Corpus Refs:Macalister/1949:1024
Discovery:in/on structure, 1929 inc
History:Nash-Williams/1930, 396: `This stone was discovered during the reparation work now being carried out by His Majesty's Office of Works at Ogmore Castle, Glamorgan. The stone was found embedded in a floor within the castle'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 160: `Found embedded in a floor in Ogmore Castle'.

RCAHMW/1976, 55: `It was discovered at Ogmore Castle in 1929 built into the base of a 19th century limekiln, and was transferred to the National Museum of Wales'.

Geology:Nash-Williams/1930, 396: `It is of quartz sandstone'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 160: `Local quartz sandstone'.

RCAHMW/1976, 55: `local sandstone'.

Dimensions:0.86 x 0.7 x 0.23 (RCAHMW/1976)
Setting:in display
Location:National Museum of Wales (Cat: 30.425)
Nash-Williams/1950, 160: `The stone is in the National Museum of Wales (Accession No. 30.425)'.
Form:Cramp shaft B
Nash-Williams/1930, 396--397: `comprises the basal portion (with tenon) of a shaft, whose shape and detail strongly suggest a free-standing cross of the type of the Great Cross at Merthyr Mawr (see Arch. Camb., 1899, p. 156). The dimensions of the stone are as follows: height, 2 ft. 10 ins, with tenon (or 2 ft. 3 1/2 ins, without); width, 2 ft. 3 1/2 ins. at the top tapering to l ft. 11 ins, at the bottom (above tenon); thickness, 10 ins. The shaft is inscribed on both faces'.

Macalister/1949, 163: `It measures 2' 3" x 2' 3" (at top, 1' 10 1/2" at bottom) x 0' 6 3/4"...The top of the stone is broken away, carrying with it the cross which no doubt once surmounted it, as well as the upper part of each of the inscribed panels...A tenon projects from the bottom of the stone, to fit into a mortice in a base-stone'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 160: `Basal portion of a shaft (? of a composite slab-cross. Cf. No. 240 above), with tenon below (? for mounting in a socketed base). 34" h. (overall) x 27 1/2" w. at top, diminishing to 23" at bottom (above the tenon) x 10" t...The shaft is inscribed on the two main faces and decorated on the edges with rudely carved or incised patterns (weathered and damaged)'.

RCAHMW/1976, 55: `Incomplete shaft of a composite slab-cross of which the cross-head and base are lacking...The rectangular block...with a rough tenon at the foot is 86cm high...The main faces, each carrying an incomplete inscription within triple-moulded borders, were probably framed originally by angle-mouldings which have weathered away and have been trimmed down'.

Condition:incomplete , some
Macalister/1949, 162: `The top of the stone is broken away, carrying with it the cross that no doubt once surmounted it'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 160: `Basal portion of a shaft...weathered and damaged'.

Decorations:geometric key pattern; indeterminate

Nash-Williiams/1930, 397: `The two sides of the shaft are decorated with debased key and key-and-scroll patterns respectively'.

Macalister/1949, 162--163: `[the inscriptions are] within framing panels, one on each of the broad faces...there is on the sinister edge a rectangular figure, containing a stiff rectilinear decoration. On the opposite edge there is a similar, but smaller and simpler pattern, above which are the last four lines of another inscription with two letters in each line'. This latter inscription is only seen by Macalister.

Nash-Williams/1950, 160: `The shaft is inscribed on the two main faces and decorated on the edges with rudely carved or incised patterns (weathered and damaged). Front. Part of a vertical panel with moulded borders containing a Latin inscription...Right. Vestiges of a linear pattern with incised rings. Back. Part of a vertical panel with moulded borders containing a fragmentary inscription...Left. Vestiges of a lightly carved rectangular fret pattern'.

RCAHMW/1976, 56: `Side (ii) to the left of (i) [side with OGMOR/1/1] has traces of two panels within moulded borders, the upper one with a vertical fret-pattern, the lower one possibly with horizontal frets, all much weathered...Side (iv) shows two panels divided horizontally by grooves (remnant of the moulded borders), the upper panel containing a messed cross with looped arm-ends set between incised rings, the lower with a single T-fret'.



