SL-2.1: Difference between revisions

From Thesaurus Inscriptionum Raeticarum
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
|reading=siraku punctuation!:̣ þurpi  
|reading=siraku punctuation!:̣ þurpi  
|reading_original={{c|I}}{{c|P|P2}}{{c|R}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|Þ|Þ3}}{{c|punctuation|punctuation2}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|K}}{{c|A}}{{c|R}}{{c|I}}{{c|S||d}}
|reading_original={{c|I}}{{c|P|P2}}{{c|R}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|Þ|Þ3}}{{c|punctuation|punctuation2}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|K}}{{c|A}}{{c|R}}{{c|I}}{{c|S||d}}
|reading_variant={{w|siraku}}{{w|punctuation|:̣}}{{w|þurpi}}
|direction=sinistroverse
|direction=sinistroverse
|letter_height_min=1.1
|letter_height_min=1.1
Line 18: Line 17:
|source=Schumacher 2004: 330
|source=Schumacher 2004: 330
|checklevel=5
|checklevel=5
|problem=zweiteilung: größe 5 + 8
|problem=alte literatur
}}
}}
== Commentary ==
== Commentary ==
First published in '''Mommsen 1853: Taf. I, 12a?'''.
First published in {{bib|Mommsen 1853}}: 208, no. 12 '''(with older literature)'''.


Further references: '''{{bib|Egg 1986}}: 227 (Nr 324)''', {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: 19 (Ia, Ib), {{bib|Urban & Nedoma 2002}}: '''???'''.
Further references: '''{{bib|Fabretti 1867}}: no. 59''', '''Von Sacken & Kenner 1866: 292, no. 1089''', '''{{bib|Corssen 1874}}: 949 (Note)''', '''{{bib|Pichler 1880}}: 43 f.''', '''Oberziner 209''', {{bib|AIF I}}: 36, no. 99a, {{bib|Olsen 1903}}: 23 ff., {{bib|Marstrander 1925}}: passim, {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 2 ff. (A 1), {{bib|Kretschmer 1943}}: 187, {{bib|Prosdocimi & Scardigli 1976}}: 224 f., {{bib|Egg 1986}}: 227 (Nr. 324), {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: 19 f. (Ia), {{bib|Urban & Nedoma 2002}}: 57.


Pictures in '''{{bib|Egg 1986}}: Abb. 138 (drawing''') (= {{bib|Schumacher 2004}}: Taf. 16, 2) and {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: Abb. 2–5 (photos).
Pictures in '''{{bib|Giovanelli 1845}}: tav. II (drawing), {{bib|Giovanelli 1876}}: tav. II (drawing)''', {{bib|Mommsen 1853}}: Taf. I, 12B (see {{bib|Mommsen 1853}}: 208 f.) (= {{bib|AIF I}}: Taf VI, 99 A = {{bib|Marstrander 1925}}: 38), '''Fabretti tab. VI''', '''{{bib|Pichler 1880}}: ???''' (= {{bib|AIF I}}: Taf. VI, 99 B), {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 4, Fig. 1 (drawing) and Pl. I (photo), {{bib|Egg 1986}}: 226, Abb. 183 (drawing) (= {{bib|Schumacher 2004}}: Taf. 16, 2) and {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: Abb. 2 and 3 (photos).


Length about 13 cm. Written on the chamfer, running leftwards toward the embossed and upside-down [[index::SL-2.3]]. A white inlay was added sometime before 1927, possibly for photos made for {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}, but must have been cleaned away since. Remains can still be seen in some of the deeper scratches.
Length about 5 cm, written on the chamfer. A white inlay was added sometime before 1927, possibly for photos made for {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}, but must have been cleaned away since. Remains can still be seen in some of the deeper scratches.


