Unclear
created: Transcription from object (CDL).
source date: Prior to the settlement of 631 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/)

[...]; [...] 118100. Cf. [...]; [...], p. 185; [...], p. 165; [...], pp. 30-31, footnote 7.

[...] το̃ Ἀρχιλόχō[...] το̃ Ῥhοδίō · ΗΙ

[...][^a1] το̃[^a2] το̃ Ἀρχιλόχō[^1][^a3] ΗΙ[^a4]

[^a1: [...] | γχ | γχ]

[^a2: το̃ | ιο]

[^a3: το̃ Ἀρχιλόχō | αϙ[...]λοχο]

[^a4: ΗΙ | ηι]

[^1: from Marengo's suggestion]

[...] D'Arkhilokhos [..?] de Rhodios: [...].

[...] Of Archilochos [..?] of Rhodios: [...].

[...] Di Archilochos [..?] di Rhodios: [...].

Both the intrinsic features and the archaeological context of this fragmentary tile show that it was brought from abroad and inscribed by a foreigner, either abroad or in Libya. Deciphering and interpreting the graffito remains a challenge.

L. 1: the character at right might be the special Cyrenaican gamma also known from IGCyr000100. If so the script would be sinistroverse. The second character resembles a hour-glass character without its lower part. It might stand for chi (as once in Laconia) or ksi (at Knidos). As no word might be read with such consonants, an alternative would be either number 1003, which would be surprising both for the chronology of alphabetic glyphs as numbers and for the high amount resulting or 63, with again the first mentioned oddity. Eventually, an interpretation with Cypriot syllabograms, also mentioned in editio princeps, to be read ro-ti, i.e. Ῥhοδί- is no more convincing.

L. 2: C. Dobias-Lalou is now convinced by S.M. Marengo's reading of the personal name Archilochos: the 4th character should be a rho rather than a koppa and the multiple strokes that follow it may be read as a chi and an iota obliquely inserted above the main line.

At line 3 Ῥόδιος was taken erroneously in the editio princeps and in [...] as an ethnic, which did not yet exist at the time of our inscription, as pointed out by [...]. It should rather be a personal name. Whether it is Archilochos' father's name remains unclear, as we do not know the extent of the lacuna at right.

On the implication of an early Rhodian participation into the foundation and its echo in the script, see also [...].