CIIC no. 154

Location and history:

For the location and discovery, cf. {148}. This stone alone remained at Ballinrannig, "its great size and weight having prevented its removal" (Brash, OIM 212). According to DPAS (no. 792 (7), p. 252), Brash reports that "it has at some time been re-erected from its former prostrate position". When the spot was visited in 1978, the stone was still standing upright, but by 1981 a flood had affected it so that it was nearly lying prostrate again (this happened in winter 1979 according to Sheehy, Dingle 52; the "heavily inclined" position is also remarked in DPAS, no. 792 (7), p. 252). Further damage was to be expected because the site is crowded by campers in the summer time. By 1998, the stone had been re-erected in an upright position again (considering the sketch as given in OSDP, 7, this must have been done after the publication of that booklet, in 1995).

Size according to Brash, OIM 212 (measured by J. Brenan): 8' x 1'10" x 6"

Size according to Macalister, CIIC: 5'8" x 1'8" x 0'7"

Size according to DPAS, no. 792 (7), p. 252: 1.76m x .63m x .17

Published illustrations:

Brash, OIM pl. XXXIV, no. 7 ( draft).

Macalister, Epig. 2,21 ( outline of inscription);

Macalister, CIIC 1, 150 (draft).

OSDP, 7 and 8 (sketches showing the stone in slanted position).

Reading Windele 1848 (quoted by Brash, OIM 212):

CONA MAQQI CORBBU

This copy "differs slightly from that of 1838" which was prepared when Windele first visited the site.

Reading Brash, OIM 212 (7.) (on the basis of a transcript made by J. Brenan in summer 1871):

Left:

CONAMAQQICORBBIMAQQI

"(Stone of) CON THE SON OF CORBB THE SON OF"

On the opposite angle, the letters CU or CO can be read according to Brenan's copy. "Mr. Windele's copy is substantially the same as the above", only the last letter is imperfect. - Con "is a recognized name, as, Con-Cead-Cathach. Gaulish form, Connius .. Grut. 776,1. Conatius .. Stein. 2022. For illustrations of Corb, see Laharan, No. 2" {244: Rockfield}.

Readings quoted by Ferguson, OI 43 (63: "Transcripts by various hands"):

CUNAS MAQQI CORLI MAQQI--

and

CONA MAQQI CORBBI MAQQI --

[Ferguson never saw the stone personally: OI, 42.]

The second proposal makes more sense than the first one because of the name CORB which means "bad, wicked"; a motivation for this kind of denomination is given under Ballinrannig IV {151}.

Reading Barry, JRSAI 1895, 352 (quoted by Macalister, Epig. 1, 40):

CUNA MAQQI CORBBI MAQQ(i MUCOI DOVINI?)AS

Reading Macalister, Epig. 2, 19 (57.):

                        left¬top⌐right

ᚉᚒᚅᚐᚋᚐᚊᚊᚔᚉᚑᚏᚁᚁᚔᚋᚐᚊᚊᚑ᚞᚞᚞᚞᚞᚞᚞᚞᚞᚞ᚐᚄ

CUNAMAQQICORBBIMAQQ[i mucoi ....]AS

Cp. Ballintaggart {162}; the present stone proves that this has to be read as CUNA MAQQI AVI CORBBI, i.e. `of Con, great-grandson of Corb'. Possibly this CUNA was the grand-father of the CUNA mentioned on the Ballintaggart stone. The tribal name was restored as mucoi Dovinias by [E.] Barry, but "there is not enough room for the name". Besides, we should have to expect some rests of the N before the S. Instead, all missing characters seem to have been on the H-surface. The mucoi-formula was possibly destroyed here as elsewhere because of "intertribal jealousies". The "tribe of Duben" bearing the name Dovinia, "being strong in their own territory, were presumably able to protect their tribesmen's tombstones" so that the name was preserved often enough. - The reading is further discussed in connection with Ballintaggart no. 8 {162} in Epig. 1, 40 where Macalister states that all former readings "fairly well agreed on Co/una maqqi Corbbi so that "in any case we must here have Cuna maqqi Corbbi, and not Cunamaqqi Corbbi [i.e., of Conmac, son of Corb]".

Reading Macalister, CIIC:

CUNAMAQQI CORBBI MAQQ[I MUCCOI DOVVINIA]S

"There is room enough for the restoration suggested, which local analogy makes probable; but the destroyer has been too thorough to leave a single trace of the writing to guide us." In Ballintaggart {162}, a "namesake and most likely a relative of the owner" of the present monument is mentioned, named CUNAMAQQI AVI CORBBI; possibly, the intended reading of this was CUNAMAQQI MAQQI CORBBI, the second MAQQI having been omitted, "through inadvertence, or laziness, or to economise the space" available; "or perhaps to guard against ambiguity, as the reader might mistake his intention and understand it as CUNA MAQQI MAQQI-CORBBI".

Interpretation Korolev, DP 77 f.:

CUNAMAQQI CORBBI MAQQ[I MUCOI 7/8]S

The restitution of the mucoi-formula is probably right but the one of Dov(v)inia remains a mere hypothesis. - All the stones from this site show archaic linguistic traits.

Reading Sheehy (Dingle, 52):

CUNAMAQQI CORBBI MAQQI MUCCOI DOVVINIAS

"All the words are in good condition, although the last name has been destroyed except for the final S, probably because of pagan associations."

Reading DPAS, no. 792 (7), p. 252 and OSDP, 8:

CUNAMAQQI CORBBI MAQQ(I MUCCOI DOVVINIA)S

The reading depends on Macalister's. "The initial C is now buried beneath the sand and the first score of the succeeding U is barely discernible. Only the first 2 notches of the I in MAQQI are traceable and the final 2 words are a conjectural reconstruction as this edge is damaged."

Reading Gippert (1978/1981/1998):

Dexter angle up - [top - sinister angle down ??]:

CUNAMAQQI CORBBI MAQQ[ | | ]( )

ᚉᚒᚅᚐᚋᚐᚊᚊᚔᚉᚑᚏᚁᚁᚔᚋᚐᚊᚊᚔ[ | | ](ᚃ)

ᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐᚐᚁᚁᚁᚁᚁᚐᚋᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆ᚞ᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐᚋᚋᚋᚋᚋᚁᚁᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐᚋᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆ᚞ᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐ[ | | ](ᚁᚁᚁᚁ)

There is no trace whatsoever of the characters on the sinister angle as restored by Barry and, accordingly, Macalister in CIIC except for three or four strokes which might be regarded as the remainder of a V or an S if the direction of reading is sinister-down.

Additional literature:

JRSAI 1895, 352 (E. Barry)

For further references cf. {148}.

End of output