|Discovery:||in/on structure, 1842 Lyons, M.|
|History:||Macalister/1945, 120: `Found by a man called Michael Lyons in 1842, apparently in Mullenroe, the source of the companion stone [MNTRI/1]; and by him removed to his house and buried outside his door under a heap of sand, for ultimate sale to Windele. In Windele's notebook (R.I.A. Library 12 C 12) a story is told of how thieves tried to seize the prize, with the consequence of a violent quarrel, the fracture of the stone, and the loss of the upper portion: an instructive fable, as illustrating the dangers of trying to make short cuts to scientific discovery by way of commerce. It was purchased for the Royal Cork Institution by subscription, and for a time was there deposited: afterwards it passed to the British Museum'.|
Power et al/1997, 170: `Apparently found in association with another ogham stone (7962) [MNTRI/1] when flour mill was demolished c. 1840 on site of possible ringfort (8759). Stone broken before purchase by the Royal Cork Institiution...now in British Museum...The 1842 OS Name Books mention third ogham stone in this context but Hartnett (1939, 75) thinks third stone is lost fragment of this stone'.
|Dimensions:||1.44 x 0.25 x 0.15 (converted from Macalister/1945)|
Power et al/1997, 170: `now in British Museum'.
Macalister/1945, 120: `The stone now measures 4' 8 1/2"...but according to Windele's note was originally 6' 0" long'.
|Condition:||incomplete , some|
CISP: The broken stone is missing its top, approximately 14 inches are missing.
|Decorations:||no other decoration|
|Macalister, R.A.S. (1945):||MAQIBRI[-- | --]CELIALACA[--|
CISP: Maqi-Bri[--](PN) client of Alaca[--] (PN).
Macalister/1945 120--121 reading only
Power/etal/1997 170 reading only
|Orientation:||vertical up down|
|Position:||ind ; arris ; n/a ; undecorated|
Macalister/1945, 120: `the inscription is cut...on two edges'.
Power et al/1997, 170: `inscribed on two sides but linking portion broken off'.
Macalister/1945, 120: `cut in minute scores'.
|Ling. Notes:||McManus/1991, 171, note 19: `Most of the CELI inscriptions...are in bad condition requiring restoration, which is always dangerous. The two most reliable examples appear to be 109... and 215... which seem to confirm CELI as a formula word, though the latter could be a possessive genitive type'.|
|Palaeography:||Macalister/1945, 120 (note) and 121: ` It gave endless trouble to early decipherers. To guard against misapprehension, it is desirable to note that it appears no less than three times in Brash's book in different forms and under different headings...After the I at the end of the first line are three B-scores (the preceding edge of the fracture passes through the third of these) so that the letter must have been V, S, or N. After the A at the end of the second line is a fracture followed by three M scores -- possibly [n/j], more probably R; not Z, the four-score letter of this group, which never appears in Ireland'.|
Macalister/1945, 120, note 1: `It gave endless trouble to early decipherers'.