CIIC no. 198

Location and history:

For the locality and discovery, cf. {197}.

The present stone has broken in two parts. A concrete pillar had to be prepared to support it when it was erected in the enclosure.

According to Brash, OIM 232, this was "the second lintel from the entrance" in the souterrain.

Size according to Brash, OIM: 7'9" x 1'15" x 6".

Size according to Macalister, CIIC: 8'6" x 1'5" x 0'6".

Published illustrations:

Macalister, CIIC 1, 192 (draft)

Reading Brash, OIM 232 ("no. 2"):

First line:

ᚋᚐᚊᚔᚏᚔᚈᚔᚑᚋᚐᚐᚊᚔᚋᚐᚊᚔᚉᚒᚋᚔᚁᚔᚐ

MAQIRITIMAQIMAQICUMIBIA

MAQI RITI MAQI MAQI CUMIBIA

The reading was acquired "with some trouble". The second name "is either Cuminia or DDumibia". The second inscription was not readable. - Brash's reading was rejected by Rhŷs, JRSAI 16, 1884, 314, because it was "most inaccurately read". Rhŷs gave no reading of his own, however.

Reading Ferguson, OI 107 (178.):

Only the name Rittiq is quoted.

Reading Macalister, Epig. 2, 91 (89. / II.):

Left angle:

ᚋᚐᚊᚔᚏᚔᚈᚓᚐᚄᚋᚐᚊᚔᚋᚐᚊᚔᚇᚇᚒᚋᚔᚂᚓᚐᚄ

MAQIRITEASMAQIMAQIDDUMILEAS

Right angle:

ᚋᚒᚉᚑᚔᚈᚑᚔᚉᚐᚉᚔ

MUCOITOICACI

"The metronymic Maqi-Riteas, in its shortened form Maqi-Rite", appears also at Rockfield {243}; the Gurrane stone {252} has Dumeli.

Reading Macalister, CIIC:

MAQI-RITEAS MAQI MAQI-DDUMILEAS MUCOI TOICACI

This inscription "has settled the consonantal value of the ᚕ-forfid as being a guttural letter, interchangeable with C, not .. as .. a P. Adjacent to 1S there is a pocked rectangular space on the H-surface, apparently to remove a letter which had been placed there in error."

Interpretation Korolev, DP 83 f.:

MAQI RITEAS MAQI MAQI DDUMILEAS MUCOI TOICACI

The inscription is preserved complete. It commemorates a member of the same family as {197}. Remarkable traits are the preservation of MUCOI, the usage of C instead of K and the preservation of desinential S. The inscription has to be dated into the second half of the 5th cent.

Reading McManus, Guide 65:

MAQI-RITEAS MAQI MAQI·DDUMULEAS MUCOI TOICACI

"An S inserted prematurely at the first E was erased by the lapidary."

Reading Gippert (1978/1981):

Dexter angle up || sinister angle up:

MAQIRITEAS MAQI MAQIDDUMILEAS || MUCOI TOICACI

ᚋᚐᚊᚔᚏᚔᚈᚓᚐᚄᚋᚐᚊᚔᚋᚐᚊᚔᚇᚇᚒᚋᚔᚂᚓᚐᚄ || ᚋᚒᚉᚑᚔᚈᚑᚔᚉᚐᚉᚔ

ᚋᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐᚋᚋᚋᚋᚋᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐᚐᚐ᚞ᚐᚁᚁᚁᚁᚋᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐᚋᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐᚆᚆ᚞ᚆᚆᚐᚐᚐᚋᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐᚁᚁᚐᚐᚐᚐ᚞ᚐᚁᚁᚁᚁ || ᚋᚐᚐᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐ᚞ᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐ᚞ᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐ

Macalister's assumption that a letter was erased "adjacent to the first S" is certainly correct; McManus was also right that this must have been an S.

End of output