Chapter I: Method and Divisions

§ 1. Method.

The results of the first Part will be utilized in this. We have seen that slavery exists or formerly existed among many savage tribes, whereas many others have always, as far as we know, been unacquainted with it. The present Part will be taken up with an inquiry into the causes of these phenomena. We shall try to find out, what kinds of tribes have slaves, and what kinds have not.

To this end it would seem best to divide the several tribes according to their general culture, and then to inquire at which stages of culture slavery is found. But such a division cannot be made here incidentally; for it would require years of labour. And a good division, that we could adopt, has not yet been made. Morgan distinguishes three periods of savagery, three of barbarism, and one of civilization [792]. But his system rests on the unproved supposition, that the stage of culture a people has attained to entirely depends on its technical ability in the arts of subsistence. Dr. Vierkandt has made another distinction. Besides the civilized and semi-civilized peoples he has two categories: migratory tribes (unstete Völker), and primitive peoples proper (eigentliche Naturvölker). The former are the Australians, Tasmanians, Andamanese, Veddahs, Negritos, Kubus, Bushmen, African pigmy-tribes, Fuegians and Botocudos; the latter the American Indians, Arctic races, Northern Asiatics, Caucasus tribes, hill-tribes of India, Negroes to the South of the Soudan, inhabitants of the Malay Archipelago and Oceanic Islands [793]. But this division cannot be of any use to us. It is not the result of an extensive and accurate examination of the facts; the writer himself admits that he has followed his general impressions [794]. Now the impressions of a capable sociologist, as Vierkandt undoubtedly is, may count for something; they give a hint as to the direction, in which the investigation has to be carried on; but they do not themselves afford a scientific basis to rely upon. His unstete Völker are simply those generally known as the “lowest type of man”, whether justly or unjustly we do not know [795]. And his eigentliche Naturvölker, as Professor Steinmetz rightly remarks [796], comprehend savages of widely different degrees of development. Moreover, although he says his criterion is the psychical state of man, the economic side of social life comes always prominently into view [797]; but the author does not even try to prove that the psychical state of man depends upon the stage of economic development.

Yet, as it can be easily done here, we may inquire whether Vierkandt’s unstete Völker have slaves. It will be seen from the second Chapter of our first Part that all of them, with the exception perhaps of the Negritos, are unacquainted with slavery [798]. This conclusion, however, is not of much use to us, as we do not know whether they have been justly or unjustly classified under one category.

As little can the other attempts, which have been made, to classify the savages according to their general culture, serve our purpose [799]. So the method of investigation that would seem the best is not applicable here. Therefore we are also unable to ascertain whether, as some writers assert, slavery at a certain stage of social development is universal. Bagehot says of slavery: “There is a wonderful presumption in its favour; it is one of the institutions which, at a certain stage of growth, all nations in all countries choose and cleave to” [800]. Grünberg expresses the same view: “No people has always and in all phases of its development been unacquainted with slavery” [801]. According to Spencer “observation of all societies in all times shows that slavery is the rule and freedom the exception” [802]. And Tourmagne exclaims: “This almost universal scourge, going back to the very origin of the nations and affecting all of them, is it not to be regarded as a social stage that every people has to traverse, as an evolution which it is obliged to undergo, before it can attain to the higher degrees of civilization” [803]? If we had an ascending series of stages of culture, we might inquire whether, within the limits of savagery (for the civilized and semi-civilized peoples fall beyond the scope of the present volume) there is a stage at which slavery is universal. But, as we have already remarked, this is not yet possible.

The best method we can use now will be to take into view one prominent side of social life, that may reasonably be supposed to have much influence on the social structure, especially on the division of labour; and to inquire whether this one factor may entirely, and if not to what extent it may, account for the existence or non-existence of slavery in every particular case. Here the economic side of life comes in the first place into consideration. We are not among the adherents of the materialistic theory of history; it is quite unproved and seems to us very one-sided. But we may suppose that the division of labour between the several social groups within a tribe, and therefore also the existence or non-existence of slavery, largely depends on the manner in which the tribe gets its subsistence. Whether, and to what extent, this supposition is true, will be shown by the examination of the facts. If this hypothesis fails to account for all the facts, we shall try, with the aid of other hypotheses, to explain the rest.

The opinion that the existence of slavery mainly depends on the mode of subsistence is also held by many theorists. According to Morgan “slavery, which in the Upper Status of barbarism became the fate of the captive, was unknown among tribes in the Lower Status in the aboriginal period”. This Lower Status of barbarism begins with “the invention or practice of the art of pottery”. Anterior to the art of pottery was “the commencement of village life, with some degree of control over subsistence”. It ends with “the domestication of animals in the Eastern hemisphere, and in the Western with cultivation by irrigation and with the use of adobe-brick and stone in architecture” [804]. So slavery, according to Morgan, does not exist before a rather advanced period.

Several writers assert that hunters and fishers never have slaves. Schmoller was formerly of the opinion that “no people unacquainted with cattle-breeding and agriculture has slaves” [805]. In his handbook, however, he informs us, that some highly developed tribes of fishers also keep slaves [806]. Ingram expresses the view formerly held by Schmoller: “In the hunter period the savage warrior does not enslave his vanquished enemy, but slays him; the women of the conquered tribe he may, however, carry off and appropriate as wives or as servants, for in this period domestic labour falls almost altogether on the female sex. In the pastoral stage slaves are captured only to be sold, with the exception of a few who may be required for the care of flocks or the small amount of cultivation which is then undertaken. It is in proportion as a sedentary life prevails, and agricultural exploitation is practised on a larger scale, whilst warlike habits continue to exist, that the labour of slaves is increasingly introduced to provide food for the master, and at the same time save him from irksome toil. Of this stage in the social movement slavery seems to have been a universal and inevitable accompaniment.” But he makes an exception in the case of those communities where “theocratic organisations established themselves” [807]. Flügel says: “Hunting tribes can neither feed nor employ the prisoners; generally they kill them” [808]. According to Schurtz “among tribes of migratory hunters there is no room for slavery” [809]. Whether he means here all hunters or only Vierkandt’s unstete Völker is not clear.

Pastoral nomadism especially is considered favourable to the growth of slavery. The nomadic herdsman, who had learned to domesticate animals, began also to domesticate men, i.e. to enslave them. According to Lippert, slavery “first arises in the patriarchal communities of pastoral peoples.” “They [the slaves] were the object of an appropriation entirely similar to the appropriation of the domestic animals” [810]. Lamprecht also asserts that the prisoners, who formerly were either sacrificed or adopted into the community, in the pastoral stage were enslaved, because many hands were wanted to tend the cattle [811]. Dimitroff says that originally the captives were instantly killed like the game, as was the case amongst the hunting tribes of America, Australia and Africa. But as soon as man began to tame animals, he also learned to employ the captives as labourers [812].

A few theorists, however, who are more familiar with ethnographical literature, know that it is not only among pastoral and agricultural tribes that slavery is found. So Peschel states. According to him hunters cannot employ slaves. Fishers, however, sometimes do so, as on the Northwest Coast of America, amongst the Koniagas, Koloshes, and Ahts of Vancouver Island. But only at the agricultural stage is slavery practised on an extensive scale [813]. Wagner is of the same opinion: “In the earliest economic state of society slavery is quite or nearly unknown; generally speaking slavery is coeval with a settled and agricultural life. This is to be accounted for by economic causes; for only in the agricultural stage can slave labour be of any considerable use. Therefore slavery is unknown among hunters, and occurs but seldom among fishers. Bondage (Unfreiheit) presents itself already under several forms among nomadic herdsmen; but only among settled agricultural peoples does it attain to its full development” [814]. Tylor remarks that slavery exists, as soon as the captives are spared to till the soil; but he adds that even among savage hunters and foresters absolute equality is not always to be found [815]. Spencer says: “Tribes which have not emerged from the hunting stage are little given to enslaving the vanquished; if they do not kill and eat them they adopt them. In the absence of industrial activity, slaves are almost useless, and indeed, where game is scarce, are not worth their food. But where, as among fishing tribes like the Chinooks, captives can be of use, or where the pastoral and agricultural stages have been reached, there arises a motive for sparing the lives of conquered men, and after inflicting on them such mutilations as mark their subjection, setting them to work” [816]. Bos is also aware of the fact, that the Tlinkits and similar tribes have slaves. He explains this in a curious way: slavery does not agree with the nature of hunting tribes; therefore it is probable that these tribes formerly were agricultural to a small extent [817]. Felix remarks that slavery already exists at the beginning of the agricultural stage [818]. Mommsen, however, asserts that in the oldest times (until when does not appear) slavery did not prevail to any considerable extent; more use was made of free labourers [819].

