The Gotlandic picture stones represent a unique blend of influences from abroad that have merged into something new. The stones are unique testimonies of Late Iron Age beliefs, and of distinctively Gotlandic commemorative customs and identity.

The imagery of the early picture stones of the Migration Period consists of shallow, but carefully chiselled shapes and lines, that of the Vendel-Period and Viking-Age monuments is executed in shallow bas-relief. The images were probably once painted (faint remains of the original paint are preserved in a few cases) – but the red or black paint you can see on many stones today, was applied no earlier than in the 20th century. 

Sun cult, Mediterranean influences and early Christianity? 

The early stones (type A) typically feature a carefully executed, rather big roundel with swirl or rosette patterns in the upper part of the picture stone. Under it, a pair of smaller roundels may be shown. The disc-like roundels are commonly interpreted as depictions of celestial bodies and they are seen as evidence of a sun cult (Andrén 2012; Andrén 2014, pp. 117 ff.). In addition, there are figurative depictions in the spandrels, some of which can be traced back to late Roman motifs (Holmqvist 1952): facing quadrupeds, worm-like creatures, warriors or armed horsemen. These might be representations of mythological events, like the warrior fighting a dragon-like serpent on GP 173 Hangvar Austers I.

The anthropomorphic figure squatting with legs apart and long pigtails, each holding a huge snake in its raised hands on the stone GP 281 När Smiss 3 is famous, but it is unique – however, the motif as such is widespread in the ancient world; perhaps it is a depiction of a Nordic god of healing, similar to Asklepios (see Oehrl 2010).

The imagery and decoration of the stones reflect foreign influences and contacts, supra-regional communication, and the process of Christianisation. The earliest Gotlandic picture stones feature motifs and ornamentation patterns similar to Mediterranean sepulchral stones and mosaics, which indicates models from the Roman provinces. Some grave monuments in the northern and western provinces of the Roman Empire are strikingly similar to the Gotlandic stones, both in regard to the motifs and their composition: The same spiral and rosette motifs can be found on them, often including a recumbent crescent moon, which was apparently adapted by the Nordic stonemasons and reinterpreted as a rowing boat (Lindqvist 1941/42 I, pp. 91–94; fig. 238, 239; Cumont 1942, figs. 54–59; Holmqvist 1952; Holmqvist 1976, p. 561; Eggers 1964, pp. 76–77, fig. 15a–d; Lamm/Nylén 2003, p. 152; Oehrl 2019a, pp. 23–26; Strehlau 2023; Strehlau, forthcoming).

The iconography of the so-called dwarf stones (AD 500–700) seems to have parallels in late antique and early medieval tombstones (Böhner 1968, pp. 187–190; Böhner 1989, p. 460; Hauck 1982, pp. 259–260; Oehrl 2010, pp. 31–33, 168). These comparably small stones show waterfowl, geese or swans, usually as two opposing birds, and  occasionally combined with cross symbols or cross patterns. These motifs probably go back to depictions on late Roman and Merovingian gravestones, where opposing pairs of pigeons frequently occur, flanking a cross or a christogram. Did the Gotlandic artists imitate those motifs but re-interpreted the pigeons in a pre-Christian Scandinavian context, transforming them into Baltic waterfowl? 

On the dwarf stone GP 551 Väskinde Butter, a red deer stag appears to be eating a serpent – a motif that is widespread in Christian art (Oehrl 2019a, pp. 161–168, pl. 159–167). This stone seems to be evidence of a remarkably early Christian influence on the isle of Gotland. 

The Gotlandic slabs called ʻcist stonesʼ, used between AD 500 and 1100 presumably to construct cist-shaped monuments for burials or sacrificial deposits, had a shape that obviously derives from Roman sepulchral and votive stones, which were also imitated by Merovingian stonemasons (Lindqvist 1941/42 I, p. 40; Lindqvist 1964, pp. 64–65). 

