## The Project Gutenberg eBook of Notice of Runic Inscriptions Discovered during Recent Excavations in the Orkneys

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Notice of Runic Inscriptions Discovered during Recent Excavations in the Orkneys

Author: James Farrer

Release date: January 1, 2011 [eBook #34816]
Most recently updated: January 7, 2021

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK NOTICE OF RUNIC INSCRIPTIONS DISCOVERED DURING RECENT EXCAVATIONS IN THE ORKNEYS ***

# MAES-HOWE

Printed by R. & R. Clark, Edinburgh.

Larger Image

Plate I. GENERAL VIEW OF MAESHOWE.

NOTICE
OF
RUNIC INSCRIPTIONS
DISCOVERED DURING RECENT
EXCAVATIONS IN THE ORKNEYS

MADE BY
JAMES FARRER, M.P.

PRINTED FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION
1862

## CONTENTS.

| Page
PREFACE | ix
DESCRIPTION OF MAES-HOWE | 11
THE EXCAVATION OF MAES-HOWE | 13
BARROWS AT BOOKAN | 16
Large Barrow Containing Graves | 17
MOUNDS AT STENNES | 18
BARROW AT TENSTONE | 19
APPENDIX | 21
Origin of Maes-Howe, and Date of Inscriptions | 21
Readings of Inscriptions | 25

## LIST OF PLATES.

I. | General View of Maes-Howe from the N. E. | TO FACE | TITLE PAGE
II. | Interior View of Maes-Howe | " | PAGE 15
III. | General Plan and Section of Maes-Howe | " | 20
IV. | Plan of Central Chamber, Passages, and Cells | " | 20
V. | Sections of East and West Sides of Chamber | " | 20
VI. | Sections of North and South Sides of Chamber and Passage | " | 20
The numbers on Plates V. and VI. show the situation of the slabs containing the Runic Inscriptions, which are numbered accordingly.
VII. | Inscriptions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | " | 40
VIII. | Do. Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 | " | 40
IX. | Do. Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 | " | 40
X. | Do. Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 | " | 40
XI. | Do. Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 | " | 40
[The Inscriptions are drawn on a scale of 2 inches to one foot.]

[Pg ix]

## PREFACE.

As the following pages are intended only for private circulation among friends and acquaintances, and for presentation to those few Public Societies to whom such a subject may be interesting, it is hardly necessary to offer any apology for the many imperfections in the description of Maes-howe, which may doubtless be pointed out, and for the brief and cursory manner in which the subject is handled. I desire only to give a plain statement of facts, in the hope that attention may be drawn to this interesting discovery, and possibly some further impetus given to the elucidation of Runic literature. I have received from the learned professors, whose translations are given, much valuable information, of which, however, I can only partially avail myself, in consequence of my very imperfect acquaintance with Runology.

I may add, that every possible care has been taken to ensure accuracy in the drawings. These and the ground plans were made by Mr. Gibb of Aberdeen—of whose care and accuracy in the drawings of ancient monuments Mr. Stuart has spoken so strongly in his “Sculptured Stones of Scotland,” printed for the Spalding Club. The Runes were mostly drawn by my friend Mr. George Petrie of Kirkwall, and the drawings afterwards[Pg x] compared by Mr. Gibb with the originals in the building of Maes-Howe. Two separate sets of casts were made for me by Mr. Henry Laing of Edinburgh (one of which is now in the National Museum of the Antiquaries of Scotland, Edinburgh, and the other in the Museum of the Royal Northern Society of Antiquaries at Copenhagen.) Nothing could exceed the pains taken by Mr. Petrie and Mr. Gibb; and the drawings made by Mr. Gibb were on two occasions collated by him with the casts in Edinburgh, so that I have every reason to believe that they are as perfect representations of the original writings on the walls of Maes-Howe as can be hoped for, and not the less so that the gentlemen who made the drawings and collations were unacquainted with Runes. I have confined myself to the interpretations furnished by the three eminent northern antiquaries who have undertaken the task of deciphering these rude inscriptions, feeling assured that the high reputation which they enjoy is a sufficient guarantee for the accuracy of their translations. In concluding these few remarks I am anxious to bear testimony to the valuable assistance I have received from my friend Mr. John Stuart, Secretary of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, to whom in reality I am chiefly indebted for the discovery of Maes-Howe, since I owe to his urgent suggestion that the great circle of Stennes, and the tumuli around it, had not been sufficiently examined, the successful excavation of this ancient “howe.” It is also highly satisfactory to me to know that Mr. Balfour of Balfour and Trenabie, on whose property this interesting relic of antiquity is situated, has taken the necessary steps to ensure its preservation—a precaution, unfortunately, too often neglected under similar circumstances.

JAMES FARRER.

Ingleborough, Yorkshire, June 1862.

[Pg 11]

## MAES-HOWE.

Early in the month of July 1861 I was enabled, by the kind permission of my friend David Balfour, Esq. of Balfour and Trenaby, to put in execution a scheme long contemplated, but from various circumstances unavoidably delayed, the excavation of some of the great tumuli in the neighbourhood of the Stones of Stennes, or Ring of Brogar. I had in the year 1854 partially explored one of considerable size on the east side of the great circle of stones, which stands on the west shore of the Loch of Harray. No discovery, however, of any importance was then made.

Some days were devoted to excavations close to Stennes, to which allusion will afterwards be made, but as several gentlemen of well-known antiquarian reputation from Edinburgh and Aberdeen were expected, and as I was desirous of having the benefit of their experience and advice, I determined at once to commence operations on the great tumulus of Maes-howe, the subject of this notice. My attention had been particularly called to this tumulus by Mr. Balfour, whose decided opinion that a careful examination might result in some important discovery, afforded me great encouragement, as I well knew that he had for many years taken considerable interest in Orkney antiquities, and his opinion that Maes-howe[Pg 12] was a sepulchral chamber, appeared to be confirmed by local traditions.[1]

On the afternoon of Saturday the 6th of July, therefore, guided by the experience of Mr. George Petrie, and assisted by the professional knowledge of Mr. Wilson, road contractor, ground was broken on the west side of Maes-howe, and on the same evening, Mr. John Stuart and Mr. Joseph Robertson of Edinburgh, with Colonel Forbes Leslie of Rothie, and Mr. James Hay Chalmers of Aberdeen, arrived by the Prince Consort steamship. As it was anticipated that a couple of days would suffice to make a large opening in the tumulus, arrangements were made for meeting there on the 10th of July. Before proceeding with the description of what followed, it may not be out of place to give a short account of the Stones of Stennes, as described by Lieutenant Thomas in a work published by him in 1851:—

