368 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 175 



Culturally, the most interesting feature of this practice is that it 

 seems somehow "mi-Mohave" to seek to regain public esteem, after 

 sustaining some accidental injury, by a distribution of property 

 (crops), or by giving a lavish feast. Such a practice would seem 

 more compatible with the basic pattern of Northwest Coast cultures, 

 where a man, who accidentally lost prestige — be it but by slipping 

 and falling down — gave a feast and distributed property (potlatch) 

 so as to regain "face" (Benedict, 1934). In view of the fact that no 

 comparable customs seem to exist in Mohave society, it is probably 

 incorrect to compare the eye-losing rite to Northwest Coast face-saving 

 potlatches, especially since a more convincing parallel may be drawn 

 between the eye-losing rite and the spiteful giving of funeral goods, 

 which are purchased expressly in order to be thrown on the funeral 

 pyre (pt. 7, pp. 431-459) . In both instances the grieved and provoked 

 Mohave seem to "throw good money after bad," reacting to an unavoid- 

 able loss by a frantically, and probably spitefully, contrived further 

 loss: the loss of a kinsman through death leading to the giving of 

 funeral gifts and the loss of an eye leading to the sacrificing of a horse 

 and of crops. 



Equally interesting, from the cultural point of view, is the spon- 

 taneous, or seemingly spontaneous, development of an animal sacrifice 

 pattern after the introduction of the hoi^se into Mohave country, which 

 suggests that the idea of animal sacrifices readily presents itself to 

 any group, once it possesses domestic animals. Indeed, prior to the 

 introduction of the horse, the Mohave do not seem to have sacrificed 

 and eaten either their few prisoners of war or their dogs, which were 

 the only "livestock" they kept in aboriginal times. Game was, like- 

 wise, never used sacrificially.^° 



The interesting psychocultural aspects of this practice will be dis- 

 cussed in conjunction with certain related aspects of boundary dis- 

 putes, which are about to be described. 



Boundary disputes were usually settled by formal fights (Kroeber, 

 1925 a) . According to Hivsu : Tiipo : ma and Tcatc : 



Boundary quarrels arose when a vine grew across a boundary line and the 

 man into whose field the vine had crept took the pumpkins, squashes, or melons 

 growing on it. Verbal quarrels over the exact location of the boundary went on 

 until the harvest. Then each of the contending parties took his crops, killed a 

 horse, and gave a feast for his potential supporters. The two groups then 

 began to push against each other (Kroeber, 1925 a: "thupirvik ;" Pulyi:k: 

 "thupirvak") and also engaged in formal stick fights (Kroeber, 1925 a: 

 "chetmana'ak ;" Pulyi:k: "ai: matatekwatk"). In such fights not only the 

 boundary strip, but the whole tract adjoining that strip was at stake. Usually 

 the man who had the most guests at his feast won and occupied the whole tract 



"^ The "sacrificing" of game does not seem to be prevalent in truly primitive societies. 



