|Discovery:||in/on structure, 1864 Ferguson, S.|
|History:||Gippert/Web, Ogham 12: `The site was visited by Ferguson on the 30.9.1864 (PRIA 9, 1867, 161) who`observed' (for the first time?) two `inscriptions in the Ogham character' in the souterrain. According to him, the cave was surrounded by `the remains of a tumulus of about twenty yards in diameter' at that time...Today, the tumulus no longer exists, the entrance being hidden underneath the path mentioned (cp. photograph 9). If compared with Ferguson's description, the souterrain cannot be entered to the same extent as in his days now because it has filled up with mud (cp. photograph 6). The present stone (numbered 12 by Macalister, CIIC), is still in reach, however'.|
|Dimensions:||0.0 x 0.0 x 0.0 (Unknown)|
Macalister/1945, 16: `On the lintel just inside the entrance'.
|Condition:||incomplete , n/a|
Macalister/1945, 17: `Owing to its awkward position the dimensions of this stone cannot be satisfactorily ascertained'.
|Decorations:||no other decoration|
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):||VRAICCI ||| MAQIMEDVII|
VRAICCI MAQI MEDVVI
|Gippert, J. (1996):||[V]RAICC[I] ||| MAQIMEDVV[I]|
|Orientation:||vertical up up|
|Position:||n/a ; arris ; inc ; undecorated|
Macalister/1945, 16, notes that the D and V have been cut `carelessly, so as to overlap'.
|Date:||400 - 550 (Ziegler/1994)|
|Ling. Notes:||McManuc/1991, 107, 121, 122.|
Macalister/1945, 16: `The D and the following V have been cut carelessly, so as to over-lap'.
Gipper/Web, Ogham 12: `The stone would have to be taken off the cave in order to finally decide whether the inscription was really intended to read up-up and contains no Ogham on the `top' edge; cp. the Cloonmorris case . The angle containing (V)RAICCI is the one directed outward. V1 is irregularly shaped like a vowel score; this may be due to a later added fissure. The arrangement of DV in MEDVV[I is indeed remarkable, as Macalister observed. As against his suggestion of `carelessness`, we have to note that the distance between E and V is just the same as the distance between the vowel notches of E and the V strokes...we might therefore rather think of the D having been added later, either as an insertion into an original *MEVVI or as a correction of a misspelt *MELVI. The latter possibility is suggested by the fact that the third stroke of the first V in the name is much shorter than the V1,2 and does not reach the angle so that it is doubtful by itself'.