Celtiberian Language

e-Keltoi Volume 6: 749-850 The Celts in the Iberian Peninsula © UW System Board of Regents ISSN 1540-4889 online Date Published: March 16, 2007 Celtib...

6 downloads 306 Views 2MB Size

Celtiberian* Carlos Jordán Cólera, University of Zaragoza, Spain Abstract This work is a grammatical compendium of the Celtiberian language, incorporating the data available through 2003. The more relevant phonological and morphological phenomena are reviewed. These demonstrate that Celtiberian is an Indo-European and Celtic language. Abundant epigraphic material is also presented in support of the arguments presented here.

Keywords Historical linguistics, grammar, Celtiberian, Celtic, Indo-European

Definition Celtiberian is the name given to an Indo-European language of the Celtic branch. Native inscriptions written in this language have been found in an area of the Iberian Peninsula lying between the headwaters of the Duero, Tajo, Júcar and Turia rivers and the source of the Martín River to the west, south and east, and the middle course of the Ebro River in the north, with a frontier that runs parallel to the right bank of the Ebro, some ten kilometres from the river, and crosses to the left bank to include an area corresponding to a region adjacent to the border between present-day Navarre and Aragon. This territory includes what both the Romans and ancient sources named Celtiberia, together with other neighbouring areas belonging, according to the same sources, to the Berones, Pelendones, Arevaces and Carpetanes. This evidence dates from the first and second centuries BC and it does indicate a certain linguistic unity, although it has not yet been possible to distinguish different diatopic units. We prefer to use the term Hispano-Celtic as a hypernym to include all the linguistic varieties of Celtic spoken in the Iberian Peninsula before the arrival of the Romans (in c. 218 e-Keltoi Volume 6: 749-850 The Celts in the Iberian Peninsula © UW System Board of Regents ISSN 1540-4889 online Date Published: March 16, 2007

750 Carlos Jordán Cólera BC, during the Second Punic War). However, the only variety for which we have direct evidenceand about whose Celtic origin there is unanimous agreement is the variety traditionally named Celtiberian, as defined above. In geographic-linguistic terms it could also be called northeastern Hispano-Celtic. In the northwest of the Iberian Peninsula, and more specifically between the west and north Atlantic coasts and an imaginary line running north-south and linking Oviedo and Mérida, there is a corpus of Latin inscriptions with particular characteristics of its own. This corpus contains some linguistic features that are clearly Celtic and others that in our opinion are not Celtic. The former we shall group, for the moment, under the label northwestern Hispano-Celtic. The latter are the same features found in well-documented contemporary inscriptions in the region occupied by the Lusitanians, and therefore belonging to the variety known as LUSITANIAN, or, more broadly as GALLO-LUSITANIAN. As we have already said, we do not consider this variety to belong to the Celtic language family.1 Finally, in the southwest of the Peninsula there are stelae containing inscriptions in a language for which the name TARTESSIAN has recently been becoming more widely used. These inscriptions are difficult to read, and therefore to interpret, although some features have been distinguished that indicate that the inscriptions are written in a Celtic language.2

Figure 1. Pre-Roman languages attested in the Iberian Peninsula.

Celtiberian 751 Language Writing System

Location in the map

Linguistic Classification

Phoenician Punic - Phoenician alphabet and variants LybianPhoenician

Ph

Semitic macro-family

Greek

G

Indo-European macrofamily Greek family

I

Non-Indo-European

C

Indo-European macrofamily Celtic family

SW

Indo-European macrofamily? Celtic family?

L

Indo-European macrofamily Family?

- Greek alphabet

- South- and north-eastern Iberian semi-syllabary Iberian - Greek-Iberian alphabet - Latin alphabet - Variant of North-eastern Iberian Celtiberian semi-syllabary - Latin alphabet Southwest Language - South-western Semi-syllabary or Tartessian Lusitanian - Latin alphabet

Figure 1. Map Key

Celtiberian Linguistic Features3 I. Phonetics and Phonology Vowels 1. Language a/o From an Indo-European vowel system with four phonemes, i, ε, α, u, there is a shift to a system with five phonemes, a, e, i, o, u, with a differentiation between the a/o timbres. This is a feature shared with Italic, Greek, Armenian and Phrygian.4 Later on a system with ten elements develops ā̆, ē̆, ī̆, ō̆, ū̆, and finally, each language alters the system in one or another direction. 2. Treatment of *ā In [BBIV, B7] we find stoteroi. If the proposed etymology as*stā-tér-oi, from the root

*stā- 'to be standing, to remain, to be', is correct,5 we could speak of the shift from *ā > *ō in an

752 Carlos Jordán Cólera unstressed syllable. For this to be plausible, we would have to posit that in Common Celtic the vowel *ō split into [ɔ] in stressed position and into [ω] in unstressed position. This second [ω] element fused with etymological*ū, while the first [ɔ] would have fused with*ā and would have phonologized in /ɔ/ or /α/, which could later in Celtiberian have split into /ō/ in an unstressed syllable and /ā/ in a stressed syllable. Thus, *stā-tér-oi > *stɔ̄-tér -oi /*stα̅- tér-oi > [stōtéroi], . 3. Treatment of*ō 3.1. In non-final syllables: *ō > * ā. For example, O.Ir.6 már, M.W. mawr 'grande', Gaulish -maros < -māros < -mōrōs (cf. Gr. -mwro"). We have as yet no irrefutable examples of the step *ō > ā in Celtiberian; kombalkez [K.1.1, A1] could be one example. If, as F. Villar has suggested,7 this form turns out to be a 3rd sing. of the perfect of a root*bhel- 'to shout, to speak', we would have a shift *ō > *ā in a non-final stressed syllable, since the accent would fall on the root vowel. However, if to this form we add terturez [K.0.14] <*tér-tōr-e-t, also a possible perfect, but in this case with reduplication, the root vowel would be unstressed, as the accent would fall on the reduplication, and we would have to accept a shift *ō >*ū in a non-final unstressed syllable. As K. McCone8 has pointed out, since in Celtiberian, like in the other Celtic languages, a shift *ō > *ū in final syllables took place, as we shall see later, there is no reason why a shift*ō > *ā in non-final stressed syllables should not also have taken place. Moreover, in the Celtic inscriptions of the western part of the Peninsula there are examples to support this hypothesis, such as the anthroponyms ENIMARI / SEGOMARVS <*-māros < -mōros.9 3.2. In final syllables: *ō >*ū. O.Ir. cú, M.W. ci 'dog' <*kū < kwō (cf. Skt. śvā, Gr. kuvwn). This shift can be seen clearly in the nominative of stems in ōn, melmu <*-ōn [K.1.1,

Celtiberian 753 B2]; in the dative singular of stems in -o, -ui < *-ōi; in the ablative singular of stems in -o, -ūz <

*-ōd; and in the imperative desinence -tuz < -tōd.10 4. Treatment of *ē The shift *ē > ī is considered to be a characteristic of Celtic, shared, for example, with Armenian. It is difficult to put forward a hypothesis as to where Celtiberian stands as regards this shift, as a lot of different factors are involved, not only specifically concerned with phonetics, but also with the graphic representation of the sounds. One good example of the evolution of this vowel could be the preverb*dē- in tizaunei [K.1.1, A2], an infinitive form, either of a stem *dheh1 - 'set', or *deh3- 'give'. Here the shift in initial syllables seems certain to have occurred. However, the form tekez [K.6.1], if it is, as it seems, the same as the Latin form fēcit < *dhēket, would seem to contradict this hypothesis.11 In the Luzaga bronze [K.6.1] we find teiuoreikis, which may well lead back to a protoCeltic form*dēo-rīks, coming, in turn, from*deio-rēks, and which should be read as [dorīks/dīorīks]. In this word, Celtiberian would have undergone the shift*ē > ī in the final syllable,12 cf. O.Ir. rí, rig, W. rhi, Gaulish -rix.13

Diphthongs 5. Treatment of diphtongs Continuing with the word teiuoreikis < *dēo-rīks < *deio-rēks, the use of the same graphic signs in both the first syllable and the last would seem to indicate that Celtiberian did not inherit the original diphthong, but instead the already monophthongized form, as occurred in the other Celtic languages. But this form would still have been in the process of fusing with ī, through an intermediate step .14 That is to say, the spelling ei would have been used to indicate both  / ī from an original diphthong *ei, and ī from an original*ē. In other words, the spelling ei could represent an original diphthong, but this does not mean that the diphthong was preserved phonically at the time the inscription was made.15 Evidence of this

754 Carlos Jordán Cólera same process may be seen in western Hispano-Celtic in the theonym16 found in Chaves (Portugal): DEVORI, dative singular, reconstructed as an -i stem in place of †DEVORIGE <

*dēorīgē < *dēuorēge. Other words containing this sequence that are well supported either etymologically or morphologically are, in syllable initial position: ueizos [K.0.14], ueizui [K.6.1] 'witness, public guarantor', from the root *eid- 'know', like ueiziai [K.0.14]; in syllable final position: the infinitives ambitinkounei [K.1.1, A6], taunei, tizaunei, uertaunei [K.1.1, A2], usimounei [BBIV, A6], as they are also dative singular forms of verbal nouns, in which -unei < *--ōn-ei; kenei [K.6.1] dative singular of kenis [K.6.1] 'people', from an i-stem from the root*gen-. In addition to kenei we find GENTE [K.11.1], dative singular of an i-stem which agrees with STENIONTE,

dative singular of an nt-stem, the two supporting at least the first step of the

monophthongization process *ei > * > ī. With regard to the behavior of this diphthong, we should also consider the sequence *e-

es of the nominative plural of stems in -i. For if some of the kentis in BBIII turn out to be nominative plural, then we shall have to accept the evolution *e-es >*-e-es >*-s > *-īs. An example such as [K.1.1, A4] boustom < *gwo-sth2-om 'stable' appears to indicate that the original*o diphthong was maintained in Celtiberian. On the other hand, it may not be too far fetched to suggest that it underwent a process parallel to that of *e, following the evidence we have of the diphthong *o, coming from the original*e, and the evidence from the other Celtic languages. The first step in the shift*e >*o > ō can be classified as Proto-Celtic, but the second did not take place, in K. McCone's opinion17, until the main dialectal branches began to separate. The secondary diphthong, like the primary*o, shifted to ō, which was maintained in O.Ir., although in the end it underwent certain changes of its own, depending on

Celtiberian 755 the context, and in Brittonic it evolved to u.18 In Gaulish, the diphthong was maintained, to judge from the spellings tooutio", -toouta in the Greek alphabet,19 TOVTAS in the Lugano alphabet, and TOVTI- in the Latin alphabet. In a later period it changed to ō,20 cf. TOTATIGEN[V]S (CIL VI 2407), TOTIA (CIL III 8337 and XIII 4177). In the light of forms such as TVTIVS, 21

TVTIA, and the series of the Mars epithet, TEVTATES, TOVTATIS, TOTATIS, TVTATIS,

we are

obliged to ask ourselves whether we have before us the final, specifically Gaulish, phase of the closing of , which would be closed, or whether these forms are the result of a linguistic transfer from Latin. The original*e diphthong has not been documented up till now in Celtiberian. The shift to*o does seem certain, as shown in konbouto [A.74], from *kom-ple-to-; loukaiteitubos [K.0.7], loukaniko [K.1.3, II-3], loukanikum [K.1.3, I-14, -45, -46, etc.], loukio [K.18.2, -1], perhaps all from*lek-; nouantutas [K.1.1, B-6] (*ne-), toutam [BBIV], toutinikum [K.1.3, I-7, II-52, III-44] from*tet-, etc.22 It was in fact the comparison of this last form with totinikum [K.1.3, III-33], together with kounesikum [K.1.1, B-1] and the second part of burikounikum [K.1.3, II-53], and konikum [K.1.3, II-49, III-26] (all names of family groups), which led J. Untermann23 to believe that the engraver of the third great bronze had a certain tendency to monophthongize this diphthong. If indeed the parallels put forward are correct, what we need to ascertain is to what extent this phonetic process was taking place in Celtiberian. This could be a case of an in fieri process, which, judging from the spelling, would seem to point to a monophthongization of *o to ō. Thus, Celtiberian would have developed in a way similar to the Celtic dialects from the west of the Peninsula, where, as B. Prósper24 has shown, there are good examples of the evolution *e > o > ō like the alternative forms BOVTIVS / BOTILLA, BODIVS / BOVDICA, TOVTONVS / TOTONVS.

As far as the other diphthongs are concerned, it would seem that *ai, *oi and *au were maintained, to judge from: belaiskom [A.80], loukaiteitubos [K.0.7]; tokoitei [K.1.1, A1], stoteroi [BBIV, B7], nominative plural of an o-stem; tauro [K.1.1, B7 and 8] (anthroponym).25

756 Carlos Jordán Cólera

Laryngeals 6. Result ă from*h (laryngeal) in interconsonantal position Like Lat., Goth., O.C.S., Lith., etc. as opposed to Skt. i and Gr. a, e, o, depending on the laryngeal.26 For example, O.Ir. anál, M.W. andyl 'breath, respiration', Skt. aniti 'he breathes', Gr. a[nemo", from *h2enh1- + -tleh2, -ti, -mos; O.Ir. arathar, Lat. aratrum, Gr. a[rotron < *h2erh3-

trom, etc. The only examples we have in an interconsonantal position in Celtiberian are: - tuateros (Gen. sing.) [K.1.3, III-24], tuateres (Nom. pl.) [K.1.3, II-40] <*dhugh2ter-, cf. Skt. duhitar-, Gr. qugavthr, Toch. B tkācer, etc. While Celtiberian has the form tuater-, Gaulish (Larzac) has duxtir, without a. K. McCone27 thinks that the absence of the vowel may perhaps be due to the word having come from the parallel form without a laryngeal, *dukter, which explains Armenian dustr. F. Rubio28 points out that in O.Ir. there is a feminine anthroponym Der-/Dar-, Ter-/Tar- 'daughter', the equivalent of nouns with Mac- 'son', and that this Irish form calls for an earlier form, also without a. This variation, a form with a and a form without, is also to be found in Sanskrit duhitár- and Avestan duγδar-. The reason is that the interconsonantal laryngeal would disappear when the stress was not on the syllable immediately after it, or, if this were the case, when there was more than one consonant between the laryngeal and the stressed vowel. The Celtiberian form would come from *dhugh2tér- > *dugatér-, typical of strong cases. This form would fulfil the conditions for the preservation of the laryngeal and its later vocalization (cf. the Sanskrit form). This pattern would then spread to the rest of the paradigm, as seen in the genitive tuateros, not †tuatoros. In Gaulish, on the other hand, we would have to start from the form of the weak cases, gen. *dhugh2-tr- ós, with the loss of the laryngeal and therefore the non-appearance of the vowel, and the corresponding spread to the whole paradigm (cf. the Avestan form). - tatuz [K.1.1, A8 y A10], if < *dh3tōd, cf. Gr. dovtw, Lat. datō.29

Celtiberian 757 - tizatuz [BBIV, B-5], if < *di-dhh1-tōd, cf. Gr. tiqevtw, its strict cognate.30 In initial position*h before  + occlusive also vocalizes as a, cf. O.Ir. argat, O.W. argant, Gaulish (Verceil) ARGANTOCO- / ARKATOKO-,31 Celtiberian arkato- [K.0.7] / arkanta [K.1.3, III-11] (among other instances on the bronze) < *h2g-t-, cf. Latin argentum, Avestan ǝrǝzata-, Skt. rajata-; in the same way as before  + occlusive, O.Ir. imm, M.W. am, Gaulish ambi-, Cib. ambi-tinkounei [K.1.1, A6] < *h2bhi-, cf. Gr. ajmfiv, Lat. amb-, Skt. abhi, etc.

Sonants 7. Treatment of ri, li

* + K > ri; * + K > li 32 The clearest example is to be found in the development of the root*bhgh- 'tall, high, sublime', which has proved so prolific in toponomastics;33 Cib. nertobis [A.50], sekobirikez [A.89]. In Gaulish it appears in many toponyms in -briga; as an appellative it is preserved in O.Ir. brí and W. bre 'hill'.34 It is very difficult to find examples with* for Celtiberian. One possible case is konskilitom [K.1.1, A3] < *kon-sk-tó- a verbal adjective from the root*skel- 'to cut'. Another may be*pth- 'wide' (Gr. platuv", Skt. pthus < *pth2-u-) > Cib. let- (in letaisama [A.68] 'the very wide one'); Gaulish litano-; O.Ir. lethan 'wide', although here Celtiberian requires a form*pletissama.35 8. Treatment of ar, al, am, an Except in the case referred to above, *, * > ar, al. O.Ir. carr, Middle Gaulish. car(r), Gallo-Lat. carrus, Gaulish Carro- < karso- < kso(cf. Lat. currus) and O.Ir. a-t:baill 'dies' balnit(i) < *gwn(e)h1 (cf. Gr. bavllei). We do not yet have any examples in Celtiberian.

758 Carlos Jordán Cólera Parallel to this we should also include here*/* > am/an. If we accept K. McCone's proposal,36 all the Celtic languages vocalize the nasal sonants in am/an, with a fronting process in Old Irish, which we shall return to in the section on nominal morphology. Generally speaking, the Celtic languages share this feature with Greek, Armenian, Albanian, Tocharian and Hittite. For example, O.Ir. cét (< *kæntom < *ktom, where traditionally*ktom > kemtom), M.W. cant, Celtiberian kantom [K.1.1, A4], cf. Skt. śatam, Gr. eJkatovn, Lat. centum, Toch. A känt, B

kānte, etc. Other words which may have a voiced nasal sonant in Celtiberian are: tirikantam < *-kant [K.1.1, A1], [BBVI, A1],37 tekametam [K.1.1, A10], tekametinas [BB1.A8] < *-dekam- < *-dk-, cf. Gaulish decametos 'tenth', petrudecametos 'fourteenth', Welsh deg 'ten', degfed 'tenth', O.Ir. deich n- 'ten', dechmad 'tenth' (traditionally, the Irish form has been said to come from *dek > *dekem > deich; while K. McCone suggests*dek >*dekam >

*dekæm > deich); kamanon < *kg- [K.1.1, A5], auzanto, if <*austo [K.1.3, 01].

Fricatives 9. Treatment of the sibilant In two in-depth studies on the use of the letters Z and S, F. Villar38 succeeded in explaining the behaviour of the original Celtiberian*s, and of the whole series of dental occlusives. He also managed to bring some order to what had until then been a most disconcerting area: the spelling and morphology of Celtiberian. 9.1. the original*s was maintained in: a) initial position, for example: sa [K.6.1], soz, saum, somei, somui, sua [K.1.1, A2; A8; A8; A7; A1], belonging to the demonstrative paradigm. b) preconsonantal position. Egs. kaiskata [A.49], belaiskom [A.80], barskunez [A.38] (toponym), stam [K.6.1] (demonstrative), etc. c) absolute final position. For example, the nominative singular of o-stems which appear on coin inscriptions, such as aratikos [A.61, arkailikos [A.62], ekualakos [A.63], etc., and any morphological category containing the original

Celtiberian 759 sibilant in this position. In all these cases, the spelling in the Paleo-Hispanic script was S, which we transcribe as s. 9.2. *s > z in intervocalic position: alizos [K.0.1], alizokum [K.0.2] < *aliso-. Here the spelling was Z, which we transcribe as z.39

Occlusives 10. gw > b The labialization of only the voiced labiovelar is a specifically Celtic phenomenon. Cf. O.Ir. bith, W. byd, Bret. bed, Gaulish Bitu-riges < *gwi(h)-tu- 'world' (cf. with the same root,

*gw i h3-ó-s, O.Ir. beu, W. byw, Bret. beo, Lat. uiuus, Skt. jīváḥ); O.Ir. bó <*gwō-; M.W. bu; Cib. [K.1.1, A4] boustom < *gwo-sth2-o- 'cow shed'; [BBIV, A2] bouitos <*gwo-i-to- 'cattle path'. 11. Deaspiration of the voiced aspirated series and fusion with the voiced occlusives This is a feature that Celtiberian shares with Slavic, Baltic and Avestan. Examples: O.Ir. beith, Gaulish bueti(d) 'be' <*bhuh-e-t(i) (cf. Skt. bhū-, Gr. fu-, Lat. fū-), and from the same root, perhaps, Gaulish bissiet and Celtiberian bionti, bizetuz, robiseti [K.1.1, A7; A5; A8] and atibion [BBIV, A5]; O.Ir. rúad, M.W. rud, Gaulish Roud- 'red' < *rodh- (cf. Lith. raũdas, Skt.

rudhiras, Gr. ejruqrov", Lat. ruber); O.Ir. brí, breg, W. bre (Ancient Breton Brigantes); Gaulish -briga, Cib. -brig- < *bhgh-. 12. *gwh > *gw The shift would be Proto-Celtic and later than *gw > b. What we have here is a deaspiration of the voiced aspirated labiovelar, a phenomenon that occurred in the whole series of aspirates, as we have just explained. What is particularly Celtic is that there is no fusion of the original *gw and gwh, but instead, the new voiced labiovelar takes the place of the original one, the result of which can be distinguished clearly. Later, each Celtic dialect was to evolve in one

760 Carlos Jordán Cólera direction or another.40 To be precise, O.Ir. *gw > g, guidimm 'I pray' de *gwhodh- (cf. Gr. poqevw); gorim 'I heat' from *gwhor- (cf. Lat. formus, Gr. qermov"); Welsh, depending on position and context, *gw > /gw/g; Gaulish *gw > , if the form uediíumi 'I pray, beseech' (Cham.) can be explained as < *gwed-ū < *gwhedh-; Cib. *gw > gw. The examples, not very reliable, in Celtiberian would be the name of the family group found in [K.1.3, IV-6] kuezontikum, if this word does contain the root *gwhedh- which we have just seen for 'pray, beseech';41 the anthroponym GVANDOS

[K.3.13], [K.3.19], if it comes from*gwh- zero grade of *gwhen- 'hit, penetrate';42 and

kortika < gwortikā < *gwh-, with the meaning 'object of exchange', cf. M.W. gwarthec 'cattle', with delabialization of the velar before o, if we accept P. Schrijver's etymology.43 13. *p > *f > ø in initial and intervocalic position This is a feature which is generally considered by scholars to be genuinely Celtic, since it is not a common phonetic change.44 For example: *pro (Lat. pro, Gr. prov) > Cib. ro (robiseti [K.1.1, A8]), Gaulish ro- (Romogillus), O.Ir. ro- (ro-muir 'ocean'), W. ry- (with different meanings); *uper- (Lat. super, Gr. uJpevr, Skt. upari) > Cib. VIROS VERAMOS [K.3.19] < *uper-

mo-, 'uir supremus'), Gaulish uertamos (with the same meaning, cf. also Vercingetorix), O.Ir. for 'over, on', W. gwor; *pth- 'wide' (Gr. platuv") > Cib. let- (in letaisama 'the very wide' [A.68]), Gaulish litano-, O.Ir. lethan ‘wide’; *p‫נּ‬ir- (cf. Gr. parav) > Gaulish are- (Aremorici 'those who are near the sea'), O.Ir. air-, W. ar-, er-, Cib. are- in arekorata [A.52].45 We can represent schematically the phenomena described in 10, 11, 12 and 13: I labial

voiceless

voiced

voiced-aspirated

p

(b)

bh

dental

t

d

dh

velar

k

g

gh

labiovelar

kw

gw

gwh

Celtiberian 761 II labial

voiceless

voiced

voiced-aspirated

p

b
bh

dental

t

d

dh

velar

k

g

gh

labiovelar

kw

--

gwh

III labial

voiceless

voiced

voiced-aspirated

p

b < bh

--

dental

t

d < dh

--

velar

k

g < gh

--

labiovelar

kw

gw < gwh

--

w

IV labial

voiceless

voiced

--

b

dental

t

d

velar

t

g

labiovelar

kw

gw

The new empty cell in the paradigm would partly be filled from Celtic (Brittonic or Celtic P, as opposed to Goidelic or Celtic Q) through the evolution of another phoneme,*kw > p, although we can also find p in the Celtic q owing to other phenomena, such as loans. 14. Similarity in the treatment of *kw and *k *k This shift is an earlier one than *kw >p, as is shown by the fact that the sequence *k also underwent the process in the P dialects. In Celtiberian we find the spelling -kue <*-kwe, an enclitic conjunction, beside ekualaku [A.63] and EQVEISVIQVE [K.3.3] possibly formed from

