But even if the idea of subjecting tribesmen or enemies had entered the

minds of these hunters, hunting slaves would not be of any use. For

hunting requires the utmost application of strength and skill;

therefore a compulsory hunting system cannot exist. If a man is to

exert all his faculties to the utmost, there must be other motives than

mere compulsion. It is for the same reason that in countries where

manufactures are highly developed, a system of labour other than

slavery is required. “It remains certain” Stuart Mill remarks “that

slavery is incompatible with any high state of the arts of life, and

any great efficiency of labour. For all products which require much

skill, slave countries are usually dependent on foreigners.... All

processes carried on by slave labour are conducted in the rudest and

most unimproved manner” [860]. And Cairnes says that the slave is

“unsuited for all branches of industry which require the slightest

care, forethought, or dexterity. He cannot be made to co-operate with

machinery; he can only be trusted with the coarsest implements; he is

incapable of all but the rudest forms of labour” [861]. Mr. Kruijt,

describing the natives of Central Celebes, speaks in the same way: “The

free Alifur works as hard as his slave and even harder; for during the

hours that there is nothing to do in the gardens, the freeman has to

mend the furniture, plait baskets, and cut handles from wood or horn

etc., all which work the slave does not understand” [862]. And Schurtz,

in his most valuable essay on African industry, remarks: “Slavery has

little to do with the development of industry. Among the Negroes of

Africa only free people spend most of their time in industrial

pursuits, the slaves performing at most subordinate functions. In the

Soudan there are slaves who work on their own account and pay only a

tribute to their master; but it scarcely ever happens that slaves are

made to work in large numbers for the purpose of manufacturing goods.

Those artisans who belong to pariah tribes are despised, but are not

slaves, and the unwritten law defends them from arbitrary treatment”

[863]. A freeman may give his whole mind to his work, because he knows

he will enjoy the fruits of it, and still more because he will win a

reputation by it among his fellow-men. The slave has not these motives;

he works mainly on compulsion [864]. And as both hunting and higher

industrial labour require much personal application, neither can be

well performed by slaves. Here extremes meet, if hunting and

manufactures are to be considered as extremes, which we are inclined to

doubt, at least regarding those tribes that have brought the art of

hunting to a high perfection; such hunting probably supposes more

development of cerebral power than the lowest stage of agriculture

[865]. But there is a difference between hunting and manufacturing

nations. In manufacturing countries, besides the higher kinds of

labour, there are also many sorts of ruder work to be done, that can be

done by slaves as well. Moreover, slavery among a manufacturing nation

may date from a former period and have passed into the laws and

customs; then social life is based upon it; and so it remains for a

long time after its economic basis has fallen. Slavery in such cases,

by a gradual mitigation, is made to agree with changed economic

conditions: the slave is given a proportionate share in the produce of

his labour; he is allowed to buy his freedom by means of his savings;

or his obligations are restricted to fixed tributes and services, and

so the slave becomes a serf [866]. But the Australians and other

hunting tribes have not probably ever done anything but hunting; and so

neither present wants induce them to make slaves, nor do the traditions

of the past maintain slavery [867]. We may add, that supervision of the

work of a hunting slave would be nearly impossible. An agricultural

slave can work in the presence of and surveyed by his master; but

hunting requires rather independent action.

So slaves cannot be employed in hunting. They might, however, be set to

do women’s work, i.e. “erecting habitations, collecting fuel and water,

carrying burdens, procuring roots and delicacies of various kinds,

making baskets for cooking roots and other purposes, preparing food,

and attending to the children” [868]. But, first, nomadic life and the

requirements of the work would, in this case too, very much facilitate

the escape of the slave, the more so, as the slaves, when the men are

engaged in hunting, would be under the supervision of the women only.

Moreover, the men are not likely to take the pains of procuring slaves

for the sole benefit of their wives. We must also take into

consideration, that these small tribes are very much in need of the

forces of every man in hunting and still more in warfare; therefore an

able-bodied boy will be brought up to be a hunter and warrior, rather

than given to the women as a slave. And finally, where war is frequent,

such slaves, not being able to fight, would soon be eliminated in the

struggle for life, whereas women are often spared because they are

women [869]. Therefore it is only among tribes which either live in

peaceful surroundings, or are so powerful as not to have to fear their

neighbours very much, that men performing women’s work are to be found.

Crantz speaks of a young Greenlander who was unable to navigate,

because when a child he had been taken too much care of by his mother.

“This man was employed by other Greenlanders like a maid-servant,

performing all female labour, in which he excelled” [870]. Among the

Central Eskimos, according to Boas, “cripples who are unable to hunt do

the same kind of work as women” [871]. Tanner tells us of an Ojibway,

who behaved entirely as a woman, and was kept as a wife by another

Ojibway. He excelled in female labour, which he had performed all his

life. Such men, according to Tanner, are found among all Indian tribes;

they are called agokwa [872]. But in all these cases the men who

perform female labour are not slaves. Crantz’s young Greenlander

probably was glad to earn his livelihood in this way. Domestic labour

among the Greenlanders is not generally wanted. Widows and orphans are

sometimes taken as servants; but this is done rather as a favour; for

else they would have to starve [873]. Among the Central Eskimos only

those who are unable to hunt do the same work as women; a man able to

hunt will never be compelled to do female work. And the men of Tanner’s

narrative are entirely treated as women and somehow perform the sexual

functions of wives; the performing of domestic labour only would not

probably be sufficient for them to get their subsistence [874]. Only

where either peaceful surroundings or a fighting power much superior to

that of the neighbours makes the existence of men performing female

labour possible, and where at the same time female labour is so much

valued that the more labourers can be got to do it the better, can

there be male slaves performing women’s work [875]. Whether these

requirements are fulfilled in any of our positive cases, will appear

from our investigation of these cases.

The non-existence of slavery among most hunters and fishers now being

accounted for, we shall proceed to an inquiry into the causes of the

existence of slavery among 18 hunting and fishing tribes.

§ 2. The slave-keeping tribes of the Pacific Coast of North America.

Going on to account for our 18 positive cases, we may remark in the

first place, that what we have said about the causes preventing the

existence of slavery, applies much more to hunters than to fishers.

Fishers are not necessarily so nomadic as hunters; and where a

sedentary life prevails, there is more domestic work to be done, and

the slaves cannot so easily escape. Moreover it is not so very

difficult to control a fishing slave, who is in the same boat with the

master. The slave may also be used to row the boat. Therefore it may be

of some use to inquire, how many hunting and how many fishing tribes

are to be found among our positive and negative cases. Fishing in our

sense includes the killing of water-animals besides fish: whales,

seals, etc. Where a tribe lives by hunting and fishing, we shall call

it a hunting or a fishing tribe, according to the predominating mode of

subsistence.

One difficulty arises here. Some tribes, especially Australian, subsist

largely on wild fruits, roots, berries, grasses, etc., shell-fish and

lower land-animals, such as beetles, lizards, rats, snakes, etc.; so

that neither hunting in the true sense nor fishing prevails [876]. For

our purpose it will be most convenient to classify them under the head

of hunters; for the peculiar features of fishing tribes which we have

enumerated: fixed habitations, easy supervision of the work of slaves,

drudgery such as rowing, are not found among them. Moreover, the

gathering of wild-growing vegetable food and the catching of the lower

animals, in Australia too, are chiefly incumbent on women, whereas the

men hunt; so the division of labour is the same as among other hunters

regarding the quality of the work of each sex; only the quantity of

male labour is less and of female labour greater here.

Of our positive cases the following are hunters: some tribes about

Puget Sound, Atnas, Similkameem, Abipones, Tehuelches. The rest are

fishers.

Of our negative cases the following are fishers: Eskimos (9 tribes),

Hupas, Fuegians, Southern Nicobarese, Tuski, Ghiliaks, Koryakes. The

rest are hunters, with the exception of the Chepewyans, of whom

Bancroft says: “Their food consists mostly of fish and reindeer, the

latter being easily taken in snares. Much of their land is barren, but

with sufficient vegetation to support numerous herds of reindeer, and

fish abound in their lakes and streams” [877]. So we are not able to

ascertain whether hunting or fishing predominates among the Chepewyans.

We see that 5 hunting and 14 fishing tribes have slaves; 54 hunting and

15 fishing tribes have no slaves [878]. In other words: of the hunting

tribes 8½ per cent., of the fishing tribes 48 per cent. have slaves.

We may say now, that hunting is very unfavourable, and fishing not

nearly so much so, to the existence of slavery. But it remains to be

explained, why a few hunting tribes keep slaves, and why among the

fishers the tribes with and without slaves are nearly equally divided.

Now it is worth noticing, that the great majority of our positive cases

(all except the Abipones, Tehuelches and Kamchadales) belong to one

geographical group: they all live on or near the Pacific Coast of North

America, from Behring Strait to the Northern boundary of California.

Therefore we may suppose that the existence of slavery among all these

tribes is due to the same or nearly the same causes; and a survey of

the economic state of this group will probably enable us to find these

causes. We shall examine then, whether slavery among the three tribes

outside this group can be accounted for by the same causes, or if

special causes are at work there.

The circumstances that may be considered favouring the existence of

slavery on the Pacific Coast are the following:

1º Abundance of food. The Aleuts eat only the best parts of the dried

fish; the rest is thrown away [879]. Bancroft tells us that “although

game is plentiful, the Haidas are not a race of hunters, but derive

their food chiefly from the innumerable multitude of fish and sea

animals, which, each variety in its season, fill the coast waters”

[880]. The Tacullies, “are able to procure food with but little labour”

[881]. Our informant also speaks of the “abundant natural supplies in

ocean, stream, and forest” of the Puget Sound Indians [882]. The

Tlinkits, according to Holmberg, do not take great pains to secure

their food; the ebbing tide leaves a multitude of sea-animals ashore,

which they can gather without difficulty [883]. Kane remarks: “Salmon

is almost the only food used by the Indians on the Lower Columbia

River, the two months’ fishing affording a sufficient supply to last

them the whole year round” [884]. About the tribes of W. Washington and

N. W. Oregon Gibbs remarks: “With all these sources of subsistence, the

greater part of which is afforded spontaneously by the land or water,

nothing but indolence or want of thrift could lead to want among a

population even greater than we have reason to believe at any time

inhabited this district” [885]. The salmon fishery “has always been the

chief and an inexhaustible source of food for the Chinooks, who,

although skilful fishermen, have not been obliged to invent a great

variety of methods or implements for the capture of the salmon, which

rarely if ever have failed them” [886]. The Ahts also, in Jewitt’s

time, could procure an immense quantity of salmon with the greatest

facility [887]. Several other tribes on the Pacific Coast have fixed

habitations and live together in large groups, as we soon shall see;

therefore amongst them too food must be abundant, though this is not

explicitly stated.

The consequence is, that the produce of labour exceeds the primary

wants of the labourer much more than for instance in Australia, and the

use of slaves is greater.

2º. Most of these tribes live chiefly by fishing (see above). Moreover,

there is a great variety of food. The Koniagas catch salmon, haddock,

whales, seals, deer, reindeer, waterfowls, a small white fish and

grizzly bears [888]. The Tlinkits eat fish, various kinds of meat and

plants, and shell-fish; formerly they also killed whales [889]. The

Haidas have abundance of game and fish. They eat also birds, and

various kinds of vegetables. Shell-fish are gathered by the women

[890]. Of some tribes about Puget Sound we are told: “Fish is their

chief dependence, though game is taken in much larger quantities than

by the Nootkas” [891]. The Ahts eat fish, roots and berries, and hunt

the deer [892]. The Tacullies eat fish (chiefly salmon), herbs and

berries and small game [893]. The Similkameem eat fresh and dried game

of all kinds, the seed of the sunflower, various roots, edible fungi,

berries, wild onions [894]. The tribes of W. Washington and N. W.

Oregon live on fish, roots, berries and a little game. “The roots used

are numerous.” “Besides the salmon sturgeon is taken in the Columbia,

and a variety of other fish.” Seals and whales are also occasionally

killed. “Shell-fish in great variety exist in the bays and on the

coast” [895]. The basis of the Chinooks’ food is salmon; but besides

this they eat sturgeon, wild-fowl, deer, rabbits, nuts, berries, wild

fruits and roots [896].

We do not attach very much importance to this circumstance; for even

the Australians have a great variety of food, and yet they are poorly

off [897]. But together with the other causes it may have some

influence; for where various kinds of food are available, there is a

good chance, that the procuring of one or more of them will be a work

fit to be performed by slaves.

3º. They generally have fixed habitations and live in rather large

groups; they are enabled to do so by preserving food for winter use.

The Koniagas “build two kinds of houses; one a large, winter village

residence, ... and the other a summer hunting hut.... Their winter

houses are very large, accommodating three or four families each.” “The

kashim or public house of the Koniagas is built like their dwellings,

and is capable of accommodating three or four hundred people.” During

the summer great quantities of fish are dried for winter use, which

they lay up in their houses [898]. The Tlinkits during the winter dwell

in villages, regularly built and consisting of solidly constructed

houses. The greater houses lodge up to 30 persons. “For winter they dry

large quantities of herring, roes, and the flesh of animals” [899].

Haida houses are similar to those of the Tlinkits, but larger, better

constructed and more richly ornamented. “Fish, when caught, are

delivered to the women, whose duty it is to prepare them for winter use

by drying” [900]. Among the Nootkas “each tribe has several villages in

favourable locations for fishing at different seasons.” Each house

accommodates many families. Fish and shell-fish are preserved by

drying; some varieties of seaweed and lichens, as well as various

roots, are regularly laid up for winter use [901]. In Jewitt’s

narrative mention is made of divisions of the Ahts, consisting of

500–1000 warriors. They used to preserve various kinds of fish for the

winter [902]. In W. Washington and N. W. Oregon acorns, some kinds of

berries, and especially salmon and whaleblubber, are stored for winter

use [903]. About Puget Sound “the rich and powerful build substantial

houses”. “These houses sometimes measure over one hundred feet in

length, and are divided into rooms or pens, each house accommodating

many families.” “In the better class of houses, supplies are neatly

stored in baskets at the sides” [904]. “During a portion of every year

the Tacullies dwell in villages.” “In April they visit the lakes and

take small fish; and after these fail, they return to their villages

and subsist upon the fish they have dried, and upon herbs and berries”

[905]. The Chinooks, according to Bancroft, do not move about much for

the purpose of obtaining a supply of food. They have permanent winter

dwellings. “Once taken, the salmon were cleaned by the women, dried in

the sun and smoked in the lodges; then they were sometimes powdered

fine between two stones before packing in skins or mats for winter

use”. Swan also states that they preserve fish and berries for the

winter [906]. Similar accounts are given of the Similkameem [907].

These circumstances greatly tend to further the growth of slavery. A

settled life makes escape of the slaves more difficult [908]. Living in

larger groups brings about a higher organization of freemen, and

therefore a greater coercive power of the tribe over its slaves. And

the preserving of food requires additional work; and this work is very

fit to be performed by slaves, as it does not require overmuch skill,

and has to be done in or near the house, so that supervision of the

work is very easy. Moreover, the hope of partaking of the stored food

is a tie that binds the slave to his master’s house, in much the same

manner as a modern workman is bound by having a share in the insurance

fund of the factory.

