European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2015, 1–27
New Users and Changing Traditions— (Re)Defining Sami Offering Sites
TIINA ÄIKÄS1 AND MARTE SPANGEN2 1Department of Archaeology, University of Oulu, Finland 2Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies, Stockholm University, Sweden
Sami are indigenous people of Northern Fennoscandia. Some Sami offering sites have been used for over a thousand years. During this time, the offering traditions have changed and various people have started using the places based on different motivations. Present day archaeological finds give evidence of both continuing traditions and new meanings attached to these sites, as well as to sites that were probably not originally used for rituals in the Sami ethnic religion. In some cases, the authenticity of the place seems to lie in the stories and current beliefs more than in a historical continuity or any specifically sacred aspects of the topography or nature it is situated in. Today’s new users include, for example, local (Sami) people, tourists, and neo-pagans. This paper discusses what informs these users, what identifies certain locations as offering sites, and what current users believe their relationship to these places should be. What roles do scholarly traditions, heritage tourism, and internal culture have in (re)defining Sami offering sites and similarly what roles do ‘appropriate’ rituals have in ascribing meaning to particular places? How do we mediate wishes for multivocality with our professional opinions when it comes to defining sacredness?
Keywords: Sami, offering site, multivocality, authenticity, site biographies
INTRODUCTION offering sites in Finland. Results from exca- vations on two sacred islands in 2006 and During the twentieth century, research on 2007 led to the launching of the project Sami offering sites, including any exca- ‘Human-Animal Relations among Fin- vations, was, to a large extent, performed land’sSami’, funded by the Academy of by ethnographers (e.g. Manker, 1957; Finland. During this project, excavations Itkonen, 1962; Vorren, 1985; Vorren & were conducted at eight Sami sacred sites Eriksen, 1993; though see Hallström, in different parts of Finnish Lapland. 1932; Erä-Esko, 1957). Despite some calls Recent archaeological studies in Norway for more archaeological research on such and Sweden have so far mainly been sites (Vorren, 1985: 81; Rydving & Kris- limited to surveys, inventories, and toffersen, 1993), only in recent years has delineations of Sami sacred sites and offer- there been a renewed interest in fieldwork ing sites for heritage management related to Sami offering sites among purposes (Myrvoll, 2008), and to relating archaeologists. Prior to 2006, only four known offering sites to other archaeologi- excavations had been carried out on Sami cal and topographical features in order to
© European Association of Archaeologists 2015 DOI 10.1179/1461957115Y.0000000009 Manuscript received 13 October 2014, accepted 1 April 2015, revised 5 March 2015 2 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2015 discuss past and present Sami landscape sites and emphasized the need for correct cognition and use (e.g. Hedman, 2003; categorization according to the available Sveen, 2003; Fossum, 2006). Apart from sources. He divides sites into: ‘sacrificial this, previously collected material has been sites’, which are here called ‘offering sites’, used to analyse Sami offering sites (e.g. and are delimited sites with remains of Mulk, 2005; Salmi et al., in prep.). In offerings or other substantiated indications 2013, two limited excavations were per- of an offering practice; ‘cult sites’, which formed in structures called ‘Sami circular include sites that are documented to have offering sites’ in northern Norway been the scene of cult acts such as offer- (Spangen, in prep. a, in prep. b). ings, ceremonies, or burials; and ‘sacred The findings from the recent excavations sites’, which include both of the above- in both Norway and Finland have equally mentioned, but also areas or sites without resulted in questions about the age of the evidence of cult acts, but with place names offering sites and about what has led to or traditions that indicate a sacred status. their present definition as such. Studies of Hence, offering sites are included in all the research history in general and concern- three categories, as sites with strong indi- ing some sites in particular have shown cations of offerings, hence cult sites and that the understanding of certain locations, sacred sites, while sacred sites may simply constructions, or topographical features as be, for instance, a mountain or lake with a being Sami sacred sites may be of quite name related to holiness (including North recent origin, sometimes based on scholarly Sami terms such as basse, sáiva, sieidi, etc.) hypotheses and sometimes outright inven- (Rydving & Kristoffersen, 1993: 197). tions for touristic purposes, though the In archaeological contexts, defining a interpretations may have some association Sami sacred site is still closely related to with older historical accounts or traditions judging the authenticity of any claim for (cf. Äikäs, 2011; Spangen, 2013a). This sacredness, usually in terms of the age of raises questions of authenticity and defi- such traditions. Apart from a general nition that are not only relevant when archaeological preference for the old and studying Sami offering sites, but that con- ‘original’ (see below), in Norway, this is tribute to a wider debate concerning the partly related to cultural heritage legis- experience of authenticity and sacredness lation, which protects both material and and some dilemmas of heritage tourism, immaterial Sami heritage older than one especially in indigenous cultural contexts. hundred years. Similar time limits are not In the following, we will present the new mentioned in Finnish legislation, but it is archaeological source material that has more vaguely stated that monuments recently raised such questions in relation to should be ‘ancient’. In much previous Sami offering sites, and explore the range ethnographic research, however, the of users and historical trajectories that have time depth of Sami traditions concerning defined, and still continue to define, sites offering sites has not necessarily been as sacred in Sami contexts. explicitly discussed, but rather assumed to be the remnants of something very old (e. g. Manker, 1957: 79). This is partly a DEFINING SAMI SACRED SITES IN THE legacy from the national romanticism of PAST AND PRESENT the nineteenth century, when scholars and artists sought the peripheries and outlands The historian of religion Rydving (1993) to find ‘pristine’ cultural expressions has discussed research into Sami offering unhampered by modernity, and indigenous Äikäs and Spangen – New Users and Changing Traditions 3 populations like the Sami were seen to be 112–13). Contemporary sources describe particularly traditional, to the extent that how the Sami themselves in pre-Christian they have been viewed as static cultures contexts could destroy or stop visiting without history (Olsen, 1986; Hansen & offering sites because these did not work Olsen, 2004: 10; Svensson & Gardiner, as intended (Fellman, 1906: 19–20; 2009: 23). The cultural determinism that Paulaharju, 1932: 24, 43–44; Högström, characterized both research and popular 1980: 183; Rydving, 1993: 66). Different depictions of the Sami during the twenti- Sami offering sites that were in use at the eth century has led to unfortunate same time have also been subject to con- generalizations about the Sami ethnic reli- current multivocal definitions and held gion,1 based on initially local traditions. In differing value and meaning to different fact, the Sami religion, and Sami culture Sami people. From information in written and traditions in general, have been, and, and ethnographic sources, at least three indeed, still are highly diverse, relating to types of offering sites can be distinguished, a range of economic adaptations, whereof some were used by an individual languages, and other regional and local or a family, some were attended by the cultural variations. Today it is generally whole local community (often called the accepted that, even if some mutual or siida), and yet others were revered by similar main ideas can be identified as people from a whole region or beyond common and persistent over large geo- (Rydving, 1993: 97–104). While it is graphical and chronological distances, the likely that Sami people, before Christiani- Sami have not had one single consistent zation, usually treated offering sites and belief system (Rydving, 1993: 19–23). sieidis with respect even if the sites or Instead, the expressions of Sami beliefs objects were primarily used by someone have been distinctly local and have else, it should be recognized that Sami depended on the spiritual experiences of sacred sites have always had a varying the individual or the local noaidi currently degree of significance to different people. in charge of the community’s communi- As more and more Sami became cations with gods, spirits, and ancestors Christians in early modern times, (e.g. Pollan, 1993). especially during the seventeenth to eight- Similarly, there is a variation in Sami eenth century, this difference in perception offering sites; while new investigations within Sami communities was accentu- show that some offering sites have been ated. Some of the Christian Sami were used for a very long time, some from the actively involved in the destruction of Early Iron Age onwards (Äikäs, 2011; offering sites, which led to internal and Salmi et al., 2011; Salmi et al., in prep.), sometimes violent conflicts (cf. Rydving, not all Sami offering sites known today 1993: 66–68). The early twentieth century were necessarily in use at the same time looting of certain offering sites with metal and it is likely that some were in use for objects by tourists and young Sami was to only a short period of time in the past (cf. the obvious displeasure of older Sami at Qvigstad, 1926: 319; Hallström, 1932: the time (Hallström, 1932: 113, 123), while finds of recently deposited bones and antlers at some of the same plundered 1We use the term ‘ethnic religion’ to describe a worldview that partly predated the arrival of Christianity but also lived simul- offering sites as late as 1973 suggest that taneously with it (Äikäs & Salmi, 2013). We are, nevertheless, some people in the younger generations aware that even the term ‘religion’ is an etic concept that does not fully cover the notions of a worldview that included all continued to feel reverence towards the aspects of living and livelihood (Äikäs et al., 2009). sites, so that there have been conflicting 4 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2015 attitudes to the sites within these Sami Damm, 2005; Smith & Wobst, 2005; communities throughout the twentieth Atalay, 2012). Indeed, dialogue with century (Mulk & Löfstrand, 1973; different groups in society can be claimed Zachrisson, 1984: 15). Hence, the varying to be a fundamental prerequisite for the meaning of Sami offering sites to different justification of any cultural heritage man- people within and beyond the local com- agement (Burström, 2001). The question munities has a long history and it has is how wishes for multivocality can be partly been a source of conflict. Today, mediated with a need to define authen- users of Sami offering sites can include ticity, a categorization that is still a Sami and other locals, tourists, and neo- fundamental part of both research on