To Make my Name Good: A Reexamination of the Southern Kwakiutl Potlatch

to

make

my name good

to make

my name good

A Reexamination of the Southern Kwakiutl Potlatch

Philip Drucker and Robert F. Heizer

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES I967

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

LONDON, ENGLAND

COPYRIGHT © 1967, BY

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 67-16839

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Contents

Contents

Introduction

Southern Kwakiutl Society

Influences of the Historic Period

Changes in Potlatch Procedures

The Question of the Double Return of the Potlatch Gift

Potlatch Controls and Other Mechanisms

The Rivalries

The Rivalry Gesture

The Verbalization of Conflict in the Potlatch

The Mortuary Potlatch

Conclusion

Bibliography

Index

Introduction

This study presents some hitherto unpublished material on the potlatch complex of the Southern Kwakiutl Indians of British Columbia, and certain conclusions as to the way that institution functioned are derived from this material.1 There is a considerable literature on the Kwakiutl potlatch, but nonetheless the complex has not been well understood. In fact it has remained an anomaly even in relation to the potlatch customs of neighboring Northwest Coast groups. Because of its volume, published material precisely from the Southern Kwakiutl is used by those who wish to make long-range interareal comparisons or to draw broad theoretical conclusions—a procedure which cannot fail to introduce error. Even such able scholars as Herskovits (1952:164-165, and passim) and Bohannon (1963:253-259) have fallen into this trap owing to the deficiencies of their source material. For this reason it seems worthwhile to present the information at our disposal, which we believe will clarify the picture.

Chronologically speaking, the first important accounts of Southern Kwakiutl potlatching were those published by Franz Boas in 1897. His first intensive investigations, after brief preliminary contacts, began about 1890. He was at the important center of Fort Rupert at times when potlatches and other festi- vals were in progress, observing them with an interpreter at his side. He collected verbatim accounts of the proceedings in the Kwakiutl tongue, later carefully translating them; and he trained his principal interpreter, George Hunt, to record data in phonetic symbols which were then sent to Boas during the periods when he himself could not be in the field. As a result, over the years Boas was able to publish a tremendous quantity of data on the Southern Kwakiutl—on the material, social, and religious aspects of their culture, as well as on their folklore and language. Perhaps no other native American group is so fully and systematically documented.² Yet it is just this material that fails us when we try to understand what the Indians were really doing in the performance of an institution of maximum importance to them, the potlatch. It is quite clear that Boas was not interested in developing an internally consistent, functional picture of a cultural complex.

The foregoing might be taken to indicate that we propose to mount an attack not only on Boas’ presentation but on his methodology and his theoretical position on the study of culture as well. This is not our intention. We do not have the conceit to believe that a brief study and a few pages of text could refute Boas’ fifty years of carefully planned, intensive study of the Southern Kwakiutl. What we do believe we can do is to present a body of significantly complementary material derived by approach through another line of interest and another methodology.

We hold to the view that there are three fundamental categories of ethnographic truth. Stripped of elaborate verbiage, they can be defined simply as: i, what people say they do; 2, what they believe they do; and 3, what they actually do. Categories 1 and 2 may have a high degree of coincidence, as may 2 and 3(1 and 3, or 1, 2, and 3 rarely coincide). With or without coincidences, all three of these ethnographic facts and, moreover, the nature and degree of differences between them are meaningful. Some fairly recent essays on Boas’ method and scientific philosophy by Wike (1957), Smith (1959), and Codere (1959) make plain that his chief interest was in the second category—perhaps the most difficult to get at and the most subtle of the three—and that he was to some degree interested also in the first category. This was the reason for his emphasis on the culture of the Indian as seen by the Indian himself. In his zeal for scientific objectivity, Boas was distrustful of the third category, where at times the ethnographer must interject appraisals. We, however, hold that this is a calculated risk that must be taken. Where they must be made, appraisals should, of course, be made as objectively and as devoid of ethnocentric bias as possible, on the ground that all three categories of ethnographic fact, especially where they diverge, are ultimately meaningful and are necessary yardsticks by which to gauge each other. This is our principal difference in theoretical position from that of Boas—perhaps not so vastly different basically—and our main reason for becoming involved in a discussion of this controversial theme.

Boas* early major publications on the Southern Kwakiutl were in print when an independent work on these people was published by E. S. Curtis in his deluxe series, The North American Indian (1915, vol. 10). This study sharply contradicts certain of Boas’ generalizations on the workings of the potlatch and offers a rather more intelligible picture of that institution, although still not a complete one. However, the vehicle in which this account appears, a very expensive series in limited edition, invariably hidden away in rare book rooms by libraries, has hindered its availability, so that it has not been cited by students as often as it should have been.

