We humans do a lot of things to have power over others, and actually owning other people and having their existence in ones hands could be a part of that.
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.
With no slavery , orphans are going to be someone else's problem. Have to have an institution to take care of them.In other words, any place banning slavery gets a hit to its economy and capabilites?
This, sadly it's still very big if you count the defacto slaves in the Gulf states then there is a substantial amountThe 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.
@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.
Another reason would be reducing ways to become a slave. Some way to deal with debts.
So... introduce money?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.
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.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.)
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).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.