AV-1
| Inscription | |
|---|---|
| Transliteration: | tịp̣ṛuχ̣ṇụḷạṿịṣẹẓ§ |
| Original script: |         A23 s      
|
| Variant Reading: | tịp̣ṛuχ̣ṇuḷạṿịṣẹ§ |
|
| |
| Object: | AV-1 ring (silver) |
| Position: | outside |
| Script: | Camunic script |
| Direction of writing: | sinistroverse |
| Number of lines: | 1 |
| Craftsmanship: | engraved |
| Current condition: | complete, damaged |
| Archaeological culture: | Hallstatt D [from object] |
| Date of inscription: | 5th century BC [from object] |
| Date derived from: | archaeological context [from object] |
|
| |
| Language: | Raetic |
| Meaning: | 'X of Lavise' / 'the son of Tipruχnu, Lavise' (?) |
|
| |
| Alternative sigla: | none |
| Sources: | Schumacher 2004: 328 |
Images
Commentary
First published in Ziegaus & Rix 1998: 297–303.
Pictures in Ziegaus & Rix 1998: Abb. 1,3c (photo) and d, e (drawings = Schumacher 2004: Taf. 15,2).
Engraved, probably with an etcher's needle, all around the outside of the ring. The appearance of the lines differs considerably: Some have quite smooth edges, in others the shape of the instrument is betrayed by a succession of tiny angles. The smallness of the surface available can be made responsible for the irregularities in the execution of the characters, if they are indeed such – our reading follows that of Rix in the original publication, who argued that, apart from the sequence of straight strokes and zig-zag-line, the engraving is not regular or symmetrical enough to be merely decorative (p. 298). He suggested that due to the lack of space vertically, the writer expanded the characters in breadth, leading to some unusual shapes (p. 300 f.).
Rix discerned the following letters (sigla refer to Mancini 1980):
- St. Andrew's cross as in Sc 4, Lu 2, Lu 3, Lu 4 and Lu 7.
- "a tratto ortogonale" as in Sc 6 and Na 16, with the bar pointing in writing direction in Na 19, Se 1, Se 2, and apparently on BS·22. The squiggle on the right must then be a writer's mistake.
- Greek-style , which in the Val Camonica occurs exclusively as upside-down
(Sc 8, Na 5, Na 6, Na 8, Be 1, FN 14, FN 16). - , a standard Val Camonica shape, stretched out and carved with a rectangular body to avoid the execution of a curve.
- , as predominant in the Val Camonica.
- as occurring in Sc 6 and BS·22 in contrast to more usual
. - A contorted -shape; Rix suspects that the small upper bar
is a correction of the lower one. The standard shape in the Val Camonica is 
. - , as above.
- as in Sc 1; the standard shape in the Val Camonica is
. Although the bar extends very far beyond the hasta, Rix counts out 
because of the presence of . - A23 s with the bar not touching the angle, inclined to the left. While inverted forms are prevalent in the Val Camonica (usually congruent with the orientation of the character for u), the short bar, pace Rix, is usually attached to one of the hastae.
- , which does not appear in the Sondrino alphabet, where the glide is written with the character for the vowel.
- as above.
- with pointed angles, probably due to lack of space vertically. The letter does not occur in the Val Camonica, where s is written with Zeta, but with the upper angle opened in writing direction occurs on the Sondrino stone from Montagna (PID 252), against writing direction on BS·22;
occurs on the Sondrino stone from Tresivio (PID 253) and on the Castaneda flagon, both times opened in writing direction. - written without a hasta – no parallels in any of the Transpadanian inscriptions.
- with straight bars as opposed to the standard Sondrino form
(orientation usually congruent with that of the letters for a and u). - The group of vertical and oblique scratches left of Rix interprets as a line filler.
