Corpus Refs:Macalister/1949:1061
Discovery:in/on structure, 1840 workmen
History:Macalister/1949, 188: `The stone was placed in the wall... after it was discovered beneath the floor of the church'.

RCHAME/1970, 308, notes that this is one of the few stones whose position was accurately recorded, citing Dorest, Proceedings, 62 (1941), 83--84, that, `on taking down the S. gallery the plastered facing of one of the piers was brought away and thus was laid open the face of a large stone having on its surface a Runic inscription', after this discovery it was relocated: `the stone is placed across the third [S.] pier from the E., being thus about 13 ft. from the ground'. However, the RCHAME/1970 report on this stone also mentions an alternative account of this stone's discovery: that of Hutchins, who claimed that it was found `inverted under the capitals of one of the columns in the nave' (Hutchins, I, 116). The identity of the `Runic inscription' is puzzling, but must presumably be a reference to the Latin inscription on this stone made by a viewer unable to decipher its characters.

Dimensions:1.15 x 0.28 x 0.0 (converted from Macalister/1949)
Setting:in struct
Location:on site
RCHAME/1970, 308: `In N. aisle, reset in E. wall'.
RCHAME/1970, 308: `a pillar stone which has been squared for reuse as building material'.
Condition:incomplete , some
Macalister/1949, 188: `and the stone has been broken, apparently by a settlement of the wall in which it is set'.
Decorations:no other decoration



WRHAM/3/1     Pictures


Macalister, R.A.S. (1949):C{A}TTUG:C | [--]LIUS:GIDEO
Macalister/1945 188 concise discussion
RCAHME/1970 308, 311 substantial discussion


Position:inc ; broad ; n/a ; undecorated
The inscription covers the whole of one face of the stone, presumed to be the broad face.
Date:600 - 799 (RCAHME/1970)
RCHAME/1970, 311: `7th to 8th-century'.
Language:Latin (rbook)
Ling. Notes:RCHAME/1970, 311--312: `The second word in the first line [C...] may have been adjectival or a noun in apposition...The C which follows [the first name] cannot of course be interpreted; it is possibly the first letter of some adjectival epithet. The punctuation point seems to prevent [it] being part of the name'.

For further linguistic discussion see 'Name' notes.

Palaeography:Macalister/1949, 188: `The A is inverted: the second T was originally written G and then clumsily corrected; a vice versa interpretation is also possible, though slightly less in accordance with appearances. LIUS is presumably the end of FILIUS, but although there are about two inches of space vacant before the L, there is no trace of the missing letters. Its seems that the curve below the fourth letter, which turns the T into a G, has been interpreted as an abbreviation for the missing NIS of a gentive GIDEONIS, but this is hardly admissible'.

RCHAME/1970, 311: `The letters are irregular and straggling. The forms are generally insular majuscule, though the A and U and the rounded E are better described as debased Roman capitals. The A in particular is anomalous; it appears to be a reversed example of the capital type with angular cross bar (cf. No. i [WRHAM/1/1]). The fourth letter in the first line looks as though the workman first cut a T, repeating the previous letter, and then corrected to G. The last letter in this line could be O, but this is unlikely. The first four letters in the second line are cramped, as though the cutter began FI]LI.GIDEO and later inserted the US. The central bar of the rounded E is separate from the rest of the letter (cf. No. ii [WRHAM/2/1]). There are traces of forked serifs...Some of the insular forms used in this inscription are found sporadically in the latest Welsh inscriptions of group I, dating from the 5th to 7th century. Their more consistent use in this inscription indicates a date after these forms had become established. Welsh inscriptions of this period are not common and it is difficult to suggest a close parallel. The use of stops to separate the words has no chronological significance'.

Macalister/1949, 188: `The inscription...so far as it remains, is in good condition except for a few slight fractures'.
Carving errors:y