Were the Sámi Swedes? Swedish scholarly ethnographic perspectives on the Sámi,

1555 to 1848

Master’s Thesis, 60 credits, VT Program: Early Modern Studies Candidate: Britta Helm Supervisor: Henrik Ågren Seminar Tutor: Karin Hassan Jansson Date of discussion seminar: 27 May 2013

Historiska institutionen Uppsala universitet

      2    

Abstract This thesis is an analysis of how the Sámi were described by Swedish scholars in the early modern period and to what extent the Sámi were seen as part of the Swedish community. While many researchers of Sámi history have utilized the ethnographic texts written about the Sámi in the early modern period as a means of finding out what the Sámi were like and how they lived, no one has yet – to the best of my knowledge – analyzed the Swedish scholars perspective on the image of the Sámi. Before delving into examining the sources, an examination of previous research needed to take place. To get a sense of how the Swedish policies toward the Sámi may have contributed to the scholars’ perspectives, I looked at Roger Kvist’s research on Swedish state policies towards the Sámi. However, after final analysis I found that there was no correlation. Therefore I turned towards Gunlög Fur, Karin Granqvist, and Eli Høydalsnes for guidance as to what to expect with the ethnographic texts. These three women emphasize Sámi exoticism and the distancing of the Sámi as the Other within their research on the Sámi. For information on what would be the question of nationalism, the Other, and identity within this investigation, I first turned to Anthony D. Smith’s and Kimmo Katajala’s work on the importance of religion and language on forming national identity. Then with both Robert J. C. Young and Richard Jenkins I saw how the clash of the Other and the same create ambiguity among the identity of a people, creating an ‘us’ verses ‘them’ mentality. The four scholars I utilize are from across the early modern period starting with Olaus Magnus (Description of the Northern Peoples 1555), Johannes Schefferus (Lapponia 1673), Carl Linnæus (Lachesis Lapponica 1732), and Lars Levi Læstadius (Fragments of Lappish Mythology 1838 – 1845). After dividing my sources up by the descriptions of: mind-body, lifestyle, language, and religion, I found that the scholars depicted the Sámi with different levels of the Other, such as positive, negative, neutral and even similarities. While Sámi exoticism can be seen throughout the texts and the Sámi are further distanced as the Other, particularly in the pagan descriptions, overall the Sámi were created as not an antithesis for the Swedes as many of the previous research tends to focus on. Ambiguity was created within the texts with the authors often contradicting themselves and each other during their descriptions of the Sámi. This ambiguity makes the Sámi difficult to place within the strict membership criteria that are present for one to be a Swede. In the end I found that the Swedish scholars were rather alike in their perspective of the Sámi by having a very scientific approach to the sources, proving that there really was no change over time. They all see the Sámi as a multi-faceted people who have good and bad qualities, and these qualities are simply represented by the comments on the Sámi as positive and negative Others. Keywords: Sámi, Early Modern History, The Other, ‘Us’ and ‘Them’, Swedish scholars, Ambiguity, Ethnographies, Swedish-Sámi Relations

      3    

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Sources and the Men behind them ................................................................... 2 1.2 Swedes and Sámis in the Early Modern Era ............................................................ 6 1.3 Methodological Approach ....................................................................................... 8 1.4 Central Terms: Nationalism, The Other and Identity .......................................... 10 1.5 The Sámi as a People ............................................................................................. 12 1.6 Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................................................... 13

2. The Mind-Body Descriptions of the Sámi .................................................................... 14 2.1 The Sámi’s Physique .............................................................................................. 14 2.1.1 The Main Factor: Short Stature .......................................................................................... 14 2.1.2 Good Physical Qualities ....................................................................................................... 16 2.1.3 Comparison with Others ..................................................................................................... 18 2.1.4 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 21 2.2 The “habits of their mind”: The Sámi’s Mind and Emotions .............................. 22 2.2.1 Fearful of Strangers .............................................................................................................. 23 2.2.2 A Tranquil, Yet Lazy People ............................................................................................... 27 2.2.3 Tainted by the Outside World ............................................................................................ 30 2.1.4 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 34 2.3 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................. 34

3. The Way the Sámi Live: Lifestyle Descriptions ............................................................ 35 3.1 Tents vs. Towns: Sámi Housing ............................................................................ 36 3.2 Dress of the Sámi ................................................................................................... 40 3.3 Fish and Reindeer: The Diet of the Sámi .............................................................. 46 3.4 Goods and Employments of the Sámi ................................................................... 50 3.5 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................. 54

4. Language and its role in Sámi Identity ......................................................................... 55 4.1 Language Discussion within the Swedish Scholars .............................................. 55 4.2 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................. 59

5. Christians vs. Magicians: Religious Descriptions of the Sámi ..................................... 59 5.1 Enlightened by Christianity ................................................................................... 60 5.2 Magical and Diabolical: Pagan Descriptions of the Sámi .................................... 65 5.3 Pointing the Finger at Others ................................................................................ 70 5.4 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................. 73

6. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 74 Appendix: Figure 1. Map of Sápmi ..................................................................................... 79 Figure 2. Portrait of Linnæus “in a Lapp costume” ......................................... 80 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 81

   

      1    

1. Introduction

Consider this: “The Sámi are said to be one of the most well-researched and well-described

people in Europe, if not the whole world”.1 Why is this? What makes the Sámi so captivating for

researchers and historians alike? According to ethnographer Björn Collinder:

Because of their picturesque costumes, their old-fashioned way of life, and the sense of beauty which they display in the ornamentation of their household goods and implements, [the Lapps] have attracted the attention of innumerable travelers and men of science from the beginning of the Christian era up to these days.2

As during Collinder’s time of the late 1940s, many people still only know these people by the

name of Lapps.3 Another reason is that the Sámi have held a complex relationship within each

country they live in the northern Nordic countries of Sweden, Norway, Finland and Russia. For

hundreds of years Europeans had made contact with the Sámi.4 These contacts and interactions

between these two groups have evolved fairly seamlessly over the centuries, which makes it nearly

impossible to know when the first encounter actually happened.5 This points to the fact that

Swedes – for example – and Sámi have acknowledged each other’s existence for a long time.

Unlike the Spanish, British, and French coming to the New World and conquering the natives,

there was no flashpoint in which the Swedes conquered the Sámi. The Sámi never needed to be

conquered.

Being indigenous people, the Sámi transferred their history orally over the generations and did

not write their own history for much of the early modern period. Instead, outsiders wrote the

Sámi’s history. As Kristin Kuutma states: “The Sámi captivated the European imagination and

inspired an abundance of accounts, transcriptions, travelogues and visitation reports – literature

written about them, describing their primitive conditions, lifestyle, practices, shamanism and

interaction with magic powers.”6 Because the Sámi did not write their own history, most modern

historians often just reference the ethnographic7 material previously written about them in order

to see how they lived in the early modern era.8 Instead of following this pattern, the aim of this

thesis is to turn the light towards the material itself and analyze how others have described the

                                                                                                               1 Kuutma 2006, p. 32. 2 Collinder 1949, Preface. 2 Collinder 1949, Preface. 3 For the purpose of this thesis, I will use the current term Sámi as the name of this people when I am speaking, and only use Lapp when other authors use it. 4 For example one of the first references of the Sámi that most historians cite occurs in Cornelius Tacitus’ ethnographic treatise Germania, written A.D. 98, in which he used the term Fenni to designate a people living in northeastern Europe who were “astonishingly savage and disgustingly poor.” By Fenni Tacitus means Finns, which is another word for the Sámi. Tacitus 1970, p. 141. 5 Fur 2006, p. 41. 6 Kuutma 2006, p. 38. 7 Ethnography is the study or description of an ethnic group. 8 Most are mainly referencing one of my sources, Lapponia by Johannes Schefferus, such as Björn Collinder, Håkan Rydving, Gunlög Fur, and others.

      2    

Sámi within ethnographic works. Since a Swede wrote the first seminal ethnographic work on the

Sámi, I decided to investigate the ethnographic material written by Swedish scholars in the early

modern period, starting from around 1550 to 1850. Then, due to the fact that the Sámi paid

tributes or taxes to the Swedish king, a practice that dates back to at least the fourteenth century,

the Sámi were evidently already part of the Swedish realm during the early modern period.

Therefore, the main question I want to answer with these sources is whether or not the Sámi

were described as part of the Swedish ‘us’, in other words the Swedish community?

1.1 The Sources and the Men behind them

As stated by Kristin Kuutma before, the Sámi fascinated Europe and many people wrote about

the Sámi in the early modern period.9 In order to narrow down my texts I decided to analyze

Swedish ethnographic works since a Swede wrote the first major work on the Sámi. I further

narrowed it down by choosing texts written by scholars instead of those written by missionaries,

because I wanted my sources to come from the learned, educated men in Swedish society. The

reason for choosing scholars was to see how men from the world of academia presented the Sámi

to the outside world of the reader.

The primary sources I have analyzed are taken from over three centuries, from roughly 1550

to 1850. The reason I chose these years was that the first seminal work including the Sámi is from

just after 1550, which is Olaus Magnus’ 1555 work, Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus or Description

of the Northern Peoples. In order to see how the Swedish perspective on the Sámi progressed over

time I chose a prime ethnographic source within each century following 1555 until the end of the

early modern era in 1850. The progression after Magnus then follows Johannes Schefferus’

Lapponia or otherwise known as The History of Lapland in 1673 to Carl Linnæus’ Lachesis Lapponica

or a Tour in Lapland from 1732 to lastly, Lars Levi Læstadius’ Fragments of Lappish Mythology

written from 1838-1845. These authors do not represent the entire century in which they wrote,

but rather signify a snippet of how the Sámi were depicted during that era.

Olaus Magnus (1490-1557) was very proud of his country and his religion. Being a Catholic,

and the last Catholic archbishop10 in the then emerging Protestant realm of Sweden, the main

purpose of Magnus’ text was to show the northern lands, with their vast resources and pious

hard-working people, as a desirable area for reclamation to the world of Catholic Europe.11

                                                                                                               9 Though most of the texts were written at the end of the early modern period. For a good listing of sources, see Anderzén 1989. 10 Technically Olaus Magnus did not function as the archbishop of Sweden. The Holy See ordained Olaus Magnus after his brother’s, Johannes, death, but he was not recognized by Gustav Vasa. He also did not live in Sweden at that time therefore it was a completely empty title. Johannesson 1991, p. 141 and 158. 11 Peter Foote, Introduction to Description of the Northern Peoples 1996, p. xxxviii.

      3    

Magnus’ work, Description of the Northern Peoples12 was published in 1555 in Latin and then available

in abridgements in numerous languages. He was the first to write a seminal work about the

Scandinavian Arctic and therefore about the Sámi. The work itself is quite large. It includes 22

parts, which he calls Books.13 He is therefore covering quite a large topic of the northern lands,

and in doing so he talks about more people than just the Sámi for he is mainly talking about his

own people, Swedes. He specifically dedicates one book – Book Four “On the Wars and

Customs of the Pagan Dwellers in the Wild and Their Neighbors” – to the discussion of the

Sámi. He also talks about the Sámi outside of this chapter and many times he does not directly

address them as Lapps, but by other names, such as Scricfinns, which I will address further on.

Though he wrote his tome while in exile in Rome, Magnus did spend most of his life in

Sweden and also traveled up north. When he was 29 years old he traveled for a few years to

Norway and also up to Torneå, Sweden14 where he would have met Sámi, Muscovites, Germans,

Swedes and Finns all trading together. While he was able to write some from experience he

mainly references back to classical authors such as Roman naturalist and philosopher Pliny,

Roman Senator Marcus Aurelius Cassiodorus and Danish medieval historian Saxo Grammaticus.

He also made reference to his contemporaries, like German humanists Albert Krantz and

Franciscus Irenicus, and perhaps most of all to his brother, Johannes, and his History of the Gothic

and Swedish Kings. According to Peter Foote, Olaus Magnus must have received most of his

information by word of mouth and that Magnus “certainly seems to have taken a good deal on

trust”.15 What should then be taken away from this is not whether or not what he wrote is the

truth, but rather what he thought was important and concerned about. This also shows that first

hand knowledge was very important in the writing of this large work.

Johannes Schefferus’ Lapponia or in the full title, The History of Lapland: Wherein are shewed the

Original, Manners, Habits, Marriages, Conjurations, & c. of that People was written in Latin in 1673, then

quickly translated to English in 1674. In 1671 Magnus de la Gardie, Chancellor of the Realm,

charged Schefferus (1621-1679) with the task of writing a description of the Sámi, one that was a

more realistic portrait of them for there were rumors surrounding these people. De la Gardie,

and therefore also the Swedish state, commissioned this work in order to dispel the European

belief that Gustavus Adolphus used Sámi magic on the German battlefields during the Thirty

Years War. This is one of the most referenced texts on the Sámi, I believe due to the fact that this

                                                                                                               12 The title literally translates from Latin as: The People Under the Seven Stars, which means the constellation the Big Dipper. 13 Scholars have noted that the Old Testament and St. Augustine’s City of God also have 22 books, so perhaps Magnus was following in their footsteps. See Sjoholm 2004, p. 250. 14 See Appendix, Figure 1 of map. 15 Foote, Introduction to Description of the Northern Peoples 1996, p. liii – liv.

      4    

was the first ethnographic text concentrating only on the Sámi. It is comprised of thirty-five

chapters on all aspects of Sámi life, from the origin of their name to the animals and minerals that

surround them. Schefferus, born in Strasburg, Germany, arrived in Sweden in 1648 to take up a

professorship in Law and Rhetoric at Uppsala University. Though a German by birth through his

research and writing of Swedish history, he came to be regarded as “the father of Swedish literary

history”, and mainly remembered for this work on the Sámi.16

Unlike Olaus Magnus, Schefferus never traveled up to Lapland. He did all of his research from

his home in Uppsala. The only time he would have met a Sámi would have been at the winter

market there. He too relied on classic authors such as Tacitus and Saxo for historical background

and to quite an extent Olaus Magnus. What sets this work apart from Magnus’ is that Schefferus

used the descriptions of Sámi written by Lutheran priests living in Lapland, which were requested

by de la Gardie. This shows how he relied on more direct information on the Sámi, though still

he did not receive this data directly from the Sámi.

Carl Linnæus (1707-1778) is mainly known as a scientist and botanist, and is not typically

referenced in Sámi literature, but he did travel to Lapland in 1732 and wrote a journal of his

travels entitled Lachesis Lapponica or a Tour in Lapland. After being appointed and sponsored by

Uppsala’s Royal Academy of Sciences to investigate Lapland, Linnæus set out from the university

town of Uppsala at just twenty-five years old on May 12th. He traveled around to many of the

villages, staying at different Sámi camps. He even trekked over to Norway for a short time and

returned home on October 10th by going through Finland.

An interesting aspect that the editor to the first English translation points out is that this was

intended as a personal journal and therefore was not meant for an audience other than himself.

Yet Linnæus states in his journal that he would not describe something further in order to not

“excite as much disgust in my readers as in myself”.17 Perhaps he just meant the Royal Academy,

but this shows that Linnæus expected to have other readers. According to Lisbet Koerner,

Linnæus wanted his travels published, but the Royal Academy refused.18 Instead he wrote Flora

Lapponica, published in 1737, about the plants of Lapland, which includes some of his travels.

Since this is a journal it is quite a bit different than both of the previous two works. The editor

warns that the reader might be disappointed because Linnæus omitted what was familiar to

himself in books or other literature.19 This is for the most part true, because Linnæus mainly

relates what he has seen and done along his journey, but he does hint at previous research by

                                                                                                               16 Sjoholm 2005, p. 9. 17 Linnæus 1811 (1732), p. 41. 18 Koerner 1999, p. 62. 19 Smith, Preface to Lachesis Lapponica 1811, p. xii.

      5    

openly referencing Schefferus.20 Other researchers have concluded that Linnæus read literature

specifically about the Sámi before traveling, which would have included Magnus, Schefferus and

Olof Rudbeck the Younger.21 Rudbeck, a professor and friend to Linnæus, journeyed to Torne

and Lule Lappmark in 1695 to study the natural history, though the diary that remains has little

information about the Sámi. Since Rudbeck and Linnæus were such close friends, Nellejet

Zorgdrager comes to the conclusion that discussions between these two men and the diary were

Linnæus’ main sources before he started his journey.22

The last source analyzed is Lars Levi Læstadius’ work, Fragments of Lappish Mythology, written

from 1838-1845. Known mainly for his religious aspects and the start of the Læstadian

movement, Læstadius (1800-1861) was also a scientist, botanist, linguist, zoologist, philosopher,

mythologist, and ethnographer. He wrote this ethnographic work as part of the La Recherche

expedition of 1838-1840, which was planned and organized by the French Admiralty. This Royal

Expedition took place in the spirit of Schefferus, Giuseppe Acerbi and other European explorers

who became fascinated by Lapland. The King of Sweden, Karl XIV, asked Læstadius to take part

as a scientist and guide for the expedition to northern Scandinavia.23

Unlike the other ethnographers, Læstadius has a greater connection to the Sámi due to the fact

that he does have some Sámi ancestry. His mother was a Southern Sámi and for most of his life

he lived in Lapland. I believe this does not affect his perspective, because he keeps a very

scientific mind while writing this work. For example he rarely, or if at all, uses the word ‘we’ or

‘us’ within his text allowing himself to keep his distance as an author. Similar to all the other

authors, Læstadius also has a connection to Uppsala for he studied at the University, and he read

and utilized all of the previous authors’ works within his own text.

Although Læstadius sent his manuscript of Fragments of Lappish Mythology to his fellow La

Recherche researcher, Xavier Marmier, in France in order to get it translated and published, the

manuscript actually sat forgotten for many years. Marmier never published it and not until 1933

was Part 1 found. Subsequently, Parts 2 to 5 were discovered in 1946, nearly one hundred years

after Læstadius wrote them. With the exception of one other work, this was Læstadius’ largest

scholarly work. Due to his well-known reputation in Finnish and Scandinavian church history as

a religious revivalist leader of Læstadianism, modern researchers typically pay no attention to this

work. It is important to know that Læstadius did not personally convert to his new belief until

1844, near the end of writing Fragments, and that the movement itself began a year later. As

                                                                                                               20 Linnæus 1811 (1732), p. 312. “The report of Scheffer therefore, that they do not ruminate, is false, and Ray guessed more correctly than Scheffer observed.” 21 Koerner 1999, p. 62; Zorgdrager 2008, p. 49 – 52. 22 Zorgdrager 2008, p. 52. 23 Pentikäinen, Introduction to Fragments of Lappish Mythology 2002, p. 36.

      6    

researcher Juha Pentikäinen notes: “Many seem to have had difficulty keeping Læstadius the

person and his attitudes toward Læstadianism separate.”24 Like Pentikäinen, I believe one can

separate these sides of Læstadius when discussing Fragments, especially since his conversion

happened later. I believe this work should not be forgotten, because it holds great insight to how

the Sámi were perceived by Swedes, as do all four sources.

1.2 Swedes and Sámis in the Early Modern Era

The only source I found that partially approaches the intent of my thesis is the ethnographic

work, The Lapps, by Björn Collinder from 1949. In this work, Collinder provides a modern

ethnographic take on the Sámi and includes a chapter, “Ancient and Modern Opinions of the

Lapps”. Here he walks the reader through the different sources that have been written about the

Sámi and mentions three of the four scholars: Olaus Magnus, Johannes Schefferus, and Carl

Linnæus. Only taking a page or two to discuss each text demonstrates that this topic provides

interest, for it has been briefly touched upon, but in the end not thoroughly investigated.

As means of a backdrop for this thesis, it is key to see how the Swedish state treated the Sámi

through policies and Roger Kvist – among others25 – has contributed greatly in this area. Kvist’s

research has broken down the governmental policies that have affected the Sámi into different

stages of policies, which are organized by the Crown’s interests towards the Sámi. Since I am

researching the period from 1550 to 1850, the policies in connection to this overall time frame

are as follows: the territorial and fiscal policy of 1550 to 1635, the mining policy of 1635 to 1673,

the colonization policy without Sámi participation of 1673 to 1749, and then finally the

colonization policy with Sámi participation of 1749 to 1846.

Under the territorial and fiscal policy, Lapland was put under direct royal administration and

began to be taxed. Through this policy the Sámi were officially put under the rule of the Crown.

The mining policy was a time when silver was found at Nasafjäll and this greatly affected the

Sámi’s ability to herd reindeer. Exploitation by the Crown continued even though the mine was a

bust. Under the colonization without Sámi participation period, a settlement proclamation was

issued, which promised tax privileges and exemption from military draft for Swedish

homesteaders in Lapland. This policy should have taken a great deal of open land away from the

Sámi, but very few settlements actually were established. Lastly, during the colonization period

with Sámi participation, settlement privileges were given to the Sámi. Though, by the 1760s, they

no longer had self-determination of land rights. Their land was property of the Crown, and the

people were permanent tenants of the Crown. This period of policy took a great toll on the Sámi                                                                                                                24 Pentikäinen, Introduction to Fragments of Lappish Mythology 2002, p. 21. 25 Fur 2006; Lundmark 2008; and Rydving 1993.

      7    

in which their economy diminished and their power relation to the society also diminished.26

These policy periods show the fluctuation of how the Swedish government treated the Sámi,

mainly through acknowledging and then giving away of their land rights. According to Sámi

historian Lennart Lundmark, by 1850 the Sámi’s rights were at the lowest they had ever been

during the early modern period.27

When compared to the four scholarly ethnographic texts, the time frames of the periods

appear to associate with a text from each century. At the beginning of my research I was most

curious whether the ethnographic descriptions correlated to these policy periods in which the

descriptions of the Sámi would follow the same fluctuation and fall as their rights did. In the end

I found no such correlation, and instead of finding the potential influence of these governmental

policies on how Swedish scholars describe the Sámi, it appears that the government did not

influence these scholars.

Gunlög Fur has also researched the interaction between the Sámi and the Swedish state. She

has mainly concentrated on the seventeenth century, comparing these interactions with the

interactions between Sweden and the Lenape natives in their colony of New Sweden in North

America. Although not a main part of her argument – since she concentrates mainly on the

Lenape side of the research – Fur discusses the increase in exoticism within the realm. She

mentions how Schefferus and also authors of Lenape histories must “be appraised as part of a

growing trend towards exoticization and distancing of these peoples.”28 Much like other Sámi

researchers, Fur briefly mentions Schefferus in correlation with his work and how it contributes

to the fascination of the Sámi, but that is the main extent.

Another difference between my research and hers is that Fur mainly references non-scholars,

such as priests who are living in Lapland. In the end she found that if one does look from the

perspective of the Swedish state, the intensified contacts within the second half of the

seventeenth century led to an increasing concern with the Sámi as an “other” within the realm.

Though, she points out that the general thrust to civilize ran throughout all of the provinces in

Sweden. What made this more poignant in Lapland was due to the resistance of converting their

religion and education to that of the rest of Sweden.29 While Fur does not focus on ethnographic

texts, she does emphasize the significance of exoticization and the beginnings of the Sámi as an

Other, which are important aspects of my work.

                                                                                                               26 Kvist 1992, p. 64 – 68. 27 Lundmark 2008, p. 109. 28 Fur 2006, p. 28. 29 Fur 2006, p. 86.

      8    

The theme of Sámi exoticism is also found within the works of Sámi researcher Karin

Granqvist and art historian Eli Høydalsnes. Granqvist researched Sámi court cases within the

town of Jukkasjärvi, Sweden during the seventeenth century and found that due to Sámi

exoticism, the Sámi were seen as “the different other” and perceived as uncivilized. Since there

were such a high number of crimes against religion, with the Sámi depicted as idolaters, the Sámi

were seen as morally different from the authority of the Swedish state. As such, the Sámi culture

became the antithesis of the Swedish authorities.30 In order to explain the reasoning for the

creation of an antithesis within cultures, Granqvist utilizes the cultural theory of Robert J. C.

Young. I believe this theory also applies to my research and have discussed it further on.

Karin Granqvist also utilizes Eli Høydalsnes’ work on how the Sámi are consistently depicted

as the Other because of the continuation of Sámi exoticism. As an art historian Høydalsnes

studied the representations of the Sámi in art from the 1500s to the 1800s. This makes her

research the closest to my own, specifically for the fact that she begins her research by comparing

Olaus Magnus’ and Johannes Schefferus’ images of the Sámi within their own works. Overall

Høydalsnes finds that the representations of the Sámi in art were fixed over the early modern

period for the Sámi “are depicted as exotic savages, shrouded in mysticism – as the western

civilizations other. That is: they are outside civilization.”31 While Karin Granqvist found this to be

also true within her own research, it will be interesting to see if the Sámi exoticism and distancing

remains constant throughout the Swedish scholars descriptions of the Sámi.

