| Result. Positive cases: | Ancient nations of Honduras, |
| Inhabitants of Panama and Costa Rica, | |
| Mundrucus, | |
| Mauhés, | |
| Mbayas, | |
| Caduvei, | |
| Suya, | |
| Abipones, | |
| Tehuelches, | |
| Arawaks, | |
| Saliva, | |
| Goajiro, | |
| Tupinambas, | |
| Chiriguanos, | |
| Yuruna, | |
| Sencis, | |
| Enimagas. | |
| Negative cases: | Wild tribes of North Mexico, |
| Natives of the Mosquito Coast, | |
| Caribs of the Isthmus, | |
| Warraus, | |
| Macusi, | |
| Roucouyennes, | |
| Apiacas, | |
| Botocudos, | |
| Bakairi,[[83]] | |
| Paressi, | |
| Bororo, | |
| Guanas, | |
| Charruas, | |
| Minuanes, | |
| Puelches, | |
| Araucanians, | |
| Fuegians, | |
| Wild tribes of Central Mexico, | |
| Continental Caribs, | |
| Guaycurû, | |
| Tobas, | |
| Karayas, | |
| Zaparos, | |
| Campas, | |
| Conibos, | |
| Yuracarès, | |
| Mocéténès, | |
| Chiquitos, | |
| Chapacuras, | |
| Payaguas. | |
| No conclusion: | Caribs of the Antilles, |
| Wild tribes of South Mexico, | |
| Natives of Hispaniola, | |
| Miranhas, | |
| Canoeiros, | |
| Moxos. |
§ 4. Australia.
The Australian tribes, as they are marked on the map in Mr. Thomas’s book on the “Natives of Australia”, are the following:
| In Western Australia: | Yerkla-mining, |
| In South Australia: | Eucla, |
| Arunta, | |
| Urabunna, | |
| Dieri, | |
| Narrinyeri,[[84]] | |
| Booandik, | |
| Wotjoballak, | |
| In South Australia (N. Territory): | Mara, |
| Anula, | |
| Worgaia, | |
| Warramunga, | |
| Kaitish, | |
| In Victoria: | Wolgai, |
| Wurinyeri, | |
| Kurnai, | |
| Bangerang, | |
| In N. S. Wales: | Tongaranka, |
| Euahlayi, | |
| Kamilaroi, | |
| Wiimbaio, | |
| Geawegal, | |
| Yuin, | |
| Murring, | |
| In Queensland: | Otati, |
| Pitta Pitta, | |
| Kiabara, | |
| Kabi, | |
| Turribul. |
The extinct Tasmanians also belonged to the Australian group.
Nowhere in all the books and articles we have consulted on the Australian tribes is any mention made of slaves[200]. Now it is true that, whereas on many of these tribes we are well informed, there are others on which we have little information or no information at all. But here our group-argument may be brought to bear. We have to deal here with an isolated district, inhabited by tribes living in similar conditions and physically and psychically resembling each other, so much so, that some ethnographers[201] and theorists[202] speak of the Australians as if they were one people, as if all Australians were in exactly the same state of culture. This really is erroneous: [[85]]there are many differences in several respects between the Australian tribes[203]. But that they can be treated in this manner, proves that the differences are not so very great; it is unimaginable, that Grosse would have spoken in the same way of the American Indians or the Negroes. What we mean to say now is this: our information on some Australian tribes is not sufficient to prove that just in that district which each particular account relates to, slavery does not exist. But then the several accounts strengthen each other; for taking into consideration the great likeness existing between the Australian tribes, it is a priori unlikely that some of these tribes would have and others would not have slaves. Moreover, if in any part of Australia slavery existed, our informants probably would have found this too remarkable a fact to leave it unnoticed.
As little mention is made of slaves by those ethnographers who speak of the Australians in general[204]. According to Brough Smyth, “each of the principal men and priests seeks for his food, and ministers to his own wants (with such help as he gets from his wives); and has no one whom he can call servant”[205]. Gerland states that the Australians make no captives, except women sometimes[206].
All this makes it sufficiently clear that the Australians have no slaves[207]. The 30 tribes we have enumerated here may therefore rank as clear cases of savage tribes without slaves.