RECONSTRUCTING HNEFATAFL

A Series of Four Articles

BY DAMIAN WALKER
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl

INDEX
Alea evangelii 20, 21, 27, 28 Linnaeus 6, 11, 16, 24, 27, 31 -
Ballinderry 8- 11, 15 - 18 35, 38, 40 - 46
Bell 9- 11, 22, 23, 29, 33, 36, MacWhite 9- 16, 27, 32, 46
41, 46 Murray 6, 9- 12, 15, 19, 21 - 23,
Brandub 9- 12, 16- 18, 27 25, 30, 31, 36, 38, 40, 41,
British Isles 5 43, 46
Buanfach 11 Norway 25
Buckquoy 27, 46 Oxford 20, 29, 46
Corpus Christi College 12, 18, Parlett 12- 15, 18, 19, 23, 24,
20, 27, 29 26, 33, 41, 44, 46
Denmark 23 Peniarth Manuscript 158 12, 30
Dublin 8, 9, 46 Pritchard 15, 19, 35, 41, 46
Fithcheall 9- 11 Robert ap Ifan 12, 27, 30 - 36,
Fox & geese 9, 10 43
Freedo m's Contest 42 Robinson 12, 21, 22, 46
Germany 5 Sami 38
Gokstad 25 Scandinavia 5, 21, 40
Gwyddbwyll 30 Scotland 27, 46
Helmfrid 42, 43, 46 Tablut 6, 11- 16, 24, 27, 33 - 35,
Hencken 8, 9 38, 40, 42 - 44
Iceland 5 Tawlbwrd d 5, 12, 15, 16, 27,
Ireland 8, 46 30- 32, 34 - 36, 43
Jarlshof 24 Vimose 22
Lapland 6, 11, 38 Wales 6, 30

Draft Edition
Copyright © Damian Walker 2007 47
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl Reconstructing Hnefatafl

BIBLIOGRAPHY CONTENTS
Bayless, M. “Alea, Tæfl and Re- Board Games”, Éigse: a Illustrations 4
lated Games”, Latin Learn - Journal of Irish Studies V, Introduction 5
ing and English Lore, 25 - 35. Dublin : National Reconstr ucting a Game for the Ballinderry Board 8
Volume 2. Toronto: University of Ireland , 1946. Candidate Games 9
Toronto University Press, Murray , H J R. A History of Hnefatafl Explained 11
2005. Chess . Oxford : Oxford An Unbalanced Game 13
Bell, R C. Board and Table University Press, 1913. Board Markings Revisited 15
Games from Many Civiliz - Murray , H J R. A History of A Summary of the Reconstruction 18
ations . New York: Dover, Board- Games Other than Reconstr ucting the Alea Evangelii 20
1979. Chess . Oxford : Oxford Identification of the Game 21
Gardner, M. “Mathematical University Press, 1952. Explaining the Variegated Men 23
Games”, Scientific Americ - Parlett , D. The Oxford History Explaining the Fixed Men 25
an, vol. 209, October 1963, of Board Games . Oxford : The Central Playing Space 27
126. New York: Scientific Oxford University Press, Summarising the Reconstruction 27
American, 1963. 1999. Acknowledgemen t 29
Graham - Campbell, J. Viking Pritchard , D. Brain Games: the Reconstr ucting Tawlbwrdd 30
Artefacts . London: British World’s Best Games for Identification of the Game 31
Museum Publications, Two . Harmon d swor th: Borrowing from Linnaeus 32
1980. Penguin Books, 1982. Captures Involving the King 34
Helmfrid , S. Hnefatafl: the Ritchie, A. “Excavation of Pic- Making the Reconstr uction 36
Strategic Board - Game of tish and Viking- age farm - Reconstr ucting Tablut 38
the Vikings . Published on steads at Buckquoy , Identification with Hnefatafl 40
the internet: Orkney”, Proceedings of Balancing the Game 42
http: / / h e m.b re db a n d.net / the Society of Antiquaries Summary of the Reconstr uction 44
b512479 / . of Scotland , 108 , 187. Ed- Bibliography 46
Linnaeus , C, ed. Smith, J E. inburgh: Society of Anti - Index 47
Lachesis Lapponica . Lon - quaries of Scotland , 1977.
don: White and Cochrane, Robinson , J A. The Times of St
1811. Dunstan . Oxford : Claren -
MacWhite , E. “Early Irish don Press, 1923.

46 3
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl Reconstructing Hnefatafl
pieces on the board.
5. Only the king can land on
ILLUSTRATIONS the central square.
Illustration 1: The Ballinderry Gaming Board 8 6. An attacker is captured
Illustration 2: Parlett's layout for 25 pieces on a 7x7 board. 11 when it is surro un de d on
Illustration 3: MacWhite's layout for 13 pieces on a 7x7 board. 13 two opposite, orthogon al
Illustration 4: The alea evangelii, as shown in the Corpus Christi squares, by defender s. A
College manuscript. 20 defender is captured by an
Illustration 5: Murray's correction of the alea evangelii. 22 attacker in the same way.
Illustration 6: Bell's layout for tawlbwrd d. 32 The king cannot take part
Illustration 7: An alternative layout for tawlbwrdd. 34 in capturing attackers.
Illustration 8: Linnaeus' diagram of tablut. 38 7. The king is captured by
surroun ding him on four
orthogonal sides with at -
tackers.
8. When stood beside the
central square, the king
may be captured by sur -
rounding him on the re -
maining three sides with
attackers.
9. If a king is surrou n d ed on
three sides by attackers,
and on the fourth by a de -
fender, the defender may
be captured by surroun d -
4 45
ing between an attacker
and the king.
10. The king wins the game on
reaching any square at the
edge of the board. The at -
tackers win if they capture
the king.
11. The game is drawn if a po -
sition is repeated.
Differences between these
rules and Linnaeus 's account
can be regarded mainly as cla -
rifications. Additions the the
rules have been explained
above. The exception is the
rule on drawn games, which
addresses situations where the
game can be prolonged indef -
initely, particularly by the
king, if he switches back and
fourth between two exit routes
which there is only one attack -
er to block. This reflects a
modern concern about un -
sporting play.
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl
the most simple solution
would favour the latter. Other
commentator s have proposed
that the unbalanced nature of
tablut is accepted, and that the
balance is redressed in the way
that the games are played.
Thus it is common to suggest
that two games are played, the
players swapping sides
between them (Parlett 1999,
200). But this will inevitably
result in a large number of
drawn matches. Another sug -
gestion that players bid to say
how many turns the king will
take to win. A third sugges -
tion that owes much to these
two is that two games are
played, and the player who es -
capes with his king in the
smallest number of turns is
the winner. But all these are
no less modern innovations
than the four suggestions giv-
en before. Players are free to
choose whichever solution
they wish, but for the purpose
of this reconstructio n the
solution will be adopted
whereby the king is not al -
lowed to make captures.
44
Summary of the
Reconstruction
The majority of the rules in
this reconstr uction are taken
straight from the account of
Linnaeus , then, with only a few
gaps necessarily filled by ref -
erence to similar games and by
speculation. The rules are
these:
1. Tablut is played on a board
of 9×9 squares, with the
starting positions of all the
pieces marked.
2. There are 25 pieces: a king
and his eight defender s,
and 16 attackers. These
are placed in the shape of
a cross with serifs. The
king sits in the centre, with
his eight defender s form -
ing a cross around him,
two each to the north,
south, east and west of
him. On each edge of the
board, the cross is com -
pleted with a T- shaped
configuration of four at -
tackers.
3. The defen ding side takes
the first move.
4. Pieces move any distance
orthogonally, not landing
on nor jumping over other
Reconstructing Hnefatafl
INTRODUCTION
Through the course of the
twentieth century, there has
been considerable academic
interest in an ancient board
game played by the Vikings.
This game they called tafl, and
later settlers in Iceland called
it hnefatafl, commonly trans -
lated as “king's table.” This
distinctive game is notable for
its unequal distribution of
forces, which is unusual in an -
cient games. A king and a
number of “defenders” in the
middle of a square board face
a larger number of “attackers”,
their opponent s, distributed
aroun d the edges of the board.
The object for the king is to
escape from the board, while
the attackers must capture the
king.
The origins of hnefatafl are
obscure. It has resemblances
to the Roman game of ludus
latrunculoru m and the earlier
Greek game now commo nly
called petteia. Though both of
these games pitted armies of
equal forces against one an -
other, the metho d of capture,
surroun ding a lone enemy by
two friendly pieces, was the
5
same, and it is entirely pos -
sible that they gave to hne -
fatafl the orthogon al move of
the pieces. There was plenty
of opportu nity for the Roman
game to find its way to Scand -
inavia via Germany .
Almost unmistakable finds
for hnefatafl type games in
Scandinavia date from about
AD 800 onwards, usually in
the form of sets of pieces con -
taining a single distinguished
piece, and in many cases con -
taining two discernible forces
of unequal propor tion. From
that time onwards the game
was taken by the Norse set -
tlers to the British Isles , Ice-
land and Greenland, and to
France, Germany and the
Ukraine.
The game appears to have
been immensely popular until
the arrival of chess. From that
point on, the archaeological
finds become rarer, and hne -
fatafl was increasingly con -
fined to remote regions whose
inhabitants were less exposed
to the fashionable new game
of chess. In 1587 the game
tawlbwrdd was recorded in
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl Reconstructing Hnefatafl

