AK-1.7: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Sindy Kluge (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|craftsmanship=engraved | |craftsmanship=engraved | ||
|condition=damaged | |condition=damaged | ||
|culture_archaeological=La Tène | |||
|sortdate=-250 | |||
|date=5th–1st centuries BC | |||
|checklevel=3 | |checklevel=3 | ||
|problem=Maße, Ableich mit Gugsi, meaning | |problem=Maße, Ableich mit Gugsi, meaning | ||
| Line 27: | Line 30: | ||
Only the last part of the inscription is at all usable, though faint traces of characters can be made out starting from about '''???''' cm above the last letter {{c||E}}. The traces become more distinct towards the end, but cannot be positively arranged into letters. {{c||I}}{{c||N}} might be surmised, very tentatively, before a hasta plus angle which has been read {{c||N}} by us, though there is both room for and trace of another bar, yielding {{c||M}}. Then a problematic area, where {{c||U5}} may be surmised with some goodwill, although the presence of an {{c||S}} cannot be excluded. {{c||A19}} and {{c||E}} are fairly well legible, but the question of what lies between them is difficult: {{c||E}} is inclined forward, and although its hasta is close to {{c||A19}} in the bottom, the remains of another hasta may be guessed at between them. There is more space at the top, but nothing is visible there. {{c||L}} might just fit in, but all in all the reading {{m||-nu}}{{m||-(a)le|-ale}} given above, while not impossible, is due more to its linguistical probability than epigraphical cogency. The inscription might well belong with [[index::AK-1.6]]. | Only the last part of the inscription is at all usable, though faint traces of characters can be made out starting from about '''???''' cm above the last letter {{c||E}}. The traces become more distinct towards the end, but cannot be positively arranged into letters. {{c||I}}{{c||N}} might be surmised, very tentatively, before a hasta plus angle which has been read {{c||N}} by us, though there is both room for and trace of another bar, yielding {{c||M}}. Then a problematic area, where {{c||U5}} may be surmised with some goodwill, although the presence of an {{c||S}} cannot be excluded. {{c||A19}} and {{c||E}} are fairly well legible, but the question of what lies between them is difficult: {{c||E}} is inclined forward, and although its hasta is close to {{c||A19}} in the bottom, the remains of another hasta may be guessed at between them. There is more space at the top, but nothing is visible there. {{c||L}} might just fit in, but all in all the reading {{m||-nu}}{{m||-(a)le|-ale}} given above, while not impossible, is due more to its linguistical probability than epigraphical cogency. The inscription might well belong with [[index::AK-1.6]]. | ||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Revision as of 13:58, 19 November 2014
| Inscription | |
|---|---|
| Transliteration: | ??]ṇụa?e |
| Original script: |  ?A19 s  [
|
|
| |
| Object: | AK-1 rock (stone) (Inscriptions: AK-1.1, AK-1.2, AK-1.3, AK-1.4, AK-1.5, AK-1.6, AK-1.7, AK-1.8, AK-1.9, AK-1.10, AK-1.11, AK-1.12, AK-1.13, AK-1.14, AK-1.15, AK-1.16, AK-1.17, AK-1.18, AK-1.19, AK-1.20, AK-1.21) |
| Position: | centre"centre" is not in the list (front, back, top, bottom, inside, outside, neck, shoulder, foot, handle, ...) of allowed values for the "position" property., 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. |
| Orientation: | 90° |
| Frame: |  (, top and bottom, )
|
| Script: | North Italic script |
| Direction of writing: | sinistroverse |
| Number of letters: | 5 |
| Number of lines: | 1 |
| Craftsmanship: | engraved |
| Current condition: | damaged |
| Archaeological culture: | La Tène |
| Date of inscription: | 5th–1st centuries BC |
| Date derived from: | |
|
| |
| Language: | Raetic |
| Meaning: | unknown |
|
| |
| Alternative sigla: | none |
Images
 Inscription AK-1.7.
|
 Tracing of inscriptions on AK-1 rock.
|
 Inscription AK-1.7.
|
Commentary
Unpublished. Autopsied by TIR in July 2014.
Picture in Mandl 2011: Abb. 139 (photo). Photo of the entire rock wall in Mandl 2011: Abb. 136.
Running vertically downwards slightly to the left of the centre of the rock wall, immediately to the right of AK-1.6 (Bildstelle 3), ending at about ??? cm from the ground. The area above the inscription is covered in moss; it cannot be ascertained how far inscription and frame lines extend towards the top. The right and more distinct one seems to measure min. ??? cm in its entirety.
Only the last part of the inscription is at all usable, though faint traces of characters can be made out starting from about ??? cm above the last letter . The traces become more distinct towards the end, but cannot be positively arranged into letters. 
might be surmised, very tentatively, before a hasta plus angle which has been read by us, though there is both room for and trace of another bar, yielding 
. Then a problematic area, where may be surmised with some goodwill, although the presence of an 
cannot be excluded. A19 s and are fairly well legible, but the question of what lies between them is difficult: is inclined forward, and although its hasta is close to A19 s in the bottom, the remains of another hasta may be guessed at between them. There is more space at the top, but nothing is visible there. 
might just fit in, but all in all the reading -nu-ale given above, while not impossible, is due more to its linguistical probability than epigraphical cogency. The inscription might well belong with AK-1.6.
Bibliography
| Mandl 2011 | Franz Mandl, Felsbilder. Österreich – Bayern: Nördliche Kalkalpen [= Anisa – Verein für alpine Forschung 4], Haus im Ennstal: 2011. |
|---|
