The zeal for ArchÆological investigation which has recently manifested itself in nearly every country of Europe, has been traced, not without reason, to the impulse which proceeded from Abbotsford. Though such is not exactly the source which we might expect to give birth to the transition from profitless dilettantism to the intelligent spirit of scientific investigation, yet it is unquestionable that Sir Walter Scott was the first of modern writers "to teach all men this truth, which looks like a truism, and yet was as good as unknown to writers of history and others, till so taught,—that the bygone ages of the world were actually filled by living men."[1] If, however, the impulse to the pursuit of ArchÆology as a science be thus traceable to our own country, neither Scotland nor England can lay claim to the merit of having been the first to recognise its true character, or to develop its fruits. The spirit of antiquarianism has not, indeed, slumbered among us. It has taken form in Roxburgh, Bannatyne, Abbotsford, and other literary Clubs, producing valuable results for the use of the historian, but limiting its range within the Medieval era, and abandoning to isolated labourers that ampler field of research which embraces the prehistoric period of nations, and belongs not to literature but to the science of Nature. It was not till continental ArchÆologists had shewn what legitimate induction is capable of, that those of Britain were content to forsake laborious trifling, and associate themselves with renewed energy of purpose to establish the study on its true footing as an indispensable link in the circle of the sciences.

Amid the increasing zeal for the advancement of knowledge, the time appears to have at length come for the thorough elucidation of Primeval ArchÆology as an element in the history of man. The British Association, expressly constituted for the purpose of giving a stronger impulse and a more systematic direction to scientific inquiry, embraced within its original scheme no provision for the encouragement of those investigations which most directly tend to throw light on the origin and progress of the human race. Physical archÆology was indeed admissible, in so far as it dealt with the extinct fauna of the palÆontologist; but it was practically pronounced to be without the scientific pale whenever it touched on that portion of the archÆology of the globe which comprehends the history of the race of human beings to which we ourselves belong. A delusive hope was indeed raised by the publication in the first volume of the Transactions of the Association, of one memoir on the contributions afforded by physical and philological researches to the history of the human species,—but the ethnologist was doomed to disappointment. During several annual meetings, elaborate and valuable memoirs, prepared on various questions relating to this important branch of knowledge, and to the primeval population of the British Isles, were returned to their authors without being read. This pregnant fact has excited little notice hitherto; but when the scientific history of the first half of the nineteenth century shall come to be reviewed by those who succeed us, and reap the fruits of such advancement as we now aim at, it will not be overlooked as an evidence of the exoteric character of much of the overestimated science of the age. Through the persevering zeal of a few resolute men of distinguished ability, ethnology was at length afforded a partial footing among the recognised sciences, and at the meeting of the Association to be held at Ipswich in 1851, it will for the first time take its place as a distinct section of British Science.

It has fared otherwise with ArchÆology. Rejected in its first appeal for a place among the sister sciences, its promoters felt themselves under no necessity to court a share in popular favour which they could readily command, and we have accordingly its annual congresses altogether apart from those of the associated sciences. ArchÆology, however, has suffered from the isolation; while it cannot but be sooner or later felt to be an inconsistency at once anomalous and pregnant with evil, which recognises as a legitimate branch of British science, the study of the human species, by means both of physiological and philological investigation, but altogether excludes the equally direct evidence which ArchÆology supplies. It rests, however, with the archÆologist to assert for his own study its just place among the essential elements of scientific induction, and to shew that it not only furnishes valuable auxiliary truth in aid of physiological and philological comparisons, but that it adds distinct psychological indices by no other means attainable, and yields the most trustworthy, if not the sole evidence in relation to extinct branches of the human family, the history of which possesses a peculiar national and personal interest for us.

