Author:
Tünde Vágási Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary

Search for other papers by Tünde Vágási in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2320-3225
Open access

Abstract

This paper offers a preliminary linguistic analysis of votive texts with particular reference to their use of and variation in Latin. The aim of the linguistic analysis is to identify variation in the context of votive texts. In those votive inscriptions which contained a request, precise wording was considered crucial for the request to reach the gods. Therefore, schematic, formulaic wording is common. The epigraphic corpus under study shows various Vulgar Latin traits. The incorporation of ‘non-Roman’ or pre-Roman cults into Latin caused the greatest problems, with most variations occurring in the names of such gods. Since the names of these gods are not included in literary sources, our primary sources for these cults are inscriptions and they show characteristics of Vulgar Latin.

Abstract

This paper offers a preliminary linguistic analysis of votive texts with particular reference to their use of and variation in Latin. The aim of the linguistic analysis is to identify variation in the context of votive texts. In those votive inscriptions which contained a request, precise wording was considered crucial for the request to reach the gods. Therefore, schematic, formulaic wording is common. The epigraphic corpus under study shows various Vulgar Latin traits. The incorporation of ‘non-Roman’ or pre-Roman cults into Latin caused the greatest problems, with most variations occurring in the names of such gods. Since the names of these gods are not included in literary sources, our primary sources for these cults are inscriptions and they show characteristics of Vulgar Latin.

On votive inscriptions that contained requests, precise wording was considered crucial for the request to reach the gods. Therefore, schematic, formulaic wording is widespread. The dedications are usually simple and sparse in information, and divine names are normally made up of just one or two segments, so it is not always possible to identify the proper name or the divine epithet with which the divinity is invoked. There are also some spatial differences in the spelling of the names of the gods worshipped in the Roman Empire, and how they show peculiarities of Vulgar Latin.

Romans attached great importance to communication with the gods through rites.1 Since the exact performance of the prescribed forms and ritual acts (caeremonia) was paramount in a sacred area,2 making mistakes in either the texts or ritual actions invalidated the transaction, so perfect implementation was crucial. Altars were also an indispensable part of the worship of the gods in Roman era: it seemed impossible to conceive of the worship of the gods without altars. On altars, sacrifices (food offerings, burnt offerings, etc.) were offered to the divinity to whom they were dedicated and individual religious choice had a very strong social or political message for the ‘readers’ of the altars in public spaces. The inscriptions on altars normally specify both the gods or goddesses to whom the altar is dedicated, and the person or persons who raised it. The exact wording of these two elements was essential for the dialogue between god and man to be maintained, which raises the question how linguistic change affects the productivity of this dialogue.

Divine names and epithets are strictly cultic and usually very conservative. There is nothing special about the names of the classic deities, but sometimes the names of even these gods are written in a vulgar form. We can regularly expect unique features (e.g. non-Latin suffixes or stems) in theonyms. Latinized deity names may come from cults, which spread by provincial believers from provinces to all the Roman empire, or these deities may have been local to the given province.3 The local population of provinces became ‘Roman’ while also wishing to preserve their local identity through several local and specific, occasional or regional epithets. The orthography of these names is somewhat uncertain for Latin speakers, either because the names themselves are foreign to the language, or because the speakers are not native speakers of Latin, and deciding how to include the name of the god in the Latin text would require a linguistic intuition they lack.4 Language assimilation varies from province to province and depends on several factors, such as the length of Roman rule. A sociolinguistic investigation is made difficult by how little we know about the history and teachings of the small religious groups who worshipped deities with Eastern connections (either in divine name or in figurative representation) prevalent all over the Empire; only archaeological findings and cult inscriptions can provide clues to the social and linguistic background of the believers.

In any case, the relationship between man and god still seems to be regulated by the classic do ut des formula of Roman religion. The most striking example of this is the promise made to the gods, the fulfilment of which (for example, the construction of a temple or a sanctuary, or the organization of games) was mandatory only if the request was granted by the gods; which could be indicated on the original inscription later.

In line with the above, the main topic of the present paper is the rules applying to divine names in inscriptions, or rather, the irregularities discovered as typical to the material. Regarding variations of divine names on altars, two main categories can be distinguished. First, those where the first part or the stem of the name has a mistake related to the sound system. Second, those where suffixation is affected, especially with female and male deities with identical names where the -ābus suffix is used to identify the female deities and/or to show the desire of the believers to emphasize their Latinity and urbanity through archaization. The main question is what developed these variants? Was the wording influenced by the fact that the worshipper addressed a pre-Roman divinity or other influences caused these variants, e.g. archaism or religious conservatism?

Linguistic variations and the sound system5

Celtic deities

A relatively large number of deities with continuous use of the Celtic theonyms are known which in terms of their declension fit perfectly into the Latin language. They are well-known and respected deities, such as the Gallo-Roman Epona. Other deities have several name variants, such as Sirona/Serana/irona/Thirona,6 who was mostly worshipped in the Celtic part of the Roman Empire. Considering both epigraphic evidence and representations, the cult of Sirona is primarily concentrated in Germania, East-Central Gaul, and along the Danube. The initial sound of her name indicates some difficulty,7 which is also reflected in the various Latin transcriptions: Si-, i-, Thi-; in Gaulish, it is written with a , called ‘tau Gallicum’. TH and account for the sounds ts, ds or st in the Celtic language.8 The original *Tsīrona ‘stellar’ or ‘astral’ was derived from the root *ster-, with the addition of a -ona suffix,9 and written with letters of the Latin alphabet it should have been Sirona, as analogy of the handling of Greek zeta in Vulgar Latin text. Accordingly, the Sirona name is the Latinised form of the theonym, while other variants must have emerged because the sound expressed by was unknown to Latin speakers. In an inscription from Aquincum, the /o/ in the -ona suffix is substituted by an /a/, creating the form Serana (AE 1982, 806 – LLDB-10102, 10103).

The cult of Vagdavercustis is known primarily from the area of Germania Inferior, including Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium.10 The cult was widespread in the territory of the Batavi tribe, so it can be associated with them. Inscriptions show that she was mainly venerated by soldiers.11 The element -vercustis can be interpreted as the root wer- (‘man’) attached to the verbal noun *kusti- (‘choice’)12 The meaning of the prefix Vagda- is uncertain, but it can be traced back to the meaning of ‘honoured’.13 Based on this, the name Vagdavercustis can be interpreted as ‘honored virtus’. The goddess has an inscription from Brixia where the name appears in the form Vagada vergustae (AE 1952, 138 – LLDB-124650-52),14 indicating that her name was very problematic for some Latin speakers. Another variation of her name is Vagdaevercusti (AE 1935, 163 – LLDB-143622) from Vetus Salina (Pannonia Inferior), where the dedicator, Marcus Simplicius Quietus, was tribune of cohors III Batavorum. We know of a person with the same gentilicum, Simplicius Super, who was a decurio from Germania Inferior (CIL XIII 8805), and the two might be identical. The cohors came from Germania Inferior, and the goddess was its dea patria. A third version of the name of the goddess is from Burginatium (Germania Inferior), in the form Vagevercusti (CIL XIII 8662 – LLDB-104603-04), where the omission of d might have been caused by a damage to the inscription.

