VB·3.1: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
|source_detail=Morandi 2004: 550–552 no. 48 A | |source_detail=Morandi 2004: 550–552 no. 48 A | ||
|checklevel=2 | |checklevel=2 | ||
|problem=uinoś natoś weg? Torp, Bemerkungen zu den venetischen Inschriften 4: -pe und Dativ, aber andere Deutung von naxom | |problem=uinoś natoś weg? Torp, Bemerkungen zu den venetischen Inschriften 4: -pe und Dativ, aber andere Deutung von naxom, {{bib|Solinas 1995}}: 375, no. 128, on {{w||naśom}} and ''ps'' in {{w||sapsutai}} | ||
|disambiguation=VB·3 | |disambiguation=VB·3 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
Images in {{bib|Lejeune 1987}}: pl. XIII (photo = {{bib|Solinas 1995}}: tav. LXIXb) and 498, fig. 2 (drawing), {{bib|Solinas 1995}}: tav. LXXc (photo), {{bib|Morandi 1999}}: pl. IX.1 (photo) = {{bib|Morandi 2004}}: tav. X.48), {{bib|Morandi 2004}}: 566, fig. 12.48 (drawing). | Images in {{bib|Lejeune 1987}}: pl. XIII (photo = {{bib|Solinas 1995}}: tav. LXIXb) and 498, fig. 2 (drawing), {{bib|Solinas 1995}}: tav. LXXc (photo), {{bib|Morandi 1999}}: pl. IX.1 (photo) = {{bib|Morandi 2004}}: tav. X.48), {{bib|Morandi 2004}}: 566, fig. 12.48 (drawing). | ||
By far the longest inscription of five on the shoulder of the flask, the "Latumaros"-inscription VB·3.1 is written above the outer of the two white bands (length ca. 16 cm). The letters are neat and well legible, but there is debate concerning the identification of some of them. Letters no. 5, 14 and 18 have (more or less accurately) the shape {{c||M6}}, which was identified as mu – a Latinised variant – already by Bianchetti and by most later scholars. Letter no. 17 is a St Andrew's cross with a horizontal line directly underneath it, roughly connecting the two strokes of the cross. Bianchetti included this stroke in his rendering of the inscription and transliterated it with ''s''. He was followed by {{bib|Lattes 1896}}, who interpreted the letter as a variant of san {{c||Ś4}} for [χs] as in Voltino {{w||saśadis}}, and interpreted {{w||naśom}} as 'Naxian': {{w||uinom}} {{w||naśom}} 'Naxian wine'. {{bib|Rhŷs 1913}}: 63–67, no. 20 (also {{bib|Rhŷs 1914|1914}}: 25 f.) identified letter 17 as Latin {{c||X}} with a diacritic understroke {{c||X2}} to distinguish it from Lepontic {{c||T}}. Whatmough {{bib|PID}}: 111–113, no. 304 (a) considered {{c||Ś4}} to be a "normal" form of san, comparing [[MI·1]] ''peśu'', in which {{c||T}} features a very similar stroke – which, in this case, however, is an unintentional scratch ({{w||petu}}). That the stroke was unintentional also in the present inscription was proposed by {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1978}}: 144–146 (also {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1975|1975}}: 55, {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1981|1981}}: 162–164, no. 10), who identified the letter as simple {{c||T}}, but considered {{c||Ś3}} in turn to be san ({{w||latuśarui}}, {{w||uinoś}}, {{w||natoś}}; in agreement {{bib|Pellegrini 1983}}: 36 f.). Against Tibiletti {{bib|Lejeune 1971}}: 74–76 (and in greater detail {{bib|Lejeune 1987|1987}}: 495–504), who read san for [ksi̯] following Lattes (also {{bib|Solinas 1995}}: 375, no. 128). {{bib|Morandi 2004}} also sticks with mu, but tentatively goes for {{w||natom}}. '''{{bib|Stifter 2024}}: X''' suggests, like Rhŷs, that the stroke may be a diacritic to a Latin xenograph {{c||X}}, or, alternatively, iota written in ligature; a comparable case to the former option may be found in [[VB·24]], where Latin ksi appears as {{c||X3|d}}, a form which appears to have been made up by the writer to avoid the homography with Lepontic {{c||T|d}}. | |||
