Chapter II: Hunters and Fishers (1)

§ 1. Why slaves are not of much use to hunters.

Among the “clear cases” of the second chapter of our first Part the following are hunting and fishing tribes.

Positive cases. North America: Aleuts,
Athka Aleuts,
Koniagas,
Tlinkits,
Haidas,
Tsimshian,
Kwakiutl,
Bilballas,
Ahts,
tribes about Puget Sound,
Fish Indians,
Tacullies,
Atnas,
Similkameem,
Chinooks.
15
South America: Abipones,
Tehuelches.
2
Siberia: Kamchadales.
1
--
18.
Negative cases. North America: the 9 tribes of Eskimos proper,
Kutchins,
Chepewyans,
Montagnais,
Ojibways,
Ottawas,
Shahnees,
Crees,
Blackfeet nation,
Sioux,
Assiniboins,
Hupas,
Apaches,
Lower Californians.
22
South America: wild tribes of North Mexico,
Botocudos,
Charruas,
Minuanes,
Puelches,
Fuegians.
6
Australia: the 30 Australian tribes.
30
Malay Archipelago: Kubus.
1
Indo-Chinese peninsula: Andamanese,
Southern Nicobarese.
2
India: some Santal tribes,
Veddahs.
2
Siberia: Ghiliaks,
Tuski of the Coast,
settled Koryakes.
3
Pigmies, etc.: Bushmen,
Muscassequere,
Akkas.
3
Hamitic peoples: Wandorobo.
1
--
70.

So the great majority of the 88 cases we have got are negative. This fact agrees with the opinion of those theorists who assert that this economic state is unfavourable to the development of slavery. The existence of 18 positive cases, however, shows that those are wrong who hold that no tribe unacquainted with agriculture and cattle-breeding ever has slaves.

We have to explain now, why most hunters and fishers do not keep slaves. In a few cases the fact that they are inclosed between superior peoples and reduced to a dependent, powerless state, might afford sufficient explanation. So the Wandorobo, according to Thomson, are considered by the Massai as a kind of serfs; and Johnston calls them a helot race [832]. But with most of our hunters and fishers, who do not keep slaves, this is not the case, as is proved by their being often at war with their neighbours. It has been shown that the Ojibways and Sioux in North America, the Charruas, Minuanes and Puelches in South America either killed or adopted their prisoners, that the Andamanese also sometimes adopt captive children, that the Montagnais generally tortured their prisoners to death, that warfare is also known among the Botocudos [833]. And the most striking evidence is afforded by the Australians, an isolated group consisting entirely of hunters, in which slavery is altogether unknown. So the non-existence of slavery among the great majority of the hunters and fishers must be due on the whole to more general causes; and only if the latter fail to account for the absence of slavery among the Wandorobo or any other tribe in a similar subjected state, may we have recourse to an explanation by this state.

What general causes may there be? Spencer, speaking of hunters, says: “In the absence of industrial activity, slaves are almost useless; and, indeed, where game is scarce, are not worth their food” [834]. It is true, where food is more plentiful than it is among most hunters, slaves can be of more use; but we cannot think that the only cause why slavery does not exist, is that the slave is “not worth his food”, i.e. that the produce of a man’s labour cannot much exceed his own primary wants. For we meet with several instances, among these tribes, of people whose wants are provided for by the labour of others. In our first Part we saw, that the Australian men depend largely for their subsistence on the work of their wives. Some other statements are indicative of a similar state of things. Dawson says of the natives of the Western District of Victoria: “Great respect is paid to the chiefs and their wives and families. They can command the services of every one belonging to their tribe. As many as six young bachelors are obliged to wait on a chief, and eight young unmarried women on his wife; and as the children are of superior rank to the common people, they also have a number of attendants to wait on them.... Food and water, when brought to the camp, must be offered to them first, and reeds provided for each in the family to drink with, while the common people drink in the usual way. Should they fancy any article of dress, opossum rug, or weapon, it must be given without a murmur” [835]. And of the chiefs of the Andaman Islanders we are told: “They and their wives are at liberty to enjoy immunity from the drudgery incidental to their mode of life, all such acts being voluntarily performed for them by the young unmarried persons living under their headship” [836].

