of 23 /23
Northern Worlds – landscapes, interactions and dynamics Research at the National Museum of Denmark Proceedings of the Northern Worlds Conference Copenhagen 28-30 November 2012 Edited by Hans Christian Gulløv PNM Publications from the National Museum Studies in Archaeology & History Vol. 22 Copenhagen 2014

Clash of Concepts – Hunting rights and ethics in Greenlandic caribou hunting

  • Upload

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)

Text of Clash of Concepts – Hunting rights and ethics in Greenlandic caribou hunting

Northern Worlds – landscapes, interactions and dynamics

Research at the National Museum of Denmark

Proceedings of the Northern Worlds ConferenceCopenhagen 28-30 November 2012

Edited byHans Christian Gulløv

PNMPublications from the National Museum

Studies in Archaeology & History Vol. 22

Copenhagen 2014

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 3 17/09/14 10.22

Publications from the National MuseumNorthern Worlds – landscapes, interactions and dynamicsResearch at the National Museum of DenmarkProceedings of the Northern Worlds ConferenceCopenhagen 28-30 November 2012

© The National Museum of Denmark and the authors, 2014

All rights reserved

Edited by Hans Christian GulløvTechnical edition: Marie Lenander PetersenLinguistic revision and translation: David YoungCover design and layout by Donald Geisler JensenSet with Adobe Garamond Pro and UniversPrinted in Denmark by Narayana Press, GyllingPublished by University Press of Southern DenmarkCampusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense MISBN: 978 87 7674 824 1

Cover photo: Rock carvings, Hjemmeluft, Alta, Finnmark, North Norway, photographer Ditlev L. Mahler, 2010

The proceedings are funded by The Augustinus Foundation

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 4 17/09/14 10.2298281_Nordlige verdener_004_r1.indd 1 23/09/14 08:57

Per Kristian MadsenPreface 9

Hans Christian GulløvIntroduction 11

I. LandscapesPeter Emil Kaland

Heathlands – land-use, ecology and vegetation history as a source for archaeological interpretations 19

Use and tracesDitlev Mahler

Shetland – the Border of Farming 4000-3000 BC 49

Alison SheridanShetland, from the appearance of a ‘Neolithic’ way of life to c. 1500 BC: a view from the ‘mainland’ 67

Christian Koch MadsenNorse Pastoral Farming and Settlement in the Vatnahverfi Peninsula, South Greenland 95

Cosmos and perceptionFlemming Kaul

The northernmost rock carvings belonging to the Scandinavian Bronze Age tradition 115

Lars JørgensenNorse religion and ritual sites in Scandinavia in the 6th-11th century 129


Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 5 14/08/14 09.33

Ulla OdgaardClash of Concepts – Hunting rights and ethics in Greenlandic caribou hunting 151

Environment and changesMorten Fischer Mortensen, Peter Steen Henriksen, Charlie Christensen, Peter Vang Petersen and Jesper Olsen

Late glacial and early Holocene vegetation development in southeast Denmark – palaeoenvironmental studies from a small lake basin close to the Palaeolithic site of Hasselø 169

Kevin EdwardsEarly farming, pollen and landscape impacts from northern Europe to the North Atlantic: conundrums 189

Richard OramFrom ‘Golden Age’ to Depression: land use and environmental change in the medieval Earldom of Orkney 203

Noémie Boulanger-Lapointe and Claudia BaittingerStudies of the growth of arctic willow (Salix arctica) and arctic bell-heather (Cassiope tetragona) in the High Arctic 215

II. InteractIonsCharlotte Damm

Interaction: When people meet 227

Networks and communicationChristina Folke Ax

Good connections – Networks in the whaling and sealing community on Rømø in the 18th century 241

Einar ØstmoShipbuilding and aristocratic splendour in the North, 2400 BC-1000 AD 257

Anne Lisbeth SchmidtSkin Clothing from the North – new insights into the collections of the National Museum 273

Peter Andreas ToftSmall things forgotten – Inuit reception of European commodities in the Historic Thule Culture 293

Objects and exchangeAnne Pedersen

Skagerrak and Kattegat in the Viking Age – borders and connecting links 307

Helle Winge HorsnæsAppropriation and imitation – A Barbarian view on coins and imitations 319

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 6 14/08/14 09.33

Gitte Tarnow IngvardsonTrade and Power – Bornholm in the Late Viking Age 325

Lisbeth M. ImerThe tradition of writing in Norse Greenland – writing in an agrarian community 339

Maria Panum BaastrupContinental and insular imports in Viking Age Denmark – On transcultural competences, actor networks and high-cultural differentiation 353

Preservation and decayMartin Nordvig Mortensen, Inger Bojesen-Koefoed, David Gregory, Poul Jensen, Jan Bruun Jensen, Anne le Boëdec Moesgaard, Nanna Bjerregaard Pedersen, Nataša Pokupčić, Kristiane Strætkvern and Michelle Taube

Conservation and drying methods for archaeological materials modified for use in northern areas 369

Henning Matthiesen, Bo Elberling, Jørgen Hollesen, Jan Bruun Jensen and Jens Fog Jensen Preservation of the permafrozen kitchen midden at Qajaa in West Greenland under changing climate conditions 383

III. dynamIcsChristian Wichmann Matthiessen and Richard D. Knowles

Scandinavian Links: Mega Bridges/Tunnels Linking the Scandinavian Peninsula to the European Continent 395

Continuity and discontinuityBjarne Grønnow, Martin Appelt and Ulla Odgaard

In the Light of Blubber: The Earliest Stone Lamps in Greenland and Beyond 403

Peter Steen HenriksenNorse agriculture in Greenland – farming at the northern frontier 423

Mobility and organizationEinar Lund Jensen

Settlement policy in a colonial context – discussions on changing the settlements structure in Greenland 1900-1950 433

Christopher PrescottA synthesis of the history of third millennium north-western Scandinavia 449

Lasse SørensenFarmers on the move – The expansion of agrarian societies during the Neolithic and Bronze Ages in Scandinavia 463

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 7 14/08/14 09.33

Techniques and environmentJens Fog Jensen and Tilo Krause

Second World War histories and archaeology in Northeast Greenland 491

Niels Bonde, Claudia Baittinger, Thomas Bartholin, Helge Paulsen and Frans-Arne Stylegar Old Houses in Greenland – Standard Houses for Greenland. Dendrochronological studies 511in timber houses

contrIbutors 521

Index 525

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 8 14/08/14 09.33

151clash of concepts – hunting rights and ethics in greenlandic caribou hunting

catch. However, the ethics of the Greenlandic cari-bou hunters are that nothing must be wasted. We have also noticed differences at prehistoric sites in the treatment of animal bones, which appear to be major changes in hunting ethics.

the settingMost of Greenland is covered by inland ice with a rather narrow strip of ice-free land around it. There are, however, a few areas in Greenland where it is possible to travel a couple of hundred kilometres ‘inland’. The caribou prefer to calve in these areas, close to the inland ice, and to stay there during the summer.

