← Table of contents
Slavery as an industrial system

Part 2 — CHAPTER I. METHOD AND DIVISIONS.

Reading edition

§ 1. Method.

The results of the first Part will be utilized in this. We have seen that slavery exists or formerly existed among many savage tribes, whereas many others have always, as far as we know, been unacquainted with it. The present Part will be taken up with an inquiry into the causes of these phenomena. We shall try to find out, what kinds of tribes have slaves, and what kinds have not.

The best method we can use now will be to take into view one prominent side of social life, that may reasonably be supposed to have much influence on the social structure, especially on the division of labour; and to inquire whether this one factor may entirely, and if not to what extent it may, account for the existence or non-existence of slavery in every particular case. Here the economic side of life comes in the first place into consideration. We are not among the adherents of the materialistic theory of history; it is quite unproved and seems to us very one-sided. But we may suppose that the division of labour between the several social groups within a tribe, and therefore also the existence or non-existence of slavery, largely depends on the manner in which the tribe gets its subsistence. Whether, and to what extent, this supposition is true, will be shown by the examination of the facts. If this hypothesis fails to account for all the facts, we shall try, with the aid of other hypotheses, to explain the rest.

We see that the theories disagree very much. Whether any of them agree with the facts will appear from the investigation we are about to undertake.

§ 2. Distinction of economic groups.

This investigation will be carried on in the following manner. The tribes that afforded clear cases in the second chapter of the first Part will be divided into several groups according to their economic state. It will be seen then how many positive and how many negative cases there are in each group; and we shall try to explain why the result is such as we shall find it. Perhaps we shall be able to account for this result entirely by economic causes; if not, we shall inquire what other causes there may be.

The following economic states will be distinguished:

1º. Hunting and fishing,

2º. Pastoral nomadism,

3º. First stage of agriculture,

4º. Second stage of agriculture,

5º. Third stage of agriculture.

A few remarks must still be made on each of our groups. These remarks will also serve to justify our division.

I. Hunting and fishing.

This group comprehends those tribes only that are entirely unacquainted with agriculture and cattle-breeding. Sometimes agriculture is carried on to such a small extent, that the tribe subsists almost entirely on hunting, fishing and gathering wild vegetable food. Such tribes bear much resemblance to true hunters; but if we called them hunting tribes it would be very difficult to draw the line of demarcation between them and other agricultural tribes; moreover, such tribes are not exactly in the same economic state as true hunters. So we have classified them under the agricultural groups.

Such tribes as use animals (especially horses) only as a means of locomotion, are hunters, viz. if they are unacquainted with agriculture; at any rate they are not pastoral tribes. This is the case with several tribes of North and South America.

II. Pastoral nomadism.

The tribes belonging to this group subsist mainly on the milk and meat of their cattle. Most of them also undertake a small amount of cultivation (see the above-quoted passage of Dargun’s), whereas many agricultural tribes rear cattle. We shall draw the line of demarcation thus: this second group will contain those tribes only that depend so much on their cattle, that the whole tribe or the greater part of it is nomadic; whereas those who, although living for a considerable part on the produce of their cattle, have fixed habitations, will be classified under the agricultural groups.

III, IV, V. Agriculture.

It is not, of course, necessary that in every case a whole set of characteristics is found. Sometimes a part of them only are mentioned. Besides, there is much overlapping: a characteristic of the first stage may be found connected with one of the third. In all such cases we must not forget that these secondary characteristics have only signification as indications of the place occupied by agriculture, so they have not a fixed value; in every particular case the manner in which they are mentioned, the place they hold in the whole of the description, etc. will decide what importance we are to attach to each of them.

There are a few tribes that afforded clear cases in the second chapter of our first Part, but about the economic state of which we are not sufficiently informed. These will be left out here.

§ 3. Hunting and fishing, pastoral, and agricultural tribes in the several geographical districts.

We shall give here a list of the tribes that afforded “clear cases” in the second chapter of Part I, stating, after the name of each tribe, the economic condition in which it lives. As we have said before, we shall omit a few tribes, about the economic state of which we are not sufficiently informed.

It will not perhaps be superfluous to remind the reader that, as our list contains only “clear cases”, it gives no evidence as to the economic state of each geographical group. If, for instance, in our list some geographical group contains as many hunting as agricultural tribes, this does not prove that in this group hunters and agriculturists are equally divided; for the group may contain many more tribes, which in our second chapter have not afforded “clear cases”; and what is the economic state of these tribes does not appear from our list.

Among the agricultural tribes we have separately noted those, among which subsistence depends largely either on cattle-breeding or on trade, in addition to agriculture.