“The Great Circle of Stennes, or Ring of Brogar, is a deeply entrenched circular space containing almost two acres and a half of superficies, of which the diameter is 366 feet. Around the circumference of the area, but about thirteen feet within the trench, are the erect stones, standing at an average distance of eighteen feet apart. They are totally unhewn, and vary considerably in form and size. The highest stone was found to be 13-9 feet above the surface, and judging from some others which have fallen, it is sunk about eighteen inches in the ground. The smallest stone is less than six feet, but the average height is from eight to ten. The breadth varies from 2-6 to 7-9 feet, but the average may be stated at about 5 feet, and the thickness about 1 foot—all of the old red sandstone formation. The trench round the area is in good preservation. The edge of the bank is still sharply defined, as well as the two foot-banks or entrances, which are placed exactly opposite to each other. They have no relation to the true or magnetic meridian, but are parallel to the general direction of the neck of land on which the circle is placed.[Pg 13] The trench is 29 feet in breadth, and about 6 in depth, and the entrances are formed by narrow earth-banks across the fosse. The surface of the enclosed area has an average inclination to the eastward. It is highest on the north-west quarter, and the extreme difference of level is estimated to be from 6 to 7 feet. The trench has the same inclination, and therefore could never be designed to hold water.”

## The Excavation of Maes-Howe.

On Monday the 8th of July, a number of men under the superintendance of Alexander Johnson, Mr. Wilson’s foreman—a most active and intelligent fellow—proceeded with the work that had been commenced on the previous Saturday, and before evening discovered a passage on the west side, which afterwards proved to be the entrance into the interior of the tumulus. This passage was covered over with large flag-stones, one of which having been with some difficulty upraised, we effected an entrance, but found a considerable accumulation of earth and stones, which was removed on the following day, and Mr. Wilson, after careful examination, in which his engineering experience was of the highest importance, agreed to my suggestion that the excavation should be proceeded with from the centre of the hillock.

I am chiefly indebted to my friend Mr. George Petrie for the following measurements, which I believe will be found to be substantially correct:—

The tumulus is about 92 feet in diameter, 36 feet high, and about 300 feet in circumference at the base. It is surrounded by a trench 40 feet wide, and varying in depth from 4 to 8 feet. It is situated on the north side of the new road leading to Stromness from Kirkwall, being about 6 miles from the former, and 9 from the latter place. It is about 200 yards distant from the road, and a mile and a half from the Stones of Stennes. It has undoubtedly been entered at some remote period, probably by the Northmen, who, as is well known, were not deterred by[Pg 14] feelings either of religion or superstition, from opening and ransacking any place likely to repay them for their trouble. Whether they were the first to break into the building, or whether they found it in a state of comparative ruin, the natural result of great antiquity, can now only be matter of conjecture. It is obvious that little respect has been paid to the dead, since the stones used for closing up the cells, in which it is supposed they were deposited, were found torn out and buried in the mass of ruins filling up the interior of the chamber to which these cells are attached.

The passage leading to the central chamber is 2 feet 4 inches wide at its mouth, and appears to have been the same in height, but the covering stones had been removed, or had fallen in for about 22½ feet. The passage then increases in dimensions to 3¼ feet in width, and 4 feet 4 inches in height, and continues for 26 feet, when it is again narrowed by two upright stone slabs to 2 feet 5 inches. These slabs are each 2 feet 4 inches broad, and immediately beyond them the passage extends 2 feet 10 inches, and then opens into the central chamber. Its dimensions from the slabs to its opening into the chamber are 3 feet 4 inches wide, and 4 feet 8 inches high. At the commencement of the passage there is a triangular recess in the wall about 2 feet deep, and 3½ in height and width, in front and opposite to it in the passage, a stone of corresponding shape and dimensions, suggesting the idea that it might have been used to close the passage, and that it was pushed back into the recess in the wall when admission into the chamber was desired. From this recess to the chamber, the sides of the passage, the floor and roof, are formed by four immense slabs of flagstone; three of these stones are broken, and the fourth slightly cracked.

After a few days’ labour the whole of the rubbish filling the chamber was removed, but long ere this was accomplished, the keen eye of Mr. Joseph Robertson discovered the first of the Runic inscriptions. They were high up on the walls of the building, smaller and less distinctly drawn than many that were afterwards discovered, but the important fact of the existence of Runic inscriptions in Orkney, where none had hitherto been found, was at once established.

Larger Image

Plate II. INTERIOR VIEW OF MAESHOWE.

[Pg 15]The chamber when cleared out proved to be about 15 feet square on the level of the floor, and 13 feet in height, to the top of the present walls. Immediately opposite to the passage is an opening in the wall 3 feet from the floor. This is the entrance to a cell or small chamber in the wall, 5 feet 8 inches long, 4½ feet wide, and 3½ high. A large flagstone is laid as a raised floor between the entrance and the inner end of the chamber. The entrance is 2 feet wide, 2½ high, and 22½ inches long. On the two opposite walls of the chamber are similar openings in the walls. The one on the right is 2½ feet wide, 2 feet 9 inches high, and 1 foot 8 inches long. It gives admission to a cell 6 feet 10 inches long, 4 feet 7 inches wide, 3½ feet high, and has a raised flagstone floor, as in the other chamber. The opening on the left is 2¼ feet wide, 2½ high, and 1¾ long, and about 3 feet above the floor of the chamber. The cell of which this is the entrance is 5 feet 7 inches long, 4 feet 8 inches wide, and 3 feet 4 inches high. It has no raised floor like the two other cells. The roofs, floors, and back walls of the cells are each formed by a single slab of stone, and stones corresponding in size and shape to the openings in the walls were found on the floor in front of them. The natural inference is that they were originally the seals of the chambers in which the honoured dead reposed.

The four walls of the central chamber converge towards the top by the successive projection of each stone or flag, commencing about 6 feet from the level of the floor, as is usually found to be the style of building, both in the Pict’s houses or burghs, and in the still more primitive subterranean dwellings known as Weems. The top of the chamber would thus necessarily be of small dimensions, and the aperture easily closed by one large flagstone. This top, or cover stone, together with a considerable portion of the upper part of the walls, has been thrown down, and the highest part of the existing walls is only about 13 feet from the level of the floor. At that point, the opposite walls have approached to within 10 feet of each other, so that the chamber is now 15 feet square at the floor, and 10 feet at the top of the walls, in their present condition.