Archaeological surveys in Angujaartorfiup Nu-naa in West Greenland’s inland (fig. 1), in areas which at a first glance look like wilderness, have re-vealed that these are truly cultural landscapes with many traces of previous caribou hunting. People of the Thule culture – who were the direct ancestors of the modern Greenlanders – have been caribou hunters in this area for almost one millennium. Due to excellent natural conservation conditions, the archaeological structures are in many cases still visible on the surface. The archaeological structures are tent houses and tent rings, but graves, caches, shooting blinds and cairns are also visible traces of the Thule culture.

Based on archaeological fieldwork in an inland area in West Greenland, this paper will discuss questions about Greenland hunting rights and hunting ethics which arose during our work and which seem to constitute dilemmas. Settlement patterns and bone analyses from Thule culture sites, but also ethno-archaeological observations and interviews with modern hunters, form the basis of this discussion. Two noticeable contradic-tions have emerged.

a) Hunting rights: Although in Greenland there is no ownership of land and everybody can go hunt-ing everywhere according to the law, a traditional system of prescriptive rights to camps and hunting grounds is still continued in Angujaartorfik. Today, many people who do not participate in the tradi-tional caribou hunting take a weekend off and go hunting for an animal or two, and many are not even aware of the ancient prescriptive rights. But despite the fact that hunters of both “views” today go hunting in the same areas, and it is becoming still more difficult to find the animals, it does not seem to create conflicts. This seems like a contradic-tion to us and it is one of the aims of this article to discuss the system of hunting rights in a landscape where there is no formal ownership.

b) Hunting ethics: Another apparent contradic-tion is that Greenlandic hunters are often accused of over-exploiting nature and of wasting most of the

cLash of concepts – huntIng rIghts and ethIcs

In greenLandIc carIbou huntIng

Ulla Odgaard

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 151 14/08/14 09.43

152 landscapes - cosmos and perception ulla odgaard

aks (skin boats) and by foot to get to the inland areas to spend the summer hunting caribou. The umiaks were left at assembly camps at the coast in the fjord. Angujaartorfik was one of the assembly camps where people from all the summer camps would meet at the end of the season before they again went out to their winter settlements at the sea coast (fig. 2).

They dried most of the meat for storing and used the skins for clothes, such as coats, trousers, stockings and kamiks (boots), and for bed skins. Ar-rowheads, harpoon heads and foreshafts of lances and harpoons were made from the antlers (Grøn-now et al. 1983; Grønnow 1986). Among the his-torical sources are water colours and descriptions of how families from all over West Greenland would travel great distances by skin boats and walk many kilometres (sometimes around 100) to reach their camps and stay there for the summer. At these camps, we find traces of dwelling structures from the Thule culture, such as low walls of turf and/or rocks – the so-called tent houses. On top of these

The archaeological surveys can be supplemented with historical sources from the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries providing a picture of constant changes. The situation at the coast was never static for the Inuit, who from the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries settled all of Greenland. Later, European whalers from the seventeenth century and mission-aries and trade stations at the west coast of Green-land from the beginning of the eighteenth century meant opportunities for trade. This caused a new change in occupation patterns and dwelling design, but also epidemic diseases to spread, decimating the population and destroying some of the former so-cial structures (Gulløv 1997: 358, 2004: 334). Also the amount of caribous has changed greatly through times (Grønnow et al. 1983: 16) and the sites of An-gujaartorfiup Nunaa must be interpreted in relation to these factors.

It has been a strategy for many people of the his-torical Thule culture, who lived at different settle-ments on the coast for most of the year, to make an annual journey into the fjords in kayaks and umi-

Fig. 1. Map of the area with mentioned sites.

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 152 14/08/14 09.43

153clash of concepts – hunting rights and ethics in greenlandic caribou hunting

– and for the last 50 years – nobody walks far inland, but some of the ancient camps in the area close to the fjord are visited during the summer by modern hunters. One such camp is Angujaartorfik, where we made ethno-archaeological studies (fig. 3).

two contradictionsHunting rights. At the ancient camp sites, there are sometimes many (up to 20) tent houses at one site,

were tent covers of skin, which in historical times were often substituted with lighter covers of canvas (Odgaard 2007a, 2007b).

The tradition of going hunting at a summer camp is still upheld by some families in Greenland, most of whom are not full time hunters, but some families also spend a couple of weeks during their summer vacation going caribou hunting and in re-cent times – after the introduction of musk oxen to the area in the 1960s – also musk ox hunting. Today

Fig. 2. Angujaartorfik in the 1800s. Water colour made by Aron. Original at the National Museum of Greenland.

Fig. 3. Activity in the camp at Angu-jaartorfik 2010.

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 153 14/08/14 09.44

154 landscapes - cosmos and perception ulla odgaard

aspects of former hunting strategies, including set-tlement and landscape organization.

There is a long tradition of caribou hunting in Angujaartorfik. From talking with modern hunters, whose families have been coming here for genera-tions, we learned that the tent houses are private in the sense that only the people who built the house, and people to whom they have given permission, would use it. Furthermore, we were told that the right to go hunting in specific hunting grounds is connected to the use of the specific tent-houses (Odgaard 2009).

This was surprising, since in Greenland there is no ownership of land and, according to modern law, everybody can hunt where they wish. However, according to Petersen (1963), there was earlier a contradictory – and probably ancient – principle of family privilege. Ownership of things not strict-ly personal was a prior right, conditioned by use. Within this old system, you could not inherit the rights to a hunting ground, but you could “earn” it by participation (ibid).

and they exhibit great variation in size and shape. Some are small (less than 2 x 2 m) and have a rounded outline, while others are bigger (up to 4 x 4 m) and some have a square form. Inside the tent house, there is usually only one room with a low “sleeping platform” at the rear end, and usually an indoor or outdoor niche for the fireplace too (fig. 4). The basic question is whether these houses were all in use at the same time – for example by people from different places, with different tent traditions – or whether the different houses were used in dif-ferent ages. Or in other words: were there many people using the same site at the same time, explor-ing the same hunting grounds, or were there only a few?

So far, only a few 14C datings from the houses exist and questions about the age and duration of use can only be answered through extensive ar-chaeological excavations. However, the ethno-ar-chaeological and anthropological studies in a camp of modern hunters at Angujaartorfik at the fjord Kangerlussuaq have been crucial for understanding

Fig. 4. Ancient tent house base.

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 154 14/08/14 09.44

155clash of concepts – hunting rights and ethics in greenlandic caribou hunting

future territory for caribou hunting, and adding: “On no account must you hunt in an easterly di-rection, for that is where Serquilisaq has his camp. He killed your elder brother just when he was be-ginning to become a good hunter.” (Petersen 1963: 278).

