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 [202]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 prevails45. 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”46. 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 slaves47. In other words: of the [203]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 away48. 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”49. The Tacullies, “are able to procure food with but little labour”50. Our informant also speaks of the “abundant natural supplies in ocean, stream, and forest” of the Puget Sound Indians51. 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 difficulty52. 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”53. About the tribes [204]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”54. 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”55. The Ahts also, in Jewitt’s time, could procure an immense quantity of salmon with the greatest facility56. 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 bears57. The Tlinkits eat fish, various kinds of meat and plants, and shell-fish; formerly they also killed whales58. The Haidas have abundance of game and fish. They eat also birds, and various kinds of vegetables. Shell-fish are gathered by the women59. 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”60. The Ahts eat fish, roots and berries, and hunt the deer61. The Tacullies eat fish (chiefly salmon), herbs and berries and small game62. The Similkameem eat fresh and dried game of all kinds, the seed of the sunflower, various roots, edible fungi, berries, wild onions63. The tribes of W. Washington [205]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”64. The basis of the Chinooks’ food is salmon; but besides this they eat sturgeon, wild-fowl, deer, rabbits, nuts, berries, wild fruits and roots65.
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 off66. 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 houses67. 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”68. 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”69. 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 [206]drying; some varieties of seaweed and lichens, as well as various roots, are regularly laid up for winter use70. 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 winter71. In W. Washington and N. W. Oregon acorns, some kinds of berries, and especially salmon and whaleblubber, are stored for winter use72. 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”73. “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”74. 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 winter75. Similar accounts are given of the Similkameem76.
These circumstances greatly tend to further the growth of slavery. A settled life makes escape of the slaves more difficult77. 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 [207]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”78. Among the Aleuts “whalefishing is confined to certain families, and the spirit of the craft descends from father to son”79. 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 tribes80. 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 scale81. 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”82. 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.”83. The Atnas “understand the art of working copper, and have commercial relations with surrounding tribes”. They buy their slaves from the Koltschanes84. Gibbs states that in W. Washington [208]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”85. 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”86. 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 class87. 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”88. [209]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”89. Among the Tacullies hiaqua shells up to 1810 were the circulating medium of the country90. 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”91.
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”92. We can [210]therefore easily understand why the Koniagas did not keep full-grown captive men as slaves, but acquired their male slaves by means of exchange93. 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”94.
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.95.
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 frequent96; 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, [211]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”97. 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 owned98. Among the Tlinkits private property comprises clothes, weapons, implements, hunting territories and roads of commerce. Nobility depends on wealth rather than on birth99. 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 them100. 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 [212]him”101. 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”102. 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 man103. A wealthy Fish Indian may also win renown by giving away or destroying property104. 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 institution105. 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”106. Among the Tacullies “any person may become a miuty or chief who will occasionally provide a village feast”107. 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 baskets108. Bancroft tells us of the Puget Sound Indians: “I find no evidence of hereditary rank or caste except as wealth is sometimes inherited”109. 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”110.
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. [213]
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 own111.
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”112. 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 [214]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 cattle113. 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”114. 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: [215]
1º. In a few cases the slaves strengthen their master’s force in warfare. Aleut slaves always accompany their masters, and have to protect them115. “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”116. We may suppose that the last part of this sentence applies to male slaves only. Tsimshian slaves guard the house, when the master is absent117. Among the Ahts, the slaves were obliged to attend their masters in war and to fight for them118.
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 descendants119, 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”120. 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 [216]of dressed elk skins, tobacco, vermilion paint, a flat file, and other little articles”121. And Boas tells us, that Tsimshian slaves row the boats, bring the killed seals to land, and cook them122. 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”123. 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 fishing124.
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 slave125. 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 state126. 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 live127. [217]
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 houses128. 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 wood129. 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 slaves130. 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.”131. Among the Fish Indians old women and slaves prepare the food132. 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”133. 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 [218]the same statement, says that “slaves did all the drudgery”134. The Tacullies use their slaves “as beasts of burden”, which perhaps also means imposing household labour upon them135. Holmberg states that the Koniagas employed their slaves as labourers or servants136. 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”137.
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”138. 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 women139. [219]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 beach140. 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 women141. 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 women142. 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”143. Nootka wives too “are consulted in matters of trade”144. About Puget Sound the females “are always consulted in matters of trade before a bargain is closed”145. Chinook women “are consulted on all important matters”146, 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 bargain147.
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 everything148. Among the Tlinkits, according to Krause, “woman’s position is not a bad one. She is not the [220]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”149. Nootka wives “seem to be nearly on terms of equality with their husbands, except that they are excluded from some public feasts and ceremonies”150; 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 relatives151. 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 consideration152. 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”153. 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, [221]female relatives, and slaves, as a legitimate source of profit”154. 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”155. 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”156. 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”157. The Tacullies “are fond of their wives, performing the most of the household drudgery in order to relieve them”158. 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”159.
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 husbands160. The men must also be aware [222]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”161. 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”162.
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) [223]woman’s state is a bad one. As all our tribes belong to Grosse’s “higher hunters”163, 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 inference164. 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”165. 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”166. 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”167. 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”168. 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”169. This statement is corroborated by a report of Hearne’s. But why Grosse calls [224]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”170. 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”171. 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”172; 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 [225]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”173.
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”174. 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 [226]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”175.
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 horseback176.
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 work177.
In Kamchatka slaves were employed for various domestic labours, such as fetching wood, feeding the dogs, making axes and knives from stone and bone178. 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 [227]into their dwellings”. A rather brisk trade was, however, carried on by them and was largely dependent on female labour179. They also had fixed habitations180.
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.