*eko- 'horse', cf. O.Ir. ech 'horse', Gaulish Epona, Eporedorix. In Lepont. -pe <*-kwe; Gaulish -c < *-kwe, with apocope of -e, prior to the step *kw > p; O.Ir. -ch.46 15. Treatment of the voiced occlusives

762 Carlos Jordán Cólera In Celtiberian, the voiced occlusives appear to have undergone a process of articulatory weakening in certain positions. As we mentioned in the section on sibilants, the discovery of this behaviour in the dental series of consonants was of great assistance in clarifying Celtiberian nominal morphology. The shifts which have so far been detected are the following: 15.1. original *d > z in a) absolute final position: ablatives in nominal declensions, with the ending*-d, arekorataz [A.52], usamuz [A.72], aratiz [A.61], barskunez [A.38], etc.; soz [K.1.1, A2] if it comes from *sod; and imperative forms ending in -tuz (bizetuz, oisatuz, tatuz, tinbituz, in [K.1.1, A5; A7; A8; A6]), whose ending comes from*-tōd. b) intervocalic position: ueizos < *eidos [K.0.11]; zizonti [K.1.1, A7] if it is from

*didonti. c) after a sonant and before a vowel: burzau [A.48], cf. BVRDO, BVRDIGALA; melmanzos [K.1.3, IV-3], cf. MELMANDVS, in Latin epigraphy. 15.2. original*-t in absolute final position > z: tekez [K.6.1] < *dhēke-t. 15.3. original*-dh in intervocalic position > z: mezukenos [K.1.3, I-4], etc., cf. MEDVGENVS

< *medhu-.47

The character used in this case is Z, which we transcribe as z. Taking into account the transformation undergone by the sibilant, the relative chronology of these changes may have been as follows:48 1º. There would have been three more or less contemporary phases: a) an allophonic phase of original*s : unconditioned allophone [s] and conditioned allophone [z] in intervocalic position and between sonant and vowel. b) fusion of *d and*dh to *d in Celtic and the appearance of an allophone [ð] in intervocalic position. c) neutralization of original *t and*d in final position. We can indicate this phonetically by means of the archiphoneme /D/ which would correspond, phonetically, to a voiced interdental fricative, [ð]. 2º. There would have been a phonologization of [z] to /z/, when -ss- (coming from *-ss-,

*-ds-, *-dd-, *-tt-) would have evolved to -s-. 3º. In principle it would not have been possible for */-z/ < *-s to appear in absolute final

Celtiberian 763 position, but we do find the evolution: - vowel - s - short vowel > - vowel - z - short vowel > - vowel - z. 4º. Identification of [-ð] (-/D/) resulting in /z/ in final syllables. It seems appropriate to include this shift at this point in the chronology, because there seem to be cases in which *-d > -z >- ø, like CARACA [K.14.2], metaama [K. 24.1], which appear to be ablatives and therefore to derive from -ād. We should also add as an example of loss of -z, though from the original intervocalic *s, COMEIMV [K.3.3] < -muz < *-mosi. 5º. A chain reaction, so that the allophones of Celtic *d (coming from I.E. *d and *dh) also became identical in intervocalic position and in the group sonant - dental - vowel. Whatever the nature and the order of the phenomena just described, the fact remains that the fricativization of the intervocalic voiced dental is a process of articulatory weakening. This would be the first step of the famous process of Celtic lenition, which would appear, in Celtiberian, not to have affected to the same extent the voiced components of the labial and velar series. What does not appear to have occurred is lenition of the voiceless occlusives, as can be seen from the epigraphic evidence in Celtiberian in the Latin alphabet, such as ARCOBRIG [K.7.3], CALAITOS [K.3.4], although we do find TRIDONIECV from *trito-.49 Throughout the Celtic linguistic continuum in the Iberian Peninsula, there is evidence of the general conservation of an intervocalic voiced velar occlusive, which becomes weaker in certain sequences as we move westwards, until finally it disappears altogether. Thus, for example, from an original*g we find mezukenos [K.1.3] (< *medhugenos) → MEDVSINVS

(Hinojosa de Duero, Salamanca) → MEDVENVS / MEIDVENVS (Lusitania and

Callaecia). Examples of an original *gh, although the vocalic phonological context may be of secondary origin, may be found in toponymic references containing the segment *bhgh-. These toponyms follow one of the three following patterns:50

764 Carlos Jordán Cólera 1. Nom. *-brig-s, gen. *-brig-os, a velar stem found in the Celtiberian area and in the south west of the Celtic area. An example of this is: Cib. sekobirikez [segobrigez] [A-89], and its derivates, sekobirikea [segobrigia] [K.0.3]. This toponym also illustrates the treatment of an intervocalic voiced aspirated velar consonant, owing not only to the second half of the compound, but also to the first half, as it comes from *segh- 'to have', hence Celtic*sego'victory'. Other examples with this lexeme can be seen in SEGISAMA/sekisamos [A.69], SEGONTIA/sekotiaz

[A.77], SEGEDA/sekaiza [A.78].

2. Nom. *-bri-s, gen. *-bri-os, an i-stem, formed on the previous one, through the loss of the velar stop before the sibilant in the nominative (-g-s > -k-s > -ks/-χs > -s) and intervocalic in the remaining cases, especially because it is in contact with -i-. In ancient documents we find ERCORIOBRI, LETIOBRI, LVBRI, MIOBRI,

all in ablative. This pattern is located primarily in the

northwest of the peninsula, especially in Galicia. The disappearance of the velar stop in contact with -i- can also be seen in other lexemes such as SESMACAE <*segisamākā, SEILI <*segili (gen.), DEVORI <*dēorīgē. However, there are also cases where the velar stop is preserved, as in the western toponym SEGIDA, the epithet SEGIDIAECO, the toponym Assegonia <*ad-seg-on-

ā, etc.51 In the west of the Peninsula the context *-g + vowel- would also have facilitated the disappearance of the velar stop, as in APOLOSEGO as opposed to APVLVSEAECO (Cáceres) if it comes from*āpolo-seg-aiko.52, something which would not have happened between open vowels, as in MINCOSEGAEICIS.53 3. Nom. -briga, a Latinized variant of the first pattern, which would have undergone lenition of *g, but already as a phenomenon of the Celtic substrata, and which would have brought about the ancient words in -bria. The only word in Celtiberian whose etymology appears to have a clear explanation, and in which the intervocalic -g- has disappeared, is one that has already been discussed: tuateres

Celtiberian 765 [K.1.3, II-39] / tuateros [K.1.3, III-23], from de*dhugh2ter-. The fact that in the same document we find retukenos and mezukenos [I-4], sekilos [I-7, etc], and sekontios [I-14, et.], seems to indicate that the phonic context, after u and perhaps only before a, favoured a particular weakening effect, as noted by F. Rubio,54 and was not the result of a general phenomenon. As F. Villar had already pointed out,55 the effects of the so-called Celtic lenition are more clearly visible in the west of the Peninsula than in Celtiberia itself.56 We have not yet found data to illustrate the process with*b.

Consonant Clusters 16. Treatment of the group -nt-. Spellings such as kaiskata [A.49] in contrast with CASCANTVM (present day Cascante, Navarra); sekotiaz lakaz [A.77] in contrast with Segovntia Lavgka (present day Sigüenza, Guadalajara); aratiz, aratikos [A.61] (Aranda or Arándiga, Zaragoza); steniotes [K.17.1] compared to STENIONTE [K.11.1] and kete [K.18.2] compared to GENTE [K.11.1] show omission of the nasal consonant before the occlusive. However, there are other words in which the same sequence appears spelled out in full, like como benkota [A.38], konterbia [A.75], tirikantam [K.1.1, A1], bionti [K.1.1, A7], etc. This would seem to point, in Celtiberian, to a certain weakening of /n/ before a consonant. In some of the written evidence this weakening is reflected, whereas in others it is not. To judge from the evidence remaining to us in Spanish toponyms, the sequence containing /n/ seems to have predominated.57 17. Shift from a non-nasal occlusive before s or t to a voiceless velar fricative, x. The Indo-European voiceless bilabial occlusive, *p, was involved, in K. McCone's opinion,58 in four other phenomena (numbers 17, 18, 19 and 20) besides the disappearance already mentioned (13). Thus, previous to its loss, there was a shift from a non-dental occlusive before s or t to a voiceless velar fricative, x. O.Ir. sechtmad, ochtmad; M.W. seithuet, wythuet; Gaulish sextametos, oxtumetos (cf. Lat. septimus <*sept-, octauus < *oct-);59 O.Ir. úasal, M.W. uchel; Gaulish uxse, uxsi, uxsedia y uxsello- 'tall' in Uxellos, Uxellodunum, Ouxisama, etc. In this last series of examples, we have to start from *(o)ups-, (cf. Gr. uJyhlov" 'high', u{yi 'high

766 Carlos Jordán Cólera up') > *uks- > *uxs-. Once again, the Celtiberian writing system does not allow us to state with any degree of certainty what point the evolution of these consonant clusters had actually reached. But let us consider some of the data available to us, beginning with the group just mentioned: 17.1. Group -ps-: we find the toponym usamuz [A.72], superlative of *(o)ups-. This written form does not throw much light on the phonic expression of the word, as this could be [uksamuz], with graphic simplification of the group -ks-, whereas if we opt for a written form †ukasamuz this simplification would not have taken place. Another possibility would be [uxsamuz / uχamuz] with the evolution proposed for the other Celtic languages, that is to say, with a voiceless velar fricative, or a voiceless uvular fricative.60 x/χ does not need to be considered a phoneme, as it could quite easily be an allophonic variant of the voiceless velar occlusive, as in Gaulish. A final option could be [usamuz], with total phonic simplification to a sibilant. The Latin transcription VXAMA, datable to c. 153 BC, would, in our opinion, seem to point to one of the first two of these possibilities, and we would even posit a phonetic realization such as [uxsamuz / uχsamuz], especially if we accept that this evolution occurred before the loss of the voiceless bilabial occlusive, which is well attested in Celtiberian. 17.2. Group -kt-: the written form retukenos [K.1.3] lends itself to similar considerations as usamuz. Here again, the testimony RECTVGENI in Latin epigraphy would incline us either towards [rektugenos] or [rextugenos / reχtugenos].61 17.3. Group -ks-: it would seem logical to think that if the group -ks- resulting from -psunderwent the fricativization of the velar occlusive, then the same would have occurred in the original group. However, in the case of nertobis [A.59],62 it is once again difficult to decide between [nertobriks], [nertobrixs / nertobriχs], or [nertobris]. The word SEGOBRIS in Latin epigraphy points to a form [segobris], with phonetic resolution of the group. Finally, we also have teiuoreikis [K.6.1]. We have analyzed this form as being

Celtiberian 767 composed of *-rēgs > -rēks. Basically, two possible interpretations have been put forward. First, this could be a case of maintenance of the group -ks-, resolved in writing by means of the syllabogram of the velar consonant with a mute vowel, in this case of the same timbre as that of the preceding vowel. Or, conversely, the vowel could be phonically a full vowel, and therefore the group -ks- would not exist.63 A third hypothesis would be that this is an attempt to represent

x/χ in writing. Just as bolora [K.1.3, IV-3] seems to be the Latin feminine anthroponym Flora,64 containing a labiodental fricative represented in writing by means of the syllabogram of the labial, in this case an alternative solution could have been worked out for the velar/uvular fricative. Another example of this solution may be sakarokas [K.18.4], in a document proceeding from the territory of the Vascones, but which looks grammatically Celtiberian, if it contains the element sahar, Basque zahar 'old', cf. VMMESAHAR (Lerga, Navarre). The group -ks- appears in the form es [K.1.1, A.6] <*eghs, also found in esankios [K.1.1, A.9] as opposed to ankios and perhaps in esianto [K.0.14], eskeinis [K.23.2] and eskeninum [K.1.3, 02]. 65 18. Assimilation *p...kw > kw...kw. Assimilation occurs in Latin and in part of the territory in which Celtic was spoken, more specifically, in Goidelic. Thus,*penkwe > quīnque, O.Ir. cōic, instead of *pinque and*ōic, whereas in Welsh we find pimp or in Gaulish pemp- in pempedoula "pentavgullon". There are no examples in Celtiberian.66 19. Shift *p > b between a vowel and a liquid consonant. In O.Ir ebraid 'he will give' < *ibrāseti < *pibrāseti < *pi-ph2,3-se-ti; eblaid 'he will lead' < *iblāseti < *piblāseti < *piplāseti < *pi-plh2-se-ti. This is the treatment which may perhaps confirm the reading [ablu] and not [aplu] for the anthroponym which appears in [K.1.1, A11, B4] abulu, Ablo in the Tabula Contrebiensis, although the genitive, abulos <*abul-n-os requires a full vowel, as we shall see in the section on morphology, unless we accept a

768 Carlos Jordán Cólera vocalization of the liquid consonant in u, a result not really expected. 20. *p >  between a back vowel and n. Of the type O.Ir. súan, MW. hun < *sōnos < *sownos < *suwnos < *sufnos < *supnos. The shift *p > *Φ would have occurred after No. 16, and after No.15, *Φ > ø.67 On account of various facts: that this is not a common phonetic change, that it takes place at a relatively late date and that it appears in a cell in the paradigm which is empty in languages such as Vasco-Aquitaine and Iberian, this may be a phenomenon from the substratum or adstratum.68

II. Morphology 1. Nominal Morphology 1.1 Morphology of the Noun

o- stems nominative. In the singular, o-stems are, as expected, always -os: bouitos 'cattle path' [BBIV, A2], lubos (anthroponym) [K.1.1, B1], buntalos (anthroponym) [K.0.7], ueizos 'witness' [K.0.11], VIROS VERAMOS [K.3.19], etc. They are not different from those of other Indo-European languages in general or specifically from the Celtic languages. Within Continental Celtic, Gaulish Segomaro", Ouilloneo", Licnos, Tarvos, etc. and Cisalpine Gaul TRVTIKNOS (Todi), KVITOS LEKATOS

(Briona), etc. provide evidence of -os. In Insular Celtic, Old Irish69 shows the

evolution from *-os, fer < *iros. If the form stoteroi, which appears in [BBIV, B7], comes, as explained earlier, from

*stātéroi, this would seem to confirm that Celtiberian also had the ending -oi seen in the other Celtic languages, for example, Gaulish: TANOTALIKNOI (Briona), taoutanoi (G-276), ouenikoi (G-279), etc. and O.Ir. fir < *irī < *iroi. accusative. Examples could be boustom 'stable' [K.1.1, A4] and karalom (toponym) [BBIV, A-4], though these could belong to the neuter gender. In general, -m is always preserved in final position in Celtiberian.70 There are some cases in which it seems to have disappeared,

Celtiberian 769 such as belikio [A.47], bormesko [A.81], but this may have been more for epigraphic than phonetic reasons. The words may have been written in an abbreviated form in these examples, whereas in other inscriptions we find belikiom and bormeskom.71 These are nominative singulars of neuter nouns from o-stems, with the same form, therefore, as that of the accusative singular of animate nouns. The same phenomenon does not occur in Gaulish, where -m > -n in o-stems: nemhton (G-152), canecosedlon (L-10), cantalon (L-9), celicnon (L-13) (the last three being neuter), Mapon = Maponon, Pelign = Pelignon, written in an abbreviated form, in Chamalières. Lepontic, on the other hand, coincides with Celtiberian, cf. VINOM NAŠOM. There is only one example which can be considered an accusative plural of a stem in -o-. That is matus in [K.1.1, A6]. Its ending -us, could also belong to a u-stem. In any case, if this is an o-stem, we would have to consider an evolution *-oms > *-ons > *-oss > *- ōs > - ūs. We have no reliable data for Lepontic either, while Old Irish shares this evolution with Celtiberian, to judge from the form firu. Gaulish, however, appears to maintain -o-, if the forms TAKOS ('tombs'?, Briona) and sos (sŏs < *sons) in the demonstrative (Cham.) are accusative plurals, possibly influenced, as K. McCone suggests,72 by the -o- in the rest of the plural paradigm, nom.

-oi, gen. -on/-om, dat. -obo(s). Nevertheless, we also have tuθθus (La Grauf.) and catillus, which seem to be more in keeping with what appears in O.Ir., firu < *irūs < *irons. genitive. J. Untermann73 identified the genitive singular of o-stems in Celtiberian as -ŏ and not - ī, as in the other Celtic languages and in Latin.74 His study was based on, among other inscriptions, the Froehner tessera [K.0.2]: lubos : alizo/kum : aualo : ke / kontebiaz / belaiskaz which seems to present a complete onomastic formula, indicated by the [proper noun of the person + name of the family group in gen. pl. + name of the father in gen.sing. + the Celtiberian appellative marker kentis 'son' + the origo]. The translation is: Lubos of the Alisoci, son of

770 Carlos Jordán Cólera Avalos, from Contrebia Belaisca.75 As to the genitive plural, -um is the result of *-ōm, cf. in the inscription above, alizokum 'of the Alisoci', the name of a family group, a category very often found in Celtiberian documents, formed with the derivative suffix -ko-.76 In the Paleo-Hispanic script we find ekualaku [A.63], kolounioku [A.67], tamaniu [A.79], tabaniu [A.90], oilaunu [A.56] and in the Latin alphabet TRIDONIECV [K.14.2]. This last word is, to judge from the structure in which it is inserted, a genitive plural, with elision of the final nasal, and it refers to the name of a family group 'of the Tritonieci'. Analysis of the other words is more problematic. Traditionally, they have also been considered genitive plurals with elision of the nasal. F. Villar thinks that oilaunu (an n-stem) and tabaniu, tamaniu (an o-stem) are instrumental singular forms; but that ekualaku and kolounioku are genitive plural forms.77 We agree with his analysis of these two last forms, especially taking into account the Latin evidence: CLOVNIOQ, which corresponds to CLOVNIOQ(VM) 'of the inhabitants of Clunia'. As for the first three forms, in our opinion these are nominative singulars of n-stems, in which -iu < *iō < *iōn.78 Gaulish presents -on in neđđamon 'proximorum' (Banassac), anderon 'of the subterraneans' (Cham.), TEVOXTONI[O]N 'of the gods and of men' (Vercelli), which indicates a desinence*-ŏm, the same one as in O.Ir. fer < *irŏm. Otherwise, we would expect a u vowel, with the forms *irun for Gaulish and *fiur <*irun <*irū for O.Ir. We have no data for Lepontic. This apparent choice of endings, *-ōm/*-ŏm for the genitive plural, both in o-stems as in the other stems, may not in fact be such, if we accept the explanation offered by K. McCone. According to him,79 *-ōm > *-m > *- ọm, a vowel which would have been retained in Gaulish and Old Irish, while in Celtiberian it would have evolved to -um, in order to differentiate itself from the accusative singular -om. This result would have been assisted by influence from the

Celtiberian 771 dative plural in -ubos, with -u- probably from the dative singular, where -ui < *- ōi, and possibly also from the accusative plural in -us. That is to say, O.Ir. → *irom > *iran > fer Celtic *irōm > *irm > *irọm >

Gaulish → *irom > *iron Cib. → *irum

dative. The data provided by the texts in Celtiberian suggest that the dative of o-stems has the ending -ui <*-ōi, as in the Gaulish forms eskiggorioui (G-70), balaudoui makkarioui (G-120), onnakoui (G-122), Cicollui and the Lepontic forms TISIVI PIVOTIALVI PALA, METELVI MAEŚILALVI. There

are also forms in Gaulish like ªbeleºnou (G-24), karnonou (G-224), Alisanu,

Magalu, Eluontiu and the O.Ir. fiur < *irū, which suggest the ending *-ō.80 ablative. Celtiberian is the only one among the Celtic languages that, for the moment, presents a differentiated ablative. The ending used is: -uz < *-ōd, in o-stems, such as usamuz 'from Uxama' [A.72]. The formant -bh- should be reconstructed for Celtiberian in the two forms believed up till now to be dat.-abl. pl.: arekoratikubos y tikerzeboz, both found in the Luzaga bronze [K.6.1]. arekoratikubos would be an o-stem, 'for/of the inhabitants of Aregorada'. In fact, from its form this would seem to be an adjective with the suffix -iko-, from a toponym arekorata [A.52] 'Aregorada', attested also in ablative arekorataz, areikorataz [A.52]. The sibilant appears, as would be expected, as a result of an ending *-bhos, which we find with the same function, for example in Latin. The only discordant note here is provided by the vowel before the ending. Is it an ŏ which for some reason that remains unclear (stress?) close to u? Is it anō, by analogy with the dative singular, for example, as K. McCone thinks?81 Or is it due to a phonetic process, in this case the proximity of a labial, as J.F. Eska suggests?82 To this form we should add akainakubos [K.1.1, A9], cf. akainaz [K.1.1, B5], loukaiteitubos [K.0.7] and beskuauzuetikubos [K.5.1].83 Some have also suggested the

772 Carlos Jordán Cólera reading nouantubos in [K.1.1, B6].84 In the case of tikerzeboz [K.6.1], A. Tovar considers this form a thematic dative plural, but says that the vowel and the sibilant are problematic. This may not be a dative plural, but perhaps some other part of speech, which for the moment remains unclear. The ending *-bhos is also to be found in Lepontic Vultiauiopos, but in Gaulish it is not conclusively attested,85 while O.Ir. appears to have an ending *-bhis, feraib < *irobhis. We have no examples for Celtiberian of the other stems. Instances of ā-stems are to be found in Gaulish: (matrebo) namausikabo (G-203 Nimes), andoounnabo (G-183 Collias), glaneikabo (G-64 Saint-Rémy), etc.; Old Irish uses the same desinence as o-stems: mnáib, túath(a)ib. Consonant stems are to be found in Gaulish matrebo < *matri-bo < *matbho (G-64 Saint Rémy);86 and perhaps in atrebo 'patribus' (L-15, Plumergat stela, Morbihan). For Lepontic we can cite ARIVONEPOS, from a nasal stem (< *-ibhos). In Old Irish we find ríg(a)ib <*rīg-o-

bhis. In the Iberian Peninsula, outside specifically Celtiberian territory, though very close to it, in Ágreda, Yanguas and Clunia we have a form MATRVBOS, in Latin inscriptions, instead of the more widespread MATRIBVS, which could be a case of linguistic interference. This would give us a clue as to the nature of the dat.-abl. plural. locative. As far as the locative is concerned, none of the Celtic languages provide any sign of this case in any of the stems, except, apparently, Celtiberian, in o-stems.87 This assumption is based on the forms: sarnikiei [K.1.1, A9] 'in Sarniquio', kortonei [K.0.7] 'in Cortono' and lutiakei 'in Luzaga' [K.6.1].88 Morpho-syntactic analysis does not provide any other possible interpretation. In the Cortono bronze we find the forms kortono and kortonei. The former is a genitive of an o-stem, whose dative, at any rate, would be †kortonui and not kortonei. This latter form, therefore, appears to be a locative, so that buntalos kortonei would be translated: 'Buntalos in Cortono'.89 Something similar can be argued for sarnikiei and lutiakei, formations in -kio- and in -ko-, and therefore thematic, whose datives should be †sarnikiui and †lutiakui.

