Note 97 — Chapter II · HUNTERS AND FISHERS.

5º. Property and wealth are also highly developed. Schmoller remarks: “We know now, that there are some instances of settled hunting and fishing tribes with villages, with some development of the means of conveyance, with dog-sledges, reindeer, etc., with a certain social organization of the chase and fishery, with ornaments and slaves, with rich and poor people; such is the case in Northern California, in Northern Asia, in Kamchatka”97. Among the Koniagas “when an individual becomes ambitious of popularity, a feast is given”. A man’s wealth, among them, formerly depended on the number of sea-otter skins he owned98. Among the Tlinkits private property comprises clothes, weapons, implements, hunting territories and roads of commerce. Nobility depends on wealth rather than on birth99. Of the Haidas Bancroft says: “Rank and power depend greatly upon wealth, which consists of implements, wives and slaves. Admission to alliance with medicine-men, whose influence is greatest in the tribe, can only be gained by sacrifice of private property”. Swan speaks of wooden pillars, placed before the houses of the rich. They are elaborately carved at a cost of hundreds of blankets, and fetch up to 1000 dollars. Only the very rich are able to purchase them100. Kane speaks of a Cowitchin chief who “possessed much of what is considered wealth amongst the Indians, and it gradually accumulated from tributes which he exacted from his people. On his possessions reaching a certain amount, it is customary to make a great feast, to which all contribute. The neighbouring chiefs with whom he is in amity are invited, and at the conclusion of the entertainment, he distributes all he has collected since the last feast, perhaps three or four years preceding, among his guests as presents. The amount of property thus collected and given away by a chief is sometimes very considerable. I have heard of one possessing as many as twelve bales of blankets, from twenty to thirty guns, with numberless pots, kettles, and pans, knives, and other articles of cutlery, and great quantities of beads, and other trinkets, as well as numerous beautiful Chinese boxes, which find their way here from the Sandwich Islands. The object in thus giving his treasures away is to add to his own importance in the eyes of others, his own people often boasting of how much their chief had given away, and exhibiting with pride such things as they had received themselves from him”101. Among the Nootkas “private wealth consists of boats and implements for obtaining food, domestic utensils, slaves, and blankets”. “The accumulation of property beyond the necessities of life is only considered desirable for the purpose of distributing it in presents on great feast-days, and thereby acquiring a reputation for wealth and liberality”102. In Jewitt’s narrative it is stated, that among the Ahts the king is obliged to support his dignity by making frequent entertainments, otherwise he would not be considered as conducting himself like a king, and would be no more thought of than a common man103. A wealthy Fish Indian may also win renown by giving away or destroying property104. Boas, describing the Kwakiutl Indians, speaks of “the method of acquiring rank. This is done by means of the potlatch, or the distribution of property. The underlying principle is that of the interest-bearing investment of property”. He gives an elaborate account of this institution105. Among the Makah “the larger class of canoes generally belong to a single individual and he receives a proportionate share of the booty from the crew”106. Among the Tacullies “any person may become a miuty or chief who will occasionally provide a village feast”107. Of the tribes of W. Washington and N. W. Oregon Gibbs says: “Wealth gives a certain power among them, and influence is purchased by its lavish distribution.” They have pretty clear ideas about the right of property in houses and goods. The men own property distinct from their wives. The husband has his own blankets, the wife her mats and baskets108. Bancroft tells us of the Puget Sound Indians: “I find no evidence of hereditary rank or caste except as wealth is sometimes inherited”109. Among the Chinooks “individuals were protected in their right to personal property, such as slaves, canoes, and implements”. Each village was ruled by a chief “either hereditary or selected for his wealth and popularity”110.