Introduction
In 2018, a book about Arctic indigenous people’s food systems won the prestigious main prize—Best Food Book in the World—at the Gourmand World Cookbook Awards, the “Oscars of the cookbook.” This prizewinning food book (Eallu), an official Arctic Council report, presenting the first overview of the Arctic culinary world, argues that traditional knowledge of food production remains essential for sustainability in the Arctic regions today. However, the skills and knowledge associated with these Arctic traditional food systems have thus far been poorly documented. The smoking of reindeer meat is one traditional practice presented in Eallu (Buljo et al., Reference Buljo, Dubovtsev, Sara, Eira, Fefelova, Krarup Hansen, Krasavin, Smuk, Turi, Riddervold, Burgess, Antipina, Avelova, Chernyshova, Degteva, Dubovtsev, Dondov, Gerasimova, Mathiesen, Oskal and Pogodaev2018).
Worldwide smoking of food is one of the oldest food conservation techniques, still performed by Sámi reindeer herders (Riddervold & Ropeid, Reference Riddervold and Ropeid1988) (see Fig. 1). Sámi reindeer husbandry takes place in Sápmi, in the northern part of Norway, Sweden, and Finland, and in western Russia. In the Arctic, reindeer herding is a livelihood among more than 24 different indigenous peoples. This form of pastoralism has been practised for 1200 to 2000 years or more (Hansen & Olsen, Reference Hansen and Olsen2004). Traditional practices lasting for thousands of years are important for maintaining cultural identities and social relationships (Nuttal et al., Reference Nuttal, Berkes, Forbes, Kofinas, Vlassova and Wenzel2005), and the daily use of meat and other reindeer products is important for the reindeer herding economy (Mathiesen, Gerasimova, Gashillova, & Charnyshiva, Reference Mathiesen, Gerasimova, Gashillova and Charnyshiva2018).
reindeer herder smoking reindeer meat in a traditional Sámi tent–the lávvu. Photo by Kia Krarup Hansen.
However, in Norway, for example, current management models and governance of reindeer husbandry have built-in barriers to incorporating traditional knowledge in local-level policy implementation (Eira, Oskal, Hanssen-Bauer, & Mathiesen, Reference Eira, Oskal, Hanssen-Bauer and Mathiesen2018; Turi & Keskitalo, Reference Turi and Keskitalo2014). Indeed, the management model for Sámi reindeer herding, implemented by the Norwegian government in the 1970s, is primarily based on scientific, not traditional, knowledge (Johnsen & Benjaminsen, Reference Johnsen and Benjaminsen2017). This model is a direct consequence of a “rationalisation” programme for transforming Sámi reindeer husbandry to an economically efficient and environmentally sustainable industry, through optimised meat production (Paine, Reference Paine1994). Traditional knowledge has thus been de-prioritised in favour of scientific knowledge in reindeer husbandry policy implementation (Turi & Keskitalo, Reference Turi and Keskitalo2014). Whether this de-prioritisation of traditional knowledge also applies to studies on reindeer herders’ and Arctic indigenous peoples’ food remains under-investigated.
Using a literature review, we explore the knowledge status of smoked and smoking reindeer meat. We analyse the disciplines, methods, and knowledge used in various types of scientific and grey literature and ask to what degree traditional knowledge is included. Then, we discuss the possible consequences of not including this kind of knowledge. Because important information may be lost if essential knowledge is excluded, we finally argue for the necessity of including traditional knowledge in future studies of traditional practices.
Two ways of knowing
Within studies of reindeer husbandry, many researchers have debated about and distinguished between scientific and traditional knowledge (Eira et al., Reference Eira, Jaedicke, Magga, Maynard, Vikhamar-Schuler and Mathiesen2013; Johnsen, Reference Johnsen2018; Johnsen, Mathiesen, & Eira, Reference Johnsen, Mathiesen and Eira2017; Sara, Reference Sara2009; Turi & Keskitalo, Reference Turi and Keskitalo2014). The most commonly used definition of traditional ecological knowledge is the following (Davis & Ruddle, Reference Davis and Ruddle2010):
a cumulative body of knowledge, practice, belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one and another and with their environment. (Berkes, Colding, & Folke, Reference Berkes, Colding and Folke2000, p. 1252)
UNESCO uses this definition when discussing indigenous knowledge as local and unique to a given culture or society (Nakashima, Rubis, & Krupnik, Reference Nakashima, Rubis, Krupnik, Nakashima, Krupnik and Rubis2018). Moreover, the Arctic Council and the Sami Council use the definition of traditional knowledge from the Ottawa Traditional Knowledge Principles (2014): “[A] body of knowledge generated through cultural practices, lived experiences, including extensive and multigenerational observations, lessons and skills.”
Berkes (Reference Berkes1999) adds that “traditional ecological knowledge” could pose definitional problems if defined narrowly as a branch of biology within the domain of western science. Instead, Berkes (Reference Berkes1999) argues that it should be more widely understood as including all living beings and their environments. We refer to reindeer herders’ practical meat smoking knowledge as traditional knowledge, whether it is indigenous, local, ecological, or all three in Berkes’ broad understanding.
A number of scholars working across the natural and social sciences argue that citizen knowledge, local knowledge, practitioner knowledge, indigenous knowledge, or traditional knowledge are complementary to science (Berkes, Reference Berkes1999; Davis & Ruddle, Reference Davis and Ruddle2010; Riseth et al., Reference Riseth, Tømmervik, Helander-Renvall, Labba, Johansson, Malnes and Callaghan2011; Tengö, Brondizio, Elmqvist, Malmer, & Spierenburg, Reference Tengö, Brondizio, Elmqvist, Malmer and Spierenburg2014). Riseth et al. (Reference Riseth, Tømmervik, Helander-Renvall, Labba, Johansson, Malnes and Callaghan2011) argue that traditional knowledge could provide a useful guide to science. Collins and Evans (Reference Collins and Evans2002) write about the distrust of experts, arguing that those with complementary expertise in the relevant areas (e.g. those with local knowledge) can fill gaps in scientific knowledge. Traditional knowledge could complement science with more valid hypotheses for problem-solving. In turn, science and scientific methods have proved to be powerful tools for testing the “why”—a question that traditional knowledge usually does not address. In that way, research can take advantage of the relative strengths of both scientific and traditional knowledge (Moller, Berkes, Lyver, & Kislalioglu, Reference Moller, Berkes, Lyver and Kislalioglu2004).
Tengö et al. (Reference Tengö, Brondizio, Elmqvist, Malmer and Spierenburg2014) illustrate a diverse knowledge system in which local knowledge, indigenous practitioners’ knowledge, and traditional knowledge constitute one branch, while the social sciences, the natural sciences, and transdisciplinary and technical knowledge constitute the other. Diverse knowledge systems contribute to an enriched picture of a selected problem or issue, a picture that can serve as a legitimate starting point for integrating knowledge, developing synergies across knowledge systems, and co-producing knowledge (Tengö et al., Reference Tengö, Brondizio, Elmqvist, Malmer and Spierenburg2014). Studies for co-producing knowledge are also called “bi-cultural partnership” (Smith, Reference Smith1999) or “participatory research” (Cornwall & Jewkes, Reference Cornwall and Jewkes1995).
In the mid-20th century, Arnstein (Reference Arnstein1969) wrote about a heated controversy over what she calls “citizen participation,” offering a ladder of participation in policies ranging from “manipulation” to “citizen control.” Discussing user involvement within health, Tritter and McCallum (Reference Tritter and McCallum2006) argue that research should also involve participation. Given the importance of traditional knowledge particularly for reindeer herders but also for scientists and policymakers, we have adapted Arnstein’s ladder of participation to examine to what degree traditional knowledge is included in research on smoking reindeer meat.
