Larry Athy's paper - the Clonmacnoise Ogham stone (Long)
Eric Stevens
Society West, "Statistical Correlations Of Symbol Frequencies
Demonstrate That The Ancient Ogam-Like Inscriptions Of Colorado And
The British Isles Share The Same Language" has raised considerable
debate about the reliability of the data upon which he has based his
statistical analysis.
The debate has been confused with attempts being made to discredit
Larry's transliteration of various Ogham inscriptions on both sides of
the Atlantic. Rather than everyone trying to talk simultaneously about
everything at once, I would like to be able to discuss them in a less
confused manner.
I have gone through some 52 articles mentioning the Clonmacnoise Ogham
stone and tried to boil the main points down into a single post.
Merely listing all the articles would have produced 85 pages, so that
wouldn't do. My first pass brought them down to 25 pages, my second
pass to 12, and now I have condensed the main points down to 7 pages.
In what follows I have largely grouped the various comments by author.
No doubt I have edited shamelessly but the sheer volume of the
contributions has required that. It is clear that Larry stands by his
transliteration for reasons to do with the correct direction of
reading of the Ogham inscription. Others insist that it should be read
backwards. I don't know that Larry can expand further on his argument.
Can anyone produce an argument that the Clonmacnoise Ogham **should**
be read backwards other than that it seems to make more sense that
way?
Larry's original reference was:
Macalister, R.A.S. _Studies in Irish Epigraphy_ Pt. II.
1902, London, David Nutt
*P. 129: Clonmacnoise, King's Co., Ireland
and he has transliterated the inscription as:
(D) Clonmacnoise, King's Co., Ireland: LLL L LLLL ++ T
[Searles ODhubain gave a URL for a picture of the Clonmacnoise stone
and wrote about what appears to be the crux of this argument]
http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/ogam/l/749/749x001l.jpg
McManus discusses this inscription in _A Guide to Ogam_, p131. He also
says that the Ogam inscription is "scholastic Ogam" that is "inverted"
and running in the opposite direction to the indicator arrow. This is
the only Ogam inscription to be found at Clonmacnoise. One wonders
what the Christian scribe was attempting to do or say when he placed
the Ogam inscription adjacent to the standard script. I suppose he
wasn't very well versed in writing Ogam since it is backwards and
inverted.
LARRY ATHY'S SECTION
============================================
[Larry Athy wrote]
I will now review much of the history of what has been published on
this inscription. In 1879 Brash indicated that the Ogam inscription
was in the most ancient type of our letters, was the only Ogam
inscription at the cite which was founded 544 AD, would normally be
read from left to right as indicated by the arrow >----, but indicated
that he chose to read it 'backward' as "bocht" - meaning "poor".
-
In 1881, Ferguson chose to make the same 'backward' reading and
indicated that it meant 'Colman the pauper'. He also noted that it
was unique and was not in the usual Christian seprucal formula.
-
With reference to this same inscription in my subject paper, I had
made reference to Macalister (1902:129). He said the following: "This
reads bocht, "poor", backwards; but that, I think, is merely an
accident. The character > never appears at the end of a line of
writing, always at the beginning; and I am more inclined to read thcob
or possibly hthcgb (taking an h- score which appears on the upper limb
of the >); and to treat the whole as analogous to the lmcbtm of the
Glenfahan stone and to have a similar purpose."
-
Note that this is all a quote and that Mr. Mac is clearly inclined to
read the inscription as not having vowels, as he reads the Glenfahan
inscription to not have vowels. At that time he was quite clearly not
yielding to pressures to do whatever it takes to be able to read all
Ogam like inscriptions in Old Irish. Ogam inscriptions without vowels
had not been acknowledged generally by the scholars of the time, just
as they are not now; but he was not intimidated by that fact.
-
In 1991, McManus wrote only a short paragraph on this inscription. He
cited the same 1902 Macalister book, but gave the wrong page number.
He then indicated that the Ogam inscription was 'inverted', which is
incorrect, and that it read BOCHT 'poor'. Had it been 'inverted', it
would have read HOSBF. He admitted that he was reading it in the
wrong direction per the >. He quoted none of the information from the
1902 Macalister book that I quoted above ...
-
The Clonmacnoise Ogam inscription can only be interpreted logically if
considered to be without vowels. It clearly can not be read logically
with vowels; with the result that the experts have tried to change the
method of reading it so that they can read it. Very Scientific!!!!
If it served their purposes, we could assume that they would also read
COLMAN backwards. As a matter of fact, it would be more logical to do
just that if the two parts are really related, as claimed by the
experts. I am suggesting that the Ogam is older than the Latin.
[Later, Larry Athy wrote]
++ I am not 'admitting' that the Latin part of the inscription is of
a later date than the Ogam part; I am 'suggesting' that such is the
case for the following good reasons.
-
As I indicated in my last posting, Brash, Ferguson, and Macalister
have collectively said that it is the only Ogam inscription at the
site; that it is in the most ancient type of our letters (++scholastic
Ogam is not the most ancient type++); that it should be read in the
direction of the > (++left to right++); and that it is necessary to
read it backwards and as scholastic Ogam to be able to translate it
(++as the case may be as 'bocht' = 'poor'++). McManus agrees with
them that the reading should be 'bocht' and runs contrary to the >
direction; but he makes the mistake of claiming that the reading is
'inverted' when it is really 'backward'. Of all of them, Macalister
is the only one who both realizes and admits that the 'bocht' reading
is probably not correct and that it should more likely be read
correctly as thcob with one vowel (++which has never been
translated++) or without vowels as hthcgb (++or perhaps thcgb++),
analogous to the lmcbtm Glenfahan inscription, which is also without
vowels.
-
The first of many Christian inscriptions was carved at Clonmacnoise
ca. 544 AD. According to McManus, it was a burial site for the nobles
of Clan Chuinn. I ask, why carve 'bocht = poor' in Ogam at that time
and place. The fact that there is Ogam there and the translation of
the Ogam are both badly out of context. If the Ogam was indeed carved
at the same time or later, we would assume that the author would
understand both scripts and would not have had one carved 'backward'.
-
I suggest that it is much more logical to assume that the Ogam was
carved without vowels at a much earlier date and had been found,
perhaps on the land of a nobleman with the name Colman. Out of
respect for his heritage, Colman might have had the stone moved to the
Christian graveyard to be used as his burial stone. The job was
executed properly so that both inscriptions were upright and neither
was backwards. This is simply one of a number of Ogam stones not
having vowels that are still known today. Many others were probably
destroyed in the populated areas of Ireland where they could have been
used as building stones, fence posts, paving slabs, headstones, etc.
[Larry Athy wrote in response to John Byrne (JMB)]
I had previously written: +"With reference to this same inscription in
my subject paper, I had made reference to Macalister (1902:129). He
said the following: "This reads bocht, "poor", backwards; but that, I
think, is merely an accident. The character > never appears at the end
of a line of writing, always at the beginning; and I am more inclined
to read thcob or possibly hthcgb (taking an h- score which appears on
the upper limb of the >); and to treat the whole as analogous t the
lmcbtm of the Glenfahan stone and to have a similar purpose.
-
+ "In 1991, McManus wrote only a short paragraph on this inscription.
He cited the same 1902 Macalister book, but gave the wrong page
number. He then indicated that the Ogam inscription was 'inverted',
which is incorrect, and that it read BOCHT 'poor'. Had it been
'inverted', it would have read HOSBF. He admitted that he was reading
it in the wrong directio er the >. He quoted none of the information
from the 1902 Mcalister book that I quoted above and seemed to be
quite content to leave the reader with a false impression of
Macalister's opinions in the matter. (He also cut the last half of
this paragraph to deceive you.) "
+
-
+ "I have great respect for McManus's work and quoted him considerably
in my subject paper. He seemed to be having a bad day when writing
this page."+
----------------------
And JMB now writes: ~~"Are you sure McManus referenced the 1902
book?"~~
----------------------
+++ Yes indeed!! He made specific reference in his 1991 book on page
131 at the beginning of his short paragraph with reference to the
Clonmacnaise stone to Macalisters 1949 book, p.749, and to his 1902
book, p.121. In his Bibliography, he makes no reference to any
Macalister book or paper written in 1909. +++
---------------------
And JMB continues: ~~"In 1909 Macalister published "The Memorial Slabs
of Clonmacnoise". In it he says: "A slab with +COLMAN in one line, and
underneath it >(Ogham type), read reversely bocht, "poor."" (Page 42)
This is in line with what McManus said. In "Corpus Inscriptionum
Insularum Celticarum, Volume II" published in 1949, Macalister says
the following: "+COLMAN, with BOCHT<("poor") beneath it written
retroversely in Ogham letters. Doubtless owing to the retrograde
direction of writing, the feather-mark is at the end, not the
beginning of the Ogham word, as is more usual. This was the only trace
of Ogham writing on the site." (Page 59) Something obviously changed
Macalister's mind after the 1902 book was published."~~
-----------------------
+++ JMB is fabricating a non-existing issue here. As best I know,
everyone agrees that you can read the inscription backwards as 'bocht
= poor'. As I previously posted, Macalister indicated that same thing
in his 1902 book. He also indicated that it should not be read
backwards and indicated two possibilities if read in the proper
direction. He said that one way was to read it as a word with the 'o'
vowel; in which event, the word could not be translated. And he also
said that the other was to read it as being without vowels in the same
fashion as he said that the Glenfahan stone should be read. JMB would
like to think that Macalister has changed his mind in this matter (for
some non-scholastic reason or other), has said that Macalister changed
his mind, but has offered no evidence that such is the case. Perhaps
JMB can give us a list of other Ogam inscriptions that are read
backwards. I can think of none immediately.
-
We should also remember that Brash said that the inscription was in
the earliest form of the characters (not the latest as would be the
case if scholastic). McManus also indicates that the stone was in a
sixth century Christian cemetery where noblemen were buried. Thus the
'poor' translation would not be in context for the Christian cemetery
of noblemen. It makes much more sense to assume that the Ogam
inscription predated the cemetary, was read forward rather than
backward, and that the Ogam was ignored when the stone was reused for
Colman in the Christian cemetary. +++
[Larry Athy wrote in response to Searles Odhubain]
+++ To the best of my knowledge, most modern Ogam scholars agree that
if you read the Clonmacnoise Ogam inscription backwards and read the
long strokes as a vowel. it will transliterate as BOCHT; and I
certainly agree with them. The problem is in the fact that it should
not be read backward. I am not aware of any other Ogam inscription
that is read backwards by the scholars, have asked if anyone knows of
such an inscription, and have received no such reply to date. If read
forward, as it should be read, it can not be translated with the vowel
and thus should probably be considered to be without vowels as
indicated by Macalister in his 1902 book. He did not change his mind
in this matter in his later books and papers; he simply did not
discuss the point in as much detail.
[Larry Athy in an email to Eric Stevens]
I previously wrote: ++"Remember that JMB had said that Macalister had
said that the inscription 'should' be read backwards. Thus he had
changed his mind from 1902 to 1949. Remember that in 1902 he had
indicated that it can be read backward as BOCHT; however, it probably
should not be read backwards."++
-------------------
And you replied: --"I don't have the text. Can you give me the
original wording (if it is not too much trouble)?"--
-------------------
+++ I posted this as a direct quote from Macalister not long ago. He
did not change his mind; however, that is of little importance as will
be made clear below. +++
-------------------
And I had continued: ++"He pointed out that the arrow indicated that
it should be read forward. He did not point out the obvious fact that
Ogam inscriptions are never read backwards - ++
--------------------
You replied: --"The question which is not yet properly answered in my
mind is, how do you determine the correct direction of reading in the
event of there being multiple arrows, or no arrows. Is it the
direction which makes most sense?"--
--------------------
+++ Note what I last said. Ogam inscriptions are never read
backwards. I know of none; have asked for others on sci.archy to so
advise if they know of any; and have received no answer.
-
The convention accepted by all scholars is that carved Ogam
inscriptions are read as though the reader is standing on the ground
at the vertical centerline of the stone. If the carving follows the
edge of the stone on the left side, on the top, and also on the right
side; you start on the left and read from bottom to top (l. to r.),
continue across the top (l. to r.), and continue down the right side
from top to bottom (l. to r.). Horizontal inscriptions on the face of
the stone are simply read from left to right. Vertical inscriptions
on the face are read from bottom to top = left to right.
-
I know of no exceptions to this convention. It is true that the
Clonmacnoise Ogam inscription can be read backwards (from right to
left) to read BOCHT. In English, DOG can be read backwards as GOD,
but is never so interpreted. Why should we assume that the carver of
this Ogam made such a mistake rather than simply assuming that it had
been carved much earlier without vowels? If carved at the same time as
the COLMAN inscription, why did he not carve that backwards too?
There are many Ogam inscriptions in the B.I. that have no vowels but
none that are carved backwards. Why should this be an exception?
-
I think that the burden of proof should be with those who claim that
this inscription should be read as an exception to how Ogam
inscriptions are always read - left to right = forward (not backward).
You may quote me on any of this if you choose.
-
SEARLES' SECTION
==============================================
[Searles Odhubain wrote]
Since I made the post to Eric about the Clonmacnoise Scholastic Ogam
inscription earlier today, I've found another similar Ogam inscription
to Colman the Pilgrim. It even bears a similar cross to the one that
was found at Clonmacnoise. This inscription was found at Kilcolman,
Maumanorig, in the Dingle peninsula. An image of the stone can be
found on p. 75 of _Pilgrimage in Ireland_ by Peter Harbison, Syracuse
University Press, 1992. A reading is said to have been given by
Macalister of the stone that is ANM COLMAN AILITHIR and translated as
'Name of Colman the pilgrim.' It is thought to be from the 8th or
early 9th century CE. The stone is clearly Christian in origin (though
other Ogam were done by the Druids and the Filidh, not all of
whom were Christian in the least). It seems to exist on a well known
Christian pilgrimage route that includes Clonmacnoise, Arralen and
Kilcolman. Harbison seems to think that the Ogam stones were
frequently associated with pilgrimages (as well as cross inscribed
stones of the same time as are on the two Ogam stones discussed here).
[Searles Odhubhain wrote in response to a comment by Eric Stevens]
> Apart from the fact that I don't have it, you appear to be citing
> examples of the > at both ends of the line in reply to a query about
> the correct end of the line for but a single >.
I was providing what was provided in the Ogam Tract as examples and
yes there were arrows (in different directions) on both ends of the
stem-line in many of the examples I provided. In others they are on
the first part of the stem-line. In still others, they're not present
at all. Be assured that I would have provided an example of an arrow
existing only at the last part of a stem-line if my cursory inspect
had yielded a sample. Please note that the Ogam type that is written
backward would have the arrow on the first part of the stem-line and
not the last part. .... There are at least two examples in the
Auraicept of the arrow existing on the stem-line in the same location
and direction as for the Clonmacnoise Ogam. These are to be found in
the example of edadh provide as the "E" in "nem" for poison on page
100, and an example of some forfedha letters on page 190. As I said
before, there is no "rule" for the placement of the arrow. Most of
the examples have the arrow at the beginning or on both ends. More
examples don't include an arrow at all.
[Eric Stevens wrote]
So the arrow is on the finishing end of the line rather than the
beginning?
[Searles Odhubin wrote]
The use of the arrow is one of the reasons why the Clonmacnoise
inscription can be classified as a relatively late Scholastic Ogam.
Other reasons are its use of a score for a vowel ("O"), the Christian
name and cross on the stone, it's location at a Christian center of
study and worship, and the use of Fraech frithrosc, Ogam type 38, from
the Book of Ballymote's Ogam Tract. There we have it. All aspects of
the inscription are accounted by Scholastic Ogam methods, types and
datings. This Ogam inscription has been erroneously presented by Larry
Athy as being a vowelless Ogam of a theorized much older type.
Generally, Ogam stones do not have arrows or "feather" marks on them.
They are normally not required as the convention is to read an Ogam
inscription from bottom to top along the stem-line, edge or druim of
an upright stone. I've seen them on a few stones where it is theorized
that they were transferred to the stone by a mason who was using a
wooden "withy" as a guide. This use of withies to "ring" the top of a
stone or post is attested in the Irish literature. The Ogam could be
carved on the ring of wood itself or its peg (holding the ends
together. This peg was called a menoc IIRC.
[Searles Odhubain responded]
Larry, the Ogham *is* written backwards and is also unique not only to
Ireland but to Clonmacnoise where it is the only Ogham to be found. Is
"Namloc" a word or name ("Colman" written backwards? "Bocht" makes
more sense in the context of location and subject matter than "Lhcob"
or "Lhcgb."
... and later
Since in a previous reply to you I noted that the use of the arrow to
define direction was not a rule but a kind of loose convention that
was followed by those using mainly Scholastic Ogham, I think that the
direction of reading for an Ogham inscription should follow the
direction that seems to contain meaning when a translation is made.
That being the case, then almost every Ogham inscription has probably
been read backwards and forward to determine if the inscription has a
meaning in either transliteration or translation. Most of the Classic
Ogham inscriptions follow the convention that they begin at the bottom
of the druim and continue upwards along the stemline. If the
inscription is longer than the initial edge then it is usually
continued down the druim of the edge to the right of the starting
inscription. The answer to your query is that every Ogham inscription
can be read in either direction but the direction that is usually
followed is the one that actually contains information within it (i.e.
it can be translated and make sense).
— snip —
It appears to me that Larry *is correct* when he states that in the
Fraech frithrosc Ogham that the assignment of letters is reversed for
the number of strokes in each group.
ERIC STEVENS'SECTION
========================================================
[Eric Stevens in response to Searles ODhubain]
As far as I can recall you have cited various uses of the feather and
quoted examples of all but the one needed to answer Larry's quite
specific question.
>
>> Do you know of any Ogham which has to be read backwards in the manner
>> suggested for the Clonmacnoise Ogam inscription?
>>
>Since in a previous reply to you I noted that the use of the arrow to define
>direction was not a rule but a kind of loose convention ...
Larry says that as far as he knows the only looseness in the
convention is the exception which is the Clonmacnoise Ogam
inscription. In other words if the manner of reading which you
advocate is a mistake then there is **no** exception to the
convention.
[Eric Stevens to John Byrne (JMB)]
Larry said that "If read forward, as it should be read, it can not be
translated with the vowel ... " yet it is implicit in your answer that
it will be translated with the vowel irrespective of the direction of
reading. You seem to be disagreeing with Larry and what I would like
to know is why you think Larry is wrong.
Eric Stevens
My new email address:- eric.s...@sum.co.nz
Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
I don't expect anyone to respond the entire article with which I have
started this thread. Nevertheless, Larry seems to have set out the
crux of his position on the Clonmacnoise Ogham stone when he wrote:
>+++ Note what I last said. Ogam inscriptions are never read
>backwards. I know of none; have asked for others on sci.archy to so
>advise if they know of any; and have received no answer.
>-
>The convention accepted by all scholars is that carved Ogam
>inscriptions are read as though the reader is standing on the ground
>at the vertical centerline of the stone. If the carving follows the
>edge of the stone on the left side, on the top, and also on the right
>side; you start on the left and read from bottom to top (l. to r.),
>continue across the top (l. to r.), and continue down the right side
>from top to bottom (l. to r.). Horizontal inscriptions on the face of
>the stone are simply read from left to right. Vertical inscriptions
>on the face are read from bottom to top = left to right.
>-
>I know of no exceptions to this convention. It is true that the
>Clonmacnoise Ogam inscription can be read backwards (from right to
>left) to read BOCHT. In English, DOG can be read backwards as GOD,
>but is never so interpreted. Why should we assume that the carver of
>this Ogam made such a mistake rather than simply assuming that it had
>been carved much earlier without vowels? If carved at the same time as
>the COLMAN inscription, why did he not carve that backwards too?
>There are many Ogam inscriptions in the B.I. that have no vowels but
>none that are carved backwards. Why should this be an exception?
Larry has a very good point. If he is correct, the Clonmacnoise Ogham
stone can only be transliterated into something which might make sense
if it is uniquely treated. In the absence of a good argument as to why
it should be so treated it makes sense to read it in the conventional
fashion in which case it appears that Larry is right and it is an
Ogham inscription without vowels.
>-
>I think that the burden of proof should be with those who claim that
>this inscription should be read as an exception to how Ogam
>inscriptions are always read - left to right = forward (not backward).
>You may quote me on any of this if you choose.
>-
Providing only that Larry is right in his opinion as to the rules for
ascertaining the proper direction for the reading of an Ogham
inscription, I think it is only fair that those who want to treat this
Ogham differently should come forward with a convincing argument as to
why this one should be treated differently.
I must say that I don't think that basing an opinion on what
Macalister wrote on the subject a century ago, or what he may have
more recently (slightly more than half a century ago) written is an
adequate answer. First of all, it is clear that in his 1902 book he
was far from settled as to the correct way to read this particular
inscription. Second, a considerable number of Ogham inscriptions have
since come to light outside the range of the Irish and British corpus
which was known to Macalister. It is literally anybody's guess as to
what conclusion he might have published in his 1902 book if he had
been aware of the presently known range of Ogham and possible-Ogham
inscriptions.
