Available via license: CC BY 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
79
Rangifer, 27 (2), 2007
Introduction
The Sami husbandry of domesticated reindeer has
traditionally incorporated reindeer which did not
belong to the nomadic household. These reindeer
were called “custodial reindeer” (sytingsrein) or according
to Historical Lexicon (2001): “Custodial reindeer or
breeding reindeer [alrein], as they were also called,
was the term for reindeer which belonged to Sea Sami
or farmers, but which were tended by Mountain
Sami”. In some areas the term farm reindeer (gårds-
rein) was used, other places used the designation
“akterein” (akte = take care of). Common to all these
expressions was the fact that it involved a small num-
ber of reindeer, which were owned by the settled
people but were tended by the nomadic Sami. How
extensive was the husbandry of custodial reindeer
in the north and the south of Norway? What other
relations emerged from this practice and when and
why did it come to an end? These are the factors,
which I want to shed light on in this article.
Previous research on the topic
No researcher from the Norwegian part of Sápmi
1
has
focused solely on the institution of keeping custodial
reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus). In her investiga-
tion dealing with the island Senja in Troms County
in northern Norway (toponymes in Fig. 1), Dikka
Storm (1990:152) demonstrated that reindeer herding
Sami from Jukkasjärvi in Sweden tended custodial
reindeer belonging to settled people in both outlying
field and coastal settlements. Bård A. Berg (1999)
only briefly dealt with the custodial reindeer system
Custodial reindeer and custodial goats - part of reindeer herding and animal
husbandry
Bjørg Evjen
Centre for Sami studies, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway (bjorg.evjen@sami.uit.no).
Abstract: The Sami husbandry has traditionally incorporated reindeer, which did not belong to the nomadic household.
According to the national census from 1875, this system was found in many parts of Norway. Among the counties,
Nordland stood out having the highest number of households owing custodial reindeer. Most of the households were
non-Sami, and most of them having less than ten reindeer. Especially in Nordland and Troms, a system with custodial
goats also served as the transaction. There were eventually, with an exception of Finnmark, rules in place trying to prevent
settled people from keeping reindeer, only followed in part. The system went on till after the Second World War,
mainly because it was an important part of the household economy of the settled people. The great changes and rational-
ization within the agricultural sector, the growth of industrial society, and the modernisation of society in general under-
mined the use of reindeer as a part of the household livestock.
Key words: domestic animals, livestock, national census, Ovis aries, pig, Rangifer tarandus, reindeer husbandry, Sami, Sus
domesticus, verdde.
Rangifer, 27 (2): 79-91
1
The areas where the Sami people live; a trans-national region covering the Kola peninsula in Russia, and the northern parts of Finland, Norway and Sweden.
80
Rangifer, 27 (2), 2007
in his dissertation on reindeer herding in Helgeland
in Nordland County. In his master thesis on the
history of the “markasámi” (a group of settled Sami)
Thomas Ole Andersen (2005) discusses the institu-
tion in a smaller area of Troms County going deeper
into one or two local examples. In an article, Lars Ivar
Hansen (2005) addressed reindeer herding as it was
combined with other livelihoods in the 1600s and
1700s. He concluded that any analysis needs flexible
concepts that can encompass transitional arrange-
ments and intermediate stages from subsistence to
nomadic reindeer herding. He considered that rein-
deer husbandry could be part of multiple subsistence
households in the southern part of Troms County.
During a previous study in Tysfjord municipality in
Nordland County, I also adopted this understanding
with reference to conditions in the 1900s. Reindeer
could, without any problem, graze together with
goats (Capra hircus), cows (Bos taurus), and sheep (Ovis
aries) (Fig. 2), but this was the exception. As a rule,
the reindeer were to be found in the herds of the
nomadic Sami, a practice that is also the basis for my
understanding of the custodial reindeer system from
1875 onwards.
This practice involved relations and exchange of
services between settled and nomadic peoples. Some
Norwegian researchers have analyzed the so-called
“verdde-system,” a system of mutual exchange of goods
Finnmark
South
Norway
Sweden
Norway
Nordland
Norrbotten
Västerbotten
Russia
Finland
Tornedalen
Jukkasjärvi
Gällivare
Trøndelag
Helgeland
Troms
Salten
Lofoten
Vesterålen
Kvaløy
Malangen
Senja
Balsfjord
Evenes
Tysfjord
Hamarøy
Sørfold
Fauske
Sulitjelma
Saltdal
Ofoten
Saltfjellet
Fig. 1. Map with the place names (toponymes) used in the article.
81
Rangifer, 27 (2), 2007
and services, which existed between the nomadic
reindeer herding families and settled people. This
especially occurred in conjunction with the seasonal
migrations, an exchange involving, among other
things, the custodial reindeer system (Fig. 3). Harald
Eidheim (1971) demonstrated inter alia how changes
in the post-WW II migrations led to the collapse
of parts of the verdde-system. However, this special
relationship between the nomadic and settled people
is still referred to in more recent research from
present-day Finnmark County (Andersen, 2005). The
settled people could be Sami or not.
The system of custodial reindeer was found both
within reindeer herding that involved movement along
established routes on Norwegian territory – that is,
coastal reindeer herding – and within herding which
moved to and fro across the border between Sweden
and Norway – that is, the cross-border reindeer herd-
ing. On the basis of available sources, it is difficult to
distinguish between the custodial reindeer practices
in the two types of herding; neither do earlier works
provide any basis for such a distinction (Kalstad,
1982; Vorren, 1986; Berg, 1999). If nothing else is
indicated, the following account will treat the two as
one entity.
