ISic003364: Monumental Sikel inscription from city gateway

Apparatus criticus

• Text after autopsy (Mignosa et al. forthcoming) ;
• 1.1: Cordano in Stanco et al. 2016: iamakarame..paskaa.oesg.hhd; Prosdocimi 1995: iamakaramepopaskaagiiesgeped; Prosdocimi, Agostiniani 1976-1977: iamakaramehpiiaskaagiiesgeped; Parlangeli 1964-1965: iam akaram eh p[.]as k aagịịẹs gẹpẹd; Pelagatti 1964-1965: iamakarame[..]paskaa[.]ọẹsg[.]hḥd
  
• 1.2: Cordano in Stanco et al. 2016: teutoveregaie she ka lo ara; Prosdocimi 1995: touto veregaiesheikad[.]ala; Prosdocimi, Agostiniani 1976-1977: toutoveregaiesoekadoara iead; Parlangeli 1964-1965: touto veregaies hekaḍ[.]aṛd; Pelagatti 1964-1965: toutoveregaieshekaloaṛạ

Physical description

Support

Description

A monolithic block (subsequently broken in three pieces), weighing approximately 1300 kg. The rock on face a, bearing the main inscription, was clearly worked to create the epigraphic field and is partially eroded in some places, especially on the left side. Face b (upper surface) is moderately chiselled to create a uniform but not smooth surface; the other two faces on the long sides (c, d) are not currently visible. The left-hand short side (e) has a square section, is worked and smoothed and shows a quadrangular cavity in the centre approximately 18 cm deep. This side also has a taper at the top which is not completed. Side (f), the right short side, mirroring (e), is partially fragmented at the rear; the front part of the face, adjacent to face (a), has a more carefully smoothed surface and some letters are clearly engraved on it.

Object type

block

Object condition

complete, broken

Dimensions

height: 40 cm, width: 60 cm, depth: 200 cm

Material

Description

limestone

Inscription

Layout

The principal inscription (1) consists of two lines written from right to left on face a; several secondary inscriptions and graffiti were later added in different areas of the block, (2) (3), (4), (5) above and below the lines of inscription (1); and (6) on the right hand end short side of the block (face f).

Text condition

complete

Technique

chiselled

Pigment

No data

Lettering

Types

• Α type1
• Α type1.4
• Γ type3
• Δ type1
• Δ type1.2
• Ε type2.2
• Ε type2.3
• Ε type2.3.1
• ϝ type1
• Ι type1
• Κ type1
• Κ type1.1
• Κ type2
• Κ type2.1
• Λ type2
• Μ type2
• Μ type2.1
• Ο type5
• Π type1
• Π type1.1
• Π type2
• Π type2.1
• Ρ type1
• Ρ type1.5
• Ρ type2
• Ρ type2.5
• Τ type2
• Τ type2.1
• Υ type1

Letter heights

Line 1-2: 40-80mm

Interlinear heights

Interlineation line 1 to 2: mm

Provenance

Place of origin

Mendolito

Provenance found

Found in excavation by Pelagatti 1962 in east wall of the city gate, inside the fortifications. Moved to the Siracusa museum in 1977 and currently on display in the Museo Archeologico Regionale Paolo Orsi, Sector C: Mendolito

Map

Current location

Place

Siracusa, Sicilia

Repository

Museo Archeologico Regionale Paolo Orsi , 96962

Autopsy

Valentina Mignosa, 2025

Map

Date

Evidence

lettering, archaeological-context

Text type

unknown

commentary

The inscription, unearthed by Luigi Bernabò Brea during the excavations of 1962, is on a limestone block found in the right pier (to the east) of the entrance gate to the settlement. The block was removed in December 1976 from the wall of the city gate and is now in the Museo Archeologico Regionale Paolo Orsi. Displayed on a city gate at the height of a passerby and placed on a support (the limestone) that highlighted its presence compared to the lava stones that make up the gate, this document can certainly be interpreted as a ‘public’ inscription. It is indeed the only public inscription so far known in Sicily among the documents in ‘Sikel’ language. The inscription is right-to-left writing and 52-letters long. The script is consistent with what Luciano Agostiniani called the ‘Mendolito alphabet’, featuring the quadrangular shape of the omicron and the inversion of lambda and ypsilon compared to the Chalcidian alphabet. A peculiar letter in the text is the arrow-shaped alpha, a recurrent trait in most Sikel inscriptions. Prosdocimi suggested the reading of the text (1995, 1421-1422) which is accepted by most scholars, although a recent revision of the document based on the 3D representation of the block by Tanasi at alii has provided a clearer reading but not many new interpretative cues.

