| Corpus Refs: | Macalister/1945:127 |
| Site: | TLGMO |
| Discovery: | first mentioned, 1841 Hawkesworth, E. |
| History: | Macalister/1945, 124: `Found in 1841 by Mr. E. Hawkesworth, of Cork and transferred to the Royal Cork Institution: now in University College Cork'. |
| Geology: | Macalister/1945, 124: `red sandstone'. |
| Dimensions: | 1.57 x 0.53 x 0.46 (converted from Macalister/1945) |
| Setting: | in display |
| Location: | University College Cork Macalister/1945, 124: `now in University College Cork'. |
| Form: | plain Macalister/1945, 124: `extremely irregular shape'. |
| Condition: | complete , poor Macalister/1945, 124: `The only unbroken part is the surface between the two lines of writing; elsewhere there is unmistakable evidence of the attacks of a sledge-hammer or of some similar tool'. |
| Folklore: | none |
| Crosses: | none |
| Decorations: | no other decoration |
| Macalister, R.A.S. (1945): | MAQILAS{P}OG | B TTMACDE Expansion: MAQIL ASPOG BENEDICAT MAC DE Translation: May the son of God bless Bishop Maqil (PN). Macalister/1945 124--126 reading only |
| Orientation: | vertical up up |
| Position: | n/a ; arris ; n/a ; undecorated |
| Incision: | pocked Macalister/1945, 124: `the scores on the dexter line are more coarsely pocked than those on the sinister'. |
| Date: | None published |
| Language: | celtic and latin (ogham) |
| Ling. Notes: | Macalister/1945, 125: `we can hardly avoid taking the word [ASPOG] which thus makes its appearance as a form of the ordinary Irish word for 'bishop'.' Macalister/1945, 126: `Most likely we are to see in B-TT some sort of contraction for BENEDICAT |
| Palaeography: | Macalister/1945, 125: `I observed the looped connexion of the two upper slants of the letter (see the diagram) and saw a character which could no be explained except as an adaptation of a Greek pi, usually represented by the underline X'. Macalister/1945, 126, also argues that there was `an earlier inscription on the stone, and the severe battering which has left evident marks has completely destroyed it'. |
| Legibility: | some McManus/1991, 61, argues that Macalister's interpretation of this stone is `extremely doubtful'. Power/etal/1997, 171: `well cut, clear scorings but nevertheless difficult to interpret'. |
| Lines: | 2 |
| Carving errors: | 0 |
| Doubtful: | no |