On the Swedish side, Åsa Nordin (2002) has exam-
ined the custodial reindeer institution at the begin-
ning of the 1900s in Gällivare parish. She analyzes
how the institution changed over time, with reference
to changes in the legal environment and moderniza-
tion. Nordin’s examination will provide an important
basis of comparison for my work.
Agricultural and national censuses
Agricultural and national censuses are two major
sources for documenting the extent of the custodial
reindeer practice. In the national censuses from 1865
and 1875 the livestock is registered for each household.
The published statistics, however, give the number of
reindeer for a geographical area as a whole, for example
a municipality. We are not able to ascertain how many
kept reindeer in addition to other livestock. Reindeer
herders, whose livelihood was based solely on the rein-
deer were listed in the censuses as “nomads,” “reindeer
Lapps,” et al., and thus can be identified. However,
given these sources, we have no way of knowing if two
or ten households had custodial reindeer among the over-
all number of reindeer listed in any one municipality.
In the agricultural censuses, starting from 1907
on, there are great statistical variations in the treat-
ment of reindeer husbandry from one census to the
next. For example, there were four of them between
1907 and 1939. In both of the agricultural censuses
of 1918 and 1939 reindeer were not placed in the
category of domesticated animals. However in 1907
and 1929 they were included in this category but only
in terms of the overall number for a municipality or
district. Another source that could have brought
additional information is the so-called Migration
lists in Sweden, where the reindeer herding Sami
crossing the boarder and their livestock are registered.
As these lists are not in an electronically form, it will
take too long a time to get such information as on the
Norwegian side of the boarder. It will be a research
project in its own.
Fig. 2. Semi-domesticated reindeer (Rangifer t. tarandus) and domestic sheep (Ovis aries) grazing together in Kvaløy/
Sállir, Troms County, northern Norway. Photographer: Terje D. Josefsen. 8
th
Oct. 2005.
82
Rangifer, 27 (2), 2007
To find the extent of custodial reindeer holding I
have turned to one of the original national censuses
to find information on household level.
The extent of the system in 1875
In 1875, the information was recorded as data on the
individual level though the information about indi-
viduals and about agriculture was recorded on two
different lists. In my database they are combined in
such a way that it is possible to determine the number
of reindeer in particular households.
2
As a major source
criticism, it is not easy to determine if this involves
the same individuals in the two records. The manner
in which names were written was not or had not been
fully standardized, so that Peder Hans Oluffsen, born
1850, in the one source and Hans Olufsen, born in
1849, in the other one could be the same individual.
This cannot be determined as a matter of course.
That would have required a detailed examination of
a particular individual in order to leave a clear record
for later analysis. The number which can be specified
in both sources is, however, sufficiently large to make
it possible to use this material to sketch the main
features of the custodial reindeer system. Another
commentary must be attached to the ethnic identifi-
cation of the household. The database links the live-
stock of the household to the main individual of each
unit. Thus, if the male head of the household is
“Norwegian” and the wife “Lapp”, this household
will be considered Norwegian. That brings us to the
question: considered by whom? From recent research
we know that the registrations were based upon
instructions given by the national authorities, and
done by census takers. Several uncertainties lead
to an under-registration of the Sami. It seems fair to
conclude that the statistical numbers thus arrived at
cannot indicate the total size of the Sami population
(Evjen & Hansen, submitted).
It is no accident that the 1875 census is conducted
in this way. Earlier investigations of the livestock of
households in a local and regional area have con-
cluded that the agricultural census of 1875 is the
most reliable census with regard to accurate entry of
the various categories of livestock (Jernsletten,
2003:170). Thus it seems reasonable that this census
can be consulted as a useful approach to my theme.
I will therefore more closely examine the conditions
in 1875 in order to explore more fully the size and
possible geographic variations of the custodial rein-
deer system.
Here I will use the term custodial reindeer about
reindeer, which in the sources have been entered as
livestock belonging to settled Sami in addition to other
kinds of livestock in the household. The custodial
reindeer had their own distinctive earmarks that
indicated ownership. As mentioned above, there may
have been cases where the reindeer of the farm house-
hold grazed together with goats and sheep, or lacked
identifying earmarks; but these cases were exceptions.
2
Done by Marianne Erikstad at Registreringssentralen for historiske data (The registration central for historic data), RHD, University of Tromsø.
Fig. 3. Saltfjellet montains, Lønsdal, Nordland County, in the early 1900 (probably around 1920). The female reindeer,
“simle”, is milked. The milk gave a delicious cheese which was a part of the traditional co-operative trade in the
verdde-system between nomadic and settled people. Photo: Salten Museum, Saltdal.
83
Rangifer, 27 (2), 2007
Custodial reindeer counted in 1875
Table 1 shows the regional differences in the number
of households and proportion of households having
reindeer as part of their livestock. There were consid-
erable variations between the various areas. The lowest
number of households was found in the north-western
region of Nordland County, Lofoten and Vesterålen.
It was indeed these districts that at the same time
had the highest average number of reindeer (x
–
=49).
Among the counties, Nordland stood out with
roughly 350 households who owned custodial rein-
deer, with a clear preponderance in the southern and
mid regions, Helgeland, Salten and Ofoten. With ca.
200 hundred households, Troms County placed second
among the counties. Livelihood based on reindeer was
most important in Finnmark County, where there
was a preponderance of households which made their
living from keeping reindeer without other kinds of
domestic animals (360 households) West Finnmark
district reported the highest number (320 house-
holds) (Evjen, 2007:100). Around 170 households in
Finnmark had reindeer in addition to other domestic
animals.
Most had fewer than ten reindeer
A mean number of reindeer can, however, hide con-
siderable internal variations. One household in Saltdal
municipality in Nordland County indicated that they
had four reindeer in addition to one cow, four sheep and
eleven goats. Another family farther north in Hamarøy
(Salten district) reported 150 reindeer in addition to
two horses, four cows, two calves, 22 sheep, and 16
goats. In West Finnmark, there also emerged a par-
ticular pattern due to the fact that 93 households
with reindeer actually declared that the number
involved was less than ten. This probably involved
custodial reindeer in households deriving their
incomes from a livelihood other than agriculture,
such as fishing. The reindeer were kept in the herds of
the nomadic Sami, with no need for care on local
small-scale farms. They were fed up in the mountains
and brought to the owners fully butchered.
I will therefore take a closer look at the number of
reindeer in individual households, distributed in groups
according to the number of reindeer (see Table 2).
One comment should be made on the uncertainty of
the numbers. If a larger number of reindeer had a
negative consequence to the owners due to laws,
regulations, tax paying and so on, of course the num-
bers given were too low. The numbers in this article
must thus be considered as an estimate and not as
exact numbers.
It is worth noting that a minority of the Agriculture
Committee at the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget)
during the treatment of the Supplementary Reindeer
Husbandry Law of 1897 proposed that the very num-
ber of 200 animals was the absolute maximum of
custodial reindeer that a settled Sami could own
(Berg, 1999:203). Even if this mandate was issued
twenty years after the national census, which is used
as the statistical basis for this article, this number
must be based on actual experience deriving from the
custodial reindeer system. Was that a result of the fact
that most had around 200 custodial reindeer? A closer
analysis of the number demonstrates something quite
different.
In all the areas in question, the clear majority of
households had fewer than ten reindeer with only a
small proportion having more than 200.
Table 1. Number of households owing reindeer as part of their livestock in 1875. (Source: National census 1875,
digitalized edition, Registreringssentralen for historiske data-RHD).
Area
Households with
reindeer and others % non-Sami* x
–
reindeer per household
South Norway 13 100 2
Trøndelag 30 100 12
Helgeland 129 98 8
Salten 114 81 21
Ofoten 108 55 11
Lofoten/Vesterålen 10 80 49
South Troms 163 43 12
North Troms 43 79 7
West Finnmark 52 50 21
East Finnmark 117 70 18
* Proportion of households with custodial reindeer but not counted as Sami.
84
Rangifer, 27 (2), 2007
In his master thesis T. O. Andersen (2005) came to
the same conclusion among the reindeer herders in a
small part of Troms. Andersen’s result was based
upon numbers given in the migration list on the
Swedish side, containing the herders that crossed
the boarder and stayed in Sweden for the winter. The
custodial reindeer they held belonged to the settled
people on the Norwegian side. Andersen’s conclusion
is based upon a smaller geographical area than mine,
but it supports the reading in table 2. Most house-
holds had way below 200 custodial reindeer.
The minority proposal of 200 animals (which was
subsequently passed by the Storting in 1897) could
not have been grounded in tradition with such a high
number of custodial reindeer. Another explanation
could be that the number of animals increased
rapidly in the years between 1875 and 1897; in
other words, the demand for reindeer milk and meat
rose dramatically in those years. It is, however, not
very likely that such great changes occurred at the
time when the production of meat and milk from
animal husbandry in general increased considerably.
Furthermore, leading up to the law, an investigation
in Helgeland district, showed that an unknown
number of settled Sami owned altogether 195 cus-
todial reindeer; others among settled people owned a
total number of 485 (Berg, 1999:203). Herds with
more than 200 custodial reindeer were by no means
normal.
On the basis of the latter information, it seems
that the proposal rather was meant to create the
conditions for the continued practice of keeping cus-
todial reindeer.
The authorities in Sweden also wanted to regulate
the system. Settled people could apply for keeping up
to twenty custodial reindeer with herding Sami; the
number could be increased to fifty in special cases.
It would seem that the Swedish authorities based
their decisions to a greater degree on the usual number
of custodial reindeer and thus were more inclined to
reduce the number than was the case on the Norwegian
side (Nordin, 2002:92).
It is however, necessary to point out another limi-
tation, which was executed in Norway. The law of
1897 in accordance with the proposal of the Lapp
Commission of 1889 stated a general prohibition
against settled people having reindeer but settled
Sami could be exempted if the reinder were kept in
“recognized Lapp areas” (Berg, 1999:203). In other
words, the attempt was made to tie the practice of
keeping custodial reindeer to ethnicity.
Most owners were non-Sami
In this section I will take a closer look at registered
ethnic identity in 1875 and examine more closely how
successful the new legislation of 1889 was. In the defi-
nition of custodial reindeer given above, both farmers
and Sea Sami owned such reindeer. Sea Sami were
settled Sami, a group that was the first to be Nor-
wegianized in terms of language and dress. They were
usually registered as “Norwegian” in the national cen-
suses toward the end of the 1800s. However, research
has shown that many kept their ethnic identity, in
spite of it not being revealed in the written sources
(Evjen & Hansen, submitted). Thus, it is difficult to
determine the individual identity of Sea Sami and
farmers respectively in the census material. This limi-
tation in the statistical material must be kept in mind
when considering the numerical material that follows.
Table 1 shows that the proportion of reindeer
owners not registered as Sami varied from barely
Table 2. Proportion (%) of households with reindeer as part of livestock in 1875 distributed after number of reindeer.
(Source: Agricultural Census and National Census, 1875, RHD).
