Iron Production in Scandinavian Archaeology

Home , Bog iron, Haakon Shetelig, Oscar Montelius

ARTICLE Norwegian Archaeological Review, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2003

LARS F. STENVIK Trends in archaeological research in iron production during the 100 years that this topic has been studied in Scandinavia are highlighted in this article. In some periods there has been a relatively high level of activity among iron production researchers; in other periods the interest has tended to wane. Why should this be so and to what extent have theoretical trends in archaeology influenced this field? From a European perspective, Sweden and Norway are uniquely placed for studies of ancient iron technology because the remains of iron production in these countries are situated in remote areas. They are preserved because there has been no activity in the forests and mountain regions to disturb them since the production sites were vacated hundreds and thousands of years ago.

INTRODUCTION HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The study of artefacts and the establishing of An interest in iron production took place a a chronology had dominated the discipline long time before archaeologists started to of archaeology in the 19th century in investigate iron production sites. In Norway Scandinavia. The works of, for example, C. and Sweden there was a direct iron production F. Thomsen in Denmark, O. Montelius in in recent times parallel with modern iron Sweden and O. Rygh in Norway opened the production in steelworks. This production doors at the universities for archaeology. was concentrated in remote parts of the upper Grave mounds were systematically exam- valleys and forested areas, where peasants ined in the search for more material that could produce their own iron and to some could be used in building typological extent produce iron for trade. This production sequences, while other remains from pre- lasted until the beginning of 19th century in historic times were ignored in the initial some places. Several researchers have docu- phases. Dwelling sites from the Stone Age mented the methods of production, especially were, however, soon discovered and archae- in the 17th and 18th centuries (Schulze 1732, ologists began to excavate them using new Swedenborg 1734, Evenstad (1790) 1960, and methods based on stratigraphy. At the others). beginning of the 20th century there was a In the time of enlightenment, scholars growing interest in the traces of iron produc- journeying through the Scandinavian coun- tion in the Scandinavian countries. This tries took note of where they could ﬁnd traces happened simultaneously in Sweden, Den- of old iron production. In Norway, Gerhard mark and Norway. Scho¬nning, one of the founders of The Royal

Lars F. Stenvik, Department of Archaeology, Museum of Natural History and Archaeology, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway. E-mail: [email protected]

DOI: 10.1080/00293650310000713 # 2003 Taylor & Francis 120 Lars F. Stenvik

Norwegian Society of Science and Letters, establishing interest in early iron production. was in fact one of the earliest informants on He initiated interdisciplinary research, iron production sites (Scho¬ning 1979). founded museums and secured old iron These descriptions did not lead to any works. He started this activity in ca. 1900 scientific research on production sites prob- and continued until the 1940s. Sweden had for ably because there were no methods that a long time been one of the major producers could be used in the investigations. With the of iron in the world and there was a strong introduction of archaeology as an academic metallurgical competence associated with this discipline, a method became available that industry. There was a central interest office could reveal ancient production activity. for iron production Ja¨rnkontoret that had initiated research and published results from this research in Ja¨rnkontorets annaler, estab- THE PIONEERS lished in 1817. Sahlin had re-established a The first archaeological excavation of an iron historical guild for metallurgy in 1921 production site in Scandinavia was carried out (Sancte O¬ rjens Gille) which started a culture in 1896 in Denmark in connection with the historical publication ‘Med hammare och excavation of graves (Sarauw 1898:91ff.). fackla’ in 1928 and perhaps more importantly Oscar Montelius excavated an iron produc- Sahlin founded a special branch in Ja¬rnkon- tion furnace in Sweden in 1907 and the results toret publications: Ja¨rnkontorets bergshistor- were published in 1919 (Montelius 1919, iska skriftserie in 1930. There is a permanent Englund 2002:55). In Norway the first exca- group in Ja¬rnkontoret dealing with historical vation of a furnace took place in 1909 at Etne questions, ‘Bergshistoriska utskottet’, that has in Hordaland by Haakon Shetelig. He called been essential in supporting archaeological the furnace a ‘Blesterhola’ and it is obvious research on iron production (Englund that he did not know how this furnace had 2002:55ff.). functioned or how old it might be (Shetelig In the 1920s, Sahlin established a coopera- 1910). At first hand, those discoveries did not tion with John Nihlen, who was an archae- lead to discussions between archaeologists, ologist, and this led to several important but they were recognized as important debris excavations of iron production sites in from the past. One effect of the discoveries Dalarna, Uppland, Va¬rmland, Halland, Got- was that other disciplines became interested land and Smaûland (Nihlen 1932). An im- and, above all, amateurs began to waken up. portant task was finding traces of ancient iron In Denmark Rasmus Mortensen, who was a production and they used the local press in teacher, and Niels Nielsen, a geographer, various regions where they announced their initiated investigations of iron production interest and asked the local population to sites in ca. 1920 and continued to carry out report finds of slag and furnaces. This method this research for 20 years. They also exca- led to hundreds of reports, which were vated some of them (Mortensen 1920, Nielsen fundamental for the research. This method 1922). Their activities were concentrated on was immediately copied in Norway where technological aspects and an attempt to Rolf Falk Muus, a geologist, did the same classify slags and furnaces. Nielsen divided between 1920 and 1940 and he ended up with the smelting technology into two groups: some 4000 registrations! hearth-pit technology and bowl technology. As in Sweden, the pioneers in Norway were Slags were classified as ‘Small black slag not archaeologists. Three persons must be solidified in thin fluid state’ and ‘big slag mentioned: Ivar Kleiven, a farmer and local blocks with charcoal impressions’. historian, Olaf Olsen, a priest, and Torje In Sweden Carl Sahlin, the director of a Nilsen Holme, a teacher. They were all active steel mill, played an important role in in surveying and, to some extent, excavating Iron Production in Scandinavian Archaeology 121