Tibiletti's assertion that {{c||Ś3}} is not a Lepontic form of mu and must therefore be san can be dismissed, as Latinised mu – also in combination with Lepontic nu – is attested in late Lepontic inscriptions, e.g. [[VC·1.2]], [[VB·1]]. The question of letter 17 is more difficult. The horizontal stroke is not obviously an unintentional mark – it matches the lines of the letters in thickness, and no evidently similar scratches can be seen elsewhere on the flask's surface. It does, however, appear to be slightly deeper than the lines of the St Andrew's cross, and its edges are somewhat less frayed. A different execution of the stroke could be accounted for by Rhŷs/Stifter's suggestion that it is a diacritic, as it may have been added belatedly. If the stroke is unintentional, the letter is evidently {{c||T}}. If it is intentional, the two epigraphical options are stated by Stifter, but "iotised" {{c||X2}} is unparalleled to my knowledge; the understroke can also hardly be a forgotten iota, as the writer actually did forget the initial sigma of {{w||sapsutai}} and fit it in expertly between the separator and alpha – had he left out iota, he could surely have done the same. The reading of a letter san {{c||Ś4}} is highly unlikely, as such a form is not attested elsewhere. As the issue cannot be resolved from an epigraphic perspective, we turn to linguistic considerations. | |||
That Lattes' {{w||naśom}} 'Naxian' lacked a suffix was already noted by {{bib|Kretschmer 1905}}: 99–101, no. 20. The same is true of Rhŷs' {{w||naxom}}, which the author referred to as "reduced". The only readings which introduce the palatal element necessary for the Naxian wine are Stifter's unlikely digraph and Lejeune's san [ksi̯], which is weakened both by the implausibility of a letter san {{c||Ś4}} and by the fact that the form should be not ''naxi̯om'', but ''naxii̯om''. We may thus have to abandon Lattes' Naxian wine, in which case the assumption of a xenograph {{c||X}} becomes superfluous. The most viable option may in fact be simple Lepontic {{c||T}} disturbed by an unintentional scratch, as in [[MI·1]]. | |||
Concerning the overall structure of the text, Lattes compared the ending of {{w||latumarui}} to that on the {{w||pala}}-stelae and (taking it for a genitive according to the wisdom of the day) translated 'Naxian wine of Latumaros and Sapsutaipis', inscribed for a libation ritual during the burial. The segmentation of ''sapsutaipe'' into another dative {{w||sapsutai}} and the enclitic conjunction {{w||-pe}} 'and Sapsuta' is due to {{bib|Kretschmer 1905}}. The inscription featured prominently in the genitive vs. dative debate, see {{bib|Hirt 1905–1907}}: '''564 f.''' and {{bib|Hirt 1917|1917}}: 210 f. as well as {{bib|Danielsson 1909}}: 17 f., who interpreted the text as a gift inscription (but doubted the Naxian wine). Rhŷs and Whatmough agreed on 'for Latumaros and Sapsuta Naxian wine'; {{bib|Pisani 1964}}: 286 f., no. 124 (a) thought that the vase was a marriage gift. Tibiletti Bruno's deviant reading entailed an interpretation of the two last words as acc.pl. forms {{w||uinoś}} {{w||natoś}} 'to L. and S. beautiful children'. {{bib|Lejeune 1971}}: 74–76 drew attention to the syntactical hierarchy of separators, which separate the nominative and accusative phrases (four dots), the two lexical/onomastic elements within each phrase (three dots) and {{w||sapsutai}} from the enclitic (two dots); in {{bib|Lejeune 1987|1987}}: 495–504, he suggested that the text may be metrical. {{bib|Morandi 1999}}: 172, no. 17 suggests that the four short inscriptions are the names of the people who gave the gift and points out that only one person is buried in the grave, so that the inscription cannot be connected with the funeral, but was probably buried with one of the two recipients (also {{bib|Morandi 2004}}: 550–552, no. 48 A). | |||
{{bib|Lejeune 1971}}: 74–76 highlights final -''m'' as a Lepontic feature (cf. [[VC·1.2]]); the inscription is one of only three late Lepontic documents which feature the archaic dative endings {{m||-ūi̯}}/{{m||-āi̯}} (cf. [[NO·18]], [[BS·2]]). | |||
See also {{bib|Giussani 1902}}: 55–57, {{bib|Jacobsohn 1927}}: 31, no. 192, {{bib|Terracini 1927}}: 148 f., '''{{bib|Piana Agostinetti 1972}}: 272, no. 12, tav. XXXI.12''', '''{{bib|Lambert 1994}}: 21''', '''{{bib|Piana Agostinetti 1997–1999}} II: 57, in IV {{bib|Morandi 1999b}}: 308–312, no. 4''', '''{{bib|Birkhan 2005}}'''. | See also {{bib|Giussani 1902}}: 55–57, {{bib|Jacobsohn 1927}}: 31, no. 192, {{bib|Terracini 1927}}: 148 f., '''{{bib|Piana Agostinetti 1972}}: 272, no. 12, tav. XXXI.12''', '''{{bib|Lambert 1994}}: 21''', '''{{bib|Piana Agostinetti 1997–1999}} II: 57, in IV {{bib|Morandi 1999b}}: 308–312, no. 4''', '''{{bib|Birkhan 2005}}'''. | ||