Sedatus has autochthonous origins, and connected with the Celtic tribes Breuci and Latobici in Southern Pannonia and Noricum, worshipped mostly between the 1st and the 3rd century AD. Based on the etymology of the name Sedatus and its presence in the personal onomastics of the area, Šašel-Kos15 considered it a pre-Celtic deity from this area. The exact circumstances of the inscriptions relating to his cult are unknown, but a connection to mining16 can be ruled out in favour of a military and/or civil context. In one single instance of the many, his name appears in the fourth declension: Sedatui, although the context is somewhat problematic.17 This altar dedicated to Jupiter, Silvanus and Sedatus was found in Brigetio (RIU 429 – LLDB-143623), dating from the second half of the 2nd to the end of the 3rd century AD. This Sedatui dative form may have been influenced by the abstract concept of sedatus, -us, meaning ‘state of peace’. However, the analogies clearly show the Sedato form was the classical one.18

Mithras

A study of the epigraphic evidence of Mithraic communities may be suitable for our investigation, since worshippers in the Roman Empire of Mithras were mostly Latin speakers. The Latin name Mithras may have originated from Avestan miθra- or from Indo-Iranian *miθrəm meaning ‘contract’, or *mitras ‘contractual partner, friend’,19 and been taken over from Greek where it was written as Μίθρας.20 His name does not appear uniformly in the inscriptions. Currently, more than 520 inscriptions dedicated to the invincible Mithras are known from the Roman Empire from the 1st through the 4th century AD. However, most votive inscriptions contain the common abbreviation: D(eo) S(oli) I(nvicto) M(ithrae).

There is a unique altar from Aquincum (Pannonia Inferior) that might be relevant for our investigation of Mithras' name (CIL III 3474).21 The most striking is the beginning of the text: the name of the deity invoked is already controversial, since the altar seems to be dedicated Minitrae, or, according to a new interpretation, Menitrae.22 In either case, the deity in question was considered to be a pre-Roman deity to Pannonia, known only from this one single inscription.23 The altar was erected by a veteran, Aurelius Florianus, who served in an unnamed military unit as beneficiarius consularis. The name of the deity contains various anomalies: beside the /e/–/i/ change, which follows the imperial patterns, the M is also reduplicated with an N. The duplication of the first syllable is the engraver's attempt to correct it, he wrote the first syllable as Me-, then to correct it, he started again in the incorrect ni- form. However, the deity indicated on the altar might be identified as Mithras if we consider changes to his name that are common in other dedications. The change of the short /i/ of the stem into an (at the time, similar-sounding) long /e/ appears on other Mithraic inscriptions, for example in a cult relief from Dalmatia, in the form of Mete[rae] (CIMRM 1892);24 or in another inscription from the same place incorrectly written as Metri (CIMRM 1896);25 or in a lost inscription from Rome in the form of Methrae (CIL VI 511).26 A relatively large variety of mistakes are attested in the first syllable; we can even find hypercorrect forms where Y is written for the original /i/, in the form Mythrae.27 The forms Mythrae and Mythirae are both common in Dacia, especially in inscriptions from Apulum.28 Epenthesis, in our case, /e/ or /i/ appeared only in a handful of cases in Mythirae from Apulum, Dacia (CIL III 1112),29 and in the form Mete[rae] in an inscription from modern Konjic, Dalmatia (CIL III 14617),30 between the TH and the R. These inscriptions related mostly to the Danubian area.

Jupiter Dolichenus

The name Jupiter with the epithet Dolichenus – from the toponym Doliche (modern Dülük) – appears in various form in inscriptions.31 Linguistic variations identified with the Dolichenus epithet are found all over the Empire, and it is unlikely that so many variations were brought from Syria, especially since only a few of the claimants appear to be of Eastern origin. The name of the god is most often abbreviated in the following form: I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) D(olicheno). The variations appear in Latin-language inscriptions with different frequencies.32 In addition, there are some Greek inscriptions as well from the Eastern part of the Empire that include the form Δολιχ̣ηνῷ.33 In addition to the epithet Dolichenus, the name of the town34 Doliche appears in various forms: Dulca (AE 1911, 222 – LLDB-7090, 7091) and Dolicu (RIU 523 – LLDB-7084, 7085) from Brigetio (Pannonia inferior), and Dolica in an inscription from Aquincum (CIL III 3490 – LLDB-143632, 143633) all of them from Pannonia.

The most common forms, Dulceno or Dulcheno have dozens of examples from various sites within the Empire.35 All these inscriptions – apart from the Misenum fleet's inscription, which is from Portus (CCID 440) – come from provinces along the Danube, since most of the cultic monuments of the god come from the area of limes, where most of the worshippers were soldiers and Eastern merchants. The most instances for the Dulceno form were found on the silver plates belonging to the sanctuary of Jupiter Dolichenus in Locus Felicis (Mauer an der Url), where the dedicators were indigenous people, mostly women.36 The name occurs in a single instance in the form of Duli(cheno) on an inscription from Portus (CIL XIV 110 – LLDB-59806). The fact that all these instances reflect linguistic changes is proved by the fact that the inscriptions of the Dolichenus priests working in this era – the main propagators of the cult, who came from the immediate vicinity of the cult centre in the province of Syria – do not show any linguistic vulgarism, especially not in the name of the god, which is written correctly in Greek-speaking areas too.

In the second syllable, the hypercorrect forms Dolycheno or in the third syllable Dolicino37 occur just a couple of times in the Empire.38 The inscription from Pannonia Inf., modern Sárpentele (CIL III 3343 – LLDB-13552-53), erected by all the priests of the province of Pannonia, was dedicated to Dolc(heno). The most interesting form is Doloc(h)eno (for Doli-), where an acoustic assimilation can be observed; however, the number of these examples is limited,39 making it difficult to draw firm conclusions and also could be non-linguistic phenomenon.

All these different forms do not belong to separate lexemes. They manifest the same epithet in a way in which the engravers used their own spellings, reflecting the current pronunciation – and revealing linguistic, i.e. the most common /o/–/u/ change‬. ‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

Dibus et deas

The second large group to be dealt with are female deity names ending in -ābus. The first declension -ābus suffix is an archaic form inherited from classical language use, the special function of which is to distinguish masculine 2nd declension from feminine 1st declension nouns in dative and ablative plurals.40 The occurrences of the dative-ablative plural -ābus suffix of feminine nouns are systematically examined in this paper, both in literary texts and on inscriptions.41 The mix-up of male and female suffixes occurs even in the names of gods and goddesses, e.g. dibus, deas42 or dabus.43 The dibus,44 filibus, amicibus,45 forms were created on the model of the analogous female filiabus46 and deabus. These forms have an interesting relationship between vulgarism and archaism, due to liturgical and technical contexts where archaisms are often used for stylistic reasons.47

Using -īs and -ābus to distinguish grammatical gender also became important for some deities, e.g. Silvanus and Silvanae,48 as well as for Dominus-Dominae,49 Glanus-Glanae50 where the male part of the group has three female counterparts or just one like Belisamarus-Belisama.51 In addition to the traditional forms deabus, filiabus, libertabus,52 the divine name Silvanabus,53 which serves to distinguish the female deities from the masculine Silvani, is obviously justifiable. Nevertheless, the forms of male plural deities Silvani54 and singular female goddess Silvana55 are also known from inscriptions. Moreover, the form Silvanis is sometimes used to refer to female deities,56 especially in some Pannonian inscriptions. On an altar from Aquincum – dedicated Silvano et Silvanis – above the tabula ansata, four mythical figures are depicted: Silvanus and three Silvanae. Silvanus is in a short, belted tunic and cloak, holding a tree branch in his left arm and a winemaker's knife in his right. To the right are three Silvanae in long, belted chitons, each with a tree branch in her left arm and a basket in her lowered right hand (CIL III 10460). Another dedication to Silvanis Silvestribus from Carnuntum has the same image.57 Without an image to go with the inscription, it is usually impossible to decide whether the Silvanis form refers to male or female deities. There is also a dedication containing Silvanabes (TitAq 344 – LLDB-22963) from Aquincum,58 although the interpretation of that inscription is problematic. In line with the above, a dedication to the plural Silvanae may legitimately be either Silvanabus or Silvanis.

