THE BACKGROUND TO BIG GAME HUNTING IN COLONIAL INDOCHINA

Sport hunting was a leisure pursuit of French colonists from the earliest decades of colonial rule. Indochina provided a variety of hunting opportunities for small and medium game, but big game hunting was the most celebrated. This latter category included wild buffalo, wild oxen, banteng, kouprey, rhinoceros, leopards, panthers, and bears. The most written about and desirable big game animals, which fit Thomas T. Allsen's category of “heroic game” (Reference Allsen2006: 88), were gaur, elephant, and tiger. In the texts, victories over these animals were “widely celebrated and carefully advertised” (ibid.).

Game animals were present throughout Indochina, but the premier locations for big game hunting were the highland areas of northern Cochinchina and southern Annam to the northeast of Saigon. Noteworthy within these were the Lang Bian plateau, which included the colonial hill city of Dalat, and the area around Djiring (contemporary Di Lình). Other excellent hunting grounds were located in the areas around Phan Rang in Ninh Thuận province, Phan Thiết in Binh Thuận, and places in Haut Donai (Millet Reference Millet1930: 18). One final region of high repute was the Lagna Valley in eastern Binh Thuận, which William Bazé referred to as “the country of elephants” (Reference Bazé1950: 42).

The widespread availability and quality of game informed the opinion of Jean Bourdeneuve and others that Indochina was “a hunter's paradise” (Reference Bourdeneuve1925: vi). The first tourist hunters entered the high plateaus of Annam in 1911 (Millet Reference Millet1916: 8). That same year, France's Ministry of Colonies passed an order regulating hunting in its colonies, intended to promote the “conservation and perpetuation of interesting species” and enable continued hunting (Tiran Reference Tiran1929: 105). Among these early hunters, while some could be “sporting,” others could be “killers” (tueurs), which had led to the “irrational destruction of game” and spurred the development of hunting regulations (Millet Reference Millet1916: 3). The regulatory system that emerged, and which would undergo modifications through the 1930s, established the basic parameters of permissible hunting through the issuance of permits, the establishment of hunting reserves and bag limits, and prohibitions against killing females of certain species. According to the June 1936 regulations for Indochina, payment of a $40 license fee allowed a hunter to take two male elephants, one rhinoceros, five gaur, six banteng, and four wild buffalos. No limits were set on other animals (Official Bureau 1937: 32). One reason for the absence of limits upon tigers was that, particularly after hunting had reduced deer populations, tigers were entering more human settlements and, as estimated by Bourdeneuve, killing approximately two hundred people from the indigenous population annually (Reference Bourdeneuve1925: 19; see also Fraisse Reference Fraisse2008: 85). This led to a common scene in a number of narratives in which a hunter is asked by a local community to kill a tiger that was preying upon its people or livestock (see De Buretel de Chassey Reference De Buretel de Chassey1998: 9; Condominas Reference Condominas1988: 113).

Organized hunting in Indochina took three primary forms. At the most casual level, hunters living in major cities such as Saigon or Hanoi hunted on short-term expeditions in easily accessible areas. These hunts tended to focus on smaller game and, from the perspective of many of the professional hunters, were at times amateurish, excessively deadly, and even unethical. Given their frequent close proximity to human settlements, tigers were often opportunistically killed on such hunts or by people who simply had a gun in their car (Fraisse Reference Fraisse2008: 84). A second, comparatively rarer type of hunting was done by colonial men living in Indochina's remote, highland regions, many of whom were officials in the colonial administration or military. Millet, for example, was a member of the Forestry Service and by the end of the 1920s had served over two decades as a General Forest Guard (Garde Général des Fôréts) in Annam (Tiran Reference Tiran1929: 20). In later decades, a small number of professional hunters took up residence in the hunting regions where they hunted privately and served as guides. The final primary form of organized hunting was the long-term expedition into remote areas. Pierre Bouvard and Millet wrote that, by 1922, private hunting agencies had yet to be founded, but up to that point the colonial government had arranged hunting trips with official guides, with the hunter responsible for provisioning the trip (Reference Bouvard and Millet1922: 63).Footnote ¹ By that decade's end, the Indochina Tourism Bureau had started promoting big game hunting as a tourist activity (see Tiran Reference Tiran1929). This effort intensified in the 1930s (see Official Bureau 1937; Sarraut Reference Sarraut1939) and private hunting operations were established, such as Saigon's Didier and Defosse [sic] Safari Service (see Official Bureau 1937). This type of hunting fit the classic image of big game hunting in colonized lands, when a professional European guide led small groups of men, who were occasionally accompanied by women (see De Buretel de Chassey Reference De Buretel de Chassey1998; Fraise Reference Fraisse2008), on lengthy hunts in remote areas.

Colonial sport hunting represented a significant break with the types of hunting previously practiced by the indigenous populations in the hunting regions.Footnote ² Its main form, most notable at higher elevations, was subsistence hunting by highland minority groups. Hunter authors usually referred to members of these groups as Moïs, a strongly pejorative loan word from Vietnamese. These highland groups were culturally and linguistically distinct from the lowland Vietnamese and their economic systems were quite different since many practiced slash-and-burn cultivation, engaged in animal husbandry only minimally, and relied on hunting as a source of dietary protein. Gerald Cannon Hickey, who comprehensively surveyed the ethnographic record for the highland groups in the pre-1954 period, reported that members hunted with crossbows, spears, sabers, and knives, though this was supplemented with traps, snares, and poisons, sometimes applied to arrows, to kill or stun animals (Reference Hickey1982: 444–45). The poisons were important for killing larger game, such as tigers (ibid.: 62, 445). They also traded game meats to lowlanders, though Hickey does not tell us which animals’ flesh was involved (ibid.: 443). Hunting was essential to the survival of these groups.

The introduction of colonial sport hunting transformed, and in some cases inverted, the relationship between these highland groups and prey animals. While before they had directly hunted animals, in hunting parties they were given other roles, most notably as porters. Hunting parties generally took with them their supplies, such as tents, food, and alcohol, and indigenous porters were usually employed to transport the gear and trophies. One important legal dimension of colonial hunting in Indochina was that members of the indigenous population were technically prohibited from carrying firearms, though they could carry their traditional weapons (Relton Reference Relton1939: 160; Roussel Reference Roussel1913: 107). Their roles in the hunts were therefore limited, though in some cases they also served as trackers, bush beaters, or perhaps illegally, arms bearers (Grandes Chasses Coloniales 2009: 125). In a sense, their role in these hunts had been transformed from hunter to those who facilitated colonial hunters in finding and killing their prey. Nonetheless, a number of the colonial hunters expressed admiration for their indigenous counterparts. Doctor Sauvel had high praise for his Cambodian tracker, “the brave, the magnificent” Soi (ibid.: 126), while Bazé recalled that one of his trackers was a “veritable magician” at following complex tracks (Reference Bazé1950: 96). Bazé concluded of the trackers with whom he hunted, “I nevertheless doubt that a European could attain this degree of perfection, even if he lived exclusively with the Moi” (ibid.: 94). Colonial hunters hunted for trophies rather than subsistence, but they were expected to give the meat of the slain animals to their indigenous porters (Bouvard and Millet Reference Bouvard and Millet1922: 66) or to people in nearby villages (Bazé Reference Bazé1950: 224; De Buretel de Chassey Reference De Buretel de Chassey1998: 10). Therefore, although their hunting role had been supplanted, indigenous participants sometimes gained the nutritional benefits of the meat, of which there could be significant quantities.

