Marte Spangen *
Type 1 structures as wolf traps?
Introducing a new theory
The northern European medieval wolf traps and methods of wolf hunting were very varied, depending on local particularities concerning the terrain, season and wolf population and habits, as well as the economic and social conditions for the hunt (Pluskowski 2006, 101). The well-known wolf pitfall trap could be circular, square or angular and be clad with stones or planks on the inside. Sometimes there would be a pole in the centre of the pit with a platform on top for the bait, or the bait could simply be tied down at the bottom of the pit, alternatively placed on a cover over it. Various covers were used, from sticks and straw to rotating doors.
While the trap itself was usually built by digging into the ground, there are also descriptions of how it could be surrounded by stones or a fence to make the wolf jump into it before realising it was a trap (e.g. Broman 1842; Henriksson 1978; Laursen 1991; Lie 2003). Large
enclosures called ‘pen traps’ above ground are also widely known. The Sami in northern Finland built simple notched log pen traps until the 19th century.
An ethnographically and archaeologically documented example in Inari measured ca. 17m in inner diameter, had an angular shape with inward leaning walls and was built around a natural mound where the live bait would be placed. Interestingly, this particular trap is said to have caught no wolves, only foxes and wolverines (Itkonen 1948, 63-64; Joona 2011).
Three stone structures found in the counties of Kemi and Tornio by the Bothnian Bay in Finland appear to be more direct parallels to the Type 1 structures described above. They are constructed by clearing areas in scree of 8-10m in diameter with angular inner shapes and approximately one metre high walls. A prevailing wolf trap explanation is based on local traditions. One of the structures is situated on Susihaudanmäki, which literally means ‘Wolf Trap Hill’. However, because of their similarity to the northern Norwegian ‘circular offering sites’ they have recently been suggested to be Sami offering sites (Saloranta 2011). It has been argued that the modest height of their walls would not be enough to keep wolves in and thus opposes the trap explanation (Saloranta 2011, 47), but, as described, Type 1 structures in northern Norway with similar extant heights are thought originally
Fig. 5. Photogrammetry orthophoto of the hexagonal Type 1 structure on Fuonášnjárga (‘the Wolf Trap Headland’) in Munkefjord, Sør-Varanger, Finnmark (© Marte Spangen).
47 spangen
to have been much higher and to have had additional wood superstructures (Vorren 1985, 71-72), which rather substantiates a trap function. Though there is obviously no direct connection, more recent wolf traps on the Iberian peninsula consisting of inward-leaning dry-stone walls around small mounds where the bait was placed (Álvares et al. 2000), offers another close parallel to the medieval Type 1 structures in northern Norway that substantiates a possible use of these as wolf traps.
An early 20th-century record describes the wolf traps that were used in the East Sami area of Neiden in eastern Finnmark. These were called fuonáš, and they were constructed like large traditional conical turf huts, only without doors and with a bigger smoke opening in the roof where the wolf would jump in to get to the bait. The bait would be a living reindeer or sheep that was placed on a pile of lichen inside this structure (Qvigstad 1927, 534-37). The account does not describe stone foundations, but it locates the remains of one of these traps to the so-called ‘Cormorant Stone’ (North Sami: Skarfageađge) in Munkefjorden, Sør-Varanger municipality. At the same place, a stone structure has been registered that Ørnulv Vorren, after some deliberation, defined as the stone foundation of a wolf trap, based on the mentioned tradition and the local place name Fuonášnjárga, which means ‘the Wolf Trap Headland’ (Vorren 1976; 1979, 83). However, the structure in question was originally recorded by archaeologists as a ‘circular offering site’
(www.askeladden.ra.no, Askeladden, Id 67452-1), and it has several obvious similarities to the other Type 1 structures, being situated in sloping rocky terrain and having a hexagonal inner shape with walls up to 100cm, an inner diameter of approximately 5.5m and featuring a low mound in the middle (Fig. 5). I would suggest that the wolf trap interpretation of this site should be applied to other sites of similar character rather than vice versa.
