This thesis deals with meetings between peoples during prehistoric times in the northern part of Norrland, Sweden. Particular attention is paid to the possible occurrence of more temporary meetings between people in larger groups at aggregation camps during the period ca 7000 – 0 BC. The study has had the aim of increasing our understanding of how peoples’ meetings and contact networks may have been framed. Thirteen sites that previous research has interpreted to be aggregation camps within our field of study have been analysed and interpreted. These are: Jokkmokk, Purkijaur, Nelkerim, Porsi, Lundfors, Norrfors, Överveda, Rappasundet, Hälla, Lillberget, Glösa, Sörånäset and Ställverksboplatsen (the Ställverket site). The Ställverket site at Näsåker (Nämforsen) has been the object of particular study. It has also been viewed in a broader context by analysis and interpretation of other ancient remains in the neighbouring area. I have argued that some interpretations arrived at in earlier research are problematical and that none of the thirteen sites can be said with certainty to have been an aggregation camp. Thus aggregation camps seem not usually to have been a part of the contact network in the area of study. Instead of using aggregation camps as meeting-places, the people involved seem, at certain times and places, to have maintained contact with each other by means of meetings at the base camps, notably the winter sites. These sites seem to have been rather sedentary and are positioned at fairly even distances from one another. I call this model the base camp model. Some grounds for applying the base camp model seem to exist at certain places in the inland region from the end of the Mesolithic era up to 0 BC. After that contact networks seem to change. In the coastal district it seems possible to apply it to some places from the transition between the Mesolithic – Neolithic Age up to about 2500 BC. Thereafter the picture is unclear. The study does also emphasise however that more in-depth studies are needed to strengthen the viability of the base camp model’s applicability, that there are still big gaps in the material and that much work still remains to be done in order to solve the problems of how aggregation camps can best be defined and how they can be identified archaeologically.