CHAPTER I.

[Contents]CHAPTER I.METHOD AND DIVISIONS.[Contents]§ 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.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 culture slavery is found. But such a division cannot be made here incidentally; for it would require years of labour. And a good division, that we could adopt, has not yet been made. Morgan distinguishes three periods of savagery, three of barbarism, and one of civilization1. But his system rests on the unproved supposition, that the stage of culture a people has attained to entirely depends on its technical ability in the arts of subsistence. Dr. Vierkandt has made another distinction. Besides the civilized and semi-civilized peoples he has two categories: migratory tribes (unstete Völker), and primitive peoples proper (eigentliche Naturvölker). The former are the Australians, Tasmanians, Andamanese, Veddahs, Negritos, Kubus, Bushmen, African pigmy-tribes, Fuegians and Botocudos; the latter the American Indians, Arctic races,[170]Northern Asiatics, Caucasus tribes, hill-tribes of India, Negroes to the South of the Soudan, inhabitants of the Malay Archipelago and Oceanic Islands2. But this division cannot be of any use to us. It is not the result of an extensive and accurate examination of the facts; the writer himself admits that he has followed his general impressions3. Now the impressions of a capable sociologist, as Vierkandt undoubtedly is, may count for something; they give a hint as to the direction, in which the investigation has to be carried on; but they do not themselves afford a scientific basis to rely upon. Hisunstete Völkerare simply those generally known as the “lowest type of man”, whether justly or unjustly we do not know4. And hiseigentliche Naturvölker, as Professor Steinmetz rightly remarks5, comprehend savages of widely different degrees of development. Moreover, although he says his criterion is the psychical state of man, the economic side of social life comes always prominently into view6; but the author does not even try to prove that the psychical state of man depends upon the stage of economic development.Yet, as it can be easily done here, we may inquire whether Vierkandt’sunstete Völkerhave slaves. It will be seen from the second Chapter of our first Part that all of them, with the exception perhaps of the Negritos, are unacquainted with slavery7. This conclusion, however, is not of much use to us, as we do not know whether they have been justly or unjustly classified under onecategory.As little can the other attempts, which have been made, to classify the savages according to their general culture, serve our purpose8. So the method of investigation that would seem the best is not applicable here. Therefore we are also unable[171]to ascertain whether, as some writers assert, slavery at a certain stage of social development is universal. Bagehot says of slavery: “There is a wonderful presumption in its favour; it is one of the institutions which, at a certain stage of growth, all nations in all countries choose and cleave to”9. Grünberg expresses the same view: “No people has always and in all phases of its development been unacquainted with slavery”10. According to Spencer “observation of all societies in all times shows that slavery is the rule and freedom the exception”11. And Tourmagne exclaims: “This almost universal scourge, going back to the very origin of the nations and affecting all of them, is it not to be regarded as a social stage that every people has to traverse, as an evolution which it is obliged to undergo, before it can attain to the higher degrees of civilization”12? If we had an ascending series of stages of culture, we might inquire whether, within the limits of savagery (for the civilized and semi-civilized peoples fall beyond the scope of the present volume) there is a stage at which slavery is universal. But, as we have already remarked, this is not yet possible.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.The opinion that the existence of slavery mainly depends[172]on the mode of subsistence is also held by many theorists. According to Morgan “slavery, which in the Upper Status of barbarism became the fate of the captive, was unknown among tribes in the Lower Status in the aboriginal period”. This Lower Status of barbarism begins with “the invention or practice of the art of pottery”. Anterior to the art of pottery was “the commencement of village life, with some degree of control over subsistence”. It ends with “the domestication of animals in the Eastern hemisphere, and in the Western with cultivation by irrigation and with the use of adobe-brick and stone in architecture”13. So slavery, according to Morgan, does not exist before a rather advanced period.Several writers assert that hunters and fishers never have slaves. Schmoller was formerly of the opinion that “no people unacquainted with cattle-breeding and agriculture has slaves”14. In his handbook, however, he informs us, that some highly developed tribes of fishers also keep slaves15. Ingram expresses the view formerly held by Schmoller: “In the hunter period the savage warrior does not enslave his vanquished enemy, but slays him; the women of the conquered tribe he may, however, carry off and appropriate as wives or as servants, for in this period domestic labour falls almost altogether on the female sex. In the pastoral stage slaves are captured only to be sold, with the exception of a few who may be required for the care of flocks or the small amount of cultivation which is then undertaken. It is in proportion as a sedentary life prevails, and agricultural exploitation is practised on a larger scale, whilst warlike habits continue to exist, that the labour of slaves is increasingly introduced to provide food for the master, and at the same time save him from irksome toil. Of this stage in the social movement slavery seems to have been a universal and inevitable accompaniment.” But he makes an exception in the case of those communities where “theocratic organisations established themselves”16. Flügel says: “Hunting tribes can neither feed nor employ the prisoners; generally they kill them”17. According to Schurtz “among tribes of migratory hunters there[173]is no room for slavery”18. Whether he means here all hunters or only Vierkandt’sunstete Völkeris not clear.Pastoral nomadism especially is considered favourable to the growth of slavery. The nomadic herdsman, who had learned to domesticate animals, began also to domesticate men,i.e.to enslave them. According to Lippert, slavery “first arises in the patriarchal communities of pastoral peoples.” “They [the slaves] were the object of an appropriation entirely similar to the appropriation of the domestic animals”19. Lamprecht also asserts that the prisoners, who formerly were either sacrificed or adopted into the community, in the pastoral stage were enslaved, because many hands were wanted to tend the cattle20. Dimitroff says that originally the captives were instantly killed like the game, as was the case amongst the hunting tribes of America, Australia and Africa. But as soon as man began to tame animals, he also learned to employ the captives as labourers21.A few theorists, however, who are more familiar with ethnographical literature, know that it is not only among pastoral and agricultural tribes that slavery is found. So Peschel states. According to him hunters cannot employ slaves. Fishers, however, sometimes do so, as on the Northwest Coast of America, amongst the Koniagas, Koloshes, and Ahts of Vancouver Island. But only at the agricultural stage is slavery practised on an extensive scale22. Wagner is of the same opinion: “In the earliest economic state of society slavery is quite or nearly unknown; generally speaking slavery is coeval with a settled and agricultural life. This is to be accounted for by economic causes; for only in the agricultural stage can slave labour be of any considerable use. Therefore slavery is unknown among hunters, and occurs but seldom among fishers. Bondage (Unfreiheit) presents itself already under several forms among nomadic herdsmen; but only among settled agricultural peoples does it attain to its full development”23. Tylor remarks that slavery exists, as soon as the captives are spared to till the soil; but he adds that even among savage hunters and foresters absolute equality is not[174]always to be found24. Spencer says: “Tribes which have not emerged from the hunting stage are little given to enslaving the vanquished; if they do not kill and eat them they adopt them. In the absence of industrial activity, slaves are almost useless, and indeed, where game is scarce, are not worth their food. But where, as among fishing tribes like the Chinooks, captives can be of use, or where the pastoral and agricultural stages have been reached, there arises a motive for sparing the lives of conquered men, and after inflicting on them such mutilations as mark their subjection, setting them to work”25. Bos is also aware of the fact, that the Tlinkits and similar tribes have slaves. He explains this in a curious way: slavery does not agree with the nature of hunting tribes; therefore it is probable that these tribes formerly were agricultural to a small extent26. Felix remarks that slavery already exists at the beginning of the agricultural stage27. Mommsen, however, asserts that in the oldest times (until when does not appear) slavery did not prevail to any considerable extent; more use was made of free labourers28.Letourneau expresses his opinion very prudently: slavery was not carried on on a large scale before men applied themselves to cattle-breeding and especially to agriculture29. At the end of his book on slavery of over 500 pages he contents himself with this vague conclusion.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.[Contents]§ 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[175]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.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 not exactly know. Little credit is given to-day to the old division into the three successive stages of hunting, pastoral nomadism, and agriculture. This was not yet so in 1884, when Dargun could still write: “The evolutionary stages of hunting, pastoral, and agricultural life are so well established in science as stages of human evolution in general, that it seems rather audacious to object to this division. Taken in general, however, it is false; on the greater half of the globe pastoral life was not a transitory stage from hunting to agriculture; therefore the people concerned had not to pass through any regulation of property peculiar to herdsmen. They learned agriculture without having been pastoral. This phenomenon comprehends two parts of the world—America and Australia-Polynesia—completely, and two other parts—Asia and Africa—to a great extent, as the Malay Archipelago and the territory of the Negro tribes across Africa also are included. Therefore it will be necessary to leave off considering the three stages of hunting, pastoral and agricultural life as a rule of human progress. Moreover, nearly all pastoral tribes carry on agriculture, however negligently; and it is not at all certain that the origin of the latter does not go back to a more remote period than cattle-breeding; it is even probable thatitdoes, for nomadic herdsmen are on the whole more civilized than the rudest agricultural tribes: cattle-breeding therefore is posterior to primitive agriculture”30. This[176]view of Dargun’s is now generally accepted. But a new ascending series that would have any scientific value does not yet exist. And so we can only distinguish economic states, not stages of economic development.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.[177]III, IV, V. Agriculture.Grosse makes a distinction between lower and higher agriculture; but as the former comprehends nearly all agricultural savages, this distinction cannot be of any use to us31.Hahn, in his book on the domestic animals, distinguishes hoe-culture (Hackbau), agriculture proper (Ackerbau) and horticulture (Gartenbau)32. But hoe-culture is carried on by nearly all agricultural savages; besides, this division is purely technical and therefore cannot serve our purpose. What we want is a division according to the place agriculture occupies in social life. We must ask to what extent a tribe is occupied in and dependent for subsistence on agriculture. For on this, and not on the form of the agricultural implements, it will depend whether slaves are wanted to till the soil. A slave may be set to handle the hoe as well as the plough.Perusing the ethnographical literature, we found such great differences between the several savage tribes in this respect, that we have thought it best to distinguish three stages of agriculture33. The principle according to which the distinction will be made is, as we have already hinted, the extent to which a tribe depends upon agriculture for its subsistence. Thefirstagricultural group will contain those cases, in which agriculture holds a subordinate place, most of the subsistence being derived from other sources, viz. hunting, fishing or gathering wild-growing vegetable food34. The tribes of thesecondgroup carry on agriculture to a considerable extent, but not to the exclusion of hunting, etc. Thethird, or highest, agricultural stage is reached, when agriculture is by far the principal mode of subsistence, and hunting, etc. hold a very[178]subordinate place, so much so that, if the latter were entirely wanting, the economic state would be nearly the same.But our information is not always very complete; and so it is not always clear to what extent subsistence is derived from agriculture. In such cases we shall make use of somesecondary characteristics. Some facts may be recorded from which we can more or less safely draw conclusions as to the place agriculture occupies. The facts indicative of the first stage of agriculture are: 1. Women only are occupied in agriculture35, 2. The tribe is very mobile, habitations are often shifted. Those indicative of the second, as distinguished from the first, stage are: 1. The tribe has fixed habitations (except where this is due to an abundance of fish or fruit-bearing trees), 2. The lands are irrigated. Those indicative of the third stage are: 1. The lands are manured, 2. Rotation of crops is carried on, 3. Domestic animals are used in agriculture, 4. Agricultural products are exported.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.Hitherto we have supposed that agricultural tribes did nothing else besides tilling the soil, except hunting, fishing and gathering wild vegetable food. But it may also be that they subsist partly on agriculture, partly on cattle-breeding or trade36. In these cases we cannot apply the same principle of division. A tribe that subsists partly on agriculture, but chiefly on trade is not to be classified under the same category as a tribe that subsists partly on agriculture, but mainly on hunting. The latter[179]is not yet agricultural, the former has perhaps passed beyond the agricultural stage. Here we may regard only the technical ability attained to in agriculture. Where agriculture is technically little developed, we have probably to deal with formerJägerbauernwho have become traders. Where agriculture has reached a high perfection, but trade is one of the chief modes of subsistence, the tribe has probably passed through the higher stages of agriculture. What we say here of trade equally applies to cattle-breeding.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.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 most ethnographical records the mode of subsistence occupies a conspicuous place, so any one wishing to verify our conclusions may easily find the passages concerned.[Contents]§ 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.[180]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.hmeans hunting or fishing; the tribes so marked are hunters or fishers.cmeans cattle-breeding; the tribes so marked are pastoral tribes.a1,a2,a3means first, second, third stage of agriculture.a1+cmeans an agricultural tribe of the first stage, among which subsistence depends largely on cattle-breeding; similarlya2+canda3+c.a1+tmeans an agricultural tribe of the first stage, among which subsistence depends largely on trade; similarlya2+tanda3+t.a2+c+tmeans an agricultural tribe of the second stage, among which subsistence depends largely both on cattle-breeding and trade; similarlya3+c+t.Positive cases.Negative cases.North America.AleutshAthka AleutshKoniagashTlinkitshHaidashTsimshianhKwakiutlhBilballashAhtshtribes about Puget SoundhFish IndianshTacullieshAtnashSimilkameemhChinookshThe 9 tribes of Eskimos proper, all of themhKutchinshChepewyanshDelawaresa2MontagnaishOjibwayshOttawashShahneeshPotawatomia138CreeshCheyennesa1Blackfeet nationhIroquoisa2Huronsa2Katahbasa2Cherokeesa2[181]Katahbasa2Muskoghea2Choctawsa2Chickasawsa2Creeksa2Seminolesa2Natcheza2SiouxhHidatsasa1Omahasa1Osagesa1Kansas Indiansa1AssiniboinshHupashApacheshZuñia3+cLower CalifornianshCentral and South America.Ancient nations of Hondurasa1inhabitants of Panama and Costa Ricaa1Mundrucusa1Mauhésa1Mbayasa1Caduveia2Suyaa1AbiponeshTehuelchesh39Wild tribes of North Mexicohnatives of the Mosquito Coasta1Caribs of the Isthmusa1Warrausa1Macusia1Roucouyennesa1Apiacasa1Botocudosh40Bakairia1Paressia1Bororoa1Guanasa2CharruashMinuaneshPuelcheshAraucaniansa2Fuegiansh[182]Australia.The 30 tribes enumerated in chapter II of Part I, all of themhMelanesia.N. W. Solomon Islandersa2natives of the Gazelle Peninsulaa1New Hebridiansa1Nuforesea1+tPapuans of Arfaka1Papuans,,of Adiea1+tPapuans,,on the Gulf of Kaimania1+tNew Caledoniansa2S. E. Solomon Islandersa1Nissan Islandersa1natives of Torres Straitsa1Papuans of Humboldt Baya1Papuans near Lake Sentania2Papuans of Ayamboria2Motua1+tMowata1Toaripia1Papuans on the mouth of the Wanigela Rivera1Yabima1natives of the Tami Islandsa1Tamoesa1natives of Dampier Islanda1Polynesia.Maoria2Tongansa2Samoansa2Rotumiansa2Rarotonga Islandersa2Hawaiiansa2Marquesas Islandersa2Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman Islandersa1[183]Micronesia.Marshall Islandersa2Caroline Islandersa2Marianne Islandersa2Pelau Islandersa2Kingsmill Islandersa2Malay Archipelago.Battas on the Pane and Bila Riversa3Battas of Mandhelinga3Battas of Pertibiea3Karo-Battasa2Raja-Battasa3Battas of Angkolaa3Battas of Simelunguna2Battas of Singkel and Pak-paka2+tBattas of Paneia2Toba-Battasa2Lampongsa2natives ofNiasa3natives,,of,,Anambas, etc.a1Hill-Dyaksa1Dyaks on the Baritoa1Sea-Dyaksa2Biadju Dyaksa1Kayans on the Mendalama2Kayans on the upper Mahakama2Dyaks of Pasira2inhabitants of the Minahassaa2inhabitants of Bolaänga2+tinhabitants of Holontaloa2[184]inhabitants of Buoola2Toradjaa2Tomoria2inhabitants of Sandjaia2inhabitants of Bangkalaa2Kailiresea2inhabitants of Saleyera2inhabitants of Sumbawaa3inhabitants of Sumbaa2inhabitants of Endeh on Floresa2+tinhabitants of the Solor groupa2inhabitants of Bonerate and Kalaoa2+tinhabitants of East Timora2+tinhabitants of West Timora2+tinhabitants of Savua2+cinhabitants of Rotea2inhabitants of Wetara2inhabitants of Keisara2+cinhabitants of Letia2+cinhabitants of Damaa2inhabitants of the Luang-Sermata groupa2inhabitants of the Babar groupa2[185]inhabitants of the Tenimber and Timorlao Islandsa2inhabitants of the Aru Islandsa1inhabitants of the Kei Islandsa1inhabitants of the Watubela Islandsa1inhabitants of the Seranglao-Gorong groupa1+tinhabitants of Seranga1inhabitants of Ambon and the Uliasea2+tinhabitants of the Sangi and Talauer Islandsa2Galela and Tobeloresea2inhabitants of Kaua1Tagals and Visayasa3Bagobosa1Manobosa1Maguindanaosa2+c+tinhabitants of Sulua2+c+tSamalesa2Hovasa3Semanga1Sakaia1KubushMentawei Islandersa1Sebruang Dyaksa2Bataks of Palawana1Bontoc Igorota3Indo-Chinese Peninsula.Kakhyensa2Shans of Zimméa2Lawasa2hill-tribes of North Aracana2Karensa2Chingpawsa3+tAndamanesehNicobarese (central part)a1Nicobarese (southern part)h[186]India.Meshmeesa1Garosa2Lushaisa1Manipurisa2Kafirsa2+cPadam Aborsa2Nagasa2Hill-tribes near Rajamahalla1+tTodascSantals (a part)a2Santals (a part)a1Santals (a part)hKhonds (some divisions)a2Khonds (other divisions)a1Oraonsa2Korwasa1Bodo and Dhimalsa2VeddahshCentral Asia.Kazak KirghizcAltaianscTurkomanscSiberia.KamchadaleshSamoyedescGhiliakshTunguzcYakutscTuski of the Coasthnomadic Koryakescsettled KoryakeshCaucasus.Ossetesa3+cCircassianscKabards of Asia MinorcArabia.Aeneze BedouinscLarbascGarosa2Bantu tribes.Angonia2OvahererocBarotsea2+cKimbundaa2+tLunda peoplea3+tKiokoa2+tSellesa2+tManganjaa2[187]Banyaia2Wagogoa2+cWashambalaa2+cWaparea2+cWajaoa3+tMakondea3+tWahehea2+cWachaggaa2+cWanyamwesia3+tAzimbaa2Wajijia1+tWapokomoa2Bondeia2Wasibaa2+tWakikuyua3Bondeia2Bihésa2+tMinungoa2Mpongwea2Orungua1Mbengasa2+tDuallasa2+tBayanzia1+tBangala on the Congoa2Balubaa2Manyuemaa2+tKabindaa2+tIninga and Galloaa2Wangataa1Bakundua2Banyanga2Batoma2Mabuma2Bali tribesa2Bambalaa2+tBayakaa2+tBahuanaa2+t[188]Bakwesea1+tYaundea1Indikkia3+tBanaka and Bapukua1Tuchilanguea2Wagandaa2+cBahimacnatives of Bukobaa2+c+tAma-XosacAma-ZulucBasutoa2+cMakololoa2+cMakalakaa2+cWanyakyusaa2Wambugua1+cWafipaa3+cWanyaturua2Wawiraa2Watavetaa2Bakwiria2Mundombe (a part)cMundombe (a part)a2Fansa1Batekea1+tSoudan Negroes.Calabaresea2inhabitants of Bonnya2+tBrass peoplea1+tEwea2+tinhabitants of Dahomeya2+tGeges and Nagosa2+c+tYorubasa3+c+tinhabitants of Ashantia2+tFantia2Mandingoesa2+cWolofsa2Saracolaysa2+tKagorosa2+cBambarasa2Toucouleursa2Jekrisa2+tMalinkaysa2+tSusua2+c+tLandumaa2+c+tLimbaa2+c+tBoobies of Fernando-Poa1Northern Sakalavasa2+c[189]Sakalavas of Nossi-Bé and Mayottea2+cLatukaa2Alura2+cLendua2Warundia2Wafiomia2+cWataturua1+cWambugwea1+cBongosa2Pigmies etc.BushmenhMucassequerehAkkashHamitic peoples.BeduancTakuea3+cMareaa2+cBeni AmercBarea and Kunamaa2Bogosa2+cGallasa3+cSomal (some divisions)cSomal (some divisions)a2DanakilcMassaicWarangia3+cWandorobohWakwafia2[190]1Morgan, Anc. Soc., see especially, pp. 10–12.↑2Vierkandt,Culturtypen, pp. 67, 69.↑3Vierkandt, l.c., p. 61.↑4Peschel (pp. 144, 145) has already given nearly the same list. Vierkandt adds to Peschel’s list the Negritos, Kubus and African pigmy-tribes. The earliest enumeration of “lowest races” we know of is that given by Malthus (Population, pp. 15–20). He mentions as such the Fuegians, Tasmanians, Andamanese and Australians.↑5Steinmetz, Classification, p. 133.↑6Vierkandt, l.c., pp. 67, 69, 71, 72. His distinction of nomadic and settled semi-civilized peoples is entirely an economic one.↑7We 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 nowhere is it stated that any of them have slaves.↑8On the different systems of classification, see Steinmetz’s “Classification”, from which it clearly appears that a good division of the peoples of the earth according to their general culture is still wanting.↑9Bagehot, p. 72.↑10Grünberg, Article “Unfreiheit”, inHandwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, 2nd edition.↑11Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 456.↑12Tourmagne, p. 3.↑13Morgan, Anc. Soc., pp. 80, 10, 13, 11.↑14Schmoller,Die Thatsachen der Arbeitsteilung, p. 1010.↑15Schmoller,Grundriss, I p. 339.↑16Ingram, pp. 1, 2.↑17Flügel, p. 95.↑18Schurtz,Katechismus, p. 110.↑19Lippert, II pp. 522, 535.↑20Lamprecht, I p. 165.↑21Dimitroff, p. 88.↑22Peschel, p. 253. “Koloshes” is the Russian name for Tlinkits.↑23Wagner, p. 375.↑24Tylor, Anthropology, p. 434.↑25Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 459.↑26Bos, p. 191.↑27Felix, II pp. 250.↑28Mommsen, I p. 191.↑29Letourneau, p. 491. See also Sutherland, I p. 379.↑30Dargun, pp. 59–61.↑31Grosse, p. 28.↑32Hahn,Die Haustiere, pp. 388 sqq. In a recent little book (Die Entstehung der wirtschaftlichen Arbeit, 1908, p. 92), Dr. Hahn, speaking of the first edition of the present work, observes that the result of our investigations amounts to very little, the reason being that we have confined ourselves to the study of those peoples among which the cultivation of the soil is of no consequence. The mere fact, that our chapter on agricultural tribes occupies more spaces than the chapters on hunters and fishers and on pastoral tribes taken together, proves the incorrectness of Dr. Hahn’s remark.↑33Whereas our 5 economic groups are not an ascending series, these 3 agricultural groupsare. Primitive agriculture must be anterior to a more developed state of agriculture.↑34This group is nearly identical with Dargun’sJägerbauern; see Dargun, p. 60 note 1.↑35See Dargun, p. 110, and Hildebrand,Recht und Sitte, pp. 42, 43.↑36Under “trade” we shall for the sake of convenience also comprehend industry.↑37About the Malay Archipelago we have also consulted De Hollander, and about Africa, Ratzel,Völkerkunde.↑38Roosevelt calls them hunters; but in the Jesuit Relations it is stated, that they were not entirely unacquainted with agriculture.↑39On Musters’ authority. According to Charlevoix, agriculture was not entirely unknown amongst them.↑40On Keane’s authority. According to Zu Wied and Martius, there are some slight traces of agriculture.↑