1.3 Methodological Approach

While some scholars believe that not all of the texts I have chosen to research are ethnographic, I

argue that they are.32 For even though the term ethnography was not created until the nineteenth

century, people have been writing ethnographies long before then, being that it refers to a science

that examines peoples’ religions, social conditions, customs and habits, and ways of living.33 This

is exactly what all four scholars wrote about. Ethnographies are great sources for my research for

they are not only scientific descriptions of entire cultures, but also arguments. As anthropologist

David Jacobson argues, “The selection and presentation of facts in an ethnography is a result of

analysis and interpretation and not simply a record of observations made during the

anthropologist’s fieldwork.”34 The motivation behind each chosen author’s text is important for

each has an agenda as to how they want to depict the Sámi.

                                                                                                               30 Granqvist 2004, p. 210. 31 Høydalsnes 2003, p. 102. The translations are my own. 32 Sjoholm 2005, p. 10. 33 Pentikäinen, Afterword in Fragments of Lappish Mythology 2002, p. 317. 34 Jacobson 1991, p. 7.

      9    

As one can see, all four authors had different reasons for writing their works and therefore

each man had an audience in mind while writing. Olaus Magnus wrote in Latin and for a wide

European audience for he wanted to show that the North was a wondrous place worthy of the

Catholics to reclaim. Schefferus also wrote in Latin for a European audience in an apologetic way

in order to relay the truth about the Sámi people to the world. Both Magnus and Schefferus have

a similar audience and aim for they wrote of the Sámi as part of the Swedish realm for an

international public. Then with Carl Linnæus and Læstadius there is a change, because both

narrowed down their audience and wrote in Swedish. With this smaller audience of Sweden,

Linnæus wanted to relay his fascination of the Sámi, while Læstadius wanted to record the

mythology and the truth of Sámi before it was lost. Though it should be added that while the first

two men had a similar perspective, these later men do not. Linnæus writes from a Swedish

perspective, whereas Læstadius has more of a Sámi perspective in mind, demonstrating overall

that their comparisons to one another are rather complex.

These men also wrote in different intellectual climates within each century, making their

approach to their individual sources different. Olaus Magnus reflects the medieval and

renaissance frame of mind with the Gothic style of history in the humanist approach, citing many

classical authors such as Pliny.35 With Schefferus comes the beginning of the Enlightenment,

though he is more pre-Enlightenment. The notion of questioning the truth, of weighing the

evidence, is apparent throughout his text as part of his rhetorical strategy, because he typically

states authorities on both sides of an argument and then comes down for one or the other. Yet, it

is also apparent that empiricism has not yet permeated into Swedish intellectual circles, because

Schefferus relies heavily on the sources and reports of others for his work.36 The empiricist

element then comes out with Linnæus. He was a man of science and explains everything

scientifically, though it is important to remember that he was only twenty-five years old when he

ventured to the North and had not created his binomial nomenclature. He reflects more of the

modern academic romanticism. Læstadius was also a man of the Enlightenment in a broad sense,

because he wants to explain everything in a rationalizing manner. Source criticism lies heavily

within his work for he questions what earlier researchers have said and wants to correct their

mistakes.

Lastly, although the governmental policies did not appear to influence the authors in any way,

the changes in external historical times could help explain the differences among the sources. In

other words, sometimes it could be that society has changed and therefore one scholar describes

                                                                                                               35 With Magnus, history was foremost a magistra vitae in which “to instruct, warn, and exhort contemporaries and posterity, thus intervening in the life of the individual and society.” Johannesson 1991, p. 84. 36 Sjoholm 2005, p. 10.

      10    

the Sámi differently than the other three scholars. In the end all four of these areas, consisting of:

aim, audience, intellectual climates and historical times, are important for me to remember while

analyzing these texts.

In order to manage and analyze these sources, I divide the descriptions up into four categories

with subcategories underneath. These main categories are thus:

• Mind-body descriptions

• Lifestyle descriptions

• Language descriptions

• Religious descriptions

The mind-body descriptions are those of the physique/body of the Sámi, such as height and

looks, and those of the mind, meaning their emotions and how they act around others. The

lifestyle descriptions are made up of the major influences of how the Sámi live and survive in the

north. The subcategories are: housing, food, clothing, and employments/goods, meaning the

items they make or use. One of the ways to distinguish between different peoples is by their

language. For that reason I have included this as one of the categories. There are no

subcategories due to the fact that these descriptions consist of anytime language is discussed

within the text. Lastly are the religious descriptions, which are made up of descriptions of the

religion prior to Christianity or as most state it: the pagan religion and the Sámi as Christians.

While the pagan religion was not truly a religion by name, but an old world-view belief, I still

label these under religious descriptions in order to avoid confusion. Overall these categories were

inspired by the sources themselves, because ethnographies tend to break up their works into

categories such as these.37 What I am most interested in finding within these categories are the

claims about norms. In other words, the statements on how the Sámi and others – spoken about

in the text – should or should not act.

1.4 Central Terms: Nationalism, The Other and Identity

Since this thesis is centered on the Swedish perspective of the Sámi within the Swedish state, the

concepts of nationalism, the Other, and identity play important roles. By Swedish state, I mean

more specifically the Swedish national narrative. This term is problematic, because the idea of

nationalism is a controversial topic for certain historians, who believe this to be a modern

phenomenon that did not occur until the latter half of the eighteenth century.38 Anthony D.

Smith, on the other hand, sees the beginnings of nationalism much earlier in what he calls “ethnie”

                                                                                                               37 This is particularly true for Schefferus. 38 Such as Anderson 2006; Gellner 1983; Hobsbawm 1990.

      11    

or ethnic communities.39 Two themes arising out of his research are the influences of language

and religion on national identity.40 Early modern historian Kimmo Katajala utilizes these two

themes within his own research for he debates the significance of language and religion in early

modern ethnic identities and ‘nations’, such as with state formation. He examined the Swedish

Empire in the border area between Finland and Russia during the seventeenth century. Overall,

Katajala finds that both language and religion played important roles in defining ‘us’ and the

‘other’, though religion was the main way subjects were ‘Swedicized’.41 With this research in mind,

these themes work as a starting point to see what aspects are most important when describing the

Sámi within the Swedish state and, as can already be seen, I have added the themes of mind-body

and lifestyle descriptions to the ways the Sámi can be described.

The Other is a well-known concept developed by sociologist Edward Said and originated in the

studying of the Orient by European intellectuals, which produced essentialist representations.

This showed how identities within a dominant social group are constructed in opposition to a

culturally different Other, creating a discourse of ‘us’ and ‘them’. According to Said, “no identity

can ever exist by itself and without an array of opposites, negatives, oppositions”.42 In the case of

the texts I have chosen, the Swedish scholars could have created their identity in opposition to

the Sámi Other and/or included the Sámi as part of the Swedish ‘we’.

The problem with the term of the Other is that it encompasses such a broad meaning.

Technically someone just has to be slightly different to be seen as an Other. As a result, I believe

it is important to see the Other as a palimpsest, with multiple layers hidden underneath. From

what I have found within my own research, there are at least four different ways the Sámi are

compared with other groups, such as Swedes, Finns, and Europeans. First is the negative Other,

which is the image easily associated with Said’s idea for the dominant Europeans’ image of the

Orient. Secondly, there is the positive Other in which the Sámi become role models. For

example, the Walloons from Belgium living in Sweden – ironworkers who immigrated to Sweden

in the seventeenth century – had a positive image as an Other.43 Thirdly, the neutral Other where

there simply exists a respectful difference between the two groups. Lastly, there exist similarities

between the Sámi and mainly Swedes, which simply make them more alike, and many times the

Swedish scholars utilize these connections in order to better explain the Sámi.

                                                                                                               39 According to Smith, an ethnie has six characteristics: a collective name, a common myth of descent, a shared history, a distinctive shared culture, an association with a specific territory and a sense of solidarity. Smith 1986, p. 13 – 16. 40 Smith 1998, p. 226 – 227. 41 Katajala 2006, p. 350. 42 Said 1993, p. 52. 43 Flóren 1998, p. 11 – 27.

      12    

The problem with these different levels of Otherness is that it can create ambivalence within a

culture. Literature scientist and cultural theorist Robert J. C. Young addresses this in his own

work, Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race. Young argues that culture is always

changing. It has never been stable, because culture has always been colored by differences and a

desire for whatever is different, meaning Otherness. Ambivalence is then created because culture

seeks both the Otherness and the same.44 It wants to find what differs from and what resembles

itself, which is exactly what the Swedish scholars are doing for they are finding what is different

and the same with the Sámi. Although I believe the levels of Otherness to contain more than

simply the same and different categories, this theory helps to show what can arise from how

different cultures see each other.

At the basis of the Other is the creation of identities and for clarity on the very broad topic of

identity I apply Richard Jenkins. Collective identity is all about similarities and differences

according to Jenkins. People form collective identities when they share something in common,

but these collectivities also evoke differences. This again creates a discourse of ‘us’ verses ‘them’,

for when we define ‘us’, we also define ‘them’, and vice versa. In other words, when we say

something about others we are also saying something about ourselves. Within my research, I

believe the Swedish scholars are not solely creating the Swedish identity, they are contributing to

it surely, but more so the scholars are acting as mirrors of Swedish identity.

1.5 The Sámi as a people

Before diving into the analysis of the sources it is important to have an overall picture of the

Sámi as they were in the early modern period, but also as they are today. In the past, most people

know the Sámi as “Lapps” or even in older times as “Finns”.45 Some Sámi, not all, live in the area

called Sápmi, which spreads across all four nations: Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia, and is

governed by Sámi parliaments of the countries involved. They also have their own flag. It is

always difficult to know an exact number of an ethnic group that lives among different nations

and as it stands today there are about 60,000-80,000 Sámi. Of these 40,000 reside in Norway,

about 20,000 in Sweden, 6,000-7,000 in Finland and roughly 2,000 in Russia. The Sámi language

itself belongs to the Finno-Ugric branch of the Uralic family, closely related to the Balto-Finnic

languages, such as Finnish and Estonian.46 The language itself is made up of three main groups of

the Central, South, and East Sámi, within which there are nine dialects.47 Due to their geographic

                                                                                                               44 Young 1995, p. 30. 45 The use of “Finns” as a name for the Sámi comes mainly from Norwegian sources. 46 Helander 1994, p. 24. 47 South Sámi contains the Southern and Ume dialects. Central Sámi contains Pite, Lule, and North dialects. East Sámi consists of Inari, Skolt, Kildin, and Ter Sámi. Kuutma 2006, p. 225.

      13    

location the Sámi relied heavily on nature for subsistence and historically were divided into four

categories as the Mountain, Forest, Coastal, and River Sámi. The Coastal and River Sámi

subsisted mainly on fishing, while the Mountain and Forest Sámi used hunting, trapping, and the

herding of reindeer as their means of living. Today the majority of Sámi find their means of living

another way, with only about 2,000 Sámi still herding reindeer.

1.6 Research Questions and Hypotheses

The aim of this thesis is then to find out to what extent the Sámi were described as part of the

Swedish community within Swedish scholarly ethnographic works throughout the early modern

period. In order to build up the base of my research I began by asking overall questions to the

texts: How are the Sámi described? How are the Sámi projected as the Other? If people outside

of the Sámi are discussed, how are they discussed and compared to the Sámi? Is there a creation

of ‘us’ verses ‘them’ within each text? With these questions in mind, I then noted whenever this

occurred within the sources. In the end, to each text and types of descriptions, i.e. mind-body,

lifestyle, language and religion, I posed one main question with sub-questions following:

v Are the Sámi depicted as strictly different than Swedes or others?

§ If so, is it in a positive, negative, or neutral way?

§ From which perspective do the scholars see this difference? Is it through their own

personal experiences, the greater intellectual trends that are surrounding their specific

era, or from the aim of the work and writing for their particular audiences?

§ Did the difference change over time? Were there differences between the authors? If

so, can it be explained by the historical times, experiences, aims or audiences of the

author?

Hopefully with these questions I will be able to find out what the Swedish scholars thought of

the Sámi and whether they were part of the Swedish ‘us’.

At this point there are two hypotheses from previous research about how the Sámi will be

represented. The first follows Smith’s research on how religion and language will be the most

important aspects within the creation of ‘us’ and ‘them’ in Sámi descriptions. The other

hypothesis arises from art historian Eli Høydalsnes’ research on representations of Sámi in art

from the 1500s to the 1800s. She argues that all of the art from that time period were colored by

what is called “sami exoticism” for the Sámi are always depicted as wild, superstitious, barbaric,

and pagan. This could mean that the ethnographic descriptions are also constant over this time

period for they could never get away from the Sámi exoticism.

      14    

2. The Mind-Body Descriptions of the Sámi

Emphasis has been put on the influences of language and religion as the main factors on the

inclusion of people within the Swedish community, but were those the only factors? Did the

looks and/or the Sámi’s actions matter to the Swedish scholars? During the early modern period,

both the body and mind were mysterious things, and according to historian Vanita Seth’s

research on Europe’s representations of difference from 1500 to 1900, the idea of the body

changed over time. During the Renaissance, it was believed that people possessed unstable and

fluid bodies for God held the power. Monstrous species, such as Amazons and androgynies, then

reflected the diversity of God’s creation. Whereas in the Classical Age of the Enlightenment, the

body became pliable for man controlled himself. Then by the nineteenth century the body was

fixed and immutable with the idea of racial theory.48 Since racial theory did not arrive in Sweden

until after Lars Levi Læstadius’ time, only the two prior theories could potentially be seen in the

descriptions of the Swedish scholars. Is there a similar change within the Sámi texts?

2.1 The Sámi’s Physique

The physical appearance of someone can be determined by simply looking at them. It does not

require any speaking to take place between the scholars and the Sámi, the scholars just have to

observe. Even though Schefferus is the only one who had not visited Lapland, he does claim that

“we see them everyday among us” and most scholars believe that he would have seen Sámi at the

winter markets in Uppsala.49 Thus, all of the scholars would have been able to observe the Sámi

and create their own opinion of their appearance.

2.1.1 The Main Factor: Short Stature

The one trait all authors agreed on was the Sámi’s small stature. Though some Sámi were most

likely short, this trait could have easily been given to the Sámi in order to differentiate and make

the Sámi appear inferior. Regardless if this trait did apply to all Sámi, this characteristic must have

been one that was deemed a chief difference between the Swedes and Sámi because all of the

authors produce statements about their height.

For Olaus Magnus, physical appearance of the Sámi does not seem to be that important of a

subject because he does not have a chapter specifically on their appearance and instead brings it

up in his chapter, “On training in archery”. He does not go into much detail and simply states:

                                                                                                               48 Seth 2010, p. 180 and 212. 49 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 12; Ahlström, Forward to The History of Lapland, 1971 p. i. The winter market in Uppsala, otherwise known as Disting, was most likely the biggest market in Sweden, and therefore it was very likely Schefferus would have seen Sámi there. Ljung 1954, p. 148.

      15    

“This race is mostly small in stature […] since they do not live in towns or castles, but either in

villages, tents, or wagons, or in the barren wastes.”50 Magnus then contributes the Sámi’s small

stature to the way they live. Drawing this type of conclusion is reasonable in his eyes because they

did live in tents and huts and would constantly have to bend over. Schefferus could attest to this

for he mentions that the Sámi are always stooping, which is a habit they get by constantly fitting

into their cottages on the ground.51 With this statement Magnus points to an external factor

rather than emphasizing the influence of God over the body.

Of all of the scholars, Schefferus is the one to be most concerned with physical appearance.

He must have thought that the Sámi’s appearance was important when creating an ethnographic

work because the first section to discuss the people themselves – and not the land – is the fifth

chapter: “Of the Laplanders in reference to the inclinations, temper and habit, of their minds and

bodies”. Schefferus begins the chapter directly with a discussion about their height. He asserts

that, “It is almost peculiar to this People to be all of them of low stature, which is attested by the

general suffrage of those Writers who have described this Country.”52 In other words the Sámi

are known to have short stature since others have written about it, but also that this feature is

particular to them. Schefferus continues on and shows how others have misinterpreted this fact.

He provides the example of seventeenth century Dutch scholar, Isaac Vossius, who argued that

the Sámi were “pygmies” and “a deformed People”.53 Schefferus believes this to be false, because

in truth their feature and proportion is good enough, and that they are not distorted sufficiently appears from their great agility of body, and fitness for active emploiment. Nor need we dispute of this, since in Sweden, we see them every day among us, and can observe no defect in any kind, or deformity.54

While this may not be the nicest compliment – in that they are “good enough” and have no

deformities – this does show how he defends them against the untruths spread by others.

Carl Linnæus, on the other hand, provides his own explanations for their small stature. He has

“a notion that Adam and Eve were giants, and that mankind from one generation to another,

owing to poverty and other causes, have diminished in size. Hence perhaps the diminutive stature

of the Laplanders.”55 In other words the Sámi have suffered a long time with poverty and have

become shorter in the process. While this is rather an odd statement, Linnæus does account for

their small stature in helping them be so swift-footed. By having smaller bodies they are able to

be more nimble and get around much faster. He explains why this is:

                                                                                                               50 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 210. 51 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 12. 52 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 12. 53 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 12. 54 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 12. 55 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 28.

      16    

There is a striking difference in stature between the inhabitants of Helsingland and those of Lapland, nor is the reason of this difference at all obscure. If we give a young puppy plenty of food, he will grow large; if but little, he will turn out small. If kept warm, he will also grow to a much larger size than if he is always inured to cold. The same remarks may be applied to the people in question.56

This answer is much more scientific and reflects Linnæus’ way of thinking for there must be an

explanation as to why these people are short. Schefferus also comes to the conclusion that “diet

will much alter the habit of the body,” but he does not associate this to their small stature.

Instead, it is connected more to how the Sámi are lean and meager compared to the Finns, which

I will address further in this investigation.

Lastly Læstadius has only one comment on the Sámi’s physical appearance and that is on their

height. In telling a tale of a really tall woman, Læstadius asserts that the story is “made even more

believable by the fact that her parents and sisters are small; real dwarves as Lapps often are.”57

Even though he is Sámi, he seems to be mocking his own people and in a sense has the harshest

critique, much like the comments of them being pygmies that Schefferus wanted to correct.

While all have a different opinion on the Sámi’s height, the fact that all of the mention their short

stature shows that this was seen as a distinguishing feature of this people, which automatically

made them different from most Swedes. This feature was also often explained by scientific

external factors, such as with Olaus Magnus’ statement about how height is dependent on where

one lives rather than Christian belief, because not one of the scholars attributed the Sámi’s short

stature to the work of God.

2.1.2 Good Physical Qualities

The scholars do name many good qualities within the physical descriptions of the Sámi.

Throughout Description of the Northern Peoples, Olaus Magnus is very much taken with the idea of

living close to nature. Magnus specifically sees this with the Sámi females. He asserts that: “The

women and girls of those regions are exceedingly fertile and good-looking, chiefly for this reason,

that the craftsmanship of Nature has given them a special combination of white and red in their

complexions, making them appear all the more beautiful.”58 Olaus Magnus compares them to

rouge-wearing Italian women and how Italian men would probably feel safer about the chastity of

their women if they did not wear rouge. To him, Italian women’s vanity “makes them the foulest

of all creatures” and that they should instead follow the Sámi women and “reflect the beauty and

innocence of Nature”.59 He writes about the Sámi as having a way of life, which is simple and

                                                                                                               56 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 333. 57 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 236. 58 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 211. 59 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 211.

      17    

pure, and could set an example to their supposedly more civilized neighbors to the south. Here

Magnus emphasizes and distances Italy and Southern Europe away from the North and Swedes.

Here too the Sámi are representing Swedes and the beauty that can be found in the North.

Schefferus also believes this to be true since he cites Magnus. He says, “[Olaus Magnus] and

Tornæus esteem their young women indifferently handsome, and of a clear skin, which I have

often seen my self; for they take great care to preserve their natural beauty”.60 Here he even adds

to the authenticity of this statement by asserting that he has even seen this with his very own

eyes. To both of them natural beauty was a virtue and even these distinctively short statured

people had something that other Europeans were without.

The scholars also praise the Sámi for being a hardy and strong people, particularly Schefferus

and Linnæus. Schefferus praises the women for being hardy. After only a week or two after

giving birth, the women “undertake a most tedious journey, over the tops of Mountains,

thorough wide Marshes and high Woods with her infant to the Priest; for the women of the

Country are naturally hardy, and able to endure any thing without trouble”.61 This is no simple

task and Schefferus appears to be quite impressed, though he asserts the reason for such

determination is the fact that they are very zealous to hasten their children’s baptisms.

The Sámi are hardy people in the eyes of Linnæus as well. While having a difficult time

trudging through the marshes outside of Lycksele, Linnæus relates how horrible the experience

was. It was so bad that even the “hardy Laplanders themselves, born to labour as the birds to fly,

could not help complaining, and declared they had never been reduced to such extremity

before.”62 Linnæus himself complains greatly about this experience, but the mentioning of how

hardy the Sámi naturally are seems to put the situation into perspective for him because it must

be bad if the Sámi are also complaining. He is also impressed by the Sámi’s tenacity to keep up

with the reindeer in the severity of winter,63 which again displays their hardiness and toughness of

their bodies.

Strength is another admired quality of the Sámi. Schefferus declares that they “are strong in

their limbs, so that in a bow which a Norwegian can scarce half bend, they will draw an arrow up

to the head”.64 Perhaps the Norwegians are known for their strength, which would make this a

very good compliment for the Sámi because he is admitting that the Sámi are stronger than the

strongest people he knows, or this is a bash against the Norwegians in not being able to even

draw an arrow back on a bow. Either way, this statement accentuates the Sámi’s strength.

                                                                                                               60 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 12. 61 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 121 – 122. 62 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 143. 63 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 2, p. 18. 64 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 12.

      18    

During his journey through Lapland, Linnæus typically had Sámi guides to help him along the

way and to carry much of the load. As Linnæus dictates:

My companion, after committing all my property to my own care, laid his knapsack on his back, and turning the boat bottom upwards, placed the two oars longitudinally, so as to cross the seats. These rested on his arms as he carried the boat over his head, and thus he scampered away over hills and valleys, so that the devil himself could not have come up with him.65

This indeed shows their strength and their swift-footedness, which Linnæus greatly admires

because he would not have been able to get around Lapland without these men. This particular

man is so fast that he can easily out-run the devil, which is a skill most men would want to

possess.

The Sámi have physical qualities that are venerated by the scholars. They possess natural

beauty that other Europeans should envy and they are both physically hardy and strong allowing

them to get around in their environment with more ease. Unlike their short stature differentiating

them from outsiders, these are traits that do not bring them out as the negative Other. This is due

to the fact that these are not odd and peculiar traits to the Sámi, but can be found in people all

over the world. Therefore the scholars draw on more similarities. This also shows the different

levels of Otherness and that Otherness is not always created in a negative way, but in a positive

way too, as seen with romanticizing the beauty of the Sámi women.

2.1.3 Comparison with Others

Compared to Magnus and Læstadius, Schefferus and Linnæus describe the Sámi’s physical

appearance in much more detail, mainly through the discussion of others. Schefferus includes a

chapter on “the Originall of the Laplanders” in which he discusses the different theories as to

where the Sámi originated. Right away he begins the conversation by stating: “Negatively we may

pass sentence, and conclude they were not Swedes, no People differing more both in constitution

of body and mind”.66 He does not provide any evidence directly afterwards to back this statement

up, and therefore it seems to be self-evident how different these two people are.

Perhaps the reason for no evidence is that Schefferus has described the Sámi in detail earlier

within his fifth chapter on their body and mind. As for their features,

they have thick heads, prominent foreheads, hollow and blear eyes, short flat noses, and wide mouths. Their hair is thin, short and flaggy, their beard stragling, and scarce covers their chins. The hair of both Sexes is generally black and hard, very seldom yellow, their breasts broad, slender wasts, spindle shanks, and swift of foot.67

                                                                                                               65 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 97. 66 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 15. 67 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 12.

      19    

Though he does not provide a description of Swedes – only a hint at them having blonde hair –

one can see that this description depicts the Sámi as being very different than Swedes. This

particular account creates a very unattractive and negative picture of the Sámi for Schefferus does

not give any positive adjectives to any of their features, but rather blunt, unadorned descriptions.

Through this description and his declaration of “no People differing more”, Schefferus wants to

make it very clear that the Sámi are physically opposite to Swedes.

After declaring that the Sámi did not originate from Swedes and are the opposite, Schefferus

continues on to say that they are neither Russians nor Muscovites. This time he gives a short

comparison between the two: “The Russians are generally tall, the Laplanders on the contrary

very short; those are fat and corpulent, these lean and slender; those have thick hair, long beards,

and good complexions, these wear their hair short and thin, and are dark and swarthy”.68 He

again does not offer a very attractive portrayal of the Sámi. Perhaps in today’s society one would

see being described as lean and slender as a compliment, but during the early modern period, to

be fat meant wealth and power.

