THE OLD-NORTHERN OF SCANDINAVIA AND ENGLAND, NOW FIRST COLLECTED AND DECIPHERED BY GEORGE STEPHENS, ESQ., F. S. A., Knight of the Northern Star, Hon, Mem. of the Finnish Lit Soc., Helsingfors, of the Boy. Ac. of Lit and Ant Gotenlmrg, anti of the Norwegian National Monument Assoc., Christiania; Fellow of the Bog. Soc. of Sciences, Upsala, of the Roy. Ac. of Hist, and Ant, Stockholm, and of the Roy. Soc. of Northern Antiquaries, Clieapitighaven; etc.; Prof, of Old-English, and of the English Language and Literature, in the University of Cheapinghuven, Denmark, WITH MANY HUNDREDS OF FACSIMILES AND ILLUSTRATIONS, PARTLY IN GOLD, SILVER, BRONZE AND COLORS: RUNIC ALPHABETS; INTRODUCTIONS; APPENDICES; WORDLISTS, ETC. VOL. II. LONDON. KOBENIIAVN. JOHN RUSSELL SMITH. MICHAELSEN AND TILLGE. PRINTED BY H. fi. TH I RLE. 1867—68. r-u a . 7 7 103993 T JL he Weapons, Jewels and articles of Dress shown in the plate “Old-Northern Warrior in the Early Iron Age” are all of them from originals found in Denmark, and all date from the 3rd century after Christ, thus within a few year- hundreds of the first incoming ihto Scandinavia of the Iron- and Rune-wielding clans. They are selected from the many interesting things — so illustrative of the times both for war and peace — which have been dug from two among the numerous and famous Danish “Antiquarian Peat-bogs”, namely, from the South-Outlandish Thorsbjerg Moss . in whose then running waters they were hidden about A. D. 200-250, and the Nydarn Moss, also in South-Jutland, whose yore-looms seem to be from about 250-300. These objects were chosen by Mr. J. M. Petersen, and harmoniously arranged by him on figures in a landscape, that we might see a couple of our Northern Iron-armed forefathers, here a Chieftain and his Horse-keeper, as they stood ready for field or foray, and thus gain some idea of those living men whom we otherwise know only in the dead monuments brought together in these pages. My accomplisht artist’s steel-engraving, reduced by himself from his large water-color drawing, cannot show the hues and materials or enlighten us as to the details. As some help and as a welcome guarantee, I therefore here append Mr. ^Petersen’s list of the pieces here made use of, at the same time referring to Mr. C. Engelhardt’s well-known “Denmark in the Early Iron Age, illustrated by recent discoveries in the Peat Mosses of Slesvig, 4to, London 1866”, where the principal laves exhumed at Thorsbjerg and Nydarn had been already copied by Mr. Petersen with great care and delicacy on 33 copper plates. The silver cap and mask, richly decorated with gold, here borne by the young kemp , will be found on the Thorsbjerg Plate No. 5, Fig. 3, 4, text p. 45. breast decorations of gold and silver ; Thorsbjerg PI. 6. Iron ring-brinie or Mail-shirt, with clasps of gold and silver; Thorsbjerg PI. 6. Silver clasp; Nydarn PI. 5. waist-belt of silver. Silver mountings for shoblder-belt. Thorsbjerg PI. 11. Bronze fittings of sword -hanger; Thorsbjerg PI. 11. sword-hilt, silver; Nydarn PI. 6. sword-sheath of wood, with silver mountings; Nydarn PI. 8. Golden arm-ring; Thorsbjerg PI. 16 and p. 42. qdiver, of bronze; Nydarn PI. 13. bow and arrow, of wood; Nydarn PI. 12, Thorsbjerg PI. 12. kirtle, of red woollen cloth, with woven pattern in the sleeves; Thorsbjerg PI. 1. Tawney-colored trowsers, of woollen cloth. cloak, of woollen cloth woven in a twill-pattern, green with yellow- striped fringe. Thorsbjerg PI. 2. shoes, leather with silver nails; Thorsbjerg PI. 3. Wooden shield, with silver rand and fitting of bronze; Thorsbjerg PI. 8. shield-boss, silver with embost golden ornaments and onlaid figures of golden plate; Thorsbjerg PI. 8, Fig. 18. Leather head-stall and bridle, fittings of bronze and silver; Thorsbjerg PI. 13. lances; Nydarn PI. 10 and 11. Clinker-built oaken boat, 77 feet long by 10 feet 10 inches in the middle; Nydarn PI. 1 and 2. IN MINNE OF THE BRAOTEATISTS AND COIN-KENNERS OF SCANDINAVIA; WITH MANY GREETINGS ARCHIVARY C. F. HERBST, OF C 'HE APING HAVEN. 505 BRACTEATES. Of these rich and remarkable rune-bearing golden pieces we know nothing. We cannot say when they were struck, or where. Various theories have been advanced concerning them. They have been regarded as Asiatic, as Slavonic, as Barbarous, &c. , and have been commonly lookt upon as Money. In several essays, particularly in the Christiania Videnskabs-Selskabs Forhandlinger for 1858, p. 186 and following, Prof. C. A. Holmboe has endeavored to show the origin of several of the Brac- teate types in Indian Coins. He has especially pointed out the great similarity between the pattern with a Human Head over a Quadruped and the representation of the god Shiva or his spouse Durga standing beside or treading on an Ox, as given on many Indian Coins struck in the centuries next be¬ fore and after the time of Christ. This hint is undoubtedly deserving of some consideration. Certain it is that few of the earlier Bracteate-stamps can be directly connected with “classical” prototypes. We must therefore also look elsewhere. By induction, Thomsen1 has made some ingenious guesses, and has come nearer to the truth than his predecessors. Comparing them with the Greek and Roman Coins and Medals which they occasionally in some degree copy and reflect, as to style and ornamenta¬ tion, he has divided them into 1. Pieces made abroad, say between the years 350-700. About half a dozen only. 2. Pieces made in Scandinavia, about A. D. 450-800. Nearly 50 in number. 3. Pieces made abroad between 1000 and 1100. Only a couple. With the exception of Thomsen’s 3rd class, which are evidently modern, wherever made, I think that the great majority of these “hollow roundels” is far older than the date he assigns to them. It strikes me that they mostly belong to the Early and the beginning of the later Iron Age, and must date from about the 3rd and 4th or at least the 4th and 5th century, downwards, which is also the conclusion to which Archivary Herbst has come. As far as can be gathered from what we know, they had gone greatly out of fashion by about the year 600. Hence they are rare in England. The North¬ men gradually occupied Britain in the 4th to the 6th age, but especially the 6th. Had the fashion of manufacturing Bracteates been then in its full strength, they would have been more plentiful in England. But they are found chiefly in Scandinavia. Those discovered in other countries than the Northern, and they are very few, have evidently been carried from place to place, like Cufic and Classical pieces, and other jewels and movables. The language also is very archaic, and points back to great antiquity. Scarce in England, and unknown in the later Scandian settlements in Iceland, Greenland, the Western lies, &c„ we must apparently date them, not later, generally, than the great Northern settlements in Britain. Thus they will almost always be earlier than the 7th century. Exceptions of course there are, for they did not stop suddenly; but I speak of the mass, the earliest and the best. We have here to deal with the Rune-bearers. Great numbers are found, more or less identical in type, ivithout any letters. A strong inductive proof of the antiquity of Bracteate-like Pendent Ornaments generally is, that we meet with such — generally altogether similar in look and make to the Northern Bracteates In “Atlas for Nordisk Oldkyndighed”, and “Om Guldbracteateme”. See the exact titles in runic literature. 506 BR ACTE AXES. but without letter's, aud with strikingly different markings - — very often in the South and sometimes in the North of Europe in finds consisting chiefly of Roman or Romanized, occasionally Byzantine, re¬ mains, dating from the 2nd1, the 3rd, the 4th and the 5th centuries. These Romanized pendants, to use a convenient term, have been discovered on skeletons in graves, in such situations as to show that they were decorations on frontlets on necklaces on belts and other fillets, either with or without beads of amber, glass, mosaic, &c., and were worn by women and children as well as by men. Often they have turned up in clumps of golden pieces no longer lookt upon as money or as ornaments but only as treasure, bullion, a descent which must have taken time, at least a century. These Romanized Pen¬ dants are usually round, but also square, oblong, triangular, &c., even shaped like a halfmoon, of pure gold, with the eye or loop for suspension, often with a workt or twisted band or setting round them; in some cases they have even been used together with Roman or Byzantine coins, chiefly of gold, thro which a hole has been drilled for the suspensory thread. Many such golden coins have been found in Scandinavia, set and used exactly as the Braeteates. But Romanized Pendants have one peculiarity: either they are quite blank, or else they have the simplest pattern — circles, lines, winds — types altogether different from those which distinguish the Braeteates. These latter are nearly all found in the Northern lands, the former nearly all in the Southern lands. Thus they are distinctive groups, separate both in locality and in pattern. And the Romanized Pendants have never the rich and peculiar “barbarously”-elegant frames or settings into which the Braeteates have so often been fitted. Now should we say that the Braeteates are merely and only imitations of imitations of the Romanized Pendants, we shall be entangled in an inextricable dilemma. For their date would then be from the 6th to the 9th age. But this is impossible. The Old-Northern Runes, stampt on so many of the Braeteates of all types, were beginning to give way in the 7th century, and had become scarce in Scandinavia in the 8th. Besides this , the style and work are generally and undoubtedly far older than the 7th and 8th century. It must also be remembered that they are all heathen , bear no Christian symbol? show no sign of Christian art or influence. It is evident therefore — altho both may possibly have sprung from a common source, the use of golden or other coins, Classical or otherwise, as Hanging Ornaments — that these two streams of suspensory jewels were contemporaneous, executed by different artists with different schools of decora¬ tion, the Braeteates in the North of Europe and the Romanized Pendants in the South and West. It is very note-worthy that in the Vi Moss, Fyn, Denmark, whose date is about 300-350 or earlier, a button or rivet of bronze with silver edging was found, in the great diggings of 1865, de¬ corated with a small stamp or carving exactly like a Golden Bracteate. One of the commonest Bracteate types is the Dragon or Writhing Worm. Hence it has been said that these pieces are of a comparatively later date. But the newest finds in Scandinavia, partic¬ ularly in the Danish Mosses, have proved that the Worm-ornament is far earlier than we had sup¬ posed; consequently this argument is now no longer tenable. In a word, when we put together all their characteristics and come at last to a final judg¬ ment, we cannot but conclude that the Golden Braeteates belong to the antique class of Northern remains , and chiefly date from the Early Iron Age. Many Golden Braeteates without Runes have been found from time to time in England 2, but never, as far as I am aware, under circumstances exactly fixing the date. The largest hoard turned up at once was by J. Brent, the Younger, Esq. F. S. A., in 1863, in his antiquarian diggings at Sarr in the Hand of Thanet, Kent. In grave No. 4, that of a Lady, which contained many other valuables together with 2 Roman coins (of Aurelius and, as is supposed, of Tetricus), he discovered 6 of these pieces, 3 of them being struck from one die. In auother grave (No. 90, also that of a female) he found 1 such piece. The 6 are figured by him, and show us that they all belong to the most “bar¬ barous” sort known to us, exhibiting only broken twists and slightly winding lines. Mr. Brent’s text on these is as follows : 1 Several pieces of this kind found in Italy are apparently as old as the first century . some perhaps one or two hundred years still earlier. 2 In describing the discovery of such pieces, some late English writers have adopted the affected word Bullce. But they are not Bullm. however nearly they may be allied to that Roman child-ornament, and a name so calculated to mislead should not be employed. BRACTEATES. 507 “The Gold .Pendants' (Plate 1, Figs. 1-6). — These are thin circular plates of gold, stamped in patterns, and supplied with loops, also of gold, for suspension. They are of 3 sizes. The diameter of the largest is about li inch, and its weight 3 dwts. 3 grs.; of the smallest 1* inch, and 1 dwt. 21 grs.; the remaining four are alike in size, intermediate between these two, and weigh 2 dwts. 17 grs. They are of pure gold, and stamped on one side only, the central ornament in them all being curious patterns of scrolled and interlaced figures1, some of which are like attempts at emblematical designs, — rude hints, perhaps, afterwards improved by other Northern and German nations, and ingrafted into those architectural designs which gave a new style to Europe. The largest example has a beaded edge, and a second circular line a quarter of an inch within it; the space between the two being filled with a double-lined zigzag- ornament: this pendant, too, has a small twist of gold overlaid at the junction of the loop. The others have only their edges beaded, and in smaller beading, except two, which have a circle of rather scanty dots just within this, and one of which has four little knobs overlaid where the loop joins. “Mr. C. Roach Smith, in. his ‘Collectanea Antiqua’, enumerating the Saxon [Old-English] or¬ naments from Ozingell, gives an example very like these pendants, though less in size than the smallest; and another, embossed not dissimilarly, is in Plate xi of the ‘Inventorium Sepulchrale’. A single example was afterwards found in another grave at Sarr, with beads of amber <tnd other materials.”2 The six Bracteates figured by Mr. Brent (properly speaking the four) are objects quite familiar to Old-Northern antiquaries, and occur chiefly in Scandinavia. His No. 6 offers a design common in Thomsen’s Atlas , which gives more than a score variations of it ; that which it most resembles is No. 193, which is almost identical, only rather coarser and thicker in the lines, and without the dots round the edge. The ground-type is a Writhing Worm with gaping jaws, and with added intertwining headless snakes, all making a kind of one Dragon. We have the same idea, only still more elegantly carried out, in Thomsen’s No. 165. Mr. Brent’s No. 2 is the same type, but still more rude, in fact “barbarous”. It is nearly the same as Mr. Thomsen’s Bracteate No. 194, which also has the dots, but the English piece is still more brokenly and coarsely executed. No. 3 (and 4, 5) is also the same pattern, only so “barbarized”, as scarcely to be known, unless we have dozens of variations before us, which is fortunately here the case. There is nothing in Thomsen’s Atlas exactly similar. No. 1 in Brent, which may well be another fantastic variety of the same idea, 1 cannot find in Thomsen. The zigzag-ornament on No. 1 we often find on the Scandinavian pieces. Besides richer and more ornate varieties I will only mention Thomsen’s No. 238, Denmark, 2 copies from one die; his No. 186, Norway, the zigzag with simple lines, the centres between dotted; and his No. 144, Sweden, the single lines slightly roped or twisted or frosted, or whatever we may call it. As to the observation of T. G. F. , it is quite just and correct. The position of the loop points out the top or head of the design. And the same thing holds good on all these pieces. We have evidences of this by the dozen in that great mine of Golden Bracteates — Thomsen’s Atlas. In fact the position of the loop is a great help towards recognizing patterns so rudely stampt as other¬ wise almost to bring us to despair. Unfortunately, older finds in England are lost to science, for it is only quite lately that things of this kind have been duly registered and described. Usually they have been quickly melted down. Now and then they lie hidden in private collections. But a couple of those ivith Rimes were evidently struck in England; and a dozen Uninscribed Bracteates have been found in the same country within the last few years, chiefly in graves of very early date — a period answering to the Early Iron Age of 1 “ [It will be observed in the very accurate illustrations which accompany this description, that three of these pendants are exactly alike, and evidently stamped by the same mould. It is curious to see that the loops of these three, though clearly attached after the stamping, are very nearly, though not quite, in the same position in each; near enough, however, to shew that the figures are intended to be regarded with that point uppermost (to shew it indeed more plainly for the slight difference, as proving the loop to have been fixed by the eye and not by any merely mechanical arrangement). This gives us plainly a designed bottom and top to the group of figures, and, given a bottom and top, must we not suppose there to have been a meaning also? — T. G. F.]” - Account of the [Kent Archasological] Society’s Researches in the Saxon [Old-English or Jutish] Cemetery at Sarr. By John Brent, Jun. , F. S. A., Archreologia Cantiana, Yol. 5, London 1864 , 8vo. 64 508 BRACTEATES. Scandinavia — , and thus from a time in harmony with the finds in Scandia itself. English graves have been so enormously ransackt, that we cannot now expect many from that source; and the land in Eng¬ land is now so highly cultivated, has been so long ploughed and turned over and over, that pieces of this kind will seldom there be met with. Those possibly lockt up in the Cabinets of Coin-collectors will be at once, it is to be hoped, made public, now that attention has been directed to their great scientific value. In 1860 a hoard of golden rings and other ornaments, including 4 golden Bracteate-medallions with the usual loop for suspension, but whose front is decorated with filigree work and ornamental lines and with the rough garnets or red fluss or glass so often found on jewels from the Early Iron Age, turned up in Norway. Of these pieces 17 were Bracteates proper, of 11 different stamps, all without runes , and all offering slight variations of the patterns hitherto met with. This precious and instructive gold-heap was discovered by a peasant planting potatoes on the farm Sletner, Eids- berg Parish, Rakkestad Fogderi, Smalenenes Amt, south of Christiania. It is described by Lector 01. Rygh in Norsk Illustreret Nvhedsblad, folio, Christiania 1861, Feb. 24 and March 10 and 31; in the Norsk “Videnskabs-Selskabs Forhandlinger” for 1864, 8vo; and again separately, an overprint of this latter; all with woodcuts of the principal Bracteates, &c. Lector Rygh concludes that the great mass of the Golden Bracte'ates were probably made in the Northern lands, where indeed they are almost ex¬ clusively found, and that many of them must go back to at least the 5th century. — J. H. Muller (Deutsche Miinzgeschichte , Leipzig 1860, Vol. 1, p. 56) dates them generally from the 4th to the 6th century. A talented young Swedish ArcliEeologist, Dr. H. 01. H. Hildebrand, has just (May 1866) pub- lisht “Svenska Folket under Hednatiden”, 8vo, Stockholm 1866. At page 20 he concludes, that the Bracteates usually date from the Golden -Solidus period — the 4th and 5th century. In this same work we have a few remarks on the Olden Runes, and readings of the Istaby Stone and, partly, of the Rok Stone. In Scandinavia as elsewhere we have very seldom any details as to the circumstances under which these and similar valuables have turned up. The few preserved have been chiefly bought by noblemen and gentlemen as “curiosities”, have been gazed at as such, and so by degrees have been transferred by gift or purchase to the public Museums or to some private Collector. But of late more care has been taken to note every attendant fact; those thus lately discovered and described have been hidden in the earth in the Early Iron Age, sometimes in graves; and we now see, when they are found with other objects which may serve as a kind of date, that all the best of this class belong to the Early Iron Age. All these pieces were used as Pendants, probably hanging from the Head or Neck or Waist, in the same way as these Northern peoples employed other valuable golden pieces, Coins or coinlike, chiefly Roman and Byzantine, or more or less rude imitations of such. They may therefore be called the Bracteate Amulet or Trinket, and must not be confounded with the far later class, also sometimes called “Bracteates”, which belong to the middle age, and which may be called Bracteate money, “Nummi Bracteati”. This latter kind would seem to have sprung from the former, and to have been first made in Byzantium, and then in Italy (7th and 8th century); afterwards in Scandinavia, whose bishops and towns struck such as early as the 12th century. From Scandinavia they spread to Germany ancl other countries, and continued to be minted till the 16th year-hundred. They are usually much smaller than the Bracteate Trinket, and of copper or base or mixt metal, seldom of silver, still more rarely of gold, (and then apparently not as money) ; and they are not used with a ring and setting as ornaments. They have been named, from their brightness, Blink-money (“Blik-Mynter”); from their being struck only on one side and therefore partially hollow, Hole-pieces, Hollow-money ; from their tiny size Spangle-money. When inscribed, they bear Latin letters. bracteates proper, nearly always of Gold, and the real and original blinks or Shiners, are thin planchets, usually about an inch in diameter, round, struck on one side only, with a distinct early style of decoration, often with a Runic listing. The incuse is visible on the back1, and this is occasionally a great help when a particular rune has been injured on the front, for we can thus trace it more or less sharply on the other side, so leaf-like is the metal. But it now and then happens — when the See Bracteate No. 64, engraved both sides, to show this. BRACTEATES. 509 price was no object that the reverse is covered over with a thin plate of gold, and this can seldom be taken off without injury to the piece. These golden Bracteates, the bracteates proper, were not made for money — endlessly differing as they do in size and weight and every other feature1 — but, as I take it, to be used as Amulets, occasionally also as Medals, Decorations of Rank or Ser vice or Exploit, Personal Ornaments, Keepsakes, Love-tokens, Birthday pieces, First-tooth gifts, &c. As of the one class, they often are inscribed with the name of the person bv whom or for whom they were made, or both: as of the other, they have some heathen prayer or charm or blessing. Many of them are stampt with the head or bust or figure of a man or a quadruped, sometimes, possibly, intended for the God (w)oden, with or without a Horse (• sleipner), and Ravens one or two (? hugin and munin). But sometimes instead of a Horse there seems to be a Goat, and this would suggest the God thu(no)r. But all this appropriation is not much better than a guess. More than one critic has called the Raven a Falcon, and the Goat a Horse with a head-ornament. Some have a confused design, something like a Chief attended by Victory, and pointing to a Classical prototype, altho at many removes. Some seem to unite the figures of the Warrior, the Horse and the Goat. In fact they often may refer to the Chase, war-games or field-sports. Others have only a Head, or only a Quadruped, or Snake-knots, &c., and these again may be variously com¬ bined or divided. Sometimes, and this is a common type, a single or double Worm, or other Dragon¬ like creature, fills the whole space. These are Rimeless. One group of these last pieces has the chief head turned to the right, another has it to the left. Others, also without runes, (perhaps chiefly Romanized Pendants), are merely decorative, circles, squares, triangles, zigzags, &c., often repeated and intermixt. Sometimes the native Northern Golden Bracteates are very large and rich. Not seldom the Bracteate bears the Filfot or Gammadion or Crux Gothica or Running Cross or Hanged Thwarts, F , which is a peculiar and most ancient, also Indian, mark, the Swastika of the Buddhists; or the Cross and Circle or Spike-wheel, ; or the Simple Cross or Plain Thwarts, +; or a T riskele or Threefoot, V ; and so on. Sometimes 2 or 3 of these antique heathen signs are accumu¬ lated on the same piece. They thus exhibit forms of those olden and widely spread pagan symbols 2 for Deity and Sanctity and Eternal Life and Blessing which can be traced from the East over all the European lands Classical, Keltic and Gothic, and which in our North may have been the peculiar sym- hol the Y for thu(no)r and the ip for (w)odin. The P used to be vulgarly called in Scandinavia lhe Hammer of Thur , Thors Hammer- Mark, or The Hammer-Mark: but this name properly belongs to the mark T. Of course we should expect references to the use of Bracteates in old Icelandic writings, tho not under their Latin name and only sparingly, the fashion having died out so early in the North. After conversing hereon with the learned Icelander Brynjulfsson, Arna Magnsean Stipendiary in Cheaping- haven, he has favored me with some remarks in a letter dated Nov. 22, 1865, which I here translate: “ 011 due consideration I am persuaded that such hints could only be reminiscences from early times, and must therefore chiefly be lookt for in the Skaldic poetry. And there they undoubtedly occur. The word “Bractea", as we all know, is identical in meaning with “Blik”, in German “Blech”, from the stem “Blik”, “Blink”, thus properly signifying only the “Blinking", “Shining”, here chiefly Gold (? and Silver). Accordingly there is every ground for supposing “Bracteate” to be only a scientific Latin ex¬ pression instead of the far older native “Blik . the “Blech” of Germany. But, as we are all aware, 1 Archivary Herbst has reminded me of another striking argument in proof that these olden Bracteates could not hare been intended as money, namely, that at this early period gold was too costly to be used as a coin-unit. Down to about the year 1000, when Scandinavian princes first imported the art of coining money, all payments were made by weight, and silver is cut into very small pieces. Even the first silver coins were perpetually divided into halves or quarters, &c. When such a golden piece was earned or made at home or abroad, it was therefore too precious to be regarded as circulating medium, received a loop for suspension, and became an ornament, an amulet or an heirloom. 2 See a paper by Mr. H. M. Westropp “On the Pre-Christian Cross”, in the Gentleman’s Magazine, London, July 1863, p. 78, and his plate. — But I must particularly refer to a learned and elegant and richly illustrated and exhaustive work on this subject by the great Danish Numismatist Dr. L. Muller. This precious monograph of 93 pages has just appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences, 5th Series, Hist, and Philosophical Section, Vol. 3; but also separately under the title: “Religiose Symboler af Stjerne-. Eors- og Cirkel-Form hos Oldtidens Kulturfolk”, 4to, Kjobenhavn 1864. The above heathen signs for Godhead and Everlasting Life were early adopted by the Christian Church, and some of them linger on Christian monuments and grave- slabs &c. , down to the very close of the middle age, particularly in England. 64* 510 BRACTEATES. the Skalds used all sorts of kennings from Jewels, Gold, Silver, &c., to betoken Women, &c. Gold is called “The Seas Blink (Blik)”, and so on, and a female is “Gold’s Mistress”, “The Goddess of the Golden Jewel”, and so forth. In such compounds as “Barublik” (bore-blink, billow-shine) = Gold, “Blik” of course retains its first meaning, which it still does in Icelandic. But “Blik” alone also oc¬ curs in kennings, as for instance “beiSihlokk bliks ” (for a woman ) in a verse from the 10th century (in Vigaglum’s Saga), and “Bliksbeidendr” at the beginning of the 11th century (in Gunnlaug’s Saga Ormstungu); and it is here far more natural to regard it as an independent idea, than to have re¬ course to the supposition that the kenning is imperfect and that some word (for instance “Billow”) is understood, which would again give us the usual poetical synonym “Billow-blink”, that is Gold. If then “Blik” has here, as I believe, an ancient and independent meaning, it can only be the same as “Gold- blik”, Bracteate. Thus we have here undoubtedly the old homely word for “Bracteate”, while at the same time the olden poetical kennings show us that women in particular bore “Goldbliks” as personal ornaments. A somewhat larger plate of some precious metal suspended on the breast by a chain was called “Kinga” (see Rigsmal), and thus the smaller roundels might well be called only “Blik”. That such remembrances of ancient decorations still lived with the Skalds is also proved by what is said in Snorre’s Edda, that many female ornaments were called in olden days “Steinasorvi” (Strings of stones, Necklaces of beads, stones, amber, &c.), and of such we have many in the Old-Northern Museum.” Traditionary ornaments long keep their ground. Thus common Coins, with or without framings or settings, usually of silver, were here and there used in Scandinavia down to the last century; and pieces the same in kind as these old Bracteates are still made by village goldsmiths in Scandinavia, and for the same purpose — personal decoration. Only they are now inscribed with more or less bar¬ barized Christian mottoes, IHS (Jesus), hnust (Agnus Dei), &c. All are intended for hanging to the neck or forehead, &c., and have an eye or ring. The graves of Scandinavia enable us to trace the gradual disuse of the older Bracteate, and the gradual introduction of other types. The Golden Bracteate Proper is found in burial-mounds and in hoards from the Early and the beginning of the Later Iron Age. In similar receptacles from the Later (still heathen) Iron Age Bracteates have several times been found in Scandinavia, but of Copper (or Bronze) Gilt or Gold-plated, and with very simple ornaments h Some more or less similar have been met with from the Early Christian period. I engrave a specimen here, in my own collection, dredged up out of the Fyris river, at Upsala, in 1864. It is of the usual size, of Copper, but the raised lines have been decorated with silver, while the rest of the surface has been richly gilt on both sides. So far, it is, I believe, unique. It repre¬ sents Christ crowned, robed in a costly stole with the Cross in the center. On each hand is the head of a Saint, with a pointed cap. The central figure has long hair like a fillet, and on either half a sun or star. Archivary Herbst thinks the date of this piece to be about the beginning of the 11th century, and that it was either made in Russia by an artist using Byzantine traditions, or was struck in Sweden from some such foreign original. The Bracteate, as we see, remains the same; only Gilt Copper has succeeded to Gold, and Heathen symbols have given place to Christian. But there is another peculiarity in this piece. As we see, the loop is so fixt that, if suspended thereby, the roundel would hang up¬ side down, thus making the whole pattern meaningless. Now this is never the case with the Heathen Bracteates. Their owners understood and respected them, and took care to hang them properly. Nor 1 See one of these engraved in the “Svenska Fornlemningar” (Part 1, 8vo, Lund 1853, p. 78, Plate in, No. 26) of N. G. Bruzelius. It is of bronze gold-plated , and was found in a barrow in Fuglie Parish , Skytt Harad , Skane. BRACTEATES. 511 does it happen with the golden Classical coins used as Bracteates — made into pendants by a loop. Why then should it occur with this Christian piece? Apparently it has come with other plunder into the hands of a pagan, who has wilfully so hung it to show his contempt for the Christian figures which it bears. In the 10th and 11th century the mutual hatred between the followers of Christ and of Woden was very strong and bitter in most parts of Scandinavia. But this Copper for Gold can be traced still wider , to the field of Pseudo- Arabic art. As we know, besides other imitations, older and later, we have also silver and golden Bracteates — often with mere blind letters — struck for ornament as copies of Cufic coins. They may be dated from the 9th, 10th, 11th centuries. See the pieces with Arabic or Arabic-like marks in Thomsen’s Atlas, Nos. 40-45. One such, his No. 248, which is of silver, is a curious cross and double, being struck on both sides from two quite different models. The one is taken from the Coins of Byzantium, the other from the Arabic Dirhems. — Now in June 1866 a Copper piece of this class was found in a moss near Roes- kilde, Sealand, Denmark, and past into my collection. It is a small Bracteate of the usual make, but an imitation of the Arabic Dirhem, and has a loop and ring. The whole has been richly gilt, or per¬ haps gold-plated. But on all the Golden Bracteates, whether with or without runes, the eye or loop has nothing to do with the Bracteate itself, that round stampt flan or lamina which thus is mounted. The loop with its frame or setting is one thing; the stampt roundel is another. Consequently the same piece (several copies struck from the same die) may be found with very different settings, large or small, gorgeous or simple, according to the taste or means of the purchaser or maker or giver. These set¬ tings may sometimes be a mere golden twist. But usually they are very ornamental, now and then ex¬ tremely so, the same minute decorative lines or circles or zigzags &c. being repeated all round, stampt by hand from one or more punches; for small variations show that the workman (like a modern book¬ binder) sometimes had several stamps of the same general pattern lying on his table. Hence the end¬ less variations. No two settings exactly agree. In workmanship, ornamental design and general effect these medallions are commonly very fine. The mechanical execution leaves little to be desired. But the figures (human and animal), as we now say the drawing and outlines, have all the rudeness which belongs to the figure-stampers and figure- carvers of the Early and still more of the Later Iron Age. Sometimes they are so strange as to be almost unrecognizable. Occasionally we cannot even guess what the original design was intended to be. The one piece is copied from the other, time after time and generation after generation and province after province, until at last scarcely a trace of the original plan remains. Generally speaking, carved Runic monuments are a gold-hoard for the old language, altho their inscriptions are too often so very short that we gather but little compared to what all long for, and that little is sometimes doubtful. The Bracteates, on the contrary, are for the most part a treasure- house for the Proper Names. I have assumed that these pieces were mostly Gifts and Charms. Now as in our days, when porcelain has taken the place of the precious metals, our Crockery establishments turn out numbers of Cups, Jugs, and other things, manufactured as presents, especially for the young, and bearing single names, — James, john, william, mary, eliza, &c., sometimes with a word or two added, — a gift to richard, — a keepsake for jane, — health and happiness, — from the Thames tunnel, &c. , so in old times this would be the natural way of inscribing these presents. Some, with the commoner names or phrases, would be kept on hand for casual purchasers. Others would not be “in stock”, but would be made to order. But here a question arises. In ancient dialects the flections would mark the meaning. These words would, I think, mostly be in the Dative case. In Latin, for instance, all would understand that georgio would mean to or for georgius. In our times this to or for is exprest by a separate word, our dative inflection having long since fallen away; or the simple name is given. Now is this simple Name on the Bracteates, and occasionally elsewhere, mostly in the Dative case? I fancy that it is; partly because it is in the nature of things, and partly from the singular in¬ frequency of s, which Genitive mark could not so universally have been elided. But as to Nomina¬ tives, all Nominatives did not end in s, and this s itself was often vocalized and left out. So there will always be some uncertainty on this point. 512 BRACTEATES. But these Proper Names must not be denied merely because they are often so obscure. The farther back, the more strange the names. The oldest Northern names are so scarce and difficult, that every find is a help. The one wave of Names succeeds the other as population is refresht with new clans, or modified by local occupation and pursuit and crost by intermarriage, and as manners and customs and belief change. Only one branch hereof has been treated in a satisfactory way. I refer to the ex¬ cellent and solid (tho of course not faultless) work of Forstemann on the Old-German Proper Names. A similar account of the Old-Scandian is still a desideratum. It is said that Prof. Sophus Bugge, of Christiania, is engaged upon it. This important task cannot be in better hands. The Old-English must also find their careful collector. .Till all this has been done, many of these Old-Northern names will remain a riddle, and even then will very much be still unexplained and not understood. Among the scores of Northern dialects spoken by so many tribes during this period, from the Thames and the Clyde and the Eider up to the wilds of Sweden and Norway and Finland, and among the manifold changes which they underwent from age to .age, it is impossible to fix the locality for each particular Bracteate, the more as the letters inscribed are commonly very few. There may also some¬ times be imperfections in the metal, from a faulty stroke or from wear and tear. We are never quite sure. But this whole class of inscriptions has notwithstanding a homely sound. Variously modified, the language is the same — old-northern. Some of the. translations are of course tentative. Future discoveries will increase our stock; with every new piece some fresh light will be thrown on what we have, or it may offer a formula ex¬ plaining carvings now doubtful, or by the use of other runes may confirm or rebut a reading. Suppose we have taken 0 in a certain place as the letter o, and a new find should show the same word spelt with £ instead of 0, this would at once confirm the former reading. Many of the Bracteates in Thomsen’s Atlas , and of those since found , do not fall within the scope of this work, for they are but barbarous imitations of Byzantine or Cufic or Carolingian or other coins, with sometimes more or less meaningless strokes, sometimes Latin capriciously mixt with rune¬ like staves. A couple of them look as if they were written in old Greek or Italian characters. All such do not concern me. I take only those apparently runic. Some of these may have been made in Rome or France, or at Constantinople, or elsewhere in the Grecian Empire, for far and wide these Northern hawks flew and fluttered; but they seem mostly to have been struck in Scandinavia or Eng¬ land, perhaps chiefly in Denmark, sometimes from more or less barbarized Classical or Oriental types. When not produced in the North’s own colony England, they might at first have been made — the actual Bracteate, not the rich “barbarian” setting and loop, which were doubtless chiefly added at home — in some Greek or Roman city, by one or other of the many Northern artificers in the service of the regular coiners. But they would very soon be made in the North itself, for clever workmen would often return to their own land or come over from England, both able and willing to exercise the art of striking these pieces. We have an exact parallel in the “mystery” of Printing. When first discovered (? in Holland) it very rapidly spread over half Europe, and in the mean time Northern books and tracts were largely printed abroad. And the manufacture of these pieces was by no means so difficult or strange as some have imagined. The ornaments and letters were the same as on the thousands of other objects made in Scandinavia and England. The stamps were the same or on the same principle. We have even “barbarian”, decorative, more or less medallion-like, stampt ornaments — - sometimes many pieces struck from the same die — found in the North, of a date earlier than that which we dare ab- solutelv give to the Bracteates. The whole was a species of Goldsmiths’- work, working with their stamps as Bookbinders do now, added to a graving-tool &c. , an anvil, a hammer and the very simple carving of a design on an iron (or bronze) roundlet. What is there impossible in all this? The Northmen (in fact all the Scando-Goths) in the Early Iron Age possest wonderful skill in the art of working and adorning metals, and would soon learn, to apply their talent in this particular field. It was very different from the art of coining regular money, pieces struck on both sides and of a certain weight and alloy, and issued by some central authority under certain strict conditions, and whose legal nominal value was greater than their real worth in metal, the right of “coinage” thus being an important Regale , a source of honor and power and profit to the king and of annual income to the Earl or Bishop or Commune to whom the king might for a time concede the privilege of having a private BRACTEATES. 513 Mint 1 all which presupposes a very different state of society, and a Centralized and artificial Executive Power such as neither could nor did exist in any heathen Scandian or Scando-Gothic state during the Bracteate period. It is not the mechanical ability to stamp from one or two rude dies, which these “Barbarians” could easily do for themselves, or could easily get foreign workmen to do for them. As is well known, so comparatively simple was this mere cutting of a die, whether one side or both, that both town and country throout the Roman empire, and afterwards thro the Western kingdoms, swarmed with “hedge-moneyers” and false coiners, in spite of endless and savage legislation against them, — so great was the profit by thus cheating the revenue. It was the same war as between our High Tariffs and lucrative Smuggling, between the regular Distilleries and the private Stills. An old kettle and a few yards of piping out on a heath or down in a town-cellar, and the Still is at work! Equally easy was the mere stamping from a bit of barbarously cut iron. It was, then, a very different question. Coinage was an important sign and agent of Commercial development, of Social organization, of Political institutions, lhe Bracteates any body could make: they were stampt on one side only, a very simple affair, and were of every variety of size and weight, and, whether regarded as jewels or amulets were playthings to whose manufacture the Northern Smiths or Goldsmiths were quite equal. The makers or the de¬ signers of these Bracteates, or at least the men for whom they were fabricated, were most likely often Warings, Guardsmen, the hardy and well-paid members of the Imperial Bodyguard or of Roman Auxiliary Cohorts, who had for years been in the service of Grecian or Roman emperors, and. who had been ac¬ customed to see and handle and admire — and probably to use as ornaments or to send home as such, sometimes properly set, as gifts to their families and friends in the North — the striking and beautiful Golden pieces (Aurei and Solidi ) of about the same size and general character, everywhere circulating in the Greek and Roman provinces. Perhaps the above expression is not strictly correct, and instead of Bodyguard we ought to say Guard or Auxiliaries. Gothic and Northern bands, under native kings and other officers, were largely employed at this time not only in the Roman (as early as under Probus A. D. 276-282) but especially in the Eastern or Grecian Empire, and Constantinople swarmed with Gotho-Northern ad¬ venturers and craftsmen. But the Bodyguard of Warings or Varanges proper was scarcely establisht till the 10th or 11th century. Thus the former or Auxiliaries were mostly Heathens, tho some might be Arian or Orthodox Christians. The latter or Wanngs were as undoubtedly Christians. Accordingly we find great differences between the monuments, still found in the North, which are distinctly connected with these earlier and later swarms of swordsmen and adventurers and colonists. The earlier (the Bracteates) all use the old -northern runes; the later (the runic stones mentioning “Greek-farers , “he fell in Greekland”, “he gained wealth in Greece”, “he served in Greece”, &c.) all use the Scandinavian runes. In the earlier the Worm-twist is comparatively unknown or barbarously figured; in the later the W orm-twist is fully developt and is a standing type. The whole style of the earlier is evidently that of the Early Iron Age; the whole style of the later is as evidently that of the Later and Latest Iron Age. The earlier are all Heathen, either directly in style and symbol (one oven formally invokes the God thur), or indirectly, showing no sign of the Christian faith; the later are all Christian, all bear the sign of the Cross or regular Christian formulas. The character of the Proper Names is also very different; on the earlier these names are very old or altogether unknown, on the later we have names with which we are more or less familiar; thus showing that centuries not a few must have elapst between the two waves of population. So also the language is very much older on the earlier pieces than on the later. All this goes to prove that my general date for the Bracteates is not too high. These pieces are mostly difficult to decipher. Among the many zigzags and strokes and orna¬ ments, we are not always sure which is a letter. Add reverst or upside-down or bind or imperfect runes, &c., and we shall see that we may easily fall into a trap. Some have only a couple of staves, and in this case we are at a nonplus , unless we can form a reasonable guess at the word thus contracted. As long as we know that sam. stands for Samuel , t. for Thomas , all is very well. 1 Hence the severe laws against forgers, false moneyers, &c. , tho the coins struck by these men were often equally good — contained as much precious metal — as the pieces issued by the royal or privileged Mints. But the profit fell to the “forger", not to the king or his privileged deputy-coiner. 