1 Mendels, F., ‘Proto-industrialization: the first phase of the industrialization process’, Journal of Economic History XXXII (1972).Google Scholar

2 One of the most recent publications is the special issue of Continuity and Change (vol. 8, 1993), on ‘Proto-industrialization’.Google Scholar

3 For an introduction to this debate see Clarkson, L., Proto-industrialisation: the first phase of industrialisation? (London, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Coleman, D. C., ‘Proto-industrialization: a concept too many’, Journal of Economic History XXXVI (1983)Google Scholar. For Swedish conditions, see Isacson, M. and Magnusson, L., Proto-industrialization in Scandinavia: craft skills in the industrial revolution (New York, 1987).Google Scholar

4 Berg, M., Hudson, P. and Sonenscher, M., Manufacture in town and country before the factory (Cambridge, 1983). Many of the issues in this work have been elaborated upon by the authors laterCrossRefGoogle Scholar. See, for example, Berg, M., The age of manufactures 1700–1820 (London, 1985);Google ScholarHudson, P., The industrial revolution (London, 1992);Google Scholar and Bergend, M.Hudson, P., ‘Rehabilitating the industrial revolution’, Economic History Review XLV (1992)Google Scholar. See also Perlin, F., ‘Proto-industrialization and pre-colonial south Asia’, Past and Present 98 (1983), 34–44, for a critique of the teleological character of proto-industrialization theories.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Notable exceptions to this pattern are Florén, A., Disciplinering och konflikt. Den sociala organiseringen av arbete; Jäders bruk 1640–1750 (Uppsala, 1987)Google Scholar; Magnusson, L., Den bråkiga kulturen. Förläggare & Smideshantverkare i Eskilstuna 1800–1850 (Stockholm, 1988)Google Scholar; Isacson, and Magnusson, , Proto-industrialization in ScandinaviaGoogle Scholar; and Levine, D. and Wrightson, K., The making of an industrial society: Whickham 1560–1765 (Oxford, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Coleman, , ‘Proto-industrialization’Google Scholar, and Florén, A. and Rydén, G., ‘Arbete, hushårll och region. Tankar om industrialiserings-processer och den svenska järnhanteringen’, Uppsala Papers in Economic History, Research Report No. 29 (1992), for an elaboration of this critique.Google Scholar

6 See for instance Joyce, P., ‘Work’, in Thompson, F. M. L. ed., The Cambridge Social Hisory of Britain 1750–1950, Volume 2: People and their environment (Cambridge, 1990)Google Scholar, and Levine, D., Reproducing families: the political economy of English population history (Cambridge, 1987), 102–6.Google Scholar

7 Berg, , The age of manufactures, 84–5.Google Scholar

8 Pollard, S., ‘Regional markets and national development’, in Berg, M. ed., Markets and manufacture in early industrial Europe (London, 1991), 33–4Google Scholar. See also Pollard, S., Peaceful conquest: the industrialization of Europe 1760–1970 (Oxford, 1982), 63–83.Google Scholar

9 See for instance Floren, A., ‘Social organization of work and labour conflicts in proto-industrial iron making’, forthcoming in the International Journal for Social HistoryGoogle Scholar. See also Florén and Rydén, ‘Arbete, hushåll och region’.

10 Landes, D.' The unbound Prometheus: technological change and industrial development in Western Europe from 1750 to the present (Cambridge, 1969) was the classic study of the time.Google Scholar

11 Laslett, P., ‘Introduction’, in Laslett, P. ed., Household and family in past time (Cambridge, 1972), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Play, F. Le, On family, work, and social change, ed. Silver, C. Bodard (Chicago, 1982)Google Scholar, and Weber, M., Ekonomi och samhälle. Förståelsesociologins grunder, Vol. 1 (Lund, 1983)Google Scholar. For an elaboration of this point, see Florén, and Rydén, , ‘Arbete, hushåll och region’, 51–4.Google Scholar

