Select a site alphabetically from the choices shown in the box below. Alternatively, browse sculptural examples using the Forward/Back buttons.
Chapters for this volume, along with copies of original in-text images, are available here.
Object type: Inscribed slab
Measurements: Not recorded
Stone type: Probably sandstone
Plate numbers in printed volume: Ills. 521-2
Corpus volume reference: Vol 10 p. 291-2
(There may be more views or larger images available for this item. Click on the thumbnail image to view.)
Sketched by Lhuyd c. 1698 and stated by him to be located 'by olchon house' (Lhuyd 1909–11, II, 92). Redknap and Lewis (2007, 532) quote a letter from Macalister which gives evidence that the stone 'fell a victim to some disciple of Macadam' (see also Macalister 1945, 475).
Tall narrow slab with incised inscription. The two surviving sketch drawings, both made c. 1698 for or by Lhuyd, were published in Morris' edition of Parochialia (Lhuyd 1909–11, ii, 92), and reprinted by Nash-Williams (1950, fig. 254). A photograph of one of the original manuscript drawings has been published by Redknap and Lewis (2007, ill. H3).
Inscription The inscription is only known from the 1698 sketch drawings. It consists of two lines in Latin and reads downwards. Redknap and Lewis note that the first line is indecipherable and offer the following reading:
C [. . . . . . . . . . .] O
. . .]LLIIPARENTS
. . .] llii parentis
. . . of . . . ius his parent
In the same entry Gifford Charles-Edwards adds comments on the letter forms, noting that 'the initial C was squared, that the A of PARENTIS was inverted, with the IS indicated by a superscript bar above what appears to be a half-uncial T' (Redknap and Lewis 2007, 531–2). She notes that Nash-Williams in 1950 suggested that the upper line might read IA]CIT IN HOC TVMVLO (. . . lies in this tomb) (Nash-Williams 1950, 221).
The text on this missing stone has proved a rich source for speculation and interpretation. Nash-Williams (1950, 221) noted that the mention of parents on the Llanveynoe stone is in keeping with many of the early Christian inscriptions on the Continent, and Redknap and Lewis (2007, 531–2) have supported a date in the sixth century.
