Life and Death at a Nubian Monastery: The Collected Funerary Epigraphy from Ghazali (Nubia, 2) (Nubia: The Studies in the Archaeology and History of Northeast Africa, 2) 9782503600642, 2503600646

Table of contents :
Front Matter
I. A Study of Funerary Epigraphy from Ghazali
II. Catalogue of Funerary Inscriptions from Ghazali
Back Matter

Citation preview

Life and Death at a Nubian Monastery

NUBIA

Studies in the Archaeology and History of Northeast Africa

Volume 2

general Editor Geoff Emberling, University of Michigan

Editorial Board Salaheldin Mohamed Ahmed, Qatar-Sudan Archaeological Project (QSAP) Michele Buzon, Purdue University Angelika Lohwasser, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster Marc Maillot, Section française de la direction des antiquités du Soudan Andrea Manzo, Università degli Studi di Napoli ‘L’Orientale’ Claudia Näser, UCL London Artur Obłuski, Uniwersytet Warszawski Intisar Soghayroun Elzein, Khartoum University

Life and Death at a Nubian Monastery The Collected Funerary Epi­graphy from Ghazali (I. Ghazali)

by Grzegorz Ochała

F

The logo used to represent the series Nubia: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Northeast Africa derives from a stela of Queen Amanishakheto (early 1st century ce) found at the site of Naga. It depicts the Kushite goddess Amasemi (left), the consort of the lion-headed god Apedemak, blessing the queen. Logo design: Kari Guilbault, 2021.

The study of the Ghazali epitaphs and the preparation of this volume have been financed by the Qatar-Sudan Archaeo­logical Project.

© 2022, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2022/0095/130 ISBN: 978-2-503-60064-2 e-ISBN: 978-2-503-60065-9 DOI: 10.1484/M.NUBIA-EB.5.129938 Printed in the EU on acid-free paper.

To

Maria and Zachariasz my Queen Mother and my King

Table of Contents List of Illustrations

9

Preface

11

Acknowledgements

12 I A Study of Funerary Epi­graphy from Ghazali

Introduction

15

Chapter 1 Ghazali: Archaeo­logy and Epi­graphy

17

Chapter 2 Archaeo­logical Context

25

Chapter 3 The Materiality of Funerary Inscriptions from Ghazali

33

Chapter 4 Language Use

41

Chapter 5 The Script and Scribal Conventions

45

Chapter 6 Formulary of Epitaphs

55

Chapter 7 The Community and its Members

73

Chapter 8 Dating the Ghazali Funerary Monuments

103

Chapter 9 Conclusion: Life and Death at the Monastery of Ghazali

105

8

ta bl e o f co n t e n t s

II Catalogue of Funerary Inscriptions from Ghazali Note on the Edition

110

1. Epitaphs with the Prayer ‘God of the Spirits’ (1–16)

111

2. Epitaphs Invoking God’s Providence, Command, and Will (17–67)

128

3. Epitaphs of the Commemorative Type (68–70)

173

4. Epitaphs of Other Types (71–74)

177

5. Fragmentary Epitaphs (75–205)

188

6. Sepulchral Crosses (206–223)

268

Abbreviations

278

Works Cited

279

Arabic Summary

286

Colour Plates

289

Indices

317

Concordances

333



List of Illustrations Figures Figure 1.1. Aerial photo­graph of the monastery and the surrounding cemeteries.

18

Figure 2.1. Stelae in situ in the northern sector of Cemetery 2.

25

Figure 2.2. Plan of the northernmost section of Cemetery 2. 

26

Figure 2.3. Plan of the Ghazali monastery with distribution of finds of funerary monuments.

28

Figure 3.1. Materials of funerary monuments from Ghazali.

33

Figure 3.2. Ratio of terracotta funerary monuments to those made of other materials in Christian Nubia.

38

Figure 4.1. Languages of funerary monuments from Ghazali.

41

Figure 5.1. Palaeo­graphic comparison of groups of stelae executed by the same scribe or coming from the same workshop.

46

Figure 7.1. A selection of monograms from Ghazali.

75

Figure 7.2. A selection of abbreviated names from Ghazali.

76

Figure 7.3. Correlation between the two hierarchies and forms of address at Ghazali. 

84

Figure 9.1. Mortality rate per month at Ghazali and other Nubian sites.

106

Tables Table 1.1. Lepsius’s collection of Ghazali funerary monuments.

21

Table 2.1. Dispersion of fragments of funerary monuments throughout Ghazali.

30

Table 2.2a. Contexts predating the tenth/eleventh century: original dating.

31

Table 2.2b. Contexts predating the tenth/eleventh century: secondary dating.

31

Table 3.1. Types of crosses in Ghazali funerary monuments. 

36

Table 3.2. Terracotta funerary monuments from Nubia.

37

Table 5.1. Letter forms in Ghazali funerary monuments.

47

Table 5.2. Ligatures in Ghazali funerary monuments. 

52

Table 5.3. Nomina sacra in Ghazali funerary monuments.

53

Table 6.1. Variants of the opening formula at Ghazali.

57

Table 6.2. Variants of the death formula at Ghazali.

58

10

l i s t of i l lus tr ation s

Table 6.3. Variants of the date formula at Ghazali.

59

Table 6.4. Variants of invocations at Ghazali.

60

Table 6.5. Variants of the request formula at Ghazali.

62

Table 6.6. Variants of the expansion formula at Ghazali.

63

Table 6.7. Variants of the final formula at Ghazali.

67

Table 6.8. Age formulae at Ghazali.

67

Table 6.9. Structural arrangement of epitaphs from Ghazali.

69

Table 7.1. Names at Ghazali.

74

Table 7.2. Comparative table of personal names from Ghazali and two Egyptian monas­teries, Deir Anba Hadra (Aswan) and Monastery of St Jeremiah (Saqqara).

77

Preface When I first went to Ghazali for the 2013 excavation season of the Polish-Sudanese archaeo­logical mission, there already were some indications that, despite all previous discoveries — especially those made in the 1950s by the British-Sudanese mission — there would still be some work for an epi­graphist. During that season, around 140 wall inscriptions were documented; in addition, some twenty fragments of funerary monuments and around twice as many pottery inscriptions were newly uncovered. It was a nice prelude to the epi­graphic finds that would follow in subsequent years. The season of 2017/18 was especially fruitful: excavations at the northernmost part of the monastic cemetery (Cemetery 2) brought to light some twenty funerary stelae still preserved in their original context, mounted in the western end of grave mastabas, a rare discovery for medi­eval Nubia. These stelae were all the more surprising as the number of fragments recovered from secondary contexts led us to believe that the cemetery had been mined extensively for building materials during the Middle Ages, and that the few stelae and crosses reportedly found in situ by previous expeditions were the only ones that had survived. In each season the number of funerary monuments grew by a dozen or more, and it soon became apparent that some of the newly discovered fragments matched ones found previously. This led Artur Obłuski, the director of the excavation, to propose the publication of the entire corpus of funerary inscriptions from Ghazali, not merely the fresh discoveries made by our team. The present volume is the realization of his idea; not only does it bring together a group of objects discovered at different times and under different circumstances, which had previously been dispersed throughout a number of publications, but due to its standardized presentation of the material, it also offers the possibility, unique in Nubian studies, of a comprehensive and multidimensional study of the corpus. The book both follows and expands on the approach of Adam Łajtar and Jacques van der Vliet in their catalogue of Greek and Coptic inscriptions from Qasr Ibrim (Łajtar and van der Vliet 2010). Contrary to the traditional approach of presenting Greek and Coptic texts separately, the two scholars grouped all of the inscriptions, regardless of their language, according to their type and formulary. In arranging the catalogue of inscriptions from Ghazali I have applied the same principle, which allows one

to observe the similarities and differences between the structure and content of particular inscriptions. The concept of centonization, which I have applied in analysing the epitaphs from the monastery, further justifies this arrangement: a comparison of formularies has demonstrated that centonization can occur not only across different types of text, but also across different languages. This observation is especially important when studying trilingual (or rather triscriptural: Greek, Coptic, and Old Nubian) communities such as Ghazali. While a linguistic division of material might seem natural to modern scholars, many of the inscriptions stem from a common literary tradition even when they are written in different languages. This impression grows even stronger as one realizes that texts in different languages were often written in essentially the same type of script. Although the three languages used the same alphabet and generally shared the same type of script in Nubian epi­graphy, I have followed the scholarly convention in using three different typefaces to render all of them.1 For the sake of convenience, the Coptic typeface has been used here to transcribe letters, words, and phrases in both Coptic and Greek whenever they occur outside of their linguistic context, for instance in the palaeo­graphic apparatus or when a peculiar g­ raphic notation is discussed. This typeface has also been employed for transcribing those fragments in which the language cannot be determined. While the catalogue of inscriptions forms the core of the present volume, the introductory section provides a detailed analysis of the material. The typo­logical and chrono­logical coherence of the Ghazali corpus allows for extensive discussion of the archaeo­logical context of the finds, their materiality, linguistic and palaeo­graphical issues, and the prosopo­graphy of individuals found in the inscriptions. These analyses, in turn, allow us to propose an historical and socio-cultural synthesis of the monastic community as viewed from the perspective of funerary epi­graphy.

1 Coptic text has been typeset using the Antinoou font (available at [accessed 16 September 2021]). Old Nubian has been set in the Sawarda Nubian font, which is still under development, but was fully sufficient for the needs of the present volume (available at

[accessed 16 September 2021]).

Acknowledgements This book could not have been written without the help and support of many individuals. First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to Artur Obłuski (Warsaw), director of the Ghazali Archaeo­ logical Site Presentation Project (GASP), for inviting me to participate in the mission and for entrusting to me the study and publication of its epi­graphic finds; our discussions and conversations — both on site and back in Warsaw — regarding the history and archaeo­logy of Ghazali and its monastic compound were especially illuminating. I am also grateful to other members of the GASP-team: in particular to Joanna Ciesielska (Warsaw) and Szymon Maślak (Warsaw), for furnishing me with details of the discovery of particular objects, and for their stimulating discussions about the development of the monastery and its burial practices, and to Miron Bogacki (Warsaw), for his high-quality photo­graphs of the inscriptions uncovered during the excavation. The members of the mission, as a team, created a wonderful working environment that made my own experiences at Ghazali pleasant and rewarding. My special thanks go to Adam Łajtar (Warsaw) and Jacques van der Vliet (Leiden), my mentors and teachers in Christian Nubian epi­graphy, who read and commented on early drafts of this manu­ script. Their opinion was especially important as I was often in the position of challenging the readings in their respective 2003 editions of the Ghazali frag-

ments; not only did they approve many of my proposed readings but, in addition, furnished me with many comments and suggestions that caused me to reconsider some of my own ideas. I am also grateful to Ewa Wipszycka (Warsaw), Alexandros Tsakos (Bergen), and the anonymous peer-reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. I owe gratitude to Ghalia Gar el-Nabi, Acting Director of the National Corporation for Antiquities and Museums (NCAM) for granting me permission to work on the Ghazali steale stored in the Sudan National Museum in Khartoum, and to Włodzimierz Godlewski (Warsaw) for allowing me to use his photographs of these objects. Cäcilia Flück (Berlin) offered invaluable assistance in tracking down the Ghazali inscriptions collected by Richard Lepsius in the archives and storerooms of the Skulpturensammlung und Museum für Byzantinische Kunst in Berlin; she also furnished me with archival photo­graphs of many objects, and arranged for new photo­graphs to be taken of all the surviving inscriptions, for which I am in her greatest debt. My thanks also go to Olivia Zorn, the deputy director of the Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung in Berlin for granting permission to publish all these photo­ graphs. Finally, I would like to thank Jesse Simon (Berlin) for correcting my English, and Mohamed Elmahdi Idris (Hail, Saudi Arabia) for translating the Arabic Summary.

I

A Study of Funerary Epi­graphy from Ghazali

Introduction In this section of the book, I offer a comprehensive analysis of the material published in its second part, the Greek and Coptic funerary monuments from the monastery at Ghazali. The analysis is carried out from all possible perspectives, both materialand content-wise, in order to draw as much information about the monastic community as possible and provide material for a synthesis of the community’s life (and death). In the first five chapters, the materiality of the studied objects is scrutinized, preceded by a brief presentation of the site itself, its topo­graphy and history of research. As the collection consists of objects discovered at different periods and in varied circumstances, and, as a result, the inscriptions are now stored at different locations, Chapter 1 presents results of both field and museum archaeo­logy. This is necessary to better contextualize the objects. This is done in the following chapter, which is devoted to a detailed analysis of archaeo­logical contexts in which the objects were discovered. Two general types of context have been distinguished: primary (objects found in situ, still mounted in the western end of mastabas covering the tombs) and secondary (objects found reused in various constructions in the whole monastic complex). The argument developed here is primarily of chrono­logical nature, aiming at establishing the dating of the epi­graphic collection. Even though, due to the lack of precise internal chrono­logical markers, we are helpless in establishing precise dates for the analysed objects or even their possible relative chrono­logy, the archaeo­ logical context of their discovery, including Carbon 14 dating, makes it possible to propose a pre-eleventh-century date for the whole collection. This is an important observation indicating that funerary customs at the monastery changed at the turn of the eleventh century to no longer include a written epitaph. While this appears to be a hundred years earlier than otherwise known for Nubian standards,1 the same chrono­logy as at Ghazali is attested for Egypt, especially in the monastery of Anba Hadra at Aswan, which points to an Egyptian-monastic connection. Chapter 3 deals with various material aspects of the funerary epi­graphy from Ghazali: the use of different materials, techniques of execution, and deco-



1 On many sites, the epitaphs kept being produced until the twelfth century.

rative elements. Three main observations resulting from the analysis pertain to: (1) The outsourcing of the production of epitaphs found at the monastery. This is assumed mainly on the basis of the lack in the archaeo­logical material of workshops and tools that could have been used in producing them locally and the unavailability of clay, the most popular material at Ghazali, in the immediate vicinity, but also on some details of production technique. (2) The popularity of epitaphs and sepulchral crosses made of terracotta. While stelae made of fired clay appear to be a Christian Nubian characteristic, Ghazali is exceptional as far as the number of such objects is concerned, by far exceeding what is known from other sites. It seems impossible that this popularity resulted from the unavailability of other materials and hardly likely that it had an economic background (such objects are cheap and easy to produce) in a wealthy monastery. Instead, we may simply be dealing with a local custom of some sort. (3) The simplicity of form and lack of decoration. It is viewed here as an element of local Makurian tradition, in which even stelae from Dongola, the capital of the kingdom, represent a similarly unrefined style. Notably, epitaphs from Egyptian monasteries are similarly simple, which leads us to believe that such crudity resulted from the simplicity of monastic lifestyle, the ideal that subsequently spread throughout Makurian society in general. If so, this could be perceived as another manifestation of links of Nubian monasticism with Egypt. However, even if Egyptian connections seem more or less apparent, they should definitely not be taken at face value, as is demonstrated in Chapter 4. It scrutinizes the use of languages in funerary monuments from Ghazali and its central part is the argument against the common opinion that the marked prevalence of Coptic at Ghazali bespeaks the ethnic ‘Egyptianness’ of the monastery. Building on Jacques van der Vliet’s arguments against this opinion, I argue instead for the strong cultural Egyptian influence on Nubian monasticism in general as a reason behind the popularity of Coptic among the Ghazali monks. While, indeed, some of the monastery’s residents could have been native Egyptians exerting personal influence on their Nubian fellow

16

i n tro d ucti o n

monks, a broader cultural impact should rather be considered here, such as patterns of structural organization of monastic communities or monastic literature, both of which came from the north; after all, monasticism as such was an Egyptian invention. At the same time, however, I draw attention to the high quality of the language of the Greek inscriptions from Ghazali, surpassing what we find in an average Nubian Greek epitaph and indicating the high level of literacy at the monastery. The material analysis of the objects is closed by the section about various epi­graphic phenomena in Chapter 5. The chapter is largely technical, with detailed description of letter forms as well as ligatures and abbreviations employed by the redactors of the Ghazali inscriptions. The illustrated atlas of letter forms found at Ghazal will hopefully pave the way for palaeo­graphic studies of Christian Nubian inscriptions, which are basically non-existent. Chapters 6 and 7 deal with the information that can be gleaned from the contents of the discussed texts. In the former, I present an extensive and exhaustive treatment of Greek and Coptic formulae found in funerary monuments at Ghazali, defined as ‘a set textual format, framing and presenting the core of each epitaph, the name of the deceased’ (van der Vliet 2011, 181–82). The concept that permeates the whole discussion is that of centonization, that is pasting together various standard expressions to create a new text. In order to understand its functioning at Ghazali, all textual formulae are first discussed in detail, with a particular attention to their biblical and/or liturgical backgrounds. The analysis shows that the redactors of the epitaphs were perfectly capable of not only mixing formularies of the two basic types of funerary inscriptions, the epitaphs of the so-called ‘God of the spirits’ type and bipartite epitaphs, but also of creatively paraphrasing texts in one language into another language. Due place is also given in this chapter to the Nubian eschato­ logy as perceived through the texts of Ghazali funerary monuments. The principal argument presented here is that the Nubians, not only the members of our monastery, strongly believed that human fate, including death, is determined by God, which is most clearly visible in the popularity of the opening formulae ‘Through the providence/command/ wish of God’. Otherwise, the Nubian beliefs in the afterlife seem to stand in agreement with the general Christian eschato­logy, in which death is the state of sleep in anticipation of resurrection in eternal bliss, enjoying the presence of God and all his saints. Chapter 7, in turn, is about the earthly life of the community, approaching as it does the prosopo­ graphic data (names, functions, and titles) acces-

sible through the funerary inscriptions. In order to fully cover the topic, the material is supplemented here with the data drawn from other forms of textual record discovered at Ghazali: wall and pottery inscriptions. The onomastic analysis shows that the repertoire of names used at the monastery is not really different from what can be observed throughout the entire Nile Valley in this period, in both monastic and secular sites. Paradoxically, the most characteristic feature appears to be the general lack of names from outside the typical Christian onomastic repertoire, names that are so common in northern Nubian material. Meagre though it is, the comparative material from such sites as Dongola, seems to show that we may be dealing here with a local Makurian custom of this period, in which clear preference was given to traditional Christian names, with a fairly limited share of names belonging to the native Nubian onomastic stock.2 The types of names seem to be no less important at Ghazali than the form in which they were noted down. The epi­graphic material, especially pottery and wall inscriptions, is a true trove of various abbreviations and monograms, sometimes unexpected, sometimes playful, often invested with religious symbolism (shaped in the form of the cross, imitating nomina sacra), pointing to the belief in the magical and protective power of the written word. Finally, the designations of monastic and ecclesiastic functions as well as different honorific titles occurring at Ghazali are treated in order to understand the hierarchical structure of the community. The material gathered to date allows reconstructing a pretty flat hierarchy: the head of the monastery and the rest. Various aspects of monastic life, like the amount of time spent in the habit or moral authority, could be distinguished with the use of titles of address, whereby a simple monk was called apa or ‘brother’, a more respected one ‘senior’ or ‘father’, and a representative of the monastic elite abba. This part of the book culminates with an attempt at a synthesis of the monastic life from the perspective of funerary epi­graphy (Chapter 9). In this way, we arrive at a better understanding of the life and death of a monk, an epitaph, and a monastery.

2 Note, however, that in the later period, local Nubian names appear to constitute the huge majority of the Makurian onomastic repertoire (see indices to Łajtar 2020).

Chapter 1

Ghazali: Archaeo­logy and Epi­graphy 1.1 Archaeo­logy Among the archaeo­logical sites in Sudan, the monastic complex at Ghazali is an exceptional place. Located in lower Wadi Abu Dom in the Bayuda Desert, some 15 km from the Nile Valley at the height of modern Karima, the site is easily accessible and very well preserved, with many walls surviving up to a height of some 5 m; perhaps most importantly it has never been fully covered by sand. Moreover, until the Nubian Campaign of the 1960s, it was the only known medi­eval Nubian coenobitic monastery, in which the monks lived in an organized community (as opposed to eremitism), and to this day it remains one of only four such sites to have been securely identified and studied.1 For these reasons it has attracted the attention of travellers and scholars since the beginning of the nineteenth century. Such prominent figures as Louis Maurice Adolphe Linant de Bellefonds, Karl Richard Lepsius, Pierre Trêmaux, and Ugo Monneret de Villard visited Ghazali and left their accounts, sometimes accompanied by drawings.2 Surprising as it may seem, however, the site remained unexplored in a complete and systematic manner until recently. The first attempt at an archaeo­logical investigation was undertaken in 1953 and 1954 by a British-Sudanese mission of the Sudan Antiquities Service under Peter



1 The other three are: the monastery of Qasr el-Wizz near Faras (preliminarily published by Scanlon 1970; 1972; a final publication is in preparation by a team headed by Artur Obłuski), and two monasteries in Dongola, on Kom D (not fully published so far; for the monastic churches, see Dobrowolski 1987; 1991) and on Kom H (the excavations have been in progress, with intervals, since 1991 and are reported on quasi-annual basis in Polish Archaeo­logy in the Mediterranean; see, most notably, Jakobielski 2001, for a summary of the first decade of research, and Godlewski 2013, 79–95). Obłuski 2019, fig. 1 and table 1 at 115–16, lists further two monastic sites as certainly coenobitic: Kageras (cf. Obłuski 2019, 74–75) and el-Ugal (cf. Obłuski 2019, 110–13), and further seven as likely coenobitic: Fagirinfenti (cf. Obłuski 2019, 47–48), Fantau (cf. Obłuski 2019, 49–52), Faras West (cf. Obłuski 2019, 57–59), Hambukol (cf. Obłuski 2019, 70–73), Matuga Island (cf. Obłuski 2019, 89–90), Meinarti (cf. Obłuski 2019, 91–62), and el-Ramal (cf. Obłuski 2019, 101–03). More research, however, would be needed to confirm this. 2 Linant de Bellefonds 1958, 169–70; LD V (text), 291–92; I (plates), II, pl. 131; Trémaux 1852–1862, pls 53–55; Trémaux 1862, 331–32; Monneret de Villard 1935, 253–56.

Shinnie and Neville Chittick. The archaeo­logists excavated a large part of the monastic complex, and did some (unfortunately imprecisely documented) work on the monastic cemetery. Due to the political situation in Sudan, they were forced to withdraw to the United Kingdom after two seasons of excavation and never returned to the site. A preliminary report of their work, laconic and under-illustrated, was published in 1961 (Shinnie and Chittick 1961). Roughly sixty years after Shinnie and Chittick, the site received its second major archaeo­logical visit. In 2012, Artur Obłuski initiated the Ghazali Archaeo­logical Site Presentation Project (GASP). The project was conceived, on the one hand, as a comprehensive examination of the site and its immediate environs, including land prospection, a geomagnetic survey, kite aerial photo­graphy, and archaeo­logical excavation, as well as the study of architecture and ceramics, anthropo­logy, and epi­graphy; however, it was also intended to conserve and secure the most crucial parts of the complex, and prepare the site as a whole for the increasing presence of tourists. The research phase of the project ended in 2018.3 As a result of these investigations, the general dating and the topo­graphy of the site has been established definitively (Fig. 1.1). While we do not know the reasons for establishing the monastery in this particular location, we at least know that the complex was active from the late seventh/early eighth to the thirteenth centuries; it may even have been a royal foundation erected during the reign of King Merkourios, 696/97–after 710 (Obłuski and Korzeniowska 2018, 611; Obłuski 2018, 164). It measures approximately 5,000 m2. Its heart was located in the south-eastern part of the enclosure and was formed by two churches, the main one (northern church) and a subsidiary one (southern church). The latter was erected at the turn of the eleventh century, most probably around the same time that the main church was undergoing an 3 See preliminary reports in, e.g., Obłuski 2014; 2019, 64–69, 158–201; Obłuski and Ochała 2016; Obłuski and others 2015; 2017; and 2018; see also [accessed 15 December 2020] for a concise description of the site and its main features as well as a 3D reconstruction of the whole complex.

18

c ha p te r 1

Figure 1.1. Aerial photo­graph of the monastery and the surrounding cemeteries (PCMA UW/photo M. Bogacki).

extensive reconstruction, which involved the old flat roof, supported by granite columns, being replaced by a central dome resting on four massive brick pillars. Between the northern church and the main gate, located in northern enclosure wall, a complex of dormitories has been identified, consisting initially of six cells, but enlarged in the tenth century with six more;4 each cell could have housed three monks. To the west, there are two refectories and a room for water storage. The entire north-western section of the cloister appears to have been an economic area, where the remains of a kitchen, mill, oil press, and storage facilities have been identified. Two large sanitary complexes have been uncovered, the earlier one located at the south-eastern enclosure wall and the later one situated in the so-called north-west annex, most probably constructed at the turn of the eleventh century, perhaps concurrently with the rebuilding of the northern church (Obłuski 2019, 64–65).

4 It is supposed that another twelve cells were located in the upper storey.

Apart from the monastery itself, the site includes as many as four cemeteries with a total of more than 1,200 graves. The most important of these was certainly Cemetery 2 (‘South Cemetery’ in Shinnie and Chittick’s nomenclature), situated immediately to the south of the southern enclosure wall and containing about 800–1,000 tombs (Obłuski and others 2018, 263, fig. 14). Only about 10 per cent of the cemetery has been excavated, but enough to conclude that this was most certainly the monastic burial ground. This is confirmed first and foremost by monastic epitaphs preserved in situ in the northernmost part, but also by the fact that adult males have accounted for nearly all of the identified burials, especially in graves where no stelae have been preserved (Ciesielska, Obłuski, and Stark 2018, esp. 205–06, fig. 9).5 Limited work has also been carried out on 5 Among persons buried in a group of graves separated from the main burial ground by a small wadi in the northern part of Cemetery 2, there were at least one woman and as many as six children and adolescents. However, according to a working hypothesis of Joanna Ciesielska, these were secondary later burials and the whole section of the cemetery may have been

ghazali : archaeo ­l o gy and e pi­g raph y

Cemetery 1, located to the west of the monastery and separated from it by a small wadi, and Cemetery 4, approximately 200 m south of Cemetery 2. The former includes roughly 150 graves and the latter is a small, isolated grave cluster with only fifteen burials. Only five graves have been excavated at these cemeteries, but since no gender restrictions have been observed, they are believed to have served the local lay population (Ciesielska, Obłuski, and Stark 2018, esp. 205–06, fig. 9; Stark and Ciesielska 2018). Cemetery 3, located several hundred metres southeast of the monastery and comprising around three hundred graves, has not thus far been investigated. Finally, to the south-east of the cloister, an iron-smelting site has been identified, most probably contemporary with the monastery (Obłuski 2018, 160). A settlement of probable medi­eval date together with another iron-smelting centre is located still further to the south-east, but its exact character and connection with the monastery remains unknown.

1.2 Epi­graphy The Ghazali monastery has been a constant source of epi­graphic material since the middle of the nineteenth century. The material can be divided into three major categories: wall inscriptions, inscriptions on pottery, and funerary monuments (stelae and sepulchral crosses). All texts belonging to the first category — 137 in total — were identified and documented within the framework of the GASP project.6 Apart from a single instance of an inscription painted in black on plaster, fragments of which have been recovered from the fill of Room 60 (inv. Gh.2014.2.044),7 all other inscriptions take the form of graffiti incised in lime plaster covering the walls of the northern church. Because the plaster is preserved most extensively on the outer façades of the north, west, and south walls of the church, the lion’s share of the graffiti has been found there. However, traces of texts found within the church — notably on the inner façade of





allotted to rich persons who wanted to be buried ad sanctos (personal communication). 8 6 Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 10, admittedly, note the presence of ‘large numbers of graffiti, including personal names, Christian 9 monograms, and drawings of saints and animals’. They were supposed to be documented in the third and final season of excavation, which, however, never happened (see above, 17). 7 The inscription remains unpublished; only eight pieces of plaster have been recovered, each preserving just a few letters. The only recognizable word among them is the name Ezekias, but it is 10 uncertain whether it designates here a living person or the Old Testament figure, the king of Judah.

the east wall, in the pastophories, and the passage behind the apse — suggest that the interior might also have been extensively inscribed, as in other Nubian churches. The wall inscriptions are, as a rule, badly preserved. Insofar as they can be deciphered, they fall into several categories: sacred names, visitor’s signatures (sometimes accompanied by short prayers), acclamations and invocations of different holy beings, and one instance of a liturgical prayer.8 Inscribed vessels are by far the richest category of epi­graphic finds from Ghazali, with roughly 1,300 specimens; it is the largest collection of such objects from the entire Nile Valley. The first seven specimens were collected by Monneret de Villard during his visit to the site at the beginning of the twentieth century (Monneret de Villard 1935, 256, fig. 232). An additional 121 fragments came from Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations (Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 95–99, figs 33–111), and another fifteen were collected by Michael Zach during a visit to the site in 1985 (Lethmayer and Zach 1986), but the bulk of the collection — approximately 1,150 objects — originates from the work of GASP. Apart from isolated examples of ostraca — texts written onto fragments of already broken pots — nearly all inscriptions were scratched or (very rarely) painted onto complete vessels. The inscriptions can be divided into three major categories: owner’s inscriptions (on table and cooking vessels),9 tags (on storage and transport containers), and names of divine beings/saints.10 Finally, there are the funerary monuments, the subject of the present volume. With 205 stelae and eighteen sepulchral crosses, Ghazali has the second largest collection of this kind from Nubia, after the cemetery of Sakinya with its 315 grave monuments, and ahead of such major urban centres as Qasr Ibrim (ninety-three epitaphs known to date), Dongola (forty-four epitaphs), and Faras (thirty-six epitaphs). It is, moreover, the largest known monastic cemetery in the whole of the Nile Valley; the only comparable site is the cemetery at Deir Anba Hadra in Aswan, although the number of tombstones found there reaches only 177 (Munier 1930–1931).

The material remains unpublished; preliminarily, see Obłuski and Ochała 2016, 70–76, and Obłuski and others 2017, 379–82. I use here the conventional term to label all personal signatures featuring on pottery vessels. Whether the signed person was the actual ‘owner’ of the pot or only its temporary ‘user’, as all wares belonged to the community, cannot be answered with any degree of certainty. This issue will be discussed at length in the forthcoming publication of all pottery inscriptions from Ghazali. The material is being prepared for publication by Agata Deptuła and myself; preliminarily, see Obłuski and Ochała 2016, 76, and Obłuski and others 2017, 384–87.

19

20

c ha p te r 1

The core of the collection consists of three major groups designating the three most important phases of archaeo­logical activities on the site: Lepsius’s lot acquired in 1844, Shinnie and Chittick’s collection discovered in 1953–1954, and the GASP collection excavated between 2012 and 2018. These are supplemented by a handful of stelae and sepulchral crosses discovered on other occasions, and one attributed to Ghazali on formal grounds. I characterize each group below. 1.2.1 Lepsius’s Lot

on the site, one of which was later rediscovered by Shinnie and Chittick in 1953–1954 (see the discussion at 148). Of the twenty-five pieces brought to Berlin, only nine have survived to the present day; the fate of the remaining fourteen is unknown (Table 1.1). The fragments were all still accounted for in 1899, when Erman’s catalogue was published. Forty years later, in 1934/35, when the collection was transferred to the Skulpturensammlung und Museum für Byzantinische Kunst (SMBK), all the objects received new inventory numbers. For eight pieces (28, 44, 72, 74, 79 (a), 104, 126, 206), however, there are no SMBK inventory numbers, which suggests that they either remained in the ÄM and went missing at a later date, or had perhaps already been lost by that time. Unfortunately, the database of the SMB contains no information that might clarify matters. An additional five fragments (26, 47, 63, 80, 145), all of which had SMBK numbers, probably disappeared during the Second World War. They were certainly in place in 1937/38 when Cramer prepared her catalogue of Coptic inscriptions in Berlin, but after this date they vanish from the records.12 Fortunately, with the exception of five pieces (26, 47, 63, 104, 145), we have archival photo­graphs of the missing objects, the majority of which are published here for the first time.13 These photo­graphs are of the greatest importance: although the majority of these monuments have been edited — many even more than once — the editions are based primarily on Lepsius’s drawings.14 In checking the drawings against the photos I have been able to make significant improvements to many of the readings. Editions of the surviving objects, which are accessible in the storerooms of the SMBK, have been prepared on the basis of their autoptic examination, supported by drawings and archival photo­graphs in those cases where the state of the object has deteriorated visibly over the years.

Lepsius visited Ghazali twice during his time in Nubia. These visits, on 6 and 18 May 1844, resulted in a laconic description of the site (Lepsius 1852, 234–36; LD V (text), 291–92), two watercolours depicting the general view of Ghazali and its church (LD I (plates), II, pl. 131), and a collection of twenty-six funerary monuments. With a few exceptions (Table 1.1), all these monuments were depicted in Lepsius’s Denkmæler (LD VI (plates), XII, pls 99, Gr. 547–58, and 103, 41–56), although regrettably he provided no information regarding the circumstances of their discovery. On the basis of his description of the site, we can only surmise that he found at least some of them in their original context in Cemetery 2, still mounted in the mastabas, as he claims that ‘[d]ie meisten [graves — G.O.] halten an der Westseite eine aufgerichtete Inschrifttafel, entweder in Sandstein oder in Ton’ (LD V (text), 292). Indeed, the state of preservation of several of these stelae, notably 80, 104, and 126, is strikingly similar to what the Polish archaeo­logists found in situ in the northern section of Cemetery 2: only the lowermost part survived, with the upper part either heavily obliterated or completely disintegrated. Similarly, fragments from the middle or upper parts of the epitaphs (e.g. 21, 26, 63, 90) may have originated from secondary contexts, as was the case with all fragments found during the work of GASP. some of them consist of more than one fragment. Note that LD According to various sources — including V (text), 292, lists only nine objects as inventoried in the Berlin Lepsius’s notes, Adolf Erman’s catalogue of the museum: 28, 44, 45, 69, 74, 80, 104, 126, 206. Two fragments, 29 (b) and 172, were neither depicted nor listed by Lepsius. They Egyptian collection at Berlin (Erman 1899), Maria bear subsequent, but far later inventory numbers than the rest Cramer’s catalogue of Coptic inscriptions (Cramer of the lot, but Erman described them in 1899 as coming from 1949), and, most importantly, the database of the Ghazali, as does the SMB database. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (SMB) — the majority 12 Cramer’s publication appeared in print only in 1949, but at of the collection was taken to Berlin and deposited in that time, when the possessions of the Berlin museums were dispersed throughout Germany, it was impossible to verify the the Ägyptisches Museum (ÄM): of the twenty-nine information and check which inscriptions had survived the war. fragments that Lepsius discovered in Ghazali, he 13 Three of them, 72, 79 (a), and 80, were published in Junker 1925a, took twenty-five with him;11 four were apparently left pl. after 112.

14 The only exception among the editors is Junker, who prepared his editions of 72, 79 (a), and 80 on the basis of the photos. He also claims to have had at his disposal photos of 28, 44, 74, and 11 This is the number of all fragments; the actual number of objects 206, but they were not included in his article. is lower, twenty-five discovered, twenty-one brought to Berlin, as

ghazali : archaeo ­l o gy and e pi­g raph y Table 1.1. Lepsius’s collection of Ghazali funerary monuments.15

Lepsius no.

ÄM inv. no.

SMBK inv. no.

I. Ghazali DBMNT

Status

Photos

XII, pl. 99, Gr. 547

1500

—

126

472

lost; seen by Erman

archive new

XII, pl. 99, Gr. 548

—

—

148

818

left on the site by Lepsius; rediscovered by Shinnie and Chittick; now in Khartoum (inv. 11610)

XII, pl. 99, Gr. 549

1484+1501+1502

9672

69

474

exists; seen by Erman

new

XII, pl. 99, Gr. 550

—

—

207

555

unknown, perhaps left on the site

—

XII, pl. 99, Gr. 551

1483

9684

90

2244

exists; seen by Cramer

new

XII, pl. 99, Gr. 552+555

= XII, pl. 99, Gr. 549

XII, pl. 99, Gr. 553

perhaps 1489

perhaps 9682

26

2245

lost; seen by Cramer

—

XII, pl. 99, Gr. 554+556

1499

—

72

473

lost; seen by Erman

archive

XII, pl. 99, Gr. 557

1506

—

74

996

lost; seen by Erman

archive

XII, pl. 99, Gr. 558

2256

—

206

476

lost; seen by Erman

archive

XII, pl. 103, 41

1491

—

104

2246

lost; seen by Erman

—

XII, pl. 103, 42

—

—

113

2247

unknown, perhaps left on the site

—

XII, pl. 103, 43 (fragm. (a))

1495 (fragm. (a)) + 9996 (fragm. (b)) 1503 (fragm. (b))

79

2248

fragm. (a): lost fragm. (b): exists

fragm. (a): archive fragm. (b): new

XII, pl. 103, 44

1507

9786

45

556

exists; seen by Erman and Cramer

new

XII, pl. 103, 45

1496

9681

145

1419

lost; seen by Cramer

—

XII, pl. 103, 46+55

1485+1488

9671+9680

140

727

exist; seen by Cramer

new

XII, pl. 103, 47

1493

9750

47

728

lost; seen by Cramer

—

XII, pl. 103, 48

1492

9999

27

1422

exists; seen by Cramer

new

XII, pl. 103, 49

1505

—

44

2249

lost; seen by Erman

archive

XII, pl. 103, 50

1508

9673

21

1417

exists; seen by Cramer

new

XII, pl. 103, 51

1497

9787

80

1421

lost; seen by Erman and Cramer

archive

XII, pl. 103, 52

= XII, pl. 103, 45

XII, pl. 103, 53

—

—

124

974

unknown, perhaps left on the site

—

XII, pl. 103, 54

148216

9683

63

1420

lost; seen by Cramer

—

XII, pl. 103, 56

1494

—

28

608

lost; seen by Erman

archive

—

12835

10001

29 (b)

61

exists; seen by Erman

new

—

12836

10000

172

4269

exists; seen by Erman

new

15 The objects listed by Lepsius himself as having been brought to Berlin are marked in grey (LD V (text), 292); those not mentioned by Lepsius but described by Erman in his catalogue appear in blue (Erman 1899, 412–13); those absent from both Lepsius and Erman, but listed by Cramer (Cramer 1949, 9–13) are in orange. 16 Cramer 1949, 11, gives inv. 1428, evidently a typographical error.

21

22

c ha p te r 1

1.2.2 Shinnie and Chittick’s Collection

1.2.3 The GASP Collection

The second core part of the collection was brought to light during the two seasons of British-Sudanese excavations under Shinnie and Chittick; the archaeo­ logists managed to collect ninety-two fragments of epitaphs and two fragments from sepulchral crosses. Unfortunately, the exact circumstances of discovery remain unknown for the majority of these objects; we possess only a few brief pieces of information from museum records and the excavation publication. It seems fairly certain, however, that almost all of them came from secondary contexts. The only exceptions are 2, 77, 119, and 147, which were reportedly found in situ in Cemetery 2; however, as no ground plan of the cemetery was prepared during the excavations, we have no means of knowing where the graves were located. While there is no mention in the original publication of any kind of inventorying system, some of the objects bear numbers on them in the format ‘I + numeral’, where ‘I’ most probably stands for ‘inscription’ (see Concordances, 1). These numbers correspond to the catalogue entries in the first publication of the material by John Barns (see below), which strongly suggests that the order of his edition follows the actual order of the inventory. Thus, number 1 in the edition bears the inventory number I 1, number 2 — I 2, etc. Inventory numbers of objects for which no label can be seen in the photo should most probably be reconstructed according to this principle, but I give here only the ones that are known. After the excavations, all the fragments were moved to the Sudan National Museum (SNM) in Khartoum and entered into the museum’s register. The majority of these fragments, seventy in total, were published for the first time by Barns in 1961, in the report of the British excavations (Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 69–94). A republication of the material, including the first publication of the pieces omitted by Barns, was subsequently undertaken by Adam Łajtar and Jacques van der Vliet within the framework of their work on the catalogues of Greek and Coptic inscriptions from the SNM, published in 2003 (Łajtar 2003a, nos 31–55; van der Vliet 2003, nos 43–116). The re-editions presented here are based on Łajtar and van der Vliet’s work, as well as photo­ graphs of the objects.

The largest part of the collection of funerary monuments came to light during the Polish-Sudanese excavations carried out between 2012 and 2018. A total of 112 items were discovered, mostly smaller or larger fragments, but occasionally complete or almost-complete objects. Among them are twelve fragments from sepulchral crosses and a hundred pieces from funerary stelae. The overwhelming majority originated from secondary contexts, both inside the monastery and in Cemetery 2, but nineteen epitaphs were discovered in situ in the northern part of the cemetery, still mounted in their original positions in the western end of mastabas; one more, 70, was discovered inside the burial shaft, because the stela had fallen into it from its original mounting place. As the Polish-Sudanese mission does not have any storage facility, all the objects — apart from those discovered in situ — are kept in the storeroom of the Gebel Barkal Museum (GBM) in Karima, without the necessity of being entered into the museum’s register. The in-situ monuments were left on the site and covered with a thick layer of sand to protect them against damage and robbery. These pieces are edited here for the first time. With two exceptions (20 and 98, which had gone missing before I arrived at the excavations), all the editions have been prepared on the basis of autoptic examination. 1.2.4 Other Finds

In addition to these three major collections, our corpus is enriched by a dozen objects discovered on other occasions. They include: 1) Three fragments collected by Anthony J. Arkell in 1939 in an unknown context (37, 53, and 169). They are stored in the SNM in Khartoum and were published for the first time by van der Vliet in his catalogue (van der Vliet 2003, nos 43–45). The information regarding their provenance comes exclusively from the museum inventory. 2) A fragment discovered by the ghafir of Ghazali in 1956 outside the south wall of the complex (118 (a)); published for the first time in van der Vliet 2003, no. 116. 3) Three almost-complete stelae collected at Ghazali in 1979 by the Italian mission to Gebel Barkal headed by Sergio Donadoni (19, 71, and 75). The epitaphs were reportedly brought to light by a large flood passing through Wadi Abu Dom; their exact findspots are unknown, but

ghazali : archaeo ­l o gy and e pi­g raph y

Donadoni suggested that they might have originated from Cemetery 1 to the west of the monastery (but see below, 25). Donadoni himself published the pieces for the first time (Donadoni 1986). The stelae are now stored in the Gebel Barkal Museum in Karima; two of them (71 and 75) are on display. 4) Three small pieces found at Ghazali by the locals and handed over to the authorities (11, 12, and 24). They have since been kept in the Gebel Barkal Museum in Karima, where they were identified by Alexandros Tsakos in 2004/05, but never properly published (see Tsakos 2009a, 232). 5) Two fragments from sepulchral crosses stored in the SNM in Khartoum and reported by Tsakos to originate from Ghazali (214 (a) and 220). Thus far they have not been published (see Tsakos 2011, 161, sub 5). 6) A fragment from a sepulchral cross found and documented by Tsakos in 2006 at Ghazali (219). Its present whereabouts are unknown (see Tsakos 2011, 161, sub 5, fig. 1). 1.2.5 Funerary Epi­graphy of Ghazali in Previous Scholarship

Although the funerary monuments from Ghazali are well known and frequently cited in scholarship concerning Christian funerary epi­graphy of the Nile Valley, it is important to note that there is, as yet, no comprehensive analysis of the material. The first one to include the Ghazali epitaphs, notably Lepsius’s finds, in the discussion of the Nubian funerary epi­ graphy was Hermann Junker in his seminal article ‘Die christliche Grabsteine Nubiens’ ( Junker 1925a), in which all Christian Nubian epitaphs known at the time were given an analytical and synthetical presentation. While the material available at the time was still too limited to allow for a discussion of epi­ graphic traditions from a single site, it was still possible to make the general observation that Coptic was particularly widespread in Nubian funerary epi­ graphy, including examples from Ghazali ( Junker 1925a, 135; see below, 4). The discovery and publication of new monuments from Ghazali by Shinnie and Chittick seemed a perfect occasion to renew the discussion and attempt a comparative analysis of the material. However, the first edition of this material was limited solely to transcriptions, accompanied by extremely brief commentaries of a mostly palaeo­graphical and grammatical nature. The collection had to wait some fifty

years to receive proper editions by Łajtar and van der Vliet in their respective catalogues of Greek and Coptic inscriptions from the SNM (see above, 1.2.2). The editions themselves are excellent, but with the exception of occasional comparisons between certain pieces within and outside the Ghazali collection, they do not offer a comprehensive approach to the material. Although the division of inscriptions by language was perfectly understandable, it makes it much more difficult to offer a comprehensive synthesis, as does the slightly different approach to editorial procedure, especially the varied focal points of the textual commentaries. Among the other studies which discuss funerary monuments from Ghazali, two articles by Tsakos are worth mentioning. The first (Tsakos 2010) deals with the popularity in Nubia of funerary stelae made of fired clay: the author observed that ‘60 of the 117 known finds derive from a single site, that is, from the monastery at Ghazali’ (Tsakos 2010, 690); while the figures have since more or less doubled, the observation remains valid (see below, 3.1). The second article (Tsakos 2011) studies a particular category of funerary monuments, namely the sepulchral crosses inscribed with the acclamation ‘light – life’. Tsakos mentions three fragments discovered at Ghazali (here 214 (a), 219, and 220), which at the time was not a particularly impressive number compared with other sites (Tsakos 2011, 160–64). However, thanks to new discoveries by GASP, we now know that this was an important element of the funerary tradition and landscape at the Ghazali cemetery (see below, 2.2 and 6.4).

23

Chapter 2

Archaeo­logical Context

2.1 Funerary Stelae Funerary monuments have been found at Ghazali in both original and secondary contexts. As I have already mentioned, only a small number of finds were discovered in their original burial context, that is mounted in a niche in the western end of the mastaba (Figs 2.1 and 2.2). Of the four cemeteries at Ghazali, only Cemetery 2, located immediately to the south of the monastery’s enclosure walls, has so far yielded such finds; the surveys and excavations carried out at the remaining burial grounds have not brought to light any epi­graphic material, nor have they revealed any superstructure with a niche for mounting a stela. Donadoni’s suggestion that the three epitaphs collected and published by him came from Cemetery 1, to the west of the monastery, should therefore be rejected (see above, 1.2.4, sub 3). Most of the stelae discovered in situ have been found in a similar state of preservation, with the bottom part complete and, in the majority of cases, clearly legible, and the upper part either completely lost or eroded to the point where they can no longer be deciphered. This undoubtedly reflects the level of

Figure 2.1. Stelae in situ in the northern sector of Cemetery 2. Front row (left to right): 121, 129; middle row: 73, 163, 137; back row: 101, 99, 144, 82, 100, 192, 141 (PCMA UW/photo G. Ochała).

sand accumulated on the cemetery; everything that protruded above the sand would have disintegrated due to natural conditions. This is also indirectly indicated by the fact that none of the fragments from the upper edges of the stelae found in secondary contexts belongs to any of the tombstones discovered in situ. On this basis, one can assign a presumable in-situ origin for certain objects that are otherwise without provenance, especially those from Lepsius’s lot (see above, 1.2.1). Shinnie and Chittick (1961, 23) reported that ‘[t]he bottom parts of six stelae were found in their original position’ in Cemetery 2, but only four are labelled as such in either their publication or the SNM registers (checked by van der Vliet and Łajtar). These are 2, 77, 119, and 147. A fifth fragment, judging by its state of preservation, could be 78, which was described by the excavators only as having come from this cemetery. It is preserved only in its lower part with the upper surviving edge heavily eroded,

26

c ha p te r 2

Figure 2.2. Plan of the northernmost section of Cemetery 2. Excavated tombs are marked in grey, among which secondary burials are dark grey. Tombs with epitaphs are marked with black ‘stelae’ and corresponding catalogue numbers (PCMA UW/ drawing J. Ciesielska; modified by G. Ochała).

as is the case in almost all other examples found in situ. The identity of the sixth piece cannot be established. Unfortunately, apart from the numbers assigned to two structures — grave no. 1 for 119 and no. 3 for 77 — and the information that the (apparently unnumbered) tomb with stela 2 was situated near the southern wall of the monastery (Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 23), the excavators did not leave any clue as to the precise location of the tombs from which they had retrieved the stelae. During the Polish-Sudanese excavations, an additional twenty-one in-situ epitaphs were uncovered.1 All were located in the northernmost part of Cemetery 2, just outside the southern gate of the monastery (Figs 2.1 and 2.2). It is from this sector that Shinnie and Chittick’s stela 2 almost certainly originates, but during the excavations no traces of previous digging were identified.

1 What follows relies in a huge part on the information from Joanna Ciesielska, who, together with Robert Stark, excavated Ghazali cemeteries as the archaeo­logists and anthropo­logists of GASP. A detailed account of their work will be published in a separate volume Ciesielska and Stark (in preparation); preliminarily, see, Ciesielska, Obłuski, and Stark 2018; Stark and Ciesielska 2018; 2019.

Three cases merit special attention, as the context of their discovery differs slightly from the rest of the group. First, stela 70, the epitaph of the monk Marianos, one of the very few completely and perfectly preserved tombstones from Ghazali, was not discovered exactly in situ: it was retrieved from the shaft of grave Ghz-2-135 to which it must originally have belonged. Because its surface bears no traces of erosion, we can assume that the stone had already slid from its original position in the Middle Ages. Thus, while the object was not technically found in situ, we can be certain of its original position and can thus consider it as having been found in its original context. Second, epitaphs 99 and 166 were found at the west end of structures that seemed at the surface level to be mastabas, Ghz-2-144 and Ghz-2-141, respectively. Upon exploration, however, there turned out to be no burials underneath. Could they have been cenotaphs? Or were the circumstances of discovery purely accidental? In any case, the material and technique of execution appear to be coherent with most of the sandstone epitaphs in this section of the cemetery: they were cut out from white(ish) sandstone and the letters were painted black (102, 103, 121, 137, 163, 164).

archaeo­lo gi cal context

The third, and most important example is epitaph 127. This is a fragmentary stela, several pieces of which were reused in the construction of the mastaba of Tomb Ghz-2-148. However, its lower left corner was discovered standing upright in the western part of the mastaba covering this same tomb, which strongly suggests that this was indeed the original location of the tombstone. It may therefore be assumed quite safely that Tomb Ghz-2-148 was in fact a secondary grave dug into the mastaba of an earlier grave without completely dismantling it sometime in the ninth–tenth centuries.2 The debris from the mastaba, together with the remains of the stela, were subsequently used to fill in the burial pit and construct the mastaba of the new grave. No fragment from the upper part of the stela was discovered in the fill, which suggests that the epitaph had already been damaged when the new tomb was dug. However, the most important point about this stela is that it carries the only surviving annual date in the epi­graphic material from Ghazali, allowing us to date the object between ad 764 and 773. If we are correct in assuming that one of its pieces was indeed found in situ, it gives us an important chrono­logical anchor for the development of Cemetery 2. Dated to the second half of the eighth century, the grave must have belonged to an individual from one of the earliest generations of monks at Ghazali.3 It is natural that the earliest graves should be located closest to the monastery; this is further confirmed by the 14C dating of tomb Ghz-2-135 — whence the stela of Marianos (70) originates — to the mid-seventh–mid-eighth centuries.4 The palaeo­ graphy of the epitaph of Marianos and the other ones found in the area appears also to be consistent with this dating, pointing to a terminus ante quem in the tenth century (see below, 46). However, the spatial development of the cemetery was probably not as straightforward as it would seem on the basis of its highly regular arrangement. Looking at the ground plan of the cemetery, in which the tombs have been placed tightly in rows separated only by narrow pas- sages, one might assume a topo­graphic model of development, with new burials simply continuing



2 A sample extracted from the grave has provided the following dating in the Carbon 14 (14C) analysis: cal ad 777 (95.4 per cent) 981; cal ad 880 (68.2 per cent) 970. All 14C analyses discussed here were conducted in August 2020 by the Poznań Radiocarbon Laboratory, Adam Mickiewicz University. 3 If the monastery was indeed erected during the reign of King Merkourios (see above, 17). 4 A sample from this grave has provided the following 14C dating: cal ad 660 (95.4 per cent) 770; cal ad 669 (68.2 per cent) 764. Note that this is the only grave with a tombstone that was excavated, which allowed retrieving samples from its interior; all other tombs where the epitaphs were found in situ remain unexplored.

the existing rows in a southerly direction (Fig. 2.2).5 Yet there are also early graves (seventh–eighth centuries) in the southern extremity of the cemetery — some 100 m from the monastery6 — as well as much later burials right next to the early ones in the northern section.7 The presence of early graves at both ends of Cemetery 2 can perhaps be explained by the fact that, for some reason, the burial ground started to be filled in simultaneously from its two extremities. Burial locations may have been connected with the social status and/or position in the monastic hierarchy of the individuals, with the northern part reserved for the most important members of the community: the archimandrites and priests as well as the wealthiest and most respectable monks. The excavations confirm this to a certain extent, as the tombs in this part were generally very well executed with mudbrick mastabas. The southern section, where all the tombs either belong to the so-called ‘box-grave’ type or have a superstructure consisting of a single layer of mud bricks — neither of which would have provided a place for a stela8 — was probably designated for the poorer part of the community. In both parts of the cemetery, however, examples of the so-called ‘vaulted tombs’ were found, an evidently costly type of burial featuring single or double mud-brick vaults in the substructure (Ciesielska, Obłuski, and Stark 2018, 262–63, fig. 6). Nor does the epi­graphy support the hypothesis that the cemetery was divided by status and wealth. On the contrary, as far as can be ascertained, the individuals buried in the northern sector were ordinary monks, and there is one instance (98) of a pistos, who — if a member of the 5 Cf. Ciesielska, Obłuski, and Stark 2018, 260: ‘[s]urprisingly well-preserved mud-brick mastabas in the northern sector are believed to be the oldest in the cemetery, probably from the end of 7th or beginning of the 8th c. ad’. Graves 140, 142, 146–55 are exceptions here. They are most probably secondary or even postmonastic, as some of them were dug into earlier structures, and, moreover, women and children were buried there, too. 6 The furthest graves of Cemetery 2 are located 105.5 m from the monastery. The 14C dates have been obtained for the samples from the Tombs Ghz-2-035: cal ad 660 (95.4 per cent) 770; cal ad 669 (68.2 per cent) 764; Ghz-2-042: cal ad 669 (95.4 per cent) 865; cal ad 690 (68.2 per cent) 770; Ghz-2-009: cal ad 676 (95.4 per cent) 870; cal ad 687 (68.2 per cent) 775. 7 The 14C dates have been obtained for the samples from the tombs Ghz-2-119: cal ad 777 (95.4 per cent) 991; cal ad 891 (68.2 per cent) 970; Ghz-2-131: cal ad 875 (92.1 per cent) 1327; cal ad 1028 (68.2 per cent) 1260. There is also one tomb in the northern section of the cemetery, Ghz-2-128, where the sample has been dated to a much earlier period (cal 212 bc (90.6 per cent) ad 128; cal 165 bc (65.3 per cent) ad 28), but such a dating cannot be explained other than through a contamination of the sample. 8 The only exception known to us is Tomb Ghz-2-042 which had a brick mastaba and a small piece of sandstone stela still preserved in situ; no text could be deciphered on it, however.

27

28

c ha p te r 2

Figure 2.3. Plan of the Ghazali monastery with distribution of finds of funerary monuments (PCMA UW/drawing S. Maślak and others; modified by G. Ochała).

archaeo­lo gi cal context

monastic order at all — would certainly have been This observation, while somewhat surprising in the lowest in hierarchy (see below, 7.2.1). the local Nubian context, appears to be consistent The occurrence of two later tombs among the with what we find in the Egyptian material. Indeed, earlier ones (Ghz-2-119 and, especially, Ghz-2-131; see with a few exceptions, epitaphs simply fell out of use n. 7) can, however, be explained through an analogy in Egypt around ad 1000 (see Tudor 2011, diagram from Egypt. In the monastic cemetery at the monas3 at 215 and table F at 337–39).11 The most notable tery of St Paul (Deir el-Bakhit) in western Thebes, parallel is the monastery of Deir Anba Hadra at where the spatial arrangement is similar to that at Aswan, which has yielded the largest collection of Ghazali, the excavators established that in at least monastic funerary stelae from Egypt to date (Munier one row (Row V) the burials came from two phases. 1930–1931; cf. Tudor 2011, 110–12, 208) and which In the first phase, the tombs were constructed at a is intrinsically connected with Nubia.12 Unlike at distance from one another and in the second, the Ghazali, where the pre-eleventh-century dating of epitaphs is based on circumstantial and contextual gaps between them were filled in with new burials evidence, the dating at Deir Anba Hadra has been (Eichner 2018, 233–36, figs 1, 5–6). Judging by the established on the basis of annual dates preserved size and elaborate construction of the older tombs, however, this row was originally reserved for the in texts: the Aswan stelae date between the seventh burial of high-ranking members of the community, and the tenth centuries (Tudor 2011, 208). From the possibly abbots; graves in other rows were placed perspective of the whole Nile Valley, it is the persisright next to one another in chrono­logical sequence tence of funerary epi­graphy after the tenth century (Eichner 2018, 236–37). This interpretation would at such Nubian sites as Dongola, Faras, Qasr Ibrim, therefore be consistent with the hypothesis that the or Meinarti that must be viewed as the anomaly, not cemetery at Ghazali was divided according to the its disappearance at Ghazali.13 social/hierarchical rank. The only thing that would A comparison of the two monasteries reveals appear to contradict this interpretation, as we have yet another striking similarity: in both, the apparnoted above, is that the epi­graphy does not offer evient end of funerary epi­graphy coincided with largedence that the individuals in the northern section scale reconstruction works, carried out at the turn possessed any special status, unless one takes the of the eleventh century (Aswan: Tudor 2011, 111; very presence of a stela as a sign of elevated position. Ghazali: see above, 17–18). Moreover, the extensive A separate question is the absence of epitaphs reuse of funerary monuments as building material dated later than the tenth century. Unlike late tombs, during the reconstruction works has been noted which must be present somewhere,9 all evidence sugin both places. At Aswan, some two hundred fraggests that epitaphs were no longer in use at Ghazali ments from epitaphs were used to repair the floor from the eleventh century onwards. While several of the monastic church (Monneret de Villard 1927, 31). At Ghazali, a total of seventy-two fragments,14 epitaphs written in the so-called Nubian-type majusranging from complete stelae to tiny pieces of brocule (see below, 45) could theoretically be dated as late as the mid-thirteenth century,10 all such examples ken slabs or plaques, have thus far been uncovered in come from secondary contexts, which — if my reaalmost all parts of the monastic complex (Fig. 2.3). soning is correct — all date from before the eleventh To this number, one may add sixty-seven pieces discentury (see below, 31–32); the remaining epitaphs, even those found in situ, should most probably be dated to the same period on palaeo­graphical grounds 11 I thank Jacques van der Vliet for drawing my attention to this fact. (see below, 46). It is known that Nubian burial cus- 12 One should note, in particular, the architectural similarities between the Aswan cloister and the Nubian ones (see, most toms changed at some point so that the epitaph was recently, Obłuski 2019, 165, 184, 199, 201) and the presence among no longer required, but this is generally assumed to the monks buried at Deir Anba Hadra of six persons labelled have started at a much later period near the end of ‘Nobas’ (Munier 1930–1931, nos 7, 26, 28, 49, 50, 127). Furthermore, a mention of the Nubian king Zacharias in ad 962 (Dijkstra and the twelfth century (Ochała 2011a, 44). At Ghazali van der Vliet 2003) and the visit of a Nubian (arch)bishop Ioseph the change seems to have occurred earlier.

9 Under the hypothesis of the hierarchical development of the cemetery, we could suppose that the late graves preserving their stelae are to be found in the central part of the cemetery, which remains largely unexplored. 10 The latest precisely dated Nubian epitaph is the stela of Iesou called Ittou from Dongola, ad 1257 (Łajtar 2011, 46–54, no. 3 (DBMNT 614)).

in ad 1322 (Łajtar (forthcoming b)) strengthen the picture of close Nubian–Egyptian ties in this border region. 13 Note that (most of) the late Nubian epitaphs belong to the higher strata of society (bishops, civil officers, wealthy persons) and most of them originate from large urban centres, which suggests perhaps that the persistence of funerary epi­graphy was a kind of ‘elite phenomenon’. 14 This figure represents the field inventory of finds and not the number of actual objects, as in some cases, two or more pieces were matched to form a single stela or cross (see below).

29

30

c ha p te r 2

covered at Cemetery 2 outside of their original context, and an additional forty labelled as surface finds. However, we have not yet been able to identify any grave in Cemetery 2 with an empty niche to which any of these objects could be matched.15 Admittedly, some of the mastabas in the excavated northern sector of the cemetery were completely destroyed (e.g. Ghz-2-110 and 117), but it seems more probable that the tombs used as a source of building material were located in those parts of the burial ground that have not yet been excavated. In this context, the in-situ preservation of stelae in the northern section of the cemetery is surprising: one would expect that the graves located closest to the complex would have been the first source of building material. It is possible that the layer of windblown sand was already so thick at the time when the cloister was being renovated that it would have been futile to attempt to uncover the graves. If, however, the 14C dating of Tomb Ghz-2-131 (ninth–fourteenth centuries) is correct, this part of the cemetery would still have been in use after the tenth century. Indeed, it is possible that this section of the burial ground had a place of prominence within the community, who continued to bury their most respected dead there without disturbing earlier burials. In general, we can identify four types of secondary contexts at Ghazali: two inside the monastery — (1) debris filling monastic rooms, (2) repairs to walls and pavements — and two more in the cemetery: (3) debris in the fill of burial pits, and (4) building material for new mastabas. Whereas only small fragments were utilized in contexts (1), (3), and (4), the more substantial renovations required larger pieces. This is most clearly the case for 14, 46, and 213, all discovered in Room 8 and presumably used to fix the east enclosure wall of the monastery. 7 and 111 were inserted into the floor of the northern church; both seem to have been incomplete at the moment of their insertion, which indicates that they were used as a replacement for missing tiles rather than fulfilled any commemorative function.16 Finally, 136 was reused in the threshold between Rooms 50 and 60. There are also three complete or almost complete sandstone slabs that were found in circumstances difficult to explain: 20 in a niche in the southern pastophorium of the northern church; 31 on a mastaba in one of the dormitories (Room 65); 48 on the top of the wall of Room W. Since they do not have any structural function, it seems probable that they were

moved from their ‘original’ secondary contexts and left in a new spot; 31 was probably relocated in the Middle Ages, before the cloister fell into ruin, and 20 and 48 were presumably moved in modern times. As for the first context, at least some of the tiny fragments were used to fill the empty space between the vault and the floor of the upper storey of the monastic rooms. Admittedly, no original vault has been preserved that would have been filled with debris including the remains of epitaphs, but 38 (a) was found in the fill over a fallen vault that had once covered Room 67. Many other fragments were uncovered in the uppermost layers of the fill and had probably been used in a similar context, most notably 17 and 118 (b) — both from Room 77–80, 39 — Room 35, 91 — Room 212, 138 — Room 21, and 152 (b) — Room 109. Other fragments may have been used for other purposes, but in general the contexts at Ghazali are too disturbed to allow their function to be identified with certainty. It is important at this point to note the dispersion of the fragments of certain objects throughout the whole site (Fig. 2.3 and Table 2.1). While this tells us nothing about the processes by which the material was obtained (i.e. whether the stelae were already in a fragmentary state or were broken on the spot; whether the debris was gathered together in advance of the restoration works or was taken directly from the cemetery according to current needs), it provides crucial information regarding the chrono­logy of both the collection and the site in general. The presence of dated epi­graphic material in a given context provides a terminus post quem for the context as a whole, and vice versa: the dating of a context to a particular period can give us an ante quem date for the fragments of inscriptions found within it. If fragments of a certain object occur in different contexts, the obtained dates can be applied to all of them. Regrettably, our ability to date the contexts at Ghazali using the epi­graphic material is limited and imprecise, as only one annual date has yet been deciphered (see above, 27); dating must therefore be based primarily on formal or palaeo­graphical criteria. The only two relevant cases here are 17 (Room 77–80) and 25 (Room 94), which belong to a small subgroup of Coptic epitaphs that we can date, albeit hesitantly, to the ninth century, due to their characteristic formulary (see Catalogue, introduction to 17–26). The contexts of their discovery should therefore postdate the ninth century.17

15 This also pertains to the stelae reported to have been extracted from the tombs by Shinnie and Chittick as well as — presumably 17 This, however, does not help us date two other fragments found — by Lepsius (see above, 1.2.1 and 1.2.2). in the same contexts, 118 (b) from Room 77–80 and 150 from Room 94, as they can be both earlier and later than 17 and 25. 16 In any case, no graves have been identified beneath the church floor.

archaeo­lo gi cal context Table 2.1. Dispersion of fragments of funerary monuments throughout Ghazali.

Cat. no. Contexts 4

fragm. (a): surface fragm. (b) and (c): Cemetery 2 fragm. (d): Room 84, surface fragm. (e): Room 84, floor level

10

fragm. (a): Room Z fragm. (b): Room 104 fragm. (c): Cemetery 2 fragm. (d): outside monastery, to the west of south gate

29

fragm. (f): northern church fragm. (g): southern church other fragments not recorded

30

fragm. (a): southern church fragm. (b): fill to the east of southern church fragm. (c): Cemetery 2

38

fragm. (a): Room 67 fragm. (b): Room 22

41

fragm. (a): Room 38 fragm. (b): outside monastery, to the west

43

fragm. (a): Cemetery 2 fragm. (b): fill to the east of northern church

49

fragm. (a): Cemetery 2 fragm. (b): northern church

67

fragm. (a): surface (?) fragm. (b): southern church

118

fragm. (a): outside monastery, to the south fragm. (b): Room 77–80

143

is Room Z, which abuts the south-western corner of the northern church,18 and in the walls of which fragments of granite columns are visible, undoubtedly those that were removed from the church during its rebuilding (cf. Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 15). In these cases, the turn of the eleventh century is the ante quem date for the material found in the fill (Table 2.2a). Fragments belonging to the objects found in the four spaces mentioned above were found in two further contexts (Table 2.2b):19 30 (a) from the southern church is matched by 30 (b) in the fill to the east of the southern church, and 10 (a) from Room Z matches 10 (b) from Room 104. The presence of these two pieces dates both contexts to the same period. Table 2.2a. Contexts predating the tenth/eleventh century: original dating.

Context

Fragments

northern church

7, 20, 29 (f), 49 (b), 111, 159, 202

southern church

29 (g), 30 (a), 42, 67 (b), 114, 115, 122, 125, 161 (b), 167, 170

Room Z

5, 10 (a)

north-west annex 91, 128 (Rooms 212 and 235) Table 2.2b. Contexts predating the tenth/eleventh century: secondary dating.

Context

Fragments

two fragm.: in front of northern gate one fragm.: Cemetery 2

fill to the east of southern church

30 (b), 188, 189

152

fragm. (a): Cemetery 2 fragm. (b): Room 109

Room 104

10 (b), 120, 131, 184, 186

161

fragm. (a): outside monastery, to the north fragm. (b): southern church

For an epitaph to be reused as building material, the stela must already have been damaged and therefore useless as a commemorative marker; either that or the burial itself had lost its ‘validity’. We should not interpret this latter phenomenon as any kind of damnatio memoriae, but rather as the simple passage of time: after a few generations, there would be no more living memory of brothers long deceased. The reuse of stelae probably did not involve the disturbance of the burials themselves, only the dismantling of the superstructures.20

Another chrono­logical marker that helps us to date the archaeo­logical contexts are the indictional dates. This particular system of counting years in fifteen-year cycles, originating in the Roman Empire and arriving in Nubia via Egypt, remained in use until the tenth century (Ochała 2011a, 101–04). All texts containing indictional formula, unless dated otherwise, must therefore be dated prior to the eleventh century. In the case of Ghazali, these are 46 (Room 8), 87 (Room B), 128 (Room 235), and probably 91 18 This does not appear to be a room in the proper sense: it has (Room 212). Their dates serve as a terminus post three walls framing an empty space, but no floor or plastering, quem for their respective archaeo­logical contexts. and — most importantly — no doorway. We are more frequently able to date the material 19 Only contexts inside the monastic complex are meant here; other fragments of certain objects were discovered in Cemetery 2 using the context. The two churches and the northor outside the monastery, and as such are useless for the dating. west annex, all constructed at the turn of the eleventh 20 Note, however, that we have so far not come across any example century, are especially important in this respect, as of a dismantled mastaba with the grave still below the ground.

31

32

c ha p te r 2

Following this line of reasoning, I would venture the hypothesis that all fragments originating from secondary contexts within the monastic complex21 should be dated to the period between the eighth and tenth centuries. Whether they were all reused during a single major refurbishment of the cloister concurrent with the rebuilding of the church, or on different occasions between the end of the tenth and thirteenth centuries is another question, which cannot be answered without the analysis of other finds from those contexts, especially the pottery.22 This hypothesis is supported, first and foremost, by the dating of the six contexts listed in Table 2.2a–b, but also by the occurrence of the indiction dates in several objects from the secondary contexts, a system that went out of use in the tenth century.

2.2 Sepulchral Crosses Ghazali boasts the largest collection of inscribed sepulchral crosses discovered in Nubia thus far;23 unfortunately, all of them come from secondary contexts. Although most of them were discovered in Cemetery 2, they were either reused in the construction of later superstructures or found scattered around the graves. Some of the fragments from the latter group may be related to the tombs near which they were discovered, but this is by no means certain. There are, nevertheless, some indications of how the crosses were positioned on the tombs. In their report, Shinnie and Chittick noted that ‘[t]he stub of what may have been the foot of one such cross was found in position in the centre of the top of the superstructure of one grave’ (Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 23). During the GASP excavations, round holes were discovered in the centre of the mastabas of two tombs, Ghz-2–118 and Ghz-2-137, in which crosses had probably been mounted (personal communication of Joanna Ciesielska). Furthermore, in two of the crosses in our collection, 206 and 207, the bottom parts have been preserved, both of which feature a protrusion, narrower than the lower edge of the bottom arm of the cross. The archival photo of 206 shows that the protrusion was left largely unworked, 21 I exclude here stray surface finds, which are naturally devoid of context, but also those coming from secondary contexts in Cemetery 2, as basically no chrono­logical indicators for them exist. 22 The pottery from Ghazali is currently being prepared for publication by Katarzyna Danys and Małgorzata Korzeniowska. 23 For Nubian sepulchral crosses in general, see Żurawski 1999, 208–09; for an overview of inscribed specimens, see Łajtar 2003a, 156–57; for those bearing the inscription ‘light – life’, see Tsakos 2011.

which would indicate that the crosses were meant to be dug into the mastabas. The upright crosses of varying shape and decoration must have presented an impressive view, especially when we take into account the considerable size of some of them, up to approximately 45 cm in height (see below, 3.2).

C h a pter 3

The Materiality of Funerary Inscriptions from Ghazali 3.1 Materials With the exception of a single marble stela, the material used in the funerary monuments at Ghazali was either fired clay (terracotta) or sandstone; in four of the objects belonging to Lepsius’s lot but never brought to Berlin, the material could not be identified (Fig. 3.1). On the basis of autoptic examination of the pieces discovered during the GASP excavations, and of the descriptions included in the catalogues of inscriptions from the SNM (Łajtar 2003a; van der Vliet 2003), the material used for the production of the terracotta stelae and crosses was exclusively Nile clay with greater or lesser mineral and organic admixtures. The sandstone artefacts come in two varieties, a more solid one, brown or brownish in colour, and a white or whitish one, looser, more fragile, and very often powdery to the touch. Clay would not have been available in the vicinity of the monastery and must therefore have been procured from the Nile Valley. The same material was also used in construction elements — such as water pipes, tiles, and window grilles — which have been found in large quantities throughout the monastery.1 There have not yet been any large furnaces discovered on the site or in the vicinity that might have been used for firing these objects, nor have any such structures dating from the medi­eval period been discovered during the survey of Wadi Abu Dom (Eger, Karberg, and Lohwasser 2019). It is therefore reasonable to assume that both the raw material and the finished products came from specialized workshops in the Nile Valley and were then transported to Ghazali on the backs of donkeys or camels.2 Sandstone is by far the most common stone material used in Nubian architecture and funerary epi­graphy. At Ghazali, in addition to the funerary monuments, it was used in the construction of the lower parts of the walls of the northern church, and in the arches of the northern and southern gates. Although no geo­logical survey has yet been carried



1 Szymon Maślak is preparing a separate study of this material. 2 Needless to say, such workshops would be producing all objects made of fired clay, not only the funerary stelae.

Figure 3.1. Materials of funerary monuments from Ghazali.

out, the scale on which the material was used indicates that it must have been readily available at a reasonably short distance from the monastery; moreover, the two different types of sandstone — brown and white — suggest the existence of two different sources.3 As with the terracotta monuments, the production of stone stelae also seems to have been outsourced.4 This theory is supported by epitaph 106: the inscription ends with a series of six crosses distributed in two lines (ll. 6–7), among which all are carved but for the last one in line 6, which is painted in black on the surface of the stone. We may assume that the person who carved the inscription in the workshop forgot about the final cross, which was noticed only after the stela had been brought to the monastery; the decision to paint the missing cross may have been due to the absence of a stonecutter on site.5

3 According to Stefan Bading, a stonemason working with GASP on the reconstruction of the main gate of the monastery compound, identical sandstone as that used at Ghazali can be found in a quarry on the opposite side of the river, near Merawi el-Shariq. However, without a proper geo­logical survey, it is impossible to say if this was really the only such place in the vicinity. 4 Just as in the case of terracotta stelae, sandstone epitaphs would have been produced by a general stonecutter workshop. 5 An opposite explanation, namely that the painted cross is a leftover from the original design phase of the epitaph that was mistakenly omitted by the stonecutter, is much less likely, because the same paint is visible inside some letters, most notably in the large epsilon at the beginning of line 5. Had it been the case, the paint would have remained only outside the incisions.

34

c ha p te r 3

The final material attested at Ghazali is marble. Apart from a single funerary stela (136), marble tiles were used to pave the floor of the sanctuary of the northern church. This luxurious metamorphic rock was employed rarely in Nubia, most notably in epi­ graphy. While some pieces were probably imported from Egypt, many must have been of local provenance: marble outcrops have been identified in the area of Tanjur, the Third Cataract, and Abu Hamed (Whiteman 1971, 42, fig. 22). Its scarcity at Ghazali suggests that the material was most probably brought from a considerable distance.

3.2 Techniques of Execution The majority of epitaphs from Ghazali — as far as can be judged due to the fragmentary state of their preservation — are simple, more or less rectangular slabs or plaques. Only in eleven cases do we find round-topped stelae (6, 8, 9, 29, 44, 47, 54, 76 (?), 168, 172, and 179 (?)); one terracotta epitaph has an oval shape with flat bottom edge (3), and two additional pieces belonging to the bottom part of terracotta plaques (167 and 189) appear to have rounded bottom edge. The sepulchral crosses from Ghazali come in several forms. The most common is a cross pattée with arms widening towards the edge; the widening can be either subtle (207, 208, 211, 214, 215) or prominent (206, 209). Less numerous are crosses with straight arms (210, 213, 216, 217 (?), 218, 223 (?)). There is also one example in which the arms seem to be widening towards the centre (222). Finally, there is a single example of a cross with forked arms (219), a kind of Maltese cross, but with straight arms. The dimensions of the objects differ slightly according to their material. For the sandstone stelae, the height ranges between 34 (46) and 55 cm (71), and the width between 20 (78) and 38 cm (48); the average height is approximately 40–45 cm, and the width tends to be around 30 cm. The terracotta epitaphs are slightly larger, with the average height and width estimated at around 45 and 40 cm respectively. Only three of the crosses have been preserved in a state that allows for an estimate of measurements. The complete sandstone cross 206 measures 62 cm by 30 cm; for 216 only the total width is known, 26 cm. The only terracotta cross for which measurements can be reconstructed, 214, was approximately 45 cm in height and around 36 cm in width. The epi­graphic field in both the stelae and the crosses was treated in the following ways: 1) plain, without any marking (forty-eight objects),

2) marked with an incised line or groove, double or single (125 objects), 3) bordered by a raised frame (twenty-five objects), 4) placed on a raised surface (two objects). In twenty-four cases the margins have not been preserved. Most of the texts are laid out as straight lines filling the epi­graphic field. Occasionally, some letters cross the border of the field and are written in the margin, but for the most part this is not intentional. The two exceptions are 2 and 62. The former features the expression ‘… your servant’ written upside down on the left edge of the raised border; in the latter, ‘God of the universe’ is incised upside down on the upper edge of the plaque. In both cases, the texts were inscribed before firing and would thus have been intended from the outset, but their function is not at all clear, as they could not have been read properly from the tombstone mounted in the mastaba. The only true variation in layout occurs in 68, where the text was arranged on and between the arms of a simple cross of roughly equal arms incised within the epi­graphic field. The texts of the stone inscriptions were incised with chisels. In contrast with the terracotta stelae, the texts of the stone inscriptions never cross the border of the epi­graphic field and are, as a rule, nicely arranged. This suggests that either the text was drawn on the surface of the stone before it was chiselled, or the stonecutter worked from a model drawn by a redactor. The terracotta epitaphs were drawn almost exclusively in wet clay with a stick. The exceptions are 2, 84, and 131, which appear to have been incised after firing. The most interesting of these is 2, in which the text of the epitaph was first painted in white, and only afterwards were the letters — although not all of them — scratched through the paint (see the introduction to the edition below and Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 23). It is difficult to explain why such a technique was used, especially as the phrase ‘… your servant’ was incised on the border of the stela before firing. The sticks used to write in clay were generally sharp and well prepared, although in several cases (5, 37, 153), the working end appears not to have been sharpened and/or polished well enough. Many of these objects suggest that they were written directly by the redactor without any preparations: the letters are quite often cramped and occasionally written on the borders; sometimes they grow smaller and more tightly spaced towards the end, and the interlinear space becomes smaller at the bottom. Moreover, the letters are in most cases nicely and fluently shaped, pointing to advanced

t he mat e ri ali t y o f f u ne rary i nscri pt i o ns f ro m  gh azali

3.3 Decoration

writing skills of the redactors (see below, 5.1). In some of the objects, a peculiar technique was used for incising letters, which involved marking the endings of the strokes with deep points then connecting them with shallower lines (or vice versa).6 If it was the dots that were established first, they may have been guides to assist in the drawing of even and nicely shaped letters; if the lines were drawn before the dots, we may assume that the dots were probably purely decorative.7 On both the sandstone and terracotta stelae, the texts were normally inscribed without guidelines. In nineteen cases, however, ruling in the form of incised lines can be seen. In the majority of these cases, the lines are deep, more or less straight, and regularly spaced (4, 5, 6, 26, 29, 34, 37, 38, 74, 80, 88, 94, 97, 142, 159, 177), but in three cases they are barely marked (9, 19, 21); the letters do not touch the lines. In one example, 19, the stonecutter did not respect the ruling: he incised the first five lines of the inscription within the guidelines, but starting with line 6, which is partly inscribed on the line, he distributed the lines quite freely. Many of the inscriptions included painted elements, including letters and crosses, incised borders of the epi­graphic field, and sometimes ruling or even the whole surface. In the case of the terracotta stelae, the paint was probably applied after the firing; in the stone epitaphs, the letters were painted after incision. The painted elements were not therefore a part of the production process per se, but rather a decorative technique (see above, 33, with n. 5). In many cases, the colour has altered, faded, or is preserved only in traces, which makes it difficult to identify properly, but it appears that two general types of paint were in use, a dark one (black, purple, violet, red, green) and light one (white, cream, yellow, orange). In the case of one terracotta plaque (2), the letters were painted first and then incised (see above) and in one sandstone stela (106), a missing cross at the end of line 6 was painted apparently after the stonecutter had finished his job (see above, 33). In seven examples, alternate line painting was applied (see in more detail below, 36–37).





6 Van der Vliet calls them ‘pointed’ letters. They are found in the following terracotta epitaphs: 32, 38, 52, 55, 77, 90, 140, 142, 159, 184, 188, and 218. There is also one sandstone stela, 71, in which this technique was used. 7 It cannot be totally excluded that these letters are related with the so-called charakteres, letters with small circles at the end of each bar, commonly used in magical texts. If so, they would fulfil the same function as other apotropaic devices found in the epitaphs (see below, 36–37). I thank the anonymous reviewer of the volume for this suggestion.

The funerary monuments from Ghazali are generally devoid of decoration in either sculpted or incised form. The only exceptions are four of the terracotta stelae, 3, 29, 64, and 119. Three of these, 3, 29, and 119, belong to a very characteristic group of terracotta stelae with a raised border around the epi­graphic field moulded at a certain distance from the outer edge, leaving an uninscribed flat margin.8 The decorative patterns occur on the raised border and are slightly different in each case: 1) in 3, an XXX pattern was incised on all sides of the border and the whole border subsequently painted grey-violet; 2) in 29, the left, right, and top are decorated with an X·X·X pattern and the bottom with a zigzag line with dots in between the zigzags; the zigzag was then filled with purple paint, and the X·X·X pattern with purple and yellow, alternately; 3) in 119, wavy lines have been incised and painted yellow on the sides.9 Epitaph 64, on the other hand, has a flat margin separated from the text by an incised line. The upper margin — the only one preserved — is decorated with a series of deeply incised dots. The most common form of decoration used in the funerary monuments was painting (see also above, 3.2, sub fine). Paint was applied to the letters, the border and ruling lines, and, on some of the terracotta plaques, to all or part of the front surface. The most elaborate decorative technique involved the painting of alternate lines in different colours. The most notable example is 29 which, in addition to an incised border decoration, features the odd ruling lines painted yellow and the even ones purple. Other examples, regrettably only fragmentarily preserved, are 59 (white and red), 96 (white and red), 97 (yellow and another paint), and 156 (white and yellow/orange). Finally, 32 is slightly atypical: its surface was first painted with a light paint (white, yellow, or orange), the letters and incised borderlines were subsequently filled with dark (black?)





8 The other objects in this group are 9, 54, and 172, but there, the borders are left undecorated. Apart from 119, where this cannot be stated, because only the bottom part has been preserved, all these stelae are round-topped. 9 The bottom edge is occupied by the last line of the text and is therefore undecorated. This indicates that the decoration was prepared only after the text had been ready.

35

36

c ha p te r 3 Table 3.1. Types of crosses in Ghazali funerary monuments.

geometrical pattern. The other painted examples are 211 and 221; in both of them a dark paint was used to fill the letters and Greek cross 2, 12, 13, 16, 21, 31, 32 borderlines. (?), 35, 36, 43, 44, 45, Elements such as crosses, stars, and dec46, 48, 60, 63, 65, 68, 69, 71, 74, 77, 82, 100, orative lettering were also used as adorn103, 105, 106, 116, 120, ment, although their primary function was 122, 130, 147, 153, 160, apotropaic (van der Vliet 2003, 26). At 161, 162, 165, 206 Ghazali, the last two occur rarely. A six83, 102, 117, 138, 140, cross potent pointed star is attested only in 18, where 170 (?) it occurs below the text between the decorative letters alpha and omega. In van der Vliet’s opinion, this may have been a ‘blundered “Solomon’s seal”’ (van der Vliet 2003, 136, with references to other Nubian exam14 (?), 50, 61, 70, 136 cross pattée / ples). Nor is decorative lettering frequent Maltese cross at Ghazali. It occurs either at the top of the stela, above the body of the text (6, 8, 29) or at the bottom (17 and 18). All    cases involve the alpha – omega symbol 1, 106, 164 Latin cross which in one instance (8) is preceded by the nomen sacrum of Jesus Christ. These letters are generally larger than those in the body of the text, apart from 29, where the surviving alpha is the same size as the other letters. Except for 6, which seems cross fourchy 135, 209 to have an uncial alpha (ⲁ), and 17, where only the omega survives, the alphas appear as the broken-bar type (), which was apparently considered a more decorative 28, 62 cross of form (see below, 5.1). Also, the omikron St Andrew? in [ⲓ︦ⲥ︦] ⲟ̇ ⲭ︦ⲥ︦ in 8 takes the form of a rhombus with a dot above; this is mainly, if not exclusively, used in Nubia when the name    of Jesus Christ requires a more ornamencross of St John 1 tal presentation, for example in the legends accompanying wall paintings, or in painted decorative inscriptions on pottery. Finally, the cross is an indispensable element of each epitaph. A single cross, as a rule, occurs at the beginning of the first line ‘dotted’ cross 144 of the text, and often appears again at the close of the epitaph. Additional cross(es) — frequently triple crosses, most probably symbolizing the Holy Trinity11 — can sometimes be found incised in the top or bottom paint, and finally, the same colour was used for the margins. Crosses occur in several forms at Ghazali ‘ruling’ separating the lines of text.10 (Table 3.1).12 The most common is the Greek cross Sepulchral crosses were also sometimes painted. The most representative example is 209, in which both the letters and borderlines were filled with black paint, and the back surface was painted in a 11 Cf. the painted representations of the Holy Trinity in this form in Name

Form

Occurrences

the cathedral of Faras ( Jakobielski and others 2017, no. 72). 12 I use here the standard termino­logy to describe various cross types in heraldry. They by no means refer to the origin of the 10 This cannot be a ruling sensu stricto, because it surely was painted author of the stela, let alone his confession. after the firing, when the text was already there.

t he mat e ri ali t y o f f u ne rary i nscri pt i o ns f ro m  gh azali

with approximately equal arms. Far less frequent are the cross potent, with T-shaped arms, and crosses representing a mixture of the cross pattée, with arms widening towards the edges, and the Maltese cross, where the arms have V-shaped endings. Three examples of the Latin cross, characterized by the longer lower vertical arm, are attested, and there are two instances each of the cross fourchy, with bifurcated arms, and the diagonal cross of St Andrew, here formed by four V-signs arranged in the shape of a cross, once enriched by dots.13 Finally, there are single instances of the cross of St John, which is basically a Latin cross with arms widening at the end, and of a cross formed by four dots, a type otherwise unknown among Christian symbols and in the heraldry.

3.4 Ghazali against the Background of Nubian and Egyptian Funerary Epigraphy When it comes to the quality of material and execution, as well as the richness of forms and decorative motifs, Nubian Christian funerary epi­graphy is generally less impressive than its Egyptian counterpart.14 While architectural decoration (the so-called aedicula), ornamental crosses, a variety of decorative patterns, and even the occasional figural representation of birds or men are found throughout the different regions of Egypt, only the first of these is attested with any frequency in Nubian tombstones. Ghazali, in turn, pales even by Nubian standards. Admittedly, the most richly decorated epitaphs are often found in larger urban centres — such as Faras and Qasr Ibrim — where they were prepared for the wealthiest and most respected members of the community; Ghazali, although possibly a royal foundation, was still a provincial monastery, far from any major centre. However, if we look at the provincial Nobadian civil cemetery of Sakinya, for example, we notice some two dozen nicely decorated stelae, of which only two belonged to titled individuals, in this case a deacon and hypodeacon; the rest belonged to individuals, both men and women, with no title. Neither the size and remoteness of the location nor the rank of the deceased seem to have much signif-

icance in this respect; nor, indeed, do these factors seem to have determined the types of materials used for tombstones at Ghazali, as nicely decorated terracotta stelae with architectural motifs are also known from Egypt (e.g. Crum 1902, nos 8724–26, pl. LVII). The simplicity of forms and almost complete lack of decoration appear to be part of a regional tradition. Indeed, among the 118 epitaphs known to date from the territory of Makuria, upriver from the Third Cataract — excluding those from Ghazali — there are no examples of tombstones with the ­aedicula type of decoration or other more sophisticated ornamental patterns; the southernmost examples come from Meinarti, just before the Second Cataract. The stelae from Dongola, the capital of the kingdom, obviously set the trends within the larger region.15 Although the Dongola epitaphs are of infinitely better quality — most of them are made of marble and were skilfully executed by qualified stonemasons — they are as plain and simple as those from Ghazali and other Makurian sites. Table 3.2. Terracotta funerary monuments from Nubia.16

Site(s)

No. of objects

Ghazali

137

el-Koro

29

Sai

25

Sakinya, Mushu

15

Dongola

10

Khor Dam el-Tor

7

Gebel Barkal

5

Mograt island

4

Umm Ruweim

3

Kirbekan, Missiminia

2

el-Arak, Arminna West, Bauga, Dar el-Arab, el-Ganaet(i), Ganetti, Gebaliya island, Goshabi, Karmel, Nag’ el-Sheima, Qasr Ibrim, Qasr el-Wizz, Sedeinga, Sur island, Teiti, Ukma East, el-Usheir

1

unknown

3

The use of clay as a material for funerary monuments also appears to be a part of the Makurian regional tradition. As the g­ raph in Fig. 3.1 above shows, ter-

13 They also can be perceived as simplified variants of the Maltese cross, with only the endings of the arms marked, not the arms themselves. Similar crosses occur in the epitaph of Isousiko from 15 As was the case with, e.g., church architecture, on which see, Qasr Ibrim, ad 1034 (Richter 2013, no. 65 (DBMNT 569)). Godlewski 1998 and Obłuski 2016. 14 Compare the plates in, e.g., Cramer 1957, Kamel and Girgis 1987, 16 The list of sites and respective figures are updated from those and Martin 2005 with those in van der Vliet 2003, Łajtar 2003a, given in Tsakos 2010. Note also that the table covers both stelae or Łajtar and van der Vliet 2010. For the decorative motifs on and sepulchral crosses, the latter of which are not included in Egyptian grave stelae, see Badawy 1978, 210–15, figs 3:191–218. Tsakos’s article.

37

38

c ha p te r 3

Figure 3.2. Ratio of terracotta funerary monuments to those made of other materials in Christian Nubia.

racotta was by far the most common material for both stelae and sepulchral crosses during all periods of the monastery’s existence. Ghazali has yielded the most abundant collection of this type from the entire Middle Nile Valley, accounting for half of the 273 terracotta funerary monuments known to date (Table 3.2). According to Tsakos, who investigated the geo­ graphical distribution of terracotta epitaphs in Nubia, the phenomenon is of Upper Egyptian origin and is connected with ‘the diffusion of Coptic monastic traditions through Nubia’ (Tsakos 2010, 690).17 While this explanation appears fairly plausible, it does not account for the huge popularity of such objects at Ghazali and, more generally, in Makuria. A glance at the charts in Figure 3.2 should suffice to illustrate the statistical difference between the northern and southern parts of the Middle Nile Valley. Unfortunately, it is not possible to provide similar statistics for Egypt, as no corpus, database, or any kind of systematic list of funerary monuments have ever been made. The available catalogues, however, show that the number of Egyptian terracotta stelae was indeed marginal.18 It is true that almost half of

the Makurian terracotta objects come from Ghazali (137), but the Nobadian set, on the other hand, is made up mainly by the finds from Sai (twenty-five) and Sakinya (fifteen). Moreover, Makurian sites such as Mushu, el-Koro, and Khor Dam el-Tor yielded almost exclusively epitaphs of fired clay.19 Łajtar has suggested that the prevalence of terracotta at the two last sites, located to the north of the Fifth Cataract, may have been at least partly due to the lack of suitable stone material (Łajtar 2015, 146–47). However, in the cases of Mushu, just below the Third Cataract, and Ghazali such an explanation does not hold; here economic or cultural factors must have come into play. Clay was certainly less expensive and easier to acquire than any kind of stone, and the execution of a terracotta stela or cross would have demanded far less time and effort than a stone monument. In the case of Ghazali, a thriving monastery with economic activities that must have been fairly profitable (e.g. iron smelting, production of oil), the economic factor may not have been as relevant; the prevalence of terracotta can thus perhaps be explained in terms of adherence to a local custom. Although there are clear textual differences, we find similarly plain epitaphs in the monastic cemetery of Deir Anba Hadra at Aswan; the incised zigzag or plait patterns are found in only a few examples (Monneret de Villard 1927, 118).20 Epitaphs at the monastery of St Jeremiah at Saqqara also display a general lack of decoration, although not as extensive as at Ghazali or Deir Anba Hadra (Wietheger 1992, 98–100). If we take into account the known links between the monastic milieus of Egypt — especially that of Deir Anba Hadra (see above, 29, with n. 12) — and Nubia, we may suggest that the simplicity of epitaphs was a common element of the monastic lifestyle (or rather ‘deathstyle’) on both sides of the border: it was the text, not its visual representation, that was of primary importance; a more sophisticated presentation might have distracted from the meaning of the prayer. The few decorative motifs and techniques used at Ghazali are not unknown from elsewhere. The X·X·X pattern in 29 is a simplified variant of the XOXOX motif — with dots above and below the X-s and inside the O-s — found in the epitaph of Bishop Aaron from Faras, ad 972 (van der Vliet 2003, no. 3 (DBMNT 34)). The latter in turn, has

17 In support of his claim, Tsakos lists four monastic sites with terracotta finds, that is Ghazali, Kom H in Dongola, el-Koro, and Mushu. However, only the first two were indeed monasteries. Despite single finds of epitaphs belonging to monks, el-Koro and Mushu most probably were settlements (see Obłuski 2019, 80 (el-Koro) and 95 (Mushu)). Following Godlewski 2002, 96, Tsakos also assumed a possible monastic function for Umm (she proposed Edfou or Hemonthis as a provenance, but the Ruweim. The site, however, was totally excluded from Obłuski’s formulary of the epitaph looks very Nubian). synthesis of Nubian monasticism. 19 The only exception is the epitaph of Priest Mart( ) from el-Koro 18 There are no such objects in Lefebvre 1907 and Kamel and Girgis (Łajtar 2003a, no. 63 (DBMNT 29)), which is made of marble. 1987, and only three in Crum 1902, nos 8724–26 (all probably 20 Unfortunately, no photo­graphs of such stelae are available in from the very south of Egypt) and one in Cramer 1957, no. 55 publications for comparison.

t he mat e ri ali t y o f f u ne rary i nscri pt i o ns f ro m  gh azali

been characterized by van der Vliet as ‘a much simplified “Flechtmuster”’ well known from Egyptian funerary sculpture (van der Vliet 2003, 25). The shaping of an inscription in the form of a cross, as found in 68, occurs in several other funerary stelae from Nubia, including examples from Faras (Łajtar 2003a, no. 1 (DBMNT 1); Łajtar and Twardecki 2003, no. 107 (DBMNT 71)), Qasr Ibrim (Łajtar and van der Vliet 2010, no. 19 (DBMNT 652)), and Dongola (Łajtar 2003a, no. 20 (DBMNT 14); Łajtar and van der Vliet 2017, no. I (DBMNT 560)).21 Apart from the epitaph of Kel from Dongola (Łajtar 2003a, no. 20) — in which the inscription itself has been incised in the form of a Greek cross with an additional prayer placed between its arms, just like in Ghazali’s 68 — the effect was achieved by selective painting of certain parts of the text. An analogous decoration technique from Egypt is known, but there the crosses were sculpted into the surface of the stelae and filled with the text (Kamel and Girgis 1987. no. 27, pl. XII, and no. 64, pl. 64, both of unknown date and provenance; Tudor 2011, 290 (partial translation), fig. at 418 (lower right), perhaps from Panopolis). According to Łajtar, these examples belong to the widespread phenomenon of carmina figurata, that is ‘texts shaped in the form of a figure’, and its origins in Nubia should perhaps be sought in pre-iconoclastic Byzantine manu­scripts (Łajtar 2003a, 97, with further literature and examples). While Ghazali has certainly yielded the largest collection of inscribed sepulchral crosses to date (eighteen objects), similar monuments are well known from other sites in Nubia, including Dongola, el-Koro, el-Laqiya, Qasr Ibrim, or Sakinya.22 Just as at Ghazali, they can be inscribed with longer or shorter epitaphs, or the ‘light – life’ acclamation (see below, 6.4). Similar crosses are also found in Egypt and other parts of the Christian world.23

21 Note that all these examples, including 68 here, are in Greek, which may or may not be accidental. 22 For details, see the lists compiled in Łajtar 2003a, 156–57, and Tsakos 2011, 160–64. 23 See the examples and literature cited in Łajtar 2003a, 157, and Tsakos 2011, 165–67, to which add SEG XLV 2129 (unknown provenance and date; I thank Jacques van der Vliet for providing this reference).

39

C h a pter 4

Language Use

The funerary epi­graphy of Ghazali includes examples of the three principal written languages in use in Christian Nubia: Greek, Sahidic Coptic, and Old Nubian. The last of these, a written variety of the Nubian language spoken in the region,1 appears infrequently: the two cases are 1 and 75. In the former, we find the Old Nubian age formula, known also from other Nubian inscriptions, and in the latter, we find the title ‘asti of Pidd’, the meaning of which is not immediately apparent. The general lack of Old Nubian is not surprising: with the exception of the epitaph of King Georgios from Deir el-Surian in Wadi el-Natrun, Egypt (ad 1157), in which the prayer was composed in both Greek and Old Nubian (van Gerven Oei 2011 (DBMNT 558)), the use of this language in Nubian tombstones was limited to small phrases. Although Ghazali is far from the Egyptian border, scholars have noted the statistical predominance of Coptic over Greek in the epitaphs (Fig. 4.1). Junker discussed this in his 1925 article on Christian Nubian grave stelae on the basis of the epitaphs discovered by Lepsius. His notion that Coptic was a ‘Fremdkörper’ in Nubia, with no internal reasons to spread in the Middle Nile Valley, led him to connect the use of this language to the influx of Egyptian monks caused by oppression from the Muslim state ( Junker 1925a, 146). Although Junker did not say as much, his observation prompted a common opinion in later scholarship that Ghazali was in fact an Egyptian monastery, or at least one with a strong Egyptian presence (e.g. Shinnie 1974, 44; Łajtar 1997, 116; Welsby 2002, 238; Werner 2013, 193). This opinion was rejected by van der Vliet in his republication of the Coptic epitaphs found by Shinnie and Chittick at the monastery. He drew attention to the occurrence of Nubian names at Ghazali and claimed that the epitaphs ‘bear, textually and formally, an unmistakably Nubian and sometimes even local (or, perhaps “Makurian”) stamp’ (van der Vliet 2003, 104; cf. van der Vliet 2010; see below, 6 and 7.1).





* This section is an updated version of my article from the proceedings of the 27th International Congress of Papyro­logy (Ochała 2016). 1 See, generally, van Gerven Oei 2021, 1–29.

Figure 4.1. Languages of funerary monuments from Ghazali.2

In a previous article, I have argued that the statistical predominance of Coptic in funerary stelae should by no means be taken as an indication of the ‘Egyptianness’ of the cloister (Ochała 2016, 1273–83). Similar proportions of Coptic to Greek in funerary epi­graphy can be found throughout Christian Nubia (Ochała 2016, fig. 2); if we followed the traditional line of reasoning, we would also have to conclude that sites such as Qasr Ibrim (52 per cent Coptic, 30 per cent Greek), Sakinya (78 per cent Coptic, 21 per cent Greek), Arminna (55 per cent Coptic, 25 per cent Greek), or Mushu (40 per cent Coptic, 7 per cent Greek) had been overrun by Egyptians. The significant presence of Coptic in northern Nubian sites must, to some extent, reflect the fact that the southernmost part of Upper Egypt and the northernmost part of Makuria formed a kind of cultural unity (see, e.g., van der Vliet 2015); one can even safely assume that there were Egyptian communities in Makuria, as suggested by a typikon found at Qasr Ibrim with incipits of liturgical readings in Coptic that may have served a local Egyptian community (Hagen and Ochała 2014 (DBMNT 2769); Ochała 2015, 19–20). On the basis of onomastics, however, a majority of the epitaphs — written in either Greek or Coptic — belonged unmistakably to native Nubians who bore local Nubian names. Differences in the distri

2 For the sake of simplifying the image, the two Greek epitaphs containing single Old Nubian phrases have been included in the total number of Greek funerary monuments; analogously, Coptic epitaphs employing the Greek dating formula (nos 19, 28, and 118) are treated as Coptic.

42

c ha p te r 4

bution patterns between the north — where Coptic sources are more or less evenly spread — and the south, where they are most concentrated at Ghazali (cf. Ochała 2014, tables 9a and 9b),3 may be attributed to the state of preservation of the sources and/ or the intensity and scale of research in the different regions; however, they are more probably the result of regional variations arising from cultural and/or social factors (van der Vliet 2010, 768). The choice of language for an epitaph appears to have been either a matter of personal preference, in particular one’s perception of the social and cultural prestige of a given language, or the specificity of social milieu. While the presence of some Egyptian monks at Ghazali cannot be ruled out, it seems more plausible that the monastic character of the community made Coptic the language of choice (van der Vliet 2010, 768; Ochała 2016, 1278). After all, the models of the monastic lifestyle came directly from Egypt and were propagated by means of Egyptian literature (cf. Obłuski 2019, esp. 118, 198–201, 307–08; see also below, 7.1 and 7.2). The high social standing of Coptic at Ghazali is confirmed by its appearance in other types of sources: wall inscriptions (Ochała 2016, 1278–79) and inscriptions on pottery (e.g. Shinnie and Chittick 1961, fig. 39:100 (DBMNT 2580)).4 Furthermore, a fragment of a large terracotta container (?) with an exercise in the Coptic alphabet (inv. G.13.051 (DBMNT 3122)),5 demonstrates clearly that Coptic was taught within the monastery walls (Ochała 2016, 1280). The ongoing discussion regarding the prominence of Coptic at Ghazali has overshadowed the role and position of Greek within the monastic community. I have already noted elsewhere the presence of Greek wall inscriptions with liturgical prayers, which suggests that the liturgy was performed there in this language, as everywhere in Nubia (Ochała 2016, 1280). An examination of the entire corpus of Ghazali funerary epi­graphy reveals that the Greek used there was of a remarkably high quality. Although the Coptic used at Ghazali is generally faultless, as it





3 The figures for Makuria have changed considerably since the publication of the article, as many new texts have been entered into the DBMNT. At the time of writing the present book, the count was 633 Greek texts, 157 Coptic, 130 Old Nubian, eighty Greek/Old Nubian, four Greek/Coptic, and 911 unidentified. 4 The inscription has not been edited or commented on in the publication. It most probably reads ⲓⲁⲕⲱⲃ ⳦ ⲁ̣ⲣ̣[⸌ⲭ⸍]ⲙⲛ̣[⸌ⲇ⸍] | ⲁⲣⲓ ⲡⲉⲕⲁⲩⲁⲙ, ‘Iakob, priest and archimandrite. Make your food (i.e. help yourself to the food?)’; see also below, the com­mentary to 1. 5 The edition is in preparation by Łajtar (forthcoming c), no. XIII.1. For the description and illustration of the object, see Obłuski and others 2017, 388, fig. 12.

is in other parts of Nubia, the Greek is far better than that found in many contemporary Nubian epitaphs from other sites: one need only compare the indices of ortho­graphic and grammatical irregularities found in Łajtar 2003a and Łajtar and van der Vliet 2010 with those in the present volume. Phono­logical irregularities are relatively rare and mostly limited to cases of iotacism, the lack of distinction between short and long vowels, and the omission of the final -ν and -ς, all typical of late Greek in general, not just in Nubia.6 No morpho­logical aberrations have been noted; those connected with syntax are scarce and limited to uses of an incorrect case (which is, in any event, characteristic of Christian Nubian Greek and most probably connected with the lack of a declension system in the native Nubian language). Many of the Greek epitaphs from Ghazali display considerable originality in their vocabulary and formulations, especially when compared with their Coptic counterparts, which are, for the most part, extremely formulaic and repetitive, with only rare deviations from the established patterns. The most notable examples are 71, 72, 75, and 76, which have very few parallels in Nubia or elsewhere (see below, 6). Epitaph 71 is particularly interesting in this respect, as it appears to be the work of a talented redactor, well versed in both Greek and Coptic, who was able to adapt into Greek a formulary known from a group of Coptic pronoia epitaphs (17–26). His linguistic skills are further demonstrated by the use of words that are rare and/or unattested in Christian epi­graphy (μετεθεῖν, παραλαβεῖν, ποθεινότατος) and the only hapax in the corpus, namely ἐσθλοποιήσει. This high level of linguistic competence should come as no surprise, as Greek education at Ghazali apparently made use of such unusual words. This is illustrated by an ostracon with an exercise on the word ἀβροχεῖ, ‘he/she/it does not inundate’, a rare verb known only from Egyptian papyri.7 In yet another Greek school exercise, a list of words scratched on the wall of the northern church (inv. GN.IV.02),8 we find no extraordinary words,9 but the inscription itself offers further proof of educational activity at Ghazali. From this we may surmise that, while Coptic appears to have been the preferred written language within the community, the prestige of Greek was

6 Gignac 1976, 111–14 (omission of final -ν), 124–26 (omission of final -ς), 235–75 (iotacism), 275–77 (interchange of ο and ω). 7 Łajtar (forthcoming c), no. XIII.3. This will be a new edition of the text published in Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 71, no. 5 (DBMNT 2498). 8 The edition is in preparation by Łajtar (forthcoming c), no. XIII.2. 9 It lists: temple, wood, good, bad.

language us e

just as great. Furthermore, the average quality of the epitaphs in both Greek and Coptic indicates a high level of literacy at Ghazali and, most probably, a high level of monastic education. A thorough survey and study of all ‘educational’ texts (wall inscriptions, ostraca, etc.) from Christian Nubia in preparation by Łajtar (forthcoming c) reveals that Ghazali was not at all an exceptional place in this respect. The great majority of all such sources come from churches or monasteries,10 which places the Church in the central position in Nubia’s educational system. As Łajtar concludes, Greek was the primary language of teaching, but the other two languages of written communication in Nubia, Sahidic Coptic and Old Nubian, were also introduced at later stages of education, for which Ghazali seems a perfect illustration.

10 e.g. the cathedral of Faras, the church at Sonqi Tino, the monastery on Kom H at Dongola, the monastery at Qasr el-Wizz. Only seven out of seventy-three texts collected by Łajtar come from non-sacral contexts and for further two the exact findspot is unknown.

43

C h a pter 5

The Script and Scribal Conventions The present section is overwhelmingly technical, packed with descriptions of various epi­graphic phenomena, and as such will mostly be of practical use for epi­graphists studying Christian inscriptions from the Nile Valley. It does not provide any particular conclusions for the history of the Ghazali community for the simple reason of the lack of similar studies of other epi­graphic corpora from the entire medi­ eval Nile Valley that would offer comparative material. While even a superficial survey of Egyptian and Nubian Christian funerary epi­graphy for the purpose of such a comparison would go well beyond the scope of the present volume, I would like to envision the following subsections as a step towards standardizing the studies of epi­graphic material from the region. Only through adding new examples, ideally well dated and contextualized, will any progress in studying the epi­graphic phenomena be possible, both regionally and locally, that would reveal universal features, tendencies, regionalisms, chrono­ logical developments, etc. A truly tentative and purely impressionistic conclusion for now would be that Ghazali represents an epi­graphic tradition common to the whole Nile Valley enriched with some local Nubian phenomena (e.g. marking of the numerals). Whether any of the latter is specific to the monastery or traverses the entire Nubian epi­graphy still remains to be seen.

5.1 Palaeo­graphy The palaeo­graphy of Christian Nubian written sources remains largely uninvestigated. The most important studies include Eduardo Crisci’s description of the so-called Nubian type majuscule based on several literary manu­scripts (Crisci 1996, 122–27), Adam Łajtar’s characterization of palaeo­graphy of Greek funerary monuments (Łajtar 2003a, xvii–xix), Giovanni Ruffini’s palaeo­graphic study of Old Nubian documentary texts from Qasr Ibrim (Ruffini 2014, 45–49), and Agata Deptuła’s overview of different types of script found in wall inscriptions from the lower church at Banganarti (Deptuła 2021, 6–10). However useful, all of them are just more or less concise descriptions of the most characteristic features of different writing styles without any attempt at a comprehensive analysis or synthesis. This, however, should not surprise us, as any study on this subject

is hindered by two major obstacles. First, Nubian palaeo­graphy tends to be extremely conservative regardless of the language, medium, or genre of text: over the course of several centuries, we find the same letter forms in stone funerary inscriptions and private letters on paper, in visitor’s inscriptions scratched in plaster and magical texts painted on potsherds, etc.1 Second, very few of these sources can be dated precisely; even if we could detect palaeo­graphic differences between the texts, we are unable to place them on a timeline and establish a chrono­logy — even a relative one — of the evolution of the script. Łajtar, in discussing Greek inscriptions from the collection of the SNM, observed that there were two main types of script in use, namely epi­graphic majuscule and the so-called Nubian-type majuscule (Łajtar 2003a, xvii–xviii); this observation pertains equally to the whole Nubian epi­graphic corpus. At Ghazali, the epi­graphic majuscule is by far the more common of the two in funerary monuments. It occurs in four basic variants: round or square, upright or inclined. With a single Greek exception (71), both the inclined and upright forms of the square type occur only in Coptic epitaphs. The Nubian-type majuscule in its ‘pure’ form, either upright or inclined, occurs in only nine epitaphs, and it is much more common to find it mixed with the epi­graphic majuscule, with certain letters bearing the Nubian form. The script is characterized by the following letter forms (after Crisci 1996, 122): 1) a large beta protruding above the median with a smaller, round upper loop and a larger, triangular lower loop; 2) a delta with the right oblique stroke prolonged beyond the point where it meets the left oblique stroke and finished with a curve; 3) an iota extending below the baseline; 4) a kappa with the right ⲡ are more frequent, e.g. ⲡⲁⲣⲑⲱⲗⲟⲙⲉⲟⲥ with the complete lower margin, a large part of for ⲃⲁⲣⲑⲱⲗⲟⲙⲉⲟⲥ (Kubińska 1974, no. 11 (DBMNT 79), l. 24), the left one, and a smaller part of the right one ⲁⲡⲣⲁⲙⲓ for ⲁⲃⲣⲁⲙⲓ (Browne 1992 (DBMNT 596), l. 17), or ⲓⲁⲕⲟⲩⲡⲏ preserved. The epi­graphic field is framed by a for ⲓⲁⲕⲟⲩⲃⲏ (Łajtar and Ochała 2015, 74–84, no. 1 (DBMNT 2927), double incised line, leaving uninscribed marl. 15); ⲡ > ⲃ is much rarer, e.g. ⲃⲁⲣⲛ̄ⲟⲅⳝⲁ for ⲡⲁⲣⲛ̄ⲟⲅⳝⲁ (Browne gins of 2.5 cm on the left, 3 cm on the right, and 1991, no. 36 (DBMNT 584), l. 36). 60 P. Ryl Copt. 271 (Hermopolites, second half of fourth cent.), 2 cm at the bottom. The last line consists of three P. Köln Ägypt. I 17 (unknown provenance, seventh cent.), crosses, each formed of four dots. The crosses, O. Med. Habu Copt. 97 (Djeme, seventh–eighth cent.), and frame, and letters were painted black after firing. O. Frangé 756 (Western Thebes, seventh cent.). The front surface has eroded almost completely, 61 Note that in Trismegistos.org the Coptic forms ⲡⲁⲗⲱ and and only parts of last lines have been preserved. ⲡⲁⲗⲱⲥ are classified as deriving from the supposedly Greek name Παλως (TM Nam 4812).

5 . f ragme ntary ep itaph s 2 37

Palaeo­graphy: inclined round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: 2–3 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. [---- ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛⲧⲁϥ-] [ⲡⲱⲧ ⲛϩⲏⲧϥ ⲛϭⲓ] [ⲡⲣⲓⲙ]ⲉ̣ ⲙⲛ̣̄ ⲧ̣ⲗⲩ4 ⲡ̣ⲏ̣ ⲙ̣ⲛ ⲡⲁϣⲁϩ ⲟⲙ. ⲉϥⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ. †         †       † 3–4. λύπη

[---] the place whence weeping and grief and lamentation have fled. So be it. † † †

145. Fragment of epitaph (after LD VI, XII, pl. 103, 45)

146. Fragment of epitaph of a man (photo W. Godlewski)

The stela preserves the ending of the prayer and the final acclamation. The formula ‘in the place whence [---] and lamentation have fled. Amen, so be etc.’ is rare in Coptic epitaphs in general, but was it. [---]. apparently quite popular at Ghazali, where it appears The fragment contains only the ending of the prayer in as many as nine texts: 17, 18, 25, 58, 114, 115, 143, and the final acclamation. The reconstruction foland 145 (see above, 6.2.6: F8). Outside Ghazali, it lows the example of 143. occurs only in the epitaph of Deacon Petrou from Debeira West, ad 1029 (van der Vliet 2003, no. 17 (DBMNT 44)). 146. Fragment of epitaph of a man (DBMNT 903) 3. ⲡⲉⲙⲕⲁϩ ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧ, ‘pain’, which is more common in this formula cannot be read. The variant of the formula with ⲡⲣⲓⲙⲉ is very rare and has thus far been attested in Nubia only once, in the epitaph of Deacon Petrou from Debeira West (see above).

145. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 1419)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Lepsius’s expedition, findspot not recor­ded. Present location: formerly Ägyptisches Museum, Berlin (inv. 1496); then Skulpturensammlung und Museum für Byzantinische Kunst, Berlin (inv. 9681); now lost. Language: Coptic. Material: sandstone. Dimensions: 10.8 × 11 cm. Description: lower left corner of a slab. The epi­ graphic field is framed by an incised line. Palaeo­graphy: upright round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters not recorded. Biblio­graphy: unpublished; LD V (text), 292; VI (plates), XII, pl. 103, 45 (= 52); Cramer 1949, 11 (basic description). ------- [------------ ⲙⲛ ⲡⲁ-] ϣⲁ̣[ϩⲟⲙ ⲡⲱⲧ ⲛϩⲏ-] ⲧϥ̄. ϩⲁⲙ̣[ⲏⲛ ⲉϥⲉϣ-] 4 ⲱⲡⲉ. //[------------]

Excavation number: I 12.62 Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, 1954 season, Room B. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11602). Language: Coptic. Material: grey sandstone. Dimensions: 11 × 9 × 4.5 cm. Description: fragment of the left margin of a slab, apparently from the lower part. Palaeo­graphy: upright round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 2–2.5 cm; shallowly incised.63 Biblio­graphy: Barns in Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 73, no. 12 (ed. pr.); van der Vliet 2003, no. 80, pl. 50 (after the original in Khar­toum). Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph. ----- [--- ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ] ⲡ[ⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ ⲉϥⲉϯ ⲙⲧⲟⲛ] ⲛⲁϥ̣ [8–10] 4 ⲉ ⲡⲙⲁ̣ [ⲛⲧⲁϥⲡⲱⲧ] ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧϥ̄ [ⲛϭⲓ 3–4] 62 The number was not mentioned by either Barns or van der Vliet, but is visible on the photo­graph. 63 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 143, and on the photo­graph.

23 8 5. f r agm e n ta ry e p i tap h s

147. Fragment of epitaph of a man (photo W. Godlewski)

1. Barns ⲡ[; van der Vliet ⲡ[ϫ̄ⲥ̄︥ || 1–2. Barns ⲁ]|ⲛⲁⲡ̣[ⲁⲩⲥⲓⲥ || 2–3. van der Vliet [ⲛⲧⲙⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ ⲛⲧⲡ]|ⲉ

[---] May Lord Jesus Christ give rest to him [---], the place whence have fled [---]. The fragment contains the remains of a prayer for the deceased, of which only the request for rest in the place ‘whence pain etc. have fled’ has survived. 2. In his edition, van der Vliet reconstructs ⲡ[ϫ̄ⲥ̄︥ ⲉϥⲉϯ ⲙⲧⲟⲛ], however ‘Lord’ never occurs at Ghazali without

‘Jesus Christ’ or ‘Jesus’ (see above, 6.2.4, Table 6.3). Another plausible reconstruction is ⲉⲣⲉ]|ⲡ[ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ϯⲙⲧⲟⲛ]. 3–4. While the epsilon at the beginning of line 3 does indeed suggest ⲛⲧⲡ]|ⲉ, van der Vliet’s restoration of [ⲛⲧⲙⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ ⲛⲧⲡ]ⲉ seems too long, provided his reconstructions of lines 1 and 3 are correct. One may tentatively reconstruct [ⲙⲛ ⲛⲉⲛⲉⲓⲟⲧ]|ⲉ, ‘with our Fathers’, but such an abridged variant of the phrase (which normally takes the form ⲙⲛ ⲛⲉⲛⲉⲓⲟⲧⲉ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ, ‘with our Holy Fathers’, or similar) is not otherwise attested. Moreover, it would leave ⲡⲙⲁ without the preposition of location required in this context.

147. Fragment of epitaph of a man (DBMNT 25)

Palaeo­graphy: upright round epi­graphic majuscule with elements of Nubian-type majuscule; height of letters: 1.3 (ⲉ in l. 3) – 3 cm (ⲃ in l. 8). The inscription was carefully and deeply carved. Note the shape of the mu in lines 3 and 7 in the form of two concave vertical strokes connected by a low curved stroke; in line 7 the curvatures are practically eliminated and the bottom stroke is almost horizontal (see also 70).64 Biblio­graphy: Barns in Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 93, no. 78 (ed. pr., in Coptic font); Łajtar 2003a, no. 42, pl. 41 (after the original in Khar­toum). Transcription: after Łajtar and the photo­graph. -------- [---------------------] ̣ ̣[-------------- Π]α̣ῦνι η΄ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣. ὁ θ(εὸ)ς τῶν] π̣⸌ν̣⸍ευμ4 άτω̣ν [κ(αὶ) πάσης σα]ρκός, ἀ νάπα̣υ̣σ̣ο̣ν̣ τὴν ψυχὴ(ν) αὐτοῦ ἐν κόλποις Ἀβραὰμ · κ(αὶ) Ἰσαὰκ κ(αὶ) 8        Ἰακώβ. † // 3. ⲏ̇ || 5. ⲯⲩⲭⲏ︦ || 7–8. · ⳤ ⲓ̈ⲥⲁⲁⲕ ⳤ ⲓ̈ⲁⲕⲱⲃ 3. Łajtar ἡμ̣[έρα || 3–4. Barns ⲡⲉⲩⲙⲁⲧⲱ̣ⲛ

[---] Payni 8 [---]. God of spirits and of all flesh, give rest to his soul in the bosom of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. † // The fragment preserves an incomplete date lemma (ll. 2–3) and a prayer for the deceased (ll. 3–8). In this and the two following epitaphs we find the opening phrase ‘God of the spirits etc.’ included in the prayer part; it could also perhaps be reconstructed in 150, although see the commentary below. Outside Ghazali, this form of the invocation is attested in several bipartite epitaphs: of Deacon Silbestros from Ginari, seventh–ninth centuries (Łajtar 1992a, 147–49 (DBMNT 404), ll. 6–8: κ(ύρι)ε ὁ θ(εὸ)ς ὁ τῶν πν(ευμάτ)ων καὶ πάσης σαρκός), of Petros, eparch of Nobadia, from Dongola, ad 798 (Łajtar 2003a, no. 23 (DBMNT 16), ll. 9–10: ὁ θ(εὸ)ς ὁ τῶν πν(ευμάτ)ων (καὶ) πάσης σαρκός), of Markos, hegemon, from Banganarti, ad 786 (Łajtar 2003b, 162–65, no. 1 (DBMNT 606), ll. 7–8: ὁ θ(εὸ)ς ὁ τῶν πν(ευμάτ)ων (καὶ) πάσης σαρκός), and of an unidentified man from Dongola, eighth–ninth centuries (van der Vliet in Martin 2005, no. 109 (DBMNT 990), ll. 1–2: [---] τῶν πν(ευμάτ)ων (καὶ) πάσης αρκός). The early dates of these examples might

Excavation number: I 78. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, Cemetery 2, in situ in the superstructure of one of the tombs. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11626). Language: Greek. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and mineral (quartzite, mica) admixture. Dimensions: 21 × 25 × 3.3 cm. Description: lower part of a plaque assembled from three pieces, with the complete bottom margin and lower parts of both side margins preserved. The epi­graphic field is framed by a slightly raised 64 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of border, 1.4–1.8 cm wide. Łajtar 2003a, 150, and on the photo­graph.

5 . f ragme ntary ep itaph s 239

lead us to propose a similar date for the instances from Ghazali, which would agree with the general dating of the corpus on the basis of archaeo­ logical and other evidence (see above, 2.1 and 8). The presence of this formula at other Makurian sites (Dongola and Banganarti) suggests that it may have been a regionalism. 2–3. In Łajtar’s edition, one finds Π]α̣ῦνι ἡμ̣[έρα, but, as Alexandros Tsakos pointed out, the letter following the eta is unlike the other two mus in the text (ll. 3 and 7). He suggested that the eta could be read instead as the numeral ‘8’. This reading seems more plausible, as dating formulae which use ἡμέρα after the name of the month are infrequent in Nubia (see Ochała 2011a, table 36b at 241–44, sub 12 and 26).65 What followed in the lacuna could have been an indiction date, as the letter after the eta may be the iota from ἰνδικτιῶνος in an abbreviated form.

148. Fragment of epitaph of a man (DBMNT 818)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Lepsius’s expedition, findspot not recorded; rediscovered during Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations at Cemetery 2. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11610).66 Language: Greek. Material: grey sandstone of a very loose structure. Dimensions: 35 × 30 × 9 cm. Description: lower part of a slab with a large fragment of the right margin and a smaller part of the left margin preserved. The upper and lower parts of the fragment are completely defaced; the inscription is heavily worn and barely legible in the first lines. Palaeo­graphy: upright Nubian-type majuscule; height of letters: 1.5–2.3 cm.67 Biblio­graphy: (Editions) LD V (text), 292; VI (plates), XII, pl. 99, Gr. 548; Curtius and Kirchhoff in CIG IV 9124 (after LD); Revillout 1885, 16, no.  23 (after LD, with corrections to CIG); Lefebvre 1907, no. 608 (after LD); Weissbrodt 1909, 13–14, no. XXVI (after CIG); Kießling in SB V 8731 (after Lefebvre); Barns in Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 78, no. 26 (after the rediscovered stone); Tibiletti Bruno 1964, no. 28 (after SB); Łajtar 2003a, no. 41, pl. 40 (after the redis 65 The reference to the present text in Ochała 2011a, table 36b, sub 28, should thus be eliminated. 66 Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 78, mistakenly give inv. 11165 (see Łajtar 2003a, 148). 67 I have not seen the original; my description is based on that of Łajtar 2003a, 148, and on the photo­graph.

148. Fragment of epitaph of a man (photo W. Godlewski; drawing after LD VI, XII, pl. 99, Gr. 548)

covered stone; with the re-edition of Lepsius’s fragment at 149); (Secondary literature) Tibiletti Bruno 1963, 506 (on variant of the prayer); Łajtar and van der Vliet 2010, 83–84, with n. 98 (on the reconstruction of μισθαπο[---]). The edition below combines the readings made on the basis of Lepsius’s drawing with those offered by Łajtar’s examination of the original, although it does not follow one or the other exactly. All differences between them are duly noted in the apparatus. -------- ὁ̣ θ̣(εὸ)ς̣ τ̣ῶ̣ν̣ π̣ν̣(ευμάτ)ων κ(αὶ) πάση̣ς̣ σαρκός, ἀνά παυσον τὴν ψυχὴν 4 αὐτοῦ ἐν κόλπις τῶν ἁγί ων π(ατέ)ρων Ἀβραὰμ κ(αὶ) Ἰ[σὰκ] [κ(αὶ) Ἰ]ακώβ, μισθαποδ̣[ό-] [τ]η̣σο[ν] τ̣[ὸν] δ̣[οῦλόν σου] ----------1. ⳤ || 4. l. κόλποις || 5. ⲡⲣ︦ⲱ︦ⲛ; ⳤ; l. Ἰσαάκ 1. LD ⲟ̣ⲑ̣ⲥ̣ⲧ̣ⲱ̣ⲛ̣ⲡ̣ⲛ̣ⲱ̣ⲛ̣ⲕ, stone [---]ⲱⲛⲕ || 1–2. Curtius and Kirchhoff, Weissbrodt [--- μ]η[νὶ] | Παειν[ὶ] ι̅α. Ὁ κ(ύρι)ος; Revillout ⲟ ⲑ̄ⲥ̄︥ (ⲧⲱⲛ ⲡⲛⲁⲧⲱⲛ); Barns [ⲉⲛ] ⲙⲓⲛⲓ || 2. LD ⲡⲁⲥⲏ̣ⲥ̣ⲥⲁⲣⲕⲟⲥⲁⲛⲁ, stone illegible; Revillout ⲡⲁⲥ(ⲏⲥ); Lefebvre πασ[ησ] || 2–3. Curtius and Kirchhoff, Weissbrodt ἀνά|[π]αυσον || 3. LD ⲡⲁⲩⲥⲟⲛ, stone [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ⲛ || 4. Curtius and Kirchhoff, Weissbrodt [α]ὐτοῦ; LD ⲧⲱⲛⲁⲅⲓ, stone ⲧⲱⲛⲁ[ ̣ ̣] || 4–5. Curtius and Kirchhoff, Weissbrodt ἁγί|[ω]ν; Barns ⲁ̣|[ⲅⲓ]ⲱ̣ⲛ || 5–6. Curtius and Kirchhoff, Weissbrodt Ἀβραὰμ κ(αὶ) Ἰσ[ὰκ κ(αί) | Ἰα]κώβ; Revillout ⲁⲃⲣⲁⲁⲙ ⲓⲥ(ⲁⲁⲕ) | (ⲓ)ⲁⲕⲱⲃ; Lefebvre αβραμ ισ[αακ | ια]κωβ; Kießling, Tibiletti Bruno Ἀβραάμ, Ἰσ[αὰκ | Ἰ]α̣κώ̣β; Barns ⲁⲃⲣⲁⲁⲙ ⲕ/ | [ⲓⲥⲁⲁⲕ ⲕ/ ⲓⲁⲕⲱⲃ] || 6. LD [---]ⲁⲕⲱⲃⲙⲓⲥⲑⲁⲡⲟ ̣[---], stone [---] ̣ ̣ⲁ̣ⲡ[---]; Curtius and Kirchhoff, Revillout, Lefebvre, Weissbrodt, Kießling, Łajtar μισθαπο[δοτήσας] (as if in one line);

24 0 5. f r agm e n ta ry e p i tap h s

Tibiletti Bruno μισθαπο(δοτήσας) (as if abbreviated?); Barns ⲉ̣ⲛ̣ ⲧ̣ⲟ̣[ⲡⲱ] || 6. LD [ ̣]ⲏ̣ⲥⲟ[ⲛ]ⲧ̣[ ̣ ̣]ⲇ̣[---], stone illegible

[---] God of spirits and of all flesh, rest his soul in the bosom of the Holy Fathers Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and recompense Your servant [---].

and that the two illustrations should be treated as depicting a single object. The fragment forms the lower part of the stela and preserves the beginning of the prayer for the soul of the deceased. The name-date lemma must have immediately preceded the first preserved line of the text (see the commentary to 147).

In his edition of the fragment discovered by Shinnie 4–5. For the designation of the three Patriarchs as ‘(our) and Chittick in 1953 and now stored in the SNM in Holy Fathers’, see above, 6.2.6: F1. Khar­toum, Łajtar observed striking similarities — 6–7. Following Curtius and Kirchhoff, all later editors both in the wording and disposition of the text — reconstructed the verbal form at the end of line 6 as between this piece and the fragment depicted by μισθαπο[δοτήσας]. However, as Łajtar and van der Vliet Lepsius under the number Gr. 548. He suggested that observed, the context requires the aorist imperative either (1) two identical epitaphs were produced for μισθαποδότησον (Łajtar and van der Vliet 2010, 83 n. 98); two different persons buried at the Ghazali cemethis reading has been adopted here. Furthermore, if tery or (2) the piece was left on site by Lepsius and we assume that the right margin of the stone has been rediscovered roughly a hundred years later by the preserved, there is not enough space to reconstruct the British archaeo­logists (Łajtar 2003a, 149; cf. Łajtar verbal form at the end of the line; however, the remnants of the letters drawn by Lepsius at the beginning of line 7 and van der Vliet 2010, 83 n. 98). appear to fit the reconstructed form perfectly. If so, the There are two factors which would support the apparent tau must belong to the phrase τὸν δοῦλόν σου, latter solution: first, the fragment was neither listed which is further supported by a triangular shape that can by Lepsius among those that he brought to Berlin be discerned on Lepsius’s drawing, most probably a delta. (LD V (text), 292), nor included in Erman’s 1899 catThe occurrence of the verb μισθαποδοτέω is surprising. alogue (Erman 1899, 412–13); it has not been menThe word is lemmatized in neither LSJ nor Lampe, PGL; it is tioned in any other publication, nor can it be found in found only in W. Pape, Griechisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch, the database of the SMB’s collection; in fact, the only Graz 1954 (3rd edn), s.v., but without any attestations, only source suggesting that the stela was in Berlin comes with the siglum K.S. = ‘Kirchenschriftsteller’. Indeed, it is from Lefebvre, who indicated the Neues Museum barely attested in the corpus of the Greek sources: a search in the TLG, reveals only one form, μισθαποδοτουμένη, as the then whereabouts of the stone. However, he found in Theodore the Studite, Epistle 221.182. The verb must have made the a priori assumption that all the is undoubtedly a late secondary formation created from Ghazali fragments depicted in Lepsius’s Denkmæler the noun μιστθαποδότης, itself a composite of μισθός and 68 had been brought to Berlin. Second, in the corpus ἀποδίδωμι, on the basis of the verb μισθοδοτέω. While of Christian Nubian funerary epi­graphy, there are no the creation of such a verb is not surprising in itself — two epitaphs that bear such a close visual and forμιστθαποδότης is quite frequent in Christian sources mal affinity, even those prepared by a single redacas a designation of God, going back most probably to tor or originating in a single workshop. Hebrews 11.6: πιστεῦσαι γὰρ δεῖ τὸν προσερχόμενον τῷ θεῷ The only apparent difference between Lepsius’s ὅτι ἔστιν καὶ τοῖς ἐκζητοῦσιν αὐτὸν μισθαποδότης γίνεται, drawing and the photo is the state of preservation, ‘for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him’ (see but this is easily explicable, as the fragment would Łajtar and van der Vliet 2010, 84) — its occurrence in a have deteriorated considerably over the course of a Nubian inscription is striking. century, all the more so as Łajtar described the structure of the stone as very loose. We can also assume that Lepsius did not bother to draw the upper part, 149. Fragment of epitaph of Abraam, monk (DBMNT 853; Pl. XXIII:1) which must have been completely defaced in his time, just as he did not copy, for example, the uninExcavation number: scribed surface of 44. We can therefore be reasonably – fragment (a): Gh.2015.2.017A, certain that Lepsius did indeed leave the fragment – fragment (b): not registered. on the site, along with several other less appealing pieces, 113, 124, and 207 (see above, 1.2.1, Table 1.1), Findspot: – fragment (a): Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery 2; found together with two other fragments (152 and 153) in the layer of bro 68 Łajtar observes that Lefebvre did not indicate an inventory num­ ken mud bricks covering the superstrucber for the object. This, however, cannot be a valid argument for Lefebvre’s error, as he did not generally give inventory numbers for ture of a secondary (monastic) burial, dug any monument from Ghazali, even those known to be in Berlin.

5 . f ragme ntary ep itaph s 2 41

into the earlier Tomb Ghz-2-004. It is very probable that they had already been used as a filler in the original grave.69 – fragment (b): unknown. Present location: – fragment (a): Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered), – fragment (b): Sudan National Museum, Khar­toum (inv. 32115). Language: Greek. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is black, the front red (margin) to grey (centre), and the back red. Dimensions: – fragment (a): 13.8 × 18 × 2.1–2.8 cm, – fragment (b): 12 × 13 × 2.5 cm. Reconstructed dimensions: 17.5 × 27 × 2.1–2.8 cm. Description: two connecting fragments from the central part of a plaque: fragment (a) preserves a part of the right margin, and fragment (b) a part of the left. The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line, leaving margins of 1.5 cm on the left and 1.6–2 cm on the right. Palaeo­graphy: Nubian-type majuscule, mostly upright but in some cases slightly inclined to the right; height of letters: 2–2.5 cm. Biblio­graphy: – fragment (a): unpublished, – fragment (b): Łajtar 2003a, no. 83, pl. 80 (ed. pr., after the original in Khar­toum; no provenance; provisional inv. no.); Tsakos 2009b, 202–03, no. 7 (mentioned with new inv. no.; no provenance); Tsakos 2010, 690, no. 27 (mentioned; no provenance). ----- [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ἐκο]ι̣μίθ̣η [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ἀ]δελφὸς Ἀβραάμ ἐν μ⸌η̣⸍(νὶ) Φα⸌μ⸍(ενὼθ) 4 κγ΄. ὁ δὲ [θ(εὸ)ς] τ̣ῶ̣ν πν(ευμ)άτω[ν ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ε̣ί̣τ̣ω̣ αυ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] -----1. l. ἐκοιμήθη || 4. ⲕ︦ⲅ︦ || 5. ⲡⲛ︦ⲁ︦︥ⲧⲱ[ⲛ

[---] fell asleep [---] brother Abraam, in the month of Phamenoth, (day) 23. Let (?) God of the spirits … him (?) [---]. 69 I am grateful to Joanna Ciesielska for this information.

149. Fragment of epitaph of monk Abraam (photos M. Bogacki: (a) and W. Godlewski: (b); digital processing G. Ochała)

Although the provenance of fragment (b) has not been recorded in the museum files, the physical appearance of both pieces, their dimensions, the palaeo­graphy, and, most importantly, the text itself leave little doubt that they belong to the same object. The pieces preserve the death-name-date lemma and the beginning of the prayer. If correctly reconstructed, the prayer takes here an unusual form: while it starts with the well-known opening phrase ‘God of the spirits’ (see the commentary to 147), I am unable to find parallels in either Nubia or Egypt for the text that follows. If I am correct in supposing that αυ[ is the beginning of the pronoun αὐτός in an oblique case, it should be preceded by a verb in the imperative. Indeed, the letters before αυ appear to read ε̣ίτ̣ω̣, the ending of a third-person singular present active imperative, but the verb itself cannot be reconstructed with certainty. The first letter in the line seems to have a horizontal dash, perhaps a theta. If so, the verb should perhaps be reconstructed as [βοη]|θ̣ε̣ί̣τ̣ω̣. The whole phrase would then read: ὁ δὲ [θ(εὸ)ς] τ̣ῶ̣ν | πν(ευμ)άτων [βοη]|θ̣ε̣ί̣τ̣ω̣ αὐ[τῷ], ‘Let God of the spirits help him’. This, however, has no parallels in Greek Christian funerary epi­graphy from the Nile Valley or elsewhere; note, however, the epitaph of Ouareno/Ouaheno from Faras (van der Vliet 2003, no. 7 (DBMNT 37)), where we read ⲓ︦ⲥ︦︥ [ⲭⲥ ⲉⲕ]ⲉ̣ⲃⲟⲏⲑⲉⲓ ⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲙⲡⲛ̣ⲁⲩ ⲛⲧⲉⲉⲁⲛⲁⲅⲕⲏ (l. ⲛⲧⲉⲥⲁⲛⲁⲅⲕⲏ), ‘Jesus Christ, may You help her in the time of her anxiety’ (ll. 7–8). The use of the βοήθει formula is attested in Syrian and Egyptian Christian epi­graphy (see Peterson 1926, 2–4 (Syria), 63–64 (Egypt)); the form βοηθείτω, however, does not appear anywhere.

24 2 5. f r agm e n ta ry e p i tap h s

150. Fragment of epitaph of a man (DBMNT 4246)

Excavation number: Gh.2015.2.024. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Room 94, above the pottery deposit. Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: Greek. Material: porous Nile clay with small organic and mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is grey, the front red, and the back greyish red to black. Dimensions: 13.5 × 18 × 2–2.3 cm. Description: two connecting pieces from the middle left part of a plaque with a fragment of the right margin preserved. Palaeo­graphy: script between round epi­graphic majuscule and Nubian-type majuscule, slightly inclined; height of letters: 1.9–2.6 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. -------- [ 5–6 ἀνάπαυ-] σον τὴν [ψυχὴν] τοῦ δούλ[ου σου] 4 ̣ ἔτη · π̅[ ̣ · ἐν κόλπο-] [ις Ἀ]β̣ρ̣α[άμ 3–4] --------[---] give rest to the soul of your servant, age 8x, in the bosom of Abraham [---].

150. Fragment of epitaph of a man (photo M. Bogacki)

2. After τοῦ δούλ[ου one would expect the pronoun σου + the name of the deceased. Here, however, there does not appear to be enough space for both of them; together with the reconstructed part, the epitaph would have measured some 30 cm in width, a more or less standard size for Ghazali. The name, therefore, must have been given earlier in the text. 3. The age of the deceased at the time of death is stated very rarely at Ghazali; it is found in only six epitaphs (see above, 6.3). In addition, the positioning of the formula here is atypical, interwoven into the prayer for the salvation of the deceased’s soul. In ‘God of the spirits’ epitaphs, the age of the deceased is normally stated together with the dating lemma at the end, either following or (less frequently) preceding it; in bipartite epitaphs it is found in the middle of the text, between the name-date lemma and the prayer. Cases of displacements are rare but not unknown, for example the epitaph of the priest Solomon from el-Koro, which belongs to the ‘God of the spirits’ type (Łajtar 2003a, no. 61 (DBMNT 834)): ἀνάπαυσον τ̣[ὴν ψυ]χὴν | τοῦ δούλου σ[ου] Σολομῶ(νος) | πρ(εσβυτέρου) ἐν κόλποις Ἀβραὰμ κ(αὶ) | Ἰσαὰκ κ(αὶ) Ἰακώβ · ἔτη νζ ΄ | ἐν τόπῳ φωτινῴ κτλ., ‘give rest to the soul of your servant Solomon, priest, in the bosom of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, aged 57, in a shining place, etc.’ (ll. 3–7). The position of the supralinear stroke above the pi, slightly off centre, suggests that the numeral consisted of two digits.

What has been preserved is a fragment of the prayer for the soul of the deceased. It is possible that the fragment belongs to an epitaph of the ‘God of the spirits’ type, as suggested by the phrase τοῦ δούλ[ου σου], which — to the best of my knowledge — is found only in texts of this group. However, if the reconstruction proposed here is correct, there is no remaining space for the name of the deceased, normally found after ‘your servant’ in the ‘God of the spirits’ epitaphs (see the commentary below). 4–5. The reconstruction in these lines is uncertain, but Because of this, I am inclined to treat the text as a entirely plausible. fragment of a bipartite epitaph, in which the prayer opened with the ‘God of the spirits’ invocation, as 151. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 58) in 147–49 above; note, however, that in those epiExcavation number: not registered. taphs — as well as in other similar examples (cited in the commentary to 147) — the personal proFindspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, from noun αὐτοῦ / αὐτῆς is used instead of τοῦ δούλου outside southern door of the northern church. σου. Another atypical element is the apparent age Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ formula, which interrupts the prayer in an unusual toum (inv. 11593). manner (see the commentary below). All of this Language: Coptic. makes the identification and reconstruction of the Material: Nile clay; the surface is pink; traces of text problematic. light paint.

5 . f ragme ntary ep itaph s 2 43 151. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

Dimensions: 10.5 × 12 × 2 cm. Description: lower left corner of a plaque. Palaeo­graphy: round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 2–2.5 cm.70 Biblio­graphy: Barns in Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 70, no. 3 (ed. pr.); van der Vliet 2003, no. 76, pl. 47 (after the original in Khar­toum). Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph. ----- ̣ ̣ⲛ̣ⲕ̣[---] ⲫⲁⲣⲙ̣[ⲟⲩⲑⲓ ---] ⲙⲧⲟ[ⲛ ---] 4 ⲡϣ[---] 1. Barns ] ̣ⲛ̣ ̣ ̣[

[---] Pharmouthi [---] rest [---]. The fragment apparently preserves the remains of the dating lemma and prayer, but no coherent text can be reconstructed. 4. Barns thought that traces of another line were visible beneath line 4, which he transcribed ] ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣[, but there can be no doubt that stela ends here.

152. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4257)

Excavation number: – fragment (a): Gh.2015.2.017C, – fragment (b): Gh.2015.2.027. Findspot: – fragment (a): Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery 2; found together with two other fragments (149 and 153) in the layer of bro 70 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 138–39, and on the photo­graph.

ken mud bricks covering the superstructure of a secondary (monastic) burial, dug into the earlier Tomb Ghz-2-004. It is very probable that they had already been used as a filler in the original grave.71 – fragment (b): Polish-Sudanese excavations, Room 109, level 1, at the eastern entrance. Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: Greek? Material: porous Nile clay with organic and mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is black, the front and side red to grey (originally slipped, slip preserved only inside letters and incised frame), and the back red. Dimensions: 22.5 × 8.5 × 2 cm. Description: two connecting pieces forming the lower left part of a plaque. A large part of the left margin together with the lower left corner have been preserved. The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line, leaving margins of 1.5–1.9 cm on the left and approximately 1.4 cm at the bottom. Palaeo­graphy: upright square epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: 1.4–2.4 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. ----- υ̣σ̣ ̣[----] μη̅ ̣[----] σαβ ̣[---] 4 βα ̣[----] (καί) η ̣[----] Χ(ριστό)ς [-----] εν[-----] 8 ο̣[------] 2. ⲙⲏ̄ ligatured || 5. ⳽ || 6. ⲭⲥ︥

The language is most probably Greek, but no text can be reconstructed with certainty. 1. The ligatured ⲙⲏ̄ could be the abbreviation for μη(νός) or μη(νί); similar ligatures are found in 69 and 126. Although it is less probable, it could also be the numeral ‘48’ designating the age of the deceased, either at the time of death or at an important moment in life. 2–4. Assuming the text is in Greek, these lines could be reconstructed in the following manner: μη(νός) ̣[------------------ ἐν κόλποι-] ς Ἀβρ̣[αὰμ (καὶ) Ἰσαὰκ (καὶ) Ἰακώ-] β α ̣[------------------------------------] 71 I am grateful to Joanna Ciesielska for this information.

152. Fragment of epitaph (photo G. Ochała)

24 4 5. f r agm e n ta ry e p i tap h s

153. Fragment of epitaph (photos M. Bogacki; digital processing G. Ochała)

154. Fragment of epitaph (photo M. Bogacki)

Description: two connecting pieces from the lower right part of a plaque with fragments of the lower and right margins preserved. The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line, leaving margins of 2.2–3.2 cm on the right and 1.7–2 cm on the bottom. Traces of dark paint are visible inside the letters. The lowermost line was written on the borderline and the last letters of lines 2 and 3 were written in the margin. Palaeo­graphy: Nubian-type majuscule, upright and angular; height of letters: 1.3–2.5 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. ----- [----]τ̣η̣ς̣ [---] ̣αουν [-----]μων 4 [-----]ο̣ν [-----]θα [---] ̣ (ἀμήν) † 3. ϥⲑ

This, however, would leave too little space for even the shortest opening formula of the prayer, for example, ὁ θ(εὸ)ς δὸς αὐτόν, ‘O God, give him’. Also, the division of the words would seem highly unusual.

153. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4258)

The epitaph appears to be in Greek, but no text can be reconstructed with certainty. An attractive, but unverifiable reconstruction has been suggested by Alexandros Tsakos for lines 2–5: 2 3 4 5

[--- εὐξόμε]θ̣α οὖν [ἵνα ὁ οἰκτίρ]μων [θ(εὸ)ς ἀναπαύση τ]ὸν [δοῦλον αὐτοῦ]

Excavation number: – fragment (a): Gh.2015.2.017B; – fragment (b): Gh.2016.1.182. [---] Let us thus pray that compassionate God Findspot: give rest to His servant [---] – fragment (a): Polish-Sudanese excavations, 1. τ̣η̣ς̣ could be the genitive of the Greek feminine article Cemetery 2; found together with two other or the ending of a noun or adjective of the first declension fragments (149 and 152) in the layer of broin the genitive. ken mud bricks covering the superstruc5–6. According to Tsakos, θα could be a part of the ture of a secondary (monastic) burial, dug name of the deceased. He has proposed to reconstruct into the earlier Tomb Ghz-2-004. It is very [Ἀ]θα[νάσιον]. probable that they had already been used 72 as a filler in the original grave. 154. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4259) – fragment (b): Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery 2, southern part. Excavation number: Gh.2015.2.006. Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery (not registered). 2, Tomb Ghz-2-009. Language: Greek? Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima Material: porous Nile clay with organic and mineral (not registered). admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is black, Language: Coptic. the surface red on the edge, light violet towards Material: greyish white sandstone of very loose the centre (slipped). structure, fragile and powdery. Dimensions: 14 × 8.1 × 2–2.5 cm. Dimensions: 10.5 × 9 × 2.7 cm. Description: fragment of a slab, without margins.

72 I am grateful to Joanna Ciesielska for this information.

5 . f ragme ntary ep itaph s 2 45

Palaeo­graphy: upright epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 1.5 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. --[---]ⲙ̣[---] [---] ̣ ̣ⲱ̣[---] [--- ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ] ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ [---] --3. ⲭ︦ⲥ︦︥

The fragment may belong to the beginning of the prayer, but no coherent text can be reconstructed. 155. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4260)

155. Fragment of epitaph (photo M. Bogacki)

156. Fragment of epitaph (photo M. Bogacki)

Excavation number: Gh.2015.2.007. | εὐξόμεθα τ[ὸν θ(εὸ)ν τὸν οἰ]|κτείρμονα [ὁπως Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery εὐ]|εργετήσει.73 In Coptic, an analogy is provided 2, surface find. by 82, where ⲙⲁⲣⲛ︥ϣⲗ was also probably used. Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). 156. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4261) Language: Coptic. Excavation number: Gh.2016.1.002. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Room 102. black, the front red to grey; the back and side Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima completely eroded. (not registered). Dimensions: 8.6 × 7.9 × 2.5 cm. Language: Greek. Description: fragment of the right margin of a plaque. Material: very porous Nile clay with consideraThe epi­graphic field is framed by a slightly raised ble organic and small mineral admixture (mica, border. The last letter of line 1 was written in quartzite). The core is black in the centre and the margin. red close to surface; the surface is brown. Palaeo­graphy: script between round epi­graphic Dimensions: 8.7 × 10.3 cm (thickness not recorded). majuscule and Nubian-type majuscule, inclined; Description: rounded lower right corner of a plaque. height of letters: 1.7–2.3 cm. The epi­graphic field is framed by a broad groove Biblio­graphy: unpublished. approximately 1.7 cm wide, forming a margin of -------some 1.5 cm on the bottom. The front surface [----------------------]ⲛⲟⲩⲛ was painted white and yellow/orange after fir [----------------- ⲙⲁ]ⲣⲛ̄ϣⲗing, possibly in stripes. The back surface was [ⲏⲗ ⲛⲧⲉⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲁ]ⲅ̣ⲁⲑⲟⲥ roughly worked and painted red. 4 [ⲣ ⲟⲩⲛⲁ ⲛⲙⲙⲁϥ/-ⲥ --------] Palaeo­graphy: slightly inclined round epi­graphic -------majuscule; height of letters: c. 2 cm. 3. ἀγαθός Biblio­graphy: unpublished. [---] let us pray that God, the good one, have mercy on him/her [---].

----[-----]α̣[ ̣] [---] λ̣όγῳ

The letters preserved on this piece do not fit any formula known from Ghazali or elsewhere in the Nile Valley. If I am correct in reconstructing the first person plural of the jussive in line 2, the fragment may represent a Coptic version of the Greek prayer preserved in two other epitaphs from Ghazali, 71: [εὐ] ξόμεθα οὖν ἵνα ὁ οἰκ|[τ]ίρμον θ(εὸ)ς ἐσθλοποιήσει 73 I thank Jacques van der Vliet, who in private communication, τὴ(ν) |ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ, and 76: (καὶ) ἡμεῖς οἱ ἐν̣[---] helped me to improve the reconstruction.

246 5. f r agm e n ta ry e p i tap h s

----- [---------] ̣ [-----]ⲧ̣ⲟⲛ [-------]ⲓ̣ⲡⲉ 4 [--------] ̣ⲟ ------

157. Fragment of epitaph (photo M. Bogacki)

ⲧ̣ⲟⲛ in line 2 may belong to the Coptic ⲙⲧⲟⲛ and

indicate the death-name formula. A possible reconstruction would thus be: [--- ⲁϥⲙ]ⲧ̣ⲟⲛ | [ⲙⲙⲟϥ ⲛϭ]ⲓ̣ ⲡⲉ|[ⲛⲥⲟⲛ ---], ‘[--- our brother] went to rest [---]’. 158. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

In Nubian Greek epitaphs, the form λόγῳ occurs only in the phrase λόγῳ ἢ ἔργῳ ἢ κατὰ διάνοιαν, ‘in word or in deed or in thought’, belonging to the formulary of the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer. As the fragment comes from the lower right corner of the stela, we must be dealing with an extremely abridged version of the prayer, or perhaps the remaining part was inscribed on the frame above and on the sides of the plaque (cf. the epitaph of Marianta from Qasr Ibrim: Łajtar and van der Vliet 2010, no. 57 (DBMNT 672)). 157. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4262)

158. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 916)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, Cemetery 2, unknown circumstances, perhaps surface find.74 Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11624i). Language: Coptic. Material: Nile clay; surface reddish. Dimensions: 13.5 × 6.5 × 2.5 cm. Description: fragment of a plaque, without margins. The letters were painted white after firing. Palaeo­graphy: inclined round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 2–2.5 cm.75 The stela was most probably inscribed by the same hand as 81, 116, and 197; at the very least, it probably comes from the same workshop (see above, 5.1, sub 1). Three of the fragments were discovered in the same secondary context, which strongly suggests that they were removed from their original graves at the same time, and that the graves would have been located next to one another. Biblio­graphy: Barns in Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 92, no. 76 (ed. pr.); van der Vliet 2003, no. 95, pl. 59, upper (after the original in Khar­toum).

Excavation number: Gh.2016.1.006. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery 2, Tomb Ghz-2-139, to the west of the mastaba. Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: Coptic? Material: porous Nile clay with small organic and considerable mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is black, the front and back dark red to grey. The surface was red-slipped. Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph. Dimensions: 15 × 11 × 3 cm. Description: fragment of the right margin of a plaque. The epi­graphic field is framed by a groove, leaving an outer margin of 2.5 (upper part)–3.5 cm (lower part). Palaeo­graphy: upright round (?) epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: 2–2.7 cm (ⲉ: 4 cm). The final epsilon of line 3 is tall and extremely narrow, most probably due to the fact that the scribe 74 Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 92, note ‘From South Cemetery’, ran out of space. that is our Cemetery 2, but according to van der Vliet 2003, 157, Biblio­graphy: unpublished. the object bears the label ‘Sfc’, which should most probably be resolved as ‘surface’. 75 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 157, and on the photo­graph.

5 . f ragme ntary ep itaph s 2 47

---- [---]ⲯ̣ⲩ[ⲭⲏ ---] [---]ⲛ ⲙ̇[------] [---]ⲧⲡⲉ̣[-----] 4 [-----]ⲡ̣ ̣[-----] [-------]ⲉ̣[-----] -----

159. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

1. ψυχή 1. Barns ]ⲫ ̣[ || 4 and 5. not read by Barns

If the reading is correct, this is probably the prayer part of the epitaph, containing a request for rest in the heavenly kingdom, but no coherent text can be reconstructed. 159. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 883)

----[---------]ⲏ̣ⲗ [---]ⲛ̣ⲛⲟ̣ⲩⲧ̣ⲉ̣ -----

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, north2. ⲛ̣ⲛⲟ̣ⲩⲧ̣ⲉ̣: ⲟ̣ⲩ ligatured ern church.76 1. Barns ] ̣ⲗ || 2. Barns ] ̣ⲛⲛϭⲓ Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ In his edition, van der Vliet has suggested that the toum (inv. 11273b). piece may belong to the dating lemma, but the occurLanguage: Coptic. rence of ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ suggests the opening formula, the Material: Nile clay; surface red-brown. prayer, or even the final acclamation (see 161 below). Dimensions: 9 × 9 × 3 cm. Unfortunately, no coherent text can be reconstructed. Description: fragment of the right margin of a plaque. The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line, 160. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 884) leaving a right margin of approximately 1 cm in Excavation number: not registered. width. The text is ruled with incised lines, forming registers of some 3 cm in height. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, Cemetery 2, unknown circumstances. Palaeo­graphy: inclined round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: 1.5–2 cm. The ends of the Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ letters were first marked with deep points, then toum (inv. 11273c). connected with shallower incised lines. The last Language: unidentified. letter on line 2 was perhaps written in the marMaterial: Nile clay; surface red-brown. gin, but the reading is very uncertain.77 On the Dimensions: 11.5 × 12.5 × 1.5 cm. basis of material criteria (dimensions, height of registers) and execution of the letters, the piece Description: lower left corner of a plaque. The epi­ may belong to the same object as 38 and 142. graphic field is framed by a shallow incised line, leaving a margin of approximately 1.5 cm in width. Biblio­graphy: Barns in Shinnie and Chittick 1961, The surface is almost entirely eroded. 80, no. 33 (ed. pr.); van der Vliet 2003, no. 51, pl. 31, upper (after the original in Khar­toum). Palaeo­graphy: round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 2 cm.78 Transcription: after van der Vliet and the Biblio­graphy: Barns in Shinnie and Chittick 1961, photo­graph. 80, no. 34 (ed. pr.); van der Vliet 2003, no. 52, pl. 31, lower (after the original in Khar­toum). Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph. 76 According to van der Vliet 2003, 112, the object bears the label ‘Church (Cottage d)’, but I do not know what this might mean. 77 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 112–13, and on the photo­graph.

78 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 113, and on the photo­graph.

2 48 5. f r agm e n ta ry e p i tap h s

160. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski) 161. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski: (a) and G. Ochała: (b); digital processing G. Ochała)

---ⲏ̣[----] ⲡ[----] † ̣[---] 1. Barns ⲡ̣ ̣[ || 2. Barns ⲡ ̣[ || 3. Barns ϯ ̣[

The fragment preserves the final part of the epitaph, hence either the prayer or acclamation should be reconstructed here, but no coherent text can be proposed.

E. Acclamations 161. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 882; Pl. XXIII:2)

Excavation numbers: – fragment (a): not registered, – fragment (b): G.13.013. Findspots: – fragment (a): Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, ‘from outside monastery to north’ (Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 85), – fragment (b): Polish-Sudanese excavations, fill of the southern church. Present location: – fragment (a): Sudan National Museum, Khar­toum (inv. 11272), – fragments (b): Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: Coptic. Material: light grey sandstone, extremely fragile and powdery. After conservation, the front surface of fragment (b) changed colour to light brown. 79

Dimensions: – fragment (a): 20 × 20 × 9 cm, – fragment (b): 20 × 14.5 × 7.5 cm. Reconstructed dimensions: 20 × c. 30 × 7.5–9 cm. Description: two connecting fragments from a slab, forming the complete lower part of the stela, with the bottom margin and the lowermost fragments of both side margins preserved. The epi­ graphic field is framed by an incised line on all sides, forming margins of 2.5 cm on the sides and 4.8–7 cm at the bottom. The lowermost part of the epi­graphic field was left uninscribed. Palaeo­graphy: upright round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: 1–2 cm.79 Biblio­graphy: – fragment (a): Barns in Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 85, no. 56 (ed. pr.); van der Vliet 2003, no. 50, pl. 30, lower (after the original in Khar­toum); – fragment (b): unpublished; Obłuski and others 2017, 382 and 384 (mentioned). -------- [ϩ]ⲛ̣ [ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲛ]ⲧⲉ ⲡⲛ̣ⲟ̣[ⲩⲧⲉ. ϩⲁⲙ]ⲏ̣ⲛ ⲉϥⲉ † ϣⲱⲡ̣ⲉ ⲉ[ϥⲉ]ϣⲱⲡⲉ. † 4                    † 1. εἰρήνη 1. Van der Vliet [ϩ]ⲛ̣ [ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲙ-] || 2. Barns ⲡⲁ̣ⲓ̣[ || 3. Barns ϣⲟ̣ ̣ⲉ̣ⲉ[ The description is based on the autoptic examination of fragment (b), the description of fragment (a) in van der Vliet 2003, 112, and the photo­graph.

5 . f ragme ntary ep itaph s 249

[---] in a peace of God. Amen, so be it, so be it, amen. † † † The fragment preserves only the closing formulae of the epitaph. 162. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 27)

Excavation number: I 15. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, Cemetery 2, unknown circumstances. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11605). Language: Greek. Material: grey sandstone. 163. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4263; Pl. XXIV:1) Dimensions: 14.3 × 17 × 6 cm. Excavation number: T.124A. Description: lower right corner of a slab. The lowFindspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery ermost part of the stone was left uninscribed. 2, Tomb Ghz-2-124A, mounted in the western Palaeo­graphy: round epi­graphic majuscule, slightly end of the mastaba. inclined; height of letters: 0.9 (omikorn)–3 cm 80 Present location: in situ. (phi). Language: Coptic. Biblio­graphy: Barns in Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 75, no. 15 (ed. pr., in Coptic font); Łajtar 2003a, Material: greyish white sandstone. no. 46, pl. 45 (after the original in Khar­toum). Dimensions: 24 × 31.5 × 9 cm. Transcription: after Łajtar and the photo­graph. Description: lower part of a slab with the complete lower margin and the lower part of both ---------side margins preserved. The epi­graphic field is [-------] traces framed by an incised line, leaving uninscribed [-------] ̣ρου. γένητο margins of 2 cm on the left, 3 cm on the right, [--- ἀ]μήν. † vac. and 2–2.7 cm at the bottom. The lower part of 4 [-----] Φαρμοῦ⸌θ⸍(ι) β΄. the epi­graphic field, 7.5 cm high, was left unin2. l. γένοιτο || 5. ⲃ︦ scribed. The frame and probably also the letters were painted black. The text is heavily eroded 2. Barns ] ̣ ̣ ̣ⲣⲟⲛ and almost illegible, especially in the right part. Palaeo­graphy: upright (?) epi­graphic majuscule; [---] So be it [---] amen. [---] Pharmouthi 2. height of letters: c. 1.5–2 cm. The fragment preserves only an incomplete final Biblio­graphy: unpublished. acclamation and the dating formula. 2. In his edition, Łajtar suggests that the ending ρου may belong to the name of the deceased, but it may also be the ending of a common noun or adjective of the second declension in the genitive singular. 2–3. As suggested by Łajtar, the lacuna at the beginning of line 3 should be supplemented with an acclamation, either γένοιτο or ἀμήν. 4. Łajtar points out that the lacuna at the beginning of the line may have included the word μηνός or μηνί, written in full or abbreviated, and/or a finite verb expressing the fact of death.

80 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of Łajtar 2003a, 158, and on the photo­graph.

163. Fragment of epitaph (photo G. Ochała)

162. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

250 5. f r agm e n ta ry e p i tap h s

--------[ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣[-------------] ⲛ ̣ ̣ ̣ⲙ̣ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ ̣[---------] ϩⲁⲙⲏ̣ⲛ̣ ⲉ̣ϥ̣ⲉ̣ϣ̣[ⲱⲡ]ⲉ̣.

165. Fragment of epitaph, right part (photo W. Godlewski)

[---] amen, so be it. The stone preserves the ending of the prayer (ll. 1–2) and the final acclamation (l. 3). Unfortunately, none of the prayer formulae known from Ghazali match the surviving traces. 164. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4264; Pl. XXIV:2)

Excavation number: T.115. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery 2, Tomb Ghz-2-115, mounted in the western end of the mastaba. Present location: in situ. 165. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 907) Language: Coptic. Excavation number: not registered. Material: white sandstone of a very loose structure, fragile and powdery. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, Cemetery 2, unknown circumstances. Dimensions: 13.5 × 29 × 9.5 cm. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ Description: lower part of a slab with the complete toum (inv. 11616). lower margin and the lowermost part of both side margins preserved. The epi­graphic field Language: Coptic. is framed by an incised line, leaving margins of Material: greyish yellow sandstone of a very loose approximately 2 cm on the sides and approxistructure. mately 5 cm at the bottom. The side margins are Dimensions: 19 × 35 × 7 cm. uninscribed; the last line of the text was incised Description: two connecting pieces forming the partly in the lower margin; a cross concluding lowermost part of a slab with the complete botthe inscription was incised in the lower margin. tom margin and the lowermost fragments of The letters and the cross were painted black. the side margins preserved. The left-hand piece Palaeo­graphy: upright round epi­graphic majuscule; was in such a bad state that it was impossible to height of letters: 2–2.5 cm. photo­graph it. The epi­graphic field is framed Biblio­graphy: unpublished. by an incised line, leaving margins of approximately 2.5 cm on the left, 3 cm on the right, and ------8.5 cm on the bottom. The last line, containing [------------] ̣ ̣ a series of crosses (perhaps three), was written [ϩⲁ]ⲙ̣ⲏ̣ⲛ̣ ⲉ̣ϥⲉϣin the broad lower margin. ⲱ̣ⲡⲉ ⲉϥⲉϣ- vac. 4 ⲱⲡⲉ. Palaeo­graphy: upright round epi­graphic majuscule;              † height of letters: c. 2 cm.81 Biblio­graphy: Barns in Shinnie and Chittick 1961, [---]. Amen, so be it, so be it. † 78, no. 27 (ed. pr.); van der Vliet 2003, no. 85, The stela preserves only the final acclamation. pl. 53, upper (after the original in Khar­toum).

164. Fragment of epitaph (photo J. Ciesielska)

81 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 148, and on the photo­graph.

5 . f ragme ntary ep itaph s 2 51

167. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4266)

166. Fragment of epitaph (photo G. Ochała)

Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph. -----------vac. ϩⲁⲙ[ⲏⲛ ⲉϥⲉ]ϣ̣ⲱⲡⲉ. [†          †]         † 1. Barns ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ (apparently the stone was in a much better state in his time)

[---]. Amen, so be it. † † † Only the final acclamation from this epitaph has been preserved. 166. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4265; Pl. XXIV:3)

Excavation number: Gh.2016.1.184. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery 2, found in the structure labelled Ghz-2-141, which looked like a mastaba, but there was no burial beneath it (see above, 26).82 Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: Coptic. Material: greyish white sandstone, very fragile and powdery. Dimensions: 9.2 × 23 × 6.5 cm. Description: two connecting pieces from the lower part of a slab, with the almost-complete lower margin and the lowermost fragment of the left margin preserved. The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line, leaving margins of 3 cm on the left and 1.7–2 cm on the bottom. The borderline and the letters were painted black. Palaeo­graphy: slightly inclined epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: 1.8–2.3 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. -----[----] ̣[---------] vac. ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ [---] The fragment preserves only the final acclamation. 82 I am grateful to Joanna Ciesielska for this information.

Excavation number: G.13.012. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, fill of the southern church. Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: unidentified. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is black, the front, back, and side red. Dimensions: 14.7 × 9 × 3.8 cm. Description: fragment of the lower right-hand corner of a plaque with a rounded bottom. The lower part, 7.5 cm wide, was apparently left uninscribed. Palaeo­graphy: inclined epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: 3.5–4 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. ----[-------]ⲛ̣ ̣ [--- ⲁⲙ]ⲏⲛ The fragment preserves only the endings of two lowermost lines of the epitaph, most probably belonging to the final acclamation.

167. Fragment of epitaph (photo M. Bogacki)

252 5. f r agm e n ta ry e p i tap h s

F. Unidentified Fragments 168. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4267)

Excavation number: Gh.2014.1.003. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, surface find. Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: unidentified. Material: reddish sandstone with black patina on the side and grey patina on the front surface. Dimensions: 10 × 10.7 × 4.3 cm. Description: fragment from the slightly rounded upper margin of a slab. The epi­graphic field is placed on an elevated surface; the outer uninscribed margin is approximately 1.5 cm wide. Palaeo­graphy: epi­graphic majuscule (?); height of letters c. 2.5 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. [---] ̣̄ ̣̄︥[---] -----The stroke above the letters possibly indicates a nomen sacrum, perhaps ⲭ̣̄ⲥ̣̄︥ or ⲭ̣̄ⲉ̣̄︥.

168. Fragment of epitaph (photo A. Obłuski)

169. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

169. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 879)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: found by Arkell in 1939 in unknown circumstances. [---]ⲁ̣ⲩⲍ[---] Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ ----83 toum (inv. 7871). The occurrence of a zeta seems to suggest that Greek Language: unidentified. is the language of the epitaph, but no initial formula Material: Nile clay; surface greyish brown. can be reconstructed here. Dimensions: 7.5 × 7 × 2 cm. Description: fragment of the upper margin of a 170. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4268) plaque. The epi­graphic field is framed by an Excavation number: G.13.014. incised line, leaving an outer margin of 3 cm. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, fill of the Traces of white paint are visible on the surface. southern church. Palaeo­graphy: round epi­graphic majuscule; height Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima of letters: c. 2.5 cm.84 (not registered). Biblio­graphy: van der Vliet 2003, no. 45, pl. 27 (ed. Language: unidentified. pr., after the original in Khar­toum). Material: light grey sandstone, extremely fragile Transcription: after van der Vliet and the and powdery. After conservation, the front surphoto­graph. face changed colour to light brown. Dimensions: 13.5 × 9.5 × 7 cm. Description: the uppermost fragment of the right margin of a slab, near the upper right corner. 83 According to van der Vliet 2003, 106, under inv. 7871 two other The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line, pieces are inventoried in the SNM: 53 and 37. 84 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of forming a margin of 2.5 cm on the left. van der Vliet 2003, 106–07, and on the photo­graph.

5 . f ragme ntary ep itaph s 2 53 172. Fragment of epitaph (© Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Skulpturensammlung und Museum für Byzantinische Kunst, photo A. Voigt, 2019)

170. Fragment of epitaph (photo G. Ochała)

171. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

Palaeo­graphy: upright round epi­graphic majuscule; 172. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4269) height of letters: 1–2 cm. Excavation numbers: not registered. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. Findspot: Lepsius’s expedition, findspot not † [---] recorded. ⲡ[----] Present location: formerly Ägyptisches Museum, ⲙ ̣[---] Berlin (inv. 12836); now Skulpturensammlung 4 ̣ ̣[---] und Museum für Byzantinische Kunst, Berlin ----(inv. 10000). No text can be reconstructed. Language: unidentified. Material: Nile clay. The core is black, the front dark 171. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 927) greyish red, the back red. Excavation number: not registered. Dimensions: 28  ×  11  ×  2–3  cm (4  cm with the Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, surborder). face find. Description: fragment of the upper right part of Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ a round-topped plaque. The epi­graphic field is toum (inv. 11734n). framed by a raised border 1.1–2.2 cm wide, leaving a broad uninscribed outer margin of 3–3.5 cm. Language: unidentified. The upper part of the epi­graphic field was apparMaterial: Nile clay; surface grey-brown. ently left uninscribed. It presumably contained Dimensions: 6 × 8.5 × 2 cm. some decorative elements. The front surface and Description: fragment of the top (?) margin of the border were formed crudely with fingers and a plaque. The epi­graphic field is framed by an not smoothed. In the profile of the lower part of incised line, leaving a margin of 2 cm in width. the fragment, a round hole (0.8 cm in diameter) is visible below the raised border; it must have Palaeo­graphy: epi­graphic majuscule; height of letserved some practical function. ters impossible to measure.85 Palaeo­graphy: upright round epi­graphic majusBiblio­graphy: van der Vliet 2003, no. 106, pl. 64, cule; height of letters: 2.2–3 cm. The letters are upper right (ed. pr., after the original in Khar­toum). deeply incised. Remains of one letter. Biblio­graphy: unpublished; Erman 1899, 413 (mentioned); Junker 1925a, 123 (physical description). [---] ̣ⲉⲛ [---]ⲟⲩ ----No text can be reconstructed. 85 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 163, and on the photo­graph.

254 5. f r agm e n ta ry e p i tap h s

174. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

173. Fragment of epitaph (photo M. Bogacki)

173. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4270)

Excavation number: Gh.BM.2013.022. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Room 3. Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: unidentified. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is black, the front surface red (eroded), and back red to grey. Dimensions: 9.8 × 7.8 × 2–2.8 cm. Description: one of the corners of a plaque. The surviving traces of a single (?) letter do not allow the orientation of the piece to be established. The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line, leaving margins of 1–1.5 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. The only (?) surviving sign may be a cross, in which case the fragment may come from the upper left or the lower right corner of the plaque. It may also be a mu or an eta belonging to the end of the first line of the epitaph, or an eta standing at the beginning of the last line. 174. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 824)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, Cemetery 2, unknown circumstances. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11273g). Language: Greek? Material: porous Nile clay with organic and mineral (quartzite, mica) admixture. The colour is brown. Dimensions: 12.5 × 11.8 × 2 cm (3 with the border).

Description: two connecting fragments from the left margin of a plaque. The epi­graphic field is framed by a raised border. Palaeo­graphy: script between round epi­graphic majuscule and Nubian-type majuscule; height of letters: 1.7 (ⲥ)–3 cm (ⲭⲁ).86 On the possible connection between this piece and 89, see above. Biblio­graphy: Barns in Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 81, no. 38 (ed. pr., in Coptic font); Łajtar 2003a, no. 51, pl. 50 (after the original in Khar­toum). Transcription: after Łajtar and the photo­graph. ----- Μιχαή[λ ---] εκτε ̣[------] ναστρ̣[------] 4 [ ̣] ̣[--------] ------The surviving letters do not allow for any coherent reconstruction of the text. 1. For the name Michael in Nubian onomastics, see the commentary to 112 above. Due to the fragmentary context, we cannot ascertain whether this is the name of the Archangel (for the occurrence of Michael in Nubian epitaphs, see van der Vliet 2003, 62) or the compound name of a living person, Michaelinkouda or Michaelikol, the only attested compounds with Michael. In the commentary to his edition, Łajtar suggests that, if the fragment can indeed be joined with 89, Μιχαή[λ may be the name of the deceased monk; however, see above (p. 201) for doubts over the connection of the pieces. 3. Łajtar suggests restoring either ἀ]ναστρ̣[, as a form of the verb ἀναστρέφω, ‘turn upside down; bring back; dwell in’, or μο]ναστρ[̣ ιον (or oblique case), but in any case, nothing more can be made of it.

86 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of Łajtar 2003a, 163–64, and on the photo­graph.

5 . f ragme ntary ep itaph s 2 55

175. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 912)

Excavation number: I 69.87 Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, probably surface find.88 Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11624b). Language: Coptic. Material: Nile clay; surface brownish. Dimensions: 9 × 21 × 2 cm. Description: fragment of the left margin of a plaque. Traces of red paint are visible inside the letters. Palaeo­graphy: upright round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 2.5–3 cm.89 Biblio­graphy: Barns in Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 91, no. 69 (ed. pr.); van der Vliet 2003, no. 91, pl. 57, upper (after the original in Khar­toum). Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph. ----̣ ̣ ̣[-----] ̣ⲟ̣ϥ ⲡ[---] ⲣ̣ⲁ̣[-------] 2. Barns ⲛⲓϥⲡ[ || 3. Barns ⲡ ̣[

No text can be reconstructed. 176. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4271; Pl. XXV:2)

175. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

176. Fragment of epitaph (photo G. Ochała)

Palaeo­graphy: upright round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: 2 cm (ⲫ: 4.5 cm). Letters deeply and nicely carved. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. ---̣ ̣[---] ⲁⲗ[---] ⲫ[---] ----

Excavation number: G.13.008. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, fill to the east of the northern church. No text can be reconstructed. Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). 177. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 931) Language: unidentified. Excavation number: not registered. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and conFindspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, sursiderable mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). face find. The core is black, the front surface red, and the Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ back and side reddish grey. toum (inv. 11734r). Dimensions: 8.8 × 9.2 × 2.6 cm. Language: Coptic. Description: fragment of the left margin of a plaque. Material: Nile clay; surface grey-brown. The epi­graphic field is framed by a slightly raised border. Dimensions: 9 × 10.5 × 2 cm. Description: fragment of the left margin of a plaque. The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line, 87 The number was mentioned by neither Barns nor van der Vliet, leaving a margin of 0.5 cm in width. The surface but is clearly visible on the photo­graph. is almost entirely obliterated. The text was ruled 88 Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 91, note ‘Find spot not recorded’, but with incised lines, forming registers of 3.5 cm. according to van der Vliet 2003, 154, the object bears the label ‘Sfc’, which should probably be resolved as ‘surface’. 89 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 154, and on the photo­graph.

2 56 5. f r agm e n ta ry e p i tap h s

177. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

178. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

Palaeo­graphy: upright round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: 2.5 cm.90 Biblio­graphy: van der Vliet 2003, no. 110, pl. 66, upper (ed. pr., after the original in Khar­toum). Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph. ----

ⲙⲡ̣[---] ⲛⲉ̣[---]

----

No text can be reconstructed. 178. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 933)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, surface find. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11734t). Language: Coptic? Material: Nile clay; surface brown. Dimensions: 9 × 8 × 2 cm. Description: fragment of the left margin of a plaque. The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line, leaving a margin of approximately 1.5 cm. Palaeo­graphy: square epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 3 cm.91 Biblio­graphy: van der Vliet 2003, no. 112, pl. 67, upper (ed. pr., after the original in Khar­toum).

179. Fragment of epitaph (photo A. Tsakos)

---ⲡ̣ⲉ̣[---] ⲡⲛ̣[---] ---No text can be reconstructed. 179. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 828)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, Cemetery 2, unknown circumstances. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11273r). Language: unidentified. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and considerable mineral (quartzite, mica) admixture. The core is black, the front brown, and the back red-brown. Dimensions: 11 × 8 × 2.7 cm. Description: fragment of the left margin of a possibly round-topped plaque. The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line, leaving an outer margin of 0.75 cm. Palaeo­graphy: round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: 1.9 cm.92 Biblio­graphy: Barns in Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 83, no. 49 (ed. pr., in Coptic font); Łajtar 2003a, no. 55 (after the original in Khar­toum). Transcription: after Łajtar and the photo­graph.

Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph. 90 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 166, and on the photo­graph. 91 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 167, and on the photo­graph.

92 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of Łajtar 2003a, 166–67, and on the photo­graph.

5 . f ragme ntary ep itaph s 2 57

--- ̣[-----] ⲛⲁ[---] ⲡ[---] 4 ̣[---] ---No text can be reconstructed. 180. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4272; Pl. XXV:3)

Excavation number: Gh.2016.1.012. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery 2, found reused in a mound of stones, perhaps serving as the superstructure of Tomb Ghz-2-133.93 Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: unidentified. Material: very porous Nile clay with considerable organic and mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is black, the surface red. Dimensions: 7.4 × 8 × 3 cm. Description: fragment of the left (?) margin of a plaque. The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line, leaving a margin of 1.5 cm. The borderline and letters were painted white but only slight remains of the paint survive. The surface is very eroded and the text barely visible. Palaeo­graphy: upright round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 2.2 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. ---̣[---------] ̣ⲑⲟ̣ⲩ̣[-----] ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣[---] ---No text can be reconstructed. 3. The vague traces before the theta may belong to an epsilon.

181. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 932)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, surface find. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11734s). Language: unidentified. Material: Nile clay; surface red. Dimensions: 7.5 × 5 × 3 cm. 93 I am grateful to Joanna Ciesielska for this information.

180. Fragment of epitaph (photo G. Ochała)

181. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

Description: fragment of the left margin of a plaque. The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line, leaving a margin of approximately 1.5 cm. Palaeo­graphy: epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 2 cm.94 Biblio­graphy: van der Vliet 2003, no. 111, pl. 66, lower (ed. pr., after the original in Khar­toum). Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph. ---ⲥ̣[---] ⲙ[---] ---No text can be reconstructed.

94 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 166, and on the photo­graph.

258 5. f r agm e n ta ry e p i tap h s

182. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

184. Fragment of epitaph (photo G. Ochała)

183. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

182. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 926)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, surface find. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11734l). Language: unidentified. Material: Nile clay; surface reddish. Dimensions: 4.5 × 5 × 2 cm. Description: fragment of a margin of a plaque. It is uncertain whether the fragment belongs to the top, bottom, or one of the side margins. The epi­ graphic field is framed by an incised line, leaving a margin of 2 cm in width. Palaeo­graphy: epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters impossible to measure.95 Biblio­graphy: van der Vliet 2003, no. 105, pl. 64, upper right (ed. pr., after the original in Khar­toum). Remains of one letter.

183. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 918)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, surface find. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11734b). Language: unidentified. Material: Nile clay; surface red-brown. Dimensions: 6 × 4.5 × 2.3 cm. Description: fragment of a plaque, without margins, but probably belonging to the left edge. Traces of light paint are visible inside the letters. Palaeo­graphy: inclined round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 2–2.5 cm.96 Biblio­graphy: van der Vliet 2003, no. 97, pl. 60, lower (ed. pr., after the original in Khar­toum). Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph. ---ⲥ̣ ̣[---] ⲙ[---] ̣[---] ---No text can be reconstructed.

95 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 163, and on the photo­graph.

96 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 158–59, and on the photo­graph.

5 . f ragme ntary ep itaph s 259

184. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4273; Pl. XXV:1)

Excavation number: – fragment (a) and (b): Gh.2015.2.040, – fragment (c): Gh.2016.1.162. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, fill of Room 104, eastern side. Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: unidentified. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and considerable mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is black, the front red to black, and the back red. Dimensions: – fragment (a): 12 × 8 × 2.4–2.8 cm, – fragment (b)+(c): 10 × 11 × c. 2 cm. Description: three fragments from a plaque, two connecting. Fragment (a) belongs to the right and fragment (b) to the lower margin. The epi­ graphic field is framed by a groove, approximately 1 cm wide, leaving an outer margin of 3.4 cm. Palaeo­graphy: upright epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters not recorded; letters deeply carved. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. ---- [----------------] ̣ [----------------]ⲙ̄ [----------------] ̣ x+4 [---] ̣ ̣[ ̣] ̣ ̣[---] [---]ⲥⲁⲛ̣ⲁ ̣[-----] No text can be reconstructed. 185. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4274)

Excavation number: Gh.2016.1.144. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, outside monastery, to the south of the southern enclosure wall, to the east of Room 105. Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: unidentified. Material: grey sandstone. Dimensions: 11.5 × 13 × max 5 cm. Description: fragment of the right margin of a slab. The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line, leaving a margin of 2.5 cm. The surface is heavily eroded and the letters barely legible.

185. Fragment of epitaph (photo M. Bogacki)

Palaeo­graphy: epi­graphic majuscule (?); height of letters: 0.8–1.5 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. --- [---]ⲁ̣ⲥ̣ ̣ ̣ [---]ⲧⲱⲛ [---]ⲧ̣ ̣ ̣ 4 [---] ̣ ̣ⲁ̣ [----]ⲟ̣ⲧ̣ ̣ ---No known funerary formula can be recognized, nor even can the language of the fragment be determined. 186. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4275)

Excavation number: Gh.2015.2.042. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, fill of Room 104, eastern side. Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: unidentified. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and considerable mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is black, the front red to grey, the side red; the back is eroded. Dimensions: 8.2 × 8.6 × 2 cm. Description: fragment of the right margin of a plaque. The epi­graphic field is framed by a groove 0.8 cm wide, leaving an outer margin of 2.6 cm. Palaeo­graphy: upright round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 2 cm; letters deeply carved. Biblio­graphy: unpublished.

26 0 5. f r agm e n ta ry e p i tap h s

186. Fragment of epitaph (photo M. Bogacki)

187. Fragment of epitaph (photo M. Bogacki)

---[---]ⲓ̣ⲥ [---] ⲭ̣(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ ---2. ⲭ̣̄ⲥ̄︥

Apart from the common nomen sacrum Χ(ριστό)ς, no text can be reconstructed. 187. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4276)

188. Fragment of epitaph (photo M. Bogacki)

Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: unidentified. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is black, the front surface red (slipped), and the back and side red to black. Dimensions: 7 × 6.5 × 3 cm. Description: a small fragment from one of the side (the right?) margins of a plaque. The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line, leaving a margin of 2.5–3 cm. Palaeo­graphy: upright epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: 1.8 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished.

Excavation number: Gh.2017.1.002. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Unit 310. Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: Coptic? Material: sandstone. Dimensions: 6 × 7 × 5 cm. ---Description: fragment of the right margin of a [---]ⲛ̣ slab. The epi­graphic field is framed by a dou[---]ⲓ̣ ble incised line. ---Material: grey sandstone. No text can be reconstructed. Palaeo­graphy: upright epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 1.5 cm; deeply carved. 189. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4278) Biblio­graphy: unpublished. Excavation number: G.13.010. ---[---]ⲙ̣ⲁⲓ Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, fill to the [----]ⲙ̣̇ east of the northern church. ----Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). 1. Perhaps [ⲡⲉⲛ]ⲙ̣ⲁⲓ|[ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛⲥⲟⲛ] or [ⲡⲉⲛⲥⲟⲛ ⲙ]ⲙ̣ⲁⲓ|[ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ] or [ϩⲓⲧⲛ̄ ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛⲟⲓⲁ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡ]ⲙ̣ⲁⲓ|[ⲣⲱⲙⲉ] should be Language: Greek? reconstructed here. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and mineral admixture (mica). The core is black, the 188. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4277) front and side light red, and back probably black. Excavation number: G.13.007. Dimensions: 11.3 × 11 × 3.7 cm. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, fill to the Description: fragment from the lower left part of east of the southern church. a round or oval plaque.

5 . f ragme ntary ep itaph s 261

Palaeo­graphy: script between round epi­graphic majuscule and Nubian-type majuscule; height of letters: 2.5 cm (ⲭ: 3.5 cm). Biblio­graphy: unpublished. ----

ⲭⲁ[---] ⲕⲟⲗ̣[---]

The inscription is in a bad state of preservation and no credible reconstruction can be proposed. While other examples of oval terracotta stelae exist (van der Vliet 2003, no. 23 (DBMNT 48); Mina 1942, no. 318 (DBMNT 396); SB Kopt. I 460 (DBMNT 523)), the quality of this piece seems much worse than other terracotta epitaphs from Ghazali. 2. Perhaps κόλ[ποις Ἀβραὰμ κτλ.] should be reconstructed here.

