From Lexicon Leponticum
Jump to navigationJump to search
Reading in transliteration: miliarios
Reading in original script: M5 dI dL dI dA2 dR dI dO8 dS2 d

Object: MI·10 Milano (slab)
(Inscriptions: MI·10.1, MI·10.2, MI·10.3, MI·10.4, MI·10.5, MI·10.6, MI·10.7, MI·10.8)
Position: centre
Orientation: 180°
Direction of writing: dextroverse
Script: North Italic script (Lepontic alphabet)
adapted to: Latin script
Letter height: 2.7–5.4 cm1.063 in <br />2.126 in <br />
Number of letters: 9
Number of words: 1
Number of lines: 1
Workmanship: carved
Condition: complete, damaged

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

Type: unknown
Language: Celtic
Meaning: 'milestone' (?)

Alternative sigla: Solinas 1995: 104 b
Morandi 2004: 140 b

Sources: Morandi 2004: 615–617 no. 140 b



First published in Tibiletti Bruno 1986. Examined for LexLep (on the original and on the cast) on 26th April 2022.

Images in Tibiletti Bruno 1986: 100, fig. 1 (photo of a cast) and fig. 2 (drawing of the inscription as on the cast, hence retrograde = Solinas 1995: 365; mirrored in LexLep for easier comparison with the other images), Morandi 2004: 621, fig. 19.140a (drawing) and tav. XXI.140 a, c (photos), Zavaroni et al. 2014: 281, fig. 2 (drawing) and 290, fig. 4 (photo of section). Our photo is of the inscription on the cast kept by the Soprintendenza Milano.

Inscribed upside-down lengthwise on what is now the right side of the slab (length 16.2 cm). The alphabet is the Lepontic one, apart from Latinoid mu (cf. MI·10.1). The word miliarios is best interpreted as a Celticised form of the Latin miliarium 'milestone' (see the word page). The inscription would thus seem to be connected with MI·10.1, which gives a distance to/from Milano (thus Tibiletti Bruno); however, the two inscription were clearly applied by different hands, MI·10.2 being written inverted in relation to MI·10.1, with much larger letters and in a different alphabet variant (lambda). The only indication that one refers to the other lies in how the two initial mus are placed back to back. It is unclear which of the two inscriptions was applied first. See further on MI·10.1 for considerations about the identification of the slab as a milestone.

Corinna Salomon