GILBERTSON: ESKIMO CULTURE 51 



In these words he well sums up the main features of the 

 economic system of the Eskimo. (43:108; cf. 53:9; 52:23.) 

 We have already discussed the various subdivisions of Eskimo 

 society. These are well worth bearing in mind in considering 

 the matter of property, as we find a perfect correlation between 

 the ownership of property and the individuals or groups who 

 make use of the things in question. Among the Eskimo there 

 is a complete application of the principle, which is the central 

 idea of modern socialism, what is individually used should be 

 individually owned, what is collectively used should be collec 

 tively owned. 



Strictly personal property is practically limited to the things 

 which the individual, man or woman, employs in his or her 

 particular work. According to Nansen, it is 



&quot;most fully recognized in the kayak, the kayak-dress, and the hunting 

 weapons, which belong to the hunter alone, and which no one must touch. 

 With them he supports himself and his family, and he must therefore 

 always be sure of finding them where he last laid them; it is seldom that 

 they are even lent to others.&quot; 



The woman likewise owns the necessary household articles, 

 besides her clothing and ornaments. (43: 108; cf. 42: 328.) 



The possession by an individual of more than a certain amount 

 of this kind of property is jealously restricted by public opinion. 

 These specifically personal articles were, to quote Rink, &quot;even 

 regarded as having a kind of supernatural relation to the owner, 

 reminding us of that between the body and the soul,&quot; But if 

 a man owned more suits than usual, &quot;public opinion would 

 compel him to allow others to make use of them. &quot; ( 53 : 30. ) 

 A few hunters have two kayaks; but if one happens to have 

 three, &quot;he would be obliged to lend one of them to some relative 

 or housemate, and sooner or later he would lose it.&quot; The 

 Eskimo attitude is strikingly shown in the rule that a borrowed 

 article, if lost or damaged, need not be compensated to the 

 owner, since the very fact that he could afford to lend it, proved 

 he did not need; hence it is &quot;not held with the same right of 

 possession as his more necessary belongings, but ranked among 

 those goods which were possessed in common with others.&quot; 

 ( 53 : 29, 30 ; cf . 45 : 294. ) Another interesting view is given us 

 by Boas; 



&quot;A person who has unwittingly damaged the property of another 

 regrets that he has been the cause of loss, particularly if the owner 



