MAUIG/1

CISP [KL, KF]: Still on site in 1996.

Cuppage et al/1986, 333: `large irregularly-shaped boulder'.

Macalister/1945, 186: `bearing on the face a large cross pattée in a circle 1' 10" in diameter, cut upon a boss on the face of the stone. There is also another cross, with expanding terminals to the arms'.

Cuppage et al/1986, 334: `The main cross motif is a deeply inscribed cross of arcs within a circle, its lower arm linked to the circle by a short stem. The latter continues beyond the circle to below the present ground surface and exhibits a triangular expansion at about its mid-point. An equal-armed cross with fishtail like terminals occupies the upper right portion of this face of the stone'.

ANM COLMAN AILITHIR

`Name of Colman the Pilgrim'. But he has blundered so badly that he has made the decipherment of the inscription a very difficult matter. At best, the inscription is a `scholastic' essay.

On the vertical part of the stem line he wrote ANM COL. He then realized that if he continued here he would have his N at the angle, and, consequently, awkwardly cramped; or else, if he carried on past the angle, it would run into the B-half of the M. Accordingly, he skipped the angle and wrote MAN on the horizontal branch of his stem-line. He then wrote AIL, the beginning of AILITHIR, before he saw that this word would have to be shortened to fit into the available space, which he had rashly reduced by cutting the second cross. A feeling of reverence may have prevented him from making room for himself by breaking this away. Accordingly, he squeezed an L into the space between the A and the I -- its cramped nature is obvious -- thus abolishing the first I of the word AILITHIR, and adapting the I which he had already fashioned to represent the second I of this word. He next had to dispose of the L which was already on the stone, and for which he would be obliged to substitute a T. This he ingeniously effected by cutting a line joining the distal ends of the two scores, thus turning these underline scores into overline scores, and then adding one more, and only one, in the orthodox position above the main stem-line. This gave him the three overline scores of the T. He then proceeded with the final IR, which just filled the available space, though it went beyond the range of the stem line which he had laid out at the beginning. In order to make his correction clear, he wrote in the turn of the angle of the stem line, which still remained blank, the letters O.L.Th -- the Th being represented by the O-forfid -- meaning ó L, Th -- `from `L' [make] `Th''. This gives us a neat demonstration of the consonantal value of that character, and a further corroboration of the Greek origin of the Ogham script. It is a rare example of a lapidary gloss, similar to the glosses with which ancient Irish manuscripts are pestered. There is some excuse for the reading given by Bishop Graves, ANMCOLOLOLN, although criticism to which he submitted it, and which may be forgotten, follows quite legitmate lines'.

Cuppage et al/1986, 333--334: `Macalister's ingenious interpretation may be correct...and that the peculiarities can be explained as an attempt to correct mistakes made during its execution'.

McManus/1991, 79, considers the O-forfid seen by Macalister as doubtful.