Evidence for use as wolf traps
The ethnographic parallels show the potential functionality of Type 1 structures as wolf traps but also that the construction details in traps have depended on available materials and other local conditions. The location of the Type 1 structures in screes provided building materials, and the solid and inner vertical or inward sloping walls also would assist in keeping captured animals in, while outer sloping walls aligning with the surrounding terrain would give them easy access. An inner elevated area like a mound or cairn, which is occasionally present in the structures, is not absolutely necessary but it would help to expose the bait. These features may even have supported a mid-pole with a platform for the bait. Removal or erosion of such a pole could explain why several cairns are described as ‘disturbed’ (e.g. Vorren – Eriksen 1993, 66).
The consistent positioning of the structures in sloping and rocky terrains beneath hilltops would accommodate the wolves’ preference for higher grounds to get an overview and for terrains with protruding hiding places allowing them to sneak up on the bait (Brainerd et al. 2008, 27).
The choice of sloping terrain could also be a way of limiting necessary wood builds by utilising the hillside to create part of the wall.
Following a wolf trap interpretation, the osteological finds in Type 1 structures are considered mainly to be remains of various live and dead baits. Dogs have frequently been recommended as bait due to the consistent aggressiveness wolves show towards this animal (e.g.
Asbjørnsen 1840, 15; Pluskowski 2006, 73-74), but the omnivorous wolf could be equally tempted by ungulates or any other animal, live or dead (Brainerd et al. 2008, 27).
This is reflected in the wide variety of animals and animal remains, including containers for food leftovers or smelly offal, found in excavated German medieval wolf traps (Müller 1999, 187; Nießen 2012, 25-26, 28-29, 60-61;
Nießen 2015, 181). Thus, the species and animal parts found in the Type 1 structures, including some marrow split reindeer bones, are compatible with a use as wolf traps, though most of the finds also coincide with known Sami offering matter. The arctic fox and ordinary fox bones, and the find of a wolverine skull in one structure, however, are not likely to be from bait, and they are highly unusual for an offering site context. Interestingly, ethnographic and historical sources frequently describe how these animals in particular were often caught in wolf traps (e.g. Magnus 1976 [1555], chapter 18:13;
Itkonen 1948, 64). The remains of these species in Type 1 structures could be from animals that were trapped after the installations had gone out of use, explaining why the animals were not removed.
Reasons for constructing wolf traps
In the farming societies of the Middle and Early Modern Ages in Scandinavia, the decimation of wolves was often a question of lives and livelihood (e.g. Magnus 1976 [1555], chapter 18:13; Broman 1842, 21). There were very aggressive attitudes towards wolves in more recent reindeer herding or farming Sami contexts too, but it must be assumed that the wolves were perceived differently in medieval Sami hunter-fisher-gatherer contexts. There could still be several reasons for investing in the building of wolf trap constructions: very large wolf populations may have been a problem because these predators would compete for and even severely decimate other species of game, as was recorded in parts of southern Norway in the 18th century (Lie 2003, 9). The wolves may also have posed a threat to any livestock, which, in medieval Sami contexts in Finnmark and Troms, probably
48 religion, cults & rituals in the medieval rural environment encompassed dogs, a few reindeer and, in some cases,
sheep and cattle (cf. e.g. Hansen – Olsen 2014, 177, 184;
Hedman et al. 2015). Wolf furs are likely to have had substantial local use-value, even if they do not seem to have been a central element in the medieval long-distance fur export (Pluskowski 2006, 112-15). More importantly, the frequent connection between the Type 1 structure and meat caches may illustrate a problem of wolves raiding such hiding places for food. This may have triggered the need for hunting installations at the same sites, as has been recorded in ethnographic studies of other hunter-gatherer contexts (Binford 2002, 135-136).
