JULIN MNDEZ DOSUNA

S OME C RITICAL N OTES ON THE N EW D ODONA L EAD P LATES

aus: Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 197 (2016) 119139

Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn

 119

S OM E C R I T ICA L N OT ES ON T H E N EW D ODONA L EA D P LAT ES

To Manuel Garca Teijeiro and Teresa Molinos

The new corpus of oracular lamellae from Dodona (Dakaris, Vokotopoulou and Christidis 2013) has at long
last seen the light of day. After the deaths of Ioulia Vokotopoulou in 1995 and Sotirios Dakaris in 1996,
Anastasios-Foivos Christidis took charge of the edition of the lead plates, but he also unexpectedly passed
away, on the 26th of December 2004, before he could see the work in print. Sotiris Tselikas, a student of his,
has now brought the project to completion.1
In May 2004 Christidis sent me a preliminary version of the work, which included no facsimiles. One
month later I sent him a first batch of objections, corrections and suggestions, most of which concerned
matters of punctuation and accentuation, some trivial and others not so trivial. After Christidis death, I
sent a second batch of remarks to Tselikas (March 2005). One year later, I presented a selection of my cri-
tiques at the 27th Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics of the Aristotle University of Thessalon-
iki (67 May 2006), which was dedicated to the memory of Christidis (Mndez Dosuna 2007a).2 Tselikas
included most of my suggestions in the commentary, but did not modify the late editors text and, for the
sake of brevity, he condensed my supporting arguments or dispensed with them altogether.3
It is scarcely possible to overstate the many difficulties that the editors, Dakaris, Vokotopoulou and
Christidis (henceforth, DVCh), had to confront in editing and making sense of these texts, which are con-
textless and usually fragmentary or condensed to the point of being cryptic. Many of them will, of neces-
sity, remain unfathomably enigmatic.4
In this paper I intend to discuss some of the more difficult texts. On occasion, I will refer to some of
my earlier conjectures, which can now be tested against the excellent facsimiles of the printed edition. For
convenience, my discussion will follow the conventional numbering system, and in quoting the texts, unlike
DVCh, I will adhere to the Leiden conventions. Unless otherwise indicated, I accept DVChs dates, even
though they are often questionable. Specifically, my impression is that the texts tend to be ascribed to an
earlier date than objective criteria would warrant, although examples to the contrary are also found.

I begin my catalog of comments with an inquiry in which one Eumedes seeks advice about an oak in a
that he intends to dig up and replant in the precincts of a temple (or dedicate in a temple).

80A (Doric, mid 4th c.)5

[] {} []
[] [ ]-
[]
L. 2: DVCh have .

1 This paper has been written under the project FFI2012-35721-C02-022 of the Spanish Ministerio de Economa y Com-
petitividad. Thanks are due to A. Alonso Dniz, S. Colvin and G. Petzl for their valuable corrections and suggestions on a
preliminary version. D. Pharies has taken the trouble to correct my English.
2 This publication completely escaped the notice of the otherwise omniscient editors of the SEG. The paper was inadver-
tently omitted from Dakaris, Vokotopoulou and Christidis (2013) list of bibliographical references.
3 Tselikas opted to ignore Lhtes 2006 corpus of previously published enquiries (LOD), even though a few texts appear
in both works. On LOD, see Mndez Dosuna (2007b), (2007c) and (2008), whose Greek citations were massacred by an incom-
petent printer.
4 An international multidisciplinary team led by Pierre Bonnechere (Universit de Montral) will attempt to produce a
revised edition of the texts.
5 Vayos Liapis kindly sent me the manuscript of his 2015 paper, in which he proposes a different analysis of 80A. I thank
him for his remarks on my interpretation of this text.
120 J. Mndez Dosuna

The syntax of the question is anomalous in that a deliberative subjunctive () denoting deontic modal-
ity (shall I pull it up?) is unlikely to be coordinated with a potential optative ([]) denoting epis-
temic modality (might I succeed in offering it?).6 One could consider adding a participle: [
|] or, more probably in accord with the space available, [|], since in some enquiries
the potential optative can dispense with the modal particle.7
DVCh do not comment on , which they probably interpret as a genitive or a dative singular with
loss of its final iota (tellingly, the passage is quoted under the heading in the word index). No clear
antecedent of the anaphor, however, is traceable in the immediate context. Does refer to the hero
implied in the word ? A dative would be possible on condition that we read , but the
combination (or ) seems to be unattested.8 Moreover, all other datives in the inscrip-
tions retain their iota: , [], , .
DVChs is very plausible; cf. (Ap. Rhod. 3.940) and Myc. po-si-da-
i-jo-de h to Poseidons sanctuary in a tablet from Pylos (PY Fn 187.2). Adverbial
might refer to the sanctuary of Dodona itself, of which a sacred valonia oak (Quercus macrolepis, Greek
, ) was the centrepiece. As regards , a dative is unlikely. A genitive governed by
is also completely out of the question, for two reasons. First, in adverbial is inaccessible to
modifiers, and second, the spelling indicates that the enquirer in 80A spoke a dialect of the Doris
mitior, as indicated by the contrasts between primary //, // (spelled H, ) and secondary /e/, /o/ (spelled
EI, OY). The expected spelling for a genitive would have been .9
In my opinion, is best taken as a pronominal adverb denoting origin and equivalent to Att.-Ion.
. Adverbs in - going back to ancient ablatives (PIE *-d) are well documented in Doric (Buck
1955: 103, 132.8; Mndez Dosuna 1985: 250).10
This is my interpretation of the text (since Eumedes asks a direct question, I prefer to add a colon after
and a question mark after ):
[] {} []
[] []-
[]
Eumedes consults Zeus Naios, Diona and Tyche about the oak in the heroon: Shall I succeed
in digging it up and replant (alternatively, offer) it at the temple from there?

186A + 187A (450400)

186A ;
187A h ;

6 Deontic modality refers to the notions of will and obligation. Epistemic modality denotes the degree of certainty of a
preposition. For the deliberative subjunctive in general, see Revuelta Puigdollers (1994); see further my comments on 825A,
1846B, 2024A and 2319.
7 On a different basis, Vayos Liapis (see fn. 5) also postulates a participle .
8 The verb is not to consecrate, to make sacred, but instead retains a more physical sense: to dedicate, to set
up a votive gift for a deity in a sanctuary.
9 For this very reason, cannot be a locative adverb corresponding to Att.-Ion. in the same place (sc. where
the oak originally stood). Even more importantly, Doric dialects had locative adverbs in -: , , corresponding to
, , (Buck 1955: 102, 132.2). occurs in numerous Dodona enquiries: 2408B (5th c.), 3431A.2 (450400),
2197B (late 5th c.), 501B (c. 400), 3315A.1 (, c. 400), 2102A = LOD 131, l. 3 (400350), 2425A.5 (400350), 92B.1 (4th c.),
3064A.1 (350300), LOD 50B.2 (350300), 1234A.2 (250200). The form cited as Doric in LSJ s.v. , if not a mis-
take, must be a false Doricisation of Att.-Ion. .
10 The relative adverb (Costabile 1992, tab. 22.12, 350250) does not denote manner (in whatever way) as I once
assumed, but only origin (whence): they will pay back [the loan] from whatever funds they may
deem convenient.
 Some Critical Notes on the New Dodona Lead Plates 121

DVCh considered these to be two independent texts, but K. Tsantsanoglou (see the commentary on 187A)
was in all probability right in making them into one and the same question. The enquirer asks whether he
shall go to (or remain in) Orchomenos or to any other place where profit can be made. Although the point
is not clearly stated, Tsantsanoglou probably reads disjunctive rather than DVChs

The text poses two problems. First, the adverb lacks the expected h-.11 Second, while the abso-
lute construction of the verb in the sense of to bear fruit, to yield an agricultural product with the
direct object omitted is well attested,12 an impersonal or elliptical construction with the subject omitted
( ) is, as far as I know, unprecedented.
I prefer to read a disjunction / h either in Orchomenos or
wherever his fancy may lead him; for a question of a similar kind, cf. [ ] []
[] / [ ] (1234.23, 250200). For the expres-
sion h , cf. the commander himself was
inclined to reach this conclusion (lit. the mind of the general himself carried him through this [mental]
space (Hdt. 9.120.17).13 Other related expressions are / (123, 603 and 797) and h
(LOD 67A.2, late 5th c.).