Area
≤ 10
11-50 51-100 101-200
≥ 201
South-Norway 100
Trøndelag 63 33 3
Helgeland 84 16
Salten 7915312
Ofoten 71 28 1
Lofoten/V.ålen 60 10 30
South Troms 70 28 2
North Troms 86 12 2
West Finnmark 53 43 2 2
East Finnmark 71 21 5 3
Norway average 71 21 2 4 0.4
85
Rangifer, 27 (2), 2007
50% to 100%. In the area south of Nordland County,
100% of the registered households which had rein-
deer as part of their livestock were registered as
“Norwegian”; and the Helgeland region followed
with 98%. Further north the proportion varied,
being the lowest in South Troms (43%) and the highest
in Salten (81%). But as was mentioned above, a large
proportion of Sea Sami ownership may be hidden.
Most other households with reindeer as part of
their livestock were registered under the category
Lapp. Kven, one of the old national minorities in
Norway, were also among the owners, most in Finn-
mark and Troms Counties, some also in Nordland
County as far south as Salten.
Even though, as pointed out, the authorities appar-
ently made it possible for the institution of keeping
custodial reindeer to continue; it is clear that, over
time, this cooperative arrangement was not viewed
altogether favourably by the authorities. They wanted
to limit the practice, which was apparent for example
in the negotiations and the recommendations of the
Lapp Commissions of 1889 and 1892.
Laws, which were not followed
In the supplementary Lapp legislation from 1897
that pertained to areas outside Finnmark, there were
rules in place to try to prevent settled people from
keeping reindeer (clauses 1 & 2); “…anyone who has
received the reindeer of permanently settled individ-
uals for custodial care will be subject to punishment
when such reindeer are found to be grazing as indi-
cated” (Law containing Supplementary Statute Con-
cerning the Lapps etc., south of Finnmark County,
1897:388). The law stated that only settled Sami
could be given such permission after applying (Berg,
1999:203). An argument for offering this as a possible
option was the fact that many reindeer herders with
small herds would lose their livelihoods without a
needed complement of custodial reindeer. In any event,
the practice was no longer unregulated, but the cus-
todial reindeer continued grazing in the herds of the
reindeer herding Sami.
The cross-border herding was regulated by the
Common Lapp Law of 1883, superseded by the rein-
deer grazing convention of 1919. The latter statute
left no room for the practice of using custodial rein-
deer. This legislation specified, among other things,
that moving custodial reindeer across the border was
not permitted. However, an exception was made for
Finnmark with regard to using custodial reindeer, an
exception that was in force as late as the time of the
Reindeer Herding Act of 1978.
The new guidelines were, however, only followed
in part. The well-established practice of cooperation
of mutual advantage to both parties could not be
Fig. 4. Reindeer herd in Tjalanes, near Sulitjelma, Nordland County, 1906. After it had become illegal to move custo-
dial reindeer across the boarder, people from Saltdal bought up a small herd in the autumn, which they them-
selves butchered some distance away from the settled area. Photo: From Evjen, 2004.
86
Rangifer, 27 (2), 2007
terminated as a matter of course. It was also a matter
of the authorities allowing these statutes to become
“dormant.”
In a number of municipalities in the Salten region,
it is not difficult to find cases where the owners of
custodial reindeer could not be considered former
nomads, as for example, the parish pastor in Tysfjord,
the sheriffs both in Fauske and Tysfjord, and merchants
in Hamarøy, Tysfjord and Fauske. Ørnulv Vorren also
found that in 1900 there were people in Helgeland
belonging to different ethnic categories who kept
custodial reindeer with reindeer herding Sami. “There
were farmers in the area where grazing by migrating
reindeer took place, and there were people from local
communities and towns. Among other things, one also
finds names from well-known merchant families, there
is one entry for nine animals listed as ‘missionary
reindeer,’ and Velfjord municipality is listed with
twenty animals” (Vorren, 1986:29).
Social significance
A main argument against the custodial reindeer
practice was the growing size of the herds which thus
needed larger pastures than only the animals belong-
ing to the herders. This gave rise to a conflict with
agriculture in Hamarøy reindeer herding district, a
winter pasture area. The subsequent events demon-
strate a linkage between settled and reindeer herding
Sami, which is not unique to this area but of a more
general character.
In 1931 the Lapp bailiff had a case on his desk
from Hamarøy involving disagreements about the
ear-marking of custodial reindeer (Evjen, 1998).
Lapp bailiff Havik meant it was a violation of law
for Sami to keep custodial reindeer for settled people
and more aggravating if permission from land-
owners had not been granted. Thus, the original
problem with the marking of custodial reindeer was
a non-issue.
The Sami had no such permission in Hamarøy
where the landowners had even tried to put an end to
reindeer grazing in the area. In the fall of 1931, the
matter had come to a head and the County governor
summoned a “town meeting” in the neighbouring
municipality of Tysfjord. From the authorities, the
meeting was attended by the County governor, may-
ors, sheriffs, the Lapp bailiff and Lapp inspectors, in
addition to reindeer herding Sami and farmers.
The Hamarøy farmers presented their complaints,
but their fellow farmers in the neighbouring munici-
palities made common cause with the herders and
claimed that the accusing parties were not very sym-
pathetic to a livelihood that benefited people in several
municipalities. The assertion was also made that the
custodial reindeer system was a matter of “rather
great significance for rural people.” The Lapp bailiff
could confirm the fact that individuals in both private
and public positions owned custodial reindeer, even
though it was a violation of law. It was emphasized
that this was a traditional cooperative practice of long
standing.
The meeting concluded with a decision that
Hamarøy was still to be a winter grazing area, but in
order to minimize the impact of excessive grazing,
reindeer herding families were to be moved farther
north. This did occur three years later.
