SZ-87: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
|craftsmanship=embossed | |craftsmanship=embossed | ||
|condition=fragmentary | |condition=fragmentary | ||
|checklevel= | |checklevel=4 | ||
|problem=meaning eintragen? p vs. L + wortseite pipis/lipis | |problem=meaning eintragen? p vs. L + wortseite pipis/lipis, Zeichen auf der Rückseite extra? Grafik E | ||
}} | }} | ||
== Commentary == | == Commentary == | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
Inscribed on the convex front side of the object, length 10.6 cm. The rod is broken along the hasta of initial {{c||E}} – while the first word is complete, more words missing before it cannot be excluded. The letters are tidily executed and well legible despite the corrosion of the surface, though the quality of craftsmanship deteriorates toward the end: The writer commenced his work with letters too broad, and had to squeeze the last ones in before the two vertical lines separating the body from the end of the rod. The letters in the beginning cover the entire breadth of the rod, the last ones do not go around the bend to the very edge. The bars of {{c||A5}} in all cases do not touch the hasta. Of second-to-last {{c||A5}}, the right hasta is separated in two parts slightly offset from each other; this is most probably a technical failing which does not affect the reading. The effort made at accommodating the final characters excludes the possibility of them being line fillers despite the problems with interpretation. | Inscribed on the convex front side of the object, length 10.6 cm. The rod is broken along the hasta of initial {{c||E}} – while the first word is complete, more words missing before it cannot be excluded. The letters are tidily executed and well legible despite the corrosion of the surface, though the quality of craftsmanship deteriorates toward the end: The writer commenced his work with letters too broad, and had to squeeze the last ones in before the two vertical lines separating the body from the end of the rod. The letters in the beginning cover the entire breadth of the rod, the last ones do not go around the bend to the very edge. The bars of {{c||A5}} in all cases do not touch the hasta. Of second-to-last {{c||A5}}, the right hasta is separated in two parts slightly offset from each other; this is most probably a technical failing which does not affect the reading. The effort made at accommodating the final characters excludes the possibility of them being line fillers despite the problems with interpretation. | ||
The sequence {{p||e}}{{p||s}}{{p||m}}{{p||i}}{{p||n}}{{p||u}} can be connected with the name {{w||esimne}} documented at [[index::ST-3|Steinberg]]. It appears with the patronymic suffix {{m||-nu}} and metathesis to avoid the nasal cluster. {{w||lipis}} (or possibly {{w||pipis}}, if the writer made a mistake in the first instance of {{p||p}}) is an element in the genitive case – maybe the name of the deity? Cp. {{w||pipe}} on [[index::BZ-11]]. {{p||l}}{{p||i}}{{p||p}}{{p||i}} in [[index::BZ-4]] is not relevant, as at least {{p||l}} belongs with preceding {{w||aχvil}}, but we may compare {{w||tiutis}}, which may well occupy the same syntactical position (cp. {{bib|Rix 1998|Rix}}' segmentation). The sequence {{w||θauχ-}}, obscure despite multiple documentation, can be identified, but its ending cannot be determined. If {{w||-ka}} is identified as the Etruscan enclitical conjunction, {{w||ana}} remains isolated and obscure. An interpretation as a name plus patronymic suffix {{m||-na}} (cp. {{w||θauχrilina}} on [[index::SZ-9]]) is unlikely, seeing as geminate vowels do not occur in the alphabet scripts of Transpadania – a separation of {{w||ana}} seems necessary in any case. A tentative translation is 'son/daughter of Esimne of (for?) L/Pipi, and Θauχ ?'. An individual name to complement the patronymic may be lost with the rest of the rod. | The sequence {{p||e}}{{p||s}}{{p||m}}{{p||i}}{{p||n}}{{p||u}} can be connected with the name {{w||esimne}} documented at [[index::ST-3|Steinberg]]. It appears with the patronymic suffix {{m||-nu}} and metathesis to avoid the nasal cluster. {{w||lipis}} (or possibly {{w||pipis}}, if the writer made a mistake in the first instance of {{p||p}}) is an element in the genitive case – maybe the name of the deity? Cp. {{w||pipe}} on [[index::BZ-11]]. {{p||l}}{{p||i}}{{p||p}}{{p||i}} in [[index::BZ-4]] is not relevant, as at least {{p||l}} belongs with preceding {{w||aχvil}}, but we may compare {{w||tiutis}}, which may well occupy the same syntactical position (cp. {{bib|Rix 1998|Rix}}' segmentation). The sequence {{w||θauχ-}}, obscure despite multiple documentation, can be identified, but its ending cannot be determined. If {{w||-ka}} is identified as the Etruscan enclitical conjunction, {{w||ana}} remains isolated and obscure. An interpretation as a name plus patronymic suffix {{m||-na}} (cp. {{w||θauχrilina}} on [[index::SZ-9]]) is unlikely, seeing as geminate vowels do not occur in the alphabet scripts of Transpadania – a separation of {{w||ana}} seems necessary in any case. A tentative translation is 'son/daughter of Esimne of (for?) L/Pipi, and Θauχ ?'