Large quantities of earth had been piled up over the building when [Pg 16]completed. In each angle of the central chamber stands a large buttress, doubtless intended to strengthen the walls, and support them under the pressure of their own weight, and that of the mass of earth with which the whole was covered. These buttresses vary somewhat in dimensions, but they are on an average about 3 feet square at the base, and from 9 to 10 feet high, with the exception of one which is only 8 feet high. In each buttress one side is formed by a single slab. The walls of the chamber are built with large stones, which generally extend the whole length of the wall. No lime or mortar of any kind has been used.

The entire number of Runic characters may be about 935, exclusive of scribbles and many doubtful marks. The monograms and bind-runes, or connected consonants, are considered as forming one letter. There are also some marks which may have been intended to represent a horse and an otter with a fish in its mouth; also, a winged dragon and a worm knot, which last has much the appearance of one of the great Saurians. The two hind legs are very plainly defined.

## Barrows at Bookan.

This barrow is in the parish of Sandwick, but so near to Stennes that it may have been regarded as connected with the great circle. It is on the property of Mr. Watt of Skail, in the West Mainland. It was opened on the 6th of July, and proved to be a collection of kists or graves. At the north end of the central kist, a flint lance head, and several fragments of clay vessels or urns, were found, together with a lump of heavy metal, supposed to be Manganese, but no bones. In some of the other kists were human remains in a very decayed state, two jaw bones being the most perfect. These were much distorted.

Mr. Petrie gives me the following measurements:—The Barrow is about 44 feet in diameter, and about 6 feet high. About 11 feet within the outer margin of the base of the barrow is a circular wall or facing about 1 foot high. From the south side of this wall a low passage, 6 feet 3 inches[Pg 17] long, 21 inches in height, and the same in width, leads to a chamber or kist 7 feet long and 4½ wide. At the north end of this there was another kist 4 feet 8 inches long, and 3 feet wide. On the east side there was one 4 feet 8 inches long, and 2 feet 9 inches wide; and on the west side two kists, both of which were of the same length as that on the east side, and both were 3 feet in width. They were all about 2 feet 8 inches deep. The foundation of the surrounding wall or facing was considerably above the level of the floors of the kists.

### LARGE BARROW CONTAINING GRAVES.

The excavation of this barrow was commenced on the 17th of July 1854. It was found to contain graves, in one of which was an urn with a quantity of burnt bones and ashes. It was formed out of a micaceous stone not belonging to Orkney. It was 1 foot 9 inches in diameter, about 18 inches deep, and 5 feet 10 inches in circumference, the rim, which projected on the outside all round, was an inch and a half wide, the kist in which it was deposited was 2 feet and a half in length, and 2 feet in width, but the side stones which protected the kist were nearly 6 feet in length, and at the angles, and on the outside of the kist were quantities of small rolled pebbles and gravel, probably intended to assist in draining off water. Clay was placed inside the kist at the different angles; the flags were about an inch and a half thick, but much decayed; the cover stone was of an irregular shape, about 4 feet long and 2½ wide; the urn rested upon the corners of four flags; it was partly decayed, and could not be removed till after an interval of two days, when I succeeded in raising it. It is now in the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries at Edinburgh, to whom I presented it, with the consent of Mr. Balfour.

In another grave within the same barrow was found a small urn composed of baked clay and gravel, nearly filled with soil, and only one or two small pieces of bone. It was brought to Kirkwall, but could not be[Pg 18] preserved, in consequence of its decayed condition. It was 5 inches in diameter, 17 in circumference, and 5 deep. The kist was 2 feet 9½ inches long, and 1 foot 7 inches wide. The bones, in this instance, had not been placed in the urn, but were laid on a flagstone in the north-west angle of the kist. It is not improbable that further investigation might lead to the discovery of other interments within the same barrow, since neither of those before described were in the centre of the tumulus, and several instances have occurred where they have been found near the outside.

## Mounds at Stennes.

In the year 1854, I had partially opened one of the largest of these hillocks, but further examination last July did not encourage the belief that it was sepulchral. I was however advised to examine one on the west side of the Stones of Stennes, and directly opposite to the one previously mentioned. In both of them the workmen penetrated to a depth of 22 feet, and over an area of 9 square feet in the one on the west side of the great circle, but there was no appearance of any kind of building. The material of which these hillocks are composed is precisely the same as that which still exists within the circle of stones, and I infer that when the moat surrounding the circle was excavated, advantage was taken of the circumstance to raise these hillocks. Fragments of animal, but no human bones, were found in each, but in both instances near the top. Building stones are found at the base of both hillocks, but always embedded in the soil; those which were easy of removal having no doubt been long since taken away by the country people. Sections were made at right angles in both of the hillocks, and it was clearly ascertained that no building of any size could be concealed within.

[Pg 19]

## Tenstone.

In this barrow, which is in the parish of Sandwick, but adjoining Stennes, I found the remains of two stone urns. The barrow had been evidently previously opened. There was reason to believe that these urns had been in separate kists. They were formed out of a micaceous stone, but the attempt to unite the fragments was quite hopeless. A few small pieces of human bone were found. The cover and sidestones of the kists remained in the grave.

[Pg 20]

Larger Image

Plate III.

Larger Image Left |  | Larger Image Right

Plate IV. GROUND PLAN OF CENTRE CHAMBER &c.

Larger Image

Plate V.

Larger Image Left |  | Larger Image Right

Plate VI.

[Pg 21]

## APPENDIX.

Origin of Maes-Howe.

It is proposed now to inquire into the origin of Maes-Howe, at what time, and for what purpose it was constructed, and who were the people whose names and writings are found engraved on its walls. I am indebted to the learned Professors who have furnished me with their translation of the inscriptions, for the information which is embodied in the following pages.

