Lexicon Leponticum - Recent changes [en]

TI·36.3

Corinna Salomon — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 15:46:56 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:46, 20 October 2026
Line 39:		Line 39:
	Images in {{bib\|Risch 1984}}: 27, Abb. 4 (drawing = {{bib\|Risch 1989}}: 1585, fig. 2) and 33, Abb. 14 (photo = {{bib\|Morandi 2004}}: tav. VIII B), {{bib\|De Marinis & Motta 1991}}: 208, fig. 4 (drawing), '''{{bib\|Solinas 1995}}: tav. LX b (photo)''', {{bib\|Tibiletti Bruno 1997}}: fig. 6 (drawing).		Images in {{bib\|Risch 1984}}: 27, Abb. 4 (drawing = {{bib\|Risch 1989}}: 1585, fig. 2) and 33, Abb. 14 (photo = {{bib\|Morandi 2004}}: tav. VIII B), {{bib\|De Marinis & Motta 1991}}: 208, fig. 4 (drawing), '''{{bib\|Solinas 1995}}: tav. LX b (photo)''', {{bib\|Tibiletti Bruno 1997}}: fig. 6 (drawing).

	The inscription on the back side of the stela was found by Risch or a member of the museum staff in the early 1980ies; it is much damaged, and the top of the frame is lost with a considerable spalling of the surface. The damage may be the consequence of an early immuration after its finding in the 19<sup>th</sup> century, but not at the Raetic Museum (see the object page)~~. David Stifter (p.c.) suspects that the inscription was intentionally removed~~. Risch in the first publication read ]{{c\|\|N\|d}}{{c\|\|E\|d}}{{c\|\|separator2\|d}}{{c\|\|M4\|d}}{{c\|\|E\|d}}{{c\|\|T4\|d}}{{c\|\|A18}}{{c\|\|L2\|d}}{{c\|\|U10\|d}}{{c\|\|I\|d}}{{c\|\|P\|d}}{{c\|\|A\|d}}{{c\|\|L\|d}}[    ]''ne metalui pal''[''a''], enclosed in a frame, with the last four letters small and misaligned (see the drawings above). He also saw the remains of two adjacent frames as on the front side, which had been effaced before the inscription was applied in its new frame.		The inscription on the back side of the stela was found by Risch or a member of the museum staff in the early 1980ies; it is much damaged, and the top of the frame is lost with a considerable spalling of the surface. The damage may be the consequence of an early immuration after its finding in the 19<sup>th</sup> century, but not at the Raetic Museum (see the object page). Risch in the first publication read ]{{c\|\|N\|d}}{{c\|\|E\|d}}{{c\|\|separator2\|d}}{{c\|\|M4\|d}}{{c\|\|E\|d}}{{c\|\|T4\|d}}{{c\|\|A18}}{{c\|\|L2\|d}}{{c\|\|U10\|d}}{{c\|\|I\|d}}{{c\|\|P\|d}}{{c\|\|A\|d}}{{c\|\|L\|d}}[    ]''ne metalui pal''[''a''], enclosed in a frame, with the last four letters small and misaligned (see the drawings above). He also saw the remains of two adjacent frames as on the front side, which had been effaced before the inscription was applied in its new frame.