As already mentioned, contemporary Green-landic hunting regulations are very inclusive and everybody can go hunting everywhere, except in protected areas. Today, other people who do not participate in the traditional caribou hunt also take a weekend off and go hunting for an animal or two for the freezer, and many are not even aware of the ancient prescriptive rights held by the “old fami-lies”. It seems like an obvious setup for territorial disputes. But despite the fact that today hunters of both “views” go hunting in the same areas, and it is becoming even more difficult to find the animals, it does not seem to create conflicts. When we asked one of the hunters with prior rights whether it was annoying that others went hunting in his territory, he answered, “Yes - but there must be room for all of us”.

On the other hand, there is a dispute going on over the use of the landscape. Surprisingly, those who today are blamed for making it more difficult to find the caribou are the (rather few) tourists who go hiking in the area and are said to scare away the animals – as does the helicopter traffic, mostly due to mining companies. But why isn’t the obvious ex-planation – at least to us – that the many new hunt-

We found that this system of managing the ac-cess to resources is still in use in Angujaartorfik. The younger generation has to participate in the hunt, and when they grow up and create their own house-hold, they will build their own tent house. The low walls of the tent houses are permanent construc-tions, which do not disappear as easily as, for ex-ample, a tent ring of only loose rocks, and today in Angujaartorfik, they serve as a kind of territo-rial marker of the camp and the hunting grounds (fig. 5). The notion of the tent house as territorial marker, in combination with our registrations of the ancient settlements, provided a tool for under-standing how the territorial organisation was also practised in prehistory. At the ancient camp sites, with tent houses of several different types, it became evident that typologically they can often be paired. This pattern, in combination with inspiration from the studies in the camp of modern caribou hunters, suggests that usually only one family of two gen-erations/households was living in each camp. Fur-thermore, the pattern reflects a territorial system, in which groups of people held rights to hunting grounds (Odgaard 2009).

According to Petersen (1963), the ancient leg-ends are mostly concerned with the right of every-one to hunt where they wish and never explicitly mention the prior right or “hereditary” right to hunting territories, but there is one example of the clash between the two principles. In one legend, we hear of an elderly man showing his younger son his

Fig. 5. Modern tent house in Angujaartorfik.

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 155 14/08/14 09.44

156 landscapes - cosmos and perception ulla odgaard

mit, welches letztere für sie der Hauptsache und ein Artikel des Luxus für die Weiber ist.” [“Commonly, from every animal they take the heart, the breast, the backbone, a leg, the fat, rarely the antlers, but principally the fur, which for them is the main thing and an item of luxury for women.”] And he contin-ues: “But now and again, the hunter only took the skin” (Birket-Smith 1924: 349).

We, however, got a totally different impression in the modern hunting camp in Angujaartorfik during fieldwork in 2003. Here, 73 year old Agnethe Ros-ing, who had been participating in caribou hunting in the inland since her youth, demonstrated the tra-ditional so-called “nothing is wasted” ideal (fig. 6) (Odgaard et al. 2005).

With “nothing is wasted”, Agnethe meant that everything from a hunted caribou is used: antler, fur, meat, fat, sinews, bone fat and bone marrow. At the end of the butchering process, she smashed the richly myelinated bones, which were cooked in a pan to get at the marrow and the bone fat.

This practice leaves only clean, splintered bones, and traces of the same pattern of caribou bone treat-ment have also been observed in many archaeo-logical sites in the area of Angujaartorfiup Nunaa, where archaeological surveys were carried out. Cari-bou bones were scattered on the surface at numer-ous sites. Some of these surface bones and those from a few test-excavations were analysed. Most of the bones had been smashed into small pieces and had obviously been cooked afterwards, as Agnethe did in 2003. The same bone treatment has been ob-served in many other archaeological sites in Green-land, too. Hence it seems as if the ideal of “noth-ing is wasted” was shared by the prehistoric hunters (Pasda & Odgaard 2011).

However, there are also old sites with bones which do not correspond to this pattern. One ex-ample is the base camp L14, on the southern side of the high plain about 75 km away from Kangerlus-suaq (see fig. 1). At the site, which consisted of eight dwelling structures of different types and apparent-ly from different ages, a row of test pits was dug in an area of lush green. The excavation revealed thick

ers are disturbing the animals and reducing their numbers?

Hunting ethics. Another apparent contradiction is about hunting ethics. Greenlandic hunters have often been accused of their hunting not being sus-tainable (e.g. Hjarsen in Information 2011). In his book “A Farewell to Greenland’s Wildlife”, Hansen (2002) describes how intensive hunting has deci-mated the numbers of animals and birds and how great quantities of meat (57% of the catch) are be-ing wasted. Kjeld Hansen, a Danish journalist and author specialising in environmental and consumer issues, is not the first person to criticize the Green-landic hunters. In the 1920s, the ethnographer Kai Birket-Smith wrote, “When deer hunting, the West Greenlanders formerly showed the greatest lack of temperance, and in some places conditions may not, even now, be very much improved.” He further refers to Giesecke who 100 years earlier wrote: “Ge-meinlich nehmen sie von jedem Thiere das Herz, das Bruststück, den Rückgrad, einen Schenkel, das Talg, selten die Geweihe, hauptsächlich aber das Fell

Fig. 6. Agnethe Rosing cutting meat (photo: Agnete Lembo).

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 156 14/08/14 09.44

157clash of concepts – hunting rights and ethics in greenlandic caribou hunting

of “nothing is wasted” is strongly cherished. Again and again it was explicitly expressed to us as a hunt-ing ethic by many people – both young and older hunters, who also said that you should “only shoot to eat”.

A contrast to this view is contemporary trophy hunting, which also takes place in the area of An-gujaartorfiup Nunaa, where some local hunters and outfitters make a living out of taking tourists on hunting trips. The easily-hunted musk ox is an especially popular trophy – the head, that is – but trophy hunting of caribous is also carried out. Only a part of the catch is desired, so the remains of the heavy animals are sometimes left on the site where they were killed. When other hunters discover that the main parts of dead animals are left in the landscape, it arouses great disgust and anger (e.g. Siegstad 2011 in AG/Sermitsiaq nr. 31, 2 august 2011). Following the Greenlandic regulations for trophy hunting, the outfitter or the local hunting organizer must ensure that the meat and skins from slaughtered animals are taken home or disposed of properly. It is, however, not specified what “prop-erly” means.

But what about the ideal – the ethics? Did the people of the Thule culture at first share Agnethe’s

layers of mainly caribou bones. In contrast to results from test excavations and surface analyses from oth-er camps in the area, the bones at the site L14 were mostly complete. Not only were the bones whole, but complete spinal columns and entire legs in ana-tomical order were also found (fig. 7). This means that a lot must have been wasted. A glass bead in the top layer of the midden could be dated to af-ter 1730 AD (Gulløv 1997). Apparently the use of the midden and the site stopped shortly after this period. We interpret the many bones in articulat-ed order as the remnants of hunting primarily for skin (Pasda & Odgaard 2011). In the 17th century, trading possibilities started with European whalers and, at the beginning of the 18th century, with the Danish trade stations (Gulløv 1997, 2004). Cari-bou skins could be traded for foreign articles (Gad 1969), but perhaps became most important in the accelerated internal exchange of raw materials and finished commodities. For example, the price for a small soapstone kettle was 8 to 10 caribou skins and for a lamp, 2, 3 or 4 baleen plates or just as many caribou skins (Egede 1925 (1741)), as described by Grønnow et al. (1983: 86-87).