Methodology
Literature review strategy
Our literature-searching methods were inspired by Cooper (Reference Cooper2010), Ritz, Brewer, and Neumann (Reference Ritz, Brewer and Neumann2016), Parris and Peachy (Reference Parris and Peachy2013), and Davis and Ruddle (Reference Davis and Ruddle2010). However, a systematic review of complex evidence (such as reindeer herding) cannot rely solely on formal protocol-driven search strategies because one may fail to identify important evidence (Greenhalgh & Peacock, Reference Greenhalgh and Peacock2005). Therefore, we searched for literature in the following three ways: (1) by “asking around”, (2) through a systematic protocol-driven search, and (3) by looking up references in the literature we found. A flow chart of the search is shown in Figure 2.
Flow chart of a literature search on smoked and smoking reindeer meat.
We conducted the “asking around” procedure by targeting colleagues, personal contacts, and well-known scientists in our network working with traditional food and indigenous people in the Arctic. We asked for literature on reindeer herders’ traditional smoking practices. The literature found by “asking around” yielded important keywords for use in the protocol-driven search.
The online databases for the systematic protocol-driven literature search were Google Scholar, Scopus, PubMed, JStor, ResearchGate, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis Online, Wiley Online Link and Oria (the national database for all Norwegian college and university libraries). We also checked the Polar Record archives (n = 0). We started with a narrow search on Google scholar, using keywords in local languages (Northern Sámi, Norwegian and Swedish) and then expanded the search to include English keywords (see Table 1). Finnish, Russian, and other Sámi keywords were excluded because of language issues.
Keywords used in a protocol-driven literature search on Google Scholar: “the product of smoking reindeer meat” and “the practice of smoking reindeer meat” in four languages—English, North Sámi, Norwegian, and Swedish.
The number of documents found before exclusion is given in parenthesis, while the number of peer-reviewed articles included is in boldface.
This selection strategy allowed us to not only focus on Sámi smoking practices but also on other indigenous and traditional food culture studies. As the English keywords revealed the largest “pool” of relevant literature (Table 1), we used these when searching in the additional online databases. Before introducing the inclusion/exclusion strategy, we found 192 documents by a protocol-driven search on Google Scholar. In contrast, when searching for “smoked meat,” “smoking meat,” and “smoking of meat,” we found a total of 10,686 documents.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria
Initially, we removed all duplicates from the search. We placed no restriction on year of publication and only included primary sources, except for reviews that focused on smoked or smoking reindeer meat. Then, we included only scientific articles and selected grey literature, which comprises documents not published in scientific journals (Rothstein & Hopewell, Reference Rothstein, Hopewell, Cooper, Hedges and Valentine2009). The grey literature included, which we call “1st rank grey literature” (Fig. 2), conference reports, project reports, and food authority reports, as well as non-fiction books and book chapters, EU regulations, and Ph.D. monographs. Cookbooks documenting the process of smoking reindeer meat were included, except those containing only recipes.
The grey literature that we excluded, which we call “2nd rank grey literature” (Fig. 2), was bachelor and master theses (none of them focused on smoking or smoked reindeer meat), travelogues, newspaper articles, book reviews, literary fiction, and any analyses of them. Conference abstracts and posters were excluded because we found the same data published in scientific articles. Only works in English, Northern Sámi, Norwegian, and Swedish were included.
We excluded all papers on meat not from reindeer or on reindeer meat that was not smoked. We also excluded documents that mentioned smoked or smoking reindeer meat in non-relevant settings (e.g. in the acknowledgments or an appendix, in a scenario or event, or if “suovas”—smoked reindeer meat—was mentioned only as part of the Slow Food Sápmi project). Some potential documents were excluded because the references to them were incorrect.
After deleting duplicates and applying the exclusion and inclusion criteria, we were left with 57 texts that mention or focus on smoked or smoking reindeer meat. These texts include 20 scientific articles and 37 pieces of grey literature (three Ph.D. monographs, and 34 books, book chapters, and research-based project reports). Most of this literature was located through the protocol-driven search (n = 36). However, we found 14 texts solely by “asking around”. By tracking the reference lists in the literature, we added six more texts.
Analysis of the literature
Once we had selected the literature, we focused on the context, the results, and the methods used to study smoked and smoking reindeer meat. For each context, we asked: Within what genre, academic discipline, subdiscipline, or theme are smoked or smoking reindeer meat studied? For the results, we asked: What does the literature tell us about smoked or smoking reindeer meat? For the method, we asked: What method is used, and to what degree is traditional knowledge on smoked or smoking reindeer meat included in the study? These questions were developed by following Parris and Peachy (Reference Parris and Peachy2013). The publications were then grouped according to the following four categories related to the inclusion of traditional knowledge or the practitioners of it: (1) non-participation, (2) consultation, (3) co-production, and (4) self-determination (see Table 2). These categories were developed by studying Arnstein’s (Reference Arnstein1969) ladder of citizen participation, Bjørkan’s (Reference Bjørkan2011) three levels of organisation of knowledge in fishery research, and Huntington’s (2005) four methods for collecting traditional (ecological) knowledge.
The degree of participation or inclusion of traditional knowledge based on criteria inspired by Arnstein’s (Reference Arnstein1969) ladder of citizen participation.
Level (1), non-participation, covers studies that do not include traditional knowledge. Non-participation is the lowest level of Arnstein’s ladder, enabling power holders to “educate” or “cure” the participants. Studies categorised at Level 1 do not specify the origin of the method, nor do they describe the involvement of traditional knowledge holders. For example, non-participation shows up in fishery management, which excludes fishermen’s knowledge from research data collections (Bjørkan, Reference Bjørkan2011).
Level (2), consultation, covers studies in which traditional knowledge is part of the data collection, for example, through being observed, being interviewed, answering questionnaires, or all three. This level corresponds with Arnstein’s second level, “tokenism,” which allows citizens currently excluded from political and economic processes to listen and “to have a voice.”
Level (3), co-production, covers studies in which traditional knowledge holders conduct research together with scientists, by being involved in formulating research questions and analysing and interpreting the data. While many levels of cooperation exist (Bjørkan, Reference Bjørkan2011), at Level 3, all of them are gathered in one category.
Level (4), self-determination, covers studies in which indigenous or local people and communities study their own environment, communicating their own experiences and using their traditional knowledge. The highest level in Arnstein’s (Reference Arnstein1969) ladder is “citizen control,” covering partnerships in which citizens negotiate and engage in trade-offs with the traditional power holders, whereas Bjørkan’s (Reference Bjørkan2011) third level includes management, in which fishermen are positioned to take responsibility for knowledge provision. At our Level 4, both the power and the responsibility for providing knowledge lie solely with the traditional knowledge holders. (A description of the criteria used for this four-part-systematic categorisation appears in Table 2.)
Huntington (Reference Huntington2000) describes four methods for collecting traditional (ecological) knowledge: semi-directive interview, questionnaire, analytical workshop, and collaborative fieldwork. Studies using the first two methods belong to our Level 2, consultation, whereas studies using the last two methods belong to our Level 3, co-production (Table 2). Studies using several methods to investigate smoked or smoking reindeer meat are categorised according to the method using the highest degree of participation. For example, “co-production” studies, much like “consultation” studies, often use interviews, conversations, and (co-)observations. The difference is that “co-production” studies more widely use collaboration with traditional knowledge holders, from establishing hypotheses to interpreting the data.
We also categorised the reviewed literature according to three focus levels (A, B, and C) on smoked and smoking reindeer meat. The literature in focus level A focused mainly on smoked or smoking reindeer meat, while the literature in focus level B included sections or parts on this subject. Focus level C literature discusses only one single issue of smoked or smoking reindeer meat.
Results
The results are presented according to the main information extracted from the scientific articles and the grey literature: (1) the genres, disciplines, and themes, (2) the knowledge status of smoked and smoking reindeer meat, and (3) the degree of including traditional knowledge.
