Part 2 — CHAPTER II. HUNTERS AND FISHERS.

§ 1. Why slaves are not of much use to hunters.

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

Positive cases. North America: Aleuts,

Athka Aleuts,

Koniagas,

Tlinkits,

Haidas,

Tsimshian,

Kwakiutl,

Bilballas,

Ahts,

tribes about Puget Sound,

Fish Indians,

Tacullies,

Atnas,

Similkameem,

Chinooks.

15

South America: Abipones,

Tehuelches.

2

Siberia: Kamchadales.

1

18.

Negative cases. North America: the 9 tribes of Eskimos proper,

Kutchins,

Chepewyans,

Montagnais,

Ojibways,

Ottawas,

Shahnees,

Crees,

Blackfeet nation,

Sioux,

Assiniboins,

Hupas,

Apaches,

Lower Californians.

22

South America: wild tribes of North Mexico,

Botocudos,

Charruas,

Minuanes,

Puelches,

Fuegians.

6

Australia: the 30 Australian tribes.

30

Malay Archipelago: Kubus.

1

Indo-Chinese peninsula: Andamanese,

Southern Nicobarese.

2

India: some Santal tribes,

Veddahs.

2

Siberia: Ghiliaks,

Tuski of the Coast,

settled Koryakes.

3

Pigmies, etc.: Bushmen,

Muscassequere,

Akkas.

3

Hamitic peoples: Wandorobo.

1

70.

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

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

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

The non-existence of slavery among most hunters and fishers now being accounted for, we shall proceed to an inquiry into the causes of the existence of slavery among 18 hunting and fishing tribes.

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

Going on to account for our 18 positive cases, we may remark in the first place, that what we have said about the causes preventing the existence of slavery, applies much more to hunters than to fishers. Fishers are not necessarily so nomadic as hunters; and where a sedentary life prevails, there is more domestic work to be done, and the slaves cannot so easily escape. Moreover it is not so very difficult to control a fishing slave, who is in the same boat with the master. The slave may also be used to row the boat. Therefore it may be of some use to inquire, how many hunting and how many fishing tribes are to be found among our positive and negative cases. Fishing in our sense includes the killing of water-animals besides fish: whales, seals, etc. Where a tribe lives by hunting and fishing, we shall call it a hunting or a fishing tribe, according to the predominating mode of subsistence.

Of our positive cases the following are hunters: some tribes about Puget Sound, Atnas, Similkameem, Abipones, Tehuelches. The rest are fishers.

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:

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.

This development of trade and industry furthers the growth of slavery in several ways:

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Speaking of the tribes of the Pacific Coast, we concluded that slavery must have already existed among them at a somewhat lower stage of economic life. The Kamchadales afford a proof of this. They were not so far advanced in the arts of life as the tribes of the Pacific Coast; yet slavery already existed among them, though it does not seem to have prevailed here to any great extent.

§ 3. Experimentum crucis: Australia.

In the last paragraph we have shown that in the economic and social life of the slave-keeping hunters and fishers (especially those on the Pacific Coast of North America) there are some features which account for the existence of slavery. But there is still something wanting in our argument. It might be that the circumstances which we have called causes of slavery were equally found among the hunting and fishing tribes that do not keep slaves; in that case the foregoing argument would prove insufficient. Therefore we shall apply here the experimentum crucis; we shall inquire how much the economic and social life of the slave-keeping tribes differs from that of the other tribes. This investigation may be instructive in various respects. It might be, that of the supposed causes of slavery some were found among non-slave-keeping as well as among slave-keeping tribes, whereas others existed among none but slave-keeping tribes; then the latter causes only would be decisive. Or perhaps we shall find that each of these causes exists among one or more non-slave-keeping tribes; but that the combination of all the causes is found nowhere but among slave-keeping tribes. It were also possible, that a combination of the same causes existed among non-slave-keeping tribes, but that among these there were other circumstances neutralizing the former. Whether any of these possibilities is a reality, will appear from the ensuing investigation.