Matronabus et Matrabus

The suffixation of the names of mother goddesses also shows uncertainties, where Matres and Matronae produce the forms Matrabus59 and Matronabus instead of Matribus and Matronis.60 The words Matronae and Matres in fact encompass a wide range of pre-Roman Germanic and Gallic deities, worshipped by Roman and indigenous people in the Roman Empire in accordance with Roman religious structures, rituals and concepts. Their rituals, their representations61 and the worshippers in the provinces were Roman. In Germania Superior and Gallia Narbonensis, the Matronae and Matres were worshipped in the Roman style, with hundreds of votive inscriptions bearing local epithets some of them preserved in Latinised form. Currently, we know of approximately 1,100 altars and hundreds depictions of these goddesses from this area.62 The territorial distribution of inscriptions and cultic objects (statues, reliefs, sanctuaries) is different: the Matres goddesses are primarily known from Gaul,63 but also from Britannia,64 Germania, Northern Spain65 and Rome. Inscriptions of the Matronae goddesses are mostly limited to Germania Inferior, where their cult was very popular, especially in the area of present-day Bonn and Cologne, the territory of the Germanic tribe Ubii.66 Eight of their sanctuaries have been excavated in this area and more than 500 monuments with inscriptions survive. The Matronabus form occurs without any epithets on inscriptions in the areas around Verona in Venetia et Histria,67 while Matrabus is prevalent in the region of Vasio/Gallia Narbonensis.68

The name of the goddesses could have originated from Celtic, as the Celtic suffix -onus/-ona; Gallo-Roman or Roman words, or all of these origins together. Matrona can be translated as ‘matron, woman of status’ and can be derived from Latin or Gallo/Celtic mātro-, mātra-, in both cases from the Indo-European *māter- ‘mother’, while Matres can be translated as ‘mothers’.

The Gaulish-speaking communities used several scripts for their own language in Gaul, mainly Latin and Greek. The dative plural form matrebo,69 ‘to the mothers’, is known from two Gallo-Greek70 inscriptions from Nîmes (Gard) and Saint-Rémy-de-Provence (Glanum, modern Bouches-du-Rhône). These two inscriptions are of great interest because they honour the divine mothers of the respective cities.71 The suffix -obo or -abo is reconstructed as dative plural ending in the ā-stem declension of Gaulish nouns.72 The first inscription from Nîmes is engraved on a pedestal, and the dedicator bears a Celtic name: Illianus. It was found in 1740 on the site of the temple dedicated to the god Nemausus. The other altar was found at Glanum,73 a pre-Roman sanctuary settlement near the spring, in an alcove with fragments of female statues and near to the Latin inscription to the Glanicabus.74 Another dedication to the Rokloisiabo, ‘to the far-hearing goddesses’, is known from the vicinity of Glanum.75 All the inscriptions are written in Greek script, but are distinctively Gaulish in their language: note the dative plural in -bo-, where Latin would have -bus. This correspondence is supported by a Gallo-Latin inscription from Plumergat (Morbihan), with a dedication to atrebo, meaning ‘to the Fathers’,76 which is the dative plural for the Gaulish word atir. In these Gallic inscriptions we have a dedicator paying homage to divine mothers in the Gaulish language in a Gaulish-speaking community, which could be proof that the proliferation of -ābus endings in Latin inscriptions could have been caused by Gaulish influence and not archaism in religious context.

These goddesses have hundreds of epithets which are very diverse, many of them extremely localised, sometimes occurring in just one shrine,77 while other adjectives are more widespread, and some are Celtic, some are Germanic. In the territory of Northern Gallia and Germania was very heterogenous in language and multicultural. The area was inhabited by dozens of tribes, and the tribes had their own deities with different names. Non-Latin speakers of Celtic or Gaulish languages might have understood one another, since Gaulish belongs to the Celtic group of the Indo-European family tree. The goddesses have many mixed epithets, most of which have Celtic roots and a Germanic adjectival suffix (-henae).78 However, there are also words that exist in both Celtic and Germanic languages and can be traced back to the same root.79

There are usually three of the goddesses, but they are always indicated as Matres and/or Matronae, never by any specific or distinct names of their own. Sometimes the same adjective is associated with both Matres and Matronae,80 suggesting that the two groups of goddesses were compatible and that their names were interchangeable.81 From the approx. 100 Germanic and Gallic epithets,82 of confusion or equivalent usage of -īs and -ābus occurs in 35. On some inscriptions, the same group of goddesses has several epithets, of which one has the -ābus and another the -īs suffix. Altars with such different epithets and suffixes have been found in the area of these cults in Rheinland, with two centres: Bonna and Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium. The examined inscriptions often contain the suffixes -ābus and -īs as part of two separate epithets of the same goddesses: Matribus Veianiabus Ibanduiocolis (AE 1973, 316 – LLDB-101407), Vatviabus Berhliahenis (Ness–Lieb 236 – LLDB-101399), Matribus Suebis Hieuthungabus (CIL XIII 8225 – LLDB-101384); Matronis Alaferhuiabus Amfratninehis (AE 1984, 691 – LLDB-95609). This specifically proves that there was an uncertainty regarding the grammatical form.

The two Gallo-Greek inscriptions also indicate the possibility for the ending -ābus to have been used for mother goddesses under Gaulish influence, and that the two groups, the Gaulish and the Germanic goddesses, arrived at the same Latin form by three separate routes borrowing suffixes from Germanic, Celtic, or Gaulish language. Some of the epithets have a Germanic dative plural suffix*-ims,83 which is a small group of matron epithets (Matronis Aflims, Gabims, Saitchamims and Vatvims) from the narrower area of Cologne–Wesseling–Jülich.84 It should be emphasised that these inscriptions in a Latin context show the survival of the local language, and, along that logic, the -ābus suffix is probably also, at least in part, a Latinised version of a Celtic formula.

The dative plural -ābus is found with names of groups of goddesses who bear Latin or Greek names, although in some cases they cover pre-Roman divinities from different regions of the empire: Eponabus,85 Fortunabus,86 Parcabus,87 Nymphabus,88 etc.,89 which suggests an insecurity with Latin suffixation or the desire that people wanted to sound more archaic before their gods all over the empire. Using the -ābus suffix is not necessary for these goddesses, since there would have been no ambiguity regarding their gender even if the -īs suffix had been used, since it could only be feminine.

Conclusion

The dedicators (Roman citizens or peregrini), who used Latin as their mother tongue, addressed their gods according to Roman rites, e.g. by offering them votive inscriptions. Indigenous people could very rarely be identified in Roman context, since they have Roman names and Roman deities. Unlike official cults, the small religious group cults that appeared around the 2nd and 3rd centuries often show vulgarisms in the dedications that reflect the spoken language.

Roman inscriptions of a religious nature are mostly short, and have similar structures and formulas. Dedications began with the names of the deities in the dative, and the names of the gods on the votive inscriptions containing requests often reflect Vulgar Latin. These divinities were worshipped conforming to Roman traditions: by erecting altars to them and using the Latin language. The followers of the different cults do not typically refer to these figures by their pre-Roman names but often by the names of the Roman gods with which they equated them. Some names are complemented with Celtic theonyms and epithets, although unsyncretised theonyms are also widespread. All in all, there are several hundred names containing Celtic, Germanic or pre- and non-Celtic Gaulish elements. The multiplicity of deity names may be attributed to tribal or local characteristics, while some adjectives may simply be epithets applied to major deities with widespread cults.

