Feather-marks

By Katherine Forsyth, OG(H)AM’s UK Principal Investigator

Wikipedia’s otherwise excellent article on ‘ogham’ confronts you with the script’s name twice – first rendered ‘Ogham’ in the latin alphabet and, below it, ’ogam’ spelled out in ogham letters, reading horizontally from left to right (for a discussion of the spellings and capitalization of these words see David Stifter’s blog):

What looks rather odd to me are the extra ogham characters at the beginning and end. They have no phonological value but serve simply to mark the start and close of the text. It seems odd because I’m not used to seeing this feature in oghams ‘in the wild’. It does not appear on any of the hundreds of stone inscriptions which date from the classical period (the 3 lone exceptions are of 10^th, 11^th, and 12^th century date – see below). If I spent more time online I might not be so surprised. The proliferation of ogham on the Web has entrenched this, in my view erroneous, view that ogham normally begins with >- and ends with -<. It is everywhere: on tattoos, wooden New Age divination sticks, jewellery, and knick-knacks.

Internet oghamists can’t really be blamed for this misconception.  A well-known Ogham transliterator site has lifted the Wikipedia content about the ogham from Bréisteach | Breastagh, Co. Mayo (I-MAY-008), giving the text as follows:

Yet, you can see for yourself that there are no beginning and end markers on the actual stone (below), so why put them in?

Similarly, Google Fonts’ Noto collection includes a font devised to represent ogham script.

There’s quite a few reasons I personally do not love it (the diamond-shaped dots for vowel strokes, for one), but whoever devised it seems to imagine that each sense unit of ogham is bound by:

᚛ and ᚜.

I blame Unicode, on which Noto Sans Ogham is based. At the end of its set of ogham letters come two pieces of punctuation:

That’s fine. There are, as we’ll see in a minute, some cases where you do get oghams with > at the beginning and, in a smaller number of cases, also with < at the end. But just because it is possible, that doesn’t mean it is compulsory. Indeed, in many cases the ‘reversed feather-mark’ causes more confusion and would, in my opinion, be better omitted. What follows is all the evidence I can find on ‘feather-marks’, and you can judge for yourself.

Let’s start with the term. It appears to be a coining of R. A. S. Macalister who writes in Corpus Inscriptionum Insularum Celticarum that ‘[i]n these pages we shall call this character the “feather-mark”’ (1945, viii). I suppose he is thinking of an arrow, perhaps shooting across the page, with the > on the left representing the fletching at the end of the shaft (across which the ogham is written). I haven’t been able to find earlier discussions of it, which rather surprised me. I’ll keep on looking. McManus refers to it as an ‘arrow-head’ (1991, 131) which if you’re thinking of it in isolation from anything is more accurate but if you imagine the arrow as including the stem-line, as Macalister seems to have, then it’s at the wrong end. Fionnbarr Moore (Moore and Wiggins 2023) also calls it an ‘arrowhead’, or ‘arrow (feather mark)’. I’ll stick with Macalister’s ‘feather-mark’ out of habit and in deference to Unicode.

The twin difficulties of ogham are that the way the script works, if you happen to be reading it the wrong way, not only is the reading quite different but you can’t tell it is the wrong way up. This is never a problem with a stone pillar because it is stuck in the ground and the text reads vertically from bottom to top. Famously, according to the Old Irish tract on ogham, In Lebor Ogaim, each text is read like climbing a tree. So, there is no need for a ‘feather-mark’ in order to read a pillar from the classical period.

Ambiguity comes in when the ogham is carved on a portable object. Which way up do you hold it? Most of the inscriptions on portable objects (knife handles, weaving paddle, die, bead) lack an indication of which way round they read. It is sometimes rather obvious, i.e. with the knife-blade pointing away from you, but in some cases, there is potential for ambiguity. A case in point is the bronze bowl from Cill Ghuilbin Thoir | Kilgulbin East (I-KER-135) Co. Kerry, which is now in the National Museum of Ireland. It has two inscriptions on it: one on the escutcheon which attaches the suspension ring, the other along the rim. The former is arranged vertically in the ‘classical’ manner but actually reads down not up. If you look closely, you’ll see the little > at the start pointing out where to begin and which direction to go. It’s the same for the rim text. It has an > to show you hold the bowl in front of you and read it looking in. The inscription is written in Old or possibly even Middle Irish and is difficult to date other than ‘post-800’.

