ABSTRACT
In the last few decades the indigenous peoples around the world have begun to discuss the questions connected to their naming traditions and as a whole to their toponymy. The main issue is the right to their own names as a part of wider rights to language, identity and history. Inextricably, the discussion concerns also the question of ofcial toponymy. As soon as one considers indigenous naming traditions from the perspective of the denitions of ofcial nomenclature, a number of questions arise: Which authorities have the power of dening the place names adopted into ofcial use? How have statesanctioned naming practices and legislation changed historically with respect to indigenous naming traditions? Which names in which language or languages are used in the authorized toponymy? Through what types of strategies of naming and renaming are the indigenous toponymies marginalized? Regarding the consequences of ofcial renaming strategies for the indigenous cultures, Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2004, 51) writes:
In empirical terms, in this chapter I will deal with the questions of how Sámi place names have been handled by Norwegian authorities in the county of Finnmark, the northernmost and youngest county of Norway (Figure 12.1). I will pay special attention to the decades that preceded independence, which Norway gained from Sweden in 1905. This period is part of the era of Norwegian nationalism prior to independence, and it was an important period for solidifying a uniquely Norwegian national identity that included the country’s Sámi regions. In my case study, I will analyze the state authorities’ renaming strategies in northern Norway and how these were utilized to
F ig
ur e
12 .1
