Macalister's claims of evidence of Christianisation of this ogham stone are rightly argued against by McManus (1991, 56-7). McManus (1991, 91, 117) also points out that 'genitive forms often have the appearance of nominatives and Macalister was mislead by this in the case of [this ogham stone], which he described as a (Christian) `signature' as opposed to a (pagan) `epitaph'. Here RONANN, MAQ and COMOGANN have the deceptive appearance of nominatives but QRIMITIR with -IR, not -ER, is quite clearly genitive'.
The personal names RONANN and COMOGANN come from rón 'seal' and com- `with' + ag 'leads' (Gailsh Comagus) (McManus 1991, 107) and both ending with a late form of the diminutive suffix -AN(N) (earlier -AGNI).
In this inscription all endings are lost, including in the formula word (MAQ, earlier MAQ(Q)I) but syncope has not yet taken place. This linguistic evidnece suggests a date of approximately the second half of the sixth century (McManus 1991, 96-7).