We shall make use of the following abbreviations.

h means hunting or fishing; the tribes so marked are hunters or fishers.

c means cattle-breeding; the tribes so marked are pastoral tribes.

a1, a2, a3 means first, second, third stage of agriculture.

a1 + c means an agricultural tribe of the first stage, among which subsistence depends largely on cattle-breeding; similarly a2 + c and a3 + c.

a1 + t means an agricultural tribe of the first stage, among which subsistence depends largely on trade; similarly a2 + t and a3 + t.

a2 + c + t means an agricultural tribe of the second stage, among which subsistence depends largely both on cattle-breeding and trade; similarly a3 + c + t.

Positive cases. Negative cases.

North America.

Aleuts h

Athka Aleuts h

Koniagas h

Tlinkits h

Haidas h

Tsimshian h

Kwakiutl h

Bilballas h

Ahts h

tribes about Puget Sound h

Fish Indians h

Tacullies h

Atnas h

Similkameem h

Chinooks h

The 9 tribes of Eskimos proper, all of them h

Kutchins h

Chepewyans h

Delawares a2

Montagnais h

Ojibways h

Ottawas h

Shahnees h

Crees h

Cheyennes a1

Blackfeet nation h

Iroquois a2

Hurons a2

Katahbas a2

Cherokees a2

Katahbas a2

Muskoghe a2

Choctaws a2

Chickasaws a2

Creeks a2

Seminoles a2

Natchez a2

Sioux h

Hidatsas a1

Omahas a1

Osages a1

Kansas Indians a1

Assiniboins h

Hupas h

Apaches h

Zuñi a3 + c

Lower Californians h

Central and South America.

Ancient nations of Honduras a1

inhabitants of Panama and Costa Rica a1

Mundrucus a1

Mauhés a1

Mbayas a1

Caduvei a2

Suya a1

Abipones h

Wild tribes of North Mexico h

natives of the Mosquito Coast a1

Caribs of the Isthmus a1

Warraus a1

Macusi a1

Roucouyennes a1

Apiacas a1

Bakairi a1

Paressi a1

Bororo a1

Guanas a2

Charruas h

Minuanes h

Puelches h

Araucanians a2

Fuegians h

Australia. The 30 tribes enumerated in chapter II of Part I, all of them h

Melanesia. N. W. Solomon Islanders a2 natives of the Gazelle Peninsula a1 New Hebridians a1 Nuforese a1 + t Papuans of Arfak a1 Papuans,, of Adie a1 + t Papuans,, on the Gulf of Kaimani a1 + t New Caledonians a2 S. E. Solomon Islanders a1 Nissan Islanders a1 natives of Torres Straits a1 Papuans of Humboldt Bay a1 Papuans near Lake Sentani a2 Papuans of Ayambori a2 Motu a1 + t Mowat a1 Toaripi a1 Papuans on the mouth of the Wanigela River a1 Yabim a1 natives of the Tami Islands a1 Tamoes a1 natives of Dampier Island a1

Polynesia. Maori a2 Tongans a2 Samoans a2 Rotumians a2 Rarotonga Islanders a2 Hawaiians a2 Marquesas Islanders a2 Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman Islanders a1

Micronesia. Marshall Islanders a2 Caroline Islanders a2 Marianne Islanders a2 Pelau Islanders a2 Kingsmill Islanders a2

Malay Archipelago. Battas on the Pane and Bila Rivers a3 Battas of Mandheling a3 Battas of Pertibie a3 Karo-Battas a2 Raja-Battas a3 Battas of Angkola a3 Battas of Simelungun a2 Battas of Singkel and Pak-pak a2 + t Battas of Panei a2 Toba-Battas a2 Lampongs a2 natives of Nias a3 natives,, of,, Anambas, etc. a1 Hill-Dyaks a1 Dyaks on the Barito a1 Sea-Dyaks a2 Biadju Dyaks a1 Kayans on the Mendalam a2 Kayans on the upper Mahakam a2 Dyaks of Pasir a2 inhabitants of the Minahassa a2 inhabitants of Bolaäng a2 + t inhabitants of Holontalo a2 inhabitants of Buool a2 Toradja a2 Tomori a2 inhabitants of Sandjai a2 inhabitants of Bangkala a2 Kailirese a2 inhabitants of Saleyer a2 inhabitants of Sumbawa a3 inhabitants of Sumba a2 inhabitants of Endeh on Flores a2 + t inhabitants of the Solor group a2 inhabitants of Bonerate and Kalao a2 + t inhabitants of East Timor a2 + t inhabitants of West Timor a2 + t inhabitants of Savu a2 + c inhabitants of Rote a2 inhabitants of Wetar a2 inhabitants of Keisar a2 + c inhabitants of Leti a2 + c inhabitants of Dama a2 inhabitants of the Luang-Sermata group a2 inhabitants of the Babar group a2 inhabitants of the Tenimber and Timorlao Islands a2 inhabitants of the Aru Islands a1 inhabitants of the Kei Islands a1 inhabitants of the Watubela Islands a1 inhabitants of the Seranglao-Gorong group a1 + t inhabitants of Serang a1 inhabitants of Ambon and the Uliase a2 + t inhabitants of the Sangi and Talauer Islands a2 Galela and Tobelorese a2 inhabitants of Kau a1 Tagals and Visayas a3 Bagobos a1 Manobos a1 Maguindanaos a2 + c + t inhabitants of Sulu a2 + c + t Samales a2 Hovas a3 Semang a1 Sakai a1 Kubus h Mentawei Islanders a1 Sebruang Dyaks a2 Bataks of Palawan a1 Bontoc Igorot a3

Indo-Chinese Peninsula. Kakhyens a2 Shans of Zimmé a2 Lawas a2 hill-tribes of North Aracan a2 Karens a2 Chingpaws a3 + t Andamanese h Nicobarese (central part) a1 Nicobarese (southern part) h

India. Meshmees a1 Garos a2 Lushais a1 Manipuris a2 Kafirs a2 + c Padam Abors a2 Nagas a2 Hill-tribes near Rajamahall a1 + t Todas c Santals (a part) a2 Santals (a part) a1 Santals (a part) h Khonds (some divisions) a2 Khonds (other divisions) a1 Oraons a2 Korwas a1 Bodo and Dhimals a2 Veddahs h

Central Asia. Kazak Kirghiz c Altaians c Turkomans c

Siberia. Kamchadales h Samoyedes c Ghiliaks h Tunguz c Yakuts c Tuski of the Coast h nomadic Koryakes c settled Koryakes h

Caucasus. Ossetes a3 + c Circassians c Kabards of Asia Minor c

Arabia. Aeneze Bedouins c Larbas c Garos a2

Bantu tribes. Angoni a2 Ovaherero c Barotse a2 + c Kimbunda a2 + t Lunda people a3 + t Kioko a2 + t Selles a2 + t Manganja a2 Banyai a2 Wagogo a2 + c Washambala a2 + c Wapare a2 + c Wajao a3 + t Makonde a3 + t Wahehe a2 + c Wachagga a2 + c Wanyamwesi a3 + t Azimba a2 Wajiji a1 + t Wapokomo a2 Bondei a2 Wasiba a2 + t Wakikuyu a3 Bondei a2 Bihés a2 + t Minungo a2 Mpongwe a2 Orungu a1 Mbengas a2 + t Duallas a2 + t Bayanzi a1 + t Bangala on the Congo a2 Baluba a2 Manyuema a2 + t Kabinda a2 + t Ininga and Galloa a2 Wangata a1 Bakundu a2 Banyang a2 Batom a2 Mabum a2 Bali tribes a2 Bambala a2 + t Bayaka a2 + t Bahuana a2 + t Bakwese a1 + t Yaunde a1 Indikki a3 + t Banaka and Bapuku a1 Tuchilangue a2 Waganda a2 + c Bahima c natives of Bukoba a2 + c + t Ama-Xosa c Ama-Zulu c Basuto a2 + c Makololo a2 + c Makalaka a2 + c Wanyakyusa a2 Wambugu a1 + c Wafipa a3 + c Wanyaturu a2 Wawira a2 Wataveta a2 Bakwiri a2 Mundombe (a part) c Mundombe (a part) a2 Fans a1 Bateke a1 + t

Soudan Negroes. Calabarese a2 inhabitants of Bonny a2 + t Brass people a1 + t Ewe a2 + t inhabitants of Dahomey a2 + t Geges and Nagos a2 + c + t Yorubas a3 + c + t inhabitants of Ashanti a2 + t Fanti a2 Mandingoes a2 + c Wolofs a2 Saracolays a2 + t Kagoros a2 + c Bambaras a2 Toucouleurs a2 Jekris a2 + t Malinkays a2 + t Susu a2 + c + t Landuma a2 + c + t Limba a2 + c + t Boobies of Fernando-Po a1 Northern Sakalavas a2 + c Sakalavas of Nossi-Bé and Mayotte a2 + c Latuka a2 Alur a2 + c Lendu a2 Warundi a2 Wafiomi a2 + c Wataturu a1 + c Wambugwe a1 + c Bongos a2

Pigmies etc. Bushmen h Mucassequere h Akkas h

Hamitic peoples. Beduan c Takue a3 + c Marea a2 + c Beni Amer c Barea and Kunama a2 Bogos a2 + c Gallas a3 + c Somal (some divisions) c Somal (some divisions) a2 Danakil c Massai c Warangi a3 + c Wandorobo h Wakwafi a2