189. Fragment of epitaph (photo M. Bogacki)

190. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

190. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 920)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, surface find. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11734d). Language: unidentified. Material: Nile clay; surface grey-brown; slipped. Dimensions: 6 × 10 × 2 cm. 191. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 928) Description: lower left corner of a plaque, with Excavation number: not registered. fragments of the bottom and left margins preserved. The epi­graphic field is framed by a double Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, surincised line, leaving a margin of 0.5 cm in width. face find. Traces of white paint are visible inside the letPresent location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ ters and borderlines. toum (inv. 11734o). Palaeo­graphy: square (?) epi­graphic majuscule; Language: unidentified. height of letters: c. 2 cm.97 Material: Nile clay; surface grey-brown; slipped. Biblio­graphy: van der Vliet 2003, no. 99, pl. 61, Dimensions: 7.5 × 10 × 2.5 cm. lower (ed. pr., after the original in Khar­toum). Description: two connecting pieces from the lower Transcription: after van der Vliet and the left part of a plaque, with fragments of the left photo­graph. and bottom margins preserved. The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line, crossing in the ---corners, leaving margins of 2 cm on the left and ⲁⲙ̣[---] 1 cm on the bottom. ⲕⲉ[---] Palaeo­graphy: round epi­graphic majuscule; height No text can be reconstructed. of letters: c. 2.5–3 cm.98 Biblio­graphy: van der Vliet 2003, no. 107, pl. 64, lower (ed. pr., after the original in Khar­toum).

97 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 159–60, and on the photo­graph.

98 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 164, and on the photo­graph.

262 5. f r agm e n ta ry e p i tap h s

Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph.

191. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

---̣ ⲉ[---] No text can be reconstructed. The first letter could be ⲣ or ⲕ. 192. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4279)

Excavation number: T.138B. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery 2, Tomb Ghz-2-138B, mounted in the western end of the mastaba. Present location: in situ. Language: unidentified. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and mineral (sand) admixture. The core is black, the surface red. The surface was whitewashed after firing. Dimensions: 12 × 12.5 × 3 cm. Description: lower right corner of a plaque. The epi­graphic field is framed by a double incised line, leaving a margin of 3 cm on the right; the bottom margin is impossible to measure as the stela is still mounted in the superstructure. Palaeo­graphy: epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: 2 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. ---[---] ̣ [---]ⲏ̣ No text can be reconstructed. 193. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4280; Pl. XXV:4)

Excavation number: Gh.2016.1.008. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery 2; found during the dismantling of remains of a mastaba belonging to Tomb Ghz-2-117. It is impossible to state how the fragment was connected to the tomb.99 Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: unidentified. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is black, the surface red. Dimensions: 8 × 6 × 2–2.3 cm.

99 I am grateful to Joanna Ciesielska for this information.

192. Fragment of epitaph (photo G. Ochała)

Description: fragment of a plaque with part of one margin preserved, most probably the upper or lower. The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line, leaving a margin of 1.5 cm. The borderline and letters were painted black after firing. Palaeo­graphy: epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 1.5 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. Depending on the part of the stela to which the fragment belongs, the transcription should be either ----[---] ̣ⲛ̣[---] [---] ̣ ̣[---] or [---] ̣ ̣[---] [---] ̣ⲛ̣[---] ----No text can be reconstructed.

193. Fragment of epitaph (photo G. Ochała)

5 . f ragme ntary ep itaph s 263

194. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4281)

Excavation number: Gh.2016.1.010. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery 2, reused in a secondary stone mastaba constructed on the top of the normal mud-brick mastaba of Tomb Ghz-2-138.100 Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: unidentified. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is black, the surface red to grey. 194. Fragment of epitaph 195. Fragment of epitaph Dimensions: 12 (?) × 10.5 (?) × 3.2–3.5 cm. (photo G. Ochała) (photo W. Godlewski) Description: fragment from a plaque, with part of one margin preserved, although it is uncertain 196. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 934) which one. The epi­graphic field is framed by an Excavation number: not registered. incised line, leaving a margin of 2.5 cm. The letter was painted red. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, surface find. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ [---] ̣[---] toum (inv. 11734u). No text can be reconstructed. Language: Coptic. Material: Nile clay; surface red; slipped. 195. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 923) Dimensions: 9 × 9 × 3 cm. Excavation number: not registered. Description: fragment of a plaque, without margins. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, surPalaeo­graphy: epi­graphic majuscule; height of letface find. ters: c. 2.5 cm.102 Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ Biblio­graphy: van der Vliet 2003, no. 113, pl. 67, toum (inv. 11734h). lower (ed. pr., after the original in Khar­toum). Language: unidentified. Transcription: after van der Vliet Material: Nile clay; surface reddish; slipped. and the photo­graph. Dimensions: 7 × 9 × 3 cm. ---Description: fragment of the bottom (?) margin [---]ⲙⲙ̣[---------] of a plaque. The epi­graphic field is framed by an [---]ⲁⲩⲁ[--------] incised line, leaving a margin of 3 cm in width. [---]ⲡ̣ⲛ̣ⲟ̣[ⲩⲧⲉ ---] Palaeo­graphy: epi­graphic majuscule (?); height of ---letters impossible to measure.101 No coherent text can Biblio­graphy: van der Vliet 2003, no. 102, pl. 63, be reconstructed. upper (ed. pr., after the original in Khar­toum). Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph. [---] ̣ ̣[---]

196. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

No text can be reconstructed. 1. Van der Vliet suggested that one should perhaps read ]ⲙ̣ [̣ . 100 I am grateful to Joanna Ciesielska for this information. 101 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 161, and on the photo­graph.

102 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 167–68, and on the photo­graph.

264 5. f r agm e n ta ry e p i tap h s

198. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski) 199. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski) 197. Fragment of epitaph (photo G. Ochała)

197. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4282; Pl. XXV:5)

198. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 919)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, surface find. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11734c). Language: unidentified. Material: Nile clay; surface red-brown. Dimensions: 6.5 × 10 × 2.5 cm. Description: fragment of a plaque, without margins. Traces of white paint are visible inside the letters. Palaeo­graphy: slightly inclined round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 3 cm.103 Biblio­graphy: van der Vliet 2003, no. 98, pl. 61, upper (ed. pr., after the original in Khar­toum).

Excavation number: Gh.2016.1.192. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, outside monastery, to the west of the southern gate. Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: unidentified. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and mineral admixture (mica). The core is black, the front red to grey, and the back red. Dimensions: 7.1 × 3.4 × 2.8–3 cm. Description: central part of a plaque, without margins. The letters were painted white after firing. Palaeo­graphy: inclined round epi­graphic majusTranscription: after van der Vliet and the cule; height of letters: 1.8–2 cm. photo­graph. The stela was most probably inscribed by the same ---hand as 81, 116, and 158; at the very least, it proba[-----] ̣ⲃ̣[---] bly comes from the same workshop (see above, 5.1). [---] ⲉ̣ ⲛ[---] Three of the fragments were discovered in the same ---secondary context, which strongly suggests that they No text can be reconstructed. were removed from their original graves at the same time, and that the graves would have been located next to one another. 199. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 921) Biblio­graphy: unpublished. Excavation number: not registered. ---Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, sur[---] ̣ⲛ̣ ̣[---] face find. [---]ⲁⲅ ̣[---] Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ [----] ̣ ̣[---] toum (inv. 11734f ). ---Language: unidentified. No text can be reconstructed. Material: Nile clay; surface brownish, slipped. Dimensions: 7.5 × 8 × 2.5 cm. 103 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 159, and on the photo­graph.

5 . f ragme ntary ep itaph s 265

Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph. ---[----] ̣ ̣[---] [---] ̣ⲫⲉ[---] [---]ⲃ̣ⲉ̣ ̣[---] ---No text can be reconstructed.

200. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

201. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

Description: fragment from a round-topped (?) plaque, without margins, but probably from the upper left edge. Palaeo­graphy: round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 3 cm.104 Biblio­graphy: van der Vliet 2003, no. 100, pl. 62, upper (ed. pr., after the original in Khar­toum). Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph. ---ⲓⲥ[---] [ 1–2 ?]ⲙ[---] ---No text can be reconstructed. 200. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 922)

201. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 925)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, surface find. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11734j). Language: unidentified. Material: Nile clay; surface grey-brown. Dimensions: 9.5 × 6.5 × 2 cm. Description: fragment of a plaque, without margins. Palaeo­graphy: inclined round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 2 cm.106 Biblio­graphy: van der Vliet 2003, no. 104, pl. 64, upper left (ed. pr., after the original in Khar­toum). Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph. ---[---] ̣ ̣[----] [---]ⲡ[-----] [---]ⲡⲙ[---] ----

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, surNo text can be reconstructed. face find. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ 202. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 917) toum (inv. 11734g). Language: unidentified. Excavation number: not registered. Material: Nile clay; surface brown. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, from rubble in the northern church. Dimensions: 8 × 9 × 2.5 cm. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ Description: fragment of a plaque, without margins. toum (inv. 11734a). Palaeo­graphy: square (?) epi­graphic majuscule; 105 Language: Coptic. height of letters: c. 2–2.5 cm. Material: Nile clay; surface red-brown. Biblio­graphy: van der Vliet 2003, no. 101, pl. 62, lower (ed. pr., after the original in Khar­toum). Dimensions: 8 × 8.5 × 2 cm. Description: fragment of a plaque, without margins. 104 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 160, and on the photo­graph. 105 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 161, and on the photo­graph.

106 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 162, and on the photo­graph.

26 6 5. f r agm e n ta ry e p i tap h s

202. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

203. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

Palaeo­graphy: round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 3 cm.107 Biblio­graphy: van der Vliet 2003, no. 96, pl. 60, upper (ed. pr., after the original in Khar­toum). Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph. ---[-----]ⲕ̣[---] [---]ϩⲓ ̣[---] ---No text can be reconstructed. 203. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 930)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, surface find. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11734q). Language: Coptic. Material: Nile clay; surface brown; slipped. Dimensions: 7.5 × 8 × 2 cm. Description: fragment of a plaque, without margins. Palaeo­graphy: square epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: 2.5–3 cm.108 Biblio­graphy: van der Vliet 2003, no. 109, pl. 65, lower (ed. pr., after the original in Khar­toum). Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph.

107 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 158, and on the photo­graph. 108 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 165, and on the photo­graph.

204. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

---[----] ̣[---] [---]ⲧⲛ[---] [---] ̣ ̣[---] ---No text can be reconstructed. 204. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 935)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, surface find. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11734v). Language: unidentified. Material: Nile clay; surface red. Dimensions: 6 × 6 × 3 cm. Description: fragment of a plaque, without margins. Palaeo­graphy: epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 3.5 cm.109 Biblio­graphy: van der Vliet 2003, no. 114, pl. 68, upper (ed. pr., after the original in Khar­toum). Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph. ---[----]ⲟ̣ⲥ̣[---] ---No text can be reconstructed.

109 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 168, and on the photo­graph.

5 . f ragme ntary ep itaph s 267

205. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 936)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, surface find. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11734w). Language: unidentified. Material: Nile clay; surface red-brown. Dimensions: 6.5 × 5 × 2 cm. Description: fragment of a plaque, without margins. Traces of paint are visible in the letters. Palaeo­graphy: square epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 3.5 cm.110 Biblio­graphy: van der Vliet 2003, no. 115, pl. 68, lower (ed. pr., after the original in Khar­toum). Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph. ---[---]ⲙ ̣[---] [---]ⲧ̣ⲩ̣[---] ---No text can be reconstructed.

205. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

110 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 168–69, and on the photo­graph.

6. Sepulchral Crosses 206. Epitaph of Marianos (DBMNT 476)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Lepsius’s expedition, findspot not recorded. Present location: formerly Ägyptisches Museum, Berlin (inv. 2256); now lost. Language: Greek. Material: sandstone. Dimensions: 62 × 30 cm. Description: complete sepulchral cross of the pattée type. The inscription is arranged vertically in the form of a cross. The lower narrower part, which was undoubtedly used for mounting the cross in the superstructure of the tomb, was left unworked. Palaeo­graphy: upright round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters not recorded. Biblio­graphy: (Editions) LD V (text), 292; VI (plates), XII, pl. 99, Gr. 558; Curtius and Kirchhoff in CIG IV 9126 (ed. pr., after LD); Lefebvre 1907, no. 612 (after LD and CIG); Monneret de Villard 1935, 256 (after LD); Kießling in SB V 8732 (after LD, CIG, and Lefebvre); (Secondary literature) Erman 1899, 412 (description and German translation; from original); Junker 1925a, 120 (on l. 5; from photo­graph).    † Μα        ρι        αν4        οῦ  ἀπὸ Σιλαικε       Θῶθ         δ΄ 5. ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲓ̈ⲕⲉ || 6. ⲑⲱ︦ⲑ 5. Curtius and Kirchhoff ἀπὸ Σιλαιρέ; Lefebvre απο Σιλαιρε; Monneret de Villard ⲁⲡⲟ ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲓ̈ ⲕⲉ; Kießling ἀπὸ Σιλαΐρε

† (The day of death) of Marianos, from Silaike, (was in the month of) Thoth, (day) 4. This is certainly the briefest epitaph from Ghazali, consisting of only the name-date lemma. Its most interesting feature is the designation of origin of the deceased man in line 5, which is unattested at Ghazali, and extremely rare in Nubian funerary epi­graphy in general. Unfortunately, the toponym Silaike is otherwise unknown and cannot be identified with any known locality in the vicinity of Ghazali (see

206. Epitaph of Marianos (© Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrus­sammlung, archive; drawing after LD VI, XII, pl. 99, Gr. 558)

the commentary below; cf. Salvoldi and Geus 2017, maps on 172–74). For the name Marianos, see the discussion at 70. 1–4. I have understood the form ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁⲛⲟⲩ not as an example of the genitivus pro accusativo/nominativo, typical of Nubian onomastics, but as a genuine genitive relating to a phrase that was not noted down, for example ‘The day of death of ’ (thus above) or ‘For the commemoration of ’. 5. The phrase ἀπὸ Σιλαικε posed a serious problem for previous editors, and there are two different readings current in the literature: Curtius and Kirchhoff,1 Lefebvre, and Kießling transcribed ⲁⲡⲟ ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲓ̈ⲣⲉ. Erman was the first to propose an alternative reading, reflected in his translation ‘aus Silai, 25 ( Jahre alt?)’. This was later substantiated by Junker, who wrote ‘Nach der Photo­graphie ist ρ ausgeschlossen; κε ist sicher und bezeichnet […] das Alter des Verstorbenen’. Junker’s claim was used in turn by Monneret de Villard who transcribed ⲁⲡⲟ ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲓ̈ ⲕⲉ. 1 They took the penultimate letter in the line to be a rho in a shape ‘latinae similis’, that is an R.

6. se pu lchral cros s es 269

The photo­graph reproduced here does indeed confirm Erman and Junker’s reading of a kappa instead of a rho. Their interpretation of the whole sequence, however, can no longer be sustained in the light of a recent discovery by the Polish-Sudanese archaeo­logical mission of a fragment of the body of an amphora (inv. 8478) bearing two painted inscriptions: the first, executed in white paint, is a fragment of a large monogram of Abraam (?), frequently found in pottery and wall inscriptions from Ghazali; the second is a dipinto in dark paint, now largely faded, but clearly reading ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲓⲕⲉ (unpublished; my reading from the original). This proves that the last two letters in line 5 of our epitaph are not a numeral, but an integral part of the word; I have thus adopted the reading ἀπὸ Σιλαικε.

207. Fragment of epitaph (after LD VI, XII, pl. 99, Gr. 550)

6. For the phenomenon of marking the names of the month, especially Thoth, with a long supralinear stroke, see Ochała 2011a, 249–50, sub 8.

208. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

208. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 52)

207. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 555)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, Cemetery 2, unknown circumstances. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11271). Language: unidentified. Material: grey-brown sandstone. Dimensions: 12 × 12 × 5 cm. Description: fragment of the right horizontal bar of a sepulchral cross of the pattée type. Palaeo­graphy: upright epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: c. 3–3.5 cm.2 Biblio­graphy: Barns in Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 85, no. 55 (ed. pr.); van der Vliet 2003, no. 49, pl. 30, upper (after the original in Khar­toum).

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Lepsius’s expedition, findspot not recorded. Present location: probably left on the site. Language: unidentified. Material: unidentified. Dimensions: not recorded. Description: lower arm of a sepulchral cross of the pattée type. The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line. The lower, rectangular and narrower part of the fragment was undoubtedly used to mount the cross into the superstructure of the tomb. Palaeo­graphy: upright square epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters not recorded. Biblio­graphy: LD V (text), 292; VI (plates), XII, pl. 99, Gr. 550; Preisigke in SB I 4163 (ed. pr.).

Transcription: after van der Vliet and the photo­graph. ---[---]ⲫ̣ⲓ ⲅ̄ ----

---ⲉⲡⲓ-

ⲫⲓ ⲓ̈ⲃ

[---]phi, (day) 3. Only the dating lemma has been preserved. The object may represent the same category as 206 above.

[---] Epiphi 12. The monument preserves only the date of death of the commemorated person. Judging by the shape of the arm, as well as the location of the date on the lower vertical arm of the cross, the object most probably belongs to the same category as 206 above

1. Either [ⲫⲁⲱ]ⲫ̣ⲓ or [ⲉⲡⲓ]ⲫ̣ⲓ.



2 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 111, and on the photo­graph.

270 6. s e p ulc hr a l c ro s s e s

210. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

209. Fragment of epitaph (photos G. Ochała)

209. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4283; Pl. XXV:6) 210. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 820)

Excavation number: Gh.2016.1.079. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery 2, Tomb Ghz-2-134. Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: unidentified. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and considerable mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is black, the surface red. Dimensions: 14 × 13.5 × 3.3 cm. Description: fragment from the upper part of the right horizontal arm of a sepulchral cross of the pattée type, with parts of the upper and right margins preserved. The epi­graphic field is framed by a double incised line, leaving a margin of 2.4 cm. In the upper right corner, a decorative cross fourchy, in which the upper and side bars have V-shaped endings, was incised before firing. The borderlines, the letters, and the cross were painted black after firing. On the back, a geometrical pattern was painted black. Palaeo­graphy: inclined epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters not recorded. Biblio­graphy: unpublished.

Excavation number: most probably I 65 (see above, 1.2.2).3 Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, findspot not recorded. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11621). Language: Greek. Material: grey-brown sandstone. Dimensions: 13 × 10 × 7.3 cm. Description: upper fragment of the vertical bar of a sepulchral cross with straight arms, with parts of the upper and side margins preserved. The upper right corner is broken off. The reverse side was only roughly worked. The ending of line 4 is written on the right side surface of the fragment. Palaeo­graphy: round epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: 1.2–1.6 cm.4 Biblio­graphy: Barns in Shinnie and Chittick 1961, 90, no. 65 (ed. pr., in Coptic font); Łajtar 2003a, no. 45, pl. 44 (after the original in Khar­toum). Transcription: after Łajtar and the photo­graph. [†] σ̣τ̣α̣υ ρὸς νε κρῶν 4 ἀνάστα|σις· [-------------- ἐ]τελεύ̣[τησεν -------------] -----------------------------------------------

---[---] † [---]ⲫⲓ ⲕ̄︤ⲏ̄︥ ---[---]phi, (day) 28 [---]. Only a fragment of the dating lemma has been preserved. The object may represent the same category as 206 above. 2. Either [ⲫⲁⲱ]ⲫⲓ or [ⲉⲡⲓ]ⲫⲓ.



1. Barns ] ̣ ̣ ̣[ || 2. Barns ⲣⲟⲥ ̣ ̣ⲉ[ || 4. Barns ⲁⲛⲁⲥⲧⲁ[ⲥ || 5. Barns ]ⲧ̣ⲉⲛⲉ ̣[

3 Łajtar 2003a, 155, gives ‘Ghazali I 69’ as the field inventory number, but he must have misread the label on the stone, as another object, 175, was registered under this number. 4 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of Łajtar 2003a, 155, and on the photo­graph.

6. se pu lchral cros s es 2 71

† The cross is the resurrection of the dead. [---] died [---]. This sepulchral cross provides the only instance in funerary epi­graphy from the Nile Valley of the acclamation ‘The cross is the resurrection of the dead’. For the patristic origin of this acclamation and its attestations elsewhere, see Łajtar 2003a, 157. 211. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 4284; Pl. XXVI:1)

Excavation number: Gh.2016.1.005. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery 2, reused in a secondary stone mastaba constructed on the top of the normal mud-brick mastaba of Tomb Ghz-2-138.5 Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: Greek. Material: porous Nile clay with considerable organic and mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is black, the surface red. The fragment is in very bad state of preservation, extremely fragile and powdery. Dimensions: 17 × 14 (reconstructed c. 38) × 3 cm. Description: fragment of the right horizontal arm of a sepulchral cross of the pattée type, with the margins preserved. The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line, leaving a narrow outer margin. The surface was painted white after firing, while the borderline and letters were painted black. Palaeo­graphy: upright square (?) epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: 1.5–3 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. ------ [------ μη]νὶ Ἐπι [φί 1–2. κ(ύρι)ε Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστ)έ, ἀ]νά [παυσον τὴ]ν̣ ψυ4 [χήν ---] ------[---] in the month of Epiphi, (day) [numeral]. O Lord Jesus Christ, give rest to the soul [---]. This is a rare example of a sepulchral cross inscribed with an epitaph, not merely the acclamation ‘light – life’. Other instances are 210 and probably 212 here, epitaph of Athanasios from Sakinya (Mina 1942, no. 119 (DBMNT 621)) and epitaph of Isaak from



5 I am grateful to Joanna Ciesielska for this information.

211. Fragment of epitaph (photo G. Ochała)

Tamit (Mina 1942, no. 100 (DBMNT 957)). They are discussed in Łajtar 2003a, 156–58.6 The piece preserves a fragment of the dating lemma and the beginning of the prayer. The opening formula, inscribed on the upper arm of the cross, must have been quite short (e.g. ἠμέρα τῆς κοιμήσεως τοῦ δεῖνος, ‘the day of death of so-and-so’, found in 68). It was followed by the name of the deceased, which immediately preceded the date. Judging by the disposition of the text on the cross, the horizontal arm must have been approximately 38 cm wide. 2. The invocation is reconstructed exempli gratia on the basis of 68.

212. Fragment of epitaph (DBMNT 895)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, Cemetery 2, north part. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (inv. 11273s). Language: Coptic? Material: Nile clay; surface red-brown.

6 Note that Łajtar considered the objects published in Mina 1942, no. 100, and Monneret de Villard 1935, 166, as two separate funerary monuments. However, the comparison of the photo­ graph and tracings included in Monneret de Villard’s publication with the schematic drawing in that of Mina’s leaves no doubt as to the identity of the objects. Indeed, Mina did not state the provenance of the cross in the edition, but he listed it among seven inscriptions of non-Sakinya origin that he included in his publication (Mina 1942, vii n. 2).

272 6. s e p ulc hr a l c ro s s e s

213. The ‘light – life’ acclamation (photo G. Ochała)

212. Fragment of epitaph (photo W. Godlewski)

Dimensions: 12 × 9 × 2 cm. 213. The ‘light – life’ acclamation Description: fragment of the central part of a cross. (DBMNT 4285; Pl. XXVI:3) The epi­graphic field framed by a double incised Excavation number: G.13.039. line, preserved only in the upper right corner of the piece.7 Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Room 8, perhaps reused in reparation of the east wall of Palaeo­graphy: inclined round epi­graphic majusthe monastery. cule; height of letters: c. 2 cm.8 Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima Biblio­graphy: Barns in Shinnie and Chittick 1961, (not registered). 84, no. 50 (ed. pr.); van der Vliet 2003, no. 65, pl. 39, lower (after the original in Khar­toum). Language: Greek. Material: grey sandstone, covered with light grey Transcription: after van der Vliet and the patina on the front and dark grey on the sides photo­graph. and back. ---Dimensions: 27.5 × 26 × 9.5 cm. [----]ⲟⲛ [---] [---] ̣ⲛ̇ⲧⲁ ̣[--------] Description: an incomplete sepulchral cross with [---] ̣ ̣ⲡ̣ⲁ[--------] straight arms. The whole of the upper vertical 4 [----]ⲉⲩ̣[----------] arm, a large part of the lower one, and the lower ---corner of the left arm were broken off. The epi­ graphic field is framed by a double incised line The language may be Coptic, as suggested by the leaving a narrow outer margin. cluster ⲛ̇ⲧⲁ, perhaps to be reconstructed ⲛ̇ⲧⲁϥ̣[ⲙⲧⲟⲛ Palaeo ­graphy: upright epi­graphic majuscule; height ⲙⲙⲟϥ], but the reading is too uncertain to include of letters: 4 cm (ⲏ)–6 cm (ⲱ). it in the edition. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. 4. ]ⲉⲭ̣[ is also possible. Diplomatic transcription:     [ⲫ] ⲍ̣ ⲱ ⲏ       ⲥ̣

Reading text: [φ]ῶς̣ – ζ̣ωή.



7 Van der Vliet 2003, 122, thought that the margin and incised lines indicate a rectangular/square opening in the centre of the stela. However, as no similar tombstones are known from Nubia, it is much more probable that the piece belongs to a cross. I thank Alexandros Tsakos for pointing this out to me. 8 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of van der Vliet 2003, 122, and on the photo­graph.

Light – life. The simple ‘light – life’ acclamation is the most popular text inscribed on Nubian sepulchral crosses. For a detailed discussion and list of all examples known to date, see Tsakos 2011.

6. se pu lchral cros s es 2 73

Material: porous Nile clay with organic and mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is black/ dark brown in centre, red towards the edges, the surface originally dark red. Dimensions: – fragment (a): 16 × 9.8 (max); thickness not recorded, – fragment (b): 10.3 (max) × 12.1 × 3.5 cm, – fragment (c): 16.7 × 12.5 (max) × 3.5–4 cm. Reconstructed dimensions: c. 45 × c. 36 cm. Description: three non-connecting fragments of a sepulchral cross of the pattée type. Fragment (a) is the upper vertical bar; fragment (b) is the left horizontal bar; fragment (c) is the lower vertical bar. The front surface of the lower right corner of fragment (c) has been chipped off. The epi­ graphic field is framed by an incised line running along all sides and leaving a narrow outer margin. The cross was painted white after firing; the frame and the letter ⲥ were painted dark red afterwards.9 Palaeo­graphy: upright epi­graphic majuscule; height of letters: ⲫ: 8 cm; ⲍ: 3.5 cm; ⲥ: c. 5 cm. Biblio­graphy: – fragment (a): unpublished; Tsakos 2011, 161, sub 5 (mentioned); – fragments (b) and (c): unpublished. Diplomatic transcription:       ⲫ ⲍ [ⲱ ⲏ]       ⲥ Reading text: φ[ῶ]ς – ζ[ωή].

214. The ‘light – life’ acclamation (photos A. Tsakos (fragm. a) and M. Bogacki (fragm. b and c); digital processing G. Ochała)

214. The ‘light – life’ acclamation (DBMNT 4286; Pl. XXVII:1)

Excavation number: – fragment (a): not registered, Light – life. – fragment (b): Gh.2015.2.004, Fragment (a) was found at a different time than – fragment (c): Gh.2015.2.018. the two remaining pieces, and in unknown circumstances; however, on the basis of shape, dimensions, Findspot: and technique of execution, they undoubtedly all – fragment (a): unknown, perhaps from belong to the same object. Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations, – fragments (b) and (c): Polish-Sudanese 215. Fragment of the ‘light – life’ acclamation excavations, Cemetery 2, fragment (b) (DBMNT 4287) from Tomb Ghz-2-009, fragment (c) from between Tombs Ghz-2-009 and Ghz-2-010. Excavation number: Gh.2015.2.010. Present location: Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery 2, Tomb Ghz-2-041. – fragment (a): Sudan National Museum, Khar­toum (not registered), Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). – fragments (b) and (c): Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: Greek.

9 The description is based on the autoptic examination of fragments (b) and (c) and the photo­graph of fragment (a).

2 74 6. s e p ulc hr a l c ro s s e s

Description: upper vertical bar of a sepulchral cross, perhaps of the pattée type. Palaeo­graphy: upright epi­graphic majuscule; height of the letter: 6.5 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. Diplomatic transcription:       ⲫ [ⲍ ⲱ ⲏ]       [ⲥ] Reading text: φ[ῶς – ζωή]. Light – life.

215. Fragment of the ‘light – life’ acclamation (photo M. Bogacki)

216. Fragment of the ‘light – life’ acclamation (photo G. Ochała)

Language: Greek. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is black, the surface red. Dimensions: 11.5 × 10 × 2.3 cm. Description: upper vertical bar of a sepulchral cross of the pattée type. The surface was whitewashed after firing, then painted red. Palaeo­graphy: upright Nubian-type majuscule (?); height of the letter: 9.5 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. Diplomatic transcription:       ⲫ [ⲍ ⲱ ⲏ]      [ⲥ] Reading text: φ[ῶς – ζωή]. Light – life. 216. Fragment of the ‘light – life’ acclamation (DBMNT 4288)

Excavation number: Gh.2015.2.013. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery 2, surface find. Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: Greek. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is black, the surface and sides red to black. Dimensions: 10.4 × 8.3 × 2.6 cm.

217. Fragment of the ‘light – life’ acclamation (DBMNT 4289)

Excavation number: Gh.2015.2.016. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery 2, between Tombs Ghz-2-041 and Ghz-2-042. Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: Greek. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is grey, the surface red. Dimensions: 17.5 × 12 × 2.5 cm. Description: two connecting fragments of the central part of a sepulchral cross with straight (?) arms: the lower part of the upper vertical arm and right-hand side of the left horizontal bar. The cross was whitewashed after firing, then painted red; the red paint is preserved mainly on the back and sides, with only some traces on the front. Palaeo­graphy: height of the letter: c. 4 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. Diplomatic transcription:        ⲫ̣ [ⲍ] ⲱ̣ [ⲏ]       [ⲥ] Reading text: φ̣ῶ̣[ς – ζ]ω̣[ή]. Light – life. 217. Fragment of the ‘light – life’ acclamation (photo M. Bogacki)

6. se pu lchral cros s es 2 75

218. Fragment of the ‘light – life’ acclamation (photo G. Ochała)

218. Fragment of the ‘light – life’ acclamation (DBMNT 4290)

Excavation number: Gh.2016.1.011. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery 219. Fragment of the ‘light – life’ acclamation (after Tsakos 2011, fig. 1) 2, Tomb Ghz-2-133. Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima 219. Fragment of the ‘light – life’ acclamation (not registered). (DBMNT 2693) Language: Greek. Excavation number: not registered. Material: porous Nile clay with considerable organic Findspot: found in 2006 by Alexandros Tsakos durand small mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). ing a visit to the site. The core is black, the surface red. Present location: left on the site. Dimensions: 8.6 × 7.4 × 3.7–3.8 cm. Language: Greek. Description: upper vertical arm of a sepulchral cross Material: Nile clay. with straight (?) arms. The epi­graphic field is Dimensions: not recorded. framed by an incised line leaving a narrow outer margin. The back was roughly worked. Description: fragment of the right horizontal arm of a sepulchral cross of the fourchy type. Palaeo­graphy: upright epi­graphic majuscule; height of the letter: 3 cm. The ends of the letter were Palaeo­graphy: upright epi­graphic majuscule; height first marked with deep points, then connected of letters not recorded.10 with shallower incised lines. Biblio­graphy: unpublished; Tsakos 2011, 161, sub 5 Biblio­graphy: unpublished. (mentioned), fig. 1. Diplomatic transcription:          ⲍ [ⲫ ⲱ ⲥ]         [ⲏ]

Diplomatic transcription:         [ⲫ] [ⲍ ⲱ] ⲏ         [ⲥ]

Reading text: [φῶς] – ζ[ωή].

Reading text: [φῶς – ζω]ή.

Light – life.

Light – life.

10 I have not seen the original; the description is based on that of Tsakos 2011, 161, and on the photo­graph.

2 76 6. s e p ulc hr a l c ro s s e s

220. Fragment of the ‘light – life’ acclamation (DBMNT 4291)

Excavation number: not registered. Findspot: unknown, perhaps from Shinnie and Chittick’s excavations. Present location: Sudan National Museum, Khar­ toum (not registered). Language: Greek. Material: Nile clay. Dimensions: not recorded. Description: fragment of the arm of a sepulchral cross with one letter preserved.11 Publication: unpublished; Tsakos 2011, 161, sub 5 (mentioned). The object was described by Tsakos as preserving the letter ⲏ. Since it is not known on which bar the letter was preserved, the inscription can be reconstructed in two ways: Diplomatic transcription:         [ⲍ] [ⲫ ⲱ ⲥ]         ⲏ or         [ⲫ] [ⲍ ⲱ] ⲏ         [ⲥ] Reading text: [φῶς – ζω]ή. Light – life. 221. Fragment of the ‘light – life’ acclamation (DBMNT 4292; Pl. XXVI:2)

Excavation number: Gh.2015.2.014. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery 2, in the fill of a secondary burial pit, with a burial of a child, dug into the superstructure of the earlier Tomb Ghz-2-013.12 Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: Greek. Material: porous Nile clay with organic and mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is black/dark brown in centre, red towards edges; the surface is red (slipped).

221. Fragment of the ‘light – life’ acclamation (photo G. Ochała)

Dimensions: 9.2 × 12.3 × 3.5 cm. Description: fragment of the central part of a sepulchral cross, with small fragments of the side margins preserved. The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line. The cross was red-slipped, and the borderline and letters were painted dark red after firing. A fragment of a small cross painted dark red is visible in the bottom part. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. Diplomatic transcription:       [ⲫ] [ⲍ] ⲱ̣ [ⲏ]       [ⲥ] Reading text: [φ]ῶ̣[ς – ζ]ω̣[ή]. Light – life. 222. Fragment of the ‘alpha – omega’ acclamation (DBMNT 4293)

Excavation number: Gh.2016.1.077. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery 2, found in the structure labelled Ghz-2-141, which looked like a mastaba, but there was no burial beneath it.13 Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: unidentified. Material: reddish grey sandstone. Dimensions: 8.4 × 10.5 × max 4 cm. Description: left horizontal arm of a sepulchral cross, widening towards the centre. Palaeo­graphy: upright epi­graphic majuscule; height of the letter: 3.8 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. ⲁ                             [ⲱ]

11 I have not seen the original and there is no photo­graph available; the description is based on that of Tsakos 2011, 161. 12 I am grateful to Joanna Ciesielska for this information. 13 I am grateful to Joanna Ciesielska for this information.

6. se pu lchral cros s es 2 7 7

222. Fragment of the ‘alpha – omega’ acclamation (photo M. Bogacki)

223. Fragment of sepulchral cross (DBMNT 4294)

Excavation number: Gh.2016.1.007. Findspot: Polish-Sudanese excavations, Cemetery 2, Tomb Ghz-2-139, to the south of the mastaba. Present location: Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered). Language: unidentified. Material: porous Nile clay with considerable organic and mineral admixture (mica, quartzite). The core is black, the surface red, painted white after firing. Dimensions: 24 × 15.5 × 3 cm. Description: lower vertical bar of a sepulchral cross with straight arms, with fragments of both side margins and the bottom margin preserved. The epi­graphic field is framed by an incised line. The front surface and the sides were painted white after firing; the back surface was left unpainted, but it bears the impression of the mat on which the cross was left to dry in the sun. The large lower part of the epi­graphic field was left uninscribed. The fragment is in a bad state of preservation: its surface is very eroded and the remains of the inscription are barely visible. Palaeo­graphy: epi­graphic majuscule (?); height of letters: c. 2 cm. Biblio­graphy: unpublished. ̣ ̣[---] ⲅ̣ ̣[---] 2. The first letter may as well be a ⲡ.

223. Fragment of sepulchral cross (photo M. Bogacki)

Abbreviations Papyro­logical publications are abbreviated following the Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin, Demotic, and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets available online at [accessed 1 May 2022].

Periodicals and Series AfrBull ANM AnTard AntSud BASP BIFAO BSAC BSF CBC CRIPEL CSCO EtudTrav EVO GAMAR JBL JEA JJurP JÖB NubLett OCA OLA OrAnt OrChr PAM REG RevEg RSE SudNub ZÄS ZPE

Africana Bulletin Archéo­logie du Nil moyen Antiquité tardive Der Antike Sudan: Mitteilungen der Sudanarchäo­logischen Gesellschaft The Bulletin of the American Society of Papyro­logists Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéo­logie orientale Bulletin de la Société d’archéo­logie copte Beiträge zur Sudanforschung Cahiers de la Bibliothèque copte Cahiers de recherches de l’Institut de papyro­logie et d’égypto­logie de Lille Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Études et travaux Egitto e Vicino Oriente Gdańsk Archaeo­logical Museum and Heritage Protection Fund African Reports Journal of Biblical Literature The Journal of Egyptian Archaeo­logy The Journal of Juristic Papyro­logy Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik Nubian Letters Orientalia Christiana analecta Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta Oriens antiquus Oriens Christianus Polish Archaeo­logy in the Mediterranean Revue des études grecques Revue égypto­logique Rassegna di studi etiopici Sudan and Nubia Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde Zeitschrift für Papyro­logie und Epi­graphik

Other Abbreviations Crum, CD = W. E. Crum. 1939. A Coptic Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press) (and later editions) DACL = F. Cabrol and H. Leclercq. 1907–1953. Dictionnaire d’archéo­logie chrétienne et de liturgie, 30 vols (Paris: Librairie Letouzey et Ané) DBMNT = Database of Medi­eval Nubian Texts [accessed 1 May 2022] Förster, Wb = H. Förster. 2002. Wörterbuch der griechischen Wörter in den koptischen dokumentarischen Texten, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 148 (Berlin: De Gruyter) Lampe, PGL = G. W. H. Lampe. 1961. A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon) LD = K. R. Lepsius. 1849–1856. Denkmæler aus Ægypten und Æthiopien, 12 vols (Berlin: Nicolai) LSJ = H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. S. Jones. 1843. Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University Press) (and later editions) SEG = J. E. Hondius and others. 1923–. Supplementum epi­graphicum Graecum (Leiden, later Amsterdam: Brill) TLG = Thesaurus linguae Graecae [accessed 1 May 2022] TM Nam = Trismegistos People database [accessed 1 May 2022]

Works Cited Primary Sources Quotations from the Greek Old and New Testament are taken, respectively, from the Rahlf ’s edition of the Septuagint and from Nestle-Aland 28th edition, both available at . The Coptic quotations come from the Coptic Scriptorium web-page (Coptic SCRIPTORIUM, Old Testament Corpus, urn:cts:copticLit:ot, v. 2.6.0, February 2020 ; and New Testament Corpus, urn:cts:copticLit:nt, v. 2.5.0, February 2020 ). Translations of biblical passages are after English Standard Version. John of Ephesus, Historia ecclesiastica = Iohannis Ephesini historiae ecclesiasticae pars tertia, ii: Versio, ed. by E. W. Brooks, CSCO, 106 (Leuven: Peeters, 1936)

Secondary Works Adams, W. Y. 1996. Qaṣr Ibrîm: The Late Mediaeval Period, Excavation Memoir, 59 (London: Egypt Exploration Society) Alpi, F. 2015. ‘À propos de l’inscription cruciforme ΦΩΣ/ZΩH (Lumière et vie) en orient proto-byzantin’, Chronos, 32: 133–39 Badawy, A. 1978. Coptic Art and Archaeo­logy: The Art of the Christian Egyptians from the Late Antique to the Middle Ages (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) Bernand, A. 1999. Inscriptions grecques d’Hermoupolis Magna et de sa nécropole, Bibliothèque d’études, 123 (Cairo: IFAO) Brakmann, H. 2006. ‘Defunctus adhuc loquitur. Gottes­dienst und Gebetsliteratur der unter­gegangenen Kirche in Nubien’, Archiv für Liturgie­wissenschaft, 48: 283–333 Brightman, F. E. 1896. Liturgies Eastern and Western: Being the Texts Original or Translated of the Principal Liturgies of the Church, i: Eastern Liturgies (Oxford: Clarendon; repr. 1965) Browne, G. M. 1989. Old Nubian Texts from Qaṣr Ibrīm, ii, Texts from Excavations, 10 (London: Egypt Exploration Society) —— . 1991. Old Nubian Texts from Qaṣr Ibrīm, iii, Texts from Excavations, 12 (London: Egypt Exploration Society) —— . 1992. ‘Griffith’s Old Nubian Sale’, Orientalia, 61: 454–58 —— . 1996. Old Nubian Dictionary, CSCO, 556, Subsidia, 90 (Leuven: Peeters) —— . 2002. Old Nubian Grammar, Languages of the World/Materials, 330 (Munich: Lincom Europa) Brunsch, W. 1995. ‘Koptische und griechische Inschriften in Kairo’, EVO, 18: 65–117 Budde, A. 2004. Die ägyptische Basilios-Anaphora: Text, Kommentar, Geschichte, Jerusalemer theo­logisches Forum, 7 (Münster: Aschendorff) Cedro, A. 2015. ‘Selib 1. Preliminary Report for the 2012 and 2013 Seasons’, PAM, 24.1: 397–410 Choat, M. 2006. Belief and Cult in Fourth-Century Papyri (Turnhout: Brepols) Ciesielska, J. A., A. Obłuski, and R. J. Stark. 2018. ‘The Cemeteries of Ghazali: Seasons 2015/2016’, in A. Lohwasser, T. Karberg, and J. Auenmüller (eds), Bayuda Studies: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Archaeo­logy of the Bayuda Desert in Sudan, Meroitica, 27 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), pp. 257–71 Ciesielska, J. A., and R. J. Stark (in preparation). Ghazali: Cemeteries Contenson, H. de. 1966. Aksha, i: La basilique chrétienne (Paris: Firmin-Didot) Cramer, M. 1941. Die Totenklage bei den Kopten: Mit Hinweisen auf die Totenklage im Orient überhaupt (Vienna: HölderPichler-Tempsky) —— . 1949. Koptische Inschriften im Kaiser-Friedrich-Museum zu Berlin: Ihre sachliche, örtliche und zeitliche Einordnung in das Gesamtgebiet koptischer Grabinschriften (Cairo: Société d’archéo­logie copte) —— . 1957. Archäo­logische und epi­graphische Klassifikation koptischer Denkmäler des Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York und des Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz) Crisci, E. 1996. Scrivere greco fuori d’Egitto: Ricerche sui manoscritti greco-orientali di origine non egiziana dal IV secolo a.C. all’VIII d.C., Papyro­logica Fiorentina, 27 (Florence: Gonelli) Crum, W. E. 1902. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, nos 8001–8741: Coptic Monuments (Cairo: IFAO) Danys, K. 2015. ‘Amphorae from Building SWN.B.I in Dongola’, in W. Godlewski and D. Dzierzbicka (eds), Dongola 2012–2014: Fieldwork, Conservation and Site Management, PCMA Excavation Series, 3 (Warsaw: PCMA UW), pp. 117–51 Deptuła, A. 2015. ‘Inscriptions from Saint Menas’ Church in Selib’, in A. Łajtar, G. Ochała, and J. van der Vliet (eds), Nubian Voices, ii: New Texts and Studies on Christian Nubian Culture, JJurP Supplement, 27 (Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation), pp. 119–35

280 wo r k s ci te d

—— . 2021. Liturgical Poetry in Christian Nubia: The Evidence of Wall Inscriptions in the Lower Church at Banganarti, JJurP Supplement, 38 (Leuven: Peeters) Derda, T., and A. Łajtar. 2019. ‘Organization of the Church in Medi­eval Nubia in the Light of a Newly Discovered Wall Inscription in Dongola’, JÖB, 69: 135–54 Derda, T., and E. Wipszycka. 1994. ‘L’emploi des titres abba, apa et papas dans l’Égypte byzantine’, JJurP, 24: 23–56 Dijkstra, J. H. F. 2008. Philae and the End of Ancient Egyptian Religion: A Regional Study of Religious Transformation (298–642 ce), OLA, 173 (Leuven: Peeters) Dijkstra, J. H. F., and J. van der Vliet. 2003. ‘“In Year One of King Zachari”. Evidence of a New Nubian King from the Monastery of St Simeon at Aswan’, BSF, 8: 31–39 Dobrowolski, J. 1987. ‘On a Recently Discovered Church in Dongola’, NubLett, 9: 1–6 —— . 1991. ‘The First Church at Site D in Old Dongola’, ANM, 5: 29–40 Donadoni, S. 1962. ‘I graffiti della chiesa settentrionale’, in S. Donadoni, A. Stenico, E. Bresciani, M. Torelli, and A. M. Roveri, ‘Sabagura (1960)’, OrAnt, 1: 93–97 —— . 1975. ‘Les graffiti de l’eglise de Sonqi Tino’, in K. Michałowski (ed.), Nubia: récentes recherches; actes du colloque nubio­ logique international au Musée National de Varsovie, 19–22 juin 1972 (Warsaw: National Museum in Warsaw), pp. 31–39 —— . 1986. ‘Trois nouvelles stèles de Ghazali’, in M. Krause (ed.), Nubische Studien: Tagungsakten der 5. internationalen Konferenz der International Society for Nubian Studies, Heidelberg, 22.–25. September 1982 (Mainz: Von Zabern), pp. 223–28 Dresken-Weiland, J. 2007. ‘Vorstellungen von Tod und Jenseits in den frühchristlichen Grabinschriften der Oikumene’, AnTard, 15: 285–302 —— . 2021. ‘Ideas of the Afterlife in Christian Grave Inscriptions and their Context in Contemporaneous Christian Sepulchral Culture in Rome’, in A. Geljon and N. Vos (eds), Rituals in Early Christianity: New Perspectives on Tradition and Transformation (Leiden: Brill), pp. 153–74 Drzewiecki, M. 2016. Mighty Kingdoms and their Forts: The Role of Fortified Sites in the Fall of Meroe and Rise of Medi­eval Realms in Upper Nubia, Nubia, 6 (Warsaw: IKŚO PAN) Eger, J., T. Karberg, and A. Lohwasser. 2019. ‘Medi­eval Presence at the Periphery of the Nubian State of Makuria: Examples from the Wadi Abu Dom and the Jebel al-Ain’, Dotawo, 6: 149–74 Eichner, I. 2018. ‘Death and Burial in the Monastery of St Paulos at Western Thebes, Upper Egypt’, in C. Eger and M. Macken­sen (eds), Death and Burial in the Near East from Roman to Islamic Times, Münchner Beiträge zur provinzial­ römischen Archäo­logie, 7 (Wiesbaden: Reichert), pp. 227–41 Elanskaia, A. I. 1977. ‘Nubijskaja stela x. v. s grečeskoj nadpis’ju’, in Meroe: Istoria, istoria kultury, jazyk drevniego Sudana (Moscow: Nauka), pp. 273–77 Erman, A. 1899. Ausführliches Verzeichnis der ägyptischen Altertümer und Gipsabgüsse, 2nd edn (Berlin: W. Spemann) Evetts, B. T. A., and A. J. Butler. 1894. The Churches and Monasteries of Egypt and Some Neighbouring Countries Attributed to Abu Salih the Armenian (Oxford: Clarendon) Firth, C. M. 1912. The Archaeo­logical Survey of Nubia: Report for 1908–1909, i (Cairo: Government Press) Foerster, W., and G. Quell. 1938. ‘κύριος’, in G. Kittel (ed.), Theo­logisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, iii (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer), pp. 1038–94 Garel, E. 2018. ‘Vouloir ou ne pas vouloir: Devenir moine à Thèbes aux viie–viiie siècles d’après les textes documentaires’, in A. Boud’hors and C. Louis (eds), Études coptes, xv: Dix-septième journée d’études (Lisbonne, 18–20 juin 2015), CBC, 22 (Paris: De Boccard), pp. 245–54 Gerhards, A. 1984. Die griechische Gregoriosanaphora: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des eucharistischen Hochgebets, Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 65 (Münster: Aschendorff) Gerven Oei, V. W. J. van. 2011. ‘The Old Nubian Memorial for King George’, in A. Łajtar and J. van der Vliet (eds), Nubian Voices: Studies in Christian Nubian Culture, JJurP Supplement, 15 (Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation), pp. 225–62 —— . 2021. A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian, OLA, 299 (Leuven: Peeters) Gignac, F. T. 1976. A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, i: Phono­logy, Testi e documenti per lo studio dell’antichità, 55 (Milan: Istituto editoriale cisalpino – La Goliardica) Godlewski, W. 1998. ‘The Role of Dongolese Milieu in the Nubian Church Architecture’, in J. den Heijer, S. Emmel, M. Krasue, and A. Schmidt (eds), ΘEMEΛIA: Spätantike und kopto­logische Studien Peter Grossmann zum 65. Geburtstag, Sprachen und Kulturen des christlichen Orients, 3 (Wiesbaden: Reichert), pp. 127–35 —— . 2000. ‘Old Dongola. Kom A, 1999’, PAM, 11: 197–206 —— . 2002. ‘Introduction to the Golden Age of Makuria (9th–11th Centuries)’, AfrBull, 50: 75–98 —— . 2008. ‘Bishops and Kings. The Official Program of the Pachoras (Faras) Cathedrals’, in W. Godlewski and A. Łajtar (eds), Between the Cataracts: Proceedings of the 11th Conference for Nubian Studies, Warsaw University, 27 August – 2 September 2006, i: Main Papers, PAM Supplement Series, 2.1 (Warsaw: University of Warsaw Press), pp. 263–82

wo r ks cited 2 81

—— . 2013. Dongola – Ancient Tungul: Archaeo­logical Guide, PAM Archaeo­logical Guide, 1 (Warsaw: PCMA UW) Hagen, J. L., and G. Ochała. 2014. ‘Saints and Scriptures for Phaophi: Preliminary Edition of and Commentary on a Typikon Fragment from Qasr Ibrim’, in D. Atanassova and T. Chronz (eds), ⲥⲩⲛⲁⲝⲓⲥ ⲕⲁⲑⲟⲗⲓⲕⲏ: Beiträge zu Gottesdienst und Geschichte der fünf altkirchlichen Patriarchate für Heinzgerd Brakmann zum 70. Geburtstag, Orientalia – Patristica – Oecumenica, 6 (Münster: Lit), pp. 269–90 Helderman, J. 1984. Die Anapausis im Evangelium Veritatis, Nag Hammadi Studies, 18 (Leiden: Brill) Heuser, G. 1929. Die Personennamen der Kopten, i: Untersuchungen, Studien zur Epi­graphik und Papyruskunde, 1 (Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung) Husson, G. 1988. ‘Le paradis de délices (Genèse, 3, 23–24)’, REG, 101: 64–73 Jakobielski, S. 1972. A History of the Bishopric of Pachoras on the Basis of Coptic Inscriptions, Faras, 3 (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe – PWN) —— . 1983. ‘Coptic Graffiti from Faras’, EtudTrav, 13: 134–37 —— . 2001. ‘Das Kloster der Heiligen Dreifaltigkeit. Bauphasen des nordwestlichen Anbaus’, in S. Jakobielski and P. O. Scholz (eds), Dongola-Studien: 35 Jahre polnischer Forschungen im Zentrum des makuritischen Reiches, Bibliotheca Nubica et Aethiopica, 7 (Warsaw: ZAŚ PAN), pp. 141–68 —— . 2010. ‘The Holy Trinity Monastery in Old Dongola. Excavation 2002/3–2006’, GAMAR, 6: 69–90 Jakobielski, S., M. Martens-Czarnecka, M. Łaptaś, B. Mierzejewska, and B. Rostkowska. 2017. Pachoras/Faras: The Wall Paintings from the Cathedrals of Aetios, Paulos and Petros, PAM Mono­graphs, 4 (Warsaw: University of Warsaw Press) Jakobielski, S., and J. van der Vliet. 2011. ‘From Aswan to Dongola: The Epitaph of Bishop Joseph (Died ad 668)’, in A. Łajtar and J. van der Vliet (eds), Nubian Voices: Studies in Christian Nubian Culture, JJurP Supplement, 15 (Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation), pp. 15–35 Junker, H. 1925a. ‘Die christliche Grabsteine Nubiens’, ZÄS, 60: 111–48 —— . 1925b. Ermenne: Bericht über die Grabungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien auf den Friedhöfen von Ermenne (Nubien) im Winter 1911/12, Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Denkschriften 67.1 (Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky) Kamel, I., and G. D. Girgis. 1987. Catalogue général des antiquités du Musée copte, nos 1–253: Coptic Funerary Stelae (Cairo: Organisation égyptienne générale du livre) Kaplony, A. 2015. ‘On the Ortho­graphy and Pronunciation of Arabic Names and Terms in the Greek Petra, Nessana, Qurra, and Senouthios Letters (Sixth to Eighth Centuries ce)’, Mediterranean Language Review, 22: 1–81 Kosack, W. 1974. Lehrbuch des Koptischen (Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt) Krause, M. 1975. ‘Die Formulare der christlichen Grab­steine Nubiens’, in K. Michałowski (ed.), Nubia: récentes recherches; actes du colloque nubio­logique international au Musée National de Varsovie, 19–22 juin 1972 (Warsaw: National Museum in Warsaw), pp. 76–82 Kubińska, J. 1974. Inscriptions grecques chrétiennes, Faras, 4 (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe – PWN) Łajtar, A. 1992a. ‘A Greek Christian Inscription from Ginari, Lower Nubia’, ZPE, 91: 147–49 —— . 1992b. ‘Notes on Greek Christian Inscriptions from the Nile Valley’, ZPE, 93: 137–40 —— . 1992c. ‘Two Greek Inscriptions from Polish Excavations in Old Dongola in the Collection of the National Museum in Warsaw’, Aegyptus, 72: 111–42 —— . 1995. ‘Weitere Bemerkungen zu griechischen Inschriften aus dem Koptischen Museum in Kairo’, JJurP, 25: 67–97 —— . 1996a. ‘Three Christian Epitaphs in Greek from Reisner Excavations in the Area of Gebel Barkal (Northern Sudan)’, JJurP, 26: 73–89 —— . 1996b. ‘Varia Nubica IV: Das älteste nubische Epitaph mit dem Gebet vom sogenannten Typus Eucho­logion Mega?’, ZPE, 113: 101–08 —— . 1997. ‘Greek Funerary Inscriptions from Old Dongola: General Note’, OrChr, 81: 107–26 —— . 1998. ‘The Epitaph of Iesousinkouda, Eparch of Nobadia, domestikos of Faras and nauarchos of the Nobades’, GAMAR, 1: 73–80 —— . 2001a. ‘Varia Nubica VI–VII’, ZPE, 137: 183–86 —— . 2001b. ‘Terracotta Funerary Stele of the Monk Ioannes from Old Dongola’, in S. Jakobielski and P. O. Scholz (eds), Dongola-Studien: 35 Jahre polnischer Forschungen im Zentrum des makuritischen Reiches, Bibliotheca Nubica et Aethiopica, 7 (Warsaw: ZAŚ PAN), pp. 327–34 —— . 2002. ‘Georgios, Archbishop of Dongola († 1113) and his Epitaph’, in T. Derda, J. Urbanik, and M. Węcowski (eds), EYEPΓEΣIAΣ XAPIN: Studies Presented to Benedetto Bravo and Ewa Wipszycka by their Disciples, JJurP Supplement, 1 (Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation), pp. 159–92 —— . 2003a. Catalogue of the Greek Inscriptions in the Sudan National Museum at Khartoum (I. Khartoum Greek), OLA, 122 (Leuven: Peeters) —— . 2003b. ‘Three Greek Epitaphs from Banganarti’, JJurP, 33: 161–75

282 wo r k s ci te d

—— . 2004. ‘Varia Nubica VIII–IX’, JJurP, 34: 87–94 —— . 2011. ‘New Finds of Greek Epitaphs at Dongola (with Appendix: J. van der Vliet, Two Coptic Epitaphs)’, in A. Łajtar and J. van der Vliet (eds), Nubian Voices: Studies in Christian Nubian Culture, JJurP Supplement, 15 (Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation), pp. 37–94 —— . 2014a. ‘Dongola 2010: Epi­graphic Report’, PAM, 23.1: 285–95 —— . 2014b. ‘A Survey of Christian Textual Finds from Gebel Adda in the Collections of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto’, in J. R. Anderson and D. A. Welsby (eds), The Fourth Cataract and Beyond: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference for Nubian Studies, British Museum Publications on Egypt and Sudan, 1 (Leuven: Peeters), pp. 951–59 —— . 2015. ‘Three Fragments of Terracotta Epitaphs from El-Koro and Karmel (Abu Hamed Reach)’, in A. Łajtar, G. Ochała, and J. van der Vliet (eds), Nubian Voices, ii: New Texts and Studies on Christian Nubian Culture, JJurP Supplement, 27 (Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation), pp. 137–48 —— . 2020. A Late Christian Pilgrimage Centre in Nubia: The Evidence of Wall Inscriptions in the Upper Church at Banganarti, JJurP Supplement, 39 (Leuven: Peeters) —— . (forthcoming a). ‘Nubian Bishops: A Study of a Segment of Christian Nubian Society’, in A. Łajtar, Nubica: Studies in Christian Nubian History and Epi­graphy, JJurP Supplement —— . (forthcoming b). ‘The So-Called Kudanbes Inscription in Deir Anba Hadra (St Simeon Monastery) near Aswan: An Attempt at a New Reading and Interpretation’, in A. Łajtar, Nubica: Studies in Christian Nubian History and Epi­graphy, JJurP Supplement —— . (forthcoming c). ‘Learning Writing and Reading in the Middle Nile Valley in Christian Times: Texts with Educational Contents from Dongola and Other Christian Nubian Sites’, in A. Łajtar, Nubica: Studies in Christian Nubian History and Epi­graphy, JJurP Supplement Łajtar, A., and G. Ochała. 2015. ‘Two Wall Inscriptions from the Faras Cathedral with Lists of People and Goods’, in A. Łajtar, G. Ochała, and J. van der Vliet (eds), Nubian Voices, ii: New Texts and Studies on Christian Nubian Culture, JJurP Supplement, 27 (War­saw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation), pp. 73–102 —— . 2017a. ‘Ase: A Toponym and/or a Personal Name (Notes on Medi­eval Nubian Toponymy 3)’, Dotawo, 4: 241–56

