The prime movers of iron production in the Norwegian

57 Gardeła, L. et al. The spur goad from Skegrie in Scania, Sweden. Evidence ofelite interaction between Viking Age Scandinavians and Western Slavs.

75 Loftsgarden, K. The prime movers of ironproduction in the Norwegian Viking andMiddle Ages.

88 Wärmländer, S.K.T.S. & Söderberg, A.Hollow comb rivets made from strip-drawn copper wire and two possible ant-ler draw plates from 11th–12th c. Sigtuna,Sweden.

debatt100 Kjellström, R. Stalofrågan – en personlig

slutkommentar.107 Lovén, C. Var Beowulf gute?

kort meddelande115 Scheglov, A. Omarbetning av Olaus Petris

krönika: Ett politiskt vittnesbörd – ochheraldiskt?

recensioner118 Larsson, B.T. & Broström, S-G. Nämforsens

Hällristningar – Sveriges största och äldstahällristningsområde med 2600 figurer(The rock of Nämforsen). Anmälan av V. Mantere.

120 Ahlström, C. The Viking Age. A time ofmany faces. Anmälan av L. Gardeła.

123 Ljung, C. Under runristad häll: Tidig-kristna gravmonument i 1000-talets Sverige. Anmälan av P. Carelli.

FORNVÄNNEN

FORNVÄNNEN2019/2

JOURNAL OF

SWEDISH ANTIQUARIAN

RESEARCH

2019/2

Innehåll

issn 0015-7813

Omslag 2019/2_Omslag 3/2004 (kopia) 2019-05-20 11:32 Sida 1

Utgiven avKungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien i samarbete med Historiska museet.

Fornvännen finns på webben i sin helhet från första årgången och publiceras löpande där med ett halvårs fördröjning: fornvannen.se

Ansvarig utgivare och huvudredaktörMats RoslundVitterhetsakademienBox 5622, 114 86 [email protected]

Redaktionssekreterare och mottagare av manuskriptPeter CarelliVitterhetsakademienBox 5622, 114 86 [email protected]

RedaktörerHerman Bengtsson, [email protected] Fredengren, [email protected]Åsa M Larsson, [email protected]

Teknisk redaktörKerstin ÖströmGrävlingsvägen 50167 56 [email protected]

PrenumerationVitterhetsakademienBox 5622, 114 86 Stockholme-post [email protected] 535-3552

Årsprenumeration i Sverige (4 häften) 200 kronor, lösnummer 60 kronor

Journal of Swedish Antiquarian Researchpublished by The Royal Academy of Letters, History and AntiquitiesSubscription price outside Sweden (four issues) SEK 250:–Box 5622, SE-114 86 Stockholm, Sweden

fornvännen började utges av Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien år 1906 och ersatte dåAkademiens Månadsblad samt Svenska Fornminnesföreningens Tidskrift, som båda tillkommit under 1870-taletsförsta år. Förutom i Sverige finns Fornvännen på drygt 350 bibliotek och vetenskapliga institutioner i mer än40 länder.

Tidskriften är referentgranskad.

fornvännen (»The Antiquarian») has been published by the Royal Academy of Letters, His tory and Anti quities since 1906, when it replaced two older journals which had started in the early years of the 1870s.Outside Sweden Fornvännen is held by more than 350 libraries and scientific institutions in over 40 countries.

The journal is peer-reviewed.

issn 0015-7813Printed in Sweden by AMO-tryck AB, Solna, 2019

Till författaren

fornvännen välkomnar manuskript i nordisk arkeologi och äldre tiders konstvetenskap med an grän sandeämnen. Bidrag kan vara avfattade på de skandinaviska språken samt engelska, tyska och franska. Abstracts ochsammanfattningar skall vara på engelska, bildtexter på uppsatsens språk och engelska. Hela Fornvännens inne-håll publiceras fortlöpande både på papper och på internet, det senare med ett halvårs fördröjning. Kontaktagärna redaktionen inför och under skrivandet om frågor uppstår.

Tekniska och typografiska frågorManuskript skall vara kompletta och noga korrekturlästa. De levereras med all text i en enda fil i RTF-formateller annat vanligt ordbehandlingsformat. Filen skickas helst per e-post, annars på CD. Inget pappersmanu-skript behövs. Om invecklad typografi som tabeller, matematiska formler eller runtranskriptioner förekommerkan dock en utskrift eller PDF-fil vara bra.

UppsatserTät och kortfattad framställning är en dygd. En uppsats får inte överstiga 16 trycksidor à 4500 ned slag inkl.abstract, illustrationer och tabeller.

Uppsatser levereras med abstract (högst 1500 nedslag), summary (2000–4500 nedslag) och bildtexter, alladessa på engelska.

Abstract inleds med författarnamn, årtal, uppsatsens titel med engelsk titel inom parentes och avslutas medförfattarens namn, institutionsadress och e-postadress.

ReferenserDessa utformas enligt Harvardsystemet med författarnamn, tryckår och sida inom parentes i texten. Underrubriken Referenser förtecknas refererade eller citerade arbeten i bokstavsordning efter författarens efternamnföljt av initialer, tryckår, titel, namn på eventuell tidskrift samt nummer, utgivande institution och förlagsort.Titlar på monografier och tidskrifter kursiveras. Inga sidnummer anges i referenslistan. Se nedan.

Forsklund, F., 1954. Skäggmode under järnåldern. Esoteriska sällskapets årsskrift 26. Stockholm.Gendergren, G., 1993. Medeltida suffragetter i Burgund. Lund.Sviskonkvist, S., 1946. Priapos på Kullaberg. Adlerlöffel, X. & Ölkefjär, Y. (red.). Sydsvensk järnålderskult,

ett symposium. Halmstad.

IllustrationerIllustrationer skickas med minst 1500 pixlars bredd, per e-post, på CD eller i fysiskt original. Fornvännen pub-licerar endast illustrationer där rättighetsinnehavaren givit författaren tillstånd för publicering på internet.

Debatt och mötesreferatDebattinlägg och mötesreferat saknar abstract och summary, får ha referenser och illustrationer, överskriderinte 5 trycksidor à 4500 nedslag inkl. illustrationer. Innan ett inlägg publiceras skickar redaktionen ofta slut-redigerad version till berörd part för inhämtande av svar.

