Script and language at ancient Voltino

∆AlexavndreiaAlessandria

5 – 2011

Rivista di glottologia

Edizioni dell’OrsoAlessandria

Si ringraziano:la Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Torinoil Lions Club Villanova d’Asti

© 2011Copyright by Edizioni dell’Orso s.r.l.via Rattazzi, 47 15121 AlessandriaTel. 0131.252349 Fax 0131.257567e-mail: [email protected]: //www.ediorso.it

Realizzazione informatica di Arun Maltese ([email protected])

È vietata la riproduzione, anche parziale, non autorizzata, con qualsiasi mezzo effettuata,compresa la fotocopia, anche a uso interno e didattico. L’illecito sarà penalmente perse-guibile a norma dell’art. 171 della Legge n. 633 del 22.04.1941

ISBN 978-88-6274-319-8

Nell’autunno del 2006 Gianni Abbate, Mario Enrietti, Renato Gendre, MarioNegri hanno costituito l’Associazione Culturale ‘Alessandria’, con sede presso ilLiceo Classico ‘Balbo’ di Casale Monferrato (AL).La pubblicazione di questa rivista è uno degli scopi statutari dell’Associazione

Atti del Convegno Internazionale

Le lingue dell’Italia anticaIscrizioni, testi, grammatica

Die Sprachen AltitaliensInschriften, Texte, Grammatik

In memoriam Helmut Rix (1926-2004)

a cura di Giovanna Rocca

7-8 marzo 2011

Libera Università di Lingue e Comunicazione

IULM

Milano

presentazione

Bibliografia degli scritti di Helmut Rix

RICORDI DI HELMUT RIX

Gerhard Meiser In memoriam Helmut Rix

Aldo Luigi prosdocimi In memoriam…

Jürgen Untermann La mia amicizia con Helmut Rix

RELAzIONI

Luciano Agostiniani pertinentivo

Michael H. Crawford Tribunes in Italy

Emmanuel Dupraz Osservazioni sulla coesione te -stuale nei rituali umbri: il casodelle Tavole I e IIa

Heiner Eichner Anmerkungen zum Etruskischenin memoriam Helmut Rix

Joseph F. Eska –Rex E. Wallace Script and language at ancient

Voltino

José Luis García Ramón Secondary yod, palatalisation,syncope, initial stress as relatedfeatures: Sabellic and Thessalian

p. VII

XI

1

3

7

11

17

45

49

67

93

115

462 INDICE

Olav Hackstein persistenz bei präfix- und parti-kelverben im Lateinischen: ital.*per ‚ver-‘ und *ped ‚zugrunde‘,lat. periūrāre und peiierāre ‚ei-nen Meineid schwören‘

Jón A. Harðarson The 2nd Line of the Duenos In-scription

Rosemarie Lühr „prägnante Konstruktionen“ inden klassischen Sprachen

Daniele F. Maras Skerfs

Maria pia Marchese Un problema di lettura e di sin-tassi nel Cippo Abellano

Vincent Martzloff Spuren des Gerundivsuffixes imSüdpikenischen: qdufeniúí (pen -na S. Andrea), amcenas (Bel -monte)

Kanehiro Nishimura A phonological Factor in Mārs’Lexical Genealogy

Dariusz piwowarczyk The Oscan appelluneí and thegraphemic-phonemic correspon-dences

paolo poccetti Strutture della coordinazione inetrusco

Luca Rigobianco Rix 1979 (1981): etr. uni < lat.*Iūnī. Tracce della presenza dii.e. *-j(e/o)H2 in etrusco

Timo Sironen La ricerca sugli imprestiti grecie latini nella lingua osca. Lostato della ricerca

Elena Triantafillis Ancóra sull’iscrizione ‘ernica’Rix He 2

137

153

165

185

199

209

233

247

253

289

303

311331

463INDICE

Brent Vine Umbrian disleralinsust

Michael Weiss Observations on the prehistoryof Lat. augur

Andreas Willi Revisiting the Etruscan verb

SCUOLA DI DOTTORATO IN STORIA LINGUISTICA DELMEDITERRANEO ANTICO

Manuela Anelli Una glossa italica?

paolo Cagnazzo Rix 1957: ‘Sabini – Sabelli –Samnium’ e la prospettiva delle‘medie aspirate’. Uno sguardoretrospettivo

Laura Montagnaro Venetico termon. Lessico e isti-tuzionalità nella terminologiadella confinazione

Giulia Sarullo Il Cippo del Foro. prima e dopoGoidanich (1943): cronaca perun bilancio storiografico

INDIRIzzI DEGLI AUTORI

345

365

387

403

419

439

453

Prelude1

§1. One of the most enigmatic inscriptions of the ancient Mediter-ranean world is that from the village of Voltino on the western shore ofthe Lago di Garda in northern Italy.2 Discovered built into the outsidewall of the village church, it was removed to Brescia in 1858 and is nowhoused there in the Musei d’Arte, Storia e Scienze. The inscription, gener-ally dated anywhere from the late second century BCE to the early firstcentury CE, occupies a space of 41 cm. × 41 cm. on a stone measuring 90cm. in height by 45 cm. in width. It was first published – to our knowl-edge – by ODORICI 1853: 50-1. The six lines of text are carefully incisedwithin a well-defined frame:3

(1)

Joseph F. Eska – Rex E. Wallace

SCRIpT AND LANGUAGE AT ANCIENT VOLTINO

Alessandria 5 – 2011, pp. 93-113.

1 We should like to thank Stefan Schumacher and David Stifter for their com-ments upon earlier versions of this paper. All usual disclaimers apply.

2 It is catalogued as CII 13, CIL v 4883, ESEL 19, pID 249, IL x/5.3 1046, andCIM 233.

3 We are grateful to the Settore Musei d’Arte, Storia e Scienze of the Comune diBrescia for permission to reproduce these photographs.

��

��

�� !�� "#$#� ��%&�� '�� '��(��)��*�� !+,� �� +, �� -"��.�-"�� /0��-$�� 1��2��1��3�+��"#$45�$06"��)��7��7�� *�� 54

8"9��

�� 7�� 7�� 7�� ',:� "#$45 ��"0 � �� ;��<��% � ��,�� 1�;�� %�1 ��

"�=��2�� 2�'�� '�� '�� *�� &��

�� +��"4 �+��-##4 �,',��"/ �>��-/ ��7?$�4�"0-@ � ��+��44�4�=�� '��%&�� '�� '��(��+��!�� *

��

"

94 J. F. ESKA – R. E. WALLACE

It is important to note that both the Latinised text and the indigenous textare engraved in mixed alphabets. MOMMSEN 1853: 210, in fact, describesthe indigenous alphabet as ‘eigenthümlich’, all of whose English transla-tions – ‘curious, peculiar, singular, strange’ –, indeed, apply.

