VB·23: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
Written in two slightly slanting lines (length 28.5 cm and 30.5 cm respectively) inscribed in a rectangular frame. The inscription is heavily abraded, but the letters are unambiguously legible. The alphabet is the Lepontic one; on the difficult reading see in detail {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1979}}: 257. Though the inscription is damaged, the letters identified by Tibiletti can be identified reasonably well. Final, inverted upsilon in the shorter line is damaged by a break along the second hasta; the surface around epsilon and St. Andrew's cross in the longer line is damaged by splintering, but the hasta and maybe the upper and lower bar of epsilon as well as the upper part of St. Andrew's cross are faintly visible. | Written in two slightly slanting lines (length 28.5 cm and 30.5 cm respectively) inscribed in a rectangular frame. The inscription is heavily abraded, but the letters are unambiguously legible. The alphabet is the Lepontic one; on the difficult reading see in detail {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1979}}: 257. Though the inscription is damaged, the letters identified by Tibiletti can be identified reasonably well. Final, inverted upsilon in the shorter line is damaged by a break along the second hasta; the surface around epsilon and St. Andrew's cross in the longer line is damaged by splintering, but the hasta and maybe the upper and lower bar of epsilon as well as the upper part of St. Andrew's cross are faintly visible. | ||
The rendering and properties of the inscription as given above regard it as it is usually displayed in images and also in the museum: left-aligned dextroverse, with {{w||kiketu}} the first and {{w||retalos}} the second line. According to {{bib|Piana Agostinetti 2004}}: 200 f., however, the edge beside which the inscription is applied is the original straight top edge of the slab (cf. [[VB·22 Stresa]]), damaged on the left. Piana Agostinetti assumes that the lower edge, today ca. 53 cm from the inscription, is a breaking edge and the stone was a stela like the other stones from the [[Stresa]] area. If the stone thus stood upright, the inscription is upside-down. Since a similar situation is found on two other [[Stresa]] stones ([[VB·22]], [[VB·27]]), this cannot be put down to an error. Piana Agostinetti suggests that the inscription was intentionally written upside-down to be read "dalla divinità superna la cui sede è nel cielo" (p. 195). Two alternatives seem possible: 1. The original shape of the stone was much like the current one, and it was not put up as a stela, but laid down to cover the grave; the inscription was applied to be easily legible when standing above it. This is feasible also for [[VB·22]] | The rendering and properties of the inscription as given above regard it as it is usually displayed in images and also in the museum: left-aligned dextroverse, with {{w||kiketu}} the first and {{w||retalos}} the second line. According to {{bib|Piana Agostinetti 2004}}: 200 f., however, the edge beside which the inscription is applied is the original straight top edge of the slab (cf. [[VB·22 Stresa]]), damaged on the left. Piana Agostinetti assumes that the lower edge, today ca. 53 cm from the inscription, is a breaking edge and the stone was a stela like the other stones from the [[Stresa]] area. If the stone thus stood upright, the inscription is upside-down. Since a similar situation is found on two other [[Stresa]] stones ([[VB·22]], [[VB·27]]), this cannot be put down to an error. Piana Agostinetti suggests that the inscription was intentionally written upside-down to be read "dalla divinità superna la cui sede è nel cielo" (p. 195). Two alternatives seem possible: 1. The original shape of the stone was much like the current one, and it was not put up as a stela, but laid down to cover the grave; the inscription was applied to be easily legible when standing above it. This is feasible also for [[VB·22]]; see [[VB·27]] for considerations about that monument. 2. The inscription is not upside-down, but contains a number of inverted letters: sinistroverse {{c||S}}{{c||O2}}{{c||L2}}{{c||A27}}{{c||T}}{{c||E6}}{{c||R}} / {{c||U}}{{c||T}}{{c||E6}}{{c||K}}{{c||I}}{{c||K}}. Inconsistently inverted letters are notably common on the epichoric [[Stresa]] stones, whichever way the inscriptions are turned (see also [[VB·26]]). If the present inscription is read as seen on the upright stone, alpha and epsilon as well as lambda would be inverted; if it is considered upside-down, only upsilon is inverted. That the inscription should indeed be read as rendered above is indicated by a Roman gravestone from Bee near [[Zoverallo]], which has a similar shape as [[VB·22 Stresa]] and [[VB·23 Stresa]], though less wide, and features an alphabetically Latin inscription in the same place and orientation near the straight edge of the stone. {{bib|Lanza & Poletti Ecclesia 2021}}: 333 notably consider the oblique edge to be the original top and the straight edge to be a breaking edge – i.e. opposite to what Piana Agostinetti assumes for [[VB·23 Stresa]] – despite the fact that both appear to be worked. | ||