Genre, academic disciplines, and themes
Scientific studies of smoked or smoking reindeer meat originate from the natural, health, and social sciences, comprising many subdisciplines: food science, economics, law, archaeology, education, and geography. The most dominant disciplines are, however, the health and food sciences (Fig. 3). Smoked or smoking reindeer meat was studied according to a wide spectrum of themes: chemical composition, diet, reindeer herders’ traditional food culture and sacrifices, cancer, small-scale industry processing, and the Sámi learning environment (Fig. 3). The grey literature covers five additional themes or fields: reindeer management, meat technology/innovation, linguistics, tourism, and history.
Scientific disciplines, themes, and peer-reviewed articles that study “smoked reindeer meat” and “smoking reindeer meat” found searching on Google Scholar and other online databases in English, North Sami language, Norwegian, and Swedish. PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, POP = Persistent Organic Pollutants.
The knowledge status of smoked and smoking of reindeer meat
While the scientific articles are presented according to their academic discipline as they appear in Figure 3, the grey literature is presented according to themes associated with academic disciplines. The most comprehensive disciplines/themes are presented initially.
Scientific articles
Within food science, Sampels, Pickova, and Wiklund (Reference Sampels, Pickova and Wiklund2004) studied the content of human nutrition, concluding that smoking reindeer meat, in contrast to drying it, only slightly changed the meat’s composition of fatty acids, lipid class, and vitamin content. They injected a salt solution (13% salt, 1.9% sugar, 0.25% ascorbate), and cured (3 days at 4 °C), rinsed, matured (1 hour at 40 °C) and dried (45 min at 45 °C) the meat. The meat was smoked with alder (Alnus glutinosa) chips at 80°C (Sampels et al., Reference Sampels, Pickova and Wiklund2004). Pekkanen and Hänninen (Reference Pekkanen and Hänninen1976) measured the cyanide content of smoked reindeer meat as higher than that of other products but still safe for consumption (Pekkanen & Hänninen, Reference Pekkanen and Hänninen1976).
In addition, Polder et al. (Reference Polder, Savinova, Tkachev, Løken, Odland and Skaare2010) investigated the levels and patterns of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) that accumulate in the food chain and become a human health hazard (UNEP, 2018). Hexachlorobenzene, used as a solvent in the production of lubricants (UNEP, 2018), was found to be the most abundant POP in smoked reindeer meat, in contrast to meat from domestic animals (Polder et al., Reference Polder, Savinova, Tkachev, Løken, Odland and Skaare2010). Wretling, Eriksson, Eskhult, and Larsson (Reference Wretling, Eriksson, Eskhult and Larsson2010) analysed different smoked foodstuffs, including reindeer meat, for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). PAH, formed by the incomplete combustion of organic material, may be toxic, mutagenic, or carcinogenic, causing human health hazards (Ledesma, Rendueles, & Días, Reference Ledesma, Rendueles and Días2016). The Norwegian Food Safety Authority (FSA) requires smoking performed indoors, prohibiting lavvu smoking by law unless it can be proved safe (Austdal, Reference Austdal, Andersen, Bar and Wirtanen2018, referring to 2007 newspaper article in iFinnmark.no).
Within the health sciences, Hassler, Sjölander, Barnekow-Bergkvist, and Kadesjö (Reference Hassler, Sjölander, Barnekow-Bergkvist and Kadesjö2001) and Wiklund, Holm, and Eklund (Reference Wiklund, Holm and Eklund1990) studied Sámi cancer data. Smoked reindeer meat was part of the questionnaire in Brustad, Parr, Melhus, and Lund (Reference Brustad, Parr, Melhus and Lund2008), who showed that three generations of Sámi language speakers ate the most reindeer meat (Brustad et al., Reference Brustad, Parr, Melhus and Lund2008). Nilsson et al. (Reference Nilsson, Dahlgren, Johansson, Brustad, Sjölander and Guelpen2011) studied the Sámi diet in southern Sápmi in the 1930s, 1950s, and 2000s. Their informants said that meat was dried or smoked in summer for preservation. Smoked meat was more common among mountain than forest Sámi, as packed food for travel or snacks between meals (Nilsson et al., Reference Nilsson, Dahlgren, Johansson, Brustad, Sjölander and Guelpen2011).
In line with common Swedish health recommendations, Håglin (Reference Håglin1991) found that the Sámi had a poor nutrient intake: “Dried blood, fish and preserved meat were the most important foodstuffs among the West Bothnian Lapps [Sámi] at the summer residences in the mountains” (p. 743). Gjernes (Reference Gjernes2008) described practical barriers to following health advice, with one informant saying: “Reindeer herders need dry reindeer meat, coffee, and tea for some, rolling tobacco for many, smoked reindeer meat, bread and butter and sugar to create the energy needed and to keep warm” (p. 512).
Anthropologist Green (Reference Green2018a) studied Sámi food movements, such as the “Slow Food Sweden/Sápmi Presidium Project,” which was aimed at safeguarding unique culinary products. The first unique product promoted by Slow Food Sweden/Sápmi is suovas—a north Sámi word for smoke that in Sweden is used for smoked reindeer meat. Suovas has been co-opted by non-Sámi and used for other meat products because the word makes them sell better. Therefore, some Sámi have applied for the “Protected Designation of Origin” (PDO) label for the word “suovas” (Green, Reference Green2018a). This EU designation is the most restrictive, requiring that all stages of production take place in the designated area (Article 5(1) of regulation 115/2012/EC) (Austdal, Reference Austdal, Andersen, Bar and Wirtanen2018).
Within geography studies, Foye (Reference Foye1949, pp. 301–302) was served smoked reindeer meat when travelling in “Lapland” (Norway, Finland, Sweden). Epstein (Reference Epstein1969) wrote that “[i]n summer the diet of dried and smoked reindeer meat is supplemented by fish from the rivers and lakes” (p. 32).
Archaeological studies in Muonio, Finland, revealed a slice of cold smoked reindeer meat on a siedi, a Sámi sacrificial place in north Sápmi (Äikäs & Salmi, Reference Äikäs and Salmi2013, Reference Äikäs and Salmi2015; Äikäs & Spangen, Reference Äikäs and Spangen2016). Today, smoking of reindeer meat is part of the Sámi educational and learning environment, as Triumf (Reference Triumf and Arbon2011) and Joks (Reference Joks2007) showed how such practical knowledge is passed down from grandparents and parents.
In the field of economics, Heikkinen (Reference Heikkinen2006) focused on how Finnish reindeer herders—both Sámi and non-Sámi—tried to increase their income by enhancing the processing. The highest processing level is smoked reindeer meat, which almost all Finnish small-scale reindeer meat companies produce (p. 202).
Grey literature
Among the grey literature, many geographical and anthropological studies revealed historical knowledge on smoking of reindeer meat from Sápmi and the Circumpolar North. Smoked reindeer meat is documented as early as 1600 (Fjellström, Reference Fjellström1985, pp. 262–265, 267). Fjellström (Reference Fjellström1985) described how the reindeer shoulder was dried and sometimes smoked in the kåta (Swedish for a lavvu or turf hut). Travelling in “Lapland” (Sápmi) in 1732, natural scientist Carl Linnæus wrote that before rut, male reindeer were slaughtered, salted, and stored in storehouses to be eaten in spring, after having been dried by the weather and the sun and by the fire and smoke in the chimney (Linnæus, Reference Linnæus1995 [1732], pp. 112–113).
In 1767, Leem wrote that the mountain “Laplanders” (Sámi) smoked reindeer ribs for variety. The meat was pierced with a knife to let the smoke enter more easily (Leem, Reference Leem1767). After the meat was pierced and salted, the meat was smoked in the tent opening (Vorren, Reference Vorren1951, p. 90). Also, Nergård (Reference Nergård2006) described and illustrated how reindeer meat was hung above the fire inside the lávvu (see Fig. 1).