Unless someone can come up with a good reason why Larry was wrong to
read the Clonmacnoise Ogham stone in the conventional fashion, it
seems to me he was perfectly correct to decide to use it as he did in
his BI-1 corpus.
Searles ODubhain
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:rif51u0pk3ng6897s...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 13:13:06 +1300, Eric Stevens
> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Larry has a very good point. If he is correct, the Clonmacnoise Ogham
> stone can only be transliterated into something which might make sense
> if it is uniquely treated. In the absence of a good argument as to why
> it should be so treated it makes sense to read it in the conventional
> fashion in which case it appears that Larry is right and it is an
> Ogham inscription without vowels.
The very best argument is that it says something if read backwards.
The choice is to read the inscription backwards or to *add* a variable
number of letters to it to create a message.
In the first case, only one operation is done to find intelligence in the
inscription, while in the second case, we have almost as many possibilities
for what the inscription can be made to say as the vowels will allow. This
means that there might be hundreds of words made from the inscription.
Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is generally the correct
one.
The graveyard and monastery of Clonmacnoise date back to the 6th century.
Any inscription found there would generally date to the period when
Scholastic Ogham was in use. At this link more information is to be found
(http://www.moytura.com/clonmacnoise.htm):
"The ancient monastic site of Clonmacnoise is situated at the crossroads of
Ireland in County Offaly and dates back almost 1,500 years. St. Ciaran, the
son of an Ulsterman who had settled in Connaught, chose the site in 545 AD
because of its ideal location at the junction of river and road travel in
Celtic Ireland. The location borders the three provinces of Connaught,
Munster and Leinster."
This stone was found in a Christian graveyard (no older than the 6th century
CE) and it has Christian symbols upon it. The Ogham inscription is in a
later Ogham version. The stone has a modern script on it as well. All these
factors suggest it to be an example of a Christian Ogham inscription in
Scholastic Ogham. It is *NOT* in Ogham consaine which is not even a valid
Ogham type. The dating alone invalidates Larry's theory. The type of Ogham
(Scholastic Ogham) shows that it is recent. The existence of the Ogham
letter "O" in the inscription shows it to *not* be Ogham consaine. The
intelligence that can be had from reading it backwards (BOCHT "poor") is the
simplest and most correct translation of the inscription. Two of the most
respected Ogham scholars in the world both translated it this way
(Macalister and McManus).
Searles
Searles ODubhain
go to this site:
http://www.iol.ie/~mcgibbon/clon/
Click on the "artifacts" link in the frame on the left. You'll see that
"Colman" had much company. The stone is only possibly as early as 6th
century CE.
Searles
Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
Searles ODubhain wrote:
[snip]
This stone was found in a Christian graveyard (no older than the 6th century
> CE) and it has Christian symbols upon it. The Ogham inscription is in a
> later Ogham version.
[You are repudiating Brash as quoted in Athy, "In 1879 Brash indicated that the
Ogam inscription was in the most ancient type of our letters" on this point, then?
As well as Ferguson who Athy stated said, "also noted that it
was unique"?]
> The stone has a modern script on it as well. All these
> factors suggest it to be an example of a Christian Ogham inscription in
> Scholastic Ogham. It is *NOT* in Ogham consaine which is not even a valid
> Ogham type.
[That's a circular argument, at best (since that is the crux of the whole issue!)--
you argue that the American vowelless oghamic inscriptions cannot be ogham
because they aren't like the ogham in Ireland (or Irish/Celtic areas), but when
confronted by examples from Irish/Celtic areas, you argue that they can't be
because there are no such things--when the existence of such on monuments
from Ireland, Britain, and the European continent, as well as on early Celtic coins,
inter alia, even one example in your oft cited _Book of Ballymote_ cites one therein
as the oldest known ogam, and they all give evidence that it does, indeed, exist!
I refer you to _The Epigraphic Society Occasional Publications_, Vol 7, no 170,
April, 1979, "Ogam Inscribed Gravestone," by James P. Whittall, II which describes
an ogam consaine inscription from a stone on the island of Skellig Michael nine miles
off the Coat of County Kerry. On an edge of an upright menhir is a vowelless,
stemlineless inscription which I will crudely approximate below:
-------------- m
------ d
------
-------------- g
--------------
-------------
------------- s
-------------
-------------
read as m-d-g s, "Madog so," = "this was Madoc," by Barry Fell.
So you can add that to the Glenfahan stone's vowelless ogam. I will
provide a scan of Whittall's drawings to any who request me to email them.]
> The dating alone invalidates Larry's theory. The type of Ogham
> (Scholastic Ogham) shows that it is recent.
["Scholastic ogham" was not read backwards or counter feather, was it?
Please cite the relevant rules from your "rule books" if you assert otherwise.
Since the inscription is not "scholastic" your argument on this point falls.]
> The existence of the Ogham
> letter "O" in the inscription shows it to *not* be Ogham consaine.
[Again you make a key point of contention, i.e., whether or not there
is an "O" in the inscription, your evidence? I'll then as facilely
counter-assert that the fact that the inscription is vowelless proves
that it must be ogham consaine.]
> The
> intelligence that can be had from reading it backwards (BOCHT "poor") is the
> simplest and most correct translation of the inscription.
[When I was trained in Classics, we were taught that we must always work from
the most difficult reading; however, ignoring that for a moment, you can hardly
argue that to read this one inscription by a method unparalleled by any other
is eiither simple or "most correct." "Correctness" like "perfection," moreover,
cannot be compared. Something is either correct or incorrect, or possibly
"nearly correct."]
> Two of the most
> respected Ogham scholars in the world both translated it this way
> (Macalister and McManus).
[Based on the evidence presented, we must suspect what MacAlister's
degree of confidence in this solution was, due to the contradictory nature
of his remarks and his never having been exposed to corpus of American
inscriptions]
--
Doc Rock
Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
Columbia, MD
Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
Searles ODubhain wrote:
[While I am not sure what "only possibly as early as 6th
century " means, there is no no clear evidence to demonstrate
that the +Colman inscription and the ogam inscription on this
Clonmacnoise stone are related or were inscribed contempor-
aneously, let alone within hundreds of years of each other. The
ogam-inscribed stone very well may have been used at a later date
to make a marker for a latter day Colman. ]--
Eric Stevens
<odub...@home.com> wrote:
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:rif51u0pk3ng6897s...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 13:13:06 +1300, Eric Stevens
>> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> Larry has a very good point. If he is correct, the Clonmacnoise Ogham
>> stone can only be transliterated into something which might make sense
>> if it is uniquely treated. In the absence of a good argument as to why
>> it should be so treated it makes sense to read it in the conventional
>> fashion in which case it appears that Larry is right and it is an
>> Ogham inscription without vowels.
>
>The very best argument is that it says something if read backwards.
But why is it the only Ogham message which has to be read backwards?
>
>The choice is to read the inscription backwards or to *add* a variable
>number of letters to it to create a message.
The picture shows clearly that there is nothing missing from the
original message. Whoever carved it had room for more if they had the
need to write it.
>In the first case, only one operation is done to find intelligence in the
>inscription, while in the second case, we have almost as many possibilities
>for what the inscription can be made to say as the vowels will allow. This
>means that there might be hundreds of words made from the inscription.
>Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is generally the correct
>one.
Not when the simplest explanatoin has no credible justification for
its use and is in conflict with conventions. In this case, reading it
backwards comes up with a word which has no obvious direct relevance
to the circumstances of the stone.
I quoted Larry as saying:
"We should also remember that Brash said that the inscription was
in the earliest form of the characters (not the latest as would be
the case if scholastic)".
Was Brash wrong or does Ogham tell you to ignore the earlier style of
writing?
Larry went on to say:
"McManus also indicates that the stone was in a sixth century
Christian cemetery where noblemen were buried. Thus the
'poor' translation would not be in context for the Christian
cemetery of noblemen".
I don't know anything about the cemetery but it seems an anomaly for a
noble man to be so poor they would mark it on his grave.
Larry continued:
"It makes much more sense to assume that the Ogam inscription
predated the cemetary, was read forward rather than backward, and
that the Ogam was ignored when the stone was reused for
Colman in the Christian cemetary".
>
>The graveyard and monastery of Clonmacnoise date back to the 6th century.
>Any inscription found there would generally date to the period when
>Scholastic Ogham was in use. At this link more information is to be found
>(http://www.moytura.com/clonmacnoise.htm):
>
>"The ancient monastic site of Clonmacnoise is situated at the crossroads of
>Ireland in County Offaly and dates back almost 1,500 years. St. Ciaran, the
>son of an Ulsterman who had settled in Connaught, chose the site in 545 AD
>because of its ideal location at the junction of river and road travel in
>Celtic Ireland.
That would have made it an ideal location even before the 6th century.
What was there before the church and monastery?
>The location borders the three provinces of Connaught,
>Munster and Leinster."
>
>This stone was found in a Christian graveyard (no older than the 6th century
>CE) and it has Christian symbols upon it. The Ogham inscription is in a
>later Ogham version. The stone has a modern script on it as well.
What about Brash? Can you show he was wrong and why?
>All these
>factors suggest it to be an example of a Christian Ogham inscription in
>Scholastic Ogham. It is *NOT* in Ogham consaine which is not even a valid
>Ogham type.
Here we go again. Whether or not it is a valid type is what we should
be trying to decide. We should not be prejudging it and using the
predetermined conclusion to reject the possibility that we might have
such an inscription here.
>The dating alone invalidates Larry's theory. The type of Ogham
>(Scholastic Ogham) shows that it is recent. The existence of the Ogham
>letter "O" in the inscription shows it to *not* be Ogham consaine. The
>intelligence that can be had from reading it backwards (BOCHT "poor") is the
>simplest and most correct translation of the inscription.
There are no degrees of correctness. Either it is correct, or it is
not.
>Two of the most
>respected Ogham scholars in the world both translated it this way
>(Macalister and McManus).
If you are going to argue on the basis of 'authorities' you are going
to have to answer my objection to relying on Macalister's 100 year old
conclusion. Probably the same applies to Macmamus.
Eric Stevens
They say 8th century in general on that web-site. If you look at the
grave slabs, they are of a better standard than that offered to
Coleman. So too is the carving. May be the Ogham stone is older?
Searles ODubhain
"Dr. Edward D. Rockstein" <ed4l...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3C12DF75...@home.com...
>
>
> Searles ODubhain wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> This stone was found in a Christian graveyard (no older than the 6th
century
>
> > CE) and it has Christian symbols upon it. The Ogham inscription is in a
> > later Ogham version.
>
> [You are repudiating Brash as quoted in Athy, "In 1879 Brash indicated
that the
> Ogam inscription was in the most ancient type of our letters" on this
point, then?
> As well as Ferguson who Athy stated said, "also noted that it
> was unique"?]
>
I am following the lead of Macalister and McManus who state it is in
Scholastic Ogham. It is unique in that it is the *only* Ogham inscription
found at Clonmacnoise.
I personally think you're going in circles. Ogham Consaine has *never* been
proven to be a valid form of Ogham. It's only a theory and not a very well
supported one at that. The time of the Clonmacnoise inscription is during
the later phases of its use on stone in Ireland (6th to 9th centuries CE).
It is *not* in the Americas and it is *not* during the time periods (1000
BCE) theorized by McGlone and Fell. It's as much as 1500- to 1900 years
after the times they claim for the American inscriptions. Besides that It
contains characters straight out of the inscription set for Scholastic
Ogham. Enough said. :-)
> -------------- m
> ------ d
> ------
> -------------- g
> --------------
>
> -------------
> ------------- s
> -------------
> -------------
>
> read as m-d-g s, "Madog so," = "this was Madoc," by Barry Fell.
> So you can add that to the Glenfahan stone's vowelless ogam. I will
> provide a scan of Whittall's drawings to any who request me to email
them.]
>
By all means, email me a copy as even McGlone has discarded many of Fell's
transcriptions and translations (Ancient American Inscriptions). Seeing is
believing. I doubt seriously if the stone is transliterated as you've
described it.
>
> > The dating alone invalidates Larry's theory. The type of Ogham
> > (Scholastic Ogham) shows that it is recent.
>
> ["Scholastic ogham" was not read backwards or counter feather, was it?
> Please cite the relevant rules from your "rule books" if you assert
otherwise.
> Since the inscription is not "scholastic" your argument on this point
falls.]
>
Ogham was inscribed in every direction on stones and other media. The
feather convention was not always a true indicator of direction for reading.
I've already provided examples of this from the Book of Ballymote. There is
not rule except to say that most stones are read from bottom to top while
most Scholastic Ogham is read from left to right. Please make careful note
that only *most* are read this way and that exceptions are known to occur
for stone and for Scholastic Ogham.
> > The existence of the Ogham
> > letter "O" in the inscription shows it to *not* be Ogham consaine.
>
> [Again you make a key point of contention, i.e., whether or not there
> is an "O" in the inscription, your evidence? I'll then as facilely
> counter-assert that the fact that the inscription is vowelless proves
> that it must be ogham consaine.]
>
Two strokes perpendicular to the stem line is an "O." That's the definition
of an "O" in Scholastic Ogaim. Show me where Ogham consaine is defined by a
reputable and reliable source contemporary with the inscription. I don't
believe you can, can you? Where's the source? Where's the definition?
Where's the time frame?
> > The
> > intelligence that can be had from reading it backwards (BOCHT "poor") is
the
> > simplest and most correct translation of the inscription.
>
> [When I was trained in Classics, we were taught that we must always work
from
> the most difficult reading; however, ignoring that for a moment, you can
hardly
> argue that to read this one inscription by a method unparalleled by any
other
> is eiither simple or "most correct." "Correctness" like "perfection,"
moreover,
> cannot be compared. Something is either correct or incorrect, or possibly
> "nearly correct."]
>
>
What does it say otherwise by your more difficult methods? I'm waiting.
> > Two of the most
> > respected Ogham scholars in the world both translated it this way
> > (Macalister and McManus).
>
> [Based on the evidence presented, we must suspect what MacAlister's
> degree of confidence in this solution was, due to the contradictory nature
> of his remarks and his never having been exposed to corpus of American
> inscriptions]
>
McManus doesn't think it's Ogham consaine either. He specifically states
that it is "inverted scholastic Ogam" on page 131 of a guide to Ogam. If
Macalister had had a chance to actually look at the Clonmacnoise stone, he
would have been more likely strengthened in his opinion that it was
scholastic Ogam and that it says BOCHT. I think Macalister would probably
have characterized the American inscriptions as phony or pseudo Ogham. He
might have merely stated like McGlone has said (about some of them) that
they were only "Ogham like." I think he'd want to take a look at some of
them with a mind open to the possibilities where they seem more "Ogham like"
than the others.
Searles O'Dubhain
Searles ODubhain
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 02:44:55 GMT, "Searles ODubhain"
> <odub...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:rif51u0pk3ng6897s...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 13:13:06 +1300, Eric Stevens
> >> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >>
> >> Larry has a very good point. If he is correct, the Clonmacnoise Ogham
> >> stone can only be transliterated into something which might make sense
> >> if it is uniquely treated. In the absence of a good argument as to why
> >> it should be so treated it makes sense to read it in the conventional
> >> fashion in which case it appears that Larry is right and it is an
> >> Ogham inscription without vowels.
> >
> >The very best argument is that it says something if read backwards.
>
> But why is it the only Ogham message which has to be read backwards?
It's not. Many Ogham messages are read both ways to find the meaning in the
inscription. Not all hold true to the conventions of where to start and the
direction to read.
> >
> >The choice is to read the inscription backwards or to *add* a variable
> >number of letters to it to create a message.
>
> The picture shows clearly that there is nothing missing from the
> original message. Whoever carved it had room for more if they had the
> need to write it.
>
It says BOCHT when read by the two greatest Ogham scholars (Macalister and
McManus). "Adding characters" is what Larry would have us do if it's Ogham
consaine as he trys to portray. I don't think it needs any characters
myself. BOCHT is an dexcellent translation.
> >In the first case, only one operation is done to find intelligence in the
> >inscription, while in the second case, we have almost as many
possibilities
> >for what the inscription can be made to say as the vowels will allow.
This
> >means that there might be hundreds of words made from the inscription.
> >Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is generally the correct
> >one.
>
> Not when the simplest explanatoin has no credible justification for
> its use and is in conflict with conventions. In this case, reading it
> backwards comes up with a word which has no obvious direct relevance
> to the circumstances of the stone.
>
The credible justification is that is what it says. What does it say
esiwrehto?
> I quoted Larry as saying:
>
> "We should also remember that Brash said that the inscription was
> in the earliest form of the characters (not the latest as would be
> the case if scholastic)".
>
> Was Brash wrong or does Ogham tell you to ignore the earlier style of
> writing?
>
Brash was wrong.
> Larry went on to say:
>
> "McManus also indicates that the stone was in a sixth century
> Christian cemetery where noblemen were buried. Thus the
> 'poor' translation would not be in context for the Christian
> cemetery of noblemen".
>
Where would you bury a pilgrim for Christ if you were at a Christian
monastery? A Christian cemetery seems the logical place to me.
> I don't know anything about the cemetery but it seems an anomaly for a
> noble man to be so poor they would mark it on his grave.
>
Maybe they meant that he was poor because he'd followed Christ's example and
given his worldly goods to the poor? Some of the greatest Irish saints did
this. Kevin for example. "Blessed are the poor in spirit."
> Larry continued:
>
> "It makes much more sense to assume that the Ogam inscription
> predated the cemetary, was read forward rather than backward, and
> that the Ogam was ignored when the stone was reused for
> Colman in the Christian cemetary".
There are many examples of similar stones with crosses on them and Ogham
that are shown to be concurrent in their inscribing in Ireland. This one is
not the only example. There are others that even have Ogham and the name
"Colman" on them as well as a cross. All of these are pretty much from the
6th to the 9th centuries CE.
> >
> >The graveyard and monastery of Clonmacnoise date back to the 6th century.
> >Any inscription found there would generally date to the period when
> >Scholastic Ogham was in use. At this link more information is to be
found
> >(http://www.moytura.com/clonmacnoise.htm):
> >
> >"The ancient monastic site of Clonmacnoise is situated at the crossroads
of
> >Ireland in County Offaly and dates back almost 1,500 years. St. Ciaran,
the
> >son of an Ulsterman who had settled in Connaught, chose the site in 545
AD
> >because of its ideal location at the junction of river and road travel in
> >Celtic Ireland.
>
> That would have made it an ideal location even before the 6th century.
> What was there before the church and monastery?
>
There wasn't anything there before Clonmacnoise was founded as far as I
know. I do know that the Irish Annals of the Four Masters say that a pilgrim
died there in 606 AD. Maybe this was "Colman?"
> >The location borders the three provinces of Connaught,
> >Munster and Leinster."
> >
> >This stone was found in a Christian graveyard (no older than the 6th
century
> >CE) and it has Christian symbols upon it. The Ogham inscription is in a
> >later Ogham version. The stone has a modern script on it as well.
>
> What about Brash? Can you show he was wrong and why?
>
I think Brash was wrong or off on several Ogham readings. One need only
browse the Titus Ogamica site or the Celtic Inscribed Stones site to see
many cases where Macalister and McManus disagree with his transliterations.
The inscription is in scholastic Ogam because of its age and the Christian
context IMO (and also because of the way the vowel is written).
> >All these
> >factors suggest it to be an example of a Christian Ogham inscription in
> >Scholastic Ogham. It is *NOT* in Ogham consaine which is not even a valid
> >Ogham type.
>
> Here we go again. Whether or not it is a valid type is what we should
> be trying to decide. We should not be prejudging it and using the
> predetermined conclusion to reject the possibility that we might have
> such an inscription here.
>
True enough. I should have said that Ogham consaine has not been shown to be
a valid Ogham form or type.
> >The dating alone invalidates Larry's theory. The type of Ogham
> >(Scholastic Ogham) shows that it is recent. The existence of the Ogham
> >letter "O" in the inscription shows it to *not* be Ogham consaine. The
> >intelligence that can be had from reading it backwards (BOCHT "poor") is
the
> >simplest and most correct translation of the inscription.
>
> There are no degrees of correctness. Either it is correct, or it is
> not.
>
That's why it saus BOCHT. That's the correct transliteration of the
inscription in theopinion of respected and knowledgeable scholars on the
subject.
> >Two of the most
> >respected Ogham scholars in the world both translated it this way
> >(Macalister and McManus).
>
> If you are going to argue on the basis of 'authorities' you are going
> to have to answer my objection to relying on Macalister's 100 year old
> conclusion. Probably the same applies to Macmamus.
>
McManus stated his scholarly opinion in 1991 and was republished to say the
same thing in 1997. Macalister is considered to be the source for correct
transliteration by most modern Ogham scholars. If one disagrees with his
CIIRC, then a detailed justification is usually made. Macalister had the
advantage of not only being a thorough and respected scholar, he also saw
these stones in a generally better condition than they are nowadays.