Notes in this chapter

Note 1 · Morgan, Anc. Soc., see especially, pp. 10–12. ↑Note 2 · Vierkandt, Culturtypen, pp. 67, 69. ↑Note 3 · Vierkandt, l.c., p. 61. ↑Note 4 · Steinmetz, Classification, p. 133. ↑Note 5 · Vierkandt, l.c., pp. 67, 69, 71, 72. His distinction of nomadic and settled semi-civilized peoples is entirely an economic one. ↑Note 6 · We may leave out of the question Zu Wied’s uncertain statement about the Botocudos. Of the pigmy-tribes we do not know very much; but nowherNote 7 · On the different systems of classification, see Steinmetz’s “Classification”, from which it clearly appears that a good division of the peopNote 8 · Bagehot, p. 72. ↑Note 9 · Grünberg, Article “Unfreiheit”, in Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, 2nd edition. ↑Note 10 · Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 456. ↑Note 11 · Tourmagne, p. 3. ↑Note 12 · Morgan, Anc. Soc., pp. 80, 10, 13, 11. ↑Note 13 · Schmoller, Die Thatsachen der Arbeitsteilung, p. 1010. ↑Note 14 · Schmoller, Grundriss, I p. 339. ↑Note 15 · Ingram, pp. 1, 2. ↑Note 16 · Flügel, p. 95. ↑Note 17 · Schurtz, Katechismus, p. 110. ↑Note 18 · Lippert, II pp. 522, 535. ↑Note 19 · Lamprecht, I p. 165. ↑Note 20 · Dimitroff, p. 88. ↑Note 21 · Peschel, p. 253. “Koloshes” is the Russian name for Tlinkits. ↑Note 22 · Wagner, p. 375. ↑Note 23 · Tylor, Anthropology, p. 434. ↑Note 24 · Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 459. ↑Note 25 · Bos, p. 191. ↑Note 26 · Felix, II pp. 250. ↑Note 27 · Mommsen, I p. 191. ↑Note 28 · Dargun, pp. 59–61. ↑Note 29 · Grosse, p. 28. ↑Note 30 · Hahn, Die Haustiere, pp. 388 sqq. In a recent little book (Die Entstehung der wirtschaftlichen Arbeit, 1908, p. 92), Dr. Hahn, speaking of tNote 31 · Whereas our 5 economic groups are not an ascending series, these 3 agricultural groups are. Primitive agriculture must be anterior to a moreNote 32 · Roosevelt calls them hunters; but in the Jesuit Relations it is stated, that they were not entirely unacquainted with agriculture. ↑Note 33 · On Musters’ authority. According to Charlevoix, agriculture was not entirely unknown amongst them. ↑Note 34 · On Keane’s authority. According to Zu Wied and Martius, there are some slight traces of agriculture. ↑Note 35 · To this end it would seem best to divide the several tribes according to their general culture, and then to inquire at which stages of cultuNote 36 · Yet, as it can be easily done here, we may inquire whether Vierkandt’s unstete Völker have slaves. It will be seen from the second Chapter oNote 37 · As little can the other attempts, which have been made, to classify the savages according to their general culture, serve our purpose8. So tNote 38 · The opinion that the existence of slavery mainly depends on the mode of subsistence is also held by many theorists. According to Morgan “slaNote 39 · Several writers assert that hunters and fishers never have slaves. Schmoller was formerly of the opinion that “no people unacquainted with cNote 40 · Pastoral nomadism especially is considered favourable to the growth of slavery. The nomadic herdsman, who had learned to domesticate animalsNote 41 · A few theorists, however, who are more familiar with ethnographical literature, know that it is not only among pastoral and agricultural triNote 42 · Letourneau expresses his opinion very prudently: slavery was not carried on on a large scale before men applied themselves to cattle-breedinNote 43 · It has to be remarked that this is not an ascending series of stages of economic development. What the economic evolution has been we do notNote 44 · Grosse makes a distinction between lower and higher agriculture; but as the former comprehends nearly all agricultural savages, this distincNote 45 · Perusing the ethnographical literature, we found such great differences between the several savage tribes in this respect, that we have thouNote 46 · But our information is not always very complete; and so it is not always clear to what extent subsistence is derived from agriculture. In suNote 47 · Hitherto we have supposed that agricultural tribes did nothing else besides tilling the soil, except hunting, fishing and gathering wild vegNote 48 · The literature used is the same as in Part I chap. II37. We have not thought it necessary to quote the pages relating to each tribe. In mostNote 49 · Potawatomi a138Note 50 · Tehuelches h39Note 51 · Botocudos h40
Explore with AITake your curiosity a little further.

Reading settings