Although today few hunters actually use every part of the animal, as shown by Agnethe, the ideal

Fig. 7. Bones from the midden at site L14.

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 157 17/09/14 10.36

158 landscapes - cosmos and perception ulla odgaard

tions, though not necessarily just on the “parent” relation (ibid).

Barnard has built on this and other arguments and created a simple model which divides all soci-eties into either “foragers” or “non-foragers” (Bar-nard 2002). According to him, hunter-gatherers are people who see themselves as hunters or gather-ers. Foragers, however, belong to a wider category which includes recent former foragers. These are populations whose older representatives remember the foraging lifestyle or populations which retain values associated with foraging culture. His defi-nition of “foragers” is wide and loose. He includes not only “pure” hunter-gatherers, but also people who procure their subsistence by petty-theft, forag-ing in dustbins, and taking short-term employment with the intention of leaving it once the first pay-ment is made. But his specific concern is with those who still hunt and gather or who identify with a hunting-and-gathering lifestyle practised by their immediate antecedents. Barnard finds that foraging populations are more resilient than was previously acknowledged, and that mode of thought is more resilient than mode of production generally, and the two are interdependent (ibid. p. 6).

Non-foraging peoples in the modern world will tend to see land in terms of sovereignty: associated with alienable (transferable) wealth and with po-litical authority. They see people as citizens and the state as a sacred trust. Foragers and recent former foragers, however, see their lands as associated with inalienable (non-transferable) rights and primordial (original) possession. They see people as free indi-

ethics of “nothing is wasted” and did they change this view, when they needed fur for trading?

And what about the modern caribou hunters who follow the ethics of “nothing is wasted” and the accusations of Greenlandic hunters’ overhunt-ing and waste of meat?

the forager’s mode of thought – a modelAs a way of looking at these contradictions from a wider perspective, I find that Barnard’s model, in his article “The forager’s mode of thought” (Barnard 2002), is useful. It has provided a way of discussing and perhaps even of getting closer to a deeper un-derstanding of the dilemmas around Greenlandic hunting.

Barnard’s model is built on a long debate within anthropology on the relationship between hunter-gatherers and land and resources. One of the most important contributions to this debate is “The Giving Environment” (Bird-David 1990), in which the author describes how hunter-gatherers in South India conceive of their environment as parental. The environment provides food uncon-ditionally for its children – the hunter-gatherers. There is a strong ethic of sharing, and their daily interactions concerning food are like those be-tween siblings, conducted in the idiom of “giving” and “requests to be given”. Bird-David further hy-pothesized that hunter-gatherers elsewhere share the same characteristic that their community’s views of the environment are centred around met-aphors that commonly draw on primary kin rela-

Foragers and recent former foragers Non-foragers

Land Associated with Associated with inalienable rights transferable wealth

Power through knowledge Power through ownership

People People as free individuals People as citizens

State as constraining State as sacred trust authority

Universal kinship Non-universal kinship (distinction)

Economy Sharing Accumulation

(According to Barnard 2002)

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 158 14/08/14 09.44

159clash of concepts – hunting rights and ethics in greenlandic caribou hunting

and much of the food is bought in stores. However, the older representatives remember the foraging lifestyle, and the whole identity of Greenlandic so-ciety is very much defined by the foraging culture.

hunting rightsAccording to Barnard’s model, foragers see land as associated with inalienable rights. This is consistent with modern Greenlandic law, according to which private ownership of land and resources is not re-cognized. It also fits with the primary concern in the historical sources of the right to hunt where one wishes (Petersen 1963).

On the other hand, as we experienced in An-gujaartorfik, there are prescriptive rights to certain hunting territories which have a background in his-tory (Petersen 1963; Brøsted 1986) and has been suggested to go back in prehistory (Odgaard 2009). The same is the case for the traditional Inuit sys-tem of land use in the North American Arctic. In Canada, the territorial claim was expressed through oral histories of the area as well as recent use. Per-mission was sought in using the territory of another group of people. Thus, although boundaries were fluid, group claims to territories were recognized (Schmidt & Dowsley 2010). In Alaska in the early 19th century, there was a highly complex situation where intrusion into another group’s territory could sometimes mean death (Burch 2005).

Therefore, although there is and was no owner-ship of land, hunting was not totally free. Rather, it was based on rules that administered the access to game. One of the modern hunters told us that in “the old days”, when hunting in the inland, families/hunting groups could go visiting in an-other camp. On their way, they would be polite and not hunt in the other’s hunting grounds, but after staying for at least one night, they could par-ticipate in hunting in the area. We have learned from Barnard that foragers value sharing and they see individuals with whom they associate as kins-men. The stay in the camp can probably be seen as a confirmation of the kinship which gave admit-tance for hunting in each other’s territory.

Although many non-foragers share more widely with individuals than do people in long-standing capitalist cultures, sharing among foragers is of

viduals and the state as a constraining authority. This doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with colonialism, for in the eyes of hunter-gatherers and other small-scale societies, colonial authority and nation-state authority come to the same thing. They are both perceived as external to the people.

Foraging societies and some other small-scale so-cieties differ from all others in one crucial respect: the range of kinship classification. Foragers have what Barnard calls ‘universal’ systems of kin clas-sification. This means that they do not distinguish between kin and non-kin; everyone with whom an individual associates, at least on a regular basis, is classified as some kind of ‘kinsman’.

Most hunter-gatherers have immediate-return economies. They take their food from the wild and generally use it immediately, without storing it. They do, of course, accumulate and store – but the point is that they value sharing over accumulation. They value sharing not just in the sense of a belief that those who share are good people, but also in the sense that failing to share is an act of bad faith. It is anti-social. Sociality depends on sharing, and is offended by accumulation.

On the other hand, accumulators/non-foragers believe that accumulation is social. They believe that immediate consumption is anti-social – they believe in saving (Barnard 2002).

discussionTwo questions will be discussed in the following.

1. Hunting Rights: Since many newcomers have started going hunting in the areas where others have ancient prescriptive rights, why has this not caused territorial conflicts among the modern caribou hunters in Angujaartorfik?

2. Hunting Ethics: Why do some hunters stress that “nothing is wasted” while others waste lots of meat? And did the same paradox exist in the past?

These contradictions about hunting rights and ethics in Greenland will be discussed on the ba-sis of Barnard’s model of “The foragers’ mode of thought”.