13 Chayanov, A. V., The theory of peasant economy (Homewood, 1966)Google Scholar. See also Medick, H., ‘The proto-industrial family economy’, in P. Kriedte, H. Medick and J. Schlumbohm, Industrialization before industrialization (Cambridge, 1981)Google Scholar. For a survey of these older views in family history, see Sabean, D., Property, production and family in Neckarhausen, 1700–1870 (Cambridge, 1900), 88–101.Google Scholar

14 Laslett, ‘Introduction’, 23–5.Google Scholar

15 Laslett, P., ‘Family and household as work group and kin group: areas of traditional Europe compared’, in Wall, R., Robin, J. and Laslett, P. eds., Family forms in historic Europe (Cambridge, 1983), 513–16, quotation from p. 515CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See Seccombe, W., A millennium of family change: feudalism to capitalism in northwestern Europe (London, 1993), 22–9, for a recent critique.Google Scholar

16 Wall, R., ‘Introduction’, in Wall, , Robin, and Laslett, eds., Family forms in historic Europe, 6–13.Google Scholar

17 See for instance Rodgers, J. ed., ‘Kustbygd i förändring 1650–1950. Farnilj och hushåll i nordiska fiskesamhällen’, Meddelande från Familjehistoriska projektet Historiska Institutionen Uppsala, 8 (1989).Google Scholar

18 See as an introduction Netting, R., Wilk, R. and Arnould, E., Households: comparative and historical studies of the domestic group (Berkeley, 1984)Google Scholar, and Mitterauer, M. and Sieder, R., The European family: patriarchy to partnership from the Middle Ages to the present (Oxford, 1982), 71–90.Google Scholar

19 Tilly, L. and Scott, J., Women, work and family (New York, 1978)Google Scholar, and Accampo, E., Industrialization, family life, and class relations: Saint Chamond, 1815–1914 (Berkeley, 1989). Quotation from the latter, p. 111.Google Scholar

20 The studies used here are Levine, D., ‘Industrialization and the proletarian family in England’, Past and Present 107 (1985)Google Scholar, and Levine, , Reproducing families. In the latter the most relevant part is Chapter 3, ‘The industrialization of the cottage economy’.Google Scholar

21 Levine, , Reproducing families, 102–6.Google Scholar

22 Levine, , ‘Industrialization and the proletarian family’, 179 and 187–91.Google Scholar

23 Lindström, D., ‘Skr˚, ära och hantverkarkultur i Sverige ca 1350–1900. Kring arbetarkultur före industrialismen’, Hislorisk Tidskrift 1993: 1.Google Scholar

24 Lindström, , ‘Skrå, ära och hantverkarkultur’, 4–17. Quotation from the summary, p. 29.Google Scholar

25 de Vries, J., ‘Between purchasing power and the worlds of goods: understanding the household economy in early modern Europe’, in Brewer, J. and Porter, R. eds., Consumption and the world of goods (London, 1992). Quotation from p. 108. See also the discussion in Florén and Rydén, ‘Arbete, hushåll och region’, 66. The development of the household is there analysed in a matrix with production, from self-subsistence to wage labour, on one axis and consumption, from auto-consumption to full market integration, on the other.Google Scholar

26 De, Vries, ‘Between purchasing power and the worlds of goods’, 110–15.Google Scholar

27 See for instance Levine, , Reproducing families, 102–15Google Scholar, and Berg, M., ‘What difference did women's work make to the industrial revolution?’, History Workshop Journal 35 (1993).Google Scholar

28 De, Vries, ‘Between purchasing power and the worlds of goods’, 113–14.Google Scholar

29 Woolf, S. ed., Domestic strategies: work and family in France and Italy 1600–1800 (Cambridge, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Martine Segalen uses the same methodology: see Segalen, M., Love and power in the peasant family (Oxford, 1983)Google Scholar. See also Segalen, M., Historical anthropology of the family (Cambridge, 1986), 201–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Löfgren, O., ‘Kvinnofolksgöra – om arbetsdelningen i bondesamhället’, Kvinnovetenskaplig Tidskrift 3 (1982).Google Scholar

