HU-7: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
The older readings of {{bib|Hanfmann 1940|Whatmough}} and {{bib|Olzscha 1962|Olzscha}}, both of whom worked only with photos, are largely negligible, as they fail to distinguish between original inscription and secondary strokes. {{bib|Schürr 2003|Schürr}} in doing so could segment the text correctly and assign the inscription to the Raetic corpus. Letter 1 must be considered illegible. Schürr reads Tau {{c||addT2}}, but inverted, shortened, and with a bar extending only to one side, which is hardly plausible. The secondary strokes overlaying {{c||E|d}} and {{c||K|d}} are the only ones slanting downwards against writing direction ({{c||line d 01}} rather than {{c||line d 02}}), but the reading is confirmed by Wallace. {{c||I|d}} is undamaged, followed by {{c||E|d}} whose medial bar is overlaid by a secondary stroke. {{c||S}}, again, is undamaged; {{c||I|d}} and {{c||U|d}} are clear despite the strokes. The next letter is a vertical, also crossed by a stroke; both Emily Egan from the [[index::Rhode Island School of Design Museum|RISD Museum]] and Wallace could – upon prompting – discern a thickening at the top: {{c||T4|d}}. Then, another undamaged {{c||I|d}}, and {{c||K|d}} with a secondary stroke overlaying the lower bar. {{c||U|d}} is damaged by two or three secondary strokes; Wallace confirms that there is no bar {{c||line d 01}} to make {{c||A3|d}}. Then another hasta with a thickening (apparently more pronounced) plus secondary stroke, followed by clear {{c||A3|d}}, only slightly damaged by a stroke on the left. Of {{c||N|d}}{{c||I|d}}{{c||N|d}}, only the first Nu is crossed by a secondary stroke. After the gap, {{c||M|d}}, hardly touched by a stroke, then {{c||E|d}} like letter 4, then {{c||T4|d}} like letter 13. The next letter is dubious: Of the two bars extending in writing direction, Egan suspected the lower one to be a secondary stroke, hence Schürr's reading {{c||L|d}}. Wallace notes that the lower stroke does not look like the other secondary strokes, and considers {{c||V|d}} possible. {{c||A3|d}} and {{c||I|d}} are plausible, though Wallace is again unsure about the identification of secondary strokes. {{c||N|d}} and {{c||I|d}} are undamaged; a secondary stroke is situated between the latter and {{c||L|d}}. Finally, {{c||E|d}} with a secondary stroke overlaying the lowest bar. | The older readings of {{bib|Hanfmann 1940|Whatmough}} and {{bib|Olzscha 1962|Olzscha}}, both of whom worked only with photos, are largely negligible, as they fail to distinguish between original inscription and secondary strokes. {{bib|Schürr 2003|Schürr}} in doing so could segment the text correctly and assign the inscription to the Raetic corpus. Letter 1 must be considered illegible. Schürr reads Tau {{c||addT2}}, but inverted, shortened, and with a bar extending only to one side, which is hardly plausible. The secondary strokes overlaying {{c||E|d}} and {{c||K|d}} are the only ones slanting downwards against writing direction ({{c||line d 01}} rather than {{c||line d 02}}), but the reading is confirmed by Wallace. {{c||I|d}} is undamaged, followed by {{c||E|d}} whose medial bar is overlaid by a secondary stroke. {{c||S}}, again, is undamaged; {{c||I|d}} and {{c||U|d}} are clear despite the strokes. The next letter is a vertical, also crossed by a stroke; both Emily Egan from the [[index::Rhode Island School of Design Museum|RISD Museum]] and Wallace could – upon prompting – discern a thickening at the top: {{c||T4|d}}. Then, another undamaged {{c||I|d}}, and {{c||K|d}} with a secondary stroke overlaying the lower bar. {{c||U|d}} is damaged by two or three secondary strokes; Wallace confirms that there is no bar {{c||line d 01}} to make {{c||A3|d}}. Then another hasta with a thickening (apparently more pronounced) plus secondary stroke, followed by clear {{c||A3|d}}, only slightly damaged by a stroke on the left. Of {{c||N|d}}{{c||I|d}}{{c||N|d}}, only the first Nu is crossed by a secondary stroke. After the gap, {{c||M|d}}, hardly touched by a stroke, then {{c||E|d}} like letter 4, then {{c||T4|d}} like letter 13. The next letter is dubious: Of the two bars extending in writing direction, Egan suspected the lower one to be a secondary stroke, hence Schürr's reading {{c||L|d}}. Wallace notes that the lower stroke does not look like the other secondary strokes, and considers {{c||V|d}} possible. {{c||A3|d}} and {{c||I|d}} are plausible, though Wallace is again unsure about the identification of secondary strokes. {{c||N|d}} and {{c||I|d}} are undamaged; a secondary stroke is situated between the latter and {{c||L|d}}. Finally, {{c||E|d}} with a secondary stroke overlaying the lowest bar. | ||
We can identify the words {{w||utiku}} and {{w||taniun|tanin}}, accompanied by what must by a Raetic individual name in the pertinentive {{w||?ekie}}{{m||-si}} (without a patronym, cp. [[index::BZ-4]]). The sequence {{w||metlainile}} does not have a parallel in Raetic inscriptions, and may have to be segmented further. Final {{m||-(a)le|-le}} may well be another pertinentive ending. For {{w||metl-}} cp. maybe Etruscan {{w||meθlum}} 'city'? | We can identify the words {{w||utiku}} and {{w||taniun|tanin}}, accompanied by what must by a Raetic individual name in the pertinentive {{w||?ekie}}{{m||-si}} (without a patronym, cp. [[index::BZ-4]]). The sequence {{w||metlainile}} does not have a parallel in Raetic inscriptions, and may have to be segmented further. Final {{m||-(a)le|-le}} may well be another pertinentive ending. For {{w||metl-}} cp. maybe Etruscan {{w||meθlum}} 'city'? | ||
On the same half of the rim, at about 3 cm before the other handle fitting, two characters which – according to Borromeo – "appear to be more deeply struck or struck twice" ({{bib|Schürr 2003}}: 249). The area is more heavily corroded, and nothing can be made of the mark. | |||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Revision as of 19:16, 15 February 2016
| Inscription | |
|---|---|
| Transliteration: | ?ẹḳiesiuṭikutanin / metḷainile |
| Original script: | ?         