217A (mid 4th c.)

[ ] -
[ ] -
[ ] -
[ ]
[] (or []) for attests to the raising of mid-vowels characteristic of
Thessalian (Buck 1955: 25 and 27, 16 and 23). Accordingly, in l. 4 must be interpreted as (Att. )
or (Att. ) rather than as DVChs Att.-Ion. , which is unlikely at such an early date. In principle, the
spellings and in (l. 2), [] (l. 3) and (l. 3) are alien to Thessalian, but they also occur
in other enquiries composed in that dialect.14 The supplement in l. 1 should be rather than Doric
. If the enquirer was indeed from Thessaly, modal (l. 4) unequivocally points to Histiaeotis
(the rest of Thessaly has ).

267B (450400 BC)

[] [] / , []
L. 1: [.]

DVCh classify the text as Attic, but this assessment is contradicted by [] and , which are
unmistakably Ionic forms (Attic has , ). Allegedly, the enquirer wants to know whether
he must put off the digging (of a well?) to the following day ( []) or give up digging altogether.
DVCh read HN (l. 1) either as (< ) or as conditional (< ), neither of which is convincing. An
outcome is phonetically unlikely since is resistant to crasis and, even more importantly, the presump-
tive crasis of would have resulted in *. As for conditional , indirect questions introduced by

11 Exceptionally, h- is missing in etymologically related (< PIE *sik-) (IG IV 492.4; Mycenae, 6th c.). A slip of the
bronze cutter is probable (Nieto Izquierdo 2008: 262).
12 Cf. e.g. [] and he does not take the trouble to make
his old stock [of vines] bear [fruit] to him (X. Oec. 20.4).
13 The Dodona enquiry proves that the article whose presence was conjectured by some editors in Hdt. 9.120.17 (
) can be dispensed with.
14 Nondialectal H, might owe its presence to interference by the Doric spoken by the local officials who possibly helped
illiterate enquirers, but this hypothesis is unnecessary since H, also appear in texts inscribed in Thessaly, especially in the
4th c. (Blmel 1982: 3335, Scarborough 2015).
122 J. Mndez Dosuna

are rare, if they exist at all.15 To make matters worse, the supposed alternative [] (l. 2) is introduced
by . Needless to say, disjunctive questions are regularly introduced by ()
I prefer to read , i.e. with prodelision; cf. (194A.2, 4th c.) and (3351B, 5th4th c.)
and ([Aesch.] PV 773), (Eur. Bacch. 1032), (Ar. Av. 1397).
DVCh identify [] with Att. the day after, but this equivalence is not
immediately obvious. First, a reference to the day after is unexpected in an oracular enquiry. One would
expect something like tomorrow or in the future. Second, DVChs segmentation of
[.] is suspect. The first iota belongs naturally with the article rather than with the following word,
so reading it as a damaged upsilon is farfetched.
I propose to read []. The noun (Dor. ) roof, shed, building is abundantly
documented both in literary authors (Anacr., Hippon., Aesch., Soph., Hdt., Xen., etc.), in inscriptions from
Crete (5th c.), Attica, Delphi, Chios (4th c.), etc. and, even more tellingly, in another enquiry:
the money [hidden] in the main beam of the roof (or house) (3169,
early 4th c.).
Given that is not attested before the Roman period (Appian, Plutarch, Philostratus), the last word
of l. 1 must be [] (cf. Hdt. 1.174.6, Thuc. 1.106.1, Xen. HG 3.1.7, Arist. GA 780b Bekker, etc.) or, less
probably, [] (cf. Inscr.Prien.2 415.18, 4th c.).
I tentatively reconstruct the conditional sentence of l. 2 as []. For this future with passive
meaning, cf. Shall I not be allowed to manage my own house? (Eur.
IA 331).
This is my version of the enquiry: [] [] / , [?]; Shall I dig a
ditch in the building if I am given permission?

279A (early 4th c.)

[]
[] -
[]-
[] -

Ll. 45:

The sense of the text is clear (the enquirer asks whether he should become a merchant seaman on his own),
but the last word is problematic. DVCh read , which they interpret as the participle of
*, supposedly meaning sailing out [into the sea] with someone else. In Greek, however, to set
sail is not (e.g. Hdt. 2.114.8, Thuc. 1.37.3). Tselikas suggests reading . He may have had
in mind the rare in common, together of Aesch. Supp. 367.
In my opinion, these conjectures are neither persuasive nor necessary. I prefer to read []
and not renewing [a previous contract] with another [partner], with a trivial haplology.
The compound occurs in Polybius 12.6a.3 and PEnteux. 15.5 (3rd c. BC). The simplex
renew usually appears in the middle voice, but the active is also attested: e.g.
(FD 1.121.2; Delphi, 3rd c. BC).

305B (mid 4th c.)

Once again the general sense of the question is transparent ([Had we better] buy some land?), but DVChs
accusative is out of place. In fact, the facsimile clearly has a dative which fits perfectly in

15 For a thorough discussion of this thorny issue, see Wakker (1994: 369372). For a possible example in the Dodona
corpus, see my comments on 2319 below.
 Some Critical Notes on the New Dodona Lead Plates 123

an abridged formula [sc. ] Is it [profitable and advantageous] for

us to buy some land?

313A (Boeotia, 450400)

h
[]
[]
L. 3:

This text was first published by Eidinow (2007: 92, no. 13). A man named Boukolos and his wife Polym-
nasta ask what their chances are of begetting a male child capable of reaching adulthood and ensuring the
security of their patrimony.
The dialect is unquestionably Boeotian: cf. in and , the monophthongisation /ai /
> // (spelt H) in and (Buck 1955: 30, 26; Blmel 1982: 6667, 77), the raising of
/e/ in and (< , ) (Buck 1955: 22, 9.4; Blmel 1982: 4142, 41)16 and
for in the optative (Buck 1955: 126, 162.4; Blmel 1982: 50, 53.2). Unless it is a
mere error, (probably /bokl/) is the earliest piece of evidence for the contraction of /ou / to /o/
previous to its merger with /u/ (Y in the archaic script and usually OY in the adapted Ionian alphabet). As
for the date assigned, the lettering and the orthography (adapted Ionic alphabet) with the spelling typical of
the transition period ( for /e/ from ancient * in , O for /o/ in and in ,
) point to the first half of the 4th c. rather than to the second half of the 5th c. as postulated by DVCh.
In l. 1 Chaniotis (SEG 57.536.4) reads (= fem. ) .
This reading presents three problems:
a. A husband and a wife are more likely to enquire about their progeny than are two women.
b. The dat. du. leads us to expect two datives ([A response] for B. and P.) rather than two
nominatives.
c. A nominative with Att.-Ion. - is unwarranted in a Boeotian enquiry.
Let us note in passing that (l. 2) is neither offspring like his father (Eidinow) nor offspring
from the husband (Chaniotis), but simply male offspring as DVCh illustrate with an overwhelming pan-
oply of examples both from other enquiries and from literary texts.17
DVCh aptly note that the form [] (Att. ) in l. 3 is reminiscent of in IG VII 3377.6
(Chaeronaea, 2nd c.), which was independently explained by Mndez Dosuna (1984) and Brixhe (1985: 380)
as a hybrid of non-contracted (OY = Y)18 and contracted *, with IOY for OY probably
indicating the palatalisation of the dental before /u()/ (cf. for , for , etc.).
Needless to say, such an explanation does not hold for [], which lacks the article. For the time being,
the spelling [] remains a puzzle.
DVCh read [] (l. 4), which they interpret as a variant of *[] safety, security.
They signal another instance of this word in an enquiry composed in Attic (2510, 400350), but in that
case [] (l. 3) is purely conjectural. As regards their reading [], they surprisingly fail
to comment on the ostensible raising of /e/ before a nasal, which is reminiscent of Arcado-Cypriot (Buck
1955: 23, 10); cf. e.g. Arc. = (IPArk 3.36; Tegea, c. 250). As far as I know, nothing of the
sort is attested in Boeotia.19

16 To my mind, the ostensible raising is to be explained as a phonetic evolution [eo] > [e o] > [jo] (Mndez Dosuna 1993).
17 On see my comments on 4157A below.
18 The spellings (acc.) and (gen.) occur in numerous texts of the 3rd and 2nd c.
19 Brixhe (1985) posited context-free raising of short /e/ in Boeotian, but the evidence he gathered is meagre and
insubstantial.
124 J. Mndez Dosuna

