206 THE KEGULATION OF NUMBERS 



illustrate the fact by means of references.* It is perhaps not so 

 well known that there are also many indications of family and 

 even of individual property in land. In the first place we often 

 hear of the right of the inhabitants of a village to clearly defined 

 tracts. ' Each tribe had its village sites and contiguous hunting 

 and fishing grounds ; as long as the people lived on these sites 

 and regularly went to their hunting grounds, they could claim 

 them against all intruders.' ^ Of the Carrier Tribes, Harmon 

 says that ' the people of every village have a certain extent of 

 country, which they consider their own, and in which they may 

 hunt and fish ; but they may not transcend these bounds, without 

 purchasing the privilege from those who claim the land '.^ Of 

 the Western Tinneh, Hill Tout records that the heads of the clan 

 own the hunting grounds, ' the limits of which were always very 

 clearly defined '.* Among the more nomadic Eastern Tinneh we 

 hear that bands used the same hunting grounds ; these areas, 

 however, were not regarded as belonging exclusively to them.^ 

 Among the Salish of the Interior, ' all hunting, fishing, root and 

 berry grounds were common property and shared in by all alike ' ; 

 whereas among those of the coast the food grounds were the 

 property of the septs and local groups.^ From other accounts it 

 appears that family and individual ownership were recognized in 

 some places. This apphes especially with regard to the fishing 

 stations of the Pacific Coast tribes, where * varying lengths of 

 shore were held as private fishing rights by heads of families, and 

 these rights were passed from father to son and were always 

 respected 'P Swanton gives an especially interesting account of 

 the practices of the Haidahs of Queen Charlotte Islands. * Each 

 Haidah family had its own creek or creeks, or portion of a creek, 

 where its smoke houses stood. Some of the smaller creeks are 

 said to have no owners ; and, on the other hand, some families 

 are said to have had no land. In the latter cases they were 



^ ' Captain Cook found among the Ahts " very strict notions of their having 

 a right to the exchisive property of everything that their country produces ", 

 so that they claimed pay for even wood, water, and grass. The limits of their 

 tribal property are very clearly defined, but individuals rarely claim any property 

 in land ' ( Bancroft, loc. cit., vol.i,p. 191). See also Dellenbaugh, iVor<A Americans, 

 pp. 410 ff. 



- Handbook of American Indians, Article ' Land Tenure '. ' Harmon, 



loc. cit., p. 255. ♦ Hill Tout, British North America, p. 147. See also Ban- 



croft, loc. cit., vol. i, p. 118. ' Ibid., p. 157. « Ibid., p. 159. 



' Handhnnl: of American Indians, Article 'Property'. See Teit, loc. cit., vol. ii, 

 p. 255, for a description of this among the Lillooet Indians ; also Bancroft, loc. 

 cit., vol. i, p. 2.30, and Niblack, loc. cit., pp. 298 and 3.37. 



