Talk:Pyrgi Tablets

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Phoenicia C‑class High‑importance

	Phoenicia portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Phoenicia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Phoenicia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.PhoeniciaWikipedia:WikiProject PhoeniciaTemplate:WikiProject PhoeniciaPhoenicia articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Errors

There are quite a few errors in the Phoenician text given here, at least in comparison with those in the Schmitz article.

Citations for Translations

Could someone give a scholarly citation for the translation given on this page? Based on the studies I've found it seems like a lot of this is unreviewed speculation. In no other source have I found mention of any "Hermes" idols, among other things. Zhankfor 7:00, 15 May 2007

Semitic Roots

I have doubts about some of the semitic roots. For instance, "theleth" (replace th with theta) implies that "th" (theta) is proto-semitic, but in every language I know, three is with an s or "sh" (as in shop, not aspirated). Plus, day is "yawm" not "yam" (this one I am 100% sure of, the other one I could be wrong on). I am changing the latter but will wait for confirmation on the former. Yom 16:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one cares whether you have doubts. This isn't Yom-ipedia. Semiticists reconstruct theta (voiceless dental fricative) regardless and I can't help it if you can't do your homework. Don't edit if you don't read. --Glengordon01 18:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could tell that something was going on just by comparing Hebrew Shalosh with Aramaic Telat (both found in the Bible)... AnonMoos 11:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Three' in Arabic is thalaath (not only standard/Classical Arabic but many modern vernacular dialects, such as Iraqi). In Hebrew, 'day' is yom in the singular but yam- in the plural. (Also, in Arabic the plural is ayyaam, though that may or may not be relevant.)

hi, i am reading this tablet as a sign on a traveler's services establishment. i am lazy, so until someone responds, i will write what i remember now. you will come as a stranger, but leave as a friend. you can store your stuff here, and pick itup on your return. you can tay the night. you can have a private room with bath. meals are available, or you can prepre your own. we are open all summer. if you don't know the area, you can leave as a group with a guide. i am well-known, and my guests speak well of me. please understand that 2000 years ago the divinity rubbish already had skeptics, and a common-sense reading makes sense.76.241.67.95 (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think that Semitic Etnocentrists are a little bit overreacting when they call Rasenian("Etruscan") language as "Semitic". Also the term "PHOENICIAN" comes from "PH or F or V - VENICIAN, VENETIAN". And Veneti were Indo Europeans (also known as "Eneti" - "Enedae" -Greek name for Trojans - Troja means 3 - like Apenine Venetic deity "Trimuziadi" - in Vendic/Slavonic means "3 men")

I've found Rasenian language Indo-European.

We can understand Rasenian ("etruscan") "T" sometimes as "D"; example: Etruscan "TUR" ("to give") as "DUR" - Vendic/Slavonic "Dar" (a gift), Venetic "Donasto" (slovene "Donasel") (brought, to bring) Etruscan "Tmia" as "Dmia" = Domia; again Slavonic Dom means "home" and latin is "domesticus".

example of my translation into Slovene(as closest to old Sanskrit) is;

"I-TA TMIA I-KAK HERAM-AZVA-VATIEHE" Ita/eta/ta domia in kak hram ozval utehe,

"UNI-AL-ASTRES O θE-MIA/-SA MEH OUTA" Uni ali Astres teh mojih vseh (lj)udi

"θEvARIEI VELIANAS SAL/-CLUVENI-AS TU-RUKE" Teb/varij Velianaš/Veljaš (the importan one) sel Kloveni je daroval (rokoval)

Translation into English; "This home and like temple calls consolation,(V)Uni (in Slovene are Vume Udders - similar to "Woman" = Etruscan Uni, roman Juona) or Astres all of those my people, Tevari(us) Velianas (the important man), the Envoy of Kloveni has dedicated (or make an agreement) ...

