1800-logu oapmedoallu boares Deanu sundegottis

Book published 2003 © Mákká Regnor (Regnor Jernsletten).

English Summary: Livestock holdings in the Tana Region 1800-1875

In this book I have examined the history of livestock holdings in the Tana valley and the Tana fjord in the years from 1800 to 1875. I have also commented on the period before 1800 where I have felt it appropriate. The area of enquiry covers the present day municipalities of Tana, Gamvik and Berlevåg in Finnmark, the most northerly county in Norway. My approach has been twofold. First, I have examined the development of livestock holdings from 1800 to 1875 (Chapter 3). Second, I have sought to discover the size of the holdings held by the different ethnic groups and whether or not they were bigger in the valley or in the fjord and coastal areas (Chapter 4).

Previously it has been argued, with some justification, that livestock holdings have occupied a relatively modest position in Finnmark's economy. There are however, two points to be made on this. First, there is some debate as to just how modest that role was. Second, estimates have rarely been based upon quantitative evidence. Some commentators have used the published official statistics-available from the mid-nineteenth century-to examine the amount of meat produced by reindeer and domesticated livestock, without recognising that it is not this, but dairy products that were of the greatest importance. As for an analysis of the productivity of reindeer herding, I have decided not to waste time on it, as there are so many problems raised by the inadequate statistics. So far as livestock productivity is concerned, I have relied, for the most part on Einar-Arne Drivenes' 1975 MA thesis.

Here I approach the significance of livestock farming in Finnmark from several different perspectives. I have already mentioned the temporal, ecological and ethnic approaches. These form the foundation of the analysis. But the framework for interpretation needs to go further than this. It is not possible to examine all the circumstances of those one studies, so I have focused on just one element of Finnmark's society in my analysis of livestock production.

In the main this element is based on studies of Finnmark's Sami community. These studies involve several areas and cover the period from the eighteenth century to the 1960s. It follows that my point of departure lies within the Sami community of the area, and that I have dealt less with the outer coastal area than the fjord and valley areas.

Changes in the Economy and Settlement

In social history it is frequently the case that one looks at demographic conditions when trying to cast light on social change. Nowhere is this more appropriate than in North Norway during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The counties of Troms and Finnmark had the highest rate of population growth in the Kingdom and in the nineteenth century the growth rate was higher in Finnmark than in Troms (Balsvik and Drake 1994: 89).

The focus of the literature on demographic conditions in Finnmark has often been on in-migration as the most important reason for population growth there. But recent studies e.g. that of Henry Minde (1975) on Alta, suggest that the main reason for the increase was an excess of births over deaths. Some sample studies in Vadsø in the early nineteenth century suggest the same was the case there, whilst in the Tana fjord, in-migration, did not become the prime cause of population growth until after 1860.

Norwegian populations statistics became more comprehensive in the mid-nineteenth century and these show that for Finnmark as a whole it was from around the 1830s to the 1870s that in-migration was greater than natural increase (births minus deaths). Before 1850 most migrants went to Western Finnmark, after that the main flow was to Eastern Finnmark.

The household became more important as an economic unit amongst the Sami as a result of changes in the seventeenth century. Within the household the various tasks were allocated to men or women, young or old. In general women's work took place in or near the home, whilst that of men lay far from it. Men too took on the heaviest work. In nineteenth century Finnmark, women worked in the home and were responsible for the domestic animals. Men, on the other hand, took part in the seasonal fisheries, snared animals, fished in mountain waters etc.

The system was flexible and was thus in a position to meet changing circumstances in the course of the nineteenth century. The changes principally concerned an upswing in the fisheries and better sales opportunities eastwards to Russia via the White Sea. The eastern trade developed rapidly in the nineteenth century after the Russians got permission to trade in kind with the general public in Norway after 1796. In the course of the nineteenth century the period for which this trade was allowed, increased from one to three and a half months a year.

Trade with merchants from the White Sea was important because it opened a steady market for relatively large amounts of fish in the summer months. Such fish had rarely found a market earlier because of the problem of preserving it.

The population of Finnmark exchanged fish for a variety of products, amongst which was rye. This was consumed by both humans and animals. So far as the latter were concerned it supplemented other foodstuffs from the fjord and the uncultivated areas.

