SL-2.1: Difference between revisions

From Thesaurus Inscriptionum Raeticarum
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
 
(36 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{inscription
{{inscription
|reading=siraku:̣þurpi:ar??eisṿ?(?)
|reading=siraku punctuation!:̣ þurti
|reading_original=?{{c|V|V3}}{{c|S}}{{c|I}}{{c|E}}??{{c|R|R2}}{{c|A}}{{c|I}}{{c|punctuation|punctuation4}}{{c|I}}{{c|P|P2}}{{c|R}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|Þ|Þ3}}{{c|punctuation|punctuation2}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|K}}{{c|A}}{{c|R}}{{c|I}}{{c|S|S|d}}
|reading_original={{c|I}}{{c|T|T3}}{{c|R}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|Þ|Þ3}}{{c|punctuation|punctuation2}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|K}}{{c|A||d}}{{c|R}}{{c|I}}{{c|S}}
|reading_variant=siraku:̣þurpi:ịar??eisṿ?(?)
|direction=sinistroverse
|direction=sinistroverse
|letter_height_min=1.1
|letter_height_min=1.1
|letter_height_max=2.0 cm
|letter_height_max=2.0 cm
|letter_number_min=10
|letter_number_min=11
|letter_number_max=12
|sign_number=11
|word_number=0
|sign_number_max=12
|line_number=1
|line_number=1
|script=North Italic script
|script=North Italic script
|language=unknown
|alphabet=Sanzeno alphabet
|language=Raetic
|meaning=unknown
|object=SL-2 helmet
|object=SL-2 helmet
|position=front area, left area, lower area, outside
|position=front, bottom, outside
|orientation=0
|craftsmanship=engraved
|craftsmanship=engraved
|condition=complete
|condition=complete
|type_inscription=unknown
|sortdate=-250
|date=450–50 BC
|date_derivation‎=typology, archaeological context
|sigla_pid=1* bis (a)
|sigla_tm=653570
|source=Schumacher 2004: 330
|source=Schumacher 2004: 330
|checklevel=5
|checklevel=0
|problem=reihenfolge der inschriften, zweiteilung: größe 5 + 8; number of signs!
|disambiguation=SL-2
}}
}}
== Commentary ==
== Commentary ==
First published in '''Mommsen 1853: Taf. I, 12a?'''.<br>
First published in {{bib|Mommsen 1853}}: 208, no. 12. Examined by TIR on 10<sup>th</sup> January 2014.
Further references: '''{{bib|Egg 1986}}: 227 (Nr 324)''', {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: 19 (Ia, Ib), {{bib|Urban & Nedoma 2002}}: '''???'''.<br>
 
Pictures in '''{{bib|Egg 1986}}: Abb. 138 (drawing''') (= {{bib|Schumacher 2004}}: Taf. 16, 2) and {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: Abb. 2–5 (photos).<br>
Images in {{bib|Hormayr 1823}}: Nr. 2 (drawing), {{bib|Giovanelli 1845}}: tav. II (drawing = {{bib|Giovanelli 1876}}: Taf. II, No. 1), {{bib|Mommsen 1853}}: Taf. I, 12B (drawing; see {{bib|Mommsen 1853}}: 208 f.) (= {{bib|CII}}: Tab. VI, b = {{bib|AIF I}}: Taf VI, 99 A = {{bib|Marstrander 1925}}: 38), {{bib|Sulzer 1855}}: Taf. VII, {{bib|Sacken & Kenner 1866}}: Taf. Nr. 3 (drawing), {{bib|Pichler 1880}}: [?] (= {{bib|AIF I}}: Taf. VI, 99 B), {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 4, Fig. 1 (drawing) and Pl. I (photo), {{bib|Reinecke 1950}}: 133, a (drawing = {{bib|Markey 2001}}: 105, Fig. 6) and Taf. 11b (photo), {{bib|Egg 1986}}: 226, Abb. 183 (drawing) (= {{bib|Schumacher 2004}}: Taf. 16, 2) and {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: Abb. 2 and 3 (photos).
Length about 13 cm. Written on the chamfer, running leftwards toward the embossed and upside-down [[index::SL-2.3]]. A white inlay was added sometime before 1927, possibly for photos made for {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}, but must have been cleaned away since. Remains can still be seen in some of the deeper scratches.<br>
 
The row of characters, though not at first glance unlike in appearance, may have to be separated into two inscriptions. (Compare {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: Ia and Ib.) The first part, henceforward called (A) (''siraku:þurpi''), is engraved slightly more deeply, with most strokes being scratched from bottom to top. This seems counterintuitive in the absence of an immediate obstacle like the rim in [[index::SL-2.4]]. It may be argued that characters in this place on a helmet are more easily applied when turning the helmet upside-down, because the chamfer can be accessed more comfortably. Compare the upside-down [[index::SL-2.3]]. This inscription, however, is clearly written as seen when the helmet is worn, so the writer would have had to engrave his letters upside-down. The hastae of {{c||E}} and {{c||I}} in part (B) are scratched top to bottom. Both parts of the inscription are indubitably sinistroverse, with only the first {{c||S|d}} being turned against writing direction, while in the second instance in (B) it is written {{c||S}}. Another difference is the execution of ''{{p||r}}'', written {{c||R}} in (A), but {{c||R2}} in (B).<br>
Length 5 cm; written on the chamfer in the front of the helmet. A white inlay was added sometime before 1927, possibly for photos made for {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}, but must have been cleaned away since. Remains can still be seen in some of the deeper scratches.
Both parts are scratched somewhat clumsily, and writer's mistakes must be suspected at least once in each part. (A), after starting out fairly tidily in spite of some iterated scratches, features what looks like a cramped {{c||P2}} between the second {{c||U2}} and {{c||R}}. While it is possible that the writer forgot the {{c||P2}} and squeezed it in after writing {{c||R}}, the resulting ''tuprpi'' is phonetically improbable. Close inspection shows that the part branching off the hasta has been deleted with tiny scratches crossing it. The writer seems to have either prematurely added the twig of the {{c||P2}} after {{c||R}} to the hasta meant for {{c||R}}, or he erroneously started to write {{c||R}} in the wrong direction – all the more understandable if he was indeed seeing his work upside-down. He also seems to have tried to accentuate the hasta with additional strokes.<br>
 