The linguistic content of the lines is not decisive with regard to their order, though it rather supports an upside-down reading of the inscription: {{w||kiketu}} is more likely to be the individual name (cf. [[VB·28]] {{w||namu}} from nearby [[Levo]] and probably [[VB·22]] {{w||pianu}}) and thus written in the first line, while {{w||retalos}} may be a patronym in {{m||-al-}}. If the inscription is read upside-down, the name formula is inverted (cf. {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1978c}}: 25, {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1979|1979}}: 257–260, {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1981|1981}}: 167 f., no. 15, {{bib|Caramella & De Giuli 1993}}: 207 f., {{bib|Solinas 1995}}: 372, no. 121, {{bib|Morandi 2004}}: 564, no. 66). Tibiletti Bruno points to the late appearance of {{m||-al-}} in [[NO·18]] from [[Miasino]]. Differently {{bib|Markey & Mees 2003}}: 139, who appear to regard {{w||kiketu}} as a patronym in -''ū'' (see [[The Cisalpine Celtic Languages]]).Less likely, though not impossible is the interpretation of {{w||aśkonetio}} as the individual name and {{w||pianu}} as a patronym in -''ū'', as per {{bib|De Hoz 1990}}: 323 f. and/or {{bib|Lejeune 1971}}: 53 (see [[The Cisalpine Celtic Languages]]). The name formulae on the epichoric [[Stresa]] stones being overall heterogeneous and the names of uncertain order, the matter must be considered unresolved for now. | The linguistic content of the lines is not decisive with regard to their order, though it rather supports an upside-down reading of the inscription: {{w||kiketu}} is more likely to be the individual name (cf. [[VB·28]] {{w||namu}} from nearby [[Levo]] and probably [[VB·22]] {{w||pianu}}) and thus written in the first line, while {{w||retalos}} may be a patronym in {{m||-al-}}. If the inscription is read upside-down, the name formula is inverted (cf. {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1978c}}: 25, {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1979|1979}}: 257–260, {{bib|Tibiletti Bruno 1981|1981}}: 167 f., no. 15, {{bib|Caramella & De Giuli 1993}}: 207 f., {{bib|Solinas 1995}}: 372, no. 121, {{bib|Morandi 2004}}: 564, no. 66). Tibiletti Bruno points to the late appearance of {{m||-al-}} in [[NO·18]] from [[Miasino]]. Differently {{bib|Markey & Mees 2003}}: 139, who appear to regard {{w||kiketu}} as a patronym in -''ū'' (see [[The Cisalpine Celtic Languages]]).Less likely, though not impossible is the interpretation of {{w||aśkonetio}} as the individual name and {{w||pianu}} as a patronym in -''ū'', as per {{bib|De Hoz 1990}}: 323 f. and/or {{bib|Lejeune 1971}}: 53 (see [[The Cisalpine Celtic Languages]]). The name formulae on the epichoric [[Stresa]] stones being overall heterogeneous and the names of uncertain order, the matter must be considered unresolved for now. | ||
Latest revision as of 18:57, 28 July 2024
| Inscription | |
|---|---|
| Reading in transliteration: | kiketụ / ṛẹṭalos |
| Reading in original script: |          
|
|
| |
| Object: | VB·23 Stresa (stela) |
| Position: | front |
| Orientation: | 350° |
| Frame: |    (left: straight, middle: top and bottom, right: straight)
|
| Direction of writing: | dextroverse |
| Script: | North Italic script (Lepontic alphabet) |
| Letter height: | 4.5–6 cm1.772 in <br />2.362 in <br /> |
| Number of letters: | 13 |
| Number of words: | 2 |
| Number of lines: | 2 |
| Workmanship: | carved |
| Condition: | damaged |
|
| |
| Archaeological culture: | La Tène D 2 [from object] |
| Date of inscription: | 1st c. BC [from object] |
|
| |
| Type: | funerary |
| Language: | Celtic |
| Meaning: | 'Kiketu son of Retos' (?) |
|
| |
| Alternative sigla: | Tibiletti Bruno 1981: 15 Solinas 1995: 121 Morandi 2004: 66 |
|
| |
| Sources: | Morandi 2004: 564 no. 66 |
Images
 Gravestone from Bee with Latin inscription
|
 Inscription VB·23 from De Giuli 1979
|
 Stela VB·23 Stresa with inscription VB·23 from De Giuli 1979
|
 Inscription VB·23 from Tibiletti Bruno 1979
|
 Stela VB·23 Stresa with inscription VB·23
|
Commentary
First published in De Giuli 1978: 14. Examined for LexLep on 20th April 2024.
Images in De Giuli 1978: 17 (photo = De Giuli 1979: 247, fig. 2 = Mainardis 2009: 337, fig. 5) and 14 (drawing = De Giuli 1979: 247), Tibiletti Bruno 1979: 259, fig. 3 (drawing), Caramella & De Giuli 1993: 207 (drawing).