To my mind, [] must be a ghost. The facsimile has L. The fifth letter is flanked by
two short blanks, but the space left between it and the following alpha is insufficient for the upsilon posited
by DVCh. The two apparent gammas are or stand for two pis lacking the short vertical stroke on the
right side. I propose reading . In Mndez Dosuna (2007d), I argued that, despite appearances, the
form attested in numerous Boeotian proxeny decrees is not a phonetic variant of , but the
apocopated version of (Att. ). The phrase [] acquisition of prop-
erty actually occurs in a Doric consultation (430.4; 400350). An accusative ()[] might also be
attested in a fragment written in the Corinthian script (4151B.1, early 5th c.).
The form can be added to other Boeotian forms with double -. These were believed to
represent evidence for an etymon *kweh2 -, but in Mndez Dosuna (2007d), I explained (IG
VII 3172, ll. 6263, 67, 7071, 7374; Orchomenos, late 3rd c.) and (Corinna, fr. 654 PMG)
as resulting from the apocope of and . The geminate in
(IG VII 505.2; Tanagra, 250200)20 and (IOropos 93.2; late 3rd c.) may have been borrowed
from * (< = Att. ). Our looks like a blend of and
.21

336A (Thessaly, 350300)

/
L. 1:

The hapax , which DVCh interpret as synonymous with priesthood, unequivocally

points to Thessaly, where priest and to be a priest recur in numerous inscriptions. A
Thessalian provenance is also consistent with the raising of // to /e/ in (Att. ),22 the 1pl. ending -
and the -- in the aorist of a verb in -.
However, DVChs is unsatisfactory in the following respects:
a. The implied omission of a whole syllable is a rather infrequent type of misspelling.
b. * is not documented. is the one and only form attested (cf. also Modern
Greek , ). Of special significance in this respect is the testimony of Thess.
[] (IG IX.2 1229.3738; Phalanna?, early 2nd c.) and (BCH 59
(1935) 55, 2, ll. 28, 4344; Larisa, 2nd c.).
c. The usual term for priesthood in Thessaly is (Garca Ramn, Helly and Tziafalias 2007:
96). The suffix - does not seem to denote an office.
d. The question itself (Shall we manage the priesthood?) is awkward.
I propose reading / The apparent iota of the plate must be an incomplete
gamma. Subj. is the perfect correlate of Att. ; for Thess. - = - (Buck
1955: 20, 6; Blmel 1982: 51, 56), cf. e.g. (IG IX.2 517.44; Larisa, 214 BC) and
(IG IX 2.515.9; Larisa, 2nd c.).
The sense of the question is uncertain. could denote the victim of a sacrifice (cf. ), the
allowance for a priest (cf. , ) or the residence of the priest (cf. , ).23
The verb (to carry up, to bring back, to recover) is no less polysemous.
The question might be Must we give back e.g. the victim? or Must we recover e.g. the priests sti-
pend? The latter option seems preferable on account of [] he shall recover
his priesthood and [] he shall recover his rank (Oliver 1989: no. 184 II.1314
and 6667; Athens, 174/175 AD).

20 For (< *) instead of the editors , see Mndez Dosuna (2007d: 313314).
21 I owe this suggestion to Alcorac Alonso Dniz.
22 I pointed out to Tselikas (March 2005) that the text is Thessalian and, consequently, DVChs original reading had to
be corrected to , but he forgot to acknowledge this in the apparatus criticus.
23 For the semantics of - and -, cf. Chantraine (1933: 5961).
 Some Critical Notes on the New Dodona Lead Plates 125

385A (4th c.)

The reading [] [ ] is unwarranted. A better option is [] [ ], interpreting the
letter X as a red xi.

387B (early 4th c.)

/ /
L. 1: . L. 2: Y

DVChs interpretation is that Simon wants to know whether his wife is healthy enough to protect their
children. According to K. Tsantsanoglou, it is Simon himself who endeavours to protect his offspring. Both
guesses are unconvincing, since the simplex only occurs in some etymologica (Et. Gud., Et. Sym.,
EM) and the syntax of the sentence remains incomprehensible.
To my mind, Simon consults the oracle on behalf of his wife () with regard to their offspring
( ). He wants to know whether he will beget an heir by his wife, a recurrent question at Dodona.
For the elliptical syntax of the sentence, cf. e.g. [] [] (103A.1; Thessalian?, late
5th c.). The sequence Y (the theta is rather uncertain) might correspond to the wifes name, which
I am failing to identify (cf. , ).

556A (Pelasgiotis, late 4th c.)

-

- 3
-

6


9
Apart from the spellings H (twice ) and for expected EI and OY (, ,
, , and , l. 8),24 the dialect here is unequivocally Thessalian: cf. long ,
contraction > (, l. 1), apocopated (l. 3), 3pl. aor. - (, l. 5), conditional
(l. 6). Several features specifically point to Pelasgiotis: nom. pl. (ll. 2, 4), modal (l. 6) and interroga-
tive/indefinite dat. sg. (l. 6). The gen. sg. (l. 3) read by DVCh is incompatible with that variety,
which has (< ), and the facsimile clearly reads TOI. Consequently, l. 3 must be corrected to
.

825A (Corinthian script, = E, 5th c.)25

/ /
According to DVCh, the enquirer asks whether he will win the prize in a horse race ( ). This
interpretation makes sense, but the text itself is not without serious problems:
a. While the first letters of l. 1 and l. 2 are instances of the beta-like Corinthian epsilon () representing
/e/, // (E, H in other alphabets), the penultimate letter of l. 1 is a common epsilon, which should
represent an /e/ (EI in the adapted Ionian alphabet).
b. The third-to-the-last letter of l. 1 could well be a damaged phi as read by the editors, but the possi-
bility of a rounded gamma () of a type used in the Corinthian script cannot be excluded.

24 On nondialectal H, , see my comments on 217A above.

25 DVCh date the enquiry to the 4th c., which is incompatible with its archaic Corinthian script.
126 J. Mndez Dosuna

c. Modal does not combine with the deliberative subjunctive. This should be in deontic modality
whereas the modal particle is epistemic.26
The collocation is likely unprecedented. The proper combinations are to win a
prize and to win a horse race.
Instead of the ungrammatical , I provisionally propose reading (< )27 or,
perhaps, the palaeographically superior .28 As for , should we take it at face value as a sub-
standard variant of the diminutive (X. Cyr. 1.4.19)? I very tentatively suggest
which might be interpreted as Was [the mare?] also pregnant with a little horse?

934A (500450)
/
This enquiry had been already published by Evangelidis, PAAH 1929, p. 127, n 11 and by Lhte, LOD
149. Lhte read , which he interpreted as a patronymic (contra Mndez Dosuna 2008: 56).
As regards the provenance of the enquirer, Lhte thinks of Boeotia, while DVCh state that the script is
Thessalian. Actually, the script is also compatible with Euboea. In DVChs facsimile, the remnants of the
penultimate letter of l. 2 look more like an epsilon than an alpha.29 If is the right reading, the
enquirer is Euboean.

1108A (Corinthian script of the Epirotan or Corcyraean type: = E and H, mid 5th c.)
-
-
- 3
h
h
L. 2: The facsimile has instead of DVChs .

DVCh assume that the word h, written vertically on the left margin of the tablet and numbered as l. 5,
is the continuation of l. 4, but the clause h h through the area where (i.e. approximately where)
the sanctuary [may be], which they do not discuss in the commentary, is bewildering. I have little doubt that
l. 5 is an independent text written by a different hand: its symmetrical alpha, tailed rho and round omicron
contrast with the alpha with a slant bar, the tailless rho and the square omicron of ll. 14.
DVChs conjecture evergreen is suspect for the following reasons:
a. The contraction > is rare outside Attica.30
b. In the classical period the adjective is used exclusively in the poetic register.
c. The spelling is unsuitable for ()-. In the Corinthian script of Epirus, we would expect either
E or I (cf. del Barrio Vega 2009).
d. Though syntactically possible, making the genitive depend on gives a dubious sense:
Would I obtain an evergreen oak? The genitive must be constructed with (Would I
possibly succeed in topping an oak?). In principle, an accusative should be expected, but a
partitive genitive cannot be excluded.
Tsantsanoglous conjecture , reported in the apparatus criticus and supposedly meaning burned
by lightning, is farfetched.
26 For the deliberative subjunctive, see my comments on 80A, 825A, 1846B and 2024A.
27 Cf. Att. > , > , but in Doric one expects o > o (Buck 1955: 80, 94.6).
28 A sigmatic aorist is documented only in a Delphic manumission: , [] (FD 3.95.8. A,
10060 BC). The readings (< ) and (< ) would be palaeographically impeccable ( =
/e/), but the combination is meaningless.
29 Note, however, that Lhte, who examined the plate in 1998, has an alpha in his facsimile.
30 The contraction > is common in Epirus, especially in verbal forms; see my comments on 3220A.
 Some Critical Notes on the New Dodona Lead Plates 127

Since refers to the process of cutting off the top of a tree (cf. Thphr. CP 5.17.3), I tentatively
propose | the heads (i.e. the crowns) of the oak or, less probably,
(a part) of the crown of the oak; cf. as a place-name in Hdt. 9.39.1, Thuc. 3.24.1.