The row of characters, though not at first glance unlike in appearance, may have to be separated into two inscriptions. (Compare {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: Ia and Ib.) The first part, henceforward called (A) ({{w||siraku}}'':''{{w||þurpi}}), is engraved slightly more deeply, with most strokes being scratched from bottom to top. This seems counterintuitive in the absence of an immediate obstacle like the rim in [[index::SL-2.4]]. It may be argued that characters in this place on a helmet are more easily applied when turning the helmet upside-down, because the chamfer can be accessed more comfortably. Compare the upside-down [[index::SL-2.3]]. This inscription, however, is clearly written as seen when the helmet is worn, so the writer would have had to engrave his letters upside-down. The hastae of {{c||E}} and {{c||I}} in part (B) are scratched top to bottom. Both parts of the inscription are indubitably sinistroverse, with only the first {{c||S|d}} being turned against writing direction, while in the second instance in (B) it is written {{c||S}}. Another difference is the execution of ''{{p||r}}'', written {{c||R}} in (A), but {{c||R2}} in (B).
The inscription is immediately followed by [[index::SL-2.2]], separated by a punctuation mark consisting of four small dots, distinctly unlike the (slightly doubtful, see below) separator between {{w||siraku}} and {{w||turpi}}. The two inscriptions, though not at first glance unlike in appearance, were separated by {{bib|Marstrander 1927|Marstrander}}, who observed that they seem to be written by two different persons: The scratches in SL-2.1 are deeper – "gravée par une main hardie et énergique" (p. 3), the overall execution is neater than that of [[index::SL-2.2]], which is distinguished by a "manque de sûreté et de contours". The strokes in SL-2.1 appear to be scratched from bottom to top. This seems counterintuitive in the absence of an immediate obstacle like the rim in [[index::SL-2.4]]. It may be argued that characters in this place on a helmet are more easily applied when turning the helmet upside-down, because the chamfer can be accessed more comfortably. Compare the upside-down [[index::SL-2.3]]. This inscription, however, is clearly written as seen when the helmet is worn, so the writer would have had to engrave his letters upside-down. The hastae of {{c||E}} and {{c||I}} in [[index::SL-2.2]], by contrast, are scratched top to bottom. While both inscriptions are indubitably sinistroverse, {{c||S|d}} in SL-2.1 is turned against writing direction, while in [[index::SL-2.2]] it is written {{c||S}}. Another difference is the execution of {{p||r}}, written {{c||R}} in SL-2.1, but {{c||R2}} in [[index::SL-2.2]]. Marstrander's splitting of the row has been widely accepted, '''see {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}'''.  


Both parts are scratched somewhat clumsily, and writer's mistakes must be suspected at least once in each part. (A), after starting out fairly tidily in spite of some iterated scratches, features what looks like a cramped {{c||P2}} between the second {{c||U2}} and {{c||R}}. While it is possible that the writer forgot the {{c||P2}} and squeezed it in after writing {{c||R}}, the resulting {{w||þuprpi}} is phonetically improbable. Close inspection shows that the part branching off the hasta has been deleted with tiny scratches crossing it. The writer seems to have either prematurely added the twig of the {{c||P2}} after {{c||R}} to the hasta meant for {{c||R}}, or he erroneously started to write {{c||R}} in the wrong direction – all the more understandable if he was indeed seeing his work upside-down. He also seems to have tried to accentuate the hasta with additional strokes.
Curiously, writer's mistakes with somewhat similar outcomes must be suspected in each inscription. SL-2.1, after starting out fairly tidily in spite of some iterated scratches, features what looks like a cramped {{c||P2}} between the second {{c||U2}} and {{c||R}}. Close inspection shows that the twig {{c||line d 20}} branching off the hasta has been deleted with tiny scratches crossing it (recorded in the early drawings by Giovanelli and Marstrander, but neglected by Pichler and Egg). The writer seems to have either prematurely added the twig of the following {{c||P2}} to the hasta meant for {{c||R}}, or he erroneously started to write {{c||R}} in the wrong direction – all the more comprehensible if he was indeed seeing his work upside-down. He also seems to have tried to accentuate the hasta with additional scratches.


It is not absolutely sure, though probable, that the two large dots between {{w||siraku}} and {{w||þurpi}} are itentional, as strictly speaking no indentations can be made out. A third dot on top of the left stroke of {{c||U2}} may belong to it. If it is a punctuation mark, it is distinctly unlike the one separating (A) and (B).
It is not absolutely sure, though probable, that the two large dots between {{w||siraku}} and {{w||þurpi}} are itentional, as strictly speaking no indentations can be made out. A third dot on top of the left stroke of {{c||U2}} may belong to it.


