https://www.ancientpages.com/2023/08/15/hunter-gatherer-metallurgy/
So where does that leave us?
Having quickly read the original Antiquity paper, I must admit that I am not at all surprised in the manner the authors think we should be1 The main contention seems to be that specialists in High North archaeology assumed iron usage did not reach the local tribes until the Viking age, but now they have evidence of it in the Iron Age. Personally, I would have always assumed that, unless there was reason to believe complete isolation from southern Scandinavia and northern Europe, that iron working would have spread north quite quickly. At least in terms of usage; production might have been limited because would society need so much iron there, other than hunting and military weapons?
Actually, the more interesting bit in the Antiquity article, not reflected in the Ancient Pages piece, is the fact that they seem to have found evidence of intentional bloomery steel production that predates the first known Roman bloomery steel. I know Sweden, for instance, has high quality iron ore, and so would not dismiss the idea that, once the notion of iron working had spread there, they might have developed skills quickly. However, I am also left wondering whether it just shows the risk of archaeologists assuming that the oldest evidence they have found (in this case, Roman bloomery steel production circa 100BC) equates to first actual technology, as opposed to something that might have been practised a lot earlier but evidence of which has either not survived or not yet been unearthed.
It does seem logical when you approach it like that and "overnight" transitions don't happen they meander and build momentum
Good piece I thought