Wales , and in 1732 tablut was
observed by the Swedish bot -
anist Linnaeus in Lapland .
From that time the game
suffered almost total eclipse.
Scholars speculated during the
nineteenth century on this
mysterious game, which was
often identified with chess or
draughts. It was not until the
early twentieth century that
the nature of the game was
seriously investigated, after
which time, other archaeolo -
gical and literary evidence was
linked with hnefatafl. Near the
end of the twentieth century
hnefatafl appeared on the
commercial market in various
guises, and while not a house -
hold word at the start of the
twenty - first century, hnefatafl
is well known among those in -
terested in traditional board
games.
At the time of writing,
study of the game has been
published piecemeal. It has
appeared as a digression in
Murray 's History of Chess, and
as a subsection or chapter in
more general collections of
games. Magazine articles have
looked in depth at various as -
pects of the game, and since
the last decade of the twenti -
eth century, a great deal of in -
formation and misinfor matio n
has appeared on the internet.
The objective of this book
is to bring the hnefatafl family
of games to life by proposing a
number of reconstructions
that make use of some archae -
ological and literary evidence.
This evidence shows that vari -
ants differed from one another
in size and number of pieces,
as well as in subtleties of
rules, much in the manner of
international varieties of
draughts today.
Four variants of hnefatafl
have been chosen for recon -
struction. These have been
chosen according to the fol -
lowing criteria: i. that there is
sufficient evidence to allow a
serious attem pt at reconstr uc -
tion, and ii. that they display,
when compared with each
other, the variety of rules that
were employed as the game
was conveyed from one place
to another. This will provide
information and inspiration to
those attem pting further re -
constr uctions of games not
dealt with here.
Historical purists might
turn from these pages in dis -
gust upon finding that specu -
square at the edge of the
board. Helmfrid points out
the example in law 3, which
discusses the king's exit to a
non - embroidered square m at
the botto m of the board, but
does not mention the possibil -
ity of the king's exit through
the embroidered square on the
edge of the board. However,
Linnaeus was using square m
as an example, and it has been
shown that in his rules, Lin-
naeus tends to choose a single
example to illustrate a rule,
rather than supplying an ex -
haustive list of every possible
case. Thus the fact that he
does not mention an exit
through the embroidered
square does not indicate that
such an exit is not allowed. In
fact, Linnaeus does not men -
tion that the king can exit
through the unembroidered
square m at the top of the file
in which he sits. This possib -
ility is merely superfluous to
his example. It is also true
that Linnaeus mentions one
restricted square in the rules—
that in the centre of the board
—so it is probable that he
would have mentioned other
restricted squares, had there
been any.
Another attemp t to limit
the king's advantage is the re -
versal of the implication that
the king can take part in cap -
turing enemy pieces. There
are two clues in support of
this. One is a late manuscript
of the Herverar Saga, in which
King Heidrek is asked a riddle:
“Who are the maids that fight
weaponless around their
lord…?" In the late
manuscript, the word
"weaponless" is given in the
singular case, giving rise to the
theory that it applies to the
lord and not the maids
(Helmfrid 2005, 10). This is a
peculiarity of the late
manuscript, however, and the
word “weaponless” is probably
a poetic description of harm -
less playing pieces. More in -
teresting to this question is
Robert ap Ifan 's description of
capture in tawlbwrdd , where
an attacker is captured if
caught between “two of the
king's men” (Murray 1952, 63).
These four ways of trying
to make tablut a balanced
game can be regarded as in -
novations. The first two con -
tradict what Linnaeus has re -
corded. The last two do not,
though a principle of adopting

6 43
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl
and crosses, little proficiency
needs to be gained before the
game becomes too unbalanced
to entertain two moderately
intelligent players.
Balancing the Game
There are a number of ways
that the game can be balanced.
Past attem p ts may have
achieved success, but in some
cases this has been at the ex -
pense of historical accuracy.
For instance, an early recon -
struction in 1863, called
Freedo m's Contest , limited the
move of the king to a distance
of four squares at most (Gard -
ner 1963, 126). This means
that the king is not always able
to reach an edge of the board,
even when the path lies open.
Indeed, the four edges are all
in reach only when the king
sits on the central square, and
once he moves from it, at least
one edge is out of his reach.
Thus the attackers are often
given an extra turn in which to
block the path, and time is of -
ten of more value than materi -
al. But this solution has one
flaw: it contradicts Linnaeus 's
law 7, which state that a piece
can move “ever so far at once
… if the squares in the way be
42
vacant”. No exception is given
to this rule, so the limit on the
king's move must be regarded
as a 19th century innovation.
Later attem p ts have intro -
duced more innovations. It is
commo n to see the corners of
the board used as exit points
for the king, rather than the
edge. This is applied to
boards of many sizes, and
there are clues in the historical
evidence for some games that
indicate that the corners may
have been the king's objective.
But in tablut this possibility is
refuted by Linnaeus , who gives
as an example of the king's
victory his reaching squares
away from the corner of the
board.
The phrase “The vacant
squares … may be occupied by
any of the pieces in the course
of the game” raises the pos -
sibility that by implication the
non - vacant, or embroidered,
squares are restricted. There
is a suggestion that the at -
tackers' starting positions are
inaccessible to the king
(Helmfrid 2005, 3), a sugges -
tion reinforced by the fact that
neither of Linnaeus 's examples
of victory has the king winning
on reaching an embroidered
Reconstructing Hnefatafl
lation has been used in com -
pleting the reconstr uctions.
This has, however, been done
for good reason. In most
cases, the historical evidence
is insufficient to satisfy the
aim of making a complete and
playable reconstr uction. Even
the most complete rule sets
leave some aspects of game -
play to the imagination or
commo n sense of the scholar,
and in many cases, the gaps
have been filled by making an
assum p tion that a rule missing
from one source may have
been identical with a rule spe -
cified in another. In other
cases there are educated
guesses, for instance, where
board markings suggest a spe -
cial use for particular playing
spaces. Some of these guesses
7
have been refined after at -
tempts at play- testing the
rules. In all these cases, it has
been made clear where histor -
ical evidence ends and where
experimen tation begins. In
this way, the reader who
doubts the conclusions made
here might experiment with
other theories, while keeping
such experiments within the
boun ds of historical evidence.
There is one final point to
be borne in mind in reading
the text that follows. Each
article was written to stan d
alone, and as such, there will
be repetition. In each article
there will be an explanation of
hnefatafl, for instance. For
this reason the reader's pa -
tience is requested when such
repetition occurs.
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl Reconstructing Hnefatafl

the peculiarities of any partic - that the attackers are given the
ular variant (Murray 1952, 55 - first move (Pritchard 1982,
RECONSTRUCTING A GAME FOR THE BALLINDERRY 6). He simplifies the rules, for 176), but later gives an ex -
BOARD example, omitting the special ample game that does not fol -
properties of the central low this recom me n d a tion. He
In 1932, a gaming board was quadrant, etched with a single
square. With no special answers the question of
unearthed in a crannog, or line.
square, the king in Murray 's whether the king can take part
lake dwelling, in Ballinderry , The raised border is richly
game is captured by being in captures by using an ex -
near Moate, co. decorated. It is
surroun d e d on all four sides ample game, in which an at -
West Meath, arranged into
wherever he is on the board, tacker is captured between a
Ireland . The eight panels,
answering one of the ques - defender and the king. This
board was dis - four L- shaped
tions left by Linnaeus , that of game reinforces his opinion
covered in two panels in the
how the king is captured when that the game “chauvinistically
pieces, but is corners and
not on or beside his central favours the Swedes.”
otherwise com - four I- shaped
square. He also interprets the Finally, D. Parlett states
plete, and can panels between
king's objective as being to that “All pieces capture by
be seen in the them. The L-
reach any square on the edge custo dianship”, also answering
National Mu- shaped panels
of the board. But the other the question as to whether the
seum of Ire - bear a fine
questions are left unanswered. king can make captures. Thus
land , in Dublin . knot - work pat -
It is left to the player to a modern player can take Mur -
It is about tern. Two of
guess who moves first, and to ray 's original interpretation,
24cm square, the I- shaped
make an assum p tion on give the attackers the first
and is carved panels bear a
whether the king may take move, and allow the king to
from a single ring chain pat -
part in captures. Bell attem p ts capture. It is then necessary
piece of yew tern, while the
to clarify the rules (Bell 1979 only to reinstate the special
wood. The other two bear
i.77 - 9), but fails to specify property of the central square
playing surface a pattern of in -
Illustration 1: The Ballinderry which side starts the game. mentioned by Linnaeus , and
consists of a terlocked tri -
Gaming Board Neither does he explicitly state the curious metho d in his Law
7×7 grid of 49 angles. This
whether the king can capture, 10 of capturing a piece stood
small holes, for decoration led
but he implies it by saying that beside the king. This will res -
the insertion of pegged playing H. O. Hencken , who docu -
a “piece is captured … when ult in a rule set complete
pieces, like some moder n mented the find in 1933, to
the opponen t occupies both enough to play the game. Use
travel games. Around the believe that the artefact was
adjacent squares in row or of these rules will demo nstra te
central hole there is etched a made in the Isle of Man, where
column.” that, as Pritchard states, the
circle with a double outline. similar pattern s are known to
D. Pritchard follows Mur - king is favoured. In fact, the
The hole in each of the four have been made. Later finds
ray and Bell, and recom men d s bias is such that, as in nought s
corners is demarcated with a in Dublin , however, have

