Corpus Refs: | Macalister/1945:224 |
Site: | DROUK |
Discovery: | first mentioned, 1896 Brash, R.R. |
History: | Macalister/1945, 218, cites an article by Rhys from 1896, but also cites Brash (presumably Brash/1879). Macalister makes clear that the stone remains where it was first found. |
Geology: | |
Dimensions: | 2.59 x 1.52 x 0.36 (converted from Macalister/1945) |
Setting: | in ground |
Location: | earliest Macalister/1945, 218: `A stiff climb up a moderately high but steep hillock leads to this monument...set on end between two smaller stones'. |
Form: | name-slab |
Condition: | inc , some |
Folklore: | none |
Crosses: | none |
Decorations: | no other decoration |
Macalister, R.A.S. (1945): | MO{GW}UNILOCIDMAQIALOTTO Expansion: MOGWUNILOCID MAQI ALOTTO Macalister/1945 218--219 reading only Ziegler/1994 271 reading only |
Orientation: | vertical indeterminate |
Position: | S ; arris ; inc ; undecorated |
Incision: | pocked Macalister/1945, 218: `pocked'. |
Date: | 500 - 700 (Ziegler/1994) |
Language: | Goidelic (ogham) |
Ling. Notes: | none |
Palaeography: | none |
Legibility: | some Macalister/1945, 218--219: `The inscription is pocked upon the sinister angle of the southern face, and on the whole is in fair condition except at the beginning, where there are fractures. Brash read it as Anm Otunilocid maqi Alott. But his initial AN is made up of natural rugosities on the surface. At first I was inclined to reject the M also; to me it looked like a mere fissure, like another which runs through U2. It was tempting to make a Q out of the initial OT thus giving a familiar name QUNILOCI. The final D, however, would be intractable, and the suggested treatment of OT was evidently impossible. The notches of the O are rather widely spaced, but not sufficiently so to compel us to adopt an improbable resolution of the letters into AA. On second thoughts I reinstated the M in my notes. I noticed further that the T is not confined to the H-surface: its proximal ends run below the vowels which flank it, and I decided that it must be intended for {GW}. Inserting a final O which Brash missed...It would not accord with ordinary Celtic syntax to take MO{GW}UNI as a genitive depending on a following nominative LOCID, whatever meaning we might suppose that word to possess. MO{NG}UNILOCID is a long and clumsy name, but not more so than ANAVLAMATTIAS, which we have already encountered at Roovesmoore'. |
Lines: | 1 |
Carving errors: | 0 |
Doubtful: | no |