4º. Trade and industry are highly developed along the Pacific Coast.

Kane speaks of the ioquas, “a small shell found at Cape Flattery, and

only there, in great abundance. These shells are used as money, and a

great traffic is carried on among all the tribes by means of them”

[909]. Among the Aleuts “whalefishing is confined to certain families,

and the spirit of the craft descends from father to son” [910]. The

Koniagas are “adapted to labour and commerce rather than to war and

hunting”. They make very good boats and men as well as women excel in

divers trades. They got slaves by means of exchange from other tribes

[911]. Among the Tlinkits there are professional wood-carvers, smiths

and silversmiths. The women are very skilful in plaiting. Very good

canoes are made. Formerly they hunted whales with harpoons. Trade was

already highly developed before the arrival of the whites; they traded

even with remote parts of the coast and with the tribes of the

interior. The trade in slaves was formerly carried on on a large scale

[912]. The large and ingeniously built canoes of the Haidas are widely

celebrated; they often make them for sale. They have a standard of

value: formerly slaves or pieces of copper, now blankets. Their houses

are richly ornamented. They are “noted for their skill in the

construction of their various implements, particularly for sculptures

in stone and ivory, in which they excel all the other tribes of

Northern America” [913]. The Tsimshian formerly acted as middlemen in

the slave-trade. The southern tribes kidnapped or captured slaves, sold

them to the Tsimshian, and these again to the Tlinkits and interior

Tinneh. “Each chief about Fort Simpson kept an artisan, whose business

it was to repair canoes, make masks, etc.” [914]. The Atnas “understand

the art of working copper, and have commercial relations with

surrounding tribes”. They buy their slaves from the Koltschanes [915].

Gibbs states that in W. Washington and N. W. Oregon the Indians of the

interior preserve some kinds of salmon, “which after a stay in the

fresh water have lost their superfluous oil, and these are often

actually traded to those Indians at the mouth of the river or on the

Sound. The Dalles was formerly a great depot for this commerce”. Some

wild-growing roots “were formerly a great article of trade with the

interior”. The slave-trade is carried on here too. “Many of the slaves

held here are ... brought from California, where they were taken by the

warlike and predatory Indians of the plains, and sold to the Kallapuia

and Tsinuk.” “Many of them [the slaves] belong to distant tribes”

[916]. The tribes about Puget Sound have canoes, beautifully made,

painted and polished. The houses of the rich are made of planks split

from trees by means of bone wedges. “In their barter between the

different tribes, and in estimating their wealth, the blanket is

generally the unit of value, and the hiaqua, a long white shell

obtained off Cape Flattery at a considerable depth, is also extensively

used for money, its value increasing with its length. A kind of annual

fair for trading purposes and festivities is held by the tribes of

Puget Sound at Bajada Point.” “Slaves are obtained by war and

kidnapping, and are sold in large numbers to northern tribes” [917]. Of

the Nootkas Bancroft says: “Trade in all their productions was carried

on briskly between the different Nootka tribes before the coming of the

whites.” “The slave-trade forms an important part of their commerce.”

Harpooners are a privileged class [918]. The several divisions of the

Ahts mutually exchange the fish that each of them catches. They also

sell mats and baskets manufactured by the women. According to Jewitt’s

narrative, they made very good canoes. A kind of shell, strung upon

threads, formed a circulating medium among them, five fathoms of it

being the price of a slave, their most valuable species of property.

“The trade of most of the other tribes with Nootka was principally

train-oil, seal or whale’s blubber, fish fresh or dried, herring or

salmon spawn, clams and mussels, and the yama, a species of fruit which

is pressed and dried, cloth, sea-otter skins, and slaves” [919]. Among

the Makah (a Nootka tribe) the whale-oil “is used as an article of food

as well as for trade.... The Makah were till lately in the habit of

purchasing oil from the Nittinat also, and have traded in a single

season, it is said, as much as 30,000 gallons.” A division into

different trades also exists among them. “A portion of them only attain

the dignity of whalers, a second class devote themselves to halibut,

and a third to salmon and inferior fish, the occupations being kept

distinct, at least, in a great measure” [920]. Among the Tacullies

hiaqua shells up to 1810 were the circulating medium of the country

[921]. The Chinooks, says Bancroft, “were always a commercial rather

than a warlike people, and are excelled by none in their shrewdness in

bargaining. Before the arrival of the Europeans they repaired annually

to the region of the Cascades and Dalles, where they met the tribes of

the interior, with whom they exchanged their few articles of

trade—fish, oil, shell and Wapato—for the skins, roots and grasses of

their eastern neighbours.” “Their original currency or standard of

value was the hiaqua shell.” They obtain their slaves “by war, or more

commonly by trade”. According to Swan, the Chinooks “manage, during the

course of the winter, to make a great many articles, which are disposed

of to the whites”. A species of small shell passes as money among them.

“Their slaves are purchased from the Northern Indians, and are either

stolen or captives of war, and were regularly brought down and sold to

the southern tribes” [922].

This development of trade and industry furthers the growth of slavery

in several ways:

a. The slave-trade facilitates the keeping of slaves. Prisoners of war

usually belong to a neighbouring tribe; they have much more opportunity

to escape to their native country than purchased slaves, who have been

transported from a great distance. The latter, if escaping from their

masters, would instantly be recaptured by some other slave-keeping

tribe of the Pacific Coast. So among the Nootkas “a runaway slave is

generally seized and resold by the first tribe he meets” [923]. We can

therefore easily understand why the Koniagas did not keep full-grown

captive men as slaves, but acquired their male slaves by means of

exchange [924]. Similarly, a chief of the Cowitchins (near Vancouver

Island), according to Kane, “took many captives, whom he usually sold

to the tribes further north, thus diminishing their chance of escaping

back through a hostile country to their own people” [925].

b. Where the fishing implements are brought to a high perfection

(canoes, nets, harpoons), fishing becomes more remunerative; the

produce of a fishing slave’s labour exceeds his primary wants more than

where fishing is carried on in a ruder manner.

c. The more the freemen devote themselves to trade and industry, the

more need there is for slaves to do the ruder work (fishing, rowing,

cooking, etc.). The trade itself may also require menial work: carrying

goods or rowing boats on commercial journeys, etc. [926].

d. Another effect of intertribal trade, together with a settled life

and abundance of food, is probably this, that these tribes are not so

warlike as most hunters. So they need not employ all available forces

in warfare; they can afford to keep male slaves who do not fight. We

have seen that the Koniagas are “adapted to labour and commerce rather

than to war and hunting”, and that the Chinooks “were always a

commercial rather than a warlike people”. Regarding the other tribes it

is not clearly stated, whether war is very frequent [927]; but our

impression, on perusing the ethnographical literature, is, that it is

not nearly so frequent as among the Sioux, Ojibways, and similar

tribes.

5º. Property and wealth are also highly developed. Schmoller remarks:

“We know now, that there are some instances of settled hunting and

fishing tribes with villages, with some development of the means of

conveyance, with dog-sledges, reindeer, etc., with a certain social

organization of the chase and fishery, with ornaments and slaves, with

rich and poor people; such is the case in Northern California, in

Northern Asia, in Kamchatka” [928]. Among the Koniagas “when an

individual becomes ambitious of popularity, a feast is given”. A man’s

wealth, among them, formerly depended on the number of sea-otter skins

he owned [929]. Among the Tlinkits private property comprises clothes,

weapons, implements, hunting territories and roads of commerce.

Nobility depends on wealth rather than on birth [930]. Of the Haidas

Bancroft says: “Rank and power depend greatly upon wealth, which

consists of implements, wives and slaves. Admission to alliance with

medicine-men, whose influence is greatest in the tribe, can only be

gained by sacrifice of private property”. Swan speaks of wooden

pillars, placed before the houses of the rich. They are elaborately

carved at a cost of hundreds of blankets, and fetch up to 1000 dollars.

Only the very rich are able to purchase them [931]. Kane speaks of a

Cowitchin chief who “possessed much of what is considered wealth

amongst the Indians, and it gradually accumulated from tributes which

he exacted from his people. On his possessions reaching a certain

amount, it is customary to make a great feast, to which all contribute.

The neighbouring chiefs with whom he is in amity are invited, and at

the conclusion of the entertainment, he distributes all he has

collected since the last feast, perhaps three or four years preceding,

among his guests as presents. The amount of property thus collected and

given away by a chief is sometimes very considerable. I have heard of

one possessing as many as twelve bales of blankets, from twenty to

thirty guns, with numberless pots, kettles, and pans, knives, and other

articles of cutlery, and great quantities of beads, and other trinkets,

as well as numerous beautiful Chinese boxes, which find their way here

from the Sandwich Islands. The object in thus giving his treasures away

is to add to his own importance in the eyes of others, his own people

often boasting of how much their chief had given away, and exhibiting

with pride such things as they had received themselves from him” [932].

Among the Nootkas “private wealth consists of boats and implements for

obtaining food, domestic utensils, slaves, and blankets”. “The

accumulation of property beyond the necessities of life is only

considered desirable for the purpose of distributing it in presents on

great feast-days, and thereby acquiring a reputation for wealth and

liberality” [933]. In Jewitt’s narrative it is stated, that among the

Ahts the king is obliged to support his dignity by making frequent

entertainments, otherwise he would not be considered as conducting

himself like a king, and would be no more thought of than a common man

[934]. A wealthy Fish Indian may also win renown by giving away or

destroying property [935]. Boas, describing the Kwakiutl Indians,

speaks of “the method of acquiring rank. This is done by means of the

potlatch, or the distribution of property. The underlying principle is

that of the interest-bearing investment of property”. He gives an

elaborate account of this institution [936]. Among the Makah “the

larger class of canoes generally belong to a single individual and he

receives a proportionate share of the booty from the crew” [937]. Among

the Tacullies “any person may become a miuty or chief who will

occasionally provide a village feast” [938]. Of the tribes of W.

Washington and N. W. Oregon Gibbs says: “Wealth gives a certain power

among them, and influence is purchased by its lavish distribution.”

They have pretty clear ideas about the right of property in houses and

goods. The men own property distinct from their wives. The husband has

his own blankets, the wife her mats and baskets [939]. Bancroft tells

us of the Puget Sound Indians: “I find no evidence of hereditary rank

or caste except as wealth is sometimes inherited” [940]. Among the

Chinooks “individuals were protected in their right to personal

property, such as slaves, canoes, and implements”. Each village was

ruled by a chief “either hereditary or selected for his wealth and

popularity” [941].

The effects of this development of property and wealth are:

a. Social status depending mainly upon wealth, a slave may be a good

hunter or fisher and valued as such, and yet be despised as a penniless

fellow.

b. The accumulation of property beyond the necessities of life requires

more labour than would otherwise be wanted. Moreover, slaves are the

more desired, as the keeping of many slaves is indicative of wealth and

therefore honourable. We may quote here Kane’s account of a chief of

the Pacific Coast, “who having erected a colossal idol of wood,

sacrificed five slaves to it, barbarously murdering them at its base,

and asking in a boasting manner who amongst them could afford to kill

so many slaves”. And Holmberg remarks that among the Tlinkits the

consideration which the nobles enjoy depends only on their wealth, i.e.

on the number of the slaves they own [942].

The five causes we have enumerated here are not at work independently

of each other. Abundance of food enables a tribe to have fixed

habitations, to live in larger groups, to preserve food. Any greater

development of trade and industry would be impossible if food were not

abundant; for else all time and energy would be occupied by the seeking

of food; and a settled life tends greatly to further the growth of

industry. Wealth would scarcely exist if there were no trade and

industry. The industrial development again facilitates the procuring of

food. What is the primary cause of this relatively high state of

economic life is not easy to say, and an investigation into this matter

falls beyond the scope of the present volume.

It must also be remembered, that this economic state is not only the

cause, but also to some extent the effect of slavery.

The development of trade and industry, of property and wealth, is

undoubtedly much furthered by slavery. By imposing the ruder work upon

slaves, the slave-owner can give more of his time and mind to trade and

industry. “Leisure” as Bagehot remarks “is the great need of early

societies, and slaves only can give men leisure” [943]. And that the

keeping of slaves furthers the accumulation of wealth need hardly be

said. The slave-trade, which enriches the traders, is even quite

impossible where slavery does not exist. Hence we may infer that

slavery must already have existed here at a somewhat lower stage of

economic life.

On the other hand, there is a circumstance tending to accelerate the

growth of slavery on the Pacific Coast. These tribes form a somewhat

homogeneous group, and have much intercourse with each other. So we may

suppose that some of them, that were not yet in such an economic state

as spontaneously to invent slavery, have begun to keep slaves,

imitating what they saw among their neighbours; the more so, as the

slave-trade made this very easy. For our group is not quite

homogeneous. The picture we gave of their highly developed economic

life does not equally apply to all these tribes. The summer and winter

dwellings of the Similkameem are rather primitive. They depend on

hunting for a large portion of their food. Trade and industry, property

and wealth are not mentioned; it is only stated that at a later period

they had horses and cattle [944]. Niblack tells us that the Tsimshian

sold slaves to the Tlinkits and interior Tinneh; but “the last-named

had no hereditary slaves, getting their supply from the coast” [945].

No more particulars are given; but we may suppose that among these

interior Tinneh slavery existed in a rather embryonic state, and would

not have existed at all but for the slave-trade. The early ethnologists

overrated the influence of imitation and derivation of social

institutions; but we must not fall into the other extreme and underrate

it. An institution may be derived and thereby its growth accelerated,

of course within restricted limits.

If the information we have got on the work imposed on slaves were more

complete, it would perhaps have been better first to survey this

information, and thence to infer what place slavery occupies among the

tribes of the Pacific Coast. But the statements of our ethnographers

regarding slave labour are rather incomplete. A survey of them may,

however, be of some use. In the first place it will be seen, whether

they can be brought to agree with the exposition given above of the

causes of slavery; and, secondly, our survey will perhaps provide us

with new valuable data, which may give us a clearer understanding of

the significance of slavery on the Pacific Coast of North America.

The occupations of slaves mentioned by our ethnographers are the

following:

1º. In a few cases the slaves strengthen their master’s force in

warfare. Aleut slaves always accompany their masters, and have to

protect them [946]. “Kotzebue says that a rich man [among the Tlinkits]

purchases male and female slaves, who must labour and fish for him, and

strengthen his force when he is engaged in warfare” [947]. We may

suppose that the last part of this sentence applies to male slaves

only. Tsimshian slaves guard the house, when the master is absent

[948]. Among the Ahts, the slaves were obliged to attend their masters

in war and to fight for them [949].

