MANOR/1

(Manor Water)

Corpus Refs:	Macalister/1945:511
Site:	MANOR
Discovery:	recognised, 1890 Anderson, R.W.
History:	RCAHMS/1967, 176, notes that the inscribed stone `lay until 1890, in association with a cairn of stones, on the hill-side about 220 yds. WNW. of the walled enclosure on the left bank of the Newholm Hope Burn...in that year it was transferred to the enclosure and about 1934 it was removed to Peebles Museum. By that date the cairn had been demolished, but its position is probably marked by a circular setting of stonework which can be seen in the position just stated, and in which there lies a concrete replica stone'. Macdonald/1935--36, 36: `It seems to have been first noticed about 1890 by Robert Welsh Anderson, son of the shepherd on Kirkhope Sheep farm...on the instruction of his master, Mr Simon Linton of Glenrath, Anderson brought it 300 yards down the hill and placed it within a railed enclosure, where it remained until quite recently, when...its was transferred to the shelter of the Peebles Museum'.
Geology:	RCAHMS/1967, 176: `hard whinstone'.
Dimensions:	0.91 x 0.24 x 0.0 (converted from RCAHMS/1967)
Setting:	in display
Location:	Peebles Museum Store of Peebles Museum.
Form:	cross-marked A rough block, evidently intended to stand upright.
Condition:	incomplete , some The top of the stone is damaged and some carving has been lost (part of the cross and the beginning of the second line of text).
Folklore:	none
Crosses:	1: equal-armed; linear; expanded; plain; square; none; none; none; n/a
Decorations:	frame The first line of text is prefaced by a cross. The whole is bounded by two lines, vertical relative to the lettering. The lines are 1 ft. 3.75" (0.40m) apart. There is no evidence to support the contention of Macalister/1945, 487, that the inital cross had a chi-rho loop.

References

Macalister/1945 486--488 drawing substantial discussion
MacDonald/1935-36 35--39 photo,drawing substantial discussion
RCAHMS/1967 176, Plate 9a concise discussion

Inscriptions

MANOR/1/1

Readings

MacDonald, G. (1935):	+CONINIE \| [E]RTIRIE Expansion: + CONINI(A)E [E]RTIRI(A)E MacDonald/1935-36 37--39 reading only
Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):	+CONINIE \| [TV]RTIRIE Expansion: + CONINIE TVRTIRIE Macalister/1945 487--488 reading only
Jackson, K.H. (1967):	+CONINIE \| [-][E]RTIRIE Expansion: +CONINI(A)E ERTIRI(A)E RCAHMS/1967 176 reading only
Thomas, C. (1992):	+CONINIE \| [E]RTIRIE Expansion: + CONINIE ERTIRIE Translation: (Stone of) Coninia (?) Ertiria (PN). Thomas/1992a 4 reading only

Notes

Orientation:	vertical down
Position:	n/a ; broad ; n/a ; panel The inscription is within two bordering lines. If the border lines are taken to be vertical then the inscription would have been horizontal. On the other hand if the border was horizonal the text was vertical.
Incision:	inc Macdonald/1935-36, 36: `cut'. RCAHMS/1967, 176: `pecked'.
Date:	500 - 599 (RCAHMS/1967)
Language:	name only (rcaps)
Ling. Notes:	none
Palaeography:	Thomas/1992, 4: `Regular capitals, Rs with oblique stroke horizontally'. RCAHMS/1967, 176 (quoting K. H. Jackson): `The lettering, especially in view of the Rs, suggests the early part of the sixth century'. The inscription is in standard capitals except for the horizontal bar Rs and the Ns which have a shorter right ascender than left.
Legibility:	some RCAHMS/1967, 176, notes that part of the cross and the beginning of the second line of text have been damaged by flaking. Quoting K. H. Jackson: `there is room for two, or at most three, letters at the beginning of the second line where the stone has flaked away. Actually there is what appears to be part of a broken-off letter just before the first R, in the form of a short diagonal groove meeting the top of the down-stroke of the R. Before rt this letter must have been a vowel; it cannot have been V since the angle is far too great, and can only have been E with a diagonal topmost bar. Such E's however scarcely occur in the Dark Age inscriptions of Britain, though the analogous F is not rare; and moreover the two other E's in this inscription have horizontal bars. The nature of the letter must therefore remain uncertain...The second word has been taken to be Martiria, but the fragmentary letter cannot be A; or Ertiria, which would suit very much better the possible broken E. Macalister's Turtiria is fanciful, both epigraphically and philologically'.
Lines:	2
Carving errors:
Doubtful:	no

Names

Coninia (Language: latinised celtic; Gender: female)
RCAHMS/1967, 176 (quoting K. H. Jackson): `[Latin genitive] of the feminine first declension, in -e for Classical -ae. Coninia may represent a somewhat older form *Cunignia, the masculine of which actually occurs in two inscriptions in Wales, in the genitive; Cunigni, perhaps about AD 500, and Cunegni, with less correct spelling, probably fifth-century. The Welsh descendant is Cynin, and the name means `little dog'. The Irish cognate name Conín, which has been invoked, is scarcely likely to be relevant in this geographical context'.
Ertiria (Language: latinised celtic; Gender: female)
RCAHMS/1967, 176 (quoting K. H. Jackson): `[Latin genitive] of the feminine first declension, in -e for Classical -ae... Ertiria, a form presupposed by the Welsh woman's name Erthir'.

References

Macalister/1945 486--488 substantial discussion
Macdonald/1935-36 35--39 photo substantial discussion
RCAHMS/1967 176, fig. 187 substantial discussion
Thomas/1992a 4 concise discussion