Fig. 1. Ole Evenstad’s drawings of an iron production furnace and recommended equipment from 1780. iron production sites. Olaf Olsen wrote an there was a lack of engagement by archae- article in 1916 ‘Myrmalmsmelting i Norge i ologists. In Denmark there was almost no ældre tid’ [Bog iron ore smelting in ancient activity between 1940 and 1962. The diffi- Norway] which is considered as the first culties archaeologists had encountered in academic treatment of iron production in dating the traces of iron production (N¿rbach Norway. These pioneers were influenced by 2003a) could be one explanation for this the ‘Ole Evenstad tradition’. They had read situation. When the 14C-method of dating his book and became interested in the old became available, it opened up new possi- technology. They combined this knowledge bilities and a new interest was kindled. Olfert with information from the sagas, placenames, Voss started a long-lasting study of iron old laws and old taxation lists (Narmo production in Jutland. He was the first to 1996:4ff., Rundberget 2002:5ff.). The work interpret the slag blocks beneath the surface done by these people helped Haakon Shetelig as slag pits under shaft furnaces. He was also to understand what he had found in Etne in motivated by the discovery of a well-pre- 1909. He therefore published his excavation served shaft furnace in Scharmba¬ck in in 1913 and called the furnace a ‘Blesterhola” Germany, which demanded a new explana- [a blast hole] after an old description from tion for earlier classifications (Voss 1962). 1756 (Rundberget 2002:6) (Fig. 1). When John Nihle«n retired from his position in Vitterhetsakademien in 1927, there was reduced interest in iron production in Sweden THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ABSENCE as well. After 1940 no one seemed to be After the first period of interest in iron engaged in this field (Englund 2002:60f.). In production, a similar development took place the beginning of the 1960s, amateurs had in all the Scandinavian countries. However, discovered a great many iron production sites 122 Lars F. Stenvik in Skaûne and Dalarna and they started ex- that these people were influenced by con- perimental work. Conferences were held and temporary research in Sweden and Denmark this engaged the interest of the archaeologist (Narmo 1996:6). The Swedish research con- Inga Serning. She became central in re- nected to Ja¬rnkontoret was in this case establishing Swedish research on ancient iron important because metallurgical and geologi- production. Inga Serning had led several cal competence had been employed (Englund excavations in Dalarna where modern 2002:57). archaeological methods had been used. In This technological line in the study of iron this research she could also include scientific production can be followed in later periods. In analysis (Serning 1973). Sweden, Inga Serning founded an archaeo- In Norway, archaeologist had listed iron metallurgical institute in the 1970s that could production as an important aspect in Norwe- assist archaeologists in their attempts to gian archaeology. As resources were limited, interpret material from their excavations. the National Archaeologists’ Meeting in 1927 Ja¬rnkontoret was reorganized in the 1960s decided not to give it priority. Instead, the after an initiative by Inga Serning. Jernkon- initiative was handed over to technological torets Bergshistoriska Utskott (The National investigations. This had been the main focus Iron Office Mining History Committee) was for the pioneers (Rundberget 2002:19f.). A established in 1968. Nils Bjo¬rkenstam, a special commission was appointed to take metallurgist, was director of this office, and care of this project. This, of course, led to continued research on metallurgical and flagging interest among archaeologists, and technological issues (Englund 2002:61). Inga technologists defined problems concerned Serning saw the need for a common classifi- with iron production. Although there was cation system of furnaces and established a sporadic archaeological engagement between system based on morphological elements 1930 and 1960, it was not until the late 1960s (Serning 1976:48f.). This system was chal- that a new and profound interest in iron lenged by Irmelin Martens, who presented production was aroused. This interest was another classification system in 1978 (Mar- mainly due to the huge hydroelectric devel- tens 1978). opments in southern Norway and Irmelin The study of technological aspects has Martens was in charge of investigations been a strong discipline in Sweden in recent before the construction work commenced years. Geoarkeologisk Laboratorium (GAL) (Martens 1972). established in 1992 in Uppsala, has continued the work that was started in the archaeometallurgical laboratory founded by Inga THE TECHNOLOGICAL Serning. GAL is today the main centre in PERSPECTIVE Scandinavia for archaeometallurgical re- Two directions seem to emerge in the study of search. iron production: a technological perspective As in the other Scandinavian countries, the and an archaeological perspective. Techno- technological aspect was dominant in the logical aspects were essential from the beginning. The first Ph.D. thesis was pro- beginning, and people with a technological duced by the geographer Niels Nielsen background engaged in this field in Norway. ‘Studier over Jærnproductionen i Jylland’ As a result of a national agreement, the first [Studies of Iron Production in Jutland] in Norwegian Ph.D. thesis on iron production 1924 (N¿rbach 2003b). In Denmark, Vagn was written by an engineer in 1946 (Hauge Buchwald is a representative of the techno- 1946). The geologist Rolf Falk Muus had logical interest in iron production. Buchwald studied morphological aspects of iron produc- is a geologist and has for many years made tion (Falk Muus 1927:358ff.). It is also likely quality tests of iron and slags and has sought Iron Production in Scandinavian Archaeology 123 to determine the provenience of iron products including blooms (Buchwald 1995, 1999). Arne Jouttija¬rvi has done provenience studies of iron in bog finds (Jouttija¬rvi 1994). In Norway, Anna M. Rosenquist, a chem- ist, cooperated with Irmelin Martens when iron production sites at M¿svatn were investigated in the 1970s (Rosenquist 1988). The metallurgist Arne Espelund, Trondheim, has been a key person since the early 1980s. Espelund has participated in excavations in Mid-Norway and carried out metallurgical analyses of finds and interpreted the metallurgical process in furnaces (Espelund 1993, 1999). Espelund has also studied iron production in other regions and in other Scandina- vian countries. Sigmund Jacobsen studied reducibility in ores found during excavations in southern and central Norway and conducted experimental work (1983).