In view, above all, of the epigraphic examples, it must be clarified that Matronabus, Nymphabus or Fortunabus could only be feminine, but the ending still could be used when speakers wanted to make it very clear or want to sound festive or religious that the designated referent was feminine, as happens in the case of names of divinities or epithets. That female deities appear with the -ābus suffix is a complex religious phenomenon that apparently has a linguistic and ethnic background, which can be glimpsed at when looking at the epigraphic material from the territory of Gallia and Germania.

The theonyms and the visual and physical (statues, frescoes, etc.) representations of the divinities have been translated into the Roman cultural language. The local particularities of Roman religion in the province manifest itself through these peculiarities of theonyms. Living and local language often depend on the demographic reality of believers. The relationship of the local and global religious communication in the context of religious studies is complex, and depends on the role of the human factor. The group of worshippers in the first two centuries adopt new linguistic strategies and change their vocabulary in local contexts, influenced by global factors. Pre-Roman religious communication is difficult to demonstrate in a Roman environment, but these variations of theonyms shows some of them. If the addressee actively helped in a matter, the vow (the votum) was fulfilled, and the inscription was marked with the formula votum solvit libens merito. Religious individualisation was very flexible and produced numerous forms, when the vow to the deity was fulfilled only after the request had been granted (e.g. after the soldier returned from the war in good fortune), according to the inscriptions, the gods became more permissive to their worshippers, even if their names were written and spoken in a vulgar form, when the vow was made.

Acknowledgement

The present paper was prepared within the framework of the NKFIH (National Research, Development and Innovation Office) project no. K 135359 entitled Computerized Historical Linguistic Database of Latin Inscriptions of the Imperial Age (LLDB, see: http://lldb.elte.hu/).

1

Köves-Zulauf, Th.: Bevezetés a római vallás és monda történetébe [Introduction to the history of Roman religion and folklore]. Budapest 1995, 65–87.

2

Liv. 1. 32, 3. 55, 4. 17, 6. 41, 9. 5, 9. 11, 10. 8, Gell. 10. 15. 1. Regulations to the sacred area: CIL IX 3513; CIL XII 4333; CIL III 1933; CIL VIII 26416.

3

Lindsay, M. W.: Festus: De Verborum Significatione quae Supersunt cum Pauli Epitome. Leipzig 1913, 268: Peregrina sacra appellantur, quae aut evocatis dis in oppugnandis urbibus Romam sunt coacta aut quae ob quasdam religiones per pacem sunt petita, ut ex Phrygia Matris Magnae, ex Graecia Cereris, Epidauro Aesculapi, quae coluntur eorum more, a quibus sunt accepta.

4

Fehér, B.: Pannonia latin nyelvtörténete [The history of the Latin language of Pannonia]. Budapest 2007, 444.

5

The substandard word forms referred to in this study can be found in the Computerized Historical Linguistic Database of Latin Inscriptions of the Imperial Age (see: http://lldb.elte.hu/).

6

Thiron(a)AE 1994, 1227 (Belgica, Mediolanum); DironaeAE 1994, 1256, 1257 (Belgica, Treveri); CIL XIII 4498 – LLDB-94579 (Belgica, Mediomatrici); CIL XIII 3143 – LLDB-71916 (Lugudunensis, Fanum Martis); CIL XIII 3662 – LLDB-20138 (Belgica, Augusta Treverorum); SeronaeAE 1984, 642 – LLDB-103208 (Lugudunensis, Suindunum), Féret, G. – Sylvestre, R.: Les graffiti sur céramique d’Augusta Raurica, Augst 2008, Nr. 8277 (Germania Sup., Augusta Raurica); The variant Serona is to preserve the archaic form ðēr-, SeranaeAE 1982, 806 (Pannonia Inf., Aquincum).

7

Eska, J. F.: Tau Gallicum. Studia Celtica 32 (1998) 115–127. Some Latin inscriptions from Belgica do actually use this letter: AE 1994, 1256, 1257 (Belgica, Treveri); CIL XIII 4498 (Belgica, Mediomatrici); CIL XIII 3143 (Lugudunensis, Fanum Martis); CIL XIII 3662 (Belgica, Augusta Treverorum).

8

Coleman, M.: Gaulish multilingualism? Writing, receipts, and colonial entanglement. Critical Multilingualism Studies 3.1 (2015) 26–45, here 34–36.

9

For *ster-, see Delamarre, X.: Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise. Une approche linguistique du vieux-celtique continental. Paris 2003, 281, s.v. stir-, sir-, dir-. For -ona, as in so many other theonyms: Epona, Matrona, Ritona, Maponos, or with similar Italic suffix -unus/-una as in Neptunus, Portunus, Fortuna, etc. See Hamp, E. P.: Incidence of Gaulish divine names in -on-. Studia Celtica Japonica NS 4 (1994) 71–72.

10

CIL XIII 8805 (Germania Inf., Hemmen); AE 2003, 1227; AE 2012, 978; CIL XIII 8662 (Germania Inf., Burginatium); CIL XIII 12057 (Germania Inf., Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium); CIL XIII 8702, 8703 (Germania Inf., Harenatium); AE 1935, 163 (Pannonia Inf., Vetus Salina); AE 1952, 138 (Venetia et Histria, Brixia).

11

CIL XIII 8805 – decurio alae Vocontior(um); AE 2012, 978 – […] leg(ionis) XXX Ulp(iae) V[ic(tricis)]; AE 1935, 163 – trib(unus) coh(ortis) III / Bat(avorum).

12

Neumann, G.: Germani cisrhenani — die Aussage der Namen. In Beck, H. – Geuenich, D. – Steuer, H. (eds): Germanenprobleme in heutiger Sicht. Berlin – New York 1999, 126.

13

Much, R.: “Vagdavercustis”. Zeitschrift für Deutsches Altertum und Deutsche Literatur 55, no. 2/3 (1914) 285–287.

14

This inscription is the only one where there is an interpunction in the name.

15

Šašel Kos, M.: Svet bogov vzhodnih Alp in Jadrana v stiku z rimsko civilizacijo III, Svet lokalnih božanstev iz Celeje in mestne okolice [The World of the Gods of the Eastern Alps and the Adriatic in Contact with Roman Civilization III, The World of Local Deities from Celeia and the City Surroundings]. Keria: Studia Latina et Graeca 4.2 (2002) 41–57, here 42–43.

16

Dušanić, S.: The miners' cults in Illyricum. Pallas No. 50, Mélanges C. Domergue 2 (1999) 129–139.

17

Supplementing the previous reading (RIU 429), I suggest the reading as follow: I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) / Silvan(o) / pro sal(ute) / et in(columitate) Au(gusti) / deum / Sedatui. In the third line can be added to et incolumitate after pro salute, which is a common connection in epigraphic corpus (for example in Pannonia Inf.: CIL III 3469; AE 1990, 805; AE 1953, 14 and RIU 864). The deum in the fourth line can be understood instead of deorum ‘among the gods’ – analogies: ILAM 158: Matrib]us Vedia[ntiabus] / [Numinib(usque)] deorum; AE 1984, 739: Numini Saturno / Reg(i) Patri deo/rum / et Latonae – and thus the last two lines suggested reading is ‘to Sedatus among the gods’.

