d. Another effect of intertribal trade, together with a settled life

and abundance of food, is probably this, that these tribes are not so warlike as most hunters. So they need not employ all available forces in warfare; they can afford to keep male slaves who do not fight. We have seen that the Koniagas are “adapted to labour and commerce rather than to war and hunting”, and that the Chinooks “were always a commercial rather than a warlike people”. Regarding the other tribes it is not clearly stated, whether war is very frequent [927]; but our impression, on perusing the ethnographical literature, is, that it is not nearly so frequent as among the Sioux, Ojibways, and similar tribes.

5º. Property and wealth are also highly developed. Schmoller remarks: “We know now, that there are some instances of settled hunting and fishing tribes with villages, with some development of the means of conveyance, with dog-sledges, reindeer, etc., with a certain social organization of the chase and fishery, with ornaments and slaves, with rich and poor people; such is the case in Northern California, in Northern Asia, in Kamchatka” [928]. Among the Koniagas “when an individual becomes ambitious of popularity, a feast is given”. A man’s wealth, among them, formerly depended on the number of sea-otter skins he owned [929]. Among the Tlinkits private property comprises clothes, weapons, implements, hunting territories and roads of commerce. Nobility depends on wealth rather than on birth [930]. Of the Haidas Bancroft says: “Rank and power depend greatly upon wealth, which consists of implements, wives and slaves. Admission to alliance with medicine-men, whose influence is greatest in the tribe, can only be gained by sacrifice of private property”. Swan speaks of wooden pillars, placed before the houses of the rich. They are elaborately carved at a cost of hundreds of blankets, and fetch up to 1000 dollars. Only the very rich are able to purchase them [931]. Kane speaks of a Cowitchin chief who “possessed much of what is considered wealth amongst the Indians, and it gradually accumulated from tributes which he exacted from his people. On his possessions reaching a certain amount, it is customary to make a great feast, to which all contribute. The neighbouring chiefs with whom he is in amity are invited, and at the conclusion of the entertainment, he distributes all he has collected since the last feast, perhaps three or four years preceding, among his guests as presents. The amount of property thus collected and given away by a chief is sometimes very considerable. I have heard of one possessing as many as twelve bales of blankets, from twenty to thirty guns, with numberless pots, kettles, and pans, knives, and other articles of cutlery, and great quantities of beads, and other trinkets, as well as numerous beautiful Chinese boxes, which find their way here from the Sandwich Islands. The object in thus giving his treasures away is to add to his own importance in the eyes of others, his own people often boasting of how much their chief had given away, and exhibiting with pride such things as they had received themselves from him” [932]. Among the Nootkas “private wealth consists of boats and implements for obtaining food, domestic utensils, slaves, and blankets”. “The accumulation of property beyond the necessities of life is only considered desirable for the purpose of distributing it in presents on great feast-days, and thereby acquiring a reputation for wealth and liberality” [933]. In Jewitt’s narrative it is stated, that among the Ahts the king is obliged to support his dignity by making frequent entertainments, otherwise he would not be considered as conducting himself like a king, and would be no more thought of than a common man [934]. A wealthy Fish Indian may also win renown by giving away or destroying property [935]. Boas, describing the Kwakiutl Indians, speaks of “the method of acquiring rank. This is done by means of the potlatch, or the distribution of property. The underlying principle is that of the interest-bearing investment of property”. He gives an elaborate account of this institution [936]. Among the Makah “the larger class of canoes generally belong to a single individual and he receives a proportionate share of the booty from the crew” [937]. Among the Tacullies “any person may become a miuty or chief who will occasionally provide a village feast” [938]. Of the tribes of W. Washington and N. W. Oregon Gibbs says: “Wealth gives a certain power among them, and influence is purchased by its lavish distribution.” They have pretty clear ideas about the right of property in houses and goods. The men own property distinct from their wives. The husband has his own blankets, the wife her mats and baskets [939]. Bancroft tells us of the Puget Sound Indians: “I find no evidence of hereditary rank or caste except as wealth is sometimes inherited” [940]. Among the Chinooks “individuals were protected in their right to personal property, such as slaves, canoes, and implements”. Each village was ruled by a chief “either hereditary or selected for his wealth and popularity” [941].

The effects of this development of property and wealth are:

a. Social status depending mainly upon wealth, a slave may be a good hunter or fisher and valued as such, and yet be despised as a penniless fellow.

b. The accumulation of property beyond the necessities of life requires more labour than would otherwise be wanted. Moreover, slaves are the more desired, as the keeping of many slaves is indicative of wealth and therefore honourable. We may quote here Kane’s account of a chief of the Pacific Coast, “who having erected a colossal idol of wood, sacrificed five slaves to it, barbarously murdering them at its base, and asking in a boasting manner who amongst them could afford to kill so many slaves”. And Holmberg remarks that among the Tlinkits the consideration which the nobles enjoy depends only on their wealth, i.e. on the number of the slaves they own [942].

The five causes we have enumerated here are not at work independently of each other. Abundance of food enables a tribe to have fixed habitations, to live in larger groups, to preserve food. Any greater development of trade and industry would be impossible if food were not abundant; for else all time and energy would be occupied by the seeking of food; and a settled life tends greatly to further the growth of industry. Wealth would scarcely exist if there were no trade and industry. The industrial development again facilitates the procuring of food. What is the primary cause of this relatively high state of economic life is not easy to say, and an investigation into this matter falls beyond the scope of the present volume.

It must also be remembered, that this economic state is not only the cause, but also to some extent the effect of slavery.

The development of trade and industry, of property and wealth, is undoubtedly much furthered by slavery. By imposing the ruder work upon slaves, the slave-owner can give more of his time and mind to trade and industry. “Leisure” as Bagehot remarks “is the great need of early societies, and slaves only can give men leisure” [943]. And that the keeping of slaves furthers the accumulation of wealth need hardly be said. The slave-trade, which enriches the traders, is even quite impossible where slavery does not exist. Hence we may infer that slavery must already have existed here at a somewhat lower stage of economic life.

On the other hand, there is a circumstance tending to accelerate the growth of slavery on the Pacific Coast. These tribes form a somewhat homogeneous group, and have much intercourse with each other. So we may suppose that some of them, that were not yet in such an economic state as spontaneously to invent slavery, have begun to keep slaves, imitating what they saw among their neighbours; the more so, as the slave-trade made this very easy. For our group is not quite homogeneous. The picture we gave of their highly developed economic life does not equally apply to all these tribes. The summer and winter dwellings of the Similkameem are rather primitive. They depend on hunting for a large portion of their food. Trade and industry, property and wealth are not mentioned; it is only stated that at a later period they had horses and cattle [944]. Niblack tells us that the Tsimshian sold slaves to the Tlinkits and interior Tinneh; but “the last-named had no hereditary slaves, getting their supply from the coast” [945]. No more particulars are given; but we may suppose that among these interior Tinneh slavery existed in a rather embryonic state, and would not have existed at all but for the slave-trade. The early ethnologists overrated the influence of imitation and derivation of social institutions; but we must not fall into the other extreme and underrate it. An institution may be derived and thereby its growth accelerated, of course within restricted limits.

If the information we have got on the work imposed on slaves were more complete, it would perhaps have been better first to survey this information, and thence to infer what place slavery occupies among the tribes of the Pacific Coast. But the statements of our ethnographers regarding slave labour are rather incomplete. A survey of them may, however, be of some use. In the first place it will be seen, whether they can be brought to agree with the exposition given above of the causes of slavery; and, secondly, our survey will perhaps provide us with new valuable data, which may give us a clearer understanding of the significance of slavery on the Pacific Coast of North America.

The occupations of slaves mentioned by our ethnographers are the following:

1º. In a few cases the slaves strengthen their master’s force in warfare. Aleut slaves always accompany their masters, and have to protect them [946]. “Kotzebue says that a rich man [among the Tlinkits] purchases male and female slaves, who must labour and fish for him, and strengthen his force when he is engaged in warfare” [947]. We may suppose that the last part of this sentence applies to male slaves only. Tsimshian slaves guard the house, when the master is absent [948]. Among the Ahts, the slaves were obliged to attend their masters in war and to fight for them [949].

This military function of slavery, as we shall see, also exists among several pastoral and agricultural peoples. The industrial part of society, in such cases, is not quite differentiated from the military part. As for the Tlinkits, Tsimshian and Ahts, the employing of slaves for protecting the master or his property is facilitated by the slave-trade: a purchased slave, brought from a great distance, may be made to fight, where it would not be safe to employ in warfare a slave captured from a neighbouring tribe; for the latter will probably be much inclined to go over to the enemies, who often are his own kindred. But the example of the Aleuts, whose slaves are prisoners of war and their descendants [950], shows that even captive slaves may be employed in warfare. We shall not very much wonder at this, if we take into consideration, that prisoners of war are sometimes soon forgotten, and even repelled, by their former countrymen. So “if a Mojave is taken prisoner he is forever discarded in his own nation, and should he return his mother even will not own him” [951]. The expectation of such treatment may induce captive slaves to fight on their masters’ side against their own tribesmen rather than join the latter.

