Chapter II: , it follows that it is the female rather than the male that (5)

32. Infanticide was very prevalent in New Zealand—far more so than abortion. ‘Infanticide is frequent among the New Zealanders’;[929] according to another observer ‘it was formerly very common’;[930] or again, ‘it was formerly very prevalent’.[931] We hear of the ‘wholesale destruction of human life through infanticide’.[932] There is evidence that girls were more often killed than boys.[933] Infanticide occurred in the Western Islands of the Torres Straits;[934] among the Eastern Islanders ‘after a certain number had been born, all succeeding children were destroyed’.[935] In the Gilbert Islands it is very prevalent;[936] in Samoa and Tonga,[937] on the other hand, it is either absent[938] or very rare.[939] It appears to have been fairly common in Savage Island,[940] in Tikopia (Barwell Islands),[941] and in Nissau.[942] ‘Infanticide was committed on a large scale’ in Rarotonga[943] and in Funafuti,[944] but it probably reached its greatest extent in Tahiti. The famous secret society known as the Areoi is said to have enjoined the killing of all children upon its members. In any case it was very prevalent in the island, and not confined to the Areoi.[945] ‘The first missionaries have published it as their opinion that not less than two-thirds of the children were murdered by their own parents.’[946] Infanticide was not known in the Caroline Islands[947] (with the exception of Pelew). It was apparently as common in the Sandwich Islands as in Tahiti.[948] It was also practised in Fiji, but girls were destroyed in preference to boys.[949] Glaumond states that it is ‘very common’ in New Caledonia,[950] and this is confirmed by Bernard[951] and Moncelin.[952] The last named mentions that girls are killed in preference to boys. It is moderately common in the New Hebrides, and again more girls are killed than boys;[953] according to Meinecke it is not so frequent in Tala as in Fate.[954] Infanticide is ‘very common’ in Banks’s Island,[955] in Radack,[956] in Vaitapu,[957] and in the Marquesas.[958] It would not seem to be very prevalent in the Solomon Islands, except in Ugi, where both Elton[959] and Guppy[960] report it to be common. Otherwise, in the rest of the group it seems to be rare,[961] and is absent in San Christoval.[962] It was formerly common in the Bismarck Archipelago.[963] There is evidence of the existence of the habit in various parts of New Guinea; according to Seligman it is ‘common’ among the Southern Massim;[964] among the Northern Massim it is practised if there is a large family of girls.[965] The same is said of the Mafulu people.[966] Otherwise it would seem, generally speaking, that infanticide is somewhat rare in New Guinea. Murray suspects its existence among the Baru tribe,[967] and Erdweg among the inhabitants of Tumleo.[968] Newton says that he only knows one district in British New Guinea where it is frequently practised.[969] So, too, among the Dyaks it is decidedly uncommon.[970] Lastly, it may be noticed that there exists ‘in some parts of the Solomons and New Hebrides a most remarkable state of things, all the children are killed, chiefly by infanticide, it would appear, and substitutes purchased’.[971]

33. Warfare occurs everywhere in Oceania;[972] apparently there is not a single case in which it is definitely recorded to be absent. In some islands it is as murderous as anywhere in America, though on the whole it cannot be regarded as anything like such an important cause of elimination as in that Continent. The Maories were especially skilled in the art of war which ‘carries off a large number of their strongest men, and has often proved so destructive to a tribe, that it has been broken up entirely and has disappeared’.[973] In the Murray Islands there is frequent fighting and raiding of the neighbouring islands and coasts;[974] and the same is true of all the islands of the Torres Straits, though it is commoner in the western than in the eastern islands.[975] ‘A life for a life’ is, we are told, the principle underlying warfare among these people;[976] in the Sandwich Islands elimination from this cause must have been very considerable; we hear, for example, of ‘the sanguinary character of their frequent wars’.[977] It is much the same in Tahiti; ‘their wars were merciless and destructive’;[978] ‘occasions of hostility were also at times remarkably trivial, though not so their consequences.’[979] War seems to be equally frequent in Samoa, though possibly less murderous.[980] Brown believes that ‘the wars of the Samoans tended for a long time to check the natural increase of the population’.[981] ‘There was never any difficulty in finding a reason, if a fight was desired (in Rotuma), as any pretext could be seized.’[982] Such fights were sometimes followed by very considerable slaughter.[983] ‘War, either offensive or defensive, was their continual delight [in Rarotonga]. A state of peace was rarely known to continue long between the tribes.... These quarrels invariably led to fighting, in which the warriors of each tribe engaged with the utmost desperation and cruelty.’[984] War was the favourite occupation of the Kingsmill Islanders,[985] and in the Pelew Islands it was their ‘daily concern’.[986] Warfare is said to have been especially developed in the Marshall Islands.[987] According to Williams, ‘Fiji is rarely free from war and its attendant evils’;[988] ‘natural deaths are reduced to a small number among the heathen Fijians, by the prevalence of war and various systems of murder which custom demands.’[989] On the other hand, it is interesting to note that Thomson thinks that the destructive nature of warfare in Fiji is exaggerated as elsewhere in Oceania. He gives the following account of his own experiences in another island as an example of what he found warfare really to mean. ‘As we travelled along the coast we found that every village had its frontier; a stream mouth, or a sapling stuck upright in the sand, beyond which none would venture. The natives did their best to dissuade us from crossing these boundaries by representing their neighbours as thirsting for the blood of strangers. But on the other side of the frontier we found a meek folk, lost in wonder that we had come through the last stage of our journey unscathed, so cruel and ferocious were its inhabitants. Every man lived in active terror of his neighbours, and went armed to his plantation, but this did not prevent him from being a most skilful and industrious husbandman, or from living to a good old age. The fear being mutual, there was scarcely any war; an occasional attack upon a woman or upon an unarmed man served to keep the hereditary feud alive.’[990] It may very well be that the murderous nature of warfare has often been exaggerated, and that as a matter of fact the true state of affairs often approximates more closely to the picture given by this author.