1148A (Corinthian script of the Epirotan or Corcyraean type: = H, mid 5th c.)
/ h
L. 2:

As indicated in the previous section, takes a genitive. Accordingly, I suggest a gen. pl. h
. For a parallel, cf. it would be much easier to find an easy
route (X. HG 6.5.52). Still, the sense of the enquiry remains obscure.
In Doric the regular genitive plural of is (< *): cf. Acarn.
(IG IX 1.241.11; Thyrrheion, 210 BC), Mess. (IG V 1 1390.63; Andania, 92/91 BC).
This form is also attested in the writings of Hippodamus and Archimedes. The gen. pl. fem. , with
- borrowed from the masculine and neuter (cf. Ion. , Att. for * and *),
is possibly attested in Lokroi Epizephyrioi: the price of those products, two
staters per medimnos (Costabile 1992, no. 28, ca. 350250?).31 A nom.-acc. pl. n. occurs in an
enquiry by the Diaitoi, a community or college of magistrates (1368A = LOD 16, l. 3)32 and possibly in the
fragmentary 2817B (4th c.?).

1193A (early 4th c.)

[]
According to DVCh, the enquirer asks whether he and his wife can live together with his sister, but the iden-
tification of a dative on which this interpretation rests proves to be unwarranted given the following
considerations:
a. - is a backformation of exclusive to poetry (Aesch., Soph., Eur.).
b. K itself is a poeticism (Hom., Hes., Alcm., Arch., Alc., Sapph., Theogn., Hippon., Pind.,
Aesch., Soph., Eur., etc.). In everyday speech it was replaced by () everywhere except in
Cyprus and Thessaly.
c. One would expect * - in a Doric dialect (cf. Thess. ).33 Assibilated
is a patent epicism in Alcman, Pindar and Bacchylides.34
It is quite possible and indeed probable that a significant portion of the text on the right side has been lost.
The plate was reused and possibly recut so as to write enquiry 1195B, which happens to be complete on
the reverse. The iota that DVCh so confidently read at the end of the first line, could be a vestige of almost

31 For this reading, see Mndez Dosuna (1985: 195); cf. also nom.-acc. pl. n. in Costabile 1992, tab. 9.10; for -
instead of -, cf. Buck (1955: 100, 124). The editors (de Franciscis 1972 and Costabile 1992) read an acc. sg. fem. ,
which is pointless. Blomqvist (1975: 19) corrected to a gen. pl. n. , which would be appropriate given that its
antecedent is grain. The grain must be wheat (masc. ) rather than barley (fem. ) since the price of two staters
per medimnos coincides with that of the wheat in tab. 23.8. Barley is notably cheaper: 1 st., 2 litrai (tab. 16.1213), 1 st., 6.5
l., 2 ob. (tab. 23.9), 1 st. (tab. 31.13). This consideration notwithstanding, the drafter may have had in mind a feminine .
32 As regards the date of this text, Lhtes 4th3rd c. seems to me more plausible than DVChs late 5th c.early 4th c.
33 Cf. now {} in 3113A.8 (Pelasgiotis, early 4th c.).
34 Hesychius has two Laconian glosses: (ms. ) ( 966 Latte) and
. . ( 971 Latte). These are usually
connected with (often abbreviated to or ), a term attested in numerous Spartan inscriptions of the 2nd c. AD.
(an abbreviation itself?) allegedly denotes the relationship of a Spartan boy to the () of his class ()
(LSJ, s.v.), but both its meaning and its etymology are uncertain.
128 J. Mndez Dosuna

any letter. Since disjunctive questions are frequent in the tablets, we should content ourselves with reading
[ ].
DVCh do not comment on the provenance of the enquirer. The tailless digamma (Jefferys wau 5) is
attested in Euboea, Boeotia, Thessaly and in Corcyra (Jeffery and Johnston 1990: 2425, 233). A participle
(AAI) can also be read in LOD 41.67 (late 6th c.), written in Corinthian script ( = /e/, //)
and one of the oldest extant enquiries from Dodona. Both of these factors point to Corcyra as the origin of
the enquirer in 1193A.

1234A, l. 1 (250200)
[ ] [][] []
The conjecture [][] for commonplace is unwarranted. DVCh make no attempt to
justify it.35

1334 (250200)
[] /
According to DVCh, the enquirer plans to participate in a deal involving pigs (). This interpretati-
on is objectionable on two counts. First, a double sigma in the dative plural of is unetymological and
unparalleled. Even more importantly, typically combines with a genitive or more rarely, with an
accusative to express a thing or activity shared. A dative (alternatively + dat. or + gen.) denotes
the partner who shares in something: cf. e.g. I too have shared
in misfortune with Priams progeny (Eur. Hel. 1221); With you I shared in the
same things (Soph. El. 1168), With
which of the two would you share both the risk and the success? (Pl. Euthd. 280a). The phrase
could only mean sharing [in something] with pigs.
I propose reading e.g. [] [] | whether [I would succeed] sharing [in the
enterprise] with Simos? (of course, other names like (), (), etc. are also possible).36

1339A + 1340A (second half of the 4th c.)

1339A
1340A []/ /
As DVCh suggest, both texts, written on the same side of a tablet, should be considered to be a single
enquiry. The mention of Pharkadon, a city in Histiaeotis, suggests that the enquirer came from Thessaly.
This seems to be contradicted by the spelling in non-Att.-Ion. 37 and even more so by Att.-Ion. ,
which DVCh illogically deem to be a koine form. The ostensible contradiction dissolves if we read (Att.-
Ion. ), with the Thessalian raising of mid-long vowels. The kappa supplemented by DVCh in 1340A.1 can
be dispensed with by reading at the beginning of l. 2. Under these premises, the text reads
/ / / Should I be a farmer in Pharkadon if I am offered the chance?
The verb () (besides Att.-Ion. ) and the noun () occur in several enquir-
ies. Interestingly, 1pl. subj. [] (Ion. ) in 3002B (c. 400350) is a patently Thes-
salian form (cf. for ). The infinitive (Att.-Ion. ) also occurs in an inscription from
Phalanna (IG IX.2 1229.16, 17, early 2nd c.).

35 Ll. 23 have been quoted in my comment on 1339A + 1340A above.

36 For the assimilation - > -, cf. Att. (< *), (< *), for
(IG I3 127.26; Athens, 405/404), Ion. for (Meiggs-Lewis 32.4142; c. 475450); see also Buck
(1955: 82, 96.2).
37 This fact by itself implies a date considerably later than the late 5th c., as favoured by DVCh. As indicated above with
reference to 217A and 556A, the spellings H and are far from exceptional in the Thessalian enquiries from Dodona.
 Some Critical Notes on the New Dodona Lead Plates 129

The adjective , which occurs in other enquiries as well,38 is worth a comment. In literary texts
it is first attested in the 1st2nd c. AD (Josephus, Plutarch) in the meaning accidental, adventitious, a sense
unsuitable for the Dodona texts. Parke (1967: 266) guesses at lucky, fortunate. In the same vein, Lhte
(LOD, p. 88) and DVCh (commentary on 31A) suggest heureux, qui a de la chance and
respectively, but this makes little sense. Something like attainable, feasible, likely to happen fits the con-
text better.
Significantly, the clearest instances of occur in two Thessalian enquiries:
(31A, mid 4th c.) and (221B, mid 4th c.).39 3192A,
with the comparative more attainable and desirable (ll. 34), might also be Thes-
salian (cf. [], l. 4).40 All this suggests that , with the special meaning attainable, feasible,
had gained currency in Thessaly or, for that matter, in Northern Greece , which reinforces the idea that
1339A + 1340A is Thessalian.

1360A (mid 5th c.)

A crasis is more likely than DVChs elision . DVCh interpret as a variant of where?,
whither? They probably take the verb at face value as a 3pl. , but a potential optative (Where would
the stocks of wool be?) is unexpected. I tentatively read a 3pl. or 3sg. of the imperfect of :
Where have the stocks of wool gone?41

1375B (mid 4th c.)

/
L. 2: Tsantsanoglou

DVCh believe that the (lost) question is asked by some blind ( ): as we blind do. But the adjective
blind is a poeticism.42 It is certainly not impossible that a lexical archaism, which is otherwise
attested only in poetry, survived in a peripheral area like Northwestern Greece.43 Still, in the absence of
further evidence, I prefer to read l ike the rest of us. is easily explained as
a mistake for .44

1394 (second half of the 4th c.) = LOD 83 (4th c.)

Pace Lhte and DVCh, this looks more like an answer given by the oracle than an enquiry. The oracle
advises a certain Phaikylos to become a fisherman like his father. With this choice, he will do better:
, / , / ,

38 Cf. 31A = LOD 28B, l. 1 (Thessaly, mid 4th c.); 39A.23 (4th c.); 221B (Thessaly, mid 4th c.); 3005A (late 5th c.early
4 c.); 3289A.3 (350300); [] 3192A3.4. Other possible instances are less certain: [?] 1088A (late 5th c.?),
th

2410A (mid 4th c.); [?] 3745A (late 5th c.early 4th c.).
39 The other enquiries cited in fn. 38 are hopelessly fragmentary.
40 For in Thessalian, cf. IG IX 1035.1 (Gyrton, 3rd c.?), 1058 (Mopsion, early 3rd c.), Helly Gonnoi 161 and
162 (4th c.early 3rd c.), SEG 35.502.2 and SEG 46.636.17 (Atrax, 3rd c.), SEG 43.240.2 (Atrax, c. 200150), SEG 51.671.2
(Atrax, 2nd c.).
41 Cf. 3pl. * = Att. and Hom. 3sg. () with movable nu. I have not been able to find any parallels of or
said of things with the meaning to be gone, i.e. to be lost, or stolen, in other Greek texts.
42 See LSJ and DGE s.v.
43 This is the case of e.g. in Lesbian, Thessalian and Cypriot, in West Locrian and Arcadian and the
numerous Homericisms attested in Arcadian and Cyprian (Buck 1955: 191): Arc., Cypr. , Arc. , Cypr. ,
etc.
44 Similarly, the poeticism (allegedly, horrible, insufferable) in SEG 43.333 proved to be a mirage; see Cassio
(2007: 2932) and SEG 56.660.
130 J. Mndez Dosuna

. Since the dialect seems to be Doric,45 reading a Doric fut. inf. is preferable to Lhotes
and DVChs paroxytone .

1395A, lines 34 (Doric, first half of the 4th c.)

[] /
DVCh confess their perplexity at the form in place of the expected Doric form . The
mystery disappears if we read , a contracted Doric future with the vocalism of severe Doric.

1572A (late 5th c.)

() -
:
L. 1: ,

A heterogeneous inquiry concerning health, one servant and a priesthood is illogical. A nominative
sandwiched between two genitives is ungrammatical. The odds are that a substantial portion of the text on
the right part of the plate is missing:
() [] . . . [?]-
:

1846B (late 5th c.early 4th c.)

/
DVChs 3pl. is not impossible. Inasmuch as the deliberative subjunctive is speaker-oriented,
we could have a question posed by some collectivity and worded in the third person: cf.
[] in an enquiry of the Cheimarioi (2012A, 350300).46 However, the overwhelming majority of
the enquiries are made by individuals and, even more to the point, while private enquirers often remain
anonymous, public enquirers invariably identify themselves as a community: the Dodonaeans, the Cor-
cyraeans, etc.
I opt for a participle in the dative singular: | [viz.
vel simile] [Would it be better for me] not to demand repayment of the debt?.

2015 (first half of the 4th c.)

/[]
L. 2: A

This text is composed in the Thessalian variety of Histiaeotis: cf. the raising of the mid-long vowels
( = Att. ) and, especially, the change of /o/ to /e/ in the last syllable of .47 How-
ever, if the text is complete,48 either a nominative or an accusative (Att. ) is asyntactic.
This difficulty is easily overcome by reading a genitive dual: [] (Att. )
the safety of the two children.49 The change /o/ > /e/ also affected the diphthong /oi /: cf. dat. pl.
45 Cf. long . The lack of contraction of in , and of in , dat. sg. - in
and especially the in (l. 1) (Boeot. *) exclude Boeotian. In principle, dat. sg. - would be incom-
patible with Thessalian.
46 Cf. As regards the settlement in the land of the Chemarioi, [the enquirers ask]
whether they must settle there (2012 = LOD 31, probably Doric, 400350). The sentence is pragmat-
ically equivalent to (Mndez Dosuna 2008: 5556).
47 For the phonetics of this change, cf. Mndez Dosuna (2007e: 367377).
48 The two words seem to be the key words identifying a longer enquiry, now lost.
49 Contradictorily, DVCh state in the commentary that the enquiry concerns the safety of the children of the enquirer (
, my italics).
 Some Critical Notes on the New Dodona Lead Plates 131

(SEG 36.548.4, Matropolis, 3rd c.; SEG 37.494.14, Itonion, c. 230200) and dat. sg. (SEG
37.494.2), (ibid. l. 20).

2024A (Meliteia, 400350)

-
3


[] 6
L. 3: is written in smaller characters over in the space between l. 2 and l. 3.

One Damainetos asks on behalf of Proxenos (a friend of his?) how the latter might escape from Melitaea
speedily. The apocope of (l. 2) and modal (l. 3) hint at Thessalian, which is congruous with the
mention of the city of Melitaea (SE Thessaly). K excludes the dialect of Histiaeotis, which has . The
gen. sg. (ll. 23) and the interrogative (l. 4) suggest Thessaliotis (SW Thessaly) (Pelasgi-
otis has gen. sg. - and ). Three features seem non-Thessalian: H and in , , etc.,50 in
(l. 3) for expected and dat. sg. - in [] (l. 6) for expected .
The editors hypothesise that Achaia Phthiotis was a buffer area where a mixture of Aeolic and Doric was
spoken.
Be that as it may, for the same reasons adduced in my comments on 825A, the co-occurrence of mod-
al and a deliberative subjunctive (, l. 3) is ungrammatical. In this case, the fact that was first
omitted, only to be added later in smaller characters over , may be the key to the mystery. The enquirer
probably had in mind a potential optative , but he inadvertently wrote as a subjunctive like
in l. 5. L. 6 is probably not a question with a deliberative subjunctive, but a sort of afterthought with the
verb in the indicative: [] and he brings a present to the god [to compensate
him for his advice].

2204A (late 5th c.)

[ ] / []/[ ]
DVCh justify their reading on the basis of Hesychius gloss
(Hsch. 30 Latte), but the hypothetical *, a blend of the regular ethnic names
and , is a morphological monstrosity.51
The raising of * in o for o indicates that the enquirer came from Thessaly.52 is
likely to be the regular outcome of a dat. sg. * (Att. ) in the vernacular of Histiaeotis
with the characteristic change - > - discussed above under 2015B.

2217A (350300)
[ ]-
[ ]
[ ]
Att.-Ion. for and the rhotacism of intervocalic /s/ (Buck 1955: 57) in the personal name
(cf. Dor. ) unequivocally point to the Euboean dialect of Eretria. Thus, even if the context is
uncertain, a dat. sg. [] (ll. 12) with the shortening of - to - also typical of Eretria (Buck
50 On H and in Thessalian, see my comments on 217A above. For the loss of - in 3sg. subj. , see Buck (1955: 35).
51 The entry in the index of sacred nouns ( ) compiled by G. Papadopoulos is inconsistent:
(, ).
52 See my comments on 217A above.
132 J. Mndez Dosuna

1955: 36), seems more likely than the nom. pl. [] printed by DVCh in the text, or the dat. sg.
[] suggested as an alternative in their commentary.

2228 (Doric, mid 3rd c.?)