In the end Schefferus comes to the conclusion that the Sámi must have originated from one

of the other neighbors, but they could not come from Norway, because – as he believes – the

Norwegians derive from the Swedes. Therefore the Sámi came from the Finns since they share

much in common such as: language, previous pagan gods, clothing and “too are not much

unlike”.69 He continues on to describe how similar they are, but one of the differences they have

is that physically the Finns are just as fat and corpulent as the Russians compared to the “lean and

meager” Sámi.70 Schefferus attests this to their diet, which again emphasizes the influence of the

environment on how the Sámi appear. The emphasis of external factors is in a sense an indirect

way of looking for similarities between the Sámi and others, because it shows that the Sámi are

not intrinsically different. Yet, Schefferus’ statement still shows that the Sámi differentiate from

their closest people. Here then Schefferus presents the Sámi as opposites to other Europeans,

with the Europeans possessing good features and the Sámi with the bad. Within these two

comparisons of Swedes and other Europeans to the Sámi’s physical descriptions, the Sámi are

more so created as a negative Other when compared to other people.

Unlike Schefferus, Linnæus does not make any declarative statements of the Sámi being the

direct opposites of the Swedes when it comes to the physical description. Linnæus must have

viewed the Sámi and Swedes as already similar in his eyes for he instead focuses on certain

characteristics among the Sámi that are quite different from Swedes. In the end these

                                                                                                               68 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 15. 69 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 16. 70 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 17.

      20    

characteristics are similar to Schefferus’ descriptions. While walking through the marshes outside

of Lycksele, Linnæus comes across a person whose appearance was such that at first he did not

know whether it was a man or a woman. It turned out to be a woman, who he describes as: “Her

face of the darkest brown from the effects of smoke. Her eyes dark and sparkling. Her eyebrows

black. Her pitchy-coloured hair hung loose about her head […] her neck, which resembled the

skin of a frog”.71 This shows similar characteristics to how Schefferus described them, for they

are also dark haired and swarthy. Linnæus on the other hand is much more open as to his

negative opinion of this appearance and declares that her aspect “really struck me with dread”

and was “a fury in appearance”.72 Even though in the end he did find her to be quite kind and

helpful, he still accentuates her features as being different – so much so that it scared him – to

the typical European complexion that Linnæus recognized.

Another physical feature Linnæus concentrates on is that of the Sámi’s bleary eyes. He

believes that, “All the Laplanders are usually blear-eyed, so that one would think the word Lappi

(Laplanders) was derived from lippi (blear-eyed)”.73 Though many researchers believe this is not

the case, Linnæus sees this as a very differing aspect between Swedes and Sámi. The scientist in

him then wants to explain why they have squinted eyes. He contributes this distinct physical

feature towards external factors of their surroundings, which he lists as: the sharp winds, the

snow: “the whiteness of which, when the sun shone upon it, was very troublesome to me”, the

fogs, the smoke, and the severity of the cold in this country.74 While the Sámi cannot do anything

to change the weather, Linnæus emphasizes that the smoke is something that could be dealt with.

He exclaims: “How is it possible that these people should not be blear-eyed, when they are so

continually shut up in their huts, where the smoke has no outlet but by the hole in the roof, and

consequently fills everybody’s eyes as it passes!”75 Linnæus must have been quite fed up with all

of the smoke along his journey and therefore recounts his frustration of these people and with

their continuous way of living in smoke. Although he might have been annoyed with this

condition and criticizes their lifestyle, Linnæus saves his harshest criticism and even greater

comparison for the Finns.

While in the town of Tornea,76 Linnæus came across many Finns. The Sámi and the Finns

share many similar characteristics as pointed out by Schefferus, but Linnæus has a very different

opinion of the northern Finns compared to the Sámi. He declares:

                                                                                                               71 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 144. 72 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 144. 73 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 2, p. 5. 74 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 2, p. 5 – 7. 75 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 2, p. 6 – 7. 76 This is how the Swedish city of Torneå is spelled within Linnæus’ text.

      21    

So many Finlanders crowded about me, that I scarcely knew what to do. They were all blear-eyed to such a degree as to be nearly blind…It seems in vain to prescribe any remedy for this evil, so long as its cause is every where so prevalent. This consists in their smoky dwellings. If I had the management of these Finlanders, I would tie them up to the wall and give them fifteen pair of lashes apiece till they made chimneys to their huts, especially as they have such plenty of fire-wood.77

Linnæus appears to be frightened by their appearance for they are even more blear-eyed than the

Sámi. Even though the Sámi also live in smoky dwellings, Linnæus did not want to tie them to a

wall and lash them. Apparently to him there is no excuse for the Finns to live in such excessive

smoke. With the Sámi he lists other reasons as to why they have blear eyes, but here gives no

such explanation, just the fact that they should build chimneys in order to not become blind. It is

as if he is saying that they are foolish/inept as to not realize that all they have to do to not have

blear eyes – and not appear in such a frightening way – is to simply build chimneys in their huts.

Still near the town of Tornea, Finland, Linnæus again expresses his poor opinion of the Finns.

When describing the Finns he says, “The physiognomy of both men and women is phlegmatic

and stupid; the body clumsy, the complexion bad, and the features destitute of all delicacy of

form or expression”.78 This is in no way a flattering description of their appearance and it shows

that he did not really like the Finns at all. Thus he must have at least respected the Sámi because

he does not talk about the Sámi in such a harsh and blatant way. This could also simply be

Linnæus’ opinion of northern Finns for he does not describe or say thing in this way about the

southern Finns, for most likely southern Finns would be very alike to Swedes due to their living a

similar lifestyle as farmers and peasants.

While Schefferus compared the Sámi to their neighbors and found them to be physically

opposite, Linnæus finds an even greater negative Other in the Finns. Linnæus acknowledges that

the Sámi are physically different than Swedes – as his descriptions show – but he sees that

difference even more in the Finns. He then expresses his description in a much more negative

way, making the Finn the most different to the Swede. Hence, to him, the Finns become the

more distant Other and the Sámi are no longer seen as the most different.

2.1.4 Summary

Overall it seems as though physical appearance was not a crucial characteristic in defining the

Sámi as the Other. The Swedish scholars all agree that the Sámi’s short stature sets them apart

from Swedes. Although this was a distinguishing feature, most do not say anything negative about

it, apart from Læstadius’ comment about them being “real dwarves” which, anyway, seems to be

stated in a mocking way. The Sámi then are not created as a stark Other with this particular

                                                                                                               77 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 2, p. 132-133. 78 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 2, p. 167.

      22    

characteristic, again showing a different level of Otherness. Læstadius’ comment is his only one

about the Sámi’s physique and it shows that he is not concerned with the discussion of their

physical appearance, or Olaus Magnus for that matter. Magnus extends his discussion a bit

further than Læstadius with his descriptions of the Sámi women as being fertile and good-

looking, which reflect the purity of living close to nature or perhaps simply living in the north,

but that is all. The main discussion is then contained between Schefferus and Linnæus. These two

men additionally bring out the differences between “us” and “them” within the discussion of

others and in the end come to two different conclusions. While Schefferus sees the Sámi as the

more distant Other, Linnæus finds an even greater negative Other with the Finns.

There is also a great emphasis put on the influence of the environment on how the Sámi

physically appear. While Olaus Magnus mentions both urban/rural and north/south dichotomies

within his descriptions and Schefferus is the only scholar to give reason for the Sámi’s appearance

to their ethnicity, all scholars point towards the environment as a reason for the Sámi looking a

particular way. It is interesting to see that none of these Christian men state that God made the

Sámi this way. According to historian Vanita Seth’s research on Europe’s representations of

difference from 1500 to 1900, during the Renaissance it was presumed that God was always at

the center of the body.79 Consequently, Olaus Magnus theoretically would have been the one to

make a statement giving God the credit. However, this chapter shows that Magnus follows the

other Swedish scholars, who all are part of the Classical Age of Enlightenment. During that time,

the body was seen as malleable and flexible. As Seth also points out the presumption of biological

determinism remained absent and instead Classical authors appealed to explanatory factors such

as customs, geography and diet,80 which is exactly what the Swedish scholars do. This emphasis

on external factors is again an indirect way of looking for similarities between the Sámi and

others, because it shows that the Sámi are not intrinsically different.

2.2 The “habits of their mind”: The Sámi’s Mind and Emotions

After discussing how the Sámi appear from the outside, the Swedish scholars dive into the minds

of the Sámi. This requires much more interaction between the scholars and the Sámi than just the

outward appearances. The scholars are in a sense delving into the essence of what makes the

Sámi tick. This aspect of description must have been much more interesting to the Swedish

scholars and/or the scholars were concerned about the Sámi’s mind and emotions for there are

many more descriptions provided. As such, it will not be possible to name them all here. Instead,

I will discuss a few themes that arise from the descriptions. The Swedish scholars are interested                                                                                                                79 Seth 2010, p. 178. 80 Seth 2010, p. 207.

      23    

to see such things as how they act around others; the kind of temperament they possess; and

what values they hold dear.

2.2.1 Fearful of Strangers

Much like the descriptions of the Sámi’s physique there is one theme that runs throughout all of

the scholars’ works and that is the Sámi’s fearfulness of strangers. Living up in the North in small

isolated communities and coming across new people must have been a strange experience for the

Sámi because most of them would not have been used to seeing and meeting new people

everyday as would those living in cities in Southern Sweden. While this would hold particularly

true for Olaus Magnus’ account of the Sámi – due to the fact that not many outsiders had settled

in Lapland by 155581 – it is interesting to see that this trait holds true almost three hundred years

later with Læstadius. Perhaps what is at the core of this trait is that this characteristic is a

reflection of how they were treated by outsiders.

The first description of the Sámi’s emotions by Olaus Magnus is this particular trait. In his

chapter “On the savagery of the dwellers of the wild” he states, “These folk shrink from meeting

men who have sailed from other countries, as though they were robbers, fearing they may

perhaps be led away into captivity.”82 This statement perhaps shows the function of an oral

society, because it seems as though the Sámi have been told not to trust these foreign men for

they will be taken away if they do. Though it is not known whether or not Sámi were actually

taken away from their homes, this possibly reflects the image of how outsiders would treat them

and it is easy to see how they would be scared.

Johannes Schefferus expresses a similar feeling and also begins with this characteristic. When

delving into “the habits of their mind”, Schefferus asserts “they are beyond all imagination

fearfull and mean spirited, being frightened at the very sight of a strange man, or ship”.83 Again

there is not only a connection with strange men, but ships as well. It is as though just the sight of

a ship could bring them into this fearful state. This similarity shows how Schefferus could also be

relaying the same information set out by Olaus Magnus in the first place, or perhaps Magnus is

also simply relaying information he was given.

                                                                                                               81 It is difficult to know the actual numbers of settlers in Lapland during the 1550s, but since Roger Kvist and Lennart Lundmark mention the increase of settlers in later periods such as the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it can be presumed that the settlers were much fewer in number. 82 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 197. Though Magnus does not make it abundantly clear that he is specifically talking about the Sámi – by naming them “Lapps” – myself and other scholars believe this to be the case because the other Swedish scholars have also described them this way. Within a footnote of Olaus Magnus’ text, John Granlund states that these are Lapps from Finnmark. Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 224. 83 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 12 – 13.

      24    

Due to the fact that Carl Linnæus’ ethnographic work is a travel journal, he also wrote about

his interaction with the Swedish settlers and he was given some advice about the Sámi in the

beginning of his journey. While staying at the house of Mr. Oladron – the curate of Lycksele –

Linnæus was advised to stay with them until the next fast day before adventuring out into the

countryside, because “the Laplanders not being implicitly to be trusted, and presenting their fire-

arms at any stranger who comes upon them unawares, or without some recommendation.”84 This

statement shows the Swedish colonizer’s opinion of the Sámi in that they are not to be trusted

and are not friendly to strangers. Though it is difficult to know if this opinion was derived from

the colonizer actually reading the previous Swedish scholars – meaning Magnus and Schefferus –

this does show that the scholars contributed to or at least reflected this image of the Sámi being a

fearful people.

What appears to be at the core of this fearfulness of strangers is how outsiders treated the

Sámi and Lars Levi Læstadius addresses this directly. In his chapter on Lappish tales, Læstadius

points out:

Generally the Lapps are very fearful and suspicious of foreigners, a feeling which is based on the many stories relating the oppression they have suffered at the hands of Tsuudi, Karelians and the Birka people.85 If they catch even a distant view of a traveler without a Lappish guide in the mountains, they will flee as if whipped.86

Through the actions of the people who interacted with the Sámi, the Sámi created their

fearfulness of strangers. It should be noted that Læstadius did not name Swedes as the culprits of

this oppression, which he does do in other contexts and will be shown elsewhere in the

investigation. Perhaps the reason for the exclusion of the Swedes from the conversation is that

there were no tales about the Swedes within the Sámi oral culture and therefore was not

necessary for Læstadius to discuss in this section of text.

With this characteristic of fearfulness in mind, were the Sámi created as a negative Other?

Since they are fearful of strangers, the image that comes to mind is that they would not want to

have had anything to do with these Swedish scholars that had been in Lapland, acting skittish and

weak in the scholars presence. They would potentially be seen as being these timid and different

people that outsiders would also be timid about meeting, but in the end this is not the case.

Though all of the Swedish scholars described this characteristic, they also show how this was not

always the case or – as in Læstadius’ case – at least provided an explanation for this behavior.

                                                                                                               84 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 101. 85 The Tsuudi are also known as the Chudes, which is a historical name given to a group of Finnic people living in what is now Estonia, Karelia, and Northern Russia. The Karelians are a Finno-Baltic ethnic group living mainly in Finland and Northwestern Russia. Lastly the Birka people or Birkarls were originally a Finnish people who taxed and controlled the trade of the Sámi people. 86 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 268.

      25    

Though he begins by stating that they are fearful of strangers, Olaus Magnus continues on to

write that “any fugitives who have been oppressed by the cruelty of a tyrant they allow in as

comrades for their protection and their own”.87 This statement demonstrates how they welcome

the fellow oppressed with open arms as friends. In other words they will welcome those that are

most like them. Schefferus is even more blunt and contradictory with his statement on their

civility and hospitality. When recounting their virtues he declares: “Farther they are civil and

hospitable to Strangers, whom they with much kindness invite to their Huts, and there treat with

the best provisions they have”.88 This appears to be the exact opposite of what he had stated

earlier that they are frightened just at the sight of a strange man or ship. Perhaps Schefferus was

sloppy about the compilation of his own statements and did not realize that he had stated

something different elsewhere. The answer could also lie with Linnæus’ experience.

Despite the fact that Linnæus was told by the Swedish settlers that the Sámi were quite fearful

of strangers, he did not stay the extra days but rather continued on with his journey, and he

recounts the Sámi’s kindness and helpfulness multiple times. Overall, he states, “The colonists

who reside among the Laplanders are beloved by them, and treated with great kindness. These

good people willingly point out to the strangers where they may fix their abode so as to have

access to moist meadows affording good hay”.89 This is quite surprising, since these colonists are

the ones that are taking over their land, although Linnæus is quick to point out after this that this

is land the herders do not need for their reindeer. This also shows the great lengths of the Sámi’s

hospitality with the sharing of their land.

Another example occurs after meeting the woman with the horrible appearance who “struck

[him] with dread”, who was discussed in the previous chapter. Although her appearances

frightened him, Linnæus speaks of how helpful and kind she was. Though she did not have much

and she claims this is her first time meeting a stranger – meaning someone who was not Sámi –

the woman allows him to purchase some cheeses from her and lets Linnæus and his guides stay

in her hut for a while before continuing on with their travels.90 Linnæus also declares her a “good

woman”,91 which shows that he really appreciated her help and her actions spoke louder than her

appearance. In other words, while her physical appearance depicted her as a negative Other, her

actions created a positive image of how the Sámi treat strangers, such as Linnæus.

On the other hand Linnæus, with this work, creates rhetoric in order to raise peoples interest

so perhaps he describes the woman as being ugly to make more of a contrast to her actions and

                                                                                                               87 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 197. 88 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 14. 89 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 131. 90 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 144. 91 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 148.

      26    

make her more endearing. Therefore making an overall connection to not judge a book by its

cover. In the end, I believe Linnæus’ experience points to the answer as to why in particular

Schefferus would contradict himself with both statements. The notion that the Sámi are fearful is

held on by those authors who do not interact with the Sámi in great length, and rather that the

truth – meaning their great kindness and hospitality to strangers – comes out from first-hand

experience when someone like Linnæus actually comes across the Sámi out in the wilderness.

Lastly, Læstadius provides his own explanation as to why they are fearful and suspicious of

strangers. According to him:

Imagination, made timid by the tales as well as by the knowledge that real enemies exist, has led the Lapps to shoot a number of solitary travelers in the mountains. The cause for this is not hatred or treachery, as some writers have imagined, but a frightened imagination which as led them to believe that all those who travel on the mountains without a guide are robbers and escaped malefactors.92

The Sámi are not treacherous towards strangers – as Olaus Magnus hints at with his particular

quote – rather it is their heightened imagination that makes them believe such things about

people traveling through the country.

Læstadius also discusses this exalted imagination in regards to how certain Sámi have “a

strange weakness of the nerves”, which is why they are so prone to believe in magic and

superstitions.93 He claims that this type of imagination is found in children and in women, and

more commonly found among “brutes and savages than among the educated”.94 This is quite a

degrading statement towards the Sámi, which truly places them in ‘us’ and ‘them’ categories,

because Læstadius is differentiating himself as an educated man from these apparent brutes and

savages. There also exists a connection to femininity with the Other within this statement for one

way to degrade a man was through accusing feminine qualities on him, which further distanced

him from the ideal man.95 Though Læstadius’ statement is quite stark, he again provides an

explanation as to why they are this way:

This imagination is most advanced among those who live alone in the forest, which likely is a result of the isolation, desolation and emptiness that surround the hermit’s hut…If he cannot at once explain the source of noise or the deceptive apparition, he will assume something inexplicable or supernatural in the phenomenon…This appears entirely natural and I believe it would happen to any human being if placed in similar circumstances.96

Læstadius wants to make it clear that anyone would act this way if put in the same position. This

method of always trying to explain the situation is very much a reflection of the rationalization

                                                                                                               92 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 268. 93 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 207 and 63. 94 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 63. 95 Nagel 1998, p. 246. 96 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 63.

      27    

ideal of the Enlightenment.97 He wants to explain everything and even though he is pointing out

things that are odd with the Sámi and differentiating them as the Other, he still wants to assure

the reader that these people act no different than how the reader would act in the same situation.

In the end, the Sámi are presented as Janus-faced by being both fearful and welcoming of

strangers. Ambiguity then arises and there is no clear creation of ‘us’ and ‘them’ categories. All

four authors agree that the Sámi are fearful, which is a negative quality, because fearfulness is

associated with being mean-spirited, untrustworthy, and suspicious in the eyes of the scholars.

These qualities could create a ‘us’ verses ‘them’ category with Swedes not wanting these traits.

However, on the other side the scholars all present the Sámi as hospitable and friendly to

strangers, which are likable traits that any good Christian – aka any good Swede – should possess.

For that reason, this dichotomy creates ambiguity in how the Sámi are identified by these traits.

Lastly, much like many of the previous traits, there is again an external explanation provided by

Læstadius and how the influence of the isolation of the forest can heighten ones imagination.

2.2.2 A Tranquil, Yet Lazy People

Another theme that most of the Swedish scholars debate is whether or not the Sámi are a tranquil

or lazy people. Prior to and during the fifteenth century the Sámi did not deal or use money, just

bartered for their goods. According to Olaus Magnus: “This is why the race of Lapps, or

Bothnians,98 a people of the wilds, is held to be as tranquil at home as it is unknown to the rest of

the world outside.”99 They are able to figure out the value of a good by simply looking at it

therefore they are “not troubled by this hazard of deceit” – meaning the use of coins – and end

up living “in a pleasant state of serenity”.100 In a way the Sámi – these people of the wilds – hold

the key to living in harmony, because the outside world has become tainted by these ‘hazards of

deceit’. Magnus’ advice is then to revert back to these simple ways. He continues on to show how

“good, trustworthy barter” keeps them tranquil.101 The Sámi “are therefore ignorant of frenzied

clamour and live free from civil discord, dwelling together without envy and sharing everything in

common, unaware of deception. Their only striving is to avoid poverty, and not to love riches.”102

Though the Sámi have a much simpler life and are different in that they are not up to date with

the use of money, they are the better for it. Magnus admits that they have “natural probity” and

                                                                                                               97 Pentikäinen, in the Afterword of Fragments of Lappish Mythology, 2002, p. 314. 98 This shows Olaus Magnus’ confusion as to whom the Sámi actually were because he has many names for them according to where they are from. In this case he is describing the Sámi. 99 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 201. 100 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 201. 101 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 201. 102 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 201.

      28    

are “honest” people103 and his message to the rest of Europe is that they should follow in the

Sámi’s footsteps. Here again is a good example of how Magnus romanticizes the Sámi and creates

them as a positive Other, one that outsiders, meaning Europeans, should look up to.

Schefferus, almost 120 years later, on the other hand takes a completely different approach to

the Sámi’s ideals. Due to the fact that the Sámi have been tainted by the outsiders and are now

cheats when bargaining, which I will address further in this investigation, Magnus’ image of a

tranquil people has been shattered. Schefferus believes, “They are likewise exceedingly covetous,

it being a part of their cowardize to dread poverty; yet are they very lazy withall”.104 He then

provides an example from Olaus Petri – Swedish Lutheran clergyman from the sixteenth century

– that they have land lying in waste that could be used for reindeer husbandry. They are also “so

unwilling […] to take pains, that till they are compelled by necessity, they hardly perswade

themselves to hunt or fish.”105 To Schefferus they are so lazy that they will barely provide

themselves with food and just wait until the last second to do something about it.

Schefferus continues on this topic: “From this their covetousness and sloth arises an ill

consequent, their undutifulness to their Parents when grown old; not only to condemn and

neglect, but even hate and abhor them”.106 This is quite a turn from Magnus because he actually

states that the Sámi are great providers for their elders. Magnus provides an entire chapter “On

reverence for the aged” in which he describes the cares put for an old man in order to get him

safely down a hill.107 In comparison, Schefferus creates a very different image of the Sámi, one in

which they are greedy, dishonest and hateful of their parents.

When discussing their divertissements,108 Schefferus brings up their laziness once more. He

must note “that the people of this Country are generally dispos’d to idleness, not willing to take

any great pains, unless when meer necessity constrains them to provide against want. This they

seem to derive principally from their Ancestors the Finlanders”.109 To Schefferus, the Finns are

the reason that the Sámi act in this lazy way, which again brings out the ethnic connection

between the Sámi and the Finns. This is the only ethnic correlation discussed when it comes to

the habit of their minds, which shows that the scholars look to other reasoning than hereditary

for why they Sámi act the way they do.

                                                                                                               103 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 664. 104 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 14. 105 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 14. 106 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 14. 107 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 217. 108 In this chapter, “Of their Divertisements” Schefferus mainly talks about what occupies the Sámi’s time when not working, such as games and sports. Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 107 – 109. 109 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 107.

      29    

With Magnus being an admirer of the Sámi’s tranquility and Schefferus seeing them as only a

lazy and idle people, what then does Carl Linnæus believe in 1732? Although he does not openly

state that he read Olaus Magnus’ text – as he does with Schefferus110 – within his journal,

Linnæus informed himself on the Sámi as much as he could and perhaps he would have had a

notion of Magnus’ image of the Sámi before travelling.111 The first reference to this theme is

while Linnæus traveled through the Lapland Alps. He states: “when not occupied in following or

attending the reindeer, [the Laplanders of this neighborhood] remain in idleness for whole days

together, feeding on nothing but milk, and the dishes prepared from it.”112 Here it seems that

Linnæus follows with Schefferus’ assessment of their idleness in that the Sámi will do nothing

when they do not have to. While this is not as much of a scolding remark, as with Schefferus, I

believe the idea that the Protestant work ethic – meaning that there is always work to be done

and particularly in this type of harsh environment – is present in Linnæus’ mind.

Yet just three days later, Linnæus reflects Magnus’ outlook. He admits: “I witnessed with

pleasure the supreme tranquility enjoyed by the inhabitants of this sequestered country.” When

discussing why the Sámi are so healthy, Linnæus attributes one of the reasons as being because of

their tranquility of mind. With this tranquility: “They have no contentions, neither are they over

and above careful about their affairs, nor addicted to covetousness.”113 This very much reflects

how Magnus believed the Sámi to have acted and in this case Linnæus also depicts the Sámi in a

romanticized way, creating a positive Other.114

Linnæus’ only scolding remark for the Sámi is one with a connection to their idleness:

How unaccountably negligent are the Laplanders, not to collect in the course of summer a stock of [water Horsetail] and of the Reindeer-moss (Lichen rangiferinus) for winter fodder! They would then have some provision for the herd, when the country is covered with an impenetrable crust of frozen snow, and not hazard the loss of all they are worth in the world.115

Due to the fact that Linnæus did not use exclamation points that often within his journal, this

shows that he is quite adamant about this remark. He seems to think that he knows better than

the Sámi and that this would be a very simple solution to the problem they face in the winter. In

his eyes the Sámi are just too lazy to do anything about it. Most likely the gathering of these

plants was not so simple, hence why the Sámi did not do it in the first place.