In the New Hebrides fighting is said to be fairly frequent;[991] in New Caledonia it is certainly common, though perhaps not very serious.[992] So too in the Solomon Islands there is ‘unceasing war’.[993] According to Romilly, ‘in a battle the victorious party, if they can surprise their enemies sufficiently to admit of a wholesale massacre, kill not only the men, but also all the women and children’.[994] A very similar general impression is gained from descriptions of New Guinea. ‘The Western section of the Koita, especially the Arauwa and the Rokurokuna, were formerly involved in almost continual warfare with Kabadi; apart from this long continual struggle the Koita appear to have carried on little inter-tribal fighting.... A considerable number of people fell in these encounters.’[995] Other accounts of New Guinea give the impression that, however frequent the fighting, the losses were not large.[996] Among the Dyaks, on the other hand, warfare is not only frequent but also sanguinary;[997] women and children are killed at times.[998] Fighting occurs between the Ainu clans, and is the cause of much loss of life.[999]

34. It is not necessary to discuss the prevalence of feuds in general, as they are not to be distinguished from warfare. But in addition to the special case of murder following upon natural death, one form of homicide deserves mention as it is of considerable importance in this region, though not uncommon elsewhere—especially in Nigeria. Head hunting is popularly connected with Borneo, but it is also practised in New Guinea and the neighbouring islands. The taking of a head is counted a proof of manliness; in Kiwai Island, Fly River, it enables a young man to secure a wife more easily.[1000] Thomson saw thirteen skulls over the door of a house in an inland village in Normanby Island.[1001] Woodford found whole villages devastated owing to the prevalence of this habit.[1002] Speaking of the New Hebrides, Hickson says that ‘in the olden times a fresh human head was an indispensable preliminary to any marriage negotiations’.[1003] Among the Sea Dyaks (Ibans) it is certainly a form of sport; the other inhabitants of Borneo are said only to practise it as a part of warfare.[1004] It is not true to say that in Borneo the taking of a head is indispensable for a youth who wishes to marry,[1005] though considerable prestige clearly attaches to it.[1006] Without doubt the practice is responsible for a large number of deaths,[1007] and the head of a woman or child is equally valuable as that of a man.[1008] The habit is also very prevalent among the Bontoc Igorot. ‘For unknown generations these people have been fierce head hunters. Nine-tenths of the men in the pueblos of Bontoc and Samoki wear on the breast the indelible tatoo emblem which proclaims them takers of human heads.’[1009] Women and children over five years of age are killed.[1010]

The failure to recognize natural death as such is as prevalent in this region as in the others which we have surveyed. Speaking of New Guinea, Romilly says ‘in the native opinion there is no such thing as a “natural death”. If a man escapes a violent death and dies of fever or pneumonia, it is said that he has been bewitched and that a devil has killed him.’[1011] So, too, von der Sande in his description of Humboldt Bay records that ‘the opinion is generally held that death is always caused by the evil desire of other persons’;[1012] in consequence numerous murders follow.

35. With regard to the prevalence of disease it is sufficient to say that disease was certainly less common than in Africa. It is probably true that disease was of as little importance as a factor of elimination as in America.[1013]

The evidence with regard to infant mortality shows that it is again considerable, and due to ignorance and want of care. Speaking of New Guinea, Newton says that ‘the rate of infant mortality is high, but it is often due, so we suspect, to the absolute belief that a child must have some taro to eat—where taro is the staple food—if it is to thrive.... Infants not twenty-four hours old have had taro given them.’[1014] Kreutz found that many more children died in the second than in the first year; this he attributed to the fact that, whereas while in the first year they are well looked after, in the second year, when they begin to crawl about, they often die from want of attention.[1015] Turner states that not less than two-thirds of the children in Samoa died in childhood from carelessness and mismanagement,[1016] and of the Bontoc Igorot we are told that children are brought up without any sign of knowledge as to how they should be treated from the point of view of health.[1017]

_Asia_

36. It is not worth while to deal at length with the remaining peoples who are to be classed with this group. For the most part they are herders of reindeer; the more western races have long been in contact with Eur-Asiatic civilization; even the Chuckee were discovered in the first half of the seventeenth century,[1018] while the Yukaghis were converted to Christianity two hundred years ago.[1019] It is interesting to note, however, that generally speaking the conditions among them are similar to what we have found elsewhere.

