Introduction The following is a survey of name structures found in Gaulish inscriptions of a variety of types, locations, and dates. The major sources are:
Gallo-Etruscan inscriptions (i.e., using the Etruscan alphabet) from Cisalpine Gaul ca. 4th c. BCE. Gallo-Greek inscriptions (i.e., using the Greek alphabet) from the region around Marseilles, dating from the 3rd c. BCE through the 1st c. CE. Gallo-Latin inscriptions (i.e., using the Latin alphabet) from throughout Gaul dating to the 1st c. BCE and 1st c. CE. (There is also Gaulish material occurring later, for example, the calendar of Coligny from the late 2nd c. CE, however, it contains no personal names.) [Lambert, 1995]
I have not dealt with Celt-Iberian data here (the Celtic language found on the Iberian peninsula), partly because the sources are significantly more difficult to work with, partly because it is distinct enough from Gaulish to be worth treating separately. Unless otherwise identified, the following examples are in the Gallo-Latin group. This article deals primarily with native Gaulish naming practices and does not include the much vaster amount of material on Gauls who bore Roman-style names (which came to predominate as the region became more Romanized during and after the first century CE). Only a small percentage of the known Gaulish names occur in the structures covered here. Two much more extensive sources for Gaulish given names are Evans and Whatmough (see the references below) below ), although both need to be used with care as they cover a great deal of time and space. Men's and women's names use the same types of structures in general, with a few variants that may be due to different usage or simply to the vagaries of the data. Rather than separating the two into different sections, I've treated them together to show the parallels. The major theme in name structures is the combination of an idionym (the given name or equivalent identifying the individual) plus some sort of relationship identification. (I generally try to stay away from less familiar terms like "idionym", but I've tried to use it here to distinguish the given name of the person being identified from other given names that occur in the reference; for example, in patronyms.) Occasionally, other types of identification may also be present, or may substitute for the patronym. The relationship byname may be simply the genitive (possessive) form of the
parent's given name; it may be an adjective with a possessive sense derived from that element (similar to the forms of Roman nomina); it may be an adjectival form (with genitive sense) made from the parent's given name with an added suffix <-ac-> before the inflection; or it may add the suffix masculine <-(i)gnos>, feminine <-(i)gna> (meaning roughly "offspring") to the parent's given name. Most typically, the relationship byname comes after the idionym, but the reverse order is sometimes seen. There are some significant differences between the repertoire of men's and women's bynames in the available data, but this is probably skewed by the nature of the richest source for women's names: a magical text produced by a women's religio-magical cult. Many of the women named in this document are identified by their relationships to other women (including, in some cases, other women named in the document), but it may be a mistake to assume that the patterns seen here are typical for women's names. (At least one scholar is of the opinion that the relationships -- and perhaps even the names themselves -- are of cultic rather than everyday significance. [Koch in Meid et al. 1996]) In addition to identifying the women by their relationships to other women, the names in this document include separate words indicating the nature of the relationship (daughter, mother, spouse), a pattern I did not find in men's names (although I would be unsurprised to turn up an example of a man's patronym with an explicit marker). In addition to bynames indicating relationships, there are a very few examples of descriptive bynames or ones indicating location of residence or tribal affiliation, or where the nature of the byname is unclear. (Format note: the actual cited version of the name is given first, transcribed very closely into the Roman alphabet if necessary. Following is a normalized version that puts the name into the nominative, if necessary, and adjusts the spelling to a more standard form. After that, I give the nominative forms of the name elements, with notes on the inflectional class. An acute accent in a normalized form represents a macron (long-mark) -- these would not normally have been indicated in the original, but affect pronunciation.)
Idionym + Genitive Patronym To form the patronym, the father's name is simply put into the genitive case of the appropriate declension. Vectit[...] Biraci (m) [Lambert p.92] normalized: Vectitos Biraci nominative: Vectitos (m) o-stem, Biracos (m) o-stem
Martialis Dannotali (m) [Lambert p.98] normalized: Martialis Dannotali nominative: Martialis (m) i-stem (but probably a Latin borrowing), Dannotalos (m) o-stem Doiros Segomari (m) [Lambert p.135] normalized: Doiros Segomari nominative: Doiros (m) o-stem, Segomaros (m) o-stem Banona Flatucias (f) [Koch p.3, Meid et al. p.75] normalized: Banona Vlatucias nominative: Banona (f) a-stem, Vlatuca (f) a-stem
Genitive Patronym + Idionym This is exactly the same as the previous construction, but with the order of the elements reversed. Quite probably, in the current example, this is due to the listing of two sons of the same father (i.e., "X's sons: Y, Z") and may not reflect normal name format. Esanekoti Anareuiseos, Tanotalos (both m) (Gallo-Etruscan) [Lambert p.72] normalized: Essandecotti Andareuiseos, Dannotalos (i.e., Essandecotti Andareuiseos, Essandecotti Dannotalos) nominative: Essandecottos (m) o-stem, Andareuiseos (m) o-stem, Dannotalos (m) o-stem
Idionym + Genitive-Adjective Patronym To form the patronym, the stem of the father's name is given the suffix <-I> and then the appropriate o-stem declensional ending to match the idionym. Because the patronym is behaving grammatically as an adjective, it must agree in case and gender with the idionym. (This is crucial to remember with women's patronyms of this type.) See the appendix for information on how to identify what form to use for the stem. ourittakos elouskonios (m) (Gallo-Greek) [Lambert p.83] normalized: Vrittakos Eluskonios nominative: Vrittakos (m) o-stem, Eluskú (m) n-stem Bimmos litoumareos (m) (Gallo-Greek) [Lambert p.83] normalized: Bimmos Litumarios nominative: Bimmos (m) o-stem, Litumaros (m) o-stem Frontu Tarbeisonios (m) [Lambert p.92] normalized: Frontú Tarbeisonios nominative: Frontú (m) n-stem, Tarbeisú (m) n-stem