514 BRACTEATES. But shorten with equal violence other names , and in a dialect half unknown , and it becomes a different question. As I have treated only those pieces which are apparently in real runes, I leave the rest to abler hands; I do not wish to call the few others “barbarous”, simply because I cannot read them. In fact I may have tried to read too many (one or two not in runes at all), rather than too few. It is of some consequence that we form an idea as to the comparative frequency , sparing or numerous fabrication, of these pieces. And the result is, that they were a common ornament. Thomsen’s lists give about 90 Bracteates, Runic and Non-runic, found in Denmark. 67 ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Sweden. 35 ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Norway. 2 ,, ,, ,, ,, „ ,, England. 1 ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Frisland. 47 Unknown where found, but preserved in Scandinavian Museums and doubtless collected from the Scandinavian provinces. 242 found in the North. 5 ,, ,, Pomerania. [Not mentioned by Thomsen.] 12 ,,* ,, Saxon and German lands. 3 ,, ,, Belgium. 2 ,, ,, Poland. 264 Since then, a few more have been exhumed, making a total of about 270 from Northern lands, and 30 from all the rest of Europe. For the sake of comparison, I will enumerate in what lands these yet known and here en¬ graved Runic Bracteates (including a couple not strictly Runic) have been found, but again reminding the reader that this is no exact criterion in every separate instance, for ornaments and jewels may wander forwards and backwards far and wide before they at last disappear in a hoard or grave, or be¬ fore they are casually lost , or before they are first discovered in a private or public Museum : Runic Bracteates found in Sweden . 19 h ,, ,, ,, ,, Finland . 1 2. ,, ,, ,, ,, Norway . 5 3. ,, ,, ,, ,, Denmark . 39 4. ,, ,, ,, ,, Frisland . 1 5. ,, ,, ,, ,, Scandinavia . 1 6. WANDERERS. Runic Bracteates found in Bohemia . 1 7. ,, ,, ,, Pomerania . 1 8. ,, ,, ,, ,, Hannover . 3 9. Total in the North .... 66 ,, Wanderers . 5 71 10 This exclusive of several others found in Scandinavia, but apparently either non-runic or bar¬ barous-runic, and therefore not engraved here. i Nos. 4, 19, 22, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 35, 41, 42, 43, 46. 47, 49, 62, 64, 65, 66. — 2 No. 61. — 3 Nos. 2, 40, 41 b, 44, 48. — 4 In Sealand: Nos. 6, 14, 15, 20, 39, 55, 57, 63. In Fyn: Nos. 1, 24, 31, 36, 51, 52, 54, 56, 59. In North Jutland: Nos. 11, 23, 28, 30, 53, 68. In South Jutland: Nos. 16, 18, 21, 32, 60, 67. Unknown where: Nos. 10, 12, 13, 17, 37, 38, 45, 50, 69, 70. ■ — 5 No. 58. — 6 No. 5. — 7 No. 3. — 8 No. 29. — 0 Nos. 7, 8, 9. — 10 Should the Atlas No. 94 (found at Slangerup, Sealand) be Runic, the number will be 72, of which 40 in Denmark. BRACTEATES. 515 But the actual number is much greater. Many of these pieces exist in duplicates, from 2 to 10 being known from the same die. I have heard of several (without runes) in private hands in Scan¬ dinavia. And these Bracteates have existed by thousands. Century after century they have been con¬ tinually sent to the melting-pot, thanks to the old Treasure-trove law. Even now, without the least necessity , I have myself heard of many cases — sheer stupidity or barbarity or routine — of Golden Bracteates found in Scandinavia having been melted down by the country goldsmiths and others to whom they had been sold by the peasants — for now modern trash of Parisian fashion is preferred as orna¬ ments to these rich and characteristic native decorations. But still we must be thankful for what we have, and we must hope and trust that many others will yet come into our hands. In fact we need not despair, looking at the past, that other discoveries will yet be made. In 1628, not 240 years ago, the great Danish Antiquary Olaf Worm1 had never seen a single Coin or Bracteate hearing Runes! Since then, besides hundreds of Runic Coins, what a goodly show of Bracteates has been brought together in Thomsens Atlas, without reckoning those since discovered, and this in spite of the many which have been destroyed ere even they could be described and copied ! Wherever possible, my engravings have been made, with religious care, from the Onginals or from Galvano -plastic facsimiles. Otherwise I have followed Thomsen. Where my copies differ from Thomsen’s, mine are therefore the more correct. coins, as distinct from bracteates, were struck with these “Old-Northern” (not “Scandinavian”) runes, as far as we know, only in England. By the time Christianity and the art of coining money reacht Scandinavia, these Olden Runes were already disused, — the end of the 10th and the beginning of the 11th century being later than the employment of these characters. Consequently, the first Moneyers — all Englishmen — and their Scandian pupils and successors, who struck money for the Scandian kings, used, for about the first 50 years, only Latin (Old-English) letters. Afterwards, for a short time, the native Scandinavian runes were employed on these Scandinavian coins; but Roman in¬ fluence was too strong, and these Scandian runes soon disappeared before the Latin staves. The ancient English “Old-Northern” Runic coins run from about the 7th to the first half of the 9tli century. They are scarce. Commonly those in pure runes are outnumbered by those with both Runic and Roman mixt letters. But I do not engrave or dwell upon these Coins here. They contain nothing new, simply the names of certain rulers or of a moneyer or two, already well known to us. In Ruding’s Coinage, the Archseologia, Fin Magnusens Runamo, Haigh’s Conquest of Britain, and other works, we have the names ^epa, epa; J£]>ilR2ED , [an]swig (Mr. Lindsay’s Coin); benidit; botred: broper; OSWI; P^EDA, PE ADA ; UARD; WB [wiBBA] ; WINTRED, &C. It is to be hoped that all the Runic [both Old-Northern- and Scandinavian- Runic] Coins of the Northern lands will be collected and carefully engraved and publisht, by some competent Numismatist and Runologist. In the good old times, ere “Slesvig-Holstein” had become a “Cultus” and passion had driven out principle, down in fact to a very few years ago, no German writer or antiquary ever dreamed of depriving the North of its Runic Bracteates. A sudden revolution, however, has since been effected. First one and then -the other and then a third German letterist — and now, apparently, a whole posse of them — has found out that the whole has been a misconception and delusion, that the Golden Brac¬ teates never were Northern at all, but Saocon, and as Saxon therefore German; that, when inscribed, they bear words in Anglo-Saxon, and therefore in Saxon and therefore in German; that their beino- so few in Saxon or German lands is a mere accident, for that they were all made there and were carried by chapmen or zealous heathens over the border to Scandinavia, and consequently the fact of almost all of them being found in Scandinavia is a decisive proof of their not being Northern; that the Scan¬ dinavians could not have made them if they would, and that they therefore all belong to “the German Fatherland”. 1 “Nullum [nummum] adhuc videre mihi contigit, qvi Runicas obtineret literas , qvamvis Hardicnuti & Ethelredi qvosdam ostentare valeam, obsoletis Latinis conspicuos.” — Olaus Wormius, Berlilo Canulio Epist. — (Olai Worrnii et ad eum Doctorum Virorum Epistolas. 8vo, Vol. 1, Havnim 1751, p. 51.) 65 516 BRACTEATES. Now we are all weary of an “Anglo-Saxon” language which never existed, and of the argu¬ ments deduced from shortening the “Anglo-Saxon” into “Saxon”, and of the colossal swindle of calling “Saxon” german. The Old-English — in its many dialects — we know, and if we know anything we are aware that it is of a distinctive Northern character, whenever Northern writings as old as the Old- English can be found to be compared with it. And the Old-Saxon — that Beautiful tung so villain¬ ously and ruthlessly hunted down and supprest by the Germans, as found in its many modern dialects — we also know, and if we know anything we must see how near it is to the oldest Northern (Scan- dian and Anglic) dialects, and how widely it differs from the various “German” dialects. And we all know that all the Scando-Gothic tungs are very nearly allied and constitute one speech-group. But we have yet to learn that “Saxons” ever made Runic Bracteates, like as nothing distinctively “Saxon” has ever been found on these Bracteates, and like as scarcely a single Bracteate has ever been found in any Old-Saxon land. We must therefore demur to all these new lights, and insist on common sense and fair play in this department as in others. But even this “Saxon” nostrum has a glaring disadvantage in the eyes of real “Germanizers”. For if all these things are “Saxon”, and if nothing Runic has ever been found in “Germany”, the ex¬ pression “German Runes” and “German monuments” must be altogether abandoned, and we must sub¬ stitute the “hateful” phrase Scando-Saxon. But then it is better and shorter to drop the Scando in Scando-Saxon, as certain honest men now drop the Anglo in the bastard Anglo-Saxon. And as to these Bracteates being all imported into the North. This is a poor joke! Whence could they come? When we dig up Old-English Coins we know that they came from England, Roman and Grecian from Rome and Greece, Cufic from Arabia, German from Germany, and so on. But what is produced nowhere else or would not be transported in such quantities, belongs to the people in whose soil it is found. Are all our Stone and Bronze and Iron Antiquities “imported” from abroad? These Blinks confessedly belong to the Early Iron Age (say roughly the 4th to the 6th or 7th century), and to an Old Rune-writing people. Now where shall we find an Old Rune-writing people in the 4th to the 7th century who — except in the Northern lands — made Bracteates? Shall we go to Russia for these Bracteates? They are unknown there. To the Gallic and Keltic and Romance and Slavic lands? They are unknown there. To Germany? They are unknown there. To Old Saxony? Four pieces bearing-runes have been found there. Let us make them 10; 15 more may be added not bearing- runes. Let us say 50 in all, 50 instead of 19, out of at least 500, including duplicates. Now did these 50 wander from the North to the neighboring shires in Saxony, &c., or did the 450 wander from Saxony, &c., to the neighboring Northern lands? If the North could not make our Bracteates because they could not stamp from a die, neither could Saxony or its nearest districts. Surely no one can say that the Old Saxons or their neighbors were more skilful in metal-work than the Northmen! If coining was not introduced into Scandinavia (England has coined as we know, all along, from the time before Christ down to our own days) till about the Christian period, so neither was it introduced into any Saxon land. Therefore the argument on this head falls to the ground. I never heard that Saxonland had any native coins before the time of Charlemagne, a little before and after the year 800. Coins of course they had, like all other Scando-Gothic peoples which had not yet establisht mints; they got them in numbers by active commerce and by not inactive piracy, in the usual way. But Saxonland could not have had very many such even foreign pieces in circulation before the beginning of the 9th century; for in 797 Carl the Great summoned the great Synod or Par¬ liament of his Bishops, Abbots, and Earls, together with various of his officers from Saxony, to meet him at Aix-la-Chapelle , and it was there agreed that equivalents in kind, instead of money, should be received in payment of the legal fines and taxes. A one-year old Ox at harvest-time, when he is sent into his stall, and at spring-time when he leaves it, is valued at 1 Solidus; the older he is, the more shall he be worth. Corn and Honey also have their money-values set upon them. — This is not the land to make the Bracteates which England and Scandinavia were unable to produce. And the “characteristic” of these pieces is, that they are Runic. No Runes have ever been found or heard of in Germany, not even on Coins. We have Kelto-German or German-Keltic pieces from the second or third century before Christ. But , when inscribed , they bear Greek or Roman let¬ ters. Afterwards we have rude German coins from the earliest Christian period, but these bear only BRACTEATES. 517 Latin letters. No coin with runes lias ever been found struck in Germany or in any Saxon land, as little as any other runic monument, while hundreds of Runic Coins have been struck in Scandinavia and Eng¬ land. How is it possible then that a whole school of ornament whose great feature is a certain class of patterns, particularly the Dragon-type and the RUNES, should come from a land or lands where such types and such runes have never been found or heard of? When we dig up Saxon or German coins or jewels in Scandinavia or England, we say they came from Saxony or Germany. When we dig up Northern pieces or jewels which have in a similar way wandered over the border into a Saxon or German land, we say they are Northern. Is it not so? The custom of wearing pendent ornaments, of gold or other metal, has been and is common everywhere. But every people has more or less modified the style and pattern to suit their own reli¬ gious or local ideas. All the Scando-Goths have worn Golden Pendants. Did the Germans ever make and wear these peculiarly ornamented Runic Pendants? Such a custom is altogether * unknown. Did the Saxon peoples ? Such a custom was never heard of there. Consequently it results that the Runic Pendants — the Golden Runic Bracteates - — belong to the Runic lands, the North, where only they are found, with the exception only of a very few which have been carried over the border by Northmen or which have been given or sold as all such loose jewels continually are. It has also been said that these Bracteates are rare in the Saxon and neighboring lands be¬ cause they bore heathen symbols, and were therefore forbidden to their converts by the Christian mis¬ sionaries and priests. Consequently they would be melted down into ornaments of a more innocent kind, or would be sold or bartered away to lands yet pagan, and would therefore become excessively scarce. And there is some truth in this. There is no doubt that the fact of these pieces being essentially heathen amulets or jewels, would tend in this way to drive them out of use. But Scandinavia was Christianized within about a century after Saxony, and so short a time cannot explain the fact of Saxony having so few, Scandia so many. And Christians would not supply heathens with idolatrous images or amulets. And — which disposes of the question — these particular oldest-typed Bracteates had gone out of use altogether long before the 9th and 10th centuries, when Christianity was creeping into the Saxon folk- lands. The greatest German authority (Muller) himself gives them no later a date than 6 hundred years after Christ. How then could the Saxons in the 9th and 10th centuries wage war against ornaments which they did not use, had probably never seen, and the only specimens of which in their land were doubtless lying undisturbed in some heathen grave-mound raised most likely over an immigrant Scandinavian? But quite lately, particular circumstances and political “annexation’-fever having called atten¬ tion thereto, a whole crowd of German Editors and Linguists and Rune-readers has with one mouth loudly announced not only that the Bracteates, the South Jutland pieces, the Charnay and Nordendorf Brooches, but also the Bleking stones, the Norse and Danish and English blocks, — in fact every thing bearing the old staves — are all in marcomanNic and therefore in SAXON and therefore in german runes, and are consequently german monuments ! Now no one asks the German Propaganda to listen to sense and arguments and facts when propounded by a Frenchman or an Englishman — much less by a Scandi¬ navian — or any other “Barbarian”. But we do demand the decency of listening to truth when laid down by a German Scholar. But this is just what we cannot obtain. When ever a German author goes against the herd, or the cry of the time — he is simply ignored. He is placed under a ban and shunned, but he is not answered. His views are thus hermetically sealed, lest the eyes of the public should be opened. So it has been with this question of the “Marcomannic” 1 runes. When I discust 1 Besides niv remarks pp. 104-6, see also those of Velschow (which I have only lately redd) abundantly proving that these “Marcomanni'' - - marchmen were Danes, and that at this time Marcomanni , Norlhmamri and Dani were used promiscuously also for Danes and Scandinavians in general, — in Muller’s and Velschow’s Sa.ronis Grammalici Hisioria Danica , Vol. 2, 8vo, Havnias 1858, pp. 11, 12. To this may be added that Witukind (who flourisht in the middle of the 10th century), himself a Saxon, so far from making everybody in his time “Saxon" or “German”, actually says (besides mentioning the pedantic schoolborn theory common to all our “educated” Scando-Gothic peoples, that they were of “Classical” origin) that the Saxons had sprung from the Danes and the Norwegians (or Scandinavians in general): — “Nam super liac re varia opinio est, aliis arbitrantibus de Danis Northmannisque originem duxisse Saxones, aliis autem aestimantibus, ut ipse adolescentulus audivi quendam praedicantem, de Graecis, quia ipsi dicerent., Saxoues reliquias fuisse Macedonici exercitus; qui secutus magnum Alexandrum inmatura morte ipsius per totum orbem sit dispersus.” — Widukindi Res Gestae Saxonicae, ex rec. Waitzii ed. Pertz. 8vo, Hannoverae 1839, p. 4 (Book 1, § 2). But this is only another of the many proofs that the Saxons were the nearest overgang-clan to the Danes, and that under this floating name of “Saxons’ Scandinavians in general, particularly Danes, were often understood. This same learned Witukind knew so much about the Angles as “Germans and as originally settled at the mouth of the Elbe, and all that rubbish, that he -says the angles of England were so called from Britain 65 * 518 BRACTEATES. them and showed their modernness and absurdity (on Alphabet 17, page 104), I thought it needless to add the testimony of esteemed German writers, as I could not conceive that their equally decided con¬ demnation of these runes would be systematically supprest. As this, however, has been the case, I will here add that Dr. A. Kirchhoff and Prof. R. v. Liliencron have exprest themselves quite as strongly about this Marc omannic- rune humbug as I have done. Thus in his “Das Gothische Runen-Alphabet” (second edition, Berlin 1854, p. 2) Dr. Kirchhoff says, shortly and decisively: The so-called Markomannic Runes are a mere variety of the Angloscixon, and were invented by some idle scribe to while away the time ’. Again, in both editions of the above essay (2nd ed. p. 36): To avoid repetitions I here remark once for all that, as I hope to show in the course of these pages, what are called Mcirkomannic or Old High-German runes are — the names excepted — simply taken from an Angloscixon alphabet. This has been adapted to the dialect of his own race by some High-German; but he altered its order into that of the Latin A. B. C., after having with gross mistakes most helplessly transferred the name-forms into High -German, at the same time con¬ fusing the sound-values. Our foref cithers have never known an alphabet which has sprung from the learned lucu¬ brations of a monk in the 9th yearhunclrecl , and which has oivecl its unjustifiable acceptance to the undeserved favors of fortune* 1 2. This doom was subscribed by Prof. Liliencron in 1852: Accordingly ive shall not be able to avoid the conclusion, that the whole assumption of specifical German runes must fall away, and that the Hraban alphabet is only a re-arrangement of a somewhat modified copy of the Anglosaxon Futhork 3 4 * * * * * *. — In the paper in which he showed-up that gross swindle the Runic Stones in Normandy, Dr. Kirchhoff returned to the charge : VI. The runic alphabet of Hrabanus, by an abuse of words called the Marko- mannic or even the German, and arranged in the order of the Latin letter's, I have here given in that form of the signs and the names which would seem to be the original shape (fifth century), as far cis we can judge from the many variations in the transcripts. I here observe that this mine-row has only found room here for the sake of completeness, and that no one may accuse me of having wilfully supprest or withheld anything be¬ longing to my subject. I myself shall take no notice of it in the following pages, as I simply hold fast to the opinion upon it which I exprest in my essay on the Gothic Runic Alphabet (p. 36, note), and which Lilien¬ cron (Zur Runenlehre, pp. 13, 16) has supported. But should any one still think that he can use these pseudo-runes in the elucidation of this question , and fancy that he can weaken or overturn my arguments, I have given kirn the necessary weapons. He may wield them as best he can; but I doubt whether they will bite11. Thus German • runesmiths have ruthlessly demolisht the only source of what have been called German runes. Saxon or German runes are therefore as far off as ever. But the labors of Kirchhoff being an iland in an angle of the sea! (Id. p. 8; Book 1, § 8.) If he had lived in our day the Germans would have blinded him, then hanged him, then burned him, then cast his ashes into the sea, — or else they would have done still worse, they would simply have ignored him altogether. For its time, and considering his materials, I have never seen so good a treatise on these subjects as the short Academical Disputation of Nicolaus van Hauen “De Anglo-Saxonibus id esl Danis & Holsatis”, 4to, Hafnirn 1745, pp. vi, 46. 1 “Dass die sogenannten markomannischen runen eine blosse abart der angels achsischen sind, die ihre entstehung lediglich einer miissingen spielerei verdankt. ” 2 “ Um wiederholungen zu vermeiden, bemerke ich hier ein fur alle mal, dass, wie ich im verlaufe dieser abhandlung nachweisen zu kcinnen hoffe, die sogenannten markomannischen oder althochdeutschen runenzeichen so gut als namen lediglich aus einern angel- sachsischen alphabete entsprungen sind, welches ein hochdeutscher dem dialekte seines stammes anpasste, dessen ordnung er aber in die des lateinischen verwandelte, nachdem er die angelsachsischen namensformen zuvor nicht ohne grobe irrthiimer in die althochdeutschen ungeschickt genug iibertragen und die lautliche geltung der zeichen danaeh vernickt hatte. Nie haben unsere vorfahren ein alphabet gekannt, welches den gelehrten lucubrationen eines monches des 9. jahrh. seine entstehung und einer unverdienten gunst des schicksals seine unberechtigte geltung verdankt. ” 3 “Demnach wird man sich der Behauptung nicht entziehen diirfen, dass die ganze Annahme specificisch deutscher Runen weg- fallen muss, und das hrabanische Alphabet Nichts ist, als eine von der gewOlinlichen Art etwas verschiedene Umsetzung des ags. Futhorks.” — Zur Runenlehre. Zwei Abhandlungen von R. von Lilliencron und K. Miillenhoff, Professoren in Kiel. Besonders abgedruckt aus der Allgemeinen Monatsschrift ftir Wissenschaft und Literatur. 8vo, Halle 1852, p. 16. 4 “VI das runenalphabet des Hrabanus, missbrauchlich das Markomannische oder gar deutsche genannt, welches die folge der lateinischen buchstaben enthalt und hier in derjenigen gestalt der zeichen und namen gegeben ist welche sich aus den mannigfachen abweichungen der iiberlieferung als die ursprunglichen zu ergeben scheint (neuntes jahrh.). ich bemerke dass diese reihe nur der voll- standigkeit wegen aufname gefunden hat, und damit niemand mir vorwerfen ktinne, ich habe absichtlich etwas zur sache gehoriges ver- schwiegen oder vorenthalten. ich selbst werde von ihr im folgenden keine notiz nehmen , indem ich lediglich auf dem urtheile be- harre welches ich iiber sie in meiner schrift liber das gothische runenalphabet s. 36 anm. ausgesprochen habe und welches von Lilien¬ cron (zur runenlehre s. 13 , 16) bestatigt worden ist. sollte jemand dennoch meinen mit diesen pseudorunen fur unsere frage etwas ausrichten und meine bedenken widerlegen oder lieben zu kcinnen, so habe ich ihm die waffen bereit gelegt; er brauche sie nur. aber ich fiirchte dass sie nicht schneiden werden.” — ‘Zur Wurdigung der franzcisischen Runen'’, von A. Kirchhoff, in Haupt’s “Zeitschrift fur deutsches Alterthum”, Vol. 10, 8vo, Berlin 1856, p. 199. BRACTEATES. No. 1. 519 and Liliencron have been past over in silence, and are now forgotten. And no wonder. They were written so long ago, — even so far back as from 1852 to 1856! Besides all this, as I have shown above (pp. 104 — 6), the leaf containing these barbarous “Markomannic” runes is probably far later than the 9th century. No. 1. BROHOLM, FYN, DENMARK. THOMSEN’S Atlas, No. 11. — Cheapinghaven Museum, No. 2808. Gold-bracteate , a part of the great gold-hoard found in Svendborg Amt and described in “Nordisk Tidsskrift for Oldkyndighed”, Yol. 2, Kjobenhavn 1833, pp. 184'-92. The head, copied from the early Imperial Byzantine coins, and the inscription around are raised, being struck from a die. The same artist has made the loop and the elegant setting, for the same stamp has been used for the ornaments of both. We begin at the bottom to the right, ascend to the top, and come down on the left from the top to the bottom. The reader will remark the pointed K. A couple of the runes are turned round or upside down. A U KI5UNK(H) HAG It HA T n TU (EIW HUG. EITHUNG HEWED (carved this) TO EVER -during HOW (memory, to eternal remembrance). We are not sure whether the 9 has here its older power of o. or its later value (in Eng¬ land) (E. If the former, we must read oiw. Should the two small marks in the last K mean anything, they may be H-bars, thus making a bind-rune (k and h). We have here an early instance of \ for a. If redd correctly above, this will have been a Presentation-piece, some mark of festival Commemoration, and might be fittingly modernized : IN MEMORY OF THE DAY. KIT H'UNK(H) MAKER. But all this is on the supposition that the letters here before us give a meaning. And once for all, with regard to these runic pieces, especially those with longer inscriptions, my attempts are based on the marks as runes and on these runes as intended to eccpress legible words. Should any particular piece be found to be not runic, or should it be decided that the staves, tho runic, especially the longer ristings, are only initials or contractions or a mere intentional gibberish, an unintelligible charm-formida — which at present is not my opinion — my readings of course fall away. We shall know more of all these things in coming times ; but somebody must begin ! No. 2. MIDT-MJELDE, HAUG PARISH, SOUTH BERGENHUS , NORWAY. THOMSEN’S Atlas, No. 15. — Bergen Museum, Norway. Found in 1827 in a Barrow on the farm Midt-Mjelde. It lay within a stone-kist which con¬ tained some fine mould and, as it is said, pieces of an urn. Apparently struck to commemorate some victory at the Horse-races in the Hippodrome, Byzan¬ tium; a comparatively modern piece. Letters only half runic, and my reading only a provisional attempt. This “Barbarous” medal may be quite meaningless. But I think not. Great part of the dif¬ ficulty lies in the repeated + X’s, for they cannot be accurately distinguislit, as their appearance depends on the point whence they are lookt at. Usually, the + would seem to be e, as elsewhere, and the X the common g. The four dots (::) I take to be o, as described in the alphabets. Assuming all this, 1 would begin, obverse , from top to bottom on the left of the head, continue upward with the first mark on the right, and then, omitting the ornaments, take the 4 letters at the top; reverse, first the Runes in the exergue and then those under the horse’s head, or we may take the latter (eme) first and the former (tolecuu) last; the meaning remains the same. The t in tolecuu is upside-down, the l a wend-rune (reverst). This guess gives us : X + r I I < H )C I I C < K A T + GELIICS HIIOC MUTE KAA + TOLECUU EME. M.+ geliics hewed this -mot (stampt piece) for-TOLECU his -EME (uncle). For thomsen’s No. 21. see No. 64, farther on. No. 3. FIND-PLACE UNKNOWN, POSSIBLY BOHEMIA. THOMSEN’S Atlas, No. 2.3. — THOMSEN’S Collection, Cheapinghaven. Golden Blink, a barbarous copy of the early Imperial Byzantine pieces. Was formerly in the hands of the distinguislit Numismatist Mader, in Prague, and was the only golden bracteate in his great collection. Whether found in Bohemia or no, impossible to say. BRACTEATES. Nos. 3-5. 521 We have here mixt Runes and Latin Uncials. First word begins on the left of the figure, second word on the left below. The second stave of the latter may be u, if redd as a Runic letter. 1 take the small ring to be o, but the triangle after it to be an ornament. Nothing is wanting after cun. , the termination ung or ing being understood. CUN. l> A _T C © CUN. BAS CO. KING THASCO (or THUSCO). No. 4. TJORKO, KARLSKRONA SKARGARD, SWEDEN. THOMSEN’S Atlas, No. 26. — Museum, Lund. Gold-bracteate formerly owned by Hr. Aspegreen, Master-baker, Karlskrona. At his death purchast for the University Museum, Lund. A remarkable combination of the Imperial Byzantine head and of the Heathen type. Runes redd from below upward. The UT upside-down, as elsewhere: H j A i 1 i H 3 A 5 X HUT HUG. HUT HEWED - this. Should the X above the Bird be a Sacred Mark and not a g, the meaning will be the same, hu (= hug). No. 5. FIND-STEAD UNKNOWN, PROBABLY SCANDINAVIA. THOMSEN’S Atlas, No. 32. . — Bodleian Library, Oxford. Latish half- runic Golden Blink whose tie has. fallen away. First described by Bircherod, in his “Specimen Antiquse Rei Monetarise Danorum, 1701”, HafnisB, 4to. 522 BRACTEATES. Nos. 5, 6. Mixt Runes and Uncials. The staves commence at the top on the left and read downwards and upwards. The circlet on each side the helm, the fringelike marks below it, and the beads and Holy Mark on the right, I do not take to be letters. e < -/ft n E C MU. To - ECMU. For thomsen’s No. 36 see under my No. 61; for his 37, see my 22; for his 38, see my 62; for his 46, see my 65; for his 47, see my 66. No. 6. MAGLEMOSE, VALLERSLOV, SEALAND, DENMARK. THOMSEN’S Atlas , No. 217. — Cheapinghcwen Museum, Nos. 12, 529. Golden Bracteate. Four pieces of this tyj>e were found in 1852 by people cutting turf, to¬ gether with a splendid silver brooch with dragon- ornaments, overlaid with thin plates of gold, some beads of glass and amber, and 4 other Bracteates. Thomsen adds: — “The bust seems to be imitated from that of the earlier Byzantine Emperors; but the shield is like that on the coins of the Sons of Theodosius and their followers, from the 5th century.” This is seemingly a Medallion struck in honor of some high officer, probably by his country¬ men or brothers-in-arms; or, if a Greek, by a body of Warings to whom he had done some service. He would seem to have been invested with rank or station, and perhaps at the same time to have been formally decorated with the ArmiUa, the Armlet of Gold or Silver, in acknowledgment of his services to the state. Honors of this kind were distributed not only by the Emperors but also by Generals in command, and in some degree answered to our Orders. We see this Armilla or Bracelet suspended on the warrior's bosom. His shield is also significative. It bears the impress of a Knight or Horseman or Racer, at full gallop. But the words, according to all reasonable methods of interpretation, are meaningless. I therefore sujipose that here, as in two other instances, — see Nos. 23 and 30, and atlitoji and fosuLOE in the word-row — we have a barbarized word, here a hybrid, Northern and Greek, the term sess-ycn,®. This would then be in the Dative singular, and the following word in the Genitive plural, and the whole would answer to our familiar Roman phrase, gomiti equitum, comiti stabulorum, comiti sacri stabuli , PRAiPOSiTO equorum, or some such title at the Imperial Court. This would be, in Greek, To the Lord-Eunuch of the ITorse. The corresponding Greek word I have not found. Eunuch was at this time a mere title of office in Constantinople, in various departments. I fancy therefore that some Northman in service among the Warings had been made chief of some establishment or body connected with the Races and the Hippodrome, or perhaps the Imperial BRACTEATES. — » Nos. 6, 7- 523 Stables, or possibly some charge relating to the Cavalry, — if he were a Greek, then a friend and patron of the Northmen in Byzantium, — and that this piece was struck in commemoration of the event. I he inscription I take to begin on the left at the base of the spear with the s, to continue upward and down the right side, and to end on the left with the M. All the iE!s are reverst. Should this be so , we have : * n'H $ -y k i p m m y * f SESS-YCNJ5 EvEHAO-E. To - the - sess-eunucr (seat - eunuch) of -the - e aces (horses). ( To the Lord-Chamberlain of the Cavalry. ) ( To the Master of the Horse. ) No. 7. NEBENSTEDT, DANNENBERG, HANNOVER. Now in the Royal Coin-Cabinet, Hannover. Engraved from an Electrotype obligingly furnisht me by the Senator friedrich culemann , of Hannover. — See Dr. c. l. grotefend, PI. 1, Fig. 1. This and the two following Golden Bracteates were found in 1859, in a kind of moss-ground overflowed at high water by the Jeetzel and the Elbe. Several other similar pieces were dug up at the same time, but without Runes. Some fragments of iron lay near them. * This piece very much resembles Nos. 51 and 52, but the inscription is quite different. I take it to commence on the left at the top, to descend, and then to reascend to the top of the right. Nearly all the runes are reverst : i. y, n, t, n, GLyOiETJ GI-AU y OUEGAL. glee owe (own,, may -have) youPgal. (May Youthgal have glee! — Joy to Youthgal ! ) We have more or less similar formulae on No. 7: glee; No. 10, 11: luck; No. 12, 13: hil (health and happiness); No. 18: are (honor); No. 20, 67: seel (happiness, success); No. 57: weal; No. 59: athn (long life). They all remind us of the felicitas, fortuna, salus, pax, &c. , of Classical and Old-English stampt pieces. 66 524 BRACTEATES. - Nos. 8, 9- No. 8. NEBENSTEDT , DANNENBERG , HANNOVER. Now in the Museum of the Historical Union for Lower Saxony. Engraved from an Electrotype obligingly furnisht me by the Senator friedrich culemann. — See Dr. c. l. grotefend , PI 1, Fig. 2. This golden piece, of the same type, is from the same find. All the Runes are reverst, and my reading is only offered with diffidence. Wherever the I occurs here, it has a slight touch or bend at the top, but this is only in the imperfect stamping and does not make it f' (l), or, reverst, 1 (t). But even should we read tille instead of tilie, the meaning would be exactly the same. Taking the rings, dot and ? (w)oden-mark not to be letters, and beginning with the fourth stave on the left, just where the hand points, I would go down, and up along the right, descending again to the left. Runes as turned round : t, *, y. n. i, i, r, i, r, b y. m. i, i-> r, i, n TO AUTILyOiE 5AM TILIE (or TILLE). TO AUTILE the til (good)! Should we take the Symbol-mark (it) as a stave, and insert it after the to, the reading would then be : TO GAUT I LyOJE TAM TILIE (or TILLE) TO GAUT IN LigOJE, THE TIL (good)! So much difference may a single mark make. But either meaning may be very good. The former, however, is to be preferred, partly because of the unlikeliness of I instead of in at this early period, and partly from the great doubt as to the use of the Holy Sign instead of G. No. 9. „ NEBENSTEDT , DANNENBERG , HANNOVER. Now in the Museum of the Historical Union for Iwwer Saxony, engraved from an Electrotype obligingly f ur¬ nisht me by the Senator friedrich culemann, of Hannover. — See Dr. c. l. grotefend , PI. I, Fig. 5. Grotefend’s No. 6 is another piece from the same die, only the setting, which is different and larger, is there ornamented with two rows of horse-shoe or halfmoon-like stamps, separated by three lines running close together. — Runes reverst. Redd from top to bottom : n 4 1 1 Y Y E Y T T A N. BRACTEATES. — Nos. 10, 11. 525 No. 10. DENMARK, UNKNOWN WHERE. THOMSEN’S Atlas, No. 69. — Cheapinghaven Museum , No. ccxcix. Gold-blink, found in Denmark, but the exact place not now known. Figures 69, 70, 71, 72 in Thomsen’s Atlas are all of one class and type, representing or sym¬ bolizing a Triumph, “Victory” or Homage. Only Nos. 69 and 70 bear Runes, which, of course, may be meaningless. But if not, they can only, as far as I can see, be redd in one way, and on both pieces give the same practical result. No. 10 (69) apparently begins on the left from below with T and o, and then goes over to the right to the glw, continuing from the centre downwards to the k (or c). The two words at the top, yolw on the left of the ring and hac on the right, come last. The ha is a bind-rune. — Of course, if we like, we may take glwk first and to after. It makes no difference in the meaning. — The mark on the right, above the g and below the c, I take to be the Hammer-mark (or an ornament). i * nr k TO GLWK (or GLWC) t t f n C yOLW HAC. to luck! (Luck to you,! Success !) YOLW HEWED (carved). See the closing remarks on No. 7. No. 11. RANDLEV, VIBORG SEE, DENMARK. thomsen’S Atlas, No. 70. — Cheapinghaven Museum, No. 8069. Golden Bracteate; like the preceding not, I think, merely “barbarous”. The copy engraved in the Atlas is from an exemplar slightly injured, so that 2 of the Runes are invisible. A duplicate piece is now in the Cheapinghaven Museum, and from this I am enabled 66 526 BRACTEATES. Nos. 11-13. to give a perfectly correct facsimile. The figure-motive is a Warrior receiving a wreath from a winged Victory. — First letter reverst. Motto begins below, to the left, and proceeds from above downwards to the right. Should the h be the Holy Hammer-mark, and the word be lucgw, the meaning re¬ mains the same. 1 a f r\ . 4 X V h TU lucgwn! to luck! (Luck to you!) On several of the oldest Cufic coins we find the similar friendly wish, in Arabic letters, luck! or to luck!, sometimes twice over, luck! luck! — Others of this class bear the words help! help!, or right!, or truth!, or justice!1, these doubtless reminding the owner to be True and Just and Merciful to the poor. — A somewhat similar formula occurs on the Hebrew Betrothal-rings, inscribed in Hebrew letters mazul-touv (pronounced Mausselauf), — good luck to you!2 — See No. 7. Nos. 12, 13. DENMARK, UNKNOWN WHERE. THOMSEN’S Atlas, Nos. 14, 15. — Cheapin ghaven Museum, Nos. 8658, 8651 . - Golden Bracteates, excessively barbarous. We may judge of their rudeness by looking at the two bent clubs at the top of No. 12. By comparison with No. 13 we see that they were meant — not for drinking-horns but — a head! The arms are still more wonderful. But this kind of childishly helpless work is familiar to students of the oldest Western coined pieces, both Keltic and other. Under these circumstances many will think them simply meaningless. It is not known in what part of Denmark they were found, or when. No. 13 consists of two Golden Blinkers, soldered on to each other, and was formerly in Bircherod’s collection. It is figured n his Specimen Ant. Rei Monet. Danorum. If these pieces really signify anything, I take No. 12 to begin on the right with tu, then going to the top left with H and passing over to the right; while No. 13 starts on the left upward with tu and then turns on the right, going up with hi, the l being apparently stampt on the cap, so as to be confounded with it. Possibly future finds may bring to light others , with the same formula clear and undeniable. They are perhaps Amulets or Birthday gifts. — See the remarks on No. 7. T A H-J l TU HIL ! to hail! (To Luck! Llail to thee! Health and Happiness!) 1 See the description by Dr. Jac. Chr. Lindberg of the Cufic Coins in the great Valse-find, Annaler for Nordisk Oldkyndig- hed , 1S42-43, Kjobenhavn, 8vo, pp. 106-15. 2 Mr. Croker’s Catalogue of Lady Londesborough’s Collection , p. 2-7. BRACTEATES. No. 14. 527 No. 14. FAXO, SE ALAND, DENMARK. teomsen’S Atlas, No. 76. — Cheapinghaven Museum , No. mdclxxviu This splendid piece is so interesting and remarkable, that I beg to translate all that Thomsen (Annaler, 1855, p. 301) has said respecting it : “A large golden ornament, consisting of a hollow* golden cylinder to which are soldered three medallions of gold, each of them double, two Gold-bracteates placed back to back. These 6 JBracteates are all alike, and all struck from one and the same die. “They represent a person to the waist, before wliom is a walking figure bearing a branch. Behind the bust is a Runic inscription. The cylinder and the edges uniting the Bracteates are elab¬ orately finisht. They are partly of fine twists, and partly of gold-thread soldered on. “This jewel, which was doubtless suspended round the neck, was turned up by some men clearing a stream near Faxo. It was not observed by the workmen; a poor peasant-woman afterwards found it among the rushes which had been cast on one side. She. walkt with it herself all the way to Cheapinghaven, and it is now preserved in the Museum there, No. mdclxxviu.” Now this is an excellent description, but as soon as we read the letters we perceive that it is imperfect. It is now clear that the large figure is a Father or Mother dandling a Baby, and that the infant holds in its hand — a child’s rattle ! The whole is therefore a fine specimen of the ancient Northern tooth-fee, the Norse-Icelandic tann-fe, a gift to an infant in commemoration of its cutting its first tooth'. This custom is still kept up in many parts of' Scandinavia, and consists of any ornament or trifle or plaything, a cap or gown or spoon or cup or book &c. , as may best suit the circumstances. On my communication this explanation to my friend Prof. Gislason, the learned Icelander, he at once approved of it. Going to a drawer, he brought forth a fine copy of the scarce old Icelandic edition of S. Olaf’s Saga (Skallholt, 1689, 4to). “This”, he said, “was my Tann-fe, my Mother’s gift, and I prize it and keep it carefully as a remembrance.” In some parts of Scandinavia, especially in Denmark, the Tooth-fee has taken a different form. It is no longer a gift to -the child, but the husband’s present to his wife, for all the trouble and anxiety she has had in watching and tending her infant thro the pains of its first teething. In Sweden it is very commonly a present to the Mother or the Nurse. 1 This wone (custom) was also not unknown in Ireland in the 10th century. In the Laxdmla Saga (4to, Hafnirn 1826, p. 70) Melkorka , daughter of the Irish king Myrkjartan , who had been carried captive at the age of 15 to Norway and thence had been taken to Iceland , says to her son Olaf , on his setting out for her native country : Enn adr enn j)au Melkorka skildist, selr hun i hendr Olafi But ere Melkorka parted from her son Olaf , she put into ■ ffngr-gull rnikit ok maelti : (jenna grip gaf fadir min mer at his hand a large finger-ring of gold and said: ‘ This jewel was tannfe, ok vsenti ek at hann kenni, er han ser. given me by my father as tooth-fee, and I doubt not he xoill I know it again when he sees it.’ King Myrkjartan did so, recognized his grand-son who greatly resembled his stolen daughter, and treated him with all pos¬ sible honor and affection. 528 BRACTEATES. Nos. 14-16. In the middle age the Tooth-fee took the form of a Christening -present from the god-fathers or god-mothers, or rather the one died out as the other came in, the Christian gift having absorbed the heathen usage. Trinkets of all kinds were common Christening-gifts, especially the well-known Apostle- spoons, silver forks, knives, cups, &c. On the silver fork engraved in the Archeeologia, Vol. 15, PI. 48, we have: EDTJS SHIPDHAM NAT. 2° DIE APRILIS 1610 EA. ea is here the name of the giver. In like manner names and dates and mottoes are often found on Apostle-spoons, and other Christening-gifts. Some of those preserved in Scandinavia are as old as from the 14th to the 16th centuries , and one has part of the inscription in Scandinavian Runes 1. The Runes on this Jewel, which are elegantly and clearly stampt, are reverst. They read from below upward : *■ n F, 0, S, L, JE , U. To - the - fedels! (= To Baby ! ) I think it quite certain that the next piece in the Atlas , No. 77 , which has somewhat the same figures but no Runes, and many others of the Bracteates, both those with staves and those without, especially many of those with a single proper name, belong to this same class, and are tooth- or BIRTHDAY-GIFTS. Nos. 15, 16. No. 15, SLANGERUP, SEALAND; No. 16, SLESVIG OR HOLSTEIN. THOMSEN'S Atlas . Nos. 18, 2 Id. The former of these Golden Bracteates is now in the Cheapinghaven Museum, No. lxxvih, the second now probably in Hamburgh. It was sent from Hamburgh to Cheapinghaven in 1852, and was then carefully copied; but the price demanded was so excessive, that it was declined and returned. The inscriptions are plain on both. On No. 15 should we read the dots below as a’s and the Holy-mark between as G , it would give aga , a proper name in the nominative. But I take these and the other marks and dots &c. to be merely ornamental, and therefore read only : f t n JE, L U. T o - jz l o ! See No. 68, where we have the same name in the nominative. It will be observed that No. 15 has been ornamented with a piece of stone or glass let into the gold , of which other examples occur on Golden Bracteates and Pendants and other jewels. 