Ruth Benedict (1932, 1934), in her attempt to achieve psychological insight into culture, used the Southern Kwakiutl as one of her test cases, basing her study on Boas’ materials. For her analysis she drew heavily on data on the potlatch, especially on one special form, the rivalry situation. We are not going to discuss her theory here, but we do want to emphasize that we believe that such defects as her interpretation of Kwakiutl culture may have can be demonstrated to stem as much from misconstruction of the potlatch complex as from flaws in her basic hypothesis.

In a brief but significant paper, "The Function of the Pot3 latch," Barnett (1938) injected intelligibility into the workings of the complex in terms of its entire distribution on the Northwest Coast. His conclusions apply as completely to the Southern Kwakiutl as to any other group of the area, as he makes clear; but since he did not belabor the point this aspect of his contribution has been overlooked by some students. The same author gives much more detailed consideration to the Southern Kwakiutl institution in his lengthier treatment of the same subject (Barnett, n.d.) which regrettably he has not published.

In 1950 Helen Codere presented a reappraisal of the Southern Kwakiutl potlatch based mainly on two lots of source material, Boas* data, published and unpublished, and historic records such as the annual reports of Indian agents. These latter she utilized with consummate skill to develop the theme of ac- culturative changes among the Southern Kwakiutl and resultant changes in the potlatch itself. That she did not succeed in resolving the problem of the actual functional operation of the potlatch may be attributed to her reliance on Boas’ data, which she did not have the opportunity to supplement by field work based on her interest in acculturative change. Boas’ materials did not lend themselves to her approach, because Boas was not studying culture change and acculturation; he did not try to attain a time perspective since he was occupied with quite different problems. There were numerous significant changes in the Southern Kwakiutl potlatch during the lengthy period of his observations, which must have come to his notice but which he did not record.’ In later papers based on her own field research, Codere (1956, 1957) presents some significant new material, although she does not use it to modify her original conclusions.

In these pages we shall refer frequently to Codere’s summaries of historical data, as well as to certain of her conclusions with which our data are in accord. Our data and interpretations coincide closely with her appraisal of the potlatch as a cultural manifestation, not a psychopathological one. There are, how ever, certain major aspects of the problem in which our materials point to conclusions very different from those she reached. However, the present paper is not intended as a critique of her work, but is the presentation of independently collected data and its analysis. In a later study (1961), Codere presents a well-balanced account of Southern Kwakiutl culture in transition, from early historic contacts with white civilization until modern times. Here, the potlatch is considered as an important focus of interest to the Indians, but the mechanics of its operation are not discussed at length. Many of Codere s conclusions as to effects of the acculturation situation on the potlatch will be drawn on in the following pages.

Suttles (1960a, 1960Ł) has published on the potlatch complex, extending data from certain Coast Salish groups to derive theoretical conclusions as to functions and origins of the entire complex on the Northwest Coast. His approach is a novel one and will require comment, which, however, will be deferred until the Southern Kwakiutl material has been presented. Vayda (1961) and Piddocke (1965) attempt still broader applications of Suttles’ hypothesis.

The field data on which our report is based were collected by Dracker in the course of two visits to the Southern Kwakiutl. The first was in 1937 when he spent brief periods at Quatsino Sound with Koskimo informants and at Fort Rupert, with the Kwagyut4 His work on this occasion was in connection with the University of California Culture Element Distribution surveys. On such topics as social organization, ceremonials, the potlatch, and the like, Drucker used the usual ethnographic techniques of inquiry—asking informants for general and sequential descriptions, specific cases, and so forth—rather than the more restrictive element-list type of query, having received Dr. A. L. Kroeber’s permission to deviate from the routine element-list technique in these special areas. As a result, he collected a limited body of new information on the potlatch, but one that bristled with leads for further investigation. In 1953 Drucker once more made contact with the Southern Kwakiutl at Alert Bay in the course of the study of an aspect of acculturation among the Indians of British Columbia. This time he explored the topic of the potlatch at some length; acculturation among the Southern Kwakiutl and the recent history of their potlatching are parts of the same story. Subsequently, in two general discussions of Northwest Coast culture,⁸ Drucker drew on these data, still in his notebooks, to make certain sweeping generalizations about the potlatch complex. His source material was available only to himself. He was doing what poker players sometimes refer to as sandbagging, a lucrative but rather unsporting operation. His participation in the present work will, he trusts, remedy this situation.

