1890.] 
A  Strange  Wooden  Object. 
7 
view,1)  especially  the  circumstance  that  the  article  was  consiclered 
worthy  of  being  deposited  in  the  grave  resting  on  the  breast  of 
the  deceased  person.  And  the  deceasecl  here  was  not  a  woman  or 
a  child,  but  an  adult  man  who  must  have  been  a  wealthy  and 
powerful  chief  in  his  day.  I  also  expressed,  in  connection  there- 
with,  the  opinion  that  the  popular  taste  for  such  artistic  objects, 
certainly  derived  through  a  long  line  of  clescent,  might  also  pos- 
sibly  be  rooted  in  ancient  mystical  ideas.  I  pointed  out,  finally, 
that  we  must  await  the  discovery  of  similar  articles,  and  that  so 
long  as  the  peculiar  object  was  unique  it  must  be  chiefly  regarded 
as  an  accidental  nicknack,  or  that,  at  any  rate,  any  other  view 
coulcl  scarcely  be  supposed  capable  of  proof.2) 
The  question  was,  therefore,  to  obtain  parallels.  But  with  the 
means  afforded  by  our  library  it  is  not  possible  to  collect  eluci- 
dative  analogies  to  such  a  specialty.  I  am,  consequently,  only  in  a 
position  to  explain  the  few  more  or  less  elucidating  facts  I  have 
accidentally  met  with.  To  Professors  0.  Rygh  and  J.  Moltke- 
Moe  of  Christiania  I  am  indebted  for  valuable  assistance. 
Perhaps,  on  one  occasion,  something  like  it  has  already  been  found 
in  a  Norwegian  barrow.  Unfortunately,  it  is  impossible  now  to  con- 
firm the  fact.  In  1868  Mr.  A.  LORANGE  observed  in  a  tumulus 
at  Rokkeradet,  near  the  town  of  Fredrikshald,  several  pieces  of 
wood  having  a  remarkable  shape.  According  to  the  report3)  they 
were  all  shaped  alike,  about  26  m.m.  broad  and  "reminded  a  little 
J)  Herr  Steinhauer,  Director  of  the  Ethnographical  Museum  in  Copen- 
hagen,  to  wliom  I  forwarded  a  rough  sketch  of  the  article  soon  after  its  dis- 
covery, has  kindly  drawn  my  attention  to  the  circumstance  that  the  plain  figure 
of  a  cross  may  be  formed  from  it.  That  is  true,  but  such  cannot  have  been 
the  intention  of  the  apparatus,  as  some  of  its  parts  would  then  become  per- 
fectly  useless. 
2)  An  interpretation  of  the  object  as  serving  any  practical  purpose  I 
repelled  as  inconceivable.  My  friend  Prof.  J.  O.  Andersson  of  Stockholm, 
a  specialist  in  the  theory  of  the  weaving  art,  who  kindly  analysed  samples 
of  the  st  uff  from  the  grave-find,  informed  me.  however,  in  his  last  letter, 
that  he  had  begun  to  think  that  the  apparatus,  which  he  only  knew  from 
illustrations,  might  possibly  be  a  weaving  instrument.  I  do  not  think  so,  but 
have  noted  here  my  friend's  supposition,  although  his  premature  decease  has 
prevented  the  further  investigations  he  had  promised.  Compare,  however,  a 
remarkable  apparatus  found  in  Wurtemberg  and  illustrated  by  Lindenschmit 
in  "Handbuch  der  deutschen  Alterthumskunde"  Vol.  I,  pag.  415,  fig.  430,  no.  2- 
3)  Aarsberetning  for  foreningen  til  Norske  fortidsmindesmærkers  bevaring,, 
for  1868,  pag.  75. 
