| Corpus Refs: | Davies/etal/2000:M3 |
| Site: | GUER |
| Discovery: | first mentioned, 1988 Bernier, G. |
| History: | Davies et al/2000, 195: `The inscription was brought to public attention in 1988 when Gildas Bernier published an account of it, with a photograph showing the stone in its current position in use as a sundial in the garden of the presbytery in Guer. Bernier does not mention how he came to know of it (it is not included in his 1982 publication) nor does he provide any information concerning its discovery or subsequent history. The stone's current location is clearly secondary but enquiries made locally in 1997 and 1999 could throw no light on when it had been brought to the presbytery nor whence it had come. The sundial on top of the stone is inscribed with the date 1867 but the plate need not have been made for the stone, particularly since the metalwork is resting on top of it and is not attached. The site was visited by members of the CISP team in May 1997, September 1998, and June 1999'. |
| Geology: | Davies et al/2000, 195: `granite'. |
| Dimensions: | 1.36 x 1.12 x 0.0 (Davies/etal/2000) |
| Setting: | in ground |
| Location: | earliest Davies et al/2000, 195: `in use as a sundial in the garden of the presbytery in Guer'. |
| Form: | other Davies et al/2000, 195--196: `The stone is a finely worked cylinder of granite, even and symmetrical, in all likelihood a re-used Roman column. The surface is well finished. It stands to a height of 116cm above ground, and is embedded in the ground to at least 20cm, giving a total minimum height of 136cm. It is 112cm in circumference'. |
| Condition: | incomplete , good Davies et al/2000, 196: `Parts of the top edge of the stone have broken off (under the sundial plaque). Other than that the stone appears intact and the surface is sound except for an area of severe lamination approximately 31cm (maximum) by 21cm (maximum), at the current lower end, near ground level. Within this patch none of the original surface has survived, although there are indistinct traces of carving there. The stone is otherwise undecorated'. |
| Folklore: | none |
| Crosses: | none |
| Decorations: | no other decoration |
| Bernier, G. (1988): | TEO[--]TIHICIACIT | FILI [--]VEPRET EP~ Expansion: TEO[--]TI HIC IACIT | FILI VEPRET EPISCOPUS Translation: Here lies (of) Teo[--]tus(PN) son of Bishop Vepret(PN) Bernier/1988 255 reading only |
| Davies, W. et al. (1999): | TEC[.][--]TIHICIACIT | FILI[.][--]V{S} PRFTER~ Expansion: TEC[--]TI HIC IACIT FILI [--]US PRESBYTER. Translation: Here lies Tec[..]tus(PN) son of [--]us(PN) the priest Davies/etal/2000 197 reading only |
| Orientation: | vertical down |
| Position: | n/a ; broad ; n/a ; undecorated Davies et al/2000, 197: `The inscription consists of two lines of text carved vertically along the length of the column, currently facing south west. These read (left-to-right) vertically upwards'. |
| Incision: | pock+rub Davies et al/2000, 197: `The carving technique is pocked and smoothed'. |
| Date: | 500 - 599 (Davies/etal/2000) Davies et al/2000, 200: `Both lettering and language indicate a date of carving in the very early middle ages, the immediate post-Roman period (I.e. 6th or 7th century), most probably in the 6th century'. |
| Language: | Latin (rcaps) |
| Ling. Notes: | none |
| Palaeography: | Davies et al/2000, 198: `The lettering is largely in capitals, although the H, the four Ts, the F, and the S are in half-uncial. Amongst the capitals there is a rounded A and both a rounded and an angular E. There are two types of R, the first with a horizontal foot with a closed bow and the second with an open bow and an angled foot; this second R also has a contraction mark above it. The initial F of the second line has upward slanting cross strokes. The L on the second line has only a short 'foot', but does have an extension to the left from the top of the ascender, as seen in the inscription from Plourin [PLOIN/3], and elsewhere. All the Is are vertical, while the first I of iacit is almost tucked within the preceding C. Of the half-uncial letters the S is standard, while the H has a short leftward extension from the top of the ascender. The Ts all have the ascender curving to the right and down into a bottom stroke. The final T of the first line may have a similar curve from the left-hand end of the top stroke, while the top-stroke of the T in the second line has a bifid terminal at its left-hand end. The second F in the second line, presumably carved by mistake for a B, has a curved top stroke and an unconnected middle bar, making it a typically Insular form. The horizontal-bar R is characteristically British and is not known in France outside Brittany, although it is common on western British inscriptions. The debt to Insular habits is made even more explicit by the vertical lay-out of the letters. The script is difficult to date, but the mixture of capitals and half-uncials, and the relatively plain style of lettering, make a date of carving at some time in the 6th century seem likely'. |
| Legibility: | some Davies et al/2000, 197: `The beginning of the inscription is partially obscured by soil and vegetation but excavation to a depth of c.16cm confirmed that the T and the F are the first letters of each line and there is no further lettering below ground level. The carving is reasonably well preserved for a distance of about 15cm. Then there is the patch of wear, which has removed a number of letters (perhaps four from line 1 and more from line 2). Part of the 4th letter of line 1 survives, and could be C or a descender; so also the descender of the 5th letter of line 2 is visible, perhaps E or L, but it is fragmented. However, one letter from line 2 (V) lies within the area of lamination but is clearly visible. The letters are well preserved after the lamination'. |
| Lines: | 2 |
| Carving errors: | 0 |
| Doubtful: | no |
Another Brittonic possibility for the form Tec[...]ti is a `hypocoristic' or pet-name beginning with To- `thy', such as the form T'eliau from *To-+Eliau(os) based on El-iud. To- names were common amongst Breton, Cornish, and Welsh saints of the migration period, which might suit the cultural milieu of the priest's son here. If the names are Brittonic (which cannot be certain, given the text's fragmentary state), the Latinized endings would be consistent with a 5th- to 7th-century dating.
This appears to be another example of an inscription with the father's name in the nominative rather than the expected genitive, as at Louannec [LOUAN/1]'.