[Contents]CHAPTER I.METHOD AND DIVISIONS.[Contents]§ 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.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 culture slavery is found. But such a division cannot be made here incidentally; for it would require years of labour. And a good division, that we could adopt, has not yet been made. Morgan distinguishes three periods of savagery, three of barbarism, and one of civilization1. But his system rests on the unproved supposition, that the stage of culture a people has attained to entirely depends on its technical ability in the arts of subsistence. Dr. Vierkandt has made another distinction. Besides the civilized and semi-civilized peoples he has two categories: migratory tribes (unstete Völker), and primitive peoples proper (eigentliche Naturvölker). The former are the Australians, Tasmanians, Andamanese, Veddahs, Negritos, Kubus, Bushmen, African pigmy-tribes, Fuegians and Botocudos; the latter the American Indians, Arctic races,[170]Northern Asiatics, Caucasus tribes, hill-tribes of India, Negroes to the South of the Soudan, inhabitants of the Malay Archipelago and Oceanic Islands2. But this division cannot be of any use to us. It is not the result of an extensive and accurate examination of the facts; the writer himself admits that he has followed his general impressions3. Now the impressions of a capable sociologist, as Vierkandt undoubtedly is, may count for something; they give a hint as to the direction, in which the investigation has to be carried on; but they do not themselves afford a scientific basis to rely upon. Hisunstete Völkerare simply those generally known as the “lowest type of man”, whether justly or unjustly we do not know4. And hiseigentliche Naturvölker, as Professor Steinmetz rightly remarks5, comprehend savages of widely different degrees of development. Moreover, although he says his criterion is the psychical state of man, the economic side of social life comes always prominently into view6; but the author does not even try to prove that the psychical state of man depends upon the stage of economic development.Yet, as it can be easily done here, we may inquire whether Vierkandt’sunstete Völkerhave slaves. It will be seen from the second Chapter of our first Part that all of them, with the exception perhaps of the Negritos, are unacquainted with slavery7. This conclusion, however, is not of much use to us, as we do not know whether they have been justly or unjustly classified under onecategory.As little can the other attempts, which have been made, to classify the savages according to their general culture, serve our purpose8. So the method of investigation that would seem the best is not applicable here. Therefore we are also unable[171]to ascertain whether, as some writers assert, slavery at a certain stage of social development is universal. Bagehot says of slavery: “There is a wonderful presumption in its favour; it is one of the institutions which, at a certain stage of growth, all nations in all countries choose and cleave to”9. Grünberg expresses the same view: “No people has always and in all phases of its development been unacquainted with slavery”10. According to Spencer “observation of all societies in all times shows that slavery is the rule and freedom the exception”11. And Tourmagne exclaims: “This almost universal scourge, going back to the very origin of the nations and affecting all of them, is it not to be regarded as a social stage that every people has to traverse, as an evolution which it is obliged to undergo, before it can attain to the higher degrees of civilization”12? If we had an ascending series of stages of culture, we might inquire whether, within the limits of savagery (for the civilized and semi-civilized peoples fall beyond the scope of the present volume) there is a stage at which slavery is universal. But, as we have already remarked, this is not yet possible.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.The opinion that the existence of slavery mainly depends[172]on the mode of subsistence is also held by many theorists. According to Morgan “slavery, which in the Upper Status of barbarism became the fate of the captive, was unknown among tribes in the Lower Status in the aboriginal period”. This Lower Status of barbarism begins with “the invention or practice of the art of pottery”. Anterior to the art of pottery was “the commencement of village life, with some degree of control over subsistence”. It ends with “the domestication of animals in the Eastern hemisphere, and in the Western with cultivation by irrigation and with the use of adobe-brick and stone in architecture”13. So slavery, according to Morgan, does not exist before a rather advanced period.Several writers assert that hunters and fishers never have slaves. Schmoller was formerly of the opinion that “no people unacquainted with cattle-breeding and agriculture has slaves”14. In his handbook, however, he informs us, that some highly developed tribes of fishers also keep slaves15. Ingram expresses the view formerly held by Schmoller: “In the hunter period the savage warrior does not enslave his vanquished enemy, but slays him; the women of the conquered tribe he may, however, carry off and appropriate as wives or as servants, for in this period domestic labour falls almost altogether on the female sex. In the pastoral stage slaves are captured only to be sold, with the exception of a few who may be required for the care of flocks or the small amount of cultivation which is then undertaken. It is in proportion as a sedentary life prevails, and agricultural exploitation is practised on a larger scale, whilst warlike habits continue to exist, that the labour of slaves is increasingly introduced to provide food for the master, and at the same time save him from irksome toil. Of this stage in the social movement slavery seems to have been a universal and inevitable accompaniment.” But he makes an exception in the case of those communities where “theocratic organisations established themselves”16. Flügel says: “Hunting tribes can neither feed nor employ the prisoners; generally they kill them”17. According to Schurtz “among tribes of migratory hunters there[173]is no room for slavery”18. Whether he means here all hunters or only Vierkandt’sunstete Völkeris not clear.Pastoral nomadism especially is considered favourable to the growth of slavery. The nomadic herdsman, who had learned to domesticate animals, began also to domesticate men,i.e.to enslave them. According to Lippert, slavery “first arises in the patriarchal communities of pastoral peoples.” “They [the slaves] were the object of an appropriation entirely similar to the appropriation of the domestic animals”19. Lamprecht also asserts that the prisoners, who formerly were either sacrificed or adopted into the community, in the pastoral stage were enslaved, because many hands were wanted to tend the cattle20. Dimitroff says that originally the captives were instantly killed like the game, as was the case amongst the hunting tribes of America, Australia and Africa. But as soon as man began to tame animals, he also learned to employ the captives as labourers21.A few theorists, however, who are more familiar with ethnographical literature, know that it is not only among pastoral and agricultural tribes that slavery is found. So Peschel states. According to him hunters cannot employ slaves. Fishers, however, sometimes do so, as on the Northwest Coast of America, amongst the Koniagas, Koloshes, and Ahts of Vancouver Island. But only at the agricultural stage is slavery practised on an extensive scale22. Wagner is of the same opinion: “In the earliest economic state of society slavery is quite or nearly unknown; generally speaking slavery is coeval with a settled and agricultural life. This is to be accounted for by economic causes; for only in the agricultural stage can slave labour be of any considerable use. Therefore slavery is unknown among hunters, and occurs but seldom among fishers. Bondage (Unfreiheit) presents itself already under several forms among nomadic herdsmen; but only among settled agricultural peoples does it attain to its full development”23. Tylor remarks that slavery exists, as soon as the captives are spared to till the soil; but he adds that even among savage hunters and foresters absolute equality is not[174]always to be found24. Spencer says: “Tribes which have not emerged from the hunting stage are little given to enslaving the vanquished; if they do not kill and eat them they adopt them. In the absence of industrial activity, slaves are almost useless, and indeed, where game is scarce, are not worth their food. But where, as among fishing tribes like the Chinooks, captives can be of use, or where the pastoral and agricultural stages have been reached, there arises a motive for sparing the lives of conquered men, and after inflicting on them such mutilations as mark their subjection, setting them to work”25. Bos is also aware of the fact, that the Tlinkits and similar tribes have slaves. He explains this in a curious way: slavery does not agree with the nature of hunting tribes; therefore it is probable that these tribes formerly were agricultural to a small extent26. Felix remarks that slavery already exists at the beginning of the agricultural stage27. Mommsen, however, asserts that in the oldest times (until when does not appear) slavery did not prevail to any considerable extent; more use was made of free labourers28.Letourneau expresses his opinion very prudently: slavery was not carried on on a large scale before men applied themselves to cattle-breeding and especially to agriculture29. At the end of his book on slavery of over 500 pages he contents himself with this vague conclusion.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.[Contents]§ 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[175]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.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 not exactly know. Little credit is given to-day to the old division into the three successive stages of hunting, pastoral nomadism, and agriculture. This was not yet so in 1884, when Dargun could still write: “The evolutionary stages of hunting, pastoral, and agricultural life are so well established in science as stages of human evolution in general, that it seems rather audacious to object to this division. Taken in general, however, it is false; on the greater half of the globe pastoral life was not a transitory stage from hunting to agriculture; therefore the people concerned had not to pass through any regulation of property peculiar to herdsmen. They learned agriculture without having been pastoral. This phenomenon comprehends two parts of the world—America and Australia-Polynesia—completely, and two other parts—Asia and Africa—to a great extent, as the Malay Archipelago and the territory of the Negro tribes across Africa also are included. Therefore it will be necessary to leave off considering the three stages of hunting, pastoral and agricultural life as a rule of human progress. Moreover, nearly all pastoral tribes carry on agriculture, however negligently; and it is not at all certain that the origin of the latter does not go back to a more remote period than cattle-breeding; it is even probable thatitdoes, for nomadic herdsmen are on the whole more civilized than the rudest agricultural tribes: cattle-breeding therefore is posterior to primitive agriculture”30. This[176]view of Dargun’s is now generally accepted. But a new ascending series that would have any scientific value does not yet exist. And so we can only distinguish economic states, not stages of economic development.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.[177]III, IV, V. Agriculture.Grosse makes a distinction between lower and higher agriculture; but as the former comprehends nearly all agricultural savages, this distinction cannot be of any use to us31.Hahn, in his book on the domestic animals, distinguishes hoe-culture (Hackbau), agriculture proper (Ackerbau) and horticulture (Gartenbau)32. But hoe-culture is carried on by nearly all agricultural savages; besides, this division is purely technical and therefore cannot serve our purpose. What we want is a division according to the place agriculture occupies in social life. We must ask to what extent a tribe is occupied in and dependent for subsistence on agriculture. For on this, and not on the form of the agricultural implements, it will depend whether slaves are wanted to till the soil. A slave may be set to handle the hoe as well as the plough.Perusing the ethnographical literature, we found such great differences between the several savage tribes in this respect, that we have thought it best to distinguish three stages of agriculture33. The principle according to which the distinction will be made is, as we have already hinted, the extent to which a tribe depends upon agriculture for its subsistence. Thefirstagricultural group will contain those cases, in which agriculture holds a subordinate place, most of the subsistence being derived from other sources, viz. hunting, fishing or gathering wild-growing vegetable food34. The tribes of thesecondgroup carry on agriculture to a considerable extent, but not to the exclusion of hunting, etc. Thethird, or highest, agricultural stage is reached, when agriculture is by far the principal mode of subsistence, and hunting, etc. hold a very[178]subordinate place, so much so that, if the latter were entirely wanting, the economic state would be nearly the same.But our information is not always very complete; and so it is not always clear to what extent subsistence is derived from agriculture. In such cases we shall make use of somesecondary characteristics. Some facts may be recorded from which we can more or less safely draw conclusions as to the place agriculture occupies. The facts indicative of the first stage of agriculture are: 1. Women only are occupied in agriculture35, 2. The tribe is very mobile, habitations are often shifted. Those indicative of the second, as distinguished from the first, stage are: 1. The tribe has fixed habitations (except where this is due to an abundance of fish or fruit-bearing trees), 2. The lands are irrigated. Those indicative of the third stage are: 1. The lands are manured, 2. Rotation of crops is carried on, 3. Domestic animals are used in agriculture, 4. Agricultural products are exported.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.Hitherto we have supposed that agricultural tribes did nothing else besides tilling the soil, except hunting, fishing and gathering wild vegetable food. But it may also be that they subsist partly on agriculture, partly on cattle-breeding or trade36. In these cases we cannot apply the same principle of division. A tribe that subsists partly on agriculture, but chiefly on trade is not to be classified under the same category as a tribe that subsists partly on agriculture, but mainly on hunting. The latter[179]is not yet agricultural, the former has perhaps passed beyond the agricultural stage. Here we may regard only the technical ability attained to in agriculture. Where agriculture is technically little developed, we have probably to deal with formerJägerbauernwho have become traders. Where agriculture has reached a high perfection, but trade is one of the chief modes of subsistence, the tribe has probably passed through the higher stages of agriculture. What we say here of trade equally applies to cattle-breeding.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.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 most ethnographical records the mode of subsistence occupies a conspicuous place, so any one wishing to verify our conclusions may easily find the passages concerned.[Contents]§ 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.[180]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.hmeans hunting or fishing; the tribes so marked are hunters or fishers.cmeans cattle-breeding; the tribes so marked are pastoral tribes.a1,a2,a3means first, second, third stage of agriculture.a1+cmeans an agricultural tribe of the first stage, among which subsistence depends largely on cattle-breeding; similarlya2+canda3+c.a1+tmeans an agricultural tribe of the first stage, among which subsistence depends largely on trade; similarlya2+tanda3+t.a2+c+tmeans an agricultural tribe of the second stage, among which subsistence depends largely both on cattle-breeding and trade; similarlya3+c+t.Positive cases.Negative cases.North America.AleutshAthka AleutshKoniagashTlinkitshHaidashTsimshianhKwakiutlhBilballashAhtshtribes about Puget SoundhFish IndianshTacullieshAtnashSimilkameemhChinookshThe 9 tribes of Eskimos proper, all of themhKutchinshChepewyanshDelawaresa2MontagnaishOjibwayshOttawashShahneeshPotawatomia138CreeshCheyennesa1Blackfeet nationhIroquoisa2Huronsa2Katahbasa2Cherokeesa2[181]Katahbasa2Muskoghea2Choctawsa2Chickasawsa2Creeksa2Seminolesa2Natcheza2SiouxhHidatsasa1Omahasa1Osagesa1Kansas Indiansa1AssiniboinshHupashApacheshZuñia3+cLower CalifornianshCentral and South America.Ancient nations of Hondurasa1inhabitants of Panama and Costa Ricaa1Mundrucusa1Mauhésa1Mbayasa1Caduveia2Suyaa1AbiponeshTehuelchesh39Wild tribes of North Mexicohnatives of the Mosquito Coasta1Caribs of the Isthmusa1Warrausa1Macusia1Roucouyennesa1Apiacasa1Botocudosh40Bakairia1Paressia1Bororoa1Guanasa2CharruashMinuaneshPuelcheshAraucaniansa2Fuegiansh[182]Australia.The 30 tribes enumerated in chapter II of Part I, all of themhMelanesia.N. W. Solomon Islandersa2natives of the Gazelle Peninsulaa1New Hebridiansa1Nuforesea1+tPapuans of Arfaka1Papuans,,of Adiea1+tPapuans,,on the Gulf of Kaimania1+tNew Caledoniansa2S. E. Solomon Islandersa1Nissan Islandersa1natives of Torres Straitsa1Papuans of Humboldt Baya1Papuans near Lake Sentania2Papuans of Ayamboria2Motua1+tMowata1Toaripia1Papuans on the mouth of the Wanigela Rivera1Yabima1natives of the Tami Islandsa1Tamoesa1natives of Dampier Islanda1Polynesia.Maoria2Tongansa2Samoansa2Rotumiansa2Rarotonga Islandersa2Hawaiiansa2Marquesas Islandersa2Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman Islandersa1[183]Micronesia.Marshall Islandersa2Caroline Islandersa2Marianne Islandersa2Pelau Islandersa2Kingsmill Islandersa2Malay Archipelago.Battas on the Pane and Bila Riversa3Battas of Mandhelinga3Battas of Pertibiea3Karo-Battasa2Raja-Battasa3Battas of Angkolaa3Battas of Simelunguna2Battas of Singkel and Pak-paka2+tBattas of Paneia2Toba-Battasa2Lampongsa2natives ofNiasa3natives,,of,,Anambas, etc.a1Hill-Dyaksa1Dyaks on the Baritoa1Sea-Dyaksa2Biadju Dyaksa1Kayans on the Mendalama2Kayans on the upper Mahakama2Dyaks of Pasira2inhabitants of the Minahassaa2inhabitants of Bolaänga2+tinhabitants of Holontaloa2[184]inhabitants of Buoola2Toradjaa2Tomoria2inhabitants of Sandjaia2inhabitants of Bangkalaa2Kailiresea2inhabitants of Saleyera2inhabitants of Sumbawaa3inhabitants of Sumbaa2inhabitants of Endeh on Floresa2+tinhabitants of the Solor groupa2inhabitants of Bonerate and Kalaoa2+tinhabitants of East Timora2+tinhabitants of West Timora2+tinhabitants of Savua2+cinhabitants of Rotea2inhabitants of Wetara2inhabitants of Keisara2+cinhabitants of Letia2+cinhabitants of Damaa2inhabitants of the Luang-Sermata groupa2inhabitants of the Babar groupa2[185]inhabitants of the Tenimber and Timorlao Islandsa2inhabitants of the Aru Islandsa1inhabitants of the Kei Islandsa1inhabitants of the Watubela Islandsa1inhabitants of the Seranglao-Gorong groupa1+tinhabitants of Seranga1inhabitants of Ambon and the Uliasea2+tinhabitants of the Sangi and Talauer Islandsa2Galela and Tobeloresea2inhabitants of Kaua1Tagals and Visayasa3Bagobosa1Manobosa1Maguindanaosa2+c+tinhabitants of Sulua2+c+tSamalesa2Hovasa3Semanga1Sakaia1KubushMentawei Islandersa1Sebruang Dyaksa2Bataks of Palawana1Bontoc Igorota3Indo-Chinese Peninsula.Kakhyensa2Shans of Zimméa2Lawasa2hill-tribes of North Aracana2Karensa2Chingpawsa3+tAndamanesehNicobarese (central part)a1Nicobarese (southern part)h[186]India.Meshmeesa1Garosa2Lushaisa1Manipurisa2Kafirsa2+cPadam Aborsa2Nagasa2Hill-tribes near Rajamahalla1+tTodascSantals (a part)a2Santals (a part)a1Santals (a part)hKhonds (some divisions)a2Khonds (other divisions)a1Oraonsa2Korwasa1Bodo and Dhimalsa2VeddahshCentral Asia.Kazak KirghizcAltaianscTurkomanscSiberia.KamchadaleshSamoyedescGhiliakshTunguzcYakutscTuski of the Coasthnomadic Koryakescsettled KoryakeshCaucasus.Ossetesa3+cCircassianscKabards of Asia MinorcArabia.Aeneze BedouinscLarbascGarosa2Bantu tribes.Angonia2OvahererocBarotsea2+cKimbundaa2+tLunda peoplea3+tKiokoa2+tSellesa2+tManganjaa2[187]Banyaia2Wagogoa2+cWashambalaa2+cWaparea2+cWajaoa3+tMakondea3+tWahehea2+cWachaggaa2+cWanyamwesia3+tAzimbaa2Wajijia1+tWapokomoa2Bondeia2Wasibaa2+tWakikuyua3Bondeia2Bihésa2+tMinungoa2Mpongwea2Orungua1Mbengasa2+tDuallasa2+tBayanzia1+tBangala on the Congoa2Balubaa2Manyuemaa2+tKabindaa2+tIninga and Galloaa2Wangataa1Bakundua2Banyanga2Batoma2Mabuma2Bali tribesa2Bambalaa2+tBayakaa2+tBahuanaa2+t[188]Bakwesea1+tYaundea1Indikkia3+tBanaka and Bapukua1Tuchilanguea2Wagandaa2+cBahimacnatives of Bukobaa2+c+tAma-XosacAma-ZulucBasutoa2+cMakololoa2+cMakalakaa2+cWanyakyusaa2Wambugua1+cWafipaa3+cWanyaturua2Wawiraa2Watavetaa2Bakwiria2Mundombe (a part)cMundombe (a part)a2Fansa1Batekea1+tSoudan Negroes.Calabaresea2inhabitants of Bonnya2+tBrass peoplea1+tEwea2+tinhabitants of Dahomeya2+tGeges and Nagosa2+c+tYorubasa3+c+tinhabitants of Ashantia2+tFantia2Mandingoesa2+cWolofsa2Saracolaysa2+tKagorosa2+cBambarasa2Toucouleursa2Jekrisa2+tMalinkaysa2+tSusua2+c+tLandumaa2+c+tLimbaa2+c+tBoobies of Fernando-Poa1Northern Sakalavasa2+c[189]Sakalavas of Nossi-Bé and Mayottea2+cLatukaa2Alura2+cLendua2Warundia2Wafiomia2+cWataturua1+cWambugwea1+cBongosa2Pigmies etc.BushmenhMucassequerehAkkashHamitic peoples.BeduancTakuea3+cMareaa2+cBeni AmercBarea and Kunamaa2Bogosa2+cGallasa3+cSomal (some divisions)cSomal (some divisions)a2DanakilcMassaicWarangia3+cWandorobohWakwafia2[190]1Morgan, Anc. Soc., see especially, pp. 10–12.↑2Vierkandt,Culturtypen, pp. 67, 69.↑3Vierkandt, l.c., p. 61.↑4Peschel (pp. 144, 145) has already given nearly the same list. Vierkandt adds to Peschel’s list the Negritos, Kubus and African pigmy-tribes. The earliest enumeration of “lowest races” we know of is that given by Malthus (Population, pp. 15–20). He mentions as such the Fuegians, Tasmanians, Andamanese and Australians.↑5Steinmetz, Classification, p. 133.↑6Vierkandt, l.c., pp. 67, 69, 71, 72. His distinction of nomadic and settled semi-civilized peoples is entirely an economic one.↑7We 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 nowhere is it stated that any of them have slaves.↑8On the different systems of classification, see Steinmetz’s “Classification”, from which it clearly appears that a good division of the peoples of the earth according to their general culture is still wanting.↑9Bagehot, p. 72.↑10Grünberg, Article “Unfreiheit”, inHandwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, 2nd edition.↑11Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 456.↑12Tourmagne, p. 3.↑13Morgan, Anc. Soc., pp. 80, 10, 13, 11.↑14Schmoller,Die Thatsachen der Arbeitsteilung, p. 1010.↑15Schmoller,Grundriss, I p. 339.↑16Ingram, pp. 1, 2.↑17Flügel, p. 95.↑18Schurtz,Katechismus, p. 110.↑19Lippert, II pp. 522, 535.↑20Lamprecht, I p. 165.↑21Dimitroff, p. 88.↑22Peschel, p. 253. “Koloshes” is the Russian name for Tlinkits.↑23Wagner, p. 375.↑24Tylor, Anthropology, p. 434.↑25Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 459.↑26Bos, p. 191.↑27Felix, II pp. 250.↑28Mommsen, I p. 191.↑29Letourneau, p. 491. See also Sutherland, I p. 379.↑30Dargun, pp. 59–61.↑31Grosse, p. 28.↑32Hahn,Die Haustiere, pp. 388 sqq. In a recent little book (Die Entstehung der wirtschaftlichen Arbeit, 1908, p. 92), Dr. Hahn, speaking of the first edition of the present work, observes that the result of our investigations amounts to very little, the reason being that we have confined ourselves to the study of those peoples among which the cultivation of the soil is of no consequence. The mere fact, that our chapter on agricultural tribes occupies more spaces than the chapters on hunters and fishers and on pastoral tribes taken together, proves the incorrectness of Dr. Hahn’s remark.↑33Whereas our 5 economic groups are not an ascending series, these 3 agricultural groupsare. Primitive agriculture must be anterior to a more developed state of agriculture.↑34This group is nearly identical with Dargun’sJägerbauern; see Dargun, p. 60 note 1.↑35See Dargun, p. 110, and Hildebrand,Recht und Sitte, pp. 42, 43.↑36Under “trade” we shall for the sake of convenience also comprehend industry.↑37About the Malay Archipelago we have also consulted De Hollander, and about Africa, Ratzel,Völkerkunde.↑38Roosevelt calls them hunters; but in the Jesuit Relations it is stated, that they were not entirely unacquainted with agriculture.↑39On Musters’ authority. According to Charlevoix, agriculture was not entirely unknown amongst them.↑40On Keane’s authority. According to Zu Wied and Martius, there are some slight traces of agriculture.↑

