genericlifeform-blog asked:
I’m fairly new to the Vikings (it all started with an icelandic geology obsession) and found a short but interesting article about runestones. Shortly after I tried to find out more about runestones placed in iceland and had to learn to my disappointment that there are none. Now to my question which is I guess easy to answer. Why is that, why has iceland not even one of those fascinating and beautiful artifacts?
The answer may seem straightforward, but the question you ask is actually an important one to consider. Before I continue, though, I would like to invite @thorraborinn for the opportunity to have him chime in for us later. He is far more familiar with runes than I am, so I can assure you that he will have more insight to offer. I highly recommend going to him first in these matters, in the future.
The best way to understand runestones is not as a stable, consistent cultural element, but rather as a trend (or even technology) within a larger, greatly ambiguous culture. Think of it like this: runes are like the characters that make up the words that I have written (which you are now reading), but I have ‘written’ them digitally. Now, this example speaks more to technology, but even this can align with the element of choice in what medium I have selected for my writing. For example, I could have handwritten this response and scanned it into a digital image instead. Material choice for rune carving could be seen as having been quite similar, in that material was a part of a choice (and even innovation) that had to spread from a certain place before being widely used.
There are other factors as well, of course, such as availability of material and practicality, but I do not feel that those aspects justly answer this inquiry, at least not by themselves. Instead, I think the best way to illustrate the inconsistency of runestones is to consider where they are and when (roughly) they were erected. Such an approach illustrates that each region of Scandinavia experienced runestones at different rates and times. Rather than paraphrasing it myself, I will quote directly from Michael P. Barnes’ Runes: A Handbook, which is not for the specialist, but helpful enough for understanding general patterns and practices:
“Although typological classification of this kind cannot reveal the age of individual rune-stones, it can offer reasonable guidance to general trends and developments. … On the basis it has been concluded that relatively few were raised during the first 200 years or so of the Viking Age. After c. 900 the practice takes off in Jutland, and for the next 100–150 years commemorative stones are commissioned and produced at a steady rate in various parts of Denmark. The age of the rune-stone in Sweden is roughly the eleventh century, with large numbers emanating from some areas, fewer or virtually none (apparently) from others. Norway, which has the greatest concentration of pre-Viking Age rune-stones, can only muster a few from the Viking Age itself. It is difficult to say whether there was a continuous tradition of rune-stone raising in Norway, or whether the custom died out and was reintroduced, but either way the Norwegians seem never to have joined the scramble to erect runic monuments in which their Scandinavian neighbors were for a time involved.”(1)
It is that final point that I would like to discuss further. Based on these findings, the general region of Norway did not experience runestones to the same extent that the regions of Denmark and Sweden had during the Viking Age. We could spend some time asking ourselves why this was the case, but such a discussion would take us away from the main question that we seek to answer. To risk simplifying the situation into a concise statement or reason, Iceland does not have runestones because Norway never quite embraced the runestone ‘trend’ like their neighbors had. This is largely a result of the understanding that the majority of Icelandic settlement came from Norway, which resulted in the general importation of ‘Norwegian’ practices (and non-practices) to the island. Since Norway was not so actively engaged in the art of runestones during the Viking Age, when Iceland was being settled (c. 870-930), the practice does not seem to have crossed over. Had Iceland been settled from another region in Scandinavia, we would have seen a fairly different Iceland.
So, generally speaking, the reason for Iceland not having runestones is largely due to the fact that Norse culture was not centralized, unified, or absolute, and that the runestone itself was only a single ‘movement’ within a larger, ambiguous, and constantly changing culture. Denmark dove into the trend during the Viking Age, but Norway had much less interest in them by then. Time and place, then, are key factors to keep in mind. My reasoning for answering this question with such detail (and perhaps over-complication) is to illustrate a larger lesson that not only pertains to runestones, but to culture in general, which I hope I have done.
If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. I am happy to clarify or even ramble about other related things. Also, do make sure to stay on the lookout for Thorraborinn’s contribution. I am sure that he will have more to contribute! In the meantime, I hope that I have done the subject reasonable justice (as a non-specialist in runes).
ENDNOTES:
1. Michael P. Barnes, Runes: A Handbook (Suffolk, UK: Boydell Press, 2012), 67.
Leave a Reply