For the locality and discovery, cf. {206}.
Size according to Brash, OIM 230: 2'6" x 6" x 5"
Size according to Macalister, CIIC: 2'4" x 0'6" x 0'5"
Published illustrations:
- Brash, OIM pl. XXXI, no. 2 (draft);
- Macalister, Epig. 2, 101 (draft);
- Macalister, CIIC 1, 203 (draft).
Reading Brash, OIM 230 ("no. 2."):
гомомпвонедиитстседн
OCCMAQILLRRIT
There are "two lines of inscriptions which fully occupy their respective angles, and appear to have continued round the top, which is very narrow." Probably there was "at least a vowel" on the top. For OCC cp. the stone from Kilcullen {108} as well as "Gaulish forms, Oecus .. Stein. 2054, Occanus .. Gruter .. 889.4. -RRIT otherwise appears with a "prefix Cu"; here LL forms a part of a prefix. Possibly "the terminating vowel", E or I, "is absent owing to the top of the stone being damaged".
]i/OCCMAQILONьG/RRIT/F[
occ maqi logri(n)
This recalls "the British Locrin".
leftЄ top ©right
жжжжввомомпвонедигжжжжжстседнжжжж
...ve]CCMAQILo nьgRIT[
"The inscription is incomplete at both ends .. The top is spalled and some scores lost .. The first name, there is little doubt, was one ending in -vecc".
....]ECC MAQI L[UGUQ]RRIT
"E12 are lost by fracture"; probably the name in question was "something like RITUVVECC of No. VI. {211}. "The extreme top is flaked, carrying off the scores dotted in the diagram: but these can be restored with security, for there is no reasonable room for doubt as to what the name must have been".
...ECC MAQI L(UGUQ)RRIT
...]E&127;CC MAQI L[UGUQ]RRIT
The second name can be restituted by the size of the gap; cp. nos. {68} and {146}. The inscription can be dated into the first half of the 6th cent.
Reading Gippert (1978/1981):
"Dexter angle, left to right" - 
"sinister angle, right to left":
]CC MAQI L[ G || ]RIT[
]гомомпвонеди[ р || ]стседн[
]ввллллжллллпвлллллвввввзз[ пп || п]пппжпппппвввввллл[
As against Macalister's reading in Epig., there are two ends of slanted strokes recognizable next to the L, thus supporting the sketch given in CIIC and the reading of a G. There is not enough space, however, between the L and this "G" to restore a U. Macalister's LUGUQRIT must therefore be ruled out. There is a faint trace of a fourth stroke visible as part of the first letter on the second angle. In analogy to the first angle the beginning of which seems lost, some characters will probably have followed after -RIT-. How much space there was for a restoration of the gap between both angles, remains completely unclear (pace Korolev).)
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.
