Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:39:53.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Users and Changing Traditions—(Re)Defining Sami Offering Sites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Tiina Äikäs  and
Marte Spangen
Tiina Äikäs*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Oulu, Finland
Marte Spangen*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies, Stockholm University, Sweden
*
email: tiina.aikas@oulu.fi
[email: marte.spangen@ark.su.se]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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?

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’à d'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.

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 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)Definierung 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.

Keywords

Samioffering sitemultivocalityauthenticitysite biographiesSamislieux d'offrandesmultivocalitéauthenticitébiographies de sitesSamen (oder Sámi)GabenstättenMultivokalitätEchtheitBiografien von archäologischen Stätten
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , 2016 , pp. 95 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 the European Association of Archaeologists 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Äikäs, T. 2011. Rantakiviltä tuntureille — Pyhät paikat saamelaisten rituaalisessa maisemassa. Studia Archaeologica Septentrionalia 5. Rovaniemi: Pohjois-Suomen historiallinen yhdistys. English edition available at: <http://www.sarks.fi/masf/>.Google Scholar
Äikäs, T. 2012. Quartzite at a Sieidi: A New Life of an Offering Site?. In: Berge, R., Jasinski, M.E., and Sognnes, K., eds. N-TAG TEN. Proceedings of the 10th Nordic TAG Conference at Stiklestad, Norway 2009. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2399. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Äikäs, T., Puputti, A.-K., Núñez, M., Aspi, J., Okkonen, J. 2009. Sacred and Profane Livelihood. Animal Bones from Sieidi Sites in Northern Finland. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 42 (2): 109–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Äikäs, T., Salmi, A.-K. 2013. ‘The Sieidi is a Better Altar/The Noaidi Drum's a Purer Church Bell'—Long Term Changes and Syncretism at Sámi Offering Sites. World Archaeology, 45 (1): 20–38.Google Scholar
Äikäs, T., Tolonen, S. in prep. Embodied Practices and Use of Ritual Space—Or What Happened at Archaeologically Empty Sámi Offering Places? Google Scholar
Andersson, G.A. 1914. Tietoja Sodankylän ja Kittilän pitäjien aikaisemmista ja myöhäisemmistä waiheista. Kemi: Kemin uusi kirjapaino.Google Scholar
Antonsen, L., Brustrøm, G. 2002. Fangstanlegget ved Gálgojávri. Menneske og miljø – Årbok for Nord-Troms, 2002: 47–49.Google Scholar
Anttonen, V. 2000. Towards a Cognitive Theory of the Sacred: An Ethnographic Approach. Folklore, 14: 41–48.Google Scholar
Atalay, S. 2006. Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice. American Indian Quarterly, 30 (3/4): 280–310.Google Scholar
Atalay, S. 2012. Community-Based Archaeology. Research With, By, and For Indigenous and Local Communities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Äyräpää, A. 1931. Muinaismuistot -osuudet. In: Rosberg, J.E., Hildén, K., and Mikkola, E., eds. Suomenmaa. Maantieteellis-taloudellinen ja historiallinen tietokirja. IX.2. Oulun lääni. Porvoo: Werner Söderström osakeyhtiö.Google Scholar
Bäckman, L. 1975. Sájva. Föreställningar om hjälp- och skyddsväsen i heliga fjäll bland samerna. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Blain, J., Wallis, R. 2007. Sacred Sites Contested Rites/Rights. Pagan Engagements with Archaeological Monuments. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press.Google Scholar
Burström, M. 1993. Mångtydiga fornlämningar. En studie av innebörder som tillskrivits fasta fornlämningar i Österrekarne härad, Södermanland. Stockholm Archaeological Reports 27. Stockholm: Department of Archaeology, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Burström, M. 2001. Cultural Heritage and Antiquarian Attitude. Current Swedish Archaeology, 9: 39–44.Google Scholar
Burström, N.M. 2014. Things in the Eye of the Beholder: A Humanistic Perspective on Archaeological Object Biographies. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 47 (1): 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, D. 2009. Archaeology and the Fortress of Rationality. In: Meskell, L., ed. Cosmopolitan Archaeologies. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 68–88.Google Scholar
Chippindale, C. 1994. Stonehenge Complete. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Colley, S. 2002. Uncovering Australia. Archaeology, Indigenous People and the Public. Crow's Nest: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Cultural Heritage Act of Finland 1963. Available online: <https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/1963/19630295> [accessed 5 April 2015].+[accessed+5+April+2015].>Google Scholar
Damm, C. 2005. Archaeology, Ethno-History and Oral Traditions: Approaches to the Indigenous Past. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 38 (2): 73–87.Google Scholar
Edensor, T. 2006. Tourists at the Taj. Performance and Meaning at a Symbolic Site, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Erä-Esko, A. 1957. Sodankylä Orajärvi Seitaniemi.14.–16.7.1957. Kaivausraportti. Unpublished excavation report. Finland: Archives of the National Board of Antiquities.Google Scholar
Fellman, J. 1906. Anteckningar under min vistelse i Lappmarken. II. Helsingfors: Finska Litteratursällskapets tryckeri.Google Scholar
Fonneland, T. 2010. Samisk nysjamanisme: i dialog med (for)tid og stad. Ein kulturanalytisk studie av nysjamanar sine erfaringsforteljingar – identitetsforhandlingar og verdiskaping. Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen.Google Scholar
Fonneland, T., Kraft, S.E. 2013. New Age, Sami Shamanism and Indigenous Spirituality. In: Sutcliffe, S.J. and Sælid Gilhus, I., eds. New Age Spirituality. Rethinking Religion. New York: Routledge, pp. 132–45.Google Scholar
Fossum, B. 2006. Förfädernas land: en arkeologisk studie av rituella lämningar i Sápmi, 300 f. Kr–1600 e. Kr. Studia archaeologica Universitatis Umensis 22. Umeå: Umeå universitetet.Google Scholar
Friis, J.A. 1871. Lappisk Mythologi: Eventyr og Folkesagn; Lappiske Eventyr og Folkesagn. Christiania: Cammermeyer.Google Scholar
Friis, J.A. 1887. Tilfjelds i Ferierne eller Jæger- og Fiskerliv i Høifjeldene. Christiania: Cammermeyer.Google Scholar
Gosden, C., Marshall, Y. 1999. The Cultural Biography of Objects. World Archaeology, 31 (2): 169–78.Google Scholar
Graan, O. 1899 [1672]. Relation, Eller En Fulkomblig Beskrifning om Lapparnas Vrsprung, så wähl som om heele dheras Lefwernes Förehållande. Uppsala: Harald Wretmans tryckeri.Google Scholar
Hagen, T. 1926. Håndbok for reiser i Nord-Norge. Hurtigruteleden (Trondhjem-Kirkenes), Nordland fylke, Troms fylke, Finnmark fylke. Med oversiktskarter utgit av Ruteboken for Norge. Hammerfest: Hagen.Google Scholar
Hallström, G. 1932. Lapska offerplatser. Arkeologiska studier. In: Tillägnade, H.K.H., ed. Kronprins Gustaf Adolf/utgivna af Svenska fornminnesföreningen. Stockholm: P.A. Norstedt & söners förlag.Google Scholar
Hansen, L.I., Olsen, B. 2004. Samenes historie fram til 1750. Oslo: J.W. Cappelens Forlag.Google Scholar
Hedman, S.-D. 2003. Boplatser och offerplatser. Ekonomisk strategi och boplatsmönster bland skogssamer 700–1600 AD. Studia archaeologica Universitatis Umensis 17. Umeå: Umeå University.Google Scholar
Hervieu-Léger, D. 2000. Religion as a Chain of Memory. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Högström, P. 1980 [1747]. Beskrifning öfwer Sweriges Lapmarker År 1747. Umeå: Två förläggare förlag.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C. 2005. From Stonehenge to Las Vegas. Archaeology as Popular Culture. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C.J. 1998. The Life-History of Megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany). World Archaeology, 30: 23–38.Google Scholar
Itkonen, T.I. 1948. Suomen lappalaiset vuoteen 1945, II. Porvoo: Werner Söderström Osakeyhtiö.Google Scholar
