« PreviousContinue »
banks of the Isis. In short, there is no doubt whatever that the beaver was an occupant of our British rivers within the historic period. I am also of opinion, as regards the specimen before us, that when we combine its recent appearance, being only subfossilised, with the legendary lore of the Welsh respecting the great oxen, there is little doubt that the Bos primigenius was a contemporary of the beaver, and lived in Wales until that comparatively recent period when man came upon the scene to chronicle his existence in his traditions.
W. S. SYMONDS, of Pendock.
MONA ANTIQUA. On the broad and rather bare summit of a limestone eminence half-a-mile north-east of the main road leading from Pentraeth to Llanerchymedd, in the county of Anglesey, contiguous to the farms of Pant-y-Saer and Tyddyn Tudur, in the parish of Llanfairmathafarneithaf, may still be seen the remains of the small cromlech represented in the annexed sketch. Its rectangular chamber,
Cromlech, Pant-y-Saer. which presents its sides to the cardinal points, is eight feet long by six wide, its length being in the direction of east and west. The dimensions of its capstone are
1 In Mrs. Strickland's collection at Jardine Hall.
nine feet each way, with a mean thickness of two and a-half feet. This partly dismounted stone now appears in a standing position, with its south-eastern corner, which is considerably rounded off, resting on the ground, whilst its other corners are elevated and sustained by the few remaining supporters. The broken and jagged limestone slabs, one foot thick, which constitute the supports, rise to the height of three and a half feet above the present level of the chamber floor. They were doubled in parts, as appears by the arrangement of those left, or, at least, were so placed as to greatly overlap each other. I am not aware that there is anything remarkable connected with this cromlech, unless it is that stones so small should have been selected in a district, where large ones abound. Beneath the weather-worn faces of the limestone cliffs in this parish, blocks and slabs of unusual dimensions lie quarried by the hand of nature ready for cromlech or other purposes. It would appear that a high situation was preferred, overlooking it may be favourite haunts of the person interred, or scenes of his former rule or inheritance, and the builders of his tomb used the materials nearest at hand. The existence of a covering mound in the original state of the cromlech is plainly indicated by the depth of soil which surrounds the structure.
Dinam, July 10th, 1867.
POWYSLAND CLUB PUBLICATIONS, No. 1.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ARCH, CAMB.
SIR,- In the first number of the Powysland Club Collections, Historical and Archæological, I find that the author has made an assertion that my ancestor, David, whom he, with Dr. Powel, calls the sixth son of Prince Gruffydd ap Gwenwynwyn, but whom all the MSS. in the British Museum, which treat on the subject, affirm to be the fifth son) had probably received ordination before A.D. 1290, since his lands were then confirmed to him only for the term of his natural life. (See page 75.) The lord David died before A.D. 1308. The reason of this is as Dr. Powell and other Welsh authorities state, and as I have stated in my paper of the Arch. Camb. for January 1867, that this was done by virtue of a family compact, in which it was agreed (in consequence of the opposition of Llewelyn, John, David and Gruffydd Fychan to the claims of Hawys Gadarn, their niece) that her said uncles, Llewelyn, John, David and Gruffydd Fychan, should enjoy their portion, and the same to descend to their heirs male perpetually; but in default of such heirs male, the same was to descend to Hawys and her heirs.
The Harl. MSS. 4181, 2299, 1793 ; Add. MSS. 9864-9865, assert that David married Elina, illegitimate daughter of Howel ap Madoc ap Gruffydd Maelor, by whom he had issue two daughters, his coheirs : Margarét, my ancestress, and Mary, ancestress of the late Sir Edward Manley Pryce, of Newtown Hall, Bart.
I am etc, I. YOUDE WM. HINDE. P.S.-I am fully corroborated in what I stated to you
last letter, that my ancestor David was the fifth son of Gruffydd ap Gwenwynwyn, and not a priest or likely to be one. By Prince Gruffydd's disposal of his land between his sons (see pages 38 and 41): to his fourth son, John, who was a priest, he concedes four townships, for the term of his natural life only; but to his fifth son, David, he concedes four townships, to himself and the heirs of his body lawfully begotten; a clear, convincing proof that he had not been brought up for the priesthood. I take this opportunity of stating that Mallt, the wife of Jenkyn Lloyd, of Clochfaen, was the daughter of Morgan ap David, of Llanbrynmair, ap Jeuan ap David Gethyn, descended from Aleth, king of Dyfed. (Harl. MSS. 1969, 2299; Add. MSS. 9865.
To the above a learned correspondent adds :-
“I have seen Harl, 2299, and also Mr. Youde Hinde's contribution to the Archaeologia Cambrensis, respecting the daughters of David ap
Gruffydd. They agree in every particular; in fact the lines distinguishing the legitimate from the illegitimate children are so very distinctly marked, that a mistake would be almost impossible. At folio 378 is a note informing us that the reason the daughters of David ap Gruffydd did not inherit their father's possessions, was that in consequence of his rebellion against his niece, the lands were to descend to the male issue only—thus corroborating Dr. Powell's statement."
