[- - -] People [- - -] works [- - -] declare loudly [- - -]

[The Council and the People? decided. In the month Kala]maion, on the 11th. Apollas, (son of) Herodotos proposed: since Autokles, (son of) Oini[ades, being a noble man, renders for the Pe]ople many and great services, aimed at the greatest security and salvation [of the polis as a whole, and in specific cases - - -] to the citizens with every kindness, in whatever he is be called upon, he eagerly lends [his ear - - -] inhabitants of Nikonion, leaving the place due to [- - -] sent as an ambassador to Histria regarding the rising (or removal) and dwel[ling in - - - con]vinced the People of Histria, but since there was no payment for the provisions of food [- - -] to transport by sea; unable ... the payment (or gift?) that was [necessary?] to collect [- - - having pre]served, until only [- - -]

The first part of the inscription was probably an epigram of six lines, of which only the endings remain, or nothing at all, as in line 2. This makes it nearly impossible to restore the text; only isolated words can be made out: People, δᾶμος in the Dorian form, attested in poetic texts, as well as some "works" (probably of the honorand) and the expression "proclaim loudly." Paralles are cited in Vinogradov 1999, 54.

The second half of the inscription reproduces the decree honouring Autokles, in accordance with which the statue on this inscribed base was probably set up. Judging by the size of the base, the statue was probably equestrian (Vinogradov 1999, 51-53). The dimensions of the lost part of the inscription, are impossible to determine; the size of the lacunae is unclear, and so both longer and shorter possibilities for the restoration of the text are conceivable. For this reason, the restorations proposed by Vinogradov are partly hypothetical. I have adopted only the most plausible ones in my edition, listing others in the Apparatus criticus.

B 1. The month Καλαμαιών is the third month of the year in the Milesian calendar; it is attested in the calendar of the neighbrouing Olbia: vinogradov, Rusyaeva 1980, 25-38, with bibliography. In the name of Autokles, lambda is omitted. The patronymic is restored tentatively; any name beginning with Οἰνι- is possible, see LGPN, s.v. The name Οἰνιάδης is only the most common of such names. 2. Despite Vinogradov's remark, there is no mistake in the word δ]ήμωι – omega is clear on the stone, although his published photo suggests an omicron. The formula restored in the lacuna can be expanded to a more frequently attested: ἀνὴρ καλὸς κἀγαθὸς ὑπάρχων. Vinogradov discusses this variant in his publication, but prefers the shorter variant in his edition.

Vinogradov argues that we should accept the reading μίστην, supposing a phonetic development here: μεγίστην > με-j-ίστην > μείστην > μίστην. In principle, cases where intervocalic gamma is used to convey spirant j in intervocalic position, and specifically between e and i, are indeed attested from the IV century B.C.E., in Attic inscriptions among others, while it is also quite common in Egyptian papyri from the II century B.C.E. (Mayser 1906, 163-168; Schwyzer 1939, 209; Lejeune 1955, 47). It is, however, difficult to envision such a phonetic development in our case, not least because of the lack of parallels in the region under consideration or in neighbouring regions. More likely is the supposition of Pleket that we are dealing with a stonecutter's mistake, since there are two more such mistakes in the text.

4. Vinogradov's restoration is not entirely secure. His point that the ending -]νθαι is only possible in verbs derived from φαίνω, which is the basis of his restoration, is faulty, since perfect infinitives of many verbes with n-base have such endings. His other point, however, is well taken, namely that the use of such words as κατοικοῦντες and τὸν τόπον Nikonion with respect to Nikonion suggest that it did not have the status of an independent polis and most likely was part of the polis of Tyras (contra Ruscu 2004, 38-40, сf. SEG 54, 707, A. Chaniotis).

6. Vinogradov's restoration here is based on his understanding of the word ἀπαγωγή as "vehicle for transportation." As far as I am aware, such usage is not attested: according to LSJ, aside from technical usage in the Athenian legal system and in logic, the word means "leading away" (of an army, prisoners), "abduction" (of women), "removal," or "payment." It is the last sense that seems most fitting in our context. In that case, however, the meaning of the text is altered: we are dealing not with a gift of the Histrians, but with the purchase (most likely, from them) of food provisions and the inability to pay for them.

7. The word δόμα in this context may also have two senses: either "gift" (as Vinogradov) or "payment." If we follow Vinogradov, we would expect an article before the word. In general, the meaning of the text is less clear to me than it appeared to Vinogradov. It refers to inhabitants of Nikonion, who had left their city for unknown reasons, and about negotiations between Histria and Tyras, related to that. A supposition that Autokles managed to receive a gift of grain from Histria does not seem to me to follow from the text. More likely, we are deling with a purchase of food provision and some difficulties, concerning the financial side of the transaction. At the time of the inscribing, Nikonion in all likelihood was not an independent polis (or, in any case, was not so considered by Tyras) and was probably part of the polis of Tyras.