This military function of slavery, as we shall see, also exists among

several pastoral and agricultural peoples. The industrial part of

society, in such cases, is not quite differentiated from the military

part. As for the Tlinkits, Tsimshian and Ahts, the employing of slaves

for protecting the master or his property is facilitated by the

slave-trade: a purchased slave, brought from a great distance, may be

made to fight, where it would not be safe to employ in warfare a slave

captured from a neighbouring tribe; for the latter will probably be

much inclined to go over to the enemies, who often are his own kindred.

But the example of the Aleuts, whose slaves are prisoners of war and

their descendants [950], shows that even captive slaves may be employed

in warfare. We shall not very much wonder at this, if we take into

consideration, that prisoners of war are sometimes soon forgotten, and

even repelled, by their former countrymen. So “if a Mojave is taken

prisoner he is forever discarded in his own nation, and should he

return his mother even will not own him” [951]. The expectation of such

treatment may induce captive slaves to fight on their masters’ side

against their own tribesmen rather than join the latter.

2º. Slaves are sometimes employed in hunting, fishing and work

connected with fishing, such as rowing, etc. From a statement of

Dunn’s, quoted by Niblack, we learn that at Fort Simpson, British

Columbia (in the country of the Tsimshian), “a full-grown athletic

slave, who is a good hunter, will fetch nine blankets, a gun, a

quantity of powder and ball, a couple of dressed elk skins, tobacco,

vermilion paint, a flat file, and other little articles” [952]. And

Boas tells us, that Tsimshian slaves row the boats, bring the killed

seals to land, and cook them [953]. Tlinkit slaves, as it appears from

Kotzebue’s above-quoted statement, must fish for their masters. Among

the Nootkas “the common business of fishing for ordinary sustenance is

carried on by slaves, or the lower class of people; while the more

noble occupation of killing the whale and hunting the sea-otter is

followed by none but the chiefs and warriors” [954]. According to

Jewitt’s narrative, Aht slaves had to supply their masters with fish.

The author, on his wedding an Aht girl, got two young male slaves

presented to him to assist him in fishing [955].

Dunn’s statement about hunting slaves is very valuable. It proves that

hunting is here no longer the chief and noble occupation of freemen.

Among such people as for instance the Ojibways a good hunter is held in

high esteem, not bought at a high price as a valuable slave [956]. What

we have said in the last paragraph about hunting not being fit to be

performed by slaves, is not impaired by this statement; for hunting

among these traders is not the most honoured occupation; moreover, the

abundance of game along the Pacific Coast makes it very easy; it does

not require nearly so much skill and application as among the Ojibways

and similar tribes. This statement also contains a most striking

refutation of Bos’ assertion, that slavery here exists only as a

reminiscence of a hypothetical former agricultural state [957]. If this

were true, there might be traces of an ancient slave system; slaves

might even still be kept by rich men as a luxury; but the slave’s

ability in hunting would not enter as a determining factor into his

price. Slavery exists here in full vigour, and is not in any way, as

Bos will have it, foreign to the economic state in which these tribes

live [958].

What Meares tells us of the Nootkas is also instructive. The drudgery

for daily sustenance, fishing, is left to the slaves; whereas the

chiefs and warriors reserve to themselves the less productive and

(partly therefore) more noble occupation of killing whales and

sea-otters. It is remarkable that fishing is carried on by “the slaves

or the lower class of people”. Those who cannot afford to buy slaves

must themselves perform the drudgery that others leave to slaves. The

formation of social classes among freemen is furthered by slavery.

3º. The slaves of the Ahts, in Jewitt’s time, were obliged to make the

canoes and to assist in building and repairing the houses [959]. This

proves, that slavery among them discharged an important economic

function.

4º. We are often informed, that slaves do domestic work. Tsimshian

slaves cook the killed seals and cut wood [960]. Among the Nootkas

“women prepare the fish and game for winter use, cook, manufacture

cloth and clothing, and increase the stock of food by gathering berries

and shell-fish; and most of this work among the richer class is done by

slaves”. Our informant speaks also of “the hard labour required” from

the slaves [961]. Among the Ahts, slaves, as Sproat tells us, serve the

family. When a man of rank is going to remove, the new house is

prepared in advance by his slaves. According to Jewitt’s narrative,

“all the menial offices are performed by them, such as bringing water,

cutting wood, and a variety of others”. “The females are employed

principally in manufacturing cloth, in cooking, collecting berries,

etc.” [962]. Among the Fish Indians old women and slaves prepare the

food [963]. Chinook slaves “are obliged to perform all the drudgery for

their masters.... But the amount of the work connected with the Chinook

household is never great” [964]. The last sentence here proves that

“drudgery” means household work.

Some general expressions we find on record with our ethnographers seem

to bear the same meaning. For instance, Tlinkit slaves, according to

Kotzebue (quoted above), must “labour” for their masters; and Niblack,

evidently referring to the same statement, says that “slaves did all

the drudgery” [965]. The Tacullies use their slaves “as beasts of

burden”, which perhaps also means imposing household labour upon them

[966]. Holmberg states that the Koniagas employed their slaves as

labourers or servants [967]. And Niblack remarks about the Coast

Indians of Southern Alaska and Northern British Columbia in general:

“When slavery was in vogue, this class performed all the menial

drudgery” [968].

It is remarkable, that slaves in so many cases are stated to perform

household, i.e. female, labour. These statements are even more numerous

than those about fishing and similar work; so it would seem (we may not

speak more positively, as our information is rather incomplete), that

household work is the chief occupation of slaves along the Pacific

Coast. Now it is easy to understand, that fixed habitations and the

preserving of food for winter use require a large amount of domestic

labour. But this does not solve the question, why slaves are employed

for this work; why the men purchase or capture slaves not for their own

private use, but in order to relieve their wives of a part of their

task. In Australia women are overworked, and beaten into the bargain;

why are the men of the Pacific Coast so anxious to give the women

assistance in their work?

It might be, that female labour is valued by the men, because articles

of trade are prepared by the women. Unfortunately the ethnographers

most often content themselves with remarking that a brisk trade is

carried on, or that some tribe is commercial rather than warlike,

without specifying the articles of commerce. Yet a few statements tend

to verify our hypothesis. The articles of trade of the Chinooks before

the arrival of the Europeans were: fish, oil, shells, and Wapato. “The

Wapato, a bulbous root, compared by some to the potato and turnip, was

the aboriginal staple, and was gathered by women” [969]. Lewis and

Clark also state that this bulb, which “is the great article of food,

and almost the staple article of commerce on the Columbia”, is

collected chiefly by the women [970]. The Tlinkits export to the

interior basket-work, dancing clothes, train-oil prepared from the ssag

(a kind of fish), a sort of cakes made of Alaria Esculenta (a

sea-weed). The women manufacture basket-work, dancing clothes,

mocassins and other clothes. In the fishing season they are from

morning to night engaged in preparing the fish. In the autumn they

gather berries, bark, leaves and other vegetable by-meat; in other

seasons they gather shells and sea-urchins on the beach [971]. Here all

articles of trade are products of female labour. Among the Ahts baskets

and mats, manufactured by the women, are sold; the women may keep the

proceeds, and also get a little portion of their husbands’ earnings.

Our informant, speaking of the several divisions of the Ahts mutually

exchanging the fish that each of them catches, probably also means fish

prepared by the women [972]. In W. Washington and N. W. Oregon the

kamas, a root which was “formerly a great article of trade with the

interior”, is dug by the women [973]. What articles are exported by the

other tribes we do not know.

There is another fact strengthening our hypothesis: women are often

consulted in matters of trade. Among the Tlinkits “the men rarely

conclude a bargain without consulting their wives” [974]. Nootka wives

too “are consulted in matters of trade” [975]. About Puget Sound the

females “are always consulted in matters of trade before a bargain is

closed” [976]. Chinook women “are consulted on all important matters”

[977], which matters, among these commercial people, necessarily

include the trade. Among the Haidas, the trade, in Jewitt’s time, was

even principally managed by the women, who were expert in making a

bargain [978].

This need not, however, be the only cause; for women here enjoy a

rather high position; so it might be that the men wish to alleviate the

task of their wives, quite apart from the occupation of the latter in

preparing the articles of commerce. Aleuts, if not addicted to

drinking, are good husbands, and help their wives in everything [979].

Among the Tlinkits, according to Krause, “woman’s position is not a bad

one. She is not the slave of her husband; she has determinate rights,

and her influence is considerable”; and Bancroft remarks that “there

are few savage nations, in which the sex have greater influence or

command greater respect” [980]. Nootka wives “seem to be nearly on

terms of equality with their husbands, except that they are excluded

from some public feasts and ceremonies” [981]; and Sproat tells us that

among the Ahts slaves only are prostituted; women are not badly

treated; a wife may leave her husband with the consent of her relatives

[982]. Among the Koniagas, according to Holmberg, the women did not

hold a subordinate place as among other savage tribes of North America,

but enjoyed high consideration [983]. In W. Washington and N. W.

Oregon, according to Gibbs, “the condition of the woman is that of

slavery under any circumstances.” But the particulars he gives prove

that the women here are not so very badly off. In their councils “the

women are present at, and join in the deliberations, speaking in a low

tone, their words being repeated aloud by a reporter. On occasions of

less ceremony, they sometimes address the audience without any such

intervention, and give their admonitions with a freedom of tongue

highly edifying. In a few instances, matrons of superior character,

“strong minded women”, have obtained an influence similar to that of

chiefs.” The men own property distinct from their wives. “He has his

own blankets, she her mats and baskets, and generally speaking her

earnings belong to her, except those arising from prostitution, which

are her husband’s.” Sometimes “the courtship commences in this way—the

girl wishing a husband, and taking a straightforward mode of attracting

one.” “The accession of a new wife in the lodge very naturally produces

jealousy and discord, and the first often returns for a time in dudgeon

to her friends, to be reclaimed by her husband when he chooses, perhaps

after propitiating her by some present” [984]. Yet the condition of

women seems not to be quite as good as among the other tribes. “A man

sends his wife away, or sells her at his will.” “An Indian, perhaps,

will not let his favourite wife, but he looks upon his others, his

sisters, daughters, female relatives, and slaves, as a legitimate

source of profit” [985]. But we must take into consideration, that

Gibbs gives a general description of inland tribes and coast tribes

together. That among the latter the condition of women is not so very

bad, is proved by Bancroft’s statements about the tribes on Puget Sound

and Chinooks. About Puget Sound “women have all the work to do except

hunting and fishing, while their lords spend their time in idleness and

gambling. Still the females are not ill-treated; they acquire great

influence in the tribe” [986]. And among the Chinooks “work is equally

divided between the sexes.... Their [women’s] condition is by no means

a hard one. It is among tribes that live by the chase or by other means

in which women can be of little service, that we find the sex most

oppressed and cruelly treated” [987]. This statement is strengthened by

Swan writing that “with these Indians the position of the women is not

so degraded as with the tribes of the Plains” [988]. The Tacullies “are

fond of their wives, performing the most of the household drudgery in

order to relieve them” [989]. Mackenzie, speaking of an Indian tribe,

probably related to the Atnahs on Fraser River, amongst whom strangers

are kept “in a state of awe and subjection,” states that they live upon

the products of the sea and rivers and are to be considered as a

“stationary people.” “Hence it is that the men engage in those toilsome

employments, which the tribes who support themselves by the chase leave

entirely to the women” [990].

Our information, here again, is not very complete; but as far as it

goes it tends to prove that the condition of women on the Pacific Coast

is not a bad one.

This good condition of women here, as compared with for instance that

of Australian women, may for a great part be due to the settled life of

these tribes. While the men are on fishing, hunting, or trading

expeditions, the women enjoy much liberty; whereas Australian women are

continually marching along with their husbands [991]. The men must also

be aware that domestic comfort, worth much in these cold regions,

depends on the women. As militarism does not prevail here to any great

extent, women are not so much in need of male protection. And village

life makes conspiracy of women possible. So among the Aleuts “a

religious festival used to be held in December, at which all the women

of the village assembled by moonlight, and danced naked with masked

faces, the men being excluded under penalty of death” [992]. Last but

not least, subsistence here is largely dependent on female labour.

Lewis and Clark remark: “Where the women can aid in procuring

subsistence for the tribe, they are treated with more equality, and

their importance is proportioned to the share which they take in that

labour; while in countries where subsistence is chiefly procured by the

exertions of the men, the women are considered and treated as burdens.

Thus, among the Clatsops and Chinnooks, who live upon fish and roots,

which the women are equally expert with the men in procuring, the

former have a rank and influence very rarely found among Indians. The

females are permitted to speak freely before the men, to whom indeed

they sometimes address themselves in a tone of authority. On many

subjects their judgments and opinions are respected, and in matters of

trade, their advice is generally asked and pursued. The labours of the

family too, are shared almost equally” [993].

We have only enumerated some causes tending to bring about a good

condition of women. It is not the place here to expatiate upon this

point any further. But it is worth while to emphasize the fact itself,

that women are on the whole well treated among these tribes. A German

writer, Dr. Grosse, has tried to prove, that among the “higher hunters”

(höhere Jäger) as well as among the “lower hunters” (niedere Jäger)

woman’s state is a bad one. As all our tribes belong to Grosse’s

“higher hunters” [994], we shall attempt to find out, why his

conclusion is so different from ours. He quotes several ethnographical

statements, which are to afford a basis for his inference [995]. We

shall examine whether this is a sound basis. Grosse does not always

exactly specify which tribe each quotation applies to; but as he most

frequently quotes Bancroft, we can easily find it out. He first quotes

this statement of Bancroft’s about the Shoshones: “The weaker sex of

course do the hardest labour, and receive more blows than kind words

for their pains” [996]. But the very next sentence: “These people, in

common with most nomadic nations, have the barbarous custom of

abandoning the old and infirm the moment they find them an

incumbrance,” shows that these Shoshones are not at all to be compared

to the Tlinkits and similar tribes; their mode of life is decidedly

rude and little comfortable. Then he refers to some passages of

Bancroft’s, proving that unfaithfulness of the wife is punished with

death, whereas the husband has the right to prostitute his wife to

strangers. These passages apply to the Southern and Northern

Californians as well as to the Shoshones. But about the former it is

also stated: “If a man ill-treated his wife, her relations took her

away, after paying back the value of her wedding presents, and then

married her to another” [997]. And of the Northern Californians we are

told: “Among the Modocs polygamy prevails, and the women have

considerable privilege. The Hoopa adulterer loses one eye, the

adulteress is exempt from punishment” [998]. Moreover, “although the

principal labour falls to the lot of the women, the men sometimes

assist in building the wigwam, or even in gathering acorns and roots”

[999]. Another statement of Bancroft’s, quoted by Grosse, applies to

the Chepewyans: “The Northern Indian is master of his household. He

marries without ceremony, and divorces his wife at his pleasure. A man

of forty buys or fights for a spouse of twelve, and when tired of her

whips her and sends her away” [1000]. This statement is corroborated by

a report of Hearne’s. But why Grosse calls the Chepewyans “higher

hunters” we do not understand. “Altogether they are pronounced an

inferior race”. “The Chepewyans inhabit huts of brush and portable skin

tents”. “Their weapons and their utensils are of the most primitive

kind” [1001]. The next quotation applies to the Kutchins, whose wives

“are treated more like dogs than human beings”. But this is only stated

of the Tenan Kutchin, “people of the mountains,” “a wild, ungovernable

horde, their territory never yet having been invaded by white people”.