The Greenlandic caribou hunters – both now and earlier – must belong to the “foragers”. Earlier the economy was fully based on hunting and fish-ing, but today many have other jobs to earn money

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 159 14/08/14 09.44

160 landscapes - cosmos and perception ulla odgaard

hikers – the tourists – although to the best of our knowledge, the (rather few) hikers don’t scare the animals. But they are not using the landscape in the same way as the hunters, and this is possibly the reason why they are seen as disturbing “intruders”. The other “intruders”, the helicopters, might actu-ally scare away animals in some areas.

hunting ethicsIs Kjeld Hansen right about Greenlandic hunt-ers’ overhunting and waste of meat? Why do some hunters today stress that “nothing is wasted”, while others waste lots of meat? And did the same para-dox exist in the past?

The modern caribou hunters in Angujaartorfik don’t waste any meat, and they express anger to-wards trophy hunters. Not towards all trophy hunters – there are “good” and “bad” trophy hunt-ers. The good ones take all the meat to the butcher, while the bad ones leave the carcasses. The caribou hunters are angry because of the waste of meat, but also because the carcasses are seen as waste that pollutes if left close to a camp.

A lot of care is taken in the camp to keep the site clean of waste. Based on registrations at modern sites and on interviews with the hunters, we know that today the bones are occasionally smashed, but not into such small pieces as in the past, and as done by Agnethe. As a rule, only the marrow cavity is opened to get hold of the marrow but most bones are not usually cooked anymore. The modern treat-ment of the catch reflects a butchering system that leaves a lot of smelly bone refuse. However, around the modern tent houses in the area of Angujaar-torfiup Nunaa, which are still in use, no bones were visible on the surface. Today, the bones are thrown away at specific waste places near the settlements, into the water or onto the riverbank, with the in-tention that the tide water will take the bones away. In Angujaartorfik, the bones are often sailed out in a boat and thrown away far from the settlement into the fjord. This is done because the animal waste will attract flies that can ruin the dried meat (Pasda & Odgaard 2011).

Some modern hunters gave another explanation for taking care of the waste. They said that the liv-ing caribou could smell the remains and would not

quite a different magnitude. Foragers frequently share with everyone (e.g. all those involved in a hunt), not just with their near kin or their chosen charity (Barnard 2002).

Sharing is a very strong cultural symbol. From his work in an Inuit society in Alaska, Kishigami (2013) has pointed out, in relation to beluga whale hunting, that aspects of sharing are of the greatest importance. The meat is always shared, and both the hunting and the meat have become symbols of Inuit identity, while today the economic aspect is not vital (ibid p.81).

Formerly, sharing of caribou meat was com-monly practised in Greenland. In an interview from 1975, someone said: “We used to share the caribou meat among the group. We used to share the front legs; we gave the back legs and most of the meat to other hunters. They helped each other. They re-spected each other. But today they usually argue about it. Earlier, there was respect and today there is a fight.” (From interview made by H.C. Petersen 1975). Although this sounds like a disapproval of the contemporary ways in contrast to earlier, the caribou hunters we talked to in Angujaartorfik do practise sharing.

Sharing can be practised as giving, exchange and redistribution, and depending on whether these are based on rules, voluntary sharing or demand-sharing, nine different types of food-sharing can be distinguished (Kishigami 2004). In Angujaartorfik, a hunter will share the meat with other participating hunters and sometimes parts of this meat will be redistributed to others who are not present at the hunt. It seems to be entirely “voluntary sharing” although there might exist an old rule that people who go hunting together also share the catch.

This modern practice is consistent with Bar-nard’s argument that the ideology of sharing persists among part-time and former foragers. The persisting ideas of sharing and kinship could also explain – as in the example of Angujaartorfik, even though pre-scriptive rights to camp sites and hunting grounds are also reaffirmed today – why the main ideology of sharing is so basic to the hunters and Greenlandic society that new and foreign (Danish) hunters are generally also accepted within “society”.

Those who are not accepted as kinsmen are the

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 160 14/08/14 09.44

161clash of concepts – hunting rights and ethics in greenlandic caribou hunting

ant of bone deposition found at some of the settle-ments is deposition in natural cavities under large rocks (fig. 9).

We supposed that, logically, caches built of rocks were used for storing the dried meat, to protect it from foxes until the end of the season. The only possible preservation technique when staying in the inland is to dry the meat. During this process, as demonstrated by Agnethe, all the bones – except for the ribs – must be separated from the meat. There-fore, if the caches were only for storing meat until the end of the season – even if some of the meat was not used or brought out to the coast – the caches would logically be empty, except perhaps for some rib-bones. However, there are many other bones in the caches, and some are full of bones. What is the explanation for this treatment of the bones?

None of the modern hunters knew about the meaning of the caches with bones in the inland. They do build caches when hunting to store a killed animal for a short time while searching for more

show up unless they got rid of it by either putting it in water or “under rocks”.

cachesAt some of the prehistoric sites in the inland, we have observed a pattern of depositing caribou bones “under rocks”. Since bones are also found on the surface – some as old as 3000 years, i.e. from the preceding Paleo-Eskimo period – this pattern is not caused by differing preservation conditions. In one instance in a camp, there was a cache (fig. 8) which we at first mistook for a child’s grave, located on a small knoll close to another small hilltop with a hu-man grave on top. The grave is so well built it is not possible to peek into it, but the cache has narrow openings between the rocks, which made it possible to discern that inside there were bones of caribou. Similar caches with bones have been found, both some which are “closed” by rocks like this one, but also many which are open at the top. Another vari-

Fig. 8. Cache containing caribou bones.

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 161 14/08/14 09.44

162 landscapes - cosmos and perception ulla odgaard

of game animals remained constant if the old rules were observed (Bak 1982). The traditional religious ideas of the historical Greenland Inuit are to a great extent identical to the ideas of the historical Inuit groups in North America, as known from the myths and other information collected during the 18th to 20th centuries. The myths are recorded in several var-iations but with strong common features (see Sonne 2004). Among Inuit in Alaska (and among other cir-cumpolar people (cf. Brandstrup 1985)), the game animals were seen as guests, but failure to host ani-mals properly invited disaster. If people treated an animal’s body thoughtlessly, or carelessly wasted or trampled on food, the animals would not return in the future. But the animals would reward a hunter if he took proper care of the bones of his catch. Al-though these rules are no longer followed, elders in the 1980s vividly recalled these practices as well as their significance (Fienup-Riordan 1994).

Against this background, the bone-filled caches

animals. But on the way back to the camp, they will take the animal with them and nothing will be left inside.

From an older questionnaire (Nationalmuseet 1948), we can read that, earlier, the bones of cari-bou were kept separate and isolated from the bones of other animals. Furthermore, the bones were thrown into crevices which could not be entered from below (ibid.).