Korta meddelandenKorta meddelanden får ha referenser och illustrationer, överskrider inte 3 trycksidor à 4500 nedslag inkl. illustrationer.

RecensionerRecensioner får inte ha illustrationer eller referenslista (kortfattade referenser läggs inom parentes i texten),omfattar högst 9000 nedslag inklusive mellanslag. Tonvikten skall ligga på vetenskaplig utvärde ring mer än påreferat av böckernas innehåll.

KorrekturFörfattaren får efter textredigeringen den nya textversionen per e-post för granskning. Illustrerade bidrag skickas därtill, efter slutförd typografering och ombrytning, per e-post i form av PDF-fil för granskning. Ingapapperskorrektur förekommer.

Varje författare erhåller ett exemplar av det häfte i vilket bidraget blivit infört.

Omslag 2019/2_Omslag 3/2004 (kopia) 2019-05-20 11:32 Sida 2

Fornvännen 114 (2019)

From the late Viking Age throughout the HighMiddle Ages (950–1300 AD) specialised farmersproduced iron on a massive scale, surpassing bothlocal and regional demands (Larsen 2009; Rund-berget 2013, pp. 253–254; Loftsgarden 2017, p.69). The production took place on thousands ofsites in the mountain and upper valley regions ofSouth Norway. These areas were sparsely popu-lated, they were exempted from several taxes, andthere was a high degree of self-ownership of farmscompared to other regions.

How the surplus production of iron and thesubsequent trade was organised remains little ex-

plored in Scandinavian research. Building on pre-vious research (Loftsgarden 2017), this study showshow singular farms in marginal agricultural areascould provide a surplus of iron and is importantin furthering our understanding of the socio-economic development of Scandinavian Vikingand Middle Ages.

The paper aims to discuss the surplus produc-tion of iron and shed light on the next stage of theproduction process – from the furnace to a com-modity. I show and discuss raw iron as a stan-dardised commodity, and explore the regionaldistribution of various types of iron bars in rela-

The prime movers of iron production in theNorwegian Viking and Middle AgesBy Kjetil Loftsgarden

Loftsgarden, K., 2019. The prime movers of iron production in the NorwegianViking and Middle Ages. Fornvännen 114. Stockholm.

The thousands of iron production sites scattered across the mountain and valleyregions of Norway are testament to a massive surplus production from the latterhalf of the Viking Age throughout the High Middle Ages. Archaeological and his-torical sources indicate that this production was carried out by singular farms. Still,the amount of iron produced surpassed both local and regional demands and con-stituted a regional and interregional commodity in the period 950–1300 AD.

The point of departure in exploring the organisation of iron production, andthe subsequent trade, is the spatial distribution of various types of iron bars. Theregional differentiation in iron bars may reflect differences in trade and economicsophistication. The smaller and standardised axe-like bars indicate that the trade inValdres, Hallingdal, and Østerdalen had a layer of professionalism and a relativelymore hierarchical social and economic organisation. In contrast the larger, less stan-dardised split blooms points to Numedal, Telemark, and Setesdal as less economi-cally and socially differentiated, with less professionalism and homogeneity.

This study shows how farmers in marginal agricultural areas could provide asurplus of iron and is important in furthering our understanding of the socio-eco-nomic development of Scandinavian Viking and Middle Ages. The substantial pro-duction of iron in the inland shows a willingness to risk valuable time and resources.The risk lay on the farmers, but so did the possible gains. The extent of the iron pro-duction alone suggests that it was a risk worth taking.

Kjetil Loftsgarden, The Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo, Postboks 6762, N-0130 Oslo, Norge

[email protected]

Art. Lofsgarden 75-87_Layout 1 2019-05-20 11:14 Sida 75

76


Kjetil Loftsgarden

tion to the administrative and economic divisionsin the inland of South Norway. This enables afurther understanding of the actors and the orga-nising of iron production and trade – who werethe people behind the iron production and sub-sequent trade? Moreover, what were their moti-vations?

Regarding structure, I will first introduce ironas a standardised commodity and present the re-gional distribution of different types of iron bars.Subsequently, I will explore how the surplus pro-duction of iron was organised. My results arethen integrated into the ongoing discussion onproduction and trade in Scandinavia in the Vi-king and Middle Ages.

Data sources and methodical approachesThe extent of the exploitation of outfield resour-ces such as iron, hunting and trapping in the Vikingand Middle Ages is well known through a num-ber of archaeological excavations and researchprojects e.g. (Martens 1988; Mikkelsen 1994;Magnusson 1999; Englund 2002; Holm et al.2005; Bergstøl 2008; Indrelid 2009; Larsen 2009;Tveiten 2012; Rundberget 2013; Stene 2014;Hennius 2018). Even though non-agrarian re-sources were of great importance and value, theyare barely featured in written sources from theMiddle Ages. This means that archaeological find-ings and sites make up the most important datamaterial to increase our knowledge about thesocioeconomic role of these resources.

In Scandinavia, numerous archaeological col-lections as well as almost all surveyed archaeolo-gical sites, are digitised and available online (forNorway see unimus.no and askeladden.ra.no; forSweden see fornsok.se; for Denmark see kultur-arv.dk/fundogfortidsminder). One thus has accessto thousands of findings and sites with detailedinformation. This big data requires a structuredapproach, in that regard geographic informationsystems (GIS) is a valuable tool for documenta-tion, illustration, and analysis. All geographic ana-lyses and maps in this paper are made with theGIS application ArcMap. Background maps arederived from the public domain map dataset “Na-tural Earth” or from the Norwegian or SwedishMapping Authority (maps from naturalearthdata.com is freely available, and many maps from the

Norwegian and Swedish Mapping Authority (Kart-verket and Lantmäteriet) are available throughthe license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0International CC BY 4.0).