Searles
Searles ODubhain
The annals report on Clonmacnoise as early as 606 AD. Maybe Colman's stone
was not as good as the others because he was BOCHT "poor?" Do the rich
people have more impressive grave markers nowadays than the *poor* people?
Things haven't changed much it would seem.
Searles
Searles ODubhain
There's another cross inscribed Ogham stone to another Colman in Ireland
that was shown to have the inscriptions made contemporaneously to one
another. It was made to "Colman the pilgrim" in Ogham at Kilcolman. The
Four Masters tell us that a "pilgrim" died at Clonmacnoise in 606 AD. Some
Ogham inscriptions were made before the crosses were placed on the stones
and some were placed afterward it would seem. There is not one bit of
evidence that says the Clonmacnoise stone was made before the Cross of name
of Colman was placed on it (other than Brash's statement that it was in the
"oldest form"). As we've seen from Macalister and McManus the form of the
Ogham inscription is "Scholastic" which would place it at the end of the
period when most of the stone inscriptions were made and at the beginning of
the manuscript period. This period would be concurrent with the
establishment and the prosperity of Clonmacnoise (6th through 10th centuries
CE).
Searles
Eric Stevens
<odub...@home.com> wrote:
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:3rm51ugkjoa2ign31...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 02:44:55 GMT, "Searles ODubhain"
>> <odub...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>> >news:rif51u0pk3ng6897s...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 13:13:06 +1300, Eric Stevens
>> >> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Larry has a very good point. If he is correct, the Clonmacnoise Ogham
>> >> stone can only be transliterated into something which might make sense
>> >> if it is uniquely treated. In the absence of a good argument as to why
>> >> it should be so treated it makes sense to read it in the conventional
>> >> fashion in which case it appears that Larry is right and it is an
>> >> Ogham inscription without vowels.
>> >
>> >The very best argument is that it says something if read backwards.
>>
>> But why is it the only Ogham message which has to be read backwards?
>
>It's not. Many Ogham messages are read both ways to find the meaning in the
>inscription. Not all hold true to the conventions of where to start and the
>direction to read.
You have been invited several times to tell us about such messages. I
have missed it if you have done so.
>
>> >
>> >The choice is to read the inscription backwards or to *add* a variable
>> >number of letters to it to create a message.
>>
>> The picture shows clearly that there is nothing missing from the
>> original message. Whoever carved it had room for more if they had the
>> need to write it.
>>
>
>It says BOCHT when read by the two greatest Ogham scholars (Macalister and
>McManus). "Adding characters" is what Larry would have us do if it's Ogham
>consaine as he trys to portray. I don't think it needs any characters
>myself. BOCHT is an dexcellent translation.
That is both a non-sequitur and an indication that all you are doing
is paraphrasing Macalister and McManus. You are steadfastly ignoring
the others who see it as an ancient form of Ogham but you are not able
to give any reason why.
>
>> >In the first case, only one operation is done to find intelligence in the
>> >inscription, while in the second case, we have almost as many
>possibilities
>> >for what the inscription can be made to say as the vowels will allow.
>This
>> >means that there might be hundreds of words made from the inscription.
>> >Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is generally the correct
>> >one.
>>
>> Not when the simplest explanatoin has no credible justification for
>> its use and is in conflict with conventions. In this case, reading it
>> backwards comes up with a word which has no obvious direct relevance
>> to the circumstances of the stone.
>>
>
>The credible justification is that is what it says. What does it say
>esiwrehto?
I have a friend who cheats at cross-word puzzles. The mere fact that a
word fits does not make it correct.
>
>> I quoted Larry as saying:
>>
>> "We should also remember that Brash said that the inscription was
>> in the earliest form of the characters (not the latest as would be
>> the case if scholastic)".
>>
>> Was Brash wrong or does Ogham tell you to ignore the earlier style of
>> writing?
>>
>
>Brash was wrong.
WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?
Are you able to give a reason? You do claim to know something about
Ogham (which is more than I do) but do you know enough to explain why
you follow one authority and not another?
>
>> Larry went on to say:
>>
>> "McManus also indicates that the stone was in a sixth century
>> Christian cemetery where noblemen were buried. Thus the
>> 'poor' translation would not be in context for the Christian
>> cemetery of noblemen".
>>
>
>Where would you bury a pilgrim for Christ if you were at a Christian
>monastery? A Christian cemetery seems the logical place to me.
Another non-sequitur which completely evades the point that the 'poor'
translatoin seems out of place in a cemetery where noblemen were
buried. Can/will you address that point?
>
>> I don't know anything about the cemetery but it seems an anomaly for a
>> noble man to be so poor they would mark it on his grave.
>>
>
>Maybe they meant that he was poor because he'd followed Christ's example and
>given his worldly goods to the poor? Some of the greatest Irish saints did
>this. Kevin for example. "Blessed are the poor in spirit."
At least that's a better idea than some of the others that have been
offered in the past. But if that was the case, why did not the priests
trumpet that to the sky instead of hiding it back to front in an
archaic form of writing?
>
>> Larry continued:
>>
>> "It makes much more sense to assume that the Ogam inscription
>> predated the cemetary, was read forward rather than backward, and
>> that the Ogam was ignored when the stone was reused for
>> Colman in the Christian cemetary".
>
>There are many examples of similar stones with crosses on them and Ogham
>that are shown to be concurrent in their inscribing in Ireland. This one is
>not the only example. There are others that even have Ogham and the name
>"Colman" on them as well as a cross. All of these are pretty much from the
>6th to the 9th centuries CE.
I've read of Coleman the pilgrim, but I was not aware that there were
a number. Can you identify them?
>
>> >
>> >The graveyard and monastery of Clonmacnoise date back to the 6th century.
>> >Any inscription found there would generally date to the period when
>> >Scholastic Ogham was in use. At this link more information is to be
>found
>> >(http://www.moytura.com/clonmacnoise.htm):
>> >
>> >"The ancient monastic site of Clonmacnoise is situated at the crossroads
>of
>> >Ireland in County Offaly and dates back almost 1,500 years. St. Ciaran,
>the
>> >son of an Ulsterman who had settled in Connaught, chose the site in 545
>AD
>> >because of its ideal location at the junction of river and road travel in
>> >Celtic Ireland.
>>
>> That would have made it an ideal location even before the 6th century.
>> What was there before the church and monastery?
>>
>
>There wasn't anything there before Clonmacnoise was founded as far as I
>know. I do know that the Irish Annals of the Four Masters say that a pilgrim
>died there in 606 AD. Maybe this was "Colman?"
I can't tell you about Coleman but I am willing to bet that the fact
that you don't know what went on before 606 AD does not mean that
nothing went on.
>
>> >The location borders the three provinces of Connaught,
>> >Munster and Leinster."
>> >
>> >This stone was found in a Christian graveyard (no older than the 6th
>century
>> >CE) and it has Christian symbols upon it. The Ogham inscription is in a
>> >later Ogham version. The stone has a modern script on it as well.
>>
>> What about Brash? Can you show he was wrong and why?
>>
>
>I think Brash was wrong or off on several Ogham readings. One need only
>browse the Titus Ogamica site or the Celtic Inscribed Stones site to see
>many cases where Macalister and McManus disagree with his transliterations.
>The inscription is in scholastic Ogam because of its age and the Christian
>context IMO (and also because of the way the vowel is written).
This is not a question of transliteration of the inscription but
identification of the style. I have tried unsuccesfully to find
something on the web which will let me distinguish archaic Ogham from
Scholastic Ogham but with no success so far. Yet I am sure I have seen
it somewhere.
>
>> >All these
>> >factors suggest it to be an example of a Christian Ogham inscription in
>> >Scholastic Ogham. It is *NOT* in Ogham consaine which is not even a valid
>> >Ogham type.
>>
>> Here we go again. Whether or not it is a valid type is what we should
>> be trying to decide. We should not be prejudging it and using the
>> predetermined conclusion to reject the possibility that we might have
>> such an inscription here.
>>
>
>True enough. I should have said that Ogham consaine has not been shown to be
>a valid Ogham form or type.
Nor has it shown to be invalid, but you seem to use that conclusion to
reject the possibility that an inscriptoin is Ogham Consaine.
>
>> >The dating alone invalidates Larry's theory. The type of Ogham
>> >(Scholastic Ogham) shows that it is recent. The existence of the Ogham
>> >letter "O" in the inscription shows it to *not* be Ogham consaine. The
>> >intelligence that can be had from reading it backwards (BOCHT "poor") is
>the
>> >simplest and most correct translation of the inscription.
>>
>> There are no degrees of correctness. Either it is correct, or it is
>> not.
>>
>
>That's why it saus BOCHT. That's the correct transliteration of the
>inscription in theopinion of respected and knowledgeable scholars on the
>subject.
That is a distortion of the history of the matter.
>
>> >Two of the most
>> >respected Ogham scholars in the world both translated it this way
>> >(Macalister and McManus).
>>
>> If you are going to argue on the basis of 'authorities' you are going
>> to have to answer my objection to relying on Macalister's 100 year old
>> conclusion. Probably the same applies to Macmamus.
>>
>
> McManus stated his scholarly opinion in 1991 and was republished to say the
>same thing in 1997. Macalister is considered to be the source for correct
>transliteration by most modern Ogham scholars. If one disagrees with his
>CIIRC, then a detailed justification is usually made. Macalister had the
>advantage of not only being a thorough and respected scholar, he also saw
>these stones in a generally better condition than they are nowadays.
**AND** he knew nothing of many of the more recent discoveries.
JMB
--snip--
>
> [Eric Stevens to John Byrne (JMB)]
>
> Larry said that "If read forward, as it should be read, it can not be
> translated with the vowel ... " yet it is implicit in your answer that
> it will be translated with the vowel irrespective of the direction of
> reading. You seem to be disagreeing with Larry and what I would like
> to know is why you think Larry is wrong.
I'm not sure if this is a quote, or a new question, but here's the answer
I've posted previously:
"The answer to this question is that the Ogham for "o" is two straight lines
going through the stem-line
like ++. Whether you read it forward or backward, it will remain ++."
JMB
There were different grades of noble in Ireland at the time, including a
grade, "dóernemed" which means a "base nemed", "nemed" being the upper
classes.
>
> Larry continued:
>
> "It makes much more sense to assume that the Ogam inscription
> predated the cemetary, was read forward rather than backward, and
> that the Ogam was ignored when the stone was reused for
> Colman in the Christian cemetary".
This is highly unlikely, considering the time frame. Christianity was not
strong enough to use older Ogham inscriptions in a Christian setting. If
the stone was older, and not understood, it would possibly be considered
sacred, so the christians would not be allowed to "destroy" it in such a
way. It is more likely that the Ogham was added at the same time, or
possibly later, than the christian inscription.
> >
> >The graveyard and monastery of Clonmacnoise date back to the 6th century.
> >Any inscription found there would generally date to the period when
> >Scholastic Ogham was in use. At this link more information is to be
found
> >(http://www.moytura.com/clonmacnoise.htm):
> >
> >"The ancient monastic site of Clonmacnoise is situated at the crossroads
of
> >Ireland in County Offaly and dates back almost 1,500 years. St. Ciaran,
the
> >son of an Ulsterman who had settled in Connaught, chose the site in 545
AD
> >because of its ideal location at the junction of river and road travel in
> >Celtic Ireland.
>
> That would have made it an ideal location even before the 6th century.
> What was there before the church and monastery?
It would have been anything but ideal. It borders three provinces, and
would therefore be caught in the middle of numerous wars between three of
the four most powerful kings in the country. I don't think anything was
there before the monastery, as the monasteries were the first urban centres
in the country, so there wasn't a lot that could be there before it.
>
> >The location borders the three provinces of Connaught,
> >Munster and Leinster."
> >
> >This stone was found in a Christian graveyard (no older than the 6th
century
> >CE) and it has Christian symbols upon it. The Ogham inscription is in a
> >later Ogham version. The stone has a modern script on it as well.
>
> What about Brash? Can you show he was wrong and why?
I don't think you can consider Brash to be the equal of Macalister, or
McManus.
>
> >All these
> >factors suggest it to be an example of a Christian Ogham inscription in
> >Scholastic Ogham. It is *NOT* in Ogham consaine which is not even a valid
> >Ogham type.
>
> Here we go again. Whether or not it is a valid type is what we should
> be trying to decide. We should not be prejudging it and using the
> predetermined conclusion to reject the possibility that we might have
> such an inscription here.
>
> >The dating alone invalidates Larry's theory. The type of Ogham
> >(Scholastic Ogham) shows that it is recent. The existence of the Ogham
> >letter "O" in the inscription shows it to *not* be Ogham consaine. The
> >intelligence that can be had from reading it backwards (BOCHT "poor") is
the
> >simplest and most correct translation of the inscription.
>
> There are no degrees of correctness. Either it is correct, or it is
> not.
>
> >Two of the most
> >respected Ogham scholars in the world both translated it this way
> >(Macalister and McManus).
>
> If you are going to argue on the basis of 'authorities' you are going
> to have to answer my objection to relying on Macalister's 100 year old
> conclusion. Probably the same applies to Macmamus.
Macalister's conclusion is 52 years old, McManus' conclusions are current.
JMB
--snip--
> >
> >> >
> >> >The choice is to read the inscription backwards or to *add* a variable
> >> >number of letters to it to create a message.
> >>
> >> The picture shows clearly that there is nothing missing from the
> >> original message. Whoever carved it had room for more if they had the
> >> need to write it.
> >>
> >
> >It says BOCHT when read by the two greatest Ogham scholars (Macalister
and
> >McManus). "Adding characters" is what Larry would have us do if it's
Ogham
> >consaine as he trys to portray. I don't think it needs any characters
> >myself. BOCHT is an dexcellent translation.
>
> That is both a non-sequitur and an indication that all you are doing
> is paraphrasing Macalister and McManus. You are steadfastly ignoring
> the others who see it as an ancient form of Ogham but you are not able
> to give any reason why.
Those others are Brash and who else?
>
--snip--
>
> I can't tell you about Coleman but I am willing to bet that the fact
> that you don't know what went on before 606 AD does not mean that
> nothing went on.
There is not a lot that could go on before the monastery.
> >
--snip--
JMB
That's not likely, given the dates the cemetery was in use. Christianity
barely had a foothold in the country in the 6th century, and would not want
to soil its sacred lands by having a pagan stone in use as a christian
memorial slab. Also, the locals would be unlikely to let them use a stone
that may have been considered magical, as it surely would have been if it
was in an old, unknown form of Ogham.
Christopher Gwinn
>
> The annals report on Clonmacnoise as early as 606 AD. Maybe Colman's
stone
> was not as good as the others because he was BOCHT "poor?" Do the rich
> people have more impressive grave markers nowadays than the *poor* people?
> Things haven't changed much it would seem.
I would add one linguistic point about the reading BOCHT (which is clearly
the correct reading - only drooling morons like Larry believe otherwise) -
this ogam _must_ date from the Old Irish period (which began approximately
at end of the 7th century AD and lasted until approximately 900 AD) -
because before the Old Irish period, the word would have been written as
*BOCT (the Common Celtic/Proto-Irish cluster -ct- wasn't written as -cht-
until the Old Irish period) - compare for example the earlier (appr. 550-700
AD) ogam from Aghaleage, mentioning one MAQ-ACTO (also ACTO in the
Ballyknock ogam).
- Chris Gwinn
Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
JMB wrote:
[snip]
That's not likely, given the dates the cemetery was in use. Christianity
> barely had a foothold in the country in the 6th century, and would not want
> to soil its sacred lands by having a pagan stone in use as a christian
> memorial slab.
[Oh come on now! Do you think we just wandered in off the corn field?!
The Christian (i.e., Catholic Church--and I was christened 7 Dec 1941) Church
carved many pagan menhir into Celtic crosses; built churches on sites sacred to the
"pagans"; took over pagan celebrations such the winter solstice light festival
which it made into "Christmas" and Oestre which it made into the holiest festival
of the Christian calendar--Easter; "Christianized" dolmens; pulled down stones in
stone circles or broke them; at Avebury they even built a church and graveyard
within the great circle.]
> Also, the locals would be unlikely to let them use a stone
> that may have been considered magical, as it surely would have been if it
> was in an old, unknown form of Ogham.
>
[What is the foundation for this in view of my note above?]
--
Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
Christopher Gwinn wrote:
[snip]
>
> I would add one linguistic point about the reading BOCHT (which is clearly
> the correct reading - only drooling morons like Larry believe otherwise) -
> this ogam _must_ date from the Old Irish period (which began approximately
> at end of the 7th century AD and lasted until approximately 900 AD) -
> because before the Old Irish period, the word would have been written as
> *BOCT (the Common Celtic/Proto-Irish cluster -ct- wasn't written as -cht-
> until the Old Irish period) - compare for example the earlier (appr. 550-700
> AD) ogam from Aghaleage, mentioning one MAQ-ACTO (also ACTO in the
> Ballyknock ogam).
[You might like at your own bib for drool--you have just impeached Searles'
authorities' linguistic expertise and also your own as you fail to even account
for all the strokes of the inscription and force the reading against the direction
feather:
as I posted elsewhere, cf.,
http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/ogam/l/749/749x001l.jpg
Look at it carefully. Crudely rendered it looks like this (all lines,
of course, sould touch the stemline):
O?
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
>--------------------------------
| | |
| | |
If the fourth series to the right of the feather were, in fact, meant to be
the letter "O", one would have expected the vowel's strokes to be of a
lesser length than that of the surrounding consonants, and, therefore,
I assert that it should be read, in either direction as the long intercept
consonant stroke = "G" vice the short interecpt vowel stroke "O"!
This is what "O" should have been,
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
>--------------------------------
| | |
|
cf., Marshall Payn's interview with Barry Fell reported in
_ESOP_, Vol 18, 1989, p. 36 and the enclosed chart based
on ogams in the _Book of Leinster_ or cf., this alphabet as
represented on p. 47 of Fell, _America B.C._ Based on the
stroke length, I assert it cannot be "O", but must rather, be
"G".
Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
JMB wrote:
>
> --snip--
> >. . . here's the answer
> I've posted previously:
>
> "The answer to this question is that the Ogham for "o" is two straight lines
> going through the stem-line
> like ++. Whether you read it forward or backward, it will remain ++."
[Thanks to Searles ODubhain for pointing out that a nice, clear photo of this
ogam inscription is visible on the web at
Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
"Dr. Edward D. Rockstein" wrote:
Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/ogam/l/749/749x001l.jpg
I am struck by the appearance of the two inscriptions. I assert
that the two appear to have been done with tools of different
width, with the +Colman being down with a wider tool than
the ogam and that, furthermore, the two were done on a different
scale. I think this casts a fair degree of suspicion on any
hypothesis that they were carved contemporaneously or in
connection. Moreover, is there any evidence that this grave
was neglected compared to the others?]
Searles ODubhain
> >
> >It's not. Many Ogham messages are read both ways to find the meaning in
the
> >inscription. Not all hold true to the conventions of where to start and
the
> >direction to read.
>
> You have been invited several times to tell us about such messages. I
> have missed it if you have done so.
Yes, you must have missed the instances I gave you from the book of
Ballymote where the "feather" mark or "arrow" appears at the end of the
inscription rather than at the beginning.
<snip>
> >
> >It says BOCHT when read by the two greatest Ogham scholars (Macalister
and
> >McManus). "Adding characters" is what Larry would have us do if it's
Ogham
> >consaine as he trys to portray. I don't think it needs any characters
> >myself. BOCHT is an dexcellent translation.
>
> That is both a non-sequitur and an indication that all you are doing
> is paraphrasing Macalister and McManus. You are steadfastly ignoring
> the others who see it as an ancient form of Ogham but you are not able
> to give any reason why.
It is a scholastic Ogham because it has a stemline, contains a feather, has
a stemline inscribed on the surface of the stone, uses scores across the
stemline for vowels (rather than "dots") and includes the letter "H" in the
inscription. It is also a later inscription because it is found with an
inscribed cross and modern lettering of the name Colman, as well as being
located at a Christian monastic site. It is read as BOCHT because that is
the only way it has ever been shown to have an intelligible meaning in
context too the other factors associated with the stone
(pilgrims,Christianity, grave markers, scholastic tradition).
A great example of a similar encrypted Ogham on stone is the pillar found at
Llywell (CIIC 341). This stone has a Latin and an Ogham inscription on it.
The Latin inscription reads from left to right in the usual manner but the
Ogham inscription reads from right to left. According to Macalister, the
Ogham is MAQI-TRENI SALICIDUNI (read backwards) and the Latin is MACCV-TRENI
SALICIDVNI. As you can see in this inscription, the Ogham is written
opposite the direction of the Latin and the direction one would normally
take in such a reading (usually from bottom to top). No feather or arrow
mark appears in the Ogham inscription (as it is written on the edge of a
stone). Similar reversals of an inscription in Latin and Ogham occurs at
Trallwng (CIIC 342) and Llandyssul (CIIC 349). Macalister also saw other
forms of inversion and encryption in Ogham and Latin inscriptions. It's not
at all clear to me why he decodes the Latin inscription of the Colbinstown
(CIIC 19) stone as transliterated Ogham in a reversed and inverted manner
(it's also unclear to McManus).
<snip>
> >
> >Brash was wrong.
>
> WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?
>
Brash was wrong because his reading has no meaning, context or intelligence
in it. He is also wrong about the age or antiquity of the inscription. It is
an obvious scholastic Ogham as it has a "feather" or "arrow" mark in it. It
also has a stemline (characteristic of scholastic Ogham) and is written on
the face of the stone (another scholastic characteristic). The stone is
found in a Christian monastic cemetery and should be considered recent
(circa 6th to 9th centuries CE or later) rather than ancient (as Brash also
indicated by saying it is in the earliest forms).
> Are you able to give a reason? You do claim to know something about
> Ogham (which is more than I do) but do you know enough to explain why
> you follow one authority and not another?
I follow Macalister and McManus because I've read their works and I
understand them where I agree with what they've said and I also know why
they may be taking a position where I disagree with them. I've not read
Brash's works directly , so I am less familiar with his work. I do note that
the Ogham inscription under question is interpreted to say BOCHT by other
authorities (if one can believe the information at CISP and Titus Ogamica
that I've previously provided to you):
Petrie, G. (1822): BOCHT
Expansion:
BOCHT
Translation:
The poor.
Lionard/1961 Plate XXVI reading only
Macalister/1909 42 reading only
Macalister/1949 59 reading only
Manning/Moore/1991 11 reading only
McManus/1991 131 reading only
Petrie/1872 16 reading only
<snip>
> >
> >Where would you bury a pilgrim for Christ if you were at a Christian
> >monastery? A Christian cemetery seems the logical place to me.
>
> Another non-sequitur which completely evades the point that the 'poor'
> translatoin seems out of place in a cemetery where noblemen were
> buried. Can/will you address that point?
>
Monks were buried in this cemetery. It was a monastery. Colman the pilgrim
was most likely buried there for that very reason.
<snip>
> >
> >Maybe they meant that he was poor because he'd followed Christ's example
and
> >given his worldly goods to the poor? Some of the greatest Irish saints
did
> >this. Kevin for example. "Blessed are the poor in spirit."
>
> At least that's a better idea than some of the others that have been
> offered in the past. But if that was the case, why did not the priests
> trumpet that to the sky instead of hiding it back to front in an
> archaic form of writing?
I think it may have been a form of "meekness." Would a truly pious monk want
his devotion trumpeted to the sky? I doubt it.
<snip>
> >
> >There are many examples of similar stones with crosses on them and Ogham
> >that are shown to be concurrent in their inscribing in Ireland. This one
is
> >not the only example. There are others that even have Ogham and the name
> >"Colman" on them as well as a cross. All of these are pretty much from
the
> >6th to the 9th centuries CE.
>
> I've read of Coleman the pilgrim, but I was not aware that there were
> a number. Can you identify them?
You can go to CELT site and search through the annals of the Four Masters.
You will find Colmans who were monks, kings, saints and sinners. I ran
across about ten different Colmans last night. The name is very common.
I've already provided an example of another Colman the pilgrim to you who
was recorded on the Ogham stone at Maumanorig (CIIC 193).
<snip>
monastery?
> >>
> >
> >There wasn't anything there before Clonmacnoise was founded as far as I
> >know. I do know that the Irish Annals of the Four Masters say that a
pilgrim
> >died there in 606 AD. Maybe this was "Colman?"
>
> I can't tell you about Coleman but I am willing to bet that the fact
> that you don't know what went on before 606 AD does not mean that
> nothing went on.
I'm certain that every spot on the planet has a history dating back millions
or billions or years. There are no reports in the archaeological records
(of which I'm aware) that note anything significant about the Clonmacnoise
site before 606 AD. Please tell us if you are aware of prior information.
<snip>
> >
> >I think Brash was wrong or off on several Ogham readings. One need only
> >browse the Titus Ogamica site or the Celtic Inscribed Stones site to see
> >many cases where Macalister and McManus disagree with his
transliterations.
> >The inscription is in scholastic Ogam because of its age and the
Christian
> >context IMO (and also because of the way the vowel is written).
>
> This is not a question of transliteration of the inscription but
> identification of the style. I have tried unsuccesfully to find
> something on the web which will let me distinguish archaic Ogham from
> Scholastic Ogham but with no success so far. Yet I am sure I have seen
> it somewhere.
Maybe the problem is that some people are confusing scholastic Ogham with
archaic Ogham (such as Larry and Fell)?
<snip>
> >
> >True enough. I should have said that Ogham consaine has not been shown to
be
> >a valid Ogham form or type.
>
> Nor has it shown to be invalid, but you seem to use that conclusion to
> reject the possibility that an inscriptoin is Ogham Consaine.
Ogham consaine only muddies the water as far as I can see. It introduces all
manner of possibilities and abiguities into translating and transliterating
inscriptions. No case has ever been made for it aside from Fell and Dineen's
reference to it. Where are the other references one would expect to find
among the writings of the Filidh (O'Sullivan's remarks about Ogham
inscriptions only in consonants do not a vowelless Ogham make; they only say
that some inscriptions were written only in consonants ...i.e.. magical and
encrypted)?
<snip>
.
> >>
> >
> >That's why it saus BOCHT. That's the correct transliteration of the
> >inscription in theopinion of respected and knowledgeable scholars on the
> >subject.
>
> That is a distortion of the history of the matter.
What I said is absolutely ***TRUE***. Are you trying to say that both
Macalister and McManus did not read this inscription as BOCHT. Are you also
saying that Petrie, Lionard, Manning and Moore did not read it as BOCHT? I
think it is you who seems confused on the matter.
<snip>
> >
> > McManus stated his scholarly opinion in 1991 and was republished to say
the
> >same thing in 1997. Macalister is considered to be the source for correct
> >transliteration by most modern Ogham scholars. If one disagrees with his
> >CIIRC, then a detailed justification is usually made. Macalister had the
> >advantage of not only being a thorough and respected scholar, he also saw
> >these stones in a generally better condition than they are nowadays.
>
> **AND** he knew nothing of many of the more recent discoveries.
>
No he didn't. Macalister was dead in 1950 so he missed Fell's books and the
controversy over the American inscriptions. Based on his evaluation of some
of the Ogham in Larry's corpus BI-1, I'd have to say he would have
considered the American inscriptions to be pseudo or phony Ogham. McManus
seems to not think them worth a very detailed investigation.
Searles
Searles ODubhain
It appears to me that the Ogham inscription was made *after* the cross and
the name Colman was inscribed on the stone. The Ogham inscription actually
appears to have been rudely made by someone who was not as learned as the
original scribe IMO. The use of the "H" and the scholastic form would be
consistent with this later inscription of the Ogham.
Searles
Eric Stevens
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:1aa61uss9d3rcec0i...@4ax.com...
>--snip--
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >The choice is to read the inscription backwards or to *add* a variable
>> >> >number of letters to it to create a message.
>> >>
>> >> The picture shows clearly that there is nothing missing from the
>> >> original message. Whoever carved it had room for more if they had the
>> >> need to write it.
>> >>
>> >
>> >It says BOCHT when read by the two greatest Ogham scholars (Macalister
>and
>> >McManus). "Adding characters" is what Larry would have us do if it's
>Ogham
>> >consaine as he trys to portray. I don't think it needs any characters
>> >myself. BOCHT is an dexcellent translation.
>>
>> That is both a non-sequitur and an indication that all you are doing
>> is paraphrasing Macalister and McManus. You are steadfastly ignoring
>> the others who see it as an ancient form of Ogham but you are not able
>> to give any reason why.
>
>Those others are Brash and who else?
Quoting from Larry Athy:
":As I indicated in my last posting, Brash, Ferguson, and Macalister
have collectively said that it is the only Ogam inscription at the
site; that it is in the most ancient type of our letters
(++scholastic Ogam is not the most ancient type++); that it should
be read in the direction of the > (++left to right++); and that it
is necessary to read it backwards and as scholastic Ogam to be able
to translate it (++as the case may be as 'bocht' = 'poor'++)."
>
>>
>--snip--
>>
>> I can't tell you about Coleman but I am willing to bet that the fact
>> that you don't know what went on before 606 AD does not mean that
>> nothing went on.
>
>There is not a lot that could go on before the monastery.
That was my exact point. There is no reason why it should not have
involved the carving of Ogham into stone.
Eric Stevens
>> "It makes much more sense to assume that the Ogam inscription
>> predated the cemetary, was read forward rather than backward, and
>> that the Ogam was ignored when the stone was reused for
>> Colman in the Christian cemetary".
>
>This is highly unlikely, considering the time frame. Christianity was not
>strong enough to use older Ogham inscriptions in a Christian setting. If
>the stone was older, and not understood, it would possibly be considered
>sacred, so the christians would not be allowed to "destroy" it in such a
>way. It is more likely that the Ogham was added at the same time, or
>possibly later, than the christian inscription.
I do have to say that from the layout of the stone I would expect that
if one inscription was put there before the other, the 'Colman' got
there first.
Eric Stevens
<rigv...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The annals report on Clonmacnoise as early as 606 AD. Maybe Colman's
>stone
>> was not as good as the others because he was BOCHT "poor?" Do the rich
>> people have more impressive grave markers nowadays than the *poor* people?
>> Things haven't changed much it would seem.
>
>I would add one linguistic point about the reading BOCHT (which is clearly
>the correct reading - only drooling morons like Larry believe otherwise) -
Could you explain as one drooling moron to another why it is
acceptable to read the script **backwards** as BOCHT but unacceptable
to read it forwards in the conventional way as THCOB or possibly
HTHCGB as was Macalister's inclination? Can you also cite even one
example of where a linear inscription has to be read backwards in such
a fashion?
--- snip ---
Eric Stevens
Its a quote.
Being ignorant of these matters I have been furiously trying to find
something on the internet and in my library about the various types of
Ogham. I have confirmed that there are at least two distinctly
different types of Ogham characters. The conventional view is given by
http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/script/ogham2.html
However, there are groups of characters which follow the general
principals of Ogham but which are differently organised. One set makes
use of both long and short strokes (and I don't mean just stopping at
the stem line) while another seems to use strokes of the same length.
The vowelless Ogams in America (according to McGlone et al) seem to
use only vertical strokes but I can't find an example of this on the
web. According to McGlone et al, in this vowelless script ||
represents 'G'.
This intrigues me. 'HTHCGB' was one of Macalister's possible
transliterations. It could be that he was not clear in his own mind
whether the second to last character was // or || but if you look at
the inscription on the stone (which Macalister never actually saw) at
http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/ogam/l/749/749x001l.jpg
You will see that there is no ambiguity. On that basis it is likely
that he knew that || could be 'G'. Whatever the interpretation of that
character, the character remains the same no matter the direction in
which it is read.
Eric Stevens
Yes, I noticed the difference in the carving and I agree.
Searles ODubhain
Transliterating Ogham is as much an art as it is a science. The examples
that you seek are in Macalister's CIIC (72, 97, 125, 126, 150, 151,152, 153,
154, 165, 167, 169) . In some inscriptions (like the ones in the CIIRC that
were previously listed) where there are both long and short strokes across
the stemline, the longer strokes are interpreted to be consonants while the
shorter strokes are interpreted to be vowels. IMO this is to allow for
variations in style made by a variety of inscribers. If there's also
diagonal or "athwart" strokes then the interpretation of long perpendicular
strokes as vowels or consonants becomes more confused. I plan to cover this
point and others in my paper to discuss Larry's corpora and the Ogham
consaine that is conjectured to exist in some American inscriptions. The
problem with the American inscriptions and some of the BI-1 inscriptions is
that no short strokes are present to simplify the choice of longer
perpendicular strokes as being a consonant or a vowel. These inscriptions
are looked at in many different ways to see if some intelligence can be
gleaned from possible translations of the various approaches to a reading.
Searles
JMB
Well that is wrong on Larry's part. Macalister never said it was the most
ancient type, and I'd like to see some references to where exactly the
others made such claims.
> >
> >>
> >--snip--
> >>
> >> I can't tell you about Coleman but I am willing to bet that the fact
> >> that you don't know what went on before 606 AD does not mean that
> >> nothing went on.
> >
> >There is not a lot that could go on before the monastery.
>
> That was my exact point. There is no reason why it should not have
> involved the carving of Ogham into stone.
There is no reason why what should not have involved the carving of Ogham
into stone?
JMB
>
>
> JMB wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> That's not likely, given the dates the cemetery was in use. Christianity
>
> > barely had a foothold in the country in the 6th century, and would not
want
> > to soil its sacred lands by having a pagan stone in use as a christian
> > memorial slab.
>
> [Oh come on now! Do you think we just wandered in off the corn field?!
> The Christian (i.e., Catholic Church--and I was christened 7 Dec 1941)
Church
> carved many pagan menhir into Celtic crosses; built churches on sites
sacred to the
> "pagans"; took over pagan celebrations such the winter solstice light
festival
> which it made into "Christmas" and Oestre which it made into the holiest
festival
> of the Christian calendar--Easter; "Christianized" dolmens; pulled down
stones in
> stone circles or broke them; at Avebury they even built a church and
graveyard
> within the great circle.]
Not in 6th century Ireland, they didn't. Just look at arguably the most
powerful church in Ireland at the time, Armagh. The built it near the pagan
site, but even Armagh wasn't powerful enough to be built on the pagan site.
After the 9th century, when Ireland was fully christianised they would get
away with destroying pagan sites, but they would be wiped out of existance
if they tried it in the 6th century. The fact that pagan holy days were
christianised is an example of how powerful the pagan beliefs were, not the
christian beliefs.
>
> > Also, the locals would be unlikely to let them use a stone
> > that may have been considered magical, as it surely would have been if
it
> > was in an old, unknown form of Ogham.
> >
>
> [What is the foundation for this in view of my note above?]
I've covered this in my reply above.
JMB
If it is Scholistic Ogham, as it appears to be, then the vowel lines would
not be of a lessor lenght to the others, as diagonal lines were used for the
M letters.
JMB
Can you cite one example of someone saying it should be read forward as
above, who didn't later clearly state that it should be read backward?
JMB
>
>
> JMB wrote:
>
> >
> > --snip--
> > >. . . here's the answer
> > I've posted previously:
> >
> > "The answer to this question is that the Ogham for "o" is two straight
lines
> > going through the stem-line
> > like ++. Whether you read it forward or backward, it will remain ++."
>
> [Thanks to Searles ODubhain for pointing out that a nice, clear photo of
this
> ogam inscription is visible on the web at
>
> http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/ogam/l/749/749x001l.jpg
>
> Look at it carefully. Crudely rendered it looks like this (all lines,
> of course, sould touch the stemline):
>
> O?
>
> | | | | | | | | | |
> | | | | | | | | | |
> >--------------------------------
> | | |
> | | |
>
>
> If the fourth series to the right of the feather were, in fact, meant to
be
> the letter "O", one would have expected the vowel's strokes to be of a
> lesser length than that of the surrounding consonants, and, therefore,
> I assert that it should be read, in either direction as the long intercept
> consonant stroke = "G" vice the short interecpt vowel stroke "O"!
If it is Scholistic Ogham, as it most likely is, then the vowel lines would
be the same lenght as the other lines, as the are.
JMB
That's a standard form here in Ireland, the name gets the bulk of the
attention, the nickname etc., gets less attention. I assume it is the same
elsewhere. As for the condition of the grave, the whole site is in ruins,
it would be impossible to tell.
JMB
While I believe it should read "bocht", the point above is exactly what I've
being saying in response to Larry's claims. If read forwards, it could just
as easily be "o" as "g", it does not have to be "g" as Larry claims.
Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
JMB wrote:
[snip]
>
> Can you cite one example of someone saying it should be read forward as
> above, who didn't later clearly state that it should be read backward?
Larry Athy, for one.
[snip]
Eric Stevens
>> >> I can't tell you about Coleman but I am willing to bet that the fact
>> >> that you don't know what went on before 606 AD does not mean that
>> >> nothing went on.
>> >
>> >There is not a lot that could go on before the monastery.
>>
>> That was my exact point. There is no reason why it should not have
>> involved the carving of Ogham into stone.
>
>There is no reason why what should not have involved the carving of Ogham
>into stone?
... why whatever was going on before the monastery should not have
involved carving Ogham into the stone. i.e. the Ogham could have been
carved into the stone before the monastery was built.
Eric Stevens
>> Could you explain as one drooling moron to another why it is
>> acceptable to read the script **backwards** as BOCHT but unacceptable
>> to read it forwards in the conventional way as THCOB or possibly
>> HTHCGB as was Macalister's inclination? Can you also cite even one
>> example of where a linear inscription has to be read backwards in such
>> a fashion?
>
>Can you cite one example of someone saying it should be read forward as
>above, who didn't later clearly state that it should be read backward?
Can you answer the question I directed to Chris Gwinn?
JMB
>
>
> JMB wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > Can you cite one example of someone saying it should be read forward as
> > above, who didn't later clearly state that it should be read backward?
>
> Larry Athy, for one.
Obviously I meant someone who had some knowledge of the subject.
JMB
Chances are nothing was going on there, so the stone would have been wasted,
I don't think Clonmacnoise is a boundary for any Tuath.
JMB
Llywell (CIIC 341).
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/cisp/database/
Now, can you answer my question to you?
Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
> "Dr. Edward D. Rockstein" <ed4l...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3C13E98B...@home.com...
> >
> >
> > JMB wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >
> > > Can you cite one example of someone saying it should be read forward as
> > > above, who didn't later clearly state that it should be read backward?
> >
> > Larry Athy, for one.
>
> Obviously I meant someone who had some knowledge of the subject.
>
[Larry has published on the subject. I have one of his articles right here in
front of me at the moment. I haven't run across any of yours. Could you
provide a citation or two?]
Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
JMB wrote:
[snip]
>
> That's a standard form here in Ireland, the name gets the bulk of the
> attention, the nickname etc., gets less attention.
[And is written in ogam, cryptically? That's the standard?]
> I assume it is the same
> elsewhere. As for the condition of the grave, the whole site is in ruins,
> it would be impossible to tell.
>
[Thank you. That's the point I wanted to bring out.]
JMB
>
>
> JMB wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > That's a standard form here in Ireland, the name gets the bulk of the
> > attention, the nickname etc., gets less attention.
>
> [And is written in ogam, cryptically? That's the standard?]
When Ogham was in use, I see no reason for the standard form to be any
different, so yes, written in Ogham. As for cryptically, that's only the
opinion of some people who are not familiar with the script, it may have
been basic Ogham to those who wrote it for all we know.
>
> > I assume it is the same
> > elsewhere. As for the condition of the grave, the whole site is in
ruins,
> > it would be impossible to tell.
> >
>
> [Thank you. That's the point I wanted to bring out.]
What was the point? I'd say anyone with any interest knew the site was not
modern, and therefore the condition of the graves is not great.
JMB
> JMB wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Edward D. Rockstein" <ed4l...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C13E98B...@home.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > JMB wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you cite one example of someone saying it should be read forward
as
> > > > above, who didn't later clearly state that it should be read
backward?
> > >
> > > Larry Athy, for one.
> >
> > Obviously I meant someone who had some knowledge of the subject.
> >
>
> [Larry has published on the subject. I have one of his articles right
here in
> front of me at the moment. I haven't run across any of yours. Could you
> provide a citation or two?]
Any fool can get things published. The only paper I have from Larry is a
joke. His statistical analysis is flawed. If he had done that work for a
third party, it would have been handed back, and Larry would have either
been fired for incompetance, or at the very least, told to do the work
right. I think you should stick to reading what recognised experts in the
field have to say on the subject, not Larry who has no qualifications
relevant to the subject, and can't even do the things he claims to be
knowledgeable of (i.e. statistics).
Eric Stevens
But it was supposed to be a strategic site for the monastery. Never
mind - all this is highly speculative.
Eric Stevens
>
>"Dr. Edward D. Rockstein" <ed4l...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:3C13EFE8...@home.com...
>> JMB wrote:
>>
>> > "Dr. Edward D. Rockstein" <ed4l...@home.com> wrote in message
>> > news:3C13E98B...@home.com...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > JMB wrote:
>> > >
>> > > [snip]
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Can you cite one example of someone saying it should be read forward
>as
>> > > > above, who didn't later clearly state that it should be read
>backward?
>> > >
>> > > Larry Athy, for one.
>> >
>> > Obviously I meant someone who had some knowledge of the subject.
>> >
>>
>> [Larry has published on the subject. I have one of his articles right
>here in
>> front of me at the moment. I haven't run across any of yours. Could you
>> provide a citation or two?]
>
>Any fool can get things published. The only paper I have from Larry is a
>joke. His statistical analysis is flawed.
Wher and how?
>If he had done that work for a
>third party, it would have been handed back, and Larry would have either
>been fired for incompetance, or at the very least, told to do the work
>right. I think you should stick to reading what recognised experts in the
>field have to say on the subject, not Larry who has no qualifications
>relevant to the subject, and can't even do the things he claims to be
>knowledgeable of (i.e. statistics).
