SR-1: Difference between revisions

From Thesaurus Inscriptionum Raeticarum
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 36: Line 36:
It is unclear exactly how much of the lines is missing in the beginning. The fragment bearing the first preserved letters of line 1 shows that the drilled hole on this side was situated under the letter preceding {{c||N}}, which allows an estimate of about two, possibly three, but maybe just one letter before {{c||N}}. (Remember that the length of the object in its current restored state is a mere guess.) Of the letter immediately before {{c||N}} only an oblique scratch in the lower area is left; the options are {{c||A22}}, {{c||U}} or {{c||E}} (hardly {{c||Θ}} or {{c||K}} before the cluster {{c||S|d}}{{c||N}}). The short scratch in the middle of the line after {{c||U}} is read as a punctuation mark because of the phonetic improbability of a sequence {{p||u}}{{p||i}}{{p||m}}{{p||n}}, but see below. The rest of the line is clear up to final {{c||R}}, which probably features an inscribed punctuation mark in the shape of a small circle (cp. [[index::SR-7]], which is a less complete version of line 1, as well as [[index::SR-10]]).
It is unclear exactly how much of the lines is missing in the beginning. The fragment bearing the first preserved letters of line 1 shows that the drilled hole on this side was situated under the letter preceding {{c||N}}, which allows an estimate of about two, possibly three, but maybe just one letter before {{c||N}}. (Remember that the length of the object in its current restored state is a mere guess.) Of the letter immediately before {{c||N}} only an oblique scratch in the lower area is left; the options are {{c||A22}}, {{c||U}} or {{c||E}} (hardly {{c||Θ}} or {{c||K}} before the cluster {{c||S|d}}{{c||N}}). The short scratch in the middle of the line after {{c||U}} is read as a punctuation mark because of the phonetic improbability of a sequence {{p||u}}{{p||i}}{{p||m}}{{p||n}}, but see below. The rest of the line is clear up to final {{c||R}}, which probably features an inscribed punctuation mark in the shape of a small circle (cp. [[index::SR-7]], which is a less complete version of line 1, as well as [[index::SR-10]]).


In line 2, {{c||S}} is damaged in all three instances, but in all of them the reading is unambiguous. Initial {{c||S}} appears to be preceded by a hasta, the upper part of which coincides with the breaking edge – possibly {{c||I}} or {{c||I2|d}} {{p||i}} (as read by {{bib|Pellegrini & Sebesta 1965}}), but maybe another punctuation mark {{c||punctuation7|d}}. Similarly, the short scratch after {{c||L|d}} can be read as {{c||I}} or as a punctuation mark. While there is a punctuation mark of the same shape in line 1, the {{c||I}} of {{w||aχvil}} is already somewhat shorter than that in line 1. Cp. a possible sequence {{w||aχvili}} (an inflected form of {{w||aχvil}}?) in [[index::BZ-4]]. In either case, there is the possibility of final {{w||(i)ske}} being a repetition of ]{{w||(i)ske}} in the beginning. Indeed, {{w||aχvili}}- (or {{w||aχvil}}·) would fit well into the initial lacuna. The attribution of {{p||s}} before {{w||aχvil}} is dubious.
In line 2, {{c||S}} is damaged in all three instances, but in all of them the reading is unambiguous. Initial {{c||S}} appears to be preceded by a hasta, the upper part of which coincides with the breaking edge – possibly {{c||I}} or {{c||I2|d}} {{p||i}} (as read by {{bib|Pellegrini & Sebesta 1965}}), but maybe another punctuation mark {{c||punctuation7|d}}. Similarly, the short scratch after {{c||L|d}} can be read as {{c||I}} or as a punctuation mark. While there is a punctuation mark of the same shape in line 1, the {{c||I}} of {{w||aχvil}} is already somewhat shorter than that in line 1. Cp. a possible sequence {{w||aχvili}} (an inflected form of {{w||aχvil}}?) in [[index::BZ-4]], and esp. line 1 of [[index::SZ-98]]. In either case, there is the possibility of final {{w||(i)ske}} being a repetition of ]{{w||(i)ske}} in the beginning. Indeed, {{w||aχvili}}- (or {{w||aχvil}}·) would fit well into the initial lacuna. The attribution of {{p||s}} before {{w||aχvil}} is dubious.


For the use of Venetic syllable punctuation in Raetic context see [[index::Script]]. In line 1, the punctuation mark inscribed into {{c||R}} conforms to the Venetic rules, although the standard would be two marks on either side of the letter. The difference in shape between the two punctuation marks in line 1 may simply be due to the fact that one is part of a ligature. The first mark {{c||punctuation7}} may belong to {{c||M}} – although the identification of words in line 1 is problematic, the mark is unlikely to be a separator due to phonetic reasons. Cp. [[index::SR-8]], also with a problematic short scratch in the middle of the inscription alongside a clear punctuation mark {{c||punctuation}} at the end. While the system may have been consistently applied in line 1, it definitely was not in line 2, where even the one dubious punctuation mark is not inserted according to the rules.
For the use of Venetic syllable punctuation in Raetic context see [[index::Script]]. In line 1, the punctuation mark inscribed into {{c||R}} conforms to the Venetic rules, although the standard would be two marks on either side of the letter. The difference in shape between the two punctuation marks in line 1 may simply be due to the fact that one is part of a ligature. The first mark {{c||punctuation7}} may belong to {{c||M}} – although the identification of words in line 1 is problematic, the mark is unlikely to be a separator due to phonetic reasons. Cp. [[index::SR-8]], also with a problematic short scratch in the middle of the inscription alongside a clear punctuation mark {{c||punctuation}} at the end. While the system may have been consistently applied in line 1, it definitely was not in line 2, where even the one dubious punctuation mark is not inserted according to the rules.

Revision as of 13:11, 25 November 2015

edit with form
Inscription
Transliteration: ?]nsu·mnaviθahur·̣ / ị]ṣkesaχviliṣke
Original script: Rpunct sU sH3 sA22 sΘ sI sV sA22 sN sM sI dU sS dN s[
I d]S sK dE dS sA22 dΧ dV dI dL dpunctuation7 dS sK dE d
Variant Reading: ·]ṣkesaχvil·ṣke
punctuation7 d]S sK dE dS sA22 dΧ dV dI dL dpunctuation7 sS sK dE d
Object: SR-1 antler (antler)
Position: front
Script: North Italic script (Magrè alphabet)
Direction of writing: unknown
Letter height: 0.70.7 cm <br /> – 2.5 cm
Number of letters: 26 – 28
Number of characters: 28 – 30
Number of lines: 2
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 83
LIR SE-6
MLR 91
Sources: Schumacher 2004: 156, 337

Images

SR-1 antler
Object SR-1 antler with inscription SR-1.
SR-1
Inscription SR-1 - detail.
SR-1
Inscription SR-1 - detail (microscopic image).

Commentary

First published in Pellegrini & Sebesta 1965: 8 f. (no. 1). Autopsied by TIR in November 2014.

Images in Pellegrini & Sebesta 1965: 8 (drawing) and fig. 3 (photo), IR (drawing = LIR), LIR (photo), MLR (photo).

Written in two lines: the first sinistroverse, running from the inner to the outer end of the piece of antler, in taller letters, length about 12.5 cm; the second running the same way, but upside-down in relation to the first, and dextroverse, in smaller letters, length about 7.5 cm. They may be considered to belong together as one inscription – both have Sigma turned with the upper angle opened in writing direction, and Alpha in the form A22 s.

It is unclear exactly how much of the lines is missing in the beginning. The fragment bearing the first preserved letters of line 1 shows that the drilled hole on this side was situated under the letter preceding N s, which allows an estimate of about two, possibly three, but maybe just one letter before N s. (Remember that the length of the object in its current restored state is a mere guess.) Of the letter immediately before N s only an oblique scratch in the lower area is left; the options are A22 s, U s or E s (hardly Θ s or K s before the cluster S dN s). The short scratch in the middle of the line after U s is read as a punctuation mark because of the phonetic improbability of a sequence uimn, but see below. The rest of the line is clear up to final R s, which probably features an inscribed punctuation mark in the shape of a small circle (cp. SR-7, which is a less complete version of line 1, as well as SR-10).

In line 2, S s is damaged in all three instances, but in all of them the reading is unambiguous. Initial S s appears to be preceded by a hasta, the upper part of which coincides with the breaking edge – possibly I s or I2 d i (as read by Pellegrini & Sebesta 1965), but maybe another punctuation mark punctuation7 d. Similarly, the short scratch after L d can be read as I s or as a punctuation mark. While there is a punctuation mark of the same shape in line 1, the I s of aχvil is already somewhat shorter than that in line 1. Cp. a possible sequence aχvili (an inflected form of aχvil?) in BZ-4, and esp. line 1 of SZ-98. In either case, there is the possibility of final (i)ske being a repetition of ](i)ske in the beginning. Indeed, aχvili- (or aχvil·) would fit well into the initial lacuna. The attribution of s before aχvil is dubious.

For the use of Venetic syllable punctuation in Raetic context see Script. In line 1, the punctuation mark inscribed into R s conforms to the Venetic rules, although the standard would be two marks on either side of the letter. The difference in shape between the two punctuation marks in line 1 may simply be due to the fact that one is part of a ligature. The first mark punctuation7 s may belong to M s – although the identification of words in line 1 is problematic, the mark is unlikely to be a separator due to phonetic reasons. Cp. SR-8, also with a problematic short scratch in the middle of the inscription alongside a clear punctuation mark punctuation s at the end. While the system may have been consistently applied in line 1, it definitely was not in line 2, where even the one dubious punctuation mark is not inserted according to the rules.

Further references: Pellegrini & Sebesta 1965: 20 f., Mayr 1965, Tibiletti Bruno 1978: 227 f., 235 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)
Retrieved from "https://tir.univie.ac.at/index.php?title=SR-1&oldid=14266"