Corpus Refs:Macalister/1945:406
Discovery:in/on structure, 1861 workmen
History:Westwood/1879, 49: `I am indebted to Col. G. Grant Francis for calling my attention to an inscribed stone which had been found at Llanmadoc, in the west of Gower, used as a quoin-stone in repairing the parsonage house, and of which he sent me a full-sized sketch which he had received in 1864 from the Rector, the Rev. J. Dr Davies; and it is to the latter gentleman that I owe the pleasure of adding this hitherto unpublished early inscription to my series, having received a rubbing and notes from him'.

Rhys/1895, 180: `It was found in 1861 in the wall of the old rectory, or rather , most of it was found there, for it is now inside the church, in several pieces, which have been cemented into the sill of one of the windows'.

Macalister/1945, 382: `found in 1861 in the wall of the old rectory, and now built into the sill of the East window on the S. side of the nave of the church'.

RCAHMW/1976, 36: `The stone (Plate 1) discovered in 1861 built into the former rectory, subsequently fractured and re-set in the internal sill of the S.E. window of the nave of St. Madog's Church'.

Geology:RCAHMW/1976, 36: `local Old Red Sandstone'.
Dimensions:0.66 x 0.15 x 0.0 (RCAHMW/1973)
Setting:in struct
Location:on site
RCAHMW/1976, 36: `The stone (Plate 1) discovered in 1861 built into the former rectory, subsequently fractured and re-set in the internal sill of the S.E. window of the nave of St. Madog's Church'.
Westwood/1879, 49: `The stone is 27 inches long and 8 inches wide'.

Macalister/1945, 382: `A block'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 138: `Rough pillar-stone...25 1/2" h. x 5 3/4" w. x ?" t.'.

RCAHMW/1976, 36: `The surviving portion of the pillar-stone, lacking part of the head and the lower part, is 66 cm long and 15 cm wide'.

Condition:frgmntry , poor
Westwood/1879, 49: `[It] has been slightly injured along its upper edge, cutting off the tops of one or two of the letters'.

Rhys/1895, 180: `at least two considerable pieces have been lost, besides smaller bits'.

Macalister/1945, 382: `two fragments have been so preserved: a considerable portion of the stone must have been lost'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 138: `top partly fractured away'.

Decorations:no other decoration



LMADC/1/1     Pictures


Westwood/1876 49 reading only
[...]vecti(s) (PN) son of Guan (PN), lies here.
Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):--]GVECTIF/IL/IVS | GV/ANIHICIACIT
Macalister/1945 382 reading only
Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):--]VECTIF/IL/IVS | --]GV/ANIHICIACIT
(The stone) of Advectus (?) (PN), son of [...]guanus (PN). He lies here.
Nash-Williams/1950 138 reading only
RCAHMW/1976 36 reading only


Orientation:vertical indeterminate
Position:ind ; ind ; n/a ; undecorated
Macalister/1945, 382: `The inscription is in two lines...on the face of the stone'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 138: `Latin inscription (Fig. 150) in two lines reading vertically downwards'.

RCAHMW/1976, 36: `The inscription is in two lines to read downwards (when the stone was originally upright)'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 138: `thinly and deeply picked'.
Macalister/1945, 382: `the letters were pocked'.
Date:400 - 533 (Nash-Williams/1950)

500 - 533 (Jackson/1953)
Language:Latin (rcaps)
Ling. Notes:none
Palaeography:Westwood/1879, 49--50: `has been slightly injured along its upper edge, cutting off the tops of one or two of the letters, so as to leave a little doubt about the first word of the upper line. I think, however, that the whole must be read---



`The letters are very irregular in size; the second letter of the upper line seems intended for an E, the top cross-stroke being broken off and the middle cross-stroke extended so as to join the next letter, clearly C ; this is followed by a vertical stroke, at the top of which I perceive traces of a horizontal one, making a T, there being a very slight line uniting the bottom of the vertical one with the following stroke, indicated in the rubbing, but which I regard as no part of the letter, as all the other strokes are of uniform thickness and distinct. The top of the next letter, F, is also broken off, but it clearly commences the word FILIUS.