Despite the numerous readings proposed for the document, the problematic interpretation of the language in which it is written has generally discouraged scholars from offering a translation of the text, which must still be regarded as largely hypothetical. Prosdocimi’s reading remains the most convincing to date, as it is supported by solid linguistic arguments. The interpretation proposed here is therefore presented as a working hypothesis based on Prosdocimi’s first reading, which highlighted several key terms of considerable interest within the text: iam (Sik.) = hic (Lat.); akaram (Sik.) = ocri (It.) = arcem (Lat.); epopaska = «personal name or name of position/status»; agiies = second part of an onomastic formula/second name (?); geped/deped (Sik.) = (?) cepit / habuit (Lat.); touto (Sik.) = teuto (It.) = civitas (Lat.); verega (Sik.) = verehia (It. ) = iuventus (Lat.) = ‘part of the citizenry in arms’ (Prosdocimi 1995, p.1421). In fact, touto should be read teuto: autoptic examination clarifies the presence of epsilon where previous editors had identified a quadrangular omicron, thus introducing into the text a term directly comparable to Italic teuto. The expression epppaska (read epopaska in the first edition) agiies was interpreted by Prosdocimi, following an earlier proposal by Durante, as a bimember onomastic formula, understood either as an individual name followed by a title or social designation functioning as a personal name, or as a title/social designation used in its proper sense. It would therefore constitute the subject of the sentence. It is also important to stress that the text appears complete in itself and does not present lacunae. The final section of the inscription (iesheikadoara) may conceal a toponym, although the passage remains extremely difficult to reconstruct. Indigenous Sicilian toponyms and ethnonyms of the sixth century BCE are known from Greek sources only for a limited number of satellite centres that played a role in the history of the Greek poleis, whereas the undoubtedly rich corpus of place names referring to both minor and major inland settlements — including the site of Mendolito itself — remains largely anonymous.

This document represents the only known monumental public inscription within the indigenous epigraphic landscape of Sicily. The key terms appearing in the text constitute true hapax within the corpus of Archaic Sicilian inscriptions written in indigenous dialects. This situation stands in contrast to what is observed in most documented cases from indigenous Sicily, where a productive reuse of formulae derived from Greek epigraphic traditions is evident, particularly in ownership inscriptions, funerary formulae, and the writing habits associated with ceramic supports. The inscription therefore reveals a conscious and deliberate use of writing and language, resulting in an innovative epigraphic expression that departs from the Greek models from which the alphabet itself was adopted. As for the graffiti executed in smaller letter modules (Inscriptions 2–4), it seems reasonable — in agreement with the first editors — to interpret them as later, extemporaneous additions made after the carving of the primary text. Their execution and placement support this hypothesis: letters occur even between the lines of the main inscription yet remain entirely unrelated to it. This interpretation is further justified by the public setting in which the monument was displayed, a space that continued to be frequented for approximately a century after the erection of the inscribed monolith. Finally, a further group of incisions is present on the right short side of the block (face (f), currently only partially visible in the museum display), characterised by a letter module and engraving technique distinct from those of the principal inscription. The inscription on face (f) may attest a previous use of the block — still within a local context, as indicated by the alphabet employed — prior to its installation within the tower. Taken together, these observations suggest that all inscriptions belong to the Mendolito context, but that the inscribed block originally formed part of another structure within the settlement and was only subsequently repositioned within the city gate. This scenario would favour dating the execution of the inscription to a phase preceding the construction of the towers.

Although the difficulties of reading and interpretation prevent us from reaching firm conclusions or giving a proper translation, we could at least assume that the text states that a certain personage or a certain political authority took charge of the construction of the gate or the fortifications for the citizenship. The inscription is particularly fascinating for several reasons: the language, for its proximity to Italic; the alphabet, for the use of the arrow shaped alpha; the exhibition site, that is the city gate; the very content of the inscription, which indicates that we are dealing with a public inscription with representative value; the material, which differs from that commonly used in the area for its abundance, lava stone.

The document in its materiality is remarkable because it refers to a usage - that of placing inscriptions on fortification walls or gates - which cannot be traced back to Greek or Sikel origins and which can instead be found in the Italic area. This, together with archaeological evidence, could be an indication that the Mendolito community came from or had ongoing relations with centres on the other side of the Straits of Messina.