§2. The indigenous text has variously been treated as Etruscan,4 Raet-ic,5 para-Raetic,6 Celtic,7 and, recently, Camunic8 in language.9 The con-ventional Celtic transliteration, segmentation, and translation as in (2)were originally set out by THURNEYSEN 1923: 8-10.10

(2) to-med-eclai | obalda natina‘O., (their) (dear) daughter, set me up’

ESKA – WEISS 1996 resegments the fifth line as to=me=declai <*to=me=de-ek-lā-e to bring the morphology of the pronominal form inline with Celtic expectations.11

Though the Celtic analysis of the inscription has not been universallyaccepted – largely on the basis of the alphabet –, the competing para-Raetic analysis has been a minority view, for no real coherent interpreta-tion of the text has been offered.12 Recently, however, SCHÜRR 2007 and

4 So pAULI 1885: 97.5 So WHATMOUGH 1933: 57-9 & 549-51 and LEJEUNE 1971: 64220.6 So LATTES 1893: 104151 & 1914: 4761; TIBILETTI BRUNO 1978a: 218-9 &

1978b: passim; and RISCH 1992: 684.7 E.gg., HÜBNER 1885: 8; STOKES 1886: 119-20; THURNEYSEN 1923: 8-10; KOCH

1985: 24-5; ESKA 1989; HAMp 1989; MEID 1989: 17-26; ESKA – WEISS 1996; andSCHUMACHER 2004: 444c. RHŷS 1905-6: 337 -41, 1913-4a: 94-7, & 1913-4b: 346-7treats the inscription as possibly Celtic.

8 So, independently, SCHÜRR 2007 and zAVARONI 2008.9 For a review of the literature on the Voltino inscription up to 1885, see ROBERT

1886.10 Epigraphic symbols employed in this paper are the following: Square brackets

[ ] indicate characters which are restored or can no longer be read; round brackets ( )indicate characters which were left out by the engraver; angled brackets ‹ › indicatecharacters restored by an editor in place of those incised by the engraver; curlybrackets { } indicate characters erroneously incised by the engraver; the underdot indicates characters which are damaged and/or no longer clearly legible; the pipe |indicates line breaks.

11 MORANDI 2004: 670-1 accepts that the inscription is Celtic, but transliteratesthe two lines as omezecuai | obauzanaina and interprets the first line as an ā-stem dative singular and the second line as two ā-stem nominative singulars, obauzaand naina, thus, it seems, as a dedicatory inscription.

12 TIBILETTI BRUNO 1978a: 218-9 transliterates the two lines as omezecavi |

95SCRIPT AND LANGUAGE AT ANCIENT VOLTINO

zAVARONI 200813 have offered interpretations of the indigenous text asCamunic in language, a view that has met with some approval in theCeltic community, e.g., STIFTER 2008: 274. The purpose of the presentpaper is to refute such a linguistic ascription and reärgue the case for whythe Voltino inscription should be placed within the corpus of CisalpineCeltic.

What is Camunic?

§3. Camunic is the language of the Camunni, a tribe that inhabited theVal Camonica, an Alpine valley in the territory of Brescia stretching fromthe Lago d’Iseo northward to the Tonale pass.14 The language’s corpus iscomposed of 150+ inscriptions and abecedaria (MORANDI 1998: 100).15

Most of the inscriptions known to us are very roughly hewn on the facesof rock walls; a few are carved on slabs of stone. The texts are short, com-posed in most cases of a single word terminating in -au or -s, e.gg.:16

(3) a. enezau (NIC BD 8h)b. ḷamas (NIC pC 26o,38)c. neṃases (IV Na 12)d. neunau | ṭeimeziau | pualau (NIC BD 6f)e. śqaniau (IV pC 31a,43)f. uelalaus (IV FN 15).

Little about the language’s grammatical structure can be ascertained fromthe texts, though it does not appear to be Indo-European. Talk of affilia-tion with Etruscan and/or Raetic is premature.17

obalzanaina (NB that is transliterated as ‹v› in the first line and as ‹a› in the second line) and interprets the first evidently as an Indo-Europeanoid personal namein -avi (for -avia), comparing gen. sg. DEMI|NCAVI at CIL v 5340, and the secondas a Raetoid patronymic in -θina.

13 A preliminary version appears in zAVARONI 2005b: 28-9.14 See pliny, Nat. hist. iii 133-4.15 An up-to-date corpus of Camunic inscriptions does not exist. TIBILETTI BRUNO

1990 ably edits the inscriptions and abecedaria discovered in the 1980s.16 Camunic characters are transliterated as in TIBILETTI BRUNO 1990 save for the

alberello character , which we transliterate as ‹s›, the khi-shaped character foundin the position of zeta, which we transliterate as ‹z›, and the beta-shaped character found in the position of san, which we transliterate as ‹ś›.

17 Cf. the comments of SCHUMACHER 2007: 334.


§4. The Camunic alphabet appears to be descended directly from Etr-uscan. Camunic abecedaria have the full complement of 26 charactersplus an array of supplementary characters.18 This suggests that the alpha-bet was borrowed no later than the end of the seventh century BCE, i.e.,before Etruscan alphabetic reforms eliminated beta, delta, omicron, andqoppa. Borrowing directly from Greek is a possibility (see TIBILETTIBRUNO 1992), but this hypothesis does not, in our opinion, providegreater insight into the formation of the Camunic alphabet. Regardless ofthe source, many Camunic character shapes were altered so dramaticallythat they no longer resemble their historical antecedents (SCHUMACHER2007: 335).19

A look back to WHATMoUGH 1933

§5. WHATMOUGH 1933: 549–51 assumes that the indigenous text isRaetic in language and that, given the use of both the Roman alphabet andan indigenous alphabet in the inscription, it is a bilingual. In order to sup-port such an analysis, he first makes a number of epigraphic assumptionsthat are, to say the least, ad hoc:

(4) a. i and must be supplied to render an equivalent for DVGIAVA.b. represents both /t/ and /d/.c. represents /u/.d. represents both /k/ and /ɡ/.e. The sequence in l. 5 is amended to 6 and the 6 is taken

to be a variant of , the san character, which occurs in l. 4.f. is taken to be a variant of , which is said to be a development

of . , thus, represents /k/, though , as noted in (4d), is meant todo so, as well.

He also assumes that, since the indigenous text extends further to the rightthan the Latinised text, it originally did so to the left, as well, despite thewell-defined frame around the inscription. This gives him license to sup-

18 The source of the supplementary characters and their respective phonologicalvalues are not clear.

19 zeta provides a good example. It often bears the form of a trident, viz., .


ply characters at the beginning of both lines, which results in the follow-ing:

(5) [θe]θome = TETVMVSzecśθi = SEXTI[θ]ok[i]au[a] = DVGIAVAzaśaθiśa = SAADIS

The Camunic analyses

§6. It seems clear to us that the Camunic analyses of the indigenousportion of the Voltino inscription are motivated by the shapes of the char-acters. , for example, is only known to occur in the Camunic alphabet.