30 Woolf, S., ‘Introduction’, in Woolf, ed., Domestic strategies, 6.Google Scholar

31 For an elaboration of this model, also including consumption and reproduction, see Florén, and Rydén, , ‘Arbete, hushål och region’, 59–70.Google Scholar

32 See Sabean, , Property, production and family, 17–19, for an elaboration of this point.Google Scholar

33 For a discussion of this process in the iron industry in Sweden, see Rydén, G., ‘Skill and technical change in the Swedish iron industry, 1750–1860’, unpublished paper presented at the conference ‘Technological Change’ in Oxford, September 1993.Google Scholar

34 Marx, K., Capital, Chapter 13.Google Scholar

35 This was the case with a clear division of labour inside a peasant household. See Segalen, Love and power in the peasant family.

36 See, for instance, Chayanov, The theory of peasant economy.

37 As was noted, it was not only changes on the supply side that were active in this process. The ‘industrious revolution’ was, according to de Vries, also an active agent in the destruction of the backward-bending supply curve of labour.

38 ‘Has the family lost its functions?’ was the question Michael Mitterauer and Reinhard Sieder asked. See Mitterauer, and Sieder, , The european family, 71.Google Scholar

39 Florén, A., Isacson, M., Rydén, G. and Ågren, M., ‘Swedish iron before 1990’, in Rydén, G. and Ågren, M. eds., Ironmaking in Sweden and Russia: a survey of the social organisation of iron production before 1900 (Uppsala, 1993), 16–25Google Scholar, and Hildebrand, K.-G., Svenskt järn. Sexton- och sjuttonhundratal (Jernkontorets bergshistoriska skriftserie, 20; Stockholm, 1987), 17 (available in an English edition from 1993).Google Scholar

40 Hildebrand, K.-G., Fagerstabrukens hisoria, Vol. 1: Sexton- och Sjuttonhundratalen(Uppsala, 1957), 92.Google Scholar

41 For a discussion of the gradual abolition of the regulation policy, see Boëthius, B. and Kromnow, Å., Jernkontorets historia, Vol. I–III (Stockholm, 1947–1968), Part II, 445–57 and 744–802.Google Scholar

42 Attman, A., Svenskt järn och stål 1800–1914 (Jernkontorets bergshistoriska skriftserie, 21; Stockholm, 1986), 57Google Scholar, and Attman, A., Fagerstabrukens historia, Vol. II: Adertonhundratalet (Uppsala, 1958), 8 and 155.Google Scholar

43 Hildebrand, , Svenskt järn, 32–4Google Scholar, and Hildebrand, , Fagerstabrukens historia, 105–10.Google Scholar

44 Attman, , Fagerstabrukens historia, 5–16Google Scholar, and Attman, , Svenskt järn och st˚l. 9–14.Google Scholar

45 Attman, , Svenskt jürn och st˚l, 17–21.Google Scholar

46 For a more elaborated view of these points see Florén, and Rydén, , ‘Arbete, hushåll och region’, 29–40Google Scholar; Boëthius, and Kromnow, , Jernkontorets historia, Part III, 366–414, 457–84Google Scholar. For a critical discussion of the introduction of the Lancashire method to Sweden, see Rydén, G., ‘Gustaf Ekman, Jernkontoret och lancashiresmidet - ett inlägg i synen på teknisk utveckling’, in Polhem. Tidskrift för Teknikhistoria, 1994/2.Google Scholar

47 See Hildebrand, , Svenskt järn, 45–59Google Scholar, for a discussion of the difference between the methods. See also Ekman, W., ‘Vallonjärnet – en kvalitetsprodukt med världsrykte’, in Norrby, J., Nisser, M. and Ekman, W. eds., Forsmark och vallonjärnet (Stockholm, 1987).Google Scholar

48 All treatments of technical and organizational questions concerning the German method are from Rydén, G., Hammarlag och hushåll. Om relationen mellan smidesarbetet och smedshushållen vid Tore Petrés brukskomplex 1830–1850 (Jernkontorets bergshistoriska skriftserie, 27; Stockholm, 1991), especially Chapter 5.Google Scholar