It is much to be regretted that the inscriptions are so indefinite, and frequently so much defaced. Moreover, Nos. 19 and 20 alone make any allusion to the erection of Maes-Howe. Professor Rafn believes that it was a sorcery hall for Lodbrok,[2] a female magician, Professor Munch, that it was the burial-place of a woman of the same name, while Professor Stephens, who expresses no opinion as to the time when the building was raised, considers the writings which speak of Lodbrok’s sons, as indicative of its having been used in early times by the celebrated Scandinavian Vikings of that name, as a fortress and place of retreat. The low and narrow cells, as well as the low passage leading to the interior, fully justify the opinion that it was undoubtedly at one time a place of burial. The massive stones forming the floor and side walls of the passage, and also those used in the inside to support the buttresses, are similar in character to the neighbouring circle of stones at Stennes. The architecture also is most[Pg 22] primitive, and it is evident that the whole work must have been one requiring much time and labour. The present form of the mound does not favour the idea that it was originally a platform, and used for the performance of religious rites, though this would not be inconsistent with the idea that it had been adopted to that purpose at some remote period, having been previously used as a place of interment.

If we find difficulty in determining the period when the mound was first raised, almost equal difficulty arises in assigning to any fixed time the engraving of the numerous inscriptions. Many of them are no doubt to be attributed to the Crusaders, but there are others of probably far earlier date than the twelfth century, when, as stated by Professor Munch, the Orkney Jarl, Ragnvald, about the year 1152-3, organized his naval expedition to the Holy Land. That the writings have been engraved at intervals during a long period of time—perhaps, as suggested by Professor Stephens, during the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, or even later—is sufficiently obvious. Some of the stones have the words very faintly and imperfectly engraved, while in others the lines are sharply and distinctly cut. The absence of division between the letters (for the dots are very uncertain in their position, and are probably for the most part accidental) sufficiently accounts for the difference of reading, in several of the inscriptions. The variety of type—there being no fewer than 18 different forms of A, many of them it is true, like, but still different; to say nothing of Diphthongs, the Bind-runes, or consonants and vowels connected, as (æ) or (a) and (k) or (a) and () forming AK, Ar, and others of a similar nature—necessarily renders the task of translation, more especially when the letters are indistinct and perhaps unfinished, one of difficulty and uncertainty.

Very few of the old Northern letters are found. The “Dragon” and “Worm Knot” are still perfectly distinct, and have evidently been carved by superior artists. With the exception of two stones—one of which is shewn in the drawing of the interior of the tumulus, and on which four letters are carved—none have been found bearing any inscription amongst the debris, nor is there any reason to suppose that stones bearing inscriptions have been removed from the walls. The two stones before alluded to had evidently been used to close up the cells, and lay on the basement floor just below the entrances to the cells from which they had been rudely torn. In one of the cells, that on the left side of the chamber, a few letters were indistinctly written. By accident they were forgotten, and no casts were taken of them. It is not easy to account for the various elevations at which the carvings were made. Those on the higher parts could not have been reached by persons standing at the bottom, but they might have been inscribed after the roof had been broken in, and when the building was in a partially ruined state. Many of the marks, possibly some of the “scratches” or “scribbles” to which no importance is attached, and perhaps even some of the doubtful letters, may be the result of violence used in breaking in the roof. Most of the Runes belong to the Norwegian division of the Scandinavian class, and have nothing to do with the Gothic or older alphabet, but, in the opinion of Professor Munch, they exhibit some archaicisms which[Pg 23] prevent their being placed in the latest times of the Norwegian class; they must therefore be referred to about A. D. 1150.

Date of Inscriptions.

The meaning of the word Maes-Howe is very obscure. It is, as Professor Munch remarks, not easy to explain. The haugr, pronounced how, is plain enough; the word Maes might have been derived from Meitis, pronounced almost like Meiss, Meitir, gen. Meiris, which was the name of a fabulous sea king, and was afterwards used to denominate any mighty king or warrior. Meiris-haugr therefore might have been synonymous with the how, or tumulus of this fabulous sea king. This opinion of Professor Munch’s is at all events not unlikely to be correct; certainly local tradition has always ascribed a sepulchral character to the mound. Professor Rafn thinks that the word is derived from Mar,[3] the name of a man, and that valuable information might be obtained if it were found possible to read with a greater degree of accuracy the Runes Nos. 6 and 7, since Orki and Mar are named in these inscriptions, and it is to be inferred that Mar Orkason had engraved some of these Runes.

Nos. 13 and 20 are justly attributed to the times of the Crusaders,[4] but many of the other inscriptions must have been engraved by different persons at different times. Professor Stephens believes that most of them are of a much earlier date than the twelfth century, and this opinion is much strengthened by the worn appearance of some of the Runes, and the uncertain character of others. Some of the proper names cannot be read as certainly correct, owing to the marks and abrasures in the stones. Two of them, Orki and Oframr, are supposed to be hitherto quite unknown, and may therefore perhaps be referred to the earlier inhabitants of the How, whilst Gawkr and Trandill both belong to an historical person in Iceland. The other names are common, and known from Runic inscriptions, as well as from ancient manuscripts and documents. The name Ingibiorg, occurs several times in the Orkneyinga Saga, and was by no means an uncommon name in Orkney. Ingibiorg, the widow of earl Thorfinn (who died in 1064) afterwards married Malcolm, king of Scotland; but it cannot be safely asserted that this was the Ingibiorg mentioned in No. 8. On the whole, it seems not unreasonable to suppose that all the[Pg 24] names found inscribed on the walls may belong to persons who lived since the construction of the barrow, and that we have as yet no certain evidence to justify us in determining either the name of the builder, or the period when the tumulus was first erected.

Most of the inscriptions are in the subjoined form of the later Runic alphabet, or the “Norwegian division of the Scandinavian Runes” as described by Professor Munch. The dots inside the B, and G, do not occur here, and the (y) is not often used.

In the earlier or “Gothic” Alphabet, many of the letters are quite different.

[Pg 25]

## Readings of the Inscriptions by Professors
Stephens, Munch, Rafn.

Plate VII.

No. I.

Thatir Vikinkr . . . a, kom, Vtir, Hir, til.
Thatir the Viking, came here to weary—(perhaps from the sea, or from battle.)

The inscription is incomplete, several letters being obliterated. The a in the Bind-rune Ak is probably the termination of the word Fra, from.—Professor Stephens.

Thatir Vikinkr . . . KOMUTIRHIRTIL.
That which the Wicing . . . came outerly here to.

This is only a fragment, some of the letters being obliterated. It may mean that a pirate or Wicing had been at the tumulus and found something, or that some person had found what the Wicing had left. It may however be merely the name of some person, as Vikingr is sometimes used as a Christian name.—Professor Munch.

That Ir Vikingr . . . A Kom Ut Irhirtil.
This is a Viking . . . come out is hereto.