This helps explain why the greatest livestock holdings were to be found not in the interior but alongside Finnmark's fjords. Here male involvement in the fisheries had a knock-on effect on livestock farming in that the fish contributed to animal feed both in the form of rye and fish waste. Even from parts of Finland, namely Inari and Utsjoki, it was usual for at least one member of each household to travel to the fjords of Finnmark in the summer months. It is said that they returned with money in their pockets and a load of Russian grain and dried fish heads for the animals.

Livestock Numbers 1700-1875

In Chapter 3 I attempt to describe the development in livestock holdings in the nineteenth century using quantitative methods. If one compares the situations around 1700 and 1800, on the basis of what has been written about Alta (in westernmost Finnmark) and Vadsø (in easternmost Finnmark), it is apparent that the growth in the number of animals barely kept pace with population growth. At best numbers remained about the same in 1800 as they were in 1700 (Kolsrud 1955: 145; Nielssen 1984, 1986a; Niemi 1981).

Probate Data

As there is no official data on livestock numbers prior to the population census of 1835, I have drawn on the inventories of deceased persons in the records of probate to get at them. Researchers have great faith in this source. See, for example, the so-called `potato debate' in the Norwegian Historisk Tidsskrift 1975-1978, especially Hovland's contribution (1978). However, in North Norway doubts have been expressed as to whether or not the probate data gives a complete account of all that the deceased left (Borgos 1988, Hutchinson 1992).

I have, therefore, examined the inventories in the records of probate for three periods in the first half of the nineteenth century. As the quality of the material in these records can vary somewehat I have, in addition, looked for the documents produced when the estate was first registered. This is a demanding exercise as such documents are mixed with others. I have, therefore, limited my work on them to the period 1844-1852. I have also compared the probate data for the period 1844-1850 with that in the population census of 1845, this being the first census earlier writers have been willing to give some credence to so far as livestock numbers are concerned. It is generally agreed that the totals in the census of 1835 are too low.

The result of this comparison suggests that the probate data in the 1840s produces a far lower total of animals than did the census of 1845. Depending on one's choice of inventory, and whether or not one uses the probate inventories or the inventories drawn up when the estate was registered, the under-registration amounts to between 32 and 64 per cent of the 7.4 livestock units ¹.

The probate data is so small around 1800 and the 1820s that it is difficult to say much about livestock numbers. The average number of livestock units seems to have been under 2 per household.

Nevertheless the probate data allows us to draw one conclusion: the number of animals must have been rising in the decade before 1845. This accords with the rising tendency apparent from the population censuses and, if we are to take the probate inventories seriously, there must also have been a rise in the amount of livestock between 1800 and the 1840s. However as the probate inventories from the first half of the nineteenth century are clearly not an entirely reliable source, I have looked for other indices of the growth in the number of animals. Later in the chapter I return to what lies behind a possible under-registration of possessions in the estates of the deceased.

Tax Rolls

In the counties to the south of Finnmark one has access to tax rolls and other sources that provide information on the amount of seed sown and the number of domestic animals on each individual farm. Land was not registered in Finnmark until 1775 when one got the first formal recognition of the private ownership of land. The first land surveys in the research area took place in 1803 on the west side of the mouth of the Tana fjord. Property No. 10 was surveyed in 1815 in Sirbmá up in the Tana valley. By the mid 1820s some 30 properties had been surveyed in my research area.

The vast majority chose, however, to register the deeds of their properties with the county authorities. So that within this same period well over 40 properties were registered in this way. This applied not only to landed property but also to salmon fishing sites in the Tana river. In one instance a deed was registered on a `seal-shoot'. There are, besides, cases where people have announced at the local assembly that they intended to lay traps for foxes and otters in particular places.

The reason why registration with the county authorities rather than the more formal registration with the central authorities was preferred, could have been because in the early years it took a long time for the latter to be ratified by the government. Because the population was so mobile, it occurred, not infrequently, that by the time a deed had been registered with the central authorities (skjøte), the owner had moved on. One of the county governors, it is unclear which one, found it expedient to issue locally registered deeds (amtsseddel) as evidence of the right to use a particular piece of land. Such deeds gave just as much security of tenure as the centrally registered ones. Besides which, one avoided paying the land tax (Tønnesen 1972: 151; Sandvik 1993).

