During My Time. Margaret B. Blackman

and snares. Similiarly, both men and women collected cedar bark, but women sought the inner bark for weaving mats, and men the large sheets of outer bark for roofing.

      Women’s abstention from certain economic activities seems to have been rationalized and prohibited on the basis of pollution taboos associated with menstruation and reproduction (see, for example, Swanton 1909:219). Fishing lines and hooks, sea mammal clubs, bows, arrows, and any other items of subsistence technology used by males were kept outside the house, concealed from the view of female household members. Menstruating women were believed to have supernatural visual powers capable of causing considerable damage. Were a menstruating woman to see a man’s fishing or hunting equipment, all of his economic endeavors would be doomed. If a woman were to attempt to hunt or fish herself, her efforts would go similarly unrewarded. For this reason, the Haida say, women never fished or hunted. Nor did women collect octopuses, comestible shellfish but more commonly used as halibut bait. Were a woman to catch an octopus near its rocky den, all octopuses would permanently abandon the site.

      Male economic activities could be further influenced by domestic activities. Baby tending, for example, was fraught with potential ruination of male economic prowess. A man might play with his small children, but his handling of a soiled or wet baby would diminish his luck at hunting or fishing, perhaps spelling economic disaster for the entire household. To assure the ritual purity of male members of the household, men’s clothing was washed separately from that of women and children. Ritual cleanliness brought economic rewards, for “those who were ‘clean’ were blessed with food and riches,” according to Florence Davidson. Men could negatively affect their own economic endeavors by having extramarital affairs or by leaving their wives. A man who did so would lose his luck at hunting or fishing. Ritual purity and consequent economic “luck” were also acquired or enhanced by drinking medicine,⁸ a male prerogative. Women, too, drank medicine, but only to cure sickness, not for “luck.”

      The sexual division of labor in trading is not clear. Swanton (1909) and Curtis (1916) make no mention of women in trading; Murdock (1934b:377), in his brief discussion of trading partnerships, implies that the parties are male but does not discuss trade more generally. Early maritime traders’ accounts from the late eighteenth century, however, suggest that Haida women played a significant and authoritative role in trading activities at the time of first contact. In his journals of 1790–92, Joseph Ingraham, for example, offers the following comment:

      Here in direct opposition to most other parts of the world, the women maintain a precedency to the men in every point insomuch as a man dares not trade without the concurrence of his wife. Nay, I have often been witness to men being abused by their wives for parting with skins before their approbation was obtained. [Ingraham 1971:132]

      The men of the ship Columbia Rediviva similarly remarked on the ascendant role of Haida women in trade:

      The women in trade, as well as in everything else which came within our knowledge, appeared to govern the men; as no one dared to conclude a bargain without first asking his wife’s consent; if he did, the moment he went into his canoe he was sure to get a beating … and there is no mercy to be expected without the intercession of some kind female. [Howay 1941:208]

      Howay adds in a footnote that “all witnesses agree on this” (1941:208). On the basis of the above and similar evidence from the late eighteenth century, it seems quite possible that women played a significant role in trading, particularly as they could hold property independently of their husbands. Given the acknowledged role of men as traders, however, it may be that they represented their wives in exchange and that the dominant role of women reflects the latter’s interest in their own property.

      Dawson downplayed the general economic contribution of Haida women, noting that “… the women do not contribute materially to the support of the family, attending only to the accessory duties of curing and preserving the fish …” (1880:130B). Swanton suggests the symbolic importance of woman’s freedom from economic activities in the following remark: “A young, unmarried woman was not allowed to do much work, and lay in bed a great deal of the time. This was so that she might marry a chief, and always have little work to do” (1909:50). From Florence Davidson’s comments it seems unlikely that even a high-ranking woman would actually have little work to do. Though she might have slaves to gather firewood and assist in the processing of fish and other foods, the desire for prestige and the ambition characteristic of the Haida spurred all toward the accumulation of wealth and surplus resources. Florence’s remark that “we try all our best for our children” applies equally to the aboriginal Haida whose paramount concern was securing a place for their children in the social order. Neither is Dawson’s comment that women do not contribute materially to the support of the family an accurate assessment of the economic position of Haida women. The ability of a woman to process foods, particularly fish, was of considerable concern to all. A woman adept at slicing and drying fish was greatly admired for her skills. Furthermore, the limitations on the quantity of salmon a household could garner for winter stores was dependent not upon the number of fish that men could catch but on the number that women could practicably clean, slice, and dry. Thus female skills were critical to the ability of a household to provision itself and to lay aside a surplus for feasting and pot-latching.

       Ceremonial Division of Labor