>
You are the first person I know of to attack the statistics. Do tell
more.
>> >
>> > > [snip]
>> > > --
>> > > Doc Rock
>> > > Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
>> > > Columbia, MD
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>> --
>> Doc Rock
>> Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
>> Columbia, MD
>>
>>
>
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:rjq71u48gjjtttmqi...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 21:38:36 -0000, "JMB" <j...@utvinternet.ie> wrote:
>>
>> >> Could you explain as one drooling moron to another why it is
>> >> acceptable to read the script **backwards** as BOCHT but unacceptable
>> >> to read it forwards in the conventional way as THCOB or possibly
>> >> HTHCGB as was Macalister's inclination? Can you also cite even one
>> >> example of where a linear inscription has to be read backwards in such
>> >> a fashion?
>> >
>> >Can you cite one example of someone saying it should be read forward as
>> >above, who didn't later clearly state that it should be read backward?
>>
>> Can you answer the question I directed to Chris Gwinn?
>
>Llywell (CIIC 341).
>http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/cisp/database/
You call that an answer? Can you quote the text which rely upon?
Christopher Gwinn
> [You might like at your own bib for drool--you have just impeached
Searles'
> authorities' linguistic expertise and also your own as you fail to even
account
> for all the strokes of the inscription and force the reading against the
direction
> feather:
Dr. Rock - you are exactly the type of drooling moron that I was referring
to - nothing you say has any weight because you have proved yourself over
and over again to be an illinformed person on the matters we are
discussing - basically you are out of your league here, so stop acting as if
you are somehow going to affect the outcome of this debate.
- Chris Gwinn
Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
JMB wrote:
> > JMB wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
>
> When Ogham was in use, I see no reason for the standard form to be any
> different, so yes, written in Ogham.
[So your evidence for this assertion is because you can't see any reason for
it to have been different? Some citations of the same usage might be more
influential.]
> As for cryptically, that's only the
> opinion of some people who are not familiar with the script,
[Such as Brash in 1879 or MacAlister in 1902?]
> it may have
> been basic Ogham to those who wrote it for all we know.
>
[That's an element which some of us "drooling morons" (as the youthful
CG calls us) have been asserting since the 1970's, i.e., that what later
came to be codified by the medieval Irish compilers et al. may not be
the alpha and omega of ogam (at least not the alpha)]
>
> >
> > > I assume it is the same
> > > elsewhere. As for the condition of the grave, the whole site is in
> ruins,
> > > it would be impossible to tell.
> > >
> >
> > [Thank you. That's the point I wanted to bring out.]
>
> What was the point? I'd say anyone with any interest knew the site was not
> modern, and therefore the condition of the graves is not great.
>
[That the site provides relevant contextual support neither for or against
an interpretation of the ogam as "bocht" (not to mention "boct" which CG
asserted it would have had to have been for the language at the time period
asserted as supporting its interpretation as scholastic]
Eric Stevens
I don't think that Doc Rock would be so optimistic as to change your
mind on anything. I'm not sure that even you can do that. :-)
Never mind, I find you an excellent source of information.
JMB
Not likely. That monastery seems to date from too early (6th century) to
have been strategic. At that stage, the christians got it because nobody
else wanted it. It was about the 9th century before strategic sites became
used for christian monasteries and churches.
JMB
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 23:58:20 -0000, "JMB" <j...@utvinternet.ie> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dr. Edward D. Rockstein" <ed4l...@home.com> wrote in message
> >news:3C13EFE8...@home.com...
> >> JMB wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Dr. Edward D. Rockstein" <ed4l...@home.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:3C13E98B...@home.com...
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > JMB wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > [snip]
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Can you cite one example of someone saying it should be read
forward
> >as
> >> > > > above, who didn't later clearly state that it should be read
> >backward?
> >> > >
> >> > > Larry Athy, for one.
> >> >
> >> > Obviously I meant someone who had some knowledge of the subject.
> >> >
> >>
> >> [Larry has published on the subject. I have one of his articles right
> >here in
> >> front of me at the moment. I haven't run across any of yours. Could
you
> >> provide a citation or two?]
> >
> >Any fool can get things published. The only paper I have from Larry is a
> >joke. His statistical analysis is flawed.
>
> Wher and how?
There are many publishers who will do it for you. One example of the top of
my head is Finbarr International in England. Once your publication doesn't
break any laws, and fits into one of their categories, it will be accepted.
>
> >If he had done that work for a
> >third party, it would have been handed back, and Larry would have either
> >been fired for incompetance, or at the very least, told to do the work
> >right. I think you should stick to reading what recognised experts in
the
> >field have to say on the subject, not Larry who has no qualifications
> >relevant to the subject, and can't even do the things he claims to be
> >knowledgeable of (i.e. statistics).
> >
> You are the first person I know of to attack the statistics. Do tell
> more.
Have you missed my other posts on the subject, including the email to you
you with information when it was requested? When the data is proven wrong
(as it has been), and when the author has admitted to being bias in the
selection process (as Larry has), the statistics are badly done and cannot
be relied on. If I was auditing that report by Larry, I'd have no choice
but to qualify it.
JMB
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 23:11:34 -0000, "JMB" <j...@utvinternet.ie> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:rjq71u48gjjtttmqi...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 21:38:36 -0000, "JMB" <j...@utvinternet.ie> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Could you explain as one drooling moron to another why it is
> >> >> acceptable to read the script **backwards** as BOCHT but
unacceptable
> >> >> to read it forwards in the conventional way as THCOB or possibly
> >> >> HTHCGB as was Macalister's inclination? Can you also cite even one
> >> >> example of where a linear inscription has to be read backwards in
such
> >> >> a fashion?
> >> >
> >> >Can you cite one example of someone saying it should be read forward
as
> >> >above, who didn't later clearly state that it should be read backward?
> >>
> >> Can you answer the question I directed to Chris Gwinn?
> >
> >Llywell (CIIC 341).
> >http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/cisp/database/
>
> You call that an answer? Can you quote the text which rely upon?
Did you open the link? All the references you could want are there.
JMB
>
>
> JMB wrote:
>
> > > JMB wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > >
>
> >
>
> > When Ogham was in use, I see no reason for the standard form to be any
> > different, so yes, written in Ogham.
>
> [So your evidence for this assertion is because you can't see any reason
for
> it to have been different? Some citations of the same usage might be more
> influential.]
I'm talking about standard usage still in use today. For a citation, go to
your local cemetery and look at the gravestones.
>
> > As for cryptically, that's only the
> > opinion of some people who are not familiar with the script,
>
> [Such as Brash in 1879 or MacAlister in 1902?]
Macalister 1902 is out of date, I suggest you read Macalister 1909 or 1949.
Macalister wasn't particular familiar with the script in 1902, as that was
his first work on the subject. He was much more familiar with it in 1949.
>
> > it may have
> > been basic Ogham to those who wrote it for all we know.
> >
>
> [That's an element which some of us "drooling morons" (as the youthful
> CG calls us) have been asserting since the 1970's, i.e., that what later
> came to be codified by the medieval Irish compilers et al. may not be
> the alpha and omega of ogam (at least not the alpha)]
Ogham is known to have been written backwards in other cases. It does not
go against the tracts, and is in keeping with what is **known** about Ogham.
IOW we don't have to make up a new version of Ogham to justify reading it
backwards, as others would have us do to justify their theories.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > I assume it is the same
> > > > elsewhere. As for the condition of the grave, the whole site is in
> > ruins,
> > > > it would be impossible to tell.
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Thank you. That's the point I wanted to bring out.]
> >
> > What was the point? I'd say anyone with any interest knew the site was
not
> > modern, and therefore the condition of the graves is not great.
> >
>
> [That the site provides relevant contextual support neither for or against
> an interpretation of the ogam as "bocht" (not to mention "boct" which CG
> asserted it would have had to have been for the language at the time
period
> asserted as supporting its interpretation as scholastic]
The site is that of a monastery, very in keeping with an interpretation of
"bocht" on the stone. I think you should read CG's post again. IIRC he
said that "boct" would have been used up to the 7th century, which actually
means the "bocht" inscription most likely dates to the 8th or 9th centuries,
when scholastic Ogham was known, and the monastery was in use.
Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
JMB wrote:
[snip]
I think you should read CG's post again. IIRC he
> said that "boct" would have been used up to the 7th century, which actually
> means the "bocht" inscription most likely dates to the 8th or 9th centuries,
> when scholastic Ogham was known, and the monastery was in use.
>
[You are right on this point. I misread CG's post, probably stupidly distracted
by his drooling moron remark ER]
Searles ODubhain
<snip>
> I refer you to _The Epigraphic Society Occasional Publications_, Vol 7, no
170,
> April, 1979, "Ogam Inscribed Gravestone," by James P. Whittall, II which
describes
> an ogam consaine inscription from a stone on the island of Skellig Michael
nine miles
> off the Coat of County Kerry. On an edge of an upright menhir is a
vowelless,
> stemlineless inscription which I will crudely approximate below:
>
> -------------- m
> ------ d
> ------
> -------------- g
> --------------
>
> -------------
> ------------- s
> -------------
> -------------
>
> read as m-d-g s, "Madog so," = "this was Madoc," by Barry Fell.
<snip>
Thank you for emailing me the image and the transcription of the stone.
Reading the score marks on the stone from bottom to top yields ROLA, while
reading it from top to bottom gives us ADOR. If we take the left of the
page as being the bottom of the stone (and roughly approximating the edge of
the stone with a straight line and the scores as alphabetic characters, i.e.
using an "i" to symbolize a score to the right (or bottom) of the stemline),
then the image looks like:
____________________________________
//// ll ii l
( ROLA, left to right or ADOR, vice versa)
I can't tell from the image if there were any additional scores in the part
of the stone that is shown as being unmarked. Usually, such inscriptions
start closer to the ground and progress upwards along and edge of the stone
though there are certainly stone where an Ogham inscription has been made
without a druim (edge) or a stemline. There also are Ogham inscriptions
that flow from top to bottom on stones, as well as left to right and vice
versa.
I'm reading this as a scholastic Ogham because it was found in a Christian
setting (Skellig Michael) and also because it has both perpendicular and
slanted scores (to the implied stemline). Normally, one would read scores
that slant from top left to bottom right scores as being athwart the
stemline or druim or aicme M . Allowances have to be made for the
difficulties inherent to the process of inscribing on irregular surfaces.
Chris Gwinn
>
> > said that "boct" would have been used up to the 7th century, which actually
> > means the "bocht" inscription most likely dates to the 8th or 9th centuries,
> > when scholastic Ogham was known, and the monastery was in use.
> >
>
> [You are right on this point. I misread CG's post, probably stupidly
> distracted by his drooling moron remark ER]
Or maybe you were too busy mopping up your drool to pay attention to
what I was saying.
- Chris Gwinn
Eric Stevens
>> But it was supposed to be a strategic site for the monastery. Never
>> mind - all this is highly speculative.
>
>Not likely. That monastery seems to date from too early (6th century) to
>have been strategic. At that stage, the christians got it because nobody
>else wanted it. It was about the 9th century before strategic sites became
>used for christian monasteries and churches.
http://www.local.ie/general/top_story/archives/clonmacnoise.shtml
" Situated in the heart of Ireland the monastic site of
Clonmacnoise is located in an area of extensive bogland.
..............
Upon his arrival in the midlands he immediately chose the
site of Clonmacnoise for reasons apparent even today.
Bordering the Shannon it had access to a safe and quick
means of transport when much of the country proved
inaccessible by land. The site itself lies on an esker
ridge known as 'Eiscir Riada' running east to west across
the country. The rich alluvial soils of the Shannon
floodplain provided ideal growing conditions for crops
cultivated by the monks."
http://www.moytura.com/clonmacnoise.htm
"The ancient monastic site of Clonmacnoise is situated at
the crossroads of Ireland in County Offaly and dates back
almost 1,500 years. St. Ciaran, the son of an Ulsterman who
had settled in Connaught, chose the site in 545 AD because
of its ideal location at the junction of river and road
travel in Celtic Ireland. The location borders the three
provinces of Connaught, Munster and Leinster.
The monastery is on the east side of the River Shannon,
in what was then the Kingdom of Meath, but occupying a
position so central it was the burial-place of many of
the kings of Connaught as well as those of Tara."
It wasn't necessary to be a christian monk to appreciate the virtues.
It wouldn't be surprising if the monatery was established in the
region simply because the virtues of the site were already recognised.
But, as I have already said, all this is speculation.
Eric Stevens
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:h8v71ukm6d0isk9pt...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 23:58:20 -0000, "JMB" <j...@utvinternet.ie> wrote:
>>
>> >
--- snip ----
>> >> [Larry has published on the subject. I have one of his articles right
>> >here in
>> >> front of me at the moment. I haven't run across any of yours. Could
>you
>> >> provide a citation or two?]
>> >
>> >Any fool can get things published. The only paper I have from Larry is a
>> >joke. His statistical analysis is flawed.
>>
>> Wher and how?
>
>There are many publishers who will do it for you. One example of the top of
>my head is Finbarr International in England. Once your publication doesn't
>break any laws, and fits into one of their categories, it will be accepted.
Apart from the fact that Larry's paper was not self-published but
published by others ...
W H E R E A N D H O W I S H I S S T A T I S T I C A L
A N A L Y S I S F L A W E D?
Not his data - his analysis?
>
>>
>> >If he had done that work for a
>> >third party, it would have been handed back, and Larry would have either
>> >been fired for incompetance, or at the very least, told to do the work
>> >right. I think you should stick to reading what recognised experts in
>the
>> >field have to say on the subject, not Larry who has no qualifications
>> >relevant to the subject, and can't even do the things he claims to be
>> >knowledgeable of (i.e. statistics).
>> >
>> You are the first person I know of to attack the statistics. Do tell
>> more.
>
>Have you missed my other posts on the subject, including the email to you
>you with information when it was requested? When the data is proven wrong
>(as it has been),
That's what we have been examining and I am by no means yet convinced
that the data is wrong.
> ... and when the author has admitted to being bias in the
>selection process (as Larry has),
I think the only **bias** to which Larry Athy has admitted is in
dividing the inscriptions into their respective corpora. In that
respect he is no more biased than the sheperd who divides the sheep
from the goats.
> ... the statistics are badly done and cannot
>be relied on. If I was auditing that report by Larry, I'd have no choice
>but to qualify it.
Qualify it by all means on the data, if that is your desire, but you
quite specifically said "His statistical analysis is flawed". You have
separately pointed out that you thought his data was flawed but in
this statement you criticised his analysis. If that was actually your
intention I would like you to explain in which way his analysis is
flawed.
Eric Stevens
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:bcv71u00p5e1scumf...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 23:11:34 -0000, "JMB" <j...@utvinternet.ie> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>> >news:rjq71u48gjjtttmqi...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 21:38:36 -0000, "JMB" <j...@utvinternet.ie> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Could you explain as one drooling moron to another why it is
>> >> >> acceptable to read the script **backwards** as BOCHT but
>unacceptable
>> >> >> to read it forwards in the conventional way as THCOB or possibly
>> >> >> HTHCGB as was Macalister's inclination? Can you also cite even one
>> >> >> example of where a linear inscription has to be read backwards in
>such
>> >> >> a fashion?
>> >> >
>> >> >Can you cite one example of someone saying it should be read forward
>as
>> >> >above, who didn't later clearly state that it should be read backward?
>> >>
>> >> Can you answer the question I directed to Chris Gwinn?
>> >
>> >Llywell (CIIC 341).
>> >http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/cisp/database/
>>
>> You call that an answer? Can you quote the text which rely upon?
>
>Did you open the link? All the references you could want are there.
So you say. But so too are 417,814 that I don't want. Can you point me
to a specific reference that supports the view that it is "acceptable
to read the script **backwards** as BOCHT but unacceptable to read it
forwards in the conventional way as THCOB or possibly HTHCGB as was
Macalister's inclination?" That was the original question.
--- snip ---
Eric Stevens
>
>"Dr. Edward D. Rockstein" <ed4l...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:3C141F6E...@home.com...
>>
>>
>> JMB wrote:
>>
>> > > JMB wrote:
>> > >
>> > > [snip]
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > When Ogham was in use, I see no reason for the standard form to be any
>> > different, so yes, written in Ogham.
>>
>> [So your evidence for this assertion is because you can't see any reason
>for
>> it to have been different? Some citations of the same usage might be more
>> influential.]
>
>I'm talking about standard usage still in use today. For a citation, go to
>your local cemetery and look at the gravestones.
Are you seriously saying that to gain an understanding of the usage of
names on early Irish grave stones, Doc Rock should go and look at his
local 20th century cemetery in the USA?
>
>>
>> > As for cryptically, that's only the
>> > opinion of some people who are not familiar with the script,
>>
>> [Such as Brash in 1879 or MacAlister in 1902?]
>
>Macalister 1902 is out of date, ...
I think I have already suggested that possibility to you. You might
not agree on my reasons.
> ... I suggest you read Macalister 1909 or 1949.
>Macalister wasn't particular familiar with the script in 1902, as that was
>his first work on the subject.
Also, Macalister had never ever seen the inscription on the
Clonmacnoise Ogham stone but was working from a sketch.
Apart from that his 1902 publication was a monumental work which
established his reputation.
>He was much more familiar with it in 1949.
>
>>
>> > it may have
>> > been basic Ogham to those who wrote it for all we know.
>> >
>>
>> [That's an element which some of us "drooling morons" (as the youthful
>> CG calls us) have been asserting since the 1970's, i.e., that what later
>> came to be codified by the medieval Irish compilers et al. may not be
>> the alpha and omega of ogam (at least not the alpha)]
>
>Ogham is known to have been written backwards in other cases. It does not
>go against the tracts, and is in keeping with what is **known** about Ogham.
>IOW we don't have to make up a new version of Ogham to justify reading it
>backwards, as others would have us do to justify their theories.
You are wrong to imply that anybody has to make up 'a new version' of
Ogham to read it forwards. It's not even a new version when by reading
it forwards it produces an incomprehensible message. Its the reading
of it backwards which seems to be a new version.
>
>>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > I assume it is the same
>> > > > elsewhere. As for the condition of the grave, the whole site is in
>> > ruins,
>> > > > it would be impossible to tell.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > [Thank you. That's the point I wanted to bring out.]
>> >
>> > What was the point? I'd say anyone with any interest knew the site was
>not
>> > modern, and therefore the condition of the graves is not great.
>> >
>>
>> [That the site provides relevant contextual support neither for or against
>> an interpretation of the ogam as "bocht" (not to mention "boct" which CG
>> asserted it would have had to have been for the language at the time
>period
>> asserted as supporting its interpretation as scholastic]
>
>The site is that of a monastery, very in keeping with an interpretation of
>"bocht" on the stone.
Are you saying that the monks would regard the fact that they were
burying the 'poor' (as in poverty?) Colman as so noteworthy that they
were impelled to record that fact on his gravestone? Is there *any*
other precedent for this practice?
>I think you should read CG's post again. IIRC he
>said that "boct" would have been used up to the 7th century, which actually
>means the "bocht" inscription most likely dates to the 8th or 9th centuries,
>when scholastic Ogham was known, and the monastery was in use.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
He was more probably dodging your spray of saliva.
JMB
The problem here is that, as most people were not allowed to travel outside
their particular Tuath, being along an easy routeway was not beneficial. It
was within striking range of four Provincial kings, and was in the direct
pathway of a fifth Provincial king. The christians had what proved to be an
ideal position, but they started out with a place that no king in his right
mind would have wanted responsibility for.
JMB
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:20:45 -0000, "JMB" <j...@utvinternet.ie> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:h8v71ukm6d0isk9pt...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 23:58:20 -0000, "JMB" <j...@utvinternet.ie> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
>
> --- snip ----
>
> >> >> [Larry has published on the subject. I have one of his articles
right
> >> >here in
> >> >> front of me at the moment. I haven't run across any of yours. Could
> >you
> >> >> provide a citation or two?]
> >> >
> >> >Any fool can get things published. The only paper I have from Larry
is a
> >> >joke. His statistical analysis is flawed.
> >>
> >> Wher and how?
> >
> >There are many publishers who will do it for you. One example of the top
of
> >my head is Finbarr International in England. Once your publication
doesn't
> >break any laws, and fits into one of their categories, it will be
accepted.
>
> Apart from the fact that Larry's paper was not self-published but
> published by others ...
It was published in a non-peer reviewed way. That is what many small
publishing houses do.
>
> W H E R E A N D H O W I S H I S S T A T I S T I C A L
> A N A L Y S I S F L A W E D?
>
> Not his data - his analysis?
You do realise that data selection is part of the statistical analysis
process. If the data is flawed, then the whole process is flawed.
