According to Macalister, CIIC, the stone was [when?] discovered by one Austin Cunney from Attymass. The inscription is not included in Macalister, Epig..
The stone is, as Macalister, CIIC underlined, "conspicuous" by its "great height"; "the exceptional size of the stone suggests that it was originally a bronze-age megalithic pillar-stone, adapted by a later Ogham carver for his own purposes."
During a visit in 1978 a reading was not possible because a ladder was not available and the stone was too much covered with moss and litchen. The conditions were not much better on a second visit in 1996 (3.4.) when, however, the inscription on the sinister edge could be verified and documented.
Size according to Macalister, CIIC: 9'3" x 3'5" x 0'10"
- Macalister, CIIC 1, 10 (draft).
Inscription on both angles of the N.W. face, dexter || sinister:
.... MA]Q CERAN[I] || AVI ATHECETAIMIN
The beginning of the inscription on the dexter angle "has been intentionally battered away .. so that the name of the owner of the monument is totally lost", leaving only the patronymic. "The N (of CERAN-) lies in the matrix of and old spall. Only vague traces of the final I are discernible." - On the sinister angle, "the first two letters are badly worn: I did not find the initial A till my second visit". After 2A there are two lines on the H-surface, converging upward, though their actual meeting-point is effaced, and a curve, which it is just possible to discern on the B-surface, closing the figure thus formed." This must be the O-forfid which has its consonantal value here, i.e. "TH". - "There is no sign of a vowel following" the final N.
...]Q CERAN AVI ATýHECETAIMIN
Given the standard Ogham formulas, the first word has to be restored as [MA]Q. Macalister's -I after CERAN is missing in his own draft. The very rare and late ó-forfid present in the second part matches MAQ showing apocopy. The -I- in -AIM- is due to the attempt of rendering a palatalized M. The inscription must be very late, dating from the middle or the end of the 7th century.
Reading Gippert (3.4.1996):
Dexter angle up (?) - sinister angle up
.....]N[.. || .. Q E]A[..]ECETAIMI[N
.....]êé[.. || .. îí åã]â[ææ]åãîìåãíâäãïåä(ê)[é
.....]ççççç[... || ââ ëëëëë ââââ]â[ææ]ââââëëëëââââëëëâæâââââïâââââ(çç)[ççç
The existence of the ó-forfid cannot be ascertained at all: At the given position of the sinister angle, there is just a space, wide enough enough for two (or even three) strokes so that L,D,G etc. could as well be assumed. Before the first vowel notches on the same angle, four or five contiguous strokes seem to be visible; it depends on what we regard as the angle (which is bifurcated at this position) whether these belong to the B-surface or, rather, the H-surface. In the latter case, we could assume to read *MAQI instead of Macalister's *AVI; the remnants of an M may even be realized immediately above the (natural?) shoulder of the stone. - It cannot be taken for granted that Macalister was right in assuming that it was the beginning of the inscription what he searched for on the dexter angle, and there is no reason to agree that it was "battered away" intentionally.
No additional literature is mentioned in Macalister, CIIC.
Last changes of this record: 14.04.97 Copyright Jost Gippert, Frankfurt a/M 1996. No parts of this document may be republished in any form without prior permission by the copyright holder.