When considering notions of domestic privacy in Greenlandic Inuit cultures, one might take inspiration from Burch’s (2005) five different layers of property connected to the northwest Alaskan natives: societal, local family, domestic family, conjugal family, and individual. In this blog post, I consider to what extent this model can be applied to Greenlandic Inuit culture, and what this reveals about the dynamic between an individual and the cohabitants within a dwelling, by shedding light on the private space and personal belongings they would have possessed.
It is important to note that in some contexts, the Alaskan property model remains a topic of discussion, depending on the elements being compared, as the notion of ‘ownership’ concerning a specific territory may initially have resembled more of a usufruct arrangement. Therefore, providing a brief overview of ownership rights at the societal and local levels is essential before delving into the layers of domestic, marital, and individual ownership.
The societal level is connected to a cultural group’s use of whole land or exclusive land areas (Fortescue 1988; Purich 1992). The land of Greenland has undergone shifting utilization, most recently by the Greenlandic Dorset, then the Norse, and, in the end, by the people of the Thule culture, the forebears of contemporary Kalaallit (Greenlandic Inuit). Furthermore, the Greenlandic Inuit saw themselves as people of the coasts instead of inland dwellers (Sonne 2018), also primarily since they found the glacier-covered inland inhabitable. Therefore, the various groups who occupied Greenland utilized the land according to their specific needs, environmental context, and levels of technological knowledge.
At the local level, the local families would occupy more than one dwelling at the same time due to their seasonal mobility and would be considered to have the right to use the resources of the land on which their houses were built (Collignon 1996; Aporta 2009). This might have been indicated by a particular area’s place name or through human-made landscape markers or topographies (Aporta 2016). In most cases, local family relations form the core structure of the various settlements as family members get spread out to live off the resources of their land area (Gulløv & Toft 2017: 42). Despite advanced excavation techniques, stratigraphic analysis, advanced re-fittings, and dating methods (such as radiocarbon dating), the task of precisely determining the contemporary use of dwellings remains intricate in archaeological investigations (Andreasen 2003).
Historically, documented accounts indicate that close family members, such as siblings and cousins, frequently cohabited within the same winter house or in separate residences within the same settlement (Holm 1888). Concurrently, while maintaining awareness of each other, extended family members might not necessarily dwell in immediate proximity (Gulløv & Toft 2017: 28). Determining the precise dimensions of the territories associated with the usufruct rights of local families poses a significant challenge due to the considerable seasonal variation in available resources. Additionally, the overall population in the country, before administrative registrations, also relies solely on an estimate. In this regard, it is noteworthy that Parry’s records from 1824 describe people in the Igloolik area being acquainted with a territory spanning more than five hundred miles along a direct north-south line (Parry 1824: 513). Consequently, most communities would have comprised members of a singular local family, encompassing approximately a dozen to seventy individuals residing in two to a handful of houses (Gulløv 1997a).

Fig. 1. Except for the wooden barrels, the scene could easily have been reminiscent of the 1700s Greenland, featuring a turf house, fish drying on a rack, kayaks at rest, and sled dogs basking in the sunny weather. Source: Arctic Institute.
During times of abundant food, domestic and conjugal families could coexist, residing either under the same roof or within the same settlement. Conversely, in times of scarcity, they had the flexibility to disperse into smaller groups, establishing independent households at greater distances from one another (Burch 1975). The domestic family, residing in a larger dwelling, often included extended families with two or three closely related conjugal families, incorporating adult siblings or cousins and occasionally an elderly parent or two (Holm 1888). This domestic family owned the hunted and gathered food and essential items for shelter and transportation. These included larger skins used in constructing the summer tent, mid-seasonal qarmaq (a tent house), or winter house, along with the umiaq (large skin boat), sleds, and dogs. In the case of the umialik, whaling captain, his ownership rights extended to the umiaq (umialik literally meaning the owner of an umiaq; Eber 1989). However, practically, the crew hired by the umialik would have the boat at their disposal in the settlement (Burch 2005: 156).