Part (B) ({{w||(ị)ar??eisṿ?(?)}}) begins with a single repeatedly scratched and somewhat crooked hasta, again looking a bit jammed in between the separator and {{c||A5}}. While the distance between the stroke and the right hasta of {{c||A5}} is rather big and the sequence is usually read {{w||ia}}, it is more likely that the two strokes both constitute the hasta – the other hasta of {{c||A5}} is scratched twice as well. {{c||R2}} engraved round with some effort is followed by a group of strokes curiously resembling the mucked up {{c||P2}}{{c||R}} in (A). The most likely segmentation graphically would be {{c||Þ3}}{{c||L2}}, yielding {{w||arlþ}}. The fact that the twig of supposed {{c||L2}} is prolonged at an angle suggests that this was done after the right twig of supposed {{c||Þ3}} was seen to merge with it. The left twig of {{c||Þ3}} may be crooked because the writer's tool was led along the hasta for a few millimetres. {{c||E}} and {{c||I}}, though not very neat, are fairly well legible. The following {{c||V}} is confined by a patch of corrosion, but no additional twig at the top (yielding {{c||E}} can be made out. Finally, the last two strokes (or stroke carved twice), sometimes read ''{{p||u}}'' ('''???''') defy interpretation. It may be observed that the inscription ends right before the last sign of [[index::SL-2.3]], so that the deteriorating quality of the writing and the queer last sign may be due to lack of space.
{{bibliography}}
{{bibliography}}

Revision as of 20:15, 28 January 2014

edit with form
Inscription
Transliteration: siraku :̣ þurpi
Original script: I sP2 sR sU2 sÞ3 spunctuation2 sU2 sK sA sR sI sS d
Object: SL-2 helmet (bronze)
(Inscriptions: SL-2.1, SL-2.2, SL-2.4)
Position: front, right area"right area" 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., outside
Script: North Italic script
Direction of writing: sinistroverse
Letter height: 1.11.1 cm <br /> – 2.0 cm
Number of letters: 11
Number of characters: 12
Number of lines: 1
Craftsmanship: engraved
Current condition: complete
Archaeological culture: La Tène A [from object]
Date of inscription: second half of 5th–beginning of 4th century BC [from object]
Date derived from: typology [from object]
Language: unknown
Meaning:
Alternative sigla: none
Sources: Schumacher 2004: 330

Images

SL-2
Inscriptions SL-2.1 and SL-2.2.

Commentary

First published in Mommsen 1853: 208, no. 12 (with older literature).

Further references: Fabretti 1867: no. 59, Von Sacken & Kenner 1866: 292, no. 1089, Corssen 1874: 949 (Note), Pichler 1880: 43 f., Oberziner 209, AIF I: 36, no. 99a, Olsen 1903: 23 ff., Marstrander 1925: passim, Marstrander 1927: 2 ff. (A 1), Kretschmer 1943: 187, Prosdocimi & Scardigli 1976: 224 f., Egg 1986: 227 (Nr. 324), Nedoma 1995: 19 f. (Ia), Urban & Nedoma 2002: 57.

Pictures in Giovanelli 1845: tav. II (drawing), Giovanelli 1876: tav. II (drawing), Mommsen 1853: Taf. I, 12B (see Mommsen 1853: 208 f.) (= AIF I: Taf VI, 99 A = Marstrander 1925: 38), Fabretti tab. VI, Pichler 1880: ??? (= AIF I: Taf. VI, 99 B), Marstrander 1927: 4, Fig. 1 (drawing) and Pl. I (photo), Egg 1986: 226, Abb. 183 (drawing) (= Schumacher 2004: Taf. 16, 2) and Nedoma 1995: Abb. 2 and 3 (photos).

Length about 5 cm, written on the chamfer. A white inlay was added sometime before 1927, possibly for photos made for Marstrander 1927, but must have been cleaned away since. Remains can still be seen in some of the deeper scratches.