/ / []
Supposedly, a certain Ladon asks in this enquiry whether he should go on seeking something. DVCh date
the text to the mid 3rd c., probably on the basis of the two instances of lunate sigma, or more precisely of
its forerunner, the two-stroke sigma ( ), in l. 2, and of the form , which they interpret as the Attic-Ionic
variant of the modal particle.53 Such a late date is, however, at odds with the use of E for // in and O for
// in and ,54 an archaic graphic feature which contrasts with the use of the digraph EI for /e/
in and .
While the absence of H and and the lack of a geminate in () are evident archaic features, the
two-stroke sigma is not compelling proof of a late date since it occurs in private documents as early as the
5th c. BC (Gorissen 1978, McLean 2002: 41).55 I prefer to date the text to the first half of the 4th c., which is
also in keeping with the letter forms.
As regards dialect, the future () is unmistakably Doric. Hypercorrect for in
(for ) suggests the NW area (Mndez Dosuna 1985, 334394). Both features are at variance with
Attic-Ionic , which is unlikely to appear in a Doric text of the 4th c.
As a last resort we could read .56 This is, however, unnecessary. The per-
sonal name is extremely rare. It only occurs in late inscriptions from Patalia, Bithynia and Prusa
(2nd3rd c. AD). To my mind, in our enquiry must refer to a place or a river (cf. the Ladon, a tributary
of the Alpheus River in Arcadia). AN (or rather AN) is not to be interpreted as a modal particle, but as
the apocopated variant of : ; Is it necessary to search on top of (the place
called) Ladon? The use of + dat., a syntactic archaism occasionally preserved in poetry (cf. e.g. LSJ
s.v. ), survived in Epirus: cf. [he gives] a field on top of [the place named] Kossos
(SGDI 1365 = Cabanes 1976, n 77, ll. 56; Dodona, 4th c.).57

2254A (late 5th c.)

[] / []/ / ;
L. 1: Alternatively, . L. 2: might be a repetition of the ending of []. Alternatively, it could
be corrected to ; in that case, the question mark in line 4 is to be deleted. L. 3:

At first sight, the text appears to be Doric (cf. , ), which could be congruous with modal , but this
presents us with a difficulty similar to that discussed under 825: the modal particle is incompatible with a
deliberative subjunctive [].
One might read either [] (< ) Did Libysabos also give tes-
timony in the action against Khoiria (or Khoirias)? or [] Whether L. also
gave testimony. Given that a crasis [] might have been expected in a Doric dialect, we could

53 DVCh do not comment on this form, but the passage is quoted in the word index under the entry along with several
occurrences of the modal particle in Attic-Ionic enquiries.
54 A form with shortening of the long diphthong cannot be ruled out.
55 The spurious diphthongs EI and OY were already used in the so-called Colonial Law from West Locris (IG IX 1.334;
Oeanthea, early 5th c.) (cf. Mndez Dosuna 1985: 7276). OY is also attested in a funerary epigram inscribed on a polyandrion
in a Corinthian script (SEG 41.540A; Ambracia, c. 550): (l. 1), (l. 3), (l. 8).
56 For indirect questions introduced by , see my comments on 267B.
57 Elsewhere, + dat. was displaced by + dat./gen. In parallel, + acc. moving onto the top of something in
motion predicates (= + acc. in most dialects) shows up in another enquiry: onto Dorilaos
swift boat (LOD 113.4; c. 350). For this reading and for the date of the text, see Mndez Dosuna (2007c). Like previous editors,
Lhte interpreted as the modal particle of Attic-Ionic.
 Some Critical Notes on the New Dodona Lead Plates 133

contemplate a Thessalian origin, which is compatible with aforementioned and and agrees with the
loss of - in the diphthong in (Buck 1955: 35).
The Thessalian hypothesis offers, however, an attractive alternative reading:
()[] (= Att. ) Whether L. must give incriminating testimony, i.e. be an
incriminatory witness, a question with a deliberative subjunctive in the third person. Actual instances of
the apocope o > o are lacking in the inscriptions, but this process is not unexpected in Thes-
salian: cf. Hom. (Il. 11.172), Lesb. (Sapph. 31.9 Voigt).

2319 (late 5th c.early 4th c.)

-
vacat
.
Kraton consults the oracle about the future of his crops. This enquiry has a distinctly Attic-Ionic flavour:
(l. 1), // in (l. 2), modal (l. 3).58 Most notable is the question (lines 34). DVCh interpret
this as a direct question ;, which is unlikely, given that, as explained above, a
deliberative subjunctive is out of keeping with the modal particle. Indeed, a deliberative subjunctive in the
3pl. not referring to the enquirer is barely acceptable.59
We may be dealing with an -clause of the rare type discussed under 267 above. If so, our enquiry
sheds new light on the etymology of Att.-Ion. . According to the most common view (Lejeune 1972:
323), results from . Purportedly, was borrowed from contracted since quantitative meta-
thesis with /ei/ or /e/ is unprecedented. The evidence of 2319 might give support to a currently less popular
etymology (cf. Schwyzer and Debrunner 1950: 685, fn. 1), according to which > > through
regular quantitative metathesis.

2761B (Thessalian, 5th c.)

[ . . ][- - - / [ ] / [ - - -]
To judge from the script and from the interrogative pronoun (Att. ), the enquirer came from Pelas-
giotis in Thessaly. DVCh read (l. 2) as [], but this is questionable. First, the second
letter might be a delta (the rho in l. 1 is of the tailed type). Second and more importantly, in the Thessalian
script, which is of the red type, the sign X is not a chi (/kh/) but a ksi (/ks/). The right transcription must be
[] (or O []) with a pleonastic sigma (Buck 1955: 75, 89.1, Mndez Dosuna, forthcoming);
for an instance of pleonastic sigma in Thessaly, cf. [] (IG IX 2.1202.2; Corope, c. 550).

2976A (450400)

-


DVCh suggest that a relative pronoun was omitted before in l. 3 ( ) and
interpret the text as consisting of two questions: Does Gorgias owe a debt to Onator? Did he pay the sixth
part to Onator in cash around the (winter) solstice?

58 In principle, (l. 4) should not be Ionic since Attic inscriptions have only - until 306/305 BC (Threatte
1980: 562), but the enquiry could be slightly later and, more importantly, an earlier chronology for the spelling - in less
formal private inscriptions is not unthinkable.
59 One could possibly counterargue that the enquirer associates himself with the crops of his fields. For the deliberative
subjunctive, see my comments on 80A, 825A, 1846B and 2024A.
134 J. Mndez Dosuna

Several remarks are in order:

a. The spelling corresponds to impf. rather to pres. .
b. If a relative pronoun is missing, it ought to be placed after in l. 2.
c. The winter and summer solstices usually correspond to pl. (sg. is much less com-
mon). In the Dodona enquiries, systematically takes a genitive. Accordingly, (ll. 23)
must stand for gen. pl. .
d. Middle must mean receive in payment rather than pay as DVCh suppose (cf. act.
to lend vs. med. to borrow).
e. DVChs translation to Onator ( ) is unjustifiable. Whatever its ultimate sense might
be, a prepositional phrase could only mean earlier than Onator.60 Angelos Cha-
niotis (2015) interprets as an independent adverb and makes the genitive depend
on : the money that he borrowed earlier from Onator. This gives a perfect sense,
even if is rather superfluous and, as far as I can see, is regularly constructed with
+ gen. in literary Attic texts (e.g. Ar. Lys. 10551056, Lys. 17.2.1, Isocr. 17.35.3, D. 20.11.5).
This is my version of the text:

, -


God. Good luck. Did Gorgias owe Onator the sixth part of the money that he had received in
cash from him earlier on, around the (winter) solstice?