> >
> >>
> >> >If he had done that work for a
> >> >third party, it would have been handed back, and Larry would have
either
> >> >been fired for incompetance, or at the very least, told to do the work
> >> >right. I think you should stick to reading what recognised experts in
> >the
> >> >field have to say on the subject, not Larry who has no qualifications
> >> >relevant to the subject, and can't even do the things he claims to be
> >> >knowledgeable of (i.e. statistics).
> >> >
> >> You are the first person I know of to attack the statistics. Do tell
> >> more.
> >
> >Have you missed my other posts on the subject, including the email to you
> >you with information when it was requested? When the data is proven
wrong
> >(as it has been),
>
> That's what we have been examining and I am by no means yet convinced
> that the data is wrong.
I've given you two references to look at, where there is no doubt about the
existence of vowels. Larry said there could be no vowels in the BI-1
Corpus, so that data was wrong.
>
> > ... and when the author has admitted to being bias in the
> >selection process (as Larry has),
>
> I think the only **bias** to which Larry Athy has admitted is in
> dividing the inscriptions into their respective corpora. In that
> respect he is no more biased than the sheperd who divides the sheep
> from the goats.
No, he took a single Corpus, picked out a few inscriptions that looked
similar to other markings, edited some of those inscriptions, and proceeded
to claim the edited selection correlated highly with the other markings.
>
> > ... the statistics are badly done and cannot
> >be relied on. If I was auditing that report by Larry, I'd have no choice
> >but to qualify it.
>
> Qualify it by all means on the data, if that is your desire, but you
> quite specifically said "His statistical analysis is flawed". You have
> separately pointed out that you thought his data was flawed but in
> this statement you criticised his analysis. If that was actually your
> intention I would like you to explain in which way his analysis is
> flawed.
I already have, if you can't see that I suggest you read up on statistical
analysis, there are many good mathematics books on the subject.
JMB
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 11:34:50 -0000, "JMB" <j...@utvinternet.ie> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dr. Edward D. Rockstein" <ed4l...@home.com> wrote in message
> >news:3C141F6E...@home.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> JMB wrote:
> >>
> >> > > JMB wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > [snip]
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > When Ogham was in use, I see no reason for the standard form to be
any
> >> > different, so yes, written in Ogham.
> >>
> >> [So your evidence for this assertion is because you can't see any
reason
> >for
> >> it to have been different? Some citations of the same usage might be
more
> >> influential.]
> >
> >I'm talking about standard usage still in use today. For a citation, go
to
> >your local cemetery and look at the gravestones.
>
> Are you seriously saying that to gain an understanding of the usage of
> names on early Irish grave stones, Doc Rock should go and look at his
> local 20th century cemetery in the USA?
It's the usage of "nicknames" that is being discussed here. The point is
that just because "bocht" is in smaller print to "Colman" does not mean that
they are not contemporary.
> >
> >>
> >> > As for cryptically, that's only the
> >> > opinion of some people who are not familiar with the script,
> >>
> >> [Such as Brash in 1879 or MacAlister in 1902?]
> >
> >Macalister 1902 is out of date, ...
>
> I think I have already suggested that possibility to you. You might
> not agree on my reasons.
My reason for saying that the 1902 book (regarding this particular
inscription) is out of date is because Macalister did a more modern work.
When a new edition of a book comes out, then whatever part was changed
becomes out of date in the earlier edition.
>
> > ... I suggest you read Macalister 1909 or 1949.
> >Macalister wasn't particular familiar with the script in 1902, as that
was
> >his first work on the subject.
>
> Also, Macalister had never ever seen the inscription on the
> Clonmacnoise Ogham stone but was working from a sketch.
As were everyone else, besides Petrie. Of all those mentioned throughout
this discussion, only McManus is in a position to have seen the actual
stone.
>
> Apart from that his 1902 publication was a monumental work which
> established his reputation.
No it didn't. Macalister's reputation had been long established by then,
you should read up on the man.
>
> >He was much more familiar with it in 1949.
> >
> >>
> >> > it may have
> >> > been basic Ogham to those who wrote it for all we know.
> >> >
> >>
> >> [That's an element which some of us "drooling morons" (as the youthful
> >> CG calls us) have been asserting since the 1970's, i.e., that what
later
> >> came to be codified by the medieval Irish compilers et al. may not be
> >> the alpha and omega of ogam (at least not the alpha)]
> >
> >Ogham is known to have been written backwards in other cases. It does
not
> >go against the tracts, and is in keeping with what is **known** about
Ogham.
> >IOW we don't have to make up a new version of Ogham to justify reading it
> >backwards, as others would have us do to justify their theories.
>
> You are wrong to imply that anybody has to make up 'a new version' of
> Ogham to read it forwards. It's not even a new version when by reading
> it forwards it produces an incomprehensible message. Its the reading
> of it backwards which seems to be a new version.
The new version having to be made up is ogam consaine.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > > I assume it is the same
> >> > > > elsewhere. As for the condition of the grave, the whole site is
in
> >> > ruins,
> >> > > > it would be impossible to tell.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > [Thank you. That's the point I wanted to bring out.]
> >> >
> >> > What was the point? I'd say anyone with any interest knew the site
was
> >not
> >> > modern, and therefore the condition of the graves is not great.
> >> >
> >>
> >> [That the site provides relevant contextual support neither for or
against
> >> an interpretation of the ogam as "bocht" (not to mention "boct" which
CG
> >> asserted it would have had to have been for the language at the time
> >period
> >> asserted as supporting its interpretation as scholastic]
> >
> >The site is that of a monastery, very in keeping with an interpretation
of
> >"bocht" on the stone.
>
> Are you saying that the monks would regard the fact that they were
> burying the 'poor' (as in poverty?) Colman as so noteworthy that they
> were impelled to record that fact on his gravestone? Is there *any*
> other precedent for this practice?
There are many precedents in Ireland for a person's "nickname" being put on
a gravestone. If he was known as "Colman the pauper" in life, then that is
what is likely to be put on his gravestone. Or it may have been a form of
grafitti as I said in another post. The earlier Irish church was just as
corrupt as its modern Irish counterpart.
JMB
You asked for a citation to an inscription that has to be read backwards.
It can be found on the link I gave you, go to the alphabetical index and
look for Llywell (=Pentre Poeth Farm) and you will see such a stone. It has
to be read from top down, backwards to the normal bottom up.
Christopher Gwinn
> >> [You are right on this point. I misread CG's post, probably stupidly
> >> distracted by his drooling moron remark ER]
> >
> >Or maybe you were too busy mopping up your drool to pay attention to
> >what I was saying.
> >
> He was more probably dodging your spray of saliva.
Hardly - I don't fall into the drooling moron category in this debate.
But Eric, I think perhaps _you_ need a paper towel - there's something on
your chin.
- Chris Gwinn
Eric Stevens
The final paragraph on page 8 says:
"I thank David H. Kelley, William R. Mcglone, and James L.
Guthrie for their suggestions and criticisms. An earlier
version of this paper was presented at the 27th Annual
Chacmool Conference held in 1994 at the University of
Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada."
It is unreasonable for you to suggest that this paper was either
self-published by Larry Athy or not subject to independent review.
>
>>
>> W H E R E A N D H O W I S H I S S T A T I S T I C A L
>> A N A L Y S I S F L A W E D?
>>
>> Not his data - his analysis?
>
>You do realise that data selection is part of the statistical analysis
>process. If the data is flawed, then the whole process is flawed.
You have bent words to extend the claim. I object to this as next
thing you will be quoting it as a fact. Nobody has yet faulted Larry's
statistical analyis (not even Doug Weller who has had plenty of time
and would have done so if Larry had made any errors) and the only
criticism is of the data. If you don't know the difference between
data and its subsequent analysis, I suggest you find out.
>
--- snip ---
>> That's what we have been examining and I am by no means yet convinced
>> that the data is wrong.
>
>I've given you two references to look at, where there is no doubt about the
>existence of vowels. Larry said there could be no vowels in the BI-1
>Corpus, so that data was wrong.
There is very reasonable doubt and if I knew more about Ogham I would
have been able to tell you exactly why from the beginning. I knew I
had seen something about different Ogham scripts 'somewhere' and I
have been trying to find where via the internet. While I have found
hints I have had no success. Now I have looked again at Larry's paper
I have found _it_is_all_explained_there_.
Table 1 of Larry Athy's paper is 'OGAM ALPHABET VARIATIONS'. It lists
'Classic Ogam', 'Scholastic Ogam' and 'Proto-Ogam'.
Two full-length vertica bars crossing the stave line are 'G' in
Classic Ogam but they are 'O' in Scholastic Ogam. The 'G' in
Scholastic Ogam is two *inclined* bars //.
This is why in one of his recent articles Larry Athy wrote of (and
quoted) Macalister as follows:
"With reference to this same inscription in my subject paper,
I had made reference to Macalister (1902:129). He said the
following: "This reads bocht, "poor", backwards; but that,
I think, is merely an accident. The character > never
appears at the end of a line of writing, always at the
beginning; and I am more inclined to read thcob or possibly
hthcgb (taking an h- score which appears on the upper limb
of the >); and to treat the whole as analogous to the lmcbtm
of the Glenfahan stone and to have a similar purpose."
This explains why Macalister could read it as 'G' and later change his
mind to 'O'. He was not sure whether he was confronted with Classic
Ogam or Scholastic Ogam. The only way you can remove the doubt is by
establishing exactly which Ogam alphabet was used for the inscription.
As far as I am aware nobody has tried. All that has been done is to
make assertions that the isncription is Scholastic Ogam.
>
>>
>> > ... and when the author has admitted to being bias in the
>> >selection process (as Larry has),
>>
>> I think the only **bias** to which Larry Athy has admitted is in
>> dividing the inscriptions into their respective corpora. In that
>> respect he is no more biased than the sheperd who divides the sheep
>> from the goats.
>
>No, he took a single Corpus, picked out a few inscriptions that looked
>similar to other markings, edited some of those inscriptions, and proceeded
>to claim the edited selection correlated highly with the other markings.
That's an easy claim to make but are you sure that your conclusions
are not based on differences in opinion as to which is the proper
Oghamic alphabet to use?
>
>>
>> > ... the statistics are badly done and cannot
>> >be relied on. If I was auditing that report by Larry, I'd have no choice
>> >but to qualify it.
>>
>> Qualify it by all means on the data, if that is your desire, but you
>> quite specifically said "His statistical analysis is flawed". You have
>> separately pointed out that you thought his data was flawed but in
>> this statement you criticised his analysis. If that was actually your
>> intention I would like you to explain in which way his analysis is
>> flawed.
>
>I already have, if you can't see that I suggest you read up on statistical
>analysis, there are many good mathematics books on the subject.
All you have done is demonstrate you don't know the difference between
the data and its analysis.
Eric Stevens
>> So you say. But so too are 417,814 that I don't want. Can you point me
>> to a specific reference that supports the view that it is "acceptable
>> to read the script **backwards** as BOCHT but unacceptable to read it
>> forwards in the conventional way as THCOB or possibly HTHCGB as was
>> Macalister's inclination?" That was the original question.
>
>You asked for a citation to an inscription that has to be read backwards.
>It can be found on the link I gave you, go to the alphabetical index and
>look for Llywell (=Pentre Poeth Farm) and you will see such a stone. It has
>to be read from top down, backwards to the normal bottom up.
Apart from the fact that, once found, the CISP page says *nothing*
about the direction of reading, what has a 'modern secondary' Ogam in
Wales got to do with the the proper direction of reading of the
Clonmacnoise Ogham stone?
Also, are you aware of
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/cisp/database/stone/tcstl_1.html
where it says:
"The shape and size of the stone at once commended it to the
favourable notice of the farmer as admirably adapted for a
gate post, and for this purpose he had it removed and refixed
upside down at the entrance of Pentre Poeth farm, where we
found it."
"Upside down"! No wonder you have to read it in the wrong direction.
Eric Stevens
>> Are you seriously saying that to gain an understanding of the usage of
>> names on early Irish grave stones, Doc Rock should go and look at his
>> local 20th century cemetery in the USA?
>
>It's the usage of "nicknames" that is being discussed here. The point is
>that just because "bocht" is in smaller print to "Colman" does not mean that
>they are not contemporary.
... and apparently carved with a different chisel and, according to
you, upside down. Yeah - right. :-(
Eric Stevens
Its a beard.
Searles ODubhain
<snip>
>
> Two full-length vertica bars crossing the stave line are 'G' in
> Classic Ogam but they are 'O' in Scholastic Ogam. The 'G' in
> Scholastic Ogam is two *inclined* bars //.
>
This is yet another case where Larry has doctored the information. He
admitted as much to me in an earlier newsgroup message when he said that his
definition of Classic Ogham was his own. The Ogham characters for the
vowels in Classic Ogham are usually defined as diagonal scores and not as
perpendicular scores. "G" is formed by two diagonal scores, not usually by
two perpendicular scores, especially in Classic Ogham. Proto Ogham is known
as the tally system.:-)
Searles
Searles ODubhain
<snip>
> Also, are you aware of
> http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/cisp/database/stone/tcstl_1.html
> where it says:
>
> "The shape and size of the stone at once commended it to the
> favourable notice of the farmer as admirably adapted for a
> gate post, and for this purpose he had it removed and refixed
> upside down at the entrance of Pentre Poeth farm, where we
> found it."
>
> "Upside down"! No wonder you have to read it in the wrong direction.
>
the normal way. The Ogham inscription goes backwards from this. Both
inscriptions say the same thing in their respective languages and alphabets.
The stone in Wales and the stone at Clomacnoise are both later Christian,
Irish influenced Ogham stones.
Searles
Eric Stevens
Larry gives two alternatives - both diagonals and vertical scores.
When you say 'usually defined as diagonal scores', what is the
alternative?
>Proto Ogham is known as the tally system.:-)
>
You Swine! :-)> (beard for the benefit of CG).
Eric Stevens
Lower down on the site for which I gave the URL above, one will find:
Begin selected quotes:
==============================
(2.) An inscription in Ogham letters is cut upon the sinister edge of
the cup-marked face,[1] and a Roman inscription echoing it runs down
the same face in a vertical line. The Ogham is:
MAQI-TRENI SALICIDUNI
The word SALICIDUNI seems to be territorial (`willow town') rather
than personal. This is echoed by the Roman:
MACC-TRENI SALICIDVNI[2]
where once more we see the double C corresponding to the Ogham Q which
we suspected on the Inchagoill inscription (1).There is a small cross
of two lines scratched above and between the words of the Roman
inscription. This looks like an afterthought, on the part of the
lapidary or of someone else, designed either to Christianize the
monument, or to facilitate the reading of the inscription.
(3.) On the opposite face of the stone there is a series of
sculpturings, of extraordinary rudeness, in three panels. These are
inverted with respect to the inscriptions, and the blank butts for
burial in the ground are at opposite ends of the stone. Therefore,
when the whole inscription was exposed the sculptures were partly
buried, and vice versa . It follows that they cannot be contemporary.
When the sculptures are right way up the stone presents an unnatural
inverted wedge shape: this possibly, though not conclusively, suggests
that the inscriptions are older than the sculptures, and that when the
stone was re-adapted for the sculptures it was inverted to shew that
the inscriptions had become obsolete...
As to the meaning of the sculptures, that can be a matter for
conjecture only; and the guesses that have been published...do not
encourage anyone to contribute further to such futilities.
....
But designs which make so heavy a drain upon the fount of marks of
interrogation cannot be made the basis of any scientifically
satisfying speculations!'.
Nash-Williams/1950, 81--82: `.... The distinctive style of the
decoration is unique among the Welsh Early Christian monuments, and
finds its closest analogies in the prehistoric pagan art of the
megalithic and later monuments, particularly those of Brittany and the
Atlantic sea-board regions, with an admixture of later elements (e.g.
the human figures) perhaps derived from the unsophisticated popular
art that continued to flourish in Gaul and the other Celtic regions
under the Roman Empire. If this comparison is valid, the present
monument may reflect a backwash of Breton and Gallo-Roman influence
into S. Wales, following the large-scale British migrations to
Brittany in the 5th and 6th centuries. Alternatively, the art may have
been introduced into S. Wales via Ireland by the Ogam-using
immigrants. In either case, the re-use of the stone presumably
followed at no great interval after its original erection'.
==================================
End of quotes
This seems to be far short of a clear-cut foundation on which to base
conclusoins about the Clonmacnoise Ogham stone over the sea in
Ireland.
Searles ODubhain
<snip>
>
> This seems to be far short of a clear-cut foundation on which to base
> conclusoins about the Clonmacnoise Ogham stone over the sea in
> Ireland.
>
inscription is read in the opposite direction to the Latin inscription). No
amount of the "stone was flipped or set on its end" will change the
orientation of the two inscriptions relative to one another. The Ogham is
written backwards to the direction that one would normally read it.
I'll find you cites to those as well (time permitting). The stones in Wales
and Ireland were most likely carved by or under the direction of Irish
scholars. The disparaging remarks were made by Macalister about the images
rudely carved on the other side of the stone from where the Latin and Ogham
inscriptions are located. This stone is a wonderful example from which to
learn about dual inscriptions on Ogham stones.
"On the opposite face of the stone there is a series of sculpturings, of
extraordinary rudeness, in three panels " (on the opposite face from the
Ogham and the Latin inscription). The Ogham runs counter to the direction of
the Latin on the opposite face from the "rude" inscription.
Searles
Larry Athy
On Sun, Dec 9, 2001, 7:14pm (CST+6), Searles ODumbhain proved again
that he knows little about Ogam and wrote:
~~"It appears to me that the Ogham inscription was made *after* the
cross and the name Colman was inscribed on the stone. The Ogham
inscription actually appears to have been rudely made by someone who was
not as learned as the original scribe IMO. The use of the "H" and the
scholastic form would be consistent with this later inscription of the
Ogham."~~
--------------------------
+++ Since Ogam is not read 'backward' and since this inscription makes
no sense when read 'foreward' as either classic or scholastic Ogam, it
should be logical to any scholar that it is most likely one of the
corpus of vowelless Ogams in the British Isles. The carver of such was
thus one of the first literate people of Ireland. As such, we could
also expect the stone to be carved less formally than are the later
Latin inscriptions or the much later scholastic inscriptions.
-
As can be seen from the data in my subject paper, the symbol 'H' did not
appear in the BI-2 classic Ogam inscriptions; however, it appeared as
8.8% of the symbol count in the BI-1 inscriptions and 6.5% in the HP-1
inscriptions. The symbol 'H' was very rare on the scholastic Ogam stone
carvings (BI-3) but became more frequent with time and was more common
in the later scholastic manuscripts (BI-4). I have done unpublished
correlation work on my BI-3 and BI-4 data. The BI-3 data actually
correlates a little better with the earlier Scandinavian inscriptions
(SR-2) of the same time than they do with the BI-2 inscriptions. This
correlation seems to be supported by recent reports of some of the
scholastic inscriptions being in Scandinavian.
-
You are indeed fortunate to have ODumbhain handy to keep you informed on
all such matters.
-
Regards, Larry Athy
JMB
The same tool could have been used, you've obviously never tried carved
anything before. And who said anything about being upside down?
JMB
It reads in the opposite direction to the Latin inscription, as does the
"bocht" to "Colman" on the Clonmacnoise stone.
JMB
The ESRS introduction clearly states:
"Although ESRS West believes that the general underlying theories of these
papers are probably correct, it does not necessarily endorse the details
included in them. Each paper is the responsibility of its author." IOW it
is not subject to peer review prior to publication.
> >
> >>
> >> W H E R E A N D H O W I S H I S S T A T I S T I C A L
> >> A N A L Y S I S F L A W E D?
> >>
> >> Not his data - his analysis?
> >
> >You do realise that data selection is part of the statistical analysis
> >process. If the data is flawed, then the whole process is flawed.
>
> You have bent words to extend the claim. I object to this as next
> thing you will be quoting it as a fact. Nobody has yet faulted Larry's
> statistical analyis (not even Doug Weller who has had plenty of time
> and would have done so if Larry had made any errors) and the only
> criticism is of the data. If you don't know the difference between
> data and its subsequent analysis, I suggest you find out.
I suggest you read up on the subject before debating definitions, as right
now you are looking very foolish. Statistical Analysis is not a single task
as you seem to think, it is a process with many tasks, one of which is data
selection. If one task is corrupted, the whole process is corrupted.
I suggest that, in future, when you ask for information, you actual read
what's given to you. Neither of the examples I gave involve the
Clonmacnoise stone. There is **NO** doubt as to the presence of vowels on
the inscriptions I told you of by email.
> >
> >>
> >> > ... and when the author has admitted to being bias in the
> >> >selection process (as Larry has),
> >>
> >> I think the only **bias** to which Larry Athy has admitted is in
> >> dividing the inscriptions into their respective corpora. In that
> >> respect he is no more biased than the sheperd who divides the sheep
> >> from the goats.
> >
> >No, he took a single Corpus, picked out a few inscriptions that looked
> >similar to other markings, edited some of those inscriptions, and
proceeded
> >to claim the edited selection correlated highly with the other markings.
>
> That's an easy claim to make but are you sure that your conclusions
> are not based on differences in opinion as to which is the proper
> Oghamic alphabet to use?
