_In the family._--I can hardly do better than quote Dr. Simpson’s
words, already referred to (op. cit. page 252), on this subject:
“A man seems to have unlimited authority in his own hut.”
Nevertheless, his rule seems to be founded on respect and mutual
agreement, rather than on despotic authority. The wife appears to be
consulted, as already stated, on all important occasions, and, to
quote Dr. Simpson again (ibid.): “Seniority gives precedence when
there are several women in one hut, and the sway of the elder in the
direction of everything connected with her duties seems never
disputed.” When more than one family inhabit the same house the head
of each family appears to have authority over his own relatives, while
the relations between the two are governed solely by mutual agreement.
_In the village._--These people have no established form of government
nor any chiefs in the ordinary sense of the word, but appear to be
ruled by a strong public opinion, combined with a certain amount of
respect for the opinions of the elder people, both men and women, and
by a large number of traditional observances like those concerning the
whale fishery, the deceased, etc., already described. In the ordinary
relations of life a person, as a rule, avoids doing anything to his
neighbor which he would not wish to have done to himself, and affairs
which concern the community as a whole, as for instance their
relations with us at the station, are settled by a general and
apparently informal discussion, when the opinion of the majority
carries the day. The majority appears to have no means, short of
individual violence, of enforcing obedience to its decisions, but, as
far as we could see, the matter is left to the good sense of the
parties concerned. Respect for the opinions of elders is so great that
the people may be said to be practically under what is called “simple
elder rule.”[N598] Public opinion has formulated certain rules in
regard to some kinds of property and the division of game, which are
remarkably like those noticed among Eskimo elsewhere, and which may be
supposed to have grown up among the ancestors of the Eskimo, before
their separation.
[Footnote N598: Compare, among other instances, Capt. Holm’s
observations in East Greenland: “Som Overhoved i Huset [which is
the village] fungerer den ældeste Mand, naar han er en god Fanger,
etc.” (Geogr. Tids., vol. 8, p. 90.)]
For instance, in Greenland,[N599] “Anyone picking up pieces of
driftwood or goods lost at sea or on land was considered the rightful
owner of them; and to make good his possession he had only to carry
them up above high-water mark and put stones upon them, no matter
where his homestead might be.” Now, at Point Barrow we often saw the
natives dragging driftwood up to the high-water mark, and the owner
seemed perfectly able to prove his claim. Lieut. Ray informs me that
he has seen men mark such sticks of timber by cutting them with their
adzes and that sticks so marked were respected by the other natives.
On one occasion, when he was about to have a large piece of
drift-timber dragged up to the station, a woman came up and proved
that the timber belonged to her by pointing out the freshly cut mark.
I have myself seen a native claim a barrel which had been washed
ashore, by setting it up on end.
[Footnote N599: Rink, Tales and Traditions, p. 28. Compare also
Crantz, vol. 1, p. 181.]
As far as we could learn, the smaller animals, as for instance, birds,
the smaller seals, reindeer, etc., are the property of the hunter,
instead of being divided as in some other localities, for example at
Smith Sound.[N600] The larger seals and walruses appeared to be
divided among the boat’s crew, the owner of the boat apparently
keeping the tusks of the walrus and perhaps the skin. A bear, however,
both flesh and skin, is equally divided among all who in any way had a
hand in the killing. We learned this with certainty from having to
purchase the skin of a bear killed at the village, where a number of
men had been engaged in the hunt. When a whale is taken, as I have
already said, the whalebone is equally divided among the crews of all
the boats in sight at the time of killing. All comers, however, have a
right to all the flesh, blubber, and blackskin that they can cut
off.[N601]
[Footnote N600: Bessels, Naturalist, vol. 23, pt. p. 873.]
[Footnote N601: Compare Rink, Tales, etc., p. 29: “But if an
animal of the largest size, more especially a whale, was captured,
it was considered common property, and as indiscriminately
belonging to every one who might come and assist in flensing it,
whatever place he belonged to and whether he had any share in
capturing the animal or not.” (Greenland). Gilder (Schwatka’s
Search, p. 190) says that on the northwest shore of Hudson Bay all
who arrive while a walrus is being cut up are entitled to a share
of it, though the man who struck it has the first choice of
pieces. At East Cape, Siberia, the Krause Brothers learned: “Wird
nämlich ein Walfisch gefangen, so hat jeder Ortsbewohner das
Recht, so viel Fleisch zu nehmen, als er abzuschneiden vermag.”
(Geographische Blätter, vol. 5, pt. 2, p. 120).]
