{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_34816/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_34816","id":"gutenberg_34816","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34816","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - European","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Inscriptions, Runic -- Scotland -- Orkney","Maes Howe (Scotland)","Orkney (Scotland) -- Antiquities"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed\nProofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was\nproduced from images generously made available by The\nInternet Archive/American Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMAES-HOWE\n\n\n\n\n_Printed by R. & R. Clark, Edinburgh._\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE I. GENERAL VIEW OF MAESHOWE.]\n\n\n\n\n  NOTICE OF RUNIC INSCRIPTIONS\n  DISCOVERED DURING RECENT\n  EXCAVATIONS IN THE ORKNEYS\n\n  MADE BY JAMES FARRER, M.P.\n\n  PRINTED FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION\n  1862\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                     PAGE\n\n  PREFACE                                              ix\n\n  DESCRIPTION OF MAES-HOWE                             11\n\n  THE EXCAVATION OF MAES-HOWE                          13\n\n  BARROWS AT BOOKAN                                    16\n    LARGE BARROW CONTAINING GRAVES                     17\n\n  MOUNDS AT STENNES                                    18\n\n  BARROW AT TENSTONE                                   19\n\n  APPENDIX                                             21\n    ORIGIN OF MAES-HOWE, AND DATE OF INSCRIPTIONS      21\n    READINGS OF INSCRIPTIONS                           25\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF PLATES.\n\n\n     I. General View of Maes-Howe from the N. E.      TO FACE TITLE PAGE\n\n    II. Interior View of Maes-Howe      \"                        PAGE 15\n\n   III. General Plan and Section of Maes-Howe             \"           20\n\n    IV. Plan of Central Chamber, Passages, and Cells      \"           20\n\n     V. Sections of East and West Sides of Chamber        \"           20\n\n    VI. Sections of North and South Sides of Chamber\n        and Passage                                       \"           20\n\n  _The numbers on Plates V. and VI. show the situation of the slabs\n  containing the Runic Inscriptions, which are numbered accordingly._\n\n   VII. Inscriptions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9       \"           40\n\n  VIII. Do. Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14                       \"           40\n\n    IX. Do. Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20                   \"           40\n\n     X. Do. Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26                   \"           40\n\n    XI. Do. Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32                   \"           40\n\n  [_The Inscriptions are drawn on a scale of 2 inches to one foot._]\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nAs the following pages are intended only for private circulation among\nfriends and acquaintances, and for presentation to those few Public\nSocieties to whom such a subject may be interesting, it is hardly\nnecessary to offer any apology for the many imperfections in the\ndescription of Maes-howe, which may doubtless be pointed out, and for the\nbrief and cursory manner in which the subject is handled. I desire only to\ngive a plain statement of facts, in the hope that attention may be drawn\nto this interesting discovery, and possibly some further impetus given to\nthe elucidation of Runic literature. I have received from the learned\nprofessors, whose translations are given, much valuable information, of\nwhich, however, I can only partially avail myself, in consequence of my\nvery imperfect acquaintance with Runology.\n\nI may add, that every possible care has been taken to ensure accuracy in\nthe drawings. These and the ground plans were made by Mr. Gibb of\nAberdeen--of whose care and accuracy in the drawings of ancient monuments\nMr. Stuart has spoken so strongly in his \"Sculptured Stones of Scotland,\"\nprinted for the Spalding Club. The Runes were mostly drawn by my friend\nMr. George Petrie of Kirkwall, and the drawings afterwards compared by\nMr. Gibb with the originals in the building of Maes-Howe. Two separate\nsets of casts were made for me by Mr. Henry Laing of Edinburgh (one of\nwhich is now in the National Museum of the Antiquaries of Scotland,\nEdinburgh, and the other in the Museum of the Royal Northern Society of\nAntiquaries at Copenhagen.) Nothing could exceed the pains taken by Mr.\nPetrie and Mr. Gibb; and the drawings made by Mr. Gibb were on two\noccasions collated by him with the casts in Edinburgh, so that I have\nevery reason to believe that they are as perfect representations of the\noriginal writings on the walls of Maes-Howe as can be hoped for, and not\nthe less so that the gentlemen who made the drawings and collations were\nunacquainted with Runes. I have confined myself to the interpretations\nfurnished by the three eminent northern antiquaries who have undertaken\nthe task of deciphering these rude inscriptions, feeling assured that the\nhigh reputation which they enjoy is a sufficient guarantee for the\naccuracy of their translations. In concluding these few remarks I am\nanxious to bear testimony to the valuable assistance I have received from\nmy friend Mr. John Stuart, Secretary of the Society of Antiquaries of\nScotland, to whom in reality I am chiefly indebted for the discovery of\nMaes-Howe, since I owe to his urgent suggestion that the great circle of\nStennes, and the tumuli around it, had not been sufficiently examined, the\nsuccessful excavation of this ancient \"howe.\" It is also highly\nsatisfactory to me to know that Mr. Balfour of Balfour and Trenabie, on\nwhose property this interesting relic of antiquity is situated, has taken\nthe necessary steps to ensure its preservation--a precaution,\nunfortunately, too often neglected under similar circumstances.\n\nJAMES FARRER.\n\nINGLEBOROUGH, YORKSHIRE, JUNE 1862.\n\n\n\n\nMAES-HOWE.\n\n\nEarly in the month of July 1861 I was enabled, by the kind permission of\nmy friend David Balfour, Esq. of Balfour and Trenaby, to put in execution\na scheme long contemplated, but from various circumstances unavoidably\ndelayed, the excavation of some of the great tumuli in the neighbourhood\nof the Stones of Stennes, or Ring of Brogar. I had in the year 1854\npartially explored one of considerable size on the east side of the great\ncircle of stones, which stands on the west shore of the Loch of Harray. No\ndiscovery, however, of any importance was then made.\n\nSome days were devoted to excavations close to Stennes, to which allusion\nwill afterwards be made, but as several gentlemen of well-known\nantiquarian reputation from Edinburgh and Aberdeen were expected, and as I\nwas desirous of having the benefit of their experience and advice, I\ndetermined at once to commence operations on the great tumulus of\nMaes-howe, the subject of this notice. My attention had been particularly\ncalled to this tumulus by Mr. Balfour, whose decided opinion that a\ncareful examination might result in some important discovery, afforded me\ngreat encouragement, as I well knew that he had for many years taken\nconsiderable interest in Orkney antiquities, and his opinion that\nMaes-howe was a sepulchral chamber, appeared to be confirmed by local\ntraditions.