116

ground level. However, the small amount of slag visible on the ground weighs heavily against such a construction, so with this small amount of slag in mind it is more likely that the furnace was raised in or above a slag pit. When the smelting was completed, the superstructure was ei-ther destroyed or moved and the slag stayed in the pit, which was never emptied, and after a few hundred years, this would have hardly left a noticeable depression in the ground. Such furnaces have been found at several loca-tions in southern Norway (Block-Nakkerud and Schaller 1979; Haavaldsen 1997, 73; Larsen 2003a, 177-179; Narmo 1997, 117). This production method leaves little surface slag and makes the furnace hard to fi nd without stripping off the topsoil and only the removal of the turf may reveal what type of furnace was in use, how compre-hensive the production was and other structures that may have been related to the production.

The site at Rognlivatnet could easily have been mis-taken for a smithy. There are relatively small amounts of slag and charcoal and no visible remnants of a furnace. The amount of slag is not signifi cant as a factor in deter-mining whether a site had been the location for iron ex-traction or smithing. At Rødsmoen in Southeast Norway, a total of 650 kg of slag was found in and around a smithy (Narmo 1997, 157). However, the size of some of the pieces of slag and especially the discovery of roasted iron ore at the site demonstrate that this was an iron produc-tion site and not a smithy. Additionally, the large amount of charcoal produced in the two pits closest to the melting site does not seem to be in accordance with smithing only since the need for charcoal in a smithy at a single farm is probably insignifi cant compared with what was needed for production. Half a cubic meter of charcoal is estimated

to be equivalent to several years of charcoal consumption in a smithy (Narmo 1997, 171). The combined production of 18.5 m3 in the two charcoal kilns seems to be more than what was needed to produce the relatively small amounts of slag visible at the site. According to estimates based on Evenstad’s (1790) production in the medieval and post-medieval period, between 29.5 and 59 liters of charcoal were needed to produce one kilo of iron (Narmo 1996, 146). It is possible that the charcoal produced in the two kilns was not exclusively for the production of iron as some of it may, like charcoal from the more distant char-coal pits, have been used in smithies at nearby farms.

There are several minor bogs in the vicinity of Rogn-livatnet but bog iron ore has not been documented. How-ever, no intensive survey has been conducted and it is likely that the iron ore necessary for the production came from a nearby bog.

IV. SOURCES OF INSPIRATIONWhen looking into which technological traditions the three ironworks might have been infl uenced by, the basis for such an evaluation is very different. Two sites have been excavated and even though the amount and quality of data is far better from those sites than the one that not has been excavated, this does not necessarily make such an evaluation any easier.

The site at Rognlivatnet has not been excavated, and we have no information about the furnace and scope of the production and this medieval iron production site has no known parallels in the north or east. Medieval iron production sites in Trøndelag have quite small fur-naces that were fi red with charcoal, and two large char-coal kilns close to the iron production site at Rognliv-

Figure 16. 14C dates from Rognlivatnet.

Acta Archaeologica

117

atnet indicate that this also was the case here. A lack of contemporary iron production sites in the north and east strongly indicate that Rognlivatnet is part of the same tradition of producing iron as found in Trøndelag and South Norway.

The location and micro milieu of the Roman Period site at Flakstadvåg very much resembles contemporary iron production sites in North Trøndelag. In addition, the size and placement of the furnace as well as the size and morphological structure of the slag indicate that this is a site based on the same technological tradition as those in North Trøndelag. There are also recorded Roman Period iron production sites in northern Finland, but the furnaces are very different and thus seem to belong to a different technological tradition.

Hemmestad Nedre is the site from which we have ac-cumulated the most data, and the site was probably oper-ated in the early part of the Pre-Roman Iron Age, a time from which we have fewer comparable sites. However, Pre-Roman sites with slightly younger dates are docu-mented in northern Finland, northern Sweden and south-ern Scandinavia and the question is whether the site at Hemmestad Nedre can be linked to any of these techno-logical traditions. Before taking a stand on this question, it will be necessary to look into both similarities and dif-ferences.

The sunken shaft furnace without slag tapping, which is found at Hemmestad Nedre was commonly found on the Continent and the British Isles during the iron produc-tion period BC (Serning 1979, 73), which also seems to be the case at contemporary sites in Norway and Sweden. Such constructional features place the Hemmestad Nedre furnaces in a European shaft furnace tradition, though the furnaces at Hemmestad Nedre differ from the oldest shaft furnaces found in Trøndelag which is the nearest produc-tion place to the south. The furnaces are different in size, as is the micro milieu in which they were situated. Also, the Roman Period Trøndelag furnaces were fi red with wood, while charcoal is most likely to have been used at Hemmestad.

When looking for the prototype of the Hemmestad Nedre furnaces we look to the south. No furnaces are found further north, and in the east, in North Sweden, in Finland and Karelen, the dominant type of furnace is the “slabstone” or “stone box” furnace which is not a shaft furnace and thus very different from the Hemmestad Ne-dre furnaces.

