120

and there is no way of telling if such structures may have been located in other parts of the fi eld or nearby in the outland area. No house structures are to be seen on the magnetometer map (Figure 4) although modern agricul-tural activity may have destroyed them. Stray fi nds dating to the Stone Age have been found on Hemmestad Nedre and neighboring farms but no houses or settlements from this period have been found. There are several Iron Age grave fi nds from the area, but none as old as the iron pro-duction site.

At Hemmestad Nedre, only one object can be dated to this transitional period between the Stone Age and the Iron Age, which was a fragment of asbestos-tempered ce-ramics found in Structure I during an excavation in 1999 (Figure 18). The 3 gram fragment (Ts. 11225 e) meas-uring only 1.9 cm by 2.6 cm is not easily identifi able. However, the asbestos tempering is very pronounced, and the thickness of the asbestos fi bers very much re-sembles that of Risvik ceramics (Figure 19). According to Jørgensen and Olsen (1988, 65), it should be dated to the period from 1100 – 400 BC, but later research in-cluding 14C dates based on carbonized material scraped off the ceramics itself, indicate a shorter period of use, somewhere between 800 and 400 BC (Andreassen 2002, 66, 71, Figure 7). It seems thus likely that the iron pro-ducers at Hemmestad Nedre were users of Risvik ceram-ics, a type of ceramic exclusively found along the coast between Lyngen in Troms and Sogn in western Norway (Andreassen 2002; Høgestøl 1995, 135; Jørgensen and Olsen 1987, 1988).

The fragment of Risvik ceramics is signifi cant in identifying the iron producers. It is, except for the fur-naces, the only fi nd from the excavation at Hemmestad Nedre, which might give a clue about the socio-econom-ical framework in which the production took place. Little is known about the users of the Risvik ceramics and I will provide a summary of the present knowledge of this subject.

VII. POTS, FARMERS AND IRON: THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT OF THE RISVIK CERAMICSIn order better to understand the socio-ecomomic context of the Hemmestad Nedre site it is necessary to raise one’s eyes and take a larger geograhpical area into considera-tion. The small fragment of asbestos tempered ceramics found during the excavations at Hemmestad Nedre link

lar to this type are found in southern Norway since this kind of furnace and the production technology associated with it were part of a European shaft furnace tradition.

The Pre-Roman Iron Age is a period from which, at least in a north Norwegian context, few fi nds and few historical monuments are known. However, two long houses, at Hunstadneset at Kveøya in Kvæfjord and at Skålbunes in Bodø, have recently been documented (Arn-tzen 2008; Hole 2008). The latter structure is indistinct as the post holes and traces of the walls are hard to interpret (Hole 2008, 26-27, 2009, 17). The house at Kveøya, on the other hand, is a distinct structure and no doubt a long house, with a roof held up by two rows of internal posts (Henriksen and Sommerseth 2009, 27, Figure 21; Som-merseth, Arntzen and Henriksen 2009, 48). The house at Hunstadneset, to be found 4 km north of Hemmestad Ne-dre, was excavated in the summer of 2008. Eleven post holes are dated to the Pre-Roman Iron Age (Henriksen and Sommerseth 2009, 26-28; Sommerseth, Arntzen and Henriksen 2009, 48) and in one of those, a small piece of asbestos-tempered ceramics was found.

It is possible that the iron producers lived at Hun-stadneset at Kveøya and came to Hemmestad Nedre to produce iron. On the other hand, they may have lived closer to the iron production site in similar type houses or some other kind of structure yet to be found. Only 1.4% of the cultivated fi eld (250 m2 of 18000 m2) was exam-ined by stripping off the topsoil at Hemmestad Nedre,

Figure 18. Risvik ceramics from Hemmestad Nedre (Photo: Adnan Icagic, Tromsø University Museum).

Acta Archaeologica

121

At two excavated sites, Hellarvikjæ House I and Røs-nesvalen, which are both at Træna, slag, iron and Risvik ceramics were found together. Gutorm Gjessing (1943, 137), who excavated the sites, maintains that iron had been produced at both places, yet no production site was found and the amount of slag is far too small to support such a claim. Risvik ceramics have also been found to-gether with slag or iron at several other sites, and between Senja in the north and Træna in the south, Risvik ceram-ics have been found in association with iron or slag at 10 sites (Figure 20, Table 4). The fact that iron or slag has been found at approximately 30% of the sites with Ris-vik ceramics of which most are not excavated, may indi-cate that iron as a raw material was an integral part of the material culture at these sites. However, most sites have been used during long periods and there are, with the ex-ception of the excavated sites at Træna, some uncertainty as to whether the use of ceramics and iron, as well as

the settlement to contemporary fi nds of much wider geo-graphical signifi cance.