	Unfortunately, it is difficult to verify some of Risch's conclusions, as the stone was put up with its back to a wall or glass case at both LexLep-related visits to the museum, so that the inscription could not be properly examined so far. Please note that the close-up photos above were taken at various angles due to the lack of space between the stone and the glass case, so that the letters are somewhat distorted. The drawing is based on the photo published in Risch 1984 for correct proportions, with details from our close-ups. The letters nu, mu, epsilon and tau as well as the separator are clearly legible; alpha, lambda, upsilon and iota can be made out reasonably well. At a little distance before nu, the upper part of a hasta plus downward bar can be made out, as reflected in the drawings of Risch and De Marinis (the latter made from the photo); the upper part of a hasta directly before nu appears to be a trick of the eye. The inscription's frame (ca. 14 cm broad) and to some extent the effaced frame lines can be seen well in the photograph published in 1989 (see above); Risch's {{w\|\|pala}}, on the other hand, is hard to make out under the circumstances. {{w\|\|pala}} would certainly be expected, though, to complete the typical Lepontic funerary formula indicated by the patronym {{w\|\|metalui}} and the preceding individual name, both in the dative (see the word page for details). The latter form requires an omicron before nu, which cannot be confirmed epigraphically, but is at least possible. All in all, there is space for about 3–4 letters before nu (about 17 cm to the bottom line of the frame; the entire inscription was maybe about 76 cm in length judging by the frame).		Unfortunately, it is difficult to verify some of Risch's conclusions, as the stone was put up with its back to a wall or glass case at both LexLep-related visits to the museum, so that the inscription could not be properly examined so far. Please note that the close-up photos above were taken at various angles due to the lack of space between the stone and the glass case, so that the letters are somewhat distorted. The drawing is based on the photo published in Risch 1984 for correct proportions, with details from our close-ups. The letters nu, mu, epsilon and tau as well as the separator are clearly legible; alpha, lambda, upsilon and iota can be made out reasonably well. At a little distance before nu, the upper part of a hasta plus downward bar can be made out, as reflected in the drawings of Risch and De Marinis (the latter made from the photo); the upper part of a hasta directly before nu appears to be a trick of the eye. The inscription's frame (ca. 14 cm broad) and to some extent the effaced frame lines can be seen well in the photograph published in 1989 (see above); Risch's {{w\|\|pala}}, on the other hand, is hard to make out under the circumstances. {{w\|\|pala}} would certainly be expected, though, to complete the typical Lepontic funerary formula indicated by the patronym {{w\|\|metalui}} and the preceding individual name, both in the dative (see the word page for details). The latter form requires an omicron before nu, which cannot be confirmed epigraphically, but is at least possible. All in all, there is space for about 3–4 letters before nu (about 17 cm to the bottom line of the frame; the entire inscription was maybe about 76 cm in length judging by the frame).

