UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Wergild among northwest coast Indians Piddocke, Stuart Michael 1960

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1960_A8 P4 W3.pdf [ 13.39MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0105993.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0105993-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0105993-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0105993-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0105993-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0105993-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0105993-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0105993-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0105993.ris

Full Text

WERGILD AMONG NORTHWEST COAST INDIANS by STUART MICHAEL PIDDOCKE B.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1959 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n . the Department of Anthropology Vie accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming; to the req u i r e d standards: THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September,, I960 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r .an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree that p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of Anthropology  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver Canada. Date 9 September I960  i i ABSTRACT The problem t h a t t h i s t h e s i s begins w i t h i s : Why d i d the K w a k i u t l and Nootka not have feud-indemnities,, whereas the other n a t i o n s o f the Northwest Coast had them? The method chosen i s t h a t o f proposing a hypothesis and then seeing i f the data bear i t outT The f i r s t chapter o f t h i s t h e s i s puts forward the hypothesis i n question: that the Kw a k i u t l and Nootka d i d not have feud-indemnities because they had instead a h i g h degree o f i n d i v i d u a l geographic, inter-group m o b i l i t y ; such th a t i f a person were not g e t t i n g along i n the group he l i v e d w i t h , he would simply depart to another group before disagreements and r e s u l t a n t t e n s i o n burst out i n t o open: v i o -lence and so began a feud. Feud-indemnities, so the hypo-t h e s i s suggests, act as an honourable way o f ending o r a-v o i d i n g a feud, and so render i t , by reducing i t s chances o f d i s r u p t i n g the s o c i e t y , a more e f f i c i e n t method o f l e g a l en-forcement. But unless feuding i s r e l a t i v e l y frequent there w i l l be no need f o r the s o c i a l group to adopt feud-indemni-t i e s i n order to s u r v i v e . High i n d i v i d u a l geographic- mo-b i l i t y among the Kw a k i u t l and Nootka, so runs the hypothesis, reduced feuding and removed the n e c e s s i t y f o r feud-indemni-t i e s ; t h e r e f o r e feud-indemnities d i d not a r i s e among these i i i t r i b e s . And we should expect to f i n d that the other groups which had feud-indemnities, were without h i g h i n d i v i d u a l g e o g r a p h i c . m o b i l i t y . The next s i x chapters describe the s o c i o p o l i t i c a l s ys-tems o f the Nootka, the K w a k i u t l , the T l i n g i t , Haida and Tsimshian, the B e l l a Coola and Coast S a l i s h , the Chinook,, and the northwestern. C a l i f o r n i a n s — c o n f i r m i n g : the hypothesis and so answering' the question t h a t began: the enquiry. The K w a k i u t l , Nootka, B e l l a Coola, and Upper S t a l o ( a Coast S a l i s h group) had high i n d i v i d u a l geographic:; m o b i l i t y and no feud-indemnities, while the r e s t o f the Northwest Coast na-t i o n s had feud-indemnities and low i n d i v i d u a l geographic, m o b i l i t y . TABLE OJ? CONTENTS page INTRODUCTION . 1 1. Problem, method, and value o f enquiry.... 1 2. Common:features o f Northwest Coast s o c i -ety .." 5 I THE FEUD AND PRIMITIVE LAW ' 13 r. D e f i n i t i o n o f law 13 2. D e f i n i t i o n o f the feud and typology o f feud-systems 17 3. Comparison o f warfare and feuding 21 4. E f f e c t o f feud-indemnities on feuding.... 26 5. The pressures of c o n f l i c t i n g a l l e g i a n c e s . 30 6. I n d i v i d u a l geographic m o b i l i t y and the absence o f feud-indemnities 37 7. Summary o f hypotheses 40 I I THE NOOTKA 45 1. The s o c i a l context 45 2. C h i e f t a i n s h i p 49 3. The l e g a l system 53 4. Conclusions concerning the feud and war-f a r e 56 5. Legal system o f the Makah o f Cape F l a t -t e r y 58 I I I THE KWAKIUTL 60 1. The s o c i a l order o f the Sotithern Kwak-i u t l 60 2. C h i e f t a i n s h i p 68 3. The l e g a l system 70 4. Conclusions 76 5. Note on the Northern K w a k i u t l 77 IV THE NORTHERN TRIBES 83 1. T l i n g i t s o c i e t y 83 2. T l i n g i t c h i e f t a i n s h i p 91-3. T l i n g i t law 91 4. M o t i v a t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g T l i n g i t law-ways.. 94 5. Haida s o c i e t y 98 6. Haida p o l i t y and law 100 7.. Tsimshian s o c i e t y 104 8. The Tsimshian p o l i t i c a l system I l l 9. Tsimshian law 113 10. Conclusions 116 V V THE SALISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES 1 2 0 1 . B e l l a Coola s o c i e t y 1 2 1 2 . P o l i t i c a l a u t h o r i t y and law among the B e l l a Coola . .... 1 2 9 3 7 The S a l i s h of Georgia S t r a i t 1 3 4 4 . The Upper Stale- . 141 5." The S a l i s h of Puget Sound 148 6 . The K l a l l a m 157 7. The Quinault 160 VI THE CHINOOK 167 1 . S o c i e t y 167 2 . C h i e f t a i n s h i p . 1 7 0 3 . Feud-system 1 7 4 4 . Conclusions 178 V I I NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA 181 1 . Yurok s o c i e t y 181 2 . Yurok law 7 183 3 7 Conclusions 188 CONCLUSIONS : 1 9 0 1 . Review o f hypotheses 1 9 0 2 . R e s u l t s 1 9 3 NOTES 1 9 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY 2 1 0 FIGURES f o l l o w s page One: The Nations o f the Northwest Coast . 7 1 2 Two: P r e f e r r e d Cross-Couslh.Marriage among the T l i n g i t 86 31 INTRODUCTION. II . . . whether or not revenge was taken> the customary method of set t l i n g ; the feud among; almost a l l the groups, except the Kwakiutl and Nootka, was by payment of indemnities, or "weregild." — P h i l i p Drucker, In-r-dians of the Northwest  Coast, p. 137. WHY did the Kwakiutl and Nootka not have feud-indemnities? This i s the question which t h i s study sets out to answer. At f i r s t glance, i t might seem that the way to answer t h i s question i s simply to examine the societies of the Northwest Coast to f i n d out which c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are found only among the Kwakiutl and Nootka but common; to both; and which ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s are found only among the other, i n -demnity-paying groups but common: to a l l these l a t t e r : such c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t h e i r presence or absence correlated with the presence or absence of feud-indemnities, would solve our problem. But on taking, a second look at t h i s method of simple enumerations, and cor r e l a t i o n , we f i n d i t to be simple i n theory but bulky and uneconomical i n : p r a c t i c e — a method of. desperation to be followed only as a l a s t r e -sort. Pirst,, such a method would necessitate an exhaustive, detailed, and time-consuming survey of a l l the available h i s t o r i c a l and ethnographic:, accounts of the Northwest Ooast,: and a careful tabulation of the presence or absence of c u l -t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . And the records might be by no means complete—serious gaps i n the data might forever prevent successful conclusion to such an enquiry. Such a method of simple enumeration and correlation: has, indeed, been followed in.the culture element d i s t r i b u t i o n studies made by the University of C a l i f o r n i a ; but, as Drucker, one of the participants,, has remarked,"1" the method was found i l l -suited to the study of s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l organization. Second, co-variation, i s no guarantee of causation: just because two sets of phenomena vary together does not mean that one set i s the e f f e c t , or perhaps the cause, of the other; they might both be effects of a t h i r d set of phenomena, and have nothing; more i n commoni than t h i s 7 Thus supposing that we did f i n d the common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c that correlated with the presence or absence of feud-indemnities the onus would s t i l l be on us to show that i t caused feud-indemnities either to appear or not to appear. Instead, the method I s h a l l follow w i l l , be that of anticipation::, and experiment. In an examination of the s t r u c t u r a l implications of feud-indemnities for s o c i a l organization^. I s h a l l propose some hypotheses concerning the linkage of c e r t a i n features of society with the pre-sence or absence of feud-indemnities, and from these hypo-theses I s h a l l attempt to make some predictions concerning the sorts of things we would or would not f i n d i n a study of Northwest Coast s o c i e t i e s . These predictions w i l l b o i l down to predictions concerning the sorts of things that ethnographers and historians have reported about the North-west Coast. ' The main hypothesis that I wish to suggest i s r e a l l y very simple. I t i s that the presence of a high degree of i n d i v i d u a l geographic mobility i n a primitive society w i l l prevent the development of feud-indemnities; and that t h i s i s the reason why the Kwakiutl and Nootka did not have feud-indemnities. But why should such a connection ex i s t ? To answer t h i s question^ i t i s necessary to examine the nature of the feud and of pr i m i t i v e law. To t h i s the f i r s t chapter of the enquiry i s devoted. The remaining s i x chapters describe i n turn the sociaill and p o l i t i c a l orders and the feud-systems of the following Northwest Coast peoples: the Nootka; the Kwakiutl; the T l i n g i t , Haida, and Tsimshian; the Salish^speaking peoples of the Coast, including:;; the B e l l a Coola; the Chinook; and the northwestern Californians^ I m t h i s way, the f i r s t , t h e o r e t i c a l chapter constitutes the a n t i c i p a t i o n , and the following s i x , descriptive chap-ters constitute the experiment, presenting; the data which w i l l either v e r i f y or refute the a n t i c i p a t i o n . I have sought i n these descriptive chapters to present enough evidence that the reader can.'- judge for himself whether or not the data sustain my hypotheses. The arrangement of these chapters i s a l i t t l e deceptive. They are arranged as i f I f i r s t propounded the theory and then checked i t against the data. This i s only h a l f true". The hypothesis was actually not conceived u n t i l I had already 4 examined the Kwakiutl, Nootka, and T l i n g i t i n d e t a i l , and the Haida, Tsimshian, and Chinook i n b r i e f . As far as these groups are concerned, therefore, the hypothesis was not ac-t u a l l y p r e dictive, but instead rather post hoc. However, I had yet to examine the Salish-speaking groups and the northwestern Californians: i t was an unexpected and pleas-ant surprise to. f i n d that the Salish-speakingr B e l l a Coola and Upper Stalo> lacked feud-indemnities and had high i n d i -v idual geographic mob i l i t y , whereas the remaining groups had feud-indemnities and lacked high i n d i v i d u a l geographic mobility.. The hypothesis was actu a l l y and successfully predictive as far as the Salish-speaking peoples and the northwestern Californians were concerned. I mention t h i s because i t offers reason:, f o r hope that the notions put f o r t h i n t h i s thesis may be of value i n the study of comparative p o l i t i c s as a whole,, not merely with regard to the Northwest Coast. The study of Northwest Coast p o l i t i c a l and l e g a l systems seems somewhat neglected. The various ethnographies each devote space to descriptions of the p o l i t i c a l and j u r i d i c a l aspects of the soc i e t i e s on which they report; and there have been a few papers concentrating on the same topics 2 for i n d i v i d u a l s o c i e t i e s . But works comparing the various p o l i t i c a l systems of the Northwest Coast are a l l but lack-ing. Adam has written three essays on t r i b a l organization and chieftainship among the Haida, T l i n g i t , Tsimshian, Nootka, and Kwakiutl,/ and indeed these might be taken together as 0 being such a work of comparison. These papers, written i n German, are now long out of p r i n t ; they constitute sum-maries of the leading ethnographic, material available before 1913» and devote much attention! to questions of totemism among the t r i b e s discussed. But t h i s only serves to empha-siz e the general neglect of comparative studies of North-west Coast Indian p o l i t i c s . I t i s my hope that t h i s thesis w i l l help to f i l l that gap, for i n the process of gathering,: and presenting;, the evidence for my hypothesis concerning; the s t r u c t u r a l implications of wergild i n Northwest Coast society, I have perforce given something*:of. a general survey of Northwest Coast p o l i t i c a l and l e g a l systems. The survey, being; s p e c i f i c a l l y oriented towards the operation of the feud i n . these s o c i e t i e s , i s not complete; yet i t may, I hope, prove h e l p f u l i n studies of other aspects of Northwest Coast p o l i t i c s . So much for a general introduction to the problem and; procedure of the enquiry. The second h a l f of t h i s i n t r o -duction*, before we proceed to chapter one (the nature of the feud and prim i t i v e law), w i l l give a broad overview of the common features of Northwest Coast society. 2 With a l l reservations, however, I believe i t i s f a i r l y clear that the peculiar environment of the West Coast t r i b e s of B r i t i s h Columbia had much to do with the development of t h e i r rather complex s o c i a l l i f e . . Not so much that these conditions explain i n every case the actual forms of organization that we f i n d to p r e v a i l among these t r i b e s , as that they seem to fu r n i s h a general stimulus f o r the growth of relatively-s e t t l e d communities with i n t r i c a t e s o c i a l rami-f i c a t i o n s . In the f i r s t place, the Indians of the West Coast had abundant means for t h e i r sub-sistence at t h e i r disposal. The streams teemed with., various kinds of salmon throughout the year, and the sea offered a great variety of edible sea-mammals and invertebrates. I t was thus possible f o r a rather large group of people to make a comfortable l i v i n g i n a quite r e s t r i c -ted b i t of coast t e r r i t o r y . Access to the sea at a few points and the control of a few streams up which the community could follow the salmon at t h e i r spawning; periods were a l l that was needed to insure ample means o f subsistence fo r a l l . Furthermore, the unusually great r a i n -f a l l of the coast country made i t necessary for the Indians to house themselves i n substantial shelters, and at the same time gave them the ready means wherewith to f i l l t h i s want.. I r e f e r to the heavily wooded character of the coast. The inexhaustible supply of r e a d i l y worked wood, p a r t i c u l a r l y the red cedar, gave the Indians a l l that was necessary for the building, of large houses. In; a word, the West Coast Indians were fishermen and sea-mammal hunt-ers who, unlike the Eskimo, were able to t h r i v e w i t h i n r e l a t i v e l y r e s t r i c t e d t e r r i t o r i e s , and who dwelt f o r the greater part of. the year ini permanent v i l l a g e s consisting; of a long row of large wooden houses strung: along, the beach".'. Most of these houses were larg:e enough to pro-vide not merely for a family ina the narrower sense of the word,, but f o r a large house group forming; a family i n the larger sense and dom-inated by one man who, on grounds of descent, took precedence of a l l others i n the house group. The v i l l a g e community with i t s d e f i n i t e number of house groups may, then, be expected to be the most fundamental s o c i a l unit i n t h i s area and, indeed, i n spite of a l l complications that have been brought about by some of the t r i b e s , the legends of the Indians themselves and the study of the facts involved, seem, i n p r a c t i c a l l y every case, to argue back to the v i l l a g e community as the primary social, u n i t . —Edward Sapir, "The S o c i a l Organization.of the West Coast Tribes."4 IN THIS PASSAGE (intended by i t s author to apply only to the coast of B r i t i s h Columbia and the Alaska panhandle)- Sapir e f f e c t i v e l y delimits the basis of the entire Northwest Coast culture, from Yakutat Bay imAlaska to Trinidad Bay i n north-western C a l i f o r n i a ; and indicates much of the common themes upon which the several t r i b e s of the area made t h e i r numer-ous v a r i a t i o n s . We need note only that the importance of land-hunting; increased towards the south; and i n the south-ern h a l f of the region, camas roots (Puget Sound and Wash-ington coast areas) and acorns (northwestern Ca l i f o r n i a ) were s i g n i f i c a n t staples i n the aboriginal diet.-* But these additions, though worth noting;, do not modify i n i t s essen-t i a l s the picture drawn by Sapir. One of: the most str i k i n g ; features of. Northwest Coast culture i s the way i n which an underlying unity i s combined with a s u r p r i s i n g l y wide d i v e r s i t y . The unity' i s funda-mental and s i g n i f i c a n t , and serves, among other things, to: d i s t i n g u i s h the area as a whole from neighbouring culture areas.. But within; t h i s unity there i s a d i v e r s i t y that sets off,, sometimes, even community from community; and cert a i n -l y marks the major l i n g u i s t i c groups as d i s t i n c t c u l t u r a l -e n t i t i e s . Not only t h i s , but the degree of d i v e r s i t y i t s e l f varies from region to region. Sometimes these variations consist, of•" d i f f e r i n g emphases on the common, themes of the entire area, and sometimes of new and d i s t i n c t i v e c u l t u r a l , a d d i t i o n s — u s u a l l y a combination of both. The presence or absence of wergild i s a ready example. The most fundamental s o c i a l unit among the Northwest Coast groups, according to Sapir i n the passage quoted above, was the v i l l a g e community with i t s d i s t i n c t house groups each composed of an extended family. According to Drucker, the: o fundamental s o c i a l unit was the lineage or extended family that owned.a large house, fishing: stations, and a hunting; t e r r i t o r y . These views do not i n fact contradict each other, for i n winter the various lineages or extended families con-gregated into v i l l a g e s of r e l a t i v e l y permanent lo c a t i o n . I t i s these winter v i l l a g e s that Sapir i s r e f e r r i n g t o . Ini another passage wort hi quoting, Sapir writes:^ A necessary consequence of the d i v i s i o n of the v i l l a g e community into a number of large house-groups i s that, associated with each chief, there i s , besides the immediate members of his own family, a group of commoners and slaves, who form his retainers. The slaves are immediately subject to his authority and may be disposed of i n any manner that he sees f i t . The commoners also, however, while possessing;: a much greater measure of independence, cannot be considered! as unattached. Everything clustered about a number of house-groups headed by t i t l e d i n d i v i d u a l s , and in.West Coast society, as i n that of mediaeval feudalism, there was no place f o r the s o c i a l free-lance. I f the number o f commoners and slaves connected with a chief's family grew too large f o r adequate housing under a single roof, one or more supplementary houses could be added oni to the f i r s t ; but they always remained under i t s sphere of influence. In t h i s way we can understand how evem a group of houses forming an outlying v i l l a g e might be inhabited e n t i r e l y by people of low b i r t h , who were d i r e c t l y subject to one or more chiefs ocopying; houses i n i the mother village.. Prom t h i s point of view thee whole t r i b e divides into as many s o c i a l groups as there are independent chiefs. In.point of f a c t , both units were fundamental and important'. The large and substantial wooden house that the lineage or extended family owned, was located at the winter v i l l a g e s i t e . We may speak of those groups sharing a common winter v i l l a g e as comprising a single " t r i b e " ; and the land- and house-owning groups we may c a l l , as circumstances require, "house groups," "lineages," or "extended f a m i l i e s . " This pattern was most c l e a r l y developed among the northern and central nations of the Northwest Coast. Among the northwestern Californians, most southerly of the North-west Coast peoples, i t was much more rudimentary, and, though s t i l l recognizable, i t s outlines were blurred. The importance of fishing' and woodworking i n North-west Coast culture has already been s u f f i c i e n t l y described i n the quotation from Sapir that begins t h i s section. The t h i r d common feature of Northwest Coast society was the concern of the people for rank and wealth. Every-where society was divided, broadly speaking, into three status l e v e l s : ""nobles," "commoners," and slaves (Among; the northwestern Californians: " r i c h people," "poor people," and slaves,). Slaves, s t r i c t l y speaking, were property, and the l i n e was drawn; very clearly/ between slaves and free-menl The other two status l e v e l s were not at a l l sharply; Q demarcated, and some w r i t e r s , e.g. Ray on. the Chinook, have described a "middle class" composed of the highest ranking commoners and the lowest ranking nobles. The e v i -dence indicates that in. these s o c i e t i e s each and every freeman had a rank, and that while the highest and lowest ranks could be c l e a r l y marked out, between..these extremes there were a great many intermediate and less c l e a r l y defined p o s i t i o n s . This d i v i s i o n into three status l e v e l s i s , i t should be noted, only a broad and general one—the references to the northwestern Californians and the Chinook should suggest how broad and general—intended as a summary applicable to the whole culture area. The chapters which follow w i l l describe in:, greater d e t a i l the exact variations on t h i s three-status theme that the several. Northwest Coast nations evolved. The chief was the highest ranking person of his s o c i a l group—lineage, extended family, or, as among the Chinook apparently,^ v i l l a g e . He gained his p o s i t i o n by direct descent from the legendary ancestors. In the north, among the Haida, T l i n g i t , Tsimshian, and some of the northern Kwakiutl, t h i s descent was m a t r i l i n e a l , the new chief usually succeeding his mother's brother. Among;,the central and southern tribes,, t h i s descent was usually p a t r i l i n e a l , the new chief, usually an: eldest son, succeeding his father. The n o b i l i t y of the s o c i a l unit consisted of the near r e l a t i v e s of the c h i e f — b r o t h e r s , s i s t e r s , uncles, aunts, and others whose re l a t i o n s h i p was not too remote. The com-moners, then, were those persons whose kinship with the chief was distant, dubious, or non-existent. The n o b i l i t y of the t r i b e consisted of a l l those who made up the n o b i l i t y of the lineages or extended family groups that comprised, the t r i b e . The highest ranking of the chiefs of these groups— f o r these groups and t h e i r chiefs were ranked also—was the chief of the t r i b e . The t r i b a l : chief was important as the representative of his t r i b e i n i n t e r - t r i b a l a f f a i r s . The manner i n which the nobles of the various lineages within the t r i b e were ranked v i s - a - v i s one another varied from t r i b e to t r i b e , nation to nation. But b i r t h alone was not enough. Claims to rank had to be maintained by dist r i b u t i n g , and displaying^ wealth. The chief was chief not by r i g h t of b i r t h alone, but because by r i g h t of b i r t h he could c a l l on the resources of his lineage or extended family to provide food and wealth objects that he would d i s t r i b u t e or display to other lineages and ex-tended families in. great public ceremonials. The more he could d i s t r i b u t e , the greater his prestige; and, i f the other chiefs did not reciprocate with as great a generosity, his rank increased, and with i t that of" his lineage. Within the lineage or extended family, a man who showed industry and a b i l i t y might be raised by the chief to noble status, and t h i s status would descend on the new noble's children. In short, a b i l i t y could modify to some extent the rank one received at b i r t h . Rank must be validated by wealth. Rank gave the holder the opportunities to acquire wealth, but i t also demanded that, i f he wished to maintain! his rank, l e t alone increase i t , he must accumulate and r e d i s t r i b u t e t h i s wealth. Among the peoples of the Northwest Coast, rank and wealth were much l i k e two sides of the same coin, and the intimate connection of the two gave Northwest Coast culture one of i t s most d i s t i n c t i v e features."^ Kroeber 1 1 writes: P o l i t i c a l organization was rudimentary on. the North-west Coast,, but economic; structure elaborate. The c u l -ture was property-minded,, and wealth was a necessary accompaniment of b i r t h for s o c i a l prestige and influence. There was emphasis on accumulation, and even more om the d i s t r i b u t i o n : of food, belongings, and treasure i n the give-away feasts c a l l e d potlatches. These were i n s t r u -ments of competition!for rank; so were the ownership of dances and membership in. r i t u a l s . Among the economic spe c i a l i z a t i o n s were standardized dentalium-shell cur-rency, slaves held for prestige, hammered sheets of na-t i v e copper whose main,value l a y i n t h e i r repute value, and repayments with increment or " i n t e r e s t . " IZ These, then, were some of the common themes that gave Northwest Coast culture i t s d i s t i n c t i v e character. In the l a s t s i x chapters of t h i s enquiry, we s h a l l examine some o f the variations and spe c i a l i z a t i o n s on these themes that 12 were made by the various "nations" of the region. FIGURE ONE: THE NATIONS OF THE NORTHWEST COAST. Adapted from P h i l i p Drucker, The Indians of the  Northwest Coast, p. 7. To follow page 12. I THE FEUD AMD PRIMITIVE LAW 1 A DEFINITION OF LAW, writes Paton i n A Textbook of J u r i s - prudence,^- "should have two aims: f i r s t l y , to make precise the meaning of law, and secondly, to c a l l up i n the mind of the reader a true picture of. law and i t s operation;." But, aft e r a consideration of various d e f i n i t i o n s of law,, and a consideration of t h e i r shortcomings, the closest that he can. himself come to a d e f i n i t i o n , i s that, "Law may shortly-be described i n terms of a l e g a l order t a c i t l y or formally/ ac-cepted by a community, and i t consists of the body of rules which that community considers essential to i t s welfare and which i t i s w i l l i n g to enforce by the creation of a s p e c i f i c p mechanism f o r securing compliance." This d e f i n i t i o n meets Paton's f i r s t c r i t e r i o n . I t i s perhaps about as precise a d e f i n i t i o n of law as we have a r i g h t to expect; and i t i s also f a i r l y close both to one of the everyday meanings of the word, and to i t s o r i g i n a l meaning*-' Paton's definition!preserves both h i s t o r i c a l con-t i n u i t y and accordance with common usage. But does i t " c a l l up i n the mind of the reader a true picture of law and i t s operation" 2 Not completely. I t perhaps treats the law a l i t t l e too much as a conscious creation of a community—though the facts of history do indeed suggest that as soc i e t i e s have become larger and more complex, t h e i r law has also come to be more .A 14 and more a conscious creation—and, more seriously, Paton's d e f i n i t i o n i s vague as to what the mechanisms are that secure compliance. The operation of the law i s manifested i n i t s enforcement. How i t i t enforced? Is there, i n the undoubt-edly varied methods of enforcement, any common element that i t would be w e l l to include i n the d e f i n i t i o n of law? The question i s answered a f f i r m a t i v e l y i n i a d e f i n i t i o n : "by Hoebel,^ who writes: "A s o c i a l norm i s l e g a l i f i t s neg-l e c t or i n f r a c t i o n i s r e g u l a r l y met, i n threat or i n fa c t , by the application:of physical force by an i n d i v i d u a l or  group possessing the s o c i a l l y recognized p r i v i l e g e of so  acting"." How does t h i s compare with Paton's d e f i n i t i o n ? They agree i n indicating; normative reference and s o c i a l recog-n i t i o n ; Hoebel's d e f i n i t i o n , however, has the advantage of e x p l i c i t l y , specifying r e g u l a r i t y of enforcement, whereas i n Paton's def i n i t i o m t h i s i s i m p l i c i t only. Furthermore, Hoe-bel's d e f i n i t i o n indicates who enforces the law, and points to individuals rather than merely r e f e r r i n g to the " commun-i t y . " And he gives us physical sanctions as the c r i t e r i o n , whereby we may distinguish.law from such s o c i a l phenomena as mores, folkways, and simple customs'^ Hoebel's d e f i n i t i o n i s a behaviouristic: d e f i n i t i o n , and i t r e f l e c t s the method of investigating primitive law that he himself considers most productive and most r e l i a b l e , namely,; the "trouble-case" method,, the "search for instances of hitch',* dispute, grievance, trouble; and inquiry into what the trouble was and what was done about i t . " This emphasis i s 15 indeed valuable and indispensable". But a concentration on trouble cases can lead to a false impression. Paton, c r i t i c i z i n g the notion that the s p e c i f i c mechanism behind law i s a sanction, writes: Psychologically, the sanction does not f u l l y ex-p l a i n , why law i s obeyed. The sanction i s successful: only i f i t i s necessary to employ i t i n the marginal case,. Universal disobedience w i l l r a p i d l y destroy the whole basis of the l e g a l order, law i s obeyed because of i t s acceptance by the community, and while the sanc-t i o n ! plays i t s part i n dealing with a r e c a l c i t r a n t min-o r i t y , the reasons for that acceptance l i e deeper. Habit, respect for the law as such, and a desire to reap the rewards which l e g a l protection of acts w i l l brings-these are factors that are equally important. Academic:: preoccupation with the sanction leads to a f a l s e view of law. The idea of health does not at once suggest to our minds hospitals and diseases, operations and anaesthetics, however necessary these things may be to maintain.the welfare of a community. The best ser-vice of medicine i s the prevention of disease, just as the r e a l benefit of law i s that i t secures an ordered^ balance which goes f a r to prevent disputes. Whether or not we consider the application of physical sanc-tions, in. threat i f not i n fact,, as an. e s s e n t i a l character-i s t i c of law, we should s t i l l keep Paton's remarks i n mind. The fundamental fact of p o l i t i c s i s power.''' Whether or not a given p o l i t i c a l order rests on popular acceptance, ex-pressed or t a c i t , the p o l i t i c a l order i s an arrangement of the powers within: a community, and i t s functionaries must possess power in:order to carry out t h e i r o f f i c e s . Laws are but dead rules unless they can be enforced, i . e . , are backed up by p o l i t i c a l power. To t h i s fundamental fact Hoebel's d e f i n i t i o n : of law has the inestimable advantage of directing; our attention. At the same time, Hoebel recognizes that general accept-ance within, the society i s essential to law. By speaking^ of " s o c i a l norm" and " s o c i a l l y recognized p r i v i l e g e " , he c l e a r l y distinguishes l e g a l force from naked force or simple Q terrorism. Power alone i s not enough.' In drawing; our at-tention to t h i s , Hoebel abides by the usual connotations of the word "law" and also accords with the long t r a d i t i o n . t h a t distinguishes the "rule of force" from the "rule of law". This concord, as I see i t , further increases the value of Hoebel's definition.. How i s the sanction of physical force applied against an. offender? Who decides that a law has been broken; and that a given, person, i s responsible, and who applies the sanc-tion), to whom? Hoebel's d e f i n i t i o n ! indicates broadly the cha r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s p e c i f i c ; mechanisms or i n s t i t u t i o n s which do these things, but i t does not specify p a r t i c u l a r ones.. I t leaves us free to speculate as to what the various l e g a l mechanisms of primitive society may be; i t enables us, as a matter of fa c t , to discern continuities between "primi-t i v e " and " c i v i l i z e d " societies.9 Writers such as Seagle have defined law i n terms of. courts and the state,, and have been forced to state that non-state s o c i e t i e s or so c i e t i e s without courts do not have law..^ But such an assertion!obscures the cont i n u i t i e s and makes much too sharp a d i s t i n c t i o n . I t but pushes the prob-lem one stage further back, to the questions "What are courts?" and "What i s the state?" The concept of the state i s at le a s t as fuzzy, as confused, and as variously defined! as i s the concept of law. Furthermore, not a l l s o c i e t i e s with -1-1 courts also have states; and some courts, which have been called "courts of a r b i t r a t i o n , " are without the power to en-force t h e i r judgements."'"'1' I f we accept Hoebel's d e f i n i t i o n , (or a s i m i l a r one) as a working d e f i n i t i o n , we would look for a v a r i e t y of l e g a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . We would ask, for instance, such questions as: "Under what conditions do courts appear?" "Are there d i f -ferences i n l e g a l enforcement as between d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l groups?" "What i s the effect of a state-structure on the l e g a l system of a community?" With t h i s approach, such re-lationships as we would f i n d between laws, courts, states, and society would be, not mere tautologies, but empirical generalizations about the workings of society^ In.particular, i t i s only with a d e f i n i t i o n of law such as Hoebel's,, that i t makes sense to regard the feud as an i n s t i t u t i o n . o f primitive law and a scale of feud-indemnities as a primitive l e g a l code (usually unwritten)7 2 Feuds are r e l a t i o n s of mutual animosity among; intimate groups i n which a resort to violence i s anticipated on both sides. The h i s t o r i c a l blood vengeance feud, common in. primitive society, constitutes the most characteristic:; feud pattern. The family feuds which are to t h i s day frequent i n . c e r t a i n i i s o l a t e d regions are closely related to i t , and many other forms of violence i n i c o n -temporary society are also complicated by ele-ments highly reminiscent of the true feud^ ,'. While there i s no actual h i s t o r i c a l continuity between the primitive and the modern feud, there i s i n many respects a continuity of pattern;. The chief difference i s that while the blood vengeance feud was i t s e l f the expression of primitive law, the modern feud i s at least formally i l l e g a l and char-a c t e r i s t i c a l l y f i l l s the i n t e r s t i c e s l e f t i n the l a funcbioning; of the prevailing; system of l e g a l organization. — H a r o l d D. Lasswell, "Feuds,," Encyclopaedia of  the S o c i a l Science's^ FEUDS as methods of l e g a l enforcement are, generally speak-ing, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of those so c i e t i e s where there i s no 12 strong, e f f e c t i v e central government. In primitive so-c i e t i e s , "blood vengeance feuds" are characteristic.; of so-c i e t i e s where there i s no strong; an., developed o f f i c e of chieftainship or kingship and where, consequently, power i s diffused among a number of searate and coordinate, but i n t e r -act ing:; k i n . groups.. In a society depending; upon the feud as the ultimate l e g a l i n s t i t u t i o n , there i s common; to the whole society a generally accepted consensus about the sorts of: action which are \tfrong and not to be tolerated. When one member of a k i n group commits a wrong against a member of another k i n group, the wronged k i n group w i l l f e e l j u s t i -f i e d in. r e t a l i a t i n g against the offender and his k i n group; and the rest of the society w i l l generally recognize the wronged group as having the r i g l i t to r e t a l i a t e . The group that fe e l s injured has no resort other than; t h i s private r e t a l i a t i o n ! o r s e l f - h e l p . I f the offender^ k i n group f e e l s that what i t s member did was indeed wrong;, and the r e t a l i a -tion, by. the other group hence j u s t i f i e d , the a f f a i r ends there; but i f they do not concur, or i f they f e e l that the vengeance taken was more than; the o r i g i n a l misdeed warranted, they w i l l seek to "even the score" by r e t a l i a t i n g i n t h e i r turn. And so the o r i g i n a l deed may lead to a f u l l scale feud, with much blood s p i l l e d on both sides'^ 19 What happens when a man commits a wrong against, not a member of another k i n group, hut a member of his own k i n group? One of four possible alternatives w i l l follow: (a) he i s d i s c i p l i n e d by the head of his k i n group and his other kinsmen.; (b) he i s banished, thus being exposed to any-body's whim or wrath and having no one to aid him when he i s i n trouble; (c) nothing happens; (d) or the kin: group s p l i t s into smaller units between which: feuds obtain. Sometimes the customs of the society provide for the payment of indemnities, "blood-money" or "wergild". Instead of seeking,: vengeance for the wrong done to them., the injured k i n group may demand that the offender (and his k i n group) pay them a certain amount of goods or money i n recompense for the loss they have suffered as a r e s u l t of his misdeed^ I f he pays up (or his k i n pay up for him), a l l i s well and the a f f a i r goes no further. But i f he refuses to, then the wronged group exacts vengeance and a feud begins. Hence the payment of a feud-indemnity can prevent a feud from breaking;, out into perpetual open fighting,, and may be thought of as rendering: the feud a more e f f i c i e n t method of maintaining s o c i a l order and enforcing law than i t would otherwise be. This notion leads me to suggest that the absence of feud-indemnities i n a feuding society i s a sign of an un-developed feud-system, where the feud i s an occasional or incompletely established method of l e g a l sanctions. This suggestion w i l l perhaps be sustained when we come to examine the feud-systems of the Northwest Coast Indians. 20 ,, I suggest that we may d i s t i n g u i s h three types of feud-systems, which I should l i k e to c a l l nascent, c l a s s i c a l , and decadent. The feud-system which I c a l l c l a s s i c a l i s character-i z e d by the presence of feud-indemnities, a recognized scalle of values, u n i t s of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and the absence of c h i e f s or kings who are enabled to r e g u l a t e the system to t h e i r own advantage. I c a l l i t c l a s s i c a l because t h i s form of the feud i s , I t h i n k , the n o t i o n of the feud which we u s u a l l y have at the back of our minds. The feud-system which I c a l l decadent i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the presence of c h i e f s or kings who enjoy a p r i v i l e g e d immunity from r e t a l i a t i o n and hence a p r i v i l e g e d though not e x c l u s i v e use of f o r c e , and who as a r e s u l t can r e g u l a t e the feud-system of t h e i r s o c i e t y i n t h e i r own i n t e r -e s t s . I c a l l i t decadent because t h i s form seems to be the form which the feud takes on the eve of i t s replacement by a state-system of l e g a l enforcement; the operation of the c l a s s i c a l feud is-, i n the instance of the decadent feud, com-p l i c a t e d and i n t e r r u p t e d by i n s t i t u t i o n s that might almost be c a l l e d rudimentary s t a t e s . The feud-system which I c a l l na-scent i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the absence of feud-indemnities, but d i f f e r s from the decadent feud-system ( i n which feud-indemni-t i e s as such may o c c a s i o n a l l y be replaced by something we could c a l l "awards of damages" granted by the c h i e f or king) by the l a c k of c h i e f s or kings who r e g u l a t e the r i g h t of p r i v a t e vengeance;. As used i n t h i s enquiry, t h i s scheme i s f i r s t and f o r e -most a l o g i c a l typology. However, as the names i n d i c a t e , i t i s a l s o a t e n t a t i v e suggestion as to the development of l e g a l 21 systems up to the s t a t e l e v e l . I w i l l not be able i n t h i s en-q u i r y to d e s c r i b e the development of Northwest Coast systems; I should l i k e , however, to suggest how feud-systems might have developed t h e r e . Therefore, w h i l e u s i n g the scheme as a l o g i c -a l typology, I should l i k e to r e t a i n these developmental names. I would not wish to say that a l l l e g a l systems must evolve through these three s t a g e s ; i t i s qu i t e c o n c e i v a b l e that a so-c i e t y might move from the nascent to the decadent type without p a s s i n g through the c l a s s i c a l ( T h i s might, I t h i n k , happen to a s o c i e t y w i t h a nascent feud-system under c e r t a i n e x t e r n a l i n f l u -ences such as the near presence of a more w e l l developed p o l -i t y . ) ; nor do I wish to a s s e r t t h a t these stages are i r r e v e r s -i b l e (though I suspect t h a t r e v e r s i o n s would be very r a r e ) , and that decadent might not devolve i n t o c l a s s i c a l , or c l a s s i c -a l i n t o nascent".. But I thin k t h a t the scheme w i l l h e l p In o r d e r i n g the data on Northwest Coast f e u d i n g . I t w i l l be observed that f e u d i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s o b t a i n between groups, and th a t each i n d i v i d u a l member of one of these groups i s h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e f o r whatever another member of h i s group does ( i . e . , the p r i n c i p l e Of ' b o l l e c t i v e respon-s i b i l i t y " ) . The exact way i n which membership i n these groups i s d e f i n e d , v a r i e s from s o c i e t y to s o c i e t y , depending most n o t a b l y on the k i n s h i p systems t h e r e o f . 5 WARFARE and f e u d i n g have been f r e q u e n t l y confused i n the l i t e r a t u r e on the study of these two s u b j e c t s . ^ F i g h t i n g among p r i m i t i v e peoples has f r e q u e n t l y been g e n e r a l l y lumped 22 a l l together as "war". Empirically t h i s i s understandable, for even with the d i s t i n c t i o n between war and the feud that I s h a l l shortly o f f e r , there i s often a r e a l d i f f i c u l t y in. deciding; whether or not a p a r t i c u l a r form of violence should be called a feud or a war. But a n a l y t i c a l l y a clear d i s -t i n c t i o n can and should be madeV The difference between a feud and a war i s simple: a feud i s a l e g a l i n s t i t u t i o n , while war i s extra-legal. War, that i s , begins where', law ends."1"'1'' Feuding; groups are members of the same l e g a l community. They do not disagree as to what the law i s . "Certainly, i f our kinsman r e a l l y did do what you accuse him of, he deserved to be speared!" Their disagreement l i e s i n the application o f L t h e law. "But he didn't do what you accuse him of.doing, and so we won't pay the compensation you demandi'*1- The fighting;; that expresses t h i s disagreement frequently follows certain contentions governing what w i l l and what w i l l not be des-troyed, and there are means hhereby the fighting; may be brought to a close honourably on both sides. And even while the f i g h t i n g i s going on, there i s some pressure of obliga-t i o n , even i f i t s consummation i s deferred, to seek an end to the bloodshed.. Not so with wars. Groups that war with each other belong to d i f f e r e n t l e g a l communities. "Yes, our kinsman did what you accuse him of, and he couldn't have done a more praiseworthy thing! Put that i n your pipe and smoke i t ! " War may or may not be governed by conventions (e.g., the Geneva Convention) that mitigate the violence and bloodshed, 23 and there need he neither means nor ob l i g a t i o n to bring i t to an end. A c i v i l war marks a break i n a former l e g a l community: in. the former unity,, disagreements arise as to what the law i s , and matters reach such a pass that the d i s -agreement can only be se t t l e d by force, the stronger imposing 15 t h e i r w i l l on the weaker. Conceptually, the d i s t i n c t i o n between wars and feuds i s sharp and clears But the actual phenomena of s o c i a l l i f e are not so neat and clear that these concepts can be f i t t e d on them without argument or uncertainty. Extreme cases of wars and feuds can be e a s i l y distinguished. But i n between, wars and feuds tend to grade into one another, especially where small scale societies are involved,, and there w i l l he intermediate instances partaking of some of the character-i s t i c s of feuds and of some of those of wars. In such i n -stances, we might f i n d i t p r o f i t a b l e to spaak of an incom-p l e t e l y established l e g a l community, in. which there i s some degree of agreement concerning; laws,, but not complete agree-ment, and in. which there i s some pressure to seek an end to violence when i t breaks out. This sort of thing would arise where the boundaries of. the l e g a l community were not sharply defined. This, i f I may anticipate the succeeding chapters' of t h i s enquiry, was the s i t u a t i o n on the Northwest Coast. Each t r i b a l community might be considered the centre of a l e g a l community well established at the centre and fading away to nothingness at the periphery*. Take, f o r instance, the Kwakiutl. A f i g h t between the Fort Rupert people and the Nimkish a l i t t l e 24 further down the coast would he of the character of the feud rather than of war; but a f i g h t between these people and the B e l l a b e l l a or the B e l l a Coola would be war rather than feuding, though as a matter of fact some small element of l f i the l a t t e r did enter i n . And each v i l l a g e community was the centre of such a l e g a l order,, feuding with the communi-t i e s close to i t and warring; with those at a distance. Closeness was a function of two variables: geographical closeness, and the extent to which the people i n one community had r e l a t i v e s and friends in. the others The Nuer of the former Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (see section. 5 below) also afford an elegant demonstration of such a l e g a l system with indeterminate boundaries. We might, since each v i l l a g e was the centre of such.a l e g a l order, c a l l i t a "polycentric l e g a l system"; the type seems to be s u f f i c -i e n t l y common to warrant a s p e c i a l name. Or we might speak 17 of i t , as Evans-Pritchard does of the Nuer, as "acephalous". Among; the Nuer, men of the same v i l l a g e or camp would f i g h t each other with clubs, not spears, l e s t someone be k i l l e d ; boys of the same v i l l a g e , with spiked bracelets. This i n -divid u a l d u e l l i n g was distinguished by the name of dwac. Men of d i f f e r e n t v i l l a g e s but within: the same t r i b e fought each other with the spear. They did not r a i d each other's compounds for c a t t l e , and recognized that one ought to pay c a t t l e as compensation^for k i l l i n g a fellow tribesman. I n t r a t r i b a l feuds,, where compensation might be paid, the Nuer ca l l e d t e r . Between t r i b e s , no compensation could be made. Tribes raided each other for c a t t l e , but not for women. and children.. In... t h i s t h i r d sort of fighting,, c a l l e d kur, women and children ought not to be k i l l e d , nor granaries destroyed. The fourth l e v e l was war or pec, i n which men, women, children..might be captured and k i l l e d , and granaries destroyed. The people with whom the Nuer warred most were the neighbouring Dinka, and pec has been defined as "Raiding Dinka." 1 8 This concept of the l e g a l community, i f I may a n t i c i -pate some of the r e s u l t s of the following chapters, w i l l prove a s i g n i f i c a n t concept i n determining the l i m i t s of a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the hypotheses to be presented i n the next three sections.. This concept i s intended i n t h i s essay to apply pr i m a r i l y to soc i e t i e s where the feud i s the basic law-enforcement mechanism, and I want here to formulate i t i n s p e c i f i c reference to feuding groups. As such, the notion of a l e g a l community refers to the relationships between groups or between individuals as members of di f f e r e n t groups, and not to those between individuals considered i n themselves alone. Two groups may be said to be members of the same l e g a l community i f they agree concerning which actions de-serve the penal sanction of force,, i f they agree concerning the persons whose p r i v i l e g e or oblig a t i o n i t i s to apply t h i s sanction, i f they agree concerning the procedure of application, and i f , f i n a l l y , when judgement according to these common standards has been made and executed, both parties abide by the conclusion of the a f f a i r . A l e g a l community may be said to be t o t a l l y absent when there i s disagreement on a l l four points: when t h i s occurs, h o s t i l i t y -26 between, the two groups i s t o t a l war7 Clearly, however, between these two extremes there l i e s a complex continuum of behaviour,, with d i f f e r e n t s o c i e t i e s f a l l i n g at di f f e r e n t places on the continuum: we may speak of a low degree of l e g a l community between groups, or of a high degree of l e g a l community between groups. Where the degree of l e g a l com-munity i s low, inter-group h o s t i l i t y w i l l more closely r e -semble war than feuding;; where the degree of l e g a l commun-i t y i s high, inter-group h o s t i l i t y w i l l more closely resemble the feud." I t i s to t h i s l a t t e r a l t e r n a t i v e , where the degree of l e g a l community i s high, that the following hypotheses are applicable," One thing more before I conclude t h i s section. Not a l l fighting;, of course, consists of warring and feuding. And how should one consider a head-hunting;, expedition against a distant enemy—v/hich distant enemy i n p a r t i c u l a r doesn't matter—undertaken to salve one's g r i e f over the death of a r e l a t i v e by accidental drowning:?"^ We cannot r e a l l y consider i t feuding. And to c a l l i t war does seem, i n spite of the extended d e f i n i t i o n of war given above, to be stretching; the use of the term. Perhaps we should just swallow our unease, and c a l l i t war—but pri m i t i v e war, very pr i m i t i v e war. 4 THE FOCUS of t h i s enquiry i s upon the s t r u c t u r a l implica-tions of feud-indemnities. Now that preliminary problems of d e f i n i t i o n have been discussed, I w i l l devote the rest of t h i s chapter to feud-indemnities and t h e i r implications. I said above i n section two that the payment of feud-indemnities might serve to prevent feuds from widening into perpetual open f i g h t i n g , and that therefore the custom of paying wergild rendered the feud a more e f f i c i e n t means of maintaining law and order than i t might otherwise have been. But on the other hand, i t may w e l l be that the presence of wergild increases the frequency of feuding, though none o f the feuds may actually reach so serious a point as to disrupt the society: payment of wergild could end them long before that. In his discussion of s o c i a l control among the Nootka,. Drucker suggests that the absence of wergild among these people may have led to a greater willingness to " l e t bygones be bygones" and not to i n s i s t on revenge. "Both i n the north, among;, the T l i n g i t , Haida, and Tsimshian, and i n north-western C a l i f o r n i a , where the concept of wergild occurred,, i t seems to have focussed attention on i n j u r i e s and s l i g h t s , so that no one dared r i s k loss of face by l e t t i n g a wrong go 20 uncompounded or unavenged." Among the Nootka, i f violence broke out i t would blossom into a c o n f l i c t that would s p l i t the community i n two parts, for there was no way of stopping; the c o n f l i c t before i t went out of control. The Nootkans themselves recognized t h i s , and sought to keep tempers cool l e s t the heat of a quarrel exploded into violence. "The pote n t i a l danger of such situations was enough to deter many • 21 from any vi o l e n t act." 28 Thus the absence of wergild may he often correlated with r e l a t i v e infrequency of feuding; and the presence of wergild may actually lead to and encourage further feuding, though not of such i n t e n s i t y as to disrupt the society. We can set up four possible alternatives and ask what t h e i r con-sequences might be: i ) Wergild absent, feuding: infrequent. In t h i s case, i f feuding broke out, there would be a strong l i k e l i h o o d of i t reaching a point where i t disrupted the community, for there would be no way of c o n t r o l l i n g i t . But only a l i k e l i -hood, not a certainty. Not a l l feuds need completely disrupt the community; for various reasons they might possibly cease before they reached the breaking point. However, since the feuding would be infrequent, t h i s would s t i l l be a viable s o c i a l system, capable of p e r s i s t i n g over f a i r l y long; stretches of time." i i ) V/ergild absent, feuding frequent. I f the considera-tions adduced above are v a l i d , we should not expect t h i s society to l a s t very long. Feuds would reach the breaking; point and the s o c i a l and l e g a l order would be d i s r u p t e d — and there would be no way of arresting t h i s disruption. The society would quickly break apart into smaller units between which would p r e v a i l a state of war. i i i ) Wergild present, feuding infrequent. This i s quite a possible alternative. While the presence of feud-indemnities might only tend to make feuding more frequent, i t would, i f the considerations adduced above are correct, c e r t a i n l y increase the number of claims for indemnification. 2 9 In t h i s case, only threat and counter-threat, with f i n a l compromise or one side's giving, i n , would prevent the f r e -quency of feuding from increasing;. This t h i r d alternative would imply, i t seems to me, c o n f l i c t of threats rather than armed c o n f l i c t . I t might also, as we s h a l l enquire i n the next section^ imply a pattern of c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances such that before open violence was reached friends and r e l a t i v e s applied moral pressure to make the quarrelling groups com-promise the a f f a i r . But feuding; would have to be frequent enough so that threats would not be empty nor the dangers of open violence forgotten^ i v ) Wergild present, feuding frequent. This too would be a v i a b l e s o c i a l system. I f a feud grew so widespread that i t menaced the s u r v i v a l of the community, there would be present a means of ending the c o n f l i c t without leaving too many unavenged or uncompounded misdeeds. Hence a feud need never develop to the point where i t destroyed the com-munity 7 This examination i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y conclusive, but i t does suggest, I think, that the absence of wergild coupled with frequent feuding i s not a viable alternative for s o c i -eties to adopt. The underlying p r i n c i p l e , that the presence of the i n s t i t u t i o n of feud-indemnities tends to increase the frequency of feuding, seems plausible. In a c t u a l i t y , however, most soc i e t i e s possessing wergild would not f a l l into classes i i i ) and i v ) above, but rather into an intermediate class of "wergild present, feuding r e l a t i v e l y frequent"." The necessity of being able to back up one's claims with force would work to increase the frequency of feuding; c o n f l i c t s of a l l e g i -ances, such as w i l l be described i n the next section, would work i n favour of compromising disagreements and so decreasing the extent of feuding. 5 . . . these /feuding7 s o c i e t i e s are so organized into a series of groups and r e l a t i o n s h i p s , that people who are friends on one bas,is are enemies on another. Herein.lies s o c i a l cohesion, root-ed i n c o n f l i c t s between men's di f f e r e n t a l l e g i -ances'^ —Max G-luckman, Custom  and C o n f l i c t i n A f r i c a , p. 4. ., . . quarrels and c o n f l i c t s exist i n . a l l groups and cannot be wished out of existence. They must be redressed by other interests and other custom-ary l o y a l t i e s , so that the i n d i v i d u a l i s led into association with d i f f e r e n t fellows. The more his t i e s require that his opponents i n one set of re-lationships are his a l l i e s i n another, the great-er i s l i k e l y to be the peace of the feud. — I b i d . , pp. 25-6. IN THESE PASSAGES Max Gluckman enunciates a p r i n c i p l e of s o c i a l organization of great importance i n the operation of feud-systems. I t w i l l be i n t e r e s t i n g to ask what i t s i m p l i -cations are- concerning feud-indemnities." But f i r s t l e t us examine Gluckman's argument. Gluckman;.illustrates the working of c o n f l i c t i n g a l l e g -iances i n maintaining s o c i a l order by describing the p o l i t -i c a l system of the Nuer of the Sudan. The Huer were organized into t r i b e s numbering sometimes 60,000 people or more. The t r i b a l areas were separated from each other by "big r i v e r s or wide stretches of uninhabitable country". The t r i b a l areas were subdivided into d i s t r i c t s , and the d i s t r i c t s i n turn into hamlets and v i l l a g e s . There was "a close r e l a t i o n between the p o l i t i c a l organization of the Nuer and the l i e of t h e i r land and the way i n which they exploit that l a n d . " 2 2 In each t r i b e there was an " a r i s t o c r a t i c " clan composed of men claiming common p a t r i l i n e a l descent from a founding ancestor. The various d i s t r i c t s were held to be linked to-gether by the r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e i r inhabitants on the clan genealogy.. Thus, says Gluckman, "Two neighbouring d i s t r i c t s are associated through two long-dead brothers, while another three neighbouring d i s t r i c t s are associated through another set of three brothers, whose father was brother to the father of the f i r s t s e t . " 2 ^ There were also i n the t r i b a l area mem-bers of other clans which might be i n t h e i r turn i n other t r i b e s " a r i s t o c r a t i c " clans but which were not " a r i s t o c r a t i c " i m t h i s p a r t i c u l a r t r i b e ; and the converse was also true, that members of the " a r i s t o c r a t i c " clan were found also in. other t r i b e s but were not there "aristocratic"". The sub-clans of the d i s t r i c t s combined against each other for the purpose of feuding;; according to the distance of the relationships between them. Thus i f a quarrel arose between two sub-clans A and B who were, l e t us suppose, re-lated by being the descendants of two brothers, no one out-side would j o i n i n (except for complications to be mentioned l a t e r i n t h i s account). But i f the quarrel arose between A and C, who were less intimately related, B would come to the aid of A, and D and E (who were descended from brothers of C's ancestor) to the aid of 0. But the fathers of the two sets of- legendary ancestral brothers were themselves brothers'," and i f either A, B, C, D, or E became involved i n a quarrel with a yet more d i s t a n t l y related lineage-group, P, then A, B, C, D, and E put aside t h e i r differences and combined against P. When the c o n f l i c t with 3P was s e t t l e d , A, B, C, D, and E would once more divide and resume t h e i r quarrels with each other; when the c o n f l i c t between A and B, on the one side, and C, D, and E, on the other, was s e t t l e d , A and B would then resume t h e i r quarrels. We have thus a fusion of sections against larger groups, and a f i s s i o n into sections when h o s t i l i t i e s with these larger groups were over. Where the groups l i v e d far apart, and were distant i n geography as well as in . kinship, compensation was infrequent and f i g h t i n g could continue without grave danger of s o c i a l disruptionT Where the groups l i v e d more closely together, and were com-pelled by the exigencies of ecology to cooperate more f r e -quently, compensations also became more frequent. The p a t r i l i n e a l descent group was the vengeance group", upon the members of which lay the oblig a t i o n to support one of t h e i r members who was injured by a member of another clan or sub-clan. But at the same time, the members of t h i s ven-geance group were scattered out over several v i l l a g e s , even in. d i f f e r e n t t r i b e s ; and i n a given v i l l a g e there might l i v e together the members of several d i f f e r e n t clans. This scat-t e r i n g resulted i n part from marriage r u l e s , which forbade a man's marriage with a woman of his own clan; i f a man^ therefore, l e f t his l o c a l group for any reason he was apt to go to that of his wife's r e l a t i o n s , who were of another clan'. 33 There were other reasons also f o r t h i s d i s p e r s a l . But at the same time, there was a sentiment of l o c a l s o l i d a r i t y . G-luck-24 man w r i t e s , ^ This s c a t t e r i n g o f some vengeance groups means that a c o n f l i c t a r i s e s between the l o y a l t y o f c l o s e agnates / i . e . , persons r e l a t e d by p a t r i l i n e a l descent/, the t i e which above a l l demands s o l i d a r i t y , and the t i e s which l i n k a man.with h i s l o c a l .community, which he must also support by custom as w e l l as from i n t e r e s t . For though vengeance should be taken by the agnatic group, the f e l l o w - r e s i d e n t s of t h i s group m o b i l i z e i n b a t t l e behind i t . Now i f the vengeance group i s s c a t -tered i t may mean, e s p e c i a l l y i n the sm a l l e r d i s t r i c t s , t h a t the demand f o r community s o l i d a r i t y r e q u i r e s t h a t a man m o b i l i z e w i t h the enemies o f h i s agnates. And i n the opposite s i t u a t i o n such an emigrant member of the group which has k i l l e d may be l i v i n g ; anaong the avengers, and be l i a b l e to have vengeance executed upon him. I suggest . . . that h i s exposure to k i l l i n g exerts some pressure on. h i s k i n . t o t r y to compromise the a f f a i r . In a d d i t i o n , whether he remain where he i s or escape home, he i s l i k e l y to urge h i s k i n to o f f e r compensa-ti o n 1 , s i n c e he has many i n t e r e s t s i n the place where he r e s i d e s . Conversely, i f a man of the group demanding vengeance r e s i d e s among the k i l l e r s , he has an i n t e r e s t i n securing that h i s k i n accept compensation i n s t e a d of i n s i s t i n g on blood f o r blood. D i s p e r s a l of the vengeance group may le a d to a c o n f l i c t between l o c a l and agnatic l o y a l t i e s , and d i v i d e each group against i t s e l f . " D i v i s i o n s o f purpose i n the vengeance group," Gluckman notes, "are created above a l l be marriage r u l e s . " Thus among the Nuer a man should not marry, on p a i n of disease, a c c i d e n t , or death, (a) any woman of h i s own c l a n , or (b) any woman to whom r e l a t i o n s h i p can be tra c e d i n any l i n e up to s i x genera-tions"^ Together these r u l e s compelled the members o f a c l a n to spread t h e i r marriages widely, w i t h n e a r l y every other c l a n i n the l o c a l community. In marrying a woman, a man entered i n t o an important r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h her r e l a t i v e s , h i s i n -laws -. (The converse was also t r u e from the point of view o f " a woman.) A man's i n t e r e s t i n maintaining t h i s r e l a t b n s h i p ^ 4 rgave him an interest i n the p a c i f i c solution of such quarrels and grievances as arose between his own clan and his in-laws." So for the welfare of his family, and the prosperity of his children, each man i s led by his i n t e r e s t s , and compelled by custom, to seek to be on good terms with his wife's k i n . And he has, as the c h i l d of a woman from yet another group, an interest i n being on good terms with his own mother's k i n . Again, t h i s i n t e r e s t i s supported by customary r i g h t s to get help, and by the danger of suffering m y s t i c a l - r e t r i b u t i o n i f he does not conform with these customs.^ So much f o r c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances and the peace of the feud among the Nuer. Gluckman concludes: Hence the Nuer as individuals are linked i n a wide-flung web of kinship t i e s which spreads across the land; and new meshes i n t h i s web., are continually being woven with each f r u i t f u l marriage^" These webs of t i e s , cen-t r i n g on in d i v i d u a l s , unite members of di f f e r e n t ag-nat i c groups. And always l o c a l groups have common l o c a l i n t e r e s t s . And these create c o n f l i c t s of allegiances, and over a wide span.of time these c o n f l i c t s create s o c i a l cohesion and s o c i a l solidarity., What does th i s account suggest concerning the struc-t u r a l implications of feud-indemnities? At f i r s t glance we might think (as I did) that i t indicates that we should not expect feud-indemnities where allegiances do not c o n f l i c t , and we should expect feud-indemnities where allegiances do con-f l i c t . But t h i s would be an, overly hasty inference".' What Gluckman's account does point out that c o n f l i c t s i n the a l -legiances of a man to the s o c i a l groups of which he i s a member, w i l l motivate him to look for a peaceful s o l u t i o n to such inter-group disputes as he may be involved i n ; and i f feud-indemnities do exist i n a society, t h i s c o n f l i c t of allegiances w i l l lead to a greater willingness to pay and to. -' raccept indemnities rather than to resort to violence. And inT primitive societies the greatest cause of such conflicts of allegiances are marriage rules that lead to the dispersal of the vengeance group throughout several local communities^ Feud-indemnities, then, help to prevent open violence from disrupting the social bonds so established; and the import-ance of maintaining the bonds, i f feud-indemnities are cus-tomary, motivates the use of indemnities to preserve said bonds.. I f indemnities are not present, conflicting a l l e g i -ances may s t i l l exist: the difference i s that the resulting, pressure towards pacific solutions must express i t s e l f , i n a different manner. Therefore, we cannot say that the pre-sence of conflicting allegiances implies the presence of feud-indemnltiesV The other half of the proposition, that we should not expect feud-indemnities where conflicting allegiances do not exist, however, seems a more l i k e l y suggestion. Unless there were pressure to pay feud-indemnities, they would not, even i f the concept of them were known to the people involved,, be called upon to end disputes. Inter-group h o s t i l i t i e s would, indeed, approach the character of war rather than, of feuding* Conflicting allegiances are not, of course, the only conceivable sort of pressure—the neces-s i t y of economic cooperation, or the value of maintaining; trading relationships, for instance, are conceivable alterna-t i v e s — , but they would seem to be the most l i k e l y sort, es-pecially i n primitive societies; and indeed, i t i s possible " Jo construe the notion of conflicting allegiances su f f i c i e n t l y 'widely to take i n the necessity of economic cooperation or ~i the value of trade r e l a t i o n s h i p s , so that perhaps after a l l we can equate pressure towards p a c i f i c solution of disputes with pressures a r i s i n g from c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances. We may assert, then, that the absence of c o n f l i c t i n g a l -legiances implies the absence of feud-indemnities, and as a cor o l l a r y , that the presence of feud-indemnities implies the presence of c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances. We, can also i n f e r that the absence of feud-indemnities may indicate the absence of c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances, though t h e i r absence i s not neces- s a r i l y implied. Converting this into hypotheses concerning feud-indem-n i t i e s i n Northwest Coast society, we predict the presence of c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances among the northern and southern groups that have feud-indemnities, and we do not expect to f i n d feud-indemnities where there are no c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances. And. we s h a l l look to determine the presence or absence of c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances among the Kwakiutl and Nootka, f o r the reported absence of feud-indemnities among these people may possibly be due to the absence there of c o n f l i c t i n g a l -legiancesX But suppose that we do f i n d c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances among Kwakiutl and Nootka". What then? The problem with which t h i s enquiry began-was, Why did the Kwakiutl and Nootka not have feud-indemnities, while the other Northwest Coast soc i e t i e s did? I f c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances existed among Kwakiutl and Nootka, we w i l l s t i l l not have answered the .question, l e t us ask, then, how a society with, c o n f l i c t i n g _ j 37 •"allegiances,, s t i l l r e l y i n g on the feud as the ultimate sane- 1 t i o n of law, might avoid developing or having to develop the i n s t i t u t i o n of feud-indemnities." 6 THE FEUD i s the ultimate sanction and the l a s t resort f o r resolving disputes. Feud-indemnities are a way of resolving: disputes without necessarily having: to use the ultimate sanc-tion 1, or are a way of stopping the ultimate sanction before i t goes too f a r — f o r while force may be the ultimate means of resolving a dispute, i t i s not the best way, and r e l i e d upon too f r e e l y can disrupt society. But suppose that a society's customary ways of s e t t l i n g problems and quarrels provided for resolving the trouble before i t reached the feuding point. In.such a system, we should not expect either feud-indemnities (though precedents for such wergild might occur) or a developed feud-system. A f a i r l y strongly developed chieftainship which could regulate the feud i n i t s own int e r e s t might also serve to stop quarrels before the feuding; point was reached; i n th i s case, the absence of feud-indemnities could be taken to imply strong; chiefs. But not necessarily so, however. At the other end of the scale, how might a society with-out strongly developed chieftainship avoid evolving, feud-indemndties? What would prevent disputes i n such a society from reaching the feuding point and so prevent the necessity bf inventing wergild? j. Strong moral pressures to l e t bygones be bygones, such J 3 8 as we have a l r e a d y n o t e d (page 27) f o r t h e N o o t k a , m i g h t do s u c h a j o b . But I c annot see how m o r a l p r e s s u r e s a l o n e w o u l d be e f f i c i e n t enough. A f t e r a l l , one o f t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n s i s t h a t m o r a l p r e s s u r e s ( e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e f o r m o f c o n f l i c t i n g a l l e g i a n c e s ) a l s o o p e r a t e i n c l a s s i c -a l f e u d - s y s t e m s t o encourage t h e payment o f i n d e m n i t i e s . M o r a l p r e s s u r e s must be accompanied by a n o t h e r f a c t o r i f t h e y a r e t o s u c c e e d i n t h e i r j o b . T h i s o t h e r f a c t o r m i g h t be an e x t e n s i v e degree o f i n d i -v i d u a l m o b i l i t y , s u c h t h a t i f an i n d i v i d u a l was n o t g e t t i n g  a l o n g v e r y w e l l i n t h e l o c a l g r o u p w i t h w h i c h he was s t a y i n g " , he c o u l d and w o u l d s i m p l y d e p a r t b e f o r e s e r i o u s q u a r r e l i n g  b r o k e o u t , and he m i g h t s t a y away e i t h e r p e r m a n e n t l y o r ' m e r e l y  u n t i l t h e t r o u b l e had b l o w n o v e r and been f o r g o t t e n . M o r a l p r e s s u r e s w o u l d s e r v e i n t h i s i n s t a n c e t o p u s h t h e i n d i v i d u a l o u t b e f o r e more d r a s t i c measures were n e e d e d . I n s o c i e t i e s w i t h o u t s t r o n g c h i e f t a i n s h i p s (The N o o t k a and K w a k i u t l , i f I may a n t i c i p a t e s u c c e e d i n g c h a p t e r s , were s o c i e t i e s o f t h i s s o r t . ) , s u c h i n d i v i d u a l g e o g r a p h i c m o b i l i t y m i g h t w e l l be t h e r e a s o n why f e u d - i n d e m n i t i e s w o u l d n o t d e v e l o p and t h e i r f e u d - s y s t e m s r e m a i n n a s c e n t . A t any r a t e , t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n i s t h e c e n t r a l t h e s i s o f t h i s e n q u i r y , and i f i t can be s u b s t a n t i a t e d i t w i l l , I t h i n k , e x p l a i n q u i t e a d e q u a t e l y why t h e N o o t k a and K w a k i u t l d i d n o t have f e u d - i n d e m n i t i e s , e s p e c i a l l y i f t h e s e s o c i e t i e s p r e s e n t t h e f e a t u r e o f c o n f l i c t i n g a l l e g i a n c e s ^ One o f t h e most i m p o r t a n t e l e m e n t s i n t h i s h y p o t h e s i s L r i s the d e s i g n a t i o n of the m o b i l i t y i n v o l v e d as i n d i v i d u a l . ^ The i n d i v i d u a l i s not forced to st a y w i t h one s o c i a l group a l l the days of h i s l i f e . I t does not matter whether the s o c i a l group be nomadic o r sedentary or, as among the North-west Coast peoples, semi-nomadic: i f the i n d i v i d u a l be ob-l i g e d to remain w i t h t h i s group most of the time, the group w i l l have to evolve b e t t e r techniques of s o c i a l c o n t r o l than i t would otherwise have t o . We may rephrase t h i s hypothesis as f o l l o w s : (a) I f the s o c i e t y permits and perhaps even encourages i n d i v i d u a l m o b i l i t y , so tha t an i n d i v i d u a l does not have to remain a l l or most of h i s l i f e w i t h one s o c i a l group, the s o c i e t y w i l l have no need to invent feud-indemnities or to develop the feud beyond the nascent l e v e l , f o r when s i t u a t i o n s grow s u f f i c i e n t l y tense that a f l a r e - u p i s imminent, moral pressures w i l l l e a d to one of the p r i n c i p a l s moving e i t h e r permanently or t e m p o r a r i l y to another community. (b) I f such i n d i v i d u a l geographic m o b i l i t y does not e x i s t , moral pressures w i l l not be enough to r e s o l v e t e n s i o n s i t u a t i o n s , and the s o c i e t y w i l l evolve a c l a s s i c feud-system, w i t h feud-indemnities. (c) And we may f i n d that t h i s mechanism i s not an e i t h e r - o r business, but tha t the degree of i n d i v i d u a l geo-graphic.; m o b i l i t y i n a given s o c i e t y w i l l be i n v e r s e l y c o r r e l -ated w i t h the degree o f development of the feud-system i n . t h a t society." 40 7 THIS CHAPTER has put forward a series of notions concerning; feud-indemnities and t h e i r implications for the l e g a l and p o l i t i c a l structure of communities. Before resuming the descriptive part of t h i s enquiry, i t would be a good idea to bring a l l these propositions together and set them down, side by side one another for f i n a l inspection. The f i r s t set of notions concerned types of feud-systemsT I distinguished three types: nascent, c l a s s i c a l , and decadent. The c l a s s i c a l feud-system possesses feud-indemnities, but lacks chieftains who could regulate the r i g h t of private vengeance. The decadent feud-system, which i s the usual-form that the feud takes when i t i s on the way to being super-seded by a state-system of l e g a l enforcement, i s the c l a s s i c -a l system with the addition of such chiefs or kings'. The nascent feud-system, as the name implies, i s an undeveloped feud-system, l i k e a c l a s s i c a l system without feud-indemnities7 The second set of notions concerned the possible effects of feud-indemnities of, on the one hand, increasing the ef-fi c i e n c y of the feud as a method of l e g a l enforcement by providing a means whereby feuds may be stopped before they go so far as to disrupt the society; and of, on the other hand, increasing the actual frequency of feuds by providing a motivation for feuding, i . e . , feuding i n order to get i n -demnities. Putting;;these two pr i n c i p l e s together y i e l d s the suggestions that s o c i e t i e s without feud-indemnities would be either s o c i e t i e s where feuding was infrequent or else s o c i -41 eties with very short l i f e - s p a n s ; and that societies with feud-indemnities would be societies with t e l a t i v e l y frequent feuding. The t h i r d set of notions concerned the effects of pat-terns of c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances i n motivating people to pay and to accept feud-indemnities rather than l e t violence be-come so.eially disruptive. Such c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances would be created most often, where vengeance group and l o c a l group do not coincide. Without such conflicting; allegiances, intergroup h o s t i l i t i e s would approach warfare rather than feuding;. In societies with feud-indemnities,, c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances would counteract the tendency of feud-indemni-t i e s to promote feuding. The fourth set of notions concerned feud-systems without feud-indemnities. In such s o c i e t i e s , moral pressures, r e i n -forced by the pressure of c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances, would ( i f the society i s to be viable) act to p3gr dowm the resort to violence i n revenge f o r others' misdeeds. But moral pres-sures would not be enough; they require to be buttressed by something elset This something else i s , I suggested, i n d i v i d u a l geo-graphic, mobility, such that an i n d i v i d u a l i n trouble at home could leave his community either temporarily or permanently and go v i s i t i n g friends or r e l a t i v e s u n t i l the trouble i n i question had blown over. I f t h i s i s so, s o c i e t i e s without feud-indemnities, i . e . , with nascent feud-systems, should have a good deal more i n d i v i d u a l inter-group mobility than 'societies with feud-indemnities—for the presence of t h i s 42 great inter-group mobility, according to t h i s hypothesis, obviates the necessity of developing; feud-indemnities. This hypothesis, we should note, i s intended to apply under the following conditions: (a) to societies where the feud i s the chief i n s t i t u t i o n f or enforcing laws, (b) to s o c i a l groups where the degree of l e g a l community between the various groups i s high., and (c) to soc i e t i e s already posses-sing the feature of c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances, for the absence of t h i s l a t t e r i s s u f f i c i e n t to explain the absence of feud-indemnities. Under these conditions we should expect, i f : the hypothesis i s correct, to f i n d a high, degree of i n d i v i d u a l geographic, inter-group mobility i n soc i e t i e s without feud-indemnities^,; and a low degree of such mobility i n societies with feud-indemnities; and we should not f i n d a high degree of i n d i v i d u a l geographic mobility i n a society, with feud-indemnities, nor a low degree of i n d i v i d u a l geographic mobil-i t y i n a society without feud-indenmities'^ In the following chapters of t h i s enquiry, we s h a l l put the hypothesis to the test by seeing i f the predicted phen-omena occurred among the Northwest Coast Indians'." The log i c : underlying t h i s method of. v e r i f i c a t i o n i s worth examining. The hypothesis asserts a linkage between high geographic mobility and feud-indemnities such that where one occurs, the other w i l l not: (a) without feud-indemnities to stop feuding before i t goes too f a r and disrupts the s o c i -ety, a society which feuds frequently w i l l not l a s t long, and hence feuding so c i e t i e s without feud-indemnities w i l l be 43 reither short-lined and probably in. the process of disruption:. - 1 when observed, or, i f apparently vi a b l e , feud only i n f r e -quently; (b) the presence of feud-indemnities, while pro-viding a method for stopping feuds before they disrupt the society, also provide a further motivation for feuding and w i l l thereby tend to favour an increase i n the amount of feuding, with the r e s u l t that i n s o c i e t i e s with feud-indem-n i t i e s feuding w i l l be r e l a t i v e l y frequent; (,c.) i n s o c i e t i e s with high i n d i v i d u a l geographic mobility, people who do not get along i n the group they are l i v i n g with, w i l l move to another group before tension builds up to the point of v i o -lence and begins a feud, and thus a high degree of i n d i v i d u a l geographic mobility w i l l keep feuding infrequent and remove the necessity, i f the society i s to survive, of inventing or adopting feud-indemnities. The degree of mobility i s here conceived as an essential causal factor i n the develop-ment of feud-indemnities, and feud-indemnities, therefore, as dependent on the degree of mobility. A l l t h i s gives us the following proposition: I f these hypothetical linkages do i n fact occur, then we observe that where the degree of i n d i -v i d u a l geographic, mobility i s high, feud-indemnities do not exist,, and where the mobility i s low, feud-indemnities e x i s t . This proposition i s of the form " I f H, themP," and v e r i -f i c a t i o n of i t takes the form of the argument: I f H, then P. P. Therefore H. -But t h i s argument i s l o g i c a l l y i n v a l i d . I t i s e n t i r e l y pos-sible that the predicted occurrences might be due to the j 44 ,~7 —| o p e r a t i o n o f v a r i a b l e s completely ignored by the premisses to be v e r i f i e d . On the other hand, such success at p r e d i c t i o n does provide good reason f o r c o n t i n u i n g to hold and to use the hypothesis u n t i l i t i s proven f a l s e ; i t remains u s e f u l i n g u iding us towards new d i s c o v e r i e s . We may say t h a t even i f s u c c e s s f u l v e r i f i c a t i o n does not prove the h y p o t h e s i s , i t s t i l l confirms i t . But suppose that the p r e d i c t i o n turns out to be false." We then get the f o l l o w i n g argument form: I f H, then P. P i s not the case. Therefore H i s not the case." This i s a p e r f e c t l y v a l i d argument. One instance o f an event contrary to p r e d i c t i o n i s s u f f i c i e n t to f a l s i f y the hypo-t h e s i s and to r e q u i r e that i t be changed. Though t h i s hypothesis can never be proven, but at best only confirmed, no matter how many p o s i t i v e instances occur, i t may be de-c i s i v e l y d i s pro ven. by the occurrence o f a s i n g l e negative i n s t a n c e . ^ 45 I I THE NOOTKA 1 I BEG-IN t h i s account of Northwest Coast p o l i t i c a l and l e g a l systems w i t h a d e s c r i p t i o n of tha t o f the Nootka hecause Drucker, to whom I have already r e f e r r e d i n : t h e preceding chapter,; i n h i s account o f the Northern and C e n t r a l Nootkani t r i b e s s p e l l s out some of the consequences o f the presence or absence o f w e r g i l d . I t would be appropriate, t h e r e f o r e , i t seems to me, to begin w i t h the Nootka and, i n the f o l l o w -i n g chapter, t h e i r cousins the K w a k i u t l ^ The Nootka may be roughly d i v i d e d i n t o three s e c t i o n s : Northern, C e n t r a l , and Southern. The Southern Nootkans were set o f f from the other two by having; a somewhat gr e a t e r d i a -l e c t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e between themselves and the other Nootka than there was between the Northern and C e n t r a l d i v i s i o n s . The Southern Nootkans included the N i t i n a t s and, across Juan de Fuca S t r a i t on Cape F l a t t e r y , the Makali. The Makah were descended from the N i t i n a t ' . 1 The Northern Nootkans were d i s t i n g u i s h e d by having developed confederacies including; s e v e r a l t r i b a l groups. ^  And the C e n t r a l Nootkans gust l a y in.1 between^ The b a s i c s o c i a l u n i t among the Nootka, as among, the other n a t i o n s of the Northwest Coast, was the k i n group headed by a c h i e f who was ( i d e a l l y ) the most g e n e a l o g i c a l l y / "senior person o f the group, owning; t e r r i t o r i a l r i g h t s , one ^or more houses, and var i o u s other p r i v i l e g e s . " This group 46 bore a name which-, among the Nootka, was usually that of t h e i r most important f i s h i n g s t a t i o n or, sometimes, that of a chief; and was t r a d i t i o n a l l y believed to descend from a common.;ancestor. Says Drucker, "I sometimes r e f e r to these l o c a l groups as lineages, for the Indians themselves con-sidered them to be based on:kinship, although the precise r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e i r members i s sometimes d i f f i c u l t or next to impossible to unravel..1' As w i l l be seen from a discussion of the Nootka rules on inheritance, membership i n the group was claimed by v i r t u e of any kin:or a f f i n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p whatsoever, he i t throughifather, wife, mother, or husbandV That i s to say, the k i n group was b i l a t e r a l l y rather than, u n i -l i n e a l l y organized: i t would therefore perhaps be more accur-ate to describe i t as an extended family rather than as a lineage. These l o c a l groups were next gathered together into "tribes",, or groups distinguished by the possession of a common winter v i l l a g e , fixed ranking for t h e i r assembled, chiefs, and usually a name. Each extended family owned one or more great houses i n the v i l l a g e where i t wintered].. Among the Central and Southern Nootkans, the t r i b e was the largest p o l i t i c a l u n i t . The t r i b e s of the Northern Nootkans were mostly organized into larger groups that Drucker terms "confederacies".^ These were distinguished by possession of a common summer village,, seriation. of t h e i r chiefs, and a name, usually that of one of the extended family groups. These confedera-ls J 4 7 cles matched, by and large, major geographical d i v i s i o n s : ~] the Kyuquot confederacy included a l l the t r i b e s of Kyuquot Sound.; the Moachat confederacy, a l l the t r i b e s of Nootka Sound except those along Muchalat Arm. These confederacies were units f o r war as we l l as peace, and intraconfederacy wars were unknown except for one or two distant t r a d i t i o n s ^ Each l o c a l group was normally represented by at least one permanent house i n the t r i b a l and confedera-cy v i l l a g e s . Each house had four chiefs, more often than not brothers or close paternal k i n , one of whom l i v e d ini. each corner. The chief of highest rank always resided in. the rear right-hand corner (right was reck-oned facing the door), the next highest i n the rear l e f t 7 the t h i r d i n the front l e f t , and fourth to the r i g h t of the door. Although, the f i r s t chief.'was the r e a l owner of the house the others h e r e d i t a r i l y owned the r i g h t to t h e i r respective places. Other places were not owned: lower-rank people and commoners a f f i l i a t e d withi the group l i v e d where they pleased between the corner places. Such: people were termed c o l l e c t i v e l y "maiyus-tsa," perhaps best translated by the word "tenants." A numerous l o c a l group might have two or even.more houses at the winter and summer places, eachiwith i t s chiefs and tenants, as above." O r d i n a r i l y the whole local], group acted i n concert on ceremonial occasions, though sometimes a single house, when there were more thani ane from the same place, gave a feast or potlatch; alone".'-''' The mentions of tenants brings up another s t r i k i n g fea-ture of Nootkan society, a feature which i t shared with the Southern Kwakiutl, namely, the great degree of i n d i v i d u a l mobility. Those persons who held ri g h t s to seats i n the house, i.e.,, chiefs and t h e i r immediate f a m i l i e s , would tend to. stay most of t h e i r time' i n the house i n which they had r i g h t s . Not completely,, of course—they would also do a good deal of v i s i t i n g ; i n connection-; withi. potlatches and other ceremonials"* But commoners enjoyed a sort of perpet-ual;-transience. They were but loosely attached, to. any p a r t i c u l a r house group, and were continually, moving inV J 'staying; for a short while,, then moving, out. This i s closely'connected with attitudes towards k i n s -folk.' In theory,, one had re l a t i o n s only with one's k i n — hut in. f a c t , the f l i m s i e s t possible, even f i c t i o n a l , kinship relationships were enough to j u s t i f y any re l a t i o n s one might 7 care to have. Rules of inheritance were as informal as the population! 8 was mobile." Drucker's description makes t h i s p e r f e ctly clear: I f the procedure of talcing an inheritance involved considerable formality, the l i n e of descent of r i g h t s was si n g u l a r l y unencumbered by rules. A given p r i v i -lege could be inherited by the eldest son, or shared by several c h i l d r e n ] ( a l l having the r i g h t to use i t ) ; i t could be given to a daughter u n t i l : her marriage and then bestowed on her brother; i t could be given to a son-in-law, who might, as the giver s p e c i f i e d , have sole r i g h t to i t or share i t with his wife's brother. . . . Ordin-a r i l y , a daughter would keep (or a son-in-law be given); only such r i g h t s as were transportable (names, songs^ dances, e t c * ) , and not such things as seats and f i s h i n g r i g h t s , unless her husband a f f i l i a t e d himself with her group. I t sometimes happened, however, and in . recent times with the decrease i n population 1, has become more common, that a woman might r e t a i n even such unportables. I f a woman has no brothers her eldest c h i l d w i l l i n h e r i t his father's rank and rights' ( i f as high or higher than, the mother's), and the next w i l l be 'put i n hi s mother's p l a c e " — t a k i n g her seat and a l l other r i g h t s . I f the. mother were of higher rank, the eldest took her r i g h t s . I f a man had no childr e n of his own, he might put a brother's or s i s t e r ' s c h i l d i n his own place. I f he had choice, he would l i k e l y take one who otherwise would not have so many r i g h t s ^ Marriage was prohibited only between s i b l i n g s , parents and children, and parents-in-law and children-in-law." Mar-riage between f i r s t or second cousins was generally avoided, but aroused no feelings of horror: the Chickleset of Chec-les e t Bay formerly often married f i r s t cousins, but while fchis was described as "funny", the Chickleset were s t i l l rregarded as "good high-class people" who gave l o t s of pot-latches. There was also a sentiment that kinship between two families gave one "the r i g h t to ask for the g i r l " of Q ' the other. Polygyny, the l e v i r a t e , and the sororate also occurred. In marriage,, there was the concern for rank usual i n a l l the Northwest Coast peoples. Chiefs would marry women of c h i e f l y rank. Among the Nootka, commoners might marry slaves, but the children of such unions had "the s o r r i e s t of h e r i -tages, the 'name of slave'. ""^ There were three ranks: nobles, commoners, and slaves. Each of the freeborn had his or her own d i s t i n c t ranking (though perhaps less concern f o r the exact p o s i t i o n was found among commoners than among nobles) determined by gene-a l o g i c a l distance from the head chief of the local.group. 2 EACH OF the basic:units o f Nootkan society, the "lineage", was headed by a chief who was, at l e a s t i n theory, and usual-l y i n practice, the genealogically most senior person of the group, as traced by p a t r i l i n e a l primogeniture from the legend-ary founding ancestor. By v i r t u e of t h i s p o s i t i o n he inher-i t e d c e r t a i n r i g h t s and duties, and i t was by v i r t u e of t h i s inheritance that he enjoyed such authority as he had. As head of the property-owning "lineage", the chief was the custodian, steward, or manager, as i t were, of the prop-erty of the group. A l l s i t e s at the v i l l a g e o£: the lineage [Were under his authority, and others might erect houses there.j only with his permission. " S i m i l a r l y , the s i t e s of the t r i b a l and confederacy v i l l a g e s were private property, as were the f i s h i n g places i n the r i v e r s and the sea, and hunting and gathering l o c a l e s . " 1 1 Indeed, a l l the t e r r i -tory of the Nootka, barring some remote inland areas, was regarded as the property of the chiefs. The conditions under which a group member was per-mitted to exploit a chief's t e r r i t o r y expressed public acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the ownership! They were as follows: No one might f i s h on any important f i s h i n g ground u n t i l the owner formally opened the sea-son either by ordering some men to go out to procure the f i r s t catch or the f i r s t two catches f o r him, or by c a l -l i n g on a l l to accompany him on the f i r s t expedition; of^ the season. After t h i s , men could go when they pleased. Sometime during the season, or afterward when the prod-uct had been dried, the chief sent men to c o l l e c t " t r i b -ute" (o»umas) for him. This was nothing more or less than a tax exacted i n kind f o r the use of his domain. No d e f i n i t e amount was s p e c i f i e d : i t was l e f t to each man to give what he could. Informants say, "The f i s h e r -men gave a l l they could spare. They didn't mind giving, for they knew the chief would give a feast with his t r i -bute." The foodstuff collected i n t h i s fashion was a l -ways used to give a great feast, at which the giver an-nounced i t had been obtained as t r i b u t e , and explained his hereditary r i g h t to demand tr i b u t e from that place. He i n v a r i a b l y concluded by requesting, the people to r e -member that the place belonged to him, "to take care of i t f o r him," though they might use i t as they wished aft e r the formal seasonal opening. The r i g h t to exact t h i s tax demonstrates very neatly the r e l a t i o n s h i p be-tween c h i e f l y status and property ownership. Each chief collected t h i s t r i b u t e from whatever f i s h i n g grounds he owned, r i v e r , i n l e t , or f i s h i n g banks.-1-2 A chief s i m i l a r l y owned the berrying grounds, and had r i g h t s to the f i r s t f r u i t s thereof. He did not exact t r i b u t e from hunters, although he owned the hunting grounds, though he could,, i f he had a s p e c i a l reason for giving a feast, ask the hunter for the game or send him out to hunt. He also had salvage rights to anything: cast d e r e l i c t upon the shores be-longing to the lineage. 51 The Hbotkan chief also enjoyed several ceremonial p r i v i -leges. These consisted of "the r i g h t to give certain r i t u a l s or to perform a certain act i n them, the ownership of dances and songs, and the r i t u a l names that went with each p r i v i l e g e of any s o r t . " 1 ^ The commoners were therefore dependent on t h e i r chiefs for the necessities of l i f e , giving i n return t h e i r services. But the chiefs depended no less on the people. Drucker 1^ writes: I t was commonly recognized that the i n d i v i d u a l chief's a b i l i t y to "keep up h i s name," that i s , to l i v e up to the reputation of his forebears in. potlatching; and feast-giving depended on the people (middle class and commoners) l i v i n g i n his house. "That i s the way with: a chief," explained an informant. " I f his 'tenants 1 are good, helping him l o t s /working for him, giving him wealth/, then he w i l l get a good name, he can do much / i . e . , potlatching/. I f they are no good or don't care f o r him, he can do nothing." In return for t h e i r contributions, the chief took t h e i r children i n i h i s Shamans' Dances to name them (giving them t h e i r own; hereditary names, or some of his own), he assisted them in:, marriage and other matters, often "lending" h i s own p r i v i l e g e s for them to use. This dependence of the chiefs on the people comes out also i n connection with the residence patterns and the great i n d i -v i d u a l mobility of the ITootka." These have already been b r i e f l y mentioned, but i t w i l l be appropriate to enlarge on them further." While residence was nominally p a t r i l o c a l , there was no f i x e d r u l e . Chiefs tended to stay most of the time with the lineage group i n which they owned property, either the mat-ernal or paternal l i n e , depending from which side the proper-ty came. Commoners or lower-rank people f e l l into two classes: those who l i v e d i n the corners of the house with some chief" t o whom they were usually, though not always, f a i r l y c losely related; and those who l i v e d along the sides of the house, and were most usually called "tenants" (maiyastsa). Then i n a very important passage, Drucker 1^ goes on to describe the mobility of the various classes of people, and i t s impact upon the chiefs: The mamutswiniiim /I.e.,, those who l i v e d i n the house corners/ tended to be more d e f i n i t e l y associated with t h e i r chiefs than were the ordinary "tenants".' Their o r i g i n a l association, of course, with a p a r t i c u l a r chief was based on choice, as v/ell as kinship, rather than on any arbitrary) r u l e . Often they were given minor p r i v i l e g e s i n an e f f o r t to bind them more surely to t h e i r chiefs. The "tenants" proper were f o r the most part perpetual transients. A man might spend a year or two i n h i s mother's house, the next i n his wife's father's, then l i v e with his father's mother's group, and l a t e r go to l i v e awhile with his son-in-law. One receives the impression that there was a continual stream of people, mostly of low rank, pouring in. and out of the houses. As one informant put i t , when t r y i n g to name the people l i v i n g i n h i s father's house during, his own boyhood, "The people who l i v e d i n the houses used to move i n and out a l l the time. After a man had stayed with one chief awhile, f i s h i n g and working for him, he would decide he had helped that chief enough, and would move to the house of another chief to whom he was related. I f a man stayed too long i n one house, his other r e l a t i v e s became jea-lous. They would think he didn't care for them any more." With whatever group a man happened to be livi n g " , he i d e n t i f i e d himself completely. For the time being, he centred a l l his i n t e r e s t s and l o y a l t i e s i n that group, and participated i n a l l i t s a c t i v i t i e s . He tended the chief's f i s h traps, contributed food and property f o r feasts and potlatches, danced and enjoyed himself at the f e s t i v i t i e s . Only r a r e l y were c o n f l i c t s aroused by t h i s temporary sublimation of other bonds, for he was r e a l l y a member of the group through kinship. I f he had not been related one way or another he would not have l i v e d there at a l l . . Were his housemates un-congenial he would not stay." Prom a chief's point of view, t h i s migratory r e s i -dence habit was f a r from advantageous. A l l h i s cherished r i g h t s would be of l i t t l e use to him i f he could not muster enough manpower to exploit them. The f i s h traps L from which he derived not only food for feasts but h i s ' 52 very sustenance required many hands to erect and tend. L i t t l e good the sole ownership of a stranded whale would do him were i t not for many strong arms to cut the blub-ber and strong backs to carry i t . Most of. h i s ceremon-i a l prerogatives required many singers and dancers to be properly used. So he was in. every way dependent on hi s tenants. Every chief recognized t h i s ; i t was taught him from childhood. His problem was, therefore, to at-t r a c t lower-rank people to his house, and to bind them to him as much as possible. This he did by good t r e a t -ment, generosity (giving many feasts and potlatches), naming t h e i r children, etc. A family noted as good workers, lucky and s k i l l f u l hunters, or clever c r a f t s -men would be courted to the extent of giving them econ-omic:: and ceremonial r i g h t s , to entice them to associate themselves more permanently to his house. Even lazy no-accounts were not discouraged from residence; t h e i r close kindred might f e e l hurt and move out too. Should one family d e f i n i t e l y sever t h e i r connections with one group, others would welcome them, no matter what t h e i r reputation had been.' This passage indicates the nature of Nootkan i n d i v i d u a l geo-graphic mobility very c l e a r l y . I t shows the checks on c h i e f l y power. I t shows e x p l i c i t l y also that people who did not get along:;;with one group would shortly leave for another. And i t also indicates p o s i t i v e moral pressure not to stay too long with one group, l e s t one's r e l a t i v e s i n other groups f e e l slighted. For these reasons, I have quoted t h i s passage i n f u l l despite i t s length." Even with the chiefs, v i s i t s might be quite long. One Ehetisat chief on one occasion spent a v i s i t of f i v e years with r e l a t i v e s at Kyuquot, and on another occasion spent a 16 v i s i t of two years there. 3 , WE COME now to the l e g a l system of the Nootka. I t i s worthwhile mentioning that as Drucker gathered h i s accounts of l i f e among the oldtime Nootka, he was impressed 54 -by the r e l a t i v e r a r i t y of actual violence and discord. As ^ he expresses i t : " ^ For each person who found himself writhing on a dilem-ma's horns, there were many individuals of whom inform-ants said, "Oh, there's no 'story' about hijd. He was a nice man.; everybody /I.e., his tribesmen/ 7 l i k e d him'. He never had a big trouble as long as he l i v e d . " Violence was disapproved of. I f f i g h t i n g broke out, bystand-ers would intervene to separate the combatants. After a f i g h t , a man's r e l a t i v e s would attempt to calm him and to cool his temper, advising him to forget the a f f a i r , and not to degrade his name and the reputation of his family by fighting;, "This l a s t b i t — t h a t one chould not answer a person.1 seeking a quarrel, and should even l e t a blow pass unreturned—was a well-recognized p r i n c i p l e i n the art of 1 8 getting along.with other people." Many people, apparently, practiced t h i s d i f f i c u l t counsel." The p r i n c i p a l sources of c o n f l i c t seem to have been 1°) sexual jealousy and witchcraft. Witchcraft i t s e l f would be used by someone as a form of taking revenge for other quarrels. Murder, that i s , murder by outright violence rather than by witchcraft, either for gain, revenge, or solution!to personal antagonisms, was uncommon. Stealing on from a fellow tribesman was also very unusual. I should pi l i k e next to quote from Drucker his account of the Nootka chief mgqwina; t h i s man was d i s t i n c t l y unusual, and even h i s fellows considered him "crazy". The account i s revealing: Since the termination of the i n t e r t r i b a l wars i n the 1870's, there have been remarkably few k i l l i n g s among the Nootkans—informants can r e c a l l only seven or eight since that time. Of those, three were wanton slayings commit-ted by one i n d i v i d u a l who, though not d e f i n i t e l y abnor- J 55 mal, was a n t i s o c i a l , and considered as such by his con-temporaries. mo*qwina was f i r s t chief of both the Ehetisat and the Moachat. His father was the Ehetisat chief, his mother, elder s i s t e r of the Moachat chief. When his mother's brother died without d i r e c t heirs (he was the clwuc "killed by the Muchalat war c h i e f ) , moqwina obtained his dual chieftainship. Having thus tremendous prestige and authority, and apparently a s a d i s t i c tendency, he .became a tyrant and a b u l l y . No one would stand against him because of h i s rank. He committed three b r u t a l mur-ders and many malicious acts. F i n a l l y public sentiment at Ehetisat began-to r i s e against him. Almost a l l the people moved out of his house; he could scarcely get men to paddle for him when he went anywhere. One or two of the stronger chiefs stood out before t h e i r houses and p u b l i c l y upbraided him. Arnold man whom moqwina ca l l e d "grandfather" stood up during a feast, saying to him, "My grandson, I want you to t e l l me what you^ire doing; This i s the t h i r d time you have k i l l e d a person. No chief has ever done such things before. I t i s bad; you w i l l never r a i s e your children i f you do that way." mo"qwina ceased going to feasts and potlatches. At l a s t a f t e r a p a r t i c u l a r l y malicious act (smashing up some boards a man had spent several weeks making), a v i c t i m rebelled, vowing to k i l l the tyrant. Only with great d i f f i c u l t y was he dissuaded from t h i s act of lese maj-esty, moqwina became frightened and moved to Nootka. He never returned to l i v e at Ehetisat (though he did give some potlatches there long a f t e r ) . . . . This resume of a long biography reveals a number of things concerning s o c i a l control. F i r s t of a l l there was no formal machinery to punish wrongdoers. People did. not know quite what to do about the s i t u a t i o n . They talked against moqwina and refused to cooperate with him, but his rank gave him a certain immunity from physical harm. To the advice and pleas of his elders he turned a deaf ear. F i n a l l y the resentment became so obvious and unpleasant that thick-skinned as he was he had to leave.. Informants do not know what would have happened to a man of lesser rank who behaved l i k e m6"qwina; none ever did. Feud-indemnities did not exist among the Nootka. There i s no mention, even, of peace-offerings made i n cases where a person was injured. (The peace-offering was found among,, other Northwest Coast peoples that did not have feud-indem-n i t i e s properly so c a l l e d , as the following chapters w i l l , describe.) 1 4 THE LEGAL SYSTEM of the Nootka was very undeveloped, and t h e i r feud-system very nascent; t h i s , at l e a s t , i s what the above data indicate. Two factors seem to have been,responr-s i b l e f or t h i s : the strength of m^ral controls such as gos-si p and remonstrance and of moral sanctions such as shame, r i d i c u l e , and withdrawal of s o c i a l support; and the exceed-in g l y high degree of i n d i v i d u a l geographic m o b i l i t y , permit-t i n g an i n d i v i d u a l to leave a group with which he could not get along.before open violence and the feuding point were reached* The threat of s o c i a l d i s r u p t i o n : i f personal quar-r e l s were allowed to spread and involve families seems also to have buttressed! moral pressures. We have i t e x p l i c i t l y stated by Drucker that the Noot-kans themselves recognized that i f v i o l e n t c o n f l i c t once got started there was no means of ending i t short of exterminar-tionuof one side, and that t h i s danger motivated them to keep the peace.^ In t h i s , we can r e a d i l y see how the ab-sence of feud-indemnities could be a contributing factor i n lowering the frequency of feuding; i n a society. Another hypothesis put forward i n the preceding chap-ter was that a s o c i a l set-up which favoured the creation:of c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances would by so ding create moral pres-sures towards compromise and p a c i f i c a t i o n . The Nootka s o c i a l order was s u f f i c i e n t l y f l u i d to set up c o n f l i c t i n g a l l e g i -ances, even though a man's allegiance was supposed to be given 57 "to the group with which he was residing, even i f h i s r e s i -dence was but temporary. That c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances did e x i s t , and that they had some of the anticipated effect i s shown by the following short items /V7ar7 produced v i o l e n t s t r a i n s on individuals who were torn between two l o y a l t i e s . . . . Om the l e v e l of strategy rather than t a c t i c s was such a practice as that of leaving families or groups of the enemy unmolested, i f i t were known that they were in c l i n e d to be f r i e n d l y to the attackers (because, for example, of close k i n s h i p ) . I t was hoped that t h i s would cause i n t e r n a l dissension among the enemy, and might lead them to abandon t h e i r war projects. War created many d i f f i c u l t s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s , aside from the discomforting knowledge that an attack was im-pending, A single l o c a l group or t r i b e contained at any time women from and individuals closely related to the various neighbouring groups, so that many people were torn between two sets of l o y a l t i e s . Women tended to: favour t h e i r blood k i n , rather than t h e i r husbands and in-laws at these times, and thus i t was that plans were often betrayed, and information was given to attackers. Some mem wavered i n the balance for a long time. These comments are made i n a description of the Nootka war-complex, but since personal c o n f l i c t s and desires for revenge could lead to fighting;; that could i n turn develop quickly into a f u l l - s c a l e war rather than a feud, the comments are s t i l l relevant. Nootka wars seem to have been fought primarily f o r econ-omic reasons, or to have been undertaken following an import-ant death i n a group "not only that the dead should be aceom-25 panied, but that other people should mourn as w e l l . " Re-venge would constitute an ever-convenient excuse with which to give a cloak of l e g a l i t y to such an enterprise. S t i l l , Nootka wars were wars rather than feuds, and were d i s t i n c t l y extra-legal i n character. 58 The data are clear, also, concerning the way i n whichi the great degree of i n d i v i d u a l geographic mobility helped to minimize s o c i a l c o n f l i c t s and to keep the l e g a l system of the Nootka i n i t s very undeveloped condition. 5 WHAT WAS true of the Northern and Central Nootka was not, however, true of the Makah of Cape F l a t t e r y . The l e g a l system of the Nootkan-speaking group resembled that of t h e i r Salishan-speaking neighbours. Swan gives the following ac-count: D In cases of t h e f t , adultery, or murder, an oppor-tu n i t y i s always offered to compromise the a f f a i r by/ r e s t i t u t i o n of the s t o l e n property; and by the payment of a c e r t a i n amount of blankets, guns, or canoes for the other offeno:es; the amount of such payment being decided by the friends of the p l a i n t i f f i n the case. I f no such compromise i s made, the aggrieved party w i l l take his revenge either on the person who has committed the offence, or on.any of his r e l a t i v e s ; t h i s revenge w i l l be s a t i s f i e d by breaking up a valuable canoe, tak-ing f o r c i b l e possession of any blankets or guns that may be had; or, i f the offence consists i n murder, by-shooting or stabbing the offender or his nearest r e l a -t i v e . The threat of violence seems also to have worked. There was, for instance,, a public nuisance: he was p u b l i c l y shamed and warned that i f he didn't mend his ways more v i o l e n t sanctions would be applied—he mended his ways. 2^ I t i s , however, d i f f i c u l t to evaluate t h i s information because of the lack of essential data. Individual geograph-i c mobility i s not mentioned at a l l — b u t i t would be hazard-ous to conclude that i t did not therefore e x i s t . Marriage practices seem to have been s i m i l a r to those of the Makah's S alish:. neighbours. One was not supposed to marry blood k i n , unless the connection was "very remote"; Swan could f i n d no instances of marriage with a r e l a t i v e closer than a fourth, cousin. This practice led to a great many marriages with, people of other t r i b a l groups. I f the Makah were s i m i l a r to t h e i r S a l i s h neighbours in. residence practices, t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l geographic mobility would have been moderately low; and t h i s would be i n accord with t h e o r e t i c a l expectar-tions. But without further evidence, speculation i s useless, and i t i s preferable to mark the Makah: "?" 60 r I I I I THE KWAKIUTL 1 AT THE northern end of Vancouver Island and on the mainland opposite, that i s to say, on both sides of Queen Charlotte and Johnstone S t r a i t s , dwelt the Southern Kwakiutl. These people were divided by Boas 1 into three groups distinguished by separate d i a l e c t s : the Koskimo, who l i v e d on the west coast of Vancouver Island, most especially about Quatsino Sound; the Newettee, who dwelt at the very northern-most end of Vancouver Island and were the most exposed of a l l the 2 Kwakiutl; and the Kwakiutl more properly so c a l l e d . "Kwak-i u t l " i t s e l f f i s an extension and modification of the name that the Kwakiutl of Port Rupert called themselves. The basic u n i t of Kwakiutl society was the numaym, a group which resembled an extended family. The Kwakiutl numaym was a named group associated mythologically with a t r a d i t i o n a l place of o r i g i n ; owning property consisting of f i s h i n g l o c a -ti o n s , hunting t e r r i t o r y , and one or more houses i n a winter v i l l a g e ; and headed by a chief or headman descended, at l e a s t i n theory, i n the most senior genealogical l i n e from a founding ancestor. The members of the numaym consisted of people r e l a t e d , sometimes closely, sometimes d i s t a n t l y , usually p a t r i l i n e a l l y , but sometimes through t h e i r mothers or wives, to the chief. There would be at any given time probab-l y a number of v i s i t o r s dwelling with the people of the nu-maym, and some of the mebers of the numaym would also l i k e l y j 61 "be away v i s i t i n g . The numaym was in- pre-contaet times the potlatehing u n i t , the resource-exploiting u n i t , and the unit of s o c i a l control.^ Attachment to a l o c a l i t y and possession of name, crests, and a headman, seem to be the most constant defining charac-t e r i s t i c s of the numaym. There i s an i n d i c a t i o n that k i n or a f f i n a l relationships were not the only method of gaining: entry into a numaym. Goldman notes,^ "The numaym also in?-cludes i n d i v i d u a l s , not members of the b i l a t e r a l family group, who have been given or purchased names belonging to the nu-maym.." Possibly, such bought membership might descend on.. the children of the buyer; but t h i s i s speculation. The kinship terminology of the Kwakiutl was that of a b i l a t e r a l system. A man's mother's or his father's parents were together known by the same name, grandparent, much as in i o u r own system; h i s mother's or his father's s i b l i n g s were known as uncle or aunt, again after our manner; a l l hi s f i r s t cousins were known as brother or s i s t e r ; and a l l hi s son's or his daughter's children were his grandchildren. (The words i n i t a l i c s represent approximate translations of the actual Kwakiutl kinship terms.) The sig n i f i c a n c e of t h i s kindred, ramifying as i t did through several communi-t i e s , may be seen i n Ford's^ account of the h o s p i t a l i t y given the Kwakiutl t r a v e l l e r : I f .... a man v i s i t e d the v i l l a g e from which his mother came he would stay i n the house of his grandparent, h i s mother's father, or perhaps that of h i s uncle, h i s moth-er's brother. They would treat him as a member of t h e i r " family, affording him h o s p i t a l i t y and protection i n a strange v i l l a g e . There, too, he would probably f i n d some 62 r of Ms cousins: brothers with whom he could hunt and f i s h and s i s t e r s who would wash and repair his c l o t h -ing. In other v i l l a g e s he might f i n d some more distant r e l a t i v e with whom he could v i s i t and be sure of food, lodging, and protection. By way of contrast to the clan group /that i s , the numaym/, which shared a common l o c a l -i t y , the kindred extended~"beyond the community. and bound members of d i f f e r e n t t r i b e s and v i l l a g e s together. The next larger unit of Kwakiutl society was the t r i b e . This was composed of a number of numayms which shared a com-mon winter v i l l a g e s i t e . In:summer the v i l l a g e s broke up and the various numayms departed f o r t h e i r various summer f i s h i n g s t ations. At these summer grounds, groups l i v i n g i n separate winter v i l l a g e s would meet. This seasonal mi-gration was an important feature of Kwakiutl l i f e , and i n -volved both i n t e r t r i b a l meeting and some sharing; of access to resources.^ Marriage was an important event im Kwakiutl l i f e . Essen-t i a l l y i t was a l i n k between two numayms, and the father-in--law of the groom gave the l a t t e r crests and p r i v i l e g e s ( i f he had them to give) to be held i n tru s t f o r the groom's children. These g i f t s gave the children r i g h t s i n t h e i r mother's numaym, and there are many instances i n the genea-logies recorded i n Boas' "Ethnology of the Kwakiutl"^ o f younger sons going to l i v e permanently i n t h e i r mother's numaym. The best short summary of the exchanges of g i f t s i n -volved i n a Kwakiutl marriage i s Wardle's, and I give i t below: The cycle of Kwakiutl l i f e properly began with the marriage. Brides, l i k e "coppers", came under the law of g i f t s . The s u i t o r offered to the father of the g i r l g i f t s commensurate with the rank of the two f a m i l i e s . i 63 ? The counter-gift came i n the form of the bride, and, a 1 l i t t l e l a t e r , i n blankets, boxes of eulachen o i l , t o -gether with a clan name. He proceeded to give away the blankets and consume the o i l at a feast, when he re-sumed hi s own name. These blankets would return to him i n double measure when he needed them l a t e r on. The advent of a c h i l d brought more g i f t s from the father-in-law—much valuable property, a crest of the clan with i t s p r i v i l e g e s and r i g h t s to certaini dances. Those he held i n t r u s t for his own son or h i s daugh-terfe soni When other children had been born, the son-in-law received yet greater g i f t s , but returned his wife to her father. She might choose to "stay i n the house for nothing," but the prestige of her husband would impel him to renew the marriage by a new g i f t . Some remarks are i n order. F i r s t , , t h i s cycle of marri-age exchanges seems to have been more pronounced the wealth-i e r the people involved. Chiefs would marry chief's daugh-ters or s i s t e r s — b u t not commoners. Rank and wealth went hand in. hand, and people of disparate wealth did not marry each other. Most of our data on marriage consists of des-crip t i o n s of the marriages of chiefs and other high ranking persons, and comes also from a time when the status system was i n an upheaval due to the effects of contact with Euro-pean c i v i l i z a t i o n . My impression i s that the marriages of commoners were less both i n quantity of goods involved and i n complexity of exchanges carried out. Second, the p r i v i l e g e s and crests given by the father-in-law to the son-in-law consisted c h i e f l y i n r i g h t s to dances and songs for the winter ceremonials. The o f f i c e of chief-tainship could not be given away i n marriage, but only handed down p a t r i l i n e a l l y C A man could give away to his son-in-law only those p r i v i l e g e s he had received from his father-in-law. 9 L Formal marriages were i d e a l l y between members of d i f f e r - J rent t r i b e s or numayms.10 An examination of genealogies1"'' collected from the Port Rupert People reveals that these people married as f a r wide as the Hai s l a and B e l l a b e l l a to the north and the Nimkish Kwakiutl and even the S a l i s h -speaking Comox to the south. Most of t h e i r marriages were within the Port Rupert group, but t h i s was an exceptional group, combining four separate t r i b e s each with three to s i x numayms. Concern f o r the dances and pr i v i l e g e s which could be obtained by marriage i s an evident motivation for marrying so widely. But while the desire to acquire such p r i v i l e g e s led to marrying outside the numaym, the desire to r e t a i n p r i v i l e g e s had sometimes the opposite e f f e c t . A good many chiefs among the Kwakiutl t r i b e s married the daughters of t h e i r younger brothers "because they do not want t h e i r p r i v i l e g e s to go out of t h e i r family." We may therefore draw the conclusion that while there was a strong tendency towards numaym exogamy, there was yet no hard and fast r u l e that one must marry outside one's numaym." Another important feature of Kwakiutl society, already indicated i n the description of the Kwakiutl b i l a t e r a l k i n -dred, was the great degree of i n d i v i d u a l geographic mobility. People would v i s i t t h e i r r e l a t i v e s , sometimes f o r lo^ng per-iods before returning home. Often they would s h i f t r e s i -dence to another numaym. And there were the extensive v i s i t s of the potlatch season and the winter ceremonials. In h i s -t o r i c times we also have accounts of depopulated groups (de-populated through disease or war) moving i n and s e t t l i n g w i t h J 65 other groups. D The mobility has continued to the present day i n the Kwakiutl country. 1^ The c l a s s i c , description of Kwakiutl ranking i s given by Boas i n his "Social Organization and Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians":"1"-' So f a r we have considered the clan / i . e . , numaym7 as a u n i t . The individuals composing the clan do not form, however, a homogeneous mass, but d i f f e r i n rank. A l l the tribes of the P a c i f i c Coast are divided into a n o b i l i t y , common people, and slaves. The l a s t of these may be l e f t out of consideration, as they do not form part and parcel of the clan, but are captives made im war, or purchases, and may change ownership as any other piece of property. The clan of the Kwakiutl i s so org-anized that a certaim l i m i t e d number of families are recognized'. The ancestor of each of these families has a t r a d i t i o n - o f his own aside from the general clan trad-i t i o n , and, owing to the possession of the t r a d i t i o n ^ which almost always concerns the ac q u i s i t i o n of a mani-tou, he has certain crests and pr i v i l e g e s of h i s own". This t r a d i t i o n and the crests and pri v i l e g e s connected with i t descended, together with the name of the ances-tor, upon his d i r e c t descendants i n the male l i n e , or, as indicated above, through marriage of his daughter, upon-his son-in-law, and through him upon his grand-children. But there i s only one man at a time who per-sonates the ancestor and who, consequently, has his rank and p r i v i l e g e s . The individuals personating the ances-tors form the n o b i l i t y of the t r i b e . The number of noblemen i s therefore f i x e d . They are not equal i n i rank, but range i n the manner i n which t h e i r ancestors were supposed to range. At a l l f e s t i v a l s they s i t i n i the order of t h e i r rank, which i s therefore called the "seat" of the person. Boas next, as an example, gives the l i s t of seats of the Mamaleleqala t r i b e from V i l l a g e Island. The numaym Teml-temlels had 32 seats, the Wewamasqem 21, the Walas 42, and the Mamaleleqam 30. He then continues: These names are acquired by di f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s , but they are not necessarily retained through l i f e , as with a new marriage a new name may be obtained from the new wife's father. The series i s not beyond a l l doubt, since i n many instances the Indians are not now-a-days quite certain as to the order of names. This i s due to L- the fact that there are not enough individuals i n the ^ bb t r i b e s to occupy a l l these places. There was, i t seems to me, quite a difference between these ordinary t i t l e s and the o f f i c e of chief. For one thing,, t h i s passage by Boas strongly suggests that t i t l e s or "seats" could be acquired by marriage, whereas other data c l e a r l y indicate that the o f f i c e of chief could only be inherited p a t r i l i n e a l l y . There i s also and intimation that the "ordinary t i t l e s " may have f a l l e n into two kinds: those which could be given away to one's son-in-law and those which could not. 1^ The connection of the ordinary t i t l e s with dances and the s p i r i t quest also sets them apart from the p o s i t i o n of the chief. As i t seems to me, the t i t l e s were c h i e f l y important i n determining ranking, at potlatches and hence the size of the g i f t received by the t i t l e - h o l d e r , and i n the ordering and presentation of the winter cere-monial. In aboriginal times, only chiefs gave potlatches, and most of the t i t l e - h o l d e r s would thereby be i n e l i g i b l e to do so. The description that Boas gives r e f e r s , s t r i c t l y speaking;, to a period i n Kwakiutl h i s t o r y when, following contact with fur traders and the Hudson's Bay Company, there was a greatly increased supply of wealth, notably from non-t r a d t i o n a l sources, and greatly enhanced status r i v a l r y . Seats within: the numayms, numayms within the t r i b e s , and t r i b e s generally within the Kwakiutl nation were theor-e t i c a l l y ranked i n s e r i a l order. We may best understand the pattern with a hypothetical and over-simplified i n s -tance of two t r i b e s each containing two numayms each with four s e a t s — t h i s i s oversimplified because there were more r t r i b e s , more numayms, and more seats: Seat 1 Seat 2 Seat 3 Numaym A Seat 4 Seat 1 Seat 2 Numaym B Seat 3 Seat 4 Seat 1 Seat 2 Seat 3 Numaym A Seat 4 Seat 1 Seat 2 Numaym B Seat 3 Seat 4 Tribe I ....Highest rank-ing seat of high-est ranking num-aym of highest ranking t r i b e . Tribe I I Lowest seat of lowest numaym of lowest t r i b e . This was, of course, i d e a l . In point of fa c t , the various t r i b a l rankings .probably overlapped, so that, f o r instance, IIA1 was only a l i t t l e less below I A l . S i m i l a r l y with the actual r e l a t i v e ranking of the numayms. This rank order was neither fix e d nor always d e f i n i t e : when the four t r i b e s that made up the Fort Rupert group f i r s t came together there to e s t a b l i s h a permanent v i l l a g e close by the Hudson's Bay Company f o r t , there was an. upsurge of competitive poWatch-ing whose purpose was to es t a b l i s h more d e f i n i t e l y the r e l a -t i v e ranking of the various chiefs. While such rank was inherited and mythologically v a l i -dated, and though i t seems formerly to have been r e l a t i v e l y stable, i t had to be re-validated and re-asserted by means of potlatches, and the giver of a potlatch received increased prestige and his ranking might be also changed for the better" l i f the chiefs to whom he gave the potlatch were unable to i i reciprocate as generously as he. But as in;olden times only numaym heads could potlatch, i t would be the ranking of the numayms which would change. 2 THE POSITION; of the chief or numaym head among the Kwakiutl. was described by the people themselves as "the o f f i c e of 20 giving potlatches among the t r i b e s , " an expression which. points out the position, of the chief as the representative of his numaym and his especial task of potlatch-giving. Im Pi former times, as already stated, only chiefs potlatched. The chief was the custodian of the resources of the nu-maym. As such, i t was his duty to perform the necessary r i -t u a ls concerning the exploitation of these resources at the appropriate season. In t h i s p o s i t i o n , he received a certain portion (sometimes ca l l e d " tribute") of the f i s h , seals, deer, etc. caught by the men (see texts quoted below). His wife s i m i l a r l y received a portion of the berries and roots c o l -lected by the women. With t h i s supply the chief could hold potlatches (though not always without further assistance), and could pay for the carving of totem poles, the construc-t i o n of canoes, and the erection of a new house. As a p o l i t i c a l authority, the chief of the numaym had influence but not great power. He had prerogatives which he quite jealously guarded, but he might not abuse them overmuch'. Thus, the chief was e n t i t l e d to a f a i r portion of the game brought i n by ahunter. Boas 2 5 has some revealing; texts on' 69 r t h i s matter: n When.the hunter goes out hunting, and he gets many seals, the hunter takes one of the seals and gives the seals as a present to the head chief of his numaym; for he can not give one-half of them (to the c h i e f ) , — even i f the hunter has obtained many seals,—and give a feast with the other h a l f l e f t from what he had given: to the chief. Therefore, the hunter takes one seal for food for his children and his wife. The hunter, who does so, i s treated well by the chief. I f a stingy hunt-er gives h a l f of his seals to the chief because he pre-fers the price offered by another chief of another nu-maym, then the chief of the hunter's numaym t r i e s to k i l l the hunter, and often the chief, s t r i k e s the hunter so that he dies, i f the chief i s a bad man; and, there-fore, the chiefs of the various numayms own hunters. The seals are a l l given to the chiefs by the hunters, for the meat of the seal i s not dried." Mountain goat hunters, when they get ten goats by hunting, give f i v e goats to the chiefs of the numaym," and the goat hunter keeps the other f i v e goats and dries the meat, sometimes the chief cuts up the goat meat for his numaym, when he wishes to do so. I f he wishes to dry i t , he does that way. When the chief i s a good many he does not take the goat away from the hunter by force, and the good chief never thinks that the one-half given to him by the hunter i s not enough. I f the chief i s bad, he wishes more than h a l f to be given to him by the goat hunter, and i f the goat hunter does not wish to give more than h a l f of the goats, then the bad chief w i l l take them away by force. Then the bad chief may k i l l the goat hunter,, but generally the goat hunter k i l l s the bad chief, i f he overdoes what he says to the hunter." Another t e x t 2 ^ speaks of the q u a l i t i e s of an i d e a l c h i e f — q u a l i t i e s often enough missing for t h e i r presence to be consciously valued, but probably also often enough a-chieved to be counted as more than a counsel of perfection: "I mean t h i s , chief I I a s o t i w a l i s , that you may show that you are noble, that you may not look angrily upon: your fellow men and that also you may not speak proudly and that you may not be c h i l d i s h , for he i s a good chief who i s kind, speaking kindly to the people, that you may r e a l l y be treated n i c e l y l i k e a chief by your people." This text s p e c i f i e s the i d e a l conduct, and at the end openly •states the sanction which w i l l punish deviations from that ^ 70 ideal." 3 POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS were very undeveloped among the Kwak-i u t l . The closest thing to a p o l i t i c a l unit was the numaym, and, as I have already mentioned, an, i n d i v i d u a l could change his numaym quite r e a d i l y , or, at l e a s t , could spend much of his time v i s i t i n g r e l a t i v e s i n other numayms even i f not actual l y joining those numayms. I f t h i s was so, we would also expect that i t would be easy for a man wishing to avoid un-pleasantness, to leave home for a time without much: fuss and . bother u n t i l the unpleasantness (unless something serious, such as murder, was involved) had blown over. I f necessary, he need not return. By withdrawing support from i t s members, the numaym could punish them for going beyond reasonable bounds of ac-t i o n . They could always k i l l even a chief who became too 25 overbearing and ty r a n n i c a l . y But while the numaym could do t h i s ; would i t neces-s a r i l y want to? Curtis t e l l s the t a l e of Kesina, a Kueha warrior who was continually threatening to k i l l his own people by magic i f they would not give him property. Then. Kesina k i l l e d a Tla a l u i s man, and the T l a a l u i s k i l l e d Kesina i n return. The Kueha did not object very much, and were glad to see Kesina go.. I t i s , however, s i g n i f i c a n t that they themselves did not r a i s e a hand against him.' The mention, of magic brings to mind another element of L. 1 l-i-Kwakiutl law-ways,, v i z . , the recourse to sorcery. There are indications 2''' that people often believed i n the powers of the shaman or sorcerer enough f o r the b e l i e f that one has been po bewitched to death to cause death i t s e l f . Boas gives an instance of a commoner who came into possession of a "copper" (normally reserved only for nobles). A noble spread the rumour of witchcraft, and the commoner became frightened and f e l l s i c k . He relinquished the copper to a chief, and died7 Coincidence? Perhaps. But the incident i s revealing as an instance of the use of sorcery and rumours of sorcery as an instrument of s o c i a l control among the Kwakiutl. There was no formal i n s t i t u t i o n of feud-indemnities7 Revenge for murder was the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the victim's numaym. The pattern of blood revenge may be i l l u s t r a t e d by the following;..text from Boas. 2^ I reproduce i t i n f u l l because i t i s the only detailed instance of murder and i t s consequences that (apparently) we have on record for the Kwakiutl7 For the early Indians had no courthouse, they had no judges and they had no witnesses. I f one who be-longs to another numaym k i l l s even a commoniman belong-ing to another numaym, then a f t e r a short time they have a meeting'. l e t me say, for example, that there was Yaqolela-sem /T have s l i g h t l y modified Boas' s p e l l i n g of these names—SMP./, chief of the numaym Gexsem of the Qiomo-yaye. Meled k i l l e d him and Meled belonged to the nu-maym Yaexageme of Qlomoyaye. Yaqolelasem had for h i s mother, Gwekilak. Nobody knew where Meled had gone. Then i t occurred to Gwekilak to i n v i t e the Gexsem, the numaym of her dead son^ and as soon as the whole numaym G.exsemi had come i n , Gwekilak spoke and said, "Come numaym, Gexsem, you who have no chief, f o r your head has been taken o f f , Gexsem, and your numaym i s disgraced by the numaym Yaexageme, and t h i s disgrace w i l l not be 72 ended for the coming generations of the Gexsem". How'. - j i s i t w e l l i n your minds that you do not k i l l i m r e -turn,, that the other one may die who k i l l e d your chief?" Thus she said to the numaym Gexsem. Then Chief Gweyem-d z e , — f o r he was the second chief after Yaqplelasem i n . the numaym Gexsem,—spoke and said: " L i s t e n to the word of my aunt, about what has been done to our head chief Yaqolelasem. How we are disgraced, for we have d i s -graced the future generations of the numaym Gexsem. I mean a l l you warriors and young men. You s h a l l hide (under your clothing) knives and stab Meled as soom as you see him, that we may wash o f f with blood the d i s -grace which he brought on. us; and i f you do not see him,, then k i l l his elder brother Lal e p l a l a s . " Thus he said. After he had finished his speech, they went out of the house of Yaqolelasem, and from that time on, the Gexsem a l l kept t h e i r knives ready and hid small axes. Meled always kept the door of his house bolted. How they knew that Yaqolelasem had been k i l l e d , and a l l the t r i b e s knew that he had been k i l l e d by Meled. Then the chiefs of the t r i b e s a l l p i t i e d Gwekilak, and therefore the warriors of the t r i b e s watched for Meled to k i l l him, when they could see him. However, he was seen at Dzawade, and immediately Gwawina shot him. Then Meled was dead. Gwawina was a warrior of the Q!amq.amtelal, a numaym of the Denaxdax. Then Gwekilak paid Gwawina a slave for shooting Meled.. I t was v/rong that was done by Gwekilak, when she paid a slave to Gwawina, when he had shot Meled; and i t i s a disgrace to the numaym Gexsem. The numaym Gexsem was beaten by, the numaym Yaexageme, and i t i s a disgrace to the name of the numaym Gexsem, after that". Now i f Meled had paid a copper, or i f he had paid his daughter to marry the elder brother of the one whom he had shot, then the numaym Yaexageme would have been disgraced, because he paid i n order not to be k i l l e d i n return and so as not to die also. Therefore, when a man k i l l s his fellowman, he does not often pay f o r i t , for he thinks that when he gets a c h i l d , the c h i l d w i l l be disgraced, i f he had paid o f f i n order not to be k i l l e d , and only those pay o f f who are weakminded. I f another man of the numaym Gexsem had k i l l e d Meled, then there would be no disgrace to the numaym Gexsem, and a l l the men would have stopped t a l k i n g about i t , because only Meled of the numaym Yaexageme would have died, Meled was a common .man, and Yaqolelasem was the head 73 chief of the numaym Gexsem, and they paid a slave to > Gwawina for shooting Meled; so there were two, Yaqo-lelasem and a slave out of the numaym Gexsem, and there-fore the numaym Gexsem was disgraced. An i n t r i g u i n g l i t t l e story, with a l o t of undercurrents i n i t barely hinted a t i I t i s precarious to attempt to interpret t h i s story at t h i s l a t e date, with no p o s s i b i l i t y of checking one's i n t e r -pretations.. But the impression I get i s that the numaym Gexsem would probably have l e t the death of Yaqplelasem pass unrevenged i f Gwekilak had not made the issue public and vocal and so placed the honour of the Gexsem at stake. ( I t i s unfortunate that the text does not t e l l us why Meled slew Yaqplelasem i n the f i r s t place.) But Gwekilak seems to have been motivated by considerations of revenge rather than the honour of ther numaym: so pleased was she (presumably) at Meled's death that she rewarded the executioner with a slave". Another complicating factor probably entered i n the fact that Meled was a commoner and Yaqplelasem an important chief. Perhaps had Meled been a chief or a noble, the chiefs of the other numayms and tr i b e s would not have been so eager to a s s i s t i n vengeance. Warriors, be i t noted, were often chiefs or the brothers of chiefs. The passages above also indicate that compensation was sometimes paid, so that i t i s not e n t i r e l y correct to say that wergild was unknown among the Kwakiutl. I s h a l l return to t h i s point l a t e r on^ In t h i s connection, an i n t e r e s t i n g incident occurred about 1865 as one complication of a r a i d on the Sanetch by 74 rthe Kwakiutl of Port Rupert. This r a i d was conceived and lecY\ hy Neqapenkem, one of the leading chiefs at Port Rupert. During the raid,, however, a chief named Gexkenis was shot at and wounded i n the arm hy Tsagayos, Neqapenkem's younger brother. The motive was jealousy over a woman. When G-ex-kenis returned home, he called a council of chiefs together and said:^° "Welcome, Gwetela. Indeed, I called you to eat here, for the reason why I i n v i t e d you i s , that you chiefs may consider what you want to say on account of the great thing that has been done when I was shot, for there i s nothing bad i n my heart. I t i s for you to say what we s h a l l do with him." Thus he said, and sat down. Then Neqapenkem arose and spoke. He said: "Now l i s t e n to me, t r i b e . I f r e a l l y my younger brother has done t h i s to that chief, I wish t h i s Chief G-exkenis to accept my good word. I w i l l buy him o f f with my war canoe which I w i l l give to you,V Chief. I paid s i x t y blankets for i t ; and also f o r t y blankets besides the canoe." Thus he said, and sat down;. Then a l l the chiefs were g r a t e f u l for his words, that he bought him o f f , and that his younger brother should not be shot, for they had seen that Gexkenis was hiding a p i s t o l . Now, a f t e r t h i s , the matter was straightened out for Tsagayos, who would have been shot by G-exkenis, i f the wise Nieq.apenk.em had not bought o f f Tsagayos, so that he should not be shot'. Then a l l the men were happy and went out of the feasting house. Now Gexkenis and Tsagayos were of one heart a f t e r t h i s . In t h i s case we observe peace-offerings made to avoid trouble. There was nothing obligatory about them, and a man's honour was not smirched either by paying or by accepting them. I t i s important to note that such.peace-offerings were not demanded or expected by the injured person: they did not have the almost-obligatory element possessed by feud-indemnities narrowly so c a l l e d . These two texts are the two major instances of Kwakiutl. -1 75 r n law-ways on record. They follow a somewhat d i f f e r e n t pattern from that of the Kwakiutl war-complex. Warfare among the Kwakiutl consisted i n the r a i d i n g of communities, usually distant, sometimes near, for the purpose of obtainign slaves, booty, and glory and of salving,injured pride i n . a way that one could not (and had better not) do among one's immediate friends and neighbours. Neqapenkem's war against the Sanetch, already mentioned, was undertaken "to l e t someone else mourn" a f t e r some of Neqapenkem's fam-i l y had accidentally drowned. A comparison of the war t a l e s with the genealogies reveals that, by and large, people tended to war with those to whom they were not related by-marriage. There were, however, a good many borderline i n -stances—enough for i t to be a general practice to spare r e l a t i v e s l i v i n g in. an enemy v i l l a g e . And people tended to marry others of the numayms they met i n t h e i r seasonal mi-31 grations. But these were tendencies only, and demarcation l i n e s were blurred and hazy. This i s , after a l l , what one would expect i f the Kwakiutl s o c i a l and l e g a l community, instead of consisting of sharply defined units i n t e r a c t i n g at t h e i r boundaries only, was made up of mobile individuals who were the centres of over-lapping "spheres of acquaint-ance" or "zones of interactance"; and the numayms simply the t e r r i t o r i a l anchors of t h i s moving population: the length of the anchor cable, as i t were, d i f f e r i n g f or each i n d i v i d u a l , and each i n d i v i d u a l being quite capable of switching anchors". 76 r 4 THE TWO CASES described above c l e a r l y indicate that feud-indemnities were known to the Kwakiutl. Yet the payment of feud-indemnities did not constitute a regular and recognized method of terminating quarrels. F i r s t , there was a p o s i t i v e sentiment against paying wergild i n the instance of murder: i t would be disgraceful to do so, something only the "weak-minded" did." Second, the injured group does not seem to have sought to claim wergild either for murder or for woundings: peace-offerings had to be volunteered by the offending group. We may consider such payments, therefore, either as very rudimentary feud-indemnities, or not as feud-indemnities at a l l but rather the precedents from which feud-indemnities, i f they developed, would develop^ I f we chose the f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e , we should c l a s s i f y the Kwakiutl feud-system as barely c l a s s i c a l ; i f we chose the second, we should c l a s s i f y i t as nascent on the verge of becoming;, c l a s s i c a l . For reasons of t h e o r e t i c a l neatness, I prefer the second c l a s s i f i c a t i o n : the Kwakiutl feud-system i s borderline, but I do not think we should speak of feud-indemnities properly so called u n t i l , the indemnities i n question are requested or demanded by the injured group.^ 2 The payment of feud-indemnities, further-more, was e x p l i c i t l y not a regular means of s e t t l i n g disputes among the Kwakiutl, and i f the d i s t i n c t i o n between.classical and nascent i s to be of value, t h i s fact must also be taken into account., In; accordance with t h e o r e t i c a l expectations, we f i n d a large degree of i n d i v i d u a l geographic mobility associated 77 'with theilack of. established feud-indemnities." 5 Note on the Northern Kwakiutl NORTHWARD of the people we have just examined, and southward of the country of the Tsimshian, l i v e d the several t r i b e s of the Northern Kwakiutl. Not a.great deal i s known about these people, and our information about them i s spotty and f r a g -mentary: but for the sake of reasonable completeness i n t h i s enquiry, we should attend to such information as we do have of t h e i r s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l system. They were divided into two d i a l e c t s : Haisla, speakers of which occupied Gardner Canal and the upper reaches of Douglas Channel; and Heiltsuq, which was the language of. the other Northern!Kwakiutl t r i b e s as f a r south as Rivers I n l e t . The Haisla-speakers were divided into two t r i b e s , each distinguished by i t s possession of a winter v i l l a g e : the Haisla of Kitimat on Douglas Channel, and the Kitlope o f Kemano on Gardiner C a n a l . 5 5 The major d i v i s i o n s of the Heiltsuq were the Xai x a i s , who occupied the east shore of Graham Reach (which divides Princess Royal Island from the mainland) southward of Butedale; the B e l l a b e l l a t r i b e s ; the Koey people, south of the B e l l a b e l l a s ; and the several 34 Owikeno t r i b e s who occupied Rivers Inlet and Owikeno lake. In s o c i a l organization.these groups were t r a n s i t i o n a l between the m a t r i l i n e a l structures of the northern.nations and the b i l a t e r a l structure of the Southern Kwakiutl and the nations further south. Without further ado, I include below J "Olson'B->-> summaries of the Haisla and Heiltsuq systems: Alone of a l l the Kwakiutl-speaking t r i b e s the H a i s l a and Kitlope have a f u l l - f l e d g e d maternal exo-gamic clan, organization which i s almost i d e n t i c a l with that of t h e i r Tsimshian neighbours. . . . Among the Haisla there are s i x clans, each named afte r an animal. Although the clans act as units ini everyday marriage, in. most f e s t i v a l s (potlatches and. feasts) they are (except for the Eagle) linked with one or more of the other clans. The array at Kitimat i s as follows: Eagle Beaver B l a c k f i s h ( K i l l e r Whale) Ravenx Salmon Crow (extinct) One informant explains the l i n k i n g of clans as follows: In the war at Old Town the Beaver and Crow clans helped the Ravens and have since been more or less united with the Ravens.. The B l a c k f i s h and Salmon also helped the Ravens and have since been paired. Another informant stated that the Blackfish-Salmon and Beaver-Raven-r-Crow l i n k i n g s arose within, the l a s t century. He also stated that marriages within the phratries are allowed and that i n : feasts the other clan (or clans) of the phratry does not contribute with food, and such, to help the host clan7 The phratries lack names. In: feasts and pot-latches each clan i s called by i t s own name, but Beaver i s named before Raven, and B l a c k f i s h before Salmon.' In the native mind clan a f f i l i a t i o n and rank (right to t i t l e s , etc;) are of paramount importance, even more important than the b i o l o g i c a l family. Thus one t i t l e d man had no s i s t e r * s son to i n h e r i t his t i t l e so he adopted his daughter into h i s clan." His wife i n speaking of i t said, "They ^her husband's clan7 took her away from u s " — the i m p l i c a t i o n being that his group had gained at the expense of hers. . . . The t r i b e s south of the H a i s l a exhibit some t r a i t s of the clan system, but these dwindle u n t i l by the time the Owikeno of Rivers I n l e t are reached most of the fea-tures have disappeared. Thus the Haihais have certain, rather nebulous groups with animal names s i m i l a r to those of the Haisla, but they are not exogamic, not u n i l i n e a l , and t h e i r functions are not c l e a r l y defined. The concept of a genuine clan i s so foreign to the Owikeno that I once heard a H a i s l a discourse and argue with an Owikeno for upward of an. hour without being able to make the latterunderstand what he was t a l k i n g about. Each was decidedly annoyed at the lack of comprehension of the other.. 79 r "> And the Heiltsuq: The Xaixais had three crest groups /pv s e p t s / — Blackfish,; Raven, and Eagle. The r u l e of exogamy was, as it.were, present hut not enforced. There was a " f e e l i n g " that one should not marry into his own crest group. But marriages within the sept occurred. This i s r a t i o n a l i z e d by the t a l e of the time when a brother and s i s t e r were the only survivors of a v i l l a g e , so they married and bore children. Property and t i t l e s passed preferably from a man to his s i s t e r ' s son. But a woman married to a chief often "gave" her.crests, names, and so on to him so that he could then hand them on to h i s (her) children. .... The s i t u a t i o n among the B e l l a B e l l a i s likewise confused. (There were evidently some differences be-tween, the o r i g i n a l " t r i b e s " which make up the modern B e l l a Bella.) Some informants claim that daughters belong to the sept of the mother, sons to the sept of the father. Other, equally r e l i a b l e , informants state that children belong to the crest group of the mother but that the father usually adopts the eldest son into h i s sept and passes his p r i v i l e g e s and names to him". Others say that these things go from a man to the eldest son of his eldest s i s t e r who has a son. Some say that marriage within the crest group within the same t r i b e -v i l l a g e was taboo", but that marriage to a person of the same sept from another v i l l a g e was permitted. Others claim no such rul e of exogamy. Crests, names, and so on often came from either or both parental l i n e s , usually by the giving (or loaning) of such, or by adoption, with the person adopted re t a i n i n g some of the p r i v i l e g e s of the sept of his b i r t h . I t seems certain that a l l these seemingly c o n f l i c t i n g statements are true. But there was a tendency to follow the r u l e of exogamy, a tendency to place children i n the crest group of the mother, and a l i k e tendency for a man's name and p r i v i l e g e s to be handed on to his s i s t e r ' s son". A l l t h i s i s nearly as confusing to the natives as i t i s to the investigator"^ There i s , as i t were, a f e e l i n g that they "ought" to adhere to the system of the northern t r i b e s . Of the various B e l l a b e l l a t r i b e s , one had four septs, namely Raven, Eagle, B l a c k f i s h , and Wolf, two lacked the Wolf sept, and a fourth had only the Eagle and Riven; the f i f t h and s i x t h of the B e l l a b e l l a t r i b e s are now extinct and t h e i r septs are not recorded. Among the Koey people (between the B e l l a B e l l a and 80 the Owikeno) the septs remain as crest groups with animal names hut without the idea of exogamy or mater-nal reckoning. . . . Among the Owikeno the septs have dropped t h e i r animal designations fo !r names such as "Those who re-ceive f i r s t " , though vaguely each of these septs has a primary animal crest. There i s no idea of exogamy, no ru l e or tendency towards either maternal or paternal reckoning. S i b l i n g s may belong to d i f f e r e n t septs, or the same person may even claim membership i n two or more septs at the same timeI Three status l e v e l s existed: nobles, commoners, and slaves. Marriage was preferably between persons of approx-imately the same status.. Among both H a i s l a and B e l l a b e l l a , cross-cousin marriage was "preferred". 