'Kilcoolaght Burial Ground/Cill Chuallachta (KE065-003001-): This site is located N of Macgillycuddy's Reeks on slightly elevated ground, a short distance W of the Finglas river. Described as a 'fort' and a 'burial ground' in the OSNB (Killorglin, 38), it is depicted on the first edition of the OS map as a small circular enclosure. It was described by Brash (1879, 228) as 'slightly raised above the level of the field, and about fifteen feet in diameter; it had evidently been much larger, but has been encroached on . . . [It] is an irregular circle without any fence, and stuck full of Dallans, from 12 in. to 4 ft. in height, several of which are inscribed’. Brash also recorded a tradition that a church (KE065-003003-) formerly stood on a rectangular area of untilled ground ‘a few yards from the cilleen'. No trace of this church is now apparent' (O'Sullivan et al 1996, no. 950).

Monument

Fragment, 0.30m x 0.10m x 0.08m (converted from Macalister 1945, 205). O'Sullivan et al (1996, no. 950) recorded that the stone was missing and on visiting the site to scan the stones and fragments in August 2015, this fragment could not be identified.

Text

Macalister (1945, 203) says that it is 'inscribed with the letters URG. The B-half of the G is damaged'.

Transliteration

[ ̣ ̣ ? ̣ ̣]URG̣[ ̣ ̣ ? ̣ ̣]

Translation

Commentary

Locations

Found

along with a number of other ogham stones and fragments in a small area of a field (recorded as a burial ground) in the townland of Kilcoolaght East and barony of Dunkerron North. (GPS coordinates -9.745808, 52.073955)

Original

Find location possibly original site

Last Recorded

Missing? The present location of this stone may be accessed via the National Monuments Service Historic Environment viewer on www.archaeology.ie.

History of Recording

According to Brash (1879, 228), the site was visited on several occasions by Windele and by Brash himself in 1869. Gippert suggests that Macalister has confused this fragment with his no. III (CIIC 208), which seems plausible considering the lack of information supplied by Macalister on no. III and the fact that other early reporters such as Brash and Ferguson don't mention it at all.