8 41
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl
At first sight these rules ap -
pear to be complete, making
reconstr uction redun d an t. But
Linnaeus omits a number of
details. Some of these are
supplied by assu m p tio n s,
while others are subject to ar -
bitrary decisions. The in -
stances where Linnaeus falls
short of a complete set of
rules are as follows:
1. He does not state who
moves first.
2. It is unclear whether the
king himself can take part
in capturing other pieces.
3. Capture of the king is de -
scribed by example only on
or beside the central
square. It is not stated
how he is captured else -
where.
4. The king's objective is giv-
en by a couple of ex -
amples, but is not expli -
citly stated.
It is the purpose of this article
to attem p t to address these
omissions, and to resolve any
other difficulties of game - play
arising from interpretation of
these rules.
40
Identification with
Hnefatafl
Murray was the first person to
associate this game with the
game of hnefatafl often men -
tioned in Norse sagas. It had
until then been the practice to
identify hnefatafl with chess
or draughts, but this identific -
ation posed problems, as hne -
fatafl was played before the
introduction of chess into
norther n Europe. Once the
link between hnefatafl and
tablut was established, the
nature of many archaeological
finds became clearer. A num -
ber of square boards have
been found with an odd num -
ber of cells and a marked
central intersection, and other
finds include sets of pieces
with an asymmetrical distribu -
tion of forces between the
sides, often including an iden -
tifiable king - piece. Nowadays,
many single- piece finds from
Scandinavia n contexts are
identified with hnefatafl. But
the single most useful piece of
evidence is Linnaeus 's diary
entry about tablut .
Murray reconstr ucts the
rules for the whole hnefatafl
family, without reference to
Reconstructing Hnefatafl
shown that the pattern s were
also native to that place, and
so Dublin is now considered
the more likely place of manu -
facture.
The board dates to the
tenth century. While its Dub -
lin origin implies that it is a
Viking artefact, the Vikings
being the founders of the city,
the fact that it was found in a
crannog in Ballinderry shows
that it was owned and used by
native Irish people. The game
that they played on it has been
a matter of discussion since its
discovery.
Hencken thought that it
was for a hunt game like fox &
geese (Graham - Campbell
1980, 23). But H J R Murray
identified it with hnefatafl, a
family of Viking games (Mur -
ray 1952, 59). E MacWhite
went further still, and pro -
posed that the board was
suited to brandu b , an Irish
variant of the hnefatafl family
(MacWhite 1946, 25- 35). R C
Bell, on the other hand, sug -
gested that the board was for
another Irish game, fithcheall
(Bell 1979, ii.46), though the
nature of fithcheall is itself
under dispute.
It is the purpose of this
9
article to try and find a way
through these discussions, in
order to create a credible re -
constr uction of a game that
could have been played on this
board. Before deciding
between the possible candid -
ates, it is necessary to be fa -
miliar with a general descrip -
tion of each one.
Candidate Games
The first game with which this
board was identified was that
of fox & geese , as suggested by
Hencken in 1933. Fox & geese
has a number of variants, but
all have in commo n certain re -
cognisable elements. One side
consists of a fox or similar
prey, whose mission is to kill
or evade a number of geese or
similar pursuers. A typical ex -
ample has a fox and thirteen
geese arranged on a cross -
shaped board now more fa -
miliar as peg solitaire. Other
games of similar type are
played throughou t the world,
on square and triangular
boards, as well as boards of
many other shapes. Hencken
may have been put in mind of
these games by the single
marked cell in the centre of
the Ballinderry board.
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl
Another family of games
distinguished by a special
central cell is hnefatafl, as
proposed by Murray . Hne -
fatafl is often classed with
hunt games like fox & geese ,
as a single king in the centre
of the board must evade nu -
merous attackers initially ar -
ranged around the edge.
These attackers have the
power of capture, and their
aim is to capture the king.
Unlike other hunt games, the
quarry here has a number of
guards to defend him, initially
surroun ding his central posi -
tion and usually numbering
half as many as the attackers.
These defenders have powers
of capture equal to that of the
attackers. The board is always
square, but, as with hunt
games of the fox & geese type,
its size, and the number of
pieces upon it, can vary from
one game to another.
Brandub is though t by
MacWhite to be a member of
the hnefatafl family. Some
poetic extracts, quoted in his
article, imply that this game
was played with a branan, or
chief, with four defender s
against eight attackers.
MacWhite points out that such
10
a game would fit perfectly on
the Ballinderry board, and
speculates that the men
should be laid out in the shape
of an orthogo nal cross. He
suggests that the corner cells
could be marked to indicate
that men placed here would be
safe from capture. Capture in
hnefatafl games, it should be
noted, is by surroun ding a
piece on two opposite sides,
something impossible if that
piece stand s in the corner.
Fithcheall , as proposed by
Bell, is somewhat less clear.
Bell assu mes that fithcheall is
another game of the hnefatafl
family. Murray , on the other
hand, says that fithcheall is a
game of equal forces adopted
from the Romans (Murray
1952, 35). This agrees with
MacWhite ’s assessm en t, which
is supported by more poetic
extracts, for example,
“Crimthan n Nia Nar’s fidchell,
a small boy could not lift it
with one hand. Half of its men
were of yellow gold, the other
half of tinned bronze.”
The earliest suggestion, a
game of the fox & geese type,
has little evidence to support
it. The central marked cell
suggests the possibility of a
Reconstructing Hnefatafl
The vacant squares, dis -
tinguishe d by letters, may be
occupied by any of the pieces
in the course of the game.
Laws
1. Any piece may move
from one square to another in
a right line, as from a to c; but
not corner - wise, or from a to
e.
2. It is not allowed to pass
over the heads of any other
pieces that may be in the way,
or to move, for instance, from
b to m, in case any were sta -
tioned at e or i.
3. If the king should stand
in b, and no other piece in e, i,
or m, he may escape by that
road, unless one of the Mus -
covites immediately gets
posession of one of the
squares in question, so as to
interrup t him.
4. If the king be able to
accomplish this, the contest is
at an end.
5. If the king happens to
be in e, and none of his own
people or his enemies either
in f or g, i or m, his exit can -
not be prevented.
6. Whenever the person
who moves the king perceives
that a passage is free, he must
call out raichi, and if there be
two ways open, tuichu.
7. It is allowable to move
ever so far at once, in a right
39
line, if the squares in the way
be vacant, as from c to n.
8. The Swedes and the
Muscovites take it by turns to
move.
9. If any one man gets
between two squares occupied
by his enemies, he is killed
and taken off, except the king,
who is not liable to this mis -
fortune.
10. If the king, being in
his own square or castle, is
encompa sse d on three sides
by his enemies, one of them
standing in each of three of
the squares numbere d 2, he
may move away by the fourth.
If one of his own people hap -
pens to be in this fourth
square, and one of his en -
emies in number 3 next to it,
the soldier thus enclosed
between his king and the en -
emy is killed. If four of the
enemy gain possession of the
four squares marked 2, thus
enclosing the king, he be -
comes their prisoner.
11. If the king be in 2,
with an enemy in each of the
adjoining squars a, A and 3,
he is likewise taken.
12. Whenever the king is
thus taken or imprisoned, the
war is over, and the conqueror
seizes all the Swedes, the
conquered party resigning all
the Muscovites that he had
taken.
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl Reconstructing Hnefatafl

game with one central import - this reason the use of the
ant piece. But no evidence of Ballinderry board for a
RECONSTRUCTING TABLUT such a game among the tenth - fithcheall game with equal
In 1732, a young Swedish bot - Fig. 1. is the king, whose century Irish exists. Of the forces can be considered un -
anist called Carl Linnaeus station is in the central square three board games mentioned likely.
made a tour of Lapland , keep - or royal castle, called konokis by Irish sources, two are ac - This leaves us with the im -
ing a diary as he went. His by the Laplanders, to which no counted for, fithcheall and plication that a hnefatafl game
other person can be admitte d.
main interest was of course brandu b , and identified with is the most likely candidate for
Fig. 2. represents one of
botany, but he also took time the eight Swedes his subjects, games of a different type. the Ballinderry board. But
to record facts about the who, at the commence me nt of Only buanfach remains, and there are two proposed vari -
people he met, and nothing of this ants that would
about their custo ms. game is known A B C D E F G fit the board.
o n m 4 4 4 MN O but its name.
The inhabitants of Lap - 7 7 In order to
land are known as the l k i h 4 H I K L 1 While there choose between
Sami , and among other g f e d 3 D E F G is some confu - 6 6 them, a more
things, Linnaeus made sion about 5 5 detailed look at
notes about a board c b a 2 A B C fithcheall , Bell the rules of
game they played, 3 2 2 3 2 in suggesting it 4 4 hnefatafl is
called tablut (Linnaeus c b a 2 A B C clearly means a 3 3
needed. Most
ed. Smith 1811, ii.55- game of the of the accounts
58). These notes form g f e d 3 D E F G hnefatafl type. 2 2 of this game
an almost complete set l k i h 4 H I K L 3 It is not im -
1 1
are fragment -
of rules, and their dis - o n m 4 4 4 MN O possible that a ary, but one
A B C D E F G
covery by H. J. R. Mur - game of equal late example
ray allowed him to put Illustration 8 : Linnaeus' diagra m of forces was Illustration 2: Parlett's layout from Lapland
together a basic set of tablut. played on the for 25 pieces on a 7x7 board. was recorded in
rules for all games of the game, are stationed in the Ballinderry sufficient detail
the hnefatafl family (Murray eight squares, adjoining to the board. But what little is by the botanist Linnaeus in
1913, 445 - 6). Linnaeus 's ori - royal castle, marked 2 and 3. known, and all that is as - 1732, for later scholars to at -
ginal rules are worth quoting Fig. 3. is one of the six - sumed, about fithcheall as a tempt a reconstr uction (Lin-
in full. teen Muscovites, their ad - game of equal forces, is naeus ed. Smith 1811, ii.55-
versaries, who occupy the six - summ ed up by Murray and 58).
teen embroidered squares,
The game called Tablut is MacWhite . Such a game would
played with a checkered (some of them marked 4 on
the cut,) situated four togeth -
render meaningless the mark - Hnefatafl Explained
board, and twenty- five pieces, ings aroun d the central and
or men, in the following man - er in the middle of each side
corner cells of this board. For Linnaeus ’s game, tablut , is
ner. of the field.
played on a board of 9×9 cells

38 11
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl
with 25 pieces: a king, eight
defenders and 16 attackers.
All pieces move any distance
orthogonally, like a chess rook.
Capture, as has already been
stated, was by surroun ding a
piece on two opposite sides,
orthogonally. In tablut the
king must be captured by sur -
rounding him on all four sides.
The central cell is accessible to
the king alone, and if he sits
beside this square so that he
can’t be surrou n d ed, then the
attackers can capture him by
surroun ding him on the re -
maining three sides. The king
wins if he reaches any square
at the edge of the board, while
the attackers win if they cap -
ture the king.
Another game, described
in 1587 in Peniarth Manuscript
158 by Robert ap Ifan (Murray
1952, 63), called tawlbwrdd ,
illustrates the variations that
can be seen between games of
this family. Tawlbwrdd is
played on a larger board of
11×11 cells, with a king and
12 defenders against 24 at -
tackers. The metho d of move -
ment is not described, but
capture of ordinary men is as
in tablut . The king, however,
is captured on two opposite
12
sides like other men. The
manuscript fails to describe
any special properties of the
central cell, and a diagram of
the board shows no special
markings upon it.
Other evidence of the
game is more fragmen tary. A
number of boards and sets of
pieces suitable for these
games have been found, and
the Corpus Christi College MS.
122, an English or Irish
manuscript from c. 1140, de -
scribes and illustrates the ini -
tial layout for a 10th century
game, played with 73 pieces
on a 19×19 board. Interest -
ingly, the corners of this board
are marked with fixed men
“for the decoration of the
playing table” (Robinson 1923,
171).
There are two variants
proposed for a 7×7 board.
The first, illustrated by D. Par -
lett , has the same rules as
tablut , but with the 25 pieces
set on the smaller board (Par -
lett 1999, 198). The other
game is brand ub , as proposed
by MacWhite and discussed
above. MacWhite is also happy
to adopt the rules of tablut ,
this time with 13 pieces. Ex-
perimen tation in play,
Reconstructing Hnefatafl
may not land on, nor jump
over, any other piece.
6. A capture is made by sur -
rounding a piece on two
opposite, orthogonal sides.
The king can be captured,
and make captures, as
other pieces.
Given that there are no special
attributes for the central
square, and that the king be -
haves exactly as other pieces,
this is the simplest and
neatest of all hnefatafl recon -
structions, and it is tempting
to think that this might rep -
resent the original game as
played by the Vikings. The
rules about announcing vari -
ous situations have been omit -
ted, but if the players wish,
these may be reinstated, and
would be as follows:
37
7. If the attacker's move
threaten s to capture the
king, then the attacking
player must warn his op -
ponent by calling out
“watch your king”.
8. If a piece of either player
comes to rest between two
opponen ts, that player
must call out “resting”, as
a reminder that the piece
is not considered as cap -
tured.
Players wishing to recon -
struct the earlier game might
like to try applying these rules
to the smaller number of
pieces. In that case, it is also
recomm en d ed that a smaller
board of 9×9 squares is used.
Playing with 25 pieces on an
11×11 board would result in a
game that favours the king.
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl Reconstructing Hnefatafl

own men? Commo n usage
suggests not, but as has been
pointed out already, the his -
torical account is not precise
in its use of language.
The question of whether a
piece may voluntarily move
between two others is still left
open. Some modern recon -
structions allow this (e.g. Mur -
ray 1952, 56), and this is par -
tially supported by a cryptic
phrase in ap Ifan's account, “If
the decisions made in other
modern hnefatafl reconstr uc -
tions. With these caveats in
mind, the following rules can
be taken as a reconstr uction of
ap Ifan's game.
1. Tawlbwrdd is played on a
board of eleven squares by
eleven. The board bears
no special markings, save
any that have been added
for decorative effect.
however, has shown that where the forces and objective
neither of these suggestions is of each side differ, there exists
truly satisfactory. Does this the difficulty of making sure
mean that all suggestions for that the game is balanced.
the identification of this game Each side ought to have a
have been eliminated? Not roughly equal chance of win -
necessarily. It has been shown ning, or the outco me will be
that the rules of the hnefatafl predeter mined and play be -
family of games can vary from comes pointless. Even in cre -
one variant to the next. Parlett ating games of equal forces,
and MacWhite care must be
A B C D E F G
both interpret taken to pre -
the rules of 7 7 vent the ques -

the other says ‘gwrheill’ and 2. There are thirty - seven tablut as being 6 6 tion of who
goes between the two, there is pieces in the game, com - representative moves first
no harm.” It is unclear wheth - prising a king, in the of the game 5 5 from having
er ap Ifan is talking about the centre of the board, twelve family as a 4 4 undue influ -
king here, or whether he is defen der s arranged in an whole. But, for ence on the
talking about the pieces gen - orthogonal cross with four reasons prob - 3 3 players’
erally. Bell makes the former equal arms of three men ably more to do 2 2
chances. In
assum p tion (Bell 1979, ii.45), each around him, and with space than asym metrical
though the insufficient evid - twenty - four attackers scholarship, 1 1 games, the is-
ence for this leaves room for completing the cross, such neither have A B C D E F G sues are multi -
doubt. that each arm of the cross dealt fully with Illustration 3 : MacWhite's plied. Is the
has a serif of five men the variations layout for 13 pieces on a 7x7 larger side’s
Making the along the edge of the of rules from board. numerical ad -
Reconstruction board. one hnefatafl vantage too
3. The object of the game for game to another. The prob - great? Is one player’s object -
Robert ap Ifan leaves so many the king is to reach any lems with their application of ive too easy and the other’s
questions unanswered, that in square at the edge of the the tablut rules to games on too difficult? One of the re -
completing his rules, a number board. The object for his the 7×7 board are therefore maining proposals under con -
of arbitrary decisions must be enemies is to capture him. examined here. sideration illustrates this.
made. Sometimes these can be 4. The attacking pieces take Parlett ’s game of 25 pieces
answered by hints from other the first move. An Unbalanced Game resembles tablut in layout.
sources, and in other cases it 5. A piece moves any number Where in tablut the defenders
is tempting to simply adopt of spaces orthogonally, but For inventors and reconstr uct - form a cross aroun d the king,
ors of all asymm etrical games,

