|Discovery:||first mentioned, 1840 Hitchcock, R.|
|History:||Cuppage et al/1986, 248: `When first discovered, the stone stood buried in peat to within 2 feet (.6m)'.|
Macalister/1945, 140--141: `Now lying prostrate on a peat-covered plateau, at the N.W. end of Brandon Mountain, to the south of the knoll called Masatiompan ... From Hitchcock's notebook we learn that he found this stone upright in the 1840's, when he visited it, but buried in peat up to within 2' of the top: he caused it to be dug out'.
|Geology:||Macalister/1945, 140--141: `sandstone'.|
|Dimensions:||1.91 x 0.38 x 0.2 (converted from Macalister/1945)|
Cuppage et al/1986, 248: `...this stone stands in the elevated and exposed gap between Masatiompan and the steep N slopes of Brandon mountain, and commands a dramatic view to both sides of the mountain range'.
|Condition:||incomplete , poor|
Macalister/1945, 141: `From one face a slab , 4' 3" long and of a maximum thickness of 6 inches, has been removed, there creating a new surface and new arrises. This was almost certainly for the purpose of removing the original (pagan) epitaph; the destroyer has recorded his own name upon the new angles...this ecclesiast doubtless claimed merit for his work of iconoclasm'.
See McManus/1991, 56--57, for a strong counter to such arguments of 'Christianization' of the monuments.
|Crosses:||1: arcs; outline; expanded; n/a; curved; circular; none; none; plain|
Macalister/1945, 141: `...this ecclesiastic...cut, on the new face, a degenerate form of the chi-rho symbol, and on the back of the stone a representation of a sacramental wafer'.
Cuppage et al/1986, 248: `Both faces are inscribed with crosses and there appears to have been some dressing of the stone to prepare surfaces for the carvings. One face bears a Maltese cross with a hook-like expansion at the right side of the upper arm: this is a monogram form of the chi-rho symbol. The opposite face bears a Maltese cross within a circle; the lower arm is linked to the circle by a short, straight stem'.
McManus/1991, 172: `the Arraglen stone (145) is discussed by Henry (1937, [Henry/1937] 276 and 1940 [Henry/1965], 29, where it is described an an imitation of the Brito-Roman type of funerary monument).'
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1902):||QRIMITIRRO ||| N ||| ANNMAQCOMOGANN|
QRIMITIR RONANN MAQ COMOGANN
Macalister/1902 18--19 minor reference
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):||QRIMITIRRON ||| [A]NNMAQCOMOGANN|
QRIMITIR RON[A]NN MAQ COMOGANN
Macalister/1945 140--141 concise discussion
McManus/1991 65 reading only
|Cuppage, J. (1986):||QRIMITIRRON ||| [AN]MA[Q]COMOGANN|
QRIMITIR RON[AN]N MA[Q] COMOGANN
Ronan(PN) the Priest son of Comgan(PN).
Cuppage/etal/1986 248--250 concise discussion
|Orientation:||vertical up along down|
|Position:||n/a ; arris ; beside cross ; inc|
|Date:||500 - 550 (Ziegler/1994)|
Ziegler/1994, 228. Also see McManus/1991, 78, who sees this inscription as 'late'.
|Ling. Notes:||McManus/1991, 91: `genitive forms often have the appearance of nominatives and Macalister was mislead by this in the case of 145 QRIMITIR RON[A]NN MAQ COMOGANN, which he described as a (Christian) `signature' as opposed to a (pagan) `epitaph'. Here RON[A]NN, MAQ and COMOGANN have the deceptive appearance of nominatives but QRIMITIR with -IR, not -ER, is quite clearly genitive'. Also see a similar discussion on p. 117.|
Also see McManus/1991, 89, 80, 96, 118.
|Palaeography:||Macalister/1945, 141: `The turn of the angle has confused him [the carver], so that on the sinister edge he has inverted the side-scores'.|
Macalister/1945, 140--141: `...rather worn'.
Cuppage et al/1986, 248: `The top right hand corner is damaged and the AN recorded by Macalister is unclear as is the Q further down the same edge. Otherwise the scores are clearly legible'.