NO-6: Difference between revisions

From Thesaurus Inscriptionum Raeticarum
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 22: Line 22:
|sigla_mlr=36
|sigla_mlr=36
|source=Schumacher 2004: 151
|source=Schumacher 2004: 151
|checklevel=3
|checklevel=2
|problem=Verweis Campi, LIR: Mayr fehlerhafte Angabe, Kontrolle Zwirbelrichtung vom Rand (vgl. NO-1)
|problem=LIR: Mayr fehlerhafte Angabe, Kontrolle Zwirbelrichtung vom Rand (vgl. NO-1)
}}
}}
== Commentary ==
== Commentary ==
First published in '''{{bib|Campi 1905}}: 90 ff.''' Autopsied by TIR in October 2014.
First published in {{bib|Campi 1905}}: 90 ff. Autopsied by TIR in October 2014.


Image in {{bib|LIR}} (drawing), {{bib|MLR}} (photo).
Image in {{bib|LIR}} (drawing), {{bib|MLR}} (photo).

Revision as of 13:34, 24 July 2015

Inscription
Transliteration: ]χ̣amuriri :
Original script: punctuation10 sI sR sI sR sU2 sM sA sΧ s
Variant Reading: ]χ̣amuririṣ
S dI sR sI sR sU2 sM sA sΧ s

Object: NO-6 fragment (bronze)
Position: rim
Script: North Italic script (Sanzeno alphabet)
Direction of writing: sinistroverse
Letter height: 0.7 cm
Number of letters: 8 – 9
Number of characters: 9
Number of lines: 1
Craftsmanship: embossed
Current condition: fragmentary
Date of inscription:
Date derived from:

Language: unknown
Meaning: unknown

Alternative sigla: PID 213
LIR ME-4
MLR 36
Sources: Schumacher 2004: 151

Images

Commentary

First published in Campi 1905: 90 ff. Autopsied by TIR in October 2014.

Image in LIR (drawing), MLR (photo).

Length of the remains 4 cm. Inscribed on top of the rolled-up rim of a vessel, upright when looked at from the outside. Well legible, some of the hastae made up of two strokes. ]amuriri[ is unambiguous. The first letter, damaged by the break, is most probably neither Θ s or T d as read by Conway and Schumacher respectively, but Χ s: The breaking edge follows the hasta, then the right bar. The tiny line extending leftward from the hasta is unintentional. The two short oblique strokes after the second I s are usually interpreted as a punctuation mark. The faint scratch between them, leading Mancini to read S d, can be verified, but seeing as the other lines are uniformly pronounced and clearly visible, it is unlikely to be relevant. Should -s be the correct reading, we are probably concerned with a genitive ending; no other interpretation can be offered.

Further references: NRIE 111, Battisti 1936b: 598, Battisti 1944: 234, Tibiletti Bruno 1978: 221.

Bibliography

Battisti 1936b Carlo Battisti, "Rassegna critica degli studi linguistici sull'Alto Adige nel quinquennio 1931-36", Archivio per l'Alto Adige 31/2 (1936), 561–611.
Battisti 1944 Carlo Battisti, "Osservazioni sulla lingua delle iscrizioni nell'alfabeto etrusco settentrionale di Bolzano", Studi Etruschi 18 (1944), 199–236.
Campi 1905 Luigi Campi, "Rinvenimenti di antichità nella Naunia", Archivio Trentino XX (1905), 89–92.
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)