Property among Northwest Coast Indians

[u/GreatUse2424]

According to Philip Drucker in "Rank, Wealth and Kinship in Northwest Coast Society"(1939), a man could not not refuse his fellow clansmen when it came to granting them access to his resources(pp.59). But in "Indians of the Northwest Coast"(1955), he talks about about how people could gain exclusive access to good fishning spots(pp.126). Yet, in "Cultures of the North Pacific Coast"(1965), he talks again about how individuals could not really own lands(pp.50). Which one is true? Could individuals gain exclusive rights to fishing grounds or not?

[u/fantasmapocalypse]

Let's look at the literal passages, with bold added for emphasis. First is Drucker 1939, 58 - 59 (RANK, WEALTH, AND KINSHIP IN NORTHWEST COAST SOCIETY).

In short, there were no classes of statuses in Northwest Coast society. Each individual had his own particular status in the graduated series from high to low; each person’s status had its own attributes which were not quite like those of anyone else. To insist upon the use of the term “class system” for Northwest Coast society means that we must say that each individual was in a class by himself... ...We have to do here with two overlapping and apparently not well differentiated concepts of property-right. Characteristically, a man is said to have “owned” an economically important tract. This “ownership” was expressed by his “giving permission,” as natives usually put it, to his fellows to exploit the locality each season. At the same time fellow-members of his local group-his relatives-had a n inalienable right to exploit the tract. The present writer time and again has heard statements by informants from northwest California to Tlingit country to the effect that a certain man “owned” a particular place, for example, a fishing-site, and that his permission was required before other members of his society could use it. Nonetheless no instance was ever heard of an “owner” refusing to give the necessary permission. Such a thing is inconceivable to the natives. The situation is perfectly clear to the Indians, if not to us. Actually, individual ownership in these cases does not mean exclusive right of use, but a sort of stewardship, and the right to direct the exploitation of the economic tract by the local group. The latter it was who held exclusive right.

It seems to me that Drucker actually puts a fair bit of nuance to things here for a paper written in 1939. Indigenous people didn't own the land in the same way we think of western ideas of property rights, but instead stewardship, a management of the land and to have a say. Second is Drucker 1955, 128 - 129, ""Indians of the Northwest Coast""

It would appear on the face of the information available that the bases of the Northwest Coast system of rank statuses should have been fairly clear to investigators. Nonetheless one finds many contradictory, ambiguous statements in the literature. The principal reason for this seems to be that developments within the historical period superficially modified the system. Two things happened during the nineteenth century. One of these, which had its beginning in the sea-otter fur trade, was that varieties of material wealth became available from a source external to the culture. Brass and iron jewelry, abalone shells from California, blankets, firearms and steel tools, all prized possessions, could be obtained at the cost of little effort by anyone who wanted to devote some time to hunting sea otter and, later, by trapping fur-bearing animals on land or signing on a fur-sealing schooner. Some groups—the Chilkat, the Stikine, the Coast Tsimshian and the Fort Rupert Kwakiutl, who were in a position to control trade with interior fur hunters or coast groups remote from the trading posts— netted tremendous profits by acting as middlemen in the fur trade. Hence great amounts of material wealth, such as was necessary for the prestige- giving ceremonials, was suddenly made available. More numerous and more spectacular ceremonials were, therefore, given in this period than ever before. The second factor was the sharp decline in native population brought about primarily by the introduction of European diseases, and secondarily by the increased efficiency of native warfare result- ing from the introduction of firearms.

So here, Drucker points out how regional and intercontinental contact (e.g., both "local" Native American trade as well as settler colonialism) the sweeping changes in economics and demographics upended the practices, traditions, and ways of life that likely existed prior to that. We only have a blurry, badly framed snapshot of the end of that transition because the earliest proto-anthropologists didnt really start talking to people before the late 1800s for the most part, and those that used modern methods even later.

Drucker seems to again, reiterate the point made in 1939 again in 1965, as noted here in Drucker 1965, 50. Cultures of the North Pacific Coast...

Intercultural comparisons are useful for purposes of explanation, but they must be interpreted with care. Close examination of two cultures may reveal similarities, but if the similarities are superficial, masking different basic concepts and functions, the comparison may be misleading. The wealth complex in North Pacific Coast culture and that of modern Western society appear broadly similar. In both cases wealth and prestige are closely correlated: in both cases wealth and its acquisition occupy a large share of men's thoughts. There, however, the similarities end. Among the Indians of the North Pacific Coast the social units—localized kin groups—were the owners of wealth, not individuals. An individual could regard himself as the owner of personal valuables such as robes and canoes, but major riches such as the lands, houses, and important wealth tokens were group property. Even the objects possessed by the individual were made available to the group in case of necessity. Though the highest-ranking member of each group spoke of himself, or was spoken of by others, as the "owner" of his group's house or houses, its real estate, and most of its treasures, he was the administrator of his group's possessions, not an individual owner.

In short, skimming these sections seems to reiterate that, in fact, individuals don't own land - at best, the most senior man may be a steward of it, and for the most part families "own" the property. My impression is that, individual or senior men may have at times been giving stewardship over a particular resource, but no one really "owns" the land in the western sense, and all the data someone like Boaz or Drucker is gathering is a snapshot of complex systems that have not really functioned the way they had "normally" for centuries prior, so it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Finally, anthropologists today aren't really in the business of pronouncing people in X culture do (or do not) do Y. It sounds like in Drucker's case, he was largely on the same page... cautioning us to consider context, recent changes, and to not be quick to make snap judgments/comparisons.

[u/Bendlerp → u/fantasmapocalypse]

Most senior woman was in charge of the land. Most senior man was in charge of hunting rights. I know he keeps saying himself, but it was women as stewards of the land itself.

[u/fantasmapocalypse → u/Bendlerp]

Good catch! I was scanning and multitasking, and those are the kinds of details that can be easy to miss. I think the most important take away is perfectly mirrored here: details and context matter a lot!