Among the “clear cases” of the second chapter of our first Part the following are hunting and fishing tribes.

So the great majority of the 88 cases we have got are negative. This fact agrees with the opinion of those theorists who assert that this economic state is unfavourable to the development of slavery. The existence of 18 positive cases, however, shows that those are wrong who hold that no tribe unacquainted with agriculture and cattle-breeding ever has slaves.

We have to explain now, why most hunters and fishers do not keep slaves. In a few cases the fact that they are inclosed between superior peoples and reduced to a dependent, powerless state, might afford sufficient explanation. So the Wandorobo, according to Thomson, are considered by the Massai as a kind of serfs; and Johnston calls them a helot race1. But with most of our hunters and fishers, who do not keep slaves, this is not the case, as is proved by their being often at war with their neighbours. It has been shown that the Ojibways and Sioux in North America, the Charruas, Minuanes and Puelches in South America either killed or adopted their prisoners, that the Andamanese also sometimes adopt captive children, that the Montagnais generally tortured their prisoners to death, that warfare is also known among the Botocudos2. And the most striking evidence is afforded by the Australians, an isolated group consisting entirely of hunters, in which slavery is altogether unknown. So the non-existence of slavery among the great majority of the hunters and fishers must be due on the whole to more general causes; and only if the latter fail to account for the absence of slavery among the [193]Wandorobo or any other tribe in a similar subjected state, may we have recourse to an explanation by this state.

What general causes may there be? Spencer, speaking of hunters, says: “In the absence of industrial activity, slaves are almost useless; and, indeed, where game is scarce, are not worth their food”3. It is true, where food is more plentiful than it is among most hunters, slaves can be of more use; but we cannot think that the only cause why slavery does not exist, is that the slave is “not worth his food”, i.e. that the produce of a man’s labour cannot much exceed his own primary wants. For we meet with several instances, among these tribes, of people whose wants are provided for by the labour of others. In our first Part we saw, that the Australian men depend largely for their subsistence on the work of their wives. Some other statements are indicative of a similar state of things. Dawson says of the natives of the Western District of Victoria: “Great respect is paid to the chiefs and their wives and families. They can command the services of every one belonging to their tribe. As many as six young bachelors are obliged to wait on a chief, and eight young unmarried women on his wife; and as the children are of superior rank to the common people, they also have a number of attendants to wait on them.… Food and water, when brought to the camp, must be offered to them first, and reeds provided for each in the family to drink with, while the common people drink in the usual way. Should they fancy any article of dress, opossum rug, or weapon, it must be given without a murmur”4. And of the chiefs of the Andaman Islanders we are told: “They and their wives are at liberty to enjoy immunity from the drudgery incidental to their mode of life, all such acts being voluntarily performed for them by the young unmarried persons living under their headship”5.

So there are people here whose wants are provided for by the work of others; therefore scarcity of food cannot be the only cause why slavery does not exist, and we have to examine what other causes there may be6. [194]

The reader will remember, from the details given in the first Part, that slaves are frequently acquired from without the community to which the slave’s owner belongs, by war, kidnapping or trade. It may be convenient to give this phenomenon the technical name of extratribal slavery, whereas we shall speak of intratribal slavery in those cases where the slave remains within the same community to which he belonged before being enslaved, e.g. a debtor-slave. Now the keeping of extratribal slaves must be very difficult to hunters. Hunting supposes a nomadic life; and the hunter, who roams over vast tracts of land in pursuit of his game has not much opportunity to watch the movements of his slave, who may be apt to run away at any moment. And if the slave himself is set to hunt, the difficulty amounts nearly to impossibility. Moreover, the hunting slave will be much more inclined to run away than a soil-tilling slave; for the latter, during his flight, has to live in a make-shift way on the spontaneous products of nature; whereas the former continues hunting, as he has always done; his flight has not the character of a flight.

Another cause is the following. Primitive hunters generally live in small groups. Hildebrand remarks that at the lowest stage of culture men live together in families or small tribes. Several instances are given in his book. “The Nilgala Veddahs are distributed through their lovely country in small septs or families.” The Indians of the Rocky Mountains “exist in small detached bodies or families.” The Fuegians “appear to live in families, not in tribes.” The same applies to the Indians of Upper California, the Woguls of Siberia, the Kubus, the Negritos, the Bushmen, etc.7. And Sutherland remarks: “The middle savages, on the average of six races, reach about 150 as the social unit.” “The upper savages, as typified by the North American Indians, would average about 360 to an encampment”8. Now it is easy to understand, that such small communities would not be able to develop much coercive power over slaves introduced into the tribe from foreign parts. A fugitive slave would be very soon beyond the reach of the tribe; and a comparatively small number of slaves would be dangerous to [195]the maintenance of power by the tribesmen within the tribe.

