Do you have any idea of a word for giving one's belongings rather than purchasing a gift? I'm not looking for "regift," and the word may involve traditional giving (but not potlatch). Thanks in advance.

WELCOME APPLE....

Potlatch was my word, but you knew that.

I think the word you're looking for is gift. Then you modify it with adjectives of your choice.

...yes, and/or donation?

Welcome, ab. All I can think of is 'donating', and I have the feeling that's not what you're looking for. As far as I know, there isn't a word for giving something you already have in place of buying something new; other than unflattering adjectival phrases, I mean. But I reckon it's fairly common, maybe especially among families, to do this kind of exchange.

...and to piggyback on Jackie, why not Potlatch?
Considering its history among the Native Americans it
is one of the more beautiful facets of some tribes' culture.

Interesting how comments come and go.

I've always thought potlatch was just another word for potluck: a meal where each participant/family brings a dish to share.

Nope. A fortunate person, usually warrior and family,
give away all they have to others. As was mentioned
here and then deleted, many times to other members of
one's clan. One would be cared for and receive things
back in return. But the poor, widows, etc. would also
receive things. No chance they could give back.

Potlatch is an act of braggadocio. I've got so much stuff I can just throw it away. In fact, during a potlatch stuff was not only given away to others but just destroyed. This doesn't really fit well with the idea of giving something that has been lying around the house as a present, an act which seems kind of cheap unless it is part of some special tradition among aware parties.

In the nation to which my grandmother belonged
everything was given away, and it had nothing to
do with braggadocio or belongings in excess. Sorry,
but that is not my experience.

Thats interesting Luke

A similar thing is the custom within the Aboriginal Community, though I don't know the word for it.

Aboriginal concepts of property.... Land was divided into areas or districts, and utilised by tribes or family groups, not exactly owned but ‘where the tribe resides', and is the place of families not individuals (though individuals may build a shelter and call it their place within this area). Their view of personal possessions is different. Though you may 'own' a spear or a canoe or something you have made, if another Aboriginal (in the family) needed it, they could borrow it (with out asking). They don't have to ask, because its understood that its 'given' by the 'owner' and may or may not be returned. Some personal items of cultural or inherited significance, fall into another category of ownership, they may still be 'borrowed' but its not usual. When these items are 'gifted' it is a very special gift.

It is amazing how "Western" concepts of ownership
and property seem to negate the opinions of others who
had no such concepts. Native Americans hated the idea
of "owning the land" and opposed the colonial need to
"sell" their land to the pioneers. They could not conceive
of "owning" land any more than "owning the air".

Interesting. I only know of the custom through lessons given me as an anthropology student in the early '60s. I bow to your more intimate experience. What nation did your grandmother belong to? I would still question the use of the term potlatch to refer to what I see as an act of laziness or cheapness. I'm referring to the idea that one would give a gift that wasn't bought or hand-made for the occasion, not the custom of your grandmother's nation. I would assume the latter was an act of generosity, not cheapness or laziness.

potlatch

First, potlatch was not something limited to one group (tribe) of Indigenous People (Indians), but was a custom shared by many cultures across the Pacific Northwest coastal region. The anthropologist Franz Boas described potlatch as performed by the Kwakwaka'wakw people (then known as Kwakiutl) in his "The Social Organization and the Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians." (Pp. 311-738 In: Report of the U.S. National Museum for 1895, pp. 311-738. Washington.). It is available online at Google Books (if you live in a country that allows it, link). As with many customs, potlatch differed from group to group. It was banned by the federal governments of Canada and the USA for about a hundred years (from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th). It has been revived since then. Among the Kwakwaka'wakw people, potlatch could be a highly competitive custom. It was also more of a custom taking place at the family (clan) level than the personal. And for whatever its cultural or spiritual meanings, it was basically a redistribution of wealth (movable property).

The word itself is from Chinook Jargon and means 'to give away'.

Well, I am very appreciative of your comments and those
of Faldage immediately above yours. I am familiar
with the comments and historical things you mention.
You both have obviously done more research than I have done.
All I know is what I've read and experienced, and never
really questioned it much. You both obviously have done
so. That is good for me to read.
My grandmother was of the Tuscarora (Iroquois Confed.)
But she had friends in Washington state. She took
me with her twice to visit these folks, one time for most
of the summer. We had 2-3 Potlatches while I was there
and she explained it as a 'giveaway' to show gratitude
for blessings received from the Great Spirit. We must
share what we receive, especially with the less
fortunate. I do remember some very poor folks receiving
things for which they were grateful.

So, perhaps, based on your research, potlatch would not
fit the poster's search for a word for gift.

Thanks again.

The potlatch I learned was enabled by the incredible richness of the environment in the Pacific northwest. The tribes in question lived by a hunter-gatherer economy, which is normally one of barely scraping along most of the time followed by occasional spurts of plenty when some large animal has been killed and there is plenty of food for all. In the Pacific northwest the food practically jumped on the table for you. Hence, it was quite possible to be incredibly rich and this allowed for the conspicuous consumption that was the basis for the potlatch as practiced in that region.

So true, another good point.
Makes a lot of sense when seen from that angle.