slavery. Nor is there a word to
be found about slaves in Russell’s and Bancroft’s accounts. Hearne
speaks of Northern and Southern Indians, divisions of the Chepewyans.
Among the Southern Indians a wife sometimes begs of her husband, who is
going to war, to bring a female slave with him for her to kill. The
chief Matonabbee was the son of a Northern Indian man and a Southern
Indian slave [104]. Hearne does not speak of male slaves. So we may
suppose that slavery proper does not exist.
On the Tacullies Bancroft remarks: “Slavery is common with them, all
who can afford it keeping slaves. They use them as beasts of burden,
and treat them most inhumanely” [105].
Of the Atnas on Copper River, a division of the Kenai, Bancroft says:
“Those who can afford it, keep slaves, buying them from the
Koltschanes” [106].
Mrs. Allison informs us that among the Similkameem Indians of British
Columbia “slaves taken in war were well treated, but always had one eye
blemished to mark them” [107].
4. Algonquin group.
The authors we have consulted on the Algonquins in general [108] make
no mention whatever of slaves.
Loskiel, describing the Lenape or Delawares, states that captured boys
and girls were received into their families, and employed as servants;
sometimes, however, they were sold to Europeans. If such prisoners
behaved well, they had nothing to complain of and were not overworked.
If they ran away and were recaptured, they were generally killed. But
the adult male prisoners, viz. those of them who were not killed, were
adopted by families, instead of those who had been killed in war or had
died in some other way, and from this moment were looked upon as
members of the tribe to which they now belonged [109]. As these men
became members of the tribe, it is not probable that the captive
children were made slaves; we may safely suppose that as long as they
were young they had to perform menial work, but when adult were on a
level with the members of the tribe. And as neither Loskiel, in any
other passage, nor Brinton refers to slavery, slaves were very probably
not to be found among the Delawares. [110].
In Le Jeune’s account of the Montagnais no mention is made of slaves.
Prisoners of war were cruelly put to death [111].
The Ojibways or Chippeways, according to Keating, killed the captive
warriors and old women; the marriageable women became slaves and were
very cruelly treated by the women of the victorious tribe; the children
were adopted and treated fairly well [112]. Jones’s account is somewhat
different. Most often all enemies were killed. Sometimes they made a
few prisoners, who were adopted by those who had lost a relative; then
the adopted prisoner became a relative or slave; if not adopted he was
burned alive. The relatives of a murderer sometimes paid large
indemnities to those of the victim; the murderer had then to work for
them in order to pay off the debt; he was reduced to a kind of
servitude [113]. In these accounts slaves and servitude are mentioned.
The servitude of the murderer very probably was not slavery. He had to
work: but it is not stated that he was made a slave, i.e. the property
of an individual person. The prisoners who became “relatives or slaves”
were adopted; therefore they were not slaves in the proper sense of the
word. And as for the female slaves Keating speaks of, we know that a
slave system without male slaves is not slavery proper. We may suppose,
that these female captives became an inferior kind of wives, to whom
the women of the tribe were unkind through a very natural jealousy.
Kohl, in his elaborate description of the Ojibways, makes no mention of
slavery. Their wars, he states, did not bring them any profit [114].
According to Carver, “all that are captivated by both parties, are
either put to death, adopted, or made slaves of.” “That part of the
prisoners, which are considered as slaves, are generally distributed
among the chiefs, who frequently make presents of some of them to the
European governors of the out-posts, or to the superintendents or
commissaries of Indian affairs. I have been informed that it was the
Jesuits and French missionaries that first occasioned the introduction
of these unhappy captives into the settlements and who by so doing
taught the Indians that they were valuable” [115]. From all the
foregoing we may infer that slavery was not an indigenous institution
among the Ojibways.
This inference is strengthened by what Tanner tells us of the Ottawas,
an Ojibway tribe. He was adopted by an Ottawa woman, but was not at
first on a level with the other children. The first few years she made
him do various kinds of manual labour: he had to cut wood, fetch water
and do other kinds of work, which were not generally required from
children of his age. Yet when grown-up he was on a level with the
Indians into whose tribe he was admitted, and married an Indian girl
[116].
Before passing to the Ottawas, Tanner had been a captive amongst the
Shahnees. He was very cruelly and ignominiously treated. Yet he was not
a slave, for he had been adopted by a married couple on the grave of
their youngest son, whose place he was to fill [117]. As this agrees
with the general customs of this group, in which there are no slaves,
we may suppose that here also slavery was unknown.
The Potawatomi also very probably had no slaves; for none of their
describers make any mention of slavery [118].
Amongst the Crees or Knisteneaux, according to McLean, adoption of
aliens was practised. A missionary, who had unintentionally killed a
Cree boy, offered himself in his stead, and was adopted. Kane speaks of
“the universal custom of Indian mothers eagerly seeking another child,
although it may be of an enemy, to replace one of her own, whom she may
have lost.... This child is always treated with as great, if not
greater, kindness than the rest.” The existence of this custom,
together with the fact that none of their describers makes mention of
slaves, renders it most probable that they did not keep slaves [119].
The Cheyennes very seldom captured adult males; when they did, they
generally put them to death. Children were adopted and treated like
their own children; women became the wives of their captors [120].
Slavery is not mentioned.
The Blackfeet nation consisted of four tribes: Piegans, Blackfeet,
Bloods, and Gros Ventres. We are told that once when at war against the
Crows, the Gros Ventres “rushed upon them and killed the whole number”
[121]. Grinnell, speaking of a Piegan chief, says: “He told his men not
to kill the captured women. They also captured ... many children. The
chief selected a wife for himself from among these women.” As a rule
they spare none of their enemies, killing alike men, women and
children. Sometimes they spare a captive for his bravery or from dread
of sorcery; he is then provided with food and dismissed to his home
[122]. These particulars being given, and no mention made of slavery by
any of our informants [123], we may safely infer that slavery did not
exist among these tribes.
Among the Abenakies, according to Maurault, prisoners of war were
either tortured to death or adopted into the tribe. Hence we may infer
that slavery, of which this writer makes no mention, was unknown among
them [124].
Hoffman, in his description of the Menomini Indians, referring to
Grignon, says that he does not know whether they had captive slaves;
but certainly they had purchased slaves. Our informant saw 6 male and 8
female slaves, most of whom had been enslaved when young. The female
slaves had been sold for 100 dollars each. The slaves were called
Pawnees, though some of them belonged to other tribes [125]. This
statement sufficiently proves, that in the time of this description the
Menomini had slaves. But in Hoffman’s time they were already very much
under the influence of European civilization. Whether at the more
remote period from which most of our information on the Algonquin
tribes dates slavery existed among them, we do not know.
5. Iroquois group.
The Iroquois had no slaves. This is stated by Morgan, who was
intimately acquainted with them. “Slavery”, says Morgan, “which in the
Upper Status of barbarism became the fate of the captive, was unknown
among tribes in the Lower Status in the aboriginal period.” And the
Iroquois are his typical instance of this “Lower Status”: “When
discovered the Iroquois were in the Lower Status of barbarism.”
Captives were either put to death or adopted [126]. Charlevoix states,
that “most of their captives are condemned to death, or to a state of
abject slavery in which they were never certain of their lives” [127].
But he gives no more particulars about this slave state, nor do our
other informants [128]. On the contrary, Lafitau informs us, that the
condition of prisoners, whose life is rather hard amongst the Algonquin
tribes, amongst the Iroquois and Hurons is very easy [129]. The
descriptions given by the authors of the fate of captives justify
Morgan’s statement: they were either killed or adopted [130]; and
though Lafitau calls the prisoners “esclaves”, their state, as he
describes it, is not at all like that of slaves. So we may safely
infer, that slavery did not exist among them, and that Charlevoix’s
above quoted statement is erroneous.
Among the Hurons or Wyandots, according to Powell, the captives were
either killed or adopted [131]. Lafitau’s and Charlevoix’s accounts of
the fate of captives among the Iroquois apply also to the Hurons. So it
is probable that they had no slaves.
6. Choctaw-Muskoghe group and neighbouring tribes.
Adair, speaking of the Katahba, Cherokee, Muskoghe, Choctaw and
Chickasaw Indians, states that they burned their prisoners. Only if a
prisoner succeeded in escaping to the house of the high-priest or some
other place of refuge, he was not burned; but what his fate was in such
a case we are not told. Young prisoners were not killed; but it is not
stated what became of them. If warriors had offended a neighbouring
tribe, and the chiefs wished to prevent war, they sacrificed either one
of the offenders belonging to a weak family or some unfortunate
prisoner, who had been incorporated into a declining tribe [132]. The
last sentence seems to show, that the custom of adopting prisoners
prevailed here too. At any rate, no mention is made of slaves.
Rochefort remarks that among the Apalaches (who, according to
Roosevelt, included the Cherokees, Chickasaws, Choctaws, Creeks and
Seminoles [133]) an enemy who surrendered during the fight, was taken
to the conqueror’s home with his wife and children, held in an
honourable freedom and treated with as much leniency and care as their
own servants [134]. Whether such persons were slaves does not clearly
appear from this statement. But Adair’s record tends to prove that
slavery did not exist, at least as far as the three former divisions of
the Apalaches are concerned.
Loskiel relates that a prisoner was once condemned to death by the
Cherokees. He had already been tied to the stake, when a Cherokee woman
arrived. She brought a basketful of commodities, which she deposed at
the feet of the man to whom the prisoner belonged, and bade him leave
this prisoner to her, a childless widow, who wanted to adopt him as a
son. This was done [135].
Bartram tells us that the Creeks formerly tortured their captives to
death [136].
The Seminoles, too, according to Roosevelt, used to burn their
prisoners [137].
From all the foregoing we may safely infer that slavery did not exist
in the Apalache group.
Natchez warriors delivered their captives to the relations of those who
had fallen in battle. The captives were always burned [138].
Bossu speaks of slaves among the Attakapas; but it does not appear from
his notes whether they made slaves for their own use or for sale abroad
[139].
Strachey describes the inhabitants of Virginia (several tribes). He
makes no mention of slaves. It is stated in his account, that children
and foreigners were sacrificed [140]; if there had been slaves, these
probably would in the first place have been the victims. One of the
objects of their wars was to capture women and children. Before the
commencement of the battle it was announced that the conquered “upon
their submission or comyng in, though two daies after, should live, but
their wives and childrene should be prize for the conquerors” [141].
Another ancient writer gives a different description of the fate of
their conquered enemies: “when they gain a victory, they spare neither
men, nor women, nor children, in order to render revenge impossible”
[142]. We cannot arrive at a definite conclusion here.
7. Dacotah group.
Owen Dorsey, describing the Dacotahs or Sioux, says: “There are no
slaves among the Siouan tribes” [143]. This assertion is strengthened
by the other authors [144] making no mention of slaves. Mrs. E. G.
Eastman tells us, that captive women and children were well treated and
restored on the conclusion of peace; but often they preferred to remain
with their new husbands and adopted parents. Copway and Neill also
speak of captive children being adopted [145].
Mathews states, that the Hidatsas generally adopt the children captured
in war, and treat them like their own. When grown-up they sometimes
return to their own tribe, but most often remain where they are [146].
Owen Dorsey informs us that among the Omahas “Slavery was not known”.
“Captives were not slain by the Omahas and Ponkas. When peace was
declared, the captives were sent home, if they wished to go. If not
they could remain where they were, and were treated as if they were
members of the tribe; but they were not adopted by any one” [147]. This
positive statement is not weakened by James’s assertion about captive
women becoming slaves [148].
Hunter states that among the Osage and Kansas Indians prisoners were
adopted into the conquering tribe, as husbands, wives and children
[149].
Of the Assiniboins we are told: “Chiefs never receive a gift,
considering it a degradation to accept anything but what their own
prowess or superior qualities of manhood acquire for them. Their hearts
are so good and strong that they scorn to take anything, and
self-denial and the power to resist temptation to luxury or easily
acquired property is a boast with them” [150]. Where even the chiefs
rely only on their own prowess, the existence of slavery is improbable.
Lewis and Clark, describing the Mandans, speak of prisoners living
among them. One of their chiefs had been taken prisoner and adopted by
them, “and he now enjoys great consideration among the tribe.” In
another place they tell us of a woman, who was sold as a slave to a
Mandan chief, who brought her up and afterwards married her [151]. The
evidence is not sufficient to decide, whether their prisoners were held
as slaves or were adopted into the tribe.
8. Oregon group.
Gibbs describes the tribes of Western Washington and North-Western
Oregon in general. The principal of these tribes are the Chinooks and
the tribes about Puget Sound. “Slavery,” says Gibbs, “is thoroughly
interwoven with the social policy of the Indians of the coast section
of Oregon and Washington Territory. East of the Cascades, though it
exists, it is not so common.... Southward it ceases, so far as my
observation has gone, with the Siskiou Mountains, which divide Oregon
from California” [152].
“By the Flatheads,” says Bancroft, “captives are generally killed by
their sufferings.” McLean, speaking of their wars, remarks: “When one
party lost more than the other, compensation was made in slaves or some
other kind of property” [153]. This statement does not, however, prove
that slavery existed among them; these “slaves” might be members of the
tribe, delivered up either to be killed or adopted. So we are left in
doubt as to the existence of slavery [154].
The Chinooks had slaves. Bancroft says: “Slavery, common to all the
coast families, is also practised by the Chinooks; ... the slaves are
obliged to perform all the drudgery for their masters, and their
children must remain in their parents’ condition, their round heads
serving as a distinguishing mark from freemen”. Kane also gives many
particulars about their slave system [155]. Equally Swan, describing
the Chinooks and neighbouring tribes, makes mention of slavery as
practised by them [156]. Lewis and Clark speak of a war, in which the
Killamucks took several prisoners. “These, as far as we could perceive,
were treated very well, and though nominally slaves, yet were adopted
into the families of their masters, and the young ones placed on the
same footing with the children of the purchaser”. This short note is
not sufficient for us to arrive at any definite conclusion, the less
so, as these writers themselves declare that they had not the
opportunity of making a close study of the tribes of the Pacific Coast
[157].
“The Shushwaps,” Bancroft remarks, “are said to have no slaves” [158].
Among the Okanagans, a division of the Shushwaps, according to Ross,
“there are but few slaves ... and these few are adopted as children,
and treated in all respects as members of the family” [159]. From this
it would seem that slavery proper does not exist.
Another division of the Shushwaps are the Atnahs on Fraser River (not
to be confused with the Atnas on Copper River). Mackenzie describes a
division of Indians, whom he does not mention under a separate name;
but they seem to be akin to the Atnahs. “The Atnah and Chin tribe,”
says Mackenzie, “as far as I can judge from the very little I saw of
that people, bear the nearest resemblance to them.” On these Indians he
remarks: “The strangers who live among these people are kept by them in
a state of awe and subjection” [160]. These strangers perhaps are
slaves; but the lack of further details prevents our arriving at any
positive conclusion.
Bancroft, after describing the manner in which some tribes put their
prisoners to death, adds: “Among the Sahaptins some survive and are
made slaves.... The Nez Percé system is a little less cruel in order to
save the life for future slavery” [161]. So the Sahaptins or Nez Percés
seem to have kept slaves, though we should wish for some more
particulars that would exclude all doubt.
Powers states, that female slaves are more numerous among the Shastika
than among the Californians [162]. This short note is the only evidence
we have been able to collect on the subject.
Kane makes mention of slavery as practised by some other tribes, about
which we could not collect further information (perhaps they are
subdivisions of the tribes already enumerated) viz. the Macaws, Babines
or Big-lips, Nasquallies and Kye-uses [163].
9. Californians.
Of the Northern Californians Bancroft tells us: “Although I find no
description of an actual system of slavery existing among them, yet
there is no doubt that they have slaves. Illegitimate children are the
life-slaves of some male relative of the mother, and upon them the
drudgery falls; they are only allowed to marry one in their own
station, and their sole hope of emancipation lies in a slow
accumulation of allicochick (shell-money), with which they can buy
their freedom” [164].
Powers gives some more particulars about two North Californian tribes.
Among the Karoks it is thought ignominious for a man to have connection
with a female slave. When the purchase-money for the wife has not been
paid, the children are looked upon as bastards; they live as outcasts
and marry none but persons of their own condition. Among the Hupas a
similar system prevails. A bastard is much despised; when old enough he
is taken from his mother and becomes the property of one of her male
relatives; he is not a slave, and yet has no share in the privileges of
the family. The produce of his labour belongs to his master; he may
marry only a person of his own condition, and is treated with ignominy.
What he wins by gaming is his own; when this amounts to 15 or 20
dollars, he is free. His children are of the same rank [165].
Although these bastards present a close resemblance to slaves, Powers
explicitly says that they are not slaves. Probably they are only a
despised class; for social status, among these tribes, depends largely
upon wealth. The chief “obtains his position from his wealth, and
usually manages to transmit his effects, and with them his honours, to
his posterity” [166]. “The ruling passion of the savage seems to be
love of wealth; having it he is respected, without it he is despised”
[167]. We may therefore suppose, that these bastards are despised
because penniless, and as soon as they possess 15 or 20 dollars,
respected for their wealth. And as we “find no description of an actual
system of slavery existing among them,” slavery probably does not exist
[168].
Gatschet, describing the Klamath Indians, makes mention of slaves. Once
they attacked the Pit River Indians, “killed the men, abducted the
women and children to their homes, or sold them into slavery at the
international bartering place at The Dalles.” According to Judge E.
Steele “they had been selling to whites and others Indian children of
their own and other tribes, and also squaws, the latter mainly for the
purpose of prostitution” [169]. Whether all slaves were sold abroad, or
any slaves were kept by them, does not appear. According to Bancroft
“Mr. Drew asserts that the Klamath children of slave parents, who, it
may be, prevent the profitable prostitution or sale of the mother, are
killed without compunction” [170]. Altogether the notes given by our
informants are insufficient for us to decide, whether slavery really
exists here.
On the Central Californians Bancroft remarks: “Slavery in any form is
rare, and hereditary bondage unknown.” “They do not appear to have kept
or sold prisoners as slaves, but to have either exchanged or killed
them” [171]. Here “rare” is perhaps a synonym for “absent”; at any rate
the existence of slavery here is doubtful.
As for the Southern Californians, according to Bancroft, “Hugo Reid
affirms of the natives of Los Angeles County that all prisoners, after
being tormented in the most cruel manner, are invariably put to
death.... Female prisoners are either sold or retained as slaves”
[172]. From Boscana’s narrative also it would appear, that there were
formerly slaves among them. “No quarter” he says “was ever given, and
consequently, no prisoners were ever made among the men, excepting of
such as were killed, or mortally wounded. These were immediately
decapitated.... The women and children taken prisoners, were either
disposed of by sale or detained by the captain as slaves.... The women
and children were never released,—ever remaining as slaves to their
enemies” [173]. But as no more details are added and as Boscana
describes a state of things which in his time had already ceased to
exist, we are not quite sure whether slaves were really kept by these
Indians.
The Nishinam, according to Powers, killed their male prisoners. Women,
after being flogged, were married; but sometimes they were also killed
[174]. So it seems that they had no slaves.
10. New Mexicans.
On the Shoshones and Utahs we are not very well informed. “An act which
passed the legislature of Utah in 1852 ... set forth that from time
immemorial slavery has been a customary traffic among the Indians.” But
we are not told who bought and who sold the slaves. It is only stated
that the Utahs sold their wives and children into slavery to the
Navajos [175]. It is not probable that the Shoshones and Utahs
themselves had slaves; for Bancroft states that prisoners of war were
killed, or in some cases dismissed unhurt, and Meline tells us, that
the Utes and Pueblos almost invariably sold their prisoners to the
Mexicans for slaves [176].
Bancroft, describing the Apache family (including Apaches, Comanches,
Navajos, Mojaves, etc.), says: “All the natives of this family hold
captives as slaves” [177]. But his account of the Comanches does not
quite agree with this general statement: “Prisoners belong to the
captors and the males are usually killed, but women are reserved and
become the wives or servants of their owners, while children of both
sexes are adopted into the tribe” [178]. According to Schoolcraft,
“prisoners of war belong to the captors and may be sold or released at
their will”. Captive children are adopted and afterwards are on a level
with the members of the tribe [179]. Gregg speaks of prisoners being
enslaved and ill-treated by the conquerors. But whether he means to say
that they remained slaves is not clear [180]. Cessac also speaks of
slaves. “If, among the captives of the deceased, one was particularly
loved by his master, he is sacrificed and buried with him.” “If a
favourite slave is sacrificed, it is to give the master a
fellow-traveller.” No more particulars about these slaves are given. In
their wars against the Mexicans they spare none but the children, whom
they treat as their own. “These captives forget their origin and later
on, when full-grown, become an integral part of the tribe” [181]. It is
not clear whether the slaves Cessac speaks of are identical with these
adopted children; he would not have used then the term “slave” in its
proper sense. Ten Kate, a careful observer, states that a number of
Mexican captives, altogether about fifty, live among the Comanches and
Kioways; they have almost entirely adopted the manners and customs of
the Indians and are regarded by the latter as members of their tribes
[182]. Another author tells us of a Mexican boy and girl, taken
prisoners by the Comanches. The boy was afterwards sold to the
Cherokees, the girl was married against her will by a Comanche. Another
captive Mexican woman was married to a Comanche chief [183]. Comparing
these several statements, we think it probable, though not quite
certain, that the Comanches did not keep slaves, but adopted their
prisoners.
Ten Kate’s above-quoted statement applies also to the Kioways.
Möllhausen met with two young Mexican prisoners among them, a man and a
woman. The young man declared, that he did not want to exchange his
present abode for another. The woman, though married to a chief and
mother of a young chief, expressed the wish to return to her own
country; but the chief would not let her and her child go [184]. We may
suppose, that the same state of things prevailed here as among the
Comanches.
Of the Apaches proper Bancroft (besides his above-quoted general
statement) says: “They treat their prisoners cruelly; scalping them, or
burning them at the stake; yet, ruled as they are by greediness, they
are always ready to exchange them for horses, blankets, beads, or other
property. When hotly pursued, they murder their male prisoners,
preserving only the females and children, and the captured cattle”
[185]. This is not very suggestive of slavery; and Bancroft’s general
statement about the Apache family appears rather strange. Schoolcraft
tells us: “These [the chiefs] can have any number of wives they choose;
but one only is the favourite. She is admitted to his confidence, and
superintends his household affairs; all the other wives are slaves to
her; next come his peons, or slaves, and his wife’s slaves, and the
servants of his concubines; then the young men or warriors, most
generally composed of the youth who have deserted other tribes on
account of crimes, and have fled to the protection of the chief of this
tribe.... Then come the herdsmen, and so on” [186]. These “slaves”,
ranking even above the warriors, very probably were not slaves in the
true sense of the word. According to Bourke, the Mexican captives,
living among the Apaches, were treated very kindly and often rose to
positions of great influence. It does not appear that these captives
were kept in a slave-like state. Fremont and Emory say: “Women, when
captured, are taken as wives by those who capture them, but they are
treated by the Indian wives of the capturers as slaves”. It is evident
that we have not to do here with slaves in the true sense. Taking into
consideration all the foregoing statements, we may suppose that slavery
did not exist among the Apaches [187].
In an above-quoted passage Bancroft states that the Utahs frequently
sell their wives and children as slaves to the Navajos. According to
Bent, the Navajos, “have in their possession many prisoners, men, women
and children, ... whom they hold and treat as slaves” [188]. But these
statements are not sufficient for us to go upon; these prisoners may be
adopted, or intended to be sold, as well as kept as slaves.
Miss Olive Oatman, who had been detained among the Mohaves or Mojaves,
says: “They invented modes and seemed to create necessities of labour
that they might gratify themselves by taxing us to the utmost, and even
took unwarranted delight in whipping us on beyond our strength. And all
their requests and exactions were couched in the most insulting and
taunting language and manner, as it then seemed, and as they had the
frankness soon to confess, to fume their hate against the race to whom
we belonged. Often under the frown and lash were we compelled to labour
for whole days upon an allowance amply sufficient to starve a common
dandy civilized idler” [189]. Though such prisoners are held in a
slave-like state, yet evidently the object of the masters in imposing
disagreeable work upon them is not to get useful labourers, but to
“fume their hate”. This account may warn us against attaching too much
value to statements about slavery among similar tribes, especially
where the “slaves” are whites. For such tribes as the Apaches, who are
always ready to exchange their prisoners for some property, will be
very apt to take prisoners, especially whites, who are likely to offer
a better ransom than Indians. In such cases the prisoners are not
killed; for by killing them the Indians would lose their ransom; but
they may safely, as in Miss Oatman’s case, be treated as slaves by way
of vengeance. But where these are the only slaves existing, a regular
slave-system does not prevail. As for the Mohaves, no more particulars
being given, we do not know whether they have slaves.
In Bancroft’s account of the Pueblo tribes no mention is made of
slavery. On the Pimas he informs us: “If prisoners are taken, the males
are crucified or otherwise cruelly put to death, and the women and
children sold as soon as possible” [190].
In Parker Winship’s article it is quoted from Mendoza’s letter, that
the Cibola Pueblo “keep those whom they capture in war as slaves”
[191]. This being the only reference made to slavery, we are unable to
decide whether it really existed.
Ten Kate in his detailed account of the Zuñi (a Pueblo tribe) makes no
mention of slavery; so they probably have no slaves [192].
Bancroft, describing the Lower Californians, has nothing about slavery.
Although their battles are described at some length, no mention is made
of captives; probably they took no prisoners [193]. We may therefore
safely infer, that slavery did not exist among them.
Result. Aleuts, [194]
Positive cases: Athka Aleuts,
Koniagas,
Tlinkits,
Haidas,
Tsimshian,
Kwakiutl,
Bilballas,
Ahts,
Tribes about Puget Sound,
Fish Indians,
Tacullies,
Atnas on Copper River,
Similkameem,
Chinooks,
Atnahs on Fraser River and allied tribes,
Sahaptins or Nez Percés,
Southern Californians,
Klamaths,
Navajos,
Cibola Pueblos.
Negative cases: Greenlanders,
Central Eskimos,
Eskimos of Labrador,
Frobisher Bay and Field Bay Eskimos,
Kinipetu Eskimos,
Tchiglit Eskimos,
Eskimos of the Ungava District,
Western Eskimos or Eskimos of Alaska,
Eskimos of Point Barrow,
Kutchins or Loucheux,
Chepewyans or Athabascas,
Lenape or Delawares,
Montagnais,
Ojibways or Chippeways,
Ottawas,
Shahnees,
Potawatomi,
Crees or Knisteneaux,
Cheyennes,
Blackfeet nation,
Abenakies,
Iroquois,
Hurons or Wyandots,
Katahbas,
Cherokees,
Muskoghe,
Choctaws,
Chickasaws,
Creeks,
Seminoles,
Natchez,
Dacotahs or Sioux,
Hidatsas,
Omahas,
Osages,
Kansas Indians,
Assiniboins,
Hupas,
Apaches,
Pimas,
Zuñi,
Lower Californians,
Okanagans,
Karoks,
Central Californians,
Nishinam,
Shoshones,
Utahs,
Comanches,
Kioways.
No conclusion: Menomini,
Attakapas,
Inhabitants of Virginia,
Mandans,
Flatheads,
Killamucks,
Shastika,
Mohaves.
We may add here a short account of Negro-slavery among the Indians.
According to the census of 1860, several Indian tribes had
Negro-slaves. Our informant enumerates the Choctaws, Cherokees, Creeks
and Chickasaws. Slavery was carried on to a great extent; some owners
had from 50 to 200 slaves [195]. We may remember that all these tribes
originally had no slaves.
The Creeks already in Bartram’s time (1789) had slaves. He tells us of
a chief who kept 15 Negroes; they were slaves until they married Indian
women, and then acquired the privileges of the tribe. Schoolcraft
informs us that “if an Indian should murder a Negro, the law is
satisfied with the value of the Negro being paid to the owner” [196].
The Seminoles also had Negro-slaves, according to Roosevelt and Gregg
[197]. But Maccauley is not quite certain about it. He observed a few
Negroes living with them. It had been said that they were slaves; but
our informant is not of that opinion [198]. Maccauley’s account,
however, dates from a later period than the other statements.
The Shahnees in Gregg’s time also kept a few Negro slaves [199].
But these facts do not represent phenomena of unadulterated savage
life. These Indian tribes had already undergone great changes by
contact with the whites. Moreover, the Negroes kept by them as slaves
were in a very peculiar condition, living in a foreign continent
amongst foreign races. So we are justified in omitting these cases from
our list of slave-keeping Indian tribes.
§ 3. Central and South America.
About the treatment of prisoners by the wild tribes of North Mexico
Bancroft remarks: “Seldom is sex or age spared, and when prisoners are
taken, they are handed over to the women for torture, who treat them
most inhumanly, heaping upon them every insult devisable, besides
searing their flesh with burning brands, and finally burning them at
the stake, or sacrificing them in some equally cruel manner. Many cook
and eat the flesh of their captives, reserving the bones as trophies”
[200]. These particulars given, and no mention being made of slaves,
slavery probably does not exist among them.
Among the wild tribes of Central Mexico “the heads of the slain were
placed on poles and paraded through their villages in token of victory,
the inhabitants meanwhile dancing round them. Young children were
sometimes spared, and reared to fight in the ranks of their conquerors,
and in order to brutalize their youthful minds and eradicate all
feelings of affection toward their own kindred, the youthful captives
were given to drink the brains and blood of their murdered parents”
[201]. Whether these children became slaves is not quite clear; we
should think not, as they were “reared to fight in the ranks of their
conquerors”; but this may also be the case with slaves [202]. The lack
of further particulars prevents our arriving at a positive conclusion.
Bancroft’s notes on the wild tribes of South Mexico are very scanty.
They sacrificed their prisoners. The Mayas had female slaves [203].
Bancroft informs us that “one principal object of war among the ancient
nations of Honduras was to make slaves; but the Mosquito Coast was free
from this scourge, according to all accounts.” “When prisoners were
taken they were usually held as slaves, after having the nose cut
off.... The coast people ... usually kill their prisoners.” Wickham,
who gives a detailed account of the Woolwa or Soumoo of the Mosquito
Coast, makes no mention of slavery [204]. So the inhabitants of
Honduras had slaves, whereas those of the Mosquito Coast had not.
Slavery, according to Bancroft, was in force among the inhabitants of
the Isthmus of Panama and Costa Rica, with the exception of the Caribs.
“The prisoner is the slave of the captor; he is branded on the face and
one of his front teeth knocked out. The Caribs however used to kill and
eat their prisoners”. Gabb, who gives several particulars about the
tribes of Costa Rica, makes no mention of slavery. According to
Pokalowsky, the Indians of Coctu in Costa Rica, when conquered by the
Spaniards in the 16th century, had slaves. “They cut off the heads of
their prisoners and preserve them as trophies; the boys and girls of
the enemies are enslaved or sacrificed to their gods. If a master dies,
his slaves are killed and buried with him; this custom prevails here to
a greater extent than in any other part of India” [205].
Bancroft’s statement about the Caribs of the Isthmus is confirmed by
the fact that Pinart, who has largely drawn upon ancient Spanish
literature, makes no mention of slavery [206].
Rochefort speaks of slavery existing among the Caribs of the Antilles.
They believed, that the bravest warriors of their nation after death
would live in happy islands, and have their enemies, the Arawaks, for
slaves, whereas the cowards would be the slaves of the Arawaks. In
their wars with the Spaniards they did not kill the Negro slaves, but
took them with them and made them work. Sometimes slaves were killed
after their master’s death, to serve him in the other world. Male
prisoners were killed and eaten after a few days. Captive women became
slaves; their children were reared with those of the Caribs. Female
prisoners were sometimes taken for wives; then the children were free,
but the mothers remained slaves. In the isle of Saint Vincent there
were in Rochefort’s time English boys and girls, captured when very
young; they had quite forgotten their parents, and would not even
return with them, so accustomed were they to the mode of life of the
Caribs, who treated them very kindly, just as if they were of their own
nation. De la Borde makes no mention of slaves [207]. It seems to us
very doubtful whether slavery really existed here. Rochefort’s
statement that captive children were reared with those of the
conquerors is more suggestive of adoption of captives than of slavery,
and the enslavement of Negroes by the Indians is something foreign to
the aboriginal state of things, as has been said before. So we cannot
arrive at a definite conclusion.
The Continental Caribs, according to Gumilla, killed all their
prisoners, except the young women and children, whom they sold [208].
So slavery probably did not exist among them.
Ling Roth, in his article on Hispaniola or Hayti (inhabited by
Arawaks), makes no mention of slavery; but this does not prove much, as
his sources of information (early Spanish literature) were very
incomplete. For instance, he has not been able to find anything bearing
on the division of labour between the sexes [209].
The several describers of the Indians of Guiana [210] make no mention
of slavery. The tribes most fully described are the Arawaks, Warraus,
Macusi and Roucouyennes. Martius however states that the Arawaks have
slaves, who work in their houses and on the fields [211]. So we are not
certain about the Arawaks; but we may safely suppose that among the
three other tribes slavery does not exist.
The Saliva of Columbia, according to Gumilla, made war in order to
acquire slaves to till their lands [212].
In Sievers’, Reclus’ and Simons’ descriptions of the Goajiro no mention
is made of slaves [213]. According to De Brettes, however, “slavery
exists; but the slave is a member of the family, though looked upon as
an inferior being that may be killed if he refuses to obey”. A few more
details are added about these slaves [214]. Sievers, reviewing De
Brettes’ articles, remarks that this author is generally not very
trustworthy, but that the ethnographical parts are the best of his
work. Speaking of a photograph of Goajiro slaves given by De Brettes,
be adds: “If there can be any question at all of slavery among them”
[215]. On the same page, however, he translates De Brettes’
ethnographical account of the Goajiro, in which it is stated that
slavery exists, without any commentary. Considering all this, we cannot
arrive at any accurate conclusion.
De Lery, speaking of the ancient Tupinambas, describes at considerable
length the fate of their captives, who were killed and eaten; even the
child of a captive and a woman of their own tribe was not allowed to
live. Though an expert hunter or fisher, and a woman well able to work,
were preserved somewhat longer than the rest, all were invariably
killed after a few months. Nowhere in De Lery’s book does it appear,
that they made slaves by capture or by any other means [216]. According
to another ancient writer, however, they kept prisoners as slaves. The
slaves were kindly treated, allowed to marry free women, but finally
killed and eaten. They had to catch fish and game and to bring it to
their master. Without the master’s consent they were not allowed to
work for others. If they tried to escape and were caught, they were
killed. A slave, who died a natural death, was not buried but thrown
away in the bush [217]. All this is very suggestive of slavery. But the
fact, that D’Evreux got his information through an interpreter,
prevents us from decidedly concluding, against the testimony of our
other informants, that the Tupinambas kept slaves.
Martius remarks about the Indians of Brazil in general: “Many of these
tribes keep slaves.... Captivity in war is the only cause by which one
loses his freedom, especially if a male; for the husband may sell his
wife and children; but this is of rare occurrence” [218].
The Apiacas (a group of the Central Tupis), according to the same
author, in their wars kill all adult prisoners, male and female, and
eat them. Children they take with them and rear them with their own;
they make them work in the plantations; but when about twelve or
fourteen years old, these children are killed and eaten [219]. Though
these children may be kept in a somewhat slave-like state, a tribe that
kills its slaves when full-grown is not properly to be called a
slave-keeping tribe.
The same author informs us, that the Mundrucus and Mauhés have slaves
[220].
Of the Miranhas we are told that they enslave their prisoners; but
usually these prisoners are intended to be sold to the whites. It does
not appear whether any of them are kept for the Miranhas’ own use
[221].
Keane, von Tschudi and Ehrenreich make no mention of slavery among the
Botocudos. According to Zu Wied “the conqueror persecutes the
vanquished, and but seldom makes captives, at least among the
Botocudos; but on the Belmonte there are said to be seen some who were
used as slaves for all kinds of work” [222]. We do not know what this
last second-hand information of Zu Wied’s is worth; but we are
justified in inferring that the Botocudos in general (except those on
Rio Belmonte) have no slaves.
Azara states that in his time (he travelled in South America from 1781
to 1801) the Guaycurû had nearly died out, only one man being left
[223]. But according to Boggiani Guaycurû is a general name for the
tribes that inhabit the Gran Chaco [224], so this statement of Azara’s
seems to apply to a small division of the Guaycurû only. Southey and
Martius give some particulars about the slave system of the Guaycurû
[225]; but Colini, who has taken great pains to ascertain the identity
of these tribes, quotes these descriptions as referring to the Mbayás.
Of the ancient Guaycurû he says: “In their combats they gave no quarter
to the adult males; but they spared the lives of the youths, whom they
educated after their customs and gave in marriage to their daughters,
so as to augment the number of their tribe. Full-grown women were sold
to the neighbouring nations, who made them slaves” [226]. The only
captives whom they kept among them, the youths, were not slaves; so
slavery probably did not exist among them.
Two tribes inhabiting the Gran Chaco and so belonging to the Guaycurû
in Boggiani’s sense, are described by Thouar. Of the Chiriguanos he
says: “The prisoners are the property of their captors and must serve
the mistress of the hut.” In his description of the Tobas he makes no
mention of slavery [227]. Thouar, however, does not seem to be very
well informed [228].
The Mbayás, according to Azara, in his time had two kinds of slaves,
one composed of the Guanás, the other of Indian and Spanish prisoners
of war. But the former were no real slave class. The Guanás “used to
repair in troops to the Mbayás, to obey and serve them and till their
lands without any payment. Hence the Mbayás always call them their
slaves. This slavery is indeed very mild, as the Guaná voluntarily
submits to it, and leaves off whenever he likes.” Such “slaves”, who
lead a tribal life and come and go when they like, certainly are not
slaves. The others however were real slaves. They procured the fuel,
cooked the food, took care of the horses and tilled the land. When
Azara once offered a present to a Mbayá, the latter would not take it
himself, but ordered his slaves to receive it for him. Even the poorest
Mbayá had three of four slaves. During the mourning-time women and
slaves were not allowed to speak or eat any meat. One place in Azara’s
book seems to show that they had no slaves: “They said they had
received a divine command to wage war against all nations, kill the
adult males and adopt the women and children, in order to augment their
number.” But where the recorded tradition and the description of the
actual state of things disagree, we hold that the latter is to be
accepted [229]. Colini refers to Azara and Martius, and then adds:
“Serra however asserts that among the Mbayás slavery proper (la
schiavitù vera e propria) did not exist; the slaves might rather be
called servants.” They fought together with the freemen and took part
in the public council, even when it decided upon war and peace. They
married free persons, but were themselves looked upon as slaves. On the
master’s death, the sons or next relations, according to the rules of
inheritance, became masters of the slaves; but these rights were only
nominal. The slaves gradually merged into the tribe. Yet it was always
considered degrading to be a descendant of a slave; those who had in
their ancestry none but members of the tribe were very proud of it.
Generally the best slave girls were married to their masters; the boys
of greatest promise were treated as sons, whereas the others were set
to do the ruder work [230]. This account, however, does not prove that
the captives were not slaves. Some of the boys only were treated as
sons; what were the rest if not slaves? And even slaves may to a
certain degree be treated as sons. The slaves gradually coalesced with
the tribe (though not entirely); but we are told that this change took
place “through personal merits and intermarriage.” This shows that all
captives were not on a level with the freemen; probably it was only the
most deserving prisoners, and the offspring of slaves and freemen, who
attended the public council and were on an equal footing with the main
body of tribesmen. Slaves may be kindly treated and yet be slaves. Our
opinion is, that we have here a schiavitù vera e propria; the more so,
as the description given by Azara leads to the same conclusion.
The present Caduvei, according to Boggiani, are the same people as the
ancient Mbayás. Very probably he is right here. Yet we have seen how
much confusion there is in the application of the terms Guaycurû and
Mbayás; so we are a little sceptical. Moreover, there is a great lapse
of time between the early descriptions of the Mbayás and Boggiani’s
travels, and during that time their state of culture has greatly
changed; from nomadic hunters they have in the 19th century become
settled agriculturists [231]. So we are justified in treating them
separately. The Caduvei keep slaves. The slaves are well treated, but
looked upon as an inferior race. The ruder kinds of work, and the
tilling of the soil, fall to their share. As a rule they are kindly
treated, without being allowed to forget their duties. The Caduvei
exchange the slaves among them for horses, cattle and various
commodities [232].
Pohl states, that the Canoeiros had captured a young man and treated
him well [233]. Nothing more being added, we cannot make out whether
slavery exists.
Of the tribes of Central Brasil, visited by Von den Steinen, the
principal are the Bakaïri, Paressi, Bororo, Suya and Yuruna. In his
description of the Bakaïri, Paressi and Bororo he makes no mention of
slavery. If it existed, this careful observer would certainly have
mentioned it. Neither is a word about slaves to be found in Hensel’s
description of the Coroados, who are often identified with the Bororo
[234].
Among the Suya Von den Steinen observed Indians of other tribes, who
were kept as slaves. The presents, which the author gave to one of
these slaves, had to be delivered to his master [235].
The same writer speaks of captives residing among the Yuruna; but his
short remark on this subject cannot lead us to a safe conclusion as to
the existence of slavery among them [236].
The Karayas on Rio Araguaya keep captive women in a somewhat slave-like
state. Prisoners of war, adopted into the tribe, sometimes are made
chiefs if they have distinguished themselves [237]. This is not very
suggestive of slavery; but the details given are not sufficient for us
to arrive at a clear conclusion.
On the Záparos we get this scanty information. They are always at war,
killing many of the men, and stealing the women, children and chattels
of the enemies, the children either for use as servants or for sale. A
boy or girl stolen by them is commonly sold to traders [238].
Apparently the author himself is in doubt, whether any of these
captives are kept as slaves.
Some savage tribes of Peru are treated of by Ordinaire. In his account
of the Campas or Antis there is nothing bearing on slavery. He states
that he met with a Lorenzo child living among the Campas; but it is not
clear whether this was a slave; and the rest of his ample record makes
the existence of slavery rather improbable [239].
About the Conibos and kindred tribes the same writer remarks, that
among their wives there are some slaves captured from neighbouring
tribes. But as he states, that all the fatiguing work is incumbent on
women, it would seem, that there are no male slaves and therefore no
slavery proper. Prisoners of war are killed at their feasts [240]. From
a description of about a hundred years ago we learn, that these tribes
kept prisoners as slaves. Several of these slaves were observed among
the Panos; the masters treated them with as much affection as their own
children and married them to their daughters. The conquerors married
the captive women in order to augment the number of their tribe [241].
The details given are not sufficient to decide, whether the prisoners
merged into the tribe or constituted a slave class.
Smyth and Lowe, speaking of the Sencis of Peru, remark: “They give no
quarter, and take no prisoners in the battle.... The women and children
are taken for slaves, and if there are any in infancy, or much advanced
in age, they are killed as useless.” [242]. Whether the fate of the
captive women and children was really slavery, is not clear from this
short note.
The Guanas probably had no slaves. We are told that the head of the
tribe “is obliged to work for his subsistence, as nobody serves him”
[243].
As little does it appear that the Yuracarés and Mocéténès are
slave-keeping tribes. The former live in families, and even in these
subordination is unknown. The latter are not warlike [244]. It is not,
however, a first-rate authority to whom we owe these particulars.
The Chiquitos, according to the same author, in their wild state
attacked their neighbours, and made prisoners, to whom they gave their
own daughters as wives [245]. Whether these prisoners were slaves is
not clear; we should rather think not.
The Chapacuras were very peaceable, and but seldom attacked their
neighbours [246]. Whether slavery existed among them we are not told.
The Moxos, in D’Orbigny’s time, had already long been civilized and
christianized. What their political institutions were in their former
wild state we do not know [247].
Muratori, speaking of the Indians of Paraguay and some neighbouring
districts, states that they kill and eat their prisoners of war. Some
tribes, however, he tells us, are more peaceful and take all pains to
induce their prisoners to reside among them. Children of prisoners are
sold by some of the tribes to other nations [248]. From all this it
would seem that slavery did not exist. But we shall presently see, that
the other information we have got does not entirely agree with
Muratori’s general statement.
The principal native tribe of Paraguay were the Abipones, described at
large by Dobrizhoffer. The prisoners they made were very leniently
treated. They gave them the best of their food, and tended them when
ill. The prisoners had daily opportunity to run away, but they did not
desire it, for they were very contented. They were never beaten, nor
even reproved. They hunted and fought together with the Abipones. And
yet they were not merged into the nation of the Abipones; for the
Abipone women generally would marry only a man of their own people; and
the men never married female prisoners, nor had they any connection
with them. It appears that every captive was assigned to an individual
master. So we have here to deal with the fact, that one man is the
property of another beyond the limits of the family proper, i.e.
slavery, though slavery of an extraordinarily mild character [249].
The Payaguas in their wars killed all adult men, and preserved the
women and children. What became of the latter does not appear. The
Payaguas were absolutely free and did not recognize any difference of
classes. From this it is probable, though not certain, that they had no
slaves [250].
The Enimagas, according to Azara, were hunters; agriculture among them
was incumbent on slaves. No further particulars are given about these
slaves. The Enimagas are said formerly to have held the Mbayas in a
kind of slavery; but such a subjection of a tribe as a whole is not
slavery in the true sense; slavery is subjection of individuals. If the
“slaves” the Enimagas had in Azara’s time were of the same description,
they were not slaves [251]. So we cannot arrive here at any definite
conclusion.
D’Orbigny remarks, that the Charruas when at war killed all the men,
and preserved the women and children, whom they made concubines and
slaves [252]. As Azara’s statement is quite different, we shall
translate it literally: “All are equal; nobody serves another; or it
must be some old woman who, having no means of subsistence, joins some
family, or assists at the burying of the dead”. In their wars they kill
all they meet, preserving none but the women and the children under
twelve years of age. They take their prisoners along with them, and let
them enjoy their freedom; most of them marry there and get so much
accustomed to this mode of life, that they but rarely wish to return to
their own people [253]. Although such kind treatment is compatible with
slavery, Azara’s statement about nobody serving another is positive
enough to exclude all notion of slavery. Heusser and Claraz, who seem
to be well informed, make no mention of slavery [254]. This fact,
together with the above-quoted positive statement of Azara, who on the
whole seems to be better informed than D’Orbigny [255], and who also
treats this matter much more fully, leads us to conclude that they had
no slaves. The lapse of time between Azara’s and D’Orbigny’s travels
(from about 30 to 50 years) might account for the difference of their
descriptions; but it seems to us that so much importance need not be
attached to the latter’s short remark.
The Minuanes, according to Azara, resemble the Charruas in their mode
of warfare, and in acknowledging no social classes [256]. We may
therefore suppose them to have had no slaves.
The Patagons or Tehuelches, according to Musters and Falkner, have
slaves. The same is stated by Letourneau on the authority of Guimard
[257]. And as these authors not only assert that there are slaves, but
also give some particulars about them, we may be sure that slavery
really exists.
About the Puelches we get some information from Azara, who calls them
Pampas. “In war they kill all adult males, preserving none but the
women and young boys; these they take home and treat in the same manner
as the Charruas do. It is true, that they impose some kinds of work
upon them, and use them as slaves or servants until they marry; but
then they are as free as the others” [258]. Such men, who as soon as
they marry are on a level with the members of the tribe, certainly are
not slaves.
The Araucanians, according to D’Orbigny, kill their male enemies and
enslave the women and children [259]. Molina says: “The prisoners of
war, as is the custom of all semibarbarous nations, become tavaichi,
i.e. slaves, until they are exchanged or ransomed” [260]. In his
detailed description of Araucanian social life he makes no further
mention of slaves, nor do the other authors [261]. So we may suppose
that the prisoners are always exchanged or ransomed, and that slavery
is unknown among them.
About the Fuegians we have this positive statement of Hyades and
Déniker: “They have no chiefs, no labourers who work for pay, and no
slaves” [262]. This statement, already valuable in itself, is
corroborated by the fact, that none of the other authors we have
consulted on the subject make any mention of slavery [263].
Result. Positive Ancient nations of Honduras,
cases: Inhabitants of Panama and Costa Rica,
Mundrucus,
Mauhés,
Mbayas,
Caduvei,
Suya,
Abipones,
Tehuelches,
Arawaks,
Saliva,
Goajiro,
Tupinambas,
Chiriguanos,
Yuruna,
Sencis,
Enimagas.
Negative cases: Wild tribes of North Mexico,
Natives of the Mosquito Coast,
Caribs of the Isthmus,
Warraus,
Macusi,
Roucouyennes,
Apiacas,
Botocudos,
Bakairi,
Paressi,
Bororo,
Guanas,
Charruas,
Minuanes,
Puelches,
Araucanians,
Fuegians,
Wild tribes of Central Mexico,
Continental Caribs,
Guaycurû,
Tobas,
Karayas,
Zaparos,
Campas,
Conibos,
Yuracarès,
Mocéténès,
Chiquitos,
Chapacuras,
Payaguas.
No conclusion: Caribs of the Antilles,
Wild tribes of South Mexico,
Natives of Hispaniola,
Miranhas,
Canoeiros,
Moxos.
§ 4. Australia.
The Australian tribes, as they are marked on the map in Mr. Thomas’s
book on the “Natives of Australia”, are the following:
In Western Australia: Yerkla-mining,
In South Australia: Eucla,
Arunta,
Urabunna,
Dieri,
Narrinyeri,
Booandik,
Wotjoballak,
In South Australia (N. Territory): Mara,
Anula,
Worgaia,
Warramunga,
Kaitish,
In Victoria: Wolgai,
Wurinyeri,
Kurnai,
Bangerang,
In N. S. Wales: Tongaranka,
Euahlayi,
Kamilaroi,
Wiimbaio,
Geawegal,
Yuin,
Murring,
In Queensland: Otati,
Pitta Pitta,
Kiabara,
Kabi,
Turribul.
The extinct Tasmanians also belonged to the Australian group.
Nowhere in all the books and articles we have consulted on the
Australian tribes is any mention made of slaves [264]. Now it is true
that, whereas on many of these tribes we are well informed, there are
others on which we have little information or no information at all.
But here our group-argument may be brought to bear. We have to deal
here with an isolated district, inhabited by tribes living in similar
conditions and physically and psychically resembling each other, so
much so, that some ethnographers [265] and theorists [266] speak of the
Australians as if they were one people, as if all Australians were in
exactly the same state of culture. This really is erroneous: there are
many differences in several respects between the Australian tribes
[267]. But that they can be treated in this manner, proves that the
differences are not so very great; it is unimaginable, that Grosse
would have spoken in the same way of the American Indians or the
Negroes. What we mean to say now is this: our information on some
Australian tribes is not sufficient to prove that just in that district
which each particular account relates to, slavery does not exist. But
then the several accounts strengthen each other; for taking into
consideration the great likeness existing between the Australian
tribes, it is a priori unlikely that some of these tribes would have
and others would not have slaves. Moreover, if in any part of Australia
slavery existed, our informants probably would have found this too
remarkable a fact to leave it unnoticed.
As little mention is made of slaves by those ethnographers who speak of
the Australians in general [268]. According to Brough Smyth, “each of
the principal men and priests seeks for his food, and ministers to his
own wants (with such help as he gets from his wives); and has no one
whom he can call servant” [269]. Gerland states that the Australians
make no captives, except women sometimes [270].
All this makes it sufficiently clear that the Australians have no
slaves [271]. The 30 tribes we have enumerated here may therefore rank
as clear cases of savage tribes without slaves.
§ 5. Melanesia.
Rochas, describing the New Caledonians, writes: “Slavery does not exist
in the New Caledonian society” [272]. Lambert tells us that the only
division into social classes is that between the chief and his parents
and the common people. Captive children are adopted and enjoy all the
privileges of their adoptive parents’ own children [273]. Brainne
informs us, that there are two social classes: chiefs of various kinds,
and serfs; the latter term probably means the common people. De Vaux
and Legrand make no mention whatever of slaves [274]. According to
Glaumont there are four classes, the fourth of which is composed of
slaves (en-dji-dio) [275]. But no further particulars are given about
these slaves in his rather long article. Taking all this in
consideration, we are justified in concluding that slavery does not
exist.
On the state of things in the Solomon Islands we are well informed by
several authors. Elton says: “If a man is married and has got a little
money and a few slaves, he calls himself a chief, but does not exercise
any power over his slaves; they do pretty well as they like” [276].
Guppy gives this general description of slavery in the Solomon Islands:
“In the larger islands the bush-tribes and the coast-natives wage an
unceasing warfare, in which the latter are usually the aggressors and
the victors—the bushmen captured during these raids either affording
materials for the cannibal feast or being detained in servitude by
their captors. But there prevails in the group a recognized system of
slave-traffic, in which a human being becomes a marketable
commodity—the equivalent being represented in goods either of native or
of foreign manufacture. This custom, which came under the notice of
Surville’s expedition, during their visit to Port Praslin in Isabel, in
1769, obtains under the same conditions at the present time. These
natives were in the habit of making voyages of ten and twelve days’
duration with the object of exchanging men for “fine cloths covered
with designs”, articles which were manufactured by a race of people
much fairer than their own, who were in all probability the inhabitants
of Ontong Java. The servitude to which the victims of this traffic are
doomed is not usually an arduous one. But there is one grave
contingency attached to his thraldom which must be always before the
mind of the captive, however lightly his chains of service may lie upon
him. When a head is required to satisfy the offended honour of a
neighbouring chief, or when a life has to be sacrificed on the
completion of a tambu house or at the launching of a new war-canoe, the
victim chosen is usually the man who is not a free-born native of the
village. He may have been bought as a child and have lived amongst them
from his boyhood up, a slave only in name, and enjoying all the rights
of his fellow natives. But no feelings of compassion can save him from
his doom; and the only consideration which he receives at the hands of
those with whom he may have lived on terms of equality for many years
is to be found in the circumstance that he gets no warning of his fate”
[277].
The notes of the other ethnographers relate to single parts of this
group. Verguet states that in St. Christoval (in the southeastern part
of the group) the slaves “are treated as adopted children; the slave
cultivates the master’s fields together with the master himself; he
helps him to prepare the food and accompanies him when hunting or
fighting; he shares in his pleasures as well as in his work; when the
tribe celebrates a feast, the slaves are not excluded from it. When
full-grown, they marry into their master’s tribe, erect their houses
next to their master’s house or share the latter. Sometimes the master
does not disdain to marry his slave” [278]. Codrington, whose notes
mainly relate to the same parts of the group, remarks: “There is no
such thing as slavery properly so called. In head-hunting expeditions
prisoners are made for the sake of their heads, to be used when
occasion requires, and such persons live with their captors in a
condition very different from that of freedom, but they are not taken
or maintained for the purposes of service. In the same islands when a
successful attack and massacre enriches the victors with many heads,
they spare and carry off children, whom they bring up among their own
people. Such a seka will certainly be killed for a head or for a
sacrifice before any native member of the community; but he lives as an
adopted member, shares the work, pleasure and dangers of those with
whom he dwells, and often becomes a leading personage among them. A
refugee or a castaway is not a slave but a guest; his life is naturally
much less valued than that of a man of the place, and useful services
are expected from him, while he mixes freely and on equal terms with
the common people” [279]. Guppy says: “I will turn for a moment to the
subject of slavery in the eastern islands of the group. In Ugi it is
the practice of infanticide which has given rise to a slave-commerce
regularly conducted with the natives of the interior of St. Christoval.
Three-fourths of the men of this island were originally bought as
youths to supply the place of the natural offspring killed in infancy.
But such natives when they attain manhood virtually acquire their
independence, and their original purchaser has but little control over
them.... Connected in the manner above shown with the subject of
slavery is the practice of cannibalism. The completion of a new
tambu-house is frequently celebrated among the St. Christoval natives
by a cannibal feast. Residents in that part of the group tell me that
if the victim is not procured in a raid amongst the neighbouring tribes
of the interior, some man is usually selected from those men in the
village who were originally purchased by the chief. The doomed man is
not enlightened as to the fate which awaits him, and may perhaps have
been engaged in the erection of the very building at the completion of
which his life is forfeited”. On the neighbouring small island of Santa
Anna the natives are reputed to abstain from human flesh; but “the
war-chief has acquired a considerable fortune, in a native’s point of
view, by following the profitable calling of purveyor of human flesh to
the man-eaters of the adjacent coasts of St. Christoval.... I am told
that there is a faint gleam of tender feeling shown in the case of a
man who, by long residence in the village, has almost come to be looked
upon as one of themselves. He is allowed to remain in ignorance of the
dreaded moment until the last; and, perhaps, he may be standing on the
beach assisting in the launching of the very canoe in which he is
destined to take his final journey, when suddenly he is laid hold of,
and in a few moments more he is being ferried across to the man-eaters
of the opposite coast” [280].
From the foregoing statements it appears that the so-called slaves are
kept either for cannibal purposes or to strengthen the number of the
tribe into which they are incorporated. Hence we may safely infer, in
accordance with Codrington, that slavery proper does not exist in the
south-eastern part of the group.
Somerville, describing the New Georgia group (in the centre of the
Solomon Islands), remarks: “Slavery certainly exists, but it is in so
mild a form that it is scarcely possible to detect master from man. I
have never been able to elicit any facts concerning its introduction,
propagation or limits, or even if (in so many words) it existed at
all.” “I was informed that slaves are kept chiefly for their heads,
which are demanded whenever any occasion necessitates them, such as the
death of the owner” [281]. Ribbe, too, speaks of slaves in the New
Georgia group. On the isle of Wella-La-Wella the household commonly
consists of the man with his wives, slaves and unmarried daughters. On
Rubiana the master treats his slaves like his equals, but may at any
time kill and eat them [282]. The following statement of Woodford’s
also relates to New Georgia: “On their expeditions it is not heads
alone that they bring back, but slaves as well. These are either bought
or captured alive, and it is from among these slaves that the victims
are selected in case a head is required. They appear to be well treated
in other ways, and to have as much liberty as they please; in fact,
seem to be on a perfect footing of equality and familiarity with their
captors. But any day a head may be wanted to celebrate the completion
of a new canoe or other work, and one of the luckless slaves is
unexpectedly called upon to furnish it. Mercifully for the victim, the
blow falls from behind and unexpectedly. These slaves are often
employed as guides to lead a party of head-hunters unexpectedly upon
the mountain villages on Ysabel, whence they originally came” [283].
These details do not make it quite clear whether the condition of the
“slaves” in the New Georgia group is not yet slavery or slavery in an
incipient stage. We should rather think the latter; but we are not
certain about it.
Parkinson’s description of the north-western part of the group applies
mainly to the isles of Bouka and Bougainville. In Bougainville
individuals belonging to the inland tribes are sometimes enslaved by
the coast people. Male slaves are not allowed to marry. (This has
probably reference to both Bouka and Bougainville). At the death of a
person of rank a slave was formerly, and in some parts still is killed
[284]. Ribbe also states that in Bougainville slavery exists, though in
a mild form, most of the slaves being children captured in war. In the
Shortland Islands (to the south of Bougainville) slaves are prisoners
of war, most of them being imported from Bougainville. They are well
treated and not seldom attain power and consideration and even can
marry the chiefs relations. Those slaves, however, who are not so
fortunate, run the risk of being sacrificed at funeral feasts, at the
building of a house or the launching of a canoe. On the fields the
roughest work falls to the share of the slaves [285]. Guppy, speaking
of the small isle of Treasury (near Bougainville), says: “There are in
Treasury several men and women who, originally bought as slaves from
the people of Bouka and Bougainville, now enjoy apparently the same
privileges and freedom of action as their fellow islanders. It is
sometimes not a matter of much difficulty to single out the slaves
amongst a crowd of natives. On one occasion I engaged a canoe of
Faromen to take me to a distant part of their island; and very soon
after we started I became aware from the cowed and sullen condition of
one of the crew that he was a slave. On inquiry I learned that this man
had been captured when a boy in the island of Bougainville, and I was
informed that if he was to return to his native place—a bush-village
named Kiata—he would undoubtedly be killed. Although in fact a slave, I
concluded from the bearing of the other men towards him that his
bondage was not a very hard one; and he evidently appeared to enjoy
most of the rights of a native of the common class. Sukai, however, for
such was his name, had to make himself generally useful in the course
of the day; and when at the close of the excursion we were seated
inside the house of a man who provided us with a meal of boiled taro,
sweet potatoes, and bananas, he was served with his repast on the beach
outside” [286].
We see that the difference between slaves and free men is more marked
here than in the other parts of the Solomon group. Neither with regard
to their work nor with regard to their social position are the slaves
on a footing of equality with the free men. The conclusion is that in
the north-western part of the group slavery certainly exists.
In the Nissan Islands, lying between the Solomon group and the Bismarck
Archipelago, there are no slaves. Prisoners of war are killed and eaten
[287].
Several describers of the Fijians speak of slaves, but it is not easy
to say what they mean by the term. According to Wilkes, there are five
social classes, viz. kings, chiefs, warriors, landholders and slaves
(kai-si). “The last have nominally little influence; but in this group,
as in other countries, the mere force of numbers is sufficient to
counterbalance or overcome the force of the prescriptive rights of the
higher and less numerous classes. This has been the case at Amban,
where the people at no distant period rose against and drove out their
kings.” In another place the same writer speaks of “the kai-si or
common people.” [288]. We see that “slaves,” “people” and “common
people” are synonymous terms with him. Williams equally states that the
lowest class was composed of slaves, but gives no particulars about the
condition of these slaves. Prisoners of war were barbarously tortured
[289]. In a legend told by Seemann mention is made of a woman who had
female slaves. But in another place the distinction into social classes
is drawn between the chiefs and gentry and the common people [290].
Waterhouse does not speak of slaves [291]. In Jackson’s narrative,
published by Erskine, we read: “The lowest condition of all, the
consequence of some late total defeat, or conquest, is absolute
slavery, the districts where such a state exists being called vanua
kaisis or slave lands”. “I visited nearly all the vanua kaisis ... the
meaning of vanua kaisi being slave-places, the inhabitants of which are
supposed to supply Tanoa’s and Thakombau’s [two chiefs’] houses with
daily food, and build the houses and keep them in repair; ... they also
pay tribute periodically.” Evidently we have to deal here with
subjection of districts as such, not with enslavement of individuals.
In another place of this narrative, kaisi is translated with “slave or
poor man”. But the same writer gives some details suggestive of real
slavery. An enemy, whose life I had saved, he says, “called and
considered himself my kaisi (slave)”. “Mara’s mother was saved when
Tanoa conquered Lakemba, and was considered as a prisoner, and
consequently as a slave” [292].
Though some of the details given seem to prove that there were formerly
not only people of the lowest class and inhabitants of conquered
districts, but also slaves in the proper sense, we are not quite
certain about it.
Codrington’s above quoted statement, that “there is no such thing as
slavery properly so called”, applies also to a part of the New
Hebrides. Meinicke, after speaking of the chiefs, adds: “The rest of
the people are free men” [293]. Our other informants [294] making no
mention of slavery, we may safely infer that it does not exist here.
The Bismarck Archipelago consists of Neu Pommern, Neu Mecklenburg and a
number of smaller islands. Danks gives an elaborate account of marriage
customs in this group, in which there is not a word to be found about
slaves. Pfeil’s description also applies to the whole archipelago.
According to him, debtors have to work for their creditors, but their
condition is not that of slaves. Slavery, in the sense we attach to it,
does not exist. Sale of full-grown people, as well as unrewarded
labour, is unknown. Children are bought, but only for the purpose of
adoption, and are not sold again. Boys, who run away to some other
tribe, are equally adopted. [295]
The information we have got about the separate islands does not wholly
agree with these general statements.
The best known part of Neu Pommern is the Gazelle Peninsula. According
to Hahl, slavery, in the country about Blanche Bay, is known by name,
but practically absent. On the north coast, however, it is general. The
Baining (an inland tribe) are kidnapped or captured in battle and sold
by the coast people, who prefer taking children. The slaves are not
allowed to marry; they have to perform female labour, especially to
cultivate the plantations, and always run the risk of being killed and
eaten at feasts. In the districts surrounding Mount Varzin some Taulil
(another inland tribe) are kept as slaves. Parkinson, in his splendid
work on the German possessions in the South Sea, also speaks of slaves.
Great numbers of Baining were formerly enslaved by the coast people,
who sold them to remote parts of the peninsula. The Taulil also were
victims of the slave raids; men and youths were killed, women and
children were made captives [296].
It is remarkable that Parkinson, describing the social organisation of
the several tribes, does not make any mention of a slave class or of
the work imposed on slaves. The social signification of slavery
therefore seems to be small. Yet the foregoing statements must lead to
the conclusion that slavery exists, at least in some parts of the
peninsula.
In his description of Neu Mecklenburg and neighbouring islands,
Parkinson also makes mention of slaves. On the isle of Lir or Lihir,
the chief, when about to give a cannibal repast, gathers around him his
whole tribe, inclusive of the slaves, who have been captured in war.
And on St. John’s Island slaves are said formerly to have been boiled
in the hot springs. These short notes do not seem to prove sufficiently
the existence of slavery, the less so, as Romilly, in his account of
Neu Mecklenburg, has not a word about slaves [297].
Speaking of the tribes inhabiting the Admiralty Islands, Parkinson
states that among the Usiai prisoners of war are allowed to buy their
liberty; if unable to do so, they are made slaves. Further particulars
are not given. Among the Moanus the retinue of the chief consists of
his nearest relations, further of servants or soldiers whom he has
attached to his person by payment of shell-money, and finally of youths
and boys captured in battle. The servants fight and work for their
lord, but enjoy a rather independent position. We are not sure whether
we have to deal here with slavery or with a voluntary submission. So
the existence of slavery in the Admiralty group, though probable in
some degree, does not seem to us to be proved as yet. As little is a
positive conclusion warranted by Parkinson’s statement, that in the
group of small islands to the west of the Admiralty group wars between
the separate islands were formerly frequent, owing to the slave
stealing propensities of the natives [298].
In the islands of Torres Straits, according to Meinicke, there is no
government and no social division, except the division into tribes.
Haddon, describing the western tribes of Torres Straits, says: “I never
heard of slavery being practised” [299]. So slavery is probably unknown
here.
The rest of this paragraph will be taken up with a survey of New Guinea
and in the first place of the Dutch part of the island.
Bink and Krieger both state the Papuans of Humboldt Bay have no slaves,
neither are slaves mentioned in Koning’s account [300].
In the district of Tabi some men were observed, who had their hair cut
short; according to a Dorey interpreter, they were slaves [301]. This
short note is not, however, sufficient to go upon.
The inhabitants of Seroei are much given to the kidnapping of slaves,
whom they sell. Whether they keep any slaves themselves, does not
appear [302].
The Papuans near Lake Sentani keep neither slaves nor pawns [303].
The natives of Ansus purchase many slaves, and sell slaves to Ternate
traders [304]. In this case, too, we are not told, whether all the
purchased slaves are sold abroad, or any of them are kept by the
natives.
The aborigines of Windessi in their raids make prisoners “to whom they
give the name of woman, slave” [305]. This short note does not enable
us to arrive at a clear conclusion.
Goudswaard says of the Papuans of Geelvinck Bay generally: “The Papuan
steals men, makes them slaves, and despises them.” “The wars of the
Papuans are little more than raids, in which they burn the houses of
their enemies, destroy their gardens, and if possible make women and
children prisoners, to restore them later on for an adequate ransom, or
else to keep them as slaves or exchange them” [306].
The accounts, given by Van Hasselt and De Clercq, prove that slavery
exists among the Nuforese [307].
The inhabitants of Dorey and Roon belong to the Nuforese. Rosenberg
gives some particulars about slavery in Dorey, and Robidé has a few
notes on slaves kept by the inhabitants of Roon [308].
Slavery also exists among the natives of Arfak [309].
The Hattamers, however, who live in the Arfak mountains, have no
slaves. “The Hattamers,” says Robidé, “keep no slaves; in their wars
with neighbouring tribes they do not enslave the prisoners, but cut off
their heads, which they bring home as trophies” [310].
The Karons, according to Bruijn, capture slaves from their neighbours,
but whether they keep them for their own use is not quite clear.
Another author tells us that they eat their prisoners [311].
The existence of slavery among the Papuans of the Gulf of Maccluer is
made probable by De Clercq’s and Strauch’s notes [312]. Another author
observed slaves in some districts at the south-west side of this gulf;
the population of these districts is a mongrel race of Buginese,
emigrants from Serang, and Papuans [313].
Slavery exists on the isle of Adie and along the Gulf of Kaimani [314].
The Papuans of Ayambori have no slaves [315].
In Krieger’s elaborate account of the natives of British and German New
Guinea there is not a word about slaves. Hence it would appear that
they are unacquainted with slavery and we shall presently see that this
conclusion is strengthened by the information we get about the separate
tribes.
Thomson states that several tribes of British New Guinea in warfare
kill alike men, women and children [316], and in the descriptions of
single tribes: Motu, Mowat, Toaripi, natives on the mouth of the
Wanigela River, no mention is made of slavery [317].
As for German New Guinea, Maclay does not speak of slaves and Finsch
says that every Papuan warrior considers it an honour to kill women and
children [318].
Among the Yabim slavery does not exist [319].
The same is the case among the natives of the Tami Islands [320].
Slavery is equally unknown among the Tamoes of Bogadjim [321] and the
natives of the adjacent Dampier Island [322].
Result. Positive North-western Solomon Islanders,
cases: Natives of the Gazelle Peninsula,
Nuforese,
Papuans of Arfak,
,, on the Gulf of Maccluer,
,, of Adie,
,, on the Gulf of Kaimani,
Central Solomon Islanders,
Fijians,
Natives of Neu Mecklenburg and neighbouring islands,
Admiralty Islanders,
Papuans of Tabi,
,, ,, Ansus.
Negative cases: New Caledonians,
South-eastern Solomon Islanders,
Nissan Islanders,
New Hebridians,
Natives of Torres Straits,
Papuans of Humboldt Bay,
,, near Lake Sentani,
Hattamers
Papuans of Ayambori,
Motu,
Mowat,
Toaripi,
Papuans on the mouth of the Wanigela river,
Yabim,
Natives of the Tami Islands,
Tamoes,
Natives of Dampier Island.
No conclusion: Papuans of Seroei,
,, ,, Windessi,
Karons.
§ 6. Polynesia.
All authors agree that the Maori of New Zealand had slaves; and the
many details they give prove that slavery really existed [323].
The Tongans, according to Meinicke, had slaves, partly prisoners of
war, partly condemned criminals [324]. Gerland, referring to a
missionary report, speaks of slaves, tamaiveiki [325]. But in his very
minute description of Tongan government and social classes [326] he
gives no more particulars about these slaves; and Mariner who,
according to Gerland, is very reliable [327], makes no mention of
slavery. Mariner enumerates five social classes; the lowest class were
the tooas, the bulk of the people, consisting of a. a few warriors, b.
professed cooks in the service of the chiefs, c. those who tilled the
soil and had no other occupation [328]. Mariner only makes mention of
captive women, so it is probable that no men were taken prisoners in
their wars [329]. West states that there was a monarchical despotism,
supported by an hereditary aristocracy. The people were divided into
several, strictly separated, classes. The lowest class where the tuas,
common people, subdivided into different trades: carpenters, fishermen,
etc. The feudal principle, that the whole country belonged exclusively
to the king, made the people slaves [330]. Such “slavery” of a whole
people is not, however, slavery in the true sense of the word. Of
slavery proper West makes as little mention as Mariner. We may,
therefore, safely suppose that Meinicke and Gerland have been mistaken,
and that slavery did not exist here.
With reference to Samoa Gerland speaks of two political parties who
were always at war, “but they do not destroy their adversaries”, he
says, “nor enslave them, as frequently members of the same family
belong to different parties” [331]. According to Meinicke the prisoners
were at different times differently disposed of; but among these modes
of treatment slavery is not mentioned [332]. Wilkes states that their
wars “were attended with great cruelty, and neither old or young of
either sex were spared” [333]. Turner, a good authority, remarks:
“Prisoners, if men, were generally killed; if women, distributed among
the conquerors” [334]. We are not told whether these women were
married, or kept in a slave-like state; but even in the last case this
would be slavery of women only, and therefore not slavery in the proper
sense. Krämer is the only author who speaks of slaves. The conquered
party had to ask the pardon of the conquerors and to bring firewood as
if to show that they considered themselves worth to be eaten like pigs.
Often also they had to perform degrading work as slaves (pologa), to
pay a tribute or even to furnish human flesh for cannibal purposes
[335]. It would seem that this degrading work was imposed upon the
conquered as a temporary punishment and that we have not to deal here
with a permanent system of forced labour as among slave-keeping tribes.
This being the only reference to slavery in Krämer’s very detailed
description of the Samoans, and slavery not being mentioned by any of
our other informants [336], we may safely infer that it did not exist.
Gardiner, in his excellent article on Rotuma, says: “Slaves as such did
not properly exist” [337].
Gerland and Meinicke, enumerating the social classes in the Rarotonga
group (or Hervey Islands, or Cook’s Islands), make no mention of
slaves. According to Meinicke, the lowest class are the common people
[338]. So slavery seems to have been unknown here.
In Tahiti, according to Ellis, “the lowest class included the titi and
the teuteu, the slaves and servants; the former were those who had lost
their liberty in battle, or who, in consequence of the defeat of the
chieftains to whom they were attached, had become the property of the
conquerors. This kind of slavery appears to have existed among them
from time immemorial. Individuals captured in actual combat, or who
fled to the chief for protection when disarmed or disabled in the
field, were considered the slaves of the captor or chief by whom they
were protected. The women, children and others who remained in the
districts of the vanquished, were also regarded as belonging to them;
and the lands they occupied, together with their fields and
plantations, were distributed among the victors.... If peace continued,
the captive frequently regained his liberty after a limited servitude,
and was permitted to return to his own land, or remain in voluntary
service with his master” [339]. Though the second kind of slaves Ellis
enumerates, the subjects of vanquished chiefs, probably were not
slaves, and the frequent liberating of captive slaves proves that
slavery was not of great significance, it would seem from Ellis’s
account that to a limited extent it was present. Another ancient
writer, however, tells us that the lowest class were the common
servants, called toutou, or, when they were in the service of women,
tuti. Nobody was obliged to serve longer than he liked. The manahoune
or peasants, who worked for the nobility, were also free to change
their master or remove to another district. Hence we should infer that
slavery did not exist [340]. Moerenhout says: In the Society Islands
there were no slaves; the people served the chiefs voluntarily.
Prisoners of war, men, women, and children, were almost always
mercilessly murdered [341]. Considering the details given by Ellis, who
was very well informed, we are inclined, notwithstanding the contrary
statements of the other writers, to conclude that slavery existed in
Tahiti, but we are not quite certain about it.
Of Hawaii Ellis says: “The wives and children of those whom they had
defeated were frequently made slaves, and attached to the soil for its
cultivation, and, together with the captives, treated with great
cruelty.” Captives were sometimes spared, “though perhaps spared only
to be slaves, or to be sacrificed when the priests should require human
victims. The persons of the captives were the property of the victors,
and their lives entirely at their disposal.” But in enumerating the
social classes he makes no mention of slaves. “In the fourth [lowest]
rank may be included the small farmers, who rent from ten to twenty or
thirty acres of land; the mechanics ... indeed, all the labouring
classes, those who attach themselves to some chief or farmer, and
labour on his land for their food and clothing, as well as those who
cultivate small portions of land for their own advantage” [342]. In the
accounts of the other writers, who knew the ancient institutions of
Hawaii by observation or personal information, we do not find anything
tending to prove that slavery existed. Wilkes, in his very detailed
account of government and land tenure, does not speak of slaves. “The
authority” he says “descended in the scale of rank, rising from the
lowest class of servants to tenants, agents, landholders, land-owners,
petty chiefs, high chiefs, and the king” [343]. Chamisso expressly
states that slavery was absent. The common people were entirely
subjected to the chiefs, but there were no slaves or serfs. Peasants
and servants were allowed to remove to any place they liked. The people
were free; they could be killed, but not sold or retained [344]. Remy
tells us that the common people were heavily oppressed by the chiefs.
Slaves are not mentioned by him. Prisoners were sacrificed [345]. All
this renders the existence of slavery in ancient Hawaii very improbable
and so we think we are justified, notwithstanding the second-hand
information, furnished by Meinicke, that there were a few slaves [346],
and Marcuse’s short remark, that “to allure the sharks, they
occasionally made human sacrifices, especially among the slaves” [347],
in concluding that slavery did not exist.
Hale states that in the Marquesas Islands there were no slaves [348].
The same follows from Radiguet’s description. According to this writer,
the natives were divided into the nobles and the common people. The
latter served the nobles, but were free at any time to leave their
employers [349]. According to Meinicke prisoners were either sacrificed
and eaten, or spared and adopted into the conquering tribe [350]. De
Rocquefeuil also states that the prisoners were eaten, unless, by the
priests’ intervention, they were buried; at any rate they were killed
[351]. Moerenhout tells us that the sole object of their wars was to
obtain a cannibal repast [352]. From all this we may safely infer that
there were no slaves and that Gerland, stating that “slaves were rare;
like the foreigners, who were always regarded as enemies, they had no
rights, could be quite arbitrarily treated and even killed” [353], has
mistaken for slaves persons intended to be sacrificed. Letourneau holds
the same view of the matter: “Everything seems to indicate, that
slavery did not exist in the Marquesas Islands” [354].
The natives of Tukopia, according to Gerland, formerly kept slaves, who
were prisoners of war [355]. No more details are given.
Wilkes, speaking of the Paumotu group, observes that Anaa or Chain
Island “is said to contain five thousand inhabitants, which large
number is accounted for by the conquest of the other islands, and
taking their inhabitants off as captives”. The influence of the
missionaries caused a change in “the treatment of their captives, whom
they allowed to return, if they chose, to their own island; but very
many of them had married at Anaa, and became permanent residents there,
and few have taken advantage of the permission to return” [356].
Whether the captives mentioned here were kept as slaves is not clear.
Moerenhout tells us that the natives of the Paumotu group often
preserved their prisoners to eat them later on at feasts [357]. We
cannot arrive at a definite conclusion here.
Geiseler states that on Easter Island male prisoners of war were
formerly eaten. Captured women and girls, however, were not killed, but
given to young warriors. Slaves are not mentioned. The king had
absolute power over the common people [358]. It would seem that slavery
was absent here; but we are not quite certain about it, as Geiseler
describes a state of things existing long before his visit to the
island.
In the Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman groups, according to Parkinson,
there are three social classes, the chiefs and their parents, the
nobles and priests, and the common people [359]. Hence we may safely
infer, that slavery does not exist.
Result. Positive cases: Maori,
Tahitians.
Negative cases: Tongans,
Samoans,
Rotumians,
Rarotonga Islanders,
Hawaiians,
Marquesas Islanders,
Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman Islanders,
Easter Islanders.
No conclusion: Tukopia Islanders,
Paumotu Islanders.
§ 7. Micronesia.
According to Meinicke none of the describers of the Marshall Islands
make mention of slaves. Gerland, too, does not speak of slaves [360].
According to Hernsheim the lowest class is composed of the poor, the
armidwon or kajur. They are forbidden to take more than one wife. The
next class is that of the leadagedag, who own property, have in most
instances three wives, and are provided with food by the kajur [361].
Kubary says: “The common people are called armidj kajur and form the
greater part of the subjects. They have no property, except the land
allotted to them by the chief, who can take it from them at his
pleasure. Every week they have, each of them, to provide the chief with
prepared food, the quantity and quality of which are determined”. These
people, according to Kubary, form the lowest class [362]. Hager quite
agrees with Kubary, to whom he frequently refers [363]. Senfft states
that sale or pawning of men is unknown. Captives, domestic slaves,
debt-slaves etc. are not found. The lowest class are the armidj kajur
or common people, who own no property. Hence we might infer that
slavery does not exist. But in another place the same writer remarks
that only the upper classes (kings, relations of kings and chiefs of
districts) are free, the rest of the population being unfree and
presenting all the characteristics of slaves. The armidj has no rights,
everything he acquires is the property of his chief. The chief has over
him the right of life and death. Yet we do not think the writer means
to say that these people of very low standing are really slaves, i.e.
the individual property of the chiefs. They are not bought and sold, as
is generally the case with slaves. The armidj do not become such
through captivity in war or indebtedness, the common manners in which
people are made slaves. So some of the ordinary features of slavery are
wanting. This already renders the existence of slavery doubtful. But we
think the following passage in Senfft’s description clearly shows that
the armidj are not slaves: “The armidj cannot leave the tribe without
the consent of his chief, but as most often he belongs by birth to
several chiefs, he can go over from the tribe of one of his chiefs to
that of another, i.e., he can place himself under the immediate control
of the other chief by rendering him services, especially by tilling his
land. He commonly does so, when he is badly treated.” From this it
appears that the armidj is not the individual property of his chief;
else he would not be able to change his condition so easily. We think
his relation to the chief is rather that of a subject to a petty despot
[364]. This conclusion is strengthened by what we learn from other
recent descriptions. Krämer makes no mention of slaves. The lowest
class, according to him, are the kajur or common people [365]. In a
report regarding the isle of Jaluit it is equally stated that the
lowest class are the armidj kajur or common people, who own no land.
They have to work for the landowners and to provide them with food.
This is more suggestive of tenancy than of slavery. It is true that the
writer calls them unfree; but then he says, that their becoming free
was synonymous with their rising to the rank of a chief, so it seems
that by “unfree” he means people whose condition is below that of the
chiefs and nobles [366]. Taking all this into consideration, we think
we may safely infer that there are no slaves in the Marshall group.
Though the isle of Nauru is often regarded as belonging to the Marshall
group, its situation is rather isolated and the social organisation of
the population is different from that on the other islands of the
group, so we think we must treat it separately. Krämer remarks that
there are three classes: chiefs, middle class and slaves. The chiefs
have unlimited power over the slaves, who are not allowed to marry
without their consent. A murderer in most cases has to yield his land
to the parents of his victim, but when there are attenuating
circumstances, he is allowed to give slaves as a compensation [367].
Jung gives more details. He speaks of serfs or slaves, but what he
tells about them is not very suggestive of slavery. The serfs, unlike
the other classes, own no land. A native who is supposed to have killed
another by means of sorcery becomes the serf of the parents of his
victim and his property is taken away. Many families stand in the
relation of serfs to the chiefs and other people of rank. The power of
the lords over these slaves is said formerly to have been very great.
The origin of serfdom was this. In their wars, families belonging to
the conquered party were driven from their lands and had to seek their
subsistence elsewhere. They then applied to a powerful chief, put
themselves under his protection and became entirely dependent on him.
In later times these serfs were placed by the chief as agents on their
own former property on condition of delivering the produce to him. It
then sometimes happened that these agents or their children behaved as
owners of the lands they lived upon and so came into conflict with the
chief [368]. From this account it appears that the so-called serfs
nowadays are not in a slave-like condition. Whether in former times
they were really slaves is not clear; we should rather think their
state was one of voluntary submission to a landowner; but we cannot
arrive at a definite conclusion.
Gerland, minutely describing the social classes on the several Caroline
Islands, only in one passage speaks of slaves. According to him, on the
isle of Ponape there are three classes: chiefs, freemen, and slaves.
Christian also makes mention of slaves. “After the chief ruler come
twelve orders of chiefs, Chaulik being the smallest title of all, and
after these the Aramach-mal, or common folk, and the Litu, or
slave-class” [369]. But the only details given about these slaves are
that the land “belongs exclusively to the two upper classes; the third
class are attached to the soil on which they live” [370]. We are
inclined to think that these so-called “slaves” are really free people
of low standing, the more so as on the isle of Kusaie, also belonging
to the Caroline group, the common people are subjected to the higher
classes who own all the land [371]. Kubary, describing the Mortlock
Islands (belonging to the same group), says: “Except the division into
tribes, there is no social division in the Caroline Islands, such as
into classes, ranks, secret societies, etc.; and I believe that all
suppositions of former observers relating to such a state of things
result from ignorance of tribal government. With these natives the
notions of “noble”, “gentleman”, “commoner” have but a relative value;
and special titles such as “king”, “chieftain”, “prince”, etc. depend
wholly upon the individual pleasure of the observer” [372]. The same
writer tells us that on the isle of Ruk in warfare “such captives as
may accidentally be taken are killed,” which statement is not very
suggestive of slavery [373]. Gräffe, compiling Tetens and Kubary’s
notes on the inhabitants of Yap, speaks of slaves: “The population is
composed of three classes, chiefs, freemen, and slaves or pomilingais.
The latter live together in separate villages and are obliged daily to
provide the freemen with agricultural products, and whenever the chiefs
require it to aid in constructing houses and canoes. Everything the
slaves possess, even their wives and daughters, may at any time be
required by the freemen and used at their pleasure. As we have already
hinted, the slaves are not allowed to wear the head-ornaments that the
freemen are in the habit of wearing, not even the combs worn in the
hair; and when waiting upon the chiefs, they must approach them in a
creeping, bowing attitude. One would, however, fail in supposing, that
all labour is exclusively incumbent on the slave-class. They are only
bound to definite taxes, viz. to a tribute of food, and of mats and
other materials for housebuilding; and their slave-state consists
rather in a low and dependent condition than in being taxed with
labour” [374]. From this last sentence we should infer, that these
people are not slaves, but only a despised lowest class. A slave always
has an individual master, whereas these people are subjected to the
higher classes en bloc. Krämer, in his short description of the isle of
Yap, equally speaks of slaves (milingai). They live in separate
villages. “Their villages, however, differ little from those of the
free inhabitants of Yap, and yet the milingai are a kind of slaves or
at least derive their origin from slaves.” Their social position is
lower than that of the other natives. This description, in which no
mention is made of the milingai serving individual masters, is little
suggestive of slavery [375]. According to Volkens, there are two
classes, the pilun, who are free and the pimlingai, who are slaves.
“There are no domestic slaves, the dwellings of the free people and
those of the slaves being strictly separated. Generally speaking, to
each pilun country belong one or more pimlingai countries; the former
are on the coast, the latter in the less fertile interior”. “The slaves
do not pay any tribute, but are obliged to perform in the pilun country
without payment public and private works, such as thatching roofs,
building roads and dams, etc.” [376]. From this account also we may
infer that the so-called slaves, who work for the governing districts,
not for individual masters, are not really slaves. Slavery therefore
seems to be unknown in the Caroline Islands.
In Gerland’s detailed account of government and social classes among
the ancient inhabitants of the Marianne Islands no mention is made of
slavery; and as this author uses this word in a too wide rather than in
a too restricted sense, we may safely suppose that there were no slaves
[377].
Kubary tells us, that “among the Pelau Islanders there can be no
question of a division of the people into ranks or classes, of a
nobility in our sense of the word” [378]. In another place he states
that a chief’s wants are generally provided for by the work of
dependent relatives, who are a kind of adopted children. If their work
does not suit them, they leave their employer [379]. Semper speaks of a
class of bondmen (Hörigen); but in another place he states that they
work for wages; so they are neither slaves nor serfs, but a despised
working class [380]. We may safely conclude that slavery does not exist
here [381].
In the Kingsmill or Gilbert Islands, according to Wilkes, there are
three classes: chief (nea), landholders (katoka), and slaves (kawa).
“The katokas are persons who possess land, but are not of noble birth;
many of these were originally slaves, who have obtained land by acts of
bravery, or through the favour of their chiefs. The kawas are those who
possess no land, and no one from whom they can claim support”. “They
have no term to designate a poor man, except that of slave. Anyone who
owns land can always call upon others to provide him with a house,
canoe, and the necessaries of life; but one who has none is considered
as a slave, and can hold no property whatever” [382]. It is evident
that these kawas, as described by Wilkes, are not slaves, but a
subjected and despised class of people destitute of land. Meinicke
enumerates the following classes: chiefs (in Tarawa: nea or oamata, in
Makin: jomata), free landholders (in Tarawa: katoka, in Makin:
tiomata), and the common people (in Tarawa: kawa, in Makin: rang); and
he adds: “There are also slaves, who originally were captives, and
whose children have remained such” [383]. So the kawa, called slaves by
Wilkes, are called freemen by Meinicke, according to whom there is a
class of slaves still below them. Behm asserts that on Makin there are
slaves besides the three other classes [384]. The best description is
given by Parkinson. According to him there are kings (these only on
some islands); further great landholders; then the class of small
landholders. Then there are two subjected classes. One is the class of
the te torre, who live as vassals on the lands of the great
landholders; they get a small piece of land for their own use; they
must provide their lord with men when in war, and bring him the number
of cocoanuts he desires, and what he needs for his household. The
lowest class are the te bei or kaungo. They have no property, no land
to live upon; they live with the great landholders by whom they are
maintained; they on their part must work for their lord, i.e. fish,
prepare food, etc. The lord, by giving them a piece of land, can raise
them to the class of the te torre. These two classes have no voice in
government matters; they follow their lord without grumbling; his will
is their will; an offence against the lord is regarded by them as a
personal offence, and avenged as such. Generally no one marries outside
his class. In ordinary life there is no difference between master and
vassal; they often sleep on the same mat; they drink, dance and play
together; they wear the same kind of dress. When a poor man dies, a
wealthy inhabitant of the village generally provides for his family;
but they must labour for him and are, so to speak, his slaves [385]. We
have to examine now, whether these two lowest classes are
slave-classes. We may remark, first, that, whereas most ethnographers
make a large use of the word “slave”, Parkinson does not use it, except
in the last sentence, and there with the qualification “so to speak”.
Moreover, some particulars are not mentioned, which we should expect to
find in such an elaborate description, if slavery really existed; e.g.
it is not stated that the subjected persons are bought and sold; nor
that care is taken that they do not run away; nor that the master is
not at all, or only to a limited extent, responsible for his behaviour
towards the person who serves him. As little does it appear, that these
vassals become such in the same manner in which men generally become
slaves. It is only stated that the family of a deceased poor man fall
into a state of dependence upon a rich inhabitant of the village; but
it is not clear, whether they voluntarily or involuntarily join the
rich man’s family. The principal objects of property, says Parkinson,
are houses, lands, and canoes [386]. Were there slaves, they would have
been mentioned here too. Krämer states that there are chiefs, a
nobility (aomata), a middle class (te vau), and slaves (te kanua). A
noble may not marry a girl of the middle class or a slave girl, nor is
he allowed to have any connection with a female slave who is his own
subject [387]. Krämer’s use of the word slave, without any particulars
suggestive of slavery, cannot impair the inference, to which Wilkes’s
notes and Parkinson’s detailed account lead us, that there are no
slaves on the Gilbert Islands.
Result. Negative cases: Marshall Islanders,
Caroline Islanders,
Marianne Islanders,
Pelau Islanders,
Kingsmill Islanders,
Natives of Nauru.
Schurtz asserts that in Polynesia and Micronesia slaves are found
everywhere; and Gerland is of the same opinion regarding Polynesia
[388]. Our survey of both these groups shows that these writers are
wrong: in Micronesia slavery is probably quite unknown; in Polynesia
absence of slavery is the rule, slavery the exception.
§ 8. Malay Archipelago.
I. Malay Peninsula.
The savage tribes of the Malay Peninsula are divided into the Semang,
the Sakai and the Jakun.
Among the Sakai, according to De Morgan “the debtor and his family work
for the creditor during one or two moons, according to the decision of
the panghulu (village-chief)”. This certainly is a commencement of
debt-slavery; but such compulsory labour, limited beforehand to one or
two months, is not yet slavery in the true sense.
Skeat and Blagden state that, among the Benua-Jakun, crimes of all
kinds might be expatiated by the payment of fines. If the offender
failed to pay the fine, he became the slave of his victim. No more
details being added, the existence of slavery does not seem to us to be
quite certain.
As neither in Skeat and Blagden’s exhaustive work, nor in the other
books and articles we have consulted, any further mention is made of
slaves, we are justified in concluding that these tribes, with the
exception perhaps of a division of the Jakun, do not practise slavery
[389].
II. Sumatra and neighbouring islands.
Brenner and Junghuhn speak of the Battas of Sumatra in general as
keeping slaves [390].
The existence or former existence of slavery is sufficiently proved
with regard to the following divisions of the Battas:
Battas on the Pane and Bila rivers [391],
,, of Mandheling [392],
,, of Pertibie [393],
Karo Battas [394],
Raja Battas [395],
Battas of Angkola [396],
,, of Simelungun [397],
,, of Singkel and Pak-pak [398],
,, of the country of Panei [399].
Among the Battas of Silindung slavery has never existed, according to
Meerwaldt [400]. Whether he means only slavery in the restricted sense,
or also pawning, is not clear.
The Toba Battas, according to Meerwaldt, formerly had slaves; but now
slavery is dying out under Dutch influence. Van Dijk, who visited the
Habinsaran district in the Toba-lands, states that in some parts of the
district there were slaves, in others there were not. Whether the
latter fact is to be accounted for by Dutch influence, does not appear
from his very short notes [401].
On the Lubus we have found only two short articles, in which slavery is
not mentioned; but this does not prove very much [402].
None of the describers of the Kubus make any mention of slaves; so we
may suppose, that slavery does not exist among them [403].
De Groot gives a detailed account of slavery and pawning in the Lampong
districts [404].
In Nias slavery certainly exists [405].
The Mentawei Islanders very probably have no slaves. None of their
describers make any mention of slavery [406]. “Their whole warfare
consists of treacherous attacks, in which nobody’s life is spared”
[407].
On the Anambas, Natuna and Tambelan Islands, belonging to the
Lingga-Riouw group, there are debtor-slaves [408].
Most of the writers on Enggano make no mention of slavery [409].
According to Walland, the Engganese wear ornaments in their ear-laps,
which are pierced for that purpose. If anybody’s ear-lap is broken, he
incurs great disgrace; he is no longer listened to in any deliberation,
nor considered a notable in his tribe, and becomes the slave of his
relatives, for whom he is obliged to work. And Rosenberg says: “If a
criminal does not pay the fine, this is done by his kindred; but if
they are unable to pay, they sell him as a slave. So slavery exists;
but it is of a very mild kind, and the number of slaves is very small”
[410]. The fact that both authors speak of slavery only in connection
with these particular cases, whereas the others do not speak of it at
all, makes us doubt, whether what Walland and Rosenberg call slavery is
slavery in the true sense. So we cannot come to a clear conclusion.
III. Borneo.
Among the Hill- or Land-Dyaks (Orang Gunong) slavery in the restricted
sense and slave-trade did not exist, but, says Low: “the system of
slave-debtors is carried on, though to a very small extent”. Later on
this kind of slavery also disappeared [411].
The Dyaks on the Barito have slaves and pawns [412].
The Sea-Dyaks also keep slaves, but not many [413].
Slavery equally exists among the
Dyaks on Rejang river [414],
Biadju-Dyaks [415],
Ot-danoms [416],
Olo-ngadju [417],
Dyaks of Tompassuk [418],
Kayans on the Mendalam [419],
Kayans on the Upper Mahakam [420],
Muruts [421],
Dyaks of Sambas [422],
Kindjin Dyaks [423],
Dyaks of Pasir [424].
Denison informs us that the Dusuns have no slaves [425].
Von Dewall, in his notes on the Dyaks of Matan or Kaping, speaks of
slaves of the chief. Whether these are the only slaves does not appear
[426].
Of the Dyaks of Simpang he says the same, and adds that pawning is
unknown amongst them. Here too we cannot arrive at a clear conclusion
[427].
The Rambai- and Sebruang-Dyaks probably have no slaves; for it is
stated, that their chiefs have no privileges; only, when some accident,
illness for instance, prevents them from cultivating their own
rice-fields, this is done by the people [428]. If there were slaves,
the chiefs would not have to cultivate their own rice-fields. Moreover
our informant, in his fairly detailed description, would probably have
mentioned slavery, if it existed.
IV. Celebes.
Slavery is proved by good authorities to exist or have existed in
several parts of this island. Such is the case
in the Minahassa [429],
in Bolaäng Mongondou [430],
in Lipu lo Holontalo [431],
in Buool [432],
among the Toradja of Central Celebes [433],
among the Tomori (East-Central Celebes) [434],
in the district of Sandjai [435],
in Bangkala [436],
among the Kailirese of Donggala or Banawa [437],
in Saleyer, an island near the South Coast of Celebes [438].
V. Little Sunda Islands and Moluccas.
Slavery on these islands seems almost universal. About the following
islands and groups of islands we have been able to obtain some
information:
Sumbawa [439],
Sumba [440],
Flores [441],
Solor group [442],
Bonerate and Kalao [443],
East Timor [444],
West Timor [445],
Savu [446],
Rote or Rotti [447],
Wetar [448],
Keisar [449],
Leti [450],
Dama [451],
Luang-Sermata group [452],
Babar group [453],
Tenimber and Timorlao Islands [454],
Aru Islands [455],
Kei Islands [456],
Watubela Islands [457],
Seranglao-Gorong group [458],
Serang [459],
Ambon and the Uliase [460],
Sangi and Talauer Islands [461].
In all these cases it is clear, that slavery either formerly existed or
still exists.
Slaves are also employed by the Galela and Tobelorese on Halmaheira
[462], and by the inhabitants of the district of Kau on the same island
[463].
Riedel states, that on Buru there were formerly slaves, and gives some
details about slavery as it was carried on here. Wilken however says
that there are neither slaves nor pawns [464]. Whether the latter means
to say, that slavery did not exist at the time at which he was writing
(1875), or that it had never existed, is not clear. Van der Miesen,
writing in 1902, states that, if a man is unable to pay his debt, he is
obliged to serve his creditor till his parents have collected the
required sum [465]. No further mention of slavery or pawning is made in
his detailed description. So we are left in doubt as to the former
existence of slavery here.
VI. Philippines.
The Tagals and Visayas, at the time of the conquista, already practised
slavery on a large scale [466].
Slavery certainly exists among the Bagobos [467], Manobos [468],
Maguindanaos and inhabitants of the Sulu islands [469], and Samales
[470].
Among the Subanos slaves are sacrificed at funerals [471]. But whether
these so-called slaves are really slaves, or persons captured or
purchased for sacrificing purposes only, does not appear.
The Kiangans sell their debtors as slaves; whether within the tribe or
abroad we are not told [472].
In Blumentritt’s rather short article on the Bungians no mention is
made of slaves [473].
From Venturillo’s and Miller’s descriptions it appears that slavery is
unknown among the Bataks of Palawan [474].