SPORT HUNTING, KILLING ANIMALS, AND MORAL DISTINCTION

An examination of the biographical information that exists on the hunter-authors, such as there is, reveals few shared characteristics beyond their love of big game hunting. There were government officials (Bourdeneuve and Millet), military men (de Buretel de Chassey and Condominas, later a government official), doctors (Fraisse, also an Army officer, and Sauvel), diplomats (Suzor), aristocrats (de Monestral, Prince Murat, Sauvaire, and the Duke of Montpensier [see Hickey Reference Hickey1982: 288]), and the son of the former Governor General of Indochina (Sarraut). There is almost no information on other notable figures such as Francois Défosse, Marius Didier, and Tiran, apart from their engagement with hunting and Didier and Défosse's hunting operation. One interesting cultural affinity that many hunters shared was with St. Hubert, the patron saint of hunting. St. Hubert was admired by hunters in France and allegiance to him created something akin to a fraternity among hunters. In their texts they wrote of, “my compatriots, the fervent disciples of St. Hubert” (Roussel Reference Roussel1913: 6) and the “fervent disciples of St. Hubert like me” (Bazé Reference Bazé1950: 9). Millet dedicated his 1930 book to “my colleagues of St. Hubert.” Cheminaud remarked on the orthodoxy of “the colleagues of St. Hubert d'Occident” (Reference Cheminaud1939: 98) and Dr. Veille even gave thanks to “the Indochinese St. Hubert for having so often placed the seigneur tiger on my path” (Grandes Chasses Coloniales 2009: 181). Although not explicitly elaborated, St. Hubert was an important part of their hunting ethic.

The colonial hunters’ invocations of discipleship with St. Hubert point to the important fact that they regarded themselves as members of a distinct social and ethical community. They were not, to use H. De Monestrol's phrasing, “vague disciples of St. Hubert” (Reference De Monestrol1931: 31), but were instead “fervent” in their commitment to their community and its values. Allsen observed, “Hunting defined people in varying ways” (Reference Allsen2006: 119), and scholarship on sport hunting has demonstrated the remarkable number of ways that hunting has been symbolically linked to distinct social statuses, identities, and communities. This has taken numerous forms. In several instances, elite status has been linked to hunting. Allsen demonstrated this in impressive detail regarding royal hunting in Eurasia (see ibid.) and it was evident also in Dutch, British, and French history when aristocratic elites forbade commoners from hunting and designated it an exclusive elite privilege (see Dahles Reference Dahles1993; McCay Reference McCay, McCay and Acheson1987; and Salvadori Reference Salvadori1996). Tiger hunting in India, by some Mughal emperors and later British imperialists, was similarly linked to elite status and was an important mechanism for the reproduction of that status, which was also conversely historically reproduced through the ban on elephant hunting in India (see Sramek Reference Sramek2006; Trautmann Reference Trautmann2015). Scholars have argued that hunting was more broadly a symbolic marker of imperial domination in Great Britain's colonies (e.g., Cartmill Reference Cartmill1993: 136; Hussain Reference Hussain2010: 120; Mangan and McKenzie Reference Mangan and McKenzie2013). National identities have engaged hunting as well, as in Canada and the United States (see Dunk Reference Dunk2002; Herman Reference Herman2001), while national identities can be still further refined through specific practices of hunting and the prey hunted. In North America, hunting was and remains a critical part of rural (Boglioli Reference Boglioli2009) and working-class identities (Fine Reference Fine2000). In the American south, racial identities were expressed through the African American preference for hunting rabbits and raccoons as opposed to the white preference for deer and birds (Marks Reference Marks1991: 82), while in Holland “sportsmen” hunters eschewed the hunting of pests, which they left to farmers (Dahles Reference Dahles1993: 176). In these instances, as Stuart A. Marks shrewdly observed, “Each species of game pursued is a marker, a visible bit of social differentiation” (Reference Marks1991: 4). The most deeply researched association between hunting and identity has focused on masculinity. This literature is too vast to summarize here, save to say that in numerous instances hunting can and has played a significant role in the reproduction of diverse masculine identities (see inter alia Anahita and Mix Reference Anahita and Mix2006; Boglioli Reference Boglioli2009; Brightman Reference Brightman1996; Dahles Reference Dahles1993; Dunk Reference Dunk2002; Fine Reference Fine2000; Herman Reference Herman2001; Hussain Reference Hussain2010; Littlefield Reference Littlefield2006; Mangan and McKenzie Reference Mangan and McKenzie2013; Marks Reference Marks1991; McKenzie Reference McKenzie2000; Reference McKenzie2007; Smalley Reference Smalley2005; Sramek Reference Sramek2006; and Stedman and Heberlein Reference Stedman and Heberlein2001).

Big game hunting in colonial Indochina was almost exclusively a male activity and the ethical categories hunters articulated—the true hunter (vrai chasseur) or the very rarely used “sportsman” (sportsman)—linguistically were also masculine. Nevertheless, and especially in comparison to the centrality of hunting and masculinity in Britain's colonial territories (see Hussain Reference Hussain2010; Mangan and McKenzie Reference Mangan and McKenzie2013; McKenzie Reference McKenzie2000; Sramek Reference Sramek2006), the connection between hunting and masculinity was seldom made explicit. Paul Suzor's assertion that big game hunting was the best of all sports and that it developed all of the moral and physical qualities that are “the base of the virile character” (Suzor Reference Suzor1937: 8) was notable for its rarity. In terms of self-identification, it was the term “true hunter” that was employed and articulated the most. When authors did so, however, they were also conveying what for them were the fundamental ethical features of their hunting. This hunting ethic therefore provides a fruitful frame for comparison with other hunting traditions.

The Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset famously wrote, “Hunting, like every human activity, has an ethic that distinguishes virtues from vices” (Reference Ortega y Gasset1972: 88). His statement provides a useful starting point for contextualizing the concept of the true hunter. The central pillars of his ethic were that the animal needed to have a chance to survive (ibid.: 49) and that the hunter must “keep fit, face extreme fatigues, accept danger” (ibid.: 31). Perhaps most importantly, the hunter had to ensure that the relationship between prey and hunter was not “excessively unequal” (ibid.: 45). Otherwise, the activity was no longer hunting but “pure killing and destruction” (ibid.). Garry Marvin captured the deeper idea behind Ortega y Gasset's thought when he highlighted that, from the latter's perspective, the animal's “death must be won from the animal rather than simply imposed upon it. The wild animal must be able to escape from desires and decisions of the hunter who seeks to kill it; it must be able to refuse to give up or surrender its life” (Marvin Reference Marvin2006: 25).

When comparing sport hunting ethics, several commonalities become apparent. First, similar to the true hunter case, specific names are often employed for the ethic. In American, British, and European hunting traditions, the ethic is usually described in terms of “sportsmanship,” of being a “sportsman” or “sporting” (Boglioli Reference Boglioli2009: 67; Herman Reference Herman2001: 153; Hussain Reference Hussain2010: 114; McKenzie Reference McKenzie2000: 73). Although the precise requirements of these ethics have varied, one dominant idea that has animated all these traditions, in a manner reminiscent of Ortega y Gasset, was fairness. This was evident in the “fair” hunt (Hussain Reference Hussain2010: 117ff.) or “fair play” (McKenzie Reference McKenzie2000: 73) in hunting in colonial India; giving prey a “‘fair chance’” in Alaska (Anahita and Mix Reference Anahita and Mix2006: 344) or a “fair shake” in the American South (Marks Reference Marks1991: 78); the “concern for fairness” in Vermont (Boglioli Reference Boglioli2009: 67); or, as perhaps most fully articulated, the notion of “fair chase” employed in American hunting. Norman Posewitz captured the fundamental core of fair chase when he stated that it “addresses the balance between the hunter and the hunted. It is a balance that allows hunters to occasionally succeed while animals generally avoid being taken” (Reference Posewitz2002: 57). Central to this, therefore, was diminishing the hunter's advantages over the prey (ibid.: 57–62). As in colonial India, a fair hunt was one in which there was a “fair chance” for “the prey to escape” (Hussain Reference Hussain2010: 117).

The championing of fairness led to either criticisms or prohibitions of certain types of hunts. Historically, the battue, in which drivers are employed to force game toward the hunter, was perceived negatively by some hunters. Some British hunters in colonial India came to perceive the battue as unfair and “not something that ‘real’ sportsmen would engage in” (ibid.: 114). The use of bait to attract animals, such as bears or others, could be considered either questionable or unacceptable (Dunk Reference Dunk2002: 37; Littlefield Reference Littlefield2006: 102). Still other types of hunts were regarded as objectionable, such as hunting from the air (Anahita and Mix Reference Anahita and Mix2006: 337; Nadasdy Reference Nadasdy, Goldman, Nadasdy and Turner2011: 145); hunting in “commercial killing areas” or from vehicles (Posewitz Reference Posewitz2002: 59–61); shooting birds on the ground instead of in flight (Marks Reference Marks1991: 46); spot-lighting deer (Littlefield Reference Littlefield2006: 72); hunting at night (Hell Reference Hell1989: 98); or taking animals solely for the purpose of display (Littlefield Reference Littlefield2006: 102).

