CHAPTER I.

METHOD AND DIVISIONS.

§ 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 civilization [792]. 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, Northern Asiatics, Caucasus tribes, hill-tribes of India, Negroes to the South of the Soudan, inhabitants of the Malay Archipelago and Oceanic Islands [793]. 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 impressions [794]. 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. His unstete Völker are simply those generally known as the “lowest type of man”, whether justly or unjustly we do not know [795]. And his eigentliche Naturvölker, as Professor Steinmetz rightly remarks [796], 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 view [797]; 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’s unstete Völker have 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 slavery [798]. This conclusion, however, is not of much use to us, as we do not know whether they have been justly or unjustly classified under one category.

As little can the other attempts, which have been made, to classify the savages according to their general culture, serve our purpose [799]. So the method of investigation that would seem the best is not applicable here. Therefore we are also unable 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” [800]. Grünberg expresses the same view: “No people has always and in all phases of its development been unacquainted with slavery” [801]. According to Spencer “observation of all societies in all times shows that slavery is the rule and freedom the exception” [802]. 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” [803]? 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 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” [804]. 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” [805]. In his handbook, however, he informs us, that some highly developed tribes of fishers also keep slaves [806]. 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” [807]. Flügel says: “Hunting tribes can neither feed nor employ the prisoners; generally they kill them” [808]. According to Schurtz “among tribes of migratory hunters there is no room for slavery” [809]. Whether he means here all hunters or only Vierkandt’s unstete Völker is 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” [810]. 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 cattle [811]. 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 labourers [812].

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 scale [813]. 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” [814]. 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 always to be found [815]. 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” [816]. 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 extent [817]. Felix remarks that slavery already exists at the beginning of the agricultural stage [818]. 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 labourers [819].

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 agriculture [820]. 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.

§ 2. Distinction of economic groups.

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

The following economic states will be distinguished:

1º. Hunting and fishing, 2º. Pastoral nomadism, 3º. First stage of agriculture, 4º. Second stage of agriculture, 5º. Third stage of agriculture.

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 that it does, for nomadic herdsmen are on the whole more civilized than the rudest agricultural tribes: cattle-breeding therefore is posterior to primitive agriculture” [821]. This 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.

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 us [822]. Hahn, in his book on the domestic animals, distinguishes hoe-culture (Hackbau), agriculture proper (Ackerbau) and horticulture (Gartenbau) [823]. 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 agriculture [824]. 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. The first agricultural 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 food [825]. The tribes of the second group carry on agriculture to a considerable extent, but not to the exclusion of hunting, etc. The third, or highest, agricultural stage is reached, when agriculture is by far the principal mode of subsistence, and hunting, etc. hold a very 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 some secondary 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 agriculture [826], 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 trade [827]. 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 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 former Jägerbauern who 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. II [828]. 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.

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

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

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

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

We shall make use of the following abbreviations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive cases. Negative cases.

North America.

Aleuts h The 9 tribes of Eskimos Athka Aleuts h proper, all of them h Koniagas h Kutchins h Tlinkits h Chepewyans h Haidas h Delawares a2 Tsimshian h Montagnais h Kwakiutl h Ojibways h Bilballas h Ottawas h Ahts h Shahnees h tribes about Puget Sound h Potawatomi a1 [829] Fish Indians h Crees h Tacullies h Cheyennes a1 Atnas h Blackfeet nation h Similkameem h Iroquois a2 Chinooks h Hurons a2 Katahbas a2 Cherokees a2

Katahbas a2 Muskoghe a2 Choctaws a2 Chickasaws a2 Creeks a2 Seminoles a2 Natchez a2 Sioux h Hidatsas a1 Omahas a1 Osages a1 Kansas Indians a1 Assiniboins h Hupas h Apaches h Zuñi a3 + c Lower Californians h

Central and South America.

Ancient nations of Honduras a1 Wild tribes of North inhabitants of Panama and Mexico h Costa Rica a1 natives of the Mosquito Mundrucus a1 Coast a1 Mauhés a1 Caribs of the Isthmus Mbayas a1 a1 Caduvei a2 Warraus a1 Suya a1 Macusi a1 Abipones h Roucouyennes a1 Tehuelches h [830] Apiacas a1 Botocudos h [831] Bakairi a1 Paressi a1 Bororo a1 Guanas a2 Charruas h Minuanes h Puelches h Araucanians a2 Fuegians h

Australia.

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

Melanesia.

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

Polynesia.

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

Micronesia.

Marshall Islanders a2 Caroline Islanders a2 Marianne Islanders a2 Pelau Islanders a2 Kingsmill Islanders a2

Malay Archipelago.

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

Indo-Chinese Peninsula.

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

India.

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

Central Asia.

Kazak Kirghiz c Altaians c Turkomans c

Siberia.

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

Caucasus.

Ossetes a3 + c Circassians c Kabards of Asia Minor c

Arabia.

Aeneze Bedouins c Larbas c Garos a2

Bantu tribes.

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

Soudan Negroes.

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

Pigmies etc.

Bushmen h Mucassequere h Akkas h

Hamitic peoples.

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