time a place of burial. The massive stones forming the floor and side walls of the passage, and also those used in the inside to support the buttresses, are similar in character to the neighbouring circle of stones at Stennes. The architecture also is most primitive, and it is evident that the whole work must have been one requiring much time and labour. The present form of the mound does not favour the idea that it was originally a platform, and used for the performance of religious rites, though this would not be inconsistent with the idea that it had been adopted to that purpose at some remote period, having been previously used as a place of interment.

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

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

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

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

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

In the earlier or