Aristocracy and Wealth

Before our federal government imposed itself upon them, the tribes of the region did not recognize forms of social regulation or government as we understand them. As a matter of fact, the word

"tribe" is not strictly appropriate in speaking of California Indians generally, for rather than being political units the so-called tribelets of this region typically consisted of groups of villages that were linked by linguistic or cultural affinities and were otherwise quite independent.

This anarchic tendency was particularly evident among the tribes of northwestern California.^[1] From a legal perspective, the male head of a Yurok household was answerable to no one, and indeed there was no authority beyond that which an individual could impose through force of wealth, personality, or physical strength. When the federal Indian agent Redick McKee made the Treaty of 1851 at Weitchpec, the document was signed by "Big Indians" from each village, and four signed from Weitchpec alone (Nelson 1978:appendix 1).

Precontact law was based upon a specialized "blood money" system in which a person who felt that he had been wronged might seek compensation. Matters as serious as a murder or as trivial as a breach of manners would be settled only when the offended party managed to collect what he felt he was owed. In practice, this often implied much haggling and negotiation, and a rich and important person could naturally press his claims more forcefully than one of lesser stature.

In point of fact, his or her claims would be more accurate, as Kroeber emphasizes that women had equal rights in law and wealth, and that the only reason men dominated in legal affairs was that they were more able to press their claims by threat of force (1925:22). Readers interested in a case study should consult the detailed description of a dispute over rights to a sea lion harpooned near the mouth of the Klamath River in Spott and Kroeber (1942: 182-199).

Society was based upon a dual caste system which basically dictated whether an individual was an aristocrat or a commoner. Known in recent times as a "headman" or a "big Indian," the pre-contact aristocrat generally had several other males attached to his household; these might include sons, sons-in-law, and others who simply relied upon him for protection. Kroeber describes Yurok words for status as follows:

The rich man is called si'atleu , or simply pergerk , "man." Similarly, a wealthy or "real" woman is wentsauks or "woman." A poor person is

wa'asoi . A slave is called uka'atl . A bastard is called either kamuks or negenits , "mouse," because of his parasitic habits. . . . Even a small village group was known as pegharkes , "manly," if its members were determined, resentful, and wealthy enough to take revenge. (Kroeber 1925:40)

It was mainly the aristocratic Indians who trained in the sweat-house and made medicine in the high country. These were often intellectuals who traveled widely to gain knowledge of other Indian peoples and took pride in speaking languages other than their own. Moreover, they were expected to observe a special code of manners, described in these words by Kroeber:

A well-brought-up man asked to step into a house its with folded arms, they say, and talks little, chiefly in answers. If he is given food, he becomes conversational, to show that he is not famished, and eats very slowly. Should he gobble his meal and arise to go, his host would laugh and say to his children: "That is how I constantly tell you not to behave." (Kroeber 1925:39)

Among lesser families, such etiquette was not expected, and Indians seem to have felt that aristocratic manners were not only acquired through learning but passed through the very blood in a good family. Even in recent times, modern Yuroks have been noted to say that a particular family "had a history" of poverty or shiftlessness, so that they could never be expected to amount to much (Valory 1970:18).

In assessing these beliefs, it becomes clear that wealth signified something very different for the Yurok of 1850 than it does for us today. Various writers have focused upon the Indians' preoccupation with wealth without placing enough emphasis on its spiritual connotations. Thus, Erikson (1950:142) and Kroeber (1904:88) both describe Yuroks as having been completely obsessed with wealth and determined to lie or argue for the least advantage. Walter Goldschmidt errs yet further in this direction, characterizing Indian society as a "capitalist social structure" (1951).

William Wallace recently described tangible forms of wealth among the Hupa as follows:

Wealth meant, in addition to shell currency, skins of albino or unusually-colored deerskins, large chipped blades of imported black or red obsidian, scarlet-feathered woodpecker scalps glued to white buckskin bands, and a number of lesser valuable items. These rare and precious things,

proudly displayed at group festivals, formed the basis of a person's fortune and subsequent social position. (Wallace 1978a :170)

While from an extrinsic viewpoint dentalium shell money was used much like modern currency, it is important for us to bear in mind that the Indians viewed all of these treasures as conscious entities. Thus, it was believed that these objects had "feelings" and were capable of leaving a person who was careless enough to insult them or to hurt their feelings.

Yurok aristocrats sought to identify themselves with the wo'gey in various ways and even spoke embellished dialects which were sometimes called "wo'gey language" (Valory 1970:21). In seeking to become more like the wo'gey , the aristocrat sought first of all to control his human appetites, which were regarded as degrading, and well-brought-up children were obliged to observe very strict discipline at meal times. Erik Erikson, whose study of Yurok culture focused primarily on child rearing, described the regimen as follows:

During meals a strict order of placement is maintained. Between the parents a space is always left for a potential guest. The girls sit near the mother, the boys near the father. The father teaches the boys and the mother the girls how to eat. They are told to take a little food with their spoon, to put it in their mouth slowly, to put the spoon back in the eating basket, and to chew slowly and thoroughly, meanwhile thinking of ways of becoming rich. Then, the food is to be swallowed and the child may reach again, without haste, for the spoon. . . . If a child eats too fast, the father or the mother silently takes his basket away from him and the child is supposed to rise silently and leave the house. (Erikson 1943:286)