Dedication related with the telesphoria
created: Transcription from stone (CDL).
source date: End of fourth or beginning 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/)

Not published before [...] 130200.

[...]ις Χαρ[...] [...]ια τελεσφορ[...]

[...]ια[^a1] τελεσφορ[...][^a2]

[^a1: [...]ια | Καρνῆια | Ἀρταμίτια]

[^a2: τελεσφορ[...] | τελεσφορέων | τελεσφορήσας]

[...]is fils de Khar[...] a consacré ce monument en accomplissant / après avoir accompli la telesphoria.

[...]is son of Char[...] dedicated this monument while accomplishing / after having accomplished the telesphoria.

[...]is figlio di Char[...] ha dedicato questo monumento mentre celebrava / dopo aver celebrato la telesphoria.

This is one more instance of a dedication related to the rite of telesphoria. Whenever known, the provenance of all the other ones is the sanctuary of Apollo. Moreover, some of them add the precision of either Karneia or Artamitia. One of the two celebrations was plausibly mentioned here. It might seem possible to argue in favour of the shorter form, due to the fact that men's names ending in ις are generally speaking short and that those hitherto attested in the Hellenistic period at Cyrene have at most 6 letters before this ending. However between the 5 letters corresponding to the former festival and 7 letters corresponding to the latter the difference is too small to allow any certitude.

Similarly, there are a lot of names beginning with Χαρ in the region and this cannot help to decide between the present or aorist participle of the verb τελεσφορέω at line 2, as both forms are attested.

Moreover, it should not be quite excluded that at line 1 more than one person was mentioned and that the participle at line 2 was at the plural. With the shortest restorations, the block would have been 0.60 wide, which is a common dimension, but it is not impossible to imagine that it was wider and thus to add to the restoration a mention of the tithe or of Apollo or of the verb of dedication. [...], p. 197 prefers the idea of one dedicant.