Old Norse Mythology

Above all, however, Gotland’s picture stones are an invaluable source for studies of Norse pre-Christian religions, cults, and legends. Many archaeologists and historians, as well as Old Norse and Medieval German philologists have discussed their imagery (e.g. Weber 1973; Ellmers 1973; Ellmers 1980; Ellmers 1981; Ellmers 1986; Ellmers 1995; Buisson 1976; Böttger-Niedenzu 1982; Hauck 1983; Andrén 1989; Andrén 1993; Andrén 2012; Althaus 1993; Staecker 2004; Staecker 2006; Staecker 2013; Aðalheiður Guðmundsdóttir 2012a–b; Oehrl 2019a; Oehrl 2020c). On the whole, the journey of the dead, their escort to the afterworld, and their arrival there apparently are the main topic in the iconography of the Gotlandic picture stones.

On the earliest picture stones, dating to the 5th and 6th centuries, human figures fighting dragon- or serpent-like animals are depicted, echoing Migration-Period myths long before the existence of any literary tradition in the North, which only began more than half a millennium later (Lindqvist 1941/42 I, fig. 27; II, p. 69, fig. 403–404; Lamm/Nylén 2003, pp. 30–35; Oehrl 2019a, pp. 105–144). Many picture stones seem to represent ritual and cultic acts (Oehrl 2019a, pp. 60–63) – such as the horse fights shown on some Migration-Period picture stones (Gjessing 1943, pp. 29–30; Lindqvist 1955, pp. 41–43; Ellmers 1970, pp. 243–245; Lamm/Nylén 2003, p. 26; Althaus 1993, pp. 87–89; Lamm 1999; Beck 2003, pp. 96–97; Oehrl 2019a, pp. 62–63), ceremonial drinking and oath taking (Lindqvist 1941/42 I, pp. 87–88, 105; II, pp. 95–96, fig. 86, 91, 118; Hauck 1970, pp. 277–280; Oehrl 2019a, pp. 169–181), human sacrifices such as those on the Viking Age stones GP 253 Lärbro St. Hammars I and GP 94 Garda Bote, as well as funeral rites as seen on the stone GP 258 Lärbro Tängelgårda I (Lindqvist 1941/42 I, fig. 86–88, 99, 104–105; II, 92–93, fig. 448, 450; Lindqvist 1968, 26; Paulsen 1967, 146; Oehrl 2019a, 60–61), for example, and other kinds of processions (Lindqvist 1941/42 I, fig. 171, 177; II, 107–109, fig. 480; Jungner 1930, 67–75; Plassmann 1959, 244; Oehrl 2010; Oehrl 2019a, 54; Oehrl 2020c).

Some figurative depictions can be interpreted with the help of written sources from medieval Iceland, such as eddic and skaldic poetry, which is recorded in manuscripts from the 13th century onwards (Oehrl 2019a, pp. 43–47). On the two Viking Age stones GP 21 Ardre VIII and GP 5 Alskog Tjängvide I, a horseman riding an eight-legged horse is depicted, and the written sources are telling about an eight-legged horse by the name of Sleipnir, the miraculous steed of supreme god Óðinn (Snorri’s Gylfaginning 42, Faulkes 2005, pp. 34–35). It is hard to believe that the stone motif and the medieval records have nothing to do with each other (Heizmann 2015, p. 95; Oehrl 2020c, p. 127). 

Elements of the story of Wayland/Vǫlundr the smith, as known from the eddic poem Vǫlundarkviða, can be seen on the stone GP 21 Ardre VIII: it depicts Wayland’s smithy, the decapitated corpses of the king’s sons, and the hero escaping in the shape of a giant bird. 

Some other mythological and heroic motifs that with some certainty can be identified on the stones are the punishment of Loki (Lindqvist 1941/42 I, 96; Buisson 1976, 65–66; Oehrl 2019a, 205–210), the legend of Hildr and the everlasting battle (Hjaðningavíg), Gunnarr in the snake pit (Aðalheiður Guðmundsdóttir 2012a–b), and perhaps even Sigurðr and the dragon treasure (Hauck 1957a, p. 18; Hauck 1976, p. 594; Hauck 1981, p. 8; Andrén 1989, 297–302; Andrén 1993, pp. 41–42, fig. 3; Oehrl 2013a, pp. 365–371; Oehrl 2019a, pp. 96–97).