So there are people here whose wants are provided for by the work of others; therefore scarcity of food cannot be the only cause why slavery does not exist, and we have to examine what other causes there may be [837].

The reader will remember, from the details given in the first Part, that slaves are frequently acquired from without the community to which the slave’s owner belongs, by war, kidnapping or trade. It may be convenient to give this phenomenon the technical name of extratribal slavery, whereas we shall speak of intratribal slavery in those cases where the slave remains within the same community to which he belonged before being enslaved, e.g. a debtor-slave. Now the keeping of extratribal slaves must be very difficult to hunters. Hunting supposes a nomadic life; and the hunter, who roams over vast tracts of land in pursuit of his game has not much opportunity to watch the movements of his slave, who may be apt to run away at any moment. And if the slave himself is set to hunt, the difficulty amounts nearly to impossibility. Moreover, the hunting slave will be much more inclined to run away than a soil-tilling slave; for the latter, during his flight, has to live in a make-shift way on the spontaneous products of nature; whereas the former continues hunting, as he has always done; his flight has not the character of a flight.

Another cause is the following. Primitive hunters generally live in small groups. Hildebrand remarks that at the lowest stage of culture men live together in families or small tribes. Several instances are given in his book. “The Nilgala Veddahs are distributed through their lovely country in small septs or families.” The Indians of the Rocky Mountains “exist in small detached bodies or families.” The Fuegians “appear to live in families, not in tribes.” The same applies to the Indians of Upper California, the Woguls of Siberia, the Kubus, the Negritos, the Bushmen, etc. [838]. And Sutherland remarks: “The middle savages, on the average of six races, reach about 150 as the social unit.” “The upper savages, as typified by the North American Indians, would average about 360 to an encampment” [839]. Now it is easy to understand, that such small communities would not be able to develop much coercive power over slaves introduced into the tribe from foreign parts. A fugitive slave would be very soon beyond the reach of the tribe; and a comparatively small number of slaves would be dangerous to the maintenance of power by the tribesmen within the tribe.

But the nomadic life of hunting tribes does not prevent the existence of intratribal slavery; such slavery might even be compatible with living in small groups. There are however other, more internal causes.

If there were slaves, i.e. male slaves, for slavery proper does not exist where all slaves are women, they would have to perform either the same work as free men, or the same work as free women. One might object, that sometimes slaves have separate kinds of labour assigned to them, which are performed by slaves only. This is true; but when slaves were first kept it must have been otherwise. It is not to be supposed that men, convinced of the utility of some new kind of work, began to procure slaves in order to make them perform this work; or that, finding some work tedious, they invented slavery to relieve themselves of this burden. Modern psychology does not account for psychical and social phenomena in such a rationalistic way [840]. Differentiation of slave labour from free labour cannot have existed in the first stage of slavery. Therefore two problems are to be solved: 1º. why are there no slaves performing men’s work? 2º. why are there no slaves performing women’s work?

Men’s work, besides warfare, is hunting. Now hunting is never a drudgery, but always a noble and agreeable work. Occupying the whole soul and leaving no room for distracting thought; offering the hunter a definite aim, to which he can reach by one mighty effort of strength and skill; uncertain in its results like a battle, and promising the glory of victory over a living creature; elevating the whole person, in a word intoxicating; it agrees very well with the impulsiveness of savage character [841]. Therefore it is not a work fit to be imposed upon men who are deprived of the common rights of freemen and are the property of others.