The result of the meeting was that the tradition
of keeping custodial reindeer was to continue. In its
support, the County authorities emphasized especially
the economic side of the issue insofar as the custodial
reindeer system was an important part of the house-
hold economy of the settled people.
An investigation of reindeer herding in Troms County
and Torne Lapp district in Sweden showed that cus-
todial reindeer must have been of vital economic
importance for Jukkasjärvi Sami–and especially for
small scale herders –in addition to fashioning strong
bonds between the nomadic and settled people. For
some, keeping custodial reindeer may have made
reindeer herding economically feasible; not until cus-
todial reindeer were added to one’s own reindeer did
herding become economically profitable. Some of
the yield, such as calves, could go to the custodian
(Andresen, 1991:158). It was probably not only in this
area that the system was economically important for
those involved in the cross-border reindeer herding;
both the settled and the nomadic profited from the
institution (Fig. 3).
In 1933 new regulations were decided (Law of
Reindeer Husbandry, 1933), this time emphasizing
that only nomadic Sami had permission to herd rein-
deer. However, law and practice were still at odds. In
Troms and Torne Lapp district the number of rein-
deer went down after the new regulations were issued.
Through many generations merchant families in Salt-
dal municipality in Nordland County had maintained
close contact with reindeer herding Sami, both with
regard to the purchase of meat and the custodial rein-
deer practice on the Swedish side. In the 1930s, after
it had become illegal to move custodial reindeer across
the border, rural people pooled their resources to buy
up reindeer in numbers (Evjen, 2007) (Fig. 4).
We do not know to what degree the system may
have changed in other areas; the system did not, how-
ever, disappear. The conflict between theory and
practice is confirmed in the “Protocol for reindeer
markings 1909-1936” in Nordland County. One of
the newly arrived teachers in Tysfjord had his own
reindeer marking registered as late as 1936. He was
87
Rangifer, 27 (2), 2007
definitely not a Sami. As a matter of fact, the last
marking for custodial reindeer in Hellemo grazing
district in Tysfjord was entered in the Lapp bailiff’s
protocol for reindeer markings in 1959 (The reindeer
herding agronomist archives, Nordland). Anders
Nilsen Kurak and his wife Inga in Leirelv, Tysfjord,
were the last family to keep custodial reindeer; they
gave it up in 1965. Ethnographer Johan Albert Kalstad
from Tysfjord in a personal comment remembers the
last custodial reindeer in Tysfjord. He said it was a
light coloured reindeer, which he helped butcher in
1965. In that part of the country, this marked the end
of the collaboration between the nomadic and settled
people through the custodial reindeer institution.
We will now continue – and look upon some other
aspects of the collaborative verdde institution.
Custodial goats as part of reindeer
husbandry
In Tysfjord people also were familiar with the practice
of keeping custodial goats, that is to say, goats owned
by reindeer herders but tended by settled people through
the winter. The reindeer Sami themselves milked the
goats in the summer and left them behind when moving
to their winter land. The reindeer herders returned the
favour by keeping custodial reindeer in their herds,
but there could be other means of exchange, as this
example from Tysfjord demonstrates:
“The going rate for having Swedish goats over the
winter was 10-14 kroner (Norwegian currency). Of
course, we kept the milk we got before they came to
fetch the goats in the spring. The Swedes milked
both the reindeer and the goats, grandmother would
get reindeer cheese from the Swedish Sami, the rein-
deer cheese had a nice flavour” (Evjen, 1998:122).
That system of exchange was probably the result of
changes within reindeer husbandry. As the industry
became a more extensive operation with a greater
focus on the production of meat, the reindeer no
longer met the needs of the Sami for milk and
cheese. Conveniently, the goat did meet this demand.
However, it had to be fed through the winter (Fig. 5)
and again, the verdde-system had a role to play.
The goats stayed over the winter on regular sized
and small-scale farms in the whole area where rein-
deer were also kept. This was in function both in
the coastal reindeer husbandry on the Norwegian
Fig. 5. Fall in the industrial town of Sulitjelma, Nordland County, from around 1950. The Steggo family is ready
to hand over their goats to custody for the winter before leaving for Mavas Luokta, Norrbotten County, Sweden.
Photo: From Evjen, 2004.
88
Rangifer, 27 (2), 2007
side, and the cross-border reindeer herding and forest
herding on the Swedish side (Beach, 1981:127,
Andresen, 1991:79).
We do not come across the term custodial goat
(sytingsgeit) in the source material but the goat was,
of course, a well-known domestic animal from days of
old. In conjunction with the general changes within
agriculture, with its focus on a higher production of
meat and cow’s milk, the government encouraged
greater investment in sheep and cattle breeding. The
goat did not fit in as part of this change. Thus, for
example, the number of goats decreased in the whole
of Nordland between 1890 and 1900, with Evenes
municipality, north of Ofoten, being the only excep-
tion (Helland, 1907 and 1908). But in spite of the
decline, keeping goats held its own.
The extent of the custodial care of goats
It is difficult, in any event, to find exact information
about an exchange of services that included custodial
goats as part of the transaction. It is possible to arrive
at a rough estimate by looking at the number of
households, which included a small number of both
reindeer and goats. Again we turn to the census of
1875 when the practice of keeping custodial goats
was already in place (Andresen, 1991:79).
The practice of keeping both reindeer and goats
varied greatly from one part of the country to anoth-
er with only one household in East Finnmark and
Trøndelag and two in the South-Norwegian counties
Hedmark-Oppland compared to the regions South
Troms and Salten with respectively 102 and 100
households. As usual, the national census was regis-
tered in the winter when any custodial goats would
have been kept by settled people. We cannot know
with certainty which of these households just kept
their own goats and which also kept custodial goats.
We will get a somewhat better view of the overall
tendency by looking at Sami registered households
that had both reindeer and goats. In East and West
Finnmark there were no registered households at all
that owned both reindeer and goats as part of their
livestock in 1875, nor in Trøndelag or the counties
farther south. In the two remaining counties, Troms
and Nordland, the regions of South Troms and
Ofoten had the highest number with 52 and 41
households respectively, followed by Salten with 22.
In the remaining areas, the number was only one or
two households. On the basis of these numbers, we
can see that the practice of keeping custodial goats
towards the end of the 1800s was mainly confined to
Nordland and Troms, more precisely to the area
between Balsfjord municipality in Troms and the
Saltfjellet mountains in Nordland.
The pig in Sami animal husbandry
In addition to fishing, the most important parts of the
economy of North Norway have been the agricultural
production of grass, and keeping cows, sheep and
goats. The pig (Sus domesticus) has been of secondary
importance [Latin names of domestic animals (Gentry
et al., 2004)]. In a general account of the history of the
pig in Norway, it says with reference to keeping pigs
in Nordland County that the pig “has not been a
common domestic animal”; in Troms the practice of
keeping pigs “was modest” and in Finnmark the pig
“was a comparatively rare animal in earlier times”
(Jensen, 1997:119f). In his local history of Balsfjord
and Malangen in Troms County, Ole Anders Hauglid
(1991) examined a possible link between ethnicity
and keeping pigs and found that pigs were not kept
among the Sami at the end of 1800s. The pig was a
newcomer to the household livestock and also needed
more space compared to, for example, sheep and goat.
The absence of the pig in the Sami household was the
result of both resistance to the new and the fact that
it was seen as “part of upper class culture and urban
life” (Hauglid, 1991:123).
What about the combination of reindeer and pigs?
In 1875, this combination was unknown only in Finn-
mark. In areas farther south, the combination was not
common, but there was a growing trend to raise pigs
when reindeer also were included in the household
livestock. This held true in one of two households in
South Norway whereas the ratio was one to five
in Troms.
However, if we consider registered Sami ethnicity
in addition to household livestock with both reindeer
and pigs, we will find only seven such households in
the whole of Norway, two in Salten and North Troms
and three in South Troms. This is a low number
which confirms the findings from Balsfjord and
Malangen. At the end of the 1800s, Sami households
had only to a limited degree the pig as part of their
household livestock. In this context, custodial rein-
deer and raising pigs represented different versions of
agriculture–the traditional and the modern respec-
tively. The two were rarely combined.
Towards the end of the custodial system
The reciprocal aid system involving the use of cus-
todial reindeer has probably been in existence as long
as there have been Sami people who have made their
living in different ways. With regard to the Swedish
side, it has been determined that when settlers began
to colonize the inland Sami areas of Västerbotten and
Norrbotten, they were invited to participate in a system
that was already in place in the area. The good rela-
tionship between the settled people and reindeer
89
Rangifer, 27 (2), 2007
herders seems to have been imbued with the recogni-
tion that both parties had a stake in favourable condi-
tions for reindeer husbandry. There were, of course,
exceptions, both when the system was exploited to
make custodial reindeer owners the most prosperous
in the area and when the relationship between the
settled people and the herders for various reasons was
far from ideal (Nordin, 2002:155f). But for the most
part the practice was conducive to favourable interac-
tions between the settled and nomadic people.
As shown above, the first prohibition came as early
as the end of the 1800s, a prohibition which in spite
of the lack of enforcement over time led to the termi-
nation of the system. The legislation was, however,
not the only factor that pulled the process in that
direction. Åsa Nordin has discussed several factors
which affected the custodial reindeer system in
Gällivare in the northernmost of Sweden and which
also could be relevant to an understanding of the
conditions on the Norwegian side. In addition to
legislation, modernization certainly played a signifi-
cant role. Industrialization meant relocating to new
environments where the social structure, way of life,
and value norms differed from those of traditional
society and where it no longer was essential to be part
of agricultural society; you simply no longer needed
to own custodial reindeer in order to ensure enough
meat for the family. Nordin claims that this in turn
was detrimental to the understanding and coopera-
tion between settled and nomadic people; they
became alienated from one another (Nordin,
2002:182). Recent research from Tornedalen has
shown how the system of concession reindeer herding
had laws of its own which all the way up till today
included the custodial reindeer system. This was an
exception from the pattern elsewhere in Sweden.
(Jernsletten, 2007:136)
An in-depth study as that of Nordin has not been
done on the Norwegian side, where the focus of research
has primarily been on the concessions made to industry
for access to areas that were a part of the reindeer
pasture lands. However, this did not generate a great
deal of protest. Some cooperation with the herders
did continue but this did not involve the custodial
reindeer system (Evjen, 2007).
As mentioned above, the general prohibition
against keeping custodial reindeer applied to areas
south of Finnmark. In Finnmark the system was
in force until the Law of Reindeer Husbandry in
1978. An article from 1999 (Bjørklund & Eidheim)
discusses this change in the relationship between
customary practice and legal requirement. The analysis
is based on the fact that the custodial reindeer insti-
tution is part of a traditional verdde-system, whereas
Norwegian law relates to traditional Norwegian
practices and institutions. This results in a culture
clash where Norwegian law: “…in the way it is prac-
ticed with regard to ‘the issue of custodial reindeer’
–produces legally binding judgments which in their
consequence rip apart the foundation on which tradi-
tional Sami institutions rest… (and which furthermore
also is) in violation of the ILO convention and inter-
national law,” (cited from Bjørklund & Eidheim,
1999:156.