We do not, however, think that it is necessary to give a survey of the economic and social life of all non-slave-keeping hunters and fishers. For we have seen that among the tribes of the Pacific Coast of North America the growth of slavery is much furthered by their forming a somewhat homogeneous group. Accordingly slavery among the few slave-keeping tribes outside the Pacific Coast seems to be little developed. Now there are many non-slave-keeping hunting and fishing tribes, either living quite isolated (e.g. Andaman Islanders, Fuegians) or surrounded by more powerful, agricultural or pastoral, tribes (e.g. Bushmen, African pigmies). That such a position is very unfavourable to the existence of slavery is evident. We shall therefore confine ourselves to a survey of the three great groups of hunters and fishers outside the Pacific Coast: the Australians, the Indians of Central North America, and the Eskimos. Australia and the regions where the Eskimos live are inhabited by hunters and fishers only. In Central North America a few agricultural tribes of the lowest stage (hunting agriculturists) are found; but these differ so little from hunters proper, that we may speak here of a group of hunters, not inclosed between superior peoples. Perhaps the hunters and hunting agriculturists of Brazil, Paraguay, etc. form a similar group; but the literature on these tribes accessible to us was rather incomplete.

We shall inquire now, whether the several circumstances furthering the growth of slavery on the Pacific Coast, are found among each of these groups.

In the first place we shall regard Australia.

That trade and industry do not signify nearly so much as on the Pacific Coast is clearly proved by their not having here the same effect; they have not led in Australia to any development of:

Our conclusion is that the Australians differ from the tribes of the Pacific Coast of North America in many respects. Food is by no means abundant; the highly developed fishing methods of the Pacific Coast are unknown here; the Australians are migratory and improvident, and live in small groups; though some tribes interchange commodities, trade and industry do not signify nearly so much as on the Pacific Coast; the objects of property are very few and wealth does not exist; the condition of women is a bad one. Only in two respects do both groups agree: there is a great variety of food, and militarism does not prevail to any great extent. We have seen, however, that “variety of food” here means that the Australians must avail themselves of whatever is eatable, i.e. that they live in the deepest misery. Therefore henceforth we shall no longer speak of variety of food as a circumstance favourable to the existence of slavery; and in the next paragraphs we shall not inquire whether the Central North Americans and Eskimos have a variety of food.

§ 4. Experimentum crucis: Central North America.

This paragraph will contain a survey of the economic state of the group of hunting tribes, extending across North America, from the Montagnais near the Atlantic Coast to the Apaches of Texas. Besides hunters in the proper sense this group includes the Cheyennes and Comanches, who, though slight traces of agriculture were found among them, subsisted almost entirely on the products of the chase.

Considering the foregoing statements, and remembering Tanner’s narrative that gives a description of a continual struggle for mere existence, we may safely conclude that, though a few of these tribes lived rather comfortably, food, among the Indians of Central North America in general, was not nearly so abundant as on the Pacific Coast.

2º. Whereas the tribes of the Pacific Coast subsist chiefly by fishing, the Indians of Central North America are, nearly all of them, hunters (See § 2 of this chapter).

However this may be, it is evident that the supplies these wandering tribes (as they subsist on hunting, we may safely suppose that they are all of them nomadic, whether this be explicitly stated or not) were able to store for winter’s use, cannot compare with those of the tribes of the Pacific Coast.

We see that trade does not hold a large place in the economic life of these Indians, and that only raw products are exchanged.

Influence and power depend thus on bravery, wisdom, eloquence, not on wealth. Only among the Apaches does it depend on wealth, though not on wealth exclusively. The distributions of property among the Kutchins somewhat resemble those on the Pacific Coast, but are not indicative of quite the same development of wealth; for on the Pacific Coast wealth consists to a large extent of more durable goods, such as houses, canoes, etc.

So the lot of the Indian woman is not so hard as at first sight it seems. Yet the fact, that several ethnographers picture it in such dark colours, whereas the describers of the tribes of the Pacific Coast agree, that the sex command great respect, tends to prove, that the condition of women is not quite so good here as on the Pacific Coast.

Concluding, we may remark, that the Indians of Central North America differ from the tribes of the Pacific Coast in many respects. They have no abundance of food, are hunters and nomadic; wealth does not exist, and militarism prevails to a great extent. The groups in which they live, though larger than in Australia, are smaller than on the Pacific Coast. Food is preserved, but not so systematically as on the Pacific Coast. The condition of women, though not so bad as in Australia, is not quite so good as among the slave-keeping tribes of the North-West Coast of North America. Their trade consists only in exchanging raw products; and industry is little developed.

§ 5. Experimentum crucis: Eskimos.

2º. As for fishing, taken in the wider sense (including the killing of water animals besides fish), all Eskimos are fishers.

