Dedication
created: Transcription from stone (CDL).
source date: Second half of fourth 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/)

[...], VIII.56 and [...], A VI 10, whence [...], 169 (no image); [...], p. 329, n. 1, pl. LXIV, 6 (= [...], pp. 46-47, fig. 20,1); [...], p. 168, n. 14, fig. 198 (= [...], p. 81, n. 14, fig. 14); [...] 100900.

Cf. [...], p. 91; [...], pp. 103, 117; [...], p. 100 with footnote.

[...] [...]τω τῶ Μελανίππω ἀνέθηκε

[...]τω[^a1]

[^a1: [...]τω | ὁ δεῖνα τῶ δεῖνος θεῶι ἐπὶ ἱερέως[...]τω | ὁ δεῖνα τῶ δεῖνος θεοῖς ἐπὶ ἱερέως[...]τω | ὁ δεῖνα[...]τω]

Untel fils de [...]tos et petit-fils de Melanippos a consacré ce monument.

So-and-so son of [...]tos and grand-son of Melanippos dedicated this monument.

Il tale figlio di [...]tos e nipote di Melanippos ha dedicato questo monumento.

Pugliese Carratelli did not find the stone in 1960 and edited the inscription from Oliverio's notebook. After Stucchi's excavations on the agora, which began in 1957, the stone has become clearly visible to all visitors.

As no personal name ending with -τωτος is known, the only justification for a segment ΤΩΤΩ is that there stood a personal name, followed by a father's name ending with τος, itself followed by the article and the grandfather's name, who was Melanippos.

As Gasperini rightly pointed out, the lost part at left is of undeterminable dimension, perhaps extending on other blocks, so that before the personal names the gap would allow for the name of one or several deities to whom the dedication was made, although such a mention is not compulsory. His idea that the name of the eponym priest also stood there is less convincing.

The prosopographical relation proposed by [...], p. 91 may seem hypothetical; however, the fact that the grandfather is mentioned allows to suspect with [...], pp. 103, 117 that he belonged to an important family. More on this point by [...].

For the excavations of the time in that area see now [...], pp. 51-52.