Celtiberian 773 Instrumental. From an analysis of coin inscriptions, F. Villar90 concluded that in Celtiberian there may have been an expression with a syntagm of the type "[coin minted] by [the city] X".91 The name of the city would only be expressed in the instrumental case by means of the toponym itself or the adjective derived from it. This case would have the desinence -ō, which, if it evolved as expected, would result in ū. This would coincide with the Sanskrit form in -ā (aśvā); Lith.: -ù < -uo < ō; and among the Germanic dialects, we find OHG and O.Sax. with -u < -ō, all belonging to o-stems. In F. Villar's opinion, the words which may be instrumental singular are, as we have already mentioned: for o-stems, tamaniu [A.79], tabaniu [A.90] (both toponyms), ekualaku [A.63], kolounioku [A.67] (adjectives of origin); in nasal stems oilaunu [A.56] (toponym). We have already pointed out that we think ekualaku and kolounioku can be interpreted as genitive plurals of o-stems; oilaunu, tamaniu and tabaniu, nominative singulars of nasal stems.92 Apart from coin inscriptions, whose analysis is still incomplete, we have loutu [K.0.7] and auku [K.1.1, A2]. It is thought that in Gaulish instrumental singular is to be seen in the following expressions (both in Chamalières): naritu rissu 'by means of the magic script', from o-stems, from *-ō; brixtia anderon 'by the magic of the subterraneans', from -ā stems, coming from *-ā, cf. Lith. -a < *- ā; bratou (ouhbroumaro" dede taranoou bratou dekantem [G-27], Orgon), perhaps from an o-stem, though it could also be a u-stem.93 With regard to instrumental plural, we have no reliable data in Celtiberian to attest to its presence. M. Lejeune thought that in Peñalba de Villastar the reading should be EQVOIS VIQVE [K.3.3], in which the first word would be an instrumental plural of an o-stem.94 J. Untermann seems to have accepted this interpretation, but for the time being it is based on a very doubtful reading. Besides, as F. Villar has noted,95 we would expect a desinence -uis and not -ois. In Gaulish, P.Y. Lambert96 offers, with many reservations, tooutiou" 'with the fellow citizens' (G-153 Vaison) and Paullius, Primius together with dona (Larzac), which might be

774 Carlos Jordán Cólera translated as 'wet nurse for the children of Primo'. For ā-stems a feminine form eiabi 'with them' (Larzac) is given, with the ending -bhi, the same as the one which appears in a form gobedbi, usually interpreted as a dative plural, but which may also be an instrumental plural of a dental stem. Another example could be suiorebe 'with the sisters' (L-6 Néris les Bains), with opening of the final vowel. In view of all these data, we can only say that for the moment we do not think that Celtiberian should considered to have had an instrumental case. Sg. N.

Celtiberian bouitos VIROS

V.

----

A.

boustom

G.

aualo

D.

ueizui

Ab.

usamuz

L. I.

lutiakei kortonei tamaniu?

Pl. N.

stoteroi

V.

----

Gaulish Segomaro" Licnos TRVTIKNOS nate?

Lepontic

Old Irish

I.e.

fer <*iros

-os

----

nemhton celicnon Segomari ATEKNATI eskeggolati eskiggorioui Cicollui belenou Alisanu ----

fir < *ire

-e

VINOM

fer < *irom

-om

Raneni

fir < *irī



TISIVI

fiur < *ir-ūi

- ōi

----

----

- ōd

----

----

----

-oi/-ei

naritu rissu?

----

----

- ō?

fir < irī

-oi

TANOTALIKNOI iemouroi casidani ----

----

<*iroi ----

firu <*irūs

---

<*iro-es A.

matus?

G.

abulokum

D.

arekoratikubos

TAKOS sos tuθθus neđđamon anderon TEVOXTONI[O]N ----

Ab. L. I.

----------

----------

Table 1. Paradigm of ŏ-stems

----

firu <*irūs

-ons

<*irons ----

fer <*irom

- ōm

Vultiauiopos

-o-bh-o/i

----------

feraib < *irobhis ----------

----------

Celtiberian 775

ā/ǝ stems nominative. These stems have a complexity in Indo-European languages that is, if anything, intensified in the Celtic languages. The first difficulty lies in the length of the final vowel of the nominative. Old Irish has ā-stems, such as túath < *toutā < *touteh2 'tribe' and ăstems, such as ben < *benă < *gwénh2 'woman'. In principle, we cannot come to a decision as to the length of the vowel in Celtiberian, Gaulish or Lepontic.97 In any case, the nominative always has the pure stem. Thus, Celtiberian koitina (anthroponym) [K.1.3], kortika [K.0.5], etc., letaisama [A.68] (toponym), usama [K.23.2] (toponym); Gaulish ouenitoouta kouadrounia, in Larzac98 Adiega, Seuera; Lepontic Pala, Venia Metelikna; etc. As we shall see in the cases that follow, Old Irish and Gaulish present a mixture of stems in -ā (<*-eh2) and -ī (*ih2), which gives them a personality of their own within the Indo-European linguistic spectrum. It appears that Celtiberian also had ī- and ā-stems (which are still h2-stems). The former are represented in nom. sing. by kari [K.1.3, III-59] and launi [K.1.3, II-5] and [Vicente-Ezquerra (1999)], for example. The latter are to be seen in many toponyms and anthroponyms, of the type uirouia [A.71], aunia [K.1.3, III-27], sikeia [K.1.3, II-47], etc. In accordance with our proposal,99 ī-stems have an accusative in -iam, as in kari / -kariam [K.18.3], like ā-stems, aunia [K.1.3, III-27] / †auniam. accusative. Celtiberian and Lepontic preserve the final nasal, as is to be seen in Cib. kortikam [K.6.1], toutam 'settlement' [BBIV, A1], Lepont. PALAM. In Gaulish the same phenomenon occurs in the nasal that we have already seen in o-stems: LOKAN 'tomb' (Todi, Cisalpine Gaul), matikan (G-151); but also andognam, which appears on the Larzac lead plaque together with Seuerim Tertionicnim, accusative of Seuera Tertionicna. There is also a liciatim from liciatia and, finally, the controversial form dekantemÉn.100 The O.Ir. form túaith, cannot come from a final *-ām, as this would not explain the palatal nature of the final consonant. K. McCone101 offers an explanation of this form, as well as of the Gaulish dekantemÉn and of the form from the consonant stems of the type materem (Larzac), if the latter is not a Latinized form. His theory is that there would have been a process

776 Carlos Jordán Cólera of fronting or closing of vowels before the nasal in pre-consonant or final position, which would have taken place in Proto-Celtic and would have affected *ĕ, *ă and *ō.102 In the case at hand, the ending *-ām <*-eh2-m would have undergone shortening in this position *-ăm and then a fronting in *æm.103 In consonant stems, after the consonant itself *-m would be added, which would be in vowel position, *-K. The Celtic treatment of * would have been *am, even in absolute final position, where traditionally it has been agreed that it was *em. This sequence would also have undergone the fronting just mentioned. In O.Ir. the evolution would have been *-ām > *-am > *-æm > -em, a sequence which would have made possible the palatalization of the previous consonant. It would therefore not have been necessary, in the accusative of ă-stems, to have recourse to an analogy with ā-stems to explain bein < *ben < *benam < *gwenh2-m, because bein may simply have come from

*benæm. Finally, this would also explain the development -em, as in deich < *dek. The sound æ was an allophone of the phoneme /a/, which in Gaulish remained as such in all positions except before a final nasal, where it ended by being interpreted as an allophone of /e/. Thus, we find dekantem < dekæntæm < *dekamtam < *dektām. The forms LOKAN and matikan would still be representing, orthographically, an ending [-æn]. In the case of Celtiberian, on the other hand, the allophone would still be /a/, hence its uniform result, which also appears in the consonant stems, as is confirmed in the word tirikantam [BBIV, A1], an nt-stem.104 With regard to the accusative plural, we can only say that in Celtiberian we find accusative plurals of a-stems in listas, titas, arznas, in [K.1.1, A7], though their origin, either from *- ā̆ns or *- ā̆s has yet to be clarified. We have no data for Gaulish (unless the forms already mentioned from Larzac, indas ueronadas brictas, etc., could be counted as such), nor for Lepontic. In Old Irish túatha < *-ās < *-ans and mná < *bnās < *bnans < *gwn-(e)h2-ns.

Celtiberian 777 genitive. We find a possible genitive singular in koitinas (anthroponym) [K.1.3, II-51] and another in turuntas [BBIV, A3] (a toponym? an appellative 'spring'?). Gaulish also has an ending -as in alisontea" (G-224) and TOVTAS (Briona). This would seem to be the oldest ending. Later, there was an intermingling of stems, which gave rise to forms such as Paullias, from Paulla, Adiegias from Adiega, and Flatucias from Vlatucia (Larzac). In Old Irish we find mná < *bnās < *gwneh2-s, from an ă-stem, and túaithe < *totiās, from an ā-stem < *-ieh2-s. Possible forms of the genitive plural for *- ā/ǝ -stems in Celtiberian are: saum [K.1.1, A8], perhaps from a demonstrative, and otanaum [K.1.1, A4], which may come from *-a +

ōm.105 The O.Ir. form of * ā-stems of the type túath < *toutan < *toutŏm, again calls for a proto-form *-ŏm. The same occurs with *-ă-stems, as in ban < *ban-ŏm. In Gaulish we have examples in bnanom/mnanom 'of the women' (Larzac) and, though somewhat more doubtful, eianon (Larzac) pronoun 'of them (fem.)'. We have seen that Sanskrit also has this nasal, explained as having been formed by analogy with these stems. However, a different interpretation is also possible: that we have here a mixture of stems, the expected form *banom and the *bna-stem, which appears, for example, in the genitive singular, as P. de BernardoStempel has explained.106 In any case, the earlier forms imply an ending *-ŏm. dative. Celtiberian presents -ai, such as mitai, ailai and ueiziai [K.0.14], originally long, if it evolved as expected. We find the same ending in the oldest Gaulish evidence: eskeggai blandoouikouniai (G-146), although later we have -i bhlhsami (G-153), Rosmerti (Lezoux); and in Lepontic: Sapsutai, Slaniai Verkalai, etc. The ending is also present in Old Irish in túaith < *toutāi and mnái < *bnāi. ablative. In ā̆-stems, the ending is -az < *-ād, arekorataz [A.52], etc.

778 Carlos Jordán Cólera Sg. N. A.

Celtiberian Old Gaulish

koitina kortika kortikam

ouenitoouta

G.

koitinas

D.

masnai?

Ab. L. I. Pl. N.

arekorataz kustai? ----

LOKAN matikan dekantemÉ-n TOVTAS alisontea" eskeggai bhlhsami ------brixtia?

----

licuias?

A.

listas? titas?

----

otanaum?

----

G.

New Gaulish (Larzac)

Lepontic

Adiega Seuera andognam Severim liciatim Paullias Adiegias in alisiia

Pala Venia PALAM

---------indas ueronadas brictas? ?

Old Irish ā-stems < *-eh2

ă-stems < *-h2

túath < *toutā

ben < *benă

túaith < *-en

bein < *brnăm

< *- ām ----

túaithe < *-iās

mná < *bnās

Slaniai Verkalai ----------

túaith < *toutāi

mnaí < *bnāi

----

túatha < *toutās

mná < *bnās

----

túatha < *-ās

mná < *bnās

< *-ans

< *bnans

bnanom/ mnanom

----

túath < *toutan

ban < *banom

< *toutom? túathaib < *toutabhis

mnáib < *bnābhis

D.

----

namausikabo

----

----

Ab. L. I.

----------

----------

----------

----------

Table 2. Paradigm of ā/ǝ-stems

i- and u-stems nominative. We find nominative singular of i-stems in bintis [K.1.1, B1, etc.], kenis [K.6.1], kentis [K.1.3] (x6) and eskeinis [K.23.2]. The first of these words appears 14 times on the B side alone of the first great Botorrita bronze. Various etymologies have been suggested,107 but all of them point to a meaning along the lines of 'judge, magistrate'. This reading might turn out to be erroneous, if J. Velaza's proposal108 that it should be read kentis is confirmed to be correct. From the point of view of the textual structure, Velaza's reading is perfectly plausible. Thus, the word would occupy the position already seen for ke in [K.0.2]. For example [K1.1, B1]: lubos kounesikum melmunos kentis 'Lubos of the family group of the Cunesici, son of Melmo'. Otherwise the reading would be: lubos kounesikum melmunos bintis, giving 'Lubos of

Celtiberian 779 the family group of the Cunesici, (son) of Melmo, magistrate'. The word kentis is etymologically very clear starting from *gen- 'to beget, to be born', with an abstract suffix *-ti-. This is exactly the same form as the Latin gens or Old Norse kind, in which it preserves the meaning of 'lineage, family'. In Celtiberian the word would have taken on a more specific meaning, and been used to refer to the 'son'.109 O.Ir. has macc, O.W. map, while in Gaulish it would seem to be preserved in the form Maponos, an epithet for Apolo, which dates back to a proto-form *makwkwo-, from the word *magho-/maghu- ‘young’, which is very well preserved in the genitive form in Ogamic maqqi. In the Luzaga bronze [K.6.1], from the same root *gen- we find the word kenis, apparently a nominative, beside kenei, which would be its dative. It is clear that it is from the same root, although for the moment its meaning remains uncertain ('family'?, 'people'?). The word eskeinis shows every sign of belonging to the same etymological group, formed from the pre-verb *eghs- and with a spelling -ei- which has not yet received a satisfactory explanation. In Gaulish there is Ναµαυσατις, Liχoviatis, Martialis; in Lepontic KOISIS, VVAMOKOZIS (< *-ghosti-s); in Old Irish súil < *sōlis, 'eye'. For Celtiberian we have no reliable data on nominative singulars of u-stems, though the expected form would be -us. The same could be said for Lepontic. In Gaulish we find dagolitou", lougou"; in Old Irish mug < *mogus < *magus, cf. Gaulish Magu-rix. It is possible that some of the examples of kentis in the third great Botorrita bronze are nominative plurals, so that it is most likely that they come from *-e-es.110 If this is so, Celtiberian coincides with Gaulish, where we find a possible nominative plural -īs < *-ees in Nitiobrogei" (G-275, Maylly-le-Camp); and with O.Ir. súili < *sōlīs < *-e-es. We do not have any examples for u-stems in Celtiberian, but there is a possible one in Gaulish: the form Lugoues (CIL XIII 5078); and in O.Ir. mogae < *moge-es. accusative. In Cib. we find aratim [K.1.1, A10]111 and eskenim, twice in [Vicente and

780 Carlos Jordán Cólera Ezquerra (1999)]. It seems to be the accusative of the form eskeinis noted in the previous section. In Gaulish: ratin (L-3), Ucuetin (L-13), arueriiatin (Cham.). In O.Ir, súil < *sōlim. For

u-stems we only have data for O.Ir., like, for example, mug < *mogum. We have no documentary evidence in Lepontic for either of the two stems. As for the accusative plural, we can only mention with any degree of confidence the Old Irish forms, which can be explained from -ins and -uns, *sōlins > *sūlīs > súili, *moguns >

*mugūs > mugu. genitive. For i- and u-stems we have no reliable data in Celtiberian, and neither do we have any evidence in Gaulish or Lepontic. luzeis [BBIV, A7] might be a genitive singular of an

i-stem, but the reading is very questionable.112 In Old Irish, i-stems would require a proto-form (súlo, súla < *sōlōs) which has not been clearly explained, as would u-stems, like mogo <

*mogōs < *mogous, cf. Latin senatous, Oscan castrous. In [K.1.3, III-24] a form kentisum appears which, in J. Untermann's opinion, is a genitive plural of kentis, with the pronominal desinence *-sōm. From the point of view of syntax, this proposal would seem aceptable, as the elements are syntactically coordinated: kentisum tuateroskue 'of the sons and of the daughter', but it is problematic from the viewpoint of morphology and phonetics. Morphologically, it is not clear why only these stems undergo analogy with the pronoun, whereas o- and a-stems do not. Phonetically, the intervocalic sibilant does not go through the process that would be expected, that is, a process of voicing.113 With regard to u-stems, Schmoll proposed a form EDNOVM [K.3.13b] for genitive plural, although this is not the only possibility.114 Apart from these two words, we have no further data for the genitive plural of i- and ustems, either in Celtiberian or in Lepontic. In Gaulish, as an example of gen. pl. of i-stems we find briuatiom (L-3) 'of the inhabitants of Briva', which again implies the desinence *-ŏm. In

Celtiberian 781 O.Ir., i-stems present *sōliŏm > *sōlia > súile. u-stems form their genitive plural through analogy with i-stems, e.g. mog(a)e. dative. In i-stems, Celtiberian is in line with the expected pure stem, in kenei [K.6.1], ENIOROSEI [K.3.3], for example. There is a form GENTE [K.11.2]

in the Latin alphabet, perhaps

the same word as kete [K.18.2], which, for morpho-syntactic reasons, must be considered the dative of a nominative GENTIS, in which the diphthong -ei has been monophthongized in final position.115 This form GENTE appears in the context STENIONTE DOCILICO / AN GENTE MONIMAM,

where it seems to agree with STENIONTE, dative singular of an nt-stem, also with the

same monophthongization *-nt-ei > *ntē. One possible reading for this inscription is: 'monimam for Estenionte, of the Docilicos family group, son of Anidios'.116 The same pure stem could explain the Gaulish forms kreite (G-213), Ucuete (L-13) and O.Ir. súil' < *sōlei. There is no reliable data for Lepontic. Within u-stems, LVGVEI [K.3.3] points to an ending -uei, through analogy with i-stems.117 The Gaulish form taranoou (G-27) and the O.Ir. mug' suggest a formation in -ū. ablative. In i-stems: aratiz [A.61], bilbiliz [A.73] < *-ī̆d (both toponyms), in which it is unclear whether the vowel was short or long.118 karauez [A.66] (toponym) could represent an ablative of a u-stem, coming from *-ē̆d. instrumental. Not attested in Celtiberian. Sg. N. A.

Celtiberian

Gaulish

Lepontic

Old Irish

bintis kenis aratim

Namausati" Martialis ratin Ucuetin ----

KOISIS VVAMOKOZIS

súil < *sōlis

----

súlo, súla < *sōlōs

kreite Ucuete -------

----

súil' < *sōlei

-------

-------

G. D.

luzeis?

Ab. L.

aratiz ----

kenei

súil < *sōlim

782 Carlos Jordán Cólera I. Pl. N. A. G. D. Ab. L. I.

aranti?

----

----

----

kentis

Nitiobrogei"

----

súili < *sōlis < *-e-es

----

----

----

súili < *sōlins

kentisum

briuiatiom

----

súile < *sōliom

----

----

----

----------

----------

----------

súilib < *sōlibhis ----------

Table 3. Paradigm of i-stems Sg. N.

Celtiberian

Gaulish

Lepontic

Old Irish

----

----

mug < *mogus

A. G. D. Ab. L. I. Pl. N. A. G. D. Ab. L. I.

----

dagolitou" lougou" ----

----

mug < *mogum

----

----

----

mogo < *mogous

LVGVEI

taranoou

----

karauez -------

----------

----------

mug' < *mōgu? ----------

----

Lugoues?

----

mogae < *moge-es

----

----

----

EDNOVM? ----

-------

-------

mugu < *moguns mog(a)e

----------

----------

----------

mog(a)ib < *mōgobhis ----------

Table 4. Paradigm of u-stems

n- and r- stems. nominative. Within the Celtiberian epigraphic material, masculine anthroponyms make up the largest group of words from nasal or n-stems. These Celtiberian anthroponyms present two types of stems: 119 Type I: It has the lengthened grade vocalism of the nominative in the genitive, as in: nom. melmu [K.1.1, B2] < *-ūn < *-ōn, gen. melmunos; nom. letontu [K.0.8], gen. letontunos [K.1.3], etc.

Celtiberian 783 Type II: These anthroponyms do not have the same grade of vocalism, but show, as would be expected, lengthened grade in the nominative and zero-grade vocalism in the genitive, as in nom. abulu [K.1.1, A11], gen. abulos [K.1.1, B2]; nom. statulu [K.1.3, I-3], gen. statulos [K.1.3, III-26]. Perhaps abaliu [K.1.3, III-25] and sleitiu [K.1.3, I-17, etc.] are nominative singulars of feminine anthroponyms, formed with the possessive suffix *-h3on- in an earlier i-stem. We will discuss the possibility of their being genitive a little later on. As for oilaunu [A.56], burzau [A.48] (Borja, Zaragoza), turiazu [A.51] (Tarazona, Zaragoza), tabaniu [A.90], tamaniu [A.79], these are nominative singulars of topopnyms, as we have already explained. In Gaulish we find Frontu, konnou (G-184), dolou (G-149) and in O.Ir. brú < *brusōn; whereas in Lepontic, possibly, TEV (*deiōn). If L.A. Curchin and X. Ballester120 are right and kar [K.7.2], among other places, does turn out to be an r-stem, we will have to assume that lengthening also occurs in these stems, as would appear to be suggested by the spelling, in Latin characters, CAAR [Remesal (1999)]. The word silabur [K.1.3, A3] also seems certain to be an r-stem, although from the context in which it appears it would be the accusative of a neuter noun.121 This word is also found in the Caminreal bronze [Vicente and Ezquerra (1999)]. In Gaulish (Larzac) duxtir, matir; and in O.Ir. athair also with lengthening. As plural forms for r-stems, we find ires [K.1.1, A11] and tuateres [K.1.3, II-40]. If the former has no definitive morpho-etymology, the same is not the case for tuateres, already discussed in the section on phonetics. What we would like to emphasize here is the fact that the e of the syllabogram te seems to be a full vowel, judging from the genitive form tuateros, which, had the vowel been mute, would probably have been †tuatoros. The problem here is what the length and even the timbre of the vowel would be. In nasal stems, there is a generalization of the long vowel: -u, -unos. Here, on the other hand, the theoretical nominative, if it is in keeping with accepted Indo-European patterns, would in principle be *tuatēr, with ē. If we accept the

784 Carlos Jordán Cólera shift of this vowel ē to ī, in Celtiberian we could expect †tuatir, cf. Gaulish duxtir. In that case, either tuateres is formed with the full grade but not lengthened vowel, or we have to consider a possible opening of ī before r; or else this is a defective rendering of e for ī. accusative. Not attested in Celtiberian. genitive. As we have just mentioned, Celtiberian shows an analogical extension of the vocalic grade of the predesinential syllable in the nominative of nasal stems of Type I anthroponyms. Thus, from nom. melmu [K.1.1, B2] → gen. melmunos [K.1.1, B1]. In Type II, however, we have a nom. abulu [K.1.1, A11], but a gen. abulos [K.1.1, B2]. An explanation of this may be found in the intervention of an individualizing suffix *-on-, which has lengthened grade in nom. / zero grade in gen., that is to say, abulos < *abullos < *abul-n-os, as F. Motta has suggested.122 The forms lukinos [K.1.3, II-1], atinos [K.1.3, II-44] and elkinos [K.1.3, III-28] could be gen. sing. of theoretically feminine anthroponyms †lukiu, †atiu y †elkiu. If we take into account what we said above about abaliu and sleitiu, regarding a nom. coming from *-iōn < *-i-

h3on, the formation of the genitive could be understood as starting from an ending *- īnos < *-ih3n-os, that is, with zero grade vocalism in the suffix. The phenomenon of generalization of the vocalic grade also seems to take place in tuateros [K.1.3, III-24], as F. Villar has posited,123 and we have already noted above. This is supported, furthermore, by evidence from O.Ir., where a gen. sing. form like athar is more easily explained as coming from *pateros than from *patros. The form eskeninum [K.1.3, 02] could be a gen. pl. < *eghs-geni-h3n-ōm, starting from a hypothetical nom. †eskeniu < *eghs-geni-h3on.124 dative. In the Torrijo bronze there is a form terkininei, which we think may be the dat. sing. of a theoretical feminine anthroponym, nom. †terkiniu < *terkini-h3on, attested in Latin alphabet DERCINIO. terkininei < *terkin-ih3n-ei.

Celtiberian 785 Also possible datives of nasal stems are the infinitives ambitinkounei [K.1.1, A6], taunei, tizaunei, uertaunei [K.1.1, A2], usimounei [BBIV, A6], since after all they are verbal nouns, in which -unei < *-ōn-ei. ablative. As it is likely that oilaunu < *oilaun-ōn, with the individualizing suffix, oilaunez [A.56] should come from *oilaun-n-ē̆d, with zero grade in the suffix. This is a toponym which would belong to Type II.125 Sg. N.

A. G. D. Ab. L. I. Pl. N. A. G. D.

Celtiberian melmu oilaunu === kar?