The articles by Schürr and zavaroni, then, serve a useful function incalling attention to the need to look at the inscription from an epigraphicperspective much more closely than has previously been done. Their re-spective assumptions that the language of the indigenous portion of thetext is Camunic, however, are not justified. There are characters in the al-phabet that do not occur in Camunic abecedaria or inscriptions. And moreimportantly, their interpretations of the text strain credulity.

SCHüRR 2007

§7. Schürr critiques the Celtic analysis of the indigenous text, thoughhe discusses only THURNEYSEN 1923 and MEID 1989. He tries to establisha new transliteration on the basis of the Camunic alphabet, though he ad-mits that some of the characters in the indigenous text are not known tooccur in it.

§8. He finds much to admire in Whatmough’s attempt at interpretingthe indigenous text, and so also attempts to treat it as a bilingual. Thetransliteration that he establishes is:20

(6) θome = TETVMVSzecAai = SEXTIoBau = DVGIAVAzanaθina = SAADIS

20 Roman characters are in capitals.


§9. But whereas Whatmough interprets the language of the indigenoustext as Raetic, Schürr considers it to be Indo-European.21 He then emendsthe inscription to get to the following correspondences:

(7) [θe]θome[i] = TETVMVSzec‹n›ai = SEXTI[θ]oBau[a] = DVGIAVAzanaθina = SAADIS

‘Dem Tetumes, Sohn des Sek(as?), Duxawa, Tochter des Sanadis.’

One should note the immediate structural differences. Schürr casts theindigenous text as a dedication employing the dative case, though the La-tinised text is phrased as two names in asyndeton. The patronymics in theindigenous text are taken to be adjectives derived with the suffix -na,while those in the Latinised text are syntactically dependent genitives.

§10. There are also numerous epigraphic difficulties. Like What-mough, Schürr must supply text to the left of the inscription’s frame andat the end of two forms. And he has to make a number of unsupportedepigraphic assumptions:

(8) a. in l. 4 is taken not to be the san character, but a ligature composed of and = /nn/, despite the fact that 6 is used elsewhere in the inscription.

b. , whatever it represents phonologically, in l. 5 corresponds to /t/ in the Latinised text, but in l. 6 to /d/.

c. in l. 5 is emended to 6.d. is taken to represent /ɡj/.

In the end, three of the four forms require emendation. In the face of suchunmotivated restructuring of the existing text, Schürr, himself, has toposit that the inscription was copied from a ‘verstümmelte Vorlage’,which is perhaps not all too likely a prospect in view of how carefully in-cised the inscription is.

ZAVARoNI 2008

§11. Like Schürr, zavaroni tries to establish a transliteration on the ba-

21 According to SCHÜRR 2007: 342, Camunic merges proto-IE */o/ and */a/ as /a/.He also provides partial paradigms of a-stem and e-stem (!) nominals.


sis of the Camunic alphabet, but, likewise, has to acknowledge that someof the characters in the indigenous text – turned , reversed 6, and –are not known to occur in it (2008: 20). Unlike Schürr, he assumes thatthe language of the text is Etruscoid in its grammatical structure.

§12. zavaroni assumes that the two texts are parallel – two names inasyndeton –, though not the same structurally: The patronymic forms inthe indigenous text are derived adjectives rather than genitives. Thetransliteration that he establishes is as follows:22

(9) θoMe = a masculine idionymþeCuai = a patronymic adjective in -i to the stem þeCua-ośau = a feminine idionymsaΝaθiΝa = a patronymic adjective in -na to the stem saΝaθi

Though he does not seek to establish a one-to-one correspondence be-tween the Latinised and indigenous texts, zavaroni, nonetheless, consid-ers θoMe to be the Camunicised equivalent of TETVMVS and saNaθinato be the equivalent of SAADIS.23 He goes on to posit that þeCuai andośau are equivalent to SEXTI and DVGIAVA, respectively, though dis-tinct formally.

zavaroni analyses þeCuai as a patronymic adjective formed with thesuffix -i, which he argues is a development from the suffix *-iio- bor-rowed from an Italic language. In support of such an analysis, he cites afew Etruscan idionyms terminating in -ai, e.g., maclai (ET Cr 1.68).24

The idionym ośau is taken to be a ‘semantic’ equivalent to DVGIAVA inthe sense that both forms are derived, following the analysis of zavaroni,from roots that are claimed to be etymological near synonyms.

But even should one admit the correspondences proposed by zavaroni,his grammatical analyses and etymological interpretations of the Camunicforms, based as they are on unsupported ideas about Camunic morpholo-gy and lexis, do not convince. Firstly, Cam. þeCuai and Etr. maclai arenot comparable. maclai is neither an adjective nor a patronymic, but anidionym. Moreover, the final -i of maclai is unexpected. In Etruscan, theregular development of *-aie is to -ae, as is demonstrated by maclae (e.g.,

22 Roman characters are in capitals.23 saNaθina is analyzed as a patronymic adjective in -na, a suffix widely attested

in Etruscan nominal forms.24 Apart from maclai, the Etruscan forms cited by zavaroni either do not exist,

e.gg., atai and pupai, or are not masculine forms, e.g., velcai, which, hence, does notcontinue masculine -aie.


ET Cr 1.58) < maclaie (ET Cr 1.67), and by the idionyms velcae (ET Cl1.2336) < velcaie (e.g., ET Cm 2.38) and leθaes (ET Vs 1.142) < leθaies (ET Ve 3.44) (gen.). However maclai is to be explained, it cannot be usedto support the claim that -ie > -i in Etruscan, let alone Camunic. Secondly,zavaroni begins his etymological analyses with the assumption that theCamunic lexicon has been heavily Indo-Europeanised via intensive con-tacts with Indo-European speakers from central Europe, perhaps German-ic, during the prehistoric period,25 an idea for which there is no credibleevidence. Thus, while DVGIAVA clearly appears to be connected to thenil-grade of the proto-IE root *dɦeugɦ- ‘treffen’ (LIV2 148–9) (apparently→ ‘serve’ in Celtic and ‘be useful’ in Germanic), ośau, though Camunicis said to be an Etruscoid language, is connected to the nil-grade of theproto-IE root *h3neh2- ‘genießen’ (LIV2 302–3) (→ ‘be useful’ in Greek).Such etymological argumentation, in which the common link is found on-ly in secondary developments in daughter languages, is methodologicallyunacceptable.26

§13. There are also a number of difficult epigraphic assumptions:

(10) a. Like Schürr, zavaroni takes in l. 4 not to be the san character,but a ligature composed of and = /nn/, despite the fact that 6is used elsewhere in the inscription.

b. Like Whatmough, and similar to Schürr, he must take to represent /t/ in l. 5, but /d/ in l. 6.

c. The allographs of the alberello character are transliterated as ‹þ›in l. 5 and ‹s› in l. 6.

d. is taken to be , the Camunic character transliterated as ‹ś›, in l. 6.