Suckling lasts three years among the Koryak[1020] and the Tunguses,[1021] while Yakut mothers sometimes suckle their children until the latter are five years of age.[1022] There is no evidence of postponement of marriage; the early age at which it takes place has been remarked on for most of these races.[1023] As regards the number of children, Krasheninicoff says of the inhabitants of Kamtchatka that ‘in general these people are not fruitful’.[1024] Sograff comments on the small number of Samoyed children.[1025] Jochelson found an average of over five to married women above forty years old.[1026] Abortion and infanticide are common in Kamtchatka;[1027] Stellers comments especially on the prevalence of abortion which is very frequently employed.[1028] The Samoyeds destroyed deformed children.[1029] There are the usual comments on the general good health of these people. Both Ostyaks and Samoyeds ‘enjoy the best of health and attain a very old age’.[1030] Infant mortality is large.[1031]

IX
THE REGULATION OF NUMBERS AMONG PRIMITIVE RACES

1. We have now to ask what light these facts throw upon the quantitative aspect of the problem. Remembering that among all the races concerning which facts have been given there exists that form of primitive social organization the nature of which has been referred to, we may first examine briefly the theory of population as it applies to society in which there is co-operation; for the existence of this primitive form of social organization implies co-operation. We may then go on to apply what we learn from this review of the theory of population to the facts, so far as they concern the races of the first and second groups. We may next ask how far we can apply what we learn from primitive races to prehistoric races up to the opening of the third period, and finally we may inquire how it is to be supposed that the transition took place from the conditions under which the pre-human ancestor, lived to those under which the earliest societies, of which we can indirectly gain any knowledge, must be supposed to have lived.

Malthus was the first writer to set out a theory in detail and to support it with evidence.[1032] Of the origin of his book some account has been given in the first chapter. In this book Malthus, according to his own account, attempted to show three things—that population was limited by the means of subsistence, that it almost always increases when the means of subsistence increase, and that there are three checks upon increase—vice, misery, and moral restraint. By ‘vice’ and ‘misery’ he meant disease, war, poverty, and so on. By ‘moral restraint’ he meant restraint from sexual intercourse. This last check was not mentioned in the first edition of the Essay; it was introduced for the first time in the second edition.

It is important to observe the nature of the argument put forth by Malthus. (The whole theory is one of the comparative rapidity of the increase of population and of the increase of food.) Population, he said, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio, food only in an arithmetical ratio. Therefore there must always be checks at work limiting population. He made a survey of the social conditions in different countries, and pointed to the evidence of the existence of various forms of vice and misery; where moral restraint was practised, there was less vice and misery; where no moral restraint was practised, vice and misery reached their greatest prevalence. Furthermore the checks taken together must always be effective; it was, according to Malthus, merely a question of what kind of checks should be in operation. It was desirable in his view to increase ‘moral restraint’ in order to decrease ‘vice’ and ‘misery’. It also follows that, if the checks were always effective, there could be no such thing as over-population. The conception of over-population, properly speaking, did not enter into the theory at all. It belongs to the later theory, which is based upon the productiveness of industry—an idea which finds no place in his book.

In the later editions Malthus made certain reservations about the impossibility of subsistence increasing faster than in an arithmetical ratio. Facts incompatible with the theory regarding the increase of population in America had come to light, and he admitted the possibility of the increase of subsistence in a geometrical ratio in new countries under certain conditions. He maintained, however, that in general subsistence could not increase faster than in an arithmetical ratio, and that his theory was therefore in essential features still correct. The ratios were at the basis of his theory, and sum up the whole essence of the argument. It has frequently been said, however, that Malthus did not attach much importance to the ratios. Professor Nicholson, for example, says that he used them ‘not strictly—but as the basis for a simile’.[1033] But Professor Cannan has shown that there is no foundation whatever for this view, and quotes a passage from Malthus exhibiting the importance which the latter attributed to this part of his theory.[1034]

That subsistence can only increase in an arithmetical ratio, or in other words that the periodical additions to the average annual produce cannot be increased, has long ago been disproved by statistics. Such figures as caused Malthus to make his reservations about new countries have been forthcoming for old countries also. In his own lifetime the census showed the falsity of the arithmetical ratio for so ‘old’ a country as England. It is not necessary to go into the facts, which are well known and beyond dispute. It is only the result of the proof of the fallacy contained in the arithmetical ratio part of the theory that concerns us. The result was that the whole argument collapsed, founded as it was on the comparative rapidity of the increase of population and of food. As Professor Cannan says: ‘The _Essay on the Principle of Population_ falls to the ground as an argument, and remains only a chaos of facts collected to illustrate the effect of laws which do not exist. Beyond the arithmetical ratio theory, there is nothing whatever in the _Essay_ to show why subsistence for man should not increase as fast as an “unchecked population”. “With every mouth God sends a pair of hands,” so why should not the larger population be able to maintain itself as well as the former?’[1035]