[Contents]CHAPTER I.METHOD AND DIVISIONS.[Contents]§ 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.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 culture slavery is found. But such a division cannot be made here incidentally; for it would require years of labour. And a good division, that we could adopt, has not yet been made. Morgan distinguishes three periods of savagery, three of barbarism, and one of civilization1. But his system rests on the unproved supposition, that the stage of culture a people has attained to entirely depends on its technical ability in the arts of subsistence. Dr. Vierkandt has made another distinction. Besides the civilized and semi-civilized peoples he has two categories: migratory tribes (unstete Völker), and primitive peoples proper (eigentliche Naturvölker). The former are the Australians, Tasmanians, Andamanese, Veddahs, Negritos, Kubus, Bushmen, African pigmy-tribes, Fuegians and Botocudos; the latter the American Indians, Arctic races,[170]Northern Asiatics, Caucasus tribes, hill-tribes of India, Negroes to the South of the Soudan, inhabitants of the Malay Archipelago and Oceanic Islands2. But this division cannot be of any use to us. It is not the result of an extensive and accurate examination of the facts; the writer himself admits that he has followed his general impressions3. Now the impressions of a capable sociologist, as Vierkandt undoubtedly is, may count for something; they give a hint as to the direction, in which the investigation has to be carried on; but they do not themselves afford a scientific basis to rely upon. Hisunstete Völkerare simply those generally known as the “lowest type of man”, whether justly or unjustly we do not know4. And hiseigentliche Naturvölker, as Professor Steinmetz rightly remarks5, comprehend savages of widely different degrees of development. Moreover, although he says his criterion is the psychical state of man, the economic side of social life comes always prominently into view6; but the author does not even try to prove that the psychical state of man depends upon the stage of economic development.Yet, as it can be easily done here, we may inquire whether Vierkandt’sunstete Völkerhave slaves. It will be seen from the second Chapter of our first Part that all of them, with the exception perhaps of the Negritos, are unacquainted with slavery7. This conclusion, however, is not of much use to us, as we do not know whether they have been justly or unjustly classified under onecategory.As little can the other attempts, which have been made, to classify the savages according to their general culture, serve our purpose8. So the method of investigation that would seem the best is not applicable here. Therefore we are also unable[171]to ascertain whether, as some writers assert, slavery at a certain stage of social development is universal. Bagehot says of slavery: “There is a wonderful presumption in its favour; it is one of the institutions which, at a certain stage of growth, all nations in all countries choose and cleave to”9. Grünberg expresses the same view: “No people has always and in all phases of its development been unacquainted with slavery”10. According to Spencer “observation of all societies in all times shows that slavery is the rule and freedom the exception”11. And Tourmagne exclaims: “This almost universal scourge, going back to the very origin of the nations and affecting all of them, is it not to be regarded as a social stage that every people has to traverse, as an evolution which it is obliged to undergo, before it can attain to the higher degrees of civilization”12? If we had an ascending series of stages of culture, we might inquire whether, within the limits of savagery (for the civilized and semi-civilized peoples fall beyond the scope of the present volume) there is a stage at which slavery is universal. But, as we have already remarked, this is not yet possible.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.The opinion that the existence of slavery mainly depends[172]on the mode of subsistence is also held by many theorists. According to Morgan “slavery, which in the Upper Status of barbarism became the fate of the captive, was unknown among tribes in the Lower Status in the aboriginal period”. This Lower Status of barbarism begins with “the invention or practice of the art of pottery”. Anterior to the art of pottery was “the commencement of village life, with some degree of control over subsistence”. It ends with “the domestication of animals in the Eastern hemisphere, and in the Western with cultivation by irrigation and with the use of adobe-brick and stone in architecture”13. So slavery, according to Morgan, does not exist before a rather advanced period.Several writers assert that hunters and fishers never have slaves. Schmoller was formerly of the opinion that “no people unacquainted with cattle-breeding and agriculture has slaves”14. In his handbook, however, he informs us, that some highly developed tribes of fishers also keep slaves15. Ingram expresses the view formerly held by Schmoller: “In the hunter period the savage warrior does not enslave his vanquished enemy, but slays him; the women of the conquered tribe he may, however, carry off and appropriate as wives or as servants, for in this period domestic labour falls almost altogether on the female sex. In the pastoral stage slaves are captured only to be sold, with the exception of a few who may be required for the care of flocks or the small amount of cultivation which is then undertaken. It is in proportion as a sedentary life prevails, and agricultural exploitation is practised on a larger scale, whilst warlike habits continue to exist, that the labour of slaves is increasingly introduced to provide food for the master, and at the same time save him from irksome toil. Of this stage in the social movement slavery seems to have been a universal and inevitable accompaniment.” But he makes an exception in the case of those communities where “theocratic organisations established themselves”16. Flügel says: “Hunting tribes can neither feed nor employ the prisoners; generally they kill them”17. According to Schurtz “among tribes of migratory hunters there[173]is no room for slavery”18. Whether he means here all hunters or only Vierkandt’sunstete Völkeris not clear.Pastoral nomadism especially is considered favourable to the growth of slavery. The nomadic herdsman, who had learned to domesticate animals, began also to domesticate men,i.e.to enslave them. According to Lippert, slavery “first arises in the patriarchal communities of pastoral peoples.” “They [the slaves] were the object of an appropriation entirely similar to the appropriation of the domestic animals”19. Lamprecht also asserts that the prisoners, who formerly were either sacrificed or adopted into the community, in the pastoral stage were enslaved, because many hands were wanted to tend the cattle20. Dimitroff says that originally the captives were instantly killed like the game, as was the case amongst the hunting tribes of America, Australia and Africa. But as soon as man began to tame animals, he also learned to employ the captives as labourers21.A few theorists, however, who are more familiar with ethnographical literature, know that it is not only among pastoral and agricultural tribes that slavery is found. So Peschel states. According to him hunters cannot employ slaves. Fishers, however, sometimes do so, as on the Northwest Coast of America, amongst the Koniagas, Koloshes, and Ahts of Vancouver Island. But only at the agricultural stage is slavery practised on an extensive scale22. Wagner is of the same opinion: “In the earliest economic state of society slavery is quite or nearly unknown; generally speaking slavery is coeval with a settled and agricultural life. This is to be accounted for by economic causes; for only in the agricultural stage can slave labour be of any considerable use. Therefore slavery is unknown among hunters, and occurs but seldom among fishers. Bondage (Unfreiheit) presents itself already under several forms among nomadic herdsmen; but only among settled agricultural peoples does it attain to its full development”23. Tylor remarks that slavery exists, as soon as the captives are spared to till the soil; but he adds that even among savage hunters and foresters absolute equality is not[174]always to be found24. Spencer says: “Tribes which have not emerged from the hunting stage are little given to enslaving the vanquished; if they do not kill and eat them they adopt them. In the absence of industrial activity, slaves are almost useless, and indeed, where game is scarce, are not worth their food. But where, as among fishing tribes like the Chinooks, captives can be of use, or where the pastoral and agricultural stages have been reached, there arises a motive for sparing the lives of conquered men, and after inflicting on them such mutilations as mark their subjection, setting them to work”25. Bos is also aware of the fact, that the Tlinkits and similar tribes have slaves. He explains this in a curious way: slavery does not agree with the nature of hunting tribes; therefore it is probable that these tribes formerly were agricultural to a small extent26. Felix remarks that slavery already exists at the beginning of the agricultural stage27. Mommsen, however, asserts that in the oldest times (until when does not appear) slavery did not prevail to any considerable extent; more use was made of free labourers28.Letourneau expresses his opinion very prudently: slavery was not carried on on a large scale before men applied themselves to cattle-breeding and especially to agriculture29. At the end of his book on slavery of over 500 pages he contents himself with this vague conclusion.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.[Contents]§ 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[175]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.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 not exactly know. Little credit is given to-day to the old division into the three successive stages of hunting, pastoral nomadism, and agriculture. This was not yet so in 1884, when Dargun could still write: “The evolutionary stages of hunting, pastoral, and agricultural life are so well established in science as stages of human evolution in general, that it seems rather audacious to object to this division. Taken in general, however, it is false; on the greater half of the globe pastoral life was not a transitory stage from hunting to agriculture; therefore the people concerned had not to pass through any regulation of property peculiar to herdsmen. They learned agriculture without having been pastoral. This phenomenon comprehends two parts of the world—America and Australia-Polynesia—completely, and two other parts—Asia and Africa—to a great extent, as the Malay Archipelago and the territory of the Negro tribes across Africa also are included. Therefore it will be necessary to leave off considering the three stages of hunting, pastoral and agricultural life as a rule of human progress. Moreover, nearly all pastoral tribes carry on agriculture, however negligently; and it is not at all certain that the origin of the latter does not go back to a more remote period than cattle-breeding; it is even probable thatitdoes, for nomadic herdsmen are on the whole more civilized than the rudest agricultural tribes: cattle-breeding therefore is posterior to primitive agriculture”30. This[176]view of Dargun’s is now generally accepted. But a new ascending series that would have any scientific value does not yet exist. And so we can only distinguish economic states, not stages of economic development.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.[177]III, IV, V. Agriculture.Grosse makes a distinction between lower and higher agriculture; but as the former comprehends nearly all agricultural savages, this distinction cannot be of any use to us31.Hahn, in his book on the domestic animals, distinguishes hoe-culture (Hackbau), agriculture proper (Ackerbau) and horticulture (Gartenbau)32. But hoe-culture is carried on by nearly all agricultural savages; besides, this division is purely technical and therefore cannot serve our purpose. What we want is a division according to the place agriculture occupies in social life. We must ask to what extent a tribe is occupied in and dependent for subsistence on agriculture. For on this, and not on the form of the agricultural implements, it will depend whether slaves are wanted to till the soil. A slave may be set to handle the hoe as well as the plough.Perusing the ethnographical literature, we found such great differences between the several savage tribes in this respect, that we have thought it best to distinguish three stages of agriculture33. The principle according to which the distinction will be made is, as we have already hinted, the extent to which a tribe depends upon agriculture for its subsistence. Thefirstagricultural group will contain those cases, in which agriculture holds a subordinate place, most of the subsistence being derived from other sources, viz. hunting, fishing or gathering wild-growing vegetable food34. The tribes of thesecondgroup carry on agriculture to a considerable extent, but not to the exclusion of hunting, etc. Thethird, or highest, agricultural stage is reached, when agriculture is by far the principal mode of subsistence, and hunting, etc. hold a very[178]subordinate place, so much so that, if the latter were entirely wanting, the economic state would be nearly the same.But our information is not always very complete; and so it is not always clear to what extent subsistence is derived from agriculture. In such cases we shall make use of somesecondary characteristics. Some facts may be recorded from which we can more or less safely draw conclusions as to the place agriculture occupies. The facts indicative of the first stage of agriculture are: 1. Women only are occupied in agriculture35, 2. The tribe is very mobile, habitations are often shifted. Those indicative of the second, as distinguished from the first, stage are: 1. The tribe has fixed habitations (except where this is due to an abundance of fish or fruit-bearing trees), 2. The lands are irrigated. Those indicative of the third stage are: 1. The lands are manured, 2. Rotation of crops is carried on, 3. Domestic animals are used in agriculture, 4. Agricultural products are exported.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.Hitherto we have supposed that agricultural tribes did nothing else besides tilling the soil, except hunting, fishing and gathering wild vegetable food. But it may also be that they subsist partly on agriculture, partly on cattle-breeding or trade36. In these cases we cannot apply the same principle of division. A tribe that subsists partly on agriculture, but chiefly on trade is not to be classified under the same category as a tribe that subsists partly on agriculture, but mainly on hunting. The latter[179]is not yet agricultural, the former has perhaps passed beyond the agricultural stage. Here we may regard only the technical ability attained to in agriculture. Where agriculture is technically little developed, we have probably to deal with formerJägerbauernwho have become traders. Where agriculture has reached a high perfection, but trade is one of the chief modes of subsistence, the tribe has probably passed through the higher stages of agriculture. What we say here of trade equally applies to cattle-breeding.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.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 most ethnographical records the mode of subsistence occupies a conspicuous place, so any one wishing to verify our conclusions may easily find the passages concerned.[Contents]§ 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.[180]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.hmeans hunting or fishing; the tribes so marked are hunters or fishers.cmeans cattle-breeding; the tribes so marked are pastoral tribes.a1,a2,a3means first, second, third stage of agriculture.a1+cmeans an agricultural tribe of the first stage, among which subsistence depends largely on cattle-breeding; similarlya2+canda3+c.a1+tmeans an agricultural tribe of the first stage, among which subsistence depends largely on trade; similarlya2+tanda3+t.a2+c+tmeans an agricultural tribe of the second stage, among which subsistence depends largely both on cattle-breeding and trade; similarlya3+c+t.Positive cases.Negative cases.North America.AleutshAthka AleutshKoniagashTlinkitshHaidashTsimshianhKwakiutlhBilballashAhtshtribes about Puget SoundhFish IndianshTacullieshAtnashSimilkameemhChinookshThe 9 tribes of Eskimos proper, all of themhKutchinshChepewyanshDelawaresa2MontagnaishOjibwayshOttawashShahneeshPotawatomia138CreeshCheyennesa1Blackfeet nationhIroquoisa2Huronsa2Katahbasa2Cherokeesa2[181]Katahbasa2Muskoghea2Choctawsa2Chickasawsa2Creeksa2Seminolesa2Natcheza2SiouxhHidatsasa1Omahasa1Osagesa1Kansas Indiansa1AssiniboinshHupashApacheshZuñia3+cLower CalifornianshCentral and South America.Ancient nations of Hondurasa1inhabitants of Panama and Costa Ricaa1Mundrucusa1Mauhésa1Mbayasa1Caduveia2Suyaa1AbiponeshTehuelchesh39Wild tribes of North Mexicohnatives of the Mosquito Coasta1Caribs of the Isthmusa1Warrausa1Macusia1Roucouyennesa1Apiacasa1Botocudosh40Bakairia1Paressia1Bororoa1Guanasa2CharruashMinuaneshPuelcheshAraucaniansa2Fuegiansh[182]Australia.The 30 tribes enumerated in chapter II of Part I, all of themhMelanesia.N. W. Solomon Islandersa2natives of the Gazelle Peninsulaa1New Hebridiansa1Nuforesea1+tPapuans of Arfaka1Papuans,,of Adiea1+tPapuans,,on the Gulf of Kaimania1+tNew Caledoniansa2S. E. Solomon Islandersa1Nissan Islandersa1natives of Torres Straitsa1Papuans of Humboldt Baya1Papuans near Lake Sentania2Papuans of Ayamboria2Motua1+tMowata1Toaripia1Papuans on the mouth of the Wanigela Rivera1Yabima1natives of the Tami Islandsa1Tamoesa1natives of Dampier Islanda1Polynesia.Maoria2Tongansa2Samoansa2Rotumiansa2Rarotonga Islandersa2Hawaiiansa2Marquesas Islandersa2Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman Islandersa1[183]Micronesia.Marshall Islandersa2Caroline Islandersa2Marianne Islandersa2Pelau Islandersa2Kingsmill Islandersa2Malay Archipelago.Battas on the Pane and Bila Riversa3Battas of Mandhelinga3Battas of Pertibiea3Karo-Battasa2Raja-Battasa3Battas of Angkolaa3Battas of Simelunguna2Battas of Singkel and Pak-paka2+tBattas of Paneia2Toba-Battasa2Lampongsa2natives ofNiasa3natives,,of,,Anambas, etc.a1Hill-Dyaksa1Dyaks on the Baritoa1Sea-Dyaksa2Biadju Dyaksa1Kayans on the Mendalama2Kayans on the upper Mahakama2Dyaks of Pasira2inhabitants of the Minahassaa2inhabitants of Bolaänga2+tinhabitants of Holontaloa2[184]inhabitants of Buoola2Toradjaa2Tomoria2inhabitants of Sandjaia2inhabitants of Bangkalaa2Kailiresea2inhabitants of Saleyera2inhabitants of Sumbawaa3inhabitants of Sumbaa2inhabitants of Endeh on Floresa2+tinhabitants of the Solor groupa2inhabitants of Bonerate and Kalaoa2+tinhabitants of East Timora2+tinhabitants of West Timora2+tinhabitants of Savua2+cinhabitants of Rotea2inhabitants of Wetara2inhabitants of Keisara2+cinhabitants of Letia2+cinhabitants of Damaa2inhabitants of the Luang-Sermata groupa2inhabitants of the Babar groupa2[185]inhabitants of the Tenimber and Timorlao Islandsa2inhabitants of the Aru Islandsa1inhabitants of the Kei Islandsa1inhabitants of the Watubela Islandsa1inhabitants of the Seranglao-Gorong groupa1+tinhabitants of Seranga1inhabitants of Ambon and the Uliasea2+tinhabitants of the Sangi and Talauer Islandsa2Galela and Tobeloresea2inhabitants of Kaua1Tagals and Visayasa3Bagobosa1Manobosa1Maguindanaosa2+c+tinhabitants of Sulua2+c+tSamalesa2Hovasa3Semanga1Sakaia1KubushMentawei Islandersa1Sebruang Dyaksa2Bataks of Palawana1Bontoc Igorota3Indo-Chinese Peninsula.Kakhyensa2Shans of Zimméa2Lawasa2hill-tribes of North Aracana2Karensa2Chingpawsa3+tAndamanesehNicobarese (central part)a1Nicobarese (southern part)h[186]India.Meshmeesa1Garosa2Lushaisa1Manipurisa2Kafirsa2+cPadam Aborsa2Nagasa2Hill-tribes near Rajamahalla1+tTodascSantals (a part)a2Santals (a part)a1Santals (a part)hKhonds (some divisions)a2Khonds (other divisions)a1Oraonsa2Korwasa1Bodo and Dhimalsa2VeddahshCentral Asia.Kazak KirghizcAltaianscTurkomanscSiberia.KamchadaleshSamoyedescGhiliakshTunguzcYakutscTuski of the Coasthnomadic Koryakescsettled KoryakeshCaucasus.Ossetesa3+cCircassianscKabards of Asia MinorcArabia.Aeneze BedouinscLarbascGarosa2Bantu tribes.Angonia2OvahererocBarotsea2+cKimbundaa2+tLunda peoplea3+tKiokoa2+tSellesa2+tManganjaa2[187]Banyaia2Wagogoa2+cWashambalaa2+cWaparea2+cWajaoa3+tMakondea3+tWahehea2+cWachaggaa2+cWanyamwesia3+tAzimbaa2Wajijia1+tWapokomoa2Bondeia2Wasibaa2+tWakikuyua3Bondeia2Bihésa2+tMinungoa2Mpongwea2Orungua1Mbengasa2+tDuallasa2+tBayanzia1+tBangala on the Congoa2Balubaa2Manyuemaa2+tKabindaa2+tIninga and Galloaa2Wangataa1Bakundua2Banyanga2Batoma2Mabuma2Bali tribesa2Bambalaa2+tBayakaa2+tBahuanaa2+t[188]Bakwesea1+tYaundea1Indikkia3+tBanaka and Bapukua1Tuchilanguea2Wagandaa2+cBahimacnatives of Bukobaa2+c+tAma-XosacAma-ZulucBasutoa2+cMakololoa2+cMakalakaa2+cWanyakyusaa2Wambugua1+cWafipaa3+cWanyaturua2Wawiraa2Watavetaa2Bakwiria2Mundombe (a part)cMundombe (a part)a2Fansa1Batekea1+tSoudan Negroes.Calabaresea2inhabitants of Bonnya2+tBrass peoplea1+tEwea2+tinhabitants of Dahomeya2+tGeges and Nagosa2+c+tYorubasa3+c+tinhabitants of Ashantia2+tFantia2Mandingoesa2+cWolofsa2Saracolaysa2+tKagorosa2+cBambarasa2Toucouleursa2Jekrisa2+tMalinkaysa2+tSusua2+c+tLandumaa2+c+tLimbaa2+c+tBoobies of Fernando-Poa1Northern Sakalavasa2+c[189]Sakalavas of Nossi-Bé and Mayottea2+cLatukaa2Alura2+cLendua2Warundia2Wafiomia2+cWataturua1+cWambugwea1+cBongosa2Pigmies etc.BushmenhMucassequerehAkkashHamitic peoples.BeduancTakuea3+cMareaa2+cBeni AmercBarea and Kunamaa2Bogosa2+cGallasa3+cSomal (some divisions)cSomal (some divisions)a2DanakilcMassaicWarangia3+cWandorobohWakwafia2[190]1Morgan, Anc. Soc., see especially, pp. 10–12.↑2Vierkandt,Culturtypen, pp. 67, 69.↑3Vierkandt, l.c., p. 61.↑4Peschel (pp. 144, 145) has already given nearly the same list. Vierkandt adds to Peschel’s list the Negritos, Kubus and African pigmy-tribes. The earliest enumeration of “lowest races” we know of is that given by Malthus (Population, pp. 15–20). He mentions as such the Fuegians, Tasmanians, Andamanese and Australians.↑5Steinmetz, Classification, p. 133.↑6Vierkandt, l.c., pp. 67, 69, 71, 72. His distinction of nomadic and settled semi-civilized peoples is entirely an economic one.↑7We 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 nowhere is it stated that any of them have slaves.↑8On the different systems of classification, see Steinmetz’s “Classification”, from which it clearly appears that a good division of the peoples of the earth according to their general culture is still wanting.↑9Bagehot, p. 72.↑10Grünberg, Article “Unfreiheit”, inHandwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, 2nd edition.↑11Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 456.↑12Tourmagne, p. 3.↑13Morgan, Anc. Soc., pp. 80, 10, 13, 11.↑14Schmoller,Die Thatsachen der Arbeitsteilung, p. 1010.↑15Schmoller,Grundriss, I p. 339.↑16Ingram, pp. 1, 2.↑17Flügel, p. 95.↑18Schurtz,Katechismus, p. 110.↑19Lippert, II pp. 522, 535.↑20Lamprecht, I p. 165.↑21Dimitroff, p. 88.↑22Peschel, p. 253. “Koloshes” is the Russian name for Tlinkits.↑23Wagner, p. 375.↑24Tylor, Anthropology, p. 434.↑25Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 459.↑26Bos, p. 191.↑27Felix, II pp. 250.↑28Mommsen, I p. 191.↑29Letourneau, p. 491. See also Sutherland, I p. 379.↑30Dargun, pp. 59–61.↑31Grosse, p. 28.↑32Hahn,Die Haustiere, pp. 388 sqq. In a recent little book (Die Entstehung der wirtschaftlichen Arbeit, 1908, p. 92), Dr. Hahn, speaking of the first edition of the present work, observes that the result of our investigations amounts to very little, the reason being that we have confined ourselves to the study of those peoples among which the cultivation of the soil is of no consequence. The mere fact, that our chapter on agricultural tribes occupies more spaces than the chapters on hunters and fishers and on pastoral tribes taken together, proves the incorrectness of Dr. Hahn’s remark.↑33Whereas our 5 economic groups are not an ascending series, these 3 agricultural groupsare. Primitive agriculture must be anterior to a more developed state of agriculture.↑34This group is nearly identical with Dargun’sJägerbauern; see Dargun, p. 60 note 1.↑35See Dargun, p. 110, and Hildebrand,Recht und Sitte, pp. 42, 43.↑36Under “trade” we shall for the sake of convenience also comprehend industry.↑37About the Malay Archipelago we have also consulted De Hollander, and about Africa, Ratzel,Völkerkunde.↑38Roosevelt calls them hunters; but in the Jesuit Relations it is stated, that they were not entirely unacquainted with agriculture.↑39On Musters’ authority. According to Charlevoix, agriculture was not entirely unknown amongst them.↑40On Keane’s authority. According to Zu Wied and Martius, there are some slight traces of agriculture.↑