OGMOR/1/1     Pictures


(The field called)...erci...which field Arthmail (PN) gives to God (in the presence of) Angelicus (?) (PN) and Nerttan (PN) (?Herttan) (PN) and the son of Epilus (PN).
Nash-Williams/1930 402 substantial discussion
Williams, I. (1932):[--] | EST[-- | QUODDED[-- | ARTHMAIL | AGRUMDO | E/TGLIGUIS | E/TNERTAT | E/TFILIEP~I~
Be it known to all that Arthmail (PN) has given a field to God and to Glywys (PN), and to Nertat (PN), and to Fili (PN) the bishop.
Williams/1932 233 substantial discussion
Be it known to all men that Arthmael (PN) gave a field to God, and to Glywys (PN), and to Nerttan (PN), and to the son of Epilius (PN).
Macalister/1949 160 concise discussion
Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):[--] | EST[-- | QUODDE[.] | ARTHMAIL | AGRUMDO | E/TGLIGUIS | E/TNERTAT | E/TFILIEPI
Be it known to all that Arthmail (PN) has given a field to God and to Glywys (PN) and to Nertat (PN) and to Fili (PN) the bishop.
Nash-Williams/1950 160, Fig. 173 concise discussion
Be it [known to all men] that Arthmail gave (this) field to God and Glywys (PN) and Nertat (PN) and his daughter.
RCAHMW/1976 56 concise discussion


Position:inc ; broad ; n/a ; panel
Nash-Williams/1930, 397: `The inscription (Fig. 4) on the better preserved of the two faces comprises seven lines with the first and last lines incomplete. The lettering is defined by double grooves bordering the edge of the panel'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 160: `Latin inscription (incomplete) untidily set out in seven lines (? eight originally) reading horizontally (Fig. 173)'.

RCAHMW/1976, 56: `An inscription on side (i) surviving as seven lines somewhat tilted from the horizontal'.

Macalister/1949, 162: `pocked'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 160: `coarsely and fairly deeply picked'.
Date:1000 - 1099 (Nash-Williams/1950)

1000 - 1099 (RCAHMW/1976)
Language:Latin (rbook)
Ling. Notes:Davies/1982b, 259, 261, 270 discusses the terminology of this inscription.

Paterson/1931, 176--177: `With reference to Professor Macalister's reading of the line TANGLIGUIS on the fron of the stone (Arch. Camb. LXXXV, page 402), it may be stated, for what it is worth, that there is a farm-name on the O.S. map, Ty Tanglwst, near Pyle, which occurs at various times as Ty Tanglwys, Tangelust grange, Tanglus-lond. It appears to contain the female personal-name Tanguistel recorded twice of different persons in the Margam charters of the twelfth-century. There is also Merthir Gliuis in Bk. of LlandÔv, p.225, which is identified in an editorial note as Clivis at Newton Nottage. Both places are within a short distance of Merthyr Mawr'.

Editor/1931, 177: `Tangwystl, Tanglwst, and Glywys, Gliwis were once common personal names'.

Macalister/1949, 163: `There is some parallelism between this and the last inscription [Macalister/1949, no. 1023]. Both relate, in different ways, to the appropriation of a piece of ground (the Conbelani inscription is not necessarily sepulchral). Both invoke `Gliguis' and `Nerttan''.

Nash-Willams/1950, 160: `As Sir Ifor Willams has shown, the inscription apparently records the dedication of a piece of land to a church or monastery. Glywys, a local saint, and Nertat are perhaps mentioned again on No. 239'.

RCAHMW/1976, 56: `The words sciendum before and omnibus (OMIB;?) after the first surviving word would complete the sense, giving a formula found in early land grants.[1]

[1] Arch. Camb., LXXXVII (1932),p. 233'.

Palaeography:Nash-Williams/1930, 397, 399--402 (quoting Macalister): `After prolonged examination in all lights, however, drawings were finally prepared in the Department of Archaeology of the National Museum of Wales accurately indicating the surviving letters. These, together with rubbings, were submitted to Professor R. A. S. Macalister, who kindly sends the following detailed commentary:---

`Of the other inscription (Fig. 6), the first surviving line is too fragmentary for decipherment. It preserves part of the letters E R C (or T or conceivably U) I...but there is nothing to show to what sort of word these letters belong. I take it for a field-name.

The second line is quite clearly QUOD DEO.

The next gives us the name ARTHMAIL. Unfortunately his parentage is not recorded. He may be the son of Iudhail, king of Glywysing, whose family was closely associated with Abbot Samson at Llantwit (see Book of Llandav, ed. Evans and Rhys, p. 191). Another Arthmail, king of Gwent, performed exactly the same act of making over a property to the church, as is recorded in the same book, p. 237.