2. The answer to this question was in process of being discovered during the lifetime of Malthus. In the early years of the century attention was drawn to the high price of corn, to the position of agriculture, and especially to the fact that less rich land was being brought under cultivation. From the discussion which ensued, and to which Malthus contributed, there arose the idea of decreasing returns to agriculture. It has been pointed out that it must always have been recognized in practice that it did not ‘pay’ to employ more than a certain amount of labour on a given area of land. In these years, however, for the first time the principle which underlay this fact was made clear. West and Ricardo were chiefly responsible for bringing the matter to light. The development of the theory need not occupy us. It may be formulated shortly here. ‘Whether we consider an acre of land or a whole country, after a certain point is reached, the return to a given amount of labour and capital will diminish. It will do so, however, only under the supposition that the arts of agriculture, using the phrase in the broadest sense, remain stationary.’[1036] The law is not limited to agriculture. It is applicable to all industry. Whenever some agent in production, upon which an industry is absolutely dependent, is strictly limited, after a time equal increments of capital and labour will not produce equal returns. In other words the returns to the same doses of capital and labour will diminish. This, however, will only occur when, as stated above, the supply of some agent in production is restricted; otherwise when an industry enlarges there will, as a rule, be an increasing return. The more labour, apart from diminishing returns, the better.

When speaking of agriculture it was said that diminishing returns only supervene when there are no improvements in the arts of agriculture. This is true in general of all other industries. Any increase in the arts of production will in general admit of more labour and capital being profitably employed; if there are no further improvements, there will after a time come a point when diminishing returns will again supervene. The following out of the working of these laws in detail would call for a long and intricate discussion. Since the problem of quantity is only touched upon in its broadest outlines, such a discussion is not necessary here. The broad fact which emerges, and which alone is relevant here, is that, since the laws in general are applicable to all industry, there will be, taking into account on the one hand the known arts of production and on the other hand the habits and so on of any people at any one time in any given area, a certain density of population which will be the most desirable from the point of view of return per head of population. There will, in fact, under any given circumstances always be an optimum number; if the population fails to reach that number or if it exceeds it, the return per head will not be so large as it would be if it attained that number. This conception is of such importance that its formulation in other words by a modern economist may be quoted. ‘At any given time, or, which comes to the same thing, knowledge and circumstances remaining the same, there is what may be called a point of maximum return, when the amount of labour is such that both an increase and a decrease in it would diminish proportionate returns.... If we suppose all the difficulties about the measurements of the returns to all industries taken together to be somehow overcome, we can see that at any given time, or knowledge and circumstances remaining the same, just as there is a point of maximum return in each industry, so there must be in all industries taken together. If the population is not large enough to bring all returns up to this point, returns will be less than they might be, and the remedy is increase of population; if, on the other hand, population is so great that the point has been passed, returns are again less than they might be, and the remedy is decrease of population.’[1037]

This idea of an optimum number is one which can be developed in great detail. It is only necessary here to notice that when, as in the higher economic stages, the arts of production on the one hand are improving and the habits and so on of any people are on the other hand constantly altering, the most desirable density is in consequence frequently changing. In the lower stages, when progress in skill is slow and social conditions more or less stationary, the optimum number may remain about the same over long periods of time. Further, with regard to progress in skill, inasmuch as the productivity of labour is enhanced by every improvement in the arts of production, the result of such progress will be that the return per head will, as a rule, increase. Such progress will thus, as a rule, allow of a larger population which will have a larger income per head.

This idea of an optimum density of population is wholly different to that put forward by Malthus. To him the problem was one of the relative increase of population and of food; with us it is one of the density of population and of the productiveness of industry. To Malthus the position was much the same in all ages; in his view population, except under unusual circumstances, had in any country at any given time always increased up to the limit of subsistence, and was in process of being checked—chiefly by vice and misery. In the modern view increase in skill has brought to an increasingly dense population a larger income per head. The chief cause of the largest possible income not on all occasions being reached is that at times the density of population increases beyond the optimum number for the given conditions, though at other times the failure of population to reach the desirable level may produce the same result.

Though the problem of diminishing returns was being discussed as the successive editions of the _Essay_ appeared, the idea was not applied by Malthus to the population question. This was undertaken by later writers. The development of the modern theory need not detain us; it is of interest, however, to observe that J. S. Mill, whose influence over contemporary thought was so great, never shook off the deep impression made upon him early in life by the Malthusian theory. He exhibited a remarkable dread of over-population, and in his _Principles of Political Economy_ seems to have regarded diminishing returns as so often arising that only rarely could an increase in population be advantageous. He appears in fact to have thought that after a certain stage all further increase in population was harmful, and to have looked upon ‘the degree of industry which is required for the maximum productiveness of industry as something fixed once and for all’.[1038] Mill’s view, therefore, though founded upon the productiveness of industry, differs from the modern view to which it has given place. It has since been clearly established that there is no maximum density desirable from the point of view of productiveness; so long as skill increases, other things being equal, so long will the desirable density increase. The influence of Mill’s writings has had the effect of keeping alive in England longer than elsewhere the pessimistic view of the problem which the teaching of Malthus had originally given rise to.[1039] So strong were Mill’s opinions that he regarded the limitation of the family by virtuous restraint as one of the most desirable of social reforms. He was led in the following passage to express views that are strongly in contrast with those of the many who now deplore the decline of the birth-rate among the upper social classes of to-day. ‘Little improvement’, he said, ‘can be expected in morality until the producing of large families is regarded with the same feelings as drunkenness or any other physical excess. But while the aristocracy and clergy are foremost to give the example of this kind of incontinence, what can be expected of the poor?’[1040]

