Table Of Content

THESES AND PAPERS IN ARCHAEOLOGY B:9 Work and Worship Laser Scanner Analysis of Viking Age Rune Stones Laila Kitzler Åhfeldt ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH LABORATORY STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY 2002 Doctoral dissertation 2002 Archaeological Research Laboratory Department of Archaeology Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm Abstract This is a study of collaboration on Viking Age and Early Middle Age rune stones. For this study, a method for surface structure analysis by laser scanning has been employed. The aim with this method is to distinguish between individual rune carvers in rock by their cutting techniques, as witnessed by the cut marks. The probability of the existence of individual cutting techniques is supported by neurophysiological and psychological kinetic research on individual motor performance. Conclusions of stylistic and runological studies of regional or chronological issues concerning rune stones often include a reservation for the possibility of individual variation. Attributions and dating are closely related to individual, chronological, regional and functional variation. Technical analysis of the cutting techniques have come to be regarded as a hypothetical but unachievable means to distinguish between individuals. One of the complicating factors is individual variability, due to aging, increasing skill, sickness, fatigue or change of tools. The method has been developed and tested by analyses of a recently cut reference material and on the Sparlösa Monument from 9th c. AD, a rune stone where it is known that a part of the inscription has been added at a later occasion. The usefulness of the method is discussed in terms of hit accuracy in classification, individual variability and how sources of errors such as weathering and treading may effect the variables that are used to characterise the cut marks. The hypotheses that have been tested are if collaboration on rune stones can be made visible by a surface structure analysis, if certain parts of the ornament or inscription have been added at a later occasion and if there is a division of labour that is similar on rune stones dating to the early and the late Viking Age. The study material is mainly collected by plasteline casts from 11th. c. AD rune stones in Uppland, Sweden. These have been compared to rune stones in other regions. Results have shown that individuals may be distinguishable by their cut marks in spite of their increasing skill and even though they have exchanged their tools. There are several instances of collaboration on rune stones of the 11th c. AD, and this also occurs in the 9th c. AD. Only in one instance, the cross appears to have been cut after the rune stone was erected. The signatures are often less deeply cut than the rest of the inscripion. As compared to the rune stones in other regions, the carvers in Uppland seem to have been influenced by one another. In interpretation of the results, the assumption that the Christianisation of Central Sweden was influenced by mis- sionaries in England, has directed the focal point to the circumstances of stone sculpture production in England and the British Isles. This stone sculpture was mainly produced by workshops of carvers associated to the monastries. The com- mon occurence of collaboration has been interpreted as a support for the hypothesis that rune stones have been produced by workshops. These workshops may reflect ecclesiastic organisation and activities, possibly those of an early monastic community. Keywords: rune stone, petroglyph, laser scanner, surface structure analysis, cutting technique, Viking Age, Early Middle Age, individual, workshop, school. © Laila Kitzler Åhfeldt ISSN 1102-1195 ISBN 91-89338-10-3 Jannes Snabbtryck Kuvertproffset HB & EO-print AB, Stockholm 2002 Cover by: Göran Skarbrandt Lay-out: Lena Lundberg text & form Acknowledgements Several people have contributed with all sorts of intellectual as well as practical help during my work with this dissertation. Most of all I want to thank my supervisor Dr Lena Holmquist Olausson for years of never-ceasing good advice and encouragement in scientific matters. I am also greatly indebted to Professor emerita Birgit Arrhenius, my assistant supervisor, who initiated the research on laser scanner analyses in archaeological applications and introduced me to the subject. Besides always having fore-sighted comments, Professor Gustaf Trotzig has ensured an open-minded and stimu- lating working environment at the Archaeological Research Laboratory. My gratitude also to Dr Michael Olausson for well-informed opinions on my manuscript. Without the rune carvers Kalle ‘Viking’ Dahlberg, Erik ‘The Red’ Sandström and Markus ‘The Beginner’ Hobring, who have provided the reference material, I would still be lingering in ignorance about what traits refer to an individual’s special cutting technique or simple boredom. Most kindly, church historians Dr Alf Härdelin and Dr Per Beskow have lent their time to an enlightening (for me) conversation on the subject of mission in Scandinavia. Dr Lars Göran Danielsson at the department for Analytical Chemistry at the Royal Swedish College of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have given valuable comments on the statistics. Dr Uaininn O’Meadhra at the National Heritage Board has not only translated the introductory part of the dissertation but also engaged herself in discussions about motifpieces, manuscripts and Viking Art in general, for which I am very greatful. At the same institution, stone conservators Runo Löfvendal, Hans Erik Hansson and Jarema Bielawski have shared their experience of conservation and casting techniques. Dr Helmer Gustavson introduced me to the find from Visingsö and have helped me in many ways – all staff at the Runic Section (Runverket) have been helpful with information and comments. Dr Frands Herschend and Dr Ann-Sofie Gräslund gave me access to the database MÄLSTEN, an invaluable aid in rune stone research. The staff at Sigtuna Museum obligingly let me search their finds for stone chisels and helped me in the quest. Helena Fennö and Lasse Ohlander did the same for me in the collections of The City Museum in Stockholm. Magnus Källström at the same museum is thanked for cooperation in the analysis of the rune stone on Adelsö (U11) and in the Old Town in Stockholm (U53) and conversation on rune stones in general. Dr Jan Swantesson at the Division for Environmental Studies at Karlstad University, Professor Peter Torssander at the Department for Geology and Geochemistry at Stockholm University and Lasse Bengtsson at Vitlycke Museum have had the kindness of discussing the weathering issue with me. Dr Robert Bednarik, convener for International federation of Rock Art Organisations (IFRAO), has kindly taken part of my problems with terminology. Dr Luminitza Bein-Faladi translated interesting liter- ature from Italian for me. I also want to thank the ever exceedingly helpful and professional staff at the library and the antiquarian-topographi- cal archives at the National Heritage Board. Vergers and land owners have carried ladders, shown church plate and even pulled my car with tractors when it has stuck in the mud. Lena Lundberg has undertaken the layout of this dissertation, with patience enduring my changes. Göran Skarbrandt made the front cover. All friends at the laboratory have made my stay there both pleasant and exciting; many thanks to Ann-Marie, Margaretha, Kerstin, Anita, Öjvind, Ludwig, Anton, Sven, Malgorzata, Emilia, Annika, Anders, Sara, Kjell, Charlotte, Niklas, Lotta, Gunilla and the students. Cecilia and Zelimir were my laserscanning-mates for a year. My gratitude to all colleagues for useful comments on seminars, conferences and other occations. During excavations on Birka I have had months of grace with heavy spadework, boat-trips and ’the liars’ bench’. Not to forget the unconcerned conversation under cherry-trees in blossom. Thanks to all staff on Birka and again to excava- tion leader Dr Lena Holmquist Olausson who brought me there. Family and friends have always given unconditional support however boring a doctoral student may be when a deadline is felt to be more important than all other happenings. Thanks to my friends in ’The Taverna’, ’La Familia’ and in the Vigdis and square-rigger crews. And most of all to Magnus – my never-failing support above all. Financial support has come from Gustav Adolfs Akademien för svensk folkkultur, Wallenbergsstiftelsens Jubileums- fond, Svenska Fornminnesföreningen, Föreningen Gamla Norrköping, Greta Arwidssons fond and the Archaeology Department at Stockholm University. Last but not least I want to thank my former colleague Henry Freij (†1998) for his generosity in sharing his discoveries in the microtopographical world. I think it would make him happy to know that his work is used for continuous research. In spite of all good advice there are some errors, which of course no one except myself can be blaimed for. Contents 1.Introduction...................................................................................................................................7 Rune stones......................................................................................................................................................7 Context............................................................................................................................................................7 Conscious manipulation and unconscious marks..............................................................................................8 Field work and laboratory analyses...................................................................................................................9 Terminology.....................................................................................................................................................9 2.Background..................................................................................................................................11 Previous research............................................................................................................................................11 Quality and professional carvers.....................................................................................................................12 Carving technique..........................................................................................................................................13 Chronological, regional and individual variation.............................................................................................14 Rune carving during the Viking and Early Middle Ages..................................................................................15 3.Scientific Studies of Stone and Petroglyphs..................................................................................19 Carving techniques and groove shapes............................................................................................................19 Discerning different craftsmen........................................................................................................................20 Surface-weathering research............................................................................................................................20 Antiquarian intervention................................................................................................................................21 Analyses of original colour..............................................................................................................................22 Provenance analysis and choice of material.....................................................................................................22 Readings and interpretations..........................................................................................................................22 Dating of petroglyphs....................................................................................................................................22 4.Surface Structure Analysis............................................................................................................25 Methodological issues.....................................................................................................................................25 Equipment and sampling...............................................................................................................................25 The study material.........................................................................................................................................26 Similarities and differences in cut marks.........................................................................................................28 Method studies..............................................................................................................................................35 The limitations of the method........................................................................................................................36 Other methods and areas of application..........................................................................................................38 5.Applications.................................................................................................................................43 Presentation of Papers I–V..............................................................................................................................43 