Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien

Ogam-Inschrift: CIIC-Nr. 216

Ogam Inscription: CIIC no. 216

Original location: Whitefield

County: Kerry

Year of discovery: 0

Actual location: Dublin, N.M., RIA c.


Fig. 216, 001 Fig. 216, 002 Fig. 216, w01

Actual reading:

Latin Transcription: GOSOCTEAS MOSAC MA(KEA)NI

Ogam Transcription: ()

Ogam Transliteration: ()()

Direction of reading: su

Other readings, history, comments etc.:

Location and history:

For the original locality and treatment history, cf. {215}.

Size according to Brash, OIM 190: 5'5.5" x 11.5" x 6"
Size according to Macalister, CIIC: 4'8" x 1'0" x 0'6"

Published illustrations:
Brash, OIM, pl. XIX ("RIA no. 10") (.
Macalister, CIIC I, 209 (inscription only)

Reading Brash, OIM 190 ("Royal Irish Academy, no. 10"):

There is no "Maqi", and "the presence of the diphthong EA, with a vowel before and after it, increases" the difficulty of interpreting the inscription. Cp "one of the Lugnagappul" inscriptions which matches with the first eight characters as present here, reading GOSUCTTIAS {190}. This is a name in the genitive, appearing in Mart.Don. as `Guassacht, the son of Maelchu'; "we also have Gostean and Gusan, Ann 4 Mas. Gaulish form, Gosinus .. Gruter, 416, 9."

Reading Macalister, JRSAI 27, 1897, 226:

EASMOSAC must be an adjective because it is in a nominative form, ending in -AC.

Reading Macalister, Epig. 2, 110 (108.):

Gosocteas is "a sibilant genitive also found at Lugnagappul .. {190} and Garranmillon in Waterford" {283}. But the "coexistence" of this with MAQI spelt maki "is very hard to believe (for the inscription seems to end maki Ni or mak Ini; moreover, the word which remains, mosac, has not only the very improbable meaning `unclean', but is in false concord with the associated words". Therefore a "series of words in the nominative case" is preferred: Gosocte asmosac mak Ini; asmosac, "which seems to be an adjective in -ac, remains unclear.

Reading Macalister, CIIC:

MOSAC also appears at Crickhowel, Brecon {327}, "translated" by PVVERI in the "Latin epitaph". The "cross-line" might have been written by mistake for an "underline" = P: "Mapini certainly seems to be more plausible than Makini".

Interpretation Korolev, DP 85:

This is an "archaizing" inscription. Because of the apocopy in the second word and the K sign it can be dated later than the beginning of the 6th cent.

Reading McManus, Guide 65:


Reading Gippert (1988):

Dexter angle up:
There is a considerable space between the fourth and fifth vowel notch of the second vowel in the last word, thus suggesting a reading -EA- rather than Macalister's and Brash's -I-. Of the K-forfid, only part of one axis can be ascertained so that it appears like a second M; it is too much slanted for being read as a B.

Last changes of this record: 29.04.97

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.