Written in two slightly slanting lines (length 28.5 cm and 30.5 cm respectively) inscribed in a rectangular frame. The inscription is heavily abraded, but the letters are unambiguously legible. The alphabet is the Lepontic one; on the difficult reading see in detail Tibiletti Bruno 1979: 257. Though the inscription is damaged, the letters identified by Tibiletti can be identified reasonably well. Final, inverted upsilon in the shorter line is damaged by a break along the second hasta; the surface around epsilon and St. Andrew's cross in the longer line is damaged by splintering, but the hasta and maybe the upper and lower bar of epsilon as well as the upper part of St. Andrew's cross are faintly visible.
The rendering and properties of the inscription as given above regard it as it is usually displayed in images and also in the museum: left-aligned dextroverse, with kiketu the first and retalos the second line. According to Piana Agostinetti 2004: 200 f., however, the edge beside which the inscription is applied is the original straight top edge of the slab (cf. VB·22 Stresa), damaged on the left. Piana Agostinetti assumes that the lower edge, today ca. 53 cm from the inscription, is a breaking edge and the stone was a stela like the other stones from the Stresa area. If the stone thus stood upright, the inscription is upside-down. Since a similar situation is found on two other Stresa stones (VB·22, VB·27), this cannot be put down to an error. Piana Agostinetti suggests that the inscription was intentionally written upside-down to be read "dalla divinità superna la cui sede è nel cielo" (p. 195). Two alternatives seem possible: 1. The original shape of the stone was much like the current one, and it was not put up as a stela, but laid down to cover the grave; the inscription was applied to be easily legible when standing above it. This is feasible also for VB·22; see VB·27 for considerations about that monument. 2. The inscription is not upside-down, but contains a number of inverted letters: sinistroverse 
/ 
. Inconsistently inverted letters are notably common on the epichoric Stresa stones, whichever way the inscriptions are turned (see also VB·26). If the present inscription is read as seen on the upright stone, alpha and epsilon as well as lambda would be inverted; if it is considered upside-down, only upsilon is inverted. That the inscription should indeed be read as rendered above is indicated by a Roman gravestone from Bee near Zoverallo, which has a similar shape as VB·22 Stresa and VB·23 Stresa, though less wide, and features an alphabetically Latin inscription in the same place and orientation near the straight edge of the stone. Lanza & Poletti Ecclesia 2021: 333 notably consider the oblique edge to be the original top and the straight edge to be a breaking edge – i.e. opposite to what Piana Agostinetti assumes for VB·23 Stresa – despite the fact that both appear to be worked.
The linguistic content of the lines is not decisive with regard to their order, though it rather supports an upside-down reading of the inscription: kiketu is more likely to be the individual name (cf. VB·28 namu from nearby Levo and probably VB·22 pianu) and thus written in the first line, while retalos may be a patronym in -al-. If the inscription is read upside-down, the name formula is inverted (cf. Tibiletti Bruno 1978c: 25, 1979: 257–260, 1981: 167 f., no. 15, Caramella & De Giuli 1993: 207 f., Solinas 1995: 372, no. 121, Morandi 2004: 564, no. 66). Tibiletti Bruno points to the late appearance of -al- in NO·18 from Miasino. Differently Markey & Mees 2003: 139, who appear to regard kiketu as a patronym in -ū (see The Cisalpine Celtic Languages).Less likely, though not impossible is the interpretation of aśkonetio as the individual name and pianu as a patronym in -ū, as per De Hoz 1990: 323 f. and/or Lejeune 1971: 53 (see The Cisalpine Celtic Languages). The name formulae on the epichoric Stresa stones being overall heterogeneous and the names of uncertain order, the matter must be considered unresolved for now.
See the object page on the dating; VB·23 may belong to the oldest layer of gravestones from the Verbano based on the probable use of -al- and the use of the Lepontic alphabet without evident Latin influence.
Bibliography
| Caramella & De Giuli 1993 | Pierangelo Caramella, Alberto De Giuli, Archeologia dell'Alto Novarese, Mergozzo: Antiquarium Mergozzo 1993. |
|---|---|
| De Giuli 1978 | Alberto De Giuli, "Le stele funerarie di Brisino", Bollettino Storico per la Provincia di Novara 69/1 (1978), 13–20. |
| De Giuli 1979 | Alberto De Giuli, "Le stele funerarie di Brisino", Sibrium 14 (1978–1979), 245–252. |
| De Hoz 1990 | Javier de Hoz, "El genitivo celtico de los temas en -o-", in: Francisco Villar (ed.), Studia indogermanica et palaeohispanica in honorem Antonio Tovar et Luis Michelena, Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca 1990, 315–329. |
