Danish Journal of Archaeology, 2014 Vol. 3, No. 2, 164–174, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21662282.2015.1104905 RESEARCH ARTICLE The Danish runestones – when and where? Lisbeth M. Imer* The National Museum of Denmark, Frederiksholms Kanal 12, DK – 1220 Copenhagen K, Denmark (Received 6 Febuary 2015; accepted 24 September 2015) This article concerns the dating and distribution of Danish runestones from the eighth to the eleventh centuries. On the basis of both old and more recent investigations, the runestones are divided into five chronological periods each with their own characteristics and according to typological features regarding runes, language, style, and ornament. The majority of Danish runestones were erected within two generations after the conversion around AD 970–1020/25 and probably as a result of the stress and societal changes in connection with the advent of Christianity. The geographical distribution changed dramati- cally during the 400 year long runestone period and was probably due to the changing political situation. In the eighth and ninth centuries, runestones were mainly erected on Fyn, Sjælland, and Skåne. Runestones were almost exclusively erected in Jutland in the tenth century before the conversion and in the decades around the year 1000, runestones were erected in the north-eastern parts of Jutland and along the coast in Skåne. The runestone fashion died out in most parts of Denmark during the eleventh century, although on Bornholm the tradition began in the early eleventh century and came to an end within a few generations in the late eleventh century or around AD 1100. Keywords: runestones; chronology; distribution; Viking Age The tradition of erecting runestones in commemoration of runestones and written sources forms the basis of the family members, partners in business, and in rare cases chronology and within this framework different typologi- oneself was initiated during the Iron Age in Scandinavia cal features are used to try and fit the remainder of the except in Norway where the tradition started as early as runestones into an overall chronological picture. The typo- the Late Roman Iron Age (Imer 2011a). The tradition logical features vary according to the outline of each continued throughout the Iron and Viking Ages and lin- runestone and in many cases the runestones cannot be gered on into the very latest part of the eleventh century dated very accurately. The typological features are: orna- and maybe as late as around 1130 in some parts of mentation, the outline of the inscription, the length of the Scandinavia. The tradition started in the eighth century inscription, the nature of the textual content, the typology and came to an end in the early eleventh century in most of the runes, separation marks, and different stages and parts of Denmark. On Bornholm, it began in the early features of the language. eleventh century, when it had practically stopped in other The following analysis is based on earlier research and parts of the country, and it came to an end in the latest part adjusted to the results of new chronological improve- of the eleventh century. Around 260 runestones were ments. The chronological studies were carried out by erected during the 400 year long Danish tradition in the Marie Stoklund and some of the latest dates relevant to Danish area including Skåne, Halland, Blekinge, and this article were published in 2006 (Stoklund 2006.p. Schleswig. The distribution of runestones differed during 366–72). In this article, Stoklund incorporates the archae- the long timespan as did the number of erected stones, for ologically or historically dated objects into a discussion of, example, more stones were erected after the conversion first and foremost, the beginning and end of the runestone than in the previous periods. This article concentrates on tradition in Denmark, the central runestones of the Viking the dating and the distribution of the Danish runestones in Age (the Jelling, Hedeby and Bække-Læborg stones), and order to present an overview of the chronological layout of into a discussion on the appearance of the dotted runes. the Danish runestone tradition. The following presents an overview of earlier attempts to The method for establishing a runestone chronology create a runestone chronology, an outline of the present follows almost the same pattern as the construction of chronology based on Stoklund’s work and recent investi- chronologies for other types of artefacts or monuments, gations of the dating of the runestone material. The dates however, as the runestones are made of stone, methods correspond with those presented in the online database such as radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology are http://runer.ku.dk, which has been established by runolo- excluded. The evidence of a connection between gists from the University of Copenhagen and the National *Email: [email protected] © The Partnership of the Danish Journal of Archaeology 2016 Danish Journal of Archaeology 165 Museum of Denmark. Further information on the runes- dated