Being a sportsman imposed additional ethical demands, many of which were often interlinked. Prominent among these was the common prohibition against shooting females (Dunk Reference Dunk2002: 37; Hell Reference Hell1989: 54; Marks Reference Marks1991: 138).Footnote ³ In some hunting traditions, this led to a celebration of male animals as the worthiest adversaries (Dahles Reference Dahles1993: 177; Hell Reference Hell1989: 113; Hussain Reference Hussain2010: 117; Littlefield Reference Littlefield2006: 141; Marks Reference Marks1991: 151), while it also required that hunters demonstrate the necessary patience and restraint to properly identify an animal (Boglioli Reference Boglioli2009: 67).

Restraint could be valorized in other ways, such as limiting the number of animals killed (Hell Reference Hell1989: 161; Herman Reference Herman2001: 153; McKenzie Reference McKenzie2000: 73), but a moment when restraint was most necessary was deciding when to shoot. Some hunting traditions condemned the needless suffering of prey (Herman Reference Herman2001: 153; Littlefield Reference Littlefield2006: 91), a point memorably portrayed by Ernest Hemingway in Green Hills of Africa when, in haste, he gut-shot a sable bull. The bull escaped and he “felt a son of a bitch to have hit him and not killed him.” Later, he “felt rotten sick” over the animal since he knew that intense suffering awaited it (Reference Hemingway2004[1935]: 185). In order to minimize suffering, therefore, hunters were required to first possess the marksmanship to achieve a lethal shot and then to only shoot when there was a high probability of one. In Posewitz's words, “The ethical hunter will constantly work toward the ideal of making all shots on target and instantly fatal” (Reference Posewitz2002: 35). Gary Wolfe emphasized the inverse when he stated, “Deciding when not to shoot is the ultimate test of ethical hunter behavior” (Reference Wolfe and Petersen1996: 227).

In different hunting traditions, the hunter's ethical obligations did not end with the shot. If the animal was only wounded, hunters were obligated to track it until it could be killed (Boglioli Reference Boglioli2009: 69; Hell Reference Hell1989: 51; Littlefield Reference Littlefield2006: 93; McKenzie Reference McKenzie2000: 86). In some cases, the hunter was expected to consume the meat (Boglioli Reference Boglioli2009: 74; Littlefield Reference Littlefield2006: 82). And in eastern France, hunters were expected to gut their kills as a symbol of respect for their prey (Hell Reference Hell1989: 84). Respect for the prey could also be demonstrated in post-mortem rituals, such as the recitation of prayers over the body in the United States (Boglioli Reference Boglioli2009: 75), or the placement of a slain deer on a bed of branches with fir branches placed on its body in France (Hansen-Catta Reference Hansen-Catta2007: 393).Footnote ⁴

The previous examples demonstrate that any discussion of hunting ethics cannot be comprehensive since, the many commonalities aside, there are points of variation between traditions. The broader point to recognize, however, is that, as Ortega y Gasset argued, in each tradition there is an ethic and that ethic creates the possibility for the hunter to succeed or fail at any stage of the hunting process. Achievement of the virtuous category of true hunter or sportsman was therefore contingent, and every hunt presented moments in which the hunter needed to consciously decide whether to achieve or reject the ethic. To more deeply appreciate the concept of the true hunter, we must understand the contexts of these hunts and the prey they hunted.

CHALLENGING ADVERSARIES: THE HUNTING ENVIRONMENT AND HEROIC GAME

As noted in the introduction, genuine big game hunting was by definition difficult, and the successful conquest of these difficulties was an important contextual factor in defining the true hunter. These difficulties included two primary factors: the physical environment and the nature of the prey, especially the “heroic game” mentioned earlier—gaur, elephant, and tiger. To begin with the environment, the hunting grounds of Indochina were described as “very insalubrious for the European” (Millet Reference Millet1916: 1). Hunters faced the threat of dysentery (ibid.), malaria (Chochod Reference Chochod1925: 15; Demariaux Reference Demariaux1949: 18), and other diseases (see Demariaux Reference Demariaux1949: 18). Other dangers came from insects, leeches, scorpions, snakes, and other reptiles (ibid.: 17). Indochina's heat and humidity also took a physical toll on hunters, especially those who hunted on foot (Chochod Reference Chochod1925: 11). To overcome these challenges, the successful hunter had to “possess iron health” and “be animated with a passion bordering on delirium” (Millet Reference Millet1930: ii).

The desirability and appeal of the hunt were increased by the characteristics of the prey and the dangers they presented. Sport hunting traditions often exhibit a hierarchy of prey animals and this hierarchy, in turn, is often defined by the attributes ascribed to those animals. In addition to the dangerous “man eating” tigers of colonial India, British hunters celebrated the difficult to hunt ibex, which one author described as a “gentleman in his manners and customs” (Hussain Reference Hussain2010: 117). Dutch hunters preferred animals with strength, keen perception, intelligence, unpredictability, and courage, but most significant was “fighting spirit,” a trait that applied to male animals with antlers or tusks and was best exemplified in wild boar (Dahles Reference Dahles1993: 177). Deer hunters in such different traditions as the American South and eastern France preferred hunting bucks. In the Southern States, hunting bucks was more appealing because they possessed “uncanny intelligence” (Littlefield Reference Littlefield2006: 141) and were “clever adversaries” (Marks Reference Marks1991: 160) that were smarter than does (ibid.: 151). In eastern France, the most desirable prey was the old, male, solitary buck, known as a coiffé. With this animal, “The experience it acquired over the course of years had refined its mistrust, its prudence, which when face to face with man make it all the more interesting” (Hell Reference Hell1989: 106). The most appealing big game animals in Indochina were the three “heroic prey.” Part of their appeal came from their trophies, but most importantly they were dangerous to hunt, a point that relates back to the distinct characters, dispositions, or even personalities that hunters attributed to them.

The gaur (Bos gaurus), with its distinctive upwardly curved horns, is the world's largest extant bovine. Bulls can weigh well over 1,000 kilograms and at the shoulder can reach a height of over seven feet. Prince Achille Murat called the gaur, “the king of bovids” (Reference Murat and Maspero1930: 271), while for Sarraut the gaur had a “noble character” (Reference Sarraut1939: 2) and was “the real aristocrat of our jungle” (ibid.: 1). Gaur are also agile, a point affirmed in the statement, “However, it is not only the size of the gaur that makes it remarkable, but also what may be called its athletic qualities; and considering the animal's bulk, they are surprising” (ibid.: 3). Gaur often live in small herds of fewer than ten animals and males occasionally live alone.

Colonial hunters ascribed a number of prominent features to gaur. Cheminaud wrote that “his savagery and his independence are innate” (Reference Cheminaud1939: 102). This savagery was allegedly so great that even tigers would not attack them (ibid.: 104), though Pierre Sauvaire wrote of seeing gaur upon which, “their shoulders were stitched with the claw marks of tigers they had battled” (Reference Sauvaire1930: 7). Other authors described the gaur as, “an extremely ferocious animal” (Tiran Reference Tiran1929: 7); “the biggest and most ferocious of bovines inhabiting our Indo-China forests” (Plas Reference Plas1932: 144); and “the despots of the jungle” (Demariaux Reference Demariaux1949: 110).