Before traveling back home through Finland, Linnæus expresses one last comment on the

Sámi. He declares: “The tranquil existence of the Laplanders answers to Ovid’s description of the

                                                                                                               110 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 312. 111 Zorgdrager 2008, p. 48-52. 112 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 298. 113 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 334. 114 This shows that the idea of the noble savage existed prior to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who wrote about the noble savage in his work, Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men in 1754. 115 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 2, p. 107 – 108.

      30    

golden age, and to the pastoral state as depicted by Virgil. It recalls the remembrance of the

patriarchal life, and the poetical descriptions of the Elysian fields.”116 Even though Linnæus

reflects Schefferus’ opinions within his text, I believe that he truly follows Magnus’ way of

thinking and that this is his overall opinion of the Sámi, because this is the image of the Sámi that

he leaves the reader with. He creates such a powerful analogy of tranquility, which harkens back

to the classical times of Ovid and Virgil. He even states that the Sámi’s tranquility recalls the

heaven of the Greeks. This truly shows how a primitive/simplistic lifestyle is admired among

outsiders, which again creates a positive romanticized Other, though at the same time ambiguity.

Lars Levi Læstadius does not contribute any comments on the debate of tranquility and

laziness, which shows that this topic was of no significance for him. Whereas the previous three

scholars show that the opinion of the Sámi’s state of mind was always changing. It began with the

creation of a positive romanticized Other with Olaus Magnus depicting them as a tranquil and

honest people. Then by 1674 the Sámi had become a lazy and idle people, prone to covetousness

in the eyes of Johannes Schefferus. This creates a very negative picture of the Sámi, which

contributes to a strong distinction and to the formation of ‘us’ verses ‘them’ between the Sámi

and the Swedes.

Around sixty years after Schefferus, Carl Linnæus contributes to both sides of the argument,

creating ambiguity with this particular form of the Sámi’s identity. Richard Jenkins helps explain

this ambiguity. He discusses how groups tend to have certain membership criteria and at the

margins of a group, when the framework is less firm and intrusive, there is likely to be ambiguity

about the membership criteria and appropriate behavior.117 In this case, Linnæus saw both sides

of the Sámi throughout his travels. Due to the Protestant work ethic he has an idea of how

people should act and idleness should not be tolerated, therefore the Sámi do not fit into the

Swedish ‘membership criteria’. Yet in the end he still views them as being a truly tranquil people,

which would be ideal and appropriate behavior for any civilized people. This just proves that

Swedes did not know what to make of a people so close to the margins.

2.2.3 Tainted by the Outside World

Since it is important to this investigation to see how different people – apart from the Sámi –

were described, how then were others discussed within the topic of minds and emotions? In

Læstadius’ reasoning for the Sámi’s fearfulness, he had pointed out that it was the dealings with

outsiders that had caused this particular trait among the Sámi. Overall this is the main way

                                                                                                               116 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 2, p. 132. 117 Jenkins 2008, p. 154.

      31    

outsiders were described within these accounts, within the descriptions of how the Sámi were

influenced by the outside world.

In Olaus Magnus’ eyes, others had not tainted the Sámi. They were still ‘ignorant of frenzied

clamour’, ‘free from civil discord’ and ‘unaware of deception’.118 To him the Sámi were a golden

example of how a people should act. Then by 1673, the Sámi’s probity had fallen according to

Johannes Schefferus. To him the Sámi “are very notorious cheats, and industrious to over-reach

each other in bargaining: tho heretofore they had the reputation of plain dealing and honesty.”119

Schefferus then provides the reason as to why they became cheats: “‘tis probable that they took

up their present practice, having bin first cheated by those Strangers with whom they dealt, and

now think it best to be before hand with one another.”120 It is interesting to see that Schefferus

does not actually name the culprits, who had been cheating the Sámi, but just uses the generic

name of ‘Strangers’. Though much interaction took place between Swedes and the Sámi he does

not want to name them. This change or rather the fact that the Sámi are tainted by outsiders is

not that surprising, since Roger Kvist’s research shows how both the territorial and fiscal policy

of 1550 to 1635 and the mining policy of 1635 to 1673 brought all of Lapland under direct royal

administration with more interaction between outsiders and the Sámi taking place.121

Much like how Olaus Magnus discussed the Sámi’s honesty within the topic of goods and

trade, Schefferus does the same, though again he shows how things have changed. He declares:

As for their way of dealing they were of old in all their bargains very faithfull and just, tho Damianus a Goes122 seems to note some craftiness in them, and saies they were very cunning in all their trading. And Sam[uel] Rheen123 in plain terms calls them cheats, and saies they were so deceitful, that one that did not known all their tricks, could hardly escape being overreached by them. So that we may suppose that as long as others dealt fairly with them, so long as they were trusty and faithfull, but in after times coming to learn how others had served them, by understanding how they had been cheated formerly, they themselves learned to deceive others.124

Here Schefferus clearly shows that it is through the dealings with outsiders that the Sámi have

picked up these horrible traits. What is interesting to see is that Damianus a Goes – a man from

the 1550s and also a good friend of Olaus Magnus – hints at the start of this change with how the

Sámi dealt with people. This indicates that the change was already occurring during Magnus’ time,

but that he did not see them this way and kept his romanticized image of them. Again Schefferus

does not point any fingers directly at any one group of people who are to blame for corrupting

                                                                                                               118 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 201. 119 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 14. 120 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 14. 121 Kvist 1992, p. 64 – 65. 122 Also known as Damião de Gois. He was a Portuguese historian and geographer, and a good friend of Olaus Magnus, who traveled up to Northern Sweden in the 1530s. Johannesson 1982, p. 184. 123 Samuel Rheen was a Lutheran missionary living in Jokkmokk at the time while Schefferus wrote Lapponia. 124 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 72.

      32    

the Sámi, but just talks about them as ‘others’. This statement also provides an explanation as to

why the Sámi are now cheats for it is due to the influence of outsiders.

During Linnæus’ time, the contamination of others still exists though it has not reached into

the hills yet. After meeting with both the mountain Sámi and forest Sámi during his travels,

Linnæus calls attention to the distinction between these two types of Sámi. On July 21st Linnæus

mentions:

Here I think it worth while to observe, that the alpine Laplanders are more honest, as well as more good-natured, than those who dwell in the woodlands. Having acquired more polish from their occasional intercourse with the inhabitants of towns, the latter have, at the same time, learned more cunning and deceit, and are frequently very knavish. The inhabitants of the alps dwell in villages formed of their tents, living together, as I have already related, in great comfort and harmony. Those who occupy the woody parts of the country live dispersed.125

Here Linnæus proudly emphasizes that good-natured, honest Sámi still exist and that it is just

those Sámi who live close to the towns have become tainted. It is interesting to see that there is

some civilizing effect of town living because they have acquired more polish, but by saying simply

‘more polish’ it could mean that they are only civilized on the surface. Linnæus also points out

that the honest Sámi prevail because of their living situations in that they create their own

communities in which most likely deceitfulness is not tolerated. Much like Schefferus, Linnæus

does not openly state that it was Swedes who corrupted the forest Sámi, but since Linnæus

mainly traveled in Swedish Lapland126 one can deduce that Swedes would have mainly been the

ones who tainted the forest Sámi.

Following along the lines of Linnæus – though a little over a hundred years later in the 1840s –

Lars Levi Læstadius shows how those Sámi living close to towns have been tainted in another

way. Within his work, Læstadius quotes a Norwegian pastor by the name of Deinböll, who gives

an example of how the Sámi can easily be misconstrued. According to Deinböll, people outside

the Sámi community are tempted to judge the Sámi too severely if they only view the Sámi in the

marketplaces. This is quite unfortunate in his eyes, because:

There, sad to say, [the Lapps] are unable to control their inordinate thirst for hard liquor. But if one visits the Lapps in their own dwelling places and takes the trouble to inform oneself of their true nature, one will gradually find oneself forming a more favorable view of them and coming to acknowledge that they are a good-natured, peaceful, God-fearing, moral, and reasonable people who are content with little.127

Beyond the towns and away from the corruption of outsiders – in this case through the use of

liquor – the Sámi are a very good people with qualities that any man would want to have. This is a

good observation on the part of this pastor, because most travelers, and those people residing

within the towns of Lapland, would have for the most part only met Sámi in the marketplace

                                                                                                               125 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 2, p. 51. 126 Linnæus spent a few days in the Norwegian Lapland from July 11 to July 15. 127 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 139.

      33    

who were most likely drunk, presenting a very biased view of the Sámi. Whereas with this quote

Læstadius wants to show what the Sámi are truly like.

Læstadius also wants to make it clear that even though the Sámi have a drinking problem it is

nothing compared to how Swedes act. He assures the reader “that in a year a raw Mountain Lapp

drinks less than half as much as a Swedish sailor[…b]ut in Stockholm it is no sin to get oneself

drunk”128 whereas in Lapland the Sámi are corrupted by it and deemed as a sinful people. In this

case Læstadius emphasizes Swedes, specifically the ones living in Stockholm, as a negative Other

for they possess worse morals than the Sámi.

Much like with the comment above and on how the Tsuudi, Karelians and Birkarls are to

blame for the Sámi fear in strangers, Læstadius is not afraid to name the Swedes and Birkarls as

the ones responsible for the Sámi becoming deceitful. When discussing what names the Sámi

have given different groups of people, Læstadius specifically talks about the name, tarolats, which

means deceitful. According to him: “The Lapps have given this name to Swedes and Norwegians

perhaps due to the Swedes’ and especially the Birka people’s deceitful way of trading with the

Lapps.”129 Here it is interesting to see that this name has transferred to the Norwegians as well,

though they are not named as to being the ones who were originally deceiving the Sámi. This

transfer most likely took place because by the 1840s the Birkarls no longer had control over the

trade with the Sámi, and the Norwegians must have stepped into that role acquiring the nickname

along with it.

As with the debate between tranquility and laziness among the Sámi, the discussion of how

others have tainted the Sámi follows a similar pattern with the opinion always changing. Olaus

Magnus continues to create a romanticized Other with the Sámi being honest people. Then

Johannes Schefferus changes this perspective and shows how outsiders have turned the Sámi into

cheats. Carl Linnæus again provides examples from both sides of the argument and shows that it

comes down to where the Sámi are located as to whether or not they will become corrupt. This

time Lars Levi Læstadius contributes his opinion and wants to prove that the Sámi are not all

bad. Unlike Schefferus and Linnæus, Læstadius openly names the Swedes as the culprits behind

the problem, which is likely due from him having a different perspective than the other authors

since he lived in Lapland. What is most interesting is how both Schefferus and Linnæus do not

name the people responsible and just call them ‘Strangers’ or ‘others’ or ‘the inhabitants of town’.

This is perhaps their way of shifting the blame to everyone that deals with the Sámi and Swedes

are not directly to blame. In the end, the Swedish scholars show that Europeans have corrupted

these honest people and now the Sámi are more like the rest of Europe in being immoral people,                                                                                                                128 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 138. 129 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 256.

      34    

which puts the Sámi more into the ‘us’ category. Yet at the same time the scholars all still point

out that cheating and deceitfulness are horrible habits of the mind in order to show how people

are not supposed to act, which puts the Sámi back into the ‘them’ category. This again creates

ambivalence within the texts.

2.2.4 Summary

All of the Swedish scholars have much to say about the habits of the Sámi’s minds. This shows

that this was a very interesting subject for them to discuss within their own works. Through these

three themes two patterns come forth: one in which the authors contradict themselves or each

other, and the other where the authors follow a similar progression. This pattern follows as such:

Olaus Magnus presents a romanticized Other, Johannes Schefferus presents a negative Other,

Carl Linnæus provides a combination of both sides of the argument, and lastly Lars Levi

Læstadius provides a scientific explanation as to why the Sámi act the way they do. This seems to

show that Schefferus is the only scholar to produce a negative image of the Sámi.

I should point out that Schefferus does name the Sámi’s virtues within his chapter on ‘the

habits of their mind’, but it is a rather condensed list consisting of only one paragraph, compared

to the two full pages prior in which he discusses their faults. Perhaps the virtues do not need to

be explained and by him ending the chapter with their virtues, he wants to still show them in a

positive light. Regardless of the inclusion of virtues, Schefferus remains the only scholar to

emphasize a negative Other. It is difficult to know why this is, but when compared to the other

scholars, the only main difference with Schefferus is the fact that he never traveled up to

Lapland. Since his only interaction with Sámi would have been at the winter market, perhaps the

Sámi who came down south to trade skewed his opinion, because they actually were cheats.

Again it is difficult to know, but that appears to be the only difference. Schefferus never

experienced one on one contact with Sámi and therefore did not see the kindness within the

Sámi, which points to a personal difference rather than an overall difference in the historical time

period.

2.3 Concluding Remarks

Analyzing both the body and mind descriptions, the Swedish scholars appear to keep the same

overall view of the Sámi within their own work. Olaus Magnus – through both body and mind –

sustains the image of the Sámi as a positive romanticized Other. Johannes Schefferus on the

other hand, tends to lend towards depicting the Sámi as more of a negative Other, which perhaps

can be explained by his lack of the Sámi experience. Carl Linnæus normally sees both sides of the

      35    

arguments, but due to his fascination of these people he tends to see them as a positive Other.

Lars Levi Læstadius is the only one to show some change. For he was not interested in the body,

but immensely interested in trying to explain how the Sámi mind works by providing many

scientific explanations, which creates a neutral Other.

When comparing both parts of the mind-body descriptions, overall one can see that the topic

of the mind captivated all four of the scholars more so than those of the body. For though the

Sámi appear physically different, the commentary on the body stays fairly neutral with a

respectful Other presented by the scholars. They all had a very scientific mindset with their

reasoning and drew the connection of external factors as to the why the Sámi look the way they

do. Whereas with the mind descriptions the scholars are conflicted both internally and externally

with each other, for there arises dichotomies within how the Sámi act. Are they fearful or nice?

Are the tranquil or lazy? These dichotomies create ambivalence within the text. Richard Jenkins

argues that this ambivalence means that the membership criteria is less firm and intrusive at the

margins of a group and therefore the Swedes do not know what to make of the Sámi since they

are so close to being Swedes themselves. Robert Young would not be surprised with this

ambivalence because he believes that cultures always seek out the otherness and the same in

other cultures and in the end always emphasize the otherness more. In the end, the starkest

negative other is brought out by Schefferus with his statements about the Sámi being cheats,

followed by Carl Linnæus’ comments on the bodies of the Finns.

3. The Way the Sámi Live: Lifestyle descriptions

With such close ties to nature, the Sámi were dependent on the environment of the arctic. They

had to adapt their way of living to whatever the North could provide. There are four areas of

lifestyle that the four Swedish scholars describe and these are as follows: housing, clothing, food,

and, goods and employments. All four of these areas are constructed facets of the Sámi identity.

This, in a sense, is how the Sámi present themselves to others. How then do the Swedish scholars

present these different facets? As the previous chapters showed, the four Swedish scholars

depicted how the environment even affected the Sámi’s physical presence. Therefore since the

manner of living depends so greatly on the environment, how do the Swedish scholars depict the

different aspects of the Sámi constructed lifestyle? Does it purely reflect the environment or are

there other elements at play?

      36    

3.1 Tents vs. Towns: Sámi Housing

Being a nomadic and semi-nomadic people, the Sámi were always on the move and their housing

needing to be flexible as well. This flexibility and the fact that for many years they did not have

permanent housing sets the Sámi apart from the rest of the Swedish state. How then is the Sámi

housing presented? Is it in a good light, which highlights the advantages, or is it shown in a

demeaning way, one that should be improved?

In his chapter specifically on the Sámi in which he entitles “Book Four…On the wars and

customs of the pagan dwellers in the wild and their neighbors”, Olaus Magnus talks about

different aspects of the Sámi’s housing. Although he discusses the housing with such chapters as:

“On the savagery of the dwellers of the wild” and “More about the fierceness of these men of the

wild”, Magnus seems to describe a not-so-savage and fierce way of living. He states: “Since they

have erected no towns or walls, each man carries his house with him […] As houses they have

wagons and tents, with either the tanned hides of animals or the bark of trees for a covering.”130

Here Magnus differentiates between the north and south of Sweden, with towns verses tents, yet

he does not appear to assert any opinion on the subject that really shows them as living savagely.

He adds to this statement: “In winter, however, they relax by the banks of rivers and in the

summer among bushes and trees and in shady places, moving from one spot to another.”131 With

this description, he makes it seem like this is not a bad way to live, for in the winter the Sámi just

‘relax’ and in the summer they only need to find ‘shady places’ to stay. He provides a very

peaceful image of their way of life.

Magnus goes into a bit more detail with descriptions of a few different types of housing.

When discussing the Sámi who live by the ocean – most likely in Norway – he seems intrigued by

their way of adapting their housing to their environment. In winter these Sámi live in what he

calls cells, or vaults, built from the ribs and other bones of sea creatures. According to him:

“These vaults appear quite ingeniously built like the upturned keels of boats, roofed with seaweed

on the outside”.132 He claims these dwellings resemble the ones built by nomads living by the

Caspian Sea, which shows how the Sámi share similarities with other nomad cultures, and to him

this type of housing is ingenious. Magnus also seems intrigued by the Sámi’s storehouses. He

claims that some of the Sámi “actually set up their homes in trees that grow to form a square, so

that they may not be suffocated in the open country by a dense fall of snow, or be devoured by

famished beasts which assemble in a horde which they cannot overcome.”133 He is mistaken that

                                                                                                               130 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 198. 131 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 198. 132 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 197. 133 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 210.

      37    

the Sámi would have lived in these buildings and most likely he is just recalling Sámi storehouses,

which are mounted on tall poles or trees to keep their food and other goods out of the reach of

animals. Again this passage provides a good example of how the Sámi have adapted to their

environment and have really thought about what works for them. In the end, Magnus portrays

the Sámi housing in a positive light.

As no surprise Schefferus devotes an entire chapter to the “Houses of the Laplanders”. He

begins by saying: “The Laplanders have not any houses like other Northern People, it having bin

their custom to wander up and down, and so, sometimes in one place and sometimes in another,

to set up small sheds [or tents] for their present use”.134 Schefferus does not specify what he

means by other Northern People as if this means the other settlers in Lapland or everyone else in

Sweden, but he still wants to make the distinction.

Schefferus acknowledges that there are different types of Sámi according to where they live,

though he only names the mountain and forest Sámi.135 He goes into quite the detail, but in

general describes the mountain Sámi as having teepee-like tents that are easily taken apart and the

forest Sámi have more durable, mostly wooden structures that they normally come back to.136

Schefferus then describes how they construct their houses, but he never really gives his opinion

about them. The only time he seems impressed is when he is talking about their storehouses:

“There is one thing peculiar to these Storehouses, which is, that the door is not on the side, but

bottom of them, so that when the Laplander is come down, the door falls too, like a trap-door,

and all things are safe.”137 Though he does not use the word “ingenious” to describe them, this

shows the Sámi’s creative way of thinking, which in this moment Schefferus seems to admire.

Apart from describing the structure of Sámi houses, Schefferus also goes into detail about the

layout of the house. The Sámi have designated spaces within the tent and in what Schefferus

considers the bedchamber, he says: “Olaus Petri saies only the daughters lay on the side of the

husband and wife, I believe, that their Parents might have them always nigh them, and so take

greater care to secure their honesty, whilst the sons in the mean time lay with the servants.”138

This shows that while they did all lie together in the tent, there was some acknowledgment about

them wanting to keep their daughters honor and respect, which Schefferus would value.

Yet a few pages later when he is talking about how the Sámi lie on reindeer skins and birch

leaves, Schefferus points out a major difference with how the Sámi sleep. He says: “And there is

                                                                                                               134 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 80. 135 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 81. The other types of Sámi are Coastal and River Sámi, though today the Sámi typically go by the name of the area the live in. 136 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 83. 137 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 86. 138 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 85.

      38    

one thing more worth our notice, that they lie under these both Winter and Summer stark naked,

and make no use of linnen.”139 Schefferus wants to emphasize this, because I am assuming that

this is quite different from how other Christians would sleep, most likely in linen. It is interesting

that he does not make this point when discussing how they all sleep together in one tent, which

seems like an important fact. The idea of whole families sleeping together all naked seems quite

primitive and lustful, which Schefferus mentions in his chapter of the habits of the Sámi’s

mind.140

During his summer travels through Lapland, Linnæus was able to see both of the summer

huts of the forest Sámi and the tents used by the mountain Sámi.141 Before describing the

summer huts and storehouses, he explains: “A Laplander never remains more than a week on one

spot, not only because of seeking fresh pasture for his reindeer, but because he cannot bear to

stay long in a place.”142 Although he states this in correlation to the forest Sámi, I believe this

statement could be applied to all of the Sámi who are nomadic. Here he presents a different

reason for their continuous migration in that they cannot bear to stay long in one place. Perhaps

he believed that the nomadic lifestyle was actually deeply ingrained into the Sámi’s human nature.

This points to the reason of the Sámi’s nomadic lifestyle – and through that the reasoning for

type of housing – not only being because of their external factors and how they must always find

fresh food for the reindeer, but also an internal reason at the basis of the Sámi’s natural make up.

Making the Sámi intrinsically different than most Europeans.

Linnæus also brings up the topic of the Sámi’s nakedness with their housing. While talking

about the summer huts he says, “The inhabitants sleep quite naked on skins of reindeer, spread

over a layer of branches of Dwarf Birch (Betula nana), with similar skins spread over them. The

sexes rise from this simple couch, and dress themselves promiscuously without any shame or

concealment.”143 A month later, Linnæus mentions nakedness again and simply says: “The

inhabitants, sixteen in number, lay there all naked.”144 It is not clear what Linnæus thinks about

this since he does not openly say, but most likely promiscuity was something frowned upon by

the church, and therefore Linnæus would see this as immoral too.

In Fragments of Lappish Mythology, Lars Levi Læstadius is most concerned about the different

aspects of the Sámi’s religion, both the pagan and Christianity sides, but he also to some extent

discusses different parts of the Sámi’s lifestyle. He brings out the Sámi’s housing because,

                                                                                                               139 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 90. 140 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 14. 141 Forest Sámi summer huts: Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 118 – 120, 125 – 126. Mountain Sámi tents: Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 2, p. 7 – 9. 142 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 118 – 119. 143 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 126. 144 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 292.

      39    

“Before the reader can understand Lappish sacrifice, he must necessarily visualize their way of

life.”145 By mostly referencing Schefferus’ work, Læstadius talks about the different housing that

the Sámi have, such as tents and felt kotas. Læstadius updates the information a small amount:

When the Lapps, by trading with neighboring peoples, were able to get wadmol146, felt, and coarse linen, they began to use them as well for tents. Nowadays all the nomad Lapps use tents, while the fisher Lapps use a sod and board kota, except for those of Finnmark, who use the holes in the ground.147

Here Læstadius differentiates slightly from the other authors by calling – what the other authors

called the mountain Sámi – nomads and the forest Sámi the fishermen. He also points out that

the Sámi living in Norway live in a completely different way by living in holes, which appears

even more primitive than the Sámi living in tents.

After introducing the reader to the types of housing, Læstadius then goes into the different

superstitions the Sámi used to have about the home, specifically the påssjo. This was a sacred area

that the women were not supposed to come near. According to Læstadius, “Some Lappish

women still observe this custom by not circling the påssjo on the outside, actually observed

unconsciously more as an old custom than out of superstition. Nowadays the Lapps customarily

keep their mattresses and dishes in the påssjo, since it is the most fitting place for such stuff.”148

What is important here is that Læstadius wants to show that even though women still observe

this custom, it is out of habit rather than out of actual practice. What was sacred is now simply a

storage area. For Læstadius, discussing the housing was one of his ways of showing how the Sámi

have changed their ways and are no longer superstitious. He does not seem concerned about the

actual houses themselves.

To all four scholars, the descriptions of Sámi houses themselves are simply a reflection of the

Sámi livelihood. They live in tents and non-permanent housing because they are always on the

move, and only Linnæus hints to possibility that this nomadic lifestyle is part of the core of the

Sámi’s nature and at the basis of who they are. The majority of the men truly only speak about

housing as a means to discuss other areas of interest. With Læstadius it was to connect to the

superstitions that once took place in the home and then with both Schefferus and Linnæus it was

to bring up the very primitive act of the Sámi sleeping naked together. Though these two men do

not openly scold the Sámi for this act they do bring out a stark difference between linen-wearing

Europeans and naked Sámi.

                                                                                                               145 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 141. 146 Wadmol is a coarse, hairy, woolen cloth. 147 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 142. 148 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 144.