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE Fig. 2. The main distribution of prehistoric and In the beginning of the 1960s, interest in iron medieval iron production on the Scandinavian Peninsula. After L. E. Narmo. production began to increase. Archaeologists asked questions that had to be answered by archaeologists. It was, however, necessary to exactly what had been expected when it seek assistance from other professions to seemed that the Viking period had marked a obtain a broader understanding of the pro- peak in iron production. blems. Chemists, metallurgists, botanists, This situation was questioned when Arne geologists and historians have been involved B. Johansen found a production site at in these questions. It is not possible to present Sysendalen in Hordaland in Western Norway a full picture of what has happened in the which was dated to the Roman Iron Age. This Scandinavian countries during the past 40 site was different from any other site in years but a few important investigations are mentioned in this article (Fig. 2). Southern Norway. The technology was different and the amount of slag was much larger Norway than on production sites from later periods. When a reliable method of dating was Most surprising was the interpretation of the introduced in the 1960s, it was possible to site, because it was explained as an activity of connect iron production sites to archaeo- people living of hunting in the mountain area logical periods. It was not surprising when and not by farmers living in the fjord districts most of the sites could be dated to the Viking (Johansen 1973). This led to a discussion Age or Medieval Ages in southern Norway among Norwegian archaeologists and almost (Martens 1972). Viking Age graves in all of them rejected Johansen’s theories Scandinavia, particularly in Norway, contain (L¿ken 1979). many weapons and tools made of iron. It was The early production site at Sysendalen 124 Lars F. Stenvik

Fig. 3. Slag pit belonging to a shaft furnace from Roman Iron Age, Fjergen, North Trøndelag. Photo L. F. Stenvik. remained an exception until a series of datings gies in Scandinavia or Europe cannot readily from Mid-Norway were made in the early be discerned, even if it is correct to say that 1980s. Suddenly there were hundreds of the furnaces in Mid-Norway belong to a production sites that could be dated to the European shaft furnace tradition. Wood and Early Iron Age. As a result of a randomized not charcoal had been used. This explains the dating programme, it can be seen how pro- size, and the shaft could have been funnel duction has changed over a period of more shaped. Slag pits beneath the surface had than 2000 years (Stenvik 1991). Production openings that made emptying possible during has started in the Pre-Roman Iron Age (300Ð production. Thus the production could con- 400 BC) and a special production technology tinue for a long while. had been invented. This technology lasted Production exceeded local demand and until the Migration Period in ca. AD 600 and Mid-Norway must have supplied other re- then disappeared completely. The production gions with iron for a long period. Production in this period must have been very large. was very high in the Roman Iron Age, Several furnaces had been operated at the especially around AD 200. same time on each production site and the Soon after the discoveries in Mid-Norway, output could have reached 100 tons on one another type of furnace was found in Central site. The furnaces were much larger than Norway. These were also huge shaft furnaces furnaces recognized from later periods (Fig. with slag pits and ﬁred with wood. When the 3). slag pits were full (slag blocks weighing more Similarities with other smelting technolo- than 400 kg are known) the furnace had to be Iron Production in Scandinavian Archaeology 125

has been a local development of the technology. It is interesting to see that there are boundaries between technologies in different regions in Norway during the Early Iron Age. This means that technology was dependent on various conditions such as local ore, fuel, organization, control over craftsmen, demand and perhaps religious factors (Stenvik 2003). In later periods, technology seemed to be common to a greater part of the country. Iron was produced in many parts of Norway, even north of the Arctic Circle. In Mid-Norway production was concentrated in the southern areas. Three huge rescue projects in South Norway (Dokkﬂøy, R¿dsmoen and Graûfjell) in advance of development projects revealed an astonishing intensity in iron production in Fig. 4. Layout of a typical production site from areas with a scattered population (Larsen Early Iron Age at Fjergen in Mid Norway. In the 1991, Narmo 1997, Risb¿l 2001). The pro- middle a furnace surrounded by pits and post- duction is mainly dated to the Late Iron Age holes. Drawing S. Bjerck.(. = 1 m). and Medieval Period and was not meant for local consumption. A special discovery on these sites was a shaft furnace with a slag pit, broken down and the slag removed. Then the reminiscent of an earlier period, which could shaft had to be rebuilt before the campaign be the missing link to furnaces known from could start (Larsen 1991). It is possible that the Post-Medieval period in this part of this furnace and the furnaces from Mid- Norway (Narmo 1997:112). Norway did not need bellows. Experiments indicate that natural draught created the right Sweden temperatures. Furnaces of this type have been In the 1970s archaeological surveys had found in many places in parts of southeastern located a dense iron production in Dalarna Norway (Fig. 4). and in parts of Central Sweden. These Finds of furnaces from the Roman Iron Age investigations were seen in connection with settlement and organization (Hyenstrand at Age near Kristiansand, the southernmost 1974, 1979). In the same decade, Gert part of Norway, have revealed a type of Magnusson started excavations of iron pro- furnace with some similarities to those in duction sites in Ja¬mtland, Central Sweden. Denmark. Those areas have had close contact This region lies next to Mid-Norway, and it is across the sea and it is not surprising to ﬁnd no secret that his investigations inspired that technologies had been exchanged. researchers on the Norwegian side of the Iron production in the Early Iron Age border (there has always been friendly na- outside South and Mid-Norway is documen- tional rivalry between Norway and Sweden. ted in Rogaland (Haavaldsen 1997), Western When the theme of the international con- Norway (Bj¿rnstad) and North Norway ference in Budalen was named ‘Bloomery (Roger J¿rgensen, pers. comm.). The furnaces Iron-making during 2000 years’, a Swedish from the Early Iron Age in Norway belong to project was named ‘Bloomery Ironmaking a European shaft furnace tradition, but there during 3000 years’ soon after!) (Fig. 5). 126 Lars F. Stenvik

quired only as a result of bronze-working. 2. Metallurgical knowledge is local, ac- quired as a result of bronze-working and new ideas from outside. 3. All knowledge is produced from outside via contacts with metal-producing so- cieties. 4. All knowledge is imported by a foreign iron-producing community.