and pagans, or people one might include in the administration of cultural heritage, and several or all of these categories. As in the that in the case of offering sites is related past, different sites may constitute Sami to defining (degrees of) sacredness. Even sacred sites to different individuals and if this categorization is done within a groups, and such sites may hold different framework of indigenous archaeology and meanings to each of them. with a focus on local and indigenous This forms a multivocality in defining opinions, there may still be several voices Sami sacred sites and offering sites that that advocate different and even diverging archaeologists have to relate to, whether interpretations. By portraying a range of they be in a research or cultural heritage sites and users in the past and present, we management context. The traditional, wish to exemplify some of these challenges mainly ethnographic, research on such in relation to Sami sacred sites. sites, included local traditions and In our opinion, these examples raise opinions as to which sites were sacred, and questions about authenticity, sacredness, these have often been important sources of and the power of definition (cf. Smith, information. However, according to the 2006), which are relevant to a wider indigenous archaeology that has developed debate, but which are perhaps especially within a postcolonial theoretical frame- important and somewhat poignant when it work from the 1990s onwards, such local comes to archaeological research on the voices should no longer be sought out sacred sites of a minority such as the alone as sources of information, but Sami, who have experienced centuries of engaged as influential actors in the process oppression of their ethnic religion, of research or cultural heritage manage- language, and culture in general. ment. This is meant to enhance one common aim within the range of approaches and foci this theoretical and SITE BIOGRAPHIES,AUTHENTICITY, AND methodological strand incorporates, which MULTIVOCALITY is to challenge the hegemony of Western knowledge and decolonize science by One way to describe the above-mentioned emphasizing local and indigenous meth- time depth and variation in traditions odologies and worldviews (Atalay, 2006; connected to Sami offering sites is the Nicholas & Watkins, 2014: 3778) term ‘site biography’. Through social inter- Multivocality is thus generally seen as a action, the meanings attached to objects positive and necessary aspect of indigenous and places change during their life cycle. archaeology, where research ethics, indi- These changes are related to each other genous rights, and local participation are and create meanings (Gosden & Marshall, factors that need to be considered (e.g. 1999: 160–70). With a site biography, we Äikäs and Spangen – New Users and Changing Traditions 5 mean a description of such a life history of sites that make them more valuable as an archaeological site—here the Sami heritage because of the way these qualities offering site—concerning the changes that make us experience them (Solli et al., occur during its use and possible re-use, 2011). The latter arguments may perhaps the activities that take place there, and the be seen as a result of the ‘material turn’ in meanings that are attached to it. The archaeology, where the agency of objects latter also include archaeological interpret- (and sites) is seen more as a result of their ations and heritage values (see, for materiality, i.e. their material character- example, Burström, 1993; Chippindale, istics and the impact this has on the 1994; Holtorf, 1998; Shanks, 1998: 16). surrounding world, than, for instance, In archaeological contexts, the different their life history or biography (Burström, phases of site biographies are, however, 2014: 67). often given different values—usually Along with Jones (2010: 181–82), we emphasizing the older use of the sites. would maintain that even if the physical Writing an object (or a site) biography or sensory impressions of a space or an will inevitably involve a choice of what object are prone to inspire a certain events to highlight, a choice that should feeling, thought, or action in (some) be made according to explicit and delim- beholders, authenticity is not given in an ited problems one wishes to explore object or place, but is created in the (Burström, 2014: 79). The focus on older relationships between people, places, and phases of a site biography may be a result objects, and dependant on who is experi- of such a choice, but it may also illustrate encing it and in what situation. a ‘hagiographic’ aspect, where the story of Authenticity can take many forms and the object, or site, is written according to these can be mutually intertwined. Pre- predetermined standards and expectations ntice (2001: 15–22) has stated that an of what an archaeological site is, should authentic experience can be created, by, be, and can represent (cf. Burström, for example, (1) an original object or 2014: 71). location; (2) a natural environment; (3) a This modern understanding and search location at which something significant for authenticity based on age and history has happened or believed to have has been linked to an increasing degree of happened; (4) a connection to one’sown individualism in Western European reli- or another’s roots; (5) a learned authen- gion and society in the sixteenth century ticity, which is based on expert guidance; and a simultaneous quest for essential and or (6) a built authenticity at a place that true qualities in individuals and objects replicates history. alike. In contrast to this essentialist In all instances, authenticity arises as a approach, most recent research emphasizes result of action and encounter. Because that authenticity is culturally constructed. some courses of action are seen as better However, the constructivist approach to and more legitimate and others are dis- authenticity does not explain the effect of missed or discriminated against, the the materiality of objects, and is not suited defining of authenticity is often a process to explain the powerful and primordial that raises controversy (Jones, 2010: 199). sense of authenticity people have when What courses of action are considered relating to certain objects, monuments, or better will vary depending on the cultural sites (Jones, 2010: 183). Hence, there are background of the individual or group that also current arguments for the existence of is interacting with a site and what life inherent qualities in certain monuments or history these people have in terms of 6 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2015 ethnicity, class, status, family background, include several different and contradictory age, education, occupation, etc. There may actions, and a site can be transformed or exist, for instance, conflicting ideas perceived as alternately being a sacred site, between (indigenous) archaeologists and a cult site, and an offering site according (indigenous) non-archaeologists about to the use and knowledge of the individ- what is authentic, but there may also be ual. Here we approach questions of site differing views within these groups, as well biographies, authenticity, sacredness, and as overlapping ideas of authenticity multivocality with reference to six Sami between representatives of all groups, if offering sites, or presumed offering sites, they share frames of reference for the issue in Finland and Norway (Figure 1). The in question. As cultural heritage managers, sites include sieidi stones, one sáiva lake, archaeologists have an institutionalized and two so-called ‘circular offering sites’. power to define what sites are significant The word sieidi (in North Sami) has a to record, convey, and preserve, but in the somewhat different meaning in different ethical framework of indigenous archaeol- Sami areas (e.g. Graan, 1899: 62; Manker, ogy this also includes a responsibility to 1957: 13–14; Rydving, 1993: 20–21). In define what features are important not to Finnish Lapland and Finnmark in north- investigate and make public, and rather ern Norway, it mainly refers to larger or leave to decay, exactly because of the auth- smaller offering stones unshaped by enticity and value they are bestowed with humans. At times, a sieidi can be a carved from other perspectives (see, for example, wooden pole or consist of cairns of piled Skandfer, 2001: 123–24; Skandfer, 2009: stones, and sometimes it can also refer to 92–93; Myrvoll, 2010a: 92). In Fennos- landscape features, e.g. islands, fells, or candia, this balancing act between the headlands. In such cases, it is often formalities of cultural heritage protection unclear in historical sources whether the and multivocality is perhaps particularly whole landscape feature was then con- accentuated when dealing with Sami sidered a sacred site or whether the name sacred sites, which are symbolically laden refers to a particular sieidi stone that once on so many levels concerning both the stood there (Äikäs, 2011), i.e. an offering cultural history of indigenous religion and site. Sáiva is another term with many the colonial history of suppression and different meanings (e.g. Bäckman, 1975). exploitation of this and of the Sami Here it refers to a sacred lake that was culture in general. seen as an entrance to the underworld. People’s behaviour by these lakes was restricted by many rules, but, on the other SAMI OFFERING SITES AS DEFINED BY hand, they were considered to be good DIFFERENT USERS—SIX CASE STUDIES fishing lakes. Offerings were sometimes brought to these lakes (e.g. Paulaharju, In simplified terms, the life phases of a 1932; Læstadius, 2002; Pulkkinen, 2005: Sami offering site may be described as: 374–75). Circular offering sites refer to a birth, use, end of use, and re-use. Use can, specific kind of large circular stone enclo- nevertheless, be multi-phased, and re-use sure in northern Norway. They have been can either pre-date the end of use or acti- claimed to have surrounded wooden or vate an offering site into new use even stone sieidis that were later torn down, as after a long period of not being in use no such features have been found standing (Äikäs, 2011: 140–41). As described in any of the structures in question (e.g. above, a phase of use or re-use can also Friis, 1871; Spangen, 2013a). So far, Äikäs and Spangen – New Users and Changing Traditions 7
Figure 1. Map of the Sami offering places described in the text. Map: T. Äikäs circular offering sites of this kind are not negotiation with spirits in order to gain known in Finland (though see Karjalainen, success in hunting, fishing, or reindeer 2007; Saloranta, 2011). herding. In addition, offerings could be The offerings in Sami ethnic religion made during, for example, pregnancy and were usually connected to means of liveli- life crises. In addition to animals, offerings hood and consisted of animals that were could include alcohol, porridge, tobacco, important for subsistence, such as rein- small personal objects, and other daily deer, fish, and birds. Animal offerings utensils (e.g. Itkonen, 1948; Rydving, could include live animals, pieces of car- 1993: 104–06). Some offering sites casses, food remains, or reindeer antlers. include precious and base metal orna- Offerings were given as a part of a ments, iron arrows, and other objects (e.g. 8 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2015
Serning, 1956). These were deposited in Before the excavations and during the certain time periods and areas, indicating project, the plans were discussed with the that the offering matter and rituals were President of the Finnish Sami Parliament closely related to the current economic and (Sámediggi) and measures were taken to societal context at any given time or place disturb the sacred nature of these sites as (Salmi et al., in prep.). little as possible. Hence, only small exca- The case studies presented here concern vation areas were opened and complete sites in Finland and Norway that were excavations were avoided. Some of the investigated within two projects respect- finds were also left in situ, including all ively, the previously mentioned contemporary material and some of the ‘Human-Animal Relations Among Fin- bone finds. The identification of the bones land’s Sámi 1000–1800 AD: DNA and was conducted by an osteologist in the Stable Isotope Analyses of Bones from field and then bones were selected for Ritual Sites’ (2008–2011), and the PhD further analyses (DNA, radiocarbon, project ‘Sámi Circular Offering Sites — A isotope). In some sites, we were able to Comparative Archaeological Analysis’ leave most of the bones at the site, (2012–2016). Despite different aims and whereas in other cases all the excavated resources, both projects have included material was needed for analysis. After the investigations of known or alleged Sami final analyses in 2011, however, the bones offering sites, maintaining a focus on the (except from samples) were returned to ethical issues related to such research. As the sieidi sites from which they were mentioned, indigenous archaeology is taken. After the excavations, the results of highly concerned with decolonizing successful excavations were first given to archaeology through cooperation with the local media. The local Sami people indigenous groups and respect for indigen- who visited the places during the exca- ous views on what is relevant and vations were mainly enthusiastic about acceptable research (e.g. Silliman, 2010; gaining new information about the sacred Nicholas & Watkins, 2014). Among sites in question and about sharing their many indigenous communities, archaeolo- knowledge concerning these places. gical excavations on sacred sites are not The circular offering sites in Norway seen to be appropriate because these have been investigated mostly with non- powerful and dangerous places are disre- invasive methods, such as surveys and spected by digging the earth and by mapping, in the current PhD project. This revealing hidden objects (Colley, 2002: has been done in cooperation with the 75), and this is an issue in some Sami Norwegian Sami Parliament, which has a contexts (e.g. Skandfer, 2001). On the delegated authority for Sami cultural heri- other hand, our experience is that there is tage management in Norway. Local an interest in such research among many museums and residents close to the sites local and other Sami, so claiming that all have been contacted, informed, and Sami are wary of excavations at offering involved to the extent that this has been of sites would be an unjust generalization. interest to them. In 2013, small exca- Yet, the projects mentioned have empha- vations were performed in two circular sized the existence of such attitudes to offering sites after recommendation from ensure a considerate approach. the Sami Parliament and permission from The Finnish project mostly investigated the Directorate for Cultural Heritage. The known offering sites that were accounted Sami Parliament had participants present for in historical and ethnographic sources. in the excavation referred to here. In Äikäs and Spangen – New Users and Changing Traditions 9 general, there have been positive responses The end of bone depositing did not from local Sami residents to the investi- mean the end of offering practices at gations reported here. Taatsi. Present day visits manifest them- selves as coins and personal objects left at the sieidi. Some more peculiar finds Taatsi, Kittilä, Finland included pieces of quartzite and twenty- nine partly burned tea lights that were The sieidi of Taatsi in Kittilä is one of the placed on rock shelves and on the ground. most well-known Sami offering places in These kinds of offerings have their closest Finland. It is mentioned in many written resemblances in neo-pagan activities docu- sources (Fellman, 1906; Andersson, 1914; mented at archaeological sites in Britain. Paulaharju, 1922, 1932; Äyräpää, 1931) We will return to this in the next section. and visited by tourists. Paulaharju (1932: Here, the interpretation of the activities 50), a school teacher and collector of eth- as being neo-pagan is made somewhat nographic knowledge, describes how there more uncertain by the fact that a shaman used to be a lot of reindeer antlers, rein- entrepreneur called the Shaman of Nuli- deer cranial bones, and fish bones on top tuinen has organized shamanistic sessions of the sieidi of Taatsi. Archaeological finds for tourists at Taatsi. Some of the above- support this picture; they mainly consist of mentioned objects might have been left reindeer and fish bones with some there during these sessions. In an inter- additional bird bones, including wood view, the shaman, nevertheless, denied grouse (Tetrao urogallus) (Äikäs, 2011; leaving anything behind. The case of the Salmi et al., 2011). Shaman of Nulituinen is one example of Excavations at Taatsi have revealed the performances where touristic behaviour oldest bone material found from sieidi sites and experienced spirituality might be in Finland. This stemmed from a pike intertwined. In contrast to personal neo- bone found from the eastern side of the pagan experiences, people attending these sieidi that dated to 900 ± 25 BP organized ‘shamanistic sessions’ might just (Hela-1878), corrected to 1040–1180 cal want to have a nice experience on their AD (Reimer et al., 2004). A reindeer holiday or feel ‘the magic of Lapland’ bone found from the western side of the without any religious connotations. On sieidi gave considerably newer results, the other hand, one can also gain spiritual dating to 80 ± 25 BP (Hela-1880), cor- experiences from touristic performances. rected to 1690–1920 cal AD (Reimer et al., 2004). Hence, the scarce dated material from Taatsi reflects the whole period from which animal bone material Kirkkopahta, Muonio, Finland from sieidis in Finland has been dated, ranging from the eleventh to the seven- Kirkkopahta (meaning ‘church stone’)isa teenth century. Since in the total material 6 × 7 m rock located on a pine heath. that have been dated from Finnish sieidi Paulaharju (1922: 81, 165, 1932: 48–49) sites there is a gap between seventeenth mentions this sieidi by the name Seita- and twentieth centuries latter ones have pahta and tells how Sami people believed been interpreted as marks of later activities that ‘a powerful force of god’ (Paulaharju, not necessarily connected to ethnic reli- 1922: 165) lived in this stone. Hence, gion (Äikäs, 2011; Äikäs & Salmi, 2013, both the name and tradition relate this figure 3). stone to sieidi practices. 10 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2015
Figure 2. Elk skulls lying on Kirkkopahta sieidi. Photo: T. Äikäs
During excavations conducted in 2009, the site was abandoned or empty. On top no ancient bone material was found. Phos- of one shelf in the stone, there were elk phate analyses gave some indication of skulls, so fresh that flies were still flying possible ritual practices around the sieidi around them (Figure 2). And on shelves (Äikäs & Tolonen, in prep.) but otherwise on the opposite side of the stone, we there were no older finds in the surround- found pieces of quartzite, one tea light, ings. This did not, however, mean that tied animal hairs, and a bunch of
Figure 3. The stone structure at Offerholmen. Photo: M. Spangen Äikäs and Spangen – New Users and Changing Traditions 11 lingonberry sprigs tied together with a are widely used today, but they are not string. The elk skulls might relate to registered as official place names on either modern hunting practices. As with the older or newer maps. They seem to be of quartz and tea lights at Taatsi, these other quite late origin and could be a result of finds have their closest resemblances in the islet’s increasing status as a tourist neo-pagan rituals where it is usual to leave destination in the nineteenth and twen- natural objects. In Britain, neo-pagans tieth century; it is mentioned and have left offerings at megaliths, for recommended for visiting in several early example. These offerings include flowers, twentieth century travelogues and tourist tobacco, food, drinks, and more durable guides (e.g. Schibsted, 1903: 42–43; objects, such as crystals, coins, quills, Hagen, 1926; cf. Nissen, 1928: 185). Its stones, and personal ritual objects (Wallis, status as a local attraction is partly due to 2003: 171; Blain & Wallis, 2007: 10, 56). its convenient location on the lake just In the context of Sami offering places, the outside the Skoganvarre tourist cabin neo-pagans visiting these sites may be (today run as a camping site). The islet is either Sami, other locals, or residents of still well known locally as an offering site southern areas of Fennoscandia (cf. Fon- and promoted as one of the touristic sites neland, 2010). worth seeing in Lakselv municipality. Here the offering traditions have taken Historic sources indicate that this is a new form. The history of the place as an indeed a sacred site. As for the exact offer- offering site has given it its authenticity, ing site, Leem (1975 [1767]) only refers which again has inspired new interpret- to a rather large compilation of antlers at ations. Well-known sieidi sites can be used one end of the islet and does not mention as places for neo-pagan visits (Informant any sort of sieidi or structure, but in later 2009, personal communication). Here the research a stone construction identified as offering tradition continues, but offerings a so-called ‘circular offering site’ on the and the reasons behind them have northwest end of the islet has been changed (for more detail, see Äikäs, 2011, ascribed this function (Vorren, 1985). 2012). This reflects a general offering site expla- nation for similar stone circles in Finnmark (e.g. Vorren, 1973; Hansen & Offerholmen, Øvrevatn, Lakselv, Olsen, 2004: 222–23; Spangen, 2013a). Finnmark, Norway The structure on the islet is situated in the only visible scree area. It is made up of The local priest Knud Leem described this head-sized stones, and today it has a islet as an offering site in 1767, calling it rather uneven shape of a conical in Sami ‘Leunje-Jeure-Suolu’, meaning depression in the scree, the middle being ‘Porsanger river’s first lake’s islet’ (Leem, about 1.8 m deep. The thrown-out stones 1975 [1767]: 439, our translation from form a slightly elevated wall around it with Norwegian). The site is also mentioned by a diameter of approximately 8 m J. A. Friis in 1887, and he gives a lively (Figure 3; Spangen, 2013b). The shape account of his vision of a wild reindeer has probably been quite altered over the hunt and the subsequent sacrifices on the years; by the 1920s, it had already been islet, apparently based on the descriptions substantially damaged by the increasing given by Leem (Friis, 1887: 143–45). The tourist traffic and was in danger of becom- names ‘Offerholmen’, or in Sami, ‘Sieide- ing ‘just another pile of stones’ (Nissen, suolu’, meaning ‘the offering (site) islet’, 1928: 185, our translation). 12 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2015
tradition of the islet, it seems likely that the stick was carved by someone with limited knowledge of Sami history, which could of course include non-Sami and Sami people alike.