Drucker’s principal Southern Kwakiutl informants were two: Charles E. Nowell and Ed Whonnuck. Mr. Nowell’s partial biography, which does not altogether do him justice, was published by C. S. Ford (1941) under the title Smoke from Their Fires. Intellectually and in personality, Nowell was an unusual man. He respected tradition and sought not only to comply with the forms of Kwakiutl custom but to understand their meaning as well, but at the same time he was able to make a better than usual adjustment to the stresses and strains of the bitter phase of acculturation that persisted most of his lifetime. He participated intensively in the potlatch; as a youth he used his superior schooling, for a Kwakiutl of his generation, to act as scribe and potlatch bookkeeper for his elder brother and other chiefs as well. Throughout his working life Nowell consistently earned a better than average (Indian) income by working at jobs of special responsibility and trust in the canneries; he was active in the organization of the first effective Indian union on the coast (the Pacific Coast Native Fishermen’s Association). He was influential, although no longer so active because of his age, in the activities of the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia, with which the Southern Kwakiutl became affiliated. He had been Druckers main informant at Fort Rupert in 1937, so when the two met again in 1953 there was a background of former friendship that created an excellent rapport.

Mr. Whonnuck⁵ was in some respects a different sort of person, although he too was a man who had made a good adjustment to the bicultural situation. If some of his forebears had been social climbers in times when the traditional rigidity of Kwakiutl social structure had been weakened by various ac- culturative forces, they had achieved high status for him; his right to various important titles and positions in the potlatch system was unchallenged. He had been active in the potlatch throughout his adult life. He was also a successful fisherman, owner of a large seine boat that represented a considerable capital investment and normally provided him with a good income. A still energetic man, Whonnuck probably would not have been available as an informant had he not been incapacitated with a leg injury. He was at first rather impatient with the informant’s role but, as the interviews continued, came to find it an interesting way to pass the time. Well informed on a wide range of subjects related to modern Kwakiutl culture, from the potlatch to trade unionism in the fishing industry, he expressed his views clearly and sometimes rather picturesquely.

These two men contrasted in an interesting way, which made their contributions of data especially valuable since they consistently corroborated each other’s statements (they were interviewed separately, of course). Mr. Nowell was the scholar, the philosopher of his own culture; Mr. Whonnuck was the hard- boiled pragmatist. It is worth noting that they were friends, and in fact Mr. Nowell recommended Mr. Whonnuck to the ethnographer as an expert on the subject of the potlatch.

In addition, Drucker collected information in 1937 from Quatsino Sam, and in 1953 from Mr. Dan Cranmer at Alert Bay and Chief Billy Assu of the Lekwiltok.

A brief summary of the social significance of the potlatch in this area will set the stage for our discussion. The term potlatch derives from Chinook jargon and means simply to give. (All discussants of the potlatch must make this statement; it is the only thing we all agree on!) Each linguistic division, from the Tlingit to the groups of western Washington, had its own term, or actually terms, to refer to various forms of the potlatch and to distinguish these affairs from feasts. A potlatch basically was a festival given by one social unit—the host group—to one or more guest groups, each of which was a recognized societal entity. The host group displayed certain of its traditional hereditary possessions (often called privileges in the literature), which might include dances, songs, carvings, and so on, reciting the legends of the origins of these rights and the histories of their recent transmission; presented certain of its members as entitled to use those privileges; bestowed on each of them a new name from the group’s hereditary stock (the names were associated with specific levels in social rank, and the higher ranked ones are often compared to titles of nobility in European society); and ended by distributing gifts to the guests. The guests thus were considered to be formal witnesses to the claims of the persons thus presented—that is, the rights to the privileges displayed, to the names bestowed, and to the associated social statuses.

The whole procedure, as Barnett (1938) made clear, had as its purpose the identification of an individual as a member of a certain social unit and the defining of his social position within that unit. Barnett also stressed that, although in descriptive accounts persons of high rank seem to be given all the attention, actually the less fortunate were also identified with their social group by participating as minor dancers, attendants, and singers; as recipients of less important names, which, nonetheless, were part of the group heritage; and as recipients of minor attentions, such as ear and nose piercing and so on. In fine, it is clear that the potlatch must be regarded as a formal procedure for social integration, its prime purpose being to identify publicly the membership of the group and to define the social status of this membership. Barnett has pointed out, as well, that this

A Rare Photograph of a Potlatch at Alert Bay, circa 1900 (Courtesy of Dr. S. \V. A. Gunn) process worked both ways; for the host group not only presented its members but also, in the distribution of gifts, very carefully observed the order of precedence of the guests and used honorific names in addressing them, thus formally recognizing the social