According to Macalister, CIIC, a group of nine "blocks of sandstone, mostly of pulvinar form", was [when?] found in "a circular enclosure" at Ballintaggart; this is called a "Cilleen" by Brash (OIM, 200), according to whom "it occupies the summit of a low eminence called Knockeen, and is an irregular oval, covered with half-obliterated stony grave-mounds". Ferguson (OI, 31) gives the information that the "rough circle" is "about 60 ft. in diameter". Macalister reports (Epig. 1, 32) that the "cemetery" was "under the guardianship of the Board of Public Works" at his time.
Brash states that two of the stones were not found within the enclosure but "in an adjoining ditch", and that the "first person who noticed the inscriptions" was Henry Pelham who "mentions his having seen six inscribed stones" (OIM 200). According to Ferguson (OI, 31), "one perceives no fewer than eight of those rounded pebble-like blocks" on entering the enclosure; a ninth one {162} "lies outside the Killeen to the south".
Brash reports the "tradition of a bloody encounter in this locality, in which threescore men bearing the Christian name of Daniel were slain, all of whom were buried here". The spot was also called "Lisheen-na-Corig, or the little fort of the battle" according to him (OIM, 200).
Macalister (CIIC 1, 151) quotes Hitchcock for the suggestion that the stones might have been supplied from "Minard Strand, about six miles away", where "large numbers of them are to be seen" on the shore. Hitchcock "also observes that the worn condition of some of the inscriptions is a consequence of the action of the sportive youth of the neighbourhood, who were in the habit of rolling the stones about as a trial of strength"; the same report was given by Pelham before (in Vallancey, Collectanea 6, 199; n.v.).
Brash visited Ballintaggart on Sept 25, 1868. Before him, it was visited in 1838 and 1848 by J. Windele who made copies of the stones; further copies were made by Hitchcock [when?] (OIM, 201). Ferguson together with "Mr. Burchett" had casts made (OI, 31) which, however, "exhibit many imperfections" due to the peculiar shape of the stones. Other copies were prepared by J.R. Allen; these were used by Macalister for his treatment of the stones in Epig. (1, 32).
Size according to Brash, OIM 201: 3'2" x 1'2" x 8"
Size according to Macalister, CIIC: 3'2" x 1'2" x 0'6"
Published illustrations:
- Macalister, CIIC 152 (sketch of inscription)
AXETRIFFI
The stone is assigned "No. XVII (third in the Ballintaggart group)" in Ferguson's article. The legend is "quite distinct in all its parts" but the contents remain "obscure" so that it was not included in his "List of Moulds of Inscribed Stones from .. Localities in the Barony of Corkaguiney". - "There seems to be some ground in XIX (No. 5 in the same group {156}) for ascribing to x [i.e., õ], besides its other forces, the power of m initial". Taking the "apparent f .. distributively as lb, the name Maelbritti would emerge; but such a division of grouped digits seems inadmissible .. Ap[ostoli] petri might also be evolved, but in what seems an impracticable combination."
Reading Brash, OIM 200 ("No. 1"):
âõåãéòñåäííåä
AEýAEFRITTI
The inscription contains "the proper name Ritti, so often found on these monuments." - "The cross letter usually supposed to represent EA is .. very embarrassing" in the position between two vowels "similar in sound". - As against Ferguson's reading in PRIA 15, Brash's own one agrees with the one "taken by Col. A. Lane Fox, one of the most accurate transcribers", as well as the metallic cast in the Mus. R.I.A." - The present stone had been mentioned before, with the erroneous localization of "Ballinrannig", in Brash's article in JRSAI 10, 1869, 258, as an example for the element RITTI; cf. {106.}).
APEFRITTI
(This "seems to designate a son of Efritt. Efritt, Efratt is a name known in Patrician documents. The ap therefore may be an early form of the Welsh map, the equivalent of the Irish maqi". For the P-letter cf. also 44. {163} as well as the stone from Aglish {141}. - "There were two lines of British connection with Munster - one before the introduction of Patrician Christianity; the other, through the Welsh ecclesiastics who came in some Patrick's train. The first connection rests on both British and Irish authority dating from the time of Nennius; the second appears by a curious passage in the Glossary of Cormac, to the effect that the Welshmen who came with Patrick could not pronounce the Irish word Cruimthir (corrupted from Presbyter, a Priest), but called it Premter."
âõåãéòñåäííåä
AKEVRITTI
The reading is without doubt. The name was regarded as Brythonic by Ferguson, Anglo-Saxon by Graves [TRIA 30], and Pictish by Macalister himself who had assumed before [where?] "that Ipevoret in the St. Vigean's inscription {P4} is a separate vocable, is a proper name, and is proparoxytone". This interpretation had to be given up because it did not "explain the Celtic genitive-formation" and because the value of "õ = p" was not acceptable. Graves's proposal relied upon -fritt not occurring "elsewhere in Celtic epigraphy"; but "since then the Lamogue (Co. Kilkenny) inscription" reading Se"f"errit was found {36}, and actually we have to read not -frit but -vrit. In Ballyneanig {146} a name Qritt(i) is met with which allows to read a Kevritti here; a could possibly be "a further abbreviation for Anm. õåãé might then be an "orthographical corruption" of îí = Q, qw; cp. Qveci at Drumloghan {275}. The e might be an "auxiliary vowel" comparable to the a in Eracias at Gowran {32}, the i in Coribiri at Deelish {106}, the o in Ddalangoni at Kilbonane {241}, and the u in Conuri at Camp {176}. - [Substitutional remarks in Epig. 3, 5 f.:] "I am inclined to regard it as a translation of a Pictish name which occurs on the Vigean's stone in Forfarshire {P4} which is best read as Drosten, Ipevoret, ett Forcus `Drosten, Ipevoret, and Forcus'. Here we have Ipevoret "Goidelized", the "guttural being substituted for p, and the declension assimilated to Goidelic inflexional forms. The pronunciation must have been Æk‚v'ritti. The stone cannot be very early, otherwise the name would have appeared as *Aqevritti."
AKEVRITTI
"A puzzling word (or words?), but the reading cannot be doubted".
Reading O'Kelly, JCHAS 50, 1945, 152:
Macalister's reading as given in the CIIC is "correct".
AKEVRITTI
The inscription is preserved complete.
AKEVRITTI
Reading Gippert (1978):
"Surface angle, right to left":
AKEVRITTI
âõåãéòñåäííåä
âõââââçççïïïïïâââââëëëæëëëâââââ
Additional literature:
- Vallancey, Collectanea 6, 1804, 219 (H. Pelham);
- TRIA 30, 97: Graves "On an Ogham Inscription supposed to bear an Anglo-Saxon name";
- JRSAI 22, 1892, 155: J.R. Allen;
- AC April 1892, 132: Rhys/Allen;
- JRSAI 1896 (according to McNeill, riu 3, 45).
Last changes of this record: 27.04.97
Copyright Jost Gippert, Frankfurt a/M 1996. No parts of this document may be republished in any form without prior permission by the copyright holder. 