Letourneau expresses his opinion very prudently: slavery was not carried on on a large scale before men applied themselves to cattle-breeding and especially to agriculture [820]. At the end of his book on slavery of over 500 pages he contents himself with this vague conclusion.

We see that the theories disagree very much. Whether any of them agree with the facts will appear from the investigation we are about to undertake.

§ 2. Distinction of economic groups.

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

The following economic states will be distinguished:

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

It has to be remarked that this is not an ascending series of stages of economic development. What the economic evolution has been we do not exactly know. Little credit is given to-day to the old division into the three successive stages of hunting, pastoral nomadism, and agriculture. This was not yet so in 1884, when Dargun could still write: “The evolutionary stages of hunting, pastoral, and agricultural life are so well established in science as stages of human evolution in general, that it seems rather audacious to object to this division. Taken in general, however, it is false; on the greater half of the globe pastoral life was not a transitory stage from hunting to agriculture; therefore the people concerned had not to pass through any regulation of property peculiar to herdsmen. They learned agriculture without having been pastoral. This phenomenon comprehends two parts of the world—America and Australia-Polynesia—completely, and two other parts—Asia and Africa—to a great extent, as the Malay Archipelago and the territory of the Negro tribes across Africa also are included. Therefore it will be necessary to leave off considering the three stages of hunting, pastoral and agricultural life as a rule of human progress. Moreover, nearly all pastoral tribes carry on agriculture, however negligently; and it is not at all certain that the origin of the latter does not go back to a more remote period than cattle-breeding; it is even probable that it does, for nomadic herdsmen are on the whole more civilized than the rudest agricultural tribes: cattle-breeding therefore is posterior to primitive agriculture” [821]. This view of Dargun’s is now generally accepted. But a new ascending series that would have any scientific value does not yet exist. And so we can only distinguish economic states, not stages of economic development.

A few remarks must still be made on each of our groups. These remarks will also serve to justify our division.

I. Hunting and fishing.

This group comprehends those tribes only that are entirely unacquainted with agriculture and cattle-breeding. Sometimes agriculture is carried on to such a small extent, that the tribe subsists almost entirely on hunting, fishing and gathering wild vegetable food. Such tribes bear much resemblance to true hunters; but if we called them hunting tribes it would be very difficult to draw the line of demarcation between them and other agricultural tribes; moreover, such tribes are not exactly in the same economic state as true hunters. So we have classified them under the agricultural groups.

Such tribes as use animals (especially horses) only as a means of locomotion, are hunters, viz. if they are unacquainted with agriculture; at any rate they are not pastoral tribes. This is the case with several tribes of North and South America.

II. Pastoral nomadism.

The tribes belonging to this group subsist mainly on the milk and meat of their cattle. Most of them also undertake a small amount of cultivation (see the above-quoted passage of Dargun’s), whereas many agricultural tribes rear cattle. We shall draw the line of demarcation thus: this second group will contain those tribes only that depend so much on their cattle, that the whole tribe or the greater part of it is nomadic; whereas those who, although living for a considerable part on the produce of their cattle, have fixed habitations, will be classified under the agricultural groups.

III, IV, V. Agriculture.

Grosse makes a distinction between lower and higher agriculture; but as the former comprehends nearly all agricultural savages, this distinction cannot be of any use to us [822]. Hahn, in his book on the domestic animals, distinguishes hoe-culture (Hackbau), agriculture proper (Ackerbau) and horticulture (Gartenbau) [823]. But hoe-culture is carried on by nearly all agricultural savages; besides, this division is purely technical and therefore cannot serve our purpose. What we want is a division according to the place agriculture occupies in social life. We must ask to what extent a tribe is occupied in and dependent for subsistence on agriculture. For on this, and not on the form of the agricultural implements, it will depend whether slaves are wanted to till the soil. A slave may be set to handle the hoe as well as the plough.