While somewhat overshadowed by domestic and local families, marital families retained private ownership of their bedding and hides or pelts obtained by any family member (Burch 1975). The possession of skins was essential for crafting clothing, bedding, and various other items, and surplus skins were treated as marketable commodities (Flora et al. 2018). Furs, particularly those from species with limited distribution, were a significant source of wealth. For instance, the trade of polar fox skins significantly contributed to financing several of Knud Rasmussen’s polar expeditions, which set out from the Thule trading station (Rasmussen 1921). While Alaskan couples typically handed over their surplus furs and hides to the head of the local family, expecting some reciprocation (Burch and Blehr 1991), this was not a prevalent practice in Greenland. Conversely, less proficient hunters in Greenland would remain close to a successful umialik, an Inuit whale hunter, as it was anticipated that he would share his spoils with those in his proximity (Spencer 1959; Spencer 1972). This shows how sharing and distribution of goods within local families varied between Greenlandic and Alaskan indigenous cultures.
Personal possessions encompassed items such as clothing, tools, weapons, hunting boats (kayaks), and amulets, all individually owned. Men were responsible for crafting utensils for themselves and family members, while women created and maintained clothing for themselves and other family members (Mathiassen 1936). Although it was customary in Alaska to engrave nearly every object with the user’s personal property mark (Boas 1899; Reynolds 1983a; Reynolds 1983b), this practice is not present in the Greenlandic material. While numerous dispersion analyses after an archaeological excavation have aimed to showcase how different areas of the dwelling were used by men, women, children, and particularly rich cultural items, they fall short of definitively indicating restricted areas in the compact spaces of the winter houses (Gulløv 1997a; Møbjerg & Robert-Lamblin 1990). Deciphering these analyses is particularly challenging due to potential disruptions in context, both during occupation (e.g., house cleaning, residents’ movements misplacing items or accidentally kicking dropped items around) and post-occupation (e.g., foxes digging, erosion). Furthermore, the analyses do not necessarily reveal an individual’s personal space, which may have been experienced for a longer or shorter duration, as the analyses more accurately depict activities spanning several months.
Another form of personal property consisted of songs. While certain songs were commonly shared, others – particularly magical songs – were strictly considered private property (Hauser 1986; Hauser 2010). Although some of these songs were performed on public occasions and known to other community members, only the owner could sing them, i.e., aqaatit, which were charms (Dan. kæleviser) dedicated to a child (Hauser 1978). Some songs were kept secret and only performed privately (Thalbitzer 1939). Both types of songs could be sold or inherited, at which point they became the exclusive property of the recipient (Hauser 1986: 360). Magic formulas (serratit) were not sung but were rather recited words spoken, and they too could be inherited or traded, although their efficiency would diminish over time through use or transfer to another individual (Hauser 1986). Last but not least, when relocated or altered to signal a claim, raw minerals or plant products could also be considered personal property (Boas 1899).
Considering all above, it appears that most belongings and goods followed private ownership structures. What, then, was genuinely shared or common? The winter dwelling certainly required a collaborative effort, and for smooth operations, each person had to contribute their skills for the collective well-being. Consequently, it does not necessarily follow that artefacts were common property, but all 40 individuals or more operated as a cohesive unit, needing to get along. Following the extended winter, each family would disperse and spend the spring, summer, and early fall in smaller groups. Subsequently, the families would reunite in new configurations to spend the winter in the compact communal house. This seasonal way of living might have worked as a ventil from the restricted way of life during winter times, showing how the home sphere was a dynamic matter, constantly changing to fit the needs of the season.

Fig. 2. Man singing (name unknown) at Uummannatsiaq in 1911 while playing the Greenlandic drum. Source: Arctic Institute.
