|Discovery:||first mentioned, 1842 Wakeman, W.|
|History:||Petrie/1878, 43: `An illustration of this stone has already been published by the late Earl of Dunraven, in his Memorials of Adare Manor (p. 164), where it is stated that Dr. Petrie was of opinion that this cross belonged to the ninth or tenth century. It has been described and illlustrated by Mr. W. F. Wakeman in his Hand-Book of Irish Antiquities, p. 96...Drawn by Mr. W. F. Wakeman for Dr. Petrie, in the year 1842'.|
Macalister/1916, 161--162: `This stone is not actually lost, as we know where it is; but it is lost to Inis Cealtra. It was removed by the late Lord Dunraven to Adare many years ago, apparently under the impression that the Conn whom it commemorates was the ancestor of the O'Quins...I have not seen [the stone]'.
Macalister/1949, 91: `Now at Adare, Co. Limerick'.
Okasha/Forsyth/2001, 89: `The stone was first recorded in 1842 by Wakeman who drew it for Petrie ... In 1865 the stone was in Adare Manor. Quin stated that it `was brought, some years ago, from Inis-cealtra' ... Macalister recorded that the stone had been taken to Adare Manor but that he himself had not seen it ... In 1949 he repeated that the stone was at Adare ... as did Lionard in 1961 ... although it is not certain if Lionard had independent information or was repeating Macalister's statement. There is no trace of the stone at Adare Manor, now a hotel, and it must be assumed to be lost'.
|Dimensions:||0.6 x 0.45 x 0.0 (converted from Okasha/Forsyth/2001)|
|Setting:||Lost (present 1842, missing 1916)|
|Location:||Macalister/1916, 161--162: `This stone is not actually lost, as we know where it is; but it is lost to Inis Cealtra. It was removed by the late Lord Dunraven to Adare many years ago, apparently under the impression that the Conn whom it commemorates was the ancestor of the O'Quins...I have not seen [the stone]'.|
Okasha/Forsyth/2001, 89: `The stone is now lost'.
Okasha/Forsyth/2001, 89: `medium-sized cross-slab'.
|Condition:||incomplete , some|
Macalister/1916, 162: `The top of the stone is lost; its present length is said to be about 2 feet'.
Okasha/Forsyth/2001, 89: `Quin's drawing shows the stone as broken at the top'.
|Crosses:||1: latin; interlace; straight; expanded; plain; angular; none; other; n/a|
Petrie/1878, 43: `The design on this stone is a cross of bands, interlaced and forming a triquetra knot at each extremity'.
Macalister/1916, 162: `The stone bears a Latin cross formed of a band doubled along the line of the arms, and interlacing into a knot, founded on the triquetra, at the terminals. The stone of Daniel (Clonmacnois, No. 168) is similar, but differs in the treatment of the intersection. The whole cross is in a single-line panel'.
Okasha/Forsyth/2001, 89: `The illusrated face contained a Latin cross formed from two strands of interlace with a triquetra knot at its extremities; however the upper limb of the cross was almost entirely missing. The cross was set inside a single-line rectangular frame'.
|Petrie, G. (1842):||O~R~DOCHUNN|
OROIT DO CHUNN
Pray for Conn (PN).
Petrie/1878 43 reading only
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1916):||O~R~DOCHUNN|
OROIT DO CHUNN
Macalister/1916 162 reading only
Macalister/1949 91 other reference
|Okasha and Forsyth (2001):||O~R~DOCHUNN|
OROIT DO CHUNN
A prayer for Conn (PN).
Okasha/Forsyth/2001 90 reading only
|Position:||ind ; top ; below cross ; separated|
Macalister/1949, 91: `inscription below the cross [and outside the panel]'.
|Language:||Incomplete Information (rbook)|
|Palaeography:||Okasha/Forsyth/2001, 90: `The text used half-uncial script and appears from the drawing to have been quite legible'.|
CISP: The lettering is Insular half-uncial. The C and U appear to have wedge-shaped finials. The R is majuscule while the D has an ascender which bends to the left over an open bow. The ascender on the H is shortened.