The confirmed large Type 1 structures are mainly found within the area of Finnmark and northern Troms, while possible Type 1 structures have been recorded along the Barents and White Sea coasts in Russia (pers.
comm. M. M. Shakhnovich 11 Aug 2014). Though not corresponding on a local level, several phenomena have an equivalent regional distribution from northern Troms to the Kola Peninsula, including outer coast phenomena like the stone labyrinths mentioned above (Olsen 2002;
Manyuhkin – Lobanova 2002), slab-lined pits for extractions of blubber oil (Henriksen 1996; Hansen – Olsen 2014, 57-65) and so-called multi-room houses. The latter apparently appear in a multi-cultural environment that can be traced in the finds from these houses (Olsen et al. 2011), but the distribution of Type 1 structures is more likely a result of Sami cultural regionality. The relatively massive stone walls could potentially have gained a status as territorial markers over time, but it appears more probable that they simply reflect core habitation areas.
The mutually exclusive distribution of labyrinths by deep sea fishing sites on the outer coast and the Type 1 structures in habitation areas in the inland of Finnmark seems to confirm the same summer-winter mobility pattern for Sami groups in the region in the Middle Ages that is described in Early Modern written sources (Storm 1895, 232; Spangen 2016, 206).
The end of the wolf traps
The initial use of the Type 1 structures seems to have come to an end relatively simultaneously, sometime between AD 1450 and 1650. Considering them as wolf traps, this may have had several reasons. With the 18th-century rise of more extensive reindeer herding, Sami habitation patterns changed, and wolves were presumably more often killed during the perpetual shepherding of the reindeer than in traps. Individual hunting was made easier by the introduction of new efficient weapons like the crossbows, foot-lock traps and guns in the Early Modern Age (Nielssen 1986; Pluskowski 2006, 102), while changes in state influences, taxation and trading patterns affected the exploitation of various areas and types of
produce (Johnsen 1923; Odner 1992; Hansen 2006;
Hansen – Olsen 2014). Some evidence and traditions indicate that the idea that these enigmatic structures with their animal bone remains represent old offering sites may have appeared as local reinterpretations at a quite early stage after their abandonment as traps, though it seems this notion primarily has spread, both locally and among researchers, through much later publishing and dissemination (Spangen 2016).
Conclusion
Stone circles are not mentioned in the oldest sources about Sami offering sites. The interpretation of the medieval circular stone walls in northern Norway (Type 1) as ritual sites rather seems to appear among researchers in the mid-19th century, though it is difficult to know whether they based this notion on any local traditions.
The transfer of the explanation to a range of diverging stone and turf structures in other areas (Type 2 and 3) is not well substantiated and should be reconsidered.
Furthermore, the construction details, local topography and finds related to the Type 1 structures are compatible with an original use as wolf traps as these are known from archaeological, historical and ethnographical sources. A local reconceptualisation of Type 1 structures as offering sites may have taken place fairly soon after the structures went out of their original use and, admittedly, the evidence does not positively refute this interpretation.
The collective evidence that has been briefly summarised in this article still leads me to conclude that the concept of ‘circular offering sites’ is more likely to be a modern myth rooted in the 19th-century scholarly interpretation, than an example of a regional variation in the Sami ritual practices of the Middle Ages.
Aknowledgements
I am grateful to the participants at the Ruralia XI conference in Clervaux, Luxembourg, in September 2015 for their encouraging feedback, especially Catarina Tente, who made me aware of the similarities with Iberian wolf traps, and Iris Nießen, who provided me with her writings about the German medieval wolf pitfall traps.
References Äikäs, T. 2015:
From Boulders to Fells – Sacred Places in the Sámi Ritual Landscape. Monographs of the Archaeological Society of Finland 5. Helsinki.
Álvares, F. – Alonso, P. – Sierra, P. – Petrucci-Fonseca, F. 2000:
Os Fojos dos Lobos na Península Ibérica. Sua
49 spangen
Inventariação, Caracterização e Conservação, Galemys 12, 57-77.