36 13
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl Reconstructing Hnefatafl

in Parlett ’s game they form a
square, the contracted dimen -
sions of this shape allowing
the same number of pieces to
occupy the smaller board. The
attackers are arranged in T
shaped formations aroun d the
edges of the board, as in
tablut , the top of the T in each
case being formed by three at -
tackers in the centre of each
edge. One obvious con -
sequence of this, in comparis -
on to tablut , is that the pro -
portion of pieces to available
space is greatly increased,
from 25 /81 (31%), to 25/49
(51%). While the rules of
movemen t, capture and ob -
jective are the same as in
tablut , the issue of this pro -
portion of pieces to empty
space itself has a decisive ef -
fect upon the balance of the
game, and for obvious reasons.
Having the same number of
pieces with which to blockade
a smaller area, the attacking
force is here at a considerable
advantage compared to the
equivalent force in tablut .
Experimental play with
these rules shows that this ad -
vantage is crushing. In the
following discussion the nota -
tion of a chess board will be
adopted, with the column s
lettered and the rows
numbered, A1 being at the
bottom left and G7 at the top
right. If the defenders in this
game have the first move, then
only one effective move is
available, C3- C2. The other
seven are rotations and reflec -
tions of it. In response to this
move, the attackers have an
obvious reply, A3- C3, captur -
ing the defender that was
moved, and blocking the king’s
escape to one quarter of the
board. The defenders are still
limited to reflections and ro -
tations of the same move, to
which the attackers can give
the same reply. Note that the
attackers in subseq uen t moves
are capturing multiple pieces:
C5- C6 is followed by A5- C5,
capturing the defenders on
both C6 and C4. In the last
move of this sequence, three
defenders are captured at
once, leaving the king alone
with no possible route of es -
cape. If the attackers are to
move first, a move of A3- B3
forces a similar sequence of
moves to be played out. It is
clear that the king in this game
has no hope of success.
What of MacWhite ’s game?
owners' consent and deliberate
action, the game would go on
indefinitely and in practice it
would be ended only by the
boredo m of the players. It
must be assu med, therefore,
that in both cases this is a pe -
culiarity of language, and that
in making a capture, the de -
cisive action is taken on the
part of the assailant, and not
the victim.
In tablut , the king is cap -
tured by being surroun d e d on
all four sides. The central
square is inaccessible to pieces
other than the king, which
would allow the king to be in -
vulnerable simply by his
standing beside it. Another
rule prevents this case: when
the king is beside his central
square, he can be captured if
surroun d e d on the other three
sides. Linnaeus gives ex -
amples of capture only on and
beside the central square. But
given that he also explicitly
states that the king is not sub -
ject to capture on two sides
like other men, it is usually as -
sumed that, unless he is adja -
cent to the central square, he
is captured when surroun de d
on all four sides.
In tawlbwrdd , the case is
different. Ap Ifan clearly
states that the king is captured
when surrou n de d on two
squares only. Further mo re,
there is no central marking on
the board. This implies that
there are no special rules in -
volving the central square,
such as using it to aid capture
or restricting it to the king.
This makes tawlbwrdd unusu -
al among other reconstr ucted
hnefatafl games, but the out -
come of the game is little af -
fected by this difference.
Both main sources are am -
biguous with regard to wheth -
er the king himself can take
part in capturing enemy
pieces. Linnaeus does not
state the case either way, and
the players are left to make an
assum p tion. Play- testing of
tablut has found that if the
king is allowed to make cap -
tures, then the outcome is
biased toward his side
(Pritchard 1982, 179). Play-
testing has also shown that the
game is more balanced if the
assum p tion is reversed. Ap
Ifan gives a clue as to the rule
in tawlbwrdd : “if one of the
attackers comes between two
of the king's men”—is the king
to be regarded as one of his

14 35
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl Reconstructing Hnefatafl

The aim of the game in says, and ap Ifan implies, that At this point it would be per - tured on two sides like other
tablut is for the king to reach the attackers' object is to cap - tinent to mention that in Mur - pieces. This latter rule makes
any square at the edge of the ture the king. In this, however, ray ’s reconstr uction of tablut , things easier for the attackers,
board. Linnaeus states this method s differ between the the king is favoured (Pritchard and if applied to MacWhite ’s
not directly, but by giving ex - two games. 1982, 179). Innovations that game it would do much to
amples of victory on squares would redress the balance in make the game more balanced.
at the board's edge. It is pos - Captures Involving the tablut are outside the scope of A little experimen tation
sible to interpret the examples King this article. However, it should shows, however, that the game
in other ways, for instance, be noted that the imbalance is still lacks balance, possibly to
that only A B C D E F G H I J K
Before con - not as decisive as in Parlett ’s the same extent as Murray ’s
the few ex- 11 11
sidering game, and no obvious forced tablut . Furtherm ore, it fails to
ample peculiarit - win has yet been demon - address the purpose of all the
10 10
squares ies of cap - strated. In MacWhite ’s game, Ballinderry board’s markings,
given are 9 9 ture, one the proportio n of pieces to a fault for which other ideas
valid points 8 8 thing must empty space is reduced, com - for reconstr uction have
of escape. be pointed pared to tablut , from 25 /8 1 already been dismissed.
7 7
But such out. If the (31%) to 13/4 9 (27%). It must
interpreta - 6 6 language of also be noted that entirely half Board Markings
tions seem 5 5 either Lin- of the initial attacking pieces Revisited
unlikely. In 4 4
naeus or ap are needed to capture the king.
some Ifan is to be This means that the king’s ad - It will be remembere d that
games it is 3 3
taken liter - vantage has become stronger. there are five markings on the
possible 2 2 ally, a piece The imbalance in this Ballinderry board, one in the
that the 1 1 is only cap - game, however, is more easily centre and one in each of the
corner A B C D E F G H I J K tured by a addressed than in the 25 - four corners. The proposal for
squares are Illustration 7 : An alternative layout voluntary piece game, without resorting the game to be played on the
escape for tawlbwrdd. act of sui - to modern innovations unsup - board so far resembles tablut ,
points. cide. For ported by historical evidence. with the difference that the
Markings on corner squares instance, a defender in tawlb - Between the two games whose king is captured on two sides
found with some boards give wrdd is captured if he “comes rules are recorded, tablut and only. This obviates the need
rise to this explanation, but in between the attackers”. The tawlbwrdd , there is a differ - for the central cell’s power of
tawlbwrdd such markings are language relating to the king ence in the way the king is capture, as even if the central
absent. So it is more likely hints even more heavily at captured. In tablut , the king cell is still accessible only to
that the escape point in tawlb - this. But such a game would must be captured by sur - the king, he still exposes two
wrdd was, as in tablut , the not be practical; if no pieces rounding him on four sides, opposite sides for capture
edge of the board. Linnaeus were captured except by their but in tawlbwrdd , he is cap - when stood beside it. It

34 15
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl Reconstructing Hnefatafl

should be noted that in Lin-
naeus ’s account of tablut , at -
tackers and defenders cannot
be captured against the central
square. If the king is to be
treated as other men in being
captured, then it makes no
sense to retain the central
cell’s power of capture over
him. This leaves in question
the matter of whether the
central cell should be access -
ible to other pieces, as it ap -
pears to be in tawlbwrdd .
Evidence suggests that the
central cell should remain ac -
cessible only to the king. The
first such piece of evidence is
on the Ballinderry board itself.
Like tablut and unlike tawlb -
wrdd , the central cell is
marked. This implies that it
has a special attribute of some
kind. Apart from the powers
of capture described above,
the only other historical at -
tribute is its restriction to the
king. This is reinforced by a
second piece of evidence re -
produced by MacWhite , a po -
etic extract relating to
brandu b : “leap up on that
square, which is fitting for the
branan”. Thus there is a pur -
pose for the marking on the
central cell, but that still
leaves the corners unex -
plained.
Other extracts from the
same piece of poetry give fur -
ther clues: “I would draw thy
attention, o white of tooth, to
the noble squares proper for
the branan (Tara, Cashel,
Croghan, Naas, Oileach), let
them be occupied by thee”.
Earlier in the poem the central
cell has been identified with
Tara, which leaves four other
“noble squares”, and there are
four marked cells in the
corners of the Ballinderry
board awaiting explanation. If
MacWhite ’s identification of
the Ballinderry board with
brandu b is correct, then here
lies the answer. The four
corner cells, like the central
one, are accessible only to the
king. This presents a major
implication. For the king ever
to reach one of the corner
squares, the game must con -
tinue after he has reached the
board edge. So the king’s ob -
jective cannot be, as in tablut
or tawlbwrdd , to reach the
edge of the board. Instead, the
phrase “let them be occupied
by thee” presents the sugges -
tion that these corner squares
are the objectives for the king.
clustered as close to the king ible with the defender s being
as possible (Bell 1979, ii.43). in an orthogonal cross. An -
This literal interpretation is other interpretation of the at -
not necessary, however. Lin- tackers' position (Parlett 1999,
naeus describes the defenders 198) shows five pieces in the
as being “in the eight squares, centre of each edge, and one in
adjoining to the royal castle,” the central space of each ad -
Examination of his accompa - joining rank or file. This is re -
nying diagram shows not a miniscent of the layout of
square formation, as the text tablut ; the serifs of the cross
would imply, but an orthogon - have simply been extended
al cross. Given the similarity with the eight extra attackers.
of Linnaeus 's and ap Ifan's de -
scriptions of the piece layout,
it is not impossible that ap
Ifan referred to an orthogonal
cross layout, this time with
twelve pieces, three on each
arm.
The attackers are more
problem atical, as there is evid -
ently an error in ap Ifan's text.
He describes “six in the centre
of every end of the board and
in the six central spaces,”
which is at once ambiguous
and at variance with the
twenty - four men. There are
not six central spaces on the
board. Bell has speculated
that four central spaces were
meant, which would make
sense in the context of a four -
sided board. Bell has given
one layout that matches this
description, but is incomp at -

16 33
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl Reconstructing Hnefatafl

Borrowing from that no other move produces a The proposal then stands which are explained in the text
Linnaeus playable game (MacWhite as brand ub , a hnefatafl game as fixed pieces “for the decor -
1946, 25). Though imagina - in which the king is captured ation of the playing table”.
The only account of a similar tion will doubtless create ex - like other men, and in which The presence of these fixed
game more detailed than ap amples to disprove this, none marked squares are for the pieces prevents any of the
Ifan is that of Linnaeus . There survive from historical con - king only, and in which the other pieces from coming to
are a number of facets of the texts. It is therefore not inap - corner cells are the king’s ob - rest on these cells. The fact
rules in which Linnaeus is not propriate to adopt this rule for jective. This reconstr uction that these cells bear fixed
contradicted by any known tawlbwrdd . leaves just one point to be re - pieces, and not just markings,
evidence A B C D E F G H I J K
Ap Ifan solved. If the king must reach raises the possibility that, not
from else - 11 11
does not a corner square, then the obvi - only do they look like pieces,
where, and describe the ous strategy for the attackers but that they might be treated
therefore it 10 10
initial lay - is to block those squares by as pieces. Obviously these
will not be 9 9 out of the sitting beside them. Eight pieces cannot move, but that
particularly 8 8 pieces pre - pieces are enough for this does not prevent them from
controver - cisely, and purpose, and the only thing having powers of capture, like
7 7
sial to ad - so this as - that stops this blockade from the pieces proper. As the
opt them in 6 6 pect of the being completely invincible is manuscript does not differen -
a recon - 5 5 game is that, there being only eight at - tiate between the two colours
struction of 4 4
open to in - tackers, one of them at some of the pieces, it is impossible
tawlbwrdd . terpreta - point must move. The de - to tell whether these fixed
3 3
Examples tion. Lin- fenders then have the difficult pieces were identified with one
are the 2 2 naeus challenge of preventing this side or the other.
movemen t 1 1 provides an piece from returning to its Applying this principle to
of the A B C D E F G H I J K example station on the following turn. the Ballinderry board produces
pieces, their Illustration 6: Bell's layout for layout for Historical evidence provides four corner cells which have
initial lay - tawlbwrdd. the smaller no definite solution to this the power of capture. Identi -
out, and the game, in problem, but from another fying them with the defending
aim of the game. which the 25 pieces are laid direction there comes an in - side prevents the attackers
Linnaeus states that the out on a 9×9 board in the teresting clue. from blocking all the exits as
pieces move as does a rook in form of a cross with serifs. Ap Mention has already been easily as described earlier, and
chess, as far as they like in any Ifan's statemen t that the made of an English or Irish forces a more subtle strategy.
of the four cardinal directions. twelve defenders of tawlbwrdd manuscrip t that provides a It also, however, brings to light
This is the generally accepted are “in the spaces next to ” the layout for a hnefatafl game of a situation where the king has
move for reconstr uction of king have led to a reconstr uc - 73 pieces on a 19×1 9 board, won the game upon reaching
hnefatafl. MacWhite claims tion in which the men are with its corner markings, any square adjacent to a

32 17
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl Reconstructing Hnefatafl

corner, as nothing then can
prevent his advance into that
corner. This may not be de -
cisive, but if the corner cells
have the power to capture for
both sides, then the king be -
side them remains in danger,
and the game is not won until
the corner itself is reached.
Treating the corners in this
way echoes Parlett ’s sugges -
tion for the treatmen t of
marked corner squares (Parlett
1999, 199).
In arriving at this point
there have been introd uced
what could be justly called in -
novations, as no extant rules
explicitly state that the
marked corner cells have
powers of capture. Parlett has
transferred to them properties
of universal capture which he
ascribes, without presenting
evidence, to the central cell.
But with the evidence of the
Corpus Christi College
manuscrip t, the powers of
capture are not entirely
without historical foundation.
A Summary of the
Reconstruction
It is proposed, then, that the
following rules are a possible,
even a probable, reconstr uc -
tion of the game played on the
Ballinderry board. It must be
stressed, however, that the
lack of definite evidence
means that the chances of
these being the exact rules of
the game are obviously re -
mote. Therefore it can only be
said that these rules might
have been recognisable to the
owners of the board. But it is
unlikely that more firm evid -
ence, such as a set of written
rules from the period, will ever
be brough t to light.
1. The game of brandub is
played on a board of seven
cells by seven, on which
the central cell and the
four corners are identified
with markings.
2. There are thirteen pieces
in the game: a king, four
defen der s, and eight at -
tackers.
3. At the start of the game
the pieces are laid out in
the form of an orthogonal
cross, with the king in the
centre, his four defenders
adjacent to him, and the
eight attackers completing
the arms of the cross up to
the edge of the board.
king's men, the same. If the
king himself comes between
two of the attackers and if you
say “watch your king” before
he moves into that place, and
he is unable to escape, you
catch him. If the other says
“gwrheill” and goes between
the two, there is no harm. If
the king can go along the —
line that side wins the game
(Murray 1952, 63).
Identification of the
Game
Though the rules of the game
are incomplete, enough sur -
vives to give a strong identi -
fication of the game with the
hnefatafl family. In hnefatafl,
a king attem p t s to escape from
the board with the aid of a
small force of men, while a
larger force tries to blockade
them and capture the king.
The earlier description of
tawlbwrdd also suggests a
game of this family, though
the description is merely a
costing and specifies no rules.
It is notable that the two
descriptions give different
numbers of men on the board.
This is not contradictory, as at
different times and in differ -
ent places, hnefatafl changed
size while retaining its general
nature. A more well- known
parallel is draughts, which in
different countries is played
on boards of 8×8, 10×10 or
12 ×12 squares, with varying
numbers of pieces to suit. The
rules of draughts change
slightly with the different vari -
ants, and comparing the rules
given by ap Ifan with a later
set given by the botanist Lin-
naeus (Linnaeus ed. Smith
1811, ii.55 - 58) it is shown that
this happened with hnefatafl
also.
With such a close match in
the configuration of the board
and pieces, as well as the par -
allels between the accounts of
ap Ifan and Linnaeus , there is
no reason to doubt that these
games are of the hnefatafl
family. It is left only to put
together a complete set of
rules. Ap Ifan's account is not
a complete rule set, not nearly
so, but there is enough there
to allow its use as a starting
point. For this reason the
earlier description, of a game
of a king and eight men
against sixteen, can be left be -
hind as an archaic form of the
same game.

18 31
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl
RECONSTRUCTING TAWLBWRDD
In Welsh literature, two games
are often mentioned: gwyddb -
wyll and tawlbwrdd . Gwyddb -
wyll features more often in
earlier literature, and seems to
have been replaced eventually
by tawlbwrd d (Murray 1952,
34). Little detail has survived
about the play of gwyddbwyll ,
and so the nature of that game
is under dispute. But tawlb -
wrdd is better documen te d,
and though no archaeological
evidence has yet come to light,
the documen tary evidence is
of great help in reconstr ucting
the game.
The first evidence is in the
ancient laws of Wales , and
gives a breakdown of the cost
of the king's tawlbwrdd :
The tawlbord of the king is
worth six score pence, and
that is divided in this way:
sixty for the white men; and
sixty for the king and his men;
and this is how that is divided:
thirty for the king and thirty
for his men, that is, three
pence and three farthings for
each of the king's men, and
just as much for each of the
white men. This is the reason
the king is given the same
30
amount as eight men; in the
game he is equal to the eight
men (Bayless 2005, 16).
The second piece of evidence
is from Peniarth Manuscript
158 , a book written by Robert
ap Ifan in 1587, now at the
National Library of Wales . A
drawing of a board of 11×1 1
squares is given. Alternate
columns of squares are
shaded, but there are no other
board markings shown. Shad -
ing of the tenth column would
complete the pattern, but for
some reason it is left un -
shaded. The accompanying
text states:
The above board must be
played with a king in the
centre and twelve men in the
spaces next to him, and
twenty- four lie in wait to cap -
ture him. These are placed,
six in the centre of every end
of the board and in the six
central spaces. Two players
move the pieces, and if one
belonging to the king comes
between the attackers, he is
dead and thrown out of the
play; and if one of the attack -
ers comes between two of the
Reconstructing Hnefatafl
4. The attacking side moves
first.
5. All pieces move orthogon -
ally, as far as they please,
but have no power to jump
over, nor to land on, other
pieces.
6. The five marked squares
are accessible only to the
king.
7. A piece is captured by sur -
rounding it on two oppos -
ite, orthogonal sides, by its
enemies. The captured
piece is then removed
from the board.
8. The king is captured, and
may take part in captures,
like his defenders.
9. If a piece moves adjacent
to two separate enemies,
such that both enemies
become surrou n de d, then
both the enemies are cap -
tured. Similarly, if three
separate enemies become
surroun d e d, they are all
taken.
10. A piece may move volun -
tarily between two enemies
without being considered
captured. One of the en -
emies must move away
and back again to effect
the capture.
11. Any piece adjacent to a
19
marked corner square may
be captured by surroun d -
ing it between that corner
square and one of its en -
emies.
12. The king wins the game
upon reaching one of the
corner cells.
13. The attackers win the
game upon capturing the
king.
14. The game is a draw if a
position is repeated, or if
one player is trapped with
no power of movemen t.
A word of explanation for
some of these rules is neces -
sary. The question of who has
the first move is speculated, as
no evidence exists for any
game. A decision has been
made here only in order to
make the rules complete and
consistent between readers.
Other issues, such as whether
the king can take part in cap -
tures, and whether a piece
may move between two others
without capture, are similarly
settled by conjecture, though
these issues have the support
of more general acceptance
(Murray 1952, 56; Pritchard
1982, 177; Parlett 1999, 199).
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl Reconstructing Hnefatafl

without historical reference. thentic transmission of the

That the king’s force begins original rules. But, unless ser -
RECONSTRUCTING THE ALEA EVANGELII the game was taken from Bell’s ious errors have occurred in
In 1619, a mediaeval Gospel and hollow squares are placed reconstr uction, given that the identification of this as a
Book dating to 1140 came into on the intersections of the someone has to make the first hnefatafl game, these rules
the possession of the Corpus grid, and a number of faint di - move. The king’s ability to should have been recognisable
Christi College library, in Ox- agonal lines link some of these capture attackers is assu me d, to those people at King Athel -
ford (Julian Reid, person al squares. Finally, in the but this assum p tion is ques - stan’s court who were familiar
commu nication). It has the corners of the grid are ar - tionable. The rule for drawn with the play of the game.
Eusebian canons, followed by a ranged sixteen smaller solid games is a moder n innovation,
diagram of a gaming board set black squares. These are ar - necessitated by characteristic - Ackno wledg e m e nt
with pieces. Accompanying ranged such that four lie with - ally moder n concerns about
the diagram is a description of in the boun daries of each the possibility of unspo rting Thanks must go to Julian Reid,
the game, which says very corner cell, each small black play. archivist at the Corpus Christi
little about the rules, but at - square touching one of the in - There is too much specu - College library in Oxford , for
tempts to relate lation in this reconstr uctio n information about the dating
how the place - for it to be taken as an au - of the manuscript referred to
ment of the throughou t this article.
pieces represent s
the Gospels. The
diagram shows a
grid of 19 lines by
19, on which a
near - symmetrical
pattern of small
solid black I
squares is dis -
tributed around a
central I. Four
other small
squares, hollow
with a double
outline, are also
arranged sym -
metrically on the
grid. The black Illustration 4 : The alea evangelii, as shown in
the Corpus Christi College manuscript.

20 29
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl
the following rules:
1. The alea evangelii is a con -
test between two players,
one taking the side of a
king with twenty - four de -
fenders, the other con -
trolling forty - eight attack -
ers. It is played on a board
of nineteen playing spaces
by nineteen.
2. The pieces are laid out on
the intersections of the
board in an elaborate ar -
ray, the king’s defenders
surroun ding him in the
centre of the board, the at -
tackers distributed to -
wards the edge.
3. The king’s object is to
reach one of the citadels,
the marked intersections
at the corners of the board.
Upon reaching any of these
places, the king has won
the game. The attackers’
object is to capture the
king.
4. The king’s forces take the
first move. Pieces move
any number of steps in an
orthogonal direction.
5. No piece but the king may
land on the central space.
Nor can any piece land on
the corner cells that bear
28
markings; only the king
can reach these, and his
reaching them signifies the
end of the game.
6. The king is captured by
surroun ding him on all
four sides by attackers. If
he stands beside the cent -
ral space, three attackers
can capture him.
7. Other pieces are captured
by surroun ding them on
two opposite orthogo nal
sides. Two or three
non - adjacent enemies are
simultaneo usly captured if
they become surrou n de d
with the same move.
8. The markings on the
corner intersections can
take part in captures, by
either player, as if there
were pieces of that player’s
colour sat upon them.
9. A piece may come to rest
voluntarily between two
enemies, without being
considered captured.
10. The king is permitted to
act as a defender for the
purposes of capturing.
11. The game is drawn if a po -
sition is repeated.
In the above reconstr uction,
some details have been added
Reconstructing Hnefatafl
tersections. The accompany - decoration of the playing -
ing text begins: table.”
Alea Evangelii , which Dubinsi Identification of the
bishop of Bangor brought
away from the king of the Game
English, that is, from the J. Armitage Robinson looks at
house of Athelstan king of the
the manu script in his 1923
English; depicted by a certain
Frank and a Roman sage, that book “The Times of St Dun -
is, Israel. If anyone would stan”. He provides a sum mary
know this game fully, before translation of the Latin text,
all the lessons of this teaching but fails to identify the game
he must thoroughly know beyond “some ancient form of
these seven: to wit, dukes and chess or draught s” which, he
counts, defenders and attack - says, “may one day give the
ers, city and citadel, and nine key to the problem” (Robinson
steps twice over (Robinson
1923, 71). He later speculates,
1923, 70).
without conviction, that the
alea evangelii may be a simple
Following this text is an ex -
puzzle rather than a game,
planation about how the num -
where the interest begins and
ber of pieces, their positions,
ends with the laying out of the
and groupings represent the
pieces (Robinson 1923, 180).
canons. But occasional further
Robinson also notes that the
details about the game itself
board requires adjust men t.
appear. The piece on the
H. J. R. Murray identified
central position is referred to
the board diagram with hne -
as the primus vir, “primary
fatafl (Murray 1952, 61), a
man”, and special reference is
siege game introd uced from
given to the four men drawn in
Scandinavia . In this family of
a double outline, which are re -
games, in which the size of the
ferred to as varii viri, “varie -
board and the number of
gated men”. Finally, there is a
pieces upon it varies, a central
reference to the markings in
king- piece attemp ts to escape
the corner of the board: “the
to the edge of the board with
groups of four men at the four
the help of a number of de -
outer angles are there for the
21
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl
make the layout
symmetrical, and
present s such an
adjusted layout.
In his layout he
also divides the
pieces up such
that there are two
distinct sides, one
of 24 white pieces
and the other of
48 black, in addi -
tion to a central
king- piece. Mur -
ray does not
present us with a
set of rules spe -
cific to this board,
but notes that the
picture it presents
Illustration 5 : Murray's correction of the alea
is consistent with
evangelii.
other descrip -
fenders, while double their tions. Murray ’s
number of attackers attem p ts reconstr uction of board and
to stop the escape and capture rules (Murray 1952, 55 - 56)
the king. Moves are orthogon - take no account of the
al like a chess rook, and a manuscript’s “variegated
piece is captured by surroun d - men”, nor of the decorative
ing it on two opposite ortho - men in the corners of the
gonal sides with enemies. The board.
king has to be surroun de d on R. C. Bell ascribes the dia -
four sides by enemies before gram to a game he refers to as
he is captured. “Saxon Hnefatafl” (Bell 1979,
Murray , like Robinson be - i.79). He associates the dia -
fore him, considers that the gram with a gaming board
pieces should be adjusted to found in Vimose (spelled
22
Reconstructing Hnefatafl
The Central Playing
Space
There remains the question of
whether the central playing
space has special properties.
The two sets of rules of which
a great proportion remains,
tablut and tawlbwrdd , disagree
on this point. In tablut , ac-
cording to Linnaeus , the cent -
ral square is accessible only to
the king, and is specially
marked, while in tawlbwrdd ,
according to ap Ifan, it is un -
marked and no special prop -
erties are given to it. In refer -
ences to brandu b , it seems
that the central space and the
four corners are reserved for
the king (MacWhite 1946, 25-
35). Examination of the Cor -
pus Christi College
manuscrip t’s diagram shows
that the central playing space
is marked by a break in the
lines that form the grid, sug -
gesting that in this game, it
has special proper ties.
The only properties of the
central playing space that have
survived in any hnefatafl game
are that: first, it is accessible
only to the king, and second:
when the king sits beside it, he
can be captured by three men
27
instead of the four that are
usually required. In the ab -
sence of further references,
the only sensible option is to
adopt the rules as given by
Linnaeus . The break in the
lines differs from the usual
method of distinguishing this
space on boards that are made
for play on the intersections.
The boards at Buckquoy , Scot -
land , distinguish this intersec -
tion with a circle (Ritchie 1977,
187). Thus it can be specu -
lated that in the alea evangelii ,
perhap s pieces were blocked
from passing the central
space, as well as landing on it.
This does not appear to
greatly affect game play,
however, and given that no
such rule has been preserved
from any source, it can be re -
garded as an unnecessary in -
novation. The differences in
markings between these
boards may be nothing more
than a matter of decorative
taste.
Summarising the
Reconstruction
In summ ary, then, the recon -
struction of a game for the
alea evangelii comprehen d s
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl Reconstructing Hnefatafl

