CARDM/2

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'.

References


Inscriptions


CARDM/2/1     Pictures

Readings

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

Notes

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

Names

References