For, first, good hunters are highly respected. This appears from several statements. Ottawa women respected a man if he was a good hunter [842]. Tasmanian fathers took care to give their daughters to the best hunters [843]. Among the Dumagas (a Negrito tribe) a man who wishes to marry must show his skill in shooting [844]. Ojibway parents tried to give their daughters to good hunters. If the husband was lazy the wife had a right to leave him [845]. In Western Victoria “if a chief is a man of ability, exhibiting bravery in battle or skill in hunting, he is often presented with wives from other chiefs” [846]. Among the Andaman Islanders social status is dependent “on skill in hunting, fishing etc. and on a reputation for generosity and hospitality” [847]. Le Jeune tells us of a Montagnais, who was laughed at because he was a bad hunter. This was a great disgrace among the savages; for such men could never find or keep a wife [848]. A describer of Kamchatka says of the dangerous sea-lion hunting: “This chase is so honourable, that he who has killed most sea-lions is considered a hero; therefore many men engage in it, less for the sake of the meat, that is looked upon as a delicacy, than in order to win renown” [849]. In W. Washington and N. W. Oregon “a hunter is, in fact, looked upon with respect by almost every tribe in the district” [850]. An ancient describer of the Indians of Paraguay tells us that skill and bravery were the only qualities they valued. A would-be son-in-law had to bring game to the hut of the girl’s parents. “From the kind and the quantity of the game the parents judge whether he is a brave man and deserves to marry their daughter” [851]. Among the Northern Athabascans “none but a successful hunter need aspire to the hand of a chief’s daughter” [852]. Among the Attakapas, if a young man aspired to the hand of a girl, her father asked him whether he was a brave warrior and a good hunter and well acquainted with the art of making harpoons [853]. Even among the pastoral Colonial Hottentots those who had killed a savage animal were highly respected by their countrymen [854]. Personal qualities, among such tribes, are the only cause of social differentiation. Wealth does not yet exist [855]; and hereditary nobility is unknown. So a good hunter cannot be regarded by public opinion as a slave, the more so as a good hunter is also a good warrior, and without the aid of public opinion the master is not able to keep him subjected. And a bad hunter would be of little use as a hunting slave [856].

This prevents the growth of intratribal slavery: no member of the tribe is so superior to any other member, that he can reduce him to a state of complete subjection; except perhaps where the latter is physically or psychically much weaker; and then he would not be of any use as a hunting slave. But it also prevents extratribal slavery. Enemies are hated, but not despised. In Central North America prisoners are either killed or adopted, and in the latter case entirely considered and treated as members of the tribe. Sometimes a captive is spared for his bravery; he is then provided with all necessaries and dismissed to his home [857]. Even those who are intended to be killed, are in the meantime treated with all due honours, sometimes even provided with wives [858]. Enemies, at least full-grown men, if allowed to live, are on a footing of equality with the tribesmen; another state of things is not yet thought possible [859].

