Part 1 — CHAPTER II. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SLAVERY.

§ 1. Introduction.

Having now determined what is the meaning of the term “slavery”, we are about to inquire, what is its social signification, what place does it occupy in those societies where it formerly existed or still exists? As this book confines itself to ethnological investigations, we shall try to throw light on this problem with the help of the data supplied to us by the study of savage races. But then we must first know, whether slavery exists among all savage tribes, and, if not, whether it is confined to certain races of men or to certain parts of the world; and further, whether it is found on all levels of lower culture, or on some only, and if the latter, on which. The solution of these problems requires a survey of the occurrence of slavery among wild tribes in the several parts of the globe. This survey will occupy the present chapter.

A few words have still to be said about our method of ascertaining the existence or non-existence of slavery in every particular case.

The observance of the following rules will, so far as we can judge, give to our conclusions the highest possible degree of probability.

1º. If it is stated that slavery exists, is this sufficient evidence of its existence? Our definition, arrived at in the first chapter, lies within the limits of ordinary language; therefore it is probable that our informants have used the term in the same sense we attach to it. There are, however, many cases in which the words “slave” and “slavery” are applied to something quite different from their true meaning, as will be seen from our survey of the matter. Thus it is necessary to ask for more evidence than is given by the mere term “slavery”.

a. If it sufficiently appears that in some tribe there are men considered to be the property of others, we need not doubt whether slavery exists.

c. If the particulars on record are quite insufficient to determine the nature of the alleged slave-state, the possibility of a mistake is much lessened by several writers, independently of each other, stating that slavery exists.

d. Finally, the general trustworthiness of the writer or writers must be taken into account.

3º. The greatest difficulties are presented by those cases in which no mention is made of slavery. Here the utmost caution has to be observed.

a. If it clearly appears from the description, that there are people considered to be the property of others, without the word “slavery” being used, the conclusion is evident.

b. Perhaps some facts are mentioned which make the existence of slavery highly improbable. We shall see that the main source of slavery is captivity in war; so, if it is stated that no captives are made, or that the lot of the captives is something else than slavery, the non-existence of slavery is probable. But even then it is not quite certain: there may still be slaves, acquired by other means. Further: if it is stated that there are no social classes, or if the classes are enumerated and slaves are not among them, there is a strong presumption that slavery does not exist. Yet here too there is no certainty; for slaves, among savage tribes, have not always the aspect of a social class. The description of the division of labour between the sexes may also suggest to us the non-existence of slavery. When we are informed that the men do some kinds of work and the women some other kinds, we are inclined to think: if there were slaves, their special work would be mentioned too. But this argument is most dangerous; for the slaves very often have no special kind of work allotted to them.

We see that none of these criteria prove quite reliable. Yet, taken together, they give a high degree of probability. And it is not even necessary that all of them can be ascertained. If an ethnographer, known to be trustworthy, gives us an elaborate description, pretending to be a picture of the whole social life of the tribe he describes, it were a wonder if he had entirely omitted slavery, while it existed; the more so as this phenomenon is not so difficult to recognize. The same argument obtains a fortiori, when several such descriptions of the same tribe exist.

4º. In doubtful cases we may take into account the state of the group to which a particular tribe belongs. It may be that in the general descriptions of a group no mention is made of slavery; that, further, all tribes belonging to this group of which we are well informed prove to have no slaves. If, then, the information we get concerning a particular tribe belonging to the same group, is not complete enough to rely upon, there is a strong presumption that this tribe will be in the same state as the rest of the group, i.e. that it does not keep slaves. Under the same conditions we may suppose that a tribe belonging to a slave-keeping group keeps slaves. The term “group” has to be taken here in a sociological, not in an anthropological or linguistic sense, and its application must be somewhat restricted. It must consist of tribes, that live in somewhat similar conditions and the institutions of which closely resemble each other; e.g. Australia (the continent) is a group in this sense, North America is not. It is almost superfluous to add, that this group-argument may be used only to strengthen existing, but insufficient, evidence.

The ensuing paragraphs will show which savage tribes keep slaves and which do not keep any. The groups into which we have divided the several tribes are mainly geographical, not intended to answer any anthropological purpose. As long as the meaning of the term “race” is so unstable as at present, we think it better not to operate with it. Our groups are nearly the same as those given by Schurtz in his Völkerkunde.

At the end of each paragraph its result will be mentioned. The “positive cases” are the tribes which probably keep slaves, the “negative cases” those which probably do not keep slaves. Under the head of “no conclusion” we have given the cases in which the probability that slavery exists is nearly as great, or as little, as the inverse probability. The tribes, the names of which are printed in italics, are those which afford “clear cases”, i.e. where the probability nearly amounts to certainty.

At the end of the chapter a brief recapitulation will show the occurrence of slavery among savages in the several parts of the globe.

When, in the following paragraphs, we say: “Such a tribe keeps slaves,” or: “Such a tribe does not keep slaves,” this does not imply that the same state of things still prevails. The tribe we speak of may have died out; or, where slavery existed, it may have been abolished. When we know that such a thing has taken place, we shall use the past tense. But in many cases the only information we have got concerning some tribe dates from many years back; and we do not know what has become of this tribe in the meantime. Then, not to be obliged always to use such tedious formulas as: “In Mr. X.’s time slavery existed among such a tribe,” we shall simply say: “slavery exists.” Whether it still exists is certainly of much interest to a philanthropist; but to us, for the purposes we have set ourselves in the present volume, it is quite immaterial.

§ 2. North America.

1. Eskimos.

2. Nootka group.

3. Tinneh group.

4. Algonquin group.

5. Iroquois group.

6. Choctaw-Muskoghe group and neighbouring tribes.

From all the foregoing we may safely infer that slavery did not exist in the Apalache group.

7. Dacotah group.

8. Oregon group.

9. Californians.

10. New Mexicans.

We may add here a short account of Negro-slavery among the Indians.

But these facts do not represent phenomena of unadulterated savage life. These Indian tribes had already undergone great changes by contact with the whites. Moreover, the Negroes kept by them as slaves were in a very peculiar condition, living in a foreign continent amongst foreign races. So we are justified in omitting these cases from our list of slave-keeping Indian tribes.

§ 3. Central and South America.

Result. Positive cases: Ancient nations of Honduras,

Inhabitants of Panama and Costa Rica,

Mundrucus,

Mauhés,

Mbayas,

Caduvei,

Suya,

Abipones,

Tehuelches,

Arawaks,

Saliva,

Goajiro,

Tupinambas,

Chiriguanos,

Yuruna,

Sencis,

Enimagas.

Negative cases: Wild tribes of North Mexico,

Natives of the Mosquito Coast,

Caribs of the Isthmus,

Warraus,

Macusi,

Roucouyennes,

Apiacas,

Botocudos,

Bakairi,

Paressi,

Bororo,

Guanas,

Charruas,

Minuanes,

Puelches,

Araucanians,

Fuegians,

Wild tribes of Central Mexico,

Continental Caribs,

Guaycurû,

Tobas,

Karayas,

Zaparos,

Campas,

Conibos,

Yuracarès,

Mocéténès,

Chiquitos,

Chapacuras,

Payaguas.

No conclusion: Caribs of the Antilles,

Wild tribes of South Mexico,

Natives of Hispaniola,

Miranhas,

Canoeiros,

Moxos.

§ 4. Australia.

The Australian tribes, as they are marked on the map in Mr. Thomas’s book on the “Natives of Australia”, are the following:

In Western Australia: Yerkla-mining,

In South Australia: Eucla,

Arunta,

Urabunna,

Dieri,

Narrinyeri,

Booandik,

Wotjoballak,

In South Australia (N. Territory): Mara,

Anula,

Worgaia,

Warramunga,

Kaitish,

In Victoria: Wolgai,

Wurinyeri,

Kurnai,

Bangerang,

In N. S. Wales: Tongaranka,

Euahlayi,

Kamilaroi,

Wiimbaio,

Geawegal,

Yuin,

Murring,

In Queensland: Otati,

Pitta Pitta,

Kiabara,

Kabi,

Turribul.

