373

XXVIII.—On the Interpretation of some Inscriptions on Stones Recently Discovered in the Islands of Brassay, and Zetland. By JAMES HUNT, Ph.D., F.S.A., F.A..S.L., Hon. For. Sec. of the Roy. Soc. of Literature of Great Britain, For. Assoc. of the Anthrop. Soc. of Paris, Hon. Fellow of the Ethnol. Soc. of London, Cor. Mem. of the Upper Hesse Soc. for Nat. and Med. Science, and of the Med. Assoc. at Hesse Darmstadt, Member of the Dresden Academy, and President of the Anthrop. Soc. of London.

HAVING described the position in which the stones now exhibited were found, I need only now dwell on the interpretation of the artificial markings found on them. I do this, not because I am able to offer a satisfactory solution of the difficulty, but simply to record the information I have gained from Runic and other scholars on this point.

I have before mentioned that Mr. George Petrie, of Orkney, was with me when they were found, and I afterwards inspected, with that gentleman, the large number of Runic characters in James Maes How, Orkney, so well described by Mr. Farrar and Mr. Stewart. The result, however, of my inspection was not sufficient to decide that the characters were runes, and I therefore put myself in communication with the chief runic scholars in Europe, and obtained the following opinions.

Dr. Edward Charlton, of Newcastle, who is favourably known as interpreter of the Maes How inscriptions, wrote me :"The marks that you send me from Brassay are exceedingly interesting, but I fear they will give us no clue to their design. The

未

looks more like a compound rune than it resembles a mason's mark. Had there been a large building in the place where

being arranged around a perpendicular line essential to the formation of each of them, and requiring to be read downwards from the apex to the base. Each of your inscriptions gives very distinctly the proper name Teit or Tait, it may be either. That name is a very common one in the northern Sagas; it is the very first that occurs in the Orkney Maes How inscriptions, and it continues to the present day widely diffused throughout the Shetland Islands."

I then wrote to Principal Barclay, and told him the exact position in which they were found. I had purposely refrained from doing this to any of my correspondents, as I thought we should be more likely to get at a correct interpretation of these markings by withholding this information. After receipt of the foregoing letter, however, I gave him the information for which he asked, and received the following in reply:"I am not a little surprised to learn from your note of the 30th ult., that the inscribed stones were found in connexion with a wooden coffin, and that it was one of twelve deposited in the same peat moss. You do not say whether any bones or ashes were found in these coffins. Had bodies been buried in them, the antiseptic qualities of the moss should have acted still more powerfully on them than on the wood. As far as the Runic incriptions are concerned, your information tends to confirm my reading of them. They undoubtedly record the name of the person buried in the coffin on which the stones were placed. As to the date, we know that Runic inscriptions, recording at least the name of the deceased, were in use long after the introduction of Christianity, notwithstanding the zeal of the first Christian missionaries in destroying as many of them as they could, till the old religion was wholly extirpated. Whether your friend Tait' was a pagan or a Christian it is hard to say; but his epitaph cannot, I think, be less than six or seven hundred years old."

Professor George Stephens, of Copenhagen, who is probably the highest authority in Europe on Runes, has kindly given me his opinion in the following communication :—

"I shall be happy if I can be of any service, however small. It is a great pleasure to me to receive copies of inscribed

plaything, or ornament, of copper. The other side has a Z

nearly similar carving. As to seals, thousands still exist in original or in impressions, from the close of the middle age and still later, especially in Scandinavia, with such Runic or half-Runic monograms. I will add an impression from one-a very fine one-of bronze, in my own museum; this has been a signet-ring, evidently intended for the little finger.

Of course we can seldom or never make out these arbitrary marks. No real monograms can be understood, save by the maker and his family or friends. If we take IAMES (or JAMES) HUNT, and write or H, in Runes *, (= 1 and *), no one can possibly know what we mean, so many are the combinations possible; nor even if we add the last letter, T,, or H, or in Runes, shall we be any the wiser.

"The Brassay stones may be a couple of centuries old, or even much more antique. As to their age, much will depend on their character and size, etc. Pardon me that I cannot forward you anything more decisive and satisfactory."

After sending Professor Stephens all the information I had then obtained, I received the following from him :—

"The details you there give are valuable. On the whole, it is possible that the remains were, after all, those of Russians, and the marks may not be runes at all. At all events, the coffins are signs of Christian burial. May not the one carving be an anchor, in connexion with the dead, being part of a ship's crew? The other may have some other such simple signification. But I confess that I am at fault, and can give no clear opinion. Certain it is that they have nothing to do with the Ogham stone you mention, which must be at least 1,200 or 1,500 years older than the small blocks. The Ogham stones are Keltic, and heathen.

"Diggings have lately been made, under the inspection and at the expense of the Danish Museum, in the famous moss at Allesö, Fyn. An immense hoard of antiquarian remains has