Iron as a commodityIn Scandinavian Viking and Middle Ages ironwas produced on thousands of small-scale bloo-mery furnaces in valleys and mountain areas (fig.1–2). The relatively small furnaces with slag-tap-ping were well suited to be operated by specia-lised farmers in these areas (Tveiten & Loftsgar-den 2017). Calculations indicate that as much as190,000 tons of iron were produced in Norwayduring this period. The extent of the iron produc-tion must, however, be considered in relation tothe demand for iron. While there are several un-certain factors, all estimates so far show that theproduction of iron was significantly greater thanthe need for iron (Rundberget 2013; Loftsgarden2017, pp. 71–72). These calculations demonstratethat iron from the inland of Norway should beregarded as a regional and interregional com-modity in the period 950–1300 AD. In addition,there was an increasing amount of iron producedin blast furnaces in Sweden from the 12th century(Magnusson 2009).

In archaeological approaches to trade and tra-de networks, the association is often made be-tween long-distance trade and luxury items. How-ever, this may in part be the result of the difficul-ties in assigning provenance to staple commodi-ties and raw materials (Ashby et al. 2015, p. 681).Recent excavations and research projects havefound evidence for long-distance trade of rawmaterials and products from the Norwegian in-land, such as whetstones, soapstone vessels andreindeer antlers (Ashby et al. 2015; Baug 2015;Baug et al. 2018). It is likely that iron should alsobe included on this list (Buchwald 2006; Rund-berget 2015, pp. 178–182).

Still, the trade in iron itself can be difficult touncover. Iron produced in the same furnace couldhave different uses, and iron was forged and re-forged several times (Jakobsen 1991, p. 146). How-ever, we can interpret findings of malleable ironblocks or bars outside of the iron producing areasas indications of trade and exchange of iron, andthe regional distribution of hoards containing


77


Fig. 1. Kernel density map showing the distribution of known charcoal pits (32,668). Charcoal pits are closelyconnected to iron production in Norway in the Viking and Middle Ages (Bloch-Nakkerud 1987; Loftsgarden2015). The spatial distribution of charcoal pits will, therefore, indicate the core areas of iron production in thisperiod. Data from the Norwegian database for cultural heritage (Askeladden), and the Swedish National Heritage Board’s database for archaeological sites and monuments (Fornsök). Map by K. Loftsgarden.

Fig. 2. The dark grey distribu-tion is the sampled KernelDensity estimated distribu-tion (KDE) of 1,101 radiocar-bon dates from excavatedcharcoal pits in South Nor-way. The blue line and lighterblue band overlying this showthe mean ±1σ for snapshots ofthe KDE distribution gener-ated during the MCMCprocess and indicate the sig-nificance of any features. Thedates are analysed in OxCal(Ramsey 2017).

Charcoal pits(32 668)

Charcoal pits KDE model (n=1101)

The prime movers of iron production …


78


Kjetil Loftsgarden

iron bars can thus be used to indicate trade routesand catchment areas for produced iron.

Axe-like iron bars and split bloomsTo produce an iron bar the raw iron is hammeredfree of slag and forged to standardised forms andcan be defined as a semi-finished product with aset value (Magnusson 1986, p. 274; Jørgensen2010, p. 112). There are different types of ironblocks or bars, and there are regional and chrono-logical differences. Here I focus on two types; theaxe-like iron bar and the split bloom. Both ofwhich are especially prevalent in South Norway(Martens 1979; Jakobsen 1991, p. 44).

An axe-like bar is an iron rod where one endis flattened while the other end has either a holeor a hook (fig. 3a). Split or notched iron blooms,on the other hand, are only lightly processed byhammering the bloom and then splitting it al-most in half (fig. 3b). Medieval Icelandic writtensources distinguish between two types of splitblooms, ‘blásturjárn’ and ‘fellujárn’ (Olafsen 1916,p. 9; Hauge 1946, p. 149; Martens 1979, p. 195).Of the two types, the fellujárn was slightly moreprocessed. In the Icelandic Jónsbók (c. 1280) thereis a difference in value between blásturjárn andfellujárn (J X 5) indicating a difference in quality.However, since there does not exist a consistentuse of the two terms in archaeological research, Iwill use split blooms as a collective term.

There are known both axe-like iron bars andsplit blooms outside Scandinavia. The majorityof axe-like bars are found in three regions – thesoutheast Czech Republic (Moravia), the south-east of Poland (Lesser Poland) and South Nor-way (Szmoniewski 2010, p. 289). In contrast, thesplit blooms have a wider geographical distribu-tion and from the 10th–13th centuries, splitblooms are known in central Asia, Russia andcentral Europe, in addition to Scandinavia (Buch-wald 1999; Pleiner 2003, p. 186). This is to beexpected since the split blooms are a less stan-dardised form and could easily be forged from aniron bloom.

The primary study area in this paper is SouthNorway, and it is evident that here the axe-likeiron bars are by far the most numerous. Theyhave mainly been found in farmland areas insoutheast Norway (fig. 4). These regions haverelatively few traces of iron production in theViking and Middle Ages, but must be regarded ascatchment areas for iron made in the surround-ing valleys and mountain areas. In western andsouthernmost parts of Norway, there are close tono findings of axe-like bars. In these areas splitblooms have been found, although the total num-ber is low.

Most iron bars or blooms are found buried orhidden away in between rocks and boulders andinterpreted as hoards. In some cases, the hoard

Fig. 3a. Axe-like iron bars, C24471. Photo: O. Holst,Museum of Cultural History, UiO.

Fig. 3b. Split bloom, C33241. Photo: L. Pedersen,Museum of Cultural History, UiO.


79


also consists of iron tools, such as celts, axes orploughshares. The axe-like bars are usually foundin numbers, up to over a hundred bars in a singlehoard. While the largest hoard consisting solelyof split blooms is a hoard with six split blooms(C25340) found in Telemark, close to the moun-tain plateau Hardangervidda.

Axe-like bars occur mainly as two standard-ised sizes, respectively, of approximately 30 cmand 100–125 g and about 15 cm and 10–15 g(Hauge 1946, p. 170; Resi 1995, p. 142). The splitblooms are considerable heavier, most weighingseveral kilos. This means that out of one largesplit bloom, such as a bloom weighing 12,5 kg

found in Telemark (C33241), one could make100 axe-like iron bars of the large type or close to800 of the smaller type. Figure 4 visualises thenumber of iron bars that have been found – butnot the weight of the iron. An overview of thegeographical distribution of items based on weightwill possibly give a different picture, but in de-scriptions of found iron bars, the weight is usuallynot included.

