For the locality and discovery, cf. {197}.
This was the sixth lintel stone of the souterrain according to Macalister, CIIC. It was not readable in situ for Brash (OIM, 234) and J. Rhys (JRSAI 16, 1884, 314).
Size according to Macalister, CIIC: 4'5" x 0'9.5" x 0'7".
Published illustrations:
- Macalister, CIIC 1, 195 (
draft).
Published photographs:
- Macalister, CIIC I, 196.
ᚅᚔᚑᚈᚈᚃᚏᚓᚉᚉᚋᚐᚊ
NIOTTVRECCMAQICOVATAGNI
"The right-hand angle is inaccessible. For the transcript of this portion I am indebted to Col. Nash, who accompanied the Rev. E. Barry when he had the cave uncovered, and noted down his readings. The portion written in Ogham characters .. is the portion which I have myself inspected". - Niottvrecc is "also found as Netavroqi on a stone at Stradbally, Waterford" {271}; the ms. form is Nadfraech.
NIOTTVRECC MAQI [....]GNI
The top of the stone is lost. The reading [Covata]gni established to fill the gap by Rev. E. Barry when the stone was "still in the cave" and repeated by Macalister in Epig. can no longer be upheld, the marks in question being "merely weathered stratification-planes". TT in the first word is "badly spaced, giving it the appearance of DC".
NIOTTVRE⌂CC MAQI⌂ [5/6]GNI⌂
The inscription is younger because of both syncope and apocopy being observable in the first name; it belongs to the second half of the 6th cent. The ending -I in the second and last word is an "artificial archaization".
NIoTTVRe/iCC MAQi ... .gNi
The inscription is listed among the ones that present "greater difficulty reading one or more letters".
Reading Gippert (1978/1981):
Dexter angle up - || - sinister angle down:
NI(O)TTVR(E)CCMAQ[I || ](G)N[
ᚅᚔ(ᚑ)ᚇᚉᚃᚏ(ᚓ)ᚉᚉᚋᚐᚊᚒ[ || ](ᚌ)ᚅ[
ᚁᚁᚁᚁᚁᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐ(ᚐᚐ)ᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆᚁᚁᚁᚋᚋᚋᚋᚋ(ᚐᚐᚐᚐ)ᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆᚋᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐᚐ[ || ](ᚋᚋ)ᚁᚁᚁᚁᚁ[
Macalister was right in underlining that the sequence to be read as TT is rather spelt like DC. Similarly, CC are written with hardly any space in between. Whether there was a final I cannot be decided with certainty.
draft
Dexter angle up - || - sinister angle down: