|Discovery:||non-arch dig, 1856 anon.|
|History:||Stuart/1856, 14, notes that it was dug up from a depth of three to four feet within twenty yards of the foundation of the Chapel of St Nicholas `during some recent improvements'.|
|Geology:||Stuart/1856, 14: `of a slaty nature'.|
|Dimensions:||0.28 x 0.08 x 0.0 (converted from Stuart/1856)|
|Setting:||Lost (present 1856, missing 1898)|
|Location:||In 1856 Stuart reported the stone to be in the possession of `Mr Heddle of Melsetter, North Walls' [i.e. Hoy, ND 2689].
Allen/Anderson/1903 repeated this statement but the stone appears already to have been lost by 1898 (Rhys/1898, 372).|
A tiny slab of unknown thickness, long and narrow.
|Condition:||complete , some|
Okasha/1985, 56, notes that Allen's illustration of the stone at a scale of `1/2 linear' (Allen/Anderson/1903, Fig. 21) does not tally with his statement that the stone is 11" x 3". If these were the correct measurements of the stone as found in the 1850s, either the stone had been broken and the lower portion lost in the interim or Allen illustrated only the upper portion of the still intact stone. Since Allen appears not to have seen the stone and states that his drawing is based on a paper squeeze by Sir Henry Dryden, the latter may well be the case.
|Crosses:||1: equal-armed; outline; straight; expanded; square; none; billet; other; decorated|
|Decorations:||no other decoration|
|Rhys, J. (1892):||DNEIESU|
Rhys/1892 291 Incomplete Information
|Allen, R. (1903):||DNE DI|
|Okasha, E. (1985):||DNEDI|
O Lord, O God (or `of God').
Okasha/1985 inc concise discussion
|Position:||n/a ; broad ; above cross ; undivided|
In the space above the incised cross. The cross is set square to the stone but the line of lettering slopes diagonally down to the right.
Okasha/1985, 57: `inscribed'.
|Palaeography:||Okasha/1985, 57: `Insular script'.|
The inscription is in half-uncial.
No contraction or suspension marks.
Ds - upright, ascenders have split or wedge-shaped ends, bowl is not closed.
E - horizontal floats free of curved stroke and extends beyond its tips.
Whole line slopes downwards.
Letters evenly spaced.
Okasha/1985, 56, notes that Stuart may have seen the stone but no one else who has written of it appears to have done so.
Stuart/1856 shows what appears to be some superficial scratches. These are not shown in the drawing of Allen/Anderson/1903. Allen's letters are more regular than Stuart's. The only real difference between the two is that Allen depicts the bowl of the first D as a spiral, while Stuart shows it as an open curve terminating in a forked serif (like the second D).