“The Kutcha Kutchin, “people of the lowland,” are cleaner and better

mannered”. And of these “better mannered” Kutchins Bancroft says: “The

women perform all domestic duties, and eat after the husband is

satisfied; but the men paddle the boats, and have even been known to

carry their wives ashore, so that they might not wet their feet”

[1002]. As for the Nootkas, women being “somewhat overworked” (Grosse

does not mention that among the richer class most female work is done

by slaves), and excluded from some public feasts, Grosse concludes that

their state is a bad one. We have quoted above some facts tending to

prove the contrary. Then Grosse asserts that, according to Bancroft,

Haida husbands prostitute their wives for money. Bancroft, however,

says literally: “While jealousy is not entirely unknown, chastity

appears to be so, as women who can earn the greatest number of blankets

win great admiration for themselves and high position for their

husbands” [1003]; which is not exactly the same. The Tlinkits,

according to Grosse, are the only unaccountable exception to his

general rule. Finally he attempts to prove, that the alleged supremacy

of women in Kamchatka does not signify so very much; but that

Kamchadale women are badly treated, even he does not assert.

What remains now of Grosse’s evidence? Tlinkit and Kamchadale women he

himself admits not to be badly off. What he says of Nootkas and Haidas

proves very little. About the Northern and Southern Californians we

have got statements that impair Grosse’s argument very much. Only among

the Shoshones, Chepewyans, and Tenan Kutchin is the state of women

decidedly bad; but these are not on a level with the other tribes; they

are migratory and little advanced in the arts of life. And of the Tenan

Kutchin we know very little, “their territory never yet having been

invaded by white people” [1004].

Grosse derives most of his evidence from Bancroft’s book; but he

evidently has not paid attention to all the data given by Bancroft,

which relate to the condition of women. Sometimes he quotes one

sentence, where two successive sentences taken together would give

quite another view of the matter. Several statements of Bancroft’s

(such as about the tribes on Puget Sound, Chinooks, Tacullies) he omits

altogether; whereas just the tribes of the N. W. Coast of North America

are, according to him, among the most typical “higher hunters” [1005].

And he can only give a semblance of truth to his inference by

classifying under “higher hunters” Shoshones and similar tribes, which

are not more advanced in the arts of life than some Australians, and

decidedly much less than the Eskimos and Aleuts whom he calls “lower

hunters”.

Returning to our chief subject, we may remark, that our survey of slave

labour leads to the same conclusion we arrived at before, viz. that the

preserving of food, a settled life, and the high development of trade,

industry and wealth, are the main causes which have made slavery so

largely prevalent here. As additional causes we may now name the high

position of women, which induces the men to relieve them of a part of

their work by giving them the help of slaves; and, in a few cases, the

want of fighting men, who are to strengthen their masters’ force in

warfare.

We shall now briefly examine, which are the causes of slavery among the

slave-keeping hunters and fishers outside the Pacific Coast.

Among the Abipones the function of slavery was beyond any doubt

reinforcement of the tribe. The slaves were very leniently treated. “I

know of many people” says Dobrizhoffer, “who, being released by their

friends and brought back to their native country, voluntarily returned

to their masters, the Abipones, whom they follow in their hunting and

fighting expeditions; though Spaniards themselves, they do not hesitate

to stain their hands with Spanish blood.” “The liberty to go where they

like, the abundance of food and clothing procured without any labour,

the possession of many horses, the freedom to idle and run into

debauchery, the lawless impunity they enjoy, bind the Spanish captives

so much to the Abipones, that they prefer their captivity to liberty”.

“The Abipones, though considering polygamy allowed, very seldom take

several wives at a time; the captives do not often content themselves

with one wife, but marry as many female prisoners, Spanish or Indian,

as they can” [1006].

The reason for taking prisoners here was the same as among the Iroquois

and similar tribes, where they were adopted; with this sole difference,

that the Abipones seem to have had a sexual aversion (that cannot be

accounted for here) to all men and women outside their own nation;

therefore they did not adopt their prisoners, nor had they any sexual

intercourse with them. Slavery as a system of labour did not exist

here.

As for their economic life, this was much inferior to that on the

Pacific Coast of North America. They subsisted on the spontaneous

products of nature and on game. Food was abundant; yet their mode of

life required frequent migrations. All their journeys were performed on

horseback [1007].

The information we get about the Tehuelches is very incomplete. Falkner

states, that the female relatives of the cacique have slaves, who

perform most of their work [1008].

In Kamchatka slaves were employed for various domestic labours, such as

fetching wood, feeding the dogs, making axes and knives from stone and

bone [1009]. The Kamchadales were not so far advanced in the arts of

life as the tribes of the Pacific Coast of North America. They think

only of the present, says Steller; they are not ambitious to become

rich. They do not like to work more than is needed for their own and

their families’ subsistence. “When they have got as much as they think

to be sufficient, they do not collect any more food; they would not

even do so, if the fish came on land and the animals into their

dwellings”. A rather brisk trade was, however, carried on by them and

was largely dependent on female labour [1010]. They also had fixed

habitations [1011].

Speaking of the tribes of the Pacific Coast, we concluded that slavery

must have already existed among them at a somewhat lower stage of

economic life. The Kamchadales afford a proof of this. They were not so

far advanced in the arts of life as the tribes of the Pacific Coast;

yet slavery already existed among them, though it does not seem to have

prevailed here to any great extent.

§ 3. Experimentum crucis: Australia.

In the last paragraph we have shown that in the economic and social

life of the slave-keeping hunters and fishers (especially those on the

Pacific Coast of North America) there are some features which account

for the existence of slavery. But there is still something wanting in

our argument. It might be that the circumstances which we have called

causes of slavery were equally found among the hunting and fishing

tribes that do not keep slaves; in that case the foregoing argument

would prove insufficient. Therefore we shall apply here the

experimentum crucis; we shall inquire how much the economic and social

life of the slave-keeping tribes differs from that of the other tribes.

This investigation may be instructive in various respects. It might be,

that of the supposed causes of slavery some were found among

non-slave-keeping as well as among slave-keeping tribes, whereas others

existed among none but slave-keeping tribes; then the latter causes

only would be decisive. Or perhaps we shall find that each of these

causes exists among one or more non-slave-keeping tribes; but that the

combination of all the causes is found nowhere but among slave-keeping

tribes. It were also possible, that a combination of the same causes

existed among non-slave-keeping tribes, but that among these there were

other circumstances neutralizing the former. Whether any of these

possibilities is a reality, will appear from the ensuing investigation.

We do not, however, think that it is necessary to give a survey of the

economic and social life of all non-slave-keeping hunters and fishers.

For we have seen that among the tribes of the Pacific Coast of North

America the growth of slavery is much furthered by their forming a

somewhat homogeneous group. Accordingly slavery among the few

slave-keeping tribes outside the Pacific Coast seems to be little

developed. Now there are many non-slave-keeping hunting and fishing

tribes, either living quite isolated (e.g. Andaman Islanders, Fuegians)

or surrounded by more powerful, agricultural or pastoral, tribes (e.g.

Bushmen, African pigmies). That such a position is very unfavourable to

the existence of slavery is evident. We shall therefore confine

ourselves to a survey of the three great groups of hunters and fishers

outside the Pacific Coast: the Australians, the Indians of Central

North America, and the Eskimos. Australia and the regions where the

Eskimos live are inhabited by hunters and fishers only. In Central

North America a few agricultural tribes of the lowest stage (hunting

agriculturists) are found; but these differ so little from hunters

proper, that we may speak here of a group of hunters, not inclosed

between superior peoples. Perhaps the hunters and hunting

agriculturists of Brazil, Paraguay, etc. form a similar group; but the

literature on these tribes accessible to us was rather incomplete.

We shall inquire now, whether the several circumstances furthering the

growth of slavery on the Pacific Coast, are found among each of these

groups.

In the first place we shall regard Australia.

1º. Abundance of food. Food in Australia is by no means abundant and

often very scarce. The Australians are omnivorous in the widest sense

of the word; they eat even mice, rats, lizards, beetles, etc. In some

parts of Australia, especially on the West Coast and in the interior,

the natives are continually suffering from hunger [1012]. Thomas

remarks: “In few parts of Australia can the native count on anything

like regular supplies of food. He is dependent on the course of the

seasons for his seeds and fruits; the time of year also affects the

supply of fish in many parts; and in Central Australia, perhaps owing

to the barrenness of the land, much time is given up, if our accounts

are accurate, to magical ceremonies, whose object is to promote the

increase of game and plant life, so difficult does the native find it

to obtain sustenance” [1013]. We shall soon see that scarcity of food

compels them to live in very small groups.

2º. Variety of food. There is a great variety. Concerning S. W.

Australia Gerland enumerates 6 kinds of kangaroos, 29 of fish, two of

seals; and further wild dogs, emus and other birds, tortoises,

opossums, frogs, shell-fish, grubs of beetles, bird’s eggs, mice, rats,

snakes and lizards; roots, mushrooms, resins and various fruits [1014].

But this list, including (as Gerland remarks) everything eatable,

proves only that they live very poorly. The natives of South Australia

also, according to Eylmann, though they have a great many kinds of

food, seldom live in abundance. During the frequent times of drought

they suffer severely from want of food [1015]. In Central Australia

“with certain restrictions ... everything which is edible is used for

food” [1016]. And as for fishing, though fish enters for a large part

into the subsistence of the coast tribes, there are no fishing tribes

in the higher sense in Australia, like those of the Pacific Coast.

Their canoes, where they have any, are very primitive; and the

principal means of catching fish are by spearing and setting traps

[1017].

3º. Fixed habitations, large groups, preserving of food. Gerland states

that to find sufficient food, the Australians must continually roam

over the country. These wandering tribes cannot be large, else food

would fail them; so the division of the Australians into numerous small

tribes is a consequence of the nature of their country [1018]. Spencer

and Gillen speak of the natives of Central Australia as living in small

local groups [1019]. Brough Smyth remarks: “It is necessary for a tribe

to move very frequently from place to place, always keeping within the

boundaries of the country which it calls its own—, now to the spot

where eels can be taken in the creeks; often to the feeding-grounds of

the kangaroo; sometimes to the thicker forests to get wood suitable for

making weapons; to the sea-coast continually for fish of various kinds;

and, at the right season, to the lands where are found the native

bread, the yam, and the acacia gum” [1020]. According to Eylmann, the

natives of South Australia, in their barren country, are forced not

only to continually move on, but to live in small hordes [1021]. And

Thomas states that “the tribal areas are almost invariably small”

[1022]. The writers who describe separate tribes also often state that

these tribes are nomadic and live in small groups. We shall quote here

only the statements of our ethnographers concerning one significant

fact, that presents a striking contrast to the state of things on the

Pacific Coast, viz. the improvidence of the Australians. In the Moore

River District of W. Australia food is abundant in the summer; but the

natives are reckless of the future; they consume whatever they have

got. The natives of S. W. Australia preserve no food; if the game

killed is too much for a family to eat in one day, neighbouring

families are invited and a feast is given, till nothing is left. They

do, however, store up acacia gum, and carry roots with them. The

Queenslanders on Herbert River think only of the present moment. The

Cammarray of N. S. Wales eat as long as they have anything; they never

lay up provisions, except when a dead whale has been cast on shore. Of

the aborigines of N. S. Wales in general Fraser tells us: “When the

fish are abundant, the fishers cannot use a tithe of the fish they

catch, and so sell them to all comers at a few pence for a backful. As

for themselves, they have a noble feast, they and all their tribe; and,

as is their habit whenever they have abundance, they gorge themselves

so that their bodies are swollen to unnatural dimensions and seem ready

to burst. When they can hold no more, they go to sleep like snakes, and

sleep for twenty-four hours or more.” Similar particulars are gives by

Angas. Spencer and Gillen, in their description of the natives of

Central Australia, remark that “when times are favourable the black

fellow is as lighthearted as possible. He has not the slightest thought

of, or care for, what the morrow may bring forth, and lives entirely in

the present” [1023]. As for the Tasmanians: “They lay up no store of

provisions, and have been known in winter time to eat kangaroo skins”

[1024]. Matthews, speaking of several tribes of Queensland and South

Australia, states that they “are very improvident, and accumulate no

property beyond their weapons and rugs” [1025]. And Forrest tells us

that the natives of Central and Western Australia “live from hand to

mouth, never collect more than enough for the day, and each morning

have to look out for their day’s food” [1026]. Thomas remarks, that it

is not true that the Australian does not store food. “Much of his food

he must perforce eat quickly, or natural processes would make his

labour in vain. But the bunya-bunya nut, grass and other seed cakes,

and possibly other kinds of food, were certainly put aside for future

use” [1027]. He evidently means to say, that their preserving

relatively little food is not due to improvidence, but to necessity.

But however this may be, the fact that most of the collected food is

consumed quickly remains, and this fact, not the underlying motives,

has important consequences with regard to the economic structure of

their society.

4º. Trade and industry. Bartering is not at all unknown among the

Australians. Fraser, speaking of N. S. Wales, remarks: “I have already

spoken of pipe-clay and ruddle as articles of trade; the Mindi-mindi

gatherings are the markets at which this trade is carried on. The

necessity for these fairs is not far to seek. A black man’s own

“taurai” does not furnish everything he requires for his daily life. In

it there may be food enough, but he wants suitable stone for an axe,

wood for his spears, and “bumerangs” and shields and clubs, flint for

cutting and skinning, gum to be used as cement, and lumps of gritty

sandstone, on which to sharpen his stone-axe; for adornment, the

pipe-clay and the red-ochre are much valued, and so are swan-down

feathers and the rose-coloured crests of a certain kind of cockatoo;

some of these he can supply, and for them he gets in barter others that

he wants. Then also there are manufactured articles which he can give

in exchange,—cloaks, rugs, baskets, knitted bags, nets, weapons, and

tools; most of these articles bear the “brand” of the maker. In this

way the black man’s wants are supplied by the mutual interchange of

commodities. I suppose that, at these fairs, the usual amount of

haggling goes on in the making of bargains, but there is no quarreling;

for, during the time, universal brotherhood prevails. The fairs are

held whenever there is a need for them” [1028]. Intertribal commerce is

also carried on by the Narrinyeri and Dieri [1029]. It seems, indeed,

that there is hardly any savage tribe, among which the interchange of

commodities is quite unknown. [1030] And in N. S. Wales it is not only

the spontaneous products of nature that are exchanged, but manufactured

articles, so the trade requires industry. Yet trade and industry are

not nearly so fully developed here as on the Pacific Coast. Nowhere are

there particulars given, showing that any Australian tribe is, like the

Koniagas of the Pacific Coast, “adapted to labour and commerce rather

than to war and hunting.” On the Pacific Coast the coast tribes

exchange their manufactured goods for the raw products of the

hinterland; but in Australia there is nothing but hinterland.

