Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Inuit Grave Goods – Private Belongings in Historic Greenland II

Following my recent blog post on private and shared ownership of goods in historic Greenland, I will develop further on this topic by considering Inuit burial culture, examining what grave goods individuals were buried with, and what this tells us about understandings of private possessions in historic Greenland. 

Unlike the earlier ethnographical records that provide insights into rights allocation, the archaeological approach involves examining grave goods accompanying individuals, as these items serve as indicators of private property considerations connected to a particular person in contrast to items up for public use. In connection with communal graves, where multiple individuals have been laid to rest, the inventory physically ‘on’ the deceased, such as clothing, skins wrapped around the deceased, and items tugged in those skins or clothing, will, in this study, be considered ‘private,’ in the understanding that no one else than a specific individual owns these items.  

Fig. 1. Watercolor by Aron from Kangeq depicts how parents grieve by their child’s grave. Source: Hart Hansen, Meldgaard, and Nordqvist 1985: 64.  

The introduction of the Christian burial style mandated that the deceased should ideally be interred in a coffin placed in the ground and covered with soil or gravel. Before this, local communities laid their deceased to rest in stone-set chambers or in caves, or conducted burials at sea. The latter was an East Greenlandic tradition reportedly still observed around 1867, as exemplified by the words spoken to Aron from Kangeq: “If we bury him up here on earth, his soul will constantly suffer cold and need. Therefore, we will sink him where there is neither cold nor lack of food.” (Hansen, Meldgaard, and Nordqvist 1985: 65, translation AM). 

No overall inventory of the grave goods from the Inuit graves has been made, as many graves have simply been registered without being opened or examined further. Furthermore,  many of the Greenlandic Inuit’s grave goods were products of various organic materials, and this undoubtedly impacts the degree of preserved artifacts to be registered in modern times. It is mainly to be expected that grave goods consisting of skin and/or wood will be strongly underrepresented in the source material. However, grave goods consisting of biomaterials have allegedly been found in up to half of the examined graves (Grummesgaard 1997: 207). If the preservation conditions are taken into account, it is quite possible that practically all Greenlandic Inuit were buried with grave goods. Nothing indicates the deceased have not always been buried wearing their own clothes.  

Skin clothes are common for grave goods for adults of both sexes and children (one set worn by the deceased and, in some cases, an extra set of clothes or extra skins to follow) as well as amulets (either sewn into the clothes or placed separately among the other goods) (Hansen, Meldgaard, and Nordqvist 1985). Sometimes, in connection with the burial chamber itself, a side chamber was built where the grave goods were placed, but grave goods can also be placed above or outside the grave, just as objects are found between the graves’ outer stones (Grummesgaard 1997: 208).  

Fig. 2. In 1909, Greenlandic women and their children were photographed adorned in meticulously crafted skin clothing against the backdrop of a tent at their summer camp near Aasiaat. Source: Hansen, Meldgaard, and Nordqvist 1985: 194. 

 Women’s grave goods often consisted of their toolkits connected to clothing manufacturing (arched knives (called ulu), needles, needle houses, awls, and thimbles) and cooking (cooking pots, soapstone lamps) (Steenstrup 1893; Larsen 1934; Kramer 1990; Grummesgaard-Nielsen 1996a+b; Grønnow 2005). Women have also been put to rest with various ornaments, such as beautiful, locally produced beads or buttons of bone or ivory. Later, women’s grave goods also included European trade goods like buttons or beads of porcelain or glass (Mathiassen 1936; Koch and Feldbo 1994). 

Fig. 3. The iconic women’s knive, ulu, and the soapstone lamp, qulleq, were vital parts of the women’s tool kit, and could be found in graves for female individuals. Source: Jensen et al. 2020: 49. 

