|Discovery:||first mentioned, 1838 Chatterton, Lady H.G.M.|
|History:||Okasha/Forsyth/2001, 148: `The stone was examined and drawn by Chatterton in 1838. She described it as outside the oratory and `Near the east end', adding that it was not upright but `in a slanting position' ... Windele saw it in June of the same year and described its location as `at the NE angle of the Cell in the little burying ground attached ... In 1878 Petrie said the stone was `at the east end of the oratory' and his illustration suggests that the stone was still in the position described by Chatterton and Windele ... in 1898 the stone as still `close to the Oratory ... on the north-east side' ... In 1949 Macalister described the stone as `Formerly prostrate, but now standing in the graveyard surrounding the ancient oratory. Photographs published by Barrington (1979) and by Weir (1980) show the stone surrounded by grass but by 1986 it had been placed in its present position, set in a bed of stones'.|
Macalister/1949, 96: `Formerly prostrate, but now standing in the graveyard surrounding the ancient oratory'.
Cuppage et al/1986, 289: `The cross-slab stands at the E end of a low rectangular mound or bed of stones, including much quartz, which measures 9m E--W x 5m N--S'.
|Dimensions:||1.11 x 0.3 x 0.1 (Okasha/Forsyth/2001)|
Okasha/Forsyth/2001, 147: `The stone stands at the head of a leacht type of structure, to the north-east of the oratory'.
Okasha/Forsyth/2001, 148: `The stone is a tall, slim pillar, apparently intact'.
|Condition:||complete , some|
Okasha/Forsyth/2001, 148: `apparently intact. Part of the surface at the top of the stone has been lost, but this may be ancient damage. The lower half of the carved face is more weathered than the upper, especially on the left side'.
|Crosses:||1: equal-armed; linear; straight; expanded; lozenge; none; outer curv; none; n/a|
Macalister/1949, 96: `At the top an equal-armed cross in a circle, beneath which is a singular attempt at geometrical ornament with no apparent meaning: it resembles the device on a stone at Tyvoria, near Ballyferriter in this barony, for which see Plate xlii, fig. marked `Q'. The word LIE (`stone') has been read into it, but quite without justification'.
Cuppage et al/1986, 289: `The upper part of its W face is occupied by an equal-armed cross within a circle, the head continuing at least 5cm beyond the circle and the side arms expanding slightly where they meet the circle and projecting slightly beyond it. The ornament beneath this does not form any recognisable pattern'.
Okasha/Forsyth/2001, 148: `The upper third of the face is occupied by a large equal-armed cross set in a circle. The top arm projects beyond the rim and the side arms swell at the point of intersection and continue a little beyond. Below the cross head is a vertical stem which is intersected near its foot by a long horizontal stroke. In the area above this cross-stroke, to the left and right of the stem, is a somewhat confused arrangement of curved and straight lines. Some of this was previously interpreted as part of the text'.
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1949):||COLUM | MACDINET|
COLUM MAC DINET
Cuppage/etal/1986 289 concise discussion
Macalister/1949 96 concise discussion
|Okasha and Forsyth (1999):||COLUM | [….]MEC|
Colum (PN) [….]mec
Okasha/Forsyth/2001 148--149 reading only
|Position:||n/a ; broad ; below cross ; undivided|
Okasha/Forsyth/2001, 148: `a two-line text, reading vertically downwards with the bottoms of the letters to the viewer's left'.
|Palaeography:||Macalister/1949, 96: `The AC of MAC is very faint, the following D barely traceable: it might be C or A. The D is followed by IN, not by M. The last letter is most likely T, though it might also be C; certainly not L. The old reading MAC MEL is wrong'.|
Cuppage et al/1986, 289: `The inscription on the lower part of the stone has been variously interpreted in the past and is now extremely faint. Macalister... gave the reading:
COLUM MAC DINET
The 1st word can still be read but the other two are not clear. MAC is possible but not certain. Dinet is also possible but the 1st letter is barely traceable, the next could be M or IN, the E is clear and the final letter appears to be a C but could possibly be T'.
Okasha/Forsyth/2001, 148--149: `The text is in insular script, possibly minuscule ... The second line remains uncertain. Macalister read it as mac dinet. Although he admitted that the letters A and C were `very faint', the D `barely traceable' and the T might have been C ... Macalister's IN is more plausibly interpreted as M and, although the E is clear, the final letter appears to be a C not T'.
Cuppage et al/1986, 289: `extremely faint'.
Okasha/Forsyth/2001, 148--149: `The text is ... rather deteriorated ... The second line remains unclear'.