NO·20: Difference between revisions

From Lexicon Leponticum
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 21: Line 21:
|type_inscription=unknown
|type_inscription=unknown
|language=Celtic
|language=Celtic
|meaning='... son of ?, Matopokios, Sola daughter of Nimon(i)os'
|meaning='... son of ?, Matopokios, Sola daughter of Nimu/Nimon(i)os'
|solinas=123
|solinas=123
|morandi=96
|morandi=96
|source_detail=Morandi 2004: 584 no. 96
|source_detail=Morandi 2004: 584 no. 96
|checklevel=0
|checklevel=1
|problem=Gambari 1991: 234 über Simplex- vs. komponierte Namen, mehr lit bei Solinas
}}
}}
==Commentary==
==Commentary==
*{{bib|Gambari 1984}}  
First published in {{bib|Gambari 1991}}. Examined for LexLep on 24<sup>th</sup> April 2024.
*{{bib|Gambari 1991}}: pp. 227-237 (drawing on pp. 229-230, printed also in {{bib|Motta 1995}}: 127 fig. 1)
 
*{{bib|Motta 1992}}: 317
Images in {{bib|Gambari 1984}}: tav. LXXXV A (photo of two fragments), {{bib|Gambari 1991}}: 230, fig. 1 (drawing = {{bib|Motta 1995}}: 127, fig. 1) and 231, fig. 2 (photo), {{bib|Morandi 2004}}: tav. XII.96 (photo).
 
Inscribed dextroverse and horizontally between frame lines which also separate the lines, and are doubled on both sides. Five lines are preserved. In line 1 at the upper tip of the fragment, only part of the left-hand side curve of {{c|O|O8|d}} and, before it, the tip of a line in the lower area are preserved. In line 2, a similar situation, but with complete, if damaged {{c|O|O8|d}} and before it a longer trace which may be part of {{c||T|d}} as in the line below. After the damaged section, which may have contained two letters, the very lowest tip of {{c||I|d}} followed by completely preserved {{c||K4|d}} and {{c||N|d}}{{c||O8|d}}{{c||S}}, which are damaged in the upper area, but unambiguous. Lines 3–5 are almost completely preserved and hardly damaged. In line 3, initial {{c||M5|d}} is damaged on top, and {{c||P|d}} is disturbed by the vertical break line which also runs through the last two lines without creating any problems for the reading. In line 5, the lower part of final {{c||A|d}} is missing. Line 5 is the last of the inscription, but any number of lines may be missing at the beginning.
 
The alphabet is the Lepontic one, but mu has a shape {{c||M5|d}} influenced by Latin, indicating a fairly late dating of the inscription to the 1<sup>st</sup> century BC (cf. {{bib|Gambari 1991}}: 232 f., {{bib|Motta 1992}}: 317).
 
Each preserved line contains one individual name or patronym. With its list of personal names in the nominative, the inscription can be compared to other late Cisalpine Celtic documents from the northern Novara province ([[NO·19]], [[NO·21.1]], also [[NO·18]]). Not unlike the situation on the [[NO·21.1|Briona stela]], the configuration of the name elements is not quite clear – {{w||sola}} and {{w||nimonikna}} 'Sola, daughter of Nimu/Nimon(i)os' in the last two lines make an obvious name formula, but {{w||matopokios}} in the line above lacks a patronym (unless it belongs with )''to''(  )''iknos'' in line 2, in unusual order, thus {{bib|Motta 1992}}: 317). {{bib|Gambari 1991}}: 231 tentatively suggests that the inscription names the members of a clan to which Sola belongs (and is thus identified by her patronym), while Matopokios may be her husband, whose filiation was considered irrelevant in this context.
 
{{bib|Gambari 1991}}: 232 considers the inscription to be related to the religious sphere; uncertain {{bib|Morandi 2004}}: 584, who also considers a funerary inscription of a married couple possible.
 
*{{bib|Motta 1995}}: pp. 126-137
*{{bib|Motta 1995}}: pp. 126-137
*{{bib|Solinas 1995}}: p. 373, n.123
<p style="text-align:right;>[[User:Corinna Salomon|Corinna Salomon]]</p>
{{bibliography}}
{{bibliography}}

Revision as of 19:59, 19 October 2024

Inscription
Reading in transliteration: ]?ọ[ / ]ṭọ[ ]ịkṇọṣ / ṃatopokios / sola / nimoniknạ
Reading in original script: ]?O8 d[
]T dO8 d[   ]I dK4 dN dO8 dS s
M5 dA dT dO8 dP dO8 dK4 dI dO8 dS s
S sO8 dL dA d
N dI dM5 dO8 dN dI dK4 dN dA d

Object: NO·20 Cureggio (stela)
Position: front
Frame: straight doubleallallstraight double  (left: straight double, middle: all, right: straight double)
Direction of writing: dextroverse
Script: North Italic script (Lepontic alphabet)
adapted to: Latin script
Letter height: 10–11 cm3.937 in <br />4.331 in <br />
Number of letters: 32
Number of words: 5
Number of lines: 5
Workmanship: carved
Condition: fragmentary

Archaeological culture: unknown [from object]
Date of inscription: 1st c. BC [from object]

Type: unknown
Language: Celtic
Meaning: '... son of ?, Matopokios, Sola daughter of Nimu/Nimon(i)os'

Alternative sigla: Solinas 1995: 123
Morandi 2004: 96

Sources: Morandi 2004: 584 no. 96

Images

Commentary

First published in Gambari 1991. Examined for LexLep on 24th April 2024.

Images in Gambari 1984: tav. LXXXV A (photo of two fragments), Gambari 1991: 230, fig. 1 (drawing = Motta 1995: 127, fig. 1) and 231, fig. 2 (photo), Morandi 2004: tav. XII.96 (photo).

Inscribed dextroverse and horizontally between frame lines which also separate the lines, and are doubled on both sides. Five lines are preserved. In line 1 at the upper tip of the fragment, only part of the left-hand side curve of O8 d and, before it, the tip of a line in the lower area are preserved. In line 2, a similar situation, but with complete, if damaged O8 d and before it a longer trace which may be part of T d as in the line below. After the damaged section, which may have contained two letters, the very lowest tip of I d followed by completely preserved K4 d and N dO8 dS s, which are damaged in the upper area, but unambiguous. Lines 3–5 are almost completely preserved and hardly damaged. In line 3, initial M5 d is damaged on top, and P d is disturbed by the vertical break line which also runs through the last two lines without creating any problems for the reading. In line 5, the lower part of final A d is missing. Line 5 is the last of the inscription, but any number of lines may be missing at the beginning.

The alphabet is the Lepontic one, but mu has a shape M5 d influenced by Latin, indicating a fairly late dating of the inscription to the 1st century BC (cf. Gambari 1991: 232 f., Motta 1992: 317).

Each preserved line contains one individual name or patronym. With its list of personal names in the nominative, the inscription can be compared to other late Cisalpine Celtic documents from the northern Novara province (NO·19, NO·21.1, also NO·18). Not unlike the situation on the Briona stela, the configuration of the name elements is not quite clear – sola and nimonikna 'Sola, daughter of Nimu/Nimon(i)os' in the last two lines make an obvious name formula, but matopokios in the line above lacks a patronym (unless it belongs with )to( )iknos in line 2, in unusual order, thus Motta 1992: 317). Gambari 1991: 231 tentatively suggests that the inscription names the members of a clan to which Sola belongs (and is thus identified by her patronym), while Matopokios may be her husband, whose filiation was considered irrelevant in this context.

Gambari 1991: 232 considers the inscription to be related to the religious sphere; uncertain Morandi 2004: 584, who also considers a funerary inscription of a married couple possible.

Corinna Salomon

Bibliography

Gambari 1984 Filippo M. Gambari, "Cureggio. Stele di reimpiego con iscrizione preromana", Quaderni della Soprintendenza Archeologica del Piemonte 3 (1984), 263.
Gambari 1991 Filippo M. Gambari, "La stele di Cureggio: una nuova iscrizione epicorica preromana dal Novarese", Sibrium 21 (1990–1991), 227–237.