Chapter II: Hunters and Fishers (2)

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.