A look at the indigenous character shapes27

§14. A careful examination of the shapes of the characters of the in-digenous alphabet reveals not only the amount of special pleading neces-sary to read many of them as belonging to the Camunic alphabet, but alsothat a plausible case can be made out for the transliteration that underliesthe traditional Celtic analysis of the text.

25 See, for example, zAVARONI 2003: 90-1 for a brief statement about such cul-tural contacts.

26 Indeed, zavaroni’s argument by which *h3nh2- developed into the root of ośauis so tortuous as to be not even moderately plausible. Note further that his analysisdoes not discuss final -au.

27 For studies of the Camunic abecedaria, see TIBILETTI BRUNO 1992 andzAVARONI 2001 & 2005a.


(11) a. is the san character = ‹ś› of the alphabet of Lugano, in whichmost Celtic inscriptions of northern Italy and Switzerland areengraved. For its use in an idionym which is otherwise en-graved in Roman characters and whose language is Latinised,cf. SVRICA CIpOIS F. (CIM 73; Levo: ca. 100 × 50 BCE) inCeltic territory.28 , also oriented as , occurs as a supple-mentary character in Camunic abecedaria, e.gg., position 30 inNIC pC 10b,22. It also occurs infrequently in Camunic inscrip-tions, e.g., NIC pC 17d,29, though its phonological value isunknown.29

b. occurs in the Camunic alphabet only, in which it occupiesthe ‹θ› position in abecedaria.30 In view of the existence = ‹t›in Camunic, it could well represent /th/. Both Schürr and zava-roni take it to represent a /t/ of some variety in l. 5, but /d/ in l.6.

c. = ‹o› appears to be the Roman character. In Camunicabecedaria and inscriptions, ‹o› is a small character, eitherround or diamond-shaped .31

d. = ‹m› appears to be a turned four-bar Roman , i.e., with allfour strokes of roughly equal length. The oblique bars of theCamunic character meet the vertical bar about halfway up, viz.,. NB that turned occurs in Cisalp. Celt. ←ii =Koimila (CIS 125 = CIM 69; Levo: ca. 150 × 100 BCE).32

e. = ‹e› is the normal shape not only in the Camunic alphabet,but also in the Celtic, Raetic, and Venetic alphabets of northernItaly.

f. The alberello character – and its allograph – is difficult. Itoccurs in the sig ma position in Camunic abecedaria and ap-pears to represent /s/ in inscriptions. We note that appears tobe the shape of ‹z› in the inscription on the bronze wine jug

28 STIFTER 2010: 368, like Schürr and zavaroni, takes to be for , though hetakes it to be an error, rather than a digraph. We find the likelihood of such an unusu-al error to have occurred twice in different locales to be remote.

29 TIBILETTI BRUNO 1990: 83 transliterates the character as ⟨š⟩.30 Theta may also appear bearing the shape in IV FN 13 (so MANCINI 1980:

142). TIBILETTI BRUNO 1990: 57-8 interprets the final character of NIC pC 4d,17,which bears the shape , as a theta.

31 The character bears the shape □ in NIC pC 4d,17 and NIC FN 5e,61. SeeTIBILETTI BRUNO 1990: 57-8 & 136-8, respectively, and MORANDI 1998: 103.

32 TIBILETTI BRUNO 1978b provides a facsimile at 7bis on the plate following 24.


from Castaneda nel Cantone dei Grigioni (Switzerland).33 Un-fortunately, the linguistic affiliation and interpretation of thisinscription remain uncertain.34

g. = ‹c› is the Roman character. Gamma = ‹g› appears bearingthe shapes , , and in Camunic abecedaria, but is not cer-tainly attested in inscriptions.35

h. in l. 5 probably is for , since ‹a› otherwise bears the shape in the indigenous text.36 is the normal shape of ‹u› in Ve-netic and Raetic alphabets. It is found in Camunic abecedariaand inscriptions from piancogno and Foppe di Nadro in thatshape, but ‹u› generally bears the shape at other sites, e.gg.,Berzo Demo, Naquane, and pla d’Ort. N.B. the Etruscisedform ←i = keltie from Spina (ca. 300 BCE),37 whichplaces the use of to represent ‹l› in northern Italy.38

i. is one of the shapes of ‹a› in the Celtic alphabet of northernItaly. This shape for alpha is rare in Camunic, restricted to oneabecedarium (NIC pC 6,19, turned to ) and one inscription

33 MOTTA 2000: 207-8 & 2001: 315-7 has noted that beside the well knownCisalpine Celtic coin legend seceθu (Verdello: ca. 400 BCE), there are now attestedtwo tokens of the form seKezos (CIM 189 & 191; Como-prestino: ca. 450 × 400BCE) (there likely are two further fragmentary tokens from the same site, restored byMorandi as [se]Kezos [CIM 190] and [seK]ezos [CIM 192]), which appear to beclosely related. He suggests that the former continues *-ed-ū, the latter *-ed-os (soalso prósper in VILLAR – pRóSpER 2005: 285-6), with representing /d/. As attrac-tive as this proposal may be, the existence of Latinised dat. sg. SEGESSAE (CIL v4717) virtually guarantees that seKezos continues *segestos, as per SOLINAS 2004-5:591-3 and RUBAT BOREL 2005: 25.

34 MARKEY – MEES 2004 argues that the inscription is Celtic in language, but weremain agnostic.

35 See pROSDOCIMI 1965: 584 for a possible example, but note that MANCINI

1980: 118 thinks that the character is more likely to be transliterated as ‹l›.36 WHATMOUGH 1933: 57 states that the cross-stroke is very shallow and may be

a modern defacement, though MEID 1989: 21 is surely correct when he remarks that‘[d]ie Querhaste ist breit und einigermaßen tief, und ist sicher nicht rezentenDatums.’ We believe it likely that the cross-stroke is an error induced by the four‹A›s in the Latinised portion of the inscription.

37 COLONNA 1993: 140 fig. 14 and VITALI 1998: fig. 3 provide photographs.38 As far as we are aware, = ‹u› never occurs inverted to in neo-Etruscan

inscriptions. Sporadic examples of turned characters are found in Archaic Etruscaninscriptions from Veii, e.gg., CIE ii 1, 5 6670 (san), 6672 (alpha, upsilon), and 6703(san, upsilon). In our view, then, transliterating as ‹l› to yield keltie rather than as‹u› to yield keutie is certainly no less probable.