But even if the idea of subjecting tribesmen or enemies had entered the minds of these hunters, hunting slaves would not be of any use. For hunting requires the utmost application of strength and skill; therefore a compulsory hunting system cannot exist. If a man is to exert all his faculties to the utmost, there must be other motives than mere compulsion. It is for the same reason that in countries where manufactures are highly developed, a system of labour other than slavery is required. “It remains certain” Stuart Mill remarks “that slavery is incompatible with any high state of the arts of life, and any great efficiency of labour. For all products which require much skill, slave countries are usually dependent on foreigners.... All processes carried on by slave labour are conducted in the rudest and most unimproved manner” [860]. And Cairnes says that the slave is “unsuited for all branches of industry which require the slightest care, forethought, or dexterity. He cannot be made to co-operate with machinery; he can only be trusted with the coarsest implements; he is incapable of all but the rudest forms of labour” [861]. Mr. Kruijt, describing the natives of Central Celebes, speaks in the same way: “The free Alifur works as hard as his slave and even harder; for during the hours that there is nothing to do in the gardens, the freeman has to mend the furniture, plait baskets, and cut handles from wood or horn etc., all which work the slave does not understand” [862]. And Schurtz, in his most valuable essay on African industry, remarks: “Slavery has little to do with the development of industry. Among the Negroes of Africa only free people spend most of their time in industrial pursuits, the slaves performing at most subordinate functions. In the Soudan there are slaves who work on their own account and pay only a tribute to their master; but it scarcely ever happens that slaves are made to work in large numbers for the purpose of manufacturing goods. Those artisans who belong to pariah tribes are despised, but are not slaves, and the unwritten law defends them from arbitrary treatment” [863]. A freeman may give his whole mind to his work, because he knows he will enjoy the fruits of it, and still more because he will win a reputation by it among his fellow-men. The slave has not these motives; he works mainly on compulsion [864]. And as both hunting and higher industrial labour require much personal application, neither can be well performed by slaves. Here extremes meet, if hunting and manufactures are to be considered as extremes, which we are inclined to doubt, at least regarding those tribes that have brought the art of hunting to a high perfection; such hunting probably supposes more development of cerebral power than the lowest stage of agriculture [865]. But there is a difference between hunting and manufacturing nations. In manufacturing countries, besides the higher kinds of labour, there are also many sorts of ruder work to be done, that can be done by slaves as well. Moreover, slavery among a manufacturing nation may date from a former period and have passed into the laws and customs; then social life is based upon it; and so it remains for a long time after its economic basis has fallen. Slavery in such cases, by a gradual mitigation, is made to agree with changed economic conditions: the slave is given a proportionate share in the produce of his labour; he is allowed to buy his freedom by means of his savings; or his obligations are restricted to fixed tributes and services, and so the slave becomes a serf [866]. But the Australians and other hunting tribes have not probably ever done anything but hunting; and so neither present wants induce them to make slaves, nor do the traditions of the past maintain slavery [867]. We may add, that supervision of the work of a hunting slave would be nearly impossible. An agricultural slave can work in the presence of and surveyed by his master; but hunting requires rather independent action.

So slaves cannot be employed in hunting. They might, however, be set to do women’s work, i.e. “erecting habitations, collecting fuel and water, carrying burdens, procuring roots and delicacies of various kinds, making baskets for cooking roots and other purposes, preparing food, and attending to the children” [868]. But, first, nomadic life and the requirements of the work would, in this case too, very much facilitate the escape of the slave, the more so, as the slaves, when the men are engaged in hunting, would be under the supervision of the women only. Moreover, the men are not likely to take the pains of procuring slaves for the sole benefit of their wives. We must also take into consideration, that these small tribes are very much in need of the forces of every man in hunting and still more in warfare; therefore an able-bodied boy will be brought up to be a hunter and warrior, rather than given to the women as a slave. And finally, where war is frequent, such slaves, not being able to fight, would soon be eliminated in the struggle for life, whereas women are often spared because they are women [869]. Therefore it is only among tribes which either live in peaceful surroundings, or are so powerful as not to have to fear their neighbours very much, that men performing women’s work are to be found. Crantz speaks of a young Greenlander who was unable to navigate, because when a child he had been taken too much care of by his mother. “This man was employed by other Greenlanders like a maid-servant, performing all female labour, in which he excelled” [870]. Among the Central Eskimos, according to Boas, “cripples who are unable to hunt do the same kind of work as women” [871]. Tanner tells us of an Ojibway, who behaved entirely as a woman, and was kept as a wife by another Ojibway. He excelled in female labour, which he had performed all his life. Such men, according to Tanner, are found among all Indian tribes; they are called agokwa [872]. But in all these cases the men who perform female labour are not slaves. Crantz’s young Greenlander probably was glad to earn his livelihood in this way. Domestic labour among the Greenlanders is not generally wanted. Widows and orphans are sometimes taken as servants; but this is done rather as a favour; for else they would have to starve [873]. Among the Central Eskimos only those who are unable to hunt do the same work as women; a man able to hunt will never be compelled to do female work. And the men of Tanner’s narrative are entirely treated as women and somehow perform the sexual functions of wives; the performing of domestic labour only would not probably be sufficient for them to get their subsistence [874]. Only where either peaceful surroundings or a fighting power much superior to that of the neighbours makes the existence of men performing female labour possible, and where at the same time female labour is so much valued that the more labourers can be got to do it the better, can there be male slaves performing women’s work [875]. Whether these requirements are fulfilled in any of our positive cases, will appear from our investigation of these cases.

The non-existence of slavery among most hunters and fishers now being accounted for, we shall proceed to an inquiry into the causes of the existence of slavery among 18 hunting and fishing tribes.

§ 2. The slave-keeping tribes of the Pacific Coast of North America.

Going on to account for our 18 positive cases, we may remark in the first place, that what we have said about the causes preventing the existence of slavery, applies much more to hunters than to fishers. Fishers are not necessarily so nomadic as hunters; and where a sedentary life prevails, there is more domestic work to be done, and the slaves cannot so easily escape. Moreover it is not so very difficult to control a fishing slave, who is in the same boat with the master. The slave may also be used to row the boat. Therefore it may be of some use to inquire, how many hunting and how many fishing tribes are to be found among our positive and negative cases. Fishing in our sense includes the killing of water-animals besides fish: whales, seals, etc. Where a tribe lives by hunting and fishing, we shall call it a hunting or a fishing tribe, according to the predominating mode of subsistence.

One difficulty arises here. Some tribes, especially Australian, subsist largely on wild fruits, roots, berries, grasses, etc., shell-fish and lower land-animals, such as beetles, lizards, rats, snakes, etc.; so that neither hunting in the true sense nor fishing prevails [876]. For our purpose it will be most convenient to classify them under the head of hunters; for the peculiar features of fishing tribes which we have enumerated: fixed habitations, easy supervision of the work of slaves, drudgery such as rowing, are not found among them. Moreover, the gathering of wild-growing vegetable food and the catching of the lower animals, in Australia too, are chiefly incumbent on women, whereas the men hunt; so the division of labour is the same as among other hunters regarding the quality of the work of each sex; only the quantity of male labour is less and of female labour greater here.

Of our positive cases the following are hunters: some tribes about Puget Sound, Atnas, Similkameem, Abipones, Tehuelches. The rest are fishers.

Of our negative cases the following are fishers: Eskimos (9 tribes), Hupas, Fuegians, Southern Nicobarese, Tuski, Ghiliaks, Koryakes. The rest are hunters, with the exception of the Chepewyans, of whom Bancroft says: “Their food consists mostly of fish and reindeer, the latter being easily taken in snares. Much of their land is barren, but with sufficient vegetation to support numerous herds of reindeer, and fish abound in their lakes and streams” [877]. So we are not able to ascertain whether hunting or fishing predominates among the Chepewyans.

We see that 5 hunting and 14 fishing tribes have slaves; 54 hunting and 15 fishing tribes have no slaves [878]. In other words: of the hunting tribes 8½ per cent., of the fishing tribes 48 per cent. have slaves.

We may say now, that hunting is very unfavourable, and fishing not nearly so much so, to the existence of slavery. But it remains to be explained, why a few hunting tribes keep slaves, and why among the fishers the tribes with and without slaves are nearly equally divided.

Now it is worth noticing, that the great majority of our positive cases (all except the Abipones, Tehuelches and Kamchadales) belong to one geographical group: they all live on or near the Pacific Coast of North America, from Behring Strait to the Northern boundary of California. Therefore we may suppose that the existence of slavery among all these tribes is due to the same or nearly the same causes; and a survey of the economic state of this group will probably enable us to find these causes. We shall examine then, whether slavery among the three tribes outside this group can be accounted for by the same causes, or if special causes are at work there.

The circumstances that may be considered favouring the existence of slavery on the Pacific Coast are the following:

1º Abundance of food. The Aleuts eat only the best parts of the dried fish; the rest is thrown away [879]. Bancroft tells us that “although game is plentiful, the Haidas are not a race of hunters, but derive their food chiefly from the innumerable multitude of fish and sea animals, which, each variety in its season, fill the coast waters” [880]. The Tacullies, “are able to procure food with but little labour” [881]. Our informant also speaks of the “abundant natural supplies in ocean, stream, and forest” of the Puget Sound Indians [882]. The Tlinkits, according to Holmberg, do not take great pains to secure their food; the ebbing tide leaves a multitude of sea-animals ashore, which they can gather without difficulty [883]. Kane remarks: “Salmon is almost the only food used by the Indians on the Lower Columbia River, the two months’ fishing affording a sufficient supply to last them the whole year round” [884]. About the tribes of W. Washington and N. W. Oregon Gibbs remarks: “With all these sources of subsistence, the greater part of which is afforded spontaneously by the land or water, nothing but indolence or want of thrift could lead to want among a population even greater than we have reason to believe at any time inhabited this district” [885]. The salmon fishery “has always been the chief and an inexhaustible source of food for the Chinooks, who, although skilful fishermen, have not been obliged to invent a great variety of methods or implements for the capture of the salmon, which rarely if ever have failed them” [886]. The Ahts also, in Jewitt’s time, could procure an immense quantity of salmon with the greatest facility [887]. Several other tribes on the Pacific Coast have fixed habitations and live together in large groups, as we soon shall see; therefore amongst them too food must be abundant, though this is not explicitly stated.

The consequence is, that the produce of labour exceeds the primary wants of the labourer much more than for instance in Australia, and the use of slaves is greater.

2º. Most of these tribes live chiefly by fishing (see above). Moreover, there is a great variety of food. The Koniagas catch salmon, haddock, whales, seals, deer, reindeer, waterfowls, a small white fish and grizzly bears [888]. The Tlinkits eat fish, various kinds of meat and plants, and shell-fish; formerly they also killed whales [889]. The Haidas have abundance of game and fish. They eat also birds, and various kinds of vegetables. Shell-fish are gathered by the women [890]. Of some tribes about Puget Sound we are told: “Fish is their chief dependence, though game is taken in much larger quantities than by the Nootkas” [891]. The Ahts eat fish, roots and berries, and hunt the deer [892]. The Tacullies eat fish (chiefly salmon), herbs and berries and small game [893]. The Similkameem eat fresh and dried game of all kinds, the seed of the sunflower, various roots, edible fungi, berries, wild onions [894]. The tribes of W. Washington and N. W. Oregon live on fish, roots, berries and a little game. “The roots used are numerous.” “Besides the salmon sturgeon is taken in the Columbia, and a variety of other fish.” Seals and whales are also occasionally killed. “Shell-fish in great variety exist in the bays and on the coast” [895]. The basis of the Chinooks’ food is salmon; but besides this they eat sturgeon, wild-fowl, deer, rabbits, nuts, berries, wild fruits and roots [896].

We do not attach very much importance to this circumstance; for even the Australians have a great variety of food, and yet they are poorly off [897]. But together with the other causes it may have some influence; for where various kinds of food are available, there is a good chance, that the procuring of one or more of them will be a work fit to be performed by slaves.

3º. They generally have fixed habitations and live in rather large groups; they are enabled to do so by preserving food for winter use. The Koniagas “build two kinds of houses; one a large, winter village residence, ... and the other a summer hunting hut.... Their winter houses are very large, accommodating three or four families each.” “The kashim or public house of the Koniagas is built like their dwellings, and is capable of accommodating three or four hundred people.” During the summer great quantities of fish are dried for winter use, which they lay up in their houses [898]. The Tlinkits during the winter dwell in villages, regularly built and consisting of solidly constructed houses. The greater houses lodge up to 30 persons. “For winter they dry large quantities of herring, roes, and the flesh of animals” [899]. Haida houses are similar to those of the Tlinkits, but larger, better constructed and more richly ornamented. “Fish, when caught, are delivered to the women, whose duty it is to prepare them for winter use by drying” [900]. Among the Nootkas “each tribe has several villages in favourable locations for fishing at different seasons.” Each house accommodates many families. Fish and shell-fish are preserved by drying; some varieties of seaweed and lichens, as well as various roots, are regularly laid up for winter use [901]. In Jewitt’s narrative mention is made of divisions of the Ahts, consisting of 500–1000 warriors. They used to preserve various kinds of fish for the winter [902]. In W. Washington and N. W. Oregon acorns, some kinds of berries, and especially salmon and whaleblubber, are stored for winter use [903]. About Puget Sound “the rich and powerful build substantial houses”. “These houses sometimes measure over one hundred feet in length, and are divided into rooms or pens, each house accommodating many families.” “In the better class of houses, supplies are neatly stored in baskets at the sides” [904]. “During a portion of every year the Tacullies dwell in villages.” “In April they visit the lakes and take small fish; and after these fail, they return to their villages and subsist upon the fish they have dried, and upon herbs and berries” [905]. The Chinooks, according to Bancroft, do not move about much for the purpose of obtaining a supply of food. They have permanent winter dwellings. “Once taken, the salmon were cleaned by the women, dried in the sun and smoked in the lodges; then they were sometimes powdered fine between two stones before packing in skins or mats for winter use”. Swan also states that they preserve fish and berries for the winter [906]. Similar accounts are given of the Similkameem [907].

These circumstances greatly tend to further the growth of slavery. A settled life makes escape of the slaves more difficult [908]. Living in larger groups brings about a higher organization of freemen, and therefore a greater coercive power of the tribe over its slaves. And the preserving of food requires additional work; and this work is very fit to be performed by slaves, as it does not require overmuch skill, and has to be done in or near the house, so that supervision of the work is very easy. Moreover, the hope of partaking of the stored food is a tie that binds the slave to his master’s house, in much the same manner as a modern workman is bound by having a share in the insurance fund of the factory.