Sunken furnaces with narrow shafts are found in both southern Norway (Block-Nakkerud and Schaller 1979; Haavaldsen 1997; Larsen 2003a, 2003b, 2004) in south-ern Sweden (Serning 1979) and in Denmark (Andersen et al. 1987; Voss 2002). Moreover, the tradition of placing a sunken furnace in a clay-fi lled pit bordered with raised fl agstones is documented both in southern Sweden (Sern-ing 1979, 73) and in Denmark (Andersen et al. 1987, 176; Voss 2002, 139-140).

In southern Norway, small-sized furnaces have been found placed either directly on the soil in a pit, on a base made of small stones and clay, or within a framework of raised fl agstones (Larsen 2004, 156; Martens 1992, 59; Rolfsen 1992, 82). In addition, slag pits measuring 0.4 – 0.5 m in diameter have been found in Agder and Rogaland (Block-Nakkerud and Schaller 1979; Haavaldsen 1997; Larsen 2003a, 2003b, 2004) but these are believed to be similar to the ones found in continental Europe where the pit has been used only once and the shaft possibly reused, by moving it to another, empty pit.

Small furnaces dated to the Pre-Roman Iron Age with constructional details resembling the furnaces at Hem-mestad Nedre, have also been found in southern Sweden. Serning (1979, 68-70) describe circular or oval sunken furnaces, with a low shaft less than 1.5 times the diameter of the hearth. Also, she describes a “bowl” furnace which “… appear to have been surrounded by a rectangular border of substantial slabs placed on edge, the space be-tween the walls of the furnace itself and the stone border being fi lled with clay” (Serning 1979, 73).

The Skovmark furnace is the oldest iron production furnace known in Denmark, however, it does not repre-sent the earliest iron production phase (500-300 BC), as no furnace has been found dating to this period (Nørbach 1998, 59). It is found in both Sjælland and Jylland (Nør-bach 1998, 55, Figure 2) and was dominant in the period from 200 BC to AD 200, when it was replaced by the “slaggegrube-ovn” (“slag pit furnace”, author’s transla-tion) (Voss 2002, 139-141). Voss’ (2002, 140) description of the Skovmark furnace has a strikingly similarity to the furnaces at Hemmestad Nedre: “A pit with fl at bottom is dug 40-45 cm deep, a diameter of approximately 100 cm and fi lled with clay. A cylindrical furnace, approximate-ly 30 cm in diameter, is made in the middle of the pit. An opening in the furnace, approximately 25 cm wide, is fortifi ed with one or two fl agstones where it opens up towards a working pit” (author’s translation) (Figure 17).

Prehistoric Iron Production in North Norway

118

Johansen and Vorren 1986, 745; Sjøvold 1962, 1974). While agriculture thus was of little importance for the people of North Troms and Finnmark, stock keeping, on the other hand, may have been of some signifi cance as a supplement to hunting and fi shing. Reindeer herding may also have been of some importance, but it is uncertain as to exactly when the practice of keeping reindeer and rein-deer herding began (Aronson 2001; Hansen and Olsen 2004; Sommerseth 2009; Storli 1994).

There has been some discussion about whether iron possibly could have been produced by hunter/gatherers (Bagøyen 1978, 90; Baudou 1995; Hulthén 1991). There is no doubt that iron production was organized and car-ried out on farming settlements, although the location of some iron production sites indicate that this trade was also executed by people living outside the farming com-munities (Johansen 1973, 98-99; Magnusson 1983, 140).

VI. STOCK KEEPERS AND FARMERS, OR FORAGERS?Some researchers have claimed that iron production was a very time consuming and labor intensive process that required technological knowledge and a social structure capable of organizing the great amount of work neces-

V. THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ARCTIC IRON PRODUCTIONThe north Norwegian iron production as we know it cov-ers a period of approximately 1700 year. During such a long period, social relations, economy and technology changed greatly and when looking into the background and the context of the three iron production sites this has to be taken into consideration.

Over time, people in North Norway have relied on a wide variety of resources. Since the introduction of stock keeping and farming, this has played an increasingly im-portant role in the subsistence economy of most coastal settlements north to the Tromsø area. In this geographical area, it is likely that some people mainly lived off farming and some from hunting and fi shing, while most people probably practiced a mixed economy. In North Troms and Finnmark, the subsistence economy during the Iron Age relied more on hunting and fi shing as the northern climat-ic limit for ripening grain is in North Troms. However, pollen data indicate that Iron Age farming occasionally may have been practiced in North Troms and Finnmark, but these were rather isolated cases and the continuous line of permanent Iron Age farming settlements does not extend north of the Lyngen Fjord (Johansen 1979;

Figure 17. The base of a Skovmark furnace and a reconstruction (Voss 2002:139, 141, Figures 1, 3).

Acta Archaeologica