That trade and industry do not signify nearly so much as on the Pacific

Coast is clearly proved by their not having here the same effect; they

have not led in Australia to any development of:

5º. Property and wealth. Professor Steinmetz, in his Entwicklung der

Strafe, has closely studied the forms of government existing among the

Australian natives. From the details he gives it appears, that a man’s

influence depends on his age, his bravery, eloquence, etc., and his

having numerous relatives, but not on his wealth. Among the

Queenslanders described by Lumholtz the old men have most influence.

Among the Kurnai age, rather than bravery, gives influence. In Central

Australia a man’s power depends chiefly on his age, but also on force,

courage, prudence, dexterity, perseverance, and the number of his

relatives. On the Bourke and Darling rivers the council of old men is

the only form of government. In Tasmania a man’s influence depended on

his strength, courage, perseverance, prudence, and dexterity. The old

men were highly honoured and had many wives. In the Wellington tribe

there is no government whatever; all are equal. Among the Cammarray the

old men are chiefs. Among the Narrinyeri chieftainship is elective;

wisdom, moderation, and good humour are the qualities most required in

a chief. Among the Dieri the oldest man of the clan is chief, but has

not always most power. A chief has real power only when, besides his

age, he has other valued qualities, such as bravery, eloquence, or a

large family. Great warriors, orators and sorcerers have most

influence. In the Moore River District there is no government, a

perfect equality prevails. The natives of Port Lincoln have no

government; old people are held in high esteem. In the Western District

of Victoria “the succession to the chiefdom is by inheritance”. “The

eldest son is appointed, unless there is some good reason for setting

him aside.” If the heir is weakly in body or mentally unfitted to

maintain the position of chief,— which requires to be filled by a man

of ability and bravery,— and has a better-qualified brother, he must

give way to the latter or fight him in single combat. Among the tribes

of Victoria described by Le Souëf government in the true sense does not

exist, but the bravest and strongest, and often the most dangerous men,

have most influence [1031]. Some other statements lead to the same

conclusion. In N. W. Central Queensland “a ripe old age constitutes the

highest social status in the camp, and the one calling for the greatest

respect. There is no single individual chief to direct affairs” [1032].

In N. S. Wales, according to Fraser, “there is nothing of the nature of

kingly rule in any one of the tribes, nor is there an over-chief for

the whole of a tribe; but the affairs of each section of a tribe are

administered by a number of elders, among whom one man is considered

the leader or chief, because of his superior wisdom and influence”. “If

there are two rivals competing for the chiefship, they settle the

matter by single combat”. And Wilkes says: “As no system of government

exists, or any acknowledgment of power to enact laws, they are solely

guided by old usage” [1033]. Among the Dieri chieftainship is elective

according to the influence of the candidate’s clan and his oratorical

power [1034]. About Powell’s Creek there is no government whatever;

“the oldest man in the tribe would usually carry most sway in tribal

matters” [1035]. Matthews, speaking of several tribes of Queensland and

South Australia, remarks: “They have elders or chiefs corresponding

with the Indian Medicine men, who I believe are principally

self-constituted, or admitted as such on the score of age or personal

prowess. Great respect is attached to age as a rule, especially in

visiting another tribe” [1036]. Among the native tribes of Central

Australia, described by Spencer and Gillen, the chief has “a position

which, if he be a man of personal ability, but only in that case,

enables him to wield considerable power” [1037]. In South Australia the

chiefs are either hereditary or elected for their personal qualities

[1038]. A describer of the natives of North Australia tells us: “There

are no recognized chiefs in a tribe in the true sense of the word, as

far as I have come in contact with them; the old men of each tribe form

themselves into a sort of council when anything of importance is to be

discussed, and what they decide upon is generally carried out” [1039].

Thomas remarks that, among the Australians in general, “where there was

a tendency to select the son of the late headman, it was modified by

the rule that he must have shown himself worthy of the post by

attaining distinction as a warrior, orator or bard” [1040], and Brough

Smyth has the following statement: “The government of aboriginal tribes

is not a democracy. There are the doctors or sorcerers who, under some

circumstances, have supreme power; there are the warriors who in time

of trouble are absolute masters; there are the dreamers, who direct and

control the movements of the tribe until their divinations are

fulfilled or forgotten; there are the old men (councillors) without

whose advice even the warriors are slow to move; and, finally, there

are the old women, who noisily intimate their designs and endeavour by

clamour and threats to influence the leaders of their tribe” [1041].

We see that influence and power in Australia depend on personal

qualities, not on wealth. We have only found two instances on record of

men trying to strengthen their influence by means of their property.

Gason tells us of a celebrated Dieri chief, who received regular

tributes from the hordes under his control. The writer often observed

him distributing presents among his personal friends, in order to avoid

their jealousy [1042]. But this is quite another thing than what we

found existing on the Pacific Coast of North America. In the latter

group a rich man, by being rich, attains to power; whereas here the

chief, elected for his personal qualities, receives tributes, and by

distributing what he has received strengthens his influence. Moreover

we are told that these Dieri “have no property except a few weapons or

ornaments; they are generally buried or destroyed”, viz. after their

owner’s death [1043]. Lumholtz speaks of an old man in Queensland who

distributed his property among his fellow-tribesmen to attain to

greater influence [1044]. This looks somewhat like the state of things

existing on the Pacific Coast; but as the same writer tells us that

there is no government except the council of old men, this may be an

isolated case. And even if among one or two tribes wealth gave a

certain influence, this would not impair the conclusion we have arrived

at, that generally a man’s influence and power do not depend upon his

wealth, whence we may infer that wealth and property are little

developed here.

6º. Condition of women. Whereas on the Pacific Coast women are held in

rather high esteem, and therefore provided by the men with slaves who

help them in their work, the condition of women in Australia is

decidedly bad, as we have seen in the first chapter of Part I [1045].

7º. Militarism. We have shown that slaves are sometimes taken in order

to strengthen their masters’ force in warfare. On the other hand, where

militarism does not prevail to any considerable extent, the tribe can

afford the luxury of having male slaves living among them who do not

fight. As for the Australians, their wars generally are not sanguinary,

and often settled by single combat [1046].

Our conclusion is that the Australians differ from the tribes of the

Pacific Coast of North America in many respects. Food is by no means

abundant; the highly developed fishing methods of the Pacific Coast are

unknown here; the Australians are migratory and improvident, and live

in small groups; though some tribes interchange commodities, trade and

industry do not signify nearly so much as on the Pacific Coast; the

objects of property are very few and wealth does not exist; the

condition of women is a bad one. Only in two respects do both groups

agree: there is a great variety of food, and militarism does not

prevail to any great extent. We have seen, however, that “variety of

food” here means that the Australians must avail themselves of whatever

is eatable, i.e. that they live in the deepest misery. Therefore

henceforth we shall no longer speak of variety of food as a

circumstance favourable to the existence of slavery; and in the next

paragraphs we shall not inquire whether the Central North Americans and

Eskimos have a variety of food.

§ 4. Experimentum crucis: Central North America.

This paragraph will contain a survey of the economic state of the group

of hunting tribes, extending across North America, from the Montagnais

near the Atlantic Coast to the Apaches of Texas. Besides hunters in the

proper sense this group includes the Cheyennes and Comanches, who,

though slight traces of agriculture were found among them, subsisted

almost entirely on the products of the chase.

1º Abundance of food. Le Jeune, speaking of the Montagnais, says: “The

savages are almost always hungry” [1047]. The Chepewyans “are not

remarkable for their activity as hunters, owing to the ease with which

they snare deer and spear fish” [1048]. Among the Kutchins a good

hunter can always, except in very unfavourable circumstances, procure

sufficient food [1049]. The Beaver Indians, according to Mackenzie,

seemed to live in a state of comparative comfort [1050]. The Comanches

in the summer, when the buffaloes remove to the North, often suffer

from want of food [1051]. Lewis and Clark tell us, that the Shoshones

“suffer the extremes of want; for two-thirds of the year they are

forced to live in the mountains, passing whole weeks without meat, and

with nothing to eat but a few fish and roots” [1052]. Grinnell,

speaking of the inland Indians in general, remarks: “The life of the

Indian was in some respects a hard one, for the question of food was an

ever-present anxiety with him” [1053].

Considering the foregoing statements, and remembering Tanner’s

narrative that gives a description of a continual struggle for mere

existence, we may safely conclude that, though a few of these tribes

lived rather comfortably, food, among the Indians of Central North

America in general, was not nearly so abundant as on the Pacific Coast.

2º. Whereas the tribes of the Pacific Coast subsist chiefly by fishing,

the Indians of Central North America are, nearly all of them, hunters

(See § 2 of this chapter).

3º. Fixed habitations, large groups, preserving of food. In a general

description of the “vast but thinly populated interior of Northern

America” we read that, with regard to the mode of living, a distinction

is to be made between the thick-wood Indians and the prairie Indians.

The thick-wood Indians consist of small groups. During the summer they

live on waterfowl, fish, berries, etc. In the winter they often suffer

from want of food. The prairie Indians during the whole year live on

the buffalo. Their groups number on an average 400 people [1054]. The

Montagnais, in Le Jeune’s time, were wandering and few in number; their

life consisted of feasting as long as they had anything; they lived

from hand to mouth and did not lay up any provision [1055]. The same

writer calls the Algonquins a wandering tribe [1056]. The Ojibways,

according to Keating, are divided into small groups, each containing a

few families. They do not lay up any provision for winter use. Jones

also remarks, that they are very improvident. Kohl, however, gives a

long description of the fruits preserved by them [1057]. The

Knisteneaux often, at one feast, consume what would have been enough

for several weeks [1058]. The Blackfeet tribes are nomadic in their

habits [1059]. Ross tells us, that the Eastern Tinneh “are obliged to

lead a wandering life, in order to procure food either by fishing or

hunting” [1060]. The Indians on the Upper Yukon are very improvident.

When fish is abundant, they gorge themselves with it, instead of drying

it for winter use [1061]. The Kutchins live in transportable dwellings.

According to Kirby they “are divided into many petty tribes”. Hardisty,

however, states that they generally live in large groups [1062].

Mackenzie speaks of a Beaver Indian establishment of about 300

inhabitants [1063]. The Sioux live in small bands, owing to the

scarcity of game [1064]. The Osages are nomadic. Our informant speaks

of an Osage town of 1500 inhabitants [1065]. Apache tribes of 100–200

people, of whom 25–50 are warriors, are headed by a captain. They are

“nomadic and roving in their habits”. “Seldom do they remain more than

a week in one locality” [1066]. The Comanches “usually roam in small

subdivisions, varying according to caprice or the scarcity or abundance

of game”. These subdivisions consist of 20–110 families. Brancroft

remarks about the Comanches: “No provision is made for a time of

scarcity, but when many buffalo are killed, they cut portions of them

into long strips, which, after being dried in the sun, are pounded

fine. This pemican they carry with them in their hunting expeditions,

and when unsuccessful in the chase, a small quantity boiled in water or

cooked with grease, serves for a meal” [1067]. These details do not

quite agree with Bancroft’s assertion that “no provision is made”.

Grinnell remarks, that the Indians are often undeservedly taxed with

improvidence. “We are told in books much about the Indian’s

improvidence, and it is frequently stated that however abundant food

might be with him to-day, he took no thought for the needs of the

morrow. Such statements are untrue and show but superficial

observation. The savage does not look so far ahead as does the

civilized man, but still the lessons of experience are not wholly lost

on him. He remembers past hardships, and endeavours to provide against

their recurrence; and these people were rather remarkable for their

foresight, and for the provision which they were accustomed to make for

the future” [1068].

However this may be, it is evident that the supplies these wandering

tribes (as they subsist on hunting, we may safely suppose that they are

all of them nomadic, whether this be explicitly stated or not) were

able to store for winter’s use, cannot compare with those of the tribes

of the Pacific Coast.

4º. Trade and industry. The Montagnais, in Le Jeune’s time, bought

maize from the Hurons for elk-skins [1069]. The Algonquins, according

to the same writer, used to sell furs to the French [1070]. The

Blackfeet tribes sold peltries which they procured in the Northern part

of their country [1071]. Jones calls the Kutcha Kutchin traders: “they

make very little for themselves, but buy from the other Indians.” And

Hardisty tells us, that they live by trading; they exchange beads,

which are their circulating medium, for the peltries of other tribes

[1072]. The Osages, too, carried on the fur-trade in Hunter’s time

[1073].

We see that trade does not hold a large place in the economic life of

these Indians, and that only raw products are exchanged.

Grinnell enumerates the branches of industry existing among them. “Food

supply and defence against enemies depended on the warrior’s weapons.

These were his most precious possessions, and he gave much care to

their manufacture. Knowing nothing of metals, he made his edge tools of

sharpened stones.” “The most important part of the warrior’s equipment

was the bow, and over no part of it was more time and labour spent.”

“The stone axe, the maul, and the lance were all simple weapons.” “A

very important part of the warrior’s outfit was the shield, with which

he stopped or turned aside the arrows of his enemy. It was usually

circular in shape, and was made of the thick, shrunken hide of a

buffalo bull’s neck.” “Clothing was made of skins tanned with or

without the fur.” “Many tribes—especially those to the south—made a

simple pottery.... Among the northern tribes, where pottery was least

known, ladles, spoons, bows, and dishes were usually formed from horn

or wood”. “The different tribes had but slight knowledge of the textile

art, and this knowledge seems to have been greatest in the south and on

the coast.” “Three vehicles were known to the primitive Indian—the

travois in the south and the sledge in the north for land travel, and

the canoe wherever there were water ways.” “The Indian’s ideas of art

are rude.” “It is in the art of carving, however, that the greatest

skill was shown” [1074]. So these tribes do not seem to have attained

to a high industrial development; the less, as most of the instances

Grinnell gives of their skill in carving relate to tribes of the

Pacific Coast.

5º. Property and wealth. Whereas on the Pacific Coast influence and

power depend on wealth, we shall see that in Central North America it

is otherwise. Le Jeune, speaking of the Montagnais, remarks: “Rhetoric

controls all these tribes, as the captain is elected for his eloquence

alone, and is obeyed in proportion to his use of it, for they have no

other law than his word” [1075]. Roosevelt states that among the

Algonquins the war-chief “wielded only the influence that he could

secure by his personal prowess and his tact” [1076]. The power of an

Ojibway chief depended upon his wisdom, courage, and hospitality

[1077]. Of the Blackfeet we are told: “Chiefs never receive a gift,

considering it a degradation to accept anything but what their own

prowess or superior qualities of manhood acquire for them. Their hearts

are so good and strong that they scorn to take anything, and

self-denial and the power to resist temptation to luxury or easily

acquired property is a boast with them. On these men, in time of peace,

when difficulties occur among themselves, the tribe relies, and in time

of war they are their leaders to the scene of action”. And Schoolcraft

states that the chiefs “have little or no power, unless they have

distinguished themselves as warriors and are supported by a band of

braves” [1078]. Among the Kutchins, according to Jones, the chiefs are

elected for their wisdom and courage. Hardisty, however, states that

the power of the chiefs depends on the number of beads they own; for

these afford a means of injuring those who displease them. And Whymper

remarks: “The chiefs, who are without exception good hunters or

fishers, often procure or strengthen their position by periodical

distributions of their chattels. They not seldom have the worst

clothing and food of all inhabitants” [1079]. Among the Cheyennes

generally the bravest and wisest man is elected as a chief [1080]. Mrs.