Jenks, in his minute account of the Bontoc Igorot of Northern Luzon,
gives a full description of the division of labour among them. The poor
serve the rich for wages. Slaves are not mentioned. Under the heading
of “conquest” he remarks: “Certain Igorot, as those of Asin, make
forcible conquests on their neighbours and carry away persons for
slavery. But Bontoc has no such conquests”. Schadenberg, too, does not
speak of slaves among the Bontoc people [475]. Hence we may safely
infer that the Bontoc Igorot do not keep slaves.
About the other divisions of the Igorot we are not so well informed.
From Jenks’s above-quoted incidental remark it would appear that some
of them practise slavery. But as in the other sources [476] we do not
find anything strengthening this presumption, we cannot arrive at a
positive conclusion.
Reed, describing the Negritos of Zambales (along the western coast of
Luzon), says: “Notwithstanding the statements of Montano that the
Negritos have no slaves and know nothing of slavery, the reverse is
true, in Zambales at least; so say the Negritos and also the Filipinos
who have spent several years among them. The word “a-li-pun” is used
among them to express such social condition. As has been stated, a man
caught steeling may become a slave, as also may a person captured from
another rancheria, a child left without support, a person under death
sentence, or a debtor. It was also stated that if a man committed a
crime and escaped a relative could be seized as a slave. It will take a
long acquaintance with the Negritos and an intimate knowledge of their
customs to get at the truth of these statements”. From this last
sentence, together with the fact that the other writers on the Negritos
we have consulted do not make any mention of slavery, we must infer
that it is doubtful whether slavery exists among the Negritos [477].
VII. Madagascar.
The Hovas and kindred tribes are considered by many investigators to be
Malays. Schurtz also classifies them among the Malays in the widest
sense of the word [478]. The anthropologists do not yet agree about the
origin of the Hovas; but as the divisions of this chapter are only
intended to give the reader a clear survey of the matter, and not to
answer any anthropological purpose, we may treat them here as well as
elsewhere.
The existence of slavery among the Hovas is proved by the statements of
several good authorities [479].
Sibree, describing the Betsileo, Betsimisaraka, Bara, Tankay or
Bezanozano, Sihanaka and Tanala, makes no mention of slavery; but his
notes are not detailed enough to make its non-existence certain [480].
Hildebrandt and Grandidier speak of slaves among the Antankarana [481].
As, however, in their short notes only slaves of the king are
mentioned, we may put this down as a doubtful case.
Result. Battas on the Pane and Bila rivers,
Positive ,, of Mandheling,
cases: ,, of Pertibie,
Karo Battas,
Raja Battas,
Battas of Angkola,
,, of Simelungun,
,, of Singkel and Pak-pak,
,, of the country of Panei,
Toba Battas,
Lampongs,
inhabitants of Nias,
,, ,, Anambas, etc.,
Hill-Dyaks,
Dyaks on the Barito,
Sea-Dyaks,
Dyaks on Rejang river,
Biadju-Dyaks,
Ot-danoms,
Olo-ngadju,
Dyaks of Tompassuk,
Kayans on the Mendalam,
,, on the Upper Mahakam,
Muruts,
Dyaks of Sambas,
Kindjin-Dyaks,
Dyaks of Pasir,
inhabitants of the Minahassa,
,, ,, Bolaäng,
,, ,, Holontalo,
,, ,, Buool,
Toradja,
Tomori,
inhabitants of Sandjai,
,, ,, Bangkala,
Kailirese,
inhabitants of Saleyer,
,, ,, Sumbawa,
,, ,, Sumba,
inhabitants of Flores,
,, ,, the Solor group,
,, ,, Bonerate and Kalao,
,, ,, East Timor,
,, ,, West Timor,
,, ,, Savu,
,, ,, Rote,
,, ,, Wetar,
,, ,, Keisar,
,, ,, Leti,
,, ,, Dama,
,, ,, the Luang-Sermata group,
,, ,, the Babar group,
,, ,, the Tenimber and Timorlao Islands,
,, ,, the Aru Islands,
,, ,, the Kei Islands,
,, ,, the Watubela Islands,
,, ,, the Seranglao-Gorong group,
,, ,, Serang,
,, ,, Ambon and the Uliase,
,, ,, the Sangi and Talauer Islands,
Galela and Tobelorese,
inhabitants of Kau,
Tagals and Visayas,
Bagobos,
Manobos,
Maguindanaos,
inhabitants of Sulu,
Samales,
Hovas,
Jakun,
Dyaks of Matan,
,, ,, Simpang,
Subanos,
Negritos,
Antankarana.
Negative Semang,
cases: Sakai,
Kubus,
Mentawei Islanders,
Dusuns,
Rambay and Sebruang Dyaks,
Bataks of Palawan,
Bontoc Igorot,
Battas of Silindung,
Lubus.
No Enganese,
conclusion: inhabitants of Buru,
Kiangans,
Bungians,
Igorot (except the Bontoc Igorot),
Betsileo,
Betsimisaraka,
Bara,
Tankay,
Sihanaka,
Tanala.
We shall add here a few notes on some Malay peoples, that have attained
to a too high degree of civilization to be quoted here as instances of
savages having or not having slaves. The purpose of this addition is
only to complete this survey of the Archipelago, and to show what
literature exists on these peoples.
In Java slavery has not prevailed for centuries. “In Mohammedan law a
large place is taken up with regulations of slavery, of the rights of
masters and slaves, and of the manner in which the latter can acquire
their freedom. The peculiar state of the aboriginal Javanese society
prevented the application of nearly all precepts relating to this
matter. Before the introduction of Islam slavery proper seems to have
been unknown; the universal subjection of the mass of the people, as
Sudras, to the members of the higher castes, had made slavery
superfluous. Nor has Islam introduced slavery into Java; for although
in later times Javanese chiefs in a few cases kept slaves, this was
done in imitation of the Europeans, and the legal status of these
slaves depended on Roman-Dutch law, not on Mohammedan law.” The desas
or villages, that did not accept Islam, were conquered; yet their
inhabitants were not enslaved, but the whole villages en bloc were
reduced to a subjected state: they had to pay extraordinary tributes
and to perform services to the Sultans. This ancient state of things
remained in force, even when gradually the whole population accepted
Islam. Even the concubines of the chiefs are not captured or purchased
slaves, but women taken from among the people [482]. This passage from
Veth’s book does not, however, inform us as to whether there were
slaves before the Hindu invasion and some time after. In the
“Encyclopaedie voor Nederlandsch-Indië” it is stated [483], that in old
times Africans were imported as slaves into Java, as appears from an
inscription of 800 A.D. The continued investigation of Javanese history
will probably throw more light on the subject.
In Bali slavery certainly exists, or at least formerly existed; but,
according to Liefrinck, only the chief and his family have slaves
[484]. Waanders, however, who gives a detailed account of the Balinese
slave-system, asserts that even Sudras have slaves, though he speaks
but incidentally of this [485]. Perhaps the slaves kept by the common
people are only debtor-slaves; for, according to Liefrinck, debtors
serve their creditors, and are sometimes sold by auction [486]. Tonkes,
who has (rather deficiently) collected the literature on the Balinese,
does not solve the question. At any rate, slavery here is not a
fundamental institution. The chief has great power, and the Hindu
caste-system prevails, so that the social classes are widely separated;
the Sudras are at the mercy of the upper castes [487]. Slavery, though
discountenanced by the Dutch government, still prevailed as late as
1877 [488].
Liefrinck states that in Lombok there were imported slaves and
native-born slaves or serfs; the condition of the latter was much
better than of the former, but they could be sold for debts and then
became slaves in the strict sense [489]. Van Eck has also some notes on
Lombok. According to him, Sasaks and Balinese of the Sudra-caste
frequently become slaves of the rich, as a punishment or in payment of
debts [490].
Van Hasselt gives a detailed account of slavery among the Malays of
Menangkabao. In 1876 the slaves and pawns on the West Coast of Sumatra
were emancipated by the Dutch government. But in the territories which
are not under Dutch control slavery in van Hasselt’s time was still
carried on to a great extent. In the little independent states a
chief’s power depended upon the number of his slaves, who tilled his
lands and strengthened his force in warfare. The slaves in the
restricted sense were purchased and captured persons and their
offspring. Besides these there were pawns [491]. Several further
particulars are given in Van Hasselt’s valuable book. Willinck, in his
recent work on the laws of the Malays of Menangkabao, describes their
slave system in details [492].
In many other Malay districts of Sumatra slavery exists or formerly
existed [493].
Particular mention has to be made of Atjeh, where slavery prevails to a
great extent [494]. Slaves are equally kept by the Gajos, whose country
borders on Atjeh [495].
Matthes gives some details on slavery among the Makassars and Bugis of
South Celebes [496].
In Tidore slavery formerly existed, many slaves being procured from New
Guinea [497]. It has, however, been abolished by the Dutch government
[498].
Among the Moros of Mindanao “slavery is such an established custom and
institution of the land that it is generally sanctioned and supported
in the Luwaran [laws]” [499].
§ 9. Indo-Chinese Peninsula.
Some tribes of this group undoubtedly have slaves. These are the
Kakhyens [500], the Shans of Zimmé [501], the Lawas and the Hill-tribes
of North Aracan [502], one of these hill-tribes being the Khyoungtha of
Chittagong [503].
The Lethtas have no slaves [504].
The Steins, according to Colquhoun, sometimes seize a slave in order to
sacrifice him [505]. No more particulars being given, we cannot make
out whether the word slave is used here in its true sense, or means a
captive taken to be sacrificed.
Mason remarks on the Karens: “In war they kill without regard to age or
sex.... The head of the war keeps the captives a considerable time,
when, if none of their friends come to redeem them, he sells them off
to other districts for oxen or buffaloes if practicable, that he may
have an ox or a buffalo to give to each village that came to his aid”
[506]. So the Karens seem to prefer oxen and buffaloes to captives.
There are, however, many debtor-slaves among the Karen-Nees [507]. They
are also noted for their kidnapping propensities; but it seems that the
kidnapped are only intended for sale abroad [508]. At any rate there
are debtor-slaves, and so slavery exists.
Wehrli, in his study on the Chingpaws (Sing-Phos or Kachins) of Upper
Burma, gives many details, which sufficiently prove that slavery
exists, or till recently existed among them [509].
We may add here the inhabitants of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in
the Bay of Bengal.
Although Man does not explicitly state that the Andamanese have no
slaves, his elaborate account of their social life sufficiently proves
that they are unacquainted with slavery. Social status is dependent on
relationship, on skill in hunting, fishing etc., and on a reputation
for generosity and hospitality. A child captured in war “would meet
with kindly treatment, in the hope of his or her being induced
ultimately to become a member of the captor’s tribe” [510].
Of the Nicobarese Svoboda says: “All writers agree that nowhere in
these islands is there subordination, all inhabitants being of the same
rank. Only older and more experienced people have somewhat more
influence than the rest” [511]. Hence we may infer that slavery does
not exist.
Result. Positive cases: Kakhyens,
Shans of Zimmé,
Lawas,
Hill-tribes of North Aracan,
Karens,
Chingpaws,
Steins.
Negative cases: Lethtas,
Andamanese,
Nicobarese.
§ 10. India, Afghanistan, Himalaya.
Several authors state that the Meshmees have slaves [512].
The Hill-tribes near Rajamahall have no slaves [513].
Dalton gives several particulars about slavery among the Garos. Eliot
also affirms that they have slaves [514].
The Kookies, according to Macrae, “at times ... make captives of the
children, and often adopt them into their families, when they have none
of their own; and the only slaves among them are the captives thus
taken” [515]. What our informant means is not quite clear. The children
who have been adopted certainly are not slaves. Perhaps a part only of
the captured children are adopted, the rest constituting the
slave-class of the Kookies; but this is not clearly stated. Lewin
asserts that all the hill-tribes (Toungtha, divided into Lhoosai,
Tipperah and Kookies) formerly had debtor-slaves [516]; but as none of
our other authorities make any mention of this, we doubt whether this
general remark applies to the Kookies, the more so as, according to
Macrae, “the only slaves among them are the captives”. So it becomes
very doubtful whether the Kookies have slaves. Dalton’s statement that
“all the enemies he [the Kookie] has killed will be in the happy
hunting-fields in attendance on him as slaves” [517] is not sufficient
to decide the question. One thing only is certain: the Rajah has
slaves. According to Dalton, murderers and thieves become slaves of the
Rajah. Stewart affirms the same of those guilty of theft, burglary or
arson, and Butler of thieves [518]. But if only the Rajah, who
represents the public power, has slaves, the Kookies are not properly
to be called a slave-keeping people. Whether there are other slaves,
besides those of the Rajah, is not sufficiently clear.
The Todas very probably have no slaves. Neither Metz, nor the writers
quoted by Spencer, make any mention of slavery, though they fully
describe their social life [519].
The Santals also very probably are unacquainted with slavery. According
to Hunter “caste is unknown among the Santals”. “The classification of
the Santals depended not upon social rank or occupation, but upon the
family basis.” Dalton, describing the Santals, does not speak of slaves
[520].
The Khonds formerly offered human sacrifices. The victims were
purchased, and often kept for many years before being sacrificed. Our
informant adds: “I may just allude here to another class of persons who
are purchased by the Khonds, or procured by them for adoption into
their families as helps in household affairs, and in field labours.
These are called Possia Poes, and are usually obtained when young. They
run little or no risk of being sacrificed, and very often marry into
the families of their purchasers, and in the course of time merge into
the general population.” In another passage these Possia Poes are
called serfs: “These serfs are well treated, and in no immediate
danger; but there is always a remote probability of their sacrifice”
[521]. As it is stated that these Possia Poes are absorbed into the
general population, we may safely conclude that they are not slaves.
The Lushais, according to Dalton, enslave women and children [522].
Of the Manipuris Dalton says that “slavery is an institution amongst
them”, and he gives some details besides. So we need not doubt its
existence, though Watt makes no mention of it [523].
Among the Jyntias and Kasias the Rajah has slaves [524]. Whether there
are any other slaves does not appear.
“There is no such thing as slavery among the Oraons”, according to
Dalton [525].
The Korwas also very probably have no slaves. In their raids they kill
all they meet [526].
The Kafirs have slaves, according to several writers [527].
Among the Padam Abors slavery undoubtedly exists [528].
Dalton says of the Dophlas: “They have normally the same Mongolian type
of physiognomy, but from their intercourse with the people of the
plains and the number of Assamese slaves, which they have by fair means
or foul acquired, it is much modified and softened” [529]. Nothing more
is added about slavery. Perhaps these “slaves” are simply captured
women, no other slaves being ever taken. Whether slavery really exists
is not clear.
The Nagas keep slaves, if we are to believe Grange who “saw many
Muneeporees who had been thus seized whilst young, and sold both
amongst Kookies, Cacharees and Nagas”. “The children of slaves are
slaves.” Miss Godden remarks: “Slavery was unknown among one or more
tribes [of the Nagas] according to Dr. Brown.” “Among the Aos [one of
the Naga tribes] it is said to have been universal” [530].
Among the Bodo and Dhimals “there are neither servants nor slaves, nor
aliens of any kind” [531].
The Veddahs of Ceylon, according to Sarasin, are unacquainted with
slavery [532].
Result. Positive cases: Meshmees,
Garos,
Lushais,
Manipuris,
Kafirs,
Padam Abors,
Nagas,
Kookies,
Jyntias and Kasias,
Dophlas.
Negative cases: Hill-tribes near Rajamahall,
Todas,
Santals,
Khonds,
Oraons,
Korwas,
Bodo and Dhimals,
Veddahs.
§ 11. Central Asia.
The Kazak Kirghiz, according to Pallas, “much preferred the securing of
a slave to the killing of a man. They did not treat their slaves
cruelly, as long as the latter behaved well”. But the information we
get from other sources shows that they were not a slave-keeping people.
Boutakoff says nothing about slavery. According to Ujfalvy the poor
serve the rich; he calls this a real serfdom. But he adds that, if the
poor do not wish to serve, they must borrow from the rich at 100 per
cent. interest. So these poor are compelled to serve by hunger, not by
any social rule. Chambers says: “They ... have well earned for
themselves the title of the “Slavehunters of the Steppes” by seizing
upon caravans, appropriating the goods, and selling their captives at
the great slave-markets at Khiva, Bokhara, etc. Their wealth consists
of cattle, sheep, horses, and camels” [533]. This is clear: the
captives are sold abroad, and do not serve as slaves among the Kirghiz
themselves; therefore they are not enumerated as forming part of their
wealth. The best describer of the Kazak Kirghiz that we know of,
Levchine, agrees with Chambers. “Slavery is unknown among them.” “The
Turks, the Persians, and nearly all other sectaries of Mohammed keep
slaves.... The Kirghiz, on the contrary, have no slaves” [534]. In
several passages of his book, however, he makes mention of slaves
[535]. But this will be understood, if we pay attention to two other
statements of his. “They do not kill their prisoners, but sell them to
the Bokharians, Khivians, and other neighbouring nations.” They buy
many commodities from their neighbours, and “in exchange ... provide
them with slaves captured on the Russian frontiers” [536]. So the
Kirghiz in Levchine’s time made slaves; they did not, however,
themselves employ them; they were only slave-traders and not a
slave-keeping people. Radloff, who many years after Levchine visited
the Kazak Kirghiz, supposes that they formerly kept slaves. He says:
“The former serfs and slaves of the sultan, who have been for many
decades emancipated, always try still to nomadize in the vicinity of
the sultans, and, though at present entirely on a level with the other
Kirghiz, are still called telenguts” “The denominations kul (male
slave) and küng (female slave) now mean male and female servant” [537].
But we may compare this with a statement of Levchine’s: “We do not
arrange in a separate class the telenguts or servants of the khans, nor
the kuls or slaves. The former are taken from among the Kirghiz and
enjoy the same rights; the latter are looked upon as personal property
or commodities and are not Kirghiz. They are Russian, Persian, Kalmuck,
etc. prisoners” [538]. We see that Radloff’s “serfs or slaves”, the
telenguts, were not slaves, and the kuls were captured slaves intended
to be sold. Our inference is that the Kazak Kirghiz in their former
independent state did not keep slaves.
About the Kara Kirghiz we have got but little information. Radloff, in
a short article on them, says: “In the regions of their winter-quarters
(on the Issik-köl) they cultivate very large pieces of land, on which
they leave behind labourers or slaves (of whom there are but few)
whilst the tribe repairs en masse to the western mountains. These
labourers get no wages, but a part of the produce in kind” [539].
Although this receiving of a part of the produce is not incompatible
with slavery, their being left behind without any supervision, and
Radloff’s calling them labourers or slaves and in the latter sentence
labourers only, makes us doubt whether these people are really slaves,
the more so as in his book slavery among the Kara Kirghiz is not
mentioned [540].
Koehne, in his article on Kalmuck law, referring to Pallas and
Bergmann, asserts that the Kalmucks had slaves [541]. But the
particulars he gives are not sufficient for us to decide, whether the
so-called slaves were slaves proper or retainers of the chiefs; and if
slaves, whether they were employed by the Kalmucks, or intended for
sale abroad. Spencer refers to a statement of Pallas’ (but from which
of his books does not appear), according to which slavery was inflicted
as a punishment [542]; but whether the person so punished was kept as a
slave among the Kalmucks or sold abroad, we are not told. The only book
of Pallas’ to which we have access does not throw much light on the
subject. “Adultery and fornication” he says “which are voluntarily [?]
committed with female slaves ... are liable to punishment”. In another
place he states that the Torguts (a division of the Kalmucks) had much
changed in physical appearance, probably by their intercourse with
females captured abroad. As a punishment for some offences the culprit
lost one or more of his children; but what was done with these children
does not appear [543]. Nothing more definite on slavery is found is his
detailed description of the Kalmucks. In an article on the Kalmucks of
the Black Irtysch Valley we read: “Horrible is the state of the
unfortunate people who are reduced to slavery; they are bartered and
sold like cattle” [544]. Here probably slaves intended for sale abroad
are meant; for such horrible treatment of slaves is more common with
slave-dealers than with those who employ slaves. Radloff has nothing on
slavery; but his description of the Kalmucks is too short to draw any
inference from [545]. So we are left in doubt as to the existence of
slavery, though we are inclined to think that it does not exist.
Much more fully than the Kalmucks proper Radloff describes the Altaians
or Altaian Mountain-Kalmucks. Slaves not being mentioned, and it being
stated in many places that the menial work is done by servants and by
the poor who are fed by the rich [546], it is certain that slavery does
not exist. The word “slave” occurs in one place only, viz. in the
mourning-song of the widow, who complains that “now she wears a
leathern dress like base slaves; now she eats coarse food like slaves”
[547]. If we have not here to deal with an inaccurate translation, this
mourning-song might be a reminiscence of formerly existing slavery.
Slavery would then have disappeared spontaneously, not through Russian
influence, for the Altaians have maintained their position in the
mountain-valleys of the South-west Altai, least accessible to Russian
colonization. So we may safely consider the Altaians as a savage tribe
keeping no slaves.
Radloff’s notes on the Teleuts, Tatars on the Kondoma and Abakan Tatars
are too short to draw any safe inference from [548].
Many Central Asiatic tribes have been described by Vambéry. The
description of each of them fills many pages, but the information we
get about social facts is rather incomplete. Therefore, though in most
of his descriptions slavery is not mentioned, we may not infer that it
does not exist. The positive cases have of course more value.
The Usbegs, according to Vambéry, till their land aided by Persian
slaves [549]. No more details being given, we may put this down as a
positive case, though not a clear one.
The Kara Kalpaks, in the beginning of the 18th century, were given to
slave-stealing [550], whether for their own use or for sale does not
appear.
The Turkomans, according to Vambéry, sell foreigners as slaves [551].
In another book the same author tells us that in their internal wars
they made slaves; and he speaks of their keeping female slaves [552].
Stein and Weil make no mention of slavery [553]. Letourneau, referring
to Burnes, remarks: “The Persian captives are for the Turkomans a
source of large profit; but the captors do not as a rule keep them for
themselves, except sometimes the women, of whom they make concubines or
wives” [554]. So we may safely infer that slavery does not exist here.
The Mongols have hired herdsmen who tend their camels [555]. Whether
they have any slaves does not appear.
Ujfalvy informs us that among the Tadjiks of Hissar slavery was
recently abolished by an order from Bokhara [556].
According to the same writer “all Galtchas are free; for slavery does
not exist and has never existed in their inaccessible valleys” [557].
The Kurds of Eriwan probably have no slaves. They keep hired herdsmen.
All members of the community, rich and poor, enjoy the same rights
[558].
Result. Positive cases: Usbegs,
Tadjiks of Hissar.
Negative cases: Kazak Kirghiz,
Altaians,
Turkomans,
Galtchas,
Kara Kirghiz,
Kalmucks,
Mongols,
Kurds of Eriwan.
No conclusion: Teleuts,
Tatars on the Kondoma,
Abakan Tatars,
Kara Kalpaks.
§ 12. Siberia.
Pallas in the 18th century visited many Siberian tribes; but most of
his notes are too short to draw any inference from as to the existence
of slavery.
Of the Ostyaks he gives a detailed account. They probably had no
slaves; for it is stated that the chiefs, like the common people, had
to live by their own labour [559]. But in Pallas’ time they were
already entirely under Russian control [560], so it is not certain that
in their aboriginal state they had no slaves.
The Samoyedes were not nearly so much under Russian influence. The
details given by Pallas make it nearly certain that slavery did not
exist. “Every Samoyede keeps his reindeer and tends them himself with
the help of his family, except the richest, who hire poor men as
herdsmen” [561]. Islawin and Finsch also make no mention of slavery
[562]. And the account of Samoyede customs given by Von Stenin, who has
largely drawn upon Russian literature, makes the non-existence of
slavery quite certain [563].
“The Ghiliaks” says Déniker in a valuable article “are all equal, and
never have there been slaves among them” [564].
Müller gives a somewhat minute description of the Tunguz, in which
slavery is not mentioned, so it very probably does not exist [565].
Sieroshevski, who lived more than 12 years among the Yakuts, concludes
from their traditions, that they formerly kept slaves. “In ancient
times, the Yakuts had a name for a man whom a defeated hero gave to his
conqueror as a compensation for sparing his own life. Such persons
later were in fact slaves and were included in the gifts with a bride.
If they were females, they became concubines of the master. Such a
slave person was called an enne, and this word has new come to be used
as an adjective for whatever is given with a bride”. However this may
be, it appears from his detailed and excellent description, that now
they have no slaves [566].
Laufer, describing the Gold of that part of the Amoor lying between
Chabarovsk and Sophisk, makes no mention of slavery. But as their whole
mode of life is strongly influenced by the Russians, we are not certain
whether in their aboriginal state they kept slaves [567].
Steller’s statements about slavery among the Italmen or Kamchadales are
not very clear. Speaking of their wars he says: “The victorious party
enslaved the prisoners, made the women and girls concubines, and
slaughtered all males they could to be henceforward safe from them.” In
another place he states: “They do not steal anything from each other
but women and dogs, which was the cause of their former wars.” In his
survey of Kamchadale history he speaks of a chief who, in order to
augment his power, exacted from his enemies a tribute of girls and
boys. The Italmen of the Kurile Islands attacked those of the
Kamchadale peninsula, and carried off many girls and boys into
servitude. In a note he states: “The prisoners and slaves were employed
in various rough and domestic labours.... If a prisoner behaved well,
he was sometimes dismissed to his home after a two or three years’
imprisonment” [568]. In his chapters on male and female labour and on
marriage he makes no mention of slaves. In Steller’s time Kamchatka had
already been brought under Russian control; so he could not any more
observe their warfare and taking of prisoners, but got his information
about these matters from hearsay. This probably is the reason why this
information is not more clear. As he gives some particulars about
slaves kept by the Italmen of the Kurile Islands, we may suppose that
these at least had slaves. The author of the “Histoire de Kamtschatka”,
who consulted Steller’s manuscript, says: “The end of their wars was to
take prisoners in order to make the men work and to take the women as
concubines” [569]. But he adds no details.
The Tuski or Chukchi are to be divided into the inland Tuski, who keep
reindeer, and the Tuski of the coast, who are fishers. Nordenskiöld
remarks: “According to some Russian authors there are slaves,
undoubtedly descendants of war-captives, on the inland settlements.
Amongst the natives of the coast, on the contrary, the most perfect
equality prevails” [570]. A statement of Wrangell’s, referred to by
Erman, gives some more particulars. Wrangell, having lived already some
time with the Tuski, perceived to his great amazement that there were
serfs (Leibeigenen); he saw some families that did menial work; they
had no property, and were not allowed to go away from the rich on whom
they were dependent. They received clothing and lodging from their
employers, and did the hardest work; for instance they ran by the side
of the sledges to urge on the dogs. The Tuski said that this state of
things had always existed. Wrangell supposes that these serfs were the
offspring of war-captives. It does not appear what this supposition is
founded upon [571]. This record is worth more than Nordenskiöld’s vague
reference to “some Russian authors.” But it is not easy to decide
whether these subjected people are slaves. They might simply be poor
men dependent on the rich without being slaves, such as are also found
among the Eskimos. But the fact, that the poor Tuski are obliged to
stay with their employers is more suggestive of slavery. Georgi however
states that among the Tuski the poor serve the rich as herdsmen; and
Dall, Hooper, and Kennan make no mention of slaves [572]. In the
“Histoire de Kamtschatka” it is stated that they made raids on the
tribes subjected to Russia, “killing or taking prisoners all they meet”
[573]. But we are not told what was the fate of these captives. So we
must leave this question undecided. At any rate this alleged slavery
has been useful; for it led to Nordenskiöld’s positive statement that
among the Tuski of the coast, whom he had visited himself, slavery was
unknown.
The Koryakes are to be divided into nomadic Koryakes and settled
Koryakes. The former with their herds roam from one place to another,
the latter live along the rivers. The languages of these two divisions
differ so much, that they cannot understand each other. “The nomadic
Koryakes consider them [the settled Koryakes] as slaves, and treat them
accordingly” says our informant. But we know that such slavery of a
tribe as a whole is not slavery in the true sense of the word. No other
mention is made of slaves. The nomadic Koryakes “before they were
subjected by the Russians, had neither government nor magistrates; only
the rich exercized some authority over the poor” [574]. So we may infer
that slavery is unknown among both nomadic and settled Koryakes.
Melnikow, minutely describing the Buriats, makes no mention of slaves;
but as they have been long under Russian influence [575], we are not
certain whether slavery was not formerly an institution among them.
The Ainu, though not inhabiting Siberia, may find a place here, as they
live nearer to this than to any other group. Batchelor, describing the
raids which the several divisions of the Ainu made on each other, says:
“On such occasions the whole of the male population were murdered
during sleep, whilst the women and children were carried off as slaves
to work in the gardens, and were called usshui ne guru. The women
however were kept as concubines” [576]. Landor refers to this and some
other remarks of Batchelor’s and then adds: “From my own experience—and
I may add I am the only foreigner who has seen these Tokachi, or as
others call them, Tokapchi Ainu—I came to a conclusion very different
from this. I found that not only were they not cannibals, but that,
taken altogether, they were the most peaceable, gentle, and kind Ainu I
came across during my peregrinations through the land of the hairy
people” [577]. Hitchcock also describes the Ainu as peaceable. Speaking
of some cruel punishments in vogue amongst them, he remarks: “H. von
Siebold has supposed from these old customs, that the Ainos were once a
savage and warlike people. They may have been so, as one might infer
from Japanese tradition, but it seems to me unsafe to make the
assumption on the grounds suggested by von Siebold. Their present
character does not sustain it in any way” [578]. Some other describers
of the Ainu we have consulted make no mention at all of slaves [579].
So we cannot arrive at a definite conclusion.
Result. Positive case: Kamchadales.
Negative cases: Samoyedes,
Ghiliaks,
Tunguz,
Yakuts,
Tuski of the coast,
nomadic Koryakes,
settled Koryakes,
Ostyaks,
Gold.
No conclusion: inland Tuski,
Ainu.
§ 13. Caucasus.
Slavery undoubtedly exists among the Ossetes [580] and Circassians
[581].
The Shahsewenses, according to Radde, consist of two social classes,
the nobles and the common people [582]. So they probably have no
slaves.
According to Bodenstedt “every Suane who is not able to provide for his
daughters and sisters, may sell them as slaves” [583]. This is the only
reference made to slavery by any of our informants [584]. Telfer states
that the independent Suanes acknowledge neither king nor nobility,
consider all men equal, despise all authority and have no laws [585].
Therefore it does not seem probable that they keep slaves; perhaps the
daughters and sisters of whom Bodenstedt speaks are sold abroad.
In Klaproth’s detailed description of the Charachai no mention is made
of slavery; so probably it does not exist [586].
Chantre gives a few short notes on some Caucasus tribes. Gourien
nobles, according to him, export slaves to Turkey [587]. Whether they
also employ slaves, we do not know.
Among the Kabards of Asia Minor the families consist of about twelve
persons, slaves included [588].
The Abchases were formerly slave-traders. They coupled their prisoners,
and sold the children born of these unions [589]. Whether these
slave-breeders kept their slaves only for the sake of reproduction or
for anything beyond this, does not appear.
The Tchetchenes “say: We are all equal. There were never slaves among
them. Only the captives were not members of the tribe; but even these
often married their master’s daughters and so became their equals”
[590]. These captives bear a strong resemblance to slaves; and we
should be very much inclined to call them such, were it not that
Chantre positively asserts that there never were slaves in this tribe.
The lack of further details prevents our coming to any definite
conclusion.
Result. Positive cases: Ossetes,
Circassians,
Kabards of Asia Minor.
Negative cases: Charachai,
Shahsewenses.
No conclusion: Suanes,
Tchetchenes,
Gouriens,
Abchases.
§ 14. Arabia.
The Aeneze Bedouins have slaves. “Slaves, both male and female, are
numerous throughout the desert; there are but few sheiks or wealthy
individuals who do not possess a couple of them” [591].
Doughty makes no mention of slavery among the Fejir Bedouins; but his
description is not elaborate enough for us to infer that slavery does
not exist [592].
Regarding the Larbas, a tribe of pastoral Arabs living in North Africa,
we have got a very good description by Geoffroy. They keep Negro slaves
[593].
Result. Positive cases: Aeneze Bedouins,
Larbas.
No conclusion: Fejir Bedouins.
§ 15. Africa. A. Bantu tribes.
Theal remarks about the Bantu tribes in general that, when first
discovered by the Portuguese, the coast tribes had no slaves, but in
the inland there were heartless slave-owners [594].
1. Caffres.
Tromp and Macdonald, describing the Caffres in general, make no mention
of slavery [595]. Waitz remarks: “The poor join the rich as their
“children”, live in servitude, and are often exposed to heavy
oppression and arbitrary treatment; but they are not slaves in the true
sense: slavery proper does not exist.” “The conquered are not enslaved,
the conqueror requires only subjection; whereas often the object of
their wars is the capturing of cattle rather than of men” [596].
The Ama-Xosa are described by Fritsch. War is seldom sanguinary, its
main object being cattle-stealing; but if the attacked defend their
cattle energetically, a general slaughter ensues; women and children
are killed without discrimination. Fugitive enemies are mercilessly
slaughtered. When a chief has great renown, he gets many followers, who
crowd towards him from all sides and contribute to the enlargement of
his power; for it is a custom among the Caffres never to deliver up a
fugitive whatever the reason of his fleeing from his native country.
The chiefs punish insurgents by taking away their cattle; then they are
poor men without any influence in the tribe. These particulars make the
existence of slavery improbable: no prisoners are taken, fugitives and
insurgents are not enslaved. In one place, however, Fritsch speaks of
slaves. The Fengu, remnants of destroyed tribes, fell into the hands of
the Ama-Xosa, who spared the lives of these fugitives, but kept them in
wretched bondage. “In 1835, after this slave-state had lasted for more
than ten years, when the Caffres were at war with the colony, the Fengu
begged the Governor Sir Benjamin d’Urban to liberate them. The
Governor, complying with the request, sent troops to enable them to
depart, and so at once 16800 men, women and children with what little
cattle and other property they had, established themselves in the
colony” [597]. It is clear that these Fengu were not slaves. That they
could depart in such large numbers from the country of the Ama-Xosa,
proves that they lived more or less separate. They were weaker tribes
subjected by a stronger one; we shall see that this occurs very often
in South Africa. The tribes were subjected as tribes, not the
individuals as such; therefore they were not slaves. Kropf, who lived
among the Ama-Xosa as a missionary for 42 years, describes them as they
were some 70 years ago. In his detailed account he does not speak of
slaves. Male prisoners were killed, women and children were sometimes
left alive. We are not told what was the fate of these women and
children. There were no social classes, the whole people, from the
chief down to the last of his subjects, regarding themselves as one
family [598]. From all this we may safely infer that slavery did not
exist among the Ama-Xosa.
In his description of the Ama-Zulu Fritsch makes no mention of slavery.
Livingstone says: “Zulus do not usually destroy any save the old, and
able-bodied men. The object of their raids in general is that the
captured women and children may be embodied into the tribe, and become
Zulus. The masters of the captives are kind to them, and children are
put on the same level as those of any ordinary man. In their usual
plan, we seem to have the condition so bepraised by some advocates for
slavery. The members of small disunited communities are taken under a
powerful government, obtain kind masters, whom they are allowed to
exchange for any one else within the tribe, and their children become
freemen.... The Zulus are said never to sell their captives” [599].
These captives who are “embodied into the tribe, and become Zulus,” and
are never sold, certainly are not slaves.
The Matabele are a division of the Zulus, who in 1820 separated from
the mother-country. Their mode of life still bears much resemblance to
that of the Zulus [600]. Livingstone remarks: “Among the coast tribes a
fugitive is almost always sold, but here [i.e. among the Zulus] a man
retains the same rank he held in his own tribe. The children of
captives even have the same privileges as the children of their
captors.” The Rev. T. M. Thomas, a missionary now living with
Moselekatse, finds the same system prevailing among his Zulu or
Matabele. He says that “the African slave, brought by a foray to the
tribe, enjoys, from the beginning, the privileges and name of a child
and looks upon his master and mistress in every respect as his new
parents. He is not only nearly his master’s equal, but he may, with
impunity, leave his master and go wherever he likes within the boundary
of the kingdom: although a bondman or servant, his position, especially
in Moselekatse’s country, does not convey the true idea of a state of
slavery; for, by care and diligence, he may soon become a master
himself, and even more rich and powerful than he who led him captive.”
The practice pursued by these people, on returning from a foray, of
selling the captives to each other for corn or cattle, might lead one
to imagine, that slavery existed in all its intensity among the native
Africans; but Mr. Thomas, observing, as we have often done, the actual
working of the system, says very truly: “Neither the punctuality,
quickness, thoroughness, nor amount of exertion is required by the
African as by the European master. In Europe the difficulty is want of
time, in Africa, what is to be done with it. Apart from the shocking
waste of life, which takes place in these and all slave forays, their
slavery is not so repulsive as it always becomes in European hands”
[601]. Kerr states, that the masters must pay for the offences
committed by their slaves [602]. Holub’s account throws quite another
light on the subject. The captured boys are given to warriors in order
to be instructed by them in warfare; those already accustomed to the
use of weapons are instantly enrolled into the army. Female captives
are lent to warriors. The king used yearly to make raids on the
neighbouring countries; on these occasions thousands were slaughtered.
Besides the men, old women no longer able to work, infants and young
children were killed. When Mackenzie in 1863 visited Matabeleland, he
found but a few Zulu-warriors. Most men in the prime of life were
Bechuanas, whom the king had either captured or exacted as a tax. The
regiments of young men consisted mainly of Makalaka and Mashona youths.
In time of peace they had to tend the cattle, and on their return home
to exercise themselves in the use of weapons [603]. Can these
statements be brought to agree? It may be, that Holub’s account relates
to a period of strong but short-lived despotism, such as so often
occurs among these tribes, and Livingstone’s description to a more
peaceful time. It may also be, that both relate to the same period,
Livingstone not mentioning their military organization. Though Thomas
(quoted by Livingstone) speaks of slaves, it is not easy to make out,
whether the captives were really slaves; we should rather think not, as
they were allowed to leave their masters and go wherever they liked. At
any rate slavery, if it exists, is not much developed, the chief
function of slaves probably being reinforcement of the tribe in
warfare.
The Bechuana group consists of several tribes, the principal being,
according to Schurtz [604], the Basuto, the Makololo, the Bamangwato,
the Bakwains and the Bakalahari. Fritsch, describing the Bechuanas in
general, makes no mention of slaves. According to Holub, however, they
have Makalahiri slaves [605]. But from some particulars it appears that
these Makalahiri are rather a tribe subjected as a whole than
individual slaves. “These Makalahiri have to live in the more western
parts, where game is plentiful, and have to kill the game and bring the
spoil to their masters, who live in parts where the water is more
abundant.” They are employed as hunters or herdsmen. “If a Makalahiri
servant behaves well and kills a good many ostriches for his master, he
is allowed to marry a Bechuana woman” [606]. Conder describes the
Makalahiri as “nomadic hunters, living chiefly in the west, and
considered in the light of serfs of the chief” [607]. It is clear that
these hunters, living away from the Bechuanas, and considered as “serfs
of the chiefs,” are a subjected tribe and not individual slaves. There
are two other tribes subjected to the Bechuanas: the Barwa or Masarwa,
and the Madenassana. That these are servile tribes and not slaves,
appears still more clearly than with the Makalahiri [608]. Hence we
should infer that the Bechuanas have no slaves. We shall presently see
whether this conclusion agrees with the information we get about the
single tribes belonging to this group.
According to Casalis, who was intimately acquainted with the Basutos,
slavery was unknown among them, the servile work being performed by the
women and children. Prisoners of war were admitted to be ransomed
[609].
The Batauana are described by Passarge. Though he calls them a division
of the Basutos, the state of things among them, as regards slavery, is
quite different from that among the Basutos. Passarge speaks of slaves
kept by them and also of tribes subjected by them, but living in
separate settlements and leading a tribal life. Whether the so-called
slaves are identical with the members of the subjected tribes or
whether they are slaves in the proper sense, is not clear [610].
Livingstone tells us that the Makololo never make slaves. In another
work he relates, how once a troop of Matabele was starving on an
island; the Makololo finding them killed the adult people and adopted
the rest. Formerly there was no slave-trade; now captured children are
the object of it [611]. The Makololo therefore have no slaves.
As to the Bakwains, Livingstone speaks of a woman who, as a punishment
for theft, became the property of the injured party [612]. But we do
not know, whether she was intended to be sold abroad or to be kept as a
slave. Holub speaks of Barwa and Makalahiri in a servile condition; but
these are probably subjected tribes and not slaves [613].
Joest informs us that among the Barolong there are descendants of
slaves, though not treated as such, who live with most of their
families. They tend the cattle; their name “Bakhalahari” vouches for
their western origin [614]. Perhaps they are a division of the same
Makalahiri we have met with as a tribe subjected to the Bechuanas. But
the statement that they live with Barolong families is more suggestive
of slavery; they may, however, be free labourers. We cannot arrive here
at any definite conclusion.
The Angoni are great slave-traders, but also keep domestic slaves.
Wiese and Kerr give some particulars regarding their slave-system
[615].
Junod gives a detailed description of the Baronga, living near Delagoa
Bay. Slaves were formerly sold on a large scale to the coast people.
Whether the Baronga themselves kept slaves does not appear [616].
Among the Vawenda the children of sorcerers are sold as slaves; whether
at home or abroad we are not told [617]. No more particulars being
given, we do not know whether slavery exists here.
Theal, describing the Makalanga or Makaranga, tells us of a chief who
offered female slaves to the whites [618]. But this short note is by no
means sufficient for us to go upon.
2. South-West Bantus.
The Ovampo, according to Galton, have members of foreign tribes living
among them in a state of subjection; but whether these people are
slaves in the true sense is not clear. “I cannot speak with certainty”
he says “of the exact standing in which the Damaras and the Bushmen
severally live among the Ovampo. The first are employed principally as
cattle-watchers; the second, who are even more ornamented than the
Ovampo themselves, are a kind of standing army; but I have great reason
to doubt whether either one or the other class is independent. The
Ovampo, as I have mentioned, looked down with much contempt on the
Damaras; and there is not a single instance, so far as I could learn,
of any Ovampo woman marrying a Damara, and settling in Damaraland, but
the reverse is a very common case. The Bushmen appear to be naturalised
among the negro tribes, and free in the border-lands between them to a
distance very far north of Ondonga” [619].
Rautanen, in his description of the Ondonga, states that there are
neither serfs nor slaves. But at the same time he repeatedly makes
mention of slaves. Slaves have no rights of inheritance. The master is
responsible for damages caused by his slaves. Nobody but the chief has
the right to sell slaves [620]. These contradictory statements do not
allow us to arrive at a definite conclusion.
The Ovaherero or Damaras, according to Andersson, have slaves. The men
are lazy; all their work is done by women and slaves. The slaves are
the offspring of impoverished families, and captured Bushmen. The
former are enslaved when children and mainly employed as herdsmen
[621]. It is strange that Fritsch, who often refers to Andersson, makes
no mention whatever of slavery. Hahn and Haarhoff also have nothing on
slavery [622], which is very puzzling, as according to Andersson
slavery holds so large a place in their social life. Perhaps the
children of impoverished families whom Andersson speaks of are not
slaves but free labourers compelled to serve only by poverty; for
“among all South-African natives the rich oppress the poor, who in the
hope of filling their stomachs, submit to a state of dependence that is
not authorized by law [623]”.
Viehe remarks, that slavery in the proper sense does not exist among
the Ovaherero. But captive children are reared among them and regarded
as making part of the low domestics, so to speak as serfs. These serfs
are, most of them, Damaras of the mountains. They do the same kind of
work as the Ovaherero. Many of them, when full-grown, acquire wealth
and are on a footing of equality with the Ovaherero themselves. “The
serfs live entirely without supervision and can at any time return to
their free compatriots.” The serfs, as well as the servants of
Ovaherero origin, are designated by a native name, originally meaning
foreigner, but that has become to mean servant. In another place our
informant states, that every individual is called a servant, when
compared with a person of higher standing [624].
It is not easy to decide, whether this description is indicative of
real slavery. Only some of the captives, when full-grown, arrive at a
position equal to that of the free people; so it would seem that the
others remain slaves. But if they are allowed at any time to return to
their own country, their position is a voluntary one.
Kohler’s authorities, viz. the German magistrate Bensen and the
missionaries Meyer and Büttner, all affirm that the Ovaherero keep
slaves and give several details. Slaves are captives or children of
such; but slavery can also take its origin in voluntary submission.
Most of the slaves are Damaras of the mountains. All the goods of the
slave belong to his master. The master is responsible for any crime
committed by the slave and has the right of life and death over him.
Slaves are bought and sold and inherited. They cannot be manumitted.
Children of slaves are slaves [625].
From this it would appear that slavery really exists.
The seeming contradiction between Viehe and Kohler’s authorities might
be solved, if we attend to the following remark, made by Kohler on
Büttner’s authority: “The practical possibility for the slaves of
escaping from their master is the best warrant for good treatment
[626].” We may infer from this that, when Viehe says that the slaves
can at any time return to their own country, it is only meant that it
is easy from them to do so (as among a pastoral and nomadic nation it
is likely to be), not that they are permitted to do so by law or
custom.
The conclusion is that the Ovaherero keep slaves.
Among the Batoka the slave-trade had in Livingstone’s time been lately
introduced [627]. We are not told whether they kept slaves themselves.
The Barotse have slaves; this is proved by the statements of several
writers [628].
In the descriptions of the Makalaka no mention is made of slavery, so
they probably have no slaves [629].
The Manansa are not fond of fighting [630], so they probably make no
prisoners. They might have purchased slaves; but as nothing is told us
of slavery amongst them, the probability is against this.
The Kimbunda have an elaborate slave-system, minutely described by
Magyar [631].
The Lovalé people have the reputation of being harsh task-masters.
Slaves are procured by exchange from abroad [632]. These short notes
are all the evidence we know of, bearing on the existence of slavery
among them.
The people of Lunda are great slave-traders. Several details given by
our informants prove that they also keep slaves for their own use
[633].
In the neighbouring country of Cazembe there are two social classes:
the nobility and the Muzias or servants, including peasants, artisans,
etc. Both classes are called slaves of the Muata (king); this of course
is not slavery proper. All men able to fight must go to war; but this
does not affect the cultivation of the land, which is carried on by the
women only [634]. These statements make the existence of slavery
improbable.
Among the Kioko slavery certainly exists [635].
The Selles, according to Magyar, have also slaves [636].
3. East-African Bantus.
Macdonald remarks that the East-Central African tribes in general have
slaves [637].
The Manganja suffer much from slave-stealing tribes, but also keep
slaves themselves [638].
Slavery also exists among the following tribes:
Banyai [639],
Wagogo [640],
Washambala [641],
Wapare [642],
Wajao [643],
Makonde [644],
Wahehe [645],
Wachagga [646]
Wanyamwesi [647],
Azimba [648],
Wajiji [649],
Wapokomo [650],
Bondei [651].
Among the Wasiba or Basiba slavery is practised, though not to a great
extent. “There are few slaves in the country, most of them being women;
a male slave generally runs away and joins another chief as a free man
[652].”
The Wanyakyusa, according to Fülleborn, do not keep slaves [653].
Slavery is equally unknown among the Wambugu [654].
The Wazaramo have no weapons of war; warfare seems unknown among them.
They formerly suffered much from the slave-trade [655]. We do not know,
whether they have slaves; probably they have not.
Peters, in his account of the Maravis, gives some particulars about
slaves; but they are not sufficient to decide, whether there is
domestic slavery or slave-trade only [656].
The Wasinja and Wakerewe export slaves; but slaves are also imported
into their country by caravans [657]. Probably the latter are kept
among them; but this short note is not sufficient to draw a positive
inference from.
The Wafipa are said never to make slaves or to sell them to traders.
When a slave succeeds in arriving at the town of Kapufi, he is
considered free. They never make war, though they defend themselves
when attacked [658].
Among the Wanyaturu slavery is unknown [659].
Von Höhnel, visiting the country of the Wakikuyu, found two men, who
some years before had joined a caravan and had been left behind because
they were ill; from that time they had lived as slaves among the
Wakikuyu [660]. This statement shows, that the Wakikuyu keep slaves for
their own use, not for export only.
Of the Wawira we have a detailed description by Emin Pasha. As there is
not a word about slaves in it, it is almost certain that slavery does
not exist among them [661].
Slavery is also very probably not to be found among the Wataveta,
minutely described by Thomson, Johnston and Von Höhnel [662].
4. Tribes on the Congo and in Lower Guinea.
Ward and De Bas, speaking of the Congo tribes in general, state that
slavery exists [663].
On the Lower Congo, according to Phillips, the family consists of “the
head man or patriarch, his wives, family proper, dependents and
slaves.” There are also debtor-slaves [664].
Slavery certainly exists among the following tribes:
Bihés [665],
Minungo [666],
Mpongwe [667],
Orungu [668],
Mbengas [669],
Apinchi [670],
Duallas [671],
Fiotes [672],
Bayanzi [673],
Bangala on the Congo [674],
Baluba [675],
Manyuema [676],
Kabinda [677],
Ininga and Galloa [678],
Wangata [679],
Bondo [680],
Camas [681],
Bakundu,
Banyang,
Batom,
Mabum [682],
Bali tribes [683],
Bambala [684],
Bayaka [685],
Bahuana [686],
Bakwese [687],
Yaunde [688],
Hoesemann gives several particulars about the slave system of some
tribes of Cameroon, the principal of which are the Indikki [689].
Regarding the Bakwiri, who are related to the Duallas, we are told
that, unlike their neighbours, they do not keep slaves. On the death of
a king a slave is bought from abroad and killed [690].
The describers of the Mundombe make no mention of slavery; so they
probably have no slaves [691].
The writers on the Quillengue also are silent on this subject; but here
the descriptions are not minute enough for us to arrive at any accurate
conclusion [692].
The natives of Angola have slaves; whether for export only or also for
their own use, does not appear [693].
The same applies to the Bangala on the Kuango, who are great
slave-traders [694].
The Songo or Masongo use slaves as articles of exchange, and wherever
the chief goes, he is accompanied by slaves; but whether they can
rightly be called a slave-keeping people, is not clear from Pogge’s
short notes [695].
Several authors inform us that the Fans have no slaves [696].
In a monography on the Banaka and Bapuku many particulars are given
about their slave system [697]. Hence we infer that slavery exists
among them, though Winwood Reade’s short remark that among the Bapuka
the men are equal would seem to point to a contrary conclusion [698].
Buchholz, in a short note, speaks of slavery among the Bakele [699].
The slave-trade is almost the only trade of the Okota. On the death of
a distinguished person slaves are killed [700]. This information is
not, however, sufficient to put this case down as a clear one.
None of our informants on the Bateke make any mention of slavery.
According to Guiral they sometimes eat their prisoners, when they find
no occasion to sell them [701]. So they probably keep no slaves.
The Wagenia are stated to throw the corpses of slaves, and perhaps of
all the dead, into the river [702]. This short note being the only
evidence, we are not certain that slavery really exists.
Among the Warua at the funeral of a chief slaves are killed [703]. But
this does not prove that slavery is a social institution here.
The Bakuba have slaves, according to Wissmann [704]. But the same
author states in another place, that male slaves are bought only to be
killed at funerals [705]. So slavery proper probably does not exist.
When Wissmann visited the Tuchilangue, they had no male slaves; but on
a later visit he found that male slaves had been introduced among them.
Pogge also observed male slaves [706]. So at present slavery exists
here.
Of the Tupende we are told, that slaves have for two hundred years been
exported from their country. They buy female slaves, and make them
their wives [707]. Probably they keep no male slaves; but it is not
certain.
The Aduma and Oschebo are slave-traders; but of domestic slavery no
mention is made [708].
The same applies to the Hollo [709] and Milembue [710].
5. Natives of the Wahuma states.
Among the Waganda slavery is carried on to a great extent [711].
The describers of the Wanyoro [712] make no mention of slavery; but
their notes are not detailed enough to infer that it does not exist.
The Bahima of Enkole keep slaves [713].
Slavery also exists among the natives of Bukoba [714].
Result. Positive Angoni,
cases: Ovaherero,
Barotse,
Kimbunda,
Lunda people,
Kioko,
Selles,
Manganja,
Banyai,
Wagogo,
Washambala,
Wapare,
Wajao,
Makonde,
Wahehe,
Wachagga,
Wanyamwesi,
Azimba,
Wajiji,
Wapokomo,
Bondei,
Wasiba,
Wakikuyu,
Bihés,
Minungo,
Mpongwe,
Orungu,
Mbengas,
Apinchi,
Duallas,
Fiotes,
Bayanzi,
Bangala on the Congo,
Baluba,
Manyuema,
Kabinda,
Ininga and Galloa,
Wangata,
Bondo,
Camas,
Bakundu,
Banyang,
Batom,
Mabum,
Bali tribes,
Bambala,
Bayaka,
Bahuana,
Bakwese,
Yaunde,
Indikki,
Banaka and Bapuku,
Tuchilangue,
Waganda,
Bahima,
natives of Bukoba,
Batawana,
Lovalé people,
Bakele,
Wagenia,
Warua.
Negative cases: Ama-Xosa,
Ama-Zulu,
Basutos,
Makololo,
Makalaka,
Wanyakyusa,
Wambugu,
Wafipa,
Wanyaturu,
Wawira,
Wataveta,
Bakwiri,
Mumdombe,
Fans,
Bateke,
Matebele,
Manansa,
Cazembe people,
Wazaramo,
Bakuba,
Tupende.
No conclusion: Bakwains,
Baronga,
Ovampo,
Barolong,
Vawenda,
Makalanga,
Batoka,
Maravis,
Wasinja and Wakerewe,
Quillengue,
Angola,
Bangala on the Kuango,
Songo or Masongo,
Okota,
Aduma and Oschebo,
Hollo,
Milembue,
Wanyoro.
§ 16. Africa. B. Soudan Negroes.
1. Coast of Guinea.
Among several tribes here slavery certainly exists. These are the
Calabarese [715],
inhabitants of Bonny [716],
Brass people [717],
inhabitants of Benin [718],
Ewe [719],
inhabitants of Dahomey [720],
Geges and Nagos of Porto-Novo [721],
Yorubas [722],
inhabitants of Ashanti [723],
Fanti [724],
Gallinas [725],
Mandingoes [726],
Wolofs [727],
Saracolays or Soninkays [728],
Kagoros [729],
Bambaras [730],
Toucouleurs or Torodos [731],
Jekris [732],
Malinkays [733],
Susu,
Landuma,
Limba [734].
Among the Ibo or Eboe in the hinterland of the Niger delta criminals
are sold abroad as slaves [735]. Whether they keep slaves themselves
does not appear.
Several writers affirm that the Krus keep slaves. Miss Kingsley,
however, who seems to be well acquainted with them, speaks of “the Krus
being a non-slave-holding tribe” [736]. So we cannot arrive at a
positive conclusion.
“The Bobo” says Tautain “make no slaves; they hold slavery greatly in
abhorrence.... It seems that the Bobo are very industrious; as they
have no slaves, they probably have to work much harder than the
Mandingoes and other neighbouring peoples” [737].
Corre informs us that “slavery exists among the Sereres. However, the
inhabitants of Fadiouth are said to have had captives during the last
few years only, imitating what they saw amongst the Wolof traders, most
of whom are subjects of France. Independent persons, such as a woman
without a husband or family, may sell themselves to any one who is
willing to buy them” [738]. This case may well be called a doubtful
one.
2. Haussa states.
3. Central Soudan.
The nations inhabiting these parts, such as the Haussa, Borgu, etc.,
are perhaps not properly to be called savage tribes, so we shall leave
them out of regard here [739].
4. Upper Nile.
Chaillé Long tells us that among the Chillooks the sheikh of each tribe
detains as slaves those who do not possess at least one cow [740]. No
more particulars being given about slavery, we may put this down as a
very doubtful case.
The Diour tribes make raids on each other. A large number of slaves are
carried off every year by the Arabian slave-traders [741]. Whether
domestic slavery exists or not, we are not told.
Among the Dinka every man has on an average three head of cattle, but
there are also poor people, who are the slaves or servants of the rich
[742]. These “slaves or servants” very probably are not slaves. We may
not, however, infer that slavery does not exist here; for the notes our
informants [743] give on their social life are very short.
The Bari are themselves victims of the slave trade [744]. Whether they
keep slaves, we are not told.
Very minute descriptions are given in Stuhlmann’s book of the Latuka
[745], Alur [746] and Lendu [747]. No mention being made of slavery, we
may be sure that it does not exist among them.
Junker speaks of a chief of the Abukaja or Amadi, who made raids and
divided the booty, consisting of captured women and girls, with the
allied chiefs and his subjects. Such is the custom, says Junker, and
therefore the men like to go to war. In another place he speaks of
captured women with children and infants, and girls [748]. Whether
these captured persons are kept among the Abukaja or exported, and if
the former, whether they are made slaves, we do not know.
The same author speaks of slaves among the Makaraka; but it is not
clear, whether they keep these slaves or sell them to the Arabians, who
carry on the slave-trade on a large scale in these regions [749].
The Niam-Niam in their wars capture many women. Schweinfurth supposes,
that they retain the captured women as slaves, but kill the men. Junker
also speaks of female slaves. According to him male slaves are
sometimes sacrificed; but it is not clear, whether the latter are
ordinary slaves or only bought or captured to be sacrificed [750]. Our
information does not admit of any accurate conclusion.
Schweinfurth’s description seems to show, that the Mombuttus have male
slaves. Junker speaks only of female slaves [751]. Burrows says:
“Between the chief and the people are a race of freed men, who do not
engage in manual labour of any kind. From the term freed men it must
not be inferred that the people below them are slaves; they are equally
free, but are without the hereditary rank of the so-called freed men,
who are generally relations of the chief or in some way connected with
him [752].” Hence it would appear that slavery does not exist among
them. These conflicting statements do not allow us to arrive at a safe
conclusion.
The Wagungo proper, says Junker, do hardly any work themselves; they
leave it all to their slaves, the Schuli and Tschappu [753]. These
Schuli and Tschappu seem to be subjected tribes rather than slaves; but
as further particulars are wanting, we feel unable to decide.
Among the Warundi slavery is unknown [754].
The same applies to the Wafiomi [755], Wataturu [756], and Wambugwe
[757].
The several describers of the Bongos, who give many details of their
social life, make no mention of slavery; hence we may infer that it
does not exist among them [758].
5. Appendix. African Islands.
The Boobies of Fernando-Po, according to Compiègne, have numerous
slaves. Hutchinson states, that in their wars they spare neither age
nor sex [759]. So the slaves are probably purchased foreigners.
Sibree, describing the Sakalavas of Madagascar, speaks of a kind of
temple, which slaves may not enter, for should they do so they would
become free [760]. According to Hildebrandt the occupations of the
Sakalavas are not multifarious. The men tend the cattle and now and
then sell a beast, and sometimes help the women in the little
plantations. In the rice district of North Sakalavaland, where rice is
cultivated for export, more labour is wanted on the fields; therefore
in this district many slaves are kept [761]. It is not clear, whether
our informant means to say, that in the other districts of Sakalavaland
there are no slaves; at any rate we may conclude, that among the
Northern Sakalavas slavery exists.
Slavery also exists among the inhabitants of the small islands of
Nossi-Bé and Mayotte, many of whom belong to the Sakalavas [762].
The other tribes of Madagascar have found a place in § 8 (Malay
Archipelago).
Result. Positive Calabarese,
cases: inhabitants of Bonny,
Brass people,
inhabitants of Benin,
Ewe,
inhabitants of Dahomey,
Geges and Nagos,
Yorubas,
inhabitants of Ashanti,
Fanti,
Gallinas,
Mandingoes,
Wolofs,
Saracolays,
Kagoros,
Bambaras,
Toucouleurs,
Jekris,
Malinkays,
Susu,
Landuma,
Limba,
Boobies,
Northern Sakalavas,
Sakalavas of Nossi-Bé and Mayotte,
Sereres,
Niam-Niam,
Mombuttus,
Wagungo.
Negative cases: Bobo,
Latuka,
Alur,
Lendu,
Warundi,
Wafiomi,
Wataturu,
Wambugwe,
Bongos.
No conclusion: Ibo or Eboe,
Krus,
Chillooks,
Diours,
Dinka,
Bari,
Abukaja,
Makaraka.
§ 17. Africa. C. Light-coloured South Africans and African
pigmy-tribes.
Fritsch, at the beginning of his description of the Hottentots or
Koi-Koin, states that in his time these tribes had already been much
changed from their aboriginal state; so he had to rely on the
statements of ancient writers, several of which bear a rather fantastic
character [763].
Of the Namaqua, one of the Hottentot tribes, he says, that the state of
women is not so bad as among most South African tribes. The men assist
their wives in the hard work; moreover a class of servants or slaves
exists here. “This lowest class of people—one might object to our
calling them “slaves”, as there is no established law distinguishing
slaves from freemen—among the Namaqua mainly consists of individuals
belonging to the despised tribes of Mountain-Damara and Bushmen. These
people are looked upon as inferior by their very birth, and (like the
Vaalpenz among the Bechuanas) regard bad treatment as inevitably
connected with their origin, without being slaves by law. Serfs
(Leibeigenen) in the proper sense of the word may be called those only
who, as prisoners of war, or by surrendering at discretion (like the
Fengu among the Caffres), become subjected to men of power; of these
there are but few among the Namaqua tribes, but among all South African
natives the rich tyrannize over the poor who, in the hope of filling
their stomachs, comply with a state of dependence which is not
authorized by law.” According to Th. Hahn, he who ill-treats or even
barbarously murders a slave, is not punished [764]. This statement is
not very clear. Fritsch speaks here of three kinds of “servants or
slaves”: a. poor dependent on the rich; these certainly are servants
and not slaves; b. individuals belonging to despised tribes; of these
Fritsch says, that they are not slaves by law, and as no more details
are given, we cannot make out what they are; c. prisoners of war and
those who have surrendered at discretion. These, according to Fritsch,
are the only Leibeigenen in the proper sense; but he compares them to
the Fengu, who, as we saw in § 15, are subjected tribes rather than
slaves [765]. Galton remarks: “Though no slaves are exported from the
countries in which I travelled, yet there is a kind of slavery in the
countries themselves. It is not easy to draw a line between slavery and
servitude; but I should say that the relation of the master to the man
was, at least in Damara and Hottentotland, that of owner rather than
employer. The Namaqua Hottentots and Oorlams, in all their plundering
excursions, capture and drive back with them such Damara youths as they
take a fancy to, and they keep them, and assert every kind of right
over them. They punish them just as they please, and even shoot them,
without any one attempting to interfere. Next in the scale of slavery
are those Damaras, Ghou Damup, or Bushmen, who place themselves under
Hottentot “protection”, and on much the same footing as those among the
Hottentots, are the paupers that are attached to different werfts among
the Damaras [766]”. We see that Galton, like Fritsch, is uncertain as
to whether the subjected classes among the Namaqua are to be called
slaves. According to Wandrer, whose description applies to a later
period than the foregoing accounts, there are no slaves, but a kind of
serfs, most of them Herero, who were formerly prisoners of war [767].
Considering all this, we cannot arrive at any definite conclusion.
In his description of the other Hottentot tribes, viz. the Griqua,
Korana, and Colonial Hottentots, Fritsch makes no mention of slavery.
Holub remarks: “Where a well-to-do Korana can afford to keep some
Makalahiri and Masarwa as servants and slaves, the soil is tilled to a
small extent [768]”. We have before met with these Makalahiri and
Masarwa as tribes subjected to the Bechuanas; this makes us doubt,
whether the “slaves” Holub speaks of are not divisions of the same
tribes subjected to the Korana, rather than slaves in the proper sense;
the more so as he speaks of “servants and slaves”.
The describers of the Bushmen [769] make no mention of slavery. Fritsch
tells us that they adopted parts of the declining Hottentots into their
hordes [770], so we may safely infer that slavery did not exist among
them.
None of the describers of the Akkas [771] speak of slaves. Burrows
tells us that they “purchase their implements, such as spears,
arrow-heads, and knives, from their neighbours, in exchange for dried
meat, or for captives they have taken in the bush.” But as the same
writer states that “each village is ruled by a chief or head man, but
among the people there is no variation of rank [772]”, we may safely
suppose that they sell abroad all captives they have made, and do not
keep any of them as slaves.
Of the Abongos we know little, far too little to make out whether
slavery exists among them [773].
The Mucassequere, according to Serpa Pinto, sell the captives they make
in their wars as slaves to the Ambuella, who transmit them to Bihé
caravans [774]. We may therefore suppose that they do not keep slaves.
Result. Negative cases: Bushmen,
Akkas,
Mucassequere.
No conclusion: Namaqua,
Griqua,
Korana,
Colonial Hottentots,
Abongos.
§ 18. Africa. D. Hamitic peoples.
Munzinger, in his excellent books, describes several of these tribes,
all of which keep slaves: Beduan [775], Takue [776], Marea [777], Beni
Amer [778], Barea and Kunama [779], Bogos [780].
The Gallas practise slavery to a great extent [781].
The Somal and Danakil also have slaves, though not so many as the
Gallas [782].
Amongst the Massai slavery is unknown [783].
Kannenberg, in his short notes on his journey through the country of
the Warangi, remarks that captives are made slaves. But in Baumstark’s
elaborate description of this tribe no mention is made of slavery
[784]. We may therefore conclude, that the Warangi do not keep slaves.
If Kannenberg’s statement is correct, the prisoners certainly become
victims of the slave trade, which in his time was carried on to a great
extent in German East Africa [785].
The Wandorobo have been described by several authors [786], who do not
make any mention of slaves. They are themselves subjected to the Massai
[787]. We may safely conclude that they have no slaves [788].
The Wakwafi also probably have no slaves; for none of their describers
[789] say a word about slavery.
Result. Positive cases: Beduan,
Takue,
Marea,
Beni Amer,
Barea and Kunama,
Bogos,
Gallas,
Somal,
Danakil.
Negative cases: Massai,
Warangi,
Wandorobo,
Wakwafi.
Several North-African peoples, such as the Fulbe, the Tuareg, the
Kabyls, etc., being semi-civilized rather than savages, have been
excluded here [790].
§ 19. Recapitulation.
In the preceding paragraphs we have tried to find, which savage tribes
have, and which have not, slaves. But we suppose that our enumeration
of positive and negative cases has not yet given the reader a clear
idea of the occurrence of slavery in the several geographical
districts; probably he does not see the wood for trees. So we shall
take here a short survey, serving, so to speak, as a map and showing in
which parts of the globe slave-keeping savage tribes are found.
In North America slavery exists along the Pacific Coast from Behring
Strait to the Northern boundary of California (15 clear positive
cases). Beyond this district it seems to be unknown (42 clear negative
cases).
In Central and South America we find 9 positive and 17 negative cases
[791]. The positive cases are scattered over the whole continent; there
are no large positive or negative districts. Such, at least, is the
result we arrive at with the aid of our rather incomplete literature; a
better literature would perhaps show that such districts exist.
In Australia slavery is unknown (30 negative cases).
In Oceania, i.e. Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia, slaves are only
found in New Zealand, the North-Western Solomon Islands, the Gazelle
Peninsula of Neu Pommern and the Western part of New Guinea (altogether
8 pos. cases). In the rest of this group (except a few uncertain cases)
slavery does not exist (30 neg. cases).
In the Malay Archipelago slavery very frequently occurs (69 pos.
cases). The 8 negative cases are scattered over the group.
India and the Indo-Chinese Peninsula, taken together, afford 13
positive and 11 negative cases, the former being found in the Northern
parts of both groups.
In Central Asia and Siberia slavery seems to be unknown, except among
the Kamchadales (in Central Asia 4 neg. cases, in Siberia 1 pos. case
and 7 neg. cases).
The Caucasus yields 3 positive cases, 1 negative case, and several
doubtful cases. Our literature on this group is rather scanty.
The Arabian Aeneze Bedouins, as well as the Arabian Larbas who live in
North Africa, keep slaves (2 positive and no negative cases).
As for Africa, the Northern part of this continent, being inhabited by
semi-civilized peoples, is excluded from our survey. Among the savage
Africans slavery very frequently occurs. There are only two districts,
in which scarcely any clear positive cases are found, viz. South Africa
to the South of the Zambesi, and the country about the Upper Nile, to
the South-West of Abyssinia. Large agglomerations of slave-keeping
tribes are found on the Coast of Guinea, and in the district formed by
Lower Guinea and the territories bordering the Congo. A few negative
cases, however, are interspersed among the members of both groups,
especially of the latter. There are altogether 90 pos. and 31 neg.
cases in Africa.
All over the globe, there are, among the savage tribes on which we are
sufficiently informed, 210 with slaves and 181 without slaves.
PART II.
THEORETICAL.
CHAPTER I.
METHOD AND DIVISIONS.
§ 1. Method.
The results of the first Part will be utilized in this. We have seen
that slavery exists or formerly existed among many savage tribes,
whereas many others have always, as far as we know, been unacquainted
with it. The present Part will be taken up with an inquiry into the
causes of these phenomena. We shall try to find out, what kinds of
tribes have slaves, and what kinds have not.
To this end it would seem best to divide the several tribes according
to their general culture, and then to inquire at which stages of
culture slavery is found. But such a division cannot be made here
incidentally; for it would require years of labour. And a good
division, that we could adopt, has not yet been made. Morgan
distinguishes three periods of savagery, three of barbarism, and one of
civilization [792]. But his system rests on the unproved supposition,
that the stage of culture a people has attained to entirely depends on
its technical ability in the arts of subsistence. Dr. Vierkandt has
made another distinction. Besides the civilized and semi-civilized
peoples he has two categories: migratory tribes (unstete Völker), and
primitive peoples proper (eigentliche Naturvölker). The former are the
Australians, Tasmanians, Andamanese, Veddahs, Negritos, Kubus, Bushmen,
African pigmy-tribes, Fuegians and Botocudos; the latter the American
Indians, Arctic races, Northern Asiatics, Caucasus tribes, hill-tribes
of India, Negroes to the South of the Soudan, inhabitants of the Malay
Archipelago and Oceanic Islands [793]. But this division cannot be of
any use to us. It is not the result of an extensive and accurate
examination of the facts; the writer himself admits that he has
followed his general impressions [794]. Now the impressions of a
capable sociologist, as Vierkandt undoubtedly is, may count for
something; they give a hint as to the direction, in which the
investigation has to be carried on; but they do not themselves afford a
scientific basis to rely upon. His unstete Völker are simply those
generally known as the “lowest type of man”, whether justly or unjustly
we do not know [795]. And his eigentliche Naturvölker, as Professor
Steinmetz rightly remarks [796], comprehend savages of widely different
degrees of development. Moreover, although he says his criterion is the
psychical state of man, the economic side of social life comes always
prominently into view [797]; but the author does not even try to prove
that the psychical state of man depends upon the stage of economic
development.
Yet, as it can be easily done here, we may inquire whether Vierkandt’s
unstete Völker have slaves. It will be seen from the second Chapter of
our first Part that all of them, with the exception perhaps of the
Negritos, are unacquainted with slavery [798]. This conclusion,
however, is not of much use to us, as we do not know whether they have
been justly or unjustly classified under one category.
As little can the other attempts, which have been made, to classify the
savages according to their general culture, serve our purpose [799]. So
the method of investigation that would seem the best is not applicable
here. Therefore we are also unable to ascertain whether, as some
writers assert, slavery at a certain stage of social development is
universal. Bagehot says of slavery: “There is a wonderful presumption
in its favour; it is one of the institutions which, at a certain stage
of growth, all nations in all countries choose and cleave to” [800].
Grünberg expresses the same view: “No people has always and in all
phases of its development been unacquainted with slavery” [801].
According to Spencer “observation of all societies in all times shows
that slavery is the rule and freedom the exception” [802]. And
Tourmagne exclaims: “This almost universal scourge, going back to the
very origin of the nations and affecting all of them, is it not to be
regarded as a social stage that every people has to traverse, as an
evolution which it is obliged to undergo, before it can attain to the
higher degrees of civilization” [803]? If we had an ascending series of
stages of culture, we might inquire whether, within the limits of
savagery (for the civilized and semi-civilized peoples fall beyond the
scope of the present volume) there is a stage at which slavery is
universal. But, as we have already remarked, this is not yet possible.
The best method we can use now will be to take into view one prominent
side of social life, that may reasonably be supposed to have much
influence on the social structure, especially on the division of
labour; and to inquire whether this one factor may entirely, and if not
to what extent it may, account for the existence or non-existence of
slavery in every particular case. Here the economic side of life comes
in the first place into consideration. We are not among the adherents
of the materialistic theory of history; it is quite unproved and seems
to us very one-sided. But we may suppose that the division of labour
between the several social groups within a tribe, and therefore also
the existence or non-existence of slavery, largely depends on the
manner in which the tribe gets its subsistence. Whether, and to what
extent, this supposition is true, will be shown by the examination of
the facts. If this hypothesis fails to account for all the facts, we
shall try, with the aid of other hypotheses, to explain the rest.
The opinion that the existence of slavery mainly depends on the mode of
subsistence is also held by many theorists. According to Morgan
“slavery, which in the Upper Status of barbarism became the fate of the
captive, was unknown among tribes in the Lower Status in the aboriginal
period”. This Lower Status of barbarism begins with “the invention or
practice of the art of pottery”. Anterior to the art of pottery was
“the commencement of village life, with some degree of control over
subsistence”. It ends with “the domestication of animals in the Eastern
hemisphere, and in the Western with cultivation by irrigation and with
the use of adobe-brick and stone in architecture” [804]. So slavery,
according to Morgan, does not exist before a rather advanced period.
Several writers assert that hunters and fishers never have slaves.
Schmoller was formerly of the opinion that “no people unacquainted with
cattle-breeding and agriculture has slaves” [805]. In his handbook,
however, he informs us, that some highly developed tribes of fishers
also keep slaves [806]. Ingram expresses the view formerly held by
Schmoller: “In the hunter period the savage warrior does not enslave
his vanquished enemy, but slays him; the women of the conquered tribe
he may, however, carry off and appropriate as wives or as servants, for
in this period domestic labour falls almost altogether on the female
sex. In the pastoral stage slaves are captured only to be sold, with
the exception of a few who may be required for the care of flocks or
the small amount of cultivation which is then undertaken. It is in
proportion as a sedentary life prevails, and agricultural exploitation
is practised on a larger scale, whilst warlike habits continue to
exist, that the labour of slaves is increasingly introduced to provide
food for the master, and at the same time save him from irksome toil.
Of this stage in the social movement slavery seems to have been a
universal and inevitable accompaniment.” But he makes an exception in
the case of those communities where “theocratic organisations
established themselves” [807]. Flügel says: “Hunting tribes can neither
feed nor employ the prisoners; generally they kill them” [808].
According to Schurtz “among tribes of migratory hunters there is no
room for slavery” [809]. Whether he means here all hunters or only
Vierkandt’s unstete Völker is not clear.
Pastoral nomadism especially is considered favourable to the growth of
slavery. The nomadic herdsman, who had learned to domesticate animals,
began also to domesticate men, i.e. to enslave them. According to
Lippert, slavery “first arises in the patriarchal communities of
pastoral peoples.” “They [the slaves] were the object of an
appropriation entirely similar to the appropriation of the domestic
animals” [810]. Lamprecht also asserts that the prisoners, who formerly
were either sacrificed or adopted into the community, in the pastoral
stage were enslaved, because many hands were wanted to tend the cattle
[811]. Dimitroff says that originally the captives were instantly
killed like the game, as was the case amongst the hunting tribes of
America, Australia and Africa. But as soon as man began to tame
animals, he also learned to employ the captives as labourers [812].
A few theorists, however, who are more familiar with ethnographical
literature, know that it is not only among pastoral and agricultural
tribes that slavery is found. So Peschel states. According to him
hunters cannot employ slaves. Fishers, however, sometimes do so, as on
the Northwest Coast of America, amongst the Koniagas, Koloshes, and
Ahts of Vancouver Island. But only at the agricultural stage is slavery
practised on an extensive scale [813]. Wagner is of the same opinion:
“In the earliest economic state of society slavery is quite or nearly
unknown; generally speaking slavery is coeval with a settled and
agricultural life. This is to be accounted for by economic causes; for
only in the agricultural stage can slave labour be of any considerable
use. Therefore slavery is unknown among hunters, and occurs but seldom
among fishers. Bondage (Unfreiheit) presents itself already under
several forms among nomadic herdsmen; but only among settled
agricultural peoples does it attain to its full development” [814].
Tylor remarks that slavery exists, as soon as the captives are spared
to till the soil; but he adds that even among savage hunters and
foresters absolute equality is not always to be found [815]. Spencer
says: “Tribes which have not emerged from the hunting stage are little
given to enslaving the vanquished; if they do not kill and eat them
they adopt them. In the absence of industrial activity, slaves are
almost useless, and indeed, where game is scarce, are not worth their
food. But where, as among fishing tribes like the Chinooks, captives
can be of use, or where the pastoral and agricultural stages have been
reached, there arises a motive for sparing the lives of conquered men,
and after inflicting on them such mutilations as mark their subjection,
setting them to work” [816]. Bos is also aware of the fact, that the
Tlinkits and similar tribes have slaves. He explains this in a curious
way: slavery does not agree with the nature of hunting tribes;
therefore it is probable that these tribes formerly were agricultural
to a small extent [817]. Felix remarks that slavery already exists at
the beginning of the agricultural stage [818]. Mommsen, however,
asserts that in the oldest times (until when does not appear) slavery
did not prevail to any considerable extent; more use was made of free
labourers [819].
Letourneau expresses his opinion very prudently: slavery was not
carried on on a large scale before men applied themselves to
cattle-breeding and especially to agriculture [820]. At the end of his
book on slavery of over 500 pages he contents himself with this vague
conclusion.
We see that the theories disagree very much. Whether any of them agree
with the facts will appear from the investigation we are about to
undertake.
§ 2. Distinction of economic groups.
This investigation will be carried on in the following manner. The
tribes that afforded clear cases in the second chapter of the first
Part will be divided into several groups according to their economic
state. It will be seen then how many positive and how many negative
cases there are in each group; and we shall try to explain why the
result is such as we shall find it. Perhaps we shall be able to account
for this result entirely by economic causes; if not, we shall inquire
what other causes there may be.
The following economic states will be distinguished:
1º. Hunting and fishing,
2º. Pastoral nomadism,
3º. First stage of agriculture,
4º. Second stage of agriculture,
5º. Third stage of agriculture.
It has to be remarked that this is not an ascending series of stages of
economic development. What the economic evolution has been we do not
exactly know. Little credit is given to-day to the old division into
the three successive stages of hunting, pastoral nomadism, and
agriculture. This was not yet so in 1884, when Dargun could still
write: “The evolutionary stages of hunting, pastoral, and agricultural
life are so well established in science as stages of human evolution in
general, that it seems rather audacious to object to this division.
Taken in general, however, it is false; on the greater half of the
globe pastoral life was not a transitory stage from hunting to
agriculture; therefore the people concerned had not to pass through any
regulation of property peculiar to herdsmen. They learned agriculture
without having been pastoral. This phenomenon comprehends two parts of
the world—America and Australia-Polynesia—completely, and two other
parts—Asia and Africa—to a great extent, as the Malay Archipelago and
the territory of the Negro tribes across Africa also are included.
Therefore it will be necessary to leave off considering the three
stages of hunting, pastoral and agricultural life as a rule of human
progress. Moreover, nearly all pastoral tribes carry on agriculture,
however negligently; and it is not at all certain that the origin of
the latter does not go back to a more remote period than
cattle-breeding; it is even probable that it does, for nomadic herdsmen
are on the whole more civilized than the rudest agricultural tribes:
cattle-breeding therefore is posterior to primitive agriculture” [821].
This view of Dargun’s is now generally accepted. But a new ascending
series that would have any scientific value does not yet exist. And so
we can only distinguish economic states, not stages of economic
development.
A few remarks must still be made on each of our groups. These remarks
will also serve to justify our division.
I. Hunting and fishing.
This group comprehends those tribes only that are entirely unacquainted
with agriculture and cattle-breeding. Sometimes agriculture is carried
on to such a small extent, that the tribe subsists almost entirely on
hunting, fishing and gathering wild vegetable food. Such tribes bear
much resemblance to true hunters; but if we called them hunting tribes
it would be very difficult to draw the line of demarcation between them
and other agricultural tribes; moreover, such tribes are not exactly in
the same economic state as true hunters. So we have classified them
under the agricultural groups.
Such tribes as use animals (especially horses) only as a means of
locomotion, are hunters, viz. if they are unacquainted with
agriculture; at any rate they are not pastoral tribes. This is the case
with several tribes of North and South America.
II. Pastoral nomadism.
The tribes belonging to this group subsist mainly on the milk and meat
of their cattle. Most of them also undertake a small amount of
cultivation (see the above-quoted passage of Dargun’s), whereas many
agricultural tribes rear cattle. We shall draw the line of demarcation
thus: this second group will contain those tribes only that depend so
much on their cattle, that the whole tribe or the greater part of it is
nomadic; whereas those who, although living for a considerable part on
the produce of their cattle, have fixed habitations, will be classified
under the agricultural groups.
III, IV, V. Agriculture.
Grosse makes a distinction between lower and higher agriculture; but as
the former comprehends nearly all agricultural savages, this
distinction cannot be of any use to us [822]. Hahn, in his book on the
domestic animals, distinguishes hoe-culture (Hackbau), agriculture
proper (Ackerbau) and horticulture (Gartenbau) [823]. But hoe-culture
is carried on by nearly all agricultural savages; besides, this
division is purely technical and therefore cannot serve our purpose.
What we want is a division according to the place agriculture occupies
in social life. We must ask to what extent a tribe is occupied in and
dependent for subsistence on agriculture. For on this, and not on the
form of the agricultural implements, it will depend whether slaves are
wanted to till the soil. A slave may be set to handle the hoe as well
as the plough.
Perusing the ethnographical literature, we found such great differences
between the several savage tribes in this respect, that we have thought
it best to distinguish three stages of agriculture [824]. The principle
according to which the distinction will be made is, as we have already
hinted, the extent to which a tribe depends upon agriculture for its
subsistence. The first agricultural group will contain those cases, in
which agriculture holds a subordinate place, most of the subsistence
being derived from other sources, viz. hunting, fishing or gathering
wild-growing vegetable food [825]. The tribes of the second group carry
on agriculture to a considerable extent, but not to the exclusion of
hunting, etc. The third, or highest, agricultural stage is reached,
when agriculture is by far the principal mode of subsistence, and
hunting, etc. hold a very subordinate place, so much so that, if the
latter were entirely wanting, the economic state would be nearly the
same.
But our information is not always very complete; and so it is not
always clear to what extent subsistence is derived from agriculture. In
such cases we shall make use of some secondary characteristics. Some
facts may be recorded from which we can more or less safely draw
conclusions as to the place agriculture occupies. The facts indicative
of the first stage of agriculture are: 1. Women only are occupied in
agriculture [826], 2. The tribe is very mobile, habitations are often
shifted. Those indicative of the second, as distinguished from the
first, stage are: 1. The tribe has fixed habitations (except where this
is due to an abundance of fish or fruit-bearing trees), 2. The lands
are irrigated. Those indicative of the third stage are: 1. The lands
are manured, 2. Rotation of crops is carried on, 3. Domestic animals
are used in agriculture, 4. Agricultural products are exported.
It is not, of course, necessary that in every case a whole set of
characteristics is found. Sometimes a part of them only are mentioned.
Besides, there is much overlapping: a characteristic of the first stage
may be found connected with one of the third. In all such cases we must
not forget that these secondary characteristics have only signification
as indications of the place occupied by agriculture, so they have not a
fixed value; in every particular case the manner in which they are
mentioned, the place they hold in the whole of the description, etc.
will decide what importance we are to attach to each of them.
Hitherto we have supposed that agricultural tribes did nothing else
besides tilling the soil, except hunting, fishing and gathering wild
vegetable food. But it may also be that they subsist partly on
agriculture, partly on cattle-breeding or trade [827]. In these cases
we cannot apply the same principle of division. A tribe that subsists
partly on agriculture, but chiefly on trade is not to be classified
under the same category as a tribe that subsists partly on agriculture,
but mainly on hunting. The latter is not yet agricultural, the former
has perhaps passed beyond the agricultural stage. Here we may regard
only the technical ability attained to in agriculture. Where
agriculture is technically little developed, we have probably to deal
with former Jägerbauern who have become traders. Where agriculture has
reached a high perfection, but trade is one of the chief modes of
subsistence, the tribe has probably passed through the higher stages of
agriculture. What we say here of trade equally applies to
cattle-breeding.
There are a few tribes that afforded clear cases in the second chapter
of our first Part, but about the economic state of which we are not
sufficiently informed. These will be left out here.
The literature used is the same as in Part I chap. II [828]. We have
not thought it necessary to quote the pages relating to each tribe. In
most ethnographical records the mode of subsistence occupies a
conspicuous place, so any one wishing to verify our conclusions may
easily find the passages concerned.
§ 3. Hunting and fishing, pastoral, and agricultural tribes in the
several geographical districts.
We shall give here a list of the tribes that afforded “clear cases” in
the second chapter of Part I, stating, after the name of each tribe,
the economic condition in which it lives. As we have said before, we
shall omit a few tribes, about the economic state of which we are not
sufficiently informed.
It will not perhaps be superfluous to remind the reader that, as our
list contains only “clear cases”, it gives no evidence as to the
economic state of each geographical group. If, for instance, in our
list some geographical group contains as many hunting as agricultural
tribes, this does not prove that in this group hunters and
agriculturists are equally divided; for the group may contain many more
tribes, which in our second chapter have not afforded “clear cases”;
and what is the economic state of these tribes does not appear from our
list.
Among the agricultural tribes we have separately noted those, among
which subsistence depends largely either on cattle-breeding or on
trade, in addition to agriculture.
We shall make use of the following abbreviations.
h means hunting or fishing; the tribes so marked are hunters or
fishers.
c means cattle-breeding; the tribes so marked are pastoral tribes.
a1, a2, a3 means first, second, third stage of agriculture.
a1 + c means an agricultural tribe of the first stage, among which
subsistence depends largely on cattle-breeding; similarly a2 + c and a3
+ c.
a1 + t means an agricultural tribe of the first stage, among which
subsistence depends largely on trade; similarly a2 + t and a3 + t.
a2 + c + t means an agricultural tribe of the second stage, among which
subsistence depends largely both on cattle-breeding and trade;
similarly a3 + c + t.
Positive cases. Negative cases.
North America.
Aleuts h The 9 tribes of Eskimos
Athka Aleuts h proper, all of them h
Koniagas h Kutchins h
Tlinkits h Chepewyans h
Haidas h Delawares a2
Tsimshian h Montagnais h
Kwakiutl h Ojibways h
Bilballas h Ottawas h
Ahts h Shahnees h
tribes about Puget Sound h Potawatomi a1 [829]
Fish Indians h Crees h
Tacullies h Cheyennes a1
Atnas h Blackfeet nation h
Similkameem h Iroquois a2
Chinooks h Hurons a2
Katahbas a2
Cherokees a2
Katahbas a2
Muskoghe a2
Choctaws a2
Chickasaws a2
Creeks a2
Seminoles a2
Natchez a2
Sioux h
Hidatsas a1
Omahas a1
Osages a1
Kansas Indians a1
Assiniboins h
Hupas h
Apaches h
Zuñi a3 + c
Lower Californians h
Central and South America.
Ancient nations of Honduras a1 Wild tribes of North
inhabitants of Panama and Mexico h
Costa Rica a1 natives of the Mosquito
Mundrucus a1 Coast a1
Mauhés a1 Caribs of the Isthmus
Mbayas a1 a1
Caduvei a2 Warraus a1
Suya a1 Macusi a1
Abipones h Roucouyennes a1
Tehuelches h [830] Apiacas a1
Botocudos h [831]
Bakairi a1
Paressi a1
Bororo a1
Guanas a2
Charruas h
Minuanes h
Puelches h
Araucanians a2
Fuegians h
Australia.
The 30 tribes
enumerated in chapter
II of Part I, all of
them h
Melanesia.
N. W. Solomon Islanders a2 New Caledonians a2
natives of the Gazelle S. E. Solomon Islanders
Peninsula a1 a1
New Hebridians a1 Nissan Islanders a1
Nuforese a1 + t natives of Torres
Papuans of Arfak a1 Straits a1
,, of Adie a1 + t Papuans of Humboldt Bay
,, on the Gulf of Kaimani a1
a1 + t Papuans near Lake
Sentani a2
Papuans of Ayambori a2
Motu a1 + t
Mowat a1
Toaripi a1
Papuans on the mouth of
the Wanigela River a1
Yabim a1
natives of the Tami
Islands a1
Tamoes a1
natives of Dampier
Island a1
Polynesia.
Maori a2 Tongans a2
Samoans a2
Rotumians a2
Rarotonga Islanders a2
Hawaiians a2
Marquesas Islanders a2
Abgarris, Marqueen and
Tasman Islanders a1
Micronesia.
Marshall Islanders a2
Caroline Islanders a2
Marianne Islanders a2
Pelau Islanders a2
Kingsmill Islanders a2
Malay Archipelago.
Battas on the Pane and Bila Semang a1
Rivers a3 Sakai a1
Battas of Mandheling a3 Kubus h
Battas of Pertibie a3 Mentawei Islanders a1
Karo-Battas a2 Sebruang Dyaks a2
Raja-Battas a3 Bataks of Palawan a1
Battas of Angkola a3 Bontoc Igorot a3
Battas of Simelungun a2
Battas of Singkel and Pak-pak
a2 + t
Battas of Panei a2
Toba-Battas a2
Lampongs a2
natives of Nias a3
,, ,, Anambas, etc. a1
Hill-Dyaks a1
Dyaks on the Barito a1
Sea-Dyaks a2
Biadju Dyaks a1
Kayans on the Mendalam a2
Kayans on the upper Mahakam a2
Dyaks of Pasir a2
inhabitants of the Minahassa
a2
inhabitants of Bolaäng a2 + t
inhabitants of Holontalo a2
inhabitants of Buool a2
Toradja a2
Tomori a2
inhabitants of Sandjai a2
inhabitants of Bangkala a2
Kailirese a2
inhabitants of Saleyer a2
inhabitants of Sumbawa a3
inhabitants of Sumba a2
inhabitants of Endeh on Flores
a2 + t
inhabitants of the Solor group
a2
inhabitants of Bonerate and
Kalao a2 + t
inhabitants of East Timor a2 +
t
inhabitants of West Timor a2 +
t
inhabitants of Savu a2 + c
inhabitants of Rote a2
inhabitants of Wetar a2
inhabitants of Keisar a2 + c
inhabitants of Leti a2 + c
inhabitants of Dama a2
inhabitants of the
Luang-Sermata group a2
inhabitants of the Babar group
a2
inhabitants of the Tenimber
and Timorlao Islands a2
inhabitants of the Aru Islands
a1
inhabitants of the Kei Islands
a1
inhabitants of the Watubela
Islands a1
inhabitants of the
Seranglao-Gorong group a1 + t
inhabitants of Serang a1
inhabitants of Ambon and the
Uliase a2 + t
inhabitants of the Sangi and
Talauer Islands a2
Galela and Tobelorese a2
inhabitants of Kau a1
Tagals and Visayas a3
Bagobos a1
Manobos a1
Maguindanaos a2 + c + t
inhabitants of Sulu a2 + c + t
Samales a2
Hovas a3
Indo-Chinese Peninsula.
Kakhyens a2 Andamanese h
Shans of Zimmé a2 Nicobarese (central
Lawas a2 part) a1
hill-tribes of North Aracan a2 Nicobarese (southern
Karens a2 part) h
Chingpaws a3 + t
India.
Meshmees a1 Hill-tribes near
Garos a2 Rajamahall a1 + t
Lushais a1 Todas c
Manipuris a2 Santals (a part) a2
Kafirs a2 + c Santals (a part) a1
Padam Abors a2 Santals (a part) h
Nagas a2 Khonds (some divisions)
a2
Khonds (other
divisions) a1
Oraons a2
Korwas a1
Bodo and Dhimals a2
Veddahs h
Central Asia.
Kazak Kirghiz c
Altaians c
Turkomans c
Siberia.
Kamchadales h Samoyedes c
Ghiliaks h
Tunguz c
Yakuts c
Tuski of the Coast h
nomadic Koryakes c
settled Koryakes h
Caucasus.
Ossetes a3 + c
Circassians c
Kabards of Asia Minor c
Arabia.
Aeneze Bedouins c
Larbas c
Garos a2
Bantu tribes.
Angoni a2 Ama-Xosa c
Ovaherero c Ama-Zulu c
Barotse a2 + c Basuto a2 + c
Kimbunda a2 + t Makololo a2 + c
Lunda people a3 + t Makalaka a2 + c
Kioko a2 + t Wanyakyusa a2
Selles a2 + t Wambugu a1 + c
Manganja a2 Wafipa a3 + c
Banyai a2 Wanyaturu a2
Wagogo a2 + c Wawira a2
Washambala a2 + c Wataveta a2
Wapare a2 + c Bakwiri a2
Wajao a3 + t Mundombe (a part) c
Makonde a3 + t Mundombe (a part) a2
Wahehe a2 + c Fans a1
Wachagga a2 + c Bateke a1 + t
Wanyamwesi a3 + t
Azimba a2
Wajiji a1 + t
Wapokomo a2
Bondei a2
Wasiba a2 + t
Wakikuyu a3
Bondei a2
Bihés a2 + t
Minungo a2
Mpongwe a2
Orungu a1
Mbengas a2 + t
Duallas a2 + t
Bayanzi a1 + t
Bangala on the Congo a2
Baluba a2
Manyuema a2 + t
Kabinda a2 + t
Ininga and Galloa a2
Wangata a1
Bakundu a2
Banyang a2
Batom a2
Mabum a2
Bali tribes a2
Bambala a2 + t
Bayaka a2 + t
Bahuana a2 + t
Bakwese a1 + t
Yaunde a1
Indikki a3 + t
Banaka and Bapuku a1
Tuchilangue a2
Waganda a2 + c
Bahima c
natives of Bukoba a2 + c + t
Soudan Negroes.
Calabarese a2 Latuka a2
inhabitants of Bonny a2 + t Alur a2 + c
Brass people a1 + t Lendu a2
Ewe a2 + t Warundi a2
inhabitants of Dahomey a2 + t Wafiomi a2 + c
Geges and Nagos a2 + c + t Wataturu a1 + c
Yorubas a3 + c + t Wambugwe a1 + c
inhabitants of Ashanti a2 + t Bongos a2
Fanti a2
Mandingoes a2 + c
Wolofs a2
Saracolays a2 + t
Kagoros a2 + c
Bambaras a2
Toucouleurs a2
Jekris a2 + t
Malinkays a2 + t
Susu a2 + c + t
Landuma a2 + c + t
Limba a2 + c + t
Boobies of Fernando-Po a1
Northern Sakalavas a2 + c
Sakalavas of Nossi-Bé and
Mayotte a2 + c
Pigmies etc.
Bushmen h
Mucassequere h
Akkas h
Hamitic peoples.
Beduan c Massai c
Takue a3 + c Warangi a3 + c
Marea a2 + c Wandorobo h
Beni Amer c Wakwafi a2
Barea and Kunama a2
Bogos a2 + c
Gallas a3 + c
Somal (some divisions) c
Somal (some divisions) a2
Danakil c
CHAPTER II.
HUNTERS AND FISHERS.
§ 1. Why slaves are not of much use to hunters.
Among the “clear cases” of the second chapter of our first Part the
following are hunting and fishing tribes.
Positive cases. North America: Aleuts,
Athka Aleuts,
Koniagas,
Tlinkits,
Haidas,
Tsimshian,
Kwakiutl,
Bilballas,
Ahts,
tribes about Puget Sound,
Fish Indians,
Tacullies,
Atnas,
Similkameem,
Chinooks.
15
South America: Abipones,
Tehuelches.
2
Siberia: Kamchadales.
1
--
18.
Negative cases. North America: the 9 tribes of Eskimos proper,
Kutchins,
Chepewyans,
Montagnais,
Ojibways,
Ottawas,
Shahnees,
Crees,
Blackfeet nation,
Sioux,
Assiniboins,
Hupas,
Apaches,
Lower Californians.
22
South America: wild tribes of North Mexico,
Botocudos,
Charruas,
Minuanes,
Puelches,
Fuegians.
6
Australia: the 30 Australian tribes.
30
Malay Archipelago: Kubus.
1
Indo-Chinese peninsula: Andamanese,
Southern Nicobarese.
2
India: some Santal tribes,
Veddahs.
2
Siberia: Ghiliaks,
Tuski of the Coast,
settled Koryakes.
3
Pigmies, etc.: Bushmen,
Muscassequere,
Akkas.
3
Hamitic peoples: Wandorobo.
1
--
70.
So the great majority of the 88 cases we have got are negative. This
fact agrees with the opinion of those theorists who assert that this
economic state is unfavourable to the development of slavery. The
existence of 18 positive cases, however, shows that those are wrong who
hold that no tribe unacquainted with agriculture and cattle-breeding
ever has slaves.
We have to explain now, why most hunters and fishers do not keep
slaves. In a few cases the fact that they are inclosed between superior
peoples and reduced to a dependent, powerless state, might afford
sufficient explanation. So the Wandorobo, according to Thomson, are
considered by the Massai as a kind of serfs; and Johnston calls them a
helot race [832]. But with most of our hunters and fishers, who do not
keep slaves, this is not the case, as is proved by their being often at
war with their neighbours. It has been shown that the Ojibways and
Sioux in North America, the Charruas, Minuanes and Puelches in South
America either killed or adopted their prisoners, that the Andamanese
also sometimes adopt captive children, that the Montagnais generally
tortured their prisoners to death, that warfare is also known among the
Botocudos [833]. And the most striking evidence is afforded by the
Australians, an isolated group consisting entirely of hunters, in which
slavery is altogether unknown. So the non-existence of slavery among
the great majority of the hunters and fishers must be due on the whole
to more general causes; and only if the latter fail to account for the
absence of slavery among the Wandorobo or any other tribe in a similar
subjected state, may we have recourse to an explanation by this state.