Meanwhile the close relations which subsist between the researches of the ethnologist and the archÆologist, and the perfect unity of their aims, have been recognised by Nillson, Eschricht, and other distinguished men in various countries; and while the two sciences have advanced together, in harmony and with mutual advantage, Scandinavian archÆologists have given an impetus to the study of Primitive Antiquities, which has already done much to establish its value as the indispensable basis of all written history. The facilities afforded to the Scandinavian archÆologist by the purity of his primitive remains, and the freedom of his ethnographic chronicles from those violent intercalations of foreign elements which render both the ethnology and the historical antiquities of Central Europe so complicated and difficult of solution, peculiarly fitted him for originating a comprehensive yet well-defined system. The comparatively recent close of the Scandinavian primitive periods has preserved in a more complete form those evidences by which we recover the knowledge of the first rude colonists of Europe, whose records are distorted and nearly effaced within the wide pale of Roman sway. The isolation, moreover, of these northern kingdoms preserved them from being the mere highway of the first Asiatic nomades. Whatever traces of early wanderers they retain are well-defined, so that to them we may look for clear and satisfactory evidence in illustration of one portion at least of the primal north-western tide of migration from which the origin of all European history dates. It chances, however, from various accidental causes, that the revival of archÆological research in Britain, influenced by canons directly supplied from Scandinavian sources, has a tendency to authenticate some of the most favourite errors of older British antiquaries. Based, as nearly all antiquarian pursuits in this country have heretofore been, on classical learning, it has been accepted as an almost indisputable truth, that, with the exception of the mysteriously learned Druid priests, the Britons prior to the Roman Period were mere painted savages. Hence, while the artless relics of our primeval Stone Period were generally assigned to native workmanship, whatever evinced any remarkable traces of skill distinct from the well-defined Roman art, was assumed of necessity to have a foreign origin, and was usually ascribed to the Danes. The invariable adoption of the latter term in preference to that of Norwegians or Norsemen, shews how completely Scottish and Irish antiquaries have abandoned themselves to the influence of English literature, even where the appropriation of its dogmas was opposed to well-known historical facts. The name of Dane has in fact for centuries been one of those convenient words which so often take the place of ideas and save the trouble and inconvenience of reasoning. Yet this theory of a Danish origin for nearly all native arts, though adopted without investigation, and fostered in defiance of evidence, has long ceased to be a mere popular error. It pervades both the Scottish and English ArchÆologiÆ, and the great majority of works on every department of British antiquities, and has till recently proved a perpetual stumblingblock to the Irish antiquary. It is, moreover, a cumulative error,—certain Scottish relics, for example, found in Argyleshire, as well as others in the Isle of Man, being assumed in the ArchÆologia Scotica to be Scandinavian,[2] an able writer in the Transactions of the Cambridge Camden Society, taking these assumptions as indisputable facts, employs them in proving that other equally undoubted native works of art are also Scandinavian.[3] So, too, a writer in the ArchÆologia Scotica, ascribing a similar origin to the monolithic structures of the Orkney and Shetland Islands,[4] is quoted by Danish antiquaries[5] as referring to an established truth, and as proving, accordingly, that similar structures in the Hebrides are also the work of the Northmen! Pennant, Chalmers, Barry, Macculloch, Scott, Hibbert, and a host of other writers might be quoted to shew how this theory, like a snow-ball, gathers as it rolls, taking up indiscriminately whatever chances to lie in its erratic course. Even the poets have lent their aid to propagate the same prevalent error. Cowper, for example,—no uneducated or superficial writer,—thus strangely postdates Britain's birth-time:—

Similar examples of the influence of this predominant theory might be multiplied from the most diverse sources; nor are even the recently established archÆological periodicals free from it. It is obvious, therefore, that such opinions must be sifted to the utmost, and either established or got rid of before any efficient progress can be made in British ArchÆology. In Scotland this theory is much more comprehensive in its effects than in England, where the Anglo-Saxon element is recognised as the predominating source of later changes; and now that the character of genuine Roman antiquities is well ascertained, nearly the whole of our native relics have latterly been assigned to a Scandinavian origin. It is altogether unnecessary, I trust, to disclaim any petty spirit of national jealousy in the rigorous investigation of such theories which will be found pursued in the following pages. The error is for the most part of native growth; but whencesoever it be derived, truth is the end which the archÆologist has in view; and the enlightened spirit in which the researches of the Northern antiquaries have already been pursued, is the best guarantee that they will not be less ready to co-operate in overturning error than in establishing truth. It is not a mere question between Northman or Dane and Celt or Saxon. It involves the entire chronology of the prehistoric British periods, and so long as it remains unsettled any consistent arrangement of our archÆological data into a historical sequence is impossible.