The explanation for this bone treatment should probably be sought in ideology and ethics. Tradi-tionally, hunting by Inuit was connected to strict rules. The rules were principally concerned with fasting and abstinence, but also included certain regulations as to clothing, outdoor life and daily occupations in general (Rink 1974). Animals were seen as equal to human beings and, in relation to hunting, many ideas and customs, such as bringing gifts to the dead animal and treating it with respect, were known. The general idea was that the number

Fig. 9. Bones deposited in natural cavity under rock.

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 162 14/08/14 09.44

163clash of concepts – hunting rights and ethics in greenlandic caribou hunting

perspective, also advocated by Western wildlife protection. Scientific conservation is firmly rooted in the doctrine that the world of nature is separate from, and subordinate to, the world of humanity (Ingold 2000: 67).

The conservation view, however, is opposed to the forager perspective of “the giving environment”. The giving environment perspective implies a trust that needs will be provided for. Recurring ups and downs in the provision are expected, and in some situations it is necessary to invest care, respect and ritual attention to keep the relationship close and binding. They therefore feel free to use whatever resources are afforded by the natural environment (Bird-David 1990: 39).

However, hunter-gatherers do not see animals as a passive resource, but rather as active participants in hunting (Schmidt & Dowsley 2010). The hunt is a social relationship and the animals are sentient be-ings who can freely decide to give themselves to the hunters (Fienup-Riordan 1994; Nadasdy 2007).

middensA lot of meat was wasted in the L14 midden from the 1600s-1700s, and we interpret this situation as a need for skin for trading (Odgaard 2007b; Pasda & Odgaard 2011). A parallel situation is known from a camp at Aassivissuit, north of Kangerlus-suaq, where a large midden has been found. This midden has layers from 1200 to 1950, but only the layer dated to 1650-1750 (which is also the thick-est layer) contains bones in anatomical order and bones which are less fragmented than in both the earlier and the later periods. This pattern is inter-preted as a relatively extensive exploitation of the carcasses and as a situation of abundance (Grøn-now et al. 1983: 73). At this time, there was a caribou maximum, followed by a marked decline in the 1750s (ibid. p. 83). However, the midden layer from the previous period showed a more in-tensive exploitation, although it was also built up during the caribou maxima (ibid. p. 73). Conse-quently, abundance does not necessarily cause a change in the exploitation. In the discussed layers at both Aasivissuit and in Angujaartorfiup Nunaa, arrow heads have been found, but no traces of flint guns. So it was not modern hunting implements

and crevices at the prehistoric sites can be interpret-ed as signs of the earlier hunters’ conscious care for the remains of the butchered animals.

The modern hunters’ cleaning up and aversion against the wasting of meat by the trophy hunt-ers possibly also have roots in the traditional ideas about paying respect to the animals. During our in-terviews with hunters, some said that it is necessary to treat the animals with care and, for example, be gentle when cutting the joints.

It still remains to be explained why there is a bone pattern at most of the old sites reflecting “nothing is wasted” ethics, whereas at a few sites, there are middens with thick layers of bone in artic-ulated order from the 1600s-1700s. Did the people of the Thule culture share the ethics of “nothing is wasted” and did they change this view, when they needed caribou skin for trading?

It also remains to be understood why modern Greenlandic hunters are accused of overhunting and wasting meat.

Hunting in Greenland is regulated by a quota system, where each hunter is assigned a number of animals. When Kjeld Hansen made investigations in Greenland, the number of caribous was so low that very few animals could be caught. However, since 2002, the hunt has been practically open in Angujaartorfiup Nunaa, because the number of ani-mals rose.

Greenland today has self-government but it was a Danish colony until 1953, from when it became a Danish county until 1979. The communal institu-tions in Greenland are inspired by – often copied from – the Danish institutions. Environmental is-sues such as hunting regulations are also based on a Western concept, although it differs in the aspect of ownership of land. According to the homepage of the Naalakkersuisut – self-government – of Green-land, their hunting policy has as its “main objective to ensure appropriate and biologically sound use of hunting resources (primarily mammals and birds). The emphasis is on conservation and reproduction of the resources, and the rationally and seasonally best use.”

This formulation is in accordance with the Dan-ish (Western) view on management of game popu-lations and on sustainable hunting. It is based on a so-called “scientific” environmental conservation

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 163 14/08/14 09.44

164 landscapes - cosmos and perception ulla odgaard

the remains in the middens being placed – or sit-ed – there. Practical explanations for collecting the bones, instead of leaving them here and there, could be for aesthetical reasons – i.e. to keep the rest of the camp clean. But it would not keep flies away, which is the reason for dumping the bones in the fjord at the modern camp in Angujaartorfik.

Logically, the middens must represent some kind of “care” for the animals, and they were prob-ably perceived as a kind of “graveyard”. However, this aspect still remains to be investigated further. None of the middens mentioned have been fully excavated. In the Aasivissuit midden, a trench has been made, and at L14, nine test pits were dug. It does not give the full picture of the layout and con-tents of these middens. With the idea of the animals as guests in mind, items such as hunting tools and glass beads found in the middens might be inter-preted as gifts to the animals, in the same way as knives, harpoon heads and other implements – and, after contact time, glass beads – were given as gifts to hunted bears (Kleivan & Sonne 1985: 21).

modern hunting – a question of balanceAlthough our questions to the caribou hunters were about the practices of hunting, their answers often expressed care and respect for the animals. Nuttall – who did research in a North Western Greenlan-dic hunting and fishing society – also found that, in Greenland, successful hunting still depends on right action and respect for animals. “While there may not be colourful and observable rituals to ensure success in hunting, recognition that seals must come to the hunter is implicit in pragmatic behaviour and un-spoken attitudes that imply respect and dependence” (Nuttall 1992: 137 f ).

Therefore, as seen from an outsider’s viewpoint, the Greenlandic hunters seem to be performing the difficult task of balancing between two clashing concepts. The Greenlandic hunting culture is root-ed in the forager/giving environment concept. Ac-cording to this concept, human beings do not hold power over nature and animals – human beings are themselves part of nature and their relationship with animals is social and reciprocal. The Greenlandic hunting policy and Danish critics on the other hand

that caused the change. There was, however, a huge change in Greenlandic society.

Due to contact with European whale hunters in the 17th century and Danish trade stations at the beginning of the 18th century, and also to trade within Inuit society, the pattern of travel and social organization on the coast changed. The settlement structures altered from small family houses to large communal houses in the 18th century when large groups of people went on communal hunting and trading expeditions (cf. Gulløv 1997, 2004; Jensen 2009: 235). Perhaps this was also the background for a change in hunting technique to drive-hunting, which requires more people than stalking. One of the products that were sought after in trading was caribou skin, which could be traded for foreign ar-ticles (Gad 1969) but was perhaps most important in the accelerated internal exchange of raw materials and finished commodities (Grønnow 2009; Grøn-now et al. 1983: 86-87).

The bones from these midden layers probably reflect the fact that the skins had become a trade item and that the hunters had changed their strate-gy drastically. But did they also change their ethics? As already mentioned, trust in “the giving environ-ment” ensures that needs will be provided for. To be able to take part in trading, the hunters needed more caribou skin than earlier, and therefore needed to kill more animals than they were able to procure the meat from.

This strategy must have presented some kind of concern, since the animals or the animal master would get angry if such an excessive number of ani-mals were killed that their leftovers had to be con-sumed by foxes and ravens (Kleivan & Sonne 1985: 19). And the West Greenlanders believed that a hunter who killed too many caribou calves ran a risk of his own children dying (ibid. p. 19f ). At the middens, some of the meat is obviously wasted, but it is a common human characteristic to be careful and take more (often ritual) precautions when re-sources are scarce, while on the other hand being more relaxed in times of plenty.

In any case, there must have been attention towards the remains of the animals, because they represented the animals’ regeneration. Compared to the modern trophy hunters who leave carcasses in the open, there is an obvious difference with

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 164 14/08/14 09.44

165clash of concepts – hunting rights and ethics in greenlandic caribou hunting

see people as free individuals and the state as a con-straining authority. Like the Inuit hunters, they too have to relate to two clashing concepts.

But who is right? Is one of these views more ap-plicable and ethical than the other? When discussing hunting ethics, I would agree with Nadasdy (2007) that we should at least keep an open mind about the role of animals in the ongoing human-animal re-lationship of hunting, and we should be willing to consider the possibility that northern hunters’ theo-ries about human-animal relations might be of prac-tical (as well as symbolic and metaphorical) signifi-cance. “Much of the time, there is, in fact, no basis on which to evaluate the relative merits of indigenous versus Euro-American theories about animals; each seems to have about the same degree of explanatory power.” (ibid. p. 35)

conclusionThe “foragers’ mode of thought” model is useful for discussing the apparent contradictions and dilem-mas of hunting rights and ethics in Greenland’s past and present. This model is particularly useful be-cause it doesn’t only describe “the indigenous oth-ers”. On the contrary, it also outlines central con-cepts about land and resources which have created the western world view and which are in opposition to a forager perspective. The two modes of thought – forager and non-forager – denote “societies” and not “nations”, and it can be used for understand-ing complex societies like Greenland, where both “modes of thought” influence peoples’ lives. But “societies” of both observances can also be found in Denmark and other Western countries.

The concept of sharing and universal kinship inherent in the foragers’ mode of thought can ex-plain why it does not cause territorial problems in Angujaartorfik when newcomers go hunting in ar-eas where others hold traditional prescriptive rights. Other hunters are seen as kin and “allowed” to go hunting in the hunting territories, and they are not blamed for the situation that the animals are more difficult to find. The blame is put on hiking tourists, who are said to “scare away the animals”, and who are obviously not seen as “kin”.

In the past, hunting ethics were characterized by the foragers’ concept of “the giving environment”

are based on the non-forager/“scientific” conserva-tion and management concept. This perspective sees humans as dominant and animals as a resource, and they talk about “sustainable” hunting. As an exam-ple, when Kjeld Hansen and others have criticized how mass killings have caused a massive decline in numbers of all seabirds (except geese) in Greenland (Hansen 2002), the concern is not about missing re-spect for the animals, but about mismanagement of a resource, because the authorities don’t react against the shooting. In Denmark, sport hunters also carry out mass killings of seabirds (coots) every year at dif-ferent fjords, resulting in many wounded and “wast-ed” birds. Because these birds are so numerous and the species is not “threatened”, the hunting regula-tions allow this, although some people – especially wildlife organisations – are appalled (e.g. Frimann in Ekstrabladet 16 October 2013). Western hunt-ing and wildlife organisations are on either side of the non-forager view. Hunters are concerned with “management”, while wildlife organisations focus on “conservation”. They share the same “mode of thought” but have different interests.

In Greenland, the Naalakkersuisut (government of Greenland), based on recommendations from biologists at the University of Greenland, decided that, because the number of guillemots in the Disko Bay area has been reduced by 90% during the last 50 years, hunting is not allowed any more during spring and breeding season. Now hunters, and also some politicians, want to expand the hunt again. They are questioning the insight of biologists and defend the view that the local hunters have the best knowledge (Kleemann in AG, October 23. 2013, nr. 43).

The discussion here is not about differences be-tween Greenlanders and Danes. As pointed out by Barnard, the foraging mode of thought transcends the boundary between foragers per se and members of other kinds of society. It includes all people who live on a foraging basis, such as foraging in dustbins and short-term employment (Barnard 2002: 6). It is, in other words, not restricted to “traditional” hunting cultures, but can probably also character-ize, for example, the fishermen in Western cultures, who often dispute with biologists and wild life en-vironmentalists about the rights to fish and hunt whales. As foragers they, following Barnard’s model,

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 165 14/08/14 09.44

166 landscapes - cosmos and perception ulla odgaard

Brøsted, J. 1986. Territorial Rights in Greenland: Some pre-liminary notes. Arctic Anthropology 23(1-2): 325-338.

Burch Jr., E. S. 2005. Alliance and conflict: the world system of the inupiaq Eskimos. University of Calgary Press.

Egede, H. 1925. Relationer fra Grønland 1721-36 (1737) & Det gamle Grønlands ny Perlustration (1741). Bobé, L. (ed.). Meddelelser om Grønland 54: 1-304 & 305-404.

Fienup-Riordan, A. 1994. Boundaries and Passages. Rule and Ritual in Yup’ik Eskimo Oral Tradition. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press.

Frimann, N. H. 2013. 727 nedlagt: Blodbad på blishøns - Forbandet svineri, mener formand for Dansk Ornitologisk Forening. Ekstrabladet d. 16. oktober 2013. http://ekstrab-ladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/article2124297.ece

Gad, F. 1969. Grønlands Historie, II, 1700-1782. Arnold Busck, Copenhagen.

Grønnow, B. 1986. Archaeological investigations of West Greenland caribou hunting. Arctic Anthropology 23(1-2): 57-80.

Grønnow, B. 2009. Caribou hunting structures and hunting grounds of the Thule culture in Angujaartorfiup Nunaa, West Greenland. In Grønnow, B. (ed.), On the Track of the Thule Culture from Bering Strait to East Greenland, pp. 201-210. Publications from the National Museum, Stu dies in Archaeology and History Vol. 15. National Museum, Co-penhagen.

Grønnow, B., Meldgaard, M. & Nielsen, J. B. 1983. Aasivis-suit: The Great Summer Camp. Archaeological, Ethnographi-cal and Zooarchaeological Studies of a Caribou-Hunting Site in West Greenland. Meddelelser om Grønland, Man & So-ciety 5.

Gulløv, H. C. 1997. From Middle Ages to Colonial Times. Ar-chaeological and ethnohistorical studies of the Thule culture in South West Greenland 1300-1800 AD. Meddelelser om Grønland, Man & Society 23.

