|Discovery:||first mentioned, 1855 inc|
|Geology:||Macalister/1945, 258: `Of a greenstone, said (1856) not to be local'.|
|Dimensions:||1.27 x 0.28 x 0.3 (converted from Macalister/1945)|
Macalister/1945, 258: `Now standing in a niche in the choir of the Cathedral'.
|Condition:||inc , inc|
Macalister/1945, 258: `The stone is chipped on the top, probably by the masons who adapted it as building stone, but is otherwise in good condition'.
|Decorations:||no other decoration|
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1907):||LUGUDECCASMAQI[MU]COINETASEGAMONASDOLATIBIGAISGOB|
LUGUDECCAS MAQI MUCOI NETA SEGAMONAS DOLATIBIGAISGOB
Of Dolativix (PN) the smith Lugud's (PN) son, tribesman of Nia Segamain.
Macalister/1907 171--178 reading only
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):||LUGUDECCASMAQI ||| [MU]COINETASEGAMONAS ||| DOLATIBIGAISGOB[--|
LUGUDECCAS MAQI [--][M][U]COI NETA-SEGAMONAS Macalister/1945, saw the 3rd line as a 2nd inscription. DOLATI BIGA-ISGOB[--
Macalister/1945 258--260 reading only
Ziegler/1994 275 reading only
|Orientation:||vertical up along down|
|Position:||n/a ; arris ; n/a ; undecorated|
Macalister/1945, 258, notes that the stone carries two distinct inscriptions, `the first, on two angles, (up-down), pocked; the second, on a third angle, chiselled'. In a footnote Macalister adds, `This difference of technique, inidicating a difference of origin, is sufficient to disprove Rev. Dr Henebry's (intrinsically improbable) attempt to connect the two inscriptions by translating dolati Biga isgob `disciple (dalta) of Bishop Bigos' (Ivernian 7 : 123)'.
|Ling. Notes:||McManus/1991, 116, 117, 125.|
|Palaeography:||Macalister/1945, 257--258: `At least three inches must have been removed, however, for otherwise there would have been some indication of the B-half of the M in MUCOI...The missing three inches give room for a short name interposed between MAQI and MUCOI in the first inscription. The MU and CI of MUCOI are lost. Below NETA the angle is spalled, but the fracture must have preceded the cutting of the inscription, as the lettering follows the present line of the edge. In the second inscription there is nothing surviving after the final B: vague scratches on the fourth angle exist, but are too indefinite to suggest a continuation of the epitaph'.|
Macalister/1945, 259--260: `BIGAISGOB = uici episcopus...(rural or assistant bishop). This Ogham, therefore, intruded on the earlier inscription, is of Christian character'.
McManus/1991, 61: `...the interpretation...of 263 as bearing the equivalent of vici episcopus (BIGA ISGOB)...[is]...extremely doubtful'.