DatingMost iron bars are found without other artefactsor material which can be dated. Axe-like iron barsare found on 146 different sites in Norway, in

Fig. 4. Spatial distribution of axe-like iron bars (7 120) and split blooms (21) in South Norway. Data from theMuseum of Cultural History in Oslo (UiO), the Archaeological Museum in Stavanger (UiS) and the UniversityMuseum in Bergen (UiB). Map by K. Loftsgarden.



80


Kjetil Loftsgarden

only ten of these sites do the bars appear along-side other artefacts, allowing a typological dating(see table 1). The same applies to the split-blooms. These are found on 15 sites, where onlytwo sites contain other artefacts (see table 2).

There are examples where axe-like iron barsare found in an early iron age context (Høst-Madsen & Buchwald 1999; Simonsen 2007, p.

214). Still, as seen in table 1, this type of iron barseems to have been mainly used from the begin-ning of the Late Iron Age (c. 550–1050 AD) andare utilised until the Early Middle Ages, possiblelater. The split blooms seem to have been intro-duced in the Late Iron Age, and, as mentioned,also appears in medieval written sources. Besides,the shape and dimensions of the split blooms

Museum no. Municipality, County Other artefacts Dating

C3422 Jevnaker, Oppland Axe, knife, scythe, Late Iron Agesickle and celt

C3447 Gjøvik, Oppland Celt and scythe Late Iron Age–Early Middle Ages

C3549 Gran, Oppland Celt and scythe Late Iron Age–Early Middle Ages

C10510 Enebakk, Akershus Axe and celt Viking Age

C12361 Ringerike, Buskerud Axe Late Viking Age–Early Middle Ages

C12798 Vågå, Oppland Ploughshare and celt Late Iron Age–Early Middle Ages

C20608 Nord-Aurdal, Oppland Ploughshare, celt, scythe, Late Iron Agearrowheads and knives

C23191 Øyer, Oppland Celt Viking Age

C28785 Øvre Eiker, Buskerud Iron pan and sickles Late Iron Age

C57245 Østre Toten, Oppland The iron bar was found in a cooking pit, dated 450–550 AD

Tab. 1. Axe-like iron bars found in a dated context.

Tab. 2. Split-blooms found in a dated context.

Museum no. Municipality, County Other artefacts Dating

B7492 Stryn, Sogn og Fjordane Ploughshares, spoon Viking Age–augers and scythes Early Middle Ages

B14470 Årdal, Sogn og Fjordane Late Iron Age–EarlyMiddle Ages (Found at an iron production site)


81


match the iron production furnaces from theLate Iron Age and Middle Ages (Martens 1979,p. 62).

The organising of surplus productionThe distribution of iron as a standardised com-modity indicates the trade and exchange in iron.However, to further our understanding of theorganising of iron production and the subsequenttrade, this must be seen in a larger cultural-his-torical context – who had control over the re-sources in the outfield?

The forest and mountain areas where ironproduction took place were common land (Rein-ton 1956, pp. 98–102; Øye 2002, p. 367). In me-dieval law texts, the rights of use were mandatedby tradition and upheld by use (G VII 15). Thisapplied to shieling sites, the use of the forests,fishing, and pitfall traps (Øye 2002, p. 367).Although not specified in the law texts, it is rea-sonable to assume that iron production followedthe same principles. The adjacent farms had firstaccess to the common land and could claim therights of use (Øye 2002, p. 367).

In general, written sources from the MiddleAges rarely mentions iron production. One offew exemptions is a law amendment pertainingto Østerdalen from 1358. This amendment con-firms that the people of Østerdalen could freelyproduce iron following the tradition, and theking’s ombudsmen shall not prevent them frombringing the goods to the marketplaces (RN VI,nr 483; NGL IV, pp. 378–380; Rundberget 2013,p. 282). The iron production in Østerdalen wasmore or less over before 1300, so the amendmentis pointing to a past practice where the local popu-lation produced iron (Rundberget 2013, pp.283–285).

The impression of a locally controlled pro-duction is emphasised by examples where iron isincluded in property transactions, as in Valdresin the 14th century (DN II, nr 186, 225; DN X, nr27; Tveiten 2012). Also, several diplomas men-tion smiths from Valdres in the same period (DNII, nr 186, 257; DN IV, nr 209). The thousands ofscattered furnaces and charcoal pits in the moun-tain and valley areas also add to the case that ironproduction was combined with farming.

Transhumance was an essential part of the

farm in the mountain and valley areas (Taksdal1973). As climate and natural conditions in theseareas are not suitable for extensive grain cultiva-tion. Iron production could have been an integralpart of a farm – based predominantly on animalhusbandry – where the iron production itselfmay have been carried out in the winter as thisinterfered least with regular farm work (Taksdal1973; Bloch-Nakkerud 1987, pp. 148–149; Lofts-garden 2017, pp. 217–218).

This scenario contrasts with what appears tobe the case regarding surplus production basedon other resources in the same period, for examp-le, the millstone quarry in Hyllestad and the slatequarry in Ølve, both in western Norway. Here anexternal elite – a church/monastery – controlledthe production (Weber 1989; Baug 2013; Baug2015). However, there is an apparent practicaldifference between controlling a quarry, definedwithin a specific and limited geographic area,and controlling production at the many and geo-graphically dispersed iron production sites. Addi-tionally, iron production, as with hunting andfishing, was situated in the outfield. As mentio-ned, this is an important consideration as theoutfield represented common land which hadattached to it other rights of use.

Self-ownership and autonomyBefore discussing the organisation of iron pro-duction and trade in the interior, I will explorethe economic and social divisions that can betraced in the Norwegian inland. It seems clearthat this will affect the organising of trade andthe integration of outfield resources into theoverall economic sphere.