I am, etc.,
JAMES A. BURT.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ARCH. CAMB.
SIR,-One who, like myself, is in the habit of speaking a good deal in various places on technical subjects, naturally suffers a good deal at the hands of local reporters. As they will not take down one's words, and as they cannot analyse what they do not understand, their reports are of course simple nonsense. When the nonsense does not get beyond the columns of a local paper, it is best to leave it alone. The mass of readers will not know that it is nonsense, and the few who do know will also know that I, or any other scholar, cannot have uttered such nonsense. It becomes more serious when the nonsense finds its way from the local paper into some publication of a higher character. This has been my lot with regard to what I said at various stages of the late meeting of the Cambrian Archæo. logical Association at Hereford. The nonsense of the Hereford papers has found its way into the Archæologia Cumbrensis. And some of the nonsense put into my mouth is very grievous nonsense, making me talk in an utterly meaningless way on my own subjects. I must, therefore, trouble you with a few corrections.
First, I must ask, in all humility, as the Hereford papers doubtless know my intentions better than myself, what is my“ intended history of Godwine?” Also, who made Godwine a prince? How could Godwine have any connexion with Wales or anywhere else in 1063, ten years after his death? What I did read were extracts from the forthcoming second volume of my History of the Norman Conquest, on “ The House of Godwine in connexion with Herefordshire and İVales.” Of Godwine himself of course I had nothing to say, but the local chairman, with what meaning is best known to himself, changed “House” into “ Honour;" and the local reporter, after hearing all about Harold's great campaign against Gruffydd, seemed, by his report, to think that Godwine, Harold and Gruffydd were all one and the same man.
I turn to p. 407. I made some remarks on a paper read by Mr. Edmunds, seemingly a local antiquary, showing some creditable research, though of course not up to the mark in point of criticism. A writer who, unless the reporters have belied Mr. Edmunds also, talks of " finding it distinctly stated by Caradoc, the Welsh historian, Sharon Turner, and others,” that so and so happened in 586 cannot of course be accepted by any critical historian as a serious antagonist.
Still it was creditable to Mr. Edmunds to have heard of Creoda King of the Mercians at all, and his paper started some interesting questions.
Now, as to my own share in the matter, it is really hard, when I am taking such pains to persuade people that Englishmen are, and always have been, Englishmen, to be myself made to talk about "early Saxon Kings.” As to Credenhill, I had never heard the name before, and I, therefore, gave Mr. Edmunds a warning, as he seemed going rather too fast in his etymologies. I have since gone carefully into the matter. Mr. Edmunds is partly right and partly wrong.
He is right in deriving Credenhill from the proper name Creoda or Crida. But he has not the least ground for connecting it with Creoda, King of the Mercians.
Creoda or Crida—Creoda being of course the earlier and Crida the later form of the name—appears in the English Chronicles under the year 593, as dying in that year. Under the years 626 and 725 he is spoken of as a forefather of Offa. Comparing Bæda, Eccl. Hist. ii, 14, with the genealogy at the end of Florence (vol. i., p. 268, Thorpe) it would seem that he was the same prince whom Bæda speaks of as Cearl. That he was the founder of the Mercian kingdom is an inference drawn by Henry of Huntingdon, A. 584 (M.H.B. 714, C.) “ Regnum Merce incipit, quod, ut ex scriptis conjicere possumus, primus obtinuit."
Had I known or remembered that the name “Creodan hyl” exists elsewhere, I should not have doubted Mr. Edmunds derivation. A priori, I thought a Herefordshire place was likely to have a Welsh
But I find that there are several places called from the proper name Creoda. Among others there is one called “Creodan hyl." See Cod. Dip. v. 78, 138.
But this Creodan hyl, as also Creodantreow, and several names of the same origin (including Crediton, in Devonshire,) is not on Mercian ground. It is evidently in Wiltshire. All the places named from Creoda that I can find are not Mercian, but West-Saxon. Criddesho, in Worcester, is indeed mentioned as a doubtful charter of Offa (Cod. Dipl. i. 167); but Criddesho can hardly come from Creoda or Crida. Credenhill, in Herefordshire, seems not to be mentioned in any charter.
It is hardlyconceivable that any of these West-Saxon places can have been called after Creoda the Mercian. The name is, doubtless, one of the old heroic names, like Offa and many others, which gradually went out of use. It never occurs again in the Chronicles. There is no Creoda in Domesday. You might as well look for an Achilleus in Thucydides, or for a Moses in the Books of Kings. But it must have been a great name, whether historical or mythical, in earlier times, to have so many places called after it. But there is nothing to connect either the Herefordshire Credenhill, or any other, with the Creoda spoken of in the Chronicles.
I am half ashamed to have to say that I never uttered such stuff as that I did not think that Creoda was an Anglian at all, and that I was inclined to assign the establishment of Mercia to Ceawlin of Wessex! The only thing at all like this that I ever saw was a play