Gálggojávri, Storfjord, Troms, Norway
The circular offering site by Gálggojávri consists of a dry wall enclosure of boulders and smaller stones. The outer diameter is approximately 8.7 m and the current height is up to 80 cm (Spangen, 2013b). In the middle of the structure, there is a mound in which a hole had been dug before the site was officially registered as a cultural heritage monument in 1973 (Teigmo, 1973: 17). In 2013, a small excavation was per- formed in the structure (Spangen, in prep. a). In contrast to the findings during an Figure 4. Stick with carved runes on the top of excavation of a similar site by Geaimme- Offerholmen. Photo: M. Spangen jávri in Karasjok (Spangen, in prep. b), all the finds made in the Gálggujávri struc- ture were very recent. They consisted of However, it was not in this stone struc- eighteen coins, fourteen of which dated ture, but at the highest point of the steep from the 1970s to the 1990s, one to 1929, islet that a stick with freshly carved runes one to 1953, one to 1961, and one to the was found during a survey in 2012. The 2000s (the exact year is not distinguish- runes, spelling ‘O, B, F, TH, R’, have no able). In addition, there was a silver immediate meaning in Norwegian or Sami necklace and a pendant with a famous sun (Figure 4). It has not been possible to symbol copied from a Sami drum still not uncover who placed the stick there, and it oxidized, a plastic die, a copper alloy ring, could be for a variety of reasons, possibly and three pieces of recently deposited only as a memento of the visit, but the reindeer bones. runes could also indicate a ‘Norse’ Hence, the archaeologically recordable neo-pagan motivation. There are examples sacrificial activity at the site was restricted of Germanic runes (not to be confused to the twentieth century, and particularly with the figures featured on Sami drums) to the 1970s onwards. The ethnographer used in Sami areas and by Sami people Ørnulv Vorren, an expert on circular offer- both in the Middle Ages and in the nine- ing sites, does not seem to have noticed teenth century (Keilhau, 1831: 32–33; any recent offerings when visiting the site Olsen & Bergsland, 1943; Snædal et al., in 1973 (Teigmo, 1973: 17), which indi- 1988), but they are not generally related to cates that his sanctioning of the offering Sami ethnic religion. If the runes were site interpretation and later repetition of meant to be in honour of the old offering this by influential professional and local Äikäs and Spangen – New Users and Changing Traditions 13 voices, have contributed to creating a new equivalent to Kirkkopahta mentioned by local offering tradition. A nearby primary Paulaharju (1922). school has visited the site regularly since In the fieldwork conducted in 2010, the 1986 and taught the children about the shores of Lake Äkässaivo were surveyed assumed offering tradition (cf. Antonsen and the surroundings of Seitapahta were & Brustrøm, 2002: 49). On these studied with test pits, but no archaeological occasions, grown-ups in the company have bone material referring to offering practices occasionally tossed coins into the centre of were found. Instead there were marks of the structure (Principal and school teacher, more resent visits. On the rock, we found a 2013, personal communication). piece of cold smoked reindeer meat, snuff, For some, this may have had the char- andquill,whichcouldbeinterpretedas acter of throwing coins into a wishing continuing old traditions of offering rein- well, but it cannot be excluded that some deer meat and tobacco or to be connected have had a stronger spiritual or emotional with similar neo-pagan practices, like the experience when doing this. It is uncertain offerings in Kirkkopahta and Taatsi. if other coins and objects have been Hence, Seitapahta has gained a new deposited by other locals or visitors. The meaning as an offering place. In addition site has probably taken on different mean- to the above-mentioned finds, we also ings for different local people, both Sami came across a tract with a title ‘Jesus – your and non-Sami, as some visit it more like Saviour!’ This could be seen as a possible tourists, while others may have a closer attempt to Christianize a ‘pagan’ site. relationship with it and possibly their own It is hard to say at which point Seita- explanations and stories related to it. pahta gained its meaning as an offering place and what role the touristic infra- structure played here. Nevertheless, it is an Äkässaivo, Muonio, Finland example of a place where dominant land- scape features, stories and histories Äkässaivo is a sacred sáiva lake in the connected to the place, and expert gui- municipality of Muonio. Paulaharju (1922: dance create authenticity. 198) mentions it to be a powerful sáiva. He pays special attention to deep cliffs called Kirkkopahta and Hammaspahta Kalliorova, Muonio, Finland surrounding the lake. There are neverthe- less no remarks about a sieidi even though Paulaharju (1932: 48) mentions that Kal- on the following page, Paulaharju states liorova was an old offering site. He has that there often was an offering stone on later been interpreted as referring to a tree- the shores of sáiva lakes. covered hill (vaara in Finnish) called Jun- On the western side of the lake there is kirova in Muonio. Pääkkönen (1902: 19) actually a high rock formation of similar has stated that the sieidi in question con- appearance to the sieidi in Taatsi. In maps, sisted of a stone standing on four smaller this rock has been named ‘Seitapahta’ stones. A stone similar to this description (‘seita’ referring to sieidi in Finnish). has been identified from the top of Junkir- Metsähallitus (‘the Finnish Forest Service’) ova. There are nevertheless, many similar has also erected a sign that describes the stone formations on Junkirova so the sacred nature of this rock and its connec- identification as a sieidi is uncertain. In tion to Sami offering traditions. Here, addition, this kind of sieidi type is not pre- Seitapahta is interpreted as being viously known in Finland, even though 14 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2015
Figure 5. The touristic sieidi in Kalkirova. Photo: T. Äikäs these so-called ‘table stones’ are named Sami sacred sites have been coming and sieidi or seid in Russia (e.g. Manyuhin, still come into existence, are used, fall into 1996: 72). Even the identification of Jun- disuse, and are reused through different kirova as being the Kalliorova of written trajectories and actions. A site biography sources is unsure; also the Kalkinrova hill can illuminate the life history of a place, west from Junkirova is covered with stones. but the site biographies of Sami offering The uncertainty of archaeological sites are diverse, and old use or traditions interpretation has, nevertheless, not pre- are not always necessary to create an offer- vented the use of Junkirova as a sieidi site. ing site to suit the purposes of the range A local tourist entrepreneur brought one of of individuals and groups that relate to the authors to a stone that bore a resem- such places today. These groups do not blance to some of the well-known sieidis automatically associate authenticity with (Figure 5) and mentioned that he shows old age, or what we could call ‘historical this place to tourists and organizes shama- authenticity’ (cf. Jones, 2010: 184), but nistic sessions here. In this case, the have other criteria for defining a site as authenticity of the stone does not lie in the sacred. continuous use of this particular stone, but The interpretation of sites as being in the stories created by a ‘shaman’ and by sacred is usually related to older sources a broader landscape with old traditions. describing indigenous religion—in part, these have also been our source material. But the archaeological data show that not DISCUSSION all experienced sacredness is rooted in ethnic indigenous religion. Different Historical authenticity and sacralization groups who use these sites are often seen as more or less justified users, but if multi- These case studies are only examples of a vocality is to be taken seriously when more widespread tendency that show that exploring such sites archaeologically and in Äikäs and Spangen – New Users and Changing Traditions 15 terms of cultural heritage management, communities, the more secular sacredness validations other than historical authen- may also be part of a restoration and a ticity obviously have to be included in the nation-building project (cf. Kraft, 2010: evaluation of the sacredness of a site. This 59). In the following, we will explore the kind of multivocality means that deciding processes of sacralization and authentica- what is an authentic Sami offering site tion further using the examples above. based on the life history or other aspects of the place is not so straightforward. In recent years, the use of the term Authenticity and sacredness in tourism ‘authenticity’ has gained some critics (Holtorf, 2005; Edensor, 2006: 3; Lovata, Some of the offering places explored here, 2007). We will continue to use the term, such as Kalliorova, were especially created but, as Prentice (2001) stated, authenticity for tourists. This kind of landscape made can take many forms. Concerning Sami for tourists has been described with the offering sites, authenticity is a multifaceted term ‘inauthenticity’, which includes phenomenon that can be created for commercialism, amusement, and conven- example by the location, an impressive tionality (Relph, 1986; Keskitalo-Foley, natural environment, ritual activities, an 2006: 132). However, what has been con- experienced communion with forefathers sidered inauthentic can gain meanings of connected to the place, or a story created authenticity. Even though authenticity is a by expert guides, signs, or touristic entre- presumption for tourists when they arrive preneurs. The process involved is closely at a place, inauthenticity is not perceived related to processes of sacralization. as a disappointment. Kalliorova is an According to Smith (1998), sacredness example of a place where a