My conclusions are based on the fact that with the exception of two stones
(one fake, and one just scraped), all the rest that were checked are
considered to fit into the same Corpus by people who know. All can be dated
to the same period, use the same alphabet, and comply with the Ogham Tracts.
> >
> >>
> >> > ... the statistics are badly done and cannot
> >> >be relied on. If I was auditing that report by Larry, I'd have no
choice
> >> >but to qualify it.
> >>
> >> Qualify it by all means on the data, if that is your desire, but you
> >> quite specifically said "His statistical analysis is flawed". You have
> >> separately pointed out that you thought his data was flawed but in
> >> this statement you criticised his analysis. If that was actually your
> >> intention I would like you to explain in which way his analysis is
> >> flawed.
> >
> >I already have, if you can't see that I suggest you read up on
statistical
> >analysis, there are many good mathematics books on the subject.
>
> All you have done is demonstrate you don't know the difference between
> the data and its analysis.
I spoke of Statistical Analysis, you're so found of debating definitions, so
look up the difference. Statistical Analysis is not just the task of
analysing data, it is the whole process, which includes the selection of the
data, sampling techniques, etc.
Eric Stevens
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:jmba1u8ar871f0q3u...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 20:36:41 -0000, "JMB" <j...@utvinternet.ie> wrote:
>>
--- snip ---
>> >>
>> >> Apart from the fact that Larry's paper was not self-published but
>> >> published by others ...
>> >
>> >It was published in a non-peer reviewed way. That is what many small
>> >publishing houses do.
>>
>> The final paragraph on page 8 says:
>>
>> "I thank David H. Kelley, William R. Mcglone, and James L.
>> Guthrie for their suggestions and criticisms. An earlier
>> version of this paper was presented at the 27th Annual
>> Chacmool Conference held in 1994 at the University of
>> Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada."
>>
>> It is unreasonable for you to suggest that this paper was either
>> self-published by Larry Athy or not subject to independent review.
>
>The ESRS introduction clearly states:
>"Although ESRS West believes that the general underlying theories of these
>papers are probably correct, it does not necessarily endorse the details
>included in them. Each paper is the responsibility of its author." IOW it
>is not subject to peer review prior to publication.
It is not subject to peer review prior by ESOP but the paragraph I
quoted from the paper shows that it was subject to serious (more than)
peer review.
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> W H E R E A N D H O W I S H I S S T A T I S T I C A L
>> >> A N A L Y S I S F L A W E D?
>> >>
>> >> Not his data - his analysis?
>> >
>> >You do realise that data selection is part of the statistical analysis
>> >process. If the data is flawed, then the whole process is flawed.
>>
>> You have bent words to extend the claim. I object to this as next
>> thing you will be quoting it as a fact. Nobody has yet faulted Larry's
>> statistical analyis (not even Doug Weller who has had plenty of time
>> and would have done so if Larry had made any errors) and the only
>> criticism is of the data. If you don't know the difference between
>> data and its subsequent analysis, I suggest you find out.
>
>I suggest you read up on the subject before debating definitions, as right
>now you are looking very foolish. Statistical Analysis is not a single task
>as you seem to think, it is a process with many tasks, one of which is data
>selection. If one task is corrupted, the whole process is corrupted.
You are fudging. I KNOW what analysis is - I do it for a living. You
are saying that Larry's data (for statistical analyis) is wrong and
trying to overflow that into a claim that his statistical analysis is
wrong also. As far as I know, there is NOTHING wrong with Larry's
staistical analysis. Statistics is a precise and logical subject and
if there was anything wrong with Larry's analysis you should by now
have been able to say exactly what it was. Instead, all you can do is
bluster.
What inscriptions you told me about by email? In any case, if they are
not the Clonmacnoise Ogham they belong in another thread. In any case,
you haven't dealt with my point about Classic vs Scholastic Ogham.
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > ... and when the author has admitted to being bias in the
>> >> >selection process (as Larry has),
>> >>
>> >> I think the only **bias** to which Larry Athy has admitted is in
>> >> dividing the inscriptions into their respective corpora. In that
>> >> respect he is no more biased than the sheperd who divides the sheep
>> >> from the goats.
>> >
>> >No, he took a single Corpus, picked out a few inscriptions that looked
>> >similar to other markings, edited some of those inscriptions, and
>proceeded
>> >to claim the edited selection correlated highly with the other markings.
>>
>> That's an easy claim to make but are you sure that your conclusions
>> are not based on differences in opinion as to which is the proper
>> Oghamic alphabet to use?
>
>My conclusions are based on the fact that with the exception of two stones
>(one fake, and one just scraped), all the rest that were checked are
>considered to fit into the same Corpus by people who know.
So you haven't made up your own mind. You have relied upon others to
do it for you. OK. So long as I know.
>All can be dated
>to the same period, use the same alphabet, and comply with the Ogham Tracts.
So they say.
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > ... the statistics are badly done and cannot
>> >> >be relied on. If I was auditing that report by Larry, I'd have no
>choice
>> >> >but to qualify it.
>> >>
>> >> Qualify it by all means on the data, if that is your desire, but you
>> >> quite specifically said "His statistical analysis is flawed". You have
>> >> separately pointed out that you thought his data was flawed but in
>> >> this statement you criticised his analysis. If that was actually your
>> >> intention I would like you to explain in which way his analysis is
>> >> flawed.
>> >
>> >I already have, if you can't see that I suggest you read up on
>statistical
>> >analysis, there are many good mathematics books on the subject.
>>
>> All you have done is demonstrate you don't know the difference between
>> the data and its analysis.
>
>I spoke of Statistical Analysis, you're so found of debating definitions, so
>look up the difference. Statistical Analysis is not just the task of
>analysing data, it is the whole process, which includes the selection of the
>data, sampling techniques, etc.
In this case, statistical analysis is applied to a body of data. That
you say the data is flawed is OK by me but I get concerned when you
extend the claim to saying the analysis is flawed also.
Eric Stevens
<odub...@home.com> wrote:
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:8ita1ukcv3u92cq55...@4ax.com...
><snip>
>>
>> This seems to be far short of a clear-cut foundation on which to base
>> conclusoins about the Clonmacnoise Ogham stone over the sea in
>> Ireland.
>>
>There are several other Inscriptions of a similar nature (i.e. the Ogham
>inscription is read in the opposite direction to the Latin inscription). No
>amount of the "stone was flipped or set on its end" will change the
>orientation of the two inscriptions relative to one another. The Ogham is
>written backwards to the direction that one would normally read it.
In the case of the Clonmacnoise Ogham, the characters stay up the
right way but the word has to be read 'sdrawkcab'. In the case of the
Pentre Poeth farm stone, the orientation of the letters is correct
with respect to the direction of reading. The orientation of
'backwards' remains the right way with respect to the direction of
reading even when the page is turned upside down. That is not the case
with the claimed correct reading of the Clonmacnoise Ogham.
>I'll find you cites to those as well (time permitting). The stones in Wales
>and Ireland were most likely carved by or under the direction of Irish
>scholars. The disparaging remarks were made by Macalister about the images
>rudely carved on the other side of the stone from where the Latin and Ogham
>inscriptions are located.
The disparaging remarks seem to have been made by everyone who has
seen it. :-)
>This stone is a wonderful example from which to
>learn about dual inscriptions on Ogham stones.
>
>"On the opposite face of the stone there is a series of sculpturings, of
>extraordinary rudeness, in three panels " (on the opposite face from the
>Ogham and the Latin inscription). The Ogham runs counter to the direction of
>the Latin on the opposite face from the "rude" inscription.
>
Sid "rude" inscriptions are supposed to have been carved at a
different date, possibly later.
Eric Stevens
Searles ODubhain
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 06:05:22 GMT, "Searles ODubhain"
> <odub...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:8ita1ukcv3u92cq55...@4ax.com...
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> This seems to be far short of a clear-cut foundation on which to base
> >> conclusoins about the Clonmacnoise Ogham stone over the sea in
> >> Ireland.
> >>
> >There are several other Inscriptions of a similar nature (i.e. the Ogham
> >inscription is read in the opposite direction to the Latin inscription).
No
> >amount of the "stone was flipped or set on its end" will change the
> >orientation of the two inscriptions relative to one another. The Ogham is
> >written backwards to the direction that one would normally read it.
>
> In the case of the Clonmacnoise Ogham, the characters stay up the
> right way but the word has to be read 'sdrawkcab'. In the case of the
> Pentre Poeth farm stone, the orientation of the letters is correct
> with respect to the direction of reading. The orientation of
> 'backwards' remains the right way with respect to the direction of
> reading even when the page is turned upside down. That is not the case
> with the claimed correct reading of the Clonmacnoise Ogham.
>
These Ogham inscriptions only flow backwards from the normal reading. They
are not also inverted as is found on the Clonmacnoise inscription. I was
just attempting to show you that meaning is also an important factor in
decoding an Ogham inscription. Direction and orientation, as well as length
of score, are also important factors. The entire process involves many
factors..I'm looking for Ogham that are inverted as well as read backwards.
It may well be that the Clonmacnoise Ogham is unique in this respect. We
have however seen and shown that one of the functions of Ogham was
considered to be encryption and that some of these functions involved
reordering the ways in which the letters occurred.
> >I'll find you cites to those as well (time permitting). The stones in
Wales
> >and Ireland were most likely carved by or under the direction of Irish
> >scholars. The disparaging remarks were made by Macalister about the
images
> >rudely carved on the other side of the stone from where the Latin and
Ogham
> >inscriptions are located.
>
> The disparaging remarks seem to have been made by everyone who has
> seen it. :-)
Yes and they are all directed at the pictures on the other side of the stone
and not at the Ogham inscription at all.
>
> >This stone is a wonderful example from which to
> >learn about dual inscriptions on Ogham stones.
> >
> >"On the opposite face of the stone there is a series of sculpturings, of
> >extraordinary rudeness, in three panels " (on the opposite face from the
> >Ogham and the Latin inscription). The Ogham runs counter to the direction
of
> >the Latin on the opposite face from the "rude" inscription.
> >
> Sid "rude" inscriptions are supposed to have been carved at a
> different date, possibly later.
>
Yes, the rude images are at a different date than the Ogham and the Latin
inscriptions. I'm glad that we agree on that point.
Searles
JMB
None of the names mentioned seem to be recognised experts, so their opinion
holds no more weight than the opinions of those posting here.
If you do not realise that data selection is a part of the **statistical
analysis** process, then you need to learn a lot more about the subject.
You may do **analysis** for a living, but you obviously don't do
**statistical analysis**, otherwise you would not be arguing this point.
For the record, **statistical analyses** were part of what I did for a
living up until the end of May.
I send this reply to you on 26/11/01.
"His statistical correlation. The data he used was not correct. In at
least
two cases it appears to have been deliberately corrupted. If the data was
corrupt, then the correlations are unreliable, and any conclusions based on
them are discredited. I know this may not sound polite, as I have implied
that Larry deliberately edited his data, in effect I'm implying that he
lied, but that seems to be the only explanation. Here is a link to the
diagram given in Macalister's book (click on the camera icon) for the
Ardywanig inscription, I can't find the Coolnagoppoge stone on the web,
hopefully Searles will be able to put it up when he gets his site going.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/cisp/database/stone/aywag_1.html
This is exactly what appears in Macalister's book, and the vowels are clear
for all to see. If Larry used a different source, then why did he list
Macalister as his source?"
I didn't bother dealing with the classic v's scholistic question because
Searles has already explained that, and if you won't bother to pay attention
to his explanation, why would you pay attention to mine, when the two are
exactly the same.
> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > ... and when the author has admitted to being bias in the
> >> >> >selection process (as Larry has),
> >> >>
> >> >> I think the only **bias** to which Larry Athy has admitted is in
> >> >> dividing the inscriptions into their respective corpora. In that
> >> >> respect he is no more biased than the sheperd who divides the sheep
> >> >> from the goats.
> >> >
> >> >No, he took a single Corpus, picked out a few inscriptions that looked
> >> >similar to other markings, edited some of those inscriptions, and
> >proceeded
> >> >to claim the edited selection correlated highly with the other
markings.
> >>
> >> That's an easy claim to make but are you sure that your conclusions
> >> are not based on differences in opinion as to which is the proper
> >> Oghamic alphabet to use?
> >
> >My conclusions are based on the fact that with the exception of two
stones
> >(one fake, and one just scraped), all the rest that were checked are
> >considered to fit into the same Corpus by people who know.
>
> So you haven't made up your own mind. You have relied upon others to
> do it for you. OK. So long as I know.
I have made my own mind up. The difference is that I made up my mind based
on the evidence. Ignoring the evidence does not show independent thought,
it just shows lack of common sense.
>
> >All can be dated
> >to the same period, use the same alphabet, and comply with the Ogham
Tracts.
>
> So they say.
And it would be obvious if you researched the subject.
You appear to think **statistical analysis** is a single **task**. It is
not, it is an entire **process**, made up of a number of tasks. If one or
more tasks are flawed, then the whole process is flawed, IOW if the data
selection part is flawed, then the whole statistical analysis is flawed.
Searles ODubhain
"Larry Athy" <marth...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6050-3C1...@storefull-258.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
<snip>
--------------------------
+++ Since Ogam is not read 'backward' and since this inscription makes
no sense when read 'foreward' as either classic or scholastic Ogam, it
should be logical to any scholar that it is most likely one of the
corpus of vowelless Ogams in the British Isles. The carver of such was
thus one of the first literate people of Ireland. As such, we could
also expect the stone to be carved less formally than are the later
Latin inscriptions or the much later scholastic inscriptions.
-
As can be seen from the data in my subject paper, the symbol 'H' did not
appear in the BI-2 classic Ogam inscriptions; however, it appeared as
8.8% of the symbol count in the BI-1 inscriptions and 6.5% in the HP-1
inscriptions. The symbol 'H' was very rare on the scholastic Ogam stone
carvings (BI-3) but became more frequent with time and was more common
in the later scholastic manuscripts
My reply is as follows:
Larry is the one who is being dumb here when he disagrees with Petrie,
Manning, Moore, Macalister, Lionard, and McManus about the reading of the
Clonmacnoise Ogham inscription. I'm glad to see that he affirms that the
existence of an "H" on the stone is more characteristic of the scholastic
Ogham than of any other kind. This appears to confirm what I said about the
Ogham inscription was probably made after the name Colman and the cross.
Larry probably won't see this association but that's ok with me. I'm not
foolishly attempting to change his mind about anything. It's to be hoped
that objective readers will see the facts and information in a less biased
fashion.
Searles
Thomas McDonald
Dear Eric,
We don't know what effect the "suggestions and criticisms" of
the gentlemen who looked at Larry's monograph had. Further,
IIRC, all three men Larry mentions are proponents of the
"American Ogham" position. A reasonable peer review, IMHO,
should have included input from people who were neutral in
the debate, and perhaps some who were generally critical of
the "American Ogham" idea.
It may well be that the above-mentioned gentlemen are (or
were, in McGlone's case) more than Larry's peers in the
field. However, pending information from the survivors of
that group, and/or Larry's statement, we don't know whether
their input resulted in correction of any mistakes or
clarification of any areas of confusion from earlier drafts
of the paper.
I personally think, from the little I know of the field, that
Larry's choice of people to look at his paper, while too
limited in my view, was not bad; however it does not rise to
the level of peer-review as it is commonly meant in
mainstream scientific literature.
Tom McDonald
Doug Weller
> > You have bent words to extend the claim. I object to this as next
> > thing you will be quoting it as a fact. Nobody has yet faulted Larry's
> > statistical analyis (not even Doug Weller who has had plenty of time
> > and would have done so if Larry had made any errors) and the only
> > criticism is of the data. If you don't know the difference between
> > data and its subsequent analysis, I suggest you find out.
>
> I suggest you read up on the subject before debating definitions, as right
> now you are looking very foolish. Statistical Analysis is not a single task
> as you seem to think, it is a process with many tasks, one of which is data
> selection. If one task is corrupted, the whole process is corrupted.
>
Why in the world is Eric using my non-response to Larry's statistics to argue
that Larry's must be right? I'm certainly no statistician.
And of course you are right, statistical analysis is a process -- you've got to
get all the stages right, not just the maths which is what Eric seems to be
focusing on. Which is one reason why there are those sayings about statistics.
:-)
[SNIP]
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Eric Stevens
None of the names seem to be experts recognised by you. You presumably
know of McGlone and Guthrie but disapprove of their belief in American
Ogams. Had you dodn a Google search you would have found at the
University of Calgary "Dr. David H. Kelley (PhD Harvard) Professor
Emeritus. Research Interests: Archaeology, linguistics, Maya
hieroglyphics, calendars, trans-Pacific contact; Mesoamerica" - plus
archaeoastronomy, epigraphy, decipherement of ancient texts etc, with
a list of publications longer than your arm. As a scholar, Kelley is
an international heavy weight in his field.
-- snip ---
>If you do not realise that data selection is a part of the **statistical
>analysis** process, then you need to learn a lot more about the subject.
>You may do **analysis** for a living, but you obviously don't do
>**statistical analysis**, otherwise you would not be arguing this point.
>For the record, **statistical analyses** were part of what I did for a
>living up until the end of May.
I presume then you know the difference between data collection, data
preparation and data analysis.
One of your problems is that you have no doubts, no uncertainties. It
is not surprising that Larry should come up with a different
transliteration from the one you seem to believe in when even the URL
to which you have referred me says things like:
Orientation:Indeterminate
Macalister/1945, 243, suggests .... [only 'suggests']
Language:unknown (oghms)
Macalister/1945, 243, speaks of the `meaningless nature of the word
COVTET' ....
Legibility:poor [even worse now - some boys destroyed it by
lighting a fire against it]
Yet the only reason that you can find for Larry reaching a different
opinion from you is that he "deliberately edited his data". Has it
occurred to you that he may have looked at it himself and reached his
own conclusion on the basis that he knew of the American Ogams. I
would be surprised if Macalister, Macmanus or Professor MacNeill knew
anything about them at the time their opinions were being formed.
>
>
>This is exactly what appears in Macalister's book, and the vowels are clear
>for all to see. If Larry used a different source, then why did he list
>Macalister as his source?"
>
>I didn't bother dealing with the classic v's scholistic question because
>Searles has already explained that, and if you won't bother to pay attention
>to his explanation, why would you pay attention to mine, when the two are
>exactly the same.
I've looked at every article written by Searles in which he mentioned
'scholastic' and the closest I can find is his explanation of why
thinks it is Scholastic Ogham. Nowhere is there a mention of the
implications of it being one of the variations of Classic Ogham. Even
Macalister appears to have considered that it may have been Classic
Ogham.
--- snip ---
>>
>> In this case, statistical analysis is applied to a body of data. That
>> you say the data is flawed is OK by me but I get concerned when you
>> extend the claim to saying the analysis is flawed also.
>
>You appear to think **statistical analysis** is a single **task**. It is
>not, it is an entire **process**, made up of a number of tasks. If one or
>more tasks are flawed, then the whole process is flawed, IOW if the data
>selection part is flawed, then the whole statistical analysis is flawed.
You may feel entitled to say that but for the sake of clarity you
should say his data is flawed when you believe his data is flawed. If
you had made that clear the present discussion would not be occurring.
JMB
> >
> >None of the names mentioned seem to be recognised experts, so their
opinion
> >holds no more weight than the opinions of those posting here.
>
> None of the names seem to be experts recognised by you. You presumably
> know of McGlone and Guthrie but disapprove of their belief in American
> Ogams. Had you dodn a Google search you would have found at the
> University of Calgary "Dr. David H. Kelley (PhD Harvard) Professor
> Emeritus. Research Interests: Archaeology, linguistics, Maya
> hieroglyphics, calendars, trans-Pacific contact; Mesoamerica" - plus
> archaeoastronomy, epigraphy, decipherement of ancient texts etc, with
> a list of publications longer than your arm. As a scholar, Kelley is
> an international heavy weight in his field.
>
If that is the same David Kelley, then that is one person whose opinion does
carry some weight. It's a pity he has retired, as I would be interested in
hearing his opinion of Larry's paper. As for the other two, I don't
disapprove of their beliefs, but neither seem to have any relevant
qualifications to give their opinions any more weight than those posting
here.
> -- snip ---
>
> >If you do not realise that data selection is a part of the **statistical
> >analysis** process, then you need to learn a lot more about the subject.
> >You may do **analysis** for a living, but you obviously don't do
> >**statistical analysis**, otherwise you would not be arguing this point.
> >For the record, **statistical analyses** were part of what I did for a
> >living up until the end of May.
>
> I presume then you know the difference between data collection, data
> preparation and data analysis.
I do, and all three are parts of statistical analysis.
>
> >
> >
--snip--
Did you look at the inscription? How can you say there is any doubt about
the vowels? The vowel lines are clearly much shorter than the other lines,
so they can't possibly be claimed to be consonants.