What general causes may there be? Spencer, speaking of hunters, says:
“In the absence of industrial activity, slaves are almost useless; and,
indeed, where game is scarce, are not worth their food” [834]. It is
true, where food is more plentiful than it is among most hunters,
slaves can be of more use; but we cannot think that the only cause why
slavery does not exist, is that the slave is “not worth his food”, i.e.
that the produce of a man’s labour cannot much exceed his own primary
wants. For we meet with several instances, among these tribes, of
people whose wants are provided for by the labour of others. In our
first Part we saw, that the Australian men depend largely for their
subsistence on the work of their wives. Some other statements are
indicative of a similar state of things. Dawson says of the natives of
the Western District of Victoria: “Great respect is paid to the chiefs
and their wives and families. They can command the services of every
one belonging to their tribe. As many as six young bachelors are
obliged to wait on a chief, and eight young unmarried women on his
wife; and as the children are of superior rank to the common people,
they also have a number of attendants to wait on them.... Food and
water, when brought to the camp, must be offered to them first, and
reeds provided for each in the family to drink with, while the common
people drink in the usual way. Should they fancy any article of dress,
opossum rug, or weapon, it must be given without a murmur” [835]. And
of the chiefs of the Andaman Islanders we are told: “They and their
wives are at liberty to enjoy immunity from the drudgery incidental to
their mode of life, all such acts being voluntarily performed for them
by the young unmarried persons living under their headship” [836].
So there are people here whose wants are provided for by the work of
others; therefore scarcity of food cannot be the only cause why slavery
does not exist, and we have to examine what other causes there may be
[837].
The reader will remember, from the details given in the first Part,
that slaves are frequently acquired from without the community to which
the slave’s owner belongs, by war, kidnapping or trade. It may be
convenient to give this phenomenon the technical name of extratribal
slavery, whereas we shall speak of intratribal slavery in those cases
where the slave remains within the same community to which he belonged
before being enslaved, e.g. a debtor-slave. Now the keeping of
extratribal slaves must be very difficult to hunters. Hunting supposes
a nomadic life; and the hunter, who roams over vast tracts of land in
pursuit of his game has not much opportunity to watch the movements of
his slave, who may be apt to run away at any moment. And if the slave
himself is set to hunt, the difficulty amounts nearly to impossibility.
Moreover, the hunting slave will be much more inclined to run away than
a soil-tilling slave; for the latter, during his flight, has to live in
a make-shift way on the spontaneous products of nature; whereas the
former continues hunting, as he has always done; his flight has not the
character of a flight.
Another cause is the following. Primitive hunters generally live in
small groups. Hildebrand remarks that at the lowest stage of culture
men live together in families or small tribes. Several instances are
given in his book. “The Nilgala Veddahs are distributed through their
lovely country in small septs or families.” The Indians of the Rocky
Mountains “exist in small detached bodies or families.” The Fuegians
“appear to live in families, not in tribes.” The same applies to the
Indians of Upper California, the Woguls of Siberia, the Kubus, the
Negritos, the Bushmen, etc. [838]. And Sutherland remarks: “The middle
savages, on the average of six races, reach about 150 as the social
unit.” “The upper savages, as typified by the North American Indians,
would average about 360 to an encampment” [839]. Now it is easy to
understand, that such small communities would not be able to develop
much coercive power over slaves introduced into the tribe from foreign
parts. A fugitive slave would be very soon beyond the reach of the
tribe; and a comparatively small number of slaves would be dangerous to
the maintenance of power by the tribesmen within the tribe.
But the nomadic life of hunting tribes does not prevent the existence
of intratribal slavery; such slavery might even be compatible with
living in small groups. There are however other, more internal causes.
If there were slaves, i.e. male slaves, for slavery proper does not
exist where all slaves are women, they would have to perform either the
same work as free men, or the same work as free women. One might
object, that sometimes slaves have separate kinds of labour assigned to
them, which are performed by slaves only. This is true; but when slaves
were first kept it must have been otherwise. It is not to be supposed
that men, convinced of the utility of some new kind of work, began to
procure slaves in order to make them perform this work; or that,
finding some work tedious, they invented slavery to relieve themselves
of this burden. Modern psychology does not account for psychical and
social phenomena in such a rationalistic way [840]. Differentiation of
slave labour from free labour cannot have existed in the first stage of
slavery. Therefore two problems are to be solved: 1º. why are there no
slaves performing men’s work? 2º. why are there no slaves performing
women’s work?
Men’s work, besides warfare, is hunting. Now hunting is never a
drudgery, but always a noble and agreeable work. Occupying the whole
soul and leaving no room for distracting thought; offering the hunter a
definite aim, to which he can reach by one mighty effort of strength
and skill; uncertain in its results like a battle, and promising the
glory of victory over a living creature; elevating the whole person, in
a word intoxicating; it agrees very well with the impulsiveness of
savage character [841]. Therefore it is not a work fit to be imposed
upon men who are deprived of the common rights of freemen and are the
property of others.
For, first, good hunters are highly respected. This appears from
several statements. Ottawa women respected a man if he was a good
hunter [842]. Tasmanian fathers took care to give their daughters to
the best hunters [843]. Among the Dumagas (a Negrito tribe) a man who
wishes to marry must show his skill in shooting [844]. Ojibway parents
tried to give their daughters to good hunters. If the husband was lazy
the wife had a right to leave him [845]. In Western Victoria “if a
chief is a man of ability, exhibiting bravery in battle or skill in
hunting, he is often presented with wives from other chiefs” [846].
Among the Andaman Islanders social status is dependent “on skill in
hunting, fishing etc. and on a reputation for generosity and
hospitality” [847]. Le Jeune tells us of a Montagnais, who was laughed
at because he was a bad hunter. This was a great disgrace among the
savages; for such men could never find or keep a wife [848]. A
describer of Kamchatka says of the dangerous sea-lion hunting: “This
chase is so honourable, that he who has killed most sea-lions is
considered a hero; therefore many men engage in it, less for the sake
of the meat, that is looked upon as a delicacy, than in order to win
renown” [849]. In W. Washington and N. W. Oregon “a hunter is, in fact,
looked upon with respect by almost every tribe in the district” [850].
An ancient describer of the Indians of Paraguay tells us that skill and
bravery were the only qualities they valued. A would-be son-in-law had
to bring game to the hut of the girl’s parents. “From the kind and the
quantity of the game the parents judge whether he is a brave man and
deserves to marry their daughter” [851]. Among the Northern Athabascans
“none but a successful hunter need aspire to the hand of a chief’s
daughter” [852]. Among the Attakapas, if a young man aspired to the
hand of a girl, her father asked him whether he was a brave warrior and
a good hunter and well acquainted with the art of making harpoons
[853]. Even among the pastoral Colonial Hottentots those who had killed
a savage animal were highly respected by their countrymen [854].
Personal qualities, among such tribes, are the only cause of social
differentiation. Wealth does not yet exist [855]; and hereditary
nobility is unknown. So a good hunter cannot be regarded by public
opinion as a slave, the more so as a good hunter is also a good
warrior, and without the aid of public opinion the master is not able
to keep him subjected. And a bad hunter would be of little use as a
hunting slave [856].
This prevents the growth of intratribal slavery: no member of the tribe
is so superior to any other member, that he can reduce him to a state
of complete subjection; except perhaps where the latter is physically
or psychically much weaker; and then he would not be of any use as a
hunting slave. But it also prevents extratribal slavery. Enemies are
hated, but not despised. In Central North America prisoners are either
killed or adopted, and in the latter case entirely considered and
treated as members of the tribe. Sometimes a captive is spared for his
bravery; he is then provided with all necessaries and dismissed to his
home [857]. Even those who are intended to be killed, are in the
meantime treated with all due honours, sometimes even provided with
wives [858]. Enemies, at least full-grown men, if allowed to live, are
on a footing of equality with the tribesmen; another state of things is
not yet thought possible [859].
But even if the idea of subjecting tribesmen or enemies had entered the
minds of these hunters, hunting slaves would not be of any use. For
hunting requires the utmost application of strength and skill;
therefore a compulsory hunting system cannot exist. If a man is to
exert all his faculties to the utmost, there must be other motives than
mere compulsion. It is for the same reason that in countries where
manufactures are highly developed, a system of labour other than
slavery is required. “It remains certain” Stuart Mill remarks “that
slavery is incompatible with any high state of the arts of life, and
any great efficiency of labour. For all products which require much
skill, slave countries are usually dependent on foreigners.... All
processes carried on by slave labour are conducted in the rudest and
most unimproved manner” [860]. And Cairnes says that the slave is
“unsuited for all branches of industry which require the slightest
care, forethought, or dexterity. He cannot be made to co-operate with
machinery; he can only be trusted with the coarsest implements; he is
incapable of all but the rudest forms of labour” [861]. Mr. Kruijt,
describing the natives of Central Celebes, speaks in the same way: “The
free Alifur works as hard as his slave and even harder; for during the
hours that there is nothing to do in the gardens, the freeman has to
mend the furniture, plait baskets, and cut handles from wood or horn
etc., all which work the slave does not understand” [862]. And Schurtz,
in his most valuable essay on African industry, remarks: “Slavery has
little to do with the development of industry. Among the Negroes of
Africa only free people spend most of their time in industrial
pursuits, the slaves performing at most subordinate functions. In the
Soudan there are slaves who work on their own account and pay only a
tribute to their master; but it scarcely ever happens that slaves are
made to work in large numbers for the purpose of manufacturing goods.
Those artisans who belong to pariah tribes are despised, but are not
slaves, and the unwritten law defends them from arbitrary treatment”
[863]. A freeman may give his whole mind to his work, because he knows
he will enjoy the fruits of it, and still more because he will win a
reputation by it among his fellow-men. The slave has not these motives;
he works mainly on compulsion [864]. And as both hunting and higher
industrial labour require much personal application, neither can be
well performed by slaves. Here extremes meet, if hunting and
manufactures are to be considered as extremes, which we are inclined to
doubt, at least regarding those tribes that have brought the art of
hunting to a high perfection; such hunting probably supposes more
development of cerebral power than the lowest stage of agriculture
[865]. But there is a difference between hunting and manufacturing
nations. In manufacturing countries, besides the higher kinds of
labour, there are also many sorts of ruder work to be done, that can be
done by slaves as well. Moreover, slavery among a manufacturing nation
may date from a former period and have passed into the laws and
customs; then social life is based upon it; and so it remains for a
long time after its economic basis has fallen. Slavery in such cases,
by a gradual mitigation, is made to agree with changed economic
conditions: the slave is given a proportionate share in the produce of
his labour; he is allowed to buy his freedom by means of his savings;
or his obligations are restricted to fixed tributes and services, and
so the slave becomes a serf [866]. But the Australians and other
hunting tribes have not probably ever done anything but hunting; and so
neither present wants induce them to make slaves, nor do the traditions
of the past maintain slavery [867]. We may add, that supervision of the
work of a hunting slave would be nearly impossible. An agricultural
slave can work in the presence of and surveyed by his master; but
hunting requires rather independent action.
So slaves cannot be employed in hunting. They might, however, be set to
do women’s work, i.e. “erecting habitations, collecting fuel and water,
carrying burdens, procuring roots and delicacies of various kinds,
making baskets for cooking roots and other purposes, preparing food,
and attending to the children” [868]. But, first, nomadic life and the
requirements of the work would, in this case too, very much facilitate
the escape of the slave, the more so, as the slaves, when the men are
engaged in hunting, would be under the supervision of the women only.
Moreover, the men are not likely to take the pains of procuring slaves
for the sole benefit of their wives. We must also take into
consideration, that these small tribes are very much in need of the
forces of every man in hunting and still more in warfare; therefore an
able-bodied boy will be brought up to be a hunter and warrior, rather
than given to the women as a slave. And finally, where war is frequent,
such slaves, not being able to fight, would soon be eliminated in the
struggle for life, whereas women are often spared because they are
women [869]. Therefore it is only among tribes which either live in
peaceful surroundings, or are so powerful as not to have to fear their
neighbours very much, that men performing women’s work are to be found.
Crantz speaks of a young Greenlander who was unable to navigate,
because when a child he had been taken too much care of by his mother.
“This man was employed by other Greenlanders like a maid-servant,
performing all female labour, in which he excelled” [870]. Among the
Central Eskimos, according to Boas, “cripples who are unable to hunt do
the same kind of work as women” [871]. Tanner tells us of an Ojibway,
who behaved entirely as a woman, and was kept as a wife by another
Ojibway. He excelled in female labour, which he had performed all his
life. Such men, according to Tanner, are found among all Indian tribes;
they are called agokwa [872]. But in all these cases the men who
perform female labour are not slaves. Crantz’s young Greenlander
probably was glad to earn his livelihood in this way. Domestic labour
among the Greenlanders is not generally wanted. Widows and orphans are
sometimes taken as servants; but this is done rather as a favour; for
else they would have to starve [873]. Among the Central Eskimos only
those who are unable to hunt do the same work as women; a man able to
hunt will never be compelled to do female work. And the men of Tanner’s
narrative are entirely treated as women and somehow perform the sexual
functions of wives; the performing of domestic labour only would not
probably be sufficient for them to get their subsistence [874]. Only
where either peaceful surroundings or a fighting power much superior to
that of the neighbours makes the existence of men performing female
labour possible, and where at the same time female labour is so much
valued that the more labourers can be got to do it the better, can
there be male slaves performing women’s work [875]. Whether these
requirements are fulfilled in any of our positive cases, will appear
from our investigation of these cases.
The non-existence of slavery among most hunters and fishers now being
accounted for, we shall proceed to an inquiry into the causes of the
existence of slavery among 18 hunting and fishing tribes.
§ 2. The slave-keeping tribes of the Pacific Coast of North America.
Going on to account for our 18 positive cases, we may remark in the
first place, that what we have said about the causes preventing the
existence of slavery, applies much more to hunters than to fishers.
Fishers are not necessarily so nomadic as hunters; and where a
sedentary life prevails, there is more domestic work to be done, and
the slaves cannot so easily escape. Moreover it is not so very
difficult to control a fishing slave, who is in the same boat with the
master. The slave may also be used to row the boat. Therefore it may be
of some use to inquire, how many hunting and how many fishing tribes
are to be found among our positive and negative cases. Fishing in our
sense includes the killing of water-animals besides fish: whales,
seals, etc. Where a tribe lives by hunting and fishing, we shall call
it a hunting or a fishing tribe, according to the predominating mode of
subsistence.
One difficulty arises here. Some tribes, especially Australian, subsist
largely on wild fruits, roots, berries, grasses, etc., shell-fish and
lower land-animals, such as beetles, lizards, rats, snakes, etc.; so
that neither hunting in the true sense nor fishing prevails [876]. For
our purpose it will be most convenient to classify them under the head
of hunters; for the peculiar features of fishing tribes which we have
enumerated: fixed habitations, easy supervision of the work of slaves,
drudgery such as rowing, are not found among them. Moreover, the
gathering of wild-growing vegetable food and the catching of the lower
animals, in Australia too, are chiefly incumbent on women, whereas the
men hunt; so the division of labour is the same as among other hunters
regarding the quality of the work of each sex; only the quantity of
male labour is less and of female labour greater here.
Of our positive cases the following are hunters: some tribes about
Puget Sound, Atnas, Similkameem, Abipones, Tehuelches. The rest are
fishers.
Of our negative cases the following are fishers: Eskimos (9 tribes),
Hupas, Fuegians, Southern Nicobarese, Tuski, Ghiliaks, Koryakes. The
rest are hunters, with the exception of the Chepewyans, of whom
Bancroft says: “Their food consists mostly of fish and reindeer, the
latter being easily taken in snares. Much of their land is barren, but
with sufficient vegetation to support numerous herds of reindeer, and
fish abound in their lakes and streams” [877]. So we are not able to
ascertain whether hunting or fishing predominates among the Chepewyans.
We see that 5 hunting and 14 fishing tribes have slaves; 54 hunting and
15 fishing tribes have no slaves [878]. In other words: of the hunting
tribes 8½ per cent., of the fishing tribes 48 per cent. have slaves.
We may say now, that hunting is very unfavourable, and fishing not
nearly so much so, to the existence of slavery. But it remains to be
explained, why a few hunting tribes keep slaves, and why among the
fishers the tribes with and without slaves are nearly equally divided.
Now it is worth noticing, that the great majority of our positive cases
(all except the Abipones, Tehuelches and Kamchadales) belong to one
geographical group: they all live on or near the Pacific Coast of North
America, from Behring Strait to the Northern boundary of California.
Therefore we may suppose that the existence of slavery among all these
tribes is due to the same or nearly the same causes; and a survey of
the economic state of this group will probably enable us to find these
causes. We shall examine then, whether slavery among the three tribes
outside this group can be accounted for by the same causes, or if
special causes are at work there.
The circumstances that may be considered favouring the existence of
slavery on the Pacific Coast are the following:
1º Abundance of food. The Aleuts eat only the best parts of the dried
fish; the rest is thrown away [879]. Bancroft tells us that “although
game is plentiful, the Haidas are not a race of hunters, but derive
their food chiefly from the innumerable multitude of fish and sea
animals, which, each variety in its season, fill the coast waters”
[880]. The Tacullies, “are able to procure food with but little labour”
[881]. Our informant also speaks of the “abundant natural supplies in
ocean, stream, and forest” of the Puget Sound Indians [882]. The
Tlinkits, according to Holmberg, do not take great pains to secure
their food; the ebbing tide leaves a multitude of sea-animals ashore,
which they can gather without difficulty [883]. Kane remarks: “Salmon
is almost the only food used by the Indians on the Lower Columbia
River, the two months’ fishing affording a sufficient supply to last
them the whole year round” [884]. About the tribes of W. Washington and
N. W. Oregon Gibbs remarks: “With all these sources of subsistence, the
greater part of which is afforded spontaneously by the land or water,
nothing but indolence or want of thrift could lead to want among a
population even greater than we have reason to believe at any time
inhabited this district” [885]. The salmon fishery “has always been the
chief and an inexhaustible source of food for the Chinooks, who,
although skilful fishermen, have not been obliged to invent a great
variety of methods or implements for the capture of the salmon, which
rarely if ever have failed them” [886]. The Ahts also, in Jewitt’s
time, could procure an immense quantity of salmon with the greatest
facility [887]. Several other tribes on the Pacific Coast have fixed
habitations and live together in large groups, as we soon shall see;
therefore amongst them too food must be abundant, though this is not
explicitly stated.
The consequence is, that the produce of labour exceeds the primary
wants of the labourer much more than for instance in Australia, and the
use of slaves is greater.
2º. Most of these tribes live chiefly by fishing (see above). Moreover,
there is a great variety of food. The Koniagas catch salmon, haddock,
whales, seals, deer, reindeer, waterfowls, a small white fish and
grizzly bears [888]. The Tlinkits eat fish, various kinds of meat and
plants, and shell-fish; formerly they also killed whales [889]. The
Haidas have abundance of game and fish. They eat also birds, and
various kinds of vegetables. Shell-fish are gathered by the women
[890]. Of some tribes about Puget Sound we are told: “Fish is their
chief dependence, though game is taken in much larger quantities than
by the Nootkas” [891]. The Ahts eat fish, roots and berries, and hunt
the deer [892]. The Tacullies eat fish (chiefly salmon), herbs and
berries and small game [893]. The Similkameem eat fresh and dried game
of all kinds, the seed of the sunflower, various roots, edible fungi,
berries, wild onions [894]. The tribes of W. Washington and N. W.
Oregon live on fish, roots, berries and a little game. “The roots used
are numerous.” “Besides the salmon sturgeon is taken in the Columbia,
and a variety of other fish.” Seals and whales are also occasionally
killed. “Shell-fish in great variety exist in the bays and on the
coast” [895]. The basis of the Chinooks’ food is salmon; but besides
this they eat sturgeon, wild-fowl, deer, rabbits, nuts, berries, wild
fruits and roots [896].
We do not attach very much importance to this circumstance; for even
the Australians have a great variety of food, and yet they are poorly
off [897]. But together with the other causes it may have some
influence; for where various kinds of food are available, there is a
good chance, that the procuring of one or more of them will be a work
fit to be performed by slaves.
3º. They generally have fixed habitations and live in rather large
groups; they are enabled to do so by preserving food for winter use.
The Koniagas “build two kinds of houses; one a large, winter village
residence, ... and the other a summer hunting hut.... Their winter
houses are very large, accommodating three or four families each.” “The
kashim or public house of the Koniagas is built like their dwellings,
and is capable of accommodating three or four hundred people.” During
the summer great quantities of fish are dried for winter use, which
they lay up in their houses [898]. The Tlinkits during the winter dwell
in villages, regularly built and consisting of solidly constructed
houses. The greater houses lodge up to 30 persons. “For winter they dry
large quantities of herring, roes, and the flesh of animals” [899].
Haida houses are similar to those of the Tlinkits, but larger, better
constructed and more richly ornamented. “Fish, when caught, are
delivered to the women, whose duty it is to prepare them for winter use
by drying” [900]. Among the Nootkas “each tribe has several villages in
favourable locations for fishing at different seasons.” Each house
accommodates many families. Fish and shell-fish are preserved by
drying; some varieties of seaweed and lichens, as well as various
roots, are regularly laid up for winter use [901]. In Jewitt’s
narrative mention is made of divisions of the Ahts, consisting of
500–1000 warriors. They used to preserve various kinds of fish for the
winter [902]. In W. Washington and N. W. Oregon acorns, some kinds of
berries, and especially salmon and whaleblubber, are stored for winter
use [903]. About Puget Sound “the rich and powerful build substantial
houses”. “These houses sometimes measure over one hundred feet in
length, and are divided into rooms or pens, each house accommodating
many families.” “In the better class of houses, supplies are neatly
stored in baskets at the sides” [904]. “During a portion of every year
the Tacullies dwell in villages.” “In April they visit the lakes and
take small fish; and after these fail, they return to their villages
and subsist upon the fish they have dried, and upon herbs and berries”
[905]. The Chinooks, according to Bancroft, do not move about much for
the purpose of obtaining a supply of food. They have permanent winter
dwellings. “Once taken, the salmon were cleaned by the women, dried in
the sun and smoked in the lodges; then they were sometimes powdered
fine between two stones before packing in skins or mats for winter
use”. Swan also states that they preserve fish and berries for the
winter [906]. Similar accounts are given of the Similkameem [907].
These circumstances greatly tend to further the growth of slavery. A
settled life makes escape of the slaves more difficult [908]. Living in
larger groups brings about a higher organization of freemen, and
therefore a greater coercive power of the tribe over its slaves. And
the preserving of food requires additional work; and this work is very
fit to be performed by slaves, as it does not require overmuch skill,
and has to be done in or near the house, so that supervision of the
work is very easy. Moreover, the hope of partaking of the stored food
is a tie that binds the slave to his master’s house, in much the same
manner as a modern workman is bound by having a share in the insurance
fund of the factory.
4º. Trade and industry are highly developed along the Pacific Coast.
Kane speaks of the ioquas, “a small shell found at Cape Flattery, and
only there, in great abundance. These shells are used as money, and a
great traffic is carried on among all the tribes by means of them”
[909]. Among the Aleuts “whalefishing is confined to certain families,
and the spirit of the craft descends from father to son” [910]. The
Koniagas are “adapted to labour and commerce rather than to war and
hunting”. They make very good boats and men as well as women excel in
divers trades. They got slaves by means of exchange from other tribes
[911]. Among the Tlinkits there are professional wood-carvers, smiths
and silversmiths. The women are very skilful in plaiting. Very good
canoes are made. Formerly they hunted whales with harpoons. Trade was
already highly developed before the arrival of the whites; they traded
even with remote parts of the coast and with the tribes of the
interior. The trade in slaves was formerly carried on on a large scale
[912]. The large and ingeniously built canoes of the Haidas are widely
celebrated; they often make them for sale. They have a standard of
value: formerly slaves or pieces of copper, now blankets. Their houses
are richly ornamented. They are “noted for their skill in the
construction of their various implements, particularly for sculptures
in stone and ivory, in which they excel all the other tribes of
Northern America” [913]. The Tsimshian formerly acted as middlemen in
the slave-trade. The southern tribes kidnapped or captured slaves, sold
them to the Tsimshian, and these again to the Tlinkits and interior
Tinneh. “Each chief about Fort Simpson kept an artisan, whose business
it was to repair canoes, make masks, etc.” [914]. The Atnas “understand
the art of working copper, and have commercial relations with
surrounding tribes”. They buy their slaves from the Koltschanes [915].
Gibbs states that in W. Washington and N. W. Oregon the Indians of the
interior preserve some kinds of salmon, “which after a stay in the
fresh water have lost their superfluous oil, and these are often
actually traded to those Indians at the mouth of the river or on the
Sound. The Dalles was formerly a great depot for this commerce”. Some
wild-growing roots “were formerly a great article of trade with the
interior”. The slave-trade is carried on here too. “Many of the slaves
held here are ... brought from California, where they were taken by the
warlike and predatory Indians of the plains, and sold to the Kallapuia
and Tsinuk.” “Many of them [the slaves] belong to distant tribes”
[916]. The tribes about Puget Sound have canoes, beautifully made,
painted and polished. The houses of the rich are made of planks split
from trees by means of bone wedges. “In their barter between the
different tribes, and in estimating their wealth, the blanket is
generally the unit of value, and the hiaqua, a long white shell
obtained off Cape Flattery at a considerable depth, is also extensively
used for money, its value increasing with its length. A kind of annual
fair for trading purposes and festivities is held by the tribes of
Puget Sound at Bajada Point.” “Slaves are obtained by war and
kidnapping, and are sold in large numbers to northern tribes” [917]. Of
the Nootkas Bancroft says: “Trade in all their productions was carried
on briskly between the different Nootka tribes before the coming of the
whites.” “The slave-trade forms an important part of their commerce.”
Harpooners are a privileged class [918]. The several divisions of the
Ahts mutually exchange the fish that each of them catches. They also
sell mats and baskets manufactured by the women. According to Jewitt’s
narrative, they made very good canoes. A kind of shell, strung upon
threads, formed a circulating medium among them, five fathoms of it
being the price of a slave, their most valuable species of property.
“The trade of most of the other tribes with Nootka was principally
train-oil, seal or whale’s blubber, fish fresh or dried, herring or
salmon spawn, clams and mussels, and the yama, a species of fruit which
is pressed and dried, cloth, sea-otter skins, and slaves” [919]. Among
the Makah (a Nootka tribe) the whale-oil “is used as an article of food
as well as for trade.... The Makah were till lately in the habit of
purchasing oil from the Nittinat also, and have traded in a single
season, it is said, as much as 30,000 gallons.” A division into
different trades also exists among them. “A portion of them only attain
the dignity of whalers, a second class devote themselves to halibut,
and a third to salmon and inferior fish, the occupations being kept
distinct, at least, in a great measure” [920]. Among the Tacullies
hiaqua shells up to 1810 were the circulating medium of the country
[921]. The Chinooks, says Bancroft, “were always a commercial rather
than a warlike people, and are excelled by none in their shrewdness in
bargaining. Before the arrival of the Europeans they repaired annually
to the region of the Cascades and Dalles, where they met the tribes of
the interior, with whom they exchanged their few articles of
trade—fish, oil, shell and Wapato—for the skins, roots and grasses of
their eastern neighbours.” “Their original currency or standard of
value was the hiaqua shell.” They obtain their slaves “by war, or more
commonly by trade”. According to Swan, the Chinooks “manage, during the
course of the winter, to make a great many articles, which are disposed
of to the whites”. A species of small shell passes as money among them.
“Their slaves are purchased from the Northern Indians, and are either
stolen or captives of war, and were regularly brought down and sold to
the southern tribes” [922].
This development of trade and industry furthers the growth of slavery
in several ways:
a. The slave-trade facilitates the keeping of slaves. Prisoners of war
usually belong to a neighbouring tribe; they have much more opportunity
to escape to their native country than purchased slaves, who have been
transported from a great distance. The latter, if escaping from their
masters, would instantly be recaptured by some other slave-keeping
tribe of the Pacific Coast. So among the Nootkas “a runaway slave is
generally seized and resold by the first tribe he meets” [923]. We can
therefore easily understand why the Koniagas did not keep full-grown
captive men as slaves, but acquired their male slaves by means of
exchange [924]. Similarly, a chief of the Cowitchins (near Vancouver
Island), according to Kane, “took many captives, whom he usually sold
to the tribes further north, thus diminishing their chance of escaping
back through a hostile country to their own people” [925].
b. Where the fishing implements are brought to a high perfection
(canoes, nets, harpoons), fishing becomes more remunerative; the
produce of a fishing slave’s labour exceeds his primary wants more than
where fishing is carried on in a ruder manner.
c. The more the freemen devote themselves to trade and industry, the
more need there is for slaves to do the ruder work (fishing, rowing,
cooking, etc.). The trade itself may also require menial work: carrying
goods or rowing boats on commercial journeys, etc. [926].
d. Another effect of intertribal trade, together with a settled life
and abundance of food, is probably this, that these tribes are not so
warlike as most hunters. So they need not employ all available forces
in warfare; they can afford to keep male slaves who do not fight. We
have seen that the Koniagas are “adapted to labour and commerce rather
than to war and hunting”, and that the Chinooks “were always a
commercial rather than a warlike people”. Regarding the other tribes it
is not clearly stated, whether war is very frequent [927]; but our
impression, on perusing the ethnographical literature, is, that it is
not nearly so frequent as among the Sioux, Ojibways, and similar
tribes.
5º. Property and wealth are also highly developed. Schmoller remarks:
“We know now, that there are some instances of settled hunting and
fishing tribes with villages, with some development of the means of
conveyance, with dog-sledges, reindeer, etc., with a certain social
organization of the chase and fishery, with ornaments and slaves, with
rich and poor people; such is the case in Northern California, in
Northern Asia, in Kamchatka” [928]. Among the Koniagas “when an
individual becomes ambitious of popularity, a feast is given”. A man’s
wealth, among them, formerly depended on the number of sea-otter skins
he owned [929]. Among the Tlinkits private property comprises clothes,
weapons, implements, hunting territories and roads of commerce.
Nobility depends on wealth rather than on birth [930]. Of the Haidas
Bancroft says: “Rank and power depend greatly upon wealth, which
consists of implements, wives and slaves. Admission to alliance with
medicine-men, whose influence is greatest in the tribe, can only be
gained by sacrifice of private property”. Swan speaks of wooden
pillars, placed before the houses of the rich. They are elaborately
carved at a cost of hundreds of blankets, and fetch up to 1000 dollars.
Only the very rich are able to purchase them [931]. Kane speaks of a
Cowitchin chief who “possessed much of what is considered wealth
amongst the Indians, and it gradually accumulated from tributes which
he exacted from his people. On his possessions reaching a certain
amount, it is customary to make a great feast, to which all contribute.
The neighbouring chiefs with whom he is in amity are invited, and at
the conclusion of the entertainment, he distributes all he has
collected since the last feast, perhaps three or four years preceding,
among his guests as presents. The amount of property thus collected and
given away by a chief is sometimes very considerable. I have heard of
one possessing as many as twelve bales of blankets, from twenty to
thirty guns, with numberless pots, kettles, and pans, knives, and other
articles of cutlery, and great quantities of beads, and other trinkets,
as well as numerous beautiful Chinese boxes, which find their way here
from the Sandwich Islands. The object in thus giving his treasures away
is to add to his own importance in the eyes of others, his own people
often boasting of how much their chief had given away, and exhibiting
with pride such things as they had received themselves from him” [932].
Among the Nootkas “private wealth consists of boats and implements for
obtaining food, domestic utensils, slaves, and blankets”. “The
accumulation of property beyond the necessities of life is only
considered desirable for the purpose of distributing it in presents on
great feast-days, and thereby acquiring a reputation for wealth and
liberality” [933]. In Jewitt’s narrative it is stated, that among the
Ahts the king is obliged to support his dignity by making frequent
entertainments, otherwise he would not be considered as conducting
himself like a king, and would be no more thought of than a common man
[934]. A wealthy Fish Indian may also win renown by giving away or
destroying property [935]. Boas, describing the Kwakiutl Indians,
speaks of “the method of acquiring rank. This is done by means of the
potlatch, or the distribution of property. The underlying principle is
that of the interest-bearing investment of property”. He gives an
elaborate account of this institution [936]. Among the Makah “the
larger class of canoes generally belong to a single individual and he
receives a proportionate share of the booty from the crew” [937]. Among
the Tacullies “any person may become a miuty or chief who will
occasionally provide a village feast” [938]. Of the tribes of W.
Washington and N. W. Oregon Gibbs says: “Wealth gives a certain power
among them, and influence is purchased by its lavish distribution.”
They have pretty clear ideas about the right of property in houses and
goods. The men own property distinct from their wives. The husband has
his own blankets, the wife her mats and baskets [939]. Bancroft tells
us of the Puget Sound Indians: “I find no evidence of hereditary rank
or caste except as wealth is sometimes inherited” [940]. Among the
Chinooks “individuals were protected in their right to personal
property, such as slaves, canoes, and implements”. Each village was
ruled by a chief “either hereditary or selected for his wealth and
popularity” [941].
The effects of this development of property and wealth are:
a. Social status depending mainly upon wealth, a slave may be a good
hunter or fisher and valued as such, and yet be despised as a penniless
fellow.
b. The accumulation of property beyond the necessities of life requires
more labour than would otherwise be wanted. Moreover, slaves are the
more desired, as the keeping of many slaves is indicative of wealth and
therefore honourable. We may quote here Kane’s account of a chief of
the Pacific Coast, “who having erected a colossal idol of wood,
sacrificed five slaves to it, barbarously murdering them at its base,
and asking in a boasting manner who amongst them could afford to kill
so many slaves”. And Holmberg remarks that among the Tlinkits the
consideration which the nobles enjoy depends only on their wealth, i.e.
on the number of the slaves they own [942].
The five causes we have enumerated here are not at work independently
of each other. Abundance of food enables a tribe to have fixed
habitations, to live in larger groups, to preserve food. Any greater
development of trade and industry would be impossible if food were not
abundant; for else all time and energy would be occupied by the seeking
of food; and a settled life tends greatly to further the growth of
industry. Wealth would scarcely exist if there were no trade and
industry. The industrial development again facilitates the procuring of
food. What is the primary cause of this relatively high state of
economic life is not easy to say, and an investigation into this matter
falls beyond the scope of the present volume.
It must also be remembered, that this economic state is not only the
cause, but also to some extent the effect of slavery.
The development of trade and industry, of property and wealth, is
undoubtedly much furthered by slavery. By imposing the ruder work upon
slaves, the slave-owner can give more of his time and mind to trade and
industry. “Leisure” as Bagehot remarks “is the great need of early
societies, and slaves only can give men leisure” [943]. And that the
keeping of slaves furthers the accumulation of wealth need hardly be
said. The slave-trade, which enriches the traders, is even quite
impossible where slavery does not exist. Hence we may infer that
slavery must already have existed here at a somewhat lower stage of
economic life.
On the other hand, there is a circumstance tending to accelerate the
growth of slavery on the Pacific Coast. These tribes form a somewhat
homogeneous group, and have much intercourse with each other. So we may
suppose that some of them, that were not yet in such an economic state
as spontaneously to invent slavery, have begun to keep slaves,
imitating what they saw among their neighbours; the more so, as the
slave-trade made this very easy. For our group is not quite
homogeneous. The picture we gave of their highly developed economic
life does not equally apply to all these tribes. The summer and winter
dwellings of the Similkameem are rather primitive. They depend on
hunting for a large portion of their food. Trade and industry, property
and wealth are not mentioned; it is only stated that at a later period
they had horses and cattle [944]. Niblack tells us that the Tsimshian
sold slaves to the Tlinkits and interior Tinneh; but “the last-named
had no hereditary slaves, getting their supply from the coast” [945].
No more particulars are given; but we may suppose that among these
interior Tinneh slavery existed in a rather embryonic state, and would
not have existed at all but for the slave-trade. The early ethnologists
overrated the influence of imitation and derivation of social
institutions; but we must not fall into the other extreme and underrate
it. An institution may be derived and thereby its growth accelerated,
of course within restricted limits.
If the information we have got on the work imposed on slaves were more
complete, it would perhaps have been better first to survey this
information, and thence to infer what place slavery occupies among the
tribes of the Pacific Coast. But the statements of our ethnographers
regarding slave labour are rather incomplete. A survey of them may,
however, be of some use. In the first place it will be seen, whether
they can be brought to agree with the exposition given above of the
causes of slavery; and, secondly, our survey will perhaps provide us
with new valuable data, which may give us a clearer understanding of
the significance of slavery on the Pacific Coast of North America.
The occupations of slaves mentioned by our ethnographers are the
following:
1º. In a few cases the slaves strengthen their master’s force in
warfare. Aleut slaves always accompany their masters, and have to
protect them [946]. “Kotzebue says that a rich man [among the Tlinkits]
purchases male and female slaves, who must labour and fish for him, and
strengthen his force when he is engaged in warfare” [947]. We may
suppose that the last part of this sentence applies to male slaves
only. Tsimshian slaves guard the house, when the master is absent
[948]. Among the Ahts, the slaves were obliged to attend their masters
in war and to fight for them [949].
This military function of slavery, as we shall see, also exists among
several pastoral and agricultural peoples. The industrial part of
society, in such cases, is not quite differentiated from the military
part. As for the Tlinkits, Tsimshian and Ahts, the employing of slaves
for protecting the master or his property is facilitated by the
slave-trade: a purchased slave, brought from a great distance, may be
made to fight, where it would not be safe to employ in warfare a slave
captured from a neighbouring tribe; for the latter will probably be
much inclined to go over to the enemies, who often are his own kindred.
But the example of the Aleuts, whose slaves are prisoners of war and
their descendants [950], shows that even captive slaves may be employed
in warfare. We shall not very much wonder at this, if we take into
consideration, that prisoners of war are sometimes soon forgotten, and
even repelled, by their former countrymen. So “if a Mojave is taken
prisoner he is forever discarded in his own nation, and should he
return his mother even will not own him” [951]. The expectation of such
treatment may induce captive slaves to fight on their masters’ side
against their own tribesmen rather than join the latter.
2º. Slaves are sometimes employed in hunting, fishing and work
connected with fishing, such as rowing, etc. From a statement of
Dunn’s, quoted by Niblack, we learn that at Fort Simpson, British
Columbia (in the country of the Tsimshian), “a full-grown athletic
slave, who is a good hunter, will fetch nine blankets, a gun, a
quantity of powder and ball, a couple of dressed elk skins, tobacco,
vermilion paint, a flat file, and other little articles” [952]. And
Boas tells us, that Tsimshian slaves row the boats, bring the killed
seals to land, and cook them [953]. Tlinkit slaves, as it appears from
Kotzebue’s above-quoted statement, must fish for their masters. Among
the Nootkas “the common business of fishing for ordinary sustenance is
carried on by slaves, or the lower class of people; while the more
noble occupation of killing the whale and hunting the sea-otter is
followed by none but the chiefs and warriors” [954]. According to
Jewitt’s narrative, Aht slaves had to supply their masters with fish.
The author, on his wedding an Aht girl, got two young male slaves
presented to him to assist him in fishing [955].
Dunn’s statement about hunting slaves is very valuable. It proves that
hunting is here no longer the chief and noble occupation of freemen.
Among such people as for instance the Ojibways a good hunter is held in
high esteem, not bought at a high price as a valuable slave [956]. What
we have said in the last paragraph about hunting not being fit to be
performed by slaves, is not impaired by this statement; for hunting
among these traders is not the most honoured occupation; moreover, the
abundance of game along the Pacific Coast makes it very easy; it does
not require nearly so much skill and application as among the Ojibways
and similar tribes. This statement also contains a most striking
refutation of Bos’ assertion, that slavery here exists only as a
reminiscence of a hypothetical former agricultural state [957]. If this
were true, there might be traces of an ancient slave system; slaves
might even still be kept by rich men as a luxury; but the slave’s
ability in hunting would not enter as a determining factor into his
price. Slavery exists here in full vigour, and is not in any way, as
Bos will have it, foreign to the economic state in which these tribes
live [958].
What Meares tells us of the Nootkas is also instructive. The drudgery
for daily sustenance, fishing, is left to the slaves; whereas the
chiefs and warriors reserve to themselves the less productive and
(partly therefore) more noble occupation of killing whales and
sea-otters. It is remarkable that fishing is carried on by “the slaves
or the lower class of people”. Those who cannot afford to buy slaves
must themselves perform the drudgery that others leave to slaves. The
formation of social classes among freemen is furthered by slavery.
3º. The slaves of the Ahts, in Jewitt’s time, were obliged to make the
canoes and to assist in building and repairing the houses [959]. This
proves, that slavery among them discharged an important economic
function.
4º. We are often informed, that slaves do domestic work. Tsimshian
slaves cook the killed seals and cut wood [960]. Among the Nootkas
“women prepare the fish and game for winter use, cook, manufacture
cloth and clothing, and increase the stock of food by gathering berries
and shell-fish; and most of this work among the richer class is done by
slaves”. Our informant speaks also of “the hard labour required” from
the slaves [961]. Among the Ahts, slaves, as Sproat tells us, serve the
family. When a man of rank is going to remove, the new house is
prepared in advance by his slaves. According to Jewitt’s narrative,
“all the menial offices are performed by them, such as bringing water,
cutting wood, and a variety of others”. “The females are employed
principally in manufacturing cloth, in cooking, collecting berries,
etc.” [962]. Among the Fish Indians old women and slaves prepare the
food [963]. Chinook slaves “are obliged to perform all the drudgery for
their masters.... But the amount of the work connected with the Chinook
household is never great” [964]. The last sentence here proves that
“drudgery” means household work.
Some general expressions we find on record with our ethnographers seem
to bear the same meaning. For instance, Tlinkit slaves, according to
Kotzebue (quoted above), must “labour” for their masters; and Niblack,
evidently referring to the same statement, says that “slaves did all
the drudgery” [965]. The Tacullies use their slaves “as beasts of
burden”, which perhaps also means imposing household labour upon them
[966]. Holmberg states that the Koniagas employed their slaves as
labourers or servants [967]. And Niblack remarks about the Coast
Indians of Southern Alaska and Northern British Columbia in general:
“When slavery was in vogue, this class performed all the menial
drudgery” [968].
It is remarkable, that slaves in so many cases are stated to perform
household, i.e. female, labour. These statements are even more numerous
than those about fishing and similar work; so it would seem (we may not
speak more positively, as our information is rather incomplete), that
household work is the chief occupation of slaves along the Pacific
Coast. Now it is easy to understand, that fixed habitations and the
preserving of food for winter use require a large amount of domestic
labour. But this does not solve the question, why slaves are employed
for this work; why the men purchase or capture slaves not for their own
private use, but in order to relieve their wives of a part of their
task. In Australia women are overworked, and beaten into the bargain;
why are the men of the Pacific Coast so anxious to give the women
assistance in their work?
It might be, that female labour is valued by the men, because articles
of trade are prepared by the women. Unfortunately the ethnographers
most often content themselves with remarking that a brisk trade is
carried on, or that some tribe is commercial rather than warlike,
without specifying the articles of commerce. Yet a few statements tend
to verify our hypothesis. The articles of trade of the Chinooks before
the arrival of the Europeans were: fish, oil, shells, and Wapato. “The
Wapato, a bulbous root, compared by some to the potato and turnip, was
the aboriginal staple, and was gathered by women” [969]. Lewis and
Clark also state that this bulb, which “is the great article of food,
and almost the staple article of commerce on the Columbia”, is
collected chiefly by the women [970]. The Tlinkits export to the
interior basket-work, dancing clothes, train-oil prepared from the ssag
(a kind of fish), a sort of cakes made of Alaria Esculenta (a
sea-weed). The women manufacture basket-work, dancing clothes,
mocassins and other clothes. In the fishing season they are from
morning to night engaged in preparing the fish. In the autumn they
gather berries, bark, leaves and other vegetable by-meat; in other
seasons they gather shells and sea-urchins on the beach [971]. Here all
articles of trade are products of female labour. Among the Ahts baskets
and mats, manufactured by the women, are sold; the women may keep the
proceeds, and also get a little portion of their husbands’ earnings.
Our informant, speaking of the several divisions of the Ahts mutually
exchanging the fish that each of them catches, probably also means fish
prepared by the women [972]. In W. Washington and N. W. Oregon the
kamas, a root which was “formerly a great article of trade with the
interior”, is dug by the women [973]. What articles are exported by the
other tribes we do not know.
There is another fact strengthening our hypothesis: women are often
consulted in matters of trade. Among the Tlinkits “the men rarely
conclude a bargain without consulting their wives” [974]. Nootka wives
too “are consulted in matters of trade” [975]. About Puget Sound the
females “are always consulted in matters of trade before a bargain is
closed” [976]. Chinook women “are consulted on all important matters”
[977], which matters, among these commercial people, necessarily
include the trade. Among the Haidas, the trade, in Jewitt’s time, was
even principally managed by the women, who were expert in making a
bargain [978].
This need not, however, be the only cause; for women here enjoy a
rather high position; so it might be that the men wish to alleviate the
task of their wives, quite apart from the occupation of the latter in
preparing the articles of commerce. Aleuts, if not addicted to
drinking, are good husbands, and help their wives in everything [979].
Among the Tlinkits, according to Krause, “woman’s position is not a bad
one. She is not the slave of her husband; she has determinate rights,
and her influence is considerable”; and Bancroft remarks that “there
are few savage nations, in which the sex have greater influence or
command greater respect” [980]. Nootka wives “seem to be nearly on
terms of equality with their husbands, except that they are excluded
from some public feasts and ceremonies” [981]; and Sproat tells us that
among the Ahts slaves only are prostituted; women are not badly
treated; a wife may leave her husband with the consent of her relatives
[982]. Among the Koniagas, according to Holmberg, the women did not
hold a subordinate place as among other savage tribes of North America,
but enjoyed high consideration [983]. In W. Washington and N. W.
Oregon, according to Gibbs, “the condition of the woman is that of
slavery under any circumstances.” But the particulars he gives prove
that the women here are not so very badly off. In their councils “the
women are present at, and join in the deliberations, speaking in a low
tone, their words being repeated aloud by a reporter. On occasions of
less ceremony, they sometimes address the audience without any such
intervention, and give their admonitions with a freedom of tongue
highly edifying. In a few instances, matrons of superior character,
“strong minded women”, have obtained an influence similar to that of
chiefs.” The men own property distinct from their wives. “He has his
own blankets, she her mats and baskets, and generally speaking her
earnings belong to her, except those arising from prostitution, which
are her husband’s.” Sometimes “the courtship commences in this way—the
girl wishing a husband, and taking a straightforward mode of attracting
one.” “The accession of a new wife in the lodge very naturally produces
jealousy and discord, and the first often returns for a time in dudgeon
to her friends, to be reclaimed by her husband when he chooses, perhaps
after propitiating her by some present” [984]. Yet the condition of
women seems not to be quite as good as among the other tribes. “A man
sends his wife away, or sells her at his will.” “An Indian, perhaps,
will not let his favourite wife, but he looks upon his others, his
sisters, daughters, female relatives, and slaves, as a legitimate
source of profit” [985]. But we must take into consideration, that
Gibbs gives a general description of inland tribes and coast tribes
together. That among the latter the condition of women is not so very
bad, is proved by Bancroft’s statements about the tribes on Puget Sound
and Chinooks. About Puget Sound “women have all the work to do except
hunting and fishing, while their lords spend their time in idleness and
gambling. Still the females are not ill-treated; they acquire great
influence in the tribe” [986]. And among the Chinooks “work is equally
divided between the sexes.... Their [women’s] condition is by no means
a hard one. It is among tribes that live by the chase or by other means
in which women can be of little service, that we find the sex most
oppressed and cruelly treated” [987]. This statement is strengthened by
Swan writing that “with these Indians the position of the women is not
so degraded as with the tribes of the Plains” [988]. The Tacullies “are
fond of their wives, performing the most of the household drudgery in
order to relieve them” [989]. Mackenzie, speaking of an Indian tribe,
probably related to the Atnahs on Fraser River, amongst whom strangers
are kept “in a state of awe and subjection,” states that they live upon
the products of the sea and rivers and are to be considered as a
“stationary people.” “Hence it is that the men engage in those toilsome
employments, which the tribes who support themselves by the chase leave
entirely to the women” [990].
Our information, here again, is not very complete; but as far as it
goes it tends to prove that the condition of women on the Pacific Coast
is not a bad one.
This good condition of women here, as compared with for instance that
of Australian women, may for a great part be due to the settled life of
these tribes. While the men are on fishing, hunting, or trading
expeditions, the women enjoy much liberty; whereas Australian women are
continually marching along with their husbands [991]. The men must also
be aware that domestic comfort, worth much in these cold regions,
depends on the women. As militarism does not prevail here to any great
extent, women are not so much in need of male protection. And village
life makes conspiracy of women possible. So among the Aleuts “a
religious festival used to be held in December, at which all the women
of the village assembled by moonlight, and danced naked with masked
faces, the men being excluded under penalty of death” [992]. Last but
not least, subsistence here is largely dependent on female labour.
Lewis and Clark remark: “Where the women can aid in procuring
subsistence for the tribe, they are treated with more equality, and
their importance is proportioned to the share which they take in that
labour; while in countries where subsistence is chiefly procured by the
exertions of the men, the women are considered and treated as burdens.
Thus, among the Clatsops and Chinnooks, who live upon fish and roots,
which the women are equally expert with the men in procuring, the
former have a rank and influence very rarely found among Indians. The
females are permitted to speak freely before the men, to whom indeed
they sometimes address themselves in a tone of authority. On many
subjects their judgments and opinions are respected, and in matters of
trade, their advice is generally asked and pursued. The labours of the
family too, are shared almost equally” [993].
We have only enumerated some causes tending to bring about a good
condition of women. It is not the place here to expatiate upon this
point any further. But it is worth while to emphasize the fact itself,
that women are on the whole well treated among these tribes. A German
writer, Dr. Grosse, has tried to prove, that among the “higher hunters”
(höhere Jäger) as well as among the “lower hunters” (niedere Jäger)
woman’s state is a bad one. As all our tribes belong to Grosse’s
“higher hunters” [994], we shall attempt to find out, why his
conclusion is so different from ours. He quotes several ethnographical
statements, which are to afford a basis for his inference [995]. We
shall examine whether this is a sound basis. Grosse does not always
exactly specify which tribe each quotation applies to; but as he most
frequently quotes Bancroft, we can easily find it out. He first quotes
this statement of Bancroft’s about the Shoshones: “The weaker sex of
course do the hardest labour, and receive more blows than kind words
for their pains” [996]. But the very next sentence: “These people, in
common with most nomadic nations, have the barbarous custom of
abandoning the old and infirm the moment they find them an
incumbrance,” shows that these Shoshones are not at all to be compared
to the Tlinkits and similar tribes; their mode of life is decidedly
rude and little comfortable. Then he refers to some passages of
Bancroft’s, proving that unfaithfulness of the wife is punished with
death, whereas the husband has the right to prostitute his wife to
strangers. These passages apply to the Southern and Northern
Californians as well as to the Shoshones. But about the former it is
also stated: “If a man ill-treated his wife, her relations took her
away, after paying back the value of her wedding presents, and then
married her to another” [997]. And of the Northern Californians we are
told: “Among the Modocs polygamy prevails, and the women have
considerable privilege. The Hoopa adulterer loses one eye, the
adulteress is exempt from punishment” [998]. Moreover, “although the
principal labour falls to the lot of the women, the men sometimes
assist in building the wigwam, or even in gathering acorns and roots”
[999]. Another statement of Bancroft’s, quoted by Grosse, applies to
the Chepewyans: “The Northern Indian is master of his household. He
marries without ceremony, and divorces his wife at his pleasure. A man
of forty buys or fights for a spouse of twelve, and when tired of her
whips her and sends her away” [1000]. This statement is corroborated by
a report of Hearne’s. But why Grosse calls the Chepewyans “higher
hunters” we do not understand. “Altogether they are pronounced an
inferior race”. “The Chepewyans inhabit huts of brush and portable skin
tents”. “Their weapons and their utensils are of the most primitive
kind” [1001]. The next quotation applies to the Kutchins, whose wives
“are treated more like dogs than human beings”. But this is only stated
of the Tenan Kutchin, “people of the mountains,” “a wild, ungovernable
horde, their territory never yet having been invaded by white people”.
“The Kutcha Kutchin, “people of the lowland,” are cleaner and better
mannered”. And of these “better mannered” Kutchins Bancroft says: “The
women perform all domestic duties, and eat after the husband is
satisfied; but the men paddle the boats, and have even been known to
carry their wives ashore, so that they might not wet their feet”
[1002]. As for the Nootkas, women being “somewhat overworked” (Grosse
does not mention that among the richer class most female work is done
by slaves), and excluded from some public feasts, Grosse concludes that
their state is a bad one. We have quoted above some facts tending to
prove the contrary. Then Grosse asserts that, according to Bancroft,
Haida husbands prostitute their wives for money. Bancroft, however,
says literally: “While jealousy is not entirely unknown, chastity
appears to be so, as women who can earn the greatest number of blankets
win great admiration for themselves and high position for their
husbands” [1003]; which is not exactly the same. The Tlinkits,
according to Grosse, are the only unaccountable exception to his
general rule. Finally he attempts to prove, that the alleged supremacy
of women in Kamchatka does not signify so very much; but that
Kamchadale women are badly treated, even he does not assert.
What remains now of Grosse’s evidence? Tlinkit and Kamchadale women he
himself admits not to be badly off. What he says of Nootkas and Haidas
proves very little. About the Northern and Southern Californians we
have got statements that impair Grosse’s argument very much. Only among
the Shoshones, Chepewyans, and Tenan Kutchin is the state of women
decidedly bad; but these are not on a level with the other tribes; they
are migratory and little advanced in the arts of life. And of the Tenan
Kutchin we know very little, “their territory never yet having been
invaded by white people” [1004].
Grosse derives most of his evidence from Bancroft’s book; but he
evidently has not paid attention to all the data given by Bancroft,
which relate to the condition of women. Sometimes he quotes one
sentence, where two successive sentences taken together would give
quite another view of the matter. Several statements of Bancroft’s
(such as about the tribes on Puget Sound, Chinooks, Tacullies) he omits
altogether; whereas just the tribes of the N. W. Coast of North America
are, according to him, among the most typical “higher hunters” [1005].
And he can only give a semblance of truth to his inference by
classifying under “higher hunters” Shoshones and similar tribes, which
are not more advanced in the arts of life than some Australians, and
decidedly much less than the Eskimos and Aleuts whom he calls “lower
hunters”.
Returning to our chief subject, we may remark, that our survey of slave
labour leads to the same conclusion we arrived at before, viz. that the
preserving of food, a settled life, and the high development of trade,
industry and wealth, are the main causes which have made slavery so
largely prevalent here. As additional causes we may now name the high
position of women, which induces the men to relieve them of a part of
their work by giving them the help of slaves; and, in a few cases, the
want of fighting men, who are to strengthen their masters’ force in
warfare.
We shall now briefly examine, which are the causes of slavery among the
slave-keeping hunters and fishers outside the Pacific Coast.
Among the Abipones the function of slavery was beyond any doubt
reinforcement of the tribe. The slaves were very leniently treated. “I
know of many people” says Dobrizhoffer, “who, being released by their
friends and brought back to their native country, voluntarily returned
to their masters, the Abipones, whom they follow in their hunting and
fighting expeditions; though Spaniards themselves, they do not hesitate
to stain their hands with Spanish blood.” “The liberty to go where they
like, the abundance of food and clothing procured without any labour,
the possession of many horses, the freedom to idle and run into
debauchery, the lawless impunity they enjoy, bind the Spanish captives
so much to the Abipones, that they prefer their captivity to liberty”.
“The Abipones, though considering polygamy allowed, very seldom take
several wives at a time; the captives do not often content themselves
with one wife, but marry as many female prisoners, Spanish or Indian,
as they can” [1006].
The reason for taking prisoners here was the same as among the Iroquois
and similar tribes, where they were adopted; with this sole difference,
that the Abipones seem to have had a sexual aversion (that cannot be
accounted for here) to all men and women outside their own nation;
therefore they did not adopt their prisoners, nor had they any sexual
intercourse with them. Slavery as a system of labour did not exist
here.
As for their economic life, this was much inferior to that on the
Pacific Coast of North America. They subsisted on the spontaneous
products of nature and on game. Food was abundant; yet their mode of
life required frequent migrations. All their journeys were performed on
horseback [1007].
The information we get about the Tehuelches is very incomplete. Falkner
states, that the female relatives of the cacique have slaves, who
perform most of their work [1008].
In Kamchatka slaves were employed for various domestic labours, such as
fetching wood, feeding the dogs, making axes and knives from stone and
bone [1009]. The Kamchadales were not so far advanced in the arts of
life as the tribes of the Pacific Coast of North America. They think
only of the present, says Steller; they are not ambitious to become
rich. They do not like to work more than is needed for their own and
their families’ subsistence. “When they have got as much as they think
to be sufficient, they do not collect any more food; they would not
even do so, if the fish came on land and the animals into their
dwellings”. A rather brisk trade was, however, carried on by them and
was largely dependent on female labour [1010]. They also had fixed
habitations [1011].
Speaking of the tribes of the Pacific Coast, we concluded that slavery
must have already existed among them at a somewhat lower stage of
economic life. The Kamchadales afford a proof of this. They were not so
far advanced in the arts of life as the tribes of the Pacific Coast;
yet slavery already existed among them, though it does not seem to have
prevailed here to any great extent.
§ 3. Experimentum crucis: Australia.
In the last paragraph we have shown that in the economic and social
life of the slave-keeping hunters and fishers (especially those on the
Pacific Coast of North America) there are some features which account
for the existence of slavery. But there is still something wanting in
our argument. It might be that the circumstances which we have called
causes of slavery were equally found among the hunting and fishing
tribes that do not keep slaves; in that case the foregoing argument
would prove insufficient. Therefore we shall apply here the
experimentum crucis; we shall inquire how much the economic and social
life of the slave-keeping tribes differs from that of the other tribes.
This investigation may be instructive in various respects. It might be,
that of the supposed causes of slavery some were found among
non-slave-keeping as well as among slave-keeping tribes, whereas others
existed among none but slave-keeping tribes; then the latter causes
only would be decisive. Or perhaps we shall find that each of these
causes exists among one or more non-slave-keeping tribes; but that the
combination of all the causes is found nowhere but among slave-keeping
tribes. It were also possible, that a combination of the same causes
existed among non-slave-keeping tribes, but that among these there were
other circumstances neutralizing the former. Whether any of these
possibilities is a reality, will appear from the ensuing investigation.
We do not, however, think that it is necessary to give a survey of the
economic and social life of all non-slave-keeping hunters and fishers.
For we have seen that among the tribes of the Pacific Coast of North
America the growth of slavery is much furthered by their forming a
somewhat homogeneous group. Accordingly slavery among the few
slave-keeping tribes outside the Pacific Coast seems to be little
developed. Now there are many non-slave-keeping hunting and fishing
tribes, either living quite isolated (e.g. Andaman Islanders, Fuegians)
or surrounded by more powerful, agricultural or pastoral, tribes (e.g.
Bushmen, African pigmies). That such a position is very unfavourable to
the existence of slavery is evident. We shall therefore confine
ourselves to a survey of the three great groups of hunters and fishers
outside the Pacific Coast: the Australians, the Indians of Central
North America, and the Eskimos. Australia and the regions where the
Eskimos live are inhabited by hunters and fishers only. In Central
North America a few agricultural tribes of the lowest stage (hunting
agriculturists) are found; but these differ so little from hunters
proper, that we may speak here of a group of hunters, not inclosed
between superior peoples. Perhaps the hunters and hunting
agriculturists of Brazil, Paraguay, etc. form a similar group; but the
literature on these tribes accessible to us was rather incomplete.
We shall inquire now, whether the several circumstances furthering the
growth of slavery on the Pacific Coast, are found among each of these
groups.
In the first place we shall regard Australia.
1º. Abundance of food. Food in Australia is by no means abundant and
often very scarce. The Australians are omnivorous in the widest sense
of the word; they eat even mice, rats, lizards, beetles, etc. In some
parts of Australia, especially on the West Coast and in the interior,
the natives are continually suffering from hunger [1012]. Thomas
remarks: “In few parts of Australia can the native count on anything
like regular supplies of food. He is dependent on the course of the
seasons for his seeds and fruits; the time of year also affects the
supply of fish in many parts; and in Central Australia, perhaps owing
to the barrenness of the land, much time is given up, if our accounts
are accurate, to magical ceremonies, whose object is to promote the
increase of game and plant life, so difficult does the native find it
to obtain sustenance” [1013]. We shall soon see that scarcity of food
compels them to live in very small groups.
2º. Variety of food. There is a great variety. Concerning S. W.
Australia Gerland enumerates 6 kinds of kangaroos, 29 of fish, two of
seals; and further wild dogs, emus and other birds, tortoises,
opossums, frogs, shell-fish, grubs of beetles, bird’s eggs, mice, rats,
snakes and lizards; roots, mushrooms, resins and various fruits [1014].
But this list, including (as Gerland remarks) everything eatable,
proves only that they live very poorly. The natives of South Australia
also, according to Eylmann, though they have a great many kinds of
food, seldom live in abundance. During the frequent times of drought
they suffer severely from want of food [1015]. In Central Australia
“with certain restrictions ... everything which is edible is used for
food” [1016]. And as for fishing, though fish enters for a large part
into the subsistence of the coast tribes, there are no fishing tribes
in the higher sense in Australia, like those of the Pacific Coast.
Their canoes, where they have any, are very primitive; and the
principal means of catching fish are by spearing and setting traps
[1017].
3º. Fixed habitations, large groups, preserving of food. Gerland states
that to find sufficient food, the Australians must continually roam
over the country. These wandering tribes cannot be large, else food
would fail them; so the division of the Australians into numerous small
tribes is a consequence of the nature of their country [1018]. Spencer
and Gillen speak of the natives of Central Australia as living in small
local groups [1019]. Brough Smyth remarks: “It is necessary for a tribe
to move very frequently from place to place, always keeping within the
boundaries of the country which it calls its own—, now to the spot
where eels can be taken in the creeks; often to the feeding-grounds of
the kangaroo; sometimes to the thicker forests to get wood suitable for
making weapons; to the sea-coast continually for fish of various kinds;
and, at the right season, to the lands where are found the native
bread, the yam, and the acacia gum” [1020]. According to Eylmann, the
natives of South Australia, in their barren country, are forced not
only to continually move on, but to live in small hordes [1021]. And
Thomas states that “the tribal areas are almost invariably small”
[1022]. The writers who describe separate tribes also often state that
these tribes are nomadic and live in small groups. We shall quote here
only the statements of our ethnographers concerning one significant
fact, that presents a striking contrast to the state of things on the
Pacific Coast, viz. the improvidence of the Australians. In the Moore
River District of W. Australia food is abundant in the summer; but the
natives are reckless of the future; they consume whatever they have
got. The natives of S. W. Australia preserve no food; if the game
killed is too much for a family to eat in one day, neighbouring
families are invited and a feast is given, till nothing is left. They
do, however, store up acacia gum, and carry roots with them. The
Queenslanders on Herbert River think only of the present moment. The
Cammarray of N. S. Wales eat as long as they have anything; they never
lay up provisions, except when a dead whale has been cast on shore. Of
the aborigines of N. S. Wales in general Fraser tells us: “When the
fish are abundant, the fishers cannot use a tithe of the fish they
catch, and so sell them to all comers at a few pence for a backful. As
for themselves, they have a noble feast, they and all their tribe; and,
as is their habit whenever they have abundance, they gorge themselves
so that their bodies are swollen to unnatural dimensions and seem ready
to burst. When they can hold no more, they go to sleep like snakes, and
sleep for twenty-four hours or more.” Similar particulars are gives by
Angas. Spencer and Gillen, in their description of the natives of
Central Australia, remark that “when times are favourable the black
fellow is as lighthearted as possible. He has not the slightest thought
of, or care for, what the morrow may bring forth, and lives entirely in
the present” [1023]. As for the Tasmanians: “They lay up no store of
provisions, and have been known in winter time to eat kangaroo skins”
[1024]. Matthews, speaking of several tribes of Queensland and South
Australia, states that they “are very improvident, and accumulate no
property beyond their weapons and rugs” [1025]. And Forrest tells us
that the natives of Central and Western Australia “live from hand to
mouth, never collect more than enough for the day, and each morning
have to look out for their day’s food” [1026]. Thomas remarks, that it
is not true that the Australian does not store food. “Much of his food
he must perforce eat quickly, or natural processes would make his
labour in vain. But the bunya-bunya nut, grass and other seed cakes,
and possibly other kinds of food, were certainly put aside for future
use” [1027]. He evidently means to say, that their preserving
relatively little food is not due to improvidence, but to necessity.
But however this may be, the fact that most of the collected food is
consumed quickly remains, and this fact, not the underlying motives,
has important consequences with regard to the economic structure of
their society.
4º. Trade and industry. Bartering is not at all unknown among the
Australians. Fraser, speaking of N. S. Wales, remarks: “I have already
spoken of pipe-clay and ruddle as articles of trade; the Mindi-mindi
gatherings are the markets at which this trade is carried on. The
necessity for these fairs is not far to seek. A black man’s own
“taurai” does not furnish everything he requires for his daily life. In
it there may be food enough, but he wants suitable stone for an axe,
wood for his spears, and “bumerangs” and shields and clubs, flint for
cutting and skinning, gum to be used as cement, and lumps of gritty
sandstone, on which to sharpen his stone-axe; for adornment, the
pipe-clay and the red-ochre are much valued, and so are swan-down
feathers and the rose-coloured crests of a certain kind of cockatoo;
some of these he can supply, and for them he gets in barter others that
he wants. Then also there are manufactured articles which he can give
in exchange,—cloaks, rugs, baskets, knitted bags, nets, weapons, and
tools; most of these articles bear the “brand” of the maker. In this
way the black man’s wants are supplied by the mutual interchange of
commodities. I suppose that, at these fairs, the usual amount of
haggling goes on in the making of bargains, but there is no quarreling;
for, during the time, universal brotherhood prevails. The fairs are
held whenever there is a need for them” [1028]. Intertribal commerce is
also carried on by the Narrinyeri and Dieri [1029]. It seems, indeed,
that there is hardly any savage tribe, among which the interchange of
commodities is quite unknown. [1030] And in N. S. Wales it is not only
the spontaneous products of nature that are exchanged, but manufactured
articles, so the trade requires industry. Yet trade and industry are
not nearly so fully developed here as on the Pacific Coast. Nowhere are
there particulars given, showing that any Australian tribe is, like the
Koniagas of the Pacific Coast, “adapted to labour and commerce rather
than to war and hunting.” On the Pacific Coast the coast tribes
exchange their manufactured goods for the raw products of the
hinterland; but in Australia there is nothing but hinterland.
That trade and industry do not signify nearly so much as on the Pacific
Coast is clearly proved by their not having here the same effect; they
have not led in Australia to any development of:
5º. Property and wealth. Professor Steinmetz, in his Entwicklung der
Strafe, has closely studied the forms of government existing among the
Australian natives. From the details he gives it appears, that a man’s
influence depends on his age, his bravery, eloquence, etc., and his
having numerous relatives, but not on his wealth. Among the
Queenslanders described by Lumholtz the old men have most influence.
Among the Kurnai age, rather than bravery, gives influence. In Central
Australia a man’s power depends chiefly on his age, but also on force,
courage, prudence, dexterity, perseverance, and the number of his
relatives. On the Bourke and Darling rivers the council of old men is
the only form of government. In Tasmania a man’s influence depended on
his strength, courage, perseverance, prudence, and dexterity. The old
men were highly honoured and had many wives. In the Wellington tribe
there is no government whatever; all are equal. Among the Cammarray the
old men are chiefs. Among the Narrinyeri chieftainship is elective;
wisdom, moderation, and good humour are the qualities most required in
a chief. Among the Dieri the oldest man of the clan is chief, but has
not always most power. A chief has real power only when, besides his
age, he has other valued qualities, such as bravery, eloquence, or a
large family. Great warriors, orators and sorcerers have most
influence. In the Moore River District there is no government, a
perfect equality prevails. The natives of Port Lincoln have no
government; old people are held in high esteem. In the Western District
of Victoria “the succession to the chiefdom is by inheritance”. “The
eldest son is appointed, unless there is some good reason for setting
him aside.” If the heir is weakly in body or mentally unfitted to
maintain the position of chief,— which requires to be filled by a man
of ability and bravery,— and has a better-qualified brother, he must
give way to the latter or fight him in single combat. Among the tribes
of Victoria described by Le Souëf government in the true sense does not
exist, but the bravest and strongest, and often the most dangerous men,
have most influence [1031]. Some other statements lead to the same
conclusion. In N. W. Central Queensland “a ripe old age constitutes the
highest social status in the camp, and the one calling for the greatest
respect. There is no single individual chief to direct affairs” [1032].
In N. S. Wales, according to Fraser, “there is nothing of the nature of
kingly rule in any one of the tribes, nor is there an over-chief for
the whole of a tribe; but the affairs of each section of a tribe are
administered by a number of elders, among whom one man is considered
the leader or chief, because of his superior wisdom and influence”. “If
there are two rivals competing for the chiefship, they settle the
matter by single combat”. And Wilkes says: “As no system of government
exists, or any acknowledgment of power to enact laws, they are solely
guided by old usage” [1033]. Among the Dieri chieftainship is elective
according to the influence of the candidate’s clan and his oratorical
power [1034]. About Powell’s Creek there is no government whatever;
“the oldest man in the tribe would usually carry most sway in tribal
matters” [1035]. Matthews, speaking of several tribes of Queensland and
South Australia, remarks: “They have elders or chiefs corresponding
with the Indian Medicine men, who I believe are principally
self-constituted, or admitted as such on the score of age or personal
prowess. Great respect is attached to age as a rule, especially in
visiting another tribe” [1036]. Among the native tribes of Central
Australia, described by Spencer and Gillen, the chief has “a position
which, if he be a man of personal ability, but only in that case,
enables him to wield considerable power” [1037]. In South Australia the
chiefs are either hereditary or elected for their personal qualities
[1038]. A describer of the natives of North Australia tells us: “There
are no recognized chiefs in a tribe in the true sense of the word, as
far as I have come in contact with them; the old men of each tribe form
themselves into a sort of council when anything of importance is to be
discussed, and what they decide upon is generally carried out” [1039].
Thomas remarks that, among the Australians in general, “where there was
a tendency to select the son of the late headman, it was modified by
the rule that he must have shown himself worthy of the post by
attaining distinction as a warrior, orator or bard” [1040], and Brough
Smyth has the following statement: “The government of aboriginal tribes
is not a democracy. There are the doctors or sorcerers who, under some
circumstances, have supreme power; there are the warriors who in time
of trouble are absolute masters; there are the dreamers, who direct and
control the movements of the tribe until their divinations are
fulfilled or forgotten; there are the old men (councillors) without
whose advice even the warriors are slow to move; and, finally, there
are the old women, who noisily intimate their designs and endeavour by
clamour and threats to influence the leaders of their tribe” [1041].
We see that influence and power in Australia depend on personal
qualities, not on wealth. We have only found two instances on record of
men trying to strengthen their influence by means of their property.
Gason tells us of a celebrated Dieri chief, who received regular
tributes from the hordes under his control. The writer often observed
him distributing presents among his personal friends, in order to avoid
their jealousy [1042]. But this is quite another thing than what we
found existing on the Pacific Coast of North America. In the latter
group a rich man, by being rich, attains to power; whereas here the
chief, elected for his personal qualities, receives tributes, and by
distributing what he has received strengthens his influence. Moreover
we are told that these Dieri “have no property except a few weapons or
ornaments; they are generally buried or destroyed”, viz. after their
owner’s death [1043]. Lumholtz speaks of an old man in Queensland who
distributed his property among his fellow-tribesmen to attain to
greater influence [1044]. This looks somewhat like the state of things
existing on the Pacific Coast; but as the same writer tells us that
there is no government except the council of old men, this may be an
isolated case. And even if among one or two tribes wealth gave a
certain influence, this would not impair the conclusion we have arrived
at, that generally a man’s influence and power do not depend upon his
wealth, whence we may infer that wealth and property are little
developed here.
6º. Condition of women. Whereas on the Pacific Coast women are held in
rather high esteem, and therefore provided by the men with slaves who
help them in their work, the condition of women in Australia is
decidedly bad, as we have seen in the first chapter of Part I [1045].
7º. Militarism. We have shown that slaves are sometimes taken in order
to strengthen their masters’ force in warfare. On the other hand, where
militarism does not prevail to any considerable extent, the tribe can
afford the luxury of having male slaves living among them who do not
fight. As for the Australians, their wars generally are not sanguinary,
and often settled by single combat [1046].
Our conclusion is that the Australians differ from the tribes of the
Pacific Coast of North America in many respects. Food is by no means
abundant; the highly developed fishing methods of the Pacific Coast are
unknown here; the Australians are migratory and improvident, and live
in small groups; though some tribes interchange commodities, trade and
industry do not signify nearly so much as on the Pacific Coast; the
objects of property are very few and wealth does not exist; the
condition of women is a bad one. Only in two respects do both groups
agree: there is a great variety of food, and militarism does not
prevail to any great extent. We have seen, however, that “variety of
food” here means that the Australians must avail themselves of whatever
is eatable, i.e. that they live in the deepest misery. Therefore
henceforth we shall no longer speak of variety of food as a
circumstance favourable to the existence of slavery; and in the next
paragraphs we shall not inquire whether the Central North Americans and
Eskimos have a variety of food.
§ 4. Experimentum crucis: Central North America.
This paragraph will contain a survey of the economic state of the group
of hunting tribes, extending across North America, from the Montagnais
near the Atlantic Coast to the Apaches of Texas. Besides hunters in the
proper sense this group includes the Cheyennes and Comanches, who,
though slight traces of agriculture were found among them, subsisted
almost entirely on the products of the chase.
1º Abundance of food. Le Jeune, speaking of the Montagnais, says: “The
savages are almost always hungry” [1047]. The Chepewyans “are not
remarkable for their activity as hunters, owing to the ease with which
they snare deer and spear fish” [1048]. Among the Kutchins a good
hunter can always, except in very unfavourable circumstances, procure
sufficient food [1049]. The Beaver Indians, according to Mackenzie,
seemed to live in a state of comparative comfort [1050]. The Comanches
in the summer, when the buffaloes remove to the North, often suffer
from want of food [1051]. Lewis and Clark tell us, that the Shoshones
“suffer the extremes of want; for two-thirds of the year they are
forced to live in the mountains, passing whole weeks without meat, and
with nothing to eat but a few fish and roots” [1052]. Grinnell,
speaking of the inland Indians in general, remarks: “The life of the
Indian was in some respects a hard one, for the question of food was an
ever-present anxiety with him” [1053].
Considering the foregoing statements, and remembering Tanner’s
narrative that gives a description of a continual struggle for mere
existence, we may safely conclude that, though a few of these tribes
lived rather comfortably, food, among the Indians of Central North
America in general, was not nearly so abundant as on the Pacific Coast.
2º. Whereas the tribes of the Pacific Coast subsist chiefly by fishing,
the Indians of Central North America are, nearly all of them, hunters
(See § 2 of this chapter).
3º. Fixed habitations, large groups, preserving of food. In a general
description of the “vast but thinly populated interior of Northern
America” we read that, with regard to the mode of living, a distinction
is to be made between the thick-wood Indians and the prairie Indians.
The thick-wood Indians consist of small groups. During the summer they
live on waterfowl, fish, berries, etc. In the winter they often suffer
from want of food. The prairie Indians during the whole year live on
the buffalo. Their groups number on an average 400 people [1054]. The
Montagnais, in Le Jeune’s time, were wandering and few in number; their
life consisted of feasting as long as they had anything; they lived
from hand to mouth and did not lay up any provision [1055]. The same
writer calls the Algonquins a wandering tribe [1056]. The Ojibways,
according to Keating, are divided into small groups, each containing a
few families. They do not lay up any provision for winter use. Jones
also remarks, that they are very improvident. Kohl, however, gives a
long description of the fruits preserved by them [1057]. The
Knisteneaux often, at one feast, consume what would have been enough
for several weeks [1058]. The Blackfeet tribes are nomadic in their
habits [1059]. Ross tells us, that the Eastern Tinneh “are obliged to
lead a wandering life, in order to procure food either by fishing or
hunting” [1060]. The Indians on the Upper Yukon are very improvident.
When fish is abundant, they gorge themselves with it, instead of drying
it for winter use [1061]. The Kutchins live in transportable dwellings.
According to Kirby they “are divided into many petty tribes”. Hardisty,
however, states that they generally live in large groups [1062].
Mackenzie speaks of a Beaver Indian establishment of about 300
inhabitants [1063]. The Sioux live in small bands, owing to the
scarcity of game [1064]. The Osages are nomadic. Our informant speaks
of an Osage town of 1500 inhabitants [1065]. Apache tribes of 100–200
people, of whom 25–50 are warriors, are headed by a captain. They are
“nomadic and roving in their habits”. “Seldom do they remain more than
a week in one locality” [1066]. The Comanches “usually roam in small
subdivisions, varying according to caprice or the scarcity or abundance
of game”. These subdivisions consist of 20–110 families. Brancroft
remarks about the Comanches: “No provision is made for a time of
scarcity, but when many buffalo are killed, they cut portions of them
into long strips, which, after being dried in the sun, are pounded
fine. This pemican they carry with them in their hunting expeditions,
and when unsuccessful in the chase, a small quantity boiled in water or
cooked with grease, serves for a meal” [1067]. These details do not
quite agree with Bancroft’s assertion that “no provision is made”.
Grinnell remarks, that the Indians are often undeservedly taxed with
improvidence. “We are told in books much about the Indian’s
improvidence, and it is frequently stated that however abundant food
might be with him to-day, he took no thought for the needs of the
morrow. Such statements are untrue and show but superficial
observation. The savage does not look so far ahead as does the
civilized man, but still the lessons of experience are not wholly lost
on him. He remembers past hardships, and endeavours to provide against
their recurrence; and these people were rather remarkable for their
foresight, and for the provision which they were accustomed to make for
the future” [1068].
However this may be, it is evident that the supplies these wandering
tribes (as they subsist on hunting, we may safely suppose that they are
all of them nomadic, whether this be explicitly stated or not) were
able to store for winter’s use, cannot compare with those of the tribes
of the Pacific Coast.
4º. Trade and industry. The Montagnais, in Le Jeune’s time, bought
maize from the Hurons for elk-skins [1069]. The Algonquins, according
to the same writer, used to sell furs to the French [1070]. The
Blackfeet tribes sold peltries which they procured in the Northern part
of their country [1071]. Jones calls the Kutcha Kutchin traders: “they
make very little for themselves, but buy from the other Indians.” And
Hardisty tells us, that they live by trading; they exchange beads,
which are their circulating medium, for the peltries of other tribes
[1072]. The Osages, too, carried on the fur-trade in Hunter’s time
[1073].
We see that trade does not hold a large place in the economic life of
these Indians, and that only raw products are exchanged.
Grinnell enumerates the branches of industry existing among them. “Food
supply and defence against enemies depended on the warrior’s weapons.
These were his most precious possessions, and he gave much care to
their manufacture. Knowing nothing of metals, he made his edge tools of
sharpened stones.” “The most important part of the warrior’s equipment
was the bow, and over no part of it was more time and labour spent.”
“The stone axe, the maul, and the lance were all simple weapons.” “A
very important part of the warrior’s outfit was the shield, with which
he stopped or turned aside the arrows of his enemy. It was usually
circular in shape, and was made of the thick, shrunken hide of a
buffalo bull’s neck.” “Clothing was made of skins tanned with or
without the fur.” “Many tribes—especially those to the south—made a
simple pottery.... Among the northern tribes, where pottery was least
known, ladles, spoons, bows, and dishes were usually formed from horn
or wood”. “The different tribes had but slight knowledge of the textile
art, and this knowledge seems to have been greatest in the south and on
the coast.” “Three vehicles were known to the primitive Indian—the
travois in the south and the sledge in the north for land travel, and
the canoe wherever there were water ways.” “The Indian’s ideas of art
are rude.” “It is in the art of carving, however, that the greatest
skill was shown” [1074]. So these tribes do not seem to have attained
to a high industrial development; the less, as most of the instances
Grinnell gives of their skill in carving relate to tribes of the
Pacific Coast.
5º. Property and wealth. Whereas on the Pacific Coast influence and
power depend on wealth, we shall see that in Central North America it
is otherwise. Le Jeune, speaking of the Montagnais, remarks: “Rhetoric
controls all these tribes, as the captain is elected for his eloquence
alone, and is obeyed in proportion to his use of it, for they have no
other law than his word” [1075]. Roosevelt states that among the
Algonquins the war-chief “wielded only the influence that he could
secure by his personal prowess and his tact” [1076]. The power of an
Ojibway chief depended upon his wisdom, courage, and hospitality
[1077]. Of the Blackfeet we are told: “Chiefs never receive a gift,
considering it a degradation to accept anything but what their own
prowess or superior qualities of manhood acquire for them. Their hearts
are so good and strong that they scorn to take anything, and
self-denial and the power to resist temptation to luxury or easily
acquired property is a boast with them. On these men, in time of peace,
when difficulties occur among themselves, the tribe relies, and in time
of war they are their leaders to the scene of action”. And Schoolcraft
states that the chiefs “have little or no power, unless they have
distinguished themselves as warriors and are supported by a band of
braves” [1078]. Among the Kutchins, according to Jones, the chiefs are
elected for their wisdom and courage. Hardisty, however, states that
the power of the chiefs depends on the number of beads they own; for
these afford a means of injuring those who displease them. And Whymper
remarks: “The chiefs, who are without exception good hunters or
fishers, often procure or strengthen their position by periodical
distributions of their chattels. They not seldom have the worst
clothing and food of all inhabitants” [1079]. Among the Cheyennes
generally the bravest and wisest man is elected as a chief [1080]. Mrs.
Eastman tells us of the Sioux, that formerly “their bravest men, their
war chief too, no doubt exercized a control over the rest.” The chief
lived like the common people and Neill remarks: “The individual who
desires to improve his condition is not only laughed at, but
maltreated. Moreover, if he acquires any property, there is no law
which secures it to him, and it is liable to be taken away at any time
by any ill-disposed person” [1081]. Among the Apaches, according to
Schoolcraft, “the chiefs are the wealthiest men, the most warlike, the
first in battle, the wisest in council”. According to Ten Kate the
power of the chiefs depends on their success in forays. And Bancroft
remarks: “Sometimes it happens that one family retains the chieftaincy
in a tribe during several generations, because of the bravery or wealth
of the sons” [1082]. Comanche chiefs, according to Schoolcraft, “are
selected for their known or pretended prowess in war”. In another place
he states, that they are made chiefs for their “superior cunning,
knowledge or success in war” [1083].
Influence and power depend thus on bravery, wisdom, eloquence, not on
wealth. Only among the Apaches does it depend on wealth, though not on
wealth exclusively. The distributions of property among the Kutchins
somewhat resemble those on the Pacific Coast, but are not indicative of
quite the same development of wealth; for on the Pacific Coast wealth
consists to a large extent of more durable goods, such as houses,
canoes, etc.
A few other statements also tend to prove, that wealth is not highly
developed; the economic life of some tribes shows rather communistic
features. Among the Kutchins, “unless he is alone, a hunter cannot take
and appropriate the meat of the animal he kills. Should he do so, he
would be considered mean. And this feeling is strong. When two good
hunters go together, good and well, the one has as good a chance of
getting meat as the other; but when one is a bad hunter and the other a
good one, the former gets all the meat and the real hunter has nothing,
and loses his ammunition into the bargain” [1084]. Among the Chepewyans
the game is distributed among those who shared in the chase. The game
which a man catches in his share is his private property; “nevertheless
any unsuccessful hunter passing by may take a deer so caught, leaving
the head, skin, and saddle for the owner” [1085].
Among the Osages, too, wealth was formerly unknown; for in Hunter’s
time the old men disapproved of the fur-trade, which gave abundance and
thereby led to effeminacy [1086].
6º. Condition of women. Le Jeune states, that among the Montagnais the
sex has great influence. Household affairs are left to the discretion
of the women, without any male interference. The women “cut and decide
and give away as they please” [1087]. Ojibway women, according to
Jones, do the hardest work, are slaves of the men, get the worst food
and the worst place in the wigwam; and Long states, that the wives are
the slaves of their husbands. According to Kohl, nearly all kinds of
work, except the chase, fell to the share of the women, who were even
obliged to bring home the bears killed by the men [1088]. Mackenzie
tells us, that among the Knisteneaux women are in the same subjected
condition as among other wild tribes [1089]. Among the Blackfeet the
husband may send his wife away when he likes; she then takes her
property with her; the children remain with the father. Many men have 6
or 8 wives; they readily lend them to whites for brandy [1090].
Chepewyan wives are subjected to their husbands, who are very jealous
and “for very trifling causes treat them with such cruelty as sometimes
to occasion their death” [1091]. Among the Kutchins, as we have seen in
§ 2, the condition of women is a rather bad one [1092]. Mackenzie
speaks of the “extreme subjection and abasement” of Beaver Indian women
[1093]. Cheyenne women perform all the drudgery. Yet they have some
influence in government matters; they do not attend the councils; but
their wishes, privately uttered, are not generally disregarded [1094].
Among the Sioux women as children and wives are despised, as girls a
little more honoured. And Schoolcraft states that they exercise some
influence in tribal matters by expressing their desires at home, but
are not admitted to the council [1095]. Bancroft, speaking of the
Apache family in general (including Apaches, Comanches, and several
other tribes), remarks: “Womankind as usual is at a discount. The
female child receives little care from its mother, being only of
collateral advantage to the tribe. Later she becomes the beast of
burden and slave of her husband.” But another statement of the same
writer proves that the women’s condition is not so very bad: “The
marriage yoke sits lightly; the husband may repudiate his wife and take
back the property given for her; the wife may abandon her husband, but
by the latter act she covers him with such disgrace that it may only be
wiped out by killing somebody—anybody whom he may chance to meet”
[1096]. The wife may thus with impunity leave her husband, the latter
venting his anger upon “somebody”. Schoolcraft states that Comanche
women are not thought much of, even by themselves; the husband has
unlimited sway over his wife [1097]. Among the Shoshones, according to
Lewis and Clark, “the man is the sole proprietor of his wives and
daughters, and can barter them away, or dispose of them in any manner
he may think proper.” “The mass of the females are condemned, as among
all savage nations, to the lowest and most laborious drudgery” [1098].
Now let us inquire what Grinnell, who is so well acquainted with Indian
life, has to say about the treatment of women among the Indians in
general. “A word or two with regard to the position of the wife in the
household may not be out of place here. The Indian woman, it is usually
thought, is a mere drudge and slave, but, so far as my observations
extend, this notion is wholly an erroneous one. It is true that the
women were the labourers of the camp, that they did all the hard work
about which there was no excitement. They cooked, brought wood and
water, dried the meat, dressed the robes, made the clothing, collected
the lodge poles, packed the horses, cultivated the ground, and
generally performed all the tasks which might be called menial, but
they were not mere servants. On the contrary, their position was very
respectable. They were consulted on many subjects, not only in
connection with family affairs, but in more important and general
matters. Sometimes women were even admitted to the councils and spoke
there, giving their advice. This privilege was very unusual, and was
granted only to women who had performed some deed which was worthy of a
man. This in practice meant that she had killed or counted coup on an
enemy, or had been to war. In ordinary family conversation women did
not hesitate to interrupt and correct their husbands when the latter
made statements with which they did not agree, and the men listened to
them with respectful attention, though of course this depended on the
standing of the woman, her intelligence, etc. While their lives were
hard and full of toil, they yet found time to get together for gossip
and for gambling, and on the whole managed to take a good deal of
pleasure in life” [1099]. And Ten Kate, a careful observer, remarks
that the Indians do not, as has often been asserted, regard woman as a
beast of burden and a drudge. Her condition, as compared with that of
the women of the lower classes in civilized countries, is rather better
than worse [1100].
So the lot of the Indian woman is not so hard as at first sight it
seems. Yet the fact, that several ethnographers picture it in such dark
colours, whereas the describers of the tribes of the Pacific Coast
agree, that the sex command great respect, tends to prove, that the
condition of women is not quite so good here as on the Pacific Coast.
7º. Militarism. These tribes are very warlike. Roosevelt states that
warfare and hunting were the chief occupations of the Algonquins
[1101]. Among the Ojibways the end of education is to make good hunters
and warriors [1102]. According to Mackenzie, warfare and hunting, among
the Knisteneaux, are the occupations of the men. They are continually
engaged in warfare [1103]. The Blackfeet were very warlike, and always
fighting with their neighbours [1104]. Mackenzie tells us, that it was
a custom with Chepewyan chiefs “to go to war after they had shed tears
in order to wipe away the disgrace attached to such a feminine
weakness” [1105]. The Beaver Indians were even more warlike than the
Chepewyans [1106]. Mrs. Eastman calls the Sioux “brave, daring,
revengeful” [1107]. The Apaches, according to Bancroft, “are in their
industries extremely active,—their industries being theft and murder,
to which they are trained by their mothers, and in which they display
consummate cunning, treachery, and cruelty” [1108]. And the same writer
tells us that “the Comanches, who are better warriors than the Apaches,
highly honour bravery on the battle-field. From early youth, they are
taught the art of war, and the skilful handling of their horses and
weapons; and they are not allowed a seat in the council, until their
name is garnished by some heroic deed” [1109].
We see that the Indians of Central North America present a strongly
marked contrast with such tribes as the Koniagas who are “adapted to
labour and commerce rather than to war and hunting” and the Chinooks
who “were always a commercial rather than a warlike people”. Therefore
all available men are wanted in warfare; they cannot afford to have
male slaves living among them, who do not share in their military
operations. They are very much in need of warriors, and little of
labourers. Accordingly among many of these tribes such prisoners of war
as are allowed to live, are adopted into the tribe or into some family
within the tribe [1110].
Concluding, we may remark, that the Indians of Central North America
differ from the tribes of the Pacific Coast in many respects. They have
no abundance of food, are hunters and nomadic; wealth does not exist,
and militarism prevails to a great extent. The groups in which they
live, though larger than in Australia, are smaller than on the Pacific
Coast. Food is preserved, but not so systematically as on the Pacific
Coast. The condition of women, though not so bad as in Australia, is
not quite so good as among the slave-keeping tribes of the North-West
Coast of North America. Their trade consists only in exchanging raw
products; and industry is little developed.
§ 5. Experimentum crucis: Eskimos.
1º. Abundance of food. In Greenland vegetable food is very scarce. The
flesh of the reindeer is most valued by the Greenlanders, but is not
available in large quantities; so they have to live chiefly upon
sea-animals, seals, fish and sea-birds [1111]. Boas states that “the
mode of life of all the Eskimo tribes of North-Eastern America is very
uniform.” They depend entirely on animal food, especially seals and
deer [1112]. Bancroft, speaking of the Eskimos of Alaska, remarks:
“Their substantials comprise the flesh of land and marine animals, fish
and birds; venison, and whale and seal blubber being chief” [1113].
Though we nowhere find it stated that food is exceedingly scarce, the
details given here sufficiently prove that it is not nearly so abundant
as on the Pacific Coast. Shell-fish, fruits, roots, and other
vegetables, acquired so easily and in large quantities by the tribes of
the Pacific Coast, do not enter for any considerable part into the food
of the Eskimos.
2º. As for fishing, taken in the wider sense (including the killing of
water animals besides fish), all Eskimos are fishers.
3º. Fixed habitations, large groups, preserving of food. Though the
Eskimos move about much for the purpose of obtaining food, they are not
quite nomadic. In winter-time they live in solidly constructed
dwellings [1114]. Rink states that they have their winter-houses on the
same place during several generations [1115]. Boas remarks: “There is
no need of any new buildings, as the Eskimo always locate in the old
settlements and the old buildings are quite sufficient to satisfy all
their wants” [1116]. And Crantz tells us that a Greenlander is not
generally much inclined to leave the place where he was born and bred
and settle somewhere else; for in nearly every place there is a
peculiar method of fishing and seal-hunting, which the newcomer has to
learn; and in the meantime, often for several years, he is poorly off
[1117]. An Eskimo village most often consists of a single house [1118],
but Eskimo houses accommodate several (in Greenland from 4 to 10)
families [1119]. Among the Western Eskimos, however, there are larger
villages [1120]. Food is preserved for winter use by the Eskimos,
though not in such large quantities as on the Pacific Coast. “The
Esquimaux” says a writer on British North America “possess a quality
which I may say is almost unknown among Indians, namely, providence;
thus, in the season, when the animals are plentiful on the shores of
the Arctic Sea, they make “caches” of large quantities of meat for
winter use” [1121]. The Greenlanders, though laying up some provision
for the winter, are rather improvident. As long as they have abundance
of food, they feast and gorge themselves with it; but in the winter
they often live in the greatest misery [1122]. Boas, speaking of
Central Eskimo store-houses, remarks: “In winter, blubber and meat are
put away upon these pillars, which are sufficiently high to keep them
from the dogs.” Yet “the house presents a sad and gloomy appearance if
stormy weather prevents the men from hunting. The stores are quickly
consumed, one lamp after another is extinguished, and everybody sits
motionless in the dark hut” [1123]. Among the Eskimos of Alaska “meats
are kept in seal-skin bags for over a year.... Their winter store of
oil they secure in seal-skin bags, which are buried in the frozen
ground” [1124].
4º. Trade and industry. Rink states that the Eskimos make long journeys
for the purpose of interchanging such commodities, as are found in some
districts only and yet are necessary to all the tribes. The trade is
carried on from Asia to Hudson Bay [1125]. The Greenlanders mutually
exchange the articles they need. With some of them bartering is quite a
passion; they often exchange useful things for worthless trifles. They
have a kind of annual fair, at which the inhabitants of several
districts interchange the products of their country. “A great article
of commerce are vessels made of soapstone, which are not found in all
parts of the country; and, as the Southern Greenlanders have no whales
and the Northern no wood, there come, all through the summer months,
from the South and even from the East of the country many boats with
Greenlanders from 100 to 200 miles, to Disko, bringing new kyaks and
women’s boats with the necessary implements. They receive in exchange
horns, teeth, bones, whale-bones and whale-tendons, part of which, on
their homeward voyage, they sell again” [1126]. Among the Central
Eskimos “two desiderata formed the principal inducement to long
journeys, which sometimes lasted even several years: wood and
soapstone. The shores of Davis’ Strait and Cumberland Sound are almost
destitute of driftwood, and consequently the natives were obliged to
visit distant regions to obtain that necessary material. Tudjaqdjuaq in
particular was the objective point of their expeditions. Their boats
took a southerly course, and, as the wood was gathered, a portion of it
was immediately manufactured into boat ribs and sledge runners, which
were carried back on the return journey; another portion was used for
bows, though these were also made of deer’s horns ingeniously lashed
together. A portion of the trade in wood seems to have been in the
hands of the Nugumiut, who collected it on Tudjaqdjuaq and took it
north. Another necessary and important article of trade, soapstone, is
manufactured into lamps and pots. It is found in a few places only, and
very rarely in pieces large enough for the manufacture of the articles
named.... The visitors come from every part of the country, the
soapstone being dug or “traded” from the rocks by depositing some
trifles in exchange. In addition to wood and soapstone, metals, which
were extremely rare in old times, have formed an important object of
trade. They were brought to Baffin Bay either by the Aivillirmiut, who
had obtained them from the Hudson Bay Company and the Kinipetu, or by
the Akuliarmiut. Even when Frobisher visited the Nugumiut in 1577 he
found them in possession of some iron. The occurrence of flint, which
was the material for arrow-heads, may have given some importance to
places where it occurs. Formerly an important trade existed between the
Netchillirmiut and the neighbouring tribes. As the district of the
former is destitute of driftwood and potstone, they are compelled to
buy both articles from their neighbours. In Ross’s time they got the
necessary wood from Ugjulik, the potstone from Aivillik. They exchanged
these articles for native iron (or pyrite), which they found on the
eastern shore of Boothia and which was used for striking fire. After
having collected a sufficient stock of it during several years, they
travelled to the neighbouring tribes” [1127]. The Eskimos of Alaska are
also very commercial. “On the shore of Bering Strait the natives have
constant commercial intercourse with Asia.... They frequently meet at
the Gwosdeff Islands, where the Tschuktschi bring tobacco, iron,
tame-reindeer skins, and walrus-ivory; the Eskimos giving in exchange
wolf and wolverine skins, wooden dishes, seal-skins and other peltries.
The Eskimos of the American coast carry on quite an extensive trade
with the Indians of the interior, exchanging with them Asiatic
merchandise for peltries” [1128]. We see that most of the Eskimo trade
is bartering of raw products. This agrees with what Rink remarks, viz.
that there is no division of labour; each group that has a tent or boat
is entirely self-dependent [1129].
In industry they display much skill. Their boats are ingeniously made
and have excited the admiration of all travellers. “The kajak (qajaq)
is almost exclusively used for hunting by all Eskimo tribes from
Greenland to Alaska” [1130]. Crantz tells us that the implements the
Greenlanders use for procuring their subsistence are simple, but so
well adapted to their purpose that they are more convenient than the
costly implements of the Europeans. Their harpoons consist of several
pieces, but are so ingeniously made that not a single piece is
superfluous. Their boats are also greatly admired by this writer
[1131]. And Bancroft tells us that “the Hyperboreans surpass all
American nations in their facilities for locomotion, both upon land and
water. In their skin boats, the natives of the Alaskan seaboard, from
Point Barrow to Mount St. Elias, made long voyages, crossing the strait
and sea of Bering, and held commercial intercourse with the people of
Asia. Sixty miles is an ordinary day’s journey for sledges, while
Indians on snow-shoes have been known to run down and capture deer”.
“So highly were these boats esteemed by the Russians, that they were at
once universally adopted by them in navigating these waters. They were
unable to invent any improvement in either of them” [1132].