The inscription is incomplete. Vikingr may be the name of a man.—Professor Rafn.

No. II.

Molfr Kolbainssonr Raeist Runa Thesa Ghaut.
Molf Kolbainsson carved these Runes to Gaut.

Probably a memorial to a comrade who had fallen in battle.—Professor Stephens.

[Pg 26]

Tholfr Kolbeinssonr raeist runar thesa.
Tholf Colbanesson engraved these Runes.

The last word, read as haua, seems superfluous. It is possible there may have been some mis-spelling, the first (a) in haua may have been an (e) the dot having been a little prolonged, and the (u or v) may have been intended for an R, the word would then read hér á, hereon, or on this stone.—Professor Munch.

Tholfr Kolbeinssonr reist Runar thessar hatt.
Tholf Kolbeinsson carved these Runes on High.—Professor Rafn.

(Note.—Nos. 1 and 2 are both engraved on the upper part of the building.—J. F.)

No. III.

Bra Hoh Thana.
Bra hewed this.

The third letter (a) is very rare, and is an indication of the great antiquity of the inscription. The word hew is often used for carve or write.—Professor Stephens.

Bre Hoh Thena, or, BRAUT HAUG THENNA.
Broke this tumulus.

The inscription seems to be incomplete, some words may have been engraved on another stone and lost.—Professor Munch.

(Note.—The present state of the stone hardly justifies this supposition.—J. F.)

Bre höh Thena, bre hoh Thenna.

Professor Rafn does not translate this. He remarks that what precedes is “incomplete and undecipherable.”

[Pg 27]

No. IV.

Vemuntr Raeist.
Vemunt carved.—Professor Stephens.

Vemuntr Raeist.
Wemund engraved (these Runes).—Professor Munch.

Vimundr Raeist.
Vemund carved (the Runes).—Professor Rafn.

No. V.

F, U, Th, O, R, K, H, N, I, A, S, T, B, M, L, Y.

This is the Scandinavian Runic Futhork, or Alphabet. The form of the second letter is very rare, the last three are also very unusual, and may be considered as an indication that the building had been for a long period of time in the hands of many people. It was the custom to write the Alphabet wherever it was most likely to meet the eye, and a passing visitor, or treasure seeker, would have hardly taken so much trouble.—Professor Stephens.

F, U, Th, O, R, K, H, N, I, A, S, T, B, U, L, U.

The Runic Alphabet—Some of the letters here have been placed out of their proper order, owing probably to carelessness on the part of the writer. Time has also produced its effects upon the letters, the ǁ is clearly , and the long stroke in the third letter (th) is also accidental.—Professor Munch.

F U Th O R K H N I A S T B M L R.

The common Runic Alphabet.—Professor Rafn.

[Pg 28]

No. VI.

Orkasonr, Saghthi, a, Runom, thaeim, Ir, Han, Ristu.
Orkason said, in the Runes which he wrote.

No. VII.

Nuari Kulturmr, Sikurthr, Iru, Falnir, Kiaebik, Uil Saeghian Ir, So, Mair.
Orkason said in the Runes which he wrote—Nuari, Kulturmr Sikurthr, Iru, are fallen.
Kiaebik will say ye (tell you) so more.

These two inscriptions must be taken together; they have been written at the same time, and by the same person. It is probably a military message from some battle-field, sent through a trusty officer who is commissioned to make known the details. The word Nuari is very doubtful; this part of the inscription is very indistinct. It becomes more legible advancing from left to right.—Professor Stephens.

Orkasonr sagthi a run om theim er halir ristu.
The son of Orca dictated the Runes which heroes engraved.

There seems to have been some blunder in the writing. If the dot on the right side of the letter has been the end of a stroke, it would convert the letter into the Bind-rune (Al.) and if the were a combination of L and R, the word would then read Halir, that is Men-fellows-heroes. The second part of the inscription, No. 7, is only a fragment—perhaps some part of a verse, but it is doubtful.—Professor Munch.

Orkason sahthi A Runum Thaeim Ir Han Risti . . . Saethian Ir So Maur
The resolution which this Mar Orkason mentioned in the Runes he carved.

The two inscriptions are to be read together, but much of No. 7, is very indistinct.—Professor Rafn.

[Pg 29]

Plate VIII.

No. VIII.

Ingibiorgh, Hin, Faret, Lutin, Hir, Mighil, ofl, ate.
Ingibiorgh, the fair lady. Many a woman hath fared skinclad (or bent) here, (who) great wealth owned.

Ingibiorgh probably resided here for safety, and, as the word Lutin signifies bent, it may refer to the low cells which are within the walls of the How. (Note.—The entrance also is very low and narrow.) The six Crypt Runes, or secret staves, represent the letters, A. Æ. R. L. I. K. R., and signify Aalikr or Erling, a proper name, or perhaps the beginning of some sentence.—Professor Stephens.

Inkibiorh, Hin, Fahra, ÆHkia Morhk, Kona,
Hæfer, Faret, Lut, in Hir Mikil Oflati.
Ingiburg, the fair widow! Many a woman has wandered stooping in here (although) ever so haughty.

The writer is probably recording the name of some fair woman, who has perhaps slighted him, and then reflects that the women who had been buried here, though ever so haughty, had been curbed by death. Ingibjorg, or Inkibiorh, is a common female name in the north. The other characters in the third line are known as Limouna, or Bough Runes. They were used in the later times of the Runic period, in the same manner as the Irish Ogum, but are not here intelligible. The writer probably intended to represent the chief vowels—A. E. I. O. Y. U. The Runic alphabet was divided into classes; the strokes on the left of the vertical line indicating the class, and those on the right the rune itself. Figures of fishes were occasionally in use, and were known as Fish-runes.—Professor Munch.

Ingibiorg Hin Fahra Æhkia a Morhg Kona
Hæfir Farit Lut in Hir Mihkil Oflati.
Ingibiorg, the fair widow, or Ingibiorg the Fair, the widow. Many a rather proud woman
did walk here stooping (bent forward), or did walk stooping here in (into).

The Palm-runes underneath cannot be read in the usual manner; the first, third, and fourth of the runes being a, o, and i; the writer probably intended to give all the vowels, but some of the letters have been obviously miscarved, and have perhaps been altered and defaced at a later period by other persons. In the first of them a cross line has been added to shew that the letter or (a) is intended.—Professor Rafn.

[Pg 30]

No. IX.

Thorny Saerth . . . Haelghis Raeisto.
The javelin pierceth . . . Haelghis carved.

Haelghis was probably an Englishman or Frislander. The inscription is much worn, and evidently very old. The last letter is the old northern .—Professor Stephens.

Thornu Saerth . . . Haelhi Raeist R.
Thorny . . . Haelhi engraved.

Thorny is a female name. Saerth is unintelligible; something is wanting here; the last letter R. is clearly the beginning of the word Runar.—Professor Munch.

Thorny Saerth . . . Haelhi Raeist.
Thorny Særd . . . Helge carved.

The word Saerth is of doubtful meaning.—Professor Rafn.

Plate IX.

No. X.

Thorer Formir, a proper name.
or
Thorer Fonkmir. Thorer, follow me.—Professor Stephens.

Probably the name of a man: there is a rude figure of a horse engraved.—Professor Munch.

Thorir Fomir, a name of doubtful import. Fá mèr, perhaps procure me. Thorer, procure me the cross. The great cross underneath may refer to the Crusade. (Note.—This cross has been apparently engraved at a comparatively late period.)—Professor Rafn.

No. XI.

Raeist runar thesar Oframr Sighurthersonr.
Ofram Sigurthson carved these Runes.

Several of the letters at the beginning are obliterated. The crosses may be intended for ornament.—Professor Stephens.

[Pg 31]

Reist Runar Thessar Uframr Sigurtharsonr.
Ofram, the son of Siward, engraved these Runes.—Professor Munch.

Raeist Runar Thaesir Oframr Sihurtharsonr.
Ofram Sigurdson carved these Runes.

The word Oframr, or Uframr, is hardly to be found anywhere else. It signifies “the modest,” “the reserved.” The seven crosses denote that this man was one of the Crusaders.—Professor Rafn.

No. XII.

Otar, Fila, Raeist, Runar Thesar.
Otar Fila carved these runes.—Professor Stephens.

Iotar, Fila, Reist Runar Thessar.
Iotar Fila engraved these runes.—Professor Munch.

Iota Fila Raeist Runar Thisar.
Iotar Fila carved these runes.

This is an unknown name.—Professor Rafn.

No. XIII.

That, Man, Sat, Ir, Ekiæ, He, At, Feuar, Fort, Abrot,
Thrim Notom, Uarfi, Brot, Fort, Haeltr, Ænthaeir.

This is to be read from right to left. (The figure at the beginning is probably a mere scratch. J. F.) It reads thus:—That man who sat here in ache (sorrowfully) He at the Fee-Ware (at the treasure-gate—from the treasure-guard) forth a broke, with three comrades from the stronghold broke forth the Hero Ænthaeir. This probably announces the escape of a prisoner, perhaps an Englishman, as is indicated by some of the words—That for Sa, He for Han, as examples. He boasts of his escape. He may, however, have intended to record a message.—Professor Stephens.

[Pg 32]

No. XIV.

Jorsala Men Burtu Hauk.
Jerusalam Men broke into How.

Æhiiminii, a proper name; the second word is too faintly written to be translated; Æmisris, a proper name. There are some more very indistinct letters; probably they once indicated—

Ireskir Maen . . . Irish Men.

The stone exhibits traces of former writings, which renders the new carvings very doubtful.—Professor Stephens.

That Man Sat . . . Æhe at Feuar Fort. Abrot Thrim Notom Var Fi Brot Fort Haeltr. Æn Thaeir (No. XIV.), Jorsalamen Burtu Hauk thaena.

Professor Munch reads Nos. XIII. and XIV. together.

To be read from right to left, and No. XIV. taken in conjunction with it. This does not that (fool!) remember that the treasury was (already) carried away. Three nights was the treasury carried away rather (i. e., before) than the Jerusalem travellers broke this tumulus.—Professor Munch.

That Man Sat Er Igi Saehi At Fe Var Fœrt Abrot Thrim Nottom Var Fe Bröt Fœrt Haeldr Æn Thaeir Iorsalamen Burtu haug Thaena.

It is true indeed, as Inge states, that the goods were carried away during three nights. The goods were carried away before the Ioraslamen broke open this barrow. Many of the other runes cannot be made out; some of the smaller ones are very indistinct.—Professor Rafn.

(Note.—Nos. XIII. and XIV. appear to be read as one inscription by the Professor.—J. F.)

Plate X.

No. XV.

Arnfithr, Matr, Raeist Runar thaesar.
Arnfith Mate carved these Runes.

The word Matr may signify “the mighty,” or “the greedy.”—Professor Stephens.

Arnfithr Matr Raeist Runar Thaesar.
Arnfinn Mat (perhaps the greedy) engraved these runes.

Matr was a nickname.—Professor Munch.

[Pg 33]

Arnfithr Matr Raeist Runar Thaesar.
Arnfinn, glutton, carved these Runes.—Professor Rafn.

No. XVI.

Maeth, thaeri, Oghse, Er, Ate, Kor, Ukr.
Traenilsonr, Fyrir, Sunan lant.
With that Axe which Kor owned hews.
Traenaldson along South-lying lands.—Professor Stephens.

Maeth, Thaeirei Hse Erati Koukr Traenilsonr.
Fyrir Sunan Lant.
With this Axe which Goukr Traenaldson owned or possessed on the south side of the country.

The beginning of the inscription is wanting. Gauk Trandilson was the foster-brother of Asgrim Elsdagrimson—described in “Burnt Njal,” one of the chiefs in the south of Iceland about 990. The writer probably means to say that these runes were engraved with the same axe which Gauk Trandilson possessed at the end of the 10th century. The runes here found were perhaps engraved about the year 1152. No doubt “the land” here spoken of is Iceland, and the engraver an Icelander, perhaps even a descendant of the old chieftain.—Professor Munch.

Maeth Thaeri Öhse Er Ati Göukr Traen
Ils Sonr Fyrir Sunan Land.
With this Axe, owned by Gauk, the son of Trandil, in the South of the country.—Professor Rafn.

No. XVII.

Haemuntr, Hartheksi, Raeist Run.
Haermunt Hardaxe carved these Runes.—Professor Stephens.

Haermuntr Hartheksi Raeist Run.
Hermund Hardaxe engraved these Runes.—Professor Munch.

[Pg 34]

Haermundr Harthigsi Raeist Run.
Hermund Hardaxe carved the Runes.

Hermund probably had in his possession the axe which formerly belonged to Gauk Trandilson, and was used by him in carving the runes.—Professor Rafn.

