Provenance
Discovery: Rev. Samuel Pearse of Cadleigh first recognised this stone when he spotted it in use as part of a culvert under the road over the Fardel brook, near Ivybridge. The stone was later removed to a farmyard in Fardel where it served as a ring-post for a shed until 1861 when Captain Pode, the owner of the farm, presented the stone to the British Museum. The stone was first mentioned in 1861 by Smirke and later by Brash in 1869.
Findspot: Cornwood, Devon, England (National Grid Reference: SX 6110 5740)
Current repository: England British Museum (inv. no. Acc. No. 1861,209.1)
Last recorded location(s): Currently on display next to the Sutton Hoo treasure in the Medieval and Late Antique galleries in the British Museum. It was examined and 3d recorded for the OG(H)AM project in December 2023.
Support
Historic Environment Record ID: HER Number: 441290
Object type: Pillar
Material: Sandstone
Dimensions: H 1.70 × W 0.86 × D 0.28 m
Condition: A red sandstone pillar-stone bearing a bi-version inscription but more unusually it has been used at least twice and seems to be 20 cm shorter today than when its measurements were first recorded (Smirke et al., 1861, 179). The two Latin inscriptions are both complete and the ogham inscription is also ‘legible and complete’ (Okasha 1993, 106). At some point during 1861 or 1862, however, black paint was applied to the letters of the inscriptions. Okasha (1993, 106) observed that ‘the painted letters are clearly legible but the original texts are probably rather deteriorated.‘
Inscription
Text field: The ogham inscription (1) reads vertically upwards on the two angles (up-up) of the front face of the stone (1993, 106). Both lines of the inscription start level and ‘though the first name is shorter, it is emphasised, occupying more of the arris, turning the corner and finishing on the upper surface’ (Forsyth 2004). There are two Latin inscriptions, one on the front and the other on the back of the stone: both inscriptions face left and read downwards. The Latin inscription on the front of the stone (2) consists of two lines and the Latin inscription on the back of the stone (3) is ‘incised in one line’ (Okasha 1993, 103).
Letters: Macalister (1945, 468) described the ogham inscription as ‘pocked in rather broad scores’. The inscription consists of ‘generously spaced strokes evenly spread with no extra space between letters (unless of the same aicme)’ (Forsyth 2004). The two Latin inscriptions are ‘set without panels or framing-lines’ and are written ‘in a predominantly capital script’ (Okasha 1993, 103). Macalister (1945, 469) noted that in the Latin inscription on the front face of the stone (2), the Q is ‘of half-uncial shape’ and in the inscription on the back of the stone (3) ‘the G is of the sickle shape, the R is half-uncial, and the N of the H shape’. Forsyth (2004) observed that the inscription on the reverse ‘has a distinctive form of the letter R (in contrast to the standard capital R on the front) and an N with a horizontal cross-stroke (in contrast to the oblique stroke of the capital on the front)’. The letters for the inscription on the front of the stone (2) measure between 8 to 11 cm in height (Okasha 1993, 103). The letters for the inscription on the back of the stone (3) are between 12 to 15 cm in height (Okasha 1993, 103).
Edition
Ogham text: ᚄᚃᚐ⸢ᚅᚅ⸣ᚒᚉᚔ ᚋᚐᚊᚔ ᚊᚔᚉᚔ
Transcription: SVAQQUCI MAQI QICI
Critical apparatus:
- It is worth pointing out that the inscription FANONI MAQVI RINI is unique in not translating the formula word (MAQVI) into Latin, although it is spelled according to Latin conventions (i.e. with a V following the Q). For the ogham inscription, SVAQQUCI MAQI QICI, Patrick Sims-Williams (2003, 66-68) highlighted the substitution of SV- for F- in the earliest Latin loanwords into Irish, giving new life to the ‘mistake’ theory that the carver had confused the orientation of the H- and B-aicme letters. There is evidence of similar occurences to support this theory, for example, Airghleann (Arraglen) (I-KER-012, CIIC 114): MAN SOMOGAQQ for MAQ COMOGANN. This makes sense in relation to the first name with QQ for NN, but it is more difficult to explain QICI as a mistake for RINI. Macalister (1945, 469) rejected the ‘mistake’ theory, maintaining that the three inscriptions represented three distinct phases of use and that there was no connection between them. 2. Patrick Sims-Williams (2003, 66-68) read: Ogham: SVA[NN]UCI MAQI [R]I[N]I 3. Macalister (1945, 469) read: Ogham: SVAQQUCI MAQI QICI; Roman: FANONI MAQVI RINI; Roman: SAGRANVI
Translation
Translation from OKA1993
Ogham (1): [the stone] of Safaqqucus, the son of Qicus
Latin (2): of Fanonus, son of Rinus
Latin (3): of Sagranuus
Commentary
Researching the names in the inscriptions, Okasha (1993, 106) confirmed that FANONI is Celtic and that ‘a similiar name, FANNVCI, occurs on a stone from Stackpole Elidyr Wales’. Additionally, the name ‘MAQVIRINI would be Primitive Irish, but the name RINI would be of unknown origin’ (Okasha 1993, 106). Concerning the name, SAGRANVI, Okasha (1993, 106) noted that ‘the exact form of this name remains uncertain.’ Regarding the names mentioned in the ogham inscriptions, ‘the MAQ- would indicate a Primitive Irish name’ while QICI and SAFAQQUCI are probably Celtic (Okasha 1993, 107). Furthermore, ‘the phrase MAQI QIC occurs on an Irish ogham stone from Ballyvooney’ (Okasha 1993, 107).
References
- Forsyth 24 January 2024,
- Macalister 1945, 468-469, no. 489
- Okasha 1993, 103-108, no. 13
- Sims-Williams 2003, 66-68
- Smirke 1861, 175-179
- West 2009-11-08,