touristic depends upon ritualization and repetition experience does not depend on seeing the of rituals, but it should be kept in mind real sieidi, but where meanings are created that sacred experiences can come in both by action and stories, not necessarily by religious and secular versions (Anttonen, the history of the place. The sieidi created 2000; Hervieu-Léger, 2000; Kraft, 2010: here can be said to convey a sense of a 59). Hervieu-Léger (2000) defines the dis- known older tradition, and hence rep- tinction between a religious sacredness and resents an authentic immaterial cultural a secular sacredness as whether or not the heritage (cf. Myrberg, 2004: 160). belief or experience is legitimated with a Notably, the Cultural Heritage Act of reference to older religious traditions, so Finland (1963) makes it possible to also that there is a chain of memory, or chain protect this kind of site with related of belief. On the other hand, there may be stories and traditions, but it is only seldom sacredness even if the chain of memory is used. Similarly, the Shaman of Nullitui- broken. Sami people today may feel rever- nen, working at Taatsi, said that people ence towards old offering sites, while not who attend his ceremonies are fascinated having enough knowledge about the past by ‘closeness to nature [and] original to know how to relate to such sites in a religion’ (Siitonen, 2011, personal ‘proper’ manner (Jernsletten, 2003). In communication). such cases, the sacredness is not created by Hence, emotional experience can be religious rituals, but is of a more secular born without strict historical authenticity. form. When the chain of memory has When people are experiencing a place, it been broken because of colonization and can gain meanings of sacredness even forced assimilation, as within Sami when the original object of reverence can 16 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2015 no longer be seen. For example, even authenticity, while others are prone to though the supposed birthplace of Jesus is want a spiritual, nature-related and/or no longer visible in Bethlehem, the ‘ethnic’ experience, and may have that meaning of the place has shifted to the regardless of the recorded history of the Church of the Nativity. As it has gained place. Consequently, touristic shaman cer- the meaning of the birthplace, it is not emonies at Sami offering places should experienced as a fake (Meskell, 2004: 192, not necessarily be seen as a form of ‘Dis- 216; Melotti, 2007: 118–30). In a similar neyfication’ (Relph, 1986: 101) of ethnic fashion, the meaning of the sieidi at Kal- religion and the past, but as a way of pro- liorova has shifted to the stone to which viding meaning through action. tourists are guided and in Äkässaivo to the In addition to visits to sacred places, stone marked by signs. sieidis can interest people even when they Tourism at sacred sites has been seen as are disconnected from their context. Sieidis problematic. According to Ruotsala (1998: have lent their name to a multitude of 95), the use of Sami culture in tourism is other commercial purposes, to our knowl- an example of ethnographic exploitation. edge including a bar, a hotel, a climbing Tourism can be seen to secularize and wall for kids, and a mulled wine, and the wear sacred sites down, but it can also concept can be seen for example on bill- create new meanings that become part of boards in shops (Figure 6). These are the materialized site biography of the some examples of the productization of sacred site. Taatsi is an example of this; by sieidis. This can be seen as a transferring the sieidi there were stairs and platforms of the original location from the context of that were built to make the site easier to sacredness. Here, sacred experience is reach for the tourists. At another sieidi, replaced by a commercial and entertaining Ukonsaari Island in Inari, Finland, similar experience. Meskell (2004) has, neverthe- constructions have been seen to secularize less, stated that productization does not the sacred island. At Taatsi, the construc- detach an object from the connection of tions were removed around 2010 because sacredness. Productization can diminish they had fallen into disrepair. Before this spirituality but also democratize it and they nevertheless enabled tourists, and make it easier to reach. Objects can get possibly neo-pagans, to visit and recreate new meanings that can either relate to or the site. Touristic visits can be seen to not relate to the old spiritual meanings litter and damage the site, but they can (Meskell, 2004: 177–219; cf. Byrne, 2009: also make it meaningful for people and 75). raise public awareness of ethnic religion. Rather than recreating an original, authenticity depends on transferring the Neo-pagan use of Sami offering sites atmosphere of the original place as well as the emotions and experiences attached to Several of the finds made during our it. Hence, authenticity can be gained by surveys and excavations indicate neo-pagan reconstructing either the object or the activities at the described Sami sacred experience (Melotti, 2007: 125, 2008: 19, sites. On Offerholmen, a stick with carved 20–21). This partly depends on an indi- runes was found on the highest point of vidual’s will to experience something the islet. As mentioned above, the sacrali- specific, which is related to the different zation of a site may be related to people’s preconceptions of the visitors—some may reverence for past sacred sites while they be prone to certain demands for have little knowledge about the ‘proper’ Äikäs and Spangen – New Users and Changing Traditions 17
Figure 6. Mulled wine called Seita (sieidi in Finnish). Photo: T. Äikäs way to adhere to such sites. Germanic Norwegian history rather than the Sami, runes are not known to have been part of despite all historical evidence to the con- the ethnic Sami religion, but the symbols trary. We will return to this controversy on the holy drums are partly, and erro- below. neously, referred to as runes, and the term While it has not been possible to estab- is even included in a Scandinavian obso- lish who carved and placed the runic lete name for the drums, ‘runebomme’.It inscription at Offerholmen, or why, other could be that the carved runes are examples and informants confirm that expressions of a misunderstanding con- known Sami offering sites are used by cerning the old Sami religion, but, as neo-pagans of various group affiliations runes are also frequently present in Norse (cf. Fonneland, 2010). At the Finnish neo-pagan contexts, this is an equally sites, the material evidence of this is more probable affiliation. Neo-pagan rituals on in line with what is found on cultural archaeological sites are not necessarily his- heritage sites further south in Europe, torically correct according to either such as tea lights and quartzite, but the previous use of the place or the specific attempt to restore or reconnect with a past actions related to a certain time or group, religion through rituals that are not his- though many practitioners are interested torically authentic is the same. in historical accuracy as well (Blain & Neo-pagan activities can be seen as a Wallis, 2007: 6). Another possibility is form of neo-colonialism that include steal- that Norse symbols have been chosen in ing the traditions of indigenous peoples an attempt to relate the site to Norse or (Wallis, 2003: xiii). The history of 18 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2015 indigenous people is invalidated by creat- sieidi has led to a sacralization, though by ing a picture of noble savages who are not which groups or individuals is uncertain. able to cherish their own traditions As described above, this process can be (Wallis, 2003: 17). This is, however, an seen to transfer and convey a historically argument that implies that there cannot be authentic immaterial Sami cultural heri- neo-pagan activity within an indigenous tage related to the area, but, even if the group, which may be seen to reduce such current users are local Sami, it is proble- communities by presenting them inaccur- matic that the focus of this heritage is ately and as being non-complex. It is constructed by a Finnish state authority obviously possible that even local Sami without consulting the local indigenous may be neo-pagans. Indeed, some current population. neo-shamanistic practices among the Sami can be traced back to general neo-pagan or New Age practices that are common Neo-shamanism and Sami nation throughout the world (Fonneland & building Kraft, 2013). (Re)use of offering sites can have a distinct political aspect, perhaps especially con- Expert definitions and sacralization cerning identity issues within a discourse of ‘rites and rights’. Though it is not poss- The dating of much of the material found ible to know for certain who made the at the site by Gálggojávri to the time after stick with runes left on Offerholmen, it the expert validation of this structure as an could possibly be an attempt to redefine offering site in 1973 (Teigmo, 1973) the historical context of the offering sites suggests that the recent offering practice from Sami to Norse. Questions about has been inspired by this advice. This may local Sami, Finnish, and Norwegian iden- be seen as a revival of an older tradition, tity have been controversial in northern but the investigations of so-called circular Norway for centuries following the process offering sites in general have disclosed of christening the Sami and including the several indications that the structures in populations in these areas in the nation question may have been built for a differ- state. From about 1860 to 1970, it was ent initial purpose than as offering sites. If government policy to ‘Norwegianize’ the so, they are examples of ‘offering’ sites that Sami population, officially called ‘modern- have been imbued with such meaning pri- ization’ (Olsen, 1986: 30). This had marily through a late academic tradition dramatic consequences for Sami culture (Spangen, 2013a). Again, this involves a and language, and firmly established a process of sacralization that is not necess- paradigm of shame for any Sami ancestry arily less valid because it concerns that is still part of the identity discourse in ‘historically inauthentic’ offering sites, even these areas. This is also related to past and if the practices cannot be seen as a direct current issues concerning land rights. In continuation of a religious tradition (cf. such a context, Norse neo-pagan activity Hervieu-Léger, 2000). may be seen as ‘rewriting’ the history of a Another example of expert guidance, or site to make it a more comfortable narra- rather authorities’ guidance, to authen- tive for some. ticity, is the sign-posted stone at The recent offerings in the Gálggojávri Äkässaivo. The rather uncertain and poss- structure are probably initiated by the ibly erroneous definition of this stone as a scholarly definition of the site in the Äikäs and Spangen – New Users and Changing Traditions 19
1970s, but they are also related to a Sami While offerings from a small number of cultural revival that includes teaching a people at the structure by Gálggojávri have new generation of children the language, not necessarily been consciously motivated traditions, and history of the Sami. The by these identity issues, and may have documented new offering activity from the been differently motivated by various indi- 1970s onwards coincides with a revival of viduals, the actions can hardly be seen as the long suppressed Sami identity and cul- detached from this discourse of indigenous tural expressions in Norway, a revival that spirituality and Sami nation building. was especially controversial and emotional in these inner coastal areas in Troms (e.g. Pedersen & Høgmo, 2004). Religion was Managing multivocality not a very important part of the Sami cul- tural revival when it gained momentum in The discussion above shows how Sami the 1980s, partly because the Sami were sacred sites in general and Sami offering mostly Christians, so religion would not sites in particular are created and recreated be an efficient way to distinguish an iden- through redefinitions and reinterpretations tity opposed to Norwegians, and partly by a number of groups and individuals because much of the pre-Christian tra- with diverging motives and backgrounds. ditions had been lost by that time (though Importantly, both local indigenous people see, for example, Myrvoll, 2010b, on how and ‘outsiders’ participate in these redefi- aspects of pre-Christian beliefs have been nitions and reinterpretations of sacred incorporated into a primarily Christian sites. By denying the value of new mean- Sami worldview). However, the forced ings, we can protect sites from ‘outsiders’ Christianization has been a hovering but also from locals and their actions (cf. stigma and some activists from the 1980s Byrne, 2009: 68; for criticisms of preser- and 1990s did engage in reviving a shama- vation ethics, see also Melotti, 2007). nistic religion too. This revival was Though recent offering activities may initially heavily inspired by the somewhat not be old in years, they can still contain a earlier movement of indigenous spirituality sense of the ancient, and be a material way in the USA, but it has more recently of expressing an immaterial heritage, often gained a local vocabulary of Sami symbols maintaining an identity or perceived and words and is today often perceived as ‘correct’ way of doing things, though this more authentic than its American source may be historically incorrect. In this sense, of inspiration. Nevertheless, the new Sami new actions can be charged with the sig- shamanism cannot be distinguished from a nificance of the past, even if it is global discourse of indigenous spiritualism geographically or materially disconnected that has a secular importance as a civil reli- to previous similar actions (cf. Myrberg, gious dimension of indigenous identity 2004: 160). and nation building. In the Sami context, The presented research projects are the concern is with identity in terms of among the few that have studied Sami distinction from the nation state identities offering sites in detail in recent years, while and Westerners, and union with other archaeologists in Norway and Finland indigenous people of the world as part of usually relate to various concepts of sacred- an ethnopolitical project of building a ness in connection with cultural heritage positive identity drawing on ‘rites and management. However, in both these set- rights’, which form two interdepending tings, there is a need to acknowledge and discourses (Fonneland & Kraft, 2013). evaluate the multivocality described above 20 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2015 and to define the contexts and purposes of from a local discourse because, for these alternative understandings to evaluate instance, the locals know something the their relevance for archaeological categoriz- expert does not. Integration, however, also ation and interpretation. It is necessary to depends on the will to understand the define what discourse these narratives worldview of the other (for instance, the belong to, and whether or not it is relevant view of the local or the academic; cf. or necessary to include or oppose them in Nilsen, 2003: 385–86). Academics clearly research or heritage management discourse, bear the lion’s share of the responsibility beyond creating an academic archaeological for this, due to the inherent power of defi- parallel narrative. According to the decolo- nition that comes with such a position in nizing aim of indigenous archaeology, relation to the other groups, whether indi- archaeologists may be obliged to encourage genous or not. To achieve the required alternative narratives in situations where knowledge about other discourses and nar- local or indigenous voices are clearly the ratives, the key issue for archaeologists is weaker ones (Damm, 2005: 82; Myrvoll, to spend time in the study areas in ques- 2010a: 90). This is a moral and ethical tion and interact with the groups that question that has to be considered in each interpret and use the sites in different particular situation (Nilsen, 2003: 25–26). ways. Unfortunately, the difficult resource Hence, it cannot be finally decided once situation usually limits this kind of inter- and for all whether other narratives of sac- action (cf. Nilsen, 2003: 287). redness are relevant or not, as this will The focus on multivocality is itself part depend on the historical context, on the of a specific discourse that emphasizes specific site, and on the current status of rights to and democratization of history the academic discourse, since science is also and cultural heritage. In some contexts, it an ever-changing culturally constituted field may be more important to draft the plural- (Nilsen, 2003: 26, with references). ity of histories relating to a cultural The alternative narratives have their heritage monument rather than a single own criteria and cannot simply be defined ‘correct’ story (Burström, 1993: 26). as everything that is evidently not aca- However, this obviously depends on the demic (cf. Nilsen, 2003: 31). They have goal of the exercise. In other contexts, a been created within specific social frame- ‘correct’ archaeological narrative can be works and constitute independent highly relevant to local, indigenous, and discourses (cf. Nilsen, 2003: 384). In academic discourses alike; for instance, it alternative discourses, it is often less pro- may contribute to the local understanding blematic to include new (academic) of the landscape in areas with less density narratives without losing or changing a of traditions and stories because of previous understanding than the other way depopulation and migration (Myrvoll, around, i.e. trying to include alternative 2010a: 89). It may also assist in restoring narratives in the academic discourse, a chain of memory (cf. Hervieu-Léger, simply because the goals of the alternative 2000) where this has been broken by colo- discourses are different from the self- nialism and forced assimilation, as in the declared truth-seeking academic discourse case of the Sami. Then again, the aca- (cf. Solli, 1996). Still, the archaeological demic understanding may be unimportant. and the alternative discourses do affect, Determining the sacredness of a site, for shape, and sometimes exclude each other, instance, is not only an academic enter- and archaeologists have to acknowledge prise. The sacred quality, the authenticity, that the academic story may be excluded is not inherent, and it is not necessarily Äikäs and Spangen – New Users and Changing Traditions 21 related to the natural environment, the biographies, research, ethics’ for their topographical features, or any present input on that occasion. We would also objects, or, for that matter, the life history like to thank two anonymous referees and of the site. Rather, the experience of sac- the editor for their valuable comments. redness and/or authenticity depends on This research was conducted with funding what resonates with the narrative or dis- received from the Alfred Kordelin course that is relevant to the individual Foundation, the Jenny and Antti Wihuri relating to the site. Hence, Sami offering Foundation, the Norwegian Sami sites have to be evaluated on an individual Parliament, the Norwegian Archaeological basis and differently in different contexts, Society, the Berit Wallenberg foundation, demanding more attention to alternative and the Alfred and Maria Bergströms voices and discourses at some sites than at foundation. Our language consultant was others. AAC Global Oy.
CONCLUSION REFERENCES — Sami offering places or places interpreted — — Äikäs, T. 2011. Rantakiviltä tuntureille as such demonstrate how site biogra- Pyhät paikat saamelaisten rituaalisessa mai- phies, authenticity, and sacredness can be semassa. Studia Archaeologica intertwined in different ways. Their life Septentrionalia 5. Rovaniemi: Pohjois- histories have included changes both in Suomen historiallinen yhdistys. English offering practices and in groups of people edition available at:
og miljø – Årbok for Nord-Troms, Indigenous Past. Norwegian Archaeological 2002:47–49. Review, 38(2):73–87. Anttonen, V. 2000. Towards a Cognitive Edensor, T. 2006. Tourists at the Taj. Theory of the Sacred: An Ethnographic Performance and Meaning at a Symbolic Approach. Folklore, 14:41–48. Site, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Atalay, S. 2006. Indigenous Archaeology as Erä-Esko, A. 1957. Sodankylä Orajärvi Decolonizing Practice. American Indian Seitaniemi.14.–16.7.1957. Kaivausraportti. Quarterly, 30(3/4):280–310. Unpublished excavation report. Finland: Atalay, S. 2012. Community-Based Archaeology. Archives of the National Board of Research With, By, and For Indigenous and Antiquities. Local Communities. Berkeley: University of Fellman, J. 1906. Anteckningar under min vis- California Press. telse i Lappmarken. II. Helsingfors: Finska Äyräpää, A. 1931. Muinaismuistot -osuudet. Litteratursällskapets tryckeri. In: J.E. Rosberg, K. Hildén, and E. Fonneland, T. 2010. Samisk nysjamanisme: i Mikkola, eds. Suomenmaa. dialog med (for)tid og stad. Ein kulturanaly- Maantieteellis-taloudellinen ja historiallinen tisk studie av nysjamanar sine tietokirja. IX.2. Oulun lääni. Porvoo: erfaringsforteljingar – identitetsforhandlingar Werner Söderström osakeyhtiö. og verdiskaping. Bergen: Universitetet i Bäckman, L. 1975. Sájva. Föreställningar om Bergen. hjälp- och skyddsväsen i heliga fjäll bland Fonneland, T. & Kraft, S.E. 2013. New Age, samerna. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Sami Shamanism and Indigenous Blain, J. & Wallis, R. 2007. Sacred Sites Spirituality. In: S.J. Sutcliffe and I. Sælid Contested Rites/Rights. Pagan Engagements Gilhus, eds. New Age Spirituality. with Archaeological Monuments. Brighton: Rethinking Religion. New York: Sussex Academic Press. Routledge, pp. 132–45. Burström, M. 1993. Mångtydiga Fossum, B. 2006. Förfädernas land: en arkeolo- fornlämningar. En studie av innebörder gisk studie av rituella lämningar i Sápmi, som tillskrivits fasta fornlämningar i 300 f. Kr–1600 e. Kr. Studia archaeologica Österrekarne härad, Södermanland. Universitatis Umensis 22. Umeå: Umeå Stockholm Archaeological Reports universitetet. 27. Stockholm: Department of Friis, J.A. 1871. Lappisk Mythologi: Eventyr og Archaeology, Stockholm University. Folkesagn; Lappiske Eventyr og Folkesagn. Burström, M. 2001. Cultural Heritage and Christiania: Cammermeyer. Antiquarian Attitude. Current Swedish Friis, J.A. 1887. Tilfjelds i Ferierne eller Jæger- Archaeology, 9:39–44. og Fiskerliv i Høifjeldene. Christiania: Burström, N.M. 2014. Things in the Eye of Cammermeyer. the Beholder: A Humanistic Perspective Gosden, C. & Marshall, Y. 1999. The on Archaeological Object Biographies. Cultural Biography of Objects. World Norwegian Archaeological Review,47 Archaeology, 31(2):169–78. (1):65–82. Graan, O. 1899 [1672]. Relation, Eller En Byrne, D. 2009. Archaeology and the Fortress Fulkomblig Beskrifning om Lapparnas of Rationality. In: L. Meskell, ed. Vrsprung, så wähl som om heele dheras Cosmopolitan Archaeologies. Durham: Duke Lefwernes Förehållande. Uppsala: Harald University Press, pp. 68–88. Wretmans tryckeri. Chippindale, C. 1994. Stonehenge Complete. Hagen, T. 1926. Håndbok for reiser i London: Thames and Hudson. Nord-Norge. Hurtigruteleden (Trondhjem- Colley, S. 2002. Uncovering Australia. Kirkenes), Nordland fylke, Troms fylke, Archaeology, Indigenous People and the Finnmark fylke. Med oversiktskarter utgit Public. Crow’s Nest: Allen & Unwin. av Ruteboken for Norge. Hammerfest: Cultural Heritage Act of Finland 1963. Hagen. Available online:
Hansen, L.I. & Olsen, B. 2004. Samenes Sacredness in Sápmi and Northern historie fram til 1750. Oslo: J.W. Norway. Religion, 40(1):53–61. Cappelens Forlag. Læstadius, L.L. 2002. Fragments of Lappish Hedman, S.-D. 2003. Boplatser och offerplatser. Mythology, trans. B. Vähämäki. Beaverton: Ekonomisk strategi och boplatsmönster bland Aspasia Books. skogssamer 700–1600 AD. Studia archaeo- Leem, K. 1975 [1767]. Beskrivelse over logica Universitatis Umensis 17. Umeå: Finmarkens lapper: 1767. København: Umeå University. Rosenkilde og Bagger. Hervieu-Léger, D. 2000. Religion as a Chain of Lovata, T. 2007. Inauthentic Archaeologies. Memory. New Brunswick: Rutgers Public Uses and Abuses of the Past. Walnut University Press. Creek: Left Coast Press. Högström, P. 1980 [1747]. Beskrifning öfwer Manker, E. 1957. Lapparnas heliga ställen. Sweriges Lapmarker År 1747. Umeå: Två Kultplatser och offerkult i belysning av förläggare förlag. Nordiska museets och landsantikvariernas Holtorf, C. 2005. From Stonehenge to Las fältundersökningar. Acta Lapponica 13. Vegas. Archaeology as Popular Culture. Nordiska Museet. Stockholm: Almqvist & Walnut Creek: Altamira Press. Wiksell. Holtorf, C.J. 1998. The Life-History of Manyuhin, I.S. 1996. Saami Cult Sites in Megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Karelia, General Characterization and (Germany). World Archaeology, 30:23–38. Dating. In: K. Julku, ed. Congressus Itkonen, T.I. 1948. Suomen lappalaiset vuoteen primus historiae fenno-ugricae. Historia 1945, II. Porvoo: Werner Söderström fenno-ugrica 1(2):71–77. Osakeyhtiö. Melotti, M. 2007. Mediterraneo tra miti e Itkonen, T.I. 1962. Kuivi, ein heiliger Ort der turismi. Per una sociologia del turismo arche- Lappen. In: Commentationes Fenno- ologico. Milano: CUEM. Ugricae in honorem Paavo Ravila. Melotti, M. 2008. Turismo archeologico. Dalle Suomalais-ugrilaisen seuran toimituksia piramidi alle veneri di plastica. Milano: 125. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Bruno Mondadori. Seura, pp. 127–38. Meskell, L. 2004. Object Worlds in Ancient Jernsletten, J. 2003. Samiske hellige steder i Egypt. Material Biographies Past and dag. Din, 4/2002–1/2003:88–94. Present. Oxford: Berg. Jones, S. 2010. Negotiating Authentic Objects Mulk, I.-M. 2005. Viddjavárri — en samisk and Authentic Selves. Beyond the offerplats vid Rávttasjávri i ett Destruction of Authenticity. Journal of samhällsperspektiv. In: R. Engelmark, T. Material Culture, 15:181–203. B. Larsson, and L. Rathje, eds. En lång Karjalainen, T. 2007. Urroaivin kivikehät. historia … festskrift till Evert Baudou In: E.-K. Harlin and V.-P. Lehtola, på 80-årsdagen. Umeå: Institutionen eds. Peurakuopista kirkkokenttiin. för arkeologi och samiska studier, Saamelaisalueen 10 000 vuotta arkeologin pp. 331–48. näkökulmasta. Arkeologiseminaari Inarissa Mulk, I.-M. & Löfstrand, E. 1973. Samiska 29.9.–2.10.2005. Publications of the offerplatser efter Lule älvdal. Unpublished Giellagas Institute 9. Oulu: Oulun ylio- student paper in archaeology, Uppsala pisto, pp. 146–53. University. Keilhau, B.M. 1831. Reise i Öst-og Myrberg, N. 2004. False Monuments? On Vest-Finmarken, samt til Beeren-Eiland og Antiquity and Authenticity. Public Spitsbergen, i Aarene 1827 og 1828. Archaeology, 3:151–61. Christiania: Johan Krohn. Myrvoll, E.R. 2008. Samiske helligsteder. Keskitalo-Foley, S. 2006. Kolme näkökulmaa Tradisjon — registrering — forvaltning. Lapin paikkana kokemiseen. In: S. Knuuttila, NIKU Rapport 24. Tromsø: NIKU P. Laaksonen, and U. Piela, eds. Paikka. (Norsk institutt for kulturminneforskning). Eletty, kuviteltu, kerrottu. Kalevalaseuran vuo- Myrvoll, E.R. 2010a. Når arkeologi møter sikirja 85. Helsinki: Suomalaisen lokal kunnskap — etiske implikasjoner. Kirjallisuuden Seura, pp. 129–46. Nordisk Museologi, 1:78–95. Kraft, S.E. 2010. The Making of a Sacred Myrvoll, M. 2010b. ‘Bare gudsordet duger’. Mountain. Meanings of Nature and Om kontinuitet og brudd i samisk 24 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2015
virkelighetsforståelse. Unpublished PhD Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, pp. thesis, Universitetet i Tromsø. 375–76. Nicholas, G. & Watkins, J. 2014. Indigenous Qvigstad, J.A. 1926. Lappische Opfersteine und Archaeologies in Archaeological Theory. heilige Berge in Norwegen. Zur Sprach- und In: C. Smith, ed. Encyclopedia of Global Volkskunde der Norwegischen Lappen. Oslo Archaeology. New York: Springer, pp. etnografiske museums skrifter 1(5). Oslo: 3777–86. Oslo Etnografiske Museum. Nilsen, G. 2003. Brytninger mellom lokal og Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., akademisk kulturminnekunnskap: en Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Bertrand, C.J.H., analyse av fortidsforestillinger i Blackwell, P.G., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Nord-Troms og Lofoten. Unpublished Cutler, K.B., Damon, P.E., Edwards, R. PhD thesis, Universitetet i Tromsø. L., Fairbanks, R.G., Friedrich, M., Nissen, K. 1928. Nogen lappiske offerplasser i Guilderson, T.P., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, det indre av Finnmarken. In: Festskrift til K.A., Kromer, B., McCormac, G., rektor J. Qvigstad. Tromsø museums skrif- Manning, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., ter 2. Tromsø: Tromsø Museum, pp. Reimer, R.W., Remmele, S., Southon, J. 184–87. R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F. Olsen, B. 1986. Norwegian Archaeology and W., van der Plicht, J. & Weyhenmeyer, the People Without (Pre-)History, or: C.E. 2004. Radiocarbon Calibration How to Create a Myth of a Uniform Past. from 0–26 cal kyr BP. IntCal04 Archaeological Review from Cambridge,5 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, (1):25–42. 0–26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon,46 Olsen, M. & Bergsland, K. 1943. Lappisk i en (3):1029–58. islandsk runeinnskrift. Avhandlinger (Det Relph, E. 1986. Place and Placelessness, 3rd ed. Norske videnskaps-akademi)/II Historisk- London: Pion. filosofisk klasse, no. 2. Oslo: Jacob Ruotsala, H. 1998. Mie kotona kentällä ja Dybwad. kentällä kotona. In: M. Mäkikalli and P. Pääkkönen, L.W. 1902. Matkakertomus Oinonen, eds. Integraatio, identiteetti, etni- muinais- ja kansatieteelliseltä keräysmatkalta syys. Tarkastelukulmia kulttuuriseen kesällä 1901 Tornion, Muonion ja Ounas vuorovaikutukseen. Kulttuurisen vuorovai- sekä Kemin jokivarsilla. Selonteko muinais- kutuksen ja integraation tutkijakoulun ja kansatieteellisestä keräysmatkastani julkaisuja. Turku: Turun yliopisto, Tornion jokilaaksossa Oulun Historiallisen Unipaps, pp. 88–117. Seuran toimesta kesällä 1900. Kytäjä. Rydving, H. 1993. The End of Drum-Time. Paulaharju, S. 1922. Lapin muisteluksia. Religious Change among the Lule Saami, Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtiö Kirja. 