	{{bib\|Risch 1989}}: 1581 and {{bib\|Tibiletti Bruno 1997}}: 1007 f. consider TI·36.3 to be younger than the inscriptions on the front ([[TI·36.1]] and [[TI·36.2]]) because of the writing direction, while {{bib\|De Marinis & Motta 1991}}: 206, 218 argue that TI·36.3 is older based on the frame shape (type B, closed at the bottom, 5<sup>th</sup>–early 4<sup>th</sup> century BC) and the form of alpha (thus also {{bib\|Solinas 1995}}: 322, no. 3 and {{bib\|Motta 2000}}: 200 f.); undecided {{bib\|Piana Agostinetti 2004}}: 312 and {{bib\|Morandi 2004}}: 539. While alpha is one of the more reliable indicators of palaeographical dating (but cf. the observations on [[TI·36.1]]), it appears here in a form with the bar rising in writing direction, which is untypical for the Lepontic alphabet; it indicates only that the inscription cannot be considerably younger that the ones on the front. The strongest arguments for a higher age of TI·36.3 are the shape of the frame according to De Marinis' typology, and {{c\|\|T4\|d}}, which is only otherwise attested in the archaic Prestino inscription, where it appears to be a simple graphic variant of tau (or theta) – though the letter is smaller in the present inscription, and it is not clear whether it may have a special function (see {{w\|\|metalui}}). Inverted upsilon and mu {{c\|\|M4\|d}} with three bars are usually young, but are sporadically known from archaic inscriptions (cf. especially the stela inscriptions [[TI·34.1]] and [[TI·40]], also [[BG·1]]). Inverted lambda in the Lepontic alphabet appears to be a young phenomenon (secure attestations from the 2<sup>nd</sup> century onward). ({{bib\|Risch 1989}}: 1582 observes that lambda and upsilon might simply have been inscribed from from the other side, which is possible, but ad hoc.) The earliest Lepontic stela inscription with dextroverse writing otherwise known is [[TI·34]] (4<sup>th</sup> century). ~~If the~~ inscription ~~was deleted~~ intentionally, ~~this~~ act could stand in connection with a reuse of the stela and the application of [[TI·36.1]] and [[TI·36.2]].		{{bib\|Risch 1989}}: 1581 and {{bib\|Tibiletti Bruno 1997}}: 1007 f. consider TI·36.3 to be younger than the inscriptions on the front ([[TI·36.1]] and [[TI·36.2]]) because of the writing direction, while {{bib\|De Marinis & Motta 1991}}: 206, 218 argue that TI·36.3 is older based on the frame shape (type B, closed at the bottom, 5<sup>th</sup>–early 4<sup>th</sup> century BC) and the form of alpha (thus also {{bib\|Solinas 1995}}: 322, no. 3 and {{bib\|Motta 2000}}: 200 f.); undecided {{bib\|Piana Agostinetti 2004}}: 312 and {{bib\|Morandi 2004}}: 539. While alpha is one of the more reliable indicators of palaeographical dating (but cf. the observations on [[TI·36.1]]), it appears here in a form with the bar rising in writing direction, which is untypical for the Lepontic alphabet; it indicates only that the inscription cannot be considerably younger that the ones on the front. The strongest arguments for a higher age of TI·36.3 are the shape of the frame according to De Marinis' typology, and {{c\|\|T4\|d}}, which is only otherwise attested in the archaic Prestino inscription, where it appears to be a simple graphic variant of tau (or theta) – though the letter is smaller in the present inscription, and it is not clear whether it may have a special function (see {{w\|\|metalui}}). Inverted upsilon and mu {{c\|\|M4\|d}} with three bars are usually young, but are sporadically known from archaic inscriptions (cf. especially the stela inscriptions [[TI·34.1]] and [[TI·40]], also [[BG·1]]). Inverted lambda in the Lepontic alphabet appears to be a young phenomenon (secure attestations from the 2<sup>nd</sup> century onward). {{bib\|Risch 1989}}: 1582 observes that lambda and upsilon might simply have been inscribed from from the other side, which is possible, but ad hoc. In agreement, however, Stifter [p.c.], who notes that the inscription is one of the few dextroverse ones on stones from the Lugano area, and suggests that the mason may have noted the irregularity after alpha and changed the orientation to achieve the more regular writing direction halfway through the inscription. The earliest Lepontic stela inscription with dextroverse writing otherwise known is [[TI·34]] (4<sup>th</sup> century). The inscription may have been intentionally removed, an act which could stand in connection with a reuse of the stela and the application of [[TI·36.1]] and [[TI·36.2]], though arguably the letters could have been deleted more thoroughly if it had been on purpose.

	The inscription is certainly unusual in terms of letter forms, most of the atypical ones ({{c\|\|M4\|d}}, {{c\|\|A26\|d}}, {{c\|\|L2\|d}}, {{c\|\|U10\|d}}) being more common in the east of the North Italic area, especially the Raetic Magrè alphabet.		The inscription is certainly unusual in terms of letter forms, most of the atypical ones ({{c\|\|M4\|d}}, {{c\|\|A26\|d}}, {{c\|\|L2\|d}}, {{c\|\|U10\|d}}) being more common in the east of the North Italic area, especially the Raetic Magrè alphabet.

BI·8

Corinna Salomon — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 11:11:16 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:11, 7 October 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{inscription		{{inscription
	\|reading=sipiu ~~space~~ koilios!koil[ space koilios!]ios		\|reading=sipiu / koilios!koil[ space koilios!]ios
	\|reading_lepontic={{c\|K\|K5\|d}}{{c\|O\|O6\|d}}{{c\|I\|\|d}}{{c\|L\|\|d}}[   ]{{c\|I\|\|d}}{{c\|O\|O6\|d}}{{c\|S\|S6\|d}}<br>{{c\|S\|S6\|}}{{c\|I\|\|d}}{{c\|P\|\|d}}{{c\|I\|\|d}}{{c\|U\|\|d}}		\|reading_lepontic={{c\|K\|K5\|d}}{{c\|O\|O6\|d}}{{c\|I\|\|d}}{{c\|L\|\|d}}[   ]{{c\|I\|\|d}}{{c\|O\|O6\|d}}{{c\|S\|S6\|d}}<br>{{c\|S\|S6\|}}{{c\|I\|\|d}}{{c\|P\|\|d}}{{c\|I\|\|d}}{{c\|U\|\|d}}
	\|direction=dextroverse		\|direction=dextroverse