Consistency

Currently, the goddess is called ‘Ashtart, Ashtaret, and Ishtar. There should be standardization on one form, and "Astarte" is actually the most-frequently used form in English (leaving aside Hebrew Ashtaroth and Akkadian Ishtar, which are somewhat removed -- the Hebrew form has plural morphology, and the Akkadian languages are not very closely connected to Phoenician). AnonMoos 11:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia is not dictionary ... Semitic dictionary

wikipedia is not dictionary ... Semitic dictionary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.117.137.224 (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very convenient to have all the relevent data in the page, though, especially since the words are not spelled consistently, are often proper nouns, and are in dead languages that aren't widely understood or, in the case of Etruscan, even deciphered, and thus they are probably hard to look up, especially for people who don't know much about the grammars of these languages. I don't know if the policy of not putting dictionary definitions in Wikipedia articles was intended to cover situations like this, but I personally fully approve of having these dictionary definitions in the article, and separating them into vocabulary sections is a pretty good format. That's just my opinion. DubleH (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your opinion. Unfortunately, someone has gone ahead and deleted all discussion of vocabulary without discussing it here first. There are long word lists all over wikipedia. I don't really see how the very difficult scholarly treatment of these texts can be discussed without discussing vocabulary!Johundhar (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semitic text

Dupont-Sommer gave a definitve translation and the reading of the text presents no problem: here it is as quoted by G. Dumezil Archaic Roamn religion appendix:

To the Lady Astartes. This sacred place is what Teferies Velianas king of Caere has made and donated in the month of the sacrifice to the Sun, as a gift from him, including the temple and the high place, because the Lady Astartes has favoured his devout believer. In the third year of his reign in the month of KRR on the day of the funeral (inhumation) of the goddess.

And might the years during which the statue of the goddess shall reside in its temple be so numerous as the stars of the High.Zanzan32 (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the Etruscan text

There are many imaginary phantastic fits here. I am not an expert but at a glance I see at least three mistakes.Zanzan32 (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the sources used for the translations (that for the Etruscan one, but also the Phoenician) should be added. I have read Facchetti's on the Etruscan (from 2000, in Italian) and it is different in some aspects. I suspect that the source used in the article may be obsolete (for instance the interpretation of churvar), but not knowing which it is... In any case the right way is to quote the source of the translations (and maybe to add more).

I could put here Facchetti's translation but to make a proper translation in English could be difficult. Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am going to add the original text of the Facchetti translation (L'enigma svelatto della lingua etrusca 2000). As I said before a proper English translation could be tricky and, in any case, it is necessary to have the Italian text.

Side A:

ita tmia icac heramašva vatieχe unialastres

il tempio e queste statue furono<richiesti> da parte di Uni

θemiasa meχ θuta θefariei velianas

il <fondante> la lega unica Thefarie Velianas

sal cluvenias turuce

il sal del cluvenia donò

munistas θuvas tamerasca

del sacro luogo della camera questo (fu)

ilacve tulerase nac

nelle feste Tulerasa, poiché (furono)

ci avil χurvar tešiameitale

tre anni completi, nel giorno del potere

ilacve alšase nac atranes

nelle feste Alšasa, poiché <fuori dall'edificio>

zilacal seleitala acnašvers

della pretura <massima> (ci fu) <l'atto del fuoco>

itanim heramve avil eniaca pulumχva

e <a tal fine> sulle statue (ci sono) anni (tanti) quante le stelle

Side B:

nac θefarie velianas θamuce

dacché Thefarie Velianas <fondò>

cleva etanal masan tiurunias šelace

il cleva dell' etana <la ripetizione> del <rito mensile> <officiò?>

vacal tmial avilχal amuce

<la preghiera> del tempio degli anni ci fu

pulumχva snuiaφ

stelle <cento>

In this translations words between <> are word whose meaning is an approximation at some degree(a kind of educated guess); where those in cursive are simply not translated. Of course those between () are words added to the translation to make give structure to the Italian text. In any case, as the article stands now, there are two clear mistakes. First: there is afforded an unreferenced translation. The reader get the impression that the translation is sure for every word, which is false. Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now Bonfante & Bonfante version (2002, 67-68):