      40    

3.2 Dress of the Sámi

In comparison to the amount of text written about the Sámi housing, the discussion surrounding

the Sámi’s clothing is much more extensive, with exception to Læstadius’ descriptions. This

overall shows that this aspect of the Sámi identity was of more interest to the majority of the

scholars. Unlike physical appearance, clothing is a choice made by the individual and culture.

While the individual could customize their clothing in different ways, the people as a culture

decide how they want to present themselves and perhaps this decision is what the scholars are

most interested in.

In Description of the Northern Peoples Olaus Magnus concentrates mainly on the use of pelts in

clothing among the Sámi. He claims to have seen a knee-length tunic made from skin of a

reindeer and for headgear the Sámi “wear the skins of geese, or of wild ducks and cocks”.149 He

then justifies why they wear such things: “Now the Lapps of the wild clothe themselves in the

valuable pelts of various wild animals, not for show but from necessity.”150 Here Magnus is in fact

stating that the Sámi are not wearing these pelts in order to present themselves a certain way, but

simply because they must keep warm. While the wearing of pelts make sense when living in such

a cold climate, the wearing of bird hats, seems to be more of a personal choice, because feathers

are much more colorful and many other indigenous peoples used feathers in ceremonial ways,

such as the Plains Indians of North America.

Magnus mentions Sámi clothing again in the chapter on archery training and wants to make it

clear, “Nor is [the wearing of dried skins of animals] to be considered a fault in a people who are

trained in these simple and innocent habits.”151 In others words, the Sámi are not to be looked

down upon for the way they dress. Due to the fact the Sámi clothe themselves in pelts, he states:

many folk rashly believe that they have hairy bodies, like animals or brute beasts; this perhaps arises from ignorance or from the pleasure that a great many people take in telling, in a way which is beyond belief, of all they have discovered in far off lands, as Paulus Jovius liked to do.152

Magnus admits to the ignorance of others and how people like to exaggerate or lie when they are

describing people from a different culture and uses Paulus Jovius – an Italian physician and

historian from the early sixteenth century – as an example. This shows that Magnus wants to

show the truth and believes that he has written the truth.

The only comparison of clothing between Sámi and others within Olaus Magnus’ text takes

place in the discussion of the making of clothing. According to Magnus:

Woolen and linen thread for weaving are the business of the wonderfully adept northern women, except those among the Lapps, who join fabrics with the sinews of animals, as I have said

                                                                                                               149 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 24 and 198 – 199. 150 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 200. 151 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 211. 152 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 212.

      41    

elsewhere, and make suitable clothing from the pelts of different creatures, for flax does not grow in that far-off land, nor are sheep reared there.153

Olaus Magnus makes a big distinction here between the two kinds of women. While the northern

women are ‘wonderfully adept’, the Sámi ‘make suitable clothing’. The suitable clothing remark

most likely references back to Magnus’ statement on how the Sámi dress for necessity’s sake.

Again it is due to external reasons of the environment that the Sámi dress this way for flax and

sheep are not available that far north. Though Magnus marks out the difference, overall he

cannot find fault in the Sámi’s dress.

Much like his chapter on Sámi’s housing, Schefferus devotes his next chapter to a discussion

“Of the Garments of the Laplanders”. He goes into quite detail about both men’s and women’s

clothing and also what it consists of in the summer- and wintertime. Schefferus does make a

comparison between the Sámi’s dress and European dress. The trousers, “they wear next to their

bare skin, without such linnen shirts as the Europeans use, they having no flax in their

Country.”154 Schefferus does not seem to show that this is in anyway a bad thing just that it is a

consequence of the environment that they cannot produce flax.

The Sámi wear girdles, which are the ornamental part of the Sámi dress and “are made of

leather, which the richer sort adorn with silver studs, and the poorer with tin.”155 They hang

multiple items, such as a knife and chains.156 Though ornamental, these girdles and chains seem

quite practical because the Sámi are able to carry many things on them. The girdles also present

an economic difference among the Sámi for the rich can have silver, while the poor with tin, and

perhaps those with a keen eye can see the difference between the metals, therefore being able to

visually distinguish between the classes.

Schefferus also makes comparisons and class distinctions within the descriptions of Sámi hats.

He states: “their head they cover with a cap, over which the richer sort wear a case of Fox,

Beaver, or Badgers skin, they are very like our night-caps, it is made of red or other colored cloth,

or of the Hares fur, first twisted into a thred, and then knit almost like our stockins”.157 Here he

seems to make the comparisons to European caps and stockings in order for Europeans to

understand better what these caps look like. Though Schefferus clearly wants to make the

distinction by saying ‘our caps’ and ‘our stockins’. He again points out a class difference with the

addition of fur to the cap, which would be easily recognizable to everyone seeing it. Drawing

from Olaus Magnus, Schefferus also mentions that the Sámi make a hat from “the skin of the

                                                                                                               153 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 665. 154 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 87. 155 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 87. 156 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 88. 157 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 88.

      42    

bird called Loom, with the feathers on it: sometimes they so order it, that keeping also the head

and wings of the bird, they make not an unbecoming cover for the head.”158 By Loom, Schefferus

most likely means loon, and unlike other garments Schefferus gives a compliment, though it is a

somewhat backward compliment with the use of a double negative.

Working his way through the different garments, Schefferus makes other comparisons.

According to him: “They have ordinary gloves, but shoes of a peculiar make, they are made of

the skin of the Rain-deer with the hair on”.159 By ‘ordinary’ Schefferus seemingly implies

European gloves and therefore those do not interest him as much, because he does not say

anything more. Instead he concentrates on the shoes that are quite different than European

shoes. The shoes must have intrigued him for he continues on to describe the shoes in great

length. This again highlights a unique aspect of the Sámi clothing.

Schefferus transitions to the discussion of women’s clothing among the Sámi and for the most

part it is very similar to the men’s. The women wear coats that cover all of their body and are

gathered at the middle by a girdle, though theirs is wider and adorned with plates of birds and

flowers instead of studs. The only comment with a connection to how European women dress in

comparison is on the hanging of metal chains off of the girdle. Schefferus declares: “These things

they do not hang by their sides, as women among us use, but before them.”160 This is not a very

strong difference between the women because Schefferus only talks about the placement of the

chains and not the fact that the Sámi women are different for having chains in the first place,

meaning that European or at least Swedish women wore chains as well.

In general Johannes Schefferus differentiates the Sámi’s dress from European attire more so

than Olaus Magnus did. This action brings out ‘us’ and ‘them’ categories, but he seems to use the

comparisons more as helpful comments so as the reader could understand what he meant by a

particular look. Schefferus adds a class element to the discussion of Sámi clothing, which shows

that there was a way for Sámi to visually differentiate oneself with a higher status.

As Carl Linnæus travels through Lapland he constantly remarks on the Sámi’s clothing,

drawing comparisons from European style of dress in order to help the reader understand the

clothing. Though they are not naked, Linnæus states that the Sámi “wear no shirt nor stockings.

The waistband is fastened by thongs, not buttons.”161 He does not make it clear in this statement

as to why the Sámi have these differences in clothing, but he does speak of it elsewhere. In the

later part of his trip, Linnæus says: “I was desirous of having my linen washed; but the people

                                                                                                               158 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 88. 159 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 88. 160 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 89. 161 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 170.

      43    

understood my request as little as if I had spoken Hebrew, not a single article of their own

apparel being made of linen. As their food is of animal origin, so is their clothing, which consists

either of skins, the produce of the country, or of the woollen cloth called walmal, which they

purchase.”162 According to Linnæus, the Sámi only have access to furs and wool and therefore

washing is a foreign concept for them. For their clothing, the Sámi use what is available for them,

which Linnæus also connects with their food.

Near the end of his journey, Linnæus seems to confide to the reader his true feelings on the

difference of clothing. He states:

We Swedes are accustomed to have all our clothing made very tight. Not only the neckcloth, but the coat, waistcoat, breeches, stockings, sleeves, &c., must all stick close to the body, and the tighter they are the more fashionable. The Laplanders, on the contrary, wear only two, and those slight, bandages about them, which moreover are broad, and therefore less injurious than a narrow bandage in any part. Those to which I allude are the waistband and knees of their breeches, both made sufficiently loose and easy.163

With this description, Linnæus seems to prefer the Sámi’s clothing over his own. The Sámi attire

may be quite simple, but at least it is ‘loose and easy’ and not injurious for the wearer as Swedish

clothing is according to Linnæus. This statement is also possibly an account on class for most

likely peasants also had loose clothing, but what is important here is that Linnæus believes there

is a clear distinction. While this distinction between the clothing openly creates ‘us’ and ‘them’

categories, Linnæus seems jealous of the Sámi attire and therefore he does not present it in a

negative light.

Overall Linnæus seems impressed by the ingenuity of certain pieces of the Sámi’s clothing. For

example, he finds the design of the Sámi’s collar smart because it protects against rain.164 Linnæus

mentions the Sámi collar again:

The dress of the Laplanders is, in one particular at least, very wisely contrived. Their thick collars effectually protect the throat and breast, which being furnished with numerous nerves and small muscles, and being the seat of the windpipe and of many principal veins and arteries, are very important and susceptible parts.165

The collar provides a good example of logic in the Sámi clothing for it has a function and

purpose. Linnæus being the scientist sees the advantage and logic of this collar.

Linnæus mentions two other clothing aspects that Swedes should take notice. The first is the

use of plants within shoes. According to Linnæus, the Sámi apply Usnea arborea (Lichen

plicatus), which is a type of moss, to sores on their feet caused by excessive walking. They also

“line their shoes with this moss, a practice which might with advantage be adopted by soldiers on

                                                                                                               162 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 2, p. 21. 163 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 2, p. 90. 164 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 85. 165 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 2, p. 89.

      44    

a march. The Laplanders also line their shoes with grass […] defending the feet from cold.”166

These are techniques that outsiders could learn and adopt, perhaps helping with the efficiency of

the military as Linnæus suggests. The Sámi’s ingenious way with dealing with their environment is

again emphasized.

The other aspect Linnæus is impressed by is the use of sinews as thread. Olaus Magnus and

Johannes Schefferus also speak of the Sámi’s use of reindeer tendons as thread though Linnæus is

the only one who praises the Sámi for it.167 He states: “To show to what a high degree of

perfection these people have arrived in the art of making such thread, I brought away a sample of

it, which I believe none of our ladies could match.”168 This shows that the Sámi are quite skilled

in this craft and that Swedish thread cannot even compare. These two clothing aspects portray a

superior side to the Sámi’s attire and Linnæus wants to praise them for it.

Lastly, Linnæus is the only scholar to compare the Sámi clothing to people other than Swedes

or Europeans in general. While in northern Finland, in what was then considered East Bothland

(or now known as Österbotten), Linnæus comments on the Finnish attire. He states: “The

Finlanders in East Bothland are dressed very much like the Laplanders, and therefore agree with

them in general appearance.”169 He describes the Finnish men’s clothing in more detail stating

what was similar to the Sámi dress and also points out the few differences of not having a high

collar – which Linnæus praised the Sámi for having – and in wearing a shirt, neck cloth and open

coat. This similarity in dress points to how one could confuse the two people. Yet, what is most

intriguing is that Linnæus further on states a difference between the genders: “The women

however dress in articles purchased from other countries, and make quite a different appearance

from the Lapland females.”170 It is difficult to know why the Finnish women would dress more

European than the men. Perhaps the Finnish men dress in a practical way and therefore look

more like the Sámi, whereas the Finnish women appear to want to differentiate themselves more,

or perhaps they are simply more interested in fashion. It is also difficult to know how Linnæus

thought about their dress in comparison to the Sámi’s since he gives no indication within the text.

Clearly Carl Linnæus appears fascinated with the Sámi’s clothing and sees the many advantages

within it. While pointing out the differences, he still overall paints a very positive picture of their

clothing, and at times he seems quite jealous of how the Sámi get to dress. After his journey,

                                                                                                               166 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 260. 167 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 872; Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 163. 168 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 2, p. 65. 169 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 2, p. 165. 170 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 2, p. 165.

      45    

Linnæus even had a portrait made of himself dressed in a rather jumbled Sámi costume that he

assembled.171 According to Lisbet Koerner,

His beret, which a Swedish tax collector had given him, was part of Ume women’s summer clothing. His reindeer fur livery was a Torne man’s winter garment bought in Uppsala after the trip. His reindeer leather boots were of a type the Sami manufactured for export and did not wear themselves.172

He also wore this costume at Amsterdam parties while visiting Holland.173 Even though Linnæus

may not have completely understood how the Sámi dress or at least properly represented how

they dress, he still expressed his passion for their attire.

Since Fragments of Lappish Mythology mainly deals with the different religious aspects of the

Sámi, Læstadius infrequently mentions the Sámi’s attire. While talking about the different aspects

surrounding the hunting and sacrifice of bears, Læstadius refers to Sámi’s use of bear’s teeth and

claws within jewelry/ornamentations.174 Later on Læstadius talks about the significance of the use

of red fabric within Sámi culture. He provides an example from their mythology such as: when

maidens from the underground appear to mortals they are dressed in red clothing. Læstadius then

claims: “Still today a skirt of red fabric is the most precious holiday dress a Lapp can have.”175

This is the only instance in which Læstadius mentions anything about their dress, which shows

that he was not interested in the significance of clothing within the Sámi identity.

To summarize, all of the scholars – with the exception of Læstadius – depict the Sámi clothing

as a distinct way to identify these people for the Sámi dress differently, but the authors do not

criticize them for looking different. Olaus Magnus concentrates on the use of pelts out of

necessity in his text and that the use of pelts should not be frowned upon. He also wants to

clarify that the Sámi are not actually hairy. While Magnus does mark out the difference of what

the Sámi wear, he can find no fault. Schefferus makes comparisons between European dress and

the Sámi and links it to environment. He presents the clothing in more of a way for the reader to

understand their particular look. Schefferus also highlights economic differences among Sámi,

which can be seen in attire, and lastly that Sámi care about their appearances. Linnæus has the

most to say and overall admires the Sámi dress, which he acquires after his journey. He points out

the many ingenious adaptations of their clothing and recommends them. Again Læstadius does

not seem to care about clothing for there is a lack of references therefore it is not a distinguishing

factor of the Sámi for him. Overall there does not seem to be much negative said about the

Sámi’s clothing and the three scholars present the Sámi as a neutral or positive Other.

                                                                                                               171 See Appendix, Figure 2. 172 Koerner 1999, p. 66. 173 Koerner 1999, p. 65. 174 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 196. 175 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 296.  

      46    

3.3 Fish and Reindeer: The Diet of the Sámi

Living in the arctic, the Sámi had limited means of subsistence. As the descriptions of the Sámi

housing showed, the Sámi needed to relocate easily in the search for food. They followed the

cycles of nature and depended heavily on wild game – this included fish, wild reindeer, bears, elks

and other small game – and semi-domesticated reindeer and whatever they could find in nature.176

Knowing that the Sámi were hunters and gatherers, how then do the four Swedish scholars

depict the Sámi’s food? Is there any knowledge to gain from what the Sámi eat or is it seen purely

as a reflection of their environment?

In 1555 Olaus Magnus does not go into too much detail about the food habits of the Sámi.

Instead he generalizes and compares the Sámi’s sustenance to European practices. First off

Magnus points out that the Sámi “live not on bread but on fish and by hunting wild creatures.”177

This must have seen quite strange since bread was such a staple in the European diet. He then

compares their actions to others: “The activity of these people, that is to say those who inhabit

the northern wastes, is concentrated on hunting and fishing, and they live by bartering with the

Muscovites. The Finns (or Finnings) practise agriculture, fishing, and hewing wood, the Götar

and Swedes devote themselves to the same occupations”.178 Although Magnus does not name the

Sámi directly here, he most likely means the Sámi when talking about those ‘who inhabit the

northern wastes’ since they are presented in opposition to the Swedish and Finnish farmers.

Magnus does not give any indication that this necessarily a bad thing, but that it is simply

different from the agrarian lifestyle.

Though not much, Magnus goes into a few areas of detail surrounding their food. He

mentions the large amounts of fish at the Sámi’s disposal: “Lapps are mainly fish-eaters, living on

the inexhaustible catches from their teeming rivers”. 179 The only compliment and true

recommendation he can give of their food is on reindeer meat. He declares: “The animal’s meat

is excellent and health-giving. Once it has been salted and dried in the wild it will last for several

years, though in the meantime it is the people’s habit to add to the old meat fresher carcasses

from their hunting.”180 With this being the only complement and the only open opinion about the

Sámi’s food Olaus Magnus does not seem too concerned with what they consume, and what he

mentions only depicts the Sámi people who adapt well to their environment.

As discussed in the chapter on physical appearance, Johannes Schefferus argues that the Sámi

diet altered their bodies into being lean and meager. In his chapter, “Of the Diet of the

                                                                                                               176 Kuutma 2006, p. 35. 177 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 198. 178 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 199. 179 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 870. 180 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 872.

      47    

Laplanders” Schefferus then explains how this is so. The Sámi have a limited diet consisting of

such things as milk, cheese, reindeer, and fish, and according to Schefferus: “The use of Bread

and Salt is almost unknown to them, and when they have any of the later, they use it very

sparingly.”181 Therefore the Sámi diet is different than those in the rest of Sweden and Europe, as

Olaus Magnus had already pointed out. Perhaps this shows evidence of Schefferus again drawing

many of his conclusions from Magnus.

Unlike Olaus Magnus, Schefferus criticizes the Sámi within the discussion of food and diet.

Although Schefferus states that the Sámi drink mostly water, they do have a weakness for

alcohol. According to Schefferus: “That which they drink for plesure, is spirit of Wine and

Brandy, with a little of which you may win their very souls.” To this, Schefferus adds that the

Sámi buy this alcohol from Norway. Therefore the Norwegians are guilty of making the Sámi

intoxicated and not Swedes, though Schefferus makes it seem like Swedes could be guilty too.

This also seems like an un-Christian thing to say, winning ‘their very souls’, but perhaps this is

Schefferus’ way of showing that the Sámi are very easily influenced, such as with the discussion

of being tainted by outsiders, and as seen with Læstadius’ earlier statement about the Sámi’s

problem with alcohol.

Schefferus also talks about the Sámi’s connection to gluttony. When discussing the habits of

their minds, Schefferus mentions an ill quality being the Sámi’s “immoderate lust”. He then cites

Sigismund von Herberstein – early sixteenth century diplomat and historian from an area of

modern-day Slovenia – saying that this quality among the Sámi “to be the more strange,

considering their diet, that they have neither bread nor salt, nor any other incentive of

gluttony.”182 Yet when Schefferus actually makes it to the discussion on the Sámi’s diet, he claims:

“And it is farther observable that they are abominable gluttons when they can get meat enough;

and yet hardy too to endure the most pinching hunger when they are forc’t to it.”183 Here

Schefferus openly claims the Sámi to be gluttons, negating what von Herberstein said. This is also

a good example of how Schefferus will insult – or in general say a negative comment – about the

Sámi, but then give them a compliment right after. In the end portraying the Sámi in an

ambiguous way. Compared to Magnus, Schefferus brings out more negative qualities associated

to the consumption of food – particularly in connection to one of the deadly sins – seemingly

creating ambivalence between the neutral and more negative image of the Sámi. This is probably

due to the fact that Schefferus never actually ate any Sámi food.

                                                                                                               181 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 92. 182 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 14. 183 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 93.

      48    

Much like the section on clothing, Carl Linnæus wrote extensively on the Sámi’s food and

unlike Schefferus, Linnæus ate and experienced Sámi food for over three months. Throughout

his journal, Linnæus wrote down what he ate most days, occasionally giving his opinion on the

food and in general he does not seem that impressed. For example, he states: “The people here

eat the flesh of the beaver as well as the hare and squirrel” and this is not to be seen as odd

because “The Romans, we are told, ate mice by way of choice dainty.”184 Even though the

Romans ate it, which gives approval to the act of eating this food, Linnæus still does not like it

for “I found the boiled flesh very insipid, for want of salt.”185 Another time he says:

My hosts gave me missen to eat; that is, whey, after the curd is separated from it, coagulated by boiling, which renders it very firm. Its flavor was good, but the washing of the spoon took away my appetite, as the master of the house wiped it dry with his fingers, whilst his wife cleaned the bowl, in which milk had been, in a similar manner, licking her finger after every stroke.186

Though he finds the missen good, Linnæus is disgusted by their cleaning techniques. Linnæus

also comments: “The Laplanders drink the water in which the fish has boiled, which I was unable

to do, -- though I could not but commend the practice, as favorable to digestion.”187 Again he

could not drink it himself, but he could find no fault with it because of its health benefits, which

overall shows that even though Linnæus did not enjoy the Sámi’s food he still presents it in a

neutral way.

In contrast to the earlier two scholars, Linnæus is quite concerned about the Sámi getting

enough food. He discusses how visiting fishermen come and fish in Lapland, prohibiting the

Sámi from their own subsistence, because the Sámi are not allowed to fish while the visiting

fishermen are there. After this he says: “The poor Laplander, who at this season has hardly any

other subsistence for himself or his family, can with difficulty catch a fish or two for his own

use.”188 Linnæus truly pities the Sámi and sees the injustice in the situation. He remarks on the

visiting fishermen again in his travels: “It is certainly very unjust that these people, settled more

than eight miles down the country on the other side of Lycksele church, should drive the native

Laplanders away, and be allowed to fish in these upper regions”.189 Since Linnæus survived his

journey mainly on the provisions of fish, he sees how important fishing is to the Sámi. Even

though the food overall was not to his liking, Linnæus sides with the Sámi and wants to make

people aware of the importance of their sustenance, and that their rights to the land are being

taken away.

                                                                                                               184 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 89. 185 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 89. 186 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 293. 187 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 307. 188 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 130. 189 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 162 – 163.

      49    

Due to Læstadius’ concentration on the different religious acts of the Sámi, the main way he

talks about the Sámi food is through the honoring of gods and for sacrifice. During Christmas

time the Sámi hang birch bark containers in honor of Ruotta. He states: “In these containers they

put a piece of everything they ate on Christmas Eve or Christmas morning. Meat was excluded;

they usually held, cheese, milk and also fish. If they had flour, they made a cake the size of a

rixdollar coin, filled it with milk and cheese, and then baked it on the fire. The same cake was put

into one of the containers mentioned above”.190 He also mentions a similar sacrifice to the

Christmas Lord (Joula-Herra) with food put in boxes the day before Christ’s birth.191 These

sacrifices give evidence to the fact that the Sámi combined acts from both pagan and Christian

beliefs. They also show the variety of what they ate during the holidays, which seems like quite a

splurge in food compared to what the other scholars – specifically Linnæus – said they had with

their limited resources.

Læstadius also speaks of the Sámi eating their sacrifices and with these comments he wants to

clarify that the Sámi no longer perform these acts. “I, at least, am completely unable to explain

why the Lapps at said sacrificial feast ate only the front quarters of the reindeer, and not the rear

quarters. Nor do I believe that any of the Lapps know why, since the entire sacrificial ceremony

has now sunk into oblivion.”192 The Sámi not only ate reindeer for their regular sustenance, but

also in connection to sacrifices. Læstadius does not seem concerned about explaining why the

Sámi do this, only that they no longer do this. He then quotes Leem about how Sámi women

were not allowed to eat the head of a reindeer and to this Læstadius says: “If I am not mistaken

there were many other parts of a reindeer that a woman was not allowed to eat. As we no longer

know the reasons for these differentiations, there is no reason to waste space enumerating a

whole host of horrifying customs.”193 Here Læstadius shows his true feelings on the subject of

sacrifices in which he finds them revolting.

Overall Læstadius is only concerned about the discussion of sacrifices and the honoring of

gods, and the topic of food just happens to be a part of it. He also does not compare the food to

that of any other people. The only positive comment Læstadius has to say about the food of his

people is: “Thus among other peoples one cannot get as delicious blood sausage to eat as among

the Lapps.”194 It is important to note that Læstadius does distinguish himself away from the Sámi,

meaning he does not say ‘we’ when talking about the Sámi, even though he is talking about food

                                                                                                               190 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 174. 191 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 176. 192 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 150. 193 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 179. 194 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 149.

      50    

that he would also eat. This demonstrates his scientific and Enlightenment style of writing for he

is able to distance himself from his subject.

In the end Olaus Magnus starts off the discussion on Sámi food by generalizing the Sámi as

hunters and fishers in comparison to European farmers, showing that the Sámi adapt well to their

environment. Schefferus also compares with equivalences among European cuisine in order to

help the reader. Again he takes a negative approach and emphasizes a dark side to the Sámi’s

drinking and eating habit by linking it to the stealing of souls and the deadly sin of gluttony.

Linnæus, having spent over three months with the Sámi, thoroughly experienced the Sámi food

culture. Though not always finding the food to his liking, Linnæus picks up the call to inform the

reader about the injustice happening surrounding the visiting fishermen and the Sámi’s lack of

food. Making no comparison, Læstadius concentrates on the food within sacrifices, which

portrays a different aspect of the Sámi food culture. There is a glimpse of what the Sámi’s food

consisted of and he shows more variety compared to what the other scholars depict, but again

Læstadius appears to show no interest in the actual food itself. Within the category of food, the

scholars are split in their representations of the Sámi.