[1]\n\nOn the afternoon of Saturday the 6th of July, therefore, guided by the\nexperience of Mr. George Petrie, and assisted by the professional\nknowledge of Mr. Wilson, road contractor, ground was broken on the west\nside of Maes-howe, and on the same evening, Mr. John Stuart and Mr. Joseph\nRobertson of Edinburgh, with Colonel Forbes Leslie of Rothie, and Mr.\nJames Hay Chalmers of Aberdeen, arrived by the Prince Consort steamship.\nAs it was anticipated that a couple of days would suffice to make a large\nopening in the tumulus, arrangements were made for meeting there on the\n10th of July. Before proceeding with the description of what followed, it\nmay not be out of place to give a short account of the Stones of Stennes,\nas described by Lieutenant Thomas in a work published by him in 1851:--\n\n\"The Great Circle of Stennes, or Ring of Brogar, is a deeply entrenched\ncircular space containing almost two acres and a half of superficies, of\nwhich the diameter is 366 feet. Around the circumference of the area, but\nabout thirteen feet within the trench, are the erect stones, standing at\nan average distance of eighteen feet apart. They are totally unhewn, and\nvary considerably in form and size. The highest stone was found to be 13-9\nfeet above the surface, and judging from some others which have fallen, it\nis sunk about eighteen inches in the ground. The smallest stone is less\nthan six feet, but the average height is from eight to ten. The breadth\nvaries from 2-6 to 7-9 feet, but the average may be stated at about 5\nfeet, and the thickness about 1 foot--all of the old red sandstone\nformation. The trench round the area is in good preservation. The edge of\nthe bank is still sharply defined, as well as the two foot-banks or\nentrances, which are placed exactly opposite to each other. They have no\nrelation to the true or magnetic meridian, but are parallel to the general\ndirection of the neck of land on which the circle is placed. The trench\nis 29 feet in breadth, and about 6 in depth, and the entrances are formed\nby narrow earth-banks across the fosse. The surface of the enclosed area\nhas an average inclination to the eastward. It is highest on the\nnorth-west quarter, and the extreme difference of level is estimated to be\nfrom 6 to 7 feet. The trench has the same inclination, and therefore could\nnever be designed to hold water.\"\n\n\n\n\nTHE EXCAVATION OF MAES-HOWE.\n\n\nOn Monday the 8th of July, a number of men under the superintendance of\nAlexander Johnson, Mr. Wilson's foreman--a most active and intelligent\nfellow--proceeded with the work that had been commenced on the previous\nSaturday, and before evening discovered a passage on the west side, which\nafterwards proved to be the entrance into the interior of the tumulus.\nThis passage was covered over with large flag-stones, one of which having\nbeen with some difficulty upraised, we effected an entrance, but found a\nconsiderable accumulation of earth and stones, which was removed on the\nfollowing day, and Mr. Wilson, after careful examination, in which his\nengineering experience was of the highest importance, agreed to my\nsuggestion that the excavation should be proceeded with from the centre of\nthe hillock.\n\nI am chiefly indebted to my friend Mr. George Petrie for the following\nmeasurements, which I believe will be found to be substantially correct:--\n\nThe tumulus is about 92 feet in diameter, 36 feet high, and about 300 feet\nin circumference at the base. It is surrounded by a trench 40 feet wide,\nand varying in depth from 4 to 8 feet. It is situated on the north side of\nthe new road leading to Stromness from Kirkwall, being about 6 miles from\nthe former, and 9 from the latter place. It is about 200 yards distant\nfrom the road, and a mile and a half from the Stones of Stennes. It has\nundoubtedly been entered at some remote period, probably by the Northmen,\nwho, as is well known, were not deterred by feelings either of religion\nor superstition, from opening and ransacking any place likely to repay\nthem for their trouble. Whether they were the first to break into the\nbuilding, or whether they found it in a state of comparative ruin, the\nnatural result of great antiquity, can now only be matter of conjecture.\nIt is obvious that little respect has been paid to the dead, since the\nstones used for closing up the cells, in which it is supposed they were\ndeposited, were found torn out and buried in the mass of ruins filling up\nthe interior of the chamber to which these cells are attached.\n\nThe passage leading to the central chamber is 2 feet 4 inches wide at its\nmouth, and appears to have been the same in height, but the covering\nstones had been removed, or had fallen in for about 22-1/2 feet. The\npassage then increases in dimensions to 3-1/4 feet in width, and 4 feet 4\ninches in height, and continues for 26 feet, when it is again narrowed by\ntwo upright stone slabs to 2 feet 5 inches. These slabs are each 2 feet 4\ninches broad, and immediately beyond them the passage extends 2 feet 10\ninches, and then opens into the central chamber. Its dimensions from the\nslabs to its opening into the chamber are 3 feet 4 inches wide, and 4 feet\n8 inches high. At the commencement of the passage there is a triangular\nrecess in the wall about 2 feet deep, and 3-1/2 in height and width, in\nfront and opposite to it in the passage, a stone of corresponding shape\nand dimensions, suggesting the idea that it might have been used to close\nthe passage, and that it was pushed back into the recess in the wall when\nadmission into the chamber was desired. From this recess to the chamber,\nthe sides of the passage, the floor and roof, are formed by four immense\nslabs of flagstone; three of these stones are broken, and the fourth\nslightly cracked.\n\nAfter a few days' labour the whole of the rubbish filling the chamber was\nremoved, but long ere this was accomplished, the keen eye of Mr. Joseph\nRobertson discovered the first of the Runic inscriptions. They were high\nup on the walls of the building, smaller and less distinctly drawn than\nmany that were afterwards discovered, but the important fact of the\nexistence of Runic inscriptions in Orkney, where none had hitherto been\nfound, was at once established.\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE II. INTERIOR VIEW OF MAESHOWE.]\n\n\nThe chamber when cleared out proved to be about 15 feet square on the\nlevel of the floor, and 13 feet in height, to the top of the present\nwalls. Immediately opposite to the passage is an opening in the wall 3\nfeet from the floor. This is the entrance to a cell or small chamber in\nthe wall, 5 feet 8 inches long, 4-1/2 feet wide, and 3-1/2 high. A large\nflagstone is laid as a raised floor between the entrance and the inner end\nof the chamber. The entrance is 2 feet wide, 2-1/2 high, and 22-1/2 inches\nlong. On the two opposite walls of the chamber are similar openings in the\nwalls. The one on the right is 2-1/2 feet wide, 2 feet 9 inches high, and\n1 foot 8 inches long. It gives admission to a cell 6 feet 10 inches long,\n4 feet 7 inches wide, 3-1/2 feet high, and has a raised flagstone floor,\nas in the other chamber. The opening on the left is 2-1/4 feet wide, 2-1/2\nhigh, and 1-3/4 long, and about 3 feet above the floor of the chamber. The\ncell of which this is the entrance is 5 feet 7 inches long, 4 feet 8\ninches wide, and 3 feet 4 inches high. It has no raised floor like the two\nother cells. The roofs, floors, and back walls of the cells are each\nformed by a single slab of stone, and stones corresponding in size and\nshape to the openings in the walls were found on the floor in front of\nthem. The natural inference is that they were originally the seals of the\nchambers in which the honoured dead reposed.\n\nThe four walls of the central chamber converge towards the top by the\nsuccessive projection of each stone or flag, commencing about 6 feet from\nthe level of the floor, as is usually found to be the style of building,\nboth in the Pict's houses or burghs, and in the still more primitive\nsubterranean dwellings known as Weems. The top of the chamber would thus\nnecessarily be of small dimensions, and the aperture easily closed by one\nlarge flagstone. This top, or cover stone, together with a considerable\nportion of the upper part of the walls, has been thrown down, and the\nhighest part of the existing walls is only about 13 feet from the level of\nthe floor. At that point, the opposite walls have approached to within 10\nfeet of each other, so that the chamber is now 15 feet square at the\nfloor, and 10 feet at the top of the walls, in their present condition.\n\nLarge quantities of earth had been piled up over the building when\ncompleted. In each angle of the central chamber stands a large buttress,\ndoubtless intended to strengthen the walls, and support them under the\npressure of their own weight, and that of the mass of earth with which the\nwhole was covered. These buttresses vary somewhat in dimensions, but they\nare on an average about 3 feet square at the base, and from 9 to 10 feet\nhigh, with the exception of one which is only 8 feet high. In each\nbuttress one side is formed by a single slab. The walls of the chamber are\nbuilt with large stones, which generally extend the whole length of the\nwall. No lime or mortar of any kind has been used.\n\nThe entire number of Runic characters may be about 935, exclusive of\nscribbles and many doubtful marks. The monograms and bind-runes, or\nconnected consonants, are considered as forming one letter. There are also\nsome marks which may have been intended to represent a horse and an otter\nwith a fish in its mouth; also, a winged dragon and a worm knot, which\nlast has much the appearance of one of the great Saurians. The two hind\nlegs are very plainly defined.\n\n\n\n\nBARROWS AT BOOKAN.\n\n\nThis barrow is in the parish of Sandwick, but so near to Stennes that it\nmay have been regarded as connected with the great circle. It is on the\nproperty of Mr. Watt of Skail, in the West Mainland. It was opened on the\n6th of July, and proved to be a collection of kists or graves. At the\nnorth end of the central kist, a flint lance head, and several fragments\nof clay vessels or urns, were found, together with a lump of heavy metal,\nsupposed to be Manganese, but no bones. In some of the other kists were\nhuman remains in a very decayed state, two jaw bones being the most\nperfect. These were much distorted.\n\nMr. Petrie gives me the following measurements:--The Barrow is about 44\nfeet in diameter, and about 6 feet high. About 11 feet within the outer\nmargin of the base of the barrow is a circular wall or facing about 1 foot\nhigh. From the south side of this wall a low passage, 6 feet 3 inches\nlong, 21 inches in height, and the same in width, leads to a chamber or\nkist 7 feet long and 4-1/2 wide. At the north end of this there was\nanother kist 4 feet 8 inches long, and 3 feet wide. On the east side there\nwas one 4 feet 8 inches long, and 2 feet 9 inches wide; and on the west\nside two kists, both of which were of the same length as that on the east\nside, and both were 3 feet in width. They were all about 2 feet 8 inches\ndeep. The foundation of the surrounding wall or facing was considerably\nabove the level of the floors of the kists.\n\n\nLARGE BARROW CONTAINING GRAVES.\n\nThe excavation of this barrow was commenced on the 17th of July 1854. It\nwas found to contain graves, in one of which was an urn with a quantity of\nburnt bones and ashes. It was formed out of a micaceous stone not\nbelonging to Orkney. It was 1 foot 9 inches in diameter, about 18 inches\ndeep, and 5 feet 10 inches in circumference, the rim, which projected on\nthe outside all round, was an inch and a half wide, the kist in which it\nwas deposited was 2 feet and a half in length, and 2 feet in width, but\nthe side stones which protected the kist were nearly 6 feet in length, and\nat the angles, and on the outside of the kist were quantities of small\nrolled pebbles and gravel, probably intended to assist in draining off\nwater. Clay was placed inside the kist at the different angles; the flags\nwere about an inch and a half thick, but much decayed; the cover stone was\nof an irregular shape, about 4 feet long and 2-1/2 wide; the urn rested\nupon the corners of four flags; it was partly decayed, and could not be\nremoved till after an interval of two days, when I succeeded in raising\nit. It is now in the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries at Edinburgh, to\nwhom I presented it, with the consent of Mr. Balfour.\n\nIn another grave within the same barrow was found a small urn composed of\nbaked clay and gravel, nearly filled with soil, and only one or two small\npieces of bone. It was brought to Kirkwall, but could not be preserved,\nin consequence of its decayed condition. It was 5 inches in diameter, 17\nin circumference, and 5 deep. The kist was 2 feet 9-1/2 inches long, and 1\nfoot 7 inches wide. The bones, in this instance, had not been placed in\nthe urn, but were laid on a flagstone in the north-west angle of the kist.\nIt is not improbable that further investigation might lead to the\ndiscovery of other interments within the same barrow, since neither of\nthose before described were in the centre of the tumulus, and several\ninstances have occurred where they have been found near the outside.\n\n\n\n\nMOUNDS AT STENNES.\n\n\nIn the year 1854, I had partially opened one of the largest of these\nhillocks, but further examination last July did not encourage the belief\nthat it was sepulchral. I was however advised to examine one on the west\nside of the Stones of Stennes, and directly opposite to the one previously\nmentioned. In both of them the workmen penetrated to a depth of 22 feet,\nand over an area of 9 square feet in the one on the west side of the great\ncircle, but there was no appearance of any kind of building. The material\nof which these hillocks are composed is precisely the same as that which\nstill exists within the circle of stones, and I infer that when the moat\nsurrounding the circle was excavated, advantage was taken of the\ncircumstance to raise these hillocks. Fragments of animal, but no human\nbones, were found in each, but in both instances near the top. Building\nstones are found at the base of both hillocks, but always embedded in the\nsoil; those which were easy of removal having no doubt been long since\ntaken away by the country people. Sections were made at right angles in\nboth of the hillocks, and it was clearly ascertained that no building of\nany size could be concealed within.\n\n\n\n\nTENSTONE.\n\n\nIn this barrow, which is in the parish of Sandwick, but adjoining Stennes,\nI found the remains of two stone urns. The barrow had been evidently\npreviously opened. There was reason to believe that these urns had been in\nseparate kists. They were formed out of a micaceous stone, but the attempt\nto unite the fragments was quite hopeless. A few small pieces of human\nbone were found. The cover and sidestones of the kists remained in the\ngrave.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE III.]\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE IV. GROUND PLAN OF CENTRE CHAMBER &c.]\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE V.]\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE VI.]\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _Origin of Maes-Howe._]\n\nIt is proposed now to inquire into the origin of Maes-Howe, at what time,\nand for what purpose it was constructed, and who were the people whose\nnames and writings are found engraved on its walls. I am indebted to the\nlearned Professors who have furnished me with their translation of the\ninscriptions, for the information which is embodied in the following\npages.\n\nIt is much to be regretted that the inscriptions are so indefinite, and\nfrequently so much defaced. Moreover, Nos. 19 and 20 alone make any\nallusion to the erection of Maes-Howe. Professor Rafn believes that it was\na sorcery hall for Lodbrok,[2] a female magician, Professor Munch, that it\nwas the burial-place of a woman of the same name, while Professor\nStephens, who expresses no opinion as to the time when the building was\nraised, considers the writings which speak of Lodbrok's sons, as\nindicative of its having been used in early times by the celebrated\nScandinavian Vikings of that name, as a fortress and place of retreat. The\nlow and narrow cells, as well as the low passage leading to the interior,\nfully justify the opinion that it was undoubtedly at one time a place of\nburial. The massive stones forming the floor and side walls of the\npassage, and also those used in the inside to support the buttresses, are\nsimilar in character to the neighbouring circle of stones at Stennes. The\narchitecture also is most primitive, and it is evident that the whole\nwork must have been one requiring much time and labour. The present form\nof the mound does not favour the idea that it was _originally_ a platform,\nand used for the performance of religious rites, though this would not be\ninconsistent with the idea that it had been adopted to that purpose at\nsome remote period, having been previously used as a place of interment.\n\nIf we find difficulty in determining the period when the mound was first\nraised, almost equal difficulty arises in assigning to any fixed time the\nengraving of the numerous inscriptions. Many of them are no doubt to be\nattributed to the Crusaders, but there are others of probably far earlier\ndate than the twelfth century, when, as stated by Professor Munch, the\nOrkney Jarl, Ragnvald, about the year 1152-3, organized his naval\nexpedition to the Holy Land. That the writings have been engraved at\nintervals during a long period of time--perhaps, as suggested by Professor\nStephens, during the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, or even\nlater--is sufficiently obvious. Some of the stones have the words very\nfaintly and imperfectly engraved, while in others the lines are sharply\nand distinctly cut. The absence of division between the letters (for the\n_dots_ are very uncertain in their position, and are probably for the most\npart accidental) sufficiently accounts for the difference of reading, in\nseveral of the inscriptions. The variety of type--there being no fewer\nthan 18 different forms of A, many of them it is true, _like_, but still\n_different_; to say nothing of Diphthongs, the Bind-runes, or consonants\nand vowels connected, as [rune] (ae) or [rune] (a) and [rune] (k) [rune] or\n(a) and ([rune]) forming AK, Ar, and others of a similar\nnature--necessarily renders the task of translation, more especially when\nthe letters are indistinct and perhaps unfinished, one of difficulty and\nuncertainty.\n\nVery few of the _old_ Northern letters are found. The \"Dragon\" and \"Worm\nKnot\" are still perfectly distinct, and have evidently been carved by\nsuperior artists. With the exception of two stones--one of which is shewn\nin the drawing of the interior of the tumulus, and on which four letters\nare carved--none have been found bearing any inscription amongst the\ndebris, nor is there any reason to suppose that stones bearing\ninscriptions have been removed from the walls. The two stones before\nalluded to had evidently been used to close up the cells, and lay on the\nbasement floor just below the entrances to the cells from which they had\nbeen rudely torn. In one of the cells, that on the left side of the\nchamber, a few letters were indistinctly written. By accident they were\nforgotten, and no casts were taken of them. It is not easy to account for\nthe various elevations at which the carvings were made. Those on the\nhigher parts could not have been reached by persons standing at the\nbottom, but they might have been inscribed after the roof had been broken\nin, and when the building was in a partially ruined state. Many of the\nmarks, possibly some of the \"scratches\" or \"scribbles\" to which no\nimportance is attached, and perhaps even some of the doubtful letters, may\nbe the result of violence used in breaking in the roof. Most of the Runes\nbelong to the Norwegian division of the Scandinavian class, and have\nnothing to do with the Gothic or older alphabet, but, in the opinion of\nProfessor Munch, they exhibit some archaicisms which prevent their being\nplaced in the latest times of the Norwegian class; they must therefore be\nreferred to about A. D. 1150.\n\n[Sidenote: _Date of Inscriptions._]\n\nThe meaning of the word Maes-Howe is very obscure. It is, as Professor\nMunch remarks, not easy to explain. The haugr, pronounced how, is plain\nenough; the word Maes might have been derived from Meitis, pronounced\nalmost like Meiss, Meitir, gen. Meiris, which was the name of a fabulous\nsea king, and was afterwards used to denominate any mighty king or\nwarrior. Meiris-haugr therefore might have been synonymous with the how,\nor tumulus of this fabulous sea king. This opinion of Professor Munch's is\nat all events not unlikely to be correct; certainly local tradition has\nalways ascribed a sepulchral character to the mound. Professor Rafn thinks\nthat the word is derived from Mar,[3] the name of a man, and that valuable\ninformation might be obtained if it were found possible to read with a\ngreater degree of accuracy the Runes Nos. 6 and 7, since Orki and Mar are\nnamed in these inscriptions, and it is to be inferred that Mar Orkason had\nengraved some of these Runes.