The silver brooch from Baile Uí Spealáin | Ballyspellan (I-KIK-001, Co. Kilkenny) is thought to date to the late 9^th or early 10^th century. On its reverse are four inscriptions in perhaps three different ‘hands’. Each begins with an > to indicate where to start and which direction to read. It is worth pointing out that, as in the previous example, it is placed on the stem-line like an ordinary character, i.e. it doesn’t come cleanly at the beginning of the stem-line but after a short distance (–>- not >–), which is not the form given in Unicode. Two on the left (by the same hand) also have ->- in medial position separating off the names. This is a unique occurrence, as far as I’m aware, and it is interesting that the innovation wasn’t more widely adopted.

I know of only one other – possible – example on the curious rock outcrop from Alltach | Aultagh, Co. Cork (I-COR-020) which appears to be a cryptic ogham of the reformed period. It has what looks like a single feather-mark in the middle of the lower line but what the ogham might read is difficult to know and it could be an Irish example of an ‘angled vowel’ which is frequently found in Scotland (incidentally, it doesn’t have a feather-mark at the beginning). The third definite example dates to the early 11th century layers of Dublin Castle (I-DUB-002 (NMI E748:54); Moore and Wiggins 2023). It is an antler comb inscribed with 3 letters ENA plus a feather-mark on the right, or if held the other way up, >AQE, perhaps an error for >ANE. So three, out of about a dozen surviving portable objects have feather-marks. There don’t appear to be any on the five oghams carved as graffiti some time in the Old Irish period at Knowth (I-MEA-010-014).

What about manuscript ogham? Three early manuscripts which all date to the late eighth or early ninth century —St Gall MS 11 (drypoint), Stowe Missal, and Codex Bernensis 207—lack any feather-marks which suggests it was not an established convention by this stage.

It does seem to have been available as a strategy, however. One of similar date, St Gall Priscian (Cod. 904) has a number of ogham glosses in its margins, each horizontal and with a -> at the start. Notice that the scribe has emphasised the start of the stem-line and the two distal tips of the feather-mark with a blob of ink. This is unique, and in contrast to the five other marginal oghams in this manuscript. Might it point to more than one ogham hand? The manuscript is thought to have come from Nendrum or perhaps Bangor, Northern Ireland, and was written about 850.

In Scotland, monumental oghams of this period do not exhibit feather-marks but continue the practice of vertical layout. There are only a tiny handful of Irish ones from this period but interestingly they do have feather-marks. The smallish slab dedicated to ‘Colman’ at Cluain Mhic Nóis |Clonmacnoise, Co. Offaly (I-OFF-001) has a curious ogham below with the stem starting cleanly at the apex of the arrowhead (à la Unicode), rather than the arrow sitting on the stem as it does in the previous examples. This is, as far as I know, the oldest surviving example of this form. What is more unusual about it is that, uniquely, this ogham starts at the opposite end and reads retrogradely BOCHT (what it actually says is THCOB), which is contrary to what the feather-mark is saying. It appears to be an early example of ogham cryptography from an ecclesiastical, and very learned bookish environment.

Three further examples come from the Hiberno-Norse milieu, first in the 11^th century bi-version inscription from Cill Dalua | Killaloe, Co. Clare (I-CLA-004), which has runes reading vertically up the broad face in two lines, and, on the side, two lines of ogham reading vertically downwards. The feather-mark -> indicates which one to take first and shows the direction of reading (which is, curiously, not what you’d expect).

The final example is from Maghal | Maughold, Isle of Man (M-IOM-006), and dates to the middle of the 12^th century. The upper part has a line of runes reading horizontally left-to-right (‘Juan the priest carved these runes. FUTHORK’), and below that set out in the same way is the first two aicmi of the ogham alphabet, well spaced. Right at the beginning of the line is a feather-mark ->- which is surely superfluous from a legibility perspective, but perhaps was considered a normal part of ogham by this period.