1 See J. J. A. Worsaae, Nordiske Oldsager i det Kongelige Museum i K.jobenkavn, 2nd. ed.. Kjobenliavn 1859, 8yo, Nos. 595 and 596; aud Liljegren’s Monumenta Runica, No. 1860. BRACTEATES. — Nos. 17, 18. 529 No. 17. DENMARK, UNKNOWN WHERE. THOMSEN’S Atlas, No. 80. — Cheaping haven Museum, No. 8675. This Golden Bracteate has a motto very dark and dubious, both as regards the Runes, how they are to be taken, and the words and their meaning, and I do not insist on my rendering. Prob¬ ably some Rune-magus will hit upon a better explanation. From the design, it would seem to have been struck as a Birthday- or Tooth-piece for some highborn child. I propose to begin on the left with the 3rd stave, yo, just opposite the Symbol-mark, and then proceed to the right, continuing all round the rim. The characters partly hidden by the loop are probably ur. The peculiar D must be observed. The le is a ligature. Some staves are reverst, &c. t> y, /, (n, R) n, n, n> i, , Y, Y, N> R ’? t > yOLSURU HUyOC COLLD iEEPPLE 0 EL OiE. yOLSURU hewed (struck) this - GOLD - piece for - the - a THEL (noble) elo. No. 18. SNYDSTRUP, HADERSLEY, SOUTH JUTLAND, DENMARK. ihomseN’S Atlas, No. 83. — Cheapinghaven Museum , No. 8676. — Lent by me to Prof, thorsen for publication in his “Dan she Runemindesmcerker”, Vol. 1, where it stands at p. 329. This fragment of a splendid Golden Blink was found in a marl-pit, in 1841. It is fortunate that the centre is preserved, and sufficient of the setting to show the pattern. 530 BRACTEATES. — \ Nos. 18, 19. The central line, under the principal figure’s left arm, reads straight on: t'f'-Wf Y (LJiriEA) While under the neck of the quadruped, in Wend-runes, reading from right to left, is the word A A (i. e. PR[\ = iERU). This gives us : LiEUJC A iERU. L2EUJ5 OWES (owns, has, may-have) ARE (ORE, honor, praise). ( To Laef glory ! AU honor to Laef ! ) We may also divide, taking the first line as one word in the dative, and say L iE U A .ERU To - ljeuje are (honor to Laeuae). But the meaning will be the same. See the closing remarks on No. 7. No. 1-9. SCONE, SWEDEN. THOMSEN’S Atlas, No. 84. Two Gold-bracteates of this beautiful type were found a few years ago in Scone. The one here engraved is in the possession of Councilor Thomsen (or rather was, for this man of genius is now deceast); the other first came into the hands of the great Coin-collector Timm, and at his death was bought by the Museum in Christiania. We have the same design, and probably the same name (contracted), on No. 21. The Runes are far from sharp, especially the 4 last. The Old-Englisli o ( P ) would seem to show that this piece was struck in England, or by an English workman. I take the staves from left to right : r .i* r n r h n * y - * n y r r n LiEWULOUyuEA GiEyiE ALLU. To-LJSWULOU (= LAEWULF] the -GAUL! The chieftain, for whom this was struck may have gained his epithet either from his having been born in Gaul, or from his exploits or forays in that country. I take £ to stand for yiE, and X1 to be a bind for G.E. BRACTEATES. No. 20. 531 No. 20. LELLINGE, SEAL AND , DENMARK. THOMSEN'S Atlas, No. 85. — Cheapinghaven Museum, No. 8944. Golden Bracteate found, lying by itself, in a piece of waste woodland. The design is not very unlike that on No. 18, and is quite similar to my Nos. 19 and 21. But it occurs also on several of the Bracteates bearing no runes , and therefore not repeated here. It would seem from its peculiar character — apparently (w)oden as the Giver of Victory, or a warrior adoring that Battle-deity as symbolized by his Raven and his Steed (Sleipnir) — to point out this whole class as Amulets, or at all events as Medallions made for friends “going to the wars” or taking service in Constantinople or elsewhere, — by a keepsake which thus bears (w)oden’s well-known marks commended to the protection of that War-god. Compare also the preceding Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13. At No. 31 of his Atlas, Thomsen has engraved (from ArchaBologia Britannica, Vol. 3, p. 371) a Golden Bracteate found in England (Warwickshire) on the neck of a skeleton in an earthen bank. It represents, barbarously drawn, two figures standing one on each .side a Cross raised on a base. Above, also barbarously cut, is in half- Runic half-Roman letters solus (= salus). This is therefore = seel! joy! happiness! In the same sandy bank was another skeleton bearing on its neck a Golden Bracteate nearly similar, but only decorated with goldsmiths-work. Thomsen adds, Fig. 31, b, an Old- English Sceatta, from the very earliest Christian period in England; it shows the same design as his No. 31; on the reverse are 4 circles with ring-dots inside. On the piece before us the runes are retrograde, and read from below upwards : f f t n i f r k SiELU s^elu SEEL ! SEEL / (Joy! Joy! — Success! Success! — Health and Happiness!) This answers to our Old-English on salum wes ! , or w^s on salum ! Since the above was written Mr. Haigh has publisht (in 1861) his “Conquest of England”, and at p. 62 he reads this Bracteate in the same manner, only making P to be a in the usual way, instead of m. He translates “SALU SALU, “luck! luck!1’” And quite lately Prof. F. Dietrich in his exhaustive treatise “Die runeninschriften der goldbracteaten entziffert und nach ihrer gesfhioMiclen bedeutung gewiirdigt” (pp. 1-105 of “Zeitschrift fur deutsches Alterthum , herausgegeben von Moriz Haupt”, 8vo, Berlin, Part 1 for 1866) bas the same reading and version : “Salu, Salu, gliick, gliick!” This is No. 1 in Dietrich, p. 13, and is almost the only piece in which his reading and mine sub¬ stantially agree! Following the stream, he always gives P as a. Among other things which have so often as I take it misled him, is the strange idea that T , , (yo) is s ; his adopting the general view that the old Y is M; the unwarrantable way in which he knocks his letters about, making them by a dash of the pen whatever he pleases ; and the free and easy license with which he adds letters 67 532 BRACTEATES. Nos. 20, 21. whenever he wants them. In fact the marks are as wax in his hands. He adds, alters, takes away, ad libitum. Of course readings founded on methods like these will usually be false; at all events they cannot inspire any confidence. And he often makes evident mistakes, reads what plainly stands incor¬ rectly. His printed rune-type copies of the words (which are all his readers have to depend upon, for he engraves none of the Bracteafes) are often therefore grossly inaccurate, even before he begins to manipulate and alter them in order to squeeze out some mystical meaning. 'I hat he declares the Brac- teates and all the other Old-Northern pieces to bear “Old-Saxon” runes (sometimes he even steals from the “Saxons" and calls them “Old-German”) was to be expected from a modern High-German propa¬ gandist. — Besides all this, of course a part of the difference between us springs from the varions ways in which we may begin the sentence or divide the staves into words. And I am far from thinking that I myself may not have erred in all this, as in many other directions. Many of the pieces are very difficult. Most of my renderings are, I think, true or likely; but others are doubtful, and may have to give way to better. We have still much to learn in this field of ancient lore. No. 21. HADERSLEV, SOUTH JUTLAND, DENMARK. thomsen’S Atlas, No. 88. — Cheapinghaven Museum, No. HCLVin — Lent by me to Prof, thorsen (for 'publication in his “ Dainske RunemindesmcerJcer” , Vol. 1 . where it stands at p. 329), and to Prof. WORSAAE ( for his “Om Slesvigs eller Sonderjyllands Oldtidsminder”, where it is printed at p. 81). This Golden Bracteate was found in a moss, with some beads. The name may possibly be a shortening of that on No. 19, namely l^wulouy^a. Runes reverst, and redd from right to left. There is no reason to suppose that the stars or hammer-marks, above and below the figure, were intended as staves (g’s). l M. To - L JEl No. 94 in Thomsen’s Atlas, a Golden Bracteate found at Slangerup, Sealand, Denmark, has the marks N under and close to the legs of the horse. From their position I take them to be mere ornaments, to fill in, as with other marks in this place on the other Bracteates. BRACTEATES. — No. 22. 533 No. 22. VADSTENA, EAST GOTLAND, SWEDEN. THOMSEN’S Atlas , No. 99. This famous and precious Golden Bracteate has often been engraved. It is unique. It was found in 1774, and is now preserved in the Museum of Northern Antiquities, Stockholm. Former copies have all been more or less inaccurate, and here I was more than usually anxious — if possible — to obtain perfect truth. The kindness of G. E. Klemming, Esq., Keeper of the National Library, Stock¬ holm, has enabled me to accomplish this. He, in the most obliging manner, forwarded for my use a written transcript of the Runes, a Tin-foil facsimile and a Gutta-percha mould. From this last, by the Galvano-plastic process, an admirable duplicate of the original has been obtained. It is herefrom that my woodcut has been made. What renders this piece so unusually valuable and interesting is, that it bears the Old-Northern Alphabet. The custom of cutting the Alphabet on all sorts of objects likely to attract attention, and thus teach daily spectators — as by Hornbooks which should not easily perish — is very ancient, was long extensively practist, and is even still kept up. Franzius, in his “Elementa Epigraphices Graecae”, p. 22, 4to, Berolini 1840, gives 3 Greek Alphabets found inscribed in the same manner on various objects. No. 1, of 24 letters, is on the Agyllic vase first engraved by Lepsius (Annal. hist. Archaeol., Rom, Vol. 8, p. 186). The second is a fragment, only 16 letters, found on the wall of an Etrurian sepulchre (Lanzi, Saggio di ling. Etr. 2. p. 436). The third is complete, but only the beginning, the first 14 letters. The first and the second of these pieces go still further; they add a kind of short Spelling-book! Thus No. 1 has, written above the Alpha-beta, bi, ba, bu, be, gi, ga, gu, ge, &c. &c., and the 2nd ma, mi, me, mu, &c. — In the note below, 2 other Greek alphabets, one of them repeated 24 times, are mentioned by Mommsen 1 : — The 3 first letters of the Samnite-Oskan alphabet (a, b, g) are scribbled on a wall in Pompeii2, as is also an Old-Latin Alphabet 3. Prof. C. Save has communicated to me a similar Runic Spelling-book risting on the western tower- wall of Bunga Church in Gotland. It begins: fuoaie, mjoaie, ruoaie, kuoaie, huoaie, thus with the consonants of the Scandinavian fudork, and is followed by several other such scribbles, including the Calendar-alphabet of 19 letters, all in late Scandinavian staves, probably from the 16th century. It was found by Mr. P. A. Save, in 1864. But a still more remarkable Old-Italian parallel exists in the Borghesian tazzetta., found in 1845 at Bomarzo in Viterbo. This Cup, first described by Secchi (Estratto dal Bullettino dell’ Instit. Archeol. n. i-n, 1846, Roma 1846) bears an Etruscan Alphabet of 20 letters, best redd by Mommsen, p. 6. — See the Remarks on the charnay brooch. There is another striking illustration of this usage when Latin letters were introduced into Ireland by St. Patrick. To spread these Christian staves the more rapidly and surely,- and root out 1 “Das dritte Alphabet Ton dem Deckel eines Gefasses von Adria am Po (zuerst bei Bocchi saggi dell’ Acc. di Cortona, T. n, danach a. a. 0.) zeigt keine bestimmte Verwandtschaft mit den obigen, sondern ganz gemeine griechiscke Buchstaben; es diirfte mit den beiden in Etrurien gefundenen ebenso wenig in Zusammenhang stehen als das griechiscke Alphabet , das ich in Pompeji auf die Wand gekritzelt fand, oder dasjenige, welches Ross in Griechenland auf einem Stein 24mal hinter einander eingehauen sah, Gr. ined. 2, n. 127.” — Mommsen , Die unteritalischen Dialekle , Leipzig 1850. p. 8, 9 , Note 11. — 2 Id. p. 25. — 3 Id. p. 29. 67* 534 BRACTEATES. No. 22. more effectually the native Heathen Ogham characters , he is said to have written or carved 365 Latin Alphabets with his own hand 1. To a note on the Waxed Tablets used collaterally with membranes in Ireland in the 7th cen¬ tury, Mr. Rees adds: — “The Irish Life represents St. Columkille’s abgiter, or alphabet, as written on a cake [of wax].” 2 Among other similar inscribed Alphabets in England, it may be mentioned that one of the two Lombardic-written Bells of the Church of St. Peter’s, Bywell, Northumberland, bears the whole stave- row, preceded by tu es petrus (Thou art Peter), thus3: t TVESPETRVS: ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ Other Lombardic-written Alphabet-bells exist in our Northern counties. And we have even “Alphabet- Tiles”, “each letter in a square compartment, and reading from right to left”. 4 * * * 8 We find such stave-rows in Runic characters on stone, metal, wood, pillars, bells, fonts, arms, jewels, in fact on all sorts of things within doors and without. This woi’k contains 3 examples of the same in Old-Northern runes, the Bracteate before us, the Charnay Brooch and the Thames Knife, be¬ sides 3 in Scandinavian runics, the Elgaras Bell (Alphabet No. 15, c), the Maeshowe stone and the Barse Font in Denmark. Of this class in Scandinavics at least a score other instances might have been added 3 : As for our modern letters, English and foreign Cabinets contain many small Medals or Tokens, of various kinds, bearing the Roman Alphabet, the Arabic numerals, or both, sometimes even the Multi¬ plication table or the Calendar; and such are still struck in Birmingham, London and elsewhere, or were so till very lately, and sold for a song. The same is found on Snuff-boxes, Tobacco-boxes, and other such, of which a large manufacture went on, particularly in England and Holland, for some centuries. 1 “ On the other hand , there is not a particle of evidence of the invention of Oghams at any period subsequent to the Ad¬ vent of St. Patrick. For, minutely as the lives of the early Irish saints record their actions, no passage can he found in which the invention of such an alphabet as this is attributed to them. On the contrary, there is evidence that St. Patrick introduced the Roman alphabet into Ireland , and it is recorded , as a proof of his zeal, that he wrote 365 “abecedaria” , as a means of making that alphabet familiar to the eyes of his disciples. These were probably on stone, as otherwise the writing of these alphabets would scarcely have been a work of sufficient importance to be recorded. Now in the church-yard of Kilmalchedor there is a stone, of which Dr. Petrie has given an engraving in his “Essay on the Round Towers”, and which was undoubtedly a pillar; on which is carved a cross, the word “dni , and a nearly complete alphabet (a portion of the stone, on which was the first and the part of the second letter, having been broken off) — . BCDEFGHIKLMNOPQRSTTJYYX. This, if not one of St. Patrick’s “abecedaria", is certainly of very early date, and may be presumed to be at least the work of one of his followers. It has evidently been cut after the word “dni”, and its having been written on a pillar-stone can only be referred to an age when the Roman alphabet was a novelty. Fortunately, amongst the early inscriptions which exist in Ireland, we have one of which the age is determined to be that of St. Patrick , and this is sufficient to show of what character were others of the same age which have disappeared. On Inch-a-guile (“Inis an Ghoill Craibhthigh”, the isle of the devout stranger), in Lough Corrib, at Temple Patrick (which there is every reason to believe was one of the saint’s foundations), there is a pillar-stone, on which is in¬ scribed [in Roman letters, not in Oghams] LIE LUGNAEDON MACC LMENUEH [the-STONE Of-LUGNADON, the-SON of - LIE MANIA.] And Dr. Petrie identifies the person herein commemorated with Lugnadon the son of Liemania, St. Patrick’s sister.” — Rev. D. H. Ilaigh , Cryptic Inscriptions on the Cross at Haclcness in Yorkshire. Printed in the Journal of the Kilkenny Archmlogical Society, Vol. 2, New Series, 1859, pp. 179, 180, 8vo. 8 Adamnan’s Life of St. Columbn, ed. by Dr. W. Reeves, 4to, Dublin 1857, p. 358, note i. ’ See *h8 HeT' W' Featherstonhaugb's paper on St. Andrew's, By well, in Arcbmologia iEliana, 8vo, Newcastle-upon-T^ne, May 1858, p. 34. J. 1. Fowler, Devices on Bells, uenueman s Magazine , May -LOO1*, » Among the more uncommon uses of the Runic Alphabet for public instruction may be mentioned, that on a stone a Litslena, Upland , Sweden (Dyheck, Sr. Runurk. fob No. 59) are hewn 4 symbols (a shield, antlers, &c. , probably a Rebus of tb name) and then (in Runes) Fcl'OBK HANS. futhork (Alphabet) his. The top of the stone, which doubtless contained this alphabet, is broken away. BRACTEATES. No. 22. 535 As a curious and ancient example , a connecting link between Runic and Roman times , I here copy a similar specimen, from the early middle age, Thomsen’s Atlas, Fig. 37, a Brazen Bracteate, bearing the Latin stave-row. It was found in Scone, Sweden, and is now in a private collection: It will be observed that this abc is not complete. It is : A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, then a bad s, or perhaps a mark intended for 6fc., and then the initial Cross. The rest is absent, simply for want of room. And in like manner we must not suppose that, on such monuments, the carver knew of no other letters than those he cut. On the contrary, he often wrote only as many as he had space or inclination for. The reader would supply the rest from memory, as we should do in the like case. Neither on this Bracteate nor the Thames Knife is the stave-row whole; and on the Charnay Brooch the carver himself employs 4 runes which are not given by him among the staves in his alphabet. There was also a class of Jettons commonly called Abbey-counters, with similar or cognate instructive stamps. They date from the middle age downward. Tho not Bracteates (Hole- stamps), but struck on both sides, they equally illustrate this subject, bringing it down nearly to our own time. I therefore add one of these pieces, that engraved by the accomplisht Mr. Charles Knight, in his edi¬ tion of Shakespear, Comedies, Vol. 2, p. 247: Mr. Knight observes hereon: — “Jettons or counters, which are small and very, thin, are ge¬ nerally of copper or brass, but occasionally of silver or even of gold; they were commonly used for purposes of calculation, in abbeys and other places, where the revenues were complex and of difficult adjustment: the figure represents a person employed in the arithmetical process with counters. From their being found among the ruins of English abbeys they are usually termed abbey-counters. They have been principally coined abroad, particularly at Nurnberg (see Snelling’s ‘Treatise on Jettons’), though some few have been struck in England since the reign of Henry VIII. The most ancient bear on both sides crosses, pellets, and globes; the more modern have portraits and dates and heraldic arms on the reverse. The legends are at times religious, and at others Gardez vous de mescompter, and the like.” The Vadstena Blink, then is, as usual, a thin lamina of gold, quite round, struck from a die, and let into an elaborate golden rim, to which a loop has been affixt above for wearing on the person. The centre piece, the actual Bracteate, has 31 Runes running round the rim, from left to right, beginning at the top on the left. The first 8 staves, which are taken by themselves, are se¬ parated from the rest by a point. Then comes the Alphabet, in 3 groups, first 8 letters divided from those that follow by two points ( : ), then other 8, in like manner with : , and then the re¬ maining 7 characters. All these staves are Wend-runes or reverst letters. 536 BRACTEATES. No. 22. Generally speaking, the whole inscription is quite plain, and the piece is in excellent preserva¬ tion. Two or three of the letters, however, have suffered somewhat, particularly the last but one, being worn and with outlines no longer sharp. Even these however can be well made out by patient ob¬ servation in various lights, or by the help of a lens. And besides, we have fortunately the assistance of the reverse. The piece being sharply struck, of course the lines raised on the obverse are hollow on the reverse, and as this reverse has not been exposed to wear and tear like the front, and the plaque of gold is excessively thin, we can read the runes on the reverse as well as or better than on the ob¬ verse. This is of course a happy circumstance.- But as I cannot show both sides at once in my en¬ graving, I have made all the letters equally plain, which in fact they are to the judicious examiner. As I have said, the slight indistinctness of which I have spoken only refers to a couple of the letters. Else they are all as clear as on a modern coin some few years old. There is also, here and there, a slight blotty spot or two common on such metallic surfaces. But these are mere accidental flaws, have never been cut, and do not belong to the writing. The reader will observe two such under the arms of the T. I have been careful to preserve them in the engraving altho they have nothing to do with the writing. One hindrance to the proper reading of this piece has been, that everybody has fancied some¬ thing was “hidden by the loop”. But this is not the case. The loop is high above the Runes, and the bead- ornaments were taken into account when the medallion was struck. That no doubt may longer exist on this head, and that future Runologists may not be further and needlessly perplext, I beg to add Mr. Klemming’s formal certificate thereanent : “Det ar fullkomligen sakert att perlorna icke tacka den ringaste del af nagon enda runa, hvilket jag harmed officielt intygar. Stockholm, 24 July, 1861. It is quite certain that the beads do not hide the least part of any single rune, which I hereby officially testify. G. E. KLEMMING. ” The first 8 runes, as we have said, stand by themselves. I read and divide them thus, unreverst: r, n. b p, t, ft, p, r LUTiE TUWiE. Of -the - LEDES the- -TOG (Of -the - men the - letter - row ) = TEE ALPHABET OF THE PEOPLE. For this happy rendering — which at once strikes us as singularly correct and beautiful — my readers are indebted to Prof. Carl Save. I had identified tuw^: as Row, Letter-row (the Meeso- Gothic teva, Old-German zug, Norse-Icel. , Dan., N. Sax. tog, Swed. tAg), but regarded lutj: as a Proper name in the genitive singular. I was not satisfied with this, and mentioned my doubts to that great scholar. After a moment’s reflection he hit upon the true reading, set the egg on its end, sug¬ gested that LUBiE might well be the genitive plural of an Old-Northern luta or lum or loti, masc. folk, man, people, our own Old-English leod or leoda, the Norse-Icelandic lj6dr,‘ lybr. I believe that this is undoubtedly the sense of the word. And this is so much the more probable when w.e remember that we have an exactly parallel formula in a similar case. If we turn to Prof. C. Save’s “Gutniska Urkunder”, p. 51, we shall find mention made of an iron Ell-measure, doubtless one of many which formerly existed on the iland, chained to the door of Stanga Church, Gotland. It would seem to be from the first half of the 15th century, and is carved as follows on the handle, in Monkish letters: HITTA IER RET GOTA ELN. THIS IS the -RIGHT of-the-GOTS ELL. (This is the just and legal Ell-measure of the Gotlanders.) The gota eln, the -ell of -the -Gotlanders, is here exactly equivalent to LUTiE TUWiE, the- ALPHABET of- the - COMMONS. BRACTEATES. - Nos. 22, 23. 537 The whole will therefore be : LUP^E TUW M : ( The - ALPHABET of -the- PEOPLE ) n i i. a. >■ x- v h + i <? a- r v t. i n m- i *. * F, U, P, 2E, R, C, G, W; H, N, I, Y, yO, P, A, S; T, B, E, M, L, NG, 0. It will be observed that this medallion only enumerates 23 letters, the Charnay Brooch 22 (26), and the Thames Knife 28. Other monuments and alphabets describe or employ others, and the total number in use in different Old-Northern provinces and dialects must have been between 30 and 40. No. 23. OVERHORNBEK , BANDERS , NORTH JUTLAND, DENMARK. THOMSEN’S Atlas , No. 100. — Cheapinghaven Museum, No. 8649. No fewer than 4 copies, 3 of them found in Denmark, exist of this Golden Bracteate, which is now in Cheapinghaven. Two of these were dug up by turf-cutters in 1848, together with Nos. 28 and 30. One is in Vienna. The inscription is difficult and doubtful. The lit, at the right top, is close-carved; the L, at the right bottom, reverst for want of room; the following lo is a monogram. I propose to begin with ussu at the left bottom, and proceed upwards from left to right all round the piece. The other marks, between pi (which may also be redd as the scarce form of d) and l, and over the Raven’s back, I do not take to be Runes. It will be observed that the design here, as on so many other pieces both Rune-bearers and un-runic, is a Horseman — or a Jockey — on his steed, attended by the Raven (? of [w]oden, the Patron of Horses and the Giver of Victory, or that God himself with his favorite bird and sleipnir). Such pieces may possibly sometimes have been struck by their countrymen the Warings (Northern Body-guard in Constantinople) to some perhaps Northern-born Rider in the Horse-races of the Hippo¬ drome or Gladiator and Victor in the other athletic sports of that Capital. At least, if the runes are rightly redd and divided, this would seem to be hinted by the in¬ scription on this piece, which seems to be : kWNh t i m rmm USSU, ATLITO.-E EPILLO. To-USSI, ATHLETE ATHEL (noble)! Should there be no mistake here , this ATLiTOiE is another of those barbarized Greek words of which we have other specimens in b^esuloe (No. 30) and (sess-)ycn.® (No. 6). 538 BRACTEATES. Nos. 24, 25. No. 24. FYN, DENMARK. THOMSEN’S Atlas, No. 101. — Cheapinghaven Museum, No. 8650. This fine Gold-bracteate , which was found in the 17th century and has often been engraved, was probably a Tooth-fee or Birthday-gift. The text is most difficult, the Runes being in many respects obscure and peculiar. See No. 55. The comma-like ornament after liil I take to be no letter. The staves under the charger’s head are reverst, and read from right to left. As usual, there are no dividing marks, and we do not know where to begin. — My guess, and it is only a guess, is, that we should begin on the left, just above the horse’s head, continue so upward and onward along the rim to the right, and end with the word under the racer’s neck. This gives us : hP, V, A,1,P. CJ.n. 1,'P, 1,M, !, I N, M, W, U, B, JE , S, U, B, IE, B, L, I, I, L, I- h h Y, H (= N.ft.n.r. Y) H, 0, U, 2E, A. NiEWU BiESTT BiEBLIIL iENN HOUiE A. The -new (young) boss {Lord) bjebliil. on hove (at Court) OWNS -this. But BiESU may mean ornament. See the word-roll. In this case nlewu BiESU, this -new jewel, will be in the accusative after a, and we shall get: (Bcebliil at Court owns this new Jewel). Bartholin, in whose collection this piece once was, has described it in his Antiquitates Danicse, p. 461, No. v. In 1749, at the proposition of Hjelmstierne, it was bought by the Royal Coin-Cabinet for 60 dollars, a proof that its value even then was fully understood. No. 25. TJORKO, CARLSKRONA, SWEDEN. Thomsen’S Atlas, No. 102. — Old- Northern Museum, Stockholm. This precious Golden Bracteate was found in 1817. — The inscription is more difficult than appears at first sight. All the Runes are retrograde, and must therefore be turned round. I take the BRACTEATES. Nos. 25, 26. 539 dots to be ornamental marks of division, not letters. — I suggest to begin at the top, run so along to the left all round the rim , and end with the stave last before i>. My arrangement would be : ► nktnfcn'f*mphhNr<hktn •• NnrMmntiNnMin-" EUR TE RUNOA! iENWLL HiEC URNE-HELDzE A CUNIMUDIU. thur tee (bless) the -RUNES.' sENWLL (? An-wulf ) hewed (engraved this) of - swords -f or - the - belt (for the Sword-hero , the gallant warrior) cunjmu(n)d. The + in the last word is here, as elsewhere, ornamental for +. In the Annaler for 1855, p. 375, Rafn redd and divided only one word correctly, namely the plain and simple mie; Dietrich (Haupt’s Zeitsclir., 1866, p. 51) has mist even this one! No. 26. SCONE, S IV E D E N. . THOMSEN'S Atlas, No. 103. Golden Bracteate, found many years ago together with two specimens of No. 19. It is pre¬ served in the rich Cabinet of (the late) Councilor Thomsen, Cheapinghaven. Runes reverst, and redd from right to left : r n r n •F U E U F U T HU. I do not quite understand this word, but can by no means take it as the beginning of the Runic Alphabet (fueorc or FUEuERc); it is so unlikely that this ever commenced as fueurc, that we may at once dismiss this suggestion. Rather might it be a Name, perhaps in the dative masculine. But most likely it is one of the many derivatives • from the old word fcedan to feed, bring forth, and is a noun, perhaps feminine, signifying a young child, a darling. See the word FOSLiEU in the Word- row. If so, it will be equal to : To - the - baby! and will be a Tooth-fee or Birthday-gift. As w ([>) and th (t>) are often nearly the same when not carefully carved or written, so here we may read fuwu not fueu, for the 3rd rune really has the shape of the w. This fuwu might be a Proper Name. For Thomsen's 109, see under No. 68. 68 540 BRACTEATES. — R°s. 27, \ No. 27. TROLLHlTTA , SWEDEN. THOMSEN’S Atlas , No. 111. — Old-Northern Museum, Stockholm. This Golden Bracteate was found in 1844, together with two others (Nos. 17 and 89 in the Atlas) bearing no Runes. The staves commence on the left at the top, descend, and continue up to the top on the right: t P M* 1 FHMA TJEWON jEEODU. To-the-TEWE (excellent, illustrious) mthoho. No. 28. OVERHORNBEK , HANDERS , NORTH JUTLAND , DENMARK. THOMSEN’S Atlas, No. 112. — Cheapinghaven Museum, No. 9877. A Golden Bracteate of a rare pattern, found by peasants cutting turf. I he Runes on this piece and on No. 30 are enclosed in a belt, ending in Snake-heads. This is the beginning of a style which culminates in Thomsen’s Nos. 130, 164 and 165, none of which bear Runes, but of which No. 164 has a double-headed and No. 165 a single-headed intertwined Serpent, the Worm- or Truelove-knot, while No. 130 has interlaced Snakes on the one side and the knot on the other. In this respect these pieces stand almost alone, and are a transition to the Snake-knot pattern so common, almost universal, on the later Scandinavian -Runic pillar-stones, and other monu¬ ments of that period. Judging by these indications, this piece and No. 30 may be as early as the 5th century. As to the inscription, it is desperately difficult. But the medallion has no appearance of being simply “barbarous . W e therefore ought to try and decipher it. Of course I by no means insist on my reading. On the contrary , I give it with the hope that my failure may help or warn others. BRACTEATES. 541 I have done my best with staves studiously obscure, some uncommon, several reverst or upside down. The BjE is a tie. I propose, then, to begin with the 8th Rune from the top on the right, just below the t, con¬ tinue downwards to the left and go upwards to the right. im i n a i m m 1 1 a i n n o # r i i o p p m t SIHUIN jEND B^EyOUI UUO BiEI>E KUWAIT! SIHUIN AND B ;E y 0 U I SLEW them- BOTH EUWAETHITf ( Euwcetkit slew both Sihuin and Batyoui. ) The same formula occurs on Nos. 51 and 52. — Here also we are not sure as to the w and the p, and the last word may in fact be EUtiEWiT or euw^ewit. But there are other characters under the head. The uppermost I take to be the Holy Hammer- mark (? of thu [no Jr) , the lowermost the same Holy Hammer-mark and Ring. Between these are ap¬ parently the real runes t n T U T U which may be the invocation of that same War-god, worshipt by our fore-elders on TUE’s-day, whose name we find carved on the Forsa Ring and the two Danish Stone Amulets. Perhaps therefore the chief Gods of the Victor were thu(no)r and tu. No. 29. POMERANIA. THOMSEN’S Atlas, No. 113. Found early in 1839, near Coslin, close to the coast of the Baltic. See the remarks on the Runic Ring, Pomerania, under the wanderers. This Golden Bracteate was bought by Hr. Benoni Fried- lander of Berlin (? in June 1839), and is now in his valuable numismatic Cabinet. It weighs 6i\ Prussian grains. [ read straight on, from left to right. The first m is not quite perfect on the Bracteate. ^ M I f Wiiie^E. The name may also be redd PiEiG^c, but this is very improbable. In 1848-49 it was redd in the same way by Dr. Julius Friedlander and Prof. K. Mullenhoff (14tcr Bericht der Schleswig- IIolstein-Lauenburgischen Gesellschaft, Kiel 1849, p. 13), only they make P a, instead of M. 68 542 BRACTEATES. — Nos- 29, 30. Should I be right in my conclusions as to the find, this is one of the few Golden Bracteates which we can date with some certainty from a comparison of the other golden pieces with which it lay. It was found under a large stone in a field, together with 5 Runeless Bracteates, the English Golden Runic Finger-ring figured among the wasdebers, some golden ornaments,- and two Roman Golden Coins, one of Thedosius the Great (379-95), the other of Leo I (457-74). Its date is therefore about the end of the 5th century, and it was probably struck in England. No. 30. OVERHOBNBEK, BANDERS, NORTH JUTLAND, DENMARK. teomsen’S Atlas, No. 114. — Cheapinghaven Museum, No. 9818. This Golden Bracteate was found in 1848, together with Nos. 23 and 28. It belongs to the same difficult and peculiar class as No. 28, is apparently in the same dialect, and would seem to have been cut by the same artist. The observations made on No. 28 apply therefore to this piece also, and I need not repeat them here. Most of the staves are upside down or reverst. I would begin with the last half of the 6th character on the left, the Bind-rune sm. That the letters in double-runes belong in this way to different words is, indeed, a rarity; still there are several striking examples of the practice. And here a- point on the lower line, just before the F , apparently marks the commencement. We then proceed down¬ ward and upward, stopping at the last stave but one. We now turn back to the other half of the monogram s^E, and proceed upwards and across to the first letter on the right of the loop, the opener of the Serpent-scroll. The bl and BJ£ are also ties. pxnrprpf fnr^EMixtaiH ^EGELiE BLiE, BiESULOE, SYGTRYH. For - YE GEL the- BLUE, BASILEUS (King), . SYGTRYH (made this). Crowds of Chieftains called themselves Kings in old Northern times. Whether the word Blue be here a personal epithet, as so often, or may refer to his being a leader in the Horse-races in Con¬ stantinople, where he headed the faction or party distinguisht by blue colors, it is impossible to determine. For similar barbarized Greek words to the above BuESULOE, see Nos. 6 and 23. BRACTEATES. - Nos. 31, 32. 543 No. 31. FYN, DENMARK. THOMSEN’S Atlas, No. 116. — Cheapinghaven Museum, No. 8648. As early as 1690 this Golden Bracteate was in Vilhelm Mulenius’s (Mule’s) Collection of Curiosities, and it lias been publisht by both Bartholin and Birkerod. The inscription is purposely darkened. It was plain enough to the persons concerned, but we shall never be able to do more than guess. All the staves are apparently reverst, and must be redd from right to left, but the 3 first may be so taken without being reverst. The first letter looks like G, but may also be n ; the difference is sometimes very slight. There are 4 Blind-runes — staves re¬ peated instead of other, at the time well-known, characters. The remarkable Bind-rune, if it really be a monogram, may mean a hundred things. — This inscription, therefore, I do not pretend to read. The letters as they stand are : — gil (or nil) or git (or nit) and tbllll. But the g will disappear if the X above the head do not belong to the carving, and be only a Sacred Mark. No. 32. ECKERNFORDE, SOUTH JUTLAND, DENMARK. THOMSEN’S Atlas, No. 111. — Lent by me to Prof, thorsen for Tiis “ Danske Runemindesmcerker” , Vol. 1, where it stands at p. 329. This Golden Bracteate is probably still in the hands of the owner of Waterneversdorff. The Runes of the first word, on the left, are reverst, and read from right to left. In the other word the iw are close-written. The whole will be : f D f M 1 I D 1 t P TWiED TI WITJE. TWEED TO W1TO. As so often said, when carved shankless, 1X1 may be either M (d) or W (m), and D either P (w) or t> (th). But TW-zEMTiMT/E will give no meaning, whereas TWiED and wiTiE are both good names. 544 BRACTEATES. Nos. 33-35. Nos. 33, 34. No. 33. TJORKO, CARLSKRONA, SWEDEN. No. 34. SCONE, SWEDEN. teomsen’S Atlas, Nos. 118, 234. These pieces are identical, both in design and inscription. In both the staves are reverst, and must be redd from right to left. They are both preserved in the Museum of the University of Lund. % t b 0 T M. To - o t i! These 2 roundlets, Nos. 36 and 37 in Dietrich (Haupt’s Zeitschr. pp. 33, 44), are the second instance in which we agree, always excepting that he makes to be a, instead of js. Nos. 35-41, b. SWEDEN; DENMARK; NORWAY. Nos. 34-40 THOMSEN’S Atlas, Nos. 119, 120, 121, 122 , 233, 234, b. — No. 41 from a tin-foil fac¬ simile kindly forwarded by G. E. KLEMM1NG, Esq., Riks - Librarian , Stockholm. — - No. 41, b, from a lightbild and drawing obligingly communicated in Feb. 1866 by Lector OLAF RYGH , Keeper of the Old -Northern Museum , Christiania. All these Golden Bracteates appear to me to have substantially the same design and inscrip¬ tion. Nos. 35 (119) and 41, which last has been found in Sweden since the publication of Thomsen’s Atlas, are in the Museum of Northern Antiquities, Stockholm. No. 40 (234, b) is in the Museum of Christiania; No. 41, b, in the Museum at Bergen, Norway. Perhaps No. 151 in Thomsen’s Atlas, which is excessively barbarous, is a mere copy’s copy of this same type. No. 35, (Atlas, No. 119), probably found in Sweden. Runes reverst. Redd from below up¬ ward. The ic are closed. I < FT I C M A. BRACTEATES. Nos. 36-39. 545 No. 36, (Atlas, No. 120), found in Fyn, Denmark. Also Wend -runes, redd from above downward. r < f y YCiEA. No. 37, (Atlas, No. 121), found in Denmark. Redd from above downward. Runes tied below. X I Y Y I A. No. 38, (Atlas, No. 122), found in Denmark. The ch is a bind, as is the ay. 1 < H 1 Y X I C H I A Y. No. 39, (Atlas, No. 233), found at Vallerslov, Sealand, Denmark. Staves retrograde, redd from above downward. Y< H Y C M A. 546 BRACTE ATE S. Nos. 40-41, b. No. 40, (Atlas, No. 234, b), found at Frederiksstad, Smalenenes Amt, Norway, in digging a well. Side-strokes not letters. Redd from below upward. First 4 staves closed. (May also be redd ugyha.) n x r m t UGKHA. No. 41, (Stockholm), found in Sweden. Redd from below upward. h Y < P T No. 41, b, (Bergen), found in April 1861, in a field near a farmstead in Sogndal, Bergen Stift, Norway. Redd from below upward, looking at the runes from the head of the horse. This piece is very barbarous and comparatively modern. It has no Holy Mark. Excluding the strokes apparently belonging to the one of the legs — at the beginning of the carving — and to the foot or tail, at the end , the staves are : K X k Y YGCEA. The word on all these pieces is probably the same, the common Proper Name (whether of the God or of a Man we cannot say), here in the dat. sing. masc. To- or from - inge ! But it may also, possibly, mean To -the - youngster ! To -baby! BRACTEATES. — Nos. 42-46. 547 No. 42. SCONE, SWEDEN. Thomsen’S Atlas, No. 126. — Cheapinghaven Museum, No. 7138. Golden Bracteate. The inscription, if it be one and not a mere ornament, is a thing rare on these pieces tho common elsewhere, namely, one single Bind-rune. As such, it of course admits a variety of readings. — But the simple letters, as they stand, are probably intended to be taken com¬ bined, first the i, then the t formed upon it, and • lastly the horizontal o (K) with which it closes. This will apparently be a Proper name : — ito. To - ITO. Nos. 43-46. SWEDEN; NORWAY; DENMARK. THOMSEN’S Atlas, Nos. 132, 237, 134. The first (No. 43) of these golden pieces is in the Museum, Upsala; the second (No. 44). to its right, in that of Christiania; the third (No. 45) in the Cheapinghaven Museum, No. 8644; the fourth (No. 46), to its right, in the Stockholm Museum. 548 BRACTEATES. Nos. 46, 47. The Runes are reverst, and are redd in each instance from right to left. The itl on Nos. 43, 44 and 45 are close- written, lit on No. 46 is undoubtedly contracted, for litle. In this last the side- strokes are not to be taken. Nos. 43 (132), 44 (237), 45 (133) are therefore: r 1 1 r n LITLE while No. 46 (134) is r i t l I T ( 1 e) Either the common old Proper name LITTLE i or else, very possibly, To -the - little -.one! To -baby! My translation shows that I regard these pieces, as well as many others which bear no Runes and which are of the same pattern, as tooth-fee or birthday presents, like No. 14, &c. It is the same case, in my opinion with No. 35, &c. Prof. (J. Save informs me that another copy of my No. 1 (43) is in the Upsala Museum. It is about an inch in diameter, and is thus without the large setting. Instead of the s- ornament standing, it is here stampt so as to lie round the piece, thus oo. No. 47. SCONE, SWEDEN. Thomsen’s Atlas, No. 135. — Museum, Lund. This elegant Golden Bracteate reads from left to right. The el is a tie, and this is united to the following stave, so that the whole, elw. is a closed monogram. Then comes u, standing by itself. We have thus n r r n E l w u. To - el wo. BEACTEATES. Nos. 48, 49. 549 No. 48. NORWAY. THOMSEN’S Atlas, No. 141. — Cheapinghaven Museum, No. 8677. Golden Bracteate, letters redd from above downwards. The first is a Bind-rune, jen, je (1) and N (4) on the same staff'. This sams-stave writing is not common, but it is a great saver of room, the space for writing being here very crampt. The word will thus be, if not jesjeojs yE (owns me), 1 M 1 iNlONJl, T O - N JE ON ! No. 49. YASBY, SCONE, SWEDEN. THOMSEN’S Atlas. No. 153. This Golden Bracteate is now in Hr. Sjokrona’s Collection, Vegeliolm. Altho engraved by a different hand and from a different time and place, it belongs to the same difficult class as the Over- hornbek pieces (Nos. 23, 28, 30). Any reading therefore that may be proposed is only a leap in the dark. The most likely seems to be, to begin with the uiLyEA, at the top left of the loop, just above the head of the animal and go on to the' right all round the rim. The stave partly hidden by the loop is doubtful. Most likely it is i>. Next we have, apparently, IH2E, then M but which is possibly a d, and then a badly stampt us, followed by SLyE. We now continue, but look at the staves from below, yEDUUiG , then look at them from the opposite side, yEALTE, the te being a tie. Some of the staves are retrograde. — If this be so, my division would be: n, i> t, p, y, tw, j, n, p, n. a, n, n. in in p, m, n. a. i, x, p, y, r, t, n UILiEASIHyEMUS SLyE yEDUUIGjE ALTE. UIL2EA THIHJEMU8 SLEW (killed) ODWIG the -OLD. On Bracteates 51, 52, 28, ua(g), uuo are apparently used in the same sense as SLJE (= slo) here. 69 Besides what seems to be a Dragon raging with outstretcht tung , but over whom thrones triumphant the holy symbol of (w)oden (+) , this Golden Bracteate bears runes — tho so few — difficult to interpret. Apparently we must begin on the left above, and then on the right above. If so , the staves may be : TU TJLNYK. TO ULNYK! But they may be something very different. Possibly the tuu is the name of the God, and the lnyk. or lnkk or lnyy may be a contraction. — thomsen’s No. 217 is No. 6, above. Nos. 51, 52. No. 51. BOLBRO, FYN, No. 52. VEDBY, FYN, DENMARK. DENMARK. BRACTEATES. — Nos. 51-53. 551 Both pieces are in the Cheapinghaven Museum. No. 51 is No. 12, 430. No. 52, (No. 19, 248) found in 1860 in Odense Amt, has been added to the • collection since the publication of the Atlas. All the staves are reverst. The inscription is not an easy one. I propose to commence with the l, the last rune but one on the right, to continue upwards and across to the left, and then down¬ wards and over to the right, ending with the last letter at the bottom. The top letter on the right, the i, has a touch of the l about it, but a careful examination of the Bracteate itself shows that this slight mark is accidental. It is no part of the rune. Being prest for space, the engraver of No. 51 has placed the G under the left arm of the figure. Over the forehead, the loop hides the upper part of the je. No. 52, unfortunately only a fragment, of electrum rather than gold, is substantially the same piece. Only the upper part of the g is not carved, for want of room, so that ^ alone is given. In both we have the (w)oden-mark possibly used as g (X), with which indeed it is identical in its outlines. Advantage may thus have been taken, room being scarce, to employ it both as a talis- manic or ornamental symbol which could not be wanting, and also as a part of the writing. But, should this not be so , (and I object to it) this G can be struck out. It is quite immaterial whether we have ua or uag. — The text then gives us : in n, t, n.'p, tr, i, x> p, n, t, a, t, p, y LUTEiE WIGiE UA(g) OWJEA. L UD WIG SEE W 0 W^E. This triumphal formula also occurs on No. 28 above, and is found on Scandinavian Rune-stones. For thomsen’s No. 219 see under No. 15. No. 53. LOGSTOR, NORTH JUTLAND, DENMARK. Thomsen’S Atlas . No. 220. — Cheapinghaven Museum, No. .5 938. Golden Bracteate, found in a turf taken from a bog near Logstor. I fancy that the stave at the top (\, on the one side of the head and >1 on the other) is an M (e), upside down (Ul) and cut in two halves, there not being room otherwise for so broad a letter. We then, down on the right, pass over to the characters, which are reverst and taken from right to left. They are first t, then l, then s, then t and N both Classically shaped. The whole would then be: n + t n t m ETLSTN doubtless a contraction of the well-known mans -name — commonest in the Old-English dialect (jddelstan) — spelt in modern English athelstone. The 2 lialf-Roman letters on this piece may intimate a somewhat later date than usual. 