Corpus Refs: | Macalister/1945:358 Nash-Williams/1950:138 |
Site: | CDWYR |
Discovery: | recognised, 1895 Bowen Jones |
History: | Laws/1895, 303, records that Miss Bowen Jones was the first to recognise an inscription on this stone, after the whitewash with which the stone was covered had faded. The stone was at Gwarmacwydd, near Llanfallteg, and it stood as a rubbing post `...in one of a series of park-like fields in front of Gwarmacwydd House'. Rhys/1896, 108--110, records that the stone had originally stood at Castell Dwyran and had served as part of the churchyard fence by either a small gate or a stile, he also quotes a letter from the Rector of this church which states `that the stone stood in its place in the fence until 15 or 16 years ago, when the fence was partly rebuilt and repaired. This was three of four years after the restoration of the church in 1876. The stone was taken down and dragged to the side of a hedge close by...and lay there until...it was convenient to carry it to Gwarmacwydd field'. Anon/1922, 26b, records that Miss Bowen Jones gave the stone to the Carmarthenshire Museum on 18th September 1921. The stone is still in the Museum. |
Geology: | Nash-Williams/1950, 107: 'Greenstone'. Anon/1898, 274: 'unhewn pillar of greenstone, or trap rock'. |
Dimensions: | 2.11 x 0.61 x 0.3 (converted from Nash-Williams/1950) |
Setting: | in display |
Location: | Carmarthenshire Museum The stone is now in the Carmarthenshire Museum. |
Form: | plain Nash-Williams/1950, 107: `rough pillar stone'. Laws/1895, 303: `becoming narrower at the top'.
|
Condition: | complete , good Laws/1895, 303--304: `The stone, a water-worn boulder...and seems to have been weathered'. He also records (p. 303) that the stone was used as a rubbing post, but this does not seem to have caused much damage.
|
Folklore: | none |
Crosses: | 1: equal-armed; outline; straight; plain; square; none; outer curv; none; plain |
Decorations: | Nash-Williams/1950, 107: `an incised linear ring-cross'. Macalister/1945, 342: `plain cross in a circle, flanked with two small dots of which the dexter one is worn'. Thomas/1994, 82--83, argues that the cross was carved before the inscription, because the MO of memoria is slightly smaller so as not to overrun the ring of the cross. |
Rhys, J. (1895): | MEMORIA | VOTEPORIGIS | PROTICTORIS Expansion: MEMORIA VOTEPORIGIS PROTICTORIS Translation: The monument of Voteporis (PN) the protector. Rhys/1895 307--313 reading only Rhys/1896 107--108 reading only Rhys/1918 186 reading only |
Laws, E. (1895): | MEMORIA | VOTEPORIGIS | PROTICTORIS Expansion: MEMORIA VOTEPORIGIS PROTICTORIS Anon/1898 274 reading only Laws/1895 303--307 reading only |
Nash-Williams, V.E. (1938): | MEMORIA | VOTEPORIGIS | PROTICTORIS Expansion: MEMORIA VOTEPORIGIS PROTICTORIS Translation: The memorial of Voteporix (PN) the Protector. Nash-Williams/1938 38--39 reading only Nash-Williams/1950 107 reading only |
Macalister, R.A.S. (1945): | MEMORIA | VOTEPORIGIS | PROTICTORIS Expansion: MEMORIA VOTEPORIGIS PROTICTORIS Macalister/1945 342--343 reading only |
Redknap, M. (1991): | MEMORIA | VOTEPORIGIS | PROTICTORIS Expansion: MEMORIA VOTEPORIGIS PROTICTORIS Translation: The memorial of Voteporix Protector (PN). Redknap/1991 53 reading only |
McManus, D. (1991): | MEMORIA | VOTEPORIGIS | PROTICTORIS Expansion: MEMORIA VOTEPORIGIS PROTICTORIS McManus/1991 65 reading only |
Thomas, C. (1994): | MEMORIA | VOTEPORIGIS | PROTICTORIS Expansion: MEMORIA VOTEPORIGIS PROTICTORIS Thomas/1994 82 reading only |
Orientation: | horizontal |
Position: | n/a ; broad ; below cross ; undivided Nash-Williams/1950, 107: `three lines reading horizontally, surmounted by an incised linear ring cross'. Thomas/1994, 82--83, argues that the cross and inscription are contemporary, but the cross was carved first. |
Incision: | pocked Macalister/1945, 342: `pocked'. |
Date: | 540 - 550 (Nash-Williams/1950) 550 - 550 (Jackson/1953) 500 - 550 (Nash-Williams/1938) 533 - 566 (McManus/1991) |
Language: | Latin (rcaps) |
