Yes and no.

Even in the US, commons-deeded land between multiple people is still a thing. Albeit one that lawyers hate to mess with because it's more work for them.

For purposes of this thread, exclusive control of an area, absent other claims, would certainly entitle indigenous American peoples to ownership of that land.

We even form corporations to try to deed land as a group. That's the entire purpose of an HOA -- to confer private ownership of community-owned land and equipment among the members of the community as their private land changes hands.

HOAs do not confer private ownership of land among members of a group.

They impose a mutually agreed upon set of rules on everyone who owns land that is covered by the HOA (with one of the rules preventing severance of the property from the HOA).

I'm pretty sure all of the common areas in HOAs that I used to live in were equally owned by all members.

I don’t think thats how my HOA works. I live in a high rise; I believe the HOA owns the common areas but grants exclusive use of certain parts to owners/tenants.

You don’t need a corporation to deed land to a group. Any group of persons can hold title to a property. My wife and I had to choose whether to buy our condo as joint tenants or as tenants in common.

Fine, but recall what started this discussion, this issue of land acknowledgements (which I agree are absolute peak stupidity which literally managed to piss off everyone on all sides - the right thought it was useless virtue signalling, and lots of actual indigenous people pretty much agreed, considering it a vacuous gesture). For all intents and purposes, native tribes owned that land before settlers kicked them off and said you couldn't live there anymore.

> transferable, heritable private

None of this is guaranteed by 'ownership'.