3.4 Goods and Employments of the Sámi

The final category of Sámi lifestyle descriptions is a discussion on goods and employments,

meaning the different objects made or used by the Sámi. These are items that the Sámi used in

everyday life, some of which could be sold at markets. Although the four scholars do not write

extensively on the topic as with the previous three categories, the majority – excluding Læstadius

– seems impressed at the quality of workmanship and ingenuity among the Sámi.

In Description of the Northern Peoples, Olaus Magnus is fascinated by the Sámi’s use of skis for he

mentions it multiple times in his text. On planks of wood, “the front part of which is ingeniously

curved to the likeness of a bow, they pursue and overtake wild beasts”195 and “move over the

snow in valleys and on mountains, steering headlong course in their winding but calculated

progress”.196 Then lastly Magnus repeats himself again by saying: “Here I shall have to add an

account of how on curved, broad planks or smooth-sliding boards bound to their feet, they glide

at lightning speed over the valleys, the snows, and peaks of the mountains, and swoop on the

wild animals which they are out to hunt with their bows and arrows.”197 In all three accounts

Magnus is captivated by the ingenuity of the Sámi to adapt to their environment. It also highlights

                                                                                                               195 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 24. 196 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 57. 197 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 212.

      51    

the skill involved in using the skis for they employ them with ‘calculated progress’ and are able to

go as fast as lightning.

As with his descriptions of the Sámi clothing, Olaus Magnus also emphasizes pelts, specifically

the selling of them among the Sámi. According to him: “Hundreds of valuable furs can also be

obtained in that region, but by barter rather than by offering a large number of coins.”198 The

Sámi’s connection to the fur trade reaches back to the times of the Romans and was their main

good for most of their history,199 which Magnus would have been well aware. Another helpful

tool displaying the Sámi’s ingenuity is the sledge. He states: “The Lapps I have mentioned find

their sledges amazingly useful, principally because the smooth undersurface of these vehicles is

well suited to the snow, so that they can accomplish long journeys to the places appointed for

bartering goods.”200 Again Magnus seems impressed by their craftsmanship. Lastly Magnus

speaks about how the Sámi use the bones and antlers of the reindeer to make bows and

crossbows,201 which again shows how well they use what they can find around them. Within this

category Olaus Magnus does not compare the Sámi’s goods to anyone else’s, which he had done

in the previous aspects of Sámi lifestyle. Perhaps this is due to the fact that others do not even

compare to the skill and craftsmanship of the Sámi.

Out of all the categories that make up the Sámi lifestyle descriptions, goods and employments

is the single topic in which Johannes Schefferus only has positive things to say. Similar to

Magnus, Schefferus believes in the Sámi’s ingenuity. When speaking of the Sámi’s good qualities,

he says, “Lastly they are sufficiently ingenious, making for themselves all sorts of tools and

implements for their fishing and hunting”.202 These are the sorts of implements that Olaus

Magnus wrote about, such as skis and bows, though Schefferus corrects Magnus about how the

bows would have been made out of birch or pine, not reindeer bone or antler.203

Schefferus specifically goes into more detail on goods and employments in the chapters “Of

the Laplanders Handycraft-trades” and “Of the Womens Emploiments”. In the first chapter,

Schefferus goes through the different employments among the Sámi including: boat making;

carpentry, such as the building of sledges; and making boxes and chests, which are often oval

shaped. The trade Schefferus is most impressed by is their basket weaving. According to

Schefferus:

The fift Trade is making Baskets, in which Art no Nation can compare with them. The matter they make them off is roots of Trees, which they work not as other people do, for they make them

                                                                                                               198 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 199. 199 See Tacitus, p. 141; Lehtola, p. 22. 200 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 871. 201 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 872. 202 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 15. 203 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 98 – 99.

      52    

of what bigness they please, and if occasion require, will be so accurate in their work as to interweave the roots so neat and close together, that they shall hold water like a solid vessel…Not only the Laplanders and Swedes use these, but they are also for their curiosity and strength sent into farther Countries.204

These baskets are so well made that they can hold water and they are by far superior over any

other nation’s baskets that Schefferus knows of. He even provides a picture of one on the

following page to depict the skill. Not only do the Sámi and Swedes use them, but foreigners

purchase them as well, which shows they are of high value and esteemed among others. In the

same chapter, Schefferus declares: “They make also very neat Tobacco boxes carved with knifes

in bone, with many Rings and other pretty appendages about them, all which being considered

will prove this Nation not to be so dull and stupid as by some it is supposed.”205 Again Schefferus

wants to prove the talents and skills of these people and anyone who thinks differently is wrong.

All of these comments show that Schefferus truly admired the Sámi’s goods. In all likelihood this

was due to the fact that Schefferus would have seen most of these items at the market in Uppsala,

which proves the point in how meeting the Sámi and seeing what they can do makes all the

difference in how one perceives the Sámi.

Differing from the earlier two scholars, Carl Linnæus speaks of the Sámi’s ingenious goods

and employments that would not be sold at any market. He also differs in how he compares these

goods to that of the Swedes. The first items mentioned by Linnæus are baby cradles. He claims:

“Various modes of rocking children in cradles are adopted in different places. In Smoland the

cradle is suspended by an elastic pole, on which it swings up and down perpendicularly. The

poorer Laplanders rock their infants on branches of trees, but those of superior rank have cradles

that commonly roll from side to side.”206 This displays the existence of economic differences

among the Sámi. Since the poorer Sámi did not have access to elastic poles or cradles for that

matter, they simply hung their children in the trees, which depicts their ingenuity to utilize their

surroundings. This statement overall points out the theme of people adapting to their own

environment and how the rocking of children takes place wherever one lives.

The second good compared to the Swedes is Sámi leather. After buying hides from the

colonists, the Sámi tan the leather using birch bark and liquor. Linnæus then admits: “This leather

is much better and softer than what the colonists themselves prepare, but these last-mentioned

people are very tenacious of their own modes and customs.”207 Even though the Sámi’s way of

                                                                                                               204 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 101. He does not say whether the men or women make these extraordinary baskets, but I believe it is implied that it is the men, since men would do the other jobs listed, and the next chapter is the women’s employments. 205 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 102 – 103. 206 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 190. 207 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 249.

      53    

tanning the hides produces better leather, Linnæus acknowledges that Swedes are so stuck in their

own ways that they would not change over to better system, such as the Sámi have.

Lastly Linnæus discusses how most Sámi use a stick for boiling a kettle over the fire, but while

in Piteå some Sámi have created a clever joist to hold the kettle. After describing the device,

Linnæus lists the “advantages of this contrivance”: “1, the materials cost nothing, whereas any

iron machinery is expensive. 2, here is no waste, for iron may be employed to more important

purposes. 3, this is capable of being raised higher or lower according as the height of the fire may

require, which an iron trivet cannot.”208 He continues on to give three more reasons, but these

first three provide a good idea of the differences between what Swedes and other Europeans

would use and this new device. This also shows how highly Linnæus thought of the Sámi’s work

and how others could learn from the Sámi. In the end Linnæus portrays the Sámi in a positive

light with their ingenious designs, and how they can be superior to the skills of the Swedes.

Again Læstadius does not contribute significantly to the discussion on the goods and

employments of the Sámi. While speaking about the deities of the Sámi and how they cooked

whatever food they sacrificed, Læstadius talks about how the Sámi did not use cooking vessels

but just cooked over a fire.209 He continues on to his main point: “The Lapps probably never

knew how to work metals. If they had known the art of melting and making useful household

objects of iron they would not have had to attach the bill of a loon to their arrows, a practice of

which their own tales give credible testimony.”210 Although Læstadius is talking about how the

Sámi lived a long time ago, he rather points out their incapability to work with metals and how

they had to learn it and/or receive metal from the Swedes. This is interesting because the other

three scholars pointed out how ingenious the Sámi were with creating all sorts of devices and

here Læstadius only seems to focus on their faults.

The only other comment by Læstadius related to goods and employments has to do with the

shaman drums. These would not have been goods sold at the markets for they were sacred items

used by the noaide – the Sámi shaman – for divination purposes. Læstadius discusses how the

Sámi made these drums and how there were figures painted on them. He states: “With coloring

made by boiling alder bark, all kinds of figures were painted on the tightly stretched drumhead,

which varied, however, in different Lappish areas.”211 Here Læstadius appears to point out how

the Sámi use what nature provided for them. Yet a few lines later, he declares: “Judging from the

                                                                                                               208 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 199. The other three advantages: “4, the iron trivet is troublesome to more about, which this machine does not require. 5, when the trivet happens to lose one of its feet, it is no longer of any use. 6, the circular part of the iron trivet must be proportioned to the size of the kettle it is to support, but this machine will hold any size kettle.” p. 199. 209 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 100. 210 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 100 – 101. 211 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 155.

      54    

designs on the drums, Lapps do not appear to have been master sketchers.”212 In other words

Læstadius is not impressed by the Sámi’s form of art. With these two statements, Læstadius

paints a very boring picture of the Sámi compared to the other authors. He makes the Sámi

appear to be a very inept people who have no skill at all, which in a way can be explained by a

change in the historical time. Læstadius lived in a time when the rest of the world was

technologically advancing and perhaps he saw the rest of the world advance more than the Sámi.

In the end the descriptions of lifestyle within goods and employments depict the Sámi in the

most positive light with the exception of Lars Levi Læstadius. He only seems to concentrate on

their faults, whereas Schefferus, who typically always has something negative to say about the

Sámi, is all praises. This change of heart most likely arises in the fact of Schefferus actually seeing

these objects, which allows him to give his own opinion without the help of other authors.

Although Læstadius stops the progression of praise, the other scholars let the Sámi’s ingenuity

and skills shine forth and portray a very positive Other, one that outsiders should admire.

3.5 Concluding Remarks

Compared to the physical descriptions of the Sámi, the lifestyle descriptions portray a very

neutral and positive Other of the Sámi. For all four scholars the descriptions of the Sámi houses

are simply a reflection of the Sámi livelihood, which creates a neutral Other. Within clothing, the

Swedish scholars typically make comparisons with European style of dress in order to help the

reader understand how the Sámi appear, which again creates a neutral Other. Carl Linnæus is the

only scholar to truly bring out the Sámi as a positive Other with their ingenious and comfortable

clothing. In the food descriptions, the four scholars differ on their opinions on the importance of

food and this is most likely due to their difference experiences with Sámi food. Olaus Magnus

and Lars Levi Læstadius do not seem concerned about the food as a connection with the Sámi

identity. Linnæus is more concerned about the injustice of the colonizers taking food away from

the Sámi. In the end Schefferus appears to be the only one concerned and again creates them as a

negative Other. Then lastly, with the exception of Læstadius, the Swedish scholars portray a very

positive Other within the goods and employments descriptions.

In the end the lifestyle description that created the Sámi as the most distinct Other was the

goods and employments aspect, though this highlights the Sámi in a very good way. Then, on the

other end of the spectrum, I would have to say that the Sámi housing descriptions mattered the

least, for the overall image was one of the neutral Other. In the end this chapter highlights the

                                                                                                               212 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 155.

      55    

way in which the Sámi adapted well to their environment. The Swedish scholars primarily saw the

Sámi as a neutral or positive Other.

4. Language and its role in Sámi Identity

Today the Sámi language makes up a very essential part of the Sámi identity. By doing such things

as teaching the language in schools and utilizing multi-media outlets including: newspapers,

television shows, radio shows, and movies, the Sámi have been able to keep the language alive

and are very proud of this fact though it is a constant struggle to keep these outlets open. How

then was the Sámi language seen in the early modern period? Was language a key part of a

person’s given identity as it is in today’s society?

According to early modern historian Kimmo Katajala: “Language was important for the state

establishment and scholars in defining ‘Us’ and ‘Other’.”213 As stated earlier Katajala debates the

significance of language and religion in early modern ethnic identities and ‘nations’, such as with

state formation. He specifically researched the Swedish Empire in the seventeenth century within

the border communities of the eastern-most provinces of Kexholm and Ingria. Although he

states that modern historians, such as Eric Hobsbawm, declare that language did not play a

crucial role in the differentiation between people,214 Katajala found in his study that it did.

Language played an important role in defining ‘us’ and the ‘other’ and “The seventeenth-century

Swedish establishment saw language as one of the factors that could build a nation.”215 While

language was important, the main conclusion Katajala comes to is that “the real factor that

‘Swedicized’ the subject was religion.”216 In the end religion was the main factor in the definition

of ‘us’ and ‘other’ and I believe this to be the case in my investigation with language playing a

very minor role in the situation of the Sámi.

4.1 Language Discussion within the Swedish Scholars

With the four Swedish scholars, language differentiation with the Sámi was naturally

acknowledged but it does not appear to distance the Sámi as a negative Other. In Description of the

Northern Peoples, Olaus Magnus includes a chapter entitled “On the five languages of the northern

kingdoms” under the book concerning the Sámi. He speaks about how the north is diverse in

                                                                                                               213 Katajala 2006, p. 350. 214 Katajala 2006, p. 333. 215 Katajala 2006, p. 350. 216 Katajala 2006, p. 350.

      56    

countries and “No wonder, then, that in this zone five languages should be spoken: that of the

northern Lapp or Bothnians, that of the Muscovites or Russians, that of the Finns, that of the

Swedes and Götar, and that of the Germans.”217 However, this is the extent Magnus spoke about

language differences. The remaining parts of the chapter are taken up with lifestyle descriptions

of livelihood and weaponry. Kimmo Katajala actually references Magnus’ text on languages as an

example of the lack of how language and nationality were not linked in the early modern

period. 218 Olaus Magnus is much more concerned about making the North sound like a

wonderful and interesting place instead of carrying on with a discussion of different languages.

Within the work of Lapponia, Schefferus naturally includes a chapter “Of the Language of the

Laplanders”. In this chapter, Schefferus talks about how the Sámi naturally have several different

dialects, “and is so various, that those that live in one part of the Country, can scarce understand

those of the other.”219 This, he declares, is much like other countries and provides the example of

his home country, Germany, “where the Swavelanders, Saxons, and Belgians, speak all different

tongues”.220 In other words, the Sámi are no different in this aspect than most of the countries in

Europe. Due to the fact that most of the Sámi’s neighbors do not understand the language,

Schefferus admits that the Sámi instead learn the language of their neighbors. He then states:

“and that man that is skilled in these Tongues hath not little conceit of himself, and is indeed

much esteemed among his neighbours.”221 While most of the chapter does not emphasize any

links to ‘us’ and ‘them’, this statement is interesting because Schefferus admires those who learn

other people’s languages, yet at the same time this statement portrays the Sámi as becoming part

of the Swedes. By speaking the same language the Sámi are joining the ‘us’ within the Swedes.

Prior to the chapter on language, Schefferus admits that other authors have depicted the Sámi

as barbaric and rustic due to their language. When discussing the Sámi’s means of trading and

how they do not speak while doing business, Schefferus states:

Others, that are of a more probable opinion, confess indeed that they used no words in their trading, but that it was not out of rusticity, want of cunning, or the like; but because they had a language quite different form others, and so peculiar to themselves, that they could neither understand, nor be understood of their neighbors; so that it was rather the barbarism, and roughness of their speech, then manners, that made them use this dumb way of traffiking […]222

In other words it was because of their different language that to some the Sámi were considered

barbaric and rustic, and not their way of manners. These ‘Others’ that Schefferus speaks of are

people who have written about the Sámi in the past, such as sixteenth century Portuguese

                                                                                                               217 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 199. 218 Katajala 2006, p. 334. 219 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 76. 220 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 77. 221 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 77. 222 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 67 – 68.

      57    

historian Damianus a Goes, and not the modern writers, meaning missionaries. Schefferus admits

to Damianus’ opinion in the language chapter and says, “Damianus speaks more plain, and

accuses them of barbarism and roughness of speech.”223 Although Schefferus may not have seen

the Sámi language as barbaric and rough, these examples reveal that others saw them this way.

Schefferus then clarifies: “Their custom is now, not as formerly, to bargain by signs and nods, but

either they use speech, (for there are many of them now that are skilled in that of their neighbors)

or Interpreters, of which there are plenty enough among them.”224 In Schefferus’ eyes, the Sámi

are no longer barbaric but civilized, multi-lingual people.

In the end Schefferus finds similiar results that Kimmo Katajala found in his research with

religion being a bigger issue when defining identity. However, Schefferus shows how language

played a major role in the conversion of the Sámi to Christianity. When discussing Christian

religion among the Sámi, Schefferus states: “The reason why Gustavus Adolphus founded

Schools, was chiefly because he saw the Laplanders profited very little under the Swedish Priests

preaching in a forreign language, as they had hitherto don.”225 To encourage more Sámi to attend

the school Gustavus Adolphus also provided stipends and “with these helps the Laplanders

began more seriously to consider of the Christian Religion, which was now preach’d to them in

no other language than their own”.226 By using the native language of the Sámi, the Lutheran

pastors were able to convert many more people and as Katajala states: “Religion was the true

identity or ‘ethos’; language was a tool which enabled the person to conform to this identity.”227

In the case of the Sámi it was not the changing of the language that could allow them to become

part of the Swedish national identity, but rather the conversion of their religion.

During his tour of Lapland, Carl Linnæus infrequently mentions a difference in language

between himself and the people he is studying. One such time is while he headed up north.

Linnæus came across seven Sámi herding reindeer and to this he says, “I asked the drivers what

could have brought them so far down into the country. They replied that they were born here

near the sea coast, and intended to end their lives here. They spoke good Swedish.”228 These were

the first Sámi Linnæus met and Linnæus claims he was near Jättedahl in Helsingland. This shows

how far south the Sámi lived and how they could speak good Swedish even at that time. It seems

as though Linnæus is surprised by both facts of seeing them and how they spoke good Swedish.

                                                                                                               223 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 72. 224 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 69. 225 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 27. 226 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 27. 227 Katajala 2006, p. 344. 228 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 34.

      58    

Having very few examples from the text makes it appear that Linnæus was not concerned with

the difference of the Sámi’s language.

Although those two examples were the only comments within Linnæus’ journal, Linnæus’ also

wrote “A Brief Narrative of A Journey to Lapland”229, which was a shortened journal that he

submitted to The Royal Academy of Sciences after he came back. While most of this brief

narrative simply highlights Linnæus’ trip, he does mention the issue of language difference. On

July 6th Linnæus says:

My companion was a Laplander, who served me both as servant and interpreter. In the latter capacity his assistance was highly requisite, few persons being to be met with on these alps who are acquainted with the Swedish language; nor was I willing to trust myself alone among these wild people, who were ignorant for what purpose I came. I had already suffered much in the Lapland part of Umoea for want of knowing the language.230

It is interesting that Linnæus did not let this be known in his actual journal, but instead he

clarifies the situation of languages to The Royal Academy of Sciences. Here Linnæus emphasizes

how much his Sámi guide was crucial for his trip. The difference in language was such that

Linnæus did not trust himself alone with ‘these wild people’. This is also the first time he ever

called them ‘wild people’ and I wonder if it has to do with the fact that he gave this to the

Academy and/or to emphasize his helplessness in the situation. This reveals how Linnæus may

be reflecting the image of the Sámi that already exists in the minds of the Academy. Though what

is also interesting is that throughout the rest of the appendix he does not really give his opinion

since he is just summing up what happened. This example shows that the Sámi language did

create ‘us’ and ‘other’ for Linnæus in a way, but he only relates this to the Academy.

Similar to the previous Swedish scholars, Lars Levi Læstadius acknowledges the differentiation

of the Sámi language, but does not see it as a means of creating a negative Other. Læstadius

admits: “Lapps rarely communicate with each other across the land, but rather along the rivers.

Therefore, their languages, customs, dress, and way of living differ greatly.”231 This points to the

diversity of dialects and how the environment affects all aspects of the Sámi’s lifestyle.

The main way Læstadius talks about language is in correlation to the correction of other

scholars. According to Finnish historian Juha Pentikäinen:

The strengths of Læstadius’s mythology include his sharp source criticism, his accurate knowledge of various territorial, local, and personal aspects of Sami language and Sami culture. For a good reason, he criticizes many earlier writers who, because they did not know any Sami language, generated interpretations that were nothing short of fantastical.232

                                                                                                               229 This was part of the Appendix in the English publication of Lachesis Lapponica, 1811, p. 239 – 269. 230 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 2, p. 257 – 258. 231 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 107. 232 Pentikäinen, Afterword to Fragments of Lappish Mythology, 2002, p. 324.

      59    

An example of Læstadius’ source criticism is when he goes after Olaus Magnus and field pastor,

C.O. Gravallius, 233 about their descriptions of the noaide drum hammer. Læstadius states: “Where

Olaus Magnus has ‘anvil’ Gravallius has ‘rock,’ but neither Magnus nor Gravallius has taken the

trouble to study Lappish noaide practices. They seem to be amused to concoct stories on their

own where full information is lacking and then give them a fairy-tale gloss.”234 With a lack of

knowledge of the Sámi language, these authors portray the Sámi in a misleading light in the eyes

of Læstadius. Therefore for him the difference between the Sámi language and the Swedish has

caused problems in relaying the truth about the Sámi, which he wants to correct in his own work.

4.2 Concluding Remarks

In the end all four Swedish scholars acknowledge the simple fact of the Sámi having a different

language than themselves, but none of them appear to believe that language was the deciding

factor of whether or not the Sámi would or would not be seen as part of the Swedish ‘we’.

Schefferus and Læstadius somewhat bring out the problems with the difference in language. In

Schefferus’ text, he shows how past authors have correlated the Sámi’s language to barbarism,

but Schefferus states that is not the case in 1673. Læstadius points to the fact that previous

authors have misunderstood the Sámi language and therefore have created a ‘fairy-tale gloss’

around the Sámi’s image. By correcting these past authors Læstadius wants to present the Sámi

aright. Therefore again the Swedish scholars themselves do not believe that the Sámi language is

the problem, just other authors’ ignorance.

5. Christians vs. Magicians: Religious Descriptions of the Sámi

Due to the fact that the Sámi had been interacting with the rest of Europe for centuries, it is

difficult to say exactly when the conversion of Sámi to Christianity began. Sámi historian Veli-

Pekka Lehtola dates the missionizing of the Artic coastline and around the Gulf of Bothnia to

have occurred in the 1100s with the building of some churches.235 Johannes Schefferus on the

other hand states that the Sámi “took upon them the name of Christians, which happened in the

time of Ladulaus Magnus236, in the year 1277, from whence we must date the planting of

                                                                                                               233 Gravallius wrote a history of the Swedish Missionary Society in 1843; Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 137. 234 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 159. 235 Lehtola 2004, p. 30. 236 This is the thirteenth century King Magnus Ladulås of Sweden.

      60    

Christian Religion in Lapland”.237 However Schefferus does point out that the Sámi did not

wholly embrace Christianity at that time. Prior to the early modern period and even into the

1550s missionizing had been quite slow. It was not until the 1600s that conversion of the Sámi

intensified in Sweden under Karl IX.238 Although more Sámi converted to Christianity, there were

still aspects of their pagan life alive within the Sámi culture and many people were aware of this.

As stated earlier according to Kimmo Katajala, “the real factor that ‘Swedicized’ the subject

was religion.”239 In his study focusing on the border area between Sweden and Russia during the

seventeenth century, Katajala found that the “solidarity and feeling of belonging to a group was

created by the religion.”240 Therefore one’s belief in Christianity truly mattered when it came to

the inclusion as part of the Swedish ‘we’. How then were the Sámi seen by the Swedish scholars,

did their religion truly matter? Were they Christians or pagans? All four Swedish scholars discuss

how the Sámi are good Christians while at the same time mention the Sámi’s continuation of

their pagan ways. The authors constantly go back and forth between describing the Sámi in a

positive light and a negative light. As means to avoid confusion I will follow Schefferus’ lead and

discuss the different facets of the Sámi’s Christianity then move on to the criticism of how the

Sámi still practice paganism.

5.1 Enlightened by Christianity

Although it was a slow process in the beginning, Christianity spread greatly among the Sámi

during the early modern period. The building of churches and schools in the seventeenth century

along with the use of the Sámi language within the churches and schools increased the

conversion immensely. Apart from the claims of paganism, the Sámi – in the eyes of the Swedish

scholars – are truly seen as role models for Christians everywhere.

Even though the process of conversion was slow in the 1500s, Olaus Magnus is still adamant

about how Christian the Sámi truly are even at that time. According to Magnus: “But through the

restraint of the law these people of the North have never, since the acceptance of Christianity,

been seen to practice magical skills openly; nor have they passed it on and taught it to others, on

peril of their lives.”241 In other words, once the Sámi became Christian, the Sámi stayed Christian.