When a deed was registered locally, the land was surveyed, but no tax assessment was made. That only occurred with the centrally registered deeds. The basis of the tax assessment was, in theory, the number of cattle, goats and sheep for which winter feed could be obtained from the surveyed land. A cow was reckoned to be the equivalent of eight sheep. In the Land Survey Decree of 1775, it was stipulated that four cows gave a reasonable livelihood for one holding. Very few holdings, however, had so much surveyed land as to support four cows.

I have collected information on the surveying of land in the legal records from 1798 to 1830 and from the record of mortgages for the period from 1829 to 1843. In this way I have been able to compare 13 surveys in Vestertana with 78 surveys carried out in Varanger and Tana between 1830 and 1837. The results are shown in Table .

In 1815 the median value of the property valuation for tax purposes was 2.5 cows. In the period 1830-1837 it was 3 cows. The difference between the two periods is statistically significant (Wilcox, a £  0.05).

But what is the cause of the difference between the two periods? Initially I sought to produce indices of changes in the size of livestock holdings. But a number of factors rendered the comparison problematic.

1. My data came from two unequal areas, with quite different property structures. In Vestertana it was usual for each owner to have `surveyed' far more meadows in the out-fields than in Varanger around 1830. In the Tana valley too, in the 1830s, few meadows were surveyed in the out-fields in addition to the land around the farmstead.

2. It is also doubtful if the property valuation per registered holding reflected the owner's actual livestock as the fields around the farm were not the only source of feed for the animals. People collected supplementary fodder in the form of seaweed, fish waste, Russian grain etc. Access to fodder was, therefore, especially good in the fjord area.

For the period before 1875 there is no easily accessible source to make possible a comparison with the property valuation for tax purposes. In 1884, however, a new land register for the Tana sorenskriveri (an area presided over by a sorenskriver or stipendary magistrate) was produced. The sorenskriveri embraced Karasjok, Polmak, Lebesby, Gamvik, Berlevåg and Nesseby municipalities. I have compared the tax data-it is given for each individual property-with the livestock holdings to be found in the 1875 population censuses for the inner Tanafjord and Polmak i.e. up in the Tana valley.

The census gives the total number of horses, oxen, cows, sheep, goats and reindeer for each household, but the land register, in theory, gives the output reckoned as how many cows and sheep could be fed throughout the winter on the foodstuff produced by each individual piece of surveyed land. Because people, in addition to fields around the farmstead also had supplementary surveyed land and outlying meadows, it is necessary to amalgamate all the tax data for all pieces of land an owner possessed, according to the 1884 tax roll, in order to get comparable data. The result of the comparison is shown in Table 2.

In Polmak there are 30 households to be found in both the land register and the census. And in the inner fjord there are 59. The census shows that the average number of livestock was almost identical in Polmak and the inner Tana fjord, at 6.67 and 6.5 livestock units. The land register, however, gives an entirely different result. In Polmak the tax figure is 3 cows as against 6.67 livestock units in the census, whereas in the inner fjord the figures are respectively 1 cow and 6.5 livestock units.

There is, in other words, a sizeable difference between Polmak and the inner fjord if the land register is to be believed, whereas the census suggest the average livestock holding was approximately the same in the two areas.

Conclusion

The probate inventories do not tell us, with any degree of certainty, what the chronology of growth in livestock per household was between 1700 and 1835. The number of livestock was much higher in 1835 than in 1700 but when the greatest growth occurred it is impossible to say from the probate inventories. It is possible that the increase came after 1800. The censuses show that the average number of livestock rose until 1845 and fell subsequently. I shall return later to developments after 1835.

There was a rise in the assessments of taxable property between 1815 and the 1830s. But this material contains so many doubtful elements that here too it is difficult to draw any reliable conclusions. The fact that the measurements for tax purposes did not commence until after 1800 in the study area suggests that we should be careful in the use of this source.