2º. Slaves are sometimes employed in hunting, fishing and work connected with fishing, such as rowing, etc. From a statement of Dunn’s, quoted by Niblack, we learn that at Fort Simpson, British Columbia (in the country of the Tsimshian), “a full-grown athletic slave, who is a good hunter, will fetch nine blankets, a gun, a quantity of powder and ball, a couple of dressed elk skins, tobacco, vermilion paint, a flat file, and other little articles” [952]. And Boas tells us, that Tsimshian slaves row the boats, bring the killed seals to land, and cook them [953]. Tlinkit slaves, as it appears from Kotzebue’s above-quoted statement, must fish for their masters. Among the Nootkas “the common business of fishing for ordinary sustenance is carried on by slaves, or the lower class of people; while the more noble occupation of killing the whale and hunting the sea-otter is followed by none but the chiefs and warriors” [954]. According to Jewitt’s narrative, Aht slaves had to supply their masters with fish. The author, on his wedding an Aht girl, got two young male slaves presented to him to assist him in fishing [955].

Dunn’s statement about hunting slaves is very valuable. It proves that hunting is here no longer the chief and noble occupation of freemen. Among such people as for instance the Ojibways a good hunter is held in high esteem, not bought at a high price as a valuable slave [956]. What we have said in the last paragraph about hunting not being fit to be performed by slaves, is not impaired by this statement; for hunting among these traders is not the most honoured occupation; moreover, the abundance of game along the Pacific Coast makes it very easy; it does not require nearly so much skill and application as among the Ojibways and similar tribes. This statement also contains a most striking refutation of Bos’ assertion, that slavery here exists only as a reminiscence of a hypothetical former agricultural state [957]. If this were true, there might be traces of an ancient slave system; slaves might even still be kept by rich men as a luxury; but the slave’s ability in hunting would not enter as a determining factor into his price. Slavery exists here in full vigour, and is not in any way, as Bos will have it, foreign to the economic state in which these tribes live [958].

What Meares tells us of the Nootkas is also instructive. The drudgery for daily sustenance, fishing, is left to the slaves; whereas the chiefs and warriors reserve to themselves the less productive and (partly therefore) more noble occupation of killing whales and sea-otters. It is remarkable that fishing is carried on by “the slaves or the lower class of people”. Those who cannot afford to buy slaves must themselves perform the drudgery that others leave to slaves. The formation of social classes among freemen is furthered by slavery.

3º. The slaves of the Ahts, in Jewitt’s time, were obliged to make the canoes and to assist in building and repairing the houses [959]. This proves, that slavery among them discharged an important economic function.

4º. We are often informed, that slaves do domestic work. Tsimshian slaves cook the killed seals and cut wood [960]. Among the Nootkas “women prepare the fish and game for winter use, cook, manufacture cloth and clothing, and increase the stock of food by gathering berries and shell-fish; and most of this work among the richer class is done by slaves”. Our informant speaks also of “the hard labour required” from the slaves [961]. Among the Ahts, slaves, as Sproat tells us, serve the family. When a man of rank is going to remove, the new house is prepared in advance by his slaves. According to Jewitt’s narrative, “all the menial offices are performed by them, such as bringing water, cutting wood, and a variety of others”. “The females are employed principally in manufacturing cloth, in cooking, collecting berries, etc.” [962]. Among the Fish Indians old women and slaves prepare the food [963]. Chinook slaves “are obliged to perform all the drudgery for their masters.... But the amount of the work connected with the Chinook household is never great” [964]. The last sentence here proves that “drudgery” means household work.

Some general expressions we find on record with our ethnographers seem to bear the same meaning. For instance, Tlinkit slaves, according to Kotzebue (quoted above), must “labour” for their masters; and Niblack, evidently referring to the same statement, says that “slaves did all the drudgery” [965]. The Tacullies use their slaves “as beasts of burden”, which perhaps also means imposing household labour upon them [966]. Holmberg states that the Koniagas employed their slaves as labourers or servants [967]. And Niblack remarks about the Coast Indians of Southern Alaska and Northern British Columbia in general: “When slavery was in vogue, this class performed all the menial drudgery” [968].

It is remarkable, that slaves in so many cases are stated to perform household, i.e. female, labour. These statements are even more numerous than those about fishing and similar work; so it would seem (we may not speak more positively, as our information is rather incomplete), that household work is the chief occupation of slaves along the Pacific Coast. Now it is easy to understand, that fixed habitations and the preserving of food for winter use require a large amount of domestic labour. But this does not solve the question, why slaves are employed for this work; why the men purchase or capture slaves not for their own private use, but in order to relieve their wives of a part of their task. In Australia women are overworked, and beaten into the bargain; why are the men of the Pacific Coast so anxious to give the women assistance in their work?

It might be, that female labour is valued by the men, because articles of trade are prepared by the women. Unfortunately the ethnographers most often content themselves with remarking that a brisk trade is carried on, or that some tribe is commercial rather than warlike, without specifying the articles of commerce. Yet a few statements tend to verify our hypothesis. The articles of trade of the Chinooks before the arrival of the Europeans were: fish, oil, shells, and Wapato. “The Wapato, a bulbous root, compared by some to the potato and turnip, was the aboriginal staple, and was gathered by women” [969]. Lewis and Clark also state that this bulb, which “is the great article of food, and almost the staple article of commerce on the Columbia”, is collected chiefly by the women [970]. The Tlinkits export to the interior basket-work, dancing clothes, train-oil prepared from the ssag (a kind of fish), a sort of cakes made of Alaria Esculenta (a sea-weed). The women manufacture basket-work, dancing clothes, mocassins and other clothes. In the fishing season they are from morning to night engaged in preparing the fish. In the autumn they gather berries, bark, leaves and other vegetable by-meat; in other seasons they gather shells and sea-urchins on the beach [971]. Here all articles of trade are products of female labour. Among the Ahts baskets and mats, manufactured by the women, are sold; the women may keep the proceeds, and also get a little portion of their husbands’ earnings. Our informant, speaking of the several divisions of the Ahts mutually exchanging the fish that each of them catches, probably also means fish prepared by the women [972]. In W. Washington and N. W. Oregon the kamas, a root which was “formerly a great article of trade with the interior”, is dug by the women [973]. What articles are exported by the other tribes we do not know.

There is another fact strengthening our hypothesis: women are often consulted in matters of trade. Among the Tlinkits “the men rarely conclude a bargain without consulting their wives” [974]. Nootka wives too “are consulted in matters of trade” [975]. About Puget Sound the females “are always consulted in matters of trade before a bargain is closed” [976]. Chinook women “are consulted on all important matters” [977], which matters, among these commercial people, necessarily include the trade. Among the Haidas, the trade, in Jewitt’s time, was even principally managed by the women, who were expert in making a bargain [978].

This need not, however, be the only cause; for women here enjoy a rather high position; so it might be that the men wish to alleviate the task of their wives, quite apart from the occupation of the latter in preparing the articles of commerce. Aleuts, if not addicted to drinking, are good husbands, and help their wives in everything [979]. Among the Tlinkits, according to Krause, “woman’s position is not a bad one. She is not the slave of her husband; she has determinate rights, and her influence is considerable”; and Bancroft remarks that “there are few savage nations, in which the sex have greater influence or command greater respect” [980]. Nootka wives “seem to be nearly on terms of equality with their husbands, except that they are excluded from some public feasts and ceremonies” [981]; and Sproat tells us that among the Ahts slaves only are prostituted; women are not badly treated; a wife may leave her husband with the consent of her relatives [982]. Among the Koniagas, according to Holmberg, the women did not hold a subordinate place as among other savage tribes of North America, but enjoyed high consideration [983]. In W. Washington and N. W. Oregon, according to Gibbs, “the condition of the woman is that of slavery under any circumstances.” But the particulars he gives prove that the women here are not so very badly off. In their councils “the women are present at, and join in the deliberations, speaking in a low tone, their words being repeated aloud by a reporter. On occasions of less ceremony, they sometimes address the audience without any such intervention, and give their admonitions with a freedom of tongue highly edifying. In a few instances, matrons of superior character, “strong minded women”, have obtained an influence similar to that of chiefs.” The men own property distinct from their wives. “He has his own blankets, she her mats and baskets, and generally speaking her earnings belong to her, except those arising from prostitution, which are her husband’s.” Sometimes “the courtship commences in this way—the girl wishing a husband, and taking a straightforward mode of attracting one.” “The accession of a new wife in the lodge very naturally produces jealousy and discord, and the first often returns for a time in dudgeon to her friends, to be reclaimed by her husband when he chooses, perhaps after propitiating her by some present” [984]. Yet the condition of women seems not to be quite as good as among the other tribes. “A man sends his wife away, or sells her at his will.” “An Indian, perhaps, will not let his favourite wife, but he looks upon his others, his sisters, daughters, female relatives, and slaves, as a legitimate source of profit” [985]. But we must take into consideration, that Gibbs gives a general description of inland tribes and coast tribes together. That among the latter the condition of women is not so very bad, is proved by Bancroft’s statements about the tribes on Puget Sound and Chinooks. About Puget Sound “women have all the work to do except hunting and fishing, while their lords spend their time in idleness and gambling. Still the females are not ill-treated; they acquire great influence in the tribe” [986]. And among the Chinooks “work is equally divided between the sexes.... Their [women’s] condition is by no means a hard one. It is among tribes that live by the chase or by other means in which women can be of little service, that we find the sex most oppressed and cruelly treated” [987]. This statement is strengthened by Swan writing that “with these Indians the position of the women is not so degraded as with the tribes of the Plains” [988]. The Tacullies “are fond of their wives, performing the most of the household drudgery in order to relieve them” [989]. Mackenzie, speaking of an Indian tribe, probably related to the Atnahs on Fraser River, amongst whom strangers are kept “in a state of awe and subjection,” states that they live upon the products of the sea and rivers and are to be considered as a “stationary people.” “Hence it is that the men engage in those toilsome employments, which the tribes who support themselves by the chase leave entirely to the women” [990].