But the nomadic life of hunting tribes does not prevent the existence of intratribal slavery; such slavery might even be compatible with living in small groups. There are however other, more internal causes.

If there were slaves, i.e. male slaves, for slavery proper does not exist where all slaves are women, they would have to perform either the same work as free men, or the same work as free women. One might object, that sometimes slaves have separate kinds of labour assigned to them, which are performed by slaves only. This is true; but when slaves were first kept it must have been otherwise. It is not to be supposed that men, convinced of the utility of some new kind of work, began to procure slaves in order to make them perform this work; or that, finding some work tedious, they invented slavery to relieve themselves of this burden. Modern psychology does not account for psychical and social phenomena in such a rationalistic way9. Differentiation of slave labour from free labour cannot have existed in the first stage of slavery. Therefore two problems are to be solved: 1º. why are there no slaves performing men’s work? 2º. why are there no slaves performing women’s work?

Men’s work, besides warfare, is hunting. Now hunting is never a drudgery, but always a noble and agreeable work. Occupying the whole soul and leaving no room for distracting thought; offering the hunter a definite aim, to which he can reach by one mighty effort of strength and skill; uncertain in its results like a battle, and promising the glory of victory over a living creature; elevating the whole person, in a word intoxicating; it agrees very well with the impulsiveness of savage character10. Therefore it is not a work fit to be imposed upon men who are deprived of the common rights of freemen and are the property of others.

For, first, good hunters are highly respected. This appears from several statements. Ottawa women respected a man if he was a good hunter11. Tasmanian fathers took care to give their [196]daughters to the best hunters12. Among the Dumagas (a Negrito tribe) a man who wishes to marry must show his skill in shooting13. Ojibway parents tried to give their daughters to good hunters. If the husband was lazy the wife had a right to leave him14. In Western Victoria “if a chief is a man of ability, exhibiting bravery in battle or skill in hunting, he is often presented with wives from other chiefs”15. Among the Andaman Islanders social status is dependent “on skill in hunting, fishing etc. and on a reputation for generosity and hospitality”16. Le Jeune tells us of a Montagnais, who was laughed at because he was a bad hunter. This was a great disgrace among the savages; for such men could never find or keep a wife17. A describer of Kamchatka says of the dangerous sea-lion hunting: “This chase is so honourable, that he who has killed most sea-lions is considered a hero; therefore many men engage in it, less for the sake of the meat, that is looked upon as a delicacy, than in order to win renown”18. In W. Washington and N. W. Oregon “a hunter is, in fact, looked upon with respect by almost every tribe in the district”19. An ancient describer of the Indians of Paraguay tells us that skill and bravery were the only qualities they valued. A would-be son-in-law had to bring game to the hut of the girl’s parents. “From the kind and the quantity of the game the parents judge whether he is a brave man and deserves to marry their daughter”20. Among the Northern Athabascans “none but a successful hunter need aspire to the hand of a chief’s daughter”21. Among the Attakapas, if a young man aspired to the hand of a girl, her father asked him whether he was a brave warrior and a good hunter and well acquainted with the art of making harpoons22. Even among the pastoral Colonial Hottentots those who had killed a savage animal were highly respected by their countrymen23. Personal qualities, among such tribes, are the only cause of social differentiation. Wealth does not yet exist24; and hereditary nobility is unknown. So a good hunter cannot [197]be regarded by public opinion as a slave, the more so as a good hunter is also a good warrior, and without the aid of public opinion the master is not able to keep him subjected. And a bad hunter would be of little use as a hunting slave25.

This prevents the growth of intratribal slavery: no member of the tribe is so superior to any other member, that he can reduce him to a state of complete subjection; except perhaps where the latter is physically or psychically much weaker; and then he would not be of any use as a hunting slave. But it also prevents extratribal slavery. Enemies are hated, but not despised. In Central North America prisoners are either killed or adopted, and in the latter case entirely considered and treated as members of the tribe. Sometimes a captive is spared for his bravery; he is then provided with all necessaries and dismissed to his home26. Even those who are intended to be killed, are in the meantime treated with all due honours, sometimes even provided with wives27. Enemies, at least full-grown men, if allowed to live, are on a footing of equality with the tribesmen; another state of things is not yet thought possible28.

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 [198]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”29. 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”30. 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”31. 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”32. 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; [199]he works mainly on compulsion33. 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 agriculture34. 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 serf35. 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 slavery36. 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 [200]purposes, preparing food, and attending to the children”37. 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 women38. 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”39. Among the Central Eskimos, according to Boas, “cripples who are unable to hunt do the same kind of work as women”40. 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 agokwa41. 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; [201]for else they would have to starve42. 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 subsistence43. 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 work44. 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.