The inscription is immediately followed by SL-2.2, separated by a punctuation mark consisting of four small dots, distinctly unlike the (slightly doubtful, see below) separator between siraku and turpi. The two inscriptions, though not at first glance unlike in appearance, were separated by Marstrander, who observed that they seem to be written by two different persons: The scratches in SL-2.1 are deeper – "gravée par une main hardie et énergique" (p. 3), the overall execution is neater than that of SL-2.2, which is distinguished by a "manque de sûreté et de contours". The strokes in SL-2.1 appear to be scratched from bottom to top. This seems counterintuitive in the absence of an immediate obstacle like the rim in SL-2.4. It may be argued that characters in this place on a helmet are more easily applied when turning the helmet upside-down, because the chamfer can be accessed more comfortably. Compare the upside-down SL-2.3. This inscription, however, is clearly written as seen when the helmet is worn, so the writer would have had to engrave his letters upside-down. The hastae of E s and I s in SL-2.2, by contrast, are scratched top to bottom. While both inscriptions are indubitably sinistroverse, S d in SL-2.1 is turned against writing direction, while in SL-2.2 it is written S s. Another difference is the execution of r, written R s in SL-2.1, but R2 s in SL-2.2. Marstrander's splitting of the row has been widely accepted, see Nedoma 1995.

Curiously, writer's mistakes with somewhat similar outcomes must be suspected in each inscription. SL-2.1, after starting out fairly tidily in spite of some iterated scratches, features what looks like a cramped P2 s between the second U2 s and R s. Close inspection shows that the twig line d 20 s branching off the hasta has been deleted with tiny scratches crossing it (recorded in the early drawings by Giovanelli and Marstrander, but neglected by Pichler and Egg). The writer seems to have either prematurely added the twig of the following P2 s to the hasta meant for R s, or he erroneously started to write R s in the wrong direction – all the more comprehensible if he was indeed seeing his work upside-down. He also seems to have tried to accentuate the hasta with additional scratches.

It is not absolutely sure, though probable, that the two large dots between siraku and þurpi are itentional, as strictly speaking no indentations can be made out. A third dot on top of the left stroke of U2 s may belong to it.

Bibliography

AIF I Carl Pauli, Altitalische Forschungen. Band 1: Die Inschriften nordetruskischen Alphabets, Leipzig: 1885.
CII Ariodante Fabretti, Corpus inscriptionum italicarum, Torino: 1867. (2 volumes)
Corssen 1874 Wilhelm Paul Corssen, Ueber die Sprache der Etrusker. Band 1, Leipzig: 1874.
Egg 1986 Markus Egg, Italische Helme. Studien zu den ältereisenzeitlichen Helmen Italiens und der Alpen. Teil 1: Text, Teil 2: Tafeln, Mainz: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum 1986.
Giovanelli 1845 Benedetto Giovanelli, Le antichità rezio-etrusche scoperte presso Matrai nel Maggio 1845, Trento: Monauni 1845.
Giovanelli 1876 Benedetto Giovanelli, "Die Rhätisch-Etruskischen Alterthümer entdeckt bei Matrei im Mai 1845", Zeitschrift des Ferdinandeums für Tirol und Vorarlberg 3/20 (1876), 45–99.
Hormayr 1823 Joseph Freiherr von Hormayr, Wien, seine Geschicke und seine Denkwürdigkeiten, Wien: Franz Härter 1823.
Kretschmer 1943 Paul Kretschmer, "Die vorgriechischen Sprach- und Volksschichten (Fortsetzung)", Glotta 30 (1943), 84–218.
Markey 2001 Tom Markey, "A tale of two helmets: The Negau A and B inscriptions", The Journal of Indo-European Studies 29 (2001), 69–172.
Marstrander 1925 Carl Johan Sverdrup Marstrander, "Les inscriptions des casques de Negau, Styrie", Symbolae Osloensis 3 (1925), 37–64.
Marstrander 1927 Carl Johan Sverdrup Marstrander, "Remarques sur les inscriptions des casques en bronze de Negau et de Watsch", Avhandlinger utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. Hist.-filos. klasse 1926/2 (1927), 1–26.
Retrieved from "https://tir.univie.ac.at/index.php?title=SL-2.1&oldid=5463"