CHAPTER I.METHOD AND DIVISIONS.

[Contents]§ 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.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 culture slavery is found. But such a division cannot be made here incidentally; for it would require years of labour. And a good division, that we could adopt, has not yet been made. Morgan distinguishes three periods of savagery, three of barbarism, and one of civilization1. But his system rests on the unproved supposition, that the stage of culture a people has attained to entirely depends on its technical ability in the arts of subsistence. Dr. Vierkandt has made another distinction. Besides the civilized and semi-civilized peoples he has two categories: migratory tribes (unstete Völker), and primitive peoples proper (eigentliche Naturvölker). The former are the Australians, Tasmanians, Andamanese, Veddahs, Negritos, Kubus, Bushmen, African pigmy-tribes, Fuegians and Botocudos; the latter the American Indians, Arctic races,[170]Northern Asiatics, Caucasus tribes, hill-tribes of India, Negroes to the South of the Soudan, inhabitants of the Malay Archipelago and Oceanic Islands2. But this division cannot be of any use to us. It is not the result of an extensive and accurate examination of the facts; the writer himself admits that he has followed his general impressions3. Now the impressions of a capable sociologist, as Vierkandt undoubtedly is, may count for something; they give a hint as to the direction, in which the investigation has to be carried on; but they do not themselves afford a scientific basis to rely upon. Hisunstete Völkerare simply those generally known as the “lowest type of man”, whether justly or unjustly we do not know4. And hiseigentliche Naturvölker, as Professor Steinmetz rightly remarks5, comprehend savages of widely different degrees of development. Moreover, although he says his criterion is the psychical state of man, the economic side of social life comes always prominently into view6; but the author does not even try to prove that the psychical state of man depends upon the stage of economic development.Yet, as it can be easily done here, we may inquire whether Vierkandt’sunstete Völkerhave slaves. It will be seen from the second Chapter of our first Part that all of them, with the exception perhaps of the Negritos, are unacquainted with slavery7. This conclusion, however, is not of much use to us, as we do not know whether they have been justly or unjustly classified under onecategory.As little can the other attempts, which have been made, to classify the savages according to their general culture, serve our purpose8. So the method of investigation that would seem the best is not applicable here. Therefore we are also unable[171]to ascertain whether, as some writers assert, slavery at a certain stage of social development is universal. Bagehot says of slavery: “There is a wonderful presumption in its favour; it is one of the institutions which, at a certain stage of growth, all nations in all countries choose and cleave to”9. Grünberg expresses the same view: “No people has always and in all phases of its development been unacquainted with slavery”10. According to Spencer “observation of all societies in all times shows that slavery is the rule and freedom the exception”11. And Tourmagne exclaims: “This almost universal scourge, going back to the very origin of the nations and affecting all of them, is it not to be regarded as a social stage that every people has to traverse, as an evolution which it is obliged to undergo, before it can attain to the higher degrees of civilization”12? If we had an ascending series of stages of culture, we might inquire whether, within the limits of savagery (for the civilized and semi-civilized peoples fall beyond the scope of the present volume) there is a stage at which slavery is universal. But, as we have already remarked, this is not yet possible.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.The opinion that the existence of slavery mainly depends[172]on the mode of subsistence is also held by many theorists. According to Morgan “slavery, which in the Upper Status of barbarism became the fate of the captive, was unknown among tribes in the Lower Status in the aboriginal period”. This Lower Status of barbarism begins with “the invention or practice of the art of pottery”. Anterior to the art of pottery was “the commencement of village life, with some degree of control over subsistence”. It ends with “the domestication of animals in the Eastern hemisphere, and in the Western with cultivation by irrigation and with the use of adobe-brick and stone in architecture”13. So slavery, according to Morgan, does not exist before a rather advanced period.Several writers assert that hunters and fishers never have slaves. Schmoller was formerly of the opinion that “no people unacquainted with cattle-breeding and agriculture has slaves”14. In his handbook, however, he informs us, that some highly developed tribes of fishers also keep slaves15. Ingram expresses the view formerly held by Schmoller: “In the hunter period the savage warrior does not enslave his vanquished enemy, but slays him; the women of the conquered tribe he may, however, carry off and appropriate as wives or as servants, for in this period domestic labour falls almost altogether on the female sex. In the pastoral stage slaves are captured only to be sold, with the exception of a few who may be required for the care of flocks or the small amount of cultivation which is then undertaken. It is in proportion as a sedentary life prevails, and agricultural exploitation is practised on a larger scale, whilst warlike habits continue to exist, that the labour of slaves is increasingly introduced to provide food for the master, and at the same time save him from irksome toil. Of this stage in the social movement slavery seems to have been a universal and inevitable accompaniment.” But he makes an exception in the case of those communities where “theocratic organisations established themselves”16. Flügel says: “Hunting tribes can neither feed nor employ the prisoners; generally they kill them”17. According to Schurtz “among tribes of migratory hunters there[173]is no room for slavery”18. Whether he means here all hunters or only Vierkandt’sunstete Völkeris not clear.Pastoral nomadism especially is considered favourable to the growth of slavery. The nomadic herdsman, who had learned to domesticate animals, began also to domesticate men,i.e.to enslave them. According to Lippert, slavery “first arises in the patriarchal communities of pastoral peoples.” “They [the slaves] were the object of an appropriation entirely similar to the appropriation of the domestic animals”19. Lamprecht also asserts that the prisoners, who formerly were either sacrificed or adopted into the community, in the pastoral stage were enslaved, because many hands were wanted to tend the cattle20. Dimitroff says that originally the captives were instantly killed like the game, as was the case amongst the hunting tribes of America, Australia and Africa. But as soon as man began to tame animals, he also learned to employ the captives as labourers21.A few theorists, however, who are more familiar with ethnographical literature, know that it is not only among pastoral and agricultural tribes that slavery is found. So Peschel states. According to him hunters cannot employ slaves. Fishers, however, sometimes do so, as on the Northwest Coast of America, amongst the Koniagas, Koloshes, and Ahts of Vancouver Island. But only at the agricultural stage is slavery practised on an extensive scale22. Wagner is of the same opinion: “In the earliest economic state of society slavery is quite or nearly unknown; generally speaking slavery is coeval with a settled and agricultural life. This is to be accounted for by economic causes; for only in the agricultural stage can slave labour be of any considerable use. Therefore slavery is unknown among hunters, and occurs but seldom among fishers. Bondage (Unfreiheit) presents itself already under several forms among nomadic herdsmen; but only among settled agricultural peoples does it attain to its full development”23. Tylor remarks that slavery exists, as soon as the captives are spared to till the soil; but he adds that even among savage hunters and foresters absolute equality is not[174]always to be found24. Spencer says: “Tribes which have not emerged from the hunting stage are little given to enslaving the vanquished; if they do not kill and eat them they adopt them. In the absence of industrial activity, slaves are almost useless, and indeed, where game is scarce, are not worth their food. But where, as among fishing tribes like the Chinooks, captives can be of use, or where the pastoral and agricultural stages have been reached, there arises a motive for sparing the lives of conquered men, and after inflicting on them such mutilations as mark their subjection, setting them to work”25. Bos is also aware of the fact, that the Tlinkits and similar tribes have slaves. He explains this in a curious way: slavery does not agree with the nature of hunting tribes; therefore it is probable that these tribes formerly were agricultural to a small extent26. Felix remarks that slavery already exists at the beginning of the agricultural stage27. Mommsen, however, asserts that in the oldest times (until when does not appear) slavery did not prevail to any considerable extent; more use was made of free labourers28.Letourneau expresses his opinion very prudently: slavery was not carried on on a large scale before men applied themselves to cattle-breeding and especially to agriculture29. At the end of his book on slavery of over 500 pages he contents himself with this vague conclusion.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.[Contents]§ 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[175]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.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 not exactly know. Little credit is given to-day to the old division into the three successive stages of hunting, pastoral nomadism, and agriculture. This was not yet so in 1884, when Dargun could still write: “The evolutionary stages of hunting, pastoral, and agricultural life are so well established in science as stages of human evolution in general, that it seems rather audacious to object to this division. Taken in general, however, it is false; on the greater half of the globe pastoral life was not a transitory stage from hunting to agriculture; therefore the people concerned had not to pass through any regulation of property peculiar to herdsmen. They learned agriculture without having been pastoral. This phenomenon comprehends two parts of the world—America and Australia-Polynesia—completely, and two other parts—Asia and Africa—to a great extent, as the Malay Archipelago and the territory of the Negro tribes across Africa also are included. Therefore it will be necessary to leave off considering the three stages of hunting, pastoral and agricultural life as a rule of human progress. Moreover, nearly all pastoral tribes carry on agriculture, however negligently; and it is not at all certain that the origin of the latter does not go back to a more remote period than cattle-breeding; it is even probable thatitdoes, for nomadic herdsmen are on the whole more civilized than the rudest agricultural tribes: cattle-breeding therefore is posterior to primitive agriculture”30. This[176]view of Dargun’s is now generally accepted. But a new ascending series that would have any scientific value does not yet exist. And so we can only distinguish economic states, not stages of economic development.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.[177]III, IV, V. Agriculture.Grosse makes a distinction between lower and higher agriculture; but as the former comprehends nearly all agricultural savages, this distinction cannot be of any use to us31.Hahn, in his book on the domestic animals, distinguishes hoe-culture (Hackbau), agriculture proper (Ackerbau) and horticulture (Gartenbau)32. But hoe-culture is carried on by nearly all agricultural savages; besides, this division is purely technical and therefore cannot serve our purpose. What we want is a division according to the place agriculture occupies in social life. We must ask to what extent a tribe is occupied in and dependent for subsistence on agriculture. For on this, and not on the form of the agricultural implements, it will depend whether slaves are wanted to till the soil. A slave may be set to handle the hoe as well as the plough.Perusing the ethnographical literature, we found such great differences between the several savage tribes in this respect, that we have thought it best to distinguish three stages of agriculture33. The principle according to which the distinction will be made is, as we have already hinted, the extent to which a tribe depends upon agriculture for its subsistence. Thefirstagricultural group will contain those cases, in which agriculture holds a subordinate place, most of the subsistence being derived from other sources, viz. hunting, fishing or gathering wild-growing vegetable food34. The tribes of thesecondgroup carry on agriculture to a considerable extent, but not to the exclusion of hunting, etc. Thethird, or highest, agricultural stage is reached, when agriculture is by far the principal mode of subsistence, and hunting, etc. hold a very[178]subordinate place, so much so that, if the latter were entirely wanting, the economic state would be nearly the same.But our information is not always very complete; and so it is not always clear to what extent subsistence is derived from agriculture. In such cases we shall make use of somesecondary characteristics. Some facts may be recorded from which we can more or less safely draw conclusions as to the place agriculture occupies. The facts indicative of the first stage of agriculture are: 1. Women only are occupied in agriculture35, 2. The tribe is very mobile, habitations are often shifted. Those indicative of the second, as distinguished from the first, stage are: 1. The tribe has fixed habitations (except where this is due to an abundance of fish or fruit-bearing trees), 2. The lands are irrigated. Those indicative of the third stage are: 1. The lands are manured, 2. Rotation of crops is carried on, 3. Domestic animals are used in agriculture, 4. Agricultural products are exported.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.Hitherto we have supposed that agricultural tribes did nothing else besides tilling the soil, except hunting, fishing and gathering wild vegetable food. But it may also be that they subsist partly on agriculture, partly on cattle-breeding or trade36. In these cases we cannot apply the same principle of division. A tribe that subsists partly on agriculture, but chiefly on trade is not to be classified under the same category as a tribe that subsists partly on agriculture, but mainly on hunting. The latter[179]is not yet agricultural, the former has perhaps passed beyond the agricultural stage. Here we may regard only the technical ability attained to in agriculture. Where agriculture is technically little developed, we have probably to deal with formerJägerbauernwho have become traders. Where agriculture has reached a high perfection, but trade is one of the chief modes of subsistence, the tribe has probably passed through the higher stages of agriculture. What we say here of trade equally applies to cattle-breeding.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.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 most ethnographical records the mode of subsistence occupies a conspicuous place, so any one wishing to verify our conclusions may easily find the passages concerned.[Contents]§ 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.[180]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.hmeans hunting or fishing; the tribes so marked are hunters or fishers.cmeans cattle-breeding; the tribes so marked are pastoral tribes.a1,a2,a3means first, second, third stage of agriculture.a1+cmeans an agricultural tribe of the first stage, among which subsistence depends largely on cattle-breeding; similarlya2+canda3+c.a1+tmeans an agricultural tribe of the first stage, among which subsistence depends largely on trade; similarlya2+tanda3+t.a2+c+tmeans an agricultural tribe of the second stage, among which subsistence depends largely both on cattle-breeding and trade; similarlya3+c+t.Positive cases.Negative cases.North America.AleutshAthka AleutshKoniagashTlinkitshHaidashTsimshianhKwakiutlhBilballashAhtshtribes about Puget SoundhFish IndianshTacullieshAtnashSimilkameemhChinookshThe 9 tribes of Eskimos proper, all of themhKutchinshChepewyanshDelawaresa2MontagnaishOjibwayshOttawashShahneeshPotawatomia138CreeshCheyennesa1Blackfeet nationhIroquoisa2Huronsa2Katahbasa2Cherokeesa2[181]Katahbasa2Muskoghea2Choctawsa2Chickasawsa2Creeksa2Seminolesa2Natcheza2SiouxhHidatsasa1Omahasa1Osagesa1Kansas Indiansa1AssiniboinshHupashApacheshZuñia3+cLower CalifornianshCentral and South America.Ancient nations of Hondurasa1inhabitants of Panama and Costa Ricaa1Mundrucusa1Mauhésa1Mbayasa1Caduveia2Suyaa1AbiponeshTehuelchesh39Wild tribes of North Mexicohnatives of the Mosquito Coasta1Caribs of the Isthmusa1Warrausa1Macusia1Roucouyennesa1Apiacasa1Botocudosh40Bakairia1Paressia1Bororoa1Guanasa2CharruashMinuaneshPuelcheshAraucaniansa2Fuegiansh[182]Australia.The 30 tribes enumerated in chapter II of Part I, all of themhMelanesia.N. W. Solomon Islandersa2natives of the Gazelle Peninsulaa1New Hebridiansa1Nuforesea1+tPapuans of Arfaka1Papuans,,of Adiea1+tPapuans,,on the Gulf of Kaimania1+tNew Caledoniansa2S. E. Solomon Islandersa1Nissan Islandersa1natives of Torres Straitsa1Papuans of Humboldt Baya1Papuans near Lake Sentania2Papuans of Ayamboria2Motua1+tMowata1Toaripia1Papuans on the mouth of the Wanigela Rivera1Yabima1natives of the Tami Islandsa1Tamoesa1natives of Dampier Islanda1Polynesia.Maoria2Tongansa2Samoansa2Rotumiansa2Rarotonga Islandersa2Hawaiiansa2Marquesas Islandersa2Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman Islandersa1[183]Micronesia.Marshall Islandersa2Caroline Islandersa2Marianne Islandersa2Pelau Islandersa2Kingsmill Islandersa2Malay Archipelago.Battas on the Pane and Bila Riversa3Battas of Mandhelinga3Battas of Pertibiea3Karo-Battasa2Raja-Battasa3Battas of Angkolaa3Battas of Simelunguna2Battas of Singkel and Pak-paka2+tBattas of Paneia2Toba-Battasa2Lampongsa2natives ofNiasa3natives,,of,,Anambas, etc.a1Hill-Dyaksa1Dyaks on the Baritoa1Sea-Dyaksa2Biadju Dyaksa1Kayans on the Mendalama2Kayans on the upper Mahakama2Dyaks of Pasira2inhabitants of the Minahassaa2inhabitants of Bolaänga2+tinhabitants of Holontaloa2[184]inhabitants of Buoola2Toradjaa2Tomoria2inhabitants of Sandjaia2inhabitants of Bangkalaa2Kailiresea2inhabitants of Saleyera2inhabitants of Sumbawaa3inhabitants of Sumbaa2inhabitants of Endeh on Floresa2+tinhabitants of the Solor groupa2inhabitants of Bonerate and Kalaoa2+tinhabitants of East Timora2+tinhabitants of West Timora2+tinhabitants of Savua2+cinhabitants of Rotea2inhabitants of Wetara2inhabitants of Keisara2+cinhabitants of Letia2+cinhabitants of Damaa2inhabitants of the Luang-Sermata groupa2inhabitants of the Babar groupa2[185]inhabitants of the Tenimber and Timorlao Islandsa2inhabitants of the Aru Islandsa1inhabitants of the Kei Islandsa1inhabitants of the Watubela Islandsa1inhabitants of the Seranglao-Gorong groupa1+tinhabitants of Seranga1inhabitants of Ambon and the Uliasea2+tinhabitants of the Sangi and Talauer Islandsa2Galela and Tobeloresea2inhabitants of Kaua1Tagals and Visayasa3Bagobosa1Manobosa1Maguindanaosa2+c+tinhabitants of Sulua2+c+tSamalesa2Hovasa3Semanga1Sakaia1KubushMentawei Islandersa1Sebruang Dyaksa2Bataks of Palawana1Bontoc Igorota3Indo-Chinese Peninsula.Kakhyensa2Shans of Zimméa2Lawasa2hill-tribes of North Aracana2Karensa2Chingpawsa3+tAndamanesehNicobarese (central part)a1Nicobarese (southern part)h[186]India.Meshmeesa1Garosa2Lushaisa1Manipurisa2Kafirsa2+cPadam Aborsa2Nagasa2Hill-tribes near Rajamahalla1+tTodascSantals (a part)a2Santals (a part)a1Santals (a part)hKhonds (some divisions)a2Khonds (other divisions)a1Oraonsa2Korwasa1Bodo and Dhimalsa2VeddahshCentral Asia.Kazak KirghizcAltaianscTurkomanscSiberia.KamchadaleshSamoyedescGhiliakshTunguzcYakutscTuski of the Coasthnomadic Koryakescsettled KoryakeshCaucasus.Ossetesa3+cCircassianscKabards of Asia MinorcArabia.Aeneze BedouinscLarbascGarosa2Bantu tribes.Angonia2OvahererocBarotsea2+cKimbundaa2+tLunda peoplea3+tKiokoa2+tSellesa2+tManganjaa2[187]Banyaia2Wagogoa2+cWashambalaa2+cWaparea2+cWajaoa3+tMakondea3+tWahehea2+cWachaggaa2+cWanyamwesia3+tAzimbaa2Wajijia1+tWapokomoa2Bondeia2Wasibaa2+tWakikuyua3Bondeia2Bihésa2+tMinungoa2Mpongwea2Orungua1Mbengasa2+tDuallasa2+tBayanzia1+tBangala on the Congoa2Balubaa2Manyuemaa2+tKabindaa2+tIninga and Galloaa2Wangataa1Bakundua2Banyanga2Batoma2Mabuma2Bali tribesa2Bambalaa2+tBayakaa2+tBahuanaa2+t[188]Bakwesea1+tYaundea1Indikkia3+tBanaka and Bapukua1Tuchilanguea2Wagandaa2+cBahimacnatives of Bukobaa2+c+tAma-XosacAma-ZulucBasutoa2+cMakololoa2+cMakalakaa2+cWanyakyusaa2Wambugua1+cWafipaa3+cWanyaturua2Wawiraa2Watavetaa2Bakwiria2Mundombe (a part)cMundombe (a part)a2Fansa1Batekea1+tSoudan Negroes.Calabaresea2inhabitants of Bonnya2+tBrass peoplea1+tEwea2+tinhabitants of Dahomeya2+tGeges and Nagosa2+c+tYorubasa3+c+tinhabitants of Ashantia2+tFantia2Mandingoesa2+cWolofsa2Saracolaysa2+tKagorosa2+cBambarasa2Toucouleursa2Jekrisa2+tMalinkaysa2+tSusua2+c+tLandumaa2+c+tLimbaa2+c+tBoobies of Fernando-Poa1Northern Sakalavasa2+c[189]Sakalavas of Nossi-Bé and Mayottea2+cLatukaa2Alura2+cLendua2Warundia2Wafiomia2+cWataturua1+cWambugwea1+cBongosa2Pigmies etc.BushmenhMucassequerehAkkashHamitic peoples.BeduancTakuea3+cMareaa2+cBeni AmercBarea and Kunamaa2Bogosa2+cGallasa3+cSomal (some divisions)cSomal (some divisions)a2DanakilcMassaicWarangia3+cWandorobohWakwafia2[190]

