SR-1

edit with form

Inscription
Transliteration:	?]nsu·mnaviθahur·̣ / ị]ṣkesaχviliṣke
Original script:	[ ]A22 d
Variant Reading:	ị]ṣkesaχvil·ṣke ]A22 d
Object:	SR-1 antler (antler)
Position:	front
Script:	North Italic script
Direction of writing:	unknown
Letter height:	0.70.7 cm <br /> – 2.5 cm
Number of letters:	26 – 28
Number of characters:	28 – 30
Number of lines:	2
Craftsmanship:	engraved
Current condition:	damaged, incomplete
Date of inscription:	3rd century BC [from object]
Date derived from:	archaeological context [from object]
Language:	Raetic
Meaning:	unknown
Alternative sigla:	IR 83 LIR SE-6
Sources:	Schumacher 2004: 156, 337

Images

Object SR-1 antler with inscription SR-1.

Inscription SR-1 - detail.

Inscription SR-1 - detail (microscopic image).

Commentary

First published in Pellegrini & Sebesta 1965: 8 f. (no. 1).

Images in Pellegrini & Sebesta 1965: 8 (drawing) and fig. 3 (photo), IR (drawing = LIR), LIR (photo).

Written in two lines: the first sinistroverse, running from the inner to the outer end of the piece of antler, in taller letters, length about 12.5 cm; the second running the same way, but upside-down in relation to the first, and dextroverse, in smaller letters, length about 7.5 cm. They are considered to belong together as one inscription – both have Sigma turned with the upper angle opened in writing direction, and Alpha in the form .

It is unclear exactly how much of the lines is missing in the beginning. The fragment bearing the first preserved letters of line 1 shows that the drilled hole on this side was situated under the letter preceding , which allows an estimate of about two, possibly three, but maybe just one letter before . (Remember that the length of the object in its current restored state is a mere guess.) Of the letter immediately before only an oblique scratch in the lower area is left; the options are , or (hardly before the cluster ). The short scratch in the middle of the line after is read as a punctuation mark because of the phonetic improbability of a sequence uimn, but see below. The rest of the line is clear up to final , which probably features an inscribed punctuation mark (cp. SR-7, which is a less complete version of line 1, as well as SR-10).

In line 2, initial appears to be preceded by a hasta, the upper part of which coincides with the breaking edge – possibly (as read by Pellegrini & Sebesta 1965). In the two other instances of , the letter is damaged, but in both cases the reading is unambiguous. The only problematic element is the short scratch after , which can be read as or as a punctuation mark. While there is a punctuation mark of the same shape in line 1, the of aχvil is already shorter than that in line 1 and also the one which probably precedes the first . Cp. a possible sequence aχvili (an inflected form of aχvil?) in BZ-4. Additionally, there is the possibility of final -ske being a repitition of ](i)ske in the beginning. (Indeed, aχvili- would fit well into the initial lacuna.) The attribution of s before aχvil is dubious.

For the use of Venetic syllable punctuation in Raetic context see Script. In line 1, the punctuation mark inscribed into conforms to the Venetic rules, although the standard would be two marks on either side of the letter. The difference in shape between the two punctuation marks in line 1 may simply be due to the fact that one is part of a ligature. The first mark may belong to – while the identification of words in line 1 is problematic, the mark is unlikely to be a separator due to phonetic reasons. While the system may have been consistently applied in line 1, it definitely was not in line 2, where even the one dubious punctuation mark is not inserted according to the rules.

Bibliography

IR	Alberto Mancini, "Iscrizioni retiche", Studi Etruschi 43 (1975), 249–306.
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)