It is not absolutely sure, though probable, that the two large dots between ''siraku'' and ''turpi'' are itentional, as strictly speaking no indentations can be made out. A third dot on top of the left stroke of {{c||U2}} may belong to it. If it is a punctuation mark, it is distinctly unlike the one separating (A) and (B).<br>
The inscription is immediately followed by [[index::SL-2.2]], separated by a punctuation mark consisting of four small dots, distinctly unlike the (slightly doubtful, see below) separator between {{w||siraku}} and {{w||þurti}}. The two inscriptions, though not at first glance unlike in appearance, were separated by {{bib|Marstrander 1927}} (A 1), who observed that they seem to be written by two different persons: the scratches in SL-2.1 are deeper – "gravée par une main hardie et énergique" (p. 3), the overall execution is neater than that of [[index::SL-2.2]], which is distinguished by a "manque de sûreté et de contours". The lines in SL-2.1 appear to be scratched from bottom to top. This seems counterintuitive in the absence of an immediate obstacle like, for example, the rim in [[index::SL-2.4]]. It may be argued that the characters were more easily applied when turning the helmet upside-down, because the chamfer can be accessed more comfortably – compare the upside-down [[index::SL-2.3]]. This inscription, however, is clearly written as seen when the helmet is worn, so the writer would have had to engrave their letters upside-down. The hastae of {{c||E}} and {{c||I}} in [[index::SL-2.2]], by contrast, are scratched top to bottom. While both inscriptions are indubitably sinistroverse, {{c||S}} in SL-2.1 is turned against writing direction, whereas in [[index::SL-2.2]] it is written {{c||S}}. Another difference is the execution of rho, written {{c||R}} in SL-2.1, but {{c||R2}} in [[index::SL-2.2]]. Marstrander's splitting of the sequence into two inscriptions has been widely accepted ({{bib|Kretschmer 1943}}: 187, {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: 19 f. (Ia), but see also {{bib|Prosdocimi 1986}}: 33).
Part (B) begins with a single repeatedly scratched and somewhat crooked hasta, again looking a bit jammed in between the separator and {{c||A5}}. While the distance between the stroke and the right hasta of {{c||A5}} is rather big and the sequence is usually read ''ia'', it is more likely that the two strokes both constitute the hasta – the other hasta of {{c||A5}} is scratched twice as well. {{c||R2}} engraved round with some effort is followed by a group of strokes curiously resembling the mucked up {{c||P2}}{{c||R}} in (A). The most likely segmentation graphically would be {{c||Þ3}}{{c||L2}}, yielding ''arlt''. The fact that the twig of supposed {{c||L2}} is prolonged at an angle suggests that this was done after the right twig of supposed {{c||Þ3}} was seen to merge with it. The left twig of {{c||Þ3}} may be crooked because the writer's tool was led along the hasta for a few millimetres. {{c||E}} and {{c||I}}, though not very neat, are fairly well legible. The following {{c||V}} is confined by a patch of corrosion, but no additional twig at the top (yielding {{c||E}} can be made out. Finally, the last two strokes (or stroke carved twice), sometimes read ''{{p||u}}'' ('''???''') defy interpretation. It may be observed that the inscription ends right before the last sign of [[index::SL-2.3]], so that the deteriorating quality of the writing and the queer last sign may be due to lack of space.
 
Curiously, writer's mistakes with somewhat similar outcomes must be suspected in both inscriptions. SL-2.1, after starting out fairly tidily in spite of some retraced scratches, features what looks like a cramped {{c||T3}} between the second {{c||U2}} and {{c||R}}. Close inspection shows that the bar {{c||line d 20}} branching off the hasta has been deleted with tiny scratches crossing it (recorded in the early drawings by {{bib|Giovanelli 1845|Giovanelli}} and {{bib|Marstrander 1927|Marstrander}}, but neglected by {{bib|Pichler 1880|Pichler}} and {{bib|Egg 1986|Egg}}). The writer seems to have either prematurely added the bar of the following {{c||T3}} to the hasta meant for {{c||R}} ({{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 4), or they erroneously started to write {{c||R}} in the wrong direction – all the more comprehensible if they were indeed seeing their work upside-down. {{bib|Markey 2001}}: 110 also points out that the two preceding letters are symmetrical; "this may have left an unskilled engraver in doubt as to the direction of the next asymmetrical letter". The writer also seems to have tried to accentuate the hasta with additional scratches. Apart from this lapse, the characters are legible without ambiguity.
 
It is not absolutely sure, though probable, that the two large dots between {{w||siraku}} and {{w||þurti}} are intentional, as strictly speaking no indentations can be made out, and the space between {{c||U2}} and {{c||Þ3}} is not uncommonly broad. A third dot on top of the left stroke of {{c||U2}} may belong to it. Compare {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 4, who believed the marks to be accidental; {{bib|Egg 1986}}: 227 (Nr. 324) did not include them either. An interpretation of the spots as intentional is supported by the fact that the segmentation into {{w||siraku}} and {{w||þurti}} is linguistically plausible for both Raetic and Celtic interpretations (see below).
 
Epigraphically, the inscription can be ascribed to the Raetic corpus. The presence of tau {{c||T3}} and the letter {{c||Þ3}} allow for an ascription to the Sanzeno alphabet, which is supported by {{c||U2}} and {{c||A|d}}, though the latter characters on their own could also be Venetic (cf. retrograde alpha in Prosdocimi's Isonzo alphabet; see [[index::Raetic epigraphy]]) or Lepontic.
 
