Beyond the few surviving drums themselves, there are no truly primary sources to the worldview they represent. Some of the sources included here paraphrase explanations made by their original owners and users, but this testimony is heavily compromised by the way it has been collected and contextualised. Largely, the sources must be regarded as secondary, although with tertiary elements as well as that kind of primary ones.
The oldest
known description of a Sámi drum and its use is found in the late
twelfth century chronicle Ystoria Norwagensium.
The first published account of a Sámi drum ceremony, from Olaus
Magnus’ 1555 work Historia de Gentibus
Septentrionalibus.
The first
published account of Sámi rituals explicitly mentioning drums, from
Caspar Peucer’s enlarged edition from 1560 of his work Commentarius de praecipuis divinationum generibus. ⚠ unfinished
The first
account of a Sámi drum ceremony in a modern Scandinavian language was
written by Peder Claussøn Friis c. 1613 and published in 1632 as Norriges Oc Omliggende Øers sandfærdige Bescriffuelse.
⚠ unfinished
Drawing
and explanation of Anders Huitlok’s Pite Sámi drum from c. 1645; the
oldest known interpretation of a drum of which a drawing is
preserved.
Drawing and
description of an extant Ume Sámi drum and an account of its oracular
use by Ole Worm, published posthumously in 1655 as Museum
Wormianum.
Description
and interpretation of a lost Lule Sámi drum recorded by Samuel Rheen in
1671, including an account of several different uses of the drum.
Drawing and interpretation of Anund Eriksson’s Pite Sámi drum,
now lost, in Johannes Schefferus’ Lapponia from 1673.
Drawing and interpretation of a Pite or Lule Sámi drum, later
lost, in Lapponia.
Interpretation attributed to Olaus Stephani Graan, written c.
1688 directly on a still extant South Sámi drum.
Anders Pålsson’s forced testimony regarding his own North Sámi
drum, confiscated in 1691 and still extant.
Drawing
and explanation of an Ume Sámi drum made c. 1712, based on the
testimony of its maker and owner Jon Lassen and Sjur Larsen who drew the
symbols; recorded in the so-called Nærøy manuscript from 1723.
Anders
Nilsson Pont’s Ume Sámi drum, confiscated 1723, once owned by Linné and
still extant; with interpretations by Arved Thuresson Bistock and
Zacharias Plantin from 1731. ⚠ empty
Bendik Andersen Frøyningsfjell’s South Sámi drum, inherited
through four generations, confiscated c. 1725 and still extant; with an
explanation given by the owner and Jon Torchelsen Fiplings-Skov.
A
description of Sámi drums in general from the 1720s, probably by Jens
Kildal and mainly based on South Sámi material ⚠ unfinished
Drawing
and interpretation of a lost South Sámi drum by Hans Skanke around
1731.
Description and interpretation of a lost Lule Sámi drum by Peter
Schnitler around 1745.
I have also transcribed and in places annotated some chapters of The History of Lapland, the 1674 English translation of Lapponia by Johannes Schefferus; including the chapter Of the magicall Ceremonies of the Laplanders dealing with the Sámi drums.
Historically, any treatment of the sources have focussed more on the identity and viewpoint of the people who confiscated the drums or wrote about them with little understanding and less sympathy, than on the makers, owners and users of the drums, even where they are mentioned. To the extent it is possible, I deliberately try to reverse this in my treatment, both out of respect and in order to peel away a layer of unnecessary obfuscation.
I aim at including all relevant material from each source, striking a balance between including irrelevant surrounding material and excerpting so narrowly as to separate the material from valuable context. Images in the sources are given particular scrutiny, and I typically put a lot of work into cleaning up images to best represent their original state or intent. Frequently, elements are isolated from a larger whole, or extraneous material cluttering up the pertinent parts are removed or coloured for greater clarity. Such changes are generally described in the caption. The same is the case in the instances where composite images are created in accordance with the description in the text.
For the original texts, I prefer to present them as close to the original as possible, without simply presenting a facsimile. That means that when I have access to the original manuscripts, I provide an unusually «narrow» transcription, preserving variant letterforms that are usually normalised. While this may make the text harder to read for a modern audience, I hope this is offset by the way it facilitates easier comparison with the originals, something which can otherwise be daunting. Where those are not available, I have to rely on previously published normalising transcriptions, resulting in some arbitrary variation in style.
Similarly, my translations are more literal than the normal ideal of presenting the content as transparently and naturally as possible. This too is deliberate, prioritising the direct relationship with the source text over an easily digestible coherent text, in order to avoid the risk of presenting a plausible interpretation as actual source material. On the other hand, they are more than a simple «interlinear glossary», and are meant to provide a fair representation of the content and style of the originals. Idiomatic translations are of course used when that is the most direct and economical way of expressing the equivalent sense, or a more literal translation would introduce ambiguity not present in the original.