Why the aristocrats were ‘heavy’ or how ethnopsychology legitimized inequality among the Tlingit

Conclusion

Even a cursory look at the ethnographic literature on other Northwest Coast societies reveals some striking similarities with the Tlingit way of conceptualizing aristocrats as special persons. Thus the Kwakiutl referred to their chiefs as “real” or “complete” people, who were “heavier” than commoners. The Coast Tsimshian called their highest aristocrats “real” or “ripe” persons, in contrast to the low-ranking ones, who were described as “unhealed” or “green.” The Coast Tshimshian also referred to their chiefs as “strong,” “heavy,” and “solid like a rock.” The neighboring Gitksan contrasted the chiefs, described as people who were “good” and “clean” and “stayed put,” with the commoners, who were said to be “dirty,” “ignorant,” and “always moving around.” Because spirits of the dead liked to return to persons who were “clean” and “showed respect” by giving away wealth and feasts, there was considerable moral and practical pressure on the aristocrats to remain “pure,” train knowledgeable and “clean” heirs, and continue potlatching. Finally, among the Haida, rank was “tied to a wider system of symbolic classification, associating aspects of food, space, clothing, ritual pollution and the ethic of industry with attributes of seniority.”

While some of the symbolic associations of aristocratic status are culture specific, others are present in several, if not all, of the NWC cultures. What we need is a comparative symbology of aristocratic status, which would combine the reanalysis of the existing ethnographic data with the introduction of some new materials that can still be obtained in the field. Such work would be the best tribute to Irving Goldman himself and to our common illustrious ancestors—Franz Boas and Marcel Mauss.