¹ The middle stroke of the epsilon is very short, little more than a dot, separate from the upright; but it appears to be a genuine stroke, not an accidental mark.

² Or [Σ]όλων or [Μ]όλων? I found it impossible to decide between delta and lambda.

³ After NE I see the lower half of an followed by part of an upright stroke. These traces would, of course, suit equally well.

^3a The stone is in fact stated in the museum catalogue to have come from Burdur. This entry was apparently overlooked by the editors (‘la provenance semble inconnue’).

⁴ In one of these texts is proposed by the Roberts, ‘sans certitude’, for the editors' If it was the custom in this region to omit the article in this position, is perhaps to be preferred.

⁵ σύν κέ τῷ would give seven letters exactly, but as καὶ is eight times correctly spelt in the inscription, this is hardly attractive.

⁶ [τὰ ἐν τῷ] περιβόλῳ is not inconsistent with this view, but would imply that the περίβολος existed apart from Rhodon's gift. So in line 9 I understand that the tameion was not presented by him.

⁷ Here and in line 14 the surface of the stone is gone, but the deepest parts of the letter-grooves remain visible. I see also part of an upright stroke before N.

⁸ It seems also to consort oddly with ὑφ' ἓν: ‘and also 300 den. in all’ could only be said of a number of separate moneygifts. ὑφ' ἓν suggests rather a summing up of the total expenditure.

⁹ θησαυ[ρὸν, e.g. λίθινο]ν edd. Or possibly θησαυ[ροφυλάκι]ον.