The instrumental case in the thematic noun inflection

of Continental Celtic1

The Celtiberian document K.23.2 (Osma, Soria, in the western variant

of the Celtiberian script) has received a number of interpretations in the
last thirty years: Originally, its linguistic interpretation was based on a
first reading of the editio princeps that in fact didn’t make sense at all:
ruoureka : ureibo / esainis : kortika / usama : antos / saikios : baisai /
kaltaikikom.2 J. Untermann’s edition in MLH IV, K.23.2 differed from it
only in the first two words, that he had in the meanwhile interpreted as
karuotureka tureibo, and in the penultimate word baisais, previously
read baisai. After the bronze plaque was cleaned, a new, more plausible
text was established: boruoture[i]ka : tureibo[s] / eskeinis : kortika /
usama : antos / saikios : baisais / kaltaikikos.3 Recently, C. Jordán
(2007) has come up with a third reading that essentially regards only the
first two words, both damaged by holes intentionally drilled through the
bronze after they were incised: The final text, on which I will base my
arguments, is taruotureska tureita eskeinis kortika usama antos saikios
baisais kaltaikikos. Jordán has discovered an allograph of <ta> with two
additional dashes that is easily mistakable for <bo> (which actually is
the correct reading in some eastern documents).4

–––––––
1
This work has been financed by the Spanish Government (Project DGCYT,
FFI2008–03252: Lenguas y Pueblos en la Prehistoria de Europa y Asia Suroccidental a
la luz de la genetica y la linguistica). The notation used here is the same as established
in F. Villar (1996), where the traditional distinction <ś> vs <s>, inherited from the
traditional transcription of the corresponding Iberian graphs, is replaced by <s> vs <z>.
The Celtiberian texts will be quoted according to MLH IV as far as possible.
2
Cf. C. García Merino – M. L. Albertos (1981).
3
Cf. C. García Merino – J. Untermann (2002)
4
He further argues that the simpler as opposed to the more complex signs for <ta>
have been intentionally used to tell the voiceless from the voiced consonants, which in
his view favours a transcription taruodureska dureita esainis gortika usama antos
saikios baisais kaldaikikos. This so called “dual system”, that is not autochthonous but
goes back to a north–eastern variant of the Iberian script that secondarily introduces a
means of telling voiced from voiceless stops (or, according to some scholars, preserves
the original distinctions), might have something to recommend itself, but so far it applies
only to some western documents, especially this one and Cortonum (K.0.7), and it looks
like its use was not completely consistent or didn’t have doublets for every symbol in
every document.

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 224-241, ISSN 0935-3518

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2011
 The instrumental case in the thematic noun inflection of Continental Celtic 225

The nom.sg. taruotureska tureita eskeinis kortika (K.23.2, Uxama)

means in my opinion “Tarvodurean issued public document” and the
segment tureita eskeinis is the exact nominalization of the predicate
eskenim tures in the inscription of Torrijo del Campo (Teruel).5 Thus,
the past participle *dū–reiʢtā from Common Celtic *dū–reχtā “issued”
belongs to the same paradigm as the preterite tures, which continues a
sigmatic 3rd sg. aorist *dū–rēχ–s–t “has issued”, both referring to a legal
document.6 That the diphthong is secondary, that is, not going back to
IE *–eiʢ–, is confirmed by its preservation in the similar, but later, tesse-
ra of unknown origin that reads DVREITA TARVODVRESCA
LIGORIQVM.7
Given its boar– or swine–like shape, this document has been tradi-
tionally understood as a tessera hospitalis, a sort of portable object that
consists of two sides that fit together, so that both partakers of the agree-
ment can recognize each other when they ever meet again. Taruotureska
tureita eskeinis kortika usama would then be the actual text, and the rest
would be the personal names of the signatories or witnesses, probably
civil servants of Tarvodurum. At least this would be true of the four last
words, Antos, Saikios, Baisais and Kaltaikikos. There is a significant
number of problems with this seemingly obvious interpretation, how-
ever:
To begin with, the heading is unexpectedly long and solemn, con-
veying more information than is offered by the rest of the extant tesse-
rae hospitales. These documents have in common the aenigmatic word
or abbreviation kar, usually taken to mean “hospitality”. As I have ad-
vanced, the sequence taruotureska tureita eskeinis kortika can be best
translated as “Tarvodurean issued public document”. In the few sur-
viving documents that show a similar structure and contain the word
eskenis and/or the verb *dū–reg– “to issue”, they are normally referred
–––––––
5
Cf. B. M. Prósper (2005, p. 304) and in press-1. Eskeinis means “document” and is
in my view preferable to the alternative reading esainis. Its interpretation has been
traditionally flawed by the erroneous belief that eskeinis, eskenim (Torrijo del Campo),
eskeninum (K.1.3) means something like “status of foreigners”.
6
This aorist matches Lat. rēxī, Gk. ὠρέξα, Toch. B. reksa, OIr. -recht. J. Jasanoff,
however, has recently come up with a new insight on some IE preterites whose roots
have a Narten profile, that claims they were not sigmatic or reduplicated, but long vowel
preterites. This includes this root in particular on the strength of the Ved. present rāṣṭi,
Lat. rēx, rēgis, perf. rēgī vs younger rēxī and OIr. –recht (and, more generally, the OIr.
–t-preterites, since he finds the change –χst > -χt unconvincing).
7
Cf. J. Untermann – F. Villar (1999), who speculate with different combinations of
this sequence but never compare it directly to K.23.2. The final equation is due to an
insight of C. Jordán’s (2005), though it had already been adumbrated by C. García
Merino – J. Untermann (2002, p. 136).

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 224-241, ISSN 0935-3518

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2011
226 Blanca María Prósper

to a preceding or following text that makes the nature and contents of

the document explicit. This is not the case with DVREITA
TARVODVRESCA LIGORIQVM, however, which seems to contain a
simple treaty of hospitality involving Tarvodurum and the family of the
Ligoricī.
Second, there is a number of difficulties with the personal names:
1) Antos is the Celtic word for “limit, boundary, border” (as suggested
by J. Untermann 2002; see below). Its derivatives are profusely at-
tested all over ancient Gaul, and it provides the first term of many
compounds.8 Thus, it is strange that we find it as a personal name.
Note that one could argue that the name has to be read as Andos. In
that case, the best parallels are the personal names ANDAETI,
ANDAITIA (Lusitania), identical to the base of the Venetic name
(dat.pl.) ANDETICOBOS; ANNEDIVS (Córdoba, Hispania Baetica),
Gaul. ANDEDION “inferior” (Chamalières); ANDAMVS (Lusitania,
Callaecia), Gaul. ANDAMICA “infimus”. None of these supports the
existence of such a name, since they all go back to a Celtic preposition
and prefix *ande/andi from IE *(H)ṇdhi.
2) Saikios provides hardly any clue, since a cognomen SAECIVS occurs
only once in Emporiae. A gen.sg. SAECI CAVCESIS (CIL VIII,
9390, Mauretania Caesariensis), if related to the Hispanic Cauca,
could point out to the land of the Arevacī, but probably reflects
*segiʢos. The comparison with the personal names SAICLI (Soria),
SAIHLI (Burgos), SAIGLEINIQ(VM) (Soria), put forward by MLH
IV, p. 710, is beside the point, since the required derivative *saiʢk-lo-
is unparalleled: These forms may all go back to *sagilo- (cf. Gaul.
SAGILLIVS, SAGILLIA). Many names bear witness to a metathesis
*-Vliko- > -Viʢlko- (or alternatively a glide accretion by which *-
Vliko- > -Vljko- > -Viʢljko-).9 Conversely, there has been an evolution
*sagilo- > saiʢgjljo-.
3) Baisais, unless we have to allow for the existence of Iberian names so
far to the west of the contact zone (Ebro valley), or for an ad hoc
mistake for †Baisaios, is intractable.10
–––––––
8
Cf. DLG, pp. 49–50.
9
The relevant examples are: Tekiailkoś < *tegiʢál-ikos; Botilkoś < *bouʢdíl-ikos (both
are magistrates’ names on Southern Iberian coins); SAELCI, SAILGIVS, SAELGIVS
(Salamanca, Beja, Castelo Branco), the Vetton family name SAILCIEICON, all from
*salik-iʢo-, a derivative from “willow tree”, as opposed to western SALICIAE (Zamora),
SALICIVS (Cáceres). See B. M. Prósper (2005, pp. 261-63).
10
Thinkable parallels would be the personal names BAESO (dat.sg., Segovia, CIL II,
2733), Baesadine (abl. sg., a Hispanic chieftain in Livy, 33.44.4; probably Iberian),
Gaul. BAESIO (dat. sg., CIL III, 3437). BAESO is specially interesting, since the

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 224-241, ISSN 0935-3518

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2011
 The instrumental case in the thematic noun inflection of Continental Celtic 227

4) Finally, Kaltaikikos shows an eccentric derivation with a double velar

suffix that militates against its interpretation as a personal name. If it
contains a segment –ld- at all, its only recognizable parallel is the
name CALDAECVS (Crémenes, León) from the land of the Cantabrī
Vadinienses. Still, one is tempted to include this hápax in the nomina
of the (ethnonymic) personal name Callaecus.11

On the other hand, these four people are mentioned without a proper
filiation formula. This is not unthinkable, given the lack of space in the
document, and some parallels can be brought up. We could even inter-
pret Baisais Kaltaikikos as a typical formula of Personal Name + Family
Name, admitting that Kaltaikikos concords with Baisais where we
would reasonably expect a family name in the gen.pl. †Kaltaikikum.
Antos Saikios could have a similar structure, with the evident caveats
inherent to the non–existence of a Celtiberian suffix –(a)iʢk–iʢo– playing
this or any other role except for the place name Sarnikio, Sarnikiei
(K.1.1). Still, the overall impression is not satisfactory.
And what about the word Usama that immediately follows the head-
ing and precedes the alleged personal names? Since the inscription was
actually found in the Cerro del Castro, the ancient Uxama Argaela of
the Arevacī, very close to the present town called El Burgo de Osma
(Soria), which inherits the ancient name, there is little doubt that Usama
refers to this well–known place, and is not a personal name. It regularly
continues CC. *uχsamā “highest” and is thus reminiscent of other an-
cient Celtic place names like Gaulish Οὐξισάµη and Hispanic–Celtic
Οὐάµα/VAMENSI (Badajoz, Baeturia Celtica), as well as its namesake
Uxama Barca (Osma de Valdegovía, Álava) and modern names like
Osmo (Orense), Ulzama (Navarra, in medieval documents Utzama).
–––––––
deceased person is said to be an VX(AMENSI?). See below.
11
A dissimilatory tendency of the geminate sonorants –rr–, –nn–, –ll– to become –rd–,
–nd–, –ld– can be inferred from a number of personal names: APLONDVS (Madrid,
Badajoz) for APLONVS; perhaps Turenta (K.1.3) stands for Turenna, attested in
western Hispania; its only parallel is the Lusitanian TVRENDI (Castelo Branco; cor-
rected reading by AE 1984, 478); CAESARDIA (León, said to be a Viminaciensis and
thus from the area of the Vaccaeī) beside CAESARRIA (Burgos), where the geminate is
due to secondary gemination in the segment *–r.iʢ– > –r.riʢ–, and in the Romance
languages Sp. izquierda “left”, from Basque ezkerra, ardilla “squirrel”, OSp. libeldo
from libellum, Sp. celda from Lat. cella, bula/bulda from Lat. bulla. The change is also
known to affect the Aragonese language, where there is marrano/mardano “lamb”,
barro/bardo “mud”, etc. Cf. A. Zamora Vicente (1989, p. 234). In the epigraphic
evidence the dissimilation may be due to the erroneous belief, on the part of the scribe,
that the segment –rr–, –nn– in the mouth of foreigners is a corruption of regular –rd–,
–nd–.

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 224-241, ISSN 0935-3518

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2011
228 Blanca María Prósper

Under the circumstances, unless Usama antos saikios baisais

kaltaikikos is a whole sentence, Usama cannot be in the nominative
case. And, if we maintain the traditional view that the heading is no
such, but has to be understood as the text of a treaty of hospitality of
Tarvodurum with Uxama, followed by the signatures of the magistrates,
I would rather expect a dative †Usamai “document issued by the city of
Tarvodurum for, in favour of Uxama” or a genitive †Usamas cor-
responding to the aforementioned DVREITA TARVODVRESCA
LIGORIQVM. Even a derivative †Usamika in the nominative case, con-
cording with the preceding phrase, would have made sense. There is on-
ly a way out: Whatever the overall structure and meaning of the docu-
ment, Usama is a feminine instrumental in –ā.
Up to now, there is only an allegedly feminine instrumental form at-
tested in Celtiberian: I have claimed that kusta bizetuz in K.1.1 (Botor-
rita) and kustai bize[---] in Botorrita IV are variants of the same formula
“reserve as/in concept of use, as far as one has the right to use” vs
“reserve for use”, where kusta/kustai goes back to a Celtic action noun
*gus–tā “use, rightful use, usufruct”.12 This slight variation between the
two forms might be the effect of ongoing syncretism. In its turn, the
existence of a Celtiberian instrumental in –ā is supported by Gaulish
BRIXTÍA ANDERON “by the magic powers of the infernal divinities”
in Chamalières (RIG II–2, L–100.3, pp. 276–77) and some other pos-
sible examples (like DVSCELINATIA in Larzac, etc.).
On the other hand, the IE –o–stem instrumental singular ending in *–ō
(> CC. –ū) has been traced in Celtiberian by F. Villar (1993–95) for
some place names attested only on coins. He claims that Oilaunu,
Tamaniu show that the origin of a coin could be expressed by various
means, including the nominative, the ablative and additionally the
agentive instrumental. The alternation Oilaun–u vs Oilaun–ez would
seem to confirm this.13 Judging from the extant examples, the thematic
instrumental ending –ū has spread to some or all of the consonant stems.
The Gaulish examples are few and inconclusive, since along the history
of Gaulish the instrumental ending has merged with the CC. thematic
dative singular in –ūi, that finally yields –ū: Cf. Chamalières NARITV
RISSV (disputed reading and meaning), SINDIV “today” (Coligny
–––––––
12
Cf. B. M. Prósper (2008, pp. 49–55, with bibl.).
13
Alternatively one could posit a nom. sg. *oilaun–ū, like MLH IV, p. 404; bear in
mind, however, that this would demand a second nasal suffix, which in itself would be a
morphological rarity, especially in a place name; and additionally, for some scholars, an
ad hoc haplology *oilaun–ūn–eð > oilaunez in the ablative case (see a defense of this
idea in J. F. Eska 2007).

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 224-241, ISSN 0935-3518

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2011
 The instrumental case in the thematic noun inflection of Continental Celtic 229

calendar, fossilized as adverbial), perhaps Gallo–Greek βρατου (maybe

an –u–stem!).
Instrumental plural forms are very well attested in Gaulish: suiorebe
“with the sisters” (RIG II–1, L–6, Néris–les–Bains), gobedbi “with/to
the smiths” (L–13, Alise–Sainte–Reine), eiabi “with them” (Larzac),
anmanbe “with names” (Châteaubleau), mesamobi “with the worst”,
gandobe “with scarce” (Lezoux) all show that an ending –bi from IE *–
bhi, that turns up as –bi or –be, has occupied this slot in all stems,
including feminines and the thematic inflection. As is well known, the
ending of the Insular Celtic dative plural goes back to the CC. instru-
mental ending *–bi(s), and this is also true of the thematic and ā–inflec-
tions (cf. OIr. feraib < CC. *uʢiro–bi(s), tuathaib < *teuʢtā–bi(s)).
Usually, this ending is in its turn traced back to PIE *–bhis, attested in
OI. –bhis, Av. –bīš, Arm. –bkɈ, Mess. –bis, perhaps Myc. –pi, OIr. –(i)b
being ambiguous in view of the Continental Celtic attestations. The
spread of this primarily adverbial suffix to the nominal inflection goes
back to a late–IE stage, that is, it took place after the separation of the
Anatolian branch, where it is not attested.
Surprisingly, the late–IE thematic instrumental plural doesn’t go back
to *–o-bhis, but to *–ōiʢs, as reconstructed on the evidence of OI. vṛkais
(with a variant –ebhis), Av. –āiš (as opposed to OP. –aibiš), Lith.
vilkaĩs, OCS. vlĭky, most Gk. dialects λύκοις (dat.pl.), Lat. lupīs (OLat.
–eis, dat.–abl.pl.; κοµ µεοισ σοκιοισ in the Garigliano bowl, 5th C.
b.C.14), as well as the dat.–abl.pl. O. Núvlanúís, U. veskles/VESCLIR,
Pael. IOVIOIS PVCLOIS (only Venetic has preserved the original
dative pl. ending *–o–bhos, e.g. ANDETICOBOS, and a couple of pre-
positional examples suggest that it has adopted the functions of the
instr.pl., too), NPhryg. δεως ζεµελως < *dhH1sōiʢs ðghemelōiʢs “among
gods and men", and possibly Mess. nomais “with portions (?)”.
Its structure has long remained unaccounted for, since the seemingly
obvious analysis, *–ōi + pluralizing –s, raises too many questions in the
way of functional evolution. Recently, J. H. Jasanoff (2009) has ana-
lyzed the ending *–ōiʢs as PIE *–oiʢ–is, where –oiʢ– goes back to the
plural (originally collective) stem of pronouns and –is has an instru-
mental value inferred from adverbs like OI. bahís “outside”, Lat. satis
“enough”, Gk. µόγις “hardly”. Additionally, when this set provides the
first term of compounded verbs like Lat. satisfaciō, it can be linked with
other “instrumental + verbal stem” formations as reconstructed by
–––––––
14
On the possibility that this ending partially goes back to the loc. pl. *–oiʢsi, see R.
Jiménez Zamudio (2004) with a rich bibliography.

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 224-241, ISSN 0935-3518

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2011
230 Blanca María Prósper

Jasanoff himself, like Lat. calefaciō “to heat”, OI. śulā kṛ- “to roast with
a skewer”.
This archaic ending *–ōiʢs seems to have been completely ousted by
*–bhi(s) in the Celtic thematic stems, as seems to be the general ten-
dency in Indo–Iranian. Yet, P.–Y. Lambert (1994, p. 55) has tracked
down an instr.pl. in *–ōiʢs in Gallo–Greek forms like τοουτιους “avec
ses concitoyens” (Vaison), and possibly also in later texts, as in
VINDVLVS (La Graufesenque), etc. In spite of the syntactic dif-
ficulties, this is not implausible, since the Gallo–Greek texts are admit-
tedly older. Thus, –ūs, with loss of the offglide as in the dative singular
–ū, would have been progressively replaced by –obi, partly owing to the
erstwhile instrumental ending’s overlapping with the accusative plural;
and the allomorphy may have been resolved earlier in some regions than
in others. For the time being, no instrumental plural is attested in
Celtiberian. For the masculine, we would expect an ending †–uis, or †–
obi(s) if the ending had already been analogically drawn from the
consonant stems before the 2nd C. b.C.
We may well wonder if Celtic had inherited both IE *–bhi and *–bhis
(or *–bhīs from *–bhi-is, following H. C. Melchert and N. Oettinger’s
recent version of Jasanoff’s idea). In contradistinction to other IE
languages, lack of final –s in Gaulish –bi, –be does not seem to have
made this ending either adopt singular meaning or become indifferent to
number. In fact, its plural meaning must be the reason for the analogic
loss of –s in the dative plural from the oldest documents, witness Gaul.
µατρεβο, ναµαυσικαβο, etc., which cannot go back to CC., since the rest
of Continental Celtic seems to show nearly unanimously –bos: Lepontic
ariuonePos, Celtib. areikoratikubos, Noricum VIBEBOS (under the
influence of Venetic?).
Some new evidence from Western Hispanic-Celtic is most intriguing:
An inscription from Viseu (Lusitania) reads DEIBABOR IGO
DEIBOBOR VISSEIAICOBOR APINVS CHAEREAE F(ILIVS) V S L
M, which of course is nothing but the indigenous pendant of the Latin
formula deis et deabus (Viseaecis).15 This rhotacized variant of –bos,
that reminds of the destiny of final –s in Umbrian or West Germanic,
alternates with shorter –bo in cases like the dedications to LVGVBO
ARQVIENOBO vs LVCOVBVS ARQVIENIS (both in Lugo, Callaecia
Lucensis) or, more interestingly, DEIBABO NEMVCELAIGABO (Vila
–––––––
15
Edition by L. Silva Fernandes et alii (2009), who propound this on a suggestion of
mine at the Lisbon Colloquium, where they (and not only they) played around with other
implausible segmentations.

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 224-241, ISSN 0935-3518

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2011
 The instrumental case in the thematic noun inflection of Continental Celtic 231

Real, Callaecia Bracarensis).16 Leaving provisionally aside the case for

Tartessian being a Celtic language (which remains an unwieldy problem
given the arbitrariness of word segmentations), an ending –bo, if it is
Celtic at all, i.e., not Lusitanian, could belong to a different dialect with
analogic loss of –s like Gaulish. Of course it could be a phonetic result,
too. Loss of final –r is attested in Faliscan, southern Spanish, Brazilian
Portuguese, German, etc., so that DEIBABO would simply be a less
conservative spelling than DEIBABOR. The dedicant of the altar from
Viseu must have travelled a long way and he is grateful for his success to
the local divinities, whose names he is apparently not aware of. That might
be the reason why he has made a point of having the words “correctly”
written and has accordingly used high register pronunciation.
An interesting feature of the inflection of some IE languages is the
spread of the thematic instr.pl. in *–ōiʢs to the –ā stems, yielding *–āiʢs.
This has happened in Greek, where –αις plays the role of the dative
plural like its masculine counterpart; in Latin, where it has merged with
the corresponding masculine *–āiʢs in the dative–ablative plural –īs, and
in the Italic languages, where we find for instance a dat.–abl.pl. U.
semenies tekuries / SEHMENIER DEQVRIER, O. diumpaís kerríiaís,
S.-P. brímeidinais (Penna St. Andrea).
The Mycenaean evidence is more difficult to pin down, given the
uncertainties of the Linear B script: –o–stems show PGk. *–o(iʢ)–phi(s)
in e–re–pa–te–jo–pi ἐλεπhαντείοπhι(ς), adj. “with ivory made ...”, o–mo–
pi οἰµόπhι “with straps”, but the erstwhile ending *–ōiʢs may be hidden
in the ambiguous de–so–mo δεσµοῖς “with straps, bindings”, e–re–pa–
te–jo ἐλεπhαντείοις, adj. “with ivory-made ...”.17 Feminine forms in -ā
unanymously show *–ā(iʢ)–phi(s), as in a–ni–ja–pi ἀνhιᾶπhι “with reins”.
This could mean that in this dialect or group of dialects *–bhi(s) has
spread to the –o– stems, where there is still allomorphy, but there is no
sign of analogic spread to the –ā stems, which is mutatis mutandis com-
parable to the state of things attested in Gaulish. The status of the forms
in –o is disputed, however, and some scholars privilege an interpretation
as a synchronic dat.pl., so that –o from *–ōiʢs alternates with –o–i from
the PIE loc.pl. *–oiʢsi for the same function, as in Homer. It has been
additionally argued that some Homeric formulae conceal an older state
of affairs: Thus, *µαλακοῖς ƒέπεσφι, syntactically an instrumental, un-
derwent artificial metrical adaptation to hexametric -οις ἐπέεσσι. The
–––––––
16
Reading by C. Búa (unpublished). The letters have been unfortunately painted over
and that is why it has been variously read.
17
Cf. A. Bartoněk (2003, p. 189).

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 224-241, ISSN 0935-3518

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2011
232 Blanca María Prósper

instrumental case was still alive at some point in the Ionic epic tradition,
which also accounts for the extensive preservation of -φι.18
I believe there is a chance that Celtiberian baisais is a feminine place
name in the instrumental plural case, and that its ending is the
innovative *–āiʢs of Italic and Greek. There is a number of advantages
with this interpretation: First, a welcome parallelism with Usama is
obtained. We have to do with two place names in the instrumental case,
both in turn symmetrically followed by parallel sequences in the
nominative case: antos saikios and kaltaikikos. Second, we can draw the
conclusion that the core of the document itself is usama antos saikios
baisais kaltaikikos, which explains the long, solemn and probably
stereotyped, unnecessarily long heading and dispenses with the long
sequence of otherwise unattested personal names.
The place name Baisais then must have been a plurale tantum. This is
comparatively usual (cf. Pisae, Minturnae, Phaesulae, etc. in ancient
Italy).19 Unfortunately, the ambiguities of the Iberian script prevent us
from deciding between a transcription Bais– and Pais–. Both are well
attested in southern Europe and possibly belong to a pre–Celtic
substrate, whatever the Celtiberian adaptation and pronunciation of the
initial phoneme may have been. Examples of pais–/pis– are: Pisae (to-
day Pisa, Tuscany), Pisaurum cum fluvio (Pesaro, Italy), Pisoraca (to-
day the river Pisuerga in Spain), Pisis (a river in Italy), and, with a full–
grade root *paiʢs–, the ethnonyms Paesicī (Pliny 3.28, 4.111; Ptolemy
2.6.5, a people of the Astures of northwestern Hispania) and Paesurī
(Pliny 4.113, Viseu, Lusitania), the origonym PAISICAICO (used as a
divine epithet, Viseu, Lusitania), and the place name Paisula (Ptolemy
2.4, Hispania Baetica), probably related to Phaesulae (Italy), the river
and city Paisos (Asia Minor), etc.20 The Bais– attestations are the
mostly compounded place names Baes–uri, Baes–ippo, Baes–ucci,
Besaro, all of them in the Hispania Baetica, and it seems less likely that
Baisais belongs here.21

–––––––
18
According to Prof. D. Gary Miller, in the updated version of his online course in
Ancient Greek Dialects, p. 315 (http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/jmarks/Miller-GkDia
lects).
19
An alternative possibility is of course that it is a real plural, that is, that there was a
Celtiberian appellative †baisa, possibly referring to some feature of the landscape or to
human constructions, like the Sp. place names Las Navas, Los Montes, Las Dehesas, etc.
It might be a past participle of a verb attested in Latin as baetō “to go away” (etymology
unknown).
20
See F. Villar (2005, pp. 29–44).
21
Cf. F. Villar (2000, pp. 239–44, 283–89, 332, 409, etc.).

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 224-241, ISSN 0935-3518

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2011
 The instrumental case in the thematic noun inflection of Continental Celtic 233

Crucially, what looks like an abbreviated place name bais occurs on

the back side of the group of coins studied by MLH I, A.83 that read
bais on the front side and kaiseza on the back. This town has never been
identified, though there is a chance that it is the Caesada of the classical
writers, sometimes identified with present-day Espinosa de Henares
(Guadalajara), about 80 kms. away from Uxama. The identification of
both names as well as the idea that Kaiseza/Caesada is a city of the
Arevacī go back to Hübner and are widely accepted, mostly on the
authority of It. Ant. 436-38, which places Caesada between Arriaca and
Segontia, though Ptolemy 2.6.57 places it closer to the cities of
Saragossa.
Several Celtiberian cities were known by their ‘second names’, used
to tell homonymous cities from one another, and which sometimes can
be described as synchronic adjectives and sometimes cannot, like
Segontia Lanca (Langa de Duero, coins have Rº Lakaz / Vº Sekotiaz),
Uxama Argaela (Burgo de Osma), reflected as a masculine in the abl.sg.
Usamuz (A.72), or Contrebia Belaisca (Botorrita, some of its coins have
Rº Bel / Vº Kontebakom). It might then be the case that Caesada was
once known as Caesada Baesa/Baesica, alternatively as Baesae, which
in Celtiberian would have a nom.pl. †baisas [ɑbaiʢsa:s] (possibly due to
the absorption or synoecism of a number of small villages?).22
The fact that this ‘second name’ Baesae has not been handed down to
us is amenable to different explanations; perhaps Caesada is not identi-
cal to Kaiseza Bais(-) and this city disappeared early or came under the
rule of some other city. On the other hand, if the second name Bais(-)
means there was more than one Kaiseza, like there were a number of
instances of Segontia, Contrebia and Uxama, sometimes located beyond
the most optimistic boundaries of Celtiberia, they have equally disap-
peared or have come down to us disguised under their ‘second names’.
Finally, this would neatly account for the personal name BAESO (see
above, fn. 9) as an origonym used as a cognomen, that probably reflects
the family’s ultimate origin, like Argaelus in Q(VINTVS) VALERIVS
ARGAELVS DVITIQ(VM) (Segobriga).
The creation of a feminine instr.pl. ending that mirrors that of the
thematic inflection may have some bearing on the question of the Celt-
iberian locative case. The loc.pl. of the thematic inflection is exem-
plified by OI. vṛk–eṣu, Gk. λύκ–οισι, OCS. vlĭc–ěxƴ, Lith. vilk–uose.
–––––––
22
Many place names show a hesitation in number that can sometimes be simply put
down to errors in transmission or to variations over time: Faesula/Faesulae, Bola/Bolae
(Latium), Ostia/Hostiae (Latium), Velitra/Velitrae (Latium).

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 224-241, ISSN 0935-3518

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2011
234 Blanca María Prósper

That of the –ā–stems, in turn, is OI. –āsu, Lith. –ose, OCS. –axƴ. Only
Greek has *–āiʢsi (alternating with *–āiʢs as a synchronic dative for
instance in Homer) beside original –āsi (reduced to the function of an
adverb, as in Ἀθήνησι) on the analogy of its masculine thematic
counterpart. Whereas the Celtiberian thematic locative singular in –eiʢ is
well attested (cf. somei, Kortonei), no locative plural has been identified
yet. Following a suggestion by F. Villar, I have contended that esokiaiz
in the ‘leaden letter’ of Iniesta (Cuenca) contains a feminine locative
plural ending in *–āiʢ–si/u that has lost its final vowel, probably some
time before Celtiberian became a written language.23
The ‘sigma’ <z> of the Iberian script is a cover symbol for three dif-
ferent sounds, probably [z], [ð] and in a vast eastern region, broadly
coincident with the ebro valley, also [ts].24 The sound [z] is the result of
the Celtiberian voicing of IE /s/, that takes place between vowels or
sonorants, but never in final position. The Celtiberian phonological
system is still far from clear, but it looks like /s/ and /z/ are distinct
phonemes in medial position (cf. the personal name Alizos from *alisos
vs the place name Letaisama, from the superlative *(φ)let(a)issamā with
expressive gemination). On the other hand, final –[z] from –sV
(wherever there has been apocope of short vowels) and final –[ð] from –
d/–t may have been neutralized at some stage.
Consequently, the IE loc.pl. *–oiʢ–si/u and the instr.pl. *–ōiʢs were no
longer distinguished in Celtiberian by the presence or absence of the last
vowel, but only by vowel length and by the opposition /z/ – /s/, since
they had probably evolved into †–oiz and †–uis before our first texts
were committed to writing; the gen.sg. and abl.sg. of ā–stems are re-
spectively –ās (Turuntas) and –āð (Kontebiaz). Now we can put forward
a hypothesis that explains the actually attested form (bear in mind that
the original length opposition is conventionally preserved throughout,
even if short and long diphthongs might have already merged):
In Proto–Celtiberian, as in Greek, an analogical proportion has taken
place: *–ūiʢs: *–āiʢs = *–oiʢzi/u: X, by which *–āzi/u is replaced by
*-āiʢzi/u or *–ăiʢzi/u. Thus, if it is ever confirmed that –aiz is a locative
plural ending, its attested form may well have been triggered by the
previous existence of the instr.pl. *–ūiʢs/–āiʢs. The ending must have
been previously analyzed as –izi/u vs –is. Alternatively, it is not very
likely that *–ōiʢs has been shortened in *–ŏiʢs in CC., even if the only
evidence for *–ūiʢs comes from the dubious Gaulish examples.
–––––––
23
Cf. B. M. Prósper (2007).
24
See the latest account in B. M. Prósper (in press–1).

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 224-241, ISSN 0935-3518

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2011
 The instrumental case in the thematic noun inflection of Continental Celtic 235

Celtiberian thematic plurals show both an –<o>– and an –<u>–stem:

nom. –oi,25 acc. –us?, gen. –um, dat. –ubos. The dative –<ubos> itself is
not likely to go directly back to CC. *–obos, but owes its medial vowel
to the analogy of the other cases.26
In other words, the plausible existence of a Celtib. instr.pl. in *–ūiʢs
can be inferred from actually attested –<ais>, and the existence of
-<ais> may be plausibly guessed from –<aiz>. Of course this does not
preclude the possibility that the endings –obis, –ābis have been
analogically created and some degree of allomorphy has been intro-
duced. Additionally, the creation of a couple *–ūiʢs/–āiʢs, shared until
now by the Italic languages and Greek, turns out to be a common
innovation of Italic and Celtic, that encompasses at least the whole of
Italic (but for Venetic) and Celtiberian. However, note that, on the one
hand, the story our data tells is too fragmentary: There is no proof that
*–āiʢs was created at the same stage of case syncretism in both branches:
it may well have been the case that Italic had already gone a long way
towards elimination of the formal difference between dative, locative
and instrumental of the thematic inflection when a feminine counterpart
was created. On the other hand, *–āiʢs is not very likely to go back to
Common Celtic, but, as has been remarked in some works of the last
years, many traits of Celtiberian that find no match in the other Celtic
languages have counterparts in Italic, and sometimes nowhere else,
which might point out to secondary contact of Hispanic–Celtic with an
Italic substrate in the Iberian Peninsula.27 But this would lead us too far.
Until new documents throw some more light on the question, we’d
better leave the matter here and go back to K.23.2.
I think we are dealing with a document that could be termed, mutatis
mutandis, a sententia de terminis, not a tessera hospitalis. It deviates
from the usual typology of this kind of texts: For the sake of brevity, the
extant tesserae either mention just one side of the agreement, more or

–––––––
25
Possibly once in a noun stoteroi (Botorrita IV, see F. Villar et alii 2001). But this
possibility loses some ground if we admit that it might be a pronoun, too, and that
thematic nouns might have kept original –ūs from *–ōs in contrast to the rest of Celtic.
26
In K.0.7, loukaiteitubos (which in my opinion can be read loukeiteitubos), is a
fossilized double locative meaning “in the open and inside the covered areas”, from
*louʢk-eiʢ (cf. Lat. lūcus) and *teχto-bos (PIE *(s)teg- “to cover”). Cf. B. M. Prósper (in
press-2). This seems to speak in favour of the idea that the locative is undergoing
syncretism with the dative, but a dative itself is not excluded if we maintain the
traditional reading of MLH IV. Eastern and western dialects of Celtiberian may reflect
different stages of the process.
27
See F. Villar (2000) and a critical reappraisal of this hypothesis in the light of new
findings in B. M. Prósper (2007 and in press-1).

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 224-241, ISSN 0935-3518

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2011
236 Blanca María Prósper

less in full (sekobirikia; atulikum; retukeno uisalikum), or one side

followed by the word kar “hospitality?”; “hospitalis?” (libiaka kortika
kar), or both sides (kateiko kamaikuno // arkailika kar), only on one
occasion including a ueizos “witness” whose appurtenance to a family,
this time mentioned in the gen.sg, is conveniently noted: sekilako
amikum melmunos ata // arekoratika kar // bistiros lastiko ueizos “of
Segilacus of the Amicī, son of Melmō, from Atā, (tessera) hospitalis
issued by the city of Arecoratā; Bistirus of the Lasticī being the
witness”.
Agreements involving two cities are comparatively rare: CAAR
ICVRBICA SALVANTICAQVE (Sevilla) is obviously late, and the
longer Latin documents of hospitium involving an individual and a
community or, rarely, two communities, like the Dercinoassedenses and
the Termestinī in Soria itself (AE 53, 267) need not concern us here. On
the other hand, as advanced by C. García Merino – J. Untermann (2002,
p. 149), at that time, that is, after the Celtiberian wars that had given
Rome more than a headache, political agreements between Celtiberian
communities must have been closely watched, if not directly discour-
aged, by Rome.
As implied above, I assume dureita eskeinis kortika “public document
issued (by Tarvodurum)” is the explicit, full–fledged formula under-
lying shorter, synchronically understandable attested phrases where the
keyword can be a substantivized participle or adjective, as in:
1) DVREITA TARVODVRESCA LIGORIQVM (nom.sg. + origonym
+ gen.pl., name of the concerned party) “Tarvodurean issued” >
“±Tarvodurean decree?”; the Latinate LOLLIANO DVRETA
SALDANICA (dat.sg., name of the concerned person + nom.sg. +
origonym) “Saldanian issued” > “±Saldanian decree?” (León);28
2) stam kortikam (acc.sg.) “the present public thing” > “±the present
tabula” in K.6.1 (Luzaga), libiaka kortika kar “Libian public thing
hospitalis” > “±Libian tessera hospitalis” in K.0.5 (unknown origin);
3) eskenim tures (acc.sg. + 3rd sg. aorist) “has issued/ordered the
document” (Torrijo del Campo, Teruel).29
All this definitely militates against the idea that we are dealing with an
ordinary tessera hospitalis, since in spite of the extreme, unexpected

–––––––
28
Cf. B. M. Prósper (in press–2). DVRETA SALDANICA, given its insertion in a
Latin context, has traditionally been interpreted as a (hitherto unheard of) personal name
+ origonym.
29
Cf. B. M. Prósper (in press–1 and in press–2).

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 224-241, ISSN 0935-3518

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2011
 The instrumental case in the thematic noun inflection of Continental Celtic 237

explicitness of the heading, neither the keyword kar nor any formula
remotely related with friendship or mutual support occurs.
In sum, I believe K.23.2 doesn’t reflect a covenant of mutual friend-
ship between two cities, Tarvodurum and Uxama, but actually
establishes the limits of their respective territories and the limits of
Tarvodurum with Baesae. I additionally believe that Baesae is to be
identified with the origin of the coins that read Kaiseza Bais, whether
this is in turn Caesada or not. If all this were true, then Tarvodurum
must have lain somewhere between Uxama and Kaiseza. Assuming
Kaiseza is identical to Caesada, the only important settlement of the
Arevacī that is more or less equidistant from these two points is Termes
(Tiermes, Soria), the ruins of which are still visited today, which could
correspond to the coinage of Tarmeskom.30 In spite of their superficial
resemblance, the identification of this place with Tarvodurum is of
course no more than a guess. If Jordán is right, we might conjecture that
the city was alternatively known by its inhabitants as a *dūrom
tarβeskom! Note that an analysis tarmes-ko- is impossible, since the
suffix –ko- as such does not exist. But tarm-esko- and tarvo-dur-eskā
show identical derivations. Bear in mind that this would probably mean
that the coins mention the actual place name, and not its derivative,
unless the place name had simply become *tarβos. 31
We have been understandably misled by the shape and size of the
bronze plaque, but this plaque, found in Uxama, may have been only the
short version of a longer and perhaps older document signed and
probably publicly shown in Tarvodurum, which may have been a more
important nucleus before Roman times, since it is Tarvodurum, not

–––––––
30
See C. Jordán (2007). Previously read bormeskom.
31
One could ascribe the different renditions of –β- to lenition processes that bring
about a graphic alternation u/b/m (see D. Stifter 2006 and B. M. Prósper in press-1). But
an alternation of a compound tarvodurum vs simple tarvos uel sim. would also be
needed. An interesting parallel can be drawn from the western H.-C. CASTELLVM
TARBV (Chaves, Vila Real), as opposed to the dedication to the LARIBVS
TARMVCENBAECIS (ibidem, from *taruʢo-okelo-bri-?, for which cf. also MARTI
TARBVCELI in Bracara). Termes would be only a Roman adaptation, like Termantia,
seemingly an invention of Appian. The reason for the creation of Termes, which is diffi-
cult to justify as a Celtic name, could be a metanalysis from the origonym Tarmestinus/
Termestinus. If this epigraphically attested form were indigenous, Tarmes/Termes could
be a Latinate back formation based on the analogy of Tibur: Tiburtinus, Ligustinus, etc.
But then Termestinus would contain in its turn a metanalyzed suffix –estino-: Cf. Lat.
domesticus, caelestis, OCS. kroměštĭnĭ “outer”, Illyrian Tergeste: Tergest-inus, but
Oneum: Onastinī. Perhaps, an ancient *tarmesc-ino- was reinterpreted by the Romans as
*tarmestino- according to their own derivational patterns and then Tarmes was
abstracted from it.

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 224-241, ISSN 0935-3518

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2011
238 Blanca María Prósper

Uxama, that issues the document at all events. This document might
have included antecedents, magistrates’ names, like Botorrita, and pro-
bably references to other places or territories. Note that the fact that it is
portable would seem to make difficulties in either case: A treaty of
friendship or mutual support involving a number of cities, not a city and
a family or individual, is something nobody goes about carrying. If the
swine–shaped plaque had two sides, they may have been exhibited
respectively in Uxama and Baesae, and this might be the reason why it
was pierced after writing (although some tesserae hospitales have holes,
too).
As the reader may have guessed, the notion that this document deals
with borders is born out by the appellative noun antos, which actually
means “limit, end”. The same form and meaning is attested in OI. anta–
and the derivative PGerm. *antiiʢaz, all of them thematic forms ulti-
mately going back to IE *H2ent– “front” (cf. IEW, pp. 48–49). The only
extant Celtic parallel of antos is the accusative singular atom (with
trivial omission of the nasal; alternative reading atoš, allegedly in the
accusative plural!)32 in the Gallo–Latin bilingual from Vercelli, where
its meaning is assured by the corresponding Latin word FINIS. The text
reads:33
FINIS CAMPO QVEM DEDIT ACISIVS ARGANTOCOMATER-
ECVS COMMVNEM DEIS ET HOMINIBVS ITA VT LAPIDE[S]
IIII STATVTI SVNT
Akisios Arkatokomaterekos tošokote atom/atoš teuoxtonion eu.
The structure of K.23.2 becomes a bit more transparent now, and the
text gains in symmetry: It means that the city of Tarvodurum officially
states that “with Uxama, the border (is) the Saikios; with Baesae, the
–––––––
32
Cf. W. Meid (1989, p. 13).
33
Cf. P. Baldacci (1977–78). The reading followed by most scholars and by myself is
that of M. Lejeune (RIG II–1, E–2). More pessimistic as to the extant text is P. Solinas
(1995, pp. 381–82). Note that FINIS CAMPO instead of the expected †FINIS CAMPI
might be not a possessive expression, but one of the kind mentioned above: the bypasser
is informed that what he is approaching is “the border with the field”. The use of the
Latin dative–ablative would be due to Gaulish interference. Though eu has usually been
treated as Lat. e(x) u(oto) or a Gaulish counterpart thereof (for instance *esiʢo uʢolouʢtū
“de sua pecunia” in J. F. Eska – R. Wallace 2002), one could possibly argue for an
instrumental in –ū meaning “field” (e.g. from IE *peiʢ–uʢo– “pasture land” and
consequently roughly matching CAMPO or even *(H)eiʢ–uʢo– “passage > area?”, as in
Lith. pèr–eiva “tramp”, Goth. fraiw “lineage”, so that atoš/atom eu would more or less
mean “(A.K. has set) boundaries to access”. But one could equally argue in favour of a
syntax roughly equivalent to †FINIS QVEM A.C. CAMPO DEDIT, and eu might be a
dative singular in –ū, too: “A.K. gave a boundary / boundaries to the field”. Teuoxtonion
could be a gen. pl., as often assumed “of both gods and men”.

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 224-241, ISSN 0935-3518

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2011
 The instrumental case in the thematic noun inflection of Continental Celtic 239

Kaltaikos”. The syntactic function of Usama and Baisais is a subtype of

the associative instrumental; when there is no instrumental case avail-
able, the same preposition (and case where possible) is employed in this
very context by the IE languages as with the rest of associative/
comitative constructions: Cf. Sp. frontera con, Eng. border with, G.
Grenze mit + Dat., Lat. limes cum + Abl., Russ. granitsas + Instr., etc.
In K.23.2, the word for “limit, border” is used only once and the second
time it is implicit but perfectly recoverable from the context. This may
be due to lack of space rather than to stylistic reasons. Both Saikios and
Kaltaikikos stand in predicative relation to antos. The copula is omitted
as expected in an ancient IE language.
In this way we finally obtain an explanation for the double deriva-
tional suffix of kaltaikikos: the second suffix –ikos has been added to
make the reference to antos explicit; the underlying name is either
†kaltaikos, †kaltaikom or †kaltaikā. A stem cald– is attested in
oronymic and hydronymic place names like CALDOBENDAM
(Fuentes de Ropel, Zamora), Cald–uba (Hispania Baetica), Chald–owa
> Kaldauen (originally a river name; a tributary of the Weser in North–
Rhine Westphalia), etc. Why we have saikios instead of †sa(i)ikos or
†saikikos is difficult to ascertain. The writer may have initially opted for
another suffix, like –ikos, and then may have thought better of it. Or
alternatively saikios has not been enlarged for whatever reason, perhaps
regarding the specific nature of the limits, the text at first meaning
literally that “the border is the Saikios”, and then that “the border is at,
or related to the Kaltaikos”. On all likelyhood, both saikios and
kaltaikikos are natural elements, and the best candidates are rivers, since
they draw an irregular, but unmistakable and perfectly defined line and
have often been used to separate provinces or countries.
Of course we cannot rule out the possibility that saikios and
kaltaikikos are appellatives or adjectives derived from them, even if this
seems too inespecific to our modern eyes, as long as it helps establish
the actual boundaries of the civitates. Saikios can for instance go back to
the root *seH2i–(p)– “to close, bind” of Lat. saepēs “hedge, fence”.34 A
relatedness with Lat. spatium from *sp(e)H–(i)– “to spread, span” (cf.
IEW, pp. 982–84) is not excluded, either, in view of the uncertainties of
both the reading and the inner segmentation of the word. There is only a
remote possibility that this word is related to the place name underlying
SAECIENSI in Zaragoza (CIL II, 2981), for which Pliny (3.24) gives
–––––––
34
A similar etymological explanation of K.1.1 gen.sg. sailo can be found in B. M.
Prósper (2008).

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 224-241, ISSN 0935-3518

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2011
240 Blanca María Prósper

segienses and several Celtiberian coins read Zekia, all of which suggests
that the original place name is *Segiʢā. On the other hand, the same word
might be hidden in the first term of the compounded epithet of a divinity
BANDI SAISABRO (Portalegre, Lusitania Pacensis), if this corrupted
form goes back to a derivative of the place name *saiʢkiʢā–bri(g)–.35

References

Baldacci, P. (1977–78): “Una bilingue latino–gallica di Vercelli”, Rendiconti

dell’Academia dei Lincei 32, pp. 335–348.
Bartoněk, A. (2003): Handbuch des Mykenischen Griechisch, Heidelberg, Winter.
DLG = Delamarre, X. (2002): Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise, Paris, Errance.
Encarnação, J. – Correia da Silva, J. R. (1994): “Ara votiva identificada em Avis
(Conventus Pacensis)”, Ficheiro Epigráfico 46, nr. 206.
Eska, J. F. (2007): “A regular distant assimilation and some anomalous n–stem genitive
singular forms in Hispano–Celtic”, in: A. J. Nussbaum, ed., Verba Docenti. Studies in
historical and Indo–European linguistics presented to Jay Jasanoff by students,
colleagues and friends, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 63–72.
Eska, J. F. – Wallace, R. (2002): “Thoughts on Vercelli eu”, Journal of Indo-European
Studies 30, pp. 275-334.
García Merino, C. – Albertos, M. L. (1981): “Nueva inscripción en lengua celtibérica:
una tessera hospitalis zoomorfa hallada en Uxama (Soria)”, Emerita 49, pp. 179–89.
García Merino, C. – Uuntermann, J. (2002): "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 65, pp. 133–52.
Hoz, J. De (1986): “La epigrafía celtibérica", in: Epigrafía Hispánica de Época
Romano–Republicana, Zaragoza, pp. 43–102.
IEW = Pokorny, J. (1959): Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Bern,
Francke.
Jasanoff, J. H. (2009): “*–bhi, *–bhis, *–ōis: Following the trail of the PIE instrumental
plural”, in: J. E. Rasmussen – Th. Olander, eds., Internal Reconstruction in Indo-
European: Methods, Results, and Problems (= Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European
3), Copenhagen, pp. 137–49.
–– (in press): “Long vowel preterites in Indo-European”.
Jiménez Zamudio, R. (2004): “El papel morfológico de los antiguos diptongos *–ōi,*–oi
en la flexión nominal temática del latín”, Revista de Estudios Latinos 4, pp. 33–67.
Jordán Cólera, C. (2007): “Estudios sobre el sistema dual de escritura en epigrafía no
monetal celtibérica”, Palaeohispanica 7, pp. 101-42.
Lambert, P.–Y. (1994): La langue gauloise, Paris, Errance.
Meid, W. (1989): Zur Lesung und Deutung gallischer Inschriften, Innsbruck, IBS.
Melchert, H. C. – Oettinger, N. (2009): “Ablativ und Instrumental im Hethitischen und
Indogermanischen. Ein Beitrag zur relativen Chronologie”, Incontri Linguistici 32,
pp. 53–73.
MLH I = Untermann, J. (1975): Monumenta Linguarum Hispanicarum I. Die
Münzlegenden, Wiesbaden, Ludwig Reichert.

–––––––
35
Cf. J. D’Encarnação – J. R. Correia da Silva (1994), R. M. Pedrero (2001).

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 224-241, ISSN 0935-3518

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2011
 The instrumental case in the thematic noun inflection of Continental Celtic 241
MLH IV = Untermann, J. (1997): Monumenta Linguarum Hispanicarum IV. Die
tartessischen, keltiberischen und lusitanischen Inschriften (unter Mitwirkung von D.
Wodtko), Wiesbaden, Ludwig Reichert.
Pedrero, R. M. (2001): “Los epítetos del teónimo lusitano–gallego Bandue/Bandi”, in: F.
Villar – M. P. Fernández Álvarez, eds., Religión, Lengua y Cultura Prerromanas de
Hispania, VIII Coloquio de Lenguas y Culturas Paleohispánicas, Salamanca, Ediciones
Universidad de Salamanca, pp. 541–60.
Prósper, B. M. (2005): “Fonética y morfología del celtibérico”, in: F. Villar – B. M.
Prósper, Vascos, celtas e indoeuropeos: Genes y lenguas, Salamanca, Ediciones
Universidad de Salamanca, pp. 153–364.
–– (2007): Estudio lingüístico del plomo celtibérico de Iniesta, Salamanca, Ediciones
Universidad de Salamanca.
–– (2008): El bronce celtibérico de Botorrita I, Roma–Pisa, Fabrizio Serra Editore.
–– (in press-1): “A case for Celtiberian dialectology: The bronze tablet from Torrijo del
Campo, an indigenous condictio certae pecuniae from Teruel (Spain)”, Keltische
Forschungen.
–– (in press-2): “The Hispanic–Celtic divinity Ilurbeda, gold mining in western
Hispania and the syntactic context of Celtiberian Arkatobezom ‘silver mine’”.
RIG II–1 = Lejeune, M. (1988): Recueil des inscriptions gauloises, II, 1. Textes gallo–
étrusques. Textes gallo–latins sur pierre, Paris, Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique.
RIG II–2 = Lambert, P.–Y. (2002): Recueil des Inscriptions Gauloises, II, 2. Textes
gallo–latins sur instrumentum, Paris, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
Schmidt, K. H. (1963): "Dativ und Instrumental im Plural", Glotta 41, pp. 1–10.
Silva Fernandes, L. da – Sobral Carvalho, P. – Figueira, N. (2009): “Divindades
indígenas numa ara inédita de Viseu”, Palaeohispanica 9, pp. 143-155.
Solinas, P. (1995): "Il celtico in Italia", Studi Etruschi 60, pp. 311–408.
Stifter, D. (2006): “Contributions to Celtiberian etymology II”, Palaeohispanica 6, pp.
237-45.
Uuntermann, J. (2000): Wörterbuch des Oskisch–Umbrischen, Heidelberg, Winter.
Uuntermann, J. – Villar, F. (1999): “Las ‘téseras’ de Gadir y Tarvodurum”, F. Villar –
F. Beltrán, eds., Pueblos, Lenguas y Escrituras en la Hispania Prerromana. Actas del
VII Coloquio sobre Lenguas y Culturas Paleohispánicas, Salamanca, Ediciones
Universidad de Salamanca, pp. 719–32.
Villar, F. (1993–95): “El instrumental en celtibérico”, Kalathos 13–14, pp. 325–338.
–– (1996): The new look of Celtiberian grammar, Innsbruck, IBS.
–– (2000): Indoeuropeos y no indoeuropeos en la Hispania prerromana, Salamanca,
Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.
–– (2005): “Pisa, Pisaurum, Pisuerga”, in: F. Villar – B. M. Prósper, Vascos, celtas e
indoeuropeos: Genes y lenguas, Salamanca, Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, pp.
29–44.
Villar, F. - Díaz Sanz, Mª A. - Medrano Marqués, M. Mª - Jordán Cólera, C. (2001): El
IV Bronce de Botorrita (Contrebia Belaisca): Arqueología y lingüística, Salamanca,
Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.
Zamora Vicente, A. (1989): Dialectología española, Madrid, Gredos.

Dpto. de Filología Clásica e Indoeuropeo Blanca María Prósper

Universidad de Salamanca
E-37001 Salamanca
e-mail:indoling@usal.es

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 224-241, ISSN 0935-3518

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2011