49 In Hofors, bar iron production per hearth rose from about 50 tons per year in the 1750s to close to 70 tons per year in the 1790s. Norberg, P., ‘Gästriklands hyttor och hamrar’. In Från Gästrikland 1959, 254Google Scholar, and my own calculations from Hofors Company Records, Herrgårdsarkivet, Hofors, Ovaco Steel AB (hereafter HHOS). In the literature it is possible to find proofs of a more intensive use of the forges during the eighteenth century. See, for example, Essemyr, M., Bruksarbetarnas livsmedelskonsumtion. Forsmarks bruk 1730–1880 (Uppsala, 1989), 198.Google Scholar

50 Hofors Company Records, Accounts, 1791 and 1801, HHOS.

51 ‘Hammarsmedsordningen 1766 § 6 and 7’, in Robson, C. M. af ed., Sammandrag of Bergsförfattningar 1821, 77–8Google Scholar; Boëthius, B., Gruvornas, hyttornas och hamrarnas folk. Bergshanteringens arbelare från medelliden till den gustavianska tiden (Stockholm, 1951), 329–31Google Scholar; and Rydén, , Hammarlag och hushåll, 166–8Google Scholar. Concerning town-based guilds, see Edgren, L., Lärling, gesäll, mästare. Hantverk och hantverkare i Malmö 1750–1847 (Lund, 1987), 144–239.Google Scholar

52 Hofors Company Records 1790–1810, HHOS.Google Scholar

53 This became very evident when about 7 per cent of their bar iron, in 1796, was not allowed to be exported. It was of bad quality. See Hofors Company Records, Accounts 1796, HHOS.Google Scholar

54 Boëthius, and Kromnow, , Jernkontorets historia, Part III, 185–93Google Scholar; Tamm, A. G., Försök till besvarande af den af herrar bruks-egare i Wermland och Dahl år 1827 framstållde prisfråga (Karlstad, 1827)Google Scholar; Åkerman, A., Korta underrättelser rörande svenska stängjems-smidet (Falun, 1839)Google Scholar; and Montelius, S., Säfsnäsbrukens arbetskraft och försörjning 1600–1865 (Uppsala, 1962), 216–22Google Scholar. For a discussion of the development of the forgemen's wages and the quality of the iron, see Rydén, , Hammarlag och hushall, 180–3.Google Scholar

55 Although very little research has been undertaken in this area, there are indications that other ironworks also had problems with the organization in the forge. In Horndal, an ironworks close to Hofors, there is evidence that master forgemen were succeeded by their apprentices/helpers and not by their forge hands. See Montelius, S., ‘1600–1815’, in Fagerstabrukens historia, Vol. V: Arbetare och arbetarförhållanden (Uppsala, 1959), 114–18 and 220.Google Scholar

56 This type of account, Tack- och Stångjärnsräkning med Smederna, became more common later (Hofors Company Records, Accounts 1801, HHOS). The accounting year in Swedish ironworks started at 1 November and lasted until 30 October. This example is thus from 1 November 1800 to 2 May 1801. See also accounts in Tolvfors Company Records, 1790–1815, Gävie Kommunarkiv, for a similar pattern.

57 All of the ‘ironworks streets’ in Gästriklands were built in the period from 1790 to 1820.

58 Beskow, H., Bruksherrgårdar i Gästrikland (Nordiska Museets Handlingar 47; Stockholm, 1954), Chapters V–VII.Google Scholar

59 The workers’ houses were not, as a rule, owned by the workers themselves. The ironmasters were the owners. During this period a more strict distribution of the arable lands began to be used. The workers got land in correspondence with their status. See below, and Rydén, , Hammarlag och hushåll, 236–43.Google Scholar

60 See Beskow, , Bruksherrgårdar, 158, for a plan of one very typical ironworks, Wifors.Google Scholar

61 See Strömbom, J., Försök till handbok för bruks-betjenter (Stockholm, 1800), in this light. It is a guide for how to make proper accounting in the ironworks.Google Scholar