{{bibliography}} | {{bibliography}} | ||
Revision as of 21:12, 17 June 2024
| Inscription | |
|---|---|
| Reading in transliteration: | latumarui : sapsutai : pe : uinom : natom |
| Reading in original script: |                  
|
| Variant reading: | latuśarui : sapsutai : pe : uinoś : natoś naśom  naxom 
|
|
| |
| Object: | VB·3 Ornavasso (bottle) (Inscriptions: VB·3.1, VB·3.2, VB·3.3, VB·3.4, VB·3.5) |
| Position: | shoulder, outside |
| Orientation: | 0° |
| Direction of writing: | sinistroverse |
| Script: | North Italic script (Lepontic alphabet) |
| adapted to: | Latin script |
| Letter height: | 0.4–1 cm0.157 in <br />0.394 in <br /> |
| Number of letters: | 29 |
| Number of words: | 5 |
| Number of lines: | 1 |
| Workmanship: | scratched after firing |
| Condition: | complete |
|
| |
| Archaeological culture: | La Tène D [from object] |
| Date of inscription: | first half of 1st c. BC [from object] |
|
| |
| Type: | dedicatory |
| Language: | Celtic |
| Meaning: | 'for Latumaros and Sapsuta Naxian wine' (?) |
|
| |
| Alternative sigla: | Whatmough 1933 (PID): 304 Tibiletti Bruno 1981: 10 Solinas 1995: 128 1 Morandi 2004: 48 A |
|
| |
| Sources: | Morandi 2004: 550–552 no. 48 A |
Images
 Layout of inscriptions VB·3.1–5 on the shoulder of the vase from Lejeune 1987
|
 Inscriptions VB·3.1–5 from Morandi 2004
|
 Detail of bottle VB·3 Ornavasso with inscriptions VB·3.1 and VB·3.2 from Solinas 1995
|
 Detail of inscription VB·3.1 from Solinas 1995
|
 Top view of VB·3 Ornavasso with all five inscriptions
|
 Flask VB·3 Ornavasso with inscriptions VB·3.1, VB·3.2 and VB·3.5
|
 Inscription VB·3.1 Ornavasso, with VB·3.2 and VB·3.5 in the background
|
 The last word in VB·3.1
|
Commentary
First published in Bianchetti 1895: 69 (no. 7), 145. Examined for LexLep on 20th April 2024.
Images in Lejeune 1987: pl. XIII (photo = Solinas 1995: tav. LXIXb) and 498, fig. 2 (drawing), Solinas 1995: tav. LXXc (photo), Morandi 1999: pl. IX.1 (photo) = Morandi 2004: tav. X.48), Morandi 2004: 566, fig. 12.48 (drawing).
By far the longest inscription of five on the shoulder of the flask, the "Latumaros"-inscription VB·3.1 is written above the outer of the two white bands (length ca. 16 cm). The letters are neat and well legible, but there is debate concerning the identification of some of them. Letters no. 5, 14 and 18 have (more or less accurately) the shape , which was identified as mu – a Latinised variant – already by Bianchetti and by most later scholars. Letter no. 17 is a St Andrew's cross with a horizontal line directly underneath it, roughly connecting the two strokes of the cross. Bianchetti included this stroke in his rendering of the inscription and transliterated it with s. He was followed by Lattes 1896, who interpreted the letter as a variant of san for [χs] as in Voltino saśadis, and interpreted naśom as 'Naxian': uinom naśom 'Naxian wine'. Rhŷs 1913: 63–67, no. 20 (also 1914: 25 f.) identified letter 17 as Latin 
with a diacritic understroke to distinguish it from Lepontic . Whatmough PID: 111–113, no. 304 (a) considered to be a "normal" form of san, comparing MI·1 peśu, in which features a very similar stroke – which, in this case, however, is an unintentional scratch (petu). That the stroke was unintentional also in the present inscription was proposed by Tibiletti Bruno 1978: 144–146 (also 1975: 55, 1981: 162–164, no. 10), who identified the letter as simple , but considered 
in turn to be san (latuśarui, uinoś, natoś; in agreement Pellegrini 1983: 36 f.). Against Tibiletti Lejeune 1971: 74–76 (and in greater detail 1987: 495–504), who read san for [ksi̯] following Lattes (also Solinas 1995: 375, no. 128). Morandi 2004 also sticks with mu, but tentatively goes for natom. Stifter 2024: X suggests, like Rhŷs, that the stroke may be a diacritic to a Latin xenograph , or, alternatively, iota written in ligature; a comparable case to the former option may be found in VB·24, where Latin ksi appears as 
, a form which appears to have been made up by the writer to avoid the homography with Lepontic 
.