(NIC pC 11c,23).39 The normal shape of the Camunic charac-ter is , either upright or a turned.40 The shape is also com-mon in later Venetic and Raetic inscriptions.

j. i = ‹i› is the normal shape in all of the Etruscoid alphabets ofnorthern Italy. The Camunic character most often bears theshape i, but it sometimes leans to the left or right. In a few to-kens, a very short horizontal bar crosses the middle of themain bar, e.g., NIC BD 6f.

k. Full-looped = ‹b› appears to be the Roman character. The Ca-munic beta-shaped character is infrequently attested in inscrip-tions, e.g., NIC pC 31a,43. It has two, sometimes three, loopsthat are less full, and are occasionally toothed, viz., , e.gg.,NIC pC 31a,43 & NIC zu 67. The character is found in thesan position in Camunic abecedaria, which points to it repre-senting a sibilant, perhaps /ʃ/.

l. 6 = ‹n› appears to be the reverse of the Roman character 7.The shape of the equivalent Camunic character has two shortoblique bars that attach to the vertical bar at the mid-waypoint, viz., . Reversed occurs in Cisalp. Celt.←i | i = aśKoneTio | Pianu (CIS 120 =CIM 65; Brisino: ca. 150 × 100 BCE)41 and ← = Tunal(CIS 125 = CIM 69; Levo: ca. 150 × 100 BCE).42

§15. Of the 12 indigenous characters that occur in the inscription, then,only one, , is definitely Camunic. Another, the alberello character (and its allograph ), is likely to be.43 Four others, , , , and i, could

39 In NIC pC 26o,38, the right bar of ‹a› is vertical, but the top oblique bar ismuch longer than the medial bar, thus giving the character the appearance of an openalpha rather than a digamma.

40 Alpha is upright in Camunic inscriptions and abecedaria from piancogno andFoppe di Nadro, but is generally turned at other sites, e.gg., Berzo Demo, Naquane,and pla d’Ort. It is worth noting that in most, if not all, inscriptions, when alpha iswritten upright, upsilon is turned, and that when alpha is turned, upsilon is writtenupright, so that the characters are stylistically in synch, e.g., . This practice is notalways adhered to in abecedaria, e.g., NIC pC 27p,39, in which both alpha andupsilon are turned.

41 A photograph and facsimile are provided by DE GIULI 1978-9: 246.42 TIBILETTI BRUNO 1978b provides a facsimile at 7bis on the plate following 24.43 David Stifter suggests to us that the presence of and the alberello character

in the indigenous alphabet indicates that it is Camunic at its core, but we do notagree. Since Voltino is not in the Camunic speech area, it seems clear that had


be, but are not certainly so. Two characters, and , are Roman. , ,and 6 may well be, too, but could be Celtic. Finally, could be Camunic,but it is more likely to be Celtic.

Some factors for a Celtic analysis

§16. It seems clear that the indigenous text is engraved in a mixed al-phabet that has at least three sources: Camunic, Latin, and Celtic, perhapsalso Etruscan, Raetic, or Venetic. In view of this fact, it seems reasonableto give a wide berth to the uncertainties in transliteration.

Even were one to fix a basic identity on the indigenous alphabet, itdoes not follow that a script could be employed for only one language.The inscription of Oderzo (CIM 271; ca. 500 BCE), for example, is en-graved in the Venetic alphabet, but is Celtic in its morphosyntax (ESKA –WALLACE 1999).

§17. It should be noted that Voltino is not located in the Val Camoni-ca, where the vast majority of the Camunic epigraphic corpus is attested,but in the territory of the Cenomani, a Celtic tribe whose main centre wasat Brescia, and in which a number of linguistically Celtic inscriptionshave been found (see DE MARINIS – MOTTA 2007).

§18. Outside of Lat. Sext(i)us, which is very common in the region(UNTERMANN 1959: 141-3), the three names in the Latinised portion ofthe inscription are likely to be Celtic.

(12) a. To TETVMVS,44 cf. Transalp. Celt. tetio (GLG 53.3), La-tinised TETTO|SERVS (CIL xiii 6087), etc. (see DELAMARRE2007: 180-1).

b. To DVGIAVA,45 cf. Latinised Cisalp. Celt. dat. sg. DV-GIAVAE (CIL v 4887), Transalp. Celt. dougilio" (RIG G–4),etc. (see DELAMARRE 2007: 90-1).

become fashionable beyond the Val Camonica. And the alberello character is alsofound in pre-Samnite inscriptions – representing /s/, as appears to be the case inCamunic – that date to the sixth century BCE (see RUSSO 2005: 59-70 and RIX 2005:326-7), as well as appearing as a siglum on ceramic ware throughout ancient Italy atall periods. We, thus, would not label the indigenous alphabet as Camunic at its coreon the basis of two characters.

44 UNTERMANN 1959: 127 notes that ‘[n]ur im Brescianer Gebiet gibt es ein-heimische I[ndividual namen] und Cognomina in -umus.’

45 UNTERMANN 1959: 137 notes that, contrary to -umo-/-ā, -au o-/-ā ‘[e]ben-sowenig ist … eine spezifische Besonderheit des Brescianer Gebiets.’


c. To SAADIS, cf. Cisalp. Celt. sasamos (CIS 129 = CIM 45;Ornavasso; 89 × 50 BCE), Transalp. Celt. SAS|SVLA (CIL xiii5913), etc. (see DELAMARRE 2007: 161).

Epigraphic considerations

§19. The following epigraphic assumptions must be made to get to aCeltic reading of the Voltino inscription:

(13) a. must be read as representing /t/. This does not seem to beproblematic.

b. and its allograph must be read as representing /d/ – or, per-haps more likely, the intervocalic allophone of /d/, probably[ð].

c. must be read as representing /l/, as occurs in an Etruscan in-scription from Spina.

Celtic linguistic features

§20. Given the highly mixed character of the indigenous alphabet andthe uncertainties occasioned by it, we believe that the traditional translit-eration of the inscription in support of a Celtic analysis, as set out in (14),is defensible:46

(14) to= me= d(e)- ec- la- -ipREV 1.SG.OBJ pREV pREV put 3.SG.pERFobalda nat-inaO.NOM.SG daughter-?DIM?.NOM.SG‘O., (their) (?dear?) daughter, set me up.’47

46 The alberello character is here transliterated with ‹d›, though we suspect that itrepresents [ð]. If the character is, indeed, Camunic in origin and to be transliteratedas ‹s›, we would argue that it, as a character that represents a coronal frictive, hasbeen pressed into service to represent a phone, viz., [ð], for which a character was notreadily available.

47 DE BERNARDO STEMpEL 2011: 75 segments the Celtic text as to=me deklaiobalda natina ‘anche per me ho fatto io Obalda, natina’, treating to=me as a prepo-sition equivalent to OIr. du-/do- with attached clitic 1. singular pronoun. The preposi-


§21. The following Celtic linguistic features are in evidence:

(15) a. The use of the empty preverb to to act as host for an unstressedpronoun. Cf. the following Cisalpine Celtic verbal form (RIG*E–2 = CIS 141 = CIM 100; Vercelli: end of first half of firstcentury BCE):

To= śo= Ko- T- -epREV 3.SG.OBJ pREV give 3.SG.pERF‘He gave it.’