552 BRACTEATES. - Nos. 54, 55. No. 54. FYN, DENMARK. THOMSEN’S Atlas , No. 221. — Cheapinghaven Museum, No. 10037. This elegant Golden Bracteate was found by turf-cutters, a foot below the surface, together with a spiral ring of gold, a bar of Electrum, and 5 Byzantine Imperial Gold-coins of which the latest were struck for leo I, (457-74). We have the same pattern on other Bracteates without Runes. The 5 staves are above and behind the horseman’s diadem. If not initials or a contraction, they seem to be a name : L a o k u. To - LA OK 0 ! On the one foot of the 9 and on the foot of the following Y is a small ornamental bead. No. 55. MAGLEMOSE, VALLERSLOV, SEALAND, DENMARK. thomsen’S Atlas, No. 226. — Cheapinghaven Museum, No. 12525. Elegant Golden Bracteate, found together with No. 6. Reads from left to right, beginning on the left of the figure, then across to the right, and then below the horse’s head from right to left. The wy are reverst, for want of space, and the M is simplified for the same reason. — Thus we get: JIHWY1'l+ im and then (= H * • Y) See the same formula on No. 24. — The inscription then is : SIHMYWYT iENN HO[? UEe] A. sihmywyt (= Sigmund) on hove (of the Temple, or, at Court) OWNS -this. BRACTEATES. No. 56. 553 No. 56. BOLBRO, FYN, DENMARK. -teomsen'S Atlas, No. 232. — Cheapinghaven Museum, No. 12431. Golden Bracteate, found with No. 51. This is another of those pieces “enough to drive a wise man mad”, much more a simple one. It does not seem “barbarous", and yet it is so difficult as to be a riddle worthy of tasking the ingenuity of the most ingenious among my readers. To them I leave it. Coins and coin like pieces are often thus confused and obscure, from the caprice or careless¬ ness of the die- stamper. Before it can bo deciphered at all, we must be able to say what the Runes are. But this we cannot do , and we shall never be able to gain a firm foundation for our enquiries until an impres¬ sion be discovered in better preservation and with sharper strokes. The present example looks as tho it were a cast taken in old times from a stampt original. The copy in Thomsen’s Atlas is not correct. The above facsimile, taken from the original bracteate, is much better, but I will not say that even this is absolutely perfect, in spite of all the care that has been taken. The faint and damaged strokes are very hard to catch. I — as my guess — would begin at the left, low down beneath the animal’s tail, with the us, and then proceed upward to the right all round the rim, descending again to the left. Most of the Runes are retrograde, some also upside down. The ao and the TiE are ties; the hu and ti are closed runes. The staves almost entirely hidden by the loop would seem to be stu (? the ST a bind-rune). llius tentatively handled, the runes and reading will be something like: USCEUNIA KOWT HUC ECETIOe A(STU) H1LTU UFFTiEIC. U-S CE UNI A the - GOTH HE WED -this for -the - MOST - ILLUSTRIOUS HELT (hero) UFFT1(N)G. The T seems to show that this piece was struck in England, or by an English workman. thomsen’s No. 233 — see under No. 35. „ „ „ 33. 234 234, b 237 35. 43. Minis ■BOMSEN’S Atlas, No. 239. — Cheapinghaven Museum, No. 12310. There is a certain grace about this Golden Blink , in spite of the usual barbarity in the design. Two copies were found at the same time. The inscription, at first sight easy, is in fact difficult enough, and I by no means insist on my reading. We also do not know whether the points represent vowels. If so i will he E, ■ will be I, and will be o. I take them to be mere divisional marks. The last ornament or bind- rune, which may be a symbol or contraction for Tin or Tn, the name of the God, is also found on the Runeless Bracteate in Thomsen’s Atlas No. 189. The letters are reverst. 1 propose to begin at the top to the left, and go all round to the top on the right : hp n i n h php 1 1 rwniHp : HiEUITJ HiEH uEITILiE FiEUJE - UISiE. GIB UJSLEjE (? TIU)! HsEUiu he wed ( struck - this ) for -the - at bel - (noble) feeuje - uiso GIVE WEAL (? 0 TIU)! ilosing remarks on INo. t . No. 58. HARLINGEN, FR1SLAND. THOMSEN’S Atlas, No. 251. — Now in the Museum of the Historical Society', Leewarden. This golden piece is struck on both sides, and is therefore not strictly a Bracteate. It has been engraved, not quite so correctly as here, in a pamphlet by Prof. M. Dirks, “Monnaies Anciennes trouvees en Frise", n, Bruxelles 1859, 8vo. That numismatist there informs us that it was found by B RAC TE AXES. — Nos. 58, 59. 555 a peasant digging in one of the grave-mounds east of Harlingen, and was sold to him in 1846 by Mr. Tuininga, a Goldsmith in that town. He adds his opinion that it was struck at the beginning of the 5th century. As we see, it is semi-Byzantine; its weight is 3,54 French grammes; it was broken in two by the laborer when dug up, but is otherwise in fine preservation. Its type shows it to be a rude imita¬ tion of a Coin of the Emperor Theodosius the Great (f 395), (theodosivs p. f. avg. barbarously copied). Many opinions have been given as to the figures on the reverse. But the simplest and safest is that of such accomplisht archteologists as Mr. Haigh and Mr. Herbst, that it exhibits a rude imita¬ tion of an Emperor or Legionary seated on a throne or chair, sceptre or weapon in hand, with Vic¬ tory on his left. Hie Roman letters will be therefore merely the usual barbarisms common on such copies of classical pieces. Far different is it with the runes. They are large and clear, the type of the a being provincial English, which will well agree with the date of the 5th century. It was doubtless either struck in Eng¬ land, or by an English workman in Scandinavia. The staves, which run from below upwards, read N, N, M, ¥ HAMA a mans-name, apparently in the nominative singular. This is redd in the same way by Dietrich (No. 42, at p. 46 of Haupt’s Zeitscbrift, 1866), and offers the third and last instance of agreement between us. HESSELAGERGARD, FYN, DENMARK. thomsen’S Atlas, No. 252. — Cheapinghaven Museum , No. 15615. Golden Bracteate, exactly followed in this facsimile, which differs somewhat from that in the Atlas. Weight, A of a Danish “Lod”. It was found in 1856 a couple of hundred paces from the shore, at the same spot where in 1843 was pickt up the large Golden Neck-ring now in the Cheaping¬ haven Museum (Antiq. Tidsskrift, 1843-45, p. 23). The few letters on this piece admit of so many different interpretations according as we divide the words, that my reading is a mere guess. Besides, there is the crescent, the half-o, after the te. Is it an ornament, as I think is self-evident, or a vowel? If the latter, is it intended for o or u? Or is it meant for a c? And whence are we to start, from above or below or under the horse’s head? At all events the following attempt is correct as to form, and makes good sense. I would begin at the left top with the t, so go to the right top, e, then pass to below the horse’s head, where we have nuai> , then beneath the body of that animal to N. So on the left at the tip of the hindmost leg u, below the stump o and under the foreleg D, thus u and o and d. 70 556 BRACTEATES. — Nos. 59, 60. This I would divide and translate : tnMiYMAftM TE NU ABN, HOD! tee (give) NOW LONG-LIFE, uod ( = [w] ODEN ) ! Should any critic assert that the crescent is certainly meant for o, it will make no difference. It will only throw the construction (teo) into the conjunctive, instead of the imperative. Should others insist on its standing for c, it will still give the same result (tec) — the old verb TJSCAN signifying to point out, teach, show, grant, &c. See the closing remarks on No. 7. No. 60. ULDERUP , SOUTH JUTLAND, DENMARK. thomseN’S Atlas, No. 253. — Cheapinghaven Museum, No. 15807. — Lent by me to Prof, thorsen (for publication in his “Danske Runemindesmcerker”, Vol. 1, where it stands at p. 329), and to Prof, worsaae (for his “Om Slesvigs eller Sonderjyllands Oldtidsmindei” , where it is given at p. 84). This fine Golden Bracteate was pickt up in 1856. On the same site other rich finds have been made, particularly the bar of Electrum forwarded to the Museum in 1858. The Blink weighs I of a Danish “Lod”. It reads from left to right. The IK are closed : k HI/ I N I K U I ! To - NIK 0 ! As I have said, the IK are close-written. But it may also be a tie, and must then be redd UK. In this case the word will be : k fv Y V ! NUKDl! BRACTEATES. Nos. 61, 62. 557 No. 61. FINLAND. THOMSON’S Atlas, No. 36. Silver Bracteate. Preserved in the Collection of Colonel Tamlander, Helsingfors. Thomsen adds: — “Under this number I also engrave a coin struck by Basil II and Constantine XI, between the years 975 and 1025, as being undoubtedly the original from which this and the three following Bracteates were copied.” This, then, is one of the very latest of these pieces, as is indeed self-evident from the mere fact that Y here stands for M, which is its power in the Scandinavian Alphabet, while in the Old- Northern it always stands for a. This is the only instance, among all these pieces, of this Rune standing for M, and it is, as we see, from the 11th or 12th century. — See the remarks on the rune m. I take the inscription to begin with +, here not g but J, as so often in middle-age monu¬ ments; then forwards down the left of the Jerusalem Cross, the 5th stave being a Bind-rune (M for M and h, = en). We then recommence at the top with hCug, down along the right of the Cross, some of the staves being upside down or reverst. We must not mistake the cheek of the right face for a part of the letter I below it. tnnnu nvx r y i m in JULIENI HtTUG jEMILIU. JULIENI (= JULIAN) HEWED ( struck this) f or - JEM1LIUS. No. 62. GAKDSBY, GLAND, SWEDEN. thomsen’S Atlas, No. 38. — Museum, Stockholm. Copper Bracteate. The staves are rather Roman letters than Runes. They are redd from right to left. The half of the N is broken away; so is the whole of the g at the foot of the cross, if it ever was there, which I doubt. It is not necessary. ■io en ho(g). JOHN hewed (carved this). There may have been — above the K, which would make it the more usual iohan. 70 558 BRACTEATES. Nos. 63, 64. No. 63. LEKENDE, SEALAND, DENMARK. Museum of Northern Antiquities, Cheapinghaven , Denmark, No.. 21, 433. Golden Bracteate, found in digging in the garden at Lekende, Barse Herred, Prsesto Amt, Sea- land, in February 1864. The owner of Lekende, the Chamberlain Raben, patriotically gave it at once to the Danish Museum. It is remarkably fine and fresh and sharp, and offers the rare union in one group of the three holy symbols, the rt' , the and the N > the limbs of the latter being obtained by loan of one from each of the other figures. There are only two runes, which are reverst and therefore read from right to left downwards. They are : r n E M. Whether this be a name or a contraction, it is of course impossible to say. If neither, and if this piece were a Friend’s Keepsake or a Lover’s Gift, or a Marriage Token (answering to our old Betrothal-rings with their endless mottoes, long and short, in prose and verse, in English or Latin or French), the word, from a linguistical point of view, may very well be an adverb, and may answer to our ate! Thus it would represent our present ever yours ! , or the well-known for aye ! ; in other words, as our French neighbors express this thought, POUR toujours! No. 64. SWEDEN. THOMSEN’S Atlas, No. 21. — Museum, Stockholm. This and the two following Bracteates are not in Runes, but in Roman Capitals or Uncials. They are however in the same Old-Northern language and belong to the same class of ornaments as BRACTEATES. Nos. 64-66. 559 all the rest, which they abundantly illustrate. I therefore give them a place here. — This rude gaud, in which a rude Bracteate is rudely fitted, is of Silver, both the stamp and its setting. The letters merely give us the mans-name SUNEDROMDH. No. 65. SKABKIND PABISH, EAST GOTLAND, SWEDEN. thomsen’S Atlas, No. 46. — Museum, Upsala. This Golden Bracteate is described in “Iduna”, Part 7. It was formerly in the hands of Prof. Schroder, of Upsala. Here, as in many other pieces, not in Bunes, from the early middle-age, we have the long 0 represented by the Greek Omega, co. I begin directly after the Cross, on the bottom to the left, and read: t TVTOAI VOMIA VRrolTO. For - tut o VOMIA WROUGHT (made this). Possibly tvtoai may be in the nom. , and vomia in the dative. No. 66. ILAND OF GOTLAND, SWEDEN. thomsen’S Atlas, No. 41. — Museum, Stockholm. A thick Silver Bracteate, not in Bunes. I agree with Thomsen that it has probably been made to be mounted on a Chalice, the binding of a Gospel-manuscript, or some such purpose. 560 BRACTEATES. Nos. 66, 67. The inscription is plain : f MAIESTAS : OTI ME FECIT. Christ - the - Divine - majesty. OTI ME MADE. The figure seated in a kind of pulpit, his head adorned with the Cross-glory and in his hand the Holy Book, is chbist the teacher. With His right hand He blesses His children. — - This is evidently a very old piece. No. 67. SKODBORG-MARK, SOUTH JUTLAND, DENMARK. From the original, now in the Old-Northern Museum, Cheapinghaven , Nos. 20, 881. — Lent by me to Prof, thorsen for publication in his “ Da/nske RunemindesmcerTcer" , Vol, 1, where it stands at p. 329. This Golden Bracteate is two-ways remarkable; first, because the Brooch found with it largely helps to fix its date; and secondly, because in this instance I believe that my reading of a long Brac- teate-inscription is without fault and will at once be admitted as correct. It was found in May 1865 by a man ploughing at the extreme Northern border of South Jutland in the Torninglehn district. Nearby ,lay 2 small Beads of a red porcelain-like substance, together with a Golden Fibula, of which more anon. The runes are elegant and clearly cut, all of them reverst, and there are no marks of divi¬ sion. But we have a help not only in the whole meaning, but also in the Holy Symbol + , just above which I take it the sentence plainly begins, at the letter $ (s). Starting from this s, we read all round from right to left, over the head and along beneath the figure, till we come to the last stave 1- (n). As the runes are all retrograde we must turn them round, when they will be: i, b h f, t, i, m, p, [i, s , p, p, r, h %. i, p, n. % - p, p. r, p, t, i,i, p, n. *np> p> n p. p. i> t S, JE, L, M, W, I, M, M, U, NG, JE, JE, L, JE, W, I, N, M, U, NG, M, JE, L, JE, W, I, N, JE, U, NG, M, M, L, M, W, I, N Without altering a letter , I divide and read : SiELiEW IMtE UNGiE iELiEWINiE , UNG^E iEL^EWINJE , UNGiE LOWIN’. SEEL ( happiness , good luck, success) to- tee young jeljewine , the- young esljewine, the- young mlyewine! 1 take it to be clear that the last JE in the third iEL-iEWiNE is omitted simply for want of room, and the more as it was doubtless often elided in conversation. This /EE e wtn is therefore equivalent to ^E LAEWEN’. For the formula see the remarks on No. 7. At the beginning of this century the spot where this jewel was pickt up was a wood, and the whole hoard had doubtless been hidden there many centuries ago in some time of trouble. But at the same time and place as this Golden Blink was also found the lower part of a Golden Fibula, decorated with variously colored pastes set in thin partitions or holdfasts of gold ( Verve BRACTEATES. Nos. 67. 68. 561 Cloisonne ), a style of which we have much older examples in Scandinavia than is commonly supposed. The Brooch and Bracteate came to the Museum together. But unhappily the former was incomplete, lhe top-half was missing. By a piece of singular good fortune (s.®l.zew!), however, this upper part was happily found in the same place in the same year, and the whole precious Beigh is now perfect! Now, as I have said, it is seldom that we know the circumstances under which these Brac- teates have been discovered, or the character of other objects which may have lien near them. Hence we so seldom have any outer aid in fixing the date of these pieces. I therefore engrave, full size: THE SKODBORG GOLDEN BROOCII: as a welcome illustration of these antiquities. It is clear from the style and handling of this piece1, whose filagree work is the most delicate yet found in Denmark, that it is very old, apparently not later than the end of the 4th or first half of the 5th century. Thus this Runic Roundel may be safely placed in about the 5tli year-hundred after Christ. No. 68. OLST, NORTH JUTLAND, DENMARK. From the Original, now in the Museum, C heaping haven . No. 20, 063. 1 My engravings of the Bracteate and Brooch were lent by me to Prof. Worsaae, for publication in his “Om Slesvigs eller Sonderjyllands Oldtidsminder” , where they are given at p. 81. The front of the Brooch has been since chemityped by Mr. J. M. Petersen, as an illustration of an article by Mr. Engelhardt on an Iron Sword from the Middle Iron Age. See “Illustreret Tidende”, Kjobenhavn, May 13, 1866. 562 BRACTEATES. — Nos. 68, 69. Found the 28th of May 1863 in 01st Parish, near Renders , by a husbandman who was ploughing. We have here no fewer than 3 of the Holy Marks, the Threefoot. the Thwarts and (twice) the Fanged Thwarts, congregated on this piece. The staves are reverst. We begin on the right and read over to the left : n r x r r k HiEG ^LU hewed jel u ( JElu struck this piece). No. 69. DENMARK. From THOMSEN’S Atlas, No. 109. This Golden “Blenket” is incorrectly engraved in Thomsen’s Atlas, and is here given from the original in the Cheapinghaven Museum, No. 8652. It was formerly preserved in the Danish Coin¬ cabinet. It was found in Denmark, but the name of the place is lost. It bears no Holy Mark — which at once renders its great antiquity doubtful — and only one letter, apparently a bind-rune and this of unknown import. If as it should seem, it be a tie of A (a) and + (e), this again will make it of later date. Jb n ? JE or A E. Should these be the letters, they may be a contraction, perhaps the beginning of a name. The general design is the same as on No. 68, but this piece is much smaller and simpler, and the maker may have contented himself with affixing the first letters of his name. But the stave (if iE) may also be equivalent to the e^e of No. 63, and may thus signify aye! (the keepsake thus meaning ever yours!). BRACTEATES. No. 70. 563 No. 70. WYK, UTRECHT, HOLLAND. From a drawing by Archivary herbs t, copied from a carful sketch made by Prof, van der chijs and forwarded by him to Councilor thomsen, Director of the Cheapinghaven Museum. This silver runic coin weighs 0,75 grammes. Tho not a Bracteate, it is perhaps best placed here as it is so nearly allied to pieces, like itself, struck from a die. Its particular value consists in its bearing the rune Y. It was found Nov. 4, 1836, while digging at Wyk or Katwyk, by Duurstede, near Utrecht, the famous emporium Dorestatus or Dorestade of the middle age, which the Norman pirates, entering the Rhine from the sea, ravaged so often. After a great storm towards the close of the 9th century, the entrance to this place was sanded up, but previous to that event it had just been entirely destroyed by the wikings. With this piece were taken up several other coins, struck by Pepin, Charlemagne and Louis le Debonnaire; this last king dying in 840 fixes very nearly the date of the whole deposit. These coins came into the hands of Mr. Balfoort of Utrecht, who lent the Runic one to Prof, van der Chijs, Director of the Coin-cabinet in Leyden, for his examination. The Prof, took a copy, as exact as was possible (for the thin silver was in very poor condition) and sent it to Denmark, to Coun¬ cilor Thomsen. On its arrival, Archivary Herbst at once took a facsimile transcript of this unique coin, and years after communicated it to me. On my ascertaining its great value, we tried to obtain Prof, v. d. Chijs’s original. But Mr. Thomsen had lost or mislaid it. It was gone, nor has it been found among his books and papers since his lamented death. Of course I at once wrote to Prof. v. d. Chijs. But neither could he help me. He gave me all the information in his power, but could not get at the original. Mr. Balfoort some years ago sold all his Carolingian Coins, as well as the Runic one, to M. Louis de Coster, one of the Directors of the Revue de la Numismatique Beige, at Brussels. Both Prof. v. d. Chijs and myself have written again and again to M. de Coster, but have not been fortunate enough to obtain any reply. I must therefore make the best of what I have. And this I do the more willingly as it can be depended on. Prof. v. d. Chijs’s drawing was most careful, and Mr. Herbst’ s copy no less so. What invests this piece with so much interest is, that — as far as I know — it is the only English coin hitherto found bearing the Old-Northern rune Y. It of course stands for a, here as else¬ where. But the coin has also K, which is the provincial English a. Either therefore, the exemplar being in a bad state, the K was really P (o) on the coin, when Y was a and p o, or else the one was the accented the other the unaccented letter (for instance Y for a, k for a), just as on the Bjorketorp stone we have Y for a and i for A. The runes being in a ring, we cannot tell where to begin. Supposing we commence with the V (c), the 4th stave was apparently ft (o), tho it now looks more like P (.e). We are never sure, as the piece was so damaged and as we cannot consult it. Taking then the l first, we have: l (1. K?'P) t (? F) n M Y CUL ON AUSA. CUL ON (of) AUSA. 564 BRACTEATES. No. 70. But, as I have said, we do not know where to begin. The moneyers name may have been sacul , and that of the Mint au , thus : SACTTL ON AU. We are in the greater doubt, as we know of no place named au or ausa having the privilege of striking money. But there may have been such a place. We have many mint-steads on English coins which we cannot now identify. And au may have been only the first 2 letters of the name. However redd or divided, it is certain that the letter T stands between 2 consonants, c and s, and must therefore be a vowel. It is also certain that this is an English piece, not struck by English workmen for some place on the continent. — In the first place; no coins, with or without runes, were struck on the continent by English moneyers so early as about 800-836, the date of this specimen. Next, the rune K (or b if so it originally was) is a provincially -English stave. — Thirdly, the obverse bears a monogram, quite an English feature. — Lastly, looking at this obverse with the reverse underneath, we can plainly read it. It gives the letters, in the form of the time in ornamental writing: ECGBERHT the E redd twice, the cross-stroke serving to form the H. Now the only ecgberht at all suiting the style and workmanship and date of this piece, is the famous ecgberht titular king of Wessex, but in fact of all England, “Bretwalda , victorious, who had long lived at the court of Charlemagne, and who was an honored and mighty sovran. He died in 836. As Prof. V. d. Chijs informs me, this is the only Runic Coin ever found in Holland. IN MINNE THE RUNE-SMITHS IN THE OUTLANI) WITH MANY GREETINGS M. EDELESTAND DU MERIL, OP PARIS. 567 BUZEU, WALLACHIA, ROMANIA. ? DATE ABOUT A. D. 200-250. Engraved, fall size, from a Gilt Cast of the Original, obligingly obtained for me by His Excellency Mr. Gordon, British Minister at Stuttgart, Wiirtemberg. In approaching the class of objects which I have called wanderers, because in my opinion they have evidently and simply wandered from Old-Northern lands or along -with Old-Northern Clans to the non-runic Outland where they foimd a home, there are two things which we must carefully con¬ sider and remember at every step. First, we must claim our own, we must open our arms to our lost ones; but Secondly, we must claim only our own, we must not “annex”. 568 WANDERERS. Now as to the first. It stands to reason that no country has ever been hermetically sealed against its neighbors, still less- when landfast - as are the Saxon shires to south-west Denmark still less in our busy fiery Europe, still less in ages which are stampt and known by that great Broad Arrow the FOLK-WANDERINGS. Hence it would be simply ridiculous if we did not expect to find some Old-Northern Runic pieces in the lands nearest to Scandinavia and England, or to which Scando-Gothic tribes “wandered”; and it would be almost a miracle if some did not really turn up. Accordingly, be¬ sides 5 Bracteates, we have here succeeded in scraping together 5 other jewels. And doubtless we may expect a still greater harvest. The Northmen have always been known for their spirit of restless ad¬ venture by land and by sea, in peace and in war; besides which, love and commerce are great disper¬ sers of weapons and ornaments. Many things, both runic and unrunic, in Gefman and Keltic and Romanic lands have come from the North. Some of these have been inscribed with the native runes, and in spite of endless destruction we may yet hope for new finds of these RUNIC wanderers. It is both our duty and our pride to demand them, boldly to take our own. Every reasonable old-lorist, every honest man, will gladly wish us ‘God speed!’ in this our labor of love. For surely nothing can be more foolish or malignant than to refuse us these half-dozen pieces merely because their-last hiding- place was not Northern ground. We know that such things by hundreds have found their way from Northern to other countries, and these other countries are — in this sense — the outland; and no one would call a Runic Sword found in Africa an African Monument, or a Runic Manuscript found in Ireland an Irish Codex. But, not to speak of a few ancient pieces -thus carried or sold over the Northern border, what say we of similar objects removed by settlers in our own days to America, Australia and other colonist- settlements? Yet such exist by thousands, tho of course of modern date. 1 will mention an interesting instance or two of really olden remains thus transferred over the wide Atlantic. In his ‘‘Prehistoric An¬ nals of Scotland” (2nd ed., 8vo, London 1863, Vol. 2, p. 313) Prof. Daniel Wilson engraves (Fig. 175, Plate xviii) a remarkable Brooch found in Scotland, and adds: “The bronze brooch big. 175 I disco¬ vered in the possession of a Canadian farmer, whose father had brought it, with a few other family heir¬ looms, from Ross-shire”. — And again, the “rich and rare” Quigrich or Crosier of St. Fillan, who flourisht in the middle of the 7th century, was long lost, but was found by Prof. Wilson in the hands of its hereditary custodier, Alexander Dewar, a Canadian farmer, who emigrated to Canada in 1818, carrying this ancient relic, which is of silver gilt on a core of copper, with him from Scotland. (See Prehist. Ann. Yol. 2, p. 477, where it is engraved.) Are these pieces, therefore, “Canadian Antiquities”, and, if they had borne runes, would those letters have been “Canadian Runics ? But Secondly, we must not annex. A Scandinavian cheerfully admits that Old- English Coins are English, tho tens of thousands of these pieces have been found in Scandinavia; that Cufic Coins are Arabian,, tho thousands of these Dirhems have been dug from his fields and graves. And so must we not pretend that Northmen had subjugated and ruled every land in whose soil may have been dug tip a solitary Beigh or Brooch bearing runes. Such things may only have been carried thither by indi¬ vidual stragglers; perhaps now and then they have past thro many, not-Northern, hands, before they reacht their last possessor: — “At first sight it would seem to be otherwise with the finds of Egyptian, Phoenician and Old-Greek Figures and Coins in England and the other Northern lands (D. Wilson, Arch, of Scotl., p. 197 fol.). These things would undoubtedly appear to prove the presence there of the ancient Civilized Peoples of the Mediterranean, and it is surprising that Nilsson has not thought of these facts. And considering the importance we have previously attacht to the find-place, we should have assented to the above conclusion, if antiquarian researches had not given so many and such striking examples of the productions of one country having accidentally wandered away to other far-off lands, without this being a proof of near and direct intercourse between their inhabitants. I will here only remind my reader of the frequent finds of Chinese Seals in the earth of Ireland, and of the multitudes of Arabic, Turkish and Caucasian Coins in quite modern finds, for instance at Schwan in Mecklenburg, notwithstanding which no one would ever dream of the presence there of Chinese, Arabs, Turks, &c. — I have translated these lines from Dr. F. Wibel, “Die Cultur der Bronze-Zeit Nord- und Mittel- Europas”, in “Sechsundzwanzigster Bericht der Schl. Holst. Lauenb. Gesellschaft”, 8vo, Kiel 1865, p- 86- — This solid and excellent treatise fills 118 pages, besides the Tables, and is a most valuable help to¬ wards the decision of a question both difficult and important. BUZEU. 569 Nor must we be unjust in another way. We must not grasp as “runic” what may be not runic at all. I may have been guilty of this fault in the last chapter. Possibly a couple of the Golden Blinks I have there attempted to decipher are really not in runes. Still my mistake has not been wil¬ ful, and at all events the Bracteates are a characteristic class of Old-Northern decorations. I have at least tried to avoid this error. See Pieces called Runic not treated here (p. 160-62). But it is easy to be misled, even with the best intentions. Sometimes the resemblance of foreign marks to our olden staves is so great, that only great caution can save us from a blunder. I will give an example. In 1865 was found somewhere in Hungary a bronze weight, with two characters sharply and delicately in¬ laid in silver on the top. It came into the hands of a dealer in Antiquities in Pesth. In 1866 this gentleman offered it, with many other valuables, for sale to the Cheapinghaven Museum, and it was purchast at once by the Antique Cabinet (No. a. b. a. 951, weight Iff of a Danish “Lod” silver- weight), the more as the Antique Cabinet already had a somewhat similar piece, but on which the characters were nearly illegible (see p. 160). I engrave this piece here full size : Now no one will deny that this looks very “runic”, and I was at first inclined to take it as such, and thought that the two staves might be tr and o. But I have now abandoned this tempting piece. 1 have never seen any of these “ponduscula” with, exactly the same marks. But Bronze weights of a similar pattern, with letters expressing the value and sometimes other words let-in in silver, exactly as in the specimen here before us, are not uncommon. We may see them in several of our European Museums, particularly that of Vienna. I therefore now believe that this elegant silver-inlaid Bronze is a ROMAN WEIGHT. I hate polemics, and have everywhere avoided them thro this work. I have once for all men¬ tioned the authors who have written on a few of these Old-Northern pieces, but I have not entered into odious and endless and wearisome criticisms and disputes, the more as the mistakes in older readings — if mistakes — often arose from the imperfect materials and bad drawings at the service of former writers. But a curious question has just turned up about which I must say a few words. At p. 162 I observed that I had not treated the Helmets and Goblets, &c. , preserved in the Vienna Museum, as I could not regard their inscriptions as in our Runes', rather they seemed to me to be some kind of Old-Classical characters. Quite lately however (June 1866) I have received Part 2, Vol. 11, of “Germania, herausgegeben von F. Pfeiffer”, 8vo, Wien 1866. At p. 177-209 of this publication , Prof. F. Dietrich has given “Runeninschriften eines Gothischen Stammes auf den Wiener Goldgefassen des Banater Fundes”, with facsimiles and an alphabet, in which he endeavors to prove that the characters on these golden Ewers are “East-Gothic” runes, and therefore “Old-German”. He translates them ac¬ cordingly into a language which he calls “East- Gothic”, and uses and abuses his learning in support of his hypothesis. The facts of the case are shortly these. In 1799 a golden hoard of 21 Ewers and Goblets and a lump of molten gold were dug up on the grounds of a peasant at Gross-Szent-Miclos, in the Torontal C’omitat of the Femes Banat — a part of the old Dacia — . in what is now Austria. This find came to the Vienna Museum, and is described and engraved by Arneth in 1850 (see the text to the Buzeu Ring). The age of these pieces has been variously estimated. Arneth dates them from about the 4th century, others later, even down to the 10th and 11th. Their exact nationality also has never been ascertained. Nor are we much assisted by the written marks more than a dozen of them bear, which are partly in late and barbarous Greek and partly in characters at first sight resembling the Etruscan and other Old-Italic and Old-Greek staves, tho a couple of them are not from those alpha¬ bets and a couple others (ft and S') are found in Old-Northern futhorcs. It is at this point Prof. Dietrich steps in. Disregarding the opinions of all former runologists, he claims these letters as pure Runic. But he has succeeded in his “proofs” only in harmony with his 570 WANDERERS. usual manner - the utmost wildness and license and caprice of identification and construction. 1 will not discuss all his views. I will only give a specimen or two, premising that the copies of the inscrip¬ tions as engraved by Arneth, by Dietrich, and by Sacken and Kenner — all three differ ! At the beginning of his numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Prof. Dietrich makes 3 to be G; but at the beginning of the last word of his No. 4 this same letter is made into e! At p. 205 he makes these ristings to date from the latter half of the 5th century. Yet he everywhere gives the mark * the value (d) of the modern Scandian “stung" ? ! But among the many varieties of the Scandian middle-age -D (“stung" T), this particular form, 1 believe, never occurs. In the last runes of his No. 5 he adds H, makes P (if Runic w) to be > (the Runic th), A to be A and this to be 9. (o), and 'l (which lie otherwise says is E) to be I, while the 3 he also makes I. This '1 (l) is therefore, he says, “miscut"; yet, relenting, he adds that it may perhaps be redd as e. In his No. 6 he altogether ignores 2 marks or letters, gets 2 others, and thus reads “ik ohsala IiaKTHO kes, d. h. ich Ohsala stach das Gefass ein” — I Ohsala hewed! this flagon. Formulas beginning with I are, as I have said under the Gallehus Horn, very suspicious. In his Nos. 7, 8, which each have the same word of only 4 letters, he adds a 5th stave — and thus screws out a “reading”. As to his desperately redd No. 9, I will only observe that, to get some sense (which is homd nonsense) he makes the twice occurring sharply cut I to be a bind-rune for 1 and d , and these to stand for q and d . the whole thus really being wa ( PI5)-, quod erat demonstrandum! Can the wanton treatment of plain monuments go any farther? So in his No. 12. To force a meaning, he makes 8 to be a tie for = VO. The top ° is to stand for o , which is to mean v ; while the under o is to stand for Si , which is to be the usual Old-Northern 0, both being what he calls “conform gemacht”! At the same time the mark /• (if a rune always eo) he makes h! — And after all, what is the result? We are quietly askt to believe that the letters mean volsi vah, and -that this signifies Volsi weighed, and that this stands for Volsi gave this! — How the Philistines have laught! But enough. In this way, fancying and inventing runes and words and a language, we may read everything and anything as “Runes"; while, at the same time calling all sorts of strange forms “East-Gothic” and “North-Saxon” and this “Old-German”, we can find “German” everywhere, “from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same”. It is, however, of very little comparative consequence whether these pieces bear some kind of “runes” or not. The world can wag on without them. Life and Love and Righteousness and Truth are of more weight than a few “half-barbarous letters”. But against one thing 1 — and I am sure every riqht-thinking German with me — openly and solemnly protest. When Prof. D. at p. 187 calls the old Danish and always Danish province of South Jutland a “North-Saxon” land, he uses the language of a headless and heartless fanatic, if not of something worse. If South Jutland is “North-Saxdn”, so is all Scandinavia. To make things short and pleasant and spare time, would it not be best for Prof. D. and his many worthy compeers in “the noble fatherland” to call all the North of Europe “North-Saxony , all the South of Europe “South-Saxony”, both of comrse meaning the inevitable “Germany”, “Deutsch¬ land”, “Teutonia”, “Allemannia”, “Gothia”, &c. &c., every such word becoming orthodox only in the meaning of “Germany”? — Then let “annexation” be only a work of time and opportunity. The characters on these Golden Flagons, many of which are quite unlike runes, have been last engraved by Drs. von Sacken and Kenner, Keepers of the Vienna Museum. They are given on a plate at the end of “Die Sammlungen des K. K. Miinz- und Antiken-Cabinetes; besclirieben von Dr. Eduard, Freih. von Sacken, und Dr. Friedrich Kenner, K. K. Custoden”; 8vo, Wien 1866. I cannot do better than conclude with a translation of the judicious remarks of these gentlemen, as given at p. 330: “I be utensils (mostly Goblets) produced by the find at Gross-Szent-Miklos in the Banat, anno 1799 1 , occupy a characteristic place in the division of Golden Objects , as they show a mixture of Byzantine influence and decidedly Oriental reminiscences. But archseological researches have not yet come to any fixt results concerning them. Their inscriptions, both as to the shape of the letters and the meaning ol BDZEU. 571 the words, show partly late Greek with some characters wild and more or less mysterious, all of which have not been redd satisfactorily even yet, and partly later struck foreign marks, by some thought to be Gothic1. The ornaments, particularly the borders and the centres, are of variously cut and inter¬ twining staff-work, and contain motives very similar to the Servian Buildings of the 10th to the 12th century. The technical execution on all these Golden pieces is tolerably uniform, but on others 2 of a different character and evidently later in date. The names which occur in the inscriptions have been attributed to Sarmatian tribes (Dankriges, Jazyges , &c. &c.), and to their chieftains the Zuppans, Bela and Butaul or Boyta. The last-named was baptized in the 10th century 3. ” The result is therefore that we do not as yet know whether these Golden objects were made in Byzantium for some “barbarian” chieftains, the patterns being more or less suited to the barbarian taste — as our Birmingham metal-smiths yearly manufacture great numbers of articles for the African and other markets from designs supplied to them — ; or whether they are barbarian work more or less following Greek motives; or whether they are certainly — as they appear to be — from an early age, say the 4th, 5th or 6th century; or from a later period and later patterns; whether the Greek inscrip¬ tions are as old as the Flagons themselves; whether the “barbarian” letters are as old as the Greek, or somewhat or far later. In my opinion these vessels are very old, and the Greek listings perhaps contemporaneous. The “barbarian” characters are also antique, even if not so old as the Greek. They seem still to me decidedly . what we technically call “runes”, but apparently are one of those “missing links” in the long list of half- Phoenician half-Etruscan more or less “runic” alphabets of which so many have existed in Eastern and Western lands. At all events these “barbarian” scratches have never yet been reasonably translated, and I do not pretend to decipher them. We must first know the staverow and then the dialect; thereafter we can set to work with some chance of success. But by cuttings and slashings and fancies and assump¬ tions and falsifications, we can only produce — a bubble. Again I say, let us leave something for our aftercomers ! And now to our Gothic Arm- or Neck-Ring. In the district of Buzeu in the hill-country of that name, now also called Istritza, a Wal- lachian peasant in the year 1838 found a large ancient treasure hidden within a ring-mound 20 feet in diameter, on the top of a hill near Pietraossa, or Petrossa, whence this is also called the Petrossa Ring. Round about were signs of considerable earthworks and of regular buildings belonging to some temple or treasure-house. The ignorant Gypsies and Jews at first thought the articles were copper, and treated them accordingly. But on the contrary, every thing was pure gold. Rumors begun to fly about, an official was sent down to enquire, and eventually all that was not destroyed or dissipated of this Gothic treasure was bought up by the Government for no less a sum than 8000 ducats. All the pieces thus rescued were deposited in the Museum of Bucharest, and there this Ring, or Torques now remains. In the same hoard — as has repeatedly been said — was another large elastic snake-shaped golden arm-ring, but with an inscription in Greek: XAIPE KAI II IX E ( Rejoice and Drink ! ) All this, however, is fable. A letter from the State- Councilor A. J. Odobesco, Member of the Rou¬ manian Archaeological Committee, who has repeatedly examined this Gothic hoard, explains that all this was imagination, and arose from a first attempt to treat the Runic inscription as Greek, thus making two rings out of one. No other inscribed piece was found at Petrossa than the Runic Torques. 1 “They are on the outside of the Cups, at the bottom of the Flagons and the Horn, and are partly hammered in (vm 22, 24), partly scratcht in (vm 6, 14, 21, 25, 26), and partly cut in both these ways (vm 27, 30).” 2 “ viii 10, 27, 32.” 3 “See Mommsen, Mittheilungen der antiquar. Gesellschaft in Zurich vn 219, 220.” 72 572 WANDERERS. This Runic ornament is apparently a neck-ring. It has been ofttimes engraved, but always in¬ correctly. For these faulty copies of the inscription, and for the various readings proposed and re¬ marks made, the reader is referred to Arneth1, who first drew attention to this relic, to Zacher, p. 46, to W. and J. Grimm and Haupt 2, to H. F. Massmann3, to Dietrich, and others. There is nothing remarkable in the runes, which are now for the first time correctly given, save that the 0 is cut with one leg somewhat imperfect, and that some of the letters nearly touch, particularly the WI in the first group of letters and the Ml in the .second. This tendency to closeness is also the reason why there is no space between the first word and the second, wi, immediately fol¬ lowing. All the staves are plainly and boldly and deeply carved or rather stampt in with a hammer and a sharp instrument. The staves are : HNff GUT JSNIO WI HiEILiEG. Of -the- gotes to-the-wm (Temple, or God) holy*. ( = Dedicated to the Temple of the Goths. ) Votive Bracelets, Neck-rings, Diadems and other jewels and valuables have been offered in temples and churches in all lands and in all times. See my remarks on the Gallehus Golden Horn, p. 329. So late as 1244 King Henry III made offering of a rich pall or cloak at the High Altar, and three Bracelets of gold at the shrine of St. Alban5. We even find examples in Romance. Thus in the earlier copy of Sir Amadace, line 290 apd fol. (stanza 25) 6 : “Howe7 erly quen the day con spring, Then holli 8 alle the bellus con ring, That in the cite was; Religius men euirichon, Toward this dede cors are they gone, With mony a riche burias 9. Thritty prustus 10 that day con sing , And then Sir Amadace offurt a ring Atte euyriche mas 11 ; Quen 12 the seruise was alle done , He prayd horn 13 to ete with him atte none, Holli more and lasse u. ” In heathen times there was also the Temple-ring for solemn Oath-taking, when the ring was toucht by the swearer. It was sometimes worn by the Priest or Judge during the ceremony, and this very piece may possibly have been used as such a Temple-bracelet. The figures of the Deities in heathen temples often wore rings as ornaments, some of them large and heavy15. We know little, almost nothing, respecting the early movements of the various clans and tribes and hordes — both kindred stems and also strange peoples intermingling and rolling onward, held to- 1 Arneth, Antike Gold- und Silbermonumente des K. K. Miinz- und Antiken-Cabinefcs in Wien, 1850, folio, p. 86. — 2 Monatsberichte der Konigl. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, vom 4. December 1856. — 3 Pfeiffers Germania, it, Stuttgart 1857, pp. 209-223. — 4 Since the above was written. Prof. F. Dietrich has given (at p. 202 of “Germania, herausgeg. v. F. Pfeiffer”, 8vo, Vol. 11, Part 2, Wien 1866) a new version of this Inscription. In his 4to Disputation “De Inscriptionibus duabus runicis (see p. 14) he had said that the first word meant = of the Gods. Here he says, an evident improvement, that it means = of the Goths. The other errors remain. — 5 See Matt. Paris, pp. 562, 574, and Archmologia, London, 4to, Vol. 22. p. 291. — 6 See Ghost-thanks or the Grateful Unburied, a Mythic Tale in its oldest European form Sir Amadace, a Middle-North-English Me¬ trical Romance of the 13th century. Reprinted from two texts, with an Introduction, by George Stephens, Esq. 8vo, Cheapinghaven 1860, p. 34. Now, lo. Wholly, altogether. 