| Corpus Refs: | none |
| Site: | DUNAD |
| Discovery: | recognised, 1953 Cruden, S. |
| History: | Forsyth/1996, 227: `Even if the strokes of the inscription were known locally, they were not recognised as an inscription by the scholarly community until attention was drawn to them in 1953 by Stewart Cruden of the Ancient Monuments Inspectorate. Kenneth Jackson examined it on behalf of the RCAHMS and published his account in 1965. To protect the carvings from vandals and the elements the entire carved surface, except for the rock basin, was covered over with a fibreglass facsimile in 1978'. |
| Geology: | |
| Dimensions: | 0.0 x 0.0 x 0.0 (Unknown) |
| Setting: | in ground |
| Location: | earliest Forsyth/1996, 230: `Just below the summit...is a flattish terrace of bare rock riven with fissures and bearing a number of carvings'. The ogham inscription is one of these. |
| Form: | rock outcrop |
| Condition: | complete , good Forsyth/1996, 229: `complete, uncarved except for lettering'. |
| Folklore: | Forsyth/1996, 227, notes a local tradition that the 'footprint' near the Dunadd ogham `was the result of a leap made by Ossian from Rudal Hill to Dunadd, from which a footprint was left at each'. |
| Crosses: | none |
| Decorations: | no other decoration |
| Forsyth, K.S. (1996): | [AE]S[D^O][I^Q][--]V[N]A[D^O][--][T^C][.] | FI[NN]M[A]NA[CH] Expansion: [AE]S[D^O][I^Q][--]V[N]A[D^O][--][T^C][.] FI[NN] M[A]NA[CH] Forsyth/1996 230--242 substantial discussion |
| Orientation: | horizontal |
| Position: | NE ; other ; inc ; other |
| Incision: | inc Forsyth/1996, 230: `The strokes are too weathered to determine whether they were cut or pocked'. |
| Date: | 700 - 833 (Forsyth/1996) See NAME for the dating evidence. |
| Language: | Goidelic (ogams) |
| Ling. Notes: | Forsyth/1996, 241: `According to my interpretation, the text is in Gaelic'. |
| Palaeography: | Forsyth/1996, 236: `The Dunadd ogham is written in a simple and fairly unremarkable form of the script'. |
| Legibility: | poor Forsyth/1996, 232: `The upper ogham, and especially its upper (horizontal) surface, seems to me to be very badly worn and ill-defined'. |
| Lines: | 2 |
| Carving errors: | 0 |
| Doubtful: | yes |