śo= = /đõ/=48 < acc. sg. *(i)stom, an apherisised clitic form ofstressed 3. masc. nom. sg. pron. iśos (CIS 119 = CIM 106;Vergiate: ca. 500 BCE); Ko- = /kõ/- < *kom; T- = /d/-, the nil-grade form of *deh3- ‘give’49 or *dʱeh1- ‘place’.

b. The combination of *de- and *ek- as perfective preverbs; cf.OIr. 3. sg. pret. dessid ‘has sat’ < *de-ek-sed- (to saidid ‘sits’).

c. The suppletive preterital root lā- ‘put’; cf. OIr. 3. sg. pret. ro∙lá‘has put’ (to ∙cuirethar ‘puts’). SCHUMACHER 2004: 443 con-nects the root to *leh1- ‘nachlassen, (zu)lassen’ (LIV2 399),which seems preferable to *h1elh2- ‘wohin treiben’ (LIV2 235),which was proposed by ESKA 1989: 1073 and MCCONE 1991:33, for the reasons he sets out.50 He takes 3. sg. aor. *-t to havebeen lost and the remaining final vowel in a monosyllable tohave been lengthened as per THURNEYSEN 1946: 32. Once thedesinence was lost, the form was recharacterised by the affixa-tion of 3. sg. perf. *-e; -lai resulted either via raising of */e/ >

tion, however, is dū, as attested in the Transalp. Celt. conn. du=ci, lit. ‘to here’ (e.g.,GLG 3.10), and it governs the dative case, so the pronominal form would be either*=moi or, with contraction of the diphthong, *=mī. We do not find any value in heranalysis.

48 đ is employed as a cover symbol for the tau Gallicum phoneme, on which seeESKA 1998.

49 We assume the analogical restoration of the colour of the perfect desinenceshould the root be *deh3-.

50 MARKEY – MEES 2004: 88 derive the root from *logʱ- (to *legʱ- ‘sich(hin)legen’ [LIV2 398]), but such a connection is not possible, for not only is *legʱ-monovalent – whereas the text includes a direct object –, but the change of */o/ > /a/is not Celtic and DVGIAVA demonstrates that intervocalic /ɡ/ was not lost in thelanguage of this inscription.


/i/ in hiatus with a preceding long vowel or via diphthongisa-tion of */aː.e/ > /a(ː)j/.51

d. The word for daughter, nātā (cf. Transalp. Celt. NATA [e.g.,RIG L–112]) < *g nh1-teh2 lit. ‘one having been born’ (cf.GNATHA [RIG L–119] and GENETA [RIG L–114] < *genh1-eteh2).

52 The nominal suffix -ina has usually been identified asa diminutive exponent (e.gg., HAMp 1989: 108 and MEID1989: 22), which certainly makes sense in context, but we notealso, while maintaining our agnosticism on the matter, the ex-istence of a suffix -īnā employed to form the designations offemale living beings in such Latin forms as concubīna ‘concu-bine’ ← concumbere ‘sleep with’, gallīna ‘hen’ ← gallus‘cock’, lībertīna ‘freedwoman’ ← lībertus ‘freedman’, andrēgīna ‘queen’ ← rēx ‘king’ (see WEISS 2009: 288).53

e. The fronting of the verb to clause-initial position when an ob-ject pronoun is present in the clause, a phenomenon known asVendryes’ Restriction. Two other tokens are attested in laterCisalpine Celtic and Transalpine Celtic:54

i. Cisalpine Celtic (RIG *E–2 = CIS 141 = CIM 100):55

aKisios arKaToKo{K}|maTereKosi To= śoj= | Ko- T- -ei

A. A.NOM.SG pREV 3.SG.MASC.OBJ pREV give3.SG.pERF

ạTomj Teuoc|Toniọnborder.ACC.SG god.man.GEN.pL

‘A. A.i, he gavei itj, a borderj of gods and men.’

51 Cf. early Cisalp. Celt. 3. sg. pret. KariTe and KaḷiTe (CIS 119 = CIM 106),which continue imperfect forms to which 3. sg. perf. *-e was affixed in order torecharacterise them after apocope of hīc-et-nunc *-i created ambiguity with the 3.single present forms (ESKA 1990: 83-4).

52 Cf. OIr. geined ‘offspring; person’, on which see BREATNACH 1994.53 MARKEY – MEES 2004: 88 prefers to regard natina as an idionym in asyndeton

with obalda, but since the verb appears to be singular in number, we discount suchan analysis. MORANDI 2004: 671 also speculates as to whether natina may be anidionym, but notes that it would have to be in apposition to obalda.

54 The unmarked clausal configuration of these languages is SVO with pro-drop(ESKA 2007). The unmarked clausal configuration of earlier Cisalpine Celtic is SOV.

55 NB that this inscription manifests an instance of left dislocation, so the clauseformally begins with the verb, and that the object agreement marker doubles thenominal accusative argument (as also in the second token).


ii.Transalpine Celtic (GLG 14.20–1 = RIG L–31; La Graufesenque:40 × 68 CE):sioxt =ii albanos pannai extra?add?.3.SG.pRET 3.pL.NEUT.OBJ A.NOM.SG vessel.ACC.pL beyondtuđ(đon) cccallotment.ACC.SG 300

‘A. added themi, vesselsi beyond the allotment (in the amountof) 300.’

Conclusion

§22. In an inscription such as that of Voltino, in which the translitera-tion of some of the characters of the indigenous alphabet is in question, itis necessary, when possible, to allow non-epigraphic factors to aid in theanalysis. A Celtic reading of the indigenous text requires us to transliter-ate (and its allograph ) and as ⟨d⟩ and ⟨l⟩, respectively. The translit-eration of the former, we acknowledge, is problematic, though perhapsnot insuperable,56 and we have provided some reason for why the lattermay be justified. Such an analysis buys us so much linguistically, as illus-trated in §21, that the epigraphic cost seems relatively small. Could thepresence of so many Celtic linguistic features be coïncidental?

Abbreviations

CIE = COLONNA – MARAS 2006CII = FABRETTI 1867CIL = Corpus inscriptionum LatinarumCIM = MORANDI 2004CIS = SOLINAS 1995ESEL = HÜBNER 1885ET = RIX 1991GLG = MARICHAL 1988IL = Inscriptiones ItaliaeIV = MANCINI 1980LIV2 = KÜMMEL – RIX 2001NIC = TIBILETTI BRUNO 1990

56 Especially if the character is Cam. ‹s› and is employed to represent [ð], as dis-cussed in n. 46.


pID = WHATMOUGH 1933RIG E = LEJEUNE 1988: 1–54RIG G = LEJEUNE 1985RIG L = LAMBERT 2002

References

BREATNACH 1994: L. Breatnach, Irish geined and geinit, Gaulish geneta,Welsh geneth, “Ériu”, 45 (1994), pp. 195-6.

COLONNA 1993: G. Colonna, La società spinetica e gli altri ethne, in F.Berti – p. G. Guzzo (eds.), Spina. Storia di una città tra Greci edEtruschi, Ferrare Arte, Ferrara, 1993, pp. 131-43.