3. This conception of an optimum number holds good wherever there is social co-operation between groups of men living within definite areas. As we have seen a primitive form of social organization exists among all these races. This implies in itself a certain degree of co-operation. It remains to show that these races are all, without exception, divided into groups which are strictly limited to definite areas—contrary to the still common notion that they wander where they please—and we may further note that the inhabitants of these areas co-operate to a greater or less degree in the search for food, and that there is a social obligation upon each man to do his share. We may review the evidence, beginning with the first point, which is of such importance that it may be treated at some length.

It is both misleading and dangerous to apply terms carrying modern legal conceptions to these races; unfortunately, any terms that may be used are to some extent biased. We have, however, somehow to describe the results of investigation into the customs of these races, and it has been found that among all these races, without exception, groups of men are recognized as, if not owning, then as enjoying the usufruct of certain very clearly defined areas. According to Ling Roth it is not clear whether the Tasmanian tribes had any definite hunting grounds or not.[1041] Bonwick confidently asserts that it was so,[1042] and Wheeler thinks that the conditions in Tasmania were probably the same as in Australia.[1043] From Australia we have abundant evidence; the facts recorded from different parts of the continent vary considerably, and we must either believe that customs differed from place to place, which is not at all unlikely, or that many observers are mistaken, which, considering the positive nature of their assertions, is not very probable. Wheeler has reviewed the evidence and sums up his conclusions as follows: ‘Our information shows the existence in some, at any rate, of the areas of Australia of what must be held to be private ownership in land, but it does not follow that the whole of the tribal territory was so allotted. The unit would generally be the individual family, but there are a few indications that the ownership might even be vested in single persons within the family, other than the head. The clearest mentions of individual or of family ownership seem to come from the south-eastern area, where the physiographic conditions are most varied, and where, in consequence, fishing rights become important. But it seems likewise that the rights of families or of individuals, as also those of local groups, were, in general, subject to tribal over-rights, though we have no clear information on this point.’[1044]

There is no doubt, in the first place, that the tribes were everywhere restricted to clearly defined territories.[1045] Doubt only arises with regard to the smaller groups. The usual mode of living is in small groups of one to three families, which usually form a portion of a local group, but which may exceptionally be actual local groups. Only in the more fertile districts is the number of families living in contact greater.[1046] These local groups, into which the tribes are divided, seem generally to have their clearly defined areas within the tribal territory. Thus Brown, speaking of the Kariera tribe of Western Australia, says that ‘the country of a local group, with all its products, animal, vegetable, and mineral, belongs to the members of the group in common. Any member of the group has the right to hunt over the country of his group at all times. He may not, however, hunt over the country of any other local group without the permission of its owners.’[1047]

In some parts no further subdivision of the land was recognized. ‘I could not find’, says Brown of Western Australia, ‘any evidence of the individual ownership of any part of the soil or of any of its products. The whole of the territory of the group and everything in it seem to belong equally to all the members of the group.’[1048] In other parts we hear of family ownership; Stanbridge says of Victoria that the tribal land ‘has been from time immemorable parcelled out among its families and transmitted by direct descent to the present generation’.[1049] Further, some accounts speak of individual ownership. The natives of King George’s Sound ‘who live together have the exclusive right of fishing and hunting upon the neighbouring grounds, which are, in fact, divided into individual properties, the quantity of land owned by each individual being very considerable’.[1050] Eyre speaks of the parcelling out of territory among the individual members of the tribe. ‘Every male has some portion of land, of which he can always point out the exact boundaries. These properties are subdivided by a father among his sons during his own lifetime, and descend in almost hereditary succession.’[1051] As further examples of the ideas held by the Australians on the subject of property, it may be noticed that Smyth describes individual property in trees which passes by inheritance,[1052] while Lumholtz says that ‘if a native finds a hive of honey in a tree, but has not an immediate opportunity of chopping it out, he can safely leave it till some other day; the discoverer owns it, and nobody else will touch it, if he has either given an account of it or marked the tree, as is the custom in some parts of Western Queensland’.[1053]

Wherever we turn we find similar evidence of the recognition of distinct areas over which groups have more or less exclusive rights.[1054] Every tribe certainly has its own clearly defined territory; it seems further very probable that in most places the tribal territory is divided among local groups, if indeed the subdivision does not go farther. The Bushmen were formerly divided into tribes occupying ‘well defined tracts of country, which they looked upon as their own ancestral hunting ground’.[1055] Their respect for property is shown by the fact that, when a man found a bees’ nest, he put his mark upon it, and thenceforward it became ‘the sacred property of the finder’.[1056] Klutschak describes distinct territories for the Eskimo tribes, who confine their seasonal migrations to these definite areas.[1057] Subdivision of land does not seem to go farther than subdivision among the villages; the inhabitants of a village had the right to refuse to allow any strangers to settle permanently in the neighbourhood. ‘If a new family wished to settle at an inhabited place, the newcomers had to await the consent of the people already settled there, which was given by certain signs of civility or welcome, the strangers having meanwhile put their boat ashore, but not yet begun bringing up their goods. If these signs were not given they pushed the boat off again and went on to look for another place.’[1058] It is so well known that the American Indians recognized clearly defined tribal boundaries that we need not attempt to illustrate the fact by means of references.[1059] It is perhaps not so well known that there are also many indications of family and even of individual property in land. In the first place we often hear of the right of the inhabitants of a village to clearly defined tracts. ‘Each tribe had its village sites and contiguous hunting and fishing grounds; as long as the people lived on these sites and regularly went to their hunting grounds, they could claim them against all intruders.’[1060] Of the Carrier Tribes, Harmon says that ‘the people of every village have a certain extent of country, which they consider their own, and in which they may hunt and fish; but they may not transcend these bounds, without purchasing the privilege from those who claim the land’.[1061] Of the Western Tinneh, Hill Tout records that the heads of the clan own the hunting grounds, ‘the limits of which were always very clearly defined’.[1062] Among the more nomadic Eastern Tinneh we hear that bands used the same hunting grounds; these areas, however, were not regarded as belonging exclusively to them.[1063] Among the Salish of the Interior, ‘all hunting, fishing, root and berry grounds were common property and shared in by all alike’; whereas among those of the coast the food grounds were the property of the septs and local groups.[1064] From other accounts it appears that family and individual ownership were recognized in some places. This applies especially with regard to the fishing stations of the Pacific Coast tribes, where ‘varying lengths of shore were held as private fishing rights by heads of families, and these rights were passed from father to son and were always respected’.[1065] Swanton gives an especially interesting account of the practices of the Haidahs of Queen Charlotte Islands. ‘Each Haidah family had its own creek or creeks, or portion of a creek, where its smoke houses stood. Some of the smaller creeks are said to have no owners; and, on the other hand, some families are said to have had no land. In the latter cases they were obliged to wait until another family was through before picking berries, and had to pay for the privilege. Any family might pick berries on the land belonging to another after the owners had finished picking, if it obtained the consent of the latter and paid a certain price.’[1066] Referring to the Sitkin Indians, Elliot says that ‘the coastline, and especially the margins of streams and rivers, are duly divided up among the different families. These tracts are regarded as strictly private property.’[1067] Krause further gives an account of what can only be called individual private property in land among the Thlinkeets.[1068] The remarkable system in vogue among the Veddahs deserves notice. ‘The whole Veddah country was divided into small hunting regions, of which each family possessed one. The arrangements were most elaborate; the size of the tracts varied in accordance with the goodness of the land, and each included a portion of hill country to which each family thus had access during the rainy season without trespassing upon the ground of other families.’[1069] Cooper has very fully reviewed the evidence for the Fuegians. It has been stated that communism existed among them. This is not correct. ‘While all Fuegians are nomads,’ he says, ‘yet a Yaghan, for instance, is chary of poaching on Alacalufan or Onan territory. Even within recognized tribal territory the existence of more or less definitely marked off family hunting grounds is explicitly attested for the Onas by Professor Furlong and Dr. Dabbene and implicitly by Dr. Gallardo.’[1070]

4. Passing now to the races of the second group it is everywhere found that tribal territories are recognized, and it has been shown that, compared with hunting and fishing races, there is an increase in the number of cases in which land is held by smaller groups, if not by individuals, and a corresponding decrease in the number of cases in which communal ownership is recognized.[1071] The details of the variation in land tenure are not relevant, and a few descriptions of the conditions among different tribes will serve as examples of the manner in which groups of men among these races drew their means of subsistence from clearly defined areas. ‘Among the Navahos a section of territory was parcelled out and held as clan land and, as descent in the tribe was traced through the mother, was spoken of by members of the clan as “my mother’s land”. Upon such tracts the woman worked raising maize, &c., and the product was recognized as their property.’[1072] Of the North American Indians generally we are told that ‘occupancy gradually established a claim or right to possess the tract from which a tribe or individual derived food. This occupancy was the only land tenure recognized by the Indian; he never of himself reached the conception of the land as merchantable.... As long as a person planted a certain tract the claim was not disputed, but if its cultivation were neglected, any one who chose might take it. Among the Zuni, according to Cushing, if a man, either before or after marriage, takes up a field of unappropriated land, it belongs strictly to him, but is spoken of as the property of his clan, or on his death it may be cultivated by any member of that clan, though preferably by near relatives, but not by his wife or children, who must be of another clan.’[1073] So, too, among the Omahas maize was cultivated in patches of one-half to three acres in size; property in these patches was recognized so long as cultivation was continued. Afterwards any one could take them.[1074] In Mexico there was an elaborate system of land tenure.[1075] Conditions in South America were very similar to those in North America. Spix and Martius speaking of Brazil say: ‘The savages consider the lands they have put under cultivation to be in some measure the property of their tribe.... One or several families unite to clear a part of the virgin forest and plant maize, manioc, cotton, or bananas.... The same ground is cultivated every year, because it would be too difficult every year to clear new portions of the forest.... A field cultivated for several years is considered to belong to a family, and the neighbours recognize these rights.’[1076]