Crosses on rune stones...................................................................................................................................44 A comparison between two rune stones..........................................................................................................47 Rune stones of sandstone................................................................................................................................48 A new find from Visingsö...............................................................................................................................49 Regional differences in carving technique.......................................................................................................50 Rune stones indicating several carvers.............................................................................................................51 6.Rune stones – ancient Nordic Tradition or Christian Acculturation?...........................................53 Stone sculpture from the Early Iron Age to the Early Middle Ages..................................................................53 Rune stone carvers’ models.............................................................................................................................58 Stone master signatures..................................................................................................................................58 Rune carvers and the mission.........................................................................................................................59 Runic literacy.................................................................................................................................................60 7.Discussion and conclusions..........................................................................................................63 The investigation...........................................................................................................................................63 Workshop, school, guild.................................................................................................................................63 Monasticism in the mission period.................................................................................................................68 Rune stone workshops – work and learning....................................................................................................71 Summary and conclusions..............................................................................................................................73 Problems for future research...........................................................................................................................74 References........................................................................................................................................75 Appendix A: Catalogue.....................................................................................................................85 Appendix B: Data.............................................................................................................................95 Appendix C: Mean profile diagrams...............................................................................................107 Appendix D: Discriminant Analysis...............................................................................................113  List of papers I. Kitzler, L. 1998. Learning to Know a Rune Carver and his cutting technique. A method study and some results. Laborativ arkeologi 10–11. Journal of Nordic Archaeological Science. II. Kitzler, L. 2000. Surface Structure Analysis of Runic Inscriptions on Rock. A method for distinguishing between individual carvers. Rock Art Research. Volume 17, Number 2. III. Kitzler Åhfeldt, L. The Sparlösa Monument and its Three Carvers. A study of divsion of labour by surface structure analysis. Lund Archaeological Review. In press. IV. Kitzler Åhfeldt, L. Öpir – A Viking-Age Workshop for Rune Stone Produc- tion in Central Sweden? A study by surface structure analysis into the division of labour. ACTA Archaeologica. København. Accepted. V. Kitzler Åhfeldt, L. Individual variability in Rune Carving on Rock. A comparison between individuals and workshops. JONAS. Journal of Nordic Archaeological Science 13. Accepted.  1 Introduction Rune stones Rune stones, as the earliest written sources in Scandin- avia, have attracted the attention of researchers since the 17th century. Technically speaking they are memorial inscriptions in stone, but can also have had other functions. This dissertation concerns rune stones from a period, which embraces the Viking and early Middle Ages, c. AD 800–1130 (Fig. 1). The study has two aims. The first is to establish to what extent it is possible to distinguish between individual carvers by means of surface structure analysis, in- volving a laser scanner for reading measurements and statistical treatment for interpreting the scanned data. The other is to employ the results to elucidate archaeological problems – Do there exist rune stones where it is possible to show by surface structure analysis that more than one carver worked together and if so, what distin- guishes these stones from those executed by single carvers working alone? Can these workers be characterised by variables referring to carving technique? Were there per- Figure 1. An 11th cent. AD rune stone from northern Uppland. U687. Photo: National Heritage Board, Bengt A Lundberg manent work teams? Who could become a professional carver? The emphasis in this dissertation is on interpreting the tool grooves remaining on the rune stones as the work specialisation. This is the period of transition from ‘cut marks’ of the individual craftsmen, regardless of who Nordic paganism to Christianity, when the Church is designed the ornament or formulated the inscription. established (e.g. Ståhle 1950; Palme 1959; Ström 1985; Guided by the overall results presented in this disserta- Gräslund 1987, 1995; B. Sawyer 1991, 2000; Hultgård tion, I have sought to build an opinion on whether rune 1991; Nilsson 1996, 1998; and others. For a survey of stones were the object of organised production. the history of early research into this religion shift see Brink 1992). State formation was imminent (P. Sawyer Context 1991; Hyenstrand 1989a, 1996; Randsborg 1980, 1991; On a general scale, rune stones might be considered com- Lindqvist 1990). Rune stones have been used to illustrate mon in Denmark and Sweden during the Viking Age, all these major social changes but the explicit information but their production peaks in limited areas at different contained in the inscriptions is