|Discovery:||first mentioned, 1810 Fenton|
|History:||Westwood/1856, 49: `The first of the accompanying engravings represents a stone which, in its present state, would present great difficulty in any attempt to decipher it; but it fortunately happens that an engraving of it, before it was broken and a portion of it lost, was given by Mr. Fenton in his History of Pembrokeshire, p. 28. The stone was, at the time of the publication of that work, used as a stile in the hedge of the churchyard at St. Nicholas, in that county, and I believe that (notwithstanding the sacred emblem upon its face, which one would have thought sufficient to have preserved it from descration) it still remains in its desecrated position'.|
Rhys/1873, 6: `Aug. 16. --...St. Nicholas, about three miles from Mathry in the direction of Fishguard. The stone we wished to see has recently been placed in the wall of the churchyard'.
Westwood/1879, 126, quotes the passage from Westwood/1860, cited above, almost verbatim, omitting the last sentence.
Allen/1896, 292: `Formerly used as a stile in the hedge of the churchyard; and now built into the wall of the churchyard'.
Rhys/1905, 85: `The stone is in the church'.
RCAHMW/1925, 379: `Formerly in the churchyard wall (Lhuyd says `on the east side of the porch'), but now fixed against the chancel wall'.
Macalister/1945, 428, `...formerly in the churchyard wall, where the letters were partly hidden, but now built into a pier of the church, facing the Communion table.'
|Dimensions:||0.45 x 0.84 x 0.0 (converted from Macalister/1945)|
Nash-Williams/1950, 217: `Inside church, built into base of S. pillar of chancel-arch'.
CISP: [MH 1997] the stone remains in this position.
Allen/1896, 302: `Rude pillar stone'.
RCAHMW/1925, 379: `a rude stone, 30 inches by 12'.
Macalister/1945, 428: `A block'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 217: `Roughly rectangular slab or pillar-stone. 34" h. x 18" w. x ?" t. Latin inscription and (? later) cross'.
|Condition:||incomplete , some|
Westwood/1856, 49, suggested that some of the stone was missing because the ends of the lines of text were missing.
CISP: The end of each line was revealed, however, when the stone was removed from the wall.
|Crosses:||1: equal-armed; linear; straight; plain; plain; none; none; none; n/a|
RCAHMW/1925, 379: `At a later date what was doubtless intended to be a plain equal-armed cross was carved upon the stone. That the cross followed the lettering is shown by its slightly one-sided position on the face of the stone'.
Macalister/1945, 429: `A plain cross of two lines, scratched on a blank part of the stone, is probably later than the inscription; one arm has been cut short so as not to run into the cross-bar of the H immediately above it'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 217: `Incised linear-cross (Fig. 6, 4), partly overriding the H in l. 2. 7th-9th century'.
|Rhys, J. (1873):||T/VNCCETACEVX | SORDAA/RIHICIA | CIT|
TVNCCETACE VXSOR DAARI HIC IACIT
Here lies Tunccetace (PN) wife of Dagare (PN).
Rhys/1873 6 reading only
Rhys/1905 85 concise discussion
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):||T/VNCCETACEVX | SORDA/ARIHIC/IA | CI/T|
TVNCCETACE VXSOR DAARI HIC IACIT
Macalister/1945 428--429 reading only
|Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):||T/VNCCETACEVX | SORDAA/RIHICIA | CIT|
TVNCCETACE VXSOR DAARI HIC IACIT
Tunccetace (PN), wife of Daarus (PN), lies here.
Nash-Williams/1950 217, Fig. 251 concise discussion
|Position:||ind ; broad ; beside cross ; undivided|
Nash-Williams/1950, 217: `The inscription is in three lines reading vertically downwards'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 217: `Fairly deeply cut'.
|Date:||500 - 599 (Nash-Williams/1950)|
500 - 566 (Jackson/1953)
|Ling. Notes:||Westwood/1856, 49--50: `The only remaining difficulty will then rest upon the first word TUNC, to be treated either as an adverb or as the commencement of the female name CETACE. In the former view the unusual character of the formula may be matched by the word IAM in the Brochmael inscription...the latter view may perhaps be supported by the discovery of some female name in the early records of Wales...The cross inscribed on the stone would appear to be even more ancient than the inscription, as the letter H in the second line has its second stroke shortened to prevent it from running into the left arm of the cross. Possibly this circumstance may throw a little light upon the employment of the adverb TUNC in the present case'.|
Rhys/1873, 6: `the attempt to reduce TVNC, taken to be the Latin adverb, to a compatibility of tense with IACIT, is quite uncalled for'.
Rhys/1905, 86, provides extensive linguistic comment in terms of the metre of the inscription.
|Palaeography:||Westwood/1856, 49--50: `The extent of the fracture may be judged from the word Hic at the end of the second line and the syllable cit at the beginning of the third line, showing that the two letters ja, being the commencement of the word jacit, are now lost, and the same number of letters are lost at the end of the first line; and this appears to be the case from the engraving in Fenton's volume, where the inscription is misrepresented entirely in well-formed equal-sized Roman capitals, its reading being however correctly given as follows |
These letters, of which no attempt at explaining them was given by Mr. Fenton, appear to me to be capable of being read as follows
TUNC CETACE UX-
SOR DAARI HIC IA
the third word UXSOR being evidently an orthographical error for UXOR.
With the exception of the letter T, which occurs in the first and third lines of the inscription, and which, is of an uncial form, it will be observed that all the letters are Roman capitals, tolerably well formed, although irregular in size. We may therefore, I think, safely refer its date to a period but little, if indeed at all, more recent than the departure of the Romans from the Principality.
The letters average 3 1/2 inches in height'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 217: `Roman capitals, in good style, with half-uncial T's'.
Westwood/1856, and Westwood/1879, appear to have been working from an incomplete rubbing as Nash-Williams/1950, 218, Fig. 251 shows a complete inscription.
Macalister/1945, 428-429, states that some of the letters were obscured when it was in the wall, but `the inscription is quite clear'.
Jackson/1953, 273, argues that the name has come from British *Toncetaca, with Latin genitive ending, and that the first element would later give Welsh twng.
Thomas/1994, 93: `a lady with a British name, *Toncetaca (= Latin Fortunata: `Lucky')'.