From Lexicon Leponticum
Jump to navigationJump to search
Reading in transliteration: ??????[  ]??
Reading in original script: ??????[  ]??

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: right-hand side
Direction of writing: unknown
Script: unknown
Letter height: 2.5 cm0.984 in <br />
Number of letters: 8
Number of lines: 1
Workmanship: carved
Condition: damaged

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

Type: unknown
Language: unknown
Meaning: unknown

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

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



First published in Tibiletti Bruno 1986: 106. 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). The composite photos were made during the autopsy for Zavaroni et al. 2014 and were kindly provided by Alberto Zavaroni; the tracing of letters reflects the readings in that publication. Our photo is of the inscription on the cast kept by the Soprintendenza Milano.

Inscribed lengthwise at an angle above the initial part of MI·10.1, starting between the latter and MI·10.2, whose initial letter overlays those of the present inscription (length ca. 11.5 cm). The sequence was applied before MI·10.2 according to Tibiletti Bruno, but cf. Zavaroni et al. 2014: 294. The two sections are separated by a large abrasion; the scratches to the right of the abrasion are the best preserved. The tentative reading suggested by Tibiletti Bruno is [p?]ossito [?]iu (not likely since geminates are not written in the Lepontic alphabet); she notes that the two last signs could be the numeral '4'. The last two letters are crossed by a long oblique scratch, and putative upsilon looks more like A22 s in the available photos (cf. Zavaroni's drawing). Morandi (p. 617) considers the reading the most doubtful one of the inscriptions on the stone. The orientation and writing direction cannot be determined. See also Zavaroni et al. 2014: 294 f. (8a lus ụlu left of the abrasion, 8b tat in ligature right of the abrasion).

Corinna Salomon