weathered and shows rows of horsemen. The second panel depicts armed foot soldiers and the third panel shows the decapitated vanquished soldiers, the heads piled up, and soldiers, archers and horsemen surrounding what may be a broch. The base panel depicts the victorious army leaving the battlefield. The sides are also elaborately carved. In the early 1990s, the stone was encased in armoured glass to prevent further erosion. Interpretations Radiocarbon dating at the site produced dates of charcoal fragments to between AD 600 and AD 1000. Two separate but similar patterns were discerned and may relate to the second stone. There is general agreement that the stone dates to . and greater accuracy is probably not possible. The examination of the carvings has been carried out to compare the style and also to interpret the figurative and historical significance. The Irish crosses of the 10th century are similar with their interweaving patterns and crowded panels of figures. One hypothesis is that the figures depicted in the battle, parade and decapitation scenes is the army of Kenneth MacAlpin (Cináed mac Ailpín), the scene being the representation of Kenneth's demonstration of his military and legal authority over northern Pictland. The two side panels have sinuous vine patterns populated with men as depicted in the Book of Kells. This suggests a date of between AD 800 and AD 900. The traditional interpretation of the battle scene was that it shows a victory by Malcolm II (Máel Coluim mac Cináeda) (reigned 1005–1034) against Danes or Norse led by one Sueno. This appears in Alexander Gordon's Itinerarium Septentrionale of 1726 and is thought to have been ancient then, derived from folklore and the more learned histories of John of Fordun, Hector Boece and George Buchanan. However, this interpretation is no longer supported by historians and archaeologists. Several more recent interpretations have been advanced. Anthony Jackson suggested that the stone displayed the final triumph of the Christian Gaels of Dál Riata over their (erroneously) , Pictish enemies, in which case it would have been erected by Kenneth MacAlpin or his immediate successors. As an alternative, Archie Duncan advances his theory that the stone records the defeat, death and reburial of Dubh mac Ailpin in 966. A modified form of Jackson's theory, stripped of much of the ingenious interpretation, is probably the present orthodoxy. This holds that Sueno's Stone commemorates an unknown victory by the men of