The gaur's fearsome character made it a dangerous opponent, but other attributes further enhanced its reputation. They were usually hunted on foot and were difficult to approach to get a shot (Millet Reference Millet1930: 195). According to Louis Condominas, the gaur “is very mistrustful and when it senses the presence of man, charges at the odor in a compact group, shoulder to shoulder, for a distance of up to 200 meters” (Reference Condominas1988: 76). They were also renowned for being difficult to take down. One text observed, “This magnificent animal displays a very great resistance to bullets” (Official Bureau 1937: 4; see also Millet Reference Millet1930: 195), and Millet wrote that a severely wounded gaur could continue on for great distances in bad terrain (ibid.: 213). Pursuit of a wounded gaur required special care. Millet said it could be as dangerous as chasing an elephant (ibid.: 199), while Jean Fraisse claimed that the “absolutely ferocious” gaur would stealthily circle back to the hunter who had wounded it and “gore him without pity” (Reference Fraisse2008: 23). Hunters very positively assessed the gaur hunt, describing it as “good sport” (Millet Reference Millet1930: 195) and “true sport, taking the rank immediately after elephant hunting” (Official Bureau 1937: 4). The hunt of the elephant and gaur on foot was, “the most exciting that I know and—by itself—the most dangerous there is” (Bazé Reference Bazé1950: 93). Sarraut, who questioned how aggressive gaur were while acknowledging they were dangerous if cornered and wounded, concluded, “I wish to add that gaur hunting is a magnificent sport and the most difficult game for those who are out for good trophies” (Reference Sarraut1939: 7).

The tiger was the most prized trophy among the large cats and was often described with anthropomorphic superlatives. Plas wrote, “The royal tiger is incontestably the most beautiful, and the one which furnishes the finest trophy” (Reference Plas1932: 116). The Tourism Bureau stated, “The tiger, king of the jungle, is the most majestic animal among the Indochinese fauna” (Official Bureau 1937: 12), while in other descriptions it was, “the King of the forest” (Plas Reference Plas1932: 116), the “master of the forest” (Grandes Chasses Coloniales 2009: 157), or the “seigneur of the bush” (De Buretel de Chassey Reference De Buretel de Chassey1998: 36). Certain attributes made the tiger a worthy adversary. It possessed “incredible strength” and was “very agile” (Official Bureau 1937: 12) and had “prodigiously developed muscles” (Millet Reference Millet1930: 32). A tiger's vision and hearing were good, though its sense of smell did not compare with a dog's (ibid.: 35).

The tiger was regarded as a most difficult animal to hunt. Millet described the tiger hunt as among “the most laborious, most difficult, and most fertile in emotions” (ibid.: 32). This difficulty derived from the tiger's temperament, especially its caution and alertness. The tiger was “very prudent, very thoughtful” (Plas Reference Plas1932: 117) and had, “never developed the habit of announcing its arrival from afar, it is a silent and extremely circumspect animal” (Millet Reference Millet1930: 93). Hunters disagreed as to whether this prudence amounted to cowardice. According to Plas, “The tiger is no coward, he is merely prudent, and endowed with a marvelous instinct that foresees danger; he senses danger without seeing the direct cause, and it is this which makes him so difficult to hunt” (Reference Plas1932: 117). Tiran, by contrast, claimed the tiger had an “exemplary cowardice” (Reference Tiran1929: 10). Demariaux wrote that “definitively, the tiger is craven and cowardly,” to such a degree that it was a “suspicious and sneaky gangster” whose stealthy hunting style involved minimal risk (Reference Demariaux1949: 131). Hunters were cautioned to take extra care with a wounded tiger, and Murat wrote of hunters who immediately pursued one: “How many hunters have paid with their lives for such imprudence” (Reference Millet1930: 268; see also Chochod Reference Chochod1925: 106). Demariaux provided a fitting summation of hunters’ thoughts on the tiger when he shared a friend's statement, “Believe me: the tiger—which is the same with the lion and the panther—has reached a high degree of intelligence among the animals.… The hunter must not forget that” (Reference Demariaux1949: 186).

The last of the heroic prey was the elephant. The elephants of Indochina are Asian elephants (Elephas maximus). They live primarily in herds and in the colonial period ranged throughout the region, though the main elephant hunting grounds were in southern Annam and Cochinchina.Footnote ⁵ Of the descriptions of the heroic prey, those of elephants were the most anthropomorphized. First, there was its brain capacity. The elephant was “very intelligent” (Bordeneuve Reference Bourdeneuve1925: 31), had an “almost human intelligence” (Suzor Reference Suzor1937: 39), and drawing from the zoologist Buffon, “approaches humans in intelligence” (Demariaux Reference Demariaux1949: 91). They also had a “formidable memory” (Reference Demariaux1949: 94). Elephants were also ascribed human-like emotions. Females were “aggressive from their love for their offspring” (Bazé Reference Bazé1950: 62), and in general, “their anger is terrible, when they feel hounded and tracked” (ibid.: 20). Like humans, it was said, they did not abandon their wounded (Bordeneuve Reference Bourdeneuve1925: 35) and guarded and protected a wounded animal in their herd (Sauvaire Reference Sauvaire1930: 28). It was claimed that they sometimes exercised collective vengeance, a behavior described as unique among animals (Demariaux Reference Demariaux1949: 96). Increased contact with humans had made elephants “mistrustful and irritated” (Plas Reference Plas1932: 154), and if they were disturbed too much, “they become embittered, they become vicious and their fury increases as the pursuit continues” (ibid.: 155). Demariaux said that the elephant “has many human qualities” and “because of its intelligence—is a terribly complicated animal” (Reference Demariaux1949: 91). He provided an extended explication of this point: “It is that the elephant is a very vindictive, very spiteful animal, which practices the law of retaliation: ‘Eye for eye; tooth for tooth’ … it knows to simmer its vengeance and dissimulate until the propitious moment for its execution” (ibid.: 96).

An additional complexity of the elephant was its unpredictability. Elephants had a “fanciful disposition and unexpected reactions, particularly from the females followed by their young” (Sarraut Reference Sarraut1939: 19). Males also charged during the rut season (Bazé Reference Bazé1950: 62). Hunters had to be vigilant toward the “unforeseen possible reactions of the game,” since the elephant, “wounded or not and following its disposition, will flee after a shot is fired or charge in the opposite direction, seeking to reach its enemy, and becomes the most dangerous, without contest, of the adversaries that the sportsman can meet in the Indochinese jungle” (Millet Reference Millet1930: 131). They might also stampede once a shot was fired (Sarraut Reference Sarraut1939: 20). Taken in the aggregate, for many hunters these characteristics made elephants the most dangerous prey (see Plas Reference Plas1932: 155; Sarraut Reference Sarraut1939: 19). Millet summarized this perspective aptly: “I believe that the elephant, because of its intelligence, the suddenness of its charge, and its resistance to bullets, is, in the thick jungle, the animal that is most to be feared and the most impressive” (Reference Millet1930: 282). He concluded, “The elephant would be an adversary against which few hunters would dare to measure themselves” (ibid.: 283).

Elephants and gaur were universally sought-after, but for many hunters the most desirable prey within these species was the “solitary” (solitaire), typically an older male that had been forced out of its troop. Solitaries were distinguished by their unpleasant disposition. Roussel wrote of gaur that “the very old and enormous solitaries” were “the most dangerous and aggressive” (Reference Roussel1913: 304). Regarding elephants, Demariaux claimed that solitaries were forced out of their troops because of their “irascible character” (Reference Demariaux1949: 96). Others described them as “cantankerous and aggressive” (Roussel Reference Roussel1913: 6) and “aggressive, and because of that, (they) are excessively dangerous” (Chochod Reference Chochod1925: 64). Guy Cheminaud, who hunted elephants in Laos, may have been the most enthusiastic hunter of solitaries. He argued, “From a cynegetic perspective, only the hunting of old solitaries is sporting” (Reference Cheminaud1939: 41). Of particular concern were some “rogue” solitaries that attacked any animals they encountered, including humans. A wounded rogue was particularly dangerous because it would attack the hunter “like a madman” and try to kill him with its feet (ibid.: 41ff.). Demariaux related another hunter's statement that, “all wounded rogues savagely rush at the hunters to stomp them with rage and reduce them to a pulp” (Reference Demariaux1949: 102).

The dispositions and dangers of these animals made them appropriate prey for the true hunter. It is worth contrasting them with other animals. Wild buffalo, for example, were considered dangerous and did injure many hunters (Sarraut Reference Sarraut1939: 15), including such luminaries as Défosse and Odérra, who was disemboweled by one (Millet Reference Millet1930: 298). But wild buffalo were sedentary and tended to gather around ponds in hot weather, and for this reason Millet regarded them as of, “mediocre interest … from the point of view of sport” (ibid.: 233) Other animals, such as wild boar (ibid.: 249) or Eld Deer (Chochod Reference Chochod1925: 82), were also unappealing because they were not considered dangerous. For the true hunter, the choice of prey was critical for the proper hunt.