Based on contemporary sources, coupled withlater records concerning land ownership, it islikely that most of the farmers at the end of theHigh Middle Ages did not own land. It is estimat-ed that no more than 35 percent of the land inNorway was self-owned (Sandnes 1977, p. 533;Krag 2000, p. 153). However, there are regionaldifferences, and the inland areas had a high pro-portion of self-ownership, such as in Setesdal, Tele-mark, Hallingdal, and Numedal, as well as Valdres,albeit to a lesser degree (Bjørkvik & Holmsen1972, p. 71; Helle 1974, p. 158) (fig. 5). Althoughthese estimates apply to the High Middle Ages,



82


Kjetil Loftsgarden

we can assume that this points to establishedsocial structures. The underlying premise in thecontext of this paper is that the higher the pro-portion of farmers who own their land, thegreater the likelihood that the surplus produc-tion and subsequent trading on marketplaceswere initiated and organised by a local popula-tion.

In addition to having a relatively high pro-portion of self-ownership, the mountain and val-ley areas around Hardangervidda were quite simi-lar in terms of living conditions, social organisa-tion, and topography. Still, there were also divi-sions and dependencies between people from dif-ferent social and economic strata. Apparently toa greater degree in Valdres and Hallingdal than inNumedal, Telemark, and Setesdal indicated interms of self-ownership and different tax sys-tems. Both church and royal power seem to havehad less influence in Numedal, Telemark and

Setesdal (Steinnes 1930, pp. 141–142; Imsen 1990,pp. 51‒53; Brendalsmo & Riisøy 2014).

Towards the Middle Ages, a gradual transi-tion occurs from personal economic ties to taxa-tion based on land and production (Øye 2002, p.267). However, the taxes imposed by both theking and the church were lower in inland areas(Bjørkvik 1970, pp. 539–541). The total tax bur-den on an inland farm in southeast Norway inthe 1290s was about half of what a farmer in thecoastal areas had to pay (Dørum 2004, pp. 420–421). Even so, from the middle of the 13th centu-ry the farmers were expected to pay tithe from re-source utilisation in common lands such as fromhunting and trapping and the production ofiron, tar and salt (RN I, nr 1009; NgL II, pp.468–477; Øye 2002, p. 362). Still, Telemark andNumedal were exempted, and iron production,as well as hunting and trapping, seem to havetaken place without taxation (NgL II, pp.483–484; Steinnes 1930, p. 147). Nor did theseareas pay the leiðangr tax, however, they did haveto pay another form of tax – the older bishop-and Olav-tax (Steinnes 1930, pp. 141–142).

In 1277, peasants from Telemark and Nume-dal seemed to have reached an agreement withthe King Magnus Lagabøte (Storm 1888, p. 95;Steinnes 1930, p. 147). This settlement in itself presupposes a conflict with the king. In sum, it seems Telemark and Numedal were on the out-side and among the last regions to be integratedas part of the national kingdom.

Farmers, producers and tradersBased on the previous discussion regarding theorganisation of iron production in the mountainand valley areas, the most likely scenario is aresource utilisation conducted by local farmers.The organising of iron production on relativelysmall sites that could be operated by two or threepersons can be understood from an ownershipstructure where independent farms had rights ofuse to adjacent common land (Tveiten 2012, pp.232–233). The relatively weak position of theking and church supports this impression andmakes it unlikely that someone outside the moun-tain and valley communities was directly involvedin the iron production. The logical question thatfollows is; was the farmers that were in charge of

Fig. 5. The proportion of self-owned land in 1661(Imsen & Winge 2004) Map by K. Loftsgarden.


83


the resource utilisation also part of the trade?Dagfinn Skre has recently put forth that mo-

netary practices of valuing items in a commonmonetary unit and paying by means of a mediumwere well established in Scandinavia by the Vi-king Age (Skre 2017). He convincingly arguesthat the introduction of a monetary practice wasa change in mind-set and not merely the intro-duction of a certain media (Skre 2017, p. 283).Thus, the inland farmers operated within a soci-ety where transactions could be monetarydespite the absence of token-money, such as sil-ver or coins.

The results presented in this paper indicatesthat the tons of iron produced in the sparselypopulated inland were distributed through tradeand transactions. Through marketplaces and eco-nomic networks, the populous coastal regions,and the elites, could gain access to the inlandresources (Loftsgarden 2017). However, fromthe middle of the 13th century a variety of non-agrarian resources became subject to taxation.Still, it is uncertain how much this constituted, asparts of the inland were exempted from the tithe,and the tax rates seem to have been generally low.Besides, by the time iron became subject to taxa-tion the production was fast declining, cf. figure 2.

Concerning Østerdalen, Bernt Rundbergetargues that the king had established control ear-ly in the Middle Ages and that the moderate taxrate was a privilege given to the population inØsterdalen from early on to stimulate the estab-lishment of iron production and an increase inthe amount of iron produced (Rundberget 2013,p. 283). However, he finds that the principle offree trade, described in the previously mentionedlaw amendment of 1358, was a new right the kingbestowed on the farmers in Østerdalen (Rund-berget 2013, pp. 282–283).

The law amendment from Østerdalen shouldnot be given weight in the question of resourceutilisation and trade in the mountain and valleyregions further west. There are notable varia-tions in the organising of iron production inØsterdalen and that which took place in themountain and valley areas around Hardanger-vidda. In addition, the low taxes and the relativelyhigh proportion self-ownership in these areasindicate a greater degree of autonomy and a lack

of control and influence from an outside elite.This suggests that the initial trade – as well as theorganisation and production based on outfieldresources – was carried out by a local population.

Inland tradeThe time and resources spent on the large-scaleiron production show a willingness for surplusproduction, and that there were opportunitiesand venues for trading off the surplus produce(Loftsgarden 2017). The farmers could transportthe goods to the marketplaces themselves, butthe trade may also have involved local or regionalelites. Products from the outfield, be it iron, ant-lers, leather or butter could be a way to get thegoods they could not, or would not, produce them-selves. Through trade, the inland population gain-ed access to necessary resources such as grain andsalt, but also prestige goods such as weapons, cloth-es or jewellery (Martens 1989; Loftsgarden 2018).