“squares”. Nine steps twice
over, if taken literally, de -
scribes two separate moves of
nine steps. The only time this
would be necessary is if the
piece were to move at an
angle, as it is generally accep -
ted that diagonal moves are
not allowed in hnefatafl
games. It is to be noted that
such a composite move would
take the central “primary man”
to one of the four corners of
the board. Given that he
would be unable to rest on one
of these spaces, is it possible
that these are the objectives
for the king, rather than the
edge of the board? Such an
explanation would give a sig -
nificant meaning to the phrase
“nine steps twice over.” It
would also make the king’s
task more difficult, reducing
the imbalance of the game.
This explanation advances
the reconstr uction, but does
not complete it. At the start of
the game, eight attacking
pieces already block the paths
to the corner intersections,
and other attacking pieces are
on hand to seal off the exits
completely. With sixteen of
the forty - eight pieces, the at -
tacking side can prevent the
king from winning indefinitely.
Clearly some further refine -
ment is needed, and it finds its
beginnings in a suggestion by
a modern commentato r, that
the fixed men in the corners
are capable of being used to
capture pieces (Parlett 1999,
199). In this case, to seal off
the corners, the attackers
would have to move to a safe
distance from the fixed corner
men, and in total twenty
pieces would be required to
form a complete blockade.
While this is not a large in -
crease on the sixteen already
mentioned, the fact that a
greater number of moves is
required to create a safe form -
ation gives the defending side
the opportu nity to harass any
works that the blockading side
might attemp t. Unfortu nately,
the fact that the allegiance of
none of the pieces is ad -
equately preserved, means
that it is impossible to say
whether the corner pieces
ought to be allowed to make
captures for the attackers as
well as the defenders. Play-
testing produces the recom -
mendation that the fixed
corner men can be hostile to
either side.
“Wimose” by Murray and all
who follow him), in Denmark ,
dating from about AD 400,
five centuries before the game
depicted in the manuscript.
He also, incorrectly, assumes
that the manuscript is con -
temporary with the game. He
reverses the colours of the
pieces, and grants the first
move to the king’s side, but
otherwise follows Murray ’s
rules exactly. D. Parlett agrees
with Bell and Murray (Parlett
1999, 202).
This reconstr uction is not
satisfactory for a number of
reasons. The first, from an
historical point of view, is that
the variegated men and the
decorative men in the corners
have been completely ignored.
Without having to introduce
modern innovations, the
corner squares should at least
be considered inaccessible due
to the presence of fixed men
on the game board, even if no
further use is ascribed to
them.
Unfortunately, this is
where hard evidence leaves the
matter. For those who wish to
avoid any further speculation,
the following reconstr uction is
the best available: the board is
laid out as in Murray ’s dia -
gram; the pieces move as
rooks in chess, and capture by
surroun ding enemies on two
opposite sides; the king is
captured by surrou n ding him
on four sides; the game is won
by the king if he reaches the
edge of the board, or by his
enemies if they capture him.
Play- testing will find here a
set of rules which favours the
king’s side, thus satisfying the
historian, but not the player.
Explaining the
Variegated Men
Much can be speculated about
these variegated men. One ex -
planation is that, if the attack -
ing pieces were black, then
these may well belong to the
defending side. The fact that
they contrast with the rest of
the pieces is down to two
things: first, that such a dis -
tinction suits the allegory, and
second, that they perhap s
contrasted with the adjacent
pieces which may in the ori -
ginal layout have been black.
This necessitates a revision of
Murray ’s layout, so that if
these pieces are white, then
four others that Murray iden -

26 23
 Reconstructing Hnefatafl Reconstructing Hnefatafl

tifies as white must be black.
Identifying these variegated
pieces with the defen ders,
without adjusting others to
maintain the proportion s of
the sides, is unsatisfactory as
it increases an already unac -
ceptable bias towards the
white side.
Another theory is that
these pieces are special in
some way, and the reference to
“dukes and counts” could be
used to argue that there were
different types of pieces in the
game. But no other game of
the hnefatafl family has pieces
with special attributes, other
than the king, so if there is
some special property to the
variegated men, we can only
speculate on it. Any special
attribute ascribed to these
pieces would be a modern in -
novation, owing nothing to
historical evidence.
The final suggestion is the
most simple, but rests on the
fact that the manuscript was
written long after the game
was played, and speculates
that the original source mater -
ial has been misinter prete d. It
is possible that the men were
not specially marked at all, but
that it was the intersections on
which they sat that bore the
special markings. Many of the
extant boards for hnefatafl
games bear markings of one
kind or another. The central
playing space is marked on
most boards, and the corners
are added in others. Some
boards have markings for dec -
oration only. Others appear to
have markings that represent,
partially or fully, the initial
positions of the pieces. Ex-
amples of this last type in -
clude boards found at Jarlshof
(Parlett 1999, 201), where vari -
ous squares on the central
rank and file are crosscut, and
tablut (Linnaeus ed. Smith
1811, ii.55- 58), where the
starting position of every piece
is identified.
If the intersections on
which the “variegated men” sit
are marked, then these mark -
ings could be considered as
decorative, or as indicative of
the layout. As well as sitting
in the middle of the diagonal
rows of five pieces, these loca -
tions also mark the ranks and
files of most of the outer
pieces. On such a large board
with a complex layout, such
markings would greatly aid the
setting up of the game. All
three of the suggestions above
are speculation, but one ad -
vantage of the third explana -
tion is that, in reconstr ucting
the game, it necessitates no
innovations in the rules. The
markings can simply be ig-
nored, as is done by Murray
and all who follow him.
Explaining the Fixed
Men
The fixed men present their
own problems to be solved. It
could be that the twelfth cen -
tury copyist has trans mitted
their use accurately, and that
they are there purely for “the
decoration of the playing
table.” This being the case,
then as already observed, a re -
constr uction of the rules
would at least have to prohibit
the other pieces from resting
on these occupied spaces. But
such a reconstr uction fails to
satisfy. No other game of this
type has portions of the board
removed from play for no ap -
parent reason. Craftsmen in
the case of the board from
Gokstad , Norway , appear to
have been satisfied with en -
graving patter ns on the
squares (Murray 1952, 58),
which is a much more practic -
al way of applying decoration,
as it leaves the squares avail -
able for play. It is possible,
then, that these fixed men had
a more active role in the game.
For other clues, the game’s
introductory text in the
manuscript could be re- ex-
amined. In particular, the sen -
tence about the skills required
for the game seem to allude to
aspects of the rules: “to wit,
dukes and counts, defenders
and attackers, city and citadel,
and nine steps twice over”.
Nine steps twice over could
refer to the size of the board,
or the distance required to
travel from one edge to the
other. But given that the
board’s width is self - evident,
nine steps twice over can
hardly be described as a skill
worthy of note. It is also a
long - winded way of referring
to the number 18; nowhere
else in the manuscript has the
copyist chosen to be verbose
in referring to numbers.
It seems probable that the
word “steps” is describing the
movemen t of a piece, rather
than a simple dimension, for
which the manuscript else -
where uses the measure of

24 25