Part 2 — CHAPTER III. PASTORAL TRIBES.

§ 1. Capital and labour among pastoral tribes.

The number of these tribes is not large, as they are found in a few parts of the world only. Moreover, the descriptions available to us were in many cases too incomplete to justify any inference as to their having or not having slaves.

The clear cases noticed by us are the following.

Positive cases. Arabia: Aeneze Bedouins,

Larbas. 2

Caucasus: Circassians,

Kabards. 2

Bantu tribes: Ovaherero,

Bahima. 2

Hamitic group: Beduan,

Beni Amer,

Somal,

Danakil. 4

10

Negative cases. India: Todas. 1

Central Asia: Kazak Kirghiz,

Altaians,

Turkomans. 3

Siberia: Samoyedes,

Tunguz,

Yakuts,

nomadic Koryakes. 4

Bantu tribes: Ama-Xosa,

Ama-Zulu,

some divisions of the Mundombe. 3

Hamatic group: Massai. 1

12

It might also be that our positive cases were exceptions to a general rule. For many pastoral tribes, though subsisting mainly by cattle-breeding, carry on agriculture besides. If these only kept slaves, and employed them chiefly in work connected with agriculture, slavery would prove foreign to pastoral nomadism as such; for then these tribes would only keep slaves in their quality as agriculturists.

We shall inquire whether this be so; and for this purpose we shall give a survey of the work imposed upon slaves among pastoral tribes. This survey, besides enabling us to decide upon the question at issue, will show what place slavery occupies in pastoral life.

There are some tribes that subsist mainly on agriculture, but also, to a great extent, on cattle-breeding. It may be of some use to give a survey of the work done by slaves, among them too; it will appear, then, whether they keep their slaves for agricultural purposes only, or employ them also for pastoral work.

We see that slaves are employed in agriculture among the agricultural Somal and Danakil, Fulbe, Barotse, Mandingoes, Sakalavas, pirate-tribes of Mindanao and Sulu, Geges and Nagos, Gallas; and very probably also among the Waganda, where they perform “all manual labour.” As the details given by our ethnographers are not always complete, it is possible that in some more cases slaves are employed in agriculture. But it is sufficiently clear, that among the Beni Amer, nomadic Somal and Danakil, Bogos, and probably also among the Beduan and Takue, slaves do not till the soil. Among the Ossetes and Circassians the peasants are serfs, slaves being employed in household work. What work is incumbent on slaves among the Aeneze Bedouins we are not told; but agriculture seems to be unknown among them. Among the Larbas the daily work is equally divided between master and slaves, agriculture holding a very subordinate place. Hence it appears that several of these tribes keep slaves, though they do not employ them in agriculture; pastoral tribes, as such, sometimes keep slaves.

But another inference we can draw from the foregoing survey of slave labour is this. Where slaves are not employed in agriculture or in such other work as requires a settled life (e.g. house-building among the Somal of the towns, fishing and manufacture of salt among the pirate-tribes of Mindanao and Sulu), the use of slave labour is not great. Among the Beni Amer, Bogos, and nomadic Somal and Danakil slave-keeping is stated to be a mere luxury. The Sakalavas, except in the rice-exporting district, do not want much slave labour. And only in one case, viz. among the Larbas, is it clearly stated that the chief business of slaves is pastoral work.

This tends to prove, that among true pastoral tribes slavery, as a system of labour, is of little moment. This inference is verified by several statements about slaves being often manumitted or in the course of time becoming practically free.

Our survey of the work done by slaves shows in the third place, that slaves are often employed in warfare. This will be accounted for later on.

Here we have only to emphasize the fact, that to pastoral tribes as such slave labour is of little use. This makes it easy to understand why so many of them dispense with slavery altogether.

Among those tribes which are mainly agricultural, but besides subsist largely upon the produce of their cattle, similar phenomena present themselves.

Prschewalsky, speaking of the Mongols, remarks: “Unlimited laziness is a main characteristic of the nomads; they spend their whole life in idleness, which is furthered by the character of pastoral nomadism. The tending of the cattle is the sole occupation of the Mongol, and this does not nearly require all his time. The guarding of cows and sheep is the business of the women and grown-up children; milking, creaming, butter-making and other domestic labour falls almost entirely to the share of the mistress of the house. The men generally do nothing, and from morning till night ride from one jurt (tent) to another, drinking koumiss and chattering with their neighbours. The chase, which the nomads are passionately fond of, serves mainly as a pastime.”

The Altaians have to survey the cattle; this consists only in riding a few times a day to the herds, and driving them together. The milking of the mares during the summer, which requires some courage, is also the men’s business.

Here we find one more reason why pastoral tribes have little use for slave labour. The demand for labour is small; therefore, even if free labourers were not available, only a few slaves would be wanted. Capital is here the principal factor of production, labour holding a subordinate place. Among agricultural tribes, when there is a practically unlimited supply of fertile soil, every person whose labour is available to the tribe can cultivate a piece of ground, and so, the more people there are, the more food can be produced. But among pastoral tribes, as soon as there are people enough within the tribe to guard the cattle, milk the cows, and do the other work required, an increase in the number of labourers is not profitable. There is only a limited demand for labour; therefore, though there may be a temporary scarcity of labour which makes strengthening of the labour forces of the tribe by means of slaves desirable,—when a few slaves have been procured, the point at which a further increase in the number of people gives no profit will soon be reached again.

We see that among pastoral tribes little labour is required; and such as is, is easy to procure; for there are always people destitute of capital, who offer themselves as labourers. Therefore slaves are economically of little use.

We see that pastoral life is not so easy here as on the fertile plains of Central Asia. But the work that is most necessary here, and also most difficult, is the care for the security of the tribe and its possessions, or, as Geoffroy very appropriately expresses it, “c’est un peu toujours comme la guerre”. And this work cannot be left to slaves; else the slaves would become the masters of the tribe. Warriors are wanted here; labourers not so much.

We have now accounted for the non-existence of slavery among many pastoral tribes, and the little use of slave labour among pastoral tribes in general, by the principle laid down in the last paragraph, that, generally speaking, slaves are not wanted where subsistence depends upon capital.

Similar phenomena present themselves outside North-East Africa.

Where nearly all work is left to subjected tribes or castes, and the nobles do nothing but fight, there is not much use for slave labour. The nobles do not want slaves, because all work required by them is performed by their subjects.

We have now found a new cause, from which in some cases slaves are not wanted: the subjection of tribes as such, which serves as a substitute for slavery.

§ 2. Slavery among pastoral tribes.

Yet several pastoral tribes keep slaves; this has still to be accounted for. We shall inquire first, whether the secondary causes we have found in the last paragraph are at work here.

2º. Preserving of food. This does not seem to require much labour among pastoral tribes. On the Pacific Coast of North America the fish have to be prepared for winter use. But where men live upon the products of their cattle, food is not at one time much more abundant than at another.

Among the Yorubas and pirate-tribes of Mindanao and Sulu the slaves are occupied in trading. But these tribes are not nomadic; moreover, these slaves do not, like the slaves on the Pacific Coast, prepare the articles of commerce, but are themselves the traders, which is quite another thing.

We see that among these tribes everybody is desirous of having as many people about him as possible for the protection of his own property and the capturing of his neighbour’s. And a convenient means of procuring such people is the purchase of slaves.

That the subjection of tribes as such in stead of individual slaves, of which we have spoken in the last paragraph, cannot account for all cases in which slavery does not exist, becomes evident, if we take into consideration that most of the pastoral tribes of North-East Africa, which keep other tribes in subjection, practise slavery, whereas in Central Asia and Siberia we find neither subjected tribes nor slaves.

Therefore there must be other causes.

In chapter II we have spoken of external causes: it may be that slaves would be of great use, and yet cannot be kept, because the coercive power of the tribe is not strong enough. We have also seen that this coercive power is most strongly developed where men have fixed habitations, live in rather large groups and preserve food for the time of scarcity, and where there is a group of somewhat homogeneous tribes maintaining, constant relations with each other. Pastoral tribes are nomadic, do not live together in very large groups, and do not want to preserve food, for they have their supply of food always at hand. Yet the fact that several pastoral tribes keep slaves proves that at least among these the coercive power is strong enough. We shall try to find a cause peculiar to these tribes, that enables them to keep slaves. Now it is remarkable that our positive cases are nearly all of them found in a few definite parts of the globe: North-East Africa, the Caucasus, and Arabia; whereas the pastoral nomads of Siberia, Central Asia, India, and South Africa, with one exception (the Ovaherero), do not keep slaves. And the parts where slavery exists are exactly those where the slave-trade has for a long time been carried on on a large scale. Accordingly, the slaves these tribes keep are often purchased from slave-traders and in several cases belong to inferior races.

On the other hand, the pastoral tribes of Central Asia and Siberia live in secluded parts, far from the centres of the slave-trade.

The slave-trade greatly facilitates the keeping of slaves. Where slaves are brought by slave-dealers from remote parts, it is much easier to keep them than where they have to be captured from enemies, i.e. from the neighbours; in the latter case the slaves are very likely to run away and return to their native country; but a purchased slave transported from a great distance cannot so easily return; if he succeeded in escaping, he would be instantly recaptured by one of the foreign tribes whose countries he would have to traverse. Moreover, some tribes may, by their intercourse with slave-traders, have become familiar with the idea of slavery, and so the slave-trade may have suggested to them the keeping of slaves for their own use.

In the second chapter of this Part we have remarked that the growth of slavery is furthered by the existence of a group of more or less similar tribes, the slave-trade being in such cases the means of spreading slavery over the group. We may say now that, whether such a group exists or not, the slave-trade facilitates the keeping of slaves. When the coercive power of a tribe is not strong enough for the keeping of prisoners as slaves, the slave-trade may enable such a tribe to keep slaves; for the keeping of purchased slaves, brought from a great distance, does not require so much coercive power.

We see that the difference between the slave-keeping and the other pastoral tribes consists in external circumstances. Pastoral tribes have no strong motives for making slaves, for the use of slave labour is small. On the other hand, there are no causes absolutely preventing them from keeping slaves. These tribes are, so to speak, in a state of equilibrium; a small additional cause on either side turns the balance. One such additional cause is the slave-trade; another is the neighbourhood of inferior races. There may be other small additional causes, peculiar to single tribes. We shall not inquire whether there are, but content ourselves with the foregoing conclusions, of which the principal are these, that the taming of animals does not naturally lead to the taming of men, and that the relation between capital and labour among pastoral tribes renders the economic use of slavery very small.

Recapitulating, we may remark that our general theory, that there is no great use for slave labour where subsistence depends on capital, is fully verified by our investigation of economic life among pastoral tribes.

Two secondary internal causes found in the second chapter have been also met with among pastoral tribes: slaves are sometimes employed in warfare, and sometimes for domestic labour to relieve the women of their task. Two new secondary factors have been found in this chapter: slaves are kept as a luxury; and sometimes the subjection of tribes as such, serving as a substitute for slavery, makes slavery proper superfluous.

With regard to the external causes it has been shown that the coercive power of pastoral tribes is not very strong, as they are nomadic and live in rather small groups; but this want is sometimes compensated for by the slave-trade and the neighbourhood of inferior races. The two latter circumstances may therefore rank as new external causes, the slave-trade taking the place of the existence of a homogeneous group. On the Pacific Coast of N. America it is the trade between tribes of the same culture, among pastoral nomads it is the trade with Arabia, etc.; but in either case it is the slave-trade that furthers the growth of slavery.