View source for SL-2.4

{{inscription
|reading=kerut
|reading_original={{c|T|T3}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|R}}{{c|E}}{{c|K|K2|d}}
|reading_variant={{w|karut}}<br>{{c||T3}}{{c||U2}}{{c||R}}{{c|A}}{{c||K2|d}}
|direction=ambiguous
|letter_height_min=1.8
|letter_height_max=2.0 cm
|letter_number_min=5
|line_number=1
|script=North Italic script
|language=unknown
|meaning=unknown
|object=SL-2 helmet
|position=front, bottom, outside
|orientation=0
|craftsmanship=engraved
|condition=complete
|type_inscription=unknown
|sortdate=-250
|date=450–50 BC
|date_derivation‎=typology, archaeological context
|source=Schumacher 2004: 330 f.
|checklevel=0
|disambiguation=SL-2
}}
== Commentary ==
First published in {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 8 f., though according to him seen and drawn already in the 19<sup>th</sup> century by {{bib|Lipperheide & Rickelt 1896|Franz von Lipperheide}}. Examined by TIR on 10<sup>th</sup> January 2014.

Images in {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: Fig. 5 (drawing), {{bib|Reinecke 1950}}: 133, b (drawing = {{bib|Markey 2001}}: 105, Fig. 6) and Taf. 11c (photo), {{bib|Egger 1959}}: 88, Abb. 3 (drawing), {{bib|Klingenberg 1973}}: 140, Fig. 18 (drawing), {{bib|Egg 1986}}: Abb. 183 (drawing) and {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: 18, Fig. 3 (drawing) (= {{bib|Schumacher 2004}}: Taf. 16, 4) and Abb. 8 (photo).

Length about 6.5 cm. Written on the brim below [[index::SL-2.2]] with scratches faint but fairly well visible. A white inlay was added sometime before 1927, possibly for photos made for {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}, but must have been cleaned away since.

The letter {{c||K2|d}} is written with a long upper bar. Those scratches reaching the bottom of the line are scratched from there upwards, probably because the upturned rim presented an impediment.

The writing direction is ambiguous: either {{c||K2|d}} (in a sinistroverse reading) or {{c||R}} (in a dextroverse reading) is retrograde. The second letter from the right consists of two oblique hastae (the left one slightly straighter) with two bars slanting down from the right hasta. It can be read {{c||E}}, tipped forward with its bars almost reaching the bottom of the line (known from Etruscan inscriptions, see {{bib|Wallace 2008}}: 19), or as {{c||A}} erroneously supplied with a superfluous bar. In the first case, the letter supports a sinistroverse reading. The leftmost character, if read sinistroverse, is Sanzeno tau; if read dextroverse, it is Sanzeno or Lepontic pi (or indeed Venetic/Magrè lambda, though this would go less well with tip-down upsilon). The dextroverse readings {{w||purak}} or {{w||lurak}} ({{bib|Egg 1986}}: 227, no. 324) cannot therefore be ruled out. With regard to {{c||K2|d}}, {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 9 observes that "[d]ans l'alphabet proprement étrusque ''p'' et ''k'' ont souvent un sens contraire à celui des autres lettres". If the inscription was applied upside-down, or the writer moved the helmet around between scratches for better access to the brim, this might explain retrograde or even inverted letters; cf. the manner of application of the other three inscriptions and [[index::Raetic epigraphy]] for a discussion.

{{bib|Egger 1959}}: 88 f. explains dextroverse {{c||K2|d}}, set apart from the rest of the inscription by a slightly broader gap, as the North Italic version of the abbreviation ''C'' for ''centuria''. The remaining sequence, read {{w||erul}}, he interprets as the name of a Germanic centurion ''erul''(''us''): ''centuria eruli''. His reading was readily accepted by runologists, forming the basis for Otto Höfler's Erulertheorie concerning the origin of the Runic script (see {{bib|Höfler 1970}}: 114 f. and {{bib|Höfler 1971|1971}}: 154 f., {{bib|Klingenberg 1973}}: 140, {{bib|Schrodt 1975}}: 176). Aside from the improbable reading, Egger's interpretation, based on {{bib|Reinecke 1950|Reinecke}}'s late dating of the helmet, is made chronologically improbable by {{bib|Egg 1986|Egg's}} new dating (see the [[index::SL-2 helmet|object page]]). See also {{bib|Schmeja 1968}}: 140 f. and {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: 18–20 (II). The most attractive reading so far was Markey's, who, after a personal communication from Bernard Mees, suggests supposed ''kerup'' to be an abbreviation for a Celtic PN ''keru-bogios'' ({{bib|Markey 2001}}: 116 f.), as in Cisalpine Celtic [http://www.univie.ac.at/lexlep/wiki/setupk setupk] = ''Setu-bogios'' – this is obsolete with the new reading of {{c||T3}} as tau (see [[index::T]]). The reading of {{bib|Mentz 1954–55}}: 257 {{w||karuz}} is groundless and negligible.

For the dating of the inscriptions on [[index::SL-2 helmet]] see {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: 16–18 and 20–22. Depending on which type of inscription we are faced with, SL-2.4 may have been applied any time after the manufacture of the helmet in the second half of the 5<sup>th</sup> century by one of its owners, or as a votive inscription on the occasion of a putative original sacrifice of the helmet or of its deposition at Obrat around 100 BC. The helmet may well have been inscribed with a dedication, but considering that four unconnected texts are inscribed on it, we must assume that at least three of them are unconnected with the donation. {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: 12 argues that the inscription's position indicates a profane function, citing examples of votive helmet inscriptions, which are usually applied prominently on the bowl; see [[index::Raetic epigraphy]] for a discussion.

Further references: {{bib|Kretschmer 1943}}: 187, {{bib|Prosdocimi 1986}}: 34 f., {{bib|Urban & Nedoma 2002}}: 57 f.
{{bibliography}}