Becoming Christian the Sámi have then lead ideal lives and Magnus is quite proud of the fact that

it all began with Catholic priests. He states that because of the “devout homilies of Catholic

priests, a large number of the people of the wild have already been drawn in and a better hope is

                                                                                                               237 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 24. 238 Lehtola 2004, p. 30; Lundmark 2008, p. 50. 239 Katajala 2006, p. 350. 240 Katajala 2006, p. 348. 241 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 173.

      61    

born that in time, when heresies elsewhere are put down, these races will with one accord come

to seek admission.”242 The heresies Magnus is referring to is most likely the heresies of the

Lutheran pastors for Magnus wrote this work in order to convince the pope to take back the

North from the heretical Lutherans. Magnus realizes that more Sámi are in need of conversion

and once the Lutherans are gone, the Catholics can get back to converting the Sámi properly,

which harkens back to the reason he wrote this tome in the first place.

Magnus then discusses how the Sámi have become good Christians. He admits to a slow

conversion rate due to such things, as the fact of them living a far way off, but that has not

deterred them. Magnus declares:

However, those who have yielded themselves to Christian observance are found to be very obedient, though because of the distance I have referred to they visit their baptismal churches only once or twice a year, bringing with them their unweaned babies to be baptized, in carriers or baskets strapped to their backs, together with other burdens and gifts of pelts, especially of the valuable kinds, to be given to the priest in lieu of tithes.243

With wanting the Pope’s help in mind, Magnus depicts these people as being good and obedient

Christians, willing to do their part and give tithes – the very best pelts in fact – to the church.

When telling of the marriage ceremonies of the Sámi, Magnus also associates them with honoring

marriage. He claims: “But the bridegroom, and his bride with him, deserve high praise, as indeed

does the whole of that race, in that it is not by capricious lust but by honourable marriage,

attended with such celebrations as these, that they consent to be united.”244 The Sámi get married

not for want of lust, but for marriages sake, which a very valued quality among Catholics. Due to

wanting to depict the North as good, Olaus Magnus presents the Sámi as eager Christians willing

to do their part for the church and as good examples for others.

By the time of Johannes Schefferus in 1673, many more churches and schools had built in

Lapland allowing for many more conversions to Christianity. In Schefferus’ eyes the Sámi have

become “enlightened with the Christian Religion”.245 In wanting to dispel the belief that Gustavus

Adolphus used Sámi magic during the Thirty Years War, Schefferus greatly wanted to depict the

Sámi as good Christians. He relays how they act like good Christians in that they are showing

their priests honor and respect, by “saluting them at their first coming with bowing their head,”

and they observe Sundays by not working.246 He continues on and gives examples of how the

Sámi act within the church. He states: “While the Sermon is preaching they attend diligently; and

in singing of Psalms they are so zealous that they strive who shall sing best. They very much

                                                                                                               242 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 219. 243 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 219. 244 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 205. 245 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 24. 246 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 32.

      62    

reverence and frequent the Sacraments, especially that of Baptism which they never defer.”247

This also harkens back to the earlier comment about how the Sámi are very zealous to hasten

their children’s baptisms. Schefferus is then showing how the Sámi have become ideal Christians,

ones that any pastor would want in their congregation.

Schefferus then shows how Christianity has helped in other facets of Sámi life. He declares:

“They most religiously abstain from swearing, cursing and blasphemy: they are very charitable to

the poor, and just, insomuch that there are scarce any robberies ever heard of in the Country.”248

This shows that the Christian values have spread to other parts of their lives and now the Sámi

are model citizens. Through Christianity the Sámi have also learned “the rule of true piety; so do

they utterly abhor all their ancient superstition. They pull down all their drums, and burn and

demolish all their Images of wood and stone.”249 Though most likely they did this because it was

illegal and not because of the change to Christianity.

Lastly Schefferus mentions their Christian virtues and similar to Olaus Magnus, Schefferus

speaks of “their veneration and due esteem of Marriage, which they more seldom violate, then

many who pretend to be much better Christians.” 250 Here Schefferus is quite blunt and

acknowledges that this is an aspect the Sámi are better at than most. He also points out that they

are again charitable to the poor, civil, hospitable, and kind.251 Later on Schefferus discusses the

topic of marriages even further. He states: “Polygamy and Divorces were never heard of among

the Laplanders, neither in the time of Paganism, saies Tornæus, nor afterwards, but they alwaies

observed marriage honestly and like Christians”.252 Unlike the previous good traits of the Sámi,

according to Johannes Tornæus, a pastor who lived in Torneå at the time, this is something that

was innate among the Sámi for they were this way prior to Christianity. Yet at the same time

Schefferus included this to present the Sámi as good examples for the rest of society and overall

paints a very positive image of them. It is again important to remember that Schefferus wrote

Lapponia in order to dispel the belief that Gustavus Adolphus used Sámi magic to win the Thirty

Years War. Therefore Schefferus wanted to portray them as Christians not magicians and

possibly to praise the Swedish church and state for converting the Sámi.

Though a Christian himself, Carl Linnæus does not have much to say on the topic of religion

within his journal, since the discussion of religion was not the main reason Linnæus traveled to

the north, rather his fascination with botany. Compared to the other categories of descriptions,

                                                                                                               247 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 32. 248 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 32. 249 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 33. 250 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 14. 251 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 14. 252 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 119.

      63    

Linnæus then appears quite mute, but even though he limits what he has to say he still portrays

the Sámi as good Christians. When he was at the town of Teksnas outside of Umeå, he remarks

about the church. He says: “Seven miles distant from this place is the church, the road to which

is execrable, insomuch that the people are obliged to set out on Friday morning to get to church

on Sunday.”253 This truly shows the dedication of the Sámi in this area in wanting to go to church

and it being such a hassle to get there.

Linnæus also gives evidence of how the Sámi think in a very Christian way. Being around

reindeer Linnæus hears an odd noise that comes from a reindeer’s hoof. He says: “This excited

my curiosity; and inquiring what was supposed to be the cause, the only answer I could get from

any one was, that ‘our Lord has made it so.’ I inquired further in what manner our Lord had

formed the reindeer so as to produce such an effect; but to this the respondent answered

nothing.”254 Linnæus being a budding scientist does not really accept this answer and wants to

figure out the scientific answer, which he does. These two examples, while not as detailed as the

other authors, still depict the Sámi as dedicated Christians, who think in a very Christian way.

In Fragments of Lappish Mythology, Lars Levi Læstadius proceeds with a different tactic than the

other Swedish scholars. By the 1840s he is quite aware that the Sámi are baptized Christians255

and therefore in his text Læstadius takes the opportunity to set the record straight. Læstadius was

apparently tired of people falsifying the truth about the Sámi and gives field pastor C.O.

Gravallius as an example. Læstadius quotes a section of Gravallius’ speech to the Stockholm

Ministerial Society in 1843, which says, “Although the noaide drum is now silent, nevertheless the

divination drum still bangs here and there on the fells of Lapland.”256 Læstadius then rebuts: “It

would be nice to know just where it bangs! I myself was born in Lapland, grew up in Lapland,

now live in Lapland, and have also traveled extensively around all the parishes of Lapland, and

have not succeeded in seeing that remarkable drum, much less in hearing its sound.”257 He makes

it quite clear that the practice of divination drums no longer takes place in Lapland therefore

writers need to cease writing about it as if it does exist. Again this emphasizes Læstadius’ different

position than the other three authors, because he wants to defend his home turf.

Later on Læstadius adds to this argument by saying, “I myself have not witnessed a single

example of what could be called sorcery, and there is likely to be very little of it nowadays.

Besides, during the past winter of 1844 I have journeyed through all the Swedish Lappish areas

and met Lapps at all the fairs, but nowhere have I heard talk of anyone who could be considered

                                                                                                               253 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 86 – 87. 254 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 311. 255 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 138. 256 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 137. 257 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 137.

      64    

a true noaide.”258 Even though Læstadius has not witnessed or heard of any true noaides, I

wonder whether or not the Sámi would even tell him since he was a known pastor. Læstadius

somewhat answers this query by saying:

It is not possible for any Lapp nowadays to use a drum so secretly that other Lapps would not get an inkling of it and spread word of it […] To the extent that I know the Lapps, I believe that if one of them were to become known as a noaide drummer, the other Lapps would scorn him as much as the new settlers.259

In other words the Sámi would easily turn each other in for acts of sorcery and therefore likely to

also approach Læstadius or any other figure head in society about the problem.

Læstadius also depicts the Sámi as Christians by providing evidence of how they no longer

follow their old ways of sacrifice and superstition. There are no longer piles of reindeer antlers at

places of sacrifice also known as seite. He states: “Nowadays one rarely finds marks of these antler

heaps, because already a long time ago settlers have boiled them for glue, and the rest have

mouldered away.”260 Læstadius does admit that it is hard for the Sámi to break old habits. He

states: “The sacrifice institution is still in fresh memory among the Lapps. They no longer offer

sacrifices to seites or passes; instead they pledge sacrifices to churches”.261 Perhaps this was the

Sámi’s way of understanding and giving their tithes to the church. Læstadius also wants to clarify

that superstitions have now become customs, such as women not coming near påssjo. He declares:

“Some Lappish women still observe this custom by not circling the påssjo on the outside, actually

observed unconsciously more as an old custom than out of superstition.”262 Another example is

with the ceremonial burial of a bear for Læstadius claims “all such ceremonies have ceased

nowadays.”263 If people act a certain way with bears it is most likely done out of habit, not out of

superstition. Therefore the Sámi should not be attacked or accused of practicing any magic or

superstition for in the eyes of Læstadius, the Sámi are good Christians.

As can be seen by all of the Swedish scholars, the Sámi are presented as good Christians and

to some the Sámi are even better Christians than other Christians. They all have slightly different

reasons for portraying the Sámi this way, such Olaus Magnus wanting to show how great the

North is and how willing the Sámi are to become Christians. Overall, though, they have the same

mission in mind, though Læstadius also wants to defend his home environment. The Swedish

scholars want to portray them as Christians because the Sámi are part of the Swedish state and

they want to show that the Swedish state makes an effort to enlighten the Sámi with Christianity,

as Europeans have done everywhere else in the world.                                                                                                                258 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 227. 259 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 137 – 138. 260 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 102. 261 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 105. 262 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 144. 263 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 196.

      65    

5.2 Magical and Diabolical: Pagan Descriptions of the Sámi

While being described as good Christians by the Swedish scholars, the Sámi are also chastised for

their use of magic. The belief in witchcraft and wizardry existed in most, if not all, European

countries during the middle ages and most of the early modern period – with the exception of

Lars Levi Læstadius’ time period of the nineteenth century – therefore Europeans saw the

shamanistic world-view of the Sámi as equivalent to that evil. The priests not only went after the

shamanic practices of the Sámi, but many other unfamiliar customs were judged heathen by the

church, such as the secular yoik tradition.264 At the same time acknowledging the past use of

magic among the Sámi through their pagan ways, all of the Swedish scholars – perhaps with the

exception of Carl Linnæus – also seemingly admit to heathen, pagan acts occurring during each

of their centuries, which creates a very different image of the Sámi.

In order to differentiate what he has to say about the Sámi’s Christian ways, Olaus Magnus

includes a separate book entitled, “On the Superstitious worship of demons by the people of the

North”, yet in this book he is still talking about the Sámi. Although Magnus emphasized that

“Out of the north cometh golden splendour”,265 in this chapter he also admits to evil being there.

He states: “Among the Bothnian people of the North wizards and magicians were found

everywhere, as if it were their particular home.”266 According to historian John Granlund, Bothnia

refers to Norrbotten and in general the combined provinces of Västerbotten and Österbotten.267

Therefore one can deduce that Olaus Magnus meant Sámi, which particularly holds true in the

following passage. Magnus states:

They demonstrate their hocus-pocus as follows: anyone desiring to know the condition of his friends or enemies who are between five hundred and a thousand miles distant overland makes a present, for example, a linen garment or a bow, to a Lapp or a Finn adept in this business, and asks for a test to be carried out to discover where his friends or enemies are and what they are doing.268

Here Magnus openly states that ‘a Lapp’ could conjure up this type of magic, and not just any

Lapp, but one that is ‘adept in this business’.269 The ability to see what was happening in far off

distances must have scared the church and therefore this was deemed as evil.

Not only does Olaus Magnus name the heathen acts, but he also believes the Sámi sorcerers

and anyone else conjuring magic should be punished. Following the lines of how most of Europe

reacted to magic, Magnus declares:

                                                                                                               264 Lehtola 2004, p. 28. 265 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 8. 266 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 174. 267 Granlund, Footnote within Descriptions of the Northern Peoples, 1996, p. 189. 268 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 174. 269 This particular type of magic was performed by the noaide, in which he would go into a shamanic trance to find this information out and typically using a drum and hammer to help him get into the trance.

      66    

However, in the most recent centuries all persons of either sex found guilty of this perversion have suffered the sharpest penalty, punishment by fire, as often as need arose; for in Christian times no one has been permitted to dabble in magic…sorcerers, or any who have trusted to obtain something from such men’s impious deeds, are to be punished with the strictness of the law; it is wicked for those to be condoned whom Heaven’s justice does not allow to go unpunished, as I observed earlier in Ch. 15 of this book, and people who have taken part in these forbidden enormities must bear the statutory penalty.270

This shows that no matter where one comes from, even the great North, Magnus still believes

they should be severely punished for dabbling in magic. Though he condones these actions,

Magnus does not ever use the term Lapp within these statements of punishments as he did with

the use of magic. He just uses ‘men of the North’ or ‘men of Biarmia, Finnmark, and Scricfinnia’

even though this most likely refers to the Sámi. Perhaps this was Magnus’ way of distinguishing

between the good Christian Lapps and the other pagan dwellers of the North in his mind, which

again emphasizes his need to show the North as good. Although Magnus wanted the North to be

good, he still portrays the Sámi sorcerers as evil people who need to be punished for such crimes.

After his chapter in Lapponia on how the Sámi have become Christian, Johannes Schefferus

then proceeds with two chapters concerning the Sámi’s dark side, entitled “Of some remains of

Paganism in Lapland at this time” and “Of the heathenish Gods of the Laplanders, and their

manner of worship at this day”. In these two chapters Schefferus goes into detail how in many

ways the Sámi are not wholly Christians. Schefferus declares: “It hath bin a received opinion

among all that did but know the name of the Laplanders, that they are a People addicted to Magic

[… it] being one of the greatest of their impieties that yet continues among them.”271 In order for

it not to appear as though Schefferus himself is only of this opinion he writes, “they are described

both by ancient and modern Writers, to have arrived so great skill in enchantments, that among

several strange effects of their art, they could stop ships when under full sail.”272 Schefferus

provides more examples, such as them being able to ensnare and bewitch men with just a look to

deprive them of the use of limbs and reason, but adds that nowadays they less frequently practice

this. Although practicing magic has lessen over time and “severely prohibited by the King of

Sweden” Schefferus points out that “there are still many that give themselves wholly unto this

study.”273 While he does say that ‘many’ do this, it does not mean every Sámi. The statement

shows that there is a risk among the Sámi to be addicted to magic, but not wholly lost to magic.

                                                                                                               270 The statement Magnus refers to is one that he put forth in a previous chapter from Roman senator Cassiodorus, who urged people to take total vengeance on enchanters by saying, “It is wicked not to chastise sorcerers, whom Heaven’s justice does not allow to go unpunished. What sort of folly is it to abandon the creator of life and prefer to follow the originator of death?” Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 172; Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 177. 271 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 45. 272 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 45. 273 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 46.

      67    

One of the ways Schefferus depicts how the Sámi are still practicing their magic is through the

use of shamanic drums. After describing the whole process and how the Sámi use the drums,

Schefferus declares, “this mischievous Art continues still too much among them.”274 It is then for

the good of the Sámi that their drums are confiscated and burned. Schefferus also discusses the

Sámi’s use of sacrificial places and similar to Olaus Magnus, admits that they deserve punishment.

He names thirty locations of idolatry that he was given to him by Swedish missionary Samuel

Rheen and to this he says, “there are several others which the Idolatrous People endeavour to

concele, that they may avoid the suspicion of this impiety and their deserved punishment.”275

Although he is not as direct as Magnus, Schefferus still gets his point of punishment across.

Lastly, Schefferus differentiates between acts performed by the Sámi that are “superstitious

and paganish”, and those that are “Magical and Diabolical”. The first group includes superstitions

that Schefferus deems “vain and fabulous” meaning those acts that are not as severe and do not

take away from practicing Christianity, such as women not going through the door which a man

went through to go hunting.276 The second group consists of acts that are “very impious and

heathenish” such as going to church not out of devotion but compulsion.277 Schefferus also states

in this category that the Sámi are guilty of joining their own feigned gods with God and Christ,

and paying equal reverence and worship “as if God and the Devil had made an agreement

together to share their devotions between them.”278 In the eyes of Schefferus, these are much

more heinous crimes and with this particular statement, Schefferus seems to find this ridiculous

and preposterous, for God would never make a deal such as that. Therefore it must be the Devil

working through the Sámi. Although Schefferus differentiates the two groups and makes it

appear as if he does not believe the first group to be as bad, he does have problems with both.

The reasoning being that Schefferus later declares about the Sámi: “The chief sin they are guilty

of, is their magical superstition, which since their embracing Christianity, is forbidden by the

Laws”.279 In other words everything connected to magical superstitions are illegal and should be

done away with.

Of all of the Swedish scholars, Carl Linnæus again has the least to say on the topic of the

Sámi’s pagan acts and overall does not find true evidence of magical acts. While around the town

of Piteå, Linnæus mentions the use of witchcraft. He states: “The people hereabouts talked much

of mountains haunted by hobgoblins, particularly the hill called Svenberget, situated between the

                                                                                                               274 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 58. 275 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 30 – 40. 276 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 35. 277 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 35. 278 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 35. 279 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 65.

      68    

new and old Pithoea […] Their discourse moreover ran on that useful sort of witchcraft by which

a thief is put to his wit’s end and detected.”280 It is unclear whether or not Linnæus is with only

Sámi or if this discussion took place with Swedish colonizers too, and also if this sort of

witchcraft was still used during Linnæus’ time. Though Linnæus adds to this: “The origin of these

fables may partly be traced in history, and the rest is to be attributed to invention.”281 In other

words, these stories are false and made up to scare people. Linnæus does not scold them for even

bringing this topic up, which shows that he is not offended and/or does not show interest in

these types of stories.

Although Linnæus mentions the Sámi’s determination to attend church, he also mentions how

church does not take precedence during certain times of the year. He declares: “At Whitsuntide

this year no Laplander was at church, the pikes happening to spawn just at this time.”282

Surprisingly, Linnæus does not scold them for not attending church especially during a holiday.

Instead he explains that fishing is the chief trade during that time of year. While this is not an

example of paganism it does still portray the Sámi in this situation not as good Christians by

putting the church first in their lives. One theory why Linnæus was not as critical of the Sámi’s

unchristian ways could be that he was not that good of a Christian himself for Linnæus’

Christianity has been put into question by Lisbet Koerner.283 Therefore perhaps Linnæus was not

in the position to scold the Sámi and instead saw their predicament from a scientific point of

view instead.

As with the Christian aspect of Fragments of Lappish Mythology, Lars Levi Læstadius again has a

different tactic than the other scholars. His main way of discussing the Sámi’s pagan religion is

through scientific explanation. Although Læstadius admits that the Sámi “still hold considerable

amounts of false beliefs and superstition”,284 he concentrates mainly on explaining why the Sámi

believed what they did, such as using certain stones for places of sacrifice.285 Læstadius also

admits: “Flagrant paganism, it is true, remained longest in Gällivare where the industrious

Högström still came in contact with obvious pagans in the 1740s-50s. And it is true that the

                                                                                                               280 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 221-222. 281 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 222. 282 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 115. 283 According to Lisbet Koerner: “Arguably, he was not a Christian at all. He did obey the law to attend church on Sunday…But he did not believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, that by dying on the cross he took on the sins of humankind, and that hereby we gained eternal life.” These are all central concepts to Christian theology and apparently they were absent from Linnæus’ theology. Koerner 1999, p. 89. 284 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 53. 285 For example, the reason certain stones were seen as sacred was because they were made of slate with garnets inside along with chunks of soapstone that when worn away by water and sand formed holes and figures that resembled animals or humans. According to Læstadius: “Since the simple Lapps could not imagine any natural reason for such formations they decided to erect such stones and treat them as sacred.” Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 103 – 104.

      69    

Gällivare Lapps are still the most uneducated in all of Swedish Lapland.”286 Per Högström was a

pastor living in Gällivare and this passage shows that even though Carl Linnæus did not mention

it himself there were still pagan Sámi’s during his time in Lapland. Læstadius also does not make

it known how long they were pagans till just that it was the last written account.

Læstadius is very much a man of his time and he even admits to it: “Our age is not taken with

the supernatural. It wants a natural explanation for everything”.287 Although Læstadius wants to

explain everything there is one instance that he cannot explain. Læstadius actually admits to have

witnessed magic:

I have, however, seen with my very own eyes how wasps are enchanted. It is the only magic I have seen in my entire life. I was then a 12 or 13 year old boy. There was a pioneer’s farm-hand in Kvickjock (Lule Lappmark) who had learned the trick from the pioneer in Pewawre. He recited and mumbled something that I did not understand or pay attention to. But the end sum was that the wasps became docile like lambs…What tricks he may have used I really don’t understand, but he insisted himself that it happened through enchanting alone.288

Granted Læstadius was a boy when this happened and seems quite skeptical about the validity of

the trick, but yet he still confesses that this happened and he is dying to explain it but he cannot.

In his chapter “Doctrine of Divination or A Brief Treaty on the Notorious Practice of Sorcery

among the Lapps”, Læstadius then goes into more detail how there are so many things that

simply cannot be explained specifically about the noaide’s magical powers. Læstadius discloses:

“There must be something true, something with a basis in fact, in what is related about the

Lapps’ ability to see into the future.”289 He then relates a number of stories, referencing Rev.

Tornæus first, “who, because of his mathematical knowledge and other extraordinary learning,

cannot lightly be accused of superstition.”290 He respects Tornæus’ stories for he is a learned man,

and therefore there must be some truth in it.

Læstadius also references a Sámi woman by the name of Lapland Tiina, who he personally

knew to have cured many people without any medical knowledge, but had received her skill from

“a woman in the realm of the dead” much like what true noaides did.291 It is interesting that

Læstadius had previously stated that there were no true noaides still in Lapland yet here he claims

that people are still performing magic during his time of the 1840s. Perhaps because these people

do not claim themselves to be noaides, Læstadius does not see them as magicians and therefore

does not scold them for their actions. Even though he is a man of the Enlightenment, to him,

“The relationship between the spiritual and material world is secret and will remain so as long as

                                                                                                               286 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 175. 287 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 229. 288 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 117. 289 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 201. 290 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 201. 291 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 205 – 207.

      70    

the world survives”,292 and leaves further explanation of Sámi magic to trained psychologists and

physiologists.

In the end Olaus Magnus and Johannes Schefferus are the harshest when it comes to the

practices of paganism among some of the Sámi. Although both scholars included general

statements associating the Sámi to magic, they did mainly state that it was those who specifically

practiced magic were to be punished. To these two men, these heathen acts deserve punishment,

which paints a negative Other for certain Sámi compared to their saint-like descriptions of their

Christian side. Carl Linnæus appears rather neutral about the Sámi’s association to paganism and

most likely this is due to the fact that he was not a true Christian himself. Lastly Læstadius wants

to explain everything about the Sámi. Yet in the end he does find that one cannot explain

everything and that magic can exist. While not as harsh as Magnus and Schefferus, Læstadius still

depicts a different, mysterious side of the Sámi, one that continues the belief of the Sámi’s

association to magic, even though that was not his intention. With both positive and negative

aspects, the scholars’ image of the Sámi is clearly not one-sided. It is much more complex.

5.3 Pointing the Finger at Others

Within the religious descriptions, the Sámi are portrayed in both positive and negative aspects,

weighing down both sides of the pendulum. In order to see if this just pertained to the Sámi it is

important to see how others were portrayed within the religious descriptions. If the Sámi are not

to blame for their pagan ways or not the most heathen, then who is?

Being a Catholic, Olaus Magnus easily points the finger toward both God and Lutherans for

the slow conversion of the Sámi in the 1550s. According to Magnus, God always has a plan so

there is a time and place for everything, and since Lutherans exiled Magnus, the “infamous

Lutherans” also hindered conversion of the Sámi.293 While this is not surprising – knowing

Magnus’ position – what is interesting is that within Description of the Northern Peoples, the main

people associated with the Sámi and magic are the Finns. In his chapter “On the wizards and

witches of the Finns,” Olaus Magnus declares: “I would first like to say this: that Finland, the

northernmost land, together with Lappland, was once during pagan times as learned in witchcraft

as if it had had Zoroaster the Persian for its instructor in this damnable science”294 Both of these

areas were prime places of magic and since the Sámi received many attributes from the Finns as

the other categories of descriptions show, magic too most likely came from them. Magnus

attributes the selling of wind to Finns for, “There was a time when the Finns, among other pagan

                                                                                                               292 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 205. 293 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 221 and 222. 294 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 172.

