|Discovery:||recognised, 1878 Price, L.|
|History:||Westwood/1876, 76: `Archaeologists are indebted to the Rev. Lewis Price, Vicar of Llywell, for the discovery and preservation of a very remarkable ornamented stone inscribed with Ogham letters on the edge. In May, 1878, it was standing on the road-side leading from Trecastle to Glasfynydd ready to be used as a gate-post. It was found in a huge heap of stones in the vicinity. The stone has been examined by Mr. G. E. Robinson, one of the Secretaries of the Cambrian Archaeological Association, who forwarded rubbings and notes of it to Professor Rhys, which have been placed by the latter in my hands'.|
Robinson/1878, 221--222: `This stone was found some little time ago upon part of the rough land of the farm of Pentre Poeth, in the hamlet of Capel Llanilid, or Crai, near Trecastle, and, if still in the position in which I saw it, is more readily approached from the latter place than any other, and distant from it about a mile and a half...At the time of its discovery it was somewhat beneath the surface, and was turned up when the land was prepared for agricultural purposes. The shape and size of the stone at once commended it to the favourable notice of the farmer as admirably adapted for a gate post, and for this purpose he had it removed and refixed upside down at the entrance of Pentre Poeth farm, where we found it. The sculptured face attracted the attention of the Rev. Lewis Price, vicar of the adjoining parish of Llywel, at whose earnest persuasion the farmer was induced to postpone his intention respecting it, pending a more accurate examination of the character of the sculpture, and the reading of the Oghams along the edge. Although part of the sculptured face was buried beneath the surface, sufficient could be seen above ground to indicate the character and importance of this monument, and warrant the efforts made by Mr. Price to preserve it intact; and it is regretted that the offer he then made, of supplying at his own cost a substantial oak post in exchange, was not accepted, as in its present exposed position by the side of a public road it is liable to injury. Perhaps on more mature consideration, the present possessor may be willing to forego his claim, and ere long let us hope it will be securely fixed in some sheltered spot in the churchyard of the adjoining parish of Llywel, where both the Ogham inscription and the sculptured face may be clearly seen'.
Macalister/1945, 325--26: `This stone was first brought to notice by Rev. Lewis Price, vicar of Llywell; but its existence must have been known to certain persons previously, as there can be no doubt that it is the monument referred to in a note in AC 1875, p. 193, in which Rhys passes on some hearsay information about an inscribed stone at a place called `Y Castell'. The monument stood on the side of the road from Trecastle to Glasfynydd upon a heap of stones with which it seems at one time to have been covered; and it was rescued from being converted to a gatepost just in time. Soon afterwards it was transferred to the British Musuem'.
|Dimensions:||0.0 x 0.0 x 0.0 (Unknown)|
In the British Museum.
Robinson/1878, 222: `The stone is an oblong slab, of the old red sandstone series, about 6ft long, averaging 20 ins. in width by 4 ins. in thickness, and appears to have been rubbed or otherwise prepared to received the sculpture'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 81: `Rough pillar-stone, with Ogam and Latin inscriptions and (? later) incised pictographs'.
|Condition:||complete , good|
|Crosses:||1: latin; linear; straight; plain; plain; none; none; none; n/a|
|Decorations:||figural; frame; geometric other; other|
Westwood/1876, 76: `The face of the stone is covered with incised markings of a very unique character, as may be seen in my figure reduced by the camera. The design is quite unlike that of any Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, or Irish stone or MS. with which I am acquainted. In the upper part appears a St. Andrew's cross with circles, and in the right-hand upper corner is a figure which may be intended either for a bird (owl?) or a man. The other figures are irregular as well as partially defaced, so that I can make out no very decided pattern'.
Robinson/1878, 223, provides a discussion of some possible interpretations of the decoration.
Macalister/1945, 326--327: `(1.) On the face which bears the Roman inscription there is a single cup-mark, which has no connexion with any of the other sculptures on the monument. ...
(3.) On the opposite face of the stone there is a series of sculpturings, of extraordinary rudeness, in three panels. These are inverted with respect to the inscriptions, and the blank butts for burial in the ground are at opposite ends of the stone. Therefore, when the whole inscription was exposed the sculptures were partly buried, and vice versa. It follows that they cannot be contemporary. When the sculptures are right way up the stone presents an unnatural inverted wedge shape: this possibly, though not conclusively, suggests that the inscriptions are older than the sculptures, and that when the stone was re-adapted for the sculptures it was inverted to shew that the inscriptions had become obsolete...