Outfield resources could generate an econo-mic profit that made it possible to maintain asocially acceptable consumption and thus parti-cipate in the community while maintaining alocal affiliation (Svensson 2007, p. 197). This is,for instance, visible in the grave goods of theViking Age. Both jewellery and weaponry foundin gra-ves in the mountain and valley regions areof the same style and type found in the gravegoods from more central farms in Norway—aswell as from much of the rest of Scandinavia(Hougen 1947; Mikkelsen 1994, pp. 78–87;Martens 2009). The local surplus that outfieldresources enabled can thus be seen as both eco-nomic and cultural capital (Stene & Wangen2017). In order to understand why the inlandpopulation in South Norway initiated a surplusproduction, they must be seen as both economicactors and social beings.

From figure 2 we see an increasing iron pro-duction from the end of the Viking Age. Indicat-ing that more and more farms took part in thesurplus production of iron, and the subsequenttrade. By the 13th century, unorganised trade hadgained such an extent that King Håkon Håkons-son in 1260 introduced a ban on travelling withthe intention of trade (NgL I, pp. 121–123; NglIV, pp. 19–22; RN I, nr 975). In the FrostathingLaw it is written that nothing makes the country



84 Kjetil Loftsgarden


more desolate than if everyone wants to go ontrading expeditions and no one works for thefarmers; “[...] allir vilia nú í kaupferðir fara enengi vinna fyrir bóndum” (NgL I, p. 125). A mini-mum amount of 3 marks of silver was introdu-ced as a prerequisite for trading from Easter tothe end of September (Michaelmas). This pro-hibition was also included in the national law(Landslov) of 1274 (L VIII 23). This does notseem to have had the desired effect since the banwas repeated in several law amendments in the1300s. As in 1364, when the minimum amountwas increased to 15 marks of silver (NgL III, p.184). Or in an amendment of 1383, where thedangers of young men’s trading expeditions was

further emphasised (NGL III, pp. 216–217; RNVII, nr 1117). The purpose of the ban was likelytwo-fold. Partly, there could have been a realissue with labour shortages, but it should also beseen as an attempt to prevent trade at the small-er marketplaces beyond the king’s reach.

In addition to farmers, there would have beenspecialised traders involved in the trade of out-field resources. These traders may have operatedfreely or acted on behalfs of an elite. For instance,Sverris saga depicts ‘kaupmenn’ (traders) livingin the marketplace of Kaupanger in the mid-1100s(Sverres saga, ch. 79–82).

Marketplaces such as Kaupanger could con-stitute central hubs between iron production in

Fig. 6. Places of trade in the regionssurrounding the Hardangervidda-plateau and the main communica-tion routes (Loftsgarden 2017:73–80). Map by K. Loftsgarden. Back-ground map: Norwegian MappingAuthority.


the mountain and valley regions and westernNorway, including the medieval town of Bergen(Loftsgarden 2017) (fig. 6). The contrast betweenthe many iron production sites found in easternNorway and an almost absence of similar sites inwestern Norway indicates a significant import ofiron to western Norway. Excavations in Kau-panger have unearthed several smiths/forgeriesand large amounts of slag, and there are hundredsof charcoal pits in the surrounding area (Øye1977; Knagenhjelm 2008). This suggests thatsmiths in Kaupanger reworked iron bars fromValdres as tools, weapons or other iron objects.Which subsequently was included in regional orinterregional trade and exchange.

As shown in figure 4, there are no finds of axe-like bars south of Hardanger. This may suggestthat iron from Valdres and Hallingdal supplied areas north of Hardanger, while Numedal, Tele-mark, and Setesdal supplied southwestern Nor-way, perhaps also including Bergen. This is indi-cated by the relatively large amounts of slag,from the reworking iron blooms, found in Ber-gen. Displaying a situation where iron as a com-modity flowed to the medieval town from the1100s (Brinch-Madsen 1995; Andersson et al.2015, pp. 230, 241). Since the axe-like iron barswere significantly processed, the amount of slagleft in this type of iron bar was low. In compari-son, split blooms, which were only slightly mod-ified at the iron production site contained agreater amount of slag which would be notice-able during the forging of iron items. The analy-sis and the amount of slag suggest that splitblooms from Setesdal, Telemark or Numedal,was processed in Bergen.

ConclusionThe thousands of iron production sites in theScandinavian inland are visible traces of an ex-tensive regional surplus production in the Vikingand Middle Ages. Archaeological and historicalsources indicate that the production and at leastthe initial trade in iron was organised and carriedout by specialised farmers. Although trade wasstill influenced by social and political ties involv-ing the elites, the king and the church.

Hoards consisting of standardised iron barsindicates the trade in iron, and the regional dif-

ferentiation in iron bars may reflect differencesin trade and economic sophistication. The smallerand standardised axe-like bars indicate that thetrade in Valdres, Hallingdal, and Østerdalen hada layer of professionalism and points to a relative-ly more hierarchical social and economic organi-sation. In contrast, Numedal, Telemark, and Setes-dal appear as less economically and socially dif-ferentiated, with less professionalism and homo-geneity. This meant that wealth from outfieldresources was more evenly distributed, and itcould have been more demanding for church andstate to collect taxes and fees.

The substantial surplus production of iron inthe Scandinavian inland in the Viking age andMiddle ages shows a willingness to risk valuabletime and resources. The risk lay on the farmers,but so did the possible gains. The extent of theiron production alone suggests that it was a riskworth taking.

ReferencesAndersson, H., Hansen, G. & Jeffery, S., 2015. Järn och

städer. Tankar kring det arkeologiska materialet iBergen och Gamla Lödöse. Järnet och Sverigesmedeltida modernisering. Jernkontorets Bergshisto-riska Skriftserie nr 48. Stockholm.

Ashby, S. P., Coutu, A. N. & Sindbæk, S. M., 2015.Urban Networks and Arctic Outlands: Craft Spe-cialists and Reindeer Antler in Viking Towns.European Journal of Archaeology, vol. 18.

Baug, I., 2013. Steinbrota i Ølve – ei klosterdrivenverksemd? Økland, B. G., Jünger, J. C. S. & Øye, I.(eds.) Halsnøy kloster : til kongen og Augustins ære.Oslo.

– 2015. Actors in quarrying. Production and distri-bution of quernstones and bakestones during theViking Age and the Middle Ages. Hansen, G., Ash-by, S. P. & Baug, I. (eds.) Everyday products in themiddle ages: crafts, consumption and the individual inNorthern Europe c. AD 800–1600. Oxford.