1670s–1740s. Acta Universitatis Paulaharju, S. 1932. Seitoja ja seidan palvontaa. Upsaliensis. Historia Religionum 12. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Uppsala: Uppsala University. Seura. Rydving, H. & Kristoffersen, R. 1993. Några Pedersen, P. & Høgmo, A. 2004. Kamp, krise samiska offerplatser. Fornvännen, og forsoning: sosiale, kulturelle og økonomiske 88:195–210. virkninger av samepolitiske tiltak. Tromsø: Salmi, A.-K., Äikäs, T., Fjellström, M. & NORUT. Spangen, M. in prep. Animal Offerings at Pollan, B. 1993. Samiske sjamaner: Religion og the Sámi Offering Site Unna Saiva— helbredelse. Oslo: Gyldendal. Changing Religious Practices and Prentice, R. 2001. Experiential Cultural Human–Animal Relationships. Tourism. Museums and the Marketing of Salmi, A.-K., Äikäs, T. & Lipkin, S. 2011. the New Romanticism of Evoked Animating Ritual at Sámi Sacred Sites in Authenticity. Museum Management and Northern Finland. Journal of Social Curatorship, 19(1):5–26. Archaeology, 11(2):212–35. Pulkkinen, R. 2005. Sáiva. In: U.-M. Saloranta, A.-M. 2011. Tornion ja Kulonen, I. Seurujärvi-Kari, and R. Keminmaan kulmikkaat kivikuopat — sus- Pulkkinen, eds. The Saami. A Cultural ikuoppia vai saamelaisten uhripaikkoja? Encyclopedia. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Unpublished MA thesis, University of Seuran toimituksia 925. Helsinki: Oulu. Äikäs and Spangen – New Users and Changing Traditions 25
Schibsted, A. 1903. En sommertur i Spangen, M. in prep. a. Utgravning i en offer- Finmarken. Bossekop-Skoganvarre. Den ring ved Gálggojávri, Storfjord, 2013. norske turistforenings årbok, 1903:30–44. Unpublished excavation report. Serning, I. 1956. Lapska offerplatsfynd från Spangen, M. in prep. b. Utgravning i en offer- järnålder och medeltid i de svenska lappmar- ring ved Geaimmejávri, Karasjok, 2013. kena. Acta Lapponica, 11. Stockholm: Unpublished excavation report. Nordiska Museet. Sveen, S. 2003. Boazosápmelaš, boazu ja sutnu Shanks, M. 1998. The Life of an Artefact guohtoneanan. Reinen, reineieren og rein- in an Interpretative Archaeology. beitelandet. En studie av reindriftssamisk Fennoscandia Archaeologica, 15:15–30. landskapsbruk og landskapsforståelse, for- Silliman, S. 2010. The Value and Diversity of ankret i sommerlandet Stuoranjárga. Indigenous Archaeology: A Response to Unpublished MA thesis, University of McGhee. American Antiquity, 75(2):217–20. Tromsø. Skandfer, M. 2001. Etikk i forvaltningen — Svensson, E. & Gardiner, M. 2009. forvaltning av etikk. Samisk kulturminne- Introduction: Marginality in the vern mellom ‘døde’ strukturer og levende Preindustrial European Countryside. In: J. tradisjon. Viking, 64:113–31. Klápště and P. Sommer, eds. Medieval Skandfer, M. 2009. Ethics in the Landscape: Rural Settlement in Marginal Landscapes: Prehistoric Archaeology and Local Sámi Ruralia VII, 8th–14th September 2007, Knowledge in Interior Finnmark, Cardiff, Wales, U.K. Turnhout: Brepols, Northern Norway. Arctic Anthropology,46 pp. 21–25. (1–2):89–102. Teigmo, M. 1973. Samisk-etnografisk avdel- Smith, C. & Wobst, H.M. eds. 2005. ings undersøkelser i forbindelse med de Indigenous Archaeologies. Decolonising planlagte reguleringer av Theory and Practice. One World Skibotnvassdraget. Rapport fra arbeid Archaeology 47. London: Routledge. sommeren 1973. Unpublished survey Smith, J.Z. 1998. Å finne sted. Rommets report. Sami Ethnographic Collections, dimensjon i religiøse ritualer. Oslo: Pax. Department of Cultural Sciences, Tromsø Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. New York: Museum. Routledge. Vorren, Ø. 1973. Unpublished and Untitled Snædal, T., Stocklund, M. & Åhlén, M. Field Notes from Investigating a Site on 1988. Runfynd 1987. Fornvännen, ‘Øvrevatn’ (Lakselv) 11 Aug 1973. Ø. 83:234–50. Vorren Private Archive, Box 146, Diary Solli, B. 1996. Narratives of Veøy. An for 1972–1974. Sami Ethnographic Investigation into the Poetics and Scientifics Collections, Department of Cultural of Archaeology. Universitetets oldsaksaml- Sciences, Tromsø Museum. ings skrifter 19. Oslo: Universitetets Vorren, Ø. 1985. Circular Sacrificial Sites and oldsaksamling. their Function. In: L. Bäckman and Å. Solli, B., Burström, M., Domanska, E., Hultkrantz, eds. Saami Pre-Christian Edgeworth, M., González-Ruibal, A., Religion: Studies on the Oldest Traces of Holtorf, C., Lucas, G., Oestigaard, T., Religion among the Saamis. Stockholm Smith, L. & Witmore, C. 2011. Some Studies in Comparative Religion 25. Reflections on Heritage and Archaeology Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell in the Anthropocene. Norwegian International, pp. 69–82. Archaeological Review, 44(1):40–88. Vorren, Ø. & Eriksen, H.K. 1993. Samiske Spangen, M. 2013a. ‘It Could Be One Thing offerplasser i Varanger. Tromsø: Tromsø or Another’—On the Construction of an museum. Archaeological Category. Fennoscandia Wallis, R.J. 2003. Shamans/Neo-Shamans. Archaeologica, 30:67–80. Ecstasy, Alternative Archaeologies and Spangen, M. 2013b. Kontrollregistrering av Contemporary Pagans. London: Routledge. Samiske offerringer og lignende strukturer Zachrisson, I. 1984. De samiska metalldepåerna — delrapport fra feltarbeidet i 2012. år 1000–1350 i ljuset av fyndet från Unpublished survey report. Varangerbotn: Mörtträsket, Lappland : The Saami Metal Sami Parliament Archives. Deposits A.D. 1000–1350 in the Light of 26 European Journal of Archaeology 0 (0) 2015
the Find from Mörtträsket, Lapland. University of Oulu, Finland. [email: tiina. Archaeology and Environment 3. Umeå: [email protected]] Department of Archaeology, University of Umeå. Marte Spangen is a PhD candidate at the Department of Archaeology and Classical BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE Studies at Stockholm University. Her research interests include Sami archaeol- Tiina Äikäs is a postdoctoral researcher in ogy, archaeology of ritual and religion, and archaeology at the University of Oulu. Her indigenous archaeology. research interests include Sami archaeol- ogy, archaeology of ritual and religion, and Address: Department of Archaeology and contemporary archaeology. Classical Studies, Wallenberglaboratoriet, Stockholms universitet, SE-106 91 Stock- Address: Archaeology, Department of holm, Sweden. [email: marte.spangen@ark Humanities, P.O. Box 1000, 90014 .su.se]
Nouveaux usagers et évolution des traditions – Une (re)définition des lieux d’offrandes des Samis
Les Samis sont un people du nord de la Fennoscandie. Certains de leurs sites d’offrandes ont été utilisés pendant plus d’un millénaire. Les traditions d’offrandes ont évolué au cours des temps et certaines communautés ont commencé à utiliser ces lieux pour des motifs divers. Le matériel archéologique actuel indique d’une part que les traditions ont continué à être respectées et d’autre part que ces lieux ont acquis de nouvelles significations, rattachées tout aussi bien à ces sites qu’àd’autres sites qui n’avaient probablement pas été utilisé dans les rituels religieux des Samis. Dans certains cas l’authenticité des lieux semble être davantage liée à de récits et à des croyances actuelles qu’à une continuité historique ou à d’autres aspects expressément sacrés de la topographie ou de l’environnement. De nos jours les usagers de ces lieux comprennent, entre autres, des Samis indigènes, des touristes, et des néo-païens. Dans cet article nous examinons les éléments qui informent ces usagers, comment ces derniers identifient ces sites comme lieux d’offrandes et quels rapports ils entretiennent avec eux. Quels sont les rôles que jouent les traditions scientifiques, le tourisme lié au patrimoine et la culture indigène dans la (re)définition des lieux d’offrandes Samis et quelle est la place qu’occupent les rituels « opportuns » dans l’attribution d’un sens à certains endroitsComment pouvons-nous concilier un désir de donner voix à la multivocalité avec nos opinions professionnelles quand il s’agit de définir le sacré ? Translation by Madeleine Hummler.
Mots-clés: Samis, lieux d’offrandes, multivocalité, authenticité, biographies de sites
Neue Benutzer und Traditionswandel – die (Neu)Definierung der Gabenstätten der Samen
Die Samen (oder Sámi) sind ein indigenes Volk im Norden von Fennoskandinavien. Einige samische Gabenstätten wurden über mehr als eintausend Jahre lang benutzt. Während dieser Zeit haben sich die Gabensitten verändert und verschiedene Gruppen haben begonnen, diese Orte aufzusuchen, und dies aus verschiedenen Gründen. Gegenwärtige archäologische Befunde zeigen, dass alte Traditionen weiterleben aber auch dass, neue Bedeutungen diesen Stätten und anderen Plätzen, die nicht zu den ursprünglichen Ritualen der Samen gehörten, zugewiesen werden. In einigen Fällen beruht die Echtheit dieser Stätten scheinbar eher auf Erzählungen und gegenwärtiger Glauben als auf eine historische Kontinuität oder Äikäs and Spangen – New Users and Changing Traditions 27 auf eine spezifische Eigenschaft der Landschaft oder Umwelt, in welcher die Stätte liegt. Unter den heutigen Benutzern befinden sich, u.a. einheimische Samen, Touristen und Neuheiden. Unser Artikel untersucht, was diese Benutzer informiert, wie gewisse Stätten als Gabenstätten bestimmt werden und wie sich die Benutzer in Zusammenhang mit diesen Orten verhalten. Was für eine Rolle können die wissenschaftliche Tradition, der Kulturerbe-Tourismus und die einheimische Kultur in der (Neu)Defi- nierung der Gabenstätten der Samen spielen, und was für eine Rolle können „angemessene’ Rituale bei der Bedeutungszuschreibung einer gewissen Stätte haben? Wie können wir Multivokalität mit unseren beruflichen Auffassungen versöhnen, wenn es sich dabei um die Bestimmung der Heiligkeit handelt? Translation by Madeleine Hummler.
Stichworte: Samen (oder Sámi), Gabenstätten, Multivokalität, Echtheit, Biografien von archäologischen Stätten