(Note.—Professors Stephens, Munch, and Rafn, all agree that some letters have been lost or miscarried. The letters, at the end of the word run are obviously wanting.—J. F.)

No. XVIII.

Rist Sa Mathr Er Runstr Er Fyrir Vaestan Haf.
The man did cut most versed in Runes in the western countries.

Professor Rafn gives nearly the same description of Gauk as Professor Munch. He reads Nos. xvi. and xviii. together. The words Fyrir vaestan haf, to the west of the sea, refer to the western countries, more especially the British Isles. The Palm-runes are rarely capable of being deciphered.

(Note.—This No. is taken in conjunction with No. xvi. by Professor Rafn.—J. F.)

Rist, Sa, Mathr, Er, Runstr, Er, Fyrir, Vaestan Haf.
(These runes) risted that man, in Runes most skilful o’er the Western Seas.

The Palm Runes on the first line indicate Thisar Runar—these Runes.—Professor Stephens.

Rist Sa Mathr Er Runstr Er Fyrir Uaestan Haf.
That man engraved who is the best runed West of the Ocean.

No doubt the writer belonged to Orkney, or to some of the other Norwegian possessions. The Bough-runes are not easy to decipher.—Professor Munch.

[Pg 35]

No. XIX.

Sia, Houghr, Uar, Fyrlathin Haelr, Thaeir, Uoro, Huater, Slitu, Oro, Ut, Northr, Er, Olghit, Mikit, That, Uar. Simon, Sighrik. Sigrith. Inroninse Æi.

This How was closed up—was quite abandoned. Out North is Fee (treasure) buried much.
That was in Roninsey (North Ronaldshay Island).

The writing is in different hands apparently, and it is probable that the How was abandoned when the inscriptions were engraved. The three names are most likely the names of the writers: they point to treasure buried in North Ronaldshay.—Professor Stephens.

(Note.—North Ronaldshay is a wild island half-way between Kirkwall and the Fair Isle, and not easy of access.—J. F.)

No. XX.

Lothebrokra Synar,1 Ghaenar, Maen, Saem, Thaeir, Uoro, Fyri, Sir,2— Iorsalafarar, Brutu, Orkough3—Lifmut Sa, Li, Ai, Aris, Loftir,4—Hir Uar, Fi Folghit Mikit.5 (Raeist). Sael Er, Sa, Er, Fina, Ma, Than, Outh, Hin, Mikla.6 Oko, Naekn, Bar, Firr, Oughi, Thisum.7

1Lothbrok’s sons. 2Doughty men as they were for them, or, what doughty men they were. 3Ierusalem Farers (pilgrims) broke open Ork How—4Shelter mound; that ill (this bad retreat) aye ariseth lofty (still stands erect). 5Here was fee buried much. 6Happy is he who find may that treasure the mickle (that great wealth). 7Otho Naern bare past part how this. Otho was carried past this How in the ship Naern.

Written apparently by seven different persons, perhaps some of Lothbrok’s sons. This first writing was probably inscribed about the year 870 or 880, by the celebrated Scandinavian sea kings, and the others at a later period. One appears to complain of the mound [Pg 36]itself—that bad retreat—perhaps on account of its affording shelter to the pirates who devastated the island; another inscription describes the breaking into the How by the Jerusalem travellers, and the later writings refer to the common belief at that time of the existence of concealed treasure. Naern is frequently used as a name for ships in Scandinavia. The word Baeirt (at the end of the fourth line) is not in the same hand as the rest of this line, and can only be considered as a mere scribble.—Professor Stephens.

Nos. XIX. and XX.

These must be taken together. The two first lines in both numbers, the 3d in No. xix. and the 4th in No. xx., must be read in continuation.

Sia Houhr Uar Fylathin H . . . r Lothbrokar Syner, Haenar, Thaeiruoro Huater
Sletuoro Maen Saem Thaeir Uoro Fyrisir.

This tumulus was formerly erected as tumulus (for Lodbrok, if Haugr is read, or “as that of” if we read hennar) her sons they were gallant, hardly (there) were men (such as they were). For themselves (i. e. shewed themselves).

Then read line 3 in No. xx.—

Iorsalafarar brutu Orkhaug.
The Jerusulem travellers broke the Orkhill.

Then line 3 in No. xix. and 4 in xx., 4 in xix. and 5 in xx., taken in continuation, give—

Utnorthr Er fe folgit Mikit that er la eftir, her va fe folgit Mikit (raeist Simon
Sigb. . . . Sigrith) Saell er sa er finna ma than outh hin mikla.
North-westerly is much money absconded, that which lay behind, here was much money
absconded (Simon——engraved); lucky is he who may find that great treasure.

The raeist Simon, etc., was written afterwards, and does not belong to the sentence.

The 6th and last line in No. xx. is—

Okonaekn Bar Fe Ur haugi thessum.
Okonaekn bore money out of (away from) this tumulus.

It seems, then, that it was supposed to have been originally erected for a mighty woman called Lodbrok, who had gallant sons, and that the Jerusalem pilgrims had dug into the Orkhill, which was probably a different place to this Maes-Howe, that the treasure contained there had been taken away, and that he would be lucky who found it. It also implies that Okonaekn carried off some of the treasure.—Professor Munch.

[Pg 37]

Nos. XIX. and XX.

Sia Höuhr, Var Fyr Lathin Haelr Lothbrokar Syner Haenar Thaeir Vöro Hvatir Slikt Vöro Maen Saem Thaeir Vöro Fyri Sir Iorsalafarar Brutu Orkhöuh Lifmnd Sailia Iarls Ut Northr Ir Fe Folhit Mikit That Urlofoir Hir Var Fi Folhget Mikit Raeist Simon Sihr in Tho Ingi Sihrith Saelir Sa Ir Fina Ma Than Outh Hin Mikla. Ogdonaegn Bar Fi yr Ouhi Thisum.

This barrow was formerly a sorcery hall, erected for Lodbrok; her sons were brave, such were men as they were for themselves (such we may call valiant men, such as they were in their achievements).

The Iorsalafarar (visitors of Jerusalem) broke open Orkhow . . . Earls.

To the north-west a great treasure has been hid (but few believe that), a great treasure was hid here.[5] Simon sigr (victor) carved (the Runes) and afterwards Inge.

Happy he who may discover this great wealth. Ogdonaegn carried away the goods from this barrow.

