VS·2: Difference between revisions

From Lexicon Leponticum
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{inscription
{{inscription
|reading=poenino / ieu???
|reading=poenino / ieureu
|reading_lepontic={{c|O|O7}}{{c|N|N}}{{c|I|I}}{{c|N|N}}{{c|E|E2}}{{c|O|O7}}{{c|P|P}}<br>???{{c|U|U}}{{c|E|E2}}{{c|I|I}}
|reading_lepontic={{c|O|O7}}{{c|N|N}}{{c|I|I}}{{c|N|N}}{{c|E|E2}}{{c|O|O7}}{{c|P|P}}<br>{{c|U|U}}{{c|E|E2}}{{c|R|R6}}{{c|U|U}}{{c|E|E2}}{{c|I|I}}
|direction=sinistroverse
|direction=sinistroverse
|letter_height_min=6 cm
|letter_height_min=6 cm
Line 27: Line 27:
First published in {{bib|Andenmatten & Paccolat 2012}}: 91.
First published in {{bib|Andenmatten & Paccolat 2012}}: 91.


Images in {{bib|Andenmatten & Paccolat 2012}}: 91, fig. 19 (photo) and 20 (drawing).
Images in {{bib|Andenmatten & Paccolat 2012}}: 91, fig. 19 (photo) and 20 (drawing), {{bib|Casini et al. 2013}}: 162, fig. 6 (photo) and 163, fig. 7 (drawing = {{bib|Aberson et al. 2021}}: 330, fig. 6), {{bib|Aberson et al. 2021}}: 329, fig. 4 and 5 (photos).


Inscribed in two sinistroverse lines (length of line 1 32 cm) with an iron tool on the vertical face of the stone; the scratches are today 5–12 mm wide and 0.5–3 mm deep. See {{bib|Aberson et al. 2021}} for a detailed description of the inscription, its application, discovery and documentation. The reading of line 1 and of the first three letters of line 2 is unproblematic. The fourth letter in line 2 is Latin rho {{c||R4}} in an angular ductus in which it also appears in the Latin-Venetic mixed inscription [[UD·1]] and in the para-script [[TI·6]], followed by another epsilon and upsilon. The form of omicron twice in line 1 stands out as atypical for the Lepontic alphabet without being a feature of Latinisation; the clearly and deliberately carved "feet" can hardly be compared with sloppily prolonged half-circles in graffiti (pace {{bib|Aberson et al. 2021}}: 313). The comparison of the shapes of omicron and rho with those of Runic ⟨o⟩ and ⟨r⟩ suggests itself, but leads no further. The inscription's authenticity was originally called into question due to its conspicuous mix of Celtic and Latin (and Runic) features and of well-known lexical elements with unclear grammatical structure.  
Inscribed in two sinistroverse lines (length of line 1 32 cm) with an iron tool on the vertical face of the stone; the scratches are today 5–12 mm wide and 0.5–3 mm deep. See {{bib|Aberson et al. 2021}} for a detailed description of the inscription, its application, discovery, study and documentation. The inscription's authenticity has been called into question, but the doubts are countered convincingly by {{bib|Aberson et al. 2021}}: 321 f.


The inscription is one of the few dedications in the corpus.
The reading is largely unproblematic; the last three letters of line 2 are damaged, but legible. The alphabet is the Lepontic one, but the fourth letter in line 2 is Latin rho {{c||R6}}, which does not otherwise appear in alphabetically Lepontic inscriptions. In an angular ductus it can be found in the Latin-Venetic mixed inscription [[UD·1]] and in the para-script [[TI·6]] (cf. {{bib|Eska & Eska 2022}}: 167). The bars do not touch the hasta in the centre, which is fairly common in non-official Latin writing (cf. e.g. [[TI·4]] and the examples given by {{bib|Eska & Eska 2022}}: 167 f.); the reading {{c||S6|d}}{{c||I}} -''is''- preferred by {{bib|Casini et al. 2013}}: 158, 162 is highly unlikely. The form of omicron twice in line 1 stands out as atypical for the Lepontic alphabet without being a feature of Latinisation; the clearly and deliberately carved "feet" can hardly be compared with sloppily prolonged half-circles in graffiti (pace {{bib|Aberson et al. 2021}}: 313). The comparison of the shapes of omicron and rho with those of Runic ⟨o⟩ and ⟨r⟩ suggests itself, but leads no further.
 
The dating of the inscription is based on that of the site, see [[Mur d'Hannibal]].
 
The inscription is one of the few dedications in the Cisalpine Celtic corpus. The object of the dedication, however, is unknown; no finds were made inside the structure containing the stone; see {{bib|Aberson et al. 2021}}: 316 f. The use of {{w||ieureu|ieuru}} known from Transalpine Gaulish inscriptions may be evidence for the verb in the vernacular Celtic dialect (of the Veragri or Salasses), for the spread of dedicatory formulae, or support the theory that the [[Mur d'Hannibal]] was occupied by Gaulish auxiliaries. In any case, the archaeological and historical context (cf. in detail {{bib|Aberson et al. 2021}}: 317–321) matches well with the Celtic-Latin mixed features, both alphabetically and linguistically, of the inscription.
{{bibliography}}
{{bibliography}}

Revision as of 21:23, 2 July 2023

edit with form
Inscription
Reading in transliteration: poenino / ieureu
Reading in original script: O7 sN sI sN sE2 sO7 sP s
U sE2 sR6 sU sE2 sI s
Object: VS·2 Liddes (slab)
Position: front
Orientation: 330°
Direction of writing: sinistroverse
Script: North Italic script (Lepontic alphabet)
adapted to: Latin script
Letter height: 6–7 cm2.362 in <br />2.756 in <br />
Number of letters: 12
Number of lines: 2
Workmanship: carved
Condition: damaged
Archaeological culture: La Tène D 2, Late Republican, Augustan [from object]
Date of inscription: 55–15 BC [from object]
Type: dedicatory
Language: Celtic
Meaning: 'dedicated to Poeninos'
Alternative sigla: none
Sources: Aberson et al. 2021: 309–332

Images

VS·2
Inscription VS·2 from Andenmatten & Paccolat 2012
VS·2
Inscription VS·2 from Andenmatten & Paccolat 2012

Commentary

First published in Andenmatten & Paccolat 2012: 91.

Images in Andenmatten & Paccolat 2012: 91, fig. 19 (photo) and 20 (drawing), Casini et al. 2013: 162, fig. 6 (photo) and 163, fig. 7 (drawing = Aberson et al. 2021: 330, fig. 6), Aberson et al. 2021: 329, fig. 4 and 5 (photos).

Inscribed in two sinistroverse lines (length of line 1 32 cm) with an iron tool on the vertical face of the stone; the scratches are today 5–12 mm wide and 0.5–3 mm deep. See Aberson et al. 2021 for a detailed description of the inscription, its application, discovery, study and documentation. The inscription's authenticity has been called into question, but the doubts are countered convincingly by Aberson et al. 2021: 321 f.

The reading is largely unproblematic; the last three letters of line 2 are damaged, but legible. The alphabet is the Lepontic one, but the fourth letter in line 2 is Latin rho R6 s, which does not otherwise appear in alphabetically Lepontic inscriptions. In an angular ductus it can be found in the Latin-Venetic mixed inscription UD·1 and in the para-script TI·6 (cf. Eska & Eska 2022: 167). The bars do not touch the hasta in the centre, which is fairly common in non-official Latin writing (cf. e.g. TI·4 and the examples given by Eska & Eska 2022: 167 f.); the reading S6 dI s -is- preferred by Casini et al. 2013: 158, 162 is highly unlikely. The form of omicron twice in line 1 stands out as atypical for the Lepontic alphabet without being a feature of Latinisation; the clearly and deliberately carved "feet" can hardly be compared with sloppily prolonged half-circles in graffiti (pace Aberson et al. 2021: 313). The comparison of the shapes of omicron and rho with those of Runic ⟨o⟩ and ⟨r⟩ suggests itself, but leads no further.

The dating of the inscription is based on that of the site, see Mur d'Hannibal.

The inscription is one of the few dedications in the Cisalpine Celtic corpus. The object of the dedication, however, is unknown; no finds were made inside the structure containing the stone; see Aberson et al. 2021: 316 f. The use of ieuru known from Transalpine Gaulish inscriptions may be evidence for the verb in the vernacular Celtic dialect (of the Veragri or Salasses), for the spread of dedicatory formulae, or support the theory that the Mur d'Hannibal was occupied by Gaulish auxiliaries. In any case, the archaeological and historical context (cf. in detail Aberson et al. 2021: 317–321) matches well with the Celtic-Latin mixed features, both alphabetically and linguistically, of the inscription.

Bibliography

Aberson et al. 2021 Michel Aberson, Romain Andenmatten, Stefania Casini, Angelo E. Fossati, Rudolf Wachter, "Entre Celtes et Romains : la dédicace à Poeninos du Mur (dit) d'Hannibal", in: María José Estarán Tolosa, Emmanuel Dupraz, Michel Aberson (eds), Des mots pour les dieux. Dédicaces cultuelles dans les langues indigènes de la méditerranée occidentale, Berne: Peter Lang 2021, 309–332.
Andenmatten & Paccolat 2012 Romain Andenmatten, Olivier Paccolat, "Le mur (dit) d'Hannibal: une site de haute montagne de la fin de l'âge de Fer. Avec les contributions d'Olivier Mermod, Angela Schlumbaum et Jacqueline Studer", Jahrbuch Archäologie Schweiz 95 (2012), 77-95.
Appolonia et al. 2008 Lorenzo Appolonia, François Wiblé, Patrizia Framarin (eds), Alpis Poenina, Grand Saint-Bernard. Une voie à travers l’Europe. Séminaire de clôture, 11/12 avril 2008, Fort de Bard (Vallée d’Aoste), Aoste: 2008.
Casini et al. 2008 Stefania Casini, Angelo Fossati, Filippo Motta, "Incisioni protostoriche e iscrizioni leponzie su roccia alle sorgenti del Brembo (Val Camisana di Carona, Bergamo). Note preliminari", Notizie Archeologice Bergomensi 16 (2008), 75–101.
Casini et al. 2013 Stefania Casini, Angelo E. Fossati, Filippo Motta, "L'iscrizione in alfabeto di Lugano al Mur d'Hannibal (Liddes, Valais)", Notizie Archeologiche Bergomensi 21 (2013), 157–165.
Eska & Eska 2022 Joseph F. Eska, Charlene M. Eska, "Epigraphic and linguistic observations on the inscription at the so-called Mur d'Hannibal (Liddes, Valais)", Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 69/1 (2022), 159–182.
Retrieved from "https://lexlep.univie.ac.at/index.php?title=VS·2&oldid=27411"