A: "This is the temple (or chapel, cela) and this is the place of the statue (?) which he has dedicated to Uni-Astarte, the lord of the people (or king, or tyrant), Thefarie Veliana, sal cluvienias (?), he gave it, this one place (?); since on the one hand she raised him for three years (in the third year?) in this way, churvar tesiameitale (?) and since on the other hand he has been protected, here is the statue (or: in the month of August); (and may the) years (be) as many as the pulumchva (?) (stars?)"

B:"(Thus) here Thefarie Veliuna established; the offering of the etan in the month of masan he offered; for the annual purification of the temple he made celestial (or numerous, or fruitful) snuiaph (ritual driving of the nails, or rites)"

Both translations (Faccheti's and Bonfantes') make obvious that the translation afforded in the article nowadays is faulty. Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I am still thinking that the translation of the Etruscan text afforded by this article as it stands now is an outdated and, worse yet, not referenced version that should be changed. I have been working for an alternative presentation based on Facchetti's and Bonfante's recent (and referenced) translations. There is a working version (not a definitive one, of course) at my sandbox.

There are mainly two problems. The first one is my translation of the Italian version, that surely can be improved. The second one is that for two phrases I can not find the equivalence at Bonfante's (at least in one case it seems that was missing by an errata in the translation afforded by the Bonfantes).

As changing the whole translation section in the article would be a very major change I would prefer to hear some commentaries before. Thanks!. Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add two more Italian translations that I just came across. I think having a range of published translations can give a bit of an idea of where most scholars agree, and where they don'. Both are from G. Garbini's article "Le bilingue di Tiberio" p26 in Le lamine di Pyrgi eds. V. Bellelli and P. Xella. 2016, Verona, but he is quoting from other authors. First, Pallottino from 1964, p. 75:

Questo è il tempio (o sacello) e questo è il luogo del simulacro (??), dedicati a Uni-Astarte: Thefarie Velianas (o qualcuno in rapporto con Th. V.) l'ha donato; rispettivamente per ciò che (o per chi) spetta a ciascuno dei luoghi ??, un'offerta per essere stato egli innalzato ?? cosi da tre anni ... (e) un offerta per ... (un fatto connesso con il magistrato del tempio, o con la residenza del supremo magistrato??) ... Seguono i riferimenti al simulacro ?? e agli anni (relativi?) ...

Pallottino, M. "Le iscrizioni etrusche," in ArchCl 16, 1964: 76-104.

The other is Collona from 2002np336:

Codesto tempio e questi edifici sacri (?) sono stati richiesti da Uni in suo pro. Avendoli costruiti a sue spece (?) Thefarie(i) Velianas come offerta (?) ... li ha donati, di codesto luogo ... (custode?) della cella, nella festa del (mese) Tulera, quando tre anni pieni (?) (furono) dal (giorno) Tesiame della festa del mese Alsa, quando (divenne) ... della magistratura grande. Del luogo sacro invero nel santuario gli anni (sono) quanti queste bulle.

Collona, G. "Il santuario di Pyrgi...," ScAnt 10, 2000 [2002]: 251-336.

Though Pallottino is the more famous scholar, Collona's translation is so much more recent that it should probably be preferred. However, I am dubious about his calling Tulera a month, since variations of it occur frequently in the Liber Linteus in contexts that would seem to rule out that it is a month. It is more likely a day in a month, such as the Ides or the Kalends, the latter more likely to me since the basic meaning in other contexts seem to be 'border' or 'border stones.' I hope someone finds this helpful, whether or not any of this makes it into the main article.Johundhar (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And here is Garbini's own attempt at a translation from the same article (pp. 29-30):

