Corpus Refs: | Macalister/1945:458 Okasha/1993:9 |
Site: | CARDM |
Discovery: | recognised, 1901 Langdon, A.G. |
History: | Okasha/1993, 88, states that `the stone stands in Cardinham churchyard, beside the gate' and that the stone was originally described by Iago as a `huge granite monolith'. Langdon/1896, 226, described it as `leaning against the church-yard wall'. In November 1896 an unrelated disk-headed cross was cemented to the pillar which was trimmed to fit. The disk-headed cross had been removed from the chancel wall during restoration (see Langdon/1896, 354 for drawing). |
Geology: | Okasha/1993, 88: `granite'. |
Dimensions: | 1.95 x 0.42 x 0.4 (Okasha/1993) |
Setting: | in ground |
Location: | on site Okasha/1993, 88: ` in Cardinham churchyard, beside the gate.' |
Form: | plain Okasha/1993: `probably pillar-stone'. |
Condition: | complete , some Okasha/1993: `probably pillar-stone...both the shaft and the cross-head were trimmed before being joined'. |
Folklore: | none |
Crosses: | 1: latin; linear; straight; plain; ind; none; n/a; none; n/a |
Decorations: | other Macalister/1945, 436: `there seems to have been a one line cross at the top'. |
Macalister, R.A.S. (1945): | R{A}NOCOR{I} | FILIMESG{I} Expansion: RANOCORI FILI MESGI Macalister/1945 437 reading only |
Okasha, E. (1984): | [--N.]ORI Expansion: --][N.]ORI Translation: --]n.ori (PN). Okasha/1993 90 reading only |
Thomas, C. (1994): | R{A}NOCOR{I} | FILIMES[G^C]{I} Expansion: RANOCORI FILI MES[G^C}I Thomas/1994 265 substantial discussion |
Orientation: | vertical down |
Position: | n/a ; broad ; below cross ; undivided |
Incision: | pocked Macalister/1945, 436: `apparently pocked'. |
Date: | 500 - 799 (Okasha/1993) 566 - 599 (Thomas/1994) |
Language: | Incomplete Information (rcaps) |
Ling. Notes: | If the reading of Macalister/1945, 436, is correct, then the inscription is in Latin. If, however, the only visible letters are those noted in Okasha/1993, 90, then the language of the inscription is uncertain. |
Palaeography: | none |
Legibility: | poor Macalister/1945, 437: `the reading of the first line is certain: the second line is not so evident'. Okasha/1993, 89: `The text is highly deteriorated; it may be complete although traces of further lettering could remain beneath'. Okasha notes that Langdon could only see three letters. Macalister's reading would therefore appear to be somewhat optimistic, although Thomas/1994, 265, follows it. |
Lines: | 2 |
Carving errors: | 0 |
Doubtful: | no |