2977B (Corinthian script, 450400)

T /
As I told Christidis, this must be the synopsis of 2976A scratched on the other side of the plate (the scripts
and the hands are different). I proposed a different version to him (partially reproduced and acknowledged
in the apparatus criticus and commentary):
{}{} /
The text is not a question, but an assertion: Onator declares that Gorgias owes him 400.61

2980 (Doric, 350300)

[ ]-
[] []

The syntax of the infinitive [] posited by DVCh is anything but clear. They may have been thinking of
consecutive + infinitive, but this clashes with the conjectured in l. 1. I prefer to restore a disjunctive
purpose clause introduced by or indicating the reason why the consultation is made:62

60 The use of as an improper preposition with a genitive is extremely rare: cf. before its time (Pi. P. 4.43).
61 For sentence initial non-enclitic cf. e.g. Dor. / Att.-Ion. (), cf. e.g. [] []
He says that he will redden the whirling Scamander (Bacch. 27.36), He says that I speak very well
(Ar. Av. 1629).
62 Cf. also h [The enquiry is made] so that we may win (1993A, late 6th c.) and 4157A below. Adjunct
purpose clauses (also called genuine purpose clauses or propositional purpose clauses) refer directly to the main clause:
They took a plane to get back home. Disjunct purpose clauses (pseudo-purpose clauses or illocutionary purpose clauses) are
peripheral as indicated by a break in the intonation line and refer to a verb of speaking implied as a comment on the main
clause: I dont like her, to be frank. Cf. Quirk et al. (1985: 10701074).
 Some Critical Notes on the New Dodona Lead Plates 135

[ ]-
[] []

Is Aristonymos dead? [This question is asked] with the intention that, if he is dead, his chil-
dren and wife may honour him with the accustomed last rites due to a deceased person.

3018A (late 5th c.early 4th c.)

DVCh believe that the enquiry properly speaking, the key words of the inquiry concerns some uniden-
tified (Att. ). To that effect they note that the Dorians used (sc. ) hamlet for
what the Athenians called deme.
This is questionable. First, the apocope of is restricted to a few dialects (Buck 1955: 81, 95), in
all of which the genitive plural of the first declension is either - (Thessalian) or - (Delphian, Elean,
Laconian, etc.). Second, the hypothetical would be an unlikely hybrid of Doric and
Attic . The same consideration rules out the otherwise unlikely (Att. ).
can only be the gen. pl. of a noun in - -. We can read either ()
(coins?) or, better, (Att. ). The enquiry possibly concerned some sickness involving
episodes of loss of consciousness (narcolepsy, catalepsy, epilepsy). As a medical term, is well attested
in the treatises of Hippocrates and Galenus. As it happens, health and disease figure among the most fre-
quent matters of concern for the enquirers travelling to Dodona.

3114B, ll. 46 (late 4th c.)

The text is lacunary and the subject of the enquiry remains obscure. s I told Christidis,63 in
[]/ [- - -] (ll. 45) must be a Boeotian or Thessalian spelling of . In point of
fact, the aorist (Att. ) occurs in two Thessalian inscriptions: (BCH 59, p. 37,
II 31; Krannon, before 141/140), (SEG 27.226.11; Krannon?, c. 150130). In l. 6 DVCh read Y
[- - -], but an iotacistic spelling for or, even worse, is most
unlikely at such an early date. I prefer to read e.g. O [?].

3220A (NW Doric, mid 3rd c.)

[] []
[] -
3

[]
[] - 6
[] ;
Ll. 23: . L. 7:

The anonymous enquirer planned to sell some tracts of land and to move to Corinth sometime in the
course of the year before the celebration of the Actia games. The dialect is NW Doric with (,
l. 3; [], ll. 67), modal (ll. 1 and 2), Doric future ([], l. 6) and shortening of the
diphthong (, l. 1; , l. 4).64 The use of + acc. ( , l. 3) points to
Epirus and Acarnania as against the rest of the NW area, where + acc. prevailed (Mndez Dosuna 1985:
234235). The contraction of ([], ll. 67) and (, l. 3) is consistent with what

63 His informant is not mentioned in the commentary.

64 On - for - see Mndez Dosuna (1985: 413463).
136 J. Mndez Dosuna

we find in other texts from Epirus (Mndez Dosuna 1985: 80); cf. also (LOD 88.1, Corinthian
script, 450425), (LOD 95B.7, early 4th c.), (LOD 46Bb.3, 350200).65
The sequence left uninterpreted in l. 2 should correspond to an optative : []
[]/ . The uncontracted (ll. 23) posited by the editors contrasts with contracted
. This is not impossible, but we can retain the reading of the lamella by positing a future participle
/[]. If this is the case, then the tracts that the enquirer intended to sell were in Corinth: []
[]/ if I leave for Corinth in order to sell the tracts of land.

3274A (Thessalian, 400350?)

[]/
Though they consider (rendered in capitals) to be uninterpretable, DVCh hint in their commen-
tary at a misspelling of , itself a misspelling of with hypercorrect denoting fricative []
or [v]. They refer to Buck (1955: 47, 51a) for a well-known parallel in Corinth: [ ]()
(IG IV 212 = CEG 360; c. 575550).66
As regards in our enquiry, the double misspelling ( for and for ) is unlikely, and an
accusative makes little sense, if any. DVCh, who do not comment on the function of the putative
, suggest that the enquirers are trying to be compensated, probably by the gods. They adduce as corrob-
orative evidence [ ] in 191A.23 (Histiaeotis, mid 4th c.), but this conjecture is
anything but certain.
I propose to read [] (Att. ) Whether we must seek
somewhere on earth.67 The hapax belongs in a series of adverbs built on the zero grade of PIE *sem-
one that are weakly attested in affirmative sentences: Att. (IG I3 10.11; Athens, 5th c.) and
Delph. h (CID 1.9 D.48; 4th c.). In literary texts, they are usually combined with other local adverbs: Hsch.
(also Sch. Pl.), (Lys. 24.20.8, Phot., Sch. Pl.,), (Ar. Ach. 608,
Pl., etc.) and (Od. 1.10, Pl. Grg. 492d, Lg. 798b, etc.). Conversely, - appears regularly as the
basis of negative adverbs like / , / , / .
Our could be interpreted as a directional adverb (= Att. ), but the context favours a locative
sense: Whether we should keep on seeking somewhere on earth.68 Actually, it seems to be the exact cor-
relate of Att. with the apocope of the thematic genitive singular, characteristic of the Thessalian vari-
ety of Pelasgiotis: * > . Cf. Thess. where in , a public
area, where [the land] lies fallow as pasturage (SEG 43.311, face A, 7172; Skotousa, 197185a),
, in a public area, where [the land] was left fallow (ibid. face B, l. 60).

3325A (late 5th c., Epirotan or Corcyraean version of the Corinthian script: = /e/, E = /e/, possibly OY =
/o/, but sigma instead of san)
[] [ ]{} / [] /
L. 1:

According to DVCh, Menestas is asking whether he must accept an offer to set up a chorus (allegedly, a
participle has been omitted), but the reading []{} is highly suspect:

a. The phrase (the chorus of an aulos-player?) is meaningless.

65 Starting from the premise that the contraction of is exclusive to Attic, Lhte reads the forms , ,
which he explains as resulting from hyphaeresis (LOD, p. 393). As regards , the same assumption makes him arbi-
trarily hypothesise that the enquirer of LOD 46Bb was an Athenian merchant (LOD, p. 116).
66 Wachter (2001: 121122 COP 1 A) fails to convince me that Cor. , which he connects with
(exchange in Crete), is the original form, which, for want of a better alternative, was adopted in Attic-Ionic as .
67 The apparatus criticus simply mentions .
68 For a local adverb with a partitive genitive, cf. e.g. Where are they on earth? (Soph. OT 108).
 Some Critical Notes on the New Dodona Lead Plates 137

b. As I told Christidis and he noted in the commentary, the Attic genitive ending - is completely out
of place in a Doric text at such an early period.
c. The letter H is not likely to represent an //. In the Corinthian script this value corresponds to the
Corinthian epsilon (%). H can only represent /h/.
Given that the formula combines with participles in the nominative,
could stand for migrating (contracted from ), even if the simplex fails to occur in
other enquiries. An accusative (the nouns and occur in several other enquiries) is
another possibility. In either case, remains uninterpretable and the sense of the enquiry is unclear.

3363B (400350)
[ ]
[ ]
DVCh conclude that the text is Ionic on the basis of (= ), but this is not easy to rec-
oncile with (Ion. ) and even less so with the posited . The spelling for (and hyper-
correct for ) is not exclusive to Ionic, but occurs here and there all over the Doric domain (Buck 1955:
40, 42.5). As the default choice at Dodona, a Doric dialect is a reasonable guess. Delphi and especially
Corcyra are the most likely candidates.

4157A (Boeotia, early 4th c.)

