There is α significant variation in letter sizes: if read from left to right, the first two letters are much smaller, about half the size of the last two. If the horizontal line is accidental, or, in any case, not related to the intentional graphic representation of letters, it should be noted that it does not cross the final vertical (iota?) on the right. Whether the difference in letter size signifies two different hands at work and/or two stages in the production of this graffito (and this object?) is unclear. The text makes sense if read Θεοί, but the horizontal line that crosses the first three letters and turns the first (smaller) circle into a theta, also crosses the second (larger circle), which logically should be also read as theta, but in that case the sequence would not make any obvious sense: ΘΕΘΙ. If the text was meant to be read Θεοῖ, it might be an invocation similar to the use on public and private, especially lapidary, inscriptions, where it serves the purpose of drawing divine attention and perhaps activating divine support to the action implied or indicated by the rest of the text. In our case, the ostracon was shaped from an amphora fragment and drilled, so that the hole could presumably be used for suspension. Such fragments of amphorae with drilled holes could be used as weights e.g. for fishing nets. The invocation on such a mundane object could be protective, but perhaps the inscription itself was primary and the object secondary, simply used as a writing surface, while the hole was drilled for suspension in order to display the inscription in a hung position in some conspicuous place. An apotropaic function would still suggest itself.