User:Corinna Salomon

Corinna Salomon — Fri, 02 Oct 2026 10:19:07 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:19, 2 October 2026
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 8:		Line 8:

	'''Research''':<br>		'''Research''':<br>
	2023–2025   Marie Skłodowska Curie fellow, Maynooth University/Université Bordeaux-Montaigne (project [[index::The Project\|CLINIAR – Celtic Language and Identity in Northern Italy and the Alpine Region'']])<br>		2026–           O'Donovan scholar, Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies (project: ''Tau Gallicum'')<br>
	2020–2022   Austrian Academy of Sciences APART fellow, University of Vienna (project [[index::The Project\|CCeLL – ''Cisalpine Celtic Language and Literacy'']])<br>		2023–2025   Marie Skłodowska Curie fellow, Maynooth University/Université Bordeaux-Montaigne (project [[index::The Project\|CLINIAR – Celtic Language and Identity in Northern Italy and the Alpine Region]])<br>
			2020–2022   Austrian Academy of Sciences APART fellow, University of Vienna (project [[index::The Project\|CCeLL – Cisalpine Celtic Language and Literacy]])<br>
	2019             Visiting research associate, University of Oxford (project [https://latinnow.eu/ LatinNow])<br>		2019             Visiting research associate, University of Oxford (project [https://latinnow.eu/ LatinNow])<br>
	2013–2016   Research fellow, University of Vienna (project [https://tir.univie.ac.at\|''Thesaurus Inscriptionum Raeticarum''])<br>		2013–2016   Research fellow, University of Vienna (project [https://tir.univie.ac.at\|''Thesaurus Inscriptionum Raeticarum''])<br>
Line 15:		Line 16:

	'''Publications''':<br>		'''Publications''':<br>
			*'Die Inschriften aus der eisenzeitlichen Siedlung von Pfaffenhofen-Hörtenberg im Kontext der rätischen Schriftfunde im Nordtiroler Inntal'. ''Die eisenzeitliche Siedlung von Pfaffenhofen-Hörtenberg in Tirol'', ed. Markus Wild (= Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 69/2; München: C.H. Beck 2026), II 1011–1036.<br>
			*'Thurneysen's Tyrrhenian equation – again on Etruscan ''zinace'' ~ Raetic <i>þinake</i>'. ''Colloquium in memoriam Rudolf Thurneysen 29.–31. August 2024, Bonn'', ed. Gisbert Hemprich (= Bonner Beiträge zur Keltologie 3; Hagen/Westfalen: curach bhán 2025).
			*'Contacts linguistiques et graphiques dans les inscriptions en langue gauloise' (with Alex Mullen). ''Écrire sur la pierre en langue gauloise'', ed. Coline Ruiz Darasse (= Scripta Antiqua 190; Bordeaux: Ausonius Éditions 2025), 139–184.
	*''Cisalpine Celtic literacy. Proceedings of the international symposium Maynooth 23–24 June 2022'' (edited with David Stifter) (= Maynooth Studies in Celtic Linguistics 6; Hagen/Westfalen: curach bhán 2024).		*''Cisalpine Celtic literacy. Proceedings of the international symposium Maynooth 23–24 June 2022'' (edited with David Stifter) (= Maynooth Studies in Celtic Linguistics 6; Hagen/Westfalen: curach bhán 2024).
	*'<i>Lexicon Leponticum</i> – concept and ~~implementation’~~. ''Cisalpine Celtic literacy. Proceedings of the international symposium Maynooth 23–24 June 2022'', ed. Corinna Salomon & David Stifter (= Maynooth Studies in Celtic Linguistics 6; Hagen/Westfalen: curach bhán 2024). (download: [[File:Salomon_2024d.pdf]])		*'<i>Lexicon Leponticum</i> – concept and implementation'. ''Cisalpine Celtic literacy. Proceedings of the international symposium Maynooth 23–24 June 2022'', ed. Corinna Salomon & David Stifter (= Maynooth Studies in Celtic Linguistics 6; Hagen/Westfalen: curach bhán 2024), 3–11. (download: [[File:Salomon_2024d.pdf]])
	*'New Cisalpine Celtic inscriptions from canton Ticino (CH)'. ''Celtica'' 36 (2024), 1–6. DOI: 10.58480/SCS-qcpqd-gamrk (OA download: [https://journals.dias.ie/index.php/celtica/article/view/19 ''Celtica''])		*'New Cisalpine Celtic inscriptions from canton Ticino (CH)'. ''Celtica'' 36 (2024), 1–6. DOI: 10.58480/SCS-qcpqd-gamrk (OA download: [https://journals.dias.ie/index.php/celtica/article/view/19 ''Celtica''])
	*'Cisalpine Celtic varia III'. ''Studia Celtica Fennica'' 20 (2024), 23–40. DOI: 10.33353/scf.143801 (OA download: [https://journal.fi/scf/article/view/143801/95459 SCF])		*'Cisalpine Celtic varia III'. ''Studia Celtica Fennica'' 20 (2024), 23–40. DOI: 10.33353/scf.143801 (OA download: [https://journal.fi/scf/article/view/143801/95459 SCF])

