New discussions on the Beckermet Inscription - a possible Goidelic or extra-Goidelic inscription in West Cumbria, & more on the St Bees Giant, published on the 20/01/2026

In Western Cumbria is situated the village of Beckermet, pronounced  "beckERmet" with the stress on the second syllable by people in West Cumbria, although I admit that personally this form of stress pattern is not my natural way of speaking, so I tend to put the stress on the first syllable.

If you head in the general direction of the sea from the main part of Beckermet Village, you will come to an old church, within the grounds of which are two crosses, which I would personally describe as Norse-Gaelic in form and design, although some suggest a more Anglic origin of these crosses.

One of the pillars contains upon one side an inscription. Whilst Cumbria possesses several early Latin and runic inscriptions, the alphabet used in the Beckermet Cross inscription is, well, even more problematic, because nobody is quite sure what alphabet exactly it is, and thus nobody really knows how to read the letters, nor what language it is in, nor what the inscription means. In a sense it is like Cumbria's own equivalent of the Phaisos Disk from Greece.

I remember reading somewhere that the inscription seems to be using a form of the Latin alphabet, similar to that used on some early Christian stones, somewhere in the east of England. I have a distinct feeling that the paper I read this in is in a large box of papers about such monuments in my house, if I find the reference again I will write another publication on this. But anyway, in essence, it does make sense that the inscription would be in some form of the Latin alphabet, or at least, in a kind of extra-Latin alphabet, by which I mean an alphabet but that might be fundamentally connected to the Latin alphabet but not necessarily of identical origin.

Photo below: a close-up of the Beckermet Cross Inscription. Note how some of the letters are identifiable & similar to letters of the Latin alphabet, whilst other letters resemble Latin letters, but not quite enough to be completely sure of them. Other letters do not really resemble Latin letters in any absolute sense. 

With regard to this - the actual origin of the Latin and runic alphabets are disputed. The common, and in my opinion, more boring interpretation, is that all of the alphabets indigenous to northwestern Europe were based on Latin. Personally, I am more inclined to think that they developed alongside the Latin alphabet since ancient times, but do not necessarily come from it. There is also evidence certainly of some kind of writing and alphabetic, rune-like writing and symbols being used at Neolithic sites in parts of the UK, for instance. And some of these letters or symbols at Neolithic sites show a connection to later runic, Ogham and witchcraft letters or symbols used in Britain and Ireland. This is another topic in and of itself, but I thought I would mention it here because it is relevant - and is it also possible that the inscription at Beckermet is representative of an unknown, earlier form of language. The Iberian script for example, is known to have some kind of relationship to the Phoenician and Greek alphabets, but does not appear to directly come from either. Similarly some of the inscriptions in the Canary Islands have been read as having a similar script to the Iberian and related scripts. 

Anyhow, in terms of the inscription at Beckermet, there are possible translations, which are entirely different from each other, depending on how the inscription is read, and upon what language it is thought to be in. Sometimes I do go down the thought path of thinking that written evidence of ancient language is sometimes more sure and solid than that gained through studying more recently attested spoken languages. Then I remember that actually written language is in no way a more "sound" form of evidence because, if there is any certainly about the lettering, or even, in this case, the whole alphabet and language, then the inscription can be read in a whole myriad of ways. Many of the runic and Ogham inscriptions also have a rather vague relationship to actual languages and sentences we can identify, with many examples having formulaic use of language which can be understood, whilst the rest of the inscription may be entirely unintelligible. Still, there are other inscriptions which have been translated - but only if we presume that several letters are missing, that others must be substituted, and if we are assume that certain letters, or symbols, are exactly what we assume. I find early examples of written language in Britain to be utterly fascinating, but they are also a very painstakingly difficult pursuit, and I have a feeling that our entire understanding of them must at some point be re-calibrated to incorporate newer and older ideas about these inscriptions in a more balanced way.  

Photo below: a different view of the Beckermet Cross Inscription, with another old cross monolith to the left of it. More upland areas can be seen in the far distance behind the crosses.

In the book, The cross in the life and literature of the Anglo-Saxons, various translations of the Beckermet Cross inscription are included, and it is quoted that Calverley in Archæologia Æliana 6, 6I, quoted by Calverley, p. 29, gives a Goidelic transliteration of the inscription, which is reported on page 49 of The cross in the life and literature of the Anglo-Saxons to be specifically in Manx Gaelic, the Manx or Goidelic interpretation having been made of the Beckermet Cross by a Mr John Rogers. Although the Goidelic transliteration of the cross inscription is not given in The cross in the life and literature of the Anglo-Saxons, it is included in the St Bridget, Beckermet webpage on the Old Cumbria Gazetteer website, and I presume that the version given on that webpage is the "Manx Gaelic" version described in The cross in the life and literature of the Anglo-Saxons, although the precise kind of language given is not typical Manx nor Goidelic, and it is certainly not using a transcription system that resembles modern Manx orthography! Nevertheless it makes sense that the language would be close to Manx in some way. Below I include the transcription as included in an image on the St Bridget, Beckermet webpage on the Old Cumbria Gazetteer website. The inscription at Beckermet has been transliterated as:
----------------
RINtdlEGNE 
IUdN : lCdIR
qbRE : IMIEC
FOS : Fd : SElFE
Î.XSt. ' . RhN:SI
CR

