Chapter IV: Agricultural Tribes (5)

In Neu Pommern, according to Parkinson, “every man who can afford it buys many wives. For a wife is a capital that yields a fair interest; she works from an early age till her strength is spent; and when, from age or by being overtaxed with labour, she grows sickly and decrepit, she perishes unheeded by anybody. The wife is nothing but the beast of burden of her husband; she performs all labour, tills the soil, cleans the dwelling, prepares the food, and carries the reaped produce in heavy baskets far away to the market. The husband therefore regards his wife as a valuable property.” “The husband continually urges his wives to work, that they may earn much dewarra [shell-money] for him; for the more dewarra he owns the greater is the consideration and influence he enjoys. But the lot of the wives is not bettered by an increase in the wealth of the husband. The wives of a man who owns thousands of coils of dewarra have no better life and are no less overworked than the wife of a very poor man who has no property except his only wife.” And Danks states that “a man may have as many wives as he can afford to purchase. If he cannot afford to purchase one, and his credit is low, he may have to remain single. The headmen are generally rich men, hence they invariably have a number of wives, ranging from three to six”. “Married life in New Britain is a hard one for the women. They are beaten and ill-treated by their husbands as occasion may arise” [1538].

In New Mecklenburg the condition of the women is equally bad [1539].

In Fiji, according to Williams, “polygamy is looked upon as a principal source of a chiefs power and wealth.” And Pritchard says: “The greater the number of wives a man had, the better his social position.... Besides the acknowledged wives, there were attached to the household of the chiefs slave-women, who, though performing the most menial services, were at the same time nothing else than what the odalisques are in the Turkish harem” [1540].

We see that these Melanesian wives supply the place of slaves. They are bought like slaves; they have to work for their owners like slaves; and their labour, like that of slaves, increases the wealth of their lords. Another point of resemblance is this. In slave countries it is generally the rich only who are able to procure slaves; poor freemen have to work for themselves. Here it is the rich who appropriate the women; and many of the poor have to remain single. Here, as in all countries where polygamy is practised, it is only the minority of the men who can live in polygamy; for everywhere the number of women is nearly equal to that of men. And as in Melanesia the rich, who otherwise would want slaves, have many wives to work for them, slaves are not required.

We cannot explain here why in Melanesia womankind is so much at a discount, whereas among some other savage tribes (e.g. on the North Pacific Coast of North America) the sex commands such respect [1541]. But we clearly see what is the effect of this state of things. Much labour is wanted; otherwise the women would not have to work so hard, and the rich would not keep so many female labourers. Yet slaves are not kept in any considerable number, because the women supply the place of slaves.

One might object, that possibly the women are held in such a slavelike state because male slaves are impossible or very difficult to procure, or because the coercive power of these tribes is not strong enough to admit of the keeping of slaves, or because male captives, where they are introduced into the tribe (as in the islands Bougainville Straits), are wanted for warriors. Shortly expressed the objection is, that slavery is not wanting because there exists a “slavery of women,” but “slavery of women” exists because slavery proper is wanting. We must own that this is quite possible. But, whatever be the cause of this “slavery of women,” as soon as it exists it renders slavery less necessary than it would otherwise be. War is frequent in Melanesia [1542], so there is no physical impossibility of procuring captives. And though it may be difficult to keep male slaves subjected,—if the men were unable to impose all work on the women and obliged to perform their due share of it themselves, they would decidedly take more pains to procure slaves and set them to work. A low condition of women, though only a secondary factor, certainly is a factor which tends to make slavery proper superfluous.

§ 14. Commerce.

In § 1 of this chapter we have found the following numbers of positive and negative cases among commercial agricultural tribes:

Positive. Negative.
a1 + t 8 3
a2 + t 26
a2 + c + t 7
a3 + t 6
a3 + c + t 1
-- --
Total 48 3

We use the term “commercial tribes” in a wide sense, as including not only those tribes among which many people subsist by trading, but those that exchange a considerable part of their produce for foreign merchandise. For instance, a tribe that grows corn for export is a commercial tribe in the sense we attach to the word.

We see that, with very few exceptions, all commercial agricultural tribes keep slaves. This proves that among agricultural tribes the development of trade greatly furthers the growth of slavery.

