Was there a lot of slavery in ancient past? Why? Is it plausible for a state to disdain slavery?

Zachariah

Banned
A case in point, of a state which was very much disdainful of slavery, to the extent that any slave who stepped foot on their soil was considered free- The Kingdom of Nri, in what's today south-eastern Nigeria. Wasn't exactly ancient, but it was old enough. How did they manage it, without significant mechanical capacity or the economic incentives of using slave labor? On account of its unique nature as a religio-polity, a sort of theocratic state, which developed a state system sustained by ritual power as opposed to military power. The Nri had a taboo symbolic code, with the rules regarding these taboos used to educate and govern Nri's subjects. This meant that, while certain Igbo may have lived under different formal administrations, all followers of the Igbo religion had to abide by the rules of the faith and obey its representative on earth- the eze Nri, a divine ruler who held ritual and mystic (but not military) power.

An important symbol among the Nri religion was the omu, a tender palm frond, used to sacralize and restrain. It was used as protection for traveling delegations or safeguarding certain objects; a person or object carrying an omu twig was considered protected. The influence of these symbols and institutions extended well beyond Nri, and this unique Igbo socio-political system proved capable of controlling a large area. One of the core tenets of the state religion, Odanini, was religious pacifism, rooted in a belief that violence was an abomination which polluted the earth. Instead, the eze Nri could declare a form of excommunication from the odinani Nri against those who violated specific taboos (including slave trading and ownership). Members of the Ikénga, the priests and the nobility of Nri, could isolate entire communities via this form of ritual siege, resulting in their impoverishment and in starvation, given that the nobility also controlled the means for agriculture. And it worked pretty well; Nri maintained its vast authority well into the 16th century, with the peace mandated by the Nri religion and enforced by the presence of the mbùríchi nobles allowing free trade, both internal and external, to flourish.

So then, couldn't it be plausible for other, earlier states to employ a system akin to that of the Nri, stymieing slavery by imposing religious taboos against it, and maintaining the economic incentive for abolition as opposed to slavery courtesy of the fact that a society without slavery is always going to be far more efficient when it comes to free trade and consumerism?
 
My argument is not that war is waged specifically for the acquisition of slaves. Instead, slave capturing becomes part of this war making and is one with the concept of loot, which slaves are apart of. Prior to the concept of regular pay for service in war or in more traditional societies, the procurement of loot was the only serious reason with which many of the soldiery ever participated in war, which in turn is related to the idea of adventure and martial prowess, to take that which your hand may happen to grab. The aspect of war thus, cannot be divorced from that of the capture of loot, at least for the individuals who wage the war and assent to battle, which is what matters for our discussion, for it is individuals and families who own slaves and property, not the atmospheric concept of the state or the big picture outlook.

Now we are entering areas wherein even hunter and gathering societies could conceivably utilize slaves. In a camp or clan/unit of humans in say 9000 BCE could conceivably use a slave in most of the examples you mention. It may simply be the case that they did not or sparingly did so, but it is still perhaps exists the issue that it could possibly be used if said group happened upon conflict with another clan that led to the capture of humans from the opposition and also goods from the other group. It is certainly not impossible for them to practice this, thus I would disagree that these occupations you mention are occupations reserved for slaves only whence the agricultural production reaches a level to where hunter gathering is made arbitrarily distinct from agriculture.

Regarding the previous discussion, the argument that slaves add a certain economic benefit in this case is somewhat lacking. While it may incur some benefits, most assuredly, is this economic in nature or at least in the way that we mean economic. There is a case to be made, as I have, that the usage of slaves for your referenced occupations, give a sort of benefit, these two being a sort of comfort level for the master's household and also a status/power dynamic which incurs a benefit in the zeitgeist of that family's era. In each of these instances, the occupation may in technicality free up a member of the family to pursue a different occupation, but in general these occupations in most cultures are the work of women and children within the household, who instead of surrendering their housework and leaving the house to find another occupation; more often than not, these previous workers (for the sake of argument, workers) will more than likely spend their time in leisure and at worst spending excess income on more refined objects. The idea that acquiring a slave to replace certain ladies of the house in housework would allow these former people to do another occupation or increase production to a degree that makes slavery substantially profitable, for me, is lacking substantially. However, the counter opposition that the casus for this slave occupation is not exactly economic, but a sort of undefinable and primordial preference for more leisure time for ladies of the house or the more distinct idea of this being a power statement wherein the master is able to flaunt his prowess or wealth within his society and see to the relegation of his wives to a status of leisure.

In a hunter gatherer society one cannot generate enough food surplus to support a slave to specialize in cooking and cleaning. All members of the tribe would be out hunting and gathering, with just enough to feed the tribe. Therefore if they take on a captive from tribal warfare, that person is not a slave but a new member of the tribe. He or she would not be kept imprisoned but given incentives to stay and contribute.

Certainly in societies where sufficient surpluses exist there is incentive to own people for leisure and status. In the examples you gave, the underlining assumption is these slave owners don’t have to worry about going hungry in order to keep slaves fed.
 
How about property taxes? Like, say, you have a slave? You pay more.

So no, you don't have slaves. But if you don't have slaves, that means you have servants. And servants can have rights.

Another reason would be reducing ways to become a slave. Some way to deal with debts.
 
