ARTICLE Norwegian Archaeological Review, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2003 Iron Production in Scandinavian Archaeology 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 Sma˚land (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 (Nørbach 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 Ska˚ne 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.