 The men’s grave goods span hunting gear (lances, spears, harpoon heads, bow and arrows, and throwing boards) and tools (knives, pickaxes, snow knives, and grindstones) (Birket-Smith 1924; Birket-Smith 1929, Feldbo et al. 1992; Grummesgaard-Nielsen 1996a+b; Grønnow 2005). On rare occasions, a whole kayak or sled has been placed in a side chamber next to the main chamber (Hansen, Meldgaard, and Nordqvist 1985: 156; Grummesgaard 1997: 209). 

Fig. 4. The arrowhead, suugaq, and the harpoon head, tuukkaq, are both part of the men’s tool kit and could be found in the graves for male individuals. Source: Jensen et al. 2017: 49. 

 In addition, it is not uncommon to find animal bones in connection with Greenlandic Inuit graves (Feldbo et al. 1993). These animal bones may be remnants of food offered to the dead (Mathiassen 1936: 16; Hansen, Meldgaard, and Nordqvist 1985: 70). Other times, the animal bones played a protective role, being a sort of amulet or guiding spirit to the deceased, as ethnographic accounts testify having a dog accompanying a child to the spirit world (Hansen, Meldgaard, and Nordqvist 1985: 70; Thalbitzer 1914). Other times, it results from arctic foxes secondarily using the graves as their den, and the animal bones simply testify to some of their meals (Koch and Feldbo 1994). 

Small collections of stones have also been registered in connection to burials and have been interpreted as decorations, amulets, or game pieces (Gulløv 1995: 14). Cores of clear quartz or tusks of marine animals have also been found in burials, which may have been given as presents or amulets (Mathiassen 1936: 21). In other parts of the Arctic, gifts presented to the deceased were often intentionally broken or ‘killed’ to facilitate the spirit’s success in hunting game in the afterlife (Parry 1824; Sonne 2018). However, in Greenland, the equipment was left intact, symbolizing its ‘living’ state, often placed outside the burial context near the grave (Hansen, Meldgaard, and Nordqvist 1985: 70).  

 In this context, it is crucial to distinguish between three different phenomena. Firstly, some objects are placed in the grave as personal belongings, utilized by the individual during their lifetime, and now allocated for use in the afterlife. Such items include hunting tools, utensils, and clothing. Secondly, some objects are placed in the grave, specifically after an individual’s death. These items are intended to express grief, signify the meaningful relationship shared, and demonstrate appreciation for shared memories. Alternatively, they may be provided to aid the deceased in their journey to the afterlife. Examples in this category encompass stones interpreted as game pieces and a puppy placed to assist a child in traversing to the other world. The last category involves objects left in the grave with the understanding that they will be eventually removed, as they are considered the rightful property of the deceased’s heirs. An example of this category is the physical amulets belonging to the buried individual. In such cases, a person named after the deceased, seen as the reincarnation of the departed, holds the right to retrieve an amulet that once belonged to their predecessor in a previous life. 

 Thus, the deceased has been buried with utility items that proved helpful in this life, which they would continue to use in the next life. However, some of these objects may also have had a direct sentimental value to the deceased, to the giver, or represent their relation. These objects represented nuanced understandings of private objects as they were meant to follow the deceased to the next world. Some possessions were from everyday life and were not unique but belonged to the deceased in a very material sense. Other possessions, such as amulets, belonged to the individual on a more symbolic level, being available to the reincarnate, thus having a specific connection to the soul rather than the lived life of the individual.  

Following my first blogpost, this archaeological investigation of Greenlandic Inuit’s burial culture underlines how most artefacts such as tools and clothing were privately owned by the individual. For longer stretches of the year, the Greenlandic Inuit lived in bigger family constellations, but here it was the practices of everyday life that were shared, rather than the material goods. Members of these family communities could help each other to gain necessary possessions, however, for example shown in the way experienced hunters would sometimes help less proficient hunters in their quest for prey. Material goods could also be privately owned in different ways, some being everyday tools that belonged to the individual in a corporal way, while others, such as amulets, belonged to the soul and were therefor available to the next reincarnation of a deceased individual. 