---=== ---melmunos === tuateros terkininei === ---oilaunez === ------------=== tuateres ---=== ------=== ------=== MATRVBOS?

Gaulish

konnou Frontu

=== duxtir matir ---=== materem? ---=== ------=== ------=== ------------=== ------=== ------=== matron ---=== matrebo atrebo ----------

Lepontic ---=== TEV?

---=== ------=== ---Piuonei === ------=== ------------=== ------=== ------=== ------=== ARIVONEPOS

------Ab. ------L. ------I. Table 5. Paradigm of n- and r-stems

Old Irish

I.e.

brú < *brusōn === athair

(-)

broinn === athair bronn === athar brú === athair ---=== ----------

-

---==== athair ---=== aithrea/athra ---=== aithre/athrae ---=== aithrib/athraib

-es

----------

-os -(e)i -ed

-s -om -o-bh-os -o-bh-is

786 Carlos Jordán Cólera

Occlusive Stems nominative. nertobis [A.50] and teiuoreikis [K.6.1] may be velar stems, although the presence of the final group -ks makes it difficult to decide what stage the form is at, as we have already seen in the section on phonology. Gaulish has eskiggoreix (G-207), ªinºdoutiorig" (G111) and the many names ending in -rix, such as Lugurix, for example, while in O.Ir. rī < *rēg-s. aleites [K.1.1, A11] may be a nom. pl. of a dental stem. We have no examples for consonant stems in Gaulish or Lepontic, and O.Ir. always requires a desinence *-es. accusative. In [K1.1, A1] we find tirikantam, which reappears in [BBIV, A1]. We have already commented on this form, whose ending comes from *-, when discussing the accusative of ā/ǝ-stems. As far as the plural of consonant stems is concerned, O.Ir. ríga, cairtea, etc. call for an ending *-ās < *-ans < *-s , as in the examples of nouns referring to Gaulish ethnic groups recorded in Latin, of the type Lingonas, Biturigas, etc. The treatment in Continental Celtic may have been the same as that of Insular Celtic, but we have no further data. genitive. One form tokoitos [K.1.1, A1] shows the use of the ending *-os in gen. sing. of dental stems. The same ending is found in tirikantos [BBIV A3]. But there is also steniotes [K.17.1], a form which, syntactically, should be a genitive126 but which morphologically is an ntstem, as is indicated by the Latin alphabet form STENIONTE [K.11.1], dat.sing., of which we shall be speaking presently.127 Therefore, nt-stems show allomorphism in the genitive singular, though it is not possible to be more specific as to the full implications of this. No evidence has yet been found of occlusive stems in Gaulish, unless andernados (Larzac)128 is a gen. sing., or in Lepontic. O.Ir. has the desinence *-os. dative. In Celtiberian there seems definitely to be a dat. sing. in -ei, for occlusive stems, in tokoitei [K.1.1, A4], followed by the postposition eni 'in', and [K.1.1, A10]. In [K.11.1] we read STENIONTE, which, from its syntactic surroundings, as we have already noted, must be a

Celtiberian 787 dat. sing. of an nt-stem, with monophthongization of the diphthong *ei to * ē. Gaulish has a dat. in -i: magoureigi (G-121), atemagouti (G-122), Epadatextorigi, etc., which represents this form of dat.-loc. *-i . O.Ir. may come from both. ablative. In occlusive stems, the vowel has the timbre e, but we are not certain about the length, -ez < *- ē̆d: sekobirikez [A.89] (toponym).129 Sg. N. A. G. D. L. Ab. I. Pl. N. A.

Celtiberian

Gaulish

teiuoreikis? nertobis? tirikantam

-reix, -rig" -rix ----

tirikantos steniotes tokoitos STENIONTE tokoitei

Lepontic

Old Irish I.e. rí

-s

----

ríg

-

andernados?

----

ríg

-os

----

ríg

-(e)i

---sekobirikez

adgennorig(i) magoureigi atemagouti Epadatextorigi -------

-------

-------

-ed

----

----

----

----

aleites?

----

----

Biturigas Lingonas ----

----

---sites

------G. ---------D. ---------L. ------Ab. ------gobedbi ---I. Table 6. Paradigm of occlusive stems

ríg

-es

ríga

-s

ríg

-om

rígaib

-o-bh-is

----------

-bhi?

1.2 Morphology of Adjectives Everything that has been said so far about the desinences of nouns holds, of course, for adjectives too. With regard to Celtiberian, the type of adjective best attested is, undoubtedly, the denominal adjective with three endings, with the suffix -ko-, also clearly of Indo-European origin.130 The uses of the suffix -ko- identified up till now are:

788 Carlos Jordán Cólera 1. derived from toponyms: a) the formation of adjectives of origin. a.1. There are numerous examples in coin inscriptions, where they refer mainly to the coin, the bronze or the metal. Among them: aratikos, areikoratikos [A.61], belaiskom [A.80], etc., in nom. sing. masc. and neuter. a.2. On tesserae, referring to the town that issues the pact, and agreeing with the word kar: uentanaka kar [K.7.2], uirouiaka kar [K.25.1], TVRIASICA CAR [K.27.1], etc. in nom. sing. fem. a.3. Referring to the inhabitants, such as arekoratikubos [K.6.1], akainakubos [K.1.1, A9], kortonikum [K.0.13] and kolounioku [A.67] from Arecorata, Acaina, Cortonom and Clunia. b) the formation of apositive toponymic adjectives, of the type urbs lutiaka from the toponym Lutia. c) the formation of theonymic adjectives: a use found, especially, in the west of the Peninsula, outside the strict boundaries of Celtiberia. Even so, there is one example to be found within those boundaries in [Mercurio] Ocnioroco. 2. derived from anthroponyms: a) the formation of a family name: from abulu [K.1.1, B4, 8] → abulokum [K.16.1]. b) the formation of a secondary anthroponym: sekilos [K.1.3, I-7] → sekilakos [K.0.11]. 3. derived from appellatives: a) the formation of adjectives with appellative force: these are very difficult to determine and also very scarce, given the present state of our knowledge of Celtiberian. Possible examples might be kustaikos [K.1.1, A7] from kusta [K.1.1, A5] and kortika [K.0.5] from korta [K.0.14]. b) the formation of a family name from a place name used as an appellative: tirikantam [K.1.1, A1] → tirikantanko [K.1.3, IV-10]; †mutur → MVTVRRA → muturiskum [K.1.3, I-16].131 Apart from having the ability to express gender through the addition of a suffix, IndoEuropean adjectives also underwent gradation. This meant that the adjective acquired, through a new opposition of stems, the ability to express different variations in intensity of meaning. The grades that have been distinguished are the positive, the comparative and the superlative. One comparative form may be found in nouiza [K.1.3, 01], if < *ne-is-a, as F. Villar

Celtiberian 789 suggests.132 For the moment, the words which seem, with any likelihood, to contain a superlative suffix are: a) VERAMOS < *uper-‫נּ‬mo- [K.3.19], VORAMOS, with assimilation of e to o, in [K.3.7] 'supremus'. These imply a suffix *-‫נּ‬mo-. b) usama < *uxsama/uχsama < *uks-ama < *(o)up-sama < *(o)up-sma, [K.23.2] and sekisamos [A.69] < *seghes-samo, with the suffix *-smo-. c) letaisama < *letaissama < *pth-issama [A.68], with the suffix *-is-smo-.133

1.3 Verbal Morphology Personal Forms Owing, once again, to the characteristics of Celtiberian textual transmission and to its present state as a language which has not been completely deciphered, the best way to detect personal verb forms is by studying the desinences.134 primary desinence *-ti, 3rd sing.: - ambitiseti [K.1.1, A5]: a compound formed with the preverb ambi-. In this case, contextual reasons would seem to indicate that the suffix -s- may be a thematic subjunctive form135 or a future from the root *dhegh- 'form, constitute': *ambi-dhig-s-e-ti. It is etymologically related to the form ambitinkounei [K.1.1, A6]. - asekati [K.1.1, A6]: the preverb in this case is ad-. The root could be *segh- or*sek-. The vowel -a- suggests a subjunctive in - ā-, which would fit well in the context: *ad-sek-ā-ti. - auzeti [K.1.1, A10]: once again for syntactic reasons (there is what appears an imperative tatuz further on in the text), this might be either a subjunctive or a future, both in any case with the suffix -s-, perhaps from a root *au- 'use'. The word may be related etymologically to auzanto in [BB3. 01] and to auz(ez), though in this last form the proposed meaning would not fit well with what appears to be the message. - kabizeti [K.1.1, A3]: a thematic subjunctive form with the suffix -s- or a future of the same type from the root *ghabh- 'take', here, as in Germanic, with a causative meaning 'give':

790 Carlos Jordán Cólera

*ghabhi-s-e-ti. - kuati [K.1.1, A8]: this form is also thought to be a subjunctive with the same modal feature -ā- as asekati and susati, although from the context it could also be the present tense of an athematic root. Its etymology is uncertain, and some scholars do not even consider it a verb. - robiseti [K.1.1, A8]: its etymology is not clear, and various possible origins have been considered: from *bheh2- 'exist', or from *bheh- 'hit', or from *bhedh- 'force, persuade', or even from *bhed- 'cut, split'. What does seem to be clear is the preverb ro- < *pro-, cf. Skt. prá, Gr. prov-, Lat. pro, etc. - SISTAT

[K.3.3]: 3rd sg. of the athematic reduplicated present from the root *stā-,136 the

same as the Greek i{stati. The tense of this form depends on how the final consonant is interpreted. For W. Meid, it is an imperfect and the -t represents a secondary -t. F. Villar, on the other hand, thinks that the -t represents a final -t resulting from the loss of the primary desinence

-ti and that it is therefore a present form. The original secondary desinence *-t would have undergone the usual neutralization and later disappearance. That is to say, a similar process would have occurred in Celtiberian as that which occurred in Latin, where the primary desinence

*-ti > -t and the secondary desinence *-t > -d > - ø.137 - susati [K.7.1]: J. Untermann138 thinks, following M. Lejeune, that this is a verb form, though he provides no translation or etymology. From its appearance it could well be a subjunctive in -ā-. - uerzoniti [K.1.1, A3]: 3rd sing. of the present indicative of a verb with o-grade in the base and the suffix *-ee-, which gives - ī- in Celtic. The preverb is uer- and the root may be

*senh- 'prepare, carry out': *uper-sonh-ee-ti. After analyzing these forms, some of which can be seen to be compounds with preverbs and others not, it seems that we can say that the distinction found in Insular Celtic between absolute and conjunct flexion did not exist in Celtiberian. Instead, Celtiberian followed the more

Celtiberian 791

N.sg. A.sg. G.sg.

D.sg. Ab.sg. L.sg. I.sg. N.pl. A.pl. G.pl. D.Ab.pl.



- āā// ǝ-





-n

-r

-nt

occl.

-os < *-ŏs bouitos -om < *-ŏm boustom -o < *-ŏ aualo

-a < *- ā̆ kortika -am < *- ā̆m kortikam -as < *- ā̆s koitinas

-is < *-ĭs ĭs kenis -im < *-ĭĭm aratim -eis < *-eis luzeis ?

---

-u < *- ōn melmu ---

-r < *-(V)r kar ? ---

---

*-K +s teiuoreikis? ---

-ui < *- ōi ueizui -uz < *-ōd usamuz -ei < *-ei lutiakei -u < *-ō tamaniu ?

-ai < *- ā̆i masnai ? -az < *- ā̌d arekorataz -ai < *- ā̆i kustai ? ---

-oi < *-oi stoteroi -us < -ons matus? -um < *-ōm abulokum -ubos <*-(o)bhos arekoratikubos

-----

-(u)nos <*-(V)n-ŏs -(e)ros < *-(V)r- ŏs melmunos tuateros

-ei < *-ei kenei -iz < *- ī̌d aratiz ---

-uei < *-uei LVGVEI -uez < *-u ē̆d arauez ---

-(u)nei < *-(V)n-ei --terkininei -(u)nez <*-(V)n- ē̆d --oilaunez -----

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

-as < *- ā̆ns listas ? -aum < *- ā̆ōm otanaum ? ---

---

---

-isum < *-is-ōm -oum <*-ou-ōm EDNOVM ? kentisum ? -----

-am < *-nt- tirikantam -os/-es <*-nt-os/-es tirikantos steniotes -e <*-ei STENIONTE ---

-os < *-K-ŏs tokoitos

---

-ei < *-K-ei tokoitei -ez < *-K- ē̆d sekobirikez ---

---

---

---

---

---

-(e)res < *-(v)r-es tuateres ---

---

-es < *-K-ĕs aleites ? ---

---

---

---

---

---

-rubos < *-r(o)bhos --MATRVBOS ?

---

Table 7. General Paradigm of Nominal Desinences and Endings in Celtiberian

792 Carlos Jordán Cólera genuinely Indo-European pattern of primary versus secondary desinences.139 Secondary desinence, *-t, 3rd sing.: This desinence appears somewhat distorted in the inscriptions in Celtiberian script, due to the phonetic processes already referred to, and it is written . For this reason, we should perhaps include in this section forms such as: - kombalkez [K.1.1, A1] and, more doubtfully, [BBIV, A2]: F. Villar140 ventures a possible verbal origin. It would be a 3rd sing. of the perfect of a root *bhel- 'shout, speak', with a possible root vowel ō and the introduction of the secondary desinence -t in the 3rd sing., as in Latin uidit. The most widely held opinion, however, is that it is a noun from the same root, and that it indicates a term with a meaning related to that of 'magistrate'. It would therefore be an abl. sing. of a velar stem. - tekez [K.6.1]: this is generally held to be a verbal form from the root *dheh1-. For F. Villar141 it corresponds to Gr. e[qhke and Lat. fecit (in Arch. Lat. feced). It is therefore a 3rd sing. of a root aorist. - auz(ez) [K.5.1] and [K.12.1]: from a sequence auz in these two documents, J. Untermann142 proposes a possible reading of a complete form auzez which he considers the third person of a preterite. He reconstructs its etymology, on the basis of the context, as *audh- <

*h2eudh-, with the meaning 'make a gift' or 'give'. In contrast with this preterite, auzeti would, for Untermann, be the form of the present indicative. We have already commented on the fact that its syntactic surroundings would make it difficult to consider auzeti a present indicative form. But Untermann's solution for auz does seem convincing. Perhaps the two forms are not related. - terturez [K.0.14]: Once again, it is F. Villar143 who puts forward a morphological explanation for this form. He considers it a 3rd sing. of a reduplicated perfect *tértōret. Primary desinence *-nti, 3rd pl. active voice: These forms are quite clear, as they seem to be in the present indicative: - aranti [BBIV, A4]:144 The form would be a 3rd pl., either of an athematic root present,

Celtiberian 793 with the Latin arant as an exact cognate, or as a subjunctive -ā. Obviously, we are referring to the root *h2erh2- 'plough, work the land'. - bionti [K.1.1, A7]: from the point of view of etymology, this would seem quite likely to be related to atibion [BBIV, A5] and bizetuz [K.1.1, A5], and, though not so clearly, to usabituz [K.1.1, A5], tinbituz [K1.1, A6] and nebintor [K.1.1, A10]. We would be inclined to favour a root *bheh2- 'exist', so that this would be a 3rd sing. of a present thematic indicative. - toruonti [BBIV, B7]: 3rd pl. of a present thematic indicative, of a verb made up of a preverb to- or do- and a root, either from *re-/rē-/ru- 'resound, make noise', whence 'proclaim', or from *re-/reǝ-/ru- 'tear', whence 'write'.145 The form ruzimuz [K.1.1, A11] may be related to it etymologically. - zizonti [K.1.1, A7]: this used to be considered the form corresponding to Latin serunt from a root *sē(i)- 'sow', a reduplicated thematic present from *si-sh1-o-nti. This interpretation has a problem in the first sibilant, as we would expect the form to be written *sizonti. For F. Villar146 zizonti written /zizonti/ comes from /dizonti/ with a regressive assimilation starting from *didonti. If we accept an etymology evolving from *deh3-, *didonti is a present form with secondary thematization *di-dh3-o-nti, instead of the athematic *didanti < *di-dh3-nti. Secondary desinence *-nt, nt, 3rd pl. active voice: - atibion [BBIV, A5]: 3rd pl. of a past tense. This is a compound form with a preverb ado ati-. The -bion sequence may be interpreted as the past form, with a desinence -nt, as opposed to the present bionti from the root *bheh2- 'exist', with -nti. It remains to be decided whether the final dental consonant is not represented for phonetic reasons, that is, because it had been lost, or for orthographical reasons. If its absence is due to phonetic causes, which we ourselves think is so, this would be a case of the evolution of the secondary desinences similar to that which occurred in Sanskrit:147

794 Carlos Jordán Cólera Sanskrit

Celtiberian

singular

-t > -t (abharat)

-t > -z (tekez)

plural

-nt > -n (abharan)

-nt > -n (atibion)

Secondary desinence *-nto, 3rd pl. middle voice: - auzanto [K.1.3, 01]: We have already referred to the possible etymological relationship of this word with auzeti and with auz(ez). This may be a sigmatic aorist, of the type *au-s-to. J. Untermann148 considers it a possible subjunctive in -ā < *audh-ā-nto. - esianto [K.0.14]: Its ending is identical to that of the previous form. Not all authors consider it a verbal form. 1st pl. desinence: - ruzimuz [K.1.1, A11] generally considered a 1st pl. of a present indicative. With regard to the desinence, F. Villar149 proposes an evolution *-mosi > *-mozi > *-moz > -muz; W. Meid150 suggests that it comes from -mos, which does not clarify the treatment of the final sibilant. Etymologically, it may be related to the form toruonti mentioned earlier. - COMEIMV [K.3.3]: The most widely held proposal as to its morphology considers this word a 1st. pl. The ending -MV may have evolved either, in F. Villar's opinion, from *-mosi >

*-mozi > *-muz > -mu, with the final loss of this new phoneme, as occurred in the ablative also; or, as W. Meid, suggests, from a form -mo , without characterization of the plural -s. The most plausible etymology for the root is that of *ei- 'go'. Desinence *-tōd: The sequence *tōd was used by some Indo-European languages for the creation of imperative desinences. Thus, for example, in Latin it is the principal mark of the future imperative. It is generally accepted that Celtiberian also used it to form a third person imperative. It would have had to evolve to *-tuð, to reach *-tuz, written <-tuz>.151 This ending is found in

Celtiberian 795 the following forms: - bizetuz [K.1.1, A5]: 3rd sing. imperative. Again, we should mention the possible etymological connection with bionti, atibion, nebintor, tinbituz and usabituz. - oisatuz [K.1.1, A7]: The etymology is obscure. - tatuz [K.1.1, A8, 10]: Some authors are in favour of an etymology *deh3- 'give' starting from *dh3-tōd and others favour *dheh1- 'place', starting from *dhh1-tōd. We ourselves would opt for the former possibility, and therefore consider the form a 3rd sing. of an aorist imperative. - tinbituz [K.1.1, A6]: Another form in which we find the sequence -bi- and its corresponding etymological relations. We can also see two preverbs *dī- 'far, outside' and *en-. - tizatuz [BBIV, B5]:152 We consider this form the strict cognate of the Greek tiqevtw. It is a 3rd sing. imperative of a reduplicated athematic present, and therefore comes from *di-dhh1-

tōd. - usabituz [K.1.1, A5]: Once again, we find -bi- in the verb stem. The preverb may be

usa- < *uxsa-/uχsa- < *h2up-s 'above'. Desinence -r: - nebintor [K.1.1, A10]:153 In this case, the ending -ntor seems to point to a 3rd pl. of a middle voice. The initial syllable would be the negative preverb, so that we are left with the segment -bi-. Morphological reasons would point to a better alternative *bheh2-.

Non-Personal Forms Participles: - sleitom and konskilitom, both in [K.1.1, A3]. The two words form the syntagm silabur sleitom konskilitom, in which the last two words agree with the first. Both look like verbal adjectives, passive due to the morpheme -to-. The most likely etymology for sleitom is to derive it from the root *sple- 'divide, split', while konskilitom is probably from *skel- 'cut', with the

796 Carlos Jordán Cólera preverb kom- perfective in meaning.154 - litom [K.1.1, A1 y A2 (x3)]: The etymology here, again, is obscure, but its meaning may be something like 'lawful'. Infinitives: - ambitinkounei [K.1.1, A6]: Dat. sing. of a verbal noun, composed of the preverb ambi- and the root *dhegh- 'form, constitute', here with a nasal infix. It is therefore related to the form ambitiseti [BB1.A5], which appears without the infix. The ending -unei < *ōn-ei , has already been noted by J. Untermann.155 - taunei, tizaunei, uertaunei [K.1.1, A2]: These words form a complex syntactic structure, found in the second line of the first great Botorrita bronze: nekue uertaunei litom nekue taunei litom nekue masnai tizaunei litom soz auku. It is generally agreed that this is the expression of a prohibition, indicated by nekue ...litom 'it is not permitted' and that uertaunei, taunei and tizaunei are three infinitives, dative singular forms of verbal nouns, to which the prohibition refers. It is clear that uertaunei is a compound of uer- < *uper- and the simple form taunei. There is no agreement as to the etymology. Different roots have been proposed: *deh3- 'give', *deh2- 'burn', *deh2- 'divide',

*dheh1- 'place'. For tizaunei the preferred root is *sā-, which, beside the privative preverb *dē> ti-, would have a meaning parallel to Latin *de-sā-n-are. - usimounei [BBIV, A6]: the etymology of this form is very problematic.156

2. Pronominal Morphology Pronouns Demonstratives and anaphors:157 Until the discovery of the fourth Botorrita bronze, it was thought that the generalization of the *so--/sā-stem in the declension of demonstratives was a characteristic specific to the Celtic languages and shared by Celtiberian, as opposed to the heteroclisis in the other languages *so--

Celtiberian 797

/to- (cf. Gr. oJ, hJ, tov, but Arch. Lat. sum, sam). The article in O.Ir. is ind, ind', an < *sindos < *semdos < *semos-dos < *semos dhe ('one+ particle of place'), sinda, som < *so-m. Gaulish is son, ison (*ei-/*i- + *so) acc. sing. masc..; sos acc. pl. masc.; sosin < *sod-sin (of unclear origin), sosio < *sod-sod, eso < *ei-sod acc. sing. neut. In Celtiberian the forms soz [K.1.1, A2], [K.0.8], so [K.6.1], sa [K.6.1] nom. sing. fem., somui, somei, saum (these three in [K.1.1, A8; A7; A8] respectively), seem to indicate a unified paradigm. However, we have found tas in [BBIV, A5 and B7], which can be interpreted as a gen. sing. fem., a nom. pl. fem. or an acc. pl. fem. of a demonstrative stem *to, and this could alter our view of the Celtiberian pronominal system.158 To these we would have to add the forms stam [K.6.1] and stena [K.1.1, A3, A6] which suggest a stem *sto-. An analysis of the forms that make up a theoretical paradigm for a stem in *so- would be as follows: - so: nom. or gen. sing. masc. - soz: The simplest way to look at this form is as a nom. sing. neut. < *sod. This is what would appear to be indicated in letontu / auz.soz [K.0.8], if its interpretation as 'Letondo made a gift of this' is correct. However, the other syntactic setting in which we find this form ...soz auku... [K.1.1, A2], points to its being a demonstrative agreeing with auku, in appearance a nom. sing. of a nasal stem. If it were not neuter, we would have to consider an evolution *sosi >

*sozi > soz, of which there is as yet no trace in Celtiberian, although there is in Gaulish sosin. - sa: nom. sing. fem. - saum < *sa-ōm, gen. pl. fem and soisum, gen. pl. masc. and neut. This pair poses a series of problems, both phonetic (the interior sibilant of soisum, why not soizum?) and morphological (why does this sibilant not appear in feminine?), which for the moment have not been solved.159 - somei < *so-(s)m-ei : loc. sing.160 Its gender is still to be decided on.

