WE-2: Difference between revisions
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Pictures in {{bib|Schumacher 2004}}: Taf. 5,2 (drawing) and 6,1 (photo), {{bib|LIR}} (drawing). | Pictures in {{bib|Schumacher 2004}}: Taf. 5,2 (drawing) and 6,1 (photo), {{bib|LIR}} (drawing). | ||
Length of the visible remains, including the upper tips of characters on the right, 2.6 cm. The scratches are well visible. {{c||E|d}} is clear; on the breaking edge to its left, the very tip of a bar may be visible (see drawing), but it might be merely an unintentional dent. It is therefore unclear whether there were characters before {{c||E|d}}. {{c||E|d}} is followed by a tip-up chevron, the lower part og which is broken off ({{c||U|d}} or {{c||A|d}}). Then, in the upper area above the breaking edge, the tip of a scratch inclined to the left, a small angle opening to the right, and the very tip of another scratch. {{bib|Schumacher 2004|Schumacher}}'s tentative reading {{w||eais}} is unlikely, for the very reasons mentioned by himself: The scratch after the chevron is inclined, and would have had to merge with the hypothetical {{c||S}}, for which the angle is too small. The visible tips are too crowded to suggest actual letters; despite {{c||E|d}}, we are probably concerned with non-script. (See [[index::Non-script notational systems|here]] for a discussion of possible interpretations of inscriptions with doubtful status.) Note in this context that the inscription was applied before firing. | Length of the visible remains, including the upper tips of characters on the right, 2.6 cm. The scratches are well visible. {{c||E|d}} is clear; on the breaking edge to its left, the very tip of a bar may be visible (see drawing), but it might be merely an unintentional dent. It is therefore unclear whether there were characters before {{c||E|d}}. {{c||E|d}} is followed by a tip-up chevron, the lower part og which is broken off ({{c||U|d}} or {{c||A|d}}). Then, in the upper area above the breaking edge, the tip of a scratch inclined to the left, a small angle opening to the right, and the very tip of another scratch. {{bib|Schumacher 2004|Schumacher}}'s tentative reading {{w||eais}} is unlikely, for the very reasons mentioned by himself: The scratch after the chevron is inclined, and would have had to merge with the hypothetical {{c||S|d}}, for which the angle is too small. The visible tips are too crowded to suggest actual letters; despite {{c||E|d}}, we are probably concerned with non-script. (See [[index::Non-script notational systems|here]] for a discussion of possible interpretations of inscriptions with doubtful status.) Note in this context that the inscription was applied before firing. | ||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} |
Revision as of 17:23, 2 May 2016
Inscription | |
---|---|
Transliteration: | ]e[??? |
Original script: | ][??? |
| |
Object: | WE-2 potsherd (pottery) |
Position: | outside |
Script: | unknown |
Direction of writing: | dextroverse |
Letter height: | 1.8 cm |
Number of letters: | 2 |
Number of lines: | 1 |
Craftsmanship: | incised before firing |
Current condition: | damaged, fragmentary |
Date of inscription: | |
Date derived from: | |
| |
Language: | unknown |
Meaning: | unknown |
| |
Alternative sigla: | LIR BZ-31 |
Sources: | Schumacher 2004: 189, 214 |
Images
Object WE-2 potsherd with inscription WE-2.
|
Commentary
First published in Schumacher 1992: 189.
Pictures in Schumacher 2004: Taf. 5,2 (drawing) and 6,1 (photo), LIR (drawing).
Length of the visible remains, including the upper tips of characters on the right, 2.6 cm. The scratches are well visible. is clear; on the breaking edge to its left, the very tip of a bar may be visible (see drawing), but it might be merely an unintentional dent. It is therefore unclear whether there were characters before . is followed by a tip-up chevron, the lower part og which is broken off ( or ). Then, in the upper area above the breaking edge, the tip of a scratch inclined to the left, a small angle opening to the right, and the very tip of another scratch. Schumacher's tentative reading eais is unlikely, for the very reasons mentioned by himself: The scratch after the chevron is inclined, and would have had to merge with the hypothetical , for which the angle is too small. The visible tips are too crowded to suggest actual letters; despite , we are probably concerned with non-script. (See here for a discussion of possible interpretations of inscriptions with doubtful status.) Note in this context that the inscription was applied before firing.
Bibliography
LIR | Alberto Mancini, Le Iscrizioni Retiche [= Quaderni del dipartimento di linguistica, Università degli studi di Firenze Studi 8–9], Padova: Unipress 2009–10. (2 volumes) |
---|