Eastman tells us of the Sioux, that formerly “their bravest men, their

war chief too, no doubt exercized a control over the rest.” The chief

lived like the common people and Neill remarks: “The individual who

desires to improve his condition is not only laughed at, but

maltreated. Moreover, if he acquires any property, there is no law

which secures it to him, and it is liable to be taken away at any time

by any ill-disposed person” [1081]. Among the Apaches, according to

Schoolcraft, “the chiefs are the wealthiest men, the most warlike, the

first in battle, the wisest in council”. According to Ten Kate the

power of the chiefs depends on their success in forays. And Bancroft

remarks: “Sometimes it happens that one family retains the chieftaincy

in a tribe during several generations, because of the bravery or wealth

of the sons” [1082]. Comanche chiefs, according to Schoolcraft, “are

selected for their known or pretended prowess in war”. In another place

he states, that they are made chiefs for their “superior cunning,

knowledge or success in war” [1083].

Influence and power depend thus on bravery, wisdom, eloquence, not on

wealth. Only among the Apaches does it depend on wealth, though not on

wealth exclusively. The distributions of property among the Kutchins

somewhat resemble those on the Pacific Coast, but are not indicative of

quite the same development of wealth; for on the Pacific Coast wealth

consists to a large extent of more durable goods, such as houses,

canoes, etc.

A few other statements also tend to prove, that wealth is not highly

developed; the economic life of some tribes shows rather communistic

features. Among the Kutchins, “unless he is alone, a hunter cannot take

and appropriate the meat of the animal he kills. Should he do so, he

would be considered mean. And this feeling is strong. When two good

hunters go together, good and well, the one has as good a chance of

getting meat as the other; but when one is a bad hunter and the other a

good one, the former gets all the meat and the real hunter has nothing,

and loses his ammunition into the bargain” [1084]. Among the Chepewyans

the game is distributed among those who shared in the chase. The game

which a man catches in his share is his private property; “nevertheless

any unsuccessful hunter passing by may take a deer so caught, leaving

the head, skin, and saddle for the owner” [1085].

Among the Osages, too, wealth was formerly unknown; for in Hunter’s

time the old men disapproved of the fur-trade, which gave abundance and

thereby led to effeminacy [1086].

6º. Condition of women. Le Jeune states, that among the Montagnais the

sex has great influence. Household affairs are left to the discretion

of the women, without any male interference. The women “cut and decide

and give away as they please” [1087]. Ojibway women, according to

Jones, do the hardest work, are slaves of the men, get the worst food

and the worst place in the wigwam; and Long states, that the wives are

the slaves of their husbands. According to Kohl, nearly all kinds of

work, except the chase, fell to the share of the women, who were even

obliged to bring home the bears killed by the men [1088]. Mackenzie

tells us, that among the Knisteneaux women are in the same subjected

condition as among other wild tribes [1089]. Among the Blackfeet the

husband may send his wife away when he likes; she then takes her

property with her; the children remain with the father. Many men have 6

or 8 wives; they readily lend them to whites for brandy [1090].

Chepewyan wives are subjected to their husbands, who are very jealous

and “for very trifling causes treat them with such cruelty as sometimes

to occasion their death” [1091]. Among the Kutchins, as we have seen in

§ 2, the condition of women is a rather bad one [1092]. Mackenzie

speaks of the “extreme subjection and abasement” of Beaver Indian women

[1093]. Cheyenne women perform all the drudgery. Yet they have some

influence in government matters; they do not attend the councils; but

their wishes, privately uttered, are not generally disregarded [1094].

Among the Sioux women as children and wives are despised, as girls a

little more honoured. And Schoolcraft states that they exercise some

influence in tribal matters by expressing their desires at home, but

are not admitted to the council [1095]. Bancroft, speaking of the

Apache family in general (including Apaches, Comanches, and several

other tribes), remarks: “Womankind as usual is at a discount. The

female child receives little care from its mother, being only of

collateral advantage to the tribe. Later she becomes the beast of

burden and slave of her husband.” But another statement of the same

writer proves that the women’s condition is not so very bad: “The

marriage yoke sits lightly; the husband may repudiate his wife and take

back the property given for her; the wife may abandon her husband, but

by the latter act she covers him with such disgrace that it may only be

wiped out by killing somebody—anybody whom he may chance to meet”

[1096]. The wife may thus with impunity leave her husband, the latter

venting his anger upon “somebody”. Schoolcraft states that Comanche

women are not thought much of, even by themselves; the husband has

unlimited sway over his wife [1097]. Among the Shoshones, according to

Lewis and Clark, “the man is the sole proprietor of his wives and

daughters, and can barter them away, or dispose of them in any manner

he may think proper.” “The mass of the females are condemned, as among

all savage nations, to the lowest and most laborious drudgery” [1098].

Now let us inquire what Grinnell, who is so well acquainted with Indian

life, has to say about the treatment of women among the Indians in

general. “A word or two with regard to the position of the wife in the

household may not be out of place here. The Indian woman, it is usually

thought, is a mere drudge and slave, but, so far as my observations

extend, this notion is wholly an erroneous one. It is true that the

women were the labourers of the camp, that they did all the hard work

about which there was no excitement. They cooked, brought wood and

water, dried the meat, dressed the robes, made the clothing, collected

the lodge poles, packed the horses, cultivated the ground, and

generally performed all the tasks which might be called menial, but

they were not mere servants. On the contrary, their position was very

respectable. They were consulted on many subjects, not only in

connection with family affairs, but in more important and general

matters. Sometimes women were even admitted to the councils and spoke

there, giving their advice. This privilege was very unusual, and was

granted only to women who had performed some deed which was worthy of a

man. This in practice meant that she had killed or counted coup on an

enemy, or had been to war. In ordinary family conversation women did

not hesitate to interrupt and correct their husbands when the latter

made statements with which they did not agree, and the men listened to

them with respectful attention, though of course this depended on the

standing of the woman, her intelligence, etc. While their lives were

hard and full of toil, they yet found time to get together for gossip

and for gambling, and on the whole managed to take a good deal of

pleasure in life” [1099]. And Ten Kate, a careful observer, remarks

that the Indians do not, as has often been asserted, regard woman as a

beast of burden and a drudge. Her condition, as compared with that of

the women of the lower classes in civilized countries, is rather better

than worse [1100].

So the lot of the Indian woman is not so hard as at first sight it

seems. Yet the fact, that several ethnographers picture it in such dark

colours, whereas the describers of the tribes of the Pacific Coast

agree, that the sex command great respect, tends to prove, that the

condition of women is not quite so good here as on the Pacific Coast.

7º. Militarism. These tribes are very warlike. Roosevelt states that

warfare and hunting were the chief occupations of the Algonquins

[1101]. Among the Ojibways the end of education is to make good hunters

and warriors [1102]. According to Mackenzie, warfare and hunting, among

the Knisteneaux, are the occupations of the men. They are continually

engaged in warfare [1103]. The Blackfeet were very warlike, and always

fighting with their neighbours [1104]. Mackenzie tells us, that it was

a custom with Chepewyan chiefs “to go to war after they had shed tears

in order to wipe away the disgrace attached to such a feminine

weakness” [1105]. The Beaver Indians were even more warlike than the

Chepewyans [1106]. Mrs. Eastman calls the Sioux “brave, daring,

revengeful” [1107]. The Apaches, according to Bancroft, “are in their

industries extremely active,—their industries being theft and murder,

to which they are trained by their mothers, and in which they display

consummate cunning, treachery, and cruelty” [1108]. And the same writer

tells us that “the Comanches, who are better warriors than the Apaches,

highly honour bravery on the battle-field. From early youth, they are

taught the art of war, and the skilful handling of their horses and

weapons; and they are not allowed a seat in the council, until their

name is garnished by some heroic deed” [1109].

We see that the Indians of Central North America present a strongly

marked contrast with such tribes as the Koniagas who are “adapted to

labour and commerce rather than to war and hunting” and the Chinooks

who “were always a commercial rather than a warlike people”. Therefore

all available men are wanted in warfare; they cannot afford to have

male slaves living among them, who do not share in their military

operations. They are very much in need of warriors, and little of

labourers. Accordingly among many of these tribes such prisoners of war

as are allowed to live, are adopted into the tribe or into some family

within the tribe [1110].

Concluding, we may remark, that the Indians of Central North America

differ from the tribes of the Pacific Coast in many respects. They have

no abundance of food, are hunters and nomadic; wealth does not exist,

and militarism prevails to a great extent. The groups in which they

live, though larger than in Australia, are smaller than on the Pacific

Coast. Food is preserved, but not so systematically as on the Pacific

Coast. The condition of women, though not so bad as in Australia, is

not quite so good as among the slave-keeping tribes of the North-West

Coast of North America. Their trade consists only in exchanging raw

products; and industry is little developed.

§ 5. Experimentum crucis: Eskimos.

1º. Abundance of food. In Greenland vegetable food is very scarce. The

flesh of the reindeer is most valued by the Greenlanders, but is not

available in large quantities; so they have to live chiefly upon

sea-animals, seals, fish and sea-birds [1111]. Boas states that “the

mode of life of all the Eskimo tribes of North-Eastern America is very

uniform.” They depend entirely on animal food, especially seals and

deer [1112]. Bancroft, speaking of the Eskimos of Alaska, remarks:

“Their substantials comprise the flesh of land and marine animals, fish

and birds; venison, and whale and seal blubber being chief” [1113].

Though we nowhere find it stated that food is exceedingly scarce, the

details given here sufficiently prove that it is not nearly so abundant

as on the Pacific Coast. Shell-fish, fruits, roots, and other

vegetables, acquired so easily and in large quantities by the tribes of

the Pacific Coast, do not enter for any considerable part into the food

of the Eskimos.

2º. As for fishing, taken in the wider sense (including the killing of

water animals besides fish), all Eskimos are fishers.

3º. Fixed habitations, large groups, preserving of food. Though the

Eskimos move about much for the purpose of obtaining food, they are not

quite nomadic. In winter-time they live in solidly constructed

dwellings [1114]. Rink states that they have their winter-houses on the

same place during several generations [1115]. Boas remarks: “There is

no need of any new buildings, as the Eskimo always locate in the old

settlements and the old buildings are quite sufficient to satisfy all

their wants” [1116]. And Crantz tells us that a Greenlander is not

generally much inclined to leave the place where he was born and bred

and settle somewhere else; for in nearly every place there is a

peculiar method of fishing and seal-hunting, which the newcomer has to

learn; and in the meantime, often for several years, he is poorly off

[1117]. An Eskimo village most often consists of a single house [1118],

but Eskimo houses accommodate several (in Greenland from 4 to 10)

families [1119]. Among the Western Eskimos, however, there are larger

villages [1120]. Food is preserved for winter use by the Eskimos,

though not in such large quantities as on the Pacific Coast. “The

Esquimaux” says a writer on British North America “possess a quality

which I may say is almost unknown among Indians, namely, providence;

thus, in the season, when the animals are plentiful on the shores of

the Arctic Sea, they make “caches” of large quantities of meat for

winter use” [1121]. The Greenlanders, though laying up some provision

for the winter, are rather improvident. As long as they have abundance

of food, they feast and gorge themselves with it; but in the winter

they often live in the greatest misery [1122]. Boas, speaking of

Central Eskimo store-houses, remarks: “In winter, blubber and meat are

put away upon these pillars, which are sufficiently high to keep them

from the dogs.” Yet “the house presents a sad and gloomy appearance if

stormy weather prevents the men from hunting. The stores are quickly

consumed, one lamp after another is extinguished, and everybody sits

motionless in the dark hut” [1123]. Among the Eskimos of Alaska “meats

are kept in seal-skin bags for over a year.... Their winter store of

oil they secure in seal-skin bags, which are buried in the frozen

ground” [1124].

4º. Trade and industry. Rink states that the Eskimos make long journeys

for the purpose of interchanging such commodities, as are found in some

districts only and yet are necessary to all the tribes. The trade is

carried on from Asia to Hudson Bay [1125]. The Greenlanders mutually

exchange the articles they need. With some of them bartering is quite a

passion; they often exchange useful things for worthless trifles. They

have a kind of annual fair, at which the inhabitants of several

districts interchange the products of their country. “A great article

of commerce are vessels made of soapstone, which are not found in all

parts of the country; and, as the Southern Greenlanders have no whales

and the Northern no wood, there come, all through the summer months,

from the South and even from the East of the country many boats with

Greenlanders from 100 to 200 miles, to Disko, bringing new kyaks and

women’s boats with the necessary implements. They receive in exchange

horns, teeth, bones, whale-bones and whale-tendons, part of which, on

their homeward voyage, they sell again” [1126]. Among the Central

Eskimos “two desiderata formed the principal inducement to long

journeys, which sometimes lasted even several years: wood and

soapstone. The shores of Davis’ Strait and Cumberland Sound are almost

destitute of driftwood, and consequently the natives were obliged to

visit distant regions to obtain that necessary material. Tudjaqdjuaq in

particular was the objective point of their expeditions. Their boats

took a southerly course, and, as the wood was gathered, a portion of it

was immediately manufactured into boat ribs and sledge runners, which

were carried back on the return journey; another portion was used for

bows, though these were also made of deer’s horns ingeniously lashed

together. A portion of the trade in wood seems to have been in the

hands of the Nugumiut, who collected it on Tudjaqdjuaq and took it

north. Another necessary and important article of trade, soapstone, is

manufactured into lamps and pots. It is found in a few places only, and

very rarely in pieces large enough for the manufacture of the articles

named.... The visitors come from every part of the country, the

soapstone being dug or “traded” from the rocks by depositing some

trifles in exchange. In addition to wood and soapstone, metals, which

were extremely rare in old times, have formed an important object of

trade. They were brought to Baffin Bay either by the Aivillirmiut, who

had obtained them from the Hudson Bay Company and the Kinipetu, or by

the Akuliarmiut. Even when Frobisher visited the Nugumiut in 1577 he

found them in possession of some iron. The occurrence of flint, which

was the material for arrow-heads, may have given some importance to

places where it occurs. Formerly an important trade existed between the

Netchillirmiut and the neighbouring tribes. As the district of the

former is destitute of driftwood and potstone, they are compelled to

buy both articles from their neighbours. In Ross’s time they got the

necessary wood from Ugjulik, the potstone from Aivillik. They exchanged

these articles for native iron (or pyrite), which they found on the

eastern shore of Boothia and which was used for striking fire. After

having collected a sufficient stock of it during several years, they

travelled to the neighbouring tribes” [1127]. The Eskimos of Alaska are

also very commercial. “On the shore of Bering Strait the natives have

constant commercial intercourse with Asia.... They frequently meet at

the Gwosdeff Islands, where the Tschuktschi bring tobacco, iron,

tame-reindeer skins, and walrus-ivory; the Eskimos giving in exchange

wolf and wolverine skins, wooden dishes, seal-skins and other peltries.

