Private honours (?) and tithe (?)
created: Transcription from part of stone (CDL) and from previous editor.
source date: Late fourth or early 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. 315-316, and pl. LVII, 3 (= [...], pp. 42-44); [...], p. 168, n. 15, and fig. 199 (= [...], p. 81); [...] 107200.

Cf. [...], p. 160 with footnote.

[...] Πολύτιμος Ἀριστάρχω δεκάταν ἀνέθηκε

δεκάταν[^a1]

[^a1: δεκάταν | δεκάταν]

[...] a été consacré par Polytimos fils d'Aristarkhos au titre de la dîme.

[...] was dedicated by Polytimos son of Aristarchos as a tithe.

[...] è stata dedicata da Polytimos figlio di Aristarchos come decima.

Monuments offered as tithes usually stood in the sanctuary of Apollo and not on the Agora. It is however not impossible that it has been brought up from there on the occasion of its re-use during the fourth century AD.

The dedication of a man's statue as a tithe is not so common, but IGCyr067000 provides another instance. However the layout remains puzzling: if a statue stood at the right end, it would be in correspondence with the dedicant's name and not with the name of the honoured person, which would be inscribed at left. The object fixed upon the base might be no statue, but a portrait within a frame. Moreover the holes might also be related to the re-use.

Any way, the verb being at the singular, it is not possible to suppose another dedicant mentioned at the nominative in the gap. In spite of all this obscurities, we stick to the idea that the word at line 2 was 'tithe', while prefering to leave the question of the missing part of line 1 open.

Additional commentary for [...]: we get two improvements from [...]: first, he reminds that the father of this dedicant was a damiergos in IGCyr011800, as already suggested by Gasperini and missed in IGCyr; second, he interprets the holes on top of the block as corresponding to a rider's statue (he will develope this point in a study still to be published with L. Vasta).