: [] :
DVCh assume that this is a mixture of Doric forms with Attic-Ionic , and that the conjunction
is repeated. Purportedly, the inquiry concerns the desire for a sufficient number of progeny. As Tselikas
duly reports in the commentary, I proposed a quite different reading in Mndez Dosuna (2007a: 282):
: [] : . Concerning my progeny, [I consult the oracle] with the intention that he/
they may be kept safe and remain (alive).69 The dialect features are consistently Boeotian and the use of
an imperfect adaptation of the Ionian alphabet and some sound changes suggest the early 4th c. rather than
DVChs late 5th c.
With high infant and child mortality rates, the fate of children was a matter of great concern for the
ancient Greeks. A similar question is posed in 1391A (Doric and koine, late 4th c.):
Concerning the progeny born in addition [to the already existing],
with the intention that he/they may remain alive (i.e. reach adulthood) to the enquirers advantage (ll. 37);
cf. also [] in 313A.4, which has been commented upon above.
The verb seems to retain its original meaning to ward off, to protect. The construction *
, which is presupposed by passive [] (Att. ), may have been modelled on its quasi-syno-
nym , the original syntax being to keep a danger away for the sake of someone; cf.
the shield that kept woeful destruction off for his sake (Hom. Il. 20.289),
trying to protect my children (Eur. Hec. 1164). Alternatively, [] may
be interpreted as a middle form equivalent to active to hold out, to endure, to last in instances like
and I no longer hold out (Soph. El. 186), (Xen. Cyr. 6.2.31).
Interestingly, the verb appears to be documented in two other enquiries: [ / / /]
(3113A.89; Thessaly, late 4th c.) and perhaps []; (4087b; 450400).
4162B (late 5th c.early 4th c.)
shall we sell?
According to DVCh, this text is composed in the koine, an impossibility given the date suggested by the
archaic script. 1pl. - points to Ionic or, more probably, to Thessalian, which is not incompatible with the
not very distinctive letter forms.
69 The purpose clause is a subclass of the disjunctive type commented upon in fn. 62 above.
138 J. Mndez Dosuna

References
del Barrio Vega, M L. 2009. Sobre algunas grafas del alfabeto corintio, in: A. Martnez Fernndez (ed.), Estudios
de Epigrafa Griega, 95100. La Laguna.
Blomqvist, J. 1975. The Dialect of Epizephyrian Locri, OAth 11, 1735.
Blmel, W. 1982. Die aiolischen Dialekte. Phonologie und Morphologie der inschriftlichen Texte aus generativer
Sicht. Gttingen.
Brixhe, C. 1985. nergie articulatoire et phontique botienne: Faits de substrat ou dveloppements indpendants?,
in: La Botie antique, 365384. Paris.
Buck, C. D. 1955. The Greek Dialects. Grammar, Selected Inscriptions, Glossary. Chicago.
Cabanes, P. 1976. Lpire de la mort de Pyrrhos la conqute romaine (272167 av. J.C.). Paris.
Cassio, A. C. 2007. Enquiries and Responses: Two Lead Tablets from Dodona, in: Hatzopoulos (ed.), 2934.
Chaniotis, A. 2015. Handout of The Gods of Dodona Confronted with Legal Disputes, paper presented at
Tales from the Lands of the Ethne. International Conference in Honour of Miltiades B. Hatz-
opoulos (Athens, 21th February 2015).
Chantraine, P. 1933. La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris.
Costabile, F. 1992. Editio altera e traduzione delle tabelle locresi, in: F. Costabile (ed.), Polis ed Olympieion a Locri
Epizefiri. Costituzione economia e finanze di una citt della Magna Grecia, 229307. Soveria Mannelli.
Curbera, J. 2013. : The Personal Names, in: Dakaris et al., 419432.
Dakaris, S., Vokotopoulou, I. and Christidis, A.-F. 2013.
. ( . ) . Athens.
de Franciscis, A. 1972. Stato e societ in Locri Epizefiri (Larchivio dellOlympieion locrese). Napoli.
Eidinow, E. 2007. Oracles, Curses, and Risk Among the Ancient Greeks (2nd ed. 2013). Oxford.
Gallavotti, C. 19911992. La congiunzione EIK da Empedocle a Callimaco e il nesso EIK AN in Arcadia, Helikon
31/32, vxlii.
Garca Ramn, J. L., Helly, B. and Tziafalias, A. 2007. Inscriptions indites de Mopsion: Dcrets et ddicaces en
dialecte thessalien, in: Hatzopoulos (ed.), 63103. Athens.
Gorissen, P. 1978. Litterae lunatae, AncSoc 9, 149164.
Hatzopoulos, M. (ed.) 2007. . Actes du Ve Congrs International de Dialectologie Grecque
(Athnes 2830 septembre 2006). Athens.
Jeffery, L. H. and Johnston, A. W. 1990. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece by L. H. Jeffery (2nd Revised Edition
with a Supplement by A. W. Johnston). Oxford.
Lejeune, M. 1972. Phontique historique du mycnien et du grec ancien. Paris.
Liapis, V. 2015. On the Oracular Lamella 24302432 from Dodona, ZPE 195, 8590.
LOD = Lhte, . 2006. Les lamelles oraculaires de Dodone. Geneva.
McLean, B. H. 2002. An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods: From Alexander
the Great to the Reign of Constantine (323 B.C.A.D. 337). Ann Arbor.
Mndez Dosuna, J. 1984. propos de IG VII, 3377, 6 , Glotta 62, 5963.
1985. Los dialectos dorios del noroeste. Gramtica y estudio dialectal. Salamanca.
1993. El cambio de en ante vocal en los dialectos griegos: una cuestin zanjada?, in: E. Crespo, J. L. Garca
Ramn and A. Striano (eds.), Dialectologica graeca. Actas del II Coloquio Internacional de Dialectologa
Griega (Miraflores de la Sierra, Madrid, 1721 de Junio, 1991), 237259. Madrid.
2007a. , /
Studies in Greek Linguistics 27 [ .-. / In memoriam A.-F. Christidis], 277285.
2007b. Notes de lecture sur les lamelles oraculaires de Dodone, ZPE 161, 137144.
2007c. Le skyphos de Satyros et le kels de Dorilaos: une consultation oraculaire de Dodone, ZPE 162, 181187.
2007d. Les problmes phontiques de la proprit en pays botien: et formes apparentes la lumire des
lamelles oraculaires de Dodone, in: Hatzopoulos (ed.), 295316.
2007e. Ex praesente lux, in: I. Hajnal (ed.), Die altgriechischen Dialekte. Wesen und Werden (Akten des Kolloquiums
Freie Universitt Berlin 19.22. September 2001), 355384. Innsbruck.
2008. Novedades en el orculo de Dodona. A propsito de una reciente monografa de ric Lhte, Minerva 21,
5179.
Forthcoming. Methone of Pieria: A Reassessment of Epigraphical Evidence, to appear in: J. Strauss Clay, I. Malkin
and Y. Tzifopoulos (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Graph in Late Geometric and Protoarchaic
Methone, Macedonia (ca 700 BCE).
Nieto Izquierdo, E. 2008. Gramtica de las inscripciones de la Arglide. Ph.D. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Oliver, J. H. 1989. Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri. Philadelphia.
 Some Critical Notes on the New Dodona Lead Plates 139

Parke, H. W. 1967. The Oracles of Zeus: Dodona, Olympia, Ammon. Oxford.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.
New York.
Revuelta Puigdollers, A. 1994. El significado del subjuntivo deliberativo en griego clsico, in: J. de la Villa Polo et
al. (eds.), Quid ultra faciam?: trabajos de griego, latn e indoeuropeo en conmemoracin de los 25 aos de la
Universidad Autnoma de Madrid, 7585. Madrid.
Scarborough, M. 2015. On the Phonology and Orthography of the Thessalian Mid-long Vowels, in: G. Kotzoglou et
al. (eds.), Selected Papers of the 11th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (Rhodes 2326 September
2013), 15351548. Rhodes.
Schwyzer, E. and Debrunner, A. 1950. Griechische Grammatik. Band 2. Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik. Mnchen.
Threatte, L. 1980. The Grammar of the Attic Inscriptions. Vol. 1: Phonology. Berlin.
Wachter, R. 2001. Non-Attic Greek Vase Inscriptions. Oxford.
Wakker, G. 1994. Conditions and Conditionals. An Investigation of Ancient Greek. Amsterdam.

Julin Mndez Dosuna, Universidad de Salamanca

mendo@usal.es