446 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 175 



In brief, it is extremely probable, and, in fact, almost certain, that 

 not only the bonds of affection — which must be severed by never again 

 mentioning the name of the deceased (Kroeber, 1925 a) — but also a 

 more or less "shared" ownership of property link the living to the 

 dead. Tliis latter bond must also be severed before the dead can 

 become fully detached from the living. 



When seen in this light, the frantic destruction of all of the deceased 

 man's property, of parts of the mourners' own property (which was 

 probably used formerly also by the deceased) and, finally, the occa- 

 sional destruction of additional goods bought for this specific purpose, 

 must represent more than simple piety. It is, probably, also a taunt 

 to the suddenly possessive and acquisitive dead, which seems to say : 

 "Having deprived me of the things which were, in a way, also mine, 

 because I used them, you might as well take what is wholly mine — and 

 more I" " 



It seems probable that the frenzied destruction of the dead person's 

 property, and, especially, the — presumably even more exalted — heap- 

 ing of additional goods on the pyre, is, subjectively, the emotional 

 equivalent of self-immolation, while "objectively" it represents a com- 

 pensation to the dead for the mourners' failure to follow him into 

 death, which — as the efforts of ghosts to lure the survivors to the land 

 of the dead (pt. 4, pp. 128-186) indicate — may be something the dead 

 desire. 



Needless to say, this interpretation presupposes a ritual and psy- 

 chological equivalence between man and his property. The genuine- 

 ness of this equivalence was demonstrated sociologically by Pareto 

 (1935), who viewed property as part of a person's "integrity" and 

 clinically by a large number of psychoanalysts. As regards the 

 Mohave in particular, a major myth (Kroeber, MS., n.d.) specifically 

 shows (Devereux, MS., 1935) that true human status is acquired 

 through the ownership of land, and that in at least one rite (pt. 7, 



1 Such an attitude is far from rare in primitive society, as two — almost ritual — examples 

 will indicate. 



(1) In 1906 the Dutch, who had been looking for a pretext to occupy Ball, Invaded that 

 Island, under the pretense of recovering silver allegedly pilfered from a shipwrecked Chinese 

 Junk. When the Dutch troops landed in Ball, the King and his concubines marched into 

 the rifle Are of the Dutch, flinging coins at them and shouting: "This is what you came 

 for — now get it." 



(2) In 1933 I asked a Sedang friend, who was also one of my informants and a relative- 

 by-adoptlon, to make a tour of the neighboring villages and buy me as many chickens as 

 possible. He returned from this tour with a large number of chickens, for which he had 

 paid more than they were worth. When I pointed this out to him in a quite friendly 

 manner, he became angry, rushed to his house and returned with a pig worth far more 

 than the difference between the actual value of the chickens and the price he had paid 

 for them. He insisted that I had to accept this pig as a fine and as a compensation, and 

 I had quite a bit of trouble persuading him that I desired no fine, did not expect him to 

 make up the difference between the actual value of the chickens and the price he had paid 

 for them and that I had not suspected him of dishonesty, but simply of Inefficient bar- 

 gaining (Devereux, MS., 1933-1934). 



