TI·40

edit with form

Inscription
Reading in transliteration:	komoneos / uarsileos
Reading in original script:
Object:	TI·40 Stabio (stela)
Position:	front
Orientation:	90°
Direction of writing:	sinistroverse
Script:	North Italic script (Lepontic alphabet)
Letter height:	7.5–12 cm2.953 in <br />4.724 in <br />
Number of letters:	17
Number of words:	2
Number of lines:	2
Workmanship:	carved
Condition:	complete
Archaeological culture:	La Tène D 1 [from object]
Date of inscription:	late 2nd–early 1st c. BC [from object]
Type:	funerary
Language:	Celtic
Meaning:	'Komoneos son of Uarsilos' (?)
Alternative sigla:	Whatmough 1933 (PID): 276 Tibiletti Bruno 1981: 8 Solinas 1995: 23 Morandi 2004: 40
Sources:	Morandi 2004: 544 no. 40

Images

Stela TI·40 Stabio with inscription TI·40 from Giussani

Inscription TI·40 from Morandi 2004

Stela TI·40 Stabio with inscription TI·40 from Solinas

Commentary

First published in Poggi 1875. Examined for LexLep on 27^th April 2022.

Images in Poggi 1875: 201 (drawing by Castelfranco), CII suppl. III: tav. I.1 (drawing from calque), Gamurrini 1880: tav. I.1 (drawing from calque), Pauli 1885: Taf. I.17 (drawing from calque), Giussani 1902: 39, no. 7 (drawing), Tibiletti Bruno 1967b: 43, fig. 3 (photo), Tibiletti Bruno 1990b: 81 (drawing), Solinas 1995: tav. LXIIIa (photo = Morandi 2001: 6 = Morandi 2004: pl. IX.40), Morandi 2004: 543, fig. 10.40 (drawing).

Inscribed in two lines (length 52 and 57 cm respectively) with letters of varying height and form, called "libere e malformate" by Tibiletti Bruno 1978: 151. Final sigma is retrograde in both lines, while in the second instance it is not; epsilon in line 1 has an oblique hasta; mu has three instead of the more usual four bars (cf. Tibiletti Bruno 1975b: 49). See the object page on the orientation; a downward writing direction is also more likely with regard to the other two stela inscriptions from Stabio TI·41 and TI·42. The reading komoneos uarsileos goes back to Fabretti CII suppl. III: 73. Gamurrini 1880: 1, no. 1 reads uaosileos, but cf. Pauli 1885: 9, no. 17. The reading is also given by Giussani 1902: 39, no. 7, Danielsson 1909, 20, n. 2, Rhŷs 1913: 40, no. 5(2), Jacobsohn 1927: 31, no. 195, Terracini 1927: 145, Pisani 1964: 282, no. 119 A, Lejeune 1971: 63 f., 65, Solinas 1995: 329, no. 23, Morandi 2001: 6 f. and Morandi 2004: 544, no. 40. A different reading is proposed by Tibiletti Bruno, not yet in 1967b: 45, but from 1975b: 51 f. onward (also Tibiletti Bruno 1978: 151, Tibiletti Bruno 1981: 161 f., Tibiletti Bruno 1990b: 91, 100–102). Tibiletti Bruno interprets a scratch crossing the curve of rho as an intentional diacritic mark and identifies the letter as , used to denote tau gallicum in Gaulish names in Latin inscriptions, in combination with sigma to reflect the fricative element of the putative affricate: uađsileos. She can analyse the base of this name as u̯ađ-, which makes it rather more attractive than the unclear uarsileos, but Morandi 2004: 544, no. 40 categorically excludes the reading, regarding the scratch as damage – probably a correct assessment; the line is there, but can easily be an irregularity in the damaged surface. It would also cross the letter's curved part rather than the hasta as is usual. Indeed, the singular appearance of Đ rather than san, which is usually employed to denote tau gallicum clusters/sounds in the Lepontic alphabet, would be very surprising, even when assuming that the inscription is very late – see the object page on the typological dating, and Tibiletti Bruno 1975b: 53, Tibiletti Bruno 1990b: 91 on palaeographic considerations.

The interpretation of the text is less straight-forward than would be expected from a funerary inscription with two names. This is due to the fact that both names feature the ending -eos, which is usually considered to be a variant of -ii̯os, viz. a patronymic suffix. The order of the names suggests that uarsileos is the patronym here, but, as already pointed out by Fabretti, komoneos is in fact attested in the inscription TI·42 from the same find place, where it can be interpreted as the patronym of the name formula. Also, the underlying individual name is attested in VR·1 komonos (gen.^?). Rhŷs 1913: 40, no. 5(2) takes the forms at face value and interprets komoneos also as a form of appurtenance: 'son of Komonos (or Komu) son of Uarsilos', 'belonging to Komonos (or Komu) son of Uarsilos' or 'son of Komonos (or Komu) and Uarsila' – he ultimately prefers the latter interpretation, suggesting that the grave was that of a child which died before it was named, hence the naming of both parents instead of the deceased. (Cf. also Rhŷs 1914: 32). Lejeune 1971: 53 assumes that the patronym komoneos was reinterpreted as an individual name, so that the inscription does simply say 'Komoneos son of Uarsilos' (thus also Tibiletti Bruno 1981: 161 f., no. 8, Motta 2000: 205). Morandi 2004: 544, no. 40 conversely argues that, since komoneos is attested as a patronym in TI·42, it must be the patronym and uarsileos the individual name. Cf. NO·21.1, which has similar problems with anareuiśeos.

Corinna Salomon

Bibliography

CII suppl. III	Ariodante Fabretti, Terzo supplemento alla raccolta delle antichissime iscrizioni italiche, Roma – Torino – Firenze: Fratelli Bocca 1878.
Danielsson 1909	Olof August Danielsson, Zu den venetischen und lepontischen Inschriften [= Skrifter utgivna av Kungliga Humanistiska Vetenskaps-Samfundet i Uppsala 13.1], Uppsala – Leipzig: 1909.
Gamurrini 1880	Gian Francesco Gamurrini, Appendice al Corpus Inscriptionum Italicarum ed ai suoi supplementi di Ariodante Fabretti, Firenze: Mariano Ricci 1880.