The largest stave church of all time is probably not Norwegian
Were they still prefabricated in Norway?
Published
Stave churches are often thought of as something uniquely Norwegian.
But a few centuries back, Norway was not alone in having them.
Nor did Norway have the largest ones. It's likely that no stave church in Norway ever surpassed the size of the cathedrals in Iceland.
"No, I don't think so, because the Icelandic ones were so enormous," says Linn Borgen.
She is an art historian and stave church researcher at the National Trust of Norway.
Still, some impressive stave churches exist in Norway. The one with the largest volume is Heddal Stave Church.
It would have appeared small next to some of Iceland’s cathedrals.
Largest wooden building in the Nordic countries at the time
"Early in the Middle Ages, there were wooden churches in the Norwegian towns as well. They were probably of considerable size. But the cathedral in Skálholt is said to have been the largest wooden building in the Nordic countries at the time," says Borgen.
While Heddal Stave Church today holds the honour of being the largest among the surviving stave churches, with a spire rising 29 metres into the air and a length of 25 metres, it does not come close to the enormous stave church cathedral in southern Iceland. It is said to have been 60 metres long, and was probably built around the year 1155.
The cathedral at Hólar in northern Iceland was somewhat smaller, but still about 50 metres long, or twice the length of Heddal Stave Church.
But the inspiration probably came from this region.
'It can be considered certain that the Icelandic cathedrals were largely built following the example of the other West Nordic cathedrals.'
This was written by the Icelandic architect Hjörleifur Stefánsson in a book about churches and church art, published in 1997.
However, one key difference distinguished the Icelandic cathedrals from the famous Norwegian cathedrals of that period: While the Norwegian ones were built in stone, the Icelanders built their cathedrals in wood.
And that raises more questions. Where did they get the trees from?
Several generations of cathedrals
The Icelanders did not have trees to build with themselves. And they needed them.
"There were hundreds of small stave churches scattered around Iceland," says Øystein Ekroll.
He is an archaeologist and associate professor at Nidaros Cathedral Restoration Workshop – National Competence Centre for the Preservation and Restoration of historic stone buildings (NKS).
Today, there are no Icelandic stave churches left. It is only through archaeological finds that discoveries about the enormous wooden cathedrals have been made. An archaeological excavation at Skálholt in the 1950s revealed traces of the gigantic 60-metre-long stave church.
At this old bishop's seat, remains were also found from several generations of cathedrals built on the same site.
Fortunately, the area had not been built over after the bishop’s seat was abandoned around the year 1800. Thus, clear traces of the old cathedrals remained.
Norwegian timber used for the Icelandic churches
Why, then, were the churches not built in stone?
"It may seem surprising that they built in wood," says Ekroll.
The Icelanders had some birch, but no straight-stemmed pine, which is the building material used in stave churches.
The Icelanders partly used driftwood, meaning timber that arrived by sea. The rest was brought from Norway – about 1,000 kilometres across the ocean.
It required a massive amount of timber, notes Ekroll.
"There was an enormous export of timber from Norway to Iceland – on a scale that's hard to imagine," says Jon Vidar Sigurdsson.
He is a professor of history and Icelandic literature at the Museum of Cultural History.
Why didn't the Icelanders use stone?
There is an explanation for why they chose to do it this way.
"There's a lack of good building stone in Iceland. They don't have lime either," explains Ekroll.
Lime was used as a binder in mortar.
"Then they would have had to import all the lime for the mortar from Norway as well. Logistically, wood was by far the easier choice," says Ekroll.
"If stone had been an option, they would have used it," emphasises Sigurdsson.
He believes the use of wood was entirely due to practical reasons.
The church demanded stone altars
"It was certainly explored. All the major cathedrals elsewhere in Europe were built of stone," says Sigurdsson.
The lack of suitable stone is evident in the altarpieces. The church's laws required that all altars be made of stone, he explains.
"But there are hardly any stone altars in Icelandic churches," he says.
Instead, altar stones were placed on wooden altars, and that had to suffice.
Were the churches prefabricated in Norway?
The transport of church timber is scarcely mentioned in the written sources that exist, says Sigurdsson.
A major question is whether entire logs were exported, or if the wood was shaped in Norway before being assembled in Iceland.
It was likely the latter in many cases, says Ekroll.
"By preparing the materials in advance in Norway, it saved an enormous amount of weight and volume," he explains.
If the churches were prefabricated in Norway, it might seem strange that their construction differs so much from most of the well-known Norwegian stave churches.
The best-known stave churches today have a raised central nave, supported by interior columns in the middle of the church that help stabilise the structure. The Icelandic cathedrals did not follow that model – their support posts were integrated into the wall structure instead.
Two traditions in stave church construction
There are also differences among the Norwegian stave churches. Along the Møre coast in Western Norway, three stave churches still stand, and these differ from the 'classic' raised-nave design.
They actually share several features with the two cathedrals in Iceland, according to researcher Kjartan Hauglid at the Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research (NIKU).
Hauglid contributed a chapter to a book about Rødven Stave Church on the Møre coast.
The so-called Møre type has been a common form of stave church along Norway's coast, and also in Iceland, Hauglid believes.
"Compared to stave churches with a raised central nave, I think we're talking about two completely different traditions," he says.
Attempted to save space?
"This type of construction is also found in boathouses and Iron Age longhouses. These rarely have internal bracing, but used exterior braces or diagonal struts," says Hauglid.
Øystein Ekroll also believes the Icelandic builders tried to maximise interior space in their cathedrals.
Most viewed
"I tend to think of it as the Nidaros Cathedral of wooden architecture. You have exterior support pillars that take the roof load and free up the interior space," he says.
He also believes the choice of construction was influenced by weather conditions.
"These stave churches are lower than those with a raised nave. Those taller churches catch more wind. I think the coastal stave churches and those in Iceland were built lower because of the climate and weather," says Ekroll.
There is little doubt that Norwegian builders were involved in the construction of the church at Skálholt. The bishop's saga Hungrvaka states that a construction supervisor came from Norway. Two craftsmen also took part, according to Borgen.
———
Translated by Alette Bjordal Gjellesvik
Read the Norwegian version of this article on forskning.no
References:
Arnadottir, L. & Kiran, K. (Eds.) Kirkja og kirkjuskruð: kirker og kirkekunst på Island og i Norge i middelalderen (Churches and church furnishings: Churches and church art in Iceland and Norway in the Middle Ages), Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research and the National Museum of Iceland, 1997.
Borgen et al. (Eds.) 'Rødven Stavkirke' (Rødven Stave Church), Romsdal Museum, National Trust of Norway, and the Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture, 2024.
Related content:
Subscribe to our newsletter
The latest news from Science Norway, sent twice a week and completely free.
