SL-2.4: Difference between revisions

From Thesaurus Inscriptionum Raeticarum
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 23: Line 23:
First published in {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 8 f.
First published in {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 8 f.


Further references: {{bib|Egger 1959}}: 88 f., {{bib|Kretschmer 1943}}: 187, {{bib|Egg 1986}}: 227 (Nr 324), {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: 18–20 (II), {{bib|Urban & Nedoma 2002}}: 57 f.
Further references: {{bib|Egger 1959}}: 88 f., {{bib|Kretschmer 1943}}: 187, {{bib|Mentz 1954–55}}: 257, {{bib|Egg 1986}}: 227 (Nr 324), {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: 18–20 (II), {{bib|Urban & Nedoma 2002}}: 57 f.


Pictures in {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: Fig. 5 (drawing), {{bib|Egger 1959}}: 88, Abb. 3 (drawing), {{bib|Klingenberg 1973}}: 140, Fig. 18 (drawing), {{bib|Egg 1986}}: Abb. 183 (drawing) and {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: 18, Fig. 3 (drawing) (= {{bib|Schumacher 2004}}: Taf. 16, 4) and Abb. 8 (photo).
Pictures in {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: Fig. 5 (drawing), {{bib|Egger 1959}}: 88, Abb. 3 (drawing), {{bib|Klingenberg 1973}}: 140, Fig. 18 (drawing), {{bib|Egg 1986}}: Abb. 183 (drawing) and {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: 18, Fig. 3 (drawing) (= {{bib|Schumacher 2004}}: Taf. 16, 4) and Abb. 8 (photo).
Line 33: Line 33:
The writing direction is ambiguous: Either {{c||K2|d}} (in a sinistroverse reading) or {{c||R}} (in a dextroverse reading) is turned the wrong way. The second letter from the right consists of two oblique hastae (the left one slightly straighter) with two twigs slanting down from the right hasta. It can be read as {{c||E}}, tipped forward with its twigs almost reaching the bottom of the line, or as {{c||A|d}} erroneously supplied with a superfluous stroke. In the first case, the letter supports a sinistroverse reading, while the {{c||A|d}}, though not as significant statistically, is dextroverse. The leftmost sign, if read sinistroverse, is a canonical Sanzeno ''{{p||p}}'', but occurences of the letter with the twig pointing in writing direction are numerous – remember that {{c||A|d}}, if present, is not the typical Sanzeno-type.
The writing direction is ambiguous: Either {{c||K2|d}} (in a sinistroverse reading) or {{c||R}} (in a dextroverse reading) is turned the wrong way. The second letter from the right consists of two oblique hastae (the left one slightly straighter) with two twigs slanting down from the right hasta. It can be read as {{c||E}}, tipped forward with its twigs almost reaching the bottom of the line, or as {{c||A|d}} erroneously supplied with a superfluous stroke. In the first case, the letter supports a sinistroverse reading, while the {{c||A|d}}, though not as significant statistically, is dextroverse. The leftmost sign, if read sinistroverse, is a canonical Sanzeno ''{{p||p}}'', but occurences of the letter with the twig pointing in writing direction are numerous – remember that {{c||A|d}}, if present, is not the typical Sanzeno-type.


{{bib|Egger 1959}}: 88 f. explained dextroverse {{c||K2|d}}, set apart from the rest of the inscription by a slightly broader gap, as the North Italic version of the abbreviation ''C'' for ''centuria''. The remaining sequence ''erul'' he interpreted as the name of a Germanic centurion ''Erul''(''us''): ''centuria Eruli''. His reading was readily accepted by runologists, forming the basis for Höfler's ''Erulertheorie'' concerning the origin of the runic script (see {{bib|Höfler 1970}}: 114 f. and {{bib|Höfler 1971|1971}}: 154 f., {{bib|Klingenberg 1973}}: 140, {{bib|Schrodt 1975}}: 176). While the reading is possible, Egger's interpretation, based on {{bib|Reinecke 1942|Reinecke's}} late dating of the helmet, is made chronologically improbable by {{bib|Egg 1986|Egg's}} new dating. See also {{bib|Schmeja 1968}}: 140 f. and {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: 19 f.
{{bib|Egger 1959}}: 88 f. explained dextroverse {{c||K2|d}}, set apart from the rest of the inscription by a slightly broader gap, as the North Italic version of the abbreviation ''C'' for ''centuria''. The remaining sequence, read ''erul'', he interpreted as the name of a Germanic centurion ''Erul''(''us''): ''centuria Eruli''. His reading was readily accepted by runologists, forming the basis for Höfler's ''Erulertheorie'' concerning the origin of the runic script (see {{bib|Höfler 1970}}: 114 f. and {{bib|Höfler 1971|1971}}: 154 f., {{bib|Klingenberg 1973}}: 140, {{bib|Schrodt 1975}}: 176). Aside from the improbable reading, Egger's interpretation, based on {{bib|Reinecke 1942|Reinecke's}} late dating of the helmet, is made chronologically impossible by {{bib|Egg 1986|Egg's}} new dating. See also {{bib|Schmeja 1968}}: 140 f. and {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: 19 f.
 
