Name
created: First edition (CDL).
source date: Possibly second century or begining of first century BC, anyway before 67 BC (se
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 this edition.

Cf. for the find [...], p. 142, n. 11, with photo fig. 40 at p. 136; mention of 'a former Hellenistic inscription' [...], p. 97, n. 3.

[...]τὼι Σωγένευς [...] [...]

[...]to fille de Sogénès.

[...]to daughter of Sogenes.

[...]tò figlia di Sogenes.

J. Reynolds mentioned an inscription in Hellenistic letters on this face. However, she did not provide a reading, probably because of its very fragmentary condition, due to its reuse as IRCyr2020 C.132, which was the main subject of her paper in 1962. In fact, although the letters are partly cut off, they may be completed as proposed here.

At first sight one might think that the first three letters are the article at the dative, recalling a man's name at that case followed by the name Sogenes as a father's name. However, such a display seems syntactically not very plausible. Much more attractive is the idea of a woman's name at the nominative case, ending with -τώι. This type of feminine names is rather common in Cyrenaica and Στρατώι would be a good candidate, although it is perhaps dangerous to push this ahead.

The stone was probably originally a base. As it was re-cut and possibly moved to its secondary findspot, it is impossible to guess whether the inscription was honorary or funerary. [...] thought the stone to have been found 'before 1941, during Italian excavations in the Agora'. However, in Oliverio's publication it is mentioned amongst the finds of the 1927 excavations in the Sanctuary of Apollo. This might be the place of its re-use for IRCyr2020 C.132, if ever it had not been brought to this area for destruction in the lime-kilns. Anyhow, that proves nothing for the original place of the first monument it belonged to.