BLFOO/1

Corpus Refs:none
Site:BLFOO
Discovery:recognised, 1968 Steer, K.
History:Forsyth/1996, 94: `The animal and geometric carvings have been known since at least the end of the seventeenth century, but the presence of ogham was not noticed until around 1968. Jackson [in 1973] says that he was told of the existence of the ogham `a couple of years ago' by Kenneth Steer of the RCAHMS, and that they visited the cave together in September 1971'.
Geology:Forsyth/1996, 93: `...sandstone'.
Dimensions:0.0 x 0.0 x 0.0 (Unknown)
Setting:n/a
Location:earliest
Forsyth/1996, 94: `...the left-hand wall of the cave'.

Fisher/2001, 66: `carved immediately left of the main group of serpents'.

Form:cave
Condition:inc , some
Forsyth/1996, 93--94, gives an account of the variety of carving and its condition on the cave walls of Blackwaterfoot, noting that the large amount of modern graffiti `may obscure older work'.
Folklore:none
Crosses:none
Decorations:no other decoration

References


Inscriptions


BLFOO/1/1

Readings

Forsyth, K.S. (1996):--][E!]OMEQ[E!][--
Expansion:
[-][E!][-]MEQI[-]
Forsyth/1996 96--97 substantial discussion
Fisher, I. (2001):[--]EOMEQE[--]
Expansion:
[--]EO MEG E[--]
Fisher/2001 66 reading only

Notes

Orientation:vertical up
Position:n/a ; other ; n/a ; undivided
Forsyth/1996, 94: `...carved on the left-hand wall of the cave...about 9 m...from the entrance gate'.

Fisher/2001, 66: `immediately left of the main group of serpents'.

Incision:inc
Date:500 - 799 (Forsyth/1996)
Forsyth/1996, 99: `They could be as early as the Pool ogham (sixth century) or later than Dunadd (late eighth century?)'.
Language:Goidelic (ogams)
Ling. Notes:Forsyth/1996, 96: `If the inscription is complete as it stands then it is difficult to interpret it in terms of a Celtic, or any other language. If, as seems likely, letters have been lost from both ends, it can be interpreted as Goidelic' with MEQ(I) for MAQI.

Fisher/2001, 66: `containing the Irish Meq ('son')'.

Palaeography:Fisher/2001, 66: `a curving natural stem-line'.
Legibility:poor
Forsyth/1996, 96: `...the condition of the stone does not rule out the possibility that letters have been lost from the beginning and the end of this inscription'.

Fisher/2001, 66: `apparently incomplete at both ends'.

Lines:1
Carving errors:0
Doubtful:no

Names

References