SR-3.2: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{inscription | {{inscription | ||
|reading=unknown!?]ṿilna | |reading=unknown!?]ṿilna | ||
|reading_original={{c|A|A3 | |reading_original={{c|A|A3}}{{c|N}}{{c|L}}{{c|I}}{{c|V|V2}}[ | ||
|direction=sinistroverse | |direction=sinistroverse | ||
|letter_height_min=1.4 cm | |letter_height_min=1.4 cm | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|line_number=0 | |line_number=0 | ||
|script=North Italic script | |script=North Italic script | ||
|alphabet=Magrè alphabet | |||
|language=Raetic | |language=Raetic | ||
|meaning=unknown | |meaning=unknown | ||
| Line 15: | Line 16: | ||
|condition=damaged, incomplete | |condition=damaged, incomplete | ||
|sigla_ir=85 | |sigla_ir=85 | ||
|sigla_mancini=SE-1 | |sigla_mancini=SE-1 (2) | ||
|sigla_mlr=81 (b) | |||
|sigla_tm=218461 | |||
|source=Schumacher 2004: 157 | |source=Schumacher 2004: 157 | ||
|checklevel=3 | |checklevel=3 | ||
| Line 24: | Line 27: | ||
First published in {{bib|Pellegrini & Sebesta 1965}}: 10 f. (no. 3). Autopsied by TIR in November 2014. | First published in {{bib|Pellegrini & Sebesta 1965}}: 10 f. (no. 3). Autopsied by TIR in November 2014. | ||
Images in {{bib|Pellegrini & Sebesta 1965}}: 10 (drawing) and fig. 5 (photo), {{bib|IR}} (drawing = {{bib|LIR}}), {{bib|LIR}} (photo). | Images in {{bib|Pellegrini & Sebesta 1965}}: 10 (drawing) and fig. 5 (photo), {{bib|IR}} (drawing = {{bib|LIR}}), {{bib|LIR}} (photo), {{bib|MLR}} (photo). | ||
Length of the remains about 2.5 cm. Inscribed more slightly than [[index::SR-3.1]], starting from the narrower end of the piece of antler. The inscription must have been applied after [[index::SR-3.1]], as its last letter had to be offset to avoid disturbance by the last letter of [[index::SR-3.1]]. Despite the differences in line thickness and style (Alpha), it cannot be excluded that [[index::SR-3.1]] and SR-3.2 are two lines of the same inscription. | Length of the remains about 2.5 cm. Inscribed more slightly than [[index::SR-3.1]], starting from the narrower end of the piece of antler. The inscription must have been applied after [[index::SR-3.1]], as its last letter had to be offset to avoid disturbance by the last letter of [[index::SR-3.1]]. Despite the differences in line thickness and style (Alpha), it cannot be excluded that [[index::SR-3.1]] and SR-3.2 are two lines of the same inscription. | ||
The drawings and photographs provided by {{bib|Pellegrini & Sebesta 1965|Pellegrini}} and {{bib|LIR|Mancini}} show that today a small fragment on the breaking edge is missing; this fragment appears to have held the central part of a character before {{c||V2}} (the remains of a hasta?). {{c||V2}}, being damaged, might also be read {{c||E2}}, but as {{bib|LIR|Mancini}} argues, the possibility of a third bar having disappeared (in either top or bottom) is not a sufficient reason to settle on {{c||E2}}. This holds true also in the light of following {{c||I}} and a consequent diphthong {{p||e}}{{p||i}}. The fact that {{c||V2}} is upside-down might even suggest a reading {{c||H2|d}} instead of {{c||I}}{{c||V2}}, but the bars do not appear to touch the second hasta at all. Also, reading {{c||H2|d}} would require reading {{c||U}} instead of {{c||L}} for the next character, whose alleged bar is longish, but still decidedly shorter than the hasta. {{c||N}} is all but gone today due to the recent damage of the object (cp. [[index::SR-3 antler]]), but appears to have been perfectly well legible. Of offset {{c||A3 | The drawings and photographs provided by {{bib|Pellegrini & Sebesta 1965|Pellegrini}} and {{bib|LIR|Mancini}} show that today