> >
> >
> >This is exactly what appears in Macalister's book, and the vowels are
clear
> >for all to see. If Larry used a different source, then why did he list
> >Macalister as his source?"
> >
> >I didn't bother dealing with the classic v's scholistic question because
> >Searles has already explained that, and if you won't bother to pay
attention
> >to his explanation, why would you pay attention to mine, when the two are
> >exactly the same.
>
> I've looked at every article written by Searles in which he mentioned
> 'scholastic' and the closest I can find is his explanation of why
> thinks it is Scholastic Ogham. Nowhere is there a mention of the
> implications of it being one of the variations of Classic Ogham. Even
> Macalister appears to have considered that it may have been Classic
> Ogham.
He considered it, and seems to have concluded that it wasn't classic, but
scholastic, even in 1902.
>
> --- snip ---
> >
> >You appear to think **statistical analysis** is a single **task**. It is
> >not, it is an entire **process**, made up of a number of tasks. If one
or
> >more tasks are flawed, then the whole process is flawed, IOW if the data
> >selection part is flawed, then the whole statistical analysis is flawed.
>
> You may feel entitled to say that but for the sake of clarity you
> should say his data is flawed when you believe his data is flawed. If
> you had made that clear the present discussion would not be occurring.
If the data is flawed, as it is, the the statistical analysis must be
flawed, the two are intertwined.
Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
Eric Stevens wrote:
[snip]
None of the names seem to be experts recognised by you. You presumably
> know of McGlone and Guthrie but disapprove of their belief in American
> Ogams. Had you dodn a Google search you would have found at the
> University of Calgary "Dr. David H. Kelley (PhD Harvard) Professor
> Emeritus. Research Interests: Archaeology, linguistics, Maya
> hieroglyphics, calendars, trans-Pacific contact; Mesoamerica" - plus
> archaeoastronomy, epigraphy, decipherement of ancient texts etc, with
> a list of publications longer than your arm. As a scholar, Kelley is
> an international heavy weight in his field.
David H. Kelley, (University of Calgary), contributing editor of the
_Review of Archaeology_ (Mesoamerica, Epigraphy)
[snip]
--
Doc Rock
Dr. Edward D. Rockstein
Columbia, MD
Larry Athy
On Sun, Dec 9, 2001, 7:06pm (CST+6), Searles ODumbhain posted more
non-scholarly material on this subject and said in reply to Eric's
previous posting:
~~"Yes, you must have missed the instances I gave you from the book of
Ballymote where the "feather" mark or "arrow" appears at the end of the
inscription rather than at the beginning.
--------------------
+++ My subject paper had to do only with Ogam without vowels (HP-1 and
BI-1) and with the classic Ogam of the B.I. (BI-2). The B. of B. has to
do only with the later scholastic Ogam only (BI-3), which does not
correlate well to any of the other three. The Clonmacnoise Ogam is not
in BI-2 Ogam and can not be read meaningfully in BI-3 except by reading
it backwards (right to left, rather than left to right). Nobody has
been able to cite one other Ogam inscription which has been meaningfully
read backwards. +++
--------------------
And S.OB. continued: ~~"It is a scholastic Ogham because it has a
stemline, contains a feather, has a stemline inscribed on the surface of
the stone, uses scores across the stemline for vowels (rather than
"dots") and includes the letter "H" in the inscription."~~
-------------------
+++ It is an Ogam without vowels because it has a stemline, contains a
feather, has the stemline inscribed on the surface of the stone, uses
scores across the stem line for consonants, has no dots, and includes
the letter "H" in the inscription. Thus it meets all of the same
requirements that have been listed above. Since the inscription can be
read in scholastic Ogam only by reading it backwards (which is never
done), the scholastic Ogam must be disqualified, leaving only the
probability that it in Ogam without vowels (BI-1). +++
-------------------
S.OD.: ~~'It is also a later inscription because it is found with an
inscribed cross and modern lettering of the name Colman, as well as
being located at a Christian monastic site. It is read as BOCHT because
that is the only way it has ever been shown to have an intelligible
meaning in context too the other factors associated with the stone
(pilgrims, Christianity, grave markers, scholastic tradition)."~~
------------------
+++ We have already shown that it can not be in BI-2 or BI-3, leaving
only BI-1 and thus demonstrating that the Colman and Christian
inscriptions must have been added later, with little doubt. +++
------------------
S.OD.: ~~"A great example of a similar encrypted Ogham on stone is the
pillar found at Llywell (CIIC 341). This stone has a Latin and an Ogham
inscription on it. The Latin inscription reads from left to right in the
usual manner but the Ogham inscription reads from right to left.
According to Macalister, the Ogham is MAQI-TRENI SALICIDUNI (read
backwards) and the Latin is MACCV-TRENI SALICIDVNI. As you can see in
this inscription, the Ogham is written opposite the direction of the
Latin and the direction one would normally take in such a reading
(usually from bottom to top). No feather or arrow mark appears in the
Ogham inscription (as it is written on the edge of a stone)."~~
---------------------
+++ Please note first that the subject Clonmacnoise stone is read
forward (l. to r.) by all experts as COLMAN in Latin, but backward (r.
to l.) as BOCHT in Scholastic Ogam. If the stone were inverted to read
the Ogam, it would not read BOCHT; it would read HGSBV or HOSBV. S.OD.
does not seem to realize that 'backward' and 'inverted' are not the same
thing at all.
-
S.OD. is completely confused regarding the stone from Llywell, Co.
Brecon, Wales. First of all, it is important to note that Macalister
says that the Ogam inscription is not on an arris but is on a ridge on
the face of the stone near an arris. It is generally acknowedged by
scholars that the stone was upside down at the time the drawing was
made, as is evidenced by the fact that the carvings would not be on the
bottom end (which was buried). When the stone is viewed right side up,
it is clear that the classic Ogam inscription (BI-2) is read from bottom
to top (l. to r.). The Latin inscription is inverted and written from
top to bottom (also, l. to r.). Neither inscription is read backwards
by any expert, to my knowledge. +++
---------------------
S.OD.: ~~"Similar reversals of an inscription in Latin and Ogham occurs
at Trallwng (CIIC 342) and Llandyssul (CIIC 349)."~~
--------------------
+++ More proof that S.OD. does not understand English very well or is
trying to deceive you. The Trallwng, Co. Brecon, Wales, classic Ogam
(BI-2) inscription is also conventional and is read from bottom to top
(l. to r.). The Latin inscription is inverted and read from top to
bottom (also l. to r.).
-
I can not immagine why S.OD. even included the Llandyssul, Co. Cardigan,
Wales inscription in his posting, except to deceive you. The Ogam
inscription does not even exist. There are eight marks that Macalister
thinks could be the very ends of three scores and five scores. Based on
that, he simply speculates by drawing a non-existing inscription, which
he then translates to have the same meaning as the Latin. This stone
has nothing to do with anything that we have been discussing. It should
not have been mentioned. +++
--------------------
S.OS.: ~~"Macalister also saw other forms of inversion and encryption in
Ogham and Latin inscriptions. It's not at all clear to me why he decodes
the Latin inscription of the Colbinstown (CIIC 19) stone as
transliterated Ogham in a reversed and inverted manner (it's also
unclear to McManus)."~~
-------------------
+++ This Cobinstown, Co. Kildare, Ireland, is another conventional BI-2
Ogam inscription, read from bottom to top (l. to r.). In this case, the
Latin inscription is not inverted and is also read from bottom to top
(l. to r.). Macalister goes on to speculate that the Latin can be read
as an inscripted Ogam message, saying the same as the BI-2 Ogam. That
is all just an exercise that has nothing to do with our subjects here.
S.OD. is again just trying to confuse the issue and to deceive you on an
issue where he has made no meaningful points.
-
To be continued later.
-
Regards, Larry Athy
Larry Athy
On Sun, Dec 9, 2001, 7:06pm (CST+6), Searles ODumbhain had posted on
this subject, and I now continue my reply.
----------------
S.OD. had said: -"Brash was wrong."-
----------------
And Eric S. had replied: =="WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?"==
----------------
S.OD.: ~~"Brash was wrong because his reading has no meaning, context or
intelligence in it. He is also wrong about the age or antiquity of the
inscription. It is an obvious scholastic Ogham as it has a "feather" or
"arrow" mark in it. It also has a stemline (characteristic of scholastic
Ogham) and is written on the face of the stone (another scholastic
characteristic). The stone is found in a Christian monastic cemetery and
should be considered recent (circa 6th to 9th centuries CE or later)
rather than ancient (as Brash also indicated by saying it is in the
earliest forms)."~~
-----------------
+++ S.OD. is rather presumptive when he judges negatively regarding
Brash's intelligence. Brash's reading was the same as all other
scholars - BOCHT if read backwards. S.OS. seems to be saying that they
were all wrong. They were indeed wrong in reading any Ogam inscription
backwards. The inscription is no more scholastic than it is without
vowels. The BI-1 inscriptions meet all of these same requirements as
set out by S.OD.. Since this one can not be read as scholastic, it must
be without vowels. +++
-----------------
(The portion having to do with the fact hat most all scholars read the
inscription backward as BOCHT is not disputed and is therefore cut.
References to other stones that are inscribed COLMAN are also cut as
immaterial to the subject.)
----------------------
S.D. continued: ~~"Maybe the problem is that some people are confusing
scholastic Ogham with archaic Ogham (such as Larry and Fell)?"~~
----------------------
+++ I am not aware of anyone doing such a thing. Fell did not. I am
not. It is good to see that S.OD. agrees that there is such a thing as
archaic Ogam. If there were no such thing, it could not be confused
with scholastic Ogam by anyone. Thus any Ogam that can not be read, by
assuming long consonant marks to be vowels, should be assumed to be
without vowels. Those inscriptions have been classified as BI-1 in the
British Isles; and it is those that correlate extremely well with the
HP-1 inscriptions in America. ---------------------
S.OD.: ~~"Ogham consaine only muddies the water as far as I can see. It
introduces all manner of possibilities and abiguities into translating
and transliterating inscriptions. No case has ever been made for it
aside from Fell and Dineen's reference to it. Where are the other
references one would expect to find among the writings of the Filidh
(O'Sullivan's remarks about Ogham inscriptions only in consonants do not
a vowelless Ogham make; they only say that some inscriptions were
written only in consonants ...i.e.. magical and encrypted)?"~~
--------------------
+++ The water is clear in this instance; but S.OD. simply can not see
the obvious. He is blind to the truth. Since some Ogam inscriptions
are without vowels, as have been identified by many people, the reasons
that they were so written is of no importance. The important thing is
that they have been shown to be in the same language, regardless of what
they say and what that language might be. I have subsequently
demonstrated that the BI-1 and HP-1 inscriptions correlate equally well
with like inscriptions in Iberia and other areas in America. +++
-------------------
(Some material on BOCHT is cut as repetitive.)
-------------------
In response to Erics indication that Macalister knew nothing of more
recent discoveries, SOD. replied: ~~"No he didn't. Macalister was dead
in 1950 so he missed Fell's books and the controversy over the American
inscriptions. Based on his evaluation of some of the Ogham in Larry's
corpus BI-1, I'd have to say he would have considered the American
inscriptions to be pseudo or phony Ogham."~~
------------------
+++ S.OD. does not "Have to say" anything, has great difficulty speaking
intelligently for himself, and certainly does not speak for an
intelligent man like Macalister. How dare he try to do so. S.OD does
not even claim to have had anything published on any subject. 'Pseudo'
or 'phony' inscriptions would not correlate to any other group of
inscriptions. None of the HP-1 or BI-1 inscriptions used in my paper
are thought to be modern by any scholar. Only if all were modern could
they be 'faked' so as to appear to correlate. Old inscriptions could
not correlate by accident with any degree of probability. Minor errors
in transliteration will not materially effect the correlations. +++
------------------
S.OD.: ~~"McManus seems to not think them worth a very detailed
investigation."~~
------------------
+++ That is not the impression that McManus conveyed to me when I
communicated with him at the time my paper was published. I had used
his information on sound value changes for the second round of
correlations in my paper. He left me with the impression that he did
not think that he was sufficiently informed to be able to comment on my
paper with regard to the American Ogams or the statistical aspects.
-
In the last 20 years, there has been much more work done on the American
Ogams than on the British. +++
-
Regards, Larry Athy
JMB
--Big snip of points directed at Searles--
Larry then said:
----------------
None of the HP-1 or BI-1 inscriptions used in my paper
are thought to be modern by any scholar. Only if all were modern could
they be 'faked' so as to appear to correlate.
------------------
Another lie by Larry. As has been pointed out several times, Macalister
clearly stated in his 1945 publication that the Bweeng stone was "A forgery
of the nineteenth century". Relative to when Ogham was in common usage, the
nineteenth century certainly is modern, and Macalister certainly is one of
the most important scholars on this subject.
--snip--
Searles ODubhain
>>On Sun, Dec 9, 2001, 7:06pm (CST+6), Searles ODumbhain posted more
>>non-scholarly material on this subject and said in reply to Eric's
>>previous posting:
>>~~"Yes, you must have missed the instances I gave you from the book of
>>Ballymote where the "feather" mark or "arrow" appears at the end of the
>>inscription rather than at the beginning.
>>--------------------
>+++ My subject paper had to do only with Ogam without vowels (HP-1 and
>BI-1) and with the classic Ogam of the B.I. (BI-2). The B. of B. has to
>do only with the later scholastic Ogam only (BI-3), which does not
>correlate well to any of the other three. The Clonmacnoise Ogam is not
>in BI-2 Ogam and can not be read meaningfully in BI-3 except by reading
>it backwards (right to left, rather than left to right). Nobody has
>been able to cite one other Ogam inscription which has been meaningfully
>read backwards. +++
>--------------------
I've cited Ogham inscriptions that are read backwards in both Classic Ogham
and Scholastic Ogham.
>>And S.OB. continued: ~~"It is a scholastic Ogham because it has a
>>stemline, contains a feather, has a stemline inscribed on the surface of
>>the stone, uses scores across the stemline for vowels (rather than
>>"dots") and includes the letter "H" in the inscription."~~
>-------------------
>+++ It is an Ogam without vowels because it has a stemline, contains a
>feather, has the stemline inscribed on the surface of the stone, uses
>scores across the stem line for consonants, has no dots, and includes
>the letter "H" in the inscription. Thus it meets all of the same
>requirements that have been listed above. Since the inscription can be
>read in scholastic Ogam only by reading it backwards (which is never
>done), the scholastic Ogam must be disqualified, leaving only the
>probability that it in Ogam without vowels (BI-1). +++
>-------------------
The inscription can be read in Scholastic Ogham in either direction. It just
so happens to spell a well known Irish word when read backwards and
inverted. It is read that way by most experts in the field.
>>S.OD.: ~~'It is also a later inscription because it is found with an
>>inscribed cross and modern lettering of the name Colman, as well as
>>being located at a Christian monastic site. It is read as BOCHT because
>>that is the only way it has ever been shown to have an intelligible
>>meaning in context too the other factors associated with the stone
>>(pilgrims, Christianity, grave markers, scholastic tradition)."~~
>------------------
>+++ We have already shown that it can not be in BI-2 or BI-3, leaving
>only BI-1 and thus demonstrating that the Colman and Christian
>inscriptions must have been added later, with little doubt. +++
>------------------
You've shown nothing of the sort. The inscription was made circa 6th to 9th
centuries CE in Ireland in Scholastic Ogham.
>>S.OD.: ~~"A great example of a similar encrypted Ogham on stone is the
>>pillar found at Llywell (CIIC 341). This stone has a Latin and an Ogham
i>>nscription on it. The Latin inscription reads from left to right in the
>>usual manner but the Ogham inscription reads from right to left.
>>According to Macalister, the Ogham is MAQI-TRENI SALICIDUNI (read
>>backwards) and the Latin is MACCV-TRENI SALICIDVNI. As you can see in
>>this inscription, the Ogham is written opposite the direction of the
>>Latin and the direction one would normally take in such a reading
>>(usually from bottom to top). No feather or arrow mark appears in the
>>Ogham inscription (as it is written on the edge of a stone)."~~
>--------------------
>+++ Please note first that the subject Clonmacnoise stone is read
>forward (l. to r.) by all experts as COLMAN in Latin, but backward (r.
>to l.) as BOCHT in Scholastic Ogam. If the stone were inverted to read
>the Ogam, it would not read BOCHT; it would read HGSBV or HOSBV. S.OD.
>does not seem to realize that 'backward' and 'inverted' are not the same
>thing at all.
On the contrary. I've never stated that the Llywell Ogham was written in an
inverted manner. I've only said that it was backwards to the Latin
inscription. The Clonmacnoise Scholastic Ogham inscription OTOH is written
both backwards and inverted. I've stated this on many occasions as well. It
is you who are (once again) confused.. I think that the Clonmacnoise Ogham
is unique in that it seems to be the only surviving Ogham inscription that
is written on stone and is both backwards and inverted. I'm glad you know
the difference between backwards and inverted. Now if you could just keep
the two words themselves correctly distinguished from one another, you'll
have a better understanding of what I've been saying.
>>-
>>S.OD. is completely confused regarding the stone from Llywell, Co.
>>Brecon, Wales. First of all, it is important to note that Macalister
>>says that the Ogam inscription is not on an arris but is on a ridge on
>>the face of the stone near an arris. It is generally acknowedged by
>>scholars that the stone was upside down at the time the drawing was
>>made, as is evidenced by the fact that the carvings would not be on the
>>bottom end (which was buried). When the stone is viewed right side up,
>>it is clear that the classic Ogam inscription (BI-2) is read from bottom
>>to top (l. to r.). The Latin inscription is inverted and written from
>>top to bottom (also, l. to r.). Neither inscription is read backwards
>>by any expert, to my knowledge. +++
>>---------------------
Larry, the Ogham inscription is read in the opposite direction to the Latin
inscription. This stone is not alone in this orientation. There are many
others like this and there's even an Ogham stone that has Runes and Ogham on
it that seem to be read in opposite directions IIRC. The whole point of
mentioning any of this was to show that the direction of reading is
sometimes important to discover meaning in the letters that are
transliterated.. It makes much more sense to work with what is on the stone
than it does to make up and insert additional letters so that words are
constructed out of the imagination of the transcriber or translator. Also,
the Llywell Ogham is not written along the edge as is normally the case but
is written close to the edge. This once again demonstrates the variations in
style made by the inscribers. Ogham inscriptions are often read in both
directions to see if they contain more intelligence one way than the other.
>>S.OD.: ~~"Similar reversals of an inscription in Latin and Ogham occurs
>>at Trallwng (CIIC 342) and Llandyssul (CIIC 349)."~~
>-------------------
>+++ More proof that S.OD. does not understand English very well or is
>trying to deceive you. The Trallwng, Co. Brecon, Wales, classic Ogam
>(BI-2) inscription is also conventional and is read from bottom to top
>(l. to r.). The Latin inscription is inverted and read from top to
>bottom (also l. to r.).
>
I suppose that there was a movement at one time to go around Wales and flip
all these stones so that they'd be written in the oppositite directions? :-)
Really Larry.
>>-
>>I can not immagine why S.OD. even included the Llandyssul, Co. Cardigan,
>>Wales inscription in his posting, except to deceive you. The Ogam
>>inscription does not even exist. There are eight marks that Macalister
>>thinks could be the very ends of three scores and five scores. Based on
>>that, he simply speculates by drawing a non-existing inscription, which
>>he then translates to have the same meaning as the Latin. This stone
>>has nothing to do with anything that we have been discussing. It should
>>not have been mentioned. +++
>>--------------------
I merely included what Macalister had in his CIIC.
>>S.OS.: ~~"Macalister also saw other forms of inversion and encryption in
>>Ogham and Latin inscriptions. It's not at all clear to me why he decodes
>>the Latin inscription of the Colbinstown (CIIC 19) stone as
>>transliterated Ogham in a reversed and inverted manner (it's also
>>unclear to McManus)."~~
>-------------------
>+++ This Cobinstown, Co. Kildare, Ireland, is another conventional BI-2
>Ogam inscription, read from bottom to top (l. to r.). In this case, the
>Latin inscription is not inverted and is also read from bottom to top
>l. to r.). Macalister goes on to speculate that the Latin can be read
>as an inscripted Ogam message, saying the same as the BI-2 Ogam. That
>is all just an exercise that has nothing to do with our subjects here.
>S.OD. is again just trying to confuse the issue and to deceive you on an
>issue where he has made no meaningful points.
I included the referenced inscription to show that Macalister considered
many Ogham inscriptions to be encrypted information. This was one of the
purposes of the many different Ogham types in the Book of Ballymote. I
didn't ascribe any great importance to it and noted that McManus thought
Macalister was wrong to take the approach to reading that he did. I think
you're grasping at straws to try to find something wrong in what I've said
when the only incorrect things seem to be your grouping of scholastic Ogham
into corpus BI-1 and calling them Ogham consaine. In this you seem to be
unique.
Larry, if anyone is the great deceiver around here, it is you with your
created corpus BI-1 and your questionable corpus HP-1. Nice math however.
:-)
Searles