5^ The powers of chiefs varied. Apparently, chiefs among the B e l l a b e l l a had more power than t h e i r congeners i n other groups of the Northern Kwakiutl. They s t i l l gained i t , however, by v i r t u e of t h e i r positions as heads of k i n groups. Olson5''' gives the following: account of Haisla law-ways: In: a murder the kinsmen of the murdered man usual-l y seek to even, the score'. This holds even within the clan and even i n cases where the murder might be con-sidered j u s t i f i e d — a s when the v i c t i m has committed adultery with the murderer's wife]. The r u l e i s a l i f e for a l i f e . /Here Olson has the following footnote: , "One informant stated he knew of only one murder. The g u i l t y man went unpunished because there was no method of dealing with i n t r a t r i b a l violence. He stated that adultery was s t r i c t l y an a f f a i r between man and man.^7 Some murders, however, are s e t t l e d by payment of a blood-price. I f the murderer cannot pay, his clansmen: come to h i s aid. I f payment i s refused, the score i s evened by k i l l i n g the g u i l t y party (preferably) or one of his clansmen. Sometimes th i s i s accomplished by magic. . .. .. I f two men quarrel and one i s seriously injured," the other usually gives a feast, sprinkles eagle down, and makes a payment to the injured man. The case i s considered s e t t l e d , even should the l a t t e r subsequently die of h i s i n j u r i e s . .... 81 I t i s related that during a secret society dance at") Hartley Bay a noble committed adultery with the wife of. a chief. The other nobles met and decided to punish, them. They bound them together and threw them i n the fire , ; then sung songs to drown out the cries of the two so that the commoners ( i . e . , nonmembers) would not suspect what was happening.' I n ; i n t r a t r i b a l war ( i . e . , clan against clan) hus-bands and wives who belong to the warring factions s e l -dom disrupt t h e i r households. When prisoners are taken: the spouse who belongs to the prisoner's clan usually persuades the other to set the captive free. Ransom i s sometimes resorted to. In i n t e r t r i b a l war a man who captures a clansman usually q u i e t l y frees him after a time. Go-betweens are sometimes used to s e t t l e quar-r e l s or wars. They must belong to a neutral clan. The feud-system revealed i n t h i s account appears to be a poorly developed c l a s s i c a l one.; In the f i n a l paragraph: there are i m p l i c i t suggestions of the operation of c o n f l i c t -ing allegiances making towards p a c i f i c a t i o n . The account of the action of the secret society i n burning the two adul-terers i s i n t r i g u i n g , but i t i s d i f f i c u l t to know what to make of i t 7 I f the Haisla feud-system was indeed a c l a s s i c a l one", we should not expect to f i n d a high degree of i n d i v i d u a l geographic mobility. Mention of such mobility i s conspic-uous by i t s absence. Olson does mention mobility i n connecr-t i o n with the B e l l a b e l l a , but t h i s i s a movement of groups "58 and a migration of peoples. This i s what he writes:^ Most of these t r i b a l - v i l l a g e groups moved from time to time within t h e i r areas. In f a c t , a certain: restlessness seemed to characterize a l l the t r i b e s and v i l l a g e s of the Northwest Coast from Seymour Narrows northward. Many legends attest t h i s and most of those who have worked i n the area agree that these legends contain considerable h i s t o r i c t r u t h as regards these movements. Some groups changed names as they changed residences. This i s true of several of the B e l l a B e l l a groups. 82 r- 1 In t h i s , the B e l l a b e l l a resembled t h e i r neighbours to the north, the Tsimshian'. So f a r as the evidence of the Northern Kwakiutl points anywhere, therefore, i t points towards the confirmation of the hypotheses of t h i s essay.' IV THE NORTHERN TRIBES  T l i n g i t , Haida, Tsimshiam IL MOST NORTHERLY of the peoples of the Northwest Coast, the T l i n g i t dwelt along the coast-line of southeastern Alaska from Yakutat Bay to Portland Canal. "In t h i s rugged f i o r d region," remarks Jenness,^ "communication was e n t i r e l y hy sea, and the Indians made long voyages i n t h e i r dugout canoes to trade sea-otter skins, native copper from the Copper River, and Chilkat blankets manufactured from cedar bark and the wool of the wild mountain goat, for slaves and s h e l l orna-ments that came up to them from the south." The islands of southeastern. Alaska are so arranged that down the centre of the T l i n g i t t e r r i t o r y there i s a seaway sheltered from the winds and storms of the open P a c i f i c by an outer l i n e of islands. Just p r i o r to European contact a group of Haida had conquered the southern part of Prince of Wales Island and driven the T l i n g i t out of that area. The T l i n g i t of. the Taku and S t i k i n e Rivers i n summer often t r a v e l l e d f u r -ther inland, and enjoyed trade relationships with the Atha-p bascans who dwelt there. The T l i n g i t were divided into fourteen geographical' d i v i s i o n s or "tribes." Each t r i b e had at least one winter v i l l a g e and a section of coast on which the people camped i n summer or behind which they hunted i n winter. The v/inter t i l l a g e was the basic t r i b a l u n i t , though sometimes closely J 84 neighbouring v i l l a g e s might be so linked as to constitute a tribe,, and the "chief" of a v i l l a g e might extend his i n f l u -ence over neighbouring communities. The l i s t s of the var-ious settlements comprise a mixed bag, including permanent winter settlements, summer camps, and abandoned s i t e s , and i t i s usually not clear which i s which. 5 I think I would by and large accept Niblack's^ account: Each v i l l a g e p r a c t i c a l l y constitutes a t r i b e . There never have been any permanent leagues or asso-ciations of v i l l a g e s to constitute a nation with head r u l e r , although, for certain reasons of defense and offense, v i l l a g e s have so co-operated temporarily f o r mutual benefit or protection." Niblack's description of the power of some chiefs who had extended influence over other v i l l a g e s , as temporary "suz-ereinty",: i s apt. These t r i b a l groups were also distinguished by minor c d i a l e c t i c a l p e c u l i a r i t i e s , a fact which suggests that they may have married within themselves more often than they married out." In the summer, the t r i b a l groups broke apart into t h e i r component clans and families and departed for t h e i r f i s h i n g and hunting grounds. Summer was also the time for long trading expeditions, sometimes l a s t i n g months. With the return of winter, the people returned to t h e i r v i l l a g e s 7 and each clan occupied i t s own house. Within the v i l l a g e or t r i b e , the fundamental s o c i a l u n i t was the household. This was both a kinship unit and a l o c a l u n i t . I t was s p e c i a l l y named, and was the l o c a l d i v i s i o n of a m a t r i l i n e a l "clan" which i n turn.had repre-op sentatives i n several communities or t r i b e s . The heads of the households i n the v i l l a g e constituted the petty chiefs of the v i l l a g e , and the chief of the highest ranking house-hold was considered the chief of the v i l l a g e . The house group was the economic u n i t , owning hunting and f i s h i n g t e r r i t o r i e s , and one or sometimes more than one house i n the v i l l a g e ; i t was the unit responsible for i n i t i a t i n g feasts and potlatches, and marriages were between house 9 groups. The T l i n g i t were also divided into three exogamic matri-l i n e a l phratries: the Raven phratry, the Wolf phratry (known also among the northern. T l i n g i t as the "Eagles"), and the Hexadi. 1 0 The Fexadi, however, were so small a group that the T l i n g i t may p r a c t i c a l l y be described as having a cl a s -s i c a l moiety systenu These phratries were subdivided into m a t r i l i n e a l exo-gamic units which are usually c a l l e d "clans" i n the l i t e r a -ture. These clans were usually to be found represented in. two or more v i l l a g e s , though no single v i l l a g e ever had representatives from more than a few." Each of these clans had a name denoting i t s place of o r i g i n , a story of i t s genesis, and a history of i t s migra-t i o n from i t s place of o r i g i n * These t r a d i t i o n s suggested to Swanton-1--1- that a good many of these clans were once sub-d i v i s i o n s of other clans,, and became separate from them as the T l i n g i t spread northward along the coast, i n the f a m i l i a r 1? process of f i s s i o n . Oberg c a l l s them "pre-eminently the bb p o l i t i c a l u n i t , " but they lacked both chiefs and t e r r i -t o r i e s . 1 5 Clan crests, indeed, were often i d e n t i f i e d with only the household or l o c a l d i v i s i o n of the clan. In theory, the clan was the feuding u n i t , and the basic unit of l e g a l enforcement. The household was, as I have said, the l o c a l d i v i s i o n of a clan, and generally speaking, the most important u n i t of T l i n g i t society. We should pause, therefore, to examine the composition of a t y p i c a l house group. I take the follow-ing account from Oberg, 1^ whose description i s probably the most detailed account of T l i n g i t households on record. The s t r u c t u r a l p r i n c i p l e s manifest i n such a t y p i c a l T l i n g i t house group were s i x i n number: i ) phratral exo-gamy; i i ) m a t r i l i n e a l descent and inheritance, such that a boy could not i n h e r i t rank or group-membership from his father; i i i ) j u r a l authority held by males, such that a man's daughters could not i n h e r i t the o f f i c e of household head or c h i e f — t h e combination of m a t r i l i n e a l inheritance with t h i s t h i r d p r i n c i p l e l e f t only a man's s i s t e r ' s sons e l i g i b l e as his successors—; i v ) avunculocal residence, whereby these nephews came to l i v e with and be trained by t h e i r maternal uncle, whom they eventually succeeded; v) t i e s of aff e c t i o n between father and son which tended to lead them to stay in. the same v i l l a g e ; and v i ) cross-cousin marriage, whereby a man married his father's s i s t e r ' s daughter or his mother's brother's daughter, who by T l i n g i t rules of descent were i n a d i f f e r e n t phratry from h i s own, Furthermore, i t often happened that a man's mother's brother's Ho*»eA»ld A, of Ph.-a.trj I Hft**cAoJot 8, of P f c r a f r j IT • = A Vh d « • A =: A IW3 A grandson FIGURE TWO: PREFERRED CROSS-COUSIN MARRIAGE AMONG THE TLINGIT. Adapted from Kalervo Oberg, The S o c i a l Economy o f the T l i n g i t Indians, p. 53. I t w i l l be observed"" t h a t the women do not l i v e i n the household o f t h e i r own.' ph r a t r y . To f o l l o w page 86. 87 rwife was his father's s i s t e r . (The r e s u l t i n g relationships - i are shown i n Figure Two.) His wife, therefore, would he h i s mother's brother's daughter and his father's s i s t e r ' s daughter at one and the same time; and his son, accordingly would be of the same matrilineage as his father, though not the same as himself.. But he would have the care of his brother's son, who would i n turn marry i n accordance with the same p r i n c i p l e s . Therefore a man's grandson, would be of his own clan. Such a method of intermarriage between two households of opposite phratries would have the effect of binding the two groups together by t i e s both of kinship and of a f f i n i t y . I t i s worth noting, accordingly, that the T l i n g i t customar-i l y gave potlatches to members of the opposite phratry, and that i t was members of the opposite phratry who b u i l t a family's house and performed the necessary l i f e - c y c l e cere-monies for the members of the family". 1 5 The effect of these patterns of kinship and of economic cooperation would be to bind the two households together into one unit r e l a t i v e l y isolated from s i m i l a r u n i t s . Thus while one household alone would be necessarily exogamous, such a pair of households, considered together as a single system, would tend strongly towards endogamy^. The composition of the T l i n g i t house group i n such a s i t u a t i o n was what we would expect: a chief who was the genealogically most senior male of the group; h i s brothers and his mother's s i s t e r s ' sons; his mother's brothers, i f ^hey were s t i l l a l i v e ; the sons of his s i s t e r s and of the j 88 s i s t e r s of his mother's s i s t e r s ' sons; and the sons of his daughters and of the daughters of his brothers and his moth-er's s i s t e r s ' sons; then the female members would include the wives of the grown, men, and the unmarried daughters. I f a g i r l , furthermore, married her father's s i s t e r ' s son,, she would remain i n the house of her father and mother. 1^ Oberg concludes his description i n the following words: 1 We can now sum up our study of the house-group with the following observation. Through the deter-mining factors of descent, rank, marriage, and i n h e r i -tance, we get a pa i r i n g of house-groups. These houses are of equal status and form close, intermarrying k i n and property owning groups. The r e c i p r o c i t y existing: between the paired house-groups of opposing phratries works out i n the following manner: (1) the young men are exchanged and marry the young women i n the house to which they go, (2) bride g i f t s pass back and f o r t h between these houses, (3) the i n d i v i d u a l property some-times passes between these houses, (4) ceremonial duties are performed by the members of one house for the mem-bers of the other at b i r t h , marriage, l i p , ear, and nose piercing, house-building, and at b u r i a l . For these acts ceremonial g i f t s are given. Opposition in: ceremonial a c t i v i t i e s takes place between these houses. From a l l t h i s i t w i l l r e a d i l y be seen that the house group (viewing i t as a l o c a l group) or lineage (viev/ing i t as a k i n group) was the fundamental building block of T l i n g i t society. Through clan and phratral l o y a l t i e s a person's s o c i a l relationships might be extended to members of other house groups i n the same clan or phratry. Such extension! i s a frequent occurrence among societies organized with 18 clans (or more te c h n i c a l l y , " s i b s " ) such as were the T l i n -g i t . But i n spite of t h i s sentiment, the l o c a l d i v i s i o n s of the clans were by f a r the most important. For instance, while feuding was the a f f a i r of the clan, i t was the l o c a l 89 (•division of the clan which i n i t i a t e d i t . y Further, clan i s o l i d a r i t y was weakened hy the system of rank which divided T l i n g i t society into d i f f e r e n t status l e v e l s , the upper of whom looked down upon and f e l t l i t t l e common inte r e s t with the lower. House groups were again the s i g n i f i c a n t units i n : t h i s ranking system. I have spoken above as i f the l o c a l d i v i s i o n of the clan was the lineage or house group. S t r i c t l y speaking, t h i s was not so, for the l o c a l d i v i s i o n of the clan was composed of a number of d i f f e r e n t house groups, each with i t s own house O A chief. Oberg writes, summarizing the v i l l a g e organization: u / i n / a T l i n g i t v i l l a g e there are always members of at l e a s t two phratries. Furthermore, i n a v i l l a g e there are l o c a l d i v i s i o n s of two or more clans. Each l o c a l d i v i s i o n of a clan, i n turn, i s made up of a num-ber of house-groups, and each house-group of a number of /nuclear/ families.. The v i l l a g e i s a loose organi-zation of, often b i t t e r l y contesting, clans. The house-groups within one l o c a l d i v i s i o n of a clani might marry with the house-groups of several of the other l o c a l clan d i v i s i o n s i n the v i l l a g e . The house groups within the l o c a l d i v i s i o n would themselves be ranked i n r e l a t i o n : to the rank of the l o c a l d i v i s i o n s and house groups thereof 21 which they married. Which brings us to the problem of rank i n T l i n g i t s o c i -ety. In many ways rank cut across clan and v i l l a g e t i e s . Those of high rank looked down upon those of low, and mar-riage between persons of sharply disparate ranks was strongly pp discouraged." Both clans and households were ranked. The rank of a household was c l e a r l y a composite r e s u l t of the household's wealth, s i z e , and inherited status. The status j 90 rof an i n d i v i d u a l was determined by the size of the g i f t s he had given his wife's parents when he married her. The status of the clan or household was determined by the quantity of food and wealth given away at i t s l a s t p o t l a t c h . 2 5 The p a i r i n g of house groups discussed above indicates how two high ranking households might intermarry and contin-u a l l y maintain each other's high status and power i n the community. The n o b i l i t y or anyeti i n the T l i n g i t v i l l a g e , 24. Oberg^says, ^ "consists of the upper end of the two phratries made up of the paired leading houses i n the two highest clans." We should not suppose that t h i s s o c i a l system was s t a t i c While i t s basic pattern persisted over time, the actual positions of the clans and v i l l a g e s v i s - a - v i s one another was continually changing. M b l a c k 2 5 notes that clans, phra-t r i e s , and subphratries fissioned and fused as they waxed and waned i n power and wealth. Wealthy clans, with t h e i r crests, would become important, absorb others, and eventually decay. As clans (that i s , the l o c a l d i v i s i o n s of clans) grew i n numbers, the class d i s t i n c t i o n s we have described would become more pronounced. The clan would then s p l i t , and one branch would depart f o r another region where i t could estab-l i s h i t s e l f by taking on a new name and crests* Oberg writes. "On being questioned, most T l i n g i t can t e l l one how these clans are related and what the s p e c i f i c dispute was that caused the break." L 91 r 2 THE CHIEFS i n a T l i n g i t v i l l a g e were the heads of the various house groups that made i t up; the v i l l a g e chief was simply the highest-ranking and most i n f l u e n t i a l of the house chiefs. Even the rank of chief i s t i e d up with the possession. of wealth, l a r g e l y the ownership of slaves. According to custom t h i s passes from uncle to nephew, hut i t happens frequently that instead of inheritance of the o f f i c e , a new chief i s appointed. In almost every place there are several chiefs, called amkau, one of whom i s looked upon as the head. The power of the chief i s very l i m i t e d and the d i r e c t i o n which i t takes depends on the personality of the i n d i v i d u a l . Only i n coopera-t i v e undertakings and in. council i s he a leader; i n everything else every family head i s e n t i r e l y free to do anything which i s not counter to custom and which does not in f r i n g e on the r i g h t s of others. 2' N i b l a c k 2 8 presents a s i m i l a r picture of T l i n g i t c h i e f t a i n -ship. The chief was treated with deference only hy his own household; his influence in. the v i l l a g e depended on his rank, wealth, good b i r t h , family influence, prowess i n war, and personal q u a l i t i e s . The various chiefs of the t r i b e ( v i l l a g e ) were continually engaged i n a struggle f o r power and influence, and the v i l l a g e would frequently be divided into several factions each headed by one of the r i v a l chiefs. The chief was the representative of his household i n potlatches and i n t e r - v i l l a g e trading expeditions. 29 3 THE CLAN OB. SIB, most especially i t s l o c a l d i v i s i o n , was the basic; unit of T l i n g i t law. "The loss of an i n d i v i d u a l through murder, the loss of property through t h e f t , or shame brought to a member of a clan, were clan losses, and the clan 92 'demanded revenge to an equal degree."-' As a natural con-sequence of t h i s p r i n c i p l e , the response to offences made by members of one's own clan would d i f f e r from the response to offences made by members of other clans. Intra-clan murder, t h e f t , and adultery were generally not punished. Clans punished t h e i r own members by death only when t h e i r actions brought shame on the clan; Witch-c r a f t and incest were, however, punished by death, though i t seems that the men of higher rank within the clan could act i n these matters with a greater impunity than lower ranking members. Shamans were often used i n . crime-detection, and through judicious arrangements with the shamans, men of high rank (and, therefore, of wealth) could commit crimes and s t i l l escape punishment. 5 1 Offences by an. i n d i v i d u a l against a member of another clamiwere treated as offences by one clan against the other, and brought into operation a detailed unwritten code of com-pensation. In:murder cases, the offended clan demanded from the offending clan the l i f e of a man equal i n rank to the vi c t i m . I f the murderer was of lower rank than the murdered man, he would often go free while a higher-ranking member of his clan.died i n his stead. The man selected for execution: died w i l l i n g l y , 5 2 k i l l e d by one of his own rank'. To die thus f o r the honor of one's clan, /Oberg 5 5 says^/ w a s considered an act of great bravery and the body was l a i d out i n state as that of a great warrior. His soul went to Kiwa-Kawaw, 'highest heaven'. Small differences i n rank could be adjusted by the payment of property, but the general demand was for a l i f e of equal 93 Tank. I f the victim was of low rank, a payment of goods ~l would sometimes s u f f i c e as r e s t i t u t i o n . And sometimes, i f the murderer was of low rank, he could he made a slave him-s e l f and handed over with other property as compensation. ^ Also, i f a man had died i n the murderer's stead, the l a t t e r could he punished by his own clan by being compelled to pay to his fellows a l o t of property.35 A s i m i l a r pattern applied i n instances of theft and adultery. Oberg writes:36 I f the adulterer was of higher rank than the hus-band of the woman concerned, he would generally go free, while his clan as well as the husband's clan paid the injured man a quantity of goods. But i f the adulterer was of equal rank or lower, he would be almost certain' to suffer death. Theft, i f important, would be punished^ by death., But here, again,, the factor of status entered. In connection with adultery, we should note that a T l i n g i t woman of high rank might have subsidiary husbands, provided they were of the same clan as her primary husband.^ This would imply, for instance, that for a woman of high rank^ intercourse with her husband's brothers would not const i -tute adultery. Wounding, accidental k i l l i n g , and r e f u s a l to marry a brother's widow,, were further occasions for the payment of indemnities. Any infringement by outsiders on a group's hunting or trading t e r r i t o r y was met by a claim for indem-3Q n i t y or a r e t a l i a t i o n by force. J "Disputes over ownership of land, boundaries, etc., have been the cause of many feuds.," 4 0 I f the offender's clan refused to pay indemnities, feuding broke out, and would usually continue u n t i l an equal -1 94 or nearly equal number of men of the same rank had been k i l l e d - o n both sides; peace would then be made, and some compensation given by the group which had l o s t the fewer men of rank.^ 1 We are also informed that quarrels between clans and households were frequently s e t t l e d by "duels". These "duels were formalized battles between groups of warriors represent ing the opposing sides. The warriors were armed i n caribou 4.0 hide and wooden helmets, and fought only with daggers. 4 IN, The Law of Primitive Man,^ Hoebel gives the following psychological i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Northwest Coast s o c i a l con-* f l i c t s : A s a l i e n t feature, along with elaborated rank order, of the Northwest Coast cultures, i s egocentrism blown to the point of narcissism. The ego sense i s strong but the ego i s weak and vulnerable. I t i s e a s i l y injured and must be constantly reassured by means of external s o c i a l gestures and symbolic acts on. a grand scale: potlatch-giving or destruction of per-sons and property. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , l e g a l settlements may also be sought, and even achieved. Individual of-fenses may be characterized as homicide, assault, n e g l i gence, etc., but i n the native view they are b a s i c a l l y a l l of a kind: defamation of character. The injured party i s shamed, his (or his group's) reputation i s tarnished by the i n s u l t ; his s o c i a l standing i n the eyes of people i s impaired. His overriding purpose i s not to punish the wrongdoer but to r e e s t a b l i s h his prestige. Intent therefore plays no part i n Northwest Coast law. The effect i s the thing and the effect must be wiped out by some counterbalancing act. Such, psychological observations as these are often more f a n c i f u l than f a c t u a l ; nor should t h i s one be wholeheart-edly accepted, even though there was much on the Northwest Coast i n accord with such an in t e r p r e t a t i o n . Yet i t i s hard 95 upon reading the l i t e r a t u r e about the T l i n g i t , to avoid the impression that some such motivation underlay the operation of the T l i n g i t l e g a l system. No doubt there were many T l i n g i t who were not touchy and sen s i t i v e to r i d i c u l e ; and i t seems l i k e l y that such touchiness was developed c h i e f l y i n the higher ranks of society; but enough T l i n g i t were touchy enough to give to t h e i r s o c i a l relationships overtones such as Hoebel describes! La Perouse, v i s i t i n g the T l i n g i t of Li t u y a Bay during July 4-30, 1786, noted great touchiness and s e n s i t i v i t y to r i d i c u l e , and says, " . . . fear of or desire for revenge makes them constantly uneasy. I have seen them always with a dagger i n hand, stand against each other." (rambling, to which the T l i n g i t were much addicted, he explains, was the great source of t h e i r q u a r r e l s . 4 4 Krause, who v i s i t e d the T l i n g i t country i n 1881-2, remarks "almost endless enmities between individuals as well as t r i b e s and clans." He writes that, "His /T;he T l i n g i t ! s 7 great s e n s i t i v i t y and his strong sense of property r i g h t s are constant cause of resentment." But though the T l i n g i t was touchy, A f r i e n d l y settlement i s generally the r u l e . After much threatening;, and long bargaining.; an agreement i s reached. . . . Often the whole a f f a i r depends on high pressure methods, especially when exhorbitant demands are made of timid whites, but the whole matter i s dropped q u i e t l y as soon as a decisive r e f u s a l i s met. I f open f i g h t i n g broke out, continues Krause, " i n spite of the apparent eagerness to f i g h t and extensive preparations, small losses were enough to bring about a decision.'' 4 5" 96 r 4.6 On the other hand, Niblack quotes two passages from Douglas and Petroff which suggest that some of t h i s excessive touchiness to r i d i c u l e might have cloaked a desire to gain as much property from outsiders as possible, and any pretext was seized.. Krause 1 s remark on high pressure methods lends further p l a u s i b i l i t y to t h i s notion. These are the passages i m question: (a) Douglas: I f unmarried women, prove f r a i l , the partner of t h e i r guilt,, i f discovered, i s bound to make reparation, to the parents, soothing; t h e i r wounded honour with hand-some presents. A f a i l u r e : to do t h i s would cause the friends of the offending f a i r one to use force to back up,their demands and to revenge the i n s u l t . I t must not, however, he supposed they would be induced to act t h i s part from any sense of r e f l e c t e d shame, or from a desire of discouraging vice by making a severe example of the v i c i o u s , or that the g i r l herself has any v i s i t i n g s of remorse,;, or that the parents think her a b i t the worse for the accident, or her character i s i n any way blem-ished. Such are not t h e i r f e e l i n g s , f or the offender i s simply regarded as a robber who has committed depra-dations on t h e i r merchandise, t h e i r only anxiety being; to make the damages exacted as heavy as possible. (b) Petroff: Wars are frequently avoided by an indemnity arrange-ment, and they go so f a r i n t h i s system of compensation: that they demand payment for losses from parties who have been i n no way instrumental i n causing them. Por instance,, an Indian at S i t k a broke into the room of two miners i n t h e i r absence, emptied a demi-john of l i q u o r , and died in.consequence, and the r e l a t i v e s of the robber demanded and received payment from the unfortunate Cau-casians. I f a man be attacked by a savage dog and k i l l s him i n self-defense, he must pay for the dog to the T l i n g i t owner. A small trading; schooner, while running before a furious gale, rescued two T l i n g i t from a sink-ing, canoe, which had been carried to sea. The canoe was nearly as long as the schooner and could not be car-r i e d or towed, seeing which, the natives themselves cut the worthless craft a d r i f t . When the humane captain: landed the rescued men at t h e i r v i l l a g e , he was aston-ished by a peremptory demand for payment for the canoe, backed by threats of retaliation:, or vengeance. 97 This picture i s not e n t i r e l y consistent with the notion, also prevalent i n . T l i n g i t society, that i f one was shamed, one could wipe out the shame hy d i s t r i b u t i n g or destroying: property. 4^ These p r i n c i p l e s , however, probably operated each i n somewhat d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s , so that they did not come into open contradiction with one another. But at any rate such d i s t r i b u t i o n s of wealth were possible only to chiefs and others of high rank. low ranking persons did not have the resources to wipe out shame i n such a manner, so perhaps they were perforce less worried about shame—they could not afford to be otherwise. Shame and touchy egos would then have been matters for chiefs, who being prominent i n the society, would give to i t the marked psychological overtone referred to by Hoebel. But t h i s , unfortunately, i s only speculation. I think I would s t r i k e a compromise i n evaluating; the T l i n g i t i n t h i s respect: much of the l i t i g a t i o m ( i f we may use that expression) was motivated by considerations of shame and honour, though perhaps not exactly as Hoebel ou t l i n e s , but much l i t i g a t i o n was motivated by the desire to dun one's opponent for as much as possible—and the two motivations are by no means incompatible. The above discussion may have l e f t the impression that the T l i n g i t were a rowdy group, always at each.other's throat". Such-an impression:would be f a u l t y : besides the remark of Krause, already c i t e d , that f r i e n d l y settlements were gener-a l l y the r u l e , we must note Oberg's 4 8 comment that murders 9b were "not excessive,, u n t i l the advent of l i q u o r . " 5 SOUTH of the T l i n g i t country,, on the Queen Charlotte Islands, l i v e d the Haida, who spoke a language d i s t a n t l y related to that of the T l i n g i t . Forty to f i f t y miles to the north of Queen Charlotte Islands was Prince of Wales Island, south-ernmost of the Alaskan coastal islands. Shortly before the coming of European, explorers and traders, the Kaigani Haida had attacked the T l i n g i t of Prince of Wales Island, and driven, them from the southern part of the Island, where the Kaiganil now l i v e . Forty to f i f t y miles to the east of the Haida country lay what i s now the B r i t i s h Columbia mainland and what was then, the country of the Tsimshian. The Haida social'organization! was i n many respects l i k e that of the T l i n g i t . 4 9 Like the T l i n g i t , the Haida were d i -vided into two exogamous m a t r i l i n e a l phratries, which were each further subdivided into twenty or more m a t r i l i n e a l exo-gamio-sibs. Each of these sibs was associated by t r a d i t i o n and sentiment with a p a r t i c u l a r l o c a l i t y , though several sibs might be found i n one v i l l a g e , or one sib.might be found i n more than one v i l l a g e . The l o c a l d i v i s i o n of the s i b was further subdivided into households. A t y p i c a l household consisted of the owner or house-chief, his wife or wives, his young sons below the age of ten, his unmarried daughters, a married daughter with her husband and children, a younger brother of the c h i e f with L J yy M s wife and children,, an unmarried nephew ( s i s t e r ' s son), a married nephew with his family, possibly some other poor r e l a t i v e , and a slave or two. The household was associated with the moiety and s i b of i t s male owner. The housechief of the highest ranking, i . e . , wealthiest and most powerful, household within the l o c a l d i v i s i o n of the s i b , was the chief of t h i s l o c a l division;. H i e p o s i t i o n came to him by inheritance, his authority and influence throu wealth,, personality, and prestige. The l o c a l d i v i s i o n or lineage was the group i n which land and f i s h i n g r i g h t s were vested'.' Chieftainship i n household and s i b was hereditary v i a the female l i n e , the chief being succeeded preferably by the son of his eldest s i s t e r or by his younger brother. This rule of succession was modified, however, depending on the c a p a b i l i t i e s of the normal successor: i f he already held an equally high pos i t i o n , or was, on the other hand, physic-a l l y or mentally incapable, or lazy, or too poor, or of low repute, he would generally be passed over i n favour of an-other. The preferred form of marriage, as among the T l i n g i t , was between cross-cousins, usually between a man and his father's s i s t e r ' s daughter. 5" 0 This might be modified, how-ever, i f a young man was heir to a chieftaincy: i n t h i s instance, he would usually marry a daughter of the maternal uncle whom he was to succeed. The married couple normally resided with the bride's father, unless t h i s person was dead, br the groom was a house chief! 100 Rank was important among the Haida. A person's rank de-pended on the sorts and numbers of potlatches his or her par-ents had given i n t h e i r l i f e t i m e s . The c h i l d of poor parents might,, however, be adopted by a wealthy r e l a t i v e , u s u a l l y a paternal uncle, who would give potlatches for and so give 51 higher rank to the c h i l d . J An i n t e r e s t i n g feature of Haida and T l i n g i t society i s the matching; of the phratries. The two Haida phratries were called the Raven and Eagle. The two s i g n i f i c a n t T l i n g i t phratries were the Raven and Wolf (or, sometimes, Eagle). But the Raven phratry among the Haida was equated with the Wolf-or-Eagle phratry among;, the T l i n g i t : i f a man belonging to the Ravens among the Haidas v i s i t e d a T l i n g i t community, he was considered to belong the the Wol-or-Eagle phratry among the T l i n g i t during his v i s i t ' . This was apparently because among the Haida the Raven and Bear clan-crests belonged to the Eagle moiety (a curious switch!) while among the T l i n g i t these were Raven crests: the Haida Eagles were therefore equated with the T l i n g i t Ravens. 5 2 This matching; of phratries and the common element of m a t r i l i n e a l s o c i a l organization'rendered intermarriage possible without v i o l e n t disturbance of the habits of the persons involved i n the marriage. 6 THE HAIDA HOUSE-CHIEF gained his p o s i t i o n by giving; a pot-la t c h - — e i t h e r a house-building potlatch, given i n order to 101. to; get a new house erected and to claim the p o s i t i o n of i t s chief; or a funeral potlatch, given by the successor to va l i d a t e his claim to i n h e r i t ownership of the house and headship of i t s inhabitants. The house chief exercised a mild paternal authority over the dwellers i n his house: He d i r e c t s the economic a c t i v i t i e s of the household, protects and cares for i t s members, and i s treated with respect and a measure of reserve. His nephews (including his son-in-law) are his right-hand men, obeying his orders, assisting, him i n his economic a c t i v i t i e s , and manning.his canoe on m i l i t a r y and trading expeditions., The chief of the l o c a l d i v i s i o n of the clan was the r i c h e s t and most i n f l u e n t i a l house chief of that clan i n the v i l l a g e , and had authority over the other house chiefs o f his clan i n the v i l l a g e . He could count on t h e i r support i n war and other large-scale enterprises, but he lacked recognized power to enforce obedience. The source of his authority was, therefore, his wealth, prestige, and personal q u a l i t i e s . He acted as trustee or custodian of the lands belonging to the clan., and by v i r t u e of t h i s positionihe was treated with marked deference and received from his clansmen small presents from time to time. His authority did not ex-tend beyond the l i m i t s either of the l o c a l d i v i s i o n of the clan or of the v i l l a g e to which, he belonged. I f a discon-tented house-chief was powerful enough., that i s , had influence over enough followers, he might e a s i l y desert the v i l l a g e and found another with himself as chief. In t h i s way, clans spread out and broke up into several l o c a l i z e d sub-clans scattered over the country. As time went on, these sub-clans -54. would develop into d i s t i n c t and separate clans. The feud-system of the Haida was s i m i l a r to that of the T l i n g i t . Murdock's^ account i s both compact and detailed enough to he quoted i n f u l l : Theft and assult are regularly compounded, by prop-erty damages, graded according to the status of the i n -jured party. For murder, whether through violence or sorcery, the clansmen / i . e . , sibmates/ of the victimc. seek blood-vengeance. I f they succeed i n slaying the murderer or another member of his clan, t h i s terminates the blood feud, to be sure, but i t s t i l l leaves a balance to be s e t t l e d one way or the other unless the two v i c -tims happen to be i d e n t i c a l i n rank. The clansmen of the i n f e r i o r must make a payment of property s t r i c t l y proportionate to the difference i n status. To avoid r e t a l i a t i o n , however, the murderer flees to the house of his house chief, where his entire clan also takes refuge. The injured clan, armed and h o s t i l e , gather i n front of the dwelling. The chiefs of neutral clans t r y to med-i a t e between the par t i e s . Discovering what compensa-t i o n the outraged clan w i l l accept i n l i e u of blood-vengeance—an amount determined precisely by the status of the v i c t i m — t h e y communicate the information! to the beleaguered house chief. With h i s own property, and with contributions from his clansmen and from the murderer's father, he raises the necessary sum, which i s transferred to the injured clan and i s l a t e r used to give a funeral potlatch for the deceased. A general feast i s held, and the incident i s closed!,. I f the murderer enjoys a bad reputation or his clan i s too poor to make s e t t l e -ment, he must pay the penalty i n person. He dons the war helmet of his paternal grandfather, walks out of the house, and f a l l s r i d d l e d with arrows. His kinsmen show no signs of g r i e f but make preparations for the feast and dance of r e c o n c i l i a t i o n . I f a man borrows a canoe or a weapon: from a member of another clan, and i s k i l l e d or hurt while using i t , the owner i s l i a b l e for damages as though the i n j u r y were i n t e n t i o n a l . I t i s in t e r e s t i n g to note that t h i s account implies that people belonging, to d i f f e r e n t sibs l i v e d close enough to one another (a) f o r f r i c t i o n and quarrels to be a r e a l possi-b i l i t y , , and (b) for a person, having committed a crime or a misdemeanour, to f l e e from the scene of his offense and take refuge i n his home, which was i n turn a place where his sibs- _ mates could e a s i l y ( r e l a t i v e l y so) also take refuge. We 103 should expect, therefore, two or more clans to co-inhabit a r e l a t i v e l y small area and to interact i n t h e i r d a i l y l i f e . This would occur (a) i f a v i l l a g e contained members of more than one clan, or s i b , or (b) i f v i l l a g e s were r e l a t i v e l y close together. Alternative (a) obtained i n h i s t o r i c , times. I suspect that i t also did i n pre-contact times; but i f i t did not, as Murdock, for instance, says i t did n o t , ^ then alternative (b) necessarily obtained. Por what the informa-t i o n i s worth, the s i t e s of the now-extinct Kunghit Haida ranged from ^ mile to 10 miles i n distance between a s i t e and the s i t e next to i t , the most usual such distance being 2 to -57 3 m i l e s . T h e s e s i t e s include winter v i l l a g e s i t e s and sum-mer campsites, but even so, they are not p a r t i c u l a r l y close to one another. In. t h i s instance, alternative (b) was not f u l f i l l e d , and, accordingly, we must conclude alternative (a) to have obtained. This i n turn!, casts doubt upon Murdock's hypothesis that a b o r i g i n a l l y each v i l l a g e was occupied by but one clan. The feud-system of the Haidas would not have worked were Murdock's hypothesis correct. Dawson^8 remarks that offenders preferred to pay indem-n i t i e s rather than be slaughtered: The c u l p r i t generally prefers t h i s mode of settlement to having an uncertain r e t r i b u t i o n hanging over him, and as the value set on property i s great, and the d i s -i n c l i n a t i o n to reduce the store of blankets—which may possibly be accumulating for a prospective d i s t r i b u t i o n ! — e x c e s s i v e , the r e s t r a i n t i s proportionately severe. We should note also Murdock's account of the effects of s i b r i v a l r i e s , as would emerge, for instance, i n feuding, on -the r e l a t i o n s h i p between husband and wife. The wife, o f . 104 "course, had to come from a d i f f e r e n t sib-than that of her spouse; she would go to l i v e with her husband's group! Hence i f the two sibs f e l l out v/ith one another, the wife especially would be involved i n a c o n f l i c t of allegiances. The wife's brothers and sibmates would be opposed to the wife's husband and his sibmates, the people with whom the wife l i v e d ! As long as matters were but strained, the wife could move f r e e l y between the groups involved and act as a mediator. (Murdock does not mention.it, but cross-cousin marriage would render the husband's a f f i n a l s as blood r e l a -t i v e s (though not his lineage f e l l o w s ) , and would put further pressure on him to favour compromising the a f f a i r . ) I f , however, a feud did break out, the wife would usually cleave to her husband rather than, to her brothers! 7 ALONG- the banks and t r i b u t a r i e s of the Nass and Skeena Rivers along the sea coast between the estuaries of these two r i v e r s and on the offshore islands further south as far as Princess Royal and Swindle Islands, dwelt the Tsimshian. Three elements of Tsimshian culture set them o f f most d i s t i n c t l y from t h e i r neighbours. The language i s d i s t i n c t and, to date, no re l a t i o n s h i p between i t and any others i n the area has been demonstrated. The Tsim-shian have four exogamous kinship d i v i s i o n s i n contrast to-the dual d i v i s i o n s of the T l i n g i t and Haida, though a l l four phratries are not represented i n every Tsim-shian; townv The Coast Tsimshian and Nisq_a elevated certain: lineage heads to t r i b a l chiefs whose prestige was greatly enhanced, by t r i b a l economic support and prop e r t i e s , and by. t r i b u t e from a l l members of the l o c a l group regardless of clan, a f f i l i a t i o n . They did not take the further step of delegating; the power of law enforce-ment to t r i b a l chiefs., 0 105 The Tsimshian. and the Chinook were the most p o l i t i c -a l l y advanced nations of the Northwest Coast. I t i s surely no accident that both these peoples should each control one of the major trade routes between the coast and the i n t e r i o r : for the Tsimshianj t h i s was the Skeena; for the Chinook, the Columbia." .The Tsimshian peoples were divided into three mutually i n t e l l i g i b l e d i a l e c t s : Nisqa", spoken on the Nass River; Gitksan, spoken on the upper Skeena and i t s t r i b u t a r i e s ; and Coast Tsimshian,; spoken, on the lower Skeena, Douglas Channel,, and the coastal islands. These l i n g u i s t i c d i v -i s i o n s were also associated with other c u l t u r a l differences. Most of our information concerns the Coast Tsimshian of the lower Skeena and adjacent coast. The northern neighbours of the Tsimshian;. were the T l i n -g i t , north of. Portland Canal. To the west, across the waters of Hecate S t r a i t , lay the country of the Haida. To the east, i n the i n t e r i o r , were Athabascan-speaking peoples v/ith whom the Tsimshian enjoyed extensive ..trade. South of the Skeena, at Kitimat on Douglas Channel and along. Gardiner Canal, was the H a i s l a d i v i s i o n of the Kwakiutl. Further south yet were the B e l l a b e l l a Kwakiutl and the Salish-speaking B e l l a Coo la'. One notable event of the Tsimshian year was the long, eulachen run on. the Hass River from l a t e February or early March t i l l sometimes as l a t e as May. Ga r f i e l d writes, " A l l the Tsimshian. looked forward to olachen f i s h i n g at the mouth of the Mass, where they were joined by Haida and T l i n g i t 1 0 6 r ~i fishermen and traders." This would bring these three northern; peoples into f a i r l y intimate r e l a t i o n s h i p with one another. Again we must note the advantages f o r intermarriage that the s i m i l a r i t i e s i n s o c i a l organization provided^ As with the other northern nations, the basic unit of society ( i f there may be said to have been a basic unit) was the land-owning, resource-exploiting lineage headed by i t s lineage chief.. This might occupy one or more houses within the winter v i l l a g e . This lineage was also the l o c a l i z e d d i v i s i o n of a m a t r i l i n e a l exogamous clan or s i b . The lineages and clans were further organized into four m a t r i l i n e a l exogamous phratries. Among the Coast Tsimshian; and Hisqa these four phratries were the Eagles, Wolves,, Ravens, and B l a c k f i s h (or K i l l e r w h a l e s ) ; the Gitksan..equi-62 valents were the Eagles, Wolves, Prog-Raven, and Pireweed. The moieties of the Haida and T l i n g i t were each equated with two Tsimshian phratries for the purpose of regulating mar-riage between these northern t r i b e s : Haida T l i n g i t Tsimshian Eagles... Ravens.. Ravens and Eagles Ravens... Wolves (Eagles) B l a c k f i s h and Wolves^ 5 This organization into phratries was made manifest only i n the rules concerning marriage; otherwise, clan and lineage were f a r more s i g n i f i c a n t s o c i a l u n i t s . The clan or s i b was a named subdivision of a phratry'. Each clan had a legend of i t s o r i g i n , a history of common ancestors,, and many crests, shared property, and privileges." 107 Clans within the same phratry had only t h i s i n common, that they could not intermarry. Nor, apart from the sharing, of common, crests and ceremonial p r i v i l e g e s , was the clan:. p a r t i c u l a r l y important: In theory, a l l members of a clan were obligated to render mutual assistance and protection. The mem-bers were i n fact scattered so widely over Tsimshiani t e r r i t o r y and beyond that many did not know of one another's existence. People who functioned as a group were only the members of that closely related segment of a clan.which i s termed a house group or lineage. 5 Which brings us back to the lineage. The Tsimshian called t h i s u n i t a "house" and named i t a f t e r the head of the group* A "house" would contain a l l the persons dwelling.; i n the one or more households contained i n the lineage and under the lineage head. There was another use of the term "house" to apply only to those persons actually related to the lineage head, i . e . , actually part of the lineage proper. The second usage p a r a l l e l s the English usage of, f o r i n -stance, "House of Windsor". In t h i s second usage, most, though not necessarily a l l , of the "house" would be dwelling with the lineage head. "The extension of the term to desig-nate a group of r e l a t i v e s seems l o g i c a l and sets the non-kin members of the household, who had no ownership r i g h t s to the building, o f f from those who were r e l a t i v e s and to whom the dwelling belonged. The same s t r u c t u r a l p r i n c i p l e s operated among the Tsimshian as among the T l i n g i t and Haida. Children were members of t h e i r mother's lineage, and spent much of t h e i r time i n the houses of t h e i r mother's brother.. This was 108 r especially so for boys, who after the age of ten went to l i v e with t h e i r maternal uncle whom they would in.time succeed." Wives went to l i v e with t h e i r husbands and unmarried g i r l s usually l i v e d with t h e i r fathers. As a r e s u l t , g i r l s spent most of t h e i r time away from the lineage to which they prop-e r l y belonged (except, of course, i n the case of cross-cousin marriages). The most favoured marriage was that of a man with his mother's brother's daughter. In t h i s marriage, the father of the bride was the uncle of the groom. This form of mar-riage seems to have been s t i l l r e l a t i v e l y rare, but there were also a good many marriages between people sharing a common grandparent or great-grandparent. Such cousin mar-riages reinforced the t i e s that bound the lineages, consoli-dated t h e i r hereditary property, and extended the p r i v i -leges of using the other's resources. A marriage was, when a l l i s said and done, a contract between two lineages. Mar-riages "expressed personal friendships, p o l i t i c a l exigen-cies and interests i n the maintainance of wealth and s o c i a l position.. " ^ Ju r a l authority,, as usual, was mostly i n the hands of the males. The Tsimshian, however, did occasionally recog-nize female chiefs; G a r f i e l d notes three Coast Tsimshian t r i b a l c hieftainesses.^ 8 The Tsimshian had a well developed i n s t i t u t i o n of t r i b a l chiefs. A t r i b e seems to have been composed of one or more villages,, a v i l l a g e being "composed of clusters of dwellings ""belonging, to members of d i f f e r e n t lineages", and including members from various clans and p h r a t r i e s . ^ t r i b a l c hieftainship, G a r f i e l d thinks, grew out of older v i l l a g e 70 chieftainship. This sounds as i f some tr i b e s at l e a s t were composed of several v i l l a g e s . . Among, the T l i n g i t , some v i l l a g e chiefs extended a temporary influence over neigh-bouring villages'. I t seems as i f the Tsimshian", at l e a s t some of them, went further along t h i s l i n e and established more permanent chieftainships over groups of v i l l a g e s . Quite i n accordance with t h i s greater development of chieftainship—we s h a l l examine i t i n more d e t a i l i n the next section—,. was a greater development of s o c i a l s t r a t i -fication.., While for most of the Northwest Coast i t i s suf-f i c i e n t to speak only of three status l e v e l s — n o b l e s , com-moners, and slaves—and of chiefs as being only the f i r s t nobles^' among the Tsimshian we may d i s t i n g u i s h four status l e v e l s : chiefs and t h e i r r e l a t i v e s , lineage heads and t h e i r r e l a t i v e s , junior l i n e s and distant r e l a t i v e s of lineage heads, and s l a v e s — c h i e f s , lesser n o b i l i t y , commoners, and slaves. By chiefs, I mean t r i b a l or v i l l a g e chiefs rather than-lineage heads; lineage heads are sometimes called lineage chiefs or petty chiefs, which for the most part i s an adequate description, but i s a usage to be avoided when t a l k i n g about the Tsimshian because of the greater develop-ment of chieftainship among t h i s people'. The topmost or c h i e f l y class was composed of the ( t r i b a l ) chiefs with the members of t h e i r lineages. This included i J X J - U rb'oth maternal and paternal r e l a t i v e s because the c h i e f l y ^ class married within i t s e l f . To marry outside would be to cause one'fs children to lose status, unless t h e i r 'uncle' potlatched l i b e r a l l y to regain them th i s status. Those members of the c h i e f l y lineages who did not actually hold ranking, names (they were presumably the more junior l i n e s of the c h i e f l y lineage) were known by a Tsimshian:. expression translated as " l i t t l e n o b i l i t y " ! The l e s s e r n o b i l i t y comprised the lineage heads and t h e i r near r e l a t i v e s . These were senior branches of the lineages or houses, and t h e i r genealogical s e n i o r i t y gave them opportunities for p a r t i c i p a t i o n in: c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s not open to the junior branches. This class also included the offspring,., one of whose parents was of c h i e f l y rank and one was not. The rank of the people i n the lesser n o b i l i t y and in. the commoners was by no means equal. The various houses di f f e r e d i n t h e i r status, and accordingly the lineage heads and other persons associated with these houses d i f f e r e d im status! The commoner class was composed of those junior branches of the lineages whose members, because of t h e i r genealogical distance from the senior l i n e , could not hope for positions of leadership and were unable to acquire property enough to i n i t i a t e potlatches for themselves. Lesser n o b i l i t y and commoners could and did intermarry! In. marriage, one chief concern, was the r e l a t i v e ranking of the L :-111. 'houses about to be linked." Because of t h i s intermarrying, i t i s also appropriate to describe these two classes together as a single "middle class". At the very bottom of the commoner class was a rank of very poor people who had no lineage heads and no hereditary lands. They were described as "people without o r i g i n " , and l i v e d with and worked for the chiefs, from whom they r e-ceived protection, and subsistence". Lowest of a l l were the slaves. Marriages between slaves and freebornuwere forbidden.'''1 8 THE TSIMSHIAM: recognized three l e v e l s of p o l i t i c a l organi-zation,, and three l e v e l s of p o l i t i c a l l a u t h o r i t i e s : lineage heads, v i l l a g e chiefs, and t r i b a l chiefs. Lineage headship followed the pattern already described for the T l i n g i t and Haida. V i l l a g e and t r i b a l c hieftainship, however, at least among the Coast Tsimshian, and Hisqa, was more than being; merely the leading: lineage head of the v i l l a g e or t r i b e . The people of the lower Skeena, that i s , the Coast Tsimshianj, seem to have pioneered i n the development of chieftainship, and i t w i l l be clearest to begin with a description; of how f i r s t v i l l a g e and then t r i b a l chiefs emerged.^2 Probably early i n the eighteenth century, the dominance of the v i l l a g e by the head of one lineage group c r y s t a l l i z e d into v i l l a g e chieftainship. The v i l l a g e chief remained the hereditary head of his own lineage, which thereby s e t t l e d 'permanently as the leading group of the v i l l a g e . As already 112 'mentioned,; members of the chief's lineage who did not them-selves hold high ranking names came to be known as Igu-walksek, 73 or " l i t t l e n o b i l i t y . " Presumably, t h i s meant that the dominance of the v i l l a g e by one lineage and i t s head became permanent and hereditary. Not long before 1800 the Tsimshian moved further down the Skeena and established permanent v i l l a g e s on the edge of the s a l t water. The v i l l a g e s on the Skeena were not abandoned. Chiefs i n the old v i l l a g e s appointed from among t h e i r heirs chiefs who would watch over the new v i l l a g e s . Some of these older chiefs themselves took over new v i l l a g e s , and l e f t the old v i l l a g e s i n the care of t h e i r successors. These senior chiefs continued to exercise t h e i r authority over the newer chiefs, and i n t h i s way t r i b a l chieftainship emerged, i n . , which the t r i b a l c h i e f was regarded as the leader of his tribesmen regardless of where the l a t t e r livecC The t r i b a l chieftainships were patterned after lineage headships. Garfield w r i t e s : ^ Obligations which previously existed between lineage heads and k i n were duplicated between t r i b a l chiefs and followers, and property concepts formerly applied to lineages were extended to t r i b a l c hiefs. lineages owned property; t r i b e s also owned resource areas, homes, house furnishings and treasure valuables for t h e i r chiefs, who, w i t h i n l i m i t s , administered t r i b a l property for the glory of themselves and t h e i r sub-jects. . . . Tribes provided t h e i r chiefs with slaves and luxuries such as copper shields, Chilkat blankets, copper ornaments and r i c h l y ornamented chests, dishes, and spoons. A part of everything acquired or made was presented to him, whether a catch of seals or f i s h , a choice cut of bear meat, or trade goods. He also c o l -lected t r i b u t e of trade goods from his tribesmen. . . • 113 r The chief had no formal p o l i t i c a l authority, i n s p i t e of the fact that he wielded considerable influence. I t was his wealth which gave him such power as he enjoyed: He was given no power to either enforce or change cus-tomary law,, nor to intervene i n disputes between t r i b a l members unless asked to use his persuasive powers to bring about a settlement. He could council, threaten, cajole, but not command any but the members of his own lineage.. Ini actual practice, a t r i b a l c h i e f was nti>t>;;a maniwhose wishes could be l i g h t l y disregarded". He had great wealth and an i l l u s t r i o u s name; he had patrons-age to d i s t r i b u t e and slaves and young men at his com-mand to work for him; he could mobilize an armed guard or a rai d i n g party larger than was available to any lineage head. Chiefs could and did qu e l l resistance by armed force when necessary. The t r i b a l chief was assisted by a council composed of the lineage heads of the t r i b e or v i l l a g e . The council organ-ized t r i b a l undertakings such as a chief's potlatch, the building of a chief's house, the funeral of a chief, and the inauguration of a new chiefs They advised him oriithe choice of wives or successors, and decided whether or not the wealth of the t r i b e should be invested i n potlatches, coppers, or slaves. Since the chief required the approval and assistance of the council before any extensive enter-prises, the council thereby had a check on the chief's power. I t should be noted that the council did not always exert i t s powers i n t h i s regard. 9 THE FEUD-SYSTEM of the Tsimshian was of the same kind as 75 the other northern t r i b e s . J The responsible u n i t i n the system was the lineage, i . e . , the l o c a l i z e d segment of a -J XX4 rsibj,. consisting of people l i v i n g not onl-jr i n the same house, but often i n the same v i l l a g e or cluster of neighbouring, v i l l a g e s . While there were sentiments of s i b and phratral l o y a l t y , the facts that sibs and phratries were spread out over a wide t e r r i t o r y and that a person did not usually get to see the distant members of his s i b and phratry, meant that these units could not function e f f i c i e n t l y as the responsible units of a feud-system. The k i l l i n g of a fellow sib-mate was not defined as murder and there was no formal punishment for i t — t h o u g h , i t should be noted that many Tsimshian stories r e l a t e that a man's sons avenged his death i f he was k i l l e d by one o f his own. sib-mates.. The k i l l i n g , of a person not of one's own clan was reck-oned as murder, and brought vengeance i n return upon the murderer's lineage, or, i f none of his lineage were a v a i l -able, one of his sibmates would do." Tsimshian law-ways took no account of intent. Accidental k i l l i n g brought the same sanctions as in t e n t i o n a l murder. I f a guest was k i l l e d while hunting or f i s h i n g with his host or on his host's t e r -ritory,; the host was l i a b l e i n much the same way as i f he had himself k i l l e d his guest. The in j u r y of a person not of one's own clan- followed a pattern s i m i l a r to that f o r murder'. The code of indemnification of the Tsimshian was r e l a -t i v e l y complex. Like the codes of the. T l i n g i t and Haida, i t took into consideration differences i n rank.'. L I f the injured person was of higher standing than the 115 offender two persons from among the l a t t e r 1 s r e l a t i v e s were k i l l e d or a large amount of property was demanded, the exact amount being decided between the groups i n -volved. The rule was, a middle class man f o r a middle class one and a chief or a chief's r e l a t i v e for a chief. The i n j u r y or death of a woman was not compensated for unless her family was i n f l u e n t i a l ! A chief who k i l l e d a man of lesser rank was expected to compensate for the murder, but the r e l a t i v e s would make no formal demand f o r - r e s t i t u t i o n . They could r e t a l i a t e by attacking some lower rank r e l a t i v e of the chief, though t h i s was apt to prove a boomerang and they would fi n d themselves in.debt to the chief for the difference i n rank between the two men. Many long continued feuds have been car-• r i e d on mainly because of the difference i n rank of the men involved. No lineage with any pride would allow the matter to drop u n t i l they f e l t i t had been equitably s e t t l e d . ' D The presentation.of a claim f o r indemnification.had a formal pattern. The claim, i n the instance of murder, would be presented only by a lineage fellowy usually the successor, of the deceased. For the claim to be presented by a remote r e l a t i v e , even of the same phratry or sub-phratry, would be to make the claim r i d i c u l o u s , and i t would then be i g -mored'. Only persons of the same lineage as the v i c t i m had any l e g a l claim to compensation. "The p l a i n t i f f presented the case for himself and the other house or lineage r e l a t i v e s of the deceased; the defendants dickered over the amount they owed and the crowd of spectators were the witnesses to the 77 proceedings."'' These witnesses, i n the event of questions a r i s i n g i n the future, could prove that the a f f a i r had been se t t l e d and that neither party had any more claims i n the matter. Personal i n s u l t s and s l i g h t s , and anything that could damage a person's d i g n i t y and reputation, were treated i n the" same way as a murder or a bodily i n j u r y . Humiliation., at the . 1 1 6 r hands of others would be avenged and wiped out by i n f l i c t -ing i n j u r y or humiliation on those others. Injuries and i n -s u l t s suffered at the hands of non-human agencies, such as an accidental death without human intervention, were wiped out by giving a potlatch, destroying, property, or i n f l i c t i n g an i n j u r y on another lineage.' Witchcraft was occasionally used as a method of r e -78 venge. 1 10 THESE, then, were the p o l i t i c a l and l e g a l systems of the T l i n g i t , Haida, and Tsimshian.. How are we to evaluate them? In the f i r s t place,, a l l three societies c l e a r l y had c l a s s i c a l feud-systems. After the commission of an offense, the injured side made claims for compensation: feud-indem-n i t i e s i n the s t r i c t sense d e f i n i t e l y existed. At the same time,, though chiefs, as for instance among the Tsimshian," might have somewhat greater immunity to r e t a l i a t i o n , they did not yet regulate the r i g h t of private vengeance: the feud-system, therefore, was not yet decadent. The presence among the northern t r i b e s of c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances and t h e i r job i n helping to maintain order was e x p l i c i t l y noted by B a n c r o f t ^ as early as 1883. He wrote: In t h i s clanship, / i . e . , that of the T l i n g i t J some singular s o c i a l features present themselves.. People are at once thrust widely apart, and yet drawn together. Tribes of the same clan may not war on each other,,, but at the same time members of the same clan may not marry with each other. Thus the young Wolf warrior must seek his mate among the Ravens, and", while , celebrating his nuptials one day, he may be called upon j 117 the next to f i g h t h i s father-in-law over some heredi-tary feud. Obviously t h i s singular s o c i a l fancy tends greatly to keep the various t r i b e s of the nation at peace.. The pairing of house groups previously described would bind portions of two clans of opposite moieties very closely to-gether, and these bonds would tend to counterbalance the t i e s of these portions or house groups with the remainder of t h e i r respective clans. Just such a s i t u a t i o n as Bancroft points out would then be an ever-present p o t e n t i a l i t y . Murdock, as already discussed i n the section on Haida law, has des-cribed the c o n f l i c t of allegiances involved i n the husband-wife r e l a t i o n s h i p i n times of feud.. G a r f i e l d , i n her account of the Tsimshian legal- system, u has related a number of. case-h i s t o r i e s ; these show quite c l e a r l y the operation of con-f l i c t i n g allegiances. The evidence supports the proposition, that c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances", produced c h i e f l y by rules re-quiring; marriage outside one's vengeance group, created an important pressure i n favour of compromising offenses by paying indemnities. Since the northern nations had feud-indemnities properly so c a l l e d , we should not expect to f i n d among these peoples any extensive i n d i v i d u a l geographic; m o b i l i t y . What evidence do we find? The evidence i s rather negative and i n d i r e c t . The ethnographers mention nothing, at a l l l i k e the sort of thing; described for the Nootka and Kwakiutl. Prom t h i s f a c t , i t seems reasonable to i n f e r that i n determining the composi-t i o n of groups and the a f f i l i a t i o n of individuals thereto, 118 'the ethnographers did not have to take account of constant v i s i t i n g and moving i n and out of the groups i n question; and from this,, we may i n turn i n f e r that such moving; and v i s i t i n g was not especially pronounced. But such negative evidence i s hardly conclusive enough: perhaps the ethno-graphers, a f t e r a l l , , did not ask the sort of questions that would have brought out such movements i f they did occur. As long as t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y remains, we cannot reasonably assert d e f i n i t e l y that high i n d i v i d u a l geographic mobility did not e x i s t ; we can say only that i t s existence does not seem l i k e l y . ' When we look at the s o c i a l organization as a whole, however,: the unlikelihood of high i n d i v i d u a l geographic: mobility seems even, greater. A l l three s o c i e t i e s have formal and e x p l i c i t rules of u n i l i n e a r descent, rules that imply much: more than merely nominal a f f i l i a t i o n . With these rules are associated f a i r l y fixed rules or practices of residence that tend strongly towards unilocality ". High i n d i v i d u a l geo-graphic mobility simply does not seem i n accord with such an: organization; Other b i t s of evidence accumulate. The T l i n g i t placed a very high value on the pairing of house-groups. Such a valuation would tend to reinforce such p a i r i n g as did occur, and such p a i r i n g would reduce the number of other un i t s with which a man might have kinship and therefore some r i g h t s to.: h o s p i t a l i t y and v i s i t s ^ I t would tend to favour the associ-ation of a person with a p a r t i c u l a r l o c a l i t y and none othert 119 r 1 This, also, i s the impression, at le a s t , that I get from a Q - l discussion;, hy de Laguna on the T l i n g i t s o c i a l s e l f . Another item of information concerns the Tsimshian. An; inspection of a c o l l e c t i o n of Tsimshian narratives reveals a f a i r number of migrations as,groups i n response to various catastrophes, war, famine, etc. But movements of i n d i v i d -u a ls, though occurring, are yet few and f a r between. Such that do- occur are frequently the f l i g h t s of survivors from massacres, hardly i n d i v i d u a l geographic, mobility to prevent O p the outbreak of violence. None of these b i t s of evidence i s p a r t i c u l a r l y strong, i n i t s e l f . Seen together, however,, they warrant, I think, the conclusion;, as a reasonable certainty that a high degree of in d i v i d u a l geographic.; mobility did not exis t among the T l i n -g i t , Haida, and Tsimshian. And t h i s i s i n accord with the-o r e t i c a l expectations. 120 V THE SALISH-SPEAKIFG PEOPLES  B e l l a Coola,.- Georgia S t r a i t , Upper Stalo, Puget Sound,. K l a l -lam,, Quinault l i WE COME now to the s o c i o p o l i t i c a l systems of the S a l i s h -speaking peoples of the Northwest Coast. These people f e l l into two major d i v i s i o n s : the B e l l a Coola,,- whose neighbours were the H a i s l a and Tsimshian.to the north, the B e l l a b e l l a to the west, the Heiltsuq. to the southwest^, and the Athapas-can^speaking Carrier and C h i l c o t i n to the east and the f a r -ther south-east; and the Coast S a l i s h proper, who l i v e d i n i the country south of the Kwakiutl and Footka as f a r as the. Columbia r i v e r where the Chinook lived.. Within the region of the Coast S a l i s h proper, the peoples I wish to discuss are the S a l i s h of the Georgia S t r a i t area, the Upper Stalo', the Puget Sound S a l i s h , the Klallam, and the Quinault of the western Washington coast," Up to now I have used the words " t r i b e " and "winter-v i l l a g e community" as synonomous. This usage has accorded with that of most of the writers describing the peoples we have just examined. But the writers on whom I r e l y for the Coast S a l i s h data sometimes make a d i s t i n c t i o n between the v i l l a g e and the t r i b e : they use the word " t r i b e " to re f e r to a group of people usually comprising more than., one v i l l a g e and distinguished from other groups by common: d i a l e c t , a sentiment of kinship variously expressed, and sometimes A other small elements of c u l t u r a l difference. The villages', a l s o , were generally rather smaller than the v i l l a g e s of the northern nations, sometimes consisting of only one or two houses".' (But to complicate matters, house types d i f f e r e d from those of the northern nations, and house sizes varied considerably, even w i t h i n the same v i l l a g e . ) This repre-sents, I think^. a somewhat more diff u s e and less concentrated pattern-of population d i s t r i b u t i o n : than that among the northern t r i b e s — a l t h o u g h the population per square mile was perhaps greater among the southerners than among the northerners'. In.describing; the S a l i s h , then, I s h a l l not necessarily mean, by " t r i b e " a win t e r - v i l l a g e community.' The B e l l a Coola The B e l l a Coola people were divided into three major groups: those of the B e l l a Coola valley"„ those along South Bentinck Arm, and those at the head of Dean Channel. The l a t t e r two groups may-also be called the Tal'io people and the Kimsquit people re s p e c t i v e l y . Mcllwraith describes the B e l l a Coola together as a single t r i b e , i n spite of the fact that i t was the v i l l a g e that was the basic p o l i t i c a l u n i t , and gives his reasons for doing so in. the following; passage: 1 A l l spoke the same language. There were d i a l e c t i c a l , differences among the people of B e l l a Coola, T a l ' i o , and Kimsquit", but each group could understand the others". This d i f f e r e n t i a t e d them c l e a r l y from a l l neighbouring, tribes'. A member.-of a secret society i n any of the / B e l l a Coola, Tal'io,; *ahd Kimsquit v i l l a g e s / was accepted as a member i n any other one." A person of another tribe;' even i f known to belong to a comparable society, was 122 treated as an.uninitiated person. The people of B e l l a Coola, Tal* io,and Kimsquit f e l t themselves to he akin through acceptance of the fact that t h e i r ancestors had been created together i n the begin-ning of time." In h i s description, of B e l l a Coola s o c i a l organization, Mcllwraith distinguishes three major types of s o c i a l unit"", each clo s e l y involved with, the other two: the ancestral family or minmint, the v i l l a g e community, and the ordinary family! According to B e l l a Coola history, the nation was des-cended from about f o r t y - f i v e groups which came down, from the world above i n the beginning of things and each estab-lis h e d a v i l l a g e community." The minmint comprised a l l those persons who traced t h e i r descent from one of these f i r s t groups of s e t t l e r s . This descent might be traced either through one's father or through one's mother," and a person, might accordingly claim membership i n more than one minmint, usually i n two or three but sometimes as many as eight. This ancestry was embodied i n i ancestral names, and the an-c e s t r a l names i n o r i g i n myths. "The ancestral family con-s i s t s of those whose ancestral names, embodying d e f i n i t e p prerogatives, are embodied i n a single o r i g i n myth," That i s to say, a c h i l d received shortly after i t s b i r t h a name embodied i n the o r i g i n , myth of the ancestral family (minmint) of one of i t s r e l a t i v e s , usually i t s father or mother; t h i s name should not be one then i n use by another member of the minmint! A c h i l d might be given several of these ancestral names, each from the various minmints to which he was related!. 123 'A c h i l d to whom such an ancestral name had not been, given: would be without status i n the community,, and would not in. fact be a member of a minmint".5 A f f i l i a t i o n with a minmint followed b i l a t e r a l p r i n c i p l e s A c h i l d was a member of both h i s father's and his mother's minmints» and through them', of the minmints of his four grand parents. 4 viewed synchronieally, therefore,' the minmint may be regarded as a b i l a t e r a l or non-unilinear descent group. But i t must also be viewed as an i n s t i t u t i o n stretching back i n time. Looked at under t h i s aspect, says Mcllwraith, i t i s i n f a c t ; though not admitted to be so by the B e l l a Coola, a u n i - l a t e r a l grouping with p a t r i l i n e a l descent, which may, in. both the most recent and most ancient generations, be marked by m a t r i l i n e a l descent instead. A man frequently uses prerogatives obtained through his mother, her mother, or even her mother's mother, but i t i s t a c i t l y assumed that for many pre-vious generations such r i g h t s passed in: the p a t r i -l i n e a l l i n e . Sometimes t h i s succession extended back to the beginning of time; i n other cases, preroga-t i v e s were transmitted m a t r i l i n e a l l y for a considerable period after the settlement of the earth"," before grad-u a l l y becoming p a t r i l i n e a l . ' With a l l due respect to Mcllwraith," we must, I think, s t i l l regard the minmint as a b i l a t e r a l group through time, though possessed of a strong preference for p a t r i l i n e a l descent. This strong preference i s undoubtedly connected with the preference for p a t r i l o c a l and v i r i l o c a l residence. The minmint was also the land-holding,, unit'. Asso-ciated with each minmint were a number of hunting, t e r r i -t o r i e s , f i s h i n g places, and berrying grounds. The claims of the minmint were contained i n i t s o r i g i n myth, which r e -corded how the founding ancestors found and preempted the 124 grounds i n question for themselves". An i n d i v i d u a l could of course hunt and f i s h or otherwise share i n the resources of any and a l l of the minmints to which he belongedV And wives or husbands were allowed also to use the ancestral lands of -7 t h e i r spouses. The next unit distinguished by Mcllwraith f or the B e l l a Coola i s the v i l l a g e community. The v i l l a g e community was intimately connected with the minmint i n that the former, at l e a s t t h e o r e t i c a l l y , consisted of the descendants, traced mostly in.-the p a t r i l i n e a l l i n e , of the reputed f i r s t s e t t l e r s to occupy a v i l l a g e s i t e . The minmint was usually thought o f i n relation, to v i l l a g e s . "A man belongs to the v i l l a g e where his f i r s t ancestor came to earth, though he i s equally a member of other towns into which h i s ancestors may have mar-r i e d . " This was i n s p i t e of the fact that i t ws of t h e i r ancestral families that people were most proud". Migrations and abandonments of v i l l a g e s i t e s took place often enough in. the old days.. Mythology recorded such as having occurred at the beginning of B e l l a Coola h i s t o r y ^ People would move to v i l l a g e s where they had r e l a t i v e s and seem always to have been welcome. I f i n such a manner two minmints came to occupy the same v i l l a g e , they would become even more closely related than ever before; the same would happen even i f the two minmints were previously unrelated." Nevertheless," "The r e a l inhabitants, those whose power i s f i r m l y planted i n the v i l l a g e , are the reputed descendants of the f i r s t group of s e t t l e r s , and accordingly a r e l a t i v e coming;, to dwell i n a v i l l a g e usually endeavours to obtain;, a name from the o r i g i n myth of the ancestral family occupying i t and thus e s t a b l i s h himself with the t r a d i t i o n s of his new home."^ Such endeavours would he rendered r e l a t i v e l y easy hy the fact that a f f i l i a t i o n with a minmint could take place through either parent! Besides the ancestral family that made up the core of the v i l l a g e community, there would be other occupants: strangers who had f l e d from t h e i r own people and sought refuge among the B e l l a Coola; the offspr i n g of i l l i c i t intercourse with slaves,, and who therefore had not been granted ancestral names; guests; foreigners, such as the Carrier of the I n t e r i o r , residing f o r the moment with B e l l a Coola; and slaves. The chief function of the v i l l a g e was as a ceremonial • unity: the v i l l a g e was the unit f o r putting on dances, and the leading men of the v i l l a g e customarily met together to> discuss ceremonial matters. I t was a p o l i t i c a l u n i t of sorts, i n that i f i t was attacked, a l l the v i l l a g e r s tended to suffer equally! But, apart from this,, i t was a f l u i d and i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c u n i t : most individuals tended to follow t h e i r own i n c l i n a t i o n s . There was, for instance, no complusioni for an i n d i v i d u a l to j o i n a war-party that some of his fellow v i l l a g e r s organized! The siz,s of the v i l l a g e s varied, from as many as t h i r t y or f o r t y houses to as few as two or three., The houses them-selves varied i n s i z e : an important chief might have a household including ten or more f a m i l i e s , and his house would 126 rbe large accordingly; smaller and less important households v/ould contain and he able to contain, only about two or three families." The t h i r d unit that Mcllwraith distinguishes i s the family,, consisting b a s i c a l l y of a man, his wife or wives, and his children, but sometimes enlarged by the addition of other r e l a t i v e s to form a sizeable extended family occupying, a large house.'1'0 A poor man's family would be l i m i t e d to his wife and children, and perhaps his e l d e r l y parents. But a wealthy and (therefore) i n f l u e n t i a l man would have a larger family.. A very powerful chief's family would include his wives, his aged r e l a t i v e s , and perhaps some of those of his wives, his sons with t h e i r wives and children," and perhaps even his daughters with t h e i r husbands and children. And the family group might also include connections by marriage, such as a brother's widow.. Thus the family or household might include members from more than one minmint. And at any rate, the wife's r e l a t i v e s , even i f not l i v i n g with her husband, nevertheless took gret i n t e r e s t i n the fortunes of the children. No family group, therefore, could be isolat e d and to i t s e l f alone! The head of the family directed the economic a c t i v i t i e s of the group, and was assisted by his children i n giving; potlatches. As a c h i l d grew up, he was assisted in., perform-ing the various ceremonials by his parents and s i b l i n g s , and also by his maternal, r e l a t i v e s . The family group was also the unit which educated the children and prepared them for f u l l adult l i f e . F i n a l l y , we should note that i f a father JLZl 'acted too despotically, his children, especially the older'," married ones, would simply move away; t h i s put an eff e c t i v e check on his power. The family group was also the unit of l e g a l enforce-ment; discussion of t h i s aspect w i l l he reserved u n t i l l a t e r The kinship terminaology of the B e l l a Coola was c l e a r l y that of a b i l a t e r a l system. 1 1 The B e l l a Coola were divided into three status l e v e l s : nobles (or, as Mcllwraith c a l l s them, c h i e f s ) , commoners, and slaves." The nobles or chiefs were those persons who, by dint of much potlatching; and other d i s t r i b u t i o n s of wealth, gained great prestige and influence." The commoners were those who had l i t t l e wealth and therefore had di s t r i b u t e d l i t t l e . " While the children of wealthy men had an advantage thereby over the children of poor men, i n theory and to a good deal i n practice, persons of a b i l i t y and industry could elevate themselves to c h i e f l y status. l a z y children of even the highest nobles would, by f a i l i n g to accumulate and r e d i s -t r i b u t e wealth, by degrees lose t h e i r status." This practice the B e l l a Coola saw as d i f f e r e n t from that of t h e i r neigh-bours, and often said, for instance, that the B e l l a b e l l a considered f o o l i s h the B e l l a Coola practice "of each one 12 endeavouring to make himself a chief." This phrase i s a short and pithy description of the B e l l a Coola custom. The power of a B e l l a Coola chief was d i r e c t l y proportionate to his wealth and prestige, and very wealthy chiefs might be accorded almost despotic powers^" 128 In., selecting partners for marriage, the chief concern was for the welfare of the children who would r e s u l t from i t . " I t was important that a man chose a wife (and a woman a hus-band) marriage with whom would not demean the children through lack of ancient and honourable ancestry. The f i r s t r u l e , thenj was to choose a mate of approximately the same s o c i a l status or the same l e v e l of wealth." Then, of course, one might not marry too close a r e l a -t i v e . Marriage with a s i s t e r , an aunt, a niece, or any f i r s t cousin was forbidden. Having eliminated those g i r l s who are too cl o s e l y related., or who are unsuited on account of the poverty of t h e i r parents, the father and mother can concentrate on others of about the same age as t h e i r son. The most desirable i s a member of the ancestral family of one of the parents. This obviates the dangers and d i f f i c u l t i e s of marriage with a stranger, and any children w i l l be. borni'into the close-knit c i r c l e of related ancestors stretching back to the beginning of time. . ." ~. Each ancestral family i s jealously proud of i t s ancient t r a d i -tions and prerogatives, and as some of these are trans-mitted at marriage, i t follows that a mating w i t h i n . i t s ranks i s desirable from a business standpoint'." "." . . Since ancestral families have usually become l o c a l i z e d i n certain v i l l a g e s , there i s a strong leaning to l o c a l endogamy, though t h i s i s not compulsory. The r e s t r i c -tions on; marriage are of a b i l a t e r a l nature, and the preferences are equally b i l a t e r a l , with a tendency to become p a t r i l i n e a l , i n accordance with the p a t r i l i n e a l . , „ tendency of the ancestral family as already d e s c r i b e d . 5 This strong tendency toward minmint. endogamy was counter-balanced by a practice of seeking wives from unrelated min- mints or from other t r i b e s . This practice, engaged i n espec-i a l l y by wealthy chiefs, was done i n order to gain as part of the wife's dowry various prerogatives that the chief thought well worth the r i s k s of marrying out for." Two minmints might also exchange women, as i t were, over time i n a practice c a l l e d "return marriage". This would rhave the effect of returning ancestral names given i n marriage to the minmint that had o r i g i n a l l y given them. I f i t happened often enough, also, i t would have the effect of binding the two minmints together, " u n t i l the prerogatives of the two families become so closely interwoven that a c h i l d w i l l , indeed, be born into the ranks of related ancestors from both.parents. 1 , 1 4 A s i g n i f i c a n t feature of B e l l a Coola society was the 15 " f l u i d i t y " of the system. J The minmint had no accepted head," and there were no c l e a r l y formulated rules governing the transmission and inheritance of the ancestral name-preroga-tives." The v i l l a g e was equally " f l u i d " : there were as many chiefs i n the v i l l a g e as there were wealthy and i n f l u e n t i a l men." I f a family group became unpopular or considered i t s e l f aggrieved, for whatever reason, i t usually moved to another village." This " f l u i d i t y " was shown also i n the customs re-garding the taking of vengeance." 2 WE WILL N O V / examine the B e l l a Coola patterns of authority and l e g a l enforcement! The f i r s t force of s o c i a l control was public, opinion. M c l l w r a i t h ^ 0 refers continually to i t . We may expect that public:opinion would prevent a f a i r number of the i r r i t a t i o n s of d a i l y l i f e from b o i l i n g over into irrevocable violence. In t h i s job, the opinions of wealthy and therefore i n f l u -e n t i a l persons ("chiefs") would count for much! L The source of c h i e f l y influence (namely, wealth) has 130 ralready been described. A b i l i t y and strength of character would in.themselves count for much, but theybwould he mani-fested c h i e f l y i n the accumulation and r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of. wealth at potlatches and lesser feasts. Our concern at t h i s point i s with the actual powers enjoyed by a chief! A chief had no j u d i c i a l or executive power. The defer-ence and influence that he enjoyed depended s o l e l y on his prestige. Mcllwraith says: l Y" The advice of such a man i s taken because of his a b i l i t y and prestige, especially by the members of his own family. A few years ago, for example, when a cer-t a i n B e l l a Coola died, his brother wished a kusiut name-prerogative of the deceased to pass to the dead man.'s daughter. The g i r l ' s mother's father, a numiti chief, objected, and his desires were followed, although the name i n question was not connected i n any way with his family. In small matters, too, people gladly carry out the wishes of a chief. Work around the house i s done for him without thought of disobedience". The extreme of c h i e f l y power, an eminence r a r e l y reached,. was reached by a B e l l a Coola chief named Poties, who was -| Q f a r above the r e s t r a i n t s that hindered le s s e r men: The l a s t great B e l l a Coola chief was Poties, who died between 1870 and 1880. His influence and power were so great that he was a v i r t u a l r u l e r , daring; any-thing. I f he requested a young man to take his food box home and the youth was slow to obey, Pot±es had no he s i t a t i o n - i n k i l l i n g him on the spot. Such great power, though unusual, i s i n t e l l i g i b l e to the B e l l a Coola, since Poties gave far more potlatches than any of his contemporaries. Other chiefs have been known; to attempt a s i m i l a r a r b i t r a r y use of power, but have f a i l e d , since t h e i r prestige was not great enough;to j u s t i f y i t . The fame of a mighty chief spreads up and down the coast, and protects him and the members of his family from being ambushed and s l a i n i n any sporadic foray. During an actual f i g h t , however, a chief had to take his chances with the r e s t , but the comparative immunity was a-great advantage. The p o s i t i o n of chief was not without i t s disadvantages. One who elevated himself too far above his fellows and acted _i 131. rtoo arrogantly aroused envy i n the hearts of others, and these others would then seek to k i l l him, "by sorcery i f not •-19 m a more open manner. ^ The family, not the minmint. or the v i l l a g e , was the i unit of l e g a l r e s o n s i b i l i t y . But the l i m i t s , of t h i s u n i t on were by no means c l e a r l y defined, as Mcllwraith's account shows: I f a person i s k i l l e d or wounded, revenge i s the a f f a i r of his family." Just how many individuals are involved depends on the composition.of the family. In the case of the k i l l i n g of a c h i l d , l i v i n g with h i s parents alone, none but the father would f e e l i t i n -cumbent to r e t a l i a t e . I f an adult person i s murdered, his or her brothers f e e l and avenge the i n s u l t . But should an important member of the community be s l a i n , an old man. surrounded by a numerous family, i t i s the a f f a i r of a l l . Every e f f o r t i s made to slay the mur-derer, but i f he should escape from the country, the i n -jured group i s s a t i s f i e d by k i l l i n g one of his family^ Here again the same inexact composition i s found. A man's son, brother, or father are the only persons s t r i c t l y l i a b l e , and even here the common sense of the B e l l a Coola outweighs t h e i r t h e o r e t i c a l laws." A mur-derer's brother, l i v i n g i n another v i l l a g e , would not be held l i a b l e ; but more distant r e l a t i v e s l i v i n g / w i t h the offender and considered as his family are l i a b l e ^ I t i s very rare for a woman to be k i l l e d i n a blood, feud. A death i s answered by a death; i f two persons should be s l a i n f o r one murder the family which has suffered the double loss endeavours to k i l l another of t h e i r enemies. In case of wounding,, an e f f o r t i s made, to wound the offender, but i f he should be k i l l e d h i s family would t r y to avenge him. More often, one of the offender's family takes the i n i t i a t i v e of offering: goods to the injured family, "to cure the wound." I f the o f f e r i s accepted", and the goods delivered promptly, the matter i s at an end. I f a murder be committed within the ranks of the immediate family, for instance, i f a brother k i l l a brother, revenge, i f exacted, must be meted out to the actual offender. I f requested to do so, the leading chief of a v i l l a g e may o f f e r his advice, but i t i s always considered that revenge concerns only the immediate family." Revenge i s a topic which shows c l e a r l y the essential, f l u i d i t y of the family. There are no well-defined de-grees of r e l a t i o n s h i p within which r e s p o n s i b i l i t y r e s t s . - Instead, everyone knows, i n the open l i f e of the commun- 1 132 i t y , how many persons share the family l i f e of the i n d i v i d u a l , and they alone are held to account, or they alone demand compensation. One of the chief sources of disagreements seems to have tie en over the bestowal of name-prerogatives and r i g h t s in..the land owned by a minmint. Sometimes, for various reasons, a person would grant to another not of his ancestral family a name-prerogative or a r i g h t to use the minmint 1s land; but others of his minmint would not agree with t h i s g i f t , and when the receiver claimed i t , a quarrel and v i o -lence would ensue. 2 1 "Pactions within the v i l l a g e seem to have been unimpor-tant; i n d i v i d u a l jealousies were common, and often led to murder, but i f a family became unpopular or considered i t s e l f 79 aggrieved, i t usually moved to another v i l l a g e . " The use of sorcery i n connection with envy of chiefs h a s already been mentioned; i t would constitute another cause (as well as be an expression) of discord^ This, then, was the l e g a l system of the B e l l a Coola. What may we say about i t ? P i r s t , there i s spme resemblance between the B e l l a Coola practice of "curing the wound" and the payment that the Kwakiutl chief Neqapenkem made to the chief G-exkenis whose arm (and dignity) had been wounded by Neqapenkem's brother Tsagayos. Neither happening can be called a f u l l - f l e d g e d , proper instance of a feud-indemnity. I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that i n both instances the i n i t i a t i v e was taken, not by the aggrieved group making a claim, but by the offending group volunteering the goods as a peace-offering; L J 133 We do not, I think,, see here feud-indemnities properly so c a l l e d , hut rather the precedent from which, i n other s o c i -e t i e s , feud-indemnities probably arose and, among the B e l l a Coola and Kwakiutl, might i n the course of time have arisen. The B e l l a Coola practice seems to have been more of a regular and generally accepted sort of thing;, while Heqapenkem's action may have been more of an i d i o s y n c r a t i c pattern of behaviour; i f t h i s were so (and to argue so i s to argue from lack of data i n the Kwakiutl case), then we might consider the B e l l a Coola closer to a c l a s s i c a l feud-system than the.Kwak-i u t l — b u t not much closer. For murder, the custom was s t i l l a l i f e f o r a l i f e , and no compounding was possible." The feud-system of the B e l l a Coola was therefore nascent! I t lacked feud-indemnities, and B e l l a Coola chiefs, without j u d i c i a l or executive functions, did not regulate the r i g h t of private vengeance. Second,, we f i n d d e f i n i t e i n d i c a t i o n s , i f not quite as clear as we should l i k e , of i n d i v i d u a l geographic, mobility serving to reduce pressure on the feud-system to develop f u l l y fledged feud-indemnities. Families finding i t hard to get along i n one v i l l a g e departed for another. "In the early days immigrants seem always to have been welcome; they added to the numerical strength of the v i l l a g e , and the o r i g i n a l inhabitants enjoyed boasting to the newcomers of 23 t h e i r descent from the f i r s t s e t t l e r s . " ^ L J 134 3 The S a l i s h of Georgia S t r a i t BARNETT distinguishes t h i r t e e n t r i b a l groups existing i n early h i s t o r i c times on the shores of the S t r a i t of Georgia. Each t r i b e was marked o f f from the others by certain d i a -l e c t i c a l p e c u l i a r i t i e s , and each was composed of a number of f a i r l y closely.associated but not notably large winter v i l l a g e groups. In:summer these various t r i b a l groups broke apart into extended family groups and dispersed to f a i r l y widely spread fishing; and berrying grounds. Most, notable of these summer movements of the t r i b e s was the great July congregation at l u l u Island of people from Cowi-chan. and Nanaimo on Vancouver Island and from Musqueam (Barnett: "Maskwiam") and Point Roberts (Barnett: "Tswasan") on. the Mainland. 2 4 In.spite of these various d i v i s i o n s , however, s o c i a l organization seems to have followed much the same pattern throughout the region. The basic, s o c i a l u n i t was the extended family, normally laving;: i n winter i n one large house i n the winter village." This house group was the land-holding, resource-exploiting; group and the basic unit of s o c i a l c o n t r o l — t h a t very common pattern throughout the Northwest Coast." This extended family tended towards a rule of p a t r i l o c a l residence, but not exclu-s i v e l y so, for sometimes a husband went and l i v e d with hiss wife's family. The core of the household usually comprised the family head, his wife, his sons and t h e i r wives and ^children, his unmarried daughters, his brothers with t h e i r r-wives and children, and his unmarried s i s t e r s . Often there would l i v e i n the household also widows, parents-in-law, orphans, "and other tag ends of families unable to stand. alone." 2 5 The family bore a name and enjoyed a set of cere-monial prerogatives which set i t apart from other f a m i l i e s . Disaffected individuals or those without strong support were glad to i d e n t i f y themselves with an im-portant family^ and normally they were welcome. Since they usually joined a c o l l a t e r a l branch of t h e i r own lineage or a family to which they were related by mar-riage, l i t t l e adjustment of attitude or o b l i g a t i o n was required. This process of accretion was off s e t by the contrary one of d i v i s i o n or segmentation. Some-times the realignment resulted from the ambitions and r i v a l r i e s of brothers; but i t was also the normal con-sequence of population growth. There are indications that the average v i l l a g e was composed of a number of related extended f a m i l i e s , the c o l l a t e r a l outgrowth of an o r i g i n a l nucleus.26 The rules concerning, whom one could or could not marry followed b i l a t e r a l rather than u n i l a t e r a l practices. F i r s t and second cousins should under no circumstances marry, and though t h i r d cousins might, some yet more distant r e l a t i v e was preferable-. Marriage with a parent's s i b l i n g was regard-ed with horror. Some considered a wife's daughter by a former marriage e l i g i b l e , but others did not. Most groups did not forbid marriage with a wife's s i b l i n g ' s daughter. 2^ Such a pattern of exogamy would tend to favour v i l l a g e exo-gamy, especially i n view of the r e l a t i v e l y small siz e of p Q the v i l l a g e s . But v i l l a g e exogamy was not elevated into a r u l e . A person should marry a person of approximately his or her own s o c i a l s t a t u s . 2 9 This would also have the effect o f -leading a chief to seek a wife outside his own v i l l a g e . 136 Commoners would be more l i k e l y to f i n d a wife of t h e i r own status within t h e i r own v i l l a g e than would a chief. Barnett also describes another motive for marrying as widely as possible In marrying, a man's ambition was to gain as many desirable s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l connections as he could. In l a t e r days at l e a s t , t h i s ambition manifested i t s e l f i n an ef f o r t to obtain wives from as many v i l l a g e s as possible. By doing; so, a man b u i l t up a variety of alliances with families i n neighbouring groups that afforded protection and h o s p i t a l i t y outside the t e r r i -tory of his l o c a l group. Furthermore, he l a i d the basis for the claim of "many homes," a claim upon which men prided themselves! I t was especially desirable that one should have homes located a great distance from h i s paternal home, for a man had to be r i c h and well known to have his s u i t accepted i n a distant v i l l a g e . Barnett, however, wonders how widespread t h i s practice was i n ancient times. He thinks that the enforcement of peace by the Government and an enlargement of the zone of f r i e n d l y contacts led to a considerable increase i n the range of int e r f a m i l y marriages. At the close of the eight-eenth century, for instance, such h o s t i l i t y existed between the Cowichan and the Comox that a Comox man, seeking a Cowichan wife against the advice of his family, could not convince the Cowichan of his peaceful intentions when he arrived i n Cowichan Bay and was decapitated and disemboweled there on the beach.-^ Three status l e v e l s existed among the S t r a i t of Georgia S a l i s h : chiefs or n o b i l i t y , commoners, and slaves. Between slaves and freemen, was fixed a sharp gulf. But a continu-ous gradation.of rank extended from the lowest of the com-moners to the highest of the n o b i l i t y , and i t was hard to 137 di s t i n g u i s h between the lowest of the n o b i l i t y and the highest of the commoners. I t could not be otherwise, for rank depended, not alone upon b i r t h i n a certain family, but also upon the order of b i r t h w i t h i n . i t . Within any given, family, the pos-session of valuable items and resources of wealth and of ceremonial prerogatives was the important c r i t e r i o n ! of status. As a r u l e , t h i s correlated p a r i passu with order of b i r t h , for i n general a l l r i g h t s were i n h e r i t e d ! A f i f t h son i n an a r i s t o c r a t i c family therefore ranked far below the f i r s t , and his f i r s t coixsini. f a r below him. Both approximated the common l e v e l and i t would have been d i f f i c u l t to draw a l i n e of demarcation, be-tween them and a respected commoner. Informants never attempted i t . As a matter of f a c t , although they were quite conscious of rank i n the abstract and of the be-havior proper to the two grades of i t , informants, when questioned about t h i s or that i n d i v i d u a l or his father (except f or heads of houses), were usually unable to rate any i n d i v i d u a l s o c i a l l y with respect to other individuals.32 Rank could be raised and was raised, but not very often. 5" "Chiefs" among the Georgia S t r a i t S a l i s h were simply the headmen.of the extended families that constituted every-where the basic; s o c i a l units.. They gained influence through t h e i r rank and prestige and through t h e i r observance of the rules of proper morality. There were no v i l l a g e chiefs as such. " I f one man was accorded d i s t i n c t i o n or merit over a l l others, i t ws because he was the headman of the most powerful family unit within the aggregate, and -for no other reason; and he had only so much power and influence as was t a c i t l y accorded him by the other family headmen i n the v i l l a g e . " 3 4 The headmen, however, had no power beyond the support of p u b l i c opinion to enforce t h e i r judgments or decisions.. 35 But public opinion was powerful. Barnett says, s p e l l i n g , out the force of public.opinion i n d e t a i l : Although the headman's advice was frequently > sought, he had no power whatever to enforce his owny judgments or even the majority opinions of his house associates. Any disse".nter was free to do as he pleased. Even, when his action jeopardized the l i f e , r i g h t s , or security of others, no formal group r e s t r a i n t s were imposed on him. However, a number o f factors held the nonconforming i n d i v i d u a l i n check. These were the pressure of economic necessity,, the threat of s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n , r i d i c u l e , the withdrawal of moral support, and, occasionally,, the fear of physical violence on: the part of an aggrieved individual.. The pattern of i n t e r v i l l a g e c o n f l i c t , whether properly called warfare, or properly called feuding, was one of a series of r e c i p r o c a l night r a i d s . The pattern for raids undertaken i n r e t a l i a t i o n f or an i n i t i a l attack was as f o l -lows: 3 6 An attack . . . did not necessarily involve the. whole v i l l a g e of the victims in. the r e t a l i a t o r y move that was almost certain to follow at some future time.. Only the k i n o f the murdered persons took up the issue and sought revenge. Their counterattack was s i m i l a r to the o r i g i n a l attack on them. I f they knew who the leader of the murdering party had been, the attack was made on his house. Otherwise any v i c t i m would s u f f i c e to a l l a y t h e i r g r i e f and s a t i s f y t h e i r desire for revenge. They avoided k i l l i n g ; r e l a t i v e s i n the v i l l a g e attacked i f they had any there. The k i l l i n g of any v i c t i m i f one of the murderer's k i n could not be found i s not, s t r i c t l y speaking, a feature of a feud. I t does show, however, how e a s i l y something which began as a feud might s h i f t over into the character of a war. I think, however, that t h i s very s i m i l a r i t y between the forms of violence i n . S t r a i t of Georgia S a l i s h feuding;, and warring, j u s t i f i e s the s o c i o l o g i c a l or functional def-i n i t i o n of the feud as a l e g a l i n s t i t u t i o n and of war as extra-legal. I f we cannot d i s t i n g u i s h them substantively," i.e.,, i n themselves as forms of behaviour, then.we must 139 d i s t i n g u i s h them fun c t i o n a l l y , i.e.., hy the jobs they do. The Georgia S t r a i t S a l i s h pattern of feuding and feud-indemnities i s described by Barnett5''' i n the following ac-count: Inu the case of an ordinary murder, a settlement had to be made immediately. I f the price demanded by the victim's family was not paid, r e t a l i a t o r y attacks and counterattacks by surviving r e l a t i v e s would follow which were not to be distinguished from the h o s t i l i -t i e s described above that have been denominated "war-fare." Since the extended family of the murderer was c o l l e c t i v e l y responsible, the head of the family im-mediately took charge. The close k i n of the murderer were more l i a b l e than, the others, but a l l were con-cerned and might be involved i n the bloodshed that would ensue i f a prompt settlement was-not reached. I f the father and uncles of the murderer were unable to pay the price demanded by the victim's family, the headman had to make up the difference. Negotiations between the two families were carried on through d i s -interested intermediaries who received nothing for t h e i r services. They were i n f l u e n t i a l men and per-formed t h e i r temporary o f f i c e f o r the sake of peace. The amount of the indemnity depended upon the status of the deceased, but there was no standardization of amounts. However, i f an ar i s t o c r a t k i l l e d a common; man, he paid considerably less than f o r one of his own rank. Accidental homicide called for payment no less than premediated homicide. Feelings were not so out-raged but a r e s t i t u t i o n was necessary before contact could be resumed. Payments were also made to restore friendship i n cases of c o n f l i c t which did not r e s u l t i n murder. When two men fought, the assailant or the least-injured party took the i n i t i a t i v e and sent a few (ten or twenty) blankets to his antagonist. The l a t t e r then returned a portion.of the g i f t , the amount depending upon his feelings i n the matter. However, i f he behaved l i k e a churl, he was l i k e l y to provoke i l l f e e l i n g which might develop into murder through witchcraft or v i o -lence. I f anyone witnessed a f i g h t , both parties were obliged to c a l l the people and give a face-saving;., e:cesut. Once, when a man at Nanaimo was f e l l i n g trees, Westly's father /Westly was one of Barnett's informants./ asked him for some of the f i r limbs l y i n g about. He was refused i n i n s u l t i n g terms. He returned home and to l d his father, who went to the place where the man. 1 140 was working and whipped him with a strap. On the f o l -lowing day, Westly's mother, who was a distant r e l a t i v e of the man., took some blankets to him as a peace o f f e r -ing. This, then, was the feud-system of the Georgia S t r a i t S a l i s h . I t i s of the c l a s s i c a l type, though not perhaps a highly developed example. I t di f f e r s , f or instance, from the B e l l a Coola system i n that i t has obligatory-on-pain-of-violence payments to be made by the offender's group i n ease of murder. I t bears some resemblance to: the B e l l a Coola customs in:that i n . case of a wounding, peace offerings are made by the offender ( i f he has not had the worst of the encounter), who takes the i n i t i a t i v e i n making the offering." I f the suggestions put forward i n the chapter on the Feud and Pr i m i t i v e Law are correct, we should expect less i n d i v i d u a l geographic mobility among the Georgia S t r a i t people than among the B e l l a Coola. The evidence for t h i s i s rather i n d i r e c t . In the f i r s t place, i n d i v i d u a l geo-graphic mobility was apparently not so pronounced among the S t r a i t of Georgia people that Barnett found i t necessary to mention i t . In the second place, Barnett notes a good deal of i n t e r v i l l a g e d i s t r u s t , i f not outright h o s t i l i t y , i n aboriginal times. "Beyond v i l l a g e l i m i t s , " he writes, " a b o r i g i n a l l y contacts tended to be few and mostly of an unfriendly nature."^ This sort of thing would be a s i g -n i f i c a n t deterrent to large-scale i n d i v i d u a l geographic: mobility. The evolution of feud-indemnities i n such a s i t u -ation i s not at a l l s u r p r i s i n g . 141 4 The Upper Stalo WILSON; DUFF 5 9 distinguishes seventeen d i f f e r e n t t r i b a l groups of the Stalo, or S a l i s h of the Lower Fraser, these groups varying i n power, numbers, and importance. Among them he includes the Musqueam of Point Grey. The Lower Stalo people were much l i k e the people of Georgia S t r a i t i n t h e i r s o c i a l organization and customs, whereas the Upper S t a l o — n o t a b l y the Chilliwack, P i l a l t , and Tait tribes—were quite d i s -t i n c t i v e i n several ways. 4 0 The description which follows refers to the Upper Stalo. The Upper Stalo were divided into three l e v e l s of s o c i o p o l i t i c a l integration: the extended family, the v i l -lage, and the " t r i b e " . The extended family was the basic: s o c i a l u n i t . I t was both a kinship and a l o c a l u n i t . Duff w r i t e s : 4 1 The core of the population of each Upper Stalo v i l l a g e consisted of one or inore extended f a m i l i e s , each made up of a nucleus of males—a man, his brothers, t h e i r sons, grandsons, e t c * — w i t h t h e i r wives, children, and other dependents. This unit could be quite large, dependings upon the number of wives, fecundity, and status of i t s main members. An important man. would gather a large group around him, including nephews, sons-in-law ( i n some cases), and other more distant relatives*. Functionally, t h i s was the most important and closely k n i t economic and s o c i a l u n i t . I t was the largest unit which was s t r i c t l y exogamous. In i t the children grew up, receiving t h e i r education., from the grandparents. The next largest u n i t was the v i l l a g e , composed of from one to several extended f a m i l i e s . They were usually small and impermanent. They were usually exogamous u n i t s , though i n the larger v i l l a g e s a man might obtain wives from j 1 4 2 other families i n the same v i l l a g e . The various families that made up a v i l l a g e were usually related, sometimes by blood, sometimes by marriage. The Upper Stalo lacked t r a d i -tions of descent from mythical human or animal ancestors who were associated (and t h e i r descendants likewise, there-fore) with p a r t i c u l a r l o c a t i o n s . 4 2 The t h i r d s o c i a l u n i t consisted of the t r i b e , a group of v i l l a g e s that had come to be thought of together so that they were given a common, name. But t h i s unit was not thought of either as important or as requiring; clear d e f i n i t i o n , for what some informants considered separate t r i b e s , others have considered merely as parts of larger t r i b e s . The group with the least developed t r i b a l consciousness was the T a i t , of whom Duff w r i t e s : 4 3 This group could be considered either as one t r i b e , or as a large group of Upper Stalo who had no " t r i b a l " concept. They had no r e a l f e e l i n g of i n t e r n a l unity, nor did they have a mythological basis for unity as has some of the down-river groups. Nevertheless, the people down-river seemed to consider them as another t r i b e . The Chilliwack were a good deal more developed. These people, writes D u f f , 4 4 are said to have recognized one main leader of the t r i b e and to have c l e a r l y defined and a c t i v e l y de-fended t h e i r t r i b a l t e r r i t o r i e s . The facts that the Chilliwack formerly l i v e d i n a f a i r l y i s o l a t e d cluster of v i l l a g e s and spoke a separate and d i s t i n c t d i a l e c t have no doubt contributed to the formation of t h e i r concept of t r i b a l unity. I t may be that some other Stalo t r i b e s have i n a s i m i l a r manner developed some such concept of t r i b a l unity. Rank among the Upper Stalo, while as important there as elsewhere on the Northwest Coast, was somewhat less f o r -143 mally organized than i n other Northwest Coast s o c i e t i e s . Duff's statement of the p r i n c i p l e s underlying Upper Stalo 45 rankings i s short and precise: The Upper Stalo measured s o c i a l rank.in terms of respect. Individuals and families d i f f e r e d i s s o c i a l rank because they d i f f e r e d i n the degree to which they possessed the q u a l i t i e s which were admired and respected. Those who were most highly respected, the high born and the great and good self-made leaders, were called by the h o n o r i f i c term sie'm. Wisdom, industry, generosity, humility, pacificism, age (which brought wisdom), wealth (both impressive and evidence of.industry and generosity), and supernatural p o w e r s — a l l these conferred respect on a person regardless of h i s b i r t h . I t must be admitted, however, that high b i r t h , which conferred much, of these marks of respect-worthi-ness and which also ensured t r a i n i n g i n proper, respect-worthy behaviour, gave a man great advantage over those of lower b i r t h . High ranking people married people of t h e i r own rank, l e s t the offspring, be "spoiled" by marriage with a family of "bad blood" and a history of undesirable s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Since slavery also existed i n the s o c i e t y , 4 i t i s permissible to speak of the usual three status le v e l s of society, i . e . , n o b i l i t y , commoners, and slaves, but we should remember that the d i s t i n c t i o n between the f i r s t two was not sharp and that the Upper Stalo themselves considered that any man could a t t a i n the high ranks! The kinship system was b i l a t e r a l , and the Upper Stalo traced k i n relationships out for several generations! "As part of his childhood t r a i n i n g , each youth was lectured long. 144 "1 and thoroughly on 'who h i s f r i e n d s ( r e l a t i v e s ) were,' and n a t u r a l l y enough, each found t h a t he had r e l a t i v e s s c a t -tered over a very wide area. " 4^ People sought to marry persons of approximately t h e i r own rank. High ranking people would o f t e n seek wives from f a m i l i e s a considerable d i s t a n c e away. Such a marriage brought p r e s t i g e as w e l l as s o c i a l and economic advantages o f a l l i a n c e s w i t h important f a m i l i e s i n d i s t a n t v i l l a g e s . Marriages w i t h f i r s t and second cousins were forbidden. This would make the extended f a m i l y group e f f e c t i v e l y exo-gamous and would give s m a l l v i l l a g e s and s m a l l t r i b e s the appearance o f v i l l a g e and t r i b a l exogamy. Most people married outside t h e i r own v i l l a g e s . People l i v i n g near the edge o f a t r i b a l area and h i g h r a n k i n g people o f t e n found wives i n the neighbouring tribes.4® Residence was u s u a l l y , but by no means r i g i d l y , p a t r i l o e a l : "whatever they decided." For s e v e r a l reasons, the couple might choose to r e s i d e w i t h the bri d e ' s people. Her parents might have no sons o f t h e i r own, or might be o f higher rank, or might need someone to care f o r them, or, as i n the case o f some C h i l l i w a c k women who married Thompson hunters, the woman might be r e l u c t a n t to move f a r away from her home. A married couple might move around f a i r l y f r e -quently, residence among commoners being q u i t e f l u i d . Among high-rank f a m i l i e s , however, e s p e c i a l l y where a man had more than one w i f e , residence was more s t r i c t l y p a t r i l o e a l . 4 9 This passage on residence patterns notes a f e a t u r e o f Upper S t a l o s o c i e t y that Duff found s t r i k i n g enough to men-t i o n s e v e r a l times, i . e . , the great degree of i n d i v i d u a l geographic: m o b i l i t y . The T a i t i n pre-contact times had a "high degree o f i n t e r n a l m o b i l i t y . . . which caused v i i -145 lages to s p l i t up, shift,, grow, or decrease at f a i r l y f r e -quent i n t e r v a l s . . " 5 0 The whole Tait area i n pre-white times was charac-teri z e d hy an i n t e r n a l f l u i d i t y of population. E. L. said that people had l i v e d ,j.n a few places l i k e Yale, Hope, and Langley "from away hack," hut that most other v i l l a g e s were moved around every few years. Roots, game, and firewood would become scarce i n an area, and family groups would move away to other places where these were more p l e n t i f u l . Or, he added, a man might move his family to get away from a trouble-maker, or to take a troublesome member of his family away from the rest of the people. Or a family might move.closer to i t s k i n f o l k , or go up f i s h i n g and decide to stay the winter, or longer, close to k i n . And, he pointed out, a successful man with several wives who moved to a new l o c a l i t y would soon establ i s h a sizeable s e t t l e -ment there. " 5 1 An important feature of the yearly round of a c t i v i t i e s was the v i s i t s paid to r e l a t i v e s . The most usual time for t h i s was l a t e f a l l , otherwise a slack period. Up-river people might at t h i s time go down r i v e r to Musqueam r e l a -t i v e s , and these v i s i t s might l a s t a l l winter long or some-52 times even become permanent residence there. This frequent v i s i t i n g to w e l l - l i k e d near and remote ki n had a c o r o l l a r y i n the great h o s p i t a l i t y of the Upper Stalo." 5 5 The p o l i t i c a l and l e g a l system of the Upper Stalo was, l i k e the residence patterns, informal and f l u i d . Leadership and rank were based on the same p r i n c i p l e s ^ Rank has already been discussed.. Leadership i s described i n adequate d e t a i l 54. i n the following passage from Luff*. Leadership, l i k e s o c i a l rank, was based on respect. The Upper Stalo f e l t that no man had the r i g h t to order them around, but they were w i l l i n g to follow the l e a d e r -ship of a man they respected. Consequently, the p o s i -tions of leadership i n most a f f a i r s of any importance L f e l l to men.respected highly enough to warrant the term ^ 146 sie'm. sie'm became to a degree synonomous w i t h " l e a d e r " , and was the c l o s e s t word i n the vocabulary to " c h i e f . " The Indians were c l e a r t h a t there had been no c h i e f s — i n the sense of men chosen to f i l l an o f f i c e o f l e a d e r -s h i p — i n former times. To them " c h i e f " means a man appointed by the I n d i a n Superintendent to conduct the a f f a i r s o f a r e s e r v e . For former times, they speak of " l e a d e r s " and "main l e a d e r s , " the most important of whom were by d e f i n i t i o n , sie'm". A l l leaders were f i r s t and foremost heads of t h e i r f a m i l y groups. W i t h i n each extended f a m i l y there was no doubt one man who made the everyday d e c i s i o n s on. mat-t e r s i n v o l v i n g , the f a m i l y . In. m u l t i - f a m i l y v i l l a g e s , these heads were no doubt l o o s e l y ranked by p r e s t i g e , w i t h one man standing above the others and h o l d i n g the most sway over the v i l l a g e as a whole. This man, who might be c a l l e d the v i l l a g e l e a d e r , spoke', and the others l i s t e n e d ; he suggested and exhorted, and the others took a c t i o n . His power over h i s own kinsmen was considerable, s i n c e he had the greatest v o i c e i n : c o n t r o l l i n g the f a m i l y ' s property;, names, and a c t i o n s as a group. His power over u n r e l a t e d f a m i l i e s was l e s s , depending on h i s personal r e p u t a t i o n f o r wisdom i n l e a d -e r s h i p . Yet apparently he d i d tend to develop a "habit o f l e a d e r s h i p " over the whole v i l l a g e and undertook c e r t a i n d u t i e s as a v i l l a g e o f f i c i a l . For example, i f a young man and h i s f a m i l y went to another v i l l a g e to c l a i m a b r i d e , the ranking sie'm of the v i l l a g e went along, and was the f i r s t man to speak on the young; man's behalf. Or i f a f a m i l y v i s i t e d t h e i r daughter in:another v i l l a g e , t a k i n g g i f t s to repay the b r i d e p r i c e , the sie'm would gather the people of the v i l l a g e and accompany them. The sie'm was not a war-leader, and o n l y on r a r e occasions would he f i g h t . One o f the t h i n g s he was respected f o r was h i s p a c i f i s m . Each v i l l a g e , t h e r e f o r e , had a p r o f e s s i o n a l w a r r i o r ( s k a ' y l c e t ) or two whose job i t was to lead war-p a r t i e s i n c o n f l i c t s w i t h other groups. But the other people d i d n ' t l i k e o r t r u s t the w a r r i o r : " ' I f he got mad, he'd k i l l . ' " Indeed, the Upper S t a l o were noted as a peace-f u l people, and fought l i t t l e among th e m s e l v e s . 5 5 I t i s h a r d l y surprising;,; w i t h such i n f o r m a l l y organ-i z e d l e a d e r s h i p , that the Upper S t a l o should have had an un- , 147 rdeveloped l e g a l system. The great degree of i n d i v i d u a l geo-56 graphic mobility has already been noted; Duff's account of Upper Stalo law and j u s t i c e , which follows, c l e a r l y shows the operation of t h i s mobility i n the l e g a l system: Persons who disrupted the harmony of the commun-i t y were exiled or deserted or, i n extreme cases, k i l l e d ! E.L. thought that large groups "could never hang to-gether. There were always one or two persons causing trouble, especially women." The remedy was to take the trouble-makers away from the group. In one case at Ohamil, the husbands of two such women:, talked i t over and moved t h e i r families away to " l i t t l e places." "That i s how the people came to l i v e i n l i t t l e bunches a l l over the place." An alternate remedy was for every-body to move away, leaving the trouble-maker behind. " I f a person made too much trouble, l i k e that young; fellow at Agassiz who k i l l e d people, his grandfather would c a l l a l l the people together and they would move away and leave him. Sometimes, i f they had to, they would k i l l him." In;one case described by E.L., k i l l i n g was the method used. The great Yale sle-l-m l v i ' k w i t e m had three ska'ylcet brothers, "who did a l o t of k i l l i n g for l i t t l e things." One early spring day a Hope sie'm went up the r i v e r to obtain dried salmon from h i s cache above Yale. One of the brothers shot at him,, whereupon he landed and shot the would-be murderer. "I guess l $ i ' k w i t e m was glad that trouble-maker was k i l l e d . " Later, a party came down, to Hope for revenge, and the Hope sie'm repulsed them by shooting another of the brothers. Later s t i l l , i y j ' k w i t e m "gave some Hope people permis-sion to do what they wanted with his (third) brother." Two of them went up-river and set up an ambush, break-ing out several branches to give a clear shot. When l v i ' k w i t e m and his brother went up i n t h e i r canoe, the former noticed the broken branches. His brother stood up, with his gun ready, and was shot. " i y j ' k w i t e m just t o l d his pu l l e r s to keep on paddling. He knew that the business was done." There i s no mention of feud-indemnities whatsoever. Nor of peace-o f f erings! The evidence i s , I think, quite clear. I f people could not get along with the group they l i v e d with, they simply moved to another. With such " f l u i d i t y " we would not expect 148 rto f i n d feud-indemnities: nor do we. 5 The S a l i s h of Puget Sound THE BASIC SOCIAL UNITS of the Puget Sound groups were the family or house group, the v i l l a g e , and the t r i b e . The ex-tended family group was headed by a chief or wealthy man and owned a large house i n the v i l l a g e , which.was occupied in-winter but not i n summer". Summer was the time that the people scattered to f i s h i n g stations and hunting grounds." V i l l a g e s were r e l a t i v e l y small, having usually three to f i v e large houses and some smaller ones. The t r i b e s varied i n the number of v i l l a g e s that made them up. They were d i s -tinguished one from another by small differences i n culture, including dietary habits and d i a l e c t s . They seem usually to have had a head chief, who inherited his position from his father.-^ T r i b a l exogamy, at l e a s t f or the upper class of people, and p a t r i l o c a l residence are stated as being the general marriage rules for the Puget Sound t r i b e s . " 5 8 However, among; the Puyallup-Hisqually i n p a r t i c u l a r , the rule was not t r i b a l exogamy but house group exogamy. "Since v i l l a g e s so often consisted of but one house, house and v i l l a g e exogamy were frequently synonymous. Yet i n cases where the v i l l a g e con-tained a population, large enough to occupy two or more houses over a period of a decade or more, marriages between: the - - 50 house groups were quite possible." J Furthermore, among the Puyallup-Nisqually matriloc:al and p a t r i l o c a l residence were 149 60 about e q u a l l y common; t h e k i n s h i p s y s t e m was b i l a t e r a l . 61 H a e b e r l i n and G u n t h e r s t a t e t h a t t h e P u g e t Sound I n d i a n s were d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e s t a t u s l e v e l s : n o b i l i t y , who i n c l u d e d t h e c h i e f s and t h e i r c h i l d r e n and had g r e a t e r w e a l t h and more i m p o r t a n t names t h a n t h e commoners; com-moner s , o r p o o r p e o p l e ; and s l a v e s . M a r i a n S m i t h , i n . h e r a c c o u n t o f t h e P u y a l l u p - N i s q u a l l y , ' h o w e v e r , a g a i n p r e s e n t s a somewhat d i f f e r e n t p i c t u r e . " She d i s t i n g u i s h e s , firsts t h r e e s t a t u s l e v e l s : " h i g h c l a s s " , c o n s i s t i n g o f a l l t h o s e p e r s o n s in t h e s o c i e t y who had some s o c i a l n i c h e by w h i c h t h e i r p r e s t i g e and w o r t h were measured—and t h i s meant t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e p e o p l e i n t h e s o c i e t y ; " n o - a c c o u n t s " , c o n s i s t i n g o f a few p e o p l e on t h e f r i n g e s o f t h e s o c i e t y ; and some s l a v e s . " Then: she m e n t i o n s a " n o b i l i t y " , c o n s i s t -i n g o f t h e l e a d e r s o f house s and v i l l a g e s ; t h e s e , h o w e v e r , were j u s t t h e men who "came f i r s t " and t h e y were n o t r e c o g -n i z e d as a s p e c i a l s t a t u s l e v e l . S t a t u s , s a y s S m i t h , was a c h i e v e d t h r o u g h w e a l t h and a b i l i t y r a t h e r than a s c r i b e d by b i r t h . The c h i l d o f h i g h e r s t a t u s p a r e n t s , h o w e v e r , had a g r e a t e r chance t o g a i n w o r t h — h e was t r a i n e d p r o p e r l y , and had good a f f i l i a t i o n s — t h a n 63 had t h e c h i l d o f l o w e r s t a t u s p a r e n t s . y Among t h e P u y a l l u p - N i s q u a l l y t h e s t r o n g e s t and most i m -p o r t a n t s o c i a l u n i t was . i the v i l l a g e . " T h i s was a v e r y t i g h t 64 and a p p a r e n t l y s t a b l e u n i t . S m i t h , d e s c r i b e s t h i s i n i a v e r y i m p o r t a n t p a s s a g e : The v i l l a g e g r o u p , c o n s i s t i n g as i t d i d o f p e r s o n s who had been b o r n , and r a i s e d w i t h i n t h e v i l l a g e and t a k e n i up residence there as adults, formed an almost com-pl e t e l y stable group. Such s t a b i l i t y contrasts sharp-l y with the frequent s h i f t i n g of membership within, the family and house group. Childhood t r a i n i n g f a m i l i a r -ized the i n d i v i d u a l with the v i l l a g e s i t e and the v i l -lage drainage,, and established a f e e l i n g of s e l f - r e l i -ance while within the range of that familiarity.* The unknown was apt to be dangerous and u n t i l after pu-berty the acquaintance with the world outside of the v i l l a g e was very slight." I t i s true that summer camp-ing expeditions extended the t e r r i t o r y r known to the c h i l d and widened his acquaintance with his extended k i n group! But only the most f r i e n d l y families met at these times and, since minors were excluded more or less s t r i c t l y from p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a c t i v i t i e s which united several v i l l a g e s , the geographical and s o c i a l world beyond the narrow f r i e n d l y c i r c l e remained l a r g e l y unknown. Marriage either plunged the i n d i v i d u a l into a new v i l l a g e , with which he had gradually to f a m i l i a r -iz e himself and within which he might always f e e l strange, or i t s e t t l e d him more fi r m l y into his own;, v i l -lage. Although a few persons gained i n time a knowledge of the wider world and assumed a certain cosmopolitan--ism', the larger proportion of the population retained a s t r i c t provincialism and were loathe to s h i f t or a l t e r t h e i r v i l l a g e a f f i l i a t i o n s ! Within the v i l l a g e there was a great deal of suspicion',' permeating the entire society and formulated i n the r e l i g r ion." Persons moving into the v i l l a g e as the spouses of i t s members would be regarded with extreme suspicion, even i f they became leaders, u n t i l t h e i r dying days. Such sus-p i c i o n of foreigners bound the v i l l a g e together and made changes of v i l l a g e a f f i i i a t i o n : " v e r y d i f f i c u l t . " ^ 5 I n t e r v i l l a g e marriages, with the consequent increase, of f a m i l i a r i t y and extension of the k i n group, was the recog-nized method of bridging and reducing the suspicion that existed between v i l l a g e s . "Marriages were 't r e a t i e s ' and t h i s word was often used by informants to describe them."^ Since the main, i f not the only, function of the extended k i n group was safe conduct of l i f e and proper-ty, a large part of the s o c i a l significance of marriage ' lay i n the fact that i t was exogamous and served to ex-151 tend the k i n group over a wider t e r r i t o r y and among a greater number of v i l l a g e s . Marriages consummated between individuals of distant v i l l a g e s assumed an. almost p o l i t i c a l nature, being the basis upon which a l l : i n t e r v i l l a g e r e l a t i o n s were made possible.°7 As a c h i l d grew up, he would tend to i d e n t i f y with one or the other of his parents, and would adopt the culture and tend to i d e n t i f y with the v i l l a g e of that parent. Hence, though he had the p o s s i b i l i t y of a f f i l i a t i o n with two v i l l a g e s , he would tend to emphasize h i s connection. with but one of them, and t h i s one would be where when he grew up he would establish.residence." In another important passage, Smith says:^ 8 Individuals, therefore, may roughly be l i s t e d according to t h e i r v i l l a g e a f f i l i a t i o n s i n three c l a s s i -f i c a t i o n s : those who took on the culture of the parent whose v i l l a g e coincided with t h e i r own and who l a t e r l i v e d within i t s province; those who followed the ways of the expatriated parent most closely and who: l a t e r reverted to that parent's v i l l a g e ; and those who f e l t no very close t i e s with t h e i r v i l l a g e s and were free either to remain throughout l i f e without such t i e s ot to take up wholeheartedly the a f f i l i a t i o n s of a spouse. Persons who did not"; either before or after marriage, develop strong v i l l a g e a f f i l i a t i o n s l i v e d , as i t were, on the fringe of the culture". They re-ceived no t r a i n i n g i n s p e c i a l techniques and they were not allowed to p a r t i c i p a t e intimately i n the a c t i v i -t i e s of the group. Individuals who married young and could r e a d i l y adopt t h e i r spouse's v i l l a g e were highly valued.. Every e f f o r t was made to keep t h e i r connection!, with t h e i r adopted group permanent. But persons who remained without close v i l l a g e t i e s , who married often, s h i f t i n g residence each time, were i n the p o s i t i o n of "no-accounts". They were at the same time the most geographically mobile and the least s o c i a l l y accept-able." Each of the Puget Sound t r i b e s , according to Haeberlin. and Gunther,^ 9 seems to have been, headed by a chief. I t i s related of the Snohomish that though they had two v i l l a g e s they had only, one chief. This chief might be a warrior but: 1 5 2 not a shaman. The p o s i t i o n was h e r e d i t a r y i n the male line , : being handed down as a r u l e f a t h e r to son; the succession was, however, subject to the approval of the people of the t r i b e . Besides the head c h i e f , the Snohomish are s a i d to have had f o u r or f i v e s u b - c h i e f s ; these were g e n e r a l l y brothers or cousins o f the c h i e f . The c h i e f was the rep-r e s e n t a t i v e o f h i s t r i b e i n i n t e r t r i b a l a f f a i r s . He might c a l l a t r i b a l meeting; at any time o f the year. Any freeman^ but e s p e c i a l l y persons o f importance, might speak at t h i s meeting. I f a w a r r i o r wanted to go o f f to war, he would u s u a l l y ask the permission o f the c h i e f ; but i f the w a r r i o r was supported by h i s f e l l o w s , he could go whether or not the c h i e f approved. The N i s q u a l l y are s a i d to have had a somewhat d i f f e r e n t system." The c h i e f was e l e c t e d by a general vote o f the t r i b e , sometimes f o r a few years only, sometimes f o r l i f e " . He was a s s i s ' t e d by a c o u n c i l o f seven to t h i r t e e n men, who were also e l e c t e d at a t r i b a l meeting; "The c o u n c i l members d i d not l i v e i n one v i l l a g e but were s c a t t e r e d throughout the t r i b e . They met w i t h the c h i e f at some c e n t r a l meeting place." The various H i s q u a l l y v i l l a g e s each had l e a d e r s , but these were not n e c e s s a r i l y members o f the council."7° This account o f N i s q u a l l y c h i e f t a i n s h i p seems very s u s p i c i o u s to me, p a r t i c u l a r l y s i n c e i t i s not borne out by Smith-. She mentions no t r i b a l c o u n c i l s whatsoever; the c l o s e s t she comes to i t i s a suggestion that some v i l -l a g e s perhaps had something l i k e a v i l l a g e c o u n c i l , from 153 'which, women:, were excluded. She has the f o l l o w i n g b r i e f : 7 0 d e s c r i p t i o n o f the p o s i t i o n o f " c h i e f " : A '. . type o f a u t h o r i t y . . . more n e a r l y c o r r e s -ponding to a p o l i t i c a l p o s i t i o n , was held by the ex-pert i n human a f f a i r s . This was the man who was the lea d e r , the c h i e f , of the v i l l a g e . He was.a person: who d i d not arouse personal antagonisms but r a t h e r r e -duced i n h i s personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s the need f o r con-sta n t s u r v e i l l a n c e and suspicion." He also had the a b i l i t y to smooth out d i f f e r e n c e s between other people and to manipulate t h e i r a c tions so t h a t such d i f f e r -ences were l e s s l i k e l y to a r i s e . His p e r s i s t e n t aim was peace and good w i l l , an aim not easy o f accomplish-ment among a peaople r u l e d by s u s p i c i o n s and personal a n i m o s i t i e s . His word c a r r i e d weight because i n h i s d e c i s i o n s he considered the w e l l - b e i n g o f others as w e l l as immediate advantage to hi m s e l f . He was t o l e r a n t and h i s viewpoint was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by f o r e s i g h t , ex-perience, and knowledge o f ment Most o f the data on the l e g a l systems o f the Puget Sound groups concerns i n t e r t r i b a l or i n t e r v i l l a g e r e l a t i o n -s h i p s . Concerning a f f a i r s w i t h i n the v i l l a g e , Smith i n d i -cates t h a t p u b l i c o p i n i o n exerted a very s t r o n g c o n t r o l f o r the P u y a l l u p - U i s q u a l l y . ^  But what happened when pu b l i c , o p i n i o n f a i l e d ? Smith de s c r i b e s s e c r e t i v e k i l l i n g s , but does not e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e t h a t these were i n t r a - v i l l a g e ; i t i s my impression t h a t they were. Compared w i t h other forms o f v i o l e n t death, such as those o f war, such s e c r e t i v e k i l l i n g s were o f r e l a t i v e l y low frequency. I t was often: many years before hatred and su s p i c i o n : f l o w e r e d i n t o mur-derous i n t e n t s and plans, and s t i l l many more years before o p p o r t u n i t y a r r i v e d and the i n t e n t i o n was consummated. In. such circumstances, s u s p i c i o n and co u n t e r - s u s p i c i o n o f murder could lead to a slow and very " s e c r e t i v e and sub-v e r s i v e " blood feud. This feud might be d i v e r t e d i n t o J 1 5 4 other channels, or, i f personal a n i m o s i t i e s entered i n , he made p u b l i c i n a p u b l i c challenge. Such a challenge might the n . c l e a r the a i r , so to speak, and end the feud. A man g u i l t y o f such a s e c r e t i v e murder might confide i n h i s im-mediate f a m i l y j who would a i d to the extent o f covering: up f o r him.^ 4 A more open s o r t of feud occurred between v i l l a g e s ! If. they were u n a f f i l i a t e d " , t h i s had the character o f a war as much as a feud; i f p e a c e f u l settlement could not be reached, the grievance might be ended w i t h a f o r m a l i z e d battle.. S m i t h ? 5 describes w e r g i l d f o r the P u y a l l u p - N i s q u a l l y in. the form of a payment c a l l e d a b a l i q u , meaning "to buy t h e i r good w i l l . " ! ! ". g i f t s o f t h i s type were the expression o f s t r a i n e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Consciousness o f g u i l t and f e a r o f the i n j u r e d party were synonymous among the Puyallup-ITis-q u a l l y and under such c o n d i t i o n s there can be no b e t t e r d e s c r i p t i o n o f a b a l i q u than t h a t given by one informant: "When you take something to somebody so t h a t you won't be afraid" o f them any more." In i t s more formal aspects such g i v i n g c o n s t i -tuted what i s commonly c a l l e d blood money. Payment prevented r e t a l i a t i o n and p o s s i b i l i t y of feud. U n f o r t u n a t e l y she does not i n d i v a t e whether such a b a l i q u was expected o r demanded by the i n j u r e d party, or n o t — i.e.", whether or not the payment i n question partook o f a peace o f f e r i n g or a feud-indemnity s t r i c t l y so c a l l e d . The P u y a l l u p - N i s q u a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d between h o s t i l e a c t i o n s made against a f f i l i a t e d groups and those made against u n a f f i l i a t e d o r a l i e n g r o u p s ! ^ The l a t t e r , Smith c a l l s "war 155 r ' the former, apparently, "feuds"., One form of war consisted o f the f o r m a l i z e d b a t t l e s already a l l u d e d t o . Smith's account i s s i g n i f i c a n t : ^ Concerted a c t i o n on the p a r t o f a v i l l a g e or r e -l a t i o n s h i p u n i t might be taken against another such u n i t i n order to f o r c e the settlement o f a grievance. The o n l y crime which seems to have c a l l e d f o r such j o i n t a c t i o n was murder. And a show o f h o s t i l i t y was the f i n a l step i n the settlement procedures, undertaken o n l y when the leaders had f a i l e d to a r r i v e at a d e c i s i o n as to the amount of the property to be paid or when the amount, which had been agreed upon, was not paid w i t h i n , the p e r i o d s p e c i f i e d by the settlement agreement. Quite i n c o n t r a s t to a s u r p r i s e a t t a c k , the meeting between, the two groups was c a r e f u l l y arranged and planned i n . advance. Almost nothing could be obtained regarding, the process by which settlement was arranged". I f the settlement m i s f i r e d , however, i n e i t h e r o f the two ways j u s t mentioned, i t was equivalent to a t a c i t d e c l a r a t i o n , o f war. The wronged must then demand", settlement by a show o f arms or l o s e face e n t i r e l y " . Both groups prepared, the one which had i n i t i a t e d s e t -tlement procedures to a t t a c k , and the other to meet them. .Men were sent back and forth.between the groups c a r r y i n g messages as to the place and time at which, the two f o r c e s might expect to face each other. S u c c e s s f u l settlement d i d not mean a l o s s o f group p r e s t i g e . On the contrary, i t paved the way f o r marriage arrangements between members o f the groups, a u n i o n o f i n t e r e s t by which the p r e s t i g e and s t r e n g t h o f both would be increased. Haeberlin and Gunther^ 8 make b r i e f mention o f s i m i l a r i n t e r t r i b a l f o r m a l i z e d b a t t l e s f o r the Snohomish, Skagit,: Skyhomish, and Snuqualmi. What are we to make o f a l l t h i s ? We f i n d low i n d i v i d u a l geographic m o b i l i t y i n s p i t e o f much i n t e r - v i l l a g e marrying: once an i n d i v i d u a l made h i s choice, he stayed w i t h i t , u n l ess he wished to become a "no-account" person. Marriages consequently were described as " t r e a t i e s " . We f i n d payments ~ i n v o l v e d w i t h feuds, but i t i s not c l e a r whether these pay- _j 156 merits should be described as feud-indemnities or as peace offe r i n g s ; i f the former, then we have a c l a s s i c a l feud-system, but i f the l a t t e r , then a nascent one. The asso-c i a t i o n of a c l a s s i c a l feud-system with, low geographic mobility i s what we are led to expect on t h e o r e t i c a l grounds — b u t i f the feud-system i s nascent, then i t i s associated with, low i n d i v i d u a l geographic mobility contrary to theory",; and we cannot be sure that high geographic mobility i n h i b -i t s the appearance of feud-indemnities! A second look suggests that the s i t u a t i o n as regards the l e g a l community was d i f f e r e n t f o r the Puget Sound people from what i t was for the Nootka, Kwakiutl, B e l l a Coola, and Upper Stalo, who a l l had nascent feud-systems coupled with high i n d i v i d u a l geographic-mobility. Among the l a t t e r we could speak of a high degree of l e g a l community." I do not think we can so describe the l e g a l community of the Puget.. Sound S a l i s h ! Here the various transactions bore something of the character of a f f a i r s of war; the indemnities were often as much war-indemnities as feud-indemnities, i f not sometimes more so! We see among the Puget Sound S a l i s h a low degree of l e g a l community", and hence what looks l i k e a nascent feud-system but s t r i c t l y speaking i s n ' t one at a l l . The hypothesis that t h i s enquiry i s t e s t i n g i s applic-able where the degree of l e g a l community i s high; i f the Puget Sound t r i b e s had a low degree of l e g a l community, the hypothesis does not apply to them and they do not, there--fore, f a l s i f y i t . I f they do show anything:, I think, they show t h a t the hypothesis does not hold where the degree o f l e g a l community i s low. 6 The K l a l l a m THE KLALLAM dwelt along the southern shore o f Juan de l u c a S t r a i t . T h e i r major a f f i l i a t i o n s both c u l t u r a l l y and l i n -g u i s t i c a l l y were w i t h the S a l i s h o f southern Vancouver I s l a n d ; "although i t seems t h a t i n every way t h e i r c u l t u r e i s much 7 Q l e s s developed."'-' The K l a l l a m are to be considered as a s i n g l e t r i b e having s e v e r a l w i n t e r v i l l a g e s (about t h i r t e e n o r more) each c o n s i s t i n g of a few house-groups (ten on the average). The houses v a r i e d i n s i z e , but seem on the average to have been r a t h e r smaller than those o f the northern n a t i o n s . Marriage r e g u l a t i o n s d i f f e r according to the s o c i a l standing o f the i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d . People of h i g h rank want t h e i r sons and daughters to marry outside o f the t r i b e on account of the p o l i t i c a l t i e s t h a t are e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h i s way. I f , however, such a marriage cannot be arranged then i t becomes neces-sary to marry a f i r s t cousin i n order to avoid a union; w i t h a person o f lower rank. O r d i n a r i l y i t i s not de-s i r a b l e to marry such a c l o s e r e l a t i v e ; i n fact',; e x t r a - t r i b a l marriages are r a t i o n a l i z e d as being meo-essary to avoid marrying one o f even remote k i n s h i p ^ I f a mate from another t r i b e could not be secured then, at l e a s t v i l l a g e exogamy i s d e s i r a b l e . . There are no s i b s among the K l a l l a n u Poor people cannot a f f o r d to marry outside the v i l l a g e or t r i b e because they are not able to g i v e the necessary feasts'. They must make the best arrangement p o s s i b l e i n t h e i r own v i l l a g e , a voiding p a r a l l e l and cross cousins o f close degrees i f they c a n . 8 1 The K l a l l a m were d i v i d e d i n t o three ranks: nobles, c o n s i s t i n g n otably o f the c h i e f , h i s immediate f a m i l y , and j 158 ^ r e l a t i v e s , "but depending more on wealth than on b i r t h ; n commoners, c o n s i s t i n g o f poor people and freed s l a v e s ; and, formerly, slaves., The nobles and commoners l i v e d apart: the l a t t e r used to have to l i v e i n a separate v i l -lage away from the former, and t h i s lower c l a s s v i l l a g e op f r e q u e n t l y acted as a " b u f f e r i n case of a t t a c k . " During the annual c y c l e of economic l i f e , people mi-grated from the winter v i l l a g e s to various f i s h i n g s i t e s , b e r r y i n g grounds, and hunting r e g i o n s , but they u s u a l l y 8"^  moved as a v i l l a g e and d i d not break up i n t o s m a l l e r u n i t s . J The c h i e f o f a K l a l l a m v i l l a g e was the w e a l t h i e s t man i n the v i l l a g e , the one who had given the most p o t l a t c h e s . I t i s the man who can g i v e p o t l a t c h e s who w i l l be known to other v i l l a g e s and other t r i b e s f o r h i s l i b e r a l i t y . This fame makes the people o f h i s own v i l l a g e recognize him as t h e i r l e a d e r , t h e i r chief,'ssia'm. A c h i e f i s not n e c e s s a r i l y a w a r r i o r and does not have to go on war expeditions unless he i s p e r s o n a l l y i n t e r e s t e d . 8 4 U s u a l l y the c h i e f ' s e l d e s t son would be the one to succeed him! (Gunther does not s t a t e t h i s , but presumably the c h i e f ' s son would have to continue to v a l i d a t e h i s elevated p o s i t i o n , by g i v i n g p o t l a t c h e s , or e l s e he would l o s e h i s s t a t u s and become merely another f a m i l y head.) The l e a d i n g c h i e f o f the t r i b e was simply that v i l l a g e c h i e f t a i n who had given the most numerous and the most l a v i s h f e a s t s and potlatches." The c h i e f might give advice or act as a peacemaker, passing judgment i f asked. But he had no power other than the support o f p u b l i c , o p i n i o n ; In. other words, he had i n -fluence but not a u t h o r i t y ! The c h i e f also f u n c t i o n s when there i s a demand L_ f o r blood money made by members of another v i l l a g e or 159 t r i b e . When a part comes to demand r e p a r a t i o n , f o r an i n j u r y , the matter i s g e n e r a l l y r e f e r r e d to the c h i e f who takes counsel w i t h the immediate r e l a t i v e s of the • person who committed the wrong! His o p i n i o n i s valued but not always f o l l o w e d ! I f the v i s i t i n g p a r t y demands too h i g h a p r i c e the c h i e f might help by c o l l e c t i n g ; . funds from h i s r e l a t i v e s i n order to avoid war. I f the demands f o r some reason cannot be met and the i s s u e comes to war, the c h i e f would c a l l on neighbouring: v i l l a g e s f o r help i n f i g h t i n g . I f , on the other hand, a p a r t y o f K l a l l a m goes out to c o l l e c t blood money, the c h i e f g e n e r a l l y accompanies them provided the person i n j u r e d i s important s o c i a l l y . " The c h i e f w i l l accompany the e x p e d i t i o n o n l y to g i v e advice, he w i l l not t a l k w i t h the opposite group, but leave t h a t to the messengers who go along or to h i s speaker. Q5 The feud among the K l a l l a m i s described as operating; b e t w e e n . v i l l a g e s — e i t h e r between, two K l a l l a m v i l l a g e s or be-tween a K l a l l a m and a non-Klallam v i l l a g e , the p a t t e r n was the same. I f a man from one v i l l a g e k i l l e d a man from another, the i n j u r e d group immediately sent to the o f f e n d i n g v i l l a g e and demanded blood-money. The g u i l t y v i l l a g e then asked f o r time to consider the ma t t e r ! I f they decided to pay up, they might, i f the f a m i l y o f the offender was not wealthy enough, be a s s i s t e d by the c h i e f . I f they decided not to pay, they would prepare to r e s i s t a t t a c k ! "The p a r t y coming to ask f o r blood money i s always prepared to f i g h t , should no settlement be reached!" Such r e t a l i a t i o n , however, would b e . l i k e l y to i n i t i a t e c o u n t e r - r e t a l i a t i o n , , which would i n . t u r n be countered and re-countered u n t i l one s i d e was weary of the bloodshed and decided to s e t t l e the a f f a i r w i t h an: indemnity. The most d i g n i f i e d procedure, r e g a r d l e s s o f the r i g h t s and wrongs o f the case, was to refus e to pay, and a man's f e l l o w v i l l a g e r s might,, i f he was o f any importance i n the v i l l a g e , urge him not to pay and o f f e r to help him _\ 160 Tight. But, on the other hand., a man's f e l l o w v i l l a g e r s n might o b j e c t to the t r o u b l e he was p u t t i n g them t o , and i n . an.extreme case, might k i l l him e i t h e r by w i t c h c r a f t or by-p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e . 8 5 " Among the K l a l l a m we f i n d feud-indemnities associated w i t h r e l a t i v e l y low i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r - g r o u p mobility.*. Cer-t a i n l y such m o b i l i t y was not marked enough f o r the ethno-grapher to note i t , and the i n d i c a t i o n that d u r i n g the annual round o f seasonal migrations people tended to move as a v i l l a g e group, i s &• strong i n d i c a t i o n t h a t inter-group i n d i v i d u a l m o b i l i t y was not high; 7 The Quinault THE QUINAULT TRIBE dwelt on the coast o f western Washington, along, the course o f the Quinault r i v e r . "They considered themselves set apart from neighbouring groups l a r g e l y because they occupied the f a i r l y d e f i n i t e area o f the watershed of" the Quinault r i v e r and because t h e i r language d i f f e r e d i n . d i a l e c t from those o f neighbouring t r i b e s . " " 8 ^ There were in. a b o r i g i n a l times something, l i k e t h i r t y - e i g h t d i f f e r e n t v i l l a g e s s c a t t e r e d along the r i v e r ; some were s i d e by s i d e one another, others were a few miles apart; some were "large"', o f about eight to t e n houses,' while others were s m a l l and some con s i s t e d o f no mare than a s i n g l e house. But a l l .88 were d i s t i n g u i s h e d by t h e i r own proper names. The basic, s o c i a l u n i t was the household o r extended -f-amily, u s u a l l y composed of from two to s i x n u c l e a r f a m i l i e s . ' ^  161 The household was headed by the head of one of the smaller component families who gained his position: by reason of se n i o r i t y , wealth, or prestige. His authority was c h i e f l y a matter of personal influence. On his death, h i s authority would pass usually to his eldest son, or, i f no sons, a brother, cousin, or nephew.8 9 There was considerable d i v e r s i t y i n the makeup of the household group, but almost i n v a r i a b l y the in--mates were kinsmen, or kinsmen; through marriage^ A man and his married sons, a group of brothers, uncles and nephews, cousins, or combinations of these were the commonest relationships between the heads of fa m i l i e s . Wives, children, parents-in--law. slaves, and hangers-on: completed the household group. 9 0 The kinship system was b i l a t e r a l , and the terminology provided for the recognition of r e l a t i v e s by marriage also along b i l a t e r a l p r i n c i p l e s . The Quinault apparently used kinship terms i n : address more often than they did proper names. 9 1 The next larger s o c i a l u n i t was the v i l l a g e , and i t was considerably more important than the t r i b e . We might define the Quinault v i l l a g e as a group of households sharing a common salmon weir. As Olson w r i t e s : 3 To. the casual observer the main evidences of human occupancy at such a v i l l a g e consisted i n the houses themselves, the anchored canoes, and the salmon: weir stretching: fence-like across the stream i n front of the v i l l a g e . To the inhabitants themselves the weir was the most important feature of the v i l l a g e . Uponi i t s construction:and maintenance depended the very existence of the v i l l a g e r s , l i k e the houses, i t was b u i l t by community effort.. I t was owned by the commun-i t y and maintained by community e f f o r t . At i n t e r v a l s along the weir were f i s h i n g platforms where the f i s h e r -men stood i n manipulating the dip nets. Each head of a family (or each household) had his platform where he fished year after year and where his father had fished L before him. The v i l l a g e "chief" usually controlled 162 f the r i g h t s to the platform most favourably located, where the water was deep! The chief of the v i l l a g e was simply the wealthiest of the house chiefs who l i v e d there. I f the v i l l a g e was small (one or two houses), however, i t s leading man would not properly be considered a v i l l a g e c h i e f . ^ The t r i b e was l i t t l e more than a c u l t u r a l and l i n g u i s t i c u n i t ! I t was not a p o l i t i c a l u n i t . Notable, however, was the sentiment that a l l members of the t r i b e (or nearly a l l ) were blood k i n ; together with the sentiment that one should not marry blood k i n , however remote, t h i s led to an "excep-t i o n a l l y large percentage of i n t e r t r i b a l matings." Marri-ages, i f not i n t e r t r i b a l , , were usually i n t e r v i l l a g e . J ^ Ranking followed the f a m i l i a r Northwest Coast pattern of three status l e v e l s : In theory there were three s o c i a l classes: nobles, commoners, and slaves. In r e a l i t y (except for the slaves) these were subdivided and blended into each other. Anyone could properly claim kinship with members of the n o b i l i t y and thereby make out a somewhat dubious case f o r his own good status. Wealth counted f o r almost as much as blue blood, and i t was possible to r a i s e one's standing through the a c q u i s i t i o n of wealth. In time even lowly o r i g i n would be overlooked or forgotten. But slave blood carried with i t a l a s t i n g stigma.95 As with other peoples of the Northwest Coast, marriages took place between people of approximately equal ranks. While insistence on rank was not as notable as i t was among the northern nations, marriages between nobles and commoners s t i l l occurred but seldom. Marriages between slaves and freemen were "unthinkable".^ Together with the r u l e that k i n s f o l k of whatever degree should not marry, the implica-tions of which have already been mentioned, the concern for 163 r rank would have tended to increase the proportion of extra-t r i b a l marriages." As among the other Coast S a l i s h groups,- wealth gave i n -fluence among the Quinault. The v i l l a g e chief among the Quinault was "the man who owned the largest house,- who had the largest number of wives and slaves and the greatest amount of property."9 7 His influence over his fellow v i l l a g e r s was "a sort of paternal authority"; people followed his advice out of respect. Public opinion was more important than the chief's advice, though becuase of the respect given him, a chief's word would generally outweigh that of other i n d i -viduals. The chief might often" c a l l an assembly i n which he would admonish the people of his v i l l a g e , especially the young men. The most usual person to succeed a chief was his eldest son, but other r e l a t i v e s often did so also. He had no authority outside his own v i l l a g e . As a p o l i t i c a l authority the chief was a mediator and a Q8 peacemaker. Olson/writes: J In:, case of a quarrel, between two men the chief might intervene^ but his word did not carry authority i n a r e a l sense. I f a man was a murderer or a persistent troublemaker the chief might advise the people that he could be k i l l e d with impunity; or he might even order his slaves to k i l l the offender". But i n the l a t t e r case the chief had to make a payment to the r e l a t i v e s . In cases of blood-feud or those involving blood-price the chief acted as mediator, though the amount to be paid was determined by the injured k i n or by the v i l l a g e "speaker." In cases of f r i c t i o n between tr i b e s the leading men would t r y to reach an amicable settlement." Those who were g u i l t y of fomenting trouble might be warned by the chief. I f they persisted, the chief, would p u b l i c l y condemn them and t h e i r fellow tribesmen might then k i l l them without s t a r t i n g a blood-feud, though, the r e l a t i v e s were i n some instances compensated! 164 This leads us to the Quinault pattern of feuding. I quote Olson again, t h i s time giving the greater portion of what he has to say about Quinault feuds and feud-indemnities: 9 9 The p r i n c i p l e s of weregild were quite consistently carried out. Murder (sle'kwih) usually involved a r e a l blood feud, the r e l a t i v e s of the murdered', man wreaking vengeance on the murderer. Only r a r e l y would the r e l a t i v e s be molested. The murderer's r e l a t i v e s had no right to carry the feud further. In many cases the murderer or his kin. might s e t t l e the a f f a i r by the payment of a blood price (slala'ktih)". This was ordin-a r i l y higher for a noble than for a commoner and might be one to three slaves. . . A man who had k i l l e d several was regarded as a public:: enemy and a designated man might be paid', to put him out of the way. I f a man. k i l l e d the slave of another he must pay a slave or a money-equivalent to the owner." J u s t i f i a b l e homicide was recognized, but involved payment nevertheless. A husband had the r i g h t to k i l l his wife's paramour taken i n flagrante d e l i c t o . The kinsmen of the c u l p r i t could s t i l l demand payment but the price was less than for ordinary murder"" I f pay-ment was refused the kinsmen did not have the r i g h t to k i l l in. revenge." Motive played but small part i n the compounding, of a crime. I f a man k i l l e d another accidentally he must pay the kinsmen or be k i l l e d by them. The k i l l e r ' s r e l a t i v e could not continue the feud.' In. case of a c c i -dental i n j u r y the injured man must be compensated ac<-cording to the seriousness of the in j u r y . This was called sla'lakut (payment to make friends)." I f payment was refused the injured man perpetuated a quarrel u n t i l he was paid. Injuries which arose out of quarrels must likewise be compounded. The t r i b a l or v i l l a g e "speaker" frequently acted as go-between f o r the parties i n cases of both i n j u r y and homicide.' His function was to avoid b i t t e r blood-feuds and he might even set what he con-sidered a f a i r price. There was l i t t l e sense of t r i b a l s o l i d a r i t y , and the Quinault did not f i g h t as a t r i b e against other groups^ Even i f a feud of a Quinault v i l l a g e was with a v i l l a g e o f another t r i b e , the other Quinault v i l l a g e groups f e l t i t none_ of t h e i r business. Slaves were obtained by trade, and there 165 rare no accounts of them being taken i n r a i d s . The Quinault themselves did not d i s t i n g u i s h feuds from warfare, and re-garded f i g h t i n g , at best, as a necessary e v i l , undertaken.to avenge wrongs."'"00 How much i n d i v i d u a l geographic mobility was there among the Quinault? Since they had feud-indemnities, we should expect such mobility to have been r e l a t i v e l y low. Certainly, i t was not pronounced enough for the ethnographer to single i t out for sp e c i a l mention. Three other items of informa-t i o n suggest that such mobility was at most moderate. The f i r s t item has already been mentioned: that a family or household head had his s t a t i o n on the v i l l a g e weir "where he fished year after year and where his father had fished before h i m . " 1 0 1 This i s on the side of s t a b i l i t y . The second item i s a remark that an individual's yearly pur-s u i t s were his own business: "In such matters he was a law unto himself and his own i n c l i n a t i o n s must often have varied the annual round.^ With t h i s i s a vague suggestion that an i n d i v i d u a l might i n the course of his l i f e t i m e have wan-dered over the entire Quinault t e r r i t o r y — n o t that he prob-ably did so, just that he might have. This i s on the side of mobility. The t h i r d item i s a note that, "The duties of aid, of h o s p i t a l i t y , of blood revenge, of not quite formal v i s i t s between r e l a t i v e s seem to have held between an excep-lCH t i o n a l l y large number of persons." J The fact that the v i s i t s were "not quite formal" suggests that they were almost formal, and t h i s i n turn suggests that they were not overly frequent. V i s i t s are on the side of mobility, but formality J 166 r i n v i s i t s i s on the side of s t a b i l i t y . This item of informa-t i o n suggests, therefore, only moderate mobility. Putting: a l l these b i t s of data together leads, I think:, to the conclusion,, s t i l l rather tentative, that i n d i v i d u a l geo-graphic: mobility among the Quinault was not high. This i n turn permits us to say, a l b e i t t e n t a t i v e l y , that the Quin-ault sustain the predicted correl a t i o n of feud-indemnities with r e l a t i v e l y low i n d i v i d u a l geographic, mobility." i THE CHINOOK I. THE CHINOOK l i v e d south of the Coast S a l i s h country, along the lower reaches of the Columbia River from the f a l l s known: as the Dalles down to the mouth of the r i v e r . They were divided into several smaller d i v i s i o n s or " t r i b e s " . Of these d i v i s i o n s only two—the Lower Chinook of the r i v e r mouth and Shoalwater or Willapa Bay, and the Wishram of the Dalles—have been the subject of anything, approaching extensive ethnographic: study. I t i s these two that w i l l be described i n t h i s description of Chinook society and law! The basic p o l i t i c a l u n i t of the Chinook was the village'. Pranchere 1 wrote: " A l l of the v i l l a g e s form so many inde-pendent sovereignities! ." . . Each v i l l a g e has i t s chief, but that chief does not seem to exercise a great authority over his fellow c i t i z e n s . " While Eranchere wrote i n especial reference to the Lower Chinook, the same words applied to the Wishram. While each v i l l a g e was p o l i t i c a l l y autonomous",' however, especially able, wealthy, w e l l - l i k e d , or feared 2 chiefs might exert influence over neighbouring v i l l a g e s . The v i l l a g e was further divided into households and fam i l i e s . But on t h i s matter the data are fragmentary and uncertain! Houses varied i n s i z e , from small and skimpy shelters to large and permanent buildings. Spier and S a p i r 3 make mention, of a v i l l a g e with "uncommonly large" houses, <bne of these measuring 160 by 40 feet; such houses were 168 rexceptional. V i l l a g e s also varied i n s i z e , from t i n y hamlets with l i t t l e more than one or two small households to v i l l a g e s "with 21 sizeable houses. 4 Each household was composed mostly of r e l a t i v e s , though sometimes an unrelated person with no other home might j o i n i t 7 Marriage was with but few exceptions p a t r i l o c a l . The basic kinship system was b i l a t e r a l , there being no heavy stressing of one l i n e over the other, barring the general practice of p a t r i l o c a l or v i r i l o c a l residence. The highest ranking family head was the t i t u l a r head of the household'^5 A person might marry anyone, excepting only that his mate was not a r e l a t i v e nor her status either notably higher or notably lower than his.; I f her status was lower, he would be demeaning himself and damaging the reputation and prestige of his family by marrying her, and his r e l a t i v e s would object; i f her status was higher, her family would be having i t s reputation hurt and would accordingly object to the marriage..' Marriages were genrally arranged by the parents of the per-sons involved. These p r i n c i p l e s governing marriage led to v i l l a g e exogamy and, f o r the upper classes, t r i b a l exogamy, as a general p r a c t i c e d Tribes, the next largest group a f t e r the v i l l a g e , appear to have been fundamentally groups distinguished by the pos-session of a common, d i a l e c t , and t h e i r 1 component v i l l a g e s were usually adjacent one to the other. The " t r i b e " was otherwise without p o l i t i c a l significance." "~ Concern for rank and status was marked among the Chin-ook as among the other nations of the Northwest Coast." Ray J 169 "distinguishes three status l e v e l s f o r the Lower Chinook: an upper class, a lower class, and slaves. A sharp d i v i s i o n existed between freemen and slaves, but between "upperclassmen" and "lowerclassmen" there was an i n d e f i n i t e t r a n s i t i o n zone which Ray c a l l s a sort of middle class. Ray's account i s worth quoting extensively:^ The s t r i c t e s t dichotomy existed between d e f i n i t e l y upper and lower classmen but there was a wide i n t e r -vening; zone i n which c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was far from exact. . . . /}le might c a l l i t a middle class, but would be speaking loosely. To the native mind, t h i s group con-s i s t e d / of the more successful commoners and the unam-bitious or remote of k i n i o f the upper class. Movement from the middle group to the upper class through acqui-s i t i o n of wealth and strength of personality was not uncommon.. Native formulation of the p o s s i b i l i t y , how-ever, was always i n terms of the movement from the lower class to the higher. The fact that i n most h i s t o r i c examples the advances were made from t h i s i n d e f i n i t e middle group does not a l t e r the at t i t u d e . Such persons were merely further along toward the goal than uncon-d i t i o n a l commoners; t h e i r chances were greater though e l i g i b i l i t y was equals The upper class was r e l a t i v e l y small. I t appears to have included chiefs and t h e i r f a m i l i e s , prominent shamans,, warriors, traders and others o f high b i r t h . To what extent leadership i n these a c t i v i t i e s was a class prerogative and thus connected with b i r t h i s uncertain; war and trade probably belong here, shamanism d e f i n i t e l y does not. .'. . . Intermarriage /between the two classes/, though, far from unknown, was strongly disapproved except under unusual circumstances. I f a man i n the middle ground had distinguished himself through accumulation of wealth or outstanding service to a chief he might be permitted to marry into the upper class and thus take the f i n a l step i n elevating himself. Under other circumstances the disapproved union would lead to the degradation of the upper class member to the l e v e l of the lower, together with t h e i r children. Commoners were free to amass wealth and gain prestige i n any way which did not i n f r i n g e upon the prerogatives of the upper class. They were permitted to hold slaves and to engage i n trade. Many of them worked assiduously at menial tasks that an upperclassman ' would have considered a disgrace to his p o s i t i o n . When, as the r e s u l t of such industry or through an approved marriage, a man was accepted into the upper class i t was sometimes made the occasion of a feast or even a potlatch at the instance of the chief. At such an event the man's accomplishments were paraded and the audience was t o l d that he should be treated as b e f i t t e d a man of his talents and new st a t i o n . . . . These new members occupied, of course, the lower-most ranks of the upper class, i n company with the less aspiring members born to the class and those most d i s -t a n t l y related to the chiefs. One might continue to climb, slowly, as time went on, but i t was rare or unknown f o r a commoner by n a t i v i t y to reach the higher ranks of the upper class.' I t should be emphasized that ranking, except at the extremes, was:..highly informal and variable. The status system of the Wishram was apparently s i m i l a r to that of the Lower Chinook, but Spier and Sapir have only one b r i e f paragraph: Class f e e l i n g was strongly marked as elsewhere on the Northwest Coast. Three classes were recognized in. addition to slaves, who stood outside the s o c i a l struc-ture. While these represented gradations of wealth, they were not primarily such since chiefs were not always among the wealthiest persons, and they in.turn were not always chiefs. The highest class was pre-sumably that of hereditary chiefs and t h e i r f a m i l i e s . I t may also have included war chiefs and shamans. How the middle and lower classes were distinguished i s unknown. We may suggest that the middle class were those with some distant a f f i l i a t i o n with chiefs. A lowest class i n d i v i d u a l was spe c i f i e d as poor, owning no slaves and l i t t l e of anything:, else. I t seems u n l i k e l y that the div i s i o n s were sharply set o f f . This would, however, not change the estimation i n which most members of a class were held. 2 CHIEFTAINSHIP among both the Lower Chinook and the Wishram meant more than merely o f f i c e and rank. I t was a d e f i n i t e l y p o l i t i c a l p osition. While s i m i l a r in: .many respects, the patterns of chieftainship among the two groups were s t i l l s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t from each other that i t w i l l be best J 171 to describe them separately. Bach lower Chinook v i l l a g e , Ray^ writes, had one chief only. The rule of succession: was the eldest son of the chief's highest ranking wife, for a Chinook chief, wealthy and powerful, might have several wives whose ranks would d i f f e r by s l i g h t degrees. I f the chief had no son, other r e l a t i v e s — s u c h as a brother, a brother's son, or a s i s t e r ' s son—would take the po s i t i o n . Im exceptional instances, a woman:, might be chief, Ray's informants disagreed with Franchere's observation, quoted e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter, that the powers of a chief: over his people were "not...great." The chief had the p r i v i -lege and the " d i s t i n c t duty" of judging and peacefully set-t l i n g ' quarrels, supervising economic a c t i v i t i e s , and d i r e c t i n a l l matters of war except those concerned with s t r i c t l y m i l i t a r y maneuvers.. The chief selected the war chief, who was usually a r e l a t i v e of the former. In wartime, the chief stayed at home, for i t was accounted a great catastrophe i f he was k i l l e d or severely injured; therefore the c h i e f never took part i n battles." The chief was always an upperclassman1, and Ray's i n -formants often took the chief as the epitome of the powers and pr i v i l e g e s that an upperclassman might exert"." The chief had the r i g h t to appropriate property as he wished. Customarily, however, he would give an at-least -nominal payment i n return. I f he exerted this r i g h t too often or too extremely he might face an attack from extra-172 v i l l a g e r e l a t i v e s of the people whom he ru l e d ! Ray adds: Commoners regularly hut informally presented g i f t s to chiefs, usually nof food. The chiefs prob-ably redistributed the goods among the upper class. In t h i s way the commoners kept i n the good graces of the chief 7 and i t i s probable that summary appropria-tion' . . „ was by most chiefs directed only against those considered miserly. The Chinook foliowed the custom of the l e v i r a t e , whereby a widow married her husband's brother. But i f t h i s was for any reason impossible, the chief might give the widow to an-other upperclassman,or himself take her to wife. And i f he desired a p a r t i c u l a r woman as a wife for himself or for h i s son, he would not usually be refused; both fear of the con-sequences of r e f u s a l and the manifest advantages of marriage with the family of a chief influenced t h i s . Chieftainship was personal. Ray writes:"1""1' The p o l i t i c a l power of a chief lay d e f i n i t e l y i n the i n d i v i d u a l , not i n the family to which he belonged. No common term of address existed; the t i t l e "chief" was applied to the i n d i v i d u a l only! Brothers were important i n the council but not more so than other prominent upperclassmen. Subr-chiefs or dual chief-tainship were unknown! Indeed, the chief was loath, to delegate powers i n any way except to the war chief i n . the s p e c i f i c circumstance of war." The council was highly informal and r e l a t i v e l y unimportant. . . ! A man was responsible only to the chief of the v i l l a g e i n which he l i v e d ! As soon as a man shifted' residence his p o l i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n s changed. When a man was v i s i t i n g away from home he was l i a b l e to the chief of the v i l l a g e i n which he was temporarily s i t u -ated. This even applied, at least nominally, to a chief when i n the v i l l a g e of another. In case of t i n y s e t t l e -ments located intermediately between larger v i l l a g e s , each with i t s chief, s t r i f e sometimes arose between the chiefs as to where jurisdiction:, ended! Among the Wishram, unlike the lower Chinook, even a single v i l l a g e might have more than one chief:. At l e a s t so J 173 pit seems. Spier and Sapir- 1^ write, ". i t i s l i k e l y that several preeminent individuals were simultan-eously recognized /as chiefs^7 At l e a s t our informants gave no hint that the number was confined to two, either i n the group at large or i n a single v i l l a g e . " Chieftainship among the Wishram was hereditary. A successor to the position would be a son, a brother, a grand-son, or some other close r e l a t i v e . Women could not (at l e a s t i n theory) be chiefs. Chiefs were not always the wealthiest people i n t h e i r group, though they would of necessity have 13 highest rank and a respectable amount of wealth. J Chieftainship here meant something more than o f f i c e and rank. Chiefs seem to have had considerable power: t h e i r word was i m p l i c i t l y obeyed., Acting i n concert the chiefs decided on the fines or death penalty for a murderer or adulterer. I f there was trouble within, the t r i b e , i t was the function of the chief to declare what should be done. Whatever the decision, i t must be obeyed.. The chief was "the head of the t r i b e . " /Spier and Sapir are here apparently using the word " t r i b e " to refer to a group consisting of a single v i l l a g e or a cluster of v i l l a g e s ^ / I f a man k i l l e d another and the chief ordered that he was not to be brought to account, sp^ i t was. I f then the murderer was avenged and the avenger known, the chief might, decree that t h i s man should be k i l l e d , and he was k i l l e d . A l l cases were carried to the chiefs for decision; There was another side: to t h i s possession of ap-parently unlimited power: a chief was at l e a s t p a r t l y responsible f o r the behavior of h i s followers and. i t was c e r t a i n l y his o b l i g a t i o n to make good, a f i n e im-posed, on one of them, which the man was unable to Payt' 1 4 There i s nothing, at l e a s t so far as I know, l i k e t h i s power of the Chinook chiefs among the other nations of the Northwest Coast. After the Chinook, the Tsimshian were the most developed p o l i t i c a l l y (chapter IV, section: 8)." But of 174 " a l l the Northwest Coast peoples, the Chinook "chief" most closely approaches what we would understand hy the word. 3 THE FEUD-SYSTEM of the Chinook Very closely resembles the sort I have distinguished as "decadent". The Chinook chiefs, according both to Ray and to Spier and Sapir, c l e a r l y regu-lated the r i g h t of private vengeance! IS Says Ray concerning the Lower Chinook: ^ I t has been stated that the chief functioned as a judge and that i t was his duty to keep peace i n the v i l l a g e . Further d e t a i l s regarding the handling o f crimes and t o r t s are almost wholly absent." A quite formal i n s t i t u t i o n of blood-money as settlement for serious torts existed, as r e f l e c t e d i n customs connected with, slavery. For lesser wrongs a system of fines as-sessed by the chief and payable to the injured person seems to have held sway. Beyond t h i s l i t t l e can be said. With respect to slavery, Ray notes elsewhere 1^ that i n a b i l i t y to pay debts or wergild led to slavery of defaulter to creditor., This slavery might be either temporary or perma-nent, depending upon circumstances. According to one of Ray's informants, the murderer of a c h i e f automatically became a slave. "Enslavement because of i n a b i l i t y to pay blood-money seems to have been not uncommon;" Such a slave might l a t e r buy his freedom; or sometimes the sentence of slavery was for a stated number of years only. Spier and Sapir give a rather f u l l e r account of law and order among the Wishram! Their account, with i t s d e t a i l s , i s well worth quoting extensively: 1^ Murders were not uncommon. Their o r i g i m was usu-a l l y the jealousy of a man:1 over attentions to his wife or"^ 175 where a death was l a i d to witchcraft, k i l l i n g s followed i n attempts at vengeance. The rel a t i o n s of men to women not t h e i r r e l a t i v e s were d i s t i n c t l y circumscribed and a misstep which might be construed as constructive adultery was resented and punished. The evident pur-pose of bringing;, a murderer before the chief, or coun-c i l was not so much to fasten r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on the murderer nor to punish his act as a n t i - s o c i a l , as to prevent the hazards of a" blood-feud'. The circumstances that affected the penalty im-posed by the council was i n the f i r s t instance the e v i -dence, which i n the nature of the case was almost a l -ways circumstantial, as i t was necessarily i n cases of witchcraft. The second consideration was the rank of the murdered", or rather the r e l a t i v e ranks of murderer and murdered. The t h i r d was a settlement s a t i s f a c t o r y to a l l the p r i n c i p a l s i n order that the matter should rest with t h i s solution'.. There was l i t t l e l e g a l subtle-ty i n these considerations; confession would not m i t i -gate the penalty, and no other pleas were e f f e c t i v e , unless v/e accept those of j u s t i f i c a t i o n and accident, which.were doubtless considerations. Inasmuch as the offender and his partisans were excluded from the d i s -cussion, there could be no effective argument on these counts".. In short, the simplest of personal r e l a t i o n s existed between the chiefs, the murderer, and the family of the murdered. This threw the disposal of"' the problem f u l l y on the c h i e f s , whose dictates must nevertheless have been l i m i t e d by p u b l i c knowledge and sentiment." Cases always rested, on circumstantial evidence and public" knowledge. An eye witness never t e s t i f i e d , for his l i f e was in: danger i f he di d . I t was more than l i k e l y that he next would die at the hands of the de-fendant's kinsmen. The penalty imposed, and i n fact the question whether one would be imposed at a l l , depended l a r g e l y on who was murdered and to what family he belonged... I t made a material difference whether he was of poor family or rich,, himself a shaman^ a war chief, a member of t h e i r f a m i l i e s , or a man with many children-, etc; Whem a homicide was held to be without s u f f i c -ient j u s t i f i c a t i o n ^ the murderer was fined a large amount of property i n . canoes, furs, slaves, etc. If. he was unable to meet the demand he was condemned to death by bowshot, the nearest of k i n of the murdered, being his executioner." The f i n e i s blood-money, fixed here by the dictates of the ch i e f s , save i n the case of shamans and war chiefs /who were powerful enough 176 to f i x the amounts of wergild themselves and to c o l l e c t i t7 „ not by d i r e c t negotiation: of the p r i n c i p a l s as elsewhere.. I t does not seem that the chief or chiefs shared i n . any part of the fine paid; When: a murderefi1 man l e f t several children, the compensation was fisted in:proportion to t h e i r number. The desire was to ach-ieve a settlement s a t i s f a c t o r y to the feelings of the aggrieved who was then: supposed to be content. Yet at times a b i t t e r f e e l i n g remained, t h e i r promises to conr-s i d e r the matter closed! were broken^ and taking ven--geance into t h e i r own hands, they r e t a l i a t e d by k i l l i n g ; the murderer or one of his family. Much depended on the rank o f the murdered! A murder among people of the lowest class was not the concern: of the chiefs; the solution was usually blood, vengeance. Those of the middle class were protected by the chiefs; the fine was of middle value and there; was not much chance of t h e i r being condemned to death. A chie f was i n duty bound to make good the blood money of" a follower unable to pay, at le a s t where i t was owed a member of another t r i b e (or group?)." But a murder i n : the high, class was attended by a heavy imposition: or by certain: death; At times the amount demanded was so great that f i v e or s i x families were involved in; producing:, i t . Such was the l e g a l system of the Chinook, and especially o f the Wishram! This feud-system was c l e a r l y what I have called decadent. The chiefs could and did regulate the r i g h t o f private venr-geance^ and assess fines which, since the ultimate sanction was the blood-feud,, might be cal l e d wergild but which also partook of the character o f awards for damages. Characr-t e r i s t i c : too of t h i s stage was the inequality before the law correlated with differences i n rank. The Chinook feud-system, however, was s t i l l i n the early stages of decadence; the chief was not so powerful that he was able to curb: strong;; shamans and war-chiefs,, who, so the account t e l l s us, could f i x the amounts of wergild that they proposed to c o l l e c t and were strong: enough; to; c o l l e c t i t ! 177 Intergroup r e l a t i o n s both among the Chinook and sometimes between.them and t h e i r neighbours were marked most notably by the i n s t i t u t i o n of formalized ba t t l e s . Formalized battles were invoked as a means o f settling: i n t e r - v i l l a g e disputes that could not be settled more7 peacefully or were the source, of constant and persistent f r i c t i o n , , such as might arise from i n t e r - v i l l a g e murders,, witchcraft, i n s u l t s , or abduc-tions., Both Ray,, for the Lower Chinook, and Spier and Sapir, for the Wishram,, quote Franchere's account of formalized battles among the Lower Chinook: "Before commencing; h o s t i l i t i e s they give notice of the day when they w i l l proceed to attack the h o s t i l e v i l l a g e . . . . /They_7 embark i n t h e i r canoes, which.: on these occasions are paddled by the women, repair to the ho s t i l e village,, enter into parley, and do a l l they can: to terminate the a f f a i r amicably; sometimes a third', party becomes mediator between the f i r s t two, and of course observes am exact n e u t r a l i t y . I f those who seek j u s t i c e do not obtain, i t to t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n , they r e t i r e to some distance,, and the combat begins, and i s continued f or some time with fury on both sides; but as soon, as one or two men are k i l l e d , the party which has l o s t these, owns i t s e l f beaten and the battle ceases. I f i t i s the people of the v i l l a g e attacked who are worsted, the others do not r e t i r e without receiving, presents." When the c o n f l i c t i s postponed t i l l the next day (for they never f i g h t but in: open, daylight, as i f to render nature witness of t h e i r e x p l o i t s ) , they keep up f r i g h t f u l cries a l l night long, and, when, they are s u f f i c i e n t l y near to understand each other, defy one another by menaces, r a i l e r i e s , and sarcasms, l i k e the heroes of Homer and V i r g i l . The women and children are always removed from the v i l l a g e before the action.." Among; the Lower Chinook, these battles, wrote Franchere, were fought on the water i n canoes! Such formalized battles are evidence suggesting an im-completely established l e g a l order which included the com-munities between whom such battles were fought. 178 r 4 HOW, then, do the Chinook data bear out the hypotheses of t h i s enquiry? The Chinook feud-system i s the only one o f the decadent type reported from the Northwest Coast. Chin-ook chiefs were the strongest of a l l chiefs on the North-west Coast. The Chinook l e g a l system f i t s n i c e l y into the typology outlined i m chapter one, section, two, of t h i s essay. Data are lacking i n the sources consulted concerning the frequency of feuding and the operation of conflicting;: allegiances i n peace-making;. Accordingly, I can say nothing; as regards the hypotheses connected with these themes. This brings us to the central hypothesis of the en-quiry,, i.e.,. that concerning the presence or absence of high, degrees of i n d i v i d u a l geographic: inter-group mobility". Was there any such thing among the Chinook? Neither Ray for the Lower Chinook nor Spier and Sapir for the Wishram mention anything l i k e a high degree of i n d i -v idual mobility'. The Chinook were great traders, and we might expect them accordingly to be mobile. But t h i s was not so. Ray's 1 9 account implies that people came to the Chinook for trade rather than that the Chinook t r a v e l l e d 20 abroad. And for the Wishram, Spier and Sapir state, f l a t l y that,; "The ro l e of the Wishram as traders was entiiely that of stay-at-homesj there i s no evidence that they ever went abroad to trade. They were wholly middlemen." From the i n t e r i o r ^ people came to The Dalles for trade. Along the i r i v e r between the Coast and The Dalles, goods appear to 179 r have heen passed along by a series of exchanges rather than.. brought by long trading trips.. The Chinook sat where they were, and trade and wealth came to them." The exchanges involved i n marriages present a pattern; consistent with t h i s . The sources mention no v i s i t i n g : such as Drucker described f o r the Nootka. Marriage connections involved r e l a t i v e l y frequent v i s i t s and g i f t exchanges on the occasions of bir t h s and so on, but these were r e l a --21 t i v e l y formal a f f a i r s . The i n s t i t u t i o n of formalized battles i s suggestive as an indicator of the probably f a i r l y low l e v e l of i n d i -vidual geographic mobility. Among the Indians of Puget Sound, for instance, we found the existence of formalized battles together with a d e f i n i t e devaluation of mobile i n d i -viduals and a r e l a t i v e l y low degree of i n d i v i d u a l geographic mobility. There, too, i n t e r - v i l l a g e r e l a t i o n s partook o f the character of war, at le a s t i n the greater part, and a supra-village l e g a l community seemed very incompletely esta-blished.. May we i n f e r for the Chinook,, from the very defin-^-i t e reports of formalized b a t t l e s and the absence of reports of high.individual inter-group mobility, that a somewhat si m i l a r situation.obtained there? I t seems not u n l i k e l y , p a r t i c u l a r l y - i n view of the stay-at-home character of t h e i r trading;. I f , therefore, we decide that high i n d i v i d u a l geographic: mobility was absent among the Chinook, we fin d what we should expect from the hypothesis: feud-indemnities present (even. L though i i i : a decadent feud-system),, and high i n d i v i d u a l s p a t i a l mobility absent. ±«1 NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA IL IF' NORTHWESTERN: CALIFORNIA lay 'the southernmost portion, of the Northwest Coast culture area. The centre of t h i s area lay about the lower Klamath r i v e r , the land of three small nations: the Yurok, who l i v e d along the Klamath downstream (and so northward) of the point where t h i s r i v e r was joined by the Trinity,,, and also along a b r i e f s t r e t c h of coast:, adjacent to the mouth of the Klamath; the Karok, who l i v e d along the T r i n i t y ; and the Hupa, who l i v e d along the Klamath above i t s junction with the T r i n i t y . Kroeber, i n h i s monu-mental Handbook of the Indians of C a l i f o r n i a , gives "pre-cedence of c i v i l i z a t i o n a l i n t e n s i t y " to the Yurok, and places the centre of t h i s c u l t u r e — i n s o f a r as such a centre may meaningfully be pl a c e d — a t the Yurok v i l l a g e of Weitspus, where the T r i n i t y meets the Klamath!1-The following description refers s p e c i f i c a l l y to the Yurok, but may be taken as descriptive also of the Karok and Hupa, for these l a t t e r present the same picture as f a r as the s o c i a l phenomena considered i n t h i s enquiry are con-cerned. The habitations of the people stood either on the r i v e r or, for the coast Yurok, on the shore of the ocean. A l l land back i n the h i l l s away from the houses served r only for hunting deer, picking up acorns, beating i n seads, and gathering firewood or sweat-house kindlings"^ according to i t s vegetation. The most productive t r a c t s ^ 182 were owned p r i v a t e l y . They were occasionally camped on, though never for long periods. A l l true s e t t l e -ments formed only a long winding lane; and along t h i s waterway Yurok l i f e was li v e d . ' 2 The coast Yurok could and did, i f they saw occasion to, venture out into the open ocean; hut they r a r e l y saw reason to, and did t h e i r f i s h i n g c h i e f l y at the mouths of streams or standing at the edge of the surf. Their hamlets (''towns" i n the l i t e r a t u r e ) were of var-ious s i z e s , some being inhabited only from time to time, by a single small family or group of r e l a t i v e s . Weitspus, already mentioned, had twenty-three house s i t e s and was one of the largest settlements. Kroeber estimates the former population of the Yurok as having t o t a l l e d some 2500 s o u l s ^ 5 The d i s t i n c t i o n of status l e v e l s which characterized the rest of Northwest Coast culture was re f l e c t e d among the Yurok by the d i s t i n c t i o n between r i c h people and poor people. Slaves there were, but few; they became slaves through f a i l u r e to pay indemnities i n r e s t i t u t i o n for t h e i r mis-deeds. Or a poor man might sometimes give one of his c h i l d -ren or a female r e l a t i v e as a slave i n l i e u of blood-money.4 Rich people were the heads of k i n groups, and therefore had the power to c a l l on t h e i r r e l a t i v e s f o r services. A house was inherited by the son of the house-head. "The brother i s said to have received i t only i f there were neither 5 adult sons nor daughters." The Yurok married where and whom they pleased, i n the home v i l l a g e or outside, w i t h i n . t h e i r nationi or abroad. The only bar was to kindred; but the kin.of persons connected by marriage were not considered kin." The wife's daughter as well as her s i s t e r were regarded \ i- suitable partners. The smaller v i l l a g e s were so of tern 183 composed wholly of the branches of one family that they 1 practiced* exogamy of necessity. That such exogamy had not r i s e n to native consciousness as something desirable i n i t s e l f i s shown by numerous endogamous marriages i n the larger towns.° Important i n arranging marriages were considerations of wealth, on which s o c i a l status depended. Kroeber writes:' In;, marriage the rank of husband and wife and c h i l d -ren depended on the amount paid for the woman. People's s o c i a l status was determined not only by what they pos-sessed, but by what had been given by t h e i r fathers for t h e i r mothers.. Men of wealth made a point of payings large sums for t h e i r brides. They thereby enhanced t h e i r own; standing and insured that of t h e i r children. A young man of repute preserved the t r a d i t i o n of his lineage and honoured the person, and family of his wife in. proportion as he paid l i b e r a l l y for her. A poor man was despised not only for his lack of substance,, but for the l i t t l e that he gave for the mother of his children, and for the mean circumstances surrounding his own o r i g i n . A bastard was one whose b i r t h had never been properly paid f o r , and he stood at the bottom of the s o c i a l scale. The pursuit of wealth among.the Yurok was "extraordin-ary." They thought and dreamed wealth day and night. I t was prdmdnent i n t h e i r l e g a l code and, as already indicated, i n t h e i r status systemV The Yurok had nothing approaching a system of govern-ment. Men of wealth had influence because of t h e i r wealth, and they had wealth lar g e l y because they were household heads, which fact was i t s e l f another cause of influence. But to speak of them as having p o l i t i c a l power would be somewhat of an exaggeration. This w i l l , I think, be evident from the description of Yurok law, which follows i n the next section'. 2 THE CLASSIC description of Yurok law i s contained i n Kroeber 1s 184 Handbook". I t i s already so concise and clear that I can think of nothing better to do than quote i t i n f u l l : These are the standards by which the Yurok regulate t h e i r conduct toward one another: 1. A l l r i g h t s , claims, possessions, and pr i v i l e g e s vidua! and personal, and a l l wrongs are against i n -di v i d u a l s . There i s no offense against the commun-i t y , no dut}r owing i t , no r i g h t or power of any sort inhering i n i t ! 2! There i s no punishment, because a p o l i t i c a l state or s o c i a l unit that might, punish does not exist.', and' because punishment by an. i n d i v i d u a l would constitute a new offense which might" be morally j u s t i f i e d but. would expose to a new and unweakened l i a b i l i t y . Am act of revenge therefore causes two l i a b i l i t i e s to l i e where one lay before:,. 3. Every possession and p r i v i l e g e , and every injury and offense, can be exactly valued i n terms of prop-erty. 4. There i s no d i s t i n c t i o n between material and non-material ownership, r i g h t , or damage, nor between property rights i n persons and i n things! 5» Every invasion of p r i v i l e g e or property must be exactly compensated! 6. Intent or ignorance, malice, or negligence, are never a factor. The fact and amount of damage are alone considered. The psychological attitude i s as i f intent were always involved. 7. Directness or indirectness of cause of damage i s not considered, except i n so f a r as a d i r e c t cause has precedence over an i n d i r e c t one. I f the agent who* i s d i r e c t l y responsible can not s a t i s f a c t o r i l y be made amenable, l i a b i l i t y automatically attaches to the next agent or instrument i n the chain of causality, and so on i n d e f i n i t e l y ! 8. Settlement of compensation due i s arrived at by negotiation of the parties interested or t h e i r rep-resentatives, and by them alone. 9! When compensation has been agreed upon and accepted for a claim, t h i s claim i s irrevocably and t o t a l l y ex-tinguished. Even the harboring of a sentiment of injury i s thereafter improper, and i f such a s e n t i -l ment can be i n d i r e c t l y connected with the commission J 1 8 5 of an... injury, i t establishes a v a l i d c o u n t e r - l i a b i l - ' ity." The known cherishing; of resentment w i l l eveni be alleged as prima f a c i e evidence of r e s p o n s i b i l -i t y i n case an injury of undeterminable personal agency i s suffered I 1Q. Sex, age, n a t i o n a l i t y , or record of previous wrongs or damages i n f l i c t e d or suffered do not i n any measure modify or diminish l i a b i l i t y , 1 1 , Property either possesses a value fixed by custom, or can be valued by consideration of payments made for i t i n previous changes of ownership. Persons possess valuations that d i f f e r , and the valuat i o n of the same nonmaterial property or p r i v i l e g e varies, according to the r a t i n g of the person owning i t . The r a t i n g of persons depends pa r t l y upon the amount of property which they possess, p a r t l y upon the values which have previously passed i n transfers or compensations concerning themselves or t h e i r ancestors. One doubtful q u a l i f i c a t i o n must be admitted to? the p r i n c i p l e that the Yurok world of humanity recogt-nizes only i n d i v i d u a l s : the claims of kinship. These are undoubtedly strong, not only as sentiments but i n ; t h e i r influence on: l e g a l operations. Yet a group of kinsmen i s not a circumscribed group, as a clan.or v i l -lage community or t r i b e would be. I t shades out i n a l l d i r e c t i o n s , and integrates into innumerable others. I t i s true that when descent i s reckoned u n i l a t e r a l l y , a body of kinsmen i n the lineage of the proper sex tends to maintain i d e n t i t y f o r long periods and cam eas i l y become treated as a group. I t i s also conceiv-able that such p a t r i l i n e a r k i n units exist i n the con-sciousness of Yurok society, and have merely passed: unnoticed because they bear no formal designations. Yet t h i s seems unlikely.. A r i c h man; i s always spoken, of as the prominent person.:of a town, not of a body o f people! Inithe case of a f u l l and d i g n i f i e d marriage, the bond between brothers-in-law seems to be active as well as close". Women cer t a i n l y i d e n t i f y themselves with t h e i r husbands' interests as h e a r t i l y as with those of t h e i r parents and brothers on most occasions." These facts indicate that r e l a t i o n s h i p through females i s also regarded by the Yurok; and such being the case, i t i s impossible for a k i n group not to have;-been.sufficiently connected with other k i n groups to prevent either being marked o f f as an i n t e g r a l u n i t . . . ..So, too, i t i s clear that a married woman's k i n as well as her husband retained an interest i n her. Were she k i l l e d , the father as well as the husband would therefore be injured; and there can be l i t t l e doubt that something of t h i s community of in t e r e s t and claim would descend to her children. Kinship, J accordingly, operated i n at least some measure "bilat-e r a l l y and consequently d i f f u s i v e l y ; so that a de f i n -i t e u n i t of kinsmen acting as a group capable of con-s t i t u t e d s o c i a l action did not e x i s t . This attitude can.also be j u s t i f i e d j u r i d i c a l l y , i f we construe every Yurok as having: a re c i p r o c a l l e g a l and property interest i n every one of his kiny propor-tionate, of course, to the proximity of the relationship." A has an interest i n his kinsmen X, Y, and Z s i m i l a r to his interest i n his own person, and they i n him. I f A i s injured, the claim i s h i s . I f he i s k i l l e d , his interest i n himself passes to X, Y, Z — f i r s t , or most largely,, to his sons, next to his brothers; i n t h e i r default to his brothers' sons—much as his property interests pass, on his natural death, to the same i n d i -viduals. The only difference i s that the claim of blood i s r e c i p r o c a l , possession of goods or p r i v i l e g e absolute or nearly so. I t may be added that t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Yurok law f i t s very n i c e l y the practices p r e v a i l i n g i n regard: to wife purchase.. Here the interest i n a person i s at least l a r g e l y ceded by her kinsmen for compensation, received. I t i s men that hold and press claims and receive damages for women and minors, but only as t h e i r n a t u r a l guardians. The ri g h t s of a woman are i n no sense cur-t a i l e d by her sex, nor those of a c h i l d by i t s years; but both are i n the hands of adult male trustees^ Old women whose nearer male k i n have died often have con-siderable property i n t h e i r possession. The weakness of t h e i r status i s merely that they are unable to press t h e i r just claims by the threat of force, not that t h e i r claim i s less than that of a man. I t may be asked how the Yurok executed t h e i r law without p o l i t i c a l authority being i n existence". . . . The Yurok procedure i s s i m p l i c i t y i t s e l f . Each side to an issue presses and r e s i s t s vigorously, exacts a l l i t can, y i e l d s when i t has to, continues the contro-versy when, continuance promises to be p r o f i t a b l e or settlement i s c l e a r l y suicidal,.