—— . 2017b. ‘Two Private Prayers in Wall Inscriptions in the Faras Cathedral’, EtudTrav, 30: 303–14 —— . 2018. ‘Kimeliarches, “Treasurer”: A So-Far Unidentified Office in the Kingdom of Makuria (with Notes on Several Other Offices and Titles)’, in T. A. Bács, Á. Bollók, and T. Vida (eds), Across the Mediterranean – Along the Nile: Studies in Egypto­ logy, Nubio­logy and Late Antiquity Dedicated to László Török on the Occasion of his 75th Birthday (Budapest: Institute of Archaeo­logy, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences – Museum of Fine Arts), pp. 557–73 —— . 2020. ‘Language Use and Literacy in Late Antique and Medi­eval Nubia’, in G. Emberling and B. B. Williams (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Nubia (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 787–805 Łajtar, A., and K. Pluskota. 2001. ‘Inscribed Vessels from the Monastery of the Holy Trinity at Old Dongola’, in S. Jakobielski and P. O. Scholz (eds), Dongola-Studien: 35 Jahre polnischer Forschungen im Zentrum des makuritischen Reiches, Bibliotheca Nubica et Aethiopica, 7 (Warsaw: ZAŚ PAN), pp. 335–55 Łajtar, A., and A. Twardecki. 2003. Catalogue des inscriptions grecques du Musée National de Varsovie, JJurP Supplement, 2 (Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation) Łajtar, A., and J. van der Vliet. 2010. Qasr Ibrim: The Greek and Coptic Inscriptions Published on Behalf of the Egypt Exploration Society, JJurP Supplement, 13 (Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation) —— . 2017. Empowering the Dead in Christian Nubia: The Texts from a Medi­eval Funerary Complex in Dongola, JJurP Supplement, 32 (Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation) Lantschoot, A. van. 1929. Recueil des colophons des manuscrits chrétiens d’Égypte, i: Les colophons coptes des manuscrits sahidiques, Bibliothèque du Muséon, 1 (Leuven: Istas) Leclercq, H. 1920. ‘Défunts (Commémoraison des)’, in DACL, iv.1, cols 427–56 Lefebvre, G. 1907. Recueil des inscriptions grecques-chrétiennes d’Égypte (Cairo: IFAO) Lepsius, K. R. 1852. Briefe aus Aegypten, Aethiopien und der Halbinsel des Sinai, 1842–1845 (Berlin: Hertz; repr. Osnabrück: Zeller, 1975) Lethmayer, B., and M. Zach. 1986. ‘Bemerkungen zu einigen Graffiti auf der Keramik von Wadi el Ghazali’, BSF, 1: 141–48 Linant de Bellefonds, L. M. A. 1958. Journal d’un voyage à Méroé dans les années 1821 et 1822, ed. by M. Shinnie (Khartoum: Sudan Antiquities Service) Luck, U. 1973. ‘φιλανθρωπία, φιλάνθρωπος’, in G. Friedrich (ed.), Theo­logisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ix (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer), pp. 107–11 Mallon, A. 1914. ‘Copte (épi­graphie)’, in DACL, iii.2, cols 2819–86

wo r ks cited 2 83

Martin, G. T. 2005. Stelae from Egypt and Nubia in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, c. 3000 bc – ad 1150 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Meltzer, E. S. 1982. ‘The Coptic Texts’, in A. J. Mills, The Cemeteries of Qaṣr Ibrîm: A Report of the Excavations Conducted by W. B. Emery in 1961, Excavation Memoir, 51 (London: Egypt Exploration Society), pp. 82–85 Merkt, A. 2012. ‘Das Schweigen und Sprechen der Gräber. Zur Aussagekraft frühchristlicher Epitaphe’, in J. Dresken-Weiland, A. Angerstorfer, and A. Merkt, Himmel – Paradies – Schalom: Tod und Jenseits in christlichen und jüdischen Grabinschriften, Handbuch zur Geschichte des Todes im frühen Christentum und seiner Umwelt, 1 (Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner), pp. 13–69 Mina, T. 1942. Inscriptions coptes et grecques de Nubie (Cairo: Société d’archéo­logie copte) Monneret de Villard, U. 1927. Il monastero di S. Simeone presso Aswân, i: Descrizione archeo­logica (Milan: Tipo­grafia e libreria pontificia arcivescovile S. Giuseppe) —— . 1932. ‘Note nubiane: 1. Articula [Plin., N.H., VI, 184]. 2. La Chiesa melkita di Nubia’, Aegyptus, 12: 305–16 —— . 1935. La Nubia medioevale, i (Cairo: IFAO) —— . 1938. Storia della Nubia cristiana, OCA, 118 (Rome: Pontificum Institutum Orientalium Studiorum) Munier, H. 1930–1931. ‘Les stèles coptes du Monastère de Saint-Siméon à Assouan’, Aegyptus, 11: 257–300 and 433–84 Munro-Hay, S. 1982–1983. ‘Kings and Kingdoms of Ancient Nubia’, RSE, 29: 87–137 Obłuski, A. 2014. ‘Ghazali Site Presentation Project 2012–2014. Preliminary Results’, AntSud, 25: 197–204 —— . 2016. ‘Nobadian and Makurian Church Architecture. Qasr el-Wizz, a Case Study’, in A. Łajtar, A. Obłuski, and I. Zych (eds), Aegyptus et Nubia Christiana: The Włodzimierz Godlewski Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday (Warsaw: PCMA UW), pp. 481–512 —— . 2018. ‘El-Ghazali – a Royal Monastery in Northern Sudan?’, SudNub, 22: 155–66 —— . 2019. The Monasteries and Monks of Nubia, JJurP Supplement, 36 (Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation) Obłuski, A., and M. Korzeniowska. 2018. ‘The Dormitory of Ghazali Monastery, Sudan’, in T. A. Bács, Á. Bollók, and T. Vida (eds), Across the Mediterranean – Along the Nile: Studies in Egypto­logy, Nubio­logy and Late Antiquity Dedicated to László Török on the Occasion of his 75th Birthday (Budapest: Institute of Archaeo­logy, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences – Museum of Fine Arts), pp. 601–11 Obłuski, A., and G. Ochała. 2016. ‘La redécouverte d’un monastère nubien: premiers résultats des fouilles polonaises à Ghazali, Ouadi Abu Dom’, in A. Boud’hors and C. Louis (eds), Études coptes, xiv: Seizième journée d’études (Genève, 19–21 juin 2013), CBC, 21 (Paris: De Boccard), pp. 63–79 Obłuski, A., G. Ochała, M. Bogacki, W. Małkowski, S. Maślak, and Zaki el-Din Mahmoud. 2015. ‘Ghazali 2012: Preliminary Report’, PAM, 24.1: 431–42 Obłuski, A., G. Ochała, C. Calaforra-Rzepka, M. Korzeniowska, S. Maślak, and Zaki el-Din Mahmoud. 2017. ‘The Winter Seasons 2013 and 2014 in the Ghazali Monastery’, PAM 26.1: 367–98 Obłuski, A., J. Ciesielska, R. Stark, A. Chlebowski, A. Misiurny, M. Żelechowski-Stoń, and Zaki el-Din Mahmoud. 2018. ‘Qatar Sudan Archaeo­logical Project: Excavations at the Ghazali Monastery from 2014 to 2016’, PAM, 27.1: 245–72

Ochała, G. 2011a. Chrono­logical Systems of Christian Nubia, JJurP Supplement, 16 (Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation) —— . 2011b. ‘The Date of the Dendur Foundation Inscription Reconsidered’, BASP, 48: 217–24 —— . 2014. ‘Multilingualism in Christian Nubia: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches’, Dotawo, 1: 1–50 —— . 2015. ‘The Nubian Liturgical Calendar: The Evi­dence of the Nubian Lectionaries’, Le Muséon, 128: 1–48 —— . 2016. ‘Multilingualism in Christian Nubia: A Case Study of the Monastery of Ghazali (Wadi Abu Dom, Sudan)’, in T. Derda, A. Łajtar, and J. Urbanik (eds), Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of Papyro­logy, Warsaw, 29 July – 3 August 2013, ii, JJurP Supplement, 28 (Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation), pp. 1265–83 —— . 2017. ‘Nubica onomastica miscellanea II: Notes on and Corrections to Names Found in Inscriptions from Sakinya’, BSAC, 32: 127–38 —— . 2018. ‘Nubica onomastica miscellanea III: Notes on and Corrections to Personal Names Found in Christian Nubian Written Sources’, JJurP, 48: 141–84 —— . 2019. ‘Nubica onomastica miscellanea I: Notes on and Corrections to Personal Names Found in Inscriptions from Faras’, EtudTrav, 32: 181–98 Pargoire, J. 1907. ‘Archimandrite’, in DACL, i.2, cols 2753–54 Popescu, E. 1976. Inscripţiile greceşti şi latine din sec. IV–XIII descoperite în România (Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România) Presedo Velo, F. J. 1964. La fortaleza Nubia de Cheikh-Daud, Tumas (Egipto), Memorias de la mision arqueo­logica, 4 (Madrid: Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, Direccion General de Relaciones Culturales) Revillout, E. 1885. ‘Les prières pour les morts dans l’épi­graphie égyptienne’, RevEg, 4: 1–54

284 wo r k s ci te d

Richter, T. S. 2013. ‘Koptische und griechische Grabstelen aus Ägypten und Nubien’, in S. Hodak, T. S. Richter, and F. Steinmann, Coptica: Koptische Ostraka und Papyri, koptische und griechische Grabstelen aus Ägypten und Nubien, spät­ antike Bauplastik, Textilien und Keramik, Katalog Ägyptischer Sammlungen in Leipzig, 3 (Leipzig: Manetho), pp. 123–62 Rist, M. 1938. ‘The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: A Liturgical and Magical Formula’, JBL, 57: 289–303 Roquet, G. 1977. ‘Inscriptions bohaïriques de Dayr Abû Maqâr’, BIFAO, 77: 163–79 Ruffini, G. R. 2014. The Bishop, the Eparch and the King: Old Nubian Texts from Qasr Ibrim, iv, JJurP Supplement, 22 (Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation) Salvoldi, D., and K. Geus. 2017. ‘A Historical Comparative Gazetteer for Nubia’, Dotawo, 4: 57–182 Satzinger, H. 1992. ‘Das altnubische Namenselement -ⲕⲟⲩⲇⲁ: “Diener”?’, in U. Luft (ed.), The Intellectual Heritage of Egypt: Studies Presented to László Kákosy by Friends and Colleagues on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Studia Aegyptiaca, 14 (Budapest: Chaire d’égypto­logie de l’Université Eötvös Loránd), pp. 519–21 —— . 2004. ‘Some Peculiarities of Greek and Coptic Epi­graphy from Nubia’, in M. Immerzeel and J. van der Vliet (eds), Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium: Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies, Leiden, 27 August – 2 September 2000, OLA, 133 (Leuven: Peeters), pp. 529–35 Scanlon, G. T. 1970. ‘Excavations at Kasr el-Wizz: A Preliminary Report. I’, JEA, 56: 29–57 —— . 1972. ‘Excavations at Kasr el-Wizz: A Preliminary Report. II’, JEA, 58: 7–42 Schaten, S. 1996. ‘89. Grabstele des Marankoudja’, in Ägypten: Schätze aus dem Wüstensand; Kunst und Kultur der Christen am Nil. Katalog zur Ausstellung herausgegeben vom Gustav-Lübecke-Museum der Stadt Hamm und der Museum für Spätantike und Byzantinische Kunst, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin-Preußischer Kulturbesitz (Wiesbaden: Reichert), p. 131 Scheidel, W. 2001. Death on the Nile: Disease and the Demo­graphy of Roman Egypt, Mnemosyne Supplement, 228 (Leiden: Brill) Schlunk, H. 1939. Kunst der Spätantike im Mittelmeerraum: Spätantike und byzantinische Kleinkunst aus Berliner Besitz; Ausstellung aus Anlass des VI. Internationalen Kongresses für Archäo­logie, veranstaltet vom Generaldirektor der Staatlichen Museen Berlin (Berlin: De Gruyter) Shinnie, P. L. 1974. ‘Multilingualism in Medi­eval Nubia’, in Abdelgadir Mahmoud Abdalla (ed.), Studies in Ancient Languages of the Sudan: Papers Presented at the Second International Conference on ‘Language and Literature in the Sudan’ Sponsored by the Sudan Research Unit, 7–12 December 1970 (Khartoum: Khartoum University Press), pp. 41–47 Shinnie, P. L., and H. N. Chittick. 1961. Ghazali: A Monastery in the Northern Sudan, Sudan Antiquities Service Occasional Papers, 5 (Khartoum: Sudan Antiquities Service) Shinnie, P. L., and M. Shinnie. 1978. Debeira West: A Medi­eval Nubian Town (Warminster: Aris & Phillips) Stark, R. J., and J. Ciesielska. 2018. ‘Cemetery 4 at Ghazali (Sudan). Excavations during the Fall 2016 Season’, in A. Lohwasser, T. Karberg, and J. Auenmüller (eds), Bayuda Studies: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Archaeo­logy of the Bayuda Desert in Sudan, Meroitica, 27 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), pp. 273–83 —— . 2019. ‘Vertebral Infection in a Male Individual Buried in the Monastic Cemetery (Cemetery 2) at Ghazali (ca. 670–1270 ce), Northern Sudan’, International Journal of Paleopatho­logy, 24: 34–40 Stuiber, A. 2001. ‘Amen’, in T. Klauser and E. Dassmann (eds), Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, Supplement-Band, 1 (Stuttgart: Hiersemann), cols 310–23 Talbot, A.-M., and S. McGrath. 2006. ‘Monastic Onomastics’, in M. Kaplan (ed.), Monastères, images, pouvoirs et société à Byzance (Paris: Éditions de la Sorbonne), pp. 89–100 Tibiletti Bruno, M. G. 1963. ‘Di alcune caratteristiche epigrafi funerarie cristiane della Nubia’, Rendiconti dell’Istituto Lombardo, 97: 491–538 —— . 1964. Iscrizioni nubiane (Pavia: Tipografia Successori Fusi) Till, W. C. 1962. Datierung und Prosopo­graphie der koptischen Urkunden aus Theben (Vienna: Böhlau) Treffort, C. 2007. Mémoires carolingiennes: l’épitaphe entre célébration mémorielle, genre littéraire et manifeste politique (milieu viiie – début xie siècle) (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes) Trémaux, P. 1852–1862. Parallèles des édifices anciens et modernes du continent africain dessinés et relevés de 1847 à 1854 (Paris: Hachette) —— . 1862. Voyages au Soudan oriental et dans l’Afrique septentrionale, éxecutés de 1847 à 1854 (Paris: Hachette) Trigger, B. G. 1967. The Late Nubian Settlement at Arminna West, Publications of the Pennsylvania-Yale Expedition to Egypt, 2 (New Haven: Peabody Museum of Natural History of Yale University) Tsakos, A. 2007. ‘On the Medi­eval Inscriptional Material from M.D.A.S.P.’, in C. Näser and M. Lange (eds), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Archaeo­logy of the Fourth Nile Cataract, Berlin, August 4th–6th, 2005, Meroitica, 23 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), pp. 235–46

wo r ks cited 2 85

—— . 2009a. ‘Medi­eval Inscriptions from the Renovated Museum at Jebel Barkal (Sudan)’, in J.-P. Monferrer-Sala, V. Christides, and Th. Papadopoullos (eds), East and West: Essays on Byzantine and Arab Worlds in the Middle Ages, Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies, 15 (Piscataway: Gorgias), pp. 219–45 —— . 2009b. ‘Addenda and Corrigenda to the Khartoum Inscriptions (I. Khartoum Copt. and Greek)’, JJurP, 39: 199–215 —— . 2010. ‘Terracotta Funerary Stelae from Christian Nubia’, in W. Godlewski and A. Łajtar (eds), Between the Cataracts: Proceedings of the 11th Conference of Nubian Studies, Warsaw University, 27 August – 2 September 2006, ii: Session Papers, PAM Supplement, 2.2 (Warsaw: Warsaw University Press), pp. 683–94 —— . 2011. ‘Sepulchral Crosses from Nubia with the ΦΩΣ – ZΩH Acclamation’, in A. Łajtar and J. van der Vliet (eds), Nubian Voices: Studies in Christian Nubian Culture, JJurP Supplement, 15 (Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation), pp. 157–70 —— . 2011–2012. ‘Medi­eval Funerary Inscriptions from Sai Island’, CRIPEL, 29 (= F. Doyen and D. Devauchelle (eds), Fouilles sur l’île de Saï (Soudan) 2005–2010): 297–330 Tudor, B. 2011. Christian Funerary Stelae of the Byzantine and Arab Periods from Egypt (Marburg: Tectum) Vantini, G. 1975. Oriental Sources Concerning Nubia (Heidelberg: Heidelberger Akademie der Wissen­schaften – Polish Academy of Sciences) Vliet, J. van der. 2003. Catalogue of the Coptic Inscriptions in the Sudan National Museum at Khartoum (I. Khartoum Copt.), OLA, 121 (Leuven: Peeters) —— . 2010. ‘Coptic as a Nubian Literary Language: Four Theses for Discussion’, in W. Godlewski and A. Łajtar (eds), Between the Cataracts: Proceedings of the 11th Conference for Nubian Studies, Warsaw University, 27 August – 2 September 2006, ii: Session Papers, PAM Supplement, 2.2 (Warsaw: University of Warsaw Press), pp. 765–72 —— . 2011. ‘“What Is Man?” The Nubian Tradition of Coptic Funerary Inscriptions’, in A. Łajtar and J. van der Vliet (eds), Nubian Voices: Studies in Christian Nubian Culture, JJurP Supplement, 15 (Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation), pp. 171–224 —— . 2015. ‘Nubian Voices from Edfu: Egyptian Scribes and Nubian Patrons in Southern Egypt’, in A. Łajtar, G. Ochała, and J. van der Vliet (eds), Nubian Voices, ii: New Texts and Studies on Christian Nubian Culture, JJurP Supplement, 27 (Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation), pp. 263–77 —— . 2018. ‘Two Dated Coptic Epitaphs from Dongola’, JJurP, 48: 321–30 Vliet, J. van der, and K. A. Worp. 2015. ‘Four North-Nubian Funerary Stelae from the Bankes Collection’, in A. Łajtar, G. Ochała, and J. van der Vliet (eds), Nubian Voices, ii: New Texts and Studies on Christian Nubian Culture, JJurP Supplement, 27 (Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation), pp. 28–43 Weissbrodt, W. 1905/06. ‘Ein aegyptischer christlicher Grabstein mit Inschrift aus der griechischen Liturgie im Königlichen Lyceum Hosianum zu Braunsberg und ähnliche Denkmäler in auswärtigen Museen. Erster Teil’, Verzeichnis der Vorlesungen am Königlichen Lyceum Hosianum zu Braunsberg (Wintersemester): 3–26 —— . 1909. ‘Ein aegyptischer christlicher Grabstein mit Inschrift aus der griechischen Liturgie im Königlichen Lyceum Hosianum zu Braunsberg und ähnliche Denkmäler in auswärtigen Museen. Zweiter Teil’, Verzeichnis der Vorlesungen am Königlichen Lyceum Hosianum zu Braunsberg (Sommersemester): 3–32 Welsby, D. A. 2002. The Medi­eval Kingdoms of Nubia: Pagans, Christians and Muslims along the Middle Nile (London: The British Museum Press) Werner, R. 2013. Das Christentum in Nubien: Geschichte und Gestalte einer afrikanischen Kirche, Studien zur orientalischen Kirchengeschichte, 48 (Berlin: Lit) Whiteman, A. J. 1971. The Geo­logy of the Sudan Republic (Oxford: Clarendon) Wietheger, C. 1992. Das Jeremias-Kloster zu Saqqara unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Inschriften, Arbeiten zum spätantiken und koptischen Ägypten, 1 (Altenberge: Oros) Wipszycka, E. 2009. Moines et communautés monastiques en Égypte, ive–viiie siècles, JJurP Supplement, 11 (Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation) —— . 2015. The Alexandrian Church: People and Institu­tions, JJurP Supplement, 25 (Warsaw: Raphael Tauben­schlag Foundation) —— . 2018. Second Gift of the Nile: Monks and Monasteries in Late Antique Egypt, JJurP Supplement, 33 (Warsaw: Raphael Taubenschlag Foundation) Žabkar, L. V. 1967. ‘Three Christian Grave Stelas’, in H. Ricke (ed.), Ausgrabungen von Khor-Dehmit bis Bet el-Wali, The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition, 2 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press), pp. 16–19 Żurawski, B. 1999. ‘The Monastery on Kom H in Old Dongola. The Monks’ Graves. A Preliminary Report’, Nubica, 4/5: 202–53 —— . 2003. Survey and Excavations between Old Dongola and Ez-Zuma, Nubia, 2, Southern Dongola Reach Survey, 1 (Warsaw: Neriton)

‫‪Arabic Summary‬‬ ‫أن هذا قد حدث قبل مائة عام بالنسبة للمعايير النوبية‪ ،‬فإننا نجد نفس‬ ‫التسلسل الزمني في مصر‪ ،‬وخاصة في دير األنبا حضرة في أسوان‪،‬‬ ‫مما يشير إلى ارتباط مصر بالرهبنة‪.‬‬

‫‪ .3‬نقوش الغزالي الجنائزية من حيث المواد وتقنيات‬ ‫التنفيذ والزخرفة‪:‬‬ ‫في هذا الفصل‪ ،‬يصف الكاتب ويناقش الجوانب المادية المختلفة‬ ‫المتعلقة بالكتابات الجنائزية المنحدرة من الغزالي‪ ،‬من حيث المواد‬ ‫المستخدمة إلنتاج اآلثار (‪ ،)3.1‬وتقنيات تنفيذها (‪ ،)3.2‬والعناصر‬ ‫المستخدمة لتزيين األدعية الجنائزية وصلبان القبور (‪ .)3.3‬وضع‬ ‫الكاتب في الفصل الفرعي األخير (‪ ،)3.4‬المعلومات المجمعة في‬ ‫السياق األوسع للنقوش الجنائزية المسيحية لوادي النيل بأكمله‪ ،‬وهو‬ ‫يُولى اهتماما ً خاصا ً للشعبية الهائلة للكتابة على الطين في الغزالي‪،‬‬ ‫والتي تُفَسَّر على أنها عنصر من التقاليد المحلية للمقرة‪ ،‬إلى جانب‬ ‫بساطة الزخرفة التي يبدو أنها شائعة في النقوش الرهبانية في النوبة‬ ‫ومصر‪.‬‬

‫‪ .4‬إستخدام اللغة‪:‬‬ ‫يوضح هذا الفصل أهمية عدم أخذ صالت الدير بمصر‪ ،‬مهما كانت‬ ‫درجة وضوحها‪ -‬قوة أو ضعفاً‪ -‬من خالل مظهرها الخارجي فقط‪،‬‬ ‫بغض النظر عن أسسها المختلفة‪ .‬ومن ثم فإنه‪ -‬أي الفصل‪ -‬يدقق‬ ‫في استخدام اللغات في اآلثار الجنائزية التي تنتمي للغزالي وجزئها‬ ‫المركزي يتجلى في الجدال مع الرأي العام القائل بأن االنتشار‬ ‫الملحوظ للقبطية في الغزالي يشير إلى «مصرية» الدير العرقية‪.‬‬ ‫وبنا ًء على حجج جاك فان دير فليت ضد هذا الرأي‪ ،‬يجادل المؤلف‬ ‫في التأثير الثقافي المصري العام على الرهبنة النوبية كسبب وراء‬ ‫هيبة اللغة القبطية بين رهبان الغزالي‪ .‬ويود الكاتب في ذات الوقت‪،‬‬ ‫أن يلفت االنتباه إلى الجودة العالية للغة النقوش اليونانية في الدير‪،‬‬ ‫فهي تتجاوز ما نجده في ضريح نوبي مكتوب بيونانية متوسطة‪​​،‬‬ ‫ويشير هذا الحال إلى المستوى العالي لمحو األمية في دير الغزالي‪.‬‬

‫‪ .5‬اصطالحات الكتابة والنسخ‪:‬‬ ‫هذا الفصل التقني إلى حد كبير‪ ،‬مليء بالوصف التفصيلي ألشكال‬ ‫الحروف‪ ،‬باإلضافة إلى الحروف المركبة واالختصارات التي‬ ‫يستخدمها محررو النقوش‪ .‬نأمل أن يمهد األطلس المصور ألشكال‬ ‫الحروف الموجودة في الغزالي (الجدول ‪ )6‬الطريق للدراسات‬ ‫سا غير‬ ‫الباليوغرافية للنقوش النوبية المسيحية‪ ،‬والتي هي أسا ً‬ ‫موجودة‪.‬‬

‫‪ .6‬صيغ المرثيات‪:‬‬ ‫يتناول هذا الفصل والفصول التالية‪ ،‬المعلومات التي يمكن الحصول‬ ‫عليها من محتويات النصوص التي تمت مناقشتها‪ .‬يعرض المؤلف‬ ‫في الفصل السادس‪ ،‬معالجة شاملة للصيغ اليونانية والقبطية الموجودة‬ ‫في اآلثار الجنائزية بالغزالي‪ ،‬والتي تم تعريفها على أنها «تنسيق‬ ‫نصي محدد‪ ،‬يؤطر ويعرض جوهر كل مرثية واسم المتوفى»‬ ‫(‪ .)Van der Vliet 2011, 181–82‬وفحص الكاتب في األقسام‬

‫الملخص‬ ‫يحتوي هذا المجلد على أكثر من ‪ 200‬أثر جنائزي كتابي باللغتين‬ ‫اليونانية والقبطية‪ ،‬تم اكتشافها في دير الغزالي المسيحي بوادي‬ ‫أبو دوم في السودان‪ .‬وجرى الكشف عنها بين منتصف القرن‬ ‫التاسع عشر والفترة التي شهدت آخر أعمال التنقيب التي قام بها‬ ‫الفريق اآلثاري فيما عُرف بمشروع عرض موقع الغزالي األثري‬ ‫(‪ )GASP‬بين (‪ .)2012–2018‬ويشكل العمل الكتابي واللغوي‬ ‫سا راسخا ً لمناقشة مفصلة‬ ‫الشامل‪ ،‬المقدم في كتالوج اآلثار‪ ،‬أسا ً‬ ‫للمجموعة‪ ،‬بما في ذلك سياقها األثري‪ ،‬والجوانب المادية‪ ،‬واستخدام‬ ‫اللغة‪ ،‬والصيغ‪ .‬ويكمل الصورة َ تحلي ُل الممارسات السمعية والتسلسل‬ ‫الهرمي للرهبان‪ ،‬ويُبرز األفراد والمجتمع المسؤولين عن إنتاج‬ ‫هذه النصوص‪ .‬وبفضل هذا النهج متعدد األبعاد‪ ،‬صارت اللوحات‬ ‫الحجرية ولوحات الطين شاهدًا على الحياة والموت في ذلك الدير‪.‬‬ ‫ويتكون المجلد من جزأين‪:‬‬ ‫أوالً‪ :‬كتابات جنائزية من الغزالي‪.‬‬ ‫ثانيًا‪ :‬فهرس النقوش‪.‬‬ ‫ينقسم الجزء األول إلى الفصول التالية‪:‬‬

‫‪ .1‬الغزالي‪ :‬علم اآلثار والنقوش‪:‬‬ ‫يقدم الفصل نظرة عامة على علم اآلثار (‪ )1.1‬والكتابات (‪ )1.2‬في‬ ‫الغزالي‪ ،‬بما في ذلك أسئلة مثل تاريخ البحث والتضاريس واألدلة‬ ‫المادية‪ .‬ويتم في أقسام فرعية منفصلة‪ ،‬تقديم عناصر مختلفة من‬ ‫المجموعة تشمل األشياء التي اكتشفها ريتشارد ليبسيوس في عام‬ ‫‪ ،)1.2.1( 1844‬وتلك التي تم التنقيب عنها بواسطة بيتر شينِّي‬ ‫ونيفيل تشيتيك في (‪ ،)1.2.2( )1951–1952‬وتلك التي تم العثور‬ ‫عليها بواسطة مشروع عرض موقع الغزالي األثري (‪)GASP‬‬ ‫(‪ ،)1.2.3‬واالكتشافات األخرى (‪ .)1.2.4‬ويناقش المؤلف في‬ ‫القسم الفرعي األخير (‪ ،)1.2.5‬المنح الدراسية السابقة حول النقوش‬ ‫الجنائزية بالغزالي‪.‬‬

‫‪ .2‬السياق األثري‪:‬‬ ‫هذا الفصل مخصص لتحليل مفصل للسياقات األثرية التي تم فيها‬ ‫نظرا ألن المعلومات األثرية المتعلقة باالكتشافات‬ ‫اكتشاف القطع‪.‬‬ ‫ً‬ ‫السابقة شحيحة للغاية‪ ،‬فإن المناقشة تعتمد بشكل أساسي على عمل‬ ‫مشروع عرض موقع الغزالي األثري (‪ .)GASP‬ويمكن التمييز بين‬ ‫نوعين عامين من السياق‪ :‬نوع أولي يشمل (مسالت موجودة في‬ ‫الموقع‪ ،‬ال تزال مثبتة في الطرف الغربي من المصاطب التي تغطي‬ ‫القبور)‪ ،‬ونوع ثانوي يشمل (الصلبان التي كالمِ َّ‬ ‫سلت وصلبان‬ ‫القبور التي تم العثور عليها معادة االستخدام في العديد من اإلنشاءات‬ ‫بكافة أرجاء مجمع الرهبان)‪ .‬ويسمح التحليل التفصيلي للبيانات‬ ‫األثرية المتاحة لكال المجموعتين باقتراح تاريخ ما قبل القرن الحادي‬ ‫عشر لكامل النقوش الجنائزية في الغزالي‪ .‬هذه مالحظة مهمة تشير‬ ‫إلى أن العادات الجنائزية في الدير تغيرت في مطلع القرنين العاشر‬ ‫والحادي عشر الميالديين‪ ،‬ولم تعد تتضمن نق ً‬ ‫شا مكتوبًا‪ .‬بينما يبدو‬

‫‪arab i c summary 2 87‬‬

‫أخيرا‪ ،‬يجمع الفصل الفرعي (‪ )7.3‬المواد الوصفية من جميع‬ ‫ً‬ ‫المصادر المكتوبة التي تم اكتشافها في الغزالي‪ ،‬في قائمة مؤقتة‬ ‫لسكان الدير‪ .‬ويجري ترتيب القائمة بشكل هرمي‪ ،‬بد ًءا من المقدمين‬ ‫وانتها ًء باألعضاء العاديين في المجتمع‪.‬‬

‫‪ .8‬تأريخ اآلثار الجنائزية من الغزالي‪:‬‬ ‫يجمع هذا الفصل الصغير ملحوظات مختلفة حول تأريخ المواد‬ ‫المنتشرة في جميع أنحاء األجزاء السابقة ويهتم بتاريخ ما قبل القرن‬ ‫الحادي عشر للمجموعة بأكملها‪.‬‬

‫‪ .9‬خاتمة‪ :‬الحياة والموت في دير الغزالي‪:‬‬ ‫تصور الحياة الرهبانية في دير‬ ‫يُتوج هذا الجزء من الكتاب بمحاولة‬ ‫ُّ‬ ‫الغزالي من منظور النقوش الجنائزية‪ .‬لنصل بهذه الطريقة‪ ،‬إلى فهم‬ ‫أفضل لحياة الراهب وموته (‪ ،)9.1‬ضريح (‪ ،)9.2‬ودير (‪.)9.3‬‬ ‫وتم ترتيب الكتالوج في الجزء الثاني تبعًا لشكل النصب التذكاري (لوحة‬ ‫مقابل صليب القبر) وقائمة صيغ النص‪ ،‬بما في ذلك األقسام التالية‪:‬‬

‫الالحقة‪ ،‬كل هذه الصيغ المختلفة‪ :‬صالة «إله األرواح» (‪،)6.1‬‬ ‫المرثيات ثنائية األجزاء ومكوناتها (‪ ،)6.2‬الصيغ التي توضح عمر‬ ‫المتوفى (‪ ،)6.3‬وتلك المميزة للصلبان القبرية (‪ .)6.4‬ويركز كل‬ ‫قسم فرعي على توفير المصادر الكتابية والطقوسية للصيغ الموجودة‬ ‫في الغزالي ويتم تزويده بجدول يسرد متغيرات العبارات والتعبيرات‬ ‫المختلفة‪ .‬القسم (‪ )6.5‬هو محاولة لتطبيق مفهوم التوحيد‪ ،‬أي لصق‬ ‫تعبيرات معيارية مختلفة معًا إلنشاء نص جديد‪ ،‬على مرثيات‬ ‫الغزالي‪ .‬يُظهر التحليل أن محرري المرثيات التي تنتمي للغزالي‬ ‫كانوا قادرين تما ًما ليس فقط على مزج صيغ من النوعين األساسيين‬ ‫من النقوش الجنائزية‪ ،‬ولكن أيضًا على إعادة صياغة نصوص‬ ‫إبداعية من لغة إلى لغة أخرى‪ .‬ويُختتم القسم بمناقشة حول العالم‬ ‫اآلخر في النوبة كما يُنظر إليه من خالل نصوص اآلثار الجنائزية‬ ‫بالغزالي‪ .‬والحجة الرئيسة المقدمة هنا تتمثل في أن النوبيين كانوا‬ ‫يؤمنون بقوة بأن مصير اإلنسان‪ ،‬بما في ذلك الموت‪ ،‬يحدده هللا‪،‬‬ ‫وهو األمر األكثر وضو ًحا في شعبية الصيغ االفتتاحية «من خالل‬ ‫العناية اإللهية‪ /‬القيادة‪ /‬رغبة هللا»‪ .‬وبخالف ذلك‪ ،‬يبدو أن المعتقدات‬ ‫النوبية في اآلخرة تتفق مع االيمان المسيحي الشرقي‪ ،‬حيث الموت‬ ‫انتظارا للقيامة في النعيم األبدي الذي يتمتع فيه الميت‬ ‫هو حالة النوم‬ ‫ً‬ ‫بحضور هللا وجميع قديسيه‪.‬‬

‫‪ .1‬مرثيات مع صالة «إله األرواح»‪.‬‬

‫‪ .7‬المجتمع وأفراده‪:‬‬

‫‪ .2‬مرثيات تستدعي عناية هللا وأمره ومشيئته‪.‬‬

‫يتناول هذا الفصل الحياة في مجتمع الغزالي من خالل االقتراب من‬ ‫البيانات الشخصية ألفراده (األسماء والوظائف واأللقاب) الموجودة‬ ‫في المواد المكتوبة بالدير‪ ،‬ليس فقط في اآلثار الجنائزية‪ ،‬ولكن أيضًا‬ ‫في النقوش الجدارية والفخارية‪ .‬ويوضح تحليل أسماء األشخاص‬ ‫(‪ 7.1.1‬و‪ )7.1.3‬أن مجموعة األسماء المستخدمة في الدير ال‬ ‫تختلف ع َّما يمكن مالحظته من أسماء في جميع أنحاء وادي النيل‬ ‫في هذه الفترة‪ ،‬في كل من المواقع الرهبانية والعلمانية‪ .‬ويبدو أن‬ ‫السمة األكثر ً‬ ‫تميزا هي النقص العام في األسماء المميزة‪ ،‬وهي‪ -‬على‬ ‫النقيض‪ -‬شائعة جدًا في المواد المكتوبة بالنوبية الشمالية‪ .‬وتُظهر‬ ‫المواد المقارنة من مواقع مقريَّة أخرى أننا ربما نتعامل هنا مع تقليد‬ ‫مقري محلي لهذه الفترة‪ ،‬حيث تم تفضيل األسماء المسيحية التقليدية‬ ‫بشكل واضح‪ ،‬مع وجود حصة محدودة إلى حد ما من األسماء التي‬ ‫تنتمي إلى األصول النوبية األصلية‪.‬‬

‫‪ .3‬مرثيات من نوع «يوم وفاة فالن»‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .4‬مرثيات من أنواع أخرى‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .5‬شظايا مجزأة‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .6‬الصلبان القبرية‪.‬‬ ‫يتكون كل إدخال في الكتالوج من العناصر التالية‪:‬‬ ‫ – وصف القطعة (السياق األثري‪ ،‬الموقع الحالي‪،‬‬ ‫ الوصف المادي والباليوغرافي)‪.‬‬ ‫– ‬

‫فهرس‪.‬‬

‫– ‬

‫إصدار النص بأدوات نقدية‪.‬‬

‫– ‬

‫ترجمة‪.‬‬

‫– ‬ ‫ ‬

‫تعليق عام على صيغ النص وصاحب اللوحة‬ ‫(إن تسنى التعرف عليه)‪.‬‬

‫– ‬

‫شرح مفصل سطرا ً بسطر عن المشاكل‬ ‫اللغوية والباليوغرافية‪.‬‬

‫ ‬

‫ترجمة‪ :‬محمد مهدي ادريس‬ ‫مراجعة ‪ :‬محمود الطيب محمود‬

‫يبدو أن أنواع األسماء في الغزالي ال تقل أهمية عن الشكل الذي تم‬ ‫تدوينها به (‪ .)7.1.2‬وتحتوي المواد الكتابية‪ ،‬خاصة الفخار والنقوش‬ ‫الجدارية‪ ،‬على عدد كبير من االختصارات واألرقام الفردية المقترنة‬ ‫برموز دينية (على شكل صليب‪ ،‬يقلد موعدا ً مقدسا ً ‪،)nomina sacra‬‬ ‫مما يشير إلى اإليمان بالقوة السحرية والوقائية للكلمة المكتوبة‪.‬‬ ‫يجري تناول تسميات الوظائف الرهبانية والكنسية وكذلك األلقاب‬ ‫الشرفية المختلفة التي ُوجدت في الغزالي‪ ،‬في الفصل الفرعي (‪)7.2‬‬ ‫لفهم الهيكل الهرمي للمجتمع‪ .‬وتسمح المواد التي تم جمعها حتى اآلن‬ ‫بإعادة بناء تسلسل هرمي مسطح إلى حد ما يتألف من رأس الدير‬ ‫وبقية األفراد‪ .‬ويمكن تمييز جوانب مختلفة من الحياة الرهبانية‪ ،‬من‬ ‫خالل مقدار الوقت الذي يقضيه الرهبان في العادة‪ ،‬أو من السلطة‬ ‫األخالقية‪ ،‬ويتم ذلك باستخدام األلقاب‪ ،‬حيث يُطلق على الراهب‬ ‫البسيط «‪ »apa‬أو «األخ»‪ ،‬ويُطلق على األكثر تبجيالً لقب «كبير»‬ ‫أو «أب»‪ ،‬أما ممثلو نخبة الرهبان فيلقبون ب»أبَّا»‪.‬‬

Colour Plates

PLATE I 1. Fragment of epitaph (4)

2. Fragment of epitaph of a man (5)

290 co lo ur p l ate s

PLATE II 1. Epitaph of an unknown person (7)

2. Fragment of epitaph of Philotheos (10)

co lo ur p lates 2 91

PLATE III 1. Epitaph of Abibas, monk (14)

2. Fragment of epitaph of a man (25) 3. Epitaph of a man (21)

292 co lo ur p l ate s

PLATE IV 1. Fragment of epitaph (24)

3. Epitaph of a man (20)

2. Epitaph of Psate, monk (17)

co lo ur p lates 2 93

PLATE V 1. Fragmentary epitaph of a man (29)

2 94 co lo ur p l ate s

PLATE VI

1. Epitaph of Chael, priest and archimandrite (27)

2. Epitaph of Chael (?), monk (?) (30)

co lo ur p lates 2 95

PLATE VII 1. Epitaph of a man (31)

296 co lo ur p l ate s

PLATE VIII 1. Fragmentary epitaph (32)

2. Fragment of epitaph (38)

co lo ur p lates 2 97

PLATE IX 1. Fragment of epitaph (35)

2. Fragmentary epitaph of Theodoros (41)

298 co lo ur p l ate s

PLATE X 1. Fragment of epitaph of Theognostos (?) (43)

2. Fragment of epitaph (59)

3. Epitaph of Mariankouda, monk (45)

co lo ur p lates 2 99

PLATE XI 1. Fragment of epitaph of a monk (?) (67)

2. Epitaph of Petros, monk (69)

3 00 co lo ur p l ate s

PLATE XII 1. Epitaph of Marianos, monk (70)

co lo ur p lates 301

PLATE XIII 1. Epitaph of Georgios, monk (73)

2. Fragment of epitaph of a man (79)

302 co lo ur p l ate s

2. Fragment of epitaph (83)

PLATE XIV 1. Fragment of epitaph of a man (82)

3. Fragment of epitaph (81)

co lo ur p lates 3 03

PLATE XV 1. Epitaph of Merkourios, pistos (98)

2. Epitaph of Andreas, monk (99)

3. Fragment of epitaph of a man (100)

3 04 co lo ur p l ate s

PLATE XVI 1. Fragment of epitaph of a man (101)

2. Fragment of epitaph of a monk (?) (102)

3. Fragment of epitaph of a monk (103)

co lo ur p lates 305

PLATE XVII 1. Fragment of epitaph of a man (105)

2. Fragment of epitaph of a man (106)

3. Fragment of epitaph (117)

3 06 co lo ur p l ate s

PLATE XVIII 1. Fragment of epitaph of a man (116)

2. Fragment of epitaph of Paulos (118)

co lo ur p lates 307

PLATE XIX

1. Fragment of epitaph (121)

2. Fragment of epitaph (129)

3 08 co lo ur p l ate s

PLATE XX 1. Fragment of epitaph of a man (127)

2. Fragment of epitaph (122)

co lo ur p lates 309

PLATE XXI 1. Fragment of epitaph of a man (131)

2. Fragment of epitaph (135)

3. Fragment of epitaph of a priest or a bishop (136)

4. Fragment of epitaph (137)

31 0 co lo ur p l ate s

PLATE XXII 1. Fragment of epitaph of a man (141)

2. Fragment of epitaph (144)

co lo ur p lates

PLATE XXIII 1. Fragment of epitaph of Abraam, monk (149)

2. Fragment of epitaph (161)

311

31 2 co lo ur p l ate s

PLATE XXIV 1. Fragment of epitaph (163)

2. Fragment of epitaph (164)

3. Fragment of epitaph (166)

co lo ur p lates

PLATE XXV 1. Fragment of epitaph (184)

2. Fragment of epitaph (176)

3. Fragment of epitaph (180)

4. Fragment of epitaph (193)

5. Fragment of epitaph (197)

6. Fragment of sepulchral cross with epitaph (209)

313

31 4 co lo ur p l ate s

PLATE XXVI 1. Fragment of sepulchral cross with epitaph (211)

2. Fragment of sepulchral cross with the ‘light – life’ acclamation (221)

3. Sepulchral cross with the ‘light – life’ acclamation (213)

co lo ur p lates

PLATE XXVII 1. Sepulchral cross with the ‘light – life’ acclamation (214)

315

Indices

1. Personal Names

2. Biblical Names, Divinity

Abibas — 14 6: [ⲁ]ⲃⲓ̣ⲃⲁ̣ⲥ̣; 12: [ⲁⲃⲓⲃⲁⲥ] (monk) Abraham — 28 6–7: ⲁⲃⲣⲁϩⲁⲙ (monk); 149 3: Ἀβραάμ (monk) Andreas — 99 3: ⲁⲛⲇ[ⲣ]ⲉ̣ⲁⲥ (monk) Balo — 143 4: ⲃ̣ⲁⲗ̣ⲱ︥ (monk) Chael — 27 7: ⲭⲁⲏⲗ̣ (priest and archimandrite); 30 5–6: [ⲭⲁ]ⲏⲗ (monk?); 112 1–2: ⲭⲁ[ⲏⲗ] (monk?) Didimos — 76 7: Δ̣υδημ̣ο̣ ̣ Epimachos — 72 6: Ἐπίμα̣[χ(ος)] Georgios — 3 9: Γ̣ε̣[ωρ]γίου (deacon); 73 6–7: ⲅⲉⲱⲣⲅⲓⲟⲥ (monk) Iakob — 1 4: Ἰακ[ώβ] (abba); 126 3: Ἰακώβ Isousinta — 74 4–5: Ἰσουσιντα Ioannes — 15 4: Ἰωάννου; 46 4–5: [ⲓⲱ]ϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ (monk); 68 upper right corner: Ἰωάννου (monk); 71 9: Ἰωάννην (priest, nephew/cousin of bishop) Kyriakos — 19 8: ⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲟ̣ⲥ̣ (monk) Mariankouda — 45 5–6: ⲙⲁⲣⲓ̣ⲁⲛⲕⲟⲩⲇⲁ (monk) Marianos — 70 7: ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ (monk); 206 1–4: Μαριανοῦ Markos — 58 4: ⲙⲁⲣ̣ⲕ̣ⲟⲥ (monk) Merkourios — 18 8: ⲙⲉⲣ̣[ⲕⲟⲩ]ⲣ̣ⲓ̣[ⲟⲥ] (monk); 98 3: {ⲡ}ⲙⲉⲣⲕⲟⲩⲣⲓⲟⲥ (pistos) Michael[---] — 174 1 (uncertain whether Archangel or living person): Μιχαή[λ ---] Michenkouda — 44 5: ⲙⲓⲭⲉ̣ⲛⲕⲟⲩⲇⲁ (monk) Pa.....s — 51 4–5 ⲡ̣ⲁ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ⲥ (senior monk?) Paulos — 118 1: ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ Petros — 16 7: ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟ⸌ⲥ⸍; 69 4: Πέτρου (monk) Philotheos — 10 2: Φιλοθ[έου] Prochoros — 2 5: Προχώρου (monk) Psate — 17 6: ⲯⲁⲧⲉ (monk) Solomon — 47 6: [ⲥ]ⲱ̣ⲗⲟⲙ̣ⲱ̣[ⲛ] (monk) Theognostos (?) — 43 2: [Θ]ε̣ογν[ωστ---] Theodoros — 41 7: ⲑ̣ⲉ̣ⲟⲇ[ⲱⲣⲟⲥ] (monk) Tirsakouni — 77 3–4: ⲧⲓⲣⲥⲁⲕⲟⲩⲛⲓ (monk) Zacharias — 128 2: ⲍⲁ[ⲭ]ⲁ̣[ⲣⲓⲁⲥ] (monk) [---]ilo — 75 1: [---]ι̣λ̣ο̣ (priest and archimandrite) [---]s — 81 2: [---]ⲥ̣

Abraham — 1 5: Ἀβράμ; 2 6–7: Ἀ̣β̣ραάμ; 3 10: Ἀ̣βραάμ; 4 9: [Ἀβρά]μ; 5 6: [Ἀ]β̣ραάμ; 6 11: [Ἀβραάμ]; 10 3: Ἀβρ̣[αά]μ; 14 6–7: ⲁⲃⲣⲁ[ϩ]ⲁ̣ⲙ̣; 15 5: Ἀβραάμ; 17 14: ⲁⲃ̣ⲣⲁⲁⲙ; 22 10–11: [ⲁⲃⲣⲁϩⲁⲙ]; 29 15: [ⲁⲃⲣⲁϩⲁⲙ]; 31 14: ⲁ̣ⲃ̣[ⲣⲁϩⲁⲙ]; 44 8: ⲁ̣ⲃⲣⲁϩⲁⲙ; 71 17: Ἀβραάμ; 74 7–8: Ἀβραάμ; 75 9: Ἀβραάμ; 76 15: Ἀβραάμ; 78 2: Ἀβρ̣α̣ά̣μ; 79 7: [ⲁⲃⲣ]ⲁ̣ϩ̣ⲁ̣ⲙ̣; 119 2: [ⲁⲃ]ⲣ̣ⲁ̣ⲁⲙ; 120 4: [Ἀβραά]μ; 121 1: ⲁⲃⲣⲁϩⲁ̣ⲙ̣; 122 2: [Ἀβρ]αάμ; 124 3: Ἀβραάμ; 125 3: Ἀ̣β̣[ραάμ]; 142 5: ⲁⲃⲣⲁϩⲁⲙ; 143 6: [ⲁⲃⲣⲁ]ϩ̣ⲁⲙ; 147 7: Ἀβραάμ; 148 5: Ἀβραάμ; 150 5: [Ἀ]β̣ρ̣α[άμ] Adam — 71 3: Ἀ̣δ̣ά̣[μ]; 84 1–2: [ⲁ]ⲇⲁⲙ Christ — 2 18: Χ(ριστ)έ, 20: Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστ)έ; 8 1: [Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς] ὁ Χ(ριστό)ς; 17 5: ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 18 7: ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 19 7: ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ̣; 21 4: ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 23 6: ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 24 5: ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ̣; 30 9: [ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 46 8: [ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 49 7: [ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ] ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 68 vertical arm of cross: Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστ)έ; 70 10: ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 74 1: Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστ)έ; 100 4: ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 102 5: ⲓ̣(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ̣ ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 103 4: ⲓ̣(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ̣ ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 105 2: ⲓ̣(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ̣ ⲡ̣ⲉ̣[ⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 106 2: [ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ] ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 107 2: ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡ[ⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 112 5: ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ [ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 128 6: ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ̣ ⲡ̣ⲉ[ⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 136 5: Χ(ριστό)ς; 140 4: [ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ] ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 142 1: ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡ̣ⲉ̣[ⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 146 2: [ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ] ⲡ[ⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 152 6: Χ(ριστό)ς; 154 3: [ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ] ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 186 2 (unidentified language): ⲭ̣(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 211 2: [Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστ)έ] Isaac — 1 5: Ἰ̣[σαάκ]; 2 7: Ἰσαάκ; 3 10: Ἰσαάκ; 4 9: [Ἰσαάκ]; 5 6: Ἰσα̣[άκ]; 6 11: Ἰσάκ̣; 10 4: [Ἰσαά]κ̣; 14 7: ⲓ̈ⲥⲁⲁⲕ; 15 6: [Ἰσαάκ]; 17 15: [ⲓⲥⲁ]ⲁ̣ⲕ; 29 15: [ⲓⲥⲁⲁ]ⲕ̣; 31 14: [ⲓⲥⲁⲁⲕ]; 44 9: ⲓ̣ⲥ̣ⲁ̣ⲁⲕ; 71 17: Ἰσάκ; 74 8: Ἰσαάκ; 75 10: Ἰσαάκ; 76 15: Ἰσ[αάκ]; 78 3: Ἰσαάκ; 79 7–8: ⲓⲥⲁⲁⲕ̣; 119 3: ⲓⲥⲁⲁⲕ; 120 4–5: Ἰσα[άκ]; 121 2: ⲓ̣ⲥ̣ⲁ̣ⲁⲕ; 122 2: Ἰσαάκ̣; 123 3: [Ἰσα]άκ; 124 3: [Ἰσαά]κ̣; 142 5: ⲓ̈ⲥⲁⲁⲕ; 143 6: ⲓⲥⲁⲕ; 147 7: Ἰσαάκ; 148 5: Ἰ[σάκ] Jacob — 1 5: [Ἰακώβ]; 2 7: Ἰακώ̣β̣; 3 11: Ἰακώ̣[β]; 4 9: [Ἰακώβ]; 5 6: [Ἰακώβ]; 6 12: [Ἰακώβ]; 10 4: Ἰ̣α̣κ̣[ώ]β̣; 14 7: ⲓ̈ⲁⲕⲱⲃ; 15 6: Ἰακώβ; 17 15: ⲓ̈ⲁⲕⲱⲃ; 29 15–16: ⲓ̈ⲁ[ⲕⲱⲃ]; 31 14–15: ⲓⲁⲕⲱⲃ; 44 9: ⲓ̈ⲁⲕⲱⲃ; 71 17–18: Ἰ̣α̣[κ]ώβ; 74 9: Ἰακώβ; 75 10: Ἰακώβ; 76 15: [Ἰακώβ]; 78 3: Ἰακώβ; 79 8: [ⲓⲁⲕⲱⲃ]; 119 3: ⲓ̈ⲁⲕⲱⲃ; 120 5: [Ἰακώβ]; 121 2: ⲓ̣ⲁ̣ⲕ̣ⲱⲃ̣; 122 3: Ἰακώβ; 124 4: Ἰα[κώβ]; 142 6: ⲓⲁ̣ⲕⲱⲃ̣; 143 7: [ⲓⲁⲕⲱⲃ]; 147 8: Ἰακώβ; 148 6: [Ἰ]ακώβ

318 i n di c es

Jesus — 2 20: Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστ)έ; 8 1: [Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς] ὁ Χ(ριστό)ς; 22 3: ⲓ̣(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)[ⲥ], 8: ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ; 27 9: ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ; 30 9: [ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 46 8: [ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 49 7: [ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ] ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 68 vertical arm of cross: Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστ)έ; 70 10: ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 74 1: Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστ)έ; 77 6: ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ; 81 4: [ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ]; 86 5: [ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ]; 99 8: ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ; 100 4: ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 102 4: ⲓ̣(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ̣ ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 103 4: ⲓ̣(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ̣ ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 104 1: ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ; 105 1: ⲓ̣(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ̣ ⲡ̣ⲉ̣[ⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 106 1: [ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ] ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 107 2: ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡ[ⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 108 2: ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ; 112 4: ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ [ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 128 6: ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ̣ ⲡ̣ⲉ[ⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 140 4: [ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ] ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 141 3: ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ; 142 1: ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡ̣ⲉ̣[ⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 146 1: [ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ] ⲡ[ⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 154 3: [ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ] ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 211 2: [Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστ)έ] Mary — 71 19: Μ̣α̣[ρίας] Michael — 174 1 (uncertain whether Archangel or living person): Μιχαή[λ ---]

deacon — 3 9: Γ̣ε̣[ωρ]γίου διακ(όνου) father — 27 6–7: ⲡⲉⲛⲉⲓⲱ̣ⲧ ⲭⲁⲏⲗ̣; 49 4: [ⲡ]ⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲙ̄ⲡ̄ϩ︦︥ⲗ̄︥; 90 3: [ⲡⲉⲛ]ⲉⲓⲱ[ⲧ ---] monk — 2 5: Προχώρου ⲡⲙⲟ̣ⲛ̣ⲁ̣ⲭ̣ⲟ̣ⲩ̣; 17 6: ⲯⲁⲧⲉ ⲙⲟⲛⲁ⸌ⲭ⸍(ⲟⲥ); 30 6: [ⲭⲁ]ⲏⲗ [ⲡⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ]; 41 7–8: ⲑ̣ⲉ̣ⲟⲇ[ⲱⲣⲟⲥ] ⲙ̣ⲟⲛ[ⲁⲭⲟⲥ]; 44 6: ⲙⲓⲭⲓⲛⲕⲟⲩⲇⲁ ⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟ̣ⲥ̣; 45 6–7: ⲙⲁⲣⲓ̣ⲁⲛⲕⲟⲩⲇⲁ ⲡⲙ⸌ⲟ̣⸍ⲛⲁ⸌ⲭ⸍(ⲟⲥ); 46 5: [ⲓⲱ]ϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ ⲡⲙⲟⲛ[ⲁⲭⲟⲥ]; 49 5: ⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ; 58 5: ⲁ̣ⲡ̣ⲁ ⲙⲁⲣ̣ⲕ̣ⲟⲥ [ⲡⲙⲟ]ⲛ̣ⲁⲭⲟⲥ; 68 lower left corner: Ἰωάννου μικροῦ μοναχοῦ; 70 8: ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ ⲡⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ; 73 7: ⲅⲉⲱⲣⲅⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲙⲟⲛⲁ⸌ⲭ⸍(ⲟⲥ); 77 4: ⲧⲓⲣⲥⲁⲕⲟⲩⲛⲓ ⲡⲙⲟ(ⲛⲁ)⸌ⲭ⸍(ⲟⲥ); 86 2: [---]ⲥ ⲙⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ; 99 4: ⲁⲛⲇ[ⲣ]ⲉ̣ⲁⲥ ⲡⲙ̣ⲟⲛⲁⲭⲟⲥ̣; 102 1–2: ⲙ̣[ⲟⲛⲁ]ⲭ̣ⲟ̣ⲥ̣; 103 1–2: [---]ⲉ̣[ ̣]ⲙ̣ⲟ̣ⲛ̣ⲁ̣[ⲭⲟⲥ] pistos — 98 4: {ⲡ}ⲙⲉⲣⲕⲟⲩⲣⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲡⲓⲥⲧⲟⲥ priest — 27 7: ⲭⲁⲏⲗ̣ ⲡ̣ⲣ̣(ⲉⲥⲃⲩⲧⲉⲣⲟⲥ) ⲁⲣ⸌ⲭ⸍(ⲓⲙⲁⲛⲇⲣⲓⲧⲏⲥ); 71 9: Ἰωάννην πρεσ(βύτερον); 75 1: [---]ι̣λ̣ο̣ πρ(έσβυτερος) κ(αὶ) αρ[⸌χ⸍](ι)μαν⸌δ⸍(ρίτης), 12: πρ(εσβύτερος) senior monk (?) — 49 4: [ⲡ]ⲉⲓⲱⲧ ⲙ̄ⲡ̄ϩ︦︥ⲗ̄︥; 51 4 [ⲡ]ϩⲗⲗⲟ ⲡ̣ⲁ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ⲥ

3. Rulers

5. Place Names

Diocletian (only in dating) — 127 3: ἀπὸ Διοκλη(τιανοῦ) [ἔ]τ̣η υπ[ ̣?]

Jerusalem — 80 4: ⲑⲓ(ⲉⲣⲟⲩⲥⲁ)ⲗⲏⲙ Pidd (?) — 75 12: ⲡⲓⲇⲇⲓⲛ Silaike — 206 5: Σιλαικε

4. Functions and Titles abba — 1 4: ἄβ(βα) Ἰακ[ώβ] apa — 58 4: ⲁ̣ⲡ̣ⲁ ⲙⲁⲣ̣ⲕ̣ⲟⲥ archimandrite — 27 7: ⲭⲁⲏⲗ̣ ⲡ̣ⲣ̣(ⲉⲥⲃⲩⲧⲉⲣⲟⲥ) ⲁⲣ⸌ⲭ⸍(ⲓⲙⲁⲛⲇⲣⲓⲧⲏⲥ); 75 1: [---]ι̣λ̣ο̣ π̣ρ̣(εσβύτερος) κ(αὶ) αρ[⸌χ⸍](ι)μαν⸌δ⸍(ρίτης) asti of Pidd (?) — 75 12: ⲡⲓⲇⲇⲓⲛ ⲁⲥⲧⲏⲗ bishop — 71 10: τὸν τοῦ ἐπισκόπου ἀνεψιό(ν) brother — 14 11: ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ⲛ̣ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲧⲏⲥ ⲛ̄ⲥⲟ⸌ⲛ⸍ [ⲁⲃⲓⲃⲁⲥ]; 17 6: [ⲡⲉⲛⲥⲟⲛ] ⲙ̣ⲙⲉⲣⲓⲧ ⲯⲁⲧⲉ; 18 7: [ⲡⲉ]ⲛ̣[ⲥⲟⲛ ⲙ]ⲙⲉⲣⲓⲧ ⲙⲉⲣ̣[ⲕⲟⲩ]ⲣ̣ⲓ̣[ⲟⲥ]; 19 7: ⲡ̣[ⲉ]ⲛ̣ⲥ̣[ⲟ]ⲛ̣ ⲙ̣ⲙ̣ⲉ̣ⲣ̣ⲓ̣ⲧ̣ ⲕⲩⲣⲓⲁⲕⲟ̣ⲥ̣; 23 7: [ⲡⲉⲛⲥⲟⲛ ⲙ]ⲙⲉⲣ̣ⲓⲧ [---]; 28 6: ⲡⲛ̣̄ⲥⲟⲛ ⲁⲃⲣⲁϩⲁⲙ; 30 5: [ⲡⲉⲛⲥⲟⲛ ⲭⲁ]ⲏⲗ; 41 6: [ⲡⲉ]ⲛ̣ⲥⲟⲛ ⲑ̣ⲉ̣ⲟⲇ[ⲱⲣⲟⲥ]; 44 5: ⲡⲙⲁⲓⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲛ ⲙⲓⲭⲉ̣ⲛⲕⲟⲩⲇⲁ; 45 5: ⲡⲙⲁⲓ︦ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛⲥⲟⲛ ⲙⲁⲣⲓ̣ⲁⲛⲕⲟⲩⲇⲁ; 46 4: ⲡⲉ̣[ⲛⲥⲟⲛ ⲓⲱ]ϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ; 47 6: ⲡⲉⲛ[ⲥⲟⲛ ⲥ]ⲱ̣ⲗⲟⲙ̣ⲱ̣[ⲛ]; 50 5: ⲡⲉ̣[ⲛⲥⲟⲛ ---]; 67 8: [ⲡⲉⲛ]ⲙ̣ⲉⲣ̣[ⲓⲧ ⲛⲥⲟⲛ ---]; 69 3: τοῦ μακαρίο̣υ̣ ἀδελφ[ο]ῦ̣ ἡμῶν Πέτρου; 70 7: ⲡⲉⲛⲥⲟⲛ ⲙⲁⲣⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ; 73 6: ⲡⲉⲛⲥⲟⲛ ⲅⲉⲱⲣⲅⲓⲟⲥ; 86 1: ⲡⲉⲛⲥⲟⲛ [---]; 88 1: [ⲡⲉⲛⲥⲟⲛ ⲙ]ⲙⲉⲣⲓⲧ̣ [---]; 89 3: ἀδελφ̣[---]; 94 2: ⲡⲉ̣[ⲛⲥⲟⲛ ---]; 99 3: ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ⲛ̣ⲥⲟ̣ⲛ̣ ⲁⲛⲇ[ⲣ]ⲉ̣ⲁⲥ; 112 1: [ⲡⲉⲛⲥⲟ]ⲛ̣ ⲭⲁ[ⲏⲗ]; 128 2–3: [ⲡⲉⲛ]ⲙ̣[ⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲧⲏⲥ ⲛⲥⲟ]ⲛ̣ ⲍⲁ[ⲭ]ⲁ̣[ⲣⲓⲁⲥ]; 143 3: [ⲡⲉⲛⲥⲟ]ⲛ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲓ[ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ] ⲃ̣ⲁⲗ̣ⲱ︥; 149 2: [ἀ]δελφὸς Ἀβραάμ

6. Elements of Dating Months

Thoth — 4 8: [ἐν μηνὶ] Θῶ[θ 1–2]; 22 7: ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲑ[ ̣]ⲱ̣ⲑ ⲓ̄ⲁ̣; 73 9: ϩⲛ̄ ⲥⲟⲩ ϫⲟⲩⲧⲟⲩⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲑⲱ̄ⲑ; 76 8: ἐν μη(νὶ) Θῶθ ε̣΄; 118 7: μ⸌η⸍(νὶ) Θῶθ ιδ΄; 206 6: Θῶθ δ΄ Phaophi — 103 3: [ϩⲙ] ⲡ̣ⲉ̣[ⲃⲟ]ⲧ̣ ⲫ̣ⲁ̣ⲱ̣ⲫ̣ⲓ̣ ̣ ̣ Athyr — 2 6: ἐν μηνὶ Ἁθὺρ ιε΄; 71 13: ἐν μη(νὶ) Ἁθὺρ γ΄; 87 3: μ̣ηνὶ Ἁθ̣[ύρ ---] Choiak — 45 8: ϩⲛ̄ ⲥⲟⲩ ⲥⲟⲩ̣ ⲙⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲭⲟ︦ⲓ̣(ⲁⲕ); 46 7: ϩ̣ⲛ̄ ⲥ̣[ⲟ]ⲩ̣ ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲏ̣̣ [ⲙ̄ⲡⲉ]ⲃⲟⲧ̣ ⲭⲟⲓ̈ⲁⲕ̄ϩ̣̄︥; 102 3–4: ⲛ̣ⲧ̣ⲉ ̣ ̣ ̣ϫ̣ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ⲱⲧ ⲙ̣ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ⲃ̣ⲟⲧ ⲭ̣ⲟ̣ⲓ̣ⲁ̣ⲕ̄ϩ

Tybi — 49 6–7: ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲩ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲧⲱ[ⲃⲉ]; 99 6: ϩⲛ̄ ⲥⲟⲩ ϫⲟⲩⲧⲥⲁϣϥⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲧⲩⲃⲓ; 112 3: [ⲛⲥⲟ]ⲩ̣ ϫⲟⲩⲱⲧ [ⲙⲡⲉⲃⲟ]ⲧ ⲧⲩⲃⲓ Mechir — 29 9: [---]ⲥ̣ⲟⲩ [4–5 ⲙⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲙⲉ]ⲭⲉⲓⲣ; 68 lower right corner: μηνὶ Μεχεὶρ κβ̣΄ Phamenoth — 16 13–14: ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲩ ϫⲟⲩⲧⲥⲛⲟⲟⲩⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲡⲁⲣⲉⲙ̣ϩⲱⲧⲡ̄; 44 7: ⲙ̄ⲡ̣ⲉⲃ̣ⲟⲧ ⲫⲁⲙ̣ⲉ ̣ ̣ϩⲱⲧⲡ; 77 5: ⲫⲁⲙⲉ⸌ⲛ⸍(ⲱ)ⲑ ⲕ︦ⲑ︦︥; 88 3: [---] ⲫⲁⲙⲉ̣[ⲛⲱⲑ ---]; 149 3: ἐν μ⸌η̣⸍(νὶ) Φα⸌μ⸍(ενὼθ) κγ΄

i n d i ce s 31 9

Pharmouthi — 3 14: Φαρμοῦθη : ιβ΄ : […] μηνός; 140 3: ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ [ⲫ]ⲁⲣⲙ(ⲟⲩⲑⲓ) [1–2]; 151 2: ⲫⲁⲣⲙ̣[ⲟⲩⲑⲓ ---]; 162 4: Φαρμοῦ⸌θ⸍(ι) β΄ Pachon — 18 1: ⲡⲁⲭⲱⲛ · ⲕⲉ; 19 9: μην̣ὶ Πα̣χὼ̣ν ι̣ ̣΄; 20 2: ⲡⲁⲭⲱ̣[ⲛ] ⲕ̣[?]; 69 5: μηνὶ Παχὼν δ΄; 70 4: ϩⲛ̄ ⲥⲟⲩ ϫⲟⲩⲧⲁⲥⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲡⲁⲭⲱⲛ; 72 7: μ̣η̣(νὶ) Παχ(ὼν) πέμ[π(της)], 14: Παχ(ὼν) ε΄ Payni — 86 4: [ⲛⲥⲟⲩ ⲙⲛⲧ]ϣ̣ⲟⲙⲧⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉ[ⲃⲟⲧ ⲡⲁⲩ]ⲛⲓ; 127 3: ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲩ ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲥⲛ[ⲟⲟⲩⲥ] ⲙ̣ⲡⲉ[ⲃⲟⲧ ⲡⲁⲩⲛ]ⲓ̣; 143 2: [--ⲙⲡⲉⲃ]ⲟ̣ⲧ̣ ⲡⲁⲩ̈ⲛⲓ, 12: ⲡ̣ⲁⲩ̈ⲛⲓ; 147 2: [--- Π]α̣ῦνι η΄ Epiphi — 28 7: μ⸌η⸍(νὶ) Ἐ⸌π⸍(ι)φὶ ιε΄; 75 2: ἐν μηνὶ Ἐπιφὶ κε΄; 92 3–4: [---- ⲥⲟⲩ] ⲙ̣ⲛⲧ[--- ⲙⲡⲉ]ⲃⲟⲧ ⲉ[ⲡⲏⲫ]; 126 4: μην(ὶ) Ἐπιφὶ γ΄; 141 2: [---] ⲉ̣ⲡ̣ⲓ̣ⲫ̣ⲓ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣; 207 1–3 (unidentified language): ⲉⲡⲓⲫⲓ ⲓ̈ⲃ; 211 1–2: [--- μη]νὶ Ἐπι[φί 1–2] Mesore — 27 8: ⲙⲉⲥⲟⲣ̣ⲏ ⲓ̣︦; 98 6: ϩⲛ̄ ⲥⲟⲩ ϫⲟⲩⲧⲁⲥⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲙⲉⲥⲟⲣⲏ; 128 4–5: [ⲛⲙⲛ]ⲧⲟⲩⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡ[ⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲙⲉ]ⲥⲟⲣⲏ Pa… (Phaophi, Pachon, or Payni) — 58 6–7: ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲩ [ϫⲟⲩ]ⲱⲧ ⲙ̣ⲡⲁ[ ̣ ̣ ̣] ---phi (Phaophi or Epiphi): 208 1 (unidentified language): [---]ⲫ̣ⲓ ⲅ̄; 209 2 (unidentified language): [---]ⲫ̣ⲓ ⲕ︦ⲏ︦ Month lost — 14 13: [ϩ]ⲛ̣̄ ⲥⲟⲩ ⲙⲛ̄ⲧ̣ⲥ̣ⲁϣϥ̄ [ⲙⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ---]; 15 9: [ἐν μηνί] ̣ ̣ ̣[ 1–2? ] ̣ι ἡμρ(ᾳ) [ 5–6 ] ̣ ̣; 25 2: [---] ⲅ̄; 30 7–8: ϩⲛ︥ ⲥ[ⲟⲩ ±4 ⲙⲡⲉ]ⲃ̣[ⲟⲧ 9–11]; 47 8–9: [---]ⲛ̣ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ̣[---]; 51 5: ⲛⲥⲟⲩ [---]; 79 1: [---]ⲯⲓⲥ ⲙⲡⲉⲃ̣ⲟ̣[ⲧ ---]; 81 3: ϩⲛ ⲥⲟ̣[ⲩ ---ⲙⲡ]ⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲡ̣[---]; 91 2: [---] ̣ⲡ̣ⲉⲃⲟⲧ [---] ̣̄ⲃ̣︥̄ Indictions

3rd — 87 4: [ἰ]ν̣⸌δ⸍(ικτιῶνος) γ΄ 11th — 15 10: ἰνδι(κτιῶνος) ια̣΄; 46 7–8: ⲛ̣̣̄[ⲇⲓⲕ(ⲧⲓⲱⲛⲟⲥ)] ⲓ̈ⲁ̣ unknown — 91 2–3 (?): ⲏ̣︦ⲇ︦︥ [---]; 128 5: ⲓⲛ⸌ⲇ⸍(ⲓⲕⲧⲓⲱⲛⲟⲥ) Years according to the Era of Diocletian

48x — 127 3: ἀπὸ Διοκλη(τιανοῦ) [ἔ]τ̣η υπ[ ̣?]

7. Greek Words ἄββα — see 4. Functions and Titles, s.v. ‘abba’ ἀγαθός — 1 10: ὡς ἀγαθὸς (καὶ) φιλάν(θρωπ)ος; 2 12: ὡς ἀγαθὸς κ(αὶ) φιλάν(θρωπος), 19: ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ ἐν ἀγαθοῖς αὐλοσθύσαι; 29 10–11: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧ[ⲉ ⲇⲉ ⲡⲁⲅⲁⲑ]ⲟ̣ⲥ [ⲁ]ⲩ̣ⲱ ⲡⲙ̣[ⲁⲓⲣⲱⲙⲉ]; 61 2: ⲡⲛ[ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲥ]; 79 2: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲇⲉ̣ [ⲡⲁⲅ]ⲁ̣ⲑⲟⲥ ⲁⲩ̣[ⲱ] ⲡⲙⲁⲓⲣⲱⲙ[ⲉ]; 155 3: [ⲙⲁ]ⲣⲛ̄ϣⲗ[ⲏⲗ ⲛⲧⲉⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲁ]ⲅ̣ⲁⲑⲟⲥ [ⲣ ⲟⲩⲛⲁ ⲛⲙⲙⲁϥ/-ⲥ] ἅγιος — 15 7: με[τὰ πάν]τ̣ω[ν ἀ]γ̣ίων; 69 10: [με]τ’ ἁγ[ίων σου]; 71 16: μετὰ τ(ῶν) ἁγίω̣[ν] ἡμ(ῶν) π(ατέ)ρων; 72 10: με[τὰ] τ(ῶν) ἁγ̣ίων σου; 75 11: μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων; 126 7: μετὰ τῶν ἁγίων σου; 132 1: [ἐν μον]αῖς ἁ̣γ̣ί̣[ων], 2: μετ(ὰ) ἁγ[ίων]; 133 4–5: [ἐν] μοναῖς̣ [ἁγίων]; 148 4–5: ἐν κόλπις τῶν ἁγίων π(ατέ)ρων

ἀδελφός — see 4. Functions and Titles, s.v. ‘brother’ Ἅδης (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression τὸν Ἅδην καταπατήσας) — 2 2: [τὸν Ἅδην]; 3 5: [τὸν] Ἅ[δ]ην; 4 4: [τὸν Ἅ]δην; 5 3: [τὸν Ἅδην]; 6 6: τ̣[ὸ]ν̣ [Ἅ]δη̣ν; 7 3: [τὸν Ἅδην]; 8 4: [τὸν Ἅδ]η̣ν αἰών — 1 15: ε̣[ἰς] τὼν αἰῶνα; 2 16: εἰς τὼν αἰῶνα; 13 1–2 (twice): [εἰς το]ὺς αἰ[ῶνας τῶν αἰώνων]; 116 5: ϫ̣ⲓⲛ̣ ⲛ̣ⲁⲓⲱⲛ ἀλήθεια (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression ὁ λόγος σου ἀλήθεια) — 1 16; 2 17 ἁμαρτάνω (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression οὐχ ἁμαρτήσει) — 1 12: ἁμαρτίσει; 2 14: ἁμαρτύσει ἁμάρτημα (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression πᾶν ἁμάρτημα παρ’ αὐτοῦ πραχθέν) — 1 8: ἁμάρτ[ημα]; 2 10: ἁμάρτυμα; 5 9–10: [ἁμάρ]τ̣η̣[μα] ἁμαρτία (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression ἁμαρτίας ἐκτὸς ὑπάρχεις) — 1 13; 2 15:  ἀμήν — see 9. Words from Other Languages: Aramaic, s.v. amen ἀναμέλπω — 1 18: σοὶ τὴν δόξαν ἀνα(μέλπομεν) ἀνάπαυσις — 1 16–17: σὺ γὰρ εἶ ανάπαυσις (καὶ) εἱ ἀάστασις τὼν σὸν δοῦλων; 5 8: [ἐν τόπῳ] ἀναπαύσεω̣[ς]; 44 10: ⲛϥ̣̄ϯ ⲛⲁⲕ ⲛ̄ⲛⲁⲡⲁⲩⲥⲓⲥ; 49 7–8: ⲉϥⲉϯ ⲁ[ⲛⲁⲡⲁⲩⲥⲓⲥ ⲛⲧⲉϥ]ⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 70 10–11: ⲉⲣⲉⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ ⲛⲁϯ ⲁⲛⲁⲡⲁⲩⲥⲓⲥ ⲛⲁϥ; 98 7: ⲉϥⲉϯ ⲁⲛⲁⲡⲁⲩⲥⲓⲥ ⲛⲁϥ; 99 7: ⲉϥⲉϯ ⲁⲛⲁⲡⲁⲩⲥⲓⲥ ⲛⲁϥ; 111 1–2 (unidentified language):  [---ⲁ]ⲛ̣ⲁⲡⲁ̣[ⲩ---] (or under ἀναπαύω); 113 1: [--- ϯ ⲁⲛ]ⲁ̣ⲡ̣[ⲁⲩⲥⲓⲥ ⲛⲧⲉϥ-/ⲧⲉⲥ]ⲯ̣ⲩ̣ⲭⲏ ἀναπαύω — 1 3: ἀνάπαυσον [τὴν ψυχὴν τὸν δοῦ]λον σου; 2 4: ἀνάπαυσον τὴν ψ̣υ̣χ̣[ὴν τὸν] δοῦλον σου, 17–18: ἀναπαύσις σε, Χ(ριστ)έ, 20: ἀ̣ν̣ά̣π̣α̣υ̣σο(ν); 3 7–8: ἀνάπαυσον τ[ὴ]ν̣ ψυχ̣ὴ̣ν̣ τὸν δοῦλον σου; 4 6: [ἀν]ά̣παυ[σον τὴν] ψυ[χὴν τοῦ δούλου/τῆς δούλης σου]; 5 4: [ἀνάπαυσον τ]ὸ̣ν δοῦλό̣[ν σου]; 6 8: [ἀνάπ]α̣υ̣σ̣ο̣ν̣ [τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ δ]ο̣ύλο̣υ̣ [σου]; 15 2: ἀνάπαυσο(ν) [τὴν ψ]υ̣χ ὴ τοῦ δού[λου σου]; 29 11–12: [ⲁⲛⲁⲡⲁ]ⲩ̣[ⲉ] ⲛ̣ⲧⲉϥⲯ̣[ⲩⲭⲏ]; 46 9: ⲉϥⲉⲁⲛⲁⲡⲁ̣ⲩⲉ ⲛ̣[ⲧⲉϥ]ⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 68 vertical arm of cross: ἀνάπαυσον τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ; 69 6–7: ἀνάπαυ̣[σον αὐ]τοῦ; 74 5–6: ἀνάαυσον αὐτής; 75 7–8: ἀναπαύσαι̣εν ὁ θ(εὸ)ς αὐτοῦ τὴν ψυχὴν; 81 6–7: [ⲉϥⲉⲁⲛⲁ]ⲡⲁⲩⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ̣[ϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ]; 111 1–2 (unidentified language): [---ⲁ]ⲛ̣ⲁⲡⲁ̣[ⲩ---] (or under ἀνάπαυσις); 115 1: [--- ⲁⲛⲁ]ⲡ̣[ⲁ]ⲩ̣ⲉ̣ [ⲙⲙⲟϥ/-ⲥ]; 120 1: [ἀνά]π̣αυσον [τὴν] ψ̣υχὴν αὐ⸌τ⸍( ); 125 1: [ἀνά]π̣α̣υ̣[σον τὴν ψυχὴν] αὐτ̣[οῦ]; 126 4–5: ἀνάπαυσον τὴν ψυχ(ὴν) αὐτοῦ; 127 4: [ⲉⲣⲉⲡ]ⲛ̣ⲟⲩ̣ⲧⲉ ⲁⲛⲁⲡⲁⲩ[ⲉ] ⲛⲧⲉϥⲯ̣[ⲩ]ⲭ̣[ⲏ]; 128 6–7: [ⲉⲣⲉⲡϫⲟ]ⲉ̣ⲓⲥ ⲇ̣ⲉ̣ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ̣ ⲡ̣ⲉ[ⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ ⲁⲛⲁ]ⲡⲁⲩⲉ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ̣[ϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ]; 133 1–2: [ἀνάπαυσον τὴν ψυ]χὴ ἀ[υτοῦ]; 136 5–6: Χ(ριστό)ς δὲ ἀναπαύ[σῃ τὴν ψυχήν]; 143 7–8: ⲉ̣ⲕⲉⲁⲛⲁⲡⲉⲩⲉ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ̣; 147 4–5: ἀνάπα̣υ̣σ̣ο̣ν̣ τὴν ψυχὴ(ν) αὐτοῦ; 148 2–3: ἀνάπαυσον τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ; 150 1–2: [ἀνάπαυ]σον τὴν [ψυχὴν] τοῦ δούλ[ου σου]; 211 2–3: [ἀ]νά[παυσον τὴ]ν̣ ψυ[χήν ---]

32 0 i n di c es

ἀνάστασις — 1 17: σὺ γὰρ εἶ ανάπαυσις (καὶ) εἱ ἀάστασις τὼν σὸν δοῦλων; 210 4: σ̣τ̣α̣υρὸς νεκρῶν ἀνάστασις ἀνάψυξις (only in the expression ἐν τόπῳ ἀναψύξεως) — 1 6–7: [ἀναψύ]ξεως; 2 8: ἀναψύξε̣[ω]ς̣; 3 12–13: [ἀ]ναψύ{χη} ξεως; 10 6: [ἀναψύξε]ω̣ς; 74 11: ἀναψύξ̣ε̣(ως); 76 13–14: [ἀναψ]ύξεως ἀνεψιός — 71 10: τὸν τοῦ ἐπισκόπου ἀνεψιό(ν) ἄνθρωπος (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος ὃς ζήσεται) — 1 11: ἄν(θρωπ)ος; 2 13: ἄν⸌θ⸍(ρωπ)ος ἀνίημι — 2 11: ἄνες ἄφες ἀπάντησις — 78 8–9: ἀπάντ̣η̣σιν ἀπό — 71 11; 75 3: ἀφ’ οὗ; 127 3 (Copt.); 136 2, 3, 4; 206 5 ἀποδημέω — 71 11–12: ἀπε[δή]μησεν πρὸς τὸν αὐτοῦ [κ]τίστην; 76 4: [ἀπ]ε̣δήμησεν [---] ̣ν αὐτοῦ ἀποδιδράσκω (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression ἔνθ’ ἀπέδρα ὀδύνη καὶ λύπη καὶ στεναγμός) — 1 7: ἀπέδα; 2 8: ; 5 8: [ἀπέδρα] ἀρχιμανδρίτης — see 4. Functions and Titles, s.v. ‘archimandrite’ αὐλίζομαι — 2 19–20: ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ ἐν ἀγαθοῖς αὐλοσθύσαι αὐτός — 1 8: [παρ’ αὐτοῦ]; 2 10: παρ’ αὐτοῦ, 19: ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ; 5 10: [παρ’] α̣[ὐτοῦ]; 68 horizontal arm of cross: τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ; 69 7: ἀνάπαυ̣[σον αὐ]τοῦ; 71 7: εἰς τὴ(ν) αὐτοῦ βασιλείαν, 12: πρὸς τὸν αὐτοῦ [κ]τίστην, 16: τὴ(ν) ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ; 72 9: συναρίθμησ[ον] αὐτόν, 12: τὸ πν(εῦμ)α αὐτοῦ; 74 6: ἀνάαυσον αὐτής; 75 4: τὸν ὦμον αὐτοῦ, 8: ἀναπαύσαι̣εν ὁ θ(εὸ)ς αὐτοῦ τὴν ψυχὴν; 76 3: [---]ον αὐτοῦ, 5: [---] ̣ν αὐτοῦ, 13: [---] αὐτοῦ; 78 5: τῖς κοιμήσεως αὐτοῦ; 120 2: [τὴν] ψ̣υχὴν αὐ⸌τ⸍( ); 124 5: αὐτ[---]; 125 2: [τὴν ψυχὴν] αὐτ̣[οῦ]; 126 6: τὴν ψυχ(ὴν) αὐτοῦ; 133 3: [τὴν ψυ]χὴ ἀ[υτοῦ]; 136 2: [τῆς ζωῆς αὐτοῦ], 3: γενέ[σεως αὐτοῦ], 5: ἱερα[τείας αὐτοῦ]; 147 6: τὴν ψυχὴ(ν) αὐτοῦ; 148 4: τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἀφίημι — 2 12: ἄνες ἄφες ἀφίστημι — 71 11: ἀ̣πέστη ἀπὸ τ(ῶν) ἐνθάδε βασιλεία — 71 7: εἰς τὴ(ν) αὐτοῦ βασιλείαν; 136 6: [ἐν] τῇ βασιλείᾳ [τῶν οὐρανῶν] βίος (mostly in the phrase ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϥⲕⲱ ⲛ̄ⲥⲱϥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓⲃⲓⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲙⲉϩ ⲛ̄ϩⲓⲥⲉ) — 15 8: ἐχρ[ήσατο τ]έλε̣[ι] τ̣οῦ βίου; 17 4: [ⲡⲓⲃⲓⲟⲥ]; 18 5: ⲡⲓⲃ̣ⲓ̣ⲟ̣ⲥ; 19 5: [ⲡⲓ]ⲃ̣ⲓ̣[ⲟⲥ]; 21 5: [ⲡⲓ]ⲃ̣[ⲓⲟⲥ]; 22 2: ⲡ̣ⲓ̣ⲃⲓⲟⲥ; 23 4: [ⲡⲓⲃⲓ]ⲟ̣ⲥ; 24 3: [ⲡⲓⲃⲓ]ⲟⲥ; 71 5–6: ἐκ τοῦδε βίου; 72 4: τέ̣[ λει τ(οῦ) βίου] ἐ̣χ̣[ρήσ]ατ(ο); 126 1: [τέλει] τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ β̣ίου [ἐχ]ρ̣ήσατο γάρ — 1 12, 16; 2 14 γέννησις — 136 2–3: ἀπὸ γενέ[σεως αὐτοῦ μὲν ἔ]τη ϙα´ γίγνομαι — 162 2: γένητο

δέ — 3 13; 14 10: ⲇ̣ⲉ̣; 17 7: ⲇⲉ̣; 18 9: ⲇⲉ; 19 9: ⲇⲉ; 20 3: [ⲇ]ⲉ̣; 22 7: ⲇⲉ; 24 6: ⲇ̣[ⲉ]; 25 3: [ⲇⲉ]; 27 9: ⲇⲉ; 28 2: ⲇ̣[ⲉ]; 29 10: [ⲇⲉ]; 30 9: [ⲇⲉ]; 32 1: [ⲇⲉ]; 45 9: ⲇⲉ; 46 8: ⲇⲉ̣; 58 8: [ⲇⲉ]; 70 9: ⲇⲉ; 79 2: ⲇⲉ̣, 5: [ⲇⲉ]; 86 5: [ⲇⲉ]; 102 4: ⲇⲉ; 103 4: ⲇ̣ⲉ̣; 104 1: ⲇⲉ; 105 1: ⲇ̣ⲉ̣; 106 1: [ⲇⲉ]; 108 2: ⲇⲉ; 112 4: ⲇⲉ; 128 6: ⲇ̣ⲉ̣; 136 5; 140 3: ⲇⲉ; 142 1: [ⲇ]ⲉ; 149 4 δέχομαι — 72 11: δεξάμενος̣ ̣ ̣τὸ πν(εῦμ)α αὐτοῦ [ἐν] εἰρήνῃ δημιουργός (only in Coptic bipartite epitaphs in the phrase ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲡⲁⲛⲧⲟⲕⲣⲁⲧⲱⲣ ⲡⲇⲏⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ ⲙⲡⲧⲏⲣϥ̄) — 17 2–3: ⲡ̣ⲇ̣[ⲓ]ⲙ̣ⲓ̣[ⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ]; 18 3–4: ⲡ̣ⲇⲓ̣ⲙ̣ⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅ̣ⲟ̣ⲥ̣; 19 3: ⲡⲇⲓⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ; 21 3: ⲡⲛⲟ̣[ⲩ]ⲧⲉ ⲡⲁⲛⲧⲟⲕⲣ̣ⲁⲧⲱⲣ ⲁⲩⲱ̣ ⲡⲇⲏⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲧⲏⲣ̣ϥ̣̄ ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 23 2–3: ⲡⲇⲓ[ⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ]; 24 1: [--- ⲡⲇⲏⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ ⲙⲡⲧⲏⲣ]ϥ̣; 27 3: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ [ⲡⲇⲏ]ⲙ̣ⲓⲟⲩ̣ⲣ̣ⲅⲟⲥ ⲙ̣ⲡⲧ̣ⲏ[ⲣ]ϥ̣; 29 4–5: ⲡ̣ⲇⲏ[ⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ]; 33 2–3: ⲡ[ⲛ]ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲇⲓ[ⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅ]ⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲧ[ⲏⲣϥ]; 34 3–4: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ [ⲡⲇ]ⲏⲙⲓⲟ̣ⲩ̣ⲣ[ⲅⲟⲥ]; 37 2–3: ⲡ̣ⲇ̣ⲏ̣[ⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣ[ⲅⲟⲥ]; 38 2: [ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲇⲏ]ⲙ̣ⲓ̣ⲟ̣ⲩ̣[ⲣⲅⲟⲥ ---]; 41 3–4: [ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲇⲏⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣ]ⲅⲟⲥ ⲙ̇ⲡ̣[ⲧⲏⲣ]ϥ̣; 44 2: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲇⲏⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲧⲏⲣ̣ϥ̣̄; 46 2: ⲡⲛ[ⲟ]ⲩ̣ⲧⲉ̣ [ⲡⲇⲏⲙ(ⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ) ⲙⲡ]ⲧⲏⲣ̣ϥ̣; 48 3: [ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ] ⲡ̣ⲇⲏ[ⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ]; 49 2–3: [ⲡⲛⲟⲩ]ⲧⲉ ⲡⲇⲏⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣ[ⲅⲟⲥ ⲙⲡⲧⲏⲣϥ]; 57 1–2: [ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡ]ⲇⲓⲙⲏⲟⲩⲣ[ⲅⲟⲥ]; 59 2–3: [ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ] ⲡⲇⲓⲙ̣[ⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ]; 62 2–3: ⲡⲛ̣[ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲇ]ⲩⲙⲓ̣[ⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ ⲙ]ⲡ̣[ⲧⲏⲣϥ]; 63 2–3: ⲡⲛⲟⲩ[ⲧⲉ ⲡⲇⲏⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣ]ⲅ̣[ⲟⲥ]; 67 3–4: [ⲡ]ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡ[ⲇⲏⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣ]ⲅⲟⲥ διάκονος — see 4. Functions and Titles, s.v. ‘deacon’ διάνοια (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression λόγῳ ἢ ἔργῳ ἢ κατὰ διάνοιαν) — 1 9–10: [διά]νια; 2 11: δι̣ά̣νιαν; 5 11: [διάνοιαν] δίκαιος — 76 16: μετὰ δικα̣[ίων] δικαιοσύνη (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression ἡ δικαιοσύνη σου δικαιοσύνη εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) — 1 14 (twice): δικαιοσύνη […] δικαοσύνη; 2 15, 16 δόξα — 1 18: σοὶ τὴν δόξαν ἀνα(μέλπομεν) δουλεύω — 75 6–7: θεαρέστως δουλεύωντος θ(ε)ῷ δούλη — 4 7 (?): [ἀν]ά̣παυ[σον τὴν] ψυ[χὴν τοῦ δούλου/τῆς δούλης σου]; 74 4: ἵλεος αὕτης τὴν ψυχὴν τὴν δούλην σου δοῦλος — 1 3–4: ἀνάπαυσον [τὴν ψυχὴν τὸν δοῦ]λον σου, 17–18: τὼν σὸν δοῦλων; 2 5: ἀνάπαυσον τὴν ψ̣υ̣χ̣[ὴν τὸν] δοῦλον σου, 22: δ̣ο̣ῦ̣λ̣ό̣ς̣ σ̣ο̣υ̣; 3 8–9: ἀνάπαυσον τ[ὴ]ν̣ ψυχ̣ὴ̣ν̣ τὸν δοῦλον σου; 4 7 (?): [ἀν]ά̣παυ[σον τὴν] ψυ[χὴν τοῦ δούλου/τῆς δούλης σου]; 5 5: [ἀνάπαυσον τ]ὸ̣ν δοῦλό̣[ν σου]; 6 9: [ἀνάπ]α̣υ̣σ̣ο̣ν̣ [τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ δ]ο̣ύλο̣υ̣ [σου]; 10 1–2: [τ]ὴ̣ν ψυ̣χ̣[ὴν τοῦ δούλου σ]ου; 15 3–4: [τὴν ψ]υ̣χ ὴ τοῦ δού[λου σου]; 148 7: μισθαποδ̣[ότ]η̣σο[ν] τ̣[ὸν] δ̣[οῦλόν σου]; 150 3: τὴν [ψυχὴν] τοῦ δούλ[ου σου] ἐθέλω — 71 4: θέλοντος̣ μετεθεῖν ἐκ τοῦδε βίου εἰμί — 1 11: ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἄν(θρωπ)ος, 16: σὺ γὰρ εἶ ανάπαυσις; 2 13: ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἄν⸌θ⸍(ρωπ)ος, 14: σὺ γὰρ ἦ μόνος εἰρήνη — 72 13: [ἐν] εἰρήνῃ; 161 1: [ϩ]ⲛ̣ [ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ]

i n d i ce s 3 21

εἰς — 1 14: ε̣[ἰς]; 2 16; 13 1: [εἰς]; 71 6 ἐκ — 71 5 ἐκτός (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression ἁμαρτίας ἐκτὸς ὑπάρχεις) — 1 13; 2 15 ἐν — 1 4: [ἐν], 5: [ἐν], 6; 2 6 (twice), 7: ἐ̣ν̣, 8, 18, 19; 3 6, 10, 11: ἐ̣ν, 12; 4 8 (twice): [ἐν], 10 (twice): [ἐν]; 5 5: [ἐν], 6: [ἐν], 7, 7: [ἐν]; 6 10: [ἐ]ν̣; 10 2: [ἐν], 4, 5: ἐ̣[ν], 6: [ἐν]; 15 4: ἐ(ν), 9: [ἐν]; 69 7; 71 13, 18; 72 12: [ἐν]; 74 7: ν, 9, 11: [ἐ]ν̣; 75 2, 5, 9; 76 8, 13; 78 1: [ἐν], 4; 120 3: [ἐν]; 122 1: [ἐν]; 124 2: [ἐν]; 125 3: [ἐν]; 132 1: [ἐν]; 133 4: [ἐν]; 136 6: [ἐν]; 147 6; 148 4; 149 3; 150 4: [ἐν] ἔνθα (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression ἔνθ’ ἀπέδρα ὀδύνη καὶ λύπη καὶ στεναγμός) — 1 7: ἔντ’; 2 8: ἔνθα; 5 8: [ἔνθ’] ἐνθάδε — 71 11: ἀπέστη ἀπὸ τ(ῶν) ἐνθάδε ἐπίσκποπος — see 4. Functions and Titles, s.v. ‘bishop’ ἔργον (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression λόγῳ ἢ ἔργῳ ἢ κατὰ διάνοιαν) — 1 9; 2 11; 5 11: [ἔργῳ] ἐσθλοποιέω — 71 15: ἵνα ὁ οἰκ[τί]ρμον θ(εὸ)ς ἐσθλοποιήσει τὴ(ν) ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔτος — 3 14: τὰ τη ρ΄; 75 5: ἐν ἔτεσιν με΄; 127 3: ἀπὸ Διοκλη(τιανοῦ) [ἔ]τ̣η υπ[ ̣?]; 136 2: [τῆς ζωῆς αὐτοῦ ἔ]τ̣η, 3: ἀπὸ γενέ[σεως αὐτοῦ μὲν ἔ]τη ϙα΄, 4: [--- ἔτ]η̣ ξε΄, 5: ἀπὸ ἱερα[τείας αὐτοῦ ἔτη ̣]γ̣΄; 150 4: ἔτη π̅[ ̣] εὐδοκία — 72 1: ε̣ὐ̣δ̣oκίᾳ τ̣[οῦ θ(εο)ῦ] εὐεργετέω — 76 11–12: [ὅπως εὐ]εργετήσει εὐλαβής — 57 3: [ⲡ]ⲉ̣ⲩⲗⲁⲃⲉⲥⲧⲁ⸌ⲧ⸍(ⲟⲥ) [---]; 89 1–2: [εὐ]λαβεσ[τατ---] εὔχομαι — 71 14: [εὐ]ξόμεθα οὖν; 76 10: εὐξόμεθα τ[ὸν θ(εὸν) τὸν οἰ]κτείρμονα ζυγός — 75 4–5: ὑπὸ τὸν ζυγὸν τοῦ στ(αυ)ροῦ ζῶ — 1 11–12: [ὃς ζήσε]ται; 2 13: ὃς σύζεται, 18: ἐν χώρᾳ ζώντω⸌ν⸍; 69 9: χώρ̣[ᾳ ζ]ώ̣[ντων] ζωή — 1 1–2: [ζω]ήν τῷ κ[όσμῳ χαρισάμενος]; 2 3: ζωή[ν τῷ κόσμῳ χαρι]σ̣άμος; 3 6: [ζω]ή̣ν ἐν ὅλῳ τ̣[ῷ κόσμῳ χαρι]ζ̣άμενο̣ς; 4 5: [ζωὴ]ν τῷ κόσμ[ῳ χα]ρισάμ[ενος]; 5 3: [ζωὴν τῷ κόσμ]ῷ̣ [χαρισάμενος]; 6 7: [ζωὴν τῷ κόσμῳ] χαρι[σάμενος]; 8 5: [ζωὴν τῷ κόσμ]ῳ̣ χ̣α̣ρ̣ι̣σ̣[άμενος]; 136 2: [τῆς ζωῆς αὐτοῦ ἔ]τ̣η; 213 horizontal: [φ]ῶς ζωή; 214 horizontal: φ[ῶ]ς ζ[ωή]; 215 horizontal: φ[ῶς ζωή]; 216 horizontal: φ[ῶς ζωή]; 217 horizontal: φῶ̣[ς ζ]ω̣[ή]; 218 vertical: [φῶς] ζ[ωή]; 219 horizontal: [φῶς ζω]ή; 220 horizontal or vertical: [φῶς ζω]ή; 221 horizontal or vertical: [φ]ῶ̣[ς ζ]ω̣[ή] ἤ (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression λόγῳ ἢ ἔργῳ ἢ κατὰ διάνοιαν) — 1 9, 9: [ἢ]; 2 11 (twice); 5 11 (twice): [ἢ]

ἡμεῖς — 69 4: ἀδελφ[ο]ῦ̣ ἡμῶν Πέτρου; 71 3: τ̣ὸ̣[ν π]ροπάτωρα ἡ̣μ̣(ῶν) Ἀ̣δ̣ά̣[μ], 8: τὸν ποθηνότατον ἡμῶν Ἰωάννην, 17: τ(ῶν) ἁγίω̣[ν] ἡμ(ῶν) π(ατέ)ρων; 76 9: ἡμεῖς ἡμέρα — 15 9: [ἐν μηνί] ̣ ̣ ̣[ 1–2? ] ̣ι ἡμρ(ᾳ) [ 5–6 ] ̣ ̣; 68 upper left corner: ἡμέρα τῆς κοιμήσεως; 69 1: ἡ ἡμέρα τῆς κοιμήσεως; 78 4: ἐν τῖ ἡμ̣έ̣ρᾳ τῖς κοιμήσεως αὐτοῦ θάνατος (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression ὁ τὸν θάνατον καταργήσας) — 2 1–2: [τὸν θάνα]τ̣ο̣ν̣; 3 3–4: [τὸν θάνα]το̣ν; 4 2–3: τὸν θά[νατον]; 5 2: [τὸν θάνατον]; 6 4: τών θά̣νατ̣[ον]; 7 2–3: [τὸ]ν θά[νατον]; 8 3: [τὸ]ν θάνατον; 9 3: [τὸν θάνα]τον θεαρέστως — 75 6: θεαρέστως δουλεύωντος θ(ε)ῷ θεῖος — 43 1: θείᾳ {καὶ} πρ̣[ονοίᾳ] θεός — 2 14: σὺ γὰρ ἦ μόνος, θ(εό)ς, ἐκτὸς ὑπάρχης; 3 1: ὁ θ[(εὸ)ς τῶν πν(ευμ)ά]τω̣ν̣ [κ(αὶ) πάσης] σαρ̣κό̣ς̣; 4 1: [ὁ θεὸς τῶν πνευμάτων κ(αὶ) πάσης σαρκός]; 5 1: [ὁ θ(εὸ)ς τῶν πν(ευμ)άτων κ(αὶ) πάσης σαρκός]; 6 2: ὁ̣ θ(εὸ)ς τῶν πν(ευμ)ά[των] καὶ πάσης σαρ̣[κός]; 7 1: [ὁ θ(εὸ)ς τῶν πνευμ]ά̣τ̣ων̣ [(καὶ)] π[άσης σαρκός]; 8 2: [ὁ θ(εὸ)ς τῶν] πν(ευμ)άτων κ(αὶ) πάσης̣ [σαρκός]; 9 1: [ὁ θ(εὸ)ς τῶν πν(ευμ)άτων] κ̣(αὶ) πάσ̣η̣ σ̣αρ[κός]; 12 1: ὁ θ[(εὸ)ς τῶν πν(ευμ)ά]των [(καὶ) πάσης σαρκός]; 69 5: ὁ θ(εό)ς [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]; 71 2: τ̣ο̣ῦ π̣α̣ν τ̣ο̣κ[ράτ]ωρος θ̣(εο)ῦ̣, 15: ὁ οἰκ[τ]ίρμον θ(εό)ς; 72 1: ε̣ὐ̣δ̣oκίᾳ τ̣[οῦ θ(εο)ῦ], 9: ὁ θ(εό)ς; 75 7: δουλεύωντος θ(ε)ῷ, 8: ἀναπαύσαι̣εν ὁ θ(εό)ς αὐτοῦ τὴν ψυχὴν; 76 10: εὐξόμεθα τ[ὸν θ(εὸν) τὸν οἰ]κτείρμονα; 126 4: ὁ θ(εό)ς ἀνάπαυσον τὴν ψυχ(ὴν) αὐτοῦ; 147 3: [ὁ θ(εὸ)ς τῶν]π̣⸌ν̣⸍ευμ άτω̣ν [κ(αὶ) πάσης σα]ρκός; 148 1: ὁ̣ θ̣(εὸ)ς̣ τ̣ῶ̣ν̣ π̣ν̣(ευμάτ)ων κ(αὶ) πάση̣ς̣ σαρκός; 149 4: ὁ δὲ [θ(εὸ)ς] τ̣ῶ̣ν πν(ευμ)άτω[ν] θεοτόκος — 71 19: λιταῖς̣ τῆς θεοτόκου Μ̣α̣[ρίας] ἱερατεία — 136 4–5: ἀπὸ ἱερα[τείας αὐτοῦ ἔτη ̣]γ̣΄ ἵλεως — 74 1: ἵλεος αὕτης τὴν ψυχὴν τὴν δούλην σου ἵνα — 71 14 ἰνδικτίων — 15 10: ἰνδι(κτιῶνος) ια̣΄; 46 7: ⲛ̣̣̄[ⲇⲓⲕ(ⲧⲓⲱⲛⲟⲥ)] ⲓ̈ⲁ̣; 87 4: [ἰ]ν̣⸌δ⸍(ικτιῶνος) γ΄; 91 2 (?): ⲏ̣︦ⲇ︦︥ [---]; 128 5: ⲓⲛ⸌ⲇ⸍(ⲓⲕⲧⲓⲱⲛⲟⲥ) ̣ καί — 1 1: [(καί)], 5: (καί), 5: [(καί)], 7 (twice): [(καί)], 10: (καί), 12: (καί), 13: κ̣[αί], 17: (καί), 18: (καί); 2 2: [κ(αί)], 3: κ(αί), 7 (twice): κ(αί), 9 (twice): κ(αί), 12: κ(αί), 13, 15; 3 2: [κ(αί)], 4: [κ(αί)], 5: [κ(αί)], 10: κ(αί), 11: κ(αί); 4 2: [κ(αί)], 3, 4: (καί), 9: κα[ί], 9: [κ(αί)]; 5 1: [κ(αί)], 2: [κ(αί)], 3: [κ(αί)], 6: κ(αί), 6: [κ(αί)], 9 (twice): (καί); 6 2, 5, 6: καί̣, 11: [καί], 12: [καί]; 7 1: [(καί)], 3: [καί]; 8 2: κ(αί); 4: [κ(αί)], 5: [κ(αί)]; 9 2: κ̣(αί); 10 3, 4: κ̣(αί); 12 2: [(καί)]; 15 5: κ(αί), 6: [κ(αί)], 6: κ(αί); 43 1: {καί}; 71 4: (καί), 6: (καί), 9: (καί), 11: (καί), 17 (twice): (καί); 74 8: κ(αί), 9: κ(αί); 75 9: κ(αί), 10 (twice): κ(αί); 76 5: κ(αί), 9: (καί), 15: (καί), 15: [(καί)]; 78 3 (twice): (καί), 4;

32 2 i n di c es

120 4: (καί), 5: [(καί)]; 122 2, 3; 124 3: καί̣, 3: κ̣[αί]; 147 4: [κ(αί)], 7 (twice): κ(αί); 148 1: κ(αί), 5: κ(αί), 6: [κ(αί)]; 152 5: (καί) κατά — 1 9: [κατά]; 2 11; 5 11: [κατά]; 16 11: ⲕⲁⲧⲁ; 83 2: [ⲕⲁⲧⲁ] καταπατέω (only in the expression τὸν Ἅδην καταπατήσας / ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲕⲁⲧⲁⲡⲁⲧⲉⲓ ⲛ̄ⲁⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲉ) — 2 3: καταπα̣τ̣ή̣σ̣(ας); 3 5: κ̣α̣τ̣α̣π̣[ατήσας]; 4 4: κατ[απατ]ή̣σ̣ας; 5 3: [καταπατήσας]; 6 6: κ̣α̣τ̣α̣π̣α̣τ̣ή̣σ̣α̣ς̣; 7 3–4: κ̣α̣ταπ̣α̣[τήσας]; 8 4: κατ̣απα̣[τήσας]; 16 4: ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲕⲁⲧⲁⲡⲁⲧⲏ; 67 5–6: [ⲡⲉⲛⲧ]ⲁ̣ϥⲕⲁ[ⲧⲁⲡⲁⲧⲉⲓ] καταργέω (only in the expression ὁ τὸν θάνατον καταργήσας / ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲕⲁⲧⲁⲣⲅⲉⲓ ⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲟⲩ) — 2 2: κατ[αργήσας]; 3 4: κατ̣α̣[ργήσας]; 4 3: κ̣ατ̣α̣[ργήσ]ας; 5 2: [καταργήσας]; 6 5: καταργ̣ή̣σ̣α̣ς̣; 8 3–4: κα̣[ταργήσας]; 9 3–4: κ̣[αταργήσας]; 14 3: ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ⲛ̣ⲧ̣ⲁ̣[ϥ]ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲣⲅⲉⲓ; 16 3: ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲕⲁⲧⲁⲅⲉⲓ; 67 4–5: ⲡⲉ̣ⲛⲧ̣[ⲁϥⲕⲁⲧⲁⲣ]ⲅⲉⲓ κέλευσις (almost exclusively in the expression ϩⲓⲧⲛ̄ ⲧⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩⲥⲓⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ) — 42 2: ⲧ̣ⲕ̣ⲉⲗⲉⲩⲥ̣ⲓⲥ; 44 1: ⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩⲥⲓⲥ; 45 1: ⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩⲥⲓⲥ; 46 1: ⲧⲕⲉ̣ⲗ̣[ⲉⲩⲥⲓⲥ]; 47 1–2: ⲧⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩⲥⲓⲥ; 48 1–2: ⲧ[ⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩ]ⲥⲓⲥ; 49 1: ⲧⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩⲥⲓⲥ; 50 2: ⲧⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩⲥⲓⲥ; 51 1–2: ⲧⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩ[ⲥⲓⲥ]; 52 1–2: ⲧⲕⲉⲗⲉ[ⲩ]ⲥⲓⲥ; 53 1: [ⲧⲕⲉⲗⲉ]ⲩⲥⲓⲥ; 54 1–2: ⲧⲕⲉ[ⲗⲉⲩⲥⲓⲥ]; 55 1: ⲧ̣ⲕ[ⲉⲗⲉⲩⲥⲓⲥ]; 56 1 (unidentified language): [---]ⲕ̣ⲉⲗⲉ[ⲩⲥⲓⲥ ---] κελεύω — 57 2: [ⲁϥⲕⲉ]ⲗⲉⲩⲉ κληρονομία — 79 6: ⲉϥⲉ̣ϯ ⲕⲗⲏ̣ⲣ̣ⲟ̣[ⲛⲟ]ⲙ̣ⲓ̣ⲁ̣ κοιμάω — 3 13: ἐκοιμήθησε̣ν̣; 149 1: [ἐκο]ι̣μίθ̣η κοίμησις — 68 upper corners: ἡμέρα τῆς κοιμήσεως; 69 1–2: ἡ ἡμέρα τῆς κοιμήσεως; 78 5: ἐν τῖ ἡμ̣έ̣ρᾳ τῖς κοιμήσεως αὐτοῦ κόλπος (only in the expression ἐν κόλποις Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακώβ) — 1 5; 2 6: κόλ̣π̣ο̣ις; 3 10: κόλπ̣οι̣ς̣; 4 8: [κόλποις]; 5 5: [κόλποις]; 6 10–11: κόλπ̣[οις]; 10 3: [κόλ]π̣ο̣ι̣ς̣; 15 5: [κόλπ]ος; 74 7; 75 9; 78 2: κόλπο̣ι̣ς̣; 120 3: [κό]λ̣ποις; 122 1: [κόλποις]; 123 2: [κόλ]ποι[ς]; 124 2: [κόλποις]; 125 3: [κόλποι]ς̣; 147 6; 148 4: ἐν κόλπις τῶν ἁγίων π(ατέ)ρων Ἀβραὰμ κ(αὶ) Ἰ[σὰκ κ(αὶ) Ἰ]ακώβ; 150 4–5: [κόλποις] κόσμος (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression ζωὴν τῷ κόσμῳ χαρισάμενος) — 1 2: τῷ κ[όσμῳ]; 2 3: [τῷ κόσμῳ]; 3 6: ἐν ὅλῳ τ̣[ῷ κόσμῳ]; 4 5: τῷ κόσμ[ῳ]; 5 4: [τῷ κόσμ]ῷ̣; 6 7: [τῷ κόσμῳ]; 8 5: [τῷ κόσμ]ῳ̣ κτίστης — 71 13: ἀπε[δή]μησεν πρὸς τὸν αὐτοῦ [κ]τίστην κύριος — 1 15: κ(ύρι)ε; 2 16: κ(ύρι)ε, 20: κ(ύρι)ε; 68 vertical arm of cross: κ(ύρι)ε Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστ)έ; 211 2: [κ(ύρι)ε Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστ)έ] λιτή — 71 19: λιταῖς̣ τῆς θεοτόκου Μ̣α̣[ρίας] λόγος — 1 9: λόγον ἢ ἔργῳ [ἢ κατὰ διά]νια, 15: ὁ λόγος σου ἀλήθεια; 2 11: λόγῳ ἢ ἔργῳ ἢ κατὰ δι̣ά̣νιαν, 17: ὁ λόγος σου ἀλήθεια; 5 10: [λόγῳ ἢ ἔργῳ ἢ κατὰ διάνοιαν]; 156 2: [---] λ̣όγῳ λύπη — 1 7: ἔντ’ ἀπέδα ὀδ[ύνη (καὶ) λύπη (καὶ) στε]ναγμός; 2 9: ἔνθα ὀδύνη κ(αὶ) λύπη κ(αὶ)

στεναγμός; 5 9: [ἔνθ’ ἀπέδρα ὀ]δύνη (καὶ) λύπη (καὶ) [στεναγμός]; 17 12: [ⲡ]ⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϥ ⲡⲱⲧ [ⲛϩⲏⲧ]ϥ̣ ⲛ̇ϭⲓ ⲡⲉⲙⲕⲁϩ [ⲛϩⲏⲧ] ⲙⲛ ⲧⲗⲩⲡⲏ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲡⲁ̣[ϣⲁϩⲟⲙ]; 18 14: [ⲡ]ⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϥⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ̄ϩⲏ̣[ⲧ]ⲉϥ ⲛϭⲓ ⲡⲉⲙⲕ̣ⲁ̣ϩ ⲛϩⲏⲧ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲧⲗⲏⲡⲏ ⲙ̣ⲛ̣ ⲡⲁϣⲁϩⲟⲙ; 20 8: [ⲡⲙ]ⲁ̣ ⲛⲧ̣ⲁ̣ϥ̣ⲡ̣ⲱ̣ⲧ̣ ⲛ̣[ϩⲏ]ⲧ̣ϥ̄ [ⲛϭⲓ ⲡⲉ]ⲙⲕⲁ̣ϩ̣ [ⲛϩ]ⲏ̣ⲧ ⲙ̣ⲛ̣ ⲧ̣[ⲗ]ⲏⲡⲏ ⲙ̣[ⲛ] ⲡ̣ⲁ̣ϣ̣ⲁ̣[ϩ]ⲟ̣ⲙ̣; 115 3: [ϩⲙ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛⲧⲁⲧⲗⲩⲡⲏ ⲡⲱ]ⲧ ⲛ̣̇ϩ̣ⲏⲧ[ϥ]; 143 9: ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲧⲗⲩⲡⲏ ⲙ︤ⲛ︥ ⲡⲁ[ϣⲁϩ]ⲟⲙ ⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ̄ϩⲏ[ⲧϥ]; 144 3–4: [ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛⲧⲁϥ ⲡⲱⲧ ⲛϩⲏⲧϥ ⲛϭⲓ ⲡⲣⲓⲙ]ⲉ̣ ⲙⲛ̣̄ ⲧ̣ⲗⲩⲡ̣ⲏ̣ ⲙ̣ⲛ ⲡⲁϣⲁϩⲟⲙ

μακάριος — 69 2–3: τοῦ μακαρίο̣υ̣ ἀδελφ[ο]ῦ̣ ἡμῶν Πέτρου; 81 1: [ ̣ ̣]ⲙ̣ⲁ̣[ⲕⲁⲣⲓⲟⲥ ---]; 127 5: ⲧⲉϥⲯ̣[ⲩ]ⲭ̣[ⲏ] ⲙ̇ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲁ μακαρίτης — 14 11: ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ⲛ̣ⲙⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲧⲏⲥ ⲛ̄ⲥⲟ⸌ⲛ⸍ [ⲁⲃⲓⲃⲁⲥ]; 72 5–6: ὁ̣ μ̣[ακα]ρί̣τ̣η̣ς Ἐπίμα̣[χ(ος)]; 76 6: ὁ μακαρίτη⸌ς⸍ [ ̣] ̣μ̣ω̣ν̣[---] ̣̅ Δ̣υδημ̣ο̣ ̣; 87 2: [--- μακα]ρ̣ίτη[ς ---]; 126 2–3: ὁ μακαρίτης Ἰακώβ; 128 2: [ⲡⲉⲛ]ⲙ̣[ⲁⲕⲁⲣⲓⲧⲏⲥ ⲛⲥⲟ]ⲛ̣ ⲍⲁ[ⲭ]ⲁ̣[ⲣⲓⲁⲥ] μέν — 136 3: [μέν] μετά — 15 6–7: με[τά]; 69 9–10: [με]τ’; 71 16; 72 9: με[τά]; 75 10–11; 76 14: μετ[ά], 16; 126 6; 132 2: μετ(ά) μετατίθημι — 71 5: μετεθεῖν ἐκ τοῦδε βίου μήν — 2 6: ἐν μηνὶ Ἁθὺρ ιε΄; 3 15: Φαρμοῦθη ιβ΄ […] μηνός; 4 8: [ἐν μηνὶ] Θῶ[θ 1–2 ]; 15 9: [ἐν μηνί] ̣ ̣ ̣[ 1–2? ] ̣ι ἡμρ(ᾳ) [ 5–6 ] ̣ ̣; 19 8: μην̣ὶ Πα̣χὼ̣ν ι̣ ̣΄; 28 7: μ⸌η⸍(νὶ) Ἐ⸌π⸍(ι)φὶ ιε΄; 68 lower right corner: μηνὶ Μεχεὶρ κβ̣΄; 69 4: μηνὶ Παχὼν δ΄; 71 13: ἐν μη(νὶ) Ἁθὺρ γ΄; 72 7: μ̣⸌η̣⸍(νὶ) Παχ(ὼν) πέμ[π(της)]; 75 2: ἐν μηνὶ Ἐπιφὶ κε΄; 76 8: ἐν μη(νὶ) Θῶθ ε̣΄; 87 3: μ̣ηνὶ Ἁθ̣[ύρ ---]; 118 7: μ⸌η⸍(νὶ) Θῶθ ιδ΄; 126 3: μην(ὶ) Ἐπιφὶ γ΄; 149 3: ἐν μ⸌η̣⸍(νὶ) Φα⸌μ⸍(ενὼθ) κγ΄; 211 1: [μη]νὶ Ἐπι[φί 1–2] μικρός — 68 lower left corner: Ἰωάννου μικροῦ μισθαποδοτέω — 148 6–7: μισθαποδ̣[ότ]η̣σο[ν] τ̣[ὸν] δ̣[οῦλόν σου] μοναχός — see 4. Functions and Titles, s.v. ‘monk’ μονή — 127 6: ϩⲛ̄ ⲛ̣ⲉ̣ϥⲙⲟ̣[ⲛ]ⲏ̣ ⲉⲧ[ⲟ]ⲩ̣ⲁⲁⲃ; 132 1: [ἐν μον]αῖς ἁ̣γ̣ί̣[ων]; 133 4: [ἐν] μοναῖς̣ [ἁγίων] μόνος (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression σὺ γὰρ μόνος, ὁ θεός, πάσης ἁμαρτίας ἐκτὸς ὑπάρχεις) — 1 12: μ̣[όνος]; 2 14 νεκρός — 210 2–3: σ̣τ̣α̣υρὸς νεκρῶν ἀνάστασις ὅδε, ἥδε, τόδε — 71 5: ἐκ τοῦδε βίου ὀδύνη (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression ἔνθ’ ἀπέδρα ὀδύνη καὶ λύπη καὶ στεναγμός) — 1 7: ὀδ[ύνη]; 2 9; 5 8–9: [ὀ]δύνη οἰκτίρμων — 71 14–15: ὁ οἰκ[τ]ίρμον θ(εό)ς; 76 10–11: τ[ὸν θ(εὸν) τὸν οἰ]κτείρμονα ὅλος — 3 6: ἐν ὅλῳ τ̣[ῷ κόσμῳ] ὅπως — 76 11: [ὅπως]

i n d i ce s 3 23

ὅς, ἥ, ὅ — 1 11: [ὃς ζήσε]ται; 2 13: ὃς σύζεται; 75 3: ἀφ’ οὗ ὑπέθηκεν ὅτι — 1 11; 2 13 οὐκ (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression οὐκ ἔστιν ἄν(θρωπ)ος ὃς ζήσεται καὶ οὐχ ἁμαρτήσει) — 1 11: οὐκ, 12: οὐχ; 2 13: οὐκ, 14: οὐκ οὖν — 71 14 οὐρανός — 136 7: [ἐν] τῇ βασιλείᾳ [τῶν οὐρανῶν] οὗτος, αὕτη, τοῦτο — 74 2: ἵλεος αὕτης τὴν ψυχὴν τὴν δούλην σου παντοκράτωρ (almost exclusively in Coptic bipartite epitaphs in the phrase ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲡⲁⲛⲧⲟⲕⲣⲁⲧⲱⲣ ⲡⲇⲏⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ ⲙⲡⲧⲏⲣϥ̄) — 17 2: [ⲡⲡⲁⲛⲧⲟⲕⲣⲁⲧⲱⲣ]; 18 3: [ⲡⲁⲛ]ⲧⲟⲕⲣⲁⲧⲱⲣ; 19 2: ⲡ̣ⲁ̣ⲛ̣ⲧ̣ⲟ̣ⲕ̣ⲣ̣ⲁ̣(ⲧⲱⲣ); 21 2: ⲡⲛⲟ̣[ⲩ]ⲧⲉ ⲡⲁⲛⲧⲟⲕⲣ̣ⲁⲧⲱⲣ ⲁⲩⲱ̣ ⲡⲇⲏⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲧⲏⲣ̣ϥ̣̄ ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 23 2: [ⲡⲡⲁⲛⲧⲟⲕⲣⲁⲧⲱⲣ]; 29 3–4: [ⲡ]ⲡ̣ⲁⲛⲧ̣[ⲟⲕⲣⲁⲧⲱⲣ]; 31 2: ⲡ̣ⲛ̣ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲡ̣ⲁ̣ⲛ̣[ⲧⲟⲕⲣⲁⲧⲱⲣ ---]; 37 2: [ⲡⲡⲁⲛⲧⲟⲕⲣⲁⲧⲱ]ⲣ; 47 3–4: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ̣ ⲡⲁⲛⲧⲟⲕⲣ̣ⲁ̣ⲧⲱⲣ; 50 3: [ⲡ]ⲛ̣ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ⲧⲉ ⲡⲁⲛⲧ̣ⲟ̣ⲕ̣ⲣ̣ⲁⲧⲱ̣ⲣ̣; 71 1–2: τ̣ο̣ῦ π̣α̣ν τ̣ο̣κ[ράτ]ωρος θ̣(εο)ῦ̣ παρά — 1 8: [παρ’]; 2 10: παρ’; 5 10: [παρ’] παράδεισος — 71 18: ἐν παραδείσῳ τῆς τρυφῆ[ς]; 80 2: ⲉ̣ϩⲟⲩⲛ̣ [ⲉⲡⲡ]ⲁ̣ⲣ̣[ⲁ]ⲇ̣ⲓ̣[ⲥⲟ]ⲥ ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲣⲓⲫⲏ παραλαμβάνω — 71 6: παραλαβεῖν εἰς τὴ(ν) αὐτοῦ βασιλείαν πᾶς — 1 8: πᾶν ἁμάρτ[ημα]; 2 9: πᾶν ἁμάρτυμα; 3 2: [πάσης] σαρ̣κό̣ς̣; 4 2: [πάσης σαρκός]; 5 1: [πάσης σαρκός], 9: [πᾶν ἁμάρ]τ̣η̣[μα]; 6 3: πάσης σαρ̣[κός]; 7 1–2: π[άσης σαρκός]; 8 2: πάσης̣ [σαρκός]; 9 2: πάσ̣η̣ σ̣αρ[κός]; 12 2: [πάσης σαρκός]; 15 7: [πάν]τ̣ω[ν ἀ]γ̣ίων; 72 2: ε̣ὐ̣δ̣oκίᾳ τ̣[οῦ θ(εο)ῦ] τ[οῦ] τὰ πά[ντα ̣ ̣] π̣[ λά]σ̣α̣ν το̣[ς]; 75 11: πάντων τῶν ἁγίων; 147 4: [πάσης σα]ρκός; 148 2: πάση̣ς̣ σαρκός πατήρ (forefather) — 71 17: μετὰ τ(ῶν) ἁγίω̣[ν] ἡμ(ῶν) π(ατέ)ρων Ἀβραὰμ (καὶ) Ἰσὰκ (καὶ) Ἰ̣α̣[κ]ώβ; 76 14: μετ[ὰ τῶν π(ατέ)ρων] Ἀβραὰμ (καὶ) Ἰσ[αὰκ (καὶ) Ἰακώβ]; 148 5: ἐν κόλπις τῶν ἁγίων π(ατέ)ρων Ἀβραὰμ κ(αὶ) Ἰ[σὰκ κ(αὶ) Ἰ]ακώβ πέμπτος — 72 7: μ̣⸌η̣⸍(νὶ) Παχ(ων) πέμ[π(της)] πιστός — see 4. Functions and Titles, s.v. ‘pistos’ πλάσσω — 71 4: τοῦ τ̣ὸ̣[ν π]ροπάτωρα ἡ̣μ̣(ῶν) Ἀ̣δ̣ὰ̣[μ] πλάσαντος; 72 3: τ[οῦ] τὰ πά[ντα ̣ ̣] π̣[ λά]σ̣α̣ν το̣[ς] πνεῦμα (Holy Ghost) — 73 3: [ϩⲙ ⲡⲣⲁⲛ ⲙⲡⲉⲓⲱ]ⲧ̣ ⲙ̣ⲛ̣ [ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ] ⲙⲛ ⲡⲉⲡⲛ̣(ⲉⲩⲙ)[ⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩ]ⲁ̣ⲁⲃ πνεῦμα (spirit; almost exclusively in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression ὁ θεὸς τῶν πνευμάτων καὶ πάσης σαρκός / ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲙⲛ︥ ⲥⲁⲣⲝ̄ ⲛⲓⲙ) — 3 1–2: [τῶν πν(ευμ)ά]τω̣ν̣; 4 1: [τῶν πνευμάτων]; 5 1: [τῶν πν(ευμ)άτων]; 6 2: τῶν πν(ευμ)ά[των]; 7 1: [τῶν πνευμ]ά̣τ̣ων̣; 8 2: [τῶν] πν(ευμ)άτων; 9 2: [τῶν πν(ευμ)άτων]; 12 1–2: [τῶν πν(ευμ)ά]των; 14 1: ⲡ̣ⲛ̣ⲟ̣[ⲩ]ⲧ̣ⲉ̣ ⲙ̣ⲡ̣ⲛ(ⲉⲩⲙ)ⲁ̣ ⲛ̣ⲓⲙ̣ ⲁ̣ⲩ̣ⲱ̣ ⲡ̣ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲛ̄ⲥⲁⲣⲝ̄ ⲛⲓ[ⲙ]; 16 1: ⲡⲛ(ⲉⲩⲙ)ⲁ ⲛⲓⲙ; 17 16: [ⲡⲛ(ⲉⲩⲙ)ⲁ] ⲛⲓⲙ; 72 12: δεξάμενος̣ ̣ ̣τὸ πν(εῦμ)α αὐτοῦ [ἐν] εἰρήνῃ;

147 3–4: [τῶν] π̣⸌ν̣⸍ευμάτω̣ν; 148 1: τ̣ῶ̣ν̣ π̣ν̣(ευμάτ)ων; 149 5: ὁ δὲ [θ(εὸ)ς] τ̣ῶ̣ν πν(ευμ)άτω[ν] ποθεινός — 71 8: τὸν ποθηνότατον ἡμῶν Ἰωάννην πρεσ(βύτερον) πράττω (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression πᾶν ἁμάρτημα παρ’ αὐτοῦ πραχθέν) — 1 9; 2 10; 5 10: [πραχθέν] πρεσβύτερος — see 4. Functions and Titles, s.v. ‘priest’ πρόνοια (almost exclusively in the expression ϩⲓⲧⲛ̄ ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛⲟⲓⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ) — 17 1: [ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛⲟⲓⲁ]; 18 2: ⲧⲉⲡⲣ[ⲟ]ⲛⲟⲓⲁ; 19 1; 21 1; 23 1: [ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛⲟⲓⲁ]; 27 1–2: ⲧⲉⲡ̣ⲣ̣ⲟ̣ⲛ̣ⲟ̣ⲓ̣ⲁ̣; 28 1–2: ϩⲛ̄ ⲧ[ⲉⲡⲣ]ⲟⲛⲓⲁ ⲇ̣[ⲉ ⲙ]ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧ[ⲉ]; 29 2: [ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛⲟ]ⲓ̣ⲁ̣; 30 1–2: [ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛ]ⲟ̣ⲓⲁ; 31 1: ⲧ̣[ⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛⲟⲓ]ⲁ̣; 32 1: [ϩ]ⲓ̣ⲧⲛ̄ ⲧⲉⲡ[ⲣⲟⲛⲟⲓⲁ ⲇⲉ ⲙ]ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ; 33 1: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ] ⲧ̣ⲉ̣ⲡⲣⲟⲛⲟⲓⲁ [ⲛⲧⲉ] ⲡ[ⲛ]ⲟⲩⲧⲉ; 34 1–2: ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛ[ⲟⲓⲁ]; 35 2–3: ⲧⲉⲡ̣ⲣ̣ⲟ̣ⲛⲟⲓⲁ̣; 36 1–2: [ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟ]ⲛⲟⲓⲁ̣; 37 1: [ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛⲟⲓ]ⲁ; 38 1: ⲧ̣ⲉ̣ⲡⲣⲟⲛⲓⲁ̣; 39 1 (unidentified language): [ⲡ]ⲣ̣ⲟⲛⲟⲓ̈ⲁ; 40 1 (unidentified language): ⲡⲣⲟ[ⲛⲟⲓⲁ]; 41 1–2: [ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛⲟⲓⲁ]; 42 1: [ⲧⲉⲡⲣ]ⲟ̣ⲛⲟⲓⲁ; 43 1: θείᾳ {καὶ} πρ̣[ονοίᾳ] προπάτωρ — 71 2–3: τ̣ὸ̣[ν π]ροπάτωρα ἡ̣μ̣(ῶν) Ἀ̣δ̣ά̣[μ] πρός — 71 12 σάρξ (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression ὁ θεὸς τῶν πνευμάτων καὶ πάσης σαρκός / ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲙⲛ︥ ⲥⲁⲣⲝ̄ ⲛⲓⲙ) — 3 3: σαρ̣κό̣ς̣; 4 2: [σαρκός]; 5 1: [σαρκός]; 6 3: σαρ̣[κός]; 7 2: [σαρκός]; 8 3: [σαρκός]; 9 2–3: σ̣αρ[κός]; 11 2: [---] σαρκ[ός ---]; 12 2: [σαρκός]; 14 2: ⲡ̣ⲛ̣ⲟ̣[ⲩ]ⲧ̣ⲉ̣ ⲙ̣ⲡ̣ⲛ(ⲉⲩⲙ)ⲁ̣ ⲛ̣ⲓⲙ̣ ⲁ̣ⲩ̣ⲱ̣ ⲡ̣ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲛ̄ⲥⲁⲣⲝ̄ ⲛⲓ[ⲙ]; 16 2: ⲥⲁⲣⲝ̄ ⲛⲓⲙ; 147 4: [σα]ρκός; 148 2: σαρκός σκηνή — 80 3: ⲛⲥⲕ̣ⲩⲛⲏ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ σταυρός — 75 5: ὑπὸ τὸν ζυγὸν τοῦ στ(αυ)ροῦ; 210 1–2: σ̣τ̣α̣υρὸς νεκρῶν ἀνάστασις στεναγμός (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression ἔνθ’ ἀπέδρα ὀδύνη καὶ λύπη καὶ στεναγμός) — 1 7–8: [στε]ναγμός; 2 9; 5 9: [στεναγμός] σύ — 1 4: [τὸν δοῦ]λον σου, 12: σ{α}ὺ γὰρ μ̣[όνος], 14: δικαιοσύνη σου, 15: ὁ λόγος σου, 16: σὺ γὰρ εἶ ανάπαυσις, 17: τὼν σὸν δοῦλων, 18: σοὶ τὴν δόξαν ἀνα(μέλπομεν); 2 5: [τὸν] δοῦλον σου, 14: σὺ γὰρ ἦ μόνος, 15: δικαιοσύνη σου, 17: ὁ λόγος σου, 18: ἀναπαύσις σε, Χ(ριστ)έ, 22: δ̣ο̣ῦ̣λ̣ό̣ς̣ σ̣ο̣υ̣; 3 9: τὸν δοῦλον σου; 4 7: [τοῦ δούλου/τῆς δούλης σου]; 5 5: [τ]ὸ̣ν δοῦλό̣[ν σου]; 6 10: [τοῦ δ]ο̣ύλο̣υ̣ [σου]; 10 2: [τοῦ δούλου σ]ου; 15 4: τοῦ δού[λου σου]; 69 10: ἁγ[ίων σου]; 72 10: τ(ῶν) ἁγ̣ίων σου; 74 4: τὴν δούλην σου; 126 7: τῶν ἁγίων σου; 148 7: τ̣[ὸν] δ̣[οῦλόν σου]; 150 3: τοῦ δούλ[ου σου] συγχωρέω — 1 10–11: [συγχώρ]ησον; 2 12: συνχώσον συναριθμέω — 72 8: συναρίθμησ[ον] αὐτόν, ὁ θ(εό)ς, με[τὰ] τ(ῶν) ἁγ̣ίων σου σώμα — 46 3: [ⲛⲧ]ⲁ̣ϥ̣[ⲕⲁ ⲥⲱⲙⲁ] ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ τελευτάω — 210 5: [ἐ]τελεύ̣[τησεν]

32 4 i n di c es

τέλος — 15 8: ἐχρ[ήσατο τ]έλε̣[ι] τ̣οῦ βίου; 72 4: τέ̣[ λει τ(οῦ) βίου] ἐ̣χ̣[ρήσ]ατ(ο); 126 1: [τέλει] τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ β̣ίου [ἐχ]ρ̣ήσατο τόπος — 1 6 (twice): [ἐν] τώπῳ φωτινῷ, ἐν [τόπῳ ἀναψύ]ξεως; 2 7: ἐ̣ν̣ τ̣ό̣πῳ φωτιν῀ο, 8: ἐν τόπῳ ἀναψύξε̣[ω]ς̣; 3 11: ἐ̣ν τώπῳ φωτινῷ, 12: ἐν τώπ̣ῳ̣ [ἀ]ναψύ{χη}ξεως; 4 10 (twice): [ἐν τό]π̣ῳ φωτ̣[εινῶ, ἐν τόπῳ ---]; 5 6: [ἐν τόπῳ] φωτινῷ, 7 (twice): ἐν τ̣[όπῳ χλόης, ἐν τόπῳ] ἀναπαύσεω̣[ς]; 10 4: ἐν τόπῳ [φωτινῷ], 5: ἐ̣[ν τό]π̣ῳ χλόη, 6: [ἐν τόπῳ ἀναψύξε]ω̣ς; 74 9–10: ἐν τό̣πῳ φωτινῷ, 11: [ἐ]ν̣ τόπῳ ἀναψύξ̣ε̣(ως); 76 13: ἐν τό[πῳ ἀναψ]ύξεως τρυφή — 71 18: ἐν παραδείσῳ τῆς τρυφῆ[ς]; 80 3: ⲉ̣ϩⲟⲩⲛ̣ [ⲉⲡⲡ]ⲁ̣ⲣ̣[ⲁ]ⲇ̣ⲓ̣[ⲥⲟ]ⲥ ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲣⲓⲫⲏ ὑπό — 75 4 ὑπάρχω (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression σὺ γὰρ μόνος, ὁ θεός, πάσης ἁμαρτίας ἐκτὸς ὑπάρχεις) — 1 13: ὑπάχεις; 2 15: ὑπάρχης ὑποτίθημι — 75 3: ὑπέθηκεν τὸν ὦμον αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ τὸν ζυγὸν τοῦ στ(αυ)ροῦ φιλάνθρωπος (only in the expression ὡς ἀγαθὸς καὶ φιλάνθρωπος) — 1 10: φιλάν(θρωπ)ος; 2 12: φιλάν(θρωπος) φῶς (only in the acclamation φῶς ζωή) — 213 vertical: [φ]ῶς̣; 214 vertical: φ[ῶ]ς; 215 vertical: φ[ῶς]; 216 vertical: φ[ῶς]; 217 vertical: φ̣ῶ̣[ς]; 218 horizontal: [φῶς]; 219 vertical: [φῶς]; 220 vertical or horizontal: [φῶς]; 221 vertical or horizontal: [φ]ῶ̣[ς] φωτεινός (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression ἐν τώπῳ φωτεινῷ) — 1 6: φωτινῷ; 2 7–8: φωτιν῀ο; 3 11–12: φωτινῷ; 4 10: φωτ̣[εινῶ]; 5 7: φωτινῷ; 10 5: [φωτινῷ]; 74 10: φωτινῷ χαρίζομαι (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression ζωὴν τῷ κόσμῳ χαρισάμενος) — 1 2: [χαρισάμενος]; 2 3–4: [χαρι]σ̣άμος; 3 7: [χαρι]ζ̣άμενο̣ς; 4 5–6: [χα]ρισάμ[ενος]; 5 4: [χαρισάμενος]; 6 7–8: χαρι[σάμενος]; 8 5: χ̣α̣ρ̣ι̣σ̣[άμενος] χλόη (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression ἐν τόπῳ χλόης) — 5 7: [χλόης]; 10 5: χλόη⟨ς⟩ χράω — 15 7–8: ἐχρ[ήσατο τ]έλε̣[ι] τ̣οῦ βίου; 72 5: τέ̣[ λει τ(οῦ) βίου] ἐ̣χ̣[ρήσ]ατ(ο); 126 2: [τέλει] τ̣ο̣ῦ̣ β̣ίου [ἐχ]ρ̣ήσατο χώρα (only in the expressoin ἐν χώρᾳ ζώντων / ϩⲛ̄ ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧⲟⲛϩ̄) — 2 18; 17 9: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ; 18 11: ⲛⲧⲉⲭⲱ̣ⲣ̣[ⲁ]; 19 12: ⲛⲧⲉⲭⲱ̣ⲣⲁ; 20 5: [ⲛ]ⲧ̣[ⲉ]ⲭ̣ⲱ̣ⲣ̣ⲁ̣; 25 5: [ⲛⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ]; 27 11: ϩ̣ⲛ̇ ⲛⲉⲭⲱ̣ⲣⲁ ⲉⲧ[---]; 29 13: [ⲛⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ]; 69 8: ἐν [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ χώρ̣[ᾳ]; 70 12: ϩⲣⲁⲓ̄ ϩⲛ̄ ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ; 73 11: ϩⲛ̄ ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ; 81 8: ϩⲛ̄ ⲧⲉⲭⲱ[ⲣⲁ]; 102 7: ⲉϩⲟⲩ̣ⲛ̣ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ; 103 6: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ; 104 3: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ; 105 3: ⲛⲛⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ; 106 3: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ; 107 4: [ϩⲛ ⲧⲉ]ⲭⲱⲣⲁ; 108 3: [ϩⲛ ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ]; 109 3: ϩⲛ̄ [ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ]; 110 2: [--- ⲧⲉ]ⲭ[ⲱⲣⲁ]; 111 3 (unidentified language): [---]ⲭ̣ⲱⲣ[ⲁ ---]; 112 6: [ⲛⲧⲉ]ⲭ̣ⲱⲣⲁ;

113 2: ⲛ[ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ]; 114 3: [ϩⲛ ⲧⲉⲭⲱ]ⲣⲁ; 115 2: [ϩⲛ ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ]; 116 2: [ⲛⲧⲉ]ⲭⲱⲣⲁ̣; 117 1: [--- ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ]; 118 3: [ϩⲛ ⲧⲉ]ⲭⲱⲣⲁ ψυχή — 1 3: [τὴν ψυχὴν τὸν δοῦ]λον σου; 2 4: τὴν ψ̣υ̣χ̣[ὴν τὸν] δοῦλον σου, 19: ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ; 3 8: τ[ὴ]ν̣ ψυχ̣ὴ̣ν̣ τὸν δοῦλον σου; 4 6–7: [τὴν] ψυ[χὴν τοῦ δούλου σου/τῆς δούλης σου]; 6 9: [τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ δ]ο̣ύλο̣υ̣ [σου]; 10 1: [τ]ὴ̣ν ψυ̣χ̣[ὴν τοῦ δούλου σ]ου; 14 5: ⲛ̣ⲧⲉⲯⲩⲭⲏ̣ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲕϩⲙ̄ϩⲁⲗ; 15 3: [τὴν ψ]υ̣χ ὴ τοῦ δού[λου σου]; 16 6: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲯⲩⲭⲏ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲕϩⲙ̄ϩⲁⲗ; 17 9: [ⲛⲧⲉϥⲯⲩ]ⲭⲏ̣; 18 10: [ⲛⲧⲉϥ]ⲯ̣ⲩ̣[ⲭⲏ]; 19 12: ⲛⲧ̣ⲉ̣ϥ̣[ⲯⲩⲭ]ⲏ̣; 20 5: ⲛ̇ⲧⲉϥ[ⲯⲩⲭⲏ]; 25 5: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭ̣[ⲏ]; 26 2–3: [ⲛⲧⲉϥ-/ ⲛⲧⲉⲥⲯⲩ]ⲭⲏ; 29 12: ⲛ̣ⲧⲉϥⲯ̣[ⲩⲭⲏ]; 30 10–11: ⲛ̣ⲧⲉϥⲯ̣[ⲩ]ⲭⲏ; 45 11: ⲛⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 46 10: ⲛ̣[ⲧⲉϥ]ⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 49 8: [ⲛⲧⲉϥ]ⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 68 horizontal arm of cross: τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ; 71 16: τὴ(ν) ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ; 74 3: ἵλεος αὕτης τὴν ψυχὴν τὴν δούλην σου; 75 8: αὐτοῦ τὴν ψυχὴν; 79 4: ⲛⲧⲉϥⲯⲩ̣[ⲭⲏ]; 81 7: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ̣[ϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ]; 100 6: ⲛ̇ⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 102 6: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 103 5: ⲛⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 105 2: ⸌ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥ⸍ⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 106 3: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 107 3: [ⲛ]ⲧⲉϥ[ⲯⲩⲭⲏ]; 108 3: [ⲛⲧⲉϥ-/ⲛⲧⲉⲥ]ⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 109 2–3: ⲛ̣[ⲧⲉϥ-/ⲧⲉⲥⲯⲩ]ⲭⲏ; 113 2: [ⲛⲧⲉϥ-/ⲛⲧⲉⲥ]ⲯ̣ⲩ̣ⲭⲏ; 114 2: ⲛ̣ⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ̣; 116 1–2: ⲛ̣[ⲧ]ⲉ̣ϥⲯⲩ[ⲭⲏ]; 120 2: [τὴν] ψ̣υχὴν αὐ⸌τ⸍( ); 125 2: [τὴν ψυχὴν] αὐτ̣[οῦ]; 126 5: τὴν ψυχ(ὴν) αὐτοῦ; 127 4–5: ⲛⲧⲉϥⲯ̣[ⲩ]ⲭ̣[ⲏ]; 128 7: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ̣[ϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ]; 131 1: [ⲛⲧ]ⲉϥⲯ[ⲩⲭⲏ]; 133 3: [τὴν ψυ]χὴ ἀ[υτοῦ]; 135 1: [--- ⲛⲧⲉϥ-/ⲛⲧⲉⲥⲯⲩ]ⲭ̣ⲏ̣; 136 6: [τὴν ψυχήν]; 137 2: [ⲛⲧⲉϥ-/ⲛⲧⲉⲥ]ⲯ̣ⲩ̣ⲭ̣ⲏ̣; 139 1–2: [ⲛⲧⲉϥ-/ⲛⲧⲉⲥⲯⲩ]ⲭⲏ; 141 4: ⲛ̣̇ⲧⲉϥ̣ⲯ̣ⲩ̣ⲭ̣ⲏ̣; 142 3: ⲛ[ⲧⲉϥ-/ⲧⲉⲥⲯ]ⲩ̣ⲭⲏ; 147 5: τὴν ψυχὴ(ν) αὐτοῦ; 148 3: τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ; 150 2: τὴν [ψυχὴν] τοῦ δούλ[ου σου]; 158 1: [---]ⲯ̣ⲩ[ⲭⲏ ---]; 211 3–4: [τὴ]ν̣ ψυ[χήν] ὦμος — 75 4: ὑπέθηκεν τὸν ὦμον αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ τὸν ζυγὸν τοῦ στ(αυ)ροῦ ὡς (only in the ‘God of the spirits’ prayer, in the expression ὡς ἀγαθὸς καὶ φιλάνθρωπος) — 1 10; 2 12

8. Coptic Words ⲁⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲉ — 14 4: ⲁ̣ϥ̣ϩⲱⲙ ⲉⲁ̣ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲉ; 16 5: ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲕⲁⲧⲁⲡⲁⲧⲏ ⲛ̄ⲁⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲉ; 67 6: [ⲡⲉⲛⲧ]ⲁ̣ϥⲕⲁ[ⲧⲁⲡⲁⲧⲉⲓ ⲛⲁⲙⲛⲧ]ⲉ̣ ⲁⲛⲁⲓ — 14 9: [ⲙ]ⲛ̄ ⲛⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ̣ [ⲧ]ⲏ̣ⲣ̣ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ [ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲣ] ⲁ̣ⲛⲁⲕ ϫ̣ⲓ̣ⲛ̣ ⲉ̣ⲛ̣ⲉ̣ϩ̣; 30 14: ⲙⲛ̣̄ ⲛⲉϥⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲣ̇ ⲁⲛⲁϥ; 116 5: [ⲙⲛ] ⲛⲉϥ̣ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ⲧⲟⲩ[ⲁⲁⲃ ⲧ]ⲏ̣ⲣⲟⲩ [ⲉ]ⲛ̣ⲧⲁϥⲣ [ⲁⲛⲁϥ] ϫ̣ⲓⲛ̣ ⲛ̣ⲁⲓⲱⲛ; 118 5: ϩ⟦ϩ⟧ⲛ̄ ⲕⲟⲩⲛϥ̄ ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲉ̣[ⲓⲟⲧⲉ] ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲩⲣ̄ ⲁⲛⲁϥ ϫ̣[ⲓⲛ] ⲉⲛⲉϩ; 127 9: ⲙ̣ⲛ̄ ⲛⲉ[ϥⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩ]ⲁⲁⲃ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ [ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲣ] ⲁⲛⲁϥ; 129 2: ⲛ̣ⲧ̣ⲁ̣ⲩ̣ⲣ̣ ⲁⲛⲁϥ ⲙ̣ⲡⲉϥⲙⲧⲟ̣ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ; 134 3: ⲙ̣ⲛ̣ [ⲛⲉⲛⲧⲁⲩⲣ] ⲁ̣ⲛ̣ⲁϥ [ⲙⲡⲉϥ]ⲙ̣̄ⲧⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ; 141 7: ⲙⲛ̄ ⲛ̣ⲉ̣ⲧ̣ⲟ̣[ⲩⲁⲁⲃ] ⲧ̣ⲏ̣ⲣⲟⲩ ⲛⲧ̣[ⲁⲩⲣ ⲁⲛⲁϥ] ⲁⲩⲱ — 14 2: ⲁ̣ⲩ̣ⲱ̣; 21 2: ⲁⲩⲱ̣; 29 11: [ⲁ]ⲩ̣ⲱ, 13: [ⲁⲩⲱ]; 79 2: ⲁⲩ̣[ⲱ], 5: ⲁⲩ̣ⲱ̣; 80 3: ⲁⲩ̣ⲱ̣, 3

i n d i ce s 3 25 ⲁϣⲁϩⲟⲙ (only in the phrase ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϥ ⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧϥ ⲛ̄ϭⲓ ⲡⲉⲙⲕⲁϩ ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲧⲗⲩⲡⲏ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲡⲁϣⲁϩⲟⲙ) — 17 12–13: ⲡⲁ̣[ϣⲁϩⲟⲙ]; 18 14–15; 20 9: ⲡ̣ⲁ̣ϣ̣ⲁ̣[ϩ]ⲟ̣ⲙ̣; 143 9–10: ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲧⲗⲩⲡⲏ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲡⲁ[ϣⲁϩ]ⲟⲙ ⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ̄ϩⲏ[ⲧϥ]; 144 4–5: [ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛⲧⲁϥⲡⲱⲧ ⲛϩⲏⲧϥ ⲛϭⲓ ⲡⲣⲓⲙ]ⲉ̣ ⲙⲛ̣̄ ⲧ̣ⲗⲩⲡ̣ⲏ̣ ⲙ̣ⲛ ⲡⲁϣⲁϩⲟⲙ; 145 1–2: [--- ⲙⲛ ⲡⲁ]ϣⲁ̣[ϩⲟⲙ ⲡⲱⲧ ⲛϩⲏ]ⲧϥ̄ ⲃⲱⲕ (mostly in the expression ⲁϥⲃⲱⲕ ϣⲁ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲙⲉⲣⲓⲧϥ̄ ⲡⲉⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟⲥ) — 17 4: ⲁϥⲃ̣ⲱ̣ⲕ̣; 18 6: ⲁⲃⲱⲕ; 19 6: ⲁ̣ϥ̣ⲃ̣[ⲱⲕ]; 21 5: ⲁ̣ϥ̣[ⲃⲱⲕ]; 22 3: [ⲁ]ϥ̣ⲃⲱⲕ ϣⲁ ⲓ̣(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)[ⲥ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲙⲉⲣⲓ]ⲧϥ̄; 23 5: [ⲁϥⲃⲱ]ⲕ; 24 4: [ⲁϥⲃⲱ]ⲕ ϣⲁ [---]; 58 2: ⲁϥ̣ⲃⲱⲕ [ⲉⲣ]ⲁⲧϥ ⲙⲡ[ϫⲟ]ⲉⲓⲥ; 80 2: [ⲉ]ϥⲉⲧⲣⲉϥⲃⲱⲕ̣ ⲉ̣ϩⲟⲩⲛ̣ [ⲉⲡⲡ]ⲁ̣ⲣ̣[ⲁ]ⲇ̣ⲓ̣[ⲥⲟ]ⲥ ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲣⲓⲫⲏ; 85 2: [---]ⲃⲱⲕ̣[---] ⲉ-, ⲉⲣⲟ⸗ — 29 14: [ⲛⲅⲛⲟϫ]ϥ̣ ⲉϩⲟⲩ[ⲛ ⲉⲕⲟⲩⲛϥ]; 77 7: ⲉϥⲉϣⲟⲡϥ̄ ⲉⲣⲟϥ; 80 2: [ⲉ]ϥⲉⲧⲣⲉϥⲃⲱⲕ̣ ⲉ̣ϩⲟⲩⲛ̣ [ⲉⲡⲡ]ⲁ̣ⲣ̣[ⲁ]ⲇ̣ⲓ̣[ⲥⲟ]ⲥ ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲣⲓⲫⲏ; 82 1: [ⲙⲁⲣⲛϣⲗⲏⲗ] ⲉ̣ⲡ̣ⲛ̣ⲟ̣ⲩ̣[ⲧⲉ] ⲉⲃⲟⲗ — 129 3: ⲙ̣ⲡⲉϥⲙⲧⲟ̣ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ; 134 4: [ⲙⲡⲉϥ]ⲙ̣̄ⲧⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉⲃⲟⲧ — 14 13: [ϩ]ⲛ̣̄ ⲥⲟⲩ ⲙⲛ̄ⲧ̣ⲥ̣ⲁϣϥ̄ [ⲙⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ---]; 16 13: ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲩ ϫⲟⲩⲧⲥⲛⲟⲟⲩⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲡⲁⲣⲉⲙ̣ϩⲱⲧⲡ̄; 22 6: ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲑ[ ̣]ⲱ̣ⲑ ⲓ̄ⲁ̣; 29 9: [---]ⲥ̣ⲟⲩ [4–5 ⲙⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲙⲉ]ⲭⲉⲓⲣ; 30 7–8: ϩⲛ︥ ⲥ[ⲟⲩ ±4 ⲙⲡⲉ]ⲃ̣[ⲟⲧ ---]; 44 6: ⲙ̄ⲡ̣ⲉⲃ̣ⲟⲧ ⲫⲁⲙ̣ⲉ ̣ ̣ϩⲱⲧⲡ; 45 8: ϩⲛ̄ ⲥⲟⲩ ⲥⲟⲩ̣ ⲙⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲭⲟ︦ⲓ̣(ⲁⲕ); 46 6–7: ϩ̣ⲛ̄ ⲥ̣[ⲟ]ⲩ̣ ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲏ̣̣ [ⲙⲡⲉ]ⲃⲟⲧ̣ ⲭⲟⲓ̈ⲁⲕ̄ϩ̣̄︥; 47 8: [---]ⲛ̣ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ̣[---]; 49 6: ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲩ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲧⲱ[ⲃⲉ]; 70 3–4: ϩⲛ̄ ⲥⲟⲩ ϫⲟⲩⲧⲁⲥⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲡⲁⲭⲱⲛ; 73 8–9: ϩⲛ̄ ⲥⲟⲩ ϫⲟⲩⲧⲟⲩⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲑⲱ̄ⲑ; 79 1: [---]ⲯⲓⲥ ⲙⲡⲉⲃ̣ⲟ̣[ⲧ ---]; 81 3: ϩⲛ ⲥⲟ̣[ⲩ --- ⲙⲡ]ⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲡ̣[---]; 86 3–4: [ⲛⲥⲟⲩ ⲙⲛⲧ]ϣ̣ⲟⲙⲧⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉ[ⲃⲟⲧ ⲡⲁⲩ]ⲛⲓ; 91 1: [---] ̣ⲡ̣ⲉⲃⲟⲧ [---] ̣̄ⲃ̣︥̄; 92 3: [---- ⲥⲟⲩ] ⲙ̣ⲛⲧ[--- ⲙⲡⲉ]ⲃⲟⲧ ⲉ[ⲡⲏⲫ]; 98 6: ϩⲛ̄ ⲥⲟⲩ ϫⲟⲩⲧⲁⲥⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲙⲉⲥⲟⲣⲏ; 99 6: ϩⲛ̄ ⲥⲟⲩ ϫⲟⲩⲧⲥⲁϣϥⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲧⲩⲃⲓ; 102 3: ⲛ̣ⲧ̣ⲉ ̣ ̣ ̣ϫ̣ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ⲱⲧ ⲙ̣ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ⲃ̣ⲟⲧ ⲭ̣ⲟ̣ⲓ̣ⲁ̣ⲕ̄ϩ; 103 2–3: [ϩⲙ] ⲡ̣ⲉ̣[ⲃⲟ]ⲧ̣ ⲫ̣ⲁ̣ⲱ̣ⲫ̣ⲓ̣ ̣ ̣; 112 3: [ⲛⲥⲟ]ⲩ̣ ϫⲟⲩⲱⲧ [ⲙⲡⲉⲃⲟ]ⲧ ⲧⲩⲃⲓ; 127 2–3: ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲩ ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲥⲛ[ⲟⲟⲩⲥ] ⲙ̣ⲡⲉ[ⲃⲟⲧ ⲡⲁⲩⲛ]ⲓ̣; 128 4: [ⲛⲙⲛ]ⲧⲟⲩⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡ[ⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲙⲉ]ⲥⲟⲣⲏ; 140 2: ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ [ⲫ]ⲁⲣⲙ(ⲟⲩⲑⲓ) [1–2]; 143 2: [---ⲙⲡⲉⲃ]ⲟ̣ⲧ̣ ⲡⲁⲩ̈ⲛⲓ ⲉⲛⲉϩ — 14 9: ϫ̣ⲓ̣ⲛ̣ ⲉ̣ⲛ̣ⲉ̣ϩ̣; 118 6: ϫ̣[ⲓⲛ] ⲉⲛⲉϩ ⲉⲧⲃⲉ — 82 3: [ⲉ]ⲧ̣ⲃ̣ⲉ̣ ⲛⲉϥⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ — 29 14: ⲉϩⲟⲩ[ⲛ ⲉⲕⲟⲩⲛϥ]; 80 2: ⲉ̣ϩⲟⲩⲛ̣ [ⲉⲡⲡ]ⲁ̣ⲣ̣[ⲁ]ⲇ̣ⲓ̣[ⲥⲟ]ⲥ ⲛⲧⲉⲧⲣⲓⲫⲏ, 4: ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ϩⲛ ⲑⲓ(ⲉⲣⲟⲩⲥⲁ)ⲗⲏⲙ ⲛ̣ⲧⲡ[ⲉ]; 102 6: ⲉϩⲟⲩ̣ⲛ̣ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧⲟ̣ⲛϩ̄; 119 4: ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲛⲕⲟⲩⲛϥ ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ — 46 4: [ⲛⲧ]ⲁ̣ϥ̣[ⲕⲁ ⲥⲱⲙⲁ] ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲉⲓⲛⲉ — 80 4: ⲉ̣ϥⲉⲛⲧϥ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ϩⲛ ⲑⲓ(ⲉⲣⲟⲩⲥⲁ)ⲗⲏⲙ ⲛ̣ⲧⲡ[ⲉ] (ⲉⲓⲣⲉ) ⲣ̄- in light verb constructions, see under ⲁⲛⲁⲓ, ⲛⲁ ⲉⲓⲱⲧ (monastic title) — see 4. Functions and Titles, s.v. ‘father’ ⲉⲓⲱⲧ (God the Father) — 73 1–2: [ϩⲙ ⲡⲣⲁⲛ ⲙⲡⲉⲓⲱ]ⲧ̣ ⲙ̣ⲛ̣ [ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ] ⲙⲛ ⲡⲉⲡⲛ̣(ⲉⲩⲙ)[ⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩ]ⲁ̣ⲁⲃ; 100 3–4: ⲡⲛ̣[ⲟ]ⲩ̣[ⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ]ⲓ̣ⲱⲧ ⲛⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ

ⲉⲓⲱⲧ (forefather) — 79 6: ⲙ̣ⲛ̣ ⲉ̣ⲛⲉⲓⲟⲧⲉ ⲉ̣ⲧ̣[ⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲁⲃⲣ]ⲁ̣ϩ̣ⲁ̣ⲙ̣ ⲙⲛ ⲓⲥⲁⲁⲕ̣ ⲙⲛ̣ [ⲓⲁⲕⲱⲃ]; 118 4: ϩ⟦ϩ⟧ⲛ̄ ⲕⲟⲩⲛϥ̄ ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲉ̣[ⲓⲟⲧⲉ] ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲩⲣ̄ ⲁⲛⲁϥ ϫ̣[ⲓⲛ] ⲉⲛⲉϩ ⲕⲱ (almost exclusively in the expression ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϥⲕⲱ ⲛ̄ⲥⲱϥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓⲃⲓⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲙⲉϩ ⲛ̄ϩⲓⲥⲉ) — 17 3: ⲛⲧⲁϥⲕⲱ; 18 4: ⲛⲧⲁϥⲕⲱ; 21 4: ⲁϥⲕⲱ̄; 22 1: [ⲛⲧⲁϥⲕⲱ]; 23 4: ⲛ̇ⲧⲁϥ[ⲕⲱ]; 24 2: ⲛ̣[ⲧⲁϥⲕⲱ]; 46 3: [ⲛⲧ]ⲁ̣ϥ̣[ⲕⲁ ⲥⲱ ⲙⲁ] ⲉϩⲣⲁⲓ̈ ⲕⲟⲩⲛ⸗ (only in the expression ϩⲛ̄ ⲕⲟⲩⲛϥ̄ ⲛ̄ⲁⲃⲣⲁϩⲁⲙ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲓ̈ⲥⲁⲁⲕ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲓ̈ⲁⲕⲱⲃ) — 14 6: ⲕⲟ̣ⲩ̣ⲛ︦ϥ̣︦︥; 17 14: ⲛ̄ⲕⲟⲩⲛϥ̄; 22 10: ⲕ̣ⲟⲛ̣[ϥ]; 29 14: ⲉϩⲟⲩ[ⲛ ⲉⲕⲟⲩⲛϥ]; 31 13: [ⲕⲟⲩⲛϥ]; 118 4: ϩ⟦ϩ⟧ⲛ̄ ⲕⲟⲩⲛϥ̄ ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲉ̣[ⲓⲟⲧⲉ] ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲩⲣ̄ ⲁⲛⲁϥ ϫ̣[ⲓⲛ] ⲉⲛⲉϩ; 119 4: [ⲛⲁⲃ]ⲣ̣ⲁ̣ⲁⲙ ⲙⲛ ⲓⲥⲁⲁⲕ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲓ̈ⲁⲕⲱⲃ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲛⲕⲟⲩⲛϥ; 142 4–5: ⲛ̇ⲕⲟⲩⲛϥ ⲕⲱⲧⲉ — 84 3: [ⲁ]ⲇⲁⲙ [ⲛⲧⲕ ⲟⲩⲕⲁϩ ⲉⲕⲛⲁⲕⲟ]ⲧ̣ⲕ̄ ⲟ̣[ⲛ ⲉⲡⲕⲁϩ] ⲕⲁϩ — 84 2–3 (twice): [ⲁ]ⲇⲁⲙ [ⲛⲧⲕ ⲟⲩⲕⲁϩ ⲉⲕⲛⲁⲕⲟ]ⲧ̣ⲕ̄ ⲟ̣[ⲛ ⲉⲡⲕⲁϩ] ⲙⲁ — 16 8: ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ̣; 17 10: [ⲡ]ⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϥ ⲡⲱⲧ [ⲛϩⲏⲧ]ϥ̣; 18 12: [ⲡ]ⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϥⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ̄ϩⲏ̣[ⲧ]ⲉϥ; 20 6: [ⲡⲙ]ⲁ̣ ⲛⲧ̣ⲁ̣ϥ̣ⲡ̣ⲱ̣ⲧ̣ ⲛ̣[ϩⲏ]ⲧ̣ϥ̄; 25 6: ⲡ̣ⲙ̣[ⲁ ⲛⲧⲁϥⲡⲱⲧ ⲛϩⲏ]ⲧϥ̣̄; 58 9: ϩ̣ⲙ̣̄ ⲡ̣ⲙ̣ⲁ̣ [---]; 114 4: [ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛⲧ]ⲁϥⲡⲱ[ⲧ ⲛϩⲏⲧϥ]; 115 3: [ϩⲙ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛⲧⲁⲧⲗⲩⲡⲏ ⲡⲱ]ⲧ ⲛ̣̇ϩ̣ⲏⲧ[ϥ]; 143 8: ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲧⲗⲩⲡⲏ ⲙ︤ⲛ︥ ⲡⲁ[ϣⲁϩ]ⲟⲙ ⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ̄ϩⲏ[ⲧϥ]; 144 1: [ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛⲧⲁϥⲡⲱⲧ ⲛϩⲏⲧϥ ⲛϭⲓ ⲡⲣⲓⲙ]ⲉ̣ ⲙⲛ̣̄ ⲧ̣ⲗⲩⲡ̣ⲏ̣ ⲙ̣ⲛ ⲡⲁϣⲁϩ ⲟⲙ; 146 4: ⲡⲙⲁ̣ [ⲛⲧⲁϥⲡⲱⲧ] ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧϥ̄ [ⲛϭⲓ ---] (ⲙⲉ) ⲙⲉⲣⲓⲧ⸗ (only in the expression ⲁϥⲃⲱⲕ ϣⲁ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲙⲉⲣⲓⲧϥ̄ ⲡⲉⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟⲥ) — 17 5: [ⲡⲉⲛⲧ]ⲁ̣ϥⲙⲉⲣⲓⲧϥ̄; 18 6–7: ⲡ̣[ⲉ]ⲛ[ⲧ]ⲁ[ϥⲙⲉⲣ]ⲓⲧϥ; 19 6: ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ⲛ̣[ⲧⲁϥⲙⲉⲣⲓⲧϥ]; 21 6: [ⲡⲉⲛ]ⲧ̣ⲁϥ̣ⲙ̣[ⲉⲣⲓⲧϥ]; 22 4: [ⲁ]ϥ̣ⲃⲱⲕ ϣⲁ ⲓ̣(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)[ⲥ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲙⲉⲣⲓ]ⲧϥ̄; 23 6: [ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲙⲉⲣⲓⲧ]ϥ̣ ⲙⲁⲓ̈- — 29 11: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧ[ⲉ ⲇⲉ ⲡⲁⲅⲁⲑ]ⲟ̣ⲥ [ⲁ]ⲩ̣ⲱ ⲡⲙ̣[ⲁⲓⲣⲱⲙⲉ]; 30 3: [ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲙⲁ]ⲓ̣ⲣⲱ[ⲙⲉ]; 44 4: ⲡⲙⲁⲓⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲛ; 45 4: ⲡⲙⲁⲓ︦ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛⲥⲟⲛ; 79 3: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲇⲉ̣ [ⲡⲁⲅ]ⲁ̣ⲑⲟⲥ ⲁⲩ̣[ⲱ] ⲡⲙⲁⲓⲣⲱⲙ[ⲉ]; 93 2–3: ⲡⲙⲁⲓ[ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ]; 143 3: [ⲡⲉⲛⲥⲟ]ⲛ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲓ[ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ]; 187 1: [---]ⲙ̣ⲁⲓ[---] ⲙⲉⲣⲓⲧ — 17 6: [ⲡⲉⲛⲥⲟⲛ] ⲙ̣ⲙⲉⲣⲓⲧ; 18 8: [ⲡⲉ]ⲛ̣[ⲥⲟⲛ ⲙ]ⲙⲉⲣⲓⲧ; 19 7: ⲡ̣[ⲉ]ⲛ̣ⲥ̣[ⲟ]ⲛ̣ ⲙ̣ⲙ̣ⲉ̣ⲣ̣ⲓ̣ⲧ̣; 23 7: [ⲡⲉⲛⲥⲟⲛ ⲙ]ⲙⲉⲣ̣ⲓⲧ; 67 7: [ⲡⲉⲛ]ⲙ̣ⲉⲣ̣[ⲓⲧ ⲛⲥⲟⲛ]; 88 2: [ⲡⲉⲛⲥⲟⲛ ⲙ]ⲙⲉⲣⲓⲧ̣ [---] ⲙⲟⲩ n. (only in the expression ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲕⲁⲧⲁⲣⲅⲉⲓ ⲙ̄ⲡⲙⲟⲩ) — 14 3: ⲡⲙⲟⲩ; 16 3: ⲡⲙⲟⲩ; 67 5: ⲡⲙ[ⲟⲩ] ⲙ̄ⲕⲁϩ ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧ (only in the expression ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϥⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧϥ̄ ⲛ̄ϭⲓ ⲡⲉⲙⲕⲁϩ ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲧⲗⲩⲡⲏ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲡⲁϣⲁϩⲟⲙ) — 17 11–12: ⲡⲉⲙⲕⲁϩ [ⲛϩⲏⲧ]; 18 13: ⲡⲉⲙⲕ̣ⲁ̣ϩ ⲛϩⲏⲧ; 20 7–8: [ⲡⲉ]ⲙⲕⲁ̣ϩ̣ [ⲛϩ]ⲏ̣ⲧ; 25 7: ⲡ̣[ⲉⲙⲕⲁϩ ⲛϩⲏⲧ] ⲙⲛ̄-, ⲛⲙ̄ⲙⲁ⸗ — 14 7 (twice): ⲙⲛ̄, 8: [ⲙ]ⲛ̄; 16 2: ⲙⲛ̄; 17 12: ⲙⲛ, 12: ⲙⲛ̄, 15: [ⲙⲛ], 15: ⲙⲛ̄; 18 14: ⲙⲛ̄, 14: ⲙ̣ⲛ̣; 20 8: ⲙ̣ⲛ̣, 8–9: ⲙ̣[ⲛ]; 29 15: [ⲙⲛ], 15: ⲙⲛ̄; 30 12: ⲙⲛ̣̄; 31 14: [ⲙⲛ], 14: ⲙ̣ⲛ̣; 32 x+5: [ⲙⲛ]; 44 8: ⲙⲛ̄, 9: ⲙⲛ̄; 46 10: ⲙ̣ⲛ̄; 48 10: [ⲙ]ⲛ̣; 49 9: ⲙ̣ⲛ̣̄; 73 2: ⲙ̣ⲛ̣, 3: ⲙⲛ; 79 6: ⲙ̣ⲛ̣, 7: ⲙⲛ, 8: ⲙⲛ̣, 8: ⲙ̣ⲛ̣; 80 4: [ⲙⲛ]; 82 3: ⲛⲙ̣̄ⲙⲁ̣ϥ̣;

326 i n di c es

116 3: [ⲙⲛ]; 117 2: [ⲙⲛ]; 119 2: ⲙⲛ, 3: ⲙⲛ̄; 121 1: ⲙ̣ⲛ̣, 2: ⲙ̣ⲛ̣; 127 7: ⲙ̣ⲛ̄; 128 8: ⲙⲛ̄; 130 3: [ⲙ]ⲛ; 131 1: [ⲙⲛ]; 134 2: ⲙ̣ⲛ̣; 135 2: [ⲙⲛ]; 141 6: ⲙⲛ̄; 142 5: ⲙ︤ⲛ︥, 6: ⲙ̣ⲛ̣; 143 6: ⲙⲛ̄, 7: ⲙⲛ̣, 9: ⲙⲛ̄; 144 3: ⲙⲛ̣̄, 4: ⲙ̣ⲛ; 145 1: [ⲙⲛ]; 155 4: [ⲛⲙⲙⲁϥ/ⲥ] (ⲙⲏⲧ) ⲙⲛ̄ⲧ- — 14 12: ⲙⲛ̄ⲧ̣ⲥ̣ⲁϣϥ̄; 46 6: ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲏ̣; 86 3: [ⲙⲛⲧ]ϣ̣ⲟⲙⲧⲉ; 92 2–3: ⲙ̣ⲛⲧ[---]; 127 2: ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲥⲛ[ⲟⲟⲩⲥ]; 128 3–4 (?): [ⲙⲛ]ⲧⲟⲩⲉ ⲙ̄ⲧⲟ — 129 2: ⲙ̣ⲡⲉϥⲙⲧⲟ̣ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ; 134 4: [ⲙⲡⲉϥ]ⲙ̣̄ⲧⲟ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ

ⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ

n. — 14 4: ϯ ⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ ⲛ̣ⲧⲉⲯⲩⲭⲏ̣ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲕϩⲙ̄ϩⲁⲗ; 16 5–6: ⲉⲕⲉ{ⲓ}ϯ ⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲯⲩⲭⲏ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲕϩⲙ̄ϩⲁⲗ; 17 8: ⲉϥⲉϯ ⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ [ⲛⲧⲉϥⲯⲩ]ⲭⲏ̣, 14: ⲉϥⲉϯ ⲛⲁϥ [ⲙⲧⲟ]ⲛ̣; 18 10: ⲉϥⲉϯ ⲙ̄[ⲧⲟⲛ ⲛⲧⲉϥ]ⲯ̣ⲩ̣[ⲭⲏ]; 19 11: ⲉϥ̣ⲉ̣ϯ ⲙⲧ̣ⲟⲛ ⲛⲧ̣ⲉ̣ϥ̣[ⲯⲩⲭ]ⲏ̣; 20 4: [ⲉ]ϥ̣ⲉϯ ⲙ̇ⲧⲟⲛ̣ ⲛ̇ⲧⲉϥ[ⲯⲩⲭⲏ]; 22 9: ⲉϥ[ⲉϯ ⲙⲧⲟ]ⲛ̣ ⲙ̣ⲙ̣ⲟϥ; 25 4: [ⲉϥⲉϯ ⲙⲧⲟⲛ] ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭ̣[ⲏ]; 27 9–10: ⲉ̣[ϥⲉ]ϯ̣ ⲙ̇ⲧⲟⲛ ⲛ̣ⲁϥ̣; 30 10: ⲉ̣ϥ̣[ⲉ]ϯ ⲙ̇[ⲧⲟⲛ] ⲛ̣ⲧⲉϥⲯ̣[ⲩ]ⲭⲏ; 45 10: ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲇⲉ ϯ ⲙⲧⲟⲛ ⲛⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 58 8: ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲛⲟⲩ[ⲧⲉ ⲇⲉ] ϯ ⲙ̄ⲧⲟ(ⲛ) [ⲛⲁϥ]; 73 10: ⲉϥⲉϯ ⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ ⲛⲁϥ; 79 3: [ⲉϥ]ⲉ̣ϯ̣ ⲙⲧⲟⲛ ⲛⲧⲉϥⲯⲩ̣[ⲭⲏ]; 81 5: [ⲡⲉⲧ]ϯ ⲙⲧⲟⲛ ⲛⲟⲩ[ⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲧ]ϣⲙ̄ϣⲉ ⲛⲁϥ̣; 86 5: [ⲉϥⲉϯ] ⲙ̇ⲧⲟⲛ [---]; 91 3: [---]ϯ̣ ⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ [---]; 100 5: ⲉϥⲉϯ ⲙ̇ⲧⲟⲛ ⲛ̇ⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 102 5: ⲉϥⲉϯ ⲙ̄ⲧⲟ̣ⲛ̣ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 103 4–5: ⲉ̣ϥ̣ⲉ̣ϯ ⲙⲧⲟⲛ ⲛⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 104 2: ⲉϥⲉϯ ⲙ̄{ⲡ}ⲧⲟⲛ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ; 105 2: [ⲉϥⲉϯ] ⲙⲧⲟⲛ ⸌ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥ⸍ⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 106 2: ⲉϥⲉϯ ⲙⲧⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 107 2: [ⲉⲣⲉⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ] ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡ[ⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ ϯ ⲙⲧⲟⲛ ⲛ]ⲧⲉϥ[ⲯⲩⲭⲏ]; 108 2: ⲉ̣[ϥⲉϯ ⲙⲧⲟⲛ ⲛⲧⲉϥ-/ⲛⲧⲉⲥ]ⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 109 1–2: [--- ϯ ⲙ]ⲧ̣ⲟ̣ⲛ̣ ⲛ̣[ⲧⲉϥ-/ⲧⲉⲥⲯⲩ]ⲭⲏ; 112 5: [ⲉϥⲉϯ] ⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ [ⲛⲁϥ]; 118 2: ⲉ̣ⲣⲉⲡ̣[ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ] ϯ ⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ ⲛⲁϥ; 119 1: [--- ϯ ⲙⲧⲟ]ⲛ̣ ⲛ̣ⲁϥ; 130 2–3: ⲉϥⲉϯ ⲙ̇[ⲧⲟⲛ]; 139 1: [---]ϯ ⲙⲧ̣[ⲟⲛ ⲛⲧⲉϥ-/ ⲛⲧⲉⲥⲯⲩ]ⲭⲏ; 140 4: [ⲉ]ϥ̣ⲉ ⲙⲧⲟ(ⲛ) [ⲛ]ⲁϥ; 141 3: ⲉ̣ϥ̣ⲉ̣ϯ̣ ⲙ̄ⲧ̣[ⲟ]ⲛ̣ ⲛ̣̇ⲧⲉϥ̣ⲯ̣ⲩ̣ⲭ̣ⲏ̣; 146 2: [ⲉϥⲉϯ ⲙⲧⲟⲛ] ⲛⲁϥ̣ vb. — 14 10: [ⲛⲧ]ⲁϥⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ ⲇ̣ⲉ̣ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ; 16 10: ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϥⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟ[ϥ]; 22 5–6: ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϥⲙ̄ⲧ̣[ⲟⲛ ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 25 1–2: [---ⲙ]ⲧⲟⲛ̣ [ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 27 5: ⲛ̇ⲧⲁϥ̣ⲙ̣ⲧ̣[ⲟ]ⲛ̣ ⲙⲙⲟϥ̣; 28 4: [ⲉ]ⲛⲧⲁϥⲙ̄ⲧ̣ⲟ̣[ⲛ] ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ; 29 6: [ⲛⲧⲁϥⲙⲧⲟⲛ ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 30 4: [ⲛⲧⲁϥ]ⲙⲧ[ⲟⲛ ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 31 4–5: [---] ̣ⲁϥⲙ̣ⲧ̣ⲟ̣ⲛ̣ [ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 33 4–5: ⲁ̣ϥ̣[ⲙⲧⲟⲛ ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 34 4–5: ⲛ̣ⲧ̣ⲁ̣ϥ̣[ⲙⲧⲟⲛ ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 41 5: ⲛ̣ⲧⲁϥⲙ̇[ⲧⲟⲛ] ⲙ̇ⲙⲟϥ; 44 3: ⲛⲧⲁϥⲙⲧⲟⲛ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ; 45 3: ⲁϥⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ ⲙⲙⲟϥ; 47 4: ⲁ̣ϥ̣ⲙ̣ⲧⲟⲛ [ⲙⲙ]ⲟ̣ϥ̣; 48 4: ⲁϥ[ⲙⲧⲟⲛ ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 49 3: ⲛ̣̄ⲧⲁϥⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ [ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 50 4: ⲛ̄[ⲧⲁϥⲙⲧⲟⲛ ⲙⲙⲟ]ϥ̣; 51 3: [ⲁϥ]ⲙ̣ⲧⲟⲛ ⲙ̣̄ⲙ̣ⲟ̣⸌ϥ̣⸍; 57 2: ⲁϥⲙ̄ⲧⲟ(ⲛ) [ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 61 3: [ⲛ]ⲧⲁϥⲙ̣̄[ⲧⲟⲛ ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 66 2: [ⲛⲧⲁϥ-/ⲛⲧⲁⲥ]ⲙ̄[ⲧⲟⲛ ⲙⲙⲟϥ/-ⲥ]; 70 5: ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϥⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ; 73 4: ⲛ̄ⲧⲁ̣ϥ̣ⲙ̣ⲧ̣[ⲟ]ⲛ̣ ⲙ̄̄ⲙⲟϥ; 77 2: [ⲛ]ⲧⲁϥⲙⲧ̣ⲟ̣ⲛ̣ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ; 90 1: [--- ⲙⲧⲟⲛ] ⲙⲙ̣[ⲟϥ]; 93 1: [--- ⲁϥ]ⲙⲧ̣ⲟ̣ⲛ [ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 95 3: [ⲛⲧⲁϥ]ⲙⲧ[ⲟⲛ ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 98 2: ⲁ̣ϥ̣ⲙⲧⲟⲛ ⲙⲙⲟϥ; 99 1: ⲛ̣[ⲧⲁϥⲙⲧⲟⲛ] ⲙ̄ⲙ̣ⲟϥ; 143 4–5: [ⲁⲡⲉⲛⲥⲟ]ⲛ ⲙ̄ⲙⲁⲓ[ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ] ⲃ̣ⲁⲗ̣ⲱ︥ ⲙ̄̄[ⲧⲟⲛ ⲙ]ⲙ̣ⲟϥ uncertain — 151 3: [---]ⲙⲧⲟ[ⲛ ---]

(ⲙⲟⲩϩ) ⲙⲉϩ qual. (only in the expression ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϥⲕⲱ ⲛ̄ⲥⲱϥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓⲃⲓⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲙⲉϩ ⲛ̄ϩⲓⲥⲉ) — 17 4: ⲉⲧ̣ⲙⲉϩ; 18 5; 19 5: [ⲉ]ⲧ̣ⲙ̣ⲉ̣ϩ̣; 21 5: ⲉ̣ⲧⲙⲓϩ̣; 22 2–3: ⲉⲧ̣[ⲙⲉϩ]; 23 5: ⲉⲧ[ⲙⲉϩ]; 24 3: ⲉⲧ̣[ⲙⲉϩ] ⲛ̄- prep. — 16 11: ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲩ; 17 9: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ, 14: ⲛ̄ⲕⲟⲩⲛϥ̄; 18 11: ⲛⲧⲉⲭⲱ̣ⲣ̣[ⲁ]; 19 12: ⲛⲧⲉⲭⲱ̣ⲣⲁ; 20 5: [ⲛ]ⲧ̣[ⲉ]ⲭ̣ⲱ̣ⲣ̣ⲁ̣; 22 6: ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ, 9: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥ̣[ⲙⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ]; 25 5: [ⲛⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ]; 29 12: [ⲛⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ]; 44 6: ⲙ̄ⲡ̣ⲉⲃ̣ⲟⲧ; 49 5: ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲩ, 8: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ[ϥⲙⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ]; 51 5: ⲛⲥⲟⲩ; 58 5: ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲩ; 86 3: [ⲛⲥⲟⲩ]; 102 7: ⲉϩⲟⲩ̣ⲛ̣ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ; 103 5: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ; 104 2: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ; 105 3: ⲛⲛⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ; 106 3: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ; 112 2: [ⲛⲥⲟ]ⲩ̣, 6: [ⲛⲧⲉ]ⲭ̣ⲱⲣⲁ; 113 2: ⲛ[ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ]; 116 2: [ⲛⲧⲉ]ⲭⲱⲣⲁ̣; 119 4: ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲛⲕⲟⲩⲛϥ; 127 2: ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲩ; 128 3 (?): [ⲛⲙⲛ]ⲧⲟⲩⲉ; 139 2: ⲉ[ⲛⲧⲉϥⲙⲛⲧⲉ]ⲣ̣ⲟ; 142 3: ⲛ̇ⲧⲉⲕⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲟ; 4: ⲛ̇ⲕⲟⲩⲛϥ ⲛ̄-, ⲛ̄ⲁ⸗ — 14 5: ⲛ̣ⲧⲉⲯⲩⲭⲏ̣; 16 6: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 17 9: [ⲛⲧⲉϥⲯⲩ]ⲭⲏ̣, 13: ⲛⲁϥ; 18 10: [ⲛⲧⲉϥ]ⲯ̣ⲩ̣[ⲭⲏ]; 19 11: ⲛⲧ̣ⲉ̣ϥ̣[ⲯⲩⲭ]ⲏ̣; 20 4: ⲛ̇ⲧⲉϥ[ⲯⲩⲭⲏ]; 25 5: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭ̣[ⲏ]; 26 2: [ⲛⲧⲉϥ-/ⲛⲧⲉⲥⲯⲩ]ⲭⲏ; 27 10: ⲛ̣ⲁϥ̣; 29 12: ⲛ̣ⲧⲉϥⲯ̣[ⲩⲭⲏ]; 30 10: ⲛ̣ⲧⲉϥⲯ̣[ⲩ]ⲭⲏ; 44 10: ⲛⲁⲕ; 45 10: ⲛⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 46 9: ⲛ̣[ⲧⲉϥ]ⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 49 8: [ⲛⲧⲉϥ]ⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 58 9: [ⲛⲁϥ]; 70 11: ⲛⲁϥ; 73 10: ⲛⲁϥ; 79 3: ⲛⲧⲉϥⲯⲩ̣[ⲭⲏ], 6: ; 81 6: ⲛⲁϥ̣, 7: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ̣[ϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ]; 98 8: ⲛⲁϥ; 99 8: ⲛⲁϥ; 100 5: ⲛ̇ⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 101 2: ⲛ̣ⲁϥ; 102 6: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 103 5: ⲛⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 105 2: ⸌ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥ⸍ⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 106 2: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 107 2: [ⲛ]ⲧⲉϥ[ⲯⲩⲭⲏ]; 108 2: [ⲛⲧⲉϥ-/ⲛⲧⲉⲥ]ⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 109 2: ⲛ̣[ⲧⲉϥ-/ⲧⲉⲥⲯⲩ]ⲭⲏ; 112 6: [ⲛⲁϥ]; 113 1: [ⲛⲧⲉϥ-/ ⲛⲧⲉⲥ]ⲯ̣ⲩ̣ⲭⲏ; 114 2: ⲛ̣ⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ̣; 116 1: ⲛ̣[ⲧ]ⲉ̣ϥⲯⲩ[ⲭⲏ]; 118 2: ⲛⲁϥ; 119 2: ⲛ̣ⲁϥ; 127 4: ⲛⲧⲉϥⲯ̣[ⲩ]ⲭ̣[ⲏ]; 128 7: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ̣[ϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ]; 131 1: [ⲛⲧ]ⲉϥⲯ[ⲩⲭⲏ]; 135 1: [--- ⲛⲧⲉϥ-/ ⲛⲧⲉⲥⲯⲩ]ⲭ̣ⲏ̣; 137 1: [ⲛⲧⲉϥ-/ⲛⲧⲉⲥ]ⲯ̣ⲩ̣ⲭ̣ⲏ̣; 139 1: [ⲛⲧⲉϥ-/ ⲛⲧⲉⲥⲯⲩ]ⲭⲏ; 140 5: [ⲛ]ⲁϥ; 141 4: ⲛ̣̇ⲧⲉϥ̣ⲯ̣ⲩ̣ⲭ̣ⲏ̣; 142 3: ⲛ[ⲧⲉϥ-/ ⲧⲉⲥⲯ]ⲩ̣ⲭⲏ; 146 3: ⲛⲁϥ̣ ⲛ̄-, ⲙ̄ⲙⲟ⸗ — 14 10: ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ; 16 10: ⲙ̄ⲙⲟ[ϥ]; 22 6: [ⲙⲙⲟϥ], 9: ⲙ̣ⲙ̣ⲟϥ; 25 2: [ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 27 5: ⲙⲙⲟϥ̣; 28 5: ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ; 29 6: [ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 30 4: [ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 31 5: [ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 33 5: [ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 34 5: [ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 41 5–6: ⲙ̇ⲙⲟϥ; 44 3–4: ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ; 45 3: ⲙⲙⲟϥ; 47 5: [ⲙⲙ]ⲟ̣ϥ̣; 48 4: [ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 49 4: [ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 50 4: [ⲙⲙⲟ]ϥ̣; 51 3: ⲙ̣̄ⲙ̣ⲟ̣⸌ϥ̣⸍; 57 3: [ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 61 3: [ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 66 2: [ⲙⲙⲟϥ/-ⲥ]; 70 6: ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ; 73 5: ⲙ̄̄ⲙⲟϥ; 77 3: ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ; 90 2: ⲙⲙ̣[ⲟϥ]; 93 2: [ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 94 3: ⲙ̣ⲙⲟϥ; 95 3: [ⲙⲙⲟϥ]; 98 2: ⲙⲙⲟϥ; 99 2: ⲙ̄ⲙ̣ⲟϥ; 104 2: ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ; 115 2: [ⲙⲙⲟϥ/-ⲥ]; 143 5: [ⲙ]ⲙ̣ⲟϥ, 8: ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ̣ ⲛⲁ n. — 142 2: ⲉⲕⲉϯ ⲛⲁ{ⲩ} ⲛ[ⲧⲉϥ-/ⲧⲉⲥⲯ]ⲩ̣ⲭⲏ; 155 4: [ⲙⲁ]ⲣⲛ̄ϣⲗ[ⲏⲗ ⲛⲧⲉⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲁ]ⲅ̣ⲁⲑⲟⲥ [ⲣ ⲟⲩⲛⲁ ⲛⲙⲙⲁϥ/-ⲥ] ⲛⲁⲏⲧ — 142 2: [ⲡⲛⲁⲏ]ⲧ ⲛⲟⲃⲉ — 82 4: [ⲉ]ⲧ̣ⲃ̣ⲉ̣ ⲛⲉϥⲛⲟⲃⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ art. — 14 1: ⲡ̣ⲛ(ⲉⲩⲙ)ⲁ̣ ⲛ̣ⲓⲙ̣; 2: ⲥⲁⲣⲝ̄ ⲛⲓ[ⲙ]; 16 1: ⲡⲛ(ⲉⲩⲙ)ⲁ ⲛⲓⲙ, 2: ⲥⲁⲣⲝ̄ ⲛⲓⲙ; 17 16: [ⲡⲛ(ⲉⲩⲙ)ⲁ] ⲛⲓⲙ; 81 5: ⲟⲩ[ⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ]

i n d i ce s 3 27 ⲛⲥⲁ-, ⲛ̄ⲥⲱ⸗ — 17 3: ⲛ̄ⲥⲱϥ̣; 18 5: ⲛ̇ⲥⲱϥ; 21 4: ⲛ̄ⲥⲱϥ̣; 22 2: [ⲛⲥⲱϥ]; 23 4: [ⲛⲥⲱϥ]; 24 2: [ⲛⲥⲱϥ] ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ — 14 1: ⲡ̣ⲛ̣ⲟ̣[ⲩ]ⲧ̣ⲉ̣ ⲙ̣ⲡ̣ⲛ(ⲉⲩⲙ)ⲁ̣ ⲛ̣ⲓⲙ̣ ⲁ̣ⲩ̣ⲱ̣ ⲡ̣ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲛ̄ⲥⲁⲣⲝ̄ ⲛⲓ[ⲙ]; 16 1: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛ(ⲉⲩⲙ)ⲁ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲙⲛ︥ ⲥⲁⲣⲝ̄ ⲛⲓⲙ; 17 1: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛⲟⲓⲁ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ], 7: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ [ⲡϣⲁⲛ]ϩ̣ⲧⲏϥ, 13: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, 15: ⲡⲛⲟⲩ⸌ⲧ⸍(ⲉ) [ⲙⲡⲛ(ⲉⲩⲙ)ⲁ] ⲛⲓⲙ; 18 2–3: ϩ̣ⲓ̣ⲧ̣[ⲛ] ⲧⲉⲡⲣ[ⲟ]ⲛⲟⲓⲁ ⲙ̣ⲡ[ⲛ]ⲟⲩⲧⲉ, 9: ⲡⲛⲟ[ⲩ]ⲧ̣ⲉ̣ ⲡ[ϣⲁⲛϩⲧⲏϥ]; 19 2: ϩⲓⲧⲛ̄ ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛⲟⲓⲁ [ ̣ ̣?] ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, 10: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ̣ ⲡϣⲁⲛϩ̣ⲧⲏϥ; 20 3: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ̣ ⲡϣ̣ⲁⲛ[ϩⲧⲏϥ]; 21 1–2: ϩⲓⲧⲛ̄ ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛⲟⲓⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲟ̣[ⲩ]ⲧⲉ; 22 7–8: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡϣⲁⲛϩⲧⲏϥ; 23 1–2: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛⲟⲓⲁ] ⲙ̣ⲡⲛⲟⲩ[ⲧⲉ]; 24 6: [ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ---]; 25 3: [ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡ]ϣⲁⲛϩ[ⲧⲏϥ]; 26 1: [ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡϣⲁⲛ]ϩⲧⲏ[ϥ]; 27 2: [ϩⲓⲧ]ⲛ̇ ⲧⲉⲡ̣ⲣ̣ⲟ̣ⲛ̣ⲟ̣ⲓ̣ⲁ̣ ⲙ̣̇ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ; 28 3: ϩⲛ̄ ⲧ[ⲉⲡⲣ]ⲟⲛⲓⲁ ⲇ̣[ⲉ ⲙ]ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧ[ⲉ]; 29 3: ϩⲓ̣[ⲧⲛ ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛⲟ]ⲓ̣ⲁ̣ ⲙ̇ⲡ̣[ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ], 10: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧ[ⲉ ⲇⲉ ⲡⲁⲅⲁⲑ]ⲟ̣ⲥ [ⲁ]ⲩ̣ⲱ ⲡⲙ̣[ⲁⲓⲣⲱⲙⲉ]; 30 2: ϩⲓⲧⲛ̄ [ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛ]ⲟ̣ⲓⲁ ⲙ̄[ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ]; 31 1: ϩ̣ⲓ̣ⲧ̣ⲛ̣ ⲧ̣[ⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛⲟⲓ]ⲁ̣ ⲙ̣ⲡ̣ⲛ̣ⲟⲩⲧⲉ; 32 2: [ϩ]ⲓ̣ⲧⲛ̄ ⲧⲉⲡ[ⲣⲟⲛⲟⲓⲁ ⲇⲉ ⲙ]ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ; 33 2: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ] ⲧ̣ⲉ̣ⲡⲣⲟⲛⲟⲓⲁ [ⲛⲧⲉ] ⲡ[ⲛ]ⲟⲩⲧⲉ; 34 2: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ] ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛ[ⲟⲓⲁ ⲙ]ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ; 35 3: ϩⲓⲧⲛ̄ ⲧⲉⲡ̣ⲣ̣ⲟ̣ⲛⲟⲓⲁ̣ ⲙ̣̇ⲡ̣[ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ]; 36 2–3: ϩⲓⲧⲛ̄ [ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟ]ⲛⲟⲓⲁ̣ [ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩ]ⲧⲉ; 37 1: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛⲟⲓ]ⲁ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ; 38 1–2: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ] ⲧ̣ⲉ̣ⲡⲣⲟⲛⲓⲁ̣ [ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ]; 41 2–3: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ ⲧⲉⲡⲣⲟⲛⲟⲓⲁ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ]; 42 1: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ ⲧⲉⲡⲣ]ⲟ̣ⲛⲟⲓⲁ ⲙ̄ⲡ̣ⲛ̣ⲟ̣[ⲩⲧⲉ]; 44 1: ϩⲓⲧⲛ ⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩⲥⲓⲥ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, 7–8: ⲡⲛⲟⲩ[ⲧ]ⲉ̣ [ⲛ]ⲁ̣ⲃⲣⲁϩⲁⲙ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲓ̣ⲥ̣ⲁ̣ⲁⲕ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲓ̈ⲁⲕⲱⲃ; 45 2: ϩⲓⲧ⸌ⲛ⸍ ⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩⲥⲓⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ, 9: ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲇⲉ ϯ ⲙⲧⲟⲛ ⲛⲧⲉϥⲯⲩⲭⲏ; 46 2: [ϩ]ⲓⲧⲛ̄ ⲧⲕⲉ̣ⲗ̣[ⲉⲩⲥⲓⲥ] ⲙⲡⲛ[ⲟ]ⲩ̣ⲧⲉ̣; 47 2: ϩ̣ⲓ̣ⲧⲛ̄ ⲧⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩⲥⲓⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ̣; 48 2: ϩⲓⲧⲛ ⲧ[ⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩ]ⲥⲓⲥ [ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ]; 49 2: [ϩⲓ]ⲧ̣︦ⲛ︥ ⲧⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩⲥⲓⲥ [ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩ]ⲧⲉ; 50 3: ϩⲓⲧ̣ⲛ̄ ⲧⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩⲥⲓⲥ [ⲙⲡ]ⲛ̣ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ⲧⲉ; 51 2: [ϩⲓ]ⲧⲛ ⲧⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩ[ⲥⲓⲥ] ⲙⲡⲙⲟⲩⲧⲉ; 52 2: ϩⲓⲧⲛ ⲧⲕⲉⲗⲉ[ⲩ]ⲥⲓⲥ ⲙ̣ⲡ̣[ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ]; 53 2: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ ⲧⲕⲉⲗⲉ]ⲩⲥⲓⲥ ⲙ̄[ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ]; 54 2–3: [ϩⲓⲧ]ⲛ̄ ⲧⲕⲉ[ⲗⲉⲩⲥⲓⲥ] ⲙ̣̇ⲡⲛ̣[ⲟⲩⲧⲉ]; 57 1: [ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡ]ⲇⲓⲙⲏⲟⲩⲣ[ⲅⲟⲥ]; 58 2: [ϩ]ⲙ̣̄ ⲡⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲙ[ⲡ]ⲛ̣ⲟⲩⲧⲉ, 7–8: ⲉⲣⲉⲡⲛⲟⲩ[ⲧⲉ ⲇⲉ] ϯ ⲙ̄ⲧⲟ(ⲛ) [ⲛⲁϥ]; 59 2: [ϩ]ⲙ̣̄ ⲡⲟⲩⲱ[ϣ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ]; 60 1–2: ϩⲙ̄ [ⲡⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲙⲡⲛ]ⲟ̣ⲩ̣[ⲧⲉ]; 61 2: ϩⲓⲧ[ⲛ ---] ⲙ̄ⲡⲛ[ⲟⲩⲧⲉ]; 62 2: ϩⲓⲧ︦ⲛ̣︦ [---] ⲙ̇ⲡⲛ̣[ⲟⲩⲧⲉ], top edge: [ⲡⲛ]ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲙ̇ⲡⲧⲏⲣ︦ϥ︦︥; 63 2: ϩⲓ[ⲧⲛ --- ⲙ]ⲡⲛⲟⲩ[ⲧⲉ]; 67 3: [ⲡ]ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡ[ⲇⲏⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣ]ⲅⲟⲥ; 79 2: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲇⲉ̣ [ⲡⲁⲅ]ⲁ̣ⲑⲟⲥ ⲁⲩ̣[ⲱ] ⲡⲙⲁⲓⲣⲱⲙ[ⲉ]; 82 2: [ⲙⲁⲣⲛϣⲗⲏⲗ] ⲉ̣ⲡ̣ⲛ̣ⲟ̣ⲩ̣[ⲧⲉ]; 100 3: ⲡⲛ̣[ⲟ]ⲩ̣[ⲧⲉ ⲡⲉ]ⲓ̣ⲱⲧ ⲛⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 118 1: ⲉ̣ⲣⲉⲡ̣[ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ] ϯ ⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ ⲛⲁϥ; 127 4: [ⲉⲣⲉⲡ]ⲛ̣ⲟⲩ̣ⲧⲉ ⲁⲛⲁⲡⲁⲩ[ⲉ] ⲛⲧⲉϥⲯ̣[ⲩ]ⲭ̣[ⲏ]; 143 5–6: ⲡⲛⲟⲩ[ⲧⲉ ⲛⲁⲃⲣⲁ]ϩ̣ⲁⲙ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲓⲥⲁⲕ ⲙⲛ̣ [ⲓⲁⲕⲱⲃ]; 155 3: [ⲙⲁ]ⲣⲛ̄ϣⲗ[ⲏⲗ ⲛⲧⲉⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲁ]ⲅ̣ⲁⲑⲟⲥ [ⲣ ⲟⲩⲛⲁ ⲛⲙⲙⲁϥ/-ⲥ]; 159 2: [---]ⲛ̣ⲛⲟ̣ⲩⲧ̣ⲉ̣; 161 2: [ϩ]ⲛ̣ [ⲟⲩⲉⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲛ]ⲧⲉ ⲡⲛ̣ⲟ̣[ⲩⲧⲉ]; 196 3: [---]ⲡ̣ⲛ̣ⲟ̣[ⲩⲧⲉ ---] see also under ⲙⲁⲓ̈ⲛ̄ⲧⲟⲕ — 84 2: [ⲁ]ⲇⲁⲙ [ⲛⲧⲕ ⲟⲩⲕⲁϩ ⲉⲕⲛⲁⲕⲟ]ⲧ̣ⲕ̄ ⲟ̣[ⲛ ⲉⲡⲕⲁϩ] ⲛ̄ⲧⲟϥ (almost exclusively in the expression ⲛ̄ⲧⲟϥ ⲇⲉ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡϣⲁⲛϩⲧⲏϥ) — 17 7; 18 8–9: [ⲛⲧⲟ]ϥ; 19 9: ⲛⲧⲟϥ; 20 2–3: [ⲛⲧⲟϥ]; 22 7: ⲛ̄ⲧⲟϥ ⲇⲉ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡϣⲁⲛϩⲧⲏϥ; 24 6: [ⲛ]ⲧⲟϥ ⲇ̣[ⲉ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ---]; 25 3: ⲛ̣̄ⲧ̣[ⲟϥ]; 79 5: [ⲛⲧⲟϥ]

ⲛⲟⲩϫⲉ — 29 14: [ⲛⲅⲛⲟϫ]ϥ̣ ⲉϩⲟⲩ[ⲛ ⲉⲕⲟⲩⲛϥ] ⲛ̄ϭⲓ — 14 11: [ⲛϭⲓ]; 17 5, 11; 18 7: ⲛ̇[ϭ]ⲓ̣, 13: ⲛϭⲓ; 20 7: [ⲛϭⲓ]; 23 7: [ⲛϭⲓ]; 25 7: ⲛ̣ϭ̣ⲓ̣; 27 6: ⲛ̣ϭ̣ⲓ̣; 28 5; 29 7: [ⲛϭⲓ]; 30 5; 41 6: ⲛ̇[ϭⲓ]; 44 4; 45 4; 46 4: ⲛ̄ϭ̣ⲓ̣; 47 5; 48 5: ⲛ[ϭⲓ]; 49 4: [ⲛϭⲓ]; 50 4: [ⲛϭⲓ]; 51 4: [ⲛϭⲓ]; 57 3: [ⲛϭⲓ]; 58 4: [ⲛϭⲓ]; 61 3: [ⲛϭⲓ]; 66 2–3: [ⲛ]ϭⲓ; 70 6; 73 5, 10; 90 2: [ⲛϭⲓ]; 93 2: [ⲛϭⲓ]; 94 2: [ⲛ]ϭⲓ; 96 2: ⲛϭ[ⲓ]; 98 2: ⲛ̣ϭ̣, 8; 99 2: ⲛ̣[ϭⲓ], 8; 144 2: [ⲛϭⲓ]; 146 5: [ⲛϭⲓ] ⲟⲛ — 29 13: [ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲛ]; 79 5: [ⲇⲉ] ⲟ̣ⲛ; 80 3: ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲛ; 84 3: ⲟ̣[ⲛ] ⲡⲉ n. (almost exclusively in the expression ϩⲛ̄ ⲧⲉϥⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲟ ⲉⲧϩⲛ̄ ⲧⲡⲉ / ⲛ̄ⲙ̄ⲡⲏⲩⲉ) — 30 12: ⲉⲧϩⲛ̄ ⲧⲡⲉ; 32 x+5: [ⲛⲙⲡⲏⲩⲏ]; 44 12: ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲡⲏⲩⲉ; 49 9: [ⲉⲧϩⲛ ⲧⲡⲉ]; 79 5: ⲛ̣ⲧ̣ⲡⲉ; 80 4: ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ϩⲛ ⲑⲓ(ⲉⲣⲟⲩⲥⲁ)ⲗⲏⲙ ⲛ̣ⲧⲡ[ⲉ]; 135 4: [ⲛⲙⲡⲏⲩⲉ]; 137 4: ⲛ̄ⲙ̄ⲡⲏⲩⲉ; 138 2: [ⲛⲙⲡⲏⲩⲉ]; 139 3: ⲛ̣[ⲙⲡⲏⲩⲉ]; 140 5: ϩⲛ̄ ⲧ̣[ⲡ]ⲉ̣; 141 5–6: ⲉ̣ⲧ̣ϩ̣[ⲛ] ⲙ̇[ⲡ]ⲏⲩⲉ; 142 4: ⲉⲧ̣ϩⲛ̄ ⲧⲡⲉ ⲡⲱⲧ (only in the expression ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϥⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧϥ̄ ⲛ̄ϭⲓ etc.) — 17 10; 18 12; 20 6: ⲛⲧ̣ⲁ̣ϥ̣ⲡ̣ⲱ̣ⲧ̣; 25 6: [ⲛⲧⲁϥⲡⲱⲧ]; 114 4: [ⲛⲧ]ⲁϥⲡⲱ[ⲧ]; 115 3: [ϩⲙ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛⲧⲁⲧⲗⲩⲡⲏ ⲡⲱ]ⲧ ⲛ̣̇ϩ̣ⲏⲧ[ϥ]; 143 10: ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ⲧⲁⲧⲗⲩⲡⲏ ⲙⲛ̄ ⲡⲁ[ϣⲁϩ]ⲟⲙ ⲡⲱⲧ ⲛ̄ϩⲏ[ⲧϥ]; 144 2: [ⲛⲧⲁϥⲡⲱⲧ]; 145 2: [--- ⲙⲛ ⲡⲁ]ϣⲁ̣[ϩⲟⲙ ⲡⲱⲧ ⲛϩⲏ]ⲧϥ̄; 146 4: [ⲛⲧⲁϥⲡⲱⲧ] ⲣⲓⲙⲉ — 144 3: [ⲡⲣⲓⲙ]ⲉ̣ ⲙⲛ̣̄ ⲧ̣ⲗⲩⲡ̣ⲏ̣ ⲙ̣ⲛ ⲡⲁϣⲁϩⲟⲙ ⲣⲱⲙⲉ — see under ⲙⲁⲓ̈ⲣⲁⲛ — 73 1: [ϩⲙ ⲡⲣⲁⲛ ⲙⲡⲉⲓⲱ]ⲧ̣ ⲙ̣ⲛ̣ [ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ] ⲙⲛ ⲡⲉⲡⲛ̣(ⲉⲩⲙ)[ⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩ]ⲁ̣ⲁⲃ (ⲣⲁⲧ) ⲉⲣⲁⲧ⸗ — 58 3: ⲁϥ̣ⲃⲱⲕ [ⲉⲣ]ⲁⲧϥ ⲙⲡ[ϫⲟ]ⲉⲓⲥ (ⲣⲣⲟ) ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲟ (almost exclusively in the expression ϩⲛ̄ ⲧⲉϥⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲟ ⲉⲧϩⲛ̄ ⲧⲡⲉ / ⲛ̄ⲙ̄ⲡⲏⲩⲉ) — 22 10: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉϥ̣[ⲙⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ]; 30 11–12: ⲧ̣ⲉ̣ϥⲙⲛ̄[ⲧⲉ]ⲣⲟ; 32 x+4– x+5: [ⲧⲉ]ϥ̣ⲙⲛ̣ⲧ̣ⲉ̣[ⲣⲟ]; 44 11: ⲧⲙ̄︤ⲛ̄︥ⲧⲣ̄ⲣⲟ; 49 9: ⲛ̄ⲧⲉ[ϥⲙⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ]; 79 4: [ⲧⲙⲛⲧ]ⲉ̣ⲣ̣ⲟ̣; 135 3: [ⲧⲙ]ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲟ; 137 3: ⲧ̣[ⲉ]ϥ̣ⲙ̣ⲛ̣̄ⲧ̣ⲉ̣ⲣ̣ⲣ̣ⲟ; 138 1: [ⲧⲙⲛⲧ]ⲉⲣⲟ; 139 2–3: ⲉ[ⲛⲧⲉϥⲙⲛⲧⲉ]ⲣ̣ⲟ; 141 5: [ⲧⲉϥ]ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣ̣ⲟ̣; 142 3–4: ⲛ̇ⲧⲉⲕⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲣⲟ ⲥⲟⲩ — 14 12: [ϩ]ⲛ̣̄ ⲥⲟⲩ ⲙⲛ̄ⲧ̣ⲥ̣ⲁϣϥ̄ [ⲙⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ---]; 16 12: ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲩ ϫⲟⲩⲧⲥⲛⲟⲟⲩⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲡⲁⲣⲉⲙ̣ϩⲱⲧⲡ̄; 29 8: [---]ⲥ̣ⲟⲩ [4–5 ⲙⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲙⲉ]ⲭⲉⲓⲣ; 30 7: ϩⲛ︥ ⲥ[ⲟⲩ ±4 ⲙⲡⲉ]ⲃ̣[ⲟⲧ ---]; 45 7: ϩⲛ̄ ⲥⲟⲩ ⲥⲟⲩ̣ ⲙⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲭⲟ︦ⲓ̣(ⲁⲕ); 46 6: ϩ̣ⲛ̄ ⲥ̣[ⲟ]ⲩ̣ ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲏ̣̣ [ⲙⲡⲉ]ⲃⲟⲧ̣ ⲭⲟⲓ̈ⲁⲕ̄ϩ̣̄︥; 49 5: ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲩ [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲧⲱ[ⲃⲉ]; 51 5: ⲛⲥⲟⲩ [---]; 58 5: ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲩ [ϫⲟⲩ]ⲱⲧ ⲙ̣ⲡⲁ[ ̣ ̣ ̣]; 70 2: ϩⲛ̄ ⲥⲟⲩ ϫⲟⲩⲧⲁⲥⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲡⲁⲭⲱⲛ; 73 7: ϩⲛ̄ ⲥⲟⲩ ϫⲟⲩⲧⲟⲩⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲑⲱ̄ⲑ; 81 2: ϩⲛ ⲥⲟ̣[ⲩ ---ⲙⲡ]ⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲡ̣[---]; 86 3: [ⲛⲥⲟⲩ ⲙⲛⲧ]ϣ̣ⲟⲙⲧⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉ[ⲃⲟⲧ ⲡⲁⲩ]ⲛⲓ; 92 2: [---- ⲥⲟⲩ] ⲙ̣ⲛⲧ[--- ⲙⲡⲉ]ⲃⲟⲧ ⲉ[ⲡⲏⲫ]; 98 4: ϩⲛ̄ ⲥⲟⲩ ϫⲟⲩⲧⲁⲥⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲙⲉⲥⲟⲣⲏ; 99 5: ϩⲛ̄ ⲥⲟⲩ ϫⲟⲩⲧⲥⲁϣϥⲉ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲃⲟⲧ ⲧⲩⲃⲓ; 112 2: [ⲛⲥⲟ]ⲩ̣ ϫⲟⲩⲱⲧ [ⲙⲡⲉⲃⲟ]ⲧ ⲧⲩⲃⲓ; 127 2: ⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲩ ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲥⲛ[ⲟⲟⲩⲥ] ⲙ̣ⲡⲉ[ⲃⲟⲧ ⲡⲁⲩⲛ]ⲓ̣

32 8 i n di c es ⲥⲟⲛ — see 4. Functions and Titles, s.v. ‘brother’ (ⲥⲛⲁⲩ) -ⲥⲛⲟⲟⲩⲥ — 16 12: ϫⲟⲩⲧⲥⲛⲟⲟⲩⲥ; 127 2: ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲥⲛ[ⲟⲟⲩⲥ] ⲥⲟⲟⲩ — 45 7: ⲥⲟⲩ̣ -ⲁⲥⲉ — 70 3: ϫⲟⲩⲧⲁⲥⲉ; 98 5: ϫⲟⲩⲧⲁⲥⲉ ⲥⲁϣϥ̄ — 14 12: ⲙⲛ̄ⲧ̣ⲥ̣ⲁϣϥ̄; 99 5–6: ϫⲟⲩⲧⲥⲁϣϥⲉ ϯ vb. — in light verb constructions, see 7. Greek Words, s.v. ἀνάπαυσις, κληρονομία, and under ⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ n., ⲛⲁ n. ⲧⲏⲣ⸗ — 14 8: ⲛⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ̣ [ⲧ]ⲏ̣ⲣ̣ⲟ̣ⲩ̣; 16 9: ⲛⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ̣; 17 3: ⲡ̣ⲇ̣[ⲓ]ⲙ̣ⲓ̣[ⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ ⲙⲡⲧⲏⲣ]ϥ̣; 18 4: ⲡ̣ⲇⲓ̣ⲙ̣ⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅ̣ⲟ̣ⲥ̣ ⲙ̣ⲡⲧⲏⲣϥ̄; 19 3: ⲡⲇⲓⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ ⲙ̣ⲡⲧⲏ[ⲣϥ]; 21 3–4: ⲡⲇⲏⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲧⲏⲣ̣ϥ̣̄; 23 3: ⲡⲇⲓ[ⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ ⲙⲡⲧⲏⲣ]ϥ̣; 24 2: [ⲡⲇⲏⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ ⲙⲡⲧⲏⲣ]ϥ̣; 27 4: [ⲡⲇⲏ]ⲙ̣ⲓⲟⲩ̣ⲣ̣ⲅⲟⲥ ⲙ̣ⲡⲧ̣ⲏ[ⲣ]ϥ̣; 29 5: ⲡ̣ⲇⲏ[ⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ ⲙⲡⲧ]ⲏⲣϥ; 30 13–14: ⲛⲉϥⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ; 32 x+6: [ⲛⲉϥⲡⲉⲧ]ⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ [ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ]; 33 3–4: ⲡⲇⲓ[ⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅ]ⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲧ[ⲏⲣϥ]; 41 4: [ⲡⲇⲏⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣ]ⲅⲟⲥ ⲙ̇ⲡ̣[ⲧⲏⲣ]ϥ̣; 44 2–3: ⲡⲇⲏⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲧⲏⲣ̣ϥ̣̄; 46 3: [ⲡⲇⲏⲙ(ⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ) ⲙⲡ]ⲧⲏⲣ̣ϥ̣; 48 11: [ⲛ]ⲉϥⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ; 49 3: ⲡⲇⲏⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣ[ⲅⲟⲥ ⲙⲡⲧⲏⲣϥ]; 62 4: [ⲡⲇ]ⲩⲙⲓ̣[ⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ ⲙ]ⲡ̣[ⲧⲏⲣϥ], top edge: [ⲡⲛ]ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲙ̇ⲡⲧⲏⲣ︦ϥ︦︥; 66 1: [---] ⲙ̣[ⲡⲧⲏⲣϥ]; 79 9: ⲛ̣ⲉ̣ϥ̣ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ̣ [ⲧ]ⲏ̣ⲣ̣ⲟⲩ; 80 5: ⲛ̣[ⲉϥ]ⲡⲉ̣ⲧ̣ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ⲁ̣ⲁⲃ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ; 116 4: ⲛⲉϥ̣ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ⲧⲟⲩ[ⲁⲁⲃ ⲧ]ⲏ̣ⲣⲟⲩ̣; 117 3: [ⲛⲉ]ⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲧⲏⲣ̣[ⲟⲩ]; 127 8: ⲛⲉ[ϥⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩ]ⲁⲁⲃ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ; 131 2: [ⲛⲉϥⲡⲉⲧ]ⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ̣ [ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ]; 141 7: ⲛ̣ⲉ̣ⲧ̣ⲟ̣[ⲩⲁⲁⲃ] ⲧ̣ⲏ̣ⲣⲟⲩ (ϯⲟⲩ) -ⲧⲏ — 46 6: ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲏ̣̣ ⲧⲱϣ n. — 16 11: ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲡⲉⲕⲧⲟϣ

(ⲟⲩⲁ) -ⲟⲩⲉ — 73 8: ϫⲟⲩⲧⲟⲩⲉ; 128 4: [ⲙⲛ]ⲧⲟⲩⲉ ⲟⲩⲟⲛ — 81 5: [ⲡⲉⲧ]ϯ ⲙⲧⲟⲛ ⲛⲟⲩ[ⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲧ]ϣⲙ̄ϣⲉ ⲛⲁϥ̣ (ⲟⲩⲟⲡ) ⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ qual. — 14 8: [ⲙ]ⲛ̄ ⲛⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ̣ [ⲧ]ⲏ̣ⲣ̣ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ [ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲣ] ⲁ̣ⲛⲁⲕ ϫ̣ⲓ̣ⲛ̣ ⲉ̣ⲛ̣ⲉ̣ϩ̣; 16 9: ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ̣; 30 13: ⲙⲛ̣̄ ⲛⲉϥⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲛⲧⲁⲩⲣ̄ ⲁⲛⲁϥ; 32 x+5: [ⲙⲛ ⲛⲉϥⲡⲉⲧ]ⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ [ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ]; 46 10–11: ⲙ̣ⲛ̄ ⲛ̣ⲉϥⲡ̣[ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁ]ⲁ̣ⲃ; 48 11: [ⲙ]ⲛ̣ [ⲛ]ⲉϥⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ; 49 10: ⲙ̣ⲛ̣̄ ⲛ̣ⲉ[ϥⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ---]; 73 3–4: ⲡⲉⲡⲛ̣(ⲉⲩⲙ)[ⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩ]ⲁ̣ⲁⲃ; 79 7: ⲙ̣ⲛ̣ ⲉ̣ⲛⲉⲓⲟⲧⲉ ⲉ̣ⲧ̣[ⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲁⲃⲣ]ⲁ̣ϩ̣ⲁ̣ⲙ̣ ⲙⲛ ⲓⲥⲁⲁⲕ̣ ⲙⲛ̣ [ⲓⲁⲕⲱⲃ], 9: ⲙ̣ⲛ̣ ⲛ̣ⲉ̣ϥ̣ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ̣ [ⲧ]ⲏ̣ⲣ̣ⲟⲩ; 80 3: ⲛⲥⲕ̣ⲩⲛⲏ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ, 4–5: [ⲙⲛ] ⲛ̣[ⲉϥ]ⲡⲉ̣ⲧ̣ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ⲁ̣ⲁⲃ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ; 116 3–4: [ⲙⲛ] ⲛⲉϥ̣ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ⲧⲟⲩ[ⲁⲁⲃ ⲧ]ⲏ̣ⲣⲟⲩ̣; 117 3: [ⲙⲛ ⲛⲉ]ⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲧⲏⲣ̣[ⲟⲩ]; 127 6–7: ϩⲛ̄ ⲛ̣ⲉ̣ϥⲙⲟ̣[ⲛ]ⲏ̣ ⲉⲧ[ⲟ]ⲩ̣ⲁⲁⲃ, 7–8: ⲙ̣ⲛ̄ ⲛⲉ[ϥⲡⲉⲧⲟⲩ]ⲁⲁⲃ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ; 128 8: ⲙⲛ̄ ⲛⲉϥⲡ̣[ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ]; 130 4: [ⲙ]ⲛ ⲛⲉϥⲡⲉ[ⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁ]ⲃ̣; 131 2: [ⲙⲛ ⲛⲉϥⲡⲉⲧ]ⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ̣ [ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ]; 135 2–3: [ⲙⲛ ⲛⲉϥⲡⲉⲧ]ⲟⲩⲁ[ⲁⲃ]; 141 6: ⲙⲛ̄ ⲛ̣ⲉ̣ⲧ̣ⲟ̣[ⲩⲁⲁⲃ] ⲧ̣ⲏ̣ⲣⲟⲩ ⲛⲧ̣[ⲁⲩⲣ ⲁⲛⲁϥ] ⲟⲩⲱϣ n. — 58 1: [ϩ]ⲙ̣̄ ⲡⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲙ[ⲡ]ⲛ̣ⲟⲩⲧⲉ; 59 1: [ϩ]ⲙ̣̄ ⲡⲟⲩⲱ[ϣ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ]; 60 1: ϩⲙ̄ [ⲡⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲙⲡⲛ]ⲟ̣ⲩ̣[ⲧⲉ]; 67 7: ϩⲓⲧⲙ̄ [ⲡⲉϥⲟⲩⲱϣ]

ⲯⲓⲥ — 79 1: [---]ⲯⲓⲥ

(ⲱⲛϩ̄) oⲛϩ̄ qual. (only in the expression ϩⲛ̄ ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧⲟⲛϩ̄) — 17 10: ⲛ̇ⲛⲉ[ⲧⲟⲛϩ]; 18 11: [ⲛⲛⲉⲧⲟⲛϩ]; 19 13: ⲛⲛ[ⲉⲧⲟⲛϩ]; 20 5–6: ⲛⲛ̣ⲉ̣ⲧ̣ⲟ̣[ⲛϩ]; 25 6: [ⲛⲛⲉ]ⲧⲟ̣ⲛϩ̄; 29 13: [ⲛⲛ]ⲉⲧⲟⲛ[︥ϩ]; 70 13; 73 12; 81 8: [ⲛⲛⲉⲧⲟⲛϩ]; 102 7: ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧⲟ̣ⲛϩ̄; 103 6: ⲛⲛⲉⲧⲟⲛϩ̄; 104 3: ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧⲱⲛϩ̄; 105 3; 106 4; 107 4: [ⲛⲛⲉⲧⲟⲛϩ]; 108 4: [ⲛⲛⲉ]ⲧⲟⲛϩ̣; 109 4: ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧ[ⲟⲛϩ]; 110 2: [ⲛⲛⲉ]ⲧ̣ⲟ̣ⲛϩ; 112 7: [ⲛⲛⲉⲧⲟⲛϩ]; 113 3: [ⲛⲛⲉ]ⲧⲟⲛϩ̄; 114 4: ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧ̣[ⲟⲛϩ]; 115 2: [ⲛⲛⲉ]ⲧⲟⲛϩ̄; 116 2–3: ⲛ̇ⲛ[ⲉⲧⲟⲛϩ]; 117 2: ⲛⲛⲉⲧⲟⲛϩ̣; 118 3: ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧⲟ̣[ⲛϩ] ⲱⲡ — 82 2: [ⲛϥⲧⲙϥ]ⲓ̣ ⲱ̣ⲡ ⲛⲙ̣̄ⲙⲁ̣ϥ̣ [ⲉ]ⲧ̣ⲃ̣ⲉ̣ ⲛⲉϥⲛⲟⲃⲉ ϣⲁ- — 17 5: [ϣⲁ]; 18 6; 19 6: [ϣ]ⲁ̣; 21 5: [ϣⲁ]; 22 3; 23 5; 24 4 ϣⲗⲏⲗ — 82 1: [ⲙⲁⲣⲛϣⲗⲏⲗ] ⲉ̣ⲡ̣ⲛ̣ⲟ̣ⲩ̣[ⲧⲉ]; 155 2–3: [ⲙⲁ]ⲣⲛ︥ϣⲗ[ⲏⲗ ⲛⲧⲉⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲁ]ⲅ̣ⲁⲑⲟⲥ [ⲣ ⲟⲩⲛⲁ ⲛⲙⲙⲁϥ/-ⲥ] (ϣⲟⲙⲛ̄ⲧ) -ϣⲟⲙⲧⲉ — 86 3: [ⲛⲥⲟⲩ ⲙⲛⲧ]ϣ̣ⲟⲙⲧⲉ ϣⲙ̄ϣⲉ — 81 6: [ⲡⲉⲧ]ϯ ⲙⲧⲟⲛ ⲛⲟⲩ[ⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉⲧ]ϣⲙ̄ϣⲉ ⲛⲁϥ̣ ϣⲁⲛϩⲧⲏϥ (only in the expression ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲡϣⲁⲛϩⲧⲏϥ) — 17 8: [ⲡϣⲁⲛ]ϩ̣ⲧⲏϥ; 18 9: ⲡ[ϣⲁⲛϩⲧⲏϥ]; 19 10: ⲡϣⲁⲛϩ̣ⲧⲏϥ; 20 3–4: ⲡϣ̣ⲁⲛ[ϩⲧⲏϥ]; 22 8: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡϣⲁⲛϩⲧⲏϥ; 25 4: [ⲡ]ϣⲁⲛϩ[ⲧⲏϥ]; 26 1–2: [ⲡϣⲁⲛ]ϩⲧⲏ[ϥ] ϣⲱⲡ — 77 6–7: ⲡϫ(ⲟⲉⲓ)ⲥ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲉϥⲉϣⲟⲡϥ̄ ⲉⲣⲟϥ ϣⲱⲡⲉ n. — 16 8: ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲙⲁ ⲛ̄ϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ̣ vb. (only in the acclamation ⲉϥⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ) — 17 17 (twice): [ⲉϥⲉ]ⲱ̣ⲡⲉ̣ ⲉϥⲉϣ̣ⲱ̣ⲡ̣ⲉ̣; 18 15–16 (twice): ⲉϥⲉϣoⲡⲉ ⲉϥⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ; 25 8 (twice): [ⲉ]ϥ̣ⲉ̣ϣ̣[ⲱⲡⲉ ⲉϥⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ]; 28 8: ⲉϥⲉϣⲱ̣⸌ⲉ̣ⲡ̣⸍; 31 15–16 (twice): ⲉϥⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉϥ̣ⲉ̣ϣ̣ⲱⲡⲉ; 32 x+6: [ⲉϥⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ]; 44 13; 102 8: ⲉϥⲉϣ̣ⲱ̣ⲡⲉ; 104 4: ⲉϥⲉϣⲡⲉ; 105 4; 106 5 (twice); 107 5: [ⲉϥⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ]; 109 6: ⲉϥⲉϣ[ⲱⲡⲉ]; 110 3; 114 5: [ⲉϥⲉϣ]ⲱⲡⲉ; 118 7; 119 5 (twice): ⲉϥⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲉϥⲉϣ̣ⲱ/ⲡⲉ\; 121 3–4: ⲉ̣ϥ̣ⲉϣⲱ̣ⲡⲉ; 127 10: [ⲉϥⲉ]ϣ̣ⲱⲡⲉ̣; 129 3–4 (twice): ⲉϥⲉ̣ϣ̣ⲱ̣ⲡⲉ ⲉϥⲉϣ̣ⲱ̣ⲡⲉ̣; 134 5: [ⲉϥⲉϣ]ⲱ̣ⲡ̣ⲉ̣; 142 6: ⲉϥⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ̣; 143 11–12: ⲉϥⲉϣ[ⲱⲡⲉ]; 144 5; 145 3–4: [ⲉϥⲉϣ]ⲱⲡⲉ; 161 3 (twice): ⲉϥⲉϣⲱⲡ̣ⲉ ⲉ[ϥⲉ]ϣⲱⲡⲉ; 163 3: ⲉ̣ϥ̣ⲉ̣ϣ̣[ⲱⲡ]ⲉ̣; 164 2–4 (twice): ⲉ̣ϥⲉϣⲱ̣ⲡⲉ ⲉϥⲉϣⲱⲡⲉ; 165 1: [ⲉϥⲉ]ϣ̣ⲱⲡⲉ ϣⲏⲣⲉ — 73 2: [ϩⲙ ⲡⲣⲁⲛ ⲙⲡⲉⲓⲱ]ⲧ̣ ⲙ̣ⲛ̣ [ⲡϣⲏⲣⲉ] ⲙⲛ ⲡⲉⲡⲛ̣(ⲉⲩⲙ) [ⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩ]ⲁ̣ⲁⲃ ϥⲓ — 82 2: [ⲛϥⲧⲙϥ]ⲓ̣ ⲱ̣ⲡ ⲛⲙ̣̄ⲙⲁ̣ϥ̣ [ⲉ]ⲧ̣ⲃ̣ⲉ̣ ⲛⲉϥⲛⲟⲃⲉ ϩⲗ̄ⲗⲟ — see 4. Functions and Titles, s.v. ‘senior monk (?)’ ϩⲱⲙ — 14 4: ⲁ̣ϥ̣ϩⲱⲙ ⲉⲁ̣ⲙⲛ̄ⲧⲉ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ — see 9. Words from Other Languages: Aramaic, s.v.

‘amen’ ϩⲙ̄ϩⲁⲗ — 14 5: ϯ ⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ ⲛ̣ⲧⲉⲯⲩⲭⲏ̣ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲕϩⲙ̄ϩⲁⲗ; 16 7: ⲉⲕⲉ{ⲓ}ϯ ⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ ⲛ̄ⲧⲉⲯⲩⲭⲏ ⲙ̄ⲡⲉⲕϩⲙ̄ϩⲁⲗ

i n d i ce s 3 29 ϩⲛ̄-, ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧ⸗ — 14 6: ϩⲛ̄, 12: [ϩ]ⲛ̣̄; 16 8: ϩⲙ̄; 17 11: [ⲛϩⲏⲧ]ϥ̣; 18 12: ⲛ̄ϩⲏ̣[ⲧ]ⲉϥ; 20 6–7: ⲛ̣[ϩⲏ]ⲧ̣ϥ̄; 22 10: [ϩⲛ]; 25 6–7: [ⲛϩⲏ]ⲧϥ̣̄; 27 10: ϩ̣ⲛ̇; 28 1: ϩⲛ̄; 30 7: ϩⲛ̄, 11: ϩ̣[ⲛ], 12: ϩⲛ̄; 32 x+4: [ϩⲛ]; 44 11: ϩⲛ̄; 45 7: ϩⲛ̄; 46 6: ϩ̣ⲛ̄; 49 9: [ϩⲛ]; 58 1: [ϩ]ⲙ̣̄, 9: ϩ̣ⲙ̣̄; 59 1: [ϩ]ⲙ̣̄; 60 1: ϩⲙ̄; 70 1: ϩⲣⲁⲓ̄ ϩⲙ̄, 2: ϩⲛ̄, 12: ϩⲣⲁⲓ̄ ϩⲛ̄; 73 1: [ϩⲙ]; 7: ϩⲛ̄, 11: ϩⲛ̄; 79 4: [ϩⲛ]; 80 4: ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ϩⲛ; 81 2: ϩⲛ, 8: ϩⲛ̄; 98 4: ϩⲛ̄; 99 4: ϩⲛ̄; 103 2: [ϩⲙ]; 107 3: [ϩⲛ]; 108 3: [ϩⲛ]; 109 3: ϩⲛ̄; 114 3: [ϩⲛ], 5: [ⲛϩⲏⲧϥ]; 115 2: [ϩⲛ], 3: [ϩⲙ], 3: ⲛ̣̇ϩ̣ⲏⲧ[ϥ]; 118 2: [ϩⲛ], 4: ϩ⟦ϩ⟧ⲛ̄; 127 6: ϩⲛ̄; 135 3: [ϩⲛ]; 137 2: ϩ̣ⲛ̣; 138 1: [ϩⲛ]; 140 2: ϩⲙ̄, 5: ϩⲛ̄; 141 4: ϩ̣[ⲛ], 5: ϩ̣[ⲛ]; 142 4: ϩⲛ̄; 143 8: ϩⲙ̄, 10–11: ⲛ̄ϩⲏ[ⲧϥ]; 144 2: [ⲛϩⲏⲧϥ]; 145 2–3: [ⲛϩⲏ]ⲧϥ̄; 146 5: ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧϥ̄; 161 1: [ϩ]ⲛ̣ ϩⲛⲉ-, ϩⲛⲁ⸗ — 83 2: [ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲡ]ⲉⲧⲉϩ[ⲛⲁϥ] ϩⲣⲁⲓ — 70 1: ϩⲣⲁⲓ̄ ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ϩⲟⲟⲩ, 12: ϩⲣⲁⲓ̄ ϩⲛ̄ ⲧⲉⲭⲱⲣⲁ ⲛ̄ⲛⲉⲧⲟⲛϩ̄ ϩⲓⲥⲉ (only in the expression ⲛ̄ⲧⲁϥⲕⲱ ⲛ̄ⲥⲱϥ ⲙ̄ⲡⲓⲃⲓⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲙⲉϩ ⲛ̄ϩⲓⲥⲉ) — 17 4: ⲛϩ̣ⲓ̣ⲥ̣ⲉ̣; 18 5–6: [ⲛ]ϩ[ⲓ]ⲥⲉ; 19 5: ⲛ̣[ϩⲓⲥⲉ]; 21 5: ⲛ̄ϩ̣ⲓⲥ̣ⲉ̣; 22 3: [ⲛϩⲓⲥⲉ]; 23 5: [ⲛϩⲓⲥⲉ]; 24 3: [ⲛϩⲓⲥⲉ] ϩⲏⲧ (only in the expression ⲡⲉⲙⲕⲁϩ ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧ) — 17 12: [ⲛϩⲏⲧ]; 18 13: ⲛϩⲏⲧ; 20 8: [ⲛϩ]ⲏ̣ⲧ; 25 7: [ⲛϩⲏⲧ] ϩⲓⲧⲛ̄- — 17 1: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ]; 18 2: ϩ̣ⲓ̣ⲧ̣[ⲛ]; 19 1; 21 1; 23 1: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ]; 27 1: [ϩⲓⲧ]ⲛ̇; 29 2: ϩⲓ̣[ⲧⲛ]; 30 1; 31 1: ϩ̣ⲓ̣ⲧ̣ⲛ̣; 32 1: [ϩ]ⲓ̣ⲧⲛ̄; 33 1: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ]; 34 1: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ]; 35 2; 36 1; 37 1: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ]; 38 1: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ]; 41 1: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ]; 42 1: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ]; 44 1: ϩⲓⲧⲛ; 45 1: ϩⲓⲧ⸌ⲛ⸍; 46 1: [ϩ]ⲓⲧⲛ̄; 47 1: ϩ̣ⲓ̣ⲧⲛ̄; 48 1: ϩⲓⲧⲛ; 49 1: [ϩⲓ]ⲧ̣︦ⲛ︥; 50 2: ϩⲓⲧ̣ⲛ̄; 51 1: [ϩⲓ]ⲧⲛ; 52 1: ϩⲓⲧⲛ; 53 1: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ]; 54 1: [ϩⲓⲧ]ⲛ̄; 55 1: [ϩⲓⲧⲛ]; 61 1: ϩⲓⲧ[ⲛ]; 62 1: ϩⲓⲧ︦ⲛ̣︦; 63 1: ϩⲓ[ⲧⲛ]; 64 1: ϩⲓⲧ̣[ⲛ]; 67 6: ϩⲓⲧⲙ̄ ϩⲟⲟⲩ — 14 9: ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ϩ̣ⲟ̣ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ [ⲛⲧ]ⲁϥⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ ⲇ̣ⲉ̣ ⲙ̄ⲙⲟϥ; 95 2: ⲡϩ̣[ⲟⲟⲩ ⲛⲧⲁϥ]ⲙⲧ[ⲟⲛ ⲙⲙⲟϥ] ⲡⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ϩⲟⲟⲩ — 70 1–2: ϩⲣⲁⲓ̄ ϩⲙ̄ ⲡⲟⲟⲩ ⲛ̄ϩⲟⲟⲩ ϫⲉ — 84 1: [ϫⲉ] ϫⲓⲛ- — 14 9: ϫ̣ⲓ̣ⲛ̣; 116 5: ϫ̣ⲓⲛ̣; 118 5: ϫ̣[ⲓⲛ] ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ — 14 2: ⲡ̣ⲛ̣ⲟ̣[ⲩ]ⲧ̣ⲉ̣ ⲙ̣ⲡ̣ⲛ(ⲉⲩⲙ)ⲁ̣ ⲛ̣ⲓⲙ̣ ⲁ̣ⲩ̣ⲱ̣ ⲡ̣ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲛ̄ⲥⲁⲣⲝ̄ ⲛⲓ[ⲙ]; 27 8: ⲡϫ(ⲟⲉⲓ)ⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ; 30 9: ⲡϫ(ⲟⲉⲓ)ⲥ [ⲇⲉ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 46 8: ⲡϫⲟ̣ⲉⲓ̈ⲥ ⲇⲉ̣ [ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 49 7: [ⲡϫ(ⲟⲉⲓ)ⲥ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ] ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 58 3: ⲁϥ̣ⲃⲱⲕ [ⲉⲣ]ⲁⲧϥ ⲙⲡ[ϫⲟ]ⲉⲓⲥ; 70 9: ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 73 10: ⲡϫ(ⲟⲉⲓ)ⲥ; 77 6: ⲡϫ(ⲟⲉⲓ)ⲥ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ; 81 4: ⲡϫⲟⲉ[ⲓⲥ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ]; 86 4: ⲡϫ(ⲟⲉⲓ)ⲥ [ⲇⲉ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ]; 98 8: ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ; 99 8: ⲡϫ(ⲟⲉⲓ)ⲥ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ; 102 4: ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲓ̣(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ̣ ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 103 3–4: ⲡ̣ϫ̣ⲟ̣ⲉ̣ⲓ̣ⲥ̣ ⲇ̣ⲉ̣ ⲓ̣(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ̣ ⲡ̣ⲉ̣ⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 104 1: ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ; 105 1: [ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ] ⲇ̣ⲉ̣ ⲓ̣(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ̣ ⲡ̣ⲉ̣[ⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 106 1: [ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ] ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 107 1: [ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ] ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡ[ⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 108 1: [ⲡϫ(ⲟⲉⲓ)ⲥ] ⲇⲉ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ; 112 4: [ⲡϫⲟⲉ]ⲓⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ [ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 128 5–6: [ⲡϫⲟ]ⲉ̣ⲓⲥ ⲇ̣ⲉ̣ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ̣ ⲡ̣ⲉ[ⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 140 3: ⲡϫ(ⲟⲉⲓ)ⲥ ⲇⲉ [ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ] ⲡⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ; 141 3: ⲡ̣ϫ(ⲟⲉⲓ)ⲥ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ; 142 1: [ⲡϫ(ⲟⲉⲓ)ⲥ ⲇ]ⲉ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ ⲡ̣ⲉ̣[ⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]; 146 1: [ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲓ(ⲏⲥⲟⲩ)ⲥ] ⲡ[ⲉⲭ(ⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟ)ⲥ]

ϫⲟⲩⲱⲧ — 58 6: [ϫⲟⲩ]ⲱⲧ; 102 2–3: ϫ̣ⲟ̣ⲩ̣ⲱⲧ; 112 2 ϫⲟⲩⲧ- — 16 12: ϫⲟⲩⲧⲥⲛⲟⲟⲩⲥ; 70 3: ϫⲟⲩⲧⲁⲥⲉ; 73 8: ϫⲟⲩⲧⲟⲩⲉ; 98 5: ϫⲟⲩⲧⲁⲥⲉ; 99 5: ϫⲟⲩⲧⲥⲁϣϥⲉ ϭⲉ — 67 7: [ϭⲉ]

9. Words from Other Languages Old Nubian Words ⲁⲥⲁⲥⲧ- — 75 12: ⲡⲓⲇⲇⲓⲛ ⲁⲥⲧⲏⲗ ⲁⳡ- — 1 19: ⲧⲁⲛⲛⲁ ⲁⳡⲉⲥⲛ̄ ϭⲉⲙⲛⲅⲟⲩⲗⲟ(ⲛ) ⲧⲁⲣ-, ⲧⲁⲇ- — 1 19: ⲧⲁⲛⲛⲁ ⲁⳡⲉⲥⲛ̄ ϭⲉⲙⲛⲅⲟⲩⲗⲟ(ⲛ) ϭⲉⲙ-, ⲅⲉⲙ- — 1 19: ⲧⲁⲛⲛⲁ ⲁⳡⲉⲥⲛ̄ ϭⲉⲙⲛⲅⲟⲩⲗⲟ(ⲛ)

Aramaic Words

abba — see 4. Functions and Titles, s.v. ‘abba’ amen — 13 2: ἀμήν; 17 16: ⲁⲙⲏⲛ; 18 15: ⲁⲙⲏⲛ, 16: [ⲁ]ⲙⲏⲛ; 28 8: ⲁⲙⲏⲛ; 31 15: ⲁⲙⲏⲛ, 16: ⲁⲙⲏⲛ; 32 x+6: [ϩ]ⲁ̣ⲙ̣ⲏⲛ; 44 12: ⲁⲙⲏⲛ; 45 11: ⲁⲙⲏⲛ; 70 13–14: ϩⲁⲙ̣ⲏⲛ; 78 9 (Greek): ϥⲑ; 79 9: ⲁⲙⲏⲛ; 98 8: ϩⲁⲙⲏ̣[ⲛ]; 101 2: ϩ̣ⲁⲙⲏ̣ⲛ̣; 102 8: ϩ̣ⲁ̣ⲙ̣ⲏⲛ; 103 7: ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ; 104 4: ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ; 105 4: ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ; 106 4: ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ; 107 5: ⲁⲙ[ⲏⲛ]; 109 5: ϩⲁⲙ[ⲏⲛ]; 110 3: ϩⲁⲙ̣ⲏ̣ⲛ̣; 115 4: ϩⲁⲙⲏ̣ⲛ̣; 117 4: ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ; 118 6: ϩⲁⲙ̣ⲏⲛ; 119 5: ⲁⲙⲏⲛ; 120 5 (Greek): ϥⲑ︥; 121 3: ϩ̣ⲁⲙ̣ⲏ̣ⲛ̣; 126 7: ἀμή(ν); 127 9: ϩⲁⲙⲏ̣[ⲛ]; 129 3: ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ; 130 4: ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ; 134 5: [ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ]; 136 7: [ἀ]μ̣ήν; 137 4: ϩ̣ⲁ̣ⲙ̣ⲏⲛ; 142 6: ⲁⲙⲏⲛ; 143 11: [ϩⲁⲙ]ⲏ̣ⲛ; 145 3: ϩⲁⲙ̣[ⲏⲛ]; 153 6 (Greek?): ϥⲑ; 161 2: [ϩⲁⲙ]ⲏ̣ⲛ; 162 3: [ἀ]μήν; 163 3: ϩⲁⲙⲏ̣ⲛ̣; 164 2: [ϩⲁ]ⲙ̣ⲏ̣ⲛ̣; 165 1: ϩⲁⲙ[ⲏⲛ]; 166 2: ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ; 167 2 (unidentified language): [ⲁⲙ]ⲏⲛ apa — see 4. Functions and Titles, s.v. ‘apa’

330 i n di c es

10. Defective Words Greek Texts

Coptic Texts

αυ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] — 149 6 αὐτ[---] — 124 5 ενη ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ ̣ — 78 6 ἐν ̣[---] — 76 9 ἐν[---] — 76 12 η ̣[---] — 152 5 κ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] — 78 8 μην[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ — 78 7 να[---] — 87 4 ρ̣ο̣ϲυ̣ ̣ ̣[---] — 89 1 ω̣ ̣ ̣λ̣[---] — 124 1 [ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ε̣ί̣τ̣ω̣ — 149 5–6 [---]η ̣ ̣α̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣] ̣ ̣ — 136 1 [ ̣] ̣η[---] — 124 6 [ ̣] ̣μ̣ω̣ν̣ — 76 7 [ ̣]ω̣θ ̣̅[ ̣ ̣ ̣] — 133 5 [---] ̣ν — 76 5 [---] ̣αουν — 153 2 [---]βα ̣[---] — 152 4 [---]εκτε ̣[---] — 174 2 [---]εν[---] — 152 7 [---]εσας — 76 2 [---]θα — 153 5 [---]μη̅ ̣[---] — 152 2 [---]μων — 153 3 [---]ναστρ̣[---] — 174 2–3 [---]ον — 76 3 [---]ο̣ν — 153 4 [---]ο̣υ̣[---] — 7 5 [---]σαβ ̣[---] — 152 3 [---]τ̣η̣ς̣ — 153 1 [---]υ̣σ̣ ̣[---] — 152 1 [---] ̣α[---] — 7 5 [---] ̣ν̣[---] — 7 6 [---] ̣ρου — 162 2 [---] ̣υ̣ξ ̣[---] — 87 5 [---]φαιε̣νχε[---] — 124 1–2 [---]ωεδο — 76 1

ⲁϥ[---] — 57 4 ⲁ̣ ̣ ̣ⲛ[ ̣] ̣ ̣[---] — 20 9–10 ⲙ̄ⲡ̣ⲉ[ ̣ ̣] — 42 2 ⲛ̣ⲕ̣[---] – 151 1 ⲛ̣ⲧ̣ⲉ ̣ ̣ ̣ — 102 2 ⲛ ̣[---] — 26 3 ⲡⲛ[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ⲥⲕⲟ̣[---] — 113 4 ⲡϣ[---] — 151 4 ⲡ̣ ̣[---] — 35 4 ⲡ[---] — 175 2 ⲥⲕⲱ̣ⲡ̣ⲡ̣ ̣[ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] — 22 4–5 ϩⲓ̣[---] — 65 2 ϩ ̣ ̣ ̣ⲛ̣[---] — 113 3 [ ̣ ̣]ⲡⲣⲟ̣[---] — 61 3–4 [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ⲙ̣̄ — 33 4 [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣]ⲉ — 49 6 [ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣ ̣] ̣ⲟⲛ — 127 2 [ ̣ ̣] ̣ⲡ̣ⲟ̣ ̣[4–5] — 47 7 [3–4] ̣ ̣ ̣ⲙ̣ — 98 1 [8–10]ⲉ — 146 3–4 [---]ⲁ — 20 2 [---]ⲃ̣ⲉ̣ ̣[---] — 29 7–8 [---]ⲉ̣[---] — 85 3 [---]ⲉⲱ[---] — 96 4 [---]ⲙ — 24 5 [---]ⲙ̣[---] — 20 11 [---]ⲙ̣ⲟⲩ[---] — 41 8 [---]ⲟ̣ⲩ̣[---] — 83 4–5 [---]ⲟⲩ ̣[---] — 83 1–2 [---]ⲡ̣[---] — 67 1 [---]ⲡ̣ⲱⲛ[---] — 97 2 [---]ⲣ̣ⲁ̣[---] — 175 2–3 [---]ϫⲟⲩ ̣[---] — 83 3–4 [---]ⲥ̣ — 81 1–2 [---]ⲧ[---] — 48 6 [---]ⲧⲉ[---] — 90 4 [---]ⲧ ̣ⲟ̣ ̣[---] — 26 3–4 [---]ⲫ ̣[---] — 90 5 [---]ⲱ[---] — 20 12 [---] ̣ⲛⲉ[---] — 96 3 [---] ̣ⲟ̣ ̣[---] — 20 1 [---] ̣ⲟ̣ϥ — 175 1–2 [---] ̣ⲧ̣ϥ̄ — 97 1 [---] ̣ⲉ — 57 4 [---] ̣ⲉ ̣ ̣ ̣[---] — 67 2 [---] ̣ ̣ⲉ̣[---] — 32 3 [---] ̣ ̣ⲉ ̣ ̣[---] — 140 1–2

i n d i ce s 3 31

11. Peculiarities of Grammar and Ortho­graphy A. Greek Texts a. Phono­logy Vowels

Consonants

ⲉ for ⲏ

ⲍ for ⲥ

γενέσεως — 136 2–3

ⲉⲓ for ⲓ

οἰκτείρμονα — 76 10–11

ⲉⲓ for ⲏ

εἱ ἀνάστασις — 1 17

ⲏ for ⲉⲓ

ἦ — 2 14 ποθηνότατον — 71 8 ὑπάρχης — 2 15 ⲓ for ⲉⲓ φωτινῷ — 1 6; 2 7–8: φωτιν῀ο; 3 11–12; 5 7; 10 5: [φωτινῷ]; 74 10 ⲓ for ⲏ ἁμαρτίσει — 1 12 ἀναπαύσις — 2 17–18 ἐκοιμίθη — 149 1 τῖ — 78 4 τῖς — 78 4 ⲓ for ⲟⲓ διάνιαν — 1 9–10: διάνια; 2 11 κόλπις — 148 4 ⲩ for ⲏ ἁμάρτυμα — 2 10 ἁμαρτύσει — 2 14 αὐλοσθύσεται — 2 19–20 σύζεται — 2 13 ⲟ for ⲱ οἰκτίρμον — 71 14–15 φωτιν῀ο — 2 7–8 ⲱ for ⲟ δουλεύωντος — 75 6–7 παντοκράτωρος — 71 1–2 προπάτωρα — 71 2–3 τὼν αἰῶνα — 1 15; 2 16 τὼν θάνατον — 6 4 τὼν σὸν δοῦλων — 1 17–18 τώπῳ — 1 6; 3 11, 12 Simplification of vowel Ἀβράμ — 1 5; 4 9: [Ἀβρά]μ Ἰσάκ — 71 17; 148 5: Ἰ[σάκ] Metathesis σύζεται — 2 13

χαριζ̣άμενος — 3 7

ⲛ for ⲅ

συνχώρησον — 2 12 Haplo­graphy πάσ̣η̣ σ̣αρκός – 9 2 Omission of final ⲛ κατὰ διάνια — 1 9–10 τὴν ψυχή — 15 3; 133 3 Omission of final ⲥ χλόη — 10 5 Simplification of geminate γενέσεως — 136 2–3 b. Syntax

Genitive for dative 74 2: ἵλεος αὐτῆς Genitive for accusative 69 7: ἀνάπαυ̣[σον αὐ]τοῦ; 74 6: ἀνάαυσον αὐτής Accusative for genitive 1 3–4: [τὴν ψυχὴν τὸν δοῦ]λον σου; 2 4–5: τὴν ψ̣υ̣χ̣[ὴν τὸν] δοῦλον σου; 3 8–9: τ[ὴ]ν̣ ψυχ̣ὴ̣ν̣ τὸν δοῦλον σου; 74 3–4: τὴν ψυχὴν τὴν δούλην σου Accusative for dative 1 9: πραχθὲν λόγον ἢ ἔργῳ [ἢ κατὰ διά]νια c. Other

Omission of noun — 2 15 Omission of verb — 2 8

332 i n di c es B. Coptic Texts a. Phonetics Vowels

ⲉ for ⲁ ⲁⲛⲁⲡⲉⲩⲉ — 143 7–8 ⲉ for schwa ⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲙ̄ⲧⲟⲛ — 28 3–4 ⲛ̄ϩⲏⲧⲉϥ — 18 12–13 ⲉⲛⲧⲉϥⲙⲛⲧⲉⲣⲟ — 139 2 ⲏ for ⲩ ⲗⲏⲡⲏ — 18 14; 20 8 ⲏ for final ⲉⲓ ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲡⲁⲧⲏ — 16 4 ⲓ for ⲉⲓ ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲇⲓⲥⲟⲥ — 80 2 ⲓ for ⲏ ⲇⲓⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ — 17 2–3; 18 3–4; 19 3;

23 2–3; 33 2–3; 59 2–3

ⲓ for ⲟⲓ ⲡⲣⲟⲛⲓⲁ — 28 1–2; 38 1 ⲓ for ⲩ ⲧⲣⲓⲫⲏ — 80 3 ⲟ for ⲟⲩ ⲕⲟⲛϥ — 22 10 ⲟ for ⲱ ⲧⲟϣ — 16 11 ϣoⲡⲉ — 18 15 ⲩ for ⲏ ⲇⲩⲙⲓⲟⲩⲣⲅⲟⲥ — 62 2–3 ⲥⲕⲩⲛⲏ — 80 3 ⲱ for ⲟ ⲛⲉⲧⲱⲛϩ̄ — 104 3 schwa for ⲉ ⲡⲛ̄ⲥⲟⲛ — 28 5

simplification of vowel ⲓⲥⲁⲕ — 143 6 ⲥⲟⲩ for ⲥⲟⲟⲩ — 45 7 omission of vowel ⲉϥⲉϣⲡⲉ — 104 4 Consonants

ⲛ for ⲙ (lack of assimilation) