The Jelling Stone. Sculptor and rune carver

Abstract

The Jelling Stone. Sculptor and rune carver

The discussion on the Jelling complex has in recent years been revived and expanded with new observations and hypotheses, not least concerning the large stone, King Harold 's stone. Very different descriptions of what may be seen on the monument have emerged. This aroused our curiosity and in recent years we have on several occasions visited Jelling and examined the rock and its decoration in detail. We have studied it in varied natural illumination and in the dark with artificial light. We have during this work laid special emphasis on the structure of the rock and its effect on ornament and weathering. We believe this to be important for the evaluation both of the decoration and of the inscription. It seems to have been a neglected field which in our opinion has led to certain misunderstandings and misinterpretations. We will here descibe what we see on the stone, without entering into any discussion.

Shape: In order to discuss the rock and ornament we must first describe the shape of the stone block. It is usually regarded as three-sided. The upper third is, but the lower part has strictly speaking an additional small surface, which for geological and ornamental reasons should be regarded separately. We follow the usual scheme and call the inscription side A, the beast side B and the Christ side C, adding the small surface D between A and C. The top surface should also be taken into account, and this we call E (fig. 1 and 2).

Rock: The rock gives a general impression of eye gneiss, but the red feldspar eyes are relatively small, in diameter seldom larger than two cm. At some places the rock is denser and should rather be called gneissoid granite. A good impression of the structure may be gained from the three facets which are roughly perpendicular to one another in the large break at the top of the stone on side B (fig. 3).

Cleavage surfaces and fissures

Judging by the rock the boulder must have come from the Scandinavian peninsula, most probably from southern Sweden, being transported to Jutland by the ice during the last Ice Age. The ice broke it from the solid rock and the stone attained its present form at that stage. The cleavage system of the site is reproduced in the large surfaces, at least in surfaces B and C, and parallel to these side D and a small facet between A and B, in addition to the top surface and possibly the bottom. Certain distinct fissures in the stone fall outside the original system. The largest is open and almost splits the stone at the corner between sides A and B (fig. 6). Another fissure phenomenon is the flaking which may well be determined by structure and cleavage, but which is a direct result of later influences, even after the stone received its decoration. This applies to the desquamation of centimetre-thick flakes, most distinct on sides A and C (fig. 5).

The stone and the sculptor

The raw block had large natural surfaces which would tempt any artist worth his salt, but it would prove to have properties which were not so easy to master. The fissures in particular were treacherous and have in some places caused trouble, although this was not apparent until the sculptor had finished his work, perhaps long after. But he has himself done things with the stone which had unfortunate consequences. We have an example up to the right on side A where there were, as stated above, particularly large cracks. Here a considerable part of the decoration over the inscription has desquamated and disappeared with larger flakes (fig. 5). The largest flake has taken the whole corner, including parts of the ornament on sides A and B. This is a probable consequence of the carver's own work. The cutting along the frame on side B may have caused a flaw which gradually developed into a fissure.

Work and technique

The sculptor framed the surfaces he chose with elegant band interlace. This framework was the first he applied himself to. This can be established on face C. At several spots, especially on side B, it may be observed that the figures were first marked out with a groove, because the bottom of the groove is still present (fig. 8). This suggests that the carver employed a method still used by present masons. Pricking with a point has resulted in a crushing of the crystals. This gives the surface a different structure, even after some weathering. Where the surfaces are untreated or flaked the crystals are by and large entire. The difference is most pronounced where the dominant cleavage is in the surface plane, that is side A and in particular side C. This phenomenon and any remains of the bottom of contour lines are important indications when an attempt is made to reconstruct the original pattern where the relief has flaked off.

Paint

Did the sculptor have painting in mind when he worked on the Jelling stone? Are there indications in the ornament itself, for instance, which suggest this? Certain features of the framework tempt one to answer in the affirmative. We can see this at the corner of side C near D in the two outer bands of the knot. The defining line disappears into the air and the edge of the stone continues the contour. This suggests that the limiting groove is regarded as a boundary, not as a line. All in all it seems as though the ornament has been cut for later painting and that the colour change was to be placed at the bottom of the grooves and at the transition to the background.

The inscription. One or two hands?

The sculptor has composed the ornament with an eye to the inscription. Within the frame on side A he has reserved three fields.

It has been maintained that the runes outside have been carved by another, less skilled hand. We cannot see any indications of this (fig. 8). But since the rune lines under the framework in several respects conflict with the main scheme of the ornament, it is natural to ask whether this suggests that the ornament-carver and the rune-carver were different persons. If we compare the deepest and most exact grooves in the ornament with the strokes of the runes, we find a considerable difference. The ornament grooves are broader with a shallower angle than the rune strokes. In our opinion there are several features of a similar nature which show a difference between the runes and the ornament, both in technique and construction. All in all we believe that there is reason to think that runes and ornament were carved by different hands -that two carvers with different techniques worked on the stone, one with the ornament, the other with the runes and the grooves which belong to them outside the ornament frame.

We can imagine the following course of events: The sculptor handed over the stone to the rune-carver with ornament and room for three rune lines. The rune­carver had too long a text and was therefore forced to go outside the frame.

Erling Johansen og Aslak Liestøl