Unclear
created: Transcription from editor.
source date: Perhaps 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/)

[...], pp. 25-26 (fig. 10), whence [...], 66.2340 and [...] 2017.641; [...] 134800.

[...] μμ[...] [...]

Ἄμμωνι[^a1]

[^a1: Ἄμμωνι | Ἄμμωνος | Ἀμμώνιος | Ἀρίμμαν]

Intraduisible.

Not usefully translatable.

Intraducibile.

غير قابل للترجمة بشكل جيد.

E. Rosamilia could only study the inscription from a photograph. M. Montanari, who studied the statue, thought that other letters might have been worn out at both ends and especially at right, where the surface is really broken off. From the photograph one gets the impression that a chi was cut in the break, which would give no sense after two μ. Moreover, the place where the inscription would extend, if ever, would be strangely shifted, unless it ran on the whole plinth around. However so long a loss is far from plausible in view of the photographs.

The double mu was in fact a tantalizing clue for a mention of Ammon or of a personal name derived from the god's name or not. After having explored different restorations mentioned here in the apparatus, E. Rosamilia eventually suggested that those letters might be marks appended for helping the placement of the statue. He is now (personal information) even more prone to think so.

A supposed relation with Ammon relies on the very figure of a ram and on some other archaeological arguments. A chance find during building works brought to light this piece with a series of other sculptures and inscriptions, part of which do refer to Ammon (see [...], pp. 17-22 and IGCyr108400). In the vicinity, a building, never excavated, might have been related to the find and is hypothetically considered as the temple of Ammon hitherto missing at Cyrene (see [...], p.19). This supposed temple unfortunately now lies under the new city of Shahat.