Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien

Ogam-Inschrift: CIIC-Nr. 208

Ogam Inscription: CIIC no. 208

Original location: Kilcoolaght

County: Kerry

Year of discovery: 0

Actual location: =


Fig. 208, w01 Fig. 208, w02 Fig. 208, w03

Actual reading:

Latin Transcription: ]URG[

Ogam Transcription: ][

Ogam Transliteration: ][

Other readings, history, comments etc.:

Location and history:

For the locality and discovery, cf. {206}.

If it is true that a stone was stolen from the site (as is stated on the sign-post and by Harbison), and if it was an inscribed one, it can only have been this one, read as UMALL by Macalister. It seems probable, however, that the present stone, no. {208} in Macalister's CIIC, never existed as such, the record having emerged from a confusion with the stone numbered {213} in Macalister's own data only. There are several arguments in favour of this hypothesis:
a) Older records (Brash, Ferguson) know only the fragment read by them as URG; this is no. {213} in the CIIC;
b) In Epig. 2, 101, Macalister mentioned only a fragment read by him as DDAMU; he wondered whether this might be the fragment read as URG and RRI by Brash and Graves, resp.: "If this be really the stone seen by them I cannot follow either reading". This means at least that Macalister never saw a fragment readable as URG himself.
c) In CIIC, Macalister lists the fragment reading UMALL and another fragment reading URG side by side as nos. {208} and {213}, resp. There is only one drawing included, however, viz. the one of {213} readable as URG. In Epig., however, the only drawing included shows what might be read as UMALL, i.e. {208}.
d) In CIIC, a size is given for {213}, not for {208}.
e) Both readings, URG and UMALL, are not so different that they might not conceal the same inscription: cp. and
f) Harbison, Guide 115 speaks of "six Ogham stones" at Kilcoolaght, plus a stolen one. He lists the one reading UMALL, but not the one reading URG (but there are "two indecipherable inscriptions" according to him).
g) According to J. Rhs, JRSAI 16, 1884, 314, there were seven stones at the site at his time (and he warned that they could easily be "removed"). But even if nos. {208} and {213} are actually one stone, we are left with seven still today.
This is why both stones are be dealt with jointly here. Cf. Gippert, Pr„liminarien for a more detailed discussion of the problems involved.

Size according to Brash, OIM 230: 12" x 4" x 8".
Size according to Macalister, CIIC {213}: 1' x 4" x 3"

Published illustrations:
Brash, OIM, pl. XXXI, no. 3. (draft);
Macalister, Epig. 2, 101 (outline of the inscription);
Macalister, CIIC, 205 {213} (sketch of the inscription only).

Reading Brash, OIM 230 (3.):

This is "apparently the top of a pillar stone. .. This piece would not fit with any of the other fragments".

Reading Ferguson, OI 106 (175. C):

This "may have been a Pictish Urgust, or its cognate Furgas."

Reading Graves (quoted by Macalister in Epig. 2, 101):


Reading Macalister, Epig. 2, 103:

"I cannot follow either" Brash's reading urg nor Graves's rri".

Reading Macalister, CIIC I, 203, no. 208:

This is "the extreme top of a stone". The U is "preceded by the last score of a letter on the B side. Too fragmentary for completion."

Reading Macalister, CIIC I, 205, no. 213:

"Fragment .. The B-half of the G is damaged."

Reading Harbison, Guide 115:

It is not clear whether this reading is based upon personal investigation or just on quoting from Macalister's CIIC.

The fragment(s) are not dealt with by Korolev, DP (85).

Reading Gippert (1981):


Last changes of this record: 27.04.97

Jost Gippert, Frankfurt a/M 1996. No parts of this document may be republished in any form without prior permission by the copyright holder.