Ogdonagn is probably a Gaelic name, perhaps corresponding to the present O’Donavan, and the person alluded to may have been of Scottish or Irish origin.—Professor Rafn.

Plate XI.

No. XXI.

Arnfithr, Raeist, Runar, Thisar, Sonr Stains.
Arnfith risted Runes there, the son of Stain. Thruki Let.

The beginning of an unfinished formula.—Professor Stephens.

Arnfithr, Raeist Runar Thisar Sorn Staeins Thrukr Lit.
Arnfinn the son of Steins engraved these Runes.

The other letters are defective and give no distinct meaning.—Professor Munch.

[Pg 38]

Arnfithr Raeist Runar Thisar Sonr Stains.
Thrukr Lit.
Arnfinn, a son of Steins, carved these runes. Thrud caused . . . . (incomplete).—Professor
Rafn.

No. XXII.

Bot Ær Oktil at Sokua, Suo in Kotalant.[6] Sua Inklant.
Boot (blood money) is also to seek, so in Gothland, so in England.

It may also be a fanciful Alphabet.—Professor Stephens.

There are peculiar Runes, but too obscure for interpretation. Similar ones have been found near Baffins Bay. (Vide Antiquitates Americanæ).—Professor Munch.

This No. represents some signs belonging to the calendar—similar ones have been found in the Paradise cavern, and at Hof in Iceland. (Vide Rafn. Antiquitates Americanæ).—Professor Rafn.

[Pg 39]

No. XXIII.

Ikikaethir, Kynana, In, Uaensta.
Inkikaethr, of women the fairest.

Also the figure of an Otter with a fish in its mouth, meant for a decoration.—Professor Stephens.

Ikikaerth Ir Kynana in Uaensta.
Ingigerthr is of women the most beautiful.—Professor Munch.

Igigaerth Ir Kynana In Vaensta.
Ingigerth is the fairest of the women.—Professor Rafn.

Plate XII.

No. XXIV.

No interpretation of this is offered by the learned Professors.

Nos. XXV. and XXVI.

A Dragon and Worm Knot.—Professor Stephens.

No. XXV.

This is a Dragon drawn with art. There is a similar one on a stone at Hunstead in Scania. It may be ascribed to the heathen times, as well as the construction of the barrow itself.—Professor Rafn.

[Pg 40]

No. XXVI.

A serpentine winding like those found on Runic stones in the Scandinavian north and on other monuments from the last period of heathenism, and the commencement of the Christian era.—Professor Rafn.

Plate XIII.

The remaining Nos. are considered by all the learned Professors as “scribbles” or scratches, and must be considered as unimportant.

Larger Image

Plate VII.

Larger Image

Plate VIII.

Larger Image Left |  | Larger Image Right

Plate IX.

Larger Image Left |  | Larger Image Right

Plate X.

Larger Image

Plate XI.

Larger Image

Plate XII.

Larger Image

Plate XIII.

Footnotes:

[1] The country people state that the building was formerly inhabited by a person named Hogboy, possessing great strength. Haugbuie, in Norse, signifies “the ghost of the tomb;” and Haugr, “tumulus.”

[2] Professor Rafn says Lothbrok—a pair of shaggy trousers—was the well-known surname of Ragnar Lodbrok. At the time of the carving of the inscription, a popular tradition current in the Orkneys may have ascribed to far antiquity, and to the said hero of the mythico-historical times, the construction of the barrow; and on account of the want of historical knowledge, since the word lothbrok is of feminine gender, the hero may have been mistaken for a woman, and besides, the accounts in the sagas of his sons may have been repeated, that they were brave and valiant. The account given in the Fridthiofs Saga of the Earl Angantyre, reminds us of the pre-historic times of the Orkneys (vide Tridthjóss Saga, c. 5. Thorsteins Saga Vikings). Here a popular tale preserved to us in Runes, does the same by telling us that this barrow was the sorcery platform erected of old for the use of Lodbrok, and was probably also a temple and place of worship.

[3] The word read by Professor Rafn, Maur, instead of Mar, and considered as a proper name, is read mair or more by Professor Stephens. In the engraving No. 7, the letters are obviously m, a, i, r—mair. It must therefore be a matter of doubt whether we can receive this word as a proper name, and consequently whether the derivation of the word Maes-Howe, suggested by Professor Rafn, is admissible.

[4] Professor Munch supposes that the Jerusalem travellers, who are described in No. 13 as having broken into the how, were connected with an expedition organized by Earl Ragnvald to the Holy Land. He says “many of the northern warriors joined the Earl in 1152. They assembled in Orkney, and after passing the winter there, sailed in the spring of 1153, and after being in Spain in December of that year, reached the Holy Land in August 1154; they went thence to Constantinople, where they passed the Christmas of 1154-55, returning home by different routes. During their stay in Orkney they had frequent quarrels with the inhabitants.” As some of the inscriptions seem to indicate the existence of treasure in the tumulus, it is not unlikely that it should have been examined by these warriors, and that they afterwards inscribed their names, together with other remarks, on the walls.

[5] There is a similar allusion to hid treasure on the wall of a rock at Berrig, in the Star valley North Throndheim County—“gull faitu nin alna nither”—They hid some gold nine ells deep in the earth.

[6] This (“evidently very difficult carving,” says Professor Stephens) may be taken as a fair specimen of the Bind-rune form of writing.

“The first letter is B, a very rare form; the second an ornamental O, with three side strokes instead of two; the third a T, the strokes being reversed and repeated above and below; the fourth , here used for Æ; the fifth, R; sixth, O, as before; seventh, Kt— and ; eighth, (i and a), the side stroke being placed below; ninth, At, Bind-rune; tenth, an S; eleventh, O again; twelfth, KU—K and U; thirteenth, the monogram Asuo, A (), the side stroke thrice repeated, then S ( for ), an uncommon form, then U () below, and then () with three strokes; fourteenth, the Bind-rune I N K (); fifteenth, an O; sixteenth, an ornamental T; seventeenth, the monogram Alant—A () L () reversed and below, and taken again, and N () and T () above twice; then eighteenth, the Bind-rune Sua, S () U () and A () in the centre; nineteenth, The Bind-rune Ink, I , and ; and lastly the monogram lant L (), A , and N , and T in the centre—formed thus .”

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK NOTICE OF RUNIC INSCRIPTIONS DISCOVERED DURING RECENT EXCAVATIONS IN THE ORKNEYS ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

## THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

> This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.