Jellings Bautasten

The Bauta Stones at Jelling When J. J. A. Worsaae, at the instigation of King Frederik VII, excavated the southern mound at Jelling in 1861, a number of large stones were found on its floor in two groups, comprising 8 stones to the east and 3 to the west of these. The excavation was carried out by means of mine shafts [1]. The original and the published plans show clearly that the 8 eastern stones stood in an irregular row, oriented northeast-southwest [2]. Dyggve's excavation in 1941 found all 11 stones again and added a further 28 bauta­like large stones (fig. 2) [3]. It was now possible to identify two rows of bauta stones, set at intervals of roughly 2 m. between stones, centre to centre. If extended to the southwest the rows would form an acute angle, the bisector of which would practically touch the centre of the mound, the large runic stone and the burial chamber in the north mound [4]. Dyggve held the peculiar view that they were part of a great triangular "bauta-vi" (fig. 3), opening onto the northern mound [5]. This was pure speculation, since such a construction is neither found among the Nordic stone monuments nor mentioned in the ancient literature. This theory was, however, strangely enough accepted almost without discussion by the majority of scholars, even by specialists in the Viking period [6-9], and analogy was claimed with a pair of diverging stone rows south of Tibirke church, uncritically called the "Tibirke Vi" [8], and another of Dyggve's creations, the "Tingsted Vi" on the island of Falster [9].Olaf Olsen has recently, in his thesis "Hørg, Hov og Kirke" demolished both the Tibirke and the Tingsted vi but left the question of the Jelling vi open, while C. J. Becker, in a review of this work [10], has upheld Dyggve's view and rejected an alternative theory that the bauta stones at Jelling may be part of a boat-shaped monument.The interpretation of the bauta stones at Jelling as being part of such a monument was originally given by the artist Magnus Petersen in 1874 [11]. He conceives of a ship­setting oriented east-west around the large runic stone. With the information we have from Worsaae's and Dyggve's excavations of the southern mound, we can however say that any ship-setting must have been oriented north-south, since the two rows of stones can only be the southern end of such a monument. It cannot be ruled out, however, that there were originally more than one ship-setting at Jelling, in accordance with the rows of stones east of the church which were mentioned by Abildgaard in 1771.It is unnecessary here to give a detailed account of Dyggve's arguments for his vi-theory. If one compares the oldest Jelling monuments, consisting of burial mound, runic stones and bauta stones with other well-known monuments of the Viking period, the problem of "bauta-vi" contra ship-setting solves itself.The monuments which can be compared with Jelling are Bække, Glavendrup and Tryggevælde. They each consist, or have consisted, of the same three elements, and were mentioned as early as 1876 by Engelhardt in his work on the royal mounds [17]. It is therefore strange that both Bække and Glavendrup are mentioned and illustrated by Dyggve, without the resemblance between them and Jelling being remarked [18].The monuments at Bække, which lie by the ancient main thoroughfare running down through Jutland only about 25 km southwest of Jelling, consist of two burial mounds and a northwest-southeast oriented ship-setting (fig. 4-5) with a runic stem-stone at the northwestem end which was noticed in 1858 and published immediately afterwards [19]. The inscription, which is of Jelling type, reads: "Revne and Tobbe (?) made these "kumler" (monuments) in memory of their mother Vibrog (Viborg?)" [20]. The inscription shows that "kumler" here means bauta stones in the shape of a ship, and a runic stone. Only one side of the ship-setting was visible in 1858, the stones apparently standing in one row issuing from a Bronze Age barrow to the east. The shape of the roughly 45 m. long and 6 m. wide ship-setting was, however, finally determined by Olfert Voss in 1956-57 [21].At Glavendrup in northern Funen there is a roughly 70 m. long ship-setting, oriented ESE-E and WNW-N (fig. 6-7). It issues from a Bronze Age barrow to the east, and has as stem-stone in the west the large stone with Denmark's longest runic inscription reading: "Ragnhild raised this stone in memory of Alle the Pale (?), priest of the "vier", most worthy chief of the house-carles. Alle's sons made these kumler in memory of their father and his wife in memory of her husband, while Sote carved these runes in memory of his master ... " [24]. When Erling Albrechtsen excavated the ship-setting in 1958, cremation graves of the Viking period were found, and the barrow from which it issued dated to the Early Bronze Age [25]. Also in the case of Glavendrup then, "kumler" probably stands for ship-setting and runic stone. It is certain that the Ragnhild and Sote of the inscription are the same persons as those mentioned by the Tryggevælde stone [26].The Tryggevælde stone is from eastem Zealand and was first mentioned in 1957, when it stood in the courtyard of the manor of Tryggevælde, to which it had been removed around 1550, perhaps from a nearby barrow, as stated by Worm, or from Hårlev churchyard, where pastor Leganger (1762) describes it as having stood by the "King's Barrow", a large barrow with a flat top like the Jelling mounds [27]. Its inscription reads: "Ragnhild, Ulv's sister, erected this stone and made this mound and ship-setting in memory of her husband Gunulv, a "baying" man, the son of Nærve ... " [28]. The runic stone thus mentions both burial mound and ship-setting.These three monuments of the Viking period should be able to convince us that the bauta stones at Jelling also originally stood in a ship-setting in which the runic stones can have been placed as stem- and stem-stones. The ship-setting at Jelling issued from a Bronze Age barrow to the north, which may have been around 150-175 m. long, which Dyggve found in 1941 under the mound containing the wooden burial chamber. It is thus the southern portion of the ship-setting which Dyggve has demonstrated. It is probable that the heathen King Gorm built a ship-setting for Thyre and placed her memorial stone, the small runic stone, as the stem stone to the south, at the opposite end to the Bronze Age barrow (fig. 8). This would fully accord with the contemporary monuments at Bække and Glavendrup. Since King Harald had buried his parents in the northern mound and had a runic stone carved for them, it was natural to place this stone in the mid-line of the ship-setting.The large Jelling stone now stands between the two mounds, but even though its original position is not known with certainty, it has not necessarily been moved very far [30]. If this is the case, it should be remarked that the stone is situated mid-way between the mounds. The southern empty mound, which has covered the south end of the ship-setting and which was constructed in several stages, may therefore be contemporaneous with the erection of the large runic stone and have been started by King Harald. It is another matter whether it is Harald who was laid to rest in a wooden building on top of the mound, the ten bearing posts of which were demonstrated by Dyggve in 1941. These posts were interpreted by Harald Andersen in the Society's first Kuml of 1951 as the burial chamber for King Gorm [31].P. V. Glo