WE-4: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
|orientation=0 | |orientation=0 | ||
|craftsmanship=impressed | |craftsmanship=impressed | ||
|condition=damaged | |condition=fragmentary, damaged | ||
|sigla_mlr=16 | |||
|checklevel=2 | |checklevel=2 | ||
|problem=meaning eingeben? Aussagen übers Objekt korrekt? | |problem=meaning eingeben? Aussagen übers Objekt korrekt? | ||
| Line 29: | Line 30: | ||
After {{w||eluku}}, the fragment is broken at the top, but for another 2.5 cm, the remains of letters can still be seen. A space of about 5 mm separates the last letter from a crack going towards the bottom right; then the tip of a line pointing bottom left. This is followed by the lower part of what can only be {{c||E}} (bottom of hasta plus lowest bar, looking exactly like the other two instances in the inscription). As the abovementioned line cannot indicate {{c||S|d}} ({{c||S}} in this inscription), it is most plausible to assume that the crack obscures another line, and that the letter was {{c||Θ}} (the distance between line and crack is exactly the same as that between the two lines of preceding {{c||U}}). Alpha, as read by {{bib|Tecchiati et al. 2011|Marchesini}}, is impossible. The small, but undisputable space before the crack may either be exactly that, or have held a small separator in the middle of the line, which would be just broken off. In either case, seeing as no words are separated in the preserved part of the inscription, it could indicate that {{p||θ}}̣{{p||e}}[ is the beginning of the inscription, and {{w||eluku}} its end (cp. [[index::SZ-30]]), although this option presupposes considerable foresight, layout-wise, on the part of the writer. | After {{w||eluku}}, the fragment is broken at the top, but for another 2.5 cm, the remains of letters can still be seen. A space of about 5 mm separates the last letter from a crack going towards the bottom right; then the tip of a line pointing bottom left. This is followed by the lower part of what can only be {{c||E}} (bottom of hasta plus lowest bar, looking exactly like the other two instances in the inscription). As the abovementioned line cannot indicate {{c||S|d}} ({{c||S}} in this inscription), it is most plausible to assume that the crack obscures another line, and that the letter was {{c||Θ}} (the distance between line and crack is exactly the same as that between the two lines of preceding {{c||U}}). Alpha, as read by {{bib|Tecchiati et al. 2011|Marchesini}}, is impossible. The small, but undisputable space before the crack may either be exactly that, or have held a small separator in the middle of the line, which would be just broken off. In either case, seeing as no words are separated in the preserved part of the inscription, it could indicate that {{p||θ}}̣{{p||e}}[ is the beginning of the inscription, and {{w||eluku}} its end (cp. [[index::SZ-30]]), although this option presupposes considerable foresight, layout-wise, on the part of the writer. | ||
Apart from the well documented verbal form {{w||eluku}}, the content of the inscription can be compared to that of [[index::BZ-4]], which commences with the sequence {{w||pevaśniχesi}}{{w||upiku}}. While the segmentation of {{w||pevaśniχesi}} / ]{{w||?niχesi}} remains unclear, we are certainly concerned with the pertinentive ending {{m||-si}} in combination with a verbal form in {{m||-ku}}. In WE-4, this leaves the short isolated sequence {{w||ta}}, possibly a pronoun. Considering that the object is of Roman style and probably manufacture, and the inscription cannot have been added later on, both object and inscription might be considered an import from the South. | Apart from the well documented verbal form {{w||eluku}}, the content of the inscription can be compared to that of [[index::BZ-4]], which commences with the sequence {{w||pevaśniχesi}}{{w||upiku}}. While the segmentation of {{w||pevaśniχesi}} / ]{{w||?niχesi}} remains unclear, we are certainly concerned with the pertinentive ending {{m||-si}} in combination with a verbal form in {{m||-ku}}. In WE-4, this leaves the short isolated sequence {{w||ta}}, possibly a pronoun. Considering that the object is of Roman style and probably manufacture, and the inscription cannot have been added later on, both object and inscription might be considered an import from the South. | ||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Revision as of 14:53, 25 August 2016
| Inscription | |
|---|---|
| Transliteration: | ?]niχesitaeluku[(?)θ̣e |
| Original script: |   (?)]         [
|
|
| |
| Object: | WE-4 potsherd (pottery) |
| Position: | shoulder |
| Orientation: | 0° |
| Script: | North Italic script (Magrè alphabet) |
| Direction of writing: | sinistroverse |
| Letter height: | 1.5 cm |
| Number of letters: | 16 |
| Number of lines: | 1 |
| Craftsmanship: | impressed |
| Current condition: | fragmentary, damaged |
| Date of inscription: | 5th–4th centuries BC [from object] |
| Date derived from: | typology, archaeological context [from object] |
|
| |
| Language: | Raetic |
| Meaning: | unknown |
|
| |
| Alternative sigla: | MLR 16 |
Images
 Object WE-4 potsherd with inscription WE-4.
|
 Inscription WE-4.
|
Commentary
First published in Tecchiati et al. 2011: 40–53.
Images in Tecchiati et al. 2011: Fig. 33 and 34 (photos) and Tav. 9 (drawings).
Length of the remains about 15 cm; impressed tidily into the wet clay along the shoulder of the vessel between the edges separating this section from neck and bottom. The original length of the inscription cannot be determined; none of the preserved fragments is a part of the shoulder without inscription. The lines are about 1.5 mm in breadth; the order in which they were impressed can be clearly seen – it is generally what may be expected, though in some letters the hasta was added after the bars (, first ), possibly an attempt at extra neatness.
A half-circle in the upper area remains of the letter before , which might be 
(as suggested by Marchesini), but equally well 
. More likely than either, however, is 
, the curve being decidedly offset to the top, or even a rounded Venetoid Pi 
, fitting in with the Magrè alphabet used.
After eluku, the fragment is broken at the top, but for another 2.5 cm, the remains of letters can still be seen. A space of about 5 mm separates the last letter from a crack going towards the bottom right; then the tip of a line pointing bottom left. This is followed by the lower part of what can only be (bottom of hasta plus lowest bar, looking exactly like the other two instances in the inscription). As the abovementioned line cannot indicate 
( in this inscription), it is most plausible to assume that the crack obscures another line, and that the letter was (the distance between line and crack is exactly the same as that between the two lines of preceding ). Alpha, as read by Marchesini, is impossible. The small, but undisputable space before the crack may either be exactly that, or have held a small separator in the middle of the line, which would be just broken off. In either case, seeing as no words are separated in the preserved part of the inscription, it could indicate that θ̣e[ is the beginning of the inscription, and eluku its end (cp. SZ-30), although this option presupposes considerable foresight, layout-wise, on the part of the writer.
Apart from the well documented verbal form eluku, the content of the inscription can be compared to that of BZ-4, which commences with the sequence pevaśniχesiupiku. While the segmentation of pevaśniχesi / ]?niχesi remains unclear, we are certainly concerned with the pertinentive ending -si in combination with a verbal form in -ku. In WE-4, this leaves the short isolated sequence ta, possibly a pronoun. Considering that the object is of Roman style and probably manufacture, and the inscription cannot have been added later on, both object and inscription might be considered an import from the South.
