Origins of slavery

[Ostrinski]

Where was slavery originally practiced? Some sources state that the earliest evidence for slavery was in the Code of Ur-Nammu (2100 BCE – 2050 BCE), but other sources state that the earliest case of slavery was a Libyan Tribe that had enslaved Bushmen in 8000 BC. I think the latter is true, as agriculture began developing 3000 years prior to this and it doesn't make sense that it would take humans that many thousands of years to produce an economic surplus, thus facilitating slavery as a profitable institution.

[Blake's Baby]

I'm sorry Brospierre, but who claims 'Libyans' (from North Africa?) enslaved 'Bushmen' (from southern Africa? 3,000miles or 4,500km away?) in 8000BC?

Our earliest records (from settled literate civilisations eg Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Phoenician cities) go back about 5,000 years (ie to about 3000BC); and these are pretty sketchy.

Before that (and indeed oftern after that) it is really really hard to have any real idea about what is going on, except in a general technical sense - some people doing this (eg farmning wheat and herding cows) with this sort of technology (eg stone axes and pottery) are living here while nearby some people doing this (eg gathering nuts and hunting deer) with this sort of technology (eg flint flake blades).

What those people might have looked like is pretty much beyond us. Different 'racial' groups, if they exist, remain ellusive. Culture is easier to determine - 'these people used shell ornaments and buried their dead under heaps of stones, those people used bone ornaments and burned their dead on pyres' - but culture isn't in the last analysis an indicator of biology anyway (or I wouldn't have eaten Chinese food last night).

Sorry. I call bullshit. The earliest firm evidence for slavery will be found in the earliest literate civilisations. In pre-literate societies, you might get evidence suggestive of slavery but that's all.

If you can demonstrate that there is a group that lives in settlements with another, different group (in terms of physical appearance as well as culture), and one of the groups seems to be consistently disadvantaged relative to the other (evidence of worse diet, lower life-expectancy, more traumatic injuries to skeletons, and their material culture seems to be 'poorer' which is a subjective judgement anyway), then you have evidence that might suggest slavery.

But there might be other explanations. The two populations might live together quite happily, but one culture might, for historical reasons (eg religion), have a poor diet and knowledge of dangerous technology, whilre their material goods looked 'poorer' for other cultural reasons. Maybe one group eats lots of processed grains and does lots of logging, while they bury their dead without grave goods, because their religion tells them that it's sinful to eat fish and adorn the dead. They're not very robust but have lots of trauma inguries and have 'poor' gaves. The other group eats fruit and fish and buries their dead in graves with lots of ornaments and other grave goods so they look healthy and 'rich', because their religious code tells them that fruit and fish are cool and you should honour your departed ancestors; neither group enslaves the other, but you might think that one group did.

To be honest, in Europe it might look (on some indicators at least) like the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (who tend to be pretty robust) had 'enslaved' the neolithic farmers (who tend to be smaller and less muscular). But we ('archaeologists' that is) don't think this is the case, and for the same reasons I'd be dubious about claims about other cultures.

[DownWithPatriarchy]

Keep in mind that the term slavery or slave meant different things at different times. Certainly when we think of slavery we think of the Atlantic Slave Trade and slavery as it existed in the American South, but in the nation states around Greece for example a very large percentage of their population were "slaves". They were not slaves in the same way American Blacks were, but instead they were a large unprivileged servant class among whom lots of members of conquered nation states were found. The strata that these slaves occupied was entirely different from the kind of slavery practiced in the American South. When looking at history it is important to have some context around what slavery meant exactly because over time the institution of slavery was very different and certainly very different from the kind of slavery we recognise in some cases.

[Revolution starts with U]

Slave, as a term, actually comes from "my" people; the Slavic peoples... or so I've heard.

[Paul Cockshott]

Keep in mind that the term slavery or slave meant different things at different times. Certainly when we think of slavery we think of the Atlantic Slave Trade and slavery as it existed in the American South, but in the nation states around Greece for example a very large percentage of their population were "slaves". They were not slaves in the same way American Blacks were, but instead they were a large unprivileged servant class among whom lots of members of conquered nation states were found. The strata that these slaves occupied was entirely different from the kind of slavery practiced in the American South. When looking at history it is important to have some context around what slavery meant exactly because over time the institution of slavery was very different and certainly very different from the kind of slavery we recognise in some cases.