Our information, here again, is not very complete; but as far as it goes it tends to prove that the condition of women on the Pacific Coast is not a bad one.

This good condition of women here, as compared with for instance that of Australian women, may for a great part be due to the settled life of these tribes. While the men are on fishing, hunting, or trading expeditions, the women enjoy much liberty; whereas Australian women are continually marching along with their husbands [991]. The men must also be aware that domestic comfort, worth much in these cold regions, depends on the women. As militarism does not prevail here to any great extent, women are not so much in need of male protection. And village life makes conspiracy of women possible. So among the Aleuts “a religious festival used to be held in December, at which all the women of the village assembled by moonlight, and danced naked with masked faces, the men being excluded under penalty of death” [992]. Last but not least, subsistence here is largely dependent on female labour. Lewis and Clark remark: “Where the women can aid in procuring subsistence for the tribe, they are treated with more equality, and their importance is proportioned to the share which they take in that labour; while in countries where subsistence is chiefly procured by the exertions of the men, the women are considered and treated as burdens. Thus, among the Clatsops and Chinnooks, who live upon fish and roots, which the women are equally expert with the men in procuring, the former have a rank and influence very rarely found among Indians. The females are permitted to speak freely before the men, to whom indeed they sometimes address themselves in a tone of authority. On many subjects their judgments and opinions are respected, and in matters of trade, their advice is generally asked and pursued. The labours of the family too, are shared almost equally” [993].

We have only enumerated some causes tending to bring about a good condition of women. It is not the place here to expatiate upon this point any further. But it is worth while to emphasize the fact itself, that women are on the whole well treated among these tribes. A German writer, Dr. Grosse, has tried to prove, that among the “higher hunters” (höhere Jäger) as well as among the “lower hunters” (niedere Jäger) woman’s state is a bad one. As all our tribes belong to Grosse’s “higher hunters” [994], we shall attempt to find out, why his conclusion is so different from ours. He quotes several ethnographical statements, which are to afford a basis for his inference [995]. We shall examine whether this is a sound basis. Grosse does not always exactly specify which tribe each quotation applies to; but as he most frequently quotes Bancroft, we can easily find it out. He first quotes this statement of Bancroft’s about the Shoshones: “The weaker sex of course do the hardest labour, and receive more blows than kind words for their pains” [996]. But the very next sentence: “These people, in common with most nomadic nations, have the barbarous custom of abandoning the old and infirm the moment they find them an incumbrance,” shows that these Shoshones are not at all to be compared to the Tlinkits and similar tribes; their mode of life is decidedly rude and little comfortable. Then he refers to some passages of Bancroft’s, proving that unfaithfulness of the wife is punished with death, whereas the husband has the right to prostitute his wife to strangers. These passages apply to the Southern and Northern Californians as well as to the Shoshones. But about the former it is also stated: “If a man ill-treated his wife, her relations took her away, after paying back the value of her wedding presents, and then married her to another” [997]. And of the Northern Californians we are told: “Among the Modocs polygamy prevails, and the women have considerable privilege. The Hoopa adulterer loses one eye, the adulteress is exempt from punishment” [998]. Moreover, “although the principal labour falls to the lot of the women, the men sometimes assist in building the wigwam, or even in gathering acorns and roots” [999]. Another statement of Bancroft’s, quoted by Grosse, applies to the Chepewyans: “The Northern Indian is master of his household. He marries without ceremony, and divorces his wife at his pleasure. A man of forty buys or fights for a spouse of twelve, and when tired of her whips her and sends her away” [1000]. This statement is corroborated by a report of Hearne’s. But why Grosse calls the Chepewyans “higher hunters” we do not understand. “Altogether they are pronounced an inferior race”. “The Chepewyans inhabit huts of brush and portable skin tents”. “Their weapons and their utensils are of the most primitive kind” [1001]. The next quotation applies to the Kutchins, whose wives “are treated more like dogs than human beings”. But this is only stated of the Tenan Kutchin, “people of the mountains,” “a wild, ungovernable horde, their territory never yet having been invaded by white people”. “The Kutcha Kutchin, “people of the lowland,” are cleaner and better mannered”. And of these “better mannered” Kutchins Bancroft says: “The women perform all domestic duties, and eat after the husband is satisfied; but the men paddle the boats, and have even been known to carry their wives ashore, so that they might not wet their feet” [1002]. As for the Nootkas, women being “somewhat overworked” (Grosse does not mention that among the richer class most female work is done by slaves), and excluded from some public feasts, Grosse concludes that their state is a bad one. We have quoted above some facts tending to prove the contrary. Then Grosse asserts that, according to Bancroft, Haida husbands prostitute their wives for money. Bancroft, however, says literally: “While jealousy is not entirely unknown, chastity appears to be so, as women who can earn the greatest number of blankets win great admiration for themselves and high position for their husbands” [1003]; which is not exactly the same. The Tlinkits, according to Grosse, are the only unaccountable exception to his general rule. Finally he attempts to prove, that the alleged supremacy of women in Kamchatka does not signify so very much; but that Kamchadale women are badly treated, even he does not assert.

What remains now of Grosse’s evidence? Tlinkit and Kamchadale women he himself admits not to be badly off. What he says of Nootkas and Haidas proves very little. About the Northern and Southern Californians we have got statements that impair Grosse’s argument very much. Only among the Shoshones, Chepewyans, and Tenan Kutchin is the state of women decidedly bad; but these are not on a level with the other tribes; they are migratory and little advanced in the arts of life. And of the Tenan Kutchin we know very little, “their territory never yet having been invaded by white people” [1004].

Grosse derives most of his evidence from Bancroft’s book; but he evidently has not paid attention to all the data given by Bancroft, which relate to the condition of women. Sometimes he quotes one sentence, where two successive sentences taken together would give quite another view of the matter. Several statements of Bancroft’s (such as about the tribes on Puget Sound, Chinooks, Tacullies) he omits altogether; whereas just the tribes of the N. W. Coast of North America are, according to him, among the most typical “higher hunters” [1005]. And he can only give a semblance of truth to his inference by classifying under “higher hunters” Shoshones and similar tribes, which are not more advanced in the arts of life than some Australians, and decidedly much less than the Eskimos and Aleuts whom he calls “lower hunters”.

Returning to our chief subject, we may remark, that our survey of slave labour leads to the same conclusion we arrived at before, viz. that the preserving of food, a settled life, and the high development of trade, industry and wealth, are the main causes which have made slavery so largely prevalent here. As additional causes we may now name the high position of women, which induces the men to relieve them of a part of their work by giving them the help of slaves; and, in a few cases, the want of fighting men, who are to strengthen their masters’ force in warfare.

We shall now briefly examine, which are the causes of slavery among the slave-keeping hunters and fishers outside the Pacific Coast.

Among the Abipones the function of slavery was beyond any doubt reinforcement of the tribe. The slaves were very leniently treated. “I know of many people” says Dobrizhoffer, “who, being released by their friends and brought back to their native country, voluntarily returned to their masters, the Abipones, whom they follow in their hunting and fighting expeditions; though Spaniards themselves, they do not hesitate to stain their hands with Spanish blood.” “The liberty to go where they like, the abundance of food and clothing procured without any labour, the possession of many horses, the freedom to idle and run into debauchery, the lawless impunity they enjoy, bind the Spanish captives so much to the Abipones, that they prefer their captivity to liberty”. “The Abipones, though considering polygamy allowed, very seldom take several wives at a time; the captives do not often content themselves with one wife, but marry as many female prisoners, Spanish or Indian, as they can” [1006].

