Name
created: Transcription from stone (CDL).
source date: Second half of third 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/)

[...], pp. 36-38 n. 9 (dr.) (cf. [...], 1999.623), whence [...], 47.2185; [...] 086900. Cf. [...], p. 184, whence [...], 66.2316; [...], p. 100 (prosopography).

Θεύχρηστος Φιλοθάλευς

Φιλοθάλευς[^a1]

[^a1: Φιλοθάλευς | Φιλοθάλους [the epidermis of the marble has been dropped on a rectangular zone exactly corresponding to the shape of an epsilon, which gives the awaited dialectal ending]]

Theukhrestos fils de Philothalès.

Theuchrestos son of Philothales.

Theuchrestos figlio di Philothales.

The first editors, although conscious of the typological uniqueness of this monument, admitted its funerary nature on the idea that it was found in Wadi el-Aish, a small valley tributary of the Wadi Bil Gadir where a great part of the South Necropolis developed. However, some items said to come from there probably belonged to other areas.

So it is much more probable that this monument was a votive offering. We should wait at least some additional mention with the deity (probably Apollo) to whom the monument was offered. Whereas no inscription can be seen on the base, it is possible that something was written on the sides, that are now lost.

The dating of the lettering 'probably fourth century' by the first editors is not convincing. And, given that Θεύχρηστος is a very common name at Cyrene, the possible prosopographic link cautiously put forward with the well-known Mnasarchos' family is impossible, although one argument against it, the situation of the tomb, seems now out of the question. For new cautious proposals see [...].