Barnes (Reference Barnes1975, p. 95) reports the smoking of rib sections, haunches, rumps, and shoulders. Barnes (Reference Barnes1975) wrote that the meat is slaughtered in autumn, 40–50% was eaten fresh, and the rest was salted and smoked in smokehouses in spring, for summer eating (pp. 72, 81, 95–96, 123, 148, 169, 202, 273). According to Ruong (Reference Ruong1945), the forest Sámi did not smoke their reindeer meat before drying it, as the mountain Sámi did.
From the Norwegian and Swedish part of Sápmi, respectively, Murud (Reference Murud2018, p. 49) and Ryd (2005; Reference Ryd2018, ch. 19) comprehensively document Sámi fire and smoking practices, according to firewood type, smoking seasons, and taste. While Murud (Reference Murud2018, p. 49) is written in North Sámi language, Ryd (2005; Reference Ryd2018, ch. 19) use terms from three Sámi languages. Different smoking practices, use of wood types and smoked reindeer meat recipes from both South and North in Sápmi, Sweden, and Norway, are also given in Sametinget (2010), Harnesk and Brandon-Cox (Reference Harnesk and Brandon-Cox2014), Jillker and Jåma (Reference Jillker and Jåma2014), Buljo et al. (Reference Buljo, Dubovtsev, Sara, Eira, Fefelova, Krarup Hansen, Krasavin, Smuk, Turi, Riddervold, Burgess, Antipina, Avelova, Chernyshova, Degteva, Dubovtsev, Dondov, Gerasimova, Mathiesen, Oskal and Pogodaev2018), Huuva (Reference Huuva2019), and Asp and Ståhl (Reference Asp and Ståhl2019).
Reindeer meat is also smoked outside Sápmi. Eidlitz’s (Reference Eidlitz1969) Ph.D. thesis showed that many different indigenous peoples of the North—including Alaska, Canada, Eurasia, and Greenland—smoked (reindeer) meat (pp. 106–107). Smoking tents were used by the reindeer Chukchi (in Siberia), the Labrador “Eskimos” [Inuits], and their Canadian neighbours, the “Indians” [First Nations] (Eidlitz, Reference Eidlitz1969, p. 106). The Evenkies smoke reindeer meat in a chum—a Russian word for a reindeer herder’s tent (Vitebsky, Reference Vitebsky2005, p. 84). The Evenki way of smoking outside above the fire is described by Gerasimova (Reference Gerasimova2017). In Nunavik, Canada, smoked caribou is a specialty among indigenous people, but most processing and marketing occurs in southern Canada, scarcely benefiting the locals (Council of Canadian Academies, 2014). A project report from Alaska refers only to the storage time for smoked meat, the parts smoked, and the length of smoking using indirect heat (Unger et al., 2014).
Some grey literature is situated between social ethnography, natural science, and health science. Veterinaries and reindeer scientists Skjenneberg and Slagsvold (Reference Skjenneberg and Slagsvold1979) write about the Sámi meat smoking for summer food conservation. But, they also reveal levels of C- & B-vitamin in smoked meat, compared to meat that have only been frozen (Skjenneberg & Slagsvold, Reference Skjenneberg and Slagsvold1979). Chemist and ethnologist Riddervold (Reference Riddervold2002) and reindeer herder Smuk (Reference Smuk2003) write about both the Sámi way of smoking meat in the lávvu using willow and discuss the PAH levels of the lávvu-smoked reindeer meat.
Additional health and food science studies accounts, a Norwegian FSA report on PAH levels of reindeer meat (Frantzen, Sanden, & Måge, Reference Frantzen, Sanden and Måge2017), and a Swedish FSA book on pathogenic bacteria in food and water (Lindberg, Stenström, & Ternström, Reference Lindberg, Stenström and Ternström2012). According to Lindberg et al. (Reference Lindberg, Stenström and Ternström2012) may Brucella, a bacterium resistant to smoking, be found in reindeer meat from Russia, Alaska, and Canada but not in meat from Scandinavia.
Meat technology and innovation in relation to smoked meat are emphasised in several grey literature. A conference paper by Niinivaara and Petäjä (Reference Niinivaara, Petäjä, Krol, Roon and Houben1985) focused on improving smoked reindeer meat production. Suggested improvements included “speed[ing] up production, improv[ing] the homogeneity of products, reduc[ing] salt concentrations and rais[ing] profitability” (Niinivaara & Petäjä, Reference Niinivaara, Petäjä, Krol, Roon and Houben1985, p. 115). Finnish smoked reindeer meat (Lapin Porin kylmäsavuliha) is smoked in temperature-controlled cabinets and described by, for example, water, protein and fat content in Håseth, Thorkelsson, Puolanne, and Sidhu (Reference Håseth, Thorkelsson, Puolanne, Sidhu, Toldrá, Hui, Astiasarán, Sebranek and Talon2014),
Suovas (smoked reindeer meat in Sweden) is the first product promoted by the “Slow food Sápmi” project. The second is gurpi, a smoked reindeer sausage of coarsely chopped meat wrapped in a stomach fat caul (Green, Reference Green and Counihan2018b; Harnesk & Brandon-Cox, Reference Harnesk and Brandon-Cox2014). These products are both traditional and innovative. In Sametinget (2010), modernised products of suovas are described. Also Eikjok (Reference Eikjok and Hoogensen2007) exemplified how smoked reindeer meat undergoes transformation when mixed with Indian Lentils and Thai coconut milk.
From conceptual analysis, Korhonen (Reference Korhonen1997) has argued that the Sámi word suovas is used by the general public in North Sweden. However, Swedish Sámi applied for EU PDO for suovas (Green, Reference Green2017, Reference Green and Counihan2018b; Nygård, Reference Nygård2012). Likewise, Lapin Porin kylmäsavuliha, traditional cold-smoked reindeer meat from Finland, has EU PDO and Protected Geographical Indication status (EC 2010; EU 2011b).
In relation to economics, slow food books—Petrini (Reference Petrini2007, p. 197) and Petrini (Reference Petrini2006, pp. 189–190)—briefly mention that suovas from southern Swedish Sápmi have great commercial potential. Smoked reindeer meat is also highly prized in Alaska (Palmer, Reference Palmer1934) and interesting to tourism in Sweden (Danius, Reference Danius2003).
Last, the grey literature has revealed that children learn traditional smoking of reindeer meat in a Swedish Sámi elementary school (Green, Reference Green2017) or from elders (Liliequist, Reference Liliequist, Naskali, Seppänen and Begum2016).
Degree of traditional knowledge included
The literature is categorised according to the degree of participation in Table 3 (peer reviewed scientific articles in Table 3a and grey literature in Table 3b). Initially, the literature at the highest focus level A is presented, then literature at focus levels B and C.
Degree of participation in the literature via a systematic literature search on smoked and smoking reindeer meat.
Literature in focus level A is specifically on smoked or smoking reindeer meat; in focus level B, only in part; and in focus level C, only brief mention. The methods used at the different levels of participation are listed. In studies marked “n.d.,” the method was not detected. Table 3a shows peer-reviewed articles. Their affiliation with the natural, health and social sciences is given by (N), (H) and (S), respectively. Table 3b shows grey literature (books, book chapters, and reports).
Scientific articles
The study methods and the main disciplines of the scientific articles (natural, health, and social sciences) are specified in Table 3. All scientific articles are categorised at Level 1, non-participation or Level 2, consultation, except one scientific article at Level 4, self-determination. All the natural science articles are categorised at Level 1, non-participation. This also applies to the only two articles that focused on smoked or smoking reindeer meat (focus level A).
