A writer of the 18th century tells us that “the Chukchi who live to the north of the river Anadir, are not subjected to the Russian empire, and often make raids on those brought under Russian control, on the Koryakes as well as on the Chukchi, [[284]]killing or making prisoners all they meet, and carrying off their herds of reindeer”[88].
Among the Somal and Gallas internal wars are very frequent; among the former most wars are marauding expeditions. And here too the possession of wife and children is indispensable; an unmarried man cannot attain to wealth and power[89].
Among the Ama-Xosa and Ovaherero the chief object of warfare is cattle-stealing. Fugitives from other tribes are never delivered up by the Ama-Xosa, whatever the reason of their flight; for they strengthen the chief’s power. Another fact, showing the great importance they attach to the numerical strength of their tribe, is this, that he who kills a man or woman by accident has to pay a fine to the chief, as a compensation for the loss suffered by the government of the tribe[90].
We have already seen that the Massai are “true warriors and raiders” and that the Mairs and Meenas spend their time in “marauding, plundering and murdering”[91].
We see that among these tribes everybody is desirous of having as many people about him as possible for the protection of his own property and the capturing of his neighbour’s. And a convenient means of procuring such people is the purchase of slaves.
There is one more secondary cause here, which we have not met with before. It is sometimes stated that keeping slaves is a mere luxury. Now rich nomads, like all rich people, love luxury. Like the rich Kazak Kirghiz who told Levchine that the possession of over 8000 horses procured him a reputation among his countrymen, many rich nomads will win renown by possessing a large retinue of slaves. Thus for instance we know that among the Beni Amer slave labour is of little use; yet it is stated, that the Beni Amer are ambitious to possess many slaves[92]. And slaves are preferable, as objects of luxury, to free servants. For slaves, generally acquired from beyond the limits of the tribe, are much more apt to gratify the pride of the rich man by their submission, than poor freemen, [[285]]who are always conscious of their membership of the tribe and unwilling to be trampled down. The latter fact is proved by several statements of ethnographers.
If a rich Samoyede refuses to give his poor countryman a reindeer for food, the latter has the right to carry off one or more from the rich man’s herd; the law does not give the owner any hold upon him[93].
Among the Yakuts, according to Müller, the rich sustain their poor fellow-tribesmen; if the latter lose their reindeer, they are indemnified by the rich. Another writer tells us that the poor, when dying of hunger, refrain from slaughtering an animal, from fear of losing their independence[94].
Similarly among the Ostyaks “members of the same tribe, whether large or small, consider themselves as relations, even where the common ancestor is unknown, and where the evidence of consanguinity is wholly wanting. Nevertheless, the feeling of consanguinity, sometimes real, sometimes conventional, is the fundamental principle of the union. The rich, of which there are few, help the poor, who are many. There is not much that can change hands. The little, however, that is wanted by the needy is taken as a right rather than a favour”[95].
The Altaians are very sensitive about their liberty. “Every poor man who joins a rich family considers himself a member of it. He will perish of hunger, rather than comply with a demand of his rich neighbour made in a commanding tone”[96].