The last letter at the right break is unclear: there is a rounded stroke, but also a slip of the writing implement under it, which might indicate an omega, but omicron is equally possible. If that last letter was an omega, we might have a dedication where [- -]ΔΙΟΣ is part of a personal name, e.g.῾Αρμόδιος or a fully preserved name Δῖος followed by the article in the dative introducing a deity's name. There is a slight chance, however, that ΤΟ̣[- -] might be part of another word, e.g. τόδε, followed e.g. by ἔγραφε. Two Archaic drinking cups from Borysthenes, inscribed one with a sympotic graffito, and another with a dedicatory, were each signed by the writer: ἔγραφε δέ με. In those cases, both cups were also speaking objects, but in our case, it may have been a third-person statement, e.g [- -῾Αρμό]διος τό[δ' ἔγραφε.] In that case, we would envision a longer sympotic graffito, of which our surviving text was but a small part. At the same time, a simpler restoration would be to take ΔΙΟΣ as the name of Zeus, Διὸς, followed by the definite article in the Genitive - το͂, introducing Zeus' cultic epiclesis. That would make our inscription dedicatory. It is not possible to decide between these options, hence Incertum.