| Corpus Refs: | Macalister/1945:8 |
| Site: | DOOGH |
| Discovery: | first mentioned, 1897 Kelly, W.E. |
| History: | Macalister/1945, 11: `Mr W. E. Kelly, who first noticed the inscription, records that a certain priest, Father McManus, re-erected the stone, then lying flat on the scrub-covered sandhills, where it still stands'. |
| Geology: | Macalister/1945, 11: 'A limestone slab'. |
| Dimensions: | 1.32 x 0.61 x 0.15 (converted from Macalister/1945) |
| Setting: | in ground |
| Location: | on site Macalister/1945, 11: `Mr W. E. Kelly, who first noticed the inscription, records that a certain priest, Father McManus, re-erected the stone, then lying flat on the scrub-covered sandhills, where it still stands'. |
| Form: | cross-marked |
| Condition: | frgmntry , some |
| Folklore: | none |
| Crosses: | 1: arcs; outline; expanded; curved; inc; circular; outer curv; none; plain |
| Decorations: | Macalister/1945, 11: `On one face there is a cross pattée, in a circle, pocked'. |
| Rhys, J. (1897): | [M][R][B][G][S][G][S] Expansion: MA[QUI MUCOI] CORBAGNI GLASICONAS |
| Macalister, R.A.S. (1945): | --][OVIMAQI][-- Expansion: --]OVI MAQI[-- Macalister/1945 11 reading only |
| Orientation: | vertical up |
| Position: | n/a ; arris ; beside cross ; undivided Macalister/1945, 11, provides an illustration of the stone, its inscribed cross and the putative ogham inscription running vertically up its sinister edge. Beginning beneath the cross the inscription runs alongside and may have continued beyond it, but damage has removed any trace of this. |
| Incision: | inc. |
| Date: | None published |
| Language: | Goidelic (ogham) |
| Ling. Notes: | none |
| Palaeography: | none |
| Legibility: | poor Macalister/1945, 11, is uncertain about the existence of an ogham inscription on this stone. He notes, `there seems to have been an Ogham inscription on the sinister edge, but it is so badly worn and weathered that practically nothing can be made of it - especially as more than half of the inscribed angle has been spalled away'. He suggests this destruction was contemporary with the addition of the cross. Assessing the legibility of the `inscription' Macalister concludes that `the marks are so faint that it is possible to read almost anything into them'. He then provides a reading of his own. Macalister speculates that the stone was re-erected upside down, and that, consequently, some of the letters of the inscription are buried beneath the level of the ground. |
| Lines: | 1 |
| Carving errors: | 0 |
| Doubtful: | no |