-
1. Non-participation
The only peer-reviewed articles that specifically focused on smoked reindeer meat were Sampels et al. (Reference Sampels, Pickova and Wiklund2004) and Pekkanen and Hänninen (Reference Pekkanen and Hänninen1976). Sampels et al.’s (Reference Sampels, Pickova and Wiklund2004) study was categorised as non-participation because the only method used was chemical analysis, and the origin of the smoking practices was not presented. In Pekkanen and Hänninen (Reference Pekkanen and Hänninen1976) and Polder et al. (Reference Polder, Savinova, Tkachev, Løken, Odland and Skaare2010), the meat analysis was performed on local supermarket products; moreover, as nothing was mentioned about the production process, there was no participation. The cancer data studies by Wiklund et al. (Reference Wiklund, Holm and Eklund1990) and Hassler et al. (Reference Hassler, Sjölander, Barnekow-Bergkvist and Kadesjö2001) and the excavation studies by Äikäs and Salmi (Reference Äikäs and Salmi2013, Reference Äikäs and Salmi2015) and Äikäs and Spangen (Reference Äikäs and Spangen2016) are likewise non-participation studies, as no traditional knowledge appeared in either the collection or the interpretation of the data.
-
2. Consultation
Most social science articles are categorised at Level 2, consultation (Table 3a). However, all these articles are at focus level C, except for one at focus level B—Green (Reference Green2018a), using ethnographic fieldwork studying Sámi food activism. Brustad et al. (Reference Brustad, Parr, Melhus and Lund2008) used food-frequency questionnaires, while Nilsson et al. (Reference Nilsson, Dahlgren, Johansson, Brustad, Sjölander and Guelpen2011), Håglin (Reference Håglin1991) and Gjernes (Reference Gjernes2008) interviewed Sami people about their diet. Only Heikkinen (Reference Heikkinen2006) combined all these methods, including a relative high degree of traditional knowledge. Nonetheless, study by Heikkinen (Reference Heikkinen2006) is categorised as consultation because herders are not included in data interpretation. Moreover, even though Joks (Reference Joks2007) is Sámi, she is not from the local reindeer-herding society she studied, and she included interviews with herders only in the data collection, not in data interpretation. Foye (Reference Foye1949) and Epstein (Reference Epstein1969) simply observed Sámi reindeer herders serving and eating smoked reindeer meat.
-
3. Co-production
No scientific article on smoked or smoking reindeer meat is using co-production methods.
-
4. Self-determination
The only peer-reviewed article at Level 4, self-determination, is Triumf (Reference Triumf and Arbon2011). However, this article is categorised at focus level C because Triumf (Reference Triumf and Arbon2011) only briefly wrote about her own experiences with meat smoking.
Grey literature
Most of the grey literature is also categorised at Level 2. However, a higher amount of the grey literature used methods of co-production and self-determination (9 and 4 literature, respectively), than the scientific articles (0 and 1 literature, respectively). In general, compared to the scientific articles, the grey literature focused more on smoked or smoking reindeer meat (4 grey literature at Focus Levels A and 19 grey literature at focus level B, compared to 2 A-literature and 2 B-literature for the scientific articles, Table 3).
-
1. Non-participation
A quarter of the grey literature was categorised in the non-participation category (Table 3b), at all focus levels. This literature builds on methods that were not described, literature reviews, or chemical analysis. Even though Unger et al.’s (2014) study is co-produced with indigenous people, we list it as non-participation because recommendations on smoking reindeer meat are given by references to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety.
-
2. Consultation
The grey literature mainly builds on consultation, using ethnographic fieldwork. Ryd (Reference Ryd2005, Reference Ryd2018 in Norwegian) included a great amount of traditional knowledge of smoking, interviewing elder Sámi traditional knowledge holders on the “art” of Sámi bonfires (2B, Table 3b). Nergård (Reference Nergård2006) performed long-term fieldwork observing Sámi reindeer herders in northern Norway, and Ruong (Reference Ruong1945) in Sweden. Green’s (Reference Green2017) and Barnes’s (Reference Barnes1975) Ph.D. theses also included ethnographic fieldwork in Swedish Sápmi, and Fjellström (Reference Fjellström1985) combined fieldwork with archive material from the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Because Eidlitz (Reference Eidlitz1969, pp. 106–107) reviewed older ethnological literature on the smoking reindeer meat, ranging from 1789 through 1958, her work is categorised as consultation. Linnæus (Reference Linnæus1995 [1732]), Leem (Reference Leem1767), and other authors in the literature at focus Level C just simply observed smoked reindeer meat.
-
3. Co-production
The only documents focusing on meat smoking that met the co-production criteria were by scientist Riddervold (Reference Riddervold2002) and reindeer herder Smuk (Reference Smuk2003), who smoked meat in the lavvu (Sámi tent) with representatives of the Norwegian FSA. Other collaboration studies between scientists and indigenous people in the Arctic North examined various aspects of smoking (Asp & Ståhl, Reference Asp and Ståhl2019; Buljo et al., Reference Buljo, Dubovtsev, Sara, Eira, Fefelova, Krarup Hansen, Krasavin, Smuk, Turi, Riddervold, Burgess, Antipina, Avelova, Chernyshova, Degteva, Dubovtsev, Dondov, Gerasimova, Mathiesen, Oskal and Pogodaev2018; Jillker & Jåma, Reference Jillker and Jåma2014). These studies used conversations and workshops to collect, discuss, and present information on traditional food. Participants sought co-production in the “Slow Food Sweden/Sápmi” project (Harnesk & Brandon-Cox, Reference Harnesk and Brandon-Cox2014; Petrini, Reference Petrini2006, Reference Petrini2007) and in the panel discussions by multidisciplinary scholars’ working with and within aboriginal communities (Council of Canadian Academies, 2014).
-
4. Self-determination
In the self-determination category are books by Murud (Reference Murud2018) and Gerasimova (Reference Gerasimova2017), two reindeer-herding women documenting various aspects of their traditional smoking practices, the Sámi and Evenki way, respectively. Huuva (Reference Huuva2019) documented his own smoking recipes and practices, building on knowledge from reindeer herding and local Swedish traditions. A project report by the Sámi parliament in Sweden (Sametinget, 2010) is categorised as Level 4, self-determination, even though the data source is unknown.
Discussion
Our review reflects an incomplete understanding of smoked and smoking reindeer meat because research methods did not include traditional knowledge. This exclusion of traditional knowledge in science may be problematic if used as a basis for management of reindeer and reindeer husbandry. Therefore, firstly, we present the general lack of traditional knowledge in reindeer management and science. Secondly, we discuss the consequences of these “white spots” in the literature by using examples from the scientific and grey literature on smoked and smoking reindeer meat. Thirdly, we examine the knowledge status of smoked and smoking reindeer meat. Last, we discuss how to ensure the inclusion of traditional knowledge in future scientific studies.
Traditional knowledge in reindeer management and science
In literature on reindeer husbandry, the scientific way and the traditional way of knowing have been viewed not only as both competing (Johnsen et al., Reference Johnsen, Mathiesen and Eira2017) and conflicting (Johnsen, Reference Johnsen2018) but also as complementary in terms of developing adaption strategies for climate change (Eira et al., Reference Eira, Jaedicke, Magga, Maynard, Vikhamar-Schuler and Mathiesen2013).
In Norway, reindeer herders and state policies compete to define sustainable, “rational” and “proper” reindeer husbandry. While reindeer herders see a human–animal–nature relationship, state policies see reindeer as an object that can be manipulated to produce maximum amount of meat through streamlined herding practices (Johnsen et al., Reference Johnsen, Mathiesen and Eira2017). Today, governmental reindeer herding management is based on scholarly experts’ notions of how to optimise reindeer meat production, not on herders’ complex traditional knowledges and practices. The government, for example, implements what they perceive as “proper” reindeer husbandry by providing economic rewards for calf production. This management technique remains in conflict with—and undermine—herders’ knowledge of profitability, herding vulnerability, animal welfare, and work efficiency (Johnsen & Benjaminsen, Reference Johnsen and Benjaminsen2017).