Linguistically, the Raeticness of the inscription is less certain, though very likely. {{bib|Markey 2001}}: 104–112 attempts a Celtic interpretation ({{w||siraku|siragu}} {{w||þurti|turbī}} 'astral priest of the troop'; details on the word pages), which is not per se absurd (see the most probably Celtic [[index::SL-2.3|third inscription]] on the helmet), but based on questionable interpretations of letters and some spunky reconstruction. Nothing conflicts with a Raetic reading of the text, which is suggested by the use of the specifically Raetic {{c||Þ3}} for the dental affricate, even if the interpretation is uncertain. {{w||siraku}} could be a form in {{m||-ku}}, but these do not stand in first position in any other inscriptions (see [[index::The Raetic language]] on syntax. Alternatively, the vocalic auslauts may indicate a personal name in he nominative. A name formula {{w||siraku}} {{w||þurti}} lacks the usual patronym in {{m||-nu}}, but see [[index::Raetic onomastics]] on other examples on surnames which (may) and in °''i''.  
 
For the dating of the inscriptions on [[index::SL-2 helmet]] see {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: 16–18 and 20–22. Depending on which type of inscription we are faced with, SL-2.1 may have been applied any time after the manufacture of the helmet in the second half of the 5<sup>th</sup> century by one of its owners, or as a votive inscription on the occasion of a putative original sacrifice of the helmet or of its deposition at Obrat around 100 BC. The helmet may well have been inscribed with a dedication, but considering that four unconnected texts are inscribed on it, we must assume that at least three of them are unconnected with the donation. {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: 12 argues that the inscription's position indicates a profane function, citing examples of votive helmet inscriptions, which are usually applied prominently on the bowl; see [[index::Raetic epigraphy]] for a discussion.
 
Further references: {{bib|Hormayr 1823}} I.2: 143, Anm. 23, {{bib|Giovanelli 1845}}: 43 ff., {{bib|Weber 1861}}: 35, {{bib|Sacken & Kenner 1866}}: 292, no. 1089, {{bib|CII}}: no. 59, {{bib|Corssen 1874}}: 949 (note), {{bib|Pichler 1880}}: 43 f., {{bib|AIF I}}: 36, no. 99a, {{bib|Marstrander 1925}}: passim, {{bib|Urban & Nedoma 2002}}: 57.
{{bibliography}}
{{bibliography}}

Latest revision as of 20:25, 8 November 2021

edit with form
Inscription
Transliteration: siraku :̣ þurti
Original script: I sT3 sR sU2 sÞ3 spunctuation2 sU2 sK sA dR sI sS s
Object: SL-2 helmet (bronze)
(Inscriptions: SL-2.1, SL-2.2, SL-2.4)
Position: front, bottom, outside
Orientation: 0°
Script: North Italic script (Sanzeno alphabet)
Direction of writing: sinistroverse
Letter height: 1.11.1 cm <br /> – 2.0 cm
Number of letters: 11
Number of characters: 11 – 12
Number of lines: 1
Craftsmanship: engraved
Current condition: complete
Date of inscription: 450–50 BC
Date derived from: typology, archaeological context
Type: unknown
Language: Raetic
Meaning: unknown
Alternative sigla: PID 1* bis (a)
TM 653570
Sources: Schumacher 2004: 330

Images

SL-2
Inscriptions SL-2.1 and SL-2.2.

Commentary

First published in Mommsen 1853: 208, no. 12. Examined by TIR on 10th January 2014.

Images in Hormayr 1823: Nr. 2 (drawing), Giovanelli 1845: tav. II (drawing = Giovanelli 1876: Taf. II, No. 1), Mommsen 1853: Taf. I, 12B (drawing; see Mommsen 1853: 208 f.) (= CII: Tab. VI, b = AIF I: Taf VI, 99 A = Marstrander 1925: 38), Sulzer 1855: Taf. VII, Sacken & Kenner 1866: Taf. Nr. 3 (drawing), Pichler 1880: [?] (= AIF I: Taf. VI, 99 B), Marstrander 1927: 4, Fig. 1 (drawing) and Pl. I (photo), Reinecke 1950: 133, a (drawing = Markey 2001: 105, Fig. 6) and Taf. 11b (photo), Egg 1986: 226, Abb. 183 (drawing) (= Schumacher 2004: Taf. 16, 2) and Nedoma 1995: Abb. 2 and 3 (photos).