The concept of “asbestos ceramics” refers to several sub-groups of ceramics primarily used during the Late Stone Age and Early Metal Period. Asbestos-tempered ceramics found in North Norway may be divided into seven sub-types, but only four types: textile ceramics, imitated textile ceramics, Kjelmøy ceramics and Risvik ceramics are found in Nordland and Troms (Jørgensen and Olsen 1987, 1988). The dating of the Risvik ceram-ics partly overlap with the dates of the iron production, so based on the arguments stated above, I therefore fi nd it likely that the fragment of ceramics found in connec-tion to Structure I is of the Risvik type, and that those using Risvik ceramics and the iron producers were the same people.

Hemmestad Nedre is not the only place where slag, iron and Risvik ceramics are found in the same context.

Figure 19. Risvik ceramics (Photo: Adnan Icagic, Tromsø University Museum).

Prehistoric Iron Production in North Norway

122

found at Hemmestad Nedre confi rm that some people us-ing Risvik ceramics also produced iron, and that Risvik ceramics was an integral part of the iron producer’s mate-rial culture.

Risvik ceramics have been found at 36 sites between Saltfjellet and North Troms (Figure 20, Table 4) which does not seem much knowing that the ceramics were used throughout a 400-year period. However, the number of sites dated to this period is not very high and it is thus

the production of slag, coincide. However, simultaneous-ness is documented at sites with vessels of Risvik type A which seem to have been repaired by strings of iron and with type C which had an iron collar below the rim (Andreassen 2002, 86). The small amount of slag found at sites with Risvik ceramics makes it highly unlikely that it originates from iron production. Gjessing (1943, 137) may have been wrong about iron being produced at Træ-na, but the small fragment of asbestos-tempered ceramics

Figure 20. Sites with Risvik ceramics and slag or iron (Graphics: Adnan Icagic, Tromsø University Museum).

Acta Archaeologica

123

in Finnmark was the result of contact with the western offshoots of the eastern Ananjino culture (Hansen and Olsen 2004, 38). The early stages of iron production in northern Finland should probably also be understood in this context, and the very fi rst metal users in Finnmark were probably part of an exchange system in which cul-tural infl uence shifted and artifacts moved.

Several fi nds support the idea about Risvik ceramics’ southern connection. At Skjeggestad in Alstadhaug Mu-nicipality, Risvik ceramics were found in a coffi n of stone slabs together with a razor and fragments of a needle, both made of bronze, and the bronze artifacts are dated to Period 3 of the Bronze Age (Bakka 1976, 27, 31; Ågotnes 1976, 120-122, 1986, 104). At several locations, Risvik ceramics are found together with fragments of small, rel-atively thin-walled soapstone vessels (Andreassen 2002, 82; Jørgensen 1986, 72-75). In one of his early works, Shetelig (1912, 52) relates the soapstone vessels in Ro-galand to the Nordic Bronze Age culture, while Møllerop (1960, 39) dates them to the late Pre-Roman Iron Age. Thin-walled soapstone vessels are divided into fi ve sub-groups (Pilø 1990, 93-95), of which one is morphologi-cally close to the Risvik ceramics with a depressed rib-bon below the rim. This morphological element of Risvik ceramics seems to have been transferred to the soapstone vessels as the ceramics fade out during the emergence of the soapstone vessels in the Pre-Roman Iron Age (An-dreassen 2002, 84). The geographical distribution and the discovery of ceramics in context with southern bronzes and morphological similarities with soapstone vessels indicate that the users of Risvik ceramics had a cultural orientation to the south.

The orientation towards the south refl ected in the material culture all the way back to the Neolithic grows stronger towards the end of the Early Metal Period and coastal societies north to the Tromsø area seem to be increasingly integrated into the southern Scandinavian Germanic culture throughout the Iron Age (Hansen and Olsen 2004, 56f, 133; Johansen 1990). Pollen data, as well as archaeological fi nds, indicate that the farm as a socio-economical unit was established in North Norway sometime in the last millennium BC, possibly in the Pre-Roman Iron Age. Graves with high prestige objects in-dicate a development towards an increased social strati-fi cation from the Roman Period, and the courtyard sites indicate an increased political consolidation among the Germanic settlements in Nordland and Troms (Hansen

possible that the Risvik ceramics was widespread and the dominant everyday vessel for cooking or storing food.

