SZ-87: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{inscription | {{inscription | ||
|reading=!] esminu!esminu | |reading=!] esminu!esminu pitis!pitis θauχ-!θauχ -ka!ka unknown!ạna | ||
|reading_original={{c|A|A5}}{{c|N}}{{c|A|A5}}{{c|A|A5}}{{c|K}}{{c|Χ}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|A|A5}}{{c|Θ}}{{c|S}}{{c|I}}{{c| | |reading_original={{c|A|A5}}{{c|N}}{{c|A|A5}}{{c|A|A5}}{{c|K}}{{c|Χ}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|A|A5}}{{c|Θ}}{{c|S||d}}{{c|I}}{{c|T|T3}}{{c|I}}{{c|P|P2}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|N}}{{c|I}}{{c|M}}{{c|S||d}}{{c|E}} | ||
|direction=sinistroverse | |direction=sinistroverse | ||
|letter_height_min=1.5 | |letter_height_min=1.5 | ||
| Line 17: | Line 16: | ||
|craftsmanship=embossed | |craftsmanship=embossed | ||
|condition=fragmentary | |condition=fragmentary | ||
|checklevel= | |sigla_mlr=140 | ||
|problem=meaning eintragen? | |sigla_tm=653589 | ||
|checklevel=3 | |||
|problem=meaning eintragen? Zeichen auf der Rückseite extra? Grafik E | |||
}} | }} | ||
== Commentary == | == Commentary == | ||
| Line 27: | Line 28: | ||
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 {{ | The sequence {{w||esminu}} 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||pitis}} in the genitive case is a well attested individual name – possibly belonging with the patronym, with only one of the two name elements inflected? Alternatively, an individual name in the nominative to complement the patronym may be lost with the rest of the rod. Genitive case appears to generally mark the recipient in Raetic, often designated with an isolated individual name, though in such a construction the name of the donor should appear in the pertinentive, not the nominative. The sequence {{w||θauχ-}}, obscure despite multiple documentation, can be identified, but its ending cannot be determined. If {{w||-ka}} is identified as the 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. | ||
On the reverse side of the rod's "head", two characters {{c||E5}}{{c||I}} are inscribed – possibly a factory mark? | |||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Latest revision as of 20:55, 8 November 2021
| Inscription | |
|---|---|
| Transliteration: | ]esminupitisθauχkaạna |
| Original script: |            
|
|
| |
| 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: | MLR 140 TM 653589 |
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. pitis in the genitive case is a well attested individual name – possibly belonging with the patronym, with only one of the two name elements inflected? Alternatively, an individual name in the nominative to complement the patronym may be lost with the rest of the rod. Genitive case appears to generally mark the recipient in Raetic, often designated with an isolated individual name, though in such a construction the name of the donor should appear in the pertinentive, not the nominative. The sequence θauχ-, obscure despite multiple documentation, can be identified, but its ending cannot be determined. If -ka is identified as the 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.
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. |
|---|
