|Discovery:||first mentioned, 1873 White, T.P.|
|History:||Forsyth/1996, 288: `not until the latter half of the nineteenth [century] was any mention made of the ogham inscription [the stone itself having been known since the seventeenth century]. The first to submit the inscription to critical examination was a party from the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, who, on the recommendation of Rhys, included the stone in their 1899 archaeological tour of the Scottish Islands. ... The stone has fallen and been re-erected at least twice. The first recorded fall came in about 1843-4 when the stone was toppled 'by some young men for their own amusement'. The piece that broke off the top as a result of the incident was incorporated into a nearby pigsty, and subsequently into the masonry of new houses built on the site. ... After the fall, on the instructions of the landowner, the stone was dragged back to the top of the hillock and re-erected on its old site `with great care'. It was fixed in place by a mason, but, because the hillock had been quarried on one side, towards the base of the stone, it fell again some twenty years later, i.e. c. 1864. According to local witnesses the condition of the stone was not impaired by the second fall. Rather than re-erect it precisely on the original site, the new owner ordered it be replaced `at a very short distance'.|
|Geology:||Forsyth/1996, 290: `Granite'. Macalister/1945, 484: `Slaty grit'.|
|Dimensions:||1.7 x 0.25 x 0.31 (Forsyth/1996)|
Forsyth/1996, 28: `Though this is not the original location of the stone, according to local tradition, it is very close to it'.
Forsyth/1996, 290: `A tall, four-sided pillar'.
|Condition:||complete , poor|
Forsyth/1996, 290: `Poor...In addition to general weathering, there are a number of more specific injuries, most serious of which is a series of four large, shallow, unevenly spaced chunks missing from the ogham-bearing arris'.
|Decorations:||no other decoration|
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):||VICULAMAQCUGINI|
VICULA MAQ CUGINI
Macalister/1945 484 reading only
|Forsyth, K.S. (1996):||VI[C!][ULA]MAQ[U!][T!]O[M!]GI[L!][I]|
VI[Q!]ULA MAQ[U!] [C!]O[M!]GI[N!][I]
Forsyth/1996 291--298 substantial discussion
|Position:||inc ; arris ; inc ; undecorated|
|Date:||600 - (RCAHMS/1971)|
Jackson in RCAHMS/1971, 96: `perhaps not older than the 7th century'.
400 - 599 (Forsyth/1996)
Forsyth/1996, 297, suggests that Jackson's date may be too late, arguing that `the final vowels -il-u and -i may indeed be present and thus the text need not post-date apocope'.
|Ling. Notes:||Forsyth/1996, 291--297 persuasively argues for seeing this stone as the product of a goidelic milieu.|
|Palaeography:||Forsyth/1996, 295: `Gigha is written in the classic ... Ogham with no drawn stem-line and vowels which are little more than nicks - the 'text-book' form of the script'.|
Forsyth/1996, 292: `The first six letters are extremely doubtful'.