1 0 Priests. — 1 1 Every Mass. 6 At the close of the 10th century Burgess. 2 When. Them. 4 More and less, high and low. Hakon Jail gave to Sigmund Brestersou, afterwards chief of the Faeroes, a thick Golden Arm-ring which he had taken, not by force but as a gift of the willing statue, from the image of thorgerth horthabroth, the Goddess of a heathen temple in Norway. Saint Olaf in vain warned Sigmund that this pagan bracelet would be his bane. He persisted in wearing it, and was slain for its sake by Thorgrim the Bad on one of the Faeroes. — Fcereyinga Saga, p. 101. BUZEU. 573 getkei by mere agglutination and need of fresh settlements and thirst for conquest and plunder — who are commonly known by the name of goths, as that of the predominant race or races. Suffice it for oui purpose here that in the 2nd half of the 2nd century they had broken away from their homes along the Vistula, and, pouring east and south, past the Don and the Dniper, by the middle of the 3rd age had reacht the Black Sea and the Mouths of the Danube , permanently wresting Dacia from the Roman Emperors. We will not follow them over the Danube into Moesia, and Thrace, and their sub¬ sequent fortunes and state-divisions. I his then, say about A. D. 250, is in my view the lowest limit for the date of this Golden Ring. Its inscription shows that it has nothing whatever to do with those Gothic clans which after¬ wards, say about 350, had embraced Arian Christianity. So early as A. D. 360 these had their Bishop, the renowned Ulphilas, who altered and Greekized their Alphabet, and who translated the Scriptures (or most part of them) into that Gothic dialect called — from the province allotted them by Valens — the Mceso-Gotliic. The piece here described was found in Dacia not Moesia, lias the usual Heathen Runes not Ulphilas’ Reformed staves, and its writing gives a meaning altogether Pagan. But we may perhaps fix the date within still narrower limits. No man in his own land and among his own people, long firmly establisht in their own terri¬ tory , when he makes a gift adds the name of his nation. An Englishman presenting any valuable ob¬ ject to a Church in London does not carve or paint upon it: N. N. TO THE CHURCH OF THE ENGLISH (or, THE ENGLISH CHURCH). A Dane making a similar offering in Cheapingkaven does not inscribe: N. N. TO THE CHURCH OF THE DANES (or, THE DANISH CHURCH). But let the Englishman give his present in Cheapinghaven or Paris, the “Dansker” in London or Vienna — where they both may or may not have colonies or Embassies or Chaplaincies — and he will likely use something near the very words printed above. For he is a stranger; however numerous his people it is a handful, a minority: and he expresses himself in this manner to distinguish his church and people from the foreign temples and crowds around him. Consequently the temple in Dacia to which this, with other costly pieces, was given, was in the hands of powerful settlers able to hold their own in certain districts: but these Goths were not masters of the country , they were not yet the predominant and commanding majority. We may there¬ fore suppose that this Gothic Heathen Fane may have been built and the Ring presented to it about the year 200. This I take to be the earliest limit for this oldloom. Some intermediate date ■ — some time between A. D. 200 and 250 — would thus seem to be the year when this costly present was made by some Gothic Chieftain to a -Gothic God-house in the mountain country of lately Roman Dacia, now the Buzeu highlands in Roumanian Wallacliia. 72 574 WANDERERS. NORDENDORF, NEAR AUGSBURG, BAVARIA. ? DATE ABOUT A. D. 300-400. Found in 1844, in Grave No. 163, a richly furnisht Lady’s tomh. Drawn and Chanityped full me try J MAGNUS PETERSEN, from a Colored Cast of the front, and a Sunhild of the hack, kindly forwarded by His Excellency Mr. Gordon. A few English miles north of Augsburg in Bavaria, on the old Roman Military Road — now the highway — to Donauworth, and between the rivers Schmutter and Lech some distance before they join the Danube, is the village of nordendorf. East and by north of this hamlet is Elgau, south and east is Ostendorf, due south is Westendorf, south-west is Blanckenberg, north-west is Holzen. Due north, on the Schmutter, is Dndsheim , a little south of and now representing the old Roman fortified hill and Military Station Drusomagus, which was establisht by the Emperor Tiberius about the beginning NORDENDORF. 575 of the Christian era, and named after his brother Drums, as a forepost of Augusta Vindelieorum (Augsburg) and as a point of defence, against the Germans, for the Roman line of the Danube. Inscribed Roman Stones and Altars, numerous Roman Coins and a multitude of Roman military and civil Remains have been and are continually found in the whole region from Augsburg to Donauworth. In the centre of this old Roman March and a few hundred paces north of Nordendorf, the works of the Augsburg-Niirnberg Railway, when the line was building in 1843, came in the month of July upon a remarkable group of ancient graves, east of both the Schmutter and the Highway. For¬ tunately for science, the Engineer of this (the Meitingen) Section of the line was Mr. Clemens Feigele, a gentleman of talent and energy, a practical man and yet a good archaeologist. It is owing to his zeal that this precious antiquarian field was not merely plundered and forgotten, as has been the case in so many other instances. The moment he was aware of its true character, he spared neither time nor care nor money in cautiously opening each grave separately as he came to it, in journalizing and describing each article found, and in obtaining the official help and superintendence of the Historical Union of Augs¬ burg, to whose Museum he forwarded all the opening finds. The final result was, that regular diggings were made in the summers of 1843 and 1844, under scientific inspection and the practical guidance of Mr. Feigele, and were continued till every pit in this burial-field was properly examined. Altogether there were opened 362 1 lich-stows of men, women and children, besides 4 graves containing the favorite steeds of their former owners. These sepulchres were arranged in 20 rows, from north to south, and contained the skeletons of 151 men, 186 women and 25 children, all except one man (who was turned to the west) with the face to the rising Sun — the east. Small jars or vases and other vessels (? for unguents or spices or food) were not unfrequent, but all empty; they were not burial-urns; there were no traces of any corpse having been burned, but proofs plenty (from charcoal, &c.) of burial-feasts or of charcoal as a preservative against corruption. Some graves held 2 or even 3 skeletons, often of different ages and sexes, and were therefore family tombs. They were usually from about 3 to about 6 or 7 feet deep, 2 to 3 broad and from 6 to 6-i long for males , from 5 to 6 for females. The distance between each grave was mostly from 2 to 6 feet, sometimes more. We cannot tell whether these sepulchres had ever been mounds, for century upon century of agriculture must long ago have ploughed the whole quite even. There were no signs of stone slabs or of brickwork in the graves, or of anything like a coffin; the corpses, with their dress and weapons or ornaments, were laid on the bare earth. The arms were stretcht out on each side of the body, very seldom crost on the breast. One skeleton was found in a crouching position. Many of the death-chambers — probably those of simple people or of slaves — contained only the bare corpse, no keepsake or other article whatsoever. Many of the soldiers must have fallen far away from their garrison; hence, as Raiser very properly suggests, the considerable overplus of female corpses. This spot has been aptly called the Herculaneum of Germany. It might also be compared, for richness and variety and antiquity, with one of the great Danish Mosses. The antiquarian harvest gathered there was large and costly. It consisted of 46 Roman Coins, nearly all of copper or bronze, some bored as ornaments, others unbored as grave-money; Romanized Golden Pendants (Bracteates), round or oblong; golden ornaments, rings, chains, brooches, &c.; silver ornaments, brooches, clasps, &c. ; beads of amber, glass, stone, mosaic, &c.; a large Crystal Ball; bone Combs and Amulets; iron Swords (double-edged, some of them with guards)2, lances, daggers, spear-heads, arrow-heads, knives, shield- bosses, rings, &c.; urns (or rather jars) and pots of burnt clay and Samian ware; bits, spurs, finger- rings, bullas, keys, articles of bronze, glass, ivory, and other things too numerous to mention. Many of the jewels had been adorned with glass or stones of various colors, or had inlaid-work in gold and silver wire, or were rich in delicate filagree, or showed the ornamental finial like a rude animal’s head. Now and then was found the Worm-ornament and the Bird- ornament. ' Mezger makes the total number 365, but inaccurately. 2 These were usually 2 feet 9 or else 3 feet 2 long, and about 2 to 2\ inches broad. The hilts were 5 inches long, and were covered with leather: the pommels were large, the sheaths of wood or leather. Another kind (usually called Spathse or Semi- spathffi) were from 1 foot 5 to 2 feet 2 long, and 11 to 21 inches broad, with similar sheaths. The larger blades were lying on the left side of the skeletons, sometimes between the feet; the spears and lances being at the head. The urns were usually at the feet, surrounded by rich and numerous grave-gifts. See Mezger, pp. 9, 10. — Should the above manner of wearing the large and the small sword prove anything, in other words if this Drusomagian burial-custom was the same as in life and in the Roman armies generally, it would fix the date of these particular graves at about the 1st and 2nd century. 576 WANDERERS. Eventually this whole find was divided between the Museums of Augsburg and of Miinchen (Munich). All the above details are collected from an excellent work by the learned Dr. von Raiser. It appeared in 4to, under the title: “Fundgeschichte einer uralten Grabstatte bei Nordendorf. Erklarung der ausgegrabenen und abgebildcten Antikaglien, und Wiirdigung dieser Grabstatte in Bezieliung auf Zeit und Volk mit- den betreffenden Ortsgeschichten”; Augsburg 1844, pp. 64; followed and completed by: “Fortgesetzte Fundgeschichte einer uralten Grabstatte bei Nordendorf’, 4to, Augsburg 1846, pp. 51, with 4 plates containing engravings of a great multitude of the pieces found 1. Now what is the date and nationality of this ancient layer-stow? Taking all things into consideration, remembering the geographical position 0f this grave-field for the Roman Garrison of Drusomagus (Druisheim) and their retainers, and holding fast the style and character of the things found as well as the date of the Roman Coins (many of which were evidently “naulum”, the freight-money for Charon the ferry-man of the dead), namely from Augustus and still earlier to the Emperor Valens, who died in 378, as well as the number of the graves and skeletons and the approximate population in Roman times, Dr. Raiser and Dr. Mezger, after minute and exhaustive and erudite investigations , came to the following conclusions : 1. The Nordendorf lik-stead was the burial-ground, or one of the burial-grounds2, of the Roman troops (chiefly the 3rd Italian Legion) stationed at Drusomagus, of their servants and slaves and clients, and of the Romanized Natives among whom they lived. 2. The native clans among whom these Roman Legionaries and Veterans and Colonists were settled, up to the Ripa Prima of the Danube, — the Vindelicians and other Romanized “barbarians” — were Kelts ; and these Keltic populations, in union with the Roman soldiers, fought and bled in common against the common foe — the Germans on the other side of the Danube. 3. As Drusomagus was a Military Colony, and a stronghold of Vindelicia or Rhcetia Secunda, up to the fall of the West-Roman Empire in the last quarter of the 5th century, when Drusomagus itself was burnt and ruined; and as a few of the graves at Nordendorf show that burials continued down to the beginning of the Christian period under Constantine, we have here a distinct limit beyond which this cemetery could not have been used. 4. The unbored and therefore current Roman Coins are nearly all from the 2nd and 3rd age after Christ, and the vast majority of the Nordendorf graves date say from about the year 200 to 400. 5. The dead, with very few exceptions, were Heathens not Christians, and were either Roman Guards of the March and their retainers or Barbarians (Romanized Kelts). This verdict, come to not by a Frenchman or an Englishman, still less by a Scandinavian, but by two distinguish^ Germans, who had taken part in the diggings and handled the finds; and which was laid down by them after careful consideration, before the formal up-coming of the modern German mania for making everything in Heaven on Earth and under the Earth “German” — (a system unhap¬ pily attended in its development with such a flood of shallow jargon, learning abused, shameless one¬ sidedness, Scientific and Political annexation and appropriation, down-trampling and Germanizing by force and fraud of other nationalities, and a whole school of unprincipled linguistic and historical dishonesty and fabrication, by all which the German populations have been so miserably misled and so largely de¬ moralized) ; this conclusion, I say, bears truth and common sense on the very face of it. I appeal The first-opened 193 Graves were described by Dr. Raiser in “Die aus einer uralten Grabstatte bey Nordendorf bis Elide des Jahrs 1843 erhobeneu merkwiirdigen Fundstiicke und Alterthiimer , auf einer lithographirten Tafel dargestellt, und diese bildlicken Darstellungen erklart , 8vo, Augsburg 1844, pp. 16, with one large plate. The other 170 Graves were shortly noticed by the same author in “Erklarung der auf der beifolgenden lithographirten Tafel abgebildeten neuen Funde an Alterthfimern , aus der uralten Grab¬ statte bey Nordendorf i. J. 1844”, 8vo, Augsburg .1846, pp. 14, with one large plate. - Still more comprehensive is “Zehnter und Eilfter combinirter Jahrs-Bericht des historischen Kreis-Vereins fur den Regierungsbezirk von Schwaben und Neuburg. Fur die Jabre 1844 und 1845. Veifasst von Dr. Ritter von Raiser.” Augsburg 1846 , 4to, pp. xxx, 98, ii. With 3 large plates. — In the same year appeared a valuable and interesting outline of the whole find written in Latin, under the title “De Operibvs Antiqvis ad vicvm Norden¬ dorf e solo ervtis. Scnpsit D. Georgivs Casparvs Mezger, Gymnasii Avgvstani Avg. Couf. Addicti Rector. Cvm n Tabvlis Litho- grapliicis. Avgvstae Vindelicorvm mdcccxlvi." 4to, pp. 44. This was a School-Program, “Anni Scholastic! exeuntis Sollemnia”. 2 0ther exactly sellar Roman or Romano-Keltic grave-fields have been found within the radius of a few miles from Norden¬ dorf. Two such are described by Dr. Raiser in his “Zehnter und Eilfter combinirter Jahrs-Bericht”. The one was discovered in 1844 at Langweid near Nordendorf; only 30 graves could be opened, but many others existed close by; see 1. c. pp. 49-56. The other was excavated in 1844-46 at Rosenau-Berg near Augsburg; many graves, were examined, but buildings &c. prevented the opening out of more than a part of the lik-stead; see 1. c. pp. 59-74. NORDENDORF. 577 from the German extravagancies of 1865-66 to the German scholarship of 1845-46. All reasonable men will admit that the facts fully confirm Dr. Raiser and his friend in their impartial opinion '. Consequently, the Nordendorf graves were not German, the Nordendorf remains were not Ger¬ man antiquities, and the runes on the Brooch found are not “Old-German” runes — of which, indeed, -we never heard before , except in the pages of modern German writers 1 2. ihe mere fact of its having been found in modern “Germany” is not the shadow of a proof of its "German origin. Let us hear German authors as to how little the mere findstead of a loose article may signify. In their dissertation on the costly Sword of Tiberius found at Maintz, but which they argue was made in Rome, K. Klein and Dr. J. Becker 3 insist on the endless wanderings of such pieces, and remind their readers that the famous Vienna Cameo, representing the triumph or apotheosis of Augustus, was found more than 200 years since in Palestine; and that the Parisian Cameo, the throned Tiberius, came to France from Constantinople 600 years ago. But all our Museums can show pieces , found in the earth or bought or given , which were thus carried from land to land more than 1000 or even 2000 years ago. And consequently and finally, the silver Fibula found at Nordendorf and here copied in exact facsimile, with its clear Old-Northern runes, either belonged to one of the tens of thousands of North¬ men who took service in the Roman Armies, or else it had come as spoil* or by gift or purchase or barter into the hands of a Northern Civilian in the Roman Garrison or of a Romanized Northman under its protection. Presented by him to his Wife or Sweet- heart, it was worn by her while living and interred with her after her death. As we learn from Dr. Raiser’s “Fortgesetzte Fundgeschichte” p. 24, and p. 32. in his remarks ad Taf. n, Fig. 10, 11. this Fibula was found in 1844, as far as we can see in grave No. 163, that of a Lady , which contained : 1. A Necklace of handsome Beads. 2. A Bosom-rosette of silver. 3. Five unusually small Bracteatelike Golden Pendants , two of which are engraved full size in Raiser’s Tab. m, Fig. 15, sub k and 1. 4. I wo elegant large Silver Agrafes, but of not very pure metal, with gilding. The one before us is given half size on Raiser’s Tab. n, Fig. 11 4. 1 I need not say that I h£ve the highest respect for all honorable men and women among my German cousins , and that I have not the slightest wish to deprive Germany of “what is fairly hers. But she is too large and wise and mighty, and has too many glories and distinctions and treasures of her own, to need those of other peoples. To use the words of Dr. Metzger, p. 26: “Nunc non reticeo, male me habere quod in illis diariis de violato patriae amore nescio quo criminentur, qui antiquitatum Celticarum perscruta- tores apud nostrates perstringunt. Id enim agilur , id verum inclagemus , non id aliquicl praetexamus gloriae veterum Germanorum . quo ne egent quidem - suis virtutibus splendentes. ” 2 In a long note (Beilage n to Tafel vi) to the text in Part 2 Vol. 2 of. his lately publisht “Alterthumer”, Lindensmit an¬ nounces that all the antiquarian buried- grounds in “Germany, Switzerland, Burgundy, Belgium, France and England” are german, are from the same time (the 5th to the 8th century), and have nothing whatever to do with either the Romans or the Kelts. The Romans in the lands they had conquered and colonized, and the Kelts in lands their own and which first centuries after were gradually oc¬ cupied by “Germans”, consequently never died, or, if they were foolish enough so to do, were not worthy of burying their dead in “German soil”. Doubtless they were buried in nubibus or in partibus infidelium, like all other un-German heretics. The few single tombs or graves from this period or from earlier times — say from the 1st to the 8th century — are here of no moment. Many of these Lindensmit admits were Roman or Keltic. But such a handful are as nothing compared with the burial needs of large popula¬ tions. To make them “German” only, Lindensmit has been forced to give all these grave-fields so late a date, often in open defiance of their character and of plain facts. So he forgot that both Romans and Kelts must have buried their dead somewhere, and that even in sparsely peopled Scandinavia we have similar grave-yards from the Early Iron Age. But in his previous treatise (“Ueber eine besondere Gattung von Gewandnadeln”, p. 15), when he had not yet become a one-sided Dane-eater, he dated these finds from the 6th century. Doubtless his learning and good sense will soon lead him back to his older less passionate sentiments. A man of his talent will not always permit himself to he used as the mere tool of an unprincipled party. The world is surely big enough for us all, both “Germans” and Non-Germans. The Nordendorf and Osthofen brooches Lindensmit dates in his “Alterthumer” from the end of the 6th or beginning of the 7th century. 3, “Abbildungen von Mainzer Alterthiimern”, 4to, Part 2, Mainz 1850. “Schwert des Tiberius”, p. 18. 4 Some error has crept into Dr. Raiser's reference. In his text, “Fortgesetzte Fundgeschichte”, p. 24 (Zehnter und Eilfter combinirter Jahrs-Bericht p. 23), he says: “Diese” “2 schtin gearbeitete grossa silberne Kleider-Schliessen (Agrafes), mit Vergoldung”,' “sind daselbst in halber Grdsse Fig. 11 dargestellt”. This “daselbst” refers to Tab. nr. . In his errata at the end of his Fundgeschichte and his Jahrs-Bericht he tells us that for “11” we must read “12”. But the fibula Tab. iii No. 12 is of a very different shape, and is not -- as far as I can see — mentioned by number in any of the grave-lists. I take it therefore that “11” is right, but that he 578 WANDERERS. 5. A double-edged long Knife, of the usual form, found lying on the breast. The haft is of deer-horn. The rounded metal rand of the Sheath yet remained. Engraved l-6th of the size on Rai¬ ser’s Tab. m,- Fig. 47, 6. A bronze ornamental Roundel, with a frame of ivory which had been broken but mended with metal rings. It lay, which seldom happens, near the right foot of the skeleton. 7. A bronze Hair-pin. It had sunk down to the pelvis. 8. A little ball or globe of Feldspar, not bored thro. 9. Several large Amethysts, which lay near the shinbones. They perhaps had ornamented the Sandals and their knee-ties. This grave was stampt hard down. On being opened it emitted a strong smell of putrefac- tion and decay. _ The two Silver Brooches thus discovered are large, but many have been found equal in size and some even still greater. Their weight would have been little felt, especially as they were used to pin and hold heavy garments. In our own day many ladies wear Cameos and Clasps and other De¬ corations both large and heavy, without complaint. But the difference in the size and look and shape and material and value of these old Pins and Agrafes and Beighs is very great. Some are as small as others are tall and massive. They were often worn in pairs, as the two found in this grave may have been. The one before us, the rune-bearer, is, on the whole, admirably preserved; only, the iron tung has crumbled away; nothing is left of it but fragments of the hinge and the clasp. As is so often the case with these ornaments, the front has been gilt save the zigzag lines of the rands, which are set in a dark niello. W e have to thank Dr. L. Lindensmit, the accomplisht Director of the Roman-German Central Museum in Mainz, for the happy discovery of the runes on this piece. Wishing to add a facsimile to the Mainz collections, and carefully cleaning it for that purpose in September 1865, the staves on the back became visible. He immediately made this fact known, and the inscription has everywhere excited the liveliest interest. He kindly at once favored me with an engraved outline-copy of the risting, and has since publisht the fibula, both sides full size, executed with great elegance, in the 2nd Part, Vol. 2 (Taf. 6, Nos. 1 & 2 of his excellent “Die Alterthilmer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit”, 4to, Mainz 1866 1. His drawings are here very nearly correct, but he has made one considerable error in the runes. He has given the word I> 1 1 1 as MihMWF (with [\ instead of I). This I found by an in¬ spection of the Photograph , and the runes are so clear at this part that there can be no doubt of the fact. I may also as well add that, perhaps misled by Hofmann who “found” 2 additional runes, Lindensmit in ' his Jinisht engraving gives the first word (FHf'lhEJN'H in his outline plate) as PPFHMh&NI-l, thus iEW.<ELEUEWiNi instead of his former zsleubwini. But I think it self-evident that Lindensmit was right in his first copy. The 2 additional letters are not on the fibula. We have there indeed, as everywhere on the surface, many dints or scratches ( — tho not so strong as other dear scratches, not made into “runes”, in other places — ) and I have given these in my facsimile: but accidentally wrote “daselbst” instead of “Tab. n Fig. 11”. This is so much the more likely as Dr. Raiser expressly informs us, when describing the costly Lady’s grave No. 137 , that the two silver-gilt brooches found there are engraved “Tab. in Fig. 11”. (“Die- selben sind auf Tab. in Fig. 11 in halber GrOsse sehr genau abgebildet”.) But if in No. 137 it could not have been in No. 163. As we see, however, whether Tab. ii or Tab. m were intended, in either case the Agrafe before us — if “No. 11” at all — was taken from the skeleton of a richly decorated woman. At page 32 of his “Fortgesetzte Fundgescliichte” (p. 31 of his “Zehnter und Eilfter Jahrs-Bericht”) he writes: “Die ii Tafel". “Fig. 10 und 11. Wieder in halber Grdsse dargestellt: sind die beyden schonen Danien- Kleider- Schliessen, von Silber mit Goldverzierungen, welclie wie Fig. 10, in einen mit rothen Glas-Steinen als Augen eingelegten Thier- kopf enden.” Here we have again Tab. n Fig. 11 as found in a female grave, but unhappily he does not say in which. But the fibula engraved half size “Tab. n Fig. 11” is that now under discussion, the Rune-bearer. — The Officers of the Augsburg Museum also announce that this piece is from pit No. 163. Hr. Greiff, in his letter, dated March 18, 1866, to the President Freiherr von Lcrchenfeld , as kindly communicated to me by Mr. Gordon, describes this runic brooch as “in dem sub Num. 163 bezeichneten Grabe gefunden, und mit ihr eine ganz gleiche zweite, die an die Akademie abgegeben wurde”. 1 This prene was previously engraved full size and publisht by Lindensmit in his treatise “Ueber eine besondere Gattung von Gewandnadeln aus deutschen Grabern des V. und YI. Jahrhunderts”, printed in “Abbildungen von Mainzer Alterthumern”, Heft m, 4to, Mainz 1851, Tab. i, No. 2. This copy is in colors, and gives a fair idea of the original ; but it is only one side (the front), and is not so exact as it might have been. But this was not his fault, as he faithfully followed the drawing forwarded to him by a lady in Augsburg. His last is far better, altho even this is not quite correct. NORDENDORF. 579 these two scratches are certainly not carved runes. Instead of this PP Hofmann has redd P + . All this is, as far as I can see, an evident mistake. Should we accept this new-found reading, we can only divide the runes thus : iEW^E LEUBWINI. JL WHS to - LEV B WINI. Ihis gives us two names, the one in the Nominative, the other in the Dative, as in the last inscrip¬ tion on this prene. In this case the iEWJE might be the same name as we have in the compound name EUWiEtiT on one of the Bracteates. See the Word-roll. But, as 1 have said, I think there can be no doubt that the two first runes are not there, and that Lindensmit’s first copy was in this respect better than his second. Three translations only — that I know of — have as yet been made public, all by German savans. The first is by Prof. Hofmann of Miinchen, in Augsburg. Allgemeine Zeitung for Jan. 21, 1866, p. 320. That gentleman here announces that both runes and dialect are “Low-German” (Saxon). He reads the single line : “ AN ALEUB VINI Freund Analeub.” (Friend Analeub.) This, he says, is the name of the giver. The 3 lines he thus deciphers: “ LOGATHORE VO DAN VIGUTHONAR Log a thore Vo dan vigu Thonar.” This he takes to be in stave-rime , and to signify : “Flamme hemme (stille) Vodan, Ivampf (hemme) Thonar.” (May Vodan still [quench] Flame, may Thonar still Battle!) The second is by Prof. Lange and Prof. Dietrich of Marburg, who take the runes to be Ger¬ man of the class known as Rhaban Mauran. They read, according to the Wiirtembergische Staats- anzeiger, 1866, p. 239: aba(l) leubwinis LONA THIOR& WODAN VINUTH LONATH. Freund Analeub (wahrscheinlich der Name des Schenkers der Spange) Flamme hemme (stille) Wodan Kampf (hemme) Thonar.” Thus, tho the words are different, they manage — wonderfully enough — to make the meaning to be the same as that suggested by Prof. Hofmann. The third is by Prof. Dietrich alone, and is given by Lindensmit in the 2nd Vol. , Part 2, 1866 (text to Tafel vi), of his “Alterthumer”. First he finds a long carving of 24 letters : “ LON ATHIORE VODAN VINUTHL ON ATH ” which he translates : “ Iona thiore (for diore) Vodan vinuth londth MIT THEUREM LOHNE LOHNET VODAN FREUNDSCHAFT” (WITH a - DEAR REWARD REWARDS the - God - WODAN FRIENDSHIP). 73 580 WANDERERS. The shorter writing, in 12 runes, he gives as “ athaleub vinis” or perhaps “ abaleubvinis” “ athal oder abal Leubvinis “BESITZ” 01’ “ARBEIT DES LEUBYINI (The - possession /or work] of leubvjni). I make no remark on the difference of these renderings, or on the way in which they have been brought about. I now come to my own version, which, as usual, is so simple that some may reject it on that very account. W e see at once that, as on all metallic pieces , the surface has here and there an accidental scratch or streak or indentation or corrosion. But the letters are all plain enough to be redd, most of them are still sharp. I take it then that this ornament has been in the hands of at least 3 persons, for 3 different persons have cut' their names upon it. The first has written at the very top, beginning at the left. p rn n I p 1 1 j which I take to be the usual mark of ownership : JE LEUBWINI. • OWNS -me LEUBWINI. ( = Leubwini owns this Brooch ). The name is here in what would be an Old-North-English form, the Old-South-English being usually leofwine , liufwine, &c. The Old-German is nearly similar, liubwin, liopwin, &c. There is a Norse-Icelandic womans- nasifi liufvina. This then I take to be the first -inscription; the other letters in the same line belonging, in my opinion , to the last carving. The second scribble is at the opposite corner, also at the left top after we have turned the Brooch round. The fastening has come into another man’s possession, and he has carved his name : r * 4> p * i n LONiEWORE. This compound mans-name — both whose parts are found separately as names — occurs here, I believe, for the first time on any Scando-Gothic monument. We now take the 3rd inscription , which is in two lines ; w OD JSN WINIWON^EWyO. WODFEN to - WINI WONsE W. ( = Wodoen gives this to [his sweetheart] Winiwoncew.) What is particular here is, that the latter name, which is also I suppose found here for the first time (tho its two components are common enough, and there are dozens of old Scando-Gothic names beginning with wini-), is that of a female. Whether winiwonjew was the Wife or Sweetheart or Friend of WODJEN, we cannot say. But certain it is, that this Brooch was found, as we have before explained, on the skeleton of a richly decorated female. This was therefore probably the last inscrip¬ tion, and its last owner was the woman who slept in sepulchre No. 163, which may well be hence- NORDENDORF. 581 forward called the grave of the lady winiwonia. That this name has w still left at the end, is a mark of extreme antiquity, as is the mans-name wodjen with the w still left at the beginning — exactly as the word is still pronounced in many parts of North and South Jutland, in England and in Germany. Its oldest written form in Scandinavia as yet discovered is-iOMN (on the lately found North Stenderup stone, to which we shall immediately come). In olden times this was not an uncommon mans- name both in Scandinavia and England, and- one example is also found as such in Germany (wotan). It still exists in England in the mans-name weddon as well as in the form oden. For all these words see the Word-roll. Altho we thus find here . nothing either heathen or mythological — - for there is nothing which forbids some or all persons having been either Pagans or Christians — yet I cannot but think that everything is so natural and lifelike that my rendering will be generally admitted. It may however be said, that we have no example on such a Gift or Jewel of a mere Nominative and Dative : n. n. to-N. n. , altho this formula occurs on Runic Stones (see p. 258 and fol. under Norway). But even this objection can be happily set aside, for such an instance has lately turned up in Scandinavia, and, singularly enough — on a Brooch ! I refer to the Bronze RUNIC BROOCH, GOTLAND, SWEDEN. ? DATE ABOUT 800-900. Full size. From the Original , now in the University Museum, ' Lund. Drawn and Chemityped by J. M. PETERSEN. This- type of Fibula is almost exclusively Gotlandic, where it is very frequently found. The piece before us is a fine and perfect specimen, even the iron tung being left. It was pickt up, I be¬ lieve, somewhere about the year 1850, and was bought by the Lund Museum. It was first made known by' Lector N. G. Bruzelius 1 , and the observations made on the Skane Brooch, pp. 387-88 above, ap¬ ply also to this one. I could not read the inscription, and therefore let it lie. But Archivary Herbst kindly communicated to me his own drawing, and this I could decipher. So Prof. Worsaae obligingly obtained the loan of this piece in May .1866, the Consistory of Lund generously at once consenting, and I now give a faithful facsimile. The color is a deep greenish brown, the “noble rust” being finely pronounced. From the hue of the raised lines here and there, the brooch may perhaps have been gilt. The runes on the back can be well made out with the naked eye. They are . as redd by Mr. Herbst and myself : 1 1 r n 1 k * 1 1 INKI ISK ATI. INK1 to - ISK A T. There is no doubt that this last name would be in its older form anskaut, or, still more an¬ tique, ansikaut, but commonly found (the N elided) as askaut or oskaut, tho we have it also on the Svenska Fornlemningar, 2ra Haftet, 8vo, Lund 1860, p. .117 and Plate xi, 2 a and b. 73 * 582 WANDERERS. monuments as ASKAT, ASKATI, ASKUTR , IANSKAUTR, OASKUTAR, OSGUTR, OSKAUTR, OSKAUTR.fi , OSKUTR , &C. We have I for a again on the Hagby stone, Upland, (Liljegren 651, Bautil 125), in the name, accusa¬ tive, isikat. So again, among other examples, the (anskair) askair of old times is also found as yski (Arja, Sodermanland) , iskis, genitive, (Lund, Skane), isgi, acc., (Ravnkilde, North Jutland), iski, acc., (Thisted, North Jutland). Thus the whole is, quite plainly, = Ingi gives this to his friend Askant. It may also be said that a Runic woden — the name of the God — is probable or possible on a runic monument, but that a runic woden — the name of a man — has never been found and is more or less incredible, in spite of the examples I have brought together from skinbooks and chronicles. To this I answer, that a late remarkable find in Denmark clears away also this objection. I at once in¬ troduce the reader to the runic lafe at STENDERUP, NORTH JUTLAND, DENMARK. From the original block, now in the Museum, Cheapinghaven. Drawn and Chemitypetl (l-4th of the full size ) by J MAGNUS PETERSEN. This precious fragment of grey-stone — the lower half is gone — was found in March 1866. Prof. Worsaae took the first opportunity of visiting it, and kindly procured its removal to the Danish capital that I might engrave it for this work. I also have to thank him for the following information respecting it, which I translate from a letter to me dated Oct. 17, 1866: NORDENDORF. 583 “About a mile and a quarter (Danish) north of Kolding, in Veile Amt, is the village ,North- Stenderup in the parish of Eltang. The character of the neighborhood is decidedly East-Jutish, con¬ siderable heights interchanging with dales, meadows and wood. North-Stenderup itself lies high; and this is so much the case with Stenderupgard , the residence of the landowner Flensborg, that we have from its grounds a wide view to the Kolding-Fjord and even beyond its waters over to the coast of Fyn. Altho this beautiful district has in olden times been covered with timber, it has yet borne a con¬ siderable population. We have striking proofs of this in its numerous Barrows, many of which have disappeared, and in the frequent finds of antiquities both of stone and bronze in Eltang and the neigh¬ boring parishes. Scarcely a Danish mile from Stenderup was found the Landerup Runic Stone, de¬ scribed by Worm -but since lost. “ Last spring I received from Mr. Kinch, Head-master of Ribe school, a drawing and account, furnisht to him by Land-inspector Lieut. Moller, of a hitherto unknown rune- stone which had been found on the Stenderup land. During my official tour last summer I was enabled to examine this block, which Mr. Flensborg had removed to his own house. I could now see for myself that the Inscription on this stone — which had been split off from the rest when found in a bit of wild land close to a beck, just south of the mansion — was complete, there never having been more letters than those we now see. The piece yet left to us is easily transportable, and Mr. Flensborg consented to its removal to Cheapinghaven , where he will probably allow it to remain. ” The listing is carved within a single-line frame or cartouche, so that the whole is evidently perfect. In the break, indeed, about one third of the lower line has suffered, but the remaining 2-thirds show us that this does not affect the completeness of the whole figure. The inscription reads from above downwards, and may be taken with or without the I at the beginning and the end. This I may be a mere fore- and hind-mark, or it may be a letter, i. The frame itself, however, so fully hems in the whole inscription, that there could be no need for any other mark. I therefore think that the I is a stave, not a line. But whether this be so or no, the reading will be substantially the same. What strikes us at once is, that the 2nd and 3rd characters are sam-staves, 2 [or more] let¬ ters on the same stave, of which this work offers several examples both Old-Northern and Scandinavian- runic; for it is clear that the ^ stands for $ and V (o and o), just as t stands for and l>. In the same manner the I (letters 1 and 4) are taken twice, as if cut in half. The + (here elegant for 1- , as so often) is in common to both the foregoing groups of letters. We therefore have: ' I m I HM ,ltHt IOIIN MKI IOMN. may-JOTHlN teig (take, receive) iotein. If we say that the first and last I are mere head- and tail-marks , we get omn me omn! which will be exactly the same in meaning, only me will be in the imperative, instead of in the pre¬ sent subjunctive : o-othin, teig (take, accept) othin ! So far there can be no doubt as to the runes or their reading. But the result is — that this is the first stone hitherto found on which (w)oden is mentioned, the fore-sound I being a later and thinner prefix than the fuller fore-sound w, and thus “overgang”. It is clear to me that the first iomn (or omn) is the name of the God, the second the name of a man. I therefore take it, either that this IOMN (or opin) had been a high-priest or devotee of that divinity , and was therefore on his funeral block especially recommended to the protection and heavenly hospitality of that Lord of Walhall, or else — which I think mox-e likely — that we have here an evident indication of those human sacrifices which were once so common in the Northern lands. Nothing is surer, from our Sagas and Chronicles, than that these human offerings were common so late as even “historical times”, tho they were then chiefly modified by the choice of inferior persons for the victims. But in the good old days kings and chiefs were often sacrificed as well. A grave-mound and Runic Stone always announces a certain rank for the deceast, and I think that — perhaps even from 584 WANDERERS. his birth — a highborn child had been consecrated to (w)oden, by whose name and in whose honor he was called, and in whose Shire and Temple he was perhaps Priest and Ruler (gupi), and — either at his natural death, or on occasion of some public calamity or to procure victory at his being offered as a noble victim, his family or clan inscribed 0 WODEN, RECEIVE THY SERVANT WODEN! At all events it is clear that this pagan block is very old , certainly not later than the 9th century, and that the second iomn (or omn) is the mere mans-name (w)oden, which occurs in so many other places. See the Word-roll s. v. wod^n. This olden form and sense of the verb mggia (Old Swed. mggia, N. I. mggja), now Dan. tigge, Swed. tigga (to beg), is here I believe found in Denmark for the first time, save in the compound himmki. Having thus endeavored to trace the fates of this “Wanderer” and to read its runes, I have only to add that its general style and workmanship are the same as on hundreds of others found all over the Scando-Gothic lands, and reaching in date from the Early Iron Age deep down into the Later. Not only are they numerous in France and “Germany”, but also in Scandia and England, tho of course with endless small variations. Here therefore, as in so many other cases, it is as impossible to deduce “nationality” from this particular pattern of a Brooch (the many brooch-patterns continually intermingling in the same country, nay even in the same tomb or lik-stead), as it would be from a modern pattern of a Watch, a Bonnet or a Crinoline. As now so then, both fashions and things may often sweep on¬ ward very rapidly and very far and wide.' We have already had one silver fibula- of this type in the specimen (p. 182) found in Sweden, only there, the large top is unfortunately lost, and shall soon come to a third example, the famous rune-bearer dug up in France; a golden one is “the runeless beauty’ (p. 561) discovered so lately in Denmark. Of a shape allied but different , and not uncommon everywhere , is the Danish runic prene (p. 297) from the precious sand-graves' at Himlingoie. A third type is the round beigh, of which we have so many in our North, as well as in France and Germany; but as yet the only rune-bearer is that exhumed at Osthofen. The allied Horse-shoe pattern, in- its many modifications of size and shape and make, is another variety found in many lands but especially in Great Britain and Ireland. The top often takes the form of a half-moon, or of an entire roundel or ring. When open (more or less “horse-shoe”) the two ends are frequently decorated with ornaments, which sometimes- become large bosses. On the largest kinds — and some have been found of a prodigious size — the pin is of an excessive length. Of this whole class the Largs or Hunterston Fibula is a magnificent specimen. The Gotland kind (p. 581) would seem almost confined to .that iland. The Oblong-Plate fibula (p. 388) is a 6th variety. It is scarce in Northern lands and almost unknown elsewhere, and would seem to have been a development on a much larger scale of the orna¬ mented oblong metallic plates sometimes found on belts and baldrics in our early Scando-Gothic graves and mosses. This oblong-plate Prene was no mere passing wonder. It long held its ground. On the Bayeux Tapestry the most illustrious among the English chiefly Fear this kind of clasp, while the round beigh is mostly worn by the leading persons among the Normans. Of the other Brooch patterns I need not speak, at least not until we light on examples bearing our venerable runes. We have abundant evidence that Swords and Brooches were often objects of such particular affection as to be lookt upon in the light of heirlooms or keepsakes for friends. They were often there¬ fore not buried with the dead, but given to the living. In historical times they are frequently men¬ tioned as legacies in wills. Thus in England the Lady Wulfwaru, about the year 995 (Kemble, Old- Engl. Charters, Vol. 3, p. 294), leaves lands and chattels to her children. Among other things, her younger daughter iElfwaru gets two brooches (“twegea preonas”). OSTHOFEN. 585 OSTHOFEN, RHEINHESSEN. ? DATE ABOUT A. D. 300-400. Full size. Copied from the original ( No. 462 in the Mainz Museum) , most obligingly forwarded for that purpose by the Archceologist Dr. L. lindenschmit , Curator of the Roman-German Central Museum, Mainz, to whom I present my thanks for this great courtesy. This piece has been known some time, and is described and engraved by L. Lindenschmit^ in his “Die Alterthiimer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit”, lstes. Heft, Mainz ]858, 4to, Taf. 8, No. 4, 5. But the Runes were first remarkt by Prof. Morlot (unhappily, now no more!), of Lausanne, who in¬ stantly delighted me with his fortunate find 1. The Brooch was found in what has been called a “Frankish” grave at Osthofen, and is now preserved in the Mainz Museum. It is of gilt Bronze, two very slight leaves of the metal being fastened on to a thin wooden frame between them.- The centre ornament, probably of glass or fluss, is gone. The only version of the inscription which I have seen is that by Prof. Dietrich, communicated by Lindensmit in his “Alterthiimer”, 4to, Vol. 2, Part 2, text to Tafel vi. It is : This the Professor fills out : “ GO..FURADIND...OFULED” “ GODEFURADIN DINGOFULEP” and translates : “ gode fur a din dingo fullSd MIT GUTEM DINGE (Geschick) SEI DEINE FAHRT ERFCtLLT” WITH a -GOOD THING (luck, success) BE THY CAREER FILLED. As in similar cases where we have a damaged metal surface, the Runes have been difficult to decipher and engrave. Partly from corrosion and partly from accident, they have suffered considerably. 1 In consequence of the discovery of the runes on the back, Dr. Lindensmit very properly re-engraved this piece in the 2nd part of the 2nd volume of his Alterthiimer (Taf. 6. Nos. 3, 4). This copy is good and elegant, but not quite correct. The runes espe¬ cially . are faultilij given, so that they are there without any meaning. As this Brooch has been in the hands of workmen for Electro¬ type purposes after it was forwarded to the Cheapinghaven Museum , the delicate and frail letters may have taken some damage, or else they have been misredd. My own copy of the letters was examined and approved — the original before us — by Mr. Herbst. 586 WANDERERS. By the help of the lens and of long and patient examination , I hope I have succeeded in defining the marks, which lire finely and sharply engraved. As usual, they are behind the ornament. 1 take the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th staves to be K. fc. Y. T and V , the 13th to be k (c), the 16th to be H- the 18th to be the same letter, and the 21st to be. k (c), the knee on the right being reverst upward on the left, 1, for ivant of room, as the fastening was in the way. We have many other examples of similar adaptations, caused by the nature of the space. — I divide and read: GONRAT FREE MIC MAH OH MIC. gonrat (— Conrad) fadged (made) me! mah OWETH (owns, possesses) ME. As an excellent illustration of the formula here employed, I beg to give THE CHATHAM BROOCH of silver, now in the British Museum. It was found near Chatham, Kent, about the year 1814. An engraving of this piece will be found in the Archaeological Journal, June 1855, p. 202; but it is here copied from a beautiful Cast presented to the Museum of Northern Antiquities, Cheapinghaven , by Prof.. Westwood of Oxford. — The inscription is: t jELFGIUU me ah. AELFG1UU ME OWNS iELFGiFU, iELFGivu , was a common English female name. But this brooch is remarkable for having the name of the owner on the front , in such a way as to show that it was made to order for the person whose name it bears. There is no reason why it should not have belonged to that jelfgifu or iELFGiVA , also called emma, who was the Queen first of HCthelred the Unready, of deplorable memory, and afterwards of Cnut the Great, King of the Whole North. The workmanship and shape of the staves suit very well the time of this Lady, who married her first husband in 1002 and died in 1052. The Jewel of King Alfred has mec — an older form — instead of me. My readers will remember that this also is inscribed on the front, and thus to order. The words are : aelfred mec heht gewyrcan. JELFRED ME HIGHT to - WORK. (Alfred ordered me to be made.) We see at a glance that the style of this Jewel of Alfred is more than a hundred years older than the Brooch of jelfgiuu. — My text exhibits many other specimens of this same formula on Brooches and other Jewels, as well as on Grave-stones, and like ones will be found in the Runic Appendix. We have another exactly similar example on the Shield formerly used as a Looking- glass (to what base uses may not even Shields descend!) which was fixt on the door of a “Stabur (Stab-bower, outhouse on staddles) at Rike, Nedenes Amt, Norway. See the beautiful engraving of this piece above, p. 293. CHARNAY. 587 CHARNAY, BURGUNDY, FRANCE. ? DATE ABOUT A. D. 400-500. From a beautiful facsimile, natural size, communicated by the finder and owner m henri Baudot , President de la Commission Archeologique de la Cote d’Or, Dijon. The engraving again carefully collected by M. Baudot from the Brooch itself This invaluable Fibula , whose front is parcel-gilt , precious scientifically much more than materially, is of silver; weight 34 grammes 5 decigrammes. It was found in 1857 by M. Baudot, and that accomplisht antiquarian has most kindly allowed me to make use of it for this work. In a letter dated July 10, 1861, M. Baudot thus speaks of its date and discovery : “ Depuis les traditions et les probabilites historiques, le territoire de Charnay a ete temoin d’un combat entre les Francs commandos par leur Roi Clovis . et les Bourguignons a la tete desquels etait Gondebaud leur Chef. Les Bourguignons surpris et trahis furent mis en fuite et suivirent les bords de la Saone. Ceux qui prirent la rive gauche s’engagerent dans la presqu’ile que forme pres de Charnay la confluence de la Saone et du Doubs. Les Bourguignons n’avaient d’autre issue que le Pons Dubis, construit par les Romains en face de Charnay; c’est en avant de ce pout encombre par les fuvards, que les Francs victorieux firent un horrible carnage de leurs ennemis. Apres cette affaire les Bourguignons furent inhumes sur le coteau ou apres neufcents ans j’ai fouille leur sepulture. C’est dans 1 une de ces 74 588 WANDERERS. sepultures que j’ai trouve la Fibule d’argent. Elle date done comme vous le pensez , Monsieur, de 400 ou 500 ans apres J. C. ” M. Baudot being a wealthy landowner, and having discovered on his own estate the field of the dead who perisht in this battle, opened the graves carefully and at his leisure, and dug out a vast number of weapons and ornaments, &c., some of them of great interest and beauty, and added them to his already rich and splendid private Museum. The noble President is well known as a learned old- lorist • as well as an accomplish^ draughtsman. Of his great talents in both these capacities his anti¬ quarian works everywhere give abundant proofs. All honor to this real “gentleman for his many and great services and sacrifices in the cause of archseological study ! This costly clasp then, whose style and language equally point back to about the 5tli century, has been borne by some Frank -or Burgundian chieftain, or some Northman or Scandinavian free-lance in their service, who fell in the battle, and it was buried with him. What makes it so excessively in¬ teresting is, not only that it bears an Old-Northern inscription in Old-Northern Runes, but also that it has an Old-Northern letter-row, a Runic Futhserc. It is thus a noble parallel to tbe Wadstena Bracteate and the Thames Knife. Beginning at the top on the left, and continuing along the top, and afterwards taking the two last staves on the right arm, we have the Alphabet. The middle strokes of the last letter in the top line are obliterated, but the Rune has doubtless been the usual M (m). If we take the 5 dots near the bottom of the right arm to be a rune, it will probably stand for ng, the next’ stave being M (d). Thus we have : P h ► r R < X Ml 1 I fl ^ U I * T & n <M) (•:■) N F, U, 5, JS, R, C, G, W, H, N, I, Y, yO, P, A, S, T, B, E, (m), (ng), D Then, commencing with the bottom of the left arm, and continuing down the right arm, and along the right side below, we have the name of the owner. The 4 dots ( \ ) after , the 3rd stave are probably an ornamental division-mark, not o. The 3 dots (!) at the top of the right arm, other¬ wise sometimes I, are also apparently decorative, as are the strokes before and after the 5 dots (•:•) which seem to stand for ng. The leaning strokes on the right below are mere fillings-in or flourishes. The runes in dalca are upside down and partly Bind-runes, a mere mark of ornamental writing. Ihe whole therefore reads : N I DiEA HAiA 0 DALCA SiEyOIiE. D2EA the -HIGH OWNS BALK ( brooch ) THIS. In the centre below is : ku (or possibly kr) the initials of some word, perhaps the name of some person, male or female, from whom or to whom it has at one time come. It will thus be seen that the alphabet here as elsewhere is not complete, there being no more room or no disposition to continue it. For in the inscription itself 4 or 5 letters not in the Futhserc are employed, namely, + (a), * (o), k (c), b (l) and Y, another form of a as modified by the Bind- rune in which it occurs1; while one of the two staves cut below is Y (k). We also see here 2 marks for the A- sound, in 2 modifications of pronunciation, as on the Bjorketorp stone and other Old-Northern pieces, X (a variation of the usual Y) for a, and \ for a. This incompleteness of the Futhorc, and use on the same piece of other letters not given therein, is curiously exemplified in the Agyllic vase Alpha-beta re-engraved in Franzii Elementa Epigraphices Graecae, Berlin, 4to, 1840, p. 22, No. 1. Here the Alphabet gives 9 for B , ( for G , and I for Z ; but in the word above it we have f and b and I , besides variations of other letters. The letter ? ( = Koph) is not in the Alphabet at all, but occurs 4 times in the words written above it! So on the Etruscan Borghesian tazzetta, which contains 2 lines of inscription besides the Alphabet, no less than 10 letters are differently formed in the other writing to what they are in the Alphabet; while 2 staves which occur there are altogether wanting in the Alphabet. — See the remarks on this piece under Bracteate No. 22. CHARNAY. 589 Ihe curious intermixture of the Alphabet and the Inscription need not surprise us. Such playful or fanciful or “bothering’ or mysterious runic tricks meet us repeatedly on these Northern monuments — and indeed often on Classical and Mediaeval jDieces. Since the above was written, this noble piece has been publisht by its aceomplisht owner, of whose rich Museum it is one of the chief ornaments, in that remarkable and elegant work: “Memoire sur les Sepultures des Barbares de l’Epoque Meroviugienne , decouvertes en Bourgogne, et particuliere- ment a Charnay, par Henri Baudot, President de la Commission arclieologique de la Cote-d’Or, corre- spondant du Ministere de l’instruction publique pour les travaux historiques , membre de l’lnstitut des provinces, de l’Academie de Dijon, et de. plusieurs autres Societes savantes frangaises et etrangeres. Illustre de gravures en bois et d’un grand nombre de planches executees en chromolithograpliie d’apres les dessins de hauteur.” 4to. Dijon I860.1 The facsimile engraving, silver-gilt like the original, is given plate 14, fig. 1, 1 his. At pp. 49, 50 is M. Baudot’s description of this brooch, and at pp. 50-55 Prof. C. C. Rafn’s reading. My own facsimile is still more exact than that of M. Baudot himself , in consequence of the care with which he has corrected it after a new study of the original. As thus amended we see that the Fibula has no mark or risking between the H and the m on the left side, and that the character for s on the top is , not S . In answer to an enquiry from me as to whether there were any traces of niello , M. Baudot has kindly informed me in a note dated April 30, 1862, that there are none: — “Quand a. l’inscrip- tion . elle est tracee a la pointe, tres finement, sans aucune trace de niellure” 2„ In connection with the above, and as, in my opinion, a happy and striking illustration and de¬ fence of the reading I have hazarded, I will here add exact and delicate engravings of a piece now famous, THE HUNTERSTON OR LARGS BROOCH, AYRSHIRE , SCOTLAND. From Casts of the original. Full size. Draivn and Chemityped by J- Magnus petersen. This splendid example of Ancient Art is the finest Fibula ever found in Scotland, and the only one known to exist in that country bearing runes. It is often called the Largs Brooch, from having been discovered some few miles from the place; but more commonly of late it is bight the Hunterston Brooch, from the mansion where it is now preserved, the seat of the Hunter family, on whose ground it was taken up. Much has been written upon it, and several attempts have been made “to rede the runes”. So far, they have, I think, all been unsuccessful, the older ones from bad copies of the runic listing, the last (Prof. Wilson’s) from what I take to be a bad assumption (that the language of the carving is Keltic) and from an unjustifiable amount of variation from what actually stands on the prene. Four letters he omits altogether. It will be observed that the Brooch has : MALBEItA A TALK I><ELR I LARI and then , in a different and later hand : TOALK A OLFRITI, whereas Prof. Wilson welds these two carvings into one, and reads : MALBRI5 A A DAIMIHEH I DiEOL MAOLFRIDI. 1 English readers are referred to my notice of this work in the Gentleman’s Magazine, London, May 1862, pp. 559-64. 2 A new translation of this piece, with an incorrect copy of the Brooch itself, has just appeared from the pen of Prof. F. Dietrich in Haupt’s .Zeitschrift fur deutsches Alterthum , Yol. 13, 8vo, Berlin 1866, pp. 105-23. 74* 590 WANDERERS. His translation also is too sentimental for the ring of an ancient inscription (“ Mulbritha Ms friend in recompense to i laolfridi"). Ant! its construction is not probable. Had such a phrase been carved, we should certainly have expected: Malbritha to Maolfridi, Ms friend, in recompense. Certain it is, that Prof. Wilson’s reading is not on the fibula. ORNAMENTATION HIDDEN BY THE HEAD OF THE PIN. HALF SIZE. AFTER WILSON. ORNAMENTATION HIDDEN BY THE BODY OF THE PIN. HALF SIZE. AFTER WILSON. FRONT OF THE BROOCH. FULL SIZE. lhe jewel itself is of early date, as I take it at least as old as the 8tli or 9th century. Its style and workmanship (commonly called Carlovingian) , whose rudiments go back to the 5th and 6th centuries, may be termed Scando-Keltic or Anglo-Frankic or Romance-British, being in fact common to the high art of most European countries in the early middle age. Being found on Scottish ground, CHAR NAY. 591 this piece may well have been of Scottish manufacture, but it may also have come from afar and claim another origin. Ihe runic inscriptions seem to have been added on the empty compartments behind in the 10th age , and as far as we can see by Scandinavian owners who were settled in the lie of Man. Earlier than about the 8th year-hundred these runes cannot be, for they are all “Scandinavian”, not “Old-Northern ; later than about the 10th they cannot be, for the T (here = d) is not "stung’ into D. ith regard to this unique gaud, I cannot do better than transcribe the condenst account of its ORNAMENTAL BORDER ON THE OUTER EDGE. FULL SIZE. ORNAMENTAL BORDER ON THE INNER EDGE. FULL SIZE. BACK OF THE BROOCH. FULL SIZE. history and former readings, as given by Prof. Daniel Wilson in his “Prehistoric Annals of Scotland”, 2nd ed., 8vo, London 1863, Vol. 2, pp. 267-77: “Coins, graven relics, inscriptions, poems, and chronicles, the works of the race which first became known only by its barbarian violence, all combine to illuminate the obscure period of Scottish 592 WANDERERS. history from the ninth to the eleventh- century. But among those, the most remarkable relic hitherto discovered is the beautiful Runic brooch, engraved on Plate xvn, which forms the frontispiece to this volume. It was found in the autumn of 1830, on the estate of Robert Hunter, Esq. of Hunterston, in the parish of West Kilbride, Ayrshire, within about a hundred yards of the sea, by two workmen who had commenced to quarry for stones. It lay quite close to the surface, at the foot of a steep cliff, called the “Hawking Craig”, a part of the Goldenberry hill, which bounds the extreme western point of Ayrshire, where the falcon still breeds. Between the Hawking Craig and the sea is a level piece of ground, assigned by local tradition as the scene of a skirmish shortly before the celebrated battle of Largs, fought A. D. 1263 L when the fleet of King Haco was shattered by a tempest, and the Norse foe, already dispirited and reduced in numbers, was finally driven from the Scottish mainland. In further confirmation of the local tradition Mr. Hunter adds: “On the opposite side of the Hawking Craig, where the broocli was found, I discovered, in making a fence, some graves, composed merely of six rough stones, but with nothing inside but some charcoal, the bones being quite decayed. A short dis¬ tance from this , at the. foot of the hill , is the flat piece of ground assigned as the scene of the skirmish, in confirmation of which I discovered some graves there. A shoi’t way from this was a large cairn or tumulus of stones, wherein were found coins, &c. ; but I just recollect, as a boy, the stones having been carted away: I found also an urn of unbaked clay, half filled with bones partially burned.” It might admit of doubt if the Norsemen were likely to tarry on an enemy’s coast, after shipwreck and defeat, long enough to construct the cist and cinerary urn, and to rear the funeral pile, though we know that they were permitted to land, after the battle of Largs, in order to bury their dead. But we may dispense with the argument in this case, as there is not the slightest reason to imagine that the cinerary urn was in use either by Scots or Norwegians of the thirteenth century. In truth, the whole theory by which the remarkable relic now referred to is sought to be connected with the important historical event of the reign of Alexander 111, is destitute of any satisfactory foundation. The locality is far re¬ moved from Largs, and not the slightest value can be attached to any local tradition of Norwegian skirmishes or battles. A reference to the old and new statistical accounts of the various parishes, along both the Ayrshire and Argyleshire coasts , will suffice to show that the battle of King Haco has proved as infallible a source of explanation for the discovery of cists, tumuli, cairns, and sepulchral relics of every kind, as if it were a well authenticated fact that no one had died, from the days of Noah to our own, but at the battle of Largs ! “ Sturla, the Norse skald, has celebrated the gorgeous armament of Haco in the famous Raven's Ode, and disguises the extent of his monarch’s disasters with the skill of a courtly bardr but in vain. King Haco gathered together the shattered remnant of his fleet, and bore away for Orkney, where he died, not many weeks after, of a broken heart. The old Norse skald thus refers to his earlier success, while the fleet was gathering along the Scottish shores, in sight of the Ayrshire coast: — “Our fierce veterans, feeders of wolves, hastened their fatal course through the mountains. In the fell battle ming¬ ling, Aleinn the Dauntless wreaked vengeance on the expiring foe. But now our sovereign encountered the horrid powers of enchantment. A tempest, magic raised, blew upon our warriors ambitious of con¬ quest, and against the floating habitations of the brave. The roaring billows dashed shielded companies on the Scottish strand.” In one of the skirmishes which preceded the fatal encounter fought on Tuesday the 2d of October 1263, the beautiful brooch is assumed to have been lost. Both the character of its inscription and the style of its ornaments suggest the probality of its pertaining to a much earlier period; and even Danish antiquaries, while not unwilling to authenticate its Scandinavian origin, have sought for it a date one hundred and thirty-three years prior to the defeat of King Ilaco, and the final abandonment of the Scottish mainland by the Norwegian invaders. The brooch is of silver, richly wrought with gold filigree work, and measures four •inches and nine-tenths in greatest diameter. It is also set with amber, and is in a nearly perfect condition. The only injury it has received, with the exception of the point of the acus being broken off, is in some of the amber settings, occasioned either by the action of the weather, to which it was. exposed from lying so near the surface, or possibly from the frequent "MS. letter from R. Hunter, Esq., 4th April 1850.” CHARNAY. 593 burning of the. whins which abound along the cliff where it was found. But the most remarkable feature of this beautiful personal ornament is the inscription engraved in large Runic characters on its under side. “Shortly after the discovery of this interesting relic, it was exhibited to the Society of Scottish Antiquaries, and Mr. 1. G. Repp, a native of Iceland, familiar with Runic literature, read the inscription thus: YmiUVf : -I : HIT : H* :: 1UK.: MPRKB : ■ Maloritha a dalk this; Dolk Osfri5o; which he thus translated: JMaloritha possidet hanc fibula/m ; Fibula Osfridie. The inscription engraved in Northern Runes on this beautiful fibula has naturally rendered it an object of considerable interest to Danish antiquaries. It was made the subject of a learned com¬ munication by Finn Magnusen in the Annaler .for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Histone for 1846; but it ad¬ mits of doubt if he has been more successful in the correct rendering of this than of the well-known Runamo and Ruthwell inscriptions; though he is equally precise in assigning to the Ayrshire brooch a definite date and owner,' as in identifying Offa, and the other historical characters of whom mention is made, according to certain readings of the Ruthwell Runes. “The inscription on the brooch is traced in large Runic characters, of which an exact fac¬ simile is introduced in the frontispiece, and differs essentially from any readings hitherto given of it by Danish antiquaries. Professor Magnusen’ s version, furnished by the late Mr. Donald Gregory, then Secretary of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, was probably only a copy of that made by Mr. Repp, though he reads the second name 4 A P'K.I ^ , and contrives to elicit a vast deal more significance from the brief legend than its former translator dreamt of. He renders the first part — malfriea a dalk i>is; and translates it : JMalfritha is the owner of this brooch. In this Malfritha he ingeniously discovers the Norwegian Queen Malford, a Russian princess who lived about A. D. 1130, while he finds in the Osfrido of the latter part of his version, Astrith the wife of King Svenir [Sverrerj. A passage, moreover, in the Saga of King Haco, wherein the monarch complains of having been despoiled in infancy of all his in¬ heritance save a brooch and a ring, completed the coveted cycle of historical identification; and here accordingly we have the brooch of King Haco, and an undoubted memorial of the Battle of Largs! A glance at the fac-simile of the inscription will show how much imagination had to do even with the literal elements of this unparalleled discovery. In adapting the first name to his historical romance, Professor Magnusen reads A as f , not only without any authority , but even while recognizing the regular ^ , or Runic f, in the second name: a needless liberty as will appear. The word HA is no less a creation of the fancy: the mark which appears to have been construed into the terminating circle of the A , and to have given some show of probability to the others , being only the head of one of the silver rivets, which chances there to protrude in the mi cldle of a line. “ Meanwhile let us glance at the safer guide which pure archseological evidence supplies. In addition to the inscription, I have introduced into the drawing, portions of the ornamental borders run¬ ning along the outer and inner edges of the brooch. The Irish antiquary especially will recognise in these interlaced patterns, and the intertwined dragons and other ornamental devices, a style of decora¬ tion rendered familiar to us by engravings of the Scottish sculptured-stones, and introduced on nearly every native ecclesiastical and jDersonal ornament pertaining to the early Christian period prior to the first appearance of the Northern Vikings. But for the inscription, in fact, no one would have dreamt of assigning to the brooch a foreign origin; yet it does not seem to have ever occurred to the Scottish antiquaries to whom it was submitted, that the inscription might also be native, and equally Celtic with the workmanship. It will be seen that a rude chevron pattern is engraved on the back of the brooch, cut in the same style as the inscription, evidently the work of very different, and no doubt later hands, than those of the original jeweller. The whole reasoning, both of Scottish and Danish antiquaries in relation to this interesting relic, has therefore proceeded on the assumption that a Runic inscription must have a direct Scandinavian origin: a conclusion by no means necessarily resulting from the use of Runes in Scotland at the date assigned to this one, after alliances and intermarriages had long existed between the Scandinavian and Celtic races of Scotland. They constitute an alphabet, as regular and as easily adapted to any language as that of the Romans. A curious modern example of such an adapta¬ tion, under much less favourable circumstances, was shown to me by Mr. William Hodgson, of Savan- 594 WANDERERS. nali, Georgia, consisting of the Scriptures written by an African slave, in well executed Arabic charac¬ ters, .but in the patois, or imperfect English, in use among the slaves of the Southern States. “ The Runic monuments of the Isle of Man present some remarkable features , manifestly pointing them out as the product of a Scandinavian colony in close alliance with a native Celtic popu¬ lation, and possessed both of a language and style of art resulting from the intercourse of these diverse races. The Manx Runic alphabet appears also to have some literal pecularities altogether singular, though probably once common to the Hebrides and Northern Isles, and found also, as might have been anticipated, on the Hunterston brooch. To these features of the Manx alphabet, my attention was called by Professor P. A. Munch of Christiania, during the visit of that distinguished Northern scholar to this country in 1849 1 ; by whom, indeed, they were for the first time detected, when inspecting a series of casts of the Manx inscriptions in the Museum of the Scottish Antiquaries. In these A is sometimes used as b, so that the first name on the brooch reads Malbritha. Since the publication of the first edition of this work, Professor Munch has contributed to the Memoires des Antiquaries du Nord a com¬ munication on the Runic inscriptions of Sodor and Man, to which he appends a copy of the inscrip¬ tion on the Hunterston brooch, with the following remarks: — “The above shows the inscription to be much longer than was stated in the drawing from which Finn Magnusen attempted to decipher it. But of this 1 only venture to read the words : malbriijA a dalk eana . . ; undoubtedly a and i>ana are not clear , but we may easily imagine the disappearance of the few strokes necessary for these words. In the second line, I only dare read the first word, dalk. The name astritar cannot possibly be there. The third line is also inexplicable” 2. Here it is very noticeable that, while this learned Northern scholar reads without difficulty the Norse inscription on Manx monuments, he can only make out with any con¬ fidence a single word, exclusive of the proper name, which is confessedly no Scandinavian, but a native Celtic one; and his conjectural interpretation entirely differs from either of those previously furnished by Northern scholars. Examples of Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian Runes employed to write the Latin language are by no means rare; nor need it surprise us that any regular alphabet should be used, either by ecclesiastics in their literate language, or by the people among whom it is introduced, in rendering inscriptions in their native tongue. Such was the use to which the Roman alphabet was applied by the native Britons and Irish; and indeed the idea is so obvious that Professor Munch, when commenting on an imperfect Runic inscription at Kirk Onchan, in which he fails to detect any Norse forms, dis¬ misses it with the remark: “A fragment not to be understood; it is perhaps Gaelic”. From the com¬ ments of himself and others on the Hunterston brooch, of which the only points on which all are agreed are the essentially Celtic character both of the workmanship and proper name, the same remark might no less fitly apply to its inscription. The incidents attendant on the acquisition by the Northmen of possessions on the Scottish mainland, both by conquest and marriage, leave little room to doubt that, in so far as the Celtic race had any literary acquirements, they must have been familiarized both with the Northern language- and Runes. It need not, therefore, surprise us to find in the owner of the Hunterston brooch not a Norwegian queen but a Scottish chief of the same name as the Celtic maormor, Melbrigda Tonn, slain by Sigurd, the Orkney jarl, when he invaded the north of Scotland A. D. 894. The name, indeed, is familiar to the student of early Scottish history, and its first syllable is one of the commonest Celtic prefixes, as in the Mail Fataric on the Iona tomb, and even in the royal name of Malcolm, Maol Columb, the servant of Columba, as Maol Brigda signifies the servant of St. Bridget. In all cases it is a male prefix, the Gaelic maol meaning bald as well as subordinate, and being un¬ doubtedly originally employed in its latter acceptation with reference to the tonsure. It is accordingly frequently met with in the names of ecclesiastics, as in the Pictish chronicle, A. D. 965, “Maelbrigd episcopns pausavit and again repeatedly in an early Irish MS. copy of the Gospels , preserved among Harleian MSS. in the British Museum, — n, 1802; as, for example, at the end of the Gospel of St. John, the colophon: “Or. do Maelbrigte h-Ua Maeluanaig, qui scripsit hunc librum". 1 “As these sheets are passing through the press, I learn of the premature death of this gifted Northern scholar, while engaged in maturing the results of his researches among the literary treasures of the Vatican , which promised contributions of unex¬ pected value to Northern, including British history.” 2 “ Memoires des Antiquares du Not'd, 1845-49, p. 202.” CHARNAY. 595 “ Here, therefore, we have a probable key to the language of the whole inscription, nor can it be regarded as an extravagant idea that a Celt should write his native language in an alphabet already familiar to him. ifie characters on the brooch, it will be seen, are rudely and somewhat irregularly executed, and include various Binderuner or compound Runes, which add to the difficulty of translation. Making allowance for these, the following version has this merit at least, compared with previous ones, that it does not select merely such letters as will conform to a preconceived theory, but takes the whole in natural order 1. In the latter part of the inscription the second letter appears to be a com¬ pound Rune, consisting of , or perhaps of 1+^, the next of hY, and the fourth of 4|s — a con¬ struction entirely in accordance with the usual mode of interpreting the Binderuner', which were in com¬ mon use at the period of the most intimate Celtic and Scandinavian intercourse. The wdiole will thus read: YINRIM : ■! : HIY|* + * : i : II I f : YOMPRI1I “The additional marks are mostly irregular lines, with no distinctive character, and executed with so little care, that it is not improbable they have been introduced merely to occupy the remaining space with a uniform texture. What is decipherable admits of being thus read in Gaelic : Malbritha a daimiheh i dceol Maolfridi; i. e. , Malbritha his friend in recompense to Maolfridi: a is the possessive pronoun his; daimheach, a friend or relative; i or h-i, the old Celtic preposition in; and diol, a reward for service done. It must be borne in remembrance that the orthography of the Scottish Gaelic is of modern origin. The .sound, therefore, is chiefly to be looked to, but the variations even in the spel¬ ling are not important. No Scandinavian scholar can examine the facsimile of the inscription, and question the fact that the concluding portion actually contains the masculine name which Professor Magnusen was at such needless pains to try and educe from that of Malbritha. The chief value, how¬ ever, to the Scottish antiquary of the reading now given, arises from no identification of these old Celtic friends, but from the conclusion which it involves — in itself so probable, — that they did actually employ the Scoto -Scandinavian Runes in writing their own native language. ” The beautiful but far from exact engravings of the Brooch given by Prof. Wilson, which show the Front, Back, Tung both sides, Edge-ornaments (mostly half size), and the Runes separately (full size), are on the title-plate to his 2nd volume. They have been repeated, from the same plate, in Dr. Stuart’s noble tome 2 of his “Sculptured Stones of Scotland”, Plate 12; see his p. 76. In this plate the runes on the Brooch are not carefully given; but the full-size transcript is substantially correct. I will here make an observation or two. And first : the reader will see in each of the cartouches afterwards filled with runes several small rounds or ringles, slightly visible, nearly opposite each other. These are not letters; they are the neatly hammered and thus almost obliterated marks of the tiny silver rivets here used by the jeweler. Second: I think it undoubted that we have here two runic hands, two inscriptions, the one carved some time after the other. The oldest is that on the left side, which runs up to the 3rd stave on the right, where it is finisht by the ending-mark I . The 21 letters here engraved are boldly ele¬ gant in form, and have but one bind-rune, while there are everywhere divisional “stops”. The charac¬ ters on the other side are less elegant, have several bind-runes, and have no parting marks. There was more than room enough, so that there was no need for the monograms or for omitting the stops. Third: after the last word on the right (olfriti), there was more than a quarter of an inch to S'pare. This open space the scribe has filled-in with 5 upright lines, all nearly straight. Fourth: the same person has been pleased to crowd the open room below with & rude chevron ornament, which in one spot is so carelessly done as to be nearly straight lines and rune-like marks. After thus giving my opinion that we have two separate and independent runic carvings, we will examine the staves more deliberately. The M, A, L are plain. — The A is b, as first pointed out by the learned Prof. P. A. Munch. This form of the b, very rare in Scandinavia, is universal in the lie 1 “What Professor Munch calls the third “inexplicable line” of Runes, it will be seen from the engraving- , occurs on a different part of the brooch, as part of a series of rudely scratched lines covering all the plain surface. They bear no resemblance to the regular Runic characters on the circle of the brooch ; and are, I conceive, nothing more than a part of the rude diapering scratched over the whole surface there. ” 75 596 WANDERERS. of Man, which has no other sign for this consonant. This is one argument for connecting this fibula with that iland , near to which it was found. — The RI are sharp enough. — The bow of the b (th) is not complete ; it was left a little open in the middle, unless there has heen friction at that place. — After A, completing the first word, malbriia, there has been a separating mark, apparently two . small strokes; but they are now scarcely seen. — Then comes A, followed by a divisional stop, 1 . This mark would be s. The lie of Man s is usually 1 or *, sometimes H. There is no s in the Largs inscription. And no s is possible here. Thus the divisional mark was originally 1, the lower stroke having been worn away by rubbing. — The next letters, TALE, closely cut, are plain (save that the arm of the K is now very faint), and are followed by a stop ( ! ). We have then the word iolr ( - tcelr). The whole is cut close, and again the bow of the fc> is slightly open in the middle, unless there has been friction here. The fc is o (as), one of the many variations of this letter. On the Bladinge Font, Smaland, Sweden, it is nearly identical in shape (*). The arm of the L is a good distance from the stem (I' for b), as often, still farther apart than in the L in mal. So the upper tips of the side-strokes of the R (A) do not quite touch the central bar. But there may have been friction here. After this A there are one or two slight and faint divisional dots. — Then comes I (l), carved close to the right foot of the A, and the side of the raised ornament answers to a divisional mark. — Continuing on the right, we have the letters lari, followed by a stop ( , ). The A (ar) are a bind (A and fl). Here .the first writing ends, and we thus get: malbrita a talk, tolr I lari. We now come to the second carving, beginning with the first stave below. This is T, its arm now faint. — The next letter is 0 (f=). — Then we have (/Is) a monogram, a and L (A and Is). The writer would seem at first to have begun making the A-mark at the top 1, for a slight risting is there visible. But he then remembered that this would be "1 and Is, tl, not A and Is (al). So he re¬ frained from adding strength to this stroke, and made his deep A-mark low down, A , thus giving /Is, A and Is, al. — The K is plain. — r This is followed by (4:) another tie, a and o (d and (a). But the o begins the next word. We have many other instances in runics of the two letters of a bind belonging to different words. — The arm of the next stave, L, is very short, the whole writing here being singularly close. — Then we have friti (or frit, when there will be one filling-in-line more). — The other marks are, as I have said, meaningless and ornamental, that there might be no gap. — Thus we get: toalk A OLFRITI (or OLFRIT). Here and there we can detect a slight scratch or dent which has nothing to do with any letter. But the above is all that is intentionally cut on the jewel, whose inscription is unusually sharp and clear and almost unencumbered with accidental injuries. There can be no doubt as to the runic staves, however we may interpret them. We now see that there have been two carvings. The first person who wrote his name on this Brooch was malbrida, and he did it thus, unloosing the bind for ar : YfMRIH \ HIT mA I NRI MALBRIE A A TALK, ECELR I LARI. malbritha owns this - dalc (brooch), thyle ( Speaker , Law-mcm) IN lar. We do not know the exact office in old times filled by the thyle, which also signified Orator and Poet. This is the second time it has been found on any runic monument; and this time it is on a piece undoubtedly owned by a Northman, or a man of Northern descent, settled in the lie of Man or in the South-west of Scotland. Nor do we know whether this term continued to be used in Christian days, like so many others first found in connection with heathendom. The Northmen in Scotland and the lie of Man the second flow of Northmen, the Wikings and their followers — adopted the Christian faith at a very early period, in the lie of Man probably by the year 950. The older Keltic population of Man was Christian, or partly Christian, as early as the 5th century. If we suppose the runes to have been carved in the 11th century thyle then had a Christian meaning, if in the 10th perhaps either Christian or pagan. By going back to pp. 345-47, where the Danish snoldelev Stone is given, which seems to be as old as the 8th century and is undoubtedly heathen, we shall see that it was raised to KUNUiELT (gunvald), who was i>ulr o SALHAUKUM, Thyle on the Salhows, now the hamlet of Sallow (Salhoi) CHARNAY. 597 in the parish of Snpldelev. So, I take it, this malbru-a was thyle 1 in lar. Where lar is or was, I do not know. I leave this to Scottish lorists to determine. But if' my reading be correct - — it must have been the name of a place. Ihat a Keltic name should have been borne by a Scandinavian, is not surprising. The Manx stones offer many other instances, and so does all our olden history. In ancient times many Icelanders had names originally Keltic. Such things always happen from intermarriage , friendship and other such causes. I do not wish to draw unwarranted conclusions or to make unfounded combinations. But I cannot help pointing out a second fact apparently connecting the writer of this inscription with the lie of Man. There is a beautifully decorated runic Cross at Kirk Michael in that Hand, raised by a man bearing the same name and at about the same time as the writing on this fibula, for Mr. Gumming fixes the date of the stone at about the middle of the 10th century. I engrave it here. RUNIC CROSS. KIRK MICHAEL, ILE OF MAN. From the Rev. J. G. Cumming’s “ The Runic and other Monumental Remains of the Isle of Mari’, 4to, London 1857 , Plate 1, Fig. 1 b, Fig. a. — Photoxylographt by J. F. ROSENS tand. Now on the south side of the church-yard gate at Kirk Michael, built upright into the top of the wall2. Of clay-schist; still in good condition. Is about 4 feet 2 inches high, 1 foot 1 inch 1 Tradition asserts that king Erik, son of the Norwegian monarch Harald Fairfax, took possession of the lie of Man about the middle of the 10th century, and establisht the famous representative assembly called the “House of Keys”, supposed by Cumming to be a corruption of the Manx Rear e- as -feed, four and twenty, that being the number of its members. This institution, the lower house of the Tynwald (TliingvOller) Court, still subsists. Originally these 24 “Taxiaxi” were elected by the people. Supposing there ever was such a place as “lar” or “lari” on the lie of Man, can HElr have been formerly used there for one of these 24 “Spokesmen” or representatives? 2 See Mr. Cumming’s text p. 15, and his article “The Runic Inscriptions of the Isle of Man” in “Archseologia Cambrensis” for July 1866, Plate p. 251 and text p. 253. 75 598 WANDERERS. broad and nearly 3 inches thick. “This cross owes its preservation, as does that of a much later date on the opposite side of the gateway, to the circumstance of its having been built into the old church of St. Michael, from which it was removed and placed in its present condition not more than thirty years ago.” “The remarkable and beautiful ornament which occupies the centre of the shaft of one face of this cross I do not remember to have seen elsewhere, certainly not on any of the Irish or Scotch crosses. I have, however, seen a close resemblance to it in drawings of Welsh and Cumbrian crosses by Mr. J. 0. Westwood, who has also pointed out to me in the ornament of a Roman pavement a pattern to which it has also a close approximation. I would call it chain-cable work. We have a beautiful variation of it in the cross on the other side of the gateway (Plate XI, Fig. 28). See also title-page of this work. It occurs on at least five other Manx crosses, viz. Plate I, Fig. 2; Plate n, Figures 3, 4 and 5, and Plate ill, Fig. 9, and probably it occupied the centre of one face of the lost shaft of cross Plate n, Fig. 8.” Since Mr. Cumming wrote this, a new runic cross has been found at Kirk Braddan, lie of Man, and this fine pillar bears the same chain-ring ornament as its central decoration. But let us read the runes on this Kirk Michael Cross : Y-nr : «ini : nhihh = 8w : Mi»i i : run1 : mhp : rm : *un : ‘IN : Ml- : Iftfinili- : Mill 0 KIKM : Nil : W : IN : IYIDI* » MAILBRIKTI , SUNR APAKANS , SMII> , RAISTI KRUS PANO FUR SALU SINA. SIN BRUKUIN KAUT KIRM PANO , AUK ALA I MAUN. MAILBRIKTI, SON of - ATBAKAN , SMITE , RAISED CROSS THIS FOR SOUL SIN (his). SIN (his) brook- WIN (? tenant) KAUT gared (made, carved) this, eke (and) all (= the stone-crosses now) IN man. We cannot tell from the above whether smith applies to mailbrikti or to his father Abakan. The word “SMip” is neither strictly in the nominative (which would be smipr) to agree with mailbrikti, nor in the genitive (smipar) to agree with apakans. It is true we may obtain the nominative-mark by reading the R in raisti twice, as so often in runics; but the two s’s in apakans and smip would almost seem to show that this R is not here to be so doubled. The fact is, there are several provincial and not strictly “grammatical” spellings on these out-of-the-way Manx stones, and this is one of them. SME& is either (the R taken twice) smipr, or is apparently taken “absolutely”, either for smipr or smipar, the former being the less violent supposition; but Munch and Cumming regard it as the epithet of apakan. We must remember that smith in olden days meant artist as well as artisan, and might be borne by a man of wealth and station. It is clearly possible that the raiser of the cross and the first recorded owner of the Brooch may have been the same -person. If so, malbripa may have obtained this fibula as a fine specimen of jewelers-work. At all events they were probably members of the same family, and the one may have been the grandfather or the grandson of the other. In fur salu sina, fur governs its noun in the accusative, as on dozens of other runic monuments. Of sin brukuin Prof. Munch can make nothing. Mr. Cumming suggests “his kinsman (?)”. I agree with the latter as to sin, and believe that it really means his, tho the “correct” word would have been hans. But I look upon this use of SEN for HANS, a “mistake” of which we have so many instances in Scandinavia itself, to be a mere Manx provincialism, brukuin is more difficult, and occurs, as far as I know, no where else. How it can mean “kinsman” I cannot see. Remembering the real meaning of our brucan1, Scand. bruka, to enjoy, use, and the Norse and Swedish employment of such words as bruka (Swed.) to till on lease, to cultivate in general, (Norse) to use for ones living; bruk a property or part of an estate, or piece of lease land; bruka -bit or bruks-bit (Swed.) a farm-plot, bruks-hest or brukar-hest or bruks-0yk (Norse) a farm-horse, — I would rather take bruk-uin to signify (brook-win) a leaseholder or tenant or bailiff or pensioner or dependant, and in fact to answer very much to the hampiki (or himpiki) found on so many Old-Danish stones. 1 This use of brucan (to brook) in this sense is more strongly defined at this early period in England than in Scandinavia. But it may everywhere have been earlier than we think; and, besides, the Scandinavians in Man would every day hear and imitate technical words and expressions used by the natives with whom they came into daily contact. Apart from their own landsmen, their next- door neighbors were Kelts and English. CHARNAY. 599 This then was not a funeral Cross, in the usual way, but a Christian memorial raised for pious purposes; and gaut, its craftsman, had made all the crosses which at that time existed on the lie of Man. Ihese must therefore have been the first Christian crosses there, and must have been executed in the 10th century. This approximate date is all we can reach. On the Kirk Andreas Cross (Gum¬ ming, Plate in, Fig. 10) this gaut calls himself sunk, biarnar, Biarns-son, and on both these gaut- stones A is B and there are no “stung” runes, exactly as on the Largs jewel here before us. As to lar or lari. — My learned friend Dr. John Stuart observes in a note, dated Edin¬ burgh, March 6, 1867, received after the above was in type: “I do not think that we have “Largs” in any very different form from its present one. In one case it is styled Larghgs. There is in Kirk¬ cudbrightshire a place called “Larg”, and another “Largerie” or “Largray”. In Wigtonshire there is “Larg and “Larroch ; in Argyllshire Largie. I do not know much of Manx names, but “Lar” does not seem like those which we do hear of there.” The second person whose name is here carved was a Lady. She may have been the wife or kinswoman or friend of malbriea, and may have received it as a gift. Or she may have lived long after. Of all this we know nothing. W e can only read what is written , namely — unbinding the monograms : lumimxii! TOALK a olfriti. This -dale (brooch) owns (belongs t.o) olfriti. The former carving had talk. This one has toalk, apparently a sign of difference of dialect, either from variety of place or lapse of time — at all events another proof of there being two distinct inscriptions. And as the a in talk becomes oa, so the A in the usual Scandian runic name at. fr.tt or alfriti here becomes o. This, then, as far as I can see, is the real meaning of the Scandinavian (? Manx) runes in¬ scribed on this invaluable ornament. We are struck by one variation here, in the use of the word dalc for Brooch; the Charnay risting spells it dalca, the Largs piece talc (= dalc) or toalc (doalc). Now whence the final a in the former? It is simply the per-antique mark of the accusative. As such, it very naturally occurs on a monument so “forn” (ancient) as the 5th century, and as naturally has fallen away on one so late as about the 10th. I cannot too often remind my reader, that in the course of 4 or 5 centuries a living language undergoes enormous modifications. Compare beowulf with barbour, chaucer with CRABBE, HAVAMAL with HEIMSKRLNGLA , HENRIK HARPESTRENG with HOLBERG, tile ROMAN DE ROU with RACINE, dante with davila, and so on. Add to this the force and multitude of olden dialects, and that these Old-Northern runic pieces are many hundreds of years earlier than the very oldest Scandinavian parchments. 600 WANDERERS. C 0 S L I N , POMERANIA. ? DATE ABOUT A. D. 400-500. Full size. Carefully copied by Fin Magnusen, from the Original, for his Runamo, Plate 13, Fig. 4 a, b, and here re-engraved from that work. This Golden Ring was found in the earth, by a peasant who had moved away a large stone, early (? April or May) in 183.9, not far from CSslin (or Koslin), a town near the Baltic, Duchy of Casuben, in Further Pomerania, a folkland which in the 17th century became a part of Prussia. This jewel came by purchase into the hands of Herr Benoni Friedlander, of Berlin, the great Coin-collector, and is still — as far as I know — in his possession. It weighs half an ounce and 3-tV of a grain, Prussian coin-weight. Herr Friedlander described it in a letter to Fin Magnusen, on the 7th of July 1839. On the 6th of September in the same year L. von Ledebur redd a paper upon it to the Geographical Society of Berlin, and as this contains nearly all the authentic information we possess on the subject, while it is very short, I here translate it1: “On a late Gold-find near Corlin [— C’oslin] in Hinder Pomerania, as the first instance of the discovery of Golden Bracteates and Northern Runes on German soil. “A class of antiquities which frequently occur in Northern Europe, particularly Sweden, Nor¬ way and Denmark, are the so-called Golden Bracteates, coin-shaped roundels of gold, struck or rather embost on one side, with a rand or setting of filigree-work, and a loop for suspension from the neck. These Golden Bracteates bear figures, often barbarous enough, which are sometimes imperfect imita¬ tions of the type of Imperial Byzantine coins, sometimes have the worm- or dragon- ornament so familiar to us on Northern Runic stones. Frequently they are inscribed with the Runic letters exclusively found Herr L. v. Ledebur: Lber einen kurzlich bei Cdrlin in Hinter-Pommern geschelienen Goldfund , als ersten Fall des Anf- findens von Goldbracleaten and nordischen Runen auf deutschem Boden ”, — in “Monatsberichte fiber die Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft fur Erdkunde zu Berlin”, 8vo, i, Mai 1839-40, Berlin 1840, pp. 96, 97. L. v. Ledebur’s treatise “Ueber die in den Baltischen Landern in der Erde gefundenen Zeugnisse eines Handels-Verkehrs mit dem Orient zur Zeit der arabisclien Weltherrschaft” (8vo , Berlin 1840) has also been quoted as noticing this find. But such is not the case. It was too early for his purpose, far earlier than the Arabs, and therefore he past it over. COSLIN. 601 in the North. They commonly turn up in company with golden rings, bits of rings, bars of gold and other ornaments, and also with real Byzantine coins. Undeniable as it is that these last belong to southern Europe, and certain as it is that the metal did not come from the North, it is yet equally probable that these Bracteates are Northern manufactures out of the foreign gold. This seems to be pioved from the fact that such golden rings, ring- fragments , bars and coins are met with also in southern lands, for instance in Germany, but not such Golden Bracteates and other pieces with Northern runes. It ought therefore to be generally known , that the first instance of the discovery of such Northern antiquities on German ground has lately occurred. Some months ago , on flitting a stone in a field near Corlin in Hinder-Pomerania, the following Golden pieces were brought to light : “First. A Finger-ring, weighing 5 Ducats and 2 As; has 10 facettes. On one of the three- cornered facettes are 4 letters of the Northern Runic alphabet, of which the uppermost, carved at the apex of the triangle, is a bind-rune of a or o and L, the lower characters spelling vatt, apparently an invocation of Allfather. On another facette is a Hook-Cross, such as we often see on the Bracteates. On the other triangular spaces are slightly carved serpent-like animal forms, such as so often meet us on Northern remains. This piece is undoubtedly the most remarkable in the whole find. “ Second. A plain gold hoop-ring (stoneless finger-ring). “ Third. A fragment (weighing about 6i ducats) purposely cut off a thick massive Arm- or Neck-ring of gold. Besides whole rings, similar pieces were found in Fyn in 1833, and are figured in Nordisk Tidsskrift for Oldkyndighed , Vol. 2, 8vo, Kjobenhavn 1833, Tab. 1. “ Fourth. A parabola-shaped Bead of thick spirally twisted Gold-thread. Weight l of a ducat. “Fifth. Six Golden Bracteates struck from the same die, type a barbarous helmed head, resting on a fourfooted animal (horse), above whose head flutters a bird. Of coin-like gold-blink; as always, with a filagree -setting and a loop. Weight of each blink | of a ducat. “ Sixth. Two Golden Coins, the one of the Emperor Theodosius the Great (379-95), the other of Leo I (457-74). These pieces are not unimportant as helps to fixing the date, and confirm the proofs from other quarters as to similar finds, showing these golden antiquities from Northern Europe to be always from the 4th to the 6th century. Following this Golden age, and altogether replacing it, comes a Silver age which lasts to the 11th century, and which consists of elegant ornaments and coins from the East, from the time and lands of the great Caliphate.” On the 18th of October 1839 this Runic Ring was noticed in the Preussische Staatszeitung, No. 289, and immediately afterwards its owner, Hr. Friedlander, at Fin Magnusen’s request lent it for a short time to that gentleman, who most carefully engraved it for his work. It will be observed that there is here no mention of Runes on any one of the Bracteates. Yet it is quite certain that one of them was Runic. Thomsen indeed, in his description of this piece (Annaler for 1855, p. 312), does not help us. He even makes a mistake as to the place whence it came. He says: “This Bracteate is undoubtedly found in North Germany; for it was bought in Berlin by Hr. B. Friedlander, and is now preserved in his celebrated Coin-collection.” He has therefore not known that it was dug up in Pomerania, together with the Runic Ring which, as well as the Runeless Bracteates, was “bought in Berlin”. But all becomes clear to us when we read the statement of Dr. Julius Friedlander, son of Hr. Benoni Friedlander, to the Slesvig-Holstein-LauenbUrgh Archaeological Society 1. Dr. Julius sends to the Society a drawing of 5 different antiquities in his father’s Museum, with a few lines of description. Of these No. 1 (the Runic Ring), No. 2 (one of 3 runeless Golden Bz-acteates, of very nearly the same type as No. 3), and No. 3 (the Runic Bracteate) were bought in Berlin 2. Whence they came was un¬ known, tho it was said it was from Pomerania. But I will translate the extracts given by Prof. Miillen- lioff from Dr. Julius’ letter : P. 10. On the Ring. “The Golden Ring given under No. 1 is one half-ounce and 3 A Prus¬ sian grains, Coin-weight. Its width is scarcely sufficient for a finger. Under the figure of the Ring is ' Vierzehnter Bericht der Schles wig-Hols tein-Lauenburgischen Gesellschaft fiir die Sammlung und Erhaltung vaterlandisclier Alterthiiiner, Naniens des Vorstandes im Januar 1849 erstattet yon Prof. K. Miillenhoff. Mit einer Kupfertafel. Kiel. 8vo. 2 No. 4, a small Bust, of terra cotta, 2 inches high, with here and there “a rune” or a barbarous Latin letter, is evidently a forgery. No. 5 is an Axe of stone. 602 WANDERERS. a separate view of its ten triangular fields. The figures are cut in with a fine-pointed instrument. On the first field are 4 runes ; on the 2nd and 9th what seem to be Drinking-horns ; on the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6tli and 8th are Birds; on the 7th a Cross-like ornament, and on the 10th a decoration made of three leaves.” P. 11. On the Runeless Bracteates. “The Golden Bracteate Fig. 2, which weighs 3i grains and 2 others exactly similar, were bought together with the Ring in Berlin, in June 1839.- They were said to have come from Pomerania. Several other golden ornaments, which were offered for sale in Berlin at the same time, seemed to belong to the same find; but whence they came and where they now are, could not be ascertained. The 3 Bracteates show the well known representation of a Horse, over which is a large human Head with a beaded diadem. Before it is a Bird, apparently a falcon, lhe Reverse has the stamp hollow and dull. There is a setting and a loop , the former consisting of two fine twisted gold threads.” P. 13. On the Punic Bracteate. “The Golden Bracteate [Fig. 3], weighing 6 re grains, drawn full size, like the foregoing objects Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, was also bought in Berlin, but whence it came is unknown1. The type is the same as on Fig. 2, only here we see something of the Horse’s girth and neck- ornament. In the field is also an Arm-ring, and other decorations. Setting and Loop as on the former. What particularly distinguishes this Bracteate is its inscription, five Runes. Must they be redd as something like vaiga or voego?” It is clear from the above that Dr. Julius Friedlander was ignorant of the fact that the Runic Ring had already been engraved and commented on by Fin Magnusen; that he had also never seen or heard of the express statements of Ledebur, publisht immediately after the discovery; that he here only mentions 4 Bracteates (3 and 1) instead of 6; and that the Coslin find had been sent up for sale to Berlin in 1839 and there disperst, Hr. Benoni Friedlander having only purchast the Runic Ring and the 4 Bracteates. Ledebur mentions 6 Bracteates; of these Hr. Benoni Friedlander bought 4. Where are the others? At all events the result seems to be undoubted, that the 4 Golden Bracteates and the Ring bought by Hr. Benoni came from Coslin , and were a part of the find described by Ledebur; while the latter appears not to have been informed of the fact that one of these Bracteates bore runes. But now to return to the Runic Ring. It is, as we see, five-cornered. Each corner has 2 facettes, on one of which is engraved the ancient heathen (w)oden symbol, + ; while another bears the Holy Triskele or Triquetra, Y, here in a common elegant shape. The inscription is in provincial English runes. That is, the rune which is decisive in this respect, the sT (yo, a slight variation of the 4s) has as yet only been found in England, where it occurs in the Cotton Ms. Galba a, 2, (No. 13 in my Alphabet-list), a codex from the 10th or lltli century, and again in Ms. St. John’s College, Oxford (No. 33 in my list), of about the same date. Of its power, therefore, there is no doubt. It is only, and can only be, yo. The difficulty is, how to connect this stave with the 3 others. Is it to be taken before or behind, and as a separate word or as a part of one word of 4 letters? The artist first divided his field into two halves, to get more room. He then placed 3 staves (reverst) in the under and 1 in the upper compartment. Now if we suppose the whole to be one word, and this in the nominative or genitive or dative, it would be written as we should write and divide, say, the Latin name thus : Nom. Gen. Dat. US I o TIT- TIT- T I T - In this way we get y 0 M L U - in the nom. , or gen. , or dat. If we suppose the yo to be a word for itself, it can scarcely be other than a slight dialectic variation of the usual formula A or 0, ah or OH, = OWNS - me. 1 Dr. Julius Friedlander’ s sentences are very short, his meaning not always so clear as we might wish. So here. The German text may signify that this 4th Bracteate was found in a different place and at a different time to the others. But the fact is that Dr. Julius, as we have seen, knew very little of the matter. I add however, the ipsissima verba: — “Der Goldbracteat, 6 A Gran schwer, ist wie die vorigen Stucke Fig. 1, 2 in seiner wirklichen GrOsse abgebildet, in Berlin gekauft, aber von un- bekannter Herkunft”. COSLIN. 003 But this Ring, as we have seen, is doubtless made in England. In this ease the yo, for ah or oh, is almost or quite impossible. I therefore take the letters to be one word, a mans-name perhaps in the nominative, iELUyo. I his is so much the more likely as this name occurs on the Northumbrian Casket (iELi), on 3 Bracteates (elo^; and elwu) , and is good Old-English (,ela, jelle, iELLi, &c.), good Swedish (alla), and good Frankish and German (jELLI, aellio, &c.). \^.e have seen that this Roundlet bears two Holy Heathen Marks, mythic in origin and in signification, the Flanged Thwarts and the Triskele. It may therefore very well be that the wearer used it as not only an ornament but also as an Amulet, for some magical purpose. See hereon the text to the amulet rings. lho not a Thumb-ring, like that mentioned by Chaucer, it may have been similarly an object of ancient overtrow (superstition) : “ Upon his thomb he had of gold a ryng, And by his side a naked swerd hangyng. The vertu of this ryng, if ye wol heere, Is this, that who so lust it for to were Upon hir thomb, or in hir purs to here, There is no foul that fleeth under the heven, That sqhe ne schal understonden his Steven, And know "his menyng openly and pleyn, And answer him in his langage ageyn: And every grass that groweth upon roote Sche schal eek know, to whom it wol do boote, A1 be his woundes never so deep and wyde.” Chaucer. Canterbury Tales. The Squyeres Tale. Line 10, 397, 8; 10, 460-69. Ed. T. Wright (Percy Society). London, Vol. 2, 1847 ,» pp. 134, 136. If too small to have been worn on the little finger, this Ring may have been a Charm hung to the hilt of a War-sword — for Victory, as was so often the case. As to its date. It cannot well be later than the 5th century. The heathen Symbols and the whole style and decoration connect it with the Bracteates and the Northmen. Pomerania swarmed with down-rushing clans of Gothic nationality for the first 4 or 5 centuries after Christ. But it cannot have belonged to them, for the specifically provincial English rune connects it with England, and shows that it was brought from the west. In the 5th century commenced the inroads and settlements of the Slavic peoples, Wends, Venetes, Wilzes, and what not, who at last gave this district its name, Po-Moste, afterwards corrupted into Pomerania. Between these Wendish hordes and the Northern races now sprang up an endless series of bloody wars and burnings and ravages, and thousands of Northmen fell in resisting the Wends on what had lately been Scando-Gothic ground, as thousands of Wbnds fell on the Scandinavian coasts and ilands in the course of their fierce forays. The Ring doubtless dates from the commencement of this second period. It had been worn by a warrior who had been in England or who had gotten it thence by barter, or it had belonged to an Englishman fighting in the ranks of his Northern brothers. Perils threatening on every side, it — with the rest of his golden treasure — had been hidden for safety under a boulder. From the 3rd period, that of the German Knights, it cannot be. These Christian Missionaries, whose chief argument was fire and sword, first appear on the stage to convert the pagan Wends in Pomerania in the 11th and 12th centuries. But all the “German” races had by this time long since lost their runes — if ever they had any — , and the style of the whole find is half a dozen centuries earlier. Quite lately, this piece has been again discust by Prof. F. Dietrich in “Haupt’s Zeitschrift fur deutsches Alterthum”, 8vo, Vol. 13, Berlin 1866, pp. 11, 12. Consult also J. H. Muller, “Deutsche Miinzgeschichte”, Vol. 1, 8vo, Leipzig 1860, p. 56. — See bracteates, No. 29. 76 ARCHAIC AND OTHER SCANDINAVIAN-RUNIC MONUMENTS. 76 * WITH MANY GREETINGS TO GU8TAF EDWARD KLEMMING, BOOK-KENNER, COIN-LORIST, RUNE-SMITH; KEEPER OF THE GREAT NATIONAL LIBRARY,' STOCKHOLM. 607 SCANDINAVIAN -RUNIC MONUMEN T S. iA-ll thro out this work I have gone upon the theory — and in my opinion the fact - — that the oldest Northern monuments contain ancient words and forms and letters which have long since died away from among us. But if this be so, and remembering that there can be no violent leap in lan- guage, we should naturally expect that such words, forms and letters would not suddenly disappear, would long linger the one or other of them in certain localities, and might be traced in inscriptions com¬ paratively late. Now I fancy that this is often the case, and that we thus shall be able to read carvings which have hitherto resisted the efforts of the most learned among us, simply because they persisted in standing on “Icelandic grammatical” ground. Or we may turn this argument round and say : — If on later monuments we find so many archaisms, what may we not expect on pieces several centuries older ? I have therefore collected a number of Runic remains, as far as possible only such as we may depend upon with absolute or reasonable certainty, faithfully engraved them from the originals or from the best authorities, translated them, and given such information as might be necessary or forthcoming. As in the body of my work, I have every where stated my authority. Should it hereafter turn out that an error has crept into the drawing of any particular monument, the fault is not mine; and it can only affect the piece or the letter in question, not the whole body of my argument. As in the pre¬ ceding pages, here also I have studied brevity. Only occasionally has the character of the Rune-bearer compelled me to be more diffuse, sometimes to dwell on points more or less episodical. Some other pieces not archaic but necessary to or in defence of my argument, or bearing runes or formulas also occurring on the older laves, are also here admitted, and with the others are arranged in alphabetical order for facility of reference. Those who would storm the bulwarks of my Castle and destroy my chief arsenals, — my as¬ sertions that if we would read the Old-Northern remains we must expect olden words and word-forms and various ever-fluctuating dialects, — must therefore first encounter and throw down the similar battle¬ ments in this out-work. Till they have done the one, they cannot attempt the other. Confined as I am in these examples to a very limited circle , the comparatively few Runic Monuments copied of late by trustworthy persons, — I let lie, pass by untoucht, the great mass of rune-stones hitherto publislit. One good instance is better than ten doubtful ones. But runic studies are now actively pursued, and in a few years some hundreds of pieces will be transferred from the class “uncertain” to the class “trusty”. Still , I cannot wait for ever. My book has already been delayed too long. So I give the handful that I have already gleaned. Circumstances have led me to place a few of them in the text, but the great bulk will be found in this Appendix. It may be useful to recapitulate the result of these wanderings among later Runic Monuments. Th e Rune A and AE = N. I have pointed out the fact that on Old-Northern pieces A or m is frequently written for n (+ for +), in such a way as to show that it is only an instance of that kind of variation which must have been regarded as a sign of mastership and elegance. But a, iE, for N and n for a, m is often found on later stones. 608 SCANDINAVIAN- RUNIC MONUMENTS. So on the Angeby, A, stone; and this not exceptionally, as usual, but running thro the whole carving. We there have rnesn (= raesa), stnea (= staen), birn (= bira), fneur (= faeur), ykikrienr (= YKIKRIEAR) , HNA (= HAN), ONR (= OAR), UREA (— UREN). The Store Kirlceby stone has lnat (— lant). The Lagno stone has NUK (= auk). The Rike Shield (p. 293) has sunn (= su^en), rnst (= r^est). The Skjern stone has moar (= monr). The Slake stone has sia (= sin), unless we suppose a very uncommon elision of n, so that SIA is == sina. The Sylling stone has sailgnrer (= sailcwerdr) , gntie (= gjstie). The Vinge stone (p. 460) has STEiE for sten. The Rune P for a:. I have shown .elsewhere that this F is in fact originally the Old-Northern rune for iE, that it is often found as such even on Scandinavian-runic monuments, and that therefore where F is M we should have had £ for o, if that sound had occurred in the inscription. Thus we have F for M on the Glavendrup stone, in the words ejensi, ha;ns, JENSEN. So the Kallbyds stone has eajr , hasfei. The Ncerd stone, nleut. The Tirsted, a;sraer, fr/eea , fr^enti , ftEINK , m, sua:eiaueu, ljeei, EiE. The Tryggevelde, easnsi , ejensi, kljemulan, ejei, eansi. The Rune % for AE. As F gradually became o, we have shown how the guttural * was used for a: in Scandinavia, until at last \ became fixt for je. This % for M 1 have exprest by |. . Thus we have On the Bjdlbo stone, by|ta. On the Carlisle stone, tolfin|. On the Flatdal stone, St|in. On the Flemlose stone, |ft, st|in, s|, ufs , fu^'ir. ? On the Granby stone, kr|bi, i^lbi. On the Skjern stone, eo^, |in. The Bind -rune for AN (and ON). An apparent t (“f, <+• , &c.) may in fact be an (4 and k on one stave). Many other examples might have been adduced from monuments all over the North. Sometimes the side-marks are at the top, a perfect 1'; sometimes they are lower down, even in the middle; sometimes the one is a little higher than the other, &c. Meantime we have here: Brynderslev, manom. Flatdal, almak an, h an. Haide, kirkian, bran. Honungsby , EMNSA. Ingle , an, kunan. Laivide , luearan. Lye, A, H AN, F1URTAN. Lye, B, MANAGARDUM, FIURTAxV, HANS. ? Nyble, st an. Slota (p. 457), FAiLJEHAN. Another instance is on the Eka stone, Upland, (Lilj. 197, JBaut. 400), as corrected from Bure, Ms. Runahafd No. 429. Bure reads kue hialbi anti, &c. ; the anti being here -ftl. But this block must be re -found ere it can be insisted on. So on a stone lost in 1799, (taken from an old house at Koparfve Aker, Grotlingbo, Got¬ land), a copy of which is in the collection of Prof. C. Save, we have &c. : BUTAIER HAN LIT, &C. , BUTA1TH EE LET , &c. RUNES FOR B, C, F, H, T. 609 The Rune A for b. On the Kdlfvesten block, in the word kubl. On the Largs Brooch (p. 590), in .malbriba. Add that in the lie of Man no other rune for b has been found than this same A. The Rune f* for B. This we have on the Forsa Ring, in uibiurn. On the Rok stone in ualraubar, ualraubr, bah , ubs, iub, nabnum, burnr, brubrum. The Rune y for c. On the Censer, Denmark, in fecit. The Rune b for F. On the Ldngthora, B, stone, in uluebin. Th e Rune X f o r H. On the Haicle stone, dahn, h, tahr. The Rune y , Y , for y. Bjalbo stone , by^ta. Delsbo Ring, myh, myh, saluy. Dref Bell (p. 279), in yesus. Frestad stone , ryisi. Karleby , biyno. Kolaby, hoys. ? Nyble, hysi. Odeshog, heny. Over-Selo, styiny. Trinkesta , suarthafby. Valby, khfyastr. The Y is here on its head, as at Vedelsprang , in sytriku. This y also occurs (as V , not debased into K) two several times on the Norsunda stone, Up¬ land, (Liljegren No. 540, Bautil No. 190), as copied by Aschan in his Ms. 120 Mouumenta, No. 38, now before me. We have it there in the words Mhk, bauy, they, n. pi. n., and k^TlA, yftir, after. Aschan’s text has every appearance of being correct. At all events it makes sense of what is meaningless in Bautil, which towards the end is barbarous. But as I have no later copy — I do not even know whether the stone now exists — I do not engrave it. — The inscription is : HAUY KULFINKR AUK STANFRIBR AUK SIKFASTR LITU RAISA STIN HIN YFTIR AUSTIN, KUNILS„ SUN. SIT I KIRKH. THEY KULF1NK EKE (and) STANFRITH EKE S1KFAST LET RAISE STONE THIS AFTER AUSTIN, KUNIL’S SON. Tie - sat (was settled, or perhaps was in garrison) IN GREECE. hauy is neuter by a law of Northern grammar , because it grasps nouns of different genders (kulfink, masc., stanfrith, fem. , and sikfast, masc .).' The s in kunilsun is taken twice, as is common in Runic writing, for shortness. On this stone K is always Y, Y is always V . — The scarce kirkii, for Greece, apparently a dative singular instead of the usual form in the dat. pi. (kirkium, &c.), reminds us of the girki, Greece, on the Hogsta stone, East-Gotland, Lilj. No. 1184, Bautil Nos. 1151, 886. We have perhaps this rune also on the great Jellinge stone, Denmark. I have carefully examined the block many times, as well as the cast from this part of it which is in the Cheapinghaven Museum, and agree with Kruse and others in thinking that the stone had and has V \ H h 1* A , yas S.&R, not IfhhfsA, IAS SiER. 610 SCANDINAVIAN -RUNIC MONUMENTS. The Rune l fo r y. The Gryta stone, in kuyuir. The Rune $ for Y. The Arja stone, yski. The Flatdal stone, syl. The Rune N for M. The Ldrbro stone, mik. The Rune (s for NN. The Ri/ce Shield (p. 298), in kunnar. The Rune t for 0. Kallbyas, orpa, ac. pi. Orsunda , KORAN. Torup, OSGUTR, OFT. The Rune 1C for (E. The Largs Brooch (p. 590), in pcelr. The Rune i for R, mostly R- final. Forsa Ring, uarr, furls, MR. Kdlfviisten, siikur , ausrr. Rok stone, runar, car, fapir, as, ualraubar, uarint, pa R, UARIN, NART, PAR', UAR, MIR, MIR, FATLAPR, EISTR , SIKRUNAR, KUNUKAR, TUAIR, TIKIR, IR, TUAIR, TIKIR, KUNUKAR, BURNR , UALKAR, SUNIR, ERAIPULFAR, SUNIR, EOISLAR , ‘SUNIR, IRNAR, SUNIR. The The Lye , a, stone, kus. Rune * for s. The The Lye, B, stone, gus. Rune x for s. Th e The Lye , B, stone, hans. Rune y for s. The Rune Y ( f) fo r u (W). The Transjo stone, FiER. The Run e * (:) for u (W). Angeby , A, in the word oar. Th e Ldngthora, a, in SOULFR. Rune A for u. Alp hab et - St ones. The Bdrse Font bears the Scandinavian Futhork of 19 letter. of 16 letters. Contractions on Stones. See the Kleggum block. Inter chan g ed Runes on Stones. See the Flatdal and Transjo blocks. S am st a v e Runes on Stones. See for striking examples tile pieces at Kirheby, Ostberga, Stendernp (p. 582), Sutton (p. 290), Transjo and Vedelsprang, B. ARTICLE AFORE. NOUNS NOM. SING. IN -S. 611 Article prefixt. Grdtlmgbo, ee sun aruais. Skjern, EOJi tura. Tirsted, i>iE f^eink uaira, t>je alir uikikar. Strong masculine (and feminine) Nouns nom. sing, in -S. Ferslev, lutaris. Oddum, EURALFS. Role, EULFS, RUKULFS, ARUI>S , IRNARS. Saltune, thvrgeis. Skdlby, ulmfris. Uppgrenna , oslaks . Probably also the kis, in Lagno, kis-lauk; Runnbotorp, kis-lauk; Skdnila, kis-lauh. We have on the Kama stone, East Gotland, the mans-name, g. s., kisa; on the Kororp stone, East Gotland, the mans-name, ac. s., keslik; on the Mdllosa stone, Upland, the womans -name, ? n. s., kaslauk, (spelt kislauh, n. s., on the Skdnila stone, Upland, kislauk , n. s. , on the Osterunda stone, Upland and the Lagno stone, Sodermanland). We have also the mans-name kismuntr, n. s., on the Lotinge stone, Upland, and kismuntar, g. s., on the Tjursdker stone, Upland. Besides these we have another compound (Latinized), turgesius, as the name of an Ostman, a Danish or Scandinavian sea-king, in the 9th century. For the Irish Annals of the Four Masters (compiled from the most ancient manu¬ scripts) inform us that in the year 843 the Abbey of Clonmacnoise was burnt by the Ostmen under a chieftain of that name. It occurs again (thurgeis, nom. sing, masc., on a Latin grave-stone [date 12th or 13th century]) in Saltune Church, Alborg Stift, North Jutland, Denmark. Now these rare instances of s exactly answer to the very common later forms with r. For the names kair, kairi, masc., kaira, fem., kairlauk, fern. , kairmuntr, masc., and eurkair , masc., per¬ petually occur. I therefore look upon the above s as mostly equal to the later R. Still this kis may be an independent root, and I therefore do not insist on these examples, especially as Prof. Carl Save thinks that they are not decisive. In the third volume of his “Samlingar”, Plate 59, Figure 191, Sjoborg gives the drawing of a stone at Skddng in Vagnharad Socken and Holebo Harad, Sodermanland, Sweden, beginning with the mans-name skanmals. Liljegren had no other authority than Sjoborg, yet he quietly (No. 856) alters this name to the later skanmalr. I dare not engrave or insist on this nominative singular masculine in s, which is apparently quite correct, as I have not been able to obtain any old or any later copy. The block is a Christian monument, ending with the usual: kue hialbi salu hans. Of the Bjurbdck stone, Bredary d Parish, Finnheden, Smaland, Sweden, no one can tell me anything, and no other drawing is known than No. 1028 in Bautil (No. 1252 in Liljegren). It is here and there injured. The beginning is : ifakrs sati stin easi. IFAK SET STONE THIS. This ifakrs (the lower part of the if is gone) is apparently the well-known mans-name unfaikr, ufaikr, ofakr, &c. &e. The stone is large and the runes tall. I suspect another example of this n. s. m. in -s on the Rdngstad stone, Upland, (Bautil 505, Liljegren 245, Dybeck folio No. 246), which begins : in for » ik « rRKHMtnuiHihtii • IUFUR OK FtTKS LITU RISA STIN. IUFUR EKE FUK LET RAISE this - STONE. Now a name fox is very unlikely. As taken from a false and cowardly animal it would have been an insult in the old warlike age. It is, as far as I know, unknown in Scandinavia. Neither am 77 612 SCANDINAVIAN -RUNIC MONUMENTS. I aware of one single instance of this mans-name in all the Old-High- German dialects. It probably came into use from the Saxon talks, when the Flemish Reynard the Fox had given this creature a kind of Epic dignity, and thence it apparently past over into England. In fact the word fuks or foks (=-- fox) has never been found in Scandinavia. There is in Norse- Icelandic a word fox (neut.) but it means fraud, pei fdy, a kind of concentration of the bad qualities of this animal. Instead of this root, the Scandinavian dialects have, and have had as far back as we can go, a word conjectured to be of Keltic or Eastern origin, refr, rAf, r^ev, &c. This was early used as a Proper name in Scandinavia, and must therefore originally have had some particular or half-mythical meaning 1. Consequently I take the above fUks to stand for the later name fukr, (the Driver, Beater, Thumper, Hammerer, a most proper name for a soldier), and this very FUKR we have on the Vange stone, Upland, (Lilj. 1552, Bautil 427), and again (fujeir) on the Flemlose stone, Fyn, Denmark. It is probably the later Swedish name fock, Danish fogh, fog. Strong mcisc. Nouns , otherwise without a nom. ending, nom. sing, in -R. On the Farnspike Crag, baranr. On the Rok stone, burnr. We have here the -s in the very act of passing away. It is already dissolved into the half¬ vocalic -R. This mans-name (birn, barn, burn, biarn, &c.) has never before been found with a nominative ending. So the Synnerby stone, West Gotland, (Lilj. 1347, Bautil 959), as recopied by P. A. Save in 1863, reads : • Km - i n r ■ mi - knntn - ntit * Him • irtii • ntnitt : rwu ■ nii - .tnK : rnim • nri - KARR AUK KALI REISTU STIN 5ENSI EFTIR UEURI> , FAEUR SIN, MUK KUEAN BEEN. EAR EKE (and) KALI RAISED STONE THIS AFTER UEURTH, FATHER SIN (their), a - MUCH ( very ) good thane ( soldier , man ). We here clearly see kars, karr, kar. In other words, this KARR clearly points foregoing kars. Exactly the same thing holds good of the fragmentary Tyttorp stone, East Gotland P. A. Save in 1861. All left is : l.nit»RA ■ Jhl : (t) . Ml hi • {Ft... IUIBRR SA(Ti Stain) BANS I eft... This IUIBRR is the older iuibrs. Strong masculine Nouns, nom. sing, in -V. On the Bjalbo stone, sunu. Strong masculine Nouns, gen. sing, in -SA. This form, probably a variation of as or es, is found on the Angvretci stone, huskarlsa. Strong masculine Nouns, dat. sing, in -a. The costly IN SNNTA (otherwise i stun) of the HiUesjo Rock, which see under Handed. Since the above was written has appeared Air. Ferguson's -The Teutonic Name-system". He observes, p. 85: — “Though the fox was much mixed up with the popular superstitions of the Middle Ages, it does not' seem to have been common in the names of men. Indeed no ano.ent names come before ns, and the word appears first in the Hundred Rolls as a surname, on vox." back to a found by STRONG MASCULINES, AC. SING. IN A VOWEL. 613 Strong masculine Nouns, ac. sing, in a Vowel. Ary a, in suni, unulfu. Bjorklinge , suno . Bogesund, a, suni; Bogesund, a, b, akru. See these stones under Tryggevelde. Ek, AIRIKI. ? Frossunda (under Angeby, B), biurno. Fnglie, sunu. Grama, bruburi. Uagelby, bunti. Kalfvesten , sunu. Kumla , faburi. Ludgo , uini. Nyble, krimu. JRok, SUNU, STRONTU. JRycksta , suni. Salmunge, faburi. Stenby, burfrbaiu. Valleberga, suini. Vedelsprang, a, sutriku. To these may likely be added : a K L a . — 1 or the stone at Brunby in Upland we have not only the drawing in Bautil, No. 662, (Liljegren No. 788), but Bure’s Copper-plate, his Ms. Sveonum Runse No. 144, and his Ms. Runaliafd No. 122. All these agree in one word, akla, ac. sing. masc.. an old accusative form, with the final vowel a, of the mans-name (variously spelt), aikil. This, then, seems an indubitable instance of these antique' accusatives. Bure’s text runs: «hiw ■ m ■ mm- Umiim# ■ trtift - inrfwt - enti - nit - mr » it - im ■ - rm - mm • #t • wmt HAMNTIS LAT RAISA STAIN I>ANA AFTIR HULMFAST, BUTA SIN, AUK AT AKLA, SUN SIN. KUI> HIALBI OT BAIR A. BATE1NT1S LET RAISE STONE THIS AFTER HULMFAST , BONDE ( husband ) SIN (her). EKE (and) at (to, after, in memory of) akil, son SIN (her). — god help ond (sold) their When two or more persons, deceast, are prayed for on these monuments, the formula is (per¬ haps without exception) in the singular — soul or ond their — not in the plural, souls or onds their. anari, butr. — Yet another instance must be mentioned, not authoritatively appealed to, as I have found it only in Goransson’s woodcut (Lilj. No. 1135, Bautil No. 851). It is the stone in Lin- koping, East Gotland , which reads as follows : ini* • um\ : irtu : mm ; <nu': mi : mr Knm : IUAR RAISTI IFTIR ANARI, BUTR SIN, TRIK KUBAN. iuar raised after anar, thund (Lord, Chief, Master) sin (his), dreng (soldier, Captain) good. The cj for t> is also found on other stones. The word is therefore butr, the same as bundr, a name of (w)oden, but also given, like all such words, to kings, chieftains, famous men, and even used for man in general, man = hero. Both anari and butr have the antique vowel in the ac. sing.; the one as I; and the other in the so often employed dim vowel-equivalent A, which we can only, and vulgarly, represent by R. — The rare word thuntr occurs again (in the ac. sing., as thunti) on the Hageby stone, which see. 77* 614 SCANDINAVIAN -RUNIC MONUMENTS. faburi , fabura. — We have not improbably yet another ac. sing. faburi, on the Hagby stone (Lilj. No. 651, Bautil 125). The only known text for this stone is that in Bautil’s engraving, hut this has many errors. The woodcut reads iftir biarn fabur. But this monument is preserved also in the lately rediscovered Manuscripts, Aschan’s 120 Monumenta (No. 21) and Bure’s Runahafd (No. 404) where the above mistakes are not found, and both these manuscripts agree in reading iftir biarn faburi, after Biarn their father. There may also be a faburi on the Gallstad stone, Upland, (Lilj. No. 453, Bautil 1135). Bautil has: AT HUTA, FABUR SIN. AT (to) HUTI, FATHER SIN (their). But Bure, both in his Ms. Sveonum Run eg No. 180 and his Ms. Runahafd No. 449, gives fai>uri. So also Aschan, in his Ms. 120 Monumenta, No. 2. There is a kuban famjra, his - good father , ac. s. m., on the Nomme stone, Njudingen, Sweden, No. 1214 in Liljegren. But we had better wait till the stone is re-copied. hari>in a , hala. — There is another, apparently correct, inscription on the Lambohof stone, Slaka Socken, East Gotland, (Lilj. No. 1140, Bautil 844), but which 1 only know in Goransson’s wood- cut and therefore cannot engrave : ANUNR RISTI IFTI HARMNA, BRUB(r) SIN, KUBAN TRIK, HALA UAIS. ANUN RAISED AFTER BARTHIN, BROTHER SIN (his), a - GOOD DRENG ( soldier , chieftain), the- haie (hero, body-guard, armed retainer) of - UAR. Here harbina can scarcely be any other than a slurred form of the mans-name harb-stain or of harb-bikn , more likely the former. But in either case we have the ac. s. m. antique termination in a. So of the word hala. It is evidently the old ac. s. m. in A, from halr — a HALE , hero, hemp, licit, brave, henchman, guard. We have this same mans-name uais (whatever may be the nominative form) in the compound name aruais, on the Grotlingbo stone, Gotland, which see. It ends : OLI HIAK RUNIR BISAR , BE SUN ARUAIS. OL1 HEWED RUNES THESE, THE SON of - ARUAR. iarli. — The South Mem stone, East Gotland, is a similar example. But it is only known to me in Bautil (No. 906, Lilj. No. 1113), where it is engraved with apparent exactness. The runes are a cartouche, the 4 lines forming a square : HtDDIFA • RtlNtl - Nttlt - M4*it » Will * URN - BflilUDDR * Nil « STUBIKR RAISTI STAIN BONSA IFTIR IARLI, BURUBUR SIN. STUTHl(n)K RAISED STONE THIS AFTER IARL, BROTHER SIN (his). Here the cartouche, the iarli for the later iarl, and the vowel-ricli burubur are all signs of antiquity. Nor has it the least sign or shadow of Christianity upon it. As an instance of the frequent -r for a dull vowel, especially in the ac. sing., we have iarlr, ac. sing, mans-name, on the Aby stone, Upland, (Liljegren No. 582; Bautil No. 213; Bure, Ms. Runa¬ hafd, No. 196). inkuari. — Another possible instance of this ancient accusative is the JEkeby stone, Upland, (Lilj. No. 417, Bautil No. 77), which, as corrected and completed by Bure’s Ms. Runahafd Nos. 110, 111. 116, and his Ms. 7, No. 79, reads thus: HiiNt iii • tnr • niNtui • ntn • riini • Ntm • mu • irtu • limit' • ft mr • mi • SIHSTAIN AUK UISTAIN LITU RAISA STAIN BINA AFTIR INKUARI, FABUR SIN. SIHSTAIN EKE (and) UISTAIN LET RAISE STONE THIS AFTER 1NKUAR , FATHER SIN (their). STROKS MASCULINES, AC, SING. IN A VOWEL. 615 kuiuaiu. When the Norrby stone, Upland, was copied for Bure, by whom it was entered in his Ms. Runahafd No. 262, it was quite perfect. But, as we can see by the text in Bure's Ms., his correspondent was not exact. The later transcript, made by or for Goransson (Bautil No. 577, B, Inljegren No. 275) is evidently, as far as we can see, faultless. But the block was then damaged, having lost a letter and a half (ft and part of the Y ) in the word tlFTIR. Supplying this small break &c., and printing it here in Runes — as we dare not engrave it till it be re-found — we have : Rnn>& • nt • nm • hr* • nrti' - Km nr • rntntRi AHUII>R LIT KIARA BRO tlFTIR KARLUK OK KUTUARI. AHTJ1TH LET GAllE (make) this - BRIDGE AFTER KARLUK EKE (and) KUTHUAR. For some reason which we cannot decide till the stone be forthcoming, probably some flaw at that particular spot, the 1 has been placed at the top of the space instead of on the line. Mechanically, this would make the word trFTis, which is absurd. Of course it must be redd Bftir, just as if the 1 had been rightly placed. The old Rune-carvers were accustomed to, and even delighted in, such ele¬ gancies and surprises, of which abundant examples have been given in these pages. But the important word here is the accusative sing. masc. name kusuari. In Bure’s Ms. the last stave is u not 1; whether right or wrong, this makes no difference to my argument here. maki. — Yet another doubtful example must be mentioned, the Hedsunda stone, Gestrikland, Sweden, (Lilj. No. 1048, Bautil 1090), extant only in Goransson’s woodcut. It is defective. maki, if correct, is here antique for mak. What is left reads : . STIN AFTI22 SUT, BUfruJmr) SIN, UK KAIRMAR AT MAKI SIN. UBLR RISTI. ( Y n. raised this) stone after sut, brother sin (his), eke (and) kairmar at (to) maug ( kinsman ) SIN (his). ubir risted (carved these runes). mahu. — We have also mahu for the later mah on a Gotland stone. The fifth of the Sproge Runic blocks (C. Save, Gutniska Urkunder, No. 146, p. 48) reads as follows : SIHRAIFR : GIARI'I : IOHAN : LIT : GIARA . R : AG(na)r . . AHU : BI . There can be no doubt that the missing runes are, substantially, stan ifti; and, before ahu, the rune m; while arnar must follow bi; thus lit giara stan iftir agnar, mahu biarnar. There can be no other word of kindred of 4 letters and ending in ahu in the ac. sing. masc. than mahu. This, at all events, is certain, and biarnar is scarcely less so, genitive sing, of the mans-name biarn. We may therefore confidently translate : sihrajf gared (made this), iohan let gare (make, raise) (this -stone after) agnar, maug (son, son-in-law, kinsman) of - biarn. sb au. — Among the other monuments doubtful or barbarous in Bautil but apparently correct in Bure’s older drawings is the Sund stone, Runlot Parish, Upland, (Bautil No. 552, Liljegren 272). This is preserved in the lately re-found Bure’s Ms. Runahafd, No. 74, where it reads as follows: nmm - nt • ywi • tt • wn • \y\ • mn i- ° mi • KAIRILTR LIT MiERKI JET SBAU AKA , SUN SIN. KA1R1LT LET this - mark at (to) SB a HACK (hew, raise and carve), SON SIN (her). The mans-name sbar, gen. sbas, is here, if the transcript be correct, with the old vowel in accusative , = sbau. st aina, stano, stini, &c. — The scores of instances of this word in a vowel in the accusa¬ tive I will not appeal to , as we can never know whether one or other of them is not in the plural. But dozens of them are doubtless in the singular. We have also several names of men in the ac. sing, ending in -stina, -staina, &c. And no one will say that such names are in the plural ! 616 SCANDINAVIAN - RUNIC MONUMENTS. SUINI. _ The stone in the Church-porch of Hiirad Parish in Sodermanland, (Lilj. No. 965, Bautil 709), is only known to me from Bautil's woodcut. This, therefore, I cannot use with confidence. But it contains a similar ac.-s. m. ending in a vowel, here -I. The carving appears to be quite correct: K+n.BI : MHtl : htU ■ 1FTU HIHtl : Will : HN : KAUBI RESTI STIN EFTIR SUINI , FAIUR SAN. KAUBI RAISED this - STONE AFTER SU1N, FATHER SIN (his). The name is evidently the common word usually spelt suain, our swain. The stin and suin for stain and suain, and the SAN for sin, are dialectic. sulku. — Another example on which I dare not insist, as I know no other drawing than Goransson’s, is the antique ac. s. m. name sulku on the Hvalstad stone, Sodermanland, (Lilj. No. 899, Bautil 794) : MFA ■ MIHN • Htm • I»m! : I Ft I A - Nil mi • hM “ill : I • ItrURf* : IUHtft • tillM LAFR RAISM STAIN 5 ANSI IFTIR SULKU, SUN SIN. HIN UARD UASTR TAUI'R. LAF RAISED STONE THIS AFTER SULK, SON SIN (Ms). HE WORTH WEST DEAD (he died in the West — the British lies or the neighboring lands). SUNI. — Of the antique accusative sing. SUNI, for SUN, there is an exemple on the Viby Rune- cliff (Upland, Lilj. No. 391, Bautil 138): but I cannot engrave it, as no later drawing is known than that of Bautil. That this is corrupt is evident. To give it a meaning Liljegren has made 3 alterations — with the result, that this colossal monument does not name to whom it was carved! But I have before me three copies made more than a century before that of Bautil, and they all essentially agree in the following text, which is evidently not far from correct: ..n ■ fit • «fnt • «N • MHJ. • IF til- • HMl • HIM-* fit • til Y ■ MU • inwnit • mm • nt»o, • win • yirh - fmia - why ° yiii (i)KA LIT HAKUA HELI MSA IFTIR SUNI SINA , TOA , AUK DAU IKIMURA BLINTA KIARtU MUKII MIRKI FURIR ARKUM MINI. IK A LET HEW HILL (cliff) THIS AFTER SON SlN (her) TO; EKE (and) THEY IKITHIURA the- blind (InMthiura the Blind and her nearest kin) GARED (made) a - muckle (great) mark FOR an.