THE TRUE HUNTER AND THE MORAL NECESSITY OF BEING SPORTING

The hunting ethic for colonial hunters in Indochina was encompassed in the term “sporting” (sportif). As I will explain in this section, being sporting placed a number of distinct demands upon the hunter, but successfully executing them placed him in the virtuous category of “true hunter” (vrai chasseur) (Roussel Reference Roussel1913: 27) who were engaged in “true sport” (le vrai sport) (Tiran Reference Tiran1929: 28). Indeed, the ideal goal of the true hunter was the achievement of true sport. One initial requirement for becoming a true hunter and achieving true sport was submitting to and successfully enduring the hunt's physical demands. Roussel summed this up succinctly with his statement, “When he wants to kill bulls, rhinoceros, or elephants, the hunter must give proof of boundless energy, of unremitting physical endurance and patience, in effect he must not allow himself to be broken or tied down by anything, if he truly wants final success. A very limited number of hunters are solidly tempered and fanatic enough, to submit themselves, in the expected way, to innumerable fatigues, to the privations and dangers of this hunt, of which the duration is never determined in advance” (Reference Roussel1913: 5).

The true hunter also needed to possess distinct bodies of knowledge. Ideally, he pursued his prey on foot. Chochod wrote, “One hunts by stalking, and by surprise; a genre of hunting that is, according to me, the most sporting and the most moving” (Reference Chochod1925: 136). To do this effectively required knowledge of the prey, its habits, its habitat, and the indications of its presence in the area. The French parliamentarian P. Valude, who was the president of the Parliamentary Group on Hunting, somewhat poetically described this as, “Knowledge of the habits of animals is to the cynegetic arts, what anatomy is to surgery” (Bourdeneuve Reference Bourdeneuve1925: ii). Tiran remarked, “The most sporting method is without a doubt hunting in the regions that one knows is frequented by the animals that one seeks.” An advocate of pursuing animals, he wrote, “The ‘tracking’ consists in following the animals on a trail, which is to say the traces left on the ground by their feet, or all other traces left by the passage of the ‘solitaries’ or of troops” (Reference Tiran1929: 15). Other traces that could require interpretation were the blood spoor left by a wounded animal (Millet Reference Millet1930: 300–4). Sarraut, too, emphasized the importance of tracking and pursuit. After noting that rainy season hunting is preferable, he continued, “Consequently, if a ‘decent’ track is picked up early in the morning, one has good chances, given experienced trackers, of getting an aim before the day is over. To an enthusiastic and practiced hunter this is the method that means real sport. Is not the whole attraction of shooting in the tracking-down, for all who see something better in this magnificent sport than the actual killing?” (Reference Sarraut1939: 6ff.).

True hunters also needed the knowledge to select the correct firearm and ammunition. This was, in part, necessary to protect the hunter from injury due to inadequate weaponry, yet the primary reason was to protect the animals from shots that wounded but did not kill. Colonial hunters generally divided firearms into two primary categories: smooth bore weapons such as shotguns (fusils) and weapons with rifled barrels (carabines). Smooth bore guns can fire either solid metal slugs or shot and are generally used to shoot small game at close range. (In colonial Indochina, one exception to this rule was that some hunters used shot to shoot at tigers on a bait [see Condiminas Reference Condominas1988: 85].) Big game hunters relied on large caliber rifled weapons. These had the advantage of accuracy at greater distances. In many instances, hunters reported shooting game from ranges of 30 to 50 meters, which created a greater demand for accurate shooting, something rendered more difficult since it was done with the rifle's iron sights rather than a magnifying scope. More significantly, these weapons could handle the larger caliber ammunition necessary to quickly and effectively kill the prey. Cheminaud observed, “All of the bovids offer a prodigious resistance to projectiles,” thus powerful weapons were needed when hunting them (Reference Cheminaud1939: 119). Plas equipped his clients with large bore, magazine-fed weapons in either a .404 caliber Mauser, a .450 caliber, or the preferred .475 caliber. He also offered a .577 caliber double barreled “express” (Reference Plas1932: 157). The express rifle, which was available in smaller calibers as well, earned its name from the enhanced velocity of its bullets. Another distinctive feature was that it usually had two barrels and breech loaded one cartridge per barrel, limiting the number of shots. Chochod preferred carbine rifles between .320 and .405 calibers over the large bore express rifles (Reference Chochod1925: 120), while Prince Achille Murat advocated the double barreled express with a steel bullet due to its “extraordinary force of penetration” (Reference Murat and Maspero1930: 273).

Murat's assertion as to the advantages of steel bullets highlights the importance of selecting appropriate ammunition. Big game hunters using a rifled carabine had a choice between three main bullet types: unjacketed, semi-jacketed (semi-blindée), or fully jacketed (blindée), each of which had a different purpose. Unjacketed rounds were employed when shooting at soft tissue such as a tiger's heart or lungs, since the unjacketed round would mushroom upon impact and create greater damage, making a lethal shot more likely. Semi-jacketed and fully jacketed bullets could be fired at higher velocities and were designed for penetration, with the former mushrooming somewhat. But given their speed and energy, they also had the ability, especially when shot into the prey's head, to shock it or knock it out. This often occurred with elephant hunting since the first round, if not lethal, could temporarily immobilize the animal and allow time for a safer second shot. The bullet's weight was also important because 15- to 20-gram bullets were inadequate for such large animals as gaur and wild buffalo and would only severely wound them (Millet Reference Millet1930: 323). Millet clearly expressed the importance of choosing the appropriate weapon and ammunition when he argued, “The carbine is therefore the only weapon employed by the true hunter. The conventional rules of the sport elsewhere condemn shooting with shot for the reason of the great ease with which one can hit the target and for the numerous cases where one only succeeds in crippling and losing it” (ibid.: 318).

Besides the ideal of pursuit on foot, two other types of hunting were practiced, but they were morally ambiguous. The first was the battue, which in colonial Indochina involved members of the indigenous population lining up to beat the bush and drive hidden game toward the awaiting hunter. Roussel criticized the battue since, “it often gives the pleasure of killing game, without much effort and without the need for real knowledge of the hunt. By contrast, the true hunters are not at all partisans of it and only stoop to it when it is impossible to do anything else” (Reference Roussel1913: 27). Sarraut said that hunters employed the battue for tiger hunting, though apparently in Indochina it did not involve the large numbers of beaters and elephants employed in India. He also critically noted, “This type of hunting is undoubtedly spectacular, but offers only small sporting interest except for the beater, who is the only one taking a chance” (Reference Sarraut1939: 24). Surprisingly, Millet supported using the battue to hunt tigers. Although he was aided by beaters who lit firecrackers, he argued that the battue placed the hunter in closer quarters with the tiger, and as such, “Tracking a tiger and seeing it emerge from the bush at a small hunting gallop, while holding a carbine, is an unforgettable and passionate spectacle” (Reference Millet1930: 85).

The most common method for hunting tigers and other felines was also morally ambiguous. This involved setting a bait and then shooting the animal from a camouflaged blind (affût) or observation tower (mirador). The bait was often a large domestic animal, such as a cow, buffalo, or pig killed for this purpose (Plas Reference Plas1932: 133; Sarraut Reference Sarraut1939: 26; Tiran Reference Tiran1929: 16). The bait was secured to a tree or post and left to decompose, and its powerful stench attracted the carrion-loving cats. Displaying their “diabolical prudence” (Fraisse Reference Fraisse2008: 66), tigers usually tended to come to the bait after four to five days, often in the early morning hours, making that the best time to hunt them (Plas Reference Plas1932: 133ff.).