The rights over land are very similar in Africa. Bartle Frere says that ‘it is clear, from the accounts of early Dutch and other travellers in South Africa, that every Hottentot tribe had its territory, into which strangers might not intrude for pasture or hunting, without the leave of the whole tribe; each kraal had its pasture lands distinct, over which the people of that section of the tribe moved their mat huts, as the need of their herds, for grass or water, rendered advisable. As each kraal had more or less of a family constitution, it is difficult to say how far the pasture lands were held in common, or as the property of the individual occupant.’[1077] Of the Ewe-speaking people, Ellis says that among most tribes there is no private property in land but that the family in occupation of any tract cannot be disturbed.[1078] Of the Yoruba-speaking people the same author says that land, belonging to the community collectively, is vested in the chief, who distributes among households and families as required. No man can be depossessed of land once allotted to him, and the usufruct descends to his children, but the land cannot be sold.[1079] ‘It is doubtful’, says Talbot, ‘whether any part of the Ekoi country remains at present unowned.’[1080] According to Scott Elliot the rights of property in land of the different families in Sierra Leone are carefully maintained, especially in times of famine.[1081] In Northern Nigeria a ‘man is free to mark out a farm on any unoccupied land’, and has a claim to it as long as he cultivates it.[1082] Among the Bangala of the Upper Congo ‘the boundaries of a town are well defined, and the lands belonging to a town are well known to all other towns in the neighbourhood. If an animal is killed on ground owned by a town other than that to which the huntsman belongs, he has to send a portion—generally the head—to the chief of the town which claims the ground.’[1083] Further, ‘every woman had her farm, which was her exclusive property, and not even a fellow wife had any rights over it’.[1084] The hunting grounds of the Bushongo are well defined; the usufruct of the soil belongs to individuals, and trees are private property.[1085] Among the Mangbetu ‘every tribe has an accurate knowledge of the boundary of the territory over which it can hunt, move about, and establish its villages’.[1086] Hobley states that among the Akamba there is individual property in land which passes on the death of the father to the sons.[1087] The limits of the properties are very well defined and well known among the Ababua; cultivation renders the title good.[1088] The Baganda ‘lived in their gardens or plantations. These gardens were often joined one to the other, and a number of people lived in a community, often forming four or five miles of continuous garden with families living each on their own plot.’[1089] Even the fallow land among the Akikuyu was ‘all in private ownership’, and could not be brought into cultivation without the owner’s consent.[1090] In British Central Africa a man making a garden is ‘perfectly free to choose so long as the ground is not in cultivation, or has not been bespoken by some one else; and, once marked, no one can interfere with it’.[1091] Of the same region we are told that ‘these negroes have clear ideas of property. The waste land is usually considered to belong to the chief, but plantations and enclosures belong personally to the individual who originally made them.... Natives have clear ideas of large or small estates, or of their kingdom; and in the case of the former they are marked by the planting of certain trees of thick growth, while of course streams and mountains are recognized as boundaries and natural limits of territories.’[1092] Of the Thonga tribe in Portuguese East Africa we hear that ‘each man has his own field which he tills’.[1093] Speaking of the Bantu races south of the Zambezi, Theal says that ‘the chief apportioned to each head of a family sufficient ground for a garden according to his needs, and it remained in that individual’s possession as long as it was cultivated’.[1094] So Conder says of Bechuanaland, ‘the land belongs to the chief. He divides it among his head men and they in turn among their people. There is no division of grazing land. The mealie fields are practically the property of the cultivator so long as they are tilled. I found each patch to belong to an individual, and to be divided generally by untilled land from the next patch.’[1095] Among the Ovaherero the whole land is common property, but the rights of tribes and also of individuals to particular spots are recognized so long as they are occupied. Whoever first appropriates a spring and the surrounding pastures can maintain his right.[1096]

The conditions in Oceania are in their main elements, which alone are relevant, similar to those in America and Africa. In the Pelew Islands every family had its plot of land, which was considered as private property so long as it was occupied and cultivated.[1097] In New Zealand ‘land was held primarily by tribal rights; and within this tribal right each free warrior of the tribe had particular rights over some portion’.[1098] In Sarawak ‘each tribe had its limits, which have been handed down from father to son for ages, so that every old man of a tribe knows the exact extent of its district’.[1099] In British New Guinea we hear of ‘properly regulated and well-defined property rights, certainly not bounded by surveyed lines commonly used to indicate European land claims, but marked and known by natural features such as surface conditions afford’.[1100] It may also be noticed that rights over certain areas are recognized by the peoples of Northern Asia, such as the Tunguses and the Yakuts.[1101]