. An individual name to complement the patronymic may be lost with the rest of the rod. | ||
On the reverse side of the rod's "head", two characters {{c||E5}}{{c||I}} are inscribed – possibly a factory mark? | |||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Revision as of 19:41, 2 January 2015
| Inscription | |
|---|---|
| Transliteration: | ]esminulipisθauχkaạna |
| Original script: |            
|
| Variant Reading: | ]esminupipisθauχkaạna |
|
| |
| Object: | SZ-87 rod (bronze) |
| Position: | front |
| Script: | North Italic script (Sanzeno alphabet) |
| Direction of writing: | sinistroverse |
| Letter height: | 1.51.5 cm <br /> – 2.22.2 cm <br /> |
| Number of letters: | 20 |
| Number of lines: | 1 |
| Craftsmanship: | embossed |
| Current condition: | fragmentary |
| Archaeological culture: | Late Iron Age [from object] |
| Date of inscription: | 5th–1st centuries BC [from object] |
| Date derived from: | archaeological context [from object] |
|
| |
| Language: | Raetic |
| Meaning: | unknown |
|
| |
| Alternative sigla: | none |
Images
Commentary
First published in Marchesini 2014: 138 ff. Autopsied by TIR in October 2014.
Image in Marchesini 2014: Fig. 5 (photo).
Inscribed on the convex front side of the object, length 10.6 cm. The rod is broken along the hasta of initial – while the first word is complete, more words missing before it cannot be excluded. The letters are tidily executed and well legible despite the corrosion of the surface, though the quality of craftsmanship deteriorates toward the end: The writer commenced his work with letters too broad, and had to squeeze the last ones in before the two vertical lines separating the body from the end of the rod. The letters in the beginning cover the entire breadth of the rod, the last ones do not go around the bend to the very edge. The bars of in all cases do not touch the hasta. Of second-to-last , the right hasta is separated in two parts slightly offset from each other; this is most probably a technical failing which does not affect the reading. The effort made at accommodating the final characters excludes the possibility of them being line fillers despite the problems with interpretation.
The sequence esminu can be connected with the name esimne documented at Steinberg. It appears with the patronymic suffix -nu and metathesis to avoid the nasal cluster. lipis (or possibly pipis, if the writer made a mistake in the first instance of p) is an element in the genitive case – maybe the name of the deity? Cp. pipe on BZ-11. lipi in BZ-4 is not relevant, as at least l belongs with preceding aχvil, but we may compare tiutis, which may well occupy the same syntactical position (cp. Rix' segmentation). The sequence θauχ-, obscure despite multiple documentation, can be identified, but its ending cannot be determined. If -ka is identified as the Etruscan enclitical conjunction, ana remains isolated and obscure. An interpretation as a name plus patronymic suffix -na (cp. θauχrilina on SZ-9) is unlikely, seeing as geminate vowels do not occur in the alphabet scripts of Transpadania – a separation of ana seems necessary in any case. A tentative translation is 'son/daughter of Esimne of (for?) L/Pipi, and Θauχ ?'. An individual name to complement the patronymic may be lost with the rest of the rod.
On the reverse side of the rod's "head", two characters 
are inscribed – possibly a factory mark?
Bibliography
| Marchesini 2014 | Simona Marchesini, "Nuove iscrizioni retiche da Cles e Sanzeno (Trento)", in: Rosa Roncador, Franco Nicolis, Antichi popoli delle Alpi. Sviluppi culturali durante l'età del Ferro nei territori alpini centro-orientali (Atti della giornata internazionale di studi 1 maggio 2010 Sanzeno, Trento), Trento: Provincia autonoma di Trento. Soprintendenza per i beni architettonici e archeologici 2014, 127–144. |
|---|