5º. Property and wealth. It is nowhere stated that a man’s rank or
power depends upon his wealth. The Greenlanders live without any
government; the head of each family is independent. When several
families live together in one house, they have no control over each
other, but voluntarily obey the most respected head of a family, i.e.
the one who is best acquainted with hunting and the signs of the
weather. Yet our informant also states: “If several Greenlanders live
together, they like to keep an angekok (priest), to avail themselves of
his advice. And if they do not keep one, they are despised or pitied by
the others as being poor men” [1133]. So poor people are despised, but
this applies to villages or settlements rather than individuals. This
agrees with what Rink tells us of their communistic régime. Only the
indispensable implements and utensils are individual property, and also
provisions sufficient for less than a year. If an individual or group
have got too much, they are compelled by public opinion to give it to
those who have too little [1134]. Among the Central Eskimos men unable
to provide for themselves are employed as servants, but their position
“is a voluntary one, and therefore these men are not less esteemed than
the self-dependent providers” [1135]. Among the Eskimos of Alaska “now
or then some ancient or able man gains an ascendency in the tribe, and
overawes his fellows.” “Caste has been mentioned in connection with
tattooing, but, as a rule, social distinctions do not exist” [1136].
Though the Eskimos are dependent for their subsistence on the
possession of boats, houses and implements, they do not want more
property than is needed for procuring their daily food. According to
Rink, the benefit of an inheritance is smaller than the duties it
involves; for boat and tent continually require so much mending, that a
single hunter is hardly able to keep them in order [1137]. In
Greenland, if a man dies leaving no full-grown son, his goods devolve
upon the next of kin, who is obliged to provide for the widow and her
children. But if he already possesses a tent and a boat, he will leave
the inheritance and the duties connected with it to an alien; for
nobody is capable of keeping two tents and two boats in repair [1138].
6º. Condition of women. Though not quite so bad as in Australia,
woman’s condition is not so good here as among the Indians of the
Pacific Coast. Greenland women lead a hard and almost slave-like life,
says Crantz [1139]. And Bancroft tells us that among the Eskimos of
Alaska “the lot of the women is but little better than slavery” [1140].
The principal cause of this difference perhaps is, that female labour
among the Eskimos is not productive. In Greenland “a man who has two
wives is not despised; on the contrary he is looked upon as an able
provider” [1141]. This proves that subsistence depends upon male, not
as in Australia upon female labour. Among the Central Eskimos “the
principal part of the man’s work is to provide for his family.... The
woman has to do the household work, the sewing, and the cooking”
[1142]. Among the Western Eskimos “polygamy is common, every man being
entitled to as many wives, as he can get and maintain” [1143]. So the
man maintains the family; female labour, however useful, is not so
indispensable as male. The men know this quite well. In Greenland “the
man hunts and fishes, and having brought the animals ashore he pays no
more attention to them; it would even be a disgrace for him to carry
the captured seal on land” [1144]. This is quite another state of
things than what we have seen to exist on the Pacific Coast, where
female labour, especially in the preparation of articles of commerce,
is highly valued.
7º. Militarism. Among the Greenlanders warfare is unknown [1145]. Boas,
speaking of the Central Eskimos, says: “Real wars or fights between
settlements, I believe, have never happened, but contests have always
been confined to single families” [1146]. In Alaska it is otherwise,
for “the Northern Indians are frequently at war with the Eskimos and
Southern Indians, for whom they at all times entertain the most
inveterate hatred” [1147]. This absence of militarism enables the
Greenlanders and Central Eskimos to have men performing women’s work
living among them, as we have seen in § 1 of this chapter [1148].
So the Eskimos, like the slave-keeping Indians of the Pacific Coast,
are accomplished fishers, have fixed habitations, are industrially
highly developed, and generally not warlike. On the other hand there is
no abundance of food, wealth does not exist, and woman’s condition is
not nearly so good as on the Pacific Coast. Also in the size of their
groups, the preserving of food, and the development of trade, they are
decidedly inferior to the slave-keeping tribes of the N. W. Coast of
North America.
The principal cause why the Eskimos do not keep slaves evidently is the
difficulty with which food is procured. We have seen that female
labour, being unproductive, is little valued. Male labour only is
indispensable, and this is labour of high quality. Navigating in the
kyak is a matter of much skill. Crantz tells us that Europeans who
tried it, could move about a little in very calm weather; but they were
not able to fish while being in the kyak, nor to save themselves when
the least danger occurred. This requires peculiar skill, and Eskimos
take several years to learn it. There are indeed men unable to capture
seals; they are much despised [1149]. Bancroft also states that
considerable skill is required in taking seals [1150], and Boas
describes at great length the ingenious methods used in seal, walrus,
and whale hunting [1151]. Unskilled labour is not wanted; and widows
and orphans who have lost their bread-winner may be glad if any one is
willing to receive them into his house [1152].
Sometimes an Eskimo wants labour. In Greenland a married couple having
no children at all or no full-grown children, adopt male and female
children whom they treat as their own; the adopted son is considered
the future head of the family [1153]. Among the Central Eskimos too, as
to the right of inheritance “an elder adopted son has a preference over
a younger son born of the marriage” [1154]. Thus we see that a normally
constituted family is self-dependent. If there are no children, their
place has to be supplied by strangers; boys have to perform the same
highly skilled labour as the father, and girls to help the mother in
her work that, though less valued, has also to be done. But a further
increase of the family by slaves performing menial work is not wanted;
the man, if able, would not be willing to maintain them. The only kind
of work indispensable here cannot be imposed upon slaves; and the cost
of maintaining slaves performing other work would be greater than the
profit they would yield. Food is not preserved in such large quantities
as on the Pacific Coast; shell-fish and vegetable food are almost
entirely unknown here; nor is any fish, oil, etc. prepared for
commercial purposes.
There is one more cause at work among the Eskimos, preventing the
existence of slavery: the dependence of labour upon capital. Boas,
describing the Central Eskimos, states that among the adopted people
“who may almost be considered servants” there are “men who have lost
their sledges and dogs.” Such servants “fulfil minor occupations, mend
the hunting implements, fit out the sledges, feed the dogs, etc.;
sometimes, however, they join the hunters. They follow the master of
the house when he removes from one place to another, make journeys in
order to do his commissions, and so on” [1155]. And Crantz tells us
that among the Greenlanders many boys are neglected in their youth, as
the providing of them with kyak and implements is very costly [1156].
Among the Indians of the Pacific Coast the possession of capital gives
great advantage; thus among the Makah the owner of the canoe receives a
proportionate share of the booty from the crew [1157]; but it is not
indispensable. Here it is. A man destitute of capital cannot provide
for himself, and is therefore at the mercy of the capitalist. Now the
Eskimo capitalist most often allows such men to share his house and
food, and makes them feed the dogs, etc. rather as means of procuring
employment for them, than because such work requires hands outside the
family. The capitalist does not want labourers; but even if he did,
there would always be widows and orphans, and men destitute of capital,
who would readily enter into his service. The Eskimos have to struggle
with “unemployment” difficulties, not with scarcity of hands; therefore
a slave-dealer visiting them would not find a ready sale for his
stock-in-trade.
§ 6. Conclusion.
We shall sum up here the conclusions to which the foregoing paragraphs
have led us.
1º. Hunters hardly ever keep slaves; and when they do slavery is of
little moment. But among fishers slavery often, though by no means
always, exists: of the two large groups of fishing tribes one (the
Indians on the Pacific Coast of North America) keeps slaves, the other
(the Eskimos) does not.
2º. The living in fixed habitations is more favourable to the existence
of slavery than nomadism.
3º. Slavery is most likely to exist among men who live in rather large
groups.
4º. Where food is abundant and easy to procure, slaves can be of more
use than where food is scarce; in the latter case the slave, to use
Spencer’s words, “is not worth his food.”
5º. The preserving of food furthers the growth of slavery.
6º. Commercial tribes, especially those that carry on a trade in
manufactured goods, have more use for slaves than others. We must,
however, bear in mind that trade, even among savages, does not seem
anywhere to be altogether unknown.
7º. A high development of industry also tends to further the growth of
slavery. The instance of the Eskimos, however, shows that industrial
tribes do not always keep slaves.
8º. Where wealth exists slaves are more likely to be kept than where
wealth is unknown.
9º. Where subsistence is dependent on capital, slaves are not wanted.
10º. Where only highly skilled labour is required, slaves cannot be of
any use.
11º. Female labour may in some degree serve as a substitute for slave
labour (as in Australia). But where women enjoy much consideration, the
men sometimes procure slaves in order to relieve the women of a part of
their task, especially where the women perform productive labour.
12º. Where militarism largely prevails, and warriors are more wanted
than labourers, slavery is not likely to exist. Yet in a few cases the
same militarism leads to the keeping of slaves, viz. when slaves are
kept mainly for military purposes.
13º. Tribes forming a somewhat homogeneous group, and maintaining
constant relations with each other, are more likely, ceteris paribus,
to keep slaves, than an isolated tribe.
These conclusions, arrived at by an examination of hunting and fishing
tribes, all, except the first, bear a general character. We may
therefore suppose that they will equally apply to pastoral and
agricultural tribes. Whether this really be the case, will appear from
the ensuing chapters. It may, however, be convenient first to simplify
and systematically arrange them.
As the principal factor we may regard the general economic state of
society. Two distinctions are to be made here:
1º. Subsistence either is or is not dependent on capital.
2º. Subsistence is either easy or difficult to acquire.
These two distinctions are independent of each other. For where
subsistence depends on capital, it may, with the aid of capital, be
easily acquired or not. Similarly, where it does not depend on capital,
it may be easy or difficult to procure. Accordingly we find the
following forms of economic life:
1º. Subsistence depends on capital. Without capital a man cannot get
on. Now, if labourers are wanted, there are likely to be people
destitute of capital, who have no other resource left but to offer
their labour to the capitalist. But there is a difference, according as
subsistence is easily acquired or not.
a. Subsistence, even with the aid of capital, is difficult to procure.
The procuring of subsistence requires a combination of capital and
skilled labour. Thus among the Eskimos a man unacquainted with their
ingenious hunting and fishing methods cannot get on any more than a man
destitute of a boat, or of sledges and dogs. Here labourers are not
much wanted. Helpless persons are kept as servants, but this is done
for pity’s sake rather than because they are useful. Slavery does not
exist.
b. Subsistence, with the aid of capital, is easy to procure. Unskilled
labour, combined with capital, is so productive that it gives a surplus
beyond the subsistence of the labourer. In this case the capitalist
wants labourers, but there are also labourers who want the capitalist.
We have not yet met with any instance of this state of things. Slavery
can exist here, if the demand for labour exceeds the supply of labour;
but we do not think this will often be the case.
2º. Subsistence does not depend on capital. We are, of course, aware
that a man, to procure his subsistence, always wants some implements,
such as a spear, bow and arrow, etc. But he does not, therefore, depend
on capital; for he can always make a spear or bow for himself; so after
all, he depends only on his own strength and skill. If an Eskimo loses
his boat, he wants a long time to make a new one; in the meantime he
has to live, and so is thrown upon the mercy of others. But where the
necessary implements can always be procured at a moment’s notice,
subsistence is not dependent on capital: the man who has broken his
spear can immediately make a new one; he need not ask anybody to feed
him in the meantime [1158].
Subsistence, where it does not depend on capital, is again either easy
or difficult to procure.
a. Subsistence is not easy to procure; it requires much skill. As
subsistence does not depend on capital, every skilled labourer is able
to provide for himself. Those who are not able providers are dependent
on the others; but their labour, being little productive, is not much
valued. Such is the state of things among many hunting tribes. As
slaves cannot be compelled to perform work that requires the utmost
skill and application, slavery cannot exist here.
b. Subsistence is easy to procure. The produce of unskilled labour can
exceed the primary wants of the labourer. As subsistence is not
dependent on capital, everybody is able to provide for himself;
therefore labourers do not voluntarily offer themselves. In such
circumstances a man can, it is true, acquire the products of another’s
labour by producing commodities himself and exchanging them for what
another has produced. He can also, like the Makah boat-owner, produce
such things as enhance the productiveness of labour, and lend them to
others, stipulating for a part of the profit for himself. But he cannot
make others work under his direction. The common labourer of modern
European societies, in order to get his subsistence, performs the work
which his employer assigns to him. Were he free to choose, he would
prefer to work according to his own inclinations. In countries however,
where nobody need apply to another for employment, there is little
chance of people voluntarily submitting to the orders of employers. In
such countries, if there is to be an organization of labour with
subordination under the master of the work, some men must be compelled
to work for others, and we know that one form of compulsory labour is
slavery. Therefore, when subsistence is easy to procure, and not
dependent on capital, slave labour can be of much use. Yet even then
slavery does not always exist. We shall see that there are disturbing
factors. But we may now, at least, say that, generally speaking,
slavery can only exist when subsistence is easy to procure without the
aid of capital.
There are some additional, or secondary, factors which increase or
diminish the use of slave labour.
1º. It may be, that unskilled labour is required, but is sufficiently
performed by the women. Thus in Australia women gather vegetable food
and perform all the common drudgery; and some Australian tribes subsist
mainly on the produce of female labour. In such cases slaves are not
wanted. This is a circumstance of much importance; for everywhere women
are about half, sometimes more than half, of the population. As in our
days, in civilized Europe, the employing of women in factories tends to
diminish the want for male labour and so to keep wages low, so female
labour in Australia makes slavery superfluous. The causes on which the
division of labour between the sexes depends cannot be examined here;
this would require an investigation of the whole history of marriage.
But, though unable to find the causes, we can trace the effects of this
division of labour. Where women are looked upon as “beasts of burden”
(to use an expression the ethnographers are very fond of), there is not
so much use for slave labour as where they hold a high position and the
men are desirous of relieving them of a part of their task.
2º. Where food is preserved in large quantities, more work has to be
done at a time, viz. in the season of plenty, than where life is
continually a hand-to-mouth proceeding. And the additional work
required for preserving food, e.g. the drying of fish, is very fit to
be imposed upon slaves: it requires little skill and is easy to
supervise.
3º. The development of trade and industry has a great influence. When
the freemen wish to devote themselves to these pursuits, they want
others to perform the common drudgery for every-day subsistence.
Moreover, the preparing of the articles of commerce may require menial
labour: thus on the Pacific Coast slaves are employed in drying fish,
preparing oil, etc. And finally, trade and industry lead to the
development of wealth. As soon as wealth exists, a man does not only
want food and the other necessaries of life, but also luxuries, so his
wants may become almost unlimited, and there is much more use for slave
labour.
Hitherto we have considered slavery as serving economic purposes. But
slaves may also be kept for non-economic purposes. There is only one
such purpose we have as yet met with: the employing of slaves in
warfare. We have seen that among the Abipones this was the main and
almost the only function of slavery.
On the other hand, it may be that militarism so largely prevails, that
all available men are wanted in warfare. If, then, the military
organization is not so highly developed, that slaves can be employed in
warfare without any danger, slavery is not likely to exist, though it
might be economically of great use.
There are other causes, which we may call external. However much slaves
are wanted, there must be a coercive power strong enough to make the
keeping of slaves possible. The following causes tend to increase this
coercive power:
1º. Living in fixed habitations. Besides the effect this has on the
growth of industry, it makes the escape of slaves more difficult and
the surveying of slave labour easier.
2º. Living together in large groups. In a small group any increase in
the number of slaves would soon become dangerous to the maintenance of
power by the freemen within the group, and an escaping slave would soon
be out of reach of the group.
3º. The preserving of food. Besides having some economic effects of
which we have treated above, it makes living in large groups and in
fixed habitations possible; moreover it attaches the slave to his
master’s home; for he knows he will get there sufficient food in the
time of scarcity, whereas, if he escaped, he would have to shift for
himself.
4º. The existence of a somewhat homogeneous group of tribes maintaining
constant relations with each other greatly accelerates the growth of
slavery, especially by means of the slave trade. Twenty tribes, living
separately, have, each for itself, to invent slavery; but when twenty
tribes maintain relations with each other, as soon as one of them has
invented slavery, the other 19 have it ready-made before them.
RECAPITULATION.
Furthering the Hindering the
growth of slavery. growth of slavery.
I. Internal causes.
A. General: 1º. Subsistence 1º. Subsistence
easily acquired and dependent on
not dependent on capital.
2º. Subsistence not
dependent on capital,
but difficult to
acquire.
B. Secondary, economic: 1º. Preserving of 1º. Female labour
food. making slave labour
superfluous.
2º. Trade and industry.
3º. A high position of
women.
C. Secondary, 1º. Slaves wanted 1º. Militarism
non-economic: for military making slavery
purposes. impossible.
II. External causes: 1º. Fixed habitations.
2º. Living in large
groups.
3º. Preserving of food
[1159].
4º. The existence of a
homogeneous group of
tribes.
CHAPTER III.
PASTORAL TRIBES.
§ 1. Capital and labour among pastoral tribes.
The number of these tribes is not large, as they are found in a few
parts of the world only. Moreover, the descriptions available to us
were in many cases too incomplete to justify any inference as to their
having or not having slaves.
The clear cases noticed by us are the following.
Positive cases. Arabia: Aeneze Bedouins,
Larbas. 2
Caucasus: Circassians,
Kabards. 2
Bantu tribes: Ovaherero,
Bahima. 2
Hamitic group: Beduan,
Beni Amer,
Somal,
Danakil. 4
--
10
Negative cases. India: Todas. 1
Central Asia: Kazak Kirghiz,
Altaians,
Turkomans. 3
Siberia: Samoyedes,
Tunguz,
Yakuts,
nomadic Koryakes. 4
Bantu tribes: Ama-Xosa,
Ama-Zulu,
some divisions of the Mundombe. 3
Hamatic group: Massai. 1
--
12
We see that there are almost as many positive as negative cases. So
those theorists are wrong, who hold that the taming of animals
naturally leads to the taming of men [1160].
It might, however, be that the non-existence of slavery in our negative
cases were due to a special, external cause, viz. that these tribes
were so inclosed between more powerful nations as not to be able to
procure slaves, though slaves would be of much use to them. A brief
survey of the political state of these tribes shows that they are not
all in this position. The Kazak Kirghiz, in Levchine’s time, kidnapped
slaves whom they sold abroad. The Massai are very warlike and adopt
captives. The Turkomans are “the intermediate agents for carrying on
the slave-trade” [1161]. The Ama-Xosa and Ama-Zulu are also very
warlike [1162]. We see that there are some pastoral tribes that, though
able to procure slaves, do not keep any. The non-existence of slavery
among them must be due to other, more internal, causes.
It might also be that our positive cases were exceptions to a general
rule. For many pastoral tribes, though subsisting mainly by
cattle-breeding, carry on agriculture besides. If these only kept
slaves, and employed them chiefly in work connected with agriculture,
slavery would prove foreign to pastoral nomadism as such; for then
these tribes would only keep slaves in their quality as agriculturists.
We shall inquire whether this be so; and for this purpose we shall give
a survey of the work imposed upon slaves among pastoral tribes. This
survey, besides enabling us to decide upon the question at issue, will
show what place slavery occupies in pastoral life.
Among the Larbas the boys (also free boys) guard the cattle on the
pasture-ground, whereas the work that requires more skill (the tending
of young animals, the breaking of horses, etc.) is equally divided
between master and slaves [1163].
Circassian slaves, according to Bell, till the soil, tend the cattle
and perform domestic labour. Klaproth, however, states that the
peasants may only be sold together with the land; so they are rather a
kind of serfs. Domestic slaves may be sold separately [1164].
According to Roscoe, among the Bahima, “the women’s duties are to wash
the milk pots, perhaps it would be better to say see the pots are
washed, because the work generally falls upon the slaves to perform”
[1165].
Munzinger speaks of domestic labour being imposed on slaves by the
Beduan. Most of these slaves are women [1166].
Among the Beni Amer it is considered an honour to have many slaves.
“Properly speaking slaves serve their master only when children. Adult
female slaves are concubines, live with their master, but are exempt
from nearly all labour; adult male slaves generally despise all work,
and belong to the retinue of the master. The master derives no real
profit from his slaves.” According to Von Müller the fabrication of tar
falls to the share of the slave, such work being below the dignity of a
freeman [1167].
Paulitschke tells us that among the nomadic Somal and Danakil slavery
is not profitable; for the territories inhabited by them are thinly
peopled, agriculture is insignificant, and these cattle-breeders get
their subsistence rather easily; moreover they would be unable to
support a considerable number of slaves by the produce of their cattle.
Therefore among the Danakil on the river Aussa and the Rahanwîn Somal
on the lower Wêbi-Schabêli, where slaves are employed in agriculture,
there is more use for slave labour. Among the nomadic Somal and Danakil
slaves appear also to be employed in warfare. According to Bottego,
whose account applies to the Somal of the towns, adult male slaves till
the soil, build houses, and perform the rudest and most fatiguing kinds
of work. The boys lead the cattle to the pasture-ground; the women are
employed in household work and often are concubines of their masters
[1168].
There are some tribes that subsist mainly on agriculture, but also, to
a great extent, on cattle-breeding. It may be of some use to give a
survey of the work done by slaves, among them too; it will appear,
then, whether they keep their slaves for agricultural purposes only, or
employ them also for pastoral work.
Among the Kafirs some slaves are blacksmiths. In war a slave boy beats
the drum [1169]. Our informant speaks only incidentally of slave
labour; he does not mean to say that this is the only work performed by
slaves.
Among the Barotse young slaves are given as pages to the children of
freemen. Slaves till the soil and tend the cattle; slave boys are
employed as herdsmen [1170].
In a description of the Waganda it is said: “One of the principal evils
resulting from slavery in Uganda is that it causes all manual labour to
be looked upon as derogatory to the dignity of a free man” [1171].
Among the Mandingoes native-born slaves enjoy much liberty; they tend
the cattle, and go to war, even without their masters. Freemen work as
much as slaves. Every Mandingo, to whatever class he belongs, is
occupied in agriculture. The tending of horses is incumbent on slave
boys [1172].
Hildebrandt states that the occupations of the Sakalavas are not many.
In North Sakalavaland, however, rice is cultivated for export, and so
there is more labour wanted here; therefore in this district slavery
prevails to a large extent [1173].
Among the Bogos there are hardly 200 slaves (whereas Munzinger
estimates the total population at 8400). Slaves are of little use to
their owners. Male slaves live separately and generally take to
robbery. Female slaves, having no opportunity to marry, become
prostitutes and live rather independently [1174].
The Takue have very few slaves. In their laws and customs they show a
close resemblance to the Bogos [1175].
Among the pirate-tribes of Mindanao and Sulu agriculture is incumbent
on slaves. The slaves also share in their masters’ slave-raids. Jansen
gives some more details about the work of slaves in the Sulu Islands.
The ordinary occupations of slaves are agriculture, fishing,
manufacture of salt, trade, and domestic work [1176].
The slaves of the Geges and Nagos of Porto Novo are chiefly employed in
agriculture [1177].
Among the Ossetes the slaves perform household work; the peasants are
serfs [1178].
The slaves captured and purchased by the Gallas are generally sold to
foreign traders; in large households they are sometimes retained and
employed in various kinds of work. In another place our informant
states that most slaves are employed in agriculture [1179].
Yoruba slaves are employed in trade and warfare [1180].
We see that slaves are employed in agriculture among the agricultural
Somal and Danakil, Fulbe, Barotse, Mandingoes, Sakalavas, pirate-tribes
of Mindanao and Sulu, Geges and Nagos, Gallas; and very probably also
among the Waganda, where they perform “all manual labour.” As the
details given by our ethnographers are not always complete, it is
possible that in some more cases slaves are employed in agriculture.
But it is sufficiently clear, that among the Beni Amer, nomadic Somal
and Danakil, Bogos, and probably also among the Beduan and Takue,
slaves do not till the soil. Among the Ossetes and Circassians the
peasants are serfs, slaves being employed in household work. What work
is incumbent on slaves among the Aeneze Bedouins we are not told; but
agriculture seems to be unknown among them. Among the Larbas the daily
work is equally divided between master and slaves, agriculture holding
a very subordinate place. Hence it appears that several of these tribes
keep slaves, though they do not employ them in agriculture; pastoral
tribes, as such, sometimes keep slaves.
But another inference we can draw from the foregoing survey of slave
labour is this. Where slaves are not employed in agriculture or in such
other work as requires a settled life (e.g. house-building among the
Somal of the towns, fishing and manufacture of salt among the
pirate-tribes of Mindanao and Sulu), the use of slave labour is not
great. Among the Beni Amer, Bogos, and nomadic Somal and Danakil
slave-keeping is stated to be a mere luxury. The Sakalavas, except in
the rice-exporting district, do not want much slave labour. And only in
one case, viz. among the Larbas, is it clearly stated that the chief
business of slaves is pastoral work.
This tends to prove, that among true pastoral tribes slavery, as a
system of labour, is of little moment. This inference is verified by
several statements about slaves being often manumitted or in the course
of time becoming practically free.
Burckhardt, speaking of the slaves of the Aeneze Bedouins, says: “After
a certain lapse of time they are always emancipated, and married to
persons of their own colour” [1181].
Among the Circassians slaves are often manumitted. A slave can also
purchase his freedom, and then becomes a member of a Circassian
fraternity [1182].
The Beni Amer have two kinds of slaves, newly-purchased and
native-born. “Their condition differs so much, that only the former may
properly be called slaves; the latter are rather serfs. The
newly-purchased slave is treated like every Mohammedan slave, he may be
sold and does not yet belong to the family. The native-born slave has
only the name, not the state of a slave; this appears from his being
allowed to intermarry with the Woreza (subjected class). The children
born of such a marriage are considered free, as they descend from a
free mother. In Barka the Kishendoa, i.e. native-born slaves, who
inhabit a camp of tents of their own, are governed by a chief who is
one of their own number, and intermarry with the Woreza. Native-born
slaves may live where they like and have the same right of inheritance
as freemen; only if such a slave leaves no relatives does the master
succeed to his goods.... In the blood-feud too the native-born slave is
in a peculiar condition. If a newly-purchased slave is killed, his
price is restored to his owner; for such a slave is looked upon as an
article of trade. The native-born slave, however, belongs to the
family; therefore his blood requires blood; he is avenged by his
relatives if there are such, and otherwise by his master; if this is
not practicable because the murderer is a man of power, the matter is
hushed up; but a compensation is never given” [1183].
The Somal often buy slaves whom they manumit soon afterwards [1184].
Among the Kafirs of India each tribe is governed by a council. Even
slaves can be elected as members of this council [1185].
Our survey of the work done by slaves shows in the third place, that
slaves are often employed in warfare. This will be accounted for later
on.
Here we have only to emphasize the fact, that to pastoral tribes as
such slave labour is of little use. This makes it easy to understand
why so many of them dispense with slavery altogether.
Going on to inquire what is the cause of this phenomenon, we may
remember the general conclusion we have arrived at in the last
paragraph, viz. that slave labour is of little use, where subsistence
is either dependent on capital, or very difficult to procure. Now it is
easy to see that among pastoral tribes subsistence entirely depends on
capital. Among people who live upon the produce of their cattle, a man
who owns no cattle, i.e. no capital, has no means of subsistence.
Accordingly, among pastoral tribes we find rich and poor men; and the
poor often offer themselves as labourers to the rich [1186].
Among the Syrian Bedouins “to every tent, or to every two or three
tents, there is a shepherd or person to attend the cattle, either a
younger son or servant; he receives wages for ten months” [1187].
Among the Larbas alms are given to the poor. The social rank of the
head of a family depends on the number of his children, his practical
knowledge of the pastoral art, and his wealth. There are free labourers
who are paid in kind. Herdsmen have the usufruct of a part of the herds
they tend. Generally the labourer takes a tenth in kind at the close of
the time agreed upon; moreover he receives his daily food during the
time of his engagement [1188].
Levchine, speaking of the Kazak Kirghiz, tells us: “Once I asked a
Kirghiz, owner of 8000 horses, why he did not sell every year a part of
his stud. He answered: “Why should I sell that which is my pleasure? I
want no money; if I had any, I should be obliged to shut it up in a
box, where nobody would see it; but when my steeds run over the steppe
everybody looks at them; everybody knows that they are mine; and people
always remember that I am rich.” In this manner is the reputation of
being a rich man acquired throughout the hordes; such is the wealth
that procures them the regard of their countrymen and the title of baï
(rich man), which sometimes gives them an ascendency over the offspring
of the khans and the most deserving old men.” On the other hand the
number of beggars is very considerable. Levchine makes no mention of
servants; but Radloff, who about thirty years later visited the Kazak
Kirghiz, says: “There exists here a class of servants, whom I found in
every well-to-do family. The herds are generally tended by hired
herdsmen, who are subjected to a kind of supervision.” The rich also
engage poor families to till their lands. A man who loses all his
cattle has no resource left but to offer himself as a labourer [1189].
The same first-rate ethnographer informs us that among the Altaians
“rich and poor eat the same kind of food; the difference is only in the
size of the kettle and the quantity of food. The poor man eats what he
has got, which most frequently is very little; and he would starve but
that the rich have such an abundance of food, that in summer they
readily entertain whoever comes to their jurts (tents).” When a beast
is being killed, the poor neighbours in large numbers throng towards
the place and try to secure those portions of the bowels that the rich
disdain; they have to fight for them with the dogs, who are equally
fond of the delicacies. When all guests have been served, pieces of
meat are thrown towards the door, where poor men and dogs try to secure
them. The picked bones are also thrown to the poor, who clean them so
thoroughly that nothing but the bare bone is left to the dogs. The
cattle of the rich are generally tended by poor neighbours, who live in
the vicinity of the rich, partake of their food, and receive their worn
clothes. Young girls often seek employment as servants; orphans of poor
men also serve the rich [1190].
Among the Kalmucks there are poor people who serve the rich as herdsmen
[1191].
Prschewalsky states that rich Mongols, who own thousands of beasts,
employ herdsmen who are poor and have no relations [1192].
The Kurds of Eriwan employ freemen as herdsmen [1193].
Among the Tunguz the poor generally serve the rich, by whom they are
badly treated [1194].
Yakuts, who have less than one head of cattle per soul, must hire
themselves out for wages [1195].
Pallas says: “Every Samoyede has his reindeer and tends them himself
with the help of his family, except the very rich who employ poor men
as herdsmen.” Von Stenin also states that the poor serve the rich. The
following anecdote, given by this writer, shows how strongly the desire
of wealth influences psychical life among the Samoyedes. One of them
depicted the delight of intoxication in these terms: “Spirits taste
better than meat. When a man is drunk, he fancies he has many reindeer
and thinks himself a merchant. But on coming to his senses he sees that
he is poor and has just spent his last reindeer in drinking” [1196].
Of the Koryakes we are told: “Before they were subjected by the
Russians, they had neither government nor magistrates; only the rich
exercised some authority over the poor.” Their greatest pleasure
consists in looking at their herds. The poor are employed in tending
the herds of the rich for food and clothing; if they have themselves
some reindeer, they are allowed to join them to their master’s herds
and tend them together with the latter [1197].
Among the Tuski, according to Georgi, the poor serve the rich as
herdsmen [1198].
In North-East Africa the state of things is not quite the same. The
pastoral nomads here form the nobility, and tax subjected tribes with
tributes and compulsory labour. Servants are not found here so often as
in Asia. Sometimes, however, they are found. Thus among the Beni Amer
there are herdsmen, maid-servants etc. who work for wages [1199]. The
same, perhaps, applies to the Massai, where the man who owns large
herds and many wives, enjoys high consideration but a poor man is
despised [1200].
“Among all South African natives” says Fritsch “the rich tyrannize over
the poor who, in the hope of filling their stomachs, comply with a
state of dependence that is not authorized by law” [1201].
Among the Caffres poor men place themselves under the protection of a
rich head of a family, build their huts in his kraal, and in reward
yield their cattle to him [1202].
Kropf tells us that among the Ama-Xosa the consideration a man enjoys
depends on the number of cattle he owns. The poor are fed by the chief
and in return render him services [1203].
The Ovaherero despise any one who has no cattle. The rich support many
people, who become their dependents, and so they acquire distinction
and power [1204]. The children of impoverished families who, according
to Andersson [1205], are kept as slaves, are perhaps rather to be
called servants.
Among those tribes which are mainly agricultural, but besides subsist
largely upon the produce of their cattle, similar phenomena present
themselves.
Among the Ossetes freemen are often employed as servants [1206].
Among the Bechuanas the possession of cattle and a waggon is a mark of
distinction. They mix their porridge with curdled milk, and therefore
call a poor man a water-porridge man [1207].
Casalis gives an elaborate description of the value which the Basutos
attach to the possession of cattle. Wealth, among them, consists in
cattle, and this wealth is the base of the power of the chiefs. By
means of the produce of their herds they feed the poor, procure arms
for the warriors, support the troops in war and entertain good
relations with neighbouring nations. Were a chief to lose his cattle,
his power would be at an end [1208].
The Barotse employ as herdsmen young slaves and sons of poor men
[1209].
Among the Dinka every man upon an average owns three head of cattle;
but there are also poor men, who are the slaves or servants of the rich
[1210]. We may safely infer that these “slaves or servants” are
servants and not slaves.
The sheikh of each Chillook tribe, according to Chaillé Long, detains
as slaves those who do not own even a single cow [1211]. Probably the
same state of things prevails here as among the Caffres: these poor men
are not slaves, but compelled by hunger to seek the protection of a
rich man.
In the country of the Gallas the value of labour is very small [1212].
The Bogos employ freemen as herdsmen and peasants; they also keep
maid-servants [1213].
Among the Amahlubi there are herdsmen, who serve for wages [1214].
We see that, wherever men subsist by cattle-breeding, a peculiar
characteristic of economic life presents itself. This characteristic is
not the existence of wealth; for wealth also exists among the tribes of
the Pacific Coast of North America; yet on the Pacific Coast slave
labour is of great use. It is the existence of poverty. On the Pacific
Coast the “abundant natural supplies in ocean, stream, and forest”
enable each man, be he rich or not, to provide for himself; but among
pastoral tribes the means of subsistence are the property of
individuals; and those who own no cattle have no resource but to apply
to the owners for support [1215]. Therefore, if labourers are wanted,
there are always freemen who readily offer their services; and there is
no great use for slave labour [1216].
So there is always a supply of labour. On the other hand, the demand
for labour is small. There is but little work to be done. Among some
pastoral tribes the men spend a great deal of time in idleness [1217].
Prschewalsky, speaking of the Mongols, remarks: “Unlimited laziness is
a main characteristic of the nomads; they spend their whole life in
idleness, which is furthered by the character of pastoral nomadism. The
tending of the cattle is the sole occupation of the Mongol, and this
does not nearly require all his time. The guarding of cows and sheep is
the business of the women and grown-up children; milking, creaming,
butter-making and other domestic labour falls almost entirely to the
share of the mistress of the house. The men generally do nothing, and
from morning till night ride from one jurt (tent) to another, drinking
koumiss and chattering with their neighbours. The chase, which the
nomads are passionately fond of, serves mainly as a pastime.”
The Altaians have to survey the cattle; this consists only in riding a
few times a day to the herds, and driving them together. The milking of
the mares during the summer, which requires some courage, is also the
men’s business.
Among the Aeneze Bedouins the men’s sole business is feeding the
horses, and in the evening milking the camels [1218].
The Kazak Kirghiz, too, are very lazy. They pass a great part of the
summer sleeping because of the warmth; and in winter-time they hardly
ever leave their tents, because the snow covers the roads. As they are
not acquainted with any arts, and the tending of the cattle is their
only occupation, there is no need for much work [1219].
Rowney tells us of the Mairs and Meenas of Rajpootana: “The ostensible
occupation followed by them was that of goatherds; but the herds were
usually left to the charge of their boys and old men, while the more
able-bodied spent their time, mounted on their ponies, in marauding,
plundering, and murdering” [1220].
Among the Massai the men despise every kind of work. Only warfare is
considered an occupation worthy of a man [1221].
It has to be remarked that most of these tribes do not keep slaves; so
it is not by imposing all the work upon slaves that the men are enabled
to pass their time in idleness; yet they do almost nothing. “The
herdsman is lazy,” says Schmoller [1222], and Schurtz speaks of the
aversion from all hard and regular work, which characterizes the
pastoral nomads [1223]. This proves that but little labour is wanted.
One might object, that perhaps women and boys are overworked. But the
fact that the able-bodied men, who form a considerable part of the
community, can afford to take life so very easily, sufficiently proves
that the total amount of labour required is rather small.
Here we find one more reason why pastoral tribes have little use for
slave labour. The demand for labour is small; therefore, even if free
labourers were not available, only a few slaves would be wanted.
Capital is here the principal factor of production, labour holding a
subordinate place. Among agricultural tribes, when there is a
practically unlimited supply of fertile soil, every person whose labour
is available to the tribe can cultivate a piece of ground, and so, the
more people there are, the more food can be produced. But among
pastoral tribes, as soon as there are people enough within the tribe to
guard the cattle, milk the cows, and do the other work required, an
increase in the number of labourers is not profitable. There is only a
limited demand for labour; therefore, though there may be a temporary
scarcity of labour which makes strengthening of the labour forces of
the tribe by means of slaves desirable,—when a few slaves have been
procured, the point at which a further increase in the number of people
gives no profit will soon be reached again.
We see that among pastoral tribes little labour is required; and such
as is, is easy to procure; for there are always people destitute of
capital, who offer themselves as labourers. Therefore slaves are
economically of little use.
There is, however, one description of a pastoral tribe, in which it is
stated, that men as well as women have to work very hard. This is
Geoffroy’s capital monography on the Larbas. The head of the family and
his sons have to guard the herds, trace and dig pits, share in all
operations common to the horsemen of the tribe: raids and battles, the
pursuing of thieves, the defense of the pecuniary interests of the
family, the depositing of merchandise in the ksours (store-houses). The
head of the family tends the sick animals, and has the administration
of the wool and grain; but practically he will not have much to do with
these matters, not considering them worth his attention. But a great
part of his time is taken up with keeping watch and marching, and this
makes his life a rather hard one. He does not sleep at night; he waters
the cattle in the pits or r’dirs; he surrounds his tents with a
protecting hedge, the zirba; he struggles against the elements, which
often disperse beasts, tents and men. Daily, from the cradle to the
tomb, the nomad’s life is a struggle for existence. As a child he
already has to look after the cattle; he learns to ride on horseback
with his father. When older, whether rich or poor, he has to learn, for
several years, to conduct large numbers of cattle, which is a very
difficult and dangerous work, to tend the different kinds of animals,
to cure them, to sell them, to derive from them as much profit as
possible. Pastoral art is more complicated than at first sight it
seems, and comprehends a long series of accomplishments. At twenty
years the nomad is an accomplished man, thoroughly acquainted with the
life he has to lead, enjoying all the physical strength indispensable
in the exceptional milieu where he has to struggle. The two youngest
sons of the head of the family our informant describes, 15 and 13 years
of age, now perform in the family the duties of herdsmen. Daily
occupations of master and slaves are the driving together of the
dispersed animals, the tending of the females that have calved, the
preparing of special food for the young animals, the dressing of the
stronger ones for the saddle and pack-saddle, and the chase of hares
and gazelles [1224].
We see that pastoral life is not so easy here as on the fertile plains
of Central Asia. But the work that is most necessary here, and also
most difficult, is the care for the security of the tribe and its
possessions, or, as Geoffroy very appropriately expresses it, “c’est un
peu toujours comme la guerre”. And this work cannot be left to slaves;
else the slaves would become the masters of the tribe. Warriors are
wanted here; labourers not so much.
We have now accounted for the non-existence of slavery among many
pastoral tribes, and the little use of slave labour among pastoral
tribes in general, by the principle laid down in the last paragraph,
that, generally speaking, slaves are not wanted where subsistence
depends upon capital.
In North-East Africa, however, there is one more cause at work, making
slavery superfluous. This is the existence of a kind of substitute for
slavery, viz. subjection of tribes as such. Pastoral tribes often levy
tributes on agricultural tribes, to which they are superior in military
strength; the latter cannot easily leave the lands they cultivate and
seek a new country; if not too heavily oppressed, they will prefer
paying a tribute. And to pastoral nomads the levying of a tax on
agricultural tribes brings far more profit than the enslaving of
individuals belonging to such tribes, whom they would have to employ
either in pastoral labour, which they do not want, or in tilling the
soil, which work the nomads would be unable to supervise. There are
also pastoral tribes subjected by other pastoral nomads, the latter
forming the nobility and the military part of society. Finally we find
subjected tribes of hunters, smiths, etc.; here we have sometimes
rather to deal with a voluntary division of labour [1225].
The Somal have several pariah castes. Among the Wer-Singellis in North
Somaliland we find the following: 1º. Midgân, smiths and traders;
these, by acquiring considerable wealth, sometimes win so much regard,
that even a Somali noble deigns to marry his daughter to a Midgân. 2º.
Tómal, who are employed by Somali nobles as servants, herdsmen and
camel-drivers, and are also obliged to go to war. The noble
Wer-Singelli carries sword and spear, whereas the Tomali uses bow and
arrows; sometimes a Midgân girl is given him as a wife, but never the
daughter of a noble Somali. The Tómal, however, belong to the tribe.
3º. Jibbir, who are very much despised. They have no fixed habitations;
they roam in families over the country, from tribe to tribe, as
jugglers and magic doctors. Everybody, for fear of sorcery, gives them
food and presents, and in return receives from them amulets, made of
stone and roots. They contract no marriage outside their own caste
[1226].
The Massai, true warriors and raiders, “keep a subjected tribe, the
Wa-rombutta, who do their hunting and what meagre agriculture they
indulge in. This tribe is insignificant in appearance, and although
servile and subject to the Massai are not slaves; they present almost
the appearance of dwarfs.” The Wandorobo too, according to Thomson, are
regarded by the Massai as a kind of serfs, and treated accordingly; and
Johnston calls them a helot race of hunters and smiths [1227].
Among the Bogos “patronage results from military subjection or from the
helpless state of separate immigrants with regard to a strong and
closely united nation. As the nobles carefully trace their pedigrees,
it is easy to find out the Tigres. Tigre means a man of Ethiopian
extraction, who speaks the Tigre language. Some Tigre families,
subjected from time immemorial, have immigrated together with the
family of Gebre Terke [the legendary ancestor of the Bogos]. Others
already lived in the country, and unable to withstand the invasion,
hastened to submit in order to be tolerated. The Bogos seem to have
taken possession of the country in a very pacific and forbearing way,
and unlike the Normans and other European invaders, do not interfere
with the regulation of landed property, so that the ancient aborigines
still own most of the land. The third class is composed of foreign
families who, being for some reason unable to agree with their
countrymen, settle in the country of the Bogos and place themselves
under their protection, which still continually occurs. A member of the
Boas family [i.e. of the Bogos nobility], however poor and weak, never
becomes a Tigre; his origin is a guarantee of his independence. A
Tigre, however mighty and rich, cannot become a Schmagilly [noble]; for
the Tigres, who are a compound of various elements, cannot trace their
origin so far back as the Schmagillies who pretend to spring all from
the same ancestor. Moreover, the oppression is so slight, that a
revolution is unimaginable” [1228].
Among the Takue the state of the Tigres is the same as among the Bogos;
formerly they brought beer to their lords; now they pay them a small
tribute of corn and fat [1229].
Marea Tigres have a harder lot. Two kinds of obligations are incumbent
on them: towards their respective masters, and towards the nobility en
bloc. Even the poorest noble never becomes a Tigre, and does not
perform degrading work, such as for instance milking. The Tigre pays
his master yearly 8 bottles of fat, a measure of corn, and every week a
leathern bag with milk. Of every cow killed by a Tigre the master
receives a considerable portion; a cow belonging to a Tigre, which dies
a natural death, falls entirely to the master. As for the Tigres’
obligations towards the nobility as a whole, on several occasions they
have to give up their cattle for the nobility. Among the Black Marea
the Tigres own most of the land; among the Red Marea the greater part
of the land is in the hands of impoverished nobles, who live chiefly
upon the rent of their landed property. Another class are the Dokono,
who are obliged to choose a patron and pay a tribute, but are held in
rather high esteem and often marry daughters of the nobles; they own
land and herds and are much given to trading [1230].
Among the Beni Amer the same distinction, of nobles and subjects,
prevails. The latter are called Woréza. “We shall speak of master and
servant,” says Munzinger “though the latter term does not quite answer
the purpose. The state of things we are going to describe much
resembles that which we have met with among the aristocrats of the
Anseba; among the Beni Amer, however, the servant is a feoffee rather
than a protégé. But as he derives his wealth from his master, to whom
he owes what we may call interest, his state is one of much greater
dependence.... Among the Beni Amer it is an ancient custom, that a lord
distributes his wealth among his servants; e.g. if he receives 100 cows
as his portion of the spoils of war, he does not add them to his herd,
but leaves them to his servants as a present. When the servant marries,
the lord presents him with a camel. In every emergency the servant
applies to his lord, who helps him whenever possible. All these
presents become the true property of the recipient; the servant may do
with them as he likes, sell and even spend them; the lord may upbraid
him for it, but legally has nothing to do with it. On the death of the
servant the presents devolve upon his heirs. But the lord has a kind of
usufruct of these presents; the servant provides him with fat and daily
brings him a certain quantity of milk, i.e. he feeds the lord and his
family. Often has the lord to wait for his supper till midnight,
because the servant provides for himself first. The servant, moreover,
has to provide the funeral sacrifice for his lord and for every member
of the latter’s family; he leaves to the lord every sterile cow, and
when he kills a beast he brings him the breast-piece. He stands by his
lord in every emergency, and even assists him according to his means
towards paying the tribute”. The servant is, so to speak, a tenant of
his lord. As the Beni Amer are nomads, there is no land to distribute;
the pasture has no owner; therefore the fief can only consist in
movable property. As most of the wealth of the country is in the hands
of the servants, they have a decisive voice in every public council;
they have to find out where the best pastures are, where the camp has
to be erected [1231].
Similar phenomena present themselves outside North-East Africa.
In the second chapter of Part I we have met with subjected tribes in
South Africa, such as Fengu, Makalahiri, etc., sometimes called slaves
by our ethnographers [1232].
Geoffroy speaks of settled tribes being in some way the vassals of the
Larbas. The ksours are buildings in which the nomads preserve their
corn, dates and wool; these stores are guarded by settled tribes, that
permanently live there and receive one tenth of the preserved stock
yearly. The nomads look upon all settled tribes as degenerate beings
and inferiors [1233]. Here we have to deal with a voluntary division of
labour, rather than with subjection.
In Circassia, according to Bell, the serfs are prisoners of war and the
ancient inhabitants of the country. The latter are perhaps the same
peasants who, according to Klaproth, may not be sold apart from the
land [1234].
It is remarkable, that in Central Asia and Siberia we do not find a
single instance of this subjection of tribes as such [1235]. This is
probably the reason why in these parts members of the tribe are so
often employed as servants.
Where nearly all work is left to subjected tribes or castes, and the
nobles do nothing but fight, there is not much use for slave labour.
The nobles do not want slaves, because all work required by them is
performed by their subjects.
We have now found a new cause, from which in some cases slaves are not
wanted: the subjection of tribes as such, which serves as a substitute
for slavery.
§ 2. Slavery among pastoral tribes.
Yet several pastoral tribes keep slaves; this has still to be accounted
for. We shall inquire first, whether the secondary causes we have found
in the last paragraph are at work here.
1º. Condition of women. On the Pacific Coast of North America the men
sometimes procure slaves, in order to relieve the women of a part of
their task. There are some details on record suggestive of the same
state of things among some pastoral tribes. Among the Circassians,
Bahima and Beduan (pastoral tribes), Waganda, pirate-tribes of Mindanao
and Sulu, Ossetes and Gallas (agricultural tribes depending largely on
cattle for their subsistence), slaves are employed for household work.
The same is the case with female slaves among the Larbas and Somal of
the towns. Munzinger states that only few Beduan are rich enough to
keep a female slave or a maid-servant; therefore in most families the
preparing of food falls to the share of the wife, this being almost her
only occupation [1236]. Hence we may infer that among the Beduan, and
probably among some other tribes, slaves are procured by the men for
the benefit of the women.
2º. Preserving of food. This does not seem to require much labour among
pastoral tribes. On the Pacific Coast of North America the fish have to
be prepared for winter use. But where men live upon the products of
their cattle, food is not at one time much more abundant than at
another.
3º. Trade and industry. Household work, sometimes performed by slaves,
does not seem to serve the purposes of trade, as on the Pacific Coast;
there is not a single detail on record, that would lead us to suppose
that it does. We even find particulars tending to prove the contrary.
Among the Beni Amer, who have many slaves, the women are continually
occupied in making mats, the proceeds of which labour are often
sufficient to pay the tribute to the Turks [1237]. Slaves do not seem
to join in this occupation.
Among the Larbas free women manufacture tissues, which are sold abroad
[1238]. Probably slaves are not capable of performing such fine work.
Among the Yorubas and pirate-tribes of Mindanao and Sulu the slaves are
occupied in trading. But these tribes are not nomadic; moreover, these
slaves do not, like the slaves on the Pacific Coast, prepare the
articles of commerce, but are themselves the traders, which is quite
another thing.
4º. Slaves wanted as warriors. Slaves sometimes serve to augment the
military strength of the community. From the survey of the work done by
slaves, given in the beginning of this chapter, it appears that they
are often employed in warfare, viz. among the nomadic Somal and
Danakil, Kafirs, pirate-tribes of Mindanao and Sulu, Mandingoes and
Yorubas; probably also among the Bogos, where they generally take to
robbery. Circassian slaves cannot be compelled to go to war [1239].
Hence it seems to follow that they may go if they like. Among the Beni
Amer native-born slaves are avenged by their own relatives; so these
slaves are armed, and probably fight together with their masters.
The ensuing statement strikingly shows how highly slaves are valued as
warriors among the nomadic Somal and Danakil. If a slave kills one
enemy, he becomes free; if two or more, he is entitled to being
adopted. Having killed ten enemies, he becomes a person of rank and
enjoys many privileges [1240].
In these cases slaves strengthen the military force of the tribe. But
the tribe profits only indirectly by this reinforcement of the family.
Most pastoral nomads live in comparatively small groups, rather
independently; there is no strong central government [1241]. And where
quarrels between these small groups are frequent, the more numerous the
family (in the wider sense, the Roman familia, including slaves), the
better will the head of the family be able to maintain his position
[1242]. And pastoral nomads have always a great motive for fighting:
they can enrich themselves by a successful raid. Among hunting,
fishing, and agricultural tribes, if the conqueror does not want to
keep the vanquished as slaves, war gives little profit [1243]. But in
the raids pastoral nomads make on each other, the successful raider may
acquire numerous herds, i.e. great wealth. Therefore it is of the
utmost importance for a man to have as numerous a familia as possible.
When speaking of the Larbas, we have seen that their mode of life is un
peu toujours comme la guerre. Their describer states: “Theft is the
most threatening evil the nomad has to deal with; he is therefore most
severe in suppressing it, the punishment being invariably death.” He
also speaks of free servants, members of the family, who live under the
protection and at the expense of some rich head of a family; they are
generally very numerous, and form a body of clients that strengthens
their patron’s power [1244].
Levchine, speaking of the Kazak Kirghiz, says: “Their feuds are caused
by the unrestrained desire for plunder, that ruins and entirely
demoralizes them; this plundering is called baranta, These barantas
consist in reciprocal cattle-stealing, from which often sanguinary
combats result.... And we must not think that public hatred or contempt
falls on those who are addicted to these horrible excesses; on the
contrary, they enjoy a reputation for bravery, and are distinguished by
the name of Batyr or Boghatyr, which name spreads through all the
hordes the fame of their exploits. Many of these braves, called Batyr
for their plundering ardour, though many years dead, still live in the
remembrance of their countrymen, and their names are celebrated.”
Accordingly, one of the qualities required in a chief is a large
family, that gives him the power to maintain his authority [1245].
Among the Beni Amer, where it seems to be quite an ordinary thing for a
noble to receive 100 cows as his portion of the spoils of war, it is a
great support for a man to have many children, as in these countries
family is opposed to family [1246].
A writer of the 18th century tells us that “the Chukchi who live to the
north of the river Anadir, are not subjected to the Russian empire, and
often make raids on those brought under Russian control, on the
Koryakes as well as on the Chukchi, killing or making prisoners all
they meet, and carrying off their herds of reindeer” [1247].
Among the Somal and Gallas internal wars are very frequent; among the
former most wars are marauding expeditions. And here too the possession
of wife and children is indispensable; an unmarried man cannot attain
to wealth and power [1248].
Among the Ama-Xosa and Ovaherero the chief object of warfare is
cattle-stealing. Fugitives from other tribes are never delivered up by
the Ama-Xosa, whatever the reason of their flight; for they strengthen
the chief’s power. Another fact, showing the great importance they
attach to the numerical strength of their tribe, is this, that he who
kills a man or woman by accident has to pay a fine to the chief, as a
compensation for the loss suffered by the government of the tribe
[1249].
We have already seen that the Massai are “true warriors and raiders”
and that the Mairs and Meenas spend their time in “marauding,
plundering and murdering” [1250].
We see that among these tribes everybody is desirous of having as many
people about him as possible for the protection of his own property and
the capturing of his neighbour’s. And a convenient means of procuring
such people is the purchase of slaves.
There is one more secondary cause here, which we have not met with
before. It is sometimes stated that keeping slaves is a mere luxury.
Now rich nomads, like all rich people, love luxury. Like the rich Kazak
Kirghiz who told Levchine that the possession of over 8000 horses
procured him a reputation among his countrymen, many rich nomads will
win renown by possessing a large retinue of slaves. Thus for instance
we know that among the Beni Amer slave labour is of little use; yet it
is stated, that the Beni Amer are ambitious to possess many slaves
[1251]. And slaves are preferable, as objects of luxury, to free
servants. For slaves, generally acquired from beyond the limits of the
tribe, are much more apt to gratify the pride of the rich man by their
submission, than poor freemen, who are always conscious of their
membership of the tribe and unwilling to be trampled down. The latter
fact is proved by several statements of ethnographers.
If a rich Samoyede refuses to give his poor countryman a reindeer for
food, the latter has the right to carry off one or more from the rich
man’s herd; the law does not give the owner any hold upon him [1252].
Among the Yakuts, according to Müller, the rich sustain their poor
fellow-tribesmen; if the latter lose their reindeer, they are
indemnified by the rich. Another writer tells us that the poor, when
dying of hunger, refrain from slaughtering an animal, from fear of
losing their independence [1253].
Similarly among the Ostyaks “members of the same tribe, whether large
or small, consider themselves as relations, even where the common
ancestor is unknown, and where the evidence of consanguinity is wholly
wanting. Nevertheless, the feeling of consanguinity, sometimes real,
sometimes conventional, is the fundamental principle of the union. The
rich, of which there are few, help the poor, who are many. There is not
much that can change hands. The little, however, that is wanted by the
needy is taken as a right rather than a favour” [1254].
The Altaians are very sensitive about their liberty. “Every poor man
who joins a rich family considers himself a member of it. He will
perish of hunger, rather than comply with a demand of his rich
neighbour made in a commanding tone” [1255].
Licata tells us that hungry Danakil go to their chief and say: “I am
hungry, give me something to eat” [1256].
Among the Larbas free labourers “work for one more fortunate than
themselves, but not for a superior; for notwithstanding the relation of
employer and employed, equality prevails” [1257].
It is easy to understand that slaves are preferred to such servants.
Only in one case is this preference mentioned by an ethnographer.
Munzinger states that the slaves bought by the rich Beduan for
household work are generally more trusted than ordinary servants, as
they are riveted to their position [1258]. But we may safely suppose
that in other cases also this circumstance has furthered the growth of
slavery.
We have explained why pastoral tribes have no great use for slave
labour. We have also mentioned some motives that may induce such tribes
to keep slaves. But the fact has not yet been accounted for, that some
pastoral tribes keep slaves and others do not. Whence this difference?
It has been shown that slavery does not only exist among pastoral
tribes that till the soil to a limited extent. Among all pastoral
tribes subsistence is dependent on capital. Wealth, too, exists among
all these tribes [1259]; and we cannot see why slaves, as a luxury,
would be wanted by one such tribe more than by another. As slaves are
sometimes employed as warriors, we might be inclined to suppose that
slavery exists among all warlike tribes, and among these only. But
there are several pastoral tribes which, though very warlike, do not
keep slaves: Kazak Kirghiz, Turkomans, Massai, and some pastoral nomads
of South Africa.
That the subjection of tribes as such in stead of individual slaves, of
which we have spoken in the last paragraph, cannot account for all
cases in which slavery does not exist, becomes evident, if we take into
consideration that most of the pastoral tribes of North-East Africa,
which keep other tribes in subjection, practise slavery, whereas in
Central Asia and Siberia we find neither subjected tribes nor slaves.
Therefore there must be other causes.
In chapter II we have spoken of external causes: it may be that slaves
would be of great use, and yet cannot be kept, because the coercive
power of the tribe is not strong enough. We have also seen that this
coercive power is most strongly developed where men have fixed
habitations, live in rather large groups and preserve food for the time
of scarcity, and where there is a group of somewhat homogeneous tribes
maintaining, constant relations with each other. Pastoral tribes are
nomadic, do not live together in very large groups, and do not want to
preserve food, for they have their supply of food always at hand. Yet
the fact that several pastoral tribes keep slaves proves that at least
among these the coercive power is strong enough. We shall try to find a
cause peculiar to these tribes, that enables them to keep slaves. Now
it is remarkable that our positive cases are nearly all of them found
in a few definite parts of the globe: North-East Africa, the Caucasus,
and Arabia; whereas the pastoral nomads of Siberia, Central Asia,
India, and South Africa, with one exception (the Ovaherero), do not
keep slaves. And the parts where slavery exists are exactly those where
the slave-trade has for a long time been carried on on a large scale.
Accordingly, the slaves these tribes keep are often purchased from
slave-traders and in several cases belong to inferior races.
The slaves of the Aeneze Bedouins are Negroes [1260].
The slaves kept by the Larbas are Negroes purchased from slave-trading
caravans [1261].
Although we find no description of slave-trade among the Circassians,
slaves in the Caucasus are exported on a large scale [1262].
Most slaves found among the Somal and Danakil are articles of transit
trade: they are purchased from interior tribes and intended to be sold
to Arabians. A Somali never becomes the slave of a Somali, and
prisoners of war are not enslaved [1263].
Many Beduan make it their business to steal slaves, whom they sell in
Massowah [1264].
The slaves kept by the Beni Amer are either captured from enemies or
purchased abroad; a Beni Amer never loses his freedom. Slaves are not,
however, often sold abroad [1265].
On the other hand, the pastoral tribes of Central Asia and Siberia live
in secluded parts, far from the centres of the slave-trade.
The slave-trade greatly facilitates the keeping of slaves. Where slaves
are brought by slave-dealers from remote parts, it is much easier to
keep them than where they have to be captured from enemies, i.e. from
the neighbours; in the latter case the slaves are very likely to run
away and return to their native country; but a purchased slave
transported from a great distance cannot so easily return; if he
succeeded in escaping, he would be instantly recaptured by one of the
foreign tribes whose countries he would have to traverse. Moreover,
some tribes may, by their intercourse with slave-traders, have become
familiar with the idea of slavery, and so the slave-trade may have
suggested to them the keeping of slaves for their own use.
There is another circumstance, which may partially account for the
existence of slavery among some of these tribes: the slaves are often
Negroes. And Negroes have always and everywhere been enslaved; they
seem to be more fit for slaves than most races of mankind. Galton,
speaking of the Damaras, says: “These savages court slavery. You engage
one of them as a servant, and you find that he considers himself your
property, and that you are, in fact, become the owner of a slave. They
have no independence about them, generally speaking, but follow a
master as spaniels would. Their hero-worship is directed to people who
have wit and strength enough to ill-use them. Revenge is a very
transient passion in their character, it gives way to admiration of the
oppressor. The Damaras seem to me to love nothing; the only strong
feelings they possess, which are not utterly gross and sensual, are
those of admiration and fear. They seem to be made for slavery, and
naturally fall into its ways” [1266]. And Hutter, describing the Bali
tribes of Cameroon, remarks that the Negro wants to be ruled and
patiently endures any amount of oppression [1267]. Similar descriptions
may undoubtedly be given of many other Negro tribes. Moreover several
slave-keeping nomadic tribes are Semites and Hamites, and therefore
look upon the Negroes as an inferior race. Now, where slaves are
procured mainly for military purposes (and we have seen that this is
often the case with pastoral tribes), an absorption of foreigners into
the tribe would answer the purpose as well as, and perhaps better than,
slavery. But where the foreigners belong to inferior races, the members
of the tribe are not likely to intermarry with them and look upon them
as their equals; they remain slaves, though they are not of great use
as such. We must also take into consideration that inferior races are
not so much to be dreaded as superior peoples; the latter, if
individuals belonging to them were kept as slaves, might retaliate upon
the slave-owners. This may have been the reason why the Kazak Kirghiz
who, in Levchine’s time, kidnapped many Russians, always sold them
abroad: it would not have been safe to keep them as slaves.
Accordingly, Pallas states that in his time they used to kidnap men on
the Russian frontiers towards the time when they were going to remove
with their herds, so that they could not be pursued [1268].
In the second chapter of this Part we have remarked that the growth of
slavery is furthered by the existence of a group of more or less
similar tribes, the slave-trade being in such cases the means of
spreading slavery over the group. We may say now that, whether such a
group exists or not, the slave-trade facilitates the keeping of slaves.
When the coercive power of a tribe is not strong enough for the keeping
of prisoners as slaves, the slave-trade may enable such a tribe to keep
slaves; for the keeping of purchased slaves, brought from a great
distance, does not require so much coercive power.
We see that the difference between the slave-keeping and the other
pastoral tribes consists in external circumstances. Pastoral tribes
have no strong motives for making slaves, for the use of slave labour
is small. On the other hand, there are no causes absolutely preventing
them from keeping slaves. These tribes are, so to speak, in a state of
equilibrium; a small additional cause on either side turns the balance.
One such additional cause is the slave-trade; another is the
neighbourhood of inferior races. There may be other small additional
causes, peculiar to single tribes. We shall not inquire whether there
are, but content ourselves with the foregoing conclusions, of which the
principal are these, that the taming of animals does not naturally lead
to the taming of men, and that the relation between capital and labour
among pastoral tribes renders the economic use of slavery very small.
Recapitulating, we may remark that our general theory, that there is no
great use for slave labour where subsistence depends on capital, is
fully verified by our investigation of economic life among pastoral
tribes.
Two secondary internal causes found in the second chapter have been
also met with among pastoral tribes: slaves are sometimes employed in
warfare, and sometimes for domestic labour to relieve the women of
their task. Two new secondary factors have been found in this chapter:
slaves are kept as a luxury; and sometimes the subjection of tribes as
such, serving as a substitute for slavery, makes slavery proper
superfluous.
With regard to the external causes it has been shown that the coercive
power of pastoral tribes is not very strong, as they are nomadic and
live in rather small groups; but this want is sometimes compensated for
by the slave-trade and the neighbourhood of inferior races. The two
latter circumstances may therefore rank as new external causes, the
slave-trade taking the place of the existence of a homogeneous group.
On the Pacific Coast of N. America it is the trade between tribes of
the same culture, among pastoral nomads it is the trade with Arabia,
etc.; but in either case it is the slave-trade that furthers the growth
of slavery.
RECAPITULATION OF THE CAUSES WE HAVE FOUND UP TO THE PRESENT.
Furthering the Hindering the
growth of slavery. growth of slavery.
I. Internal causes.
A. General. 1º. Subsistence 1º. Subsistence
easily acquired and dependent on
not dependent on capital.
capital.
2º. Subsistence not
dependent on capital, but
difficult to procure.
B. Secondary economic: 1º. Preserving of 1º. Female labour
food. making slave
2º. Trade and industry. labour superfluous.
3º. A high position of 2º. Subjection of
women. tribes as such.
C. Secondary non-economic: 1º. Slaves wanted 1º. Militarism
for military making slavery
purposes. impossible.
2º. Slaves kept as a
luxury.
II. External causes: 1º. Fixed habitations.
2º. Living in large groups.
3º. Preserving of food [1269].
4º. The slave-trade.
5º. The neighbourhood of
inferior races.
CHAPTER IV.
AGRICULTURAL TRIBES.
§ 1. Numbers of positive and negative cases in the three agricultural
groups.
The list given in § 3 of the first chapter of this second Part contains
the following numbers of agricultural tribes with and without slaves,
classified according to the division into three groups we have made in
§ 2 of the same chapter:
FIRST AGRICULTURAL GROUP [1270].
a1 a1 + c a1 + t Total.
——————————— ——————————— —————————— ——————————
Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg.
North America 6 6
South America 6 9 6 9
Melanesia 2 12 3 1 5 13
Polynesia 1 1
Malay
Archipelago 11 4 1 12 4
Indo-Chinese
Peninsula 1 1
India 2 3 1 2 4
Bantu tribes 4 1 1 3 1 7 3
Soudan Negroes 1 2 1 2 2
-- -- - - - - -- --
26 37 0 3 8 3 34 43
SECOND AGRICULTURAL GROUP.
a2 a2 + c a2 + t a3 + c + t Total.
—————————— —————————— ————————— —————————— —————————
Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg.
N. America 11 11
S. America 1 2 1 2
Melanesia 1 3 1 3
Polynesia 1 6 1 6
Micronesia 5 5
Malay Arch. 29 1 3 7 2 41 1
Indo-Chin. Penins. 5 5
India 4 4 1 5 4
Bantu tribes 18 6 7 3 12 1 38 9
Soudan Negroes 5 4 4 2 7 4 20 6
Hamitic peoples 2 1 2 4 1
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- --
66 43 17 5 26 0 7 0 116 48
THIRD AGRICULTURAL GROUP.
a2 a2 + c a2 + t a3 + c + t Total.
—————————— ————————— ————————— —————————— ——————————
Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg. Pos. Neg.
N. America 1 1
Malay Arch. 9 1 9 1
Indo-Chin. Peninsula 1 1
Caucasus 1 1
Bantu tribes 1 1 5 6 1
Soudan Negroes 1 1
Hamitic peoples 2 1 2 1
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
10 1 3 3 6 0 1 0 20 4
§ 2. Development of agriculture and development of slavery.
What do these numbers teach us?
In the first place we see that many (170) agricultural tribes keep
slaves. Hence it appears that slavery is by no means incompatible with
agriculture. But there are also many (95) agricultural tribes without
slaves, so the existence of agriculture among savage tribes does not
necessarily lead to the keeping of slaves.
In the second place it appears that the more agriculture is developed,
the more frequent slavery becomes. Looking at those agricultural tribes
among which subsistence does not depend to any considerable extent on
cattle-breeding or trade (a1, a2, a3), we find that in the first group
there are 26 positive and 37 negative cases, i.e. 41,3 per cent. of
these tribes keep slaves. In the second group the corresponding numbers
are 66 positive cases, 43 negative cases, and 60,6 per cent.; in the
third group 10 positive cases, 1 negative case, and 90,9 per cent. We
see that in the second group slavery is more frequent than in the
first, whereas in the third group it is almost universal. It has,
however, to be taken into consideration, that the great majority (9 out
of 10) of the slave-keeping tribes belonging to the third group live in
the Malay Archipelago, and 5 out of these 9 are divisions of the
Battas. We may not, therefore, attach much importance to the numbers
relating to the third group; for they may be strongly influenced by
local circumstances. Taking the second and third group together we find
76 positive and 44 negative cases, i.e. 63,3 per cent. keep slaves,
which percentage is considerably higher than that of the first group.
We do not claim mathematical exactness for these numbers. But at any
rate we may say that they sufficiently prove, that slavery is
considerably more frequent among truly agricultural tribes, which
subsist chiefly by agriculture, than among incipient agriculturists,
who still depend on hunting or fishing for a large portion of their
food.
The total numbers lead to the same conclusion. Looking at these we find
in the first group 34 positive and 43 negative cases, i.e. 44,2 per
cent. keep slaves. For the second group the corresponding numbers are
116 pos. cases, 48 neg. cases and 70,7 per cent; for the third group 20
pos. cases, 4 neg. cases and 83,3 per cent.; for the second and third
group taken together 136 pos. cases, 52 neg. cases and 72,3 per cent.
This agrees with what we expected. The tribes belonging to the first
group, the “hunting agriculturists” (Jägerbauern), as Dargun calls
them, bear a strong resemblance to hunting tribes. Generally the men’s
business is hunting and warfare, whereas the women have to till the
soil. The division of labour between the sexes does not much differ
here from that which exists in Australia, where the men hunt and the
women gather fruits and dig roots. These tribes are also often nomadic:
when the fruits of their fields are scarcely ripe, they reap them and
remove to some other place [1271].
The best specimens of this type are found in South America.
Azara, speaking of the Indians living in and around Paraguay, remarks:
“Even the agricultural tribes are more or less nomadic. Wherever the
Indians pass they sow something, and later on return to reap the
fruits” [1272].
Lery, a writer of the 16th century, tells us that among the Tupinambas
the principal cultures were two roots, which he calls aypi and maniot.
They were cultivated by the women. After being planted the roots needed
no further care, and within 2 or 3 months were fit to be dug up. Maize
was also cultivated by the women. The Tupinambas depended on hunting
and fishing for a considerable portion of their food. They did not
generally remain for longer than 5 or 6 months in one place, but were
always removing from one place to another, carrying their
house-building materials with them [1273].
Von den Steinen, describing the tribes on the Upper Schingu (in
Brazil), states that, though largely subsisting on agriculture, they
are psychically hunters rather than agriculturists. Like everywhere in
Brazil, the women not only prepare the food, but cultivate the manioc.
The men cultivate nothing but tobacco, the smoking of which is their
exclusive privilege [1274].
We have seen (in chap. II of this second Part) that hunters hardly ever
keep slaves; and as the “hunting agriculturists” so much resemble true
hunters, it is easy to understand why among the majority of them
slavery does not exist. Slaves cannot be employed for hunting, and the
women can easily perform the small amount of cultivation wanted by
these tribes. Moreover, the men who, as warriors, are able to procure
slaves, are not likely to take them for the sole benefit of the women.
And where the men are always hunting, the women would have to supervise
the slaves and keep them in order, which is not easy for them.
That this lowest stage of agriculture is not favourable to the growth
of slavery, is confirmed by what Mr. A. C. Kruyt had the kindness to
write us regarding Central Celebes. There is one native tribe, the
Topebato, that formerly did not keep slaves, the probable cause being
that they had remained hunters longer than the other tribes in the
neighbourhood. In a legend, in which it is told that the gods made
gifts to the different tribes characterizing their manner of life, the
Topebato get a dog allotted to them for the chase, and though now they
till the soil, they are still passionate hunters. They now buy a few
slaves and so in the course of time a slave class will originate among
them.
Yet there are a considerable number of positive cases in our first
group (26 out of 63). We will, of course, make due allowance for
mistakes; there may be several tribes contained in our first group
which on closer scrutiny would prove to be true agriculturists and not
Jägerbauern. But we cannot think but that among these 26 tribes there
are many, which have been justly placed in the first group. The
existence of slavery among them will have to be accounted for by
secondary causes, internal and external, such as we have found in the
foregoing chapters and of which we shall perhaps find some more in the
continuation of this chapter.
We must, however, bear in mind that our first group does not only
contain “hunting”, but also “fishing agriculturists”; and we know that
fishers are more likely to keep slaves than hunters. This may perhaps
account for the existence of slavery among some of these tribes. But
our numbers give us no hint in this direction. We find, indeed, that 11
out of 26 positive cases are afforded by tribes inhabiting the islands
of the Malay Archipelago; but among these there are some Dyak tribes
living in the interior of Borneo. Moreover, South America affords 6
positive, and the Melanesian islands 12 negative cases. We may suppose
that whatever effect this factor has is neutralized by the intervention
of other circumstances.
§ 3. Capital and labour among agricultural tribes.
We have seen that among the purely agricultural tribes of the second
and third stages there are altogether 76 positive and 44 negative
cases, i.e. more than three-fifths of them keep slaves. These numbers
make it probable, that the existence of slavery among agricultural
tribes has to be accounted for by general causes, that agricultural
life as such is favourable to the growth of slavery. We have to inquire
now, whether this supposition is justified by an application of the
general principle laid down in § 6 of the second chapter, i.e. whether
among agricultural tribes subsistence is dependent on capital, and if
not, whether it is easy or difficult to procure.
It appears that, where agriculture is carried on without the aid of
domestic animals, subsistence does not depend on capital. The savage
agriculturist is unacquainted with the more perfect and costly
agricultural implements used in Europe, and, where population is scarce
(as it is among most savages) cultivates only such grounds as are most
fertile and easiest of access. Even the plough is used by very few
savages; they most often content themselves with a pointed stick or
hoe, wherefore Hahn calls the agriculture carried on by them
hoe-culture (Hackbau), as distinguished from agriculture proper
(Ackerbau) [1275]. And even where agriculture is carried on in a more
skilful manner, e.g. by means of irrigation, it is not capital that is
wanted, but labour. The construction of the irrigation-works may be a
long and laborious task, but the materials cost nothing. There is only
one instance in which we have found it stated that agriculture cannot
well be carried on without capital. Radloff tells us that the Kazak
Kirghiz, besides rearing cattle, are largely agricultural. Some fields
want constant irrigation, and the water is very difficult to procure.
The rich use a paddle-wheel; the poor bring the water to their fields
in buckets and wooden vessels, but this is of little avail. Therefore
it is only the rich who are capable of carrying on agriculture to any
considerable extent [1276]. But this state of things probably had not
yet existed more than some 30 years; for Levchine (writing about 30
years earlier than Radloff) states that in his time agriculture was of
little importance; and he does not make any mention of irrigation
[1277]. The introduction of the paddle wheel has therefore probably to
be ascribed to the Russians; for the Kazak Kirghiz, in Radloff’s time,
were already strongly influenced by them; so we may not speak here of a
fact belonging to savage life. We have not found any other instance of
this dependence of agriculture on capital; but even if there be a few
instances, we are justified in concluding that, generally speaking, the
savage agriculturist can perfectly well do without capital, except, of
course, where he depends on cattle.
Moreover, subsistence is fairly easy to procure. Agriculture, where it
is carried on in such simple manner as among most savages, does not
require much skill or application. As compared with hunting, seafaring
and manufactures, it is rather dull work, requiring patience rather
than strength or skill. It is one of the occupations about which there
is no excitement, and which in many primitive societies are performed
by the women. Hunting requires personal qualities, and a good hunter is
held in high esteem; but we have not found it stated in a single
instance, that a man’s influence or power depends on his ability in
agriculture.
Subsistence, therefore, is independent of capital and easy to procure.
Every one is able to clear a piece of ground and provide for himself;
nobody offers his services to another, and so, if a man wants a
labourer, he must compel his fellow-man to work for him. “All freemen
in new countries” says Bagehot “must be pretty equal; every one has
labour, and every one has land; capital, at least in agricultural
countries (for pastoral countries are very different), is of little
use; it cannot hire labour; the labourers go and work for themselves.
There is a story often told of a great English capitalist who went out
to Australia with a shipload of labourers and a carriage; his plan was
that the labourers should build a house for him, and that he would keep
his carriage, just as in England. But (so the story goes) he had to try
to live in his carriage, for his labourers left him, and went away to
work for themselves” [1278]. Similarly, Sombart observes: “Colonies, in
which there are no labourers to exploit, are like knives without
blades” [1279]. In such countries, if a man wants others to work in his
service and according to his instructions, he must compel them to do
so, i.e. he must enslave them. And agriculture, requiring little skill
and application, is very fit to be imposed upon slaves: compulsory
agricultural labour, though not so productive as voluntary labour, can
yet yield some profit. Moreover, the agricultural slave is rather easy
to control; his work does not require independent action. It is also
easy to prevent him from running away. In all this he differs from a
hunting slave. And agriculture is also more favourable to the existence
of slavery than cattle-breeding; for among pastoral tribes there is but
a fixed and rather small amount of work to be done; but where men
subsist by agriculture, any increase in the number of slaves brings
about an increase of food.
We cannot, therefore, agree with Adam Smith, who asserts that in those
countries where slaves are employed, it would be more profitable to
employ free labourers, and that it was, in general, pride and love of
power in the master that led to the employment of slaves [1280]. A free
labourer, it is true, is more interested in the work he has to do, and
therefore likely to do it better, than a slave; but in those countries
where there is an abundance of fertile soil, and capital is of little
use, free labourers cannot be had; every freeman prefers working for
himself, or perhaps not working at all.
Cairnes, speaking of Negro slavery as it was carried on in the United
States, admits that slave labour has sometimes an advantage over free
labour, but only where tobacco, cotton and similar crops are raised for
industrial purposes, not where cereals are grown. “The economic
advantages of slavery” he remarks “are easily stated: they are all
comprised in the fact that the employer of slaves has absolute power
over his workmen, and enjoys the disposal of the whole fruit of their
labours. Slave labour, therefore, admits of the most complete
organization; that is to say, it may be combined on an extensive scale,
and directed by a controlling mind to a single end, and its cost can
never rise above that which is necessary to maintain the slave in
health and strength. On the other hand, the economical defects of slave
labour are very serious. They may be summed up under the three
following heads:—it is given reluctantly; it is unskilful; it is
wanting in versatility.... The line dividing the Slave from the Free
States marks also an important division in the agricultural
capabilities of North America. North of this line, the products for
which the soil and climate are best adapted are cereal crops, while
south of it the prevailing crops are tobacco, rice, cotton, and sugar;
and these two classes of crops are broadly distinguished in the methods
of culture suitable to each. The cultivation of the one class, of which
cotton may be taken as the type, requires for its efficient conduct
that labour should be combined and organized on an extensive scale. On
the other hand, for the raising of cereal crops this condition is not
so essential. Even where labour is abundant and that labour free, the
large capitalist does not in this mode of farming appear on the whole
to have any preponderating advantage over the small proprietor, who,
with his family, cultivates his own farm, as the example of the best
cultivated states in Europe proves. Whatever superiority he may have in
the power of combining and directing labour seems to be compensated by
the greater energy and spirit which the sense of property gives to the
exertions of the small proprietor. But there is another essential
circumstance in which these two classes of crops differ. A single
labourer, Mr. Russell tells us, can cultivate twenty acres of wheat or
Indian corn, while he cannot manage more than two of tobacco, or three
of cotton. It appears from this that tobacco and cotton fulfil that
condition which we saw was essential to the economical employment of
slaves—the possibility of working large numbers within a limited space;
while wheat and Indian corn, in the cultivation of which the labourers
are dispersed over a wide surface, fail in this respect. We thus find
that cotton, and the class of crops of which cotton may be taken as the
type, favour the employment of slaves in competition with peasant
proprietors in two leading ways: first, they need extensive combination
and organization of labour—requirements which slavery is eminently
calculated to supply, but in respect to which the labour of peasant
proprietors is defective; and secondly, they allow of labour being
concentrated, and thus minimize the cardinal evil of slave labour—the
reluctance with which it is yielded. On the other hand, the cultivation
of cereal crops, in which extensive combination of labour is not
important, and in which the operations of industry are widely diffused,
offers none of these advantages for the employment of slaves, while it
is remarkably fitted to bring out in the highest degree the especial
excellencies of the industry of free proprietors. Owing to these causes
it has happened that slavery has been maintained in the Southern States
[1281], which favour the growth of tobacco, cotton, and analogous
products, while, in the Northern States, of which cereal crops are the
great staple, it from an early period declined and has ultimately died
out. And, in confirmation of this view, it may be added that wherever
in the Southern States the external conditions are especially
favourable to cereal crops, as in parts of Virginia, Kentucky, and
Missouri, and along the slopes of the Alleghanies, there slavery has
always failed to maintain itself. It is owing to this cause that there
now exists in some parts of the South a considerable element of free
labouring population” [1282].
This reasoning is quite correct so far as Negro slavery in the United
States is concerned; but it does not hold with regard to primitive
slavery or “retail slavery” as Bagehot calls it. The few slaves kept in
primitive agricultural societies work together with their masters, who
can therefore continually supervise their work and do not want
overseers. Moreover, the slave in primitive and simple societies is not
looked upon as a piece of machinery; he is, so to speak, an inferior
member of the family, sharing in its pleasures, sorrows, and
occupations; therefore it is not only the fear of punishment that
induces him to work; he is interested in the welfare of the family, and
knows that the better he works, the more he will be valued, and the
more food there will be of which he will get his due share [1283]. This
retail slavery, as Bagehot remarks, “the slavery in which a master owns
a few slaves, whom he well knows and daily sees—is not at all an
intolerable state; the slaves of Abraham had no doubt a fair life, as
things went in that day. But wholesale slavery, where men are but one
of the investments of large capital, and where a great owner, so far
from knowing each slave, can hardly tell how many gangs of them he
works, is an abominable state” [1284]. Retail slavery, therefore, can
very well exist where cereal crops are raised; it is even the most
convenient system of labour in primitive agricultural societies.
We see that the general economic state of truly agricultural tribes may
account for the existence of slavery among so many of these tribes. We
shall now inquire what secondary causes there are at work among
agricultural tribes, and what effect they have. But we shall have to
speak first of a great factor in economic life, which we have not met
with before.
§ 4. Land and population.
The general principle laid down in the last paragraph is that in
primitive agricultural societies capital is of little use and
subsistence easy to acquire; therefore every able-bodied man can, by
taking a piece of land into cultivation, provide for himself. Hence it
follows that nobody voluntarily serves another; he who wants a labourer
must subject him, and this subjection will often assume the character
of slavery.
But this general rule requires an important qualification. Hitherto we
have supposed, that there is much more fertile land than is required to
be cultivated for the support of the actual population. Such, indeed,
is the case among most savages; but it is not always so. And where it
is not so, our general rule does not obtain. When all land fit for
cultivation has been appropriated, a man, though able-bodied and
willing to work, if he owns no land, cannot earn his subsistence
independently of a landlord; he has to apply to the owners of the land
for employment as a tenant or servant. In such case free labourers are
available; therefore slaves are not wanted.
In this and the ensuing paragraphs we shall endeavour to prove by facts
the hypothesis arrived at here by a deductive reasoning, which we may
express thus: where all land fit for cultivation has been appropriated,
slavery is not likely to exist.
The same view is held by some theoretical writers.
According to Cairnes “slavery, as a permanent system, has need not
merely of a fertile soil, but of a practically unlimited extent of it.
This arises from the defect of slave labour in point of versatility. As
has been already remarked, the difficulty of teaching the slave
anything is so great—the result of the compulsory ignorance in which he
is kept, combined with want of intelligent interest in his work—that
the only chance of rendering his labour profitable is, when he has once
learned a lesson, to keep him to that lesson for life. Accordingly
where agricultural operations are carried on by slaves, the business of
each gang is always restricted to the raising of a single product....
Whatever crop may be best suited to the character of the soil and the
nature of slave industry, whether cotton, tobacco, sugar, or rice, that
crop is cultivated, and that alone. Rotation of crops is thus precluded
by the conditions of the case. The soil is tasked again and again to
yield the same product, and the inevitable result follows. After a
short series of years its fertility is completely exhausted, the
planter—“land-killer” he is called in the picturesque nomenclature of
the South—abandons the ground which he has rendered worthless, and
passes on to seek in new soils for that fertility under which alone the
agencies at his disposal can be profitably employed.... Slave
cultivation, wherever it has been tried in the new world, has issued in
the same results. Precluding the conditions of rotation of crops or
skilful management, it tends inevitably to exhaust the land of a
country and consequently requires for its permanent success not merely
a fertile soil but a practically unlimited extent of it.” Therefore
expansion is a necessity of slave societies [1285].
In the same sense Weber, speaking of the ancient states of Asia and
Europe, remarks that slavery is uneconomical, where a dense population
and high prices of the land render an intensive cultivation necessary
[1286].
It is easy to see that these arguments do not apply to slavery as
practised by savages. Rotation of crops and skilful management are
wanting among most savage tribes, whether they keep slaves or not.
Moreover, as we have already remarked, the slaves kept by them are not
pieces of machinery, nor, as in the United States, kept in compulsory
ignorance; they are rather regarded as members of the master’s family;
there is no great difference between master and slave [1287]. We may
therefore suppose that, whether a savage tribe keeps slaves or not,
agriculture is carried on in the same manner.
Loria also holds that slavery requires an abundant supply of ground;
but his arguments are quite different from Cairnes’. His reasoning is
as follows.
As long as there is land not yet appropriated, which a man destitute of
capital can take into cultivation, capitalistic property cannot exist;
for nobody is inclined to work for a capitalist, when he can work for
his own profit on land that costs him nothing. If, then, the capitalist
wants by any means to get a profit, he must violently suppress the free
land to which the labourer owes his force and liberty. And as long as
the population is scarce and therefore all land cannot possibly be
appropriated, the only means of suppressing the free land is by
subjugating the labourer. This subjugation assumes at first the form of
slavery; afterwards, when the decreasing fertility of the soil has to
be made up for by a greater fertility of labour, slavery gives place to
serfdom, which is milder and makes labour more productive.
When the population increases, and all land that can be cultivated by
labour without the aid of capital had been appropriated, quite another
state of things prevails. The labourer has now no other resource but to
sell his labour to the capitalist for such wages as the latter likes to
give; he is compelled to yield to the capitalist the greater part of
the produce of his labour. Now the latter need no longer use violence
to get his profit; for it falls to him by the automatic operation of
the social system. Yet, even then the capitalistic régime is not
absolutely certain to arise, for there is still land not yet
appropriated, that can be cultivated with the aid of capital. If,
therefore, the labourers could save a portion of their earnings and
thus accumulate capital, they would be able to take this land into
cultivation and so make themselves independent of their employers. This
consideration induces the capitalist to keep wages so low that they
cannot exceed the immediate wants of the labourers, which he brings
about by various artificial means.
When, finally, a further increase of population makes the total
appropriation of the land possible, the mere appropriation of it by the
capitalist class renders the labourers for ever subjected. The
capitalist need no longer have recourse to artificial methods of
reducing wages; the system operates automatically. The capitalists have
only to retain the land for themselves; they will then secure a
perpetual revenue at the cost of the labouring class.
“The basis of capitalistic property is thus always the same, viz. the
suppression of the free land, the exclusion of the labourer from the
appropriation of the land. This is brought about by various means,
according to the fertility of the land and the extent to which it has
already been appropriated. As long as there is free land fit for
cultivation by labour without the aid of capital, the only means of
suppressing it are slavery and serfdom; afterwards, when the land not
yet appropriated can only be cultivated by one who owns capital, it is
sufficient systematically to reduce wages to a level that does not
enable the labourers to save; when, finally, the population has so far
increased as to make the appropriation of all land possible, the
capitalists have only to keep the land to themselves” [1288].
Many objections can be made to Loria’s arguments. He is constantly
confusing capitalist and landlord. He seems to consider capitalists and
labourers as two strictly separated classes, though we see continually
people passing from one class to the other. And when he tells us that,
if wages were higher, the labourers would save a portion of their
earnings and so accumulate capital, but that the employers, wishing to
prevent this, keep wages low,—he ascribes to both capitalists and
labourers so much forethought and consciousness of class-interest as
men scarcely ever have, except in books on political economy [1289].
Yet we cannot think but that in the main Loria is right. The gist of
his reasoning is what we have already remarked in the beginning of this
paragraph. As long as there is an abundance of land not yet
appropriated, and therefore at the disposal of whoever may choose to
cultivate it, nobody applies to another for employment, and the only
labourers a man can procure are forced labourers. But when all land has
been appropriated, those who own no land are at the mercy of the
landholders, and voluntarily serve them; therefore slaves are not
wanted.
Much more fully has the true reason, why in densely peopled countries
there is little use for slaves, been recognized by Wakefield in his
book on the art of colonization. With him, the theory is not based upon
a general conception of society, but upon the facts of the colonial
history of his own time.
Wakefield, then, complains that in Australia and other colonies
manufactures cannot thrive; the reason for this is, according to him,
that there are no labourers to be had; for there is so much free land
that every newly-arrived labourer becomes a landowner rather than work
for wages. Therefore there are many colonies which would keep slaves if
the home government let them. This leads the writer to an investigation
of the circumstances which induce men to keep slaves.
“They are not moral, but economical circumstances; they relate not to
vice and virtue, but to production. They are the circumstances, in
which one man finds it difficult or impossible to get other men to work
under his direction for wages. They are the circumstances ... which
stand in the way of combination and constancy of labour, and which all
civilized nations, in a certain stage of their advance from barbarism,
have endeavoured to counteract, and have in some measure counteracted,
by means of some kind of slavery. Hitherto in this world, labour has
never been employed on any considerable scale, with constancy and in
combination, except by one or other of two means; either by hiring, or
by slavery of some kind. What the principle of association may do in
the production of wealth, and for the labouring classes, without either
slavery or hiring, remains to be seen; but at present we cannot rely
upon it....
“Slavery is evidently a make-shift for hiring; a proceeding to which
recourse is had, only when hiring is impossible or difficult ... it is
adopted because at the time and under the circumstances there is no
other way of getting labourers to work with constancy and in
combination. What, then, are the circumstances under which this
happens?
“It happens whenever population is scanty in proportion to land.
Slavery ... has been confined to countries of a scanty population, has
never existed in very populous countries, and has gradually ceased in
the countries whose population gradually increased to the point of
density. And the reason is plain enough.... In populous countries, the
desire to own land is not easily gratified, because the land is scarce
and dear: the plentifulness and cheapness of land in thinly-peopled
countries enables almost everybody who wishes it to become a landowner.
In thinly-peopled countries, accordingly, the great majority of free
people are landowners who cultivate their own land; and labour for hire
is necessarily scarce: in densely-peopled countries, on the contrary,
the great majority of the people cannot obtain land, and there is
plenty of labour for hire. Of plentifulness of labour for hire, the
cause is dearness of land: cheapness of land is the cause of scarcity
of labour for hire” [1290].
Wakefield proposed that the government should sell the new land in the
colonies at a sufficient price, i.e. at a price which would oblige the
newly arrived labourers to serve a few years for wages before being
able to become landowners [1291].
Another writer on colonial matters of the same period, Merivale,
follows quite the same line of argument as Wakefield. The great demand
for slaves and the great profitableness of slavery, he says, arise
altogether from the scarcity of labour. “When the pressure of
population induces the freeman to offer his services, as he does in all
old countries, for little more than the natural minimum of wages, those
services are very certain to be more productive and less expensive than
those of the bondsman, whose support is a charge to the master, and who
has nothing to gain by his industry.... This being the case, it is
obvious that the limit of the profitable duration of slavery is
attained whenever the population has become so dense that it is cheaper
to employ the free labourer for hire. Towards this limit every
community is approximating, however slowly.” That the relation between
land and population is indeed the determining factor as regards the
system of labour most suitable to a country, is clearly shown by the
effect which the emancipation of the slaves had upon the economic
development of the different colonies. Merivale then proceeds to divide
the British slave colonies, at the time of emancipation, into three
classes, as respects their economical situation. First, the oldest
settlements, established in the smaller Antilles (Barbadoes, Antigua,
etc.). They were those in which the land was nearly all occupied. “They
were less injured than any others by the immediate effect of
emancipation; for the negroes had no resource except in continuing to
work; there was no unoccupied land for them to possess, no independent
mode of obtaining a subsistence to which they could resort, still less
of obtaining those luxuries which habit had rendered desirable to
them.” “The next class is that of colonies in which the fertile or
advantageously situated soil was all cultivated, and becoming
exhausted; but there remained much unoccupied soil, of a less valuable
description, and the population was not dense in proportion to the
whole surface.” This applies especially to Jamaica. Here the colonists
“were injured, perhaps, by the abolition of the slave trade; and they
suffer now, since emancipation, by the difficulty of compelling the
negroes to perform hired labour while they have their own provision
grounds, and other resources, at their disposal.” “Finally, there is a
third class of colonies, in some of which the fertility of the
cultivated soil is as yet unexhausted, in others there is abundance of
fertile and unoccupied land. Such are the Mauritius and Trinidad, and,
in a far higher degree, Guiana”. In these colonies, after emancipation,
“the negroes have found it easy to obtain a subsistence in a country
overflowing with natural wealth: they have been rescued from a
servitude involving, perhaps, a greater amount of labour than in any
other settlements: they have abundance of land to resort to for their
maintenance. The accounts, both from Guiana and Trinidad, seem to
report the negroes as generally peaceful and well-inclined, but
indisposed to labour, to which they can only be tempted by the most
exorbitant offers of wages” [1292].
There is one more reason why slaves are of little use in those
countries where all land has been appropriated. When there is free
land, a man can, by increasing the number of his slaves, to any extent
augment his revenue: every slave will take a new patch of land into
cultivation; the more slaves a man owns, the more land he will have in
tillage. But when the supply of land is limited, each landowner can
employ only a definite number of labourers. As soon as there are hands
enough to cultivate his grounds, an increase in the number of labourers
soon becomes unprofitable. What we have said of pastoral tribes obtains
here too: it may be that slaves are wanted, but when they are procured
the point will soon be reached at which a further increase in their
number yields no longer any profit. Therefore, when all land has been
appropriated, even though it be equally divided between the members of
the community and so a labouring class be wanting, there is little use
for slaves.
It must be understood that we speak here of self-dependent agricultural
countries. Where manufactures and the trade with foreign parts are
highly developed, economic life becomes much more complicated and
presents quite another character.
What we want to prove is that in such self-dependent agricultural
countries, when all arable land has been appropriated, slavery is not
likely to exist.
All land has been appropriated, when every piece of land is claimed by
some one as his property. The owner, of course, need not be an
individual; land may also be owned by a group of individuals. Yet the
statements of our ethnographers concerning tribal property may not be
accepted without much caution. They often tell us that a tribe claims
the ownership of the territory it inhabits. This so-called right of
property held by the tribe often proves to consist in this, that no
strangers are admitted to the territory, but every member of the tribe
may cultivate as much of the land as he likes. In such case, whether it
be the tribe or the king to whom the land is stated to belong, the term
“ownership” is very inappropriately used [1293]. We shall only speak of
appropriation of land when some one claims the use of it to the
exclusion of all others, and values his property. Where the so-called
owner is always willing to give a piece of it in cultivation to whoever
wants to cultivate it, we shall not speak of appropriation; where,
however, the land is never (except by way of favour) given in use
gratis, but a rent is always stipulated, it appears that the owner
values it, it has now really been appropriated [1294].
It is not always clearly stated whether all land has been appropriated.
Then we shall have recourse to some criteria from which we may infer
whether such be the case.
The principal criterion is the existence of a class of freemen
destitute of land [1295]. Where such people are found we may be sure
that there is no free land; else they would be able to take it into
cultivation. It need scarcely be added that even where no such people
are found, it may be that all land has been appropriated, everybody
sharing in it.
The appropriation of the land does not imply that all land is actually
being cultivated. There may be land actually out of tillage and yet
valued by the owner. But when it is stated that all land is being
cultivated, it must all have been appropriated. This will therefore be
our second criterion.
There is another criterion that proves that all land has not yet been
appropriated. When we are told that clearing a piece of land is a modus
acquirendi of landed property, there must still be free land.
The appropriation of all land implies that property in land exists; but
the reverse is not true: when we are informed that property in land
exists, this does not prove that all land has already been
appropriated. For as soon as the population has so far increased as to
require the cultivation of land less fertile than that which was at
first exclusively cultivated, the more fertile land acquires value. “On
the first settling of a country” says Ricardo “in which there is an
abundance of rich and fertile land, a very small proportion of which is
required to be cultivated for the support of the actual population, or
indeed can be cultivated with the capital which the population can
command, there will be no rent; for no one would pay for the use of
land, when there was an abundant quantity not yet appropriated, and,
therefore, at the disposal of whosoever might choose to cultivate it.”
But “when in the progress of society, land of the second degree of
fertility is taken into cultivation, rent immediately commences on that
of the first quality, and the amount of that rent will depend on the
difference in the quality of these two portions of land” [1296]. As
soon as land of the second degree of fertility is cultivated, rent
commences; but in such cases there is possibly much land of the second
degree not yet appropriated, and at any rate land of the 3rd, 4th, etc.
degrees. Accordingly we find that among some savage tribes, where there
is an abundance of free land, some very fertile or very favourably
situated pieces of land are highly valued. We shall give one instance.
Among the Sea Dyaks land is so abundant that, if a Dyak, when about to
cultivate a piece of land, finds a dead animal lying on it, which he
considers a bad omen, he immediately leaves the land, and seeks a new
field. Yet among the same Sea Dyaks “parents and children, brothers and
sisters, very seldom quarrel; when they do so, it is from having
married into a family with whom afterwards they may have disputes about
land. One would imagine that was a subject not likely to create
dissensions in a country like Borneo; but there are favourite
farming-grounds, and boundaries are not very settled. It used to be the
practice not to have recourse to arms on those occasions, but the two
parties collecting their relatives and friends, would fight with sticks
for the coveted spot” [1297]. The last sentence proves that these
quarrels were rather frequent. When, therefore, it is stated that land
has value, or that lands are rented, or that the wealth of individuals
consists partly in landed property, this does not prove that all land
has already been appropriated.
We have spoken of all land fit for cultivation being appropriated. What
land is fit for cultivation in each country depends on the ability of
the inhabitants in agriculture. Much will also depend on the character
of the individuals. Where these are vigorous and enterprising, the
people destitute of arable land will endure many hardships in taking
new lands into cultivation, whereas weak and indolent men will prefer
being employed by the rich. A good instance of this is furnished by the
Bontoc Igorot of Northern Luzon. Landed property here is highly
developed. “It is largely by the possession or nonpossession of real
property that a man is considered rich or poor.” “Irrigated rice lands
are commonly leased.” “Unirrigated mountain camote lands are rented
outright.” Yet there is still unoccupied land. “Public lands and
forests extend in an irregular strip around most pueblos.... Public
forests surround the outlying private forests. They are usually from
three to six hours distant. From them any man gathers what he pleases,
but until the American came to Bontoc the Igorot seldom went that far
for wood or lumber, as it was unsafe.” There are, however, people who
do not own land enough to live upon. “It is claimed that each household
owns its dwelling and at least two sementeras and one granary, though a
man with no more property than this is a poor man and some one in his
family must work much of the time for wages, because two average
sementeras will not furnish all the rice needed by a family for food”
[1298]. So the poor work for wages rather than going to settle on the
outlying public lands, to which they have free access. Here again we
see that economic phenomena have always a psychological basis [1299].
We shall not, in order to prove our hypothesis, examine the regulations
of landed property among all agricultural savage tribes, but confine
ourselves to one geographical group, in which the phenomena we have
spoken of in this paragraph most strikingly present themselves. This
group is Oceania, comprehending Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia.
We shall, however, leave out of regard New Guinea, one of the largest
islands of the world. The rest of Oceania consists chiefly of small
islands.
