KRZYSZTOF TOMASZ WITCZAK
Ea*lruudnułTnNÓw
Studium historyczno-porównawcze
THE LA]\GUAGE AND TIIE RXLIGION
OF THE ANCIENT LUSITANIANS.
A HISTORICALCOMPARATTVE STUDY
(Sunmary)
The Lusitanian lan8uagę, spoken in antiquity in the no.th_westcrn ajea
ol the lberian Peninsula, belongs to the so called in{logemnische Restspachen.
which a.re attested by a small number of inscriptions, onomastic material.
glosses and loanwords. ln fact, it is one of the least known Indo-European
languages. It should be cmphasizsl that the term "Lusitanian" used in tfus
book denotes exclusively the Bncient ]alrguag€ spoken jn anŁiquity in the
westeln palt of the Hjspanic Peninsu1a' and trot ńe modeln corluguese)
language, spoken in Portugal.
The aim of ihe book is to review all the rcmnants of lhc laltguage
spolen in the ilncien! times in Lusitania (now Portugal) and the ncighbouring
regions. The book contains a{r introduction, nine cbapters, a bibliograpby,
a list of abb.eviations, a list of maps, tables and illustrations, an infomation
about thc author.
Chapter 1 reviews earlier theories of the Pre-Roman substrata in
Ancienl spailt, suggesled from the beginring Óf the 196 century up till now
(1.1). lhc author prcsc[ts successively the lbl]owing issues: the local
populations existing in thc Llispanjc PeDinsula during the Roman co quest
(1'2); the problem of writings and scriplules of the ancięnt Hispania (1'3);
thc lnalo-European ianguages of thc ancient Hispania, nemely Celtibetian,
and Lusjtanian (i.4). A short note on the Tartessian language and its
possible ideniification(s) is included.
Chapter 2 gives basic infomation abou! the Lusitanian la]tg age and
iLs altestatjon. The terminologica1 problems (2'1) are comecled with thę
usc of numeaous names denoting the ianguage attested in the north-western
parl of the Hispanic Peninsula. e.g. Ligurian, West Illyrian, Gallaecien,
Para Celtic, Proto-Celtic, Sorotaptic, Lusitanian. The tcrm ..Lusitaniaa"
(.Fręnch |usitanien, Getman I'usita isch, spanish fusiao,?o. Polish tuŻytański)
łJ\ propo\eo bi Ąlrloolo lolxr in l9Óo loo'Joo afceptcd 'n ]98śa, Lbc
466
official designation of a separate Indo-Eutopean language (see aiflgr[ri.
Bibliography). The most chars-cteristic leature of the Lusitanian language is the
preselvation of the labia] phonemę *p (2'2)' Al1 the celtic languages 1oŚt this
phon€mc' That is why the west Hispanic pIopef nanes cofltaining *p are
probablc indications of the broad distribution of the Lusitanian languagc (see
map l0). The attestation of the Lusitanian lenguage is restricted to nrmlcrous
proper names and several insciptions, written by mcans of the Latin alphabet.
lnscriptions from Arroyo de la LuZ were crcated a]most immędiately after lhe
Roman conquest (1i9 BC)' wheręas thę two most valuable texts in Lusitanian
(i'e' lhe inscription from cabeQo das Fróguas and that from Lamas de
Moledo) date from the 2'd century AD. Antonio Tovar strcsses the fact that
"A1l th€sc peoples bcing nonJiterate, the few texts wę have of them are ]ate
and in Latin script". According to Javier de Hoz, the Celtiberians created an
amplc literate image, which contains various texts (e.9. municipal announcements, contracts ol friendship, epitaphs, votive aledications, coin insc.iptions)
wrjtten in two different scripts (North-lberian sylabary, Latjn alphabet) on
valious mateIials (e'g' metal' cef:rmics, stone' Iock). He cÓnsiders that tbc
Lusilanian ljterature did not exist jn contrast to the Celtiberian one, but his
opition seems too exaggerated. The distribution of the Lusitanian language
(2.4) can be also cstablished on the basis of the onomastical areas, distinguished by Jli.gell Untemann (see map 11). lt is possible that the Lusitaniaf,
language (of a relaled dialcct) was used not oo1y in the main Rręa inhabited by
the Lusitanians and the Vettones, but also in Gallaecia and Asturia.
chapter 3 is dcvoled to intelpretin8 a]l pręserved Lusitanian inscriptions
and some quasi-Lusitanian ones. The rock inscription lrom Cabego das
Freguas (3'1) seems the rnost valuablę text in Lusitanian' lt contains five
local names of the domesticated animals (in acc. sg.) and five Lusitanian
theonlms (i(l dat. sg. or pl.) connected by lhe copulalive conjunction II{DI
('and'). No subject and no verbal form is attested.
