1

University of Copenhagen

Issues in Ancient Celtic WritingCeltic Spring · 25 May 2012

Prof. Dr. David StifterDept. of Old and Middle IrishSchool of Celtic StudiesNUI Maynooth

New Gaulish Inscriptions 2

I.New Directions in Celtiberian

Ancient Celtic: Celtiberian

ca. 150 B.C. – 0

in central Spain (Ebro valley, Meseta)

in semisyllabic Iberian script

ca. 100, occasionally long texts

Stops (occlusives) can only be written in combination with vowels. In most cases, there is no distinction in writing between voiceless and voiced stops, even though the language made this distinction, e.g.:

v = t/d + u = tu or du

C = k/g + o = ko or go or

f = b + u = bu

Celtiberian Script

a = a

e = e

i = i

o = o

u = u

l = l

r = r

m = m

n = n

s = s

z = z

All other signs stand for single sounds:

v = du and ö = tu

C = ko and G = go

f = b + u = bu

5

Celtiberian

Carlos Jordán Coléra, ‘¿Sistema dual de escritura en celtibérico?’, in: Acta Palaeohispanica IX. Actas del IX Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas paleohispánicas. Barce lona, 20–24 de octubre de 2004. Ed. F. Beltrán Lloris, C. Jordán Cólera y J. Velaza Frías [= Palaeo hispanica 5], Zaragoza: Institución “Fernando el Católico” 2005 1013–1030.

New Gaulish Inscriptions 6

I.Lepontic Palaeography and Philology

Lexicon Leponticum

ca. 6th-1st c. B.C.for Lepontic and Cisalpine GaulishNorth-Italian Lake District and Po Valleyca. 400 short texts (only few with more than two words)

Lepontic Script

8

The Lepontic Script

• taken over from North Etruscan• shared with Venetic and Raetic• omission of heta, qoppa, phi

• alphabetic sequence (Ven. Es 23):

A E V Z Θ I K L M N P Ś R S T U X O

CO·53, ·54: aev

9

Lexicon Leponticum (LexLep)

Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung – Austrian Science Fund

Celtic Research Trust (Isle of Man)

http://www.univie.ac.at/lexlep/wiki/Main_Page

10

Lexicon Leponticum (LexLep)

LexLep: excerpt from CO·48 Prestino

11

LexLep: iota

12

LexLep: alpha

13

Graphic Isolates: qoppa

NO·22 San Bernardino di Briona, ca. 500 B.C.

reading: quormsklp or quormskla

Francesco Rubat Borel, "Annexe 2. Nuovi dati per la storia delle lingue celtiche della Cisalpina", in: Daniele Vitali, Celtes et Gaulois. L'Archéologie face à l'Histoire, 2. La Préhistoire des Celtes. Actes de la table ronde de Bologne-Monterenzio, 28-29 mai 2005. Glux-en-Glenne [= Bibracte 12/2], Bibracte: Centre archéologique européen 2006, 203-208.

14

Graphic Isolates: phi and gamma

BG·20 San Capriate San Gervasio, late 5th c. B.C.

reading: ]kiφisi or ]kicrisi

Alessandro Morandi, Celti d'Italia. A cura di Paola Piana Agostinetti. Tomo II: Epigrafia e lingua dei Celti d'Italia [= Popoli e civiltà dell'Italia antica 12.2], Roma: Spazio Tre 2004.

15

digamma (wau)

v:BG·28.2: va CO·11: ]tiris???v?[ CO·14: mei / va CO·24: ] ma[ CO·31: va [ CO·48: uvamokozis […] < *upmh2o-

uvltiauioposCO·50: ev?[ = alphabeticCO·53: aev [ = alphabetic

CO·54: ]aev [ = alphabeticCO·62: zv ośoris = alphabeticCO·81: ]pa[ MI·12: vat NO·1: § χosioiso v TI·19: iiuioitove TI·32: ]??novi : la[ pVA·4.1: amkouvi???ri VA·4.2: viχu = *uikū? (Etr.)

BG·28.2 Ghisalba

VA·4 Sesto Calende

16

Voice Opposition

Venetic inherited no letters for voiced sounds from Etruscan, but utilised ‘empty’ letters to make a distinction in voice:

• pi for /p/, phi for /b/• kappa for /k/, chi for /g/• tau/theta for /t/, zeta for /d/

What about Lepontic?

No phi, therefore no graphic distinction of voicedness in labials.

17

Voice Opposition

χ for /g/:

NM·6.1: seχeθu = /sege°/ < *segh- (but CO·57-59 sekezos)NO·1: § χosioiso v = /gotsioiso/ < *ghosti- (but CO·48 -kozis) PV·4: eripoχios = /-bogios/ < *bheg- (but NO·21.1 anokopokios, setupokios)TV·1: pompeteχuaios = /-tenguaios/ < *tnghueh2- (Oderzo 7 = Venetic writing!)TI·13: piraniχeś = /-nigents/ ‘washing’? < *neigu-? (phps. -uiχeś = /-uikents/

‘fighting’?)