to the first half of the tenth century in DR (Jacobsen tones mentioned in the text can be retrieved from this and Moltke 1942, p. 79, p. 1013), whereas Harald’s stone website. was dated to c. 985. The stone had to have been erected The earliest attempt to establish a chronology for the after 970, when Harald had gained control over Norway, Danish runestones was carried out by Ludvig F. A. and the passage “won for himself all of Denmark’ would Wimmer in the late nineteenth century in connection with point to the siege of Hedeby in 983. It was concluded that his publications of the runic monuments in Denmark the inscription must have been erected in the mid 980’sas (Wimmer 1893-1908). According to Wimmer not less Harald died in 987 (Jacobsen and Moltke 1942, p. 77, p. than 18 monuments could be dated historically, as they 1013). Two of the Hedeby stones that Asfrid erected in mentioned historically known persons or events. These memory of Sigtryg, her son with Gnupa, have to date after were the two Jelling stones, the four Hedeby stones, 934 when Gnupa, according to the historian Widukind, Sønder Vissing 1, the three Hällestad stones, Sjörup, Års, was defeated by the German king Henry the Fowler. In two of the Århus stones (Århus 1 and 3), Kolind, Sjelle, DR, the two younger Hedeby stones were the subject of an Nylarsker 2 and Norra Åsum. These were dated to between internal discussion between Jacobsen and Moltke. c. 935 and c. 1010, apart from the Nylarsker stone I (dated Jacobsen thought the stones mentioned Sven Estridsen, to c. 1050) and the Norra Åsum stone (dated to c.1210) who reigned in the mid-eleventh century, whereas (Wimmer, 1893-1908, p. CLXXIX). In addition to the Moltke held them to be connected to Sven Forkbeard’s historically datable monuments he listed a number of stones reign. with religious inscriptions which could be placed on either The DR chronology was based on the abovementioned side of the Conversion. Wimmer stressed that the dating of historically dated monuments and events together with the these stones was not as accurate as the historically dated historically datable medieval inscriptions. The runic mate- monuments because the runestones contained heathen fea- rial was divided into four periods, period 2 being the tures, such as the Thor’s hammer, and were not reliable in Viking Age. The typological features were described on the chronological analysis (Wimmer, 1893-1908,p. this basis and the remainder of the runic material was CLXXX-CLXXXI). The remainder of the runic monu- placed within the four periods. To the authors, it was ments was placed in relation to the historically dated stones important to stress that the classification was typological by means of language and rune forms, which gave a rela- and that an inscription belonging to one period could be of tive chronology for most of the material. Finally, when the same age as inscriptions belonging to other typological none of the abovementioned features were at hand, periods (Jacobsen and Moltke 1942, p. 1035). Wimmer estimated the date of the runestones according to ‘The listing of inscriptions is not a chronological tool the general character of the inscription or the monument for dating every single inscription. Generally, inscriptions (Wimmer, 1893-1908, p. CLXXXIV). on the same stage of development will belong in the same Wimmer’s method for building a chronology for period, but one certain type is not limited to one certain runestones has formed the methodological basis for runes- period. Archaic and new trends will always stretch over a tone dating and today his work stands as the pioneer work long period, so that one inscription, which typologically for modern runology. His dates have, of course, now been speaking belongs in one period, could be contemporary discussed and modified and other datable features such as with an inscription, which typologically speaking belongs ornament and style have been incorporated. in an earlier or later period.’ (Jacobsen and Moltke 1942, Danmarks Runeindskrifter (DR) (Jacobsen and Moltke author’s translation) 1942) included all the known runic inscriptions found in Typologies will always have overlaps and smooth Denmark at the time. The Viking Age chronology in DR transitions from one phase to another as is seen in the was based on Jacobsen’s critique of Wimmer’s perception Swedish runestone material, where overlaps between the of the historically dated runestones, which she had pub- different style groups occur (Gräslund 1998, p. 86). lished as early as the 1930s (Jacobsen 1932, 1935). In her Gräslund’s chronology is mainly restricted to the runes- article Jacobsen only accepted six monuments as histori- tones of the eleventh century and takes into consideration cally datable, namely the two Hedeby stones mentioning the ornamentation and the typology along with the outline King Sigtryg, Gnupa’s son, the Jelling stones, the stone in of the snake heads, Pr 1 to Pr 4 (Pr being the abbreviation Sønder Vissing, erected by Tove, Harald Gorm’s son’s of ‘profile’), with which the stones were decorated.