Length 5 cm; written on the chamfer in the front of the helmet. A white inlay was added sometime before 1927, possibly for photos made for Marstrander 1927, but must have been cleaned away since. Remains can still be seen in some of the deeper scratches.

The inscription is immediately followed by SL-2.2, separated by a punctuation mark consisting of four small dots, distinctly unlike the (slightly doubtful, see below) separator between siraku and þurti. The two inscriptions, though not at first glance unlike in appearance, were separated by Marstrander 1927 (A 1), who observed that they seem to be written by two different persons: the scratches in SL-2.1 are deeper – "gravée par une main hardie et énergique" (p. 3), the overall execution is neater than that of SL-2.2, which is distinguished by a "manque de sûreté et de contours". The lines in SL-2.1 appear to be scratched from bottom to top. This seems counterintuitive in the absence of an immediate obstacle like, for example, the rim in SL-2.4. It may be argued that the characters were more easily applied when turning the helmet upside-down, because the chamfer can be accessed more comfortably – compare the upside-down SL-2.3. This inscription, however, is clearly written as seen when the helmet is worn, so the writer would have had to engrave their letters upside-down. The hastae of E s and I s in SL-2.2, by contrast, are scratched top to bottom. While both inscriptions are indubitably sinistroverse, S s in SL-2.1 is turned against writing direction, whereas in SL-2.2 it is written S s. Another difference is the execution of rho, written R s in SL-2.1, but R2 s in SL-2.2. Marstrander's splitting of the sequence into two inscriptions has been widely accepted (Kretschmer 1943: 187, Nedoma 1995: 19 f. (Ia), but see also Prosdocimi 1986: 33).

Curiously, writer's mistakes with somewhat similar outcomes must be suspected in both inscriptions. SL-2.1, after starting out fairly tidily in spite of some retraced scratches, features what looks like a cramped T3 s between the second U2 s and R s. Close inspection shows that the bar line d 20 s branching off the hasta has been deleted with tiny scratches crossing it (recorded in the early drawings by Giovanelli and Marstrander, but neglected by Pichler and Egg). The writer seems to have either prematurely added the bar of the following T3 s to the hasta meant for R s (Marstrander 1927: 4), or they erroneously started to write R s in the wrong direction – all the more comprehensible if they were indeed seeing their work upside-down. Markey 2001: 110 also points out that the two preceding letters are symmetrical; "this may have left an unskilled engraver in doubt as to the direction of the next asymmetrical letter". The writer also seems to have tried to accentuate the hasta with additional scratches. Apart from this lapse, the characters are legible without ambiguity.

It is not absolutely sure, though probable, that the two large dots between siraku and þurti are intentional, as strictly speaking no indentations can be made out, and the space between U2 s and Þ3 s is not uncommonly broad. A third dot on top of the left stroke of U2 s may belong to it. Compare Marstrander 1927: 4, who believed the marks to be accidental; Egg 1986: 227 (Nr. 324) did not include them either. An interpretation of the spots as intentional is supported by the fact that the segmentation into siraku and þurti is linguistically plausible for both Raetic and Celtic interpretations (see below).

Epigraphically, the inscription can be ascribed to the Raetic corpus. The presence of tau T3 s and the letter Þ3 s allow for an ascription to the Sanzeno alphabet, which is supported by U2 s and A d, though the latter characters on their own could also be Venetic (cf. retrograde alpha in Prosdocimi's Isonzo alphabet; see Raetic epigraphy) or Lepontic.

