TV-1.1

edit with form

Inscription
Transliteration:	]iaṇ·aθare / ]armatan·̣ / ]??es·̣śaruś·̣?·̣ / ]ḷ·s·salusruśn?(?) / ]?ạṛṃạ[
Original script:	] ] ]??? ]?(?) ]?[
Object:	TV-1 slab (sandstone) (Inscriptions: TV-1.1, TV-1.2)
Position:	front
Script:	North Italic script (Magrè alphabet)
Direction of writing:	dextroverse
Letter height:	3.53.5 cm <br /> – 4.5 cm
Number of letters:	42
Number of characters:	48
Number of lines:	5
Craftsmanship:	engraved
Current condition:	fragmentary, damaged
Date of inscription:
Date derived from:
Language:	unknown
Meaning:	unknown
Alternative sigla:	IR 98 LIR TV-1 TM 218518
Sources:	Schumacher 2004: 173

Images

Object TV-1 slab with inscription TV-1.1 - front side.

Object TV-1 slab - sideview - with inscription TV-1.1 - part of line 1.

Commentary

First published in Lejeune 1951. Autopsied by TIR in October 2014.

Images in Moschetti 1932: fig. 114 (photo = Sartori 1951: fig. 2 = Lejeune 1951: 210 = Pellegrini 1959: Tav. XLII, fig. 20), Lejeune 1951: 211 (drawing), Pellegrini 1952: 239 (drawing = Pellegrini 1959: 194), Pellegrini & Prosdocimi 1967: 398 and 399 (photos), Morandi 1999: fig. 3, 5, 8–10, 12 and 13 (photos) and 11 and 14 (drawings), LIR: 279 and 280 (drawings).

Written in five (preserved) lines, dextroverse, on the smoothed surface of a slab, covering its entire breadth. The lines appear to be incomplete in the beginning, the slab being broken on the left side. In addition to this, a layer of stone has splintered off next to the breaking edge, further shortening the first two lines and damaging the first letters of the third. The preserved lines are neatly executed, running parallel with a widely consistent letter height of 4–4.5 cm and a distance of about 1–1.5 cm between them.

The letters are mostly well legible despite erosion. In line 1, no trace of a letter can be made out at the breaking edge before Iota. Morandi's reading of the third letter as Nu rather than Lambda can be confirmed. The separator in line 1 is a short vertical , rather than a dot as in the rest of the inscription. The sequence is written on the side of the slab, very close to the left edge. It may be assumed that the two letters represent the ending of line 1, belonging with . That the writer did not simply complete the word in the next line might be taken as an indication that the text is written in tabulatory form, with one line constituting one entry. Lines 2 and 3 end with separators. The effort to avoid division of words may, however, just testify to a heightened sense of orderliness on the part of the writer. Line 2 is unambiguous, including the first letter Alpha, where the stone has broken off along the left hasta. The final punctuation mark is faint, but probably dot-shaped like the following ones.

The beginning of line 3 is problematic. The first two (?) letters are damaged by the break on top. Morandi reads ]. is most probably correct, but the vertical following it appears to curve slightly to the left. Even if this impression is just due to the damage, the gap between the vertical and Epsilon is much wider than between the other letters. A bar , faint but hardly unintentional, extends into it from the breaking edge – possibly ]? What looks like a separator between Epsilon and Sigma is likely just the remains of the more pronounced end of the lower bar of Epsilon, which has completely straight bars, just like the one in line 1. The separator seen by Morandi between Sigma and San is really a cavity more extensive than a punct. It may well be the consequence, after erosion, of a punct, but note that the space between Sigma and San is particularly small. Then again, sś is an unlikely cluster. The final letter between two puncts, the left part of which is heavily eroded, is read San by Morandi; if so, the letter is noticeably smaller than the others.

