Provenance
Discovery: First reported by Reeves (1884) to have been found in 1879 by Mr Robert Pillow of Armagh in the ‘graveyard field’ on the farm of Samuel Ireland in the townland, approximately 4km south of Armagh. The stone had been rolled out of the way ‘down the eastern slope of the field into a hollow’. Reeves arranged for the stone to be taken to Armagh Public Library for safe keeping (NISMR report).
Findspot: Drumconwell (Droim Conmhaoil), Co. Armagh, Northern Ireland (National Grid Reference: H 8780 4020)
Current repository: Northern Ireland Armagh Robinson library (No 5 Vicars’ Hill Museum)
Last recorded location(s): On display at Armagh Robinson Library (Museum at 5 Vicar’s Hill) where it was examined and recorded by members of the OG(H)AM project in July 2022.
Support
Northern Ireland Sites and Monuments Record Number: ARM016:046
Object type: Cross-carved pillar
Material: Shale
Dimensions: H 1.33 × W 0.39 × D 0.48 m
Decoration: There is a damaged linear ringed cross on the upper face. This simple cross is in a slightly irregular circle with the stem extending below the circle.
Condition: The stone is ‘broken at the base and chipped at the edges and top, very irregular in shape, thining towards the base and somewhat triangular in section’ (NISMR report). The cross, and possibly also the ogham inscription, have been partially damaged by a break at the top of the stone.
Inscription
Text field: The inscription is on two angles (unusually up-up) around the same face as the cross. The inscription does not impinge on the cross or vice versa and there is no compelling reason to doubt that they are contemporary.
Letters: The inscription is pocked and rubbed. The strokes are quite irregular in length (6-10cm) and spacing (2cm between D strokes but 1cm or less in other characters). The aicme muine characters (M and G) are perpendicular to the stemline rather than sloped.
Edition
Ogham text: ᚇᚐᚓᚅᚓ̣ᚌᚂᚑ̣ ᚋᚐᚊᚔ̣ ᚊ[ᚓ]ᚈᚐᚔ[.. ? ..
Transcription: DAENẸGLỌ MAQỊ Q[E]TAI[---]
Critical apparatus:
- Macalister (1945) read the following, with the final S all broken away except the proximal ends of the first two strokes (which could not been identified on inspection): DINEGLO MAQI QETAIS 2. The five vowel strokes after the D have extra space between the first two suggesting a reading AE. However, considering the inconsistent spacing in the inscription generally, it could represent a poorly spaced I. 3. An alternative reading and interpretation of the initial name, to align with the townland name Drumconwell or Droim Conmhaoil ‘Ridge of Conmáel’, was proposed by Warner (1991, 46) suggesting the possibility that DINEGLO represents a ‘botched attempt at CUNAMAGLI’. However, we would rather expect *CUNAMAILAS for Conmáel since *CUNAMAGLAS would be Conmál.
Translation
of Dínél? son of Céte?
Commentary
Ziegler (1994, 167) suggests that DINEGLO could be the name Dínél (dín ‘protection’?), which is attested elsewhere, followed by MAQI (mac ‘son’) ‘son of’ and possibly the name Céte (Ziegler 1994, 222).
References
- Macalister 1945, 298-299, no. 311
- Warner 1991, 43-50
- Ziegler 1994, 167, 222