|Discovery:||recognised, 1883 Harris|
|History:||Allen and Westwood/1884, 46: `During the meeting of the Cambrian Archaeological Association at Fishguard in August 1883, the attention of the members was for the first time drawn...to the existence of two new ogham stones at Castell Villia...A short time previously, Mr. Harris, the occupier of Castell Villia Farm, informed the Dean of St. David's that he had observed some curious scorings on two stones near his house. In consequence of this intimation, the Dean visited the spot on the 13th of August 1883, in company of Mr. J. Romilly Allen, who made rubbings and sketches of the stones...The discoveries just mentioned were considered so interesting by Professor Westwood...that he determined to inspect the stones personally'.|
Allen and Westwood/1884, 48: `The ogham stone, formerly used as a footbridge, is now lying at the side of the road close to the west entrance gate of Castell Villia'.
Rhys/1895a, 185: `The other...stone is now used as a gate-post, with a wall built up behind it, some of which I had removed, but not quite enough to feel certain that the stone had no inscription in Roman letters. I saw no trace of any such letters on the part exposed; so I have to speak only of the Ogam which was a surprise to me'.
Nash-Williams/1936, 175: `Formerly used as a gate-post `within the old rath' at Cas Wilia...Now in Brawdy Church'.
Macalister/1945, 401: `Discovered acting as a gatepost on [Caswilia] farm; now laid in the church porch of Brawdy'.
|Geology:||Allen and Westwood/1884, 48: `syenite'.|
|Dimensions:||2.69 x 0.84 x 0.56 (converted from Macalister/1945)|
|Location:||Brawdy Church; |
Currently in the porch of Brawdy Church.
The stone is a rough pillar stone of irregular shape.
Allen and Westwood/1884, 48: `a block...about 82 inches long by 20 inches wide'.
RCAHMW/1925, 28: `Its total length is 6 feet 8 inches'.
Macalister/1945, 401: `Of irregular shape'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 180: `Rough pillar-stone (with gate-hanger hole in l. centre of face). 110" h. x 32" w. x 13-25" t.'.
|Condition:||incomplete , some|
Macalister/1945, 401: `Except at the top, the B-surface is hollowed out, and any scoring that may have been upon it has disappeared'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 180: `...with gate-hanger hole in l. centre of face'.
|Decorations:||no other decoration|
|Westwood, J.O. (1883):||TEQLOGQ[.]|
Allen/Westwood/1884 48--49 substantial discussion
|Rhys, J. (1895):||[M--]QEGTE|
Rhys/1895a 185 concise discussion
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1922):||Q[--]Q[A^E]GTE|
Macalister/1922 210 reading only
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):||Q[--]QA[--]GTE|
Macalister/1945 401 reading only
|Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):||M[A]Q[I]QAGTE|
(The stone of)...the son of Quagte (?) (PN).
Nash-Williams/1950 180 reading only
|McManus, D. (1991):||[--]AQ[--]QA[--]GTE|
McManus/1991 65 reading only
|Position:||n/a ; arris ; n/a ; undecorated|
Nash-Williams/1950, 180: `Ogam inscription (damaged and ? incomplete) incised along the r. angle of the face reading downwards'.
|Date:||400 - 533 (Nash-Williams/1950)|
|Language:||Incomplete Information (ogham)|
|Ling. Notes:||Rhys/1895a, 186: `If one accepts Maqui Quegte, that would be the genitive of a name well known in Irish legend, namely Mac Cecht. Now Cecht has always struck me as a curious genitive, and no less remarkable is Quegte where one might have expected Quegti'.|
|Palaeography:||Allen/Westwood/1884, 48--49: `The markings commencing towards the other end of the stone are as follows:--- three short straight strokes extending to the right (T, 3 inches); then four short vowel marks (E, 4 inches); then 5 straight strokes to the right, the first of which is distinctly separated from the last of the preceding group, whilst the fifth is as long and as distinctly marked as the other 4 (Q, 6 1/2 inches); then on the under angle of the stone are two straight strokes to the left (L, 1 1/2 inch), followed at the distance of nearly 3 inches by two short oval vowel incisions (O, 2 inches), to which succeed two long oblique strokes extending over both margins of the stone, the junctions at the angle being defaced, but the continuity of the two strokes is clear (G, 3 1/2 inches); these are followed by five straight strokes to the right, which are quite similar to the right side of the preceding stroke (6, 6 inches); then on the angle of the stone, which is here rather flat, are several irregular shallow impressions which are represented confusedly in the different rubbings. Mr. Robinson considers there are five, these representing the letter T, whilst Mr. Romilly Allen's sketch gives only one, representing A; and in my grass-rubbing there is a space of 9 inches, with indications of three oval impressions, leaving spaces for two others, which are not, however, defined'.|
Rhys/1895a, 185: `Below Quegte a considerable flake of the edge of the stone has been some time or other hammered off the stone; in fact the points at which the stone was struck are to be detected, four or five of them, but the flake has left the further or upper portions of the five scores for the ||||| of maqui, remaining, and I have no doubt that one may venture to consider that the whole inscription originally read as follows...I have to remark that the final e is certain, while as to the other e there is some difficulty, as one finds a good sized notch immediately after the Qu, while the remaining three depressions are smaller, and possibly not part of the reading at all. In that case one would have to read Quagte perhaps; but I think the reading Quegte is much more probable.'
Rhys later revisited the stone and revised the above opinions, stating: `I am now very much in favour of Quagte, and inclined to regard the three depressions as accidental, and the cause of the inscriber skipping the space taken up by them' (Rhys/1896, 103--104).
Macalister/1945, 401: `Between the Q's there is space for five or six scores, which can have been only vowels or B-scores. The angle is not badly injured as to prevent the survival of possible traces of vowels, but there is nothing of the kind. Before the first Q are the marks read M A by Rhys (top half of M only). They are not nearly so definite as the Q and I take them to be illusory. There are other illusory scores on the face to the left of the inscribed angle, and also on the angle to the left of that again. After the second Q there is one vowel notch, followed by a space of 3 1/2" in which nothing can be found but three little nicks. These are hardly to be taken with the genuine notch to make E. There is also a sloping scratch, close to and parallel with the following G-scores, not noticed by Rhys: it is equally out of the question to associate this with the G and to make NG out of them. The final vowel is certainly E, not I'.
Macalister/1922, 210: `...the inscription is gone except `Q ... Q[A^E]GTE.'
Nash-Williams/1950, 180: `Ogam inscription (damaged and ? incomplete)'.