CIIC no. 180

Location and history:

The stone was found by E. Lhuyd, standing in a field near the beach of Trabeg, in the first years of the 18th century ("somewhere between 1702-7"), being the first Ogam stone discovered in Ireland at all (thus according to a letter from Peter Roberts to Vallancey, dated Feb. 1808, quoted in Brash, OIM 173); "at that time it was standing in a field near the beach" (according to OSDP, 17). It was only in 1838 that it was visited a second time, by J. Windele, who copied the inscription; after that it was inspected by R. Hitchcock and Lady Chatterton. In 1849, it was brought to Chute Hall, Tralee, together with two of the stones from Ballinrannig ({152} and {153}), but before Brash's time it was moved back to its original site ("for some reason": Macalister, CIIC; according to Sheehy, Dingle 16, this was done "because of threats from the emergent nationalists against the absentee landlord"). Ferguson had a rubbing made in 1870. For some time after that, the stone lay "prostrate on the shore at Trabeg (An Trá bheag, "the little strand") and washed over by every tide" (Macalister, CIIC), but between the publishing years of Macalister, Epig. 1 and CIIC it was cemented upon a pedestal.

According to Macalister, CIIC, the stone was erroneously named Leac Siobháine na nGimhlech (lac Sheevaun na geela in Ferguson, OI; Sean na Neelagh in Sheehy, Dingle), a name, which "properly applies to an isolated rock further out on the strand, derived from the name of a local lady who frequently used it as a mounting-block for getting upon her white steed (geal-each)".

There is an alternate name cloch Bruscuis which has no tradition with the local popoulation but was taken over from "Oghmists": this contains a "secondary" gen. Bruscuis to meet the attested (gen.) form Bruscos taken as a nominative (Macalister, Epig. 2, 60 and JRSAI 1897/98). According to Harbison, Guide, it is called "The Priest's Stone" ("Cloch an tSagairt" according to OSDP, 17).

Size according to Macalister, CIIC: 7'10" x 2'0" x 0'11".

Published illustrations:

Graves apud Ferguson, PRIA 15, 1871, 55 ( woodcut);

Brash, OIM pl. XVI ( draft of stone and cross);

Macalister, CIIC 173 (draft).

Reading Lhuyd (according to his sketch as quoted by Brash, OIM 173):

ᚏᚄᚉᚉᚑᚄᚊᚊᚓᚉᚐᚂᚏᚉ

S C C O S Q Q E CAL C

Reading Graves apud Ferguson, PRIA 15, 1871, 55:

BRUSCCOS MAQQI CALIACI

"Bruscus appears in the Book of Armagh as the name of a Presbyter, ordained by St. Patrick. CALIACUS, I feel sure, is neither more nor less than than the Latinized form of CEALLACH, a very common name." - "The final OS is not an ancient case-ending as some have supposed", but proves "the partiality of the Ogham writers for Latin and Greek forms". - The stone had been referred to by Graves before, in PRIA 4, 1850, 176, as "a finely preserved stone at Emlagh East, near Dingle," which "presents the name BRUSCCOS, which belonged to an ecclesiastic contemporary with St. Patrick."

Reading Brash, OIM 171:

BRUSCCOSMAQQICALUOCOC

This is Bruscc with "old Gaulish gen. OS"; the name appears also in a Latin inscription at Wigford, Lincolnshire: .. SACRI BRUSCI FILI CIVIS SENONI ..; so this must have been a Gaulish man! - The patronym CALU is a dat.sg. of Cal, cp. Lughaidh Cal in Corca-Laidhe, founder of the Calraighe (Munster Genealog., Misc. Celt. Soc., 25) [some further alluding names follow.] But according to Ferguson [where?] this has rather to be read as CALIACUS than CALU OC OC; according to Graves, it is possibly CALIACI as the gen. of Ceallach. There is a large gap indicating a word boundary between the U and the O, however, and that the final letter is not an I, is approved by J. Brenan.

Reading Ferguson, OI 30 (41.):

BRUSCOSMAQICAL⌂I⌂ACI

"Bruscos Maqi Cal⌂i⌂aci" or Caluoci.

This is rather to be read Caliaci, because the sixth vowel notch was obviously only "abraded"; this would be "a statelier presentation of the ordinary name Cellach. The final I is not visible in the cast, but was filled in on the basis of Ferguson's "own recollection".

Reading Macalister, Epig. 1, 59 (35.: "Emalaugh East"):

BRUSCCOS MAQQICALIACI

This reads CALIACI rather than CALIACIAS, although this "appeared feasible" during examination, the -AS "being apparent on the top of the stone, but probably nothing more than the wide grain of the slaty stone". - "Caliaci is, no doubt, the proto-genitive of the common name Cellach." - "Brusccus is a rare name".

Reading Macalister, CIIC:

BRUSCCOS MAQQI CALIACI[AS] M[AQQI MUCOI ...

The second I of CALIACI "is on the shoulder of the stone. After this the top and the sinister edge are violently spalled; the lower tip of M remains to show that we have here once more an example of hostility to the maqi-mucoi formula". To fill the gap, the restitution of -AS is suggested. The cross must be "older than the Ogham, for L₂ of CALIACI has been shortened to avoid running into it." The "hypotenuse bears some small scores capable of being read OBAM"; "they may be merely modern scratches.

Reading O'Kelly, JCHAS 50, 1945, 152:

The last twelve letters of Macalister's transcription in CIIC do not exist at all.

Reading Harbison, Guide 113:

BRUSCCOS MAQQI CALIACI...M...

Interpretation Korolev, DP 81:

BRUSCCOS MAQQI CALIACI

Thus the reading is complete according to O'Kelly, JCHAS. - The inscription is not later than the middle of the 5th cent., the cross being older than the Ogam inscription.

Reading Sheehy, Dingle 16:

BRUSCCOS MAQQI CALIACIAS MAQQI MUCOI

"Christians usually removed pagan forbears from ogham stones .. but this was a Christian stone from the start as part of the inscription was shortened to avoid bumping into the cross".

Reading McManus, Guide 66:

BRUSCCOS MAQQI CALiACi

"Ignore the letters after CALIACI in Macalister."

Reading OSDP, 17:

BRUSCCOS MAQQI CALIACI

"It is thought that the cross was carved first, as the second `L' score appears to have been shortened to avoid the arm of the cross".

Reading Gippert (1978):

Dexter angle - "up":

BRUSCCOS MAQQI CAL(IA)C[I

ᚁᚏᚒᚄᚉᚉᚑᚄᚋᚐᚊᚊᚔᚉᚐᚂ(ᚔᚐ)ᚉ[ᚔ

ᚁᚋᚋᚋᚋᚋᚐᚐᚐᚁᚁᚁᚁᚆᚆᚆᚆ᚞ᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐᚁᚁᚁᚁᚋᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆ᚞ᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐᚐᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚁᚁᚐ(ᚐᚐᚐᚐ᚞ᚐ)ᚆᚆᚆᚆ[ᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐ

There are no indications in favour of Macalister's assumption that the inscription once continued after CALIACI.

Additional literature:

Windele, Notices of Cork and its Vicinity .., 400 (according to Brash, OIM 174).

Lady Chatterton, Rambles in the South of Ireland, I, 205.

O'Connor, Rerum Hibernicarum Scriptoris Vet., I, XXXIII

Hall, Ireland, I, 205 "

JRSAI 1897-1898 (Macalister? cf. Epig.

End of output