Corpus Refs:Macalister/1949:1048
Discovery:in/on structure, 1936 Jennings, H.R.
History:Okasha/1993, 179: `The stone was discovered in January 1936, `hidden in the south-west wall of the church...under nine layers of plaster'. Around 1936, it was photographed while still in the wall. By 1949 it had been removed from the wall and was in the church'.

See also Macalister/1949, 179, and Thomas/1994, 290.

Geology:Macalister/1949, 179: `Granite'.

Thomas/1994, 290: `fine whitish granite'.

Dimensions:1.79 x 0.35 x 0.33 (Okasha/1993)
Setting:in ground
Location:on site
Okasha/1993, 179: `The stone is now inside Madron church, fixed to the floor at the west end of the south aisle'.
Okasha/1993, 179: `The stone is a pillar stone containing carving'.

Thomas/1994, 290 describes the stone as a `tall slab'.

From Okasha's photograph (Fig. II.32) and the drawing in Thomas/1994, 291, Fig. 17.13, the stone appears to have a curved bottom end which is decorated. Either this end of the stone is incomplete, or it was never intended to be set upright on this end.

Condition:incomplete , good
Okasha/1993, 179: `it is now incomplete'.
Crosses:1: latin; outline; expanded; plain; inc; none; none; other; decorated

Macalister/1949, 179: `This inscription is capped with a cross of very peculiar form, the top of which was trimmed off by the masons. Some random lines on the face of the stone seem to be attempts at decoration by the writer'.

Thomas/1994, 290--91, Fig. 17.13: `The entire face of the thin slab, over six feet long, is ornamented...There are motifs top-and-bottom, a near-complete cartouche, transverse incised lines and various long wavering surface fissures...There is a small panel with three vertical lines at the base, and at the top there is a `paddle-armed' cross standing on a line with looped terminals. a motif that by this time (first half of the seventh century) no longer shows its origin in the chi-rho cross with linear base'.



MADR2/1/1     Pictures


Macalister, R.A.S. (1949):(i) FILI{A} | GVE{N}{N}CREST (ii) HADNOB || VIS
Macalister/1949 179 reading only
Okasha, E. (1985):NR | QON[F.]LI[--] | [.....]NN[A/R]L[..]
NR QON[F.]LI [--]NN[AR]L[..]
--] Qon (PN) Fili[--].
NR QON[F.]LI [--]NN[AR]L[..]
--] Qonf[.]li (PN) [--].
Okasha/1993 179--180 reading only
Thomas, C. (1994):VIR | QO{N}FAL FILI{V}[.] | VE{N}{N}O/RCIT
(My) husband Qonfal (PN) son of Vennorcit (PN).
Thomas/1994 290--91, Fig. 17.13 reading only


Orientation:vertical down
Position:inc ; broad ; below cross ; panel
Date:600 - 699 (Thomas/1994)
Thomas/1994, 290: `[its] characteristics...point to seventh century date'.
400 - 999 (Okasha/1993)
Language:Incomplete Information (rcaps)
Ling. Notes:Okasha/1993, 180: `QON[F.]LI could perhaps be a name in the genitive or a name followed by [FI]LI; neither of these is certain and none of the rest of the text can be interpreted...The text as it stands today does not support Macalister's reading'.

Thomas/1994, 290, discusses Macalister's reading and suggests it was a late attempt in poor light and the results are unreliable. Thomas goes on (290--91) to discuss the inscription claiming that the first line reads VIR which if correct is unique in insular inscriptions, and means `husband', or even `my husband' and that a widow has comissioned the memorial. The second name is British (see name table).

Thomas/1994, 291, goes on to say `the first name [is] quite legibly QONFAL. The question is what the scriptor or ordinator wanted to convey. If he still knew the convention that medial C (as in Uennorcit) had to be used for /g/, albeit by now lenited, he may have selected Q on its own to represent /k/. What seems the likely answer is that his F -- instead of V (for /w/) or M (for /m/) -- stands for lenited M, /[mu]/, and that though the A misrepresents a diphthong or lengthened vowel the name is actually Conmael (< *Cuno-maglos)'.

Palaeography:Macalister/1949, 179: `The second inscription...[has] fantastic lettering'.

Okasha/1993, 179: `it is not...certain what script was used. The letters, 7 to 10 cm. in height, read downwards facing left'.

Thomas/1994, 290: `The lettering is almost all there, but much of it is cut fairly lightly...The memorial starts with a small superscript VIR...In FILIV(S the v is inverted and the s is now barely detectable; in the lower second name, the N's are also reversed, OR is an odd ligature (like capital C and script R) and the final IT is crammed together'.

Macalister/1949, 179: `The second inscription is difficult to decipher, owing to its fantastic lettering'.

Okasha/1993, 179: `The text is probably complete but much of it is now highly deteriorated; it is not even certain what script is used'.

Thomas/1994, 290: `The text is almost all there'.

Carving errors:0