4º. Trade and industry are highly developed along the Pacific Coast. Kane speaks of the ioquas, “a small shell found at Cape Flattery, and only there, in great abundance. These shells are used as money, and a great traffic is carried on among all the tribes by means of them” [909]. Among the Aleuts “whalefishing is confined to certain families, and the spirit of the craft descends from father to son” [910]. The Koniagas are “adapted to labour and commerce rather than to war and hunting”. They make very good boats and men as well as women excel in divers trades. They got slaves by means of exchange from other tribes [911]. Among the Tlinkits there are professional wood-carvers, smiths and silversmiths. The women are very skilful in plaiting. Very good canoes are made. Formerly they hunted whales with harpoons. Trade was already highly developed before the arrival of the whites; they traded even with remote parts of the coast and with the tribes of the interior. The trade in slaves was formerly carried on on a large scale [912]. The large and ingeniously built canoes of the Haidas are widely celebrated; they often make them for sale. They have a standard of value: formerly slaves or pieces of copper, now blankets. Their houses are richly ornamented. They are “noted for their skill in the construction of their various implements, particularly for sculptures in stone and ivory, in which they excel all the other tribes of Northern America” [913]. The Tsimshian formerly acted as middlemen in the slave-trade. The southern tribes kidnapped or captured slaves, sold them to the Tsimshian, and these again to the Tlinkits and interior Tinneh. “Each chief about Fort Simpson kept an artisan, whose business it was to repair canoes, make masks, etc.” [914]. The Atnas “understand the art of working copper, and have commercial relations with surrounding tribes”. They buy their slaves from the Koltschanes [915]. Gibbs states that in W. Washington and N. W. Oregon the Indians of the interior preserve some kinds of salmon, “which after a stay in the fresh water have lost their superfluous oil, and these are often actually traded to those Indians at the mouth of the river or on the Sound. The Dalles was formerly a great depot for this commerce”. Some wild-growing roots “were formerly a great article of trade with the interior”. The slave-trade is carried on here too. “Many of the slaves held here are ... brought from California, where they were taken by the warlike and predatory Indians of the plains, and sold to the Kallapuia and Tsinuk.” “Many of them [the slaves] belong to distant tribes” [916]. The tribes about Puget Sound have canoes, beautifully made, painted and polished. The houses of the rich are made of planks split from trees by means of bone wedges. “In their barter between the different tribes, and in estimating their wealth, the blanket is generally the unit of value, and the hiaqua, a long white shell obtained off Cape Flattery at a considerable depth, is also extensively used for money, its value increasing with its length. A kind of annual fair for trading purposes and festivities is held by the tribes of Puget Sound at Bajada Point.” “Slaves are obtained by war and kidnapping, and are sold in large numbers to northern tribes” [917]. Of the Nootkas Bancroft says: “Trade in all their productions was carried on briskly between the different Nootka tribes before the coming of the whites.” “The slave-trade forms an important part of their commerce.” Harpooners are a privileged class [918]. The several divisions of the Ahts mutually exchange the fish that each of them catches. They also sell mats and baskets manufactured by the women. According to Jewitt’s narrative, they made very good canoes. A kind of shell, strung upon threads, formed a circulating medium among them, five fathoms of it being the price of a slave, their most valuable species of property. “The trade of most of the other tribes with Nootka was principally train-oil, seal or whale’s blubber, fish fresh or dried, herring or salmon spawn, clams and mussels, and the yama, a species of fruit which is pressed and dried, cloth, sea-otter skins, and slaves” [919]. Among the Makah (a Nootka tribe) the whale-oil “is used as an article of food as well as for trade.... The Makah were till lately in the habit of purchasing oil from the Nittinat also, and have traded in a single season, it is said, as much as 30,000 gallons.” A division into different trades also exists among them. “A portion of them only attain the dignity of whalers, a second class devote themselves to halibut, and a third to salmon and inferior fish, the occupations being kept distinct, at least, in a great measure” [920]. Among the Tacullies hiaqua shells up to 1810 were the circulating medium of the country [921]. The Chinooks, says Bancroft, “were always a commercial rather than a warlike people, and are excelled by none in their shrewdness in bargaining. Before the arrival of the Europeans they repaired annually to the region of the Cascades and Dalles, where they met the tribes of the interior, with whom they exchanged their few articles of trade—fish, oil, shell and Wapato—for the skins, roots and grasses of their eastern neighbours.” “Their original currency or standard of value was the hiaqua shell.” They obtain their slaves “by war, or more commonly by trade”. According to Swan, the Chinooks “manage, during the course of the winter, to make a great many articles, which are disposed of to the whites”. A species of small shell passes as money among them. “Their slaves are purchased from the Northern Indians, and are either stolen or captives of war, and were regularly brought down and sold to the southern tribes” [922].

This development of trade and industry furthers the growth of slavery in several ways:

a. The slave-trade facilitates the keeping of slaves. Prisoners of war usually belong to a neighbouring tribe; they have much more opportunity to escape to their native country than purchased slaves, who have been transported from a great distance. The latter, if escaping from their masters, would instantly be recaptured by some other slave-keeping tribe of the Pacific Coast. So among the Nootkas “a runaway slave is generally seized and resold by the first tribe he meets” [923]. We can therefore easily understand why the Koniagas did not keep full-grown captive men as slaves, but acquired their male slaves by means of exchange [924]. Similarly, a chief of the Cowitchins (near Vancouver Island), according to Kane, “took many captives, whom he usually sold to the tribes further north, thus diminishing their chance of escaping back through a hostile country to their own people” [925].

b. Where the fishing implements are brought to a high perfection (canoes, nets, harpoons), fishing becomes more remunerative; the produce of a fishing slave’s labour exceeds his primary wants more than where fishing is carried on in a ruder manner.

c. The more the freemen devote themselves to trade and industry, the more need there is for slaves to do the ruder work (fishing, rowing, cooking, etc.). The trade itself may also require menial work: carrying goods or rowing boats on commercial journeys, etc. [926].

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.