|Discovery:||first mentioned, 1878 Petrie, G.|
|Geology:||Higgins/1987, 368: `presumably of local limestone'.|
|Dimensions:||1.93 x 0.85 x 0.0 (Petrie/1878)|
|Setting:||Lost (present , missing )|
Higgins/1987, 368: `This stone used to be at Temple Brecan, Inishmore, Aran Islands, but is now lost'. On account of the slab's recorded size Higgins finds it unlikely that it has been removed from the site: `It is likely to be buried somewhere in the graveyard at the site'.
Higgins/1987, 368: `According to Petrie (1878) it was a very large slab'.
|Condition:||inc , inc|
|Crosses:||1: latin; linear; expanded; round; round holl; none; inner curv; angular; plain|
2: latin; outline; straight; ind; square; none; none; ind; plain
As the stone has been lost all assessments of the decoration are based upon the illustrations of Petrie/1878, Plate XIII.
Higgins/1987, 368: `a rather elaborate cross of Latin form. The cross itself is ringed and has a three-line shaft and two single-line arms each of which terminates in a ringed cross. The upper arms have an encircled Greek cross. The form of the terminal at the top of the cross is unknown as the slab is damaged in this area. The shaft rises from a trapezoidal, two-line case, the bottom of which is missing due to damage. The junction of the arms and shaft has a central roundel intersected by the transom of the cross, surrounded by a concentric annular ring deriving from the shaft of the cross'.
Macalister/1949, 6: `It bore a three-line cross with very unusual decoration; on the dexter side of the stem a square containing rudimentary interlacements; on the sinister side a Latin cross; at the intersection of the principal cross a circular expansion'.
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1949):||O~R~DOTIGERNAC[H]|
OROIT DO TIGERNAC[H]
CISP: A prayer for Tigernach (PN).
Macalister/1949 6 concise discussion
|Higgins, J.G. (1987):||O~R~ || AR | TIGE || NAC|
OROIT AR TIGENAC
Higgins/1987 368--369 concise discussion
|Position:||n/a ; broad ; beside cross ; inc|
|Palaeography:||Higgins/1987, 368: `The drawing in Petrie seems stylized and as Macalister says: "does not inspire confidence in its rendering of the minuter details of the ornament". The inscription, in three lines, also seems to be too stylized to allow much to be said of it. ... The letter forms of the inscription are probably very stylized'.|
CISP: Given the above little more than it being in half-uncial can be said about this inscription.
Higgins/1987, 368, is circumspect about the accuracy of Petrie's illustration of the stone. He notes that there is no 'stroke or abbreviation mark over the `OR''.
Macalister/1949, 6: `the missing [final] H being lost with the sinister margin of the slab, which was battered away'.