review of: Blanca María Prósper, Estudio lingüístico del plomo celtibérico de Iniesta [= Acta Salmanticensia. Estudios filológicos 319], Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca 2007

Keltische Forschungen Herausgegeben im Auftrag von Brennos – Verein für Keltologie von David Stifter unter redaktioneller Mitarbeit von Hannes Tauber

Praesens Verlag Literaturwissenschaft | Sprachwissenschaft Musikwissenschaft | Kulturwissenschaft

Wien

Ke l t i s c h e For schungen 3 · 2008

Inhalt Vorwort des Herausgebers zur dritten Ausgabe Editor’s Foreword to the Third Volume

9 10

Gerhard DOBESCH In memoriam Kurt Tomaschitz

11

Hazel BUTLER Birth, Looms and Irish Queens: The Power and Influence of Iron Age Women

17

Charlene M. ESKA Non-lawful Betrothals in Early Irish Law

33

Joseph F. ESKA Grammars in Conflict. Phonological Aspects of the Bergin’s Rule Construction

45

Andreas HOFENEDER Die ‘Druidinnen’ der Historia Augusta

63

Anders Richardt JØRGENSEN Middle Breton leiff, Middle Cornish ly ‘Breakfast, Lunch’

89

Raimund KARL Hausfrieden. Die Siedlung als magisch-religiös geschützter Raum

103

Ronald I. KIM The Celtic Feminine Numerals ‘3’ and ‘4’ Revisited

143

7

Bernard MEES The Women of Larzac

169

Blanca María PRÓSPER Some Thoughts on the Gaulish Result of Common Celtic -mn- in Galatian

189

William SAYERS A Swedish Traveler’s Reception on an Irish Stage Set Snorri Sturluson’s Gylfaginning

201

Stefan SEITSCHEK Noreia – Viele Antworten, keine Lösung

221

David STIFTER Gustav Schirmer

245

Rezensionen

253

Ph. Freeman, The Philosopher and the Druids: A Journey Among the Ancient Celts, London 2006 (A. Hofeneder)

253

E.-M. Winkler, Kelten heute. Das Keltenbild in der Moderne von der Wissenschaft bis zur Esoterik, Wien 2006 (K. Kowarik)

263

G. Thomas & N. Williams, Bewnans Ke: The Life of St Kea, Exeter 2007 (A. Bock & J. Weiss)

264

P.-Y. Lambert & G.-J. Pinault, Gaulois et celtique continental, Genève 2007 (D. Stifter)

267

B.M. Prósper, Estudio lingüístico del plomo celtibérico de Iniesta, Salamanca 2007 (D. Stifter)

291

D. Ditchburn & al., Atlas of Medieval Europe, Abingdon – New York 2007 (D. Stifter)

296

J. Koch, An Atlas for Celtic Studies, Oxford – Aberystwyth 2007 (D. Stifter)

299

A. Werner, Keltische Kochbarkeiten, Stuttgart 2007 (M. Swoboda-Hüttinger)

304

M.E. Raybould & P. Sims-Williams, A Corpus of Latin Inscriptions of the Roman Empire containing Celtic Personal Names, Aberystwyth 2007 (H. Müller)

307

M. Lieberman, The March of Wales 1067–1300. A Borderland of Medieval Britain, Cardiff 2008 (H. Tauber)

309

Abstracts

313



REZENSIONEN

UNTERMANN 1959 UNTERMANN 1960

UNTERMANN 1961 ZAVARONI 2008

IV. Celtic Linguistics, London – New York: Routledge 2007, 45–73]. Jürgen Untermann, ‘Namenlandschaften im alten Oberitalien’, Beiträge zur Namenforschung 10 (1959), 74–108, 121–159. Jürgen Untermann, ‘Namenlandschaften im alten Oberitalien (Fortsetzung)’, Beiträge zur Namenforschung 11 (1960), 273– 318. Jürgen Untermann, ‘Namenlandschaften im alten Oberitalien (Fortsetzung)’, Beiträge zur Namenforschung 12 (1961), 1–30. Adolfo Zavaroni, ‘La bilingue gallo-camuna di Voltino CIL V 4883’, Ollodagos 22 (2008). David Stifter