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:46, 20 October 2026
Line 39:		Line 39:
	Images in {{bib\|Risch 1984}}: 27, Abb. 4 (drawing = {{bib\|Risch 1989}}: 1585, fig. 2) and 33, Abb. 14 (photo = {{bib\|Morandi 2004}}: tav. VIII B), {{bib\|De Marinis & Motta 1991}}: 208, fig. 4 (drawing), '''{{bib\|Solinas 1995}}: tav. LX b (photo)''', {{bib\|Tibiletti Bruno 1997}}: fig. 6 (drawing).		Images in {{bib\|Risch 1984}}: 27, Abb. 4 (drawing = {{bib\|Risch 1989}}: 1585, fig. 2) and 33, Abb. 14 (photo = {{bib\|Morandi 2004}}: tav. VIII B), {{bib\|De Marinis & Motta 1991}}: 208, fig. 4 (drawing), '''{{bib\|Solinas 1995}}: tav. LX b (photo)''', {{bib\|Tibiletti Bruno 1997}}: fig. 6 (drawing).

	The inscription on the back side of the stela was found by Risch or a member of the museum staff in the early 1980ies; it is much damaged, and the top of the frame is lost with a considerable spalling of the surface. The damage may be the consequence of an early immuration after its finding in the 19<sup>th</sup> century, but not at the Raetic Museum (see the object page)~~. David Stifter (p.c.) suspects that the inscription was intentionally removed~~. Risch in the first publication read ]{{c\|\|N\|d}}{{c\|\|E\|d}}{{c\|\|separator2\|d}}{{c\|\|M4\|d}}{{c\|\|E\|d}}{{c\|\|T4\|d}}{{c\|\|A18}}{{c\|\|L2\|d}}{{c\|\|U10\|d}}{{c\|\|I\|d}}{{c\|\|P\|d}}{{c\|\|A\|d}}{{c\|\|L\|d}}[    ]''ne metalui pal''[''a''], enclosed in a frame, with the last four letters small and misaligned (see the drawings above). He also saw the remains of two adjacent frames as on the front side, which had been effaced before the inscription was applied in its new frame.		The inscription on the back side of the stela was found by Risch or a member of the museum staff in the early 1980ies; it is much damaged, and the top of the frame is lost with a considerable spalling of the surface. The damage may be the consequence of an early immuration after its finding in the 19<sup>th</sup> century, but not at the Raetic Museum (see the object page). Risch in the first publication read ]{{c\|\|N\|d}}{{c\|\|E\|d}}{{c\|\|separator2\|d}}{{c\|\|M4\|d}}{{c\|\|E\|d}}{{c\|\|T4\|d}}{{c\|\|A18}}{{c\|\|L2\|d}}{{c\|\|U10\|d}}{{c\|\|I\|d}}{{c\|\|P\|d}}{{c\|\|A\|d}}{{c\|\|L\|d}}[    ]''ne metalui pal''[''a''], enclosed in a frame, with the last four letters small and misaligned (see the drawings above). He also saw the remains of two adjacent frames as on the front side, which had been effaced before the inscription was applied in its new frame.