Conflicts arise, when those who govern do not acknowledge, or are not even aware of, the different sets of knowledge or worldviews of those being governed (Blaser, Reference Blaser2009a). An example of such a conflict is the destocking of herds in parts of northern Norway, where management-based and traditional Sámi reindeer herding compete to define “proper” reindeer management and herding practices (Johnsen et al., Reference Johnsen, Mathiesen and Eira2017). Turi and Keskitalo (Reference Turi and Keskitalo2014) have criticised Norwegian reindeer husbandry policy for its lack of local participation and autonomy, its over-regulation, and its top-down management.
Indeed, as given in the Introduction, some scholars suggest valuing traditional knowledge as complementary to science (Berkes, Reference Berkes1999; Collins & Evans, Reference Collins and Evans2002; Davis & Ruddle, Reference Davis and Ruddle2010; Eira et al., Reference Eira, Jaedicke, Magga, Maynard, Vikhamar-Schuler and Mathiesen2013; Riseth et al., Reference Riseth, Tømmervik, Helander-Renvall, Labba, Johansson, Malnes and Callaghan2011; Tengö et al., Reference Tengö, Brondizio, Elmqvist, Malmer and Spierenburg2014). In the following, we exemplify that traditional knowledge has, so far, not been valued in studies of smoked and smoking reindeer meat. This exclusion might have huge consequences.
Traditional knowledge in studies of smoked reindeer meat
Both in the scientific articles and in the grey literature, we found examples of erroneous conclusions because reindeer herders’ traditional knowledge and practices were excluded from investigations on smoked reindeer meat. We will illustrate this consequence with one example from the scientific articles (Sampels et al., Reference Sampels, Pickova and Wiklund2004) and one from the grey literature (Niinivaara & Petäjä, Reference Niinivaara, Petäjä, Krol, Roon and Houben1985).
The scientific article, Sampels et al. (Reference Sampels, Pickova and Wiklund2004), for example, pioneered the study of the effect of smoking and drying on the fat content of reindeer meat, but did not describe the origin of the smoking practice used. Instead of using Sámi reindeer herders’ traditional knowledge, they performed a standardised biological experiment described only by temperature and hours of smoking. Furthermore, Sampels et al. (Reference Sampels, Pickova and Wiklund2004) smoked meat from 16 ten-month-old reindeer calves, “slaughtered and processed following the usual practice at the abattoir” (Arctic Deli AB, Harads, Sweden) (p. 524). In contrast, the Sámi people traditionally only smoke two-to-three-month-old reindeer calves for preservation in summer, when they are slaughtering for traditional reindeer skin processing for making clothing (reindeer herder Inger Anita Smuk, personal communication, 2 September 2017). As given in some of the grey literature, Sámi reindeer herders traditionally slaughter and smoke meat from adult male reindeer before the autumn-rut, castrated males, or over-aged females (Barnes, Reference Barnes1975, p. 80; Linnæus, Reference Linnæus1995 [1732], p. 112). Therefore, as this example illustrate, by not including traditional knowledge in planning an experiment, scientists may fail to achieve their goal of investigating traditional products.
In addition, Sampels et al. (Reference Sampels, Pickova and Wiklund2004) used standardised wood chips, instead of the wood traditionally used in the Circumpolar North, as described in the grey literature (Asp & Ståhl, Reference Asp and Ståhl2019, p. 51; Buljo et al. Reference Buljo, Dubovtsev, Sara, Eira, Fefelova, Krarup Hansen, Krasavin, Smuk, Turi, Riddervold, Burgess, Antipina, Avelova, Chernyshova, Degteva, Dubovtsev, Dondov, Gerasimova, Mathiesen, Oskal and Pogodaev2018, p. 49; Frantzen et al., Reference Frantzen, Sanden and Måge2017; Harnesk & Brandon-Cox, Reference Harnesk and Brandon-Cox2014; Ryd, Reference Ryd2005, ch. 19; Sametinget, 2010, p. 10; Skjenneberg & Slagsvold, Reference Skjenneberg and Slagsvold1979, p. 238). Yet, the type of wood used for smoking affects the temperature (Murud, Reference Murud2018): The higher the temperature, the more fat drips from the meat, igniting the fire and making the temperature rise (Ryd, Reference Ryd2005, Reference Ryd2018). The inclusion of traditional knowledge about wood and smoking practices presented in the grey literature would likely have generated valuable results in this otherwise interesting scientific article on the fat content of smoked reindeer meat. Now, however, the conclusions are misleading.
Yet another example from the grey literature that might promote “rational” reindeer husbandry management of reindeer meat products appears in this review: a conference report entitled “Problems in the production and processing of reindeer meat” by Niinivaara and Petäjä (Reference Niinivaara, Petäjä, Krol, Roon and Houben1985). This study undermines reindeer herders’ traditional knowledge by, for example, suggesting that less expensive parts of the carcass (e.g. the shoulder) could obtain a better price if it were smoked. Yet, Niinivaara and Petäjä (Reference Niinivaara, Petäjä, Krol, Roon and Houben1985) do not explain how they came to this conclusion or whether they consulted traditional knowledge holders. However, as Sámi reindeer herders have traditionally smoked the shoulder (Barnes, Reference Barnes1975; Fjellström, Reference Fjellström1985), smoked shoulder in no way represents the new product that Niinivaara and Petäjä (Reference Niinivaara, Petäjä, Krol, Roon and Houben1985) suggest. By suggesting new products that are not new to traditional knowledge holders, scientists have drawn erroneous conclusions. The unknown empirical material and analysis used in Niinivaara and Petäjä (Reference Niinivaara, Petäjä, Krol, Roon and Houben1985) conflict with traditional knowledge, and the findings are irrelevant to reindeer herders.
The consequence of not including traditional knowledge in scientific planning, methods and analyses may as the above examples show, leads to erroneous conclusions that are irrelevant for reindeer herders and misleading for reindeer herding management. Yet, the study of Arctic indigenous food systems offers an additional arena of conflict between science and traditional knowledge.
Knowledge about smoked reindeer meat
Despite the limited literature, we will discuss the knowledge status of smoked reindeer meat and the practice of smoking it. The scientific articles mainly focused on health issues related to food smoking. This is possible because biomass fuel smoke can constitute a major health concern in the developing world (Fullerton, Bruce, & Gordon, Reference Fullerton, Bruce and Gordon2008; Pratali et al., Reference Pratali, Marinoni, Cogo, Ujka, Gilardoni, Bernardi and Fuzzi2018). For example, the PAH derived from incomplete combustion of wood may cause cancer in humans (Ledesma et al., Reference Ledesma, Rendueles and Días2016). Indeed, the EU Scientific Committee on Food has established maximum levels of PAH in food (EC 2006; EU 2011a). Chemical analysis of carcinogenic PAH levels in traditionally smoked reindeer meat is therefore important. Such scientific studies are critical, especially among the Sámi, because reindeer herding Sámi—despite their lower cancer risk in general—have a higher risk of stomach cancer than non-Sámi (Hassler et al., Reference Hassler, Sjölander, Barnekow-Bergkvist and Kadesjö2001; Wiklund et al., Reference Wiklund, Holm and Eklund1990).
