Probably epitaph
created: Transcription from stone (CDL).
source date: End of seventh or beginning of sixth century BC
language: ar; en; fr; de; grc; grc-Latn; el; he
availability: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Deed Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. All citation, reuse or distribution of this work must contain a link back to DOI: https://doi.org/10.60760/unibo/igcyrgvcyr2 and the filename (IGCyr000000 or GVCyr000), as well as the year of consultation. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

[...], whence [...], 45.2170; [...] 000100. Cf. [...] and [...], 2011.650, whence [...], 59.1912; [...], whence [...], 65.2015; [...], p. 163-164.

[...] τιμο[...] [...]εν ⋮ τοι προγονοι [...] [...]ι ⋮ τοι Πρόϙλō : θυγατ[...] [...]

θυγατ[^1]

[^1: a form of θυγάτηρ or of a related word beginning with θυγατρ-]

Intraduisibile (voir commentaire).

Not usefully translatable (see commentary).

Intraducibile (vedi commento).

غير قابل للترجمه بشكل جيد

L. 1 either a compound adjective or a personal name including the word τιμά 'honour'.

Ll. 2-3 either τοὶ πρόγονοι or το͂ι προγόνōι, with the word for 'forefather'.

Ll. 3-4 the lacuna hides probably a proper-name, followed by a patronym: το͂ι Πρό|ϙλō: 'son of Proklos'.

With πρόγονος and θυγάτηρ ('daughter' or a related word), a funerary interpretation of the text seems to be the most plausible. The exact meaning of punctuation is not determinable and does not help to understand how a forefather, Proklos and a possible daughter are related. The incomplete word at line 5 might also have been a derived noun, meaning 'son of the daughter, grandson'. However the word corresponding to Attic and koine ἀδελφιδοῦς is not attested in other dialects and it would be hazardous to restore its supposed dialectal form.

[...] rightly points out that there are some doubts about the provenance of the stone. However, what remains seems anyway to lead to a funerary topic.