\n\nNos. 13 and 20 are justly attributed to the times of the Crusaders,[4] but\nmany of the other inscriptions must have been engraved by different\npersons at different times. Professor Stephens believes that most of them\nare of a much earlier date than the twelfth century, and this opinion is\nmuch strengthened by the worn appearance of some of the Runes, and the\nuncertain character of others. Some of the proper names cannot be read as\ncertainly correct, owing to the marks and abrasures in the stones. Two of\nthem, Orki and Oframr, are supposed to be hitherto quite unknown, and may\ntherefore perhaps be referred to the earlier inhabitants of the How,\nwhilst Gawkr and Trandill both belong to an historical person in Iceland.\nThe other names are common, and known from Runic inscriptions, as well as\nfrom ancient manuscripts and documents. The name Ingibiorg, occurs several\ntimes in the Orkneyinga Saga, and was by no means an uncommon name in\nOrkney. Ingibiorg, the widow of earl Thorfinn (who died in 1064)\nafterwards married Malcolm, king of Scotland; but it cannot be safely\nasserted that this was the Ingibiorg mentioned in No. 8. On the whole, it\nseems not unreasonable to suppose that all the names found inscribed on\nthe walls may belong to persons who lived since the construction of the\nbarrow, and that we have as yet no certain evidence to justify us in\ndetermining either the name of the builder, or the period when the tumulus\nwas first erected.\n\nMost of the inscriptions are in the subjoined form of the later Runic\nalphabet, or the \"Norwegian division of the Scandinavian Runes\" as\ndescribed by Professor Munch. The dots inside the B, and G, do not occur\nhere, and the [rune] (y) is not often used.\n\n[Illustration: Alphabet]\n\nIn the earlier or \"Gothic\" Alphabet, many of the letters are quite\ndifferent.\n\n\n\n\nREADINGS OF THE INSCRIPTIONS BY PROFESSORS STEPHENS, MUNCH, RAFN.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _Plate VII._]\n\nNo. I.\n\nTHATIR VIKINKR . . . A, KOM, VTIR, HIR, TIL.\n\n_Thatir the Viking, came here to weary--(perhaps from the sea, or from\nbattle.)_\n\nThe inscription is incomplete, several letters being obliterated. The a in\nthe Bind-rune Ak is probably the termination of the word Fra,\nfrom.--Professor STEPHENS.\n\n\nTHATIR VIKINKR . . . KOMUTIRHIRTIL.\n\n_That which the Wicing . . . came outerly here to._\n\nThis is only a fragment, some of the letters being obliterated. It may\nmean that a pirate or Wicing had been at the tumulus and found something,\nor that some person had found what the Wicing had left. It may however be\nmerely the name of some person, as Vikingr is sometimes used as a\nChristian name.--Professor MUNCH.\n\n\nTHAT IR VIKINGR . . . A KOM UT IRHIRTIL.\n\n_This is a Viking . . . come out is hereto._\n\nThe inscription is incomplete. Vikingr may be the name of a\nman.--Professor RAFN.\n\n\nNo. II.\n\nMOLFR KOLBAINSSONR RAEIST RUNA THESA GHAUT.\n\n_Molf Kolbainsson carved these Runes to Gaut._\n\nProbably a memorial to a comrade who had fallen in battle.--Professor\nSTEPHENS.\n\n\nTHOLFR KOLBEINSSONR RAEIST RUNAR THESA.\n\n_Tholf Colbanesson engraved these Runes._\n\nThe last word, read as haua, seems superfluous. It is possible there may\nhave been some mis-spelling, the first [rune] (a) in haua may have been an\n[rune] (e) the dot having been a little prolonged, [rune] and the [rune]\n(u or v) may have been intended for an R, the word would then read her a,\nhereon, or on this stone.--Professor MUNCH.\n\n\nTHOLFR KOLBEINSSONR REIST RUNAR THESSAR HATT.\n\n_Tholf Kolbeinsson carved these Runes on High._--Professor RAFN.\n\n(_Note._--Nos. 1 and 2 are both engraved on the upper part of the\nbuilding.--J. F.)\n\n\nNo. III.\n\nBRA HOH THANA.\n\n_Bra hewed this._\n\nThe third letter [rune] (a) is very rare, and is an indication of the\ngreat antiquity of the inscription. The word hew is often used for carve\nor write.--Professor STEPHENS.\n\n\nBRE HOH THENA, _or_, BRAUT HAUG THENNA.\n\n_Broke this tumulus._\n\nThe inscription seems to be incomplete, some words may have been engraved\non another stone and lost.--Professor MUNCH.\n\n(_Note._--The present state of the stone hardly justifies this\nsupposition.--J. F.)\n\n\nBRE HOeH THENA, BRE HOH THENNA.\n\nProfessor Rafn does not translate this. He remarks that what precedes is\n\"incomplete and undecipherable.\"\n\n\nNo. IV.\n\nVEMUNTR RAEIST.\n\n_Vemunt carved._--Professor STEPHENS.\n\n\nVEMUNTR RAEIST.\n\n_Wemund engraved (these Runes)._--Professor MUNCH.\n\n\nVIMUNDR RAEIST.\n\n_Vemund carved (the Runes)._--Professor RAFN.\n\n\nNo. V.\n\nF, U, Th, O, R, K, H, N, I, A, S, T, B, M, L, Y.\n\nThis is the Scandinavian Runic Futhork, or Alphabet. The form of the\nsecond letter is very rare, the last three are also very unusual, and may\nbe considered as an indication that the building had been for a long\nperiod of time in the hands of many people. It was the custom to write the\nAlphabet wherever it was most likely to meet the eye, and a passing\nvisitor, or treasure seeker, would have hardly taken so much\ntrouble.--Professor STEPHENS.\n\n\nF, U, Th, O, R, K, H, N, I, A, S, T, B, U, L, U.\n\nThe Runic Alphabet--Some of the letters here have been placed out of their\nproper order, owing probably to carelessness on the part of the writer.\nTime has also produced its effects upon the letters, the [rune] is clearly\n[rune], and the long stroke in the third letter [rune] (th) is also\naccidental.--Professor MUNCH.\n\n\nF U Th O R K  H N I A S  T B M L R.\n\nThe common Runic Alphabet.--Professor RAFN.\n\n\nNo. VI.\n\nORKASONR, SAGHTHI, A, RUNOM, THAEIM, IR, HAN, RISTU.\n\n_Orkason said, in the Runes which he wrote._\n\n\nNo. VII.\n\nNUARI KULTURMR, SIKURTHR, IRU, FALNIR, KIAEBIK, UIL SAEGHIAN IR, SO, MAIR.\n\n_Orkason said in the Runes which he wrote--Nuari, Kulturmr Sikurthr, Iru,\nare fallen. Kiaebik will say ye (tell you) so more._\n\nThese two inscriptions must be taken together; they have been written at\nthe same time, and by the same person. It is probably a military message\nfrom some battle-field, sent through a trusty officer who is commissioned\nto make known the details. The word Nuari is very doubtful; this part of\nthe inscription is very indistinct. It becomes more legible advancing from\nleft to right.--Professor STEPHENS.\n\n\nORKASONR SAGTHI A RUN OM THEIM ER HALIR RISTU.\n\n_The son of Orca dictated the Runes which heroes engraved._\n\nThere seems to have been some blunder in the writing. If the dot on the\nright side of the letter [rune] has been the end of a stroke, it would\nconvert the letter into the Bind-rune [rune] (Al.) and if the [rune] were\na combination of L and R, the word would then read Halir, that is\nMen-fellows-heroes. The second part of the inscription, No. 7, is only a\nfragment--perhaps some part of a verse, but it is doubtful.--Professor\nMUNCH.\n\n\nORKASON SAHTHI A RUNUM THAEIM IR HAN RISTI . . . SAETHIAN IR SO MAUR\n\n_The resolution which this Mar Orkason mentioned in the Runes he carved._\n\nThe two inscriptions are to be read together, but much of No. 7, is very\nindistinct.--Professor RAFN.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _Plate VIII._]\n\nNo. VIII.\n\nINGIBIORGH, HIN, FARET, LUTIN, HIR, MIGHIL, OFL, ATE.\n\n_Ingibiorgh, the fair lady. Many a woman hath fared skinclad (or bent)\nhere, (who) great wealth owned._\n\nIngibiorgh probably resided here for safety, and, as the word Lutin\nsignifies _bent_, it may refer to the low cells which are within the walls\nof the How. (_Note._--The entrance also is very low and narrow.) The six\nCrypt Runes, or secret staves, represent the letters, A. AE. R. L. I. K.\nR., and signify Aalikr or Erling, a proper name, or perhaps the beginning\nof some sentence.--Professor STEPHENS.\n\n\n  INKIBIORH, HIN, FAHRA, AEHKIA MORHK, KONA,\n  HAEFER, FARET, LUT, IN HIR MIKIL OFLATI.\n\n_Ingiburg, the fair widow! Many a woman has wandered stooping in here\n(although) ever so haughty._\n\nThe writer is probably recording the name of some fair woman, who has\nperhaps slighted him, and then reflects that the women who had been buried\nhere, though ever so haughty, had been curbed by death. Ingibjorg, or\nInkibiorh, is a common female name in the north. The other characters in\nthe third line are known as Limouna, or Bough Runes. They were used in the\nlater times of the Runic period, in the same manner as the Irish Ogum, but\nare not here intelligible. The writer probably intended to represent the\nchief vowels--A. E. I. O. Y. U. The Runic alphabet was divided into\nclasses; the strokes on the left of the vertical line indicating the\nclass, and those on the right the rune itself. Figures of fishes were\noccasionally in use, and were known as Fish-runes.--Professor MUNCH.\n\n\n  INGIBIORG HIN FAHRA AEHKIA A MORHG KONA\n  HAEFIR FARIT LUT IN HIR MIHKIL OFLATI.\n\n_Ingibiorg, the fair widow, or Ingibiorg the Fair, the widow. Many a\nrather proud woman did walk here stooping (bent forward), or did walk\nstooping here in (into)._\n\nThe Palm-runes underneath cannot be read in the usual manner; the first,\nthird, and fourth of the runes being a, o, and i; the writer probably\nintended to give all the vowels, but some of the letters have been\nobviously miscarved, and have perhaps been altered and defaced at a later\nperiod by other persons. In the first of them a cross line has been added\nto shew that the letter [rune] or (a) is intended.--Professor RAFN.\n\n\nNo. IX.\n\nTHORNY SAERTH . . . HAELGHIS RAEISTO.\n\n_The javelin pierceth . . . Haelghis carved._\n\nHaelghis was probably an Englishman or Frislander. The inscription is much\nworn, and evidently very old. The last letter [rune] is the old northern\n[rune].--Professor STEPHENS.\n\n\nTHORNU SAERTH . . . HAELHI RAEIST R.\n\n_Thorny . . . Haelhi engraved._\n\nThorny is a female name. Saerth is unintelligible; something is wanting\nhere; the last letter R. is clearly the beginning of the word\nRunar.--Professor MUNCH.\n\n\nTHORNY SAERTH . . . HAELHI RAEIST.\n\n_Thorny Saerd . . . Helge carved._\n\nThe word Saerth is of doubtful meaning.--Professor RAFN.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _Plate IX._]\n\nNo. X.\n\nTHORER FORMIR, a proper name.\n\nor\n\n_Thorer Fonkmir._ Thorer, follow me.--Professor STEPHENS.\n\nProbably the name of a man: there is a rude figure of a horse\nengraved.--Professor MUNCH.\n\nThorir Fomir, a name of doubtful import. Fa mer, perhaps procure me.\nThorer, procure me the cross. The great cross underneath may refer to the\nCrusade. (_Note._--This cross has been apparently engraved at a\ncomparatively late period.)--Professor RAFN.\n\n\nNo. XI.\n\nRAEIST RUNAR THESAR OFRAMR SIGHURTHERSONR.\n\n_Ofram Sigurthson carved these Runes._\n\nSeveral of the letters at the beginning are obliterated. The crosses may\nbe intended for ornament.--Professor STEPHENS.\n\n\nREIST RUNAR THESSAR UFRAMR SIGURTHARSONR.\n\n_Ofram, the son of Siward, engraved these Runes._--Professor MUNCH.\n\n\nRAEIST RUNAR THAESIR OFRAMR SIHURTHARSONR.\n\n_Ofram Sigurdson carved these Runes._\n\nThe word Oframr, or Uframr, is hardly to be found anywhere else. It\nsignifies \"the modest,\" \"the reserved.\" The seven crosses denote that this\nman was one of the Crusaders.--Professor RAFN.\n\n\nNo. XII.\n\nOTAR, FILA, RAEIST, RUNAR THESAR.\n\n_Otar Fila carved these runes._--Professor STEPHENS.\n\n\nIOTAR, FILA, REIST RUNAR THESSAR.\n\n_Iotar Fila engraved these runes._--Professor MUNCH.\n\n\nIOTA FILA RAEIST RUNAR THISAR.\n\n_Iotar Fila carved these runes._\n\nThis is an unknown name.--Professor RAFN.\n\n\nNo. XIII.\n\n  THAT, MAN, SAT, IR, EKIAE, HE, AT, FEUAR, FORT, ABROT,\n  THRIM NOTOM, UARFI, BROT, FORT, HAELTR, AENTHAEIR.\n\nThis is to be read from right to left. (The figure at the beginning is\nprobably a mere scratch. J. F.) It reads thus:--That man who sat here in\nache (sorrowfully) He at the Fee-Ware (at the treasure-gate--from the\ntreasure-guard) forth a broke, with three comrades from the stronghold\nbroke forth the Hero AEnthaeir. This probably announces the escape of a\nprisoner, perhaps an Englishman, as is indicated by some of the\nwords--That for Sa, He for Han, as examples. He boasts of his escape. He\nmay, however, have intended to record a message.--Professor STEPHENS.\n\n\nNo. XIV.\n\nJORSALA MEN BURTU HAUK.\n\n_Jerusalam Men broke into How._\n\nAEhiiminii, a proper name; the second word is too faintly written to be\ntranslated; AEmisris, a proper name. There are some more very indistinct\nletters; probably they once indicated--\n\n\nIreskir Maen . . . Irish Men.\n\nThe stone exhibits traces of former writings, which renders the new\ncarvings very doubtful.--Professor STEPHENS.\n\n\n  THAT MAN SAT . . . AEHE AT FEUAR FORT.\n  ABROT THRIM NOTOM VAR FI BROT FORT HAELTR.\n  AEN THAEIR (No. XIV.), JORSALAMEN BURTU HAUK THAENA.\n\nProfessor Munch reads Nos. XIII. and XIV. together.\n\nTo be read from right to left, and No. XIV. taken in conjunction with it.\nThis does not that (fool!) remember that the treasury was (already)\ncarried away. Three nights was the treasury carried away rather (_i. e._,\nbefore) than the Jerusalem travellers broke this tumulus.--Professor\nMUNCH.\n\n\n  THAT MAN SAT ER IGI SAEHI AT FE VAR FOERT\n  ABROT THRIM NOTTOM VAR FE BROeT FOERT\n  HAELDR AEN THAEIR\n  IORSALAMEN BURTU HAUG THAENA.\n\nIt is true indeed, as Inge states, that the goods were carried away during\nthree nights. The goods were carried away before the Ioraslamen broke open\nthis barrow. Many of the other runes cannot be made out; some of the\nsmaller ones are very indistinct.--Professor RAFN.\n\n(_Note._--Nos. XIII. and XIV. appear to be read as one inscription by the\nProfessor.--J. F.)\n\n\n[Sidenote: _Plate X._]\n\nNo. XV.\n\nARNFITHR, MATR, RAEIST RUNAR THAESAR.\n\n_Arnfith Mate carved these Runes._\n\nThe word Matr may signify \"the mighty,\" or \"the greedy.\"--Professor\nSTEPHENS.\n\n\nARNFITHR MATR RAEIST RUNAR THAESAR.\n\n_Arnfinn Mat (perhaps the greedy) engraved these runes._\n\nMatr was a nickname.--Professor MUNCH.\n\n\nARNFITHR MATR RAEIST RUNAR THAESAR.\n\n_Arnfinn, glutton, carved these Runes._--Professor RAFN.\n\n\nNo. XVI.\n\n  MAETH, THAERI, OGHSE, ER, ATE, KOR, UKR.\n  TRAENILSONR, FYRIR, SUNAN LANT.\n\n  _With that Axe which Kor owned hews.\n  Traenaldson along South-lying lands._--Professor STEPHENS.\n\n\n  MAETH, THAEIREI [RUNE]HSE ERATI KOUKR TRAENILSONR.\n  FYRIR SUNAN LANT.\n\n_With this Axe which Goukr Traenaldson owned or possessed on the south\nside of the country._\n\nThe beginning of the inscription is wanting. Gauk Trandilson was the\nfoster-brother of Asgrim Elsdagrimson--described in \"Burnt Njal,\" one of\nthe chiefs in the south of Iceland about 990. The writer probably means to\nsay that these runes were engraved with the same axe which Gauk Trandilson\npossessed at the end of the 10th century. The runes here found were\nperhaps engraved about the year 1152. No doubt \"the land\" here spoken of\nis Iceland, and the engraver an Icelander, perhaps even a descendant of\nthe old chieftain.--Professor MUNCH.\n\n\n  MAETH THAERI OeHSE ER ATI GOeUKR TRAEN\n  ILS SONR FYRIR SUNAN LAND.\n\n_With this Axe, owned by Gauk, the son of Trandil, in the South of the\ncountry._--Professor RAFN.\n\n\nNo. XVII.\n\nHAEMUNTR, HARTHEKSI, RAEIST RUN.\n\n_Haermunt Hardaxe carved these Runes._--Professor STEPHENS.\n\n\nHAERMUNTR HARTHEKSI RAEIST RUN.\n\n_Hermund Hardaxe engraved these Runes._--Professor MUNCH.\n\n\nHAERMUNDR HARTHIGSI RAEIST RUN.\n\n_Hermund Hardaxe carved the Runes._\n\nHermund probably had in his possession the axe which formerly belonged to\nGauk Trandilson, and was used by him in carving the runes.--Professor\nRAFN.\n\n(_Note._--Professors Stephens, Munch, and Rafn, all agree that some\nletters have been lost or miscarried. The letters, [rune] [rune] at the\nend of the word run are obviously wanting.--J. F.)\n\n\nNo. XVIII.\n\nRIST SA MATHR ER RUNSTR ER FYRIR VAESTAN HAF.\n\n_The man did cut most versed in Runes in the western countries._\n\nProfessor Rafn gives nearly the same description of Gauk as Professor\nMunch. He reads Nos. xvi. and xviii. together. The words Fyrir vaestan\nhaf, to the west of the sea, refer to the western countries, more\nespecially the British Isles. The Palm-runes are rarely capable of being\ndeciphered.\n\n(_Note._--This No. is taken in conjunction with No. xvi. by Professor\nRafn.--J. F.)\n\n\nRIST, SA, MATHR, ER, RUNSTR, ER, FYRIR, VAESTAN HAF.\n\n_(These runes) risted that man, in Runes most skilful o'er the Western\nSeas._\n\nThe Palm Runes on the first line indicate Thisar Runar--these\nRunes.--Professor STEPHENS.\n\n\nRIST SA MATHR ER RUNSTR ER FYRIR UAESTAN HAF.\n\n_That man engraved who is the best runed West of the Ocean._\n\nNo doubt the writer belonged to Orkney, or to some of the other Norwegian\npossessions. The Bough-runes are not easy to decipher.--Professor MUNCH.\n\n\nNo. XIX.\n\n      SIA, HOUGHR, UAR, FYRLATHIN HAELR,\n      THAEIR, UORO, HUATER, SLITU, ORO,\n      UT, NORTHR, ER, OLGHIT, MIKIT, THAT, UAR.\n  SIMON, SIGHRIK.\n    SIGRITH.                    INRONINSE AEI.\n\n_This How was closed up--was quite abandoned. Out North is Fee (treasure)\nburied much. That was in Roninsey (North Ronaldshay Island)._\n\nThe writing is in different hands apparently, and it is probable that the\nHow was abandoned when the inscriptions were engraved. The three names are\nmost likely the names of the writers: they point to treasure buried in\nNorth Ronaldshay.--Professor STEPHENS.\n\n(_Note._--North Ronaldshay is a wild island half-way between Kirkwall and\nthe Fair Isle, and not easy of access.--J. F.)\n\n\nNo. XX.\n\n  LOTHEBROKRA SYNAR,{1} GHAENAR,\n  MAEN, SAEM, THAEIR, UORO, FYRI, SIR,{2}--\n  IORSALAFARAR, BRUTU, ORKOUGH{3}--LIFMUT\n  SA, LI, AI, ARIS, LOFTIR,{4}--HIR UAR, FI FOLGHIT\n  MIKIT.{5} (RAEIST). SAEL ER, SA, ER, FINA,\n  MA, THAN, OUTH, HIN, MIKLA.{6}\n  OKO, NAEKN, BAR, FIRR, OUGHI, THISUM.{7}\n\n{1}_Lothbrok's sons._ {2}_Doughty men as they were for them, or, what\ndoughty men they were._ {3}_Ierusalem Farers (pilgrims) broke open Ork\nHow_--{4}_Shelter mound; that ill (this bad retreat) aye ariseth lofty\n(still stands erect)._ {5}_Here was fee buried much._ {6}_Happy is he who\nfind may that treasure the mickle (that great wealth)._ {7}_Otho Naern\nbare past part how this. Otho was carried past this How in the ship\nNaern._\n\nWritten apparently by seven different persons, perhaps some of Lothbrok's\nsons. This first writing was probably inscribed about the year 870 or 880,\nby the celebrated Scandinavian sea kings, and the others at a later\nperiod. One appears to complain of the mound itself--that bad\nretreat--perhaps on account of its affording shelter to the pirates who\ndevastated the island; another inscription describes the breaking into the\nHow by the Jerusalem travellers, and the later writings refer to the\ncommon belief at that time of the existence of concealed treasure. Naern\nis frequently used as a name for ships in Scandinavia. The word Baeirt (at\nthe end of the fourth line) is not in the same hand as the rest of this\nline, and can only be considered as a mere scribble.--Professor STEPHENS.\n\n\nNos. XIX. and XX.\n\nThese must be taken together. The two first lines in both numbers, the 3d\nin No. xix. and the 4th in No. xx., must be read in continuation.\n\n  SIA HOUHR UAR FYLATHIN H . . . R LOTHBROKAR SYNER, HAENAR, THAEIRUORO\n        HUATER\n  SLETUORO MAEN SAEM THAEIR UORO FYRISIR.\n\n_This tumulus was formerly erected as tumulus_ (_for_ Lodbrok, if Haugr is\nread, or \"_as that_ of\" if we read hennar) _her sons they were gallant,\nhardly (there) were men (such as they were). For themselves_ (_i. e._\nshewed themselves).\n\nThen read line 3 in No. xx.--\n\nIORSALAFARAR BRUTU ORKHAUG.\n\n_The Jerusulem travellers broke the Orkhill._\n\nThen line 3 in No. xix. and 4 in xx., 4 in xix. and 5 in xx., taken in\ncontinuation, give--\n\n  UTNORTHR ER FE FOLGIT MIKIT THAT ER LA EFTIR, HER VA FE FOLGIT MIKIT\n        (RAEIST SIMON\n  SIGB. . . . SIGRITH) SAELL ER SA ER FINNA MA THAN OUTH HIN MIKLA.\n\n_North-westerly is much money absconded, that which lay behind, here was\nmuch money absconded (Simon----engraved); lucky is he who may find that\ngreat treasure._\n\nThe raeist Simon, etc., was written afterwards, and does not belong to the\nsentence.\n\nThe 6th and last line in No. xx. is--\n\nOKONAEKN BAR FE UR HAUGI THESSUM.\n\n_Okonaekn bore money out of (away from) this tumulus._\n\nIt seems, then, that it was supposed to have been originally erected for a\nmighty woman called Lodbrok, who had gallant sons, and that the Jerusalem\npilgrims had dug into the Orkhill, which was probably a different place to\nthis Maes-Howe, that the treasure contained there had been taken away, and\nthat he would be lucky who found it. It also implies that Okonaekn carried\noff some of the treasure.--Professor MUNCH.\n\n\nNos. XIX. and XX.\n\n  SIA HOeUHR, VAR FYR LATHIN HAELR LOTHBROKAR\n  SYNER HAENAR THAEIR VOeRO HVATIR SLIKT VOeRO\n  MAEN SAEM THAEIR VOeRO FYRI SIR\n  IORSALAFARAR BRUTU ORKHOeUH LIFMND\n  SAILIA IARLS UT NORTHR IR FE FOLHIT MIKIT\n  THAT URLOFOIR HIR VAR FI FOLHGET MIKIT\n  RAEIST SIMON SIHR IN THO INGI SIHRITH\n  SAELIR SA IR FINA MA THAN OUTH HIN\n  MIKLA. OGDONAEGN BAR FI YR\n  OUHI THISUM.\n\n_This barrow was formerly a sorcery hall, erected for Lodbrok; her sons\nwere brave, such were men as they were for themselves (such we may call\nvaliant men, such as they were in their achievements)._\n\n_The Iorsalafarar (visitors of Jerusalem) broke open Orkhow . . . Earls._\n\n_To the north-west a great treasure has been hid (but few believe that), a\ngreat treasure was hid here.[5] Simon sigr (victor) carved (the Runes) and\nafterwards Inge._\n\n_Happy he who may discover this great wealth. Ogdonaegn carried away the\ngoods from this barrow._\n\nOgdonagn is probably a Gaelic name, perhaps corresponding to the present\nO'Donavan, and the person alluded to may have been of Scottish or Irish\norigin.--Professor RAFN.