The following work, embracing within its plan such a comprehensive scheme of Scottish ArchÆology as has not been hitherto attempted, has been undertaken under the conviction that this science is the key to great truths which have yet to be reached, and that its importance will hereafter be recognised in a way little dreamt of by those students of kindred sciences, who, while busied in investigating the traces of older but inferior orders of being, can discern only the objects of an aimless curiosity in relics pertaining to the human species. That such, however, should still be the case, is far more the fault of the antiquary than of the student of other sciences. It is his misfortune that his most recondite pursuits are peculiarly exposed to the laborious idling of the mere dabblers in science, so that they alternately assume to the uninterested observer the aspect of frivolous pastime and of solemn trifling. I cannot but think that a direct union with the associated sciences, and an incorporation especially with the kindred researches of the ethnologist, while it might, perchance, give some of its present admirers a distaste for the severer and more restricted study, would largely contribute to its real advancement, and free its truly zealous students from many popular trammels which at present cumber its progress. Meanwhile the archÆologist may derive some hope from the remembrance that astronomy was once astrology; that chemistry was long mere alchemy; that geology has only in our own day ceased to be a branch of unreasoning antiquarianism; and that ethnology has scarcely yet passed the jealously guarded porch, as the youngest of all the recognised band of sister sciences.

In nothing is the want of the intelligent cooperation of the kindred sciences which bear on the study of antiquities more apparent than in the present state of our public collections. The British Museum contains the elements of a collection which, if arranged ethnographically and chronologically, would form the most valuable school of popular instruction that Government could establish; and no other country rests under the same manifest duty to form a complete ethnological museum as Britain: with her hundred colonies, and her tribes of subject aborigines in every quarter of the globe, losing their individuality where they escape extinction, by absorption and assimilation to their European masters. Were an entire quadrangular range of apartments in the British Museum devoted to a continuous systematic arrangement, the visitor should pass from the ethnographic rooms, shewing man as he is still found in the primitive savage state, and destitute of the metallurgic arts; thence to the relics of the Stone Period, not of Britain or Europe only; but also of Asia, Africa, and America, including the remarkable primitive traces which even Egypt discloses. To this would then fitly succeed the old monuments of Egyptian civilisation, the Nimrud marbles, the sculptures of India, and all the other evidences of early Asiatic arts. The Archaic Greek and Colonial works should come after these, followed by the master-pieces of the age of Pericles, and these again by the monuments of imperial Rome. Thus by a natural sequence we return to British remains: the Anglo-Roman relics piecing on like a new chapter of European history, at the point where our island first appears as a part of the old Roman world, and followed in succession by our native Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, Norman, and Medieval antiquities. The materials for all this, if we except the primitive British relics, are already acquired; and while to the thousands who annually throng the Museum, in idle and profitless wonder, this would at once convert into intelligible history, what must now be to the vast majority of visitors a confused assortment of nearly meaningless relics, even the most profound scholar might derive from it information and pleasure, such as would amply repay the labour of re-arrangement. The immense practical value of collections to the archÆologist renders their proper arrangement a matter of grave importance, and one which cannot be allowed to rest in its present extremely imperfect state.[7]

In Scotland no national collection exists, though a small body of zealous men have struggled to maintain an ArchÆological Museum in the Scottish capital for the last seventy years, in defiance of obstacles of the most harassing nature. Not the least of these is the enforcement of the law of treasure-trove, by which all objects of the precious metals are held to be the property of the Crown. Notwithstanding the earnest zeal for the preservation of national relics which has actuated both Sir Henry Jardine and John Henderson, Esq., the late and present Crown and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancers for Scotland, and the liberal construction of the law by its administrators, as shewn in their offer of full value for all objects of the precious metals which may be delivered up to them, its operation has constantly impeded researches into the evidences of primitive art, and in many cases has occasioned the destruction of very valuable relics.

