Изображения страниц



NOTICES of this much discussed stone have appeared previously in Gough's "Camden," and in the Journal of the Cambrian Archæological Association for the years 1848, 1849 and 1874. In no single instance has the inscription been quite accurately given, and I therefore venture to place on record a memorandum of the incised marks and letters, which are quite legible and are in no wise obscure or confused. Indeed, the inscription is so complete that there is no excuse for reading into it letters which are non-existent, and the marks of contraction are quite intelligently indicative of the purpose they are intended to serve.

(From "Arch. Camb.," 1848.)

The general appearance and situation of the stone has been accurately described and depicted by

Mr. T. L. D. Jones Parry in the 1848 Vol. of the Arch. Camb. It is four-sided, and the inscription is incised lengthwise on each face in the order and form following, namely:



I read it thus:

(From "Arch. Camb.," 1848.)



Rendered into English it would run :—


Here is the sepulchre of Wleder, mother of Odelev, who first built this church in the time of King Owen.

Wleder is a Welsh name, and has been identified by Sir John Rhys (see note at bottom of page 245, Arch. Camb., July 1874) in the Mabinogion (ii, 212), where mention is made of a lady called "Gwennwledyr merch Walevr Kyrvach."

Odelev is connoted with Audele, Audeley, de Audele, Delves, and survives in the name of a presentday Baronet-Sir Delves Louis Broughton. The Barony of Audley-Baron Audley of Heleigh Castle, Staffordshire, in the peerage of England, created in 1313, abeyant since 1872 between the two daughters of the 21st Baron ("Debrett's Peerage, &c." Ed. 1881). The name occurs frequently in Records relating to Wales in the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries.

Henry de Audeley is referred to in a Charter of King Henry III, dated 1227.

In Speed's "Gt. Brittaine" (2nd ed. 1623), page 663, it is stated that Joan the second daughter of King Edward I and Queen Elinor, born in 1272, was married to Gilbert Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Herefort, and Margaret, one of their daughters, married as her second husband Hugh de Audleycreated Earl of Gloucester in 1337.

In Arch. Camb. Journal, October, 1885, under an account of the "Descent of the Lordship of Wentllwch," it is stated under the year 1318, "Margaret de Clare, wife of Hugh de Audeley, received Wentllwch on partition, and on this separation of Wentllwch from the Lordship of Glamorgan, the name of the former Lordship was changed to that of Newport".

A Hugh de Audele (senior) was Constable of Carnarvon Castle in April, 1306, and was succeeded in the Office of Constable of that Castle in May, 1306, by Sir Hugh de Audele, Knt., the latter being also Justice of North Wales (Breese's "Kalendars of Gwynedd," page 125).

Mr. Fletcher Moss in the 4th Book of " Pilgrimages to Old Homes" has something to say concerning Sir James Audley, Knight of the Garter, "who was son (illegitimate) to one Lord and brother to another Baron Audley." Sir James Audley, K.G., was present at the Battle of Poictiers in 1356, and is referred to by Froissart in his "Chronicles."

In the Record of Carnarvon there are frequent references to Johes de Delues, one of the King's Justices in Wales.

I have very small doubt that the Odelev of the inscription stands for Audeley, and it is quite possible that the genealogical records of the Audley or Delves families may throw valuable light upon the identity of their Ancestor whose Welsh mother Wleder was in all likelihood a high-born dame.



I believe the late Sir H. Delves Broughton published, in book form, a few years ago, an account of his family history, but I have not had the good fortune to study the compilation, a copy of which is doubtless deposited at the British Museum.

Wini is the genitive form of Winus, signifying Owen.


The Record of Carnarvon refers to Owen "Owino" and "Owyni." I have seen it in early deeds spelt Ovini.

In a letter to my father, written in 1872, Mr. W. W. E. Wynne of Peniarth, referring to the Llanfihangel y Traethau Stone, states:

"I have no doubt as to Wini Regis. The Wini is Owen, and has reference to Prince Owen Gwynedd. Mr. Wynne, proceeding, wrote: "In some early deeds relating to property near Mold, which I made notes of years since, Owen is written "Wnus" and "Winus.

Wini is undoubtedly Owen, but I hesitate to be dogmatic in associating the King Owen with Owen Gwynedd, the more so, as the latin Princeps would be more applicable to the latter.

It only remains to note that the legend refers to the first building of the church, and it can therefore be inferred that the commemorative inscription originated at a later period, which coincided probably with its re-building, or restoration. The "Taxatio of Pope Nicholas (circa A.D. 1291), does not mention the existence of a church at Llanfihangel y Traethau, but it may have fallen into decay when that survey was taken, and its restoration and the commemoration of its original builder was probably of later date.




Keeper of the Archæological Department, National Museum of Wales.

In this report, the various "finds"-small objects of human handiwork and the animal and human remains are described and considered. The animal remains were examined by Dr. W. Boyd Dawkins, F.R.S., and the human, by Dr. Arthur Keith, F.R.S., to whose pen we are indebted for the illustrated section on these. Before entering upon the proper subject of this report, however, I must draw the reader's attention to a small chambered tumulus at Coldrum, Kent, which, had I known of it, would have been referred to in the first report.

In Dr. Keith's recent work, "The Antiquity of Man," there is a short account of this Kentish chambered tumulus. It was partially explored by Mr. F. J. Bennett, F.G.S., and others in 1910, and it strikingly resembles that of St. Nicholas. With Mr. Bennett's permission, I introduce a plan (Fig. 1) adapted from Mr. Filkin's which accompanies his report in the "Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute," 1913, p. 76. The chamber, A, lacks its roof, and the mound appears to have been almost entirely removed, but its limits westwards of the former are defined by lines of large stones, cc1;

1 Mr. Bennett considered that the chamber never had been roofed; that "the low mound in the centre"-i.e., within the enclosing lines of stones-"was largely due to the carting of field refuse"; and that these lines were the foundations of a parapetwall which enclosed an open or yard-like space. The remains are obviously those of a chambered tumulus and the only safe course is to interpret them in accordance with the knowledge gleaned from the better preserved examples of the class.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »