Lincoln H. Blumell
Mostafa F. Hemieda

The Curious Case of Kom Aushim Inv. no. 45

The Rediscovery of a Fragment from a Lost Inscription?

On a recent trip to Egypt in March 2013 I was shown two Greek inscriptions by the curator of the storage magazine at Kom Aushim (Karanis), Mostafa F. Hemieda. These two inscriptions have been housed in storage at the magazine since 1999 when they were seized by Egyptian police off the antiquities market in Fayum City (Arsinoe). The catalogue records for these two inscriptions are very sparse and only indicate the date of seizure, the location where they were confiscated, and render only the barest details about the physical description of the fragments. Despite the number of unknowns regarding these two inscriptions, as a result of the circumstances in which they were acquired, the provenance of one of the inscriptions can be estab­lished with some certainty owing to some very specific parallels it shares with a previously published inscription. In fact, the parallels are so unique that it may well be a broken portion of this previously published inscription that has not been seen for over a century.

Kom Aushim Inv. no. 45 (KA 45) is a basalt fragment that measures 14.5 cm × 31.5 cm × 26.0 cm (H × W × D) and preserves two legible lines of Greek text and only the topmost part of a third line that is not legible.[1] The top and right side of the fragment have been deliberately smoothed so that it seems likely that the fragment came from the corner of a base of some monument or statue. Owing to some remarkable parallels KA 45 shares with IFayum I 17,[2] a fragmentary inscription titled Fragment d’une inscription honorifique émanant d’une association de Machairopho­res, it seems very probable that KA 45 once belonged to IFayum I 17 but has been broken off.[3] To elaborate, IFayum I 17 is a republication of SB I 624, which in turn is a republication of an inscription first published by Seymour de Ricci in 1909 in the Bulletin de la Société archéologique d’Alexandrie. [4] As noted by de Ricci, he only saw the inscription briefly on two occasions on the antiquities market in Medinet el-Fayum (Fayum City) in 1905 and again in 1908, during which time he made rapid transcriptions: “Vu deux fois très rapidement en 1905 et en 1908 à Médinet el-Fayoum chez un négociant indigène. Mes deux copies, toutes les deux fort hâtives, ne sont pas identiques.” [5] In his brief description of the piece he noted that the inscription was made on a dark stone and that it may have been the base of a statue: “Grande base de statue en pierre dure noire.”[6] While there are no extant photographs of the inscription, de Ricci did make a hasty facsimile and transcription but noted that because of the circumstances in which they were made he could not guarantee that they were entirely accurate: “Mais, je le repète, je ne puis garantir l’exactitude de ma copie.” [7]

de Ricci’s Facsimile and Transcription[8]

Image KA 45

Turning to KA 45 there are a number of striking parallels that would suggest that it is a broken piece from IFayum I 17: (1) the physical remains of KA 45 accord well with the terse description given by de Ricci since KA 45 is basalt (cf. “en pierre dure noire”) and the top and right side have been deliberately smoothed and could suggest that it served as the base of some monument or statue (cf. “Grande base de statue”); (2) the extant text on KA 45 mostly parallels the first two lines of de Ricci’s rather haphazard facsimile copy and exactly with its emended republication as IFayum I 17. For example, the phrase καὶ περὶ τοὺς preserved at the end of l. 1 in KA 45 is also preserved at the end of l. 1 in IFayum I 17 and in fact agrees with one of de Ricci’s transcriptions.[9] Though his published facsimile has ΑΙΑΠΕΡΙΤΟΥΣ (see above), and has omitted ΚΑΙ, he noted that in an earlier transcription he had read ΑΙΑΚΑΙΠΕΡΙΤΟΥΣ for the first line, thus including the missing ΚΑΙ that is clear on KA 45. Note also that the extant text on the second line of KA 45 agrees exactly with de Ricci’s facsimile, as well as IFayum I 17, and the number 148 written ρ̄μ̄η̄ is certainly a significant parallel. Furthermore, it is certainly more than a coincidence that the last place IFayum I 17 was seen was on the antiquities market in Medinet el-Fayum in 1908 and KA 45 was more recently recovered from the antiquities market in the very same city. Therefore, if KA 45 is not a broken off fragment of IFayum I 17 at the very least it comes from an exact duplicate.

Owing to Étienne Bernand’s competent and lucid edition of IFayum I 17 there is no need to offer a complete republication of this inscription here; those seeking a detailed contextual analysis of the inscription should consult his edition. What follows then will only be a transcription of the extant text on KA 45 and relevant commen­tary, especially expansions and updates of material not found in IFayum I 17. Since Bernand did not have recourse to an image of the inscription, but relied wholly on de Ricci’s transcription and facsimile, it is appropriate to begin with a brief discussion of the paleography and date of the fragment.

On intrinsic factors alone Bernand dated IFayum I 17 to the late Ptolemaic period: “Basse époque ptolémaïque.” [10] There are no grounds to dispute this date based on the paleography of KA 45. In fact, a date falling somewhere between 130–30 BC seems most likely based on paleographic parallels from objectively dated inscriptions (i.e. inscriptions containing a date) from the Fayum, specifically IFayum I 69 (Aug. 7, 104 BC) and to a lesser extent IFayum I 13 (46 BC) that share very similar letterforms. For the text of l. 1 de Ricci’s transcription reads ? τὰ δίκ]αια (καὶ ?) περὶ τοὺς, though he admitted copying two different transcriptions in his notes: (1) ]αια και περι τους; (2) ]αια περι τους. Owing to parallels, Bernand suggested that the reading for l. 1 must have been κ]αὶ χ(ιλι)ά(ρχων) καὶ περὶ τοὺς and mused how de Ricci had missed the abbreviation[11] for χιλίαρχοι and noted that in other inscriptions where the abbreviation χ(ιλι)ά(ρχων) was used it was typically marked by supralinear strokes above the alpha.[12] KA 45 confirms the hypothesis of Bernand as it is evident that there are two faint, yet deliberate, diagonal supralinear strokes that extend from the top of the second alpha on l. 1 signaling that it is indeed the abbreviation χ(ιλι)ά(ρχων).[13]

1–2 [ἡ σύνοδος τῶν αʹ φίλων κ]αὶ χ(ιλι)ά(ρχων) καὶ περὶ τοὺς [βασιλέας μαχαιροφόρων]. The lacunae in IFayum I 17.1–2 were reconstructed from various parallels: IFayum I 15.2–3
(= SB IV 7270 [SEG VIII 573]) (III/II BC): τῶν α´ φίλων καὶ χ(ιλι)ά(ρχων) καὶ περὶ τοὺς βασιλεῖς (sic!) μα̣χ̣αιροφόρ̣ω̣ν; IFayum II 114.14–15 (= SB III 6236 [SEG VIII 592]) (70 BC): τῶν α̅ φίλων καὶ χ(ιλι)ά(ρχων) καὶ περὶ ὑμᾶς μαχαιροφόρων. In particular, the reconstructed lacunae were influenced by parallels found in BGU IV 1190 (c. 80 BC), a fragmentary petition from two soldiers to a senior official. In ll. 2–5 of the papyrus the two petitioning soldiers respectively style themselves as the “president” (προστάτης) and “scribe” (γραμματεύς) of an association and in ll. 3–5 describe the association as follows: συνόδου ρ´μ´γ̣´ τῶ̣ν̣ (πρώτων) φίλων καὶ . . καὶ περὶ τοὺς βασιλεῖς (sic!) μαχαιροφόρων. In the ed. pr. and in the updated edition in the DDbDP the lacuna intervening the two conjunctions is unresolved; the ed. pr., which is handwritten, marks some kind of squiggle with a supralinear stroke and in the notes raises the possibility that it may be an abbreviation and suggests either χιλιοδράχμων or μετόχων as possible readings (BGU IV p. 328 n. 3); at present the online edition in the DDbDP simply has “((unintelligible))”. Bernand is certainly correct that BGU IV 1190.3–4 is a parallel and that the abbreviation for χιλιάρχων should be read in this papyrus. From correspondence with Dr. Fabian Reiter of the Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, who graciously provided me with a digital image of BGU IV 1190 and who eruditely confirmed this reading, it is evident that BGU IV 1190 employs the abbreviation χ(ιλιάρχων) in l. 3; thus, this new reading should now be included in the online edition of the text. It may be noted that there is another papyrological parallel, albeit a fairly loose one, in P.Oxy. LV 3777.7–8 (August 57 BC): τῶν πρ]ώ̣τ̣ων φίλων καὶ χιλιάρχ[ω]ν̣ μαχαιροφ̣ό̣[ρ]ων.

χ(ιλι)ά(ρχων). On the inscription this abbreviation is formed by two subtle, yet distinct, protruding diagonal strokes that extend the diagonals of the α. Even though the abbreviation re­sembles something like Ā it is almost as though the abbreviation should be read something like

α ^χ . The same form of the abbreviation can also be seen in IFayum I 15.2 (= SB IV 7220 [SEG VIII 573]). Additional abbreviations for χιλίαρχοι can be found in Avi-Yonah, Abbrevia­tions in Greek inscriptions, 111.

2 ρ̄μ̄η̄. Refers to the number of association members. IFayum I 17.2 ρ̄μ̄η̄; cf. BGU IV 1190.3 where the number given for the association members is ρ´μ´γ̣´ (143). Based on Bernand’s reconstruction it seems that the association was for βασιλεῖς μαχαιροφόρων (“royal guards”). On the whole, references to μαχαιροφόροι, or μαχαιροφόροι βασιλικοί, are fairly rare in inscriptions: IFayum I 15.3 (c. 125–100 BC); IFayum I 17.2 (late Ptolemaic); OGIS II 737.6 (112/111 BC) (= SEG 20.643); SB I 4206.239 (80/79 BC); ICairoMus 259296.3.19 (80–69 BC); IFayum II 114.15 (70 BC); IGLAkoris 64.2–3 (= SB I 46) (AD I). In the papyri the term is more common. While it appears mostly in papyri from the late Ptolemaic period, μαχαιροφόροι are also attested in the Roman period with the last dated reference coming from a petition from Dec. 27, AD 287 (P.Sijp. 17.23, 24). In the Ptolemaic period μαχαιροφόροι seem to have been armed guards or escorts for various officials rather than regular soldiers. Though it has been suggested that in the Roman period the term became synonymous with “soldier,” this remains to be established and is not in accordance with the extant evidence: Preisigke, Fachwörter, 120; Oertel, Liturgie , 57, 412.

3 ]. . .[. Only the very tops of what appear to be three distinct letters are visible. It is tempting to read σ̣η̣ρ̣, and if such is the case then the reading for l. 3 might be ἱερεὺ]ς Ἡρ[άκλειτος following IFayum I 17.3. However, this reconstruction is very tentative and conjectural.