From Lexicon Leponticum
Jump to navigationJump to search
Reading in transliteration: unknown
Reading in original script: unknown

Object: GR·2 Präz (slab)
Position: front
Direction of writing: unknown
Script: unknown
Number of letters: 0
Workmanship: carved
Condition: illegible

Archaeological culture: unknown
Date of inscription: unknown [from object]

Type: unknown
Language: unknown
Meaning: unknown

Alternative sigla: none

Sources: Simonett 1959: 1–7



First published in Simonett 1959. Examined for LexLep on 11th September 2009 and again on 28th September 2021.

Images in Simonett 1959: 4, Abb. 2 (photo and drawing = Degen 1959: 179, Abb. 33 and Taf. 19B = Tibiletti Bruno 1968c: 348, drawing = Risch 1970: 131, Abb. 2.2), Tibiletti Bruno 1968c: 349 (photo), Risch 1970: Taf. 4.1 (photo), Risch 1984: 27, Abb. 8 (drawing = Risch 1989: 1585, fig. 6) and 36, Abb. 18 (photo).

The (putative) inscription is applied on what is the upper part of one of the slab's large faces when it is put upright to be higher than it is wide, inside a rectangular frame of ca. 36x18 cm which utilises two horizontal inclusions of white quartz. The area within the frame is slightly deepened. The surface of the stone and the lines carved into it are very weathered, rendering the inscription illegible. Simonett, who saw the inscription in what may have been a slightly better state than it is in today, thought he could read two words sillokui soisai or koisai, but the layout he suggests is not convincing: I sU7 sK4 dO2 sL sL sI sS2 d sillokui in the upper line starts with four large letters, followed by four much smaller ones (one of them retrograde), under which the second line I sA22 sS sI sO sS s soisai is inscribed with omicron and iota in ligature. By letter, Simonett brought his find and reading to the attention of Joshua Whatmough, who preferred Simonett's alternative reading of the second word koisai, for which Simonett compares TI·2 (p. 7, n. 12). While the apparent dative endings -ui and -ai inspire confidence in a Lepontic context, Simonett had time to prepare for the reading and had an idea what should be expected in a Lepontic burial inscription – he duly translates 'to Sillokos, son of Soisa (the gravestone)'. This grammatically implausible translation is amended by Tschurr 1959: 154 to 'for Sillokos (and) S/Koisa', assuming that the wife was buried in the same grave as her husband and her name was added to the inscription. (See also Degen 1959: 178 f., Risch 1970: 130 with n. 6) To support the interpretation of the document as a gravestone, Simonett suggests that the frame in fact represents the stylised figure of a human lying on their side (as in a crouched burial), with two dots for eyes on the right side before initial sigma, two curved lines for feet extending from the lower left corner, and possibly even a nose and mouth, comparable with stylised (upright) human figures which function as inscriptions frames such as on TI·42 Stabio. (See also Duval 1960: 390.)

While the features of the frame, including "eyes" and "feet", are well recognisable, no letters can be securely identified. The most plausible letter is alpha A22 s in the bottom left corner. While the existence of a very much damaged inscription cannot be excluded entirely (cf. Piana Agostinetti 2004: 142 f.), a reading is impossible; Simonett's reading must certainly be dismissed. Cf. Tibiletti Bruno 1968c: 343–350, who considers the inscription a figment, and suspects that the rectangular area is where the slab supported a wooden pillar (347, n. 26).

Corinna Salomon


Degen 1959 Rudolf Degen (ed.), "Archäologischer Fundbericht", Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Urgeschichte 47 (1958–1959), 137–227.
Duval 1960 Paul-Marie Duval, "Chronique gallo-romaine", Revue des Études Anciennes 62,3–4, 383–437.