The extinct Tasmanians also belonged to the Australian group.

§ 5. Melanesia.

From the foregoing statements it appears that the so-called slaves are kept either for cannibal purposes or to strengthen the number of the tribe into which they are incorporated. Hence we may safely infer, in accordance with Codrington, that slavery proper does not exist in the south-eastern part of the group.

These details do not make it quite clear whether the condition of the “slaves” in the New Georgia group is not yet slavery or slavery in an incipient stage. We should rather think the latter; but we are not certain about it.

We see that the difference between slaves and free men is more marked here than in the other parts of the Solomon group. Neither with regard to their work nor with regard to their social position are the slaves on a footing of equality with the free men. The conclusion is that in the north-western part of the group slavery certainly exists.

Though some of the details given seem to prove that there were formerly not only people of the lowest class and inhabitants of conquered districts, but also slaves in the proper sense, we are not quite certain about it.

The information we have got about the separate islands does not wholly agree with these general statements.

It is remarkable that Parkinson, describing the social organisation of the several tribes, does not make any mention of a slave class or of the work imposed on slaves. The social signification of slavery therefore seems to be small. Yet the foregoing statements must lead to the conclusion that slavery exists, at least in some parts of the peninsula.

The rest of this paragraph will be taken up with a survey of New Guinea and in the first place of the Dutch part of the island.

In Krieger’s elaborate account of the natives of British and German New Guinea there is not a word about slaves. Hence it would appear that they are unacquainted with slavery and we shall presently see that this conclusion is strengthened by the information we get about the separate tribes.

Result. Positive cases: North-western Solomon Islanders,

Natives of the Gazelle Peninsula,

Nuforese,

Papuans of Arfak,

Papuans,, on the Gulf of Maccluer,

Papuans,, of Adie,

Papuans,, on the Gulf of Kaimani,

Central Solomon Islanders,

Fijians,

Natives of Neu Mecklenburg and neighbouring islands,

Admiralty Islanders,

Papuans of Tabi,

Papuans,, of,, Ansus.

Negative cases: New Caledonians,

South-eastern Solomon Islanders,

Nissan Islanders,

New Hebridians,

Natives of Torres Straits,

Papuans of Humboldt Bay,

Papuans,, near Lake Sentani,

Hattamers

Papuans of Ayambori,

Motu,

Mowat,

Toaripi,

Papuans on the mouth of the Wanigela river,

Yabim,

Natives of the Tami Islands,

Tamoes,

Natives of Dampier Island.

No conclusion: Papuans of Seroei,

Papuans,, of,, Windessi,

Karons.

§ 6. Polynesia.

Result. Positive cases: Maori,

Tahitians.

Negative cases: Tongans,

Samoans,

Rotumians,

Rarotonga Islanders,

Hawaiians,

Marquesas Islanders,

Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman Islanders,

Easter Islanders.

No conclusion: Tukopia Islanders,

Paumotu Islanders.

§ 7. Micronesia.

Result. Negative cases: Marshall Islanders,

Caroline Islanders,

Marianne Islanders,

Pelau Islanders,

Kingsmill Islanders,

Natives of Nauru.

§ 8. Malay Archipelago.

I. Malay Peninsula.

The savage tribes of the Malay Peninsula are divided into the Semang, the Sakai and the Jakun.

Among the Sakai, according to De Morgan “the debtor and his family work for the creditor during one or two moons, according to the decision of the panghulu (village-chief)”. This certainly is a commencement of debt-slavery; but such compulsory labour, limited beforehand to one or two months, is not yet slavery in the true sense.

Skeat and Blagden state that, among the Benua-Jakun, crimes of all kinds might be expatiated by the payment of fines. If the offender failed to pay the fine, he became the slave of his victim. No more details being added, the existence of slavery does not seem to us to be quite certain.