      71    

delusions, would offer wind for sale to traders…”295 The problem with this statement is that the

Sámi were also known as and referenced as Finns or Fenni in older sources.296 The Finns and

Sámi were both known to sell wind to sailors, yet Magnus only attributes it to the Finns. This

shows Magnus’ confusion with the different names of the people in the north for the Biarmians,

Bothnians, Scricfinns were also different names for the Sámi.

Olaus Magnus continues to connect the Finns to magic for when he mentions the “Bothnian

people of the North” as “wizards and magicians” as stated earlier, he is also talking of

Österbotten, which is today part of Finland, though during Magnus’ time part of Sweden.297 Then

lastly he states that a person can go “to a Lapp or a Finn” who is adept in magic in order to see

what was happening in a distant place.298 Again Olaus Magnus emphasizes the magical powers of

the Finns as well as the Sámi, which shows that the Sámi are not the only magicians in the north.

Like Magnus defending Catholicism, Schefferus defends the Lutherans and goes after the

Catholic priests in Lapponia. According to Schefferus, the Catholic priests were too caught up in

their world and did not actually care about the conversion of the Sámi and therefore are to

blame. 299 However, the Catholics are not solely to blame. Also within the problems of

conversion, Schefferus points out that there are “many gross errours prevailing among them,

which renders the reality of their conversion suspicious, as if they were still in love with the

erroneous opinions of their Ancestors, especially some of the Norwegian Laplanders, whose

Idolatry sufficiently demonstrates that all their pretences to Christianity are but fictitious.”300 Here

Schefferus specifically draws attention to the Norwegian Sámi as being particularly hypocritical

with their conversions to Christianity. This points the finger away from Sweden itself and on to

someone else. Lastly Schefferus also brings up the Finns in correlation to Sámi paganism. When

talking about where the Sámi received their pagan religion, Schefferus states: “And I suppose it

could be no other then that of the Finlanders, from whom they derive their original, and

consequently their Religion too.”301 Even though the Finns are not actively using magic within

Schefferus’ text, he still highlights the Finns role as creators of the Sámi’s paganism.

As portrayed in the previous two sections, Carl Linnæus had little to say on the topic of

religion. However, the only other times Linnæus mentions anything relating to magic he is talking

to or about non-Swedish Sámi. For example, while Linnæus traveled through Swedish Lapland he

never mentioned anything about shaman drums and idols until he went to Norway. While there

                                                                                                               295 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 173. 296 Lehtola 2004, p. 10. 297 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 174. 298 Magnus 1996 (1555), p. 174. 299 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 34. 300 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 34. 301 Schefferus 1971 (1674), p. 21.

      72    

Linnæus is told how the Norwegians Lapps were threatened with bleeding to death in order to

give up “their magical drums and idols”.302 Linnæus does not express his feelings about this, but

simply ends the story with: “This plan has been frequently pursued with success.”303 Again

showing his neutrality on the topic. Much like the previous two authors, Linnæus also mentions

the Finns and magic. During his travels back through East Bothland, Finland, he says:

Some Finlanders, as I was told, have a method by which they pretend to catch bears, with a sort of magic. This is done by procuring some of the bear’s dung, fresh and warm if possible, and mixing it with that of one of their own cows. The consequence is said to be, that the bear will be attracted by sympathy to come after the cow; an effect certainly not more wonderful than many sympathies upon record.304

Even though Linnæus mentions magic with the Finns, Linnæus himself is not convinced that this

is actually magic, merely clever thinking. However, it is still interesting that one of the very few

times Linnæus mentions magic, it has to do with the Finns.

Although Lars Levi Læstadius admits to the Sámi still holding on to false beliefs and

superstition, Læstadius points to the Swedes for the answer. According to Læstadius: “This is no

wonder as one still finds among ordinary Swedish country folk in some remote forest regions

almost as much superstition as among the Lapps.”305 He explains that it has only been over 200

years since the Lapps began to adopt Christianity whereas the Swedish peasantry has had

Christianity for almost 1000 years, and yet they still have many superstitious beliefs. Why then

would the Sámi be any different? Læstadius is quite adamant about depicting the Sámi and

Lapland in an unbiased way and therefore proceeds with a tirade against Swedish prejudice:

Although all Lapps are baptized Christians, we are forced to be of the opinion that a pagan Christianity prevails in many places here. This statement is more applicable to Stockholm itself, at least insofar as customs are concerned…In general – permit me to say it – as long as the Swedish riffraff still believes in its fairies, goblins, witches and other such, still seeks cures from its wise women, asks their fortunes of tea leaves, etc., let not our grandiloquent preachers flatter themselves with the delusion that only they and their listeners are enlightened by Christian doctrine, and that the Lapps wander in darkness and in crass servitude of idols.306

Instead of looking towards the Sámi as the only pagans in the north, Læstadius wants people,

specifically Swedes, to look at themselves and see how they are acting. Here he drastically creates

‘us’ and ‘them’ categories, where the Swedes – again specifically the people from Stockholm –

become a negative Other. If the supposed civilized people are still surrounding themselves with

false beliefs and superstitions, and then degrading others for doing the same thing, they are

hypocrites.

                                                                                                               302 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 364. 303 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 1, p. 364. 304 Linnæus 1811 (1732), Vol. 2, p. 215 – 216. 305 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 53. 306 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 138.

      73    

Similar to the other Swedish scholars, Læstadius draws attention to the Finns after talking

about the notorious sorcery of the Lapps. He declares: “The Finns are known to be even greater

masters of such charms than the Lapps.”307 This again points the finger towards the Finns,

though in this case they are apparently superior in charms compared to the Sámi. In the Addition

section of Fragments of Lappish Mythology, which was written by Læstadius in Karesuando 1 May

1845, Læstadius adds notes from Rev. Jacob Fällman who spent time in Finnish Lapland.

According to Læstadius, Rev. Fällman also visited “the border regions of Russian Lapland where

the greatest noaides are believed to have lived.”308 While this too draws attention to the Finnish

Sámi, this statement points towards the Russian Sámi and their magical powers. Læstadius

references the Russians again in a note after referencing Rev. Fällman. He states: “If there is great

superstition all across the Lappmarks, the superstition in the Russian Lapland is greater yet.”309

Apparently Fällman saw much more pagan and superstitious acts the further east he went. It is

also important to note that during Læstadius’ time, Finland was no longer under Swedish rule,

but under Russia. Perhaps that is why there is more emphasis on the pagan acts of the Russian

Sámi.

All of the references the Swedish scholars state about the actions of others draws the attention

and criticism away from the Swedish Sámi and puts it on someone else. In the end all of the texts

agreed on one group: the Finns. It is interesting to find that it was the Finns who were further

distanced away from the Swedes, because one would think that they should be part of the ‘we’

with Swedes. The Finns and Swedes were more similar than the Sámi due to the fact that they

had the same political background as Swedes with similar diets and government, and they also

generally shared the same religion and mostly occupied in agriculture. The only difference was

their language. Whereas the Sámi had at least three major differences of language, religion (for the

most part), and being hunters, gatherers and herders, compared to the Swedes. Yet in the end the

Finns were the ones further distanced. Most of the statements about the Finns were short

comments in relation to a bigger topic of discussion with the Sámi, but they still helped to show

the Swedish Sámi in a better light, because the Swedish scholars always were prepared to point

the finger somewhere else than always at the Sámi themselves.

5.4 Concluding Remarks

With all four Swedish scholars discussing both the Christian and pagan sides of the Sámi, what

image remains? The way in which the Sámi are described as Christians creates a very positive

                                                                                                               307 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 228. 308 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 271. 309 Læstadius 2002 (1838 – 1845), p. 299.  

      74    

Other for they are then seen as part of the Swedish ‘us’. The Sámi are even depicted as being

more Christian-like than probably most Europeans and the scholars appear to set them up as a

good example for the rest of Europe. However, the scholars change tactics within their works

and also emphasize the continuation of the Sámi’s pagan ways. Olaus Magnus and Johannes

Schefferus stress this much more than Carl Linnæus and Lars Levi Læstadius, but they all still

bring up this negative connection to the Sámi and their heathen ways.

Again this points to what Robert Young argues about cultures always finding the same and

otherness within other cultures. While the earlier research of Eli Høydalsnes and Karin Granqvist

emphasizes the Sámi as a different and negative Other – in other words the antithesis of others –

I rather believe that the negative descriptions of the Sámi are used not as a means to create a

negative Other but to portray them simply as bad examples. For the scholars describe the Sámi as

anyone who would be practicing pagan acts and are scolded for it. This perhaps indicates as to

why the scholars also point a finger towards others, such as the Finns, to show that the Sámi are

not alone in acting this bad way. In the end, when one compares these statements of paganism to

those of Christianity, the authors are clearly presenting opposite pictures of the Sámi and it is

difficult to say what image remains. Even if the negative images out weigh the positive ones,

meaning that there are more of them and/or are the strongest, it is important to remember that

they do not stand unchallenged. It is not a one-sided image, because the Swedish scholars truly

saw the Sámi as good Christians.

6. Conclusion

From the previous research two hypotheses came forth about how the Sámi will be represented

with the ethnographic works of the four Swedish scholars. The first followed Smith’s research on

how religion and language will be the most important aspects within the creation of ‘us’ and

‘them’ in Sámi descriptions. The other hypothesis arose from art historian Eli Høydalsnes’

research on representations of Sámi in art from the 1500s to the 1800s. She argues that all of the

art from that time period were colored by what is called “sami exoticism”, for the Sámi are always

depicted as wild, superstitious, barbaric, and pagan. She found this to be constant over this time

period for they could never get away from the Sámi exoticism. In the end these hypotheses only

partially holds true for my sources. When it comes to Anthony Smith’s research, I found that the

difference in language did not matter to the scholars, but the difference in religion did. The

starkest negative Other was found among the comments against the Sámi’s pagan ways. The

      75    

continuous depictions of the Sámi as being superstitious and pagan then distanced the Sámi from

the Swedish ‘us’, which also reflects the research done by Høydalsnes.

It is not surprising to find that the Sámi continued to be seen as a negative Other due to what

the previous research has stated. This is not a new idea or finding within my own work. For there

is even a book entirely dedicated to the Sámi depicted as the Other, entitled Sami as “the Other”,

Sami about “the Other”: Identity and Ethnicity in Nordic Cultural Encounters.310 This is a compilation of

studies from a conference that was held in Bergen, Norway in 2007. While the negative Other

can be seen with the sources, it is not the only aspect. I believe the previous research tends to

focus too much on the image of the negative Other, such as when Gunlög Fur states that

Schefferus’ work contributes to “part of a growing trend towards exoticization and distancing of

these peoples”.311 When one looks at what Schefferus states about their pagan acts, there are

many negative comments, and in the past these negative images are what people tended to take

away from these texts. For example, both Olaus Magnus’ and Schefferus’ sections on witchcraft

and shamanism were frequently reprinted in abridged versions of each text, which for Schefferus

was the opposite intention of his work.312 Even though other Europeans were fascinated with the

image of the Sámi being unchristian and further distanced, the four Swedish scholars saw much

more than simply negative aspects in the Sámi.

By going through each chapter one finds a very diverse image of the Sámi. Within the first

chapter, the physical descriptions displayed all four aspects of Otherness. With the Sámi’s short

stature, the scholars present a neutral Other and mainly explain it through external factors. Then

Olaus Magnus and Schefferus provide a very positive and romanticized Other with the Sámi’s

beauty coming from living close to nature. The authors also find similarities with the Sámi’s

strength and, when compared to others, Carl Linnæus finds a negative Other within the Finns.

Next in the section specifically about the mental state of the Sámi, two patterns arose. On the

topic of the Sámi being fearful or nice, the scholars contradict themselves or each other, creating

ambiguity amongst the authors. The second pattern was found in the discussion of the Sámi

being tranquil or lazy and whether or not outsiders tainted these people. Much like the chapter on

the body, Olaus Magnus sees a positive Other in the Sámi for they are both tranquil and

untainted. While on the other hand, Schefferus presents a negative Other, where a Sámi is lazy

and a cheat. Linnæus then provides a combination of Magnus’ and Schefferus’ arguments, which

again makes his opinion ambiguous. Lastly, Læstadius stays fairly neutral and gives a scientific

explanation as to why the Sámi act the way they do.

                                                                                                               310 Mundal and Rydving 2010. 311 Fur 2006, p. 28. 312 Sjoholm 2004, p. 252 and 253.

      76    

In the lifestyle chapter, an overall neutral and positive Other is presented by the scholars. The

housing descriptions are mainly discussed as a reflection of their livelihood and environment,

making a neutral Other. Clothing also is presented as a neutral Other, with the exception of

Linnæus finding many aspects of their clothing ingenious and as such, a positive Other. In

regards to food, Olaus Magnus and Læstadius do not appear to be concerned that food is a

significant part of the Sámi’s identity. Whereas again, Schefferus depicts a negative Other for the

Sámi as gluttons, and Linnæus – though describing the food the most – is mainly concerned that

the Sámi are getting enough food. Lastly came the discussion on goods and employments, which

created the most positive Other – with the exception of Læstadius – in the entire lifestyle chapter.

The goods showed that the Sámi are quite skilled and ingenious compared to other Europeans.

Overall language did not appear to be a main point of discussion for the scholars, because

little is said on the topic. This proves Smith’s theory of the importance of language as null and

void in the context of these sources. Whereas, the scholars all have something to say on the topic

of religion. They all present the Sámi as good examples of Christians and also talk about the

continuation of pagan acts among the Sámi, which again creates some ambiguity, though the

negative comments tend to be more powerful. Perhaps then as a means of diverting the attention

away from the Sámi’s bad habits, the authors also speak of the Finns as being just a bad or even

more pagan group than the Sámi.

In general one can see that there are many examples of negative views of the Sámi, but even if

there are more negative than positive statements, the Sámi are not the antithesis of the Swedes. If

the scholars truly did not like the Sámi, then everything the Sámi did would be wrong and

condemned by the Swedish scholars, but that is not the case with these sources. These sources

show that it is much more complex than that.

What it really comes down to in the end is that the creation of the different Others simply was

a way for the Swedish scholars to express what traits are acceptable in Swedish society. For

example, whenever there is a positive Other described within the texts, it always accentuates good

qualities. These good qualities are such things as: natural beauty, tranquility, ingenuity with

clothing and goods, and Christian virtues. It is only when the customs or actions of the Sámi are

contradictory to what is generally believed to be good behavior is when the Sámi are condemned.

For example this specifically happens when the authors – mainly Schefferus and Linnæus – talk

about how the Sámi are lazy, cheats, untrustworthy, gluttons, and pagans still practicing magic.

These are all qualities that are frowned upon and any one acting this way would be talked about

in a similar fashion. Hence the scholars are in a way giving advice to his fellow reader.

      77    

What is then most interesting about how the Swedish scholars wrote about the Sámi is the

overall positive and respectful tone of the authors. The authors are surprisingly inclusive by

bringing up many similarities between Swedes and Sámi. For even though the Swedish scholars

acknowledged the overall difference between the Sámi and Swedes within the different areas of

description, the scholars shared a common approach to explaining why the Sámi acted or lived a

particular way. They are all scientific in trying to explain differences. The main way they did this

was through the use of external factors. For example, the way the Sámi lived or because they

lived in the Arctic accounted for their short stature, heightened imagination, and nearly every

aspect of their lifestyle. The use of external factors was then an indirect way of seeing similarities

because it points to Swedes and Sámi’s only being extrinsically different.

In a sense the Swedish scholars all appear to be men of the Enlightenment. While this is not

technically true since they did not all live during that time, it is moreover the fact that all of the

scholars approached the study of the Sámi in a very scientific way. They constantly want to

provide explanations and the authors also are able to distance themselves – even Læstadius, who

lived in Lapland – from the Sámi and produce these complex images of the Sámi. What is most

interesting is how this approach remained throughout three centuries. In this respect there really

is no change over time in the scholars approach, which is surprising because all of the authors

had distinctly differently perspectives and aims.

Another intriguing find is how the idea of the noble savage existed prior to Jean-Jacques

Rousseau’s work Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men from 1754. Although this

was found mainly in Olaus Magnus’ descriptions, Linnæus and even Schefferus – the scholar to

present the Sámi in the most negative way – saw virtues in a simple and uncivilized life, such as

with the Sámi possessing natural beauty and living close to nature. These positive attributes show

that this idea existed long before Rousseau ever wrote it down.

One of the major themes to arise out of my research is an emphasis on the creation of

ambiguity within the texts. As seen in the chapters of concerning the habits of the mind and

religious descriptions, the Swedish scholars contradict themselves by stating one side of the

argument and then the other. This occurs both with all authors contradicting themselves within a

topic, such as during the discussion of the fearfulness of strangers and the debate of Christian

and pagan acts, and when one author simply contradicts himself, such as Linnæus within the

subjects of tranquility and laziness and how the Sámi are tainted by outsiders.

Richard Jenkins helps explain this ambiguity for he discusses how groups tend to have certain

membership criteria and at the margins of a group, when the framework is less firm and intrusive,

      78    

there is likely to be ambiguity about the membership criteria and appropriate behavior.313 This

means that the Swedes themselves were not sure how to describe the Sámi who stand at the

margins of being a Swede, meaning Sámi that are most like them. Due to the fact that the Swedes

appear to have the most difficult time with the subjects of the mind and religion, it seems to

show that these two areas are what mattered most to the Swedish scholars. Even though the Sámi

were described as having different bodies, housing, clothing, food and goods, the scholars

struggled the most when the Sámi were acting inappropriately, which goes back to what traits

were acceptable in Swedish society. The ambivalence then within the texts proves again that the

Sámi are not seen as simply ideal examples or the antithesis of Swedes, but a complex people.

I believe and hope that this thesis will be the beginning of much needed research into the field

of Swedish perspectives of the Sámi and even further into whether or not this complex image is

unique to the Swedish-Sámi relationship. Due to the amount of material provided by these four

sources I was not able to expand on a broader comparative analysis, but for future research it

would be most interesting to see how the missionaries, specifically the ones most of the scholars

relied on for their own works, depict the Sámi and compare it to what these four Swedish

scholars say. It would be most interesting to see if there is anything lost or changed between the

transference of the sources. I also believe broader comparisons between how the Swedes and

other Nordic scholars, such as Norwegians, would bring great insight into this relationship and to

go even further with comparisons between different indigenous groups would open it up greatly.

To then answer the question posed by the title: Were the Sámi Swedes? I would have to say

that no, they were not. The Sámi were subjects of the Swedish realm, but they were not the same

as the Swedes because of the many differences put forth by the authors. Instead all four Swedish

scholars present the Sámi as a people who have good sides and bad sides. They are not the

antithesis, which most previous research assumes about these texts, but when one takes a closer

look as I have done with these works, one finds a multifaceted image of the Sámi much like how

any other people would be described.

                                                                                                               313 Jenkins 2008, p. 154.  

      79    

Appendix

Figure 1: Map of the Sápmi (the cultural region inhabited by the Sámi) with the modern borders of Norway, Sweden and Finland. The places marked on the map coincide with the places mentioned with the sources therefore the provinces named lie in their approximate area and no borders are given since the areas changed over time. Source: Drawn by Britta Helm based on a map from http://www.scandinavianadventures.nl/info/images/Lapland.jpg

      80    

Figure 2: Portrait of Linnæus “in a Lapp costume,” painted by Martin Hoffman in the Netherlands (1737). Source: Linnémuseet, Uppsala website http://www.linnaeus.se/link1_2.html

      81    

Bibliography Primary Sources Linnæus, Carl. Lachesis Lapponica or a Tour in Lapland. 1732. 2 vols. Edited by J. E. Smith. London: Richard Taylor and Co, 1811. Læstadius, Lars Levi. Fragments of Lappish Mythology. 1838-1845. Translated by Börje Vähämäki. Edited by Juha Pentikäinen. Beaverton, Ontario: Aspasia Books: 2002. Magnus, Olaus. Description of the Northern Peoples. Rome 1555. Translated by Peter Fisher and Humphrey Higgens. Edited by Peter Foote. London: The Hakluyt Society, 1996. Schefferus, Johannes. The History of Lapland: Wherein are shewed the Original, Manners, Habits, Marriages, Conjurations, & c. of that People. 1674. Reprint, Stockholm: Rediviva Publishing House, 1971. Printed Literature Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 2006. Anderzén, Sölve. Lappmarken I Litteraturen: Valda studier inom ett forskningsprojekt. Edited by Egil Johansson. University of Umeå: Rapportserie utg. Av Forskningsarkivet, Scriptum Nr. 11, 1989. Collinder, Björn. The Lapps. New York: Princeton University Press, 1949. Flóren, Anders. “Ändlös var raden av svarta valloner: Tankar kring identitet, främlingskap och valloner.” In Främlingar – ett historiskt perspektiv, edited by Anders Flóren & Åsa Karsson, 11 – 27. Uppsala, 1998. Fur, Gunlög. Colonialism in the Margins: Cultural Encounters in New Sweden and Lapland. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983. Granqvist, Karin. Samerna, staten och rätten i Torne lappmark under 1600-talet. Makt, diskurs och representation. Department of Historical Studies, Umeå University, 2004. Helander, Elina. “The Sami People: Demographics, Origin, Economy, Culture.” In Majority/Minority Relations: The Case of the Sami in Scandinavia: Report, Guovdageaidnu, Norway, 2-4 July 1993, edited by World Commission on Culture and Development; Sámi instituhtta. Kautokeino: Royal Norwegian Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Norwegian National Commission for UNESCO, and the Nordic Sami Institute, 1994. Hobsbawm, Eric. Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Høydalsnes, Eli. Møte mellom tid og sted: Bilder av Nord-Norge. Oslo: Forlaget Bonytt, 2003.

      82    

Jacobson, David. Reading Enthography. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991. Jenkins, Richard. Social Identity. London: Routledge, 2008. Johannesson, Kurt. The Renaissance of the Goths in sixteenth-century Sweden: Johannes and Olaus Magnus as politicians and historians. Translated and edited by James Larson. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Katajala, Kimmo. “Early Modern People(s) in the Borderlands: Linguistic or Religious Definitions of “Us” and “Other”.” In Borderland Identities: Territory and Belonging in Central, North and East Europe, edited by Madeleine Hurd. Centre for Baltic and East European Studies, Eslöv: Förlags AB Gondolin, 2006. Koerner, Lisbet. Linnaeus: Nature and Nation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999. Kuutma, Kristin. Collaborative Representations: Interpreting the Creation of a Sámi Ethnography and a Seto Epic. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, Academia Scientiarum Fennica, FF Communications No. 289, 2006. Kvist, Roger. “Swedish Saami Policy, 1550-1990.” In Readings in Saami History, Culture and Language III. Edited by Roger Kvist. 63 – 77. University of Umeå: Center for Arctic Cultural Research, Miscellaneous Publications No. 14, 1992. Lehtola, Veli-Pekka. The Sámi People: Traditions in Transition. Translated by Linna Weber Müller- Wille. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press, 2004. Ljung, Sven. Uppsala stads historia: II, Uppsala under yngre medeltid och Vasatid. Uppsala, 1954. Lundmark, Lennart. Stulet land. Svensk makt på samisk mark. Stockholm: Ordfront, 2008. Mundal, Else & Håkan Rydving, eds. Samer som “De Andra”, Samer om “De Andra”: Identitet och etnicitet i nordiska kulturmöten. Samiska Studier, Umeå: Umeå Universitet, 2010. Nagel, Joane. “Masculinity and nationalism: gender and sexuality in the making of nations.” In Ethnic and Racial Studies. 21:2 (1998): 242 – 269. Rydving, Håkan. The End of Drum-Time: Religious Change among the Lule Saami, 1670s-1740s. Uppsala University: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1993. Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism. New York, 1993. Seth, Vanita. European’s Indians: Producing Racial Differences, 1500 – 1900. Durham & London: Duke University Press, 2010. Sjoholm, Barbara. “ ‘Things to Be Marveled at Rather than Examined”: Olaus Magnus and A Description of the Northern Peoples.” In The Antioch Review, Vol. 62, No. 2 (2004): 245 – 254. Sjoholm, Barbara. “Lapponia.” In Harvard Review, No. 29 (2005): 6 – 19. Smith, Anthony D. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.

      83    

Smith, Anthony D. Nationalism & Modernism: A critical survey of recent theories of nations and nationalism. London: Routledge, 1998. Tacitus, Cornelius. The Agricola and The Germania. Translated by H. Mattingly, Translated Revised by S. A. Handford. London: Penguin Books, 1970. Young, Robert J. C. Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race. London & New York: Routledge, 1995. Zorgdrager, Nellejet. “Linnaeus as Ethnographer of Sami Culture” in TijdSchrift voor Skandinavistiek, Vol. 29, No. 1 & 2 (2008): 45 – 76.