SZ-30 situla: Difference between revisions
Sindy Kluge (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Sindy Kluge (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
}} | }} | ||
== Commentary == | == Commentary == | ||
Different fragments of a situla.<br>Thin sheet bronze. In the area of the fragment A the sheet bronze is rivetted; the rivets are still visible. A rivet is also visible at fragment I, probably the rivet for the handle. Patina from green to dark green in colour with white patches, mainly on fragment C, light green patches, mainly on fragment E, and brown patches, mainly on fragment B.<br>Several fragments of which some bear remains of a probably circumferential [[index::SZ-30|inscription]].<br>The inscription is inside and it can be supposed that the inscription was placed after the intentional damage. Therefore the situla can be considered as votive offering.<br>According to the [[index::Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum|museum]] at least the half of the complete situla is missing and so the sequence of the [[index::SZ-30|inscription]] is uncertain. The study of the different fragments however has shown that the sequence is not dubious and probably only a part between fragment C and D is missing. Concerning the missing part and his dimensions are different statements.<br>Dimensions of the different fragments: | Different fragments of a situla.<br>Thin sheet bronze. In the area of the fragment A the sheet bronze is rivetted; the rivets are still visible. A rivet is also visible at fragment I, probably the rivet for the handle. Patina from green to dark green in colour with white patches, mainly on fragment C, light green patches, mainly on fragment E, and brown patches, mainly on fragment B.<br>Several fragments of which some bear remains of a probably circumferential [[index::SZ-30|inscription]].<br>The inscription is inside and it can be supposed that the inscription was placed after the intentional damage. Therefore the situla can be considered as votive offering.<br>According to the [[index::Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum|museum]] at least the half of the complete situla is missing and so the sequence of the [[index::SZ-30|inscription]] is uncertain. The study of the different fragments however has shown that the sequence is not dubious and probably only a part between fragment C and D is missing. Concerning the missing part and his dimensions there are different statements.<br>Dimensions of the different fragments:<br>fragment A: 9 x 20.7 cm<br>fragment B: 19.8 x 24.6 cm<br>fragment C: 10.2 x 12 cm<br>fragment D: 12 x 12 cm<br>fragment E: 15.9 x 17.1 cm<br>fragment F: 8.7 x 3.6 cm<br>fragment G: 2.3 x 2.4 cm<br>fragment H: 1.9 x 2.3 cm<br>fragment I: 18 x 4.1 cm<br>fragment J: 7.8 x 4.5 cm<br>fragment K: 14.7 x 6.9 cm.<br>Autopsied by the ''Thesaurus Inscriptionum Raeticarum'' in November 2013. | ||
Revision as of 13:06, 16 June 2014
| Object | |
|---|---|
| Classification: | vessel |
| Archaeological type: | Situla |
| Material: | bronze |
| Condition: | fragmentary |
|
| |
| Site: | Sanzeno (Trento, Trentino-Alto Adige, Italy) |
| Coordinates (approx.): | 46° 21' 57.60" N, 11° 4' 30.00" E [from site] |
| Find date: | |
| Find circumstances: | old finding |
| Current location: | Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum (on exhibition) |
| Inventory Nr.: | none |
|
| |
| Inscription: | SZ-30 (ka[? ?]isθi:puχe:̣ṭumis:p[ ]θiaḳ[? ?]auþile:ẹḷuku:̣) |
|
| |
| Sources: | IR: 266–270 Schumacher 2004: 139 |
Images
 Object SZ-30 situla with inscription SZ-30 - fragments A-K.
|
 Object SZ-30 situla with inscription SZ-30.
|
Commentary
Different fragments of a situla.
Thin sheet bronze. In the area of the fragment A the sheet bronze is rivetted; the rivets are still visible. A rivet is also visible at fragment I, probably the rivet for the handle. Patina from green to dark green in colour with white patches, mainly on fragment C, light green patches, mainly on fragment E, and brown patches, mainly on fragment B.
Several fragments of which some bear remains of a probably circumferential inscription.
The inscription is inside and it can be supposed that the inscription was placed after the intentional damage. Therefore the situla can be considered as votive offering.
According to the museum at least the half of the complete situla is missing and so the sequence of the inscription is uncertain. The study of the different fragments however has shown that the sequence is not dubious and probably only a part between fragment C and D is missing. Concerning the missing part and his dimensions there are different statements.
Dimensions of the different fragments:
fragment A: 9 x 20.7 cm
fragment B: 19.8 x 24.6 cm
fragment C: 10.2 x 12 cm
fragment D: 12 x 12 cm
fragment E: 15.9 x 17.1 cm
fragment F: 8.7 x 3.6 cm
fragment G: 2.3 x 2.4 cm
fragment H: 1.9 x 2.3 cm
fragment I: 18 x 4.1 cm
fragment J: 7.8 x 4.5 cm
fragment K: 14.7 x 6.9 cm.
Autopsied by the Thesaurus Inscriptionum Raeticarum in November 2013.