In a letter on this subject with which I have been favoured by the distinguished Danish antiquary, Mr. J. J. A. Worsaae, he remarks: "In Denmark, in former times, all hidden treasures, when found, belonged to the king. They were called Danefa. The finder had to give them up to the Crown without any remuneration. The effect of this was that very few or no antiquities of gold or silver were preserved for the Museum, [of Northern Antiquities at Copenhagen,] as the finders secretly sold the antiquities. For the purpose of putting an end to this, a law was passed in the middle of last century, in which the king declared himself willing to give the full value to the finders, and in some cases still more than the value; but, at the same time, he ordered all such things to be given up to the public museums, and in case of concealment the finders were to be tried and punished.

"This law is still in operation. It is the rule that the finder, in the strictest sense of the word, gets the remuneration, as the king—the real owner—has renounced his rights to him. The owner of the soil only gets the value if he has ordered a servant expressly to dig for any such thing, or, of course, if he is the finder himself. This has proved most effective. Another measure which has secured a good many objects for the Museum is the payment of the finder as soon as possible. Poor people, as the finders generally are, do not like to wait for money. They get easily anxious, and prefer to sell the things for a smaller price, if they only get the money without delay. It has now come to this here, that very few antiquities of gold or silver are lost. The peasants and workmen are perfectly well aware that they get more for the things dug up, at the Museum in Copenhagen, than in the shop of a goldsmith. This has been effected by publication in the almanacs, newspapers, &c., of the payments given to finders of valuable antiquities."

Some of the wretched fruits of the different system still pursued in this country are referred to in the following pages;[8] yet with the earnest desire of the officers of the Scottish Exchequer, to whom the enforcement of the present law is committed, to avert, if possible, the destructive consequences which it has heretofore operated to produce, it is manifest that nothing more is needed than to adopt the essential practical feature in the Danish plan, which gives the actual finder the sole claim to reward, and also holds him responsible and liable to punishment. Until this indispensable change is effected, the Scottish archÆologist must continue to deplore the annual destruction of national treasures, not less valuable to the historian than the chartularies which are being rescued with so much labour and cost from their long-neglected repositories.

In attempting to arrange the elements of a system of Scottish ArchÆology, as a means towards the elucidation of prehistoric annals, I have had frequently to regret the want of any national collection adequate to the object in view. That the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland is one of considerable value must I think be apparent, even from the materials it has furnished for this volume. Some private collections, it will be seen, add a few more to the rescued waifs of Scottish national antiquities; but the result of an extensive correspondence carried on with a view to obtain the necessary facts which no books at present supply, has forced on me the conviction that, even within the last dozen years, such a number of valuable objects have been destroyed as would alone have formed an important nucleus for a complete ArchÆological Museum. The new Statistical Accounts, along with some periodicals and other recently published works, contain references to discoveries made within that period in nearly every district of Scotland. From these I selected upwards of two hundred of the most interesting and valuable examples, and the result of a laborious correspondence is, the establishment of the fact that scarcely five per cent. of the whole can now be ascertained to be in existence. Some have been lost or broken; some thrown away, sold, or stolen,—which in the case of objects of the precious metals involves their absolute destruction; in other cases, the proprietors themselves have disappeared—gone to India, America, Australia, or no one knows where. Of the few that remain, the jealous fear which the operation of the present law of treasure-trove excites has rendered a portion inaccessible, so that a sufficiently meagre handful of so prominent a harvest was left to be reaped.

When it is considered that in Scotland we have no such treasuries of the facts on which an archÆological system must be built, as the ArchÆologia, the Vetusta Monumenta, the Nenia Britannica, the Ancient Wiltshire, and a host of other works supply to the English antiquary, I have a right to expect that some forbearance be shewn in contrasting this first attempt at a comprehensive treatment of the subject, with the works which other countries possess. I do not desire to offer it to the reader with an apology, or to seek to deprecate criticism by setting forth in array a host of difficulties surmounted or succumbed to. It has been the work of such leisure time as could be snatched from less congenial but engrossing pursuits, and will probably be found to contain some recurrence to the same ideas, to which a writer is liable when only able to take up his theme at intervals, and to pursue it amid repeated interruptions. Nevertheless, I have aimed at treating the subject as one which I esteem a worthy one ought to be treated, and if unsuccessful, it is not for want of the zeal which earnest enthusiasm commands. Some new ground I believe has been broken in the search after truth, and as a pioneer I am fully prepared to see my footsteps erased by those who follow me. It will be found, however, that truth is the goal which has been aimed at; and if it be but as a glimmering that light appears, it is well, so that its streaks are in the east, and the clouds which begin to break make way before the dawn.

It only remains for me to acknowledge some of the many favours received in the progress of the Work; though it is impossible to mention all to whose liberality I have been indebted during the extensive correspondence into which I was led while collecting needful materials for substantiating the positions assumed in the following argument. The want of such resources as in other countries supply to the ArchÆologist the means of constructing a system based on trustworthy evidence, has compelled me to draw largely on the courtesy of private collectors; and with very few exceptions, the cordial response returned to my applications has rendered the otherwise irksome task a source of pleasure, and even in some cases the beginning of valued friendships.

The Council of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland have afforded the utmost facilities in regard to their important national collection, and have accorded to me an equal freedom in the use of the extensive correspondence preserved in their Library, from which it will be found that some curious information has been recovered, not otherwise attainable. From my fellow Associates in the Society I have also received the most hearty sympathy and cooperation. To the kind services of Sir James Ramsay, Bart., I am indebted for obtaining from Lady Menzies one of the beautiful gold relics figured in the work. To my friend Professor J. Y. Simpson, M.D., I owe the contribution of one of the illustrations, and to Albert Way, Esq., and George Seton, Esq., others of the woodcuts, presented to me as the expression of their interest in my labours; while I have to thank my friend James Drummond, Esq., A.R.S.A., for drawings from his faithful pencil of several of the examples of ancient Scottish arms, as well as of other relics figured in the work. The many obligations I owe to the freedom with which Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, Esq., has long permitted me to avail myself of the treasures of his extensive collection, will appear in some degree from the use made of them in the following pages; while John Bell, Esq. of Dungannon, has obviated the difficulties which would have prevented my turning his no less valuable archÆological treasures to account, by forwarding to me drawings and descriptions, from which some portions of this work derive their chief interest. Others of the objects selected for illustration are from the collection of W. B. Johnstone, Esq., R.S.A., the whole rare and costly contents of which have been placed completely at my disposal.

Nor must I omit to acknowledge the kind assistance I have received in various ways from David Laing, Esq., William B. D. D. Turnbull, Esq., W. H. Fotheringham, Esq., the Rev., James Mather, J. M. Mitchell, Esq., William Marshall, Esq., as well as from other Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

The Council of the ArchÆological Institute, with a liberality altogether spontaneous, offered, in the most gratifying and flattering terms of cordial sympathy with the object of my work, the beautiful series of engravings of the Norrie's Law silver relics, which illustrate the account of that remarkable discovery.

The Council of the British ArchÆological Association have placed me under similar obligations in regard to the woodcuts which illustrate the sepulchral discoveries at Pier-o-waal in Orkney.

To Sir George Clerk, Bart., I owe the privilege of access to the valuable and highly interesting collection of British and Roman antiquities at Penicuick House, formed by the eminent Scottish antiquary Sir John Clerk.

The very great obligations I am under to Lieutenant F. W. L. Thomas, R.N., are repeatedly noticed in the following pages, though in no degree adequately to the generosity with which the knowledge acquired by him during his professional exploration of the Orkney Islands, while engaged in the Admiralty Survey, has been placed at my disposal.