Itkonen, T.I. 1962. Kuivi, ein heiliger Ort der Lappen. In: Commentationes Fenno-Ugricae in honorem Paavo Ravila. Suomalais-ugrilaisen seuran toimituksia 125. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, pp. 127–38.Google Scholar
Jernsletten, J. 2003. Samiske hellige steder i dag. Din, 4/2002–1/2003: 88–94.Google Scholar
Jones, S. 2010. Negotiating Authentic Objects and Authentic Selves. Beyond the Destruction of Authenticity. Journal of Material Culture, 15: 181–203.Google Scholar
Karjalainen, T. 2007. Urroaivin kivikehät. In: Harlin, E.-K. and Lehtola, V.-P., eds. Peurakuopista kirkkokenttiin. Saamelaisalueen 10 000 vuotta arkeologin näkökulmasta. Arkeologiseminaari Inarissa 29.9.–2.10.2005. Publications of the Giellagas Institute 9. Oulu: Oulun yliopisto, pp. 146–53.Google Scholar
Keilhau, B.M. 1831. Reise i Öst-og Vest-Finmarken, samt til Beeren-Eiland og Spitsbergen, i Aarene 1827 og 1828. Christiania: Johan Krohn.Google Scholar
Keskitalo-Foley, S. 2006. Kolme näkökulmaa Lapin paikkana kokemiseen. In: Knuuttila, S., Laaksonen, P., and Piela, U., eds. Paikka. Eletty, kuviteltu, kerrottu. Kalevalaseuran vuosikirja 85. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, pp. 129–46.Google Scholar
Kraft, S.E. 2010. The Making of a Sacred Mountain. Meanings of Nature and Sacredness in Sápmi and Northern Norway. Religion, 40 (1): 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Læstadius, L.L. 2002. Fragments of Lappish Mythology, Trans. Vähämäki, B. Beaverton: Aspasia Books.Google Scholar
Leem, K. 1975 [1767]. Beskrivelse over Finmarkens lapper: 1767. København: Rosenkilde og Bagger.Google Scholar
Lovata, T. 2007. Inauthentic Archaeologies. Public Uses and Abuses of the Past. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
Manker, E. 1957. Lapparnas heliga ställen. Kultplatser och offerkult i belysning av Nordiska museets och landsantikvariernas fältundersökningar. Acta Lapponica 13. Nordiska Museet. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Manyuhin, I.S. 1996. Saami Cult Sites in Karelia, General Characterization and Dating. In: Julku, K., ed. Congressus primus historiae fenno-ugricae. Historia fenno-ugrica 1(2):71–77.Google Scholar
Melotti, M. 2007. Mediterraneo tra miti e turismi. Per una sociologia del turismo archeologico. Milano: CUEM.Google Scholar
Melotti, M. 2008. Turismo archeologico. Dalle piramidi alle veneri di plastica. Milano: Bruno Mondadori.Google Scholar
Meskell, L. 2004. Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt. Material Biographies Past and Present. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Mulk, I.-M. 2005. Viddjavárri — en samisk offerplats vid Rávttasjávri i ett samhällsperspektiv. In: Engelmark, R., Larsson, T.B., and Rathje, L., eds. En lång historia … festskrift till Evert Baudou på 80-årsdagen. Umeå: Institutionen för arkeologi och samiska studier, pp. 331–48.Google Scholar
Mulk, I.-M., Löfstrand, E. 1973. Samiska offerplatser efter Lule älvdal. Unpublished student paper in archaeology, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Myrberg, N. 2004. False Monuments? On Antiquity and Authenticity. Public Archaeology, 3: 151–61.Google Scholar
Myrvoll, E.R. 2008. Samiske helligsteder. Tradisjon — registrering — forvaltning. NIKU Rapport 24. Tromsø: NIKU (Norsk institutt for kulturminneforskning).Google Scholar
Myrvoll, E.R. 2010a. Når arkeologi møter lokal kunnskap — etiske implikasjoner. Nordisk Museologi, 1: 78–95.Google Scholar
Myrvoll, M. 2010b. ‘Bare gudsordet duger’. Om kontinuitet og brudd i samisk virkelighetsforståelse. , Universitetet i Tromsø.Google Scholar
Nicholas, G., Watkins, J. 2014. Indigenous Archaeologies in Archaeological Theory. In: Smith, C., ed. Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York: Springer, pp. 3777–86.Google Scholar
Nilsen, G. 2003. Brytninger mellom lokal og akademisk kulturminnekunnskap: en analyse av fortidsforestillinger i Nord-Troms og Lofoten. , Universitetet i Tromsø.Google Scholar
Nissen, K. 1928. Nogen lappiske offerplasser i det indre av Finnmarken. In: Festskrift til rektor J. Qvigstad. Tromsø museums skrifter 2. Tromsø: Tromsø Museum, pp. 184–87.Google Scholar
Olsen, B. 1986. Norwegian Archaeology and the People Without (Pre-)History, or: How to Create a Myth of a Uniform Past. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 5 (1): 25–42.Google Scholar
Olsen, M., Bergsland, K. 1943. Lappisk i en islandsk runeinnskrift. Avhandlinger (Det Norske videnskaps-akademi)/II Historisk-filosofisk klasse, no. 2. Oslo: Jacob Dybwad.Google Scholar
Pääkkönen, L.W. 1902. Matkakertomus muinais- ja kansatieteelliseltä keräysmatkalta kesällä 1901 Tornion, Muonion ja Ounas sekä Kemin jokivarsilla. Selonteko muinais- ja kansatieteellisestä keräysmatkastani Tornion jokilaaksossa Oulun Historiallisen Seuran toimesta kesällä 1900. Kytäjä.Google Scholar
Paulaharju, S. 1922. Lapin muisteluksia. Helsinki: Kustannusosakeyhtiö Kirja.Google Scholar
Paulaharju, S. 1932. Seitoja ja seidan palvontaa. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Pedersen, P., Høgmo, A. 2004. Kamp, krise og forsoning: sosiale, kulturelle og økonomiske virkninger av samepolitiske tiltak. Tromsø: NORUT.Google Scholar
Pollan, B. 1993. Samiske sjamaner: Religion og helbredelse. Oslo: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Prentice, R. 2001. Experiential Cultural Tourism. Museums and the Marketing of the New Romanticism of Evoked Authenticity. Museum Management and Curatorship, 19 (1): 5–26.Google Scholar
Pulkkinen, R. 2005. Sáiva. In: Kulonen, U.-M., Seurujärvi-Kari, I., and Pulkkinen, R., eds. The Saami. A Cultural Encyclopedia. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran toimituksia 925. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, pp. 375–76.Google Scholar
Qvigstad, J.A. 1926. Lappische Opfersteine und heilige Berge in Norwegen. Zur Sprach- und Volkskunde der Norwegischen Lappen. Oslo etnografiske museums skrifter 1 (5). Oslo: Oslo Etnografiske Museum.Google Scholar
Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Bertrand, C.J.H., Blackwell, P.G., Buck, C.E., Burr, G.S., Cutler, K.B., Damon, P.E., Edwards, R.L., Fairbanks, R.G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T.P., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kromer, B., McCormac, G., Manning, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Reimer, R.W., Remmele, S., Southon, J.R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F.W., van der Plicht, J., Weyhenmeyer, C.E. 2004. Radiocarbon Calibration from 0–26 cal kyr BP. IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon, 46 (3): 1029–58.Google Scholar
Relph, E. 1986. Place and Placelessness, 3rd ed. London: Pion.Google Scholar
Ruotsala, H. 1998. Mie kotona kentällä ja kentällä kotona. In: Mäkikalli, M. and Oinonen, P., eds. Integraatio, identiteetti, etnisyys. Tarkastelukulmia kulttuuriseen vuorovaikutukseen. Kulttuurisen vuorovaikutuksen ja integraation tutkijakoulun julkaisuja. Turku: Turun yliopisto, Unipaps, pp. 88–117.Google Scholar
Rydving, H. 1993. The End of Drum-Time. Religious Change among the Lule Saami, 1670s–1740s . Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Historia Religionum 12. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Rydving, H., Kristoffersen, R. 1993. Några samiska offerplatser. Fornvännen, 88: 195–210.Google Scholar
Salmi, A.-K., Äikäs, T., Fjellström, M., Spangen, M. in prep. Animal Offerings at the Sámi Offering Site Unna Saiva—Changing Religious Practices and Human–Animal Relationships.Google Scholar
Salmi, A.-K., Äikäs, T., Lipkin, S. 2011. Animating Ritual at Sámi Sacred Sites in Northern Finland. Journal of Social Archaeology, 11 (2): 212–35.Google Scholar
Saloranta, A.-M. 2011. Tornion ja Keminmaan kulmikkaat kivikuopat — susikuoppia vai saamelaisten uhripaikkoja? , University of Oulu.Google Scholar
Schibsted, A. 1903. En sommertur i Finmarken. Bossekop-Skoganvarre. Den norske turistforenings årbok, 1903: 30–44.Google Scholar
Serning, I. 1956. Lapska offerplatsfynd från järnålder och medeltid i de svenska lappmarkena. Acta Lapponica, 11. Stockholm: Nordiska Museet.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. 1998. The Life of an Artefact in an Interpretative Archaeology. Fennoscandia Archaeologica, 15: 15–30.Google Scholar