The reason for taking prisoners here was the same as among the Iroquois and similar tribes, where they were adopted; with this sole difference, that the Abipones seem to have had a sexual aversion (that cannot be accounted for here) to all men and women outside their own nation; therefore they did not adopt their prisoners, nor had they any sexual intercourse with them. Slavery as a system of labour did not exist here.

As for their economic life, this was much inferior to that on the Pacific Coast of North America. They subsisted on the spontaneous products of nature and on game. Food was abundant; yet their mode of life required frequent migrations. All their journeys were performed on horseback [1007].

The information we get about the Tehuelches is very incomplete. Falkner states, that the female relatives of the cacique have slaves, who perform most of their work [1008].

In Kamchatka slaves were employed for various domestic labours, such as fetching wood, feeding the dogs, making axes and knives from stone and bone [1009]. The Kamchadales were not so far advanced in the arts of life as the tribes of the Pacific Coast of North America. They think only of the present, says Steller; they are not ambitious to become rich. They do not like to work more than is needed for their own and their families’ subsistence. “When they have got as much as they think to be sufficient, they do not collect any more food; they would not even do so, if the fish came on land and the animals into their dwellings”. A rather brisk trade was, however, carried on by them and was largely dependent on female labour [1010]. They also had fixed habitations [1011].

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

§ 3. Experimentum crucis: Australia.

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

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

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

In the first place we shall regard Australia.

1º. Abundance of food. Food in Australia is by no means abundant and often very scarce. The Australians are omnivorous in the widest sense of the word; they eat even mice, rats, lizards, beetles, etc. In some parts of Australia, especially on the West Coast and in the interior, the natives are continually suffering from hunger [1012]. Thomas remarks: “In few parts of Australia can the native count on anything like regular supplies of food. He is dependent on the course of the seasons for his seeds and fruits; the time of year also affects the supply of fish in many parts; and in Central Australia, perhaps owing to the barrenness of the land, much time is given up, if our accounts are accurate, to magical ceremonies, whose object is to promote the increase of game and plant life, so difficult does the native find it to obtain sustenance” [1013]. We shall soon see that scarcity of food compels them to live in very small groups.

2º. Variety of food. There is a great variety. Concerning S. W. Australia Gerland enumerates 6 kinds of kangaroos, 29 of fish, two of seals; and further wild dogs, emus and other birds, tortoises, opossums, frogs, shell-fish, grubs of beetles, bird’s eggs, mice, rats, snakes and lizards; roots, mushrooms, resins and various fruits [1014]. But this list, including (as Gerland remarks) everything eatable, proves only that they live very poorly. The natives of South Australia also, according to Eylmann, though they have a great many kinds of food, seldom live in abundance. During the frequent times of drought they suffer severely from want of food [1015]. In Central Australia “with certain restrictions ... everything which is edible is used for food” [1016]. And as for fishing, though fish enters for a large part into the subsistence of the coast tribes, there are no fishing tribes in the higher sense in Australia, like those of the Pacific Coast. Their canoes, where they have any, are very primitive; and the principal means of catching fish are by spearing and setting traps [1017].

3º. Fixed habitations, large groups, preserving of food. Gerland states that to find sufficient food, the Australians must continually roam over the country. These wandering tribes cannot be large, else food would fail them; so the division of the Australians into numerous small tribes is a consequence of the nature of their country [1018]. Spencer and Gillen speak of the natives of Central Australia as living in small local groups [1019]. Brough Smyth remarks: “It is necessary for a tribe to move very frequently from place to place, always keeping within the boundaries of the country which it calls its own—, now to the spot where eels can be taken in the creeks; often to the feeding-grounds of the kangaroo; sometimes to the thicker forests to get wood suitable for making weapons; to the sea-coast continually for fish of various kinds; and, at the right season, to the lands where are found the native bread, the yam, and the acacia gum” [1020]. According to Eylmann, the natives of South Australia, in their barren country, are forced not only to continually move on, but to live in small hordes [1021]. And Thomas states that “the tribal areas are almost invariably small” [1022]. The writers who describe separate tribes also often state that these tribes are nomadic and live in small groups. We shall quote here only the statements of our ethnographers concerning one significant fact, that presents a striking contrast to the state of things on the Pacific Coast, viz. the improvidence of the Australians. In the Moore River District of W. Australia food is abundant in the summer; but the natives are reckless of the future; they consume whatever they have got. The natives of S. W. Australia preserve no food; if the game killed is too much for a family to eat in one day, neighbouring families are invited and a feast is given, till nothing is left. They do, however, store up acacia gum, and carry roots with them. The Queenslanders on Herbert River think only of the present moment. The Cammarray of N. S. Wales eat as long as they have anything; they never lay up provisions, except when a dead whale has been cast on shore. Of the aborigines of N. S. Wales in general Fraser tells us: “When the fish are abundant, the fishers cannot use a tithe of the fish they catch, and so sell them to all comers at a few pence for a backful. As for themselves, they have a noble feast, they and all their tribe; and, as is their habit whenever they have abundance, they gorge themselves so that their bodies are swollen to unnatural dimensions and seem ready to burst. When they can hold no more, they go to sleep like snakes, and sleep for twenty-four hours or more.” Similar particulars are gives by Angas. Spencer and Gillen, in their description of the natives of Central Australia, remark that “when times are favourable the black fellow is as lighthearted as possible. He has not the slightest thought of, or care for, what the morrow may bring forth, and lives entirely in the present” [1023]. As for the Tasmanians: “They lay up no store of provisions, and have been known in winter time to eat kangaroo skins” [1024]. Matthews, speaking of several tribes of Queensland and South Australia, states that they “are very improvident, and accumulate no property beyond their weapons and rugs” [1025]. And Forrest tells us that the natives of Central and Western Australia “live from hand to mouth, never collect more than enough for the day, and each morning have to look out for their day’s food” [1026]. Thomas remarks, that it is not true that the Australian does not store food. “Much of his food he must perforce eat quickly, or natural processes would make his labour in vain. But the bunya-bunya nut, grass and other seed cakes, and possibly other kinds of food, were certainly put aside for future use” [1027]. He evidently means to say, that their preserving relatively little food is not due to improvidence, but to necessity. But however this may be, the fact that most of the collected food is consumed quickly remains, and this fact, not the underlying motives, has important consequences with regard to the economic structure of their society.

4º. Trade and industry. Bartering is not at all unknown among the Australians. Fraser, speaking of N. S. Wales, remarks: “I have already spoken of pipe-clay and ruddle as articles of trade; the Mindi-mindi gatherings are the markets at which this trade is carried on. The necessity for these fairs is not far to seek. A black man’s own “taurai” does not furnish everything he requires for his daily life. In it there may be food enough, but he wants suitable stone for an axe, wood for his spears, and “bumerangs” and shields and clubs, flint for cutting and skinning, gum to be used as cement, and lumps of gritty sandstone, on which to sharpen his stone-axe; for adornment, the pipe-clay and the red-ochre are much valued, and so are swan-down feathers and the rose-coloured crests of a certain kind of cockatoo; some of these he can supply, and for them he gets in barter others that he wants. Then also there are manufactured articles which he can give in exchange,—cloaks, rugs, baskets, knitted bags, nets, weapons, and tools; most of these articles bear the “brand” of the maker. In this way the black man’s wants are supplied by the mutual interchange of commodities. I suppose that, at these fairs, the usual amount of haggling goes on in the making of bargains, but there is no quarreling; for, during the time, universal brotherhood prevails. The fairs are held whenever there is a need for them” [1028]. Intertribal commerce is also carried on by the Narrinyeri and Dieri [1029]. It seems, indeed, that there is hardly any savage tribe, among which the interchange of commodities is quite unknown. [1030] And in N. S. Wales it is not only the spontaneous products of nature that are exchanged, but manufactured articles, so the trade requires industry. Yet trade and industry are not nearly so fully developed here as on the Pacific Coast. Nowhere are there particulars given, showing that any Australian tribe is, like the Koniagas of the Pacific Coast, “adapted to labour and commerce rather than to war and hunting.” On the Pacific Coast the coast tribes exchange their manufactured goods for the raw products of the hinterland; but in Australia there is nothing but hinterland.

