KARL PRAUST

A RCHAIC F ALISCAN TITI A N O BITUARY N OTICE

aus: Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 194 (2015) 302306

Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn

302

A RCH A IC FA LISCA N TITI A N O BI T UA RY N OT ICE

In a 2009 article, M. C. Biella provided the scholarly community with a most surprising new item of
Faliscan. On a calix that was found in the late 1880s in the necropolis of Falerii-Celle, and that can be dated
on archaeological and art historical grounds to the end of the 7th century BC (periodo orientalizzante),
she claimed to have discovered an extremely archaic Faliscan inscription that, according to her, had so far
escaped everyones attention. The inscription consists of four letters only and reads
TITI
which is obviously the possessive genitive of the well-known and amply attested (Pan-)Italic personal name
TITOS.1 The inscription thus almost certainly names the vessels erstwhile owner.
Unsurprisingly, the inscribed object has stirred up a lot of activity, not only because of its sheer antiqui-
ty, but also because of its remarkable way of marking the genitive, the normal ending being -osio in Archaic
Faliscan. Recently, Francesco Napolitano and Paolo Poccetti2 have devoted no less than 25 pages of mar-
ginal notes both to the object and to the inscripton in an article whose content was aptly summarized by
Vincent Jolivet in The Bryn Mawr Classical Review:
[] la contribution de Francesco Napolitano et Paolo Poccetti [] prsente lintrt din-
srer ltude dune inscription dans son contexte, en tenant compte de la fonction de son sup-
port, un vase dimpasto de la seconde moiti du VIIe sicle une tafhna, terme trusque utilis
pour dsigner le calice, portant linscription Titi, probablement le nom du dfunt, propritaire
de lobjet. Les auteurs analysent la signification de cette toute premire attestation dun gnitif
en -i, et soulignent la position anormale de linscription sous le pied du vase (aux diffrentes
hypothses examines p. 297, on peut prfrer celle dune lecture facile lorsque le vase tait
dpos renvers, selon un usage courant, sur le kylikeion).3
In the following, only one of the points highlighted by Jolivet will matter to us, viz. the abnormal posi-
tioning of the inscription. None of the rest, and none of the other secondary literature on the topic will be
considered in any detail for a simple, but compelling reason: The so-called Faliscan inscription does not
exist.
In reality, it is a recently created phantom that can easily be unmasked as such by reassessing the infor-
mations provided by Biella herself in the first few paragraphs of her 2009 article (meanwhile followed by
Biella 2010, 155157 and Biella 2012, 41, with good photos on p. 53). In section 3 we shall present these
facts simply by quoting the relevant passages from her original publication. By piecing them together in the
proper order, the whole inscription will disappear into the nothingness out of which it emerged some six
years ago. It will still be an inscription, to be sure, but not an inscription written 2,600 years ago by, or for,
a speaker of an archaic Italic dialect. Instead, it will turn out that the inscribed signs are less than 130 years
old, and that the inscription, if read out aloud, would sound much like Modern Italian.
Before entering into details I think that a short general note is in order. Although the solution to this
problematic text occured to me several years ago while reading Biellas article, I forbore to publish, because
I did not want to appear condescending and thought others might arrive at the same solution. In the mean-
time, however, the situation has changed. The alleged titi-inscription has caused two other Italian scholars
to build for Early Latin a far-reaching linguistic theory about the synchronic, and allegedly functional,
distribution of the two o-stem genitival morphemes - and -osio (Orlandini/Poccetti 2013).

1 For a recent survey of Titos in Faliscan see Bakkum 2009, I 251f. (number 72).
2 Napolitano/Poccetti 2013.
3 Jolivet 2014.
 Archaic Faliscan TITI An Obituary Notice 303

I consider it appropriate therefore to slay the linguistic chimera titi now, before it causes any more
harm. In the following, the archaic -ending (the imaginary tail of the imaginary beast) will be removed
from the records along with its alienating possessor.

