| Result. Positive cases: | Calabarese, |
| inhabitants of Bonny, | |
| Brass people,[[160]] | |
| inhabitants of Benin, | |
| Ewe, | |
| inhabitants of Dahomey, | |
| Geges and Nagos, | |
| Yorubas, | |
| inhabitants of Ashanti, | |
| Fanti, | |
| Gallinas, | |
| Mandingoes, | |
| Wolofs, | |
| Saracolays, | |
| Kagoros, | |
| Bambaras, | |
| Toucouleurs, | |
| Jekris, | |
| Malinkays, | |
| Susu, | |
| Landuma, | |
| Limba, | |
| Boobies, | |
| Northern Sakalavas, | |
| Sakalavas of Nossi-Bé and Mayotte, | |
| Sereres, | |
| Niam-Niam, | |
| Mombuttus, | |
| Wagungo. | |
| Negative cases: | Bobo, |
| Latuka, | |
| Alur, | |
| Lendu, | |
| Warundi, | |
| Wafiomi, | |
| Wataturu, | |
| Wambugwe, | |
| Bongos. | |
| No conclusion: | Ibo or Eboe, |
| Krus, | |
| Chillooks, | |
| Diours,[[161]] | |
| Dinka, | |
| Bari, | |
| Abukaja, | |
| Makaraka. |
§ 17. Africa. C. Light-coloured South Africans and African pigmy-tribes.
Fritsch, at the beginning of his description of the Hottentots or Koi-Koin, states that in his time these tribes had already been much changed from their aboriginal state; so he had to rely on the statements of ancient writers, several of which bear a rather fantastic character[699].
Of the Namaqua, one of the Hottentot tribes, he says, that the state of women is not so bad as among most South African tribes. The men assist their wives in the hard work; moreover a class of servants or slaves exists here. “This lowest class of people—one might object to our calling them “slaves”, as there is no established law distinguishing slaves from freemen—among the Namaqua mainly consists of individuals belonging to the despised tribes of Mountain-Damara and Bushmen. These people are looked upon as inferior by their very birth, and (like the Vaalpenz among the Bechuanas) regard bad treatment as inevitably connected with their origin, without being slaves by law. Serfs (Leibeigenen) in the proper sense of the word may be called those only who, as prisoners of war, or by surrendering at discretion (like the Fengu among the Caffres), become subjected to men of power; of these there are but few among the Namaqua tribes, but among all South African natives the rich tyrannize over the poor who, in the hope of filling their stomachs, comply with a state of dependence which is not authorized by law.” According to Th. Hahn, he who ill-treats or even barbarously murders a slave, is not punished[700]. This statement is not very clear. Fritsch speaks here of three kinds of “servants or slaves”: a. poor dependent on the rich; these certainly are servants and not slaves; b. individuals belonging to despised tribes; of these Fritsch [[162]]says, that they are not slaves by law, and as no more details are given, we cannot make out what they are; c. prisoners of war and those who have surrendered at discretion. These, according to Fritsch, are the only Leibeigenen in the proper sense; but he compares them to the Fengu, who, as we saw in § 15, are subjected tribes rather than slaves[701]. Galton remarks: “Though no slaves are exported from the countries in which I travelled, yet there is a kind of slavery in the countries themselves. It is not easy to draw a line between slavery and servitude; but I should say that the relation of the master to the man was, at least in Damara and Hottentotland, that of owner rather than employer. The Namaqua Hottentots and Oorlams, in all their plundering excursions, capture and drive back with them such Damara youths as they take a fancy to, and they keep them, and assert every kind of right over them. They punish them just as they please, and even shoot them, without any one attempting to interfere. Next in the scale of slavery are those Damaras, Ghou Damup, or Bushmen, who place themselves under Hottentot “protection”, and on much the same footing as those among the Hottentots, are the paupers that are attached to different werfts among the Damaras[702]”. We see that Galton, like Fritsch, is uncertain as to whether the subjected classes among the Namaqua are to be called slaves. According to Wandrer, whose description applies to a later period than the foregoing accounts, there are no slaves, but a kind of serfs, most of them Herero, who were formerly prisoners of war[703]. Considering all this, we cannot arrive at any definite conclusion.
In his description of the other Hottentot tribes, viz. the Griqua, Korana, and Colonial Hottentots, Fritsch makes no mention of slavery. Holub remarks: “Where a well-to-do Korana can afford to keep some Makalahiri and Masarwa as servants and slaves, the soil is tilled to a small extent[704]”. We have before met with these Makalahiri and Masarwa as tribes subjected to the Bechuanas; this makes us doubt, whether the “slaves” Holub speaks of are not divisions of the same tribes subjected to the [[163]]Korana, rather than slaves in the proper sense; the more so as he speaks of “servants and slaves”.
The describers of the Bushmen[705] make no mention of slavery. Fritsch tells us that they adopted parts of the declining Hottentots into their hordes[706], so we may safely infer that slavery did not exist among them.
None of the describers of the Akkas[707] speak of slaves. Burrows tells us that they “purchase their implements, such as spears, arrow-heads, and knives, from their neighbours, in exchange for dried meat, or for captives they have taken in the bush.” But as the same writer states that “each village is ruled by a chief or head man, but among the people there is no variation of rank[708]”, we may safely suppose that they sell abroad all captives they have made, and do not keep any of them as slaves.
Of the Abongos we know little, far too little to make out whether slavery exists among them[709].
The Mucassequere, according to Serpa Pinto, sell the captives they make in their wars as slaves to the Ambuella, who transmit them to Bihé caravans[710]. We may therefore suppose that they do not keep slaves.