Questo tempio e la sua area sacra è un dono ... per Uni ... da Thefarie Velinio ... egli ha dato ... sacerdoti (?) ... nella sua mano (la dea) aveva fissato (?) che per tre anni egli ... nella sua mano aveva concesso che egli ... di zilac, quando ella (era) nella sua tomba. E di questo dono nell'area sacra gli anni sono quante le bulle (pulu-).Johundhar (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the Phoenician Text

I add for reference the German translation of the Phoenician text afforded by Steinbauer who follows H. Donner & W. Röllig 1969-73 Kanaanische und aramäische Inschriften:

"Derr Herrin Aštart (ist) dieser heilige Ort (geweiht), welchen machte und welchen gab Tiberie Vilanas (sic), König über Kajsre, im Monat Zebah Šemeš als Gabe im Tempel. Und er baute den Innenraum, denn Aštart wünschte es von ihm. Unter seiner Regierung Jahr 3, im Monat Kirar am Tage des Begrabens der Gottheit. Und es mögen die Jahre für das Votivbild der Gottheit in ihrem Tempel Jahre sein wie diese Sterne"

Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I found also Philip Schmiz's 1995 JAOS 115 translation (quoted by Bonfante & Bonfante The Etruscan language 2002, p. 66-67):

"For the lady, for Astarte (is) this holy place which Thefarie Velunas, king over Kaysrye, made, and which he put in the temple in Mtn, the month of solar sacrifices. And he built a chamber because Astarte requested (this) from him, year three of his reign, in the month of KRR, on the day of the deity's interment. And (as for) the years of one who makes a gift to the deity in her temple, (may) these (be) years like the stars".

IMHO this referenced translation should sustitute the one which is now, and the Phoenician lexicon to be deleted (to avoid confusions). Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The present 'translation' is indeed problematic, especially since unsourced. I think you or anyone would be within your rights to delete it, whether or not you replaced it with anything. It may be useful to present more than one of the attempted translations so readers could see where there is general agreement, and where there is more divergence of opinion. I have access to a translation in English of the Etruscan texts(from the appendix to van der Meer's book on Liber Linteus). Even though I do fear than any one scholar's translation presented here will give a false impression of non-existent certainty and agreement about many forms, I may replace the current un-cited mess with it.Johundhar (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"related to such languages as..."

Related in which level? This sentence comes after the fact that Phoenician is a Canaanite language, yet it lists 4 languages that only one of which (Hebrew) is Canaanite. Akkadian isn't even Western Semitic. TFighterPilot (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gaps

Just setting out the texts (I can't comment on whether there are errors) isn't enough for an encyclopaedia article. There needs to be more on the artefacts themselves (who found them, where, why were they excavating there, if they were around in Polybius' day, when do we think they got buried?) and a lot more on interpretation and significance (what are their key lessons for us, how reliable are the translations given?).Diomedea Exulans (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

χ

According to Etruscan alphabet, there was no such letter. What is it supposed to be? — kwami (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the one thought to represent /k^h/: 𐌙. Most scholarly articles and books today do use chi or k^h for it, as far as I've seen. Johundhar (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pyrgi Tablets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Velthuru: Just stop!

Velthuru, I don't know if you ever read the talk sections of these pages so maybe you won't see this, but you have to stop. You clearly have an enthusiasm for this subject, but you can't just keep going around to all the Etruscan text sites and dumping your pet theories and random favorite texts there, un-cited, often incorrect or badly spelled. People get permanently blocked for that sort of thing. Some of that can happen here on talk pages, but mostly that kind of stuff doesn't belong anywhere on a wiki page. Please read some about what is and isn't allowed, then come back and make some actual, valuable contributions, please. (By the way, cool name! I just came across ETP 600 which reads: mi[ni velθ]ur paiθinaie[s mu]lu[vani]ce.) https://web.archive.org/web/20060912075450/http://etp.classics.umass.edu/index.php?page=2 Is this where it's from?Johundhar (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]