Katherine McDonald's and Nicholas Zair's books both offer a new discussion of the Oscan language: an Italic language spoken in southern Italy (Lucania, Bruttium and Messana) before Romanization, and substantially documented from fragmentary epigraphic sources. In particular, M.’s and Z.’s studies are devoted to Oscan documentation in the Greek alphabet, since Oscan inscriptions are written in two different alphabets: adapted forms of the Etruscan and the Greek alphabets. The Latin alphabet is used for the documentation of part of the later Oscan phase and of other Sabellic tribes (including later phase Umbrian). M. and Z. focus on different aspects: M. has the broader aim of understanding the relationship between Oscan and Greek in the framework of language contact, especially from an historical and linguistic perspective; Z.’s work has a more specifically linguistic goal, aiming to discuss the phonetics and phonology of the Oscan language and their alphabetic representation.
The methodology they both employ is based on historical linguistics (tailored to their specific aims). To detect the complex phenomenon of language contact, M. (ch. 2) also relies on historical sociolinguistics and contact linguistics, and emphasizes the importance of this integrated method in approaching a fragmentary epigraphic corpus. The issues outlined by M. underline some of the difficulties of reconstructing the phonological system of Oscan through written texts; and Z. explains his approach, substantially based on the historical-comparative method (4).
To put her discussion into context, M. offers a sketch of the history of southern Italy before Romanization, with an evaluation of Greek and Roman influences on Oscan culture (ch. 1). In ch. 3, M. describes the alphabets, orthography and epigraphy of the region. She deals in detail with the development of the sign for /f/ (65–82), a sound present in Italic languages but not in Greek, since it has implications for the transmission of the alphabet to the Italics and for the subsequent forms of language contact. However, the distribution of graphemes proposed for inscription Lu 5 (79, 117) is not persuasive: M. transcribes the graph B in STABALANO as < f>, reading σταfαλανο and thus confusing phonetic and graphical aspects. Actually, in the text, /f/ is represented by the S-shaped sign, and the B-shaped sign represents an allophone of /f/, probably the voiced one [v]. The inscription presents two signs for two different phones (/f/ and its allophone), whereas M.’s interpretation, following M. Crawford, Imagines Italicae (2011), 1365, creates an inconsistent notation system.
There are also some issues with the terminology used by M. in referring to Oscan alphabets. Related solely to the Oscan corpus, scholars conventionally use the terms Osco-Etruscan, Osco-Greek and Osco-Latin, focusing on the alphabetic model. This terminology is followed by Z. M. instead rejects these terms and prefers ‘Central’, ‘South’ and ‘North’ Oscan, ‘since they cause less ambiguity about the language of the inscription’ (64). In my opinion, this terminology in fact results in more ambiguity, since this nomenclative mode is generally used to define geographical variations of a language, and is thus not so useful from a graphical point of view. In addition, the term ‘North Oscan’ risks further confusion, since it also designates as ‘Oscan’ different Sabellic languages, for example, Marrucinian.
Alphabetic issues are the focus of Z.’s book, which deals with them in depth. After a brief overview of the graphics of Oscan documentation and the linguistics of southern Italy (ch. 1), Z. discusses the Oscan linguistic system and the problem of dating inscriptions on the sole basis of palaeography — which does not offer a reliable criterion for these purposes (12). Z. provides a valuable table comparing the dating of inscriptions given by Crawford (2011) and M. Lejeune, Méfitis d'après les dédicaces lucaniennes de Rossano di Vaglio (1990). Z. explains his selection, which does not include inscriptions concerning the Oscan people written in the Greek language, since they are not useful for understanding the spelling of Oscan in the Greek alphabet. Chs 2–3 deal with the Oscan vowel and consonant system and their representation in the Osco-Greek alphabet. In ch. 2, focused on the orthography of the vowels, Z. discusses the issues involved and offers valuable summary tables. Around 300 b.c., an orthographic reform took place. Its most productive aspect was the revision of the notation representing vowels and diphthongs, although it may be possible to identify some chronological oscillations in the use of reformed graphs (see P. Poccetti, ‘Intorno ai nuovi documenti di area sorrentina: riflessioni sul novum e sul notum’, in F. Senatore and M. Russo (eds), Sorrento e la Penisola Sorrentina: tra Italici, Etruschi e Greci nel contesto della Campania antica (2010), 65–102). Inconsistencies in the Osco-Greek region suggest that it never developed standardized orthographic rules (see P. Poccetti, ‘Alphabet grec et langues indigènes de la Grande Grèce entre unité et variété’, in R. Roure (ed.), Contacts et acculturations en Méditerranée occidentale. Hommages à Michel Bets (2015), 511–23), since — as Z. also observes (167) — the documentation shows a relationship of one to many both for graphs representing more than one sound, and for sounds represented by more than one sign. Starting from new documentation that does not consistently match the vocalic model proposed by Lejeune (REA 72 (1970), 288–305), Z. proposes new interpretations of the data, offering a basis for an innovative and impressive re-assessment of the Oscan morphological system, particularly the o-stem genitive plural, with <ουμ> ~ *ōm without the assumed Proto-Italic shortening to *-ŏm. Z. rejects the thesis that spelling variations in Osco-Greek orthography are to be attributed to different orthographic traditions (Lejeune) and demonstrates that it is not possible consistently to associate them ‘with particular time periods, nor with particular genres of text’ (91).
