kδuśol-

Hapax, written twice on each of a pair of bracelets of unknown date (the type becomes more frequent from the 8^th c. onwards, Zahlhaas & Neumann 1994a: 163) and provenance, but probably from (the region) of Kaunos, since the form of the sign <š> is specific to the inscriptions from Kaunos (Zahlhaas & Neumann 1994a: 164 [contra them, not to those from Iasos, cf. Adiego 2007a: 147-148 with refs. and also Melchert 2002b: 306 n. 2; Schürr 2010e: 135]; Schürr 1998a: 146; Adiego 2007a: 163, 219 [calling attention, however, to conflicting evidence]; cf. also Hajnal 1998a: 98 n. 32 [cautiously]). Although its provenance is unknown (and the drawing of the signs in the publication is also unusual, see under Graphic features), and thus one may even assume a forgery, it was hardly possible to forge a meaningful Carian sequence in 1984 (when the bracelets were catalogued, Zahlhaas & Neumann 1994a: 163) – note that the signs are also completely regular, cf. under Graphic features.

[Zs.S.]

nom. pl. c.

kδuśolš

C.xx 4; C.xx 5

Attestation following Adiego 2007a: 372 checked on the original artefacts (cf. under Graphic features). For a further alleged form see the discussion s.v. kδuśopizipususoτ.

[Zs.S.]

In contrast to the misleading and very imprecise, “cuneiform” style drawing of the inscription in the publication (Zahlhaas & Neumann 1994a: 161-162, adopted also in Adiego 2007a: 162-163) that may even lead to doubts with regard to the authenticity (see under Transmission), the signs are completely regular Carian signs as I could verify upon the autopsy of the bracelets (I am very grateful to Dr. Harald Schulze of the Archäologische Staatssammlung, München for allowing me and Dr. Anja Busse the autopsy).

[Zs.S.]

Zahlhaas & Neumann 1994a: 164-165 and Adiego 2007a: 372 suggested a personal name (Adiego with a question mark), but Adiego pointed out the final -š that may be a plural ending. Hajnal 1997b: 148 n. 10 hypothetically suggested a segmentation kδuś olš (a genitive with a nom. pl. c.) based on kδou- (see s.v.) with a meaning ‘die Armreife / die Schlangen der/s kδ(o)u-’ (identification as nom. pl. c. accepted by Melchert 2002b: 306 n. 3). Finally, Schürr 1998a: 146 (cf. also Schürr 2001d: 111, 117) identifies it as the nominative plural of an adjective meaning ‘königliche’: the inscription on the bracelets would refer to the bracelets themselves as votive gifts and thus the possession of the god of Kaunos, whose name is known from Aramaean transmission as KNDWṢ/S and means ‘king, ruler’ (see s.v.; Melchert 2010f: 178 follows Schürr’s formal interpretation, but he is cautious regarding the meaning).

Since a final <š> must be an ending and it is attested until now only as an accusative plural and perhaps as a nominative plural (cf. Melchert 2010f: 178 with references and with possible examples for nominative plurals), kδuśolš must be an adjective or noun, it cannot be a personal name. Although Schürr’s suggestion, kδuś-ol-š ‘the ones of the god Kδuś’ (with an adjective suffix -ol-) is in theory morphologically and phonologically possible (see also the discussion in Schürr 1998a: 146-147), in case of votive gifts one would rather expect a votive inscription, ‘for the god Kδuś’ or alike and not a Besitzerinschrift. As mentioned already in the publication, the small size of the bracelets (internally 38-39 mm in diameter) implies either votive gifts or jewellery for children (Zahlhaas & Neumann 1994a: 160-163, they also call attention to the lack of abrasions that should have been caused by wearing them [160 n. 1], but this can be alternatively explained if the bracelets were grave goods). Considering that we deal with a pair of bracelets and this type of bracelets was worn in pair (Zahlhaas & Neumann 1994a: 163) as well as the observation of Adiego 2007a: 372 that kδuśolš recalls the well-attested compound personal names with -uśol/λ- as their second component, the interpretation as an inscription of the owner seems more plausible. Although this would fit also Hajnal’s suggestion, currently there is no evidence for kδou- as a personal name (see s.v.).

However, identifying kδuśolš with a personal name may be problematic at first glance, since, as mentioned above, we are dealing with an adjective. Nevertheless, the known Carian suffixes of appurtenance allow this interpretation: next to -y/ýn-, -s(i)- and -oλ- there are assured cases of an -i- suffix, such as śuγλiś ‘of Συαγγελα’, and even of a “zero” suffix , such as ksolb ‘of Κασωλαβα’, see Adiego 2007a: 269-270, Adiego 2010b: 165-166, both with refs. The “zero suffix” can be only a graphic variant of the -i- suffix, since the notation of the Carian vowels is defective (whose rules are still elusive), cf. Janda 1994a: 176; Adiego 2007a: 270. kδuśolš would thus belong to the latter category as a completely regular adjective meaning ‘of Kδuśol’. The stem is thus indeed a personal name consisting of two elements, kδ- and uśol- (cf. already Zahlhaas & Neumann 1994a: 164-165; Adiego 2007a: 330 [with question mark], 372), for which see s.vv. *kδ- and uśoλ-.

[Zs.S.]