Tiran wrote, “Hunting with a bait is naturally much more effective, when it is used for tigers or all other felines. It is almost the only method that enables one to shoot these cowardly animals” (Reference Tiran1929: 16). Baiting and waiting, however, raised questions regarding how sporting the hunt was, since it conferred an advantage upon the hunter by eliminating the need to track and close with the animal. Some hunters justified this with reference to the patience and field skills necessary for a successful hunt. As the Official Indochinese Tourism Bureau commented, “It is a type of hunt where the sportsman must deploy all of his qualities of ruse and patience” (Official Bureau 1937: 14). Others disagreed, particularly when it involved hunting from a tower at night. With this technique, the hunter waited until the tiger was eating the bait and then illuminated it with a flashlight. When the tiger turned to the light, its eyes shined, providing a clear location for a lethal shot to the brain between the eyes. Millet felt that hunting with a bait was, “an easy shot” (Reference Millet1930: 92), but he added that at night, “It is a method to assassinate animals that is little sporting, and a tiger deserves better than that” (ibid.: 94). He did make one qualification on hunting tigers with a bait since it could have “a truly sporting side” only if the animal was wounded and made it back into the bush where the hunter was required to pursue and kill it (ibid.: 84).

The true hunter ideally killed his prey with one accurate shot. This required detailed knowledge of each animal's anatomy and where on its body to place a shot that would lead to instant death, which varied for different animals. Tigers could be killed by a shot between the eyes or in the neck (Plas Reference Plas1932: 137), but the recommended shot was to the rib cage in order to reach vital organs. Millet recommended this to an anxious hunter as “the classic shot (le coup classique) to the lungs … a shot that is generally quickly mortal with an expanding bullet weighing 16 to 20 grams” (Reference Millet1930: 113). Tiran counseled that rhinos, gaurs, buffalo, and wild oxen were usually to be shot in the lungs (Reference Tiran1929: 29). Gaur presented other complexities. If the shot was taken from a distance, the hunter was to aim for the heart and shoot immediately behind the shoulder. A close shot necessitated a headshot. If facing the animal, the shot was to be placed on the line between the base of the horns, while a side shot should be aimed just below the horn. Plas cautioned, “Pay great attention to the sighting, for even if the head is large, the brain is small” (Reference Plas1932: 147). Condominas advocated a head shot on the gaur as opposed to a body shot. He had done the latter, but after watching a wounded gaur for some ten seconds before it collapsed, he concluded that such a shot was, “a trick, a sort of sadism of which I do not feel myself capable” (Reference Condominas1988: 79).

The elephant was the most challenging animal to kill. Elephants were rarely hit with an initial lethal shot and could often walk for two or three hundred meters even after a good shot (Tiran Reference Tiran1929: 27). Cheminaud argued that body shots on elephants were too imprecise and, even with a grave hit, the animal would still flee (Reference Cheminaud1939: 43ff.). The only acceptable shot, therefore, was a headshot (ibid.). For Tiran, “The true sport is to shoot the elephant in the brain” (Reference Cheminaud1929: 28, his italics). “To do that, the hunter must approach as close as possible to the animal,” and then it was necessary to fire “a very judicious shot” in order to succeed (ibid.). The shot's placement was therefore critical, and the three “classic” shots were a side shot through the eye, a shot behind the ear, or a shot to the face (ibid.: 25). Millet spent several pages describing how to successfully shoot an elephant. For him as well, the best shot was to the brain, which he described as, “the most certain, the most elegant” (Reference Millet1930: 145). He then detailed where to locate a “well-placed” shot to the face or by the ear (ibid.: 148–51). He wrote approvingly of his “old friend” J. M. who killed a male solitary with one shot to the ear, which led to its immediate collapse (ibid.: 160). Similarly, Bazé wrote of elephant hunting that, “my preferred shot is to hit the brain, from the side” (Reference Bazé1950: 99). Millet and de Monestrol's reputations as virtuoso hunters were affirmed in Demariaux's volume when he wrote that he killed his first and only elephant accompanied by Plas with a shot from a Mauser .404 carbine that hit just below the ear while Plas also delivered a shot to the brain (Reference Demariaux1949: 98ff.). He said he killed it, “classically, if one can say that, according to the principles promulgated by the great Indochinese hunters named Fernand Millet and de Monestrol” (ibid.: 97).

The ability to place an accurate and instantly lethal shot could earn a hunter the meritorious title of a “good shot” (bon fusil), but for the true hunter, that ability also needed to be combined with two more attributes, patience and sang froid. Most broadly, patience was required for the overall experience of the hunt since either stalking or waiting for prey could be taxing and time-consuming, especially the pursuit of a wounded animal. Patience became most critical when the prey was in range. The hunter was not to hurriedly or wildly shoot, but instead, even to the point of leaving without firing at all, wait until the animal was properly identified and in the proper position to fire the lethal shot. De Buretel de Chassey on one of his earliest hunts spotted a female elephant, but was told by his companion, “Wait for the male” (Reference De Buretel de Chassey1998: 15). He later described how it was “indispensable” to wait and shoot only after one had confirmed that the elephant was male (ibid.: 45). Bazé wrote of his approach to firing a shot at an elephant to hit its brain, “I always wait, to properly adjust it” (Reference Bazé1950: 99). In the interest of reducing suffering, Fraisse counseled to only shoot from close range, “if one desires to wound the game as little as possible” (Reference Fraisse2008: 172). Plas cautioned that when hunting tigers hunters should, “never be in a hurry to shoot.” The hunter had to patiently wait for the animal to turn and stand sideways, exposing its flank so that the hunter could take one of the “classic shots” to either the neck or the heart. “The hunter,” he advised, “should bear in mind that success depends on the first shot. If the first shot is a failure, he seldom has a chance of firing a second one. It is therefore necessary to take time over it, to wait until the animal is in an advantageous position for firing” (Reference Plas1932: 137). Plas wrote approvingly of a tiger hunt with a client named Zavodski. After waiting some five or six days on an observation tower for a tiger to come to an elephant used as bait, “the finest royal tiger” Plas had ever seen approached. It first appeared at 12:30 p.m., but its positioning prevented Zavodski from taking an acceptable shot. After waiting for two hours, “The tiger arose and placed himself well in view in front of the elephant; my client did not fail to take the advantage thus offered and killed him with his first shot” (Reference Plas1932: 213–14).

Given the dangers of close and sometimes wounded prey, a hunter often needed to make a quick and accurate shot, a task more easily achieved if he possessed genuine sang froid (cold blood). Understood as a calm and collected attitude in situations of great stress and danger, sang froid was a highly valorized trait for the true hunter and authors often praised it in themselves and others. Bordeneuve wrote, “The good shooters, masters of their nerves and certain to maintain their sang froid, hunt the tiger by aiming the bullet between the two eyes in order to reach the brain” (Reference Bourdeneuve1925: 16). Millet warmly recalled his friend J. M. as, “an agreeable and dependable companion, gifted with a rare sang froid” (Reference Millet1930: 159). Suzor stated of an English tiger hunting companion, “Sang froid and courage above the average, very active despite his pallor and his small size, Lyle was an ideal companion for a hunt of this genre” (Reference Suzor1937: 22). This trait also had benefits in terms of survival. Bazé noted that “if the animals are aggressive and charge, the hunter must conserve all of his sang froid” (Reference Bazé1950: 97). Other authors wrote of the necessity of sang froid when bovids charged (About Reference About1917: 40; Fraisse Reference Fraisse2008: 182) or that dealing with a wounded tiger, likely at only a few meters, required “reflexes, a sharp eye, sang-froid … and perfectly chosen weapon and ammunition” (Fraisse Reference Fraisse2008: 185). Plas captured this reality in what he said about elephant hunting: “Woe to the hunter who loses his sang-froid and who tries to escape in front of the mastodon. There is only one chance for safety, and that is to bring him down. To climb a tree when an elephant charges is only to be seen in comic papers” (Reference Plas1932: 156).

Two final characteristics of the true hunter require mention. First, as with other hunting traditions, the true hunter was expected to pursue all wounded animals. This was recognized as dangerous and hunters varied as to the appropriate timing for it. Tiran wrote, “Falling upon a wounded animal that one has just shot is the greatest mistake that one can commit” (Reference Tiran1929: 41). For Sarraut, “As a rule, it's wise to wait for a rather long while before following the track of a wounded animal,” especially with tigers (Reference Sarraut1939: 26). Millet also recommended letting the animal bleed for a while and “cool down.” He added, “the longer you wait, the better,” and that in instances when a well-hit animal was lost, it was because this rule was not properly followed (Reference Millet1930: 304). Millet may have been the greatest enthusiast for this aspect of the hunt, writing, “Personally, I always get great pleasure in the pursuit of wounded animals.” He then emphasized the morally superlative aspect of the pursuit: “I find true sport largely in the palpitating searches” (ibid.: 298). Tiran, in turn, condemned sloppy hunters: “When a well shot animal is lost, it is always the fault of the hunter, who was too pressed to possess it” (Reference Tiran1929: 41).