2
We start with the most noteworthy features of the inscription itself. Apart from their very antiquity, the four
letters are remarkable in the following three respects:
First, they are situated underneath the vessels foot and thus must have been invisible most of the time
the object was in use. The hypotheses advanced so far are all made out of thin air. Napolitano/Poccetti
2013 envisage the possibility that the letters were inscribed in this unexpected place in order to achieve
better legibility when the vessel was placed upside down on the (on the bar), while Orlandini/
Poccetti 2013 hold that the inscription on the external foot is clearly visible to whoever is sitting in front
of the drinker 4, an approach that is rendered improbable already by the small size of the letters: They
vary in height between 7 mm (one of the is) and 10 mm (the two ts and the other i). Generally speaking,
ad hoc explanations like the two just mentioned have nothing to recommend them, except the want of better
explanations.
Second, both T-signs of the inscription do not look like proper Faliscan ts, but rather resemble Chris-
tian crosses, with the horizontal strokes intersecting the vertical bars at about three quarters of height (see
the photos at the end of this paper). Biella stated the problem correctly in her article: Questo tipo di resa
assente nella ricostruzione degli alfabeti falisci proposta dalla Giacomelli (Giacomelli 1963, p. 30).5 But
in the end she failed to offer a credible solution.
The third, and most surprising, feature about titi is the case ending -i. In the light of the other o-stem
genitives attested in Archaic Faliscan one would definitely expect a +titosio as the well-formed genitive of
the name Titos. Compare, e.g., eko kaisiosio, I belong to Kaisios, inscribed on a low foot cup from the La
Penna necropolis, also dated 600 BC.6 The standard view up till now has been that the -morpheme was
due to secondary developments and only entered the language around 300 BC (and in my opinion, this and
the subsequent productivity of the - will hardly have occured independent of the Latin developments7).
The new piece of evidence provided by Biella completely changed the situation. It was taken by Orlan-
dini/Poccetti 2013 as the pivotal point for their theory on the development of the o-stem genitives in Fal-
iscan and in Latin proper. If correct, this theory would necessitate rethinking of a good deal of received
knowledge.
Broadly speaking, their reasoning is as follows: In Faliscan inscriptions, three different morpho-syn-
tactic patterns for denoting possession are discernible:
a. ego + personal name in -osio genitive,
b. Personal name in the nominative case,
c. Personal name alone in -i genitive.8
Starting out from this template they then try to pin down the functional differences between the three
constructions, mainly along the lines of typological considerations like alienable vs. inalienable/inherent
possession, having vs. possessing, syntactic underspecification, etc.9

4 Orlandini/Poccetti 2013, 104.

5 Biella 2009, 274 and footnote 5.
6 Giacomelli 1963, 48f. (no. 4); Bakkum 2009, II 415 (no. 6/7).
7 For a wealth of details see Bakkum 2009, I 129134.
8 Orlandini/Poccetti 2013, 107.
9 Orlandini/Poccetti 2013, 107109 and passim.
304 K. Praust

There is no need to enter into details here. Rather, it is important to point out two general facts about
the theory as a whole (both of which are recognized in passing by the authors themselves10). First, the
theory is exclusively Faliscan in its making. It is neither built on nor demanded by data coming from other
Italic dialects (not even from Latin proper). Second, the morpho-syntactic pattern c above is not a pattern,
but a single item namely the titi of the calix from the Celle necropolis.
The theory, if correct, would have far-reaching consequences, viz. (1) that the -genitive must always
have coexisted with -osio in Faliscan (and, by implication, also in Latin), (2) that the absence of the - for
the next 250300 years from Faliscan is only seeming and due to the whimsical nature of transmission,
and finally (3) that by the end of the 4th century the ending made a (seeming) reappearance in the written
records, and then quickly ousted -osio in Faliscan (and, again by implication, also in Latin).
The situation for -osio in Archaic Latin is, however, a bit more complicated than the authors present it
to be.11 Still, this doesnt matter for our present purposes. What matters, is that the whole theory rests on a
single piece of evidence. In other words: If titi goes, the theory will be gone as well.12

3
I will now present four pieces of information that unmask the true character of the titi-inscription. As
already announced, I will do so by simply quoting some relevant passages directly from Biella 2009, and
sequence them a bit differently. The below points (1)(3) contain the issues that need explanation, and
quote no. (4) provides the explanation. For the sake of clarity, the more important passages are highlighted
in boldface.
(1) Liscrizione, ottenuta dopo la cottura con un strumento acuminato, stata apposta sotto il piede del vaso
(Biella 2009, 273).
(2) Dal punto di vista paleografica mostra una resa piuttosto particolare della lettera t (Biella 2009, 274).
(3) Tuttavia, questa terminazione [= the genitival -i, KP] appare [] attestata in Agro Falisco nelle sole epi-
grafi di et recente, dal IV al II a.C. (Biella 2009, 274).
And, from a footnote on the preceding page:
(4) [Il calice, KP] Fa parte della tb. 9 (XLVIII), o 44 del catalogo del Pasqui, della necropoli di Celle (Biella
2009, 273, fn. 2).
The mentioned Angelo Pasqui was one of the leading members of the Carta Archeologica dItalia project
that finally also led to the discovery of Falerii in 1884. In the following years, Pasqui, together with Adolfo
Cozza and others, became increasingly involved in the rather unscientific excavations on the Ager Falis-
cus.13 One of the somewhat harsher activities of his team was apparently to scratch the inventory numbers
of their finds directly into the surface of the unearthed artifacts themselves.
And exactly this is what has happened to our calix: It has the find number scratched right into its sur-
face. All it takes to see that is to turn the Faliscan inscription around by 180 degrees (or to read Biella
2009 upside down). The inscription then immediately loses 2.500 years of age and all its Faliscan features,
including all the odd ones. The unusual ts disappear, as does the awkward genitive ending and the
inscription as a whole.