a small fragment on the breaking edge is missing; this fragment appears to have held the central part of a character before {{c||V2}} (the remains of a hasta?). {{c||V2}}, being damaged, might also be read {{c||E2}}, but as {{bib|LIR|Mancini}} argues, the possibility of a third bar having disappeared (in either top or bottom) is not a sufficient reason to settle on {{c||E2}}. This holds true also in the light of following {{c||I}} and a consequent diphthong {{p||e}}{{p||i}}. The fact that {{c||V2}} is upside-down might even suggest a reading {{c||H2|d}} instead of {{c||I}}{{c||V2}}, but the bars do not appear to touch the second hasta at all. Also, reading {{c||H2|d}} would require reading {{c||U}} instead of {{c||L}} for the next character, whose alleged bar is longish, but still decidedly shorter than the hasta. {{c||N}} is all but gone today due to the recent damage of the object (cp. [[index::SR-3 antler]]), but appears to have been perfectly well legible. Of offset {{c||A3}}, only the tip is damaged. | ||
We are probably concerned with a Raetic word suffixed with {{m||-na}}. | We are probably concerned with a Raetic word suffixed with {{m||-na}}. | ||
Latest revision as of 22:03, 13 December 2021
| Inscription | |
|---|---|
| Transliteration: | ?]ṿilna |
| Original script: |      [
|
|
| |
| Object: | SR-3 antler (antler) (Inscriptions: SR-3.1, SR-3.2) |
| Position: | front |
| Script: | North Italic script (Magrè alphabet) |
| Direction of writing: | sinistroverse |
| Letter height: | 1.4 cm |
| Number of letters: | 6 |
| Craftsmanship: | engraved |
| Current condition: | damaged, incomplete |
| Date of inscription: | 3rd century BC [from object] |
| Date derived from: | archaeological context [from object] |
|
| |
| Language: | Raetic |
| Meaning: | unknown |
|
| |
| Alternative sigla: | IR 85 LIR SE-1 (2) MLR 81 (b) TM 218461 |
| Sources: | Schumacher 2004: 157 |
Images
 |
Commentary
First published in Pellegrini & Sebesta 1965: 10 f. (no. 3). Autopsied by TIR in November 2014.
Images in Pellegrini & Sebesta 1965: 10 (drawing) and fig. 5 (photo), IR (drawing = LIR), LIR (photo), MLR (photo).
Length of the remains about 2.5 cm. Inscribed more slightly than SR-3.1, starting from the narrower end of the piece of antler. The inscription must have been applied after SR-3.1, as its last letter had to be offset to avoid disturbance by the last letter of SR-3.1. Despite the differences in line thickness and style (Alpha), it cannot be excluded that SR-3.1 and SR-3.2 are two lines of the same inscription.
The drawings and photographs provided by Pellegrini and Mancini show that today a small fragment on the breaking edge is missing; this fragment appears to have held the central part of a character before (the remains of a hasta?). , being damaged, might also be read 
, but as Mancini argues, the possibility of a third bar having disappeared (in either top or bottom) is not a sufficient reason to settle on . This holds true also in the light of following and a consequent diphthong ei. The fact that is upside-down might even suggest a reading 
instead of , but the bars do not appear to touch the second hasta at all. Also, reading would require reading 
instead of for the next character, whose alleged bar is longish, but still decidedly shorter than the hasta. is all but gone today due to the recent damage of the object (cp. SR-3 antler), but appears to have been perfectly well legible. Of offset , only the tip is damaged.
We are probably concerned with a Raetic word suffixed with -na.
Further references: Mayr 1969: 330 f..
Bibliography
| 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) |