Indeed the traces can be seen quite easily despite their smallness, though the unevenness caused by the bending of the ring does at times impede the reading. It is the segmentation which is problematic. Conveniently enough, the inscription starts to the left of the widest space (about 1 mm). While the St. Andrew's cross is tidily scratched with smooth lines, the following cluster of scratches – apart form the squiggle mentioned above, some slighter scratches above and below the dominating horizontal – is highly doubtful. It cannot be securely determined which of the traces are intentional; the alleged hasta is merely a wedge in the lower area. The next three characters are at least well segmentable: Alleged Pi, scratched much less smoothly than the lines before and featuring curious small bars extending towards the left from the lower end of each hasta, seems to stand alone, as does the following rectangle read , very slightly converging towards the left, with the lines intersecting at the corners, and the -shape, scratched fairly smoothly again. The sequence of vertical and oblique scratches read by Rix is not positively separable: The ramshackle is in fact more of an 
, with an angle attached to the bottom of the leftmost bar. Rix' would have a strangely crooked left hasta. The long bar of alleged , not touching the very short hasta, is connected to the left hasta of this . The space between and the following angle read A23 s is comparatively broad (again 1 mm), but features a small but fairly deep scratch in the upper area. Alleged A23 s and are pretty clear, indeed particularly neat. The is really just two discrete angles, followed by a small horizontal stroke of questionable relevance. The three bars of alleged do indeed seem to lack a hasta, though the two lower ones almost converge, suggesting the trace of a hasta. The group of scratches between and the zig-zag-line appears very homogeneous: The verticals, all of the same height and spaced out evenly, are made up of tiny angles, the first three are encased by thinner vertical bars top and bottom. While it is true that the latter are made up of two scratches each, intersecting the first and third vertical, an isolation of the first group as from the rest cannot be justified epigraphically – it is due to the interpretation (see below). The zig-zag-line is much tidier than alleged in the inscription. It is followed by three more verticals which are more spaced out than the ones before. All in all, Rix' reading is not absurd, but it may be assumed that he had a pretty good idea of what to read before identifying all the characters.
Rix acknowledged that many problems remained, but called his reading "nicht unplausibel" (p. 302) and pointed out that no compellent interpretation can be expected for isolated documents, which is true especially for Camunic: All of the inscriptions found beyond the Val Camonica show idiosyncrasies compared to the alphabet of the rock inscriptions. Referring to the tentative dating of the object inferred from context (p. 297), Rix concluded that the inscription is written in a Sondrino "Uralphabet" (based on the Venetic) which still shows some archaic letters / letter forms (, , ) that are more similar to those of Venetic/Etruscan script than the later standard Sondrino shapes. The viability of his reading is qualified by the fact that he seems to have worked solely with Mancini's corpus, and not taken into consideration the consequences of the finding of Camunic alphabetaria. Verweis Script, Details zu was bei ihm jetzt falsch oder besser belegt ist
If Rix' reading is correct, the Raetic individual name Lavise stands out quite clearly. If the first -shape does belong to the inscription, as Rix assumed, the name appears in the genitive case, the -s being written with Zeta in opposition to -s- in the name. The sequence tipruχnu seems to end in the patronymic suffix -nu. Rix observes that patronymics usually follow the individual name, and that concord with the case of the individual name should be expected, and therefore prefers to interpret tipruχnu as a noun denoting the object: 'X of Lavise'. A reading including the first 
after tipruχnu lavise-si in the pertinentive with only the individual name being marked (see Schumacher 1998: 109 f., 112) is unlikely because i is written twice in the inscription (compare, however, BS·22 with both forms). A two-part name in the nominative tipruχnu lavise, with the first -shape considered part of the line filler, should not be excluded despite the unusual order.
Bibliography
| Mancini 1980 | Alberto Mancini, "Le iscrizioni della Valcamonica. Parte 1: Status della questione. Criteri per un'edizione dei materiali", Studi Urbinati di storia, filosofia e letteratura Supplemento linguistico 2 (1990), 75–167. |
|---|