II. Sumatra and neighbouring islands.

The existence or former existence of slavery is sufficiently proved with regard to the following divisions of the Battas:

III. Borneo.

IV. Celebes.

Slavery is proved by good authorities to exist or have existed in several parts of this island. Such is the case

V. Little Sunda Islands and Moluccas.

VI. Philippines.

VII. Madagascar.

Result. Positive cases: Battas on the Pane and Bila rivers,

Battas,, of Mandheling,

Battas,, of Pertibie,

Karo Battas,

Raja Battas,

Battas of Angkola,

Battas,, of Simelungun,

Battas,, of Singkel and Pak-pak,

Battas,, of the country of Panei,

Toba Battas,

Lampongs,

inhabitants of Nias,

inhabitants,, of,, Anambas, etc.,

Hill-Dyaks,

Dyaks on the Barito,

Sea-Dyaks,

Dyaks on Rejang river,

Biadju-Dyaks,

Ot-danoms,

Olo-ngadju,

Dyaks of Tompassuk,

Kayans on the Mendalam,

Kayans,, on the Upper Mahakam,

Muruts,

Dyaks of Sambas,

Kindjin-Dyaks,

Dyaks of Pasir,

inhabitants of the Minahassa,

inhabitants,, of,, Bolaäng,

inhabitants,, of,, Holontalo,

inhabitants,, of,, Buool,

Toradja,

Tomori,

inhabitants of Sandjai,

inhabitants,, of,, Bangkala,

Kailirese,

inhabitants of Saleyer,

inhabitants,, of,, Sumbawa,

inhabitants,, of,, Sumba,

inhabitants of Flores,

inhabitants,, of,, the Solor group,

inhabitants,, of,, Bonerate and Kalao,

inhabitants,, of,, East Timor,

inhabitants,, of,, West Timor,

inhabitants,, of,, Savu,

inhabitants,, of,, Rote,

inhabitants,, of,, Wetar,

inhabitants,, of,, Keisar,

inhabitants,, of,, Leti,

inhabitants,, of,, Dama,

inhabitants,, of,, the Luang-Sermata group,

inhabitants,, of,, the Babar group,

inhabitants,, of,, the Tenimber and Timorlao Islands,

inhabitants,, of,, the Aru Islands,

inhabitants,, of,, the Kei Islands,

inhabitants,, of,, the Watubela Islands,

inhabitants,, of,, the Seranglao-Gorong group,

inhabitants,, of,, Serang,

inhabitants,, of,, Ambon and the Uliase,

inhabitants,, of,, the Sangi and Talauer Islands,

Galela and Tobelorese,

inhabitants of Kau,

Tagals and Visayas,

Bagobos,

Manobos,

Maguindanaos,

inhabitants of Sulu,

Samales,

Hovas,

Jakun,

Dyaks of Matan,

Dyaks,, of,, Simpang,

Subanos,

Negritos,

Antankarana.

Negative cases: Semang,

Sakai,

Kubus,

Mentawei Islanders,

Dusuns,

Rambay and Sebruang Dyaks,

Bataks of Palawan,

Bontoc Igorot,

Battas of Silindung,

Lubus.

No conclusion: Enganese,

inhabitants of Buru,

Kiangans,

Bungians,

Igorot (except the Bontoc Igorot),

Betsileo,

Betsimisaraka,

Bara,

Tankay,

Sihanaka,

Tanala.

We shall add here a few notes on some Malay peoples, that have attained to a too high degree of civilization to be quoted here as instances of savages having or not having slaves. The purpose of this addition is only to complete this survey of the Archipelago, and to show what literature exists on these peoples.

§ 9. Indo-Chinese Peninsula.

We may add here the inhabitants of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in the Bay of Bengal.

Result. Positive cases: Kakhyens,

Shans of Zimmé,

Lawas,

Hill-tribes of North Aracan,

Karens,

Chingpaws,

Steins.

Negative cases: Lethtas,

Andamanese,

Nicobarese.

§ 10. India, Afghanistan, Himalaya.

Result. Positive cases: Meshmees,

Garos,

Lushais,

Manipuris,

Kafirs,

Padam Abors,

Nagas,

Kookies,

Jyntias and Kasias,

Dophlas.