Asbjørnsen, P.Chr. 1840:
Om Ulve- og Rævefangst: En Beskrivelse over Forskjellige Maader Hvorpaa Man i Sverige Fanger, Jager og Skyder Ulv og Ræv. Christiania.
Bergman, I – Östlund, L. – Zachrisson, O. – Liedgren, L. 2008:
Värro Muorra : The Landscape Significance of Sami Sacred Wooden Objects and Sacrificial Altars, Ethnohistory 55(1), 1_28.
Beronka, J. 1922:
Syntaktiske iagttagelser fra de finske dialekter i Vadsø og Porsanger. Videnskabsselskapets Skrifter 2, Historisk-filosofisk klasse, vol. 1921, no. 10.
Kristiania.
Binford, L. 2002:
In Pursuit of the Past. Decoding the Archaeological Record. Berkeley. University of California Press.
Brainerd, S. – Bakka, D. – Pedersen, H.Chr. 2008:
Jakt på ulv i Norge: Et informasjonshefte fra Norges Jeger- og Fiskerforbund og NINA. Oslo.
Broadbent, N.D. 2010:
Lapps and Labyrinths: Saami Prehistory, Colonization and Cultural Resilience. Washington Broman, P.G. 1842:D.C.
Anteckningar öfver Jagt och Skjutkonst. Gefle.
Edvinger, B.W. – Broadbent, N.D. 2006:
Saami circular sacrificial sites in Northern Coastal Sweden, Acta Borealia 23, 24-55.
Friis, J.A. 1871a:
Lappiske Eventyr Og Folkesagn. Christiania:
Cammermeyer.
Friis, J.A. 1871b:
En Sommer i Finmarken, Russisk Lapland og Nordkarelen: Skildringer af Land og Folk.
Christiania.
Fritzner, J. 1846:
Beskrivelse over de i Östfinmarken forekommende hedenske begravelser, tilligemed nogle efterretninger om andre i Östfinmarken og tilgrændsende egne levnede oldtidsminder, Nor 3(74), 117-32.
Hansen, L.I. 2006:
Sami Fisheries in the Pre – Modern Era: Household Sustenance and Market Relations, Acta Borealia 23(1), 56-80.
Hansen, L.I. – Olsen, B. 2014:
Hunters in Transition: An Outline of Early Sámi History. Leiden.
Hedman, S.-D. – Olsen, B. – Vretemark, M. 2015:
Hunters, herders and hearths: interpreting new results from hearth row sites in Pasvik, Arctic Norway, Rangifer 35(1), 1-24.
Henriksen, J.E. 1996:
Hellegropene. Fornminner fra en funntom periode.
Stensilserie B, Institutt for samfunnsvitenskap, University of Tromsø. Tromsø.
Henriksson, H. 1978:
Popular Hunting and Trapping in Norrland. Early Norrland 6. Stockholm.
Huggert, A. 2000:
A Church at Lyckselet and a Sacrificial Site on Altarberget ‐ the Two Worlds of the Saami, Acta Borealia 17(1), 51-75.
Itkonen, T.I. 1948:
Suomen Lappalaiset Vuoteen 1945, vol. 2. Porvoo.
Jessen-Schardebøll, E.J. 1767:
Afhandling om de norske finners og lappers hedenske religion, in: Leem, K., Beskrivelse over Finmarkens lapper. København.
Johansson, C. 1944:
Om kultplatser och heliga områden i Torne och Lule Lappmarker - allmän översikt, Svenska landsmål och svenskt folkliv 1944, 44-82.
Johnsen, O.A. 1923:
Finmarkens politiske historie. Aktmæssig fremstillet. Kristiania.
Ulvefangst i ulvestuer, Spor 2003 (2), 8-12.
