View source for SL-2.1

{{inscription
|reading=siraku punctuation!&#58;&#x0323; þurpi
|reading_original={{c|I}}{{c|P|P2}}{{c|R}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|Þ|Þ3}}{{c|punctuation|punctuation2}}{{c|U|U2}}{{c|K}}{{c|A}}{{c|R}}{{c|I}}{{c|S||d}}
|direction=sinistroverse
|letter_height_min=1.1
|letter_height_max=2.0 cm
|letter_number_min=11
|sign_number=11
|sign_number_max=12
|word_number=2
|line_number=1
|inscription_width=5 cm
|script=North Italic script
|alphabet=Sanzeno alphabet
|language=unknown
|object=SL-2 helmet
|position=front, right area, lower area, outside
|craftsmanship=engraved
|condition=complete
|source=Schumacher 2004: 330
|checklevel=5
|problem=alte literatur; interpretation als rätisch
}}
== Commentary ==
First published in {{bib|Mommsen 1853}}: 208, no. 12 '''(with older literature)'''.

Further references: '''{{bib|Fabretti 1867}}: no. 59''', '''Von Sacken & Kenner 1866: 292, no. 1089''', '''{{bib|Corssen 1874}}: 949 (Note)''', '''{{bib|Pichler 1880}}: 43 f.''', '''Oberziner 209''', {{bib|AIF I}}: 36, no. 99a, {{bib|Marstrander 1925}}: passim, {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 2 ff. (A 1), {{bib|Kretschmer 1943}}: 187, {{bib|Egg 1986}}: 227 (Nr. 324), {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: 19 f. (Ia), {{bib|Markey 2001}}: 104–112, {{bib|Urban & Nedoma 2002}}: 57.

Pictures in '''{{bib|Giovanelli 1845}}: tav. II (drawing), {{bib|Giovanelli 1876}}: tav. II (drawing)''', {{bib|Mommsen 1853}}: Taf. I, 12B (drawing; see {{bib|Mommsen 1853}}: 208 f.) (= {{bib|AIF I}}: Taf VI, 99 A = {{bib|Marstrander 1925}}: 38), '''Fabretti tab. VI''', '''{{bib|Pichler 1880}}: ???''' (= {{bib|AIF I}}: Taf. VI, 99 B), {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 4, Fig. 1 (drawing) and Pl. I (photo), {{bib|Reinecke 1942}}: 133, Taf. 11a (drawing = {{bib|Markey 2001}}: 105, Fig. 6), {{bib|Egg 1986}}: 226, Abb. 183 (drawing) (= {{bib|Schumacher 2004}}: Taf. 16, 2) and {{bib|Nedoma 1995}}: Abb. 2 and 3 (photos).

Written on the chamfer. A white inlay was added sometime before 1927, possibly for photos made for {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}, but must have been cleaned away since. Remains can still be seen in some of the deeper scratches.

The inscription is immediately followed by [[index::SL-2.2]], separated by a punctuation mark consisting of four small dots, distinctly unlike the (slightly doubtful, see below) separator between {{w||siraku}} and {{w||þurpi}}. The two inscriptions, though not at first glance unlike in appearance, were separated by {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}, who observed that they seem to be written by two different persons: The scratches in SL-2.1 are deeper – "gravée par une main hardie et énergique" (p. 3), the overall execution is neater than that of [[index::SL-2.2]], which is distinguished by a "manque de sûreté et de contours". The strokes in SL-2.1 appear to be scratched from bottom to top. This seems counterintuitive in the absence of an immediate obstacle like, for example, the rim in [[index::SL-2.4]]. It may be argued that the characters were more easily applied when turning the helmet upside-down, because the chamfer can be accessed more comfortably – compare the upside-down [[index::SL-2.3]]. This inscription, however, is clearly written as seen when the helmet is worn, so the writer would have had to engrave their letters upside-down. The hastae of {{c||E}} and {{c||I}} in [[index::SL-2.2]], by contrast, are scratched top to bottom. While both inscriptions are indubitably sinistroverse, {{c||S|d}} in SL-2.1 is turned against writing direction, whereas in [[index::SL-2.2]] it is written {{c||S}}. Another difference is the execution of {{p||r}}, written {{c||R}} in SL-2.1, but {{c||R2}} in [[index::SL-2.2]]. Marstrander's splitting of the row has been widely accepted ({{bib|Kretschmer 1943|Kretschmer}}, {{bib|Nedoma 1995|Nedoma}}). 

Curiously, writer's mistakes with somewhat similar outcomes must be suspected in both inscriptions. SL-2.1, after starting out fairly tidily in spite of some iterated scratches, features what looks like a cramped {{c||P2}} between the second {{c||U2}} and {{c||R}}. Close inspection shows that the twig {{c||line d 20}} branching off the hasta has been deleted with tiny scratches crossing it (recorded in the early drawings by '''Giovanelli''' and {{bib|Marstrander 1927|Marstrander}}, but neglected by {{bib|Pichler 1880|Pichler}} and {{bib|Egg 1986|Egg}}). The writer seems to have either prematurely added the twig of the following {{c||P2}} to the hasta meant for {{c||R}} ({{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 4), or they erroneously started to write {{c||R}} in the wrong direction – all the more comprehensible if they were indeed seeing their work upside-down. {{bib|Markey 2001|Markey}} 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" (p. 110). They also seem to have tried to accentuate the hasta with additional scratches. Apart from this lapse, the characters are legible without ambiguity.

It is not absolutely sure, though probable, that the two large dots between {{w||siraku}} and {{w||þurpi}} are itentional, as strictly speaking no indentations can be made out. A third dot on top of the left stroke of {{c||U2}} may belong to it. Compare {{bib|Marstrander 1927}}: 4, who believed the marks to be accidental. {{bib|Egg 1986|Egg}} did not include them either. '''An interpretation of the spots as intentional is endorsed by the fact that the segmentation into {{w||siraku}} and {{w||þurpi}} is linguistically plausible.''' 

Both epigraphical (Sanzeno-type {{c||P2}} and {{c||Þ3}}, characteristical Raetic {{c||A}} and  {{c||U2}}) and '''linguistic''' properties of the inscription allow its being ascribed to the Raetic corpus with some certainty.
{{bibliography}}