Negative cases: Hill-tribes near Rajamahall,

Todas,

Santals,

Khonds,

Oraons,

Korwas,

Bodo and Dhimals,

Veddahs.

§ 11. Central Asia.

Many Central Asiatic tribes have been described by Vambéry. The description of each of them fills many pages, but the information we get about social facts is rather incomplete. Therefore, though in most of his descriptions slavery is not mentioned, we may not infer that it does not exist. The positive cases have of course more value.

Result. Positive cases: Usbegs,

Tadjiks of Hissar.

Negative cases: Kazak Kirghiz,

Altaians,

Turkomans,

Galtchas,

Kara Kirghiz,

Kalmucks,

Mongols,

Kurds of Eriwan.

No conclusion: Teleuts,

Tatars on the Kondoma,

Abakan Tatars,

Kara Kalpaks.

§ 12. Siberia.

Pallas in the 18^th century visited many Siberian tribes; but most of his notes are too short to draw any inference from as to the existence of slavery.

Result. Positive case: Kamchadales.

Negative cases: Samoyedes,

Ghiliaks,

Tunguz,

Yakuts,

Tuski of the coast,

nomadic Koryakes,

settled Koryakes,

Ostyaks,

Gold.

No conclusion: inland Tuski,

Ainu.

§ 13. Caucasus.

Result. Positive cases: Ossetes,

Circassians,

Kabards of Asia Minor.

Negative cases: Charachai,

Shahsewenses.

No conclusion: Suanes,

Tchetchenes,

Gouriens,

Abchases.

§ 14. Arabia.

Result. Positive cases: Aeneze Bedouins,

Larbas.

No conclusion: Fejir Bedouins.

§ 15. Africa. A. Bantu tribes.

1. Caffres.

2. South-West Bantus.

It is not easy to decide, whether this description is indicative of real slavery. Only some of the captives, when full-grown, arrive at a position equal to that of the free people; so it would seem that the others remain slaves. But if they are allowed at any time to return to their own country, their position is a voluntary one.

From this it would appear that slavery really exists.

The conclusion is that the Ovaherero keep slaves.

3. East-African Bantus.

4. Tribes on the Congo and in Lower Guinea.

5. Natives of the Wahuma states.

Result. Positive cases: Angoni,

Ovaherero,

Barotse,

Kimbunda,

Lunda people,

Kioko,

Selles,

Manganja,

Banyai,

Wagogo,

Washambala,

Wapare,

Wajao,

Makonde,

Wahehe,

Wachagga,

Wanyamwesi,

Azimba,

Wajiji,

Wapokomo,

Bondei,

Wasiba,

Wakikuyu,

Bihés,

Minungo,

Mpongwe,

Orungu,

Mbengas,

Apinchi,

Duallas,

Fiotes,

Bayanzi,

Bangala on the Congo,

Baluba,

Manyuema,

Kabinda,

Ininga and Galloa,

Wangata,

Bondo,

Camas,

Bakundu,

Banyang,

Batom,

Mabum,

Bali tribes,

Bambala,

Bayaka,

Bahuana,

Bakwese,

Yaunde,

Indikki,

Banaka and Bapuku,

Tuchilangue,

Waganda,

Bahima,

natives of Bukoba,

Batawana,

Lovalé people,

Bakele,

Wagenia,

Warua.

Negative cases: Ama-Xosa,

Ama-Zulu,

Basutos,

Makololo,

Makalaka,

Wanyakyusa,

Wambugu,

Wafipa,

Wanyaturu,

Wawira,

Wataveta,

Bakwiri,

Mumdombe,

Fans,

Bateke,

Matebele,

Manansa,

Cazembe people,

Wazaramo,

Bakuba,

Tupende.

No conclusion: Bakwains,

Baronga,

Ovampo,

Barolong,

Vawenda,

Makalanga,

Batoka,

Maravis,

Wasinja and Wakerewe,

Quillengue,

Angola,

Bangala on the Kuango,

Songo or Masongo,

Okota,

Aduma and Oschebo,

Hollo,

Milembue,

Wanyoro.

§ 16. Africa. B. Soudan Negroes.