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

5º. Property and wealth. Professor Steinmetz, in his Entwicklung der Strafe, has closely studied the forms of government existing among the Australian natives. From the details he gives it appears, that a man’s influence depends on his age, his bravery, eloquence, etc., and his having numerous relatives, but not on his wealth. Among the Queenslanders described by Lumholtz the old men have most influence. Among the Kurnai age, rather than bravery, gives influence. In Central Australia a man’s power depends chiefly on his age, but also on force, courage, prudence, dexterity, perseverance, and the number of his relatives. On the Bourke and Darling rivers the council of old men is the only form of government. In Tasmania a man’s influence depended on his strength, courage, perseverance, prudence, and dexterity. The old men were highly honoured and had many wives. In the Wellington tribe there is no government whatever; all are equal. Among the Cammarray the old men are chiefs. Among the Narrinyeri chieftainship is elective; wisdom, moderation, and good humour are the qualities most required in a chief. Among the Dieri the oldest man of the clan is chief, but has not always most power. A chief has real power only when, besides his age, he has other valued qualities, such as bravery, eloquence, or a large family. Great warriors, orators and sorcerers have most influence. In the Moore River District there is no government, a perfect equality prevails. The natives of Port Lincoln have no government; old people are held in high esteem. In the Western District of Victoria “the succession to the chiefdom is by inheritance”. “The eldest son is appointed, unless there is some good reason for setting him aside.” If the heir is weakly in body or mentally unfitted to maintain the position of chief,— which requires to be filled by a man of ability and bravery,— and has a better-qualified brother, he must give way to the latter or fight him in single combat. Among the tribes of Victoria described by Le Souëf government in the true sense does not exist, but the bravest and strongest, and often the most dangerous men, have most influence [1031]. Some other statements lead to the same conclusion. In N. W. Central Queensland “a ripe old age constitutes the highest social status in the camp, and the one calling for the greatest respect. There is no single individual chief to direct affairs” [1032]. In N. S. Wales, according to Fraser, “there is nothing of the nature of kingly rule in any one of the tribes, nor is there an over-chief for the whole of a tribe; but the affairs of each section of a tribe are administered by a number of elders, among whom one man is considered the leader or chief, because of his superior wisdom and influence”. “If there are two rivals competing for the chiefship, they settle the matter by single combat”. And Wilkes says: “As no system of government exists, or any acknowledgment of power to enact laws, they are solely guided by old usage” [1033]. Among the Dieri chieftainship is elective according to the influence of the candidate’s clan and his oratorical power [1034]. About Powell’s Creek there is no government whatever; “the oldest man in the tribe would usually carry most sway in tribal matters” [1035]. Matthews, speaking of several tribes of Queensland and South Australia, remarks: “They have elders or chiefs corresponding with the Indian Medicine men, who I believe are principally self-constituted, or admitted as such on the score of age or personal prowess. Great respect is attached to age as a rule, especially in visiting another tribe” [1036]. Among the native tribes of Central Australia, described by Spencer and Gillen, the chief has “a position which, if he be a man of personal ability, but only in that case, enables him to wield considerable power” [1037]. In South Australia the chiefs are either hereditary or elected for their personal qualities [1038]. A describer of the natives of North Australia tells us: “There are no recognized chiefs in a tribe in the true sense of the word, as far as I have come in contact with them; the old men of each tribe form themselves into a sort of council when anything of importance is to be discussed, and what they decide upon is generally carried out” [1039]. Thomas remarks that, among the Australians in general, “where there was a tendency to select the son of the late headman, it was modified by the rule that he must have shown himself worthy of the post by attaining distinction as a warrior, orator or bard” [1040], and Brough Smyth has the following statement: “The government of aboriginal tribes is not a democracy. There are the doctors or sorcerers who, under some circumstances, have supreme power; there are the warriors who in time of trouble are absolute masters; there are the dreamers, who direct and control the movements of the tribe until their divinations are fulfilled or forgotten; there are the old men (councillors) without whose advice even the warriors are slow to move; and, finally, there are the old women, who noisily intimate their designs and endeavour by clamour and threats to influence the leaders of their tribe” [1041].

We see that influence and power in Australia depend on personal qualities, not on wealth. We have only found two instances on record of men trying to strengthen their influence by means of their property. Gason tells us of a celebrated Dieri chief, who received regular tributes from the hordes under his control. The writer often observed him distributing presents among his personal friends, in order to avoid their jealousy [1042]. But this is quite another thing than what we found existing on the Pacific Coast of North America. In the latter group a rich man, by being rich, attains to power; whereas here the chief, elected for his personal qualities, receives tributes, and by distributing what he has received strengthens his influence. Moreover we are told that these Dieri “have no property except a few weapons or ornaments; they are generally buried or destroyed”, viz. after their owner’s death [1043]. Lumholtz speaks of an old man in Queensland who distributed his property among his fellow-tribesmen to attain to greater influence [1044]. This looks somewhat like the state of things existing on the Pacific Coast; but as the same writer tells us that there is no government except the council of old men, this may be an isolated case. And even if among one or two tribes wealth gave a certain influence, this would not impair the conclusion we have arrived at, that generally a man’s influence and power do not depend upon his wealth, whence we may infer that wealth and property are little developed here.

6º. Condition of women. Whereas on the Pacific Coast women are held in rather high esteem, and therefore provided by the men with slaves who help them in their work, the condition of women in Australia is decidedly bad, as we have seen in the first chapter of Part I [1045].

7º. Militarism. We have shown that slaves are sometimes taken in order to strengthen their masters’ force in warfare. On the other hand, where militarism does not prevail to any considerable extent, the tribe can afford the luxury of having male slaves living among them who do not fight. As for the Australians, their wars generally are not sanguinary, and often settled by single combat [1046].

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

§ 4. Experimentum crucis: Central North America.

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

1º Abundance of food. Le Jeune, speaking of the Montagnais, says: “The savages are almost always hungry” [1047]. The Chepewyans “are not remarkable for their activity as hunters, owing to the ease with which they snare deer and spear fish” [1048]. Among the Kutchins a good hunter can always, except in very unfavourable circumstances, procure sufficient food [1049]. The Beaver Indians, according to Mackenzie, seemed to live in a state of comparative comfort [1050]. The Comanches in the summer, when the buffaloes remove to the North, often suffer from want of food [1051]. Lewis and Clark tell us, that the Shoshones “suffer the extremes of want; for two-thirds of the year they are forced to live in the mountains, passing whole weeks without meat, and with nothing to eat but a few fish and roots” [1052]. Grinnell, speaking of the inland Indians in general, remarks: “The life of the Indian was in some respects a hard one, for the question of food was an ever-present anxiety with him” [1053].

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

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

3º. Fixed habitations, large groups, preserving of food. In a general description of the “vast but thinly populated interior of Northern America” we read that, with regard to the mode of living, a distinction is to be made between the thick-wood Indians and the prairie Indians. The thick-wood Indians consist of small groups. During the summer they live on waterfowl, fish, berries, etc. In the winter they often suffer from want of food. The prairie Indians during the whole year live on the buffalo. Their groups number on an average 400 people [1054]. The Montagnais, in Le Jeune’s time, were wandering and few in number; their life consisted of feasting as long as they had anything; they lived from hand to mouth and did not lay up any provision [1055]. The same writer calls the Algonquins a wandering tribe [1056]. The Ojibways, according to Keating, are divided into small groups, each containing a few families. They do not lay up any provision for winter use. Jones also remarks, that they are very improvident. Kohl, however, gives a long description of the fruits preserved by them [1057]. The Knisteneaux often, at one feast, consume what would have been enough for several weeks [1058]. The Blackfeet tribes are nomadic in their habits [1059]. Ross tells us, that the Eastern Tinneh “are obliged to lead a wandering life, in order to procure food either by fishing or hunting” [1060]. The Indians on the Upper Yukon are very improvident. When fish is abundant, they gorge themselves with it, instead of drying it for winter use [1061]. The Kutchins live in transportable dwellings. According to Kirby they “are divided into many petty tribes”. Hardisty, however, states that they generally live in large groups [1062]. Mackenzie speaks of a Beaver Indian establishment of about 300 inhabitants [1063]. The Sioux live in small bands, owing to the scarcity of game [1064]. The Osages are nomadic. Our informant speaks of an Osage town of 1500 inhabitants [1065]. Apache tribes of 100–200 people, of whom 25–50 are warriors, are headed by a captain. They are “nomadic and roving in their habits”. “Seldom do they remain more than a week in one locality” [1066]. The Comanches “usually roam in small subdivisions, varying according to caprice or the scarcity or abundance of game”. These subdivisions consist of 20–110 families. Brancroft remarks about the Comanches: “No provision is made for a time of scarcity, but when many buffalo are killed, they cut portions of them into long strips, which, after being dried in the sun, are pounded fine. This pemican they carry with them in their hunting expeditions, and when unsuccessful in the chase, a small quantity boiled in water or cooked with grease, serves for a meal” [1067]. These details do not quite agree with Bancroft’s assertion that “no provision is made”. Grinnell remarks, that the Indians are often undeservedly taxed with improvidence. “We are told in books much about the Indian’s improvidence, and it is frequently stated that however abundant food might be with him to-day, he took no thought for the needs of the morrow. Such statements are untrue and show but superficial observation. The savage does not look so far ahead as does the civilized man, but still the lessons of experience are not wholly lost on him. He remembers past hardships, and endeavours to provide against their recurrence; and these people were rather remarkable for their foresight, and for the provision which they were accustomed to make for the future” [1068].

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

4º. Trade and industry. The Montagnais, in Le Jeune’s time, bought maize from the Hurons for elk-skins [1069]. The Algonquins, according to the same writer, used to sell furs to the French [1070]. The Blackfeet tribes sold peltries which they procured in the Northern part of their country [1071]. Jones calls the Kutcha Kutchin traders: “they make very little for themselves, but buy from the other Indians.” And Hardisty tells us, that they live by trading; they exchange beads, which are their circulating medium, for the peltries of other tribes [1072]. The Osages, too, carried on the fur-trade in Hunter’s time [1073].

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

Grinnell enumerates the branches of industry existing among them. “Food supply and defence against enemies depended on the warrior’s weapons. These were his most precious possessions, and he gave much care to their manufacture. Knowing nothing of metals, he made his edge tools of sharpened stones.” “The most important part of the warrior’s equipment was the bow, and over no part of it was more time and labour spent.” “The stone axe, the maul, and the lance were all simple weapons.” “A very important part of the warrior’s outfit was the shield, with which he stopped or turned aside the arrows of his enemy. It was usually circular in shape, and was made of the thick, shrunken hide of a buffalo bull’s neck.” “Clothing was made of skins tanned with or without the fur.” “Many tribes—especially those to the south—made a simple pottery.... Among the northern tribes, where pottery was least known, ladles, spoons, bows, and dishes were usually formed from horn or wood”. “The different tribes had but slight knowledge of the textile art, and this knowledge seems to have been greatest in the south and on the coast.” “Three vehicles were known to the primitive Indian—the travois in the south and the sledge in the north for land travel, and the canoe wherever there were water ways.” “The Indian’s ideas of art are rude.” “It is in the art of carving, however, that the greatest skill was shown” [1074]. So these tribes do not seem to have attained to a high industrial development; the less, as most of the instances Grinnell gives of their skill in carving relate to tribes of the Pacific Coast.

5º. Property and wealth. Whereas on the Pacific Coast influence and power depend on wealth, we shall see that in Central North America it is otherwise. Le Jeune, speaking of the Montagnais, remarks: “Rhetoric controls all these tribes, as the captain is elected for his eloquence alone, and is obeyed in proportion to his use of it, for they have no other law than his word” [1075]. Roosevelt states that among the Algonquins the war-chief “wielded only the influence that he could secure by his personal prowess and his tact” [1076]. The power of an Ojibway chief depended upon his wisdom, courage, and hospitality [1077]. Of the Blackfeet we are told: “Chiefs never receive a gift, considering it a degradation to accept anything but what their own prowess or superior qualities of manhood acquire for them. Their hearts are so good and strong that they scorn to take anything, and self-denial and the power to resist temptation to luxury or easily acquired property is a boast with them. On these men, in time of peace, when difficulties occur among themselves, the tribe relies, and in time of war they are their leaders to the scene of action”. And Schoolcraft states that the chiefs “have little or no power, unless they have distinguished themselves as warriors and are supported by a band of braves” [1078]. Among the Kutchins, according to Jones, the chiefs are elected for their wisdom and courage. Hardisty, however, states that the power of the chiefs depends on the number of beads they own; for these afford a means of injuring those who displease them. And Whymper remarks: “The chiefs, who are without exception good hunters or fishers, often procure or strengthen their position by periodical distributions of their chattels. They not seldom have the worst clothing and food of all inhabitants” [1079]. Among the Cheyennes generally the bravest and wisest man is elected as a chief [1080]. Mrs. Eastman tells us of the Sioux, that formerly “their bravest men, their war chief too, no doubt exercized a control over the rest.” The chief lived like the common people and Neill remarks: “The individual who desires to improve his condition is not only laughed at, but maltreated. Moreover, if he acquires any property, there is no law which secures it to him, and it is liable to be taken away at any time by any ill-disposed person” [1081]. Among the Apaches, according to Schoolcraft, “the chiefs are the wealthiest men, the most warlike, the first in battle, the wisest in council”. According to Ten Kate the power of the chiefs depends on their success in forays. And Bancroft remarks: “Sometimes it happens that one family retains the chieftaincy in a tribe during several generations, because of the bravery or wealth of the sons” [1082]. Comanche chiefs, according to Schoolcraft, “are selected for their known or pretended prowess in war”. In another place he states, that they are made chiefs for their “superior cunning, knowledge or success in war” [1083].

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

A few other statements also tend to prove, that wealth is not highly developed; the economic life of some tribes shows rather communistic features. Among the Kutchins, “unless he is alone, a hunter cannot take and appropriate the meat of the animal he kills. Should he do so, he would be considered mean. And this feeling is strong. When two good hunters go together, good and well, the one has as good a chance of getting meat as the other; but when one is a bad hunter and the other a good one, the former gets all the meat and the real hunter has nothing, and loses his ammunition into the bargain” [1084]. Among the Chepewyans the game is distributed among those who shared in the chase. The game which a man catches in his share is his private property; “nevertheless any unsuccessful hunter passing by may take a deer so caught, leaving the head, skin, and saddle for the owner” [1085].

Among the Osages, too, wealth was formerly unknown; for in Hunter’s time the old men disapproved of the fur-trade, which gave abundance and thereby led to effeminacy [1086].

6º. Condition of women. Le Jeune states, that among the Montagnais the sex has great influence. Household affairs are left to the discretion of the women, without any male interference. The women “cut and decide and give away as they please” [1087]. Ojibway women, according to Jones, do the hardest work, are slaves of the men, get the worst food and the worst place in the wigwam; and Long states, that the wives are the slaves of their husbands. According to Kohl, nearly all kinds of work, except the chase, fell to the share of the women, who were even obliged to bring home the bears killed by the men [1088]. Mackenzie tells us, that among the Knisteneaux women are in the same subjected condition as among other wild tribes [1089]. Among the Blackfeet the husband may send his wife away when he likes; she then takes her property with her; the children remain with the father. Many men have 6 or 8 wives; they readily lend them to whites for brandy [1090]. Chepewyan wives are subjected to their husbands, who are very jealous and “for very trifling causes treat them with such cruelty as sometimes to occasion their death” [1091]. Among the Kutchins, as we have seen in § 2, the condition of women is a rather bad one [1092]. Mackenzie speaks of the “extreme subjection and abasement” of Beaver Indian women [1093]. Cheyenne women perform all the drudgery. Yet they have some influence in government matters; they do not attend the councils; but their wishes, privately uttered, are not generally disregarded [1094]. Among the Sioux women as children and wives are despised, as girls a little more honoured. And Schoolcraft states that they exercise some influence in tribal matters by expressing their desires at home, but are not admitted to the council [1095]. Bancroft, speaking of the Apache family in general (including Apaches, Comanches, and several other tribes), remarks: “Womankind as usual is at a discount. The female child receives little care from its mother, being only of collateral advantage to the tribe. Later she becomes the beast of burden and slave of her husband.” But another statement of the same writer proves that the women’s condition is not so very bad: “The marriage yoke sits lightly; the husband may repudiate his wife and take back the property given for her; the wife may abandon her husband, but by the latter act she covers him with such disgrace that it may only be wiped out by killing somebody—anybody whom he may chance to meet” [1096]. The wife may thus with impunity leave her husband, the latter venting his anger upon “somebody”. Schoolcraft states that Comanche women are not thought much of, even by themselves; the husband has unlimited sway over his wife [1097]. Among the Shoshones, according to Lewis and Clark, “the man is the sole proprietor of his wives and daughters, and can barter them away, or dispose of them in any manner he may think proper.” “The mass of the females are condemned, as among all savage nations, to the lowest and most laborious drudgery” [1098].

