🌲1️⃣🎁 4ᵗʰ c. I-MEA-004 (Sí an Bhrú/Newgrange, Co. Meath) [ᚋ]ᚐᚊᚔᚐᚃᚔᚕᚑᚂᚒᚔᚕᚑᚔ [M]AQI AVI KOLUI KOI ‘of the son of the descendant of *Collae? (*Collovias?) here’ It is unknown when the writing system ogam was invented. The earliest extant, archaeologically datable texts are from the 4ᵗʰ century ᴀ.ᴅ. ᚐ - ThreadSky

davidstifter.bsky.social • 90 days ago

🌲1️⃣🎁
4ᵗʰ c.
I-MEA-004 (Sí an Bhrú/Newgrange, Co. Meath)
[ᚋ]ᚐᚊᚔᚐᚃᚔᚕᚑᚂᚒᚔᚕᚑᚔ
[M]AQI AVI KOLUI KOI
‘of the son of the descendant of *Collae? (*Collovias?) here’

It is unknown when the writing system ogam was invented. The earliest extant, archaeologically datable texts are from the 4ᵗʰ century ᴀ.ᴅ.
ᚐ

Comments

templum.wiki•89 days ago

📌

davidstifter.bsky.social•90 days ago

The conservative estimate is that this corresponds approximately to when ogam was created.
One of the earliest known texts is a small bronze plaque (ca. 9.1×5.3cm) from Newgrange, found outside the mound on the edge of the cairn slip. Its date derives from Roman coins that were also discovered…
ᚑ

davidstifter.bsky.social•90 days ago

…scattered outside the mound.
The text consists of three formula words (‘son’, ‘descendant’, ‘here’) and the name KOLUI. This could be connected with OIr. coll ‘hazel-tree’ and perhaps equates to OIr. Colla. The use of ᚕ, the so-called X-forfid (extra-letter), conventionally transcribed as K and…
ᚒ

davidstifter.bsky.social•90 days ago

…perhaps representing lenited ch, is palaeographically remarkable. Its presence on this early object has possible implications for the history of ogam. The reading was made jointly by the OG(H)AM project team (24 Jan 2023).

🖼️: © National Museum of Ireland, Dublin (Inv. No. E56.1715)

ᚓ
🕯️
DH&DS

caoimhinoc.bsky.social•89 days ago

KOI can't be identical to 'cé' in 'in bith cé' "this world", can it? If the diphthong survived the earlier monophthongisation to ī to become ē as in ·robae < *rovoi, the c would not be palatal. Also, 'cé' alternates with 'cía' as only é from PC *ei does, or is 'in domoin chia' an aberration?

davidstifter.bsky.social•89 days ago

No, KOI "here" is not identical with cé "here", but it is assumed (and indeed very likely) that they just represent different ablaut grades of the same adverb/pronominal stem, namely *k̑oi̯ and *k̑ei̯ "here" respectively, in Proto-Indo-European terms.

kierceldwen.bsky.social•86 days ago

Do formulae suggest what category of word(s) might be missing at the beginning? Looks like a possible fragment along the top edge.

davidstifter.bsky.social•86 days ago

Hard to say. In theory, the text could be complete (aside from the missing M at the beginning), but it is also possible that a whole individual name is missing at the beginning. KOI at the end is most certainly the conclusion.

archaeonado.bsky.social•89 days ago

The object itself is very odd. What is the interpretation of the 'plaque', is it a votive or a fragment of something?

davidstifter.bsky.social•89 days ago

It has not been formally published yet, so your guess is as good as everyone's. It's usually called "votive", but this doesn't explain anything. In the preparation for this post, I have also become sceptical about the dating. These objects are randomly scattered outside Newgrange, so...

kierceldwen.bsky.social•86 days ago

My first impression from the rounded edge is that it was mounted on something. Looks like different degrees of weathering/corrosion too along that edge. I pictured a wooden pole but it could have been lots of different things. Micro-chemical traces (or debris) might help distinguish.

davidstifter.bsky.social•89 days ago

...I am not sure that the presence of datable Roman coins says much about this object, which was found on its own.

christopher-hervez.bsky.social•89 days ago

I love it.