Loeffler, D. 2015:
Surreptitious Sámi – Suppressive Swedes:
Maintaining Sámi Identities through the Use of Religion and Stone Circles, Arctic Anthropology 52(2), 67-80.
Magnus, O. 1976 [1555]:
Historia om de nordiska folken. Stockholm.
Manker, E. 1957:
Lapparnas heliga ställen [The holy places of the Lapps]. Acta Lapponica 13. Stockholm.
Manyuhkin, I. – Lobanova, N. 2002:
Archaeological Monuments of the Kuzova Archipelago, in: Ieško, E. – Michajlova, N. (eds.), Cultural and Natural Heritage of the White Sea Islands. Petrozavodsk, 19-31.
Mebius, H. 1968:
Värro. Studier i samernas förkristna offerriter.
Stockholm.
Mebius, H. 1972:
Sjiele. Samiska traditioner om offer. Uppsala.
Müller, D. 1999:
Der Schacht – eine frühneuzeitliche Wolfsgrube, in: Wieland, G. (ed.), Die keltischen
50 religion, cults & rituals in the medieval rural environment Viereckschanzen von Fellbach-Schmieden und
Ehningen. Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden Württemberg, Band 80.
Stuttgart, 73-84.
Nielssen, A.R. 1986:
Economic Adaptation among the Coast Sami Population in Finnmark 1700, Acta Borealia 3(1), 21-41.
Nießen, I. 2012:
Die Wolfsgrube im Naturpark Steinwald.
Archäologie, Jagdgeschichte, Waldnutzung. Wir am Steinwald. Sonderausgabe, Archäologische Reihe 1.
Pressath.
Nießen, I. 2015:
Der Wolfsgarten im Bischofsgrüner Forst:
Archäologie und Geschichte zur Wolfsjagd im Fichtelgebirge. Bischofsgrüner Schätze, Teil 10.
Bischofsgrün.
Nissen, K. 1928:
Nogen lappiske offerplasser i det indre av Finnmarken Tromsø museums skrifter 2. Tromsø, 184-87.
Nordvi, A.G. n.d.:
Om de circelrunde steenkredse ved Varangerfjorden.
Unpublished note, topographical archives, Museum of Cultural History. Oslo.
Odner, K. 1992:
The Varanger Saami. Habitation and Economy AD 1200-1900. Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning. Serie B, Skrifter, 86. Oslo.
Okkonen, J. 2007:
Archaeological investigations at the Sami sacrificial site of Ukonsaari in Lake Inari, Fennoscandia Archaeologica XXIV, 29-38.
Olsen, B. 2002:
Labyrinths of the North, in: Ieško, E. – Michajlova, N. (eds.), Cultural and Natural Heritage of the White Sea Islands. Petrozavodsk, 40-51.
Olsen, B. 2011:
A Brief Outline of the Historical Setting, in: Olsen, B. – Urbanczyk, P. – Amundsen, C. (eds), Hybrid Spaces: Medieval Finnmark and the Archaology of Multi-Room Houses. Oslo, 29-31.
Olsen, B. – Urbanczyk, P. – Amundsen, C. 2011:
Hybrid Spaces: Medieval Finnmark and the Archaeology of Multi-Room Houses. Oslo.
Pluskowski, A. 2006:
Wolves and the Wilderness in the Middle Ages.
Woodbridge.
Qvigstad, J.A. 1926:
Lappische Opfersteine und Heilige Berge in Norwegen: Zur Sprach- und Volkskunde der Norwegischen Lappen. Oslo Etnografiske Museums Skrifter 1. Oslo.
Qvigstad, J.A. 1927:
Lappiske eventyr og sagn fra Varanger. Oslo.
Rheen, S. 1983[1672]:
En Kortt Relation Om Lapparnes Lefwarne Och Sedher, Wijdskiepellsser, Sampt I Många Stycken Grofwe Wildfarellsser, Berättelser om samerna i 1600-talets Sverige, Kungl. Skytteanska Samfundets Handlingar 27. Umeå, internal pagination.