Option 2 is considered as possible in Sweden (Fig. 6). The archaeological excavation of Lapphyt- tan in Sweden had revealed a blast furnace operated by waterpower that was dated to the Fig. 5. Model of an iron production site at the 14th century. Remains of an earlier blast shore in Ja¨mtland, Sweden. After G. Magnusson. furnace were discovered underneath the last

Magnusson found furnaces from the Early Iron Age, Late Iron Age and Medieval Ages (Magnusson 1985). The production reached a peak during the Migration Period. In this period several furnaces on each site produced more iron than local consumers required. The technology in this phase was similar to contemporary technology on the Norwegian side. Magnusson discusses technological, social and economic factors. Swedish archaeologists had located very early traces of iron production. Pre-Roman Iron Age furnaces were dated in the 1980s (Wedberg 1984). This raised questions about the introduction of Iron to Scandinavia and is a main issue in Ewa Hja¬rthner-Holdars Ph.D. thesis from 1993 (Hja¬rthner-Holdar 1993). She had found sound evidence of iron production in dwelling sites from the Bronze Age. The discovery of bowl furnaces in- dicated that they managed to produce iron for several purposes. Iron technology was introduced in Sweden before 1000 BC, and this is Fig. 6. The distribution of striated ware, Ma¨larda- astonishing. Several theories on how this lens celts, iron objects from period III-IV and iron technology was spread are discussed: production before period VI of the Bronze Age. Drawing A. Grenberger. After E. Hja¨rthner- 1. Metallurgical knowledge is local, ac- Holdar. Iron Production in Scandinavian Archaeology 127 furnace. This was dated to the 12th century shaft furnace with slag tapping dated to (Bjo¬rkenstam 1995). This technology was Medieval Times (Voss 1995:132). quite different from other technologies, in that The smelting process in shaft furnaces with it involved an indirect process where iron (pig slag pits has been reconstructed. The slag pit iron) had to be treated two times to be was filled with straw that prevented ore and malleable. It may look like a Swedish charcoal from falling into the pit but also to invention, and several blast furnaces have prevent the first slag from running straight been located since the discovery at Lapphyt- into the pit. tan, but there are similar furnaces in Germany In the ‘Bowl’ just below the air inlets, directly from almost the same period. So far, none has below the hottest part of the furnace, the slag could been found in Norway. A special iron quality, be kept above its smelting point of 11508. ‘Osmundja¬rn’, may have been produced in Gradually, as the pressure from the accumulating these blast furnaces (Bjo¬rkenstam 1993). In a slag mounted, the straw filling would be com- multidisciplinary project on Ja¬rnmo¬lle in pressed and slag would run, all at once, to the Halland (Danish region in Medieval Times) bottom. . . (Voss 1995:133f.). a probable forge and a water-powered bloom- When production is finished, slag blocks ery furnace have been investigated (Magnus- normally weigh about 200 kg. At Snorup, son 1995). pairs of furnaces were found indicating a Lars Erik Englund studied different aspects cooperation between at least two men. Voss of bloomery iron-making such as changing has calculated the consumption and output of techniques, chronology and organization on the process. the basis of surveys, excavations and experi- Lars Chr. N¿rbach has tried to see the iron ments in Va¬stergo¬taland (Englund 2002). production sites in connection with natural Considerable emphasis is laid on the interac- resources and settlement pattern. tion between observations during excavations Iron production sites in Denmark are and experiments. Englund has succeeded in usually located in cultivated areas and have producing malleable iron in reconstructed therefore been damaged but are also difficult Iron Age furnaces. Studies of consumption of to find because they are not visible on the charcoal, ore, time and output are very surface. With the introduction of magnet- informative. ometer surveys, more than 100 iron produc- Anders O¬ dman studied iron production in tion sites are now known (N¿rbach 2003) Skaûne, in southernmost Sweden and has (Fig. 7). found traces of a well-organized production associated with ancient castles (O¬ dman 1992, 2000). EXPERIMENTAL WORK When archaeologists had studied the remains Denmark from iron production and analytical results Olfert Voss has been a central actor in Danish were combined with theories on operation, investigations since the 1960s. He excavated the time had then come for experimental the iron production site at Drengsted (Voss work. There was, however, no manual to 1986) and has published an overview of show how prehistoric furnaces were operated. furnace types in Denmark (Voss 1985). Three In Denmark Olfert Voss had tried to produce types are known. From the Pre-Roman Iron iron in furnaces reconstructed on the basis of Age there are traces of a sunken shaft furnace. finds in Jutland (Voss 1973). In recent years a The most common type, a shaft furnace with a series of experiments has been carried out at slag pit, is dated from the Roman Iron Age to the Historical-Archaeological Experimental the 7th century. The last furnace type is a Centre in Lejre. The Centre arranged a 128 Lars F. Stenvik

Fig. 7. Furnace types and the relation between farms and furnaces during the Iron Age and Early Middle Ages. Drawing Maj Olika. After L. C. Nørbach.

Conference on this topic in 1996 where the Times were undertaken (Jacobsen et al. results of the experiments in Scandinavia 1988, Borup 1997:97f.). were presented (N¿rbach 1997). In Sweden Lars Erik Englund was in In Mid-Norway several experiments were charge of experimental iron production in carried out following descriptions in Ole Tranemo. He succeeded in producing iron in Evenstad’s book from the 18th century. These furnaces constructed on the basis of observa- experiments were a cooperation between tions made in archaeological excavations. archaeology and metallurgy as well as crafts- The aims of these experiments were: produ- men (Berre 1998, Espelund 1997:47f.). When cing iron, producing malleable iron, produ- new results from excavated furnaces from the cing steel and producing slag similar to that Early Iron Age were analysed, reconstruc- found on the production sites (Englund tions were made and experimental smelting 2002:206f.). The GAL laboratory in Uppsala tried. Ivar Berre, Lars F. Stenvik and Arne has performed several experiments in coop- Espelund have conducted several experi- eration with Susan and Peter Crew in Wales. ments. They have shown that it is possible to produce After the excavations at Dokkfløy in iron from magnetite in early Iron Age shaft southeastern Norway, experiments were car- furnaces known from archaeological excava- ried out on the basis of observations made. At tions (Hja¬rthner-Holdar et al. 1997:15). first hand, experiments using a technology The aims of these experiments have mainly known from the Late Iron Age/Medieval been technological or metallurgical. It has Iron Production in Scandinavian Archaeology 129 been important to find out how the process tion are found in areas inhabited by people of was managed. In this respect, chemical, different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, but physical, geological and metallurgical tests it is not seen as a possibility that these peoples have been essential. could have produced iron. Other important aspects have been time- Marxism became an important issue in consuming studies and consumption of ore, both political and academic discussions in the wood, charcoal, clay and building materials. 1920s. Focus was set on economic and These aspects have been important for technological development. Functionalism is archaeologist in reconstructing organization. visible in the architecture and a functionalistic They have also been important in the educa- perspective on iron production would be tion of students of archaeology as an example feasible. Even if archaeologists did not of craftsmanship and as a demonstration of express it, there are reasons to believe that how knowledge is transmitted through parti- there was a discourse between academics on cipation. This has been an annual event at the what kinds of problems should be dealt with. University of Science and Technology in In this light, it is interesting to see that tech- Trondheim. nological aspects were given priority at the National Meeting of Archaeologists in 1927 in Norway. THEORETICAL INFLUENCE OR Even if discussions among archaeologists LACK OF THEORY? on the problems of iron production were It is difficult to point to any theoretical apparently absent in the initial phase, there manifest for the pioneers in the study of iron are some exceptions. In the 1920s, Professor production. At the beginning of the 20th A. W. Br¿gger, Oslo, one of the archaeo- century, archaeology was still in its infancy. It logical pioneers in Norway, discussed the was important to establish chronologies and, influence of iron production on economy and above all, to establish national prehistories. settlement (Br¿gger 1925). At least it was important in Norway, which In the period after World War II, economy had just severed its union with Sweden. In this and settlement played a dominant role in respect the growing interest could be per- archaeological discussions of the role of iron ceived as a step in the nation-building production in Norway (Hougen 1947, Johan- process. sen 1973, Martens 1988, Larsen 1991, The period after World War I was, how- Stenvik 1991, Narmo 1996).). The ‘annales- ever, a time of depression, especially in the school’ in the discipline of history had defined late 1920s when unemployment and bank a goal for research where ‘the total history’ crises were dominant. The establishment of was the final objective. Iron production was trade unions and labour parties had led to a soon considered as an important part of the new political situation. Extensive and expen- totality in society. sive archaeological projects could not be In Swedish archaeology the same develop- given priority. One can therefore understand ment can be seen. In the 1970s the economic why studies of ancient iron production could aspect as well as the influence of iron in be dropped. society is visible. Titles such as ‘Iron and The main conception of material culture in Settlement’, ‘Iron and economy in Sweden’ this period was that finds could be related to are quite characteristic (Hyenstrand 1974, different cultures. This is not discussed when 1979). archaeologists are dealing with iron produc- In the 1960s and 70s new perspectives were tion. It is, however, seen as an element of the introduced and the influence of New Archae- Germanic cultures living in Scandinavia. In ology is visible. It is illuminating to see the Sweden and Norway, remains of iron produc- archaeological perspective reflected in the 130 Lars F. Stenvik titles of congresses that were arranged in the Norwegian research, although the examples Scandinavian countries in the past few may not be representative since I have been decades. involved as a supervisor. Kristin Prestvold These congresses mirror what Scandina- has seen the iron production in Mid-Norway vian archaeologists consider as important within a societal context where the change in issues. Some of the congresses have been quantity of the iron production was related to, national. In 1979 there was a Norwegian and conditioned by social stability and social National Meeting discussing iron production change, conflicts and contradictions. She has with special focus on iron production as a used graves and hill forts in her study of the cultural factor (L¿ken 1979). In Sweden there society contemporary with iron production. have been similar meetings: Na¨rja¨rnet kom Her conclusion is that the social conflict in the [When iron arrived in Sweden], Go¬teborg actual regions reaches a climax at about the 1976 (Cullberg 1977). Some international same time as the iron production is reaching congresses have also been arranged: Bloom- its peak. Her way towards understanding the ery Ironmaking During 2000 Years, Budalen, dynamics of iron production is through the Norway 1991 (Espelund 1991, 1992, Espe- contradiction and conflict as demonstrated in lund & Stenvik 1993); The Importance of Iron structural Marxist theory (Prestvold 1996). Making. Technical Innovation and Social On the basis of grave finds and the Change, Norberg, Sweden 1995 (Magnusson occurrence of hill forts, Prestvold claims that 1995). In Denmark a Nordic congress was Inntr¿ndelag during the Roman Iron Age is arranged in 1996 where the focus was on ‘. . . a society that is about to change experimental smelting (N¿rbach 1997). In character and where the old social structures 1999 an international conference was held in are being replaced by new ones.’ The peak in Sandbjerg where the conference title was: iron production coincided with the peak in the Prehistoric and Medieval Direct Iron Smelt- struggle for power. Production decreased ing in Scandinavia and Europe. Aspects of when the social conflict lessened and the Technology and Society (N¿rbach 2003a). A social structures were consolidated (Prestvold conference held in Uppsala, Sweden, in 2001 1996:58f.). focused on The Introduction of Iron in The concept of technology is essential in Eurasia. Bernt Haûkon Rundberget’s study of an iron The aim of these conferences was primarily production site in Meraûker, North Tr¿ndelag. to present actual research in the Scandinavian He discusses the way technology can be countries and it is quite obvious that it is spread. A central point is that technological important to see iron production as an element knowledge is transmitted through action and in the society and there is a desire to combine participation. He has adapted a ‘chaıˆne technology and archaeology. This is not ope«ratoire’ method and analysed remains left surprising for a period when processual in furnaces. Special attention is given to thinking had made its way into archaeology. flagstones carefully laid on top of slag pits. It Scandinavian archaeology has been is obviously an intentional act and interpreted strongly influenced by Anglo-American as an attempt to hide knowledge. This inter- theoretical discussions in recent years. New pretation is clearly influenced by post-pro- trends have been adapted, but there have been cessual thinking. It was important to keep the very few attempts to include new theoretical knowledge within a social unit where reli- perspectives in the study of iron production. gious, political and economic factors as well The strong scientific tradition may be one as power and personal prestige are decisive reason for this situation. There has been (Rundberget 2002). limited space for humanistic thinking. Another subject of discussion is whether Some exceptions can be mentioned from there are ethnic differences in iron produc- Iron Production in Scandinavian Archaeology 131 tion. One possibility is that iron technology 2001). They have focused on the anthropo- was introduced in North Norway at a very logical aspects of iron production. early stage. Finds of iron objects in Finmark The study of iron production at the have raised this question (Olsen 1991). Slag Norwegian University of Science and Tech- finds inside ceramic vessels found in Northern nology in Trondheim began in the late 1970s Scandinavia were interpreted as remains of but it was episodic. It was not until a joint iron production (Hulthe«n 1991). Arne Espe- expedition on Heglesvollen in North Tr¿nde- lund has, however, seen these remains as lag had been organized in 1982 that things carburization of iron objects (Espelund 1992). started to happen. This expedition was a close In any case, this has opened the debate to cooperation between archaeology and metal- other possibilities regarding the introduction lurgy where an iron production site from of iron to Scandinavia than through a southern Roman Iron Age was excavated and inter- route, and other ethnic groups than Germanics preted (Farbregd et al. 1985, Espelund 1991). are conceivable. A later project at Fjergen, which was initiated because of a hydroelectric development, has strengthened this cooperation (Stenvik 1996). Since the beginning there has been a strong THREE DIRECTIONS IN NORWAY metallurgical profile on the research with The study of iron production has been an special emphasis on understanding metallur- essential part of the research at three uni- gical processes. The metallurgist, Professor versities in Norway. There is, however, a Arne Espelund, has been in charge of this different emphasis on this topic at the various research, while I have been leader of archaeo- universities. This is mainly due to tradition logical excavations in Mid-Norway and seen and specialization at the involved institutes. iron production in a social and economic The University of Oslo is the oldest academic perspective (Stenvik 1997, Espelund 1999). institution and has played the main role in the initial phase. Here there has been a tradition FINAL REMARKS of technological studies, and researchers were pioneers in combining technological and The study of iron production in Scandinavia cultural perspectives. Irmelin Martens, Jan has been closely linked with international Henning Larsen and Lars Erik Narmo are research. It is easy to see that researchers have exponents of a tradition where the iron seen influences in technology from other production is seen in combination with regions in Europe. Discussions have been economy and settlement. initiated between Scandinavian researchers At the University in Bergen a multidisci- and European colleagues exemplified in the plinary research programme was established Norwegian Archaeological Review, vol. 11(2) in the 1970s where the aim was to study how (1978). A great many researchers have man had harvested nature in prehistoric times. presented their work at conferences arranged One of the projects focused on the iron pro- by the Comite´ pour la side´rurgie ancienne, a duction adjacent to Hardangervidda, a moun- European group of researchers dealing with tain plateau between Eastern and Western archaeometallurgy. Several meetings of this Norway (Johansen 1973). This triggered group have been held in Scandinavia, during interest in iron production in other parts of which Scandinavian research has been pre- the world. African iron production soon sented to a European audience. became an important subject at the Institute It is not always easy to link traditional of Archaeology in Bergen with Professor archaeological research with other disci- Randi Haaland and Dr Randi Barndon as plines. Metallurgists and chemists have their central persons (Haaland 1985, Barndon own methods and without sufficient knowl- 132 Lars F. Stenvik edge of their respective ways of thinking, Farge Catalana en el marc de l’arquelogia dialogue may be difficult. Mistakes can be sideru´rgica. Ripoll. made by all disciplines involved in iron Buchwald, V. F. 1999. Blæsterjern, kloder og research and this has obviously led to the klimpjern. Smedejern fremstillet ved direkte wrong conclusions being drawn. processer i blæsterovne. In Jensen, P. H. (ed.), It is stated that there are many well- Klimp og kloder. Jern i middelalderens Dan- mark. Kjellerup. preserved iron production sites, especially in Cullberg, K. 1977. Na¨rja¨rnet kom.Go¬teborgs Sweden and Norway, but new technology in Arkeologiska Museum. forestry constitutes a threat to these remains. Englund, L.-E. 2002. Bla¬stbruk. Myrja¬rnhandter- New roads must be constructed because new ingens fo¬ra¬ndringar i ett laûngtidsperspektiv. and heavy machines are being introduced. Ja¨rnkontorets Bergshistoriske Skriftserie nr These machines cause damage to the ground 40. Stockholm. and destroy the iron production sites. During Espelund, A. 1991Ð93. Bloomery Ironmaking the past ten years there has been an alarming During 2000 years. Seminar in Budalen. Vol. increase in damaged iron production sites I–III. Trondheim. (Stenvik 1992). It is time for action from both Espelund, A. 1992. Tidlig jernproduksjon I archaeologists and national heritage autho- asbestkeramikk. Fornva¨nnen 87. rities to save this unique material. Espelund, A. & Stenvik, L. F. 1993. Ironmaking during the Roman Iron Age in Mid-Norway: The bloomery site Storbekken I in Budalen. An archaeo-metallurgical study. In Espelund, A. REFERENCES (ed.), Bloomery Ironmaking During 2000 Years. Seminar in Budalen. Vol. III. Trondheim. Barndon, R. 2001. Masters of metallurgy— Espelund, A. 1997. ‘The Evenstad’ process— masters of metaphors. Unpublished Ph.D-thesis. description, excavation, experiment and metal- Department of Archaeology, University of lurgical evaluation. In N¿rbach, L. C. (ed.), Bergen. Early Iron Production—Archaeology, Technol- Berre, I. 1998. Heglesvollomnen. Levanger His- ogy and Experiments. Technical Report Nr. 3. torielag. A˚ rbok 1998. Levanger. 1997. Lejre. Bjo¬rkenstam, N. 1993. Osmundja¬rn. Osmundens Espelund, A. 1999. Bondejern i Norge. Arketype, fatvikter och osmundvikten. Ja¨rnkontorets Trondheim. Bergshistoriska Skriftserie Nr 30. Stockholm. Evenstad, O. 1960. Afhandling om Jern = malm Bjo¬rkenstam, N. 1995. The blast furnace in Europe som findes i myrer og moradser i Norge, og during medieval times. Part of a new system for omgangsmaaden med at forvandle den til jern producing wrought iron. In Magnusson G (ed.), og staal. K¿benhavn 1790. Facsimilia Scientia The Importance of Ironmaking. Technical et Technica Norvegica 1. Trondheim 1960. Innovation and Social Change. Vol. I. Jernkon- Falk Muus, R. 1927. Fra noen jernvinneplasser i toret, Stockholm. Aû snes-Finnskog. Norsk geologisk tidsskrift 9. Bj¿rnstad, R. 2003. Teknologi og samfunn. Farbregd, O., Gustafson, L. & Stenvik, L. F. 1985. Jernvinna paû Vestlandet i jernalder. Unpub- Tidlig jernproduksjon i Tr¿ndelag. Unders¿kel- lished cand.phil. thesis. University of Bergen. sene paû Heglesvollen. Viking. Bd XLVIII. 1984. Borup, H. 1997. Østlandsovn—medieval shaft Haaland, R. & Shinnie, P. 1985. African Iron furnace from Norway. In N¿rbach, L. C. (ed.), Working. Ancient and Traditional. Norwegian Early Iron Production—Archaeology, Technol- University Press, Oslo. ogy and Experiments. Technical Report Nr 3. Haavaldsen, P. 1997. Lavteknisk jernframstilling i 1997 Lejre. Rogaland i jernalder og middelalder. In Selsing, Bro¬gger, A. W. 1925. Det norske folk i oldtiden. L. (ed.), Fire fragmenter fra en forhistorisk Institutt for sammenlignende kulturforskning, virkelighet. AmS Varia 31. Arkeologisk Serie A. Via, Oslo. museum i Stavanger. Buchwald, V. F. 1995. On the analysis and Hauge, T. D. 1946. Blesterbruk og myrjern. characterization of slags as an example. La Studier i den gamle jernvinna i det ¿stenfjeldske Iron Production in Scandinavian Archaeology 133

