the value of human life." 1 A Masai will murder his friend or neighbour in a fight over a herd of captured cattle, and "live not a whit the less merrily afterwards."2 Among the Bachapins, a Bechuana tribe, murder "excites little sensation, excepting in the family of the person who has been murdered; and brings, it is said, no disgrace upon him who has committed it; nor uneasiness, excepting the fear of their revenge.' "3 The Oraons of Bengal "are ready to take life on very slight provocation," and Colonel Dalton doubts whether they see any moral guilt in it. Some of the Himalayan mountaineers are reported to put men to death merely for the satisfaction of seeing the blood flow and of marking the last struggles of the victim. Among the Pathans, on the north-western frontier of the Punjab, "there is hardly a man whose hands are unstained," and each person << counts up his murders.” 6 On the other hand, there are uncivilised peoples among whom homicide or murder is said to be hardly known. ד Among the Omahas, "before liquor was introduced there were no murders, even when men quarrelled." Captain Lyon could learn of no instances of manslaughter having ever occurred among the Eskimo of Igloolik. In Tutuila, of the Samoa group, according to Brenchley, there had been but one case of assassination in the course of twenty years. The Veddahs of Ceylon know of manslaughter only as a punish Williams and Calvert, Fiji and the Fijians, p. 115. 2 Johnston, Kilima-njaro Expedition, p. 419. 3 Burchell, Travels in the Interior of Southern Africa, ii. 554. Dalton, Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal, p. 256. Fraser, Journal of a Tour through the Himala Mountains, p. 267. Temple, quoted by Spencer, Principles of Ethics, i. 343. For other instances of the indifference of savages to human life, see Egede, Description of Greenland, p. 123; Cranz, History of Greenland, i. 177; Holm, 'Ethnologisk Skizze af Angmagsalikerne,' in Meddelelser om Grönland, x. 87, 179 sq.; Coxe. Russian Discoveries between Asia and America, p. 257 (Aleuts of Unalaska); Krasheninnikoff, History of Kamschatka, p. 204 ; Steller, Beschrei bung von dem Lande Kamtschatka, p. 294; Boyle, Adventures among the Dyaks of Borneo, p. 116 (Malays); Powell, Wanderings in a Wild Country, p. 262 (aborigines of New Britain); Scaramucci and Giglioli, Notizie sui Danakil,' in Archivio per antropologia e la etnologia, xiv. 26; Wilson and Felkin, Uganda, ii. 310 (Gowane); Schweinfurth, Heart of Africa, i. 286 (Bongo); Arnot, Garenganze, p. 71 (Barotse); Tuckey, Expedition to Explore the River Zaire, p. 383 (Congo natives); Ward, Five Years with the Congo Cannibals, p. 105 (Bolobo). 7 Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. iii. 369. 8 Lyon, Private Journal, p. 350. 9 Brenchley, jottings during the Cruise of H.M.S." Curaçoa the South Sea Islands, p. 58. among ment.1 The Bedouin of the Euphrates, says Mr. Blunt, “is essentially humane, and never takes life needlessly. If he has killed a man in war he rather conceals the fact than proclaims it aloud, while murder or even homicide is almost unknown among the tribes." 2 Among the Bakwiri, in Cameroon, Zöller never heard of any person having killed a member of his own community. Murders, says Caillié, "are rare among the Bambaras, and never committed by the Mandingoes.' Among the Wanika "wilful cold-blooded murders are almost unknown." 5 Among the Basutos perfect safety is enjoyed "on roads where the traveller might have been robbed a hundred times over without the least hope of aid, and in houses where the doors and windows have neither bolts nor bars," and cases of murder are very rare. In other instances homicide is expressly said to be regarded as wrong. The Greenlanders described by Dr. Nansen hold it atrocious to kill a fellow-creature, except in some particular cases. The Dacotahs say that it is a great crime to take their fellow's life, unless in revenge, "because all have a right to live." 8 In Tierra del Fuego homicide rarely occurs, as Mr. Bridges remarks, because of an inveterate custom according to which human life is held sacred: "le meurtrier est mis au ban de ses compatriotes; isolé de tous, il est fatalement condamné à périr de faim ou à tomber un jour sous les coups d'un groupe de justiciers improvisés." The Andaman Islanders condemn murder as yūbda, or sin.10 The natives of Botany Bay, New History of Sumatra p. 471 (Poggi Islanders); Steller, De Sangi-Archipel, p. 26; Riedel, De sluik- en kroesharige rassen tusschen Selebes en Papua, p. 41 (Ambon and Uliase Islanders); von Siebold, Aino auf der Insel Yesso, pp. 11, 35; Munzinger, Ostafrikanische Studien, p. 532 (Barea and Kunáma); Holub, Seven Years in South Africa, ii. 319 (Marutse); Maclean, Compen dium of Kafir Laws and Customs, pp. 61, 143 sq.; Shooter, Kafirs of Natal, P. 137. 7 Nansen, Eskimo Life, p. 162. 8 Prescott, in Schoolcraft, Indian Tribes of the United States, ii. 195. 9 Hyades and Deniker, Mission scientifique du Cap Horn, vii. 374, 24310 Man, in Jour. Anthr. Inst. xii. 112. South Wales, though a trivial offence in their ideas justifies the murder of a man, "highly reprobate the crime when committed without what they esteem a just cause." According to Mr. Curr's experience, the Australian Black undoubtedly feels that murder is wrong, and its committal brings remorse; even after the perpetration of infanticide or massacres, though both are practised without disguise, those engaged in them are subject to remorse and low spirits for some time.2 It is of particular importance in this connection to note that, in early civilisation, blood-revenge is regarded not as a private matter only, but as a duty, and that, where this custom does not prevail, the community punishes the murderer, frequently with death. We may without hesitation accept Professor Tylor's statement that "no known tribe, however low and ferocious, has ever admitted that men may kill one another indiscriminately." 