Provenance
Discovery: Discovered, along with an ogham stone (I-WAT-030), in 1966 during a non-archaeological dig ‘in surface soil of an earthwork… which was destroyed by bulldozer’ (Raftery and Lucas 1969, 105). Known locally as a Cillín/killeen, a more recent geophysical survey has confirmed the existence of an ecclesiastical enclosure (Cill Ghruabháin). The enclosure is bivallate (int. diam. c. 50m; ext. diam. c. 60m), perhaps with an annexe or secondary enclosure attached to the SE, which may be the arc represented on the 1927 map. A number of smaller circular features (diam. c. 10m) within the enclosure could represent hut-sites, or even the church (Purcell 2003, 6-8). Five other ogham stones previously discovered at this site (I-WAT-025 – I-WAT-029), by Mr. Willliam Williams of Dungarvan in 1857, are now at Mount Melleray Abbey.
Findspot: Kilgrovan (Cill Ghruabháin), Co. Waterford, Ireland (ITM Coordinates (approximate): 630844, 593197)
Current repository: Ireland National Museum of Ireland (inv. no. 1967:218)
Last recorded location(s): National Museum of Ireland (seen and recorded in 3D in Jan 2010).
Support
National Monuments Service SMR ID: WA031-045015-
Object type: Fragment
Material: Sandstone
Dimensions: H 0.26 × W 0.09 × D 0.03 m
Condition: A small, thin fragment of the same type of stone (grey, fine-grained sandstone) as I-WAT-030 (Raftery and Lucas 1969, 105).
Inscription
Text field: On two close angles at the very thin end of the wedge-shaped fragment. It is possible that the change in angle was due to the narrowness of the stone and, although the inscription must be fragmentary, it is difficult to envisage how it could have continued on this angle.
Letters:
Edition
Transcription: [---]UMUT[.. ? ..]
Critical apparatus:
- The proposed reading is upwards from the broad end of the fragment. The first letter U is perhaps best understood as the remaining three strokes of an I (five strokes), and the T as three of the four strokes of a C. The resulting IMUC could then be what remains of the formula MAQI MUCOI. The less probable reading in the other direction results in …VUMU…, which is less amenable to analysis and less likely due to the layout and shape of the fragment.
References
- Purcell 2003, 6-8
- Raftery and Lucas 1969, 178-179, 199