LAEL2/1

Corpus Refs:Huebner/1876:146
Macalister/1945:381
Nash-Williams/1950:87
RCAHMW/1960:1081(i)
Site:LAEL2
Discovery:non-arch dig, 1865 workmen
History:Westwood/1867, 342: `Two or three years ago, in digging a grave in a newly-enclosed piece of ground adjoining the churchyard of Llanhaiarn, formerly called Gardd Sart, there was discovered the block of stone'.

Anon/1877, 328: `The inscribed stone discovered in Gardd y Sant...now occupies a somewhat perilous position in the old schoolroom, whence we strongly hope that it might be transferred to the church for security and preservation'.

Hemp/1923, 319: `now preserved inside the church'.

Macalister/1945, 362: `Formerly lying in the parish schoolroom, whither it had been removed after its discovery in digging a grave in a piece of land, added to the churchyard shortly before; now built into the inner face of the W. wall of the N. transept of the parish church'.

Geology:
Dimensions:1.35 x 0.32 x 0.0 (converted from Macalister/1945)
Setting:in struct
Location:on site
Nash-Williams/1950, 88: `Inside church, built into W. wall of N. transept'.

RCAHMW/1960, 110: `now mounted on two brackets on N. wall of N. transept'.

Form:plain
Westwood/1877, 342: `the block of stone, 4 feet 3 inches long, of which a sketch is subjoined, and on which is inscribed...the two latter words being cut upon a bevelled-off face of the stone'.

Macalister/1945, 362: `The two lines of writing are separated by a ridge running along the central line of the inscribed face'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 88: `Rough pillar-stone'.

RCAHMW/1960, 110: `Roughly hewn pillar-stone'.

Condition:complete , some
Rhys/1871, 10: `a stone cracked through the middle'.

Macalister/1945, 362: `though the stone has been broken in two'.

Folklore:none
Crosses:none
Decorations:no other decoration

References


Inscriptions


LAEL2/1/1     Pictures

Readings

Westwood, J.O. (1867):AHORTVSEIMETIACO | HICIACIT
Expansion:
AHORTUSEI METIACO HIC IACET
Translation:
Ahortusei (PN) Metiaco (PN) [lies here].
Westwood/1867 342 reading only
Rhys, J. (1873):ALHORTGEIMETIACO | HICIACET
Expansion:
ALHORTGEIMETIACO HIC IACET
Rhys/1873 10 reading only
Rhys, J. (1874):AH^L/HORTVSEIMETIACO | HICIACET
Expansion:
AHORTV SEIMETIACO HIC IACET
Rhys/1874 247 reading only
Westwood, J.O. (1876):AHORTVSEIMETIACO | HICIACET
Expansion:
A HORTVSEIMETIACO HIC IACET
Westwood/1876 179--180 reading only
Westwood, J.O. et al (1877):ALIORTVSELMETIACO | HICIACET
Expansion:
ALIORTVS ELMETIACO HIC IACET
Anon/1877 328 reading only
Cambrian Society (1877):ALHORTVSELMETIALCO | HICIACET
Expansion:
ALHORTVSELMETIALCO HIC IACET
Anon/1877 328 reading only
Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):ALIORTVSELMETIACO | HICIACET
Expansion:
ALIORTVS ELMETIACO HIC IACET
Macalister/1945 362 reading only
Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):ALIORTVSELMETIACO | HICIACET
Expansion:
ALIORTVS ELMETIACOS HIC IACET
Translation:
Aliortus(PN) the Elmetian lies here.
Nash-Williams/1950 88 reading only
RCAHMW (1960):ALIORTVS:ELMETIACO | HICIACET
Expansion:
ALIORTVS ELMETIACO HIC IACET
RCAHMW/1960 110 reading only

Notes

Orientation:vertical down
Position:inc ; both ; n/a ; undecorated
The published sources are undecided as to whether the bevelled surface of the stone makes two faces, or one with a ridge, eg, cf Macalister/1945, 362 and Nash-Williams/1950, 88.
Incision:pocked
Macalister/1945, 362; `pocked'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 88: `lightly picked'.
RCAHMW/1960, 110: `lightly picked'.
Date:400 - 533 (Nash-Williams/1950)

466 - 499 (Jackson/1953)
Language:Latin (rcaps)
Ling. Notes:Rhys/1874, 247: `This is the only instance I know of iacet on a Romano-British stone; the usual form is iacit'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 88: `The classical form iacet (instead of iacit) is exceptional in Wales...though normal in Gaul. Elmet (Elfed) was the name of the ancient British Kingdom corresponding roughly to what is now the West Riding of Yorkshire, whose existence as a separate territorial division in the sub-Roman period is here directly attested... Aliortus, a native of the region, had apparently settled in N. Wales and died there'.

Palaeography:Westwood/1867, 342: `The inscription is entirely cut in Roman capitals of good proportions, although slightly irregular in size'.

Rhys/1874, 246--247: `On my former visit [see Rhys/1873] I read it --

ALHORTVGEIMETIACO

HIC IACET

but I had grave doubts as to the G, and as I had not duly taken into account the red lead with which the letters had been filled, I thought it right to visit the stone again. The second character contains all the lines necessary to make a conjoint LH, but there is no lead in the line forming the bottom of the L; if this is to be taken as a sure indication, the reading is simply H...What I read as G he [Westwood] read as S, but a line at the top of it would make it a good Hiberno-Saxon G, but the said line shows no trace of red lead, and as the G would be out of keeping with the rest of the letters I have no doubt that the right reading is S. Unfortunately the red lead is at present not to be depended very much upon, for I can find no trace of it in the letters HIC IAC, though no doubt it was once there, as it appears now in the two succeeding letters. On the whole I would represent the inscription thus at present:

AH^L/HORV SEIMETIACO

HIC IACET'.

Westwood/1876, 179--180: `the whole being in good Roman capital letters of good proportions, but slightly irregular in size. The second letter has an oblique line or dash at the bottom of its first upright stroke, apparently making it into an L, so that it may be taken for H, LH conjoined, or LI.

I made a rubbing of the inscription at this visit, and although there appears the oblique stroke at the bottom of the first portion of the letter following the initial A, there appears to be a slight cross-bar 1 1/5 inches long joining the first and second upright strokes. There is likewise a slight nearly horizontal stroke at the top of the S(1), which is, I think, only a fracture in the stone; the I preceding the M has an apparent oblique base (making it into an L), and there is no trace of an L preceding the terminal CO, nor do I see any trace of the horizontal stroke after the final O.

(1) It is still doubtful whether this s or g is to be considered as the last letter of the first word or the first of the second word'.

Hemp/1928, 319: `The lettering resembles closely that on the other stone [LAEL1/1]'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 88: `Roman capitals'.

RCAHMW/1960, 110: `in the first word O and R are joined by a central bar'.

Legibility:good
Westwood/1867, 342, states there is `no difficulty in any of the letters', but Westwood/1879, 179--180, notes there are some problems with the LI or H (second and third letters) and the L or I in the middle of the top line where the stone is broken.

Macalister/1945, 362: `in good condition'.

Lines:2
Carving errors:0
Doubtful:no

Names

References