BWEEN/1

(the Cahernagat stone)
Corpus Refs:Cuppage/etal/1986:549
Macalister/1945:172
Site:BWEEN
Discovery:recognised, 1855 Goodman, J.
History:Cuppage et al/1986: `It was discovered within the cashel in 1855...acting as the entrance lintel to the souterrain. Ferguson (1887, 39) stated that the stone had been found in an adjoining killeen but this is not consistent with the various other accounts of its provenance. The stone was smashed into 3 pieces in the 1880's and one fragment was lost. The 2 fragments[are] visible today'.
Geology:
Dimensions:1.42 x 0.57 x 0.23 (converted from Hitchcock/1856)
Setting:on ground
Location:on site
Cuppage et al/1986, 194: `This [stone] lies loose on the surface of the cashel, in the vicinity of the souterrain'.
Form:fragment
Broken into three pieces, of which two survive.
Condition:frgmntry , some
Folklore:none
Crosses:none
Decorations:no other decoration

References


Inscriptions


BWEEN/1/1     Pictures

Readings

Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):TOGITACCMAQISAGARET ||| TOS
Expansion:
TOGITACC MAQI SAGARET TOS
Cuppage/etal/1986 194 concise discussion
Macalister/1945 165--166 concise discussion
Ziegler/1994 266 reading only
Gippert, J. (1981):TOGITTACC[MA]QI[S]AGAR[E][--
Expansion:
TOGGITTACC [MA]QI [S]AGAR[E][--
Gippert/Web Ogham 172 substantial discussion [Gippert 172]
McManus, D. (1991):TOGGITTAC[C]MAQ[I]SAGARET ||| [TOS]
Expansion:
TOGITTAC[C] MAQI SAGARE[TOS]
McManus/1991 66 reading only

Notes

Orientation:Indeterminate
Position:n/a ; inc ; n/a ; undecorated
Incision:inc
Date:533 - 599 (McManus/1991)
McManus/1991, 89, 97.
400 - 700 (Ziegler/1994)
Ziegler/1994, 229, 236. Ziegler dates the name TOGITTACC to her periods II-III (500-700), and the name SAGARETTOS to her periods I-II (400-550).
Language:Goidelic (ogham)
Ling. Notes:See McManus/1991, 7, 82, 87, 94, 108, 118, 123.
Palaeography:none
Legibility:good
Macalister/1945, 165, comments that, apart from the loss of the last three letters, on the lost third piece of the stone, the `inscription is otherwise perfect'.

Gippert/Web, Ogham 172: `An accurate reading was made difficult by the chalk strokes that had been used by somebody to `enhance' the inscription. At the end, a further piece seems to have broken away; no traces of what was read as -TTOS before could be found. A re-reading is necessary in any case'.

Lines:1
Carving errors:0
Doubtful:no

Names

References