SDOGM/1

Corpus Refs:Huebner/1876:106
Macalister/1945:449
Nash-Williams/1950:384
RCAHMW/1925:1011(i)
Site:SDOGM
Discovery:first mentioned, 1694 Gibson's Camden
History:Rhys/1873, 5: `Aug. 15 -- We set out in the morning from Cardigan, and called at St. Dogmael's, the other side of the river, to see the bilingual stone of Sagramnus'.

Jones/1860, 128: `Within the precincts of the abbey of St. Dogmael's...Not only as a gate-post, however, but also as a bridge, has it been made serviceable to the daily wants of generations now dead and gone; for it was so used over a brook not far from its present locality, and had acquired a sort of preternatural reputation...It was fortunate, perhaps, that this should have been the case, for the superstitious feeling of the neighbours not only tended to preserve it from injury -- no man or woman touched it willingly after dark -- but this very tradition, added to its peculiar form, probably led to its ultimate rescue.

A gentleman who is the present owner of the property on which St. Dogmael's Abbey stands, the Rev. H. J. Vincent, vicar of that parish, found the stone covered with a thick coat of whitewash, in a wall adjoining his house, where it was perhaps placed after its removal from the brook. When the wall was taken down, with the view of effecting some improvements, the stone fell, and was unfortunately broken in two. It was then carefully conveyed to the spot where it now rests. Before it fell its inscribed face and edge were uninjured. Luckily they had been turned downwards by whoever placed it, ignorant of its value, across the brook.

The inscription had been previously known; for that exact observer, Edward Lhwyd, had drawn the lettered surface most carefully, and his original sketch still exists. He also remarked on some of the notches on the edge, and recorded a few in his drawing, but had not said anything about them in any of his notes. His sketch was not known to exist until 1859, when it was found, by the writer of this paper, at Oxford. But several years previously the writer has ascertained that one edge of the stone was covered in oghamic characters, such as he had discovered at the same period on stones in other parts of the same district, and he pointed them out to Mr. Vincent, who at once perceived their archaeological value. For several subsequent years he took careful drawings and rubbings of this stone, communicating them at the same time to Professor Graves of Trinity College, Dublin, and to Mr. Westwood. The former, who has made the study of Oghams almost his own peculiar science, but his skill in working out the occult alphabet...at once read off these Oghamic strokes according to the system previously arranged from Irish monuments of the same description, and found that it corresponded very nearly with the inscription found on the face of the stone.

We say very nearly, for one important mark, equivalent to a, was apparently wanting; if that were found, the professor's alphabet and theory would be completely correct. He therefore advised the writer to re-examine the stone more minutely; this was done, and the professor's conjecture was found to be correct: but more of this hereafter. Professor Graves then declared this stone to be the equivalent of the famous Rosetta stone of the Egyptian hieroglyphic discoveries, because it contained the same inscription in two distinct characters, one of Romano-British type, the other of that occult Oghamic class which has been so much controverted, so much theorized upon, and so little understood'.

Westwood/1879, 215: `This stone has acquired a celebrity from having been the first discovered in Wales on which the debased Latin inscription was repeated in Celtic in Ogham characters, and having thence been `considered by Professor Graves, the first authority on the subject, to be as valuable a key to the latter mode of writing as the Rosetta stone was to Egyptian hieroglyphics'. The stone was first made known by the Rev. H. Longueville Jones at the Rhyl Meeting of the Cambrian Archaeological Association in 1858 (Arch. Camb., 1858, p. 461). The stone was long used as a foot-bridge at St. Dogmael's Abbey, and is recorded by W. Gambold in Gibson's Camden, p. 638 (Gough's Camden, ii. p. 522 ; Ed. 2, iii. 152)...In 1858 the stone was standing in a wall adjoining the Vicarage of St. Dogmael's, but on taking down the wall the stone fell and was broken into two pieces, as shown in the figure. The stone had about the end of the seventeenth century been examined and sketched by Edward Lhwyd, the antiquary, who had marked several of the Oghams in his original unpublished sketch, still preserved at Oxford...At the Meeting of the Archaeological Association at Cardigan the stone was Visited, and the Rev. H. J. Vincent of St. Dogmael's, one of the local secretaries for Cardiganshire, undertook the fixing of the stone in the interior of the parish church or some other equally secure situation. (H. L. J. in Arch. Camb., 1860, p. 136.)

My figure of this stone is copied from that published by the Rev. H. L. Jones in his article last quoted, with the assistance of rubbings and sketches made by myself'.

Allen/1896, 291: `Formerly used as a footbridge at St. Dogmael's Abbey, now in the grounds of the adjoining vicarage'.

Macalister/1945, 425--426: `Formerly in the grounds adjoining the vicarage; now inside the church...[it] was known, rather grandiloquently, as `the Ogham Rosetta stone' (it was one of the first of the bilateral inscriptions to be discovered, and gave welcome confirmation of the accuracy of the traditional Ogham alphabet)'.

Macalister cites Gibson's Camden as the first reference, followed by a letter of E. Lhwyd dated 1702, and then Parochialia iii (not available for consultation).

Geology:RCAHMW/1925, 358: `hard gritstone'.
Dimensions:2.13 x 0.48 x 0.2 (converted from Macalister/1945)
Setting:unattch
Location:on site
Nash-Williams/1950, 213: `Inside church, standing against W. wall of nave'.

CISP: [MH 1998] the stone remains in this position.

Form:plain
Jones/1860, 128--129: `a long narrow slab of porphyritic greenstone, such as found on the ridge of the Preseleu Hills, semi-columnar in form, and rhomboidal in section. It is about 7 feet in length, tapering upwards from rather more than 12 to 9 inches in breadth, with an average thickness of about 7 inches. The surfaces are all smooth, without any lichen adhering to them; and did not other stones of this kind from the same hills offer the same appearance, it might be supposed to have been once artificially polished. Such, however, is not the case; this particular kind of igneous rock does not decompose readily; its greenish base, and the dull white, squarish crystals with which it is filled, resist the effects of weather and vegetation with remarkable pertinacity. The stone in question is probably in as sound condition, with certain exceptions, as when it was first brought down from the native hills.

Stones of this kind are prized all over Pembrokeshire, from the circumstance of their peculiar form and hardness making them useful as gate-posts; every farmer is glad to get them from Preseleu; and the very stone of which we are now treating shows, by two holes drilled into its surface, that it has been made to do this piece of agricultural duty in worse times, archaeologically speaking, than the present'.

RCAHMW/1925, 358: `80 inches in length and 14 inches wide'.

Macalister/1945, 425: `A pillar'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 211: `Rough pillar-stone (with two gate-hanger holes in the face and fractured in two). 84" h. x 30" w. x 8" t. Ogam and Latin inscriptions'.

Condition:complete , some
Macalister/1945, 426: `the stone has been broken in two'.
Folklore:Westwood/1876, 115: `There was a tradition in the neighbourhood that a mystical white lady constantly passed over the stone when used as a bridge at 12 o'clock at night'.
Crosses:none
Decorations:no other decoration

References


Inscriptions


SDOGM/1/1     Pictures

Readings

Jones, H.L. (1860):SAGRAMNIMAQICVNATAMI
Expansion:
SAGRAMNI MAQI CVNATAMI
Jones/1860 134 reading only
Westwood/1876 216 reading only
Brash, R.R. (1869):SAGRAMNIMAQICVNATAMI
Expansion:
SAGRAM NI MAQI CUNATAMI
Translation:
Sagram (PN), a warrior the son of Cunatami (PN).
Brash/1869 158--159 reading only
Rhys, J. (1873):SAGRAMNIMAQICVNATAMI
Expansion:
SAGRAMNI MAQI CVNATAMI
Rhys/1873 5 reading only
Allen, R. (1896):SAGRAMNIMAQICUNATAMI
Expansion:
SAGRAMNI MAQI CUNATAMI
Allen/1896 299 reading only
Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):SAGRAGNIMAQICVNATAMI
Expansion:
SAGRAGNI MAQI CVNATAMI
Macalister/1945 426 reading only
Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):SAGRAGNIMAQICUNATAMI
Expansion:
SAGRAGNI MAQI CUNATAMI
Translation:
(The stone) of Sagragnus (PN), son of Cunatamus (PN).
Nash-Williams/1950 211--213 reading only

Notes

Orientation:vertical up
Position:ind ; arris ; n/a ; undivided
Brash/1869, 157--158: `The Ogham inscription occupies, as usual, the left angle on the same face as the Roman, commencing about 14 inches from the bottom and thicker end, occupying the entire angle to within three or four inches of the top. The characters are boldly and regularly defined, the vowels being marked by rounded dots as in the majority of Irish examples. They are very legible in the cut given herewith'.

Macalister/1945, 426: `Ogham on the left-hand angle'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 213: `The Ogam inscription is incised along the l. angle of the face reading upwards'.

Incision:inc
Date:400 - 533 (Nash-Williams/1950)

400 - 500 (Jones/1860)
Jones, 1860, gives this date on the basis of the Latin palaeography, and the identification of CVNOTAMVS with Cunedda.
466 - 533 (Jackson/1953)
Jackson/1953, 518, note 1, dates the inscription to the late fifth or early sixth century. At 171 and 180 he dated it to the early sixth century.
Language:Goidelic (ogham)
Ling. Notes:Jones/1860, 134: `It was to be expected that an Irish translator would, according to the anaology of inscriptions in his own country, use the word MAQ or MAC (the equivalent of the Cymric MAB) for the Latin FILIVS -- and so we find it'.

Brash/1869, 158--159: `The custom of supposing that our inscribed stones exhibit the names of historic personages, has led to a large amount of useless criticism and investigation. This will appear manifest if we consider that in remote ages a pillar stone was the common memorial of deceased humanity and that such may have existed by thousands over the face of the country; that a proper name was not confined to an individual, but ran through a tribe, or family, there being perhaps hundreds of the same name, or perhaps thousands in the course of a few centuries -- just as the Browns, Jones, and Smiths form a large portion of the present population of our isle. I make these remarks in reference to the present inscription, as it has been stated that the name `Cunotami' is the Latin equivalent of Cunedda...The Ogham inscription is in good order and in pure Gaedhelic, and reads, SAGRAMNI MAQI CUNATAMI, i.e., `Sagram, a warrior the son of Cu-natami'.

We have here after the proper name `Sagram', the word `Ni', or `Nia', which according to O'Reilly and O'Brien's dictionaries signifies a champion, a hero, a mighty man; we have also the formula, `maqi', the genitive case of `Mac', a son, so commonly found on Irish Ogham monuments'.

Westwood/1879, 216: `the word MAQI or MAC, forming the equivalent of the Welsh MAB and of the Latin FILIVS'.

Palaeography:Jones/1860, 134: `A various reading [i.e. the differences between the ogham and the Roman] is occasioned by the introduction of M in the first word, and by the substitution of A for O in the last. These are not philiological difficulties, the analogies of the Erse and Cymric tongues easily account for them. The only real difficulty lay in the absence of the Oghamic mark for A between those standing for M and Q. This occurred just at the point where a crack had unfortunately taken place. To most observers it would have seemed as if this mark did not exist; but by following up the hint given by Professor Graves, and by using a magnifying glass, the existence of a small circular depression on the edge -- cut in twain by the crack -- was satisfactorily established. All the other characters were so distinct as to admit of no doubt'.

CISP: This account is curious as the crack cuts through SAGRAMNI / SAGRAGNI, not MAQI, and is, in fact, shown cutting through the former word in Jones' plate accompanying his paper.

Brash/1869, 159: `Now it is quite evident that, if these inscriptions were executed at the same time, and by the same hand, as a bilingual one, they would be identical, letter for letter; whereas the `Sagramni' of the Celtic is `Sagrani' in the Roman, and `Cunatami' of the one is `Cunotami' of the other.

Again, both inscriptions would follow the same direction; whereas, the Celtic reads from bottom to top, the Roman from top to bottom.

We are thus reduced to the dilemma as to which was the original inscription.

An inspection of the stone itself gives us no assistance on that point; both are of such a great age, that differences in the engraving could not be depended on as of any value in the argument. The probabilities are in my opinion in favour of the superior antiquity of the Ogham. The story of the stone looks like this; that it was erected as a memorial over some well-known chief of the invading Gaedhal, who for a long period occupied South Wales, and that at some period after, when the language of the Gaedhal, and the use of the Ogham were dying out, some patriotic descendant of the hero, to perpetuate the memorial, re-cut the inscription in the Roman characters then in use; the monument is of great antiquity, the Roman inscription alone on the authority of Mr. Westwood being referable to a date `not long after the departure of the Romans'.

Westwood/1879, 216: `The Ogham mark for the A between the R and M is cracked right in twain so as scarcely to be perceptible'.

Rhys/1918, 187: `The great importance of this [sketch] is that in the breakage one sloping score had been over-looked by all previous readers. So what had usually been read Sagramni proves to be Sagragni ...in the Ogam'.

Macalister/1922, 213: `I verified Romilly Allen's correction Sagragni for Sagramni. It is indeed strange that the erroneous reading held the field so long'.

Macalister/1922b, 23: `At ST. DOGMAEL'S I verified a remark made to me long ago by the late Mr. Romilly Allen, that the first name in the Ogham is not SAGRANNI [sic.], as it is given in all the books, but SAGRAGNI'.

Macalister/1945, 426: `The fracture passes through and obscures one of the scores of the second G: still it is strange that it was not before over forty years after its first publication that the erroneous reading Sagramni received correction --notwithstanding the interest which this monument had aroused in the early days of research'.

Legibility:good
Rhys/1873, 5: `though it has been broken through the middle, it is easy to read'.

