Twenty years has passed since Fadime Sahindal was shot to death by her own father in “a crime of honour”. This happened in Uppsala, Sweden and a lot of people was shocked of how it could happen here. Today ”crimes of honour” is still happening and the debate is ongoing as well in media as in politics. This study will look at ”crimes of honour” and honour-related violence from a perspective in relation with religion and theories that involves purity and the collective, and how they appear in Sweden today. The purpose of this is to widen the view of honour-related violence and open for new understandings of it. Through a qualitative content analysis of published stories of people involved in an honour-related context and compare them against religious theories.  Three questions are posed to guide the study: How is the meaning of religion described to honour-related violence in the selected stories? How does the relation between the described violence and Mary Douglas' theories of moral, sexuality and ritual purity appear? How does the relation between the described violence and René Girard's theories about the collective and the scapegoat appear? The study finds that the honour-culture and honour-related violence are strongly tied to the collective, the group culture is strong and can be governed by the common culture, religion, family ties or a combination of these. The importance of religion for honour-related violence differs slightly in the chosen stories, but religion is clearly included as a factor and the people who figure in it are to varying degrees religious and are in a context of honour. In relation to Douglas' theories of morality, sexuality and ritual impurity, a woman's sexuality and her innocence constitute a clear boundary whose transcendence must be controlled and punished. Even Girard's theories about that the collective's need to find a scapegoat who can free the group and restore order are embraced on the stories.   Keywords: (Honour-related violence, religion, purity and danger, the collective and the scapegoat)

Personal archives are a largely neglected subject in archival theory. Among the consequences of this is the absenceof any general established or formalized practices when it comes to arrangement and description. Thisstudy opposes the notion that an archival institution without formal systems of arrangement and description doesnot order and describe archives in accordance with a general conceptual framework of a correct order. Supportingitself on the anthropological theory of Mary Douglas on dirt and cleanliness, it studies the implicit notions oforder that can be found in the archival descriptions of the personal archives kept by the Swedish national archives.Several patterns where revealed by the study: among them the primacy of quantity stood out. The vaguesystem of categories based on Martin Grass description model appears only to be employed loyally where quantitiesof the particular categories are such that they constitute complete volumes, which seem to be the cardinaljustifier of categorical division within the archive. The model itself is rarely applied with orthodoxy, and itsroughness often means that the categories engage in “border clashes” over which documents belong in whichcategory. Though these are often caused and generally determined by quantities, they also reveal an internalhierarchy of relations between specific types of records and categories. Furthermore, certain categories appearsmore stable than others, and when Grass system collapses, it reveals how certain of them – based on a principleof pertinence or theme – habitually fall out of use whereas categories defined by document types appear to remainfar more stable even in smaller archives and archives with low degree of differentiation.