In line 4, a bar of what is probably Lambda next to the breaking edge, and a separator below it. The separator between the two Sigmas is a very short and slightly inclined scratch. The end of the line is damaged and not entirely clear. Morandi reads , which is indeed the most likely interpretation of the group of lines – Iota being small and touching Theta in the bottom can be explained by lack of space towards the end of the line. The cluster śnθ, however, is awkward. The bar of Theta is fainter than the others, but there is no motivation for a lopsided unlike the symmetrical ones in the rest of the inscription. Of line 5, only the top parts of some letters in the left area remain. The sequence can be securely identified by comparison with line 2 – the letters are even written straight beneath their respective counterparts. Of the letter on the very left, whose possible counterpart has disappeared with the layer of stone on the top left, only a hasta remains.

While the inscription may be Raetic, it is fundamentally unlike the average Raetic testimony in both form and content. Epigraphically, the Raetic characteristics of the inscription are lack of Omikron, Alpha with the bar rising in writing direction, and Mu with three bars. "Inverted" Upsilon and Lambda with the bar on top put it in the context of the Magrè alphabet. Sigma is consistently turned with its upper angle opening in writing direction; the most curious feature epigraphically is Epsilon with perfectly straight bars.

Linguistically, the obscure text cannot be securely determined to be Raetic. For auslauting -n and -l cp. erikian for )ian and aχvil, or maybe -l(a). Auslauting -s in line 3 may be a genitive form. For cp. – a nominative? The sequence salusruśn- is segmented into salus and ruśn(θi) by Morandi despite the clear absence of a separator (presumably for phonetic reasons). Both salus and śaruś in line 3 are obscure; for ruś- cp. the individual name ruśie. ruśnu would make a patronym, but see above on the reading. ruśnθi is phonetically awkward and obscure. For an independent sequence θi at the end of a word cp. BZ-4, SZ-18, but ruśn is no more plausible on its own. For likely aθare in line 1 cp. possible aθaris in PA-1 – a name? Note that )armaθan, treated as a complete word by Morandi (probably on account of its length), is incomplete at the beginning in both instances.

The lack of forms which can be securely identified or compared to forms documented elsewhere in Raetic testimonies qualifies the ascription of the text to the Raetic corpus. However, considering the remote find spot and unusual form, the content may be argued to be correspondingly atypical for Raetic. This is also suggested by the appearance of single letters between punctuation marks, reminiscent of the Roman practice of abbreviating names. Together with the straight bars of Epsilon, this would indicate a low dating for the testimony (pace Morandi p. 23). The inscription may be a second document exhibiting Latinoid features beside BZ-24 (also on a slab). Note that despite this, the inscription appears to have nothing to do with the Latin text on the reverse side. It must also be pointed out that the identification of Latin-style abbreviations can be avoided, at a stretch, by interpreting the puncts as syllabic punctuation rather than separators: ]IA (the glide being counted as a consonantal element) – N. (ending of word?) – A (not punctuated) – ΘA – RE / ]A (not punctuated as in line 1, or with a lost consonant before it) – RMA (tautosyllabic cluster with /m/ as the second element) – ΘA – N. / ]R (possibly punctuated before the surface damage, maybe internally) – IE (as in line 1) [alternatively: ]RLE (tautosyllabic cluster with /l/ as the second element)] – S. – ŚA – RU – Ś. – ?. (another consonant) / ]L. – S. – SA – LU – SRU (tautosyllabic cluster with /r/ as the second element) – ŚN? (tautosyllabic cluster with /n/ as the second element, if followed by a vowel). This would not be strictly according to the rules of the Este sanctuary: Glides do not count as consonants, anlauting vowels ought to be punctuated, clusters with /m/ as second element do not appear on the Este tablets, etc. However, both in some Venetic and especially in Raetic contexts, syllabic punctuation was practiced somewhat ideosyncratically (see Script). Only one punct following the respective letter has parallels in Venetic usage.

Further references: Sartori 1951: 15, Ribezzo 1952: 523 ff., Vetter 1954: 76 ff., Pisani 1964: 327, Pellegrini 1964: 78, Tibiletti Bruno 1978: 241 f., Pellegrini 1985: 115 f.

Bibliography

IR	Alberto Mancini, "Iscrizioni retiche", Studi Etruschi 43 (1975), 249–306.
Lejeune 1951	Michel Lejeune, "L'Inscription Rétique de Castelcies", Studi Etruschi 21 (1951), 209–214.
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)