Ch. 3 examines the representation of consonants and the possibility of recognizing certain dialectal features (dj > /z/; <τ> for final /d/). Here Z. presents some interesting ideas, especially concerning the use of graphical variations as a criterion for dating. He offers detailed documentation and discusses the relevant literature in an attempt to define the exact phonetic/phonological value of consonantal graphemes, although in many cases the currently available evidence is not adequate to settle the matter. Ch. 4 is dedicated to the relationship between the Osco-Greek and Osco-Etruscan alphabets, particularly focusing on the influence of the orthographical conventions of ‘national’ alphabet epigraphy on the Osco-Greek one. Alongside conventions of national spelling (for example, diplography for long vowels and < h > as hiatus-marker), Z. sees a strong influence from surrounding Greek orthographies (for example, in aspects of the use of < h>); other graphical uses remain inconsistent (e.g., <κσ>, <πσ> ~ /ks/, /ps/) and difficult to assign to a national Oscan or Greek model. Z. concludes — contra the previous literature (Lazzeroni, Poccetti etc.) — that the documentation does not enable us to identify scribal schools in the Osco-Greek area, but rather individual spellings, ‘with some writers demonstrating some knowledge of the Oscan alphabet in addition to the Greek alphabet’ (166, 170, 174–5).
M. evaluates the language contact situation — the main topic of her work — analysing (chs 4–7) the language of different classes of inscriptions (dedicatory inscriptions, curse tablets, legal texts, coins etc.). She deals with linguistic and hermeneutical problems competently, evaluating the level of the Greek influence on Oscan epigraphy written in the Greek alphabet. M. offers detailed data on the corpus (find locations, material etc.), noteworthy summary tables and a very valuable morphological analysis of the texts (helping understanding of the Oscan language for those unacquainted with it) and their English translation. As regards the curse tablets, M. focuses (143–6) on the nominative/accusative opposition present in some texts from Bruttium, a pattern creating many morphosyntactic difficulties, since generally the curser avoids naming himself, with the exception of prayers for justice and erotic spells. M. solves the problem by interpreting the nominative/accusative opposition as representing the committer and the performer. This interpretation is also based on a curse from Sicily (SGD 91), where ‘the writer curses … on behalf of another man’, probably because the committer ‘was not capable of writing his own curse’ (145). But it should be noted that in the ancient world the majority of the population was illiterate and had to go to someone else to write the text, possibly a professional (even if not explicitly mentioned); so the situation evidenced by SGD 91 would not be so exceptional. Furthermore, SGD 91 can be considered an ordinary erotic curse (see J. Curbera, ASNP 1 (1999), 177), a typology where the name of the curser (= commissioner) is not so infrequent. M. concludes (165) that the nominative/accusative opposition is a local pattern in Bruttium. However, some fluctuations between nominative and accusative are also present in curses from Selinunte (F. Murano, Le tabellae defixionum osche (2013), 207–8). In ch. 6, devoted to the legal texts, M. focuses on the expression of commands and prohibitions, taking into account all the ‘juridical’ Sabellic documentation in order to place the linguistic features in a clearer context.
In sum, M. offers a detailed account of the linguistic and cultural complexity present in southern Italy in the second half of the first millennium b.c. — a subject not previously investigated in its entirety. She focuses on the situation of bilingualism, digraphia and diglossia created by language contact, namely, the fact that the selection of the language assumed a social meaning. Very interesting comparative data are offered by other ancient language contact situations, for example, Greek/Gaulish. The conclusions (ch. 8) offer theoretical reflections on possible models to explain language contact in epigraphic texts. M. follows the general framework of A. Mullen, Southern Gaul and the Mediterranean: Multilingualism and Multiple Identities in the Iron Age and Roman Periods (2013), enriching it on the basis of the Oscan/Greek experience.
The socio(linguistic) situation of southern Italy investigated by M. is the framework within which Z. contextualizes his own conclusions on the Oscan language (ch. 5). He attempts a new dating of certain inscriptions, proposing (176–81) changes to some of the datings suggested by Crawford (2011). In ch. 6, Z. offers a very valuable research tool: a lexicon of the Oscan words in the Osco-Greek alphabet, including onomastic data not considered by J. Untermann, Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen (2000), as well as information concerning attestation, grammatical form, translation, etymology and references.
Z.’s book is methodologically solid and well structured, and provides many valuable tables and indexes. I highly recommend it: it will be a reference work for anyone interested both in Oscan language and epigraphy, and also in Sabellic and Indo-European phonology. Undoubtedly too, M.’s book will be a work of reference for future studies of Oscan and language contact.
