In a recess in the wall of a small chapel to the north of the chancel of St Matherian's church, Tintagel (SX 0507 8845)

Said to have been removed from the chapel on Tintagel Island in the early twentieth century; subsequently retained by a builder in St Teath, and then presented to the parish church (Thomas, A. C. 1993, 112–13). Canner in 1982 recorded that 'after many adventures as pig trough and garden ornament' the font had recently come to rest in the parish church (Canner 1982, 11).

In fair condition though battered, worn and heavily lichen-covered; situation good

Tub-shaped bowl, with a rounded rim. Around the top of the bowl is a plain flat moulding, varying from 18 cm (7 in) to 12.5 cm (5 in) in height. Below this is a deep plain moulding with a rounded profile, 5.5 cm (2 in) high and 3 cm (1.1 in) deep.

The interior of the bowl has straight sides and a rounded bottom. The rather large hole has a wide tapering top edge with an incised circular mark which may have been made by a plug. Around the rim of the bowl are three cross-shaped depressions which may have held fixings of some sort and on the inner edge are two diagonal wear marks.

Appendix A item (stones of uncertain date)

Although claimed as an early Norman font (Canner 1982, 11) or 'perhaps just before the Norman Conquest' (Thomas, A. C. 1993, 113), the origin of this bowl is far from certain.

The bowl is rather smaller than most fonts. The only certain example which is of comparable size in Cornwall is the early Norman font from Sithney (Sedding, E. H. 1909, 53–4, pl. XX). Otherwise it is closest in size to the stone bowls from Boscastle and from Trethevey in Tintagel (Tintagel 4), both of uncertain origin (Ills. 246–7 and 277–9). Its irregular shape need not mean it is not a font: the early Norman font at Tresmere is an unusual triangular form, reflecting the shape of the stone from which it was cut (Sedding, E. 1909, 397–8, pl. CLXII), while the irregular oval form of Morwenstow's is well known (Sedding, E. 1909, 295, pl. CXXII).

Against interpretation as a font is the fact that the chapel on the island was never licensed for baptism, although a very early chapel might have baptismal and burial rights by tradition, and a chapel associated with the thirteenth-century castle might have had such rights by reason of its status. The date of the chapel, however, is far from secure. Although partly excavated by Radford who considered it of twelfth- and thirteenth-century date (Radford 1935, 407), Thomas has since argued that it may be eleventh century in origin (Thomas, A. C. 1993, 110–14; followed by Barrowman, Batey and Morris 2007, 322). Be that as it may, the bowl's original association with the chapel is also far from secure, since it is said to have been removed from there over a hundred years ago. Moreover, even if it was found in the chapel, the possibility exists that it could initially have been associated with the castle as a domestic bowl, and then moved to the chapel if it was later thought to be of ecclesiastical origin — the fate of a number of stone mortars and querns (Worth 1967, 390–1).

The various holes and depressions on the rim suggest that, even if it did originate as a font, this bowl has also seen heavy use for some other purpose. In favour of an origin as a font is the fact that a domestic bowl might not have a hole in the bottom and might not be decorated, even though the decoration (two plain mouldings) is very simple.

Uncertain

Canner 1982, 11; Thomas, A. C. 1993, 112–13, ill. 89; Blair 2010, 162, fig. 6