*

* *

Blanca María Prósper, Estudio lingüístico del plomo celtibérico de Iniesta. $FWD6DOPDQWLFHQVLD(VWXGLRV¿OROyJLFRV6DODPDQFD(GLFLRQHV8QLYHUsidad de Salamanca 2007. 152 pp. ISBN 978-84-7800-365-5. EUR 16,-. In the past years it has proved to be a rule of thumb that in regular intervals of ca. 3 years a new, long Celtiberian inscription comes to light and is published. Almost as expected, with only a slight delay, four years after Botorrita IV, which was published in 2001, the most recent text was made accessible in print in 2005 (LORRIO & VELAZA 2005; see also JORDÁN CÓLERA 2006). The text was found in the area of Castillejo de Iniesta (Cuenca) and is therefore called the ‘lead plate from Iniesta’ in the book reviewed here; the circumstances and WKHH[DFWORFDWLRQRIWKH¿QGZKLFKZDVVDOYDJHGIURPWKHEODFNPDUNHWDUH unknown, as so deplorably often in Celtiberian. The text is remarkable for a QXPEHURIUHDVRQVLWLVWKH¿UVWNQRZQ&HOWLEHULDQLQVFULSWLRQRQOHDGDPDterial that has been frequently employed in the textual tradition of Iberian; it is the southernmost Celtiberian text found in the peninsula; to all intents and purposes, the text has the appearance of a private letter and is therefore an interesting counterpoint to the long bronze texts known so far, which probably EHORQJHGWRWKHRI¿FLDOVSKHUHDQGDFRQVLGHUDEOHQXPEHURIWKHFDZRUGV on the plate are known from other texts or are reminiscent of known word forms. Although such an observation usually raises grave doubts about the authenticity of an inscription, in all other regards there is nothing to suggest a fake. The echoes in diction may be due to the constraints of the genre. 

REZENSIONEN

Blanca María Prósper, who has produced a series of important contributions to palaeohispanic linguistics in the past years, has written a whole book on the new text. She makes no statements about the material aspects of the text; these can be found in LORRIO & VELAZA 2005. The book is entirely devoted to the textual interpretation. The greatest part of the book (23–101) belongs to chapter 1 ‘Estúdio lingüístico’. I want to highlight a few selected points: rouzunei (30–31): Prósper quite convincingly reads this word, which must belong to Celt. *ro٩do- ‘red’, either as the dat. of a personal name *ro٩Gnj, corresponding to Lat. 5njIǀ, or as the loc. of a placename *ro٩duno-. I want to add WKDWRQSXUHO\IRUPDOJURXQGVLWFRXOGDOVREHWKHLQ¿QLWLYHRIDWKHPDWLFYHUE *ro٩de/o-, even though this is morphologically quite unlikely. esaikos (34–35): The author links this as *HȤVDJ٨o- + -iko- to esatui < *HȤV DȤWR, the last word on the bronze from Torrijo del Campo. Both words are derivate from the verbal stem *HȤVDJ, which is also found in Latin exigo ‘to drive out, to complete’, with the special meaning ‘to exact payment’ in the FRQWH[WRI¿QDQFLDOWUDQVDFWLRQV7KLVODWWHUPHDQLQJLVHVSHFLDOO\VDWLVIDFWRU\ DVLQERWK&HOWLEHULDQWH[WVWKHFRQWH[WLV¿QDQFLDO±silabur ‘money’ (perhaps distinct semantically from *argantom ‘silver’) is mentioned in both. zizeti (35–38): Prósper analyses this 3rd sg. verb from its context as a thematic subjunctive *didh3eti or *dhidhh1eti of an athematic reduplicated present. Its 3rd pl. zizonti is attested on Botorrita 1. See also my remarks on tako below. sekubituz (42–77): Prósper’s analysis of the verbal form sekubituz, which has been awarded the longest section devoted to a single word, is of a consequence for the understanding of Celtiberian that cannot be overrated. She segments the word as radical part seku- (= /sek݄HLWKHUµWRVD\¶RUµWRIROORZ¶ VXI¿[-bi- + 3rd sg. imperative ending -tuz. She explains -bi-DVDIXWXUHVXI¿[ b(٩ ƱƯ٨- that originally formed part of the paradigm of the verb *bhuH µWR EHFRPH ĺ WR be’, but that had become a morphological element in Celtiberian in a manner comparable to the b-future or EƗLPSHUIHFWRI/DWLQ6KH¿QGVWKHVXI¿[DJDLQ in the verbal forms tinbituz and usabituz on Botorrita 1. Those two have so far been interpreted as instances of a root bi- (either ‘to be’ or ‘to beat’), preceded by two preverbs each. For Prósper, tinbituz is rather the present stem *ding- < PIE root *dhe٨g‫ڦ‬h ‘to press’ that is also found in ambitiseti, ambitinkounei and titasGLȤWƗVRQWKHVDPHLQVFULSWLRQ±DIDFWWKDWFRQIHUVDGGLWLRQDOFUHGHQFHWR the new analysis; usabituz probably contains the preverb *XȤV + root *ag ‘to drive’. In tinbituz and usabituzWKHURRW¿QDOFRQVRQDQWLVHLWKHUQRWH[SUHVVHG JUDSKLFDOO\RUKDVEHHQDVVLPLODWHGWRWKHLQLWLDORIWKHVXI¿[-bi-. 1HYHUWKHOHVVWKHUHUHPDLQWZRSUREOHPVZLWK3UyVSHU¶VDQDO\VLV7KH¿UVWLV 