meagre. It has been ar- times, beginning with the late Viking-period erecting of gued that there is influence from England in rune stones rune stones in Denmark at the end of the 10th century, during the mission period – in style (Bergman 1948; and terminating in Uppland in the early 12th century. Nylén & Lamm 1978, p. 78), cross-shape (Lager 1995), Before the 10th century, the raising of rune stones was ex- linguistic features (Segelberg 1983, p. 48ff), and liturgy tremely sporadic. The Viking and early medieval rune (Beskow 1994; 1996). The material of this study is repre- stones appear in a society under change – changes con- sentative primarily of the so-called professional rune cerning farming, ideology, religious practice and craft- carvers who emerge in the second half of the 11th century Laila Kitzler Åhfeldt and disappear with the ceasing of raising rune stones c. scanner to record shape and depth. But these traces or AD 1100–1130 (Gräslund 1992, p. 198; Fuglesang variables are non-intentional from the carver’s point of 1998, p. 208). (Key problems for illustrating the carver’s view. Data, which becomes accessible only 900 years function include the relationship of rune stones to other later, can hardly have been intended as clues to the carv- ancient monuments, the extent to which the carvers er’s identity. If the carved groove is a witness to the iden- could influence the content of the inscriptions, and tity of the carver, then style, motif and language can de- whether rune carvers were professionals.) fine other individual variation. It is a resource to be able to capture information, which is steered by physical laws Conscious manipulation in a way that can be explained or dismissed by a simple and unconscious marks causal process. In rune stone research, the attribution of monuments to The need for more objective criteria when studying ar- specific carvers has formed an important dating compo- tefacts has been discussed in detail by Mats P. Malmer in nent. The classic criteria of style and orthography have ‘Metodproblem inom järnålderns konsthistoria’ (Method however the drawback that they can vary and even be Problems in Later Iron Age Art History) (1963), as well as manipulated. Linguistic characteristics and rune forms in a debate in the journal Fornvännen that engaged sev- are commonly used criteria when attributing rune stones eral writers during the 1980s (Malmer 1980; Christo- to known carvers. But the language on a rune stone can phersen 1982; Herschend 1982; A.B. Johansen 1979, have been influenced by other persons, by the wishes of 1982; Welinder 1982). Malmer has expressed this as: the commissioner, or by regional dialect. Linguistic dat- “One must proceed as if absolute objectivity be possible” ing can occasionally lead to circular arguments. Runo- (Malmer 1980, p. 262. My translation). As I understand logical dating can be based on art-historical or archaeolo- it, this expresses the insight that objectivity can be an gical dating, which in its turn can be dependent on runo- overwhelming task for us trapped in our own time with logy. Carvings have been attributed by language usage only fragmented material before us. But also that we none whereupon the carver is described as consistent in or- the less must strive to at least achieve the highest degree of thography (Thompson 1975, p. 80). Style is today un- objectivity possible. derstood as an active means of communication in con- One of the starting hypotheses of this study is that tra- trast to the former research view of style as a relatively ditional craftsmanship is steered by the physical charac- passive bearer of tradition (Zachrisson 1998, p. 136f; teristics in the raw material and of the human body. A Andrén 2000, p. 9; Hadley 2000, p. 316f; cf. Hedeager craftsman who has found a functional way to work is con- 1996, p. 224ff). When style is understood as a medium sidered conservative in his choice of tools and technique. for communication it becomes even less suitable for attri- In addition a movement pattern becomes incorporated butions. In former assessments of differences and similar- into the body in the same way as with handwriting. The ities between individuals, the underlying premise has of- observation that a carver develops a personal motor per- ten been that these are reflected in a signature. However, formance is supported by neurophysiological and psycho- the one signature can have been employed by several per- logical research (Welford 1976; Singer 1980; Schmidt & sons, with the result that instead of studying the linguistic Lee 1999; Schmidt & Wrisberg 2000). The stone carver’s practice of a single individual, one is instead studying the tools looked the same at the time of the Industrial Revo- construct of a whole group of individuals. lution as in the Middle Ages and are presumed to have The advantage of research into the rune and orna- been of similar type during the Viking period, a premise ment grooves themselves, in contrast to the criteria men- that is discussed further below. A technical development tioned above, is that these marks can be presumed to be has generated better steel quality during that period but unconscious. In a study of carving technique, what are to judge from medieval illustrations, the form of the studied are the traces that have been left behind uninten- chisel is very similar. The overriding theoretical prerequi- tionally, namely the individual characteristics of the cut site is therefore craftsman consistency on an individual mark. The rune carver’s “handwriting” is not the result of level and in the craft’s development. From this it follows conscious manipulation in the same way that ornament that Viking Age stone carving is comparable with the iconography or choice of wording can be. The experi- carving of modern craftsmen. This observed conserva- enced carver strives for an overall harmony of composi- tism occurs on two levels, firstly the stone carvers’ craft tion and evenness of groove. Over time he acquires an in- has not changed to any appreciable extent in terms of dividual carving technique which concerns hit-interval tools and tooling techniques since medieval times, and (cf. below for this term), depth and shape of incision, as secondly each individual craftsman develops his own well as characteristics of the tools used. The carver adapts consistent way of working. Naturally exceptions to these himself gradually to the nature of the raw material’s ideal conditions occur. For example, changes in motor physical characteristics, to form it according to his plans. skills can appear as a result of personal development, ill- Carving technique leaves behind measurable traces, ness and tool change (Paper V). whose microtopography can be registered with a laser- The fact that craftsmen develop individual motor per- 