VR-1: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{inscription | {{inscription | ||
|reading= | |reading=tinesuna | ||
|reading_original={{c|A|A3}}{{c|N}}{{c|U|U3}}{{c|S}}{{c|E}}{{c|N}}{{c|I}}{{c| | |reading_original={{c|A|A3|d}}{{c|N}}{{c|U|U3}}{{c|S||d}}{{c|E}}{{c|N}}{{c|I}}{{c|T|T4}} | ||
|direction=sinistroverse | |direction=sinistroverse | ||
|letter_height_min=1 | |letter_height_min=1 | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
|sigla_mancini=VR-1 | |sigla_mancini=VR-1 | ||
|sigla_mlr=44 | |sigla_mlr=44 | ||
|sigla_tm=218513 | |||
|source=Schumacher 2004: 171, 340 | |source=Schumacher 2004: 171, 340 | ||
|checklevel=2 | |checklevel=2 | ||
|problem= | |problem=Literatur, Interpretation/Wortseite | ||
}} | }} | ||
== Commentary == | == Commentary == | ||
First published in {{bib|Cipolla 1884}}: 9. Autopsied by TIR on 19<sup>th</sup> November 2015. | First published in {{bib|Cipolla 1884}}: 9. Autopsied by TIR on 19<sup>th</sup> November 2015. | ||
Images in {{bib|Cipolla 1884}}: 9 (drawing), {{bib|Pauli 1888}}: 148 (idealised rendering), {{bib|Pellegrini 1918}}: 191 (drawing), {{bib| | Images in {{bib|Cipolla 1884}}: 9 (drawing), {{bib|Pauli 1888}}: 148 (idealised rendering), {{bib|Pellegrini 1918}}: 191, Fig. A (drawing), {{bib|IR}} (drawing = {{bib|Mancini & Prosdocimi 1976}}: 119), {{bib|Mayr 1958}} (photo). | ||
Inscribed on the outside of the longer protrusion; length 6 cm. The surface of the object is uneven, but hardly damaged by time; the lines are deeply engraved and perfectly well distinguishable. The writer started tracing the letters above the ridge along the side of the protrusion, which is more abrupt where the antler tapers, but with Epsilon proceeded to write over the ridge, resulting in larger letters. The lower tips of the hastae of final Alpha are disturbed by a break and slightly dislocated after the restoration of the object. The execution of the inscription is not particularly tidy, in two instances resulting in problems with the reading. | Inscribed on the outside of the longer protrusion; length 6 cm. The surface of the object is uneven, but hardly damaged by time; the lines are deeply engraved and perfectly well distinguishable. The writer started tracing the letters above the ridge along the side of the protrusion, which is more abrupt where the antler tapers, but with Epsilon proceeded to write over the ridge, resulting in larger letters. The lower tips of the hastae of final Alpha are disturbed by a break and slightly dislocated after the restoration of the object. The execution of the inscription is not particularly tidy, in two instances resulting in problems with the reading. | ||
The major point of debate is the first letter: A hasta, with arguably both a vertical bar slightly above the middle, and a dot on top. In the earlier drawings, the dot was not acknowledged, hence the reading Tau {{c||addT4}}. As {{bib|Pauli 1888}}: 148, {{bib|Mayr 1958}}: 41 and {{bib|MLR|Marchesini}} point out, the bar in question is extremely faint (Pellegrini ignores it completely) – much fainter not only than the letters, but also than a couple of scratches visible around the inscription (above Nu, above/between Epsilon and Sigma, under the bar of Alpha – all these are best considered slips of the tool, together with the two notches on the bottom right of the first letter). {{bib|IR|Mancini}} was the first to add the dot, which does indeed seem to be intentional (disturbing the natural ridges and cavities on the surface). {{bib|Schumacher 2004}}: 310 f. used the apparent combination of Tau and the Raetic character {{c|| | The major point of debate is the first letter: A hasta, with arguably both a vertical bar slightly above the middle, and a dot on top. In the earlier drawings, the dot was not acknowledged, hence the reading Tau {{c||addT4}}. As {{bib|Pauli 1888}}: 148, {{bib|Mayr 1958}}: 41 and {{bib|MLR|Marchesini}} point out, the bar in question is extremely faint (Pellegrini ignores it completely) – much fainter not only than the letters, but also than a couple of scratches visible around the inscription (above Nu, above/between Epsilon and Sigma, under the bar of Alpha – all these are best considered slips of the tool, together with the two notches on the bottom right of the first letter). {{bib|IR|Mancini}} was the first to add the dot, which does indeed seem to be intentional (disturbing the natural ridges and cavities on the surface). {{bib|Schumacher 2004}}: 310 f. used the apparent combination of Tau and the Raetic character {{c||T4}} as one of his arguments for the identification of the latter with the Raetic special character. See [[index::T]] for a discussion. | ||
The group of scratches between Sigma and somewhat messy Alpha was read Mu {{c||addM1}} in the earlier literature. The reading {{c||N}}{{c||U3}} also goes back to Mancini, and is likely to be correct. The oblique hasta of Upsilon is shortened and comes very close to the following vertical, the lower part of which is scratched twice. It cannot be positively excluded that this vertical is an unintentionally prolonged bar, and the additional little scratch in the bottom is meant to indicate that the two lines belong together. Venetic four-barred Mu, however, does not occur in Raetic inscriptions, and would be surprising even in an inscription from the South. | The group of scratches between Sigma and somewhat messy Alpha was read Mu {{c||addM1}} in the earlier literature. The reading {{c||N}}{{c||U3}} also goes back to Mancini, and is likely to be correct. The oblique hasta of Upsilon is shortened and comes very close to the following vertical, the lower part of which is scratched twice. It cannot be positively excluded that this vertical is an unintentionally prolonged bar, and the additional little scratch in the bottom is meant to indicate that the two lines belong together. Venetic four-barred Mu, however, does not occur in Raetic inscriptions, and would be surprising even in an inscription from the South. | ||