3 In every society-even where human life is, generally speaking, held in low estimation-custom prohibits homicide within a certain circle of men. But the radius of the circle varies greatly. Savages carefully distinguish between an act of homicide committed within their own community and one where the victim is a stranger. Whilst the former is under ordinary circumstances disapproved of, the latter is in most cases allowed, and often regarded as praiseworthy. It is a very common notion in savage ethics that the chief virtue of a man is to be successful in war and to slay many enemies. Among the Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush "killing strangers might or might not be considered inexpedient, but it would 1 Barrington, History of New South Wales, p. 19. Cf. Lumholtz, Among Cannibals, p. 126 (natives of Northern Queensland). 2 Curr, The Australian Race, i. 100, 43 59. For other instances, see Keating, Expedition to the Source of St. Peter's River, i. 127 (Potawatomis); Harmon, Journal of Voyages in the Interior of North America, p. 348 (Indians on the east side of the Rocky Mountains); Hall, Arctic Researches, P: 572 (Eskimo); Mariner, Natives of 3 Tylor, Primitive Society,' in Contemporary Review, xxi. 714. hardly be considered a crime "; killing fellow-tribesmen, on the other hand, is looked upon in a very different light. The Koriaks do not regard murder as a great crime, unless it occur within their own tribe.2 The early Aleuts considered the killing of a companion a crime worthy of death, "but to kill an enemy was quite another thing." 3 To an Aht Indian the murder of a man is no more than the killing of a dog, provided that the victim is not a member of his own tribe. According to Humboldt, the natives of Guiana "detest all who are not of their family, or their tribe; and hunt the Indians of a neighbouring tribe, who live at war with their own, as we hunt game. In the opinion of the Fuegians, "a stranger and an enemy are almost synonymous terms," hence they dare not go where they have no friends, and where they are unknown, as they would most likely be destroyed. The Australian Black nurtures an intense hatred of every male at least of his own race who is a stranger to him, and would never neglect to assassinate such a person at the earliest moment that he could do so without risk to himself. In Melanesia, also, a stranger as such was generally throughout the islands an enemy to be killed.8 In Savage Island the slaying of a member of another tribethat is, a potential enemy" was a virtue rather than a crime."9 To a young Samoan it was the realisation of his highest ambition to be publicly thanked by the chiefs for killing a foe in mortal combat.10 According to Fijian beliefs, men who have not slain any enemy are, in the other world, compelled to beat dirt with their clubs-the most degrading punishment the native mind can conceive—because they used their club to so little purpose; and in Futuna it was deemed no less necessary to have poured out blood on the field of battle in order to hold a part in the happy future life.12 In the Western islands of Torres Straits "it was a meritorious deed to kill foreigners either in fair fight 1 or by treachery, and honour and glory were attached to the bringing home of the skulls of the inhabitants of other islands slain in battle." In the Solomon Islands, New Guinea,3 and various parts of the Malay Archipelago, he who has collected the greatest number of human heads is honoured by his tribe as the bravest man; and some peoples do not allow a man to marry until he has cut off at least one human head.1 Among many of the North American Indians, again, he who can boast of the greatest number of scalps is the person most highly esteemed.5 Among the Seri Indians the highest virtue "is the shedding of alien blood; and their normal impulse on meeting an alien is to kill, unless deterred by fear." Among the Chukchi "it is held criminal to thieve or murder in the family or race to which a person belongs; but these crimes. committed elsewhere are not only permitted, but held honourable and glorious."7 So, too, the Gallas consider it honourable to kill an alien, though criminal to kill a countryman." At the same time there are, among the lower races, various instances in which the rule, "Thou shalt not kill," applies even to foreigners. Hospitality, as will be seen in a subsequent chapter, is a stringent duty in the savage world. Custom requires that the host should entertain and protect a stranger who comes as his guest, and by killing him the host would perpetrate an outrage hardly possible. Moreover, even in the case of intertribal relations, we must not conclude that what is allowed in war is also allowed in times of peace. The prohibition of homicide may extend beyond the tribal border, to 1 Haddon, in Reports of the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to Torres Straits, v. 277. 2 Romilly, Western Pacific, p. 73. Penny, Ten Years in Melanesia, p. 46. Codrington, op. cit. p. 345. Romilly, Western Pacific, p. 76. Bock, Head-Hunters of Borneo, pp. 216, 221, &c. (Dyaks). Bickmore, Travels in the East Indian Archipelago, p. 205 (Alfura of Ceram). Dalton, op. cit. p. 40 (Nagas of Upper Assam). not 5 The well-known practice of scalping, though very common, was universal among the North American Indians (see Gibbs, Tribes of Western Washington and Northwestern Ore gon,' in Contributions to N. American Ethnology, i. 192; Powers, Tribes of California, p. 321). 6 6 McGee, Seri Indians,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethnol. xvii. 132. Georgi, Russia, iii. 183. 8 Macdonald, Africana, i. 229. For other instances, see Harmon, op. cit. p. 301 (Tacullies); Burton, City of the Saints, p. 139 (Dacotahs); Macpherson, Memorials of Service in India, p. 94 (Kandhs); MacMahon, Far Cathay, p. 262 (Indo-Burmese border tribes); Macdonald, Africana, i. 194 sq. (Eastern Central Africans); Johnston, Kilimanjaro Expedition, p. (Masai). 419 |