18

On the etymology of Sedatus as a proper and theophoric name (cognomen) see: Alföldy, G.: Die Personennamen in der römischen Provinz Dalmatia. Heidelberg 1969, 292; de Bernardo Stempel, P.: Celtic and Other Indigenous Divine Names Found in the Italian Peninsula. In Hofeneder, A. – de Bernardo Stempel, P. (eds): Théonymie celtique, cultes, interpretatio / Keltische Theonymie, Kulte, interpretatio. X. Workshop F.E.R.C.A.N., Paris, 24.-26. Mai 2010. Wien 2013, 73–96. 84, nn. 104–105; PWRE IIA [Keune, L.: Sedatus] 1010–1012.

19

Kellens, J.: Les bras de Miθra. In Bianchi, U. (ed.): Misteria Mithrae. Leiden, 1979, 703–716.

20

θ̣εῷ ΜίθρᾳIGBulg V 5229 (Nicopolis ad Istrum); Ἡλίου ΜίθραIGBulg IV 2068 (Pautalia), etc.

21

LLDB-28110-11, 140916.

22

Vágási, T.: Minitrae et numini eius. A Celtic deity and the Vulgar Latin in Aquincum. Acta Classica Univ. Debr. 56 (2020) 179–193.

23

Alföldy, G.: Aquincum vallási életének története [A history of the religious life of Aquincum]. BudRég 20 (1963) 47–69, here 51.

24

LLDB-221-23.

25

LLDB-28122-23, 28128.

26

LLDB-143625.

27

AE 1998, 869 – LLDB-65593 (Alpes Poeninae, Octodurus); CIL VII 645 – LLDB-16552 (Britannia, Vercovicium); CIL VII 541 – LLDB-15185 (Britannia, Vindobala); CIL X 204 – LLDB-26996 (Bruttium et Lucania, Grumentum); CIL III 6772 – LLDB-103478 (Cappadocia, Caesarea); CIL III 1112 – LLDB-28139, 1113 – LLDB-28138, 7777 – LLDB-5923, AE 1934, 116 – LLDB-5922, AE 2016, 1335 – LLDB-143629 (Dacia, Apulum); CIL III 14466 – LLDB-28131 (Dacia, Napoca); AE 1960, 376 – LLDB-5921 (Dacia, modern Oarda); AE 1988, 963 – LLDB-9160 (Dacia, modern Sacadate); AE 1923, 34 – LLDB-15510 (Germania Sup., Bingium); CIL XIII 7416 – LLDB-143630 (Germania Sup., modern Grosskrotzenburg); CIL XIII 6086 – LLDB-19514 (Germania Sup., Tabernae); CIL XIII 6362 – LLDB-19641 (Germania Sup., Sumelocenna); AE 1990, 756 – LLDB-65675 (Germania Sup., Noviomagus Nemetum); AE 2013, 1074 – LLDB-70112 (Lugudunensis, Iuliomagus); AE 1951, 115 – LLDB-27154, CIL XIII 2906 – LLDB-27155 (Lugudunensis, Haedui); CIL VIII 8440 – LLDB-36811 (Mauretania Caes., Sitifis); CIL III 4800 – LLDB-28060 (Noricum, Virunum); CIL III 3481 – LLDB-28112 (Pannonia Inf., Aquincum); CIL III 10309 – LLDB-538 (Pannonia Inf., Intercisa); CIL III 3260 – LLDB-28118 (Pannonia Inf., Cusum); CIL VI 730 – LLDB-37088 (Rome).

28

MythraeCIL III 1113, 7777, AE 1934, 116, AE 2016, 1335; Myth{i}r|aeCIL III 1112 (Apulum); CIL III 14466 (Napoca); AE 1960, 376 (modern Oarda); AE 1988, 963 (modern Sacadate).

29

LLDB-5918, LLDB-5902.

30

LLDB-28122-23, 28128.

31

Vágási, T.: The sociolinguistic research of the cult of Jupiter Dolichenus. Acta Ant. Hung. 59 (2019) 537–546; Dolichenius, Dolychenus, Dolochenus, Dolicenus, Dolcenus, Dulcenus, Dolucens, etc.

32

Vágási (n. 31) 544.

33

From Syria in the vicinity of Doliche: CCID 2–15, 30, 33, 34 and from Thracia CCID 50–52.

34

The original cult centre was on a hilltop close to the small town of Doliche.

35

CCID 300 – LLDB-59677, CCID 304 – LLDB-59682, CCID 305 – LLDB-59684, CCID 310 – LLDB-59692, CCID 312 – LLDB-59696, CCID 313 – LLDB-59698, CCID 314 – LLDB-59703, CCID 316 – LLDB-59708 (Noricum, modern Mauer an der Url); CCID 86 – LLDB-6622 (Moesia Sup., Pincum); CCID 122 – LLDB-32065 (Dalmatia, Salona); CCID 146 – LLDB-9078 (Dacia, Ampelum); CCID 138 – LLDB-59646 (Dacia, modern Domnesti) and CIL III 7625 – LLDB-59646 (Dacia, modern Bistritz); CCID 182 – LLDB-5978 (Pannonia Inf., modern Tokod); CIL III 3316 – LLDB-59656 (Pannonia Inf., Lussonium); CIL III 3462 – LLDB-14818 (Pannonia Inf., Aquincum); CCID 440 – LLDB-59806 (Ostia); CCID 481 – LLDB-58463 (Raetia, Statio Vetonianis (modern Pfünz).

36

Vágási (n. 31) 545–546.

37

Gavrilović Vitas, N.: Ex Asia et Syria. Oriental Religions in the Roman Central Balkans. Oxford 2021, 234 (Moesia Inf., Novae).

38

CIL III 14445 – LLDB-11117 (Moesia Inf., Troesmis); CIL VII 422 – LLDB-15092 (Britannia, Bremesio).

39

CIL III 11926 – LLDB-58458 (Raetia, Vetoniana); CIL III 3999 – LLDB-8503 (Pannonia Sup., Aquae Balissae); AE 2010, 790 – LLDB-122659 (Britannia, Vindolanda); CIL VII 991 – LLDB-15137 (Britannia, Habitancum); AE 1998, 1144 – LLDB-63375 (Moesia Inf., Sacidava); CIL VI 411 – LLDB-59719 (Rome).

40

Diom. Gram. 1. 304; Char. gramm. 1. 129.

41

Luján, R. E.: La desinencia latina de dativo-ablativo femenino -ĀBVS. In. Fernández, A. H. – Villaro, B. O. – López, H. V. – Salamanca, H. Z. (eds): Ágalma. Ofrenda desde la Filología Clásica a Manuel García Teijeiro. Valladolid 2014, 399–407, here 401–402.

42

dis deasqueAE 1994, 1446 – LLDB-143634 (Pannonia Inf., Sirmium); AE 1992, 1203 – LLDB-102960 (Gallia Narb., Vasio).

43

CIL III 10264 – LLDB-47585 (Pannonia Inf., Mursa); CIL II 2457b – LLDB-122597 (Hispania Cit., modern Caldelas); CIL III 11107 – LLDB-8605 (Panonia Sup., Carnuntum); CIL III 12539 – LLDB-90873 (Dacia, modern Gherla). Fehér (n. 4) 196.

44

dibus deabusque: CIL VI 224 – LLDB-143635 (Rome); AE 1992, 1203 – LLDB-102959 (Gallia Narb., modern Vaison-la-Romaine); AE 1995, 629 – LLDB-143636 (Transpadana, modern Sirtori); CIL III 3221 – LLDB-143637 (Pannonia Inf., modern Donji Petrovci), CIL V 5669 – LLDB-60140 (Transpadana, Galliano), etc.; dibus et diabus: AE 2008, 1103 – LLDB-117655, 117656 (Pannonia Sup., Carnuntum); CIL XIII 3638 – LLDB-20143 (Belgica, Augusta Treverorum); dibus deabus: CIL XI 3333 – LLDB-92818 (Etrurira, Blera); CIL II 4496 – LLDB-122068-122075 (Hispania Cit., Barcino); CPILCaceres 382 – LLDB-15471 (Lusitania, modern Plasencia); ILD 584 – LLDB-9672 (Dacia, modern Ciumafaia).

45

filibusAE 1983, 85 – LLDB-143638, ICUR 3, 9045 – LLDB-143643 (Rome); CIL III 7535 – LLDB-3868 (Moesia Inf., Tomi); duobus filibus: AE 1991, 197 – LLDB-143645 or filibus duobusICUR 1, 3699 – LLDB-129364 (Rome), etc; amicibus: CIL VI 15267 – LLDB-33336 (Rome); CIL III 12953 – LLDB-34251 (Dalmatia, Salona).

46

In epigraphy to refer to several women of the same gens: Luján (n. 41) 402.

47

Tantimonaco, S.: The role of archaism in the Latin inscriptions of the Roman Empire: Some new considerations in light of computerized dialectology. Acta Classica Univ. Debr. 55 (2019) 147–169, here 153.

48

In the territory of Pannonia, especially in Carnuntum and its vicinity: CIL III 4441; AE 2005, 1232; Vorbeck, E.: Zivilinschriften aus Carnuntum. Wien 1980, Nr. 204 (Carnuntum); CIL III 10394; AE 1965, 124; AE 1992, 1461 (Aquincum); CIL III 14355 (Sopron).

49

Domnabus Iunonibus – AE 1946, 134 (Venetia et Histria, Verona); AE 1888, 114 (Alpes Poen., Summus Poeninus); AE 1913, 153; ILAfr 312 (Africa Proc., modern Pupput); AE 1992, 709; AE 1972, 193; CIL V 8246; InscrAqu 3491 (Venetia et Histria, Aquileia).

50

Glani et Glanicabus et Fortunae Reduci – AE 1954, 103; Matrebo Glanikabo – RIG G-64 and CAG 13, 2, 100 Gallo-Greek inscriptions (Gallia Narb., Glanum). In addition to singular male gods, plural mother goddesses are common in Gallia Narbonensis, see Häussler, R.: The importance of location: Religious inscriptions from archeological contexts. In Häussler, R. – King, A. (eds): Celtic religions in the Roman period. Personal, local and global [Celtic Studies Publications XX]. Aberystwyth 2017, 339–363, here 344.

51

CIL XIII 11224 (Lugudunensis, Haedui); CIL XIII 8 (Aquitania, Consoranni); AE 2013, 1121 (Belgica, Geminiacum); ΒΗΛΗ/СΑΜΙRIG G-172 (Gallia Narb., Vasio). The etymology of Belisamarus is beli-samo-māros, meaning ‘the very very powerful, the very great’. The goddess has Celtic superlative suffix, cf. Segisama, Uxama.

52

Serv. Gramm. 4. 434.

53

CIL III 10077 (Dalmatia, Alvona); CIL V 3303 (Venetia et Histria, Verona); CIL III 10394, AE 1965, 124, AE 1992, 1461 (Pannonia Inf., Aquincum); AE 2005, 1232, AEA 2013/14, 51, 52, CIL III 4441, Hild 70, AEA 1993/98, 263 (Pannonia Sup., Carnuntum); CIL III 14355,11 (Pannonia Sup., Scarbantia). Girardi, Ch.: La divinita plurali nell’Occidente romano. Analisi delle fonti epigrafiche epicoria e latine, archeologiche, iconografiche e letterarie [Tesis de la Universidad de Zaragoza 143]. Zaragoza 2021, 164–175.

54

For the male Silvani, see Plin. Epist. XII 2. 1.

55

Silva/no e[t] Silva/n(a)e – CIL XII 1103 (Gallia Narb., Apta); Silvano D(o)me(stico) / et Silvanae – AE 1978, 657 (Pannonia Sup., Aquae Balissae); Silvanae – RIU 776 (Pannonia Sup., Solva); D[is(?)] / Sil[vano et] / Sil[vanae] – IBR 274 (Raetia, Vetoniana); Silv]ano et Silv[anae – CIL VI 31001 (Rome). For Silvana, see Keune, J. B.: Statistik der Verbreitung des Sirona-Kultes. RE IIIA (1927) 354–360. col. 117, s.v. Silvana and Dorcey, F. P.: The Cult of Silvanus: A Study in Roman Folk Religion [Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 20]. Leiden – New York – Köln 1992, 45.

56

Silvanis [et] / Quadr(i)vi(i)s Ca[e]/lestib(us) – AE 1964, 175 (Britannia, modern Westerwood); Silvanis et / Silvano Cam/pest(ribus) – AE 1967, 405 (Dacia, Germisara); Sil(vano) et Silva/nis – CIL III 10460 (Pannonia Inf., Aquincum); [Qua]dr’iv’(ii)s / et / Silvani[s] – AE 2008, 1104 (Pannonia Sup., Carnuntum); Silvanis / et Quadr/’iv’i(i)s – CIL III 13475 (Pannonia Sup., Carnuntum); Silvanis et / Quadr’iv’i[is] – CIL III 14089 (Pannonia Sup., Carnuntum); Silvano / et Silvanis / et Quadr’iv’i(i)s – CIL III 13497 (Pannonia Sup., Vindobona); see Dorcey (n. 55) 46.

57

For a different interpretation see Vorbeck (n. 48) 31.

58

Fehér, B.: Aquincum instrumentum domesticum-feliratai [Instrumentum domesticum inscriptions from Aquincum]. DSc thesis. Budapest 2011, 257.

59

Blasco raised the hypothetical form *Matrae as a Celtic linguistic variant, which is recorded epigraphically in two particular dative suffixes, Matrabus and Matris (Blasco, A. A.: Matres y divinidades afines de carácter plural en la Hispania Antigua. Doctoral thesis, Universidad de Valencia 2016 [https://roderic.uv.es/handle/10550/50059], 101), suggesting that *matra was the original Celtic word. ACS II (1904) col. 463, s. v. mātrā, mātēr; Heichelheim in RE XIV.2 (1930) col. 2243, s. v. Matres.

60

Luján (n. 41) 405-406.

61

Simek, R.: Dictionary of Northern Mythology. Woodbridge 1996, 204–205. The most common image of these statues and altars is a depiction of three women, two of whom are hooded and one has uncovered hair (although this is more common among carvings of Matronae; carvings of Matres sometimes have all the women with uncovered hair, depending on the region where the artefact was found). These three figures are generally depicted wearing linen dresses with short cloaks held together by a fibula, and they often wear necklaces with half or crescent moon shaped pendants. Two of the three woman wear very large linen bonnets. The clothing style is of traditional Ubian fashion, even if the statues are in non-Ubian regions. Some images of Matres also show the women breastfeeding children, or have one or both of their breasts uncovered, see Beck, P. N.: Goddesses in Celtic Religion. Cult and Mythology: A Comparative Study of Ancient Ireland, Britain and Gaul. Doctoral Thesis, University College of Dublin, 2009.

62

In the territory of Germania Inferior, some of the dedicators bear indigenous, Germanic names: Chamarus, Allo (AE 1981, 679), see Weisberger, J. L.: Die Namen der Ubier [Wiss. Abh. d. Arbeitsgem. f. Forschg. des Landes Nordrhein-Westf. 34]. Köln 1968, 146, 241.