So the Eskimos, like the slave-keeping Indians of the Pacific Coast, are accomplished fishers, have fixed habitations, are industrially highly developed, and generally not warlike. On the other hand there is no abundance of food, wealth does not exist, and woman’s condition is not nearly so good as on the Pacific Coast. Also in the size of their groups, the preserving of food, and the development of trade, they are decidedly inferior to the slave-keeping tribes of the N. W. Coast of North America.

§ 6. Conclusion.

We shall sum up here the conclusions to which the foregoing paragraphs have led us.

1º. Hunters hardly ever keep slaves; and when they do slavery is of little moment. But among fishers slavery often, though by no means always, exists: of the two large groups of fishing tribes one (the Indians on the Pacific Coast of North America) keeps slaves, the other (the Eskimos) does not.

2º. The living in fixed habitations is more favourable to the existence of slavery than nomadism.

3º. Slavery is most likely to exist among men who live in rather large groups.

4º. Where food is abundant and easy to procure, slaves can be of more use than where food is scarce; in the latter case the slave, to use Spencer’s words, “is not worth his food.”

5º. The preserving of food furthers the growth of slavery.

6º. Commercial tribes, especially those that carry on a trade in manufactured goods, have more use for slaves than others. We must, however, bear in mind that trade, even among savages, does not seem anywhere to be altogether unknown.

7º. A high development of industry also tends to further the growth of slavery. The instance of the Eskimos, however, shows that industrial tribes do not always keep slaves.

8º. Where wealth exists slaves are more likely to be kept than where wealth is unknown.

9º. Where subsistence is dependent on capital, slaves are not wanted.

10º. Where only highly skilled labour is required, slaves cannot be of any use.

11º. Female labour may in some degree serve as a substitute for slave labour (as in Australia). But where women enjoy much consideration, the men sometimes procure slaves in order to relieve the women of a part of their task, especially where the women perform productive labour.

12º. Where militarism largely prevails, and warriors are more wanted than labourers, slavery is not likely to exist. Yet in a few cases the same militarism leads to the keeping of slaves, viz. when slaves are kept mainly for military purposes.

13º. Tribes forming a somewhat homogeneous group, and maintaining constant relations with each other, are more likely, ceteris paribus, to keep slaves, than an isolated tribe.

These conclusions, arrived at by an examination of hunting and fishing tribes, all, except the first, bear a general character. We may therefore suppose that they will equally apply to pastoral and agricultural tribes. Whether this really be the case, will appear from the ensuing chapters. It may, however, be convenient first to simplify and systematically arrange them.

As the principal factor we may regard the general economic state of society. Two distinctions are to be made here:

1º. Subsistence either is or is not dependent on capital.

2º. Subsistence is either easy or difficult to acquire.

These two distinctions are independent of each other. For where subsistence depends on capital, it may, with the aid of capital, be easily acquired or not. Similarly, where it does not depend on capital, it may be easy or difficult to procure. Accordingly we find the following forms of economic life:

1º. Subsistence depends on capital. Without capital a man cannot get on. Now, if labourers are wanted, there are likely to be people destitute of capital, who have no other resource left but to offer their labour to the capitalist. But there is a difference, according as subsistence is easily acquired or not.

a. Subsistence, even with the aid of capital, is difficult to procure. The procuring of subsistence requires a combination of capital and skilled labour. Thus among the Eskimos a man unacquainted with their ingenious hunting and fishing methods cannot get on any more than a man destitute of a boat, or of sledges and dogs. Here labourers are not much wanted. Helpless persons are kept as servants, but this is done for pity’s sake rather than because they are useful. Slavery does not exist.

b. Subsistence, with the aid of capital, is easy to procure. Unskilled labour, combined with capital, is so productive that it gives a surplus beyond the subsistence of the labourer. In this case the capitalist wants labourers, but there are also labourers who want the capitalist. We have not yet met with any instance of this state of things. Slavery can exist here, if the demand for labour exceeds the supply of labour; but we do not think this will often be the case.