Bibliography

Digital editions

• TM: 644869
• EDR: -
• EDH: -
• EDCS: -
• PHI: -

Printed editions

• O. Parlangèli, «Il sostrato linguistico in Sicilia», Kokalos 10–11 (1965 1964): 211–58, at 222-226
• Paola Pelagatti, «L’attività della Soprintendenza della Sicilia Orientale», Kokalos 10–11 (1965 1964): 245‑252, at 245-252
• Paola Pelagatti, «Adrano (Catania). Scavi in contrada Mendolito. Notiziario. Attività delle Soprintendenze (1960-65)», BA LI (1966): 89–90.
• U. Schmoll, ‘Neues zu den protosizilischen Inschriften’, Glotta 46 (1968): 194–206, at 201-204
• Luciano Agostiniani e A. L. Prosdocimi, «Lingue e dialetti della Sicilia antica», Kokalos 22–23, fasc. 1 (1977 1976): 215–60, at 240-241
• R. Ambrosini, «Le iscrizioni sicane, sicule, elime», in Colloquio “Le iscrizioni prelatine in Italia” (Roma, 14- 15 marzo 1977) (Rome, 1979), 57–104.
• A. Morandi, Epigrafia Italica (Rome: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider, 1982), at 165-167
• R.M. Albanese Procelli, «Mendolito», in Bibliografia topografica della colonizzazione greca in Italia e nelle isole tirreniche, a c. di G. Nenci e G. Vallet, vol. 9 (Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, 1991), 545–61, at 546 no.4
• Luciano Agostiniani, « Les parlers indigenes de la Sicile pregrecque », Lalies 11 (1992): 126‑57.
• Prosdocimi (1995)
• Luciano Agostiniani, «L’iscrizione della porta urbica del Mendolito», in La città italica. Atti del II Convegno Internazionale sugli Antichi Umbri, Gubbio, 25-27 settembre 2003, a c. di A. Ancillotti e A. Calderini (Perugia: Jama, 2009), 35–52.
• Cordano in Stanco et al. (2016)

Discussion

• Vittore Pisani, Le lingue dell’Italia antica oltre il latino, 1st ed. (Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier, 1953), at 293
• S. Alessio, «Intervento», Kokalos 10–11 (1965 1964): 253–54, at 253-254
• M. Durante, «Intervento», Kokalos 10–11 (1965 1964): 439–43, at 439-443
• E. Lepore, «Intervento», in Kokalos, vol. 10–11, 1964, 256–57, at 256-257
• Paola Pelagatti, «Luigi Bernabò Brea e la Soprintendenza alle Antichità di Siracusa», in Dalle Arene Candide a Lipari. Scritti in onore di Luigi a Lipari Benabò Brea. Atti del convegno internazionale di Genova (Genova, 3 - 5 febbraio 2001) (Rome, 2004), 3–36.
• Paola Pelagatti, «Luigi Bernabò Brea, il Museo di Adrano e gli inizi degli scavi al Mendolito», in Tra Etna e Simeto. La ricerca archeologica ad Adrano e nel suo territorio (Catania: Biblioteca della Provincia Regionale di Catania, 2009), 16–26, at 21, pls. 5-6-7
• Federica Cordano, «Iscrizioni monumentali dei Siculi», Aristonothos 4 (2012): 165–84, at 168-170
• Valentina Mignosa, ‘Dall’alfabetizzazione Alla Permeabilità Selettiva. Per Una Proposta Di Lettura Della Documentazione Epigrafica Del Mendolito’, Incontri Di Filologia Classica 17 (2018 2017): 215–42, at 218, no. 4, pl. 7
• Massimo Cultraro, «L’epigrafia anellenica della Sicilia orientale nel contesto storico e archeologico: limiti e prospettive», in Dal segno alla parola: lingue e decifrazioni dalle antiche scritture ad oggi, a c. di Enrico Gargano (Monte Compatri: Edizioni Espera, 2024), 229–44, at 233-236 no.2.1

Citation and editorial status

Editor

Jonathan Prag

Principal contributor

Valentina Mignosa

Contributors

• Jonathan Prag
• James Cummings
• Simona Stoyanova
• Valentina Mignosa
• Robert Crellin

Last revision

8/13/2026