Now let us inquire what Grinnell, who is so well acquainted with Indian life, has to say about the treatment of women among the Indians in general. “A word or two with regard to the position of the wife in the household may not be out of place here. The Indian woman, it is usually thought, is a mere drudge and slave, but, so far as my observations extend, this notion is wholly an erroneous one. It is true that the women were the labourers of the camp, that they did all the hard work about which there was no excitement. They cooked, brought wood and water, dried the meat, dressed the robes, made the clothing, collected the lodge poles, packed the horses, cultivated the ground, and generally performed all the tasks which might be called menial, but they were not mere servants. On the contrary, their position was very respectable. They were consulted on many subjects, not only in connection with family affairs, but in more important and general matters. Sometimes women were even admitted to the councils and spoke there, giving their advice. This privilege was very unusual, and was granted only to women who had performed some deed which was worthy of a man. This in practice meant that she had killed or counted coup on an enemy, or had been to war. In ordinary family conversation women did not hesitate to interrupt and correct their husbands when the latter made statements with which they did not agree, and the men listened to them with respectful attention, though of course this depended on the standing of the woman, her intelligence, etc. While their lives were hard and full of toil, they yet found time to get together for gossip and for gambling, and on the whole managed to take a good deal of pleasure in life” [1099]. And Ten Kate, a careful observer, remarks that the Indians do not, as has often been asserted, regard woman as a beast of burden and a drudge. Her condition, as compared with that of the women of the lower classes in civilized countries, is rather better than worse [1100].

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

7º. Militarism. These tribes are very warlike. Roosevelt states that warfare and hunting were the chief occupations of the Algonquins [1101]. Among the Ojibways the end of education is to make good hunters and warriors [1102]. According to Mackenzie, warfare and hunting, among the Knisteneaux, are the occupations of the men. They are continually engaged in warfare [1103]. The Blackfeet were very warlike, and always fighting with their neighbours [1104]. Mackenzie tells us, that it was a custom with Chepewyan chiefs “to go to war after they had shed tears in order to wipe away the disgrace attached to such a feminine weakness” [1105]. The Beaver Indians were even more warlike than the Chepewyans [1106]. Mrs. Eastman calls the Sioux “brave, daring, revengeful” [1107]. The Apaches, according to Bancroft, “are in their industries extremely active,—their industries being theft and murder, to which they are trained by their mothers, and in which they display consummate cunning, treachery, and cruelty” [1108]. And the same writer tells us that “the Comanches, who are better warriors than the Apaches, highly honour bravery on the battle-field. From early youth, they are taught the art of war, and the skilful handling of their horses and weapons; and they are not allowed a seat in the council, until their name is garnished by some heroic deed” [1109].

We see that the Indians of Central North America present a strongly marked contrast with such tribes as the Koniagas who are “adapted to labour and commerce rather than to war and hunting” and the Chinooks who “were always a commercial rather than a warlike people”. Therefore all available men are wanted in warfare; they cannot afford to have male slaves living among them, who do not share in their military operations. They are very much in need of warriors, and little of labourers. Accordingly among many of these tribes such prisoners of war as are allowed to live, are adopted into the tribe or into some family within the tribe [1110].

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

§ 5. Experimentum crucis: Eskimos.

1º. Abundance of food. In Greenland vegetable food is very scarce. The flesh of the reindeer is most valued by the Greenlanders, but is not available in large quantities; so they have to live chiefly upon sea-animals, seals, fish and sea-birds [1111]. Boas states that “the mode of life of all the Eskimo tribes of North-Eastern America is very uniform.” They depend entirely on animal food, especially seals and deer [1112]. Bancroft, speaking of the Eskimos of Alaska, remarks: “Their substantials comprise the flesh of land and marine animals, fish and birds; venison, and whale and seal blubber being chief” [1113]. Though we nowhere find it stated that food is exceedingly scarce, the details given here sufficiently prove that it is not nearly so abundant as on the Pacific Coast. Shell-fish, fruits, roots, and other vegetables, acquired so easily and in large quantities by the tribes of the Pacific Coast, do not enter for any considerable part into the food of the Eskimos.

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

3º. Fixed habitations, large groups, preserving of food. Though the Eskimos move about much for the purpose of obtaining food, they are not quite nomadic. In winter-time they live in solidly constructed dwellings [1114]. Rink states that they have their winter-houses on the same place during several generations [1115]. Boas remarks: “There is no need of any new buildings, as the Eskimo always locate in the old settlements and the old buildings are quite sufficient to satisfy all their wants” [1116]. And Crantz tells us that a Greenlander is not generally much inclined to leave the place where he was born and bred and settle somewhere else; for in nearly every place there is a peculiar method of fishing and seal-hunting, which the newcomer has to learn; and in the meantime, often for several years, he is poorly off [1117]. An Eskimo village most often consists of a single house [1118], but Eskimo houses accommodate several (in Greenland from 4 to 10) families [1119]. Among the Western Eskimos, however, there are larger villages [1120]. Food is preserved for winter use by the Eskimos, though not in such large quantities as on the Pacific Coast. “The Esquimaux” says a writer on British North America “possess a quality which I may say is almost unknown among Indians, namely, providence; thus, in the season, when the animals are plentiful on the shores of the Arctic Sea, they make “caches” of large quantities of meat for winter use” [1121]. The Greenlanders, though laying up some provision for the winter, are rather improvident. As long as they have abundance of food, they feast and gorge themselves with it; but in the winter they often live in the greatest misery [1122]. Boas, speaking of Central Eskimo store-houses, remarks: “In winter, blubber and meat are put away upon these pillars, which are sufficiently high to keep them from the dogs.” Yet “the house presents a sad and gloomy appearance if stormy weather prevents the men from hunting. The stores are quickly consumed, one lamp after another is extinguished, and everybody sits motionless in the dark hut” [1123]. Among the Eskimos of Alaska “meats are kept in seal-skin bags for over a year.... Their winter store of oil they secure in seal-skin bags, which are buried in the frozen ground” [1124].

4º. Trade and industry. Rink states that the Eskimos make long journeys for the purpose of interchanging such commodities, as are found in some districts only and yet are necessary to all the tribes. The trade is carried on from Asia to Hudson Bay [1125]. The Greenlanders mutually exchange the articles they need. With some of them bartering is quite a passion; they often exchange useful things for worthless trifles. They have a kind of annual fair, at which the inhabitants of several districts interchange the products of their country. “A great article of commerce are vessels made of soapstone, which are not found in all parts of the country; and, as the Southern Greenlanders have no whales and the Northern no wood, there come, all through the summer months, from the South and even from the East of the country many boats with Greenlanders from 100 to 200 miles, to Disko, bringing new kyaks and women’s boats with the necessary implements. They receive in exchange horns, teeth, bones, whale-bones and whale-tendons, part of which, on their homeward voyage, they sell again” [1126]. Among the Central Eskimos “two desiderata formed the principal inducement to long journeys, which sometimes lasted even several years: wood and soapstone. The shores of Davis’ Strait and Cumberland Sound are almost destitute of driftwood, and consequently the natives were obliged to visit distant regions to obtain that necessary material. Tudjaqdjuaq in particular was the objective point of their expeditions. Their boats took a southerly course, and, as the wood was gathered, a portion of it was immediately manufactured into boat ribs and sledge runners, which were carried back on the return journey; another portion was used for bows, though these were also made of deer’s horns ingeniously lashed together. A portion of the trade in wood seems to have been in the hands of the Nugumiut, who collected it on Tudjaqdjuaq and took it north. Another necessary and important article of trade, soapstone, is manufactured into lamps and pots. It is found in a few places only, and very rarely in pieces large enough for the manufacture of the articles named.... The visitors come from every part of the country, the soapstone being dug or “traded” from the rocks by depositing some trifles in exchange. In addition to wood and soapstone, metals, which were extremely rare in old times, have formed an important object of trade. They were brought to Baffin Bay either by the Aivillirmiut, who had obtained them from the Hudson Bay Company and the Kinipetu, or by the Akuliarmiut. Even when Frobisher visited the Nugumiut in 1577 he found them in possession of some iron. The occurrence of flint, which was the material for arrow-heads, may have given some importance to places where it occurs. Formerly an important trade existed between the Netchillirmiut and the neighbouring tribes. As the district of the former is destitute of driftwood and potstone, they are compelled to buy both articles from their neighbours. In Ross’s time they got the necessary wood from Ugjulik, the potstone from Aivillik. They exchanged these articles for native iron (or pyrite), which they found on the eastern shore of Boothia and which was used for striking fire. After having collected a sufficient stock of it during several years, they travelled to the neighbouring tribes” [1127]. The Eskimos of Alaska are also very commercial. “On the shore of Bering Strait the natives have constant commercial intercourse with Asia.... They frequently meet at the Gwosdeff Islands, where the Tschuktschi bring tobacco, iron, tame-reindeer skins, and walrus-ivory; the Eskimos giving in exchange wolf and wolverine skins, wooden dishes, seal-skins and other peltries. The Eskimos of the American coast carry on quite an extensive trade with the Indians of the interior, exchanging with them Asiatic merchandise for peltries” [1128]. We see that most of the Eskimo trade is bartering of raw products. This agrees with what Rink remarks, viz. that there is no division of labour; each group that has a tent or boat is entirely self-dependent [1129].