No.
(in
1
1
5.
INDI and'
INDI and'
OILAr\t (L) \heep. eqe'
TRIBoPALĄ (dat' sg' l)
PoRcoN' (ń.) 'youn8 !i8.
LAEBO (dat !l m.) to l-ares'
coN{rlłll (l) 'ńare' (?)
or !e.ha!s 'ewe (?)
ICCONA LO!\IINNA (d!t.
ss. l.) 'to lc@!a Loimina'
OII,AM USStrANI (1.)
TRIBARUNE (dat. sE t)
TAUBoM IFADENl (ń')
REVE TRE].... (dat. sB. m.)
461
As far as the religious interpretation js concerfled, the text in question is
usually interpreted as a Lusitanian variant of the Roman sacritice called
suowtaurilia, when threc diffe.ent animals (swine, sheep and cow) were
srcr.ficed. Ihe .m].nr'c\ of lbe $ord COMAIA\4 .s a,rbigLroJs rnd
therefo'e the suggested interprętalion of the Lusitanian sacrifice must be
Lrcated as nnceftain. The present author discusses F. p. C-urado,s hypothesis,
according to which thę Lusitania1 deilies, menlioned in the inscription from
Cabego das Flźguas, create a sequence in accoIdance to the thl;e-function
Schcna, suggestcd by Georges Dumćzil' The analysis ol ł1l availabl€ data
ailows lo cÓncludc that this hypothesis is coficct: Tlebopaja (.patroness of
housekeeping') alrd thc domestic creatures identilieal with Lares {Lusit.
LAIBo _ Lal' Lr,',^L''i bęlong lo ńę ]tld_l'!rncl'on dęitie.. ńe norse_soddec'
lcconx lo rhe
'econd-funcl on one\. lreblrJo {: RoTrn luno:7 .rni ne.l,
(= Romarr Iuppiter)
to the first'funĆtion otres'
The Iock inscription lrom Lamas de Moledo (3'2) włs described as
errl) a5 rn '- ccnlury AD. lr begLn. uiro lbe l:lLin lor-Bula of erccul,on
(RUTINUS ET TIRO SCRIPSERUNT 'Rufinus et Tiro w.ote
[it]'), foltowed
by the rnain Lusitaniatr text, which may be translated as foliowst .The folks
of veBnrini offer (DoENTl) a ]amb (.ŁNGoM) from Lamas to
[the god]
Clougias Macaręaicos Pętravios, and also a piglct (PoRcoM) to
1ttr. goaj
loveas Caeilobrigos'. The Lusitanian text tells about the sacrificei of two
domesticated (and young) animals, *ot about an alleged donation, tbus the
Lusitanian verb DoENTl musl de'iv€ from the Ifdo-Eufopean root
*dhel*dho-'to do, lo put (down)'' also 'to
offel' to give in sacrific€' and
not from IE. *dor-'to give'.
Three Lusitanian inscriptions found in Arroyo de la Luz (carlier Arroyo
de] Puerco' Cźceręs) seem to lepręsent municipal amouncements (3.i)'
They was ęnglaved in stone plates' The two fifst texts (l_I]), pubiished in
1800 by Juan Francisco de Masdeu, are usua.lly tueated as two parts of
the same document. It intb.os us of a ,,pact of frierdsbip or m;tualitv"
ll J.ir. PRĄlso\'l SLClAs ER!A vlt lttfĄ5l. [ba!ing r; be] conc.uClcd
or ratified (SINGEIETO) in tbe town cal1ed Carula (Lusit. 1oc. sg. CARLAI),
which may be securily identified wiih the modern vi age Arroy; de la Lu;.
A parl of family, clan o' parish seems (for some unclea' reasons) to bę
excluded from this pact. This document seems of extremely important
value, as it contains many items of family and social tęrmin;logy of the
Lusitanians (e.9. Lusit. AVA f. 'grandmother., Lusit. NURIM acc. sf. f.
'wife', Lusit' TEUcoM n''offspńng, descendMt' son', Lusit' AMPILUA
collect. 'slaves', and so on). All the Lusitanian tefins arc entirelv djffereni
lrom tbcjr semaDlic coJnterpdllę dtLesled jn tne CęlL'c wcńd, lb ch
confirms the opinion that lhe Lusitalian language doęs not lepresent
a branch of tbe cęltic family' A new incomplete inscliption from Afioyo de
468
1a Luz (lll) is also presented and carefully discussed. though no {lnal
interpretation of the text can be given' Additionally, the intę.prctation of
seven'quasi-Lusitanian" inscriptions is proposed (3.4).
The possible lndo_Eu.opean ele €nts in the Lusitanian religion are
rcvicwed jn chapter 4. Ail known Lusitanian deities are listed in the tbree
following groupsr main deities of Lusitania (,{.2.1); local Lusitanlan deities
of secondary value (4.2.2); Lusitanian deities attested only once in the
epigraphic soufces ftom Lusitania and thę adjoining regions (4'2'3). The
paltheon of the Lusitanian gods is rccoflstructed on thę basis of lhe
liteńry and epigraphic sources' Th€ main god itr Lusita'ia was Rerrs
(dat. sg' REVE)' the sky-god of Indo-Eufopean ofigin (<lE' *'}€L',
wroflgly desc.ibcd as an aquatic divinity by some Spanish researche.s.
The goddess of the night-sky, named ATAXCINA / ADAEGINA bccame
the Lusitanian goddess of death. The patrons of the wild animals, Arantia and AJantios, rcpresent a divine pair of lndo-European origin. Netol
/ Netos and Cosus were two Lusitanian gods of war. The milltary func'
tion of Cosus seems secondary, as it is suggested by the Italic cognate
(cf. Sabine Crrs r, the god of fertility ard crops). Also the cult of the
domestic deitjes, called LAEBO / LAEPO (dat. pl.) and identified with
Roman La.es (Lat. dat. pl. Ldtibus), was very popular in Lusitania and
Gallaecia. The aquatic deities (e.g. Durius, Deus Bormanicus, veror and
so on) belong to the local and second'c1ass crcatures. The Lusitanian
gods of winds (for ex. ERBIN-E) are also noteworthy. Most of the Lusi
tanian divinities appear to leplesent ao inhęitęd component of the Indo_
European religion, among them the sky'god Reus (called also Paramaecos). the horse-goddess IccoNA (<1E' *EkwanĄ, the god Cosus; the
god of fiIe and domestic hęarth vęstios; the goddess of he.ds Poemana
and hel partnff veste.os; the domęstic cleatufes called LAEBo / LA!Po (: ol'at' Ldshus, Lat' tr;/'ół'')' Also tbe Lusitanian divine twinblothcrs namęd EQUELr}LBo in dątive pl' (]itera]]y 'to two sons on
horseback') must be trcated as of lndo-Europea heritage (cf. OInd.
Aśyinau, lhe name of thc vedic divine twins)' Finaily, the successive
process of the religious syncretism of the Lusitadan anal G.eco-Roman
deitięs is discussęd'
The phonology of the Lusitanian language is presented in chapter 5.
The acccntuation system in Lusitanian is unknown. The development of
Lrrsitanian voca]ism atrd consonantism is demonstratęd in tables 1 and 2.
ręspeotive1y' somc selected qlestions of Lusitałiao phonology are carcfull)
discussed, among thęm: thę Lusitanian 1enition (5.7'l); the loss of the
intervoca] phoneme *-s- io Lusilanian (5']'2); thę Lusitanian fef]exes of IE'
*d (5.7.3)l tbe Lusitanian continuation of the lnalo-European labiovelars
(5.7.4).
469
Clrapler 6 is devoted to the flexion and synta{ of ńe Lusitanian
language. It is a short description of five basic nominal declensions in
LusitaDian (6.1)' all lhe prcserved verba1 forms (6.2). word odęr (6'3) and
$orJ- onr].rrion (0.4/.
