| Corpus Refs: | Davies/etal/2000:F5 |
| Site: | PLOIN |
| Discovery: | first mentioned, 1640 Le Grand, A. |
| History: | Davies et al/2000, 131--32: `In Le Grand's time this granite pillar was described as being inside the chapel of Saint Budoc; Le Pelletier saw it within the parish church of Plourin but it had disappeared by 1837 when Kerdanet published his revised edition of Le Grand's work...Le Pelletier's original manuscript was compiled in 1716 but he was encouraged to revise and abridge it for publication. The revised version, known as the `Lesquiffiou manuscript', formed the basis of his printed dictionary, eventually published posthumously in 1752. However, the corresponding account of the inscriptions in the Lesquiffiou manuscript has been scored out and did not appear in the published version of the dictionary. There are therefore two autograph sketches made by Le Pelletier, one a copy of the other, to compare with the engravings in Le Grand's `Histoire admirable de Sainct Budoc', made more than half a century earlier. Comparison of all three assists in the reconstruction of what was actually to be seen on the lost stone in the 17th and 18th centuries'. |
| Geology: | Davies et al/2000, 131: `granite' |
| Dimensions: | 1.44 x 0.32 x 0.32 (Davies/etal/2000) |
| Setting: | Lost (present 1712, missing 1837) |
| Location: | Davies et al/2000, 131, state that it was seen at Plourin church by Le Pelletier in 1712, but noted as missing by Kerdanet in 1837. |
| Form: | megalith Davies et al/2000, 132: `The third of the Plourin stones appears … to have been a re-used Iron-Age stele of tapering rectangular form with chamfered angles. It was, however, much shorter than the other: Le Grand gives its height as 4˝ [Breton] feet (about 144cm), with each of its four broad faces being a good foot across at the base (32cm), tapering to half a foot at the top (16cm), the four narrow faces being only half as broad'. |
| Condition: | n/a , n/a |
| Folklore: | none |
| Crosses: | none |
| Decorations: | Davies et al/2000, 133: `There appears to be a downward curving line across the top of the stone. Below this there are two lines of text running vertically down along its long axis'. |
| Davies, W. et al. (1999): | NOM{AI}LIFILIUS | VENOM{A}ILI Expansion: NOMAILI FILIUS UENOMAILI Translation: ..]nomailus(PN) son of Uenomailus (PN). Davies/etal/2000 133 reading only |
| Orientation: | vertical down |
| Position: | E ; broad ; n/a ; undecorated Davies et al/2000, 133: `The inscription was carved on the east face. There appears to be a downward curving line across the top of the stone. Below this there are two lines of text running vertically down along its long axis. The pyramidal shape of the stone indicates the correct direction of the lettering and its reading'. |
| Incision: | ind |
| Date: | 550 - 699 (Davies/etal/2000) Davies et al/2000, 135: `The name forms used on this stone are early and suggest a date in the late 6th or 7th century, as does the lettering'. |
| Language: | Latin (rcaps) |
| Ling. Notes: | none |
| Palaeography: | Davies et al/2000, 134: `The letters are largely capitals with the possible exception of the S at the end of the first line, which may be half-uncial. The FI of the first line and the LI of the second appear conjoined, while the first I of line 1 has been placed within the inverted arms of the A, possibly as a later correction. The use of a backward N, with an oblique stroke which goes from bottom left to top right, inverted angle-bar As, the comb-shaped M, as well as the serifs on letters such as I, L, V, A, and F, are indicative of a date range within the late 5th, 6th or early 7th century. The three examples of L with a leftward extension from the top of the ascender are paralleled at Guer (GUER1/1] as well as at Tintagel [TNTIS/1] and other sites in south-west Britain, Wales, and Wareham [WRHAM/3]'. |
| Legibility: | n/a |
| Lines: | 2 |
| Carving errors: | 0 |
| Doubtful: | no |
Nomaili, inspite of a Nemagli from Wales, is exceptionally unlikely as a complete name. Since it is unlikely that father and son bore identical names, it could stand for [Teger]nomaili (see above) or alternatively [Cu]nomaili (cf. OB Cunmailus or [Co]no-maili (cf. Conomagli above, OB Conmael), both from Celtic *Kuno-maglos'.
With respect to linguistic dating criteria, the coincidence of magl(o-) having already gone to mail- and Uindo- to Uen(o)-, with the retention of ancient stem vowels (e.g. Ueno-), would suit the late 6th or 7th century. Although the forms cited above from the Saints' Lives point to the possible later survival of archaic spellings, it is likely that old manuscript sources had been used in such cases, thereby accounting for the archaisms. There is no evidence that such a tradition persisted for contemporary indi-viduals commemorated in stone after about 700'.