[Contents]§ 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.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 culture slavery is found. But such a division cannot be made here incidentally; for it would require years of labour. And a good division, that we could adopt, has not yet been made. Morgan distinguishes three periods of savagery, three of barbarism, and one of civilization1. But his system rests on the unproved supposition, that the stage of culture a people has attained to entirely depends on its technical ability in the arts of subsistence. Dr. Vierkandt has made another distinction. Besides the civilized and semi-civilized peoples he has two categories: migratory tribes (unstete Völker), and primitive peoples proper (eigentliche Naturvölker). The former are the Australians, Tasmanians, Andamanese, Veddahs, Negritos, Kubus, Bushmen, African pigmy-tribes, Fuegians and Botocudos; the latter the American Indians, Arctic races,[170]Northern Asiatics, Caucasus tribes, hill-tribes of India, Negroes to the South of the Soudan, inhabitants of the Malay Archipelago and Oceanic Islands2. But this division cannot be of any use to us. It is not the result of an extensive and accurate examination of the facts; the writer himself admits that he has followed his general impressions3. Now the impressions of a capable sociologist, as Vierkandt undoubtedly is, may count for something; they give a hint as to the direction, in which the investigation has to be carried on; but they do not themselves afford a scientific basis to rely upon. Hisunstete Völkerare simply those generally known as the “lowest type of man”, whether justly or unjustly we do not know4. And hiseigentliche Naturvölker, as Professor Steinmetz rightly remarks5, comprehend savages of widely different degrees of development. Moreover, although he says his criterion is the psychical state of man, the economic side of social life comes always prominently into view6; but the author does not even try to prove that the psychical state of man depends upon the stage of economic development.Yet, as it can be easily done here, we may inquire whether Vierkandt’sunstete Völkerhave slaves. It will be seen from the second Chapter of our first Part that all of them, with the exception perhaps of the Negritos, are unacquainted with slavery7. This conclusion, however, is not of much use to us, as we do not know whether they have been justly or unjustly classified under onecategory.As little can the other attempts, which have been made, to classify the savages according to their general culture, serve our purpose8. So the method of investigation that would seem the best is not applicable here. Therefore we are also unable[171]to ascertain whether, as some writers assert, slavery at a certain stage of social development is universal. Bagehot says of slavery: “There is a wonderful presumption in its favour; it is one of the institutions which, at a certain stage of growth, all nations in all countries choose and cleave to”9. Grünberg expresses the same view: “No people has always and in all phases of its development been unacquainted with slavery”10. According to Spencer “observation of all societies in all times shows that slavery is the rule and freedom the exception”11. And Tourmagne exclaims: “This almost universal scourge, going back to the very origin of the nations and affecting all of them, is it not to be regarded as a social stage that every people has to traverse, as an evolution which it is obliged to undergo, before it can attain to the higher degrees of civilization”12? If we had an ascending series of stages of culture, we might inquire whether, within the limits of savagery (for the civilized and semi-civilized peoples fall beyond the scope of the present volume) there is a stage at which slavery is universal. But, as we have already remarked, this is not yet possible.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.The opinion that the existence of slavery mainly depends[172]on the mode of subsistence is also held by many theorists. According to Morgan “slavery, which in the Upper Status of barbarism became the fate of the captive, was unknown among tribes in the Lower Status in the aboriginal period”. This Lower Status of barbarism begins with “the invention or practice of the art of pottery”. Anterior to the art of pottery was “the commencement of village life, with some degree of control over subsistence”. It ends with “the domestication of animals in the Eastern hemisphere, and in the Western with cultivation by irrigation and with the use of adobe-brick and stone in architecture”13. So slavery, according to Morgan, does not exist before a rather advanced period.Several writers assert that hunters and fishers never have slaves. Schmoller was formerly of the opinion that “no people unacquainted with cattle-breeding and agriculture has slaves”14. In his handbook, however, he informs us, that some highly developed tribes of fishers also keep slaves15. Ingram expresses the view formerly held by Schmoller: “In the hunter period the savage warrior does not enslave his vanquished enemy, but slays him; the women of the conquered tribe he may, however, carry off and appropriate as wives or as servants, for in this period domestic labour falls almost altogether on the female sex. In the pastoral stage slaves are captured only to be sold, with the exception of a few who may be required for the care of flocks or the small amount of cultivation which is then undertaken. It is in proportion as a sedentary life prevails, and agricultural exploitation is practised on a larger scale, whilst warlike habits continue to exist, that the labour of slaves is increasingly introduced to provide food for the master, and at the same time save him from irksome toil. Of this stage in the social movement slavery seems to have been a universal and inevitable accompaniment.” But he makes an exception in the case of those communities where “theocratic organisations established themselves”16. Flügel says: “Hunting tribes can neither feed nor employ the prisoners; generally they kill them”17. According to Schurtz “among tribes of migratory hunters there[173]is no room for slavery”18. Whether he means here all hunters or only Vierkandt’sunstete Völkeris not clear.Pastoral nomadism especially is considered favourable to the growth of slavery. The nomadic herdsman, who had learned to domesticate animals, began also to domesticate men,i.e.to enslave them. According to Lippert, slavery “first arises in the patriarchal communities of pastoral peoples.” “They [the slaves] were the object of an appropriation entirely similar to the appropriation of the domestic animals”19. Lamprecht also asserts that the prisoners, who formerly were either sacrificed or adopted into the community, in the pastoral stage were enslaved, because many hands were wanted to tend the cattle20. Dimitroff says that originally the captives were instantly killed like the game, as was the case amongst the hunting tribes of America, Australia and Africa. But as soon as man began to tame animals, he also learned to employ the captives as labourers21.A few theorists, however, who are more familiar with ethnographical literature, know that it is not only among pastoral and agricultural tribes that slavery is found. So Peschel states. According to him hunters cannot employ slaves. Fishers, however, sometimes do so, as on the Northwest Coast of America, amongst the Koniagas, Koloshes, and Ahts of Vancouver Island. But only at the agricultural stage is slavery practised on an extensive scale22. Wagner is of the same opinion: “In the earliest economic state of society slavery is quite or nearly unknown; generally speaking slavery is coeval with a settled and agricultural life. This is to be accounted for by economic causes; for only in the agricultural stage can slave labour be of any considerable use. Therefore slavery is unknown among hunters, and occurs but seldom among fishers. Bondage (Unfreiheit) presents itself already under several forms among nomadic herdsmen; but only among settled agricultural peoples does it attain to its full development”23. Tylor remarks that slavery exists, as soon as the captives are spared to till the soil; but he adds that even among savage hunters and foresters absolute equality is not[174]always to be found24. Spencer says: “Tribes which have not emerged from the hunting stage are little given to enslaving the vanquished; if they do not kill and eat them they adopt them. In the absence of industrial activity, slaves are almost useless, and indeed, where game is scarce, are not worth their food. But where, as among fishing tribes like the Chinooks, captives can be of use, or where the pastoral and agricultural stages have been reached, there arises a motive for sparing the lives of conquered men, and after inflicting on them such mutilations as mark their subjection, setting them to work”25. Bos is also aware of the fact, that the Tlinkits and similar tribes have slaves. He explains this in a curious way: slavery does not agree with the nature of hunting tribes; therefore it is probable that these tribes formerly were agricultural to a small extent26. Felix remarks that slavery already exists at the beginning of the agricultural stage27. Mommsen, however, asserts that in the oldest times (until when does not appear) slavery did not prevail to any considerable extent; more use was made of free labourers28.Letourneau expresses his opinion very prudently: slavery was not carried on on a large scale before men applied themselves to cattle-breeding and especially to agriculture29. At the end of his book on slavery of over 500 pages he contents himself with this vague conclusion.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.

§ 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.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 culture slavery is found. But such a division cannot be made here incidentally; for it would require years of labour. And a good division, that we could adopt, has not yet been made. Morgan distinguishes three periods of savagery, three of barbarism, and one of civilization1. But his system rests on the unproved supposition, that the stage of culture a people has attained to entirely depends on its technical ability in the arts of subsistence. Dr. Vierkandt has made another distinction. Besides the civilized and semi-civilized peoples he has two categories: migratory tribes (unstete Völker), and primitive peoples proper (eigentliche Naturvölker). The former are the Australians, Tasmanians, Andamanese, Veddahs, Negritos, Kubus, Bushmen, African pigmy-tribes, Fuegians and Botocudos; the latter the American Indians, Arctic races,[170]Northern Asiatics, Caucasus tribes, hill-tribes of India, Negroes to the South of the Soudan, inhabitants of the Malay Archipelago and Oceanic Islands2. But this division cannot be of any use to us. It is not the result of an extensive and accurate examination of the facts; the writer himself admits that he has followed his general impressions3. Now the impressions of a capable sociologist, as Vierkandt undoubtedly is, may count for something; they give a hint as to the direction, in which the investigation has to be carried on; but they do not themselves afford a scientific basis to rely upon. Hisunstete Völkerare simply those generally known as the “lowest type of man”, whether justly or unjustly we do not know4. And hiseigentliche Naturvölker, as Professor Steinmetz rightly remarks5, comprehend savages of widely different degrees of development. Moreover, although he says his criterion is the psychical state of man, the economic side of social life comes always prominently into view6; but the author does not even try to prove that the psychical state of man depends upon the stage of economic development.Yet, as it can be easily done here, we may inquire whether Vierkandt’sunstete Völkerhave slaves. It will be seen from the second Chapter of our first Part that all of them, with the exception perhaps of the Negritos, are unacquainted with slavery7. This conclusion, however, is not of much use to us, as we do not know whether they have been justly or unjustly classified under onecategory.As little can the other attempts, which have been made, to classify the savages according to their general culture, serve our purpose8. So the method of investigation that would seem the best is not applicable here. Therefore we are also unable[171]to ascertain whether, as some writers assert, slavery at a certain stage of social development is universal. Bagehot says of slavery: “There is a wonderful presumption in its favour; it is one of the institutions which, at a certain stage of growth, all nations in all countries choose and cleave to”9. Grünberg expresses the same view: “No people has always and in all phases of its development been unacquainted with slavery”10. According to Spencer “observation of all societies in all times shows that slavery is the rule and freedom the exception”11. And Tourmagne exclaims: “This almost universal scourge, going back to the very origin of the nations and affecting all of them, is it not to be regarded as a social stage that every people has to traverse, as an evolution which it is obliged to undergo, before it can attain to the higher degrees of civilization”12? If we had an ascending series of stages of culture, we might inquire whether, within the limits of savagery (for the civilized and semi-civilized peoples fall beyond the scope of the present volume) there is a stage at which slavery is universal. But, as we have already remarked, this is not yet possible.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.The opinion that the existence of slavery mainly depends[172]on the mode of subsistence is also held by many theorists. According to Morgan “slavery, which in the Upper Status of barbarism became the fate of the captive, was unknown among tribes in the Lower Status in the aboriginal period”. This Lower Status of barbarism begins with “the invention or practice of the art of pottery”. Anterior to the art of pottery was “the commencement of village life, with some degree of control over subsistence”. It ends with “the domestication of animals in the Eastern hemisphere, and in the Western with cultivation by irrigation and with the use of adobe-brick and stone in architecture”13. So slavery, according to Morgan, does not exist before a rather advanced period.Several writers assert that hunters and fishers never have slaves. Schmoller was formerly of the opinion that “no people unacquainted with cattle-breeding and agriculture has slaves”14. In his handbook, however, he informs us, that some highly developed tribes of fishers also keep slaves15. Ingram expresses the view formerly held by Schmoller: “In the hunter period the savage warrior does not enslave his vanquished enemy, but slays him; the women of the conquered tribe he may, however, carry off and appropriate as wives or as servants, for in this period domestic labour falls almost altogether on the female sex. In the pastoral stage slaves are captured only to be sold, with the exception of a few who may be required for the care of flocks or the small amount of cultivation which is then undertaken. It is in proportion as a sedentary life prevails, and agricultural exploitation is practised on a larger scale, whilst warlike habits continue to exist, that the labour of slaves is increasingly introduced to provide food for the master, and at the same time save him from irksome toil. Of this stage in the social movement slavery seems to have been a universal and inevitable accompaniment.” But he makes an exception in the case of those communities where “theocratic organisations established themselves”16. Flügel says: “Hunting tribes can neither feed nor employ the prisoners; generally they kill them”17. According to Schurtz “among tribes of migratory hunters there[173]is no room for slavery”18. Whether he means here all hunters or only Vierkandt’sunstete Völkeris not clear.Pastoral nomadism especially is considered favourable to the growth of slavery. The nomadic herdsman, who had learned to domesticate animals, began also to domesticate men,i.e.to enslave them. According to Lippert, slavery “first arises in the patriarchal communities of pastoral peoples.” “They [the slaves] were the object of an appropriation entirely similar to the appropriation of the domestic animals”19. Lamprecht also asserts that the prisoners, who formerly were either sacrificed or adopted into the community, in the pastoral stage were enslaved, because many hands were wanted to tend the cattle20. Dimitroff says that originally the captives were instantly killed like the game, as was the case amongst the hunting tribes of America, Australia and Africa. But as soon as man began to tame animals, he also learned to employ the captives as labourers21.A few theorists, however, who are more familiar with ethnographical literature, know that it is not only among pastoral and agricultural tribes that slavery is found. So Peschel states. According to him hunters cannot employ slaves. Fishers, however, sometimes do so, as on the Northwest Coast of America, amongst the Koniagas, Koloshes, and Ahts of Vancouver Island. But only at the agricultural stage is slavery practised on an extensive scale22. Wagner is of the same opinion: “In the earliest economic state of society slavery is quite or nearly unknown; generally speaking slavery is coeval with a settled and agricultural life. This is to be accounted for by economic causes; for only in the agricultural stage can slave labour be of any considerable use. Therefore slavery is unknown among hunters, and occurs but seldom among fishers. Bondage (Unfreiheit) presents itself already under several forms among nomadic herdsmen; but only among settled agricultural peoples does it attain to its full development”23. Tylor remarks that slavery exists, as soon as the captives are spared to till the soil; but he adds that even among savage hunters and foresters absolute equality is not[174]always to be found24. Spencer says: “Tribes which have not emerged from the hunting stage are little given to enslaving the vanquished; if they do not kill and eat them they adopt them. In the absence of industrial activity, slaves are almost useless, and indeed, where game is scarce, are not worth their food. But where, as among fishing tribes like the Chinooks, captives can be of use, or where the pastoral and agricultural stages have been reached, there arises a motive for sparing the lives of conquered men, and after inflicting on them such mutilations as mark their subjection, setting them to work”25. Bos is also aware of the fact, that the Tlinkits and similar tribes have slaves. He explains this in a curious way: slavery does not agree with the nature of hunting tribes; therefore it is probable that these tribes formerly were agricultural to a small extent26. Felix remarks that slavery already exists at the beginning of the agricultural stage27. Mommsen, however, asserts that in the oldest times (until when does not appear) slavery did not prevail to any considerable extent; more use was made of free labourers28.Letourneau expresses his opinion very prudently: slavery was not carried on on a large scale before men applied themselves to cattle-breeding and especially to agriculture29. At the end of his book on slavery of over 500 pages he contents himself with this vague conclusion.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.