^and usually ends in. compromising more or l e s s . . ". I, Ho d i s t i n c t i o n of p r i n c i p l e existed i n the native mind between murder and war". I t i s rather clear that a l l . so-called wars were only feuds that happened to involve large groups of kinsmen, several such groups, or unrelated fellow townsmen.of the o r i g i n a l p a r t i c i -pants. Whoever was not drawn into a war was as care- -f u l to remain neutral as i m a private quarrel. When settlements came i t was made on the sole basis known: a l l damage was compensated. Every man s l a i n or hurt was' 187 p a i d f o r according to h i s value,, a l l c a p t i v e women and c h i l d r e n r e s t o r e d , burned houses were paid f o r , s e i z e d property handed back. I t seems that a c t u a l payments f o r the aggregate amounts due were made by each s i d e i n s t e a d o f the l e s s e r value being deducted from the gre a t e r and the net d i f f e r e n c e alone p a i d ! This prac-t i c e was perhaps n e c e s s i t a t e d by the f a c t t h a t Yurok money w i t h a l l i t s refinement o f measurement was not r e a l l y standardized i n the same sense as our own, no two s t r i n g s , g e n e r a l l y speaking, beings o f e x a c t l y the same value. I n any event the greater f i n a n c i a l d r a i n bore on the winner. . . . When blood money was o f f e r e d , the exact l e n g t h o f each s t r i n g was shown by a rod o f the p r e c i s e d i -mension.' This s t i c k was kept by the payee, and sub-sequently measured against the row o f d e n t a l i a . To the ends o f the rod were lashed l i t t l e tabs o f buckskin-, to make p o s s i b l e i t s being held between the f i n g e r s t h a t clasped the s t r i n g o f s h e l l s . This device enabled the p r e c i s e value o f each s t r i n g to be determined during; the period when contact between the p r i n c i p a l s i n i con-f l i c t , or even handling o f the property o f one by the other, would have been.:.precarious.. This account c l e a r l y shows the Yurok feud-system to have been unmistakably o f the c l a s s i c a l type. The d e s c r i p t i o n , does not expressly s t a t e the motives u n d e r l y i n g claims f o r i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n , but we may be p r e t t y sure, from references i n . p r i n c i p l e n i n e , and from the account o f Yurok s o c i e t y i n s e c t i o n one, tha t resentment and d e s i r e s f o r vengeance were coupled, w i t h the extreme d e s i r e s f o r wealth t h a t d i s t i n -guished the Yurok.. We then have a c l e a r demonstration o f the e f f e c t , already suggested i n s e c t i o n f o u r o f chapter one, o f w e r g i l d on the frequency o f feuding, or. at l e a s t on. the readiness to feud. One major hypothesis o f t h i s enquiry concerned the presence o f c o n f l i c t i n g a l l e g i a n c e s . The d e s c r i p t i o n again; does not expressly d i s t i n g u i s h these, but i t i s , I t h i n k , .pretty c l e a r from the d i s c u s s i o n of claims i n v o l v e d i n k i n s h i p 188 ""that such c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances did occur. And they oc-curred evidently i n a pattern very l i k e that described by Gluckman for the Nuer, which I have taken as a type example. The p o s s i b i l i t y of unrelated fellow townsmen: being drawn into a prolonged and intensive feud was a p o s s i b i l i t y i n both groups. And with such a p o s s i b i l i t y comes also the p o s s i b i l i t y of c o n f l i c t s between a mair's (or woman's) a l -legiances to kin. and to l o c a l i t y . 3 WAS THERE a high degree of i n d i v i d u a l geographic or i n t e r -group mobility among the Yurok and t h e i r neighbours? We should not, according to the hypothesis put forward i n t h i s enquiry," f i n d i t so. And we do not*." The Yurok and t h e i r neighbours are among the world's most pronounced stay-at-homes*,*. Kroeber w r i t e s : 1 0 The national horizon of the Yurok was as confined as that of most northern Californians. Adjacent tribes were v i s i t e d at ceremonies and to some extent wives were purchased from them. Of those next beyond, there was only the dimmest knowledge; and farther, neither rumour nor legend nor i n t e r e s t . At that distance, there was only the end of the world, or a strange unsighted ocean, and perhaps things that no one wanted to see. The Yurok did not venture into the unknown and f e l t no desire to. Nor did they welcome strangers. I f any came,; i t must be for a bad purpose; and they were put out of the way at the f i r s t opportunity'. A man of substance, wealth, or character did not stray or nose about. He remained at home in . d i g n i t y , or traveled where r e l a -t i v e s of old or hereditary friends welcomed him. I f i ever he went farther, i t was with t h e i r introduction.' And, a g a i n : 1 1 The . . . Yurok and a l l i e d t r i b e s of C a l i f o r n i a .' . 7 u f e e l most comfortable i n a t i n y , snug world—one that J 189 a man w i t h wings could f l y round i n a n i g h t . I n t h e i r cosmology they set the ends of the earth, where the sky keeps descending to meet the horizon,, only some^ f i f t y o r s i x t y m iles beyond t h e i r own l a s t v i l l a g e s . At times they encounter members of t r i b e s from beyond, and know something o f t h e i r c u l t u r e s ; but they p r e f e r to ignore t h i s knowledge, and i n the f a n t a s i e s o f t h e i r mythology and r i t u a l they draw the boundaries o f the human world c l o s e r i n ; About where t h e i r own. h i g h l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d c u l t u r e ends i s where they l i k e to b e l i e v e the land o f the immortals and e v e r l a s t i n g dances begins — t h e U l t i m a Thule across the sea. With such a world-view we should not expect mention o f high, degrees o f i n d i v i d u a l geographic:mobility (though such would always remain:a p o s s i b i l i t y ) , nor do we f i n d i t . I t h i n k we may s a f e l y conclude t h a t high i n d i v i d u a l , geographic: mo-b i l i t y was absent from the s o c i a l l i f e o f northwestern: C a l i f o r n i a , and that consequently feud-indemnities appeared of n e c e s s i t y i f the c u l t u r e was to prove viable." 190 CONCLUSIONS 1 THE PURPOSE of t h i s enquiry was to f i n d out why the Kwakiutl and Nootka did not have feud-indemnities, while other na-tions of the Northwest Coast did. The hypothesis to he tested was t h i s : that a high degree of i n d i v i d u a l geographic mobility among the Kwakiutl and Nootka prevented the devel-opment there of feud-indemnities", while the other so c i e t i e s that had feud-indemnities did not have a high degree o f i n d i v i d u a l geographic: m o b i l i t y ! Having:thus introduced the problem, the enquiry went on to discuss the nature of the feud and primitive law, pre-sented a number of notions, and examined i n : greater d e t a i l how high i n d i v i d u a l geographic mobility would prevent the development of feud-indemnities." The f i r s t of these notions was a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of feud-systems into nascent, c l a s s i c a l , and decadent". The c l a s s i c a l feud-system possessed feud-indemnities but lacked chiefs who could regulate the r i g h t of private vengeance. The decadent feud-system was a c l a s s i c a l system plus such chiefs, and the changes consequent upon; t h e i r presence. The nascent feud-system was l i k e a c l a s s i c a l system minus feud-indemnities! The second of these notions was the hypothesis that the presence of feud-indemnities i n a l e g a l order of the feuding;, type provided on the one hand a motivation, for feud-ing:, and at the same time provided a means of stopping a feud 191 rhonourably i f i t became too sanguine and threatened to d i d -rupt the s o c i a l order. A s o c i e t y w i t h frequent feuding but without feud-indemnities was not,, I suggested, a v i a b l e s o c i a l order: i t would soon break apart i n t o u n i t s between:, which obta i n e d , not feuding,, but war. Consequently we would expect feuding s o c i e t i e s to f a l l , i n t o e i t h e r one o f two rough c l a s s e s : feuding: r e l a t i v e l y frequent w i t h feud-indemnities present, and feuding i n f r e q u e n t w i t h feud-indemnities absent." The next hypothesis concerned the c r e a t i o n o f c o n f l i c t -ing- a l l e g i a n c e s by divergent r u l e s o f marriage and k i n s h i p a f f i l i a t i o n , such t h a t the l o c a l or residence u n i t d i d not coi n c i d e w i t h the vengeance u n i t , and the e f f e c t s o f such-c o n f l i c t i n g ; a l l e g i a n c e s i n mo t i v a t i n g people to seek peace-f u l methods o f s e t t l i n g d isputes and avoiding open c o n f l i c t . The o p e r a t i o n o f c o n f l i c t i n g a l l e g i a n c e s was i l l u s t r a t e d by means o f the l e g a l system o f the ITuer o f the former Anglo-Egyptian Sudan". I n consequence, i f t h i s hypothesis was t r u e , we sould expect to f i n d c o n f l i c t i n g , a l l e g i a n c e s among s o c i e t i e s w i t h feud-indemnities; s o c i e t i e s without feud-i n d e m n i t i e s , however, might o r might not be s o c i e t i e s with, c o n f l i c t i n g allegiances." I f the Kw a k i u t l and Ilootka proved to be s o c i e t i e s without c o n f l i c t i n g a l l e g i a n c e s we should have thereby an explanation why they d i d not have feud-indemnities." But i f they d i d have c o n f l i c t i n g a l l e g i a n c e s , the problem o f why they had no feud-indemnities would s t i l l be unsolved. This l e d to the hypo-t h e s i s about h i g h i n d i v i d u a l geographic m o b i l i t y ! L The feud-indemnity i s , so went the hypothesis, a means of4 192 rendering the feud a more e f f i c i e n t method of s o c i a l c o n t r o l by p r o v i d i n g a means whereby the feud can be stopped before i t goes too f a r and te a r s the s o c i e t y apart. I t w i l l not, however, be adopted hy a s o c i e t y unless there i s need f o r i t . I f s o c i a l disputes r a r e l y reach the feuding p o i n t (where i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n would be demanded i n a c l a s s i c a l feud-system on p a i n o f v i o l e n c e , or where i n a nascent feud-system v i o -lence would simply break o u t ) , there would be no need to de-velop f e u d - i n d e m n i t i e s — n o urgent demand f o r the members o f the s o c i e t y , even i f they were f a m i l i a r w i t h the i n s t i t u -t i o n as a custom o f neighbouring peoples, to adopt i t them-selves." High i n d i v i d u a l geographic m o b i l i t y would c o n s t i t u t e such a means of i n h i b i t i n g : disputes and s o c i a l tensions before they reached the feuding: p o i n t . In such a s o c i a l order, an i n d i v i d u a l need not spend a l l or even most o f h i s l i f e w i t h one s o c i a l group. I f , t h e r e f o r e , he was i n -volved i n t r o u b l e w i t h one s o c i a l group, he could simply leave f o r another s o c i a l group, not r e t u r n i n g to the former u n t i l tempers had died down and t e n s i o n eased. Moral pres-sures would also play a p a r t i n curbing, tempers and f o r c i n g some o f the p r i n c i p a l s i n an argument to depart the commun-i t y f o r another e i t h e r t e m p o r a r i l y or permanently, though by themselves moral p r i n c i p l e s would not be s u f f i c i e n t to prevent v i o l e n c e , In kin-based s o c i e t i e s such i n d i v i d u a l ' geographic: mo-b i l i t y would be rendered much e a s i e r w i t h a b i l a t e r a l system xy;? of'kinship a f f i l i a t i o n * and. we might therefore expect a high degree of geographic: i n d i v i d u a l mobility more often, i n b i l a t -e r a l l y organized societies than i n u n i l a t e r a l ones. This con-nection being only a matter o f more or less l i k e l i h o o d , we s t i l l have no c e r t a i n assurance i n : the matter." 2 THE HEXT SIX CHAPTERS described the s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , and legal.systems of most of the nations of the Northwest Coast: the Nootka, the Kwakiutl, the T l i n g i t , Haida, and Tsimshian, the Salish-speaking peoples, the Chinook, and the northwest-ern. Californians. They were described i n f a i r d e t a i l i m order that the reader might have s u f f i c i e n t data to judge for himself whether or not the hypotheses i n question; were sustained.' The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of feud-systems as nascent, c l a s s i c a l , and decadent seems to be j u s t i f i e d . Nootka, Kwakiutl, B e l l a Coola, and Upper Stalo were nascent; the Chinook were ap-parently decadent; the others were c l a s s i c a l . Since the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s based on the presence or absence of feud-indemnities and on the powers of chiefs i n these s o c i e t i e s , and both of these phenomena appear to have s i g n i f i c a n t i m p l i -cations for s o c i a l structure, the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s more than merely verbal, and does not obscure either s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -ferences or s i g n i f i c a n t s i m i l a r i t i e s between the s o c i e t i e s i n question. The evidence seems to indicate that feud-indemnities in. those s o c i e t i e s which had them did constitute an important mo-194 t i v a t i o n f o r making claims and t h r e a t e n i n g feuds. But whether or not feuds were more frequent i n the s o c i e t i e s with.feud-indemnities than: i n . those without, i s not too c l e a r . I t i s my impression, t h a t they were, and t h a t while there was much t h r e a t and counter-threat o c c u r r i n g i n ; " l i t i -g a t i o n " i n the s o c i e t i e s w i th.feud-indemnities, there was also a good deal, o f a c t u a l c o n f l i c t . Drucker's suggestion: t h a t the concept of; feud-indemnities focussed a t t e n t i o n , on. i n j u r i e s and s l i g h t s seems to have something i n i t . " But feud-indemnities were also a form o f wealth, and the c l a i m -ing;; o f indemnities seems l i k e l y to have been, at l e a s t i n the minds of some i n d i v i d u a l s , a way o f g e t t i n g wealth. Both motivations, i . e . , face-saving, and wealth-getting;, probably played a p a r t . But o f a l l the hypotheses pre-sented, t h i s one remains the l e a s t s a t i s f a c t o r i l y estab-l i s h e d . C o n f l i c t i n g a l l e g i a n c e s , created most notably through marriage r u l e s , seem to have played an important p a r t i n a l l the s o c i e t i e s d escribed. This i s made e x p l i c i t i n the instances o f the Nootka and Haida, but i s i m p l i c i t i n . a l l the r e s t . The hypothesis t h a t where there are feud-indemnities there are also c o n f l i c t i n g a l l e g i a n c e s , seems th e r e f o r e to be v e r i f i e d . The presence o f c o n f l i c t i n g a l -l e g i a n c e s i n those groups without feud-indemnities, however, suggests t h a t c o n f l i c t i n g a l l e g i a n c e s are probably a theme o f very wide range and a p p l i c a t i o n i n s o c i e t y , manifested i n a great many more things than simply feuding. In t h i s il 195 rconnection, we may note that Gluckman, from whose hook Custom and C o n f l i c t i n A f r i c a the concept i s taken, d i s -cusses c o n f l i c t i n g a l l e g i a n c e s not only i n the feud, hut also i n connection w i t h p o l i t i c a l a u t h o r i t y , f a m i l y s t r u c -t u r e , w i t c h c r a f t , r e l i g i o u s r i t u a l s , and the colour-bar. The primary hypothesis o f t h i s enquiry, i . e . , that concerning;; h i g h i n d i v i d u a l geographic.: m o b i l i t y , has, I think,, been confirmed. The K w a k i u t l , Nootka, B e l l a Coola, and Upper S t a l o had h i g h i n d i v i d u a l geographic m o b i l i t y and lacked feud-indemnities. The T l i n g i t , Haida, Tsimshian, northwestern C a l i f o r n i a n s , Chinook, and the remainder o f the S a l i s h had low to moderate geographic m o b i l i t y , and also had feud-indemnities". end r N O T E S INTRODUCTION 1) P h i l i p Drucker, "Culture Element D i s t r i b u t i o n s : XXVI,, Northwest Coast," Anthropological Records, 9:3 (1950), ' p. 165. 2) A noteworthy instance of such, a paper i s Kalervo Oberg, "Crime and Punishment i n T l i n g i t Society," American, Anthropologist,, n.s., 36 (1934) , pp. 145-156T^ 3) See Bibliography.. 4) David Gr. Mandelbaum, ed.,, Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in. language. Culture, and Personality, p. 470. 5) P h i l i p Drucker, Indians of the Northwest Coast,, p. 40. 6) I b i d . , p. 108. 7) Mandelbaum,. ojo. c i t . , pp. 472-3. 8) Verne P. Ray, Lower Chinook Ethnographic:. Notes, p. 48. 9) Ibid.., p. 55. 10) But not a feature peculiar to the Northwest Coast alone. Cf., e.g., William R. Bascom, "Ponapean Prestige Economy," Southwestern Journal of Anthro-pology, 4 (1948), pp. 211-221. 11) Anthropology (1948 e d i t i o n ) , p.. 814. 12) Following the precedent i n Drucker, op_. c i t . , p. 6, I s h a l l use the word "nation" to re f e r to the various groups on the Northwest Coast that spoke a common: language or common d i a l e c t , resembled, each other more closely than they did t h e i r neighbours of d i f -ferent speech, and l i v e d i n contiguous areas! I: THE FEUD AND PRIMITIVE LAW 1) p. 76. 2) I b i d . , p. 77. 3) See, for instance, the d e f i n i t i o n s and etymology of the word "law" i n The Concise Oxford Dictionary! 4) The Law of Pri m i t i v e Man, p.. 28 ( i t a l i c s i n o r i g i n a l ) ! 197 I b i d . , p. 29. Op. c i t . , pp. 59-60. Cf. Bertrand Rus s e l l , Power: A Hew S o c i a l Analysis! This d i s t i n c t i o n p a r a l l e l s that made by Russ e l l , op. c i t . , between " t r a d i t i o n a l power" and "naked power". Which was, after a l l , Hoebel's idea i n propounding, h i s d e f i n i t i o n : cf". his second chapter, "What i s Law?" Seagle, W., The Quest for Law (New York, 1941), pp! 60 & 69; cited i n Hoebel, op. c i t . , p. 21. A con-sequence of t h i s position, of course, i s to define "primitive" as meaning; "non-court" or "non-state". See, for instance, O.K. Meek, Law and Authority i n a Nigerian Tribe, p. 243. Thus family feuds, such as that between the Hatfields and the McCoys of the Kentucky and V i r g i n i a h i l l s , arise i n areas where the central government i s not strong enough to ke;ep the peace, and the inhabitants must resort to self-help.. See, for instance, the complaints of Joseph Schneider, "Primitive Warfare: A Methodological Note," Ameri- can S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 15:6 (December 1950), pp. 772-7; also the b r i e f discussion i n John;Middletorn, and David Tait, Tribes without Rulers, pp. 19-22." This i s e s s e n t i a l l y the position adopted by Schneider, op. ext., and by Middletom and Tait, op. c i t . See also A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, "Preface," i n Portes and Evans-Pritchard, A f r i c a n P o l i t i c a l Systems, pp. xix-xx, who makes a s i m i l a r d i s t i n c t i o n between feuds and wars. We should note, however, that for R a d c l i f f e -Brown, the feud i s not an instrument of primitive law, and feuding relationships are not l e g a l r e l a -tionships. Cf. A l v i n : Johnson, art. "War," Encyclopaedia of the  S o c i a l Sciences. See the "war" tales i n Edward S. Curtis, The North Amer- ican. Indian, Volume X, The Kwakiutl, pp. 106-124. E. E. Evans-Pritchard, "The Nuer of the Southern Sudan," i n Portes and Evans-Pritchard, A f r i c a n P o l i t i c a l  Systems, p. 296! Audrey Butt, The Nilotes of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan and  Uganda, p. 140; Max Gluckman, Custom and C o n f l i c t i n A f r i c a , pp. 8-9. 1 9 ) Such a one i s recorded i n Franz "Boas, "Ethnology o f the K w a k i u t l , " pp. 1363-1380, as "Neqapenkem1s War against the San etch;," 20) P h i l i p Drucker, The Northern and C e n t r a l Nootkan T r i b e s , p. 319. 21) I b i d . , p. 320. A. S. Diamond, P r i m i t i v e Law, p. 302, f o o t n o t e , has also suggested that the feud " a f f o r d s a reason f o r paying the customary s a n c t i o n s , which i t also helps to b u i l d up." 22) Max Gluckman, Custom and C o n f l i c t i n A f r i c a , p. 7. 23) I b i d . , p. 8." (24) I b i d . , pp. 11-12. 25) I b i d ; , p. 13. (26) I b i d . , p. 24. 27) This " s u p e r i o r power of the negative instance" (This phrase, I b e l i e v e , o r i g i n a t e d w i t h F r a n c i s Bacon.) has l e d K a r l Popper, i n The L o g i c o f S c i e n t i f i c ;  Discovery, to s i n g l e out f a l s i f i a b l T i t y as t h a t property o f a theory which gives i t s c i e n t i f i c ; value and separates i t from merely metaphysical n o t i o n s . I I : THE NOOTKA 1) James G. Swan, "The Indians o f Cape F l a t t e r y , " Smith-sonian C o n t r i b u t i o n s to Knowledge, 16 : 8 ( 1 8 7 0 7 7 pp. 5 5 - 7 . The Makah themselves, according to Swan, be-l i e v e d they had been at Cape F l a t t e r y from the'be-g i n n i n g o f the world. Swan, however, from a compari-son! o f s e v e r a l o f t h e i r t r a d i t i o n s w i t h those o f other Nootkan groups, i n f e r r e d them to be o f N i t i -nat o r i g i n . A l b e r t I r v i n e , "How the Makah Obtained Possession o f Cape F l a t t e r y , " Indian Notes and Mono- graphs, n.s., "6 ( 1 9 2 1 ) , pp. 5 - 1 1 , moreover, gives an. account of how a group o f N i t i n a t conquered Cape F l a t t e r y and became the ancestors o f the Makah." 2 ) P h i l i p Drucker, The Northern'and C e n t r a l Nootkan T r i b e s , pp. 2 2 0 - 1 . 3) I b i d . , P. 220. (4) I b i d . 5) I b i d . , P. 221. (6) I b i d . , p. 279. 7) I b i d . , P. 274. (8) I b i d . , p. 267. •9) I b i d . , p. 301. (10) I b i d . , p. 244. 199 r i i . ) I b i d . , p. 248. (12) I b i d . , PP. 251-2. 13) I b i d . , p. 248; c f . also pp. 257ff. 14) I b i d . , P. 273. (15) I b i d . , PP. 279-80. 16) I b i d . , p. 281. (17) I b i d . , pp. 219-20. 18) I b i d . , P. 312. (19) I b i d . , PP. 303-11, 313-18. 20) I b i d . , P. 313. (21) I b i d . , PP. 318-9. 22) I b i d . , p. 319 & passim.(23) I b i d . , PP. 319-20, 343-4. 24) I b i d . , PP. 332 - 3 , 338-9, 342-3. 25) I b i d . On economic motivations companion!', pp. .333-4. , P. 333; on the "death 26) Swan, 0 £ . c i t . , p. 53. (27) I b i d . 28) I b i d . , P. 13. I I I : THE KWAKIUTL 1} Franz Boas, "The S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n and the Secret S o c i e t i e s o f the Kw a k i u t l Indians," Report o f the U. S. N a t i o n a l Museum f o r 1895, pp. 328-332." (Hence-f o r t h c i t e d as Boas, " S o c i a l Organization.") 2) James Douglas, / E x t r a c t s from/ Journa l o f James Douglas, 1843, I n c l u d i n g Voyage to S i t k a and Voyage to the Northwest, p. 7. 3) This thumbnail sketch o f the K w a k i u t l numaym i s a d i g e s t and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f data presented i n the f o l l o w i n g sources: Franz Boas, " F i r s t General Report on the Indians o f B r i t i s h Columbia," Report o f the B r i t i s h  A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the Advancement of~"S~cience, 1889, p. 832; "Social Organization,," pp. 332-8; "The S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n o f the K w a k i u t l , " American Anthro-p o l o g i s t , n.s., 22 (I92O), pp. 112ff; "Ethnology o f the K w a k i u t l , " 35th. Annual- Report o f Bureau o f Ameri- can Ethnology, iW^M, pp. 795ff (Henceforth crEed" as "Ethnology"); C o n t r i b u t i o n s to the Ethnology o f the K w a k i u t l , pp. 57-8, 91, 101' "(henceforth c i t e d as C o n t r i b u t i o n s ) ; K w a k i u t l Culture as R e f l e c t e d i n . Mythology, p. 173; and C l e l l a n S. Ford, Smoke from  Their Fires,, p. 15. 4) "The K w a k i u t l o f Vancouver I s l a n d , " in.Margaret Mead, ed., Cooperation and Competition among P r i m i t i v e Peoples, 200 p.' 181. Goldman's account o f K w a k i u t l lav/ i s based on l e c t u r e s by Franz Boas. 5) Smoke from Their F i r e s , p. 15! For a d e t a i l e d l i s t and diagram of K w a k i u t l k i n s h i p terms, see Franz Boas,. "Tsimshian Mythology," T h i r t y - F i r s t Annual Report of the Bureau o f American Ethnology, 1909-10, pp. 494ffT 6) Edward S! C u r t i s , The North: American Indian, Volume X,, The K w a k i u t l , pp. 21-23, 108T~ 7) pp. 835ff. See a l s o Boas, C o n t r i b u t i o n s , pp. 59f£» 7 1 f f . 8) "Indian G i f t s i n R e l a t i o n . t o , P r i m i t i v e law," Proceedings of the X I I I I n t e r n a t i o n a l Congress o f Americanists, p. 467. Wardle's summary i s based l a r g e l y on the ac-^ count g i v e n i n Boas, " S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n , " pp. 358ff. 9) Boas, C o n t r i b u t i o n s , pp! 91, 101. 10) Boas,, K w a k i u t l C u l t u r e as R e f l e c t e d i n Mythology, p. 66. 11) See note 7 above. 12) Boas, "Ethnology," p. 782. 13) For instance,, the n i g h complete extermination, o f the T l a a l u i s d i v i s i o n o f the l e k w i l t o k by a B e l l a b e l l a r a i d i n g party, and the union.of the few s u r v i v o r s w i t h the Kueha. C u r t i s , o£. ext., p. 113. 14) Peter Camden: P i n eo, V i l l a g e M i g r a t i o n s o f the Modern: K w a k i u t l . 15) pp.- 338-40. 16) Boas, C o n t r i b u t i o n s , p.. 91. 17) I b i d . , p.. 101". 18) George M. Dawson, "Notes and Observations on the Kwak-i o o l People...," Transactions o f the Royal S o c i e t y o f  Canada, 1887, s e c t . I I , p. 79. 19) P h i l i p Drucker, Indians of the Northwest Coast, pp.. 127-28. 20) Boas, C o n t r i b u t i o n s , pp. 91, 99, 105. 21) Dawson, op_. c i t . , p. 79. 22) Boas, "Ethnology," pp. 1333-40; Contributions,, pp. 3 1 I f f , 331. 201 23) Boas, "Ethnology," pp. 1333-4. 24) Boas,. Contributions, p. 259. 25) Goldman, op_. cit.., p. 197. 26) Curtis, op_. c i t . , pp. 123-4. 27) Franz Boas, The Reli g i o n of the Kwakiutl,. p. 275. 28) Boas, Contributions, pp. 94-5! 29) Boas, "Ethnology," pp. 1359-62. 30) I b i d . , pp. 1377-8. ' 31) For war t a l e s , see Curtis, op_. c i t . , pp. 106-24; Boas, "Ethnology," pp. 1363-80. For genealogies, see Boas, "Ethnology," and Contributions. For seasonal migra-tions, see Curtis, OJ>. c i t . , pp. 22-3. 32) This proposal i m p l i c i t l y asks and answers the questiom as to how feud-indemnities should be defined. I t w i l l also be noted that i n the account of feud-in-demnities i n section two of chapter one, "The Feud and P r i m i t i v e Law," the injured group i s described a S demanding indemnification! 33) Boas, "Social Organization^" p.. 328; Ronald L. Olson, "The S o c i a l Organization of the H a i s l a of B r i t i s h Columbia," Anthropological Records, 2:5 (1940), pp. 169, 200 (henceforth cited as " H a i s l a " ) ! 34) Boas., op_. c i t . , p. 328; Ronald L. Olson, "Notes on the B e l l a B e l l a Kwakiutl," Anthro polo g i c a l Records, 14:5 (1955), pp. 320, 324, 344 (henceforth cited as " B e l l a B e l l a " ) . 35) "Haisla," pp. 169-70; " B e l l a B e l l a , " p. 324. Concern-ing the l i s t of H a i s l a clans, however, i t should be noted that Boas, OJD. c i t . , p. 328, gives the follow-ing: eagle, beaver, raven, k i l l e r whale, salmon, and wolf. 36) Olson, "Haisla,," pp.. 178, 182,, 183, 185; " B e l l a B e l l a , " P. 334.-37) "Haisla," p. 183 (38) " B e l l a B e l l a , " p! 320. IV: THE NORTHERN! TRIBES 1) The Indians, of Canada, p. 328. 202 '2) John R. Swanton, "Social Condition* B e l i e f s , and L i n -g u i s t i c Relationship o f the T l i n g i t Indians," Twenty-S i x t h Annual Report o f the Bureau of American; Ethno-logy, 1904-05,. P. 414. 3) Ibid.„ pp. 396-8; Aurel Krause, The T l i n g i t Indians, pp. 65-74. 4) "The Coast Indians of Southern Alaska and Northern; B r i t -i s h Columbia,11 Report of IT. S. National Museum for 1888, p. 310. 5) I b i d . , p. 251. 6) Swantonj op_. c i t . , p. 398. 7) Krause,. op_. c i t . , p. 85. 8) Niblack, op_. c i t . , p. 250. Cf. also Krause, op_. c i t . , p. 77. 9) Kalervo Oberg, "Crime and Punishment i n T l i n g i t Society," American Anthropologist„ n.s., 36 (1934), p. 145 (henceforth cited as "Crime"); The S o c i a l Economy of "kke T l i n g i t Indians, pp. 22-36 (henceforth cited as S o c i a l Economy). 10) Swanton, op_. c i t . , p. 348. 11) I b i d . , pp. 407-14. 12) S o c i a l Economy, p. 22. (13) I b i d . , p. 37. 14) Ibid. .(15) Ib i d . , p. 36. 16) Ib i d . , pp. 28-29. (17) I b i d . , pp. 36-37. 18) "Sib" i s the term suggested by Murdock f o r u n i l i n e a l kinship groups holding a b e l i e f i n common ancestry even though the exact relationships have been; f o r -gotten! or are not known. Cf. George Peter Murdock, So c i a l Structure, pp. 46-7. 19) Oberg, S o c i a l Economy, p. 29. 20) Ibid., p. 22. (21) Ib i d . , p. 38. 22) Ib i d . , p. 39. 23) I b i d . , p. 47; "Crime," p. 152; Niblack, ojo. c i t . , pp. 250-1; Swanton, op., c i t . , p. 427. 24) S o c i a l Economy, p. 40. (25) 0p_. c i t . , p. 246 "26) 0p_. c i t . , p. 40. (27) Krause, on. c i t . , p. 77. 1 203 \] 28) 0j>. c i t . , pp.. 250ff. (29) Oberg, Social. Economy, p. 106. 50) I b i d . , p. 47. (31) Oberg, "Crime," p. 155. 32) Swanton, op_. c i t . , p. 449* however, notes that the man'; to be executed would often t r y to stab one of his would-be slayers before he was k i l l e d . 33) "Crime," p. 147. 34) Ibid.,, p. 147; S o c i a l Economy, pp. 47-8. 35) Swanton* op_., c i t . , p., 449. 36) S o c i a l Economy, p. 48. (37) I b i d . , p. 39. 38) Niblack,, o£.. c i t . , p., 291. 39) Krause, o£. c i t . , p. 1.69'.' 40) Niblack, op_. c i t . , p. 335. 41) Krause, op_. c i t . , p. I 6 9 . 42) I b i d . , p. 172; Niblack, op_. c i t . , p. 342. 43) PP. 313-4. (44) Krause, op_. c i t . , pp. 17-18. 45) Ib i d . , pp. 169-70. (46) 0p_. c i t . , p. 241. 47) I b i d . , p. 365. (48) "Crime," p. 146. 49) The following four paragraphs on Haida socialL organi-za t i o n are taken, c h i e f l y from George Peter Murdock, Our Pri m i t i v e Contemporaries,, pp. 235-8. The chapter on the Haida i n t h i s reference i s Murdock's owni sum-mary of his own f i e l d work among the Haida.' 50) Ibid.,, p. 250. (51) Ib i d . , p. 245. 52) Niblack, op_. c i t . , p. 248.' 53) George Peter Murdock, "Rank and Potlatch among the Haida," Yale University Publications i n Anthropo lo gy, 13 (1936TT"p. 151 54) Ibid. 55) Our Pri m i t i v e Contemporaries, pp. 247-8. 56) Ib i d . , p. 235; "Rank aid. Potlatch. among the Haida," -• p. 16. r57) Computed from map, p. 5., of Wilson Duff and Michael Kew, "Anthony Island, A Home of the Haidas," reprinted 1958 from Report of the P r o v i n c i a l Museum of Natural  History and Anthropology for 19577 58) Report on Queen Charlotte Islands, 1878, p. 121. 59) "Kinship and S o c i a l Behavior among the Haidas," American Anthropologist, n.s., 36 (1934), pp. 371-2; S o c i a l  Structure, p. 73. 60) V i o l a E. Garfield,, "The Tsimshian and Their Neighbours," Part One of Barbeau, G a r f i e l d , and Wingert, The Tsim-shian: Their Arts and Music, p. 4»(henceforth cited as "Tsimshian"J! 61) I b i d . , p. 13. 62) I b i d . , pp.. 19-20; Tsimshian Clan and Society, p. 173. 63) G a r f i e l d , Tsimshian 'Clani and Society, p. 231. 64) G a r f i e l d , "Tsimshian",'" p. 20.' 65) Ibid.,' p. 22. 66) Ga r f i e l d , Tsimshian Clan and Society, p. 174. 67) G a r f i e l d , "Tsimshian," p. 24. 68) I b i d . , p. 28. 69) G a r f i e l d , Tsimshian Clan and Society, p. 175. 70) I b i d . , p. 182 note; "Tsimshian;," p. 33. 71) Ga r f i e l d , Tsimshian; Clan- and Society, pp. 177-8; "Tsim-shi a n i " pp.. 26-29. 72) The greater part of t h i s description of the evolution. and the authority of Tsimshian chiefs i s taken from G a r f i e l d , "Tsimshian," pp. 32-7. 73) G a r f i e l d , Tsimshian Clan and Society, p. 177. 74) "Tsimshian," p. 35. 75) This account of the Tsimshian feud-system i s taken from Ga r f i e l d , Tsimshian Clan and Society, pp. 257-60. 76) Ib i d . , p. 258. (77) Ibi d . , p. 259. 78) Ib i d . , p. 271. L. 205 ' 79) The Native Races of the P a c i f i c . States, Vol. I, Wild  Tribes, p. 109. 80) Garfield,.Tsimshian Clan and Society, pp. 257-60. 81) Prederica de Laguna, " T l i n g i t Ideas about the I n d i -v i d u a l , " Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 10 (1954), pp. 172-191. 82) Marius Barbeau, Unpublished F i e l d Notes: Narratives 2 9-116 f or Barbeau MS "Gwenhoot," Recorded by Wil -liam Beynon.between 1920-1950 for Marius Barbeau. V: THE SALISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES 1) T. P. Mcllwraith, The B e l l a Coola Indians,, pp." 17-18. 2) Ib i d . , p. 127. (3) I b i d . , pp. 122-3. 4) Ib i d . , pp. 118-19. (5) I b i d . , p. 126. 6) Ibid . , pp. 118-119. (7) Ib i d . , pp. 130-32. 8) Ibid . , pp. 138-43'. (9) Ibid.,, pp. 140-1. 10) Ib i d . , pp. 143-50. (11) Ib i d . , pp. 150-56. 12) Ibid., pp. 137, 163-76.(13) I b i d . , pp. 375-6. 14) Ib i d . , p. 394. (15) Ib i d . , pp. 127, 128, 141. 16) Ib i d . , passim. (17) Ib i d . , p. 174; 18) Ibid . , p. 175. (19) I b i d . „ pp. 178-9. 20) 22) Ib i d . , pp. 147-8. Ibid . , p. 141. (21) (23) I b i d . I b i d . , pp. 127, 129, 132, 134-5. , P. 140. 24) Homer G. Barnett, pp. 18ff. The Coast S a l i s h of B r i t i s h Columbia 25) Ibid . , p. 242 (26) Ib i d . , pp. 242-3. 27) Ibid . , p. 184.' 28) Por instance, one Sanetch v i l l a g e houses. One Cowichan v i l l a g e was house only. A former v i l l a g e of Mudge had twelve houses. Ibid., had but seven large made up of one big, the Comox at Cape pp. 19, 21, 25. 29) Ib i d . , pp. 181-2. (30) Ibid. , p. 182. 206 31) I b i d . , pp. 182-3. (32) Ibid.,, p. 247. 33) I b i d . , pp. 248-9. (34) I b i d . , p. 243. 35) I b i d . , p. 244. (36) I b i d . , pp. 269-70. 37) I b i d . , pp. 270-1. 38) I b i d . , p. 267. See also pp. 182-3. 39) "The Upper S t a l o o i r s , 1 (1952), Indians," Anthropology i n B.C., pp. 19-24. 40) I b i d . , p. 12. (41) I b i d . , pp. 84-5. 42 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 58 59 I b i d . , p.. .85'. The Lower Stalo,.. however, had such t r a -aTtions. Cf. Diamond Jenness, "The F a i t h o f a Coast S a l i s h Indian," Anthropology i n B.C., Memoirs, 3 (1955), pp.. 10-34: Duff, op_. c i t . , p. 19', I b i d . , p. 80. I b i d . , p. 76. I b i d . , p. 79. I b i d . , p. 40. p. 90. I b i d . I b i d . pp. 81-2, 96. (44 (46 (48 (50 (52 (54 (56 I b i d . I b i d . I b i d . I b i d . I b i d . I b i d . I b i d . p. 87V pp. 82-4. pp. 81, 85, 92, 95-6. p. 30. p. 76. p. 81. P. 89. Herman Haeberlin; and Erna G-unther, The Indians o f  Puget Sound,, pp. 7-10, 15, 17, 58. Marian W." Smith, The P u y a l l u p - H i s q u a l l y , pp. 32-37,. 40-41. Ha e b e r l i n and G-unther, op_. c i t . , p. 7! Smith, op_. c i t . , p. 42. Ha e b e r l i n and G-unther, op_. c i t . , p. 50~r g i v e the f o l l o w i n g account: "Marriage among these Puget Sound t r i b e s , as i s so f r e q u e n t l y the case, was a contract between two families.' T h e o r e t i c a l l y there was a d i f f e r e n c e be-tween the marriage r e g u l a t i o n s o f the upper and lower c l a s s e s , i n that the upper cl a s s e s p r a c t i c a l l y i n -s i s t e d on t r i b a l exogamy, whi l e the common people had to be content to marry w i t h i n t h e i r own group. Before the coming o f the whites, the H i s q u a l l y never married w i t h i n t h e i r own t r i b e , and not even i n t o another v i l l a g e o f the t r i b e . This r e g u l a t i o n theor-e t i c a l l y a p p l i e d to everyone, but was only r i g i d l y j 207 60 62 63 65 67 69 70 71 73 enforced i n the upper c l a s s e s where infringement was f i n e d . The f i n e was apid to the g i r l ' s r e l a t i v e s , and a f t e r such amends they would f r e q u e n t l y consent to l e t t h e i r son-in-law l i v e w i t h them." Which i s as much to say that tribal^exogamy was not i n f a c t at a l l r i g i d l y i n s i s t e d upon., Smith, op_. c i t . , p. 32.,(61) 0p_. c i t . , pp. 56-7. Smith, p_£. c i t . , pp. 51-54. I b i d . , pp. 47-55. (64) I b i d . , pp. 40-1. I b i d . , pp. 41, 36, 42. (66) I b i d . , p. 43. I b i d . , pp. 165-6. (68) I b i d . , pp. 43-4. Op. c i t . , p. 58. I b i d . , p. 59! I t should be noted t h a t G-unther con-s i d e r s t h i s account of Puget Sound c h i e f t a i n s h i p , " o v e r s i m p l i f i e d " . , Smith, o£. c i t . , p. 35.(72) I b i d . , pp. 49-50. I b i d . , pp. 35-6. H a e b e r l i n and Gunther, op_. cit.7, have nothing at a l l to say on s o c i a l c o n t r o l w i t h i n i the t r i b e . 74) Smith, op. c i t . , PP. 161-162. 75) I b i d . , p. 148. (76) I b i d . , p. 157. 77) I b i d . , pp. 155-6. (78) Op. c i t . , P. 59. 79) Erna Gunther, K l a l l a m Ethnography, p. 18 2; 80) I b i d . , pp. 178, 183, 186-90. 81) I b i d . , p. 241. (82) I b i d . , pp . 260-1. 83) I b i d . , p. 195. (84) I b i d . , p. 2 6 i : 85) I b i d . , pp. 262-3. (86) I b i d . , p. 266. 87) Ronald I . Olson, The Quinault Indians, P. 89". 88) I b i d . , pp., 17-19, 93- -94. 89) I b i d . , P. 92. (90) I b i d . , p. 93. 91) I b i d . , pp. 90-91. (92) I b i d . , p. 94. 93) I b i d . , P. 95. (94) I b i d . , pp . 90, 93, 2 0 8 95) I b i d . , p.. 89.. (96) I b i d . , p . 1 0 6 . 97) I b i d . , p . 95V (98) I b i d . , p . 9 6 . 99) I b i d . , p . 1 1 6 . (100) I b i d . , p . 1 1 7 . 101) I b i d . , p . 9 4 . (102) I b i d . , p . 2 5 . 103) I b i d . , p . 8 9 . The i t a l i c s a r e m i n e , n o t O l s o n ' s . V I : THE CHINOOK 1) Quoted i n V e r n e F . R a y , Lower C h i n o o k E t h n o g r a p h i c . N o t e s , p . 5 5 . 2) I b i d . , p . 5 5 ; L e s l i e S p i e r and Edward Sapir,, Wishram E t h n o g r a p h y , , p p . 1 6 4 f f , 2 1 1 , 229". 3) p . 1 7 1 . (4) p . 1 6 9 - 7 0 : 5) R a y , OJD. c i t . , p p . 7 2 , 1 2 7 ; S p i e r and S a p i r , p p . c i t . , ; p". 221". 6) R a y , OJD. c i t . , pp. 7 2 f f ; S p i e r and S a p i r , OJD. c i t . , p p . 2 1 7 - 2 2 1 . 7) R a y , op., c i t . , p p . 4 8 - 4 9 . 8) S p i e r and S a p i r , OJD. c i t . , p . 2 1 1 . 9) R a y , OJD. c i t . , p p . 5 5 - 7 . ( 1 0 ) I b i d . , p . 56 . 11) I b i d . , p . 57 . 12) S p i e r and S a p i r , OJD. c i t . , p . 212." 13) I b i d . , p . 2 1 1 . (14) I b i d . , p p . 211-2". 15) R a y , OJD. c i t . , p . 57." (16) I b i d . ; , p . 5 2 ! 17) S p i e r and S a p i r , OJD.. c i t . , p p . 2 1 3 - 2 1 5 . 18) R a y , OJD. c i t . , p . 6 0 ; S p i e r and S a p i r , OJD. c i t . , p . 229 . 19) R a y , OJD. c i t . , p p . 1 0 0 - 0 1 . 20) S p i e r and S a p i r , OJD. c i t . , p . 224 . 21) R a y , OJD. c i t . , p p . 7 2 - 7 4 ; S p i e r and S a p i r , OJD. c i t . , p p . 2 1 7 - 2 0 . J VII: NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA 1) A. L. Kroeber, Handbook of the Indians of C a l i f o r n i a , pp. 6-7. 2) Ib i d . , p. 8. (3) Ib i d . , pp. 16-17. 4) Ibid., pp. 32-3, 39-40. (5) Ib i d . , pp. 39, 40. 6) Ibid., p. 42. (7) Ibi d . , pp. 28-29. 8) I b i d . , pp. 40-41. (9) I b i d . , pp. 20-22, 49-50. 10) I b i d . , p. 13. 11) A. L. Kroeber, Anthropology (1948 ed i t i o n ) , p. 609". 210 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adam, Leonhard "Stammesorganisation, und H&upt l i n g s turn der T l i n k i t -i n d i a n e r Nordwestamerikas, 1 1 Z e l t s c h r i f t f u r Vergleichr-ende Rechtswissenschaff; 29 (1913), pp. 86-120. "Stammesorganisation: und Hauptlingstum der Haida und Tsimshianj" Z e i t s c h r . f~.'. V e r g l . Rechtswissenschaft, 30 (1913), pp. 161-2687 "Stammesorganisatiomund Hauptlingstum der Wakash-stamme',," Zeitschr'., f. V e r g l . Re cht s wis s ens c h a f t , 35 (1918), pp. 105-3517 ~ Bancroft, Hubert Howe The Native Races o f the P a c i f i c : S t a t e s , V o l . I , Wild  T r i b e s , San. F r a n c i s c o , A. L. Bancroft and Company, P u b l i s h e r s , 1883. Barbeau, Marius Unpublished. F i e l d Notes: N a r r a t i v e s 29-116 f o r Barbeau MS "Gwenhoot," Recorded by W i l l i a m Beynon;between 1920-1950 f o r Marius Barbeau! Barnett, Homer G! The Coast S a l i s h o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Eugene (Ore.), U n i v e r s i t y o f Oregon;Press, 1955. [ U n i v e r s i t y o f Oregon. Monographs: Studies i n Anthropology No. 4.) Bascom, W i l l i a m R." "Ponapean P r e s t i g e Economy," Southwestern J o u r n a l o f  Anthropology,, 4:2 (Summer 1948), pp. 211-221. Boas,. Franz C o n t r i b u t i o n s to the Ethnology of the K w a k i u t l , New York, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Press, 192~5. (Columbia U n i -v e r s i t y C o n t r i b u t i o n s to Anthropology No. 3.) "Ethnology o f the K w a k i u t l , " T h i r t y - F i f t h Annual Re- port o f the Bureau o f American Ethnology, 1913-14"! Washington- (D. C.), Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , T§21, pp. 41-1481. " F i r s t General Report on the Indians o f B r i t i s h Colum-bia',," Report o f the B r i t i s h As so c i a t i o n f o r the Advance- ment of Science, 1889, pp. 801-893." J 2 1 1 . K w a k i u t l C u l t u r e as R e f l e c t e d in.. Mythology, New York, American- Folk-Lore S o c i e t y , 1 9 3 5 . (Memoir o f A . F - L . S . No." 28.) The R e l i g i o n o f the Kwakiutl',- New York, Columbia U n i -v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 3 0 , two. p a r t s . (Columbia-University C o n t r i b u t i o n s to Anthropology NoV 10Z) "The S o c i a l Organization.and the Secret S o c i e t i e s o f the K w a k i u t l Indians," Report o f the U.S. N a t i o n a l Museum f o r 1 8 9 5 , Washington-. (L. C . ) , l59T,-~pp7 jIT^JWZ "The S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e - K w a k i u t l , " American; A n t h r o p o l o g i s t , n.s".', 2 2 ( 1 9 2 0 ) , pp. l l l - 1 2 b T "Tsimshian.Mythology," T h i r t y - F i r s t Annual Report o f the Bureau o f American Ethnology, 1 9 0 9 - 1 0 , Washington. (D.C.), U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1916, pp. 2 7 - 1 0 3 7 . Butt, Audrey The N i l o t e s o f the Anglo -Egypt i an. Sudan;, and Uganda, London, I n t e r n a ^ o n a l A f r i c a n I n s t i t u t e , 1952. ( D a r y l l Forde,, ed., Ethnographic: Survey o f A f r i c a , East C e n t r a l A f r i c a , P a r t IV.) C u r t i s , Edward S! . The North American.: Indian* Volume X, The K w a k i u t l ^ Norwood (Mass."),' The Plimpton?.Press, 1 9 1 5 . Dawson, George M! "Notes and Observations on the Kwakiool People o f the Northern.Part o f Vancoiiver I s l a n d and Adjacent Coasts, made durin g the Summer o f 1885; w i t h a Vocabulary o f about seven hundred words," Transactions o f the Royal  S o c i e t y o f Canada, 1887, Sect. I I , pp. " 6 * 3 - 9 8 . Report on Queen C h a r l o t t e I s l a n d s , 1878, Montreal," Dawson. B r o t h e r s , f o r the G e o l o g i c a l Survey of Canada, 1880. de Laguna, Frederic.a " T l i n g i t Ideas about the I n d i v i d u a l , " Southwestern-J o u r n a l o f Anthropology, 1 0 ( 1 9 5 4 ) , pp. 172 - 1 9 1 . Diamond, A. S. P r i m i t i v e Law, London, Watts and Co., 1 9 5 0 , 2 n d ed! Douglas, James / E x t r a c t s from the7 J o u r n a l o f James Douglas,, 1843, I n c l u d i n g Voyage to STtka and Voyage to the Northwest  Coast, t y p e s c r i p t i n Howay-Reid c o l l e c t i o n o f U n i -v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia L i b r a r y , copied from o r i -g i n a l MS. i n B.C. P r o v i n c i a l A r c h i v e s . Drucker, P h i l i p " C ulture Element D i s t r i b u t i o n s : XXVI, Northwest Coast, A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l Records,, 9:3 (1950), pp. 157-294. Indians o f the Northwest Coast, New York', McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. for~The American Museum o f N a t u r a l H i s t o r y , 1955! The Northern and C e n t r a l Nootkan; T r i b e s , Bureau o f American Ethnology Bulletin-;No. 144, Washington (D.C.), U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1951. Duff, Wilson "The Upper S t a l o Indians," Anthropology i n B r i t i s h Columbia Memoirs, 1 (1952) Duff, Wilson, and Michael Kew "Anthony I s l a n d , A Home o f the Haidas," r e p r i n t e d 1958 from Report o f the P r o v i n c i a l Museum o f N a t u r a l H i s -t o r y and AntKropology, 1957, V i c t o r i a T B . C. ) • Evans-P r i t c h a r d , E.E. "The Nuer o f the Southern-Sudan," A f r i c a n P o l i t i c a l  Systems (eds. Portes and Eva n s - P r i t c h a r d ) , London, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press f o r the I n t e r n a t i o n a l A f r i c a n I n s t i t u t e , 1940, pp. 272-296". Ford, O l e l l a n S. Smoke from t h e i r P i r e s , The L i f e o f a K w a k i u t l Chief, New Haven (Conn.), Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y Press f o r the I n -s t i t u t e o f Human R e l a t i o n s , 1941. G a r f i e l d , V i o l a E. "The Tsimshian and t h e i r Neighbours," The Tsimshian: A r t s and Music: ( V i o l a E. G a r f i e l d , Paul S. Wingert", and Marius Barbeau), New York, J . J . Augustin Puls-l i s h e r , n.d.',, pp". 3-70. ( P u b l i c a t i o n s o f the Amer-i c a n E t h n o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y No. 18".") Tsimshian Clan:and S o c i e t y , S e a t t l e , U n i v e r s i t y o f 213 Washington Press, 1 9 3 9 . ( U n i v e r s i t y of Washington. P u b l i c a t i o n s i n Anthropology No. 7:3, pp. 167-340.) Gluckman, Max Custom and C o n f l i c t i n . . A f r i c a , Oxford, B a s i l B l a c k w e l l , 1 9 5 5 . ~~ ~ GoIdman, I r v i n g "The K w a k i u t l of Vancouver I s l a n d , " Cooperation and Competition, among P r i m i t i v e Peoples (Margaret Meady ed. ) 7 New York, MclTraw-Hill Book Company Inc., 1 9 3 7 , pp. 1 8 0 - 2 0 9 . Gunther,. Erna K l a l l a m Ethnography, S e a t t l e , U n i v e r s i t y of Washington;. Press, 1927. ( U n i v e r s i t y of Washington P u b l i c a t i o n s i n . Anthropology No. 1, pp.. 171-314.) Haeb e r l i n , Herman, and Erna Gunther The Indians of Puget Sound, S e a t t l e , U n i v e r s i t y of Washington: Press, 19301 ("University of Washington. P u b l i c a t i o n s i n Anthropology No. 4:1, pp. 1-84.) Hoebel, E." Adamsom The law of P r i m i t i v e Man,- Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard Universl^y Press, 1954. I r v i n e , A l b e r t "How the Makah obtained Possession of Cape f l a t t e r y , " Indian Notes and Monographs, Museum of the American Indian, Heye Poundation, New York, new s e r i e s , No. 6 ( 1 9 2 1 ) , pp. 5-11. Jenness, Diamond "The P a i t h of a Coast S a l i s h Indian*" Anthropology i n ; B r i t i s h Columbia Memoirs, 3 ( 1 9 5 5 ) . The Indians of Canada, Ottawa, N a t i o n a l Museum of Canada, Bu l l e t i n . . 65, 1958, Pourth E d i t i o n . Johnson, A l v i n : V "War," Encyclopaedia of the S o c i a l Sciences, v o l . 15, pp. 3 3 1 - 4 1 , 1 9 5 0 ed. ""(copyright 1 9 3 1 7 T Krause, A u r e l 1 T l i n g i t Indians: R e s u l t s of a T r i p to the North-west Coast o f America and the Bering S t r a i t s ( t r a n s ! B. G-unther), S e a t t l e , U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington Press f o r the American E t h n o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y , 1956. Kroeber, A. 1 . Anthropology, New York, Harcourt, Brace and Company",'• 1948, r e v i s e d and enlarged e d i t i o n . Handbook o f the Indians o f C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley ( C a l i f . ) , C a l i f o r n i a Book Company, L t d . , 1 9 5 3 . (Note: o r i g . p u b l ! as Bureau American Ethnology B u l l e t i n 78, 1 9 2 5 . ) L a s s w e l l , Harold D. "Feuds," Encyclopaedia of the S o c i a l Sciences, v o l . 6 , pp. 2 2 0 - 2 2 1 , 1 9 5 0 ed. (cop y r i g h t 1 9 3 1 ) . M c l l w r a i t h , T. F. The B e l l a Coola Indians,, Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto Press, 1948, v o l . one. Mandelbaum, David See: S a p i r , Edward Meek, C. K. Law and A u t h o r i t y i n a N i g e r i a n T r i b e , London, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 3 7 . Middleton, John, and David T a i t , eds. Tribes without R u l e r s : S t u d i e s i n A f r i c a n Segmentary  Systems, London, Routledge and —Kegan P a u l , 1958. Murdock, George Peter "Kinship and S o c i a l Behavior among the Haida," American. A n t h r o p o l o g i s t , n.s!., 3 6 ( 1 9 3 4 ) , pp. 3 5 5 - 3 8 5 . Our P r i m i t i v e Contemporaries, New York, The Macmillan Company, 1 9 3 7 . "Rank and P o t l a t c h among the Haida," Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y  P u b l i c a t i o n s i n Anthropology, 1 3 ( 1 9 3^1 S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e , New York, The Macmillan Company, 1 9 4 9 s , "" N i b l a c k , A l b e r t P. "The Coast Indians of'Southern A l a s k a and Northern i- B r i t i s h Columbia," Report o f the United States N a t i o n a l -215 r Museum f o r the Year Ending June 30, 1888, Washington; (B.C.), Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1890, pp." 225-386. Oberg, Kalervo "Crime and Punishment i n T l i n g i t S o c i e t y , " American!. A n t h r o p o l o g i s t , n.s., 36 (1934), pp. 145-15FT The S o c i a l Economy o f the T l i n g i t Indians, Ph. D. D i s -s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago, 1937. ( U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago M i c r o f i l m s #G222, 1940.) Olson, Ronald 1. "Notes on the B e l l a B e l l a K w a k i u t l , " A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l  Records, 14:5 (1955). The Quinault Indians, S e a t t l e , U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington P r e s s , 1936.. ( U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington P u b l i c a t i o n s i n . Anthropology No. 6:1, pp. 1-190.) "The S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n o f the H a i s l a o f B r i t i s h C o l -umbia," A n t h r o p o l o g i c a l Records, 2:5 (1940). Paton, George Whitecross A Text-Book o f Jurisprudence, Oxford, Clarendon;Press, 1951, 2nd ed7 Pineo, Peter Camden V i l l a g e M i g r a t i o n s o f the Moderm K w a k i u t l , Unpublished graduating essay, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1955. Popper, K a r l R. The Logic o f S c i e n t i f i c Discovery, New York, Basic: Books, Inc., 1959. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. "Preface," A f r i c a n P o l i t i c a l Systems (Portes and Evans-P r i t c h a r d , eds.), London, Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press f o r the I n t e r n a t i o n a l A f r i c a n I n s t i t u t e , 1940, pp. x i - x x i i i . Ray, Verne P. Lower Chinook Ethnographic Notes, S e a t t l e , U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington Press, 1938. (Universoty o f Washington;. P u b l i c a t i o n s i n Anthropology No. 7:2, pp. 29-165.) R u s s e l l , Bertrand Power: A New S o c i a l A n a l y s i s , New York, W. W. Norton c and Company, 1938. S a p i r , Edward "The S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n o f the West Coast T r i b e s , " S e l e c t e d W r i t i n g s o f Edward S a p i r i n Language, C u l -t u r e and" P e r s o n a l i t y (David G-. ManoTelbaum, ed.), Berkeley and Los Angeles, U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1951, pp. 468-487'. Schneider, Joseph " P r i m i t i v e Warfare: A Methodological Note," American  S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 15:6 (December 1950), pp. 772-777." Smith, Marian W^ . The Puyallup-Nisqually,' ; New York, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1940. (Columbia U n i v e r s i t y C o n t r i b u t i o n s to Anthropology No. 32.) S p i e r , L e s l i e , and Edward S a p i r Wishram Ethnography, S e a t t l e , U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington Press, 1930. ( U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington P u b l i c a t i o n s i n Anthropology No. 3:3, pp. 151-300.) Swan, James G". "The Indians of Cape F l a t t e r y , " Smithsonian C o n t r i b u - t i o n s to Knowledge, 16:8 (1870). Swanton, John Rt„ " S o c i a l C o n d i t i o n , B e l i e f s , and L i n g u i s t i c R e l a t i o n -s h i p of the T l i n g i t Indians," Twenty-Sixth Annual  Report of the Bureau o f American Ethnology, 1 9 0 T ^ 0 5 , Washington (D.C.), Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , l90"8", pp. 391-486'; Wardle, H. N. "Indian G i f t s i n R e l a t i o n to P r i m i t i v e Lav/," Proceed-ings o f the X X I I I I n t e r n a t i o n a l Congress o f American-i s t s , 1928, pp. 463-46*97 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0105993/manifest

Comment

Related Items