jjconeill.bsky.social•87 days ago

O'Kelly is disproportionately tight-lipped about the bronze plaque (E56.1715), eg in Carson & O'Kelly (JRSAI 1977) given its obvious/potential significance. Not clear how secure the context is, either. May even have arrived later as a (scholastic) curiosity rather than 4th-5th century.

davidstifter.bsky.social•87 days ago

Yes, I was surprised to see how - almost casually - they mention it, without any discussion or drawing, even though they must have been aware of the possible cultural and historical significance of the object. TBH, I am also wondering if he could gotten there later.

jjconeill.bsky.social•87 days ago

Michael J O'Kelly published on ogham inscriptions, their transcription and translation (eg https://corkhist.ie/wp-content/uploads/jfiles/1954/b1954-020.pdf). So the lack of fanfare hints that he doubted its antiquity. The Dunraven lunula had ogham added around 1850, so it wouldn't be the only such object with a more recent ogham added.

davidstifter.bsky.social•87 days ago

The ogam inscription on the Newgrange plaque is of a very different character from the Dunraven lunula. When we looked at it in the OG(H)AM project, we had no reason to doubt its authenticity (which is not to say that we can determine what its age is).
BTW, @ndefaoite.bsky.social shouldn't we...

davidstifter.bsky.social•87 days ago

...actually add the Dunraven lunula to our ogam collection and give it a code? Or is it too late for our corpus?

ndefaoite.bsky.social•87 days ago

It's there!

jjconeill.bsky.social•87 days ago

The object itself needs more work (maybe XRF, micro-analysis of object surface where ogham was added, etc). Post 100 AD material culture is generally understudied - by archaeologists anyway - as it's mistaken as 'just Roman imports' (when that IS the material culture).

alexharvv.bsky.social•88 days ago

Looking forward to more of this advent, David!

What do you think about the argument (from Nicholas Evans I think) about ogham, Pictish symbols, and runic script all emerging around the same time around the 2nd c. slightly earlier than usually assumed, due to consistent interactions with Latin?

davidstifter.bsky.social•88 days ago

It's a possibility but the exact details are hard to prove. In the case of ogam, the Latin inspiration is evident, but 2nd c. is just speculation without evidence at the moment. In case of the runes, the time-frame seems about right, but the letter forms show influence from other quarters as well.

alexharvv.bsky.social•88 days ago

I like the idea that the one constant between these differing writing forms is Latin, or ideas about Latin epigraphy at least. It’s not my specialty so I am unaware of other influences on runic development etc.

Thanks for this David

davidstifter.bsky.social•88 days ago

Some runic letters have much clearer correspondences in North Italic writing (Venetic, Raetic, Lepontic) than in Latin. However, those traditions petered out in the 1st c. BC.

kevdaly.bsky.social•90 days ago

Do we know what governed the use of [is it éabhadh?] instead of coll? Were C and K different sounds or did they just feel like being freaky?

davidstifter.bsky.social•90 days ago

No, we don't know. One reasonable suggestion is that the X-forfid (i.e. what we transcribe as K) represented the lenited sound, i.e. [x] or in OIr. spelling. However, that doesn't explain why they didn't make any consistent distinction in spelling between unlenited and lenited sounds elsewhere.

davidstifter.bsky.social•90 days ago

It is also completely unclear AFAIK why the letter, which originally clearly denoted the consonant /k/ (or its lenited counterpart), later came to be used for the vowel /e/.

kevdaly.bsky.social•90 days ago

I can see why they might have stopped using it for /k/ (lenited or otherwise) - i.e. they noticed the inconsistency?, but using it for /e/ just seems like repeating the same issue. I don't suppose it was consistently é or is even that too much to hope for?

davidstifter.bsky.social•90 days ago

No. I still need to differentiate more clearly between the various chronological layers, but certainly in the later manuscript tradition of ogam the letter could be used for long and short e.

kevdaly.bsky.social•89 days ago

It's funny that both usages replace a sign with 4 strokes but I can't imagine any significance in that 🤣
It messes with the brain almost as much as trying to find a rational basis for English spelling. Oh well.

kevdaly.bsky.social•90 days ago

Curious. Maybe it's the only one they didn't think of as just an allophone of the unlenited form, because of its regular occurrence followed by 't'. Nah that doesn't make sense. Damn.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply