|Discovery:||first mentioned, 1898 Rhys, J.|
|Geology:||Macalister/1945, 5: `Grit'.|
|Dimensions:||1.6 x 0.56 x 0.56 (converted from Macalister/1945)|
Macalister/1945, 5, notes that it was `standing on the top of a low mound, apparently an artificial tumulus'. As the result of digging around its base, however, the stone had slipped, and thus, at the time Macalister was writing, stood at a slope of about 75 degrees.
|Condition:||complete , good|
Macalister/1945, 5, notes that although this inscription is `injured by wear and chipping', the reading is `certain'.
|Decorations:||no other decoration|
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):||CUNALEGIAVIQUNACANOS|
CUNALEGI AVI QUNACANOS
Macalister/1945 5 concise discussion
|Gippert, J. (1978):|| CUNALEGIA[V]QUNACANOS|
CUNALEGI A[V] QUNACANOS
Gippert/Web Ogham 3 substantial discussion [Gippert 3]
|Orientation:||vertical up along down|
|Position:||inc ; arris ; n/a ; inc|
Macalister/1945, 5, describes the incisions as `bold scores'.
|Date:||466 - 499 (Korolev/1984)|
400 - 500 (Ziegler/1994)
|Ling. Notes:||See McManus/1991, 90, 95, 102, 117, 122.|
Macalister/1945, 5, notes that despite some rubbing, chipping and wear the inscription is nevertheless `certain'.
Gippert/Web, Ogham 3: `Q1 might well be secondary, given that it is much shorter than the other strokes of this letter; cp. figs. 9 and 10. If not, it can be taken as a mere scribal error; at least, no linguistic conclusions can be drawn from its existence, e.g. as to the dating of the inscription into a period when the difference between C = /k/ and Q = /kw/ no longer existed. Of the V, even the distal ends are hardly conceivable, and there is hardly room enough for restituting an I on the sinister part of the top'.