5. Passing to the second and third points we find that within these areas there is evidence even among the most primitive hunters of co-operation in the search for food and of strict rules for the division of the available food. Coupled with this we find that there is a social obligation which is strongly enforced for every man to do his share. Thus, where hunting and fishing can only be carried out by joint parties, strict rules exist for the division of the catch among those who have taken part and among their dependents. This may be illustrated by a few examples. Howitt gives many details of the rules in force in Australia with regard to the division of food. These rules not only differ from place to place but also for the various forms of game. Thus among the Kurnai ‘a wombat is cooked, then cut open and skinned. The skin is cut into strips and divided with parts of the animal thus. The head to the person who killed the animal. His father the right rib; mother the left ribs and backbone, which, with some of the skin, she gives to her parents. Her husband’s parents receive some of the skin. The elder brother gets the right shoulder, the younger the left. The elder sister gets the right hind leg, the younger the left hind leg, and the rump and the liver are sent to the young men in the camp.’[1102] ‘If a man only killed enough game or procured enough food for himself, his wife and his children, then he need not divide with others; but if he found that his father had no food, he would give them what he had and go out and look for more.’[1103] ‘All the males in the Chepara tribe are expected to provide food, if not sick. If a man is lazy and stays in camp, he is jeered at and insulted by the others.’[1104]

The principal features of the Australian customs as described above are to be found among all hunting and fishing races, though such elaborate rules as are usual in Australia are somewhat uncommon elsewhere. The Bushmen may have had their rules for the division of game; all we are told is to the effect that they shared food. ‘When one feasted they all partook; and when one hungered they all equally suffered.’[1105] We have evidence both of the sharing of food and of the dividing up of game among the Eskimos. Details of the latter are given by Nansen;[1106] with regard to the former we have frequent references to the division of food within the villages among all who need it.[1107] Of the Eskimos we are also told that ‘it might be considered a law that every man, as far as he was able to do it, should practise the trade of a hunter on the sea, until he was either disabled by old age or had a son to succeed him. This duty neglected, he brought upon himself the reprehension not only of the other members of his own family, but also of the wider community.’[1108] Rules for the division of food were almost universal among the Indians; when a hunter of the Hare tribe kills an animal, he is only allowed the tongue and ribs; the rest is distributed according to a system.[1109] So, too, among the Lillooet a regular partition of the game took place, of which one of the features was ‘that the persons who had the game had no preference over others’.[1110] Such phrases as ‘studied equity in the distribution of necessaries’,[1111] which is applied to the Seri Indians, indicate the existence of similar rules.[1112]

Conditions are similar among the races of the second group. In Fiji ‘public opinion took care that no man in the community shirked his work’.[1113] In New Ireland, ‘should a man neglect his family, a mode of punishment very similar to one practised by schoolboys among civilized races is adopted. A double row of men, women, and children—the whole population of the village—armed with stiff birches is formed; and at a signal from the chief the delinquent is obliged to run a certain number of times through the lines and receive a general castigation from the rods of the villagers’.[1114] Of the Pawumwa Haseman says ‘all work together.... If any one refuses to assist in planting, the chief forces him to work. I saw one Indian with a long scar on the side of his head and neck, the result of punishment for laziness.’[1115]

6. It is thus clear that within any group in any primitive race, the members of which co-operate together to obtain their food from a definite area to which they are confined, the principle of the optimum number holds good. There is, that is to say, taking into account the abundance of game, the fertility of the land, the skilled methods in use, and all other factors, a density of population which, if attained, will enable the greatest possible average income per head to be earned; if the density is greater or if it is less than this desirable density, the average income will be less than it might have been. Obviously it must be a very great advantage for any group to approximate to this desirable density. There are three possibilities open to any group. The desirable number may be approached, it may be exceeded up to the point where men can only just exist, or it may not be reached. Extreme departures from the optimum number must be very disadvantageous; if numbers increase until they are limited by starvation only, then no benefit arises from the use of any skilled methods that may be known. Under such circumstances all inventions in the methods of hunting, fishing, and cultivating the ground profit nothing. Social conditions must also inevitably be unstable where starvation alone limits numbers.

This being so, how are numbers regulated? We may observe to begin with that there is a number of factors at work among all these races which incidentally limit increase. This they may do either by decreasing fertility or by increasing elimination. To the former class belong pre-puberty intercourse and prolonged lactation, to the latter war and lack of care of children. Two characteristics of these factors are noteworthy. The effect they have upon the limitation of increase is incidental; it is the chance accompaniment of the practice of certain customs or of certain habits. In the second place the working of any single factor, so far as it reduces fertility or increases elimination, is fairly regular; in any primitive race at any given time such habits as prolonged lactation and early intercourse, when they occur, cause a certain definite reduction of fertility; and such customs as those of war and those connected with the upbringing of children cause a certain definite amount of elimination. The nature of the factors present and the degree of their incidence varies considerably from race to race, but it follows from what has been said above that in any primitive race over a considerable length of time the amount by which fertility is decreased and the amount of elimination which is caused remain fairly constant.