NANTD/1

Corpus Refs:Huebner/1876:54
Macalister/1945:330
Nash-Williams/1950:66
Site:NANTD
Discovery:first mentioned, 1847 inc
History:Westwood/1876, 54--55: `In Jones's `Brecknockshire', vol. ii. p. 624, pl. 6, fig. 5, a description and figure are given of a stone which stood at Vaenor [and was serving] as a gatepost in a wall on the right-hand side of the road, and about 50 yards on the other side of the river Llysevoc.

On unsuccessfully searching for this stone, I was informed that it had been accidentally destroyed by workmen at Merthyr Tydvil on its way to the Swansea Museum, whither it was being carried by a Mr. Richards.

Macalister/1949, 318: `According to Jones: `Placed as a pillar to support a gate or rails in a wall on the right hand side of the road from Brecon to Merthyr, at a distance of about eleven miles from the former, and about fifty yards on the other side of the river Lyseuog'. Sometime before 1847 it was destroyed, when about to be removed to a museum in Swansea -- either intentionally, to prevent the removal, as seems to be implied by Westwood (1853); or accidentally, while on the way, as he states in LW, p.55. In 1886 it is said that the stone had been traced to a brewery in Myrthyr Tydfil, where, apparently, it was lost. The only record of the inscription is a wood-cut in Jones's Brecknockshire'.

Geology:
Dimensions:0.0 x 0.0 x 0.0 (Unknown)
Setting:Lost (present , missing 1847)
Location:Listed in Jones' Brecknockshire but missing by Westwood's paper in 1847 (Macalister/1945, 318).
Lost.
Form:plain
Macalister/1949, 79: `rough pillar-stone'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 79: `Fragmentary rough pillar-stone'.

Condition:n/a , n/a
Folklore:none
Crosses:none
Decorations:no other decoration

References


Inscriptions


NANTD/1/1     Pictures

Readings

Westwood, J.O. (1876):TIR[--]VS | CATIRI
Expansion:
TIR[--]VS CATIRI
Westwood/1876 55 reading only
Huebner, E. (1876):TIR[--]VS | CATIRI
Expansion:
TIR[-- FILI]VS CATIRI
Huebner/1876 19 reading only
Jones, J. (1876):TER[MIN]VS | CATIRI
Expansion:
TER[MIN]VS CATIRI
Translation:
The boundary of Cadir (PN).
Westwood/1876 55 reading only
Williams, T. (1876):TI[BERI]VS | CATIRI
Expansion:
TI[BERI]VS CATIRI
Westwood/1876 55 reading only
Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):--]TIR[--]VS | CATIRI
Expansion:
[E]TER[NI FILI]VS CATIRI
Macalister/1945 319 concise discussion
Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):--]TIR[--]VS | CATIRI
Expansion:
--]TIR[I FILI]VS CATIRI
Translation:
(The stone) of [...]tirus (PN), son of Catirus (PN).
Nash-Williams/1950 79 concise discussion

Notes

Orientation:Indeterminate
Position:n/a ; broad ; n/a ; undivided
Nash-Williams/1950, 79: `Latin inscription in two lines reading vertically downwards'.
Incision:inc
Date:400 - 533 (Nash-Williams/1950)
Language:Latin (rcaps)
Ling. Notes:none
Palaeography:Westwood/1876, 54--55: `The first line of the inscription is much defaced, but seems to have read TIR ...VS. It was however read by the late Taliesin Williams as TIBERIUS. The second line, CATIRI, was plainly carved in good Roman capitals. By Hubner it was read Tir . . . . (flli)us Catiri (Inscr. Christ. Brit. p. 19), and by Dr. John Jones Terminus Catiri, the boundary of Cadir. I was informed also that the Rev. T. Price of Llanfihangel-Cwm-du possessed a rubbing of the stone'.

Macalister/1945, 319: `The gap [in the inscription] holding about six letters if the drawing be correctly proportioned. West (LW, p.55) cites two readings -- Terminus Catiri, by a Dr. John Jones and Tiberius Catiri by Taliesin Williams: both, as they stand, improbable guesswork, but giving some idea of the amount of lettering lost. As Hubner saw, the final VS in the the first line is most likely to have been the end of FILIVS; and we may reasonably substitute FI-LI, written in the usual double monogram form, for Jones's IN and Williams's RI. The M of Jones's TERMINVS might then be NI, and we should thus get a not improbable (E)TERNI FILIVS for the reading of the first line. All those who have seen the stone agree on CATIRI for the second line; otherwise we might be tempted to suggest that if it should ever come to light again -- an improbable contingency --the second name would be found to have been CATVRIGI'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 79: `The lettering was apparently Roman capitals'.

Legibility:n/a
Lines:2
Carving errors:n
Doubtful:no

Names

References