63

37 inscriptions from Gallia Narbonensis, 10 of them from the territory of the Allobroges, 10 from the territory of the Vocontii tribe.

64

Primarily from the Antoninus and Hadrian's walls, Barnard, S.: The Matres of Roman Britain. Archaeological Journal 142 (1985) 237–245; Birley, E.: The Deities of Roman Britain. ANRW II 18.1 (1986) 3–112, here 49–51.

65

In the vicinity of Clunia: AE 2002, 766; CIL II 2764, 2766, 63381; AE 1914, 24, AE 1988, 768, 769; Meseta 170, 179.

66

Eck, W.: Köln in römischer Zeit. Geschichte einer Stadt im Rahmen des Imperium Romanum. Köln 2004, 497–510.

67

CIL V 4137 – LLDB-23761 (Venetia et Histria, Brixia); AE 1993, 779 – LLDB-97669 (Venetia et Histria, Caprino Veronese); CIL V 4159 – LLDB-23779 (Venetia et Histria, Minervium); CIL V 3264 – LLDB-97670 (Venetia et Histria, Verona).

68

CIL XII 1302 – LLDB-74934, 1306 – LLDB-74935, 1309 – LLDB-74937; CIL XIII 5671 – LLDB-97662, 97663 are from Andematunum /Belgica; CIL XIII 5369-5371 – LLDB-97665-97667 from Vesontio /Germania Superior; CIL XIII 5959 – LLDB-97668 from Ellelum /Germania Superior and CIL XIII 2498 – LLDB-22133 from Bellicum / Lugudunensis.

69

We know of the plur. dat. suffix -bo from Celtiberia which, just like Latin -bos > -bus, comes from Indo-European *-bhos, and which displays the same o > u change: Matrubos – CIL II 2848 – LLDB-16422, 15783 (Hispania Cit., Augustobriga); Lugubus ArovieisAE 2007, 782 (Hispania cit., Lucus Augusti); deis Queunu(bo) – AE 2012, 770 (Hispania Cit., modern La Vid); Lugubo Arquienob(o)IRLugo 67 (Hispania Cit., San Martin de Linaran); [Lucou]bu Arquienis – BRAH-1971-185 (Hispania Cit., modern Panton); Lucobu[s] Arquieni[s]IRLugo 68 (Hispania Cit., Sinoga), etc., see Blasco (n. 59) 102–104.

70

The term used for Gaulish inscriptions of southern and central-eastern Gaul which are recorded in Greek script. The vast majority of the Gallo-Greek material contains only personal names.

71

[-]αρταρ[ος ι]λλανουιακος δεδε / ματρεβο ναμαυσικαβο βρατουδε[…] “artaros son of Illianus offered (this) to the Mothers of Nîmes, in gratitude (?), on accomplishment of a vow”.

72

Mullen, A. – Darasse, C. R.: Gaulish. language, writing, epigraphy. Zaragoza 2018, 9–10, Table 4.

73

MATPE|BO ΓΛA|NEIKABO BPA|TOY ΔE|KANTEN – RIG G-64 ‘To the mother-goddesses of Glanum, [X gave] a tithe in gratitude’. Szemerényi, O.: A Gaulish dedicatory formula. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 88.2 (1974) 246–286; Gateau, F. – Gazenbeek, M. (eds): Carte archéologique de la Gaule: Les Alpilles et La Montagnette 13/2. Paris 1999; Lejeune, M.: Quel celtique dans ΔΕΔΕΒΡΑΤΟΥΔΕΚΑΝΤΕΜ. In Morpurgo Davies, A. – Meid, W. (eds): Studies in Greek, Italic, and Indo-European linguistics. Innsbruck 1976, 135–151; Mullen, A.: Southern Gaul and the Mediterranean: multilingualism and multiple identities in the Iron Age and Roman periods. Cambridge 2013, 189–219; Rolland, H.: Deux nouvelles inscriptions celtiques. Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Paris 1955, 91–99; Rolland, H.: Glanum: Saint- Rémy-de-Provence. Paris 1960; Roth-Congés, A.: Glanum: de l’oppidum salyen à la cité latine. Paris 2000.

74

Salviat, F.: Glanum, St.-Rémy-de-Provence. Paris 1980, 36.

75

RIG G-65: KOPNHΛIA PO|KΛOICIABO BPATOYΔEKANT[ The inscription, offered by a peregrine woman, bears a Latin name and Rocloisiabo with a plural dative -bo to the ‘The Great Listeners’.

76

vrabos iiioovt atrebo aganntobo durneogiapo – RIG II-1, 15 the exact meaning of this short inscription is unclear. Lambert (Lambert, P.: La langue gauloise: description linguistique, commentaire d’inscriptions choisies. Paris 1994, 62, 107) translates ‘Vrabos (offered?) to the Fathers who mark the boundary of (?)…’, while Gildas Bernier (Bernier, G.: La stèle épigraphe de Plumergat.

Annales de Bretagne et des pays de l'Ouest 77.4 (1970) 655–667) cites ‘Vrabos erected (this) to the Fathers of the Boundary (or Country) for Giapos, son of Durnos’.

77

Matronae Vacallinehae is known only from the sanctuary in Pesch, Lehner, H.: Der Tempelbezirk der Matronae Vacallinehae bei Pesch. Bonn 1919; the Matronae Austriahenae from Morken, see Weisgerber, L.: Der Dedikantenkreis der Matronae Austriahenae. Bonner Jahrbücher162 (1962) 107–138.

78

E. g. Matronae Bergniahenae, which consists of the Celtic bergo- (‘mountain’) and the Germanic suffix -iahenae, as well as the Matronae Albiahenae, which was formed from the combination of the Celtic alb-, albio- (‘white’) and the Germanic suffix -henae, see de Bernardo Stempel, P.: Muttergöttinnen und ihre Votivformulare. Eine sprachhistorische Studie. Heidelberg 2021, 109.

79

Such as the Matronae Gesahenae – according to Neumann (Neumann, G.: Die germanischen Matronen-Beinamen. In Matronen und verwandte Gottheiten [Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher 44]. Köln–Bonn 1987, 101–132), from Germanic geisa ‘rolling into anger’, and at the same time, as Matronae Gesationum, which could have been named after the Gallic Gesati tribe cf. de Bernardo Stempel Muttergöttinnen (n. 78). Divine names starting with Gab- are problematic, such as Gabiae, Gabinae, Alagabiae, Ollogabiae, etc., since the root gab- is found in both Celtic and Germanic languages, meaning either ‘hold’ or ‘give’, respectively. The root ollo-/ala- could also have originated from the Celtic ollo- ‘all’ (Matres Ollototae) or from the Germanic equivalent, which was ala- ‘all’, (Alatervae). In the case of Matres Mopates (CIL XIII 8725), the origin is not clear either, as the word can be derived from the Celtic *map-at-eis as well as from the Gallic word mapat- ‘child’, see de de Bernardo Stempel Muttergöttinnen (n. 78) 72, 75.

