Porinos’ question regarding service to a satrap

Porinos’ enquiry belongs to a group of oracular tablets that exhibit dialectal mixture (see ): the main text is written in the consultant’s Ionic dialect, whereas the introductory formula employs the Doric forms of the gods’ names characteristic of the sanctuary. According to , the use of the epithet Pronaios instead of Naios for Zeus reflects the influence of the Delphian Athena Προναΐα. Lhôte’s restoration of the verb in l. 2 as εἰρωτᾶι, in the present tense, is consistent with the space available in the lacuna caused by the fold of the tablet.

argues on dialectal grounds that the ethnic may refer either to Kyme in Euboea or to Cumae, the Euboean colony in Italy, the latter being the more widely accepted identification, although the third compensatory lengthening in εἰρωτᾶι would not be expected in Euboean. By contrast, argues on historical grounds that the ethnic refers to Aeolian Cyme (see below), a view subsequently adopted by . For the provenance of the consultants to the oracle, which is explicitly indicated in only nine tablets, see .

The inscription also contains one of the rare references in the Dodona tablets to the historical context of the consultation, namely the mention of a Persian satrap. As points out, the reference to the satrap requires that the inscription be dated before Alexander the Great’s campaigns against Persia (336 BC); consequently, he dates it to the early fourth century BC. , on the other hand, narrows down the chronology of the inscription to ca. 360-358 BC, within the context of the so-called Satraps’ Revolt, during the final years of the reign of Artaxerxes II Mnemon. On the basis of the testimony of Polyaenus (7.14), and Carbon () further identify the satrap mentioned in the inscription with Orontes, who captured Cyme with the assistance of Greek mercenaries during his conflict with Artaxerxes III in 355/54 BC.

raises the possibility that the verb θεραπεύω should be understood in the sense of “to treat medically,” rather than as referring to mercenary service. On this interpretation, Porinos would have been an itinerant physician summoned by the satrap.

suggests interpreting the inscription on side B not as a summary or label, but as the oracle’s response to Porinos’ enquiry on side A. Both inscriptions were written by the same hand. For the vexed question of the oracle’s responses, see .

Ithaca attributes the inscription to Epirus with high accuracy (91.38 %), but it dates it to the end of the 3rd century BC (210-200 BC max, 11.59%). Of the twenty text restoration hypotheses proposed by Ithaca, the first, the dative ending of the participle θεραπεύοντι, is highly satisfactory and coincides with the editors’ restoration. The second, the accusative form (θεραπεύοντα), assigned a much lower probability, is morphologically (but not sintactically) acceptable, while the remaining proposals do not yield valid Greek forms and can therefore be discarded. See Ithaca results and metadata, and a snapshot of the geographical attribution.