Arzawa = Razawa?

Douglas G Kilday acnasvers at
Wed Mar 28 12:20:01 UTC 2001

Eduard Selleslagh (22 Mar 2001) wrote:

>What I'm missing in this discussion (unless I overlooked it, in which case I
>apologize) is the possibility that the t-r-s-k sequence might actually be a
>t-r-s-sk sequence, with the well-known IE -sk- element for adjectives (Fales,
>Faliscus). The t-r-s-n sequence might contain an -n- found in ethnonyms
>etc.(Lat. -e/anus). If I'm right, we only have to consider t-r-s or t-r-r(h)
>which might actually be two variants (s>r or r>s) of the same thing.

I don't consider the matter settled, but what little evidence there is
points to infixed /k/, not /sk/. The Iguvian Tables contain the passage
(I.b:16-7; Etruscan letters) <enumek etur'stamu tuta tar'inate trifu
tar'inate turskum naharkum numem iapuzkum numem> 'then drive from (our)
borders the civitas Tadinas (i.e. the Tadinates, inhabitants of the Picene
city of Tadinae), the tribus Tadinas (i.e. the whole "tribe" living around
Tadinae), the (nomen) Tuscum (i.e. Etruscan nation), the nomen Narcum (i.e.
dwellers in the Nar valley, prob. Sabines), (and) the nomen Iabuscum (i.e.
Messapian nation)'. This is partially reprised (VI.b:58-9; Latin letters)
<totam tarsinatem trifo tarsinatem tuscom naharcom iabuscom nome>.

The older Umbrian passage contains three 2nd-decl. ethnic adjectives.
<Naharkum> contains a hydronym and -kum, that is infixed /k/ plus the
2nd-decl. neut. sg. acc. suffix. <Iapuzkum> has before -kum an assibilated
form of Iapud-, variant of Iapug-, used to denote Messapians (Strabo
VI.277). It is thus reasonable to divide Turs-kum, with Turs- the same
ethnic stem as is found in Gk. <Turse:noi>. Alternative divisions Turs-skum
and Tursk-kum can't be rigorously excluded, but IMHO are much less likely.

The younger passage suggests that Latin <Tuscus> was borrowed from Late
Umbrian, in which original /r/ has been absorbed before /s/, while the
presumed trilled fricative /r'/ resulting from assibilated /d/ has proceeded
into a new /rs/.

The older Umbrian text does not antedate 400 BCE. The golden fibula of
Clusium (ca. 600 BCE) has an Etruscan text which in Heurgon's recension is
<mi arathia velaves'nas' zamathi mamurke mulvenike tursikina> 'I am the
golden (object) of Arath Velavesna; Mamurke Tursikina dedicated (me)'. The
native suffix -na is the most common formant in Etruscan gentilicia. The
structure of Tursikina, however, strongly suggests modification of an
Umbrian gentilicium *Tursikis. A parallel Etr. gent. of Caere, Vestiricina
(ca. 550 BCE), is known to be derived from the Oscan gent. Vestirikis.
Clusium and the ager Clusinus had both Etruscan and Umbrian communities.
Mamurke Tursikina probably lived among the Umbrians (hence his Italic
praenomen) but had Etruscan ancestry, so his gentilicium meant 'Etruscan'.
If the infix /sk/ had been used in the presumed Umbrian form, it is highly
unlikely that Etruscan would split the cluster. Other Archaic Etruscan
gentilicia, such as the well-known Feluske, contain it.

I didn't make clear in earlier postings that <Trsk> refers to a separate
text, not a mere sequence of consonants. An amphora from Milan reads
<trskmetr LXXVI s>, obviously a metrologic inscription: the vessel holds 76
units of liquid measure. <Trskmetr> presumably stands for *Turskna metru
'Etruscan measure'; <metru> from Gk. <metron> is otherwise attested. <S>
probably abbreviates <sun>, a unit roughly equal to a pint. A smaller
amphora reads <sun X>. Probably the Etruscan and Ligurian standards of
measure were different. In the good old pre-metric days we had containers
marked "5 U.S. gallons" so that Canadians would know they weren't getting 5
full Imperial gallons.

The alternative favored by Buffa is that the <sun> 'pint' was fixed, and
<metr> stands for <metreta>, from Gk. <metre:te:s>, a large unit of liquid
measure. The Ligurian metreta had 80 pints, and Buffa figured the Etruscan
had only 76, with the inscription meaning 'Etruscan metreta, 76 pints'. I
can't fathom why anyone would define a large unit as 76 small units, and
specifying both units would be redundant. It seems more likely that this
vessel just turned out to contain 76 Etruscan pints.

I don't have a date for this amphora, but it probably postdates 400 BCE.
These examples don't necessarily tell us what the Etruscans called
themselves. Whether Turs- was originally a self-name or an other-name
remains an open question.


More information about the Indo-european mailing list