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.

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 culture slavery is found. But such a division cannot be made here incidentally; for it would require years of labour. And a good division, that we could adopt, has not yet been made. Morgan distinguishes three periods of savagery, three of barbarism, and one of civilization1. But his system rests on the unproved supposition, that the stage of culture a people has attained to entirely depends on its technical ability in the arts of subsistence. Dr. Vierkandt has made another distinction. Besides the civilized and semi-civilized peoples he has two categories: migratory tribes (unstete Völker), and primitive peoples proper (eigentliche Naturvölker). The former are the Australians, Tasmanians, Andamanese, Veddahs, Negritos, Kubus, Bushmen, African pigmy-tribes, Fuegians and Botocudos; the latter the American Indians, Arctic races,[170]Northern Asiatics, Caucasus tribes, hill-tribes of India, Negroes to the South of the Soudan, inhabitants of the Malay Archipelago and Oceanic Islands2. But this division cannot be of any use to us. It is not the result of an extensive and accurate examination of the facts; the writer himself admits that he has followed his general impressions3. Now the impressions of a capable sociologist, as Vierkandt undoubtedly is, may count for something; they give a hint as to the direction, in which the investigation has to be carried on; but they do not themselves afford a scientific basis to rely upon. Hisunstete Völkerare simply those generally known as the “lowest type of man”, whether justly or unjustly we do not know4. And hiseigentliche Naturvölker, as Professor Steinmetz rightly remarks5, comprehend savages of widely different degrees of development. Moreover, although he says his criterion is the psychical state of man, the economic side of social life comes always prominently into view6; but the author does not even try to prove that the psychical state of man depends upon the stage of economic development.

Yet, as it can be easily done here, we may inquire whether Vierkandt’sunstete Völkerhave slaves. It will be seen from the second Chapter of our first Part that all of them, with the exception perhaps of the Negritos, are unacquainted with slavery7. This conclusion, however, is not of much use to us, as we do not know whether they have been justly or unjustly classified under onecategory.

As little can the other attempts, which have been made, to classify the savages according to their general culture, serve our purpose8. So the method of investigation that would seem the best is not applicable here. Therefore we are also unable[171]to ascertain whether, as some writers assert, slavery at a certain stage of social development is universal. Bagehot says of slavery: “There is a wonderful presumption in its favour; it is one of the institutions which, at a certain stage of growth, all nations in all countries choose and cleave to”9. Grünberg expresses the same view: “No people has always and in all phases of its development been unacquainted with slavery”10. According to Spencer “observation of all societies in all times shows that slavery is the rule and freedom the exception”11. And Tourmagne exclaims: “This almost universal scourge, going back to the very origin of the nations and affecting all of them, is it not to be regarded as a social stage that every people has to traverse, as an evolution which it is obliged to undergo, before it can attain to the higher degrees of civilization”12? If we had an ascending series of stages of culture, we might inquire whether, within the limits of savagery (for the civilized and semi-civilized peoples fall beyond the scope of the present volume) there is a stage at which slavery is universal. But, as we have already remarked, this is not yet possible.

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.

The opinion that the existence of slavery mainly depends[172]on the mode of subsistence is also held by many theorists. According to Morgan “slavery, which in the Upper Status of barbarism became the fate of the captive, was unknown among tribes in the Lower Status in the aboriginal period”. This Lower Status of barbarism begins with “the invention or practice of the art of pottery”. Anterior to the art of pottery was “the commencement of village life, with some degree of control over subsistence”. It ends with “the domestication of animals in the Eastern hemisphere, and in the Western with cultivation by irrigation and with the use of adobe-brick and stone in architecture”13. So slavery, according to Morgan, does not exist before a rather advanced period.

Several writers assert that hunters and fishers never have slaves. Schmoller was formerly of the opinion that “no people unacquainted with cattle-breeding and agriculture has slaves”14. In his handbook, however, he informs us, that some highly developed tribes of fishers also keep slaves15. Ingram expresses the view formerly held by Schmoller: “In the hunter period the savage warrior does not enslave his vanquished enemy, but slays him; the women of the conquered tribe he may, however, carry off and appropriate as wives or as servants, for in this period domestic labour falls almost altogether on the female sex. In the pastoral stage slaves are captured only to be sold, with the exception of a few who may be required for the care of flocks or the small amount of cultivation which is then undertaken. It is in proportion as a sedentary life prevails, and agricultural exploitation is practised on a larger scale, whilst warlike habits continue to exist, that the labour of slaves is increasingly introduced to provide food for the master, and at the same time save him from irksome toil. Of this stage in the social movement slavery seems to have been a universal and inevitable accompaniment.” But he makes an exception in the case of those communities where “theocratic organisations established themselves”16. Flügel says: “Hunting tribes can neither feed nor employ the prisoners; generally they kill them”17. According to Schurtz “among tribes of migratory hunters there[173]is no room for slavery”18. Whether he means here all hunters or only Vierkandt’sunstete Völkeris not clear.

Pastoral nomadism especially is considered favourable to the growth of slavery. The nomadic herdsman, who had learned to domesticate animals, began also to domesticate men,i.e.to enslave them. According to Lippert, slavery “first arises in the patriarchal communities of pastoral peoples.” “They [the slaves] were the object of an appropriation entirely similar to the appropriation of the domestic animals”19. Lamprecht also asserts that the prisoners, who formerly were either sacrificed or adopted into the community, in the pastoral stage were enslaved, because many hands were wanted to tend the cattle20. Dimitroff says that originally the captives were instantly killed like the game, as was the case amongst the hunting tribes of America, Australia and Africa. But as soon as man began to tame animals, he also learned to employ the captives as labourers21.

A few theorists, however, who are more familiar with ethnographical literature, know that it is not only among pastoral and agricultural tribes that slavery is found. So Peschel states. According to him hunters cannot employ slaves. Fishers, however, sometimes do so, as on the Northwest Coast of America, amongst the Koniagas, Koloshes, and Ahts of Vancouver Island. But only at the agricultural stage is slavery practised on an extensive scale22. Wagner is of the same opinion: “In the earliest economic state of society slavery is quite or nearly unknown; generally speaking slavery is coeval with a settled and agricultural life. This is to be accounted for by economic causes; for only in the agricultural stage can slave labour be of any considerable use. Therefore slavery is unknown among hunters, and occurs but seldom among fishers. Bondage (Unfreiheit) presents itself already under several forms among nomadic herdsmen; but only among settled agricultural peoples does it attain to its full development”23. Tylor remarks that slavery exists, as soon as the captives are spared to till the soil; but he adds that even among savage hunters and foresters absolute equality is not[174]always to be found24. Spencer says: “Tribes which have not emerged from the hunting stage are little given to enslaving the vanquished; if they do not kill and eat them they adopt them. In the absence of industrial activity, slaves are almost useless, and indeed, where game is scarce, are not worth their food. But where, as among fishing tribes like the Chinooks, captives can be of use, or where the pastoral and agricultural stages have been reached, there arises a motive for sparing the lives of conquered men, and after inflicting on them such mutilations as mark their subjection, setting them to work”25. Bos is also aware of the fact, that the Tlinkits and similar tribes have slaves. He explains this in a curious way: slavery does not agree with the nature of hunting tribes; therefore it is probable that these tribes formerly were agricultural to a small extent26. Felix remarks that slavery already exists at the beginning of the agricultural stage27. Mommsen, however, asserts that in the oldest times (until when does not appear) slavery did not prevail to any considerable extent; more use was made of free labourers28.

Letourneau expresses his opinion very prudently: slavery was not carried on on a large scale before men applied themselves to cattle-breeding and especially to agriculture29. At the end of his book on slavery of over 500 pages he contents himself with this vague conclusion.

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.

[Contents]§ 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[175]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.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 not exactly know. Little credit is given to-day to the old division into the three successive stages of hunting, pastoral nomadism, and agriculture. This was not yet so in 1884, when Dargun could still write: “The evolutionary stages of hunting, pastoral, and agricultural life are so well established in science as stages of human evolution in general, that it seems rather audacious to object to this division. Taken in general, however, it is false; on the greater half of the globe pastoral life was not a transitory stage from hunting to agriculture; therefore the people concerned had not to pass through any regulation of property peculiar to herdsmen. They learned agriculture without having been pastoral. This phenomenon comprehends two parts of the world—America and Australia-Polynesia—completely, and two other parts—Asia and Africa—to a great extent, as the Malay Archipelago and the territory of the Negro tribes across Africa also are included. Therefore it will be necessary to leave off considering the three stages of hunting, pastoral and agricultural life as a rule of human progress. Moreover, nearly all pastoral tribes carry on agriculture, however negligently; and it is not at all certain that the origin of the latter does not go back to a more remote period than cattle-breeding; it is even probable thatitdoes, for nomadic herdsmen are on the whole more civilized than the rudest agricultural tribes: cattle-breeding therefore is posterior to primitive agriculture”30. This[176]view of Dargun’s is now generally accepted. But a new ascending series that would have any scientific value does not yet exist. And so we can only distinguish economic states, not stages of economic development.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.[177]III, IV, V. Agriculture.Grosse makes a distinction between lower and higher agriculture; but as the former comprehends nearly all agricultural savages, this distinction cannot be of any use to us31.Hahn, in his book on the domestic animals, distinguishes hoe-culture (Hackbau), agriculture proper (Ackerbau) and horticulture (Gartenbau)32. But hoe-culture is carried on by nearly all agricultural savages; besides, this division is purely technical and therefore cannot serve our purpose. What we want is a division according to the place agriculture occupies in social life. We must ask to what extent a tribe is occupied in and dependent for subsistence on agriculture. For on this, and not on the form of the agricultural implements, it will depend whether slaves are wanted to till the soil. A slave may be set to handle the hoe as well as the plough.Perusing the ethnographical literature, we found such great differences between the several savage tribes in this respect, that we have thought it best to distinguish three stages of agriculture33. The principle according to which the distinction will be made is, as we have already hinted, the extent to which a tribe depends upon agriculture for its subsistence. Thefirstagricultural group will contain those cases, in which agriculture holds a subordinate place, most of the subsistence being derived from other sources, viz. hunting, fishing or gathering wild-growing vegetable food34. The tribes of thesecondgroup carry on agriculture to a considerable extent, but not to the exclusion of hunting, etc. Thethird, or highest, agricultural stage is reached, when agriculture is by far the principal mode of subsistence, and hunting, etc. hold a very[178]subordinate place, so much so that, if the latter were entirely wanting, the economic state would be nearly the same.But our information is not always very complete; and so it is not always clear to what extent subsistence is derived from agriculture. In such cases we shall make use of somesecondary characteristics. Some facts may be recorded from which we can more or less safely draw conclusions as to the place agriculture occupies. The facts indicative of the first stage of agriculture are: 1. Women only are occupied in agriculture35, 2. The tribe is very mobile, habitations are often shifted. Those indicative of the second, as distinguished from the first, stage are: 1. The tribe has fixed habitations (except where this is due to an abundance of fish or fruit-bearing trees), 2. The lands are irrigated. Those indicative of the third stage are: 1. The lands are manured, 2. Rotation of crops is carried on, 3. Domestic animals are used in agriculture, 4. Agricultural products are exported.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.Hitherto we have supposed that agricultural tribes did nothing else besides tilling the soil, except hunting, fishing and gathering wild vegetable food. But it may also be that they subsist partly on agriculture, partly on cattle-breeding or trade36. In these cases we cannot apply the same principle of division. A tribe that subsists partly on agriculture, but chiefly on trade is not to be classified under the same category as a tribe that subsists partly on agriculture, but mainly on hunting. The latter[179]is not yet agricultural, the former has perhaps passed beyond the agricultural stage. Here we may regard only the technical ability attained to in agriculture. Where agriculture is technically little developed, we have probably to deal with formerJägerbauernwho have become traders. Where agriculture has reached a high perfection, but trade is one of the chief modes of subsistence, the tribe has probably passed through the higher stages of agriculture. What we say here of trade equally applies to cattle-breeding.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.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 most ethnographical records the mode of subsistence occupies a conspicuous place, so any one wishing to verify our conclusions may easily find the passages concerned.

§ 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[175]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.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 not exactly know. Little credit is given to-day to the old division into the three successive stages of hunting, pastoral nomadism, and agriculture. This was not yet so in 1884, when Dargun could still write: “The evolutionary stages of hunting, pastoral, and agricultural life are so well established in science as stages of human evolution in general, that it seems rather audacious to object to this division. Taken in general, however, it is false; on the greater half of the globe pastoral life was not a transitory stage from hunting to agriculture; therefore the people concerned had not to pass through any regulation of property peculiar to herdsmen. They learned agriculture without having been pastoral. This phenomenon comprehends two parts of the world—America and Australia-Polynesia—completely, and two other parts—Asia and Africa—to a great extent, as the Malay Archipelago and the territory of the Negro tribes across Africa also are included. Therefore it will be necessary to leave off considering the three stages of hunting, pastoral and agricultural life as a rule of human progress. Moreover, nearly all pastoral tribes carry on agriculture, however negligently; and it is not at all certain that the origin of the latter does not go back to a more remote period than cattle-breeding; it is even probable thatitdoes, for nomadic herdsmen are on the whole more civilized than the rudest agricultural tribes: cattle-breeding therefore is posterior to primitive agriculture”30. This[176]view of Dargun’s is now generally accepted. But a new ascending series that would have any scientific value does not yet exist. And so we can only distinguish economic states, not stages of economic development.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.[177]III, IV, V. Agriculture.Grosse makes a distinction between lower and higher agriculture; but as the former comprehends nearly all agricultural savages, this distinction cannot be of any use to us31.Hahn, in his book on the domestic animals, distinguishes hoe-culture (Hackbau), agriculture proper (Ackerbau) and horticulture (Gartenbau)32. But hoe-culture is carried on by nearly all agricultural savages; besides, this division is purely technical and therefore cannot serve our purpose. What we want is a division according to the place agriculture occupies in social life. We must ask to what extent a tribe is occupied in and dependent for subsistence on agriculture. For on this, and not on the form of the agricultural implements, it will depend whether slaves are wanted to till the soil. A slave may be set to handle the hoe as well as the plough.Perusing the ethnographical literature, we found such great differences between the several savage tribes in this respect, that we have thought it best to distinguish three stages of agriculture33. The principle according to which the distinction will be made is, as we have already hinted, the extent to which a tribe depends upon agriculture for its subsistence. Thefirstagricultural group will contain those cases, in which agriculture holds a subordinate place, most of the subsistence being derived from other sources, viz. hunting, fishing or gathering wild-growing vegetable food34. The tribes of thesecondgroup carry on agriculture to a considerable extent, but not to the exclusion of hunting, etc. Thethird, or highest, agricultural stage is reached, when agriculture is by far the principal mode of subsistence, and hunting, etc. hold a very[178]subordinate place, so much so that, if the latter were entirely wanting, the economic state would be nearly the same.But our information is not always very complete; and so it is not always clear to what extent subsistence is derived from agriculture. In such cases we shall make use of somesecondary characteristics. Some facts may be recorded from which we can more or less safely draw conclusions as to the place agriculture occupies. The facts indicative of the first stage of agriculture are: 1. Women only are occupied in agriculture35, 2. The tribe is very mobile, habitations are often shifted. Those indicative of the second, as distinguished from the first, stage are: 1. The tribe has fixed habitations (except where this is due to an abundance of fish or fruit-bearing trees), 2. The lands are irrigated. Those indicative of the third stage are: 1. The lands are manured, 2. Rotation of crops is carried on, 3. Domestic animals are used in agriculture, 4. Agricultural products are exported.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.Hitherto we have supposed that agricultural tribes did nothing else besides tilling the soil, except hunting, fishing and gathering wild vegetable food. But it may also be that they subsist partly on agriculture, partly on cattle-breeding or trade36. In these cases we cannot apply the same principle of division. A tribe that subsists partly on agriculture, but chiefly on trade is not to be classified under the same category as a tribe that subsists partly on agriculture, but mainly on hunting. The latter[179]is not yet agricultural, the former has perhaps passed beyond the agricultural stage. Here we may regard only the technical ability attained to in agriculture. Where agriculture is technically little developed, we have probably to deal with formerJägerbauernwho have become traders. Where agriculture has reached a high perfection, but trade is one of the chief modes of subsistence, the tribe has probably passed through the higher stages of agriculture. What we say here of trade equally applies to cattle-breeding.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.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 most ethnographical records the mode of subsistence occupies a conspicuous place, so any one wishing to verify our conclusions may easily find the passages concerned.

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[175]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:

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 not exactly know. Little credit is given to-day to the old division into the three successive stages of hunting, pastoral nomadism, and agriculture. This was not yet so in 1884, when Dargun could still write: “The evolutionary stages of hunting, pastoral, and agricultural life are so well established in science as stages of human evolution in general, that it seems rather audacious to object to this division. Taken in general, however, it is false; on the greater half of the globe pastoral life was not a transitory stage from hunting to agriculture; therefore the people concerned had not to pass through any regulation of property peculiar to herdsmen. They learned agriculture without having been pastoral. This phenomenon comprehends two parts of the world—America and Australia-Polynesia—completely, and two other parts—Asia and Africa—to a great extent, as the Malay Archipelago and the territory of the Negro tribes across Africa also are included. Therefore it will be necessary to leave off considering the three stages of hunting, pastoral and agricultural life as a rule of human progress. Moreover, nearly all pastoral tribes carry on agriculture, however negligently; and it is not at all certain that the origin of the latter does not go back to a more remote period than cattle-breeding; it is even probable thatitdoes, for nomadic herdsmen are on the whole more civilized than the rudest agricultural tribes: cattle-breeding therefore is posterior to primitive agriculture”30. This[176]view of Dargun’s is now generally accepted. But a new ascending series that would have any scientific value does not yet exist. And so we can only distinguish economic states, not stages of economic development.

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.[177]

III, IV, V. Agriculture.