Rydving, H. 1995a:
The End of Drum-Time. Religious Change among the Lule Saami, 1670s – 1740s. Historia Religionum 12. Uppsala.
Rydving, H. 1995b:
Samisk religionshistoria. Några källkritiska problem. Uppsala.
Salmi, A.-K. 2013a:
Animal bone finds from Kautokeino Láhppojohka, Neiden Ferdesmyra, Nordland Mørsvikbotten, Holmajärvi Saivarova, Kautokeino Bæljašvarre and Lakselv Nedrevatn. Unpublished osteological report, topographical archives, Tromsø Museum, Tromsø.
Salmi, A.-K. 2013b:
Animal bone finds from the Karasjok Geaimmejávri and Storfjord Gálgojávri excavations. Unpublished osteological report, topographical archives, Tromsø Museum, Tromsø.
Salmi, A.-K. – Äikäs T. – Fjellström M. – Spangen, M.
2015:
Animal offerings at the Sámi offering site of Unna Saiva – Changing religious practices and human – animal relationships, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40, 10-22.
Saloranta, A.-M. 2011:
Tornion ja Keminmaan kulmikkaat kivikuopat.
Susikuoppia vai saamelaisten uhripaikkoja?
Unpublished master thesis, Oulu.
Saxlund, E. 1853:
Report to “Det Academiske Collegium Ved Det Kl. Frederiks Universitet.” Unpublished report, topographical archives, Museum of Cultural History, Oslo.
Schanche, A. 2000:
Graver i ur og berg. Samisk gravskikk og religion fra forhistorisk til nyere tid. Karasjok.
Schanche, A. 2004:
Horizontal and Vertical Perceptions of Saami Landscapes, in: Jones, M. – Schanche, A. (eds.), Landscape, Law and Customary Rights. Dieđut 2004(3). Kautokeino, 1-10.
Schefferus, J. 1956[1673]:
Lappland. Acta Lapponica 8. Uppsala.
Serning, I. 1956:
Lapska offerplatsfynd från järnålder och medeltid.
Acta Lapponica 11. Stockholm.
51 spangen
Spangen, M. 2013:
“It could be one thing or another” – on the construction of an archaeological category, Fennoscandia Archaeologica XXX, 67-80.
Spangen, M. 2016:
Circling Concepts. A Critical Archaeological Analysis of the Notion of Stone Circles as Sami Offering Sites. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 70. Stockholm.
Stenvik, L. 1983:
En sørsamisk offerplass ved Forolsjøen, mellom Hedmark og Sør-Trøndelag. Åarjel-saemieh/Samer i sør 1, Snåsa, 87-91.
Storm, G. 1895:
Historisk – topografiske skrifter om Norge og norske landsdele, forfattede i Norge i det 16de aarhundrede. Christiania. Brøgger.
Vorren, Ø. 1956:
Offerplass og villreinfangst, Ottar 8(1), 12-14.
Vorren, Ø. 1976:
Unpublished fieldnotes from investigating a site on
“Fuonnosnjarga” (Munkefjorden) 27 and 29 Jun 1976. Ø. Vorren Private Archive, Box 146, diary for 1975-1976, Sami ethnographic archives, Tromsø Museum, Tromsø.
Vorren, Ø. 1979:
Den samiske bosetningen i Varanger. Sør-Varangers historie 1. Kirkenes, 51-97.
Vorren, Ø. 1985:
Circular sacrificial sites and their function, in:
Bäckman, L. – Hultkrantz, Å. (eds.), Saami pre-Christian religion. Studies on the oldest traces of religion among the Saamis. Stockholm studies in comparative religion 25. Stockholm, 69-82.
Vorren, Ø. – Eriksen, H.Kr. 1993:
Samiske offerplasser i Varanger. Tromsø museums skrifter vol.24. Tromsø museum. Tromsø.
53