The comparison of the land register of 1884 with the census of 1875 indicates that conditions for livestock were not the same in the Tana valley (Polmak) and the inner Tana fjord. The census shows there was little difference in the average livestock holding between the interior and the fjord, whilst the tax roll shows numbers were far lower in the latter than in the former. This can, of course, be put down to the fact that the land register is in general a poor source, as far as livestock holdings are concerned. But the difference could be due to the fact that households in the inner fjord area were less dependent on hay, than those in Polmak. They could exploit other types of feed-seaweed, fish waste, Russian grain etc-to a greater extent than households in the Tana valley.

Jacob Fellman And Livestock Holdings In the Tana valley

One can nonetheless compare what the probate inventories and the property valuation for tax purposes tell us with what Jacob Fellman, who was the priest of Utsjoki on the Finnish side of the Tana river in the 1820s, reports on economic conditions in the upper reaches of the Tana valley. He focuses on two aspects:

According to Fellman more attention was paid to the utilisation of meadow land in the 1800s than had been the case previously. For instance the use of manure became more common and the number of livestock increased. A form of transhumance began so that hay in the winter homesteads was saved. Fellman believed that livestock numbers increased around 1800 and especially so after the copper works in Kåfjord in Alta, West Finnmark, came into operation in 1826. This resulted in a rising demand for butter with a consequent increase in its price. The same was felt in East Finnmark. The butter trade from Finland via Kautokeino to the market at Bossekop was not, then, simply to meet the need for butter in the Alta area.

Overall Assessment

Developments in livestock numbers, according to the various sources (probate inventories, tax data and censuses) are represented in graphic form in Figure  on p. . Even though, it is not possible, from this quantitative analysis, to say precisely when the rise in the average household's livestock numbers occurred, it is nevertheless clear that numbers rose in the course of the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth. I am assuming that Alf Ragnar Nielssen's estimates of the number of livestock around 1700 is more or less accurate (Nielssen 1984, 1986a). But as these estimates are based on probate inventories, they too are uncertain.

We can, at any rate, use the total of animals provided by the probate inventories as a minimum figure. So for Porsanger, Laksefjord and Tana, ca. 1700, we have 2.3 livestock units. Between 1800 and 1830 the lower limit for Berlevåg, Gamvik and Tana was just under 2 livestock units. Probate inventories from the 1840s suggest an increase to 2.7 livestock units per household (the lowest of the two values ca. 1845 in Figure ) which was, therefore, only 15 per cent higher than around 1700.

It is not, therefore possible, on the basis of quantitative analysis, to time the rise in the number of livestock any more precisely than this. If we turn to qualitative evidence, there are two periods during which an increased emphasis on livestock farming seems to have occurred. From what Fellman tells us, it seems that the Sami in Utsjoki paid more attention to the use of meadow-land and to an increase in the number of livestock around 1800 and the years following. Next, we have the rise in demand for butter from workers at the copper mines in Kåfjord (Alta) when it came into production in 1826. But the usual number of animals, which, according to Fellman, was 2-3 cows and some sheep, is still less than half of that the census of 1845 gives for the Tana valley. Fellman's estimate does, however, match that provided by Alf Ragnar Nielssen for Porsanger, Laksefjord and Tana around 1700.

It would seem, then, that much of the increase in livestock, actually took place in the first half of the nineteenth century. In addition to the two explanations Fellman offers us, there are two other factors which suggest themselves and both have to do with developments in the fisheries. The barter trade between the general public and Russian traders from the White Sea area in the summer half-year created both new markets for fish and brought large quantities of rye to Finnmark. Rye was, as noted earlier, also used as animal fodder. From 1840 the bounty of nature led to quite outstanding catches of cod in the Spring months. This was reflected in the population statistics by a growth in Norwegian in-migration, whilst the livestock statistics indicate that the highest numbers of livestock in Finnmark were to be found in the fjord and coastal townships. The fisheries also had a knock-on effect which led to a reorganisation of work practices within the household.