Which was translated as meaning in English: 
 ----------------
made for
John Mac Cair-
bre gone to
rest in the keeping
of Christ . be gracious to him
Oh Christ

Certainly, some of the transliteration is identifiable with Goidelic words and phrases that I know. Note that the second name Cairbre is written on two lines. I do find it tempting to see a connection to Ireland and to the Goidelic and pre-Goidelic World here. Especially given the other historic and linguistic connections between West Cumbria and the Goidelic and pre-Goidelic worlds. But nevertheless, the above transliteration and translations both rely upon the assumption that certain letters are what they are, and that there are abbreviations used. Now, I do write about ancient written language in Britain, and have I hope contributed some fascinating things. But this does not mean I am good at reading ancient alphabets, not really. I identify and see stuff yes, but I do not regularly work with Latin inscriptions for example, nor do I have an "eye" for identifying different variations of Latin writing. So, this subject of the Beckermet inscription is something that I hope somebody else takes up. And yes, it is important. It should be looked at and studied more. And like many such inscriptions in churchyards, it is badly degrading. Even within the time frame from when the stone was first described til the present, the inscription at Beckermet has degraded. This, sadly, is a common occurrence. And I do think that it might be down to these monuments being better cared for in a more distant past, but also I think it's down to changes in the climate and environment. The rain and elements nowadays seem to be degrading these stones, particular sandstone carved or inscribed stones, much faster now. And in this country we are not doing enough to protect nor to properly study and understand these things. And time is running out. I hope that my urgency makes sense. 

I am inclined to think that perhaps, the inscription might be in some Goidelic or pre-Goidelic language though - because of the strong links to the pre-Goidelic and Goidelic worlds in this part of Cumbria, and also because Beckermet is so close to St Bees, the most western point in Cumbria. It is not that far, for a boatman, to travel from here to the historically Goidelic (Manx) speaking Isle of Man. Nor is it far to travel to the historically Irish-connected and perhaps once pre-Goidelic speaking island of Anglesey, or in Welsh: Ynys Môn. Nor is it far to the once Goidelic or pre-Goidelic speaking region of Galloway in Scotland, and of course all of these places are connected, historically and linguistically, to Ireland. The Irish connections to Cumbria are definitely some of the most under-represented and under-studied. Which is really sad, because I feel that our kinship is natural, ancient, and should be remembered and re-lived again. 

I will nevertheless give the other translations as quoted in The cross in the life and literature of the Anglo-Saxons. A Mr Haigh, presumably through reading the inscription in Old Northumbrian, proposed the following translation of the Beckermet Cross Inscription:

Here enclosed
Tuda Bishop 
The plague destruction before
The reward of paradise after

According to The cross in the life and literature of the Anglo-Saxons, an R. Carr Ellison translated the Beckermet Cross in yet another way, reading it as: 

O. thou loved
offspring Edith
little maid
in slumber waned
Years XII. Pray ye for her soul
Year MCIII. 

Also, according to The cross in the life and literature of the Anglo-Saxons a Reverend John Maughan translated the Beckermet Cross Inscription in yet another way, as:

Here beacons
Two set up 
Queen Arlec
for her son Athfeshar 
Pray for our
souls

As you can well see, these four different translations have pretty different meanings. Perhaps it is time that someone, preferably an expert in medieval forms of the Latin script, took another look at this inscription - because it is still quite plainly a mystery. 

Photo below: a different view of the Beckermet Cross with its inscription upon it. I feel that showing this monolith from multiple angles is important to give a scope of what exactly the text upon the monolith looks like. 

As I mentioned in an unrelated article/blog post I published on this website recently, and in other publications before - there is also a report of an ancient giant being dug up at St Bees, some hundreds of years ago. This individual was said to be 14 and a half yards long, or around 13 and a half foot tall, over 4 metres in height. He was said to be wearing a suit of armour. This whole topic of giants is very confusing, and we have very different manifestations of it. The Fomorians, which I mentioned in my article published yesterday with regard to these connections with Ireland, often came to embody, as an idea, the more destructive qualities associated with giants. They were sometimes described as though in some way other and different from us. Yet, the giant of St Bees was said to be wearing armour, and this is also a sporadic, and relatively common occurrence in reports of ancient giant being found in North America. Some giants were described as hostile towards humans. Whilst others, seem to carry the role of divine heroes.