The final, and most paradoxical, characteristic of the true hunter was restraint in killing (Millet Reference Millet1930: 199; Official Bureau 1937: 38). In some instances, this took the form of selectivity among the species, such as Dr. Vielle's claim that he only shot attractive males of the trophy animals (Grandes Chasses Coloniales 2009: 200), or Sarraut's recounting of an instance in which he chose not to shoot a large gaur bull because it was of reproductive age and would continue to positively develop. He later regretted not taking advantage of such a rare opportunity, but also felt “the satisfaction of having allowed an animal in such beautiful condition to live” (ibid.: 79; see also Bazé Reference Bazé1950: 61). Fraisse provided a fitting description of the importance of restraint in an account of a Laotian prince named Phetsarath. The prince, an avid hunter, would ignore the large numbers of deer or wild boar he encountered when hunting gaur, and once he encountered a gaur, patiently waited to decide whether to shoot, and then would only shoot old males. At first Fraisse found this odd, but after reflection he concluded, “I realized for the first time what a sporting hunter was” (Reference Fraisse2008: 14ff.).

FAILED HUNTERS

Ortega y Gasset said that hunting, “has an ethic that distinguishes virtues from vices” (Reference Ortega y Gasset1972: 88). While hunters’ writings identified the ethical demands on the virtuous true hunter, they also elaborated on what they regarded as possible vices of the non-true hunter. Before describing those, it is important to note that sport hunting traditions often feature a lexicon employed to describe hunters who are regarded as having failed to realize the hunting ethic. These terms can take several forms. In some instances, sport hunters condemn those who hunt not for sport, but for meat or subsistence, such as the American condemnation of the “pot hunter” (Marks Reference Marks1991: 72; Herman Reference Herman2001: 154–55) or the Dutch censuring of the “shooter,” “skinner,” or “pothunter” (Dahles Reference Dahles1993: 175). The poacher, or those who otherwise hunted illegally, was similarly condemned in the United States (Boglioli Reference Boglioli2009: 67; Marks Reference Marks1991: 157) and in eastern France (Hell Reference Hell1989: 76).Footnote ⁶ Some hunters who killed excessively were condemned, such as a “shooter” (tireur) or “flesh hunter” (Fleischjäger) in eastern France (Hell Reference Hell1989: 122). Hunters perceived to be insufficiently serious or committed have earned their own appellations, such as “snob hunting” in Ontario (Dunk Reference Dunk2002: 61), the “salon hunter” or “Sunday hunter” in eastern France (Hell Reference Hell1989: 31), or the mid-nineteenth-century American “dandy sportsmen” (Herman Reference Herman2001: 153). Colonial French hunters had their own terms to condemn morally questionable hunters, including “city hunter” (Condominas Reference Condominas1988: 110), “tourist hunters” (Cheminaud Reference Cheminaud1939: 131), “Sunday hunters” (Grandes Chasses Coloniales 2009: 191), “half-hunters” (Sauvaire Reference Sauvaire1930: 45), “occasional hunters” (Cheminaud Reference Cheminaud1939: 131), and the more general “hot gun” (fusil chaud), a term applied to hunters who shot over-aggressively (Grandes Chasses Coloniales 2009: 197; De Monestrol Reference De Monestrol1931: 9).

True hunters’ critiques of other hunters took a number of forms. Among the most stigmatized were those who shot from vehicles. Given the abundance of game, it was common for motorists to kill animals on or near roads. Fraisse criticized a French officer in Pleiku who, in six months, killed seven tigers from his jeep at night. Having never really entered the brush or seen other big game, Fraisse stated, “he had never truly hunted” (Reference Fraisse2008: 84). Condominas wrote scathingly of white hunters shooting a stray female from a car at night with a submachine gun (Reference Condominas1988: 53). According to Roussel, such hunts, which involved little exertion or tension, gave “a delicate pleasure of the dilettante” (Reference Roussel1913: 44).

Also stigmatized was night-hunting using lanterns (chasse à la lanterne), a practice that apparently emerged around 1910 (Bordeneuve Reference Bourdeneuve1925: 54). Lantern hunting gave the hunter a near complete advantage because it simultaneously illuminated the animal, particularly its eyes which glowed, and in some cases, such as with deer, froze it in place, creating an easy shot. True hunters were unsparing in their criticism of this technique. As Bordeneuve stated, “hunting with lanterns: it is a massacre rather than a hunt” (ibid.). Lantern hunters were usually portrayed as reckless amateurs, so unskilled that they fired into parked automobiles after mistaking reflections from them for game (Trousset Reference Trousset1929: 16; Condominas Reference Condominas1988: 110). Such recklessness led to the killing of large numbers of does and fawns and sharp reductions in animal populations (De Monestrol Reference De Monestrol1931: 8–9), such as the deer population around Lagna that was decimated in “shameful massacres by Sunday hunters who come by car and shoot by lantern” (Grandes Chasses Coloniales 2009: 191). Starting in March 1926, regulations prohibited lantern hunting (Economic Agency of Indochina 1926: 25), though a 1937 tourist guide noted that it was still widespread and continued to negatively affect game populations (Gui de Touristique 1937: 32).

True hunters also derided the commercialization of hunting. One criticism was directed toward local markets. By the mid-1920s, the indigenous populations were hunting for meat to sell locally or to Chinese middlemen who exported it to Hong Kong (Bordeneuve Reference Bourdeneuve1925: 55), which again diminished game populations. Commercial rhino hunting was also condemned. By the 1930s, rhinoceros had become scarce, in part due to hunting for their horns to use in traditional Asian medicine, notably in China (Sauvaire Reference Sauvaire1930: 132). Cheminaud wrote that Chinese buyers would pay 3,000 gold francs for a high-quality horn, while indigenous residents could live on 25 francs per month (Reference Cheminaud1939: 98). He considered it wrong to sell horns for massive profits and those who committed such acts had “fallen into heresy” against “the orthodoxy of the colleagues of St. Hubert d'Occident” (ibid.). Demariaux was also critical of the commercial dimensions of some colonial hunting operations because, “The more one kills, the more the entrepreneur gloats and pockets a fee of 25 gold dollars per day (drinks included), per client” (Reference Demariaux1949: 212).

The killing of females, too, was criticized. Millet stated that the true hunter “respects the females and the young” and would only choose “the best male” to shoot (quoted in Tiran Reference Tiran1929: 21). He later added, “Destroying a female, when one is not obliged to, is not very sporting and is not a big thing to me” (Millet Reference Millet1930: 144). Fraisse commented that hunters should not put themselves into a position where they are obliged to shoot a female elephant and “one has no excuse for doing so” (Reference Fraisse2008: 183). He added more generally, “Shame on you if you find yourself, by your own fault, obliged to shoot an unshootable animal” (ibid.: 185). An “elite hunter” named Maillot spoke of the necessity of eliminating “the odious abuses, such as the continual slaughter of female elephants.” He stated disapprovingly, “I have heard hunters—but can one give that name to such individuals?—praising themselves for having killed four female elephants in a single day” (Demariaux Reference Demariaux1949: 215).

Unrestrained, unselective, and excessive killing were also critiqued. The common label applied to such hunting was “massacre” (massacre), such as Vielle's commitment to only taking trophy males and his desire “to never participate in a massacre” (Grandes Chasses Coloniales 2009: 202). Cheminaud objected to the excessive killing of animals, and wrote disparagingly of an Englishman named Rogers who in Burma in the period around 1850 apparently had killed two thousand elephants [sic].Footnote ⁷ He did not want that type of slaughter to be allowed in Indochina and asked, “How can one drape oneself in such stupid vainglory which consists of killing animals for the sole pleasure of killing?” (Reference Cheminaud1939: 43). The lack of restraint and excessive killing was also evident in shooting easy prey. Millet condemned those who fired into groups of gaur with a powerful weapon, which for him was “useless butchery and anti-sporting” (Reference Millet1930: 198). Cheminaud criticized “tourist hunters” (Reference Cheminaud1939: 131) who hunted the karabou sauvage, a large bovine. It might charge a hunter, but it was slow to do so or to flee. “It is therefore easy game, that a colonial hunter hardly has to pursue, but which gives joy to occasional hunters” (ibid.). “Tourist hunters” would also sometimes accidentally kill domestic animals they confused for game (ibid.: 133). Condominas wrote that novice hunters had, “the tendency to shoot at everything they could or could not see.” They had, “only one idea: to see an animal fall, but it is undoubtable that hunting requires a particular state of grace, without which the sport is nothing more than killing, which is equivalent of taking it to whichever slaughterhouse” (Reference Condominas1988: 51).

THE TRUE HUNTER, MORAL DISTINCTION, AND VIRTUOSITY

Condominas’ invocation of “a particular state of grace” that distinguished hunting from killing aptly captures the fact that true hunters regarded their manner of killing game as both distinctive and morally superior. Others killed, while they authentically hunted. The centrality of such assertions in their texts raises two related questions. First, what were the social implications of these assertions with regard to how they positioned themselves vis-à-vis other hunters in Indochina? In this instance, the manner of killing game erected moral and symbolic boundaries that excluded these other hunters, both indigenous and European, in ways that asserted the true hunter's superiority. Second, what are the deeper implications of these assertions for understanding the paradox of why their extensive killing was not classified as mere killing or the “irrational destruction of game”? This question especially pertains to their relationship to other European hunters and why, as I will explain, they believed that their killing was different because of the virtuosity they displayed in their hunts.

Marks wrote, “Each species of game pursued is a marker, a visible bit of social differentiation” (Reference Sramek1991: 4). This statement holds true with big game hunting in Indochina, but in the case of the true hunter, one can also add that each type of hunting was a marker of both social and/or ethical difference. This distinction was manifest in several ways with regard to the indigenous populations who served the hunt, including the type of hunt, the positioning in the process of killing, and the disposition of the slain prey's flesh. At the most basic level, European and indigenous hunters engaged in different types of hunts in pursuit of different results. Indigenous hunters primarily hunted for subsistence and were willing to use poisons, traps, or snares.Footnote ⁸ Their hunting required no direct and dangerous confrontation with the prey. European true hunters celebrated such encounters but would also “limit themselves to bringing back several chosen trophies worthy of featuring honorably in a collection” (Official Bureau 1937: 38). For the European hunter, who hunted for sport, the trophy was the ultimate goal.

When hunting together, colonial hunters and indigenous trackers had distinct roles in the process of killing prey. The tracker led the European hunters to the game, who then reserved for themselves the right to attempt to complete the kill with their firearms. Though they hunted in their own territories, indigenous trackers here became secondary participants one step removed from the act of killing. This was a significant inversion of their relationship to prey animals. Finally, the disposition of the prey's flesh marked an important distinction since colonial hunters generally did not eat the animals they killed, especially the flesh of the “heroic prey.” They either left them to rot after taking their trophies or fulfilled the expectation that they would give the flesh to local communities. This was a rupture with previous hunting practices in the region, a transition from subsistence to sport. Colonial hunters in pursuit of a trophy, rather than meat for subsistence, killed for sport with their firearms and left more carcasses on the hunting grounds than the indigenous population ever would. This was both a luxury they could afford and a marker of their superiority.

True hunters also distinguished themselves from other European hunters through their distinct type of hunting. There were similarities in terms of the hunt's desired results and the use of firearms, and the distinction was manifest in terms of how they conducted their hunts. The various pejorative terms examined above provide an exemplary vocabulary for marking these differences and the moral failures they implied; they supported the idea that such hunters failed to achieve Condiminas’ “state of grace” and were therefore neither sporting nor true hunters. Indeed, over-aggressive shooting, firing from automobiles, using lights, or shooting females were classic examples of unsporting hunting. That said, there is within the texts an important practical component that is critical for understanding the true hunters. A true hunter, especially a Millet or de Monestral, was a virtuoso at his craft. This virtuosity pertained to the technical dimensions of hunting, such as tracking, firearm selection, and shot placement, but also to the profound mastering and disciplining of the hunter's body in the hunting space, especially in view of the prey. The true hunter endured the hunt's rigors, consistently exhibited patience, and was willing to spare an animal if there was no opportunity for a lethal shot. For these hunters, ending a hunt without a trophy was acceptable and in some cases a source of satisfaction. This sentiment was echoed in Sarraut's pronouncement on “real sport”: “Is not the whole attraction of shooting in the tracking-down, for all who see something better in this magnificent sport than the actual killing?” (Reference Sarraut1939: 6ff.). For him and others, there was in the hunt something better than killing.

Yet the understanding of this point and the ability to realize it in practice were not innate. Instead, the achievement of true hunter status was the outcome of a process through which the novice hunter acquired the necessary knowledge, experience, discipline, and skill. Millet wrote of this skill set that “one only completely acquires it after years of observation and apprenticeship” (Reference Millet1930: 82). Critical to this was learning when not to shoot, but an important component in this process was learning from mistakes made early in one's hunting career. Many authors provided unsparing assessments of their failures as hunters, such as killing females, causing animals to suffer, or other mistakes (see inter alia About Reference About1917: 22; Grandes Chasses Coloniales 2009: 162; De Buretel de Chassey Reference De Buretel de Chassey1998: 47; Fraisse Reference Fraisse2008: 118, 146; and Plas Reference Plas1932: 163, 188). Condominas described a suffering-inducing body shot to a gaur as “a trick, a sort of sadism” (Reference Condominas1988: 79). Bazé wrote that he initially had committed “several unfortunate massacres,” but experience ultimately made him a better hunter (Reference Bazé1950: 15). Fraisse was notably reflective on this point. As a novice hunter he had mistakenly shot a young domestic buffalo with a lantern, to which he responded, “Horror!… I was profoundly disgusted” (Reference Fraisse2008: 9). In a broader reflection on this stage of his hunting career, he concluded, “It was not real hunting (vraie chasse) and I tried first off to modify my methods. I especially deplored two things: first, the large number of wounded animals I could not pursue, and then the significant proportion of females and young I had killed” (ibid.: 12). Over time, and inspired by his hunting companion Milliquet, whom he considered a “true sporting hunter” (ibid.: 151), he would come to understand what a true hunter was. Even Millet acknowledged that his first elephant hunt ended distastefully when killing the wounded animal required multiple shots to its head (Reference Millet1930: 132).

The self-criticism of past failures by those who regarded themselves as true hunters affirmed that entrance into the prestigious true hunter category was contingent and had to be earned. To achieve this status, with all of its requisite practical components, the true hunters had embarked upon a path to virtuosity that had made them superior hunters and transformed their manner of killing prey. They engaged in physically demanding and disciplined hunts, renounced reckless killing, and willingly sought out close, lethal encounters with select game animals. For all hunters, however, every hunt brought with it the possibility of moral success or failure, regardless of the hunter's virtuosity on previous hunts. In contrast to others, the true hunter's decisions to kill or spare animals were ideally informed by their hunting ethic. When they occurred, their kills realized this ethic and were therefore by definition sporting. By their own accounts, they hunted and killed prey animals differently, which reaffirmed their claims to moral superiority vis-à-vis other European hunters. It is this latter point that explains the exclusion of their kill numbers from the category of excessive or irrational destruction of game. True hunters respected the lives of their prey; for them, the animals were worthy of life, and to draw on Millet, their lives deserved conservation. True hunters would end their lives, but only under very strict conditions. On their hunts, they did not simply take the lives of prey, but in a manner reminiscent of Garry Marvin's comment, those lives were legitimately won from them. Just as with the Laotian prince praised by Fraisse, the true hunter would allow numerous animals to pass in front of his rifle and then only shoot when presented with an appropriate animal and opportunity. In this sense, the scale or frequency of killing were secondary to the broader achievement of the proper and virtuoso kill. It was the true hunters’ acquisitions and displays of virtuosity that legitimized their killing and distinguished them as a unique ethical community distinct from other colonial hunters. It may be impossible to accurately capture the paradox in the true hunters’ attitudes toward killing, but when examined comparatively, it appeared more important to demonstrate restraint when faced with the opportunity to kill rather than to show mere restraint in killing.