62 For an overview see Harris, J. R., The British iron industry 1700–1850 (London, 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63 Attman, , Svenskt järn och stål, 31–50Google Scholar, and Ekman, G., Gustaf Ekman. Svensk järnhanterings nydanare för 100 år sedan (Jernkontorets bergshistoriska skriftserie, 12; Stockholm, 1944).Google Scholar

64 Rydén, , Hammarlag och hushåll, 53–7 and 67–73. In the 1840s Tore Petré had interests in more than seven forges with at least seventeen hearths.Google Scholar

65 Rydén, , Hammarlag och hush˚ll, 69 and 115–32.Google Scholar

66 For a detailed description of the work procedure in German forging in the 1840s, see Rydén, , Hammarlag och hushåll, 121–32.Google Scholar

67 The calculations and figures are from Hofors Company Records in HHOS and Landsarkovet i Hämösand [hereafter HLA]. They are presented in Rydén, , Hammarlag ochhushåll, 113 and 122.Google Scholar

68 Steel iron was used in Sheffield in the process of manufacturing blister and crucible steel. The ironworks owned by Tore Petré started to make steel iron in the late 1830s. See Hofors Company Records in HHOS, and Hammarby Company Records in HLA.

69 See Utterström, G., ‘1815–1870’, in Fagerstabrukens historia, Vol. V: Arbetare och arbetarförhallånden (Uppsala, 1959), 309–13Google Scholar, and Rydén, , Hammarlag och hushåll, 180–3.Google Scholar

70 From the sources, it is not clear whether this move was initiated by the ironmaster in Hofors or if Eric Skog himself decided to move away from Presthyttan, and ended up in Hofors.

71 This and the following paragraphs are based on an analysis of the personal account in the Company Records, in HHOS and HLA, and taxpaying lists (Mantalslängder) and catechetical lists in te Parish Archives for Ovansjö and Torsåkers Socknar, HLA. For a detailed description see Rydén, , Hammarlag och hushåll, 144–61.Google Scholar

72 The forge crew consisted of two ‘half masters’, dividing work, control and responsibility equally, and one apprentice.

73 Rydén, , Hammarlag och hushåll, 203–6.Google Scholar

74 Ibid., 161–8.

75 For an introduction to the forgemen's economic situation see , Hildebrand, Svenskt järn, 97–100Google Scholar; Montelius, , ‘1600–1815’, 20–49 and 112–21Google Scholar; Utterström, , ‘1815–1870’, 327–34Google Scholar; and Rydén, , Hammarlag och hushåll, 184–7.Google Scholar

76 Florén, A., ‘The polyphone pattern of proto-industrial production: the production of bar iron in Nora and Linde mining district 1600–1750’ (unpublished paper, Department of History, University of Uppsala), 19.Google Scholar

77 Florén, ‘The polyphone pattern’, 20–5.Google Scholar

78 For a discussion of the introduction of Lancashire forging in Gästrikland, see G. Rydén, ‘Skill and technical change.’

79 The complicated wage system at the ironworks is among the most investigated features in writings on the Swedish iron industry. For an introduction, see Hildebrand, , Svenskt järn, 94–100Google Scholar. The best treatments of the subject are still Montelius, ‘1600–1815’, 56–133Google Scholar, and Utterström, , ‘1815–1870’, 257–334, both in the fifth volume of Fagerstabrukens historia.Google Scholar

80 Montelius, , ‘1600–1815’, 121–33Google Scholar; Utterström, , ‘1815–1870’, 259–67Google Scholar, and Rydén, , Hammarlag och hushåll, 231–43.Google Scholar

81 Montelius, , ‘1600–1815’, 56–60Google Scholar; Sammandrag af Bergs författningar 1821, 80–1Google Scholar, and Hammarsmedsordningen 1823 § 11, Kongi stadgar, förordningar, privilégier och resolutioner angående justitien wid bergweken och bruken, tredje fortsättningen, 1837 (Ksfprr: 3).