Baug, I., Skre, D., Heldal, T. & Jansen, Ø. J., 2018. TheBeginning of the Viking Age in the West. Journal ofMaritime Archaeology, vol. 14.

Bergstøl, J., 2008. Samer i Østerdalen?: en studie av etni-sitet i jernalderen og middelalderen i det nordøstre Hed-mark. Upublisert doktorgradsavhandling i arkeo-logi, Universitet i Oslo.

Bjørkvik, H., 1970. Skatter, Noreg. Kulturhistorisk lek-sikon for nordisk middelalder fra vikingtid til refor-masjonstid, vol. XV. Oslo.

Bjørkvik, H. & Holmsen, A., 1972. Kven åtte jorda i den

85




gamle leiglendingstida? Fordelinga av jordeigedomen iNoreg i 1661. Trondheim.

Bloch-Nakkerud, T., 1987. Kullgropen i jernvinna øversti Setesdal. Oslo.

Brendalsmo, J. & Riisøy, A.-I., 2014. Reida: En dis-kusjon av dens karakter og opphav. Ommundsen,Å., Opsahl, E. & Ugulen, J. R. (eds.) En prisverdighistoriker. Festskrift til Gunnar I. Pettersen. Riksarki-varen skriftserie nr. 41. Oslo.

Brinch Madsen, H., 1995. Report, Metalhåndværk iBergen, Slagger fra udgravningen 1987 i Domkirkegat-en 6, Bergen BRM 245. Archive report, Universitymuseum of Bergen.

Buchwald, V. F., 1999. Blæsterjern, kloder og klimp-jern. Jensen, P. H. (ed.) Klimp og kloder. Jern i middel-alderens Danmark. Thorning.

– 2006. A Note Concerning Three Ancient Anchorsfrom Nydam, Ladby and Ribe. Bencard, M., Ras-mussen, A. K. & Madsen, H. B. (eds.) Ribe Excava-tions 1970–76. Højbjerg.

DN = Diplomatarium Norvegicum: Oldbreve til kundskabom Norges indre og ydre forhold, sprog, slægter, sæder,lovgivning og rettergang i middelalderen. Christiania/Oslo 1847–2011.

Dørum, K., 2004. Romerike og riksintegreringen : inte-greringen av Romerike i det norske rikskongedømmet iperioden ca. 1000–1350. Upublisert doktorgradsav-handling i historie, Universitetet i Oslo.

Englund, L.-E., 2002. Blästbruk : myrjärnshanteringensförändringar i ett långtidsperspektiv. Stockholm.

G = Den ældre Gulathings-lov, NgL I, s. 1–118/Gula-tingslovi, omsett av Knut Robberstad. Oslo 1981.

Hauge, T. D., 1946. Blesterbruk og myrjern: studier i dengamle jernvinna i det østenfjelske Norge. Oslo.

Helle, K., 1974. Norge blir en stat: 1130–1319. Bergen.Hennius, A., 2018. Viking Age tar production and out-

land exploitation. Antiquity, vol. 92.Holm, I., Innselset, S. M. & Øye, I., (eds.) 2005.

Utmark: the outfield as industry and ideology in the IronAge and the Middle Ages. Bergen.

Hougen, B., 1947. Fra seter til gård: studier i norsk boset-ningshistorie. Oslo.

Høst-Madsen, L. & Buchwald, V. F., 1999. The charac-terization and provenancing of ore, slag and iron-from the ironage settlements at Snorup. HistoricalMetallurgy, vol. 33.

Imsen, S., 1990. Norsk bondekommunalisme: fra MagnusLagabøte til Kristian Kvart. Trondheim.

Imsen, S. & Winge, H., 2004. Norsk historisk leksikon:kultur og samfunn ca. 1500–ca. 1800. Oslo.

Indrelid, S., 2009. Arkeologiske undersøkelser i vassdrag:faglig program for Sør-Norge. Oslo.

J = Jónsbók. Lögbók Magnúsar konungs Lagabætis, handaÍslendingum, eður Jónsbók hin forna: løgtekin á alþingi1281, Akureyri. / Jónsbók: kong Magnus Hakonssonslovbog for Island vedtaget paa Altinget 1281 og ; Réttar-bœtr: de for Island givne retterbøder af 1294, 1305 og

1314. Omsett av Ólafur Halldórsson. København1904.

Jakobsen, S., 1991. Hersker og smed: smedarbeider i Tøns-berg i perioden ca. 1150–1350. Tønsberg.

Jørgensen, R., 2010. Production or trade? The supply ofiron to North Norway during the Iron Age. Upublisertdoktorgradsavhandling i arkeologi, University ofTromsø.

Knagenhjelm, C., 2008. Kaupanger i Sogn: etablering,vekst og bydannelse. Andersson, H., Hansen, G. &Øye, I. (eds.) De første 200 årene : nytt blikk på 27 skan-dinaviske middelalderbyer. Bergen.

Krag, C., 2000. Norges historie fram til 1319. Oslo.Larsen, J. H., 2009. Jernvinneundersøkelser. Oslo.L = Den nyere Lands-Lov, udgiven af Kong Magnus

Haakonssøn, NgL II, I–178/Magnus Lagabøters lands-lov. Omsett av Absalon Taranger. Kristiania 1915.

Loftsgarden, K., 2015. Kolgroper – gull eller gråstein?Berg-Hansen, I. M. (ed.) Arkeologiske undersøkelser2005–2006. Oslo.

– 2017. Marknadsplassar omkring Hardangervidda – einarkeologisk og historisk analyse av innlandets økonomiog nettverk i vikingtid og mellomalder. Upublisert dok-torgradsavhandling i arkeologi, Universitetet i Ber-gen.

– 2018. Salt – ressurs og handelsvare i middelal-deren. Heimen, vol. 55.

Magnusson, G., 1986. Lågteknisk järnhantering i Jämt-lands län. Stockholm, Jernkontoret.

– 1999. Järnhandtering i Norden. Burenhult, G.(ed.) Arkeologi i Norden. Stockholm.

– 2009. Om järnets roll. Helgesson, B. (ed.) Järnetsroll: Skånelands och södra Smålands järnframställningunder förhistorisk och historisk tid. Kristianstad.

Martens, I., 1979. Jerndepotene – noen aktuelle prob-lemstillinger. Løken, T. (ed.) Jern og jernvinne somkulturhistorisk faktor i jernalder og middelalder i Norge:innlegg holdt på Det norske arkeologmøtets symposium,Bryne 1978. Stavanger.

– 1988. Jernvinna på Møsstrond i Telemark. Oslo.– 1989. Bosetningsvilkår og ressursutnyttelse i Nor-

ge. Et marginalitetsproblem? Årbok Universitetetsoldsaksamling. Oslo.

– 2009. Vågå og Tinn – to bygder med mange prak-tvåpen fra vikingtid Viking, vol. LXXII.

Mikkelsen, E., 1994. Fangstprodukter i vikingtidens ogmiddelalderens økonomi: organiseringen av masse-fangst av villrein i Dovre. Oslo.

NgL = Norges gamle Love indtil 1387, bind I–V. Utgivneved Rudolf Keyser og Peter Andreas Munch. Chris-tiania 1846–1895.

Olafsen, O., 1916. Myrmalmsmeltning i Norge i ældre tid.Risør.

Pleiner, R., 2003. European Iron Blooms. Nørbach, L.C. (ed.) Prehistoric and Medieval Direct Iron Smeltingin Scandinavia and Europe: Aspects of Technology andScience. Århus.

86


Kjetil Loftsgarden


87


Ramsey, C. B., 2017. Methods for SummarizingRadiocarbon Datasets. Radiocarbon, vol. 59.

Reinton, L., 1956. Alminding. Kulturhistorisk leksikonfor nordisk middelalder fra vikingtid til reformasjonstid,vol I. Oslo.

Resi, H. G., 1995. The Norwegian iron bar deposits:have they most to tell about production, distribu-tion og consumption? In: Resi, H. G. (ed.) Produk-sjon og samfunn: om erhverv, spesialisering og bosetningi Norden i 1. årtusen e.Kr. : beretning fra 2. nordiske jern-aldersymposium på Granavolden gjæstgiveri 7.-10. mai1992, pp. 131–147. Oslo: Universitetets Oldsak-samling.

RN = Regesta Norvegica. Kronologisk fortegnelse over doku-menter vedkommende Norge, nordmænd og den norskekirkeprovins.http://www.dokpro.uio.no/dipl_norv/regesta_felt.html.

Rundberget, B., 2013. Jernets dunkle dimensjon: jernvin-na i sørlige Hedmark, sentral økonomisk faktor og pre-miss for samfunnsutvikling c. AD700–1300. Upubli-sert doktorgradsavhandling i arkeologi, Univer-sitetet i Oslo.

– 2015. Sørskandinavisk jernutvinning i vikingtiden– lokal produksjon eller handelsprodukt? Peder-sen, A. & Sindbæk, S. M. (eds.). Et fælles hav: Skager-rak og Kattegat i vikingetiden. Seminar på National-museet, København, 19.- 20. september 2012. Køben-havn.

Sandnes, J., 1977. Frihet og føydalisme – bokmelding.Heimen, vol. 17.

Simonsen, M. F., 2007. Jernbarrene fra Fogderud iØvre Eiker – et kvalitetsprodukt fra fortiden? Yst-gaard, I. & Heibreen, T. (eds.) Arkeologiske under-søkelser 2001–2002.

Skre, D., 2017. Monetary Practices in Early MedievalWestern Scandinavia (5th–10th Centuries ad).Medieval Archaeology, vol. 61.

Steinnes, A., 1930. Gamal skatteskipnad i Noreg. Oslo.Stene, K., 2014. Gråfjellprosjektet, bind 4: I randen av

taigaen – bosetning og ressursutnyttelse i jernalder ogmiddelalder i Østerdalen. Oslo.

Stene, K. & Wangen, V., 2017. The Uplands: the deep-est of forest and the highest of mountains –Resource exploitation and landscape managementin the Viking Age and Early Middle Ages in south-ern Norway. Glørstad, Z. T. & Loftsgarden, K.(eds.) Viking-Age Transformations: Trade, Craft andResources in Western Scandinavia. Abingdon.

Storm, G.,1888. Islandske Annaler indtil 1578. Christia-nia.

Svensson, E., 2007. Before a world system? The peas-ant-artisan and the market. Klápšté, J. & Sommer,P. (eds.) Arts and crafts in medieval rural environ-ment: Ruralia IV, 22nd-29th September 2005, Szenten-dre & Dobogóko, Hungary. Turnhout.

Sverres saga. Translated by Dag Gundersen. Oslo 1979.Szmoniewski, B. S., 2010. Axe-like iron bars in the ear-

ly middle ages from central and northern europe.Some comments. Magureanu, A. & Gáll, E. (eds.)Intre stepa si imperiu: studii în onoarea Radu Harhoiu.Bucuresti.

Taksdal, T. F., 1973. Rundt Møsvatn: Busetnad ognæringsliv i ei fjellbygd. Upublisert magistergrads-oppgave, Universitetet i Oslo.

Tveiten, O., 2012. Mellom aust og vest: ein arkeologiskanalyse av jarnvinna kring Langfjella i yngre jarnalderog mellomalder. Upublisert doktorgradsavhandlingi arkeologi, Universitetet i Bergen.

Tveiten, O. & Loftsgarden, K., 2017. The extensiveiron production in Norway in the tenth to thir-teenth century – a regional perspective. Glørstad,Z. T. & Loftsgarden, K. (eds.) Viking Age Transfor-mations: Trade, Craft and Resources in Western Scandi-navia. Abingdon.

Weber, B., 1989. Baksteheller – en handelsvare. Trond-heim.

Øye, I., 1977. Innberetning om de arkeologiske utgrav-ninger på Kaupanger hovedgård gnr. 105/1 Sogndal k.Sogn og Fjordane (6/6–2/7 og 26/9–6/10–1977). Mid-delaldersamlingen, Historisk museum.

– 2002. Landbruk under press, 800–1350. Jorda blirlevevei: 4000 f.Kr.–1350 e.Kr. Oslo



Documents

The prime movers of iron production in the Norwegian