Conventions and Abbreviations

From Lexicon Leponticum
Jump to: navigation, search


Inclusion of texts/readings

  • LexLep is inclusive, not exclusive. This means that texts and readings are included in the lexicon even if we do not consider them Celtic or correct.
  • Everything written or engraved on an object that already contains an Italo-Celtic inscription will be considered an inscription itself and will accordingly be furnished with a separate sigil.
  • Ornamental, not-script-based engravings are considered to be part of an inscription when they stand in close relation to it (e.g., the triangle in VB·3.1).
  • Latin seals of manufacturers imprinted on the objects are treated separately (e.g., AVILLI on NO·12 Oleggio).
  • Continuous texts that switch between languages, like those on PG·1 Todi, will be treated as consisting of several inscriptions.


The main data about inscriptions and archaeological objects has been gathered from the most relevant collections of Lepontic and Cisalpine Gaulish inscriptions (Morandi 2004, Solinas 1994, Lejeune 1971). Additional information has been added from selected literature that was available to the project team. The objects have not been examined in autopsy yet; it is however planned for the future to examine and document all inscriptions ourselves (cf. project history).


  • Generally following Schumacher 2004: 112-120, 318-319.
    1. For technical reasons, square brackets [ ] cannot be used in the transliteration of words; parentheses ( ) are used instead (e.g. )tiris???v?().
    2. Variant characters: We do not distinguish between t1 (= "Etruscan" T T4 s) and t2 (= "St. Andrew's Cross" T T s) in our transliterations of Raetic (cf. General remarks).
    3. Ambiguous or variant readings: We did not employ annotations that combine more than one reading variant (cf. Schumacher 2004: 114-115). For illegible characters we employ <?> instead of <x> (e.g. )tiris???v?().
    4. The direction of writing is not indicated by an arrow; instead it is listed separately under "Direction of Writing" on the Inscription pages (e.g. CO·11).

General remarks

Our reading of the epigraphic texts is divided into two parts: the transliteration, and the graphical display of the specific character variants.

  • In our transliterations we do not distinguish between the character variants (see "Reading in Transliteration" in the Inscription pages, e.g. NO·1).
  • The character variants can be identified in the graphical representations of the signs employed by the scribe (see "Reading in Original Script" in the Inscription pages, e.g. NO·1).

Reading variants:

  • The main reading is listed under "Reading in Transliteration" (e.g. CO·11).
  • Other reading variants are listed under "Variant Reading" (e.g. CO·11).


Every character or mark on an object that contains an Italo-Celtic inscription is rendered in the transcription by a special character.

Please note the comment on the hitherto defined character variants.

  • Representing Vowels: A, E, I, U, O
  • Representing Consonants: B, C, V, I, K, L, M, N, P, Ś, R, S, T, U, Φ, Χ, X
  • Other characters/signs:
    • Word separator: <:>
    • Not identifiable sign: <?>
    • Line break: </>
  • Non-character sign: <§>

Ambiguous readings

  • A note on p and l: P s in sinistroverse inscriptions, and P d in dextroverse inscriptions can both be read as p or as l (cf. Schumacher 2004: 113-114). When the transliteration is ambiguous both reading variants are listed.

Damaged or fragmentary inscriptions

  • Corrupt or reconstructed characters are marked with a subscript dot below the letter, e.g. <ṣ> in ]tiriṣ???v?[ (CO·11).

The following signs have been employed to mark the incompleteness of an inscription or of words:

  • Transliteration of Inscriptions (e.g. CO·11, TI·45.2)
    • ] : beginning of the inscription is missing
    • [ : ending of the inscription is missing
    •  ? : illegible character; if the gap corresponds to the width of e.g. 3 unidentifiable characters, ??? is employed
    • [...]: gap due to damage; letter(s) is/are missing
  • Transliteration of words (e.g. )tiris???v?(, uesa?a(...)ai)
    • ) : beginning of the word is missing
    • ( : ending of the word is missing
    •  ? : illegible character
    • (...): gap; letter(s) is/are missing

Reconstructions, Symbols, etc.

Other signs, marks, and symbols

  • Ornaments in the context of inscriptions are rendered by square brackets with denomination of the ornament, e.g. "[zigzag]" in NO·1.
  • Isolated ornaments and figures are rendered by <§>.

Geographic coordinates

  • On "Site" pages, a point in the centre of the respective location (main square, town hall,...) is used for determining the values for the coordinate entries.
  • On "Object" pages, ideally the exact coordinates where the objects were found are used. If these are unavailable, the coordinates of the site are used instead.
  • On "Museum" pages, a point at the entrance of the museum is used for determining the coordinates.


Lejeune 1971 Michel Lejeune, Lepontica, Paris: Société d'Édition "Les Belles Lettres" 1971. (reprint of the article "Documents gaulois et para-gaulois de Cisalpine", Études Celtiques 12/2, 1970-1, pp. 357-500)
Morandi 2004 Alessandro Morandi, Celti d'Italia. Tomo II: Epigrafia e lingua dei Celti d'Italia. A cura di Paola Piana Agostinetti [= Popoli e civiltà dell'Italia antica 12.2], Roma: Spazio Tre 2004.
Schumacher 2004 Stefan Schumacher, Die rätischen Inschriften. Geschichte und heutiger Stand der Forschung, 2nd, extended edition [= Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Sonderheft 121], Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft 2004.
Solinas 1994 Patrizia Solinas, "Il Celtico in Italia", Studi Etruschi 60 (1994 [1995]), 311-408.