The horseman

One of the most common motifs on the Viking-Age picture stones is the horseman being welcomed to Valhǫll by a woman with a drinking horn (e.g. Ney 2012). It seems to be based on Roman traditions, in particular images of the emperor’s advent (adventus principis, see Lehnen 1997), which often is depicted on gold medallions of Late Antiquity (Vierck 1981, pp. 72–81; Heizmann 2015; Oehrl 2020c). A medallion of Emperor Magnentius from AD 350, for instance, shows the emperor on horseback being welcomed by a personification of the city of Aquileia bowing before him and holding a cornucopia, a horn of plenty, in her hand (Kent et al. 1973, pl. 143:672; Vierck 1981, fig. 6,5; Vierck 2002, p. 25, fig. 5.4; Heizmann 2015, p. 94). Most scholars agree that the woman with the drinking horn in the imagery of the memorial stones of Gotland represents a mythological woman greeting a deceased man and serving him a welcoming drink, similar to the Old Norse valkyries, described in the skaldic poem Eiríksmál, a praise of the Norwegian King Eiríkr blóðøx, written shortly after 954 (Nordin 1903, p. 150; Lindqvist 1941/42 I, 96; Weber 1973, p. 94; Ellmers 1973; Ellmers 1986, p. 354; Ellmers 1995; Oehrl 2010, p. 7; Oehrl 2020c).

The Viking Age picture stone GP 94 Garda Bote features the image of a horseman with a lance, being guided by an eight-pointed star, which has parallels in gold medallions and amulets from late antiquity depicting warrior saints or the Roman emperor (Oehrl 2023). Many figurative and ornamental elements on the Viking-Age picture stones on Gotland witness of influence of Carolingian (Eshleman 1983) and probably western insular (Arrhenius/Holmqvist 1960) art. Even in the Viking Age, late antique Roman influences still seem to be at work.

Ships and boats

The most frequent motif on the picture stones  is a boat or a ship – a rowing boat on the early monuments, a ship with a large sail on the Vendel-Period and Viking-Age slabs. It is commonly regarded as a ‘ship of the dead’, which carries the deceased or the fallen to another world (e.g. Ebert 1919/20, pp. 188–189; Major 1924, p. 118; Almgren 1940, p. 32; Kreutzer 1988, p. 21; Ellmers 1973; Ellmers 1986; Ellmers 1995; Lindow 1993; Lamm/Nylén 2003, pp. 15–16, 22, 70; Hauck 1976a, p. 588; concerning the idea of a ship of the dead in Germanic tradition in general, see Egeler 2015, pp. 113–180; Oehrl 2019, pp. 55 ff.).

Some stones are difficult to read

It is important, however, to keep in mind that many picture stones are severely weathered or abraded, or damaged by secondary use. Many of the images that had been carved very faintly in the first place (generally less than 1 mm deep), are in a poor condition and difficult to discern and describe. Lindqvist’s edition of 1941/42 presents the stones with a modern colouring that suggests a reliable interpretation that is, actually, not given. This basic problem (see Oehrl 2017b; Oehrl 2019a–b) provided the impetus to re-document and re-assess the Gotlandic picture stones with digital imaging techniques. Individual readings can easily be verified or falsified by a look on the respective 3D model.

Research history and main problems

Before an interpretation of an image can be attempted, it has to be ascertained what is depicted actually. The classical archaeologist Carl Robert stated in his book Archäologische Hermeneutik, published in 1919: „The first precondition for correct interpretation is correct observation“. This has also been the basis for the interpretation of visual art in the work of the most relevant art historians Aby Warburg and Erwin Panofsky. They stipulated a strict separation between pre-iconographic description and interpretation. The first step should be a pre-iconographic description, the second step would be the interpretation of the depiction. In the case of the picture stones, however, the correct observation and description of the poorly preserved figures, presents a major problem. In most cases, the carvings are roughly hewn and heavily weathered by rain and frost, covered with moss and lichens, or even mutilated and polished by footsteps – as many of the stones were re-used as steps, thresholds, bridges, and in church floors. Due to these conditions, the depictions can often only be discerned with great difficulty.

