Norwegian theory about iconic Danish runestone is absurd, according to runologist
Critics are not merciful towards the theory that Denmark's national icon, the large Jelling stone, is not from the Viking Age.
Published
"This 'sensation,' which has received significant media attention here in Denmark, is absurd from a runological perspective," says Michael Lerche Nielsen from the University of Copenhagen.
The Danish runologist and linguist refers to the theory that the large Jelling stone, the runestone that symbolises Denmark's creation, dates to the Middle Ages rather than the Viking Age.
Håkon Glørstad, a professor of archaeology at the Museum of Cultural History in Oslo, has reviewed research on the Jelling stone. He concludes that it was commissioned by Bishop Absalon in the 12th century, rather than by King Harald Bluetooth during the Viking Age, as is inscribed on the stone and is the widely accepted belief.
"His article is well-written, and the presentation is engaging. But he's heading in a very specific direction based on a preconceived idea of where he wants to end up," says Nielsen.
According to Nielsen, few in Denmark have commented on the article because Glørstad's conclusion is so far-fetched.
"It’s like claiming Thor Heyerdahl never actually completed the Kon-Tiki expedition, but instead filmed a summer in the outer Oslo Fjord before conveniently transporting the raft to Bygdøy," he tells sciencenorway.no.
An utterly impossible theory
The language used on the large Jelling stone is classic runic Danish, according to the Danish runologist.
He argues that one only needs to glance at this language to date it to the Viking Age.
"There's a colossal change in the Scandinavian language during the short time between the Viking Age and the period Glørstad points to, the Valdemarian Age in the 1100s," says Nielsen.
"This has to do with German influence and contact with the continent after the establishment of a kingdom resembling continental ones," he says.
He has been teaching about this for years and has written scientific articles on the subject.
It's a tradition for linguists and runologists to become particularly heated.
Håkon Glørstad, professor of archaeology
While Norway was more influenced by England, Denmark experienced greater influence from the south. In Norway, the Kings' sagas were written in Old Norse, while in Denmark, the historian Saxo Grammaticus had been in Paris and learned Latin.
The king and bishop of the Valdemarian Age would not have understood and could not have reproduced the language on the large Jelling stone, Nielsen asserts.
"Glørstad is an archaeologist, so he dedicates much space to interpreting the excavations, which is his expertise. But he also comments extensively on linguistic aspects, where his theories are impossible," says the linguist.
"It would have been impossible for anyone in the Middle Ages to reproduce the language and grammatical forms on the Jelling stone so accurately. Even with some familiarity with runic forms and language, such an idea wouldn’t occur to anyone," he says.
Reliance on outdated research
According to the Danish runologist, Glørstad also relies on outdated research.
"He primarily refers to literature from the 1970s, but much has happened since then," says Nielsen.
For instance, more recent discoveries of Viking Age runestones show letters written in horizontal lines, explains Nielsen. These findings suggest that horizontal inscriptions were not unusual during the Viking Age, contrary to Glørstad’s claims.
Glørstad spends considerable time emphasising that the stone is unique for its time.
It is, confirms Nielsen. But more recent discoveries of Viking Age runestones share stylistic similarities with the large Jelling stone.
Additionally, researchers believe the Jelling stone, with its distinctive design, influenced depictions and art on other runestones across much of Scandinavia.
"It became a source of inspiration for the entire East Norse and Swedish runestone tradition," says Nielsen.
An embarrassing blunder
Glørstad's theory has attracted media attention in Denmark.
In the Danish newspaper Berlingske, the Norwegian archaeologist is compared to a salmon swimming against the current. The current does not change direction because of it, notes Adam Bak, museum curator at Kongernes Jelling.
Archaeology ultimately comes down to interpretations, but in this case, scientific, archaeological, and historical research all point in the same direction, says Bak.
In an Op.ed in Weekendavisen titled 'Nonsense about the Viking Age,' columnist Emil Leth Beiter writes that the controversial theory about the Jelling stone 'shows how vulnerable we have become to personal fantasies about the Viking Age.'
Beiter describes the article as a blunder that is not only embarrassing for Glørstad but also for Danish media outlets that have covered the story seriously. He points out that Denmark has dismantled and deprioritised studies of Old Norse and Old Danish – and that this is the result: Ignorance of cultural heritage that makes it possible for people to entertain such outlandish theories.
