Neg A II
| Transliteration | siraku : tulrli or tuprpi |
|---|---|
| Object | bronze helmet |
| Script | Rhaetic alphabet (Sanzeno) |
| Language | unknown |
| Writing direction | sinistroverse |
| Technique | incised |
| Condition | non-fragmentary |
| Findspot | Ženjak |
| Archaeological context | to be inserted |
| Archaeological culture | to be inserted |
| Date | 4th-3rd. c. BC |
Original text
Commentary
The inscription, 5 cm in length, is located on the chamfer of the Negau helmet A. Nedoma (1995) argues the location indicates a profane function, as votive helmet inscriptions are normally applied prominently on the bowl. The inscription is immediately followed by Neg A Ib, separated by four small dots. Marstrander (1927) first observed that the two inscriptions are unlikely to have been written by the same person: the scratches in Ia are deeper, the overall execution is neater and the lines seem to have been scratched from bottom to top. Contrastively, the epsilon and iota hastae in Ib are scratched top to bottom. Both inscriptions are indubitably to be read sinistroverse, but the sigma in Ia is turned against writing direction, whereas in Ib it is written correctly. Another difference is the execution of rho, whose hastae are scratched in three straight lines in Ia, but in Ib it consists of an upright straight hasta and another curved one. With these observations in mind, it it likely Neg Ia and Ib are to be read as separate, unrelated inscriptions, written by two different people.
Both inscriptions feature what must be assumed to be writer's mistakes. In Ia, we can see a tau cramped between the second upsilon and rho. Drawings by Giovanelli and Marstrander record tiny scratches covering it, likely an attempt by the writer to cross it out. The writer seems to have either prematurely added the bar of the following tau to the hasta meant for rho or they erroneously started to write rho in the wrong direction. Markey (2001) also points out that the two preceding letters are symmetrical: "this may have left an unskilled engraver in doubt as to the direction of the next asymmetrical letter". The writer also seems to have tried to accentuate the hasta with additional scratches.
There have been arguments stating that the two large dots between siraku and tsurti are not intentional (Marstrander 1927; Egg 1986). However, the interpretation of the spots as intentional is supported by the fact that the segmentation is linguistically plausible for both Rhaetic and Celtic interpretations.
Epigraphically, the inscription can be ascribed to the Rhaetic corpus, due to the distinguishing Sanzeno tau and the so-called arrowhead tau.
Linguistically, the inscription is very likely Rhaetic. Although Markey (2001) attempts a Celtic interpretation (siragu turbī "astral priest of the troop"), but the interpretation and reconstruction are questionable. Nothing conflicts with a Rhaetic reading, which is suggested by the use of the specifically Rhaetic arrowhead tau denoting a dental affricate, even if the interpretation is uncertain.
Bibliography
Markey, Tom (2001). A tale of two helmets: The Negau A and B inscriptions. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 29, pp. 69–172.
Nedoma, Robert (1995). Die Inschrift auf dem Helm B von Negau. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Deutung norditalischer epigraphischer Denkmäler. Wien: Fassbaender, pp. 18–20.
Rix, Helmut (1985). Schrift und Sprache. In: M. Cristofani (ed.), Die Etrusker. Stuttgart – Zürich: Belser, pp. 210–238.
Marstrander, Carl Johan. Sverdrup (1927). Remarques sur les inscriptions des casques en bronze de Negau et de Watsch. Avhandlinger utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. Hist.-filos. klasse 1926/2, pp. 1–26.
Egg, Markus (1986). Italische Helme. Studien zu den ältereisenzeitlichen Helmen Italiens und der Alpen. Teil 1: Text, Teil 2: Tafeln. Mainz: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, pp. 614-620.
Giovanelli, Benedetto (1876). Die Rhätisch-Etruskischen Alterthümer entdeckt bei Matrei im Mai 1845. Zeitschrift des Ferdinandeums für Tirol und Vorarlberg 3/20, pp. 45–99.