Then comes AGRUM DA. I think the last letter is A, not O; its sinister side is flattened; and I think further that I can trace in the rubbing the little projections above and below which distinguish the letter from an O. If the QUOD of the line but one above is meant to agree with AGRUM, it should have been QUEM; but I need not say that anything is possible in the Latinity of these inscriptions.

In the next line we have [A over T] G L I G U I S, of which for the moment I need only say that the minuscular T, beneath the A, presumably completes the word DAT.

A peculiar character begins each of the two following lines. I take it to be a compendium for ET, found frequently in MSS., and in stone in the inscription on Caldey Island (for I have quite abandoned an interpretation which I once adventured of this inscription, which gave a different meaning to the character). Passing over the next line for the present, we come to the last line, which appears to read ET FILI EPILI -- recalling the Epillus whose name appears on the coins of the Lemovices, and a lady named Epilla, who dedicated a votive inscription found at Luxeuil. The line above is disturbed with horizontal strokes, like that already noticed on the other face; it looks like ET NER[A over T]. The N is of the minuscular form; and I am tempted into the mazes of speculation by the resemblance of this name to HERTTAN, found on one of the Merthyr Mawr chapel inscriptions. The minuscular N and minuscular H are very like one another; have we here one and the same man, who may have been called either Nerttan or Herttan? If so, we must infer that when our scribe wrote [A over T], he meant to produce a compendium for TAN. Indeed, there must be some reason why he twice superposed the a to the t within this short inscription, with no apparent reason. If this be sound, we must return to the line above and read it T A N G L I G U I S, the initial T being part of the last word of the preceding line; which opens further speculations about a possible ANGLICUS having crossed the border, and having become sufficiently naturalized to witness a legal transaction. For that these are the names of witnesses to Arthmail's deed of gift seems to be the most likely hypothesis.

So that I would tentatively interpret this inscription thus:


`(the field called)...erci...which field Arthmail gives to God (in the presence of) Anglicus(?) and Nerttan (?Herttan) and the son of Epilus''.

Williams/1932, 232--238: `In Arch. Camb., 1930, 396--402, Mr. Nash-Williams gives a very careful and complete description of an inscribed stone lately discovered at Ogmore Castle, Glamorgan. For the details I must refer the reader to his notes, and the excellent photographs which accompany them. There are two inscriptions, both incomplete, one on the back and the other on the front of the stone. I shall deal only with the latter.

Professor Macalister, working on drawings and rubbings prepared in the Department of Archaeology of the National Museum of Wales, read this inscription as ERC(? or T)I [ ]/ QUOD DEO/ ARTHMAIL/ AGRUM DA/TANGLIGUIS/ ET N (? or H)ERTTAN/ ET FILI EPILI(?), and interprets it as `(the field called)...erci...which field Arthmail gives to God (in the presence of) Anglicus (?) and Nerttan (? Herttan) and the son of Epilus'. He takes quod agrum together, explaining quod as quem, for, as he says with much truth, `anything is possible in the Latinity of these inscriptions'. A comparison, however, with certain grants to churches preserved, in the Book of Llandaf, and in the Life of St. Cadog, suggests another reading and a different interpretation. The first line has been broken off; and this is what I make of the rest:

1. - - - - - - - - -

2. EST- - - - - -







My suggestion for the missing first line is SCIENDUM, and for the second half of l. 2, OMNIB; (for Omnibus). I cannot read ER at the beginning of this line, for the second letter is very similar to the last letter in l. 6; and quite different from the minuscule r seen in Arthmail (l. 4), agrum (l. 5), nertat (l. 7). The third letter is like the lower half of a minuscule t, or c.

In l. 3, I read ded[it]: the second d is read o by Dr. Macalister, but as the stone has flaked off, destroying the upper part of this letter, d is quite possible, and there is room in the line for two more letters, as the stone is broader at the top.

In l. 5, the reading do is certain: it stands for deo, as often in MSS.

Line 6 begins with a character which I read as the contraction for et: so also l. 7, but in this case one can also read a over t. Line 8 begins with a symbol easily recognisable as et. I ought to have pointed out that the final t in l. 7 is written under the a, and that there is little to distinguish it from c. Underneath it, in the lower right-hand corner of the stone, one can read an i.

In l. 8, a horizontal line is cut above pi; it then comes straight down, forming a right-angle, cutting off EPI from the perpendicular stroke in the corner, which, as just noted, may be read as i. In MSS. ep~i is the usual contraction for ~episcopi~.

The whole would thus read, Sciendum est omnibus quod dedit arthmail agrum do~ et gliguis et nertat et fili ep~i~ (= episcopi), `Be it known to all that Arthmail has given a field to God and to Glywys, and to Nertat, and to Fili the bishop'. As it is usual to specify the locality of such grants, perhaps we ought to read `this field', i.e. the field where the stone was originally placed.

These are some of the parallels I have noted in the Book of Llandaf:---

Page 161. Sciendum est sane omnibus in dextera parte brittannie quod...

Page 162. Sciendum est quod Cinuin rex...dedit deo et sanctis Dubricio et teliauo...et inmanu Aidan episcopi (in the MS. epi).

Page 168. Sciendum est quod Cuchein filius Gloiu dedit ulliam...deo et sanctis Dubricio et Teliauo et in manu Guodloiu episcopi.

Page 174. Sciendum est quod dedit Morcant...ecclesiam...deo, etc.

Page 175. Sciendum est nobis quod dedit Ilias podum...deo et dubricio et teliauo et berthguino episcopo (in the MS. epo).

Page 179. Sciendum est quod Elfin dedit uillam...deo et sanctis dubricio. teliauo et Oudoceo.

So also in the Vita Sancti Cadoci, C.B.S., 86, 87, 88, 90 (Sciendum est quod Terengual dedit agrum Lecguoidel Deo et Cadoco), 92, etc. The sequence Sciendum est quod dedit, followed by the name of the giver, is thus well attested: and quod must be the conjunction `that' in sentences of this type.

The gift is first of all to God, deo: but in Early Welsh script do~ occurs as a contraction for deo, e.g. The Book of St. Chad, p. 18. L.L., xlv, Osdendit ista scriptio quod dederunt ris et luith grethi...do~ et sc~o eliudo...qui franxerit maladictus erit a do: cp. also p. xlvii, do~ et sc~i eliudo.

After deo comes the saint or saints: so in our inscription, do et Gliguis. It is safe to assume that Gliguis was the patron saint of an ecclesiastical establishment in the vicinity of Ogmore Castle. And the Book of Llandaf helps us here also, with its merthir gliuis on the border of Tref Ret iuxta Merthir miuor `close to Merthyr Mawr' -- to use the modern name. The boundary of Tref Ret is given `lengthwise from Merthyr Glywys to the river Ogwr' (longitudine a merthir gliuis ad amnem ocmur, L.L. 224--5). A saint called Glywys was, therefore, commemorated in close proximity to Ogmore Castle, where this particular stone was found. Evidently it had not been carried a great distance from the original site. Dr. D. R. Paterson and the Editor of Arch. Camb. (1931, 176--7) have already drawn attention to this Merthyr.

As for the form Gliguis, it gives us the usual orthography of the ninth and tenth centuries for Glywys: medial w was often written gu, though the root did not contain a g, e.g. petguar for pedwar (cp. L. quattuor). In the Brychan documents printed by Wade-Evans in Cymmrodor XIX, 30, Gwladus, daughter of Brychan, and the mother of Cadog, is described as vxor gwenliuc filij glywys cornubiensis (from B.M. Cott. Dom. I). Gould and Fisher (L.B.S., III, 131) make Glywys Cernyw to be the son of Gwynlliw Filwr ab Glywys : cp. Rees, C.B.S., 146, the father of Gunlyw is called Gliuusus (Dr. Evans, Gliuisus, Reports, II, 1160); in the Vita S. Cadoci, Rees has Gluigius for the king who gave his name to Gleuguissig (Glywysing), C.B.S., 22; Evans reads Gliuguis For a full treatment of these names, see Dr. Lloyd, H.W., 273-4. In the Book of Llandaf (L.L., 76) we have `merchguino filio gliuis'. Probably the name was once fairly common -- a derivative of glyw, `lord' --and there is no call for making the Ogmore Glywys a king in Cornwall or Glywysing: this bearer of the name was a saint! Merthyr Glywys denoted his burial place.