The arguments could also have been made with
regard to restrictions farther south in earlier times.
At that time, it was, however, largely irrelevant. The
powerful state was a fact; both at the end of the
1800s and in the 1970s, but the possibilities of local
control were significantly greater in the latter period.
Otherwise, a diachronic comparison like this reflects
great social change. Nordin (2002) concludes her
dissertation by showing that the custodial reindeer
institution could not survive in the new and con-
stantly changing society of the 1900s. The basis for
the relations of exchange disappeared.
As this brief discussion of the custodial system has
demonstrated, this is also the main conclusion that
can be drawn for the Norwegian side of the border.
For a long time tradition resisted restrictions by
governmental authorities. But the great changes and
rationalization within the agricultural sector, growth
of industrial society, and constraints imposed by
government, undermined the use of the reindeer as
part of the household livestock. Concern for the
claim on resources probably also played a role, even
though this article has not considered this as an
essential explanatory factor. Further research will
have to show whether the custodial reindeer system
functioned and disappeared in the same manner for
instance in Finland and Russia. In any event, exten-
sive interaction between nomadic and settled people
on the Norwegian side was reduced and in part
disappeared. Still, in 2007, the system probably still
existed, albeit on a much smaller scale and within
the confines of Sami society. From this year, the
new Reindeer Herding Act (2007) again allows
persons related to reindeer herding Sami to own
custodial reindeer.
Acknowledgements
Article translated by Ellen Marie Jensen, Minneapolis,
MN, USA.
References
Andersen, S. 2003. Samisk tilhørighet i kyst- og fjord-
områder (Sami ethnic affiliation in coastal and fiord
areas). – In: Bjerkli, B. & Selle, P. (eds.). Samer, makt og
90
Rangifer, 27 (2), 2007
demokrati. Sametinget og den nye samiske offentligheten (Sami,
power and democracy. The Sami parliament and the new Sami
public). Gyldendal, Oslo. 461pp. (In Norwegian).
Andersen, T. O. 2005. Markasamiske kombinasjonsnæringer.
En undersøkelse på mikronivå 1860-1920. (Field Sami’s
combination industry. An investigation on micro level 1860-
1920). Master thesis in history, University of Tromsø.
113pp. (Monography written in Norwegian).
Andresen, A. 1991. Omstillingstid. Nomadisk reindrift i
Torne Lappmark og Troms 1840-1920 (A period of transi-
tion. Nomadic reindeer husbandry in Torne Lappmark and
Troms 1840-1920.) Dr. thesis in history. University of
Tromsø. 291pp. (Monography written in Norwegian).
Beach, H. 1981. Reindeer-herd management in transition:
the case of Tuorpon Saameby in Northern Sweden. Uppsala
studies in cultural anthrophology, vol 3, Almqvist &
Wiksell, Uppsala, pp. 511-526.
Berg, B. A. 1999. Mot en korporativ reindrift. Samisk rein-
drift i Norge i den 20.århundre – eksemplifisert gjennom
studier av reindriften på Helgeland (Towards corporative
management of reindeer. Sami reindeer herding in Norway in
the 20
th
century –exemplified through research on reindeer
herding in Helgeland). Dr. thesis in History, University of
Tromsø. 454pp. (Monography written in Norwegian).
Reprinted in – Diedut No. 3, 2000.
Bjørklund, I. & Eidheim, H. 1999. Om reinmerker
– kulturelle sammenhenger og norsk jus i Sapmi (About
reindeer markings–cultural connotations and Nor-
wegian law in Sapmi). – In: Bjørklund, I. (ed.). Norsk
ressursforvaltning og samiske rettighetsforhold i Sapmi. (Nor-
wegian resource management and issues of Sami rights in Sapmi).
Gyldendal, Oslo, pp. 143-157. (In Norwegian).
Eidheim, H. 1971. Aspects of the Lappish minority situation.
Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. 85pp.
Evjen, B. 1998. Et sammensatt fellesskap, Tysfjord kommune
1869-1950 (A complex community, Tysfjord municipality
1869-1950). Tysfjord kommune, Kjøpsvik, Norway.
320pp. (Local history written in Norwegian).
Evjen, B. 2004. Fra kobbereventyr til marmorby, Fauske
kommune 1905-2005 (From copper adventure to marble town,
Fauske municipality 1905-2005). Fauske kommune, Fauske,
Norway. 477pp. (Local history written in Norwegian).
Evjen, B. 2007. Samarbeid og kontakt med de bofaste
på norsk side (Co-operation and collaboration with the
settled people on the Norwegian side of the Swedish/
Norwegian border). – In: Broderstad, E. G. et al. (eds.).
Grenseoverskridende reindrift før og etter 1905 (Reindeer
herding across the Swedish/Norwegian border before and after
1905). Centre for Sami Studies, University of Tromsø.
186pp. (In Norwegian).
Evjen, B. & Hansen, L. I. (submitted). One people – many
names. 22pp.
Gentry, A., Clutton-Brock, J. & Groves, C. P. 2004.
The naming of wild animal species and their domestic
derivatives. – Journal of Archaeological Science 31: 645-651.
Hansen, L. I. 2005. Spesialisert reindrift eller kombinasjons-
næring. Reinhold i Sør-Troms på 1600- og 1700-tallet
(Specialized reindeer herding or as part of a combination
of livelihoods. Reindeer herding in South Troms in the
1600s and 1700s). – In: Andersen, O. (ed.). Fra villrein-
jakt til reindrift (The change from wild reindeer hunting
to reindeer herding). – Skriftserie nr.1: 165-183. Árran lule-
samisk senter (Publication series number 1, Árran Lule
Sami Centre), Drag, Norway. (In Norwegian).
