| Corpus Refs: | Higgins/1987:18 Macalister/1949:528 |
| Site: | TPBNN |
| Discovery: | first mentioned, 1867 Ferguson, S. |
| History: | This stone is lost and has been since before 1949. Macalister/1949, 4, reported that he was unable to find it. Higgins/1987, 287, adds that, despite several searches, `this stone remains unlocated'. A reason for this absence is given by Petrie/1878, 18: the stone had been broken up by local people and incorporated into a church wall. Petrie also reports that the stone had first been found in 1867. |
| Geology: | Higgins/1987, 287: `limestone'. |
| Dimensions: | 0.71 x 0.38 x 0.0 (converted from Macalister/1949) |
| Setting: | Lost (present , missing ) |
| Location: | unknown Petrie/1878, 18, reports that the stone had been broken up by local people and incorporated into a church wall. |
| Form: | name-slab |
| Condition: | inc , n/a The stone is lost. Petrie/1878, 18, recorded that it had been broken up by local people and incorporated into a church wall. |
| Folklore: | none |
| Crosses: | 1: latin; linear; straight; expanded; curved; none; none; none; plain |
| Decorations: | Macalister/1949, 4: `a one line Latin cross having triangular expansions to the terminals'. Higgins/1987, 287: `The cross is a simple one-line Latin cross with slightly expanded, wedge-shaped terminals. Three of the terminals have slightly concave ends, while the fourth is straight ended. Whether these differences are simply due to the stylised nature of the drawing it is difficult to say'. |
| Macalister, R.A.S. (1949): | O~R~ || DO | DO || [--] | TH || IN Expansion: OROIT DO DO[--]THIN Macalister/1949 4--5 concise discussion |
| Higgins, J.G. (1987): | O~R~ || DO | DO || [--] | TH || IN Higgins/1987 287, Fig. 18 concise discussion |
| Orientation: | horizontal |
| Position: | n/a ; both ; beside cross ; separated Macalister/1949, 4: `In the upper cantons O~R~ DO; in the lower canotns, in two lines, DO[* *]THIN'. |
| Incision: | inc |
| Date: | None published |
| Language: | Goidelic (rbook) |
| Ling. Notes: | none |
| Palaeography: | CISP: The lettering is Insular half-uncial. The D has a wedge-shaped finial as well as a squarish bow and a vertical ascender. The half-uncial T is angular. The minuscule H also appears to have had a wedge-shaped finial. The N is minuscule. |
| Legibility: | inc Higgins/1987, 287: `The inscription was difficult to decipher and the stone seems to have been in a weathered or worn condition when the drawing was made'. |
| Lines: | 3 |
| Carving errors: | n |
| Doubtful: | no |