Slavery in Oceania (with the exception of New Guinea) has never
prevailed to any great extent. In the second chapter of Part I it has
been shown that slavery, so far as we can know, existed only in the N.
W. Solomon Islands, on the Gazelle Peninsula of Neu Pommern, and in New
Zealand.
We shall try to account for this fact by showing that on most of the
Oceanic islands all land had been appropriated, which led to a state of
things inconsistent with slavery as a social system.
In the following paragraphs we shall inquire what our ethnographers
have to say about landed property in Oceania and the extent to which
the land had been appropriated.
§ 5. Land tenure in Polynesia.
In this and the following two paragraphs we shall not mention all
particulars of land tenure given by the ethnographers, but only those
which may enable us to decide whether all land had been appropriated.
Mahler, speaking of Polynesia and Micronesia generally, remarks that on
many islands the burial-places occupied large tracts of land; but this
does not prove that there was abundance of land, for these places were
hardly ever anything but (according to Penny), “barren points where the
wind howls and the sea moans, or rocky caverns in which the waves dash
with sullen roar” [1300].
Waltershausen tells us that in Polynesia the cultivated land belonged
to the king and nobility, to the exclusion of the labouring classes.
The upper classes also owned the fruit-trees, the small coral islets
surrounding the larger islands, the lakes, the rivers, and those parts
of the sea which extended from the land to the reefs. The untilled land
was the property of the tribe and, unless the king forbade it, every
one might cut the wood growing on it for building houses and canoes;
but only the ruling classes might take it into cultivation [1301].
Mariner states that in Tonga property principally consists in
plantations, canoes and houses. The plantations are owned by the chiefs
and the nobles. Agricultural labourers are very much despised; they
serve the chiefs on whom they are dependent. West tells us that “the
feudal principle, that the whole country belonged exclusively to the
king, regulated the disposal and tenure of lands,” and so the lower
classes were in a slavelike condition. “Lands were held in fief. The
great landlords derived them by hereditary right, in conjunction with
their chieftainship, but held them at the will of the supreme ruler.”
These landlords distributed their lands among their relations and
followers [1302].
In Niué or Savage Island, “the land belongs to clans represented by
their heads”. “At present there is land enough for all, and the junior
members of the clan come to the headman whenever they want land to
plant upon. Titles can be acquired by cultivation” [1303].
“The land in Samoa” says Turner “is owned alike by the chiefs and these
heads of families. The land belonging to each family is well known, and
the person who, for the time being holds the title of the family head,
has the right to dispose of it. It is the same with the chiefs. There
are certain tracts of bush or forest land which belong to them. The
uncultivated bush is sometimes claimed by those who own the land on its
borders. The lagoon also, as far as the reef, is considered the
property of those off whose village it is situated.” Von Bülow
concludes from the legends and traditions of the Samoans that formerly
all the land belonged to the chiefs. But now the land is owned by the
families [1304].
Gardiner gives an elaborate account of the regulation of landed
property in Rotuma: “No private property in land formerly existed, it
was all vested in the pure for the time being of the hoag [1305]; the
district generally had rights over it. It usually consisted of four
kinds: bush, swamp, coast, and proprietary water in the boat channel;
common to the hoag, too, were wells and graveyards. Every member of the
hoag knew its boundaries, which consisted of lines between certain
trees or prominent rocks, posts, and even stone walls. In the bush land
every hoag possessed property; it lay on the slopes of hills and in
valleys between at some slight distance from the coast, from which it
was separated by a stone wall, running round the whole island. On it
taro, yams, bananas, plantains, and a few cocoanut trees were grown for
food, while the paths into it and through it were planted with the
Tahitian chestnut, the fava tree, and the sagopalm. The Tahitian
chestnut and fava trees were favourite boundary marks owing to their
size and longevity. Swamp land is only possessed by Noatau, Oinafa,
Matusa, and Itomotu. It is low-lying land, on extensive beach sand
flats, which exist in these districts. The tide always keeps it wet,
percolating through the sand, and in it is grown the papoi, or broka,
against famine. The possession of a good-sized strip always caused and
gave to the hoag a position of importance; its boundaries were stones
at the sides. Coast land lay outside the surrounding wall, to which the
hoag had a strip from and including the foreshore. On it as near as
possible to the coast the house or houses of the hoag were placed,
while the rest of the land was planted with cocoanuts for drinking
purposes. Hifo trees are stated to have been planted formerly to show
the boundaries, but they more often now consist of stones or cocoanut
trees, the ownership of which is a constant source of dispute.
Districts and even villages were sharply marked off by walls down to
the beach. All had the right of turning out their pigs on this land,
and each hoag had to keep in proper repair the parts of the wall
adjacent to it. Each had, however, usually an enclosure on its own land
for its own pigs, when young. The proprietary water ran from the
foreshore to the reef, a continuation of the strip on shore. At Noatau
and Matusa, where it is very broad, it was to some extent
cross-divided. It consists of a sand flat covered by 10–12 feet of
water at high-tide. On it fish of all sorts are caught by traps and
various devices, and shell-fish are gathered. As these form no
inconsiderable portion of the daily food, indeed the principal animal
food, the value of this property was always very considerable. The
reef—i.e. the part on the outside exposed at the low tide—was the
common property of all. It was explained to me that fish, crabs, etc.,
cannot be cultivated there, owing to the heavy breaking seas, but are
sent up by the atua, or spirits.” “Any land, not being planted, is
willingly lent to another hoag on condition of two baskets of
first-fruits of each patch being brought to the pure, but cocoanut
trees on the land cannot be touched by the tenant, nor is he entitled
to their usufruct. If a hoag owns land in one district, but lives in
another, first-fruits are always paid to the chief of the district, in
which its lands lie. Any encroachment on the land was very vigorously
resented, it was usually referred to the district chief to settle, and
his decision loyally adhered to.” “If he [a man] had planted more
cocoanuts than required by the hoag, he has the entire usufruct of
these trees during his lifetime, quite independently of the
apportionment of the land below them for planting.” We see that the
idea of landownership is most fully developed here. During the 19th
century the population has much diminished, and so “most of the hoag
have far more land than they can cultivate.” But formerly it was
otherwise. “Examining the remains of planting, it appears as if the
whole island, wherever practicable, was at one time tilled. The land,
where there is a good and deep soil, is, and was, no doubt tilled
regularly from year to year, while the rocky country was planted more
or less in rotation with yams and kava. Even on the steepest slopes,
there are signs of clearing, the summit alone being left crowned by the
hifo. The bottoms of the craters of many hills used to be planted too;
in the crater of Sol Satarua, the lulu as it is termed, there are still
bananas growing, but planted so long ago that the fact that it had a
lulu at all was almost forgotten” [1306]. According to Hale, food was
not always abundant on this island; therefore the natives liked to
engage themselves as sailors on whaling-ships, until they had earned
enough to buy a piece of land [1307]. In Hale’s time land was evidently
not so abundant as it is now that the population is so rapidly
declining.
In Tahiti “every portion of land had its respective owner; and even the
distinct trees on the land had sometimes different proprietors, and a
tree, and the land on which it grew, different owners.” What our
informant further tells us of the present state of things as compared
with that of earlier times, shows a remarkable likeness to Gardiner’s
statement about Rotuma. Ellis states that “an extent of soil capable of
cultivation, and other resources, are adequate to the maintenance of a
population tenfold increased above its present numbers.” But a great
depopulation has taken place in the course of years. “In the bottom of
every valley, even to the recesses in the mountains, on the sides of
the inferior hills, and on the brows of almost every promontory, in
each of the islands, monuments of former generations are still met with
in great abundance. Stone pavements of their dwellings and court-yards,
foundations of houses, and remains of family temples, are numerous.
Occasionally they are found in exposed situations, but generally amidst
thickets of brushwood or groves of trees, some of which are of the
largest growth. All these relics are of the same kind as those observed
among the natives at the time of their discovery, evidently proving
that they belong to the same race, though to a more populous era of
their history. The stone tools occasionally found near these vestiges
of antiquity demonstrate the same lamentable fact.” According to
Moerenhout “landed properties constituted the principal, or rather the
only wealth of these people; therefore the power of the chiefs always
depended on the quantity and quality of their lands; moreover, the more
people they could support, the more sure they were of having subjects.”
This writer does not, however, enter into many details [1308].
In Hawaii four social ranks existed. The members of the third rank,
according to Ellis, “are generally called haku aina, proprietors of the
land.” “In the fourth rank may be included the small farmers, who rent
from ten to twenty or thirty acres of land; the mechanics, ... indeed
all the labouring classes, those who attach themselves to some chief or
farmer, and labour on his land for their food and clothing, as well as
those who cultivate small portions of land for their own advantage.”
“Sometimes the poor people take a piece of land, on condition of
cultivating a given portion for the chief, and the remainder for
themselves, making a fresh agreement after every crop.” Hale states
that formerly there were no landed proprietors; all the land was “the
property of the king, and leased by him to inferior chiefs (hatu aina,
landlords), who underlet it to the people; as the king, however, though
absolute in theory, was aware that his power depended very much on the
co-operation of the high chiefs, they became, to a certain degree,
partakers in his authority.” Remy tells us that the land belonged
exclusively to the great chiefs, who leased it and received
considerable rents. Chamisso and Marcuse equally state that the land
belonged to the chiefs [1309].
In Rarotonga, according to Gerland, a man’s power depends on the
quantity of land he owns. Meinicke states that there are four social
classes. The third class is composed of the landed proprietors; the
lowest class are those who own no land and live as tenants on the
estates of the nobles [1310].
On the Marquesas Islands, according to Gerland, three ranks formerly
existed: chiefs, landholders, and the common people. The landholders
were the most powerful class; the common people were obliged to pay
them a tribute. Yet those who owned most land were not always most
respected, and even of the common people some owned land. Meinicke,
however, states that the whole of the land is the property of the
nobles. Hale, after speaking of the nobles, adds that the rest of the
people were the landholders and their relatives and tenants [1311].
In Mangarewa (belonging to the Paumotu group) the nobles were the
proprietors of the soil; they often let out their lands to the third
class, the common people [1312].
Meinicke tells us that in the Manahiki group the cocoanut trees and the
lagoons (for fishing purposes) were private property [1313].
In an article, quoted by Schurtz, it is stated that in the Tokelau
group the land belongs exclusively to the nobles. Lister, speaking of
Fakaofu or Bowditch Island (in the Tokelau group), says: “Two islets
belonged ... to the king. Two others were common property, and the rest
were divided up as the property of individuals” [1314]. So it seems
that in this part of the group there was land which had not yet been
appropriated.
In the Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman groups all the land belongs to the
chiefs and the nobles, the common people having no landed property
[1315].
Tregear has the following notes on landed property in New Zealand:
“Land was held primarily by tribal right; but within this tribal right
each free warrior of the tribe had particular rights over some portion.
He could not part with the land because it was not his to give or sell,
but he had better rights to certain portions than others of his tribe.
He would claim by having the bones of his father or grandfather there,
or that they once rested there; or by the fact of his navel-string
having been cut there; or by his blood having been shed on it; or by
having been cursed there; or by having helped in the war party which
took the land; or by his wife being owner by descent; or by having been
invited by the owners to live there.” Thomson states that “all free
persons, male and female, constituting the nation were proprietors of
the soil.” The chiefs were the greatest landholders. “Conquest and
occupation gave titles to land. The right of fishing in rivers and sea
belonged to the adjoining landed proprietor. Amongst the families of
each tribe there are also laws regarding landed property. Thus the
cultivation of a portion of forest land renders it the property of
those who cleared it, and this right descended from generation to
generation.... It was illegal for one family to plant in another’s
clearing without permission”. “The independence and social happiness of
the people were chiefly caused by cultivating their own lands.”
According to Taylor, each tribe had its own district; “each member can
cultivate any portion of it he thinks fit, if unoccupied, or if it has
not been previously cultivated by another.” Polack says: “Possession is
obtained by planting a portion (however small) of the soil, and reaping
the same” [1316].
On Easter Island, according to Geiseler, every piece of land has its
own name and its owner. The natives attach much value to landed
property [1317].
We see that on most Polynesian islands all land has, or had been
appropriated. Regarding Rotuma, Tahiti and Easter Island this is
explicitly stated; and the same must be the case in Tonga, Hawaii,
Rarotonga, the Marquesas Islands, Mangarewa, part of the Tokelau group,
and the Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman groups, where classes destitute
of land are found. In Manahiki property in land was strongly developed;
but whether there was still free land is not clear. In Samoa there was
still unappropriated bush land, though this was already “sometimes
claimed by those who own the land on its borders.” In New Zealand
clearing was still a modus acquirendi, which proves that all land had
not yet been appropriated. Equally on Savage Island titles can be
acquired by cultivation.
§ 6. Land tenure in Micronesia.
Kubary tells us that the population of Ebon, and of the whole Rallik
group (in the Marshall Islands), consists of four ranks. “The common
people are called armidj kajur and form the greater part of the
subjects. They have no property, except the land allotted to them by
the chief, who can take it from them at his pleasure. Every week they
have, each of them, to provide the chief with prepared food, the
quantity and quality of which are determined. The next class are the
leotakatak, who hold their property by hereditary right and not from
the chief. The chief cannot take the property of these men unless he
kills them first.” “The punishments inflicted by the chiefs in former
times consisted most often in capital punishment, and more rarely, in
less serious cases, in confiscation of land and house” [1318].
Several other writers affirm that in the Marshall group the upper
classes are the sole proprietors of the soil and the common people are
destitute of land [1319].
Regarding the isle of Nauru we are told that not only every inch of
land and every palm, but even the reefs and the sea washing them, are
held as property [1320].
On the Pelau Islands the right of disposing of the land of the tribe
vests in the obokúl (chief of a family-group); but he cannot alienate
any land without the consent of his nephews. However, a regular
agriculture does not exist, and most of the land remains untilled;
therefore the opposition of the nephews generally bears a formal
character; they only aim at extorting a present from the obokúl. The
obokúl divides the land among the members of the tribe for cultivation.
He may also cede pieces of land to aliens for use without payment; such
persons then enter into the position of kaukáth, i.e. they are
considered as related to the tribe without possessing the same rights,
they occasionally provide the obokúl with food, and help him in his
work. In another place our informant states that there is not often
reason for disputes about land, as the population is scarce and large
tracts of land are uncultivated [1321].
On the Mortlock Islands the chief of each tribe has an unlimited right
to dispose of the land belonging to the tribe. He divides it among the
heads of families on condition of their paying a tribute in kind. The
latter assign to each member of their groups a piece of land for
cultivation. Most land is divided up between the several keys
(family-groups); the land which is not yet occupied is the property of
the principal key and thus more directly than the rest at the disposal
of the chief [1322].
On the isle of Kusaie twelve principal chiefs own all the land; but the
chiefs of the second rank administer and cultivate it for them. The
common people are obliged to pay a tribute to the chiefs and serve
them. The highest mountains are planted up to their summits with
bananas, taro, sugarcane, etc [1323].
On the Eastern Caroline Islands the land belongs exclusively to the two
upper classes; the third class are attached to the soil on which they
live [1324].
Hale states that in Ponape or Ascension Island there are three classes.
All the land belongs to the two upper classes. The estates are never
alienated and pass only by succession [1325].
Gerland tells us that on the Marianne Islands the nobles were
hereditary owners of the whole of the land [1326].
As to the Kingsmill Islands, the particulars given by Wilkes and
Parkinson, as quoted in the second chapter of Part I [1327]
sufficiently prove that all land had been appropriated. According to
Wilkes “any one who owns land can always call upon others to provide
him with a house, canoe, and the necessaries of life; but one who has
none is considered as a slave, and can hold no property whatever.” Hale
tells us that “the katoka are persons not originally of noble birth,
who either by the favour of their chief or by good fortune in war, have
acquired land and with it freedom” [1328]. If in Wilkes’ statement we
read “proletarian” instead of “slave,” and take Hale’s “freedom” in an
economic, not in a legal sense, we find that here too the lowest class
were destitute of landed property.
The conclusion is that on most of the islands of Micronesia all land
has been appropriated, most often by the upper classes to the exclusion
of the lower. In Pelau, though a vast amount of land is actually out of
tillage, the regulation of landed property related by Kubary proves
that all land is held as property. Here, as well as in Rotuma and
Tahiti, we have to deal with the effects of the depopulation that has
taken place in Oceania. In Mortlock there seems to be free land; but
Kubary’s account is not very clear.
§ 7. Land tenure in Melanesia.
Codrington, in his article “On social regulations in Melanesia,”
remarks that his observations “are limited to the Northern New
Hebrides, the Banks Islands, the Santa Cruz Group, and the
South-eastern Solomon Islands” [1329]. Of land tenure he says: “Land is
everywhere divided into (1) the Town, (2) the Gardens, (3) the Bush. Of
these the two first are held as property, the third is
unappropriated.... Everywhere, or almost everywhere, the abundance of
land makes it of little value. If an individual reclaims for himself a
piece of bush land, it becomes his own” [1330].
Somerville, speaking of New Georgia (one of the central Solomon
Islands, and therefore not included in Codrington’s description)
remarks: “Property seems to be well recognised: every one of the myriad
islets of the great eastern lagoon has its understood owner, no matter
if cocoanuts be growing there or not. Groves of cocoanut trees are well
protected by hopes, as before described, as are also taro patches.
Hunting rights over opossums on a man’s property are also protected by
hopes” [1331]. Ribbe, however, states that in the New Georgia group,
uncultivated land, i.e. bush and forest, has no owner, except the parts
planted with sago trees and fruit trees. Every one may clear and
cultivate this land and so acquire a right of property [1332].
On the Shortland Islands, near Bougainville (N. W. Solomon Islands),
landed property in the European sense does not exist. Everybody has the
right to take a part of the wood into cultivation. By doing so, he
acquires a right of property, but only for so long as he has the land
in use [1333].
Woodford describes the regulation of landed property in the Solomon
Islands in general in the following terms: “As to the system of land
tenure among them, I believe that to land, per se, they attach but
little value. Any individual of the tribe appears to be able to select
at will a piece of land from the forest, which he clears, fences in,
and upon it rears his crop of yams or bananas. After the crops are
taken off, the land is allowed to relapse again to forest. When,
however, a native plants cocoanuts his property appears to be in the
trees themselves, apart altogether from any idea of ownership in the
land upon which they are planted. I do not think that any objection
would be raised to another native utilizing the ground upon which the
cocoanuts were planted for other crops so long as the trees themselves
were in no way damaged or interfered with. Property in cocoanuts
appears to pass, upon a man’s death, to his heirs” [1334].
Of land tenure on the isle of Aneityum, in the New Hebrides, Inglis
says: “There is neither a town nor a village in the whole Island. The
system of cottage farming is in a state of full development there.
There is no large proprietor, no powerful or wealthy chief; every man
sits proprietor of his own cottage, his own garden, and his own
cultivated patches—you could not call them fields. The waste lands and
the forests, to the summits of the mountains, belong to the tribe. They
are a kind of crown lands, but what each man cultivates belongs to
himself” [1335].
In New Caledonia, according to Brainne, a noble’s authority depends on
the range of cultivated grounds he owns, and one who possesses large
tracts of cultivated land and large plantations of cocoanut trees is
called a great chief. Glaumont tells us that “property is acquired by
purchase or exchange. It may also be acquired by labour. Thus
uncultivated grounds belong to the tribe, are so to speak common
property; but if a Kanaka clears and cultivates a portion of this bush
land it passes into his property. Property is held sacred (viz. in time
of peace); the chief himself, however powerful, would not dare to take
away the field of taros or ignames from the least of his subjects.”
Lambert tells us that individual property in land is highly developed.
The forest land, however, has no owner; every one may take a portion of
it into cultivation and by doing so acquire a right of property.
Meinicke says: “Each tribe possesses a separate territory in which the
land fit for cultivation is the individual property of the chiefs and
nobles, whereas the rest is at the disposal of all.” According to
Rochas there are two ranks: nobles and common people; but the latter
enjoy a rather independent position and always own some land. The
rights of property in land are highly respected, even by the chiefs
[1336].
Williams, describing Fiji, speaks of a feudal government; but he adds
that the ancient divisions of landed property are much respected.
Seemann states that the “real power of the state resides in the
landholders or gentry”; and Hale tells us that the members of the
lowest class “work for the chiefs and landholders and are supported by
them.” The fullest account of land tenure in Fiji is given by Fison.
The lands are of three kinds. “1. The Yavu or Town-lot; 2. The Qele, or
Arable Land; and 3. the Veikau, or Forest.” “The town-lots and the
arable lands are divided among the taukei (landowners), while the
forest lands are held in common by them. Arable land also, which is not
in actual use, is in some places common to a certain extent.” “The land
is vested in—or, at any rate, is held by—certain joint tribal owners
who have a common descent. These are called the Taukei ni vanua or
owners of the land.... Not all the people are landowners.” Fison then
speaks of some classes destitute of land, of whom it is not quite clear
whether they are tenants or serfs. But the following statement of his
clearly shows that all land has been appropriated: “In addition to the
koro [villages] already mentioned, there are others inhabited by tribes
who have either migrated from their own lands owing to disagreement
with their kinsfolk, or have been driven thence by war. These emigrants
beg land from a taukei tribe, and settle down upon it. They are not
landowners where they are now living, but it does not follow that they
are kaisi [base-born men, who are very much despised]. If they were
taukei in their own land they cannot be placed on the level of the
people without a father.” They pay “rent of produce and service....
Tribes such as these are tenants at will, and the land may be taken
from them whenever it may be required. How long soever their occupation
may continue, it does not establish a title. The descendants of the
taukei can always resume the lands, upon giving formal notice, and
presenting some property or other, which is called “the falling back of
the soil” [1337]. These emigrants are neither slaves nor serfs, but
destitute of land; if there were free land fit for cultivation, they
would appropriate it instead of becoming tenants at will.”
On the Gazelle Peninsula of Neu Pommern, according to Pfeil,
uncultivated land as such is not claimed by any one as his property.
When a native wants land, he takes some piece which is not in use,
without having to ask leave of anybody. Hahl also states that in the
Northern part of the Gazelle Peninsula grass or forest land as a rule
is at the disposal of whoever wishes to cultivate it. Equally among the
Baining of the Gazelle Peninsula, as Parkinson tells us, the land is
regarded as private property as long as it is being cultivated [1338].
In the Nissan Islands poverty is unknown, as there is an abundance of
free land. Private property in land is acquired by taking it into
cultivation. Land is sold and leased [1339].
Haddon, in his article on the Western Tribes of Torres Straits,
remarks: “I have no precise information as to land laws, but I believe
that the whole of the land is divided up into properties, certainly the
arable land is, the chief sharing like anyone else. There is no one
person or class of landowners who possess land to the total exclusion
of anyone else. Title to land is derived from inheritance, gift or
purchase. I never heard of any means of conveyance” [1340].
Hunt, describing the Murray Islands, says: “The chiefs held only their
own hereditary lands, but the first fruits of all cultivated lands were
presented to them as their share.... Any dispute about land would be
settled by the old men who would meet and discuss the point in dispute
and then pronounce their decision. Land was never sold, but could be
leased, when, if used for planting, a share in the first fruits would
be paid to the owner” [1341].
From the foregoing it appears that in many parts of Melanesia clearing
is a modus acquirendi, viz. in the Solomon Islands, Northern New
Hebrides, Banks Islands, Santa Cruz Group, New Caledonia, Gazelle
Peninsula of Neu Pommern and Nissan Islands. Yet the rights of
landowners are recognized everywhere in these islands. Here, as Ricardo
would say, land of the second degree of fertility has already been
taken into cultivation, and so rent has commenced on that of the first;
but there is still free land. In Aneityum, too, there seems to be land
not yet appropriated. In Fiji people destitute of land are found. Among
the Western tribes of Torres Straits all arable land is divided up into
properties, as Haddon tells us; but whether the rest of the land is
still free is not quite clear. With regard to the Murray Islands we
cannot arrive at any definite conclusion.
Generally speaking we may conclude that in Polynesia and Micronesia all
land has been appropriated, whereas in the Melanesian Islands free land
still exists.
We see further that not only the arable land is held as property, but
often also the fruit-trees, lakes and streams, the shore and the lagoon
as far as the reef. On most Polynesian and Micronesian islands whatever
portion of land or water can yield any profit has been appropriated.
§ 8. Landlords, tenants and labourers in Oceania.
It appears from the foregoing paragraphs that in those islands where
all land has been appropriated, there are nearly always found people
destitute of land. The only exceptions are Rotuma and Pelau. Gardiner,
in his very minute article on Rotuma, makes no mention of social ranks;
and Kubary, as we have already seen in the second chapter of Part I,
states that “among the Pelau islanders there is no question of a
division of the people into ranks or classes.” But Semper, as has also
been shown in the same chapter, speaks of a despised working class
[1342]. Regarding the social classes on Easter Island we are not
sufficiently informed.
Another state of things would not be inconceivable. It were quite
possible that every inhabitant had appropriated a portion of the land,
nothing of it remaining unclaimed. Yet it is easy to understand that,
when all land has become individual property, a class of people
destitute of land is likely soon to arise. In large families the
portions falling to each of the children will often become too small to
live upon. And where it is customary to buy and sell land, there may be
improvident people who squander the land that was to afford them
subsistence. But the principal cause probably is the arbitrary conduct
of the chiefs and other men of power who appropriate the land of their
enemies, and even, under some pretext, that belonging to their own
subjects.
In Tahiti the chiefs had “a desire for war, as a means of enlarging
their territory, and augmenting their power” [1343].
Regarding Hawaii Ellis tells us: “When Tamehameha had subdued the
greater part of the islands, he distributed them among his favourite
chiefs and warriors, on condition of their rendering him, not only
military service, but a certain proportion of the produce of their
lands. This also appears to have been their ancient practice on similar
occasions, as the hoopahora or papahora, division of land among the
ranakira or victors, invariably followed the conquest of a district or
island”. Wilkes says: “Any chieftain, who could collect a sufficient
number of followers to conquer a district, or an island, and had
succeeded in his object, proceeded to divide the spoils, or “cut up the
land”, as the natives termed it. The king, or principal chief, made his
choice from the best of the lands. Afterwards the remaining part of the
territory was distributed among the leaders, and these again subdivided
their shares to others, who became vassals, owing fealty to the
sovereigns of the fee. The king placed some of his own particular
servants on his portion as his agents, to superintend the cultivation.
The original occupants who were on the land, usually remained under
their new conqueror, and by them the lands were cultivated, and rent or
taxes paid.” Remy equally states that a victorious chief gave the lands
of the conquered party to his followers [1344].
On Niué (Savage Island), “in fighting times the braves (toa) ignored
all rights and seized upon any land that they were strong enough to
hold” [1345].
On Nauru the chief had the right to keep all the land his tribe had
conquered for himself or distribute it among the other chiefs of the
tribe [1346].
In the Kingsmill Islands the katoka are persons who “either by the
favour of their chief or by good fortune in war, have acquired land”
[1347]. Hence it appears that, here too, the victors used to occupy the
lands of the conquered.
In Fiji, according to Waterhouse, one of the motives of war was the
desire for land. Williams also states that each government “seeks
aggrandizement at the expense of the rest” by means of conquest, and he
adds that the inhabitants of conquered districts were reduced to an
abject servitude. According to Wilkes, “the victorious party often
requires the conquered to yield the right of soil”. Fison says: “It is
certain that in former days, when population seems to have been on the
increase ... tribes were dispossessed of their lands by other tribes
who took them into their occupation, and are the tauke of the present
day” [1348].
We have seen in § 5 that a New Zealander sometimes claimed land “by
having helped in the war party which took the land.” According to
Ellis, a desire to enlarge their territory led to frequent wars.
Thomson tells us: “Sometimes whole tribes became nominally slaves,
although permitted to live at their usual places of residence, on the
condition of catching eels and preparing food for their conquerors at
certain seasons” [1349].
In New Caledonia the inhabitants of conquered districts have to pay a
tribute to the conqueror, but generally continue living under their own
chiefs [1350].
Von Bülow states that in Samoa conquered lands become the private
property of the victorious chief [1351].
It appears that this conquering of land does not always create a class
destitute of land; sometimes the inhabitants have only to pay a
tribute. But where individuals belonging to the victorious tribe
receive portions of the conquered land allotted to them, as in New
Zealand and the Kingsmill Islands, or where, as in Samoa, the land
becomes the private property of the conquering chief, the original
owners consequently are deprived of their property.
It also occurs that within the tribe the land is taken away from its
owner.
Williams states that in Fiji an adulterer may be deprived of his land
as a punishment; and Fison tells us that the chiefs have overridden the
ancient customs regarding land tenure [1352].
In Tahiti, those who resisted the king’s authority were banished and
deprived of their lands. “Should the offender have been guilty of
disobedience to the just demands of the king, though the lands might be
his hereditary property, he must leave them, and become, as the people
expressed it, a “wanderer upon the road”” [1353].
In Niué, widows and orphans “are frequently robbed of the land
inherited from their dead husbands and fathers” [1354].
In Ebon, confiscation of land by the chief was formerly a mode of
punishment [1355].
On the Kingsmill Islands, if a noble girl were to have connection with
a man of the middle class, she would lose her landed property [1356].
On Nauru, according to Krämer, a murderer in most cases has to yield
his land to the parents of his victim. Jung tells us that formerly the
chiefs often had to settle disputes about land among their subjects.
They then generally took the land from the quarreling parties and
regarded it as their own [1357].
Among the Melanesians described by Codrington the chiefs “often use
their power to drive away the owners of gardens they desire to occupy”
[1358].
Where land is so highly valued, and wealth and power depend upon the
possession of it, the chiefs and other men of power will be inclined to
appropriate as much of it as possible. This is not always easy, and
sometimes, in democratically organized societies, hardly practicable;
but we may be sure that it will be done on the very first opportunity.
This is strikingly proved by what Gardiner tells us of Rotuma: “Since
the introduction of missionaries, too, much land has been seized by the
chiefs, who, as a rule, in each district were its missionaries, as
fines for the fornications of individuals. A certain amount of cocoanut
oil was then given by the chiefs to the Wesleyan Mission, apparently in
payment for their support. The mission in the name of which it was
done, though generally without the knowledge of the white teachers, was
so powerful that the hoag had no redress.” Formerly individual rights
to land in Rotuma were highly respected: “The victorious side obtained
no territorial aggrandisement, as it was to the common interest of all
to maintain the integrity of the land, and the victors might on some
future occasion be themselves in the position of the vanquished”
[1359]. We may suppose that originally the chiefs were not powerful
enough to appropriate land belonging to others; but the additional
power that the new religion gave them enabled them to seize the lands
of their subjects, and they immediately availed themselves of this
opportunity.
A similar change has taken place in Samoa. In Turner’s time Samoan
government had “more of the patriarchal and democratic in it, than of
the monarchical.” Von Bülow, writing several years later than Turner,
states that some chiefs have lately introduced what he calls serfdom.
In the villages where this state of things exists the inhabitants live
on land belonging to the chief. They pay no rent, but are obliged to
stand by the chief in war and peace. They are personally free and have
the right to emigrate, but own no land [1360].
We can now perfectly understand why people destitute of land are found
in so many of these islands. And as most often not only the arable
land, but fruit-trees, lakes, streams, and the sea adjoining the land
are individual property, these people are entirely at the mercy of the
landowners. We shall see that they have to perform the drudgery for the
landlords, and are sometimes heavily oppressed.
In Tonga, the lowest class were the tooas. “The tooas can be divided
into three categories. A few of them are warriors and form part of the
retinue of the chiefs; some are professed cooks in the service of the
superior or inferior chiefs; others, and these form the majority, till
the soil. The latter are found all over the country and have no other
employment” [1361].
“The institutions of Niué seem always to have been republican” says B.
Thomson [1362].
In Samoa, in Turner’s time, a democratic and even communistic régime
prevailed. Speaking of the chief, Turner says: “With a few exceptions,
he moves about, and shares in everyday employments, just like a common
man. He goes out with the fishing party, works in his plantations,
helps at house-building, and lends a hand at the native oven.” The
Samoans were very hospitable: “In addition to their own individual
wants, their hospitable custom in supplying, without money and without
stint, the wants of visitors from all parts of the group, was a great
drain on their plantations.” Hale states that “the common people are in
general the relatives and dependents of the tulafales [landlords] and
have no direct influence in the government” [1363]. We have seen that
recently a class of people destitute of land has been created by some
chiefs; but their lot does not seem to be a hard one.
Gardiner, in his description of Rotuma, makes no mention of social
classes.
In Tahiti, the lowest class were the manahune, including, besides the
titi or slaves, “the teuteu or servants of the chiefs; all who were
destitute of any land, and ignorant of the rude arts of carpentering,
building, etc., which are respected among them, and such as were
reduced to a state of dependence upon those in higher stations.”
Speaking of the great landholders, our informant says: “Possessing at
all times the most ample stores of native provisions, the number of
their dependents, or retainers, was great. The destitute and
thoughtless readily attached themselves to their establishments, for
the purpose of securing the means of subsistence without care or
apprehension of want.” That the landholders enjoyed great consideration
is also proved by Wilkes’s remark, that the chiefs “find in their
possession [of land] an acknowledged right to rank and respectability”
[1364].
In Hawaii, four social ranks existed. The members of the third rank
held land, “cultivating it either by their own dependents and
domestics, or letting it out in small allotments to tenants.... In the
fourth rank may be included the small farmers, who rent from ten to
twenty or thirty acres of land; the mechanics, namely, canoe and house
builders, fishermen, musicians, and dancers; indeed, all the labouring
classes, those who attach themselves to some chief or farmer, and
labour on his land for their food and clothing, as well as those who
cultivate small portions of land for their own advantage.” “Sometimes
the poor people take a piece of land, on condition of cultivating a
given portion for the chief, and the remainder for themselves, making a
fresh agreement after every crop. In addition to the above demands, the
common people are in general obliged to labour, if required, part of
two days out of seven, in cultivating farms, building houses, etc. for
their landlord. A time is usually appointed for receiving the rent,
when the people repair to the governor’s with what they have to pay. If
the required amount is furnished, they return, and, as they express it
(komo hou), enter again on their land. But if unable to pay the
required sum, and their landlords are dissatisfied with the presents
they have received, or think the tenants have neglected their farm,
they are forbidden to return, and the land is offered to another. When,
however, the produce brought is nearly equal to the required rent, and
the chiefs think the occupants have exerted themselves to procure it,
they remit the deficiency, and allow them to return” [1365]. This is
quite the reverse of what occurs in slave countries. The slave or serf
is prevented from escaping and compelled to remain with his master; the
Hawaiian tenant, if the landlord is dissatisfied with the produce
brought, is forbidden to return to the land of his employer. In the
same sense, Wilkes remarks: “What appears most extraordinary, this bond
[i.e. the bond between landlord and tenant] was more often severed by
the superiors than by their vassals” [1366].
In Rarotonga, the lowest class are the unga or servants who have to
cultivate the lands of the nobles, build their houses and canoes, make
nets for them, pay them tributes, and in general obey all their demands
[1367].
In the Marquesas Islands, the kikinos (common people) were servants and
soldiers of the chiefs. They were always free to leave their employers.
The chief, in his turn, if he was not satisfied with a servant, might
expel him from his domain [1368]. Here again we may mark the great
difference between the lower classes of Polynesia and slaves; for the
latter are not expelled by way of punishment, but on the contrary
forced to remain with their masters.
In Mangarewa, as has been noticed, the whole of the land belonged to
the nobility, who often leased their lands to the third class, the
common people [1369].
In the Tokelau group, the common people till the lands of the nobles
for a payment in kind. A labourer has the right to leave his employer
and go into another man’s service [1370].
In the Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman groups, the common people own no
land; they serve the members of the upper classes and form their
retinue; in reward they are provided with cocoanuts and other fruits
and allowed to fish on the reef and in the lagoon [1371].
In New Zealand, as has been shown in § 5, every freeman owned land.
Accordingly, we find only a beginning of the formation of a class of
free labourers. Polack states that “the poorest classes work as
freedmen on the farms of their richer relatives” [1372].
On Easter Island, the king formerly held a despotic sway over the
common people, i.e. those who did not belong to the nobility [1373].
Gerland remarks that the two principal classes, nobles and common
people, were nowhere in Polynesia less strictly separated than in Samoa
and New Zealand. This strikingly shows that the appropriation of the
land was really the basis of Polynesian aristocracy; for Samoa and New
Zealand, as we have found, were almost the only Polynesian groups in
which there was still free land [1374].
Regarding the condition of the common people in Micronesia we have
already mentioned many particulars in § 7 of the second chapter of Part
I in inquiring whether they were to be regarded as slaves, and in § 6
of this chapter in order to prove that all land had been appropriated.
We shall briefly repeat here what bears on their condition and the work
imposed upon them, adding such details as have not yet been mentioned.
Steinbach states that in the Marshall Islands neither the lowest nor
the next higher class owns land, “but they are allowed to grow as much
produce or catch as much fish as is necessary for their sustenance.
They have to perform certain services for the chiefs, such as the
cutting of copra”. And Krämer tells us that the common people are a
subjected class without property. The kings have an absolute rule over
the people and many islands are their exclusive property. They may take
as many women as they like from among the people as wives or
concubines. The common man has only one wife and even this one his
superiors may take away at their pleasure [1375].
On Nauru, the lower classes (sometimes called “serfs” or “slaves” by
the authors) are in the service of the chiefs and nobles.
In Ebon, the common people live on land allotted to them by the chief
who can take it from them at his pleasure. Every week they have, each
of them, to provide the chief with a fixed quantity of food.
In Mortlock, according to Kubary, social ranks do not exist.
On the isle of Kusaie the chiefs have unlimited power. The common
people are obliged to build houses and canoes for them and till their
lands; the chiefs may always seize the goods and command the services
of the people; the cocoanuts, which are rare, are for the chiefs alone;
they receive a certain proportion of all the fish that is caught
[1376].
In Yap, the lowest class (whom Gräffe wrongly calls slaves) are obliged
daily to provide the upper classes with agricultural produce, and
whenever the chiefs require it to aid in constructing houses and
canoes. Whatever they possess, even to their wives and daughters, may
at any time be required by the upper classes. Yet all labour is not
exclusively incumbent on them. They are only bound to definite taxes,
viz. to a tribute of victuals, and of mats and other materials for
housebuilding; and their “slave-state” consists rather in a low and
dependent condition than in being taxed with labour.
On the Marianne Islands there were three classes: nobles, semi-nobles,
and common people. The common people were strictly separated from the
nobles and entirely subjected to them. They were not allowed to
navigate or fish or take part in any other pursuit followed by the
nobles. Their principal occupations were tilling the soil, constructing
roads, building canoe-houses, making nets, carrying ammunition in war,
cooking rice, roots, etc. As they were forbidden to use canoes and
fishing implements, the only fish they could procure were eels, which
the nobles disdained; and even these they might only catch with the
hand, not by means of nets or fish-hooks [1377].
In Pelau, according to Kubary, there are no social classes; but the
wants of the chiefs are generally provided for by the work of dependent
relatives, who are treated as adopted children and may at any time
leave their employers. Semper, however, speaks of a despised working
class.
On the Kingsmill Islands, according to Parkinson, there are two
subjected classes. One is the class of the te torre, who live as
vassals on the lands of the great landholders; they get a small piece
of land for their own use; they must provide their lord with men when
at war, and bring him the number of cocoanuts he desires, and what he
needs for his household. The lowest class are the te bei or kaungo.
They have no property, no land to live upon; they live with the great
landholders by whom they are maintained; they on their part must work
for their lords, i.e. fish, prepare food, etc. The lord, by giving them
a piece of land, can raise them to the class of the te torre. These two
classes have no voice in government matters; they follow their lord
without grumbling; his will is their will; an offence against the lord
is regarded by them as a personal offence, and avenged as such.
Generally no one marries outside his class. In ordinary life there is
no difference between master and vassal; they drink, dance, and play
together; they wear the same kind of dress.
We shall inquire now what is the condition of the lower classes in
Melanesia.
Rochas states that in New Caledonia the common people enjoy a rather
independent position; they have to perform some services for the
chiefs, which chiefly consist in cultivating their lands; but they
always own a piece of land themselves. They are, however, sometimes
killed by the upper chiefs for cannibal purposes. Glaumont enumerates
the following classes: sorcerers, warriors, common people, slaves. But
he adds that the chief himself, however powerful, would not dare to
take away the field of taros or ignames belonging to the least of his
subjects. According to Brainne, there are two classes: numerous chiefs
of various kinds, and serfs, over whom the former, especially the
superior chiefs, have the right of life and death. Lambert, a good
authority, remarks that the only division of the people is that between
the chiefs and their relatives and the rest of the population, and
observes that those writers are wrong who speak of a class of nobles.
The chief is not allowed to dispose of the property of his subjects
[1378]. So it seems that the natives here are rather democratically
organized.
In Fiji, according to Williams, the lower classes were formerly heavily
oppressed. The chiefs looked upon them as their property, and took away
their goods and often even their lives; this was considered
“chief-like.” “Subjects” says Williams “do not pay rent for their land,
but a kind of tax on all their produce, beside giving their labour
occasionally in peace, and their service, when needed, in war, for the
benefit of the king or their own chief.” Waterhouse states that many
poor men could not procure a wife; they then borrowed one from a chief,
and so became his retainers. Fison, speaking of the inhabitants of
certain villages, says: “These are of the lowest rank, or rather of no
rank at all. They are kaisi, the descendants of “children without a
father.” They are vakatau ni were (husbandmen), but they are not yeomen
like the taukei. Neither the lands they cultivate, nor the town lots on
which they dwell are their own. They are not even tenants. They are
hereditary bondsmen, adscripti glebae, whose business it is to raise
food for their masters. Their lords may oppress them, and they have no
redress. In times of peace they must work for them and in war time they
must fight for them to the death”. According to Wilkes, “in each tribe
great and marked distinctions of rank exist. The classes which are
readily distinguished are as follows: 1. kings; 2. chiefs; 3. warriors;
4. landholders (matanivanua); 5. slaves (kai-si).” In another passage
he speaks of “the kai-si or common people”. In Jackson’s narrative,
quoted above, mention is also made of these kai-si or inhabitants of
“slave lands” [1379].
Codrington remarks: “In the native view of mankind, almost everywhere
in the islands which are here under consideration [Solomon Islands,
Santa Cruz Group, Banks’ Islands, and New Hebrides], nothing seems more
fundamental than the division of the people into two or more classes,
which are exogamous, and in which descent is counted through the
mother.... Generally speaking, it may be said that to a Melanesian man
all women, of his own generation at least, are either sisters or wives,
to the Melanesian woman all men are either brothers or husbands”
[1380]. This seems to be sufficient proof that a subjected and despised
lowest class does not exist; else the natives would not all be
“brothers” and “sisters”.
This conclusion is strengthened by consulting some other writers.
Guppy, describing the Solomon Islands, makes no mention of social
ranks. Elton states that the chiefs have little power [1381]. Nor have
we found in any of the other writers anything tending to prove that the
common people are oppressed.
Regarding the New Hebrides, Hagen and Pineau, after speaking of the
chiefs, state that the next class are the warriors, which rank can be
obtained by a payment of pigs. They make no mention of a despised or
oppressed working class. Inglis, as we have seen above, states that in
the isle of Aneityum “there is no large proprietor, no powerful or
wealthy chief; every man sits proprietor of his own cottage, his own
garden, and his own cultivated patches.” Turner, speaking of the isle
of Tana, says: “The affairs of this little community are regulated by
the chiefs and the heads of families”; and in Eromanga, according to
the same writer, the chiefs “were numerous, but not powerful”.
According to Ribbe, in the Shortland Islands (near Bougainville), the
chiefs have little power [1382]. From all this we may safely conclude
that social life in the New Hebrides is democratically organized.
In the Gazelle Peninsula of Neu Pommern wealth gives power; but there
is no social or political difference between the rich and the poor
[1383].
In the Nissan Islands poverty is unknown, as there is an abundance of
free land fit for cultivation. Social classes do not exist. There is no
nobility, unless the chief and his relatives be regarded as such
[1384].
Parkinson states that among the Moanus of the Admiralty Islands the
power of the chiefs is considerable [1385]. We do not, however, hear of
a subjection of the common people by the upper classes.
Haddon, speaking of the Western Tribes of Torres Straits, says: “Each
household is practically self-sufficient. So far as I could gather
there was no division of labour as between man and man, every man made
his garden, fished and fought” [1386].
Hunt, in his description of the Murray Islands, makes no mention of
social ranks.
Generally speaking, we may conclude that in Polynesia and Micronesia
there are lower classes destitute of land and entirely at the mercy of
the landholders, whereas in Melanesia such classes do not exist. This
agrees with our former conclusion, that in the two first-named
geographical districts all land has, or had been appropriated, which is
not the case in Melanesia. And if we consider the single groups of
islands, we find that wherever in Polynesia there is still free land
(Samoa, New Zealand), a more or less democratic régime prevails, and
where in Melanesia all land has been appropriated (Fiji) there is a
subjected lower class. In the same sense, Moerenhout, speaking of
Polynesia, remarks that, in the sparsely populated islands the chiefs
had little power, but wherever there was a dense population, wars were
frequent and the chiefs reigned despotically [1387]. There are, as we
have already remarked, a few exceptions to this general rule (Rotuma,
Pelau); but in these cases it is quite possible that a subjected class
formerly existed. For a great depopulation has taken place in Oceania,
especially in Polynesia and Micronesia [1388]; and the value of land
must have decreased together with the population. We have seen that in
Rotuma all land is still held as property, but large tracts are out of
tillage, though there are everywhere traces of former cultivation. In
Pelau too, as has been said in § 6, the rights of property are still
recognized, though there is but little land actually in cultivation.
That the class of people destitute of land tends to disappear when the
population decreases, is strikingly shown by the following statement of
Ellis’s regarding Tahiti: “Although the manahune [lowest class] have
always included a large number of the inhabitants, they have not in
modern times been so numerous as some other ranks. Since the population
has been so greatly diminished, the means of subsistence so abundant,
and such vast portions of the country uncultivated, an industrious
individual has seldom experienced much difficulty in securing at least
the occupancy of a piece of land” [1389].
This depopulation may perhaps also account for the discrepancy between
Semper’s and Kubary’s accounts of Pelau. Semper spoke of a despised
working class; but Kubary, who wrote several years after, stated that
there were no social ranks. It is quite possible that in the meantime
the population had been so greatly diminished, that every one could
obtain possession of a piece of land.
Ellis’s above-quoted statement also shows that there is a fundamental
difference between such lower classes as were found in Tahiti and
slaves. The former were not at all forbidden to provide for themselves,
and indeed, when the population had decreased, many of them began to
cultivate a piece of land for their own profit. But in former times
they were not able to do so, as all land was the property of the upper
classes. The lower classes of Oceania were proletarians who wanted
employment. The means of subsistence were the exclusive property of the
upper classes, and therefore the poor were wholly dependent on them. In
slave countries free labourers are not available, and therefore those
who want labourers have recourse to slavery; in Oceania the labour
market was overstocked, and therefore the poor eagerly asked the
landlords for employment even in the meanest work [1390].
There are some more details on record proving that labourers were not
wanted.
In Rotuma “Polynesian or Micronesian strangers, fa helav, were usually
married into different hoag, or adopted with the consent of all the
members of the hoag. A few Fijians and Melanesians have become fa asoa,
or helping men, of different chiefs; no women would have anything to do
with them, and no hoag would adopt them. They remained on the island as
long as they liked, and transferred their services as they liked; they
were treated as inferior members of the hoag, to which they gave their
services” [1391]. In a slave country these Melanesians, looked upon as
an inferior race and therefore not adopted, would have been eagerly
taken as slaves and prevented from escaping; but here it is quite the
reverse: they may stay if they like, but they may also go away if they
like; nobody wants them.
What Hale tells us of the inhabitants of Ponape is also very
remarkable. When it is feared that there will be over-population, some
of the lower orders with their wives and children voluntarily go away
in their canoes [1392]. If these lower classes were slaves, they would
not be allowed to emigrate; the masters would value them as their
property and prevent them from escaping. Such is not the case here;
they remove because there is no room for them.
We see that common labourers are little wanted in Oceania. Some kinds
of workmen, however, are much in request in some of these islands.
Mariner states that in Tonga the esteem in which the different trades
are held depends on their utility. Most people pursue the same trade as
their fathers did before them, because they have learned it in their
youth. This especially applies to those trades which are considered
most difficult and therefore highly honoured. There is no law obliging
a son to follow his father’s trade; but it is the custom; and the hope
of a high profit stimulates the energy of those who pursue a difficult
trade. The noblest trades are those of canoe-builder and undertaker of
funerals. They are followed by none but mataboles and mooas (2nd and
3rd classes), the tooas (4th class) being excluded from them. All other
trades are followed by mooas and tooas alike, except three which the
mooas consider beneath their dignity and therefore leave to the tooas:
those of barber, cook, and agriculturist. The latter two, the most
despised trades, are hereditary. Neither cooking nor cultivating
requires any particular capacities, everybody is capable of following
these pursuits, and those whose fathers were engaged in either of them
have no alternative but to continue in the same way. The esteem,
however, in which an individual is held, does not only depend on the
trade he follows, but on his ability in it. He who distinguishes
himself in a lower trade enjoys more consideration than he who
following a higher trade proves to be unqualified for it [1393].
We see that those trades which require no particular abilities are most
despised here, whereas skilled labour is highly honoured and performed
even by the higher classes.
In some more cases it is stated that skilled workmen are better paid
and more highly valued than unskilled.
In Tahiti the lowest class included those “who were destitute of any
land, and ignorant of the rude arts of carpentering, building, etc.,
which were respected among them.... The fishermen and artisans
(sometimes ranking with this class, but more frequently with that
immediately above it) may be said to have constituted the connecting
link between the two” [1394].
Wilkes states that in the Kingsmill Islands “the trade of carpenter is
held in great repute.” Professed tattooers are also highly esteemed and
well paid [1395].
In Fiji the carpenters formed a separate caste, called King’s
carpenters, having chiefs of their own, for whom and their work they
showed respect. Among the social ranks the 4th were distinguished
warriors of low birth, chiefs of the carpenters, and chiefs of the
fishers for turtle, the 5th were the common people [1396]. We see that
here too skilled workmen rank above the bulk of the people.
Skilled labour is thus highly valued in some of these islands. The
skilled workmen, so far from being slaves, are held in high esteem; but
those who have no peculiar accomplishments are obliged to perform the
rudest and most despised work. This applies especially to the
agricultural labourers. These are entirely dependent on the landowners,
and there are more of them than can be profitably employed. They much
resemble the proletarians of modern European countries.
The great significance of the appropriation of the land clearly
appears, when we consider a phenomenon frequently occurring among
savages: debt-slavery. Among some savage tribes there are rich and poor
as well as in Polynesia; the poor, however, do not apply to the rich
for employment, but are enslaved by them. Thus among the Tagals and
Visayas, in the time of the conquista, most slaves had become such by
being unable to pay debts they had contracted. If, in a time of famine,
a poor man had been fed for some days by his rich neighbour, he became
his slave. Sometimes the rich even placed a quantity of rice in some
conspicuous place and lay on the look-out; if then a poor man came and
ate of the rice, he was seized and enslaved [1397]. Such a thing would
never have happened in Polynesia, and the reason why is evident. Among
the Tagals and Visayas the poor were able, in ordinary times, to
provide for themselves they did not offer their services to the rich;
the latter had to avail themselves of such an opportunity as a famine,
to lay hands on them and compel them to work for them, not only during
the famine, but afterwards when, if free, they would have been able to
subsist independently of the rich. But in Polynesia the means of
subsistence are permanently in the hands of the rich to the exclusion
of the poor; therefore the rich need not compel the poor to work for
them, for they are always at their mercy. Among the Tagals and Visayas
the poor, though destitute of wealth, were not without resources: they
had the free land always at their disposal; and it was only in
extraordinary circumstances (e.g. when the harvest had failed) that
they were temporarily dependent on the rich. In Polynesia the poor are
destitute of land, and therefore permanently dependent on the
landlords.
Their state would even be worse than it actually is, were it not that
they are useful in another, non-economic way: they strengthen their
employers’ force in warfare.
In Tahiti “in times of war, all capable of bearing arms were called
upon to join the forces of the chieftain to whom they belonged, and the
farmers, who held their lands partly by feudal tenure, were obliged to
render military service whenever their landlord required it. There
were, besides these, a number of men celebrated for their valour,
strength, or address in war, who were called aito, fighting-men or
warriors. This title, the result of achievements in battle, was highly
respected, and proportionably sought by the daring and ambitious. It
was not, like the chieftainship and other prevailing distinctions,
confined to any class, but open to all; and many from the lower ranks
have risen, as warriors, to a high station in the community” [1398].
In Hawaii, “when war was declared, the king and warrior chiefs,
together with the priests, fixed the time and place for commencing, and
the manner of carrying it on. In the meantime, the Runapai (messengers
of war) were sent to the districts and villages under their authority,
to require the services of their tenants, in numbers proportionate to
the magnitude of the expedition” [1399].
In Samoa, as we have seen, those residing on land belonging to the
chief were obliged to stand by him in war and peace [1400].
In Tonga, according to Mariner, “the retinue of the upper chiefs
consists of mataboles or inferior chiefs (2nd class), and each of these
has under his command a number of mooas (3rd class), who constitute the
army of the upper chiefs. Some tooas (4th class) are also admitted into
this army, if they have given proofs of bravery” [1401].
In the Marquesas Islands the rank of a noble could be acquired through
acts of bravery [1402].
On the Kingsmill Islands the tenants must provide their lord with men
when at war [1403].
In Fiji, according to Williams, all men capable of bearing arms, of all
classes, took part in military operations; and Fison, as we have seen
above, states that the people of the lowest rank in war time had to
fight for their lords to the death [1404].
Concluding, we may remark that the facts observed in Oceania fully
justify our theory, that slavery is inconsistent with a state of
society in which all land is held as property.
§ 9. Transition from serfdom to freedom in Western Europe.
The conclusion we have arrived at is that the appropriation of the soil
is a factor of great importance in shaping the social life of
agricultural peoples [1405]. When all land is held as property, a class
of people destitute of the means of subsistence is likely soon to
arise; such people must seek employment and live on the wages they can
earn. But in countries where there is still free land, a class of free
agricultural labourers dependent on wages does not exist; therefore in
such countries the landowners often resort to slavery as a means of
procuring labourers. Generally speaking, slavery as an industrial
system can only exist where there is still free land.
If this theory is correct, it must hold not only with regard to the
simply organized societies of Polynesia and Micronesia, but also with
regard to civilized nations. Among such nations too slavery must
disappear as soon as all land has been appropriated. And as we know
that in Western Europe all land is now held as property and everybody
is personally free, whereas in former times, when these countries were
far less densely peopled than now, slavery and serfdom existed, it does
not seem unreasonable to suppose that the appropriation of the soil has
had much to do with the disappearance of servile labour. This opinion
is also held by Wakefield. “The serfdom of the middle-ages was for all
Europe, what it is for Poland and Russia still [1406], a kind of
slavery required by the small proportion of people to land; a
substitute for hired labour, which gradually expired with the increase
of population, as it will expire in Poland and Russia when land shall,
in those countries, become as scarce and dear as it became in England
some time after the conquest” [1407]. We think Wakefield is quite right
here, and we shall adduce some facts in corroboration of this view.
But we must first remind the reader of what we have already said in the
Introduction. We confine ourselves in this book to an investigation of
the facts of savage life. The study of these facts leads us to
conclusions, some of which (and among these the conclusion we are now
dealing with) have a wider bearing and can further our understanding of
the history of civilized nations. But the scope of the present volume
does not allow us to make any special investigation of this history and
inquire whether the same causes can be seen at work here that have been
found to shape the social life of savage tribes. Accordingly, we shall
not try to prove that the appropriation of the soil has really been the
main cause of the disappearance of slavery and serfdom in Western
Europe. We only intend to show that the matter can be viewed from this
side. We wish to claim attention for this important factor, that is
commonly overlooked, and thus clear the way for future research. This
and the next two paragraphs have to be regarded as a digression,
standing apart from the main body of our book.
The character of these paragraphs may justify us in limiting our
remarks to two countries, the economic history of which has of late
years been the subject of thorough study by eminent writers, viz.
England and Germany, and using only a small part of the literature
existing on this matter. We have, however, taken care to consult none
but first-rate authorities.
We have spoken of the disappearance of slavery and serfdom. In
connection with this two remarks have to be made.
First. Slavery in the strict sense existed for a long time in both
England and Germany. In England, shortly after the Norman Conquest,
slaves were still rather numerous. “The servi or slaves” says Ashley
“whose average percentage for the whole land is 9, and who in some of
the eastern and midland shires do not appear at all, or fall to a
percentage of 4 or 5, rise in the country on the Welsh border and in
the south-west to 17, 18, 21, and 24 per cent.” A century later,
however, absolute slavery had disappeared [1408]. And in Germany there
was also a class of servi, who had to perform whatever services the
lords might require, and even in the 11th century, though their
condition had already much improved, were sometimes sold apart from the
land [1409].
Secondly. The argument that leads us to conclude that slavery, is
inconsistent with a state of society in which all land is held as
property, equally applies to serfdom. For the serf, as well as the
slave, was compelled to work. There is a great difference between
slaves and serfs on one side, and modern labourers and tenants on the
other. The labourer has to work for his employer, and the tenant has to
pay rent; but both can always declare the contract off and so put an
end to their obligations. And even as long as the contract lasts, if
they do not discharge their duties, they can only be condemned to pay
damages; but the labourer cannot be compelled to work, nor the tenant
to remain on the farm. The slaves and serfs of early times, however,
were under personal compulsion. The slave was the property of his
master, whom he was not allowed to leave. And the serf, as we so often
read, was “bound to the soil,” “astricted to the estate”, “an die
Scholle gefesselt”, which means that he was forbidden to remove from
the spot assigned to him. Professor Cunningham states that in England,
in the 11th century “a very large proportion of the population were
serfs who could not move to other estates or to towns” [1410], and
Amira tells us that in Germany, in the Middle Ages, the villeins
(Grundhörigen) were not allowed to remove from the land which they
cultivated [1411]. Therefore our argument holds with regard to serfdom
as well as slavery. For when all land has been appropriated, a landlord
can always find free tenants who are willing to pay him a rent, and
free labourers who are willing to work for him, and so he wants neither
serfs nor slaves. We may quote here Oppenheimer’s remark that, as soon
as all land has been appropriated, “serfdom in the proper sense,
implying the astriction of the labourer to the soil, has become
superfluous. The labourer can safely be allowed personal freedom, and
it is allowed him. The produce of his labour can now be taken from him,
in the form of rent, though he may be personally free. For he is
excluded from the means of production, as far as they could be
accessible to him, and so he has to accept the terms of the proprietor
or to starve” [1412].
It is of some interest to emphasize what we have said concerning the
difference between serfs and free tenants. A free tenant, whatever be
the conditions of his tenure, can always remove from the land and
cannot be compelled to cultivate it. A serf, whatever be the extent of
his obligations, is bound to the soil; if he escapes the lord can bring
him back and set him to work again. The right of emigrating (German
“Freizügigkeit”) is the true mark of freedom. And therefore, as soon as
the obligations which were personal have become territorial, i.e. as
soon as the services and payments which formerly were exacted from
definite persons, are exacted from the cultivators of definite pieces
of land as such, nobody being any longer obliged to become or remain
the cultivator of any definite piece of land,—serfdom has ceased to
exist, even though the services and payments have remained exactly the
same.
The line of demarcation between free and unfree cultivators has not,
however, always been drawn in a strict, scientific manner. Ashley,
speaking of the 11th—14th centuries, says: “The term libere tenentes is
elastic enough to cover men in very different positions.... But the
larger number of those known by that name were, clearly,
virgate-holding villeins or the descendants of such, who had commuted
their more onerous labour services of two or three days a week for a
money or corn payment, and had been freed from what were regarded as
the more servile “incidents” of their position. What these exactly
were, or, indeed, what was understood by free tenure, it is difficult
now to determine, precisely because the lawyers and landlords of the
time did not themselves know. The most widely spread idea was that
inability to give a daughter in marriage or to sell an ox or a horse
without the lord’s consent, for which a fine had to be paid, was the
certain mark of servile tenure” [1413].
Now we cannot wonder that the lawyers and landlords of the Middle Ages
had no very clear ideas about serfdom and freedom. But modern writers
on economic history should have the true distinction always before
their minds. Some of them, however, we think fail in this respect.
In order to demonstrate this we must speak of a change which, in the
later Middle Ages, took place in the manorial economy. The land
belonging to each landlord had always been divided into two parts, viz.
“that part cultivated for the immediate benefit of the lord, the
demesne or inland, and that held of him by tenants, the land in
villenage” [1414]. These tenants were not, however, free tenants, but
villeins bound to the soil and obliged to work on the demesne. “The
whole of the land of the manor, both demesne and villenage, was
cultivated on an elaborate system of joint labour. The only permanent
labourers upon the demesne itself were a few slaves; all or almost all
the labour there necessary was furnished by the villeins and cotters,
as the condition on which they held their holdings, and under the
supervision of the lord’s bailiff”. The labour dues of the villeins
consisted of week work, i.e. a man’s labour for two or three days a
week throughout the year, precariae, i.e. additional labour at
ploughing and at harvest time, and miscellaneous services [1415].
But in the course of time money payments were largely substituted for
these labour dues. Commutation of the week work went on extensively
shortly after the Norman Conquest, and commutation of the whole of the
services occurs occasionally as early as 1240. “With the reign of
Edward II complete commutation became general” [1416]. The cultivators
had now to pay money to the lord instead of working on the demesne.
Though the change occurred at a time when personal serfdom was
gradually declining, it is easy to see that this commutation is not
identical with the transition from serfdom to freedom. A free tenant
may by contract take upon himself to perform some kind of work for the
landlord. This was the case in England where “the rendering of services
reappeared in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, not as the
incidents of villanage, but as a form of agreement which proved more or
less convenient to one party and perhaps to both” [1417]. On the other
hand, it is quite possible that a cultivator who pays money instead of
rendering services, is yet bound to the soil and devoid of personal
freedom. Ashley, speaking of the 13th century, states that most of the
cultivators “had continued to hold by servile tenure, as villeins or
customary tenants, even when they had commuted all or most of their
services.... There can be no doubt that ... they were bound to the
soil; in the sense, at any rate, that the lord would demand a heavy
fine before he would give one of them permission to leave the manor”
[1418].
Now, though none of our writers on economic history explicitly say that
these two things, the commutation of labour dues for money and the
transition from serfdom to freedom, are identical, we think some of
them do not sufficiently keep in view the difference existing between
the two. Thus only can we account for the prevalence of a theory which
seems to be the current mode of explaining the fall of serfdom and rise
of freedom.
This theory has been introduced by a German writer, Professor
Hildebrand. He distinguishes three stages of economic development:
natural economy, money economy, and credit economy.
In the system of natural economy goods are exchanged directly for
goods; when money economy prevails use is made of a means of exchange,
money; and when credit economy has been developed goods are exchanged
for a promise in the future to give back the same or a like value, i.e.
on credit. Every nation begins with natural economy, for the use of
money as a means of exchange supposes an abundance of labour or
products of labour which enables people to procure the precious metals.
As long as natural economy prevails capital does not exist: the soil
and human labour are the only productive agencies. There are,
therefore, two classes of people only; labourers and landowners.
Sometimes every landowner is at the same time a labourer; in such cases
democracy prevails. But it often occurs that labourers and landowners
form separate classes. These are then mutually dependent on each other;
for the labourer wants a landlord to give him employment and so enable
him to earn his subsistence, and the landlord wants labourers to
cultivate his lands. This interdependence effects that the relations
existing between the two classes assume a durable character. The labour
contracts are made to last for the life of the labourer or even become
hereditary. The labourer is bound to the soil and forbidden to leave
the manor.
As soon as money economy exists, capital arises and takes its place as
the third factor of production. The owning classes comprise now both
capitalists and landlords. The labourer has no longer to apply to the
landlord for employment, but can leave him and work for the capitalist;
he is therefore no longer astricted to the soil. The wages he receives
from the capitalist are paid in the form of money, and so the labourer
is much freer than before, for this money can be turned to various
purposes. Moreover, capital (as opposed to land) can be augmented to
any extent, and this enables the labourer to become a capitalist
himself.
The position of the labourers who remain on the land also undergoes a
change. The landlord who brings the agricultural produce to the market
can pay wages in money and therefore hire able and dismiss incompetent
labourers. His lands, worked with free labourers who serve for wages,
yield him a far greater income than formerly when they were cultivated
by serfs. Moreover, the fixed labour dues of the serfs do not answer
the purposes of an improved economy. It is thus the interest of the
landlord to put an end to his fixed and hereditary contracts and loosen
the ties with which natural economy had bound the agricultural
labourer. The dues in kind and services are commuted for money
payments. The labourer, who was a serf, becomes now either a free
peasant or a free servant and day-wage worker who is no longer
astricted to the soil, but can leave his employer whenever he likes and
seek such work as most agrees with his capacity and inclination.
On the other hand, the employers have become independent of the
labourers. In the system of natural economy the landlord took care not
to lose his labourers, whom he wanted to cultivate his land; but now
landlords and capitalists can always get as many labourers as they like
and dismiss them as soon as they are no longer of any use. This leads
to an oppression of the poor by the rich [1419].
This is Hildebrand’s theory, so far as the condition of the labouring
classes is concerned. Natural economy, according to him, leads to
serfdom, money economy leads to freedom.
We think this theory is erroneous.
It would perhaps be better not to speak of “natural economy” and “money
economy”; for these terms are likely to lead to misunderstanding. The
mere existence of money is of comparatively little consequence. A
circulating medium arises as soon as it is wanted; and where the
precious metals are unknown something else will do, as in Melanesia and
among many Negro tribes, where shells are used for money. The existence
of a circulating medium denotes a development of commerce; for barter
on any extensive scale is hardly possible. Therefore we had better
speak of self-sufficing and commercial communities. As long as each
village is practically self-dependent money is not wanted; but as soon
as the interchange of commodities takes any considerable dimensions the
need for a means of exchange becomes pressing. And there is, indeed, a
great difference in social structure between self-sufficing and
commercial communities [1420]; but if we ascribe this difference to the
existence of gold and silver coins we arrive at false conclusions. A
proof of this is the fact that Hildebrand thinks capital can only exist
when there is money. Yet we know that the Germans have kept cattle from
early times, long before money economy prevailed; and cattle are
decidedly to be called capital; they cannot be classified under either
of the only two means of production which, according to Hildebrand,
exist in a system of natural economy: land and human labour; and in our
chapter on pastoral tribes we have seen that cattle-keepers form
strongly marked capitalistic communities.
But even if we speak of self-dependent and commercial communities, we
cannot admit that in the former labour must necessarily be servile and
in the latter free.
First. How can natural economy, i.e. the absence of commerce, lead to
serfdom? Hildebrand says: landlords and labourers are mutually
dependent on each other, and so their relations assume a durable
character, and the labourer is astricted to the soil. We think his
meaning is the following. In self-sufficing communities the fluidity of
labour which exists in modern society, is wanting. In such countries
there can be famine in one district, whilst in a contiguous district
there is plenty of food; similarly labour can be scarce in one place
whilst it is abundant in a neighbouring place. Therefore a landlord
cannot afford to let his labourers leave the manor; for as there is
little intercourse between the different villages and districts it is
difficult for him to procure other labourers. It is thus most
convenient for him to bind his labourers to the soil and forbid them to
leave him.
This may at first sight seem a reasonable explanation of the origin of
serfdom. But on closer scrutiny it will be seen that this argument does
not hold. When there is little intercourse, each landlord is dependent
on the labourers of his own district; and there must be a great
stability in the relations of the two classes. But this need not bring
about an astriction of the labourers to the soil. The landlord cannot
easily procure labourers from other districts; but it is even more
difficult for the labourers to find employment in foreign parts; for
such intercourse as there is, is kept by the ruling, not by the
labouring classes. Therefore it is not necessary to bind the labourers
to the soil; for they are already naturally dependent on the landlords
of their own district. We think slavery and serfdom can only be
accounted for by a general scarcity of labour. When labour is
everywhere scarce a labourer who leaves his employer can everywhere
find employment, whereas an employer cannot easily procure labourers;
it is then the interest of the employer to prevent his labourers from
leaving him. But the mere lack of intercourse limits the labourer in
his choice of employment even more than it limits the employer in his
choice of labourers.
Nor do the facts agree with this theory. We have seen that among
pastoral tribes free labourers are frequently found, though labour is
by no means fluid and the labourers are paid in kind, not in money.
Among the natives of Hawaii, who lived under a system of natural
economy, labour was also free. The passage in which Ellis describes the
relation between landlords and cultivators has already been quoted by
us, but it is remarkable enough to repeat here. “Sometimes the poor
people take a piece of land, on condition of cultivating a given
portion for the chief, and the remainder for themselves, making a fresh
agreement after every crop. In addition to the above demands, the
common people are in general obliged to labour if required, part of two
days out of seven, in cultivating farms, building houses, etc. for
their landlord. A time is usually appointed for receiving the rent,
when the people repair to the governor’s with what they have to pay. If
the required amount is furnished, they return, and, as they call it
(komo hou) enter again on their land. But if unable to pay the required
sum, and their landlords are dissatisfied with the presents they have
received, or think the tenants have neglected their farm, they are
forbidden to return, and the land is offered to another. When, however,
the produce brought is nearly equal to the required rent, and the
chiefs think the occupants have exerted themselves to procure it, they
remit the deficiency, and allow them to return” [1421]. These
cultivators are by no means astricted to the soil. They make a fresh
agreement after every crop. If the produce brought is insufficient,
they are either removed or by way of favour allowed to return [1422].
Our conclusion is that, though in medieval Western Europe serfdom and
natural economy existed at the same time, the former is not a necessary
consequence of the latter.
Secondly. Does money economy, i.e. commerce, always lead to freedom? We
know now that serfdom is not invariably connected with natural economy.
Yet it might be that, wherever both natural economy and serfdom exist
(as it was the case in the early Middle Ages) the rise of money economy
always brought serfdom to a close.
The argument by which Hildebrand attempts to prove this is rather
strange. The development of town life and manufactures, according to
him, enables the labourers to find employment in manufactures; they are
now no longer dependent on the landlords. The manufacturing capitalists
pay them money-wages which they can spend in whatever way they like,
and so they become more free than they were before.
We think this argument is quite insufficient. The labourers find
employment in manufactures, says Hildebrand. But he had told us before
that they were astricted to the soil. What enables them now to leave
the landlords? Further: why do not the town labourers become slaves or
serfs? Here Hildebrand’s reasoning is very strange. They receive
money-wages which they can spend in whatever way they like. Now one who
receives money with which he can buy all kinds of commodities is in a
certain sense more free than one who, under a system of natural
economy, receives bread and meat which he cannot sell. But this has
nothing to do with the legal status of the labourer. A slave who
receives pocket-money from his master is free to buy with it what he
likes, yet he remains a slave.
But the condition of those of the labouring classes who remain on the
land also undergoes a change, according to Hildebrand. The landlord can
now sell the produce of his land for money, and this money enables him
to hire free labourers.
We cannot see why this should be so, why the mere possibility of paying
money-wages (all other circumstances having remained the same) should
lead to free labour contracts. We should rather think that the afflux
of labourers to the towns of which Hildebrand speaks would make
agricultural labour scarce, and each landlord would be most anxious to
retain those labourers that had not yet escaped to the towns; they
would now, more than ever before, be astricted to the soil.
Hildebrand, however, thinks it will be the interest of the landlord to
put an end to the hereditary tenures of his serfs and work his lands
with free labourers. And he adds that the dues in kind and services are
commuted for money payments. The cultivator who was a serf becomes now
either a free landholder or a free labourer.
Whether Hildebrand means to say that the commutation of dues in kind
and services for money payments is identical with the transition from
serfdom to freedom, does not clearly appear.
We think that the regarding of this commutation as the main fact in the
economic history of the later Middle Ages lies at the root of the evil
and has given rise to this theory. Money economy, according to
Hildebrand, leads to commutation, and commutation is the same as, or at
any rate leads to, the disappearance of serfdom.
What does this commutation mean? Formerly the peasants had to work on
the demesne which was cultivated for the immediate benefit of the lord;
in later times they paid money instead. What was the reason of this
change? It must have been that the demesne was cultivated in some other
way so that their services were no longer wanted. Sometimes free
labourers were employed. “It is evident” says Ashley “that the lord
would not have consented, first to partial and then to complete
commutation, had he not been able to hire labourers” [1423]. But the
main reason was that portions of the demesne were let for rents. “If
the lord found it his interest to let portions of the demesne instead
of cultivating it through his bailiff or reeve, his need for the
services of the villeins would be pro tanto diminished, and he would be
readier to accept commutation” [1424]. The same was the case in
Germany, where between the 10th and 13th centuries the extent of the
land which the landlords kept in their own hands was continually
diminishing, so that there was less and less use for the services of
the villeins, and commutation took place on a great scale. The
landlords, who formerly had taken the lead of agricultural operations,
became now mere receivers of rent [1425].
Now we must admit that commutation of labour dues for money payments
was not possible before money was used. Yet the fact that commutation
of services for payments in kind, which does not suppose money economy,
also occurred [1426], shows that the rise of money economy cannot have
been the sole cause of this change. We may even go farther and say: if
it has been a cause at all, it has not certainly been one of the
principal causes. The commutation of the labour dues means that the
demesne was thenceforth either worked with free labourers or let for
rent. The existence of a class of freemen dependent on wages cannot,
however, be accounted for by money economy. Nor can we see how money
economy can have led to the letting of the demesnes which the landlords
had formerly kept in their own hands. Ochenkowski supposes that in
England, after the Norman Conquest, the need of the landlords for money
led to commutation [1427]. But there is no reason why the landlords
could not, instead of receiving money payments, obtain money by selling
the produce of their lands. As long as there was no market for
agricultural products the landlord, whether he himself had the lead of
agricultural operations or let the demesne on condition of receiving a
payment in kind, could not obtain money. As soon as there was a market
he could make money in three ways: by working the demesne himself and
selling the produce, by letting it on condition of receiving part of
the produce, which he could bring to the market [1428], and by letting
it for a rent in money. Money economy seems to have had little to do
with the commutation.
Hildebrand’s theory is: money economy led to commutation and
commutation led to freedom. We have seen that the first half of this
does not hold. What about the second half? Can the commutation have
loosened the ties which bound the cultivator to the soil? We think not.
For if the landlord could not let the villein who worked on the demesne
leave the manor, because he was difficult to replace, he had exactly
the same reason for keeping the villein who paid money astricted to the
soil. The use of money and the rise of commerce had not augmented the
number of agricultural labourers; they had even decreased, as many of
them had gone to the towns. And it was even more difficult to replace
the money-paying than the labouring villein; for the former had to be a
fit person who could conduct his business well enough to be able at the
end of the year to furnish the required sum, whereas any able-bodied
man could perform agricultural labour under the supervision of the
lord’s bailiff. Our conclusion is that money economy did not lead to
commutation, and that commutation did not lead to freedom.
Yet money economy, taken in the sense of town life and commerce, did
sometimes affect the condition of the rural classes. Such was the case
in Italy where, in the 13th century, the wealthy commercial cities took
an active part in the emancipation of the serfs. Florence especially
strongly encouraged their enfranchisement. In 1257 this city even went
so far as to set free all the serfs in the surrounding country,
indemnifying the lords. The city government pretended to act from
Christian and philanthropic motives. “But” adds our informant “though
the city governments of Central Italy were the first to pronounce
themselves in favour of the personal freedom of the peasants, they by
no means countenanced the idea of leaving the land to those who had
held it for centuries. On the contrary, the citizens endeavour to
acquire landed properties, and when they have got them they put an end
to the hereditary tenures and replace them by tenancies.” Many of the
former serfs had to leave the lands of their ancestors and augmented
the number of proletarians in the towns. They were replaced by
leaseholders [1429].
The disappearance of serfdom was thus accelerated by the measures of
the Italian cities. How much of sentiment there was in these measures,
and how much of self-interest, we do not know. But at any rate serfdom
must already have been drawing to an end before the cities meddled with
it. For a firmly established system that discharges an important
economic function is not uprooted by mere sentiment. And so far as the
self-interest of the citizens induced them to replace the serfs by free
tenants, the latter system must have been economically more useful than
the former, which was probably only kept up by the landlords because
they were accustomed to it. Times had changed and the old system of
cultivation had become obsolete; and the citizens of the towns, whom no
personal relation bound to the serfs, expelled them and let the land to
free tenants. Before their intervention there must already have been at
work an internal cause, which effected that cultivation by serfs was no
longer the most profitable mode of managing landed properties.
We do not mean to say that there was no internal connection between the
transition from serfdom to freedom and the simultaneous rise of town
life, commerce and manufactures. We think there was such a connection.
But we cannot agree with the theory that the disappearance of serfdom
was a consequence of the commercial development of Western Europe. It
seems to us that the rise of commerce was not the cause of the decline
of serfdom, but that both were effects of the same principal cause, the
relative scarcity of land which made itself felt towards the end of the
Middle Ages. As soon as people had to shift on a limited area, the use
of commerce, which enables each district to produce what it is most fit
to, and so enhances the productiveness of labour, became more apparent
than it had been at a time when there was plenty of land. In the same
sense, Malthus remarks: “The great cause which fills towns and
manufactories is an insufficiency of employment, and consequently the
means of support in the country; and if each labourer, in the parish
where he was born, could command food, clothing, and lodging for ten
children, the population of the towns would soon bear but a small
proportion to the population of the country” [1430]. Lange also says
that poverty of the masses is a condition of the rise of manufactures
[1431]. Besides these economists, we may quote the eminent geographist
Ratzel, who observes, that in a country with a growing population the
soil finally cannot any longer feed the whole of the people and so an
ever increasing part of the population devote themselves to
manufactures and commerce [1432]. That this occurs even in primitive
civilization, follows from what Krieger tells us about the natives
inhabiting the small islands adjoining New Guinea, especially Berlin
Harbour and Dallmann Harbour. The goad of necessity, he remarks, has
urged them to a progress in the arts of life. The want of room rendered
extension of the plantations on their islets impossible and so they
began to manufacture carved work and pottery, which they exported to
the continent in exchange for food [1433].
As for the medieval history of Europe, Inama-Sternegg observes that the
increase of the population, requiring an extension of the means of
subsistence, led to the rise of towns and manufactures [1434].
But however this may be, we are certain that the rise of money economy
cannot have been the sole, or even the chief cause of the disappearance
of servile labour. This is sufficiently shown by the fact that before
the emancipation of the Negroes a system of servile labour on a large
scale prevailed in the United States and the West Indies, i.e. in
countries working for export.
Hildebrand’s theory has been accepted by some writers on economic
history. Ochenkowski repeatedly asserts that the change in the
condition of the rural population was the effect of money economy.
Inama-Sternegg, in one passage of his excellent book on the economic
history of Germany, expresses the opinion that in the early Middle Ages
natural economy, defined by him as the absence of regular commercial
intercourse, made astriction of the labourers to the soil necessary.
Professor Cunningham, in his book on Western Civilization, ascribes the
changes which in the history of ancient Greece and Rome took place in
the status of the labouring classes to the prevalence of natural
economy and money economy respectively [1435]. But none of these
writers give any new argument in favour of the theory.
Our conclusion is that the rise of money economy was not the cause of
the disappearance of serfdom. We shall inquire now whether Wakefield’s
theory, with which we agree, can further our understanding of the
economic history of England and Germany.
§ 10. The rural classes of medieval England.
Of land tenure in England before the 11th century we do not know very
much [1436].
The first detailed account of the economic condition of the country is
contained in Domesday Book, in which William of Normandy embodied the
results of an inquiry into the state of the kingdom he had secured.
“When Domesday Survey was compiled” says Cunningham, “every yard of
English soil was as really, if not as definitely, subject to
proprietary rights as it is now” [1437]. We do not, however, think that
much importance has to be attached to this statement; for there was
still much uncultivated land and, though the king claimed a right of
property over this land, it was not yet held as property in the strict
sense of the word, which means that all except the owner are excluded
from its use. This appears from what took place in 1305, under Edward
I. “By an adjustment of boundaries considerable portions of the Crown
forest were given over to certain barons, who gained personally; but
the position of the tenants was so much altered for the worse that
their case obtained special attention in the Ordinance of the Forest,
by which their rights of pasture and common were secured” [1438]. We
see that these Crown forests had been open to the use of the peasants,
so that practically there was still free land. And in this time of
extensive tillage the common pasture played a great part in the rural
economy [1439].
Accordingly, rent in the modern sense did not yet exist. The landlords
had abundance of land; but the land was worth little if it was not
provided with people to cultivate it. “The rent of the proprietor now
is directly connected with the physical character of his estate, its
productiveness and its situation. The income of the lord of a Domesday
Manor depended on the tolls he received, and the payments of his
dependents: and thus was based on the way in which his estates were
stocked with meat and men, rather than on the physical condition of the
land. His income was a very different thing from modern rent” [1440].
Even in later centuries “a fertile estate would have yielded but little
annual income, unless the necessary labour was attached to it” [1441].
In this time the whole of Central England was covered with manors, and
the mass of the rural population consisted of two classes: landlords
and villeins; the latter were not all of the same condition, but none
of them enjoyed entire personal freedom [1442]. Of those cultivators
who are described as freemen and socmen some could “sell their lands
without leave asked or given, but others could only do so on obtaining
licence from the lord” [1443]. Finally there were some slaves [1444].
Every freeman was a landholder, therefore there was no class of free
labourers. “The labourer, as a man who depended on some employer for
the opportunity and means of doing his work, seems to have been almost
unknown in the eleventh century” [1445].
All this agrees with our theory. All land had not yet practically been
appropriated; therefore people could not be got to cultivate the land
for the benefit of the landlords, unless they were deprived of personal
freedom.
During the two following centuries population increased and land became
more scarce. In the 13th century some lords already began to inclose
portions of the waste, which had always been used for common pasturage,
and “it was necessary to limit by the statute of Merton, in 1236, the
lord’s “right of approver” or improvement, by the condition that he
should not take away so much as not to leave enough for the purpose of
pasture” [1446]. Forests were often fenced off and the rights of common
pasture restricted [1447]. We have already mentioned an instance in
which the condition of the peasants was much altered for the worse by
such measures.
The changes which, during the same period, took place in the condition
of the rural classes, are grouped by Ashley under four heads: “1. the
growth of a large class of free tenants; 2. the commutation of the week
work for money or corn payments; 3. the commutation of the boon-days
and other special services; and 4. the appearance of a class of men
dependent wholly or in part on the wages they received for agricultural
labour” [1448].
In a passage quoted in the last paragraph Ashley states that most of
the “free tenants” were villeins who had commuted their labour services
for a money or corn payment, and had been freed from the more servile
“incidents” of their position, such as inability to sell a horse
without the lord’s consent [1449]. Hence it follows that personal
freedom, i.e. the right to leave the manor, was not regarded as
characteristic of free tenure. Yet at the end of the 13th century every
tenant was already permitted to sell his lands or parts of them [1450].
This transition from personal to territorial obligations was certainly
due to the increase of population and consequent enhanced value of
land. In early times labour was scarce and therefore the landlord could
not let a cultivator leave the manor. But now land, or at least some
pieces of land, had already acquired so much value that there were
always people to be found ready to cultivate them on condition of
paying certain dues to the lord.
The principal cause of the commutation of labour dues for money was
that the lord let portions of the demesne instead of cultivating it
through his bailiff or reeve. He had now less need for the services of
the villeins; for these services had consisted mainly in working on the
demesne [1451]. This change in the mode of cultivation was perhaps due
partly to political circumstances (absence of the lord at court or in
war), as in Germany it certainly was. But we think there were economic
causes also at work. In early times, when land was abundant, it was
necessary for the lord to keep the cultivators he wanted in personal
subjection; he therefore made them work in his presence and under the
supervision of his bailiff. But now the villeins had come to attach
value to their holdings, they were no longer inclined to run away, for
it would have been difficult for them to find land to live upon. The
villein claimed an hereditary right to the land he cultivated, and the
question as to whether he had any such right already began to be
discussed by the lawyers [1452].
At the beginning of the 14th century most of the cultivators were still
bound to the soil [1453], but the first germs of a thorough change were
already present. There were free tenants who could sell their lands;
tenancies at will already occurred, though not frequently [1454]; and a
class of free labourers arose. In Grossteste’s rules, dating from 1240
or 1241, it is said that servants and retainers “are to do what they
are bid immediately without any grumbling or contradiction; if they
show any such disloyal spirit they must be dismissed, for many can be
had to fill their places” [1455]. And there were also agricultural
labourers who, though holding small pieces of land, had not enough land
to live upon, and were partially dependent on wages. Even where the
peasants were still obliged to cultivate the demesne, they did not
usually perform such work themselves, but hired labourers to do it; the
usual phrase is that they have to “find” a man for the work [1456].
Here again our theory holds. Population had increased, land became
scarce, and the transition from serfdom to freedom commenced. If the
population of England had continued increasing, most of the villeins
would probably have become freeholders or copyholders, whereas the
lands that the lords had kept in their own hands would have been
leased. And poor people who had neither land of their own nor capital
enough to become farmers would have served for wages.
But an unexpected event entirely changed the economic condition of
England. The Black Death, which made its first appearance in 1349,
swept away a large part of the population. Whole villages were
practically annihilated and large tracts of land went out of tillage.
The economic consequences were such as we should expect. “As one
immediate result there was great difficulty in getting labourers; the
difficulty was aggravated in those cases where the tenants had died off
and the lords were left with large holdings on their hands and no means
of working them; while they lost the predial services of these deceased
tenants on the home farm. There was consequently an immensely increased
demand for hired labourers at the very time when their numbers were so
much thinned, and it seemed as if the agriculture of the country was
completely ruined” [1457]. Land was now again abundant, and so “instead
of ousting tenants, lords of land found it hard enough to retain them
even with lightened services” [1458]. And the natural consequence was
that the landlords attempted to re-attach tenants and labourers to the
soil. Whether, as Professor Thorold Rogers asserts, the customary
tenants, who had commuted their labour dues for money, were forced back
into the servile position of their ancestors, is not certain [1459]. At
any rate “we may grant that, now that labour had become so costly, the
lords would insist on the exact performance of such labour dues as had
not yet been commuted, and on the punctual payment of all money rents.
There is much reason to believe, moreover, that they abused their power
of imposing “amercements” on their tenants in the manor courts for
trivial breaches of duty” [1460]. This severe and unaccustomed pressure
on the villeins, who were becoming comfortable copyholders, resulted in
Wat Tyler’s revolt of 1381 [1461].
Nor were the labourers any longer allowed to dispose freely of their
labour power. “While the plague was actually raging parliament could
not meet, but a proclamation was at once issued by the king with the
advice of certain prelates and nobles, of which the preamble states
that, “many seeing the necessity of masters and great scarcity of
servants will not serve unless they get excessive wages”, and that
consequently the land can be scarcely tilled. Everyone, free or villan,
who can work and has no other means of livelihood, is not to refuse to
do so for anyone who offers the accustomed wages; each lord is to have
the preference in hiring the men on his own estate, but none is to have
too many men for his work; no labourer is to leave his employment
before the specified time; nor to receive more rations or wages than he
did in the twentieth year of the king and the common years before that;
none are to give or take more wages in town or country” [1462].
The depopulation of this time caused a reappearance of free land, i.e.
of land which had practically no value, and so agricultural labourers
were scarcely to be had. Therefore the lords to some extent reattached
the cultivators to the soil.
These measures, however, were of little avail. It was not easy to
prevent an employer from secretly giving more than the statutory wages.
The penalties for infraction of the regulation were rendered more
severe, the fines being replaced by imprisonment; yet the whole
legislation proved a failure [1463].
And even if the statutes of labourers had been everywhere enforced,
“many landowners would have been left in a position of great
difficulty; if there was no one to do the work it did not much matter
what they were to be paid, and in not a few villages scarcely any one
was left to carry on the ordinary agricultural operations.” Therefore
new expedients had to be devised, of which the most general appears to
have been the stock and land lease; “the new tenant took the land and
the stock off the lord’s hands and made in return a definite annual
payment.” These tenants “probably sprang from the class of free
labourers, as the surviving villains who already had their own
holdings, would not be so easily able to offer for a portion of the
domain land which the lord desired to let” [1464].
Here again we see the consequences of the abundance of land. The land
alone could not fetch a reasonable price; stock and land had to be
leased together.
As these leaseholders were taken from the labouring class, this
measure, of course, still further diminished the supply of labour.
All these palliatives could not, indeed, better the position of the
landlords to any considerable extent. They had to wait for an increase
of population which would render to the land the value that it had
before the Black Death. As, however, the plague recurred several times,
the population appears to have scarcely increased [1465].
The landlords remained in this difficult position till about 1450
[1466], when a new and very efficacious remedy was suggested to them:
they applied a new mode of working their estates, which rendered them
the practical command over the land, without need of a denser
population. The extension of the wool trade and the dearth of labour
made it far more profitable to keep large flocks of sheep than to grow
corn. Consequently much land was laid down in pasture; there was a
steady increase of sheep farming during the 15th century and a
corresponding decrease of corn growing [1467].
In our chapter on pastoral tribes it has been shown that the care of
flocks and herds does not require much labour. We can, therefore,
easily understand that after the rise of sheep farming there was far
less need for agricultural labour than before. There had been scarcity
of labour; now there was over-population and many people were thrown
out of employment; for over-population exists, not only when there are
more people than the land can support, but when there are more people
dependent on wages than can be profitably employed by the owners of
land and capital [1468].
Sheep farming was introduced in the first place on the manorial
demesnes, of which the lords had the free disposal. The demesne usually
formed from one-third to a half of the whole arable area of a manor.
Since the labour services of the villeins had been commuted, the
tillage of the demesne had furnished employment to many small tenants
and landless cottagers who, partly or entirely, depended on wages. The
substitution of pasture for tillage on the demesne, therefore, brought
many of them to ruin; for none but a few shepherds could thenceforth be
employed [1469].
But far graver evils resulted from the appropriation by the lords of
the commons and the land held by villeins or customary tenants.
The commons, i.e. the common pasture and waste, had always been used
jointly by the lord and villeins. Whether the latter had any legal
right to them is not certain; probably they had not; but they had
always been accustomed to have the free use of them. Now the lords
began to inclose large parts of these commons for the formation of
sheep runs. The consequence was that many of the customary tenants, who
had relied on the commons for pasturing their cattle, could no longer
keep the cattle necessary for the cultivation of their holding. Their
farming became unprofitable, and they had to leave their lands, which
were instantly occupied by the lords and laid down in pasture [1470].
Even when the cultivator had not left his tenement, the lord sometimes
appropriated and “inclosed” it.
The inclosures which took place, especially in the 16th century, are a
fact of foremost importance in the history of English agriculture. The
term “inclosure” has two different meanings. In medieval England the
lands of the villeins, with those of the lord interspersed between
them, lay scattered in a number of acre or half-acre strips, no two
strips held by one man being contiguous. This system, dating from a
time of extensive tillage, fell short of the exigencies of advanced
culture, and had to be removed before any improvement in the mode of
cultivation could be made. Therefore inclosures have often, especially
in the reign of Elizabeth, been made with the common consent of all the
landholders concerned, the result being that every tenant, instead of
many scattered strips, obtained one or a few fields lying together.
“But in the earlier part of the same movement, during the period which
may be roughly defined as from 1450 to 1550, inclosure meant to a large
extent the actual dispossession of the customary tenants by their
manorial lords. This took place either in the form of the violent
ousting of the sitting tenant, or of a refusal on the death of one
tenant to admit the son who in earlier centuries would have been
treated as his natural successor” [1471]. It was this latter kind of
inclosure that was condemned by several writers of the 16th century,
for instance by Hales, who by inclosure did not mean “where a man doth
enclose and hedge in his own proper grounds where no man hath commons.
For such enclosure is very beneficial to the commonwealth; it is a
cause of great encrease of wood; but it is meant thereby when any man
hath taken away and enclosed any other men’s commons, or hath pulled
down houses of husbandry and converted the lands from tillage to
pasture” [1472].
Ashley, discussing the question as to whether the lords had a right to
turn out the villeins, arrives at the conclusion that “during
historical times and until comparatively modern days, the cultivators
of the soil were always in a condition of dependence, and held their
lands at the arbitrary will of their lords. For centuries the lord knew
no other way of getting his land cultivated, and had no wish to get rid
of a tenant; whenever he did so, it was altogether exceptional. But
with the tendency to limitation and definition so characteristic of the
feudal period, custom tended to harden into law, and it would seem to
have been on the point of becoming law when a change in the economic
situation,—the increasing advantage of pasture over tillage,—prompted
the lords to fall back on their old rights. Then followed a struggle
between a legal theory becoming obsolete, but backed by the influence
of the landowners, and a custom on its way to become law, backed by
public sentiment and by the policy of the government” [1473].
This is in perfect keeping with our theory. In former times land was
abundant, and therefore the lord “had no wish to get rid of a tenant,”
for he “knew no other way of getting his land cultivated”. But now
sheep farming made appropriation of the whole of the land possible, and
so the lord was no longer in need of the villeins; he even went so far
as to evict those whom his ancestors had attached to the soil. And even
where the cultivators remained on the land, they often, and not always
voluntarily, became leaseholders instead of copyholders; and “in many
cases a lease was but a stepping-stone to tenure at will” [1474]. The
lords no longer contented themselves with the customary payments;
instead of villeins they wanted leaseholders, whose rents they could
raise at the end of each term, according as the value of the land had
increased. “Rents were raised with great rapidity as the tenant had to
pay a sum equivalent to the utility of his holding as part of a large
pasture farm.” [1475].
There was also far less need for agricultural labourers than before.
“The decay of tillage and lack of rural employment, during this
century,” says Professor Cunningham “rest on unimpeachable evidence”
[1476]. In the 14th century “the problem of the unemployed, as it now
presents itself, had not yet arisen.” But the agrarian changes
“deprived great numbers of the agricultural labouring class,—small
customary tenants and cottagers,—of the means of support in their old
places of abode, and sent them wandering over the country” [1477].
The appropriation of the whole of the land had thus given to the rural
economy of England a new and essentially modern character: there were
now leaseholders and tenants at will, labouring poor and unemployed.
And the ancient institution of serfdom could not hold its own in the
presence of such thorough changes. “The slow agricultural revolution
which rendered their services less useful to the manorial lords,
gradually set the villans free by removing the interest their masters
had in retaining a hold upon them.” “In some instances the exaction of
predial services from villans by manorial lords can be traced as late
as the time of Elizabeth; but though no change was made in the law, the
lords seem to have found that it was not worth their while to assert
their rights over the persons of their bondmen” [1478].
There were, however, many parts of England in which scarcely any
inclosures took place [1479]. Here the villeins remained on their lands
and gradually became copyholders. They were still bound to services,
which, however, were generally commuted for small money payments, so
the conditions of their tenure were annoying rather than oppressive.
Moreover, their obligations were no longer personal, but territorial;
they were not astricted to the soil. And as they had an hereditary
right to their holdings, they differed but little from freeholders. The
“innocuous curiosities of copyhold,” survivals of ancient serfdom, have
lasted up to modern times [1480].
Our theory can thus be of much use in accounting for the changes which
have taken place in the rural economy of England. As long as there was
still free land, i.e. land which, though sometimes claimed by an owner,
could not fetch any reasonable price, the cultivators were astricted to
the soil; but as soon as the proprietors had got the practical command
over the whole of the land, many of the villeins were evicted and
replaced by leaseholders or tenants at will or became such themselves;
and the remainder became copyholders, i.e. proprietors obliged to some
services or payments without being personally unfree.
We shall inquire now whether in Germany too the appropriation of the
whole of the land coincided with the transition from serfdom to
freedom.
§ 11. The rural classes of medieval Germany.
In the time of the Merovingians the greater part of the country was
covered with forests and people relied on the products of the forests
for a considerable portion of their subsistence. Land was abundant, and
even the cultivated land had hardly any exchange value [1481].
Much new land was, however, already being taken into cultivation. The
village communities, consisting of free peasants, as well as separate
members of these communities, cleared considerable portions of the
waste land lying round the villages. In the 8th century some
communities already forbade individuals to reclaim land; but this was
still of rare occurrence; generally speaking the waste could be
appropriated by whoever chose to take it into cultivation [1482].
The bulk of the population consisted of free peasants. There were two
unfree classes: slaves and lites (a kind of serfs); but these were not
numerous [1483].
The free peasant, though he had plenty of land, was rather poorly off;
he had no slaves and so could only dispose of the labour power of
himself and his family; and in this time of extensive tillage the
produce of each man’s labour was small [1484].
Great proprietors were still rare. They worked their own lands with
slaves. Sometimes, however, they gave pieces of land in use, generally
to slaves; for, says our informant, the free peasants did not like to
take the land of the nobles and so make themselves dependent on them
[1485]. And when land was given in use to free peasants (especially by
the church) this was done on very advantageous terms, often at a
nominal rent [1486].
Land was thus abundant, slavery existed, and tenant farmers and free
labourers were absent.
In the Carolingian period the clearing of forests went on continually.
Some land was still reclaimed by free peasants, but much more by the
great proprietors who controlled abundant labour forces [1487]. The
lords were already beginning to claim much uncultivated land, the
reclaiming of which they only allowed on condition of the cultivator
subjecting himself to them. There was far less unappropriated land than
in the foregoing period, and such as there was was claimed by the king
[1488]. Yet we cannot speak of an appropriation of the whole of the
land; for we know that a claim of the king to large tracts of
uninhabited land is practically of little consequence. Accordingly our
informant states that land was still abundant. The free peasants were
already in a difficult position, not, however, because land was scarce,
but because they could not provide the labour necessary to convert
woods and marshes into arable land [1489].
In this period the free peasants began to be absorbed by the great
proprietors. The latter wanted labourers and did their utmost to
astrict the common freemen to their estates. Many people placed
themselves under the protection of nobles; others, being reduced to
poverty (especially through the institution of the wergild, and the
compulsory military service which interfered with the cultivation of
the land) fell into the hands of the lords; and some were straightway
made serfs by violence. As the landlords had the right of jurisdiction
and other public rights, they could easily subject the small
landholders under some pretext or even without any. Former free
peasants, lites, and such slaves as had received a piece of land in
use, though designated by different names, came to form practically one
class, the labouring as opposed to the ruling class [1490]. A manorial
organization arose similar to that which existed in England. There were
some slaves for personal service and agricultural labour and a great
number of dependent peasants of various kinds, who had to cultivate the
demesne of the lord and yield him part of the produce of their own
holdings [1491].
Free labourers were found rarely if at all [1492].
Our informant in several passages speaks of freemen destitute of land
[1493]. But these people are not in any way to be identified with the
poor of modern times who depend on wages. They were generally
foreigners who had no rights in any village community; but the lords
were always ready to receive them and give them a piece of land in use
on condition of their rendering services and paying tributes. The
natural increase of the labouring population and immigration of foreign
labour did not yet cause any difficulty [1494].
Most of the cultivators of this time had not the right of leaving the
manors to which their holdings belonged [1495].
We see that in this period there was still much free land; slavery
existed and serfdom was on the increase; leaseholders, tenants at will
and free labourers were wanting. All this agrees with our theory.
In the next period colonization and reclaiming of waste land went on on
a large scale. But at the same time the population increased and the
value of the land increased with it. Lamprecht, speaking of the 13th
century, writes: “Colonization and reclaiming of land had entirely
changed the condition of the rural population between the 10th and the
13th century. In the time of the Carolingians wood and land had still
been regarded as inexhaustible goods of the nation, like the sun, air
and water; but now the limitations of the geographical basis of
national life appeared more and more clearly. There had been an immense
range of land to grow food upon; but now the supply of land became
limited, chiefly and first on the Rhine, in Suabia and Franconia,
afterwards in Saxony, and finally in Bavaria, the Tyrol, and Styria;
people had to shift on a limited area. The soil became, more than
before, an object of economic value; its price kept continually
increasing. In the 12th century, in some prosperous districts, land
seems to have attained twelve times the value it had in the 9th; and
even afterwards, down to the second half of the 13th century, an
increase of about 50 per cent. is to be observed. Taking into
consideration that land was still regarded, especially by the ruling
classes, as the only basis of social and political influence (though
already other sources of large incomes were gradually arising), we may
understand how intense the struggle for the possession of the soil must
have been at this period” [1496].
The right of the king to unappropriated land was now enforced more
strictly than before, and the lords began to claim a right of property
over the commons surrounding the villages, which, however, were often
still left to the use of the peasants [1497].
However, there was no over-population as yet. The proprietors did their
best to attract people to the vast newly colonized districts,
especially to the eastern parts of Germany [1498].
During the whole of this period the landlords went on subjugating the
rural population, so that at the end of it the peasant proprietors, who
had once formed the bulk of the population, had almost entirely
disappeared, and most of the land was taken up with the estates of the
great proprietors [1499].
But the increase in the value of land already made itself felt in the
way in which the lords managed their estates. They less and less
frequently worked their own lands; their chief aim was no longer the
disposal of the labour of their dependents, but the receiving of rent.
The labour dues were often commuted for money payments [1500].
Labour was not worth so much to the lords as it had been. They
sometimes emancipated their slaves, retaining the land which they had
given them in use [1501].
At the same time a class of free tenants arose. Lamprecht remarks that
while the value of land had considerably increased the tributes which
the villeins had to pay had remained unchanged for several centuries.
In an economic sense the landlords had been dispossessed of a large
proportion of their property in the land. Therefore it was not their
interest to let serfdom continue.
“At this time, especially since the middle of the 12th century, the
villeins and landlords of the most progressive districts settled their
mutual relations by free contract. Serfdom was abolished, sometimes
entirely, sometimes for the greater part, some formalities only
subsisting. The former villein acquired the right to emigrate, and
remained as a free tenant on the land he had till then occupied. Thus,
by leasing his lands for terms of years, and sometimes for life or on
hereditary tenancy, the landlord got back the full rent of his
property; and this system, especially the lease for years, enabled him
to raise the rent at the end of each term, according as the value of
the land had increased in the meantime” [1502].
Inama-Sternegg does not quite agree with this view of Lamprecht’s. Even
where the rent was higher than the former customary payment, he says,
the leaseholder was free from the labour dues and additional payments
to which the villein had been bound, so the transition from fixed
payment to rent did not always mean an enhancement of the obligation of
the peasant [1503]. Yet this writer too states that the leasing of land
became more and more frequent. There were free contracts between
proprietor and tenant, which did not interfere with the personal
liberty of the latter; even non-fulfilment of his obligations by the
tenant had only pecuniary consequences [1504].
We cannot but think that the reason given by Lamprecht for the
transition from servile to free tenure is true. For even when the
original rent was not higher than the former customary payment plus the
value of the labour dues, the possibility of raising the rent after
each term remained.
We hear of free tenants in this period, but not yet of free labourers.
This is exactly what our theory teaches us to expect. Land, in some
parts of Germany, had already acquired a high value; such land must
have been very remunerative, and so people were ready to pay a rent for
its use, even though there was still land to be had gratis or at a
nominal rent, but far from the market and therefore less profitable.
But the country was not yet so densely peopled that there were men who
could not secure the use of any piece of land; therefore a class of
people dependent on wages did not yet exist.
In the 13th century much new land was still taken into cultivation, in
Western as well as Eastern Germany; but in the following centuries very
little land was added to the arable area. The woods, which had formerly
been regarded as inexhaustible, were no longer present in great
abundance, and the rulers of the German states as well as the landlords
exerted themselves to preserve the remainder and forbade the peasants
to clear them. From the middle of the 14th century these prohibitive
measures became general [1505].
As the population continued to increase, land became scarce. In many
parts of Southern and Western Germany the lords parcelled out their
lands in small portions, and farms of the size which had been customary
for centuries became rare [1506].
The rights of the peasants to the use of the commons, on which they had
always relied for a considerable portion of their subsistence, were now
restricted, and the lords asserted their claims to the commons more
strictly than before [1507].
Another consequence of the increase of population was that
cattle-keeping was no longer possible on such a large scale as formerly
when the common pasture occupied a great part of the land. At the end
of the Middle Ages there was a scarcity of meat, and people had to
rely, more than before, on vegetable food [1508].
The need of the landlords for the services of the peasants went on
diminishing. They no longer worked their own estates; nearly the whole
of their income consisted of the payments in kind and in money which
they received from their dependents [1509].
In Lower Saxony and part of Westphalia the lords, as early as the 13th
century, emancipated considerable numbers of villeins in their own
interest. For the villeins had gradually acquired some right to their
holdings, and the landlords, by setting them free, got back the free
disposal of the land, which they thenceforth let out to free tenants
[1510].
In the 14th century the lords began to turn out peasants (Bauernlegen)
and lease the land of which they thus re-acquired the free disposal
[1511].
Free tenancies became now general, parts of the demesne, as well as
lands which had been held in servile tenure, being leased. The
increased demand for land enabled the lords to let small allotments at
extravagant prices [1512].
Even where the customary tenures remained, the obligations of the
peasants, which had been personal, in many cases became territorial,
the holder of the land as such being subject to payments. And the
conditions of this tenure were so little servile that sometimes nobles
and knights received such land in use and took the obligations on
themselves [1513].
The difference between farmers and agricultural labourers now first
came into existence. The latter most often held a small patch of land,
but this was not sufficient to live upon; they depended on wages.
Besides agricultural labourers there were male and female servants for
household labour. The regulation of wages by law, which occurred
especially after the ravages of the great plague, proves that in the
southern and western parts of Germany free labour had become general.
Such servile work as still remained was often done by labourers hired
by the peasant to whose duty the work fell, just as in the case of the
English peasant who “found” a man [1514].
All land was now held as property; consequently the land was more and
more held by free tenants and worked with free labourers dependent on
wages, whereas serfdom gradually died out.
In the 15th century, however, according to both Lamprecht and
Inama-Sternegg, serfdom and even slavery reappeared.
Lamprecht, after speaking of the raising of rents by the landlords,
adds: “But more disastrous in its consequences than all this was the
manner in which the landlords dealt with the increasing surplus
population of the farms occupied by their villeins. Formerly, younger
sons of villeins, as well as children of free parents, had removed to
the woods for the purpose of clearing them; and it was with their help
that the landlords had in the course of the 12th and 13th centuries
extended their landed properties. In later times such younger sons had
often gone to the towns or the newly colonized districts of Eastern
Germany. Now there was a stagnation among them as well as among the
small remainder of the free population. There remained no other
alternative but to divide the farms of the villeins. But the interest
of the landlord was opposed to this. He had no security of receiving
rent and services from farms parcelled out into small allotments.
Therefore he did not, as a rule, divide the farms into more than four
parts; and those of the servile population who could not secure the use
of such a small holding were regarded as slaves. This institution, the
origin of which went back to the first half of the 12th century, had
till then been almost entirely foreign to the development of Germany.
Together with a rural proletariat destitute of nearly everything, a
real slavery came now for the first time into existence on German
ground.... And this new slave class went on continually increasing; in
the first half of the 15th century they already formed a considerable
number, about whose fate patriots were very uneasy.... Nor did the evil
stop here. The term slavery, used first with regard to villeins who
occupied no farm, was soon applied to all villeins, in order to tax
them more and more heavily and dispute their right of succeeding to the
farms of their parents, which had been established at least since the
end of the 12th century. Finally the landlords came to regard even free
tenants as slaves and slavery as the only status of the rural
population” [1515].
We can easily understand that the lords designated these proletarians
by the most contemptuous name they could devise. But were they really
slaves? A slave, as opposed to a free labourer, is not allowed to leave
his master. Now it is remarkable that Inama-Sternegg, describing the
condition of the rural population in the different states of Germany,
though he states that in the newly colonized eastern parts of Germany
the peasants, who had been free, were restricted in their right of
leaving their lords, mentions no such particulars of Western Germany
[1516]. And the chief aim of the peasants, in their revolts at the end
of the 15th century, was not to acquire personal freedom, but to retain
the use of the commons, which the lords were appropriating [1517].
The peasants were, indeed, obliged to more services in the 15th than in
the 13th and 14th centuries. But we cannot regard this as a mark of
returning serfdom or slavery; for Inama-Sternegg explicitly states that
the greater oppression of the rural classes in the 15th century was
chiefly due to the increase of the services required by the rulers of
the several German states. The services exacted by the landlords had
rather diminished [1518].
The same writer, recapitulating his conclusions as to the condition of
the rural population at the end of the Middle Ages, begins by saying
that the cultivators, who formerly had had an hereditary right to the
land on condition of paying a fixed sum, were now far more heavily
taxed and had little security of remaining on the land [1519]. We think
that this is what the statements of our informants about the
reappearance of slavery mean. The cultivators were not slaves, but
impoverished and despised tenants at will and agricultural labourers.
At any rate, in the 16th century eviction of peasants, which is the
reverse of astriction to the soil, became of frequent occurrence.
Ashley, who has consulted some of the best literature, states that “the
Bavarian code of 1518 laid down that the peasant had no hereditary
right to his holding, and not even a life interest unless he could show
some documentary evidence. In Mecklenburg a decree of 1606 declared
that the peasants were not emphyteutae but coloni, whom their lords
could compel to give up the lands allotted to them, and who could claim
no right of inheritance even when their ancestors had held the land
from time immemorial. In Holstein, again, a great number of the
peasants were expelled from their holdings, and such as remained became
tenants at will” [1520].
Serfdom, in Southern and Western Germany, thus died out towards the end
of the Middle Ages, at a time when population had become numerous and
land scarce.
The eastern parts of Germany had quite another agrarian history. Here
serfdom was not common before the 16th century. From this time,
however, and especially after the Thirty Years’ War, it became more and
more general. As this is quite a separate history we shall not speak of
it any further [1521].
We think the above remarks on England and the older parts of Germany
may suffice to show that our theory can throw some light on the
agrarian history of Western Europe.
We are fully aware that the condition of the rural classes must have
been determined by many more circumstances of greater and lesser
importance. But it seems to us that the general cause of which we have
spoken in these paragraphs is second to no other in its operation
[1522].
§ 12. Open and closed resources.
We have said that among agricultural peoples slavery, as an industrial
system, only exists where there is still free land; it disappears as
soon as all land has been appropriated. We have also seen that slavery
does not prevail to any considerable extent where subsistence is
dependent on capital [1523]. We may now combine these two conclusions
into this general rule: slavery, as an industrial system, is not likely
to exist where subsistence depends on material resources which are
present in limited quantity.
A tribe or nation cannot subsist without labour (though the amount of
labour required is sometimes small); but, besides this, material
resources are always necessary. The resources which man uses to procure
his subsistence are of two kinds: gifts of nature, and products of
human labour. The latter are commonly termed capital; their supply is
always limited. Most of the former (air, water, the heat of the sun,
etc.) exist in unlimited quantity, i.e. there is so much of them that
nobody wants to appropriate them. Land is also a gift of nature, and in
some very thinly peopled countries, where there is much more fertile
ground than can be cultivated, it has not any more value than air and
water. But as all land has not the same properties, it soon comes to
pass that the most fertile and most favourably situated land is
appropriated by some men to the exclusion of others. This is the origin
of rent. Finally, when the less valuable grounds have also been
appropriated, free land no longer exists; there is no piece of land but
has its definite owner [1524]. This last state of things has social
consequences very similar to those which exist where subsistence
depends on capital. In both cases indispensable means of production are
in the hands of definite persons; therefore a man destitute either of
land or of capital (according as subsistence depends on the former or
the latter), cannot subsist independently of the owners, but has to
apply to them for employment. Moreover, in both cases more than a
limited quantity of labour cannot be profitably employed: the owner of
capital, or of a limited space of land, cannot derive any profit from
employing more than a certain number of labourers. Therefore in either
case slavery, as an industrial system, is not likely to exist.
These considerations lead us to an important conclusion. All the
peoples of the earth, whether they subsist by hunting, fishing,
cattle-breeding, agriculture, trade or manufactures, may be divided
into two categories. Among the peoples of the first category the means
of subsistence are open to all; every one who is able-bodied and not
defective in mind can provide for himself independently of any
capitalist or landlord. Among some of these peoples capital is of some
use, and some valuable lands are already held as property; but those
who are destitute of such advantages can perfectly well do without
them, for there are still abundant natural supplies open to them. Among
the peoples of the other category subsistence depends on resources of
which the supply is limited, and therefore people destitute of these
resources are dependent on the owners. It may be convenient to suggest
technical names for these two categories. We shall speak of peoples
with open resources and peoples with closed resources. We think the
meaning of these terms is clear, and they may be convenient for use.
The distinction is an important one. We suppose we have sufficiently
proved that the relations between the social classes differ largely,
according as resources are open or closed: only among peoples with open
resources can slavery and serfdom exist, whereas free labourers
dependent on wages are only found among peoples with closed resources
[1525]. Our distinction may prove valuable in other respects also, e.g.
over-population and lack of employment are unknown among peoples with
open resources; war, which, when resources are open, has sometimes
rather the character of a sport, becomes more serious when resources
have become closed, for then its object is to extend the supply of land
or capital at the cost of the enemy [1526]; pessimism is more likely to
prevail among peoples with closed than among peoples with open
resources, etc. [1527]. We shall not, however, enlarge upon these
points any further.
Most savage tribes have open resources. All hunters have (with the
exception, perhaps, of some Australians): neither the game nor the
hunting territories are held as property. Further, most fishers:
fishing is carried on in a simple manner and does not yet require
capital. And finally, most agricultural tribes; among them superest
ager, as Tacitus says of the ancient Germans [1528].
Savage tribes with closed resources are: 1º possibly some Australian
hunters, if it is true that among them every inch of ground is held as
property, 2º the Eskimos (fishers), who cannot get on without a boat,
or a sledge and dogs, 3º all pastoral tribes, 4º the agricultural
tribes inhabiting most of the Polynesian and Micronesian islands, the
Fijians and perhaps a few agricultural tribes outside Oceania.
We shall not inquire whether the civilized nations of ancient and
modern times have, or had, open or closed resources. We will only
remark that in Western Europe resources, from open, have become closed.
Yet they are not altogether closed, as long as there are still thinly
peopled countries open for emigration. Whether the white races will
still have room for expansion for a considerable time, we cannot know.
When we were preparing the first edition of this work, we thought the
distinction between countries with open and with closed resources had
not been made before. Since we read Lange’s book on the labour problem
and saw that the author speaks in the same sense of open and closed
countries or open and closed economy. We give here the passages of most
interest, bearing on the subject. “There is a great difference between
the economy of open and closed civilized countries. In the former there
is still an abundance of land fit for cultivation, of which every
labourer has the free use; in the latter all land has been taken into
cultivation and appropriated. This difference is so fundamental, that
it would be best to formulate a separate economic theory for either of
the two cases and then, in applying the theory to the facts, to examine
how far, in every instance, the characteristics of open or closed
economy are present. The latter proceeding is always necessary, for the
important distinction we have made is a relative one, no country
presenting exclusively the conditions of either open or closed
culture.” In another chapter the author dwells more at length on the
idea, laid down in the last sentence. “The earth still contains large
territories, not yet taken into cultivation, which in a certain sense
are open to every one; but there are such factors as habits,
prejudices, etc., which bind people to their own country, and there are
further material impediments to emigration from old civilized
countries, which are so great, that the economy of such countries may
practically be regarded as closed, without being such in an absolute
sense. On the other hand, even in the most open colonial country there
are always circumstances which make the occupation of uncultivated land
difficult and so the economy of such a country presents some
characteristics of a closed economy. Between these two types there are
numberless intermediate stages and therefore economic life is in
reality subject to the influences of both open and closed economy. But
in theory a sharp line of demarcation must be drawn between these two
states of society; for only so can we attain to a right understanding
of real economic life” [1529].
In the following paragraphs we shall speak of the effect of secondary
causes among agricultural tribes. We shall not, however, enter into
many details. The difficulty, in our branch of science, is always, that
we have so few works of predecessors to rely upon. For instance, we
shall speak of the influence of trade among agricultural tribes. Now,
if any accurate researches had been made into the general effects of
trade, we should be able to conclude that trade having been proved to
have such general effects, it must have such an influence on slavery.
But as such is not the case, we should be obliged, if we were
thoroughly to investigate the subject, to inquire what are the general
effects of trade. An equally close study of militarism, of the
condition of women, etc., would be required. And as in this way our
book would never come to an end, we shall content ourselves with giving
a few outlines, which we hope may turn the attention of other
ethnologists to the important problems which the ensuing paragraphs
will contain.
§ 13. Condition of women.
As we have remarked before, the position held by the women of a tribe
determines to some extent whether or not slaves are wanted. Where all
the drudgery is performed, and can be performed, by the women, and the
men do not want to relieve them of it, there is no great use for slave
labour. But where women enjoy high consideration, the men are more
likely to procure slaves who are to assist the women in their work.
We shall speak first of the latter fact, of slaves performing female
labour. It is very often stated that slaves are employed for domestic
labour. And as, in countries where slavery does not exist, domestic
labour is nearly always incumbent on the women, slaves who perform such
work alleviate the women’s task. Where slavery prevails to a great
extent it even occurs that slave-owners, female as well as male, have
scarcely anything to do, all work falling to the share of the slaves.
The slave-owners, in such case, form the aristocracy; the slaves, and
the poor freemen unable to purchase slaves, are the labouring classes.
We may remind the reader of ancient Rome, where the domestic slaves,
the familia urbana, performed all domestic services required by the
rich, and of the women of the upper classes in Mohammedan countries,
who spend their time in idleness in the harems.
We have seen that among some pastoral tribes domestic labour is the
chief occupation of the slaves. We do not recollect having found any
instance of a similar state of things among any agricultural tribe, and
cannot think that such will anywhere be the case. A rich cattle-keeper
can easily support, by the produce of his cattle, some domestic slaves
who perform no productive labour. But among agricultural tribes it is
otherwise: subsistence here depends almost entirely on labour;
therefore slaves performing unproductive labour can only be kept if
there are other slaves who till the soil and procure food for the
family. It is not probable that the master will himself undertake the
cultivation required to feed the slaves who assist his wife in her
work; nor would the wife be glad to receive slaves from her husband, if
she had to provide for them by working on the field. The Romans would
not have kept a familia urbana, if there had not also been a familia
rustica.
Hitherto we have spoken of unproductive female labour. But women, in
primitive agricultural societies, often perform productive labour also:
in many cases the tilling of the soil is incumbent on them. We may
suppose that the introduction of slaves has often served to free the
women from this task. We shall not, however, proceed to a closer
examination of this point; for this would require a digression on the
division of labour between the sexes, which falls beyond the scope of
the present volume.
On the other hand, the place of slaves is often supplied by wives. We
have seen that among the Australian hunters polygamy widely prevails
and serves economic purposes. The same is the case among some
agricultural tribes.
In § 8 the non-existence of slavery in most of the Melanesian islands
has been left unexplained. We shall see now that in several of these
islands a “slavery of women” prevails which bears much resemblance to
slavery proper. Purchase of wives is in vogue; and most of the women
are bought by the rich, many of whom possess a large number of wives.
And the women must work hard to increase the income of their owners
[1530].
Guppy, in his description of the Solomon Islands, states: “The powerful
chiefs of the islands of Bougainville Straits usually possess a large
number of wives of whom only the few that retain their youth and
comeliness enjoy much of the society of their lord. The majority,
having been supplanted in the esteem of their common husband, have sunk
into a condition of drudgery, finding their employment and their
livelihood in toiling for the master whose affections they once
possessed. I learned from Gorai, the Shortland chief, who has between
eighty and a hundred wives, that the main objection he has against
missionaries settling on his islands is, that they would insist on his
giving up nearly all his wives, thereby depriving him of those by whose
labour his plantations are cultivated and his household supplied with
food. A great chief, he remarked, required a large staff of workers to
cultivate his extensive lands, or, in other words, numerous women to
work in his plantations and to bring the produce home” [1531].
This statement is very remarkable. In the second chapter of Part I we
have seen that in these same islands of Bougainville Straits boys are
captured from the neighbouring islands. Guppy calls them slaves, but at
the same time tells us that they “enjoy most of the rights of a native
of the common class” [1532]. There is thus no difficulty in obtaining
slaves; yet slavery is little developed, for the simple reason that
polygamy perfectly serves the purposes of slavery.
Ribbe equally remarks that on Bougainville polygamy is common. The wife
is the slave of her husband: she has to till the fields, to perform
most of the domestic work and to take care of the children. In the
Shortland Islands (near Bougainville) the wife is the slave and beast
of burden of her husband, rather than his companion [1533].
In the Nissan Islands, according to Sorge, most of the work is done by
the women [1534].
In the New Hebrides polygamy also prevails. The price paid for a wife
varies from 10 to 20 pigs, “according to her capabilities as a worker
in the yam-patch.” “They [the women] learn in their girlhood all that
fits them to be man’s slave and toiler in the fields”. “Women are
degraded to the level of brute beasts, doing all the hard field work,
and being made to carry loads which appear quite disproportionate to
their ugly-shaped bodies and thin legs” [1535]. Hagen and Pineau give a
similar account of female labour, and add that a man’s wealth depends
on the number of his wives [1536].
De Vaux, speaking of the women of New Caledonia, says: “All the
drudgery is incumbent on them. They perform the clearing and digging of
the soil, carry on their backs crushing loads of ignames and taros to
the village, and, if a chief has promised you assistance in some
fatiguing work that you want to have quickly done, he will send you a
gang of these miserable beings who may scarcely be called women.”
Turner remarks: “Chiefs had ten, twenty, and thirty wives. The more
wives the better plantations and the more food.” “If a wife misbehaved,
the chief did not divorce her, but made her work all the harder”. And
Rochas tells us that the New Caledonians keep no servants, but have
many wives instead; rich men have as many wives as they want for the
cultivation of their fields [1537].
In Neu Pommern, according to Parkinson, “every man who can afford it
buys many wives. For a wife is a capital that yields a fair interest;
she works from an early age till her strength is spent; and when, from
age or by being overtaxed with labour, she grows sickly and decrepit,
she perishes unheeded by anybody. The wife is nothing but the beast of
burden of her husband; she performs all labour, tills the soil, cleans
the dwelling, prepares the food, and carries the reaped produce in
heavy baskets far away to the market. The husband therefore regards his
wife as a valuable property.” “The husband continually urges his wives
to work, that they may earn much dewarra [shell-money] for him; for the
more dewarra he owns the greater is the consideration and influence he
enjoys. But the lot of the wives is not bettered by an increase in the
wealth of the husband. The wives of a man who owns thousands of coils
of dewarra have no better life and are no less overworked than the wife
of a very poor man who has no property except his only wife.” And Danks
states that “a man may have as many wives as he can afford to purchase.
If he cannot afford to purchase one, and his credit is low, he may have
to remain single. The headmen are generally rich men, hence they
invariably have a number of wives, ranging from three to six”. “Married
life in New Britain is a hard one for the women. They are beaten and
ill-treated by their husbands as occasion may arise” [1538].
In New Mecklenburg the condition of the women is equally bad [1539].
In Fiji, according to Williams, “polygamy is looked upon as a principal
source of a chiefs power and wealth.” And Pritchard says: “The greater
the number of wives a man had, the better his social position....
Besides the acknowledged wives, there were attached to the household of
the chiefs slave-women, who, though performing the most menial
services, were at the same time nothing else than what the odalisques
are in the Turkish harem” [1540].
We see that these Melanesian wives supply the place of slaves. They are
bought like slaves; they have to work for their owners like slaves; and
their labour, like that of slaves, increases the wealth of their lords.
Another point of resemblance is this. In slave countries it is
generally the rich only who are able to procure slaves; poor freemen
have to work for themselves. Here it is the rich who appropriate the
women; and many of the poor have to remain single. Here, as in all
countries where polygamy is practised, it is only the minority of the
men who can live in polygamy; for everywhere the number of women is
nearly equal to that of men. And as in Melanesia the rich, who
otherwise would want slaves, have many wives to work for them, slaves
are not required.
We cannot explain here why in Melanesia womankind is so much at a
discount, whereas among some other savage tribes (e.g. on the North
Pacific Coast of North America) the sex commands such respect [1541].
But we clearly see what is the effect of this state of things. Much
labour is wanted; otherwise the women would not have to work so hard,
and the rich would not keep so many female labourers. Yet slaves are
not kept in any considerable number, because the women supply the place
of slaves.
One might object, that possibly the women are held in such a slavelike
state because male slaves are impossible or very difficult to procure,
or because the coercive power of these tribes is not strong enough to
admit of the keeping of slaves, or because male captives, where they
are introduced into the tribe (as in the islands Bougainville Straits),
are wanted for warriors. Shortly expressed the objection is, that
slavery is not wanting because there exists a “slavery of women,” but
“slavery of women” exists because slavery proper is wanting. We must
own that this is quite possible. But, whatever be the cause of this
“slavery of women,” as soon as it exists it renders slavery less
necessary than it would otherwise be. War is frequent in Melanesia
[1542], so there is no physical impossibility of procuring captives.
And though it may be difficult to keep male slaves subjected,—if the
men were unable to impose all work on the women and obliged to perform
their due share of it themselves, they would decidedly take more pains
to procure slaves and set them to work. A low condition of women,
though only a secondary factor, certainly is a factor which tends to
make slavery proper superfluous.
§ 14. Commerce.
In § 1 of this chapter we have found the following numbers of positive
and negative cases among commercial agricultural tribes:
Positive. Negative.
a1 + t 8 3
a2 + t 26
a2 + c + t 7
a3 + t 6
a3 + c + t 1
-- --
Total 48 3
We use the term “commercial tribes” in a wide sense, as including not
only those tribes among which many people subsist by trading, but those
that exchange a considerable part of their produce for foreign
merchandise. For instance, a tribe that grows corn for export is a
commercial tribe in the sense we attach to the word.
We see that, with very few exceptions, all commercial agricultural
tribes keep slaves. This proves that among agricultural tribes the
development of trade greatly furthers the growth of slavery.
We have not much to say in explanation of this fact. When speaking of
the slave-keeping tribes of the Pacific Coast of North America, we have
already remarked that the development of trade tends to further slavery
in various ways. Commercial tribes are likely to carry on a trade in
slaves, and this makes the keeping of slaves very easy. Where the
freemen take to commercial pursuits, they want others to perform the
common drudgery for every-day subsistence. The trade itself may also
require menial work: the articles of commerce have to be prepared and
transported, trading vessels have to be rowed, etc. And finally,
commerce often leads to a development of wealth and luxury; a man can
now, by the labour of his slaves, acquire not only the necessaries, but
the refinements of life [1543].
The last point is an important one. In self-dependent agricultural
countries the main use of slave labour consists in providing the master
with food. If, then, a man keeps a large number of slaves who work for
him, he is able to entertain his friends, or to keep a retinue of
unproductive slaves or servants, whose wants are provided for by the
work of the soil-tilling slaves. But where this is the sole profit one
can derive from one’s slaves, an owner who keeps a considerable number
of them does not want to make them work very hard; he often contents
himself with receiving a tribute, and so the slaves become serfs. In
this way the slave-owner gets less out of his slaves than would
otherwise be the case; but he does not want more, and he need not now
continually supervise their work. Slavery is not likely to exist on a
large scale.
Where commercial relations with foreign parts are maintained, it is
otherwise. A slave-owner who receives large quantities of agricultural
produce from his slaves can now exchange them for foreign merchandise.
Retaining for himself as much food as he wants, he exchanges the rest
for such objects as are either useful and agreeable in themselves, or
give him distinction among his countrymen. The use of slave labour
becomes thus practically unlimited. Kohler rightly remarks that only
where the economic instinct is awake, can slavery attain to a full
development, and Schmoller observes that, when the patriarchal family
began to produce for the market, covetousness and pursuit of gain arose
and the treatment of slaves became worse [1544].
We must further take into consideration that slavery on a very large
scale is only possible, where industrial crops are raised. “Tobacco and
cotton” says Cairnes, “fulfil that condition which we saw was essential
to the economical employment of slaves—the possibility of working large
numbers within a limited space; while wheat and Indian corn, in the
cultivation of which the labourers are dispersed over a wide surface,
fail in this respect” [1545]. And cotton and similar crops are only
cultivated in large quantity where they are exported.
Of such “wholesale slavery”, as Bagehot terms it, we find a few
instances among savage tribes.
Köler tells us that in Bonny the great majority of the inhabitants are
slaves. The keeping of slaves is very expensive, as agriculture and
industry scarcely exist; all food has to be imported. The freemen are
traders in palm-oil, and want large numbers of slaves to row the canoes
in which this oil is transported [1546].
Among the Ewe of the Slave Coast slavery is practised on a very large
scale. Some men keep 200–300 slaves, who form their capital. The slaves
are generally employed in carrying oil from the inland to the coast for
sale to Europeans. The maintaining of order among such great numbers of
slaves requires great severity. Slavery marks all their institutions.
It is a common saying with them that “the large water-tub does not go
to the spring”, whereby they mean that freemen must not do such work as
is only fit for slaves and boys [1547].
Miss Kingsley, speaking of the social classes among the tribes,
inhabiting the territory of the Oil Rivers on the Western Coast of
Africa, says: “The third and fourth classes are true slave classes, the
higher one in rank being what is called the Winnaboes or Trade boys,
the lower the pull-away boys and the plantation hands. The best point
in it, as a system, is that it gives to the poorest boy who paddles an
oil canoe a chance of becoming a king” [1548].
Among the Garos, where cotton is the principal culture, two-fifths of
the population are slaves. “The distinction [between freemen and
slaves] is jealously preserved.... It is from the possession of a large
number of them [slaves] that a man obtains influence amongst his tribe”
[1549].
It is clear that among these tribes slavery would not prevail to such a
great extent, if the preparing and transporting of the articles of
export did not require so much labour.
In these cases trade is the cause of “wholesale slavery”, not
necessarily of slavery in general. “Retail slavery” may have existed
among these tribes before they became so largely commercial. But,
seeing that among them the extension of commercial relations has so
greatly increased the use of slave labour, we may safely suppose that
in several cases the development of trade has given rise to slavery
among tribes which did not practise it before. This is also made
probable by the list given at the beginning of this paragraph.
We shall not proceed to a closer investigation of this subject. We have
already remarked that as yet we know very little about the general
effects of trade and the place it occupies in social life among
savages. And we must know more of this, before we can arrive at any
accurate conclusion with regard to the influence of trade on the rise
and growth of slavery.
When speaking of hunters and fishers, we have found that the influence
of trade is more considerable where manufactured goods, than where raw
products are exported. This will probably also apply to agricultural
tribes, viz. if we take the term “manufactured goods” in a wide sense,
as including agricultural produce. Raw products in our sense means
articles which can be exported without any labour being previously
applied to them, e.g. the various kinds of stone and earth exchanged by
Eskimos and Australians. The articles exported by commercial
agricultural tribes are nearly always manufactured goods in this wider
sense.
It might be interesting to divide the commercial tribes (in the wider
sense) into three categories, according as they export agricultural
produce, manufactured goods in the common, restricted sense, or
articles purchased abroad (articles of transit trade), the last
category comprising the commercial tribes in the restricted sense, and
inquire what are the social effects of commerce in each case. But such
a subject wants separate treatment; we cannot deal with it here. We
will only express our opinion, that the significance of trade and
industry among savages is commonly underrated. Whether we are right
here will appear when these points have been more closely studied than
they are now.
In another paragraph we shall have to speak of a peculiar branch of
trade, the trade in slaves.
§ 15. Slaves employed in warfare.
In several cases it is stated that slaves are employed in warfare.
Leaving out of regard the cattle-breeding agricultural tribes, of which
we have already spoken in chapter III, we find the following instances.
Thomson tells us that in New Zealand slaves accompanied their masters
on fishing and fighting expeditions; and in another place he states
that women and slaves accompanied the warriors to carry burdens [1550].
Polack says: “Slaves are permitted to take part in a war”, and Brown,
speaking of slaves in New Zealand, remarks: “If any of them show
superior talents for war, they are duly appreciated, and many slaves by
this means raise themselves to the chieftainship of the tribe” [1551].
Dalton, speaking of the slaves kept by the Garos, says: “It is from the
possession of a large number of them that a man obtains influence
amongst his tribe. Each great chief can go to war with a body-guard of
60 such followers entirely devoted to him” [1552].
Among the Lawas too, according to Colquhoun, slaves are employed as
warriors [1553].
In Nias slaves are often compelled to go to war with their masters,
except when war is made upon the native village of the slaves. The
slaves fight bravely, and in war bear arms like the freemen, but are
never set at liberty for their bravery [1554].
Among the Kayans slaves serve as warriors and can even become
war-chiefs [1555].
Among the natives of Central Celebes, slaves who excel in those
qualities which are highly valued in freemen, i.e. bravery or
oratorical power, are practically no longer regarded as slaves [1556].
Among the Tagals and Visayas, in the time of the conquista, generally
freemen and vassals only took part in military operations; but
sometimes slaves too, especially in naval wars: the slaves were then
employed for rowing the boats [1557].
The forces sent out by Lunda chiefs on marauding expeditions consist of
freemen and slaves [1558].
Among the Angoni the domestic slaves join their masters in the
slave-raids [1559].
Bérenger-Féraud tells us that among the Wolofs the slaves of the king
are soldiers and form his body-guard; they also collect taxes for him
[1560].
Among the Barea and Kunama the spoils taken in war by a native-born
slave belong to his master [1561]. Hence it appears that these slaves
are employed in warfare.
In the French Soudan the master provides his domestic slaves with arms
and takes them with him to the battle-field [1562].
Among the Soninkays and Malinkays of French Guinea, one class of
warriors is composed of the slaves of the chiefs. At the close of a war
they return to their agricultural pursuits; but they are always ready
to take arms again [1563].
These are the only instances we have noticed, of purely agricultural
tribes among which slaves perform a military function. There may be
some more cases. Our informants do not always enter into many details;
therefore, when they are silent on the subject, this does not always
prove that slaves are not allowed to fight. Yet, considering the small
number of instances we have been able to collect, we may safely
conclude that among most agricultural tribes slaves do not share in
military operations.
This is what we expected. Slaves are not allowed to follow the noble
military art, which is the privilege of freemen [1564]. A slave is not
a warrior for the same reason that he is not a hunter. Moreover, it
were too dangerous to trust him with weapons; he might be inclined to
rise against his oppressors. And finally, when slaves are procured by
capture in war or kidnapping, they would often have to fight against
their own tribe, and would be very likely to go over to the enemies of
their masters.
It is further remarkable that the tribes we have enumerated in this
paragraph are all in the higher stages of agriculture, as may be seen
from chapter I. We have not found a single instance of hunting
agriculturists employing their slaves in warfare. There are even
hunting agriculturists of the lowest type, of whom it is explicitly
stated that they do not allow their slaves to fight. Martius tells us
that several wild tribes of Brazil keep slaves. The slaves are
differently treated by the different tribes; but it is a general
characteristic of slavery, that slaves are not allowed to bear arms
[1565]. And Azara states that in his time the Mbayas subsisted on
hunting and fishing, and on the produce of the soil that was tilled to
a small extent by their slaves and by a neighbouring tribe, the Guanas.
Here too, warfare was the business of the freemen to the exclusion of
the slaves [1566].
This may, at first sight, seem strange. If it is true, as Powell
asserts, (and it does not seem to us improbable) that slavery
originated from the adoption of captives [1567], we should expect to
find an intermediate stage, in which the captives, though already
enslaved instead of adopted, still shared in military operations, the
differentiation of the “regulative part of society” from the “operative
part” (to borrow Spencer’s words) not yet being complete. The existence
of slavery, mainly for military purposes, among the hunting Abipones
and some pastoral tribes, seems to indicate such a stage. But among
agricultural tribes we find no trace of it. Some agricultural tribes
(of which the Iroquois are the classical instance) adopt their
captives; then there are many which keep slaves who are not allowed to
fight; and, finally, in the higher stages of agriculture, we find a few
tribes among which slaves share in military operations.
Yet the cause of this seeming incongruity is not difficult to detect.
Pastoral tribes are always stronger, from a military point of view,
than primitive agricultural tribes. In chapter III we have seen that
the former often keep their agricultural neighbours in a state of
subjection. Therefore it is much easier for them to employ their slaves
in warfare than for hunting agriculturists; the latter, if they are to
keep slaves at all, must take care to disarm them and so prevent them
from doing harm.
Among agriculturists in the higher stages it is otherwise. There is
often an elaborate division of labour; the governing classes are
differentiated from the labouring classes, and the army is regularly
constituted. Now it is not at all dangerous to enlist the slaves into
the inferior ranks of the army, under the lead of the governing
classes. The slaves, generally brought by traders from a far distance,
have no longer to fight against their native tribe, but against
strangers. And where slavery prevails to a great extent, the owners of
numerous slaves, who form the aristocracy, will often be inclined to
rely on their slaves for the maintenance of their power over the common
freemen; whereas the slaves, who are no longer on the same footing of
familiarity with the freemen as in primitive slavery, but despised and
hated for being the tools of the aristocracy, regard their master as
their natural protector and are willing to stand by him [1568].
Such was the course of evolution in ancient Rome. In the old times the
slaves were not allowed to fight. “For entering the military service or
taking on him any state office, a slave was punished with death”
[1569]. But later on a change took place. Speaking of the last days of
the republic, Ingram remarks: “In the subsequent civil conflicts the
aid of slaves was sought by both parties, even by Marius himself, and
afterwards by Catiline, though he finally rejected their services.
Clodius and Milo employed bands of gladiators in their city riots, and
this action on the part of the latter was approved by Cicero. In the
First Civil War they were to be found in both camps, and the murderers
of Caesar, those soi-disant vindicators of liberty, were escorted to
the Capitol by gladiators. Antony, Octavius, and Sextus Pompeius
employed them in the Second Civil War” [1570]. But the slaves soon
began to take arms against those who had taught them to fight. “It is
recorded by Augustus on the Monumentum Ancyranum that he gave back to
their masters for punishment about 30,000 slaves who had absconded and
borne arms against the state. Under Tiberius, at the death of Caligula,
and in the reign of Nero, there were threatening movements of the
slaves. Nor did the danger of servile insurrection disappear in the
later stages of the Empire. The armies of the invading Goths were
swelled by their countrymen who had been captured or bought by Romans.
The slaves of Gaul almost en masse took part in the revolt of the
Bagaudae, and forty thousand slaves joined Alaric at the siege of Rome”
[1571].
The last passage shows that even in a state where the power of the
government and the military art are highly developed it is not safe to
employ slaves in warfare. They may actually be the ready tools of the
aristocracy; but in the long run they will come to form a dangerous
element in the state. Yet, as it may be momentarily convenient to an
ambitious statesman to employ them, it will sometimes be done; whereas
among hunting agriculturists the danger is so obvious that it is not
even attempted.
As it is only among a few agricultural tribes, and these in the higher
stages, that slaves perform a military function, we cannot think that
this has been an important factor in the rise of slavery; and it has
probably been nowhere the only motive for making slaves.
Something analogous to the employment of slaves in warfare is their
holding high offices of state. This occurs in some despotically
governed African countries. Goldstein remarks that in the Soudan states
the numerous court and state offices are generally held by slaves. The
king prefers them as public officers to royal princes, who might be
inclined to rise against him [1572]. Among the Bayanzi, according to
Torday and Joyce, “the great chief usually has a confidential adviser,
who, in all cases observed, was a slave; such slaves have great
influence, and receive numerous presents from their masters; they often
impersonate the chief before strangers, while their master keeps in the
background” [1573]. In imperial Rome freedmen were appointed to high
offices [1574].
§ 16. Slaves kept as a luxury.
Sometimes we are told that it is considered an honour to possess many
slaves. We shall give a few instances.
Among the Lampongs the keeping of slaves is indicative of wealth and
power [1575].
Among the Tagals and Visayas, in the time of the conquista, a man’s
influence, power and reputation depended on the number of his slaves
[1576].
Among the Ininga and Galloa it is the ambition of a freeman to have as
many slaves as possible [1577].
Compiègne states that a Mpongwe asked him to give him a portion of his
wages in advance, in order to buy a slave. “He will work for me and my
wife” said the man, “and I shall be a person of rank” [1578].
Among the Bambala, “when a man buys a new slave, he ornaments him on
the first day with his best clothes and ornaments, and walks round the
village with him to show him to his friends” [1579].
We have only taken a few instances at random. It cannot be interesting
to the reader to know how often the same fact has been noticed by
ethnographers. For we may suppose that wherever slavery exists, the
possession of a great number of slaves is a mark of distinction. The
possession of slaves, like other property, is indicative of wealth; and
where slaves are acquired by capture in war it shows the bravery of the
captor. Moreover, among agricultural tribes the labour of the slaves
augments the revenue of their owner, and so the keeping of slaves is
not only a sign but a source of wealth; therefore the slave-owner is
looked upon as one who has at his disposal a means of acquiring wealth.
Martius, speaking of the wild tribes of Brazil, remarks that a chief
who keeps many slaves can take more land into cultivation than other
people. He has therefore always an abundant supply of food, which tends
to increase the esteem in which he is held [1580].
Where industry and art are little developed, slaves, besides wives and
domestic animals, are almost the only luxury that is to be had. The
reader will remember Levchine’s statement about a rich Kazak Kirghiz,
whose numerous horses gave him no profit, but great renown [1581]. In
the lower stages of culture a rich man cannot build a palace, or keep a
motor-car, or buy pictures; he can only show his wealth to the public
by keeping a large number of men or domestic animals continually
running about him. Leroy-Beaulieu justly remarks: “The luxury of
primitive times is very simple; it consists mainly in the grouping
about the rich man (who most often is at the same time a man of high
birth) of a large body of servants maintained by him, and in practising
hospitality on a large scale. Among patriarchal peoples there is almost
perfect equality of material life between men of different stations.
Food, clothing, furniture even, differs but little” [1582].
But, though a rich man may display his wealth by keeping a great number
of slaves, we do not mean to say that among any agricultural tribe all
slaves are kept as a mere luxury. This seems improbable. Among pastoral
tribes, as we have seen before, it sometimes occurs. The owner of
numerous herds may support a large body of slaves, who have scarcely
anything to do. But among agricultural tribes it is quite otherwise.
Subsistence here is largely dependent on labour; much labour is
required to provide for the slaves, and the master will not choose to
work for them himself. The slaves, therefore, must perform at least as
much productive labour as is required to provide for their own wants;
and there is no reason why the master should not make them work
somewhat more, to receive a surplus; the more so, as he is thus enabled
to display his wealth in the other manner mentioned by Leroy-Beaulieu,
viz. by practising hospitality on a large scale.
It is, of course, perfectly possible, and indeed it often occurs, that
some slaves are kept as a mere luxury, either doing nothing at all, or
performing personal services. But then there must be other slaves who,
by performing productive labour, provide for their master, their
fellow-slaves, and themselves. There cannot be a class of unproductive
labourers, without there being a class of productive labourers too. We
can only imagine one case, in which all slaves might be kept as a mere
luxury. It might be, that there were a class of productive labourers
consisting of freemen, who provided for the slave-owners and their
unproductive slaves. There might, for instance, be an aristocracy,
levying taxes on the common people and keeping slaves as a luxury. Such
is indeed the case among the pastoral Beni Amer. It might also occur
among agricultural tribes; but we have not found any instance of it.
Only in two cases have we found it stated that slaves are not
productive.
Coquilhat tells us that on the Upper Congo the keeping of slaves does
not increase the master’s income; for agriculture is insignificant, and
these tribes are not commercial. But he also states that the soil is
tilled by old women and male slaves, so slaves do not seem to be kept
as a mere luxury [1583].
Among the Fanti, according to Finsch, slaves are articles of luxury;
they are as lazy as their masters. They are acquired as prisoners of
war or by purchase. Every noble Fanti owns numerous slaves; for it is a
mark of distinction to keep many of them. Some slaves carry parasols or
fans; others by trumpeting announce the arrival of the patrician. Most
of them do nothing at all. But the same writer states that the
condition of the pawns (who, as has been shown in the first chapter of
Part I, are a kind of slaves) is much worse than that of the slaves in
the restricted sense [1584]. We may therefore suppose that these pawns
are the productive labourers.
We have never found it explicitly stated that among any agricultural
tribe slaves are not employed in agriculture.
Our conclusion is that luxury has not probably been among any
agricultural tribe the only motive for keeping slaves. Yet many slaves
are kept as a mere luxury, and consequently among some tribes slaves
are far more numerous than they would be if all of them were engaged in
productive pursuits.
§ 17. Other secondary internal causes.
We have seen that among the tribes of the Pacific Coast of North
America the growth of slavery is furthered by their preserving food for
the time of scarcity, whereas hunters who live from hand to mouth have
less use for slave labour.
Hunting agriculturists much resemble true hunters: subsistence depends
largely on the vicissitudes of the chase. But where a tribe lives
principally on the produce of the soil, it is necessary to preserve the
reaped fruits until the following harvest.
This leads to the same conclusion we had already arrived at, that
slavery is more likely to exist among agriculturists of the higher
stages than among hunting agriculturists [1585]. We do not think that
anything more need be said on this subject.
In our chapter on pastoral tribes we have found that subjection of
tribes as such sometimes serves as a substitute for slavery, making
slavery proper superfluous. The same proved to be the case among
agriculturists who depend on cattle for a large portion of their
subsistence. Something analogous to this is the levying of tributes on
conquered districts that so often occurs in Oceania, as we have found
in § 8. Outside Oceania we have found only one instance among
agriculturists who do not depend on cattle, and even this is a doubtful
one. Morgan states that among the Iroquois the council “regulated the
affairs of subjugated tribes” [1586]; but he does not enter into more
details, so we cannot exactly know what he means.
It is easy to understand, why subjection of tribes so seldom occurs
among agriculturists. Hunting agriculturists, like true hunters,
generally live in small groups and therefore cannot keep other tribes
in a state of subjection. And among agricultural tribes of the higher
stages men as well as women are continually engaged in agricultural
labour; they are attached to the spot on which they live and, unlike
nomadic cattle-keepers [1587], cannot easily control a neighbouring
tribe. The vanquished tribe, by retreating a little, can place itself
out of reach of the conquering tribe. Only where, as on the small
Polynesian islands, escape is not practicable, can a vanquished
district be kept in a state of subjection. The Iroquois were an
exceptional case. They were hunting agriculturists in this sense, that
agricultural labour was performed by the women only; but at the same
time they had a strong military organization: the five nations formed a
powerful union.
In the higher stages of culture the growth of militarism enables strong
agricultural peoples to subject their weaker neighbours; and the growth
of population prevents the latter from receding. But among agricultural
savages subjugation of tribes is rarely found.
§ 18. External causes, especially the slave-trade. Recapitulation.
In the second and third chapters we have spoken of external causes. We
have seen that for slavery to exist it is not sufficient that there
should be some use for slave labour; it must also be possible to keep
slaves; the freemen of the tribe must have a coercive power strong
enough to keep the slaves subjected and prevent them from escaping. It
has been shown that this coercive power is most strongly developed,
where men have fixed habitations, live in large groups, and preserve
food; and further, that the slave-trade greatly facilitates the keeping
of slaves.
As for the first three points, it is easy to see that agricultural
tribes of the higher stages are more settled, live in larger groups,
and are more likely to preserve food than hunting agriculturists
[1588], so here again we find a reason why slavery is so much more
frequent among the former than among the latter.
The slave-trade is of more interest to us here. It has been, shown that
among the tribes of the Pacific Coast of North America a brisk trade in
slaves was carried on, which must have greatly accelerated the growth
of slavery; for it made the keeping of slaves much easier than it would
have been if each of these tribes had had to procure its slaves by
capture in war. It has also been remarked that among pastoral tribes
slavery exists almost exclusively in those parts, where a trade in
slaves with civilized or semi-civilized peoples is or was carried on,
viz. in Arabia, the Caucasus, North-east and North-west Africa; whereas
the pastoral tribes that live in outlying regions (Siberia, South
Africa) with the only exception of the Ovaherero, do not keep slaves.
We shall inquire now whether the same is the case with agricultural
tribes, whether among them too slavery is of rare occurrence in those
parts where the slave-trade has never been carried on.
In North America, at the time of its discovery, slavery did not exist
among any agricultural tribe. Negro slavery, practised by a few of them
in later times, was derived from the whites.
In South America we have found only a few slave-keeping agricultural
tribes; and the slave-trade formerly carried on by the whites may go
far to explain the existence of slavery in these few cases. “The
Brazilian native” says Martius “sometimes sells his children to people
of white races, much oftener than to those of his own colour.” The
principal object of warfare among the natives, in Martius’ time, was to
capture slaves, whom they sold either to other tribes or to colonists
of Portuguese extraction. The custom of selling prisoners to white
colonists has strongly influenced the native character. It was already
practised very shortly after the discovery of America. Many Indians
were transported to Spain and Portugal. The Mamelucos, living in San
Paolo, made long and sanguinary wars upon the Indians. They are said
during 130 years to have killed and enslaved more than two millions of
Indians. Pedro de Avila, governor of Buenos Ayres, complained that the
Paulistas carried on this trade in public and from 1628 to 1630 had
brought 60,000 Indians to the market at Rio Janeiro. The whites
continually availed themselves of the quarrels of the several Indian
tribes, to procure such Indians as had been made prisoners. Even in
Martius’ time this trade went on, especially in thinly peopled,
outlying districts, where the Brazilian government could not prevent
it. The wars of the Indians were simply marauding expeditions; their
object was to procure prisoners for sale to Brazilian whites [1589].
In Oceania, slavery was an aboriginal institution in New Zealand and
part of the Solomon group and the Bismarck Archipelago. From the lack
of details concerning a system of slave labour, we must conclude that
in these islands the economic use of slaves was small. Slavery further
existed in the western part of New Guinea, where it probably still
exists. Here foreign influence clearly appears. In the eastern part of
the island, that till quite recently had not been visited by foreigners
(British and German New Guinea), slavery is unknown; and the western
part (Dutch New Guinea), where slavery exists, was for a long time
under the rule of the sultan of Tidore [1590]. The tribute which the
inhabitants of New Guinea had to pay to the sultan consisted partly of
slaves; moreover, many Papuans were captured as slaves in the hongi
raids [1591]. This, however, is not sufficient to account for the
keeping of slaves by Papuans themselves. But we may consider, first
that several districts on the coast are inhabited by a mongrel race of
Papuans and Malays (e.g. on the Gulf of Macluer), and secondly that the
trade with Tidore, Serang, and other Malay countries must have
thoroughly changed the natives’ mode of life. Thus we are told that the
Dorey people have become somewhat civilized by their intercourse with
traders from the Moluccas [1592]. We may notice here that all districts
where slavery is carried on lie on the coast, and are therefore easiest
of access to foreigners. And those districts of Dutch New Guinea of
which it is stated that there are no slaves, Humboldt Bay and Hattam,
have never been visited by hongi fleets [1593]. Accordingly, Ottow and
Geissler remark that the mountain tribes do not keep slaves, but kill
all their prisoners, for fear they might escape. The coast tribes,
however, being able to procure slaves from a great distance, who are
less likely to escape, practise slavery [1594].
In the Malay Archipelago Mohammedanism already prevailed to a great
extent before the conquista, and had even advanced as far as the
Philippines [1595]. Wherever slavery exists in the Archipelago, we are
not certain that we have to deal with a phenomenon of unadulterated
savage life. The influence of semi-civilized Mohammedans spreads over
nearly the whole of the Archipelago.
In India the slave-trade with semi-civilized countries is, or was, also
carried on by the natives. Cooper states that the Meshmees sell slaves
to Tibet [1596]. According to Colquhoun the Karen-nee sell many slaves
to the Shans of Zimmé and these again to the Siamese [1597]. And
Rousselet tells us that among the Kafirs “slavery exists within certain
limits, but this criminal commerce would cease altogether if there were
not such a ready sale for slaves at Djalalabad, Kounar, Asmar and
Tchitral” [1598].
From the Caucasus, as we have already seen, slaves are exported to
Turkey on a large scale [1599].
Africa is the classical country of the slave-trade. Egypt and Ethiopia
furnished a certain number of slaves to ancient Greece, and at Rome
there was a regular importation of slaves, some of whom were brought
from Africa [1600]. Herodotus speaks of slaves sent to ancient Egypt as
tribute from Ethiopia [1601]. That in later times the African
slave-trade, carried on by Arabs in East Africa and by Europeans in
West Africa, assumed enormous proportions, need scarcely be said. In
the later half of the 19th century the Mohammedan East still received a
large supply of slaves from Africa. Ingram remarks: “The principal
centres from which in recent times the supply has been furnished to
Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Arabia, and Persia, are three in number. 1. The
Soudan, south of the Great Sahara, appears to be one vast
hunting-ground. Captives are brought thence to the slave-market of Kuka
in Bornu.... Negroes are also brought to Morocco from the Western
Soudan, and from Timbuktu.... 2. The basin of the Nile, extending to
the great lakes, is another region infested by the slave trade.... 3.
There has long been a slave-trade from the East African coast. The
stream of supply came mainly from the southern Nyassa districts by
three or four routes to Ibo, Mozambique, Angoche, and Kilimane.
Madagascar and the Comoro Islands obtained most of their slaves from
the Mozambique coast.... There are other minor branches of the trade
elsewhere in Africa. Thus from Harar in Somâliland caravans are sent to
Berberah on the coast, where there is a great annual fair. The slaves
are collected from the inland Galla countries, from Gurâgwe, and from
Abyssinia, the Abyssinians being the most highly esteemed” [1602].
We see that in most parts of the world inhabited by slave-keeping
agricultural savages, slaves are, or were, purchased or captured by
civilized or semi-civilized peoples; whereas in those parts where the
slave-trade has always been unknown, slavery has never prevailed to any
considerable extent.
We shall try to account for this fact. But we must first reply to a
question which the reader may perhaps have asked, viz. why we have not
at the beginning of this second Part discussed the question as to
whether slavery is ever a phenomenon of genuine savage life, or has
always been due to intercourse with higher races. We have not done so,
because it seems to us that this question is one of secondary interest.
When we see that among a savage tribe slavery is an institution playing
a great part in native life and slave labour is of much use, we must
come to the conclusion that slavery is perfectly consistent with the
economic and social state in which this tribe lives, whether
intercourse with superior races gave rise to it or it already existed
before any such intercourse had taken place. And the conclusions we
have arrived at in this and the foregoing chapters, as to the various
circumstances which further or prevent slavery, remain the same in both
cases. Moreover, there are some savage tribes which at the time of
their discovery kept slaves without, so far as we know, having had any
intercourse with superior races: the New Zealanders and the fishing
tribes of Kamchatka and the North Pacific Coast of North America.
Yet, as we have already said, those parts of the world where we have
found most of our positive cases are exactly those where the
slave-trade has been carried on by civilized and semi-civilized
peoples. Going on to account for this fact, we may remark first that it
need not have been the slave-trade only that furthered the growth of
slavery. The general intercourse with superior races may go far to
account for the rise of slavery, irrespectively of the slave-trade. We
have seen that commercial tribes are more likely to keep slaves than
others; and a savage tribe can engage in commerce with superior
peoples, who buy large quantities of native produce and introduce
foreign manufactures, to a far greater extent than with neighbouring
savages who have not much to exchange, as their own and their
neighbours’ mode of life and industrial development are nearly the
same. A remarkable instance of the influence of commercial intercourse
with Europeans on the slave system of a savage race is afforded by
Polack’s description of the Maori. Formerly, he says, “for a chief to
enter his new abode [in the world of spirits], without being ushered by
a number of slaves and wives [who were sacrificed], was accounted the
greatest indecorum that could possibly exist, but from the scarcity of
slaves during late years [Polack wrote in 1840], or rather from the
profits accruing from their employment in rearing pigs, and planting
provisions, cutting timber, and cleaning flax for their numerous
European visitors (their services being at a premium), these butcheries
... have ceased” [1603]. Something similar to this may often have taken
place.
Probably, however, the slave-trade has also had considerable influence.
The mere fact that foreigners purchase or capture slaves from savage
tribes cannot, of course, account for the existence of slavery among
these savages; it may even result in the disappearance of slavery among
them, if they find it more profitable to sell their slaves than retain
them. But the slave-trade will often augment the opportunities of
acquiring slaves. Slave-traders generally trade in other articles
besides slaves; therefore they will often exchange some of the slaves
they may have procured for something else. If some slaves are too weak
to perform the journey to the coast, it is more profitable to sell them
in the interior than to leave them behind. Moreover, the slave-traders
often induce savages to make raids upon their neighbours and sell the
captives they may secure; and if a savage chief has once learned in
this way to kidnap slaves, he will perhaps continue to do so though
there be not always a ready sale for them. In a word, the procuring of
slaves becomes much easier.
Now we must bear in mind that an institution does not always exist in
all countries where it would be economically useful. Not only is an
institution which would further the public welfare often wanting,
because the immediate interests of individuals are not concerned, but
the individuals are not always aware even of their own immediate
interests. Such may also be the case with slavery. It may be that, if
slavery were introduced into some savage tribe, the tribe, or at least
some members of the tribe, would profit by it, and that yet no slaves
are made because there are not sufficiently strong motives for doing
so, or because there are stronger motives working in the opposite
direction. Tribes which have never kept slaves and are unacquainted
with slave-keeping tribes, do not know the use of slavery; therefore
they have to come to it gradually. Taking for granted that the first
source of slavery, as seems very likely, was captivity in war, and that
the captives, at first adopted, were afterwards differentiated from the
main body of citizens, we can understand why slavery does not exist in
all countries where the keeping of slaves would be profitable. It may
be that it is the custom to eat the prisoners, or to sacrifice them, or
to restore them when peace is concluded. It may also be that the
adopted prisoners have from times immemorial been regarded as the
equals of the tribesmen. In all these cases the new motive, the want of
slaves, must be strong if it is to break through the established
custom. The vis inertiae plays a great part in the history of mankind.
Returning to the slave-trade, we may remark that this entirely
overturns the existing state of things. It enables the tribe to procure
slaves who are not captives, and regarding whom therefore no custom has
been established. Moreover, the tribe becomes acquainted with the
institution of slavery, which it had not seen practised before. Now
there is no longer any reason why the members of such a tribe should
not purchase the slaves offered to them and set them to work. An
external cause has sufficed to disturb the former equilibrium.
We have remarked before that the slave-trade facilitates the keeping of
slaves, because purchased slaves are less likely to escape than
captives [1604]. Here too we have to deal with the vis inertiae rather
than with an impossibility in the strict sense of keeping slaves. It
will not, probably, often be the case that agricultural savages would
be quite unable to retain their slaves, if they were really very
anxious to keep them; but it may often occur that they are not yet
fully aware of the use of slaves, and therefore do not want to take the
pains of supervising them, though, if slavery were thoroughly
established, it would prove very profitable; in such case the objective
want exists, but the subjective want is not yet felt. In this case,
too, the slave-trade, by rendering escape of the slaves more difficult,
will tend to establish the custom of keeping slaves.
Our conclusion is that slavery existed among some savages who had never
had any intercourse with superior races, but that this intercourse,
especially where the slave-trade was carried on, has often greatly
furthered the growth of slavery.
In our chapter on pastoral tribes we have remarked that a tribe living
in the vicinity of inferior races is more likely to keep slaves than
one surrounded by tribes of the same or a higher level of culture.
Enslavement of lower races also frequently occurs among agriculturists;
but the agriculturists of the higher races (e.g. Malays in the
restricted sense, inhabitants of North Africa, etc.) are to be called
barbarians rather than savages and have therefore been excluded from
the survey of slavery given in our first Part.
Briefly recapitulating the conclusions we have arrived at with regard
to agricultural tribes, we have to remark that the general character of
their economic and social life is favourable to the existence of
slavery: subsistence is easy to procure, and independent of capital,
except where cattle are kept.
This applies especially to true agriculturists (agriculturists of the
higher stages) as opposed to hunting agriculturists. The latter bear
much resemblance to true hunters, who hardly ever keep slaves,
accordingly slavery is not so frequent among them as among true
agriculturists.
Our general rule, however, requires an important qualification. Where
all land has been appropriated, a class of free labourers commonly
exists, and slaves are not wanted.
We have not entered into a thorough investigation of the influence of
secondary or additional causes. A closer study of this matter will
perhaps yield important results. What we have found with regard to
these secondary causes is the following.
Slaves often perform female labour; on the other hand female labour
sometimes serves as a substitute for slave labour.
Commercial agricultural tribes are far more likely to keep slaves than
agricultural tribes among which commerce holds a very subordinate
place.
Slaves are sometimes kept for military purposes, or as a mere luxury.
These two circumstances, however, though they often lead to the keeping
of a larger number of slaves than would otherwise be required, have not
probably ever given rise to slavery.
Subjection of tribes as such, which among some pastoral tribes serves
as a substitute for slavery, hardly ever occurs among agricultural
tribes, except in Oceania, where slavery is already absent for the
general cause mentioned above, the non-existence of free land.
Some external causes we had found before: fixed habitations, living in
large groups, preserving of food, and the neighbourhood of inferior
races, call for no special notice here.
Intercourse with superior races, especially where these carry on the
slave-trade, proves to be a factor greatly furthering the growth of
slavery.
We shall not give here a list of the causes found up to the present. We
think it more convenient to place such a list at the end of our general
survey.
CHAPTER V.
CONCLUSION.
§ 1. General survey.
The causes which lead to the keeping of slaves, and those which prevent
it, have been divided by us into internal and external causes. These
terms do not perhaps quite answer the purpose, but we cannot find other
terms which would express our meaning better, without requiring a
prolix circumlocution. We think, however, that it is clear what we mean
by these terms. Slavery cannot exist, where there are no internal
causes requiring it, i.e. where there is no use, economic or
non-economic, for slave labour. A tribe will not keep slaves, even
though its coercive power would enable it to do so, if there is no
employment for them; in such case positive internal causes fail. The
same obtains, where definite internal causes are found, which make
slave labour useless [1605]. The positive internal causes may also be
called motive-forces. Slaves will not be kept, even where the best
opportunities of procuring them exist, if there is no motive-force
which requires the keeping of slaves, i.e. if they are not wanted.
But though, where motives for keeping slaves fail, no external causes
will give rise to slavery,—even when there are such motives, slavery
will not exist, if there are no external causes rendering it possible,
i.e. if there is no opportunity of procuring and retaining slaves.
Where neither capture or purchase of aliens, nor enslavement of members
of the tribe is practicable, or where the slaves can very easily
escape, slaves cannot be kept, though there might be much use for them
[1606].
The principal internal cause which prevents the rise of slavery, or
where slavery exists, tends to make it disappear, is the dependence of
subsistence upon closed resources. The most important result of our
investigation seems to us the division, not only of all savage tribes,
but of all peoples of the earth, into peoples with open, and with
closed resources. Among the former labour is the principal factor of
production, and a man who does not possess anything but his own
strength and skill, is able to provide for himself independently of any
capitalist or landlord. There may be capital which enhances the
productiveness of labour, and particularly fertile or favourably
situated grounds the ownership of which gives great advantage; but a
man can do without these advantages. Among peoples with closed
resources it is otherwise. Here subsistence is dependent upon material
resources of which there is only a limited supply, and which
accordingly have all been appropriated. These resources can consist in
capital, the supply of which is always limited; then those who own no
capital are dependent on the capitalists. They can also consist in
land. Such is the case when all land has been appropriated; then people
destitute of land are dependent on the landowners.
Where subsistence depends on closed resources, slaves may occasionally
be kept, but slavery as an industrial system is not likely to exist.
There are generally poor people who voluntarily offer themselves as
labourers; therefore slavery, i.e. a system of compulsory labour, is
not wanted. And even where there are no poor men, because all share in
the closed resources, the use of slaves cannot be great. Where there
are practically unlimited resources, a man can, by increasing the
number of his slaves, increase his income to any extent; but a man who
owns a limited capital, or a limited quantity of land, can only employ
a limited number of labourers. Moreover, as soon as in a country with
closed resources slaves are kept, they form a class destitute of
capital, or land, as the case may be; therefore, even when they are set
free, they will remain in the service of the rich, as they are unable
to provide for themselves [1607]. The rich have no interest to keep the
labourers in a slave-like state. It may even be their interest to set
them free, either in order to deprive them of such rights over the land
as they may have acquired in the course of time, or to bring about a
determination of the wages of labour by the law of supply and demand,
instead of by custom. They will thus, without any compulsion except
that exercized by the automatic working of the social system, secure a
larger share in the produce of labour than they got before by
compulsion.
Among peoples with open resources everybody is able to provide for
himself; therefore free labourers do not offer themselves, at least not
for employment in the common drudgery, the rudest and most despised
work. There may be, and indeed there often are, skilled labourers whose
work is highly valued and well paid; such people think it more
profitable to earn their livelihood by means of their peculiar talents,
than in the common way. A striking instance of this is the priest, whom
we may call a skilled labourer performing non-economic labour; his
remuneration, both in material goods and in influence and
consideration, is greater than the income of a common agriculturist.
But there are no labourers in the modern sense of proletarians,
destitute of everything and obliged to seek employment in whatever work
they can find. If therefore a man wants others to perform the necessary
drudgery for him, and cannot impose it upon his wife, or wives, or
other female dependents (either because women hold a high position, or
because there is more mean work to be done than the women can possibly
manage), he must compel other men to serve him; and this compulsion
will often assume the form of slavery.
In the first Part we have said that a slave is a man who is the
property of another. We can now see the practical meaning of this
definition. In slave countries labourers are held as property, and
valued as such. If an employer loses a labourer, his income is lessened
by it; if his labourer runs away, he eagerly tries to recover him. In
countries with closed resources it is quite the reverse [1608]. The
labourers are not held as property, because they are not valued. If a
labourer leaves his service, the employer knows that there are many
others ready to take his place. Here it is not the employer who
prevents his labourers from escaping, but the employed who try to
prevent the employer from dismissing his workmen. We are, of course,
aware that labour is always an indispensable factor of production; yet
in many countries, e.g. in modern Western Europe, an employer does not
care to keep a particular labourer in his service [1609]. We must,
however, bear in mind that this rule, in its strictest sense, applies
only to unskilled labour. Qualified labourers are often highly valued
and able to secure great advantage, because their number is limited. It
is therefore that the helpless state of people destitute of material
resources appears more clearly in agricultural than in manufacturing
countries.
This difference between countries with open and with closed resources
goes far to explain why slavery (and serfdom, which is also a form of
compulsory labour) has gradually disappeared in civilized Europe,
whereas in thinly peopled countries it maintained itself much longer,
and even now is sometimes introduced under some disguise (“labour
trade”, convict labour and similar expedients used in the tropics). In
Western Europe unskilled labourers can always be had without
compulsion, whereas the qualities required in skilled labourers cannot
develop under a compulsory régime.
Always and everywhere have men been inclined to burden their fellow-men
with heavy and disagreeable work rather than perform it themselves; and
the strong have succeeded in imposing this work on the weak. Among some
savage tribes it is the weaker sex who perform the drudgery; but in the
course of progress the work that has to be done soon becomes too much
for the women to manage. Then subjection of males arises, which
presents itself in various forms, as subjugation of conquered tribes,
or of the common people by the king and nobility, but often also as
slavery or serfdom. Finally, when indispensable resources have been
appropriated, the meanest labour is imposed upon those who are
destitute of land and capital. There is now no longer a personal, but
an impersonal compulsion. Lange remarks: “In former times the marauding
minority of mankind, by means of physical violence, compelled the
working majority to render feudal services, or reduced them to a state
of slavery or serfdom, or at least made them pay a tribute. Nowadays
the dependence of the working classes is secured in a less direct but
equally efficacious manner, viz. by means of the superior power of
capital; the labourer being forced, in order to get his subsistence, to
place his labour power entirely at the disposal of the capitalist. So
there is a semblance of liberty; but in reality the labourer is
exploited and subjected, because, all the land having been
appropriated, he cannot procure his subsistence directly from nature,
and, goods being produced for the market and not for the producer’s own
use, he cannot subsist without capital. Wages will rise above what is
wanted for the necessaries of life, where the labourer is able to earn
his subsistence on free land, which has not yet become private
property. But wherever, in an old and totally occupied country, a body
of labouring poor is employed in manufactures, the same law, which we
see at work in the struggle for life throughout the organized world,
will keep wages at the absolute minimum” [1610].
Little credit is given at present to the opinion expressed in the last
sentence, all economists being aware that the wages, not only of the
skilled, but even of the unskilled workmen are in many cases above the
bare minimum. But this much seems true, that in countries, where all
the land is held as private property, labour is at a discount. We may
even say, though it sounds strange, that generally labour is much more
at a disadvantage in countries where slavery does not exist, than in
slave countries. In slave countries labourers are naturally
independent; therefore he who wants to make another work for him, must
enslave him and resort to all possible means of retaining him in his
service. Hence the strange compound of severity and indulgence that has
so often been observed among slave-owners. In countries with closed
resources the landlord or capitalist has a natural advantage over his
labourers; he need neither use severity nor indulgence to maintain his
position.
The condition of the working classes in modern Europe in many respects
certainly is not better than that of the slaves in countries of lower
civilization. We cannot deny the truth of the remark made by the
intelligent chief of the Fulbe, whom Hecquard met on his travels in
West Africa. “We often” says Hecquard “talked about our mode of
government and the relation of the different classes in European
society. He did not attach any value to the legal equality of the
citizens and asked me how my countrymen got on without slaves. His
conclusion was that with us the domestics and the poor classes in
general were the slaves of the rich, because the latter could, by
refusing to give them work, reduce them to starvation in a country,
where nothing is given gratuitously” [1611].
We have seen that slavery cannot exist to any considerable extent among
peoples with closed resources. But even among peoples with open
resources it is not always found. Slaves perform the drudgery for their
masters; therefore they are not wanted where little drudgery has to be
done, or in other terms, slavery is not likely to exist where
subsistence is difficult to acquire. Where men subsist by highly
skilled labour, there can be little use for slaves; for the slaves
cannot be made to perform such labour; and the little unskilled labour
that is wanted is not profitable enough to admit of the keeping of
slaves, who would have to be fed by the produce of their masters’ work.
This is the principal reason why slavery hardly ever occurs among
hunters, and one of the reasons why the Eskimos do not keep slaves.
We find thus that, generally speaking, the keeping of slaves is
economically profitable to peoples with open resources among which
subsistence is easily acquired, and to such peoples only. But there are
several secondary causes, internal and external, which bring about that
slaves are sometimes kept by peoples with closed resources, or by
peoples among which subsistence is difficult to procure, and that on
the other hand slavery is sometimes absent where resources are open and
subsistence is easy to acquire.
Among the secondary internal causes we have noted in the first place
the condition of women. There is no use for slaves, where all
disagreeable work can be, and is performed by the weaker sex;
Australian and Melanesian women supply the place of slaves. On the
other hand, where the women hold a high position, and the men are
desirous of relieving them of a part of their task, slavery is likely
to arise sooner than otherwise would be the case.
Commerce probably exists among all savages. Even the Australian tribes
mutually exchange rare kinds of earth for painting their bodies, and
similar objects. But commerce has only a social importance, where the
articles exchanged are manufactured goods in the widest sense,
including e.g. fish and agricultural products, in a word all articles
the production of which requires a considerable amount of labour. Then
the freemen who devote themselves to commercial pursuits want others to
perform the common labour for every-day subsistence; moreover the
preparing of the articles of trade requires more labour than would
otherwise be wanted. And last, but not least, commerce leads to the
development of wealth and luxury; slave labour is now wanted to provide
the owner not only with the necessaries, but with the comforts of life.
Commercial tribes in the widest sense,—including 1º tribes which
exchange native produce for foreign manufactures, 2º tribes which
themselves produce and export manufactured goods in the common,
restricted, sense, 3º tribes which carry on a transit-trade,—are
therefore far more likely to keep slaves than self-sufficing tribes.
We have seen that subjection of women is sometimes a substitute for
slavery. Another substitute is subjection of tribes as such. This
subjection occurs only, so far as savages are concerned, where peculiar
circumstances render it possible: among pastoral tribes, which subject
their neighbours to whom they are superior in military qualities, and
in Oceania, where the limited area prevents the conquered from
receding. Where a tribe subjected as such pays a tribute to the
conquerors and performs services for them, there is not so much need
for enslavement of individuals belonging to the vanquished tribe.
People who live from hand to mouth have less use for slaves than those
who preserve food for the time of scarcity. The preparing of this food
may require much labour which is very fit to be performed by slaves. We
have seen that such is especially the case on the North Pacific Coast
of North America.
Slaves are sometimes kept for non-economic purposes.
Warfare plays a great part in savage life, and we have found that the
requirements of warfare sometimes prevent, but in other cases further
the rise of slavery. Many savage tribes increase their population by
introduction of foreign elements. This may be done for two reasons: men
are wanted either for labourers or for warriors [1612]. In the former
case the introduction of aliens leads to slavery in its most general
form of extratribal slavery. When warriors are wanted, slavery is not
the most appropriate form; adoption of foreigners, such as was for
instance practised by the Iroquois, answers the purpose better, because
a man who enjoys the common privileges of a member of the tribe is more
reliable in war than a slave. In such case militarism may prevent the
rise of slavery, because all available men are wanted in war and have
therefore to be placed on a level with the tribesmen. But where
superior military qualities of a tribe render the employment of slaves
in warfare (most often in the lower ranks of the army) possible, slaves
are sometimes kept mainly for military purposes, especially where
prejudices of race or colour prevent the tribe from adopting the
foreigners. Then militarism furthers the growth of slavery; for slaves
would perhaps not be wanted, if they did not serve as warriors.
Slaves may also be kept as a mere luxury. The possession of many
slaves, like other property, everywhere tends to give the owner
influence and reputation. Yet he most often also derives material
profit from his slaves, namely from the total number of them, even
where some of them do not perform productive labour. Only in a few
cases does the sole use of slaves appear to consist in augmenting their
owners’ influence and reputation. This occurs among some pastoral
tribes, where the rich are able to support a large number of
unproductive labourers. But here the military use of slaves has perhaps
co-operated in establishing slavery.
In the beginning of this paragraph we have spoken of external causes.
It is quite possible that a tribe does not keep slaves, though they
would be very useful. The non-existence of slavery in such cases is due
to external circumstances. It may be that the coercive power of the
tribe is not sufficiently developed to admit of the keeping of slaves.
It may also be that slavery does not exist, because it has not yet been
invented: people may have always been accustomed to deal otherwise with
their prisoners than by enslaving them, and so the idea of making
slaves may never have entered their minds. The coercive power is
strongest where men live in fixed habitations (though several tribes of
pastoral nomads also keep slaves), and in large groups, and are
accustomed to preserve food. The slave-trade has considerable
influence. It increases the coercive power by rendering escape of
slaves more difficult; and by making a tribe acquainted with the
institution of slavery and providing it with an easy means of acquiring
slaves it often overcomes the vis inertiae. The slave-trade may go far
to account for the very frequent occurrence of slavery among savages
who have long maintained relations with superior races, though due
allowance must be made for the influence of the general intercourse
with such races, especially in furthering the commercial development.
Another external cause is the neighbourhood of inferior races, the
influence of which, as we have seen, clearly appears among pastoral
tribes. It is easier for Hamitic and Semitic nations to keep Negroes in
a state of subjection than people of their own race.
GENERAL RECAPITULATION.
Furthering the growth Hindering the
of slavery. growth of slavery.
I. Internal causes.
A. General: 1. Open resources and 1. Closed
subsistence easy to resources.
acquire.
2. Subsistence difficult
to acquire.
B. Secondary, economic: 1. A high position of 1. Female labour
women. serving as a
2. Commerce. substitute for
3. Preserving of food. slave labour.
2. Subjection of
tribes as such.
C. Secondary, 1. Militarism (where 1. Militarism
non-economic: slaves are employed (especially where
in warfare). foreigners are
adopted).
2. Slaves kept as a
luxury.
II. External causes: 1. Fixed habitations.
2. Living in large
groups.
3. Preserving of food.
4. The slave-trade.
5. The neighbourhood of
inferior races.
Preserving of food and militarism occur twice, because they work in
different directions.
We have arranged the separate causes within each group in the order in
which we have found them. If we had arranged them according to their
relative importance, they would have been enumerated in another order.
Thus among the external causes the slave-trade comes last, though its
influence is greater than that of the other external causes [1613].
§ 2. Outlines of a further investigation of the early history of
slavery.
We have viewed slavery as an industrial system, and inquired under what
economic and social conditions this system can exist. This
investigation we believe has led to valuable conclusions. But slavery
(even if we confine ourselves to slavery among savages) may be viewed
under many more aspects. We have not made any further study of the
subject; but having collected many ethnographical materials, we have
become acquainted with a great number of details which may afford
subjects of further investigation. We shall give here an enumeration of
various points connected with slavery, though we do not claim that it
is in any way complete: it would probably appear on closer scrutiny
that many additions could be made to it. We shall mention the various
points in short sentences, often in the form of inquiries.
I. The different ways in which people become slaves.
There are:
1º Slaves by birth;
2º Free-born people who become slaves.
In connection with the former point it may be inquired what is in each
case the status of children born of two slaves, of a male slave and a
free woman, of a female slave and a free man, and especially of a
female slave and her master. This inquiry will enable us to find,
whether and to what extent slaves are merged in the general population.
[1614]
The manners in which free-born people become slaves may be
distinguished according as slaves are acquired from without or within
the limits of the tribe. This reminds us of the distinction we have
made between extratribal and intratribal slavery. We may inquire then
which of these two forms of slavery appears first. If we should find
that extratribal is older than intratribal slavery (which does not seem
unlikely), we might examine the economic and social conditions under
which intratribal slavery can exist.
Extratribal slaves become such by:
1º Capture in war or kidnapping. Here a wide field of research opens
itself. Captives, when they are not enslaved, are killed (eaten,
sacrificed), or exchanged after peace has been concluded, or ransomed
by their countrymen, or adopted into the tribe of the captors. It may
be inquired whether any of these modes of treatment can have gradually
led to enslavement of the captives (e.g. captives are first adopted,
and gradually differentiated from the born members of the tribe: or
they are first eaten, then preserved to be eaten later on and in the
meantime set to work, and finally employed as slaves and no longer
eaten) [1615]. Several of these modes of treatment coexist with slavery
(e.g. some captives are sacrificed and the rest kept as slaves; or
slaves are occasionally sacrificed); does this only occur in the early
stages of slavery, and indicate that slavery has not yet fully
developed? When is slavery an object, and when is it only an incident
of warfare? A remarkable phenomenon, worth a close investigation, is
the occurrence of extratribal slavery or adoption of aliens together
with a preventive check on population (infanticide, abortion) [1616].
When captives are enslaved, it is worth inquiring in what manner they
are distributed among the captors; this will have a strong influence on
the division of wealth.
2º Purchase. The prices paid for different classes of slaves show what
slaves are most desired (men or women, people of different ages or
nationalities). The slaves sold have often been captured by the
sellers; but it also occurs that people are sold by their countrymen,
especially criminals. Here we may notice the influence of the
slave-trade on penal law; people are probably often sold abroad, who
otherwise would have been killed or expelled from the community.
Intratribal slaves become such (so far as we know) in the following
ways:
1º For non-payment of a debt. Here the general treatment of debtors and
the extent to which the rights of creditors are acknowledged by the
community are worth examining. Debtor-slaves have often, but not
always, a right to become free by paying off the debt [1617]. In some
cases the creditor does not keep the debtor as a slave, but recovers
his money by selling him abroad [1618].
2º As a punishment, either directly, or when the wergild is not paid.
This subject might be treated in connection with Professor Steinmetz’s
investigations of early penal law. Criminals often become slaves of the
chief or king; a study of this matter would lead to an inquiry into
political institutions at large.
3º By marrying a male or female slave. Here we may inquire where and to
what extent connubium between free people and slaves exists.
4º By offering themselves as slaves, or selling themselves. In the
former case it has always carefully to be inquired whether such persons
become slaves or voluntary servants; the latter is quite possible, and
the terminology of our informants not always reliable, as we have seen
when speaking of Oceania. When they really become slaves, there are
probably open resources. It is then worth inquiring what can be the
reason why, while resources are open and so everybody is able to
provide for himself, there are people who throw themselves upon the
mercy of men of power.
5º Finally, orphans and other helpless persons are sometimes enslaved.
II. The different ways in which people cease to be slaves.
1º Redemption. Here the question presents itself, where slaves, or
certain categories of slaves, have a right to be redeemed. [1619]
2º Emancipation. Where, and under what social conditions does this
custom prevail, and where is it of frequent occurrence? What are the
motives that induce the master to set his slave free? Emancipation as a
substitute for sacrifice [1620].
3º Adoption. Connected with this is the fact, that in some countries
slaves sometimes succeed to their masters’ goods [1621]. Here we may
ask whether or not such adoption and right of inheritance are only
found in early stages and have to be regarded as survivals of adoption
of aliens.
4º Marriage of a slave with a free person, especially of a female slave
with her master.
5º Dedication to a god. Slaves can sometimes become free by devoting
themselves to some deity [1622]. Further details; power of the
priesthood; compare the influence of the church in the Middle Ages.
In whatever way slaves become free, the position of the liberti
deserves a separate consideration. Are they on a level with free-born
men, or do they form a separate class? Do their descendants gradually
become merged in the general population?
III. Treatment of slaves by their masters.
1º Is the general treatment stated to be good or bad? Where the former
and where the latter?
2º Slaves are often stated to be looked upon and treated as members of
the master’s family. What does this mean? Where does it occur?
3º Difference between freemen and slaves in food, clothing, etc. Slaves
forbidden to wear the same dress and ornaments as freemen [1623].
IV. Legal status of slaves [1624].
1º Is the master’s power over his slave unlimited? Very often it is
not. Connection with the development of the power of government.
2º Rights of the slaves with regard to marriage and family. Connubium
with freemen: see above. Are slave-marriages legally acknowledged, or
do they entirely depend on the master’s pleasure? Do the masters apply
any principles of selection in mating the slaves? When the parents are
slaves belonging to different masters, to which master do the children
belong? Has the master full rights over his female slaves in a sexual
respect?
3º Right of property. Are the rights of slaves to their earnings
(peculium) recognized? When the slave dies, who succeeds to the
peculium?
4º Have contracts made by slaves legal force?
5º Punishment of slaves by their masters [1625].
6º Protection of slaves by penal law. When a slave has been killed, is
a wergild paid as for a freeman, or is only the price of the slave
restored to the master? Similarly with regard to lesser injuries. Are
those who commit any offence against the slave punished by the
government? If so, is any exception made for the master? Is the master
responsible for any damages caused by his slave?
7º Sometimes the master may not sell the slave without his consent.
8º It may also be that the slave, if ill-treated by his master, has a
right to be sold. In some cases the slave can change his master by
causing some slight damage to the new master or his goods. This
formality has probably originated from the delivering up of the slave
to the injured person for some real damage [1626].
9º Has the slave any public rights, does he share in government
matters?
V. The attitude of public opinion towards slaves.
1º Are slaves despised? Details. Do the slaves receive a regular
burial, or are their corpses thrown away?
2º External signs of slavery (mutilations, dress different from that of
freemen) [1627]. Are these signs only intended clearly to show the
difference of status, or to make fugitive slaves easy to recognize?
3º Are ill-treatment and sale of slaves discountenanced by public
opinion? [1628]
4º Is there any instance among savages of slavery being considered a
status contra naturam?
VI. Different kinds of slaves.
Slaves can be distinguished according to
1º their nationality,
2º the manner in which they have become slaves (difference between
extratribal and intratribal slaves, between native-born and
newly-acquired slaves) [1629],
3º the work imposed upon them (outdoor and indoor slaves, familia
rustica and familia urbana).
What are the practical consequences of these distinctions? [1630]
VII. Slave labour.
Slaves sometimes perform
1º the same work as freemen,
or 2º the same as free women,
or 3º the same as the lower classes.
4º If some kind of work is performed by slaves only, what is its
character? (Drudgery as opposed to noble work).
5º Is the work for which slaves are employed despised [1631]?
6º Amount of work. Are the slaves over-worked? Are they supervised? Are
they kept at work by any compulsory means (flogging, etc.)?
7º Do the slaves live in their master’s house?
VIII. Serfdom.
Does it ever exist among savages? Are there instances of the
coexistence of slavery and serfdom? In what manner do people become
serfs?
IX. Number of slaves.
1º What is, in each case, the number of the slaves, and their
proportion to the general population?
2º What is, in each case, the numerical proportion of the sexes among
the slaves?
3º Do the slaves form a separate class of people?
4º Are the slaves an integral part of the wealth of their owners?
5º In some cases only certain classes (e.g. the nobility) are entitled
to keep slaves [1632].
X. Happiness or unhappiness of slaves.
Is it considered a great evil for one’s self or one’s friends to fall
into slavery? [1633] Instances of suicide to escape from slavery
[1634]. In many cases it is not slavery as such, but sale to distant
regions that is felt as a great calamity. We may mention here the
curious phenomenon of people captured and enslaved by the enemy or sold
abroad, being on their return despised or even repelled by their former
countrymen [1635].
XI. Consequences of slavery.
1º Influence of slavery on the social organization of the tribe. A
slave-owner, having labour forces at his command and being supported by
a body of followers, is more likely to attain wealth and consideration
than the other freemen. And as in those countries, where the slave
trade is developed, the keeping of slaves may soon become a privilege
of the rich [1636], slavery furthers the divergence of the rich and the
poor, of the nobles and the common people.
2º Connected with this is the influence of slavery on the development
of the military principle. The ruling classes, having learned to
command their slaves, are more capable of commanding the people.
3º Influence of slavery on the laws and customs regulating marriage,
and on sexual morality at large. Female slaves serving as concubines
[1637].
4º Influence of slavery on the condition of free women. When there are
many domestic slaves, free women are no longer overtaxed with work
[1638].
5º Influence of slavery on warfare. As soon as captives are regularly
enslaved, the cruel modes of treating captives which may have formerly
existed disappear. On the other hand, when the procuring of slaves
becomes an object of warfare, war becomes much more frequent than
before [1639].
6º Influence of slavery on the development of the political power of
the tribe. Slavery “creates a set of persons born to work that others
may not work, and not to think in order that others may think.
Therefore slave-owning nations, having time to think, are likely to be
more shrewd in policy, and more crafty in strategy” [1640].
7º Slavery has a great influence on morality at large, in a good as
well as in a bad sense.
Slavery has played a great part in the education of mankind. Ingram
rightly remarks that “slavery discharged important offices ... by
forcing the captives, who with their descendants came to form the
majority of the conquering community, to a life of industry in spite of
the antipathy to regular and sustained labour which is deeply rooted in
human nature, especially in the earlier stages of the social movement,
when insouciance is so common a trait, and irresponsibility is hailed
as a welcome relief” [1641].
Moreover, slavery affords to the higher classes a leisure, that enables
them to reach the higher grades of culture, which would be inaccessible
to them, if they had to work for their daily wants [1642].
A bad effect of slavery is that manual labour is identified with slave
labour and so discredited [1643].
Other bad effects of slavery are mentioned by Ingram. The habit of
absolute rule corrupts the masters. Slavery often engenders cruelty, or
at least harshness. The slaves are demoralized, because their education
is neglected and they do not live in normal family relations. Slavery
moreover prevents “the development of the sense of human dignity, which
lies at the foundation of morals” [1644].
8º Influence of slavery on the intermingling of races. “The blending of
types” says Brinton “was greatly accelerated in early days by the
institution or human slavery” [1645].
9º Selective influence of slavery. Ferrero’s theory: slavery has
greatly furthered the survival of the industrious type of man [1646].
Ripley, speaking of colonial slavery, remarks: “Such an institution
exercises a selective choice upon the negro; for the survivors of such
severe treatment will generally be a picked lot, which ought to exhibit
vitality to a marked degree, all the weaklings having been removed”
[1647]. High death-rate among slaves, even in primitive culture [1648].
XII. Development of slavery.
Though we have not systematically investigated this subject, our
studies have brought us into closer connection with this than with any
of the points mentioned above. We shall therefore briefly state our
impressions on the development of slavery, without, of course, claiming
for the following remarks the value of a theory.
Slavery very probably first appears in the form of extratribal slavery,
and originates from the adoption of captives, especially captive
children. This is also Powell’s opinion. According to him captive
children were originally adopted and treated by the captors entirely as
their own children. “This is not yet slavery. If the captive belongs to
a tribe of hereditary enemies who have from time immemorial been
designated by some opprobrious term, as cannibals, liars, snakes,
etc.—then it may be that the captive is doomed to perpetual younger
brotherhood, and can never exercise authority over any person within
the tribe, though such person may be born after the new birth of the
captive. This is the first form of slavery. Usually, though not
invariably, the captives adopted are children” [1649]. Whether the
first slaves were really captives belonging to a tribe of hereditary
enemies, we do not know; but Powell expresses himself very
appropriately, when he says that the slaves are “doomed to perpetual
younger brotherhood”. In the early stages of culture slaves are on the
whole leniently treated, and there is little difference between young
slaves and free children. But the slave always remains a “younger
brother”. He never becomes the head of a family; and when the master
who educated him dies, he becomes the subject of the master’s child,
who has been the companion of his childhood. The slave does not count
among the full-grown men of the tribe; he is not allowed to bear arms,
he has no voice in government matters; though a member, he is an
inferior member of the household in which he lives.
This is the first stage of differentiation between freemen and slaves.
The slaves are children captured in war [1650], their number is small.
The slave, who is nearly on a level with the children, is wanted for
much the same reason why children are so eagerly desired among most
agricultural savage tribes: the larger the family, the more food can be
produced; for land is still abundant. Slaves and freemen perform the
same kind of work, with the exception perhaps of some domestic
occupations, which are more and more left to the slaves.
Gradually the number of slaves increases. The slave-trade greatly
furthers the growth of slavery. The keeping of slaves is more and more
confined to the chiefs and principal men. Where slaves are captured in
war it is the leading men who secure most of the spoils; and where
slaves are purchased it is only the rich who can give a good price for
them. The ruling classes are the great slave-owners, and these men are
naturally inclined to leave all the common work to their slaves,
reserving for themselves only the noble pursuits of warfare and
government. The difference between the slaves and their owners becomes
thus greater than it was before. The common people come to distrust and
hate the slaves, whom they regard as the tools of the aristocracy. And
the differentiating process we have described here is always going on:
the more slaves a man owns, the greater his wealth; and the greater a
man’s wealth the better will he be able to procure slaves. The common
people are continually sinking in the social scale, and in the course
of time many of them are reduced to slavery for non-payment of money
they have borrowed from the rich.
The further development of slavery can proceed in two different ways.
In some countries, where oil, cotton, and similar products are
exported, slavery assumes enormous proportions. The large plantations
can best be worked with slaves; and as manufactured goods are imported,
slave labour serves not only to feed the master, but to provide him
with the luxuries of life; the wants of the slave-owners, and
accordingly the possible extent of slavery, become practically
unlimited. This slave system, as we have seen, exists in some parts of
the West Coast of Africa, and bears a close resemblance to that which
till far into the 19th century was carried on in the Southern States of
North America.
Where cereals are grown and agricultural produce is not exported on a
very large scale, the course of things is different. An increase of
slaves above a certain number is of little use to the owner. When he
has slaves enough to provide him with a large quantity of food and
other necessaries for the use of himself and his family and personal
servants, he does not want more slaves. The agricultural produce they
could furnish would not be worth the pains of supervising them. The
slaves (except a few who are kept for domestic services) are soon
allowed to live rather independently, bound only to provide fixed
quantities of agricultural produce and perform occasional services. And
when the use of money becomes general, these slaves often contract with
their masters to pay a yearly tribute in money instead of the services
and payments in kind. The slaves become serfs. And gradually the whole
of the lower orders are merged in this servile class. Ancient slaves,
members of subjected communities, helpless persons who seek the
protection of a powerful chief, all become the subjects and dependents
of the ruling nobles. Such was the social system of the early Middle
Ages, that in the course of time was entirely overturned through the
progress of manufactures and commerce and the gradual appropriation of
the whole of the land [1651].
LIST OF AUTHORITIES.
ABBREVIATIONS.
A. R. B. E. = Annual report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the secretary
of the Smithsonian Institution.
Bijdr. = Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van
Nederlandsch-Indië, uitgegeven door het Koninklijk Instituut voor de
Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië.
I. A. E. = Internationales Archiv für Ethnographie.
J. A. I. = Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain
and Ireland.
M. D. S. = Mitteilungen aus den deutschen Schutzgebieten.
N. Z. G. = Mededeelingen van wege het Nederlandsch
Zendelinggenootschap.
Pet. = Dr. A. Petermann’s Mitteilungen aus Justus Perthes’
Geographischer Anstalt.
R. E. = Revue d’Ethnographie.
Smithson. Rep. = Annual report of the board of regents of the
Smithsonian Institution.
T. A. G. = Tijdschrift van het Koninklijk Nederlandsch Aardrijkskundig
Genootschap.
Tijds. = Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde.
Uitgegeven door het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en
Wetenschappen.
Z. E. = Zeitschrift für Ethnologie.
Z. Erd. = Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde (Berlin).
Z. G. Erd. = Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin
(Fortsetzung der Z. Erd.).
Z. V. R. = Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft.
Adair, J., Geschichte der Amerikanischen Indianer. 1782.
Adriani, N., Mededeelingen omtrent de Toradja’s van Midden-Celebes.
Tijds. XLIV.
d’Albertis, New Guinea. 1880.
Allison, Mrs. S. S., Account of the Similkameem Indians of British
Columbia. J. A. I. XXI (1892).
Amira, K. von, Recht, in Paul’s Grundriss der Germanischen Philologie.
Vol. III.
Andersson, Ch. J., Reisen in Südwest-Afrika bis zum See Ngami. 1858.
Andree, R., Die Anthropophagie. 1887.
Angas, J. F., Savage Life and Scenes in Australia and New Zealand.
1847.
Angus, H. C., A year in Azimba and Chipitaland. J. A. I. XXVII (1897).
Arcin, A., La Guinée française. 1907.
Ashley, W. J., Economic history and theory. Vol. I 1888, Vol. II 1893.
Azara, F. de, Voyages dans l’Amérique méridionale. 1809.
Bagehot, W., Physics and politics. New edition. 1896.
Bakkers, J. A., De eilanden Bonerate en Kalao. Tijds. XI.
—— De afdeeling Sandjai. Tijds. XL
—— Het leenvorstendom Boni. Tijds. XV.
—— Tanette en Barroe (Celebes). Tijds. XII.
Bancroft, H. H., The native races of the Pacific States of North
America. Vol. I Wild tribes. 1875.
Bartram, W., The Creek and Cherokee Indians, 1789, ed. by Squier in
Transact. of the American Ethnol. Society. 1853.
Bas, F. de, Een Nederlandsch reiziger aan den Congo. T. A. G. 2nd
series IV.
Bastian, A., Die Rechtsverhältnisse bei verschiedenen Völkern der Erde.
1872.
—— Geographische und ethnologische Bilder. 1873.
Batchelor, J., The Ainu of Japan. 1892.
Baumann, O., Durch Massailand zur Nilquelle. 1894.
Baumstark, Die Warangi. M. D. S. XIII.
Beardmore, E., The natives of Mowat, Daudai, New Guinea. J. A. I. XIX
(1890).
Bell, J. S., Journal d’une résidence en Circassie, trad. p. Louis
Vivien. 1841.
Bennett, A. L., Ethnographical notes on the Fang. J. A. I. XXIX.
Bérenger-Féraud, L. J. B., Les peuplades de la Sénégambie. 1879.
Beschrijving van het landschap Pasir. Bijdr. LVIII.
Beuster, Das Volk der Vawenda. Z. G. Erd. XIV (1879).
Bibra, E. von, Reise in Süd-Amerika. 1854.
Bieger, Ph., Een doodenfeest te Rendé, op Soemba. N. Z. G. XXXIV.
Bink, Tocht van den zendeling—naar de Humboldtsbaai. T. A. G. 2nd
Series XI.
Blumentritt, F., Begleitworte zu meiner Karte der Insel Mindanao. Z. G.
Erd. XIX (1884).
—— Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Negritos. Z. G. Erd. XXVII (1892).
—— Die Bungianen. Ausland 1893.
—— Die Kianganen. Ausland 1891.
—— Die Maguindanaos. Ausland 1891.
—— Die Sitten und Bräuche der alten Tagalen. Manuscript des P. Juan de
Plasencia. 1589. Z. E. XXV.
—— Über die Staaten der philippinischen Eingeborenen in den Zeiten der
Conquista. Mitteilungen der Geogr. Gesellschaft in Wien. 1885.