Already during the 17th and 18th centuries, prominent scholars like Johannes Bureus and Johann Peringskiöld, who were mainly interested in the runic inscriptions, published a handful of drawings of picture stones. Seen from today’s perspective, these works are far from being exact documentations, containing several simplifications and misinterpretations. 

In the 19th century the brothers Pehr Arvid and Carl Säve, born Gotlanders, were the first scholars who had a serious interest in the picture stones as such. In 1845 and 1853 they published the two monuments from GP 3 Alskog church and GP 5 Alskog Tjängvide I, providing the first academic discussion and interpretation of Gotlandic picture stones, and drawings.

Olof Sörling, Gabriel Gustafsson and Fredrik Nordin compiled a complete academic edition of the picture stones at the beginning of the 20th century. The result of this pioneering work is a collection of professional drawings, based on the systematic examination of the stones. This project was then continued by archaeologist Sune Lindqvist in the early 1930s, together with the photographer Harald Faith-Ell. 

Lindqvist’s edition “Gotlands Bildsteine” from 1941/42 is a first thorough investigation of all aspects of the picture stone tradition, including a catalogue and photo documentation which is still of outstanding importance. 

However, since the carved figures are so faint, Lindqvist traced them on the stones with paint in order to make them visible at all. Photos of the painted stones are the basis of his picture stone edition. Lindqvist himsef explicitly warned in the introduction of his book: „The line between what can securely be recognised and what can be discerned only unclearly and must be guessed at, is very hard to define. […] Naturally, any result achieved in such a way should not be taken as perfectly exact in all its details.“ 

Actually, even Lindqvist’s and his forerunners’ documentations differ fundamentally in many cases. One example is the top panel of the stone GP 209 Klinte Hunninge I. Sune Lindqvist identified a horseman with a dog, crowned with a wreath of victory, welcomed by a lady with a drinking horn; above the rider two warriors are fighting each other. A drawing made by Olof Sörling in 1911, however, shows no swordsmen and no woman, but a curling snake. 

Sune Lindqvist himself was aware of these difficulties. He tried to improve his results, changed his mind and published several quite different images. In the upper panel of this stone, for instance, Lindqvist wasnʼt able to identify any figures when he examined the monument in 1940. In 1946, however, he traced a horse and a man holding its reins. The painting of the lower panel, created in 1940, depicts a huge bird of prey as well as two human figures. In 1946, however, Lindqvist added a bearded human head under the birdʼs beak. This observation seemed to confirm Lindqvistʼs own interpretation of the figure as Óðinn, transforming into an eagle, in order to steal the mead of poetry.

In the 1950s, the historian Karl Hauck from the University of Münster, Germany, tried to improve the documentation of picture stones. He made experiments with latex impressions, which was a modern and innovative technology at the time. Nevertheless, most of Hauck’s results are questionable and his method was not widely accepted – also because it can damage the stone’s surface. This is also the case with frottage or rubbing, a technique that Lindqvist had already tried.

As a result, when Sigmund Oehrl intensified his research on the interpretation of the picture stones, he realised that the state of documentation was insufficient and did not allow an iconographic in-depth evaluation of the picture stones, and he turned to digital documentation and visualisation methods.

The pilot study

In the course of a pilot study carried out between 2013 and 2016, Sigmund Oehrl analyzed and documented a selection of picture stones based on the so called Reflectance Transformation Imaging method (RTI) and 3D digitization by photogrammetry (Oehrl 2017). The results of this study were published in 2019 (Oehrl 2019). It provides detailed case studies, demonstrates the problems of the documentation, the benefits of new digital approaches, and the need for a new edition of the entire corpus of the Gotlandic Picture stones. The pilot study was funded by the Gerda Henkel Stiftung. The pilot study led to the project Ancient Images 2.0, which, in turn, yielded this online edition.

SO / MH