Further references: '''{{bib|Cordenons 1911}}: 220 (no. 100)''', {{bib|Pellegrini 1918}}: 190 f., {{bib|NRIE}} 57a, {{bib|Mancini & Prosdocimi 1976}}: 119 ff., '''{{bib|PID}}: 549 (Commentary)''', {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1978}}: 239. | Further references: '''{{bib|Cordenons 1911}}: 220 (no. 100)''', {{bib|Pellegrini 1918}}: 190 f. (note 1), {{bib|NRIE}} 57a, {{bib|Mayr 1958}}: 41, {{bib|Mancini & Prosdocimi 1976}}: 119 ff., '''{{bib|PID}}: 549 (Commentary)''', {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1978}}: 239. | ||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Latest revision as of 21:11, 8 November 2021
| Inscription | |
|---|---|
| Transliteration: | tinesuna |
| Original script: |       
|
|
| |
| Object: | VR-1 antler (antler) |
| Position: | side"side" is not in the list (front, back, top, bottom, inside, outside, neck, shoulder, foot, handle, ...) of allowed values for the "position" property. |
| Script: | North Italic script (Magrè alphabet) |
| Direction of writing: | sinistroverse |
| Letter height: | 11 cm <br /> – 2.4 cm |
| Number of letters: | 8 |
| Number of lines: | 1 |
| Craftsmanship: | engraved |
| Current condition: | complete |
| Archaeological culture: | Late Iron Age [from object] |
| Date of inscription: | 5th–4th centuries BC [from object] |
| Date derived from: | archaeological context, cultural context [from object] |
|
| |
| Language: | unknown |
| Meaning: | unknown |
|
| |
| Alternative sigla: | IR 12 LIR VR-1 MLR 44 TM 218513 |
| Sources: | Schumacher 2004: 171, 340 |
Commentary
First published in Cipolla 1884: 9. Autopsied by TIR on 19th November 2015.
Images in Cipolla 1884: 9 (drawing), Pauli 1888: 148 (idealised rendering), Pellegrini 1918: 191, Fig. A (drawing), IR (drawing = Mancini & Prosdocimi 1976: 119), Mayr 1958 (photo).
Inscribed on the outside of the longer protrusion; length 6 cm. The surface of the object is uneven, but hardly damaged by time; the lines are deeply engraved and perfectly well distinguishable. The writer started tracing the letters above the ridge along the side of the protrusion, which is more abrupt where the antler tapers, but with Epsilon proceeded to write over the ridge, resulting in larger letters. The lower tips of the hastae of final Alpha are disturbed by a break and slightly dislocated after the restoration of the object. The execution of the inscription is not particularly tidy, in two instances resulting in problems with the reading.
The major point of debate is the first letter: A hasta, with arguably both a vertical bar slightly above the middle, and a dot on top. In the earlier drawings, the dot was not acknowledged, hence the reading Tau 
. As Pauli 1888: 148, Mayr 1958: 41 and Marchesini point out, the bar in question is extremely faint (Pellegrini ignores it completely) – much fainter not only than the letters, but also than a couple of scratches visible around the inscription (above Nu, above/between Epsilon and Sigma, under the bar of Alpha – all these are best considered slips of the tool, together with the two notches on the bottom right of the first letter). Mancini was the first to add the dot, which does indeed seem to be intentional (disturbing the natural ridges and cavities on the surface). Schumacher 2004: 310 f. used the apparent combination of Tau and the Raetic character as one of his arguments for the identification of the latter with the Raetic special character. See T for a discussion.
The group of scratches between Sigma and somewhat messy Alpha was read Mu 
in the earlier literature. The reading also goes back to Mancini, and is likely to be correct. The oblique hasta of Upsilon is shortened and comes very close to the following vertical, the lower part of which is scratched twice. It cannot be positively excluded that this vertical is an unintentionally prolonged bar, and the additional little scratch in the bottom is meant to indicate that the two lines belong together. Venetic four-barred Mu, however, does not occur in Raetic inscriptions, and would be surprising even in an inscription from the South.
Further references: Cordenons 1911: 220 (no. 100), Pellegrini 1918: 190 f. (note 1), NRIE 57a, Mayr 1958: 41, Mancini & Prosdocimi 1976: 119 ff., PID: 549 (Commentary), Tibiletti Bruno 1978: 239.
Bibliography
| Cipolla 1884 | Carlo Cipolla, "III. Lavagno", Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità (1884), 4–13. |
|---|---|
| Cordenons 1911 | Federico Cordenons, Silloge delle Iscrizioni Venetiche. Con note sugli antichi alfabeti e sistemi di scrittura usata dagli Italici e dagli Etruschi, Feltre: 1911. |
| IR | Alberto Mancini, "Iscrizioni retiche", Studi Etruschi 43 (1975), 249–306. |
| 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) |
| Mancini & Prosdocimi 1976 | Alberto Mancini, Aldo Luigi Prosdocimi, "Nota sui Corni Iscritti di S. Briccio di Lavagno e sul "Retico"", in: Alessandra Aspes (Red.), 3000 anni fa a Verona. Dalla fine dell'età del Bronzo all'arrivo dei romani nel territorio Veronese, Verona: 1976, 111–122. |
| Mayr 1958 | Karl M. Mayr, "Hirschhörner mit etrusko-rätischen Inschriften aus S. Briccio di Lavagno (Verona)", Der Schlern 32 (1958), 41–42. |