A lack of knowledge about the Jelling dynasty
The great mystery of the Jelling dynasty – the royal power that laid the foundation for modern Denmark – is that knowledge about it is disappearing, according to runologist Michael Lerche Nielsen.
He refers to the two 12th-centure historians also cited by Glørstad – Saxo Grammaticus and Sven Aggesen.
"Despite their learning and Latin prose, they actually had rather poor knowledge about Jelling," says the Danish researcher.
"It's also considered an archaeological fact that Jelling's significance was minimised after Harald Bluetooth's time," he adds.
According to Nielsen, even Old Norse sources provide little reliable information about Jelling.
"The Middle Ages, which Glørstad focuses on, are characterised by vague and unreliable information about the Jelling dynasty. So the idea that someone would suddenly decide to create a massive runestone there makes no sense," he argues.
Nielsen is unsure whether he has the energy to write a formal response to Glørstad's theory, but he believes someone should.
"It's important for many to present spectacular ideas. his article might push us to be more precise in our academic writing. Certain outdated claims, like those about horizontal inscriptions, should be properly refuted," he says.
Expected backlash
Håkon Glørstad has taken note of the reactions in Denmark. They are more or less as expected, he tells sciencenorway.no. He has also been presented with Nielsen's criticism.
"It is a tradition for linguists and runologists to become particularly heated. Perhaps they believe their source material should hold a special status," he says.
"However, resorting to personal attacks and dismissing arguments as mere fantasies is not a professional approach – it primarily reflects poorly on the critic rather than the argument itself," he says in response to the harsh criticism in Weekendavisen.
Glørstad assures that he has reviewed more recent literature, including extensive works from the Jelling Project, published in 2023.
"Not all literature is explicitly cited, but references are certainly made to works published after 1970, including studies that discuss the runes. Using such arguments to ridicule or dismiss an opposing viewpoint is somewhat disingenuous," he says.
It was the runologists themselves who initially claimed that horizontal runes were rare in the Viking Age, Glørstad points out.
"But they are welcome to publish statistics that contradict this. That would be great and would contribute to new knowledge," he says.
Challenging the mainstream
Many have taken issue with Glørstad's claim that Harald Bluetooth's court lacked the intellectual capacity to create the large Jelling stone.
"That's an easy argument to challenge. is easy to answer. All that’s needed is solid counter-evidence showing that the Jelling stone emerged from such an intellectual environment," he says.
The idea that scholars during the Valdemarian Age would have been incapable of creating such a runestone strikes the Norwegian archaeologist as an odd claim. After all, the intellectuals of that era studied runes and rune inscriptions.
"The Valdemarian Age was about 100 years after the Viking Age – not 1,000 years as it is for us today – so knowledge of runes would have been much more accessible than it is to modern researchers," he says.
"We also shouldn't forget that the entire system for dating runestones relies heavily on the dating of the Jelling stones. That’s likely why scholars are so determined to defend the established timeline at all costs," he adds.
Most viewed
Regarding the accusation that he selectively chooses research to fit his theory, Glørstad responds that highlighting evidence for an alternative perspective is precisely the premise of his work.
"For narly 400 years, researchers have focused only on arguments supporting the theory that the stone dates to the Viking Age. Yet, as my review shows, there are many elements suggest a later origin," he says.
Believes it is important to challenge the established narrative
The editorial team of the journal Viking, where Glørstad's peer-reviewed article was published, believes it is important to create space for challenging established truths. "Especially when the research is built on solid argumentation, as in this case," they write in an email to sciencenorway.no.
"When Glørstad’s article questions the theory surrounding one of Denmark’s national treasures, we naturally expect reactions and criticism," they write.
" We believe that a lively discussion around new and alternative interpretations is beneficial. At the same time, Glørstad’s article encourages us to reconsider uncertainties in what we previously thought was completely certain – and that is important."
———
Translated by Alette Bjordal Gjellesvik
Read the Norwegian version of this article on forskning.no
Related content:
Subscribe to our newsletter
The latest news from Science Norway, sent twice a week and completely free.