 

References 

Birket-Smith, K. 1929. Jens Munks Rejse og andre danske Ishavsfarter under Christian IV, Gyldendal, Copenhagen, 160 pp 

  • 1924. Ethnography of the Egedesminde District, with Aspects of the General Culture of West Greenland. In Meddelelser om Grønland, Vol. 66, No. 1 

Feldbo, M., Gotfredsen, A. B., Gulløv, H. C. and A. Koch 1993. Illuluarsuk. Rapport om det arkæologiske arbejde i Illuluarsuk regionen syd for Bernstoffs Isfjord, Ammassalik kommune, Sydøstgrønland, sommeren 1992, Copenhagen University 

Feldbo, M., Fog, J., Gotfredsen, A. B. and H. C. Gulløv 1992. Rapport om det arkæologiske arbejde i Skjoldungen, Ammassalik kommune, Sydøstgrønland, sommeren 1991, Copenhagen University and National Museum of Denmark 

Grummesgaard-Nielsen, S. 1997. Thulekulturens grave. In Tidsskriftet Grønland, 

Vol. 5, 1997 

  • 1996a. Arkæologiske undersøgelser i forbindelse med anlæggelsen af en lufthavn ved Sisimiut 1995. En rekognosceringsrapport for Grønlands Nationalmuseum og Arkiv 
  • 1996b. Arkæologiske undersøgelser i forbindelse med anlæggelsen af en lufthavn ved Sisimiut 1996. En rekognosceringsrapport for Grønlands Nationalmuseum og Arkiv 

Grønnow, B. 2005. Brudstykker af Baade og forarbeidede Steensager. Arktisk arkæologi. In Thisted, K. (ed.) Grønlandsforskning – Historie og perspektiver, Det Grønlandske Selskab 

Gulløv, H. C. 1995. “Olden times” in southeast Greenland: New archaeological investigations and the oral tradition. In Ètudes Inuit Studies, Vol. 19, pp. 3-36 

Hansen, J. P. H., Meldgaard, J. and J. Nordqvist 1985. Qilakitsoq, De grønlandske mumier fra 1400-tallet, Christian Ejler’s Forlag, København 

Holm, G. 1888. Etnologisk skizze af Angmagsalikerne. In Meddelelser om Grønland, Vol. 39, No. 1 

Jensen, J. F., C. Andreasen, P. Fleischer-Lyberth, L. Løgstrup, H. H. Poulsen, Ó. R. Ólafurson, A.-Ch. Løventoft-Jessen, S. Barr, and M. Meldgaard 2017. Aasivissuit-Nipisat – Inuit Hunting Ground between Ice and Sea, Rosendahls 

Koch, A. and M. Feldbo 1994. Thulekulturens grave. Forskning i Sydøstgrønland/Tusaat, 1-2/1994 

Kramer, F. E. 1990. Fortidsminder på nordsiden af Ulkebugten. En rekognosceringsrapport for Sisimiut Museum 

Larsen, H. 1934. Dødemandsbugten. An Eskimo Settlement on Clavering Island. Treaarsexpeditionen til Christian den X’s Land 1931-34. In Meddelelser om Grønland, Vol. 102, No. 1 

Mathiassen, T. 1936. The Eskimo Archaeology of the Julianehaab District. In Meddelelser om Grønland, Vol. 118, No. 1 

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 

Sonne, B. 2018. Worldviews of the Greenlanders – An Inuit Arctic Perspective, University of Alaska Press 

Steenstrup, K. J. V. 1893. Beretning om Undersøgelserne i Nord-Grønland i aarene 1878-90. In Meddelelser om Grønland, Vol. 5, No. 1 

Thalbitzer, W. 1914. The Ammassalik Eskimo. Contributions to the Ethnology of the East Greenland Natives. In Meddelelser om Grønland, Vol. 39 

Dividing Yours and Ours – Private Belongings in Historic Greenland I

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