References
Andreasen, C. 2003. Palaeoeskimo dwellings in Greenland. In Études/Inuit Studies, Vol. 27 (1-2)
Aporta C. 2016. Marking the Land, Routledge
Aporta C. 2009. The Trail as Home: Inuit and Their Pan-Arctic Network of Routes. In Human Ecology, Vol. 37, pp. 131-146
Boas, F. 1899. Property marks of Alaskan Eskimo. In American Anthropologist, Vol. 1
Burch Jr., E. S. 2005. Alliances and Conflict – The World System of the Iñupiaq Eskimos, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln NE
Burch Jr., E. S. 1975. Indians and Eskimos in North Alaska 1816-1977. In Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 16(2)
Burch Jr., E. S. and O Blehr 1991. Herd following reconsidered. In Current Anthropology, Vol. 32(4), University of Chicago Press
Collignon, B. 1996. Les Inuit: Ce Qu’ils Savent Du Territoire, L’Harmattan, Paris
Dickie, V. A. 2010. Experiencing Therapy through Doing: Making Quilts. In Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, Vol. 31, No. 4, Sage Journals
Eber, D. H. 1989. When the Whalers Were Up North: Inuit Memories from the Eastern Arctic, McGill’s Queen Press, Kingston and Montreal
Flora, J. K., K. L. Johansen, B. Grønnow, A. O. Andersen and A. Mosbech, 2018. Past and Present Dynamics of Inughuit Resource Spaces. In AMBIO A Journal of the Human Environment, Vol. 47 (suppl. 2)
Fortescue, M. 1988. Eskimo Orientation Systems. In Meddelelser om Grønland, Man & Society, No. 11, Commission for Scientific Research in Greenland, Copenhagen
Gulløv, H. C. and P. A. Toft 2017. Den førkoloniale tid. In. H. C. Gulløv (ed.) Grønland, Den Arktisk Koloni, Gads Forlag A/S
Gulløv, H. C. 1997. From Middle Ages to Colonial Times: Archaeological and
ethnohistorical studies of the Thule culture in South West Greenland 1300-1800 AD, the
Commission for Scientific Research in Greenland, Copenhagen
Hauser, M. 2010. Traditional Inuit Songs from the Thule Area, Vol. 1, Museum Tusculanum Press
Hauser, M. 1986. Traditional and Acculturated Greenlandic Music. In Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 23, No. 1 & 2, pp. 359-386
Hauser, M. 1978. Inuit songs from southwest Baffin island in cross-cultural context II. In Études Inuit Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 71-81
Holm, G. 1888. Etnologisk skizze af Angmagsalikerne. In Meddelelser om Grønland, Vol. 39, No. 1
Mathiassen, T. 1936. The Eskimo Archaeology of the Julianehaab District. In Meddelelser om Grønland, Vol. 118, No. 1
Mathiassen, T. 1930. Inugsuk. A Medieval Eskimo Settlement in Upernavik District, West Greenland. In Meddelelser om Grønland, Vol. 77
Mathiassen, T. 1927. Archaeology of Central Eskimoes, Vol. 1+2. In Report from 5th Thule Expedition, Vol. 4
Møbjerg, T. and J. Robert-Lamblin 1990. The settlement of Ikaasap Ittiva, East Greenland: An ethno-archaeological investigation. In Acta Archaeologica, Vol. 60, 1989, København
Parry, W. E. 1824. Journal of a Second Voyage for the Discovery of a Northwest Passage From the Atlantic to the Pacific, J. Murray, London
Purich, D. 1992. The Inuit and their land, Lorimer, Toronto
Rasmussen, K. 1975. The People of the Polar North: A Record, G. Herring (ed.) Gale Research Co., Detroit (published initially 1908, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd, London)
Rasmussen, K. 2021 (first published 1925). Fra Grønland til Stillehavet, Lindhardt og Ringhof, København
Reynolds, G. 1983a. Ownership marks and social relationships in northwestern Alaska, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association
Reynolds, G. 1983b. Ownership marks, unpublished manuscript
Sonne, B. 2018. Worldviews of the Greenlanders – An Inuit Arctic Perspective, University of Alaska Press
Spencer, R. F. 1972. ‘The Social Composition of the North Alaskan Whaling Crew’. In Guemple, L. (ed.) Alliance in Eskimo Society, Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, 1971, Supplement, University of Washington Press, Seattle (pp. 110-120)
Spencer, R. F. 1959. ‘The North Alaskan Eskimo. A Study in Ecology and Society‘, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 171 of the Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.
Thalbitzer, W. 1939. Inuit Sange og Danse fra Grönland/Inuit kalâliussut erinassûtaisa qitatisalo ilait, Einar Munksgaard