REZENSIONEN

graphic: The reading sekubituz can in no way be called secure. The sign a that has been transcribed as by the original editors and by Prósper looks exactly the same as the sign that has been transcribed as elsewhere in the text. Prósper’s explicit reason to adopt the reading sekubituz instead of sekuatuz is the morphological similarity with the forms in -bituz in Botorrita DQGWKHPRUSKRORJLFDOGLI¿FXOWLHVWKDWsekuatuz would pose (i.e., an imperative built on a subjunctive stem?; or a secondary Ɨ-verb built on the roots *sek٩ ‘to follow’ or ‘to say’?). It remains one of the future tasks of Celtiberian philology to search and study all instances of the letters , , , and to disentangle the graphemes. The second problem is orthographic: the author does not address the question why in the case of tinbituz and usabituzZH¿QG WKHJUDSKHPDWLFVXSSUHVVLRQRUSKRQHWLFORVVRIWKHURRW¿QDOFRQVRQDQW g in both cases, provided the etymology is correct) before the consonantal anlaut RIWKHVXI¿[EXWZK\LQsekubituz we should reckon with the preservation of (= /k݄/?) in the same position, instead of a similar treatment? The graphic expression of the runs also counter Prósper’s own rules of “la notación de las consonantes celtibéricas en signario ibérico” (129–135). Still, it must be underlined that independent of whether we have to read sekubituz or sekuatuz on the letter from Iniesta, Prósper’s new interpretation of tinbituz and usabituz is attractive on its own and possesses great inherent plausibility. maromizom ±  7KH ¿UVW PHPEHU RI WKLV FRPSRXQG LV SDWHQWO\ &HOW *PƗUR ‘big, great’. For the second element, Prósper suggest an etymology from PIE *misdho- ‘payment, remuneration’, which is attractive in view of the probable overall textual semantics of the inscription. Because of the rareness of the sequence PIE *sd(h), the phonological side of the explanation, i.e. *sd(h) > &HOWLE]!LVGLI¿FXOWWRSURYHRUGLVSURYH3UyVSHUUHMHFWVDFRQQHFWLRQZLWK PIE *PƝGRP ‘measure’ (cp. Germ. Maß) on the grounds that there is not a single example of *Ɲ > *Ư in Celtiberian (80). But this is only true for fully stressed ZRUGV,IWKHLQ¿QLWLYHtizaunei contains the preverb *GƝ, which is quite probable, that development is at least attested for preverbs/prepositions. tako (84–90): Prósper analyses this form as a 3rd pl. aor. /dakõ(t)/ ‘they put’ < *dhh1kont; its interpretation as a verb makes syntactical sense. The root *dheh1 RUDFRQÀDWLRQZLWKWKHURRW deh3) may now be attested in the following paradigmatic forms in Celtiberian: 3rd sg. aor. imperative tatuz, 3rd sg. reduplicated pres. imperative or preverb *GƯ + aor. imperative tizatuz, 3rd sg. thematic reduplicated present subjunctive zizeti, 3rd pl. thematic reduplicated present subjunctive zizonti, 3rd sg. e-grade k-aor. tekez, 3rd pl. Ø-grade k-aor. takoLQ¿QLWLYHV taunei, tizaunei, touertaunei. 

