Definition
In legal usage, *savage* appears primarily as an adjective of Norman French origin meaning *wild*, most often applied to animals in the context of property law and the law of animals. *Bestes savages* — wild animals — formed a recognized category in the common law, describing animals *ferae naturae*: creatures untamed and undomesticated, not the subject of absolute property ownership in the way that domestic livestock were.
Separately, and more troublingly for the modern researcher, *savage* appears in historical legal and constitutional literature as a descriptor for indigenous peoples — a usage embedded in colonial-era doctrine, treaty language, and judicial opinions that carried real legal weight, shaping rules about land title, sovereignty, and legal personhood. This usage has no legitimate continuing legal function but remains a term encountered throughout the historical corpus.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Wild, uncivilized, fierce, brutal; also colloquially used to mean impressively bold or severe.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Of or pertaining to the forest; wild, untamed, unpolished; uncivilized and unlearned; as in *savage life* or *savage manners*.
The gap between common and legal meaning runs in two directions. In the law of animals, *savage* is a technical descriptor for a legal category — *ferae naturae* — with consequences for property rights and liability, carrying none of the moral judgment embedded in the ordinary word. In colonial legal doctrine, by contrast, the word *did* carry the full weight of its derogatory common meaning, and courts deployed it not neutrally but as a premise for denying rights. Researchers must distinguish between the two contexts with care.
---
Common Confusion
*Savage* (wild animal classification) is sometimes loosely conflated with *ferocious* in the context of animal liability. These are not synonymous. A wild animal (*ferae naturae*, sometimes called *savage*) carries strict liability for its keeper regardless of any prior showing of dangerous behavior. A *ferocious* animal — typically a domestic species — triggers liability under a different framework, often requiring knowledge of prior dangerous propensity. The distinction matters when tracing historical negligence and liability doctrine.
---
Why It Matters in Research
**In the law of animals:** Historical sources treating *bestes savages* use the term as shorthand for the *ferae naturae* classification. When reading Burrill, Blackstone, or early American authorities on property in animals, *savage* functions as a legal term of art meaning *wild by nature*, not tame or domestic. The researcher should cross-reference entries on *ferae naturae*, *mansuetae naturae*, and *animus revertendi* to map the full framework.
**In colonial and indigenous law:** This is the research trap. The word *savage* appears with frequency in pre-twentieth century case law and legal literature discussing indigenous peoples, land title, and treaty rights — including major foundational decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. These texts use the term as a legal premise (e.g., to deny full property rights or to characterize territorial sovereignty), not merely as description. Researchers working on indigenous land title, federal Indian law, or treaty interpretation must read these sources critically: the presence of the term often signals doctrinal reasoning built on racial and civilizational hierarchy rather than neutral legal analysis. Modern courts and scholars have repudiated the reasoning without always excising the precedent it generated.
**Chronological trap:** Prior to the twentieth century, the two usages — wild animals and indigenous peoples — can appear in close proximity or even in the same passage without the author distinguishing them. Neither usage is archaic in the historical corpus; both require contextual identification.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary is brief: *L. Fr. Wild. Bestes savages; wild animals. Deer so called.* The citation to Keilwey (Keilu. 30) grounds the term in early Year Book usage, confirming that the wildlife-property sense had stable doctrinal meaning in English law. Burrill makes no reference to the indigenous-peoples usage, which reflects the limits of a dictionary organized around common-law property and procedure rather than public or colonial law.
The Webster's 1913 entry illustrates how fully the moral-civilizational meaning had saturated ordinary language by the late nineteenth century. Webster's primary definition leads with the forest and wilderness sense, moving quickly to *uncivilized* and *untaught* — the same semantic field that courts drew on when applying the term in colonial legal doctrine. The convergence of the legal and common meanings in this period is itself a research data point: judicial language and popular language were reinforcing each other.
What historical dictionaries miss is the doctrinal work the term was doing. Neither Burrill nor contemporaneous legal lexicographers paused to analyze the term's deployment in constitutional or international law arguments about indigenous sovereignty. That analysis belongs to later scholarship.
---
Jurisdictional Note
In U.S. federal Indian law, the conceptual framework built in part on characterizations like *savage* persists structurally in doctrines of plenary congressional power and diminished tribal sovereignty, even as the vocabulary has been abandoned. Canadian and Australian legal systems have parallel histories with comparable terminology in their own foundational indigenous land title cases.
---