Norge. Universitetets Oldsaksamlings Skrifter. teknisk innovation i Danmarks bergslag? In Bind III. Oslo. Olsson, S.-O. (ed.), Medeltida danskt ja¨rn. Hja¬rthner-Holdar, E. 1993. Ja¬rnets och ja¬rnmetal- Forskning i Halmstad. 1. Halmstad. lurgins introduktion i Sverige. AUN 16. Martens, I. 1972. M¿sstrond i Telemark- en Uppsala. jernproduserende fjellbygd f¿r svartedauen. Hja¬rthner-Holdar, E., Kresten, P. & Larsson, L. Viking. Bd 36. Oslo. 1997. From known to unknown. Application of Martens, I. 1978. Some reflections on the classi- well-known experimental iron production fication of prehistoric and medieval iron-smelt- results on archaeological materials. In N¿rbach, ing furnaces. Norwegian Archaeological L. C. (ed.), Early Iron Production—Archaeol- Review 11(1). ogy, Technology and Experiments. Technical Martens, I. 1988. Jernvinna paû M¿sstrond i Tele- Report Nr. 3. Lejre. mark. En studie i teknikk, bosetning og Hougen, B. 1947. Fra seter til ga˚rd. Norsk ¿konomi. Norske Oldfunn XIII. Oslo. Arkeologisk Selskap, Oslo. Montelius, O. 1919. Va˚r Forntid. Norstedt, Stock- Hulthe«n, B. 1991. On Ceramic ware in Northern holm. Scandinavia During the Neolithic, Bronze and Mortensen, R. 1920. Jysk jern. Vejle Amts Early Iron Age. Archaeology and Environment. Aarbøger. K¿benhavn. University of Umeaû, Department of Archaeol- Narmo, L. E. 1996. Jernvinna i Valdres og ogy, Umeaû. Gausdal—et fragment av middelalderens ¿ko- Hyenstrand, Aû . 1974. Ja¬rn och bebyggelse. In nomi. Varia 38. Oslo. Dalarnas fornminnes och hembygdsfo¨rbund. Narmo, L. E. 1997. Jernvinne, smie og kullpro- Falun. duksjon i ¯sterdalen. Arkeologiske unders¿kel- Hyenstrand, Aû . 1979. Iron and iron economy in ser paû R¿dsmoen i Aû mot 1994Ð1996. Varia 43. Sweden. In Clarke, H. (ed.), Iron and Man in Oslo. Prehistoric Sweden. Jernkontoret, Stockholm. Nielsen, N. 1922. Jernudvindingen i N¿rrejylland i Jacobsen, S. 1983. The reducibility of iron ores oldtid og middelalder. Aarbøger for Nordisk found on prehistoric iron production sites. A Oldkyndighed og Historie. III Række. 12. Bind. preliminary study. Ja¨rnkontorets forskning. H K¿benhavn. 24. Stockholm. Nihle«n, J. 1932. Studier ro¬rande a¬ldre svensk Jacobsen, S., Larsen, J. H. & Narmo, L. E. 1988. ja¬rntilverkning med sa¬rskild ha¬nsyn till Smaû- ‘Naû blestres det igjen ved Dokkfløy’. Et fors¿k land. Ja¨rnkontorets Bergshistoriska Skriftserie, paû eksperimentell arkeologi. Viking Bd 52. N:r 2. Stockholm. Oslo. N¿rbach, L. C. 1997. Early iron production— Johansen, A. B. 1973. Iron production as a factor archaeology, technology and experiments. In inn settlement history of the mountain valleys N¿rbach, L. Chr (ed.), Technical Report Nr. 3. surrounding Hardangervidda. Norwegian 1997. Historical-Archaeological Centre, Lejre. Archaeological Review 6(2). N¿rbach, L. C. 1999. Organising iron production Jouttija¬rvi, A. 1994. Metallanalyser. Illerup Aû dal. and settlement in northwestern Europe during Proveniensbestemmelse af jern fra Illerup Aû dal- the Iron Age. In Fabech, C. & Ringtved, J. et pilotprosjekt. Illerup A˚ da.l Sma˚ skrifter 1. (eds.), Settlement and Landscape. Jutland Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab. Archaeological Society. Larsen, J. H. 1991. Jernvinna ved Dokkfløyvatn. N¿rbach, L. C. 2003a. Prehistoric and medieval De arkeologiske unders¿kelsene 1986Ð1989. direct iron smelting in Scandinavia and Europe. Varia 23. Oslo. N¿rbach, L. C. (ed.), Acta Jutlandica L¿ken, T. 1979. Jern og jernvinne som kulturhis- LXXXVI:2. Aarhus. torisk faktor i jernalder og middelalder i Norge. N¿rbach, L. C. 2003b. A short history of Danish In L¿ken, T. (ed.), AmS-Varia 4. Arkeologisk iron research. In N¿rbech, L. (ed.), Prehistoric museum i Stavanger. and Medieval Direct Iron Smelting in Scandi- Magnusson, G. 1986. Laûgteknisk Ja¬rnhandtering i navia and Europe. Acta Jutlandica LXXXVI:2. Ja¬mtlands La¬n. Ja¨rnkontorets Bergshistoriska Aarhus. 67Ð70. Skriftserie N:r 22. Stockholm. Olafsen, O. 1916. Myrmalmsmelting i Norge i Magnusson, G. 1995. Ja¬rnmo¬llan i Tvaûaûker, en ældre tid. Ris¿r. 134 Lars F. Stenvik

O¬ dman, A. 1992. Iron and castles in Scania. In reformationen. Bergen Museums A˚ rbok. 1910, Espelund, A. (ed.), Bloomery Ironmaking nr 11. Bergen. During 2000 Years. Vol II. Trondheim. Shetelig, H. 1913. En ‘Blæsterhola’ for myrjern- O¬ dman, A. 2000. Kolonisation och ja¬rnskatt i smelting. Naturen, 288Ð290, Bergen. norra Skaûne med Vittsjo¬ socken som exempel. Stenvik, L. F. 1991. Iron production and economic In O¬ dman, A. (ed.), Ja¨rn. Vittsjo¨konferansen booms during 2000 years. In Espelund, A. (ed.), 1999. Norra Ska˚nes medeltid 1. Lund. Bloomery Ironmaking During 2000 Years. Prestvold, K. 1996. Iron production and society. Seminar in Budalen 1991. Vol I. Trondheim. power, ideology and social structure in Inntr¿n- Stenvik, L. F. 1992. Skogsdrift og kulturminner. delag during the early Iron Age: stability and FOK-programmets skriftserie nr 4. Norges change. Norwegian Archaeological Review almennvitenskapelige forskningsraûd. Oslo. 29(1). Stenvik, L. F. 1996. De arkeologiske under- Risb¿l, O. 2001. Kulturminner og kulturmilj¿ i s¿kelser av et jernframstillingsanlegg ved Fjer- Graûfjell Regionfelt ¯stlandet, Aû mot kommune i gen i Meraûker, Nord Tr¿ndelag. In Stenvik, L. Hedmark. In Risb¿l, O. (ed.), Arkeologiske F. (ed.), Rapport Arkeologisk Serie 1996–1. registreringer 2000, fase 2. NIKU 102. Oslo. Trondheim. Rosenquist, A. M. 1988. Kjemiske og mineralo- Stenvik, L. F. 1997. Iron production in Mid- giske unders¿kelse. In Martens, I. (ed.), Jern- Norway, an answer to local demand? In Ha¬ssler vinna paû M¿sstrond i Telemark. Norske Oldfunn H. J. (ed.), Studien zur Sachsenforschung 10. VIII. Oslo. Oldenburg. Stenvik, L. F. 2003. Recent results from investiga- Rundberget, B. H. 2002. Teknologi og jernvinne. tions of iron production in northern Europe. In En teoretisk og metodisk tilnærming til jern- N¿rbach, L. C. (ed.), Prehistoric and Medieval vinna som kilde for menneskelig kunnskap og Direct Iron Smelting in Scandinavia and handling. Unpublished Cand.Phil. thesis, Nor- Europe. Aspects of Technology and Science. wegian University of Science and Technology, Acta Jutlandica LXXXVI:2 Aarhus. Trondheim. Swedenborg, E. 1734. De ferro. Om ja¨rnet. Sarauw, G. F. L. 1898. Lyngheden i oldtiden. Stockholm 1923. Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og historie, Voss, O. 1962. Jernudvinding i Danmark i II R., 13B. K¿benhavn. forhistorisk tid. KUML 1962. Aû rhus. Schulze, L. T. 1732. Kort bera¬ttelse om myr = Voss, O. 1973. Danish experiments with furnaces ugnar eller saû kallade bla¬ster = wa¬rk, uti o¬stra with slag pit. In von Guyan, W.U., Pleiner, R. & och va¬stra Dahle = orterne brukelige. Manu- Fabesova, R. (eds.), Die Versuchschmelzen und script. Interpreted by Ta¬pp John-Erik Petterson. ihre Bedeutung fu¨r die Metallurgie des Eisens In Bjo¬rklund, S. (ed.), Lima och Transtrand. Ur unddessen Geschichte. Schaffhausen. tva˚ socknars historia. Malung 1982. Voss, O. 1985. Jernudvindingsanlæg i Danmark Sch¿ning, G. 1979. Reise som giennem een Deel af fra forhistorisk og historisk tid. Arkæologiske Norge i de Aar 1773, 1774, 1775 paa Hans Udgravninger i Danmark. Det Arkæologiske Majestets Kongens Bekostning er giort og Nævn. K¿benhavn. beskreven. Trondheim. Voss, O. 1986. Drengsted. Reallexicon der Serning, I. 1973. Fo¬rhistorisk ja¬rnhandtering i Germanischen Altertumskunde. Dalarna. Jernkontorets forskning, Serie H, Nr. Voss, O. 1995. Snorup—an iron producing settle- Stockholm. ment in West Jutland, 1stÐ7th century AD.In Serning, I. 1976. Tidig ja¬rnframsta¬lning i Skandi- Magnusson, G. (ed.), The Importance of Iron- navien. In Cullberg, B. (ed.), Na¨rja¨rnet kom. making. Technical Innovations and Social Go¬teborg. Change. Vol. 1. Jernkontoret, Stockholm. Shetelig, H. 1910. Fortegnelse over de til Bergens Wedberg, V. 1984. Ha¬r gjordes eldsta ja¬rnet. Museum i 1909 indkomne saker ældre enn Popula¨r Arkeologi. A˚ rgang 2, nr 1. Lund.