χ for /k/:VA·4.2: viχu = /uikū/ < *ueik- (= Etruscan writing?)

χ for /ɣ/:VC·1.2: arkatoko{k}materekos = /argantokomaterekos/ < *h2rgnto-

but teuoχtonion = /dēuoɣdonion/ < *ghdhom-

18

Voice Opposition: theta?

θ:CO·48: uvamokozis : plialeθu : uvltiauiopos : ariuonepos : siteś : tetu (ca. 500

B.C.)NM·6.1: seχeθu (1st half 4th c. B.C.)VA·3: ]iunθanaχa (end 7th c. B.C.) (Etr.)

BS·3.2: θomezecuai / obauzana θina (Augustan period, Voltino!)

19

Voice Opposition: theta?

in Venetic, theta and tau stand for /t/, zeta for /d/:

θ:1. CO·48: uvamokozis : plialeθu : uvltiauiopos : ariuonepos : siteś : tetu

Etymology: siteś = *sēdns ‘seats’tetu = *dedoh3e ‘has given’ or *dhedhoh1e ‘has put’ uvltiauiopos = ?plialeθu = *-edōn or *-et-ōn?

20

Voice Opposition: theta and zeta?

θ:NM·6.1: seχeθu

Etymology: seχeθu < *segh-edōn or *-et-ōn?

z for /d/?:CO·57-59: sekezos

Etymology: sekezos < *segh-edos or *-et-ios?or *-ed-ios?

21

sanDavid Stifter, "Lepontische Studien: Lexicon Leponticum und die Funktion von san im Lepontischen", in: Karin Stüber, Thomas Zehnder, Dieter Bachmann (Eds.), Akten des 5. Deutschsprachigen Keltologensymposiums. Zürich, 7.–10. September 2009 [= Keltische Forschungen. Allgemeine Reihe 1], Wien: Praesens Verlag 2010, 361-376.

Normal form of san in Etruscan and Venetic: = Ś2

oldest form in Lepontic area

‘butterfly character’ = normal formattested only in MN·10.2 aśeś (lost!)

22

san6

CO·48: siteś

BG·5: aś VB·2: amaśilu

VR·15 kośio VA·16: akeśi

23

san4

MI·5: ś →t MI·1: peśu → petu

VB·3.1: naśom → natom or naxom

24

san3

CO·38: ś →m NO·26: ]auśi → ]aumi? VC·1.2: atoś → atom or san1?

VB·3.1: natoś (Tibiletti Bruno) → natom or naxom

25

san2

JU·1: priś (Montmorot/Jura)

TI·5: ariśai or arimai

TI·7: aśui or amui (from *am- ‘to love’ or *ambi- ‘around’?)

TI·9: reśu or remu (cp. Remi < *preimo-)

26

san2

VB·28 Stresa: namu esopnio

namu = short form of Namantobogios ‘enemy breaker’ uel sim.

27

The Meaning of san

Venetic: <z> zeta /dz/ → /d/

Lepontic: <z> zeta → /st/ or /ts/ (CO·48 Prestino uvamokozis < *-ghosti-) <ś> san → /ts/ (CO·48 siteś = /-ts/? < *-ns; TI·13 piran/uiχeś = /-ts/? < *-ns;

TI·25 anteśilu < *ande-ted-ti-?; cp. Ven. Es 76 nom. ve.s.ke.ś. < -et-s, beside *Es 121 dat. ve.s.kete.i.)

proportion: zeta = /ts/ + /d/ san = /ts/ + X X = /d/

MI·10.1: meśiolano = MediolanumMI·10.6: śuro = Durus?TI·41 & VB·21: aśkoneti(o) = AdgonnetiusVB·27: aśouni = air. Adomnán?NO·18: aśmina = Adminius

= dagr-rune

28

The Final Phase: Latin Influence

early phase late phase

omikron(CO·6; TI·41)

sigma(CO·6; NO·21.1)

mu(TI·30; VR·1)

nu(TI·30; BI·4)

29

The Final Phase: Latin Influence

VB·3.1 Ornavasso: naśom (san4) = /naksiom/ ‘Naxian’?

or: natom (tau) ‘of the sons’

or: nax(i)om (ix!) ‘Naxian’?

30

Enigmatic Scripts

BS·3 bilingual of Voltino: GR·3 Schnabelkanne (beak-spouted jug) from Castaneda:

Einfluss der camunischen Schrift?

St. Schumacher, ‘Val Camonica’, in: RGA 35, 335

31

Acknowledgements

my colleagues in the Lexicon Leponticum-project:Martin BraunChiara DeziMichela Vignoli

32

Thank you very muchfor your attention

Prof. Dr. David StifterDept. of Old and Middle IrishSchool of CelticNational University of Ireland Maynooth