Macaustteb — The a -Druuides K Inscription at Killeen Cormac. '237 



Such wooden messages as are alluded to by Saxo Grammaticus (iii, 92 were 

 the media for which the Runic alphabet was first invented, 



According to the theory here put forward, the gamma at Killeen Cormac 

 has been subjected to a precisely similar modification, and for the same 

 reason. 



This meets the objection so often urged against the suggestion that writing 

 was in use in this country before the Christian missionaries — that all the 

 words connected with writing, as the words for parchment, book, pen, &c, are 

 loan-words from Latin. This proves no more than that vellum manuscripts 

 were introduced with a knowledge of the Latin tongue : it does not preclude 

 the use of wooden tablets, with or without a coating of wax, and similar 

 primitive materials. 



But all the letters of the Runic alphabet are not Soman. There is an 

 admixture of Greek letters among them, so evident that some scholars have 

 derived the Runic alphabet from Greek rather than from Roman, notwith- 

 standing the clear traces of Roman origin afforded by, for instance, the form 

 of the R. The letter G is represented by X, which certaialy cannot be 

 derived from the Roman G ; it may either be an ornamentally modified 

 gamma (derived from f through an intermediate form A ,or a cki arbitrarily 

 chosen on account of its simplicity. Probably the former is the more likely. 

 The sign for XG (*/ is certainly a modification of the doubled gamma that 

 in Greek stands for that sound. And thus we see that among the Greek 

 contributions to the Runic alphabet is the very letter in which the Irish form 

 of the Roman alphabet seems to have a similar indebtedness. 



On the ancient inscription at InchagoiR, Lech Comb, the letter G is 

 represented by a reversed Z, which may possibly be a reminiscence of the 

 gamma. 



V. 



Whether the suggestions that have been put forward in the foregoing 

 paper command acceptance or not, I think all will agree that the stone which 

 has suggested these remarks is one of singular interest and valne. It lies 

 neglected and subject to maltreatment of all kinds. Local idlers frequent the 

 enclosure, and sit upon it playing cards, or walk over it with hob-nailed 

 boots. I first saw it twenty years ago, and my impression is that it wa. r 

 certainly more legible then than it is now. Beside it lies another stone, 

 bearing a strange figure carrying a cross — probably a representation of our 

 Lord. This curious and unique figure bas had the misfortune to attract the 

 attention of a local "Old Mortality," who has recut and spoilt it. The 

 removal of both these monuments, which are lying loose in the enclosure. 