Hauglid, A. O. 1991. Balsfjorden og Malangens historie
1830-1920, bind 2. (The history of the municipalities in the
fiords of Balsfjord and Malangen 1830-1920, volume 2.
Balsfjord kommune, Storsteinnes, Norway. 560pp.
(Local history written in Norwegian).
Helland, A. 1907 and 1908. Norges land og folk, Nordland
amt, bd 3 og 4, (The land and people of Norway, Nordland
County, vol. 3 and 4. Aschehough, Kristiania (Oslo).
608pp and 1002pp. (In Norwegian).
Historisk leksikon (Historical Lexicon) 2001. Cappelen,
Oslo. 520pp. (In Norwegian).
Jensen, A. 1997. Med krøll på halen, glimt fra grisens historie
(With a curl of its tail, glimses from the history of the
pig). Idé trykk, Hamar. 151pp. (In Norwegian).
Jernsletten, J.-L. 2007. ”Med rett til å gjete...”. Utfordring-
er og muligheter i Liehittäjä konsesjonssameby. (“With
a license to herd…” Challenges and opportunities in
Liehittäjä concession Sami village). – Dissertations in
cultural anthropology, DICA 9. 359pp. Institutionen för
kulturantropologi och etnologi, Uppsala Universitet.
Sweden. (Dr. philos. thesis in social anthropology.
Monography written in Norwegian).
Jernsletten, R. (Mákká Regnor) 2003. 1800-logu oapme-
doallu boares Deanu sundegottis: Deanu. Bearralvági ja
Gángaviikka gielddat (Livestock holdings in the Tana Region
1800-1875. In Sami with summary in English, pp.
175-193). – Skriftserie nr. 14, Senter for samiske studier
(Publication series number 14, Centre for Sami Studies),
University of Tromsø. 256pp.
Kalstad, J. A. (1982): Kystsamisk reindrift (The reindeer
husbandry of the coastal Sami). – In: Kystsamisk
bosetting (Coastal Sami Settlements). – Ottar No.
137 (4 -1982). Tromsø Museum, University of Tromsø.
(In Norwegian).
Nordin, Å. 2002. Relationer i ett samiskt samhälle. En studie
av skötesrensystemet i Gällivare socken under första hälften av
1900-talet (Relations in a Sami community. A study of the
custodial reindeer system in Gällivare parish in the first half
of the twentieth century). Dr. thesis in History. Depart-
ment of archaeology and Sami studies, Umeå University.
Sami Studies 2. 225pp. (Monography written in Swedish
with summary in English).
Storm, D. 1990. Kystsamisk bosetning i Sør-Troms. Etablering
av en markebygd og ressursutnytting i området. En under-
søkelse i Gressmyrskogen på Senja (Coastal Sami settlement
in South Troms. Establishment of an outlying field settlement
91
Rangifer, 27 (2), 2007
and resource exploitation in the area. An investigation of the
Grass marshland forest on Senja). Cand. philol. thesis in
geography. University of Bergen. 150pp. (Monography
written in Norwegian).
Vorren, Ø. 1986. Reindrift og nomadisme i Helgeland (Rein-
deer herding and nomadism in Helgeland). Novus, Oslo.
39pp. (In Norwegian).
Law and commissions
1883. Fælleslappeloven (Common Lapp Law)
1889. Lappekommisjonen av 1889. (Lapp commission of
1889).
1892. Lappekommisjonen av 1892. (Lapp commission of
1892).
1897. Lov indeh. Tilægsbest. Ang. Lapperne m.v. sønden-
for Finmarkens amt, 1897 (Law with Additional
Statute(s) concerning the Lapps etc. south of Finnmark
County).
1919. Convention between Sweden and Norway about the
rights of reindeer grazing.
1933. Reindriftsloven (Law of Reindeer Husbandry).
1978. Reindriftsloven (Law of Reindeer Husbandry).
Unpublished sources
Jordbruks- og folketellingen 1875 (Agricultural and national
census, 1875).
Protokoll for reinmerker. Reindriftsagronomens arkiv i Nord-
land (Protocol for reindeer markings. The Reindeer herding
agronomist’s archives in Nordland Reindeer Herding Area).
Manuscript received 13 September, 2007
accepted 27 October, 2007
Sytingsrein og sytingsgeiter, del av det samme husdyrholdet
Abstract in Norwegian / Sammendrag: Systemet med sytingsrein har trolig foregått så lenge det har eksistert reindrift, det
vil si at en del av reinflokken har bestått av dyr som tilhørte de bofaste, men som ble passet på av reindriftssamer. Kilder
viser at systemet fantes over hele Norge der det ble drevet reindrift, men i størst utstrekning i Troms og Nordland.
Sytingsgeiter kunne være en gjenytelse der reindriftssamenes geiter ble passet av de bofaste gjennom vinteren. Fra myndig-
hetenes side ble det fra ca. 1900, med unntak av for Finnmarks del, satt inn restriksjoner for å begrense sytingsreinholdet.
Det ble ikke uten videre fulgt, da systemet hadde stor betydning for både nomader og de bosatte. Moderniseringen av
samfunnet etter andre verdenskrig førte imidlertid til at dette utbyttet mistet sin betydning, og sytingsreininstitusjonen
ble tilsynelatende borte, men er nå delvis lovlig igjen fra 2007.
92
Rangifer, 27 (2), 2007