We have not much to say in explanation of this fact. When speaking of the slave-keeping tribes of the Pacific Coast of North America, we have already remarked that the development of trade tends to further slavery in various ways. Commercial tribes are likely to carry on a trade in slaves, and this makes the keeping of slaves very easy. Where the freemen take to commercial pursuits, they want others to perform the common drudgery for every-day subsistence. The trade itself may also require menial work: the articles of commerce have to be prepared and transported, trading vessels have to be rowed, etc. And finally, commerce often leads to a development of wealth and luxury; a man can now, by the labour of his slaves, acquire not only the necessaries, but the refinements of life [1543].

The last point is an important one. In self-dependent agricultural countries the main use of slave labour consists in providing the master with food. If, then, a man keeps a large number of slaves who work for him, he is able to entertain his friends, or to keep a retinue of unproductive slaves or servants, whose wants are provided for by the work of the soil-tilling slaves. But where this is the sole profit one can derive from one’s slaves, an owner who keeps a considerable number of them does not want to make them work very hard; he often contents himself with receiving a tribute, and so the slaves become serfs. In this way the slave-owner gets less out of his slaves than would otherwise be the case; but he does not want more, and he need not now continually supervise their work. Slavery is not likely to exist on a large scale.

Where commercial relations with foreign parts are maintained, it is otherwise. A slave-owner who receives large quantities of agricultural produce from his slaves can now exchange them for foreign merchandise. Retaining for himself as much food as he wants, he exchanges the rest for such objects as are either useful and agreeable in themselves, or give him distinction among his countrymen. The use of slave labour becomes thus practically unlimited. Kohler rightly remarks that only where the economic instinct is awake, can slavery attain to a full development, and Schmoller observes that, when the patriarchal family began to produce for the market, covetousness and pursuit of gain arose and the treatment of slaves became worse [1544].

We must further take into consideration that slavery on a very large scale is only possible, where industrial crops are raised. “Tobacco and cotton” says Cairnes, “fulfil that condition which we saw was essential to the economical employment of slaves—the possibility of working large numbers within a limited space; while wheat and Indian corn, in the cultivation of which the labourers are dispersed over a wide surface, fail in this respect” [1545]. And cotton and similar crops are only cultivated in large quantity where they are exported.

Of such “wholesale slavery”, as Bagehot terms it, we find a few instances among savage tribes.

Köler tells us that in Bonny the great majority of the inhabitants are slaves. The keeping of slaves is very expensive, as agriculture and industry scarcely exist; all food has to be imported. The freemen are traders in palm-oil, and want large numbers of slaves to row the canoes in which this oil is transported [1546].

Among the Ewe of the Slave Coast slavery is practised on a very large scale. Some men keep 200–300 slaves, who form their capital. The slaves are generally employed in carrying oil from the inland to the coast for sale to Europeans. The maintaining of order among such great numbers of slaves requires great severity. Slavery marks all their institutions. It is a common saying with them that “the large water-tub does not go to the spring”, whereby they mean that freemen must not do such work as is only fit for slaves and boys [1547].

Miss Kingsley, speaking of the social classes among the tribes, inhabiting the territory of the Oil Rivers on the Western Coast of Africa, says: “The third and fourth classes are true slave classes, the higher one in rank being what is called the Winnaboes or Trade boys, the lower the pull-away boys and the plantation hands. The best point in it, as a system, is that it gives to the poorest boy who paddles an oil canoe a chance of becoming a king” [1548].

Among the Garos, where cotton is the principal culture, two-fifths of the population are slaves. “The distinction [between freemen and slaves] is jealously preserved.... It is from the possession of a large number of them [slaves] that a man obtains influence amongst his tribe” [1549].

It is clear that among these tribes slavery would not prevail to such a great extent, if the preparing and transporting of the articles of export did not require so much labour.

In these cases trade is the cause of “wholesale slavery”, not necessarily of slavery in general. “Retail slavery” may have existed among these tribes before they became so largely commercial. But, seeing that among them the extension of commercial relations has so greatly increased the use of slave labour, we may safely suppose that in several cases the development of trade has given rise to slavery among tribes which did not practise it before. This is also made probable by the list given at the beginning of this paragraph.

We shall not proceed to a closer investigation of this subject. We have already remarked that as yet we know very little about the general effects of trade and the place it occupies in social life among savages. And we must know more of this, before we can arrive at any accurate conclusion with regard to the influence of trade on the rise and growth of slavery.

When speaking of hunters and fishers, we have found that the influence of trade is more considerable where manufactured goods, than where raw products are exported. This will probably also apply to agricultural tribes, viz. if we take the term “manufactured goods” in a wide sense, as including agricultural produce. Raw products in our sense means articles which can be exported without any labour being previously applied to them, e.g. the various kinds of stone and earth exchanged by Eskimos and Australians. The articles exported by commercial agricultural tribes are nearly always manufactured goods in this wider sense.

It might be interesting to divide the commercial tribes (in the wider sense) into three categories, according as they export agricultural produce, manufactured goods in the common, restricted sense, or articles purchased abroad (articles of transit trade), the last category comprising the commercial tribes in the restricted sense, and inquire what are the social effects of commerce in each case. But such a subject wants separate treatment; we cannot deal with it here. We will only express our opinion, that the significance of trade and industry among savages is commonly underrated. Whether we are right here will appear when these points have been more closely studied than they are now.

In another paragraph we shall have to speak of a peculiar branch of trade, the trade in slaves.

§ 15. Slaves employed in warfare.

In several cases it is stated that slaves are employed in warfare. Leaving out of regard the cattle-breeding agricultural tribes, of which we have already spoken in chapter III, we find the following instances.

Thomson tells us that in New Zealand slaves accompanied their masters on fishing and fighting expeditions; and in another place he states that women and slaves accompanied the warriors to carry burdens [1550]. Polack says: “Slaves are permitted to take part in a war”, and Brown, speaking of slaves in New Zealand, remarks: “If any of them show superior talents for war, they are duly appreciated, and many slaves by this means raise themselves to the chieftainship of the tribe” [1551].

Dalton, speaking of the slaves kept by the Garos, says: “It is from the possession of a large number of them that a man obtains influence amongst his tribe. Each great chief can go to war with a body-guard of 60 such followers entirely devoted to him” [1552].

Among the Lawas too, according to Colquhoun, slaves are employed as warriors [1553].

In Nias slaves are often compelled to go to war with their masters, except when war is made upon the native village of the slaves. The slaves fight bravely, and in war bear arms like the freemen, but are never set at liberty for their bravery [1554].

Among the Kayans slaves serve as warriors and can even become war-chiefs [1555].

Among the natives of Central Celebes, slaves who excel in those qualities which are highly valued in freemen, i.e. bravery or oratorical power, are practically no longer regarded as slaves [1556].

Among the Tagals and Visayas, in the time of the conquista, generally freemen and vassals only took part in military operations; but sometimes slaves too, especially in naval wars: the slaves were then employed for rowing the boats [1557].

The forces sent out by Lunda chiefs on marauding expeditions consist of freemen and slaves [1558].

Among the Angoni the domestic slaves join their masters in the slave-raids [1559].

Bérenger-Féraud tells us that among the Wolofs the slaves of the king are soldiers and form his body-guard; they also collect taxes for him [1560].

Among the Barea and Kunama the spoils taken in war by a native-born slave belong to his master [1561]. Hence it appears that these slaves are employed in warfare.

In the French Soudan the master provides his domestic slaves with arms and takes them with him to the battle-field [1562].

Among the Soninkays and Malinkays of French Guinea, one class of warriors is composed of the slaves of the chiefs. At the close of a war they return to their agricultural pursuits; but they are always ready to take arms again [1563].

These are the only instances we have noticed, of purely agricultural tribes among which slaves perform a military function. There may be some more cases. Our informants do not always enter into many details; therefore, when they are silent on the subject, this does not always prove that slaves are not allowed to fight. Yet, considering the small number of instances we have been able to collect, we may safely conclude that among most agricultural tribes slaves do not share in military operations.

This is what we expected. Slaves are not allowed to follow the noble military art, which is the privilege of freemen [1564]. A slave is not a warrior for the same reason that he is not a hunter. Moreover, it were too dangerous to trust him with weapons; he might be inclined to rise against his oppressors. And finally, when slaves are procured by capture in war or kidnapping, they would often have to fight against their own tribe, and would be very likely to go over to the enemies of their masters.

It is further remarkable that the tribes we have enumerated in this paragraph are all in the higher stages of agriculture, as may be seen from chapter I. We have not found a single instance of hunting agriculturists employing their slaves in warfare. There are even hunting agriculturists of the lowest type, of whom it is explicitly stated that they do not allow their slaves to fight. Martius tells us that several wild tribes of Brazil keep slaves. The slaves are differently treated by the different tribes; but it is a general characteristic of slavery, that slaves are not allowed to bear arms [1565]. And Azara states that in his time the Mbayas subsisted on hunting and fishing, and on the produce of the soil that was tilled to a small extent by their slaves and by a neighbouring tribe, the Guanas. Here too, warfare was the business of the freemen to the exclusion of the slaves [1566].

This may, at first sight, seem strange. If it is true, as Powell asserts, (and it does not seem to us improbable) that slavery originated from the adoption of captives [1567], we should expect to find an intermediate stage, in which the captives, though already enslaved instead of adopted, still shared in military operations, the differentiation of the “regulative part of society” from the “operative part” (to borrow Spencer’s words) not yet being complete. The existence of slavery, mainly for military purposes, among the hunting Abipones and some pastoral tribes, seems to indicate such a stage. But among agricultural tribes we find no trace of it. Some agricultural tribes (of which the Iroquois are the classical instance) adopt their captives; then there are many which keep slaves who are not allowed to fight; and, finally, in the higher stages of agriculture, we find a few tribes among which slaves share in military operations.

Yet the cause of this seeming incongruity is not difficult to detect. Pastoral tribes are always stronger, from a military point of view, than primitive agricultural tribes. In chapter III we have seen that the former often keep their agricultural neighbours in a state of subjection. Therefore it is much easier for them to employ their slaves in warfare than for hunting agriculturists; the latter, if they are to keep slaves at all, must take care to disarm them and so prevent them from doing harm.

Among agriculturists in the higher stages it is otherwise. There is often an elaborate division of labour; the governing classes are differentiated from the labouring classes, and the army is regularly constituted. Now it is not at all dangerous to enlist the slaves into the inferior ranks of the army, under the lead of the governing classes. The slaves, generally brought by traders from a far distance, have no longer to fight against their native tribe, but against strangers. And where slavery prevails to a great extent, the owners of numerous slaves, who form the aristocracy, will often be inclined to rely on their slaves for the maintenance of their power over the common freemen; whereas the slaves, who are no longer on the same footing of familiarity with the freemen as in primitive slavery, but despised and hated for being the tools of the aristocracy, regard their master as their natural protector and are willing to stand by him [1568].

Such was the course of evolution in ancient Rome. In the old times the slaves were not allowed to fight. “For entering the military service or taking on him any state office, a slave was punished with death” [1569]. But later on a change took place. Speaking of the last days of the republic, Ingram remarks: “In the subsequent civil conflicts the aid of slaves was sought by both parties, even by Marius himself, and afterwards by Catiline, though he finally rejected their services. Clodius and Milo employed bands of gladiators in their city riots, and this action on the part of the latter was approved by Cicero. In the First Civil War they were to be found in both camps, and the murderers of Caesar, those soi-disant vindicators of liberty, were escorted to the Capitol by gladiators. Antony, Octavius, and Sextus Pompeius employed them in the Second Civil War” [1570]. But the slaves soon began to take arms against those who had taught them to fight. “It is recorded by Augustus on the Monumentum Ancyranum that he gave back to their masters for punishment about 30,000 slaves who had absconded and borne arms against the state. Under Tiberius, at the death of Caligula, and in the reign of Nero, there were threatening movements of the slaves. Nor did the danger of servile insurrection disappear in the later stages of the Empire. The armies of the invading Goths were swelled by their countrymen who had been captured or bought by Romans. The slaves of Gaul almost en masse took part in the revolt of the Bagaudae, and forty thousand slaves joined Alaric at the siege of Rome” [1571].

The last passage shows that even in a state where the power of the government and the military art are highly developed it is not safe to employ slaves in warfare. They may actually be the ready tools of the aristocracy; but in the long run they will come to form a dangerous element in the state. Yet, as it may be momentarily convenient to an ambitious statesman to employ them, it will sometimes be done; whereas among hunting agriculturists the danger is so obvious that it is not even attempted.

As it is only among a few agricultural tribes, and these in the higher stages, that slaves perform a military function, we cannot think that this has been an important factor in the rise of slavery; and it has probably been nowhere the only motive for making slaves.

Something analogous to the employment of slaves in warfare is their holding high offices of state. This occurs in some despotically governed African countries. Goldstein remarks that in the Soudan states the numerous court and state offices are generally held by slaves. The king prefers them as public officers to royal princes, who might be inclined to rise against him [1572]. Among the Bayanzi, according to Torday and Joyce, “the great chief usually has a confidential adviser, who, in all cases observed, was a slave; such slaves have great influence, and receive numerous presents from their masters; they often impersonate the chief before strangers, while their master keeps in the background” [1573]. In imperial Rome freedmen were appointed to high offices [1574].

§ 16. Slaves kept as a luxury.

Sometimes we are told that it is considered an honour to possess many slaves. We shall give a few instances.

Among the Lampongs the keeping of slaves is indicative of wealth and power [1575].

Among the Tagals and Visayas, in the time of the conquista, a man’s influence, power and reputation depended on the number of his slaves [1576].

Among the Ininga and Galloa it is the ambition of a freeman to have as many slaves as possible [1577].

Compiègne states that a Mpongwe asked him to give him a portion of his wages in advance, in order to buy a slave. “He will work for me and my wife” said the man, “and I shall be a person of rank” [1578].

Among the Bambala, “when a man buys a new slave, he ornaments him on the first day with his best clothes and ornaments, and walks round the village with him to show him to his friends” [1579].

We have only taken a few instances at random. It cannot be interesting to the reader to know how often the same fact has been noticed by ethnographers. For we may suppose that wherever slavery exists, the possession of a great number of slaves is a mark of distinction. The possession of slaves, like other property, is indicative of wealth; and where slaves are acquired by capture in war it shows the bravery of the captor. Moreover, among agricultural tribes the labour of the slaves augments the revenue of their owner, and so the keeping of slaves is not only a sign but a source of wealth; therefore the slave-owner is looked upon as one who has at his disposal a means of acquiring wealth. Martius, speaking of the wild tribes of Brazil, remarks that a chief who keeps many slaves can take more land into cultivation than other people. He has therefore always an abundant supply of food, which tends to increase the esteem in which he is held [1580].

Where industry and art are little developed, slaves, besides wives and domestic animals, are almost the only luxury that is to be had. The reader will remember Levchine’s statement about a rich Kazak Kirghiz, whose numerous horses gave him no profit, but great renown [1581]. In the lower stages of culture a rich man cannot build a palace, or keep a motor-car, or buy pictures; he can only show his wealth to the public by keeping a large number of men or domestic animals continually running about him. Leroy-Beaulieu justly remarks: “The luxury of primitive times is very simple; it consists mainly in the grouping about the rich man (who most often is at the same time a man of high birth) of a large body of servants maintained by him, and in practising hospitality on a large scale. Among patriarchal peoples there is almost perfect equality of material life between men of different stations. Food, clothing, furniture even, differs but little” [1582].

But, though a rich man may display his wealth by keeping a great number of slaves, we do not mean to say that among any agricultural tribe all slaves are kept as a mere luxury. This seems improbable. Among pastoral tribes, as we have seen before, it sometimes occurs. The owner of numerous herds may support a large body of slaves, who have scarcely anything to do. But among agricultural tribes it is quite otherwise. Subsistence here is largely dependent on labour; much labour is required to provide for the slaves, and the master will not choose to work for them himself. The slaves, therefore, must perform at least as much productive labour as is required to provide for their own wants; and there is no reason why the master should not make them work somewhat more, to receive a surplus; the more so, as he is thus enabled to display his wealth in the other manner mentioned by Leroy-Beaulieu, viz. by practising hospitality on a large scale.

It is, of course, perfectly possible, and indeed it often occurs, that some slaves are kept as a mere luxury, either doing nothing at all, or performing personal services. But then there must be other slaves who, by performing productive labour, provide for their master, their fellow-slaves, and themselves. There cannot be a class of unproductive labourers, without there being a class of productive labourers too. We can only imagine one case, in which all slaves might be kept as a mere luxury. It might be, that there were a class of productive labourers consisting of freemen, who provided for the slave-owners and their unproductive slaves. There might, for instance, be an aristocracy, levying taxes on the common people and keeping slaves as a luxury. Such is indeed the case among the pastoral Beni Amer. It might also occur among agricultural tribes; but we have not found any instance of it.

Only in two cases have we found it stated that slaves are not productive.

Coquilhat tells us that on the Upper Congo the keeping of slaves does not increase the master’s income; for agriculture is insignificant, and these tribes are not commercial. But he also states that the soil is tilled by old women and male slaves, so slaves do not seem to be kept as a mere luxury [1583].

Among the Fanti, according to Finsch, slaves are articles of luxury; they are as lazy as their masters. They are acquired as prisoners of war or by purchase. Every noble Fanti owns numerous slaves; for it is a mark of distinction to keep many of them. Some slaves carry parasols or fans; others by trumpeting announce the arrival of the patrician. Most of them do nothing at all. But the same writer states that the condition of the pawns (who, as has been shown in the first chapter of