Silliman, S. 2010. The Value and Diversity of Indigenous Archaeology: A Response to McGhee. American Antiquity, 75 (2): 217–20.Google Scholar
Skandfer, M. 2001. Etikk i forvaltningen — forvaltning av etikk. Samisk kulturminnevern mellom ‘døde’ strukturer og levende tradisjon. Viking, 64: 113–31.Google Scholar
Skandfer, M. 2009. Ethics in the Landscape: Prehistoric Archaeology and Local Sámi Knowledge in Interior Finnmark, Northern Norway. Arctic Anthropology, 46 (1–2): 89–102.Google Scholar
Smith, C., Wobst, H.M. eds. 2005. Indigenous Archaeologies. Decolonising Theory and Practice. One World Archaeology 47. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, J.Z. 1998. Å finne sted. Rommets dimensjon i religiøse ritualer. Oslo: Pax.Google Scholar
Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Snædal, T., Stocklund, M., Åhlén, M. 1988. Runfynd 1987. Fornvännen, 83: 234–50.Google Scholar
Solli, B. 1996. Narratives of Veøy. An Investigation into the Poetics and Scientifics of Archaeology. Universitetets oldsaksamlings skrifter 19. Oslo: Universitetets oldsaksamling.Google Scholar
Solli, B., Burström, M., Domanska, E., Edgeworth, M., González-Ruibal, A., Holtorf, C., Lucas, G., Oestigaard, T., Smith, L., Witmore, C. 2011. Some Reflections on Heritage and Archaeology in the Anthropocene. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 44 (1): 40–88.Google Scholar
Spangen, M. 2013a. ‘It Could Be One Thing or Another’—On the Construction of an Archaeological Category. Fennoscandia Archaeologica, 30: 67–80.Google Scholar
Spangen, M. 2013b. Kontrollregistrering av Samiske offerringer og lignende strukturer — delrapport fra feltarbeidet i 2012. Unpublished survey report. Varangerbotn: Sami Parliament Archives.Google Scholar
Spangen, M. in prep. a. Utgravning i en offerring ved Gálggojávri, Storfjord, 2013. Unpublished excavation report.Google Scholar
Spangen, M. in prep. b. Utgravning i en offerring ved Geaimmejávri, Karasjok, 2013. Unpublished excavation report.Google Scholar
Sveen, S. 2003. Boazosápmelaš, boazu ja sutnu guohtoneanan. Reinen, reineieren og reinbeitelandet. En studie av reindriftssamisk landskapsbruk og landskapsforståelse, forankret i sommerlandet Stuoranjárga. , University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Svensson, E., Gardiner, M. 2009. Introduction: Marginality in the Preindustrial European Countryside. In: Klápště, J. and Sommer, P., eds. Medieval Rural Settlement in Marginal Landscapes: Ruralia VII, 8th–14th September 2007, Cardiff, Wales, U.K. Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teigmo, M. 1973. Samisk-etnografisk avdelings undersøkelser i forbindelse med de planlagte reguleringer av Skibotnvassdraget. Rapport fra arbeid sommeren 1973. Unpublished survey report. Sami Ethnographic Collections, Department of Cultural Sciences, Tromsø Museum.Google Scholar
Vorren, Ø. 1973. Unpublished and Untitled Field Notes from Investigating a Site on ‘Øvrevatn’ (Lakselv) 11 Aug 1973. Ø. Vorren Private Archive, Box 146, Diary for 1972–1974. Sami Ethnographic Collections, Department of Cultural Sciences, Tromsø Museum.Google Scholar
Vorren, Ø. 1985. Circular Sacrificial Sites and their Function. In: Bäckman, L. and Hultkrantz, Å., eds. Saami Pre-Christian Religion: Studies on the Oldest Traces of Religion among the Saamis. Stockholm Studies in Comparative Religion 25. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, pp. 69–82.Google Scholar
Vorren, Ø., Eriksen, H.K. 1993. Samiske offerplasser i Varanger. Tromsø: Tromsø museum.Google Scholar
Wallis, R.J. 2003. Shamans/Neo-Shamans. Ecstasy, Alternative Archaeologies and Contemporary Pagans. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zachrisson, I. 1984. De samiska metalldepåerna år 1000–1350 i ljuset av fyndet från Mörtträsket, Lappland: The Saami Metal Deposits A.D. 1000–1350 in the Light of the Find from Mörtträsket, Lapland. Archaeology and Environment 3. Umeå: Department of Archaeology, University of Umeå.Google Scholar