As to the meaning of the sculptures, that can be a matter for conjecture only; and the guesses that have been published...do not encourage anyone to contribute further to such futilities. The top panel represents a man carrying a shield (?) and below him a ship [Noah's arc?]. The second panel represents a man with a cross on each side, passing between two groups of zigzags (water ?); below, a serpent (?) [Moses crossing the Red Sea, with a reference to the preliminary miracle of the serpents? ?]. The bottom panel shews a man with a crook; a serpent (?) on the dexter side, on the sinister a series of C's which may mean anything or nothing: on the dexter side a summary representation of two animals (?) [David with his sheep, as figured on the cross at Penmon, Angelsey ?]. But designs which make so heavy a drain upon the fount of marks of interrogation cannot be made the basis of any scientifically satisfying speculations!'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 81--82: `The small linear-cross clumsily inserted in the centre [of the Latin inscription] may be a later (? 7th-9th century) addition...The stone was subsequently reset in the ground head downwards and the uninscribed face decorated with incised linear symbols or pictographs, grouped in three conjoined vertical panels with incised border-lines: (i) the top panel is divided transversely into two compartments - the upper containing miscellaneous motifs including a small human figure, facing front on r., and cruciform, dotted, and hatched or `pectiform' devices in the rest of the space; the lower divided centrally and diagonally into pairs of opposed triangles filled variously with reticulated and scroll-like (? or zoomorphic) forms; (ii) small human figure running (?) to front, with arms outstretched, between bands of parallel zigzags, with small linear-crosses in the field to l. and r. and dotted and scroll devices (? representing the ground) below; (iii) small human figure, facing front, holding a bent staff or crook (?) across the body in the l. hand and a bag (?) in the r., with pectiform, crescentic, and zigzag devices in the field around. The distinctive style of the decoration is unique among the Welsh Early Christian monuments, and finds its closest analogies in the prehistoric pagan art of the megalithic and later monuments, particularly those of Brittany and the Atlantic sea-board regions, with an admixture of later elements (e.g. the human figures) perhaps derived from the unsophisticated popular art that continued to flourish in Gaul and the other Celtic regions under the Roman Empire. If this comparison is valid, the present monument may reflect a backwash of Breton and Gallo-Roman influence into S. Wales, following the large-scale British migrations to Brittany in the 5th and 6th centuries. Alternatively, the art may have been introduced into S. Wales via Ireland by the Ogam-using immigrants. In either case, the re-use of the stone presumably followed at no great interval after its original erection'.
|Robinson, G.E. (1878):||MAQ[O]TR[O]NISAL[O]C[O]DNI|
Robinson/1878 222 concise discussion
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):||MAQITRENISALICIDUNI|
Macalister/1945 326 concise discussion
|Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):||MAQUTRENISALICIDUNI|
(The stone) of Maquutrenus Salicidunus (PN).
Nash-Williams/1950 81 concise discussion
|Position:||n/a ; arris ; beside cross ; undivided|
Macalister/1945, 326: `cut upon the sinister edge of the cup-marked face.
 Not on the arris, but on a ridge formed by a thin stratum of harder subtance near thereto, which has resisted weathering'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 81: `The Ogam inscription is incised along the (original) r. angle of the face reading upwards'.
|Date:||400 - 533 (Nash-Williams/1950)|
|Language:||name only (ogham)|
|Ling. Notes:||Robinson/1878, 223: `The other word [SALOCODNI] is peculiar and wholly unknown to me'.|
Macalister/1945, 326: `The word SALICIDUNI seems to be territorial (`willow-town') rather than personal. This is echoed by the Roman [inscription]...once more we see the double C corresponding to the Ogham Q which we suspected on the Inchagoill inscription'.
|Palaeography:||Westwood/1876, 76--77: `Many of the Ogham marks are very indistinct, especially the vowel points. Mr. Robinson states that the latter are seldom shown actually on the edge of the stone, being generally small pit-marks barely to be seen or felt on the under face. Having, however, carefully examined every group of marks in company with Mr. Lewis Price, the Vicar, he is confident that they are accurately given in his drawing from which my figure is copied; only the markings which Prof. Rhys and I were not able to make out in the rubbings are indicated on my plate by dots. Mr. Robinson thinks he can make out MAQOT? RONI, which may be another form of the Cilgerran Macutreni, the O being faint in both cases. He is also convinced that the Ogham letters and ornamentation are of the same date and cut by the same tools'.|
Robinson/1878, 222--223: `The Ogham inscription, as usual, runs along the right edge and back of the stone, commencing from the bottom and reading upwards. It covers the angle for 44 ins. in length, and the strokes forming it are carried along the edge of the stone, are clearly incised, but those on the back are, some of them, very indistinct, especially the `vowel dots'. In reading this inscription, I had the able assistance of the vicar, in consultation over each group of strokes; nor was any one group determined until both of us were agreed in the rendering. Care was taken to obtain an accurate reading, and the sketch of it given below is checked by various rubbings, and every precaution has been taken to avoid error. Still, in our present state of knowledge, or rather lack of knowledge of the Ogham character, I can only claim to show here just what we saw of the inscription, without any bias for an especial reading...The two vowel groups which I have rendered as O in each case may well have been I and E respectively, for they are shown by very faint pit marks, only to be felt, not on the edge of the angle, but on the underside'.
Westwood/1876, 76: `Many of the Ogham marks are very indistinct, especially the vowel points'.
Macalister/1945, 326: `The word SALICIDUNI seems to be territorial (`willow-town'') rather than personal. This is echoed by the Roman [inscription]'.
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):||M/ACCVTRENISALICIDVNI|
Macalister/1945 326 concise discussion
|Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):||[M]/ACCVTRENI+SALICIDVNI|
MACCVTRENI + SALICIDVNI
(The stone) of Maccutrenus Salicidunus (PN).
Nash-Williams/1950 81 concise discussion
|Position:||n/a ; broad ; below cross ; undecorated|
Macalister/1945, 326: `runs down the same face [as the Ogham] in a vertical line'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 81: `The Latin inscription is in one line reading (originally) vertically downwards'.
|Date:||400 - 533 (Nash-Williams/1950)|
|Ling. Notes:||Macalister/1945, 326: `The word SALICIDUNI seems to be territorial (`willow-town') rather than personal. This is echoed by the Roman [inscription]'.|
|Palaeography:||Westwood curiously omits this inscription and only discusses the Ogham.|
Macalister/1945, 326, footnote 2: `The lapidary has actually written SALIGIDVNI, which is perhaps a mere mistake'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 81: `Roman capitals, with one ligature. The small linear-cross clumsily inserted in the centre may be a later (? 7th-9th century) addition'.