ZOOMORPHIC CARVINGSThe Upplandic runestones hold an exceptional position in the Swedish material, above
all in number (c. 1 , 400 out of c. 2 , 400 ), but also in ornamentation, with the runes often
carved in a band-shaped animal body. A stylistically based system of classification has
been suggested for the zoomorphic carvings based on the following criteria: the overall
impression, the design of the rune animal’s head, feet and tail, the loops of the snake(s)
and the layout of the pattern. A rough sorting of all zoomorphic carvings of Uppland
resulted in six distinct groups with different characteristics. The chronological order of
these groups was established by comparisons with archaeologically well-dated material
and occurrences of genealogically connected runestones (Gräslund 1994 , 2003 ). One of
the stylistic groups is characterised by the rune animal’s head seen from above, therefore
called ‘Bird’s-eye’s-view’ (B-e-v). The other five groups (called Pr 1 – 5 ) show the rune
animal’s head seen in profile. These five groups can, very compressedly, only regarding
their overall impression, be characterised in the following way:
- Pr 1 : a compact, close and blunted overall impression. The curves of the rune animal
are often angular and the bow line pressed together. - Pr 2 : a compact and unresilient impression with angular curves of the rune animal.
- Pr 3 : a firmly rounded overall impression with moderately sweeping lines.
- Pr 4 : an elegant overall impression with elongated sweeping bow lines.
- Pr 5 : a characteristic overall impression of chequer pattern, formed by parallel lines
crossing each other at right angles, made up of parts of the loops of the rune animal
and a serpent.
The most common variants of the criteria ‘head, tail, feet and union knot’ (common in
B-e-v, Pr 1 , 2 and 3 ) of each group are presented in Figure 46. 1. Examples of the layout
of both non-zoomorphic and zoomorphic carvings are presented in Figure 46. 2.
The following approximate dates may be suggested: non-zoomorphic/unornamented
stones: c. 970 ?– 1020 , Bird’s-eye’s-view: c. 1010 – 50 , Pr 1 : c. 1010 – 40 , Pr 2 : c. 1020 – 50 ,
Pr 3 : c. 1045 – 75 , Pr 4 : c. 1070 – 1100 , Pr 5 : c. 1100 – 30. The group ‘B-e-v’ seems to be
contemporary with Pr 1 and Pr 2 , as there are carvings where rune animal heads typical
for these stylistic groups occur together. If this chronology is accepted, it enables us to
see a chronological pattern in the production of the runestones, and it also implies that
the time of production of some known rune carvers has to be redefined. Of course, the
stylistic groups should not be seen as a strictly chronological sequence, instead, large
overlaps should be expected. Conscious imitations of earlier stones are also possible.
However, the general tendency is clear, and the order of the groups is distinct on the
basis of both the stylistic analysis and the examination of the genealogically related
stones.
This system of classification seems to be applicable not only for Uppland and the
Mälar area, but also for other Swedish provinces (Gräslund 2002 : 146 – 7 ). Zoomorphic
carvings constitute 10 per cent of the late Viking Age carvings of the provinces of Skåne
and Småland, 25 per cent of the carvings of Västergötland and Östergötland and as
much as 65 per cent of the carvings of Öland. They are also represented to a high degree
in Norrland (Gästrikland, Hälsingland, Medelpad and Jämtland) and on Gotland. On
the other hand, they occur seldom in Denmark and practically never in Norway. It can
–– chapter 46 : Runestones and the Christian missions––