10 Orlandini/Poccetti 2013, 101ff. and especially 118: In fact, it is only on a unique document, the Titi inscription, that
we have formulated our ideas in this paper.
11 See Bakkum 2009, I 129131 for the Faliscan, and 132ff. for the Latin facts; a shorter introduction to the historical and
comparative problems surrounding the Latin -genitive is given, e.g., by Weiss 2009, 203f. and 222f. The very basis of these
problems has received a brilliant explanation (which Orlandini/Poccetti 2013, however, seem to be unaware of) by Widmer
2005, 199f. His solution is as straightforward as it is elegant, in my opinion, exactly because it does not only explain the mor-
phological intricacies surrounding the - in Italic (and elsewhere), but also furnishes the functional and syntactic raisons dtre
of the genitival/sociative/instrumental - < PIE *-ih1 alongside the o-stem genitive proper in Latin and Faliscan.
12 At least for the time being. In principle, there might still be something to the theory, especially in the light of Widmers
insights mentioned in the preceding footnote. But it would take a new, and different, piece of evidence to set it up anew.
13 Those interested can find an essay on the early scholarly activities in the Ager Faliscus area on the excellent homepage
of the Museo Civico Archeologico-Virtuale di Narce; www.mavna.it/en/narce/study-history/.
 Archaic Faliscan TITI An Obituary Notice 305

In reality, the correct reading is not titi, but simply 44, or spelled out in Italian words, quaranta
quattro the inventory number given to the object by Pasqui and/or one of his fellow discoverers. The only
good thing about the barbarous graffiti is that the inscriber had the decency to scratch his Faliscan stuff
into the bottom of the calix where it was at least invisible to the average spectator.
A much more blatant example of the same procedure can be seen on the 7th century Vetusia Bowl from
Praeneste where, likewise, some indagatore did not shy away from defacing the artifact by scratching a
big 39 right into its silver! surface (see the photo below taken from Hartmann 2005, 37).14
The terminus post quem for the quaranta quattro-inscription is supplied by our final quote from Biella
2009.
(5) La tomba, a camera, venne indagata in data 17.2.1888 ed edita nel solo scarno elenco contenuto in Forma
Italiae II, 2, pp. 121 ss. (Biella 2009, 273, fn.2).

4
It is time to end this obituary. The late 7th century Faliscan titi-inscription has passed away, and so have all
the theories built on it, most importantly the one on the alleged distribution of -i and -osio in Early Falis-
can (and Latin proper) by Orlandini and Poccetti. I think that the evidence speaks for itself, so there is no
need to rub more salt in other peoples wounds by going through the arguments point by point once more.
Instead, I would like to end with a more positive sentence by Konrad Lorenz (the Father of Ethology =
animal behavior) that I have always found consoling and beautiful, and all the more so, as several of his
claims for which he deservedly won the Nobel prize in 1973, have turned out to be wrong since then:
berhaupt ist es fr den Forscher ein guter Morgensport, tglich vor dem Frhstck eine Lieblings-
hypothese einzustampfen das erhlt jung.15

References
Bakkum, Gabril C. L. M., 2009: The Latin Dialect of the Ager Faliscus. 150 Years of Research. 2 Vols. Amsterdam.
Biella, Maria Cristina, 2009: Una nuova iscrizione falisca di VII. sec. a.C. Un sostantivo con tema in -o e genitivo
in -i. Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 168. 273277.
2010: Su di un vaso falisco di et orientalizzante con scena di navigazione. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archo-
logischen Instituts, Rmische Abteilung 116. 141158.
2012: Oggetti iscritti e tradizioni artigianali nellorientalizzante in Agro Falisco. In: Convivenze etniche e contatti
di culture. Aristonothos (Scritti per il Mediterraneo antico) 4. Trento. 3757.
Giacomelli, Gabriella, 1963: La lingua falisca. Firenze.
Hartmann, Markus, 2005: Die frhlateinischen Inschriften und ihre Datierung: Eine linguistisch-archolo-
gisch-palographische Untersuchung. Bremen.
Jolivet, Vincent, 2014: Review of Gabriele Cifani (ed.), Tra Roma e lEtruria: cultura, identit e territorio dei Falisci,
Roma 2013. BMCR 2014.02.36.
Napolitano, Francesco/Poccetti, Paolo, 2013: La Tafhna di Titos: alcune notazioni a margine. In: Gabriele Cifani
(ed.), Tra Roma e lEtruria: cultura, identit e territorio dei Falisci. Roma. 287312.
Orlandini, Anna/Poccetti, Paolo, 2013: -i and -osio Genitives in Archaic Latin: Different Markers for Different Pos-
session Types? Journal of Latin Linguistics 12 (1). 101121.
Weiss, Michael L., 2009: Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor.
Widmer, Paul, 2005: Der altindische vk -Typus und hethitisch nakk-: Der indogermanische Instrumental zwischen
Syntax und Morphologie. Die Sprache 45. 190208.

Karl Praust, Wien

praust@gmx.net

14 My thanks go to Michael Weiss for making me aware of this parallel.

15 Lorenz, Konrad: Das sogenannte Bse. Zur Naturgeschichte der Aggression. Wien 1963 (beginning of chapter 2).
306 K. Praust

Biella 2009, fig. 4 Biella 2009, fig. 4 (turned by 180)

Hartmann 2005, Abbildung 35