In industry they display much skill. Their boats are ingeniously made and have excited the admiration of all travellers. “The kajak (qajaq) is almost exclusively used for hunting by all Eskimo tribes from Greenland to Alaska” [1130]. Crantz tells us that the implements the Greenlanders use for procuring their subsistence are simple, but so well adapted to their purpose that they are more convenient than the costly implements of the Europeans. Their harpoons consist of several pieces, but are so ingeniously made that not a single piece is superfluous. Their boats are also greatly admired by this writer [1131]. And Bancroft tells us that “the Hyperboreans surpass all American nations in their facilities for locomotion, both upon land and water. In their skin boats, the natives of the Alaskan seaboard, from Point Barrow to Mount St. Elias, made long voyages, crossing the strait and sea of Bering, and held commercial intercourse with the people of Asia. Sixty miles is an ordinary day’s journey for sledges, while Indians on snow-shoes have been known to run down and capture deer”. “So highly were these boats esteemed by the Russians, that they were at once universally adopted by them in navigating these waters. They were unable to invent any improvement in either of them” [1132].

5º. Property and wealth. It is nowhere stated that a man’s rank or power depends upon his wealth. The Greenlanders live without any government; the head of each family is independent. When several families live together in one house, they have no control over each other, but voluntarily obey the most respected head of a family, i.e. the one who is best acquainted with hunting and the signs of the weather. Yet our informant also states: “If several Greenlanders live together, they like to keep an angekok (priest), to avail themselves of his advice. And if they do not keep one, they are despised or pitied by the others as being poor men” [1133]. So poor people are despised, but this applies to villages or settlements rather than individuals. This agrees with what Rink tells us of their communistic régime. Only the indispensable implements and utensils are individual property, and also provisions sufficient for less than a year. If an individual or group have got too much, they are compelled by public opinion to give it to those who have too little [1134]. Among the Central Eskimos men unable to provide for themselves are employed as servants, but their position “is a voluntary one, and therefore these men are not less esteemed than the self-dependent providers” [1135]. Among the Eskimos of Alaska “now or then some ancient or able man gains an ascendency in the tribe, and overawes his fellows.” “Caste has been mentioned in connection with tattooing, but, as a rule, social distinctions do not exist” [1136].

Though the Eskimos are dependent for their subsistence on the possession of boats, houses and implements, they do not want more property than is needed for procuring their daily food. According to Rink, the benefit of an inheritance is smaller than the duties it involves; for boat and tent continually require so much mending, that a single hunter is hardly able to keep them in order [1137]. In Greenland, if a man dies leaving no full-grown son, his goods devolve upon the next of kin, who is obliged to provide for the widow and her children. But if he already possesses a tent and a boat, he will leave the inheritance and the duties connected with it to an alien; for nobody is capable of keeping two tents and two boats in repair [1138].

6º. Condition of women. Though not quite so bad as in Australia, woman’s condition is not so good here as among the Indians of the Pacific Coast. Greenland women lead a hard and almost slave-like life, says Crantz [1139]. And Bancroft tells us that among the Eskimos of Alaska “the lot of the women is but little better than slavery” [1140]. The principal cause of this difference perhaps is, that female labour among the Eskimos is not productive. In Greenland “a man who has two wives is not despised; on the contrary he is looked upon as an able provider” [1141]. This proves that subsistence depends upon male, not as in Australia upon female labour. Among the Central Eskimos “the principal part of the man’s work is to provide for his family.... The woman has to do the household work, the sewing, and the cooking” [1142]. Among the Western Eskimos “polygamy is common, every man being entitled to as many wives, as he can get and maintain” [1143]. So the man maintains the family; female labour, however useful, is not so indispensable as male. The men know this quite well. In Greenland “the man hunts and fishes, and having brought the animals ashore he pays no more attention to them; it would even be a disgrace for him to carry the captured seal on land” [1144]. This is quite another state of things than what we have seen to exist on the Pacific Coast, where female labour, especially in the preparation of articles of commerce, is highly valued.

7º. Militarism. Among the Greenlanders warfare is unknown [1145]. Boas, speaking of the Central Eskimos, says: “Real wars or fights between settlements, I believe, have never happened, but contests have always been confined to single families” [1146]. In Alaska it is otherwise, for “the Northern Indians are frequently at war with the Eskimos and Southern Indians, for whom they at all times entertain the most inveterate hatred” [1147]. This absence of militarism enables the Greenlanders and Central Eskimos to have men performing women’s work living among them, as we have seen in § 1 of this chapter [1148].

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

The principal cause why the Eskimos do not keep slaves evidently is the difficulty with which food is procured. We have seen that female labour, being unproductive, is little valued. Male labour only is indispensable, and this is labour of high quality. Navigating in the kyak is a matter of much skill. Crantz tells us that Europeans who tried it, could move about a little in very calm weather; but they were not able to fish while being in the kyak, nor to save themselves when the least danger occurred. This requires peculiar skill, and Eskimos take several years to learn it. There are indeed men unable to capture seals; they are much despised [1149]. Bancroft also states that considerable skill is required in taking seals [1150], and Boas describes at great length the ingenious methods used in seal, walrus, and whale hunting [1151]. Unskilled labour is not wanted; and widows and orphans who have lost their bread-winner may be glad if any one is willing to receive them into his house [1152].

Sometimes an Eskimo wants labour. In Greenland a married couple having no children at all or no full-grown children, adopt male and female children whom they treat as their own; the adopted son is considered the future head of the family [1153]. Among the Central Eskimos too, as to the right of inheritance “an elder adopted son has a preference over a younger son born of the marriage” [1154]. Thus we see that a normally constituted family is self-dependent. If there are no children, their place has to be supplied by strangers; boys have to perform the same highly skilled labour as the father, and girls to help the mother in her work that, though less valued, has also to be done. But a further increase of the family by slaves performing menial work is not wanted; the man, if able, would not be willing to maintain them. The only kind of work indispensable here cannot be imposed upon slaves; and the cost of maintaining slaves performing other work would be greater than the profit they would yield. Food is not preserved in such large quantities as on the Pacific Coast; shell-fish and vegetable food are almost entirely unknown here; nor is any fish, oil, etc. prepared for commercial purposes.

There is one more cause at work among the Eskimos, preventing the existence of slavery: the dependence of labour upon capital. Boas, describing the Central Eskimos, states that among the adopted people “who may almost be considered servants” there are “men who have lost their sledges and dogs.” Such servants “fulfil minor occupations, mend the hunting implements, fit out the sledges, feed the dogs, etc.; sometimes, however, they join the hunters. They follow the master of the house when he removes from one place to another, make journeys in order to do his commissions, and so on” [1155]. And Crantz tells us that among the Greenlanders many boys are neglected in their youth, as the providing of them with kyak and implements is very costly [1156]. Among the Indians of the Pacific Coast the possession of capital gives great advantage; thus among the Makah the owner of the canoe receives a proportionate share of the booty from the crew [1157]; but it is not indispensable. Here it is. A man destitute of capital cannot provide for himself, and is therefore at the mercy of the capitalist. Now the Eskimo capitalist most often allows such men to share his house and food, and makes them feed the dogs, etc. rather as means of procuring employment for them, than because such work requires hands outside the family. The capitalist does not want labourers; but even if he did, there would always be widows and orphans, and men destitute of capital, who would readily enter into his service. The Eskimos have to struggle with “unemployment” difficulties, not with scarcity of hands; therefore a slave-dealer visiting them would not find a ready sale for his stock-in-trade.

§ 6. Conclusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2º. Subsistence does not depend on capital. We are, of course, aware that a man, to procure his subsistence, always wants some implements, such as a spear, bow and arrow, etc. But he does not, therefore, depend on capital; for he can always make a spear or bow for himself; so after all, he depends only on his own strength and skill. If an Eskimo loses his boat, he wants a long time to make a new one; in the meantime he has to live, and so is thrown upon the mercy of others. But where the necessary implements can always be procured at a moment’s notice, subsistence is not dependent on capital: the man who has broken his spear can immediately make a new one; he need not ask anybody to feed him in the meantime [1158].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECAPITULATION.

Furthering the Hindering the growth of slavery. growth of slavery.

I. Internal causes.

A. General: 1º. Subsistence 1º. Subsistence easily acquired and dependent on not dependent on capital. 2º. Subsistence not dependent on capital, but difficult to acquire. B. Secondary, economic: 1º. Preserving of 1º. Female labour food. making slave labour superfluous. 2º. Trade and industry. 3º. A high position of women. C. Secondary, 1º. Slaves wanted 1º. Militarism non-economic: for military making slavery purposes. impossible.

II. External causes: 1º. Fixed habitations. 2º. Living in large groups. 3º. Preserving of food [1159]. 4º. The existence of a homogeneous group of tribes.