SL-2.1: Difference between revisions

From Thesaurus Inscriptionum Raeticarum
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
Line 38: Line 38:
Curiously, writer's mistakes with somewhat similar outcomes must be suspected in both inscriptions. 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 bar {{c||line d 20}} branching off the hasta has been deleted with tiny scratches crossing it (recorded in the early drawings by {{bib|Giovanelli 1845|Giovanelli}} and {{bib|Marstrander 1927|Marstrander}}, but neglected by {{bib|Pichler 1880|Pichler}} and {{bib|Egg 1986|Egg}}). The writer seems to have either prematurely added the twig of the following {{c||P2}} to the hasta meant for {{c||R}} ({{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 4), or they erroneously started to write {{c||R}} in the wrong direction – all the more comprehensible if they were indeed seeing their work upside-down. {{bib|Markey 2001|Markey}} also points out that the two preceding letters are symmetrical; "this may have left an unskilled engraver in doubt as to the direction of the next asymmetrical letter" (p. 110). They also seem to have tried to accentuate the hasta with additional scratches. Apart from this lapse, the characters are legible without ambiguity.
Curiously, writer's mistakes with somewhat similar outcomes must be suspected in both inscriptions. 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 bar {{c||line d 20}} branching off the hasta has been deleted with tiny scratches crossing it (recorded in the early drawings by {{bib|Giovanelli 1845|Giovanelli}} and {{bib|Marstrander 1927|Marstrander}}, but neglected by {{bib|Pichler 1880|Pichler}} and {{bib|Egg 1986|Egg}}). The writer seems to have either prematurely added the twig of the following {{c||P2}} to the hasta meant for {{c||R}} ({{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 4), or they erroneously started to write {{c||R}} in the wrong direction – all the more comprehensible if they were indeed seeing their work upside-down. {{bib|Markey 2001|Markey}} also points out that the two preceding letters are symmetrical; "this may have left an unskilled engraver in doubt as to the direction of the next asymmetrical letter" (p. 110). They also seem to have tried to accentuate the hasta with additional scratches. Apart from this lapse, the characters are legible without ambiguity.


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, and the space between {{c|U|U2}} and {{c|Þ|Þ3}} is not uncommonly broad. A third dot on top of the left stroke of {{c||U2}} may belong to it. Compare {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 4, who believed the marks to be accidental; {{bib|Egg 1986}}: 227 (Nr. 324) did not include them either. An interpretation of the spots as intentional is endorsed by the fact that the segmentation into {{w||siraku}} and {{w||þurpi}} is linguistically plausible for both Raetic and Celtic interpretations.  
It is not absolutely sure, though probable, that the two large dots between {{w||siraku}} and {{w||þurpi}} are intentional, as strictly speaking no indentations can be made out, and the space between {{c|U|U2}} and {{c|Þ|Þ3}} is not uncommonly broad. A third dot on top of the left stroke of {{c||U2}} may belong to it. Compare {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 4, who believed the marks to be accidental; {{bib|Egg 1986}}: 227 (Nr. 324) did not include them either. An interpretation of the spots as intentional is endorsed by the fact that the segmentation into {{w||siraku}} and {{w||þurpi}} is linguistically plausible for both Raetic and Celtic interpretations.  


Epigraphically (Sanzeno-type {{c||P2}} and {{c||Þ3}}, characteristical Raetic {{c||A}} and  {{c||U2}}), the inscription can be ascribed to the Raetic corpus.
Epigraphically (Sanzeno-type {{c||P2}} and {{c||Þ3}}, characteristical Raetic {{c||A}} and  {{c||U2}}), the inscription can be ascribed to the Raetic corpus.

Revision as of 19:41, 28 March 2014

Inscription
Transliteration: sirakuþurpi
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 (Sanzeno alphabet)
Direction of writing: sinistroverse
Letter height: 1.11.1 cm <br /> – 2.0 cm
Number of letters: 11
Number of characters: 11 – 12
Number of lines: 1
Craftsmanship: engraved
Current condition: complete
Date of inscription: 450–100 BC
Date derived from: typology

Language: unknown
Meaning: unknown

Alternative sigla: PID 1* bis (a)
Sources: Schumacher 2004: 330

Images

Commentary

First published in Mommsen 1853: 208, no. 12. Autopsied by TIR on 10th January 2014.

Pictures in Von Hormayr 1823: Nr. 2 (drawing), Giovanelli 1845: tav. II (drawing = Giovanelli 1876: Taf. II, No. 1), Mommsen 1853: Taf. I, 12B (drawing; see Mommsen 1853: 208 f.) (= CII: Tab. VI, b = AIF I: Taf VI, 99 A = Marstrander 1925: 38), Sulzer 1855: Taf. VII, Von Sacken & Kenner 1866: Taf. Nr. 3 (drawing), Pichler 1880: [?] (= AIF I: Taf. VI, 99 B), Marstrander 1927: 4, Fig. 1 (drawing) and Pl. I (photo), Reinecke 1942: 133, a (drawing = Markey 2001: 105, Fig. 6) and Taf. 11b (photo), Egg 1986: 226, Abb. 183 (drawing) (= Schumacher 2004: Taf. 16, 2) and Nedoma 1995: Abb. 2 and 3 (photos).

Length 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 þurpi. The two inscriptions, though not at first glance unlike in appearance, were separated by Marstrander 1927 (A 1), 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 lines in SL-2.1 appear to be scratched from bottom to top. This seems counterintuitive in the absence of an immediate obstacle like, for example, the rim in SL-2.4. It may be argued that the characters were 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 their 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, whereas in SL-2.2 it is written S s. Another difference is the execution of the character for 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 (Kretschmer 1943: 187, Nedoma 1995: 19 f. (Ia), but see also Prosdocimi 1986: 33).

Curiously, writer's mistakes with somewhat similar outcomes must be suspected in both inscriptions. 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 bar 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 (Marstrander 1927: 4), or they erroneously started to write R s in the wrong direction – all the more comprehensible if they were indeed seeing their work upside-down. Markey also points out that the two preceding letters are symmetrical; "this may have left an unskilled engraver in doubt as to the direction of the next asymmetrical letter" (p. 110). They also seem to have tried to accentuate the hasta with additional scratches. Apart from this lapse, the characters are legible without ambiguity.

It is not absolutely sure, though probable, that the two large dots between siraku and þurpi are intentional, as strictly speaking no indentations can be made out, and the space between U2 s and Þ3 s is not uncommonly broad. A third dot on top of the left stroke of U2 s may belong to it. Compare Marstrander 1927: 4, who believed the marks to be accidental; Egg 1986: 227 (Nr. 324) did not include them either. An interpretation of the spots as intentional is endorsed by the fact that the segmentation into siraku and þurpi is linguistically plausible for both Raetic and Celtic interpretations.

Epigraphically (Sanzeno-type P2 s and Þ3 s, characteristical Raetic A s and U2 s), the inscription can be ascribed to the Raetic corpus.

For the dating of the inscriptions on SL-2 helmet see Nedoma 1995: 16–18 and 20–22. Depending on which type(s) of inscriptions we are faced with, they may have been applied any time after the manufacture of the helmet in the second half of the 5th century by its owners, or as votive inscriptions on the occasion of the deposit around 100 BC.

Further references: Von Hormayr 1823 I.2: 143, Anm. 23, Giovanelli 1845: 43 ff., Von Sacken & Kenner 1866: 292, no. 1089, CII: no. 59, Corssen 1874: 949 (note), Pichler 1880: 43 f., AIF I: 36, no. 99a, Marstrander 1925: passim, Urban & Nedoma 2002: 57.

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.