SL-2.4: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
The letter {{c||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 letter {{c||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 {{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 a character with a twig pointing in writing direction ({{p||l}} or {{p||p}})are numerous – remember that {{c||A|d}}, if present, is not typically Raetic. The dextroverse readings {{w||lurak}} or {{w||purak}} ({{bib|Egg 1986}}) cannot therefore be ruled out. With regard to {{c||K2|d}}, {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 9 observed that "[d]ans l'alphabet proprement étrusque ''p'' et ''k'' ont souvent un sens contraire à celui des autres lettres". | 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 (known from Etruscan inscriptions, see {{bib|Wallace 2008}}: 19), 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 a character with a twig pointing in writing direction ({{p||l}} or {{p||p}}) are numerous – remember that {{c||A|d}}, if present, is not typically Raetic. The dextroverse readings {{w||lurak}} or {{w||purak}} ({{bib|Egg 1986}}) cannot therefore be ruled out. With regard to {{c||K2|d}}, {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 9 observed that "[d]ans l'alphabet proprement étrusque ''p'' et ''k'' ont souvent un sens contraire à celui des autres lettres". | ||
{{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 {{w||centuria}}. The remaining sequence, read {{w||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|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 {{w||centuria}}. The remaining sequence, read {{w||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. |
Revision as of 18:49, 10 February 2014
Inscription | |
---|---|
Transliteration: | kerup |
Original script: | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Variant Reading: | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() karup |
| |
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: | 0° |
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
Inscription SL-2.4.
|
Commentary
First published in Marstrander 1927: 8 f., though according to him seen and drawn in the 19th c. by Franz von Lipperheide.
Further references: Kretschmer 1943: 187, Egger 1959: 88 f., Mentz 1954–55: 257, Egg 1986: 227 (Nr 324), Prosdocimi 1986: 34 f., Nedoma 1995: 18–20 (II), Markey 2001: 116 f., Urban & Nedoma 2002: 57 f.
Pictures in Marstrander 1927: Fig. 5 (drawing), Reinecke 1942: 133, Taf. 11c (drawing = Markey 2001: 105, Fig. 6), 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).
Written on the brim under the second part of SL-2.5 with scratches faint but fairly well visible. A white inlay was added sometime before 1927, possibly for photos made for Marstrander 1927, but must have been cleaned away since.
The letter 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 (in a sinistroverse reading) or
(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
, tipped forward with its twigs almost reaching the bottom of the line (known from Etruscan inscriptions, see Wallace 2008: 19), or as
erroneously supplied with a superfluous stroke. In the first case, the letter supports a sinistroverse reading, while the
, though not as significant statistically, is dextroverse. The leftmost sign, if read sinistroverse, is a canonical Sanzeno p, but occurences of a character with a twig pointing in writing direction (l or p) are numerous – remember that
, if present, is not typically Raetic. The dextroverse readings lurak or purak (Egg 1986) cannot therefore be ruled out. With regard to
, Marstrander 1927: 9 observed that "[d]ans l'alphabet proprement étrusque p et k ont souvent un sens contraire à celui des autres lettres".
Egger 1959: 88 f. explained dextroverse , 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. |