@Richard V I question the assertion that hunter and gatherers would be unable to find occupation for slaves or that these groups necessarily represent low food surplus by definition. If your assertion was correct, perhaps the situation of Gobekli Tepe is the means by which this assertion is made null. It may be true that it would be rare, but the usage of a slave is certainly conceivable considering some of which we find that indicate constructs once though impossible for hunter gatherers.
 

elkarlo

Banned
In other words, any place banning slavery gets a hit to its economy and capabilites?
With no slavery , orphans are going to be someone else's problem. Have to have an institution to take care of them.
Will also mess up the sex trade. Make it more expensive? less ability to have sex would probably have some social implications as well
 

elkarlo

Banned
The industrial revolution and even then it isn't cut and dried. There are various methods of forced servitude going on to this very day in many parts of the world.
This, sadly it's still very big if you count the defacto slaves in the Gulf states then there is a substantial amount
 
@Richard V I question the assertion that hunter and gatherers would be unable to find occupation for slaves or that these groups necessarily represent low food surplus by definition. If your assertion was correct, perhaps the situation of Gobekli Tepe is the means by which this assertion is made null. It may be true that it would be rare, but the usage of a slave is certainly conceivable considering some of which we find that indicate constructs once though impossible for hunter gatherers.

Humans have lived as hunter gatherers for a million years. It would be strange if at no time was there a tribe that held some people against their will and kept them alive with their fortuitous surplus. My point is simply that surpluses were far more common and far larger in the agricultural age and that this explains the rise in slavery as an institution. It’s a predictor model that suggest increasing surplus through agricultural efficiency should not lead to less slavery.
 
Another reason would be reducing ways to become a slave. Some way to deal with debts.

In the times before almost complete monetization debt bondage makes complete sense. Because before the age of wage labor how exactly is a creditor going to be paid back. They can't garnish wages or foreclose on your house and so on like they do in the modern day. So pay off your debt with your labor.
 
In the times before almost complete monetization debt bondage makes complete sense. Because before the age of wage labor how exactly is a creditor going to be paid back. They can't garnish wages or foreclose on your house and so on like they do in the modern day. So pay off your debt with your labor.
So... introduce money?
 
In a hunter gatherer society one cannot generate enough food surplus to support a slave to specialize in cooking and cleaning. All members of the tribe would be out hunting and gathering, with just enough to feed the tribe.
I'd argue that it's more the opposite. Plenty of known hunter-gatherer societies had a labour surplus. They did not have to work as many hours per day to feed themselves as farmers. Not even remotely.

Cases like the cultures of the Pacific Northwest in North America, where they had a surplus of stored food, are well-known. A variety of ancient cultures appear to have been similar - Gobekli Tepe has already been mentioned.

Research done into the cultures of indigenous Australians has reached similar conclusions. Far from being working from sunup to sundown to find food, in fact there were plenty of spare hours around.

In that environment, slavery makes no sense because there's already a labour surplus. (Plus for other reasons such as being easy to run away.)
 

Marc

Donor
It's worth that noting, that very often, if not nearly always, attitudes towards slaves and slavery are reflected in attitudes towards the role of women
 
I'd argue that it's more the opposite. Plenty of known hunter-gatherer societies had a labour surplus. They did not have to work as many hours per day to feed themselves as farmers. Not even remotely.

Cases like the cultures of the Pacific Northwest in North America, where they had a surplus of stored food, are well-known. A variety of ancient cultures appear to have been similar - Gobekli Tepe has already been mentioned.

Research done into the cultures of indigenous Australians has reached similar conclusions. Far from being working from sunup to sundown to find food, in fact there were plenty of spare hours around.

In that environment, slavery makes no sense because there's already a labour surplus. (Plus for other reasons such as being easy to run away.)

Certainly there were hunter gatherers with adundant food supply, but they cannot generate the surpluses agricultural societies do. The latter do not work from dawn to dusk to feed themselves, they do so to also generate income to buy things they can’t make, to support a hierarchical society with division of labor. Also farmers aren’t busy working their fields year round. They go to the market to sell their goods, have feasts and make pilgrimages, provide corvee labor for their lords and so on.
 
Certainly there were hunter gatherers with adundant food supply, but they cannot generate the surpluses agricultural societies do. The latter do not work from dawn to dusk to feed themselves, they do so to also generate income to buy things they can’t make, to support a hierarchical society with division of labor. Also farmers aren’t busy working their fields year round. They go to the market to sell their goods, have feasts and make pilgrimages, provide corvee labor for their lords and so on.
The key point is the labour surplus, not the food surplus. Farming societies often had better food surplus due to better food storage techniques (with some exceptions).

What hunter-gatherer societies had was a higher labour surplus. Slavery in a state of labour surplus isn't worth the effort, since you get all of the downsides of slavery and few or none of the benefits.
 
With fall of Rome, iron shackles disappear from Merovingian Gaul - iron age continued, iron knives, axes and swords were still available, but iron was more expensive and fewer implements were made of iron. Captives may have been bound in perishable textile or leather ropes rather than irons.
But Roman villas also vanished. Farming was no longer carried out by large groups of single people deprived of their own household. Instead, Merovingian Gaul had village communities - people who did have their own households. They clearly did render some of their produce to their lords, but were not working in shackles (or ropes).
What remained was household slaves - doing consumptive work, not productive work.
Household slavery was quite common even in societies where productive slavery did not exist. For example, China - by 20th century, the farmers were personally free tenants. But of household servants, at least maidservants and concubines were bought and sold without legal freedom to leave by their own will - they were slaves.
 
The persian empire(the one that fought in Thermopylae) was in theory against slavery due in part of Zoroastrianism as many of they’re public works were not done by hordes of half dead slaves but paid Artisans and labourers
 
Top