CIIC no. 047

Location and history:

According to Macalister, CIIC, "the stone is, or used to be, called `the Giant's Stone'". It was "first identified as an Ogham by Mr J.C. Tuomey" (thus Brash, JRSAI 10, 1869, 175). According to Brash (l.c.), it "is a prostrate slab, lying a short distance" ("fifteen perches" according to OIM 295) "from the old church of Castletimon .. and within a mile of the sea shore". Ferguson states (OI, 68) that the stone "may have better served the purpose of a coped grave-stone than a pillar monument".

In Macalister's times, the stone was "lying by the roadside" (Epig. 1, 76). Nowadays (1988) it is exposed with a sign post by the road leading to Castletimon, shortly after this turns to the north, "leading to the coast-guard station at Ballinacanig" (Brash, OIM 295).

Size according to Tuomey, JKilkAS 1854-55, 191 (quoted by Brash, OIM 296): 5' x 18" (max.) x 1'

Size according to Macalister, CIIC: 4'11" x 1'7" x 0'10"

Published illustrations:

Macalister, CIIC I, 51 (inscription only)

Reading Tuomey, JKilkAS V, 1854-55, 191 (quoted by Brash, OIM 296):

ᚔᚌᚐᚄᚐᚃᚓᚊᚔᚏᚐᚄᚐᚃᚓᚊ

IGASAVEQIRASAVEQ

Brash does not quote the reading explicitely. He only states that Tuomey "copied" it "from the head of the stone downwards"; Brash gives the inverted reading.

Reading Williams, JRSAI 1856-7, 330 (quoted by Brash, JRSAI 10, 1869, 175):

ᚅᚒᚐᚇᚆᚐᚈᚆᚐᚏᚑᚋᚑᚄᚓᚈᚐᚉᚐᚌᚔ

NUADHATHAROMOSETACAGAOGI

"`Nuadhath ar omóse taca ógi', i.e. `Nuadhath for honouring the prop of his youth'".

Reading Brash, JRSAI 10, 1869, 175:

ᚅᚓᚈᚐᚉᚐᚏᚔᚄᚓᚈᚐᚉᚐᚌᚔ

NETACARISETACAGI

This is to be interpreted as: "`Ne, tacar ise tacag i'. Literally rendered - `Ne, battle he (had) prosperity in.' Freely rendered - `Ne, victorious in battle.'" - `Ne' is a variant of Nia, or Niadh; the "same name is also found on one of the Drumloghan stones {278}: `The son of Ne.'". `Tacar' is `tachar, s.m., a battle, a skirmish, `Tacag' "an obsolete form of `tacadh', s. prosperity. The inscription "naturally divides itself into the above words".

Reading Brash, OIM 296:

ᚅᚓᚈᚐᚉᚐᚏᚔᚅᚓᚈᚐᚉᚐᚌᚔ

NETACARINETACAGI

[This reading was effected by reversing the one prepared by J.C. Tuomey. It is not clear whether Brash visited the stone himself.] - "The absence of the keyword Maqi renders a translation difficult."

Reading Ferguson, OI 68 (98.):

NETACARINETACAGNI

It is striking that "neta enters as a component into both" elements of "the A's B formula .. `Netacar's Netacag' has certainly an odd aspect, and induces a suspicion that some other name is concealed under adventitious syllables" here. "Carantoc would be the name most likely to be so hidden, and neta merely a suffarcination and disguise."

Reading Macalister, Epig. 1, 76 (48.):

ᚅᚓᚈᚐᚉᚐᚏᚔᚅᚓᚈᚐᚉᚐᚌᚅᚔ

NETACARINETACAGI/Ni

Only the final letters are doubtful. If this is to be read as Netacari Netacagni, "we must treat the second word as patronymic, like Celibattigni on one of the Whitefield group {215}: if -gi, then we must read Netacari neta Cagi." For neta cp. "Ballintaggart II" [read: XI] {163}. - The inscription is mentioned in Epig. 1, 42 for containing Neta as a mere "part of the name it precedes."

Reading Macalister (together with McNeill), PRIA 33, 1917, 84:

NETACARI NETACAGI

The reading was undertaken in order to verify -CAGI instead of -CAGNI "as read by some". According to McNeill the inscription contains two words, according to Macalister possibly even three: NETACARI NETA CAGI. For NETA "nephew" instead of NIOTTA cp. Monataggart 3 {120}.

Reading Macalister, CIIC:

NETA-CARI NETA CAGI

The "alternative reading .. CAGNI, is wrong".

Interpretation Korolev, DP, 64:

NETACARI NETACAGI

MAQI is simply dismissed which is an archaic feature, cp. Gaulish inscriptions (Pokorny, Vox romanica 10, 1948/49, 56 f.); according to McNeill (PRIA C 39, 1931, 47) NETACAGNI has to be restored. Nothing speaks in favour of the inscription being of younger date.

Reading Gippert (1988):

Inscribed angle:

(NE)TACARI N(E)TACA(M)I

(ᚅᚓ)ᚈᚐᚉᚐᚏᚔ᚞ᚅ(ᚓ)ᚈᚐᚉᚐ(ᚋ)ᚔ

(ᚁᚁᚁᚁᚁᚐᚐᚐᚐ)ᚆᚆᚆᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚋᚋᚋᚋᚋᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐᚁᚁᚁᚁᚁ(ᚐᚐᚐᚐ)ᚆᚆᚆᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐ(ᚋ)ᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐ

Whether there is a second M stroke in the last name or not, cannot be decided upon with certainty.

Additional literature:

JRSAI 3, 1854 [= vol. 1, sec. ser.], 191 (J.C. Tuomey) (misprint in Macalister, CIIC for the following quotation?)

JKilkAS ser. 1, vol. vii, 1854-55, 187 (J.C. Tuomey);

JRSAI 1856-7, 330: William Williams

JRSAI 40, 1910, *61 (Cochrane).

End of output