Macalister/1945, 426: `both inscriptions are in good condition'.

Lines:1
Carving errors:0
Doubtful:no

Names

References


SDOGM/1/2     Pictures

Readings

Jones, H.L. (1860):SAGRANI{F}ILI | CVNOTAMI
Expansion:
SAGRANI FILI CVNOTAMI
Jones/1860 134 reading only
Westwood/1876 216 reading only
Rhys, J. (1873):SAGRANI{F}ILI | CVNOTAMI
Expansion:
SAGRANI FILI CVNOTAMI
Rhys/1873 5 reading only
Allen, R. (1896):SAGRANI{F}ILI | CVNOTAMI
Expansion:
SAGRANI FILI CVNOTAMI
Allen/1896 299 reading only
Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):SAGRANI{F}ILI | CVNOTAMI
Expansion:
SAGRANI FILI CVNOTAMI
Macalister/1945 426 reading only
Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):SAGRANI{F}ILI | CVNOTAMI
Expansion:
SAGRANI FILI CVNOTAMI
Translation:
(The stone) of Sagranus (PN), son of Cunotamus (PN).
Nash-Williams/1950 213 reading only

Notes

Orientation:vertical down
Position:ind ; broad ; n/a ; separated
Macalister/1945, 426: `Roman letters...in two lines'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 213: `The Latin inscription is in two lines reading vertically downwards'.

Incision:pocked
Macalister/1945, 426: `pocked'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 213: `coarsely but neatly picked'.
Date:400 - 533 (Nash-Williams/1950)

400 - 500 (Jones/1860)
Jones, 1860, gives this date on the basis of the Latin palaeography, and the identification of CVNOTAMVS with Cunedda.
466 - 533 (Jackson/1953)
Jackson/1953, 518, note 1, dates the inscription to the late fifth or early sixth century. At 171 and 180 he dated it to the early sixth century.
Language:Latin (rcaps)
Ling. Notes:none
Palaeography:Westwood/1879, 115--116: `The Latin inscription is entirely composed of Roman capital letters of a rather narrow form, varying in height, some in the upper line being nearly 6 inches high: those forming the word fili in their much narrower form, in the bar of the F appearing on the left side of the upright stroke, in the upper bar being rather oblique with the end elevated, and in the upright stroke of the L elevated a little above the adjoining letters, approach the rustic form. The first S is ill formed, with the lower half much larger than the upper, agreeing with many other stones in this respect. The third letter G, formed of a semicircle with a short oblique tail scarcely extending below the line, and the M in the second line with the first and last strokes splayed outwards, are the only ones which offer any peculiarity, and in these respects they agree with many of the oldest Roman monuments. Hence, were we not guided by the formula, the comparative rudeness of the letters, and the fact of the inscription being carved lengthwise along the stone, we might refer this inscription to the Roman period, so complete is the absence of those minuscule forms of letters occurring in many early Welsh monuments indicating a later period, and in which scarcely any of the letters retain the capital Roman form. Under these circumstances I think we are warranted in assigning a date to this inscription not long after the departure of the Romans, whilst the writing still remained unmodified by a communion either with the Irish or Anglo-Saxon scribes. (J. 0. W., Arch. Camb, 1860, p. 133.)'.

Brash/1869, 159: `Now it is quite evident that, if these inscriptions were executed at the same time, and by the same hand, as a bilingual one, they would be identical, letter for letter; whereas the `Sagramni' of the Celtic is `Sagrani' in the Roman, and `Cunatami' of the one is `Cunotami' of the other.

Again, both inscriptions would follow the same direction; whereas, the Celtic reads from bottom to top, the Roman from top to bottom.

We are thus reduced to the dilemma as to which was the original inscription.

An inspection of the stone itself gives us no assistance on that point; both are of such a great age, that differences in the engraving could not be depended on as of any value in the argument. The probabilities are in my opinion in favour of the superior antiquity of the Ogham. The story of the stone looks like this; that it was erected as a memorial over some well-known chief of the invading Gaedhal, who for a long period occupied South Wales, and that at some period after, when the language of the Gaedhal, and the use of the Ogham were dying out, some patriotic descendant of the hero, to perpetuate the memorial, re-cut the inscription in the Roman characters then in use; the monument is of great antiquity, the Roman inscription alone on the authority of Mr. Westwood being referable to a date `not long after the departure of the Romans''.

Nash-Williams/1950, 213: `Roman capitals...in good style, with E-shaped F (cf. No. 127)'.

Legibility:good
Rhys/1873, 5: `though it has been broken through the middle, it is easy to read'.

Macalister/1945, 426: `both inscriptions are in good condition'.

Lines:2
Carving errors:0
Doubtful:no

Names

References