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."1 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. 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 Barrington, History of New South Wales, p. 19. Cf. Lumholtz, Among Cannibals, p. 126 (natives of Northern Queensland). 1 2 Curr, The Australian Race, i. 100, 43 sq. 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 the Tonga Islands, ii. 162; Macdonald, Oceania, p. 208 (Efatese); Yate, Account of New Zealand, p. 145; Arbousset and Daumas, Exploratory Tour to the North-East of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope, p. 322 (Bechuanas); Fritsch, Die Eingeborenen SüdAfrika's, p. 322 (Hottentots). 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 tribe— that 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 Scott Robertson, Káfirs of the Hindu Kush, p. 194. 2 Krasheninnikoff, op. cit. p. 232. 3 Veniaminof, quoted by Petroff, 'Report on Alaska,' in Tenth Census of the United States, p. 155. 4 Sproat, Scenes and Studies of Savage Life, p. 152. 3 von Humboldt, Personal Narra tive of Travels, v. 422. 6 Stirling, in South American Missionary Magazine, iv. 11. Bridges, in A Voice for South America, xiii. 210. 11 7 Curr, The Australian Race, i. 64, 85 sq. Mathew, in Jour. & Proceed. Roy. Soc. N. S. Wales, xxiii. 398. 8 Codrington, Melanesians, p. 345. 9 Thomson, Savage Island, p. 104. See also ibid. p. 94. 10 Pritchard, Polynesian Reminiscences, p. 57. 11 Seemann, Viti, P. 401. Cf. Williams and Calvert, op. cit. p. 97 sq.; Erskine, Islands of the Western Pacific, p. 248. 12 Smith, in Jour. Polynesian Society, i. 39. 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,2 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. Among many of the North American Indians, again, he who can boast of the greatest number of scalps is the person most highly esteemed. 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.8 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 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. 4 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). 5 The well-known practice of scalp. ing, though very common, was not universal among the North American Indians (see Gibbs, 'Tribes of Western Washington and Northwestern Ore We must members of different tribes who for some reason or other are on friendly terms with each other.' not suppose that a tribe of savages generally either lives. in a state of complete isolation, or is always at odds with its neighbours. In Australia, for instance, one tribe of natives, as a rule, entertains amicable relations with one, two, or more other tribes.2 Among the Central Australian natives, say Messrs. Spencer and Gillen, "there is no such thing as one tribe being in a constant state of enmity with another"; on the contrary, where two tribes come into contact with one another on the border land of their respective territories, friendly feelings are maintained. between the members of the two. Some uncivilised peoples are even said to have no wars. The Veddahs of Ceylon never make war upon each other. According to the reports of the oldest inhabitants of Umnak and Unalaska, the people there had never been engaged in war either among themselves or with their neighbours, except once with the natives of Alaska. To the Greenlanders described by Dr. Nansen war is "incomprehensible and repulsive, a thing for which their language has no word." 6 3 That savages to some extent recognise the existence of intertribal rights in times of peace is obvious from certain customs connected with their wars. Some South Sea Islanders and North American Indians consider it necessary for a party which is about to attack another to give notice beforehand of their intention, in order that their opponents may be prepared to meet them." prepared to meet them. The cessation of hostilities is often accompanied by the conclusion of a special treaty and by ceremonies calculated to make it binding. The Tahitians, for instance, wove a wreath of 1 See, e.g., Scott Robertson, op. cit. p. 194 (Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush). 2 Curr, The Australian Race, i. 62 59:3 Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes 6 Nansen, Eskimo Life, p. 162. 7 Hale, U.S. Exploring Expedition. Vol. VI. Ethnography and Philology, p. 72 (Micronesians). Gibbs, loc. cit. p. 190 (Indians of Western Washington and North-Western Oregon). 8 See Farrer, Military Manners and Customs, p. 162 sq. green boughs furnished by each side, exchanged two young dogs, and, having also made a band of cloth together, offered the wreath and the band to the gods with imprecations on the side which should first violate so solemn a treaty of peace. Nor does savage custom always allow indiscriminate slaughter even in warfare. The inviolability of heralds is not infrequently recognised.2 Among the aborigines of New South Wales the tribal messenger known to be a herald by the red net which he wears round his forehead, passes in safety between and through hostile tribes; and among the North American Omahas "the bearer of a peace pipe was generally respected by the enemy, just as the bearer of a flag of truce is regarded by the laws of war among the so-called civilised nations." 4 And many uncivilised races have made it a rule in war to spare the weak and helpless. 996 The Samoans considered it cowardly to kill a woman; 5 and even in Fiji the "enlightened party " objected to the killing of women, urging that it is "just as cowardly to kill a woman as a baby." The Abipones, in their wars, "generally spared the unwarlike, and carried away innocent boys and girls unhurt."7 An old Spanish writer tells us of the Guanches of Gran Canaria that," in their wars, they held it as base and mean to molest or injure the women and children of the enemy, considering them as weak and helpless, therefore improper objects of their resentment"; and similar views prevail among the Berbers (Shluḥ) of Southern Morocco, as also among the Algerian Kabyles and the Touareg.10 Though the Masai and Wa-kikuyu "are eternally at war to the knife with each other, there is a compact between them not to molest the womenfolk of either party." 1 "The Masai," says Mr. Hinde, "never interfere with women in their 11 8 1 Ellis, Polynesian Researches, i. 318. 2 See Farrer, Military Manners and Customs, p. 161. 3 Fraser, Aborigines of New South Wales, p. 41. 4 Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. iii. 368. 5 Turner, Nineteen Years in Polynesia, p. 304. 6 Seemann, Viti, p. 180. raids, and the women cheer 7 Dobrizhoffer, op. cit. ii. 141. 8 Abreu de Galindo, History of the Discovery and Conquest of the Canary Islands, p. 66. 9 Hanoteau and Letourneux, La Kabylie, ii. 76. 10 Hourst, Sur le Niger et au pays des Touaregs, p. 223 sq. 11 Thomson, Through Masai Land, p. 177. |