One difficulty arises here. Some tribes, especially Australian, subsist largely on wild fruits, roots, berries, grasses, etc., shell-fish and lower land-animals, such as beetles, lizards, rats, snakes, etc.; so that neither hunting in the true sense nor fishing prevails[45]. For our purpose it will be most convenient to classify them under the head of hunters; for the peculiar features of fishing tribes which we have enumerated: fixed habitations, easy supervision of the work of slaves, drudgery such as rowing, are not found among them. Moreover, the gathering of wild-growing vegetable food and the catching of the lower animals, in Australia too, are chiefly incumbent on women, whereas the men hunt; so the division of labour is the same as among other hunters regarding the quality of the work of each sex; only the quantity of male labour is less and of female labour greater here.
Of our positive cases the following are hunters: some tribes about Puget Sound, Atnas, Similkameem, Abipones, Tehuelches. The rest are fishers.
Of our negative cases the following are fishers: Eskimos (9 tribes), Hupas, Fuegians, Southern Nicobarese, Tuski, Ghiliaks, Koryakes. The rest are hunters, with the exception of the Chepewyans, of whom Bancroft says: “Their food consists mostly of fish and reindeer, the latter being easily taken in snares. Much of their land is barren, but with sufficient vegetation to support numerous herds of reindeer, and fish abound in their lakes and streams”[46]. So we are not able to ascertain whether hunting or fishing predominates among the Chepewyans.
We see that 5 hunting and 14 fishing tribes have slaves; 54 hunting and 15 fishing tribes have no slaves[47]. In other words: of the [[203]]hunting tribes 8½ per cent., of the fishing tribes 48 per cent. have slaves.
We may say now, that hunting is very unfavourable, and fishing not nearly so much so, to the existence of slavery. But it remains to be explained, why a few hunting tribes keep slaves, and why among the fishers the tribes with and without slaves are nearly equally divided.
Now it is worth noticing, that the great majority of our positive cases (all except the Abipones, Tehuelches and Kamchadales) belong to one geographical group: they all live on or near the Pacific Coast of North America, from Behring Strait to the Northern boundary of California. Therefore we may suppose that the existence of slavery among all these tribes is due to the same or nearly the same causes; and a survey of the economic state of this group will probably enable us to find these causes. We shall examine then, whether slavery among the three tribes outside this group can be accounted for by the same causes, or if special causes are at work there.
The circumstances that may be considered favouring the existence of slavery on the Pacific Coast are the following:
1º Abundance of food. The Aleuts eat only the best parts of the dried fish; the rest is thrown away[48]. Bancroft tells us that “although game is plentiful, the Haidas are not a race of hunters, but derive their food chiefly from the innumerable multitude of fish and sea animals, which, each variety in its season, fill the coast waters”[49]. The Tacullies, “are able to procure food with but little labour”[50]. Our informant also speaks of the “abundant natural supplies in ocean, stream, and forest” of the Puget Sound Indians[51]. The Tlinkits, according to Holmberg, do not take great pains to secure their food; the ebbing tide leaves a multitude of sea-animals ashore, which they can gather without difficulty[52]. Kane remarks: “Salmon is almost the only food used by the Indians on the Lower Columbia River, the two months’ fishing affording a sufficient supply to last them the whole year round”[53]. About the tribes [[204]]of W. Washington and N. W. Oregon Gibbs remarks: “With all these sources of subsistence, the greater part of which is afforded spontaneously by the land or water, nothing but indolence or want of thrift could lead to want among a population even greater than we have reason to believe at any time inhabited this district”[54]. The salmon fishery “has always been the chief and an inexhaustible source of food for the Chinooks, who, although skilful fishermen, have not been obliged to invent a great variety of methods or implements for the capture of the salmon, which rarely if ever have failed them”[55]. The Ahts also, in Jewitt’s time, could procure an immense quantity of salmon with the greatest facility[56]. Several other tribes on the Pacific Coast have fixed habitations and live together in large groups, as we soon shall see; therefore amongst them too food must be abundant, though this is not explicitly stated.
The consequence is, that the produce of labour exceeds the primary wants of the labourer much more than for instance in Australia, and the use of slaves is greater.
2º. Most of these tribes live chiefly by fishing (see above). Moreover, there is a great variety of food. The Koniagas catch salmon, haddock, whales, seals, deer, reindeer, waterfowls, a small white fish and grizzly bears[57]. The Tlinkits eat fish, various kinds of meat and plants, and shell-fish; formerly they also killed whales[58]. The Haidas have abundance of game and fish. They eat also birds, and various kinds of vegetables. Shell-fish are gathered by the women[59]. Of some tribes about Puget Sound we are told: “Fish is their chief dependence, though game is taken in much larger quantities than by the Nootkas”[60]. The Ahts eat fish, roots and berries, and hunt the deer[61]. The Tacullies eat fish (chiefly salmon), herbs and berries and small game[62]. The Similkameem eat fresh and dried game of all kinds, the seed of the sunflower, various roots, edible fungi, berries, wild onions[63]. The tribes of W. Washington [[205]]and N. W. Oregon live on fish, roots, berries and a little game. “The roots used are numerous.” “Besides the salmon sturgeon is taken in the Columbia, and a variety of other fish.” Seals and whales are also occasionally killed. “Shell-fish in great variety exist in the bays and on the coast”[64]. The basis of the Chinooks’ food is salmon; but besides this they eat sturgeon, wild-fowl, deer, rabbits, nuts, berries, wild fruits and roots[65].