798 Carlos Jordán Cólera - somui < *so-(s)m-ōi : dat. sing. As for stam [K.6.1], it would seem safe to take it as the acc. sing. fem., especially if we take into account the phonetic context in which it appears, stam kortikam, and the presence of sa kortika in the same document. Meanwhile, stena has been considered a nom.-acc. pl. neut. Its ocurrance in [K.1.3, I-16], as a feminine anthroponym, has somewhat complicated the picture.

Relatives: Celtiberian has a tonic and declinable relative pronoun, from the stem *o, like Sanskrit and Greek, as opposed to Gaulish and Insular Celtic, which replaced it with an enclitic and indeclinable -yo.161 The forms we find are: ios [K.1.1, A10], [BBIV, A7] nom. sing. masc.; iom [K.1.1, A5, A7, A10], [BBIV, B4], possible acc. sing. masc., unless it is an adverb or conjuntion; ias [K.1.1, A8] acc. pl. fem.; iomui [K.1.1, A7] dat. sing. masc./neut., cf. somui. As for ia [K.1.3, 01], 162 this form is still to be decided on, but this will have to wait until the remaining forms in the two lines have been deciphered. It would seem likely, however, that it may be a nom. sing. fem. or nom.-acc. pl. neut. Indefinites-interrogatives: - oskuez [K.1.1, A3 y 4]: The final sibilant shows that originally there was either *-d or an intervocalic sibilant. Once the former possibility is eliminated for syntactic reasons,163 only the latter remains. Functionally, but not etymologically, it is the same as the Greek form o{" ti". It comes, according to F. Villar,164 from *oskwesi / oskweso > *oskwezi > oskwez, that is to say,

os, demonstrative pronoun + kwe enclitic conjunction (cf. Lat. quisque) + so demonstrative pronoun. It would, therefore, be a nom. sing., most probably animate, of an indefinite pronoun, 'anyone who, whoever'. - kuekuetikui [K.0.14]: From the ending, it would seem clear that this is a dat. sing. of an o-stem. The repetition of the first syllable suggests an indefinite pronoun of the Latin type quisquis, Osc. pispis, Hit. kuiškuiš.

Celtiberian 799

Numerals: A specifically Celtic isomorph is the use of the suffix -(m)eto- in certain ordinal numerals. It seems that from the expected form of the ordinal 'fifth' *kwenkw-to (cf. Lat. quīnctus, Gr. pevmpto") the form *kwenkwe-to evolved, from which O.Ir. cóiced, O.W. pimphet, Gaulish pinpetos. There was then a re-analysis and a new suffix -eto- was created, which, on appearing in the ordinals 'seventh' and 'tenth' changed to -meto-. Thus, we find Gaulish sextametos, oxtumetos, nametos, decametos, O.Ir. (Ir.) sechtmad, ochtmad, nómad, dechmad and W. (Mod.) seithfed, wythfed, nawfed, degfed (which may have spread downwards, like O.Ir. cethramad 'fourth'). In Celtiberian we find in [K.1.1, A8] tecametinas 'tithe', which seems to be formed on

*decametos 'tenth'. There are in addition three independent words which may be numerals: kantom [K.1.1, A4], tiris [K.1.1, A6] and sues [K.1.1, A5]. The first would be the numeral for 'hundred'

*ktom. The second is the acc. pl. masc. *tri-ns > trīs, cf. Lat. trīs. As part of a compound form we find tiri-kantam < *tri-ktam [K.1.1, A1]. Another numeral165 which also appears in compound form is teka-, in tekametinas [K.1.1, A8] < *dek-et-inā. As for sues, it is possible that it may be the cardinal numeral coming from *seks, from which Gr. e{x, O.Ir. sé and other forms in Insular Celtic. Gaulish has the ordinal suexos, which is indicative of the same proto-form.

Adverbs: There is general agreement among scholars that the word sua [K.1.1, A1] and [BBIV, A2] < *sā, from the root *se-/so, is an adverb 'in this way, thus'. In the first Botorrita bronze it is followed by kombalkez, and in the fourth bronze it may also be, though it is difficult to read kombal[.]z. In [BBIV, A1] entor appears in the syntagm entorkue toutam, which we have read as 'and the settlement inside' rather than as 'within the settlement'.166

800 Carlos Jordán Cólera Other possible adverbs are tamai, aiuizas, temei, uze, all in [K.1.1, A, ll. 3, 11, 8 and 9]. Also aukis in [K.6.1].

Prepositions: The following appear as independent forms: eni [K.1.1, A4, 6, 7, 9], [K.3.3], entara [K.1.1, A9] and es [K.1.1, A6]. - eni < *h1en(i): cf. Lat. in, Gr. e[ni, Osc.-Umb. en, Goth. in. This is found as an independent word, though it seems also to have undergone a process of agglutination, which may perhaps be seen in the enitousei [K.1.1, A9] and ENIOROSEI [K.3.3]. In [K.1.1, A4] it ocurs as a postposition, tokoitei eni. - entara This should be likened to Latin intra and Skt. antarā́ < *h1ent(e)rā@. In this case it is a preposition of accusative, entara tiris matus [K.1.1, A6]. - es < *eghs This is comparable to Latin ex, Greek ejx, ejk, indicating separation. In [K.1.1, A6] it seems to take a dat. uertai. It also appears as a compound form, esankios [K.1.1, A9], though acting as a prefix and not yet as a preposition as in the case of eni.

Conjunctions and particles: The clearest and most obvious are: - -kue < *-kwe: an enclitic copulative conjunction. Cf. Lat. -que, Skt. ca, Gr. te, etc. One example will suffice [K.1.1, A1]: tirikantam berkunetakam tokoitoskue sarnikio kue sua kombalkez. There are numerous examples in [K.1.3] and [BBIV]. - ekue: This occurs in the Torrijo bronze [Vicente and Ezquerra (1999)] in the sequence ekue kartinokum ekue lakikum ekue tirtokum. It appears to be coordinating three genitive plurals, referring to names of family groups. That is why we have considered it a strong coordinating conjunction, similar to Gaulish etic < *eti-kwe, though in this case it would come from *et-kwe.167 - ne, a negative conjunction-particle. Cf. Lat. ne-, Skt. ná, Gr. ne-, etc. The combination of ne and kue is nekue. Thus, [K.1.1, A1 y A2] sua kombalkez nelitom / nekue to[u]ertaunei

Celtiberian 801 litom nekue taunei litom nekue masnai tizaunei litom. - -ue < *e, an enclitic disjunctive conjunction. Cf. Skt. vā, Hom. hj-(Û)ev, Lat. -ue, etc. For example, [K.1.1, A4-5] boustomue makasimue ailamue. - iste appears to be related etymologically to stena, although it is generally considered a disjunctive or contrastive particle, especially in [K.1.1, A9] ...iste ankios iste esankios. It is not so clear in [K.1.1, A11] aiuizas kombalkores aleites iste ikues ruzimuz abulu. - uta: a non-enclitic copulative conjunction, cf. Vedic uta, [K.1.1, A3 y 4] uta oskuez stena uerzoniti... uta oskuez boustomue makasimue ailamue ambitiseti..., [K.3.3] ENIOROSEI VTA TIGINO TIATVMEI..., and

[BBIV, A9 y B2], though the syntactic context is missing.168

Prefixes and preverbs: ambi- < *bi < *h2-bhí 'around' (cf. Skt.. abhí, Gr. ajmfiv, Lat. amb-, am-, etc.); are/arei- (cf. Gr. periv, Lat. per); kom- (cf. Lat. cum); eni-; es- < *eghs- 'of, from'; oi- (cf. Gr. o[pisqen, Lat. ob); ro- < *pro-, cf. Skt. prá, Gr. prov-, Lat. pro; ti- (cf. Lat. de); uer- (cf. Gr. uJper, Lat. s-uper); us- < *uks- < *ups- 'above'.

Conclusion Fortunately, new documents in Celtiberian are continuing to appear. The data help us to understand the grammar of the language, but the process is very slow because theinscriptions are very brief and have very rigid syntatic structures (coin legends and tesserae). The existing older texts that have been known for some time should also be revisited in the light of this new knowledge. Thanks to such work, which is ongoing, we have discovered that a dual writing system can be identified in several Celtiberian documents: [K.23.2], [K.0.7], [K.6.1] and [CT-23A]. This system is characterized by the use of one sign for a [voiceless occulusive + vowel] sequence and another for [voiced occulusive + vowel] sequence. As a result of these discoveries, in combination with the previously known texts, new perspectives continue to open before us.

802 Carlos Jordán Cólera

Endnotes * This work was carried out with the financial support of the Research Project DGCYT "Epigraphía, Lingüística y Arqueología de Celtiberia", BFF2001/2110 of the Spanish Government, directed by Francisco Villar (University of Salamanca). My thanks are due to J. Weatherby (University of Salamanca), who translated my original version into English. 1

The written evidence is so deficient in both quantity and quality that that it has given rise to great controversy as to the origin of this language. Among those who consider Lusitanian a Celtic language are, for example, C.H. Balmorí (1935); J. Untermann (1987) and (1997) [from here onwards cited as MLH IV = Monumenta Linguarum Hispanicarum IV]; D.E. Evans (1993); C. Búa (1997). Among the authors who, like ourselves, do not consider it a Celtic language are: A. Tovar (1985); K.H. Schmidt (1985); F. Villar (1999a); J. De Hoz (1997); J. Gorrochategui (1997); B. Prósper (2002b). If it is not Celtic, it still remains to be classified within the Indo-European group of languages. For an understanding of the linguistic situation of this part of the Peninsula, an essential work is that of B. Prósper (2002b), containing a linguistic analysis of all the epigraphic material about this area known to date, together with a wealth of bibliographic references.

2

This possibility was first put forward with strong arguments by J.A. Correa (1992).

3

The most systematic studies of Celtiberian features to date have been J.F. Eska (1989: 139-180); J. Gorrochategui (1991) and (1994a); F. Villar (1995a); (1996a) and (1997); J. Untermann (MLH IV: 386419); C. Jordán (1998); P. De Bernado (2002). References to Celtiberian documents are given according to J. Untermann. For any inscriptions published after Untermann's work, references are to the first edition. D. Wodtko (2000) is an essential reference work for the different etymologies proposed for Celtiberian. Examples in bold type correspond to documents written in the Paleo-Hispanic sign system (semi-syllabary); those in capital letters correspond to documents written in the Latin alphabet. 4

Cf. F. Villar (1993c) and (1996b: 184-195).

5

See. F. Villar et al. (BBIV: 113-114). In this study we also proposed an alternative etymology as a form of a demonstrative. The reference BBIV is to the editio princeps of the fourth bronze Contrebia Belaisca (BB = Botorrita bronze), published in 2001.

6

Linguistic abbreviations used in this work: A. = acusative; O.C.S. = Old Church Slavonic; O.Sax. = Old Saxon; O.H.G. = Old High German; Ab. = ablative; O = Old; O.E. = Old English; O.Ir. = Old Irish; Bret. = Breton; Cib. = Celtiberian; D. = dative; f. = feminine; G. = genitive; W. = Welsh; M.W. = Middel Welsh; Goth. = Gothic; Gr. = Greek; I. = instrumental; I.e. = Indo-European; L. = locative; Lat. = Latin; Lepont. = Lepontic; Lith. = Lithuanian; m. = masculine; n. = neuter; N. = nominative; pl. = plural; Skt. = Sanskrit; sg. = singular; V. = vocative.

7

F. Villar (1995b: 31-32) and (1997: 931). See the section on verbal morphology.

8

K. McCone (2001: 487).

9

Cf. B. Prósper (2002b: 423).

10

For examples, see the morphology section.

Celtiberian 803

11

See F. Villar (1997: 900-901) on this similarity.

12

We refer here to the phonetics, since in the graphic representation -kis, the -i- is mute. It should be remembered that in a semi-syllabary like that used by Celtiberian, a final phonic group, the occlusive+sibilant of the type [-ks], would be indicated by means of a syllabogram for the occlusive and a phonemogram for the sibilant.

13

It has sometimes been thought that this formative element can be seen in words such as ☼-res, auzares, esozeres, tunares, all found in [K.0.14]; kombalkores [K.1.1, A11]; irorekiios [K.14.1]. Owing to the etymological problems posed by these words, we prefer to leave them aside for the moment. 14

Cf. K. McCone (1996: 16-17) and (2001: 488-489); P. De Bernardo (1996: 238-239). D.E. Evans had

already put forward possible interpretations such as *dēorēx, *dēorīx, *dīorīx in (1979: 123). F. Villar (1997: 900-901) classifies the change ē > ī as a Celtic process in fieri in Celtiberian. We will deal with the -ks group in final position later. 15

On this question, see K. McCone (2001: 488-489) and F. Villar and C. Jordán (2004).

16

Cf. B. Prósper (2002b: 423).

17

Cf. for example K. McCone (1996: 63-64).

18

H. Lewis and H. Pedersen (1989: 8 ff.).

19

noted /ou/ and / ū/.

20

Cf. P.Y. Lambert (2003: 44) [referred to from now on as LG], though he gives no examples. Those we offer here are taken from A. Holder (1961-1962: s.vv.). 21

Cf. A. Holder (1961-1962: s.vv.).

22

On this point, see J. Gorrochategui (1991: 7); X. Ballester (1996: 168).

23

J. Untermann in F. Beltrán and J. De Hoz (1996: 113 and 160) [from now on cited as BBIII, as it is the third great Botorrita bronze]. The other diphthong that may have been affected by this characteristic would precisely be -ei-, cf. useizu [K.1.1, B-7] as opposed to usizu [K.1.3, II-9, IV-23]. 24

B. Prósper (2002b: 423-424). In this and a later study (2002a), B. Prósper notes that /o/ may have

monophthongized at a later date to /ū, as he explains in his morpho-etymological proposal of TIATVNEI [K.3.3] as an infinitive, whose ending came from -ounei. This evolution would be quite in keeping with what happened in the other Celtic languages, and even as a phonetic shift it would not be strange (cf. Latin). What does make it less acceptable, however, is the fact that the reading TIATVNEI is not certain, as it would seem rather to read TIATVMEI. 25

X. Ballester (1996) reaches the conclusion that the diphthongs a, a, e, o, a, e, o, and most

probably, o existed in Celtiberian.

804 Carlos Jordán Cólera

26

Cf. K. McCone (1996: 51-54).

27

K. McCone (1996:52).

28

F. Rubio (1999-2000). This would be one more feature shared by Celtiberian and Indo-Iranian.

29

Cf. F. Villar (1997: 902 and 936), one of the Celtic features well established in Celtiberian, and as a Celtiberian dialectal feature within the group of Celtic languages.

30

Cf. F. Villar et al. 2001 (BBIV: 122-124).

31

Cf. P.Y. Lambert (2003: 78-80).

32

Where K = occlusive.

33

We should remember that it was precisely this segment which W. von Humboldt used in his 1821 work Prüfung der Untersuchungen über die Urbewohner Hispaniens vermittelst der Vaskischen Sprache to demarcate the "toponymic area -briga" as under Celtic rule in the Iberian Peninsula (see map in Figure 1 for exact area). 140 years later, J. Untermann (1961), in Sprachräume und Sprachbewegungen in vorrömischen Hispanien, delimited the el "ilti- area" as being under Iberian rule.

34

In Gaulish we find in the morphology a form matrebo (G-203) < *mat-bo. J. Gorrochategui (1991: 10) thinks that the timbre of the vowel e in this form is due to the influence of the middle timbre of the following vowel, that is to say, of the o in -bo.

35

With a double sibilant, for reasons to be dealt with in the section dedicated to it.

36

K. McCone (1996: 48-51; 54-59; 70-79).

37

Until the appearance of the fourth Botorrita bronze, we thought that tirikantam was an -ā stem. But in the fourth bronze we find tirikantos [A3], gen. sing., which rules out the possibility of this word belonging to an -ā stem. 38

39

F. Villar (1993a) and (1995b).

J. Untermann does not accept this evolution, but considers that in intervocalic position the original sibilant was maintained in Celtiberian, and written as S (sam). Those cases in which the character Z (sigma) was used intervocalically, as in the example given, were due to the evolution of a Celtic voiced dental, coming either from the Indo-European voiced dental or voiced aspirated dental. J. Untermann's transcription as ð is quite understandable, since the character's phonic content would have been that of a voiced interdental fricative. The z that we use indicates a voiced sibilant. Our reasons for using this character will become clearer when we come to the section on the lenition of dentals. The reasons for J. Untermann's proposal may be seen in (MLH IV: 382-383 and 394-396) and our own in F. Villar et al. (2001). Recently, K. McCone (2001: 485-486) has adopted J. Untermann's position with regard to the treatment of the intervocalic sibilant. Moreover, he proposes, very cautiously, a possible new origin for some cases of -z-, in a context -i + vowel, where the -i-, acting as a yod, would generate a glide which would be indicated by Z. For other possible origins, see most recently P. de Bernardo (2001) and W. Meid (2001).

Celtiberian 805

40

Cf. K. McCone (1996: 38 ff.) with references.

41

Cf. F. Villar (1995b: 140) and (1997: 908); and K. McCone (2001: 484-485).

42

Cf. K. McCone (2001: 484-485).

43

Apud D. Wodtko (2000) s.v. kortika appears in [K.0.5], [K.0.10], [K.6.1], [K.23.2] and [CP.3].

44

Armenian is the other Indo-European language which alters *p, though not in the same way. Specifically, in initial position it can actually disappear, but what is to be expected is *p- > p- > h- and *-p- > -- Cf. R. Ritter (1996: 25).

45

Cf. F. Villar (1997: 902). There is also a change here: unstressed i > e, cf. J. Gorrochategui (1991: 4); F. Villar (1997: 937) considers this feature Celtic, not yet consolidated in Celtiberian but rather in fieri or a tendency.

46

Cf. J. Gorrochategui (1991: 14) and F. Villar (1997: 936), who includes it as a feature considered Celtic and completely established in Celtiberian. The use of the same spelling for *kw and the *k sequence points to a fusion of the labiovelar and the group of velar and semivowel.

47

dh does not appear in final position.

48

This chronology differs slightly from that given by F. Villar, as may be seen in the studies on the sibilant by F. Villar, already referred to, and in C. Jordán (1998: 26-28).

49

F. Villar (1997) takes the articulatory weakening of the voiced occlusives as a Celtic feature which had not yet been consolidated in Celtiberian, but which was in fieri or a tendency, whereas the conservation of the voiceless occlusives, on the contrary, would have been an archaism. There does not seem to be any trace of the voicing of voiceless occlusives in the Celtic dialects of the west of the Peninsula either, as B. Prósper (2002b: 423) explains.

50

Cf. F. Villar (1995b: 153 ff.).

51

Cf. B. Prósper (2002b: 210, n. 14), for these and other references on this matter.

52

Cf. B. Prósper (2002b, 260-261), who gives as a possible etymology *aplō/ŏk-aiko- >*aplošeco-.

53

As B. Prósper points out (2002b: 423).

54

F. Rubio (1999-2000: 362-363). This context serves as his basis for suggesting, very cautiously, the same loss in luanikoo [K.9.2], kuati [K.1.1, A-8] and +ruaku [K.1.3, II-37].

55 56

F. Villar (1995b: 178-179).

F. Villar (1995b: 179) suggests two, possibly complementary, causes: first, in the west of the Peninsula there may have been influence from another, non-Celtic, language, which gave rise to this phenomenon (especially the voicing of voiceless consonants); and second, in the east, the impact of Latin, which was much earlier and stronger than in the west, may not have facilitated the Celtic lenition.

806 Carlos Jordán Cólera

57

F. Villar (1997: 937) considers it an in fieri Celtic feature. On this phenomenon, see also, more recently, B. Prósper (2002a: 216-220) and, especially, J. F. Eska (2002).

58

Cf. K. McCone (1996: 44-45), following H.M. Hoenigswald (1973).

59

In Gaulish, the Gallo-Latin spelling x indicates a voiceless velar fricative, cf. P.Y. Lambert (LG: 46).

60

Cf. D. Wodtko (2000: XXIII), and, s.v. usama, usamuz, retugenos, retugeno, etc.

61

Other words which could present this evolution are: ata [K.0.11] if < *akta; litom [K.1.1, A1, A2] if < *leikwtom; teitiakos [A.57], if < *teiktiakos. For these etymologies, see D. Wodtko (2000) s.v.

62

Made up of *-bhgh-. We can see how the spelling of the group occlusive + vibrant has been resolved by means of omission of the vibrant, rather than by opting for the other two possibilities -biri-, cf. kolounioku/Clunia, or -bir-, cf. konterbia/Contrebia. 63

Regarding this possibility, cf. D. Wodtko (2000), s.v. Etymologically, it would be from the same root, but obviously a different formation, to be precise, an adjective in -i-.

64

Cf. J. Untermann (BBIII: 113) and D. Wodtko (2000) s.v.

65

For F. Villar (1997: 937) the simplification of the group would be a feature considered Celtic which had not yet been consolidated in Celtiberian, but were still in fieri or clearly a tendency.

66

On the nouns in the Peninsula of the series Pent-, Pint-, from the same root, see. F. Villar (1994), where he reaches the conclusion that they are not Celtic. The phenomenon can also be seen in nouns such as Querquerni, Quarquerni < *kwerkwo- < *perkwo- 'oak, holm oak', but in the Gallaecia Bracarensis, outside Celtiberian territory. Concerning berkunetakam [K.1.1, A1] as resulting from *perkwuno-, though with a non-Celtic treatment, see F. Villar et al. (BBIV: 146-148). 67

It appears that in the group *sp- the change to *sΦ- did not occur. In this group, [p] could be analyzed as an allophone of *b. Afterwards, sp- > sw- in Irish and sp- > Φ- in Brittonic, cf. K. McCone (1996: 4445).

68

Cf. K. McCone (1996: 43).

69

Among the stems in -o, Old Irish presents a vocative singular along orthodox Indo-European lines, which is fir < *ire. The same ending would seem to be present in Gaulish, if nate in the Endlicher Glossary is a vocative of 'son', cf. P.Y. Lambert (LG: 206-207). 70

This feature is considered an archaism when compared, for example, with the result in Gaulish.

71

Cf. F. Villar (1997: 915-916).

72

K. McCone (1996: 63).

73

J. Untermann (1967).

Celtiberian 807 74

Noone has doubts any longer about this identification. But it is a very different matter to try to explain the origin of the desinence. Proposals have been put forward, apart from J. Untermann's own, by E. Hamp (1971); K.H. Schmidt (1976), (1977) and (1991); A.L. Prosdocimi (1991); J.F. Eska (1988), (1989) and (1995). Everything would seem to indicate that there was some kind of influence from the pronominal pattern, though it is not clear exactly what. For a summary of all these proposals, except the last, see C. Jordán (1998: 48-51). The one which, for the moment, would seem to have to be excluded is K.H. Schmidt's suggestion that it came from the ablative ending *-ōd, along the same lines as in Balto-Slavic. Phonetically, the result would have been -uz, as is in fact the case of the corresponding ablative, as we shall see shortly. P. De Bernardo (2002: 97-98) still agrees with Schmidt's hypothesis.

75

We have suggested recently (Jordán 2003), that kontebiaz belaiskaz, ablative singular, does not refer to Lubos' origo but to the city from which the kar, the friendship pact, originates. The translation we suggest is: 'Lubos from the family group of the Alisoci, son of Avalos. (Friendship) of Contrebia Belaisca'. The beneficiary of the pact is Lubos, who appears in nominative, as holder of the document.

76

See. F. Villar et al. Jordán (BBIV: 155 ff.).

77

See the section on the instrumental singular, below. See also F. Villar et al. (BBIV: 89).

78

See the corresponding section, below; also C. Jordán (2001) and F. Villar et al. (BBIV: 89).

79

K. McCone (1996: 57-58, 61); More recently, K. McCone (2001: 487). For a summary of the problems posed by these two endings, see C. Jordán (1998: 53-59).

80

Cf. P.Y. Lambert (LG: 53).

81

K. McCone (1996: 61), although he had already made this proposal (1992).

82

J.F. Eska (1989: 141).

83

Which could possibly be broken up into: besku auz uetikubos, cf. J. Untermann (MLH IV), 'Besco gave (this) to the Vetici'.