I have also to acknowledge the contribution of valuable information from my friend Professor Munch of Christiania, and from George Petrie, Esq. of Kirkwall; as well as kind services rendered me in various ways by Charles Roach Smith, Esq., J. C. Brown, Esq., William Nelson, Esq., by my indefatigable friend and correspondent, John Buchanan, Esq. of Glasgow, and others referred to in the course of the work.

My special thanks are due to Robert Hunter, of Hunterston, Esq., for his courteous liberality in forwarding to me the valuable Scottish relic found on his estate—engraved as the frontispiece to this volume—after I had despaired of making anything of its remarkable Runic inscription from various copies obligingly furnished. Whatever opinion may be formed as to the value of the interpretation of its inscription offered here, the archÆologist and philologist may both place the utmost reliance on the fidelity of the engraved fac-simile of this interesting monument of the palÆography, and, as I believe also, of the language of our ancestors. Besides putting into the engraver's hands a carefully executed drawing, he had the advantage of having the brooch itself before him while engraving it; after which I went over the copy in his presence, comparing it letter by letter, and checking the minutest deviations from the original. It is justly remarked in the "Guide to Northern ArchÆology," that "in copying Runic inscriptions great accuracy is required; for a point, a small, scarcely perceptible line, changes the value of the letter, or occasionally adds a letter, which may easily escape notice." When, however, it is added that "one of the best helps in copying Runic, and indeed all other inscriptions, is a knowledge of the language in which they are written," I am inclined to question its strict justice. Most authors, I believe, who have had any experience of the matter, would much prefer a compositor entirely ignorant of the language for setting up Latin, or any foreign tongue, at least to one short of being a perfect master of it. Where there is the total absence of knowledge of it, the imagination is entirely at rest; and the patient copying of letter after letter ensures the accuracy which often surprises the young author when revising his first proofs. Even so I would, in most cases, place more faith in the version of an inscription by an engraver accustomed to accurate copying, though entirely ignorant of the language, than in that of the ablest philologist, with his head full of speculations as to its meaning. A direct example in point is found in the Cardonell or "Thorkelin" print of the Ruthwell inscriptions, where the Scottish antiquary has given a more faithful version of the Runic than of the Latin legends. Notwithstanding the extravagant flights which Professor Finn Magnusen permitted his imagination to take relative to the supposed personages named on the Hunterston brooch, little blame can attach to him for having missed its true meaning with nothing but imperfect copies to guide him; but the fact that this inscription should have been copied from the original brooch by two Scandinavian scholars familiar with the Runic alphabet, without either of them detecting the name Maolfridi, so palpably engraved on it, proves how completely, though unconsciously, they were blinded by their knowledge of the old Norse language, and their belief that it must contain the word Dalkr, a brooch. The recognition, indeed, of this proper name proved to me the key to the whole inscription, as it immediately suggested the probability of the ?? of former translators in the first line being also an ?, and so led to a new and intelligible reading of the remainder. The word dÌol, which I have rendered according to its significance as a substantive, is also employed as the verb to avenge. One Gaelic scholar to whom I shewed the inscription, accordingly suggested as a more characteristic old Celtic interpretation of the Runes: O Malbritha, thou friend, avenge Malfridi! "The difference," he adds, "between the ancient and modern orthography is not greater than frequently exists between the present spelling of familiar terms, as written or pronounced in two contiguous Highland districts."

It is a customary conclusion to a preface to crave the forbearance of the reader for all faults and shortcomings: the which, as readers and critics make an equally general custom of paying no attention to it, may as well be omitted. I can only say, that while writing this work with an honest and earnest desire for the discovery of truth, I have done it no less under the conviction that anything I could now set forth on the subject must be modified by more extended observations, and superseded, ere long, by works of a more complete character.

Edinburgh, January 1851.

[Pg xxviii]
[Pg 1]

SCOTTISH ARCHÆOLOGY.