|
|
| |
| Object: | HU-7 situla (bronze) |
| Position: | rim |
| Script: | North Italic script (Magrè alphabet) |
| Direction of writing: | dextroverse |
| Letter height: | 0.70.7 cm <br /> – 1 cm |
| Number of letters: | 27 |
| Number of lines: | 1 |
| Craftsmanship: | embossed |
| Current condition: | damaged |
| Archaeological culture: | Hallstatt [from object] |
| Date of inscription: | third quarter of the 6th century BC [from object] |
| Date derived from: | typology [from object] |
|
| |
| Language: | Raetic |
| Meaning: | 'by ?ekie X-ed ? ?' |
|
| |
| Alternative sigla: | MLR 304 |
Images
 Third part of inscription HU-7
|
 Mark on the rim of HU-7 situla
|
 Object HU-7 situla with inscription HU-7.
|
 Inscription HU-7.
|
 Inscription HU-7
|
 First part of inscription HU-7
|
 Second part of inscription HU-7
|
 Inscription HU-7.
|
Commentary
First published by Whatmough in Hanfmann 1940: p. 32 f. Kindly autopsied for TIR by Rex Wallace on 22nd September 2014.
Pictures in Hanfmann 1940 (photo and drawing = Schürr 2003: fig. 2a), Olzscha 1962: Taf. 4 (photo and drawing = Schürr 2003: fig. 2b = MLR) and Schürr 2003: pl. XXI (photo = MLR) and fig. 2c (drawings).
Length 13.8 cm (= 7.7 cm + 1.2 cm gap + 4.9 cm), running along the rim, starting at 0.9 cm to the right of one of the handle fittings (see drawing in Schürr 2003: fig. 1). Hardly damaged by corrosion – the situla was restored in 1961 and 1968, but according to Georgina Borromeo from the RISD Museum, the inscription has not been worked on in the process. As first observed by Lunz 1974: 318 f. (Anm. 961), the reading is impeded by a number of oblique strokes in the lower part of the inscription, disrupting most of the letters. As those strokes only occur on that part of the rim which bears the inscription, it must be assumed that someone made an effort to efface or invalidate what was most probably a votive inscription. According to Borromeo, the secondary strokes are "made with a chisel with a wider wedge than that used for the original text" (Schürr 2003: 147).
The older readings of Whatmough and Olzscha, both of whom worked only with photos, are largely negligible, as they fail to distinguish between original inscription and secondary strokes. Schürr in doing so could segment the text correctly and assign the inscription to the Raetic corpus. Letter 1 must be considered illegible. Schürr reads Tau 
, but inverted, shortened, and with a bar extending only to one side, which is hardly plausible. The secondary strokes overlaying and are the only ones slanting downwards against writing direction (
rather than 
), but the reading is confirmed by Wallace. is undamaged, followed by whose medial bar is overlaid by a secondary stroke. , again, is undamaged; and are clear despite the strokes. The next letter is a vertical, also crossed by a stroke; both Emily Egan from the RISD Museum and Wallace could – upon prompting – discern a thickening at the top: . Then, another undamaged , and with a secondary stroke overlaying the lower bar. is damaged by two or three secondary strokes; Wallace confirms that there is no bar to make . Then another hasta with a thickening (apparently more pronounced) plus secondary stroke, followed by clear , only slightly damaged by a stroke on the left. Of , only the first Nu is crossed by a secondary stroke. After the gap, , hardly touched by a stroke, then like letter 4, then like letter 13. The next letter is dubious: Of the two bars extending in writing direction, Egan suspected the lower one to be a secondary stroke, hence Schürr's reading . Wallace notes that the lower stroke does not look like the other secondary strokes, and considers 
possible. and are plausible, though Wallace is again unsure about the identification of secondary strokes. and are undamaged; a secondary stroke is situated between the latter and . Finally, with a secondary stroke overlaying the lowest bar.
We can identify the words utiku and tanin, accompanied by what must by a Raetic individual name in the pertinentive ?ekie-si (without a patronym, cp. BZ-4). The sequence metlainile does not have a parallel in Raetic inscriptions, and may have to be segmented further. Final -le may well be another pertinentive ending. For metl- cp. maybe Etruscan meθlum 'city'?
On the same half of the rim, at about 3 cm before the other handle fitting, two characters which – according to Borromeo – "appear to be more deeply struck or struck twice" (Schürr 2003: 249). The area is more heavily corroded, and nothing can be made of the mark.
Bibliography
| Hanfmann 1940 | George Maxim Anossov Hanfmann, "The Etruscans and their art", Bulletin of the Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design 28 (1940), 1–35. |
|---|---|
| Lunz 1974 | Reimo Lunz, Studien zur End-Bronzezeit und älteren Eisenzeit im Südalpenraum, Firenze: Sansoni 1974. |
| Marchesini & Zaghetto 2019 | Simona Marchesini, Luca Zaghetto, "The Situla in Providence. A comprehensive analysis of inscription and decorative program", in: Simon Hye, Ulrike Töchterle (eds), UPIKU:TAUKE. Festschrift für Gerhard Tomedi zum 65. Geburtstag [= Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 339], Bonn: 2019, 329–341. |