I think you are prettifying ancient slavery here which in the Roman latifundia differed little from that in the plantations of the 18th and 19th century West Indies, Brazil or USA. They were literally an unpriviledged servant class in that our word servant derives from 'servus' or slave in Latin. But unlike waged servants, the ancient servus was bought and sold just like the black slave in Brazil or the US.

[The Man]

The origin of slavery comes from the crumbling of the Primitive Communist system, when man was still at an early stage. To put it simply, with the technological advancement of the means of production, our type of economic and political system changed with it.

Primitive Communism ---> Slave society.

This is because technological advancements in the Primitive Communist society created a hierarchy. With the coming of Iron tools, labor became much more structured, which then created the class system.

[Blake's Baby]

The origin of slavery comes from the crumbling of the Primitive Communist system, when man was still at an early stage. To put it simply, with the technological advancement of the means of production, our type of economic and political system changed with it.

Primitive Communism ---> Slave society.

This is because technological advancements in the Primitive Communist society created a hierarchy. With the coming of Iron tools, labor became much more structured, which then created the class system.

Nah. Wrong.

Slaves existed at least from 2000BC. The class system developed in western Asia and Egypt by 3000BC at the latest. That's well before iron tools came along about 1000BC.

The Linear B tablets from Greece in the later 2nd millennium BC (Bronze Age) refer to humans which seem to have the status of property, and they have two different words for 'king', as well as 'priests'. Their architecture denotes palaces and 'royal' tombs as well as very humble 'peasant' dwellings. Ergo, class system. Egypt was a kingdom (or rather a series of kingdoms) before it left the stone age. Again, kings, priests, slaves, peasants, as different classes (ie, a class sytem) all existed thousands of years before iron tools and at least many hundreds before bronze tools. The Aztecs, the Maya, the Incas, all had class systems, empires, warring city-states, slavery, kingship, all were stone-age cultures.

There is maybe an argument for control of prestige metalwork and the rise of class systems. Control of goldsmithing (accomplished a good 2500 years before bronze, in the old world at least), for instance. But not iron. Far too late, and not discovered by many historically-verified class societies.

[Sixiang]

Slave, as a term, actually comes from "my" people; the Slavic peoples... or so I've heard.

That is true. See this: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...earchmode=none

The origin of slavery comes from the crumbling of the Primitive Communist system, when man was still at an early stage. To put it simply, with the technological advancement of the means of production, our type of economic and political system changed with it.

Primitive Communism ---> Slave society.

This is because technological advancements in the Primitive Communist society created a hierarchy. With the coming of Iron tools, labor became much more structured, which then created the class system.

Religion also played a role. Shamans and witchdoctors often come to the head of the tribe or communal society and were able to use their so-called connection to the spirits or gods to assert power and dominance over their followers.

While I can't really tell you for sure where and when slavery first appeared, we can find some good examples of the whole primitive communism--->slavery thing in societies that developed later than others. One that comes to my mind is that of Yamato Japan (270-710 CE). The Yamato started out as a warrior clan, as most of Japan was at the time. Eventually these competing clans would put chieftans, kings, and queens at their head for one reason or another. They had highly stratified, rigid class systems with the imperial court at the top, followed by the warrior elite, government officials, religious leaders, monks, merchants, all the way down to the laborers. They received influence from the Tang Chinese and the early Koreans, who introduced this rigid class system to them. The Yamato expanded across central Kanto. In the far North and South lived wandering tribes that practiced slash-and-burn agriculture for food. These people were eventually conquered by the Yamato around the early 7th century. Many of these people were enslaved and we have written records of what these workers lived like. Many of them were taken to far away places to build temples, shrines, and tombs for their masters and the Yamato elite to do back-breaking work and many of them died. Some of them died on the trip, during work, or (as was quite common) were left to fend for themselves in the wildnerness once their work was done and they died out there. We are fortunate to have these written records because Japanese society didn't really develop until later on after the Chinese and Koreans were already well on their way and the Chinese writing system had been introduced.

[NoMasters]

I would have to say that the Egyptian slave system was most likely the first. I am sure there were slave societies before the Egyptians but there just isn't solid evidence.

At least 2000 BC.

[commieathighnoon]

It seems religion and war-prisoner taking both played a role in advancing 'appropriation of labor by social death' as Mike Macnair puts it. I think grouped in with servile relations should be state, polity, or communal ownership of discrete populations--for example the helots of Sparta, or the non-twice-born castes of early Vedic India.