Grosse makes a distinction between lower and higher agriculture; but as the former comprehends nearly all agricultural savages, this distinction cannot be of any use to us31.Hahn, in his book on the domestic animals, distinguishes hoe-culture (Hackbau), agriculture proper (Ackerbau) and horticulture (Gartenbau)32. But hoe-culture is carried on by nearly all agricultural savages; besides, this division is purely technical and therefore cannot serve our purpose. What we want is a division according to the place agriculture occupies in social life. We must ask to what extent a tribe is occupied in and dependent for subsistence on agriculture. For on this, and not on the form of the agricultural implements, it will depend whether slaves are wanted to till the soil. A slave may be set to handle the hoe as well as the plough.

Perusing the ethnographical literature, we found such great differences between the several savage tribes in this respect, that we have thought it best to distinguish three stages of agriculture33. The principle according to which the distinction will be made is, as we have already hinted, the extent to which a tribe depends upon agriculture for its subsistence. Thefirstagricultural group will contain those cases, in which agriculture holds a subordinate place, most of the subsistence being derived from other sources, viz. hunting, fishing or gathering wild-growing vegetable food34. The tribes of thesecondgroup carry on agriculture to a considerable extent, but not to the exclusion of hunting, etc. Thethird, or highest, agricultural stage is reached, when agriculture is by far the principal mode of subsistence, and hunting, etc. hold a very[178]subordinate place, so much so that, if the latter were entirely wanting, the economic state would be nearly the same.

But our information is not always very complete; and so it is not always clear to what extent subsistence is derived from agriculture. In such cases we shall make use of somesecondary characteristics. Some facts may be recorded from which we can more or less safely draw conclusions as to the place agriculture occupies. The facts indicative of the first stage of agriculture are: 1. Women only are occupied in agriculture35, 2. The tribe is very mobile, habitations are often shifted. Those indicative of the second, as distinguished from the first, stage are: 1. The tribe has fixed habitations (except where this is due to an abundance of fish or fruit-bearing trees), 2. The lands are irrigated. Those indicative of the third stage are: 1. The lands are manured, 2. Rotation of crops is carried on, 3. Domestic animals are used in agriculture, 4. Agricultural products are exported.

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.

Hitherto we have supposed that agricultural tribes did nothing else besides tilling the soil, except hunting, fishing and gathering wild vegetable food. But it may also be that they subsist partly on agriculture, partly on cattle-breeding or trade36. In these cases we cannot apply the same principle of division. A tribe that subsists partly on agriculture, but chiefly on trade is not to be classified under the same category as a tribe that subsists partly on agriculture, but mainly on hunting. The latter[179]is not yet agricultural, the former has perhaps passed beyond the agricultural stage. Here we may regard only the technical ability attained to in agriculture. Where agriculture is technically little developed, we have probably to deal with formerJägerbauernwho have become traders. Where agriculture has reached a high perfection, but trade is one of the chief modes of subsistence, the tribe has probably passed through the higher stages of agriculture. What we say here of trade equally applies to cattle-breeding.

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.

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 most ethnographical records the mode of subsistence occupies a conspicuous place, so any one wishing to verify our conclusions may easily find the passages concerned.

[Contents]§ 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.[180]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.hmeans hunting or fishing; the tribes so marked are hunters or fishers.cmeans cattle-breeding; the tribes so marked are pastoral tribes.a1,a2,a3means first, second, third stage of agriculture.a1+cmeans an agricultural tribe of the first stage, among which subsistence depends largely on cattle-breeding; similarlya2+canda3+c.a1+tmeans an agricultural tribe of the first stage, among which subsistence depends largely on trade; similarlya2+tanda3+t.a2+c+tmeans an agricultural tribe of the second stage, among which subsistence depends largely both on cattle-breeding and trade; similarlya3+c+t.Positive cases.Negative cases.North America.AleutshAthka AleutshKoniagashTlinkitshHaidashTsimshianhKwakiutlhBilballashAhtshtribes about Puget SoundhFish IndianshTacullieshAtnashSimilkameemhChinookshThe 9 tribes of Eskimos proper, all of themhKutchinshChepewyanshDelawaresa2MontagnaishOjibwayshOttawashShahneeshPotawatomia138CreeshCheyennesa1Blackfeet nationhIroquoisa2Huronsa2Katahbasa2Cherokeesa2[181]Katahbasa2Muskoghea2Choctawsa2Chickasawsa2Creeksa2Seminolesa2Natcheza2SiouxhHidatsasa1Omahasa1Osagesa1Kansas Indiansa1AssiniboinshHupashApacheshZuñia3+cLower CalifornianshCentral and South America.Ancient nations of Hondurasa1inhabitants of Panama and Costa Ricaa1Mundrucusa1Mauhésa1Mbayasa1Caduveia2Suyaa1AbiponeshTehuelchesh39Wild tribes of North Mexicohnatives of the Mosquito Coasta1Caribs of the Isthmusa1Warrausa1Macusia1Roucouyennesa1Apiacasa1Botocudosh40Bakairia1Paressia1Bororoa1Guanasa2CharruashMinuaneshPuelcheshAraucaniansa2Fuegiansh[182]Australia.The 30 tribes enumerated in chapter II of Part I, all of themhMelanesia.N. W. Solomon Islandersa2natives of the Gazelle Peninsulaa1New Hebridiansa1Nuforesea1+tPapuans of Arfaka1Papuans,,of Adiea1+tPapuans,,on the Gulf of Kaimania1+tNew Caledoniansa2S. E. Solomon Islandersa1Nissan Islandersa1natives of Torres Straitsa1Papuans of Humboldt Baya1Papuans near Lake Sentania2Papuans of Ayamboria2Motua1+tMowata1Toaripia1Papuans on the mouth of the Wanigela Rivera1Yabima1natives of the Tami Islandsa1Tamoesa1natives of Dampier Islanda1Polynesia.Maoria2Tongansa2Samoansa2Rotumiansa2Rarotonga Islandersa2Hawaiiansa2Marquesas Islandersa2Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman Islandersa1[183]Micronesia.Marshall Islandersa2Caroline Islandersa2Marianne Islandersa2Pelau Islandersa2Kingsmill Islandersa2Malay Archipelago.Battas on the Pane and Bila Riversa3Battas of Mandhelinga3Battas of Pertibiea3Karo-Battasa2Raja-Battasa3Battas of Angkolaa3Battas of Simelunguna2Battas of Singkel and Pak-paka2+tBattas of Paneia2Toba-Battasa2Lampongsa2natives ofNiasa3natives,,of,,Anambas, etc.a1Hill-Dyaksa1Dyaks on the Baritoa1Sea-Dyaksa2Biadju Dyaksa1Kayans on the Mendalama2Kayans on the upper Mahakama2Dyaks of Pasira2inhabitants of the Minahassaa2inhabitants of Bolaänga2+tinhabitants of Holontaloa2[184]inhabitants of Buoola2Toradjaa2Tomoria2inhabitants of Sandjaia2inhabitants of Bangkalaa2Kailiresea2inhabitants of Saleyera2inhabitants of Sumbawaa3inhabitants of Sumbaa2inhabitants of Endeh on Floresa2+tinhabitants of the Solor groupa2inhabitants of Bonerate and Kalaoa2+tinhabitants of East Timora2+tinhabitants of West Timora2+tinhabitants of Savua2+cinhabitants of Rotea2inhabitants of Wetara2inhabitants of Keisara2+cinhabitants of Letia2+cinhabitants of Damaa2inhabitants of the Luang-Sermata groupa2inhabitants of the Babar groupa2[185]inhabitants of the Tenimber and Timorlao Islandsa2inhabitants of the Aru Islandsa1inhabitants of the Kei Islandsa1inhabitants of the Watubela Islandsa1inhabitants of the Seranglao-Gorong groupa1+tinhabitants of Seranga1inhabitants of Ambon and the Uliasea2+tinhabitants of the Sangi and Talauer Islandsa2Galela and Tobeloresea2inhabitants of Kaua1Tagals and Visayasa3Bagobosa1Manobosa1Maguindanaosa2+c+tinhabitants of Sulua2+c+tSamalesa2Hovasa3Semanga1Sakaia1KubushMentawei Islandersa1Sebruang Dyaksa2Bataks of Palawana1Bontoc Igorota3Indo-Chinese Peninsula.Kakhyensa2Shans of Zimméa2Lawasa2hill-tribes of North Aracana2Karensa2Chingpawsa3+tAndamanesehNicobarese (central part)a1Nicobarese (southern part)h[186]India.Meshmeesa1Garosa2Lushaisa1Manipurisa2Kafirsa2+cPadam Aborsa2Nagasa2Hill-tribes near Rajamahalla1+tTodascSantals (a part)a2Santals (a part)a1Santals (a part)hKhonds (some divisions)a2Khonds (other divisions)a1Oraonsa2Korwasa1Bodo and Dhimalsa2VeddahshCentral Asia.Kazak KirghizcAltaianscTurkomanscSiberia.KamchadaleshSamoyedescGhiliakshTunguzcYakutscTuski of the Coasthnomadic Koryakescsettled KoryakeshCaucasus.Ossetesa3+cCircassianscKabards of Asia MinorcArabia.Aeneze BedouinscLarbascGarosa2Bantu tribes.Angonia2OvahererocBarotsea2+cKimbundaa2+tLunda peoplea3+tKiokoa2+tSellesa2+tManganjaa2[187]Banyaia2Wagogoa2+cWashambalaa2+cWaparea2+cWajaoa3+tMakondea3+tWahehea2+cWachaggaa2+cWanyamwesia3+tAzimbaa2Wajijia1+tWapokomoa2Bondeia2Wasibaa2+tWakikuyua3Bondeia2Bihésa2+tMinungoa2Mpongwea2Orungua1Mbengasa2+tDuallasa2+tBayanzia1+tBangala on the Congoa2Balubaa2Manyuemaa2+tKabindaa2+tIninga and Galloaa2Wangataa1Bakundua2Banyanga2Batoma2Mabuma2Bali tribesa2Bambalaa2+tBayakaa2+tBahuanaa2+t[188]Bakwesea1+tYaundea1Indikkia3+tBanaka and Bapukua1Tuchilanguea2Wagandaa2+cBahimacnatives of Bukobaa2+c+tAma-XosacAma-ZulucBasutoa2+cMakololoa2+cMakalakaa2+cWanyakyusaa2Wambugua1+cWafipaa3+cWanyaturua2Wawiraa2Watavetaa2Bakwiria2Mundombe (a part)cMundombe (a part)a2Fansa1Batekea1+tSoudan Negroes.Calabaresea2inhabitants of Bonnya2+tBrass peoplea1+tEwea2+tinhabitants of Dahomeya2+tGeges and Nagosa2+c+tYorubasa3+c+tinhabitants of Ashantia2+tFantia2Mandingoesa2+cWolofsa2Saracolaysa2+tKagorosa2+cBambarasa2Toucouleursa2Jekrisa2+tMalinkaysa2+tSusua2+c+tLandumaa2+c+tLimbaa2+c+tBoobies of Fernando-Poa1Northern Sakalavasa2+c[189]Sakalavas of Nossi-Bé and Mayottea2+cLatukaa2Alura2+cLendua2Warundia2Wafiomia2+cWataturua1+cWambugwea1+cBongosa2Pigmies etc.BushmenhMucassequerehAkkashHamitic peoples.BeduancTakuea3+cMareaa2+cBeni AmercBarea and Kunamaa2Bogosa2+cGallasa3+cSomal (some divisions)cSomal (some divisions)a2DanakilcMassaicWarangia3+cWandorobohWakwafia2[190]

§ 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.[180]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.hmeans hunting or fishing; the tribes so marked are hunters or fishers.cmeans cattle-breeding; the tribes so marked are pastoral tribes.a1,a2,a3means first, second, third stage of agriculture.a1+cmeans an agricultural tribe of the first stage, among which subsistence depends largely on cattle-breeding; similarlya2+canda3+c.a1+tmeans an agricultural tribe of the first stage, among which subsistence depends largely on trade; similarlya2+tanda3+t.a2+c+tmeans an agricultural tribe of the second stage, among which subsistence depends largely both on cattle-breeding and trade; similarlya3+c+t.Positive cases.Negative cases.North America.AleutshAthka AleutshKoniagashTlinkitshHaidashTsimshianhKwakiutlhBilballashAhtshtribes about Puget SoundhFish IndianshTacullieshAtnashSimilkameemhChinookshThe 9 tribes of Eskimos proper, all of themhKutchinshChepewyanshDelawaresa2MontagnaishOjibwayshOttawashShahneeshPotawatomia138CreeshCheyennesa1Blackfeet nationhIroquoisa2Huronsa2Katahbasa2Cherokeesa2[181]Katahbasa2Muskoghea2Choctawsa2Chickasawsa2Creeksa2Seminolesa2Natcheza2SiouxhHidatsasa1Omahasa1Osagesa1Kansas Indiansa1AssiniboinshHupashApacheshZuñia3+cLower CalifornianshCentral and South America.Ancient nations of Hondurasa1inhabitants of Panama and Costa Ricaa1Mundrucusa1Mauhésa1Mbayasa1Caduveia2Suyaa1AbiponeshTehuelchesh39Wild tribes of North Mexicohnatives of the Mosquito Coasta1Caribs of the Isthmusa1Warrausa1Macusia1Roucouyennesa1Apiacasa1Botocudosh40Bakairia1Paressia1Bororoa1Guanasa2CharruashMinuaneshPuelcheshAraucaniansa2Fuegiansh[182]Australia.The 30 tribes enumerated in chapter II of Part I, all of themhMelanesia.N. W. Solomon Islandersa2natives of the Gazelle Peninsulaa1New Hebridiansa1Nuforesea1+tPapuans of Arfaka1Papuans,,of Adiea1+tPapuans,,on the Gulf of Kaimania1+tNew Caledoniansa2S. E. Solomon Islandersa1Nissan Islandersa1natives of Torres Straitsa1Papuans of Humboldt Baya1Papuans near Lake Sentania2Papuans of Ayamboria2Motua1+tMowata1Toaripia1Papuans on the mouth of the Wanigela Rivera1Yabima1natives of the Tami Islandsa1Tamoesa1natives of Dampier Islanda1Polynesia.Maoria2Tongansa2Samoansa2Rotumiansa2Rarotonga Islandersa2Hawaiiansa2Marquesas Islandersa2Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman Islandersa1[183]Micronesia.Marshall Islandersa2Caroline Islandersa2Marianne Islandersa2Pelau Islandersa2Kingsmill Islandersa2Malay Archipelago.Battas on the Pane and Bila Riversa3Battas of Mandhelinga3Battas of Pertibiea3Karo-Battasa2Raja-Battasa3Battas of Angkolaa3Battas of Simelunguna2Battas of Singkel and Pak-paka2+tBattas of Paneia2Toba-Battasa2Lampongsa2natives ofNiasa3natives,,of,,Anambas, etc.a1Hill-Dyaksa1Dyaks on the Baritoa1Sea-Dyaksa2Biadju Dyaksa1Kayans on the Mendalama2Kayans on the upper Mahakama2Dyaks of Pasira2inhabitants of the Minahassaa2inhabitants of Bolaänga2+tinhabitants of Holontaloa2[184]inhabitants of Buoola2Toradjaa2Tomoria2inhabitants of Sandjaia2inhabitants of Bangkalaa2Kailiresea2inhabitants of Saleyera2inhabitants of Sumbawaa3inhabitants of Sumbaa2inhabitants of Endeh on Floresa2+tinhabitants of the Solor groupa2inhabitants of Bonerate and Kalaoa2+tinhabitants of East Timora2+tinhabitants of West Timora2+tinhabitants of Savua2+cinhabitants of Rotea2inhabitants of Wetara2inhabitants of Keisara2+cinhabitants of Letia2+cinhabitants of Damaa2inhabitants of the Luang-Sermata groupa2inhabitants of the Babar groupa2[185]inhabitants of the Tenimber and Timorlao Islandsa2inhabitants of the Aru Islandsa1inhabitants of the Kei Islandsa1inhabitants of the Watubela Islandsa1inhabitants of the Seranglao-Gorong groupa1+tinhabitants of Seranga1inhabitants of Ambon and the Uliasea2+tinhabitants of the Sangi and Talauer Islandsa2Galela and Tobeloresea2inhabitants of Kaua1Tagals and Visayasa3Bagobosa1Manobosa1Maguindanaosa2+c+tinhabitants of Sulua2+c+tSamalesa2Hovasa3Semanga1Sakaia1KubushMentawei Islandersa1Sebruang Dyaksa2Bataks of Palawana1Bontoc Igorota3Indo-Chinese Peninsula.Kakhyensa2Shans of Zimméa2Lawasa2hill-tribes of North Aracana2Karensa2Chingpawsa3+tAndamanesehNicobarese (central part)a1Nicobarese (southern part)h[186]India.Meshmeesa1Garosa2Lushaisa1Manipurisa2Kafirsa2+cPadam Aborsa2Nagasa2Hill-tribes near Rajamahalla1+tTodascSantals (a part)a2Santals (a part)a1Santals (a part)hKhonds (some divisions)a2Khonds (other divisions)a1Oraonsa2Korwasa1Bodo and Dhimalsa2VeddahshCentral Asia.Kazak KirghizcAltaianscTurkomanscSiberia.KamchadaleshSamoyedescGhiliakshTunguzcYakutscTuski of the Coasthnomadic Koryakescsettled KoryakeshCaucasus.Ossetesa3+cCircassianscKabards of Asia MinorcArabia.Aeneze BedouinscLarbascGarosa2Bantu tribes.Angonia2OvahererocBarotsea2+cKimbundaa2+tLunda peoplea3+tKiokoa2+tSellesa2+tManganjaa2[187]Banyaia2Wagogoa2+cWashambalaa2+cWaparea2+cWajaoa3+tMakondea3+tWahehea2+cWachaggaa2+cWanyamwesia3+tAzimbaa2Wajijia1+tWapokomoa2Bondeia2Wasibaa2+tWakikuyua3Bondeia2Bihésa2+tMinungoa2Mpongwea2Orungua1Mbengasa2+tDuallasa2+tBayanzia1+tBangala on the Congoa2Balubaa2Manyuemaa2+tKabindaa2+tIninga and Galloaa2Wangataa1Bakundua2Banyanga2Batoma2Mabuma2Bali tribesa2Bambalaa2+tBayakaa2+tBahuanaa2+t[188]Bakwesea1+tYaundea1Indikkia3+tBanaka and Bapukua1Tuchilanguea2Wagandaa2+cBahimacnatives of Bukobaa2+c+tAma-XosacAma-ZulucBasutoa2+cMakololoa2+cMakalakaa2+cWanyakyusaa2Wambugua1+cWafipaa3+cWanyaturua2Wawiraa2Watavetaa2Bakwiria2Mundombe (a part)cMundombe (a part)a2Fansa1Batekea1+tSoudan Negroes.Calabaresea2inhabitants of Bonnya2+tBrass peoplea1+tEwea2+tinhabitants of Dahomeya2+tGeges and Nagosa2+c+tYorubasa3+c+tinhabitants of Ashantia2+tFantia2Mandingoesa2+cWolofsa2Saracolaysa2+tKagorosa2+cBambarasa2Toucouleursa2Jekrisa2+tMalinkaysa2+tSusua2+c+tLandumaa2+c+tLimbaa2+c+tBoobies of Fernando-Poa1Northern Sakalavasa2+c[189]Sakalavas of Nossi-Bé and Mayottea2+cLatukaa2Alura2+cLendua2Warundia2Wafiomia2+cWataturua1+cWambugwea1+cBongosa2Pigmies etc.BushmenhMucassequerehAkkashHamitic peoples.BeduancTakuea3+cMareaa2+cBeni AmercBarea and Kunamaa2Bogosa2+cGallasa3+cSomal (some divisions)cSomal (some divisions)a2DanakilcMassaicWarangia3+cWandorobohWakwafia2[190]

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.[180]

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.

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

cmeans cattle-breeding; the tribes so marked are pastoral tribes.

a1,a2,a3means first, second, third stage of agriculture.

a1+cmeans an agricultural tribe of the first stage, among which subsistence depends largely on cattle-breeding; similarlya2+canda3+c.

a1+tmeans an agricultural tribe of the first stage, among which subsistence depends largely on trade; similarlya2+tanda3+t.

a2+c+tmeans an agricultural tribe of the second stage, among which subsistence depends largely both on cattle-breeding and trade; similarlya3+c+t.