Looking at manuscripts of this date it seems that by the 12^th century a feather-mark is quite standard. You can see another crisp >- one, right at the start of the line in the ogham alphabet in Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana MS Reg. Lat. 1308. Very Unicode friendly!

Three lines were set out in Oxford, MS Rawl. B. 503 (The Annals of Innisfallen), for an ogham rendering of the Latin text, and each is marked with a very curved feather-mark, with an emphasis that distinguishes it from the ogham strokes (unlike most previous versions, except St Gall) but the intention is clear. Note also that the three feather-marks must have been added at the beginning before the writing was started and it became clear how much space was needed.

The Book of Ballymote, written in 1390, has a list of extravagant variants of the alphabet and in setting them out together, it takes this elaboration of form even further with rather fancy little curls spiralling off the tips of the feather-marks. Again, there is a contrast between them and the ogham letters which follow. They point in (more or less) alternating directions, in and out / right and left, curling clockwise and anti-clockwise, down the page, but are only at the start on the left of each line.

In another copy of In Lebor Ogaim, ‘Máel Íosa’s book’ (TCD MS H 3.18 (1337), dating to the 16^th century, we see this taken even further, with very stolid feather-marks at the beginning of each line.

In the main body of the text of In Lebor Ogaim in the Book of Ballymote, it has the expected angular >- at the start of some (not all!) bits of ogham, and also at the end of some, pointing back along the line. It is a bit puzzling why you would need the second backwards facing feather-mark. It seems to negate the message of the first (‘Start here and read in this direction’). I take it the original sense has been lost because the direction of reading is not in doubt because of the strength of book-based conventions of horizontal left-to-right. It now has a different function, and they are simply marking out the ogham from the roman text and defining its limits. It is not, however, used consistently: see how the closing mark is omitted at the end of the top line of ogham and in the one below, and from the one at the bottom.

This practice of delimiting ogham is not an aberration. We find it already in the early 10^th century, carved on the back of the Irish silver penannular brooch in a Viking hoard found in the Vale of York (E-WRY-001). It is quite baffling here. It is a very short text, fitting between two external designs. It would have been good to know at which end to start and which direction to read. Is it just marking it out as ogham? Or might it indicate it can be read from either end (its interpretation is puzzling)?

There is one other example on a portable object, the decorated bone from Tulach Chumann | Tullycommon (Cathair Chumann | Cahercommaun), Co. Clare (I-CLA-002), incised with unusual ogham-like markings. From Macalister’s illustration, it looks like on one face (the lower of the two as illustrated below) there is a short line with a feather-mark, then Q R then a forfid (supplementary character). On the other (here, upper) face, there’s a line running between the vertical borders of one section. The inscription begins with a feather-mark then there’s an M, then two unusual characters and an X forfid. Then there are two oblique characters, one on either side, pointing back down the stem-line. They don’t quite meet, so could be thought of as an H and a B, but if they did meet, they would be a backwards pointing feather-mark casually drawn (this is a tiny inscription). The purpose of this inscription is unclear but the possibility that it has some magical or divination-like function seems likely given the nature of the bone. Perhaps it could be read from either direction? It is interesting that both Vale of York and Tulach Chumann | Tullycommon have the same general appearance of a short text (4/5 letters) sandwiched between two elements of the support.

In later manuscripts we sometimes see feather-marks, sometimes not. For discussion of this corpus see blogs by Prof. Deborah Hayden and Dr Chantal Kobel. In the 16^th century legal compendium compiled by Máel Íosa, he used them to mark the start of ogham and also, as on Ballyspellan, to separate two parts of the text (here the five forfeda).

While some contemporary scribes found them useful, it is clear that many did not feel the need. The scribes Donnchadh and Connla Mac an Leagha, both at work in the 16^th century, included ogham in their manuscripts, without any feather-marks at all.

