All land has been appropriated, when every piece of land is claimed by some one as his property. The owner, of course, need not be an individual; land may also be owned by a group of individuals. Yet the statements of our ethnographers concerning tribal property may not be accepted without much caution. They often tell us that a tribe claims the ownership of the territory it inhabits. This so-called right of property held by the tribe often proves to consist in this, that no strangers are admitted to the territory, but every member of the tribe may cultivate as much of the land as he likes. In such case, whether it be the tribe or the king to whom the land is stated to belong, the term “ownership” is very inappropriately used[24]. We shall only speak of appropriation of land when some one claims the use of it to the exclusion of all others, and values his property. Where the so-called owner is always willing to give a piece of it in cultivation to whoever wants to cultivate it, we shall not speak of appropriation; where, however, the land is never (except by way of favour) given in use gratis, but a rent is always stipulated, it appears that the owner values it, it has now really been appropriated[25]. [[311]]
It is not always clearly stated whether all land has been appropriated. Then we shall have recourse to some criteria from which we may infer whether such be the case.
The principal criterion is the existence of a class of freemen destitute of land[26]. Where such people are found we may be sure that there is no free land; else they would be able to take it into cultivation. It need scarcely be added that even where no such people are found, it may be that all land has been appropriated, everybody sharing in it.
The appropriation of the land does not imply that all land is actually being cultivated. There may be land actually out of tillage and yet valued by the owner. But when it is stated that all land is being cultivated, it must all have been appropriated. This will therefore be our second criterion.
There is another criterion that proves that all land has not yet been appropriated. When we are told that clearing a piece of land is a modus acquirendi of landed property, there must still be free land.
The appropriation of all land implies that property in land exists; but the reverse is not true: when we are informed that property in land exists, this does not prove that all land has already been appropriated. For as soon as the population has so far increased as to require the cultivation of land less fertile than that which was at first exclusively cultivated, the more fertile land acquires value. “On the first settling of a country” says Ricardo “in which there is an abundance of rich and fertile land, a very small proportion of which is required to be cultivated for the support of the actual population, or indeed can be cultivated with the capital which the population can command, there will be no rent; for no one would pay for the use of land, when there was an abundant quantity not yet appropriated, and, therefore, at the disposal of whosoever might choose to cultivate it.” But “when in the progress [[312]]of society, land of the second degree of fertility is taken into cultivation, rent immediately commences on that of the first quality, and the amount of that rent will depend on the difference in the quality of these two portions of land”[27]. As soon as land of the second degree of fertility is cultivated, rent commences; but in such cases there is possibly much land of the second degree not yet appropriated, and at any rate land of the 3rd, 4th, etc. degrees. Accordingly we find that among some savage tribes, where there is an abundance of free land, some very fertile or very favourably situated pieces of land are highly valued. We shall give one instance. Among the Sea Dyaks land is so abundant that, if a Dyak, when about to cultivate a piece of land, finds a dead animal lying on it, which he considers a bad omen, he immediately leaves the land, and seeks a new field. Yet among the same Sea Dyaks “parents and children, brothers and sisters, very seldom quarrel; when they do so, it is from having married into a family with whom afterwards they may have disputes about land. One would imagine that was a subject not likely to create dissensions in a country like Borneo; but there are favourite farming-grounds, and boundaries are not very settled. It used to be the practice not to have recourse to arms on those occasions, but the two parties collecting their relatives and friends, would fight with sticks for the coveted spot”[28]. The last sentence proves that these quarrels were rather frequent. When, therefore, it is stated that land has value, or that lands are rented, or that the wealth of individuals consists partly in landed property, this does not prove that all land has already been appropriated.
We have spoken of all land fit for cultivation being appropriated. What land is fit for cultivation in each country depends on the ability of the inhabitants in agriculture. Much will also depend on the character of the individuals. Where these are vigorous and enterprising, the people destitute of arable land will endure many hardships in taking new lands into cultivation, whereas weak and indolent men will prefer being employed by the rich. A good instance of this is furnished by the Bontoc [[313]]Igorot of Northern Luzon. Landed property here is highly developed. “It is largely by the possession or nonpossession of real property that a man is considered rich or poor.” “Irrigated rice lands are commonly leased.” “Unirrigated mountain camote lands are rented outright.” Yet there is still unoccupied land. “Public lands and forests extend in an irregular strip around most pueblos.… Public forests surround the outlying private forests. They are usually from three to six hours distant. From them any man gathers what he pleases, but until the American came to Bontoc the Igorot seldom went that far for wood or lumber, as it was unsafe.” There are, however, people who do not own land enough to live upon. “It is claimed that each household owns its dwelling and at least two sementeras and one granary, though a man with no more property than this is a poor man and some one in his family must work much of the time for wages, because two average sementeras will not furnish all the rice needed by a family for food”[29]. So the poor work for wages rather than going to settle on the outlying public lands, to which they have free access. Here again we see that economic phenomena have always a psychological basis[30].
We shall not, in order to prove our hypothesis, examine the regulations of landed property among all agricultural savage tribes, but confine ourselves to one geographical group, in which the phenomena we have spoken of in this paragraph most strikingly present themselves. This group is Oceania, comprehending Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia. We shall, however, leave out of regard New Guinea, one of the largest [[314]]islands of the world. The rest of Oceania consists chiefly of small islands.
Slavery in Oceania (with the exception of New Guinea) has never prevailed to any great extent. In the second chapter of Part I it has been shown that slavery, so far as we can know, existed only in the N. W. Solomon Islands, on the Gazelle Peninsula of Neu Pommern, and in New Zealand.