Line 7. Et Nertat . On the analogy of the grants quoted above, I take Nertat to be the name of another saint. The field was given to God, and to Gliguis, and to Nertat, just as the other dedications are to God, and Dyfrig, and Teilo, etc. If the reading stands, one can compare neirthiad, e.g. Book of Taliesin, 46, 2, nerthi ath wlat lydan (a mis-reading of Old Welsh nerthiat gwlat lydan, where the e is for mediaeval ei, cp. the Juvencus poems, per (peir), couer (cyweir), rhyming with Meir (`Mary'), ninth century): 74, 9, achrist vy neirthat (i.e. `and Christ my helper', neirthat being a derivative of nerth, and the termination -iat, denoting the agent. The omission of the consonantal i in -iat is a characteristic of Southern Welsh): 10, 5, Dews duw delwat. gwledic gwaed neirthyat (the full form in -yat): Red Book Poetry, 40, b 26. Adef nef neirthyat: 27 a, Naf...gwann wyf ym nerthwyf. vy neirthyat vych (Lord, I am weak. May I become strong! Be thou my strengthener).

If any one prefers the reading Nertaci, cp. Holder, II, 722, Nertacus (C.I.L., XIII, 1442, Diis Manibus...item Nertaci avi, Nertacus vivus posuit). I am very doubtful, however, if such a form is possible in an inscription containing forms like Gliguis, Arthmail, which are demonstrably later than the Dervaci, Lovernaci, Elmetiaco type, occurring in older lettering. My vote is very definitely in favour of Nertat, though I cannot find an instance of its use as a proper name elsewhere, except, perhaps, in the Conbelani inscription, from the same district (Merthyr Mawr). The possibility is worth considering that both Gliguis and Nertat are mentioned in that much debated inscription. ...[There follows a lengthy discussion, for which see MMWR2/1]

To return to the Ogmore stone, l. 8 et fili epi: here again I must refer to the L.L. grants, especially that on p. 175, where et berthguino epo (=episcopo), follows deo et dubricio et teliauo, for epi with the contraction sign must stand for episcopi or episcopo. As for fili, it may be for filio, `and to the son of the bishop', or preferably, for Fili, a personal name, surviving, for instance, in Caer-ffili, Rhos Efili (?), in Wales, and Kervili (?), Kerfily, in Brittany (Gould and Fisher, L.B.S., III, 11, 12, n. 2). In the facsimile facing p. 29 in Evans's Book of Llandav, l. 4, hoies epi occurs for `homines episcopi': and so passim: epc for `episcopus', and epo for `episcopo'. It is thus safe to venture episcopi for the epi of this inscription: and if fili be taken as a proper name, fixed for all cases, then epi for epo cannot be a bar, with such Latinists as these, cp. L.L., XLVII, do et sci eliudo, where sci is used for the dative, sancto.

I am greatly indebted to Mr. V. E. Nash-Williams for an excellent rubbing of this inscription, which cleared up several doubtful points. He tells me that dedit would just fill line 3; do is certain in l. 5; and he agrees that the compendium at the beginning of lines 6, 7, 8, is equivalent to et'.

Macalister/1949, 163: `This name in No. III [MMWR2/1] can be, and always has been, read Herttan; on the other hand No. III indicates how we are to read the rest of the name: there it is unambiguously ERTTAN. No IV [this stone, OGMOR/1] has -ERT[A over N], which suggests that the last combination of letters is to be read as an abbreviation for TAN'.

Nash-Willams/1950, 160: `Latin inscription (incomplete) untidily set out in seven lines (? eight originally) reading horizontally...Round half-uncials...with normal abbreviations. The final T in line 7 is written under the preceeding A'.

RCAHMW/1976, 56: `The lettering is chiefly in half-uncials with square forms of E and F, the usual symbol for et and manuscript abbreviation `DO' for Deo; the final T of the penultimate line is inserted below the A, utilising a surface fracture. Abrasion of the surface has obscured part of the last line: after the clear E are punctuation dots, and the succeeding letter is more probably minuscule S than P or F (the lower stroke or loop is part of the abrasion), followed by two vertical strokes and faint traces of a final letter; the reading EPI (for episcopi)[2] would not account for all the visible strokes'.

Nash-Williams/1930, 397: `The decipherment of the inscriptions was very difficult owing to the damaged condition of the faces'.
Carving errors:0



OGMOR/1/2     Pictures


Macalister, R.A.S. (1930):[--]E | DISUMMICRO | SIHUGENTI | BRANTUI | BRANCIE
In the name of the Most High God: the Cross of Jesus, for the family of Brantuus (PN), son of Brancia (PN).
Macalister/1949 162 concise discussion
Nash-Williams/1930 399 substantial discussion
Nash-Williams, V.E. (1950):[--] | DISUMMI[--]RO | SI[--]HGESTI | BRANTUI | [--]US[--]
In the Name of God Most High...[followed perhaps by the name of the persons by and for whom the cross was erected].
Nash-Williams/1950 160 concise discussion
RCAHMW (1976):--] | DISUMICRO | SI[.]HGERTH | BRANTUI | [.]RUS[-- | [--]
[In the name] of God Most High, the cross of...
RCAHMW/1976 56 concise discussion


Position:inc ; broad ; n/a ; panel
Nash-Williams/1930, 397: `Four lines only are preserved, the rest being lost where the bottom of the stone has been rubbed smooth. The lettering here is bordered by triple grooves'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 160: `inscription (Fig. 173) in four lines reading horizontally, with at least one line fractured away at the top and one or more lines defaced by weathering at the bottom'.