—— Versuch einer Ethnographie der Philippinen. Ergänzungsheft 67 zu
Pet. 1882.
Boas, F., Die Tsimschian. Z. E. XX.
—— The Central Eskimo. A. R. B. E. VI.
—— The social organisation and the secret societies of the Kwakiutl
Indians (From the report of the U. S. National Museum for 1895). 1897.
Bodenstedt, Die Völker des Kaukasus. 1885.
Boers, J. W., De Koeboes. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch-Indië. 1838.
Boggiani, G., I Caduvei. 1895.
Bonaparte, Prince Roland, Les habitants de Suriname. 1884.
Bonney, F., On some customs of the aborigines of the Darling River. J.
A. I. XIII (1884).
Bonwick, Daily life and origin of the Tasmanians. 1870.
Boot, J., Korte schets der noordkust van Ceram. T. A. G. 2nd Series X.
Bor, A. C. van den, Bijdragen tot de kennis van Sumatras
Noord-Oostkust. Tijds. XVII.
Borde, de la, Description des Caraïbes, in Hennepin’s Voyage curieux.
Borie, Notice sur les Mantras, tribu sauvage de la péninsule Malaise.
Tijds. X.
Bos, P. R., Jagd, Viehzucht und Ackerbau als Culturstufen. I. A. E. X.
Bosman, W., Nauwkeurige beschrijving van de Guinese Goud-, Tand- en
Slavenkust. 1709.
Bossu, M., Nouveaux voyages dans l’Amérique septentrionale. 1777.
Bottego, V., Il Giuba esplorato. 1895.
Boudin, Du nègre esclave chez les Peaux-Rouges. Bulletin de la société
d’anthropologie V (1864).
Bourke, J. G., On the border with Crook. 1892.
Boutakoff, A., Über den untern Teil des Syr Dariah (Jaxartes) zwischen
dem Fort Petroffsky und seiner Mündung. Z. Erd. Neue Folge IV (1858).
Bowdich, T. E., Geschiedenis van het Britsche gezantschap in het jaar
1817, aan den koning van Ashantee. 1820.
Brainne, Ch., La Nouvelle Calédonie. 1854.
Brenner, J. von, Besuch bei den Kannibalen Sumatras. 1894.
Brett, W. H., The Indian Tribes of Guiana. 1868.
Brettes, J. de, Six ans d’exploration chez les Indiens du nord de la
Colombie. Tour du monde 1898.
Brinton, D. G., The Lenape and their legends, in Brinton’s Library of
aboriginal American Literature.
—— Races and peoples. 1890.
Brough Smyth, R., The aborigines of Victoria. 1878.
Brown, Robert, The adventures of John Jewitt. 1896.
Brown, W., New Zealand and its aborigines. 1845.
Browne, J., Die Eingebornen Australiens. Pet. 1856.
Bruijn, A. A., Het land der Karons. T. A. G. III (1878).
Brunner, H., Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte.
Bücher, K., Die Wirtschaft der Naturvölker. 1898.
Buchholz, R., Reisen in West-Afrika. 1880.
Bülow, W. von, Das ungeschriebene Gesetz der Samoaner. Globus LXIX
(1896).
Burckhardt, J. L., Notes on the Bedouins and Wahabys. 1831.
Burrows, Guy, On the natives of the Upper Welle District of the Belgian
Congo. J. A. I. New series I.
Burton, R. F., A mission to Gelele, king of Dahome. 1864.
Büttikofer, J. Einiges über die Eingebornen von Liberia. I. A. E. I.
—— Mededeelingen over Liberia. T. A. G. Bijblad 12.
Cairnes, J. E., The slave power. Second edition. 1863.
Cameron, V. L., Across Africa. 1877.
Campen, C. F. H., Beschrijving van het district Kau. T. A. G. 2nd
series I.
Campbell, J., Wild tribes of Khondistan. 1864.
Capello, H., and R. Ivens, From Benguella to the Territory of Yacca. I
1882.
Cardi, Le Comte C. N. de, Ju-Ju Laws and Customs in the Niger Delta. J.
A. I. XXIX.
Carey, H. C., The past, the present and the future. 1848.
Carver, J., Travels through the interior parts of North America in the
years 1766, 1767 and 1768. 1779.
Casalis, E, Les Bassoutos ou vingt-trois années de séjour et
d’observation au sud de l’Afrique. 1859.
Castro, A. de, Résumé historique de l’établissement portugais à Timor.
Tijds. XI.
Cessac, Léon de, Renseignements ethnographiques sur les Comanches. R.
E. I.
Chaillé Long, C., Central Africa. Naked truths of naked people. 1876.
Chalmers, J., Toaripi. J. A. I. XXVII (1898).
Chamberlain, A. F., The child and childhood in folk-thought. 1896.
Chantre, E., Recherches anthropologiques dans le Caucase. IV 1887.
Charlevoix, De, Histoire de la Nouvelle France. 1744.
Christian, F. W., Exploration in the Caroline Islands. The Geographical
Journal, Vol. 13 (1899).
Clercq, F. S. A. de, Bijdragen tot de kennis der residentie Ternate.
1890.
—— De West- en Noordkust van Nederlandsch Nieuw-Guinea. T. A. G. 2nd
series X.
Codrington, R. H., On social regulations in Melanesia. J. A. I. XVIII
(1889).
—— The Melanesians. 1891.
Coll, C. van, Gegevens over land en volk van Suriname. Bijdr. LV.
Collins, D., An account of the English Colony in New South Wales. 1798.
Colquhoun, Among the Shans. 1885.
Compiègne, De, L’Afrique équatoriale: Gabonais, Pahouins, Gallois.
1875.
—— L’Afrique équatoriale: Okanda, Bangouens, Osyeba. 1875.
Conder, C. R., The present condition of the native tribes in
Bechuanaland. J. A. I. XVI (1887).
Cooper, T. T., The Mishmee Hills. 1873.
Copway, G., The traditional history of the Ojibway nation. 1850.
Coquilhat, C., Sur le Haut Congo. 1888.
Corre, A., Les Sérères de Joal et de Portadal. R. E. II.
Coudreau, H., Chez nos Indiens: quatre années dans la Guyane française
(1887–1891). 1893.
Crantz, D., Historie van Groenland. 1767.
Croce, B., Materialismo storico ed economia Marxistica. 1900.
Cunningham, W., The growth of English industry and commerce. I Early
and Middle Ages. 1890. II Modern times. 1892.
—— Western Civilization in its economic aspects (Ancient times). 1898.
Curr, E. M., The Australian race.
Dale, G., An account of the principal customs and habits of the Natives
inhabiting the Bondei country. J. A. I. XXV (1896).
Dall, W. H., Alaska and its resources. 1870.
Dalton, E. T., Descriptive ethnology of Bengal. 1872.
Danks, B., Marriage Customs of the New Britain Group. J. A. I. XVIII
(1889).
Dargun, L., Ursprung und Entwicklungsgeschichte des Eigenthums. Z. V.
R. V.
Darwin, Ch., Journal of a voyage round the world. 1889.
—— The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Revised
edition. Chicago and New York.
Dawson, J., Australian aborigines. 1881.
Delden, E. Th. van, Verslag over den toestand van het landschap
Gloegoer VI Kota. Tijds. XXVII.
Déniker, J., Les Ghiliaks. R. E. II.
—— Les races et les peuples de la terre. 1900.
Dewall, H. von, Matan, Simpang, Soekadana, de Karimata-eilanden en
Koeboe. Tijds. XI.
Die Bewohner des schwarzen Irtyschthales. Z. E. VIII.
Dimitroff, Z., Die Geringschätzung des menschlichen Lebens. 1891.
Dinter, B. C. A. J. van, Eenige geographische en ethnographische
aanteekeningen betreffende het eiland Siaoe. Tijds. XLI (1899).
Dobrizhoffer, M., Historia de Abiponibus. 1784.
Dodge, R. I., Die heutigen Indianer des fernen Westens. 1884.
Donselaar, W. M., Aanteekeningen over het eiland Saleijer. N. Z. G. I.
—— Aanteekeningen over het eiland Savoe. N. Z. G. XVI.
Doughty, Ch. M., Travels in Arabia Deserta. 1888.
Duloup, G., Huit jours chez les M’Bengas. R. E. II.
Dupont, E., Lettres sur le Congo. 1889.
Dijk, P. A. L. E. van, Nota over de landstreek in de Toba-landen,
bekend onder den naam van Habinsaran. T. A. G. 2nd series IX.
—— Rapport betreffende de Si Baloengoensche landschappen. Tijds.
XXXVII.
—— Rapport over de Loeboe-bevolking in de onderafdeeling
Groot-Mandheling en Batang Natal. Bijdr. XXXVIII.
Eastman, Mrs. E. G., Indian Wars and Warriors. The Cosmopolitan, New
York. February 1894.
Eastman, Mrs. M., Dahcotah. 1849.
Eck, R. van, Schets van het eiland Lombok. Tijds. XXII.
Ehrenreich, P., Beiträge zur Völkerkunde Brasiliens. Veröffentlichungen
aus dem königlichen Museum für Völkerkunde II (1891).
—— Über die Botocudos der brasilianischen Provinzen Espiritu santo und
Minas Geraes. Z. E. XIX.
Eliot, J., Asiatick Researches III. 1807.
Elliott, H. W., An arctic Province. Alaska and the Seal Islands. 1886.
Ellis, A. B., The Ewe-speaking peoples of the Slave Coast of West
Africa. 1890.
—— The Tshi-speaking peoples of the Gold Coast of West Africa. 1887.
—— The Yoruba-speaking peoples of the Slave Coast of West Africa. 1894.
Ellis, W., Polynesian researches. Second edition.
—— Three visits to Madagascar. 1859.
Elton, F., Notes on the natives of the Solomon Islands. J. A. I. XVII
(1888).
Emin Bey, Sur les Akkas et les Baris. Z. E. XVIII.
Encyclopaedie van Nederlandsch-Indië.
Engelhard, H. E. D., Aanteekeningen betreffende de Kindjin Dajaks in
het landschap Baloengan. Tijds. XXIX.
Erman, A., Ethnographische Wahrnehmungen und Erfahrungen an den Küsten
des Berings-Meeres. Z. E. II.
Erskine, J. E., Journal of a cruise among the islands of the Western
Pacific. 1858.
Evreux, Père Yves D’, Voyage dans le nord du Brésil, fait durant les
années 1613 et 1614, publié par F. Denis. 1864.
Eyre, E. J., Journal of Expeditions of Discovery into Central
Australia. 1845.
Falkner, Th., A description of Patagonia. 1774.
Favre, P., An account of the wild tribes inhabiting the Malayan
Peninsula. Journ. of the Indian Archipelago II.
Felix, L., Entwicklungsgeschichte des Eigenthums.
Ferrero, G., La morale primitiva e l’atavismo del delitto. Archivio di
psichiatria, scienze penali ed antropologia criminale. Vol. XVI (1895).
Finsch, O., Die Goldküste und ihre Bewohner in ihrem heutigen Zustande.
Z. Erd. Neue Folge XVII (1864).
—— Reise nach West-Sibirien im Jahre 1876. 1879.
—— Samoafahrten. 1890.
Fison, L., Land tenure in Fiji. J. A. I. X. (1881).
Fison and Howitt, Kamilaroi and Kurnai.
Flügel, O., Das Ich und die sittlichen Ideen im Leben der Völker.
Zweite Auflage. 1889.
Forbes, H. O., On the ethnology of Timorlaut. J. A. I. XIII (1884).
—— On the Kubus of Sumatra. J. A. I. XIV (1885).
—— On some of the tribes of the island of Timor. J. A. I. XIII (1884).
Forrest, John, On the natives of Central and Western Australia. J. A.
I. V. (1876).
Forster’s J. R., Bemerkungen aus seiner Reise um die Welt. 1783.
Fraser, J., The aborigines of New South Wales. 1892.
Frazer, J. G., Notes on the Aborigines of Australia. J. A. I. XXIV
(1895).
Fremont and Emory, Notes of travel in California. 1849.
French-Sheldon, Mrs., Customs among the natives of East Africa from
Teita to Kilimegalia, J. A. I. XXI (1892).
Fritsch, G., Die Eingeborenen Süd-Afrika’s. 1872.
Fülleborn, F., Ueber seine Reisen im Nyassa-Gebiet. Verhandlungen der
Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin. 1900.
Further papers relative to the exploration of British North America.
Gabb, Indian tribes and languages of Costa Rica. Proc. of the Amer.
Philos. Soc. at Philadelphia XIV (1875).
Galton, F., Narrative of an explorer in tropical South Africa, being an
account of a visit to Damaraland in 1851. Edited by G. T. Bettany.
1889.
Gardiner, J. Stanley, The natives of Rotuma. J. A. I. XXVII.
Gasquet, A., Précis des institutions politiques et sociales de
l’ancienne France. 1885.
Gatschet, A. S., The Klamath Indians of South-western Oregon. Contrib.
to N. Amer. Ethnology Vol. II Part I.
Geiseler, Die Oster-Insel, Eine Stätte prähistorischer Kultur in der
Südsee. 1883.
Geoffroy, A., Arabes pasteurs nomades de la tribu des Larbas, in: Les
ouvriers des deux mondes, publiés par la société d’économie sociale.
Nouvelle Série, 8ième fascicule. 1887.
Gerland, G., Ueber das Aussterben der Naturvölker. 1868.
Gersen, G. J., Oendang-oendang, of verzameling van voorschriften in de
Lematang-Oeloe en Ilir en de Pasemah-landen. Tijds. XX.
Gibbs, G., Tribes of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon.
Contrib. to N. Amer. Ethnology I 1877.
Glaumont, Usages, moeurs et coutumes des Néo-Calédoniens. R. E. VII.
Godden, Gertrude M., Naga and other frontier tribes of North-East
India. J. A. I. XXVI and XXVII.
Goldstein, F., Die Sklaverei in Nord Afrika und im Sudan. Zeitschrift
für Sozialwissenschaft XI (1908).
Goudswaard, A., De Papoewa’s van de Geelvinksbaai. 1863.
Graafland, N., De Minahassa. 1867.
—— —— Eenige aanteekeningen op ethnographisch gebied ten aanzien van
het eiland Rote. N. Z. G. XXXIII.
Grabowsky, F., Der Tod, das Begräbnis, das Tiwah oder Todtenfest. I. A.
E. II.
Gräffe, E., nach Alf. Tetens und J. Kubary, Die Carolineninsel Yap oder
Guap. Journal des Museum Godeffroy I.
Gramberg, J. S. G., Schets der Kesam, Semendo, Makakauw en Blalauw.
Tijds. XV.
Grandidier, A., Des rites funéraires chez les Malgaches. R. E. V.
Granville, K., and Felix N. Roth, Notes on the Jekris, Sobos and Ijos
of the Niger Coast Protectorate. J. A. I. XXVIII.
Gregg, J., Karawanenzüge durch die westlichen Prairieen und Wanderungen
in Nord-Mejico. 1845.
Grey, G., Journal of an Expedition of Discovery in North-Western and
Western Australia. 1844.
Grinnell, G. B., The story of the Indian. 1896.
Groot, H. F. W. Cornets de, Nota over de slavernij en het
pandelingschap in de residentie Lampongsche Districten. Tijds. XXVII.
Grosse, E., Die Formen der Familie und die Formen der Wirtschaft. 1896.
Grupp, G., Die Anfänge der Geldwirtschaft. Zeitschrift für
Kulturgeschichte IV and V.
Guiral, L., Les Batékés. R. E. V.
Guise, R. E., On the tribes inhabiting the mouth of the Wanigela River.
J. A. I. XXVIII.
Gumilla, J., Histoire naturelle, civile et géographique de l’Orénoque.
1758.
Guppy, H. B., The Solomon Islands and their natives. 1887.
Haarhoff, B. J., Die Bantu-Stämme Süd-Afrikas. 1890.
Haddon, A. C., The ethnography of the Western Tribes of Torres Straits.
J. A. I. XIX (1890).
Hagen, La colonie de Porto-Novo et le Roi Toffa. R. E. VI.
Hagen et A. Pineau, Les Nouvelles-Hébrides. R. E. VII.
Hagen, B., Unter den Papuas in Deutsch-Neu-Guinea. 1899.
—— Die Orang Kubu auf Sumatra. 1908.
Hager, C., Die Marshall-Inseln. 1886.
Hahl, Ueber die Rechtsanschauungen der Eingeborenen eines Theiles der
Blanchebucht und des Innern der Gazelle Halbinsel. Nachrichten über
Kaiser Wilhelms-Land und den Bismarck-Archipel XIII (1897).
Hahn, E., Die Haustiere und ihre Beziehungen zur Wirtschaft des
Menschen. 1896.
—— Die Entstehung der wirtschaftlichen Arbeit. 1908.
Hahn, J., Die Ovahereró. Z. G. Erd. IV (1869).
Hale, H., Ethnography and Philology. United States Exploring
Expedition. 1846.
Hall, C. F., Life with the Esquimaux. 1864.
Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften. Second and third edition.
Hanoteau, A., et A. Letourneux, La Kabylie et les coutumes Kabyles.
1872–3.
Hardisty, W. L., The Loucheux Indians. Smithson. Rep. 1866.
Harper Parker, E., The Burmo-Chinese Frontier and the Kakhyen tribes.
Fortnightly Review, July 1897.
Harris, J. M., Some remarks on the Origin, Manners, Customs and
Superstitions of the Gallinas. Memoirs Anthrop. Soc. of London II
(1865–6).
Hartmann, R., Madagaskar. 1886.
Hasselt, A. L. van, Volksbeschrijving van Midden-Sumatra. 1882.
Hasselt, J. C. van, De onderafdeeling Bangkala. T. A. G. IV (1880).
Hasselt, J. L. van, Die Noeforezen. Z. E. VIII.
—— Eenige aanteekeningen aangaande de bewoners der N. Westkust van
Nieuw-Guinea, meer bepaaldelijk de stam der Noefooreezen. Tijds. XXXI
and XXXII.
Haxthausen, von, Transkaukasia. 1856.
Hearne, S., Landreis naar den Noorder-Oceaan. 1798.
Hecquard, H., Voyage sur la côte et dans l’intérieur de l’Afrique
occidentale. 1853.
Hensel, R., Die Coroados der brasilianischen Provinz Rio Grande do Sul.
Z. E. I.
Hernsheim, F., Südsee-Erinnerungen.
Herold, Bericht betreffend Rechtsgewohnheiten und Palaver der deutschen
Ewe-Neger. M. D. S. V.
Herrmann, Die Wasiba und ihr Land. M. D. S. VII.
Hervey, The Endau and its Tributaries. Journ. of the Straits Branch of
the R. Asiat. Soc. 1881.
Het landschap Donggala of Banawa. Bijdr. LVIII.
Heusser, J. Ch., und G. Claraz, Auszug aus Don J. M. de la Sota’s
Geschichte des Territorio Oriental del Uruguay. Z. Erd. Neue Folge X
(1861).
Heijting, Th. A. L., Beschrijving der onderafdeeling Groot-Mandeling en
Batang-Natal. T. A. G. 2nd series XIV.
Hickson, S. J., Notes on the Sengirese. J. A. I. XVI (1887).
Hildebrand, B., Natural-, Geld- und Creditwirthschaft. Jahrbücher für
Nationalökonomie und Statistik II (1864).
Hildebrand, R., Recht und Sitte auf den primitiveren wirtschaftlichen
Kulturstufen. Zweite Auflage. 1907.
Hildebrandt, J. M., Ausflug zum Ambergebirge in Nord-Madagaskar. Z. G.
Erd. XV (1880).
—— Vorläufige Bemerkungen über die Sómal. Z. E. VII.
—— West-Madagaskar. Z. G. Erd. XV (1880).
Histoire de Kamtschatka. 1767.
Histoire de la Virginie. 1707.
Hoesemann, Ethnologisches aus Kamerun. M. D. S. XVI.
Hoëvell, G. W. W. C. van, Ambon en meer bepaaldelijk de Oeliassers.
1875.
—— De Kei-eilanden. Tijds. XXXIII.
—— Leti-eilanden. Tijds. XXXIII.
—— Tanimbar en Timor-laoet-eilanden. Tijds. XXXIII.
Hoffman, W. J., The Menomini Indians. A. R. B. E. XIV.
Höhnel, L. von, Zum Rudolph See und Stephanie See. 1892.
Holland, The Ainos. J. A. I. III (1874).
Hollander, J. J. de, Handleiding bij de beoefening der Land- en
Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch Oost-Indië.
Holle, G. du Rij van Beest, Aanteekeningen betreffende de landschappen
VI Kotta Pangkallan en XII Kotta Kampar. Tijds. XXIV.
Holmberg, H. J., Ethnographische Skizzen über die Völker des russischen
Amerika. I 1855, II 1862.
Holub, E., On the Central South African tribes from the South Coast to
the Zambesi. J. A. I. X (1881).
—— Sieben Jahre in Süd-Afrika. 1881.
Hooper, W. H., Ten months among the tents of the Tuski. 1856.
Hore, E. C., On the twelve tribes of Tanganyika. J. A. I. XII (1883).
Howitt, A. W., The native tribes of South-East Australia. 1904.
Hunt, A. E., Ethnographical notes on the Murray Islands, Torres
Straits. J. A. I. XXVIII.
Hunter, J. D., Gedenkschriften eener gevangenschap onder de wilden van
Noord-Amerika. 1824.
Hunter, W. W., The annals of rural Bengal. 1868.
Hutchinson, Th. J., Impressions of Western Africa. 1858.
Hutter, F., Wanderungen und Forschungen im Nord-Hinterland von Kamerun.
1902.
Hyades, P., and J. Déniker, Mission scientifique du Cap Horn,
1882–1883. Tome VII, Anthropologie, Ethnographie. 1891.
Im Thurn, E. F., Among the Indians of Guiana. 1883.
Inama-Sternegg, K. Th. von, Deutsche Wirtschaftsgeschichte.
Inglis, J., In the New Hebrides. 1887.
Ingram, J. K., A history of slavery and serfdom. 1895.
Islawin, W., Das Hauswesen, die Rennthierzucht und die
Gewerbsthätigkeit der Samojeden der Mesen’schen Tundra. Z. Erd. Neue
Folge X (1861).
Iwanowski, A., Die Mongolei. Ethnographische Skizze. 1895.
Jagor, F., Travels in the Philippines. 1875.
James, E., Account of an Expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky
Mountains. 1823.
Jansen, A. J. F., Aanteekeningen omtrent Sollok en de Solloksche
zeeroovers. Tijds. VII.
Jenks, A. E., The Bontoc Igorot. Department of the Interior.
Ethnological Survey Publications. Vol. I (1905).
Jesuit Relations, The, and allied documents.
Jhering, R. von, Geist des römischen Rechts. Dritte Auflage.
Joest, W., Ethnographisches und Verwandtes aus Guyana. I. A. E.
Supplement zu Band V.
Joest, W., Weltfahrten.
John, H. C. St., The Ainos: aborigines of Yeso. J. A. I. II (1873).
John, R. St. A. St., Account of the Hill tribes of North Aracan. J. A.
I. II (1873).
Johnston, H. H., The Kilima-Njaro Expedition. 1886.
Jones, P., History of the Ojibway Indians. 1861.
Jones, Strachan, The Kutchin Tribes. Smithson. Rep. 1866.
Jung, Aufzeichnungen über die Rechtsanschauungen der Eingeborenen von
Nauru. M. D. S. X (1897).
Junghuhn, F., Die Battaländer auf Sumatra. 1847.
Junker, W., Reisen in Afrika. 1875–1886.
Junod, H. A., Les Baronga, Etude ethnographique sur les indigènes de la
baie de Délagoa. 1898.
Kallenberg, F., Auf dem Kriegspfad gegen die Massai. 1892.
Kandt, Bericht über meine Reisen und gesammte Thätigkeit in Deutsch
Ost-Afrika. M. D. S. XIII.
Kane, Paul, Wanderings of an artist among the Indians of North America.
1859.
Kannenberg, Reise durch die hamitischen Sprachgebiete um Kondoa. M. D.
S. XIII.
Kate, H. F. C. ten, Reizen en onderzoekingen in Noord-Amerika. 1885.
—— Verslag eener reis in de Timorgroep en Polynesië. T. A. G. 1894.
Keane, A. H., On the Botocudos. J. A. I. XIII (1884).
Keating, W. H., Narrative of an Expedition to the Source of the St.
Peters River in 1823 under the command of Major Stephen H. Long. 1825.
Kennan, J., Tent life in Siberia. 1871.
Kerr, W. M., The far interior. 1886.
Kingsley, Mary H., West African studies. 1899.
Kingsley, Miss, Discussion, in J. A. I. XXIX.
Kinzie, Mrs. John H., Wau-bun, the early day in the northwest. 1873.
Kirby, W. W., A journey to the Youcan, Russian America. Smithson. Rep.
1864.
Klaproth, J. von, Reise in den Kaukasus und nach Georgien. 1812.
Klerks, E. A., Geographisch en ethnographisch opstel over de
landschappen Karintji, Serampas en Soengai Tenang. Tijds. XXXIX.
Klutschak, Als Eskimo unter den Eskimos. 1881.
Knapp, G. F., Die Bauernbefreiung und der Ursprung der Landarbeiter in
den älteren Theilen Preussens. 1887.
Koehne, C., Das Recht der Kalmücken. Z. V. R. IX.
Kohl, J. G., Kitschi-Gami oder Erzählungen vom Obern See. 1859.
Kohler, J., Das Recht der Marshall-Insulaner. Z. V. R. XII and XIV.
—— Über das Negerrecht namentlich in Kamerun. Separat-Abdruck aus der
Z. V. R. 1895.
—— Das Recht der Herero. Z. V. R. XIV.
—— Das Recht der Papuas. Z. V. R. XIV.
—— Das Recht der Hottentotten. Z. V. R. XV.
—— Das Banturecht in Ostafrika. Z. V. R. XV.
Köler, H., Einige Notizen über Bonny an der Küste von Guinea, seine
Sprache und seine Bewohner. 1848.
Koning, D. A. P., Eenige gegevens omtrent land en volk der
Noordoostkust van Ned. Nieuw-Guinea, genaamd Papoea Telandjang. Bijdr.
LV.
Korte Beschrijving van het landschap Bila. Bijdr. LVI.
Kotzebue, Otto von, Entdeckungs-Reise in die Südsee und nach der
Berings-Strasse. 1821.
Kovalewsky, M., Coutume contemporaine et loi ancienne. 1893.
—— L’avènement du régime économique moderne au sein des campagnes.
Revue internationale de sociologie. 1896.
Krämer, A., Die Samoa-Inseln. 1902–03.
—— Studienreise nach den Zentral- und West-Karolinen. M. D. S. XXI.
—— Hawaii, Ostmikronesien und Samoa. 1906.
Krause, A., Die Tlinkit-Indianer. 1885.
Krieger, M., Neu Guinea.
Kroesen, J. A., Nota omtrent de Bataklanden (speciaal Simeloengoen).
Tijds. XLI.
Kroesen, R. C., Aanteekeningen over de Anambas-, Natoena- en
Tambelan-eilanden. Tijds. XXI.
Kropf, A., Das Volk der Xosa-Kaffern im östlichen Südafrika nach seiner
Geschichte, Eigenart, Verfassung und Religion. 1889.
Kruijt, A. C., Een en ander aangaande het geestelijk en maatschappelijk
leven van den Poso-Alfoer. N. Z. G. XXXIX and XL.
—— Eenige ethnographische aanteekeningen omtrent de Toboengkoe en de
Tomori. N. Z. G. XLIV.
Kubary, J., Die Bewohner der Mortlock-Inseln. Mittheilungen der
geographischen Gesellschaft in Hamburg. 1878–9.
—— Die Ebongruppe im Marshall’s Archipel. Journal des Museum Godeffroy
I.
—— Die Industrie der Pelau-Insulaner. 1892.
—— Die Palau-Inseln in der Südsee. Journal des Museum Godeffroy I.
—— Die socialen Einrichtungen der Pelauer. 1885.
—— Die Verbrechen und das Strafverfahren auf den Pelau-Inseln.
Original-Mittheilungen aus der ethnologischen Abtheilung der
königlichen Museen zu Berlin. Erster Jahrgang (1886), Heft 2–3.
Kunze, G., Im Dienst des Kreuzes auf ungebahnten Pfaden. Drittes Heft.
Allerlei Bilder aus dem Leben der Papua. Zweite Auflage. 1901.
Lafitau, Moeurs des sauvages amériquains. 1764.
Lambert, Le père, Moeurs et superstitions des Néo-Calédoniens. 1900.
Lamprecht, K., Deutsche Geschichte.
Lang, J. D., Queensland. 1861.
Lange, F. A., Die Arbeiterfrage. Ihre Bedeutung für Gegenwart und
Zukunft. Vierte Auflage. 1879.
Langen, K. F. H. van, Atjeh’s Westkust. T. A. G. 2nd series V.
Laufer, Berthold, Preliminary notes on explorations among the Amoor
tribus. American Anthropologist New Series Vol. 2. 1900.
Lavisse, E., Histoire de France. Vol. II Part II. 1901.
Lean, J. Mc., The Indians of Canada, their manners and customs. Third
edition. 1892.
Legrand, A., La Nouvelle-Calédonie et ses habitants en 1890. 1893.
Lenz, O., Skizzen aus West-Afrika. 1878.
Leroy-Beaulieu, P., Le luxe, la fonction de la richesse. Revue des deux
mondes, Novembre-Décembre 1894.
Lery, J. de, Histoire d’un voyage fait en la terre du Brésil, autrement
dite Amérique. Troisième édition. 1585.
Letourneau, Ch., L’évolution de l’esclavage. 1897.
Lettres édifiantes et curieuses.
Levchine, A. de, Description des hordes et des steppes des
Kirghiz-Kazaks. 1840.
Lewin, Th., Wild races of South Eastern India. 1870.
Lewis and Clark, Expedition up the Missouri. 1902. (Reprint of the
edition of 1814).
Liefrinck, F. A., Nota betreffende den economischen toestand van het
rijk Bangli (Bali). Tijds. XXIV.
—— Slavernij op Lombok. Tijds. XLII.
Life in California, by an American. 1846.
Ligtvoet, A., Aanteekeningen betreffende den economischen toestand en
de ethnographie van het rijk van Sumbawa. Tijds. XXIII.
Ling Roth, H., The aborigines of Hispaniola. J. A. I. XVI (1887).
—— The aborigines of Tasmania. 1890.
—— The natives of Sarawak and British Northern Borneo. 1896.
Lippert, J., Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit.
Lister, J. J., Notes on the natives of Fakaofu (Bowditch Island), Union
Group. J. A. I. XXI.
Livingstone, D., Missionary travels and researches in South Africa.
1857.
—— The last journals of ——, in Central Africa, from 1865 to his death.
1874.
Livingstone, D. and C., Narrative of an expedition to the Zambesi and
its tributaries. 1865.
Long, J., Voyages and travels of an Indian interpreter and trader.
1791.
Loria, A., Les bases économiques de la constitution sociale. 1893.
Loskiel, G. H., Geschichte der Mission der evangelischen Brüder unter
den Indianern in Nordamerika. 1789.
Low, H., Sarawak. 1848.
Lumholtz, Among cannibals. 1889.
Maass, A., Reise nach den Mentawei-Inseln. Verhandlungen der
Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin XXV (1898).
Maccauley, Clay, The Seminole Indians of Florida. A. R. B. E. V.
Macdonald, J., East Central African Customs. J. A. I. XXII (1893).
—— Manners, Customs, Superstitions and Religions of South African
tribes. J. A. I. XIX and XX (1890 and 1891).
Mackenzie, A., Voyages from Montreal through the continent of North
America. 1802.
Maclay, N. von Miklucho, Ethnologische Bemerkungen über die Papuas der
Maclay-Küste in Neu-Guinea. Natuurkundig tijdschrift voor
Nederlandsch-Indië XXXV and XXXVI.
Macrae, J., Asiatick researches VII. 1807.
Madrolle, C., En Guinée. 1895.
Magyar, L., Reisen in Süd-Afrika in den Jahren 1849–1857. 1859.
Mahler, R., Siedelungsgebiet und Siedelungslage in Oceanien. I. A. E.
Supplement zu Band XI (1898).
Mallat, Les Philippines.
Malthus, T. R., An essay on the principle of population. Edited by G.
T. Bettany. 1890.
Man, E. H., The aboriginal inhabitants of the Andaman Islands. J. A. I.
XII (1883).
Marcuse, A., Die Hawaiischen Inseln. 1894.
Mariner, Histoire des naturels des Iles Tonga ou des Amis. 1817.
Marsden, W., The history of Sumatra. Third edition. 1811.
Martens, E. von, Banda, Timor und Flores. Z. G. Erd. XXIV (1889).
Martius, von, Zur Ethnographie Amerika’s, zumal Brasiliens. 1867.
Marx, K., Das Kapital. Vol. I Second edition. 1872, Vol. III 1894.
Mason, Religion etc. among the Karens. Journ. Asiat. Soc. 1865, 1868.
Mathews, W., Ethnography and philology of the Hidatsa Indians. 1877.
Matthes, B. F., Bijdragen tot de Ethnologie van Zuid-Celebes. 1875.
Mauch, C., Reisen im Inneren von Süd-Afrika. Pet. Ergänzungsheft
XXXVII.
Maurault, J. A., Histoire des Abénakis depuis 1605 jusqu’à nos jours.
1866.
Mayne, R. C., Four years in British Columbia. 1862.
Mededeelingen betreffende het landschap Panei en het Rajahgebied.
Bijdr. LVI.
Meerwaldt, J. H., Aanteekeningen betreffende de Battaklanden. Tijds.
XXXVII.
Meinicke, C. E., Der Archipel der Neuen Hebriden. Z. G. Erd. IX (1874).
—— Die Gilbert- und Marshall-Inseln. Z. Erd. Neue Folge XV (1863).
—— Die Inseln des stillen Oceans. 1875–6.
—— Die Torresstrasse, ihre Gefahren und Inseln. Z. Erd. Neue Folge III
(1857).
Melching, K., Staatenbildung in Melanesien. 1897.
Meline, J. F., Two thousand miles on horseback. Santa Fé and back.
1867.
Melnikow, N., Die Burjaten des Irkutskischen Gouvernements. I. A. E.
XII.
Merivale, H., Lectures on colonization and colonies. New edition. 1861.
Merker, M., Die Masai. Ethnographische Monographie eines
ostafrikanischen Semitenvolkes. 1904.
Mess, H. A., De Mentawei-eilanden. Tijds. XXVI.
Metz, F., The tribes inhabiting the Neilgherry hills. Second edition.
1864.
Meyer, E., Die wirtschaftliche Entwickelung des Altertums. 1895.
—— Die Sklaverei im Altertum. 1898.
Meijer, H., Die Igorroten von Luzon. Verhandlungen der Berliner Ges. f.
Anthr., Ethn. und Urgeschichte. 1883.
Miesen, J. H. W. van der, Een en ander over Boeroe. N. Z. G. XLVI.
Mill, J. Stuart, Principles of political economy. Fifth edition.
Miller, E. Y., The Bataks of Palawan. Department of the Interior.
Ethnological Survey Publications. Vol. II Part III (1905).
Mitchell, Three expeditions into the Interior of Eastern Australia.
1839.
Modigliani, E., L’Isola delle Donne. Viaggio ad Engano. 1894.
—— Un viaggio a Nias. 1890.
Moerenhout, J. A., Voyage aux îles du Grand Océan. 1837.
Mohnicke, Bangka und Palembang. 1874.
Molina, G. I., Saggio sulla Storia civile del Chili. 1787.
Möllhausen, B., Tagebuch einer Reise vom Mississippi nach den Küsten
der Süd-See. 1858.
Mommsen, Th. Römische Geschichte. Siebente Auflage.
Montaigne, M. de, Essais.
Montano, Quelques jours chez les indigènes de la province de Malacca.
R. E. I.
Moolenburgh, P. E., Extract uit een verslag der
Noord-Nieuw-Guinea-Expeditie. Tijds. XLVII.
Morgan, Delmar, The customs of the Ossetes. Journal Royal Asiat. Soc.
1888.
Morgan. L. H., Ancient society. 1877.
Morgan, J. de, Exploration dans la presqu’île malaise. 1886.
Müller, F., Unter Tungusen und Jakuten. 1882.
Müller, F. W. K., Batak-Sammlung. Veröffentlichungen aus dem
königlichen Museum für Völkerkunde III (1893).
Müller, J. von, Reise durch das Gebiet des Habäs und Beni-Amer. Z. G.
Erd. XVIII (1883).
Munzinger, W., Ostafrikanische Studien. 1864.
—— Ueber die Sitte und das Recht der Bogos. 1859.
Muratori, M., Relation des missions du Paraguai. 1826.
Murdoch, J., Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedition. A. R.
B. E. IX.
Musters, Unter den Patagoniern. 1877.
Nachtigal, G., Sahara und Sûdan.
Nansen, F., The first crossing of Greenland. 1890.
Neill, E. D., The history of Minnesota: from the earliest French
explorations to the present time. 1873.
Neumann, J. B., Het Pane- en Bila-stroomgebied. T. A. G. 2nd series III
and IV (1887).
—— Schets der afdeeling Laboean-Batoe, residentie Sumatra’s Oostkust.
Tijds. XXVI.
Newbold, F. J., British Settlements in the Straits of Malacca. 1839.
Niblack, A. P., The Coast Indians of Southern Alaska and Northern
British Columbia. Smithson. Rep. 1888.
Nieuwenhuis, A. W., Quer durch Borneo. Vol. I 1904. Vol. II 1907.
—— In Centraal Borneo. Reis van Pontianak naar Samarinda. 1900.
Nieuwenhuijzen, F. N., Het rijk Siak Sri Indrapoera. Tijds. VII.
Nieuw-Guinea ethnografisch en natuurkundig onderzocht en beschreven in
1858. Bijdr. 1862.
Nordenskiöld, A. E. von, Die Umsegelung Asiens und Europas auf der
Vega. 1882.
Nys, E., Recherches sur l’histoire de l’economie politique. 1898.
Obrutschew, W., Aus China. 1896.
Ochenkowski, W. von, Englands wirtschaftliche Entwickelung im Ausgange
des Mittelalters. 1879.
Ochsenius, C., Chili, Land und Leute. 1884.
Oldfield, A., On the aborigines of Australia. Transact. of the Ethnol.
Soc. of London. 1865.
Ophuijsen, C. A. van, De Loeboes. Tijds. XXIX.
Oppenheimer, F., Das Bevölkerungsgesetz des T. R. Malthus und der
neueren Nationalökonomie. Darstellung und Kritik. 1901.
—— David Ricardos Grundentheorie. Darstellung und Kritik. 1909.
Orbigny, A. d’, L’homme américain. 1839.
Ordinaire, O., Les sauvages du Pérou. R. E. VI.
Ottow en Geissler, Kort overzigt van het land en de bewoners der kust
van Noord-Oostelijk Nieuw Guinea (overgedrukt uit de Christelijke
Stemmen). 1857.
Oudemans, A. C., Engano, zijne geschiedenis, bewoners en
voortbrengselen. T. A. G. 2nd series VI.
Owen Dorsey, J., Omaha Sociology. A. R. B. E. III.
—— Siouan Sociology. A. R. B. E. XV.
Pallas, P. S., Neue nordische Beiträge. 1796.
—— Reise durch verschiedene Provinzen des Russischen Reichs. 1776–8.
Parker Winship, G., The Coronado Expedition 1540–1542. A. R. B. E. XIV.
Parkinson, R., Beiträge zur Ethnologie der Gilbertinsulaner. I. A. E.
II.
—— Dreissig Jahre in der Südsee. 1907.
—— Zur Ethnographie der nordwestlichen Salomo Inseln. 1899.
—— Im Bismarck-Archipel. 1887.
Passarge, S., Das Okawangosumpfland und seine Bewohner. Z. E. XXXVII.
—— Die Buschmänner der Kalahari. M. D. S. XVIII.
Paulitschke, Ph., Etnographie Nord-Ost-Afrikas. 1893–6.
Pauw ten Cate, H., Rapport van de Marga Semindo Darat. Tijds. XVII.
Perelaer, T. H., Ethnographische Beschrijving der Dajaks. 1870.
Peschel, O., Völkerkunde. Sechste Auflage.
Peters, W., Der Muata Cazembe und die Völkerstämme der Maravis, Muizas,
Muembas, Lundas und andere von Süd-Afrika. Z. Erd. VI (1856).
Petitot, Les Grands Esquimaux.
Petroff, L., Report on the Population, Industries and Resources of
Alaska. Tenth census of the United States VIII (1884).
Pfeil, J. Graf, Studien und Beobachtungen aus der Südsee. 1899.
Phillips, R. C., The Lower Congo, a sociological study. J. A. I. XVII
(1888).
Pinart, A. Les Indiens de l’état de Panama. R. E. VI.
Pleijte, C. M., Ethnographische beschrijving der Kei-eilanden. T. A. G.
2nd series X.
Ploss, H., Das Kind in Brauch und Sitte der Völker.
Pogge, P., Beiträge zur Entdeckungsgeschichte Afrika’s. III Im Reiche
des Muata Jamwo. 1880.
Pogge’s Aufenthalt in Lubuku, Rückkehr und Tod. Appendix to Wissmann,
Unter deutscher Flagge quer durch Afrika von West nach Ost. 1889.
Pohl, J. E., Reisen im Inneren von Brasilien. 1837.
Pokalowsky, H., Die erste Eroberung von Costa-Rica durch die Spanier in
den Jahren 1562–1564. Z. G. Erd. XIX (1884).
Polack, J. S., Manners and customs of the New Zealanders. 1840.
Post, A. H., Grundriss der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz.
Powell, J. W., On regimentation. A. R. B. E. XV.
—— Wyandot Government: a short study of tribal society. A. R. B. E. I.
Powers, S., Tribes of California. U. S. Geogr. and Geol. Survey of the
Rocky Mountains Region. Contrib. to N. Amer. Ethnology III (1876).
Prehn, R. C. von, Aanteekeningen betreffende Borneo’s Westkust. Tijds.
VII.
Pritchard, W. T., Polynesian Reminiscences; or, Life in the South
Pacific Islands. 1866.
Puchta, G. F., Cursus der Institutionen. Neunte Auflage. 1881.
Quast, H. C. E., Verslag nopens den politieken toestand in de Rokan
staatjes. Tijds. XLVIII.
Quatrefages, A. de, L’espèce humaine. 1877.
Radde, G., Reisen an der persisch-russischen Grenze. Talysch und seine
Bewohner. 1886.
Radiguet, M., Les derniers sauvages. Souvenirs de l’occupation
française aux îles marquises. 1842–1859.
Radloff, W., Aus Sibirien. 1884.
—— Beobachtungen über die Kirgisen. Pet. 1864.
Ratzel, Völkerkunde.
—— Anthropogeographie. II, 1891.
Ray, Report on the Intern. Polar Expedition to Point-Barrow. 1885.
Reclus, E., Voyage à la Sierra Nevada de Sainte Marthe. 1881.
Reed, W. A., Negritos of Zambales. Department of the Interior.
Ethnological Survey Publications. Vol. II Part I (1904).
Remy, J., Ka Mooalelo Hawaii. Histoire de l’archipel Hawaien. 1862.
Reports of Explorations and Surveys for a railroad route from the
Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean.
Résumé’s van het onderzoek naar de rechten welke in de
Gouvernementslanden op Sumatra op de onbebouwde gronden worden
uitgeoefend. Second edition. 1896.
Ribbach, C. A., Labrador. T. A. G. I. (1876).
Ribbe, C., Zwei Jahre unter den Kannibalen der Salomo-Inseln. 1903.
Ricardo, D., Works. Edited by Mc. Culloch. 1876.
Richter, Der Bezirk Bukoba. M. D. S. XII.
—— Einige weitere ethnographische Notizen über den Bezirk Bukoba. M. D.
S. XIII.
—— Notizen über Lebensweisen, Zeitrechnung, Industrie und Handwerk der
Bewohner des Bezirks Bukoba. M. D. S. XIII.
Riedel, J. G. F., De landschappen Holontalo, Limoeto, Bone, Boalemo en
Katinggola, of Adangile. Tijds. XIX.
Riedel, J. G. F., De Minahasse in 1825. Tijds. XVIII.
—— De sluik- en kroesharige rassen tusschen Selebes en Papua. 1886.
—— De Topantunuazu of oorspronkelijke volksstammen in Centraal-Selebes.
Bijdr. 1886.
—— Galela und Tobeloresen. Z. E. XVII.
—— Het landschap Boeool. Tijds. XVIII.
Rink, H., Tales and traditions of the Eskimo. 1875.
Ripley, William Z., The races of Europe. A sociological study. 1899.
Robertson, G. S., Kafiristan and its people. J. A. I. XXVII (1897).
Robidé van der Aa., P. J. B. C., Reizen naar Nederlandsch Nieuw-Guinea.
1879.
Rochas, V. de, La Nouvelle Calédonie. 1862.
Rochefort, de, Histoire naturelle et morale des Iles Antilles. 1641.
Roest, J. L. D. van der, Uit het leven der bevolking van Windessi.
Tijds. XL.
Rogers, J. E. Thorold, The economic interpretation of history. 1888.
—— Work and wages. 1885.
Romilly, H. H., From my verandah in New Guinea. 1889.
—— The Western Pacific and New Guinea. Second edition. 1887.
Roo van Alderwerelt, J. de, Eenige mededeelingen over Soemba. Tijds.
XXXIII.
Roos, S., Iets over Endeh. Tijds. XXIV.
Roosevelt, Th., The Winning of the West.
Roscoe, J., The Bahima: A Cow Tribe in the Uganda Protectorate. J. A.
I. XXXVII.
Rosenberg, H. von, Beschrijving van Engano en deszelfs bewoners. Tijds.
III.
—— De Mentawei-eilanden en hunne bewoners. Tijds. I.
—— Der malayische Archipel. 1878.
—— Geografische en ethnografische beschrijving van het district
Singkel. Tijds. III.
—— Reistochten naar de Geelvinkbaai op Nieuw-Guinea. 1875.
Ross, B. R., Notes on the Tinneh or Chepewyan Indians of British and
Russian America. Smithson. Rep. 1866.
Roth, W. E., Ethnological studies among the North-West-Central
Queensland Aborigines. 1897.
Rousselet, L., Le Kafiristan et les Kafirs. R. E. III.
Rowney, H. B., The wild tribes of India. 1882.
Russell, F., Explorations in the Far North. 1898.
Sagard, Fr. Gabriel, Voyage au pays des Hurons. 1632.
Saleeby, N. J., Studies in Moro history, law, and religion. Department
of the Interior. Ethnological Survey Publications. Vol. IV Part I
(1905).
Salvado, R., Memorie storiche dell’Australia. 1851.
Salvioli, G., Le lotte fra pastori e agricoltori nella storia della
civiltà. Rivista Italiana di Sociologia. Anno II.
Sarasin, P. and F., Die Weddas von Ceylon. 1893.
Savage Landor, A. H., Alone with the hairy Ainu. 1893.
Schadenberg, A., Beiträge zur Kenntniss der im Innern Nordluzons
lebenden Stämme. Verhandl. der Berliner. Ges. f. Anthrop., Ethnol. und
Urgeschichte. 1888.
—— Die Bewohner von Süd-Mindanao und der Insel Samal. Z. E. XVII.
—— Über die Negritos der Philippinen. Z. E. XII.
Scheemaker, L. de, Nota betreffende het landschap Batoebarah. Tijds.
XVII.
Schele, von, Uhehe. M. D. S. IX.
Schmeltz, J. D. E., und R. Krause, Die ethnographisch-anthropologische
Abtheilung des Museum Godeffroy in Hamburg. 1881.
Schmoller, G., Die Thatsachen der Arbeitsteilung. Jahrbuch für
Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich. 1889.
—— Grundriss der allgemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre I 1900.
Schomburgk, R., Reisen in British Guiana. 1847.
Schomburgk, R. H., Reisen in Guiana und am Orinoko. 1839.
Schoolcraft, H. R., History, Condition, and Prospects of the Indian
Tribes of the United States. 1851.
Schröder, R., Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte. 1889.
Schurtz, H. Katechismus der Völkerkunde. 1893.
—— Das Afrikanische Gewerbe. 1900.
—— Die Anfänge des Landbesitzes. Zeitschrift für Socialwissenschaft III
(1900).
Schütt, O. H., Reisen im Südwestlichen Becken des Congo. 1881.
Schwaner, Borneo. 1853.
Schweinfurth, G., Au coeur de l’Afrique.
Seemann, B., Viti: an account of a Government Mission. 1861.
Semper, Karl, Die Pelau-Inseln im stillen Ocean. 1873.
—— Die Philippinen und ihre Bewohner. 1869.
Senfft, Die Insel Nauru. M. D. S. 1896.
Serpa Pinto, How I crossed Africa. 1881.
Severijn, P., Verslag van een in 1854 bewerkstelligd onderzoek op het
eiland Engano. Tijds. III.
—— Verslag van een onderzoek der Poggi-eilanden. Tijds. III.
Shaw, Th., Asiatick Researches IV (1807).
Sibree, J., The great African Island. 1880.
Siegel, H., Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte. Zweite Auflage. 1889.
Sievers, W., Des Grafen Josef de Brettes Reisen im nördlichen Colombia.
Globus LXXIII.
—— Reise in der Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. 1887.
Simcox, E. J., Primitive Civilizations. 1894.
Simons, The Goajiro-Peninsula. Proc. Royal Geogr. Soc. 1885.
Simson, Alfred, Notes on the Zaparos. J. A. I. VII (1878).
Skeat, W. W., and Ch. O. Blagden, Pagan races of the Malay Peninsula.
1906.
Skinner, J., Voyages au Pérou, faits dans les années 1791 à 1794, par
les pp. Manuel Sobreviela et Narcisso y Barcelo. 1809.
Smith, E. R., The Araucanians. 1855.
Smyth, W., and F. Lowe, Narrative of a journey from Lima to Para. 1836.
Snouck Hurgronje, C., De Atjehers. 1893–4.
—— Het Gajoland en zijne bewoners. 1903.
Snow, Parker W., Tierra del Fuego. 1857.
Sohm, R., Institutionen des Römischen Rechts. Vierte Auflage. 1891.
Sombart, W., Der Moderne Kapitalismus. 1902.
Somerville, B. T., Ethnographical notes on New Georgia, Solomon
Islands. J. A. I. XXVI (1897).
—— Notes on some islands of the New Hebrides. J. A. I. XXIII (1894).
Sonnenschein, Aufzeichnungen über die Insel Nauru (Pleasant Island). M.
D. S. II (1889).
Southey, R., History of Brazil. 1822.
Spencer, H., Descriptive Sociology.
—— Industrial institutions.
—— Political institutions.
Spenser St. John, Life in the forests of the far East. Second edition.
1863.
Sproat, J. M., Scenes and Studies of Savage Life. 1868.
Staudinger, P., Im Herzen der Haussa-Länder. 1889.
Stein, Die Turkmenen. Pet. 1880.
Steinbach, The Marshall Islands. The Geographical Journal, Vol. 7
(1896).
Steinen, K. von den, Unter den Naturvölkern Central-Brasiliens. 1894.
—— Durch Central-Brasilien. 1886.
Steinmetz, S. R., Das Verhältnis zwischen Eltern und Kindern bei den
Naturvölkern. Zeitschrift für Socialwissenschaft I.
—— Endokannibalismus. 1896.
—— Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der Strafe. 1894.
—— Rechtsverhältnisse von eingeborenen Völkern in Afrika und Ozeanien.
1903.
—— Classification des types sociaux et catalogue des peuples. L’année
sociologique 1898–99.
Steller, G. W., Beschreibung von dem Lande Kamtschatka. 1774.
Stenin, P. von, Die Kurden des Gouvernements Eriwan. Globus LXX (1896).
—— Das Gewohnheitsrecht der Samojeden. Globus LX (1891).
Stokes, J., Discoveries in Australia. 1846.
Storch, Sitten, Gebräuche und Rechtspflege bei den Bewohnern Usambaras
und Pares. M. D. S. VIII.
Strachey, The history of Travaile into Virginia Brittannia (1610–1612),
printed for the Hackluyt Society. 1849.
Strauch, H., Allgemeine Bemerkungen ethnologischen Inhalts über
Neu-Guinea, etc. Z. E. IX.
Stuhlmann, Mit Emin-Pascha ins Herz von Afrika. 1894.
Sullivan, O’, Tierra del Fuego. Fortnightly Review. 1893.
Sumner, W. G., The Yakuts. Abridged from the Russian of Sieroshevski.
J. A. I. XXXI.
Sutherland, A., The origin and growth of the moral instinct. 1898.
Svoboda, W., Die Bewohner des Nikobaren-Archipels. I. A. E. V.
Swan, J. G., Haidah Indians of Queen Charlotte Islands. Smithson.
Contrib. to Knowledge. 1874.
—— The Northwest Coast; or, three years residence in Washington
territory. 1857.
Tacitus, Germania.
Tanner, J., Denkwürdigkeiten über seinen dreissigjährigen Aufenthalt
unter den Indianern Nord-Amerika’s. 1840.
Tautain, L., Études critiques sur l’ethnologie et l’ethnographie des
peuples du bassin du Sénégal. R. E. IV.
—— Notes sur les castes chez les Mandingues et en particulier chez les
Banmanas. R. E. III.
—— Quelques renseignements sur les Bobo. R. E. VI.
Taylor, R., Te Ika a Maui; or, New Zealand and its inhabitants. Second
edition. 1870.
Tegenwoordige Staat der Vereenigde Nederlanden.
Telfer, The Crimea and Transcaucasia. 1876.
Tellier, G., Autour de Kita. Etude soudanaise. 1902.
Theal, M. G., The Portuguese in South Africa. 1896.
Thomas, N. W., Natives of Australia. 1906.
Thomson, A. S., The Story of New Zealand. 1857.
Thomson, B., Note upon the natives of Savage Island, or Niué. J. A. I.
XXXI.
Thomson, J., To the Central African lakes and back. 1881.
—— Through Massailand. 1885.
Thomson, J. P., British New Guinea. 1892.
Thouar, A., Explorations dans l’Amérique du Sud. 1891.
Tonkes, H., Volkskunde von Bali. 1888.
Torday, E. and T. A. Joyce, Notes on the Ethnography of the Ba-Mbala.
J. A. I. XXXV.
—— Notes on the Ethnography of the Ba-Yaka. J. A. I. XXXVI.
Torday, E. and T. A. Joyce, Notes on the Ethnography of the Ba-Huana.
J. A. I. XXXVI.
—— On the Ethnology of the South-Western Congo Free State. J. A. I.
XXXVII.
Tourmagne, A., Histoire de l’esclavage ancien et moderne. 1880.
Tregear, E., The Maoris of New Zealand. J. A. I. XIX (1890).
Tromp, J. C. E., De Rambai en Sebroeang Dajaks. Tijds. XXV.
Tromp, Th. M., De Kaffers. T. A. G. V (1881).
Tschudi, J. J. von, Reisen durch Süd-Amerika. 1869.
Turner, G., Samoa. 1884.
Turner, L. M., Ethnology of the Ungava District. A. R. B. E. XI.
Turner, W. Y., On the ethnology of the Motu. J. A. I. VII (1878).
Tylor, E. B. Anthropology.
—— On a method of investigating the development of institutions. J. A.
I. XVIII (1889).
—— Primitive Culture.
Ujfalvy, Ch. de, Les Aryens au nord et au sud de l’Hindou-Kouch. 1896.
—— Expédition scientifique française en Russie, en Sibérie et dans le
Turkestan. 1878.
Vallentin, W., Kaiser Wilhelmsland. Neue deutsche Rundschau, Juni 1897.
Vambéry, H., Das Türkenvolk. 1885.
—— Skizzen aus Mittelasien. 1868.
Vaughan Stevens, H., Materialien zur Kenntniss der wilden Stämme auf
der Halbinsel Malâka. Veröffentlichungen aus dem königlichen Museum für
Völkerkunde II and III.
Vaux, L. de, Les Canaques de la Nouvelle Calédonie. R. E. II.
Venturillo, M. H., The “Batacs” of the Island of Palawan, Phil. Islds.
I. A. E. XVIII.
Verguet, L., Arossi ou San-Christoval et ses habitants. R. E. IV.
Verslag eener reis van den Assistent-resident van Benkoelen naar het
eiland Engano. Tijds. XIX.
Veth, P. J., Java. Second edition (by J. F. Snelleman and J. F.
Niermeyer).
Vetter, K., Bericht über papuanische Rechtsverhältnisse. Nachrichten
über Kaiser Wilhelms-land und den Bismarck-Archipel. 1897.
Vidal, M., Voyage d’exploration dans le haut Maroni, Guyane française.
1862.
Vierkandt, A., Die Culturtypen der Menschheit. Archiv für Anthropologie
XXV.
—— Die Verbreitung der Sklaverei und ihre Ursachen. Zeitschrift für
Socialwissenschaft. 1901.
Vincent, Around and about South America. 1890.
Vink, J. A., Eenige curiosa betreffende de Wadjoreezen, Soembaneezen en
Bimaneezen. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch-Indië, Mei 1901.
Volkens, G., Ueber die Karolinen-Insel Yap. Verhandlungen der
Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin. 1901.
Waanders, P. L. van Bloemen, Aanteekeningen omtrent de zeden en
gebruiken der Balineezen, inzonderheid die van Boeleleng. Tijds. VIII.
Wagner, A., Grundlegung. Erster Teil des ersten Bandes von: Lehrbuch
der politischen Oekonomie von A. Wagner und E. Nasse.
Waitz-Gerland, Anthropologie der Naturvölker.
Wakefield, E. G., A view of the art of colonization. 1849.
Walker, J. B., Notes on the Politics, Religion and Commerce of Old
Calabar. J. A. I. VI (1877).
Walland, J., Het eiland Engano. Tijds. XIV.
Waltershausen, A. Sartorius Freiherr von, Die Entstehung des
Tauschhandels in Polynesien. Zeitschrift für Social- und
Wirtschaftsgeschichte IV.
Ward, H., Ethnographical notes relating to the Congo tribes. J. A. I.
XXIV (1895).
—— Five years with the Congo Cannibals. 1890.
Waterhouse, J., The King and People of Fiji. 1865.
Watt, G., The aboriginal tribes of Manipur. J. A. I. XVI (1887).
Weber, Max, Die römische Agrargeschichte. 1891.
Wehrli, H. J., Beitrag zur Ethnologie der Chingpaw (Kachin) von
Ober-Burma. I. A. E. Supplement to Vol. XVI.
Weil, La Tourkménie et les Tourkmènes. 1880.
Weisz, Bruno, Mehr als fünfzig Jahre auf Chatham Island. 1901.
Wemiaminow, Charakterzüge der Aleuten von den Fuchsinseln, in Von Baer
und Von Helmersen’s Beitr. z. Kenntniss des russischen Reiches. 1834.
West, Th., Ten years in South Central Polynesia. 1865.
Westenberg, C. J., Nota over de onafhankelijke Bataklanden. Tijds.
XXXIV.
—— Verslag eener reis naar de onafhankelijke Bataklanden ten noorden
van het Toba-meer. T. A. G. 2nd series XIV.
Westermarck, E., The history of human marriage. 1891.
—— The origin and development of the moral ideas. 1906–08.
Weule, K., Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse meiner ethnographischen
Forschungsreise in den Südosten Deutsch-Ostafrikas (M. D. S.
Ergänzungsheft No. 1) 1908.
Whymper, F., Alaska. 1869.
Wickham, A. H., Notes on the Soumoo or Woolwa Indians, of Blewfields
River, Mosquito Territory. J. A. I. XXIV (1895).
Wied, Prinz Max zu, Reise in Brasilien. 1819.
Wied, Prinz Max zu, Reise in das Innere Nord-Amerika’s. 1832.
Wiese, Carl, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Zulu im Norden des Zambesi,
namentlich der Angoni. Z. E. XXXII (1900).
Wilken, G. A., Bijdrage tot de kennis der Alfoeren van het eiland
Boeroe. Verhand. v. h. Bat. Genootsch. v. K. en W. XXXVIII (1875).
—— Het pandrecht bij de volken van den Indischen Archipel. 1888.
Wilken, N. P., and J. A., Schwarz, Allerlei over het land en volk van
Bolaäng Mongondou. N. Z. G. XI.
Wilkes, Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition. 1845.
Willer, T. J., Verzameling van Battahsche wetten en instellingen in
Mandheling en Pertibie. 1846.
Williams, Th., The Fiji Islands and their inhabitants. 1858.
Willinck, G. D., Het rechtsleven bij de Minangkabausche Maleiers. 1909.
Wilson, James, Zendelingsreis naar den Stillen Oceaan (Dutch
translation). 1801–02.
Wilson and Felkin, Uganda and the Egyptian Soudan. 1882.
Winwood Reade, W., Savage Africa. 1864.
Wissmann, H., Im Inneren Afrikas. 1888.
—— Meine zweite Durchquerung Äquatorial-Afrikas, 1886–1887. 1890.
—— Unter deutscher Flagge quer durch Afrika von West nach Ost. 1889.
Wolff, W., Von Banano zum Kiamwo. 1889.
Woodford, C. M., A naturalist among the head-hunters. 1890.
Woods, J., The native tribes of South Australia. 1879.
Yate, W., An account of New Zealand and of the formation and progress
of the Church Missionary Society’s Mission in the Northern Island.
Second edition. 1835.
Ypes, W. K. H., Nota omtrent Singkel en de Pak-paklanden. Tijds. XLIX.
Zenker, G., Yaunde. M. D. S. VIII.
Zondervan, H., Timor en de Timoreezen. T. A. G. 2nd series V.
Zündel, G., Land und Volk der Eweer auf der Sklavenküste in
West-Afrika. Z. G. Erd. XII (1877).
NOTES
[1] Montaigne, Essais, Book I Chapter XXX and Book II Chapter X.
[2] Ingram, p. VII. In our notes we always mention the name of the book
referred to in the shortest way possible. The full titles will be found
in our list at the end of the volume.
[3] Ibid., pp. 7–9.
[4] Ibid., p. XII.
[5] Ingram, p. 261.
[6] In the second Chapter and in the continuation of this we shall meet
with more instances of this metaphoric (sometimes rather dangerous) use
of the term “slavery”.
[7] Bastian, Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 14.
[8] Spencer, Pol. Inst., p. 291.
[9] Ingram, p. 262.
[10] Lippert, II p. 534.
[11] Sohm, p. 106.
[12] Letourneau, p. 492.
[13] Schmoller, Grundriss I p. 339.
[14] E. Meyer, Die Sklaverei im Altertum, p. 11.
[15] Jhering, II p. 167.
[16] This view is also held by Wagner and Puchta, whose ample
expositions we shall make use of in the next paragraph.
[17] Wagner remarks that this is the main function of bondage in
general (Unfreiheit). Wagner, pp. 374–376, 382.
[18] Puchta, II pp. 82, 83. Wagner (pp. 382, 395) arrives at the same
conclusion, but does not state it so clearly.
[19] Sohm, p. 106.
[20] Letourneau, passim; Spencer, Pol. Inst. p. 291.
[21] Bancroft, p. 349.
[22] Letourneau, p. 27.
[23] Idem, p. 45.
[24] Schurtz, Katechismus, p. 139.
[25] Ratzel, Völkerkunde, II p. 66.
[26] Curr asserts that, if the husband killed his wife, “her death
would be avenged by her brothers”. But the information we get about the
several tribes makes it probable, that this is not true regarding the
majority of Australian tribes.
[27] Literature referred to in surveying the state of the Australian
wife. On the Dieri: Gason in Frazer’s Notes, p. 170; Powell’s Creek:
The Stationmaster, ibid. pp. 177, 178; Victoria River Downs Station:
Cranford, ibid. p. 181; Queensland and S. Australia: Matthews, ibid.
pp. 187, 188; S. Australia: Eylmann, pp. 129, 130, 131; Moreton Bay:
Lang, pp. 337, 338; Herbert River: Lumholtz, pp. 100, 160–164, 213; N.
S. Wales: Fraser, pp. 2, 26–28, 35; Wilkes, II p. 205; River Darling
(N. S. Wales): Bonney p. 129; Cammarray: Collins, pp. 559–562; Kurnai:
Fison and Howitt, pp. 204, 206; N. W. Central Queensland: Roth, pp.
141, 176, 181; W. Victoria: Dawson, pp. 27, 28, 33–37; Port Lincoln:
Woods, p. 223; S. Australia: Angas, I pp. 82, 93; S. W. Australia:
Salvado pp. 313, 314, 349; King George Sound: Browne, Die Eingeborenen
Australiens, pp. 450, 451; Moore River District: Oldfield, pp. 248–251;
Central Australia: Spencer and Gillen, Native tribes, pp. 50, 93, 102,
558; Spencer and Gillen, Northern tribes, p. 33; Eyre II p. 322;
Willshire, in Frazer’s Notes, pp. 183, 184; Port Darwin, etc.:
Foelsche, ibid. p. 194; Tasmania: Bonwick, Tasmania, pp. 56, 62, 66,
68, 73; Ling Roth, Tasmania, pp. 125, 46; Australia in general: Curr, I
pp. 106–110; Brough Smyth, I pp. 76, 79–82, 85, 86; Bonwick, Austr.
Natives, p. 205; Thomas, pp. 151, 174, 177.
[28] Hore, p. 11.
[29] Pinart, pp. 44, 45.
[30] Steinmetz, Strafe, II p. 45.
[31] Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 593.
[32] See Ploss, II pp. 333, 334, and Steinmetz, Das Verhältniss
zwischen Eltern und Kindern, p. 613.
[33] Lippert (II p. 535) distinguishes the wife, as mistress of the
household, from the slave, who has no share in the authority wielded by
the master. This may be true, but it is only a small portion of the
truth.
[34] Meyer, Die Sklaverei im Altertum, p. 18.
[35] Carey, p. 275. See also Wuttke and Maine, as quoted by Steinmetz,
Strafe, II pp. 180, 181.
[36] Chamberlain (p. 116) justly remarks: “Much too little has been
made of the bright side of child-life among the lower races.”
[37] Steinmetz, Strafe, II pp. 179–253, see especially p. 252, and his
article on: “Das Verhältniss zwischen Eltern und Kindern bei den
Naturvölkern.”
[38] Steinmetz. Strafe, II p. 190 (after Bancroft).
[39] Ibid., p. 194 (after Krause).
[40] Ibid., p. 196 (after Zu Wied).
[41] Ibid., p. 199 (after Burckhardt).
[42] Ibid., p. 201 (after Von Middendorf).
[43] Ibid., p. 196.
[44] Sohm, p. 363.
[45] Puchta, II p. 384. As this is not the place to enter into a
systematic description of the treatment of children among savages, we
have confined ourselves to mentioning the results of Steinmetz’s
investigations. Yet we will quote here one ethnographical record, that
clearly shows the high degree of development of the patria potestas
possible among savages. “In Flores the sons even of rich families, as
long as their father lives, at public feasts are dressed like slaves,
and also at his funeral; this being apparently the external sign of a
strict patria potestas, which remains in force till the funeral; until
then the son is the father’s slave.” Von Martens, p. 117.
[46] Viz. as long as the child is really a child. Savage children are
generally much sooner full-grown than those of civilized nations; see
Steinmetz, Strafe, II pp. 215—217.
[47] See Lippert, II p. 535.
[48] Tanner, pp. 8–17, 114; see also p. 315.
[49] Bastian, Rechtsverhältnisse, pp. 15, 15 note 2, 187, 187 note 2.
Post (Ethn. Jur., I p. 358) also speaks of subjects being the slaves of
the king.
[50] Ingram, p. 3. Schurtz also remarks that pariah artisans, though
despised, are not slaves. (Das afrikanische Gewerbe, p. 142).
[51] Goldstein, pp. 354, 355.
[52] See for instance Hutter, pp. 270, 271.
[53] Siegel, pp. 328–330.
[54] Brunner, I pp. 101, 102.
[55] Schröder, p. 41. He states that these Hörigen were also called
lati or aldio (l.c., p. 40); so they are the same class as those
described by Brunner.
[56] Gasquet, II, pp. 281, 282.
[57] Puchta II p. 97.
[58] Ingram, p. 262.
[59] Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 472.
[60] Letourneau, pp. 423, 355, 356. In a letter we received from Mr. A.
C. Kruyt, it is remarked that among the Dyaks and the Toradja of
Celebes a slave in some cases rises to the position of a serf; he is
then no longer continually in the service of his master, but only has
to work at definite periods.
[61] Mr. Westermarck observes: “According to a common definition of
slavery, the slave is the property of his master, but this definition
is hardly accurate. It is true that even in the case of inanimate
property the notion of ownership does not involve that the owner of a
thing is always entitled to do with it whatever he likes; a person may
own a thing and yet been prohibited by law from destroying it. But it
seems that the owner’s right over his property, even when not absolute,
is at all events exclusive, that is, that nobody but the owner has a
right to the disposal of it. Now the master’s right of disposing of his
slave is not necessarily exclusive; custom or law may grant the latter
a certain amount of liberty, and in such a case his condition differs
essentially from that of a piece of property. The chief characteristic
of slavery is the compulsory nature of the slave’s relation to his
master” (Moral Ideas, I pp. 670, 671).
We are fully aware that a certain amount of liberty is often granted to
the slaves. This was also the case in ancient Rome; yet we think the
Roman legislators were correct in calling the slaves the property of
their masters. For every check, put by custom or law upon the master’s
power over his slaves, is foreign to the nature of slavery; in
principle the master’s power is unlimited, just as the owner’s power
over his property. It is just in this that slavery differs from other
relations of a compulsory nature.
[62] Ellis, Tshi-speaking peoples, p. 294.
[63] Puchta, II p. 250; see also Wilken, Pandrecht, pp. 42–44.
[64] Puchta, II p. 264.
[65] Dr. Tönnies, in his review of the first edition of this work,
expresses a doubt as to whether slavery in the proper sense exists in
every case in which, relying on the often superficial accounts of
travellers, we conclude that slavery is present.
The foregoing passage and the whole of the present chapter are, we
think, sufficient evidence that we have set ourselves the task of
subjecting the accounts of travellers and other writers on savage
tribes, on which our conclusions are to be based, to a critical
examination. There may be particular instances in which we have failed
in this respect; but we believe our conclusions on the whole rest upon
a solid basis and Dr. Tönnies’s objection, in corroboration of which he
does not adduce a single fact, does not seem to us well founded.
[66] Sometimes, however, children are sold to adoptive parents within
the tribe. Such is the case in Greenland; see Crantz I, p. 178. But
these are exceptional cases, so, when no particulars are given, we may
suppose that the purchased persons become slaves and not adopted
children.
[67] See Tylor, Primitive Culture, I pp. 417 sqq.
[68] The distinction between the several stages of culture will be
enlarged upon in the second Part.
[69] Hanoteau et Letourneux, La Kabylie et les coutumes Kabyles.
[70] When similar phenomena are found among different peoples, modern
ethnology supposes that they have spontaneously originated among each
of them, viz. as long as the contrary is not made probable. See
Steinmetz, Endokannibalismus, pp. 56, 57, and Darwin, Descent of Man,
p. 141.
[71] Rink, p. 5.
[72] Ibid., pp. 24, 25.
[73] Ibid, pp. 24–34.
[74] Crantz I. pp. 178, 186.
[75] Ibid., pp. 211, 215.
[76] Nansen.
[77] Boas, Central, Eskimo, pp.580, 581.
[78] Ribbach, p. 286.
[79] Hall.
[80] Klutschak.
[81] Petitot.
[82] Turner, Ungava District.
[83] Bancroft, p. 65; Elliott.
[84] Ray, p. 44; Murdoch, p. 419.
[85] See Schurtz, Katechismus, p. 268.
[86] Bancroft, p. 92.
[87] Petroff, p. 152.
[88] Petroff, pp. 158, 159.
[89] Bancroft, p. 80; see also Holmberg, I pp. 78, 79.
[90] Krause, p. 152, etc.; Bancroft, p. 108; Dall, pp. 419–421;
Petroff, p. 165; Elliott, p. 64; Niblack, p. 252; Holmberg, I pp. 50,
51, II pp. 43–46.
[91] Krause, p. 311; Bancroft, p. 168.
[92] Krause, p. 319; Niblack, p. 252; Boas, Die Tsimschian, pp. 237,
240, 244; Kane, Appendix A.
[93] Boas, Kwakiutl Indians, p. 338.
[94] Krause, p. 321.
[95] Sproat, pp. 89–92; Brown, adventures of John Jewitt, pp. 130, 131.
[96] Bancroft p. 195; Brown, ibid., pp. 19, 28, 35.
[97] Bancroft, p. 217.
[98] Mayne, pp. 242, 275, 253, etc.
[99] Kane, pp. 214, 215; Niblack, p. 252.
[100] Jones, The Kutchin Tribes, p. 325.
[101] Hardisty, p. 316.
[102] Whymper; Kirby; Bancroft.
[103] Mackenzie, I p. 152.
[104] Hearne, II pp. 87, 179.
[105] Bancroft, p. 124.
[106] Bancroft, p. 135.
[107] Allison, p. 316.
[108] Roosevelt; Le Jeune in The Jesuit Relations; Sagard; Mackenzie.
[109] Loskiel, p. 195.
[110] Loskiel; Brinton, The Lenape.
[111] Jesuit Relations, V pp. 31, 55; VI p. 245.
[112] Keating, II p. 168.
[113] Jones, Ojibway Indians, pp. 131, 109.
[114] Kohl, I p. 96.
[115] Carver, pp. 325, 326.
[116] Tanner, pp. 17, 112, 114.
[117] Tanner, pp. 11–16.
[118] Keating; Long, Ojibway Indians; Roosevelt.
[119] McLean, p. 64; Kane, p. 128; Mackenzie.
[120] Dodge, pp. 266, 267.
[121] Reports of Expl., Vol. XII Part I p. 99.
[122] Grinnell, pp. 115, 116, 123.
[123] Grinnell; Möllhausen; Mackenzie; Reports of Expl., Vol. I and
Vol. XII Part I; Zu Wied, Nord-Amerika; Schoolcraft.
[124] Maurault, pp. 26—28.
[125] Hoffman, p. 35.
[126] Morgan, Anc. Soc., pp. 80, 69.
[127] Charlevoix, Nouv. France, III p. 245.
[128] Lafitau and Loskiel. Loskiel’s account of the Delawares applies
equally to the Iroquois, see Loskiel, p. 1.
[129] Lafitau, II p. 308.
[130] Lafitau, III pp. 264–290; Charlevoix, l.c. pp. 242—252; Loskiel,
p. 195; Mrs. Kinzie, pp. 214, sqq.
[131] Powell, Wyandot Gov., p. 68.
[132] Adair, pp. 303, 304, 287.
[133] Roosevelt, I p. 50.
[134] Rochefort, p. 412.
[135] Loskiel, p. 197.
[136] Bartram, p. 38.
[137] Roosevelt, I pp. 63, 64.
[138] Charlevoix, Nouv. France, III pp. 426; see also Lettres édif., XX
pp. 132, 133.
[139] Bossu, pp. 241, 245, 249.
[140] Strachey, p. 83.
[141] Ibid., pp. 101, 108.
[142] Histoire de la Virginie, p. 261.
[143] Owen Dorsey, Siouan Soc., p. 215.
[144] Eastman, Dahcotah; Eastman, Indian Wars; Reports of Expl., Vol.
I; Möllhausen; Ten Kate, Noord-Amerika; Schoolcraft.
[145] Eastman, Indian Wars, p. 412; Copway, pp. 65, 66; Neill, pp. 340,
526.
[146] Mathews, p. 47.
[147] Owen Dorsey, Omaha Soc., pp. 364, 332.
[148] James, p. 299.
[149] Hunter, Gedenkschriften, pp. 268, 270, 271.
[150] Reports of Expl., Vol. XII Part I p. 76.
[151] Lewis and Clark, I pp. 175, 242; see also pp. 212, 233.
[152] Gibbs, p. 188.
[153] Bancroft, p. 269; McLean, p. 54.
[154] The Flatheads of Fort George, who in Kane’s time kept slaves, are
described by him as consisting principally of Chinooks and Klickataats.
We are not sure whether these Flatheads are the same as those mentioned
by Bancroft and McLean. (See Kane, pp. 173, 175, 181).
[155] Bancroft, p. 240; Kane, pp. 181, 182.
[156] Swan, The Northwest Coast, pp. 166, 167, etc.
[157] Lewis and Clark, II pp. 344, 345, 313, 314.
[158] Bancroft, p. 276.
[159] Ross, as quoted by Bancroft, l.c.
[160] Mackenzie, II pp. 217, 263.
[161] Brancroft, p. 269.
[162] Powers, p. 248.
[163] Kane, pp. 237, 242, 248, 320.
[164] Bancroft, pp. 349, 351.
[165] Powers, pp. 22, 75, 76.
[166] Hubbard, as quoted by Bancroft, p. 348.
[167] Bancroft, p. 360.
[168] This conclusion of ours is strengthened by the following
statement of Gibbs, which we have already referred to: “Southward it
[slavery] ceases, so far as my observation has gone, with the Siskiou
Mountains, which divide Oregon from California.” (Gibbs, p. 188).
[169] Gatschet, pp. 59, 62; see also pp. 60, 16.
[170] Bancroft, p. 349.
[171] Ibid., pp. 388, 381.
[172] Ibid., p. 407.
[173] Boscana, in “Life in California”, pp. 308, 309.
[174] Powers, p. 322.
[175] Bancroft, p. 436.
[176] Bancroft, p. 433; Meline, p. 120.
[177] Bancroft, p. 510.
[178] Ibid., p. 500.
[179] Schoolcraft, I pp. 232, 235.
[180] Gregg, II p. 243.
[181] Cessac, pp. 115, 116.
[182] Ten Kate, Noord-Amerika, pp. 383, 384.
[183] Reports of Expl., Vol. III Part I pp. 22, 31.
[184] Möllhausen, p. 137.
[185] Bancroft, p. 498.
[186] Schoolcraft, V p. 210.
[187] Bourke, pp. 128, 129; Fremont and Emory, p. 150.
[188] Bent, as quoted by Bancroft, p. 510.
[189] Stratton, as quoted by Bancroft, p. 511.
[190] Bancroft, p. 543; see also Meline’s above-quoted statement about
the Pueblos.
[191] Parker Winship, p. 548.
[192] Ten Kate. Noord-Amerika; see also Möllhausen, and Reports of
Expl., Vol. III.
[193] Bancroft, p. 562.
[194] The names printed in italics contain the clear, the other the
more doubtful cases (vide p. 46).
[195] Boudin, pp. 826, 827. Gregg (II p. 195) also states that Negro
slaves were to be found among these tribes.
[196] Bartram, p. 38; Schoolcraft, I p. 277.
[197] Roosevelt, I p. 59; Gregg, l.c.
[198] Maccauley, p. 526.
[199] Gregg, II p. 196.
[200] Bancroft, p. 581.
[201] Bancroft, p. 629.
[202] So for instance among the Tlinkits; see Niblack, p. 252.
[203] Bancroft, pp. 656, 663.
[204] Bancroft, pp. 729, 723; Wickham.
[205] Bancroft, pp. 771, 764; Gabb; Pokalowsky, p. 50.
[206] Pinart, see pp. 33, 48.
[207] Rochefort, pp. 430, 478, 512, 480, 489, 477; de la Borde.
[208] Gumilla, II p. 255.
[209] Ling Roth, Hispaniola; see especially p. 272.
[210] Im Thurn; Brett; R. Schomburgk; R. H. Schomburgk; Joest, Guyana;
Bonaparte; Goudreau; Vidal; van Coll.
[211] Martius, p. 693.
[212] Gumilla, II p. 254.
[213] Sievers, Sierra Nevada; Reclus; Simons.
[214] De Brettes, pp. 94, 96, 78—80.
[215] Sievers, Des Grafen Josef de Brettes Reisen, pp. 381, 382.
[216] De Lery, pp. 225—242; see especially pp. 225, 236. Stade gives a
similar account of the treatment of prisoners, quoted by Andree, pp.
85—88.
[217] D’Evreux, pp. 21, 46, 52—54.
[218] Martius, pp. 71, 74.
[219] Ibid., pp. 206, 207.
[220] Ibid., p. 71.
[221] Ibid., p. 73.
[222] Keane; von Tschudi; Ehrenreich, Botocudos; Zu Wied, Brasilien, II
p. 45. Martius (p. 326) apparently relies entirely on Zu Wied.
[223] Azara, II p. 146.
[224] Boggiani, p. 80.
[225] Southey III, pp. 391, 392; Martius, pp. 232, 233, 71.
[226] Colini, in Boggiani, p. 297.
[227] Thouar, pp. 51, 60 sqq.
[228] See Steinmetz, Strafe, I p. 174 note 1.
[229] Azara II, pp. 96, 108–110, 119.
[230] Colini, in Boggiani, p. 316.
[231] Boggiani, pp. 305, 310.
[232] Boggiani, p. 100.
[233] Pohl, p. 163.
[234] Von den Steinen, Unter den Naturvölkern; von den Steinen, Durch
Central-Brasilien; Hensel.
[235] Von den Steinen, Durch Central-Brasilien, p. 211.
[236] Ibid., p. 265.
[237] Ehrenreich, Beiträge, pp. 28, 29.
[238] Simson, p. 505.
[239] Ordinaire, pp. 287, 270—273.
[240] Ibid., pp. 308, 309.
[241] Skinner, II pp. 113, 114.
[242] Smyth and Lowe, p. 226.
[243] Azara, II p. 96.
[244] D’Orbigny, I pp. 360, 372.
[245] Ibid., II p. 166.
[246] Ibid., II p. 211.
[247] L. c.
[248] Muratori, pp. 29, 128, 129.
[249] Dobrizhoffer, II pp. 148—152.
[250] Azara, II pp. 145, 132.
[251] Ibid., pp. 159, 157.
[252] D’Orbigny, II p. 89.
[253] Azara, II pp. 15, 19, 20.
[254] Heusser and Claraz.
[255] Azara travelled in South America for 20 years, D’Orbigny for only
7. The former was commissary and commander of the Spanish frontiers in
Paraguay; the latter made a journey for scientific purposes, mainly
zoölogical.
[256] Azara, II p. 32.
[257] Musters, p. 217; Falkner, pp. 122, 123, 126; Letourneau, p. 123.
[258] Azara, II p. 38.
[259] D’Orbigny, I p. 401.
[260] Molina, p. 74.
[261] Von Bibra; Ochsenius; Smith; Musters.
[262] Hyades et Déniker, p. 242.
[263] Parker Snow; Darwin, Voyage; Vincent; O’Sullivan.
[264] The literature used is the same as that quoted on p. 22, Chapter
I, and besides: Howitt, South-East Australia; Stokes; Mitchell; Hale;
Grey; Taplin, as quoted by Woods.
[265] Curr; Brough Smyth. Gerland’s survey of Australian social life is
much better.
[266] E.g. Grosse and Letourneau.
[267] Comp. Steinmetz’s treatment of the problem of Australian
chieftainship, Strafe, II pp. 20–42. See also Spencer and Gillen’s
statement that “whilst undoubtedly there is a certain amount in common
as regards social organisation and customs amongst the Australian
tribes, yet, on the other hand, there is great diversity” (Native
tribes, p. 34).
[268] Curr; Brough Smyth; Gerland.
[269] Brough Smyth, I p. 127.
[270] Waitz-Gerland, VI p. 764.
[271] Letourneau (pp. 26, 35) arrives at the same conclusion.
[272] De Rochas, p. 252.
[273] Lambert, pp. 79, 177.
[274] Brainne, p. 239; de Vaux; Legrand.
[275] Glaumont, p. 74.
[276] Elton, p. 98.
[277] Guppy, p. 33.
[278] Verguet, p. 205.
[279] Codrington, The Melanesians, p. 46.
[280] Guppy, pp. 35, 36.
[281] Somerville, New Georgia, pp. 402, 400.
[282] Ribbe, pp. 248, 276.
[283] Woodford, pp. 154, 155.
[284] Parkinson, N. W. Salomo-Inseln, pp. 2 note, 8, 9, 10.
[285] Ribbe, pp. 100, 138, 139, 110.
[286] Guppy. p. 34.
[287] Sorge, in Steinmetz’s Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 414.
[288] Wilkes, III, pp. 81, 108.
[289] Williams, pp. 32, 53.
[290] Seemann, pp. 196, 179, 180.
[291] Waterhouse.
[292] Erskine, pp. 456, 457, 420, 438, 458.
[293] Meinicke, Die Inseln des stillen Oceans, I p. 202.
[294] Hagen and Pineau; Inglis; Somerville, New Hebrides.
[295] Danks; Pfeil, p. 78.
[296] Hahl, p. 77; Parkinson, Dreissig Jahre, pp. 159, 172, 173.
[297] Parkinson, Dreissig Jahre, p. 264; Romilly, Western Pacific.
[298] Parkinson, Dreissig Jahre, pp. 380, 396–398, 443.
[299] Meinicke, Die Torresstrasse, p. 116; Haddon, p. 355. See also
Hunt’s Ethnogr. notes on the Murray Islands, Torres Straits, in which
no mention is made of slaves.
[300] Bink, p. 325; Krieger, p. 413; Koning.
[301] Robidé, p. 109.
[302] Ibid., p. 262.
[303] Moolenburgh, p. 180.
[304] Robidé, p. 235.
[305] Van der Roest, p. 157.
[306] Goudswaard, pp. 27, 51; see also Ottow and Geissler, pp. 115,
118.
[307] Van Hasselt in Z. E. VIII, pp. 191 sqq.; Van Hasselt in Tijds.
XXXI, pp. 583, 584, XXXII, pp 270, 272; De Clercq, Nieuw-Guinea, p.
619.
[308] Rosenberg, Mal. Arch., pp. 454, 456; Robidé, pp. 64, 65, 76, 94,
228; see also Nieuw-Guinea, p. 149.
[309] Rosenberg, Mal. Arch., p. 532; Rosenberg, Nieuw-Guinea, p. 90.
[310] Robidé, p. 242.
[311] Bruijn, pp. 103, 104; Robidé, p. 59.
[312] De Clercq, Nieuw-Guinea, p. 459; Strauch, p. 30.
[313] Robidé, pp. 300, 305, 306.
[314] Nieuw-Guinea, pp. 116, 128.
[315] Ibid., pp. 158, 163.
[316] Thomson, British New Guinea, pp. 52, 63, 157,158.
[317] Turner, Motu; d’Albertis; Beardmore; Romilly, Verandah; Chalmers,
see especially p. 326; Guise.
[318] Maclay; Finsch, Samoafahrten, p. 80.
[319] Vetter, p. 91.
[320] Kohler, Das Recht der Papuas, p. 389 (on the authority of
Bamler).
[321] Hagen, Unter den Papuas, p. 220; see also Vallentin, p. 634.
[322] See Kunze’s minute description, in which slavery is not
mentioned.
[323] Thomson, New Zealand, pp. 149, etc.; Polack, I pp. 35, 36, etc.,
II pp. 52–59, etc.; Tregear, p. 113; Waitz-Gerland, VI p. 206;
Meinicke, Die Inseln des stillen Oceans, I p. 326; Letourneau, pp.
173–182; Weisz, pp. 22, 24, 28, 30; Taylor, pp. 165, 167, 185, 189,
191, etc.; Brown, New Zealand, pp. 29, 30; Yate, pp. 120, 121.
[324] Meinicke, l.c. II. p. 185.
[325] Waitz-Gerland, VI p. 170.
[326] Ibid., pp. 170–185.
[327] Ibid., p. 185.
[328] Mariner, II pp. 153, 349, 350.
[329] Ibid., p. 237.
[330] West, pp. 260, 262.
[331] Waitz-Gerland, VI p. 170.
[332] Meinicke, l.c. II p. 122.
[333] Wilkes, II p. 159.
[334] Turner, Samoa, p. 192.
[335] Krämer, Die Samoa-Inseln, II p. 341.
[336] Gerland; Meinicke; Turner; Von Bülow.
[337] Gardiner, p. 429.
[338] Meinicke, l.c., II p. 148; Waitz-Gerland, VI p. 199.
[339] Ellis, Pol. Res., III p. 95.
[340] J. Wilson, III pp. 127–129.
[341] Moerenhout, II pp. 8, 47.
[342] Ellis, Pol. Res., IV pp. 161, 160, 413.
[343] Wilkes, IV p. 35.
[344] Chamisso, in Kotzebue, p. 149.
[345] Remy, pp. LXI–LXVI, XL.
[346] Meinicke, l.c., pp. 303, 304.
[347] Marcuse, p. 116. On p. 114, however, he states that they spared
the lives of their captives only when they intended them to be
sacrificed later on to their gods.
[348] Hale, p. 36.
[349] Radiguet, p. 156.
[350] Meinicke, l.c., II p. 254.
[351] Andree, p. 64.
[352] Moerenhout, II p. 31.
[353] Waitz-Gerland, VI p. 216.
[354] Letourneau, p. 183.
[355] Waitz-Gerland, V, 2 p. 194.
[356] Wilkes, I p. 357.
[357] Moerenhout, II p. 191.
[358] Geiseler, pp. 30, 31, 41.
[359] Parkinson, Dreissig Jahre, p. 528.
[360] Meinicke, Die Gilbert- und Marshall-Inseln, p. 409;
Waitz-Gerland, V, 2 p. 122.
[361] Hernsheim, p. 80.
[362] Kubary, Die Ebongruppe, pp. 36, 37.
[363] Hager, p. 96.
[364] Senfft, in Steinmetz’s Rechtsverhältnisse, pp. 431, 442, 439,
441, 443.
[365] Krämer, Hawaii etc., p. 430.
[366] Kohler, Das Recht der Marschallinsulaner, Z. V. R. XIV pp. 427,
428, 431.
[367] Krämer, Hawaii etc., pp. 450, 451.
[368] Jung, pp. 67–70.
[369] Christian, p. 144.
[370] Waitz-Gerland V, 2 p. 118.
[371] Ibid., pp. 120, 121.
[372] Kubary, Mortlock-Inseln, p. 246.
[373] Kubary, quoted by Schmeltz and Krause, p. 373.
[374] Gräffe, p. 94.
[375] Krämer, Studienreise, p. 179.
[376] Volkens, Ueber die Karolinen-Insel Yap.
[377] Waitz-Gerland, V, 2 pp. 112–114.
[378] Kubary, Soc. Einr. der Pelauer, p. 72.
[379] Kubary, Die Palau Inseln, p. 232.
[380] Semper, Die Pelau-Inseln, pp. 36, 79.
[381] This is also proved (if any further proof were needed) by
Kubary’s detailed description of fishing and agriculture: the former is
carried on by the men, the latter by the women; nowhere is any mention
made of slaves. Kubary, Industrie der Pelau-Insulaner, pp. 123 sqq.,
156 sqq.
[382] Wilkes, pp. 88, 95.
[383] Meinicke, Die Inseln des stillen Oceans, II p. 340.
[384] Waitz-Gerland, V, 2 p. 124.
[385] Parkinson, Gilbertinsulaner, pp. 98, 99, 39.
[386] Parkinson, Gilbertinsulaner, p. 43.
[387] Krämer, Hawaii, etc., p. 333.
[388] Schurtz, Katechismus, p. 230; Waitz-Gerland, V, 2 p. 124.
[389] De Morgan, Exploration, divisions: Linguistique (see especially
p. 17), and: Ethnographie; Skeat and Blagden, I p. 515; Vaughan
Stevens; Montano; Borie; Favre; Newbold; Hervey.
[390] Brenner, pp. 341, 342; Junghuhn, II pp. 150–152.
[391] Neumann T. A. G. 2nd series, part IV, pp. 26–41.
[392] Heijting, pp. 246–249; “Résumé’s”, pp. 55, 56; Willer, pp. 43–47;
see also Meerwaldt, p. 541.
[393] Willer, l.c.
[394] Westenberg, Verslag, p. 76; Westenberg, Nota, pp. 113, 114.
[395] Van Dijk, Si Baloengoen, p. 158; Westenberg, Nota, p. 107;
Mededeelingen, etc., pp. 580, 585.
[396] Meerwaldt, p. 541.
[397] Kroesen, Bataklanden, pp. 259, 260.
[398] Ypes, pp. 496–499, 542–545.
[399] Mededeelingen etc., pp. 567, 573, 575.
[400] Meerwaldt, p. 541.
[401] Meerwaldt, l.c.; Van Dijk, Nota, pp. 483, 491; see also Müller,
Batak-Sammlung, p. 14.
[402] Van Ophuijsen; Van Dijk, Loeboe.
[403] See Mohnicke; Boers; Forbes, Kubus, and especially Dr. Hagen, who
makes use of an extensive literature.
[404] De Groot.
[405] Modigliani, Nias, pp. 520–536; Rosenberg, Mal. Arch., pp.
157–163.
[406] Rosenberg, Mal. Arch.; Rosenberg, Mentawei-eilanden; Mess; Maass;
Severijn, Poggi-eilanden.
[407] Rosenberg, Mal. Arch., p. 193.
[408] Kroesen, Anambas, p. 244.
[409] Modigliani, Engano; Oudemans; Severijn, Engano; Rosenberg,
Engano; “Verslag eener reis”.
[410] Walland, p. 301; Rosenberg, Mal. Arch., p. 216.
[411] Low, pp. 301, 302.
[412] Schwaner, I pp. 167, 168.
[413] Low, pp. 200, 201; Spencer St. John, I p. 83; Brooke Low, in Ling
Roth, Sarawak, II p. 210.
[414] Brooke Low, l.c., pp. 210–213.
[415] Perelaer, pp. 152–160.
[416] Schwaner, I pp. 80, 195; Grabowsky, p. 199.
[417] Grabowsky, l.c.
[418] Treacher, in Ling Roth, l.c., pp. 213, 214.
[419] Nieuwenhuis, Quer durch Borneo, I pp. 58, 59, 65–67.
[420] Nieuwenhuis, l.c. II pp. 95, 96.
[421] Denison, as quoted by Ling Roth, l.c.
[422] Van Prehn, pp. 29–32.
[423] Engelhard, p. 468.
[424] Beschrijving van het landschap Pasir, pp. 541, 542.
[425] Denison, in Ling Roth, p. 210.
[426] Von Dewall, pp. 23, 24.
[427] Ibid., p. 80.
[428] Tromp, Rambai, p. 111.
[429] Graafland, Minahassa, I pp. 285, 286; Riedel, Minahasse, p. 502.
[430] Wilken and Schwartz, pp. 382–384.
[431] Riedel, Holontalo, pp. 65–67.
[432] Riedel, Boeool, pp. 197, 204.
[433] Kruijt, N. Z. G. XXXIX pp. 121–123, 126–128; XL pp. 141, 142;
Adriani, pp. 240, 241. See also the description given by Riedel, who
calls them Topantunuazu; Riedel, Topantunuazu, pp. 82–84, 90.
[434] Kruijt, Toboengkoe en Tomori, pp. 233, sqq.
[435] Bakkers, Sandjai, p. 287.
[436] van Hasselt, Bangkala, p. 367.
[437] Het landschap Donggala, pp. 520, 521.
[438] Donselaar, Saleijer, pp. 296–299.
[439] Ligtvoet, p. 570.
[440] de Roo, pp. 582–585; see also Bieger, p. 153.
[441] Von Martens, p. 117 (on the whole island); Ten Kate Timorgroep,
p. 212 (on Sika); and especially Roos, pp. 488–491 (on Endeh).
[442] Ten Kate, Timorgroep, p. 242.
[443] Bakkers, Bonerate, pp. 248–250; Vink, pp. 340, 341.
[444] De Castro, pp. 484, 485; Forbes, Timor, p. 417. Zondervan mostly
relies on De Castro.
[445] Ten Kate, l.c., p. 343.
[446] Donselaar, Savoe, pp. 295, 296.
[447] Graafland, Rote, pp. 364, 365.
[448] Riedel, Rassen, pp. 434 sqq.
[449] Ibid., p. 406.
[450] Ibid., p. 384; Van Hoëvell, Leti, p. 212.
[451] Riedel, Rassen, p. 463.
[452] Ibid., p. 320.
[453] Ibid., p. 346.
[454] Ibid., p. 293; Van Hoëvell, Tanimbar, p. 174; Forbes, Timorlaut,
pp. 15, 18.
[455] Riedel, l.c., p. 251; Rosenberg, Mal. Arch., pp. 338, 344.
[456] Riedel, l.c., pp. 226, 228, 231; Van Hoëvell, Kei-eilanden, p.
120; Pleijte, p. 567.
[457] Riedel, l.c., p. 194.
[458] Ibid., p. 154.
[459] Ibid., pp. 101–103; Boot, p. 1171.
[460] Riedel, l.c., p. 49; Van Hoëvell, Ambon, p. 47.
[461] Hickson, p. 141; see also pp. 137, 139, 142; van Dinter.
[462] Riedel, Galela, pp. 64–66.
[463] Campen, p. 285.
[464] Riedel, Rassen, pp. 18, 19; Wilken, Boeroe, p. 3.
[465] Van der Miesen, p. 449.
[466] Blumentritt, Conquista, pp. 53–59; Blumentritt, Tagalen, pp.
12–17.
[467] Schadenberg, Süd-Mindanao, pp. 9, 12, 28; Blumentritt, Mindanao,
p. 281.
[468] Blumentritt, Ethnographie, p. 49; Blumentritt, Mindanao, pp.
293, 294.
[469] Blumentritt, Ethnographie pp. 53, 54; Blumentritt, Maguindanaos,
p. 891; Jansen, pp. 219, 224, 225.
[470] Schadenberg, Süd-Mindanao, p. 47.
[471] Blumentritt, Mindanao, p. 297.
[472] Blumentritt, Kianganen, p. 132.
[473] Blumentritt, Bungianen.
[474] Venturillo, see especially p. 142; Miller.
[475] Jenks, pp. 136–138; Schadenberg, Nord-Luzon.
[476] Blumentritt, Ethnographie; Meijer, Igorroten; Jagor, Philippines.
[477] See Reed, p. 63; Semper, Philippinen; Mallat; Blumentritt,
Negritos; Schadenberg, Negritos.
[478] Schurtz, Katechismus, p. 221.
