§ 2. Development of agriculture and development of slavery.

What do these numbers teach us?

In the first place we see that many (170) agricultural tribes keep slaves. Hence it appears that slavery is by no means [294] incompatible with agriculture. But there are also many (95) agricultural tribes without slaves, so the existence of agriculture among savage tribes does not necessarily lead to the keeping of slaves.

In the second place it appears that the more agriculture is developed, the more frequent slavery becomes. Looking at those agricultural tribes among which subsistence does not depend to any considerable extent on cattle-breeding or trade (a1, a2, a3), we find that in the first group there are 26 positive and 37 negative cases, i. e. 41.3 per cent, of these tribes keep slaves. In the second group the corresponding numbers are 66 positive cases, 43 negative cases, and 60.6 per cent.; in the third group 10 positive cases, 1 negative case, and 90.9 per cent. We see that in the second group slavery is more frequent than in the first, whereas in the third group it is almost universal. It has, however, to be taken into consideration, that the great majority (9 out of 10) of the slave-keeping tribes belonging to the third group live in the Malay Archipelago, and 5 out of these 9 are divisions of the Battas. We may not, therefore, attach much importance to the numbers relating to the third group; for they may be strongly influenced by local circumstances. Taking the second and third group together we find 76 positive and 44 negative cases, i. e. 63.3 per cent. keep slaves, which percentage is considerably higher than that of the first group.

We do not claim mathematical exactness for these numbers. But at any rate we may say that they sufficiently prove, that slavery is considerably more frequent among truly agricultural tribes, which subsist chiefly by agriculture, than among incipient agriculturists, who still depend on hunting or fishing for a large portion of their food.

The total numbers lead to the same conclusion. Looking at these we find in the first group 34 positive and 43 negative cases, i. e. 44.2 per cent. keep slaves. For the second group the corresponding numbers are 116 pos. cases, 48 neg. cases and 70.7 per cent; for the third group 20 pos. cases, 4 neg. cases and 83.3 per cent; for the second and third group taken together 136 pos. cases, 52 neg. cases and 72.3 per cent.

This agrees with what we expected. The tribes belonging to the first group, the "hunting agriculturists" (Jägerbauern), [295] as Dargun calls them, bear a strong resemblance to hunting-tribes. Generally the men's business is hunting and warfare, whereas the women have to till the soil. The division of labour between the sexes does not much differ here from that which exists in Australia, where the men hunt and the women gather fruits and dig roots. These tribes are also often nomadic: when the fruits of their fields are scarcely ripe, they reap them and remove to some other place. [Cunningham (English Industry, I p. 31) remarks that "primitive agriculture is perfectly consistent with a very migratory life."]

The best specimens of this type are found in South America.

Azara, speaking of the Indians living in and around Paraguay, remarks: "Even the agricultural tribes are more or less nomadic. Wherever the Indians pass they sow something, and later on return to reap the fruits". [Azara, II p. 160.]

Lery, a writer of the 16th century, tells us that among the Tupinambas the principal cultures were two roots, which he calls aypi and maniot. They were cultivated by the women. After being planted the roots needed no further care, and within 2 or 3 months were fit to be dug up. Maize was also cultivated by the women. The Tupinambas depended on hunting and fishing for a considerable portion of their food. They did not generally remain for longer than 5 or 6 months in one place, but were always removing from one place to another, carrying their house-building materials with them. [Lery, pp. 123, 127, 141-175, 312.]

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 .[Von den Steinen, Unter den Naturvölkern, pp. 201, 214.]

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]