82 The first contract I have found for the ironworks under study here in Gästrikland was dated 1823 and was from Uhrfors, Ämnesordnade Handlingar, fack nr 3 konv nr 2, HHOS.

83 Montelius, , ‘1600–1815’, 96–100.Google Scholar

84 Utterström, , ‘1815–1870’, 317–327Google Scholar, and Rydén, , Hammarlag och hushåll, 226–31Google Scholar. See also Montelius, , Säfsnäsbrukens, 258–60.Google Scholar

85 Rydén, , Hammarlag och hushåll, 231–43Google Scholar, and Montelius, , ‘1600–1815’, 121–33.Google Scholar

86 Utterström, , ‘1815–1870’, 259–67.Google Scholar

87 See, for instance, Larsson, M., Arbete och lön vid Bredsjö bruk. En Studie av löneprinciper och lönenivåer för olika yrkeskategorier vid Bredsjö bruk 1828–1905 (Uppsala, 1986), 84–106.Google Scholar

88 On women's work, see Rydén, , Hammarlag och hushåll, 246–77Google Scholar. On food consumption in the ironworks, see Essemyr, , Bruksarbetarnas livsmedelskonsumtion.Google Scholar

89 Rydén, , Hammarlag och hushåll, 252–69.Google Scholar

90 The Parish Record for Torsåkers Socken, HLA. This section is based on ongoing research, and the results are therefore very hypothetical.

91 Montelius, , ‘1600–1815’, 114–18.Google Scholar

92 This whole section is based on Rydén, , Hammarlag och hushåll, 196–222.Google Scholar

93 This example is based on a forge crew with three members. If the hammer hands (räckardrängar) had been introduced, the age when the boys became forgehands increased by roughly one year. They were hammer hands from about 19–20 to 24–25. See Rydén, , Hammarlag och hushåll, 205–6.Google Scholar

94 Not all forge hands became masters. They remained in the crews as forge hands for perhaps another decade. The majority of forge hands not becoming masters left the forge in their early forties for a position as a combination of extra forgeman and day-labourer.

95 See two examples in Utterström, , ‘1815–1870’, 234–5Google Scholar. Twelve per cent of the forgemen's households were extended with kin in some way; see Rydén, , Hammarlag och hushåll, 221.Google Scholar

96 Hareven, T., Family time and industrial time: the relationship between family and work in a New England industrial society (Cambridge, 1982), 189Google Scholar. See also Tilly, and Scott, , Women work and familiesGoogle Scholar; Holley, J. C., ‘The two family economies of industrialism: factory workers in Victorian Scotland’, Journal of Family History (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Anderson, M., Family structure in nineteenth-century Lancashire (Cambridge, 1971).Google Scholar

97 Mitterauer, M., ‘Produktionsweise, Siedlungsstruktur und Sozialformen im öster reichischen Montanwesen des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit’, in Mitterauer, M. ed., Österreichisches Montanwesen. Produktion, Verteilung, Sozialformen (Vienna, 1974)Google Scholar; ‘Auswirkungen von Urbanisierung und Frühindustrialisierung auf die Familienverfassung an Beispielen des österreichischen Raums’, in Conze, W. ed., Sozialgeschichte der Familie in der Neuzeit Europas (Stuttgart, 1976)Google Scholar; and ‘Peasant and non-peasant family forms in relation to the physical environment and local economy’, Journal of Family History 17 (1992)Google Scholar. See also Rebel, H., Peasant classes: the bureaucratization of property and family relations under early Habsburg absolutism, 1511–1636 (Princeton, 1983), Chapter 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

98 Seccombe, W., Weathering the storm: working-class families from the industrial revolution to the fertility decline (London, 1993)Google Scholar, Chapters 1–3, quotation 2. See also Seccombe, , A millenium of family change, Chapter 1. Unfortunately I became aware of Seccombe's new book too late to integrate his analysis into this text.Google Scholar