Ling. Notes: | MacCana/1961, 116--117, and Hamp/1996, 293, have argued that PROTICTORIS and *votep give the same semantic meaning of `shelter, refuge'. Hamp/1996, 293, argued that this was a translation into Latin of the name, while MacCana/1961, 116--117, left open the question of whether it was a name that was `translated' or a title. Jackson/1982, 32, n. 10, notes that there are difficulties with this argument but does not say what they are. Jackson/1953, 169--170: `This inscription seems to prove that in Britain when an Irish king's name was to be written in Latin the British equivalent for it was or might be used, and this implies the existence of speakers of British in the community, and that the Irish identified Britons and Romans. It shows, too, that the Irish people themselves knew the correct Irish form of the name, and (as the change of qu to c indicates) continued to speak their language as a living and evolving tongue in the middle of the sixth century. Since both forms are to some extent traditional spellings not exactly representing the spoken language of the time, it follows that neither can be taken as a mere 'translation' of the other made on the spot; the names had been known each in its own tongue for some while, and a state of bilinguilism is therefore implied'. |
Palaeography: | Nash-Williams/1950, 107: `Roman capitals. The M, with extra final upward stroke, approximates to the archaic Roman (Etruscan) letter; the V has the Y-form, also archaic, occasionaly found in Christian-Roman inscriptions from the 4th century A.D. onwards'. Macalister/1945, 342, argues that the O in line 2 has a `loop attached to its bottom', and that all the R's `of this inscription are different in form'. Nash-Williams/1938, 38: `some of the letters show attempts at forked serifs', in particular the final S. The G is sickle-shaped; the first R in PROTICTORIS has a short oblique stroke, and the second has the upper part of the bow continuing to the left beyond the ascender. |
Legibility: | good Macalister/1945, 342: `all the writing...in good condition though worn'. Laws/1895, 304: `the stone seems to have been weathered, so that the inscription is not easy to decipher'. |
Lines: | 3 |
Carving errors: | 0 |
Doubtful: | no |
Since Laws/1895, 303--307, VOTIPORIGIS has usually been identified with the Vortipor, `tyrant of the Demetae' mentioned in Gildas, De excidioc. 31, 1--2, Winterbottom/1978, 31, 101. Rhys/1895, 307--313, Nash-Williams/1938, 38--39, Nash-Williams/1950, 107, Macalister/1945, 342--343, Jackson/1953, 624--625, Jackson/1982, 32, Davies/1982, 92--93, Thomas/1994, 81--82, Dark/1994, 81, Dumville/1984, 52, n. 9, Dark/1992, 55--56, all agreeing with this identification.
McManus/1991, 52, is noncomital about the identification.
Sims-Williams/1990, 226, argues, however, that the difference between *Vo- and *Vor- cannot be ascribed to problems with the transmission of Gildas (see Jackson/1953, 625 note 1), that the names are not the same and, therefore, that the individuals are not the same. He also argues that the two probably belonged to the same dynasty.
Rhys, J. (1895): | VOTECORIGAS Expansion: VOTECORIGAS Translation: (The stone) of Votecorix (PN). Jackson/1953 139 reading only Macalister/1945 342--343 reading only McManus/1991 65, 90, 98 reading only Nash-Williams/1950 107 reading only Rhys/1895 307--309 reading only Thomas/1994 82 reading only |
Orientation: | vertical up |
Position: | n/a ; arris ; n/a ; undecorated Macalister/1945, 342, states that the Ogham inscription 'is on the dexter angle and the top'. Nash-Williams/1950, 107, 'the ogam inscription is incised along the l. angle of the face reading upwards'. |
Incision: | pocked Macalister/1945, 342, 'all the writing is pocked'. |
Date: | 540 - 550 (Nash-Williams/1950) 533 - 566 (McManus/1991) 550 - 550 (Jackson/1953) 500 - 550 (Nash-Williams/1938) |
Language: | name only (oghms) |
Ling. Notes: | none |
Palaeography: | none |
Legibility: | good Macalister/1945, 'all the writing...in good condition though worn'. |
Lines: | 1 |
Carving errors: | 0 |
Doubtful: | no |
Since Laws/1895, 303--307 VOTIPORIGIS has usually been identified with the Vortipor, 'tyrant of the Demetae' mentioned in Gildas, De excidioc. 31, 1-2, (for references see NAME-note for CDWYR/1/1).
Sims-Williams/1990, argues, however, that the difference between *Vo- and *Vor- cannot be ascribed to problems with the transmission of Gildas (see Jackson/1953, 625 note 1), and that the names are not the same, nor were the people. He also argues, however, that the two probably belonged to the same dynasty.