FI-1

edit with form

Inscription
Transliteration:	a[ / kakaka[(?) / θarani[? / saφ̣ạṇa / θ̣]arani[
Original script:	[ A19 d[ [ [
Object:	FI-1 antler (antler)
Position:	outside
Script:	North Italic script
Direction of writing:	ambiguous
Letter height:	1.61.6 cm <br /> – 2.5 cm
Number of letters:	20
Number of lines:	5
Craftsmanship:	engraved
Current condition:	damaged, fragmentary
Archaeological culture:	Fritzens-Sanzeno B (Retico B) [from object]
Date of inscription:	half of the 5th–beginning of the 4th centuries BC [from object]
Date derived from:	archaeological context [from object]
Language:	unknown
Meaning:	unknown
Alternative sigla:	LIR TES-1
Sources:	Schumacher 2004: 154, 204 ff.

Images

Object FI-1 antler with inscription FI-1 - line 2.

Object FI-1 antler with inscription FI-1 - line 1.

Object FI-1 antler with inscription FI-1 - line 3.

Object FI-1 antler with inscription FI-1 - line 4.

Object FI-1 antler with inscription FI-1 - line 5.

Commentary

First published in Sebesta 1981. Autopsied by TIR in October 2014.

Images in Sebesta 1981: Figg. 1 and 3 (photos) and 2 and 3a (drawings; 3a = Schumacher 2004: Taf. 2,2), LIR (drawings).

Five irregular lines inscribed along a blackened and fragmented handle, starting at the outer end. The lines are consequently complete in the beginning; the original length of object and lines is hard to determine. The handle is broken into numerous fragments and restored; while the assembly of the pieces has been well executed and does not distort the characters, the reading is impeded by the breaks. While the three well legible ones of the five lines do definitely start at the preserved end, it is not clear which way the characters ought to be looked at. Option 1 (end of handle to the right, sinistroverse) means inverted Alpha in three lines; option 2 (end of handle to the left, dextroverse) means inverted Nu. Rho is once written against writing direction in either case. The lines being repeatedly scratched, the position of the writer can be inferred from their shape in only about seven contradictory cases. Considering this together with the inconsistencies in letter orientation, the wryness of lines and size of the object, it is likely that the writer repeatedly turned the object in his hand while applying the inscription, maybe even held it vertically. A determination of writing direction may here be meaningless. Our representation (option 2) and counting of lines follows the literature and cannot be argued.

Line 1: A single Alpha right before the breaking edge, hardly damaged and well legible. No traces of characters after it. The Sigma () seen by Sebesta at the beginning of the line (at the end of the object) consists in a flat angle , more faint than the other lines and probably unintentional. Line 2: Almost undamaged and well legible. Possibly the remains of another hasta along the breaking edge after the last Alpha. Line 3: Well legible. The line slopes downward, the tips of Iota and the following letter are visible on another fragment beyond a broad crack. The letter after Iota consists of a hasta plus bar ; Schumacher suggested , but remarked the lack of traces of a bar on the lower end of the hasta. Sigma (see below) must be excluded. Line 4: After tall and reasonably well legible , the characters are damaged by the abovementioned crack and become smaller. A triangle might be identified as Rho, or combined with the following lines to form (so Sebesta etc.). After this, a group of scratches crossing the crack appear to align to form . Then, below the crack, possibly and another lopsided . The line appears to have been squeezed in between the next one and skew line 3 – possibly an indication that it was applied last? There is no compelling reason to read this line in opposite direction to the others (cp. LIR). Line 5: Initial may be inferred from the presence of two tips of oblique lines and comparison with line 3. After Iota, the remains of a hasta along the breaking edge.

Bibliography

LIR	Alberto Mancini, Le Iscrizioni Retiche [= Quaderni del dipartimento di linguistica, Università degli studi di Firenze Studi 8–9], Padova: Unipress 2009–10. (2 volumes)
Marchesini 2012	Simona Marchesini, "La ricezione di elementi culturali allogeni in ambito retico: Taranis in Val di Fiemme (TN)", in: –, Mode e modelli. Fortuna e insuccesso nella circolazione di cose e idee [= Officina Etruscologia 7], Roma: 2012, 177–190.