Perusing the ethnographical literature, we found such great differences between the several savage tribes in this respect, that we have thought it best to distinguish three stages of agriculture [824]. The principle according to which the distinction will be made is, as we have already hinted, the extent to which a tribe depends upon agriculture for its subsistence. The first agricultural group will contain those cases, in which agriculture holds a subordinate place, most of the subsistence being derived from other sources, viz. hunting, fishing or gathering wild-growing vegetable food [825]. The tribes of the second group carry on agriculture to a considerable extent, but not to the exclusion of hunting, etc. The third, or highest, agricultural stage is reached, when agriculture is by far the principal mode of subsistence, and hunting, etc. hold a very subordinate place, so much so that, if the latter were entirely wanting, the economic state would be nearly the same.

But our information is not always very complete; and so it is not always clear to what extent subsistence is derived from agriculture. In such cases we shall make use of some secondary characteristics. Some facts may be recorded from which we can more or less safely draw conclusions as to the place agriculture occupies. The facts indicative of the first stage of agriculture are: 1. Women only are occupied in agriculture [826], 2. The tribe is very mobile, habitations are often shifted. Those indicative of the second, as distinguished from the first, stage are: 1. The tribe has fixed habitations (except where this is due to an abundance of fish or fruit-bearing trees), 2. The lands are irrigated. Those indicative of the third stage are: 1. The lands are manured, 2. Rotation of crops is carried on, 3. Domestic animals are used in agriculture, 4. Agricultural products are exported.

It is not, of course, necessary that in every case a whole set of characteristics is found. Sometimes a part of them only are mentioned. Besides, there is much overlapping: a characteristic of the first stage may be found connected with one of the third. In all such cases we must not forget that these secondary characteristics have only signification as indications of the place occupied by agriculture, so they have not a fixed value; in every particular case the manner in which they are mentioned, the place they hold in the whole of the description, etc. will decide what importance we are to attach to each of them.

Hitherto we have supposed that agricultural tribes did nothing else besides tilling the soil, except hunting, fishing and gathering wild vegetable food. But it may also be that they subsist partly on agriculture, partly on cattle-breeding or trade [827]. In these cases we cannot apply the same principle of division. A tribe that subsists partly on agriculture, but chiefly on trade is not to be classified under the same category as a tribe that subsists partly on agriculture, but mainly on hunting. The latter is not yet agricultural, the former has perhaps passed beyond the agricultural stage. Here we may regard only the technical ability attained to in agriculture. Where agriculture is technically little developed, we have probably to deal with former Jägerbauern who have become traders. Where agriculture has reached a high perfection, but trade is one of the chief modes of subsistence, the tribe has probably passed through the higher stages of agriculture. What we say here of trade equally applies to cattle-breeding.

There are a few tribes that afforded clear cases in the second chapter of our first Part, but about the economic state of which we are not sufficiently informed. These will be left out here.

The literature used is the same as in Part I chap. II [828]. We have not thought it necessary to quote the pages relating to each tribe. In most ethnographical records the mode of subsistence occupies a conspicuous place, so any one wishing to verify our conclusions may easily find the passages concerned.

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

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

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

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

We shall make use of the following abbreviations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Positive cases. Negative cases.

North America.

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

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

Central and South America.

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

Australia.

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

Melanesia.

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

Polynesia.

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

Micronesia.

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

Malay Archipelago.

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

Indo-Chinese Peninsula.

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

India.

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

Central Asia.

Kazak Kirghiz c
Altaians c
Turkomans c

Siberia.

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

Caucasus.

Ossetes a3 + c
Circassians c
Kabards of Asia Minor c

Arabia.

Aeneze Bedouins c
Larbas c
Garos a2

Bantu tribes.

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

Soudan Negroes.

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

Pigmies etc.

Bushmen h
Mucassequere h
Akkas h

Hamitic peoples.

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