CIIC no. 217

Location and history:

For the original locality and treatment history, cf. {215}. Of the four stones from Whitefield, only this one is presented with notices about its discovery by Brash (OIM, 190). According to him, it was found by J. Windele "in the kitchen of a house belonging to the MacGillicuddy, on the townland of Whitefield, parish of Knockane, and barony of Dunkerron", but "the tenant could give no information as to where it came from; it was then used as a hearth-stone".

The present stone was assigned no. 11 in the RIA collection.

Size according to Brash, OIM 191: 4'9" x 9" x 8"

Size according to Macalister, CIIC: 3'10" x 0'9" x 0'8"

Published illustrations:

Brash, OIM, pl. XIX ("RIA no. 11") ( draft);

Macalister, CIIC I, 210 and 211 (five drafts, one showing the stone from its front and four showing the four sides.)

Reading Brash, JRSAI 10, 1869, 258:

Nocati maqi maqi Ret

Reading Brash, OIM 191:

Left angle to top:

ᚅᚑᚉᚐᚈᚔᚋᚐᚊᚔᚏᚓᚈ

NOCATIMAQIMAQIRET

NOCATI MAQI MAQI RET

"(Stone of) NOCAT, THE SON OF MAC RET"

Windele copied the "first proper name as `Dunocati'". It is "very probable" that the scores forming DU- "may have been abraded". For the "prefix DU" in "Gaedhelic names" cf. "Dunan, Dunadach, Dunchadh, Duineachaidh; this last being identical with our Dunocat". But "we also find in our indices frequently repeated the form Nuagat (Ann. 4 Mas.)". DUNOCATI is also present on the stone at Crickhowel {327}. But a name similar to NOCATI "has been found on one of the Drumloghan stones, in the form of Nogati {272}; Nuaghat, and Nuadhat, have been found in our annals". The name Ret appears in the Ann. 4 Masters, at A.D. 448, `Mac-raith the Wise,' and elsewhere; "we find it also in the `Tain bo Cuailgne,' in the form of `Mac-Roth,' the courier of Queen Meav. Roth-mac-Cathan, Ann. Tiger., B.C. 204". - For the "repetition of the formula Maqi, cp. the Dunmore stone {178: Coumeenoole North} "and one from Ballintaggart" {156? 159?}.

Second inscription:

ᚋᚐᚊᚔᚋᚒᚉᚑᚑᚔᚒᚇᚇᚐᚋᚔ

MAQIMUCOIUDDAMI

"(Stone of) THE SON OF MUCOI UDDAM".

This is "another example of the name of the deceased coming after the patronymic, also with the oft-recurring Mucoi, as a proper name". Uddam "has .. a family likeness to such (names) as Uchadan, AM 3656, Uidren, AD 691. Oddach, Ann.Ult. 600". - The stone was mentioned as "no. 11" of the RIA collection by Brash, JRSAI 10, 1869, 124 and 258 in a list of monuments containing the "name" MUCOI, and on p. 260 as an example for a stone mentioning "more than one individual"; cf. {106}.

Reading Ferguson, OI, 107 (177.):

Nocati maqi maqi rette

"Nocat, son of the son of Rett"

Maqi mucoi uddami.

This is "nearly the last of the many examples of this obscure formula".

Reading Macalister, Epig. 2, 110 (107.):

                      left¬

ᚅᚑᚉᚐᚈᚔᚋᚐᚊᚔᚋᚐᚊᚔᚏᚓᚉ᚞

NOCATIMAQIMAQIREc/qi

⌐right

ᚋᚐᚊᚔᚋᚒᚉᚑᚔᚒᚇᚇᚐᚋᚔ

MAQIMUCOIUDDAMI

"Nocati is commoner as Dunocati, in which form it appears on the Crickhowel stone" {327}; "at Drumloghan {272}, it appears in some way sonantised to Nogati". The second name ending on the top was read as Ret by "Brash and others", "but there are four scores remaining in the last existing letter". Uddami "is not known to exist elsewhere".

Reading Macalister, CIIC:

NOCATI MAQI MAQI-REC[....] MAQI MUCOI UDDAMI

"The top of the stone is broken off, and with it has gone the end of the first line". The crosses on this stone were "evidently (made) by a different and later hand (or hands)".

Interpretation Korolev, DP 85:

NOCATI MAQI MAQI REC[...] MAQI MUCOI UDDAMI

The most probable restitution would be REC[I]. The inscription is not later than the middle of the 5th century. The crosses were encarved later than the inscription.

Reading McManus, Guide 65:

NOCATI MAQI MAQI-REC... MAQI MUCOI UDDAMI

Reading Gippert (1988):

Dexter angle up - top | sinister angle up:

]NOCATI MAQI MAQI-RE(T)[ || ] MAQI MUCOI UDDAMI

]ᚅᚑᚉᚐᚈᚔᚋᚐᚊᚔᚋᚐᚊᚔᚏᚓ(ᚈ)[ || ]ᚋᚐᚊᚔᚋᚒᚉᚑᚔᚒᚇᚇᚐᚋᚔ

]ᚁᚁᚁᚁᚐᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐᚋᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐᚋᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐᚋᚋᚋᚋᚋᚐᚐᚐᚐᚆᚆ(ᚆ)[ || ]ᚋᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐᚋᚐᚐᚐᚆᚆᚆᚆᚐᚐ᚞ᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐ᚞ᚐᚐᚐᚆᚆ᚞ᚆᚆᚐᚋᚐᚐᚐᚐᚐ

As against Macalister's reading, the one published by Brash can be supported with respect to the last readable character of the first line to be read as T rather than C. - The peculiar coincidence of two of the Whitefield stones, viz. this one and {216}, with the stone at Crickhowel, Brecknockshire {327} as noted by Brash is indeed striking: Here we have NOCATI as against DUNOCATI in {327} (and Windele who could not have known about {327} had read DUNOCATI in {217}), and in {216} we have MOSAC which we find in {327} again. Whether Windele was right in reading DU- can no longer be verified, given that the bottom of the stone was fixed in a wooden pedestal.

End of output