80

Derks, T.: Gods, temples, and ritual practices. The transformation of religious ideas and values in Roman Gaul [Amsterdam Archaeological Studies 2]. Amsterdam 1998, 120; Matres Senonae – CIL XIII 6475 (Germania Sup., modern Bockingen); Matronae Senonae – CIL XIII 4304 (Belgica, Divodorum); Matres Octocannae – AE 1981, 686 (Germania Inf., Gelduba); Matronae Octocannae – CIL XIII 8571, 8572 (Germania Inf., Gelduba); Matres et Matronae Andrustehiae – CIL XIII 8212 (Germania Inf., Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensis); Matres Aumenahenae – CIL XIII 12054 (Germania Inf., Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensis); Matronae Aumenahenae – CIL XIII 8215 (Germania Inf., Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensis); Matres Vacallinehae – CIL XIII 8003a (Germania Inf., Bonna); Matronae Vacallinehae – CIL XIII 7951 (Germania Inf., modern Antweiler); Matres Aufaniae – CIL XIII 5413 (Germania Sup., Epamanduodurum); Matronae Aufaniae – CIL XIII 8021 (Germania Inf., Bonna).

81

Matribus sive / Matronis Auf/aniabus Dom/esticisCIL XIII 8021 (Germania Inf., Bonna).

82

de Bernardo Stempel Muttergöttinnen (n. 78) 46–92.

83

de Bernardo Stempel Muttergöttinnen (n. 78) 46.

84

Matronis VatvimsCIL XIII 7892 – LLDB-101406 (Germania inf., Iuliacum) CIL XIII 8510 – LLDB-101402 (Germania Inf., modern Lipp); Ness-Lieb 232 – LLDB-101403, Ness-Lieb 233 – LLDB-101404, Ness-Lieb 234 (Germania Inf., modern Morken); Matronis SaitchamimsCIL XIII 7916 – LLDB-104325 (Germania Inf., Tolbiacum); CIL XIII 8157 – LLDB-95553 (Germania Inf., modern Wesseling).

85

CIL III 7904 – LLDB-7534 (Dacia, Sarmizegetusa).

86

CIL V 8929 – LLDB-97642 (Transpadana, Novaria); CIL VI 182 – LLDB-97641 (Rome); EE-8-1, 647 – LLDB-97640 (Latium et Campania, Antium).

87

AE 2009, 911 – LLDB-101373 (Belgica, modern Gourzon); CIL XII 5890 – LLDB-79446 (Gallia Narb., Nemausus); ILGN 83 – LLDB-101374 (Gallia Narb., modern Rognac); AE 1969/70, 339 – LLDB-101375 (Gallia Narb., Calcaria Solarium); CIL V 8242 – LLDB-12858 (Venetia et Histria, Aquileia); AE 1993, 780 – LLDB-101380 (Venetia et Histria, modern Bardolino).

88

CIL II 1164 – LLDB-97672 (Belgica, Hispalis); RIB 3489 – LLDB-97673 (Britannia, Habitancum); CIL XI 3290 – LLDB-92648 (Etruria, Sutrium); CIL X 6799 – LLDB-97675 (Latium et Campania, Aenaria); CIL XIV 4321 – LLDB-97676 (Latium et Campania, Ostia); AE 2001, 226 – LLDB-97679; AE 1990, 55 – LLDB-97682; CIL VI 549, CIL VI 553 – LLDB-97685, CIL VI 554 – LLDB-97686, CIL VI 36818 – LLDB-97688 (Rome); Nymphabus Nitrodibus – AE 2001, 554 – LLDB-143693 (Rome).

89

Luján (n. 41) 403.

  • Collapse
  • Expand

 

The author instruction is available in PDF.

Please, download the file from HERE

 

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Takács, László

Managing Editor(s): Krähling, Edit

Editorial Board

  • Tamás DEZSŐ (Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest)
  • Miklós MARÓTH (Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Avicenna Institute of Middle Eastern Studies)
  • Gyula MAYER (Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Classical Philology Research Group)
  • János NAGYILLÉS (University of Szeged)
  • Lajos Zoltán SIMON (Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest)
  • Csilla SZEKERES (University of Debrecen)
  • Kornél SZOVÁK (Pázmány Péter Catholic University)
  • Zsolt VISY (University of Pécs)

 

Advisory Board

  • Michael CRAWFORD (University College London, prof. em.)
  • Patricia EASTERLING (Newnham College, University of Cambridge, prof. em.)
  • Christian GASTGEBER (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften)
  • László HORVÁTH (Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest)
  • Patricia JOHNSTON (Brandeis University Boston, prof. em.)
  • Csaba LÁDA (University of Kent)
  • Herwig MAEHLER (prof. em.)
  • Attilio MASTROCINQUE (University of Verona)
  • Zsigmond RITOÓK (Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, prof. em.)

László Takács
Acta Antiqua
Egyetem utca 1.
H-2087 Piliscsaba
Phone: (+36 26) 375 375 / 2921
E-mail: acta.antiqua.hung@gmail.com

Scopus
Current Contents - Arts and Humanities

2022  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
not indexed
Journal Impact Factor not indexed
Rank by Impact Factor

not indexed

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
not indexed
5 Year
Impact Factor
not indexed
Journal Citation Indicator not indexed
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

not indexed

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
6
Scimago
Journal Rank
0.1
Scimago Quartile Score

Archeology (Q4)
Classics (Q4)
Cultural Studies (Q4)
History (Q4)
Linguistics and Language (Q4)

Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
0.1
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Classics 128/160 (20th PCTL)
History 1308/1599 (18th PCTL)
Cultural Studies 1040/1203 (13th PCTL)
Language and Linguistics 880/1001 (11th PCTL)
Linguistics and Language 956/1078 (11th PCTL)
Archeology 288/315 (8th PCTL)
Scopus
SNIP
0.002

2021  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
not indexed
Journal Impact Factor not indexed
Rank by Impact Factor

not indexed

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
not indexed
5 Year
Impact Factor
not indexed
Journal Citation Indicator not indexed
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

not indexed

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
5
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,1
Scimago Quartile Score Archeology (Q4)
Classics (Q4)
Cultural Studies (Q4)
History (Q4)
Linguistics and Language (Q4)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
0,1
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Classics 90/139 (Q3)
History 1040/1499 (Q3)
Cultural Studies 853/1127 (Q4)
Language and Linguistics 740/968 (Q4)
Linguistics and Language 795/1032 (Q4)
Archeology 251/289 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,000

2020  
Scimago
H-index
4
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,1
Scimago
Quartile Score
Archeology Q3
Classics Q2
Cultural Studies Q3
History Q3
Language and Linguistics Q3
Linguistics and Language Q3
Scopus
Cite Score
17/132=0,1
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Archeology 229/273 (Q4)
Classics 78/122 (Q3)
Cultural Studies 790/1037 (Q4)
History 945/1328 (Q3)
Language and Linguistics 661/879 (Q4)
Linguistics and Language 714/935 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,032
Scopus
Cites
19
Scopus
Documents
48

 

2019  
Scimago
H-index
3
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,100
Scimago
Quartile Score
Archeology Q4
Classics Q4
Cultural Studies Q4
History Q4
Language and Linguistics Q4
Linguistics and Language Q2
Scopus
Cite Score
7/112=0,1
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Archeology 37/263 (Q1)
Classics 98/114 (Q4)
Cultural Studies 843/1002 (Q4)
History 1051/1259 (Q4)
Language and Linguistics 689/830 (Q4)
Linguistics and Language 740/884 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,150
Scopus
Cites
24
Scopus
Documents
0

 

Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2023 Online subsscription: 464 EUR / 566 USD
Print + online subscription: 532 EUR / 646 USD
Subscription Information Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.
Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
Language English
French
(Latin)
German
Italian
Spanish
Size B5
Year of
Foundation
1951
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Magyar Tudományos Akadémia   
Founder's
Address
H-1051 Budapest, Hungary, Széchenyi István tér 9.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 0044-5975 (Print)
ISSN 1588-2543 (Online)