SZ-30

From Thesaurus Inscriptionum Raeticarum
Jump to navigationJump to search
Inscription
Transliteration: ka[? ?]isθi : luχe : ̣p̣umis : l[ ]θiaḳ[??]auþile : ẹḷuku : ̣
Original script: K2 dA3 d[space s]I2 dS sΘ dI2 dpunctuation3 dL dU2 dΧ dE dpunctuation3 dP2 dU2 dM dI2 dS spunctuation3 dL d[space s]Θ dI2 dA3 dK2 d[space s]A3 dU2 dÞ3 dI2 dL2 dE dpunctuation3 dE dL2 dU2 dK2 dU2 dpunctuation3 d

Object: SZ-30 situla (bronze)
Position: inside
Frame: Frame middle: top and bottomFrame middle: top and bottom   (none, top and bottom, none)
Script: North Italic script
Direction of writing: dextroverse
Letter height: 1.2 cm – 2.5 cm
Number of letters: 35
Number of characters: 40
Number of lines: 1
Craftsmanship: embossed
Current condition: damaged, fragmentary, restored
Date of inscription: 5th–4th centuries BC [from object]
Date derived from: typology [from object]

Language: Raetic
Meaning: unknown

Alternative sigla: IR 29
LIR SA-22
Sources: Schumacher 2004: 139

Images

Commentary

First published in IR. Autopsied by TIR in November 2013.

Pictures in IR (photo tav. XLI and drawing = LIR).

The characters are struck from what was apparently the inside of the situla, and are usually read from this side, even though dextroverse inscriptions are unusual. It is unlikely that the strokes would have been visible on the outside of the vessel even in the absence of copper rust. (Compare, however, IT-5 where the positive side seems to have been the face side.) This raises the question of when and why the signs were embossed. It is generally assumed that the inscription was applied secondarily: The situla was dismantled and inscribed, possibly for votive purposes (suggested also by the presence of the word eluku), on what had been the inside, apparently making use of two decorative lines as a frame for the letters.

On fragment A: The presence of the rivetted edge before K2 d suggests that this fragment bears the beginning of the inscription. A discolouration is visible along the breaking edge in the lower half of the line, maybe indicating a stroke (Θ d?).

On fragments B, C, D: Based on the reconstruction of the situla, the second part of the inscription. If fragments A and B fit together as shown in the drawing, as few as three or four letters may be missing between A3 d and I2 d. The very tip of the letter before I2 d is visible on fragment B. A small piece missing in the upper area on the right side of fragment B damages the separator (the uppermost dot being gone) and the sign following it, but no other reading than P2 d is plausible.

On fragment E: If fragments D and E fit together as shown in the drawing, about ?? letters are missing between P2 s and Θ d. K2 d is damaged in the middle area, the upper bar being gone; no white inlay in the remaining bar. The right part of the fragment only shows the upper parts of the following letters: an angle representing the tip of E d, V d or L d, followed by the tip of an oblique stroke, most probably Θ d, and one of a hasta.

On fragments F and G: The size of the lacuna between fragments E and F is not securely determinable (see SZ-30 situla). Before A3 d, the upper tip of an oblique stroke. E d and L2 d of eluku are damaged by the break between the two fragments, but the reading is non-ambiguous. Fragment G, fitting neatly onto fragment A, bears the last word of the inscription.

Finally, again on fragment A, to the left of the rivetted rim, a separator marking the end of the inscription right after eluku. The uppermost dot is missing.

The characters are neatly and consistently executed, with K2 d appearing always with short bars, A3 d with the bar rising in writing direction, S s with the upper angle opening in writing direction, I s shorter than the other letters, and a separator consisting of three dots. The only difficulty concerns the ever-problematic characters for l and p: All three Northern variants L d, P2 d and L2 d occur in the inscription. L2 d in eluku and )auþile is clear, and P2 d in pumis is the standard Sanzeno-type p, so L d in luχe and at the beginning of a lost word could be read either l or p. It does seem strange that in such a tidy inscription the writer should have made a grave mistake like this; it remains to be determined whether L d with the bar on top turned in writing direction is not a character distinct from the other two rather than a variant of either or frequent evidence of a common mistake. (See L for details and ??? for other inscriptions containing all three characters.)

The inscription appears to be the longest document of the Raetic language which has so far come down to us; unfortunately, it is shortened to unknown extent by the disintergration of the object. Of the complete words, only eluku is attested in other Raetic inscriptions. luχe or puχe lends itself to various interpretations; the segmentation of pumis as a personal name plus genitive suffix is not implausible, but not confirmable in the absence of other attestations of the name. Only one pertinentive form can be found in )auþile.

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)