| Corpus Refs: | Macalister/1909:223 Macalister/1949:764 Petrie/1872:44 |
| Site: | CLMAC |
| Discovery: | first mentioned, 1822 Petrie, G. |
| History: | |
| Geology: | |
| Dimensions: | 0.0 x 0.0 x 0.0 (Unknown) |
| Setting: | Lost (present , missing ) |
| Location: | unknown |
| Form: | fragment |
| Condition: | frgmntry , inc |
| Folklore: | none |
| Crosses: | 1: latin; outline; straight; plain; plain; none; none; none; plain 2: latin; linear; straight; plain; plain; none; none; none; plain 3: latin; linear; straight; plain; plain; none; none; none; plain |
| Decorations: | A Latin cross, in the top two quadrants, at right angles to the main axis, are two smaller Latin crosses. These are directly above the two divisions of the inscription. Petrie/1872, 27: `This stone is interesting, as showing the first perfect example of the plain Latin cross'. Macalister/1909, 43: `A plain two-line Latin cross; two crosslets pattée lying horizontally above'. Macalister/1949, 61: `Plain Latin cross. Two crosslets'. |
| Petrie, G. (1822): | --]R || ÁRCEN Expansion: [OROIT] AR CEN[NEDIG] Macalister/1909 43 listing Petrie/1872 27 minor reference |
| Macalister, R.A.S. (1949): | --]R || ÁRCEN Expansion: [--]RÁRCEN[--] Macalister/1949 61 listing |
| Orientation: | horizontal |
| Position: | n/a ; broad ; above cross ; separated |
| Incision: | inc |
| Date: | None published |
| Language: | Goidelic (rbook) |
| Ling. Notes: | none |
| Palaeography: | CISP: The lettering is half-uncial. The Rs appear to be majuscule, although the second example was damaged so it is more uncertain. The E is shown as being in the open uncial form and the A as minuscule with an accent stroke above it. |
| Legibility: | inc Macalister/1909, 43, comments on Petrie's presentation of the inscription: `The inscription is given as RARCEN, the second R having apparently lost its diagonal stroke. The restoration, O~R~ AR CENNEDIG, suggested in the letterpress, is clearly impossible if the stone be correctly drawn; the initial O would show some trace, and the name would not naturally project so far beyond the cross as CENNEDIG written in one line. Probably the inscription is a single name, incorrectly copied'. |
| Lines: | 1 |
| Carving errors: | 0 |
| Doubtful: | no |