| Corpus Refs: | Macalister/1945:240 OSullivan/etal/1996:972 |
| Site: | TERMY |
| Discovery: | recognised, O'Neill |
| History: | Macalister/1945, 235: `The stone was discovered by Mr. O'Neill'. |
| Geology: | Macalister/1945, 234: `Sandstone grit'. |
| Dimensions: | 0.7 x 0.26 x 0.19 (OSullivan/Sheehan/1996) |
| Setting: | in ground |
| Location: | earliest Macalister/1945, 234: `This stone stands in the middle of a disused burial ground on the townland'. OSullivan/Sheehan/1996, 315: `This stone is located 3.5m NE of the cross-slab' which `stands close to the centre of the burial area'. |
| Form: | plain Macalister/1945, 234: `tapering to top'. The measurements given in OSullivan & Sheehan/1996, 315, do not tally with those of Macalister -- this is presumably because ground level has apparently risen as shown by the obscuring of parts of the inscription read by Macalister. |
| Condition: | complete , good |
| Folklore: | none |
| Crosses: | none |
| Decorations: | no other decoration |
| Macalister, R.A.S. (1945): | MOCU[RR]UTI | MAQIVLISACES{*}CMIR Expansion: MOCU[RR]UTI MAQI VLISACES{U}CMIR Macalister/1945 234--235 concise discussion OSullivan/etal/1996 315 listing |
| O'Sullivan & Sheehan (1996): | MOCU[RR-- | --I]VLISAC[E]S[U]CMIR Expansion: MOCU[RRUTI] [MAQI] VLISAC[E]S[U]CMIR OSullivan/etal/1996 315 & Fig. 206 reading only |
| Orientation: | vertical up up |
| Position: | inc ; arris ; n/a ; undecorated Macalister/1945, 234: `Inscription chiselled on two angles (up-up)'. |
| Incision: | inc Macalister/1945, 234: `chiselled'. |
| Date: | 550 - 900 (Ziegler/1994) |
| Language: | Goidelic (ogham) |
| Ling. Notes: | Macalister/1945, 234--235: `CESUCMIR (in which the very rare forfid U is used) is a mystery to me. Maqi Valis aces Ucmir, `son of V. and of U.', a unique acknowledgment of both parents, is the only solution which has presented itself: but obviously it is open to more than one grave objection, and could hardly be suggested, much less adopted, seriously'. |
| Palaeography: | Macalister/1945, 234: `The engraver apparently began by writing ME, with two superfluous notches and corrected his error by overlapping the C above these. The two R's are battered: there is a differentiating notch between them. There is a similar notch between the strokes of the L in the second line. This may be an omitted vowel, inserted in the wrong place (for VALISA). CESUCMIR (in which the very rare forfid U is used) is a mystery to me'. McManus/1991, 79, states that he believes the U forfid read by Macalister is doubtful. Ziegler/1994, 272, suggests that the inscription might be a palimpsest. OSullivan & Sheehan/1996, 315: `The inscription commences on the sinister angle of the S face. The first four letters are clearly visible and are followed by the somewhat damaged double R. The remaining letters of this word can longer be readily deciphered. The first four letters of the remainder of the inscription, which commences on the dexter angle of the N face, are now buried. The other characters are more or less legible. Macalister's E is represented by only two vowel notches, though these are widely spaced'. CISP: From the OSullivan & Sheehan/1996, 313, Fig. 206, Macalister's curved U-forfid looks more like a single straight cross-stroke. |
| Legibility: | some Macalister/1945, 234: `worn and chipped, but otherwise in fair condition'. |
| Lines: | 2 |
| Carving errors: | y |
| Doubtful: | no |