84

In the case of this form, there is a problem concerning how to read the penultimate character. Having had the opportunity to study it carefully, we have opted for the reading nouantutas, which resists morphological analysis. Others have suggested nouantukos, nom. sing. The problem lies in the penultimate character: X bo, T ta, G ko? 85

P.Y. Lambert (LG: 55) assumes that the form must be -obo.

86

With possible opening of the vowel i, owing to the influence of the middle timbre of the following vowel, as we have already noted.

87

P.Y. Lambert (LG: 53-54) is convinced that the locative existed in Gaulish in -o stems, although he has not yet found any definite example to support his hypothesis. He does, however, refer to: in Alixie < -eṙ; in sinde (Larzac); ?uo ... derce (Larzac). 88

Of the three toponyms, lutiaka survives in present-day Luzaga (Guadalajara).

808 Carlos Jordán Cólera 89

Cf. F. Villar (1991: 60).

90

F. Villar (1993-1995).

91

In his previous study (1993-1995), the author thought another possible reading could be "[minted] with [metal] X".

92

On this proposal, see the section in this study on nasal stems and C. Jordán (2001).

93

P.Y. Lambert (LG: 54) does not attempt to give any reliable example of instrumental singular of ostems; on p. 58, he is not very sure about the form brixtia either; Maternia could be an instrumental with the sociative value 'with Maternia'; there is no documentary evidence for the other stems.

94

M. Lejeune (1955: 16-17).

95

F. Villar (1993-1995: 335).

96

P.Y. Lambert (LG: 55).

97

Regarding the examples we provide for Gaulish, P.Y. Lambert (LG: 57), takes them to be ā-stems.

98

Cf. P.Y. Lambert (LG: 168-169).

99

Given in detail in C. Jordán (1997).

100

For the Gaulish data, see P.Y. Lambert (LG: 57-58); A.L. Prosdocimi (1989); J. Gorrochategui (1994b: 320-324). A summary of all these explanations is given in C. Jordán (1998: 40-43). 101

K. McCone (1996: 54-59), on the phenomenon of vowel fronting; pp. 48-51 and 70-79, for its evolution and how it is related to the sonants. 102

We have already discussed this question when dealing with the gen. pl. of o -stems.

103

It is also possible that the shortening took place after the fronting.

104

As K. McCone (1996) had foreseen. Cf. F. Villar et al. (BBIV: 104-107).

105

J. Untermann (MLH IV: 390) thinks they are gen. pl. of a stem in -o-, in which we find the written

form -aum instead of -auum < *-aōm. 106

P. De Bernardo (1987: 83). Cf. J. Gorrochategui (1994b: 327-328) for the minor problems posed by this interpretation. 107

These are given in D. Wodtko (2000) s.v.

108

J. Velaza (1999).

109

From its use in the third great bronze, J. Untermann (BBIII: 119) points to the possibility that the word kentis could refer to the 'under-age son'.

Celtiberian 809

110

Cf. F. Villar (1997: 922-923).

111

From the context it would appear to be an appelative: ios urantiom auzeti aratimue tekametam tatuz. 112

See F. Villar et al. (BBIV: 129-130).

113

J. Untermann does not find this last point problematic, since, as will be remembered, he does not think that the original intervocalic sibilant suffered any alteration in Celtiberian. 114

U. Schmoll (1959: 43). The first letter is not very clear. For other morphological options, see D. Wodtko (2000), s.v. 115

See the treatment of this diphthong in the section on phonology.

116

For other interpretations, see C. Jordán (1998: 197-200).

117

F. Villar (1997: 923) suggests a desinence *-oei.

118

Short, along the lines of Avestan, or long, as in Italic.

119

For an account of this question, see. C. Jordán (2001). The corresponding genitive singulars are explained below. 120

L.A. Curchin (1994), X. Ballester (1993-1995a).

121

For silabur see J.F. Eska (1989: 96-97) and W. Meid (1993: 113-114), with references.

122

F. Motta (1980: 130-131). On the problems of the u in bu, see C. Jordán (1998: 52-53).

123

F. Villar (1997: 924).

124

Cf. C. Jordán (2001: 456-457). We should not overlook the forms eskeinis, eskenim, which obviously seem to be related. In general, the preferred interpretation of eskeninum is that it is a gen. pl. of an o-stem, a form derived from eskeinis, eskenim, by means of the suffix -(i)no. 125

We have already commented on the form MATRVBOS as a possible dat.-abl. pl.

126

It is found in the structure ]ikum steniotes ke rita, before ke, an abbreviation of kentis 'son', which would suggest that this is an onomastic formula 'so-and-so, from the family group of the -icos, son of Estenionte'. 127

In [K.1.3, IV-2] we find stenio+, the last part of which is difficult to read. J. Untermann suggests the reading steniontes, considering that it would be a nom. sing. owing to its syntactic surroundings. For the moment, it is impossible to say what sign is missing, if indeed there was another sign, or if perhaps there was more than one. We shall leave further discussion of this form aside for the moment. On this question, see F. Villar et al. (BBIV: 105-106).

810 Carlos Jordán Cólera 128

P.Y. Lambert (LG: 63) is not very convinced about this.

129

The fact that spelling appears to be consolidated would lead us to assume that the vowel was a short one, as we would have expected the closing of the ē. 130

Cf. F. Villar (1995b: 121-152); F. Villar et al. (BBIV: 155-190); F. Rubio (2001).

131

C. Jordán (1994) and (1999).

132

F. Villar (1997: 934).

133

letaisama and sekisamos; the gen. plurals soisum and kentisum; and the anthroponym tiokenesos, gen. sing. of the noun of Greek origin tiokenes are the examples adduced by J. Untermann (1999: 638) to support his theory that san expresses both the simple and the geminate sibilant in all positions. In his opinion, both toponyms contain the superlative suffix -ismmo-.

134

We avoid controversies concerning etymologies as well as temporal and modal classification here, since these questions are dealt with in C. Jordán (1998: 87 ff.) and at greater length in D. Wodtko (2000) s.vv. However, we shall refer to specific studies, especially those of J.F. Eska (1989) and W. Meid (1993). 135

For a recent study of this isomorph and a dialectological appraisal, see K.H. Schmidt (2001: 602 ff.).

136

This is the root proposed by F. Villar for a form aresta[.][.] in [K.1.1, A3]. It would be a form made up of the preverb are- < *pari- and the root *stā-. The end of the word is illegible. Bearing in mind above all the syntactic structure in which the word is found, soz auku aresta... tamai, he only goes so far as to say that it is a verb which would mean 'be present' or 'be placed'. Cf. F. Villar (1993b). 137

Cf. F. Villar (1995b: 30-33 and 36). In contrast with the general view that this form is a 3rd sing., B. Prósper has recently posited (2002b: 216-220) that it may be a 3rd pl., *si-st2-nti / *si-sth2-ti, which would be pronounced [sistãt]. 138

J. Untermann (MLH IV: 409 and 659).

139

Cf. J. Gorrochategui (1994a: 319-323) and F. Villar (1997: 933). On this isomorph and its role in the classification of Celtic languages, see, recently, K. McCone (2001: 491). 140

F. Villar (1995b: 31-32) and (1997: 931). Cf. also H. Eichner (1989).

141

F. Villar (1995b: 31).

142

J. Untermann (1999: 640-641). [K.0.8] letontu / auz soz 'Letondo made a gift of this' and [K.5.1] beskuauzuetikubos, divided up, besku auz uetikubos 'Besco made a gift of (this) to the Vetici'. 143

F. Villar (1995b: 32-33).

144

F. Villar et al. (BBIV: 126-129).

145

Cf. F. Villar et al. (BBIV: 124-125), where we propose other possible etymologies.

Celtiberian 811 146

F. Villar (1995b: 42-43) and again in F. Villar et al. (BBIV: 122-123).

147

On this question, see. F. Villar et al. (BBIV: 120-122).

148

J. Untermann (MLH IV: 409).

149

Already discussed in F. Villar (1993a: 789).

150

W. Meid (1993: 108-109).

151

This was the interpretation given by W. Meid (1993: 118).

152

Cf. F. Villar et al. (BBIV: 122-124).

153

We have already noted in the section on nominal morphology that J. Untermann (MLH IV: 403) considers bintor a possible noun in -r.

154

J. Untermann (MLH IV: 410-411), suggests that anthroponyms and toponyms of the type berkantikum, letontu, etc. may in fact be participle forms with present participle suffixes -nt-, -nd- or a past participle suffix -to-. 155

J. Untermann (MLH IV: 408).

156

See. F. Villar et al. (BBIV: 125-126) for proposals.

157

We do not yet have any evidence of personal pronouns in Celtiberian.

158

F. Villar et al. (BBIV: 114-117).

159

Set out briefly in F. Villar et al. (BBIV: 116-117). The analyses we have offered are the most widely accepted. 160

On the evolution of the group -sm- in these forms, see F. Villar et al. (BBIV: 115-116).

161

This feature is one of the reasons adduced by K. McCone (2001: 492-493) for proposing an early separation from the common Celtic language. 162

This correction was made by J. Untermann (1999: 638-639) and (MLH IV: [K.1.3]).

163

In fact, it seems to function as the subject of a verbal form. Cf. [K.1.1, A3-6] uta oskuez stena uerzoniti silabur sleitom konskilitom kabizeti kantom sankilistara otanaum tokoitei eni uta oskuez boustomue makasimue ailamue ambitiseti kamanom usabituz ozas sues sailo kusta bizetuz... We have proposed a translation for the second of these sentences: 'And whoever builds a cow pen, or a fence, or a partition, or a wall, leave the path free. The width be of six feet', cf. F. Villar et al. (BBIV: 150). 164

F. Villar (1995b: 30).

165

It is also almost certain that we have the numeral 'nine' in nouantutas < *ne-t-.

812 Carlos Jordán Cólera 166

For this interpretation, see. F. Villar et al. (BBIV: 119-120).

167

For this analysis, F.Villar et al. (BBIV: 119).

168

To this list we would perhaps have to add here the iom described earlier.

Celtiberian 813

Bibliography Almagro-Gorbea, M. 2003. Epigrafía prerromana. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia. Balmorí, C.H. 1935. Sobre la inscripción bilingüe de Lamas de Moledo. Emerita 3: 77-119. Ballester, X. 1993-1995a. CAR en celtibérico. Kalathos 13-14: 389-393. 1993-1995b. Sobre el valor fonético de Z en celtibérico. Kalathos 13-14: 319-323. 1996. Conjuntos vocálicos en celtibérico. Kalathos 15: 163-179. Beltrán, A. and A. Tovar 1982. Contrebia Belaisca I. El bronce con alfabeto "ibérico" de Botorrita. Zaragoza: Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología, Universidad de Zaragoza. Beltrán, F., de Hoz, J. and J. Untermann 1996. El tercer bronce de Botorrita (Contrebia Belaisca). Zaragoza [cited as BBIII]. Búa Carballo, C. 1997. Dialectos indoeuropeos na franxa occidental hispanica. In G. Pereira-Menaut (ed.), Galicia fai dous mil anos. O feito diferencial galego, Vol I., pp. 51-99. Santiago de Compostela: Museo do Pobo Galego. Burillo, F. 1989-1990. Un nuevo texto celtibérico: El bronce "Res". Kalathos 9-10: 313-331. 1993. Una tésera de Arekorata. Un nuevo concepto volumétrico en las téseras de hospitalidad celtibéricas. In J. Padró i Parcerisa (ed.), Homenaje a M. Tarradell, pp. 559-567. Barcelona: Curial Edicions Catalanes. Castellano, A. and H. Gimeno 1999. Tres documentos de hospitium inéditos. In F. Villar and F. Beltrán (eds), Pueblos, Lenguas y Escrituras en la Hispania Prerromanas, Actas del VII Coloquio sobre Lenguas y Culturas Paleohispánicas (Zaragoza, 12 a 15 de Marzo de 1997), pp. 359-374. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Correa, J.A. 1992. La epigrafía tartesia. In D. Hertel and J. Untermann (eds), Andalusien zwischen Vorgeschichte und Mittelalter, pp. 75-114. Köln-Weimar-Wien: Böhlau. Curchin, L.A. 1994. The Celtiberian vocable "kar" in two inscriptions from Central Spain. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 103: 229-230. De Bernardo-Stempel, P.

814 Carlos Jordán Cólera 1987. Die Vertretung der indogermanischen liquiden und nasalen Sonanten im Keltischen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. 1996. Die Stummvokale: eine Bilanz für das Keltiberische. In W. Meid and P. Anreiter (eds), Die grösseren altkeltischen Sprachdenkmäler. Akten des Kolloquiums Innsbruck, 29. April - 3. Mai 1993, pp. 212-256. Innsbruck: Verlag des Instituts für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. 2001. Grafemica e fonologia del Celtiberico: 1. Nuovi dati sulle vocali mute; 2. Una nuova legge fonetica che genera dittonghi; 3. Fonti e fasi di sviluppo della silbante sonora. In F. Villar and Mª P. Fernández Álvarez (eds), Religión, Lengua y Cultura Prerromanas de Hispania. Actas del VIII Coloquio sobre Lenguas y Culturas Prerromanas de la Península Ibérica (Salamanca, 11-15 de mayo de 1999), pp. 319-334. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. 2002. Centro y áreas laterales: la formación del celtibérico sobre el fondo del celta peninsular hispano. Palaeohispanica 2: 89-132. De Hoz, J. 1997. Lingua e etnicidade na Galicia Antiga. In G. Pereira-Menaut (ed.), Galicia fai dous mil anos. O feito diferencial galego, Vol I., pp. 101-140. Santiago de Compostela: Museo do Pobo Galego. 1999. Los metales inscritos en el mundo griego y periférico y los documentos celtibéricos en bronce. In F. Villar and F. Beltrán (eds), Pueblos, Lenguas y Escrituras en la Hispania Prerromana. Actas del VII Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas paleohispánicas (Zaragoza, 12 a 15 de Marzo de 1997), pp. 433-470. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Eichner, H. 1989. Damals und heute: Probleme der Erschliessung des Altkeltischen zu Zeussens Zeit und in der Gegenwart. In B. Forssman (ed.), Erlanger Gedenkfeier für Johann Kaspar Zeuss, pp. 9-56. Erlangen: Universitätsbund Erlangen-Nürnberg. Eska, J.F. 1988. The origin of the hispano-celtic o-stem genitive singular in -o and related matters. Études Celtiques 25: 117-122. 1989. Towards an Interpretation of the Hispano-Celtic Inscription of Botorrita. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. 1995. Observations on the thematic genitive singular in Lepontic and Hispano-Celtic. In J. Eska, R. Geraint Gruffyd and N. Jacobs (eds), Hispano-Gallo-Brittonica. Essays presented to Professor D. Ellis Evans on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, pp. 33-46. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. 2002. Symptoms of nasal effacement in Hispano-Celtic. Palaeohispanica 2: 141-158. Evans, D.E. 1979. On the celticity of some Hispanic personal names. In A. Tovar, M. Faust, F. Fischer and M. Koch (eds), Actas del II Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas prerromanas de la Península Ibérica (Tübingen, 17-19 Junio 1976), pp. 117-129. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. 1993. The identification of continental Celtic with special reference to Hispano-Celtic. In J.

Celtiberian 815 Untermann and F. Villar (eds), Lengua y cultura en la Hispania prerromana. Actas del V Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas prerromanas de la Península Ibérica (Colonia, 25-28 de Noviembre de 1989), pp. 563-608. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Fatás, G. 1985. Una tésera cortonense. In J.L. Melena (ed.), Symbolae Ludovico Mitxelena septuagenario oblatae, pp. 425-431. Vitoria: Instituto de Ciencias de la Antigüedad, Universidad del País Vasco. García Merino, C. and MªL. Alberto 1981. Nueva inscripción en lengua celtibérica: una tessera hospitalis zoomorfa hallada en Uxama (Soria). Emerita 49: 179-189. García Merino, C. and J. Untermann 1999. Revisión de la lectura de la Tessera Uxamensis y valoración de las téseras en el contexto de la configuración del poblamiento celtibérico en el siglo I a.C. Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueología LXV: 133-152. Gómez Moreno, M. 1949. Misceláneas: historia, arte, arqueología. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Diego Velázquez. Gorrochategui, J. 1991. Descripción y posición lingüística del celtibérico. In J.A. Lakarra (ed.), Memoriae L. Mitxelena Magistri Sacrum, pp. 3-31. Donostia: Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia. 1994a. El celtibérico, dialecto arcaico celta. Emerita 62: 297-324. 1994b. La declinación céltica de los temas en -ā y los datos hispanos. In R. Bielmeier and R. Stempel (eds), Indogermanica et Caucasica, Festschrift für K.H. Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag, pp. 316-330. Berlin-New York: W. de Gruyter. 1997. Gallaecia e as linguas prerromanas da Península Ibérica. In G. Pereira-Menaut (ed.), Galicia fai dous mil anos. O feito diferencial galego, Vol I., pp. 15-49. Santiago de Compostela: Museo do Pobo Galego. Hamp, E. 1971. 'Fils' et 'fille' en italique. Nouvelle contribution. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique 66 (1): 213-227. Hoenigswald, H.M. 1973. Indo-European*p in Celtic and the claims for a relative chronology. Journal of IndoEuropean Studies 1: 324-329. Holder, A. 1961-1962. Alt-Celtischer Sprachschatz 3 Vols. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt. Jordán, C. 1994. De nuevo sobre el topónimo "Botorrita". Fontes Linguae Vasconum 66: 199-209.

816 Carlos Jordán Cólera 1997. A propósito de las téseras celtibéricas de Viana. Kalathos 16: 199-211. 1998. Introducción al celtibérico. Zaragoza: Departamento de Ciencias de la Antigüedad, Area de Filología Griega, Universidad de Zaragoza. 1999. Sobre la etimología de Botorrita y su confirmación en la onomástica prelatina. In F. Villar and F. Beltrán (eds), Pueblos, Lenguas y Escrituras en la Hispania Prerromana. Actas del VII Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas paleohispánicas (Zaragoza, 12 a 15 de Marzo de 1997), pp. 471-480. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. 2001. Acerca de los patrones flexivos de los temas en -n en la onomástica celtibérica. In F. Villar and Mª P. Fernández Álvarez (eds), Religión, Lengua y Cultura Prerromanas de Hispania. Actas del VIII Coloquio sobre Lenguas y Culturas Prerromanas de la Península Ibérica (Salamanca, 11-15 de mayo de 1999), pp. 451-458. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. 2003. Acerca del ablativo que aparece en las téseras de hospitalidad celtibéricas. Palaeohispanica 3: 113-127. Lambert, P.Y. 2003. La langue gauloise. Revised edition. Paris: Editions Errance [cited as LG]. Lejeune, M. 1955. Celtiberica. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. Lewis, H. and H. Pedersen 1989. A Concise Comparative Celtic Grammar. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Marques de Faria, A. 1998. Duas novas tésseras celtibéricas de procedẽncia desconhecida. Revista portuguesa de Arqueologia 2: 119-122. McCone, K. 1992. Relative Chronologie: Keltisch. In R. Beekes, A. Lubotsky and J. Weitenberg (eds), Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie, Akten der VIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Leiden 1987, pp. 11-39. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. 1996. Towards a Relative Chronology of Ancient and Medieval Celtic Sound Change. Maynooth: Dept. of Old Irish, St. Patrick's College. 2001. Celtibérico, celta continental y celta común. In F. Villar and Mª P. Fernández Álvarez (eds), Religión, Lengua y Cultura Prerromanas de Hispania. Actas del VIII Coloquio sobre Lenguas y Culturas Prerromanas de la Península Ibérica (Salamanca, 11-15 de mayo de 1999), pp. 483-494. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. Meid, W. 1993. Die erste Botorrita Inschrift. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. 2001. The grammatical and semantic interpretation of Celtiberian texts: methodological considerations. In F. Villar and Mª P. Fernández Álvarez (eds), Religión, Lengua y Cultura Prerromanas de Hispania. Actas del VIII Coloquio sobre Lenguas y Culturas Prerromanas de la

Celtiberian 817 Península Ibérica (Salamanca, 11-15 de mayo de 1999), pp. 495-500. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Motta, F. 1980. Onomastica Contrebiense. ΑΙΩΝ. Annali del Dipartamento di Studi del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico 2: 125-147. Pellicer i Bru, J. 1995. Monedas con epígrafe celtíbero TANUSIA-TAMUSIA y la tésera con inscripción TAIMUÇIENSIS CAR. Gaceta Numismática 119: 67-76. Prosdocimi, A.L. 1989. L'iscrizione gallica del Larzac e la flessione dei temi in -ā, -ī, -jā. Indogermanische Forschungen 94: 190-206. Prósper, B. 2002a. La gran inscripción rupestre celtibérica de Peñalba de Villastar. Una nueva interpretación. Palaeohispanica 2: 213-226. 2002b. Lenguas y religiones prerromanas del occidente de la Península Ibérica. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Remesal, J. 1999. En torno a una nueva tésera de hospitalidad. In F. Villar and F. Beltrán (eds), Pueblos, Lenguas y Escrituras en la Hispania Prerromana. Actas del VII Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas paleohispánicas (Zaragoza, 12 a 15 de Marzo de 1997), pp. 595-603. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Ritter, R. 1996. Introducción al armenio antiguo. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas. Rubio, F. 1999-2000. Celtibérico tuateres, galo duxtir, irlandés Dero, la palabra indoeuropea para 'hija'. Kalathos 18-19: 359-371. 2001. Las formas secundarias en -ko- del celtibérico. In F. Villar and Mª P. Fernández Álvarez (eds), Religión, Lengua y Cultura Prerromanas de Hispania. Actas del VIII Coloquio sobre Lenguas y Culturas Prerromanas de la Península Ibérica (Salamanca, 11-15 de mayo de 1999), pp. 581-594. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Schmidt, K.H. 1976. Historisch-vergleichende Analyse der keltiberischen Inschrift von Botorrita zu Grunde des liegenden Morpheminventars. In A. Morpurgo Davies, and W. Meid (eds), Studies in Greek, Italic, and Indo-European Linguistics Offered to L.R. Palmer on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, pp. 359-371. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. 1977. Zum Problem des Genitivs der -o Stamme im Baltischen und Slavischen. In E. Dickenmann, F. Scholz, W. Woesler and P. Gerlinhoff (eds), Commentationes Linguisticae et Philologicae, pp. 335-344. Heidelberg: Winter.

818 Carlos Jordán Cólera 1985. A contribution to the identification of Lusitanian. In J. de Hoz (ed.), Actas del III Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas paleohispánicas (Lisboa, 5-8 noviembre 1980), pp. 319-341. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. 1991. Review of Études Celtiques XXV. ZCPh 44: 363-365. 2001. The contribution of Celtiberian to the reconstruction of common Celtic: installment II. In F. Villar and Mª P. Fernández Álvarez (eds), Religión, Lengua y Cultura Prerromanas de Hispania. Actas del VIII Coloquio sobre Lenguas y Culturas Prerromanas de la Península Ibérica (Salamanca, 11-15 de mayo de 1999), pp. 595-611. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Schmoll, U. 1959. Die Sprachen der Vorkeltischen Indogermanen Hispaniens und das Keltiberische. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. Tovar, A. 1955-1956. La inscripción grande de Peñalba de Villastar y la lengua celtibérica. Ampurias 1718: 159-168. 1985. La inscripción del Cabeço das Fráguas y la lengua de los lusitanos. In J. De Hoz (ed.), Actas del III Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas paleohispánicas (Lisboa, 5-8 Noviembre 1980), pp. 227-253, Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. Untermann, J. 1961. Sprachräume und Sprachbewegungen im vorrömischen Hispanien. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz. 1967. Die Endung des Genitiv singularis der o-Stämme im Keltiberischen. In W. Meid (ed.), Beiträge zur Indogermanistik und Keltologie, Julius Pokorny zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet, pp. 281-288. Innsbruck: Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut der Universität Innsbruck. 1987. Lusitanisch, keltiberisch, keltisch. In J. Gorrochategui, J.L. Melena and J. Santos (eds), Studia Palaeohispanica. Actas del IV Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas paleohispánicas (Vitoria/Gasteiz, 6-10 Mayo 1985), pp. 57-76, Vitoria/Gasteiz: Instituto de Ciencias de la Antigüedad, Universidad del País Vasco. 1975. Monumenta Linguarum Hispanicarum I. Die Münzlegenden. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert [cited as MLH I]. 1997. Monumenta Linguarum Hispanicarum IV. Die tartessischen, keltiberischen und lusitanischen Inschriften. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert [cited as MLH IV]. 1999. La aportación lingüística de los antropónimos del "Bronce de Botorrita III". In F. Villar and F. Beltrán (eds), Pueblos, Lenguas y Escrituras en la Hispania Prerromana. Actas del VII Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas paleohispánicas (Zaragoza, 12 a 15 de Marzo de 1997), pp. 635-649. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Velaza, J. 1999. Balance actual de la onomástica personal celtibérica. In F. Villar and F. Beltrán (eds), Pueblos, Lenguas y Escrituras en la Hispania Prerromana. Actas del VII Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas paleohispánicas (Zaragoza, 12 a 15 de Marzo de 1997), pp. 663-683. Salamanca Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.