Gulløv, H. C. 2004. Nunarput, Vort Land – Thulekulturen 1200-1900 e.v.t. In Gulløv, H. C. (ed.), Grønlands for-historie, pp. 281-343. Gyldendal, Copenhagen.

Hansen, K. 2002. A Farewell to Greenland’s Wildlife. G. E. C. Gad, Copenhagen.

Hjarsen, T. 2011. Grønland jager ubæredygtigt. Information 19. januar 2011. http://www.information.dk/256803

Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment. Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge, London.

Jensen, E. L. 2009. Stories of the past: collective memory and historical consciousness in the Cape Farwell district. In Grønnow, B. (ed.), On the Track of the Thule Culture from Bering Strait to East Greenland, pp. 235-244. Publications from the National Museum, Studies in Archaeology and History Vol. 15. National Museum, Copenhagen.

Kishigami, N. 2004. A new typology of food-sharing practices

and the human-animal relationship as reciprocal and without human dominion. Although one way of paying respect to the animals is that “nothing is wasted”, excessive hunting, where a lot was wasted, was also carried out in the 1600-1700s. Although there was a need for skin for trading, the heaps of body parts of butchered animals, still with meat on, must have represented a dilemma for the hunters. To investigate this aspect further, new archaeologi-cal investigations with a focus on the layout and or-ganization of middens are essential.

With regard to the hunting ethics of today, it is a true dilemma that modern Greenlandic hunters must relate to two clashing concepts: the foragers’/“giving environment” concept of the Inuit hunting culture and the non-foragers’/“scientific environmental con-servation and management” concept of nature. This divide is, however, not dependent on ethnicity but on the foraging or non-foraging way of life, and it must present a challenge both for hunters and the authorities in a society like Greenland where both views are so strongly present. However, although the Greenlandic hunters will probably not reach agree-ment with Kjeld Hansen and the wildlife organiza-tions, they can easily relate to the whalers and fisher-men in other Northern countries.

acknowledgementsCarlsbergfondet, 15. Juni Fonden, KVUG, Styrel-sen for Forskning og Innovation, Naalakkersuisoq, Government of Greenland.

referencesBak, O. 1982. Eskimoisk virkelighed. Gyldendal, Copenhagen.

Barnard, A. 2002. The Foraging Mode of Thought. In Stew-ard, H., Barnard, A. & Omura K. (eds.), Self and Other-Images of Hunter-Gatherers, pp. 1-24. Senri Ethnological Studies No. 60. Osaka.

Bird-David, N. 1990. The Giving Environment: Another Per-spective on the Economic System of Gatherer-Hunters. Current Anthropology 31(2): 189-196.

Birket-Smith, K. 1924. Ethnography of the Egedesminde Dis-trict. With aspects of the general culture of West Greenland. Meddelelser om Grønland 66: 1-486.

Brandstrup, L. 1985. Dyrenes liv og død: de eskimoiske og si-biriske jægere. Borgen, Copenhagen.

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 166 14/08/14 09.44

167clash of concepts – hunting rights and ethics in greenlandic caribou hunting

Culture from Bering Strait to East Greenland, pp. 185-199. Publications from the National Museum, Studies in Ar-chaeology and History Vol. 15. National Museum, Copen-hagen.

Odgaard, U., Knudsen, P., Petersen, H.C. & Lemcke, A. 2005. Bosættelsesmønstre i det centrale Vestgrønland. Rapport om undersøgelserne i Angujaartorfiup Nunaa, Maniitsoq Kommune, sommeren 2003. SILA – Feltrapport 20. Na-tionalmuseet København.

Pasda, K. & Odgaard, U. 2011. Nothing is Wasted – The ideal “Nothing is wasted” and its divergence in past and present among caribou hunters in Greenland. Quaternary Interna-tional 238(1-2): 35-43.

Petersen, H. C. 1975. Interview with hunters. Source at NKA, The National Museum of Greenland. Translated by Gustav Jakobsen and Kerstin Pasda.

Petersen, R. 1963. Family Ownership in West Greenland. Folk 5: 269-281.

Rink, H. J. 1974 (org. 1875). Tales and Traditions of the Es-kimo. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal.

Schmidt, J. J. & Dowsley, M. 2010. Hunting with polar bears: problems with the passive properties of the commons. Hu-man Ecology 38(3): 377-387.

Siegstad, L. 2011. Uacceptabel trofæjagt-ordning, Atuagagd-liutit/Grønlandsposten No. 31, 2. august 2011. http://ser-mitsiaq.ag/node/105263

Sonne, B. 2004. Sonnes Base 2004. Afdeling for Eskimologi og Arktiske Studier, Københavns Universitet. www.eskimo-logi.ku.dk/bibliotek/datasamlinger/sonnesbase

among hunter-gatherers, with a special focus on Inuit ex-amples. Journal of Anthropological Research 60: 341-358.

Kishigami, N. 2013. What Is a Subsistence Activity? With a Special Focus on Beluga Whale Hunt by Inuit in Arctic Canada. Journal of the Society of Liberal Arts 82: 79-90.

Kleemann, L. 2013. Udsigt til forlænget forårsjagt. Atuaga-gdliutit/Grønlandsposten No. 43, 24. oktober 2013, p. 16.

Kleivan, I. & Sonne, B. 1985. Eskimos: Greenland and Canada. Iconography of Religions, Section VIII, fascicle 2. Institute of Religious Iconography, University of Groningen.

Nadasdy, P. 2007. The gift in the animal: the ontology of hunting and human-animal sociality. American Ethnologist 34(1): 25-43.

Nationalmuseet 1948. Nationalmuseets Undersøgelse i Grøn-land. Renjagt. (Spørgeliste nr. 2, spørgsmål nr. 9. Lokalitet Niaqornat i Umanaq kommune, meddelerens navn: To-bias Kruse). Fr. Høegh, Narssame nakitigkat.

Nuttall, M. 1992: Arctic Homeland. Kinship, community and development in Northwest Greenland. University of Toronto Press, Tononto.

Odgaard, U. 2007a. On the trail of the Caribou hunters: ar-chaeological surveys in Western Greenland. In Cummings, V. & Johnston, R. (eds.), Prehistoric Journeys, pp. 21-32. Oxbow, Oxford.

Odgaard, U. 2007b. Historic and Prehistoric Caribou Hunt-ers in West Greenland. In Beyries, S. & Vaté, V. (eds.), Les civilisations du renne d’hier et d’aujourd’hui. Approches ethnohistoriques, archéologiques et anthropologiques, pp. 89-109. XXVIe Rencontres internationals d’Archéologie et d’Histoire d’Antibes.

Odgaard, U. 2009. Tent houses, Territories and Two Gen-erations. In Grønnow, B. (ed.), On the Track of the Thule

Nordlige verdener Ombr 25.6.indd 167 14/08/14 09.44