A final mention should be made of the circular mark indicating the start of the ogham signature ‘MISE MAELEACLOINNMAD’. Why it is a circle, not an arrow is hard to know, but the same symbol occurs on a pillar from Gleann Fán | Glenfahan, Co. Kerry (I-KER-051, CIIC 183) at the start of an ogham which has foiled explanation. It goes to emphasize, however, the on-going interplay between the lapidary and manuscript traditions of ogham which is worthy of much further attention.

To summarize, it seems that in the original, classical ogham period, no marks were made to indicate which was the correct direction to read the text because in the great majority of cases this would have been obvious.

In the late eighth century, the reformed period of ogham usage, norms derived from roman script and book-hand were having a huge influence on ogham which moved away from reading ‘vertical upwards’ as default (at least in Ireland, though the convention is still preserved in Scotland). A simple angular ->- mark is first attested indicating the starting point and direction of reading. The earliest surviving examples are Cill Ghuilbin Thoir | Kilgulbin East (post-800) and the St Gall Cod. 904 marginalia (c.850). Its invention seems most ‘natural’ for the former, as there is real doubt as to which direction to read the two texts. It can’t have been in doubt at St Gall, unless readers were really unused to seeing horizontal ogham in manuscripts. From the eighth century onwards the feather-mark becomes more common in manuscripts but, in Ireland, its use is always optional, and it was never implemented in Scotland. It occurs three times on stone—twice in Ireland and once in Man—each in an ecclesiastical, i.e. bookhand-influenced, context. Where it is used, a feather-mark is most common at the beginning of a line of ogham. On a few Irish occasions it is used medially to delimit sections within the ogham, a handy feature which it is surprising wasn’t more widely adopted. In Scotland, word division is more likely to be indicated by -:-, a feature apparently derived from the runic tradition.

In manuscripts, from the 14^th century onwards, we sometimes find a terminal feather-mark pointing back (–<) as a terminus for a section of ogham when it occurs in the midst of Irish written in the roman alphabet text. Direction of reading was not in doubt so would not be undermined by the apparently contradictory message of the opposing feather-marks. Instead, it appears to perform a ‘this is ogham from there to here’ delimiting function, making it easier to pick it out when switching to and from roman-written Irish. It is not necessary and appears to be simply a matter of stylistics.

A thorough examination of the development of late medieval and early modern manuscript ogham would be needed to fully map the spread of this feature, but my impression is that it increases in popularity (i.e. it is self-reinforcing), though it always remains optional. The fact that we have reverse feather-marks in earlier portable objects inscribed with ogham (Tulach Chomann | Tullycommaun, Vale of York, early 10^th century), shows that it is a genuine part of the epigraphic tradition. Both of these short and baffling texts, however, resist explanation.

I hope I’ve convinced you that the ‘reverse feather-mark’ has a less secure role in ogham than Unicode would have you believe. Yes, you can use it if you want, but you shouldn’t do so if it is going to increase confusion.

If your ogham is arranged vertically, according to the Classical tradition it should read upwards. Not everyone nowadays knows this, as you can tell from various tattoo and logo fails out there, so you can be helpful and put a feather-mark at the beginning, if you must. I would encourage you not to put a reverse feather-mark at the end, though, because that pulls the rug out from under your reader, and they are back to square one. Where to begin?

If your ogham is arranged horizontally, then it should read from left to right. Feather-marks are fairly superfluous if the ogham is in the midst of roman-alphabet text, but you could add them to clarify the switch of script. And if the ogham is on its own, then a feather-mark would clarify the direction of reading. If you are being more adventurous in your layout, by all means go for it. A little feather-mark at the beginning can show the way to go.

References

Damian McManus (1991) A Guide to Ogam, Maynooth: An Sagart.

Fionnbarr Moore and Ken Wiggins (2023) ‘The ogham inscription on comb E748:54’, in Dublin Castle: From Fortress to Palace, Volume 2: The Viking-Age Archaeology, Ann Lynch, Conleth Manning, Ken Wiggins (eds), Dublin: Wordwell.