	Unfortunately, it is difficult to verify some of Risch's conclusions, as the stone was put up with its back to a wall or glass case at both LexLep-related visits to the museum, so that the inscription could not be properly examined so far. Please note that the close-up photos above were taken at various angles due to the lack of space between the stone and the glass case, so that the letters are somewhat distorted. The drawing is based on the photo published in Risch 1984 for correct proportions, with details from our close-ups. The letters nu, mu, epsilon and tau as well as the separator are clearly legible; alpha, lambda, upsilon and iota can be made out reasonably well. At a little distance before nu, the upper part of a hasta plus downward bar can be made out, as reflected in the drawings of Risch and De Marinis (the latter made from the photo); the upper part of a hasta directly before nu appears to be a trick of the eye. The inscription's frame (ca. 14 cm broad) and to some extent the effaced frame lines can be seen well in the photograph published in 1989 (see above); Risch's {{w\|\|pala}}, on the other hand, is hard to make out under the circumstances. {{w\|\|pala}} would certainly be expected, though, to complete the typical Lepontic funerary formula indicated by the patronym {{w\|\|metalui}} and the preceding individual name, both in the dative (see the word page for details). The latter form requires an omicron before nu, which cannot be confirmed epigraphically, but is at least possible. All in all, there is space for about 3–4 letters before nu (about 17 cm to the bottom line of the frame; the entire inscription was maybe about 76 cm in length judging by the frame).		Unfortunately, it is difficult to verify some of Risch's conclusions, as the stone was put up with its back to a wall or glass case at both LexLep-related visits to the museum, so that the inscription could not be properly examined so far. Please note that the close-up photos above were taken at various angles due to the lack of space between the stone and the glass case, so that the letters are somewhat distorted. The drawing is based on the photo published in Risch 1984 for correct proportions, with details from our close-ups. The letters nu, mu, epsilon and tau as well as the separator are clearly legible; alpha, lambda, upsilon and iota can be made out reasonably well. At a little distance before nu, the upper part of a hasta plus downward bar can be made out, as reflected in the drawings of Risch and De Marinis (the latter made from the photo); the upper part of a hasta directly before nu appears to be a trick of the eye. The inscription's frame (ca. 14 cm broad) and to some extent the effaced frame lines can be seen well in the photograph published in 1989 (see above); Risch's {{w\|\|pala}}, on the other hand, is hard to make out under the circumstances. {{w\|\|pala}} would certainly be expected, though, to complete the typical Lepontic funerary formula indicated by the patronym {{w\|\|metalui}} and the preceding individual name, both in the dative (see the word page for details). The latter form requires an omicron before nu, which cannot be confirmed epigraphically, but is at least possible. All in all, there is space for about 3–4 letters before nu (about 17 cm to the bottom line of the frame; the entire inscription was maybe about 76 cm in length judging by the frame).

