HU-7

edit with form

Inscription
Transliteration:	?ẹḳiesiuṭikutanin / metḷainile
Original script:	?
Object:	HU-7 situla (bronze)
Position:	rim
Script:	North Italic script (Magrè alphabet)
Direction of writing:	dextroverse
Letter height:	0.70.7 cm <br /> – 1 cm
Number of letters:	27
Number of lines:	1
Craftsmanship:	embossed
Current condition:	damaged
Archaeological culture:	Hallstatt [from object]
Date of inscription:	third quarter of the 6th century BC [from object]
Date derived from:	typology [from object]
Language:	Raetic
Meaning:	'by ?ekie Metlaini given tanin' (?)
Alternative sigla:	MLR 304 TM 563552

Images

Third part of inscription HU-7	Mark on the rim of HU-7 situla	Object HU-7 situla with inscription HU-7.	Inscription HU-7.	Inscription HU-7
First part of inscription HU-7	Second part of inscription HU-7	Inscription HU-7.

Commentary

First published by Whatmough in Hanfmann 1940: p. 32 f. Examined for TIR by Rex Wallace on 22^nd September 2014, and again by Corinna Salomon on 10^th October 2024.

Images in Hanfmann 1940 (photo and drawing = Schürr 2003: fig. 2a), Olzscha 1962: Taf. 4 (photo and drawing = Schürr 2003: fig. 2b = MLR = Marchesini & Zaghetto 2019: fig. 4), Schürr 2003: pl. XXI (photo = MLR) and fig. 2c (drawings), Salomon 2018: fig. 4 (drawing = drawing on this page), Marchesini & Zaghetto 2019: fig. 4 (drawing), and on the U.S. epigraphy project website (photo).

Length 13.8 cm (= 7.7 cm + 1.2 cm gap + 4.9 cm), running along the rim, starting at 0.9 cm to the right of one of the handle fittings (see drawing in Schürr 2003: fig. 1). Hardly damaged by corrosion – the situla was restored in 1961 and 1968, but according to Georgina Borromeo from the RISD Museum, the inscription has not been worked on in the process. As first observed by Lunz 1974: 318 f. (Anm. 961), the reading is impeded by a number of oblique strokes in the lower part of the inscription, disrupting most of the letters. As those strokes only occur on that part of the rim which bears the inscription, it must be assumed that someone made an effort to efface or invalidate what was most probably a votive inscription. As observed by Borromeo (Schürr 2003: 147), the secondary strokes are "made with a chisel with a wider wedge than that used for the original text", viz. of about 1 mm width as opposed to the original strokes of about 0.5 mm width. The hastae of the letters are applied with two strokes each on account of the curvature of the rim.

The older readings of Whatmough and Olzscha, both of whom worked only with photos, are largely negligible, as they fail to distinguish between original inscription and secondary strokes. Schürr in doing so could segment the text correctly and assign the inscription to the Raetic corpus. Letter 1 must be considered illegible. The discernible elements are a short vertical stroke in the upper part of the line, an oblique bar in the lower area on the right, and a shorter one on the left. As observed by Emily Egan from the RISD Museum via Schürr, the short stroke can be identified as the secondary one meant to efface the letter. The two thinner, original strokes, however, do not form an identifiable North Italic letter, even when considering that the secondary stroke may cover part of it. Schürr settles on a small, inverted tau whose bar fails to cross the hasta, which seems too much of a stretch. The secondary strokes overlaying and are the only ones slanting downwards against writing direction ( rather than ), but the reading is clear. is undamaged, followed by whose medial bar is overlaid by a secondary stroke. , again, is largely undamaged, though a faint indentation beside the middle bar may indicate that an attempt at an effacing stroke was made. , and are clear despite the secondary strokes; the head of is less pronounced than in the two later instances, but clearly visible. Then, another undamaged , and with a secondary stroke overlaying the lower bar. is damaged by three secondary strokes; there is no bar to make . Then clear and , the latter only slightly damaged by a secondary stroke on the left. Of , only the first nu is crossed by a secondary stroke. After the gap, , not touched by the secondary stroke which landed unter the bars, then like letter 4, then as before. The next letter is read with a secondary stroke crossing the hasta by Schürr, but the upper edge of the broad mark which crosses the hasta sits somewhat higher on the right than on the left of the hasta, indicating that a second bar was covered by the effacing stroke, making (as already suspected by Wallace). and covered by secondary strokes are clear, as are undamaged and ; a secondary stroke is situated between the latter and . Finally, with a secondary stroke overlaying the lowest bar.