COLONNA – MARAS 2006: G. Colonna – D. F. Maras, Corpus inscription-um Etruscarum, ii, 1, 5, (Tituli 6325-6723), et addit. vol. II, 2, 1(Tituli 8881-8927) (Inscriptiones Veiis et in agro Veientano,Nepesino Sutrinoque repertae, additis illis in agro Capenate etFalisco inventis, quae in fasciculo CIE II, 2, 1 desunt, nec non illisperpaucis in finitimis Sabinis repertis), Centro di Studio perl’Archeologia Etrusco-Italica, Roma, 2006.

DE BERNARDO STEMpEL 2011: p. De Bernardo Stempel, Il testo pregalli-co della stele di Vercelli nel contesto delle lingue celtiche. Conun’appendice sull’indicativo passato nel verbo celtico continentale,in G. Cantino Wataghin (ed.), Finem dare. Il confine, tra sacro,profane e immaginario. A margine della stele bilingue del MuseoLeone di Vercelli, Edizioni Mercurio, Vercelli, 2011.

DE GIULI 1978-9: A. De Giuli, Le stele funerarie di Brisino, “Sibrium”,14 (1978-9), pp. 245-52.

DE MARINIS – MOTTA 2007: R. C. De Marinis – F. Motta, Iscrizioni del IIe I secolo a.C. dal territorio insubre e cenomane, “Annali benacen-si”, 13-4 (2007), pp. 135-60.

DELAMARRE 2007: X. Delamarre, Noms de personnes celtiques dansl’épigraphie classique, Errance, paris, 2007.

ESKA 1989: J. F. Eska, Interpreting the Gaulish inscription of Voltino,“BBCS”, 36 (1989), pp. 106-7.

ESKA 1990: J. F. Eska, The so-called weak or dental preterite in Conti-nental Celtic, Watkins’ Law, and related matters, “HS”, 103 (1990),pp. 81-91.

ESKA 1998: J. F. Eska, Tau Gallicum, “SCelt”, 32 (1998), pp. 115-27.ESKA 2007: J. F. Eska, On basic configuration and movement within the

Gaulish clause, in p.-Y. Lambert – G.-J. pinault 2007, pp. 215-29.


ESKA – WALLACE 1999: J. F. Eska – R. E. Wallace, The linguistic milieuof *Oderzo 7, “HS”, 112 (1999), pp. 122-36.

ESKA – WEISS 1996: J. F. Eska – M. Weiss, Segmenting Gaul. tomede-clai, “SCelt”, 30 (1996), pp. 289-92.

FABRETTI 1867: A. Fabretti, Corpus inscriptionum Italicarum antiquiorisaevi ordine geographico digestum, Officina Regia, Aug. Taurino-rum, 1867.

HAMp 1989: E. p. Hamp, Voltino to-, “BBCS”, 36 (1989), pp. 107-8.HÜBNER 1885: E. Hübner, Exempla scripturae epigraphicae Latinae a

Caesaris dictatoris morte ad aetatem Iustiniani Consilio et autori-tate Academiae litterarum regiae borussicae, G. Reimer, Berlin,1885.

KOCH 1985: J. T. Koch, Movement and emphasis in the Gaulish sentence,“BBCS”, 32 (1985), pp. 1-37.

KÜMMEL – RIX 2001: M. Kümmel – H. Rix, Lexikon der indogermani-schen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen2, Dr.Ludwig Reichert, Wiesbaden, 2001.

LAMBERT 2002: p.-Y. Lambert, Recueil des inscriptions gauloises, ii/2,Textes gallo-latins sur instrumentum, Centre National de laRecherche Scientifique, paris, 2002.

LAMBERT – pINAULT 2007: p.-Y. Lambert – G.-J. pinault (eds.), Gauloiset celtique con tinental, Droz, Genève, 2007.

LATTES 1893: E. Lattes, Di due nuove iscrizioni preromane trovate pressoPesaro in relazione cogli ultimi studi intorno alla questione tir-reno-pelasgica, “RALinc”, Ser. V, 2 (1893), pp. 1017-52.

LATTES 1914: E. Lattes, A che punto siamo coll’interpretazione dei testietruschi?, “RhM”, 69 (1914), pp. 464-76.

LEJEUNE 1971: M. Lejeune, Lepontica, Société d’Edition «Les Belles Let-tres», paris, 1971.

LEJEUNE 1985: M. Lejeune, Recueil des inscriptions gauloises, i, Textesgallo-grecs, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, paris,1985.

LEJEUNE 1988: M. Lejeune, Recueil des inscriptions gauloises, ii/1,Textes gallo-étrusques. Textes gallo-latins sur pierre, Centre Na-tional de la Recherche Scientifique, paris, 1988.

MANCINI 1980: A. Mancini, Le iscrizioni della Valcamonica, “StudiUrbinati di storia, filosofia, letteratura”, Supplemento 2/1 (1980),pp. 75-166.

MARICHAL 1988: R. Marichal, Les graffites de La Graufesenque, CentreNational de la Re cherche Scientifique, paris, 1988.

MARKEY – MEES 2004: Th. L. Markey – B. Mees, A Celtic orphan fromCastaneda, “zCph”, 54 (2004), pp. 54-120.


MCCONE 1991: K. McCone, The Indo-European origins of the Old Irishnasal presents, subjunctives and futures, Institut für Sprachwis-senschaft der Universität, Innsbruck, 1991.

MEID 1989: W. Meid, zur Lesung and Deutung gallischer Inschriften, In-stitut für Sprach wissenschaft der Universität, Innsbruck, 1989.

MOMMSEN 1853: Th. Mommsen, Die nordetruskischen Alphabete auf In-schriften und Münzen, “Mitteilungen der antiquarischenGesellschaft in zürich”, 7 (1853), 198-259.

MORANDI 1998: A. Morandi, Epigrafia camuna. Osservazioni su alcuniaspetti della documentazione, “RBpH”, 76 (1998), 99-124.

MORANDI 2004: A. Morandi, Celti d’Italia ii, Epigrafia e lingua, SpazioTre, Roma, 2004.

MOTTA 2000: F. Motta, La documentazione epigrafica e linguistica, in R.C. de Marinis – S. Biaggio Simona (eds.), I Leponti tra mito e re-altà, ii, Armando Dadò, Locarno, 2000, pp. 181-222.

MOTTA 2001: F. Motta, Testimonianze dirette e testimonianze indirettedelle celticità linguistica d’Italia, in La protostoria in Lombardia.Atti del convegno, Como, Villa Olmo, 22-23-24 ottobre 1999, Soci-età Archeologica Comense, Como, 2001, pp. 301-24.

ODERICI 1853: F. Oderici, Storie bresciane dai primi tempi sino all’etànostra, i, pietro di Lor. Gilberti, Brescia, 1853.

pAULI 1885: C. pauli, Altitalische Forschungen, i, Die Inschriften nord -etruskischen Alphabets, Johann Ambrosius Barth, Leipzig, 1885.

pROSDOCIMI 1965: A. L. prosdocimi, Per una edizione delle iscrizionidella Val Camonica, “SE”, 33 (1965), pp. 575-99.