The Transfer Of Assets Between The Generations

As the probate inventories in Tana in the 1840s show, in part, a far lower level of livestock holdings than the census of 1845, one is bound to seek out the possible cause. From two enquiries, namely one on Salten fogderi (bailiwick) (Hutchinson 1992) and one on Vesterålen fogderi-both areas are in Nordland county-one begins to get an understanding of just what kind of inheritance customs may have been followed amongst the Norwegian population of Finnmark in the nineteenth century. This is important as a large proportion of the population were either in-migrants or the descendents of in-migrants from the counties of Nordland and Troms. So far as the Sami population are concerned one can seek for clues in the ethnographic and legal literature. As regards the latter, I have relied heavily on Erik Solem's Lappiske rettsstudier (Studies in Lapp law) which was published in 1933. Solem is mostly concerned with the Sami reindeer herders, so I have had to draw on other literature to form a picture of the inheritance customs of those Sami who lived alongside the rivers or on the coast.

Inheritance amongst Norwegians

A central feature of Norwegian family law in the nineteenth century was the common ownership of property by married couples. From an inheritance point of view, the consequence of this was that a deceased's estate was, in principle, divided equally between the surviving spouse and other heirs. A son, however, inherited double what a daughter did.

What Hutchinson and Borgos believe they can show is that there existed customary arrangements whereby a widow (but not a widower) was able to take out, in advance, the value of a cow, and possibly also bed-clothes and other items. The background for such arrangements may have been that if a widow was unable to look after herself and any dependents she may have had, she would have to be supported by the community via the poor law. It was, therefore, more expedient to allow the widow to take more of the total inheritance so she could support herself.

Hutchinson also points out that items of low value were often left out of the inventory. This applied to wooden items and other things that people usually made themselves, and which, therefore, had no commercial value. More interesting in the context of our discussion is that young animals (lambs, kids and calves) had a tendency to be omitted from the inventories. However young animals over a year old were included more often (Hutchinson 1992: 211). My data from the eastern part of the county of Finnmark in the period 1844-1852, lists 16 young animals in a total of 76 inventories, which suggest a degree of under-registration.

Sami Families and Inheritance

In contrast to the situation amongst Norwegians it is believed that the general rule for the Sami in Finnmark was that marriage partners had separate estates. This continues to this day (Johnsen 1997).

In addition children had the right to gifts they received at birth, baptism or later. Amongst the Sami reindeer herders this meant that a child could build up its own flock of reindeer from gifts of reindeer and from their offspring. These would then be branded with the child's own earmark.

The Lapp Codicil of 1751 decreed that those Sami who herded their reindeer too and fro across the Norwegian/Swedish border themselves, could partition an inheritance at the so-called Lapp courts. Only if agreement could not be reached was the partition of an inheritance to take place in the ordinary assembly (ting) of the country to which the participants belonged. This rule also applied to the Sami in Finnmark who migrated seasonally across what is today the Norwegian/Finnish frontier. This decree of 1751 could have been in operation for a good part of the nineteenth century. It would also have had some importance for the Sami who lived along the rivers and on the coast. For if these had reindeer that were being taken care of by the Sami reindeer herders it would have been easy to hide this from the authorities when an inheritance was being allocated. This will not, however, upset my investigation, as I do not include reindeer held by the settled population.

Gifts associated with courtships and marriage (dowries) were also relevant to the settlement of an inheritance. Amongst both Norwegians and Sami there was an evenhandedness in that both the bride and the groom received presents from their respective parents. The gifts were intended to help a couple establish a viable household. The gifts the bride got from her parents (dowry) were also to be a form of protection in case she be left a widow. The custom amongst the Sami was that the girls also received some quite valuable gifts when they became engaged. Such gifts were unusual amongst the Norwegian population of North Norway (Hutchinson 1992: 230, 274).

It was not unusual for an advance payment on an inheritance to be made when a child set up home e.g. in the form of a parcel of land being taken out of the parents' small holding or by a gift of reindeer at marriage. In that case the advance payment would be offset when the inheritance was shared out so that all children were treated equally.

In a famous case in Utsjoki on the Finnish side of the Tana river in 1733, many of these practices were in evidence (I. Fellman III pp. 109-113). The matter was brought before the local assembly by a woman who had been widowed for the second time and who asked the court to assist her in sharing out the inheritance between the children she had had by her second husband and his children from his first marriage. Here were mentioned gifts received on the morning after the wedding from both men (no values were put on these gifts) and a will issued by her last husband. The will was a relatively new institution in Swedish law, dating from 1686 (Korpijaakko-Labba 1994: 289-291).

The court ordered the widow to give a dowry to her unmarried children that corresponded in value to what the older children had got when they married. What is of interest here is that she had to promise to give each of her unmarried daughters a gilded silver belt, whilst it was sufficient to give her son a silver belt that was not gilded. Here it is abundantly clear that, regard was being taken of women's economic security. To accumulate property in the form of gold and silver belts was common among the Sami at that time. The widow had also bought for cash a silver belt from her husband, an indication, it is thought, that the couple had separate estates in their marriage (I. Fellman III, p. LXVIII).

I believe the case is a typical example of Sami inheritance law in northern Finland and Finnmark at that time. We have, however, little explicit information from the coastal Sami areas in the nineteenth century. Anders Larsen, a teacher and Sami politician at the beginning of the twentieth century, tells us that in North Troms and West Finnmark a girl received a cow and some sheep from her mother as a dowry, whilst a boy got fishing tackle from his father and even a boat if he could afford it. Larsen tells us nothing about the sharing out of an inheritance. Robert Paine (1965: 46-48) describes a process where in Revsbotn in Måsøy township, one began to put more effort into cultivating the land in the 1920s. When land was to be inherited in the 1950s, problems arose because the Coast Sami had no rules they could fall back on. True, it was the case then, as now, that the youngest child took over the parents' land and farmstead in return for looking after them for the rest of their lives. But where older children had invested in the small holding such an arrangement was considered unjust. Such matters have also been current in the 1990s.

From the Tana probate material it is not possible to identify either dowries, separate estates within marriage, or whether children took out gifts before the inheritance was processed. The settlement of estates seems to have been carried out according to Norwegian law: widows got half the estate and a son's share was double that of a daughter's.

The legal aid office in Inner Finnmark has documents which show a clear continuity in legal processes from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to the present day (Johnsen 1997, Nikolaisen 1999, Riekteveahkkekantuvra Sîs-Finnmarku, jagi haga). But the documents do not tell us whether, over the years, different legal processes have evolved between, for example, the reindeer herding Sami and the river- and Coast Sami as a result of occupational or economic changes.

My literature search has provided little information as to the legal or economic relations on inheritance or marriage in the nineteenth century. Knud Leem notes that in Porsanger in the 1720s and 1730s, a widow had the right to take out her dowry and a child could build up assets which would not be included in a deceased's estate before an inheritance was settled. A single source, Anders Larsen (1979), discusses dowries amongst the Coast Sami in the 1900s.

From these scanty pieces of information together with what Solem and others have written on the reindeer herding Sami, the situation in the 1800s seems to have been that so far as livestock was concerned, a widow could take out in advance the value of one cow as well as that part of the household's total assets which was made up of her separate estate. Reindeer that were owned by Coast or River Sami but were being cared for by reindeer herding Sami, may have been omitted, as the Lapp Codicil's resolution that the reindeer holding Sami alone, without official supervision, could process an inheritance in the Lapp Court.

In order to test statistically whether a widow took out her dowry in advance of an estate being settled I have chosen estates with cattle and where a marriage partner was alive. As taking out a widow's dowry in advance would only affect the estate of a deceased husband, such an estate should have fewer cattle than when the deceased was a woman. It is not possible to distinguish between Norwegian and Sami estates. The test results are shown in Table .

The table shows clear differences. Estates of deceased men had quite clearly fewer domestic animals than estates of deceased women. But the difference is not statistically significant (Wilcox, 0.05). I therefore leave it to others to pursue the assertion further on the basis of a larger and better body of evidence than I have been able to muster. But the results of the test, and what we now believe we know of the rules of inheritance based on custom, ought, at the very least to open up the possibility that some livestock were actually kept out of the official administration of an estate.

The Structure Of Livestock Holdings 1835-1875

In Chapter  our main approach has been tied to (1) changes in the extent of livestock holdings between 1835 and 1875; (2) whether or not there was a difference in such holdings between Norwegians, Kven (the Finnish-speaking minority in North Norway) and Sami; and (3) whether there were geographical differences in the livestock holdings within the study area.

The analysis is based primarily on the population censuses of 1835 to 1875. These were censuses of both agriculture and population. Norwegian agrarian historians have come to the conclusion that so far as livestock holdings are concerned in both 1835 and 1845, the totals are too low, whilst those from 1855 are thought to be more accurate (Lunden 1975, Hovland 1978). The entries in the land register and, more importantly, the papers related to the administration of a deceased's estate, have been used to check the census data on livestock holdings. I have already shown that a comparison between the totals of animals in the estate material from the 1840s and the 1845 census data in my area of research, suggest that the former is not a reliable source of the size of livestock holdings.

As noted above there is doubt as to whether all livestock appeared in the censuses prior to 1855. So far as Finnmark is concerned an attempt has been made to assess the reliability of the censuses in the matter of livestock holdings. A private census taken in Vadsø in 1822 suggests that the 1835 census under-reported livestock holdings by as much as a third. ²

I have not been able to find the precise instructions to enumerators for the 1845 and 1855 censuses, but in 1835, they were told not to count young animals and in 1865 young and adult animals were counted together. I have assumed, therefore, that in 1835 young animals were not included. Furthermore I have assumed that the 1845 and 1855 censuses were conducted in the same way as that of 1865. I believe the 1875 census is the most reliable of all the censuses I have used. Here foals and calves are enumerated separately from adult animals, whilst young and older animals are counted together in the case of sheep, goats and reindeer.

On these assumptions, the margin of error in the censuses extend in two directions. That of 1835 under-reports livestock holdings, whilst from 1845 to 1865 such holdings are exaggerated, as foals, calves and heifers appear as adult animals. The same applies, although to a lesser extent, in the case of the 1875 census.

To get an idea of how great the sources diverge from reality in the individual censuses I have used the age structure of the animals in 1875 and calculated the livestock units in the censuses of 1835 to 1875. This reduces the total numbers of livestock reckoned in livestock units by some 13-14 per cent for the censuses carried out between 1845 and 1865, whilst the figure for 1835 rises by 28 per cent. See Table 4.

I have then produced a rough sketch of the development of livestock numbers based upon the figures taken from the censuses. Then, on the basis of the corrected livestock estimates, I have conducted an analysis of the livestock holdings by ethnicity and geography. Developments between 1700 and 1875 have already been discussed above. But it is necessary to say something about my handling of the data before I sum up the results as regards the ethnic and geographical distribution of livestock.

In what has been preserved of the census data prior to 1865, we do not have information at the household level, only at that of the neighbourhood and township. This means that we cannot distinguish between households with and without livestock. For 1835 and 1845 the largest units include 28 and 14 households respectively. The total number of units was 34 and 73 respectively. For 1855 the reporting was simplified drastically so that it is only possible to get an idea of the ethnic distribution, whilst it is impossible to reconstruct the geographic. It seems, therefore, that there is no point in testing for statistical significance any differences in livestock holdings between population groups before 1865. What emerges is purely descriptive.

A more thorough analysis is possible from 1865 as the livestock data is to be found at the household level and one has access to information on everyone in the household. The 1890 census does not yet exist in an electronic form and has, therefore, not been utilized. The 1900 census tells us only whether a household had or had not cows, sheep, goats etc but not how many of each kind. In that I am interested in the importance of livestock for those households that had them, I go as far as I can in reporting on these.

Geographic And Ethnic Distribution

The results are represented in graphic form in Figure  p.  and Figure  p. . For the entire period 1835-1875 the inner Tanafjord had the largest number of animals and the coastal areas (the present day townships of Berlevåg and Gamvik) the least-with one exception. In 1845 the coastal areas had slightly more livestock than the Tana valley.

Apart from in 1855, the Sami had the largest number of animals in the research area as a whole. In all the years for which we have data there was an insignificant difference between the livestock held by the Kven and the other ethnic groups. Admittedly the Kven had more animals than anyone in 1855, but there were then only six Kven households. Norwegian households had more livestock than the Kven in 1845 and 1855. In 1875 Norwegians had fewer livestock than either the Kven or the Sami.

