|Discovery:||first mentioned, 1847 Ramsay, J.|
|History:||Okasha/1985, 59: `The stone was found in two pieces. The lower piece, which contains the text, was in St. Vigeans churchyard in 1848. Chalmers [/1848, 7-8] says: `A few years ago it formed, along with another cross...part of a pavement at the bottom of a stair in the church, leading to a gallery built in 1772. Another piece of this Cross, but defaced, is said to be built into the staircase wall'. The upper piece was found in 1871 during restoration work; it was `recovered from the east gable of the church, or the adjoining stair'. By 1903 the two pieces were cemented together and kept in the church porch. In 1961 the stone was brought into St Vigeans Museum'.|
|Geology:||Okasha/1985, 59: 'Lower Old Red sandstone, probably Arbuthnott Group and probably quarried'.|
|Dimensions:||1.74 x 0.55 x 0.18 (Okasha/1985)|
|Location:||St. Vigeans Museum|
Okasha/1985, 59, notes that it is now in the St. Vigeans Museum.
Okasha/1985, 59: `the stone is a cross-slab'.
|Condition:||incomplete , good|
Okasha/1985, 59, argues that the stone had been broken in two, but is now cemented together, and indeed has had a `modern portion' added to it.
|Crosses:||1: latin; interlace; n/a; n/a; n/a; none; n/a; none; decorated|
Okasha/1985, 60-61: `The tall and narrow proportions of this cross-slab suggest a late phase of Pictish sculpture. Other features confirm this: the all-over pattern of regular interlace made of bands marked with a central line covering the cross; the decorated edges of the slab; the vine-scroll pattern; the medial position of the symbols on the reverse. Even the fantastic animals which flank the cross are a distinctive type not found on the early cross-slabs. The stylistic paralells...support [an] eighth-century date for the monument...The stag at the top of the reverse of the slab is in fine Pictish style and the presence of the symbols, and the Pictish names...suggest a date in the first half of the ninth century'.
|Allen & Anderson (1903):||DROSTEN | IPEUORET | ETTFOR | CUS |
Allen/Anderson/1903 236 reading only
|Okasha, E. (1985):||DROSTEN: | IREUORET | [E]TTFOR | CUS|
DROSTEN IRE UORET ETT FORCUS
Drosten[...] (PN), Uoret (PN) and Forcus (PN).
Okasha/1985 60 reading only
|Clancy, T. (1993):||DROSTEN: | IREUORET | [E]TTFOR | CUS|
DROSTEN I RE UORET ETT FORCUS
Drosten (PN), in the time of (or, in the reign of) Uoret (PN), and Forcus (PN).
Clancy/1993 345--347 reading only
|Position:||n/a ; broad ; inc ; panel|
Okasha/1985, 59: `The text ... is one the right-hand side of the stone in a panel measuring 16.5 x 14.5 cm'.
Okasha/1985, 59: `the text is incised'.
|Date:||900 - 950 (Okasha/1985)|
839 - 842 (Clancy/1993)
850 - 925 (Allen/Anderson/1903)
Allen & Anderson/1903, 237-8.
|Language:||celtic and latin (rbook)|
|Ling. Notes:||Clancy/1993, argues that the expression I RE is Old Irish, meaning `in the time of' or `in the reign of'.|
Jackson/1955, 140, had argued the the word was IPE and of non-Indo-European character.
The word [E]TT is taken to be Latin et.
|Palaeography:||Okasha/1985, 59: `The script is Insular'.|
Clancy/1993, 346, sees the script as the result of `Gaelic influence'.
The inscription is in Insular half-uncial, often with serifs, a flat bottomed U; open-bowed R; open-bowed D; and two forms of E one half-uncial, the other more like the minuscule letter-form.
Okasha/1985, 59: `the text is complete and only slightly deteriorated'.
Clancy/1993, 346: `Drosten (Pictish Drostan; Welsh Drystan, Trystan) ... clearly Brittonic derivation attested elsewhere in Pictish sources'.
Clancy/1993, 351, argues that Uoret was Uurad son of Bargoit, king between 839 and 842.
Clancy/1993, 346: `Forcus (Gaelic Forcus; Pictish *Uorguist; Welsh Gorwst) ... a Gaelic name ... by its orthography probably belonging to a Gaelic speaker'.