{{bib|Mentz 1954–55|Mentz'}} reading ''karuz'' (p. 257) is groundless and negligible.
{{bibliography}}
{{bibliography}}

Revision as of 20:07, 27 January 2014

Inscription
Transliteration: kerup
Original script: P2 sU2 sR sE sK2 d
Variant Reading: P2 sU2 sR sA dK2 d
karup
lurak
purak

Object: SL-2 helmet (bronze)
(Inscriptions: SL-2.1, SL-2.2, SL-2.4)
Position: front, lower area"lower area" is not in the list (front, back, top, bottom, inside, outside, neck, shoulder, foot, handle, ...) of allowed values for the "position" property., outside
Orientation:
Script: North Italic script
Direction of writing: ambiguous
Letter height: 1.81.8 cm <br /> – 2.0 cm
Number of letters: 5
Number of lines: 1
Craftsmanship: engraved
Current condition: complete
Archaeological culture: La Tène A [from object]
Date of inscription: second half of 5th–beginning of 4th century BC [from object]
Date derived from: typology [from object]

Language: unknown
Meaning:

Alternative sigla: none
Sources: Schumacher 2004: 330 f.

Images

Commentary

First published in Marstrander 1927: 8 f.

Further references: Egger 1959: 88 f., Kretschmer 1943: 187, Mentz 1954–55: 257, Egg 1986: 227 (Nr 324), Nedoma 1995: 18–20 (II), Urban & Nedoma 2002: 57 f.

Pictures in Marstrander 1927: Fig. 5 (drawing), Egger 1959: 88, Abb. 3 (drawing), Klingenberg 1973: 140, Fig. 18 (drawing), Egg 1986: Abb. 183 (drawing) and Nedoma 1995: 18, Fig. 3 (drawing) (= Schumacher 2004: Taf. 16, 4) and Abb. 8 (photo).

Length about 6.5 cm. Written on the brim under the second part of SL-2.5. A white inlay was added sometime before 1927, possibly for photos made for Marstrander 1927, but must have been cleaned away since.

The letter K2 d is written with a long upper twig. Those strokes reaching the bottom of the line are scratched from there upwards, probably because the upturned rim presented an impediment.

The writing direction is ambiguous: Either K2 d (in a sinistroverse reading) or R s (in a dextroverse reading) is turned the wrong way. The second letter from the right consists of two oblique hastae (the left one slightly straighter) with two twigs slanting down from the right hasta. It can be read as E s, tipped forward with its twigs almost reaching the bottom of the line, or as A d erroneously supplied with a superfluous stroke. In the first case, the letter supports a sinistroverse reading, while the A d, though not as significant statistically, is dextroverse. The leftmost sign, if read sinistroverse, is a canonical Sanzeno p, but occurences of the letter with the twig pointing in writing direction are numerous – remember that A d, if present, is not the typical Sanzeno-type.

Egger 1959: 88 f. explained dextroverse K2 d, set apart from the rest of the inscription by a slightly broader gap, as the North Italic version of the abbreviation C for centuria. The remaining sequence, read erul, he interpreted as the name of a Germanic centurion Erul(us): centuria Eruli. His reading was readily accepted by runologists, forming the basis for Höfler's Erulertheorie concerning the origin of the runic script (see Höfler 1970: 114 f. and 1971: 154 f., Klingenberg 1973: 140, Schrodt 1975: 176). Aside from the improbable reading, Egger's interpretation, based on Reinecke's late dating of the helmet, is made chronologically impossible by Egg's new dating. See also Schmeja 1968: 140 f. and Nedoma 1995: 19 f.

Mentz' reading karuz (p. 257) is groundless and negligible.

Bibliography

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.
Egger 1959 Rudolf Egger, Die Inschrift des Harigasthelmes, Wien: 1959. (Sonderabdruck aus dem Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse der ÖAW, Jahrgang 1959, Nr. 5.)
Höfler 1970 Otto Höfler, "–", review of: Wolfgang Krause, Herbert Jankuhn, Die Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark [= Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, phil.-hist. Kl., 3. Folge 65], Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1966, Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 222 (1970), 109–143.
Höfler 1971 Otto Höfler, "Herkunft und Ausbreitung der Runen", Die Sprache 17 (1971), 134–156.
Klingenberg 1973 Heinz Klingenberg, Runenschrift – Schriftdenken – Runeninschriften, Heidelberg: Winter 1973.
Kretschmer 1943 Paul Kretschmer, "Die vorgriechischen Sprach- und Volksschichten (Fortsetzung)", Glotta 30 (1943), 84–218.
Lipperheide & Rickelt 1896 Franz von Lipperheide, Karl Rickelt, Antike Helme, München: Mühlthaler's Königliche Hofbuchdruckerei 1896.
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 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.