RHŷS 1905-6: J. Rhŷs, The Celtic inscriptions of France and Italy,“pBA”, 2 (1905-6), pp. 273-373.

RHŷS 1913-4a: J. Rhŷs, The Celtic inscriptions of Cisapline Gaul,“pBA”, 6 (1913-4), pp. 23-112.

RHŷS 1913-4b: J. Rhŷs, Gleanings in the Italian field of Celtic epigraphy,“pBA”, 6 (1913-4), pp. 315-69.

RISCH 1992: E. Risch, Die Räter als sprachliches Problem, in I. R. Metz -ger & p. Gleirscher (eds.), Die Räter / I Reti, Verlagsanstalt Athe-sis, Bozen, 1992, pp. 673-90.

RIX 1991: H. Rix, Etruskische Texte. Editio minor, G. Narr, Tübingen,1991.

RIX 2005: H. Rix, Alphabete im vorrömischen Kampanien, in Th. Gan-schow – M. Steinhart (eds.) (in Verbindung mit D. Berges – Th.Fröhlich), Otium. Festschrift für Volker Michael Strocka, BernhardAlbert Greiner, Remshalden, 2005, pp. 323-30.

ROBERT 1886: p.-Ch. Robert, L’inscription de Voltino et ses interpreté-tions, “Revue celtique”, 7 (1886), pp. 436-40.


RUBAT BOREL 2005: F. Rubat Borel, Lingue e scritture delle Alpi occi-dentali prima della romanizzazione. Stato della questione e nuovericerche, “Bulletin d’études préhistoriques et archéologiquesalpines”, 16 (2005), pp. 9-50.

RUSSO 2005: M. Russo, Sorrento. Una nuova iscrizione paleoitalica in al-fabeto ‘nucerino’ e alter iscrizioni archaiche dalla CollezioneFluss, Oebalus, Capri, 2005.

SCHUMACHER 2004: S. Schumacher (unter Mitarbeit von B. Schulze-Thulin – C. aan de Wiel), Die keltischen Primärverben. Ein ver -gleichendes, etymologisches und morphologisches Lexikon, Institutfür Sprachwissenschaft der Universität, Innsbruck, 2004.

SCHUMACHER 2007: S. Schumacher, Val Camonica, Inschriften, in H.Jankuhn – J. Hoops – H. Beck (eds.), Reallexikon der german -ischen Altertumskunde2, xxxv, Speckstein bis zwiebel, de Gruyter,Berlin, pp. 334-37.

SCHÜRR 2007: D. Schürr, zur Doppelinschrift von Voltino, “SE”, 72(2007), pp. 335-46.

SOLINAS 1995: p. Solinas, Il celtico in Italia, “SE”, 60 (1995), pp. 311-408.

SOLINAS 2004-5: p. Solinas, Sul celtico d’Italia. Le forme in -u del lep-onzio, “Atti del’Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti. Classedi scienze morali, lettere ed arti”, 163 (2004-5), pp. 559-601.

STIFTER 2008: D. Stifter, Review of p.-Y. Lambert – G.-J. pinault 2007,“Keltische Forschungen”, 3 (2008), pp. 267-91.

STIFTER 2010: D. Stifter, Lepontische Studien. Lexicon Leponticum unddie Funktion von san im Lepontischen, in K. Stüber – Th. zehnder– D. Bachmann (eds.), Akten des 5. deutschsprachigen Keltologen-symposiums, praesens, Wien, 2010, pp. 361-76.

STOKES 1886: Wh. Stokes, Celtic declension, “Beiträge zur Kunde der in-dogermanischen Sprachen”, 11 (1886), pp. 64-175.

THURNEYSEN 1923: R. Thurneysen, Irisches und Gallisches, “zCph”, 14(1923), pp. 1-12.

THURNEYSEN 1946: R. Thurneysen, A grammar of Old Irish, rev. & trans.D. A. Binchy – Osborn Bergin, Dublin Institute for AdvancedStudies, Dublin, 1946.

TIBILETTI BRUNO 1978a: M. G. Tibiletti Bruno, Camuno, retico epararetico, in A. L. prosdocimi (ed.), Popoli e civiltà dell’Italia an-tica vi, Lingue e dialetti, Biblioteca di Storia patria, Roma, 1978,pp. 209-55.

TIBILETTI BRUNO 1978b: M. G. Tibiletti Bruno, Resti linguistici pre-romani nell’area padana (con specialle riguardo all’area fral’Oglio e il Tartaro), “Annali benacensi”, 5 (1978), pp. 5-24.


TIBILETTI BRUNO 1990: M. G. Tibiletti Bruno, Nuove iscrizioni camune,“Quaderni camuni”, 49-50 (1990), pp. 29-171.

TIBILETTI BRUNO 1992: M. G. Tibiletti Bruno, Gli alfabetari, “Quadernicamuni”, 60 (1992), pp. 308-80.

UNTERMANN 1959-61: J. Untermann, Namenlandschaften im alten Oberi-talien, “BNF”, 10 (1959), pp. 74-108, 121-59; 11 (1960), pp. 273-318; 12 (1961), pp. 1-30.

VILLAR – pRóSpER 2005: F. Villar – B. M. prósper, Vascos, Celtas e In-doeuropeos. Genes y lenguas, Universidad de Salamanca, Salaman-ca, 2005.

VITALI 1998: D. Vitali, I celti e Spina, in F. Rebecchi (ed.), Spina e ildelta padano. Riflessioni sul catalogo e sulla mostra ferrarese,‘L’erma’ di Bretschneider, Roma, 1998, pp. 253-73.

WEISS 2009: M. Weiss, Outline of the historical and comparative gram-mar of Latin, Beechstave press, Ann Arbor, 2009.

WHATMOUGH 1933: J. Whatmough, The prae-Italic dialects of Italy, ii,The Raetic, Lepontic, Gallic, East-Italic, Messapic and Sicel in-scriptions with the glosses in ancient writers and the local and di-vine names of ancient Italy, Harvard University press, Cambridge,MA, 1933.

zAVARONI 2001: A. zavaroni, L’alfabeto camuno, “Studi trentini”, 80(2001), pp. 715-43.

zAVARONI 2003: A. zavaroni, The Camunic inscriptions. A phonologicalframework, “GL”, 43 (2003), pp. 87-105.

zAVARONI 2005a: A. zavaroni, Gli alfabetari camuni, “Res antiquae”, 2(2005), pp. 363-80.

zAVARONI 2005b: A. zavaroni, Il passaggio dall’alfabeto epicorico al-l’alfabeto latino in Valcamonico, “Aevum”, 79 (2005), pp. 23-9.

zAVARONI 2008: A zavaroni, La bilingue gallo-camuna di Voltino e CILv 4883, “Ollodagos”, 22 (2008), pp. 15-38.

Script and language at ancient Voltino

Documents

Transcript of Script and language at ancient Voltino