[479] Sibree, pp. 181, 182; Hartmann, p. 75; Ellis, Madagascar, pp.
146–149.
[480] Sibree.
[481] Hildebrandt, Ambergebirge, p. 276; Grandidier, p. 217.
[482] Veth, IV pp. 410–413.
[483] I, p. 11.
[484] Liefrinck, Nota etc., p. 184.
[485] Waanders, p. 133.
[486] Liefrinck, ibid., p. 185.
[487] Waanders, pp. 107, 123–125; Tonkes, pp. 54–58.
[488] Tonkes, p. 61.
[489] Liefrinck, Slavernij op Lombok, pp. 508, 514, sqq.
[490] Van Eck, p. 356.
[491] Van Hasselt, Volksbeschrijving van Midden-Sumatra, pp. 190, 191.
[492] Willinck, pp. 130–144.
[493] Among the Rejangs: Marsden, pp. 252, 255; in Semindo: Pauw ten
Kate, pp. 537–542, Gramberg, pp. 458, 459; in Blalauw: Gramberg, pp.
471, 472; in Palembang: Gersen, pp. 136, 137; Singkel: Rosenberg,
Singkel, p. 413, Rosenberg, Mal. Arch., p. 45; Pangkallan: Holle, pp.
382, 383; Labuan-Batu: Neumann, Laboean-Batoe, pp. 478, 479, Korte
beschrijving van het landschap Bilu, p. 553; Karintji, Serampas and
Sungai Tenang: Klerks, p. 89; Upper Asahan: Van den Bor, p. 410;
Batubarah: de Scheemaker, pp. 471–473; Siak: Nieuwenhuijzen, pp.
412–414; the Rokan states: Quast, pp. 416–418. In Glugur “serfdom does
not exist: all men have the same human rights” (Van Delden, p. 169).
Whether this is the original state of things, or due to Dutch
interference, does not appear.
[494] Snouck Hurgronje, De Atjehers, I pp. 21–25. Concerning the West
Coast of Atjeh, see also van Langen, pp. 478, 479.
[495] Snouck Hurgronje, Het Gajoland, pp. 62–64.
[496] Matthes, pp. 3, 5, 136, 137, etc. On the Bugis of Tanette and
Barru, see also Bakkers, Tanette, p. 257, and on those of Boni:
Bakkers, Boni, pp. 60, 98, 153.
[497] Robidé, pp. 53, 218, 221, etc.
[498] De Clercq, Ternate, p. 74.
[499] Saleeby, p. 65.
[500] Colquhoun, p. 189; Harper Parker, pp. 88, 100.
[501] Colquhoun, pp. 189, 258.
[502] St. John, Aracan, pp. 240–242.
[503] Lewin, p. 85.
[504] Colquhoun, p. 77.
[505] Ibid., p. 155.
[506] Mason, p. 159.
[507] Colquhoun, p. 69.
[508] Ibid., pp. 40, 69, 70.
[509] Wehrli, pp. 36, 37; see also Dalton, p. 10; Rowney, p. 167.
[510] Man, pp. 109, 356.
[511] Svoboda, p. 191.
[512] Cooper, p. 238; Dalton, p. 15; Spencer, Descr. Soc., V p. 15.
[513] Shaw, p. 89.
[514] Dalton, p. 58; Eliot, p. 28.
[515] Macrae, p. 188.
[516] Lewin, p. 89.
[517] Dalton, p. 46.
[518] Dalton, p. 45: Stewart and Butler, as quoted by Spencer, l.c., p.
14.
[519] Metz; Spencer, Descr. Soc., V.
[520] Hunter, Rural Bengal, I pp. 200, 202; Dalton, pp. 207–218.
[521] Campbell, pp. 53, 79.
[522] Dalton, p. 114.
[523] Dalton, p. 51; Watt.
[524] Dalton, p. 57.
[525] Ibid., p. 254.
[526] Ibid., p. 230.
[527] Ujfalvy, Aryens, pp. 352, 359; Robertson, pp. 78, 79; Rousselet,
p. 223.
[528] Dalton, p. 24. Letourneau (p. 305) is in doubt whether slavery
really exists here, first because the Padam Abors are organized in
republican and even communistic clans, in which slavery is hardly
possible (why?); secondly because the young slaves live together with
the young freemen in communal long-houses. This last remark proves that
Letourneau is not very familiar with the character of primitive
slavery.
[529] Dalton, p. 36.
[530] Grange, as quoted by Spencer, l. c, pp. 7, 11; Godden in J. A. I.
XXV p. 184.
[531] Hodgson, as quoted by Spencer, l. c, p. 7.
[532] Sarasin, p. 488.
[533] Pallas, Reise, I p. 338; Boutakoff; Ujfalvy, Expéd. scient., p.
112; Chambers, as quoted by Spencer, Descr. Soc., V p. 15.
[534] Levchine, pp. 341, 354.
[535] Ibid., pp. 305, 331, 368, 369, 399, 502.
[536] Ibid., pp. 347, 430.
[537] Radloff, Aus Sibirien, I p. 526. Finsch (West Sibirien, p. 150)
speaks in the same way.
[538] Levchine, p. 305.
[539] Radloff, Beobachtungen über die Kirgisen, p. 168.
[540] Radloff, Aus Sibirien. The Kara Kirghiz are described I pp.
526–534.
[541] Koehne, pp. 458, 459.
[542] Spencer, Descr. Soc., V p. 16.
[543] Pallas, Reise, I pp. 264, 233, 265.
[544] Die Bewohner des schwarzen Irtyschthales, p. 67.
[545] Radloff, Aus Sibirien, II pp. 327–330.
[546] Radloff, l.c., I pp. 270, 286, 287, 293, 295, 312, 315.
[547] Ibid., I p. 320.
[548] Ibid., I pp. 330–343, 353–357, 374–405.
[549] Vambéry, Das Türkenvolk, p. 356.
[550] Ibid., p. 380.
[551] Ibid., p. 410.
[552] Vambéry, Skizzen, p. 64.
[553] Stein; Weil.
[554] Letourneau, p. 227.
[555] Obrutschew, I p. 37.
[556] Ujfalvy, Expéd. scient., p. 84.
[557] Ujfalvy, Aryens, p. 145.
[558] Von Stenin, Kurden, p. 221.
[559] Pallas, Reise, III p. 51.
[560] Ibid., pp. 25, 26.
[561] Ibid., pp. 72–74.
[562] Islawin; Finsch, West-Sibirien.
[563] Von Stenin, Samojeden, see especially p. 187.
[564] Déniker, Les Ghiliaks, p. 309.
[565] Müller, Unter Tungusen und Jakuten.
[566] Sumner, p. 85; see also Müller, l.c.
[567] Laufer, see especially p. 318.
[568] Steller, pp. 356, 293, 235, 235 note.
[569] Hist. de Kamtschatka, II p. 156.
[570] Nordenskiöld, II p. 124.
[571] Erman, pp. 379, 380.
[572] Georgi as quoted by Hildebrand, Recht und Sitte, p. 36; Dall;
Hooper; Kennan.
[573] Hist. de Kamtschatka, II p. 218.
[574] Ibid., pp. 82, 223, 239.
[575] Melnikow, pp. 194, 206.
[576] Batchelor, p. 288.
[577] Savage Landor, p. 59.
[578] Hitchcock, p. 467.
[579] Joest, Weltfahrten; St. John, The Ainos; Holland.
[580] Morgan, Ossetes, pp. 374, 377, 408; Klaproth, II pp. 595, 615;
Pallas, Neue Nord. Beitr., VII p. 69; Kovalewsky, Coutume contemp., pp.
78, 189, 196, 203, 347.
[581] Bell, I pp. 163, 169 etc., II pp. 97 etc.; Klaproth, I pp.
564–573.
[582] Radde, pp. 425, 426.
[583] Bodenstedt, I p. 283.
[584] See Von Haxthausen; Telfer.
[585] Telfer, p. 113.
[586] Klaproth.
[587] Chantre, IV p. 79.
[588] Ibid., p. 129.
[589] Ibid., p. 136.
[590] Ibid., p. 192.
[591] Burckhardt, I p. 356; see also pp. 158, 175.
[592] Doughty.
[593] Geoffroy, p. 428.
[594] Theal, p. 72.
[595] Tromp, De Kaffers; Macdonald, South African tribes.
[596] Waitz-Gerland, II pp. 391, 398.
[597] Fritsch, pp. 79, 80, 93, 97, 147.
[598] Kropf, pp. 180, 170.
[599] Livingstone, Zambesi, pp. 385, 386.
[600] Fritsch, pp. 145, 146.
[601] Livingstone, Zambesi, pp. 262, 263.
[602] Kerr, I p. 20.
[603] Holub, Süd-Afrika, II pp. 432, 434.
[604] Schurtz, Katechismus, p. 169.
[605] Holub, Süd-Afrika, I p. 432.
[606] Holub in J. A. I. 1881, p. 10.
[607] Conder, p. 89.
[608] Holub, Süd-Afrika, I p. 432.
[609] Casalis, pp. 197, 236.
[610] Passarge, Okawangosumpfland, pp. 704, 705, 710 711.
[611] Livingstone, Zambesi, p. 125; Livingstone, Miss. Trav., pp. 88,
93.
[612] Ibid., p. 235.
[613] Holub, Süd-Afrika, I p. 397.
[614] Joest, Weltfahrten, I p. 253.
[615] Wiese, pp. 188–197; Kerr, II p. 129.
[616] Junod, p. 96.
[617] Beuster, p. 239.
[618] Theal, p. 161.
[619] Galton, p. 142.
[620] Rautanen, in Steinmetz’s Rechtsverhältnisse, pp. 336, 335, 342.
The Ondonga are perhaps identical with the Ovampo, see Steinmetz,
ibid., p. 326.
[621] Andersson, I pp. 247, 248.
[622] Hahn, Die Ovaherero; Haarhoff.
[623] Fritsch, p. 364; see also Waitz-Gerland, II p. 391.
[624] Viehe, in Steinmetz’s Rechtsverhältnisse, pp. 304, 305, 302.
[625] Kohler, Das Recht der Herero, pp. 311, 312.
[626] Ibid., p. 312.
[627] Livingstone, Zambesi, p. 322; Livingstone, Miss. Trav., p. 597.
[628] Holub, Süd-Afrika, II pp. 331, 348, 350, etc.; Livingstone, Miss.
Trav., p. 318; Serpa Pinto, II p. 42.
[629] Holub, Süd-Afrika; Livingstone, Miss. Trav.; Mauch.
[630] Holub, l.c. II p. 241.
[631] Magyar, I pp. 286–290, etc.
[632] Cameron, II pp. 164, 167.
[633] Pogge, Muata Jamwo, pp. 165, 134, 226, etc.; Livingstone, Last
Journ., I p. 237.
[634] Peters, pp. 395, 394.
[635] Pogge, Muata Jamwo, pp. 45, 46, 51.
[636] Magyar, I p. 80.
[637] Macdonald, East Central African Customs, pp. 101, 102.
[638] Livingstone, Zambesi, p. 396.
[639] Livingstone, Miss. Trav., p. 618.
[640] Beverley, in Steinmetz’s Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 213.
[641] Lang, ibid., pp. 240–242; Storch, p. 319.
[642] Storch, p. 323.
[643] Weule, pp. 55, 56.
[644] Weule, pp. 123, 124.
[645] Von Schele, pp, 71, 72.
[646] Kohler, Das Banturecht, pp. 42–45 (after Merker).
[647] Baumann, p. 237; Kohler, Das Banturecht, pp. 42–45 (after Puder).
On the Msalala, a division of the Wanyamwesi, see also Desoignies, in
Steinmetz’s Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 278.
[648] Angus, pp. 317, 323.
[649] Hore, p. 11.
[650] Kraft, in Steinmetz’s Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 291.
[651] Dale, p. 230.
[652] Hermann, p. 55.
[653] Fülleborn, p. 383.
[654] Storch, p. 326.
[655] Thomson, Centr. Afr. Lakes, I pp. 102, 139.
[656] Peters, pp. 284, 285.
[657] Baumann, p. 214.
[658] Thomson, Centr. Afr. Lakes, II p. 222.
[659] Baumann, p. 237.
[660] Von Höhnel, p. 318.
[661] Stuhlmann, pp. 492–529.
[662] Thomson, Massai; Johnston; Von Höhnel.
[663] Ward in J. A. I. 1895, p. 287; De Bas, p. 173.
[664] Phillips, pp. 223, 224.
[665] Magyar, I pp. 213–216, etc.
[666] Schütt, pp. 115, 139, 140.
[667] Buchholz, p. 178; Lenz, pp. 21, 218; Compiègne, Okanda, pp. 194,
195; Winwood Reade, p. 259.
[668] Lenz, pp. 39, 40.
[669] Duloup, p. 222.
[670] Compiègne, Okanda, pp. 93, 95, 96.
[671] Buchholz, pp. 96, 97, 190, 200, 201, 85; see also Kohler,
Negerrecht, pp. 10, 24, 25, 34.
[672] Coquilhat, pp. 500–502.
[673] Coquilhat, pp. 85, 86, 122; Ward, Cannibals, pp. 105, 106, 302;
Dupont, pp. 210, 231–233; Johnston, The river Congo, p. 396; Torday and
Joyce, Congo Free State, p. 139.
[674] Coquilhat, pp. 232, 296, 297, 365, 366; Ward, Cannibals, p. 132.
[675] Wissmann, Im Inneren Afrikas, pp. 82, 158.
[676] Livingstone, Last Journ., II pp. 131, 132, 29, 62, 63.
[677] Wolff, pp. 206, 207.
[678] Lenz, pp. 53, 218; Compiègne, Okanda, pp. 62, 65.
[679] Coquilhat, pp. 149, 157, 169.
[680] Schütt, pp. 38, 41.
[681] Compiègne, Gabonais, pp. 114, 130, 141.
[682] On the Bakundu, Banyang, Batom and Mabum, see Hutter, pp. 259
sqq.
[683] Hutter, pp. 341 sqq.
[684] Torday and Joyce, Ba-Mbala, p. 411.
[685] Torday and Joyce, Ba-Yaka, p. 46.
[686] Torday and Joyce, Ba-Huana, p. 286.
[687] Torday and Joyce, Congo Free State, p. 150.
[688] Zenker, pp. 48, 49, 67.
[689] Hoesemann, pp. 176,177.
[690] Leuschner, in Steinmetz’s Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 21; Schwarz as
quoted ibidem.
[691] Magyar; Serpa Pinto; Capello and Ivens.
[692] Serpa Pinto; Capello and Ivens.
[693] Pogge, Muata Jamwo, pp. 5, 7.
[694] Schütt, pp. 79, 90, 113; Livingstone, Miss. Trav., p. 435;
Capello and Ivens, pp. 314, 325, etc.
[695] Pogge, Muata Jamwo, pp. 35, 36, 39, 40.
[696] Buchholz, p. 178; Lenz, p. 256; Compiègne, Gabonais, p. 159.
Bennett, in his article on the Fans, makes no mention of slavery.
[697] Steinmetz, Rechtsverhältnisse, pp. 42, 43; see also pp. 41, 51,
54 ibidem.
[698] Winwood Reade, p. 259.
[699] Buchholz, p. 178.
[700] Compiègne, Okanda, p. 84; Lenz, p. 240.
[701] Coquilhat; Ward, Cannibals; Dupont; Wissmann, im Inneren Afrikas;
Guiral, p. 150.
[702] Coquilhat, p. 424.
[703] Cameron, II pp. 110, 111.
[704] Wissmann, Im Inneren Afrikas, pp. 240, 241.
[705] Wissmann, Zweite Durchquerung, p. 115.
[706] Wissmann, Unter deutscher Flagge, I p. 93; l.c. note; Pogge’s
Aufenthalt, pp. 381, 382.
[707] Wissmann, Im Inneren Afrikas, pp. 141, 145, 146.
[708] Lenz, pp. 281–283.
[709] Wissmann, Im Inneren Afrikas, p. 36.
[710] Wissmann, Unter deutscher Flagge, I p. 147; Pogge’s Aufenthalt,
p. 309.
[711] Wilson and Felkin, I pp. 161, 186, 193; Baskerville, in
Steinmetz’s Rechtsverhältnisse, pp. 193, 194.
[712] Chaillé Long; Junker; Wilson and Felkin.
[713] Roscoe, p. 100.
[714] Richter, Der Bezirk Bukoba, p. 87.
[715] Bastian, Geogr. und Ethn. Bilder, p. 143; Hutchinson, pp. 133,
141–145; Compiègne, Gabonais, p. 87; Lander, III p. 321; Walker, pp.
120–123.
[716] Bastian, l.c. p. 166; Köler, pp. 84, 153–155, 164; Compiègne,
l.c. p. 78; De Cardi, in Kingsley, West African studies, pp. 516, 517,
522–526.
[717] Hutchinson, p. 99; De Cardi, ibid., pp. 471–476.
[718] Bosman, II p. 228; Bastian, l.c. p. 175; De Cardi, ibid., pp.
452–454.
[719] Zündel, pp. 387, 407, 408; Herold, pp. 168–170. On the slave
system of the Ewe-speaking peoples in general, see Ellis, Ewe-speaking
peoples, pp. 218–221.
[720] Burton, II pp. 74, 248.
[721] Hagen, Porto-Novo, p. 97.
[722] Lander, I p. 37; Staudinger, p. 16. On the slave system of the
Yoruba-speaking peoples in general, see Ellis, Yoruba-speaking peoples,
pp. 178, 182.
[723] Bowdich, pp. 151, 157, 159, 205, 209. The natives of Ashanti
belong to the Tshi-speaking peoples of the Gold Coast. On slavery among
these peoples in general, see Ellis, Tshi-speaking peoples, pp.
289–295, and Bosman, I pp. 126, 187.
[724] Finsch, Goldküste, pp. 359–361.
[725] Harris, pp. 27–30.
[726] Bérenger-Féraud, p. 211; Tautain, Mandingues, pp. 347–350. On
slavery among the tribes of Liberia in general, see also Büttikofer in
T. A. G. pp. 72, 73; Büttikofer in I. A. E., pp. 81–83.
[727] Bérenger-Féraud, pp. 44, 58–60; Tautain, Sénégal, p. 67.
[728] Bérenger-Féraud, p. 365. See also Fama Mademba’s general
description of the Sansanding States, inhabited, among others, by the
Saracolays and Bambaras, in Steinmetz’s Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 83;
Nicole’s notes on the Diakité, a subdivision of the Saracolays, ibidem,
pp. 118–120; Arcin, pp. 269–276.
[729] Tellier, in Steinmetz’s Rechtsverhältnisse, pp. 168–172; Tellier,
Autour de Kita, pp. 98 sqq.
[730] Bérenger-Féraud, p. 236; Fama Mademba (see above, p. 155, note
14); Tellier (see note 1).
[731] Bérenger-Féraud, p. 269; Tellier, Autour de Kita, pp. 98 sqq.
[732] Granville and Roth, pp. 117, 118.
[733] Tellier (see note 1); Arcin, pp. 269–276.
[734] On the Susu, Landuma and Limba, see Madrolle, pp. 91–93.
[735] De Cardi, Ju-Ju Laws etc., p. 52.
[736] Lenz, pp. 233, 234; Köler, pp. 57, 58; Hutchinson, p. 48;
Staudinger, p. 9; Kingsley in J. A. I. p. 62.
[737] Tautain, Bobo, pp. 230, 233.
[738] Corre, pp. 15, 16.
[739] In the first edition of this book we had counted such peoples as
the Fulbe, the Haussa and the Tuareg among the savages. Dr. Vierkandt,
in his article on “Die Verbreitung der Sklaverei und ihre Ursachen”,
rightly remarks that they are rather to be regarded as semi-civilized
peoples.
[740] Chaillé Long, p. 29.
[741] Wilson and Felkin, II pp. 163, 162.
[742] Schweinfurth, I p. 164.
[743] Schweinfurth; Junker.
[744] Junker, I p. 531; Wilson and Felkin, II p. 96.
[745] Stuhlmann, pp. 774 sqq. (by Emin Pascha).
[746] Stuhlmann, pp. 492–529.
[747] Ibid., pp. 530 sqq.
[748] Junker, II pp. 477, 462.
[749] Junker, I pp. 331, 411, 428.
[750] Schweinfurth, II pp. 164, 190; Junker, III pp. 4, 292.
[751] Schweinfurth, II, pp. 45, 82; Junker, II pp. 265, 266, 317; III
p. 129.
[752] Burrows, p. 45.
[753] Junker, III p. 507.
[754] Baumann, p. 224.
[755] Baumann, p. 179.
[756] Ibid., p. 173. Kannenberg’s statement, that captives are made
slaves, does not seem to prove anything. These slaves may be sold
abroad (see Kannenberg, p. 167, and below p. 164).
[757] Baumann, p. 187.
[758] Schweinfurth; Junker; Wilson and Felkin.
[759] Compiègne, Gabonais, p. 92; Hutchinson, p. 191.
[760] Sibree, p. 227.
[761] Hildebrandt, West-Madagascar, p. 113
[762] Walter, in Steinmetz’s Rechtsverhältnisse, pp. 381, 387.
[763] Fritsch, p. 261.
[764] Fritsch, p. 364.
[765] See above, p. 139.
[766] Galton, p. 142.
[767] Wandrer, in Steinmetz’s Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 323.
[768] Holub, Süd-Afrika, I, p. 112.
[769] Livingstone, Miss. Trav.; Fritsch; Theal; Passarge, Die
Buschmänner.
[770] Fritsch, p. 444.
[771] Schweinfurth, II pp. 107–126; Emin Bey; Burrows.
[772] Burrows, pp. 39, 38.
[773] Lenz has some notes on the Abongos.
[774] Serpa Pinto, I p. 322.
[775] Munzinger, Ostafr. Stud., pp. 154, 155.
[776] Ibid., p. 207.
[777] Ibid., pp. 231, 239, 244, 245.
[778] Ibid., pp. 279, 308–311 etc.; see also Junker I p. 180; von
Müller, p. 428.
[779] Munzinger, Ostafr. Stud., pp. 483, 484, 497.
[780] Munzinger, Bogos, pp. 42, 43, 48–56.
[781] Paulitschke, I pp. 261, 262; II pp. 139–141.
[782] Paulitschke, I pp. 260, 263; II pp. 138, 139. Concerning the
Somal see also Bottego, pp. 422–425; Hildebrandt, Somal, p. 4.
[783] Baumann, p. 165; Kallenberg, p. 93; Merker, pp. 96, 97, 118, 208.
[784] Kannenberg, p. 155; Baumstark.
[785] Kandt, p. 254.
[786] Thomson, Through Massailand; Johnston; Baumann; Kallenberg; von
Höhnel.
[787] Thomson, l.c. p. 448; Johnston, p. 402.
[788] On Kannenberg’s statement that the Wandorobo enslave captives the
same may be remarked as above with regard to the Warangi (See
Kannenberg p. 170).
[789] Thomson, l. c; Johnston; von Höhnel.
[790] See above, p. 157, note 1.
[791] In this paragraph we speak of “positive” and “negative cases”,
meaning only the clear cases.
[792] Morgan, Anc. Soc., see especially, pp. 10–12.
[793] Vierkandt, Culturtypen, pp. 67, 69.
[794] Vierkandt, l.c., p. 61.
[795] Peschel (pp. 144, 145) has already given nearly the same list.
Vierkandt adds to Peschel’s list the Negritos, Kubus and African
pigmy-tribes. The earliest enumeration of “lowest races” we know of is
that given by Malthus (Population, pp. 15–20). He mentions as such the
Fuegians, Tasmanians, Andamanese and Australians.
[796] Steinmetz, Classification, p. 133.
[797] Vierkandt, l.c., pp. 67, 69, 71, 72. His distinction of nomadic
and settled semi-civilized peoples is entirely an economic one.
[798] We may leave out of the question Zu Wied’s uncertain statement
about the Botocudos. Of the pigmy-tribes we do not know very much; but
nowhere is it stated that any of them have slaves.
[799] On the different systems of classification, see Steinmetz’s
“Classification”, from which it clearly appears that a good division of
the peoples of the earth according to their general culture is still
wanting.
[800] Bagehot, p. 72.
[801] Grünberg, Article “Unfreiheit”, in Handwörterbuch der
Staatswissenschaften, 2nd edition.
[802] Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 456.
[803] Tourmagne, p. 3.
[804] Morgan, Anc. Soc., pp. 80, 10, 13, 11.
[805] Schmoller, Die Thatsachen der Arbeitsteilung, p. 1010.
[806] Schmoller, Grundriss, I p. 339.
[807] Ingram, pp. 1, 2.
[808] Flügel, p. 95.
[809] Schurtz, Katechismus, p. 110.
[810] Lippert, II pp. 522, 535.
[811] Lamprecht, I p. 165.
[812] Dimitroff, p. 88.
[813] Peschel, p. 253. “Koloshes” is the Russian name for Tlinkits.
[814] Wagner, p. 375.
[815] Tylor, Anthropology, p. 434.
[816] Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 459.
[817] Bos, p. 191.
[818] Felix, II pp. 250.
[819] Mommsen, I p. 191.
[820] Letourneau, p. 491. See also Sutherland, I p. 379.
[821] Dargun, pp. 59–61.
[822] Grosse, p. 28.
[823] Hahn, Die Haustiere, pp. 388 sqq. In a recent little book (Die
Entstehung der wirtschaftlichen Arbeit, 1908, p. 92), Dr. Hahn,
speaking of the first edition of the present work, observes that the
result of our investigations amounts to very little, the reason being
that we have confined ourselves to the study of those peoples among
which the cultivation of the soil is of no consequence. The mere fact,
that our chapter on agricultural tribes occupies more spaces than the
chapters on hunters and fishers and on pastoral tribes taken together,
proves the incorrectness of Dr. Hahn’s remark.
[824] Whereas our 5 economic groups are not an ascending series, these
3 agricultural groups are. Primitive agriculture must be anterior to a
more developed state of agriculture.
[825] This group is nearly identical with Dargun’s Jägerbauern; see
Dargun, p. 60 note 1.
[826] See Dargun, p. 110, and Hildebrand, Recht und Sitte, pp. 42, 43.
[827] Under “trade” we shall for the sake of convenience also
comprehend industry.
[828] About the Malay Archipelago we have also consulted De Hollander,
and about Africa, Ratzel, Völkerkunde.
[829] Roosevelt calls them hunters; but in the Jesuit Relations it is
stated, that they were not entirely unacquainted with agriculture.
[830] On Musters’ authority. According to Charlevoix, agriculture was
not entirely unknown amongst them.
[831] On Keane’s authority. According to Zu Wied and Martius, there are
some slight traces of agriculture.
[832] Thomson, Through Massailand, p. 448; Johnston, p. 402.
[833] See above, pp. 53, 58, 80, 81, 124, 52, 74. The Montagnais seem
also sometimes to have adopted prisoners. Le Jeune observed a young
Iroquois, whom they had adopted, Jesuit relations, VI p. 259.
[834] Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 459.
[835] Dawson, p. 5.
[836] Man, p. 109.
[837] Another instance of people providing for the wants of others is
the marriage by service, the young man serving the parents of his
bride, sometimes for several years. This even occurs among the Ainu,
Bushmen, and Fuegians; see Westermarck, Human marriage, pp. 390, 391.
[838] Hildebrand, Recht und Sitte, pp. 1, 2.
[839] Sutherland, I p. 360.
[840] Social institutions are sometimes made; but this is the
exception: generally they grow.
[841] See Ferrero’s beautiful exposition of this character.
[842] Tanner, p. 112.
[843] Bonwick, p. 62.
[844] Blumentritt, Negritos, p. 65.
[845] Jones, Ojibway Indians, pp. 79, 80.
[846] Dawson, p. 35.
[847] Man, p. 109.
[848] Jesuit Relations, VII p. 173.
[849] Histoire de Kamtschatka, I p. 287.
[850] Gibbs, p. 193.
[851] Muratori, pp. 28, 33.
[852] Russell, p. 164.
[853] Bossu, p. 247.
[854] Fritsch, p. 324.
[855] As to Australia, see Steinmetz, Strafe, I pp. 430, 431.
[856] Members of despised classes are often excluded from the
occupations considered noble by the community. So the Jews in the
Middle Ages were not allowed to hold real property (except in some
periods in the South of France and Spain), nor to enter into
corporations and trades. (Nys, p. 136). Mr. A. C. Kruijt tells us that,
in Central Celebes, slaves who excel in those qualities which are
highly valued in free men, i.e. bravery or oratorical power, are
practically no longer regarded as slaves.
[857] Grinnell, p. 123.
[858] See Charlevoix, Nouv. France, III p. 246 (about the Hurons and
Iroquois); in the same sense Lery, p. 225, about the Tupinambas of
Brazil. These tribes are not hunters proper, but Jägerbauern; but this
is rather a proof a fortiori.
[859] Mr. Westermarck observes: “The prevalence of slavery in a savage
tribe and the extent to which it is practised must also depend upon the
ability of the tribe to procure slaves from foreign communities and
upon its willingness to allow its own members to be kept as slaves
within the tribe. It may be very useful for a group to have a certain
number of slaves, and yet they may not have them, for the reason that
no slaves are to be had” (Moral Ideas, I p. 674). It will be seen from
what we have just said, that we fully agree with this. For some hunting
tribes it might be very useful, in an economic sense, to keep slaves;
but there is a series of social and psychical factors that render the
subjection of men as slaves impossible. We do not think, therefore,
that Mr. Westermarck is quite right in remarking that in our book “the
influence of economic conditions upon the institution of slavery has
perhaps been emphasised too much at the cost of other factors” (Ibid.).
[860] Mill, p. 302.
[861] Cairnes, p. 46.
[862] Kruijt, N. Z. G. XXXIX p. 122.
[863] Schurtz, Das Afrikanische Gewerbe, p. 142.
[864] See Wagner, p. 389. Schmoller (Grundriss, I p. 340) also remarks
that slaves have no interest in the result of their work.
[865] See Bücher, p. 9, and Fritsch’s beautiful description of Bushman
hunting, Fritsch, pp. 424 sqq.
[866] See the exposition of the causes and development of this
mitigation by Wagner, pp. 390–405.
[867] The assertion of some writers (e.g. Waitz-Gerland, VI pp. 767,
796), that the Australians have declined from a higher state of
culture, seems to us quite unfounded.
[868] This description, given by Dawson (p. 37) of female labour in
Western Victoria, may be taken as a fair type of female labour among
hunters in general.
[869] See Steinmetz, Strafe, II pp. 96 sqq.
[870] Crantz, I p. 185.
[871] Boas, Central Eskimo, p. 580.
[872] Tanner, p. 98.
[873] Crantz, I p. 211, 215.
[874] Such men, treated as wives and performing female labour, were
very numerous in Kamchatka; see Steller, p. 350 note.
[875] Sutherland (I p. 379) remarks that “when a slave has to be fed by
the huntsman skill of his master, he is a burden rather than a help,
and amid roving habits it is difficult to see how there can be enough
of drudgery to made it convenient to feed him.”
[876] The Germans call such people Sammler.
[877] Bancroft, p. 118; see also Mackenzie, I p. 151.
[878] The positive cases here are 5 + 14 = 19, instead of 18, because
the Indians about Puget Sound count double, some of them being hunters
and others fishers. The negative cases are 54 + 15 = 69, instead of 70,
because we have omitted the Chepewyans.
[879] Wemiaminow, p. 214.
[880] Bancroft, p. 161.
[881] Ibid., p. 122.
[882] Ibid., p. 213.
[883] Holmberg, I p. 17; see also p. 22.
[884] Kane, p. 314.
[885] Gibbs, p. 197.
[886] Bancroft, p. 232.
[887] Brown, Adventures of John Jewitt, p. 151.
[888] Ibid., pp. 76–78.
[889] Krause, pp. 155, 159, 181. See also Holmberg, I pp. 22–24.
[890] Bancroft, pp. 161–163.
[891] Ibid., pp. 212, 213.
[892] Sproat, pp. 53, 89.
[893] Bancroft, p. 123.
[894] Allison, p. 308.
[895] Gibbs, pp. 193–195.
[896] Bancroft, pp. 232–234.
[897] See Waitz-Gerland, VI p. 724.
[898] Bancroft, pp. 74, 75; Holmberg, I p. 90.
[899] Krause, pp. 123, 155; Bancroft, p. 104. See also Holmberg, I pp.
22, 24.
[900] Krause, p. 307; Bancroft, p. 163.
[901] Bancroft, pp 183–187.
[902] Brown, Adventures of John Jewitt, pp. 132, 134, 151. See also
Sproat, p. 37.
[903] Gibbs, pp. 194–196.
[904] Bancroft, pp. 211–213.
[905] Ibid., p. 123.
[906] Ibid., pp. 231, 233; Swan, The Northwest Coast, p. 161.
[907] Allison, p. 309.
[908] Gibbs remarks: “East of the Cascades, though it [slavery] exists,
it is not so common; the equestrian habits of the tribes living there
probably rendering it less profitable or convenient than among the more
settled inhabitants of the coast.” (Gibbs, p. 188).
[909] Kane, p. 238.
[910] Bancroft, p. 90.
[911] Ibid., p. 86; Holmberg, I pp. 99–103, 79.
[912] Krause, pp. 159, 173, 181, 183, 186. See also Holmberg, I pp.
26–29.
[913] Krause, pp. 306, 307, 313; Swan, Haidah Indians, pp. 2, 3;
Bancroft, p. 165.
[914] Niblack, p. 252; Bancroft, p. 166.
[915] Bancroft, p. 135.
[916] Gibbs, pp. 195, 193, 188, 189.
[917] Bancroft, pp. 211, 216–218.
[918] Ibid., pp. 192, 187, 194.
[919] Sproat, pp. 38, 97; Brown, Adventures of John Jewitt, pp. 123,
115, 137.
[920] Gibbs, p. 175.
[921] Bancroft, p. 122.
[922] Ibid., pp. 238–240; Swan, The Northwest Coast, pp. 164, 158, 166.
[923] Bancroft, p. 195.
[924] Holmberg, I p. 79.
[925] Kane, p. 220.
[926] Trading itself is not a drudgery, but a highly agreeable
occupation. “Most of the Africans” says Livingstone (Zambesi, p. 50)
“are natural-born traders; they love trade more for the sake of
trading, than for what they make by it.” Bücher decidedly underrates
the significance of trade among savages.
[927] So Bancroft (p. 91) says of the Aleuts: “Notwithstanding their
peaceful character, the occupants of the several islands were almost
constantly at war.” This is far from clear; for we can hardly imagine
peaceful people being always at war with each other.
[928] Schmoller, Grundriss, I p. 195.
[929] Bancroft, p. 84; Holmberg, I p. 112.
[930] Krause, pp. 167, 122.
[931] Bancroft, p. 167; Swan, p. 3.
[932] Kane, pp. 220, 221.
[933] Bancroft, p. 191.
[934] Brown, Adventures of John Jewitt, p. 216.
[935] Mayne, p. 263.
[936] Boas, Kwakiutl, p. 341.
[937] Gibbs, p. 175.
[938] Bancroft, p. 123.
[939] Gibbs, p. 185, 187.
[940] Bancroft, p. 217.
[941] Ibid., pp. 239, 240.
[942] Kane, p. 216; Holmberg, I p. 14.
[943] Bagehot, p. 72.
[944] Allison, pp. 309, 306, 315.
[945] Niblack, p. 252.
[946] Petroff, p. 152.
[947] Bancroft, p. 108; see also Niblack, p. 252.
[948] Boas, Die Tsimshian, p. 244.
[949] Brown, Adventures of John Jewitt, p. 130.
[950] Petroff, p. 152.
[951] Bancroft, p. 499.
[952] Niblack, p. 252.
[953] Boas, Die Tsimshian, p. 237.
[954] Meares, as quoted by Bancroft, p. 188.
[955] Brown, Adventures of John Jewitt, pp. 130, 201.
[956] See above, p. 196.
[957] See above, p. 174.
[958] Letourneau also seems to consider slavery foreign to the way of
life of these tribes. He has not, however, recourse to a hypothetical
former agricultural state, but to the great ethnological pons asinorum,
derivation (pp. 132, 134). But he does not inform us whence slavery can
have been derived. Perhaps from the inland tribes who, as Letourneau
himself proves to be aware, have no slaves? Or from the Siberians, who
are rather in a lower than in a higher economic state as compared with
the Indians of the Pacific Coast? Or from the Hindus or any other
mythical early visitors of America?
[959] Brown, Adventures of John Jewitt, p. 130.
[960] Boas, Die Tsimschian, pp. 237, 240.
[961] Bancroft, pp. 196, 195.
[962] Sproat, pp. 90, 39; Brown, Adventures of John Jewitt, pp. 130,
131.
[963] Mayne, p. 253.
[964] Bancroft, p. 240.
[965] Niblack, p. 252.
[966] Bancroft, p. 124.
[967] Holmberg, I p. 78.
[968] Niblack, p. 253.
[969] Bancroft, pp. 239, 234.
[970] Lewis and Clark, III p. 38.
[971] Krause, pp. 186, 159.
[972] Sproat, pp. 97, 38.
[973] Gibbs, p. 193.
[974] Bancroft, p. 112; see also Krause, p. 161.
[975] Brancroft, p. 196.
[976] Ibid., p. 218.
[977] Ibid., p. 242.
[978] Brown, Adventures of John Jewitt, p. 241.
[979] Elliott, p. 164.
[980] Krause, p. 161; Bancroft, p. 109.
[981] Bancroft, p. 196.
[982] Sproat, p. 95.
[983] Holmberg, I p. 119.
[984] Gibbs, pp. 198, 185, 187.
[985] Ibid., p. 199.
[986] Bancroft, p. 218.
[987] Ibid., p. 242.
[988] Swan, The Northwest Coast, p. 160.
[989] Elliott, p. 164.
[990] Mackenzie, II p. 268.
[991] A writer of the 18th century tells us of the women of the Dutch
isle of Ameland (the men being fishers and mariners): “They are
generally somewhat imperious, and by their foolish cleanliness most men
are hardly ever allowed to have a fire on the grate during the winter.
The cause of this imperious behaviour of Ameland women is not difficult
to detect: as the men are at home only in the winter, the women rule
for the greater part of the year, and are not inclined to part with
their authority in winter-time. Therefore most men, so to speak, board
at their wives’ houses, and if they want to keep peace, have to put up
with female ascendency.” Tegenwoordige Staat der Vereenigde
Nederlanden, XIV pp. 363, 364.
In the same sense Professor Nieuwenhuis writes about the Kayans on the
Mendalam: “As the men are often absent on long journeys, the women get
the lead in household affairs” (Door Centraal-Borneo, I p. 77.).
[992] Bancroft, p. 93.
[993] Lewis and Clark, II pp. 334, 335.
[994] Grosse, p. 65.
[995] Ibid., pp. 74–78.
[996] Bancroft, p. 437.
[997] Ibid., p. 412.
[998] Powers, as quoted by Bancroft, p. 351.
[999] Bancroft, p. 351.
[1000] Ibid., p. 117.
[1001] Ibid., pp. 117–119.
[1002] Ibid., pp. 131, 132.
[1003] Ibid., p. 169.
[1004] Some other writers, however (whom Grosse does not refer to),
speaking of the Kutchins in general, state that women are badly
treated; see Kirby, p. 419; Hardisty, p. 312; Jones, Kutchin tribes, p.
325.
[1005] Grosse, p. 65.
[1006] Dobrizhoffer, II pp. 149, 151, 152.
[1007] Ibid., pp. 119, 120.
[1008] Falkner, p. 126.
[1009] Steller, p. 235 note.
[1010] Ibid., pp. 245, 286, 286 note, 317, 318.
[1011] Ibid., pp. 210 sqq.
[1012] Waitz-Gerland, VI pp. 724, 725.
[1013] Thomas, p. 88.
[1014] Waitz-Gerland, VI pp. 724, 725.
[1015] Eylmann, p. 293.
[1016] Spencer and Gillen, Native tribes, p. 21.
[1017] Waitz-Gerland, VI pp. 732, 733, 738.
[1018] Ibid., p. 722.
[1019] Spencer and Gillen, Native tribes, p. 8.
[1020] Brough Smyth, I p. 123.
[1021] Eylmann, p. 155.
[1022] Thomas, p. 26.
[1023] Spencer and Gillen, Native tribes, p. 53.
[1024] Literature. On the Moore River District, Oldfield; on S. W.
Australia, Salvado; on the natives on Herbert River, Lumholtz; on the
Cammarray, Collins; on N. S. Wales, Fraser and Angas; on Central
Australia, Spencer and Gillen, Native tribes, p. 53; on the Tasmanians,
Ling Roth. As we had not got all the books at hand, but only some notes
which we had previously made, in which the pages were not specified, we
could not give all the exact references.
[1025] Matthews, in Fraser’s Notes, p. 188.
[1026] Forrest, p. 318.
[1027] Thomas, p. 117.
[1028] Fraser, p. 67. “Taurai” is the land owned by a tribe or a
division of a tribe, see ibid., p. 36.
[1029] Steinmetz, Strafe, II pp. 27, 29.
[1030] See Schmoller, Grundriss, I p. 333.
[1031] Steinmetz, Strafe, II pp. 20–34.
[1032] Roth, p. 141.
[1033] Fraser, pp. 38, 39; Wilkes, II p. 204.
[1034] Gason, in Frazer’s Notes, p. 173.
[1035] The Stationmaster, in Frazer’s Notes, p. 179.
[1036] Matthews, in Frazer’s Notes, p. 189.
[1037] Spencer and Gillen, Native tribes, p. 10.
[1038] Eylmann, p. 172.
[1039] Foelsche, in Frazer’s Notes, pp. 196, 197.
[1040] Thomas, p. 143; see also Howitt’s detailed account of
chieftainship in South East Australia, pp. 296–320.
[1041] Brough Smyth, I p. 126. The ethnographers give many more details
regarding tribal government; but we have only quoted those that bear
directly on the question at issue, i.e. that show on what qualities
influence and power depend.
[1042] Steinmetz, Strafe, II p. 28.
[1043] Gason, in Frazer’s Notes, p. 171.
[1044] Steinmetz, Strafe, II p. 20.
[1045] See above, pp. 10–23.
[1046] Steinmetz, Strafe, II pp. 3 sqq.
[1047] Jes. Rel., VI p. 277.
[1048] Mackenzie, I p. 151.
[1049] Hardisty, p. 311.
[1050] Mackenzie, II p. 193.
[1051] Schoolcraft, I p. 231.
[1052] Lewis and Clark, II p. 116.
[1053] Grinnell p. 48.
[1054] Further papers, p. 47.
[1055] Jes. Rel., VI pp. 83, 259, 149.
[1056] Ibid., p. 133; see also Sagard, p. 78.
[1057] Keating, II pp. 149, 51; Jones, Ojibway Indians, p. 58; Kohl, II
pp. 133 sqq.
[1058] Mackenzie, I p. 128.
[1059] Reports of Expl., I p. 448; XII Part I p. 73.
[1060] Ross, p. 310.
[1061] Elliott, p. 417.
[1062] Jones, Kutchin tribes, p. 321; Kirby, p. 418; Hardisty, p. 312.
[1063] Mackenzie, II p. 10.
[1064] Schoolcraft, II p. 172.
[1065] Hunter, Gedenkschriften, pp. 49, 46.
[1066] Schoolcraft, V p. 260; Bancroft, p. 485.
[1067] Schoolcraft, I p. 231; Bancroft, p. 492.
[1068] Grinnell, p. 48.
[1069] Jes. Rel., VI p. 273.
[1070] Ibid., p. 19.
[1071] Reports of Expl., I p. 444.
[1072] Jones, Kutchin tribes, p. 324; Hardisty, p. 311.
[1073] Hunter, Gedenkschriften, p. 50.
[1074] Grinnell, pp. 146, 150, 152–156, 160, 161.
[1075] Jes. Rel., V p. 195.
[1076] Roosevelt, I p. 90.
[1077] Jones, Ojibway Indians, p. 108.
[1078] Reports of Expl., XII Part I p. 76; Schoolcraft, V p. 686.
[1079] Jones, Kutchin tribes, p. 325; Hardisty, p. 312; Whymper, p.
280.
[1080] Ten Kate, Noord-Amerika, p. 365.
[1081] Eastman, Dahcotah, pp. 82–84; Neill, p. 86.
[1082] Schoolcraft, V p. 260; Ten Kate, Noord-Amerika, p. 195;
Bancroft, p. 508.
[1083] Schoolcraft, I p. 231; II p. 132.
[1084] Hardisty, p. 314.
[1085] Mackenzie, I p. 153. On the Sioux see Neill as quoted on p. 241.
[1086] Hunter, Gedenkschriften, p. 50.
[1087] Jes. Rel., V p. 181, VI p. 233.
[1088] Jones, Ojibway Indians, p. 108; Long, p. 137; Kohl, I p. 8, II
p. 252.
[1089] Mackenzie, I p. 120.
[1090] Zu Wied, Nord-Amerika, I p. 573.
[1091] Mackenzie, I p. 147.
[1092] See above, p. 224.
[1093] Mackenzie, II p. 11.
[1094] Dodge, p. 122.
[1095] Eastman, Dahcotah, p. XXIV; Schoolcraft, II p. 189.
[1096] Bancroft, pp. 511, 513.
[1097] Schoolcraft, I p. 235, II p. 132.
[1098] Lewis and Clark, II pp. 118, 119.
[1099] Grinnell, pp. 46, 47.
[1100] Ten Kate, Noord-Amerika, p. 365.
[1101] Roosevelt, I p. 82.
[1102] Jones, Ojibway Indians, p. 64.
[1103] Mackenzie, I pp. 130, 123.
[1104] Reports of Expl., I p. 443.
[1105] Mackenzie, I p. 271.
[1106] Ibid., II p. 33.
[1107] Eastman, Dahcotah, p. X.
[1108] Bancroft, p. 524.
[1109] Ibid., p. 499.
[1110] Adoption of captives was very frequent among the Indians of
North America. Of the tribes, on which we were able to get information,
the following practised this custom: Delawares, Ojibways, Shahnees,
Crees, Cheyennes, Abenakies, Iroquois, Hurons, Cherokees, Sioux,
Hidatsas, Omahas, Osage and Kansas Indians, Mandans, Comanches,
Montagnais. See above, pp. 52–65, 192.
[1111] Crantz, I p. 161.
[1112] Boas, Central Eskimo, p. 419.
[1113] Bancroft, p. 54.
[1114] Crantz, I pp. 158 sqq.; Boas, l.c. pp. 540 sqq.; Bancroft, pp.
50 sqq.
[1115] Rink, p. 9.
[1116] Boas, l.c. p. 547.
[1117] Crantz, III p. 147.
[1118] Rink, p. 27.
[1119] Crantz, I p. 159.
[1120] Rink, p. 33.
[1121] Further papers, p. 43.
[1122] Crantz, I pp. 162–164.
[1123] Boas, l.c. pp. 550, 574.
[1124] Bancroft, p. 55.
[1125] Rink, p. 11.
[1126] Crantz, I pp. 195, 196.
[1127] Boas, l.c. p. 469.
[1128] Bancroft, pp. 63, 64.
[1129] Rink, p. 13.
[1130] Boas, l.c. p. 486.
[1131] Crantz, I pp. 165–168.
[1132] Bancroft, pp. 59, 61.
[1133] Crantz, I pp. 201, 202; III p. 180 note.
[1134] Rink, pp. 9, 29.
[1135] Boas, l.c. p. 581.
[1136] Bancroft, p. 65.
[1137] Rink, p. 26.
[1138] Crantz, I pp. 214, 215.
[1139] Crantz, I p. 187.
[1140] Bancroft, p. 65.
[1141] Crantz, I p. 180.
[1142] Boas, l.c. pp. 579, 580.
[1143] Bancroft, p. 66.
[1144] Crantz, I p. 186.
[1145] Crantz, I p. 207.
[1146] Boas, l.c. p. 465.
[1147] Bancroft, p. 120.
[1148] See above, p. 200.
[1149] Crantz, I pp. 172, 173, 184, 185.
[1150] Bancroft, p. 56.
[1151] Boas, l.c. pp. 471 sqq.
[1152] See above, pp. 47–48.
[1153] Crantz, I p. 186.
[1154] Boas, l.c. p. 581. See also Murdoch, p. 419, and Ray, p. 44 on
adoption among the Eskimos of Point Barrow.
[1155] Boas, l.c. p. 581.
[1156] Crantz, I p. 215.
[1157] See above, p. 212.
[1158] Such a state of things, in Wilkes’s time, prevailed in Tahiti.
“A native” he remarks “may in the morning be wholly destitute even of
implements wherewith to work, and before nightfall he may be found
clothed, lodged, and have all the necessaries of life around him in
abundance.” Wilkes, II p. 17.
[1159] “Preserving of food” occurs twice, because it works in different
directions.
[1160] See above, p. 173.
[1161] See above, pp. 127, 128, 131, and Baumann, p. 165.
[1162] Fritsch, pp. 79, 80, 135, 136.
[1163] Geoffroy, pp. 430, 431.
[1164] Bell, I p. 170; Klaproth, p. 567.
[1165] Roscoe, p. 100.
[1166] Munzinger, Ostafr. Stud., pp. 154, 155.
[1167] Ibid., p. 310; Von Müller, p. 429.
[1168] Paulitschke, II pp. 138, 139; I pp. 260, 213, 263; Bottego, p.
423.
[1169] Robertson, pp. 78, 79.
[1170] Holub, Süd-Afrika, II pp. 348, 189, 262.
[1171] Wilson and Felkin, I p. 186.
[1172] Tautain, Mandingues, pp. 348–350.
[1173] Hildebrandt, West-Madagaskar, p. 113.
[1174] Munzinger, Bogos, pp. 49, 50, 35.
[1175] Munzinger, Ostafr. Stud., pp. 207, 206.
[1176] Blumentritt, Ethnographie, pp. 54, 53; Jansen, p. 225.
[1177] Hagen, p. 97.
[1178] Klaproth, II p. 615.
[1179] Paulitschke, I p. 262; II p. 140.
[1180] Lander, I pp. 17, 37, 113.
[1181] Burckhardt, I p. 356.
[1182] Bell, I pp. 169, 308.
[1183] Munzinger, Ostafr. Stud., p. 309.
[1184] Paulitschke, I p. 260.
[1185] Ujfalvy, Les Aryens, p. 352.
[1186] See Hildebrand, Recht und Sitte, pp. 35, 36.
[1187] Burckhardt, I p. 182.
[1188] Geoffroy, pp. 420, 425, 434.
[1189] Levchine, 348, 349, 344 note 1; Radloff, Aus Sibirien, I pp.
462, 463, 416; see also Ujfalvy, Expéd. Scient., p. 112.
[1190] Radloff, Aus Sibirien, pp. 298, 302, 303, 287, 295, 312.
[1191] Pallas, as quoted by Hildebrand, Recht und Sitte, p. 36.
[1192] Hildebrand, l.c., p. 36; see also Obrutschew, I p. 37, and
Iwanowski, pp. 8, 11.
[1193] Von Stenin, Die Kurden, p. 221.
[1194] Müller, Unter Tungusen und Jakuten, p. 50. See also Georgi, as
quoted by Hildebrand, l.c. p. 36.
[1195] Sumner, p. 66.
[1196] Pallas, Reise, III p. 74; Von Stenin, Samojeden, p. 187.
[1197] Histoire de Kamtschatka, II pp. 239, 243, 233; see also
Hildebrand, Recht und Sitte, p. 36 (after Georgi).
[1198] Hildebrand, l.c.
[1199] Munzinger, Ostafr. Stud., p. 318.
[1200] Merker, p. 117.
[1201] Fritsch, p. 364.
[1202] Tromp, De Kaffers, p. 197.
[1203] Kropf, pp. 109, 170, 171.
[1204] Hahn, Die Ovaherero, p. 245; Viehe, in Steinmetz’s
Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 301.
[1205] See above, p. 144.
[1206] Klaproth, II p. 615.
[1207] Livingstone, Miss. Trav., pp. 109, 160.
[1208] Casalis, pp. 227, 228.
[1209] Holub, Süd-Afrika, II p. 348.
[1210] Schweinfurth, I p. 164.
[1211] Chaillé Long, p. 29.
[1212] Paulitschke, I p. 333.
[1213] Munzinger, Bogos, p. 46.
[1214] L. Marx, in Steinmetz’s Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 359.
[1215] The cattle, among pastoral tribes, are the property of
individuals, not of the community; see Dargun, pp. 58–69.
[1216] Schmoller remarks, that in pastoral life, among the savages of
to-day as well as among the ancient nations of Europe and Asia, the
contrast of wealth and poverty and the dependence of the poor upon the
rich are strongly marked. (Grundriss, I pp. 198, 370, 371).
[1217] “It is the nature of pasturage to produce food for a much
greater number of people than it can employ. In countries strictly
pastoral, therefore, many persons will be idle, or at most be very
inadequately occupied.” Malthus, Book II Ch. V (Bettany’s edition, p.
196).
[1218] Hildebrand, Recht und Sitte, first edition, pp. 37, 38 (after
Prschewalsky, Radloff and Burckhardt). On the Mongols see also
Iwanowski, p. 12.
[1219] Levchine, p. 341.
[1220] Rowney, p. 51.
[1221] Merker, p. 117.
[1222] Schmoller, Grundriss, I p. 197.
[1223] Schurtz, Das Afr. Gewerbe, p. 78.
[1224] Geoffroy, pp. 429–431.
[1225] On the economic function of these pariah tribes of Africa, see
Schurtz, Das Afr. Gewerbe, pp. 38–45.
[1226] Hildebrandt, Somal, p. 4.
[1227] Mrs. French-Sheldon, p. 380; Thomson, Through Masailand, p. 448;
Johnston, p. 402.
[1228] Munzinger, Bogos, pp. 48, 49.
[1229] Munzinger, Ostafr. Stud., p. 207.
[1230] Ibid., pp. 235–242.
[1231] Ibid., pp. 311, 312, 316, 317.
[1232] See above, pp. 139–143.
[1233] Geoffroy, pp. 412, 414, 415.
[1234] Bell, I, p. 337; Klaproth, p. 567.
[1235] It is stated, that the nomadic Koryakes regard the settled
Koryakes as slaves (Histoire de Kamtschatka, II p. 223). But we are not
told that they require tributes or services from them. Probably our
informant only means to say, that the settled Koryakes are despised by
the nomads (see p. 222, ibid.).
[1236] Munzinger, Ostafr. Stud., pp. 149, 150.
[1237] Ibid., p. 327.
[1238] Geoffroy, p. 432.
[1239] Bell, I p. 170.
[1240] Paulitschke, I p. 263.
[1241] Several instances of this phenomenon are on record with
Hildebrand, Recht und Sitte, pp. 30, 31, 37, 38.
[1242] Malthus, in his chapter on modern pastoral nations (Bettany’s
edition, p. 73), remarks: “The power and riches of a chaik consist in
the number of his tribe.... His own consequence greatly depends on a
numerous progeny and kindred; and in a state of society where power
generally procures subsistence, each individual family derives strength
and importance from its numbers.”
[1243] Viz. as long as the country is thinly peopled. We shall see
later on, that among some savages the desire to occupy land is a great
motive for making war.
[1244] Geoffroy, pp. 425, 422, 441.
[1245] Levchine, pp. 349, 350, 397.
[1246] Munzinger, Ostafr. Stud., pp. 311, 327.
[1247] Histoire de Kamtschatka, II p. 218.
[1248] Paulitschke, I pp. 254, 195.
[1249] Fritsch, pp. 79, 226, 93; Kropf, p. 179.
[1250] See above, pp. 274, 277.
[1251] Munzinger, Ostafr. Stud., p. 310.
[1252] Von Stenin, Samojeden, p. 187.
[1253] Müller, Unter Tungusen und Jakuten, p. 173; Sumner, p. 67.
[1254] Latham, as quoted by Spencer, Descr. Soc., V p. 16.
[1255] Radloff, Aus Sibirien, I p. 312.
[1256] Licata, as quoted by Paulitschke, I p. 253.
[1257] Geoffroy, p. 434.
[1258] Munzinger, Ostafr. Stud., p. 154.
[1259] Even among the simple Todas; for it is stated that the decision
of their disputes by the priest is “generally given in favour of the
wealthiest of the litigants.” Metz, as quoted by Spencer, Descr. Soc.,
V p. 12.
[1260] Burckhardt, I p. 356.
[1261] Geoffroy, p. 440.
[1262] Chantre, IV pp. 79, 136.
[1263] Paulitschke, I p. 260.
[1264] Munzinger, Ostafr. Stud., p. 155.
[1265] Ibid., pp. 308, 311.
[1266] Galton, p. 142.
[1267] Hutter, p. 343.
[1268] Pallas. Reise, I p. 337.
[1269] “Preserving of food” occurs twice, because it works in different
directions.
[1270] In this paragraph we shall use the same abbreviations as in Part
II, Chap. I, § 3.
[1271] Cunningham (English Industry, I p. 31) remarks that “primitive
agriculture is perfectly consistent with a very migratory life.”
[1272] Azara, II p. 160.
[1273] Lery, pp. 123, 127, 141–175, 312.
[1274] Von den Steinen, Unter den Naturvölkern, pp. 201, 214.
[1275] Hahn, Die Haustiere, pp. 388 sqq.
[1276] Radloff, Aus Sibirien, I pp. 463–465.
[1277] Levchine, p. 413.
[1278] Bagehot, pp. 72, 73. Hutter (pp. 353, 354), speaking of the Bali
tribes of Cameroon, remarks that there is a difference between rich and
poor, but the poor are not so badly off as in Europe, for the land is
open to every one.
[1279] Sombart, I p. 342.
[1280] Adam Smith as referred to by Ingram, p. 282. Loria (p. 97) also
holds that production was decreased by the introduction of slavery.
[1281] Cairnes wrote in 1862.
[1282] Cairnes, pp. 43, 44, 49–52.
[1283] Such was the slave system of the ancient Germans described by
Tacitus: “You cannot tell master from slave by any distinction in
education: they spend their time among the same flocks, upon the same
land, until age separates the nobles and their valour causes them to be
acknowledged.” Tacitus, Germania, 20. On the character of primitive
slavery, see also Schmoller, Grundriss, I p. 339.
[1284] Bagehot, pp. 73, 74; see also Flügel, p. 96, and Jhering’s
excellent description of the character of slavery in early Rome
(Jhering, II Part I pp. 172 sqq.).
[1285] Cairnes, pp. 53–56, 62, 179 sqq.
[1286] Weber’s Article “Agrarverhältnisse im Altertum”, in
Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, 3rd edition (1909) I p. 63.
[1287] Cairnes is also aware of the difference between ancient and
modern slavery (pp. 109 sqq.).
[1288] Loria, pp. 2–6.
[1289] On Loria’s incorrect manner of reasoning, see B. Croce’s essay
on “Le teorie storiche del Prof. Loria”, in “Materialismo storico ed
economia Marxistica”. A much better opinion of Loria is held by Sombart
(I p. 358).
[1290] Wakefield, pp. 323–325. Marx (I pp. 795–804) gives a detailed
account of the same argument as developed in another book of
Wakefield’s, and adds that the exclusion of the mass of the people from
the soil forms the basis of the capitalistic mode of production (ibid.,
p. 798).
[1291] On the practical result of Wakefield’s plan, see Cunningham,
English Industry, II pp. 603–607. Professor Cunningham justly calls
Wakefield “a judicious and far-seeing man” (ibid., p. 605, note 3).
[1292] Merivale, pp. 305, 313–317. See also Waltershausen, article
“Negerfrage”, in Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, 2nd edition,
V p. 973.
[1293] See Dargun, pp. 49 sqq. Hildebrand (Recht und Sitte, pp. 134
sqq.) rightly remarks that in primitive societies the uncultivated land
is not the property of the community, but nobody’s property (res
nullius).
[1294] Where the State owns the land and gives it in use gratuitously
or at a low rent, the land is practically free. Such was the case in
China, in the 5th century of our era, where the State gave allotments
to farmers at a definite tax. “It is obvious, that the condition of the
free cultivators without land could not become intolerable so long as
they were able to rent in on the simple condition of paying the
ordinary tax; and as long as the State had land to let on these terms,
private agglomerators would be unable to get farmers to pay more to
themselves; so that large estates could only be profitable on condition
of evading the land tax, or being tilled for the owner by servile
labour.” Simcox, II p. 127.
[1295] “Destitute of land” is not the same as: “who own no land.” When
the population is so scarce that even the most fertile land has no
value, nobody owns land; but there are no men destitute of land, any
more than in our countries there are men destitute of air or water;
every one has land at his disposal. Only when every piece of land has
an owner, can there be people destitute of land, i.e. who have no land
at their disposal.
[1296] Ricardo, pp. 35, 36.
[1297] Spenser St. John, I pp. 74, 60.
[1298] Jenks, pp. 160–163.
[1299] Dr. Tönnies, in his review of the first edition of this work,
remarks that the last sentences contain a most important qualification
of our theory of the connection between slavery and land tenure. Every
one does not want to take land into cultivation, though he may do so
without any payment. On the other hand, where there are people
destitute of land, it is not certain that they serve the landowners and
so make slavery superfluous. It may be that, though they own no land,
they have other resources to live upon, or that they are not apt to
perform such work as is most wanted by the rich, etc.
We are well aware of all this. Yet we think we are justified in
concluding that, generally speaking, slavery only exists where there is
still free land, i.e. free land fit for cultivation. That we admit many
exceptions to this rule, will appear from the last paragraphs of this
chapter.
[1300] Mahler, pp. 58, 59.
[1301] Waltershausen, pp. 17, 18.
[1302] Mariner, II pp. 162, 160; West, p. 262.
[1303] Thomson, Savage Island, p. 143.
[1304] Turner, Samoa, pp, 176, 177; Von Bülow, p. 192.
[1305] Hoag is a large family-group of which the pure is the head.
[1306] Gardiner, pp. 483–485; 497.
[1307] Hale, p. 105.
[1308] Ellis, Pol. Res., III p. 116; I pp. 109, 103; Moerenhout, II p.
12.
[1309] Ellis, Pol. Res., IV pp. 412, 413, 416; Hale, p. 36; Remy, p.
XLVI; Chamisso, in Kotzebue, p. 149; Marcuse, p. 95.
[1310] Waitz-Gerland, VI p. 199; Meinicke, Die Inseln des stillen
Oceans, II p. 148.
[1311] Waitz-Gerland, VI pp. 216, 217; Meinicke, l.c., p. 254; Hale, p.
36.
[1312] Waitz-Gerland, VI p. 219.
[1313] Meinicke, l.c., p. 264.
[1314] Tutuila, as quoted by Schurtz, Anfänge des Landbesitzes, p. 355;
Lister, p. 54.
[1315] Parkinson, Dreissig Jahre, p. 535.
[1316] Tregear, p. 106; Thomson, New Zealand, I pp. 96, 97, 98; Taylor,
p. 355; Polack, II p. 69.
[1317] Geiseler, p. 42.
[1318] Kubary, Die Ebongruppe, pp. 36, 37.
[1319] Senfft, in Steinmetz’s Rechtsverhältnisse, pp. 448, 452;
Steinbach, p. 297; Krämer, Hawaii, etc., pp. 430, 431.
[1320] Jung, p. 68.
[1321] Kubary, Soc. Einr. der Pelauer, pp. 47, 48; Kubary, Die
Verbrechen, p. 85.
[1322] Kubary, Mortlock-Inseln, p. 253.
[1323] Waitz-Gerland, V, 2 pp. 120, 121, 78.
[1324] Ibid., p. 118.
[1325] Hale, p. 83.
[1326] Waitz-Gerland, l.c., p. 114.
[1327] See above, pp. 107–109.
[1328] Wilkes, p. 96; Hale, p. 102.
[1329] Codrington, Soc. Reg., p. 306; see also Codrington, The
Melanesians, pp. 59, 60.
[1330] Codrington, Soc. Reg., pp. 311, 312.
[1331] Somerville, New Georgia, p. 404.
[1332] Ribbe, p. 272.
[1333] Ribbe, p. 116.
[1334] Woodford, pp. 32, 33.
[1335] Inglis, p. 24.
[1336] Brainne, p. 241; Glaumont, p. 75; Lambert, pp. 82, 85; Meinicke,
Die Inseln des stillen Oceans, I p. 230; Rochas, pp. 245, 262.
[1337] Williams, pp. 18, 22; Seemann, p. 233; Hale, p. 59; Fison, Land
tenure in Fiji, pp. 336, 338, 343.
[1338] Pfeil, p. 69; Hahl, p. 82; Parkinson, Dreissig Jahre, p. 158.
[1339] Sorge, in Steinmetz’s Rechtsverhältnisse, pp. 401, 422.
[1340] Haddon, p. 334.
[1341] Hunt, p. 7.
[1342] See above, p. 107. In Tahiti there were also people destitute of
land, of whom we shall have to speak in this paragraph.
[1343] Ellis, Pol. Res., I p. 107.
[1344] Ibid., IV p. 414; Wilkes, IV p. 36; Remy, p. 155.
[1345] Thomson, Savage Island, p. 143.
[1346] Jung, p. 67.
[1347] Hale, p. 102.
[1348] Waterhouse, p. 316; Williams, pp. 43, 54; Wilkes, III p. 85;
Fison, Land tenure in Fiji, p. 343.
[1349] Ellis, Pol. Res., III p. 360; Thomson, New-Zealand, p. 148.
[1350] Rochas, p. 243.
[1351] Von Bülow, p. 193.
[1352] Williams, p. 29; Fison, l.c., p. 345; see also Wilkes, III p.
98.
[1353] Ellis, Pol. Res., III p. 122.
[1354] Thomson, Savage Island, p. 143.
[1355] See above, p. 322.
[1356] Krämer, Hawaii, etc., p. 334.
[1357] Ibid., p. 451; Jung, p. 65.
[1358] Codrington, Soc. Reg., p. 311.
[1359] Gardiner, pp. 485, 470.
[1360] Turner, Samoa, p. 173; Von Bülow, p. 194.
[1361] Mariner, II p. 350.
[1362] Thomson, Savage Island, p. 138.
[1363] Turner, Samoa, pp. 175, 171; Hale, p. 28.
[1364] Ellis, Pol. Res., III pp. 96–98; Wilkes, II p. 22.
[1365] Ellis, Pol. Res., IV pp. 413, 416, 417.
[1366] Wilkes, IV p. 37.
[1367] Waitz-Gerland, VI p. 199.
[1368] Radiguet, p. 156.
[1369] See above, p. 319.
[1370] Tutuila, in Schurtz, Anfänge des Landbesitzes, p. 355.
[1371] Parkinson, Dreissig Jahre, p. 535.
[1372] Polack, II p. 156.
[1373] Geiseler, p. 41.
[1374] Waitz-Gerland, VI p. 165.
[1375] Steinbach, p. 297; Krämer, Hawaii, etc., pp. 430, 431.
[1376] Waitz-Gerland, V, 2 p. 121.
[1377] Ibid., p. 112.
[1378] Rochas, pp. 245, 246; Glaumont, pp. 74, 75; Brainne, p. 246;
Lambert, pp. 79, 82, 83.
[1379] Williams, pp. 23, 90, 157, 39, 40; Waterhouse, p. 311; Fison,
Land tenure in Fiji, p. 342; Wilkes, III pp. 81, 108; see above, pp.
91, 92.
[1380] Codrington, The Melanesians, pp. 21, 22.
[1381] Elton, p. 98.
[1382] Hagen and Pineau, p. 335; Turner, Samoa, pp. 315, 328; Ribbe, p.
138.
[1383] Hahl, p. 77.
[1384] Sorge, in Steinmetz’s Rechtsverhältnisse, pp. 401, 414.
[1385] Parkinson, Dreissig Jahre, p. 396.
[1386] Haddon, p. 342.
[1387] Moerenhout, II p. 223.
[1388] See Gerland, Das Aussterben der Naturvölker, pp. 5, 6; and
Mahler’s essay, pp. 60, 61.
[1389] Ellis, Pol. Res., III p. 96.
[1390] One reason why these islanders wanted little labour may have
been that they relied for a considerable portion of their food on the
fruits of trees which, when once planted, required little care.
[1391] Gardiner, p. 486.
[1392] Hale, p. 85.
[1393] Mariner, II pp. 159–162.
[1394] Ellis, Pol. Res., III p. 96.
[1395] Wilkes, pp. 99, 108.
[1396] Williams, pp. 71, 32.
[1397] Blumentritt, Conquista, pp. 56, 57.
[1398] Ellis, Pol. Res., I p. 296.
[1399] Ibid., IV p. 152.
[1400] See above, p. 332.
[1401] Mariner, II p. 349.
[1402] Radiguet, p. 156.
[1403] See above, p. 338.
[1404] Williams, p. 45, and see above, p. 339.
[1405] We have not spoken of landed property among hunters, because
there are reasons enough to be found, apart from the appropriation of
the land, why slavery is not likely to exist among them. We will only
remark here that among many Australian tribes property in land is
stated to exist (see Dargun, pp. 49, 50). Sometimes even the whole of
the land seems to be held as property. “It seems curious” says
Macgillivray “to find at Cape York and the Prince of Wales’ Islands a
recognised division and ownership of land, seeing that none of it by
cultivation has been rendered fit for the permanent support of man.
According to Gi’om, there are laws regulating the ownership of every
inch of ground on Muralug and the neighbouring possessions of the
Kowraregas and I am led to believe such is likewise the case at Cape
York.” Macgillivray, as quoted by Haddon, p 432.
[1406] Wakefield wrote in 1849.
[1407] Wakefield, p. 326.
[1408] Ashley, I pp. 17, 18.
[1409] Inama-Sternegg, II pp. 73, 74.
[1410] Cunningham, English Industry, I p. 5.
[1411] Amira, p. 138.
[1412] Oppenheimer, David Ricardos Grundrententheorie, pp. 152, 153.
[1413] Ashley, I p. 21.
[1414] Ibid., p. 7.
[1415] Ibid., pp. 8, 9.
[1416] Ibid., pp. 22, 31.
[1417] Cunningham, English Industry, I p. 476.
[1418] Ashley, I p. 37.
[1419] Hildebrand, Natural-, Geld- und Creditwirthschaft, pp. 4, 8, 9,
14, 15, 18.
[1420] Absolute self-sufficiency does not appear to exist anywhere, not
even among savage tribes, see above, p. 255. But there certainly is a
great difference between those countries which get their chief
necessaries directly by their own labour, and those which produce
mainly for export.
[1421] Ellis, Pol. Res., IV pp. 416, 417.
[1422] Among many hunters, fishers and hunting agriculturists slavery
and serfdom are also wanting. But among these there are no labouring
classes (as opposed to owning classes) at all, whether free or
otherwise. Only the Eskimos have free servants.
[1423] Ashley, I p. 31.
[1424] Ibid., p. 27.
[1425] Inama-Sternegg, II pp. 167–177.
[1426] See Inama-Sternegg, II p. 283.
[1427] Ochenkowski, p. 11.
[1428] This was done on a large scale by the German landlords towards
the end of the Middle Ages, see Inama-Sternegg, III Part I p. 384.
[1429] Kovalewsky, Régime économique moderne, pp. 358–362.
[1430] Malthus, p. 438, note 1.
[1431] Lange, Die Arbeiterfrage, p. 227.
[1432] Ratzel, Anthropogeographie, II p. 242.
[1433] Krieger, p. 225.
[1434] Inama-Sternegg, I p. 382.
[1435] See Ochenkowski, pp. 11, 15, 21; Inama-Sternegg, I pp. 236, 237;
Cunningham, Western Civilization, pp. 73, 74, 95, 108, 192. According
to Marx (Vol. III Part II pp. 332, 333), the substitution of money
payments for dues in kind necessarily leads to free contracts between
landlords and cultivators.
Grupp (Zeitschrift für Kulturgeschichte, IV p. 242) asserts that the
rise of money economy caused the transition from slavery to serfdom. We
shall not discuss this point, as it is not directly connected with the
subject of this paragraph.
[1436] Ashley, I p. 13.
[1437] Cunningham, English Industry, I p. 95.
[1438] Ibid., p. 251.
[1439] Ochenkowski, p. 7.
[1440] Cunningham, l.c. p. 5.
[1441] Ibid., p. 407.
[1442] Ashley, I p. 13; Cunningham, l.c. I pp. 95, 96.
[1443] Cunningham, l.c. pp. 158, 159.
[1444] Ashley, I p. 17; Cunningham, l.c. p. 160.
[1445] Cunningham, l.c. p. 5.
[1446] Ashley, I p. 26.
[1447] Ochenkowski, pp. 33, 34.
[1448] Ashley, I p. 20.
[1449] See above, p. 350.
[1450] Cunningham, l.c. p. 253.
[1451] See Ashley, I. p. 27.
[1452] Ibid., pp. 38–40.
[1453] Ibid., p. 37.
[1454] Ibid., p. 29.
[1455] Cunningham, l.c. p. 225.
[1456] Ashley, I p. 32.
[1457] Cunningham, l.c. p. 305.
[1458] Ashley, II p. 277.
[1459] See Ashley, II pp. 264–267, and Ochenkowski, pp. 18–20.
[1460] Ashley, II p. 265.
[1461] Cunningham, l.c. pp. 356, 357. On the Black Death and its
effects, see also Thorold Rogers, Work and Wages, pp.5–26, and The
Economic Interpretation of History by the same author, pp. 24 sqq.
[1462] Cunningham, l.c. p. 306.
[1463] Ibid., pp. 307, 308.
[1464] Ibid., pp. 355, 356.
[1465] See Ochenkowski, p. 37.
[1466] This date is given by Ashley, II p. 264.
[1467] Cunningham, l.c., p. 361.
[1468] Lange (Die Arbeiterfrage, p. 241) also remarks that in England
the transition from agriculture to sheep breeding engendered a relative
over-population. On relative and absolute over-population, see further
Oppenheimer, Das Bevölkerungsgesetz, etc., pp. 79–84.
[1469] Ashley, II p. 267.
[1470] Ashley, II pp. 270–272; Cunningham, l.c., p. 362.
[1471] Ashley, II pp. 272, 273.
[1472] Cunningham, l.c., p. 474.
[1473] Ashley, II p. 281.
[1474] Ibid., p. 284.
[1475] Cunningham, l.c., p. 408.
[1476] Ibid., p. 393.
[1477] Ashley, II pp. 336, 352.
[1478] Cunningham, l.c., pp. 361, 476.
[1479] See Ashley, II pp. 286–288.
[1480] See Gonner, Article “Bauernbefreiung in Grossbritannien” in
Handwörterbuch, 2nd edition, II pp. 593, 594.
[1481] Inama-Sternegg, I pp. 110, 111, 163–165.
[1482] Ibid., pp. 81–83.
[1483] Ibid., pp. 72, 60, 70.
[1484] Ibid., pp. 147, 148, 165.
[1485] Ibid., pp. 119, 120.
[1486] Ibid., pp. 123, 124.
[1487] Ibid., pp. 207–217.
[1488] Ibid., pp. 220, 221, 279–281.
[1489] Ibid., pp. 382, 235, 236.
[1490] Ibid., pp. 226–257.
[1491] Ibid., pp. 237, 367–371, 381.
[1492] Ibid., pp. 236, 367.
[1493] Ibid., pp., 240, 241, 319, 355. Even in the Merovingian period
there were already such people, according to him, see pp. 122, 124,
163.
[1494] Ibid., pp. 241, 382.
[1495] Ibid., p. 367.
[1496] Lamprecht, III pp. 56, 57. See also Inama-Sternegg, II pp. 70,
164, 285.
[1497] Inama-Sternegg, II pp. 115, 145, 84, 85, 207, 209.
[1498] Ibid., pp. 4–27. Similarly in France, in the 12th century, the
landlords encouraged emigration to the outlying, newly reclaimed
districts. Villeins who were willing to settle in these parts were
granted special privileges, a house and land were given them at a
nominal rent (Luchaire, in Lavisse, Vol. II Part. II p. 336.)
[1499] Inama-Sternegg, II pp. 36–38.
[1500] Ibid., pp. 70, 71, 63.
[1501] Ibid., p. 64.
[1502] Lamprecht, III p. 63.
[1503] Inama-Sternegg, III Part I pp. 394, 395.
[1504] Ibid., II pp. 203, 204.
[1505] Ibid., III Part I pp. 1–13.
[1506] Lamprecht, V Part I p. 82; Inama-Sternegg, l.c., p. 212.
[1507] Inama-Sternegg, l.c., pp. 38, 214, 237, 285 sqq.
[1508] Ibid., pp. 366, 367.
[1509] Ibid., pp. 261–265.
[1510] Ibid., p. 220.
[1511] Ibid., pp. 176, 201, 249.
[1512] Ibid., pp. 202–205, 208–210, 225, 251, 255, 256, 277; Lamprecht,
l.c., p. 82.
[1513] Inama-Sternegg, l.c., pp. 46, 174, 175.
[1514] Ibid., pp. 48, 50, 51, 213, 223, 241, 282, 303–309, 314, 408,
413.
[1515] Lamprecht, l.c., p. 83; see also Inama-Sternegg, l.c., pp. 54,
55, 420.
[1516] Inama-Sternegg, l.c., pp. 56–61.
[1517] Ibid., p. 67.
[1518] Ibid., pp. 54, 398, 417, 419, 411.
[1519] Ibid., p. 420; see also p. 311.
[1520] Ashley, II pp. 281, 282; see also Inama-Sternegg, III Part II p.
201.
[1521] On the history of the rural classes in Eastern Germany, see
Knapp, Die Bauernbefreiung.
It may be of some interest to point out the great resemblance between
the rise of Roman colonatus as described by Max Weber and the rise of
serfdom in Eastern Germany. In both countries most of the peasants were
originally free (Weber, Römische Agrargeschichte, p. 244; Knapp, I p.
32). The landlords, who formerly had passed most of their time outside
their properties, when they lost their military function took the
cultivation of their manors into their own hands (Weber, l.c., pp. 243,
244; Knapp, I p. 37). They soon acquired rights of jurisdiction over
the peasants (Weber, l.c., p. 260; Knapp, I p. 33), and began to compel
them to work on the demesne (Weber, l.c., p. 244; Knapp, I p. 40). The
cultivators lost the right of emigrating (Weber, l.c., pp. 256–258;
Knapp, I p. 42). Even the Bauernlegen, i.e. the joining of a peasant’s
holding to the demesne, occurred in Rome as well as in Eastern Germany
(Weber, l. c, p. 247; Knapp, I pp. 50, 55). And it is most remarkable
that in both countries the rise of serfdom took place at an advanced
period of their history.
This proves once more that the institutions of different countries may
closely resemble each other, even in many details, without the one
country having derived its institutions from the other. For even the
influence of Roman law cannot serve as an explanation of this
resemblance, as Roman law takes little notice of colonatus (Weber l.c.,
p. 259).
[1522] We must admit that we are not sure whether the facts of Roman
agrarian history agree with our theory. In Rome slavery prevailed to a
large extent at a time when the relative scarcity of land gave rise to
the difficulties about the ager publicus.
We shall not attempt to solve this question. We will only mention our
impression, on reading Weber’s Römische Agrargeschichte, viz. that,
even in the time of the Empire, though some land fetched a high price,
all disposable land had not yet been appropriated, and therefore the
want of servile labour remained. At the beginning of the Empire free
labourers were very scarce, and could only be got to help the landlords
in sowing and at harvest time on condition of receiving a pretty
considerable part of the harvest (Weber, l.c., pp. 236–238). Under
Augustus and Tiberius the procuring of slaves from abroad became very
difficult, and this led to kidnapping of men by the landlords (Ibid.,
p. 242). In the boundary provinces, even in later centuries, barbarians
were imported and became coloni attached to the soil (Ibid., pp. 259,
260).
Slavery proper declined from the beginning of the Empire (Meyer,
Altertum, p. 71); but the coloni, who originally seem to have been free
tenants, gradually lost the right of removing from the manor they
inhabited (Weber, l.c., pp. 242, 248–250, 256–258).
We must, however, bear in mind that the writers on the economic history
of Rome still disagree very much, not only as to the explanation of the
facts, but as to the facts themselves. See Max Weber’s article on
“Agrarverhältnisse im Altertum”, in Handwörterbuch der
Staatswissenschaften, 3rd edition, Vol. I.
[1523] The reader will remember that there are tribes among which land
is abundant, but nobody can live upon land and human labour only: the
possession of capital is necessary, and those destitute of capital have
to apply to the owners for employment. The best instance is furnished
by the pastoral tribes.
We have purposely avoided speaking of countries in which all land has
been appropriated and capital also plays a great part, as it is the
case in the manufacturing countries of modern Europe. Here the
structure of society is very complicated and difficult to disentangle.
We think, however, that here also the most important fact is the
appropriation of the soil.
[1524] “The earth, as we have already seen, is not the only agent of
nature, which has a productive power; but it is the only one, or nearly
so, that one set of men take to themselves, to the exclusion of others;
and of which, consequently, they can appropriate the benefits. The
waters of rivers, and of the sea, by the power which they have of
giving movement to our machines, carrying our boats, nourishing our
fish, have also a productive power; the wind which turns our mills, and
even the heat of the sun, work for us; but happily no one has yet been
able to say, the wind and the sun are mine, and the service which they
render must be paid for.” J. B. Say, Économie Politique, as quoted by
Ricardo, p. 35.
[1525] This is the general rule. We are fully aware that there are
exceptions due to secondary causes, internal and external. Moreover,
open resources do not necessarily lead to slavery or serfdom: there are
many simple societies in which there are no labouring, as opposed to
ruling classes, everybody, or nearly everybody, working for his own
wants (e.g. among many hunters, fishers, and hunting agriculturists).
[1526] Malthus (p. 453), speaking of war, says: “One of its first
causes and most powerful impulses was undoubtedly an insufficiency of
room and food”.
[1527] See Wakefield, pp. 126–134, on the happiness of settlers in new
countries.
[1528] A good instance is afforded by the Angoni as described by Wiese.
Their king, he tells us, subjected neighbouring tribes and brought them
to his own country. “He did not care for the territory deserted by
these tribes. It was his chief aim to have the people; to landed
property he attached little value” (Wiese, p. 197).
[1529] Lange, Die Arbeiterfrage, pp. 199, 334.
[1530] See Melching, p. 19.
[1531] Guppy, pp. 44, 45.
[1532] See above, p. 90.
[1533] Ribbe, pp. 100, 141.
[1534] Sorge, in Steinmetz’s Rechtsverhältnisse, p. 399.
[1535] Somerville, New Hebrides, pp. 3, 5, 7, 4.
[1536] Hagen and Pineau, p. 331; see also Meinicke, Neue Hebriden, p.
340.
[1537] De Vaux, p. 330; Turner, Samoa, p. 341; Rochas, p. 229; see also
Brainne, p. 248.
[1538] Parkinson, Im Bismarck-Archipel, pp. 98, 99, 101; Danks, pp.
294, 292, 293; See also Melching, pp. 43, 44.
[1539] Parkinson, Dreissig Jahre, p. 269.
[1540] Williams, p. 178; Pritchard, p. 372.
[1541] The condition of women is not, however, equally bad in all
Melanesian islands. Among the Western Tribes of Torres Straits “the
women appear to have had a good deal to say on most questions, and were
by no means down-trodden or ill-used” (Haddon, p. 357; see also
Meinicke, Die Torresstrasse, p. 115). And Somerville, speaking of New
Georgia in the Solomon Islands, says: “In the eastern part the
treatment of women is notably good. I have but rarely seen them at
work” (Somerville, New Georgia, pp. 405, 406).
[1542] See the details given in Part I Chap. II § 5.
[1543] Cunningham (English Industry, I p. 77) justly remarks: “While
there is no opportunity for exchange, it is not so well worth while for
anyone to preserve a surplus; a very abundant harvest is more likely to
be prodigally used within the year, and so with all other supplies; but
the existence of opportunities for trade makes it well worth while to
gather a store that far exceeds any prospective need and to stow in
warehouses for sale all that need not be used by the producers to
satisfy their immediate wants; the conditions are present which still
further favour the accumulation of wealth.”
[1544] Kohler, Das Recht der Papuas, p. 364; Schmoller, Grundriss, I p.
243.
[1545] Cairnes, p. 50. In ancient Rome, at the end of the Republic,
plantations of olives and vines were worked with slaves, whereas cereal
crops were raised on lands leased to coloni; see Weber, Article
“Agrarverhältnisse im Altertum”, in Handwörterbuch der
Staatswissenschaften, 3rd edition, vol. I p. 166.
[1546] Köler, pp. 84, 154.
[1547] Zündel, pp. 408, 409, 387.
[1548] Kingsley, West African studies, p. 427; see also De Cardi’s
description of the slave system of Bonny, ibid., pp. 516 sqq.
[1549] Dalton, p. 58.
[1550] Thomson, New Zealand, pp. 150, 125.
[1551] Polack, II p. 53; Brown, New Zealand, p. 30.
[1552] Dalton, p. 58.
[1553] Colquhoun, p. 54.
[1554] Modigliani, Nias, p. 525.
[1555] Nieuwenhuis, Quer durch Borneo. I p. 66; II p. 96.
[1556] See above, p. 197, note 1.
[1557] Blumentritt, Conquista, p. 65.
[1558] Pogge, Muata Jamwo, p. 232.
[1559] Kerr, II p. 129.
[1560] Bérenger-Féraud, p. 59.
[1561] Munzinger, Ostafr. Stud., p. 484.
[1562] Madrolle, p. 92.
[1563] Arcin, p. 275.
[1564] Among the ancient Germans the bearing of arms was a sign of
freedom (Amira, p. 129).
[1565] Martius, p. 71.
[1566] Azara, II pp. 109, 110.
[1567] Powell, On regimentation, p. CXII.
[1568] Among the Soninkays and Malinkays of French Guinea the slave
warriors are the only force on which the chiefs can rely; for the
freemen would not always readily answer to the appeal of their lords.
Arcin, p. 275.
[1569] Ingram, p. 44.
[1570] Ibid., pp. 51, 52.
[1571] Ibid., pp. 52, 53.
[1572] Goldstein, p. 362.
[1573] Torday and Joyce, Congo Free State, p. 139.
[1574] Ingram, pp. 58, 59.
[1575] De Groot, p. 455.
[1576] Blumentritt, Conquista, p. 53.
[1577] Lenz, p. 59.
[1578] Compiègne, Okanda, pp. 194, 195.
[1579] Torday and Joyce, Ba-Mbala, p. 411.
[1580] Martius, p. 63.
[1581] See above, p. 269.
[1582] Leroy-Beaulieu, p. 80. See also Malthus (Bettany’s edition, pp.
423, 424): “In the feudal times, the landlords could in no other way
spend their incomes than by maintaining a great number of idle
followers.”
[1583] Coquilhat, pp. 365, 265.
[1584] Finsch, Die Goldküste, pp. 359, 360.
[1585] Among hunting agriculturists we have found 34 positive and 43
negative cases; among agriculturists of the higher stages 136 positive
and 52 negative cases.
[1586] Morgan, Anc. Soc., p. 136.
[1587] See Salvioli’s article on the struggles between pastoral and
agricultural peoples.
[1588] See above, p. 295, and Grosse, p. 134.
[1589] Martius, pp. 123, 131, 131 note, 154 note, 531–533, 772.
[1590] Robidé, pp. 345 sqq.
[1591] Ibid., pp. 53, 218, 221, 288, 289, 232, 255, 317. See also
“Nieuw Guinea”, pp. 186–192.
[1592] Robidé, p. 227.
[1593] Ibid., pp. 277, 242.
[1594] Ottow and Geissler, pp. 152, 153.
[1595] See Blumentritt, Conquista.
[1596] Cooper, p. 183.
[1597] Colquhoun, p. 70.
[1598] Rousselet, p. 223.
[1599] See above, p. 287.
[1600] Ingram, pp. 19, 38.
[1601] Ibid., p. 268.
[1602] Ibid., 224, 225, 230–233. On the African slave-trade, see also
Ratzel, Anthropogeographie, II (1891), pp. 386, 387.
[1603] Polack, I, pp. 78, 79.
[1604] In ancient Wales “the price of a slave was one pound, but of one
brought across the sea, a pound and a half. The slave who was brought
from a distance was much less likely to escape, or even to attempt it,
and was therefore a more valuable property; this principle still holds
good among slave-owners.” Cunningham, English Industry, I, p. 117 note
6.
[1605] In the first edition we had spoken of negative internal causes.
Dr. Tönnies, in his review, rightly remarks that this expression is not
quite correct.
[1606] Our “external causes” correspond with what has sometimes been
called condiciones, as opposed to causae proper.
[1607] Viz. if they have no opportunity to emigrate to countries with
open resources.
[1608] Viz. generally speaking. Peculiar circumstances (e.g. a rapid
development of industry) may bring about a temporary scarcity of
labour. But the growth of population in most cases will soon bring this
state of things to an end.
[1609] We have repeatedly remarked that the condition of countries with
open resources is quite different: land is abundant, but the supply of
labour is limited; therefore the ruling classes attach little value to
land as such, but their chief aim is to people the land with men who
enter into their service. A good instance is given by Junod in his
account of the Baronga (near Delagoa Bay): “According to their laws,
the soil belongs exclusively to the chief. But practically it belongs
to every one. Nobody buys land. It is given gratuitously to whosoever
wants to settle in the country. By simply declaring himself a subject
of the chief, a native may acquire as much land as he wants for his
subsistence.” (Junod, pp. 186, 187).
[1610] Lange, Die Arbeiterfrage, pp. 12, 13.
[1611] Hecquard, p. 313.
[1612] There is another reason: foreign women are sometimes procured
for wives. But we may leave this case out of consideration as being
foreign to our subject.
[1613] Dr. Vierkandt, reviewing the first edition of this work, remarks
that there is no internal connection between the results of the
investigation and the distinction of economic groups, as the existence
or non-existence of slavery appears to depend not only on the economic
state of society, but on many causes which have little to do with this
state.
Though we fully admit this last, we think our division of the savage
tribes into economic groups is justified by the results of our
investigation. This division has led us to the following conclusions.
Hunters and fishers, and equally the lowest agricultural group, as Dr.
Vierkandt himself observes, generally do not keep slaves. The state of
pastoral nomadism is also unfavourable to the growth of slavery. On the
other hand, agriculturists of the higher stages are very likely to keep
slaves.
Having arrived at these preliminary results, we have inquired which
causes engender this connection between slavery and the economic state
of society. We have also asked for the causes of the exceptions to the
rules above mentioned. So we have come to an understanding of the
internal connection between slavery and the other factors of social
life. We cannot think our final results would have been obtained as
well in any other way.
[1614] In the Shortland Islands (Solomon group) many of the common
people are children of slave parents. Ribbe, p. 138.
[1615] Among the Tlinkits, in Holmberg’s time, it was the custom to
sacrifice slaves at some great feasts; but the master often gave a good
slave the opportunity of hiding during the feast; he could then return
afterwards with impunity. Generally speaking, no slaves were sacrificed
but the old and sickly and those who, being defective in some way or
other, caused their master more trouble than profit. Except at the
great feasts slaves were scarcely ever killed; for they were valuable
and difficult to replace. (Holmberg, I p. 51). We see that the keeping
of slaves had become profitable and so the old custom of sacrificing
slaves was going out of practice.
[1616] To give one instance, Guppy states that in Ugi, in the Solomon
Islands, “infanticide is the prevailing custom. When a man needs
assistance in his declining years, his props are not his own sons but
youths obtained by purchase from the St. Christoval natives who, as
they attain to manhood, acquire a virtual independence, passing almost
beyond the control of their original owner. It is from this cause that
but a small proportion of the Ugi natives have been born on the island,
three-fourths of them having been brought as youths to supply the place
of offspring killed in infancy”. Guppy, p. 42.
[1617] See Post, Ethn. Jur., I p. 366.
[1618] Post, l.c.
[1619] Among the Chingpaws of Upper Burma slaves can always be
liberated by their parents by means of a payment (Wehrli, p. 37).
[1620] Among the Tlinkits at the feast held in commemoration of the
deceased, the man who gave the feast used to part with some of his
slaves, whether by sacrificing or emancipating them was left to the
decision of the priest. Erman, p. 382.
[1621] Among the Bayaka “if the deceased leaves no heir, his wives and
goods pass into the possession of one of his slaves, who thus becomes a
free man.” Torday and Joyce, Ba-Yaka, p. 44.
[1622] Among the Ewe-speaking peoples of the Slave Coast “according to
custom, any slave who takes refuge in a temple and dedicates himself to
the service of the god, cannot be reclaimed by his owner; but as by
paying a fee to the priest the owner can close the doors of all the
temples in the neighbourhood to his fugitive slaves, this provision of
an asylum for an ill-treated slave is more apparent than real”. Ellis,
Ewe-speaking peoples, p. 220.
[1623] Among the Chinooks, the flattening of the head, “appears to be a
sort of mark of royalty or badge of aristocracy, for their slaves are
not permitted to treat their children thus”. (Swan, The Northwest
Coast, p. 168). Among the Malays of Menangkabao slaves were not allowed
to dress in the same manner as free people or live in houses like those
of the free or wear gold or silver ornaments or silks. (Willinck, p.
141).
[1624] See also Post, Ethn. Jur., I pp. 370 sqq.
[1625] See Steinmetz, Strafe, II pp. 306–315.
[1626] See Post, Ethn. Jur., I, p. 377.
[1627] Among the ancient Germans, slaves were obliged to wear their
hair short (Amira, p. 139). Similarly in Dorey (New-Guinea); see
“Nieuw-Guinea”, p. 149.
[1628] The facts do not seem to justify Déniker’s conclusion that the
moral code of savages disapproves of compassion with slaves, because it
is not profitable to the tribe. (Déniker, Races et peuples, p. 299.)
[1629] On the favourable position of native-born slaves in
North-eastern Africa, see above, p. 267.
[1630] Déniker remarks that, together with the formation of social
classes, a distinction between the different kinds of unfree arises.
“The lowest grade are the slaves in the proper sense, who are not even
regarded as human beings, whereas, at the top of the scale, we find
people, unfree by birth, but able to arrive at a position not very
different from that of the free citizens of the upper-classes.”
Déniker, Races et peuples, p. 296.
[1631] In Dahomey “agriculture is despised, because slaves are employed
in it.” Burton, II p. 248.
[1632] Among the Battas of Mandheling and Pertibie only the nobles are
allowed to keep slaves. The higher nobles may keep as many slaves as
they like, the lower only two or three (Willer, p. 43).
[1633] Among the Ewe it occurs that a slave is emancipated by his
master. “But, generally speaking, slaves do not care to be free, for
they are treated as members of the family and are so contented that
they do not long for a change in their condition.” Herold, p. 170. The
slaves, formerly kept by the Koniagas, evidently thought otherwise of
their servile state: for on the arrival of the Russians, many slaves
took refuge to them (Holmberg I p. 79).
[1634] The Athka Aleuts sometimes preferred suicide to captivity in war
or slavery (Petroff, p. 158).
[1635] “In the district of Allas [in Sumatra] a custom prevails, by
which, if a man has been sold to the hill people, however unfairly, he
is restricted on his return from associating with his countrymen as
their equal, unless he brings with him a sum of money, and pays a fine
for his re-enfranchisement to his kalippah or chief. This regulation
has taken its rise from an idea of contamination among the people, and
from art and avarice among the chiefs.” Marsden, p. 255. Similarly,
among the Maori, according to Polack (II p. 55), “chiefs who have
tasted of slavery are often taunted by their friends, by whom they may
have been ransomed, as having been slaves.” Brown (New Zealand, p. 62)
remarks: “They attach great importance to the circumstance of never
having been taken in war.”
[1636] Among the Ewe, the price of a slave is 140–200 shilling, so the
relatively rich only are able to purchase slaves (Herold, p. 168).
[1637] On the West African coast, from Lagos to Cameroon, the master of
the house has over his wives a limited, over his male and female slaves
an unlimited power (Kingsley, West African studies, p. 439). Among the
Bali tribes of Cameroon, female slaves are concubines without any
recognized rights.
[1638] See Schmoller, Grundriss, I p. 339.
[1639] Winwood Reade, speaking of the coast tribes of West Africa, from
Senegambia to Angola, remarks: “In those places where the slave-buying
still goes on, the people are more disposed to go to war, to convict
criminals, and to make use of any pretence to procure slaves. And it is
also certain that there are regions where an almost constant war is
carried on for the purpose of obtaining slaves” (Winwood Reade, p.
291).
[1640] Bagehot, p. 73; see also Ingram, pp. 5, 6.
[1641] Ingram, p. 5; see also Schmoller, Grundriss, I p. 338.
[1642] See Lange, Die Arbeiterfrage, p. 63.
[1643] Such is the case for instance in Cameroon (Hutter, p. 36). Among
the Bali tribes of Cameroon the nobles wear their nails long, in order
to show that they are not slaves (Ibid., p. 385). See also Westermarck,
Moral Ideas, II pp. 272, 273.
[1644] See Ingram, pp. 9–11. All this applies much less to early
slavery than to slavery in its more advanced stages. Yet even the
patriarchal slave system of primitive societies sometimes has a bad
influence on the slaves. Polack, speaking of the New Zealand slaves,
remarks: “Debarred from the sight of their relatives, they become
reckless of moral feeling.... Obscenity and lying are among the
practices most persisted in by the slaves, and to their demoralized
state may be attributed the greater part of the wars and dissensions of
this irritable people; they may be justly regarded as the greatest
drawback to the prosperity and civilization hitherto of the New
Zealanders” (Polack, II pp. 58, 59).
[1645] Brinton, Races and peoples, p. 46.
[1646] Ferrero, La morale primitiva, etc.
[1647] Ripley, p. 564.
[1648] Ratzel, Anthropogeographie, II pp. 387, 388.
[1649] Powell, On Regimentation, p. CXII.
[1650] Adult males are not desired for slaves, because they are very
difficult to manage. This is the case even among the semi-civilized
Mohammedans of Baghirmi: see Nachtigal, II p. 615. The North African
slave-hunters, according to Goldstein (p. 367), have a preference for
girls, but also capture boys; full-grown men, however, are generally
killed.
[1651] Slaves have also sometimes been employed in manufactures. Such,
according to Cunningham, was the case in ancient Tyre. Slaves also
“worked as artisans in the factories of Athens”. Cunningham, Western
Civilization, pp. 66, 110. But we think such an employment of slaves is
rather an exception.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SLAVERY AS AN INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
