METHOD AND DIVISIONS.
§ 1. Method.
The results of the first Part will be utilized in this. We have seen that slavery exists or formerly existed among many savage tribes, whereas many others have always, as far as we know, been unacquainted with it. The present Part will be taken up with an inquiry into the causes of these phenomena. We shall try to find out, what kinds of tribes have slaves, and what kinds have not.
To this end it would seem best to divide the several tribes according to their general culture, and then to inquire at which stages of culture slavery is found. But such a division cannot be made here incidentally; for it would require years of labour. And a good division, that we could adopt, has not yet been made. Morgan distinguishes three periods of savagery, three of barbarism, and one of civilization[1]. But his system rests on the unproved supposition, that the stage of culture a people has attained to entirely depends on its technical ability in the arts of subsistence. Dr. Vierkandt has made another distinction. Besides the civilized and semi-civilized peoples he has two categories: migratory tribes (unstete Völker), and primitive peoples proper (eigentliche Naturvölker). The former are the Australians, Tasmanians, Andamanese, Veddahs, Negritos, Kubus, Bushmen, African pigmy-tribes, Fuegians and Botocudos; the latter the American Indians, Arctic races, [[170]]Northern Asiatics, Caucasus tribes, hill-tribes of India, Negroes to the South of the Soudan, inhabitants of the Malay Archipelago and Oceanic Islands[2]. But this division cannot be of any use to us. It is not the result of an extensive and accurate examination of the facts; the writer himself admits that he has followed his general impressions[3]. Now the impressions of a capable sociologist, as Vierkandt undoubtedly is, may count for something; they give a hint as to the direction, in which the investigation has to be carried on; but they do not themselves afford a scientific basis to rely upon. His unstete Völker are simply those generally known as the “lowest type of man”, whether justly or unjustly we do not know[4]. And his eigentliche Naturvölker, as Professor Steinmetz rightly remarks[5], comprehend savages of widely different degrees of development. Moreover, although he says his criterion is the psychical state of man, the economic side of social life comes always prominently into view[6]; but the author does not even try to prove that the psychical state of man depends upon the stage of economic development.
Yet, as it can be easily done here, we may inquire whether Vierkandt’s unstete Völker have slaves. It will be seen from the second Chapter of our first Part that all of them, with the exception perhaps of the Negritos, are unacquainted with slavery[7]. This conclusion, however, is not of much use to us, as we do not know whether they have been justly or unjustly classified under one category.
As little can the other attempts, which have been made, to classify the savages according to their general culture, serve our purpose[8]. So the method of investigation that would seem the best is not applicable here. Therefore we are also unable [[171]]to ascertain whether, as some writers assert, slavery at a certain stage of social development is universal. Bagehot says of slavery: “There is a wonderful presumption in its favour; it is one of the institutions which, at a certain stage of growth, all nations in all countries choose and cleave to”[9]. Grünberg expresses the same view: “No people has always and in all phases of its development been unacquainted with slavery”[10]. According to Spencer “observation of all societies in all times shows that slavery is the rule and freedom the exception”[11]. And Tourmagne exclaims: “This almost universal scourge, going back to the very origin of the nations and affecting all of them, is it not to be regarded as a social stage that every people has to traverse, as an evolution which it is obliged to undergo, before it can attain to the higher degrees of civilization”[12]? If we had an ascending series of stages of culture, we might inquire whether, within the limits of savagery (for the civilized and semi-civilized peoples fall beyond the scope of the present volume) there is a stage at which slavery is universal. But, as we have already remarked, this is not yet possible.
The best method we can use now will be to take into view one prominent side of social life, that may reasonably be supposed to have much influence on the social structure, especially on the division of labour; and to inquire whether this one factor may entirely, and if not to what extent it may, account for the existence or non-existence of slavery in every particular case. Here the economic side of life comes in the first place into consideration. We are not among the adherents of the materialistic theory of history; it is quite unproved and seems to us very one-sided. But we may suppose that the division of labour between the several social groups within a tribe, and therefore also the existence or non-existence of slavery, largely depends on the manner in which the tribe gets its subsistence. Whether, and to what extent, this supposition is true, will be shown by the examination of the facts. If this hypothesis fails to account for all the facts, we shall try, with the aid of other hypotheses, to explain the rest.
The opinion that the existence of slavery mainly depends [[172]]on the mode of subsistence is also held by many theorists. According to Morgan “slavery, which in the Upper Status of barbarism became the fate of the captive, was unknown among tribes in the Lower Status in the aboriginal period”. This Lower Status of barbarism begins with “the invention or practice of the art of pottery”. Anterior to the art of pottery was “the commencement of village life, with some degree of control over subsistence”. It ends with “the domestication of animals in the Eastern hemisphere, and in the Western with cultivation by irrigation and with the use of adobe-brick and stone in architecture”[13]. So slavery, according to Morgan, does not exist before a rather advanced period.
Several writers assert that hunters and fishers never have slaves. Schmoller was formerly of the opinion that “no people unacquainted with cattle-breeding and agriculture has slaves”[14]. In his handbook, however, he informs us, that some highly developed tribes of fishers also keep slaves[15]. Ingram expresses the view formerly held by Schmoller: “In the hunter period the savage warrior does not enslave his vanquished enemy, but slays him; the women of the conquered tribe he may, however, carry off and appropriate as wives or as servants, for in this period domestic labour falls almost altogether on the female sex. In the pastoral stage slaves are captured only to be sold, with the exception of a few who may be required for the care of flocks or the small amount of cultivation which is then undertaken. It is in proportion as a sedentary life prevails, and agricultural exploitation is practised on a larger scale, whilst warlike habits continue to exist, that the labour of slaves is increasingly introduced to provide food for the master, and at the same time save him from irksome toil. Of this stage in the social movement slavery seems to have been a universal and inevitable accompaniment.” But he makes an exception in the case of those communities where “theocratic organisations established themselves”[16]. Flügel says: “Hunting tribes can neither feed nor employ the prisoners; generally they kill them”[17]. According to Schurtz “among tribes of migratory hunters there [[173]]is no room for slavery”[18]. Whether he means here all hunters or only Vierkandt’s unstete Völker is not clear.