	{{bib\|Risch 1989}}: 1581 and {{bib\|Tibiletti Bruno 1997}}: 1007 f. consider TI·36.3 to be younger than the inscriptions on the front ([[TI·36.1]] and [[TI·36.2]]) because of the writing direction, while {{bib\|De Marinis & Motta 1991}}: 206, 218 argue that TI·36.3 is older based on the frame shape (type B, closed at the bottom, 5<sup>th</sup>–early 4<sup>th</sup> century BC) and the form of alpha (thus also {{bib\|Solinas 1995}}: 322, no. 3 and {{bib\|Motta 2000}}: 200 f.); undecided {{bib\|Piana Agostinetti 2004}}: 312 and {{bib\|Morandi 2004}}: 539. While alpha is one of the more reliable indicators of palaeographical dating (but cf. the observations on [[TI·36.1]]), it appears here in a form with the bar rising in writing direction, which is untypical for the Lepontic alphabet; it indicates only that the inscription cannot be considerably younger that the ones on the front. The strongest arguments for a higher age of TI·36.3 are the shape of the frame according to De Marinis' typology, and {{c\|\|T4\|d}}, which is only otherwise attested in the archaic Prestino inscription, where it appears to be a simple graphic variant of tau (or theta) – though the letter is smaller in the present inscription, and it is not clear whether it may have a special function (see {{w\|\|metalui}}). Inverted upsilon and mu {{c\|\|M4\|d}} with three bars are usually young, but are sporadically known from archaic inscriptions (cf. especially the stela inscriptions [[TI·34.1]] and [[TI·40]], also [[BG·1]]). Inverted lambda in the Lepontic alphabet appears to be a young phenomenon (secure attestations from the 2<sup>nd</sup> century onward). ({{bib\|Risch 1989}}: 1582 observes that lambda and upsilon might simply have been inscribed from from the other side, which is possible, but ad hoc.) The earliest Lepontic stela inscription with dextroverse writing otherwise known is [[TI·34]] (4<sup>th</sup> century). ~~If the~~ inscription ~~was deleted~~ intentionally, ~~this~~ act could stand in connection with a reuse of the stela and the application of [[TI·36.1]] and [[TI·36.2]].		{{bib\|Risch 1989}}: 1581 and {{bib\|Tibiletti Bruno 1997}}: 1007 f. consider TI·36.3 to be younger than the inscriptions on the front ([[TI·36.1]] and [[TI·36.2]]) because of the writing direction, while {{bib\|De Marinis & Motta 1991}}: 206, 218 argue that TI·36.3 is older based on the frame shape (type B, closed at the bottom, 5<sup>th</sup>–early 4<sup>th</sup> century BC) and the form of alpha (thus also {{bib\|Solinas 1995}}: 322, no. 3 and {{bib\|Motta 2000}}: 200 f.); undecided {{bib\|Piana Agostinetti 2004}}: 312 and {{bib\|Morandi 2004}}: 539. While alpha is one of the more reliable indicators of palaeographical dating (but cf. the observations on [[TI·36.1]]), it appears here in a form with the bar rising in writing direction, which is untypical for the Lepontic alphabet; it indicates only that the inscription cannot be considerably younger that the ones on the front. The strongest arguments for a higher age of TI·36.3 are the shape of the frame according to De Marinis' typology, and {{c\|\|T4\|d}}, which is only otherwise attested in the archaic Prestino inscription, where it appears to be a simple graphic variant of tau (or theta) – though the letter is smaller in the present inscription, and it is not clear whether it may have a special function (see {{w\|\|metalui}}). Inverted upsilon and mu {{c\|\|M4\|d}} with three bars are usually young, but are sporadically known from archaic inscriptions (cf. especially the stela inscriptions [[TI·34.1]] and [[TI·40]], also [[BG·1]]). Inverted lambda in the Lepontic alphabet appears to be a young phenomenon (secure attestations from the 2<sup>nd</sup> century onward). {{bib\|Risch 1989}}: 1582 observes that lambda and upsilon might simply have been inscribed from from the other side, which is possible, but ad hoc. In agreement, however, Stifter [p.c.], who notes that the inscription is one of the few dextroverse ones on stones from the Lugano area, and suggests that the mason may have noted the irregularity after alpha and changed the orientation to achieve the more regular writing direction halfway through the inscription. The earliest Lepontic stela inscription with dextroverse writing otherwise known is [[TI·34]] (4<sup>th</sup> century). The inscription may have been intentionally removed, an act which could stand in connection with a reuse of the stela and the application of [[TI·36.1]] and [[TI·36.2]], though arguably the letters could have been deleted more thoroughly if it had been on purpose.

	The inscription is certainly unusual in terms of letter forms, most of the atypical ones ({{c\|\|M4\|d}}, {{c\|\|A26\|d}}, {{c\|\|L2\|d}}, {{c\|\|U10\|d}}) being more common in the east of the North Italic area, especially the Raetic Magrè alphabet.		The inscription is certainly unusual in terms of letter forms, most of the atypical ones ({{c\|\|M4\|d}}, {{c\|\|A26\|d}}, {{c\|\|L2\|d}}, {{c\|\|U10\|d}}) being more common in the east of the North Italic area, especially the Raetic Magrè alphabet.