147
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Joenniemi & Sergunin
available on the basis of the national histories consist both of familiarity and unfamiliarity.
Obviously, the encounter consists of meeting the other as clearly different from oneself – in spite of
the term ‗twins‘ suggesting the existence of a far-reaching similitude – and yet the difference can be
interpreted as benign or threatening in nature. It may be depicted as a familiar kind of strangeness
conducive to curiosity, fascination and nostalgia, these then contributing to interaction or amounting
instead to resentment and perhaps even animosity. Both options are in general there as noted by
Spierings and van der Velde (2008) and Scott (2013). The prevalence of familiarity amounting to
moves of inclusion rather than unfamiliarity inviting for exclusion would contribute to progress in
the sphere of twinning, whereas the latter would complicate if not undermine various efforts of
changing the meaning of the border through increasing closeness and intense cooperation.
Figure 1- Map of the Kirkenes-Nikel Area
The Duality of the Past
The history of the region offers elements for the construction of familiarity as well as unfamiliarity.
Modern bordering, part of extending state-formation to the north, took place at a relatively late
juncture and was presided by a ‗common land‘ period and interaction that paid scant if any attention
to state-related borders and efforts of bordering. In particular, a Sami population moved flexibly
across borders and also Finnish-speakers were strongly present in the region straddling various
borders. Borders emerged more clearly during the Swedish-Norwegian Union (1826-1905). It was
finally drawn in 1826, although the demarcation and delimitation proceeded quite slowly with