|Discovery:||first mentioned, 1879 Brash, R.R.|
|History:||Macalister/1945, 111: `The same writer [Brash] records `two fine tapering monoliths, standing each 6' above ground', near the entrance to a defaced killeen'.|
Power et al/1997, 172: `At SSW side of possible early ecclesiastical enclosure...two similar sized upright stones...flank entrance into enclosure; westerly stone described by Brash (1879, 132) as containing [an ogham inscription]'.
|Dimensions:||1.8 x 0.4 x 0.4 (Power/etal/1997)|
Power et al/1997, 172: `At SSW side of possible early ecclesiastical enclosure...[by the] entrance into enclosure'.
Brash, cited in Macalister/1945, 111: `tapering monliths'.
|Condition:||complete , some|
Macalister/1945, 112: `The stone has suffered severely from weather and cattle wear'.
|Decorations:||no other decoration|
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1907):||LUGUDECAMAQISI[..] ||| ALI ||| MUCOIM[--|
LUGUDECA MAQI SI[TT]ALI MUCOI M[--]
Macalister/1907 137 reading only
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1940):||[--]IMAQI ||| [--] ||| [--]C[--]|
[--]I MAQI [--]C[--]
Macalister/1945 112 reading only
|Power, P. et al. (1982):||[--]|
Power/etal/1997 172 reading only
|Orientation:||vertical up along down|
|Position:||SW ; arris ; n/a ; undecorated|
|Palaeography:||Macalister/1945, 111--112: `On the upper half of one of the angles he [Brash] noticed a few vowel notches. In 1907 I examined the stone, and thought I could make out an inscription in two lines (up-top-down) reading Lugudeca maqi Si[tt?]ali mucoi M... Later my attention was directed to a report entirely denying the existence of this inscription, on which account I examined it again in 1940, and made the following observations: -- The stones stand 6' 6" apart, in a line NW--SE. That at the NW end of this line has certainly been inscribed, on the two angles of the southern face...The stone has suffered severely from weather and cattle wear, and I should not now commit myself to the reading above suggested, or, indeed, to any other. Much as I always dislike making the admission, I have to admit, in this case, that attrition has gone too far to make decipherment possible. But MAQI is very clearly adumbrated on the dexter angle, between 2' 5" and 3' 4" from the ground, preceded, as I now think, by an I, not by the CA of my previous reading. On the sinister angle, the five bold notches observed by Brash are amongst the clearest Ogham marks that I have seen anywhere: they run between 7" and 1' 6" down from the top of the stone, and now appear to me to be followed by a C. There are other traces further down, especially a notch, 2' 5" from the ground. But, as a whole, this once fine inscription is, I fear, beyond hope'.|
Power et al/1997, 172: `described by Brash (1879, 132) as containing `upon the upper part of an angle a few vowel scores, much worn'. In 1907 Macalister... read the inscription...Hartnett (1930, 78) also examined the stone but `failed to find what could be called ogham scores''.
Macalister/1945, 112: `Much as I always dislike making the admission, I have to admit, in this case, that attrition has gone too far to make decipherment possible'.
Power et al/1997, 172: `There is now no clear evidence for an inscription on this stone'.