Government
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.”598 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.
For instance, in Greenland,599 “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.
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,600. 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.601
Dr. Rink, in describing the social order of the ancient Greenlanders,602 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.
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. Simpson603 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).
Dr. Rink has already observed604 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,605 “have acquired their position by being more thrifty and intelligent, better traders, and usually better hunters, as well as physically stronger and more daring.”606 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.607 Petroff608 considers them as a sort of “middlemen or spokesmen,” who make themselves “prominent by superintending all intercourse and traffic with visitors.”
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.609
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.