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].