53 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).
54 See Farrer, Military Manners and Customs, p. 162 sq.
55 Ellis, Polynesian Researches, i. 318.
56 See Farrer, Militarv Manners and Customs, p. 161.
57 Fraser, Aborigines of New South Wales, p. 41.
58 Dorsey, ‘Omaha Sociology,’ in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. iii. 368.
The Samoans considered it cowardly to kill a woman;59 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.”60 The Abipones, in their wars, “generally spared the unwarlike, and carried away innocent boys and girls unhurt.”61 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”;62 and similar views prevail among the Berbers (Shluḥ) of Southern Morocco, as also among the Algerian Kabyles63 and the Touareg.64 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.”65 “The Masai,” says Mr. Hinde, “never interfere with women in their raids, and the women cheer loudly and encourage their relatives during the fight.”66 Among the Latukas, though women are employed as spies and thus become exceedingly dangerous in war, there is nevertheless a general understanding that no woman shall be killed.67 The Basutos maintain that respect should be paid during war to women, children, and travellers, as also that those who surrender should be spared and open to ransom; and, though these rules are not invariably respected, the public voice always disapproves of their violation.68
59 Turner, Nineteen Years in Polynesia, p. 304.
60 Seemann, Viti, p. 180.
61 Dobrizhoffer, op. cit. ii. 141.
62 Abreu de Galindo, History of the Discovery and Conquest of the Canary Islands, p. 66.
63 Hanoteau and Letourneux, La Kabylie, ii. 76.
64 Hourst, Sur le Niger et au pays des Touaregs, p. 223 sq.
65 Thomson, Through Masai Land, p. 177.
66 Hinde, The Last of the Masai, p. 6, n.*
67 Baker, Albert N’yanza, i. 355.
68 Casalis, op. cit. p. 223 sq. For regard paid to women, old people, and children in war, see also Richardson, Arctic Searching Expedition, i. 367 (Western Eskimo); Catlin, North American Indians, ii. 240; Azara, Voyages, ii. 145 (Payaguas).
Sometimes custom even requires that the life of the captive shall be spared.
It is against Masai tradition to kill prisoners of war.69 Among the Kabyles “il faut que l’exaspération des partis soit extrême pour qu’un blessé ou un prisonnier soit mis à mort.”70 The Touareg do not kill their prisoners after a fight.71 Among the Bedouins of the Euphrates “the person of the enemy is sacred when disarmed or dismounted; and prisoners are neither enslaved nor held to other ransom than their mares.”72 “Captives,” says Mr. Dorsey, “were not slain by the Omahas and Ponkas. When peace was declared the captives were sent home, if they wished to go. If not they could remain where they were, and were treated as if they were members of the tribe.”73 Among the Wyandots prisoners of war were frequently adopted into the tribe. “The warrior taking the prisoner has the first right to adopt him. If no one claims the prisoner for this purpose, he is caused to run the gauntlet as a test of his courage. If at his trial he behaves manfully claimants are not wanting, but if he behaves disgracefully he is put to death.”74
69 Hinde, op. cit. p. 64.
70 Hanoteau and Letourneux, op. cit. 75.
71 Hourst, op. cit. p. 207.
72 Blunt, op. cit. ii. 239.
73 Dorsey, ‘Omaha Sociology,’ in Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn. iii. 332.
74 Powell, ibid. i. 68.
Thus we notice even among uncivilised races very obvious traces of what is called “international law,”75 if not as a rule, at least as an exception. On the other hand, the readiness with which war is engaged in, not only in self-defence or out of revenge, but for the sake of gain, indicates how little regard is paid to human life outside the tribe. The Kandhs, for instance, maintain “that a state of war may be lawfully presumed against all tribes and nations with whom no express agreement to the contrary exists.”76 And if a few savage peoples live in perpetual peace, it seems that the chief reason for this is not a higher standard of morality, but the absence of all inducements