RCAHMW/1976, 56: `The inscription on side (iii) survives in four lines with traces of at least one other line, in lay-out and script similar to that on side (i), increasingly eroded towards the base'.

Macalister/1949, 162: `pocked'.
Date:1000 - 1099 (Nash-Williams/1950)

1000 - 1099 (RCAHMW/1976)
Language:Latin (rbook)
Ling. Notes:none
Palaeography:Nash-Williams/1930, 397--399 (also quoting Macalister): `After prolonged examination in all lights, however, drawings were finally prepared in the Department of Archaeology of the National Museum of Wales accurately indicating the surviving letters. These, together with rubbings, were submitted to Professor R. A. S. Macalister, who kindly sends the following detailed commentary:---

`A priori one would expect the inscriptions on two faces of a stone fragment to be of the same extent. As there are seven lines of writing on the one face, and only four on the other, I presume that a space for three lines is broken or defaced on the latter side.

To take the shorter inscription (Fig. 7) first. Obviously it began like one at Margam, IN NOMINE (perhaps written INOMINE) DI SUM (M)I. INOMINE is all broken away except the bottom curve of the E; I think I can trace indications of the bottom of other letters in the rubbing, but without complete assurance. DI SUMI is plain enough, in the second line. A line cut through and below these letters is possibly a guide-line for the engraver; there are similar lines in the Merthyr Mawr inscriptions. But are these lines on the Ogmore stone (for there are others on the other side) certainly artificial? [Yes! V.E.N.-W.] After SUMI there come three letters which appear to be CRO, though the C is not of the shape that we should expect the cutter of this inscription to cut; its curve is too shallow. But I cannot see how else to take it. The next line begins S I, followed by two uncertain letters. In the second of these, the rubbing suggests a rather square-bottomed U to me rather than the minuscule H of your pencilling; and indeed if these letters are not CROS IHU, I am unable to conjecture how to take them. The Goidelic word cros, instead of the Latin crux, arouses suspicion; but the interpretation will have to stand, so far as I am concerned, till someone thinks of something better. The next word is G E N (I take this letter for a minuscular N) T I -- GENTI. In the following line is the name BRANCUI -- presumably the genitive of the name which we find at Baglan, BRANCU (not Brancuf, pace Westwood). A similar (feminine?) name follows in the next line, B R A N C I(?) E, and I suppose the lost next line began with FILI. So that my tentative interpretation of this inscription is:


`In the Name of the Most High God, the Cross of Jesus for the family of Brancu, (son of) Brancia''.

Macalister/1949, 163: `Above the O at the end of the first remaining line of the shorter inscription [this one] there is the lower curve of an O or an e belonging to the lost line above'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 160: `Round half-uncials'.

RCAHMW/1976, 56: `The final letter of the first line is O rather than U, giving a variant form of Crux, while the final letter of the next line, H rather than I, partly coincides with the incised frame. The complete inscription presumably began with In Nomine (cf. No. 928) and concluded with a conventional phrase (as on Nos. 910-12)'.

Nash-Williams/1930, 397: `The decipherment of the inscriptions was very difficult owing to the damaged condition of the faces'.

Nash-Williams/1950, 160: `fragmentary inscription...at least one line fractured away at the top and one or more lines defaced by weathering at the bottom'.

Carving errors:0



OGMOR/1/3     Pictures


Macalister, R.A.S. (1949):O[.] | DO | RT | HU
Macalister/1949 163 concise discussion


Position:inc ; narrow ; n/a ; undivided
Macalister/1949, 163, sees this inscription as being above the pattern on the edge of the stone.
Date:None published
Language:Incomplete Information (rbook)
Ling. Notes:none
Palaeography:No modern authority other than Macalister/1949, 163, sees this as an inscription.
Only Macalister/1949, 163, sees this as an inscription.
Carving errors:0