The Jelling Stone Controversy: Rewriting Denmark's Viking Past?

The Jelling stones in Denmark are among the most significant Viking Age monuments, often considered Denmark’s "baptismal certificate." The larger of the two stones, attributed to King Harald Bluetooth in the late 10th century, is regarded as a defining marker of Danish statehood and Christianization. However, recent research by Norwegian archaeologist Håkon Glørstad challenges this long-held belief, proposing that the stone may, in fact, date to the 12th century rather than the Viking Age. If correct, this revelation could reshape our understanding of Denmark’s national identity and historical narrative.

A Monument to Harald Bluetooth or a Later Commission?

Harald Bluetooth, King of Denmark and Norway (c. 935–986), is credited with uniting the two realms and promoting the Christianization of Scandinavia. (Photo: Paganheim.com)

The large Jelling stone, standing 2.5 meters high with runic inscriptions and depictions of Christian imagery, has traditionally been linked to Harald Bluetooth. The inscription itself states that Harald erected the stone in memory of his parents, Gorm and Thyra, and in celebration of his unification of Denmark and Norway. However, Glørstad argues that the evidence supporting this Viking Age attribution is weaker than commonly assumed.

One of his key observations is the horizontal orientation of the runic text, an uncommon feature in Viking Age inscriptions, which were typically arranged vertically. Furthermore, the stylistic elements of the stone’s carvings, particularly the depiction of Christ and a lion-like creature, align more closely with medieval artistic traditions from the 12th century rather than with the visual language of the Viking Age.

The Architectural and Archaeological Evidence

Beyond stylistic concerns, Glørstad highlights physical evidence that challenges the traditional dating of the Jelling stones. Excavations in the area surrounding the monument have revealed medieval graves and foundation structures from the 1100s, suggesting significant activity in the area during that period. Additionally, the anchoring method of the stone mirrors the construction techniques used for the nearby stone church, built in the 12th century. These findings raise the question: was the stone actually installed centuries later as part of a medieval nation-building effort?

Political Motives and the Role of Bishop Absalon

Bishop Absalon (1128–1201), was a key figure in the Christianization of Denmark; a statesman, military leader, and advisor to King Valdemar the Great. (Photo: Laurits Tuxen)

If the Jelling stone is not from the Viking Age, who commissioned it? Glørstad speculates that the driving force behind the monument was Bishop Absalon, a key figure in 12th-century Denmark and a close advisor to King Valdemar the Great. Absalon played a crucial role in consolidating Denmark’s national identity, using historical and religious symbols to legitimize the kingdom’s place in Europe. Given his documented involvement in similar historical reimaginings, it is plausible that he had the Jelling stone erected to reinforce a narrative that linked Denmark’s Christian identity to a glorious Viking past.

This theory aligns with broader trends of the 12th century, a time when European rulers frequently commissioned grand monuments and historical narratives to solidify their legitimacy. The use of runes—long obsolete for everyday communication but still regarded as a link to a mythical past—could have been an intentional choice to lend an air of authenticity to the newly constructed national identity.

Counterarguments: The Case for a Viking-Age Origin

Close up image of one of the Jelling Stones (Photo: National Museet, Denmark)

Not all scholars are convinced by Glørstad’s argument. Experts such as Anne Pedersen of the National Museum of Denmark and Laila Kitzler Åhfeldt, a runologist, point to multiple factors supporting the traditional dating of the Jelling stone to the late 10th century.

Pedersen highlights that Harald Bluetooth’s court had the intellectual and artistic capacity to create such a monument. She cites evidence of sophisticated craftsmanship from the period, including the Hiddensee treasure and Christian-themed coinage issued during Harald’s reign. Additionally, there are contemporary 10th-century artifacts featuring stylistic similarities to the carvings on the Jelling stone, indicating that such motifs were indeed in use during Harald’s time.

Kitzler Åhfeldt further argues that comparing the Jelling stone to a confirmed 12th-century runestone commissioned by Bishop Absalon reveals clear stylistic differences. The latter features a distinctly medieval inscription style that is absent from the Jelling stone, suggesting they belong to different periods. Furthermore, the linguistic structure of the Jelling inscription is consistent with known Viking Age runic conventions, challenging Glørstad’s assertion that the archaic language suggests a later date.

The Broader Implications of the Debate

If Glørstad’s theory holds, it could fundamentally alter how Denmark perceives its Viking heritage. The Jelling stone is not merely an artifact; it is a cornerstone of national identity, prominently featured in Danish passports and school curricula. A 12th-century date would mean that the narrative of Harald Bluetooth’s achievements has been artificially extended backward in time, raising questions about other assumed historical certainties.

On the other hand, if the traditional dating remains unchallenged, this debate underscores the robustness of the existing scholarly consensus. Regardless of the final outcome, the discussion demonstrates the importance of revisiting historical interpretations with fresh perspectives, ensuring that established narratives hold up to critical scrutiny.

The controversy surrounding the Jelling stone exemplifies the dynamic nature of historical research, where even the most established facts remain open to challenge. While Glørstad presents compelling arguments for a 12th-century origin, strong counterarguments reaffirm its Viking Age roots. As new archaeological techniques emerge, future investigations may provide more definitive answers. For now, the Jelling stone remains a monument not just to Denmark’s past, but to the evolving pursuit of historical truth.

References

Bergstrøm, I. I. (2025). "Denmark's Iconic Runestone from the Viking Age May Not Actually Be from the Viking Age, Claims a Norwegian Archaeologist." Science Norway. Retrieved from sciencenorway.no

National Museum of Denmark. (2024). "The Jelling Stones and Denmark's Birth Certificate." Retrieved from natmus.dk

Pedersen, A. (2025). "The Intellectual Capacity of Harald Bluetooth’s Court." National Museum of Denmark.

Kitzler Åhfeldt, L. (2025). "Runological Analysis of the Jelling Stone." Swedish National Heritage Board.