Celtiberian 819 Vicente, J.D. and B. Ezquerra 1999. El bronce celtibérico de Torrijo del Campo (Teruel). In F. Villar and F. Beltrán (eds), Pueblos, Lenguas y Escrituras en la Hispania Prerromana. Actas del VII Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas paleohispánicas (Zaragoza, 12 a 15 de Marzo de 1997), pp. 581-594. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. 2003. La tésera de Lazuro: un nuevo documento celtibérico en "La Caridad" (Caminreal, Teruel), Palaeohispanica 3: 251-269. Villar, F. 1991. Le locatif celtibérique et le caratère tardif de la langue celtique dans l'inscription de Peñalba de Villastar. Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie 44: 56-66. 1993a. Las silbantes en celtibérico. In J. Untermann and F. Villar (eds), Lengua y cultura en la Hispania prerromana. Actas del V Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas prerromanas de la Península Ibérica (Colonia, 25-28 de Noviembre de 1989), pp. 773-818 Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. 1993b. Botorrita soz auku aresta [.] [.] tamai. In F. Heidermanns, H. Rix and E. Seebold (eds), Sprachen und Schriften des antiken Mittelmeerraums. Festschrift für Jürgen Untermann zum 65. Geburtstag, pp. 465-471. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. 1993c. The Indo-European vowels /a/ and /o/ revisited. In B. Brogyanyi and R. Lipp (eds), Comparative Historical Linguistics: Indo-European and Finno-Ugric. Papers in Honor of O. Szemerényi III: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 97, pp. 139-160. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Publishers. 1993-1995. El instrumental en celtibérico. Kalathos 13-14: 325-338. 1994. Los antropónimos en Pent-, Pint- y las lenguas indoeuropeas prerromanas de la Península Ibérica. In R. Bielmeier and R. Stempel (eds), Indogermanica et Caucasica. Festschrift für Karl Horst Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag, pp. 234-254. Berlin-New York. 1995a. A New Interpretation of Celtiberian Grammar. Innsbruck Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. 1995b. Estudios de celtibérico y de toponimia prerromana. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. 1996a. Fonética y Morfología Celtibéricas. In F. Villar and J. D'Encarnação (eds), La Hispania prerromana. Actas del VI Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas prerromanas de la Península Ibérica (Coimbra, 13-15 de octubre de 1994), pp. 339-378, Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. 1996b. Los indoeuropeos y los orígenes de Europa. Madrid. 1997. The Celtiberian language. Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie 49-50: 898-949. 1999a. Hispanocelta o celtibérico. In E.C. Polomé and C. F. Justus (eds), Language Change and Typological Variation: In Honor of W.P. Lehmann on the Occasion of his 83rd Birthday, Vol. I, pp. 60-77, Journal of Indo-European Studies, Monograph Number 30. Washington, D.C.: Institut for the Study of Man. 1999b. La tésera de Slania y los nombres de familia con determinante. In P. Anreiter and E. Jerem (eds), Studia Celtica et Indogermanica. Festschrift für W. Meid zum 70. Geburtstag, pp. 531-537. Budapest: Archaeolingua Alapítvány. Villar, F., Díaz, Mª A., Medrano, M. and Jordán, C. 2001. El IV Bronce de Botorrita (Contrebia Belaisca): Arqueología y Lingüística. Salamanca:

820 Carlos Jordán Cólera Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca [cited as BBIV]. Villar, F. and Jordán, C. 2004. Review of D.S. Wodtko (2000): Monumenta Linguarum Hispanicarum I. Wörterbuch der keltiberischen Inschriften, Wiesbaden: L. Reichert. Kratylos 49: 142-152. Villar, F. and Untermann J 1999. Las "téseras" de Gádir y Tarvodurum. In F. Villar and F. Beltrán (eds), Pueblos, Lenguas y Escrituras en la Hispania Prerromana. Actas del VII Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas paleohispánicas (Zaragoza, 12 a 15 de Marzo de 1997), pp. 719-731. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Villaronga, L. 1994. Corpus nummum Hispaniae ante Augusti aetatem. Madrid: José A. Herrero. Wodtko, D.S. 2000. Monumenta Linguarum Hispanicarum V.1. Wörterbuch der keltiberischen Inschriften. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.

Carlos Jordán Cólera Área de Lingüística Indoeuropea Dpto. de Ciencias de la Antigüedad Campus Universitario 50009-Zaragoza (Spain) e-mail: [email protected]

Celtiberian 821

Appendix 1 Writing Systems of the Iberian Peninsula circa the First Millennium BC Colonial Writings Phoenician

Hispanic Writings SouthLatin western

Greek

Southeastern Iberian

Northeastern Iberian

Greek Celtiberian Iberian west east

1

'aleph

) [']

alpha

А [ā/ă]

A

 [a]

 [a]

A [a]

А [a]

! [a] A

2

bēth

b [b]

beta

", В [b]

B

Ø [be]

Õ [ba]

Í [bi]

В [b]

[bi] Í

3

gīmel

g [g]

gamma

Г [g]

C

¢ [ka]

¢ [ka]

K [ka]

Г [g]

+ [ka] K

4

dāleth

d [d]

delta

∆ [d]

D

W [tu]

W [tu]

7 [tu]

∆ [d]

[tu] 7

5



h [h]

epsilon

Ε [ĕ]

E

 [¿?a]

 [be?]

„ [e]

6

wāw

w [w]

digamma

Û[w]

F

5 [u]

5 [u]

7

zayin

z [z]

dseta

Z [z]

Z

8

h̥ēth

x [h¢]

eta

ß, H [h/ē]

H

@ [te]

@ [te?]

Ÿ [o?]

i

 [t ]

 [ti]

9 [te]

I

t [i]

t [i]

I [i]

Ι [i]

I [i] I

e

h

9

ṭēth

+ [t¢]

theta

Θ [t ]

10

yōdh

y [y]

iota

Ι [ī/ĭ]

% [e] E

H [e]

Ÿ [o] Ÿ 9 [te] ”

11

kaph

k [k]

kappa

Κ [k]

K

˚ [k ]

˚ [ke]

J [ke]

Κ [k]

* [ke] J

12

lāmedh

l [l]

lambda

Λ [l]

L

, [l]

, [l]

L [l]

Λ [l]

L [l] L

13

mēm

m [m]

my

Μ [m]

M

m [m]

14

nūn

n [n]

ny

Ν [n]

N

š [n]

š [n]

15

sāmekh

s [s]

xi

Ξ [x]

X

˘ [s]

˘ [s]

16

'ayin

( [‘]

omicron

Ο [ŏ]

O

ç [e]

ç [e]

P

o

17



p [p]

pi

C, Π [p]

18

ṣādhē

c [s¢]

san

M [m] N [n]

N [m] M Ν [n]

. [n] N

´ [o]

} [b ]

} [bu?]

} [bu]

S [s]

S [ś]

S [ś]

S [ś]

u

i

[bu] } 3 [s]

S [s] S

19

qōph

q [q]

qoppa

2 [k ]

Q

2 [¿? ]

2 [¿?]

& [ku]

20

rēš

r [r]

rho

Ρ [r]

R

¼ [r]

¼ [r]

¼ [r]

A/A‘ [r/ŕ]

2 [r] R

21

šīn

$ [s#]

sigma

Σ [s]

S

Z [s]

Σ [ś]

: [z] Z

22 23

tāw

T [t]

tau

Τ [t]

T

T [t ]

T [ta]

T [ta]

Τ [t]

T [ta] T

ypsilon

Υ [u/y]

V

5 [u]

5 [u]

U [u]

. [u]

U [u] U

h

24

phi

Φ [p ]

25

khi

Χ [kh]

26

psi

Ψ [ps]

27

omega

Ω [ō]

28

a

| [ba]

29 30

33

B [ba]

B [ba] B

V [be]

6 [be] V

8 [bo]

8 [bo] X

P [ti]

™ [ti] P

U [bi]

31 32

& [ku] F

• [bo] u

• [b ]

822 Carlos Jordán Cólera 34

à [to]

35 36

Þ [ko]

37

^ [ku]

å [to]

[to] å

Ú [ki]

H [ki]

H [ki] H

Þ [ko]

G [ko]

G [ko] G

Celtiberian 823

Appendix 2 Epigraphic Material Below we present several tables with the Celtiberian epigraphic material. They have been adapted from the ones presented in F. Villar et al. (BB IV, 88-101). We have omitted the material that offers no linguistic information; additionally we have included some new inscriptions, especially in the section of the tesserae. We present also the complete text of some inscriptions accompanied by photographs or illustrations.

Geographic Abbreviations: BU = Burgos CC = Cáceres CU = Cuenca F = France GU = Guadalajara HU = Huesca LO = Logroño (La Rioja) M = Madrid NA = Navarra P = Palencia IB = Islas Baleares S = Santander (Cantabria) SO = Soria TE = Teruel Z = Zaragoza

824 Carlos Jordán Cólera

Celtiberian Coin Legends Legend

Morphological Description

A.52 A.38, 39 A.64

arekorata benkota erkauika

N.sg. N.sg. N.sg.

Ergauica

Agreda (SO) or Arguedas (NA) unknown El Castro de Santaver (CU)

A.41

iaka

N.sg.

Iaca

Jaca (HU)

A.83 A.49 A.75

kaiseza kaiskata konterbia karbika letaisama samala sekaiza

N.sg. N.sg. N.sg.

zekia tamusia uirouia arekorataz areikorataz sekotiaz lakaz uarkaz uirouiaz

N.sg. N.sg. N.sg. Ab.sg. Ab.sg. Ab.sg. Ab.sg.

A.61

aratikos

N.sg.

A.52 A.62 A.63 A.53 A.54 A.55 A.76 A.56 A.69 A.57 A.58

areikoratikos arkailikos ekualakos kalakorikos kueliokos louitiskos lutiakos oilaunikos sekisamos teitiakos titiakos titiako uarakos belaiskom belikiom belikio bormeskom bormesko ekualakom

N.sg. N.sg. N.sg. N.sg. N.sg. N.sg. N.sg. N.sg. N.sg. N.sg. N.sg.

MLH I 1

Classical Reference

Location

I. ā/ǝ ā/ǝ-stems

A.68 A.88 A.78 A.43 A.91 A.71 A.52 A.67 A.93 A.71

N.sg. N.sg. N.sg.

Municp Cascantum Contrebia (Carbica)

Segeda Segienses ¿Virouesca? Segovntia Lavgka Uxama Barca

Caesada (GU) Cascante (NA) Fosos de Bayona, Villavieja (CU) Ledesma de la Cogolla (LO) unknown Poyo de Mara, Calatayud (Z) Ejea de los Caballeros (Z) ¿Tamuja (CC)? Borobia (SO) or Briviesca (BU) Agreda (SO) Sigüenza (GU) Osma de Valdegogía (VI)

II. ŏ\e-stems

A.59 A.80 A.47 A.81 CNH 2872

1

MLH I = J. Untermann (1975).

N.sg. N.A.sg.n. N.A.sg.n. N.A.sg.n. N.A.sg.n.

Arándiga or Aranda del Moncayo (Z) Uxama Argaela Calagurris Nassica

Lutia Segisama Tritium

Contrebia Belaisca

c. Burgo de Osma (SO) Upper Duero or Lower Jalón R. Calahorra (LO) unknown Upper Ebro? Luzaga (GU) Upper Ebro? Canales de la Sierra (LO) Atienza (GU) Tricio (LO) Varea (LO) Botorrita (Z) Azuara (Z) Jalón Valley or beside the Bornoba R. (GU) Lower Jalón or Upper Duero R.

Celtiberian 825 A.74 A.75 A.75 A.85 A.87 A.78.6 A.70 A.65 A.72 A.84 A.92 III. i-stems A.61 A.73 A.86

ikezankom kontebakom bel kontebakom karbikom okalakom roturkom sekaizakom terkakom karaluz usamuz metuainum titum

N.A.sg.n. N.A.sg.n.

Contrebia Belaisca

Alcalá de Henares (M) Botorrita (Z)

N.A.sg.n.

Contrebia Carbica

Fosos de Bayona, Villaviejas (CU)

aratiz

Ab.sg.

bilbiliz bilbili orosiz orosi

Ab.sg.

N.A.sg.n. N.A.sg.n. N.A.sg.n. N.A.sg.n. Ab.sg. Ab.sg. G.pl. G.pl.

Segeda

Uxama Argaela

Bilbilis

Ab.sg.

IV. n-stems A.48 A.51 A.38.3 A.38.1 A.56

burzau turiazu barskunez baskunez oilaunez oilaune V. Occlusive stems A.50 nertobis

2

nertobi

A.63

Arándiga or Aranda de Moncayo (Z) Calatayud (Z) Caminreal (TE)

N.sg. N.sg. Ab.sg. Ab.sg. Ab.sg.

Bursaonenses Turiaso

Borja (Z) Tarazona (Z) unknown unknown unknown

N.sg.

Nertobriga

Between La Almunia and Calatorao (Z) unknown Upper Duero

A.42 Ab.sg. ontikez A.89 Ab.sg. Segobriga sekobirikez VI. Forms of uncertain morphological classification A.56 n-stem I.sg. oilaunu n-stem N.sg. A.90 o\e-stem I.sg. or tabaniu n-stem N.sg. A.79 o\e-stem I.sg. or tamaniu n-stem N.sg. A.66 u-stem? Ab.sg. Carauis karauez A.50

Oncala (SO) unknown Durón de Belmonte de Gracián (Z) Tierga (Z) unknown Osma (SO) unknown unknown

Upper Ebro? Débanos (SO) Muela de Hinojosa, Jarque, (Z) Magallón (Z)

Nertobriga

ekualaku

occl. stem N.sg. or i-stem Ab.sg. o\e-stem G.pl.

Between La Almunia and Calatorao (Z) Upper Duero

A.67

kolounioku

o\e-stem G.pl.

Clounioq, Clunia

c. Peñalba de Castro (BU)

A.82 A.74

kaio kombouto

N.-A.n. sg. N.-A. n. sg.

Complutum

unknown Alcalá de Henares (M)

CNH = L.Villaronga (1994).

826 Carlos Jordán Cólera

Celtiberian Inscriptions on Metal: Bronze 3

MLH IV Place of Origin K.1.1 Botorrita (Z) K.1.3 Botorrita (Z) Villar et al. (2001) Botorrita (Z) K.0.7 unknown K.0.14 unknown K.6.1 Luzaga (GU) Vicente and Ezquerra (1999) Torrijo (TE) De Hoz (1999) unknown K.0.8 unknown K.1.2 Botorrita (Z)

K.9.1 Numancia (SO) K.22.1 Calatayud (Z) Villar-Untermann (1999) unknown K.0.2 unknown CP-154 Numancia (SO) CT-7 unknown K.15.1 Paredes (P)

3 4

Object

Technique

Writing System 3

tabula

incision

ISS

tabula

puncture

ISS

tabula

incision

ISS

tabula

incision

ISS

tabula

incision

ISS

tabula

puncture

ISS

tabula

incision

ISS

tabula

incision

ISS

lamina

incision

ISS

lamina

incision

ISS

lamina

incision

ISS

]r/kue/Tutai/batikan/ toulo/isui letontu/ auz : soz A. ]suro/ ]ntikum / ]rkum /]s / ]rzonei / ]es B. ]abi / ]kikus / ]kionti / ]i / ]om mukokaiko

lamina

incision

ISS

aki/ ]s / ]n+

lamina

puncture

LA

anthropomorphic tessera (right hand) anthropomorphic tessera (head) anthropomorphic tessera (body) anthropomorphic tessera (outstretched hands)

incision

ISS

DVREITA. SCA TARVODVRE LIGORIQ. lubos : alizo/kum : aualo : ke/kontebiaz/belaiskaz

incision

ISS

ka

incision

ISS

nu - bota? / sbanizo : e / kum : aualo / konku / [ku? ¿...?

puncture

LA

CAISAROS CECCIQ.KR ARGAILO

ISS = Iberian Semy-syllabary; LA = Latin Alphabet. For CP and CT vid. M. Almagro-Gorbea (2003).

Text tirikantam : berkunetakam... risatioka : lestera : ia tarakuai : nouiza... ]tam : tirikantam : entorkue : toutam... -]rbos : oboi : kortono/ alaboi : atiko : ueitui... kuekuetikui : nekue : es/ ozeres... arekoratikubos : karuo : kenei... kelaunikui/terkininei : es/kenim : tures...

Celtiberian 827 K.27.1 Olleros (P)

K.0.3 unknown K.0.4 unknown K.0.5 unknown K.0.6 unknown K.0.9 unknown K.7.2 Monreal (Z) K.14.1 Sasamón (BU) K.18.1 Viana (NA) K.18.2 Viana (NA) K.23.2 Uxama (SO) K. 24.1 Belorado (BU) K.25.1 Palenzuela (P) Marques (1998) unknown Marques (1998) unknown Villar (1999b) unknown Vicente and Ezquerra (2003) Caminreal (TE)

anthropomorphic tessera (outstretched hands) zoomorphic tessera (bull's head) zoomorphic tessera (bearskin) zoomorphic tessera (bull) zoomorphic tessera (wild boar) zoomorphic tessera (dolphin) zoomorphic tessera (bear) zoomorphic tessera (bull or horse) zoomorphic tessera (pig) zoomorphic tessera (pig's hindquarter) zoomorphic tessera (pig) zoomorphic tessera (fish) zoomorphic tessera (bird) zoomorphic tessera (pig) zoomorphic tessera (pig) zoomorphic tessera (sheep's head) zoomorphic tessera (horse)

incision

LA

TVRIASICA CAR

puncture

ISS

A. sekobirikea B. sekobirikea

incision

ISS

libiaka

puncture

ISS

libiaka kortika : kar

incision

ISS

atulikum

incision

ISS

retukeno : uisal ikum

incision

ISS

uentanaka : kar

incision

ISS

puncture

ISS

A. irorekiios monituukoos nemaios B. aletuures berkuakum : sakas

incision

ISS

] +iko : loukio : kete[ ]ko

incision

ISS

boruotureka : tureibo/ eskeinis : kortika...

incision

ISS

sekeeios : sailetiikoo : metaama

incision

ISS

uirouiaka : kar

incision

ISS

kamasiosuei / ikenionke/ setantunos

incision

ISS

oilaunika : kar

incision

ISS

uentioko : slaniaz

puncture

ISS

lazuro : kosokum / tarmestutez : kar

828 Carlos Jordán Cólera CP-4 unknown CP-5 unknown CP-6 unknown CP-7 unknown

CP-9 unknown CP-10 unknown CT-6 unknown CT-18 unknown CT-23A unknown K.7.3 Monreal (Z) K.14.2 Sasamón (BU) Castellano and Gimeno (1999) Ubierna (BU) Castellano and Gimeno (1999) Paredes (P)

Pellicer (1995) Botija (CC)

zoomorphic tessera (fish) zoomorphic tessera (snake) zoomorphic tessera (eagle's head) zoomorphic tessera (horse's or wolf's head) zoomorphic tessera (horse's protome) zoomorphic tessera (shell) zoomorphic tessera (quadruped) zoomorphic tessera (quadruped) zoomorphic tessera (quadruped) zoomorphic tessera (dolphin) zoomorphic tessera (fish) zoomorphic tessera (bull's head) zoomorphic tessera (dolphin)

zoomorphic tessera (lynx?) Remesal (1999) zoomorphic Mesa del Almendro (SE) tessera (dog's head?) CP-17 zoomorphic unknown tessera (bird on high foot) K.0.10 geometric tessera unknown (parallelpiped)

incision

ISS

elia : kar : kartilike

incision

ISS

atikika kar : iskinikos

puncture

ISS

aratiko /zkukai

incision

ISS

okelaka . kar

puncture

ISS

uskika kar

incision

ISS

kaar

incision

ISS

turatin

incision

ISS

zaltuti / arno

incision

ISS

kateiko : kamaikuno : a/rkailika / : kar

puncture

LA

IKAR ARCOBRIG+./ GO+CIANDO+O.GIDOSQ

puncture

LA

TRIDONIECV.CARA/CA DESSVAEONA/NEMAIOSO

incision

LA

ARCAILICA CAR

puncture

LA

puncture

LA

AMBATO VIROVARCO / MV+NOIMO IIILANOSO . LVBOS / CAIRO ANT / M? NNIMV . RI / AMITI . MVM / VIROVACOM TAIMVSIENSIS / CAR

puncture

LA

CAAR . ICVRBICA / SALVANTICA / QVE

incision

LA

CILICOS / [¿...?] [¿-?RG]

incision

ISS

otoni : a/ntir/os/ biltire/i : kor/tika

Celtiberian 829 K.0.11 unknown

geometric tessera (parallelpiped)

incision

ISS

K.18.3 Viana (NA) K.18.4 Viana (NA) Villar and Untermann (1999) unknown CP-3 unknown CP-8 unknown CP-13 unknown

geometric tessera (4 "fingers") geometric tessera (4 "fingers") geometric tessera (tablet)

incision

ISS

puncture

ISS

arekorati/ka : kar/sekilako : amikum : mel/munos/ata/ bistiros : lastiko/ueizos A. kubokariam : ueniakum B. iteulases / buntunes sakarokas

incision

ISS

kateraikina : kar

tessera (recipient) helicoidal tessera

puncture

ISS

turiaz/ika / kortika

incision

ISS

routaikina kar

tessera (column with human top) tessera of brass? (foot) plate

incision

ISS

A. letuikos B. likuikum

incision

ISS

ias / mu /ko

puncture

ISS

] ++ikum : steniotes : ke : rita

CP-12 unknown K.17.1 Gruissan (F)