1. Coast of Guinea.

2. Haussa states.

3. Central Soudan.

4. Upper Nile.

5. Appendix. African Islands.

The other tribes of Madagascar have found a place in § 8 (Malay Archipelago).

Result. Positive cases: Calabarese,

inhabitants of Bonny,

Brass people,

inhabitants of Benin,

Ewe,

inhabitants of Dahomey,

Geges and Nagos,

Yorubas,

inhabitants of Ashanti,

Fanti,

Gallinas,

Mandingoes,

Wolofs,

Saracolays,

Kagoros,

Bambaras,

Toucouleurs,

Jekris,

Malinkays,

Susu,

Landuma,

Limba,

Boobies,

Northern Sakalavas,

Sakalavas of Nossi-Bé and Mayotte,

Sereres,

Niam-Niam,

Mombuttus,

Wagungo.

Negative cases: Bobo,

Latuka,

Alur,

Lendu,

Warundi,

Wafiomi,

Wataturu,

Wambugwe,

Bongos.

No conclusion: Ibo or Eboe,

Krus,

Chillooks,

Diours,

Dinka,

Bari,

Abukaja,

Makaraka.

§ 17. Africa. C. Light-coloured South Africans and African pigmy-tribes.

Result. Negative cases: Bushmen,

Akkas,

Mucassequere.

No conclusion: Namaqua,

Griqua,

Korana,

Colonial Hottentots,

Abongos.

§ 18. Africa. D. Hamitic peoples.

Result. Positive cases: Beduan,

Takue,

Marea,

Beni Amer,

Barea and Kunama,

Bogos,

Gallas,

Somal,

Danakil.

Negative cases: Massai,

Warangi,

Wandorobo,

Wakwafi.

§ 19. Recapitulation.

In the preceding paragraphs we have tried to find, which savage tribes have, and which have not, slaves. But we suppose that our enumeration of positive and negative cases has not yet given the reader a clear idea of the occurrence of slavery in the several geographical districts; probably he does not see the wood for trees. So we shall take here a short survey, serving, so to speak, as a map and showing in which parts of the globe slave-keeping savage tribes are found.

In North America slavery exists along the Pacific Coast from Behring Strait to the Northern boundary of California (15 clear positive cases). Beyond this district it seems to be unknown (42 clear negative cases).

In Australia slavery is unknown (30 negative cases).

In Oceania, i.e. Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia, slaves are only found in New Zealand, the North-Western Solomon Islands, the Gazelle Peninsula of Neu Pommern and the Western part of New Guinea (altogether 8 pos. cases). In the rest of this group (except a few uncertain cases) slavery does not exist (30 neg. cases).

In the Malay Archipelago slavery very frequently occurs (69 pos. cases). The 8 negative cases are scattered over the group.

India and the Indo-Chinese Peninsula, taken together, afford 13 positive and 11 negative cases, the former being found in the Northern parts of both groups.

In Central Asia and Siberia slavery seems to be unknown, except among the Kamchadales (in Central Asia 4 neg. cases, in Siberia 1 pos. case and 7 neg. cases).

The Caucasus yields 3 positive cases, 1 negative case, and several doubtful cases. Our literature on this group is rather scanty.

The Arabian Aeneze Bedouins, as well as the Arabian Larbas who live in North Africa, keep slaves (2 positive and no negative cases).

As for Africa, the Northern part of this continent, being inhabited by semi-civilized peoples, is excluded from our survey. Among the savage Africans slavery very frequently occurs. There are only two districts, in which scarcely any clear positive cases are found, viz. South Africa to the South of the Zambesi, and the country about the Upper Nile, to the South-West of Abyssinia. Large agglomerations of slave-keeping tribes are found on the Coast of Guinea, and in the district formed by Lower Guinea and the territories bordering the Congo. A few negative cases, however, are interspersed among the members of both groups, especially of the latter. There are altogether 90 pos. and 31 neg. cases in Africa.

All over the globe, there are, among the savage tribes on which we are sufficiently informed, 210 with slaves and 181 without slaves.