Linguistically, the Raeticness of the inscription is less certain, though very likely. Markey 2001: 104–112 attempts a Celtic interpretation (siragu turbī 'astral priest of the troop'; details on the word pages), which is not per se absurd (see the most probably Celtic third inscription on the helmet), but based on questionable interpretations of letters and some spunky reconstruction. Nothing conflicts with a Raetic reading of the text, which is suggested by the use of the specifically Raetic Þ3 s for the dental affricate, even if the interpretation is uncertain. siraku could be a form in -ku, but these do not stand in first position in any other inscriptions (see The Raetic language on syntax. Alternatively, the vocalic auslauts may indicate a personal name in he nominative. A name formula siraku þurti lacks the usual patronym in -nu, but see Raetic onomastics on other examples on surnames which (may) and in °i.

For the dating of the inscriptions on SL-2 helmet see Nedoma 1995: 16–18 and 20–22. Depending on which type of inscription we are faced with, SL-2.1 may have been applied any time after the manufacture of the helmet in the second half of the 5th century by one of its owners, or as a votive inscription on the occasion of a putative original sacrifice of the helmet or of its deposition at Obrat around 100 BC. The helmet may well have been inscribed with a dedication, but considering that four unconnected texts are inscribed on it, we must assume that at least three of them are unconnected with the donation. Nedoma 1995: 12 argues that the inscription's position indicates a profane function, citing examples of votive helmet inscriptions, which are usually applied prominently on the bowl; see Raetic epigraphy for a discussion.

Further references: Hormayr 1823 I.2: 143, Anm. 23, Giovanelli 1845: 43 ff., Weber 1861: 35, Sacken & Kenner 1866: 292, no. 1089, CII: no. 59, Corssen 1874: 949 (note), Pichler 1880: 43 f., AIF I: 36, no. 99a, Marstrander 1925: passim, Urban & Nedoma 2002: 57.

Bibliography

AIF I Carl Pauli, Altitalische Forschungen. Band 1: Die Inschriften nordetruskischen Alphabets, Leipzig: 1885.
CII Ariodante Fabretti, Corpus inscriptionum italicarum, Torino: 1867. (2 volumes)
Corssen 1874 Wilhelm Paul Corssen, Ueber die Sprache der Etrusker. Band 1, Leipzig: 1874.
Egg 1986 Markus Egg, Italische Helme. Studien zu den ältereisenzeitlichen Helmen Italiens und der Alpen. Teil 1: Text, Teil 2: Tafeln, Mainz: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum 1986.
Giovanelli 1845 Benedetto Giovanelli, Le antichità rezio-etrusche scoperte presso Matrai nel Maggio 1845, Trento: Monauni 1845.
Giovanelli 1876 Benedetto Giovanelli, "Die Rhätisch-Etruskischen Alterthümer entdeckt bei Matrei im Mai 1845", Zeitschrift des Ferdinandeums für Tirol und Vorarlberg 3/20 (1876), 45–99.
Hormayr 1823 Joseph Freiherr von Hormayr, Wien, seine Geschicke und seine Denkwürdigkeiten, Wien: Franz Härter 1823.
Kretschmer 1943 Paul Kretschmer, "Die vorgriechischen Sprach- und Volksschichten (Fortsetzung)", Glotta 30 (1943), 84–218.
Markey 2001 Tom Markey, "A tale of two helmets: The Negau A and B inscriptions", The Journal of Indo-European Studies 29 (2001), 69–172.
Marstrander 1925 Carl Johan Sverdrup Marstrander, "Les inscriptions des casques de Negau, Styrie", Symbolae Osloensis 3 (1925), 37–64.
Marstrander 1927 Carl Johan Sverdrup Marstrander, "Remarques sur les inscriptions des casques en bronze de Negau et de Watsch", Avhandlinger utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. Hist.-filos. klasse 1926/2 (1927), 1–26.
Retrieved from "https://tir.univie.ac.at/index.php?title=SL-2.1&oldid=17932"