In the literature reviewed, only one scientific article, Wretling et al. (Reference Wretling, Eriksson, Eskhult and Larsson2010), publishes data of PAH levels of smoked reindeer meat. This scientific study does not use reindeer herders’ traditional smoking methods. Three grey literatures investigated PAH levels of smoked reindeer meat. Of these, the traditional smoking method of the meat analysed is only described in Riddervold (Reference Riddervold2002) and Smuk (Reference Smuk2003), not in Frantzen et al. (Reference Frantzen, Sanden and Måge2017). Nonetheless, all the PAH levels of smoked reindeer meat in the scientific articles and grey literature fall below the EU maximum levels. But none of the literature reveals PAH levels of meat smoked with birch—the most commonly used wood among the Sámi—according to the grey literature Ryd (Reference Ryd2005). This omission of scientific documentation of PAH from traditionally smoked reindeer meat is problematic. Using input from traditional knowledge in designing these experiments might have eliminated this problem. Because food safety legislation impacts traditional food by, for example, requiring indoor smoking (Austdal, Reference Austdal, Andersen, Bar and Wirtanen2018), including traditional knowledge in the investigation is critical. Therefore—and also because knowing whether one’s products are health hazards is important—we recommend additional research on PAH levels of traditional smoked reindeer meat in future research studies.
Apart from chemical investigations of smoked reindeer meat, no scientific studies focus on traditional smoking practices. Yet, the grey literature shows that traditional knowledge of smoking reindeer meat is rich, diverse, and still in use (e.g. Asp & Ståhl, Reference Asp and Ståhl2019; Buljo et al., Reference Buljo, Dubovtsev, Sara, Eira, Fefelova, Krarup Hansen, Krasavin, Smuk, Turi, Riddervold, Burgess, Antipina, Avelova, Chernyshova, Degteva, Dubovtsev, Dondov, Gerasimova, Mathiesen, Oskal and Pogodaev2018; Ryd, Reference Ryd2005). For example, a common practice among many Arctic reindeer people is smoking reindeer meat in their traditional tents (Fig. 4). However, even among the Sámi, local differences in smoking techniques appear, as illustrated by the following examples.
Sami traditional meat smoking with birch and juniper in a lávvu (Sámi tent). Photo by Kia Krarup Hansen.
While on the Norwegian side of Sápmi, the meat is smoked in summer and autumn (Nergård, Reference Nergård2006; Riddervold, Reference Riddervold2002; Smuk, Reference Smuk2003), on the Swedish side it is smoked in spring and dried thereafter (Asp & Ståhl, Reference Asp and Ståhl2019; Barnes, Reference Barnes1975; Harnesk & Brandon-Cox, Reference Harnesk and Brandon-Cox2014; Huuva, Reference Huuva2019; Petrini, Reference Petrini2006; Ryd, Reference Ryd2005, Reference Ryd2018). Drying smoked meat is performed only by the mountain reindeer Sámi, not the forest Sámi (Huuva, Reference Huuva2019; Ruong, Reference Ruong1945). In Petrini (Reference Petrini2006, p. 190), a herder from southern Sweden explained that the meat was coated with salt for three months before being smoked in the spring, while in northern Sweden, the meat was salted for 1–3 days (Huuva, Reference Huuva2019, p. 47) or 3–4 days (Barnes, Reference Barnes1975, p. 95) before being smoked.
Salt was once little used in Sámi preservation (Harnesk & Brandon-Cox, Reference Harnesk and Brandon-Cox2014; Sametinget, 2010) because transporting it was impractical (Ryd, Reference Ryd2018) and the poorest Sami could not afford it (Fjellström, Reference Fjellström1985, p. 262). Therefore, drying and smoking were used for preserving the meat for both storage and transport (Fjellström, Reference Fjellström1985, pp. 264–265). Many types of wood are used for smoking (Harnesk & Brandon-Cox, Reference Harnesk and Brandon-Cox2014; Murud, Reference Murud2018; Ryd, Reference Ryd2005, ch. 19), resulting in different colours and tastes (Murud, Reference Murud2018). A herder from southern Sweden uses fresh birch, while Huuva (Reference Huuva2019) from northern Sweden uses dry birch without the bark, but willow and alder with the bark. In contrast, another southern Sweden herder uses willow and alder without bark (Asp & Ståhl, Reference Asp and Ståhl2019), and northern Norway herders use willow with leaves (Riddervold, Reference Riddervold2002; Smuk, Reference Smuk2003).
Ryd (Reference Ryd2005) argued that a dry wood fire needs continuous control, while green firewood, such as willow (Murud, Reference Murud2018), allows one to leave the fireplaces. But, green wood should not be used when the smoked meat is to be dried (Murud, Reference Murud2018). As juniper and dry pine preserve the meat very well, they were in use when salt was less available (Ryd, Reference Ryd2005). Some smoke the meat 7–10 h (Asp & Ståhl, Reference Asp and Ståhl2019), whereas others for 2–3 days (Ryd, Reference Ryd2005).
A variety of traditional smoking practices clearly exist, as shown by the heterogeneous practices compared in this literature review. However, each of the documents we reviewed gives the impression that smoking of reindeer meat is done by one traditional practice alone. Yet, in line with Davis and Ruddle’s (Reference Davis and Ruddle2010) more general conclusions, we find no consensus on what constitutes traditional knowledge on smoking reindeer meat. This finding corresponds with Krupnik, Nakashima, and Rubis’s (Reference Krupnik, Nakashima, Rubis, Nakashima, Krupnik and Rubis2018) argument that traditional knowledge is local knowledge, unique to its given culture. Traditional knowledge often combines knowledge and practices to give a holistic understanding of human interaction with their surroundings (Nakashima & Roue, Reference Nakashima, Roue and T.2002). Reindeer herding is a complex human-coupled ecosystem (Magga, Mathiesen, Corell, & Oskal, Reference Magga, Mathiesen, Corell and Oskal2011), and traditional knowledge is embedded in complex networks of social relations, values, and practices (Nadashy, Reference Nadashy1999, p. 5).
If these complex social and cultural processes are not factored into systematic research, the consequences may be flawed understanding, misrepresentation (Davis & Ruddle, Reference Davis and Ruddle2010), and conflicts (Blaser, Reference Blaser2009b; Johnsen et al., Reference Johnsen, Mathiesen and Eira2017). To document the complex knowledge system and various meat-smoking practices of Arctic reindeer herding peoples, and to avoid future misrepresentation, we recommend studies that are designed to include traditional knowledge in scientific research.
Towards including traditional knowledge in scientific research
As few studies have assessed Arctic reindeer herding peoples’ knowledge of reindeer meat smoking, our extensive review provides important insights for future research. The barriers against incorporating traditional knowledge in the governance of reindeer husbandry (Turi & Keskitalo, Reference Turi and Keskitalo2014) could be linked to the methodological barriers we found against including traditional practices in science.
Knowledge holders’ self-determination, through conducting their own research, constitutes one way of including traditional knowledge in science. Alternatively, when scientists study traditional practices, co-production with traditional knowledge holders can ensure the inclusion of traditional knowledge, thereby improving and expanding scholars’ understanding of the subject under study. According to Cornwall and Jewkes (Reference Cornwall and Jewkes1995) and Bergold and Thomas (Reference Bergold and Thomas2012), participatory research engages participants in mutual learning, analysis, and co-production of knowledge. For example, co-production is common in climate change research, with community-based workshops forming a good basis for gathering people from different knowledge spheres (Krupnik, Aporta, Gearheard, Laidler, & Holm, Reference Krupnik, Aporta, Gearheard, Laidler and Holm2010; Magga, Mathiesen, Corell, & Oskal, Reference Magga, Mathiesen, Corell and Oskal2013; Pogodaev & Oskal, Reference Pogodaev and Oskal2015; Tyler et al., Reference Tyler, Turi, Sundset, Bull, Sara, Reindert and Corell2007).