REZENSIONEN

A possibility not considered by Prósper is that tako, consisting, as it does, RIRQO\WZRVLJQVRIZKLFKWKH¿UVWRQHLVFXULRXVO\HQRXJKVXSHUVFULSWDQG smaller than all the other letters, might be a numeral after the word for ‘silver, money’, silabur (LORRIO & VELAZA 2005: 1040). Since to my knowledge until now no grapheme inventory of the Iberian or Celtiberian script has been found RULGHQWL¿HGDQGVLQFHFRQVHTXHQWO\WKHUHODWLYHSRVLWLRQRIHDFKVLJQLVXQ known, it is idle to speculate about concrete numerical values of the signs. But it is possible to speculate about the formal make-up of the number, if a number it is. In the following X stands for an indeterminate numeral representing the Celtiberian sign , Y for an indeterminate numeral representing the Celtiberian sign . The superscript ta could serve as a determiner that indicates a following numeral, i.e. NUMY ‘Y’. The superscript ta could, however, also be the numeral proper, its numerical force being indicated by its distinguished position, the following ko EHLQJWKHDEEUHYLDWLRQRIWKHGHFDGHIRUPLQJVXI¿[ *-konts, -kontos, i.e. ‘X-ty’. Naturally, both letters could have numeric values, either to be understood additively (one of the two perhaps being a decade, the other a digit, as in the Greek numerical system, i.e. ‘X-ty + Y’ or ‘X + Y-ty’, or both or one of them representing a threshold numeral, like in the Roman system, i.e. ‘X + Y’). Theoretically, they could also be used multiplicatively, i.e. ‘X × Y’. Note also that the Celtib. sign coincides in shape with the Roman numeral X ‘10’. akulei (96–99): The editors of the text, followed by the scholars who have VLQFH FRPPHQWHG RQ LW UHDG WKH ¿UVW ZRUG RQ VLGH % DV akulei or possible bikulei1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJWKHSUREOHPZKHWKHUWKH¿UVWVLJQLVD!RUEL!VHH above), it seems to have been overlooked that there is a notable difference in the representation of the sign between this word on the one hand and between the following word and three instances of the letter on side A on the other hand. While the latter four (A-2 toutinokum, A-4 iskuez, A-6 sekua/bituz, B-2 kaikokum) approach roundness (i.e. ideally 8 ku 2, but practically ku 4, WKDWLVZLWKVRPHÀDWV WKHRQHLQ%akulei is markedly rectangular (i.e. q ku 1). All instances have a dot in their centre in the drawing by María Dolores 6iQFKH]GH3UDGR([FHSWIRUWKDWFHQWUDOGRWZKLFKPLJKWEHDWWULEXWDEOHWR an error of the scribe, the rectangular sign in B-1 is reminiscent of a slanting version of the sign f bu, as in silabur on side A. If that should be the case, we would have to read dat. abulei, which would belong to the paradigm of the well-established name abulu, ABLO, gen. abulos. Minor differences in the ductus of the signs on sides A and B of the lead plate might be attributable to two different hands, but could also be due to a more hasty scribbling of side 

REZENSIONEN

B. In any case, irrespective of whether we are dealing with one or two scribes, even within side B there remains a difference between the shapes of the two alleged instances of the sign ku. 7KHVKRUWFKDSWHUµ8QDYH]PiV¢XQVXVWUDWRLWDORLGHHQFHOWLEHULD"¶± 110) examines sceptically the proposition of Francisco Villar that the CeltiEHULDQ ODQJXDJH KDG EHHQ LQÀXHQFHG E\ D VXEVWUDWH ODQJXDJH RI DQ µLWDORLG¶ type. After this there follow two excursus, ‘El destino de indoeuropeo *-bhwen celta’ (111–127) and ‘Sobre las reglas para la notación de las consonantes celtibéricas en signario ibérico’ (129–135). In excursus 1, the author argues that the PIE and PC sequence *b(h)٩ ZDV VLPSOL¿HG WR ٩ already in Common Celtic, analogous to what is being assumed for *m٩. Excursus 2 gives a concise account how consonant clusters, esp. clusters of two obstruents, were represented in Celtiberian orthography. In summary this book must be called an important contribution not just to the study of one newly-found text, but to the study of Celtiberian in general. In particular, Blanca Prósper’s ideas and observations have repercussions on how Botorrita 1 has to be read and understood. In fact, the author is preparing at the moment a new interpretation of that famous Celtiberian text (PRÓSPER forthc.).

REFERENCES JORDÁN CÓLERA LORRIO & VELAZA 2005

PRÓSPER 2007

PRÓSPER forthc.

&DUORV -RUGiQ &yOHUD µ&KURQLFD (SLJUDSKLFD &HOWLEpULFD ,9¶ Palaeohispanica 6 (2006), 299–301. Alberto J. Lorrio and Javier Velaza, ‘La primera inscripción celtibérica sobre plomo’, in: Acta Palaeohispanica IX. Actas del IX Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas paleohispánicas. Barcelona, 20–24 de octubre de 2004(G)%HOWUiQ/ORULV&-RUGiQ Cólera y J. Velaza Frías [= Palaeohispanica 5], Zaragoza: Institución “Fernando el Católico” 2005, 1031–1048. Blanca María Prósper, Estudio lingüístico del plomo celtibérico de Iniesta [= Acta Salmanticensia. Estudios Filológicos 319], Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca 2007. Blanca María Prósper, Estudios sobre el bronze celtibérico de Botorrita. David Stifter

*

* *