dafsorkneybirding wrote:
I would, at a guess and going by stones with Ogham script(it bears a great likeness to some in The Ballymote Book albeit without the centre line) on them, say that the "writing" would be at the top of the stone....as there would be little point in putting a message on the bottom then into the ground...also(and I may be wrong)...but flat stones/cist covers etc rarely have etchings on the side.
It is hard to gauge the size of this stone, but does the "bottom"(ie..the other side from the writing) have signs of discolouration or breakage?Are there any other markings on the stone no matter how faint?
Did the archeologists who offered a plaster cast in it's stead give any indications as to it's possible origin or age? I assume they examined it in your friend's house(where the pics were taken) rather than in situ at it's original location.Again I could be wrong but archeos just can't "claim" artefacts and offer pale imitations as replacements....can they? I don't want to get the thread embroiled in a debate on the rights and wrongs of removing such things from their place of discovery...but did you take some pics around where it was discovered?
I would be interested in where exactly it was discovered, obviously you won't want to give away precise locations but was it on or close to a mound, were there signs of other similar stones or mounds in the vicinity?
Sorry for all the questions...but no-one else was asking.
Reply | with quote | Posted by Resonox 13th January 2011ce 09:15 |
|