The Sami, then, generally had the largest number of livestock and geographically this was the case too in the Tana valley.

And Finnmark?

The population of the Tana fjord had a greater opportunity than the population in the Tana valley to benefit from supplementary feedstuffs from the sea and from a barter trade with Russian traders from the White Sea. The development of a money based economy along the coast led more and more households there to give up holding livestock. In 1865 we find most of the households without livestock in the lower parts of the Tana valley, and in Gamvik. In Berlevåg in 1865 there were three such households. By 1875 there were 22. This was twice as many as in Gamvik at the same date.

Of necessity, the smallest number of animals in Finnmark as a whole was not on the coast. Måsøy, Loppa and Øksfjord, Hasvik and Nordkapp had in 1875 more livestock than the average for Finnmark of 690 livestock units per 1000 inhabitants. They were all coastal municipalities. The towns of Vardø and Vadsø, together with their rural districts were among the four areas with the lowest number of animals. The two others were the reindeer herding Sami inland townships of Karasjok and Kautokeino. The relationship between the number of cows and sheep varied. Whilst in Måsøy there were 6.4 sheep per cow and in Nordkapp 3.4, in Laksefjord there were only 2.8. For Finnmark as a whole the average number of sheep and goats per cow was 2.7. In my research area there were 2.4 sheep per cow, with a total of 867 livestock units per 1000 population.

The picture I painted in Chapter  of developments in the fjord areas of Finnmark, is largely based on the standard works on Sami society in Finnmark as a whole (Falkenberg 1941; Kolsrud 1955, 1961; Paine 1957, 1965). All these deal with areas that had higher numbers of livestock than the average for Finnmark in the 1860s and 1870s. In Alta too one finds a similar pattern: a large number of animals in the outer fjord areas and a somewhat smaller number in the upper reaches of the Alta fjord.

Where there were more sheep and goats relative to cattle, there was often lower productivity than when the reverse was the case. In Tana productivity was the same as or lower than in Alta. It is true that there were greater numbers of livestock, measured in livestock units in Tana, but a smaller proportion were milking animals. The numbers of sheep and goats fell somewhat between 1835 and 1865, but then rose to 1875. This meant that productivity increased towards 1865. Productivity per animal was higher in the Tana valley than in the Tana fjord and on the coast. So far as the distribution of livestock amongst the ethnic groups is concerned, the picture is somewhat unclear. What can be said with some certainty, however, is that the Sami held relatively more sheep than cows, so that productivity was probably lower than amongst the other ethnic groups. In particular the Kven had more cattle relative to sheep and goats.

Even though the Alta district is reckoned to have the best conditions for agriculture in Finnmark, Drivenes (1975) found that arable and pastoral farming covered only one third of the area's needs. Milk products covered 15-20 per cent; 1-5 per cent came from meat and such, whilst the rest came from the cultivation of grains and potatoes. There was little potato cultivation in Tana. Even though numbers of livestock were greater in Tana than in Alta, productivity was lower.

If roughly speaking, one estimates that the population of Tana must fetch more than three-quarters of its foodstuff requirements from other than livestock, it would seem to have come, for the most part, from barter trade with Russian merchants in the summer and the proceeds of the cod fisheries in the spring. At the same time this underlines the significance of the fact that the households of the Finnmark fjords exploited a wide range of resources, with multiple occupations, in order to make a living.

When the barter trade between the general public and the Russians was permitted in 1796, the way was opened for an increase in trading contacts with the White Sea. From 1840 the spring cod fisheries strengthened trade links with the south of Norway. At the same time there was an increase in in-migration from the south. In the 1860s there were clear signs that a money based economy had established itself, especially along the coast. More and more households in Berlevåg and Gamvik were able to manage without cows and sheep and had occupations in trade, handicraft and fishing. And the total number of public officials rose too.

Footnotes:

¹ The livestock unit in this work is that which was the norm in Norway's official statistics from the mid-nineteenth century, namely 1 cow = 6 sheep/goats = 2 pigs. Horses and reindeer are not included as the focus of this book is on the significance of other livestock in the area.

² I have compared the 1835 census in Vadsø with totals from the private census given by Niemi 1983: 503f