We can identify the words utiku and tanin, accompanied by what must be a Raetic individual name in the pertinentive ?ekie-si. Individual names without an accompanying patronym are by no means unusual, but the expected pertinentive II-ending -le, which marks patronyms, may be present in the otherwise opaque sequence metlainile. See Salomon 2018: 41 and 2020: 393 on the possibility of surnames in -i. Cf. WE-3 and maybe SZ-14 and SZ-1.1 for disjoined name elements; the reason for metlainile being offset remains, in any case, unclear (cf. NO-3).

Marchesini (in Marchesini & Zaghetto 2019: 333–340) proposed a partly new reading (also in MLR), with reference to the autopsy made by Wallace for TIR, but coming to different conclusions. Marchesini opts to identify the difficult first letter as iota: i?kiesi. Negating the possibility of tip-up upsilon in the 6^th century, she prefers to read the entire second as inverted utiku, with the random inversion explained as a "refinement feature" (p. 337). In this orientation, letter 9 is read as tau , with the effacing stroke, which is thus situated on the hasta's upper end, serving as the bar. The third word is read in the same orientation as the first one φanin (see T on the interpretation of the character ): 'to I?kie as gift (this) fanin [sic]'. In the fourth word, Marchesini again reads as phi and, again presupposing an underlying sound value f, compares Etruscan names beginning in mef-. Letter 26 is interpreted as pi; resulting final -pe is compared with an Etruscan postposition -pi (variant -pe). Marchesini argues that the text of the inscription relates to the decorative programme of the richly decorated situla, but neither her arguments for the association of artwork and inscription (p. 333 f.) nor any elements of her reading strike us as compelling.

On the same half of the rim, at about 3 cm before the other handle fitting, are applied a number of strokes, according to Borromeo two characters which "appear to be more deeply struck or struck twice" (Schürr 2003: 249). The area is more heavily corroded, and it is difficult to distinguish primary from possible secondary strokes. Option 1: the original mark consists of three oblique lines overlaid by two effacing strokes, one short to the left of the original mark and one long crossing the middle line. Option 2: the longer stroke is part of the original mark, which has the shape . In either case, the mark is not language-encoding and can be compared with (manufacturer's?) marks on the rims and handles of situlae and cists such as BZ-7 cist, BZ-8 situla, SZ-36 situla, SZ-82 cist (see also the marks on the Pansdorf situla).

The inscription is included in the collection of the U.S. epigraphy project: Collections of Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the USA (RI.Prov.RISD.MA.Raet.32.245).

Corinna Salomon

Bibliography

Hanfmann 1940	George Maxim Anossov Hanfmann, "The Etruscans and their art", Bulletin of the Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design 28 (1940), 1–35.
Lunz 1974	Reimo Lunz, Studien zur End-Bronzezeit und älteren Eisenzeit im Südalpenraum, Firenze: Sansoni 1974.
Marchesini & Zaghetto 2019	Simona Marchesini, Luca Zaghetto, "The Situla in Providence. A comprehensive analysis of inscription and decorative program", in: Simon Hye, Ulrike Töchterle (eds), UPIKU:TAUKE. Festschrift für Gerhard Tomedi zum 65. Geburtstag [= Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 339], Bonn: 2019, 329–341.