Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien

Ogam-Inschrift: CIIC-Nr. 163

Ogam Inscription: CIIC no. 163

Original location: Ballintaggart

County: Kerry

Surroundings: Burial ground

Year of discovery: 0

Actual location: =


Fig. 163, 001 Fig. 163, w01

Actual reading:

Latin Transcription: (N)[ T ]L(A)MINACCA KOI MAQQI MUCOI DO(V)[

Ogam Transcription: ()[ ]()()[

Ogam Transliteration: (][ ]()()[

Direction of reading: "du-tr-sd"

Other readings, history, comments etc.:

Location and history:

For the location and discovery, cd. {155.}.

Size according to Macalister, CIIC: 3'5" x 1'10" x 0'7";
No size is given by Brash, OIM 205 ("No. 9".

Published illustrations:
Macalister, CIIC 1, 157 (draft).

Reading Ferguson, PRIA 15, 1871, 62:

"S(outh) side":
"N(orth) side":
"Proposed Verbation":
[ ?] maqqi mucoi d[oros?]
The stone is assigned "No. XVI" in Ferguson's "List of Moulds of
Inscribed Stones from .. Localities in the Barony of Corkaguiney".

Reading Brash, OIM 205 ("No. 9"):

"The characters are much defaced, and very difficult to transcribe .. The inscription is defective at the end, and probably one or more characters have been lost at the beginning; there are only slight traces of the MA of MAQI. The terminal letters form the commencement of the oft met with Mucoi, which in this instance was very probably the patronymic." Of Ferguson's reading, the first five letters, `Netta', and the last three, `Mucoid', cannot be identified on his paper cast. Brash's copy agrees with Col. Lane Fox's, however. - Another stone "on the Keel", measuring 3' x 1'2" x 11", "bears no inscription".

Reading Ferguson, OI 32 (44.):

Nettal minacca pui maqqi mucoi Do(ros).<
The "reading is complicated by the presence of the character.. It is plain, from the conccurence of vowels flanking the , that it cannot be the diphthong here. - "Netta and pui are new." As for Netta, "I had first no doubt that it formed part of a proper name, Nettalami, but the cast refuses to admit an a after the l, and compels us to read ettal minacca, which certainly calls up the idea of Italian monachism. The poi or pui stands independently in the place where we might expect the copula in the sentence, and presents the welcome feature of something predicative. It is, in fact, the verb substantive in the past tense .., corresponding to the Irish boi, that is fuit .. I make no doubt that the Bishop of Limerick [i.e., Ch. Graves] is quite well grounded in this discovery [where?], and that whether it be an Italian religious who is here commemorated or some one called Netlam (Nitida Manus), the legend asserts he or she `was' Maqqi Mucoi Do(ros), whatever that may mean."

Reading Macalister, Epig. 1, 41 (20. / IX.):


This inscription is "very troublesome". - "The a between the l and m is not distinguishable without trouble; the surface of the stone is much flaked and weathered, and it is difficult to discriminate between true and illusory vowel-points." - "What followed the v is quite hopeless, but it is pretty certain that it was -inia; the faint traces remaining are not inconsistent with these letters". - For Laminacca cp. Monataggart IV {121} where it appears as Llominacca. "Netta is said to be connected with the Irish nia, `propuguator' (gen. niath): this may be correct, but it seems doubtful; for if Lamnach be the champion's name, netta should follow it as being the qualifying word; but if he be the master of the champion, then the stone is no memorial, as the person's name is not on it. Sometimes, as at Castletimon {47}, the word may be merely part of the name it precedes .. Might the word not be a form of proto-Celtic *ne

“t-, `nephew' ..; Irish ni‘, gen. niath? Such a meaning would work in all cases. One objection to this would, no doubt, be that Netta-Laminacca would have to be treated as a compound of the Maqi-Deccedda type, for which there seems no authority." - "What koi means is still unknown. It is probably an adjective, as it invariably follows a proper name .. Koi also occurs on Monataggart III {120} in an inscription of somewhat different purport .. here also we have neta."

Reading McNeill, Eriu 3, 45:

The reading repeats the one published (by McNeill himself?) in JRSAI 1896; instead of KOI one can also read POI.

Reading Macalister, CIIC:

"As a result of the absence of the stemline the letters tend to overlap a little. The last name can be entirely deciphered, with close attention, except the vowels IA, which cannot be traced. The A following the L .. (is) clear and certain. The "cross with expanding terminals .. is inverted with respect to the writing, and must, therefore, be a subsequent addition."

Interpretation Korolev, DP 79:

The letter K and the loss of the final S in the first name point to a considerably later date in comparison with the other stones from the site. The inscription is not later than 500 A.D. though.

Reading Gippert (1978):

"Surface angle, dexter - top - sinister":
()[ ]()()[
(][ ]()

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.