Von den Steinen, describing the tribes on the Upper Schingu (in Brazil), states that, though largely subsisting on agriculture, they are psychically hunters rather than agriculturists. Like everywhere in Brazil, the women not only prepare the food, but cultivate the manioc. The men cultivate nothing but tobacco, the smoking of which is their exclusive privilege[5].
We have seen (in chap. II of this second Part) that hunters hardly ever keep slaves; and as the “hunting agriculturists” so much resemble true hunters, it is easy to understand why among the majority of them slavery does not exist. Slaves cannot be employed for hunting, and the women can easily perform the small amount of cultivation wanted by these tribes. [[296]]Moreover, the men who, as warriors, are able to procure slaves, are not likely to take them for the sole benefit of the women. And where the men are always hunting, the women would have to supervise the slaves and keep them in order, which is not easy for them.
That this lowest stage of agriculture is not favourable to the growth of slavery, is confirmed by what Mr. A. C. Kruyt had the kindness to write us regarding Central Celebes. There is one native tribe, the Topebato, that formerly did not keep slaves, the probable cause being that they had remained hunters longer than the other tribes in the neighbourhood. In a legend, in which it is told that the gods made gifts to the different tribes characterizing their manner of life, the Topebato get a dog allotted to them for the chase, and though now they till the soil, they are still passionate hunters. They now buy a few slaves and so in the course of time a slave class will originate among them.
Yet there are a considerable number of positive cases in our first group (26 out of 63). We will, of course, make due allowance for mistakes; there may be several tribes contained in our first group which on closer scrutiny would prove to be true agriculturists and not Jägerbauern. But we cannot think but that among these 26 tribes there are many, which have been justly placed in the first group. The existence of slavery among them will have to be accounted for by secondary causes, internal and external, such as we have found in the foregoing chapters and of which we shall perhaps find some more in the continuation of this chapter.
We must, however, bear in mind that our first group does not only contain “hunting”, but also “fishing agriculturists”; and we know that fishers are more likely to keep slaves than hunters. This may perhaps account for the existence of slavery among some of these tribes. But our numbers give us no hint in this direction. We find, indeed, that 11 out of 26 positive cases are afforded by tribes inhabiting the islands of the Malay Archipelago; but among these there are some Dyak tribes living in the interior of Borneo. Moreover, South America affords 6 positive, and the Melanesian islands 12 negative cases. We may suppose that whatever effect this factor has is neutralized by the intervention of other circumstances. [[297]]
§ 3. Capital and labour among agricultural tribes.
We have seen that among the purely agricultural tribes of the second and third stages there are altogether 76 positive and 44 negative cases, i.e. more than three-fifths of them keep slaves. These numbers make it probable, that the existence of slavery among agricultural tribes has to be accounted for by general causes, that agricultural life as such is favourable to the growth of slavery. We have to inquire now, whether this supposition is justified by an application of the general principle laid down in § 6 of the second chapter, i.e. whether among agricultural tribes subsistence is dependent on capital, and if not, whether it is easy or difficult to procure.
It appears that, where agriculture is carried on without the aid of domestic animals, subsistence does not depend on capital. The savage agriculturist is unacquainted with the more perfect and costly agricultural implements used in Europe, and, where population is scarce (as it is among most savages) cultivates only such grounds as are most fertile and easiest of access. Even the plough is used by very few savages; they most often content themselves with a pointed stick or hoe, wherefore Hahn calls the agriculture carried on by them hoe-culture (Hackbau), as distinguished from agriculture proper (Ackerbau)[6]. And even where agriculture is carried on in a more skilful manner, e.g. by means of irrigation, it is not capital that is wanted, but labour. The construction of the irrigation-works may be a long and laborious task, but the materials cost nothing. There is only one instance in which we have found it stated that agriculture cannot well be carried on without capital. Radloff tells us that the Kazak Kirghiz, besides rearing cattle, are largely agricultural. Some fields want constant irrigation, and the water is very difficult to procure. The rich use a paddle-wheel; the poor bring the water to their fields in buckets and wooden vessels, but this is of little avail. Therefore it is only the rich who are capable of carrying on agriculture to any considerable extent[7]. But this state of things probably had not yet existed more than some 30 years; for [[298]]Levchine (writing about 30 years earlier than Radloff) states that in his time agriculture was of little importance; and he does not make any mention of irrigation[8]. The introduction of the paddle wheel has therefore probably to be ascribed to the Russians; for the Kazak Kirghiz, in Radloff’s time, were already strongly influenced by them; so we may not speak here of a fact belonging to savage life. We have not found any other instance of this dependence of agriculture on capital; but even if there be a few instances, we are justified in concluding that, generally speaking, the savage agriculturist can perfectly well do without capital, except, of course, where he depends on cattle.
Moreover, subsistence is fairly easy to procure. Agriculture, where it is carried on in such simple manner as among most savages, does not require much skill or application. As compared with hunting, seafaring and manufactures, it is rather dull work, requiring patience rather than strength or skill. It is one of the occupations about which there is no excitement, and which in many primitive societies are performed by the women. Hunting requires personal qualities, and a good hunter is held in high esteem; but we have not found it stated in a single instance, that a man’s influence or power depends on his ability in agriculture.