As for their economic life, this was much inferior to that on the Pacific Coast of North America. They subsisted on the spontaneous products of nature and on game. Food was abundant; yet their mode of life required frequent migrations. All their journeys were performed on horseback[176].
The information we get about the Tehuelches is very incomplete. Falkner states, that the female relatives of the cacique have slaves, who perform most of their work[177].
In Kamchatka slaves were employed for various domestic labours, such as fetching wood, feeding the dogs, making axes and knives from stone and bone[178]. The Kamchadales were not so far advanced in the arts of life as the tribes of the Pacific Coast of North America. They think only of the present, says Steller; they are not ambitious to become rich. They do not like to work more than is needed for their own and their families’ subsistence. “When they have got as much as they think to be sufficient, they do not collect any more food; they would not even do so, if the fish came on land and the animals [[227]]into their dwellings”. A rather brisk trade was, however, carried on by them and was largely dependent on female labour[179]. They also had fixed habitations[180].
Speaking of the tribes of the Pacific Coast, we concluded that slavery must have already existed among them at a somewhat lower stage of economic life. The Kamchadales afford a proof of this. They were not so far advanced in the arts of life as the tribes of the Pacific Coast; yet slavery already existed among them, though it does not seem to have prevailed here to any great extent.
§ 3. Experimentum crucis: Australia.
In the last paragraph we have shown that in the economic and social life of the slave-keeping hunters and fishers (especially those on the Pacific Coast of North America) there are some features which account for the existence of slavery. But there is still something wanting in our argument. It might be that the circumstances which we have called causes of slavery were equally found among the hunting and fishing tribes that do not keep slaves; in that case the foregoing argument would prove insufficient. Therefore we shall apply here the experimentum crucis; we shall inquire how much the economic and social life of the slave-keeping tribes differs from that of the other tribes. This investigation may be instructive in various respects. It might be, that of the supposed causes of slavery some were found among non-slave-keeping as well as among slave-keeping tribes, whereas others existed among none but slave-keeping tribes; then the latter causes only would be decisive. Or perhaps we shall find that each of these causes exists among one or more non-slave-keeping tribes; but that the combination of all the causes is found nowhere but among slave-keeping tribes. It were also possible, that a combination of the same causes existed among non-slave-keeping tribes, but that among these there were other circumstances neutralizing the former. Whether any of these possibilities is a reality, will appear from the ensuing investigation. [[228]]
We do not, however, think that it is necessary to give a survey of the economic and social life of all non-slave-keeping hunters and fishers. For we have seen that among the tribes of the Pacific Coast of North America the growth of slavery is much furthered by their forming a somewhat homogeneous group. Accordingly slavery among the few slave-keeping tribes outside the Pacific Coast seems to be little developed. Now there are many non-slave-keeping hunting and fishing tribes, either living quite isolated (e.g. Andaman Islanders, Fuegians) or surrounded by more powerful, agricultural or pastoral, tribes (e.g. Bushmen, African pigmies). That such a position is very unfavourable to the existence of slavery is evident. We shall therefore confine ourselves to a survey of the three great groups of hunters and fishers outside the Pacific Coast: the Australians, the Indians of Central North America, and the Eskimos. Australia and the regions where the Eskimos live are inhabited by hunters and fishers only. In Central North America a few agricultural tribes of the lowest stage (hunting agriculturists) are found; but these differ so little from hunters proper, that we may speak here of a group of hunters, not inclosed between superior peoples. Perhaps the hunters and hunting agriculturists of Brazil, Paraguay, etc. form a similar group; but the literature on these tribes accessible to us was rather incomplete.
We shall inquire now, whether the several circumstances furthering the growth of slavery on the Pacific Coast, are found among each of these groups.
In the first place we shall regard Australia.