Subsistence, where it does not depend on capital, is again either easy or difficult to procure.

a. Subsistence is not easy to procure; it requires much skill. As subsistence does not depend on capital, every skilled labourer is able to provide for himself. Those who are not able providers are dependent on the others; but their labour, being little productive, is not much valued. Such is the state of things among many hunting tribes. As slaves cannot be compelled to perform work that requires the utmost skill and application, slavery cannot exist here.

b. Subsistence is easy to procure. The produce of unskilled labour can exceed the primary wants of the labourer. As subsistence is not dependent on capital, everybody is able to provide for himself; therefore labourers do not voluntarily offer themselves. In such circumstances a man can, it is true, acquire the products of another’s labour by producing commodities himself and exchanging them for what another has produced. He can also, like the Makah boat-owner, produce such things as enhance the productiveness of labour, and lend them to others, stipulating for a part of the profit for himself. But he cannot make others work under his direction. The common labourer of modern European societies, in order to get his subsistence, performs the work which his employer assigns to him. Were he free to choose, he would prefer to work according to his own inclinations. In countries however, where nobody need apply to another for employment, there is little chance of people voluntarily submitting to the orders of employers. In such countries, if there is to be an organization of labour with subordination under the master of the work, some men must be compelled to work for others, and we know that one form of compulsory labour is slavery. Therefore, when subsistence is easy to procure, and not dependent on capital, slave labour can be of much use. Yet even then slavery does not always exist. We shall see that there are disturbing factors. But we may now, at least, say that, generally speaking, slavery can only exist when subsistence is easy to procure without the aid of capital.

There are some additional, or secondary, factors which increase or diminish the use of slave labour.

1º. It may be, that unskilled labour is required, but is sufficiently performed by the women. Thus in Australia women gather vegetable food and perform all the common drudgery; and some Australian tribes subsist mainly on the produce of female labour. In such cases slaves are not wanted. This is a circumstance of much importance; for everywhere women are about half, sometimes more than half, of the population. As in our days, in civilized Europe, the employing of women in factories tends to diminish the want for male labour and so to keep wages low, so female labour in Australia makes slavery superfluous. The causes on which the division of labour between the sexes depends cannot be examined here; this would require an investigation of the whole history of marriage. But, though unable to find the causes, we can trace the effects of this division of labour. Where women are looked upon as “beasts of burden” (to use an expression the ethnographers are very fond of), there is not so much use for slave labour as where they hold a high position and the men are desirous of relieving them of a part of their task.

2º. Where food is preserved in large quantities, more work has to be done at a time, viz. in the season of plenty, than where life is continually a hand-to-mouth proceeding. And the additional work required for preserving food, e.g. the drying of fish, is very fit to be imposed upon slaves: it requires little skill and is easy to supervise.

3º. The development of trade and industry has a great influence. When the freemen wish to devote themselves to these pursuits, they want others to perform the common drudgery for every-day subsistence. Moreover, the preparing of the articles of commerce may require menial labour: thus on the Pacific Coast slaves are employed in drying fish, preparing oil, etc. And finally, trade and industry lead to the development of wealth. As soon as wealth exists, a man does not only want food and the other necessaries of life, but also luxuries, so his wants may become almost unlimited, and there is much more use for slave labour.

Hitherto we have considered slavery as serving economic purposes. But slaves may also be kept for non-economic purposes. There is only one such purpose we have as yet met with: the employing of slaves in warfare. We have seen that among the Abipones this was the main and almost the only function of slavery.

On the other hand, it may be that militarism so largely prevails, that all available men are wanted in warfare. If, then, the military organization is not so highly developed, that slaves can be employed in warfare without any danger, slavery is not likely to exist, though it might be economically of great use.

There are other causes, which we may call external. However much slaves are wanted, there must be a coercive power strong enough to make the keeping of slaves possible. The following causes tend to increase this coercive power:

1º. Living in fixed habitations. Besides the effect this has on the growth of industry, it makes the escape of slaves more difficult and the surveying of slave labour easier.

2º. Living together in large groups. In a small group any increase in the number of slaves would soon become dangerous to the maintenance of power by the freemen within the group, and an escaping slave would soon be out of reach of the group.

3º. The preserving of food. Besides having some economic effects of which we have treated above, it makes living in large groups and in fixed habitations possible; moreover it attaches the slave to his master’s home; for he knows he will get there sufficient food in the time of scarcity, whereas, if he escaped, he would have to shift for himself.

4º. The existence of a somewhat homogeneous group of tribes maintaining constant relations with each other greatly accelerates the growth of slavery, especially by means of the slave trade. Twenty tribes, living separately, have, each for itself, to invent slavery; but when twenty tribes maintain relations with each other, as soon as one of them has invented slavery, the other 19 have it ready-made before them.