Chapter 7 describes Lusitań]an Vocabu]afy, preseIved in the ancieDt
insc ptions and prÓpęI n.rmcs ftom Lusitrrnia (and Gal]aecja) anal also
aticsted as ioan wolds jn the lbelo_Romancę languages (especial]y in
Portuguese, G&llician, Asturian and Castillian)_ The Lusjtanian lexics js
divided according ro the following semantic fields: elemenrs ol narure (7.1),
trees and plants (7.2), animals (7.3). mankind and family relationships (?.zl),
parts of the body (7'5)' housekeeping' management' economy (7'ó). society
(7.7), abstract notions (7.8), nllmerals (7.9), particles (7.10), adjectivci
(7'11), verbs (1'12)' The Lusitanian vocabulary is ęxplained from the
ęti.mological point of vierł' Differences and simjlalities between the Lusilanian
and cęltic items are stlessed and emphasized'
ln chaptęI 8 the problem of the unclear position ol Lusitanjan within
the Indo-European family is anew discussed. The presett author asrees with
Ą' lo\Jrs hypoLbes'\' .lccording to wrich LJ\ildnian sholId be irealed a,
a separate Indo-European langlage, wbich did not represcnt a branch of
the Celtic subfamily. Howcver, there are many phonologicel and mor_
phological similarities, which connect Lusitanian with both the ltalic and
Ccltic languages, e.g. (1) the centułn rcpfesęntatian of the Indo-European
guttura1s; (2) prcseryation of IE' *o; (3) the ending of dat' p1- -ółos; (,{)
a strong tendęncy to lenition; (5) rhe development ol *etr to *d1]; (6) the
supellative sulfixes łlp}I(| arró _Lr-.rryl1o_' Thus it is obvioBs that Lusitanian
belonged to the weslęIn community of the lndo-Eufopean lmglrsges. which
was wrongly called the "Italo-celtic community".
Chapter 9 gives a short description of thę prob1em of the western
expansions of the lndo European tribes. The chronology of the Celtic
invasionŚ into the llispanic Penins!]a ń revjewed' The plcsent authol
accepts the hypothesis that the migration(s) of the Proto_Llrsitanian tribęs
preceded all the Ce]tic iłvasions. He suggests (aftel Jan G' P' Best's earlier
proposal) that lhc proto-Lusitanian tribes wele repręsentalives of the so
called Beakef culture' dating to 2600 1900 Bc' This źlrchaeologica1 culture
is found intemittently across Westdn Eu.ope, froln Irelanal east to Hungary.
eFd alom DenmJr^ 'oUtb lo s.''l) {.ee'nap j0'. Accolding ro Jrme' ń'
Mallory. the Beaker culture "has oltęn been associated wilh the lndo
Europeans since thete are good reasons to detive it ftom the area ol the
earlier Corded Ware culture (The Netherlands / Rhineland region is
probab1y thę most \łidely accepted), which is l'requent]y regarded as ęarly
Indo-Eulopean' |'''] Beakęrs ale a]so sometimes linkęd with the spread of
the domestic holse (in lrelatrd and pańs of Ibelia, for examplc). solar
4',70
s}mbolism, weaponry' and the introduction of €arly metallurgy ail sęęn
as IndÓ-Eulopean lraits". The findings of the Beaker culture in ancient
Lusitania are abundant, so the hypothesis seerns to be co.rect. What is
more, the distribution of the late phase of the Beaker culture in the
Hispanic Peninsula agrccs \łilb the distributioir of the Indo-Eu.opean
place-$ames ending with -briga 'hlll, castle (in tbe hill), town, city' (see
map 22), whereas the Iberian culture called El Argar connects with ihe
distribution of the non-lndo'Buropean place names beginnifg with 11t-,
11tr'-. lt is possible to suggest that the proto-Lusitanian tribes originated
lrom the Netherlands and the Rhineland region. There are ma'!y lexicai and
phonoLogical similarities between the onomastics ol the Gallia Belgica,
which was inhabited by the Belgians (i.e. an unknown lfldo-Europęan
natiotr located "zwischen Gemanen und Kelten") and thet of the Lusitania.
The Pfoto'Belgians and tbę Proto-Lusitanians had to Iepręsent two branches
of d Prę-Cęllic popJl2lion ol lDdo_LJrop€aD org]n'