830 Carlos Jordán Cólera

Celtiberian Inscriptions on Metal: Silver MLH IV Place of Origin

Object

Technique

Writing System

Text

K.0.12 unknown

anthropomorphic tessera (head)

incision

ISS

ka tar / le

K.0.13 unknown

zoomorphic tessera (horse protome)

incision

ISS

CT-8 unknown K.0.1 unknown K.11.1 Tiermes (SO) K.11.2 Tiermes (SO)

tessera (shape of a coin) patera

incision

ISS

A. .kortonikum B. tuinikukuei. C. .kar. katea

incision

ISS

alizos : azas : balaisokum

patera

incision

LA

patera

incision

LA

STENIONTE.DOCILICO AN.GENTE.MONIMAM COVGIO.VISCI CO.MONIMAM

Celtiberian 831

Celtiberian Inscriptions on Stone MLH IV Place of Origin

Object

Technique

Writing System

Text

mural

incision

ISS

kauter

mural

incision

ISS

kurulabalkar

mural

incision

mural

incision

ISS? LA? ISS

mural

incision

LA

mural

incision

LA

aka RA atale ukebate ++kosbake +++ ENIOROSEI VTA.TIGINO.TIATVMEI... CALAITO+

mural

incision

LA

CALAITOS

mural

incision

LA

CALAITOS

mural

incision

LA

VORAMOS EDNOVM

mural

incision

LA

TVRROS

mural

incision

LA

TVROS

mural

incision

LA

]IOS

mural

incision

LA

K.3.12 Peñalba (TE)

mural

incision

LA

K.3.13a Peñalba (TE) K.3.13b Peñalba (TE) K.3.14 Peñalba (TE) K.3.15 Peñalba (TE) K.3.16 Peñalba (TE) K.3.17 Peñalba (TE) K.3.18 Peñalba (TE) K.3.19 Peñalba (TE)

mural

incision

LA

VELSAM TICINO VERAMOM TVROSOILOBOS[ PANTR+[-]S QVEQVI TVRO AIO

mural

incision

LA

GVANDOS

mural

incision

LA

TVLLOS CALOQ TVRRO G

mural

incision

LA

+++RSANIRANDVN

mural

incision

LA

OBIOS

mural

incision

LA

mural

incision

LA

mural

incision

LA

TVRROS CARORVM COTIRIQVM TVROS CARORVM.VIROS.VERAMOS GVANDOS COTIRIQVM

K.3.1a Peñalba (TE) K.3.1b Peñalba (TE) K.3.1c Peñalba (TE) K.3.2 Peñalba (TE) K.3.3 Peñalba (TE) K.3.4 Peñalba (TE) K.3.5 Peñalba (TE) K.3.6 Peñalba (TE) K.3.7. Peñalba (TE) K.3.8 Peñalba (TE) K.3.9 Peñalba (TE) K.3.10 Peñalba (TE) K.3.11 Peñalba (TE)

832 Carlos Jordán Cólera K.3.20 Peñalba (TE) K.3.21 Peñalba (TE) K.10.1 Trébago (SO) K.13.3 Peñalba de Castro (BU) K.16.1 Ibiza (IB) K.23.1 Osma (SO) K.26.1 Retortillo (S) K.13.1 Peñalba de Castro (BU) K.13.2 Peñalba de Castro (BU) K.4.1 El Pedregal (GU) K.4.2 El Pedregal (GU) K.8.1 Torrellas (Z) K.12.1 Langa (SO)

mural

incision

LA

MARCOS.MASMI F +++++PRIMI++++ ++LLOS CALOQ

mural

incision

LA

stele

incision

ISS

stele (frag.)

incision

ISS

stele

incision

ISS

stele (frag.)

incision

ISS

stele (frag.)

incision

LA

gravestone (frag.) gravestone (missing) stone

incision

ISS

]LICVIAMI GMONIM AM kaabaarinos

incision

ISS

mukuukaaiau

incision

ISS

kakubinka

stone (frag.)

incision

ISS

baka

stone (missing)

incision

ISS

stone (frag.)

incision

ISS

mata : abiliko[ manke : saulein+[ kum : n[---]+s+[-retukeno : esto ++beltis

matiku[ ri[ ++ro+ tirtanos/abulokum/ letontun/os ke beli/kios arekubar[

Celtiberian 833

Celtiberian Inscriptions on Ceramic MLH IV Place of Origin K.1.4 Botorrita (Z) K.1.5 Botorrita (Z) K.1.7 Botorrita (Z) K.1.22 Botorrita (Z) K.2.1 Albalate (TE) K.5.1 Caminreal (TE) K.5.2 Caminreal (TE) K.9.2 Numancia (SO) K.9.3 Numancia (SO) K.9.4 Numancia (SO) K.9.5 Numancia (SO) K.9.6 Numancia (SO) K.9.7 Numancia (SO) K.9.8 Numancia (SO) K.9.9 Numancia (SO) K.9.10 Numancia (SO) K.9.11 Numancia (SO) K.19.1 Sádaba (Z) K.20.1 Valdespartera (Z) K.21.1 Azuara (Z) Alfaro (LO) Alfaro (LO)

Object

Technique

Writing System

Text

fragment of plate camp. B plate camp. B fragment of dolium

incision

ISS

] : aultu launikue[

incision

ISS

stamp

ISS

ezazu non/zom kue s/tasikum bilonike

fragment of dolium

incision

ISS

aburaz

fragment of vessel

incision

ISS

]etukenosauza[

oinochoe

incision

ISS

beskuauzuetikubos

vessel

incision

ISS

oinochoe

painting

ISS

A. kambarokum B. ka+ C. l luanikoo : koorinau

little bowl

incision

ISS

nouantikum

fragment of vessel

incision

ISS

elatunako

fragment of vessel

incision

ISS

arebasikoo[ /s+[

fragment of vessel

incision

ISS

mautiko[

fragment of plate camp. ceramic fragment of vessel

incision

ISS

bilonike

incision

ISS

]+mkinaao

fragment of vessel

incision

ISS

]sa : a+[

fragment of cup

incision

ISS

ouem[

fragment of little jar

painting

ISS

] ++aiko[

fragment of vessel

incision

ISS

setiza

iberian plate

incision

ISS

statinas

dolium

stamp

ISS

memo : bel

cup camp. ceramic fragment of dolium

incision painting

ISS ISS

]lueikar[ ]elikum

834 Carlos Jordán Cólera K.1.6 Botorrita (Z) K.7.1 Monreal (Z) K.22.2 Calatayud (Z)

spindle of clay

puncture

ISS

sesinen [email protected]

spindle of clay

incision

ISS

pondus

stamp

ISS

A susatikalim B uta / as atu

Celtiberian 835

Appendix 3 Inscriptions

Figure 1a and b. The First Bronze from Contrebia Belaisca (Botorrita, Zaragoza). Drawing in A. Beltrán and A. Tovar (1982) [BBI]. (40.5 cm in length x 9.5/10.5 cm in width x 1 cm in thickness). Top, Side A; Bottom, Side B.

Transliteration: Side A: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

tirikantam : berkunetakam : tokoitoskue : sarnikio (:) kue : sua : kombalkez : nelitom nekue [: to : u]ertaunei : litom : nekue : taunei : litom : nekue : masnai : tizaunei : litom : soz : auku aresta[lo] : tamai : uta : oskuez : stena : uerzoniti : silabur : sleitom : konskilitom : kabizeti kantom [:] sankilistara : otanaum : tokoitei : eni : uta : oskuez : boustomue : koruinomue makasimue : ailamue : ambitiseti : kamanom : usabituz : ozas : sues : sailo : kusta : bizetuz : iom asekati : [a]mbitinkounei : stena : es : uertai : entara : tiris : matus : tinbituz : neito : tirnkantam eni : oisatuz : iomui : listas : titas : zizonti : somui : iom : arznas : bionti : iom : kustaikos arznas : kuati : ias : ozias : uertatosue : temeiue : robiseti : saum : tekametinas : tatuz : somei enitouzei : iste : ankios : iste : esankios : uze : areitena : sarnikiei : akainakubos nebintor : tokoitei : ios : uramtiomue : auzeti : aratimue : tekametam : tatuz : iom : tokoitoskue sarnikiokue : aiuizas : kombalkores : aleites : iste : ires : ruzimuz : abulu : ubokum

Side B: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

lubos : kounesikum : melmunos : bintis : letontu : litokum abulos : bintis : melmu : barauzanko : lesunos : bintis letontu : ubokum : turo : bintis : lubinaz : aiu : berkantikum abulos : bintis : tirtu : aiankum : abulos : bintis : abulu : louzokum useizunos : bintis : akainaz : letontu : uikanokum suostuno s : bintis : tirtanos : statulikum : lesunos : bintis : nouantutas letontu : aiankum : melmunos :bintis : useizu : aiankum : tauro [--]tis : abulu : aiankum : tauro : bintis : letontu : letikum : abulos : bintis : ]ukontaz : letontu : esokum : abulos : bintis

836 Carlos Jordán Cólera

Figure 2. The Third Bronze from Contrebia Belaisca (Botorrita, Zaragoza). Drawing in F. Beltrán, et al. (1996) [BBIII]. (73.2 cm in height x 51.8 cm in width x 0.4 cm in thickness).

Celtiberian 837 01 risatioka : lestera : ia : tarakuai : nouiza : auzanto 02 eskeninum : taniokakue : soisum albana I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 I9 I 10 I 11 I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I 20 I 21 I 22 I 23 I 24 I 25 I 26 I 27 I 28 I 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 I 33 I 34 I 35 I 36 I 37 I 38 I 39 I 40 I 41 I 42 I 43 I 44 I 45 I 46 I 47 I 48 I 49 I 50 I 51 I 52 I 53 I 54 I 55 I 56 I 57

skirtunos : tirtanikum : l(---) kontuzos : turos retukenos : statulu mezukenos : koitina tueizu : uiroku munika : koitu : koitina sekilos : toutinikum me+(---) ultia : uiriaskum : mel(---) sura : matulokum elkua : raiokum buria : batokum belsa : alasku[m] : mem(unos) elkua : ensikum : seko(---) sekontios : loukanikum : aiu(---) sura : uiriaskum : mel(---) stena : muturiskum : tirtu+(os) sleitiu : karunikum : le(tontunos?) retukenos : ensikum letontu : atokum bilinos : austikum belsu : uiriaskum sekonzos : uiriaskum : me(---) burzu : teiuantikum bulibos : turumokum : ul(ta)tu(nos?) letontu : mailikum burzu : auikum melmanios : uiriaskum karbelos : turumokum : ulta(tunos) likinos : uerzaizokum : mem(unos) koitu : mailikum akuios : tetokum saluta : uizuskikum burzu : uiskikum : le(tontuno?)s ana : uerzaizokum : atu(---) sanion : baatokum niskekue : babokum biurtilaur : alaskum bini rusku : uiriaskum : kentisku or++bilos : likinoskue abo++kum abu++akuiakue : araiokum alu : aiukue : araiokum kalos : telkaskum elazuna : loukanikum mezukenos : loukanikum burzu : tirtobolokum sleitiu : makeskokum iunsti+[.] : uiriaskum tioken+s : uiriaskum uiroku : turumokum mizuku : retukenos : tirtanos munikakue : uiriaskum burzu : atokum aualos : kortikos amu : kankaikiskum kaiaitos : litukue : abokum

II 1 II 2 II 3 II 4 II 5 II 6 II 7 II 8 II 9 II 10 II 11 II 12 II 13 II 14 II 15 II 16 II 17 II 18 II 19 II 20 II 21 II 22 II 23 II 24 II 25 II 26 II 27 II 28 II 29 II 30 II 31 II 32 II 33 II 34 II 35 II 36 II 37 II 38 II 39 II 40 II 41 II 42 II 43 II 44 II 45 II 46 II 47 II 48 II 49 II 50 II 51 II 52 II 53 II 54 II 55 II 56 II 57

sekanos kolukokum : lukinos tirtanos kentiskue : loukaniko uiriaskuùm mezukenos : turanikum elu : uiriaskum : launiku[.?] likinos : uiskikum letontu : auaskum kasilos : atokum usizu : abokum : titos burzu : kulukamikum akuia : sekiloskue : tirilokum mezukenos : akikum : memun(os) akuia : alaskum : memunos terkinos : austikum : eskutino koitina : abokum : useizunos tirtouios : turumokum elaukos : bentikum : rotenanko elkuanos : muturiskum terkinos : telazokum akuia : statu : turaku : tueizunos/tetoku[m?] mezukenos : elazunos tirtukue : ailokiskum sekilos : mailikum letontu : ustitokum turenta : kentiskue : ataiokum koitina : uerzaizokum : kalmiku/m elkuanos : kunikum launikue : uiriaskum koitu : uerzaizokum : aias snaziuentos : ataiokum tais : uiriaskum basaku : uiriaskum kalaitos koitinakue : uiriraskum likinos : ataiokum sa[-c.3 or 4-]i kaburikum : memun(os) kares : +ruaku : korkos to[..]r+tetokum : kekas : ko(---) aureiaku tuate+eskue : uiriaskum burzu : babouikum koitu : kuinikum : tirtunos [-c. 5-] : loukanikum : tirtunos toloku : kalisokum : atinos tarkunbiur bibalos : atokum : tirtano sikeia : beteriskum sekontios : turumokum : ultatun(os) tekos : konikum bartiltun : ekarbilos munika elkuakue : koitinas terkinos : toutinikum : leton(tunos) katunos : burikounikum elazuna : ukulikum keka : kabelaikiskum munika : tolisokum : tirtun(os) elazuna : ensikum : turo

838 Carlos Jordán Cólera I 58 I 59 I 60 III 1 III 2 III 3 III 4 III 5 III 6 III 7 III 8 III 9 III 10 III 11 III 12 III 13 III 14 III 15 III 16 III 17 III 18 III 19 III 20 III 21 III 22 III 23 III 24 III 25 III 26 III 27 III 28 III 29 III 30 III 31 III 32 III 33 III 34 III 35 III 36 III 37 III 38 III 39 III 40 III 41 III 42 III 43 III 44 III 45 III 46 III 47 III 48 III 49 III 50 III 51 III 52 III 53 III 54 III 55 III 56

aba : muturiskum barnai : turumokum : tir(tuno?)s mezukenos : abokum : turo testios : turumokum elku : suolakue tirtanikum : uiriaskum : mel(---) kinbiria : kentiskue : turikum toloku : koitinakue : austunikum stenu : bentilikum burzu : bentilikum : ultatunos koloutios : biniskum antiokos : uiriaskum : melm(---) elazunos : kaburikum arkanta : mezukenoskue : abokum arkanta : loukanikum stena : ensikum : skirtunos burzu : betaskum koitu : samikum : melmanzo sekontios : ubokum barnai : ensikum : skirtunos tetu : loukanikum stena : uiriaskum toloku : uiriaskum arkanta : teiuantikum : tirtunos mizuku : tirtobolokum retukeno : elkueikikum kentisum : tuateroskue abaliu berikakue : suaikinokum uiroku : konikum : statulos aunia : beskokum bilonikos : elokum : elkinos mezukenos : tirtobolokum akuios : alikum tiriu : uiriaskum turtunazkue : kazarokum sleitiu : totinikum munika ensikum : skirtunos sekontios : uiriaskum sura : suaikinokum koitina : suoli+kum bilir+turtuntakue : telkaskum elu karbilikum terkinos : atokum : launikue mizuku : telkaskum melmantama : bentilikum markos : kalisokum arkanta : toutinikum tolokunos : ke(---) : kalisokum sura : ensikum : melman bi(---)? usama : abaloskue : karunikum elazuna : balaisokum likinos : turumokum : ti(---) tueizunos : binis+kum bilonikos : ensikum ebursunos : mailikinokum arkanta ailokiskum suros : alikum ultinos : amakue uiriaskum babos : kentiskue : uiriaskum

II 58 sekonzos : bentikum II 59 tokiosar : ensikum II 60 akuia : abokum : letontunos IV 1 IV 2 IV 3 IV 4 IV 5 IV 6 IV 7 IV 8 IV 9 IV 10 IV 11 IV 12 IV 13 IV 14 IV 15 IV 16 IV 17 IV 18 IV 19 IV 20 IV 21 IV 22 IV 23 IV 24 IV 25 IV 26 IV 27 IV 28 IV 29 IV 30 IV 31 IV32 IV 33 IV 34 IV 35 IV 36 IV 37 IV 38 IV 39 IV 40

kainu : tirtobolokum stenion+ : turikainos bolora : kentiskue : melmanzos tiokenesos : uiriaskum kalaitos : mturiskum burzu : karunikum burzu : abilikum : elazuno litu : makeskokum mezukenos : kalisokum koitina : tirikantanko esueiku : ateskum kalaitos : kustikum antiokos : kustikum kabutu : abokum anu : uiriaskum kalaitos : muturiskum akuia : albinokum balakos : sekonzos kara : kalatokum arkanta : mailikum elazunos : albinokum bubilibor : uiriaskum usizu : uiriaskum retukenos : telkaskum +ri a : belsu toloku : kurmi+iokum anieskor : talukokum s+[-c.3 or 4-] alikum elkueis : akikum raieni : uizuskikum urkala : austunikum tama : ataiokum retukenos : kustikum bilosban : betikum koitina : kankaikiskum likinos : kuezontikum munika : uerzaizokum terkinos : turanikum teuzesi : kustikum kaukirino

Celtiberian 839 III 57 III 58 III 59 III 60

turaios : litanokum : kurmilokum launikue : uiriaskum kari : uiriaskum kuintitaku : mailikinokum

840 Carlos Jordán Cólera

Figure 3a and b. The Fourth Bronze from Contrebia Belaisca (Botorrita, Zaragoza). Drawing, transcription and transliteration in F. Villar et al. (2001) [BBIV]. Top, Side A; Bottom, Side B.

Celtiberian 841 Transcription: Side A 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

;ııı=TM : ™RIKNTM : ENåáFE : åUTM;ııı= ;ııı=: SU! ‰M¦L;.=Z : XUIåS : ŸZEUM : +;ııı= ;ııı=I : WáUNTS : ™áIKNåS : FSTI : mZE+;ııı= ;ııı=! : ãá!LŸM : !á!N™ : ŸYNEI : !Mm++;ııı= ;ııı=äM : !™mŸN : TSFE+;-c. 3-=!;+=S;ııı= ;ııı=FE : USIMŸUNEI : ;ııı= ;ııı=ãR!LŸM : IŸS : LU;=E;=S;ııı= ;ııı=;-c. 2-=ŸI+U;=™ : EST;=+;ııı= ;ııı=UT : +;-c. 4-=;=FE;ııı= ;ııı=™;-c. 2-= N[.]E;ııı=

Side B 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

;ııı=E ;-c. 2-= I;ııı= ;ııı=!WZ : UT : E;ııı= ;ııı=ISUM : ;-c. 3-=™ : +;ııı= ;ııı=++++ŸLŸ+++ : IŸM : U;ııı= ;ııı=+;-c. 3-=åJ+++T : +UE : ™Z!WZ;ııı= ;ııı=;-c. 2-=L;-c. 3-=LEZ+L+åIŸ!N;ııı= ;ııı=;-c. 2-=åRUŸN™ : SåYRŸI : TS++;ııı= ;ııı= G;-c. 4-=ESUSIMŸ++Ÿ+;-c. 3-=;ııı=

Transliteration: Side A 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

[---]tam : tirikantam : entorkue : toutam[---] [---]: sua kombal[.]z : bouitos : ozeum : +[---] [---]i : turuntas : tirikantos : kustai : bize+[---] [---]a : karalom : aranti : otenei : ambi++[---] [---]kom : atibion : taskue+[-c.3-]a[+]s[---] [---]kue : usimounei : [---] [---]karalom : ios : lu[.]e[.]s[---] [---][-c. 2-]oi+u[..]ti : esta[..]+[---] [---]uta : +[-c. 4-][.]kue[---] [---]ti[-c. 2-] n[.]e[---]

Side B 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

[---]e [-c. 2-] i[---] [---]atuz : uta : e[---] [---]isum : [-c. 3-]ti : +[---] [---]++++olo+++ : iom : u[---] [---]+[-c. 3-]toke+++ta : +ue : tizatuz[---] [---][-c. 2-]l[-c. 3-]lez+l+toioan[---] [---][ -c. 2-]toruonti : stoteroi : tas++[---] [---] ko[-c. 4-]esusimo++o+[-c. 3-][---]

842 Carlos Jordán Cólera

Figure 4a and b. Tessera Froehner (6.2 cm in length x 4 cm in width x 0.8/1.2 cm in thickness). Photography by J. Untermann MLH IV [K.0.2]. Translation in C. Jordán (2003).

Transcription: LUXS é ALIZŸ FM é AUALŸ é ¬ GNYmAZ VLAISKZ

Transliteration: lubos : alizo kum : aualo : ke kontebiaz belaiskaz

Translation: Lubos, of the Alisoci, son of Avalos. (Friendship) of Contrebia Belaisca.

Celtiberian 843

Figures 5 and 6. Gravestone from Ibiza (31.2 cm in height x 27 cm in width x 6.5 cm in thickness). Photography and drawing in J. Untermann MLH IV [K.16.1].

Transliteration: tritanos / abulokum / letontu/nos ke beli/kios

Translation: Dirtanos, of the Abuloci, son of Letondo, from Beligiom.

844 Carlos Jordán Cólera

Figure 7. [K.0.7] Bronze of Cortonum (13.6 cm in length x 8.9 cm in width x 0.1 cm in thickness). Drawing in G. Fatás (1985).

Transliteration: ]rbosoboi : kortono : alabom : ako : ueitui arkatobezom : loutu loukaiteitubos : tures buntalos : kortonei

Celtiberian 845

Figure 8a and b. [K.0.14] Bronze "Res" (7.6 cm in length x 5.1 cm in width). Top, Side A; Bottom, Side B. Drawing in F. Burillo (1989-1990).

Transliteration: Side A (top) 1. kuekuetikui : nekue : es / ozeres 2. nekue : esianto 3. uameiste : ainolikum 4. retukeno : ueiziai 5. mitai : autom 6. ailai

Side B (bottom) 1. ☼ res 2. tunares : nezokim 3. auzares : korta : ? 4. akaizokum : metuutos 5. terturez 6. mozim : tizauiom 7. auzares

846 Carlos Jordán Cólera

Figure 9. [K.6.1] Bronze from Luzaga (16 cm in length x 15 cm in width). Photo in J. Untermann MLH IV.

Transliteration: arekoratikubos : karuo : kenei kortika : lutiakei : aukis : barazioka erna : uela : tikerzeboz : so ueizui : belaiokumkue kenis : karikokue : kenis stam : kortikam : elazunom karuo : tekez : sa : kortika teiuoreikis

Celtiberian 847

Figure 10. Bronze from Torrijo (13 cm in length x 8.8 cm in width x 0.1 cm in thickness). Drawing in J. Vicente and B. Ezquerra (1999).

Transliteration: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

kelaunikui terkininei : es kenim : tures : lau ni : olzui : obakai eskenim : tures useizunos : kotizo nei : lutorikum : ei subos : atizai : ekue : kar tinokum : ekue : lakikum ekue : tirtokum : silabur sazom : ibos : esatui

848 Carlos Jordán Cólera

Figure 11. [K.0.4] Tessera in the shape of a bearskin (4.5 cm in length x 3.6 cm in width). Drawing in M. Gómez Moreno (1949).

Figure 12. [K.7.2] Tessera in the shape of a bear (4.9 cm in length x 2.7 cm in width). Drawing in M. Gómez-Moreno (1949).

Transliteration:

Transliteration:

libiaka

uentanaka kar

Translation: (Friendship) of Libia.

Translation: Friendship of Ventana.

Figure 13. [K.23.2] Tessera in the shape of a wild boar (5.5 cm in length x 4.5 cm in width x 0.15 cm in thickness). Drawing in C. García Merino and Mª L. Albertos (1981). Discussed in C. García Merino and J. Untermann (1999).

Transliteration: boruoture[i]ka : tureibo[s] eskeinis : kortika usama : antos saikios : baisais kaltaikikos

Celtiberian 849

Figure 14. [K.0.11] Tessera in the shape of a parallelpiped (4.6 cm in length x 2.8 cm in width x 0.6 cm in thickness). Drawing in F. Burillo (1993). Discussed in J. Untermann MLH IV (left) and C. Jordán (2003) (right).

Transliteration: A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

arekorati ka : kar sekilako: amikum : mel/munos ata bistiros : lastiko ueizos

B1 B2 A1 A2 C1 C2

sekilako: amikum : mel/munos ata arekorati ka : kar bistiros : lastiko ueizos

Translation: Friendship of the town Aregorada with Secilacus, of the Amici, son of Melmo (ata?). Bistiros, of the Lastici, witness. Translation by C. Jordán (2003).

850 Carlos Jordán Cólera

Figure 15. [K.3.3] The great inscription of Peñalba de Villastar (42 cm in length x 17 cm in width). Drawing in A. Tovar (1955-1956). Discussed in M. Lejeune (1955).

Transliteration: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

ENIOROSEI VTA . TIGINO . TIATVMEI ERECAIAS . TO . LVGVEI ARAIANOM . COMEIMV ENIOROSEI . EQVEISVIQVE OGRIS . OLOCAS . TOGIAS . SISTAT . LVGVEI . TIASO TOGIAS

Subscribe

© Copyright 2013 - 2019 AZDOC.PL All rights reserved.