Positive cases.Negative cases.North America.AleutshAthka AleutshKoniagashTlinkitshHaidashTsimshianhKwakiutlhBilballashAhtshtribes about Puget SoundhFish IndianshTacullieshAtnashSimilkameemhChinookshThe 9 tribes of Eskimos proper, all of themhKutchinshChepewyanshDelawaresa2MontagnaishOjibwayshOttawashShahneeshPotawatomia138CreeshCheyennesa1Blackfeet nationhIroquoisa2Huronsa2Katahbasa2Cherokeesa2[181]Katahbasa2Muskoghea2Choctawsa2Chickasawsa2Creeksa2Seminolesa2Natcheza2SiouxhHidatsasa1Omahasa1Osagesa1Kansas Indiansa1AssiniboinshHupashApacheshZuñia3+cLower CalifornianshCentral and South America.Ancient nations of Hondurasa1inhabitants of Panama and Costa Ricaa1Mundrucusa1Mauhésa1Mbayasa1Caduveia2Suyaa1AbiponeshTehuelchesh39Wild tribes of North Mexicohnatives of the Mosquito Coasta1Caribs of the Isthmusa1Warrausa1Macusia1Roucouyennesa1Apiacasa1Botocudosh40Bakairia1Paressia1Bororoa1Guanasa2CharruashMinuaneshPuelcheshAraucaniansa2Fuegiansh[182]Australia.The 30 tribes enumerated in chapter II of Part I, all of themhMelanesia.N. W. Solomon Islandersa2natives of the Gazelle Peninsulaa1New Hebridiansa1Nuforesea1+tPapuans of Arfaka1Papuans,,of Adiea1+tPapuans,,on the Gulf of Kaimania1+tNew Caledoniansa2S. E. Solomon Islandersa1Nissan Islandersa1natives of Torres Straitsa1Papuans of Humboldt Baya1Papuans near Lake Sentania2Papuans of Ayamboria2Motua1+tMowata1Toaripia1Papuans on the mouth of the Wanigela Rivera1Yabima1natives of the Tami Islandsa1Tamoesa1natives of Dampier Islanda1Polynesia.Maoria2Tongansa2Samoansa2Rotumiansa2Rarotonga Islandersa2Hawaiiansa2Marquesas Islandersa2Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman Islandersa1[183]Micronesia.Marshall Islandersa2Caroline Islandersa2Marianne Islandersa2Pelau Islandersa2Kingsmill Islandersa2Malay Archipelago.Battas on the Pane and Bila Riversa3Battas of Mandhelinga3Battas of Pertibiea3Karo-Battasa2Raja-Battasa3Battas of Angkolaa3Battas of Simelunguna2Battas of Singkel and Pak-paka2+tBattas of Paneia2Toba-Battasa2Lampongsa2natives ofNiasa3natives,,of,,Anambas, etc.a1Hill-Dyaksa1Dyaks on the Baritoa1Sea-Dyaksa2Biadju Dyaksa1Kayans on the Mendalama2Kayans on the upper Mahakama2Dyaks of Pasira2inhabitants of the Minahassaa2inhabitants of Bolaänga2+tinhabitants of Holontaloa2[184]inhabitants of Buoola2Toradjaa2Tomoria2inhabitants of Sandjaia2inhabitants of Bangkalaa2Kailiresea2inhabitants of Saleyera2inhabitants of Sumbawaa3inhabitants of Sumbaa2inhabitants of Endeh on Floresa2+tinhabitants of the Solor groupa2inhabitants of Bonerate and Kalaoa2+tinhabitants of East Timora2+tinhabitants of West Timora2+tinhabitants of Savua2+cinhabitants of Rotea2inhabitants of Wetara2inhabitants of Keisara2+cinhabitants of Letia2+cinhabitants of Damaa2inhabitants of the Luang-Sermata groupa2inhabitants of the Babar groupa2[185]inhabitants of the Tenimber and Timorlao Islandsa2inhabitants of the Aru Islandsa1inhabitants of the Kei Islandsa1inhabitants of the Watubela Islandsa1inhabitants of the Seranglao-Gorong groupa1+tinhabitants of Seranga1inhabitants of Ambon and the Uliasea2+tinhabitants of the Sangi and Talauer Islandsa2Galela and Tobeloresea2inhabitants of Kaua1Tagals and Visayasa3Bagobosa1Manobosa1Maguindanaosa2+c+tinhabitants of Sulua2+c+tSamalesa2Hovasa3Semanga1Sakaia1KubushMentawei Islandersa1Sebruang Dyaksa2Bataks of Palawana1Bontoc Igorota3Indo-Chinese Peninsula.Kakhyensa2Shans of Zimméa2Lawasa2hill-tribes of North Aracana2Karensa2Chingpawsa3+tAndamanesehNicobarese (central part)a1Nicobarese (southern part)h[186]India.Meshmeesa1Garosa2Lushaisa1Manipurisa2Kafirsa2+cPadam Aborsa2Nagasa2Hill-tribes near Rajamahalla1+tTodascSantals (a part)a2Santals (a part)a1Santals (a part)hKhonds (some divisions)a2Khonds (other divisions)a1Oraonsa2Korwasa1Bodo and Dhimalsa2VeddahshCentral Asia.Kazak KirghizcAltaianscTurkomanscSiberia.KamchadaleshSamoyedescGhiliakshTunguzcYakutscTuski of the Coasthnomadic Koryakescsettled KoryakeshCaucasus.Ossetesa3+cCircassianscKabards of Asia MinorcArabia.Aeneze BedouinscLarbascGarosa2Bantu tribes.Angonia2OvahererocBarotsea2+cKimbundaa2+tLunda peoplea3+tKiokoa2+tSellesa2+tManganjaa2[187]Banyaia2Wagogoa2+cWashambalaa2+cWaparea2+cWajaoa3+tMakondea3+tWahehea2+cWachaggaa2+cWanyamwesia3+tAzimbaa2Wajijia1+tWapokomoa2Bondeia2Wasibaa2+tWakikuyua3Bondeia2Bihésa2+tMinungoa2Mpongwea2Orungua1Mbengasa2+tDuallasa2+tBayanzia1+tBangala on the Congoa2Balubaa2Manyuemaa2+tKabindaa2+tIninga and Galloaa2Wangataa1Bakundua2Banyanga2Batoma2Mabuma2Bali tribesa2Bambalaa2+tBayakaa2+tBahuanaa2+t[188]Bakwesea1+tYaundea1Indikkia3+tBanaka and Bapukua1Tuchilanguea2Wagandaa2+cBahimacnatives of Bukobaa2+c+tAma-XosacAma-ZulucBasutoa2+cMakololoa2+cMakalakaa2+cWanyakyusaa2Wambugua1+cWafipaa3+cWanyaturua2Wawiraa2Watavetaa2Bakwiria2Mundombe (a part)cMundombe (a part)a2Fansa1Batekea1+tSoudan Negroes.Calabaresea2inhabitants of Bonnya2+tBrass peoplea1+tEwea2+tinhabitants of Dahomeya2+tGeges and Nagosa2+c+tYorubasa3+c+tinhabitants of Ashantia2+tFantia2Mandingoesa2+cWolofsa2Saracolaysa2+tKagorosa2+cBambarasa2Toucouleursa2Jekrisa2+tMalinkaysa2+tSusua2+c+tLandumaa2+c+tLimbaa2+c+tBoobies of Fernando-Poa1Northern Sakalavasa2+c[189]Sakalavas of Nossi-Bé and Mayottea2+cLatukaa2Alura2+cLendua2Warundia2Wafiomia2+cWataturua1+cWambugwea1+cBongosa2Pigmies etc.BushmenhMucassequerehAkkashHamitic peoples.BeduancTakuea3+cMareaa2+cBeni AmercBarea and Kunamaa2Bogosa2+cGallasa3+cSomal (some divisions)cSomal (some divisions)a2DanakilcMassaicWarangia3+cWandorobohWakwafia2

[190]

1Morgan, Anc. Soc., see especially, pp. 10–12.↑2Vierkandt,Culturtypen, pp. 67, 69.↑3Vierkandt, l.c., p. 61.↑4Peschel (pp. 144, 145) has already given nearly the same list. Vierkandt adds to Peschel’s list the Negritos, Kubus and African pigmy-tribes. The earliest enumeration of “lowest races” we know of is that given by Malthus (Population, pp. 15–20). He mentions as such the Fuegians, Tasmanians, Andamanese and Australians.↑5Steinmetz, Classification, p. 133.↑6Vierkandt, l.c., pp. 67, 69, 71, 72. His distinction of nomadic and settled semi-civilized peoples is entirely an economic one.↑7We 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 nowhere is it stated that any of them have slaves.↑8On the different systems of classification, see Steinmetz’s “Classification”, from which it clearly appears that a good division of the peoples of the earth according to their general culture is still wanting.↑9Bagehot, p. 72.↑10Grünberg, Article “Unfreiheit”, inHandwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, 2nd edition.↑11Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 456.↑12Tourmagne, p. 3.↑13Morgan, Anc. Soc., pp. 80, 10, 13, 11.↑14Schmoller,Die Thatsachen der Arbeitsteilung, p. 1010.↑15Schmoller,Grundriss, I p. 339.↑16Ingram, pp. 1, 2.↑17Flügel, p. 95.↑18Schurtz,Katechismus, p. 110.↑19Lippert, II pp. 522, 535.↑20Lamprecht, I p. 165.↑21Dimitroff, p. 88.↑22Peschel, p. 253. “Koloshes” is the Russian name for Tlinkits.↑23Wagner, p. 375.↑24Tylor, Anthropology, p. 434.↑25Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 459.↑26Bos, p. 191.↑27Felix, II pp. 250.↑28Mommsen, I p. 191.↑29Letourneau, p. 491. See also Sutherland, I p. 379.↑30Dargun, pp. 59–61.↑31Grosse, p. 28.↑32Hahn,Die Haustiere, pp. 388 sqq. In a recent little book (Die Entstehung der wirtschaftlichen Arbeit, 1908, p. 92), Dr. Hahn, speaking of the first edition of the present work, observes that the result of our investigations amounts to very little, the reason being that we have confined ourselves to the study of those peoples among which the cultivation of the soil is of no consequence. The mere fact, that our chapter on agricultural tribes occupies more spaces than the chapters on hunters and fishers and on pastoral tribes taken together, proves the incorrectness of Dr. Hahn’s remark.↑33Whereas our 5 economic groups are not an ascending series, these 3 agricultural groupsare. Primitive agriculture must be anterior to a more developed state of agriculture.↑34This group is nearly identical with Dargun’sJägerbauern; see Dargun, p. 60 note 1.↑35See Dargun, p. 110, and Hildebrand,Recht und Sitte, pp. 42, 43.↑36Under “trade” we shall for the sake of convenience also comprehend industry.↑37About the Malay Archipelago we have also consulted De Hollander, and about Africa, Ratzel,Völkerkunde.↑38Roosevelt calls them hunters; but in the Jesuit Relations it is stated, that they were not entirely unacquainted with agriculture.↑39On Musters’ authority. According to Charlevoix, agriculture was not entirely unknown amongst them.↑40On Keane’s authority. According to Zu Wied and Martius, there are some slight traces of agriculture.↑

1Morgan, Anc. Soc., see especially, pp. 10–12.↑2Vierkandt,Culturtypen, pp. 67, 69.↑3Vierkandt, l.c., p. 61.↑4Peschel (pp. 144, 145) has already given nearly the same list. Vierkandt adds to Peschel’s list the Negritos, Kubus and African pigmy-tribes. The earliest enumeration of “lowest races” we know of is that given by Malthus (Population, pp. 15–20). He mentions as such the Fuegians, Tasmanians, Andamanese and Australians.↑5Steinmetz, Classification, p. 133.↑6Vierkandt, l.c., pp. 67, 69, 71, 72. His distinction of nomadic and settled semi-civilized peoples is entirely an economic one.↑7We 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 nowhere is it stated that any of them have slaves.↑8On the different systems of classification, see Steinmetz’s “Classification”, from which it clearly appears that a good division of the peoples of the earth according to their general culture is still wanting.↑9Bagehot, p. 72.↑10Grünberg, Article “Unfreiheit”, inHandwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, 2nd edition.↑11Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 456.↑12Tourmagne, p. 3.↑13Morgan, Anc. Soc., pp. 80, 10, 13, 11.↑14Schmoller,Die Thatsachen der Arbeitsteilung, p. 1010.↑15Schmoller,Grundriss, I p. 339.↑16Ingram, pp. 1, 2.↑17Flügel, p. 95.↑18Schurtz,Katechismus, p. 110.↑19Lippert, II pp. 522, 535.↑20Lamprecht, I p. 165.↑21Dimitroff, p. 88.↑22Peschel, p. 253. “Koloshes” is the Russian name for Tlinkits.↑23Wagner, p. 375.↑24Tylor, Anthropology, p. 434.↑25Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 459.↑26Bos, p. 191.↑27Felix, II pp. 250.↑28Mommsen, I p. 191.↑29Letourneau, p. 491. See also Sutherland, I p. 379.↑30Dargun, pp. 59–61.↑31Grosse, p. 28.↑32Hahn,Die Haustiere, pp. 388 sqq. In a recent little book (Die Entstehung der wirtschaftlichen Arbeit, 1908, p. 92), Dr. Hahn, speaking of the first edition of the present work, observes that the result of our investigations amounts to very little, the reason being that we have confined ourselves to the study of those peoples among which the cultivation of the soil is of no consequence. The mere fact, that our chapter on agricultural tribes occupies more spaces than the chapters on hunters and fishers and on pastoral tribes taken together, proves the incorrectness of Dr. Hahn’s remark.↑33Whereas our 5 economic groups are not an ascending series, these 3 agricultural groupsare. Primitive agriculture must be anterior to a more developed state of agriculture.↑34This group is nearly identical with Dargun’sJägerbauern; see Dargun, p. 60 note 1.↑35See Dargun, p. 110, and Hildebrand,Recht und Sitte, pp. 42, 43.↑36Under “trade” we shall for the sake of convenience also comprehend industry.↑37About the Malay Archipelago we have also consulted De Hollander, and about Africa, Ratzel,Völkerkunde.↑38Roosevelt calls them hunters; but in the Jesuit Relations it is stated, that they were not entirely unacquainted with agriculture.↑39On Musters’ authority. According to Charlevoix, agriculture was not entirely unknown amongst them.↑40On Keane’s authority. According to Zu Wied and Martius, there are some slight traces of agriculture.↑

1Morgan, Anc. Soc., see especially, pp. 10–12.↑

1Morgan, Anc. Soc., see especially, pp. 10–12.↑

2Vierkandt,Culturtypen, pp. 67, 69.↑

2Vierkandt,Culturtypen, pp. 67, 69.↑

3Vierkandt, l.c., p. 61.↑

3Vierkandt, l.c., p. 61.↑

4Peschel (pp. 144, 145) has already given nearly the same list. Vierkandt adds to Peschel’s list the Negritos, Kubus and African pigmy-tribes. The earliest enumeration of “lowest races” we know of is that given by Malthus (Population, pp. 15–20). He mentions as such the Fuegians, Tasmanians, Andamanese and Australians.↑

4Peschel (pp. 144, 145) has already given nearly the same list. Vierkandt adds to Peschel’s list the Negritos, Kubus and African pigmy-tribes. The earliest enumeration of “lowest races” we know of is that given by Malthus (Population, pp. 15–20). He mentions as such the Fuegians, Tasmanians, Andamanese and Australians.↑

5Steinmetz, Classification, p. 133.↑

5Steinmetz, Classification, p. 133.↑

6Vierkandt, l.c., pp. 67, 69, 71, 72. His distinction of nomadic and settled semi-civilized peoples is entirely an economic one.↑

6Vierkandt, l.c., pp. 67, 69, 71, 72. His distinction of nomadic and settled semi-civilized peoples is entirely an economic one.↑

7We 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 nowhere is it stated that any of them have slaves.↑

7We 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 nowhere is it stated that any of them have slaves.↑

8On the different systems of classification, see Steinmetz’s “Classification”, from which it clearly appears that a good division of the peoples of the earth according to their general culture is still wanting.↑

8On the different systems of classification, see Steinmetz’s “Classification”, from which it clearly appears that a good division of the peoples of the earth according to their general culture is still wanting.↑

9Bagehot, p. 72.↑

9Bagehot, p. 72.↑

10Grünberg, Article “Unfreiheit”, inHandwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, 2nd edition.↑

10Grünberg, Article “Unfreiheit”, inHandwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, 2nd edition.↑

11Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 456.↑

11Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 456.↑

12Tourmagne, p. 3.↑

12Tourmagne, p. 3.↑

13Morgan, Anc. Soc., pp. 80, 10, 13, 11.↑

13Morgan, Anc. Soc., pp. 80, 10, 13, 11.↑

14Schmoller,Die Thatsachen der Arbeitsteilung, p. 1010.↑

14Schmoller,Die Thatsachen der Arbeitsteilung, p. 1010.↑

15Schmoller,Grundriss, I p. 339.↑

15Schmoller,Grundriss, I p. 339.↑

16Ingram, pp. 1, 2.↑

16Ingram, pp. 1, 2.↑

17Flügel, p. 95.↑

17Flügel, p. 95.↑

18Schurtz,Katechismus, p. 110.↑

18Schurtz,Katechismus, p. 110.↑

19Lippert, II pp. 522, 535.↑

19Lippert, II pp. 522, 535.↑

20Lamprecht, I p. 165.↑

20Lamprecht, I p. 165.↑

21Dimitroff, p. 88.↑

21Dimitroff, p. 88.↑

22Peschel, p. 253. “Koloshes” is the Russian name for Tlinkits.↑

22Peschel, p. 253. “Koloshes” is the Russian name for Tlinkits.↑

23Wagner, p. 375.↑

23Wagner, p. 375.↑

24Tylor, Anthropology, p. 434.↑

24Tylor, Anthropology, p. 434.↑

25Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 459.↑

25Spencer, Ind. Inst., p. 459.↑

26Bos, p. 191.↑

26Bos, p. 191.↑

27Felix, II pp. 250.↑

27Felix, II pp. 250.↑

28Mommsen, I p. 191.↑

28Mommsen, I p. 191.↑

29Letourneau, p. 491. See also Sutherland, I p. 379.↑

29Letourneau, p. 491. See also Sutherland, I p. 379.↑

30Dargun, pp. 59–61.↑

30Dargun, pp. 59–61.↑

31Grosse, p. 28.↑

31Grosse, p. 28.↑

32Hahn,Die Haustiere, pp. 388 sqq. In a recent little book (Die Entstehung der wirtschaftlichen Arbeit, 1908, p. 92), Dr. Hahn, speaking of the first edition of the present work, observes that the result of our investigations amounts to very little, the reason being that we have confined ourselves to the study of those peoples among which the cultivation of the soil is of no consequence. The mere fact, that our chapter on agricultural tribes occupies more spaces than the chapters on hunters and fishers and on pastoral tribes taken together, proves the incorrectness of Dr. Hahn’s remark.↑

32Hahn,Die Haustiere, pp. 388 sqq. In a recent little book (Die Entstehung der wirtschaftlichen Arbeit, 1908, p. 92), Dr. Hahn, speaking of the first edition of the present work, observes that the result of our investigations amounts to very little, the reason being that we have confined ourselves to the study of those peoples among which the cultivation of the soil is of no consequence. The mere fact, that our chapter on agricultural tribes occupies more spaces than the chapters on hunters and fishers and on pastoral tribes taken together, proves the incorrectness of Dr. Hahn’s remark.↑

33Whereas our 5 economic groups are not an ascending series, these 3 agricultural groupsare. Primitive agriculture must be anterior to a more developed state of agriculture.↑

33Whereas our 5 economic groups are not an ascending series, these 3 agricultural groupsare. Primitive agriculture must be anterior to a more developed state of agriculture.↑

34This group is nearly identical with Dargun’sJägerbauern; see Dargun, p. 60 note 1.↑

34This group is nearly identical with Dargun’sJägerbauern; see Dargun, p. 60 note 1.↑

35See Dargun, p. 110, and Hildebrand,Recht und Sitte, pp. 42, 43.↑

35See Dargun, p. 110, and Hildebrand,Recht und Sitte, pp. 42, 43.↑

36Under “trade” we shall for the sake of convenience also comprehend industry.↑

36Under “trade” we shall for the sake of convenience also comprehend industry.↑

37About the Malay Archipelago we have also consulted De Hollander, and about Africa, Ratzel,Völkerkunde.↑

37About the Malay Archipelago we have also consulted De Hollander, and about Africa, Ratzel,Völkerkunde.↑

38Roosevelt calls them hunters; but in the Jesuit Relations it is stated, that they were not entirely unacquainted with agriculture.↑

38Roosevelt calls them hunters; but in the Jesuit Relations it is stated, that they were not entirely unacquainted with agriculture.↑

39On Musters’ authority. According to Charlevoix, agriculture was not entirely unknown amongst them.↑

39On Musters’ authority. According to Charlevoix, agriculture was not entirely unknown amongst them.↑

40On Keane’s authority. According to Zu Wied and Martius, there are some slight traces of agriculture.↑

40On Keane’s authority. According to Zu Wied and Martius, there are some slight traces of agriculture.↑

Back to IndexNext