`The first letter of the second line is of very unusual form, and might at first sight be mistaken for S.[1] It is however a well-known but uncommon form of G (like a C followed by a gigantic comma). The next letters, VAN, are conjoined, the second stroke of the V forming the first stroke of the A. The remaining letters are clear, the whole being in good Roman capitals and referrible [sic] to the Romano-British period. ...

[1] In fact the inscription, owing to the broken tops of some of the upper letters, had been read VICARIVS SWAN HIC IACIT, and had been supposed to be raised to the memory of a former Vicar of the parish, of there being a meadow near the church which goes by the name of `Swan's Meadow,' or `Swan's Acre,' to the present day. It need hardly be observed that the stone is many centuries older than the time of worthy Vicar Swan'.

Rhys/1895, 180--181 (talking about Westwood's figure): `Let me say, in the first place, that HIC IACIT does not slope upwards towards the end, but runs horizontally below a sort of straight line in the stone. The top of the A stands above that line, for this A, as well as the other A, is taller than the other letters, a peculiarity to be noticed in the old inscriptions of Cornwall. In the next place, the crack which divides the second line of letters from one another runs down along a letter I, the cutting for the lower half of which is visible, but the direction of the crack in Westwood's drawing is not quite right. The upper part of the I is gone with a bit of the stone, its placed being filled up with cement. The first line of letters is so close to the present edge of the stone that I can find no trace of the top bar of the E, of the F or of the T. So the reading VECTI is only a guess, though it is pretty certain to be correct. The letter V, however, is not the first of the line, for at the very edge, where the stone has had a piece broken off some time or other, there is writing which looks like an inverted C. One cannot expect here the prefix con, so I can only think that it is the latter portion of a D or P. The former is the more probable; and in that case it is further probable that the whole word was some such a Latin name as Advectius, or Advectis; but I must confess that I do not know whether such a name occurs or whether a Celtic form Duecti, is out of the question. As to the first letter of the father's name, it looks like a good C with a smaller C inverted around the lower edge of the bigger character. On the whole, I am disposed to think with Westwood, that all this was meant for a G; but however that may be, it is misplaced in his plate, as it should be almost exactly under the C of the top line; and the other letters of the second line should also be shifted some two places towards the right hand. The part of the stone underneath {C}VE is one of the pieces which has been lost, and it becomes a question whether it bore any writing. It was lost at a time when the stone was found in the old wall; Mr. Davies, the rector and the historian of Gower, remembers seeing it , and he is positive and distinct in his statement to me, that the piece in question had no writing of any kind on it. One or two remarks remain to be made as to the lettering. The i's of filius are attached to the lower bar of the F, and to the bottom end of the L respectively. The VA is conjoint, and the letters altogether fairly regular.'

Macalister/1945, 382, `The lower line is complete, for though the part before the writing is lost, it was remembered (1895) that there was no writing upon it. The G's are of peculiar shape, resembling an upright and an inverted C interlocked into the semblence of an S. The FI, LI of FILIVS are ligatured; the A of IACIT rises above the top line of the writing. The G at the present beginning of the inscription is damaged ; of its upper curve only the tip remains, but the lower curve is perfect, just stopping short of the fractured edge of the stone. This latter should not have been read as a D (1895).'

Nash-Williams/1950, 138, `Roman capitals, thinly and deeply picked in rather clumsy style. Some of the letters have clubbed serifs. FI and LI in l. 1 are conjoined; VA in l. 2 is ligatured. The A's are enlarged.'

RCAHMW/1973, 36--37: `The letters are all Roman capitals, with enlarged A-s; the ligatured FI and LI of Filius is a usual feature (cf No. 848), and there is one other ligature (VA). The lower curve of a letter preceding the first letter of line 1 has been variously read as D, G or P but is indeterminable. It is possible that line 2 is complete as it stands.'

Macalister/1945, 382: `The letters...are in good condition, though clogged with yellow-wash'.
Carving errors:0