Tibiletti's assertion that is not a Lepontic form of mu and must therefore be san can be dismissed, as Latinised mu – also in combination with Lepontic nu – is attested in late Lepontic inscriptions, e.g. VC·1.2, VB·1. The question of letter 17 is more difficult. The horizontal stroke is not obviously an unintentional mark – it matches the lines of the letters in thickness, and no evidently similar scratches can be seen elsewhere on the flask's surface. It does, however, appear to be slightly deeper than the lines of the St Andrew's cross, and its edges are somewhat less frayed. A different execution of the stroke could be accounted for by Rhŷs/Stifter's suggestion that it is a diacritic, as it may have been added belatedly. If the stroke is unintentional, the letter is evidently . If it is intentional, the two epigraphical options are stated by Stifter, but "iotised" is unparalleled to my knowledge; the understroke can also hardly be a forgotten iota, as the writer actually did forget the initial sigma of sapsutai and fit it in expertly between the separator and alpha – had he left out iota, he could surely have done the same. The reading of a letter san is highly unlikely, as such a form is not attested elsewhere. As the issue cannot be resolved from an epigraphic perspective, we turn to linguistic considerations.
That Lattes' naśom 'Naxian' lacked a suffix was already noted by Kretschmer 1905: 99–101, no. 20. The same is true of Rhŷs' naxom, which the author referred to as "reduced". The only readings which introduce the palatal element necessary for the Naxian wine are Stifter's unlikely digraph and Lejeune's san [ksi̯], which is weakened both by the implausibility of a letter san and by the fact that the form should be not naxi̯om, but naxii̯om. We may thus have to abandon Lattes' Naxian wine, in which case the assumption of a xenograph becomes superfluous. The most viable option may in fact be simple Lepontic disturbed by an unintentional scratch, as in MI·1.
Concerning the overall structure of the text, Lattes compared the ending of latumarui to that on the pala-stelae and (taking it for a genitive according to the wisdom of the day) translated 'Naxian wine of Latumaros and Sapsutaipis', inscribed for a libation ritual during the burial. The segmentation of sapsutaipe into another dative sapsutai and the enclitic conjunction -pe 'and Sapsuta' is due to Kretschmer 1905. The inscription featured prominently in the genitive vs. dative debate, see Hirt 1905–1907: 564 f. and 1917: 210 f. as well as Danielsson 1909: 17 f., who interpreted the text as a gift inscription (but doubted the Naxian wine). Rhŷs and Whatmough agreed on 'for Latumaros and Sapsuta Naxian wine'; Pisani 1964: 286 f., no. 124 (a) thought that the vase was a marriage gift. Tibiletti Bruno's deviant reading entailed an interpretation of the two last words as acc.pl. forms uinoś natoś 'to L. and S. beautiful children'. Lejeune 1971: 74–76 drew attention to the syntactical hierarchy of separators, which separate the nominative and accusative phrases (four dots), the two lexical/onomastic elements within each phrase (three dots) and sapsutai from the enclitic (two dots); in 1987: 495–504, he suggested that the text may be metrical. Morandi 1999: 172, no. 17 suggests that the four short inscriptions are the names of the people who gave the gift and points out that only one person is buried in the grave, so that the inscription cannot be connected with the funeral, but was probably buried with one of the two recipients (also Morandi 2004: 550–552, no. 48 A).
Lejeune 1971: 74–76 highlights final -m as a Lepontic feature (cf. VC·1.2); the inscription is one of only three late Lepontic documents which feature the archaic dative endings -ūi̯/-āi̯ (cf. NO·18, BS·2).
See also Giussani 1902: 55–57, Jacobsohn 1927: 31, no. 192, Terracini 1927: 148 f., Piana Agostinetti 1972: 272, no. 12, tav. XXXI.12, Lambert 1994: 21, Piana Agostinetti 1997–1999 II: 57, in IV Morandi 1999b: 308–312, no. 4, Birkhan 2005.
Bibliography
| Bianchetti 1895 | Enrico Bianchetti, I sepolcreti di Ornavasso [= Atti della Società di Archeologia e Belle Arti della provincia di Torino 6], Torino: Paravia 1895. |
|---|---|
| Birkhan 2005 | Helmut Birkhan, "UINOM NAŚOM", in: Franziska Beutler, Wolfgang Hameter (Eds.), "Eine ganz normale Inschrift" ... Vnd ähnLiches zVm GebVrtstag von Ekkehard Weber. Festschrift zum 30. April 2005 [= Althistorisch-Epigraphische Studien 5], Wien: Eigenverlag der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Archäologie 2005, 223-228. |
| Caramella & De Giuli 1993 | Pierangelo Caramella, Alberto De Giuli, Archeologia dell'Alto Novarese, Mergozzo: Antiquarium Mergozzo 1993. |
| Danielsson 1909 | Olof August Danielsson, Zu den venetischen und lepontischen Inschriften [= Skrifter utgivna av Kungliga Humanistiska Vetenskaps-Samfundet i Uppsala 13.1], Uppsala – Leipzig: 1909. |
