CIIC no. 172

Location and history:

According to Hitchcock, PRIA 6, 1856, 439, this stone was found in the " circular stone enclosure" named Cathair na g-cat in the townland of Ballywiheen (Baile Bhóithín according to OSDP, 9 [Irish part]; Baile Uí Bhaoithín according to the OS Discovery Map 70), in Oct. 1855, "covered with rubbish", by one Rev. J. Goodman. It was erected by him and "half a dozen men .. on the top of the Cathair" at the same date (according to Macalister, CIIC, this was done `"for protection"'). On 2.9.1856 it was visited by R. Hitchcock who made a rubbing and "a rough, but accurate, diagram copy of the inscription"; he "was not able to make a sketch of the whole monument", however (PRIA 6, 1856, 439). According to Macalister, CIIC, the stone was smashed into three pieces by a man who was searching for a treasure inside it in the 1890s; the third piece containing the end of the inscription was no longer present when the site was visited by Macalister. At that time, the stone was still standing upright (Epig. 1, 53); it must have been laid (or fallen?) on the ground some time afterwards, as it is now. According to Sheehy, Dingle 22, the third piece was later used as a lintel. When the site was visited in 1981, the inscription had been redrawn for better readability by somebody using chalk; this was no longer present during a second visit in 1998.

According to OSDP, 9, the stone fort contains "the foundations of at least two round houses", and "there is also a souterrain here". The site is not marked on the OS Discovery Map (70), but the Early Christian enclosure named "An Raingiléis" which is just on the opposite side of the road leading from Ballywiheen to Marhin (Márthain) is marked as a "Láthair Luathré Chríostaí" (OSDM 70: 35.3 / 3.5). For a possible connection with a cross standing in this enclosure and the ringfort containing an Ogham inscribed stone, cf. {193}.

Published illustrations:

Hitchcock, PRIA 6, 1856, 440 ( draft of stone standing upright [sketched by whom?]);

Macalister, CIIC 1, 166 (sketch of inscription only,"Ferguson's cast" being used for suppletion of the missing "concluding letters");

OSDP, 9 (draft).

Size according to MCIIC ("dimensions taken by Hitchcock when the stone was perfect"): 4'8" x 1'10 1/2" x 0'9", "tapering to 0'10" x 0'3 1/2" at the top".

Reading Brash, OIM 220:

TOGITTACCMAQESAGARETTOS

(Togittac = Toictheach (AD 808), Toicthuich (AD 895, both from the Ann. 4 Masters); cp. also Mart.Don. p. 5, 279; Gaul. Tocco (Mom. 130), Toccae, Togirix (Orel. 162, 326). Instead of the usual Maqi we have Maqe here. Rettos with "prefix Saga" supports the reading "Sagi Dari" of the inscription at Burnfort {56} as proposed by M. Horgan. - The stone had been mentioned as the "Cahernagat stone" by Brash in JRSAI 10, 1869, 258, before, as an example for an inscription containing the element RETT; cf. {106}.)

Reading Ferguson, OI 39 (58.):

TOGITTACCMAQISAGARETTOS

(As maqi is a gen. and not "in agreement" with nom. Togittacc, this must be understood as "Togittaccus Sacerdos Filii"; "a highly Christian and doctrinal meaning.")

Reading Macalister, JRSAI 27, 1897, 226:

TOGITTACC MAQI SAGARETTOS

(TOGITACC-MAQI is a "combination treated as one word".)

Reading Macalister, Epig. 1, 53 (29.):

(i): TOGITTACC

(ii): MAQISAGARET

(This has to be completed to Togittacc maqi Sagarettos. Togittacc (for Togittacci by "agglutinating construction") = Toictheg in Clonmacnoise {774: CIIC 2, 61}, Toicthech in mss. According to Stokes, Celt.Decl. 150, the connection between Sagarettos and Sagart `a priest' "implies a want of philological perspective"; cp., however, Netta-Sagru {426}, Sagr-amni {449?} {489?} or Branittos {29}.)

Reading Macalister, CIIC:

TOGITTACC MAQI SAGARETTOS

("The inscription is .. perfect" except for the missing third piece [covering which part?], "and there has never been any doubt about the reading of the inscription". - "Brash's MAQE is a mistake of his own, and quite unjustifiable".)

Reading Harbison, Guide 112:

TOGITTACC MAQI SAGARETTOS

(The stone "has recently [!] been broken in two".)

Reading Sheehy, Dingle 22:

TOGITTACC MAQI SAAGARETTUS

[Sic!]

Interpretation Korolev, DP:

TOGITTACC MAQI SAGARETTOS

(The stone was smashed into "several" ("несколько") pieces. The final -I of TOGITTAC was apocopated, because it was in an unaccented syllable ("в суффиксе"!). -I- represents a reduced vowel (shewa) in the neighbourhood of a palatalized consonant. The inscription dates from the period immediately before syncope, 1st half of the 6th century. In the second name, -S was preserved, which should have disappeared between the 5th and 6th centuries; also -GR- is preserved. As G should have got lost in the 1st half of the 6th cent., we arrive at the beginning of the 6th cent.)

Reading OSDP, 10:

TOGITTAC MAQI SAGARET(TOS)

(It is the piece "with the final TOS" which "is now missing".)

Reading Gippert (1981/1998):

Sinister angle, "left to right":

TOGITTACC [M](A)QI SAGARE[T

ᚈᚑᚌᚔᚈᚈᚐᚉᚉ᚞[ᚋ]ᚐᚊᚔ᚞ᚄᚐᚌᚐᚏᚓᚇ[ᚆ

ᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐᚋᚋᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐᚆᚆᚆ᚞ᚆᚆᚆᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆ᚞ᚆᚆᚆᚆ[ᚋ]ᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐᚁᚁᚁᚁᚐᚋᚋᚐᚋᚋᚋᚋᚋᚐᚐᚐᚐᚆᚆ[ᚆ

(An accurate reading was made difficult in 1981 by the chalk strokes that had been used by somebody to "enhance" the inscription; the reading could be confirmed on a second visit in 1998, however. At the end, no traces of what was read as -TOS before could be found; considering that there is no indication of a break, it remains doubtful, though, whether the assumed final part ever existed.)

Additional literature:

Stokes, Wh., Celt. Decl., 150.

End of output