The Eskimos of the American coast carry on quite an extensive trade

with the Indians of the interior, exchanging with them Asiatic

merchandise for peltries” [1128]. We see that most of the Eskimo trade

is bartering of raw products. This agrees with what Rink remarks, viz.

that there is no division of labour; each group that has a tent or boat

is entirely self-dependent [1129].

In industry they display much skill. Their boats are ingeniously made

and have excited the admiration of all travellers. “The kajak (qajaq)

is almost exclusively used for hunting by all Eskimo tribes from

Greenland to Alaska” [1130]. Crantz tells us that the implements the

Greenlanders use for procuring their subsistence are simple, but so

well adapted to their purpose that they are more convenient than the

costly implements of the Europeans. Their harpoons consist of several

pieces, but are so ingeniously made that not a single piece is

superfluous. Their boats are also greatly admired by this writer

[1131]. And Bancroft tells us that “the Hyperboreans surpass all

American nations in their facilities for locomotion, both upon land and

water. In their skin boats, the natives of the Alaskan seaboard, from

Point Barrow to Mount St. Elias, made long voyages, crossing the strait

and sea of Bering, and held commercial intercourse with the people of

Asia. Sixty miles is an ordinary day’s journey for sledges, while

Indians on snow-shoes have been known to run down and capture deer”.

“So highly were these boats esteemed by the Russians, that they were at

once universally adopted by them in navigating these waters. They were

unable to invent any improvement in either of them” [1132].

5º. Property and wealth. It is nowhere stated that a man’s rank or

power depends upon his wealth. The Greenlanders live without any

government; the head of each family is independent. When several

families live together in one house, they have no control over each

other, but voluntarily obey the most respected head of a family, i.e.

the one who is best acquainted with hunting and the signs of the

weather. Yet our informant also states: “If several Greenlanders live

together, they like to keep an angekok (priest), to avail themselves of

his advice. And if they do not keep one, they are despised or pitied by

the others as being poor men” [1133]. So poor people are despised, but

this applies to villages or settlements rather than individuals. This

agrees with what Rink tells us of their communistic régime. Only the

indispensable implements and utensils are individual property, and also

provisions sufficient for less than a year. If an individual or group

have got too much, they are compelled by public opinion to give it to

those who have too little [1134]. Among the Central Eskimos men unable

to provide for themselves are employed as servants, but their position

“is a voluntary one, and therefore these men are not less esteemed than

the self-dependent providers” [1135]. Among the Eskimos of Alaska “now

or then some ancient or able man gains an ascendency in the tribe, and

overawes his fellows.” “Caste has been mentioned in connection with

tattooing, but, as a rule, social distinctions do not exist” [1136].

Though the Eskimos are dependent for their subsistence on the

possession of boats, houses and implements, they do not want more

property than is needed for procuring their daily food. According to

Rink, the benefit of an inheritance is smaller than the duties it

involves; for boat and tent continually require so much mending, that a

single hunter is hardly able to keep them in order [1137]. In

Greenland, if a man dies leaving no full-grown son, his goods devolve

upon the next of kin, who is obliged to provide for the widow and her

children. But if he already possesses a tent and a boat, he will leave

the inheritance and the duties connected with it to an alien; for

nobody is capable of keeping two tents and two boats in repair [1138].

6º. Condition of women. Though not quite so bad as in Australia,

woman’s condition is not so good here as among the Indians of the

Pacific Coast. Greenland women lead a hard and almost slave-like life,

says Crantz [1139]. And Bancroft tells us that among the Eskimos of

Alaska “the lot of the women is but little better than slavery” [1140].

The principal cause of this difference perhaps is, that female labour

among the Eskimos is not productive. In Greenland “a man who has two

wives is not despised; on the contrary he is looked upon as an able

provider” [1141]. This proves that subsistence depends upon male, not

as in Australia upon female labour. Among the Central Eskimos “the

principal part of the man’s work is to provide for his family.... The

woman has to do the household work, the sewing, and the cooking”

[1142]. Among the Western Eskimos “polygamy is common, every man being

entitled to as many wives, as he can get and maintain” [1143]. So the

man maintains the family; female labour, however useful, is not so

indispensable as male. The men know this quite well. In Greenland “the

man hunts and fishes, and having brought the animals ashore he pays no

more attention to them; it would even be a disgrace for him to carry

the captured seal on land” [1144]. This is quite another state of

things than what we have seen to exist on the Pacific Coast, where

female labour, especially in the preparation of articles of commerce,

is highly valued.

7º. Militarism. Among the Greenlanders warfare is unknown [1145]. Boas,

speaking of the Central Eskimos, says: “Real wars or fights between

settlements, I believe, have never happened, but contests have always

been confined to single families” [1146]. In Alaska it is otherwise,

for “the Northern Indians are frequently at war with the Eskimos and

Southern Indians, for whom they at all times entertain the most

inveterate hatred” [1147]. This absence of militarism enables the

Greenlanders and Central Eskimos to have men performing women’s work

living among them, as we have seen in § 1 of this chapter [1148].

So the Eskimos, like the slave-keeping Indians of the Pacific Coast,

are accomplished fishers, have fixed habitations, are industrially

highly developed, and generally not warlike. On the other hand there is

no abundance of food, wealth does not exist, and woman’s condition is

not nearly so good as on the Pacific Coast. Also in the size of their

groups, the preserving of food, and the development of trade, they are

decidedly inferior to the slave-keeping tribes of the N. W. Coast of

North America.

The principal cause why the Eskimos do not keep slaves evidently is the

difficulty with which food is procured. We have seen that female

labour, being unproductive, is little valued. Male labour only is

indispensable, and this is labour of high quality. Navigating in the

kyak is a matter of much skill. Crantz tells us that Europeans who

tried it, could move about a little in very calm weather; but they were

not able to fish while being in the kyak, nor to save themselves when

the least danger occurred. This requires peculiar skill, and Eskimos

take several years to learn it. There are indeed men unable to capture

seals; they are much despised [1149]. Bancroft also states that

considerable skill is required in taking seals [1150], and Boas

describes at great length the ingenious methods used in seal, walrus,

and whale hunting [1151]. Unskilled labour is not wanted; and widows

and orphans who have lost their bread-winner may be glad if any one is

willing to receive them into his house [1152].

Sometimes an Eskimo wants labour. In Greenland a married couple having

no children at all or no full-grown children, adopt male and female

children whom they treat as their own; the adopted son is considered

the future head of the family [1153]. Among the Central Eskimos too, as

to the right of inheritance “an elder adopted son has a preference over

a younger son born of the marriage” [1154]. Thus we see that a normally

constituted family is self-dependent. If there are no children, their

place has to be supplied by strangers; boys have to perform the same

highly skilled labour as the father, and girls to help the mother in

her work that, though less valued, has also to be done. But a further

increase of the family by slaves performing menial work is not wanted;

the man, if able, would not be willing to maintain them. The only kind

of work indispensable here cannot be imposed upon slaves; and the cost

of maintaining slaves performing other work would be greater than the

profit they would yield. Food is not preserved in such large quantities

as on the Pacific Coast; shell-fish and vegetable food are almost

entirely unknown here; nor is any fish, oil, etc. prepared for

commercial purposes.

There is one more cause at work among the Eskimos, preventing the

existence of slavery: the dependence of labour upon capital. Boas,

describing the Central Eskimos, states that among the adopted people

“who may almost be considered servants” there are “men who have lost

their sledges and dogs.” Such servants “fulfil minor occupations, mend

the hunting implements, fit out the sledges, feed the dogs, etc.;

sometimes, however, they join the hunters. They follow the master of

the house when he removes from one place to another, make journeys in

order to do his commissions, and so on” [1155]. And Crantz tells us

that among the Greenlanders many boys are neglected in their youth, as

the providing of them with kyak and implements is very costly [1156].

Among the Indians of the Pacific Coast the possession of capital gives

great advantage; thus among the Makah the owner of the canoe receives a

proportionate share of the booty from the crew [1157]; but it is not

indispensable. Here it is. A man destitute of capital cannot provide

for himself, and is therefore at the mercy of the capitalist. Now the

Eskimo capitalist most often allows such men to share his house and

food, and makes them feed the dogs, etc. rather as means of procuring

employment for them, than because such work requires hands outside the

family. The capitalist does not want labourers; but even if he did,

there would always be widows and orphans, and men destitute of capital,

who would readily enter into his service. The Eskimos have to struggle

with “unemployment” difficulties, not with scarcity of hands; therefore

a slave-dealer visiting them would not find a ready sale for his

stock-in-trade.

§ 6. Conclusion.

We shall sum up here the conclusions to which the foregoing paragraphs

have led us.

1º. Hunters hardly ever keep slaves; and when they do slavery is of

little moment. But among fishers slavery often, though by no means

always, exists: of the two large groups of fishing tribes one (the

Indians on the Pacific Coast of North America) keeps slaves, the other

(the Eskimos) does not.

2º. The living in fixed habitations is more favourable to the existence

of slavery than nomadism.

3º. Slavery is most likely to exist among men who live in rather large

groups.

4º. Where food is abundant and easy to procure, slaves can be of more

use than where food is scarce; in the latter case the slave, to use

Spencer’s words, “is not worth his food.”

5º. The preserving of food furthers the growth of slavery.

6º. Commercial tribes, especially those that carry on a trade in

manufactured goods, have more use for slaves than others. We must,

however, bear in mind that trade, even among savages, does not seem

anywhere to be altogether unknown.

7º. A high development of industry also tends to further the growth of

slavery. The instance of the Eskimos, however, shows that industrial

tribes do not always keep slaves.

8º. Where wealth exists slaves are more likely to be kept than where

wealth is unknown.

9º. Where subsistence is dependent on capital, slaves are not wanted.

10º. Where only highly skilled labour is required, slaves cannot be of

any use.

11º. Female labour may in some degree serve as a substitute for slave

labour (as in Australia). But where women enjoy much consideration, the

men sometimes procure slaves in order to relieve the women of a part of

their task, especially where the women perform productive labour.

12º. Where militarism largely prevails, and warriors are more wanted

than labourers, slavery is not likely to exist. Yet in a few cases the

same militarism leads to the keeping of slaves, viz. when slaves are

kept mainly for military purposes.

13º. Tribes forming a somewhat homogeneous group, and maintaining

constant relations with each other, are more likely, ceteris paribus,

to keep slaves, than an isolated tribe.

These conclusions, arrived at by an examination of hunting and fishing

tribes, all, except the first, bear a general character. We may

therefore suppose that they will equally apply to pastoral and

agricultural tribes. Whether this really be the case, will appear from

the ensuing chapters. It may, however, be convenient first to simplify

and systematically arrange them.

As the principal factor we may regard the general economic state of

society. Two distinctions are to be made here:

1º. Subsistence either is or is not dependent on capital.

2º. Subsistence is either easy or difficult to acquire.

These two distinctions are independent of each other. For where

subsistence depends on capital, it may, with the aid of capital, be

easily acquired or not. Similarly, where it does not depend on capital,

it may be easy or difficult to procure. Accordingly we find the

following forms of economic life:

1º. Subsistence depends on capital. Without capital a man cannot get

on. Now, if labourers are wanted, there are likely to be people

destitute of capital, who have no other resource left but to offer

their labour to the capitalist. But there is a difference, according as

subsistence is easily acquired or not.

a. Subsistence, even with the aid of capital, is difficult to procure.

The procuring of subsistence requires a combination of capital and

skilled labour. Thus among the Eskimos a man unacquainted with their

ingenious hunting and fishing methods cannot get on any more than a man

destitute of a boat, or of sledges and dogs. Here labourers are not

much wanted. Helpless persons are kept as servants, but this is done

for pity’s sake rather than because they are useful. Slavery does not

exist.

b. Subsistence, with the aid of capital, is easy to procure. Unskilled

labour, combined with capital, is so productive that it gives a surplus

beyond the subsistence of the labourer. In this case the capitalist

wants labourers, but there are also labourers who want the capitalist.

We have not yet met with any instance of this state of things. Slavery

can exist here, if the demand for labour exceeds the supply of labour;

but we do not think this will often be the case.

2º. Subsistence does not depend on capital. We are, of course, aware

that a man, to procure his subsistence, always wants some implements,

such as a spear, bow and arrow, etc. But he does not, therefore, depend

on capital; for he can always make a spear or bow for himself; so after

all, he depends only on his own strength and skill. If an Eskimo loses

his boat, he wants a long time to make a new one; in the meantime he

has to live, and so is thrown upon the mercy of others. But where the

necessary implements can always be procured at a moment’s notice,

subsistence is not dependent on capital: the man who has broken his

spear can immediately make a new one; he need not ask anybody to feed

him in the meantime [1158].

Subsistence, where it does not depend on capital, is again either easy

or difficult to procure.

a. Subsistence is not easy to procure; it requires much skill. As

subsistence does not depend on capital, every skilled labourer is able

to provide for himself. Those who are not able providers are dependent

on the others; but their labour, being little productive, is not much

valued. Such is the state of things among many hunting tribes. As

slaves cannot be compelled to perform work that requires the utmost

skill and application, slavery cannot exist here.

b. Subsistence is easy to procure. The produce of unskilled labour can

exceed the primary wants of the labourer. As subsistence is not

dependent on capital, everybody is able to provide for himself;

therefore labourers do not voluntarily offer themselves. In such

circumstances a man can, it is true, acquire the products of another’s

labour by producing commodities himself and exchanging them for what

another has produced. He can also, like the Makah boat-owner, produce

such things as enhance the productiveness of labour, and lend them to

others, stipulating for a part of the profit for himself. But he cannot

make others work under his direction. The common labourer of modern

European societies, in order to get his subsistence, performs the work

which his employer assigns to him. Were he free to choose, he would

prefer to work according to his own inclinations. In countries however,

where nobody need apply to another for employment, there is little

chance of people voluntarily submitting to the orders of employers. In

such countries, if there is to be an organization of labour with

subordination under the master of the work, some men must be compelled

to work for others, and we know that one form of compulsory labour is

slavery. Therefore, when subsistence is easy to procure, and not

dependent on capital, slave labour can be of much use. Yet even then

slavery does not always exist. We shall see that there are disturbing

factors. But we may now, at least, say that, generally speaking,

slavery can only exist when subsistence is easy to procure without the

aid of capital.

There are some additional, or secondary, factors which increase or

diminish the use of slave labour.

1º. It may be, that unskilled labour is required, but is sufficiently

performed by the women. Thus in Australia women gather vegetable food

and perform all the common drudgery; and some Australian tribes subsist

mainly on the produce of female labour. In such cases slaves are not

wanted. This is a circumstance of much importance; for everywhere women

are about half, sometimes more than half, of the population. As in our

days, in civilized Europe, the employing of women in factories tends to

diminish the want for male labour and so to keep wages low, so female

labour in Australia makes slavery superfluous. The causes on which the

division of labour between the sexes depends cannot be examined here;

this would require an investigation of the whole history of marriage.

But, though unable to find the causes, we can trace the effects of this

division of labour. Where women are looked upon as “beasts of burden”

(to use an expression the ethnographers are very fond of), there is not

so much use for slave labour as where they hold a high position and the

men are desirous of relieving them of a part of their task.

2º. Where food is preserved in large quantities, more work has to be

done at a time, viz. in the season of plenty, than where life is

continually a hand-to-mouth proceeding. And the additional work

required for preserving food, e.g. the drying of fish, is very fit to

be imposed upon slaves: it requires little skill and is easy to

supervise.

3º. The development of trade and industry has a great influence. When

the freemen wish to devote themselves to these pursuits, they want

others to perform the common drudgery for every-day subsistence.

Moreover, the preparing of the articles of commerce may require menial

labour: thus on the Pacific Coast slaves are employed in drying fish,

preparing oil, etc. And finally, trade and industry lead to the

development of wealth. As soon as wealth exists, a man does not only

want food and the other necessaries of life, but also luxuries, so his

wants may become almost unlimited, and there is much more use for slave

labour.

Hitherto we have considered slavery as serving economic purposes. But

slaves may also be kept for non-economic purposes. There is only one

such purpose we have as yet met with: the employing of slaves in

warfare. We have seen that among the Abipones this was the main and

almost the only function of slavery.

On the other hand, it may be that militarism so largely prevails, that

all available men are wanted in warfare. If, then, the military

organization is not so highly developed, that slaves can be employed in

warfare without any danger, slavery is not likely to exist, though it

might be economically of great use.

There are other causes, which we may call external. However much slaves

are wanted, there must be a coercive power strong enough to make the

keeping of slaves possible. The following causes tend to increase this

coercive power:

1º. Living in fixed habitations. Besides the effect this has on the

growth of industry, it makes the escape of slaves more difficult and

the surveying of slave labour easier.

2º. Living together in large groups. In a small group any increase in

the number of slaves would soon become dangerous to the maintenance of

power by the freemen within the group, and an escaping slave would soon

be out of reach of the group.

3º. The preserving of food. Besides having some economic effects of

which we have treated above, it makes living in large groups and in

fixed habitations possible; moreover it attaches the slave to his

master’s home; for he knows he will get there sufficient food in the

time of scarcity, whereas, if he escaped, he would have to shift for

himself.

4º. The existence of a somewhat homogeneous group of tribes maintaining

constant relations with each other greatly accelerates the growth of

slavery, especially by means of the slave trade. Twenty tribes, living

separately, have, each for itself, to invent slavery; but when twenty

tribes maintain relations with each other, as soon as one of them has

invented slavery, the other 19 have it ready-made before them.

RECAPITULATION.

Furthering the Hindering the

growth of slavery. growth of slavery.

I. Internal causes.

A. General: 1º. Subsistence 1º. Subsistence

easily acquired and dependent on

not dependent on capital.

2º. Subsistence not

dependent on capital,

but difficult to

acquire.

B. Secondary, economic: 1º. Preserving of 1º. Female labour

food. making slave labour

superfluous.

2º. Trade and industry.

3º. A high position of

women.

C. Secondary, 1º. Slaves wanted 1º. Militarism

non-economic: for military making slavery

purposes. impossible.

II. External causes: 1º. Fixed habitations.

2º. Living in large

groups.

3º. Preserving of food

[1159].

4º. The existence of a

homogeneous group of

tribes.

CHAPTER III.

PASTORAL TRIBES.

§ 1. Capital and labour among pastoral tribes.

The number of these tribes is not large, as they are found in a few

parts of the world only. Moreover, the descriptions available to us

were in many cases too incomplete to justify any inference as to their

having or not having slaves.

The clear cases noticed by us are the following.

Positive cases. Arabia: Aeneze Bedouins,

Larbas. 2

Caucasus: Circassians,

Kabards. 2

Bantu tribes: Ovaherero,

Bahima. 2

Hamitic group: Beduan,

Beni Amer,

Somal,

Danakil. 4

--

10

Negative cases. India: Todas. 1

Central Asia: Kazak Kirghiz,

Altaians,

Turkomans. 3

Siberia: Samoyedes,

Tunguz,

Yakuts,

nomadic Koryakes. 4

Bantu tribes: Ama-Xosa,

Ama-Zulu,

some divisions of the Mundombe. 3

Hamatic group: Massai. 1

--

12

We see that there are almost as many positive as negative cases. So

those theorists are wrong, who hold that the taming of animals

naturally leads to the taming of men [1160].

It might, however, be that the non-existence of slavery in our negative

cases were due to a special, external cause, viz. that these tribes

were so inclosed between more powerful nations as not to be able to

procure slaves, though slaves would be of much use to them. A brief

survey of the political state of these tribes shows that they are not

all in this position. The Kazak Kirghiz, in Levchine’s time, kidnapped

slaves whom they sold abroad. The Massai are very warlike and adopt

captives. The Turkomans are “the intermediate agents for carrying on

the slave-trade” [1161]. The Ama-Xosa and Ama-Zulu are also very

warlike [1162]. We see that there are some pastoral tribes that, though

able to procure slaves, do not keep any. The non-existence of slavery

among them must be due to other, more internal, causes.

It might also be that our positive cases were exceptions to a general

rule. For many pastoral tribes, though subsisting mainly by

cattle-breeding, carry on agriculture besides. If these only kept

slaves, and employed them chiefly in work connected with agriculture,

slavery would prove foreign to pastoral nomadism as such; for then

these tribes would only keep slaves in their quality as agriculturists.

We shall inquire whether this be so; and for this purpose we shall give

a survey of the work imposed upon slaves among pastoral tribes. This

survey, besides enabling us to decide upon the question at issue, will

show what place slavery occupies in pastoral life.

Among the Larbas the boys (also free boys) guard the cattle on the

pasture-ground, whereas the work that requires more skill (the tending

of young animals, the breaking of horses, etc.) is equally divided

between master and slaves [1163].

Circassian slaves, according to Bell, till the soil, tend the cattle

and perform domestic labour. Klaproth, however, states that the

peasants may only be sold together with the land; so they are rather a

kind of serfs. Domestic slaves may be sold separately [1164].

According to Roscoe, among the Bahima, “the women’s duties are to wash

the milk pots, perhaps it would be better to say see the pots are

washed, because the work generally falls upon the slaves to perform”

[1165].

Munzinger speaks of domestic labour being imposed on slaves by the

Beduan. Most of these slaves are women [1166].

Among the Beni Amer it is considered an honour to have many slaves.

“Properly speaking slaves serve their master only when children. Adult

female slaves are concubines, live with their master, but are exempt

from nearly all labour; adult male slaves generally despise all work,

and belong to the retinue of the master. The master derives no real

profit from his slaves.” According to Von Müller the fabrication of tar

falls to the share of the slave, such work being below the dignity of a

freeman [1167].

Paulitschke tells us that among the nomadic Somal and Danakil slavery

is not profitable; for the territories inhabited by them are thinly

peopled, agriculture is insignificant, and these cattle-breeders get

their subsistence rather easily; moreover they would be unable to

support a considerable number of slaves by the produce of their cattle.

Therefore among the Danakil on the river Aussa and the Rahanwîn Somal

on the lower Wêbi-Schabêli, where slaves are employed in agriculture,

there is more use for slave labour. Among the nomadic Somal and Danakil

slaves appear also to be employed in warfare. According to Bottego,

whose account applies to the Somal of the towns, adult male slaves till

the soil, build houses, and perform the rudest and most fatiguing kinds

of work. The boys lead the cattle to the pasture-ground; the women are

employed in household work and often are concubines of their masters

[1168].

There are some tribes that subsist mainly on agriculture, but also, to

a great extent, on cattle-breeding. It may be of some use to give a

survey of the work done by slaves, among them too; it will appear,

then, whether they keep their slaves for agricultural purposes only, or

employ them also for pastoral work.

Among the Kafirs some slaves are blacksmiths. In war a slave boy beats

the drum [1169]. Our informant speaks only incidentally of slave

labour; he does not mean to say that this is the only work performed by

slaves.

Among the Barotse young slaves are given as pages to the children of

freemen. Slaves till the soil and tend the cattle; slave boys are

employed as herdsmen [1170].

In a description of the Waganda it is said: “One of the principal evils

resulting from slavery in Uganda is that it causes all manual labour to

be looked upon as derogatory to the dignity of a free man” [1171].

Among the Mandingoes native-born slaves enjoy much liberty; they tend

the cattle, and go to war, even without their masters. Freemen work as

much as slaves. Every Mandingo, to whatever class he belongs, is

occupied in agriculture. The tending of horses is incumbent on slave

boys [1172].

Hildebrandt states that the occupations of the Sakalavas are not many.

In North Sakalavaland, however, rice is cultivated for export, and so

there is more labour wanted here; therefore in this district slavery

prevails to a large extent [1173].

Among the Bogos there are hardly 200 slaves (whereas Munzinger

estimates the total population at 8400). Slaves are of little use to

their owners. Male slaves live separately and generally take to

robbery. Female slaves, having no opportunity to marry, become

prostitutes and live rather independently [1174].

The Takue have very few slaves. In their laws and customs they show a

close resemblance to the Bogos [1175].

Among the pirate-tribes of Mindanao and Sulu agriculture is incumbent

on slaves. The slaves also share in their masters’ slave-raids. Jansen

gives some more details about the work of slaves in the Sulu Islands.

The ordinary occupations of slaves are agriculture, fishing,

manufacture of salt, trade, and domestic work [1176].

The slaves of the Geges and Nagos of Porto Novo are chiefly employed in

agriculture [1177].

Among the Ossetes the slaves perform household work; the peasants are

serfs [1178].

The slaves captured and purchased by the Gallas are generally sold to

foreign traders; in large households they are sometimes retained and

employed in various kinds of work. In another place our informant

states that most slaves are employed in agriculture [1179].

Yoruba slaves are employed in trade and warfare [1180].

We see that slaves are employed in agriculture among the agricultural

Somal and Danakil, Fulbe, Barotse, Mandingoes, Sakalavas, pirate-tribes

of Mindanao and Sulu, Geges and Nagos, Gallas; and very probably also

among the Waganda, where they perform “all manual labour.” As the

details given by our ethnographers are not always complete, it is

possible that in some more cases slaves are employed in agriculture.

But it is sufficiently clear, that among the Beni Amer, nomadic Somal

and Danakil, Bogos, and probably also among the Beduan and Takue,

slaves do not till the soil. Among the Ossetes and Circassians the

peasants are serfs, slaves being employed in household work. What work

is incumbent on slaves among the Aeneze Bedouins we are not told; but

agriculture seems to be unknown among them. Among the Larbas the daily

work is equally divided between master and slaves, agriculture holding

a very subordinate place. Hence it appears that several of these tribes

keep slaves, though they do not employ them in agriculture; pastoral

tribes, as such, sometimes keep slaves.

But another inference we can draw from the foregoing survey of slave

labour is this. Where slaves are not employed in agriculture or in such

other work as requires a settled life (e.g. house-building among the

Somal of the towns, fishing and manufacture of salt among the

pirate-tribes of Mindanao and Sulu), the use of slave labour is not

great. Among the Beni Amer, Bogos, and nomadic Somal and Danakil

slave-keeping is stated to be a mere luxury. The Sakalavas, except in

the rice-exporting district, do not want much slave labour. And only in

one case, viz. among the Larbas, is it clearly stated that the chief

business of slaves is pastoral work.

This tends to prove, that among true pastoral tribes slavery, as a

system of labour, is of little moment. This inference is verified by

several statements about slaves being often manumitted or in the course

of time becoming practically free.

Burckhardt, speaking of the slaves of the Aeneze Bedouins, says: “After

a certain lapse of time they are always emancipated, and married to

persons of their own colour” [1181].

Among the Circassians slaves are often manumitted. A slave can also

purchase his freedom, and then becomes a member of a Circassian

fraternity [1182].

The Beni Amer have two kinds of slaves, newly-purchased and

native-born. “Their condition differs so much, that only the former may

properly be called slaves; the latter are rather serfs. The

newly-purchased slave is treated like every Mohammedan slave, he may be

sold and does not yet belong to the family. The native-born slave has

only the name, not the state of a slave; this appears from his being

allowed to intermarry with the Woreza (subjected class). The children

born of such a marriage are considered free, as they descend from a

free mother. In Barka the Kishendoa, i.e. native-born slaves, who

inhabit a camp of tents of their own, are governed by a chief who is

one of their own number, and intermarry with the Woreza. Native-born

slaves may live where they like and have the same right of inheritance

as freemen; only if such a slave leaves no relatives does the master

succeed to his goods.... In the blood-feud too the native-born slave is

in a peculiar condition. If a newly-purchased slave is killed, his

price is restored to his owner; for such a slave is looked upon as an

article of trade. The native-born slave, however, belongs to the

family; therefore his blood requires blood; he is avenged by his

relatives if there are such, and otherwise by his master; if this is

not practicable because the murderer is a man of power, the matter is

hushed up; but a compensation is never given” [1183].

The Somal often buy slaves whom they manumit soon afterwards [1184].

Among the Kafirs of India each tribe is governed by a council. Even

slaves can be elected as members of this council [1185].

Our survey of the work done by slaves shows in the third place, that

slaves are often employed in warfare. This will be accounted for later

on.

Here we have only to emphasize the fact, that to pastoral tribes as

such slave labour is of little use. This makes it easy to understand

why so many of them dispense with slavery altogether.

Going on to inquire what is the cause of this phenomenon, we may

remember the general conclusion we have arrived at in the last

paragraph, viz. that slave labour is of little use, where subsistence

is either dependent on capital, or very difficult to procure. Now it is

easy to see that among pastoral tribes subsistence entirely depends on

capital. Among people who live upon the produce of their cattle, a man

who owns no cattle, i.e. no capital, has no means of subsistence.

Accordingly, among pastoral tribes we find rich and poor men; and the

poor often offer themselves as labourers to the rich [1186].

Among the Syrian Bedouins “to every tent, or to every two or three

tents, there is a shepherd or person to attend the cattle, either a

younger son or servant; he receives wages for ten months” [1187].

Among the Larbas alms are given to the poor. The social rank of the

head of a family depends on the number of his children, his practical

knowledge of the pastoral art, and his wealth. There are free labourers

who are paid in kind. Herdsmen have the usufruct of a part of the herds

they tend. Generally the labourer takes a tenth in kind at the close of

the time agreed upon; moreover he receives his daily food during the

time of his engagement [1188].