- ARG man (? a mighty hero). Ihe word ark has many senses in the old dialects, mostly bad ones, weak , idle, cowardly, slavish, bad, vicious, furious, savage, &c. But its original meaning must have been strong, mighty1. If here taken in a bad meaning = a wicked man, the deceast may have been a bloody heathen wiking. If taken, as it doubtless must, in a good meaning = a strong, firm, gallant man, it will apply to his bold bearing by land and sea. — What. the particular mark was, we do not know; perhaps it signifies the immense Barrow or some striking Stone-circle raised over the deceast. — As inka was the Mother of to, iNKiraiURA was probably his Grand-motlier (or Widow, or perhaps his Sister), and it is in¬ credible that they would brand his memory with infamy. I therefore take ARKUM here to be used in its very oldest and good sense, bold, daring, irresistible. Instead of a vowel in the ac. s. of nouns of this class we often have the dim half-consonant R, just as a vowel often takes the place of this dull r, which in such endings is only a half-crumbling vowel — the m which had followed already quite sone. still meaus bold , vigorous , doughty, excellent in Vesterbotten and in Gotland. NOUNS, ADJECTIVES. 6X7 All this is besides similar vowel-ending accusatives which 'we cannot fix, for they may be de- rived from a known or unknown side-form with a nominative in i or a. Strong masc. Nouns, nom. pi. in -R (= -s). Frestad, nurminr. Fyrby (under Lund), menr. Lund, lanmitr. Several such archaisms are found in N. I. skinbooks. See the remarks on the Lund stone. Strong masc. Nouns, nom. pi. in -V. Alfvelosa, iuku. Nouns, gen. pi. in -ia. Ludgo, uksnia. So on the Gnnda stone (under Rycksta ) kristunia, if this word be here in the plural. So sometimes a vowel is added in other cases; thus kirikium (= kirikum) on the Rycksta stone , TURFRi’Aiu on the Stenby stone , &c. Neuter Nouns, ac. pi. in -A. Kallbyds , ori>a. Nasal Nouns. Alfvelosa, fatran, ac. s. m. Ingle, kunan, ac. s. f. Mallosa, stukn, ac. s. m. Slota (under Falstone, England), f^eljehan, ac. s. f. Valtorp (under Falstone, England), felahan, ac. s. f. Nasal Nouns fern., gen. sing, in -UR. Arsunda, rusur, womans-name. Foie, KIRKIUR. Hanstad, ikur, womans-name. So on the Runeberg (under Hanstad) inkur, womans-name. Korpebro, kunur. Orsunda, ikur, Avomans-name. Torneby, kunur, womans-name. TJrvalla, kunur, womans-name. Nouns fem. , ac. sing, in -0. ? Karleby , stro (= sustro). Nasal Adjectives. Granby, on-botun, d. s. f. def. Adjectives , ac. s. m. in -Na. This half- Gothic form (hibna, from hibana, hibina, hib’na) occurs on the Hiemiind stone. Adjectives, ac. s. m. in -U. Asferg , kotru. An ancient u-ending in the adjective, ac. s. m. , is found on the Kil stone, East Gotland. 1 know it only from Goransson (Bautil No. 865, Liljegren 1160), and therefore do not engrave it. Part of the runes is hidden by a pillar in the church : urtn : HIH- . Iff : TOR : HI* : WHfn HALTAN RIS . ULF , FATR SIN UASKU. EALfTAN RAISED (this - stone after) ..ulf, father sin (his), the -RASH (= gallant, brave). 618 SCANDINAVIAN - RUNIC MONUMENTS. Since the above was written, this stone has been found and copied by P. A. Save (in 1861). Being now cleared, he gives the whole inscription, but the lower part, containing tJASKU, is now quite worn away. All left is : . 1ST STIN RASI ... HRULF FAER ... Thus wliat remains shows that Bautil was correct. Pronouns. — pINA , g. s. of THEE. Syiling , eina (M. G. i>ein a). See the stone. Pronouns. — pJEMJE, 6fc. , d. s. m. to THE. Ldngthora, .b, — So we have Ugglum i^emm^e , Bjudby eaima. But many examples of the final vowel in this word occur also in Scandinavian skinbooks, so that the mandarins will probably allow that this “ungrammatical” archaism has really existed. — HINNA , ac. s. m. this. — Lye, C. See i>e in the Word-roll. Verbs. — 3 s. pr. in -/>. Maeshowe, SvERR. Verbs. — 3 s. p. in -0 or -U. Angeby, A, rytu. Angeby, B, markaru. Ballestad, B, ristu. Flemlose, faaeo. Maeshowe, a, ristu. Slaka, restu. Valby, litu , iku. I do not engrave the Fasma stone, Upland, (Lilj. No. 244, Bautil 503), as it is so broken. But it has now been re-redd and re-engraved by R. Dybeck (Runurkunder, folio, No. 230), and clearly gives this 3 p. p. among the plain parts of the inscription. The closing words are : Finn • k h 1 1/ KIULI R(i)STU. K1ULI MISTED. Here the last rune is stoopt. I will not engrave yet another example of this antique verbal termination, as I know of no later copy than Goransson’s. It is the Harg stone, Odensliolm, Hammarby Socken, Upland, (Liljegren No. 434, Bautil 103) : rnuk • nni - mnirh • ntn • df ■ trnmiYi nki>n - yiifi • irtlk • l?«F * HM > HI't * II - RBIA • klHtl • KUNAR, SUN FARULFS, LITU, UK HULMTISI KERMJ, MIRKI EFTIR SORE, SUN SIN. IN UBIR RISTI. kunar, son of-FARULF, let (raise), eke (and) hulmtis gared (made, let make) this -MARK (stone and mound) after thorth, son sin (their). IN (but) ubir misted (cawed the runes). A second stone, nearly the same in contents, once existed at the same place. It is given by Bure, in his Ms. Runahafd No. 343, as follows: KUNAR SUN FARULFS UK HULMTIS KARI'I MARKI IFTIR TORS SUN SIN. We have two other Runic blocks belonging to this family (Lilj. Nos. 433, 439, Bautil 103, 98), from which we see that kunar was perhaps the second husband of hulmtis. On the above, both parents raise a stone to their common child thorth. On No. 439 kunar records the death of iufurfast his Step¬ daughter (stiubu SIN, TOTUR hulmtis); No. 433 is a separate stone to the same lady by her own mother, whose name is spelt above hulmtisi and hulmtis, and on No. 433 hulmtntis, the m doubly sharpened. VERBS. FILA. 619 Perhaps the Harg stone (Lilj. No. 434) may be one day re-found, and the correctness of the above forms decided. Meantime I thus draw attention to it, as it may long since have been destroyed. On the other hand we have occasionally on Runic monuments , as often in Old-English and other Northern skinbooks, a 3rd person plural- past in I or e. Another stone, elegant and apparently correct, that at Soderkoping, East Gotland, known to me only in Goransson’s work and which I cannot guarantee, is Liljegren’s No. 1121, Bautil No. 926. The runes MAh are doubtful, only fragments remaining. Inscription: w • tnmimiA • w • miNtjmtn • mmi ■ irm • tin - tm • hm : urn ASA AUK EORKAIR AUK ALA (l>IR L)ETU REISA EFTIR TOFA. HIRUARE HAKU. ASA EKE (and) THORKA1R EKE ALA THEY LET RAISE - this AFTER TOFI. HIRUARTE HEWED (the stone and nines). So we have on the Ahrnda block, Upland, (Lilj. No. 280) : UK SLUE IGGU. eke (and) sluth hewed - the - runes. But in Bure’s Ms. Runahafd, No. 5, this is given, apparently with greater exactness : UK SLUI> IKU. They both agree in the u for i in the verb. Verbs. — 3 pi. p. in -UN. ? Ostberga , raiseun. Verbs. — Infinitive in -an. Arsunda,. risan. Forsa Ring , skilan. Halla, RISAN. Maeshowe, a, s^ehian. Seddinge, kauruan. Sigtuna, a, raisan. On the Frossunda stone, Upland, (Liljegren No. 508, Bautil 51) we have MTRTHT+II*. I have no doubt that this t in Ht is — if correct — a bind-rune, I and t and A and h, and therefore ritan. The formula a, a mik (owns me) fyc. Censer, a. Chatham Brooch (p. 586), Old English, ah. Delsbo Ring, a myh, Hainhem, a mik. Hrafnkelsstadir , fikil a. Kareby (under Censer ), a m (= mik). Ldrbro, a mik. Largs Brooch (p. 590), a, twice. Othem, a mik. Hike Shield (p. 293), a mik. Rute , A MIK. Sutton Silver Shield-boss (p. 290), Old-English, me ag. Tible, arisa. a - prefix. fila, fele, much. Urlnnda, fulh-fila. 78 1R , those. See imje in the - Word -roll. Ballestad, a, ir, n. pi. m. Those. I fKJ, GJ, H, 6fc. / as prefix. There is a stone at Hcmunda , in Hokhufvud Socken, Frosaker Harad, Upland, which 1 cannot engrave for want of a good modern drawing, but which offers a clear example of hriti {— riti) in the 3 s. p. The following copies are known to me: 1) Bure, Ms. Sveouum Runm, No. 177; 2) Bure, Ms. Runahafd , No. 224; 3) Bure, Copper-plate, 4to, No. 90; 4) Aschan, Ms. 120 Monumenta, No. 84; 5) Verelius, Runographia, p. 59; 6) Dijkman, p. 85'; 7) Bautil, No. 556: 8) Liljegren, No. 269; 9) Notes by Prof. C. Save, who saw the stone in 1858. From a comparison of these sources the inscription is : w ■ fiw-Hnt iff. A ..IK • n ORN1UTR AK UIHNIUTR AK SIHNIUTR 1>IR LITU RASA STAN AFT(i)R (s)lK , FAPUR SIN. PURFASTR HRITI RUNOR. ORN1UT EKE U1HN1UT EKE SJHNJUT THEY LET RAISE this - STONE AFTER (SjlK, FATHER SIN (their), thurfast wrote these - runes. There are minute differences in letter-shapes. &c., in the above 8 copies, but they all agree in the word hriti. The Giynstad stone, Tible Parish, Habo Hundred, Upland, also has a clear hristi. This block is about 7 feet high, and more than 4 in its greatest breadth. The runes have been so much restored m later times that the freshness of the carving is gone, and the stone has been broken, so that the up and part of the h (in kup hialbi) and the upper part of tain i> (in stain pino) are now gone. But it was perfect in older times, and all these runes were there when the block was copied by Aschan (Ms. 120 Monumenta, No. 80) by Bure (Ms. Runahafd, No. 393) and in Bautil No. 308. It is No. 29 in Liljegren. Bybeck’s engraving (Sverikes Runurkunder, folio, No. 14) shows that the former transcripts collect. It stands in a glen, by the side of an old wheel-road now only used in the winter. The inscription is : 1 In his "Historiske Aniimrckningar Ofvrer och Af En deli! Rnnstenar, i Ssverige . Ahr Christi 1708.” 4to. Stnokh. 1723. I (KI, GI, H, &c.) . AS PREFIX. 621 ifnti • w- Fni‘n#-MA" H+n- wn-) - wit- wiMF+ffTMR-^ibARif ihb rni» ■ turpi • im • tun ■ mriwr • tRin+i • rmm • IUJHI AUK FULUHE im LITU RASA STAIN IINO AFTIE FOOT® SIN, ARNKISL.' KDI HIALBI ONTA HONS. BURFASTR HEISTI RUNOR. 1LUU1 EKE FULUHE THEY LET RAISE STONE THIS AFTER FATHER SIN (their) ARNICISL. GOD HELP ONE ( soul / HIS. THURFAST RISTED the - RUNES. Observe the two variations of the o and of the s. The rune-carver thurfast was apparently the same artist as he who cut the Hanunda stone. On the Skokloster (or Skogkloster) stone, Upland, (Liljegren No. 61) we have ihilbi, as redd by Prof. C. Save. Dybeck (Sv. R. fol. No. 35) gives the word as ihlbi. iresa occurs on a piece on which we may rely with almost absolute certainty, the block at Upmla, Liljegren No. 109. This is No. 415 in Bautil, still more completely given No. 417. But I have also before me the older copy in Bure’s Ms. Runahafd, No. 413. As corrected in a couple of places by the latter the inscription runs : irniNwtR : NtmNfNt+it ; m ■ tnrnnr ■ inmiAi • NBf-KflwuhTiNKin IKULFASTR LIT IRESA STAIN AFT HULBIORN , OUK LAIR A LIBA. KU1> KIRI MISKUN. • 1KULFAST LET RAISE this - STONE AFTER HULBIORN, EKE (and) THEY ON LIBA. - GOD GARE (make, show j mis ken (pity, mercy) (= God have mercy on his soul!). lhe last words in the former half may be variously divided. I take them as above, supposing the real order to be = ikulfast eke (and) they (his kin and friends) ON (at) lib a let raise this- STONE AFTER HULBIORN. — GOD SHOW MERCY / All the three copies agree in reading iresa. Any vr eta, istain. Grana , istain. Harby , isolu. Hoytomta , itsin. j Klistad, a , istin. Klistad, B, istin. Ldnytliora . a, istain. Sahnunye , n>UN. Sanda, istain. The Skalby stone, Jerfalla Soken, Upland, (Lilj. No. 385, Bautil 158), has just been re-en¬ graved by Dybeck in his Sverikes Runurk under, folio, Section n, No. 41. It bears : SBIRBnN : ; !UI : Htifl : RtlStd' : tJflll : At : Ffirim : in^R SBIALBUTI OK UNI LITU RAISTU STAIN AT KITKUMA , IFEDOR. SBIALB u T Hi eke UNI let rist (carve) this - STONE at (in minne of) KITHKUMI, their - FATHER. The k in kekkuma and the *f in iFiTOR -are not quite plain, and all the runes are rather shallow cut. Mr. Dybeck says that the last word may possibly be redd ifaeor. But in either case I cannot see how we can make sense of this inscription except by taking the last word to be the usual father, with the guttural prefix. This is no more “impossible” or “exceptional” than the raistu for (raistan, Raistu ) raista , infinitive, in the same carving. 622 SCANDINAVIAN - RUNIC MONUMENTS. Again we have the form istain on the Rdstad stone, Upland, (Liljegren No. 380, Bautil 147). Liljegren, Verelius Runogr.' Scand. p. 41 (copied in Curio p. 7) and Bautil all agree in ntn - ruim - mtm . LITU RAISA ISTAIN. LET RAISE this -STONE. But unfortunately we dare not absolutely depend on the older copies *. There is another ac. sing, istain on the Kariy stone, Upland, tho I dare not engrave it as no modern drawing exists. It is No. 647 in Liljegren, No. 130 in Bautil, both which have istain. But I have also now before me copies in Bure, Ms. Sv. Runse No. lol, and in Aschan, Ms. 120 Monu¬ ment* No. 23, both which give. istain. In the elegant drawing by Bure the closing runes on the left read hK+M'IM H\. Aschan, who otherwise agrees with Bure, gives these last staves as lYK+Mhl lb, and again on the next page as hK+r+TIM lb. They have evidently been very obscure, so that we have in Bautil b K+ Y 1 1 IX , which are entirely omitted by Liljegren 1 2. We have also sometimes istain as a Proper Name, just as we have stain and its compounds. But this may possibly be = instain. Not to be gainsaid is the Kyrstad stone, Arentuna Parish, Upland, Bautil No. 511, Liljegren No., 221, and now No. 216 in Dybeck’s folio Runurkunder. I do not engrave it, as it is defective and otherwise obscure. But it begins plainly enough : rnmmu ■ rit • Riiru mm KUEFASTR LIT RAISA ISTIN. KUTHFAST LET RAISE this -STONE. We have also this i-prefix on the Linda stone, Upland. It is No. 313 in Bautil, No. 28 in Dybeck’s Sverikes Runurkunder, folio, No. 63 in Liljegren. In the century between Bautil and Dybeck the stone, already damaged, has become still further injured, but Dybeck’s copy shows that Bautil was quite correct. The letters on the stone in Gorans- son’s time, but missing in Dybeck, are therefore here supplied in brackets. It must be observed that about the upper half of the aist in raistu and of the s and t in isti is broken away in Bautil : (mm • inr • nimni - mtiwn • Kmwitn . a)+ • mum ° pwim • nit • KARI AUK UFAIKR RAISTU ISTl(n . a)T KUNAR, FACUR SIN. Aspo, kutlantl, d. s. — ? lie of Gotland. Ballestad , b, ? itlata, d. s. — ? Jutland. Fnglie, kutlati, d. s. — ? lie of Gotland. Thorsatra, kutlanti, d. s. — ? lie of Gotland. Transjo , kutilanti, d. s. — ? He of Gotland. The RAn>-KUTUM (d. pi.) and kuta (g. pi.) of the Role stone probably mean the men of East and West Gotland. Made fyc. me Alfred’s Jewel (p. 586), Old- English, mec heht gewyrcan. Alfred’s Finger-ring (p. 463), Old-English , HEfi me a-gewircan. 1 Quite lately (i866) this stone has been re-copied by R. Dybeck, and engraved. in his Sverikes Runurkunder, u , 33. His reading agrees with the older transcripts. We are therefore safe in. appealing to this monument. Since the above was written Dybeck’s Sverikes Runurkunder, fol. Section n (Part G) has appeared where. No. 14, this stone is engraved. We have, quite plainly, litu raisa istain (mna. The closing runes are here ukaftiu ic. N. — ANS, ONS. 623 Hike Shield (p. 293), kunnar germ mik. Sylling, aslakr markaci mik. Vamblingbo , olafr lui>r giardi us. n not yet elided. Hanstad, msun , n. pi. n. Eke, ansuar, mans-uame. Hammarby, ontsuar, mans -name.' Vesterby, ansuar, mans-name. Angvreta, unru, mans-name. Ballestad, A, unuiki. mans-name. Granby , onbotun, adj. def. Stdrkeby , unfaikr, mans-name. Ostberga, 50NAR , later i>or. Ballestad , b, on; FjucJcby, an; the later o, a, a, a, &c. Rdk, ON, ON, ON. There is yet an additional example of the precious archaistic ans on the Eggelunda stone, Jer- falla Socken (Parish), Sollentuna Harad (Hundred), Upland, Sweden. But this block is much defaced. Only two large pieces remain. They are engraved in Dybeck’s Svenska Runurkunder, 8vo, Vol. 2, No. 52. What is left is as follows: x (IA) . SKAUTR x LIT * RAISA * STAl(NA) . BUANTA . . . The upper part of the I and about 2-thirds of the a are broken away, as well as the whole of the next-following letter. But this third stave must have been n, for no other combination is here possible. The name can only have been anskautr. This is here spelt ianskautr, this i-sound being prefixt also in other names into which this ans (or as or os &c) enters. The commonest form of this mans-name is of course askautr, oskutr, but it assumes many shapes. The first element is found on the stones as iES, ans, aos, as, es, ias, ys, ois, onts, os, ots, us, &c. There is the space of exactly oue stave between the a and s, and this is so much the surer as the writing is very regular and measured. The name has therefore undoubtedly been ianskautr. At the end of the scoring, at the part now broken away, has probably stood the usual sina or sin, ac. sing. masc. The whole then will be : (iAn)SKAUT LET raise stone (this after N, N. , father his , and N. N. after ) 'bonde (husband) SIN (her). The stone was therefore raised by the son (ianskautr) and the widow of the deceast, as in hundreds of similar instances. Quite lately (1866) Mr. Dybeck has republisht this stone in a smaller and less careful shape in his Sverikes Runurkunder, n, No. 36. His engraver has quite misrepx-esented the beginning of the carving, and we must therefore hold to Dybeck’s earlier and better plate. ons and ans being the same, and the N often being sharpened or filled by an appended t or i>, while in some cases the N itself falls away, oi>s and ons (or ans) are identical. The usual osmuntr is therefore the older onsmuntr, and this name we have — as otsmuntr — on the Alsike stone, Upland, Sweden, Liljegren No. 567. Three copies are now before me, all substantially the same and substan¬ tially correct, save that 7 runes have been added in Bautil, perhaps hewn on the stone by a later hand. The transcripts are : 1. Bautil, No. 1127. 2. Bure, Ms. Runahafd, No. 1. 3. Bure, Copper plate. All agree in the first word, the one here in question. The carving is : 624 SCANDINAVIAN - RUNIC MONUMENTS. OtSMUNT.fi AUK Elfi, SUNI KURlPAfi , SATI STEN IFTfi SIKULF, FUPU SIN, SUTA BURUPUR. ULFKIL IUK RU. OTHSMUNT EKE (and) E1R , SONS of - KUR1TH, SET this - STONE AFTER SIKULF , FATHER SIN (their) , suits brother. ulfkil hewed the - runes. In the above, as so often elsewhere, an opportunity is taken of mentioning the name of the Widow (here kurith) as well as of the Father. All the copies agree in the forms suni for the common SUNIR, sati for satu, fui>u for fapur and BURUtUR for brupur. The ru is the common contraction for runar or runa or RUNI &c. Thus OPSMUNTR is = ONSMUNTR, the usual OSMUNTR Or ASMUNTR = ASMUND., No one can inform me whether this stone now exists, nor is any later copy known. There is another on in a Proper-name to which I dare not appeal with confidence. It is in the inscription on the Bagby stone, Oland, Sweden. Comparing all the copies known to me (Liljegren No. 1300, Bautil 1057. Bure, Ms. Runahafd No. 591 and Rhezelius) it reads : AUSTAIN AUK ONHUATR AUK APUATR LITU RAISA STAIN PINA AUK BRU MSA AFTIR AUI, FAPUR SIN, I LIIU. A US TAIN EKE ONHUAT EKE ATHUAT LET RAISE STONE THIS EKE BRIDGE THIS AFTER AU1R, father sin (their), in liia The principal variation here is in the second name. Rhezelius reads onhuatr, Bure onhualr, Bautil has sahuatr. As the two oldest transcripts agree in the on, and as onhualr is nothing, (the l, h, arising from overlooking the left stroke in the T, *T“ ) , there is every reason to look upon onhuatr as correct, especially as another brother has a name with the same ending, amjatr (otherwise spelt AUMJATR = AUPHUATR. Yet another on I will only mention, and that chiefly for the sake of correcting Bautil. It is on a stone about which I can learn nothing, the block formerly* in the fence at Drottningholm, Lofo, Upland. The engraving in Bautil, No. 283, (Liljegren’s No. 362), is generally very good, but I can correct it in a couple of places from Bure’s Ms. Runahafd No. 89, where he adds that there are the figures of two Unicorns on the stone. But in Bautil they look more like nondescript Horses. As thus amended , Gorans son’s risting reads : mntM : t>K - MUM : K : WBIIRI : lumtn : Wit : If : mw : Ftt« : Hit • m - IKULBIARN OK UIBIARN OK HUKBIARN RAISTU STAIN AT GUBA , FAPUR SIN ON 10. 1KULBIARN EKE UIBIARN EKE HUKBIARN RAISED this - STONE AT (to) GUB1 , FATHER SIN (their). on io may either be ON, at, in, living at, settled at, of the homestead called, 10; or ON may perhaps be a mans -name, and thus on io is ON hewed , carved, the Runes. Names often descending from Grand-father to Grand- son , gubi’s father was probably biarn = bear I he three young men rejoiced in appellations worthy of heroes, but calculated to shock the sensitive nerves of a modern drawing-room — igil-bear (Terror- bear) , wi-bear (War-bear) and hug- bear (Hew- or Strike-bear). But this is far better than Mr. cant, Mr. humbug and Mr. snob, or than Mr. cheat’em , Mr. make-money and Mr. diplomat ! on occurs again on the Ofvansjo stone, Gestrikland, Sweden, (Lilj. No. 1058, Bautil 1095). Ibis beautiful block, with most elegant runes workt in ornamental knots, is only a fragment. But in the carefully drawn copy in the refound Ms. of Bure “No. 7”, No. 93 , we have an additional piece to the 2 given by Goransson. I bus enlarged, the inscription in Bure is: RUALTR OK UTR LITU RISTU STIN IFTR IBM . ON LITSIA . (n)u IULBI ONTA (? hons). RUALT EKE (and) UTR LET R1ST (carve) this- STONE AFTER IRM(? imt) . ON (of) LITSIA . NOW HELP OND (soul) (his). So far from this block showing mark’s of “barbarous cutting” and “letters forgotten”, it is re¬ markable for excessive and careful adornment. Among the other “prettinesses” is, that plain letters are intermingled iVith the decorated, just as we often find on other stones small staves mixt with large: thus the l in RUALTR, the t in STIN, the o in onta and the whole of on litsia are cut in plain staves. Had N. - NT, NS, NT = N. 625 the stone been perfect, we might have found other such. Yet further features in the same direction are, that the N in on is carved H instead of thro (+), and that the t in onta is upside down. So the same letter (as for instance the B, the T, the n, &c.) is variously modified in the shape. N. — NT, Nf. > , = N. Brynderslev, miskuntar. Ekala, sint. Forsa Ring, uasint. FLonungsby, Kigumantr. Langd, sint, sint. Role, UARINT , INT. Sigtuna, B, sentsa, and the Rorbro stone (under Sigtvna, B) , intr. Skr&mstacL, sintsa. Torup, MANTR. We have another instance on a comparatively modern piece, perhaps from the 15th century, the Drinking-horn at Skonahach in Bleking. This curious object bears 14 rimed lines, and is now pre¬ served in the Museum of Lund. See Sjoborg, Vol. 2, p. 189, and Plate 47, Fig. 156. Lines 5 and 6 are: KR1ST RULE MIN KLERISTiE KOPAi NAT, OK UNPAS OS FRII> I UORT LANS. CHRIST GIVE MY CHEREST ( — dearest) a - GOOD NIGHT. eke (and) an (grant) us FRITH (peace) in our land! Here UNPAS answers to the Mod. Swedish unne, Mod. Danish unde. Lower down in the carving we have homanp (hove- man, courtier, gentleman), Mod. Swed. hofman, Mod. Dan. hofmand , and sink (mind), Mod. Swed. sinne, Mod. Dan. sind; and again (lp for l) snilp (Snell, clever ), Mod. Swed. snall, Mod. Dan. snild. This Horn is therefore in a Danish dialect. There is an old and uncommon example of the sharp l (lt) on the Jaderstad stone, Upland, deriving our text from a comparison of Liljegren No. 517, Bautil 21, Bure’s Ms. Runahafd No. 313 and Bure s Copper-plate. On this stone the usual mans-name sbialbupi is spelt sbialtbupi. 1 may mention a possible example of this NT (= n) on the Onslunda stone. When copied for Bautil (Upland, No. 516, Lilj. 239) a part of the stone was broken away, and Bautil gives : iniutmimn But Bure, Ms. Runahafd No. 377, the stone being then perfect, gives, among other corrections : i>+ir ° • PAIR LITU RITA STIN PINTO the to being a double-rune. Bure may be correct here. This is the more likely as we have exactly the same form on another Upland stone. (Upsala, Lilj. No. 107, Bautil 423), as lately re-copied and re-engraved from the block itself by R. Dybeck, fol., No. 168. We here have, quite plainly and sharply: ntnum • Htimt* • LITU RITA STIN PINTO let write (score, carve) stone this, the TO being here a bind-rune, as above and in many other places. Yet on the other side of the stone, where substantially the same long inscription is repeated, we have stin pino. So little is the uniformity of spelling and pronunciation on these old Runic monuments , as little as in the parchments. N. — T = NT = N. Gdsinge, sit, sit, hats, suit. Lund, LANMITR. Vedelsprang , b, sturimatr. 626 SCANDINAVIAN - RUNIC MONUMENTS. The Aodunda stone, Upland, (Bautil No. 526, Llljegren 253), is so disintegrated in Bautil as to be almost barbarous. But a century earlier, when drawn by Bure, it was perfect. Two copies by him are now before me, his Ms. Runahiifd No. 38 and his Ms. Sveonum Runffi No. 60. As corrected from these old transcripts it reads thus : fintm • IK • IBIIR : KINtR " IK • til T n 1 1 II • IK ; HIKI * l> + fc • fftn • R11M ■ Httl. cjFlflR « Ml. • FM1M 8 iH 1 1- HlltFRf • UK • HtIH • IK • tit • Hm ■ NEFIELTR OK ABOR, FASTR OK ANITUITR OK BELFI , BAR LITU RITA STIN AFITIR ION, FRITA SIN. IRITFRI IOK STEM OK TIL BELFI. NEF1ELT EKE (and) ABOR, FAST EKE ANITU1T EKE THELFI, THEY LET WRITE this - STONE after ION, friend (kinsman) SIN (their). iritfri hewed (carved) this - stone eke (also) till (to, in memory of) thelfi. All this appears substantially correct , especially as we have a regular dialectic consistence in the forms anituitr , commonly antuitr , AFITIR, ,, AFTIR, iritfri, here (= irtfri). This last name is doubtless the well-known masculine usually spelt arnfee&r, but as fribr be¬ comes frit, frii>i, frir, fri, &c. , so arn assumes many forms. Here the N having become sharpened to NT and the N having then fallen away, we have artfribi. arn is as often IRN , therefore art is IRT, and I being dialectic here before t we have iritfri. N. — p = (N) T Hagelby, kubmub. Ugglum (under Falstone, England) . rehinmob. N. — p = N p , N. Foglo, MIL A. There is another plain and sure ob for the usual an on the Vanderstad stone, Upland, (Lilje- gren No. 787, Bautil 661, but also Bure’s Ms. Sveonum Runse No. 138 and his Copper-plate, and the woodcut in Hickes, Thesaurus, fol., Vol. 3, p. 3). All the copies — save that the M is accidentally defective in Bautil — agree in the first word libsmobr. Bures text is : LIBSMOBR LIT AKUA STIN AFTI (= YFTI 01’ CEFTl) IULBURN , FAB. L1THSMOTH LET HACK (carve) this - STONE AFTER IULBURN , hlS - FATHER. The only variation is in the dead man’s name, which the other copies make iulirirn, iulibiarn. The name of the stone-raiser is therefore lithsmoth, or, with the nom. ending, lithsmothr, =- lithsman, answering to the usual N. I. lidmadr, libsmannr, and means lith-man, troop-man, army- man, soldier, hero. We have it again on the Kalstad stone. Upland, (R. Dybeck, folio, No. 61, Lilje- gren 667, Bautil 616), where it has the common form (in the nom. sing.) lisman, with the eli¬ sion of the b. Remarkable both in form and contents is the Froso stone, Jamtland, Sweden, but formerly a Norwegian province, of whose present fate I know nothing. It was first engraved, and with tolerable correctness, by W orm in his Monumenta, p. 522, but afterwards more accurately by Goransson in his Bautil No. 1112, (Liljegren No. 1085). We here again see the common mabr for the older man in the AN. THE FORMULA “REST”. 627 05 = rare form motr: that is: mon dialectic for man, and then mont, mont and — the N elided — mot, with the nominative-mark -r = motr. I copy from Bautil : nt-imt : iHginRtrmNBwirtini-RiihfifirtmiiMirUMhM AUSTMOTR, KUDFASTAR SUN, LIT RAIS(o St)lN I>INO , AUA_.ffIRUA BRU I>ISA_AUK HON LIT KRISTNO IOTALONT. OSBIURN KIRTI BRU. ORIUN RAISTA_AUK TSAIN [? STAIN] RUNOR TISAR. AUSTMOTH (= EASTMAN), KUTHFAST’S SON, LET RAISE STONE THIS, EKE (and) GARE (make) BRIDGE THIS. EKE (and) HE LET CHRISTEN JEMTLAND. osbiurn gared ( made ) the - bridge. ORIUN R1STED eke stain ( = Oriun and Stain carved ) RUNES these. The last name, tsain in Bautil, is given, perhaps more correctly, stain in Worm. The name Eastman is here the same as Swede, just as we have a counter-name westman, Norwegian. We have no other record than this Runic block of the spread of the Christian faith thro the folkshire Jemtland by means of the mission set on foot by austmoth. Very remarkable is the form iotalont for iomtalont. As we all know, N is immensely slurred in the oldest times. But this very seldoln takes place with m, excepting in the word kumbl, which is very often spelt kubl, and in an additional word or two. We also here plainly see a dialectic o for a. In this short inscription we have: AUSTMOTR TINO HON KRISTNO IOTALONT OSBIURN ORIUN RUNOR for AUSTMATR , i j TINA, „ HAN , ,, KRISTNA , ,, IATALANT, ,, ASRIURN , ,, ARIUN , „ RUNAR , and doubtless, by analogy with kristno, raiso for raisa. Its contents show that this stone is from the very earliest Christian period in this part of Sweden, probably from the beginning of the 11th century. Antique NT, afterwards N, 6fc. Rosas, kuntkel. rati, outlaw. Glavendrwp, at rata (or rita). Glimminge, at rata. Tryggevelde, at rita. RELIEF- STONES. Habblingbo, Laivide; Sanda, a. The formula rest in thy grave! Naerd, nijeut kubls! Piedsted, lil rast^e ! 79 628 SCANDINAVIAN-RUNIC MONUMENTS. TATR , mans-name. Bjorko, Krokstad; {Eke, tata, ac. s.). TS = ST. Uoqtomta, itsin, turtsin, and, on the East Stenby stone there mentioned, tsin mans-name nom. , and tsinar mans-name gen. and ac. pAN (THAN). Ballestad, a, 5 an. j Granby, tai. I And on many other stones. See the remarks on the Granby block. Lye, b, ten. pRU (T hruch , stone-kist). Rosas, S TEN -JR. (WRIT AN.) Carlisle, Uaraita, 3 s. p. Signilsberg , urita , inf. Stenby, urt (= urit or urait). [VERY SHORT CARVINGS.] Haverslund (under Sandwich , England), hairulfr. Rimnbotorp, kislauk auk tort. Stendemp (p. 582), iotin tiki iotin. [BI- LITERAL CAR V IN G S. ] Slota, Ugglum and Vinge (under Falstone, England). [RUNIC BELL.] Dref (under Holmen, Norway). [RUNIC COMB.] Lincoln (under West Thorp, Sweden). [RUNIC FONT.] Bdrse , Denmark . With regard to the more or less olden-tunged laves which follow, we must remember how few they needs are, only a handful among the scattered monuments spared by time. Like as the heathen Old-Northern pieces are so rare — as being the oldest — that we can count them on our fingers; so the next-earliest class, those in Scandinavian runes from pagan times to a little way on in the Christian period the other kind most likely to preserve local waifs’ and strays of the older folk- talks — are of course too too scarce, tho more numerous than their foregangers. The great mass of extant runic pieces, those which count by hundreds instead of by tens, run from about the 12th century to a little later than the reformation; but among this comparatively modem rank and file we can seldom expect to find runic or linguistic “archaisms”. ALFVELOSA. 629 ALFVELOSA, OLAND, SWEDEN. From GORANSSON’S Bautil No. 1064, and Johan bure’S Ms. Runahiifd, No. 610. As this stone, No. 1317 in Liljegren, bears the precious archaism fatran , an example of the Nasal nouns masculine in -N, I will state what I know of its history. The oldest copy known to me is that in Rhezelius’ Ms. “Monumenta Runica in Olandia”, formerly preserved in Upsala, now in Stockholm. Prof. Save informs me that in this transcript the block was then nearly perfect, and reads : AUMUNR : AUK : KUNA (it . ) LAIR : ' IUKU : KIRLU : LINA : IFTIR : KINU : FATRAN : Next comes Bure’s Ms. Runahiifd, No. 610 : AIMUNR : AUK : KUNA( . ) LAIR : IUKU . KIRLtl : LISE : EFTIR : KINU : FATRAN. We then have Bautil’s No. 1064, where the stone is more damaged : EIMUNR : AUK : KUNA( . IU)KU : KIRLU : LISN : IFTIR : KINU : FATRAN. The variations are not important, evidently sprung from the bad state of the block, so that + and 1 , &c. might easily be mistaken. But all agree in the word fatrax. 79 630 SCANDINAVIAN -RUNIC MONUMENTS. When describing the antiquities in Grasgards Harad, Smedby Socken, Ahlquist 1 mentions this block as still lying out at AlfvelBsa. Its size, he says, was then about 5 feet high by 4 broad. He reads: AUMUNR : AUK : GUNAR . THAIR : .UKU : GIRDU : IFTIR : KINU : FATRAN. But he does not say whether he copied direct from the stone. Perhaps however, the first word was really aumunr. — The inscription then will be: A1MUN (or AUMUN ) EKE (and) KUNAR . . THEY YOVNKERS (those VOllths), GARED THIS after KINA, their - FJEDER (fathers brother, uncle). This FATRAN [= fadran], here ac. sing, masc., answers to the Old English FiEDERA, gen. sing. fjederan; 0. Frisic federia, fidiria, fedria, g. s. fedria (but we have the older gen. in the compound fidiran-sunu, uncles son, the 0. Engl, fedran-sunu, and we have the old nasal ending in the nomin. pi. fedrien, fadrien); 0. Germ, fatureo, patruus, also fataro, faterro, fetero, fetiro, fetere, uetero, gen. S. FATERIN, FATERRIN, FETIRIN, FETIRUN, FETRIN, FETEREN, FETERN, UETIRIN. iuku , n. pi. masc., is also a curious archaism. We have iuk, ac. s. m. , a youngster, youth, on the Gylling stone, North Jutland, and on the Frostorp stone, West Gotland. There was room on the block for another name. Consequently three young men, in all, inscribed this monument to their uncle kina. ANGEBY (a), UPLAND, SWEDEN. From R. DYBECK’S Svenska Runurkunder, 8vo, No. 64. ( This stone has lately been re-engraved on a smaller scale and in a simpler manner by Mr. Dybeck in his Sverikes Runurkunder, fol., il, [Part 6], No. 28.) This block, the ornament of Stora (Stour, Great) Angeby in Bromma Socken, has suffered be¬ low from both fire and hard hands , so that a couple of runes have nearly disappeared. This , united to certain unusual Runographic forms and to an archaism in the last word, has hitherto prevented its being correctly redd. But the inscription, which begins on the right, below, is clearly as follows : 5YIRUTR LYT RAESA STAEN IFTYR BIRA , FAI>UR YKYKRITAR. HAN OAR IRFYKR UR5N (YKYK)RII>(? ar). KIR RYTU. THY1RVT LET RAISE this - STONE AFTER B1R1, FATHER of - YKYKR1TH. HE (Thyirut) WAS irfing (heir, inheritor ) Worden (become) of ykykrith. kir wrote (— carved these runes). I have here exprest A, where used as a vowel, by Y rather than as, but my readers may substitute the latter, should they prefer, for, as we know, it has both powers. The name mirutr is apparently the same as that otherwise spelt eoruer, eurutr, mjruntr, &c. A remarkable peculiarity, of which we have examples elsewhere, is the Runic elegance — or whatever we may call it — by which + (a) is used for 1- (n) and t (n) for + (a). This is the case here thro the whole carving. The + (o) for a dull w or u is also very noteworthy. In the word ykykrith we have the place which has suffered. But there can be little doubt of the name. Ihe upper part of the A is plain, and we have distinct traces of the Y the A and the K. Probably beyond the bend was originally + which would complete the usual genitive form (ykykrtdar == of - i(n)kikrith) , but just at this spot the stone is again injured. The antique rytu, for the commoner ryti, cannot be gainsaid. 1 Clauds Historia och Beskrifning, af Abraham Ahlquist; 8vo, Vol. 2, Part 2, Calmar 1827, p. 154. — The copy in Linne’s Olandska och Gothlandska Resa, 8vo, Stockholm och Upsala 1742, p. 77, is barbarous. ANGEBY, A, B. 631 Thus the whole is quite simple, thyirut, probably a distant relation, having succeeded to the property of ykykrith, who may have died abroad, piously and dutifully erects this stone to the memory of biri the father of the deceast. Had ykikrith been alive or in the country, he would of course him¬ self have raised, ere he died, a memorial to his father. ANGEBY (b), UPLAND, SWEDEN. From GORANS SON’S Bautil, No. 28. This stone formerly stood in the Parish of Lunda, Seminghundra Harad, but nothing is now known of it, as far as I can hear. It is No. 525 in Liljegren, but he also was not aware of any other copy than Bautil’s. Should it ever turn up, it will probably show a couple of woodcutter’s errors in 632 SCANDINAVIAN- RUNIC MONUMENTS. Bautil. Thus in the first word, rahnfmje, the crosstroke was doubtless forgotten on the 4th stave, which of course should be N. So in the word hialbi, there is some mistake in the first letter, which in the woodcut is T (m) instead of * (h). The K in KUts is to be taken twice. The exact locality of tjireasd has not yet been ascertained, save that it lay on the Baltic. See Egilsson’s Lexicon, s. v. verlasjj. Brocman (Ingvar’s Saga, p. 307) concludes that it was a part of Estlmd. This is so much the more likely as Estland is called in Finnish both estinmaa and wirokmaa. The word markamj, otherwise MARKA&l, is plain. Taking the copy as we find it, the stone reads : RAH(n)fRH>R LIT RASA STAIN BINO AFTIR BIURN, SUN BAIRA KITILMUN(t)aR. KUB (H)lALBI HONS AT AUA_AUB(s) (m)uBR. HON FIL A UIRLANTI. IN OSMUNTR MARK ABU. RAENFRITH LET RAISE STONE THIS AFTER BIURN, SON THEIR K1TILMUNT (= SOU of them, Kitilmunt and his above-named widow Rahnfrith). GOD HELP HIS OND (sold) , EKE GOD’S MOTHER! HE FELL ON (in) UIRLAND. IN (but) osmunt markt ( carved these runes). hon and hons, for han and hans, are evidently dialectic. There is a fellow-stone to this, also now lost or lost sight of. It is the block formerly at Frossunda, a neighboring Parish, raised by the same Lady to the same son, and carved by the same stone-smith. We have it in Bautil as No. 51, No. 508 in Liljegren. — It runs thus: ANGEBY, B. — ANGVRETA. 633 RAHNFRUR LIT RT (= RITA 01* RISTa) STAIN MNO AFTIR BIURNO, SUN 5ALKA KITILMUNTAR. HON FIL A URLATI (= UIRLANTl). KUI> HIALBI HONS ANT AUAT_A'UI>S MUMfl. OSMUNR MARRAM RUNAARITAR. RABNFRITB LET WHITE STONE THIS AFTER BIURN, SON TBEIR (of them) K1TILMUNT (and Rahnfrith). HE FELL ON (in) U1RLAND. GOD HELP HIS OND (soul), EKE GOD’S MOTHER! OSMVN (= OSMUNT) markt (carved) these - RUNE-WRITS (rune-staves). The variations in spelling, by the same rune-carver, are curious. Most remarkable — if we could recover the stone and find the transcript correct — is the antique o in biurno; but I dare not insist upon it. ANGVRETA, UPLAND, SWEDEN. From a drawing by lars bvre, kindly communicated by Prof, carl save, and in three places corrected from the texts of Bautil and JOHN pure. Nothing can be more striking than the simple but elegant heathen grave-block at Angvreta (in books barbarized to Ingreta), in Hallnas Socken, Upland. Of its present fortunes I know nothing, but it was still standing in 1829. It was nearly 7 feet high. 634 SCANDINAVIAN -RUNIC MONUMENTS. The only hitherto publisht engraving is that in Bautil, No. 576 (Lilj. No. 265); but it is evident at a glance that Goransson was in this instance furnisht with a careless transcript; the size is also too small — the letters consequently comprest and scarcely legible — and the whole is badly printed. But, more than a century before, this stone had been copied by Lars Bure, as well as by Johan T. A. Bure (Ms. Runahafd No. 206). Both these transcripts are superior to that in Bautil, and the drawing by Lars Bure is so satisfactory that I engrave it here. Only I amend it in 3 places where the readings in John Bure and in Bautil are evidently correct. Thus I have changed Lars Bure’s hMI/k to TMIA, his to t> Ma , and his BhAHIh to Ilh/h'HK. But all the texts, Bautil included, agree in the words for which I give this stone, namely, the rare istain, and the still rarer name unru (otherwise uru) with the N still unelided; and they all have the curious huskarlsa. The scarce faerkar, father - and - son, has as yet only been found in Old-Swedish and Norse- Icelandic, and in those dialects it has long since died out. huskarlsa is apparently a lisping lave of an older huskarlas or huskarles, and the ac. sing, masc. tiuraon for tiuran reminds us that we have elsewhere kueoan for kuean (good, ac. s. in.). The mans -name unru (uru, our unrqq) will mean unrest, restless, fierce, warman. Spelt unruh, it is still used in Germany. After this ingress we come to the carving, which 1 read and render : HUSKARL AUK TIURI, FAERKAR TUAIR, RASTU ISTAIN ENO (= EINO) IFTR TIURKAIR, BRUEUR HUSKARLSA, AUK SUN TIURAON FAREIKN. RAISTA RUNOR EISAR EAIR UNRU. euskarl eke tiuri, father - and - SON the - two (they two , father and son), RAISED STONE THIS AFTER TIURKAIR, brother of - HUSKARL, EKE (and - after) his - (HuskarV s) - SON DEAR (beloved) FARTHIKN. RlSTED (carved) RUNES THESE THEY UNRU (= Unru and his kin or men). AKJA, SODERMANLAND, SWEDEN. From a drawing made by the Rev. axel w jet ter in 1857 , kindly communicated by Prof, carl save. In many ways interesting is this ancient heathen stone , hitherto only known to us in the woodcut of Goransson (Bautil No. 698, previously used in Peringskold’s Vita Theoderici p. 402, No. 968 in Liljegren). By Goransson’ s scale it was about 7 feet 3 inches, high. It was formerly in the western gable of Arja old Church, in Aker Socken and Harad, but in 1818 was removed to Ofvergarden in the same parish. We can now refer to it with confidence, thanks to the new copy here before us. It reads: AMUIT RSTI (= RAISTl) SINA EINA UTI SUNI SINA UNULFU, AKU HREINKI BRUEUR SINA. UAREI UTI TERIBINA I KALMARNA SUTUM, A FURU AFU SKANU. YSKI RSTI (— RISTl) RUNA EASI. AMUIT RAISED STONE THIS AFTER SON SIN (his) UNULF, EKE (and after) HREINKA, BROTHER SIN (his). They - worth out d repen (they were slain far away, they fell in the outland) IN kalmar sounds (channels), ON their - fare (voyage) of (from) skane. YSKI (= ASKA1R) RlSTED RUNES THESE. Barring small variations in the shape of the letters, this exactly agrees with the woodcut in Bautil, ‘save that we have there suna for suni, hrenki for hreinki, and — evidently a mere misdrawing by' his artist — t)Ll for tfTl. RSTI twice appears, a contraction for two different words. — sina stands for stina, by the usual lisping of the t. — Whether suni or suna be the reading on the block, the form is equally antique. — AHJA. 635 unulfu yet retains its ancient vowel in the ac. sing. — aku and afu for auk and af are also valuable archaisms. uarei, usually uarmt ,, is another example of the i for u. — teribina would otherwise be tribina. furu, from fara, shows the vowel-change before the final u; in N. I. it would have been foru or for. - In yski I take the first rune to have been an 0. N. Y, the word being thus the usual askatr, older anskar1. If not, if it be sski, the word is of course a contraction, but for what name I do not know. If I am right in my conjecture that this stone must be from the close of the heathen period in Sodermanland, say the last half of the 11th or beginning of the 12th century, we must at once reject the uncritical idea of this being “a very early instance of the definite Post-article” in the word kal- marna, gen. pi. fern. The s is a part of the root, and this post-article is very much more modern 2. 1 The essential r is often elided in this as in other Runic words. Thus on the Lund stone, iskis, g. s.; on the Skasla stone, Upland, oskis, g. s.; on the Ravnkilde stone, N. Jutland, isgi, ac. s. ; on the Thisted stone, N. Jutland, iski, ac. s. The small variation yski , here in the nom. , is an exact counterpart. So we have on the Helgvi stone, Gotland, (C. Save, Gutniska Urkunder, No. 35): LA FRANS . AF YSKILAIM Lafrans . of Ysbilaim for yskitil-haim, with the usual Gotlandic slurring of the h; the still older form would be anskitil-haim. And this pronunciation subsists to this day, the place being still called vskilaim. 2 The etymology of this old place-name is handled by G. V. Sylvander, in his “Kalmar Stads Byggnadshistoria”, Vol. 1, 8vo, Kalmar 1864, pp. 8-25. 80 6B6 SCANDINAVIAN - RUNIC MONUMENTS. ARSUNDA , GESTRIKLAND, SWEDEN. Copied from goransson’S Bautil, No. 1096. Since this was engraved for Bautil, some 120 years ago, no other copy has been made. It is given by Liljegren as No. 1054, but he knows only Bautil’s transcript. Nor does any other drawing exist at this moment, and as little can we say whether the block is now in being. Consequently we must either take Bautil' s drawing or leave it. For the former step there is every reason. Many of Bautil’s woodcuts have turned out absolutely correct, while many more are incorrect only in a trifling letter or two. There is nothing in the above inscription which should make us suspect any fault. At all events it must be substantially accurate, for the peculiar form given to the word risan is one which, as being apparently barbarous (rist) never would have been purposely invented. This stone has also been used and referred to by Prof. Carl Save, and we have no higher authority in Scandinavia. I there¬ fore unhesitatingly admit it into this collection. — It reads, quite plainly: ANUNTR, SUN RUNUR AT UI, LIT RISAN EFTIR TURKER , BRUPUR SIN, OK KUPEFI MUPUR SINA, UK EFTIR ISBIORN OK OIFUP. ANUNT , SON of - RUN A AT Ul , LET RAISE AFTER T MURKER , BROTHER SIN (his) , AND - after KUTHEFA MOTHER SIN (JlisJ, AND AFTER ISBIORN AND OlFUTH. As runa, here with the excessively antique genitive in -ur, runur, is feminine, thurker was apparently anunt’s Brother by his father’s second wife, kUtttf.fa. We have here the an in risan as a bind-rune (1'), as plainly as on the Halla stone. This old infinitive in -an is here no more incredible and impossible than is the equally antique gen. in -UR, of the female name runa. In the same manner the NT in anuntr is also a double-rune. ASFERG. 637 ASFERG, NORTH JUTLAND, DENMARK. From the block itself, now in the Museum, Cheapinghaven. Drawn and chemityped by J. M. petersen. May 1865. About 1795 ' a barrow in Asferg Sogn, Norrehald Herred, (Ommerland), Handers Amt, was dug away. In so doing the men took out a number of stones, this one among them; but, from its ap¬ pearance, it may have originally stood on the cairn, and may have gradually sunk down till it was hidden by the soil. This is one of the evils attending the helter-skelter opening of grave-mounds by careless or ignorant people, that many circumstances of scientific interest are never enquired into. And afterwards it is too late. The name of the mark or open land where this stone was found is “Eistrup Molles Mark”, and hence it