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _Plate XI._]\n\nNo. XXI.\n\nARNFITHR, RAEIST, RUNAR, THISAR, SONR STAINS.\n\n_Arnfith risted Runes there, the son of Stain. Thruki Let._\n\nThe beginning of an unfinished formula.--Professor STEPHENS.\n\n\nARNFITHR, RAEIST RUNAR THISAR SORN STAEINS THRUKR LIT.\n\n_Arnfinn the son of Steins engraved these Runes._\n\nThe other letters are defective and give no distinct meaning.--Professor\nMUNCH.\n\n\n  ARNFITHR RAEIST RUNAR THISAR SONR STAINS.\n  THRUKR LIT.\n\n_Arnfinn, a son of Steins, carved these runes. Thrud caused_ . . . .\n(incomplete).--Professor RAFN.\n\n\nNo. XXII.\n\nBOT AER OKTIL AT SOKUA, SUO IN KOTALANT.[6] _Sua Inklant._\n\n_Boot (blood money) is also to seek, so in Gothland, so in England._\n\nIt may also be a fanciful Alphabet.--Professor STEPHENS.\n\nThere are peculiar Runes, but too obscure for interpretation. Similar ones\nhave been found near Baffins Bay. (_Vide_ Antiquitates\nAmericanae).--Professor MUNCH.\n\nThis No. represents some signs belonging to the calendar--similar ones\nhave been found in the Paradise cavern, and at Hof in Iceland. (_Vide_\nRafn. Antiquitates Americanae).--Professor RAFN.\n\n\nNo. XXIII.\n\nIKIKAETHIR, KYNANA, IN, UAENSTA.\n\n_Inkikaethr, of women the fairest._\n\nAlso the figure of an Otter with a fish in its mouth, meant for a\ndecoration.--Professor STEPHENS.\n\n\nIKIKAERTH IR KYNANA IN UAENSTA.\n\n_Ingigerthr is of women the most beautiful._--Professor MUNCH.\n\n\nIGIGAERTH IR KYNANA IN VAENSTA.\n\n_Ingigerth is the fairest of the women._--Professor RAFN.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _Plate XII._]\n\nNo. XXIV.\n\nNo interpretation of this is offered by the learned Professors.\n\n\nNos. XXV. and XXVI.\n\nA Dragon and Worm Knot.--Professor STEPHENS.\n\n\nNo. XXV.\n\nThis is a Dragon drawn with art. There is a similar one on a stone at\nHunstead in Scania. It may be ascribed to the heathen times, as well as\nthe construction of the barrow itself.--Professor RAFN.\n\n\nNo. XXVI.\n\nA serpentine winding like those found on Runic stones in the Scandinavian\nnorth and on other monuments from the last period of heathenism, and the\ncommencement of the Christian era.--Professor RAFN.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _Plate XIII._]\n\nThe remaining Nos. are considered by all the learned Professors as\n\"scribbles\" or scratches, and must be considered as unimportant.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE VII.]\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE VIII.]\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE IX.]\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE X.]\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE XI.]\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE XII.]\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE XIII.]\n\n\n\n\nFootnotes:\n\n[1] The country people state that the building was formerly inhabited by a\nperson named Hogboy, possessing great strength. Haugbuie, in Norse,\nsignifies \"the ghost of the tomb;\" and Haugr, \"tumulus.\"\n\n[2] Professor Rafn says Lothbrok--a pair of shaggy trousers--was the\nwell-known surname of Ragnar Lodbrok. At the time of the carving of the\ninscription, a popular tradition current in the Orkneys may have ascribed\nto far antiquity, and to the said hero of the mythico-historical times,\nthe construction of the barrow; and on account of the want of historical\nknowledge, since the word lothbrok is of feminine gender, the hero may\nhave been mistaken for a woman, and besides, the accounts in the sagas of\nhis sons may have been repeated, that they were brave and valiant. The\naccount given in the Fridthiofs Saga of the Earl Angantyre, reminds us of\nthe pre-historic times of the Orkneys (_vide_ Tridthjoss Saga, c. 5.\nThorsteins Saga Vikings). Here a popular tale preserved to us in Runes,\ndoes the same by telling us that this barrow was the sorcery platform\nerected of old for the use of Lodbrok, and was probably also a temple and\nplace of worship.\n\n[3] The word read by Professor Rafn, Maur, instead of Mar, and considered\nas a proper name, is read mair or more by Professor Stephens. In the\nengraving No. 7, the letters are [rune] [rune] [rune] [rune] obviously\nm, a, i, r--mair. It must therefore be a matter of doubt whether we can\nreceive this word as a proper name, and consequently whether the\nderivation of the word Maes-Howe, suggested by Professor Rafn, is\nadmissible.\n\n[4] Professor Munch supposes that the Jerusalem travellers, who are\ndescribed in No. 13 as having broken into the how, were connected with an\nexpedition organized by Earl Ragnvald to the Holy Land. He says \"many of\nthe northern warriors joined the Earl in 1152. They assembled in Orkney,\nand after passing the winter there, sailed in the spring of 1153, and\nafter being in Spain in December of that year, reached the Holy Land in\nAugust 1154; they went thence to Constantinople, where they passed the\nChristmas of 1154-55, returning home by different routes. During their\nstay in Orkney they had frequent quarrels with the inhabitants.\" As some\nof the inscriptions seem to indicate the existence of treasure in the\ntumulus, it is not unlikely that it should have been examined by these\nwarriors, and that they afterwards inscribed their names, together with\nother remarks, on the walls.\n\n[5] There is a similar allusion to hid treasure on the wall of a rock at\nBerrig, in the Star valley North Throndheim County--\"gull faitu nin alna\nnither\"--They hid some gold nine ells deep in the earth.\n\n[6] This (\"evidently very difficult carving,\" says Professor Stephens) may\nbe taken as a fair specimen of the Bind-rune form of writing.\n\n\"The first letter is B, a very rare form; the second an ornamental O, with\nthree side strokes instead of two; the third a T, the strokes being\nreversed and repeated above and below; the fourth H/g, here used for AE;\nthe fifth, R; sixth, O, as before; seventh, Kt--[rune] and [rune]; eighth,\n[rune] (i and a), the side stroke being placed below; ninth, At,\nBind-rune; tenth, an S; eleventh, O again; twelfth, KU--K and U;\nthirteenth, the monogram Asuo, A ([rune]), the side stroke thrice\nrepeated, then S ([rune] for [rune]), an uncommon form, then U ([rune])\nbelow, and then ([rune]) with three strokes; fourteenth, the Bind-rune I N\nK ([rune] [rune] [rune]); fifteenth, an O; sixteenth, an ornamental T;\nseventeenth, the monogram Alant--A ([rune]) L ([rune]) reversed and below,\nand [rune] taken again, and N ([rune]) and T ([rune]) above twice; then\neighteenth, the Bind-rune Sua, S ([rune]) U ([rune]) and A ([rune]) in the\ncentre; nineteenth, The Bind-rune Ink, I [rune], and [rune]; and lastly\nthe monogram lant L ([rune]), A [rune], and N [rune], and T in the\ncentre--formed thus [rune].\"\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\nPassages in italics are indicated by _italics_.\n\nSuperscripted letters are indicated by {superscript}.\n\nThe original text includes Runic characters. For this text version, these\nletters have been replaced with [rune].\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"Notice of Runic Inscriptions Discovered during Recent Excavations in the Orkneys","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":9331}