The Social Qualia of Kuml – An Exploration of the Iconicity of Rune-Stones with Kuml Inscriptions from the Scandinavian Late Viking Age

Ing-Marie Back Danielsson

doi:10.37718/csa.2015.11

Abstract

This article discusses qualitative experiences (qualia) of Scandinavian Late Viking Age rune- stones from a semiotically theorized perspective. Rune-stones with kuml inscriptions receive par- ticular attention. Despite the fact that kuml referred to different material entities, such as rune-stone, other standing stones, and/or grave, it is suggested that they resembled one another on iconic grounds. The quality associated with the multiple qualia was a sensation of safety that resulted in shared experi- ences that had positive social values. The article demonstrates that the semiotics of Peirce can be of great value to archaeologists who want to delve deeper into the social analysis of things.

Highlights

Standing stones from prehistoric contexts have been investigated recently within archaeology (e.g. Weismantel 2012; Crossland 2014; Källén 2015)
What Munn pointed out further was that qualitative experiences, and qualisigns, work within a system of cultural value. When a quality, such as lightness, is conventionalized, “culturally valorized qualisigns emerge as points of orientation in social action” and they may get a privileged role within a larger value system (Harkness 2013:15). When this reasoning is transferred to rune-stones with kuml inscriptions, it can be expressed that I am interested in knowing the iconic grounds through which the different material entities of mounds, standing uninscribed stones, and rune-stones resembled one another
This paper explores the iconicity, or iconic identification, of rune-stones with kuml inscriptions from the late Viking Age in Scandinavia

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Standing stones from prehistoric contexts have been investigated recently within archaeology (e.g. Weismantel 2012; Crossland 2014; Källén 2015). When a quality, such as lightness, is conventionalized, “culturally valorized qualisigns emerge as points of orientation in social action” and they may get a privileged role within a larger value system (Harkness 2013:15) When this reasoning is transferred to rune-stones with kuml inscriptions, it can be expressed that I am interested in knowing the iconic grounds through which the different material entities of mounds, standing uninscribed stones, and rune-stones resembled one another. The rune-stones as images or (secondary) agents worked as focal points that transformed the place and affected your directionality in the landscape (cf Weismantel 2012:124) At times such qualities were aided by the narrowing of a path or a road, for instance through the building of a bridge or an embankment, or by making runic inscriptions at places with threshold qualities, by which you would be forced to close encounters (Back Danielsson 2015:74, 76). The relationships to stones have shifted, and continue to shift

CONCLUSIONS

Literature