RDRTH/1

Corpus Refs:Okasha/1993:44
Thomas/1994:1205
Site:RDRTH
Discovery:first mentioned, 1740 Borlase, W.
History:Tangye/1985, 171: `The inscribed stone would have survived until the 15th century, when it was broken and used as building material for the church. ...The solid Georgian nave which we see today was built in 1768 It was during this rebuild that the inscribed stone, along with the nave, was destroyed'.

Okasha/1993, 218: `the stone is now lost'.

Geology:
Dimensions:1.07 x 0.25 x 0.0 (converted from Borlase/1740)
Setting:Lost (present 1740, missing 1768)
Location:The stone was recorded by Borlase in 1740. The church was rebuilt in 1768 and it seems likely the stone went missing then (Tangye/1985, 171).
Form:plain
Okasha/1993, 218: `The stone appears to have been an uncarved pillar-stone'.
Condition:n/a , n/a
Okasha/1993, 218, states that from the 1740 drawing it is `unclear whether it was complete or incomplete'.
Folklore:none
Crosses:none
Decorations:no other decoration

References


Inscriptions


RDRTH/1/1     Pictures

Readings

Okasha, E. (1993):MAVOUIH | VITO[--]
Expansion:
MAVOUIH VITO[--]
Okasha/1993 218--219 reading only
Thomas, C. (1994):MAVORIFI[-- | VITO[--]
Expansion:
MAVORI FI[LI] VITO[RI]
Translation:
(The Stone) of Mavorius (PN) son of Victor (PN).
Thomas/1985 173--174 reading only
Thomas/1994 284 reading only

Notes

Orientation:vertical down
Position:n/a ; inc ; n/a ; undecorated
Incision:n/a
Date:400 - 1099 (Okasha/1993)

550 - 600 (Thomas/1985)
Language:Incomplete Information (rcaps)
Ling. Notes:If the interpretation of Thomas/1985, 173--174, and Thomas/1994, 284, is correct then the language of the inscription would be Latin. Okasha/1993, 219, accepts that this is `plausible', but appear to not accept it.
Palaeography:Thomas/1985, 174, suggests that the forms of M, A, and T indicate a date in the period 550-600.
Legibility:n/a
Lines:2
Carving errors:0
Doubtful:no

Names

References