Within reindeer herding, access to traditional knowledge depends on both participation and practices (Eira, Magga, & Eira, Reference Eira, Magga and Eira2010; Sara, Reference Sara2009), and the knowledge of smoking practices is transmitted generationally within the family (Green, Reference Green2017; Joks, Reference Joks2007; Triumf, Reference Triumf and Arbon2011). But, to date, no scientific articles use methods that include participation in the practice of traditional smoking where these generational transmissions take place. However, the grey literature showed the usefulness of co-production of knowledge when it comes to participate in traditional smoking (Asp & Ståhl, Reference Asp and Ståhl2019; Buljo et al., Reference Buljo, Dubovtsev, Sara, Eira, Fefelova, Krarup Hansen, Krasavin, Smuk, Turi, Riddervold, Burgess, Antipina, Avelova, Chernyshova, Degteva, Dubovtsev, Dondov, Gerasimova, Mathiesen, Oskal and Pogodaev2018; Harnesk & Brandon-Cox, Reference Harnesk and Brandon-Cox2014; Riddervold, Reference Riddervold2002; Smuk, Reference Smuk2003). In this grey literature, scientist participated in the traditional smoking of reindeer meat through analytical workshops and collaboration fieldwork (Table 3). These are co-production methods that future research on traditional food systems should consider. Further recommendations to follow for sustainable research are four general principles for co-production: (1) situate the process within the context in which they are embedded, (2) recognise multiple knowledges, (3) develop shared goals, and (4) meet frequently, as proposed by Norström et al. (Reference Norström, Cvitanovic, Löf, West, Wyborn, Balvanera and Österblom2020).
The knowledge of sustainable food systems and traditional food security in Sápmi is likely a key to developing future systems of food security and sovereignty among the Sámi and other peoples in the North (Nilsson, Reference Nilsson, Andersen, Bar and Wirtanen2018). In a scientific article reviewed, it is argued that local processing might be the key to economically sustaining reindeer husbandry, if, for example, traditional smoked reindeer meat can be utilised as a new gourmet food for the EU market (Heikkinen, Reference Heikkinen2006). Additionally, the grey literature Petrini (Reference Petrini2006) wrote that smoked reindeer meat can sell for 8 to 13 times more than a live animal. But Sámi food activism, which focuses on smoked reindeer meat, achieves limited self-determination (Green, Reference Green2018a). Therefore, if indeed a high economic value exists for smoked reindeer meat, we need more knowledge on how to achieve Sámi self-determination and food sovereignty. Only in that way, taking advantage of traditionally high valued products might help sustain reindeer husbandry.
Nevertheless, that many disciplines study smoked or smoking reindeer meat (Fig. 3) prove that reindeer husbandry is not merely an economic enterprise. Its practices are rooted in historic and cultural values, regulated by law and management, handed down through generations within families and education, dependent on geography and the environment, and disseminated though travelling, grey literature, and scientific articles. Indeed, just as the nature of traditional knowledge is multidisciplinary (Berkes, Reference Berkes1999; Pierotti & Wildcat, Reference Pierotti and Wildcat2000), so is that of reindeer husbandry. However, science often works within unconnected disciplines. For example, none of the studies reviewed here are multidisciplinary across the natural and social sciences (Fig. 3).
Sustainable research should include pluralistic co-production bringing together scientist from different disciplines and people from other sectors (Norström et al., Reference Norström, Cvitanovic, Löf, West, Wyborn, Balvanera and Österblom2020). Huntington (Reference Huntington2000) suggests that ecologists could engage with social scientists in conducting research that documents traditional knowledge because the methods for collecting that knowledge derive from the social sciences (Huntington, Reference Huntington2000). Likewise, we suggest that scientists within health and chemistry could benefit by involving social scientists in their studies of smoked reindeer meat. At the same time, chemical analyses could provide important information if applied to practices in use. Social science ethnographic studies, long-time observations, interviews, or conversations could reveal what practices actually remain in use. The health sciences often use different methods, seeking to combine practical and evidence-based multidisciplinary knowledge (Bondevik & Engebretsen, Reference Bondevik, Engebretsen, Roos and Tønneson2017). We therefore suggest that the unique position of the health sciences situated between the natural and social sciences (as illustrated in Fig. 3) could act as a multidisciplinary bridge to achieve complementary knowledge systems.
Conclusion
Dividing the literature on smoked or smoking reindeer meat into three focus levels reveals a huge knowledge gap on this subject. Our four-level categorisation of including traditional knowledge, non-participation, consultation, co-production, and self-determination showed the following:
First, this categorisation showed that traditional knowledge is almost never included in scientific papers on smoked and smoking reindeer meat. This is because non-participation methods, such as chemical analyses of the meat, are commonly used. Metaphorically speaking, the traditional knowledge “went up in smoke.” Neglecting or ignoring this important knowledge has led to misleading conclusions, which could have been prevented had traditional knowledge been included. To avoid erroneous conclusions and the conflicts that follow, we recommend that scientific research includes traditional knowledge in all future studies that could and should consider traditional practices and products.
Second, traditional knowledge is sometimes included only through consultation, in social science methods of interviewing and observing. Even though none of the social science studies we reviewed specifically focuses on smoked meat, together they reveal a diverse range of traditional smoking practices among reindeer herders. We argue that reindeer herders’ traditional knowledge and practices of reindeer meat smoking are indeed a complex knowledge system. However, as discussed, today’s reindeer management leaves little room for this complex traditional knowledge. Yet in line with other scholars, we claim that traditional knowledge comprises important knowledge of traditional practices that could be used to create valid hypotheses. Scientific methods, on the other hand, could be used to study, for example, “why” these traditional practices are sustainable or not, “why” they are healthy or not, and “why” they vary geographically. By including both traditional and scientific knowledge, science could take advantages of their relative strength and promote effective management of reindeer husbandry, including its food system, in a changing Arctic.
Third, smoked or smoking reindeer meat is studied within many different disciplines, mainly the health and food sciences. Yet, no multidisciplinary studies across the natural and social sciences exist, and no study uses co-production methods. In line with other scholars, we argue that multidisciplinary co-production could meet the need for developing methodologies that link different knowledge systems. This includes co-production not only between scientific and traditional knowledge holders but also between the natural and social sciences and the humanities, taking advantages of their respective methods.
Last, this review revealed that further research is needed in order to understand the prevalence and significance of traditional knowledge and practices of meat smoking. In addition, scientific experiments on smoking temperatures and PAH analysis of traditional smoked meat should be conducted. We argue that co-production will result in greater understanding of different knowledge systems, ensure healthy traditional food products that act as an adaptation strategy for changes, and—rather than allowing traditional knowledge to continue to go up in smoke—will sustain the knowledgeable and rich Sámi practice of reindeer husbandry.
Acknowledgments
This project was initiated by the Sámi reindeer herding/research community through the International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry (ICR) and Sámi University of Applied Sciences (SAMAS). We thank ICR and SAMAS for their inspiration, cooperation, knowledge sharing, and excellent research networks and arenas. Special thanks for discussions and comments go to reindeer herder Inger Anita Smuk, Rávdna Biret Márjá Eira Sara (Sámi University of Applied Sciences), and associate professor Camilla Brattland (UiT – the Arctic University of Norway). We also thank chemist and ethnologist Astri Riddervold, who passed away in 2019. Thank you, Riddervold, for your advice and for sharing your wise knowledge and long and valuable experiences.
Financial support
This article is partly supported by Research Council of Norway through the research project “RIEVDAN Rapid change – challenges and/or opportunities for sustainable reindeer husbandry (no. 238326) and the Arctic Council project “EALLU Arctic Indigenous Youth: Traditional Knowledge and Food Culture – Navigation Towards Sustainability through New Approaches for Addressing Arctic Change and Globalisation.” These projects are directed by University of the Arctic Institute for Circumpolar Reindeer Husbandry at the International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry and by the Sámi University of Applied Sciences. Further cooperation and support were received from UiT – the Arctic University of Norway.
Conflict of interest
None.
Ethical Standards
The Authors assert that all procedures in this work comply with the ethical standards of relevant national and institutional recommendations for studies on indigenous and reindeer herding people’s issues.
Open access