Risvik ceramics are exclusively dated to the last Mil-lennium BC, but the trajectories that led to the formation of this ceramic tradition may be traced back to the Middle/Late Neolithic and the Bronze Age. A number of artifacts such as axes, fl int daggers, bronzes and rock carvings with symbols associated with south Scandinavian Bronze Age are found along the coast of northern Norway (Johansen 1979; Jørgensen 1986; Valen 2007). These fi nds indicate contact between north and south along the coast from the Middle Neolithic until the Late Bronze Age. At the same time, as these southern contacts increase along the coast of Nordland and Troms during the Early Metal Period, the hunting societies to the north and in the interior enters networks that links them to agrarian, metal-producers in eastern and central Russia (Hansen and Olsen 2004, 55; Olsen 1994).

The socio-economic changes that took place during the Early Metal Period in North Norway, brought about a differentiation among the formerly relatively uniform hunting societies of the north. This differentiation is re-fl ected in the asbestos ceramics, where the former uni-form (pseudo-) textile ceramic tradition splits into the geographically complementary Risvik and Kjelmøy ceramics during the last millennium BC. Farming and stock keeping are now spread to more settlements along the coast of Nordland and Troms, and the contacts to the south are consolidated while the hunters to the north and east intensify their eastern contacts. This duality is thought to form the socio-economic background for the processes that led to the emergence of Germanic/Norse and Sami ethnicity in northern Norway (Hansen and Ol-sen 2004; Jørgensen and Olsen 1987, 1988; Olsen 1994). Risvik ceramics are exclusively found on the outer coast south of Lyngen in Troms in areas that a few hundred years later came to host Germanic farming communities, and the contemporary Kjelmøy ceramics are primarily found to the north and east in areas, which were later dominated by the Sami people.

Being two contemporary and complementary ceramic traditions, both Risvik and Kjelmøy ceramics support the picture of settlements with different cultural orientation, i.e. people at the coast north to Lyngen in Troms main-taining and establishing new contacts to the south, while people north and east of this area mainly are interacting with societies to the east. As a result, the fi rst use of iron

Prehistoric Iron Production in North Norway

124

VIII. WHY SO FEW PRODUCTION SITES IN THE NORTH?Based on the present archaeological fi nds we have to as-sume that prehistoric iron production was very small in the north, not only in North Norway but also in all of northern Fennoscandia. There is, however, no reason to believe that all iron production sites have been found and it is reasonable to assume that more production sites will be found in the years to come. After 130 years of archaeo-logical research in North Norway, more sites would sure-ly have been found if the prehistoric iron production ac-tivity was nearly as comprehensive as in the south. There is, in other words, no reason to believe that the few sites found until now is like the “tip of an iceberg” and that a large number of iron production sites will be discovered.

If iron production in North Norway really was as small as the fi nds indicate, an important question is why the production did not grow to become a major industry as iron surely was a costly and much sought after com-modity. There might be many reasons why the north Norwegian iron production did not evolve into a major industry and conditions related to such as absence of re-sources, little demand, an ethnic division of labor, lack of technological knowledge and the social organization may have been of importance. A broad and in-depth discus-sion of the causal relations between the elements that is most likely to have infl uenced the northern iron produc-tion, is slightly outside the scope of this paper and will have to be addressed elsewhere.

and Olsen 2004, 59f; Odner 1983; Ramqvist 1983, 112f; Storli 2006).

Major efforts were undertaken in the 1970s and 1980s by archaeologist Olav Sverre Johansen and botanist Karl Dag Vorren to map the earliest evidence of farming in North Norway (Johansen 1982b, 1990, Johansen and Vor-ren 1986, Vorren and Nilssen 1982, Valen 2007). Howev-er, no pollen diagram that document farming is from sites with Risvik ceramics, but they are close enough for those who settled at these sites to have had knowledge about this new supplement to the economy. At Storbåthallaren in Flakstad Municipality, both Risvik ceramics and bones from cattle and sheep/goat have been found (Utne 1973). The bones are dated to the time of the Risvik ceramics, which supports the suggested link between farming and Risvik ceramics. In close proximity of the newly excavat-ed long house at Kveøya, a contemporary, fossilized fi eld has been found which document Pre-Roman agriculture (Arntzen 2009, 43; Sommerseth, Arntzen and Henriksen 2009, 48). It would therefore be reasonable to assume that farming was part of the economy of those producing iron at Hemmestad Nedre.

Based on the location of the site, the technology ap-plied in the iron production and the fi nd of Risvik ceramic at the iron production site, it is likely that the iron produc-tion at Hemmestad Nedre was inspired by and based on southern technology. There are no signs of the site being infl uenced of eastern production technology and it seems probable that iron producers at Hemmestad Nedre were part of the sphere infl uenced by South Scandinavian/Ger-manic culture.

Acta Archaeologica