Dr. Rink, in describing the social order of the ancient
Greenlanders,[N602] says: “Looking at what has been said regarding
the rights of property and the division of the people into certain
communities, in connection with the division of property into the
classes just given, we are led to the conclusion that the right of any
individual to hold more than a certain amount of property was, if not
regulated by law, at least jealously watched by the rest of the
community, and that virtually the surplus of any individual or
community, fixed by the arbitrary rate which tradition or custom had
assigned, was made over to those who had less.” At Point Barrow,
however, the idea of individual ownership appears to be much more
strongly developed. As far as we could learn, there is no limit to the
amount of property which an individual, at least the head of a family,
may accumulate. Even though the whalebone be, as already described,
divided among all the boats’ crews “in at the death,” no objection is
made to one man buying it all up, if he has the means, for his own
private use.
[Footnote N602: Tales, etc., p. 29.]
This has given rise to a regular wealthy and aristocratic class, who,
however, are not yet sufficiently differentiated from the poorer
people to refuse to associate on any terms but those of social
equality. The men of this class are the umialiks, a word which appears
in many corrupted forms on the coast of Western America and is often
supposed to mean “chief.” Dr. Simpson[N603] says: “The chief men are
called O-mé-liks (wealthy),” but “wealthy” is an explanation of the
position of these men, and not a translation of the title, which, as
we obtained it, is precisely the same as the Greenland word for _owner
of a boat_, umialik (from umia(_k_), and the termination lĭk or
lĭ-ñ. This is one of the few cases in which the final _k_ is sounded
at Point Barrow as in Greenland).
[Footnote N603: Op. cit., p. 272.]
Dr. Rink has already observed[N604] that the word used by Simpson “no
doubt must be the same as the Greenlandish umialik, signifying owner
of a boat,” and as I heard the title more than once carefully
pronounced at Point Barrow it was the identical word. The umialiks, as
Simpson says,[N605] “have acquired their position by being more
thrifty and intelligent, better traders, and usually better hunters,
as well as physically stronger and more daring.”[N606] They have
acquired a certain amount of influence and respect from these reasons,
as well as from their wealth, which enables them to purchase the
services of others to man their boats, but appear to have absolutely
no authority outside of their own families.[N607] Petroff[N608]
considers them as a sort of “middlemen or spokesmen,” who make
themselves “prominent by superintending all intercourse and traffic
with visitors.”
[Footnote N604: Tales, etc., p. 25.]
[Footnote N605: Op. cit.]
[Footnote N606: Compare what the Krause Brothers say of the
“chiefs” on the Siberian coast (Geographische Blätter, vol. 5, pt.
1, p. 29): “Die Autorität, welche die obenerwähnten Männer
augenscheinlich ausüben, ist wohl auf Rechnung ihres grösseren
Besitzes zu setzen. Der “Chief” is jedes Mal der reichste Mann,
ein ‘big man.’”]
[Footnote N607: See, also, Dr. Simpson, op. cit., p. 273.]
[Footnote N608: Report, etc., p. 125.]
This sort of prominence, however, appears to have been conferred upon
them by the traders, who, ignorant of the very democratic state of
Eskimo society, naturally look for “chiefs” to deal with. They pick
out the best looking and best dressed man in the village and endeavor
to win his favor by giving him presents, receiving him into the cabin,
and conducting all their dealings with the natives through him. The
chief, thus selected, is generally shrewd enough to make the most of
the greatness thrust upon him, and no doubt often pretends to more
influence and power than he actually possesses.[N609]
[Footnote N609: Compare the case of the alleged “chiefs” of the
Chukches, in Nordenskiöld’s Vega, vol. 1, pp. 449 and 495.]
As to the story of the whalemen, that the “chieftainship” is the
reward of the best fighter, who holds it like a “challenge cup,”
subject to being called out at any time to defend his rank in a duel,
as far as concerns Point Barrow, this is a sheer fable, perhaps
invented by the Eskimo to impose upon the strangers, but more likely
the result of misunderstanding and a vivid imagination on the part of
the whites. Among umialiks, one or two appear to have more wealth and
influence than the rest. Tcuñaura in Utkiavwĭñ and the late Katiga at
Nuwŭk were said, according to Captain Herendeen, to be “great
umialiks” and Tcuñaura was always spoken of as the foremost man in
Utkiavwĭñ. We knew of one party coming up from Sidaru with presents
for Tcuñaura, and were informed that the other Eskimo never sold to
him, but only gave him presents. It was also said that Katiga’s infant
son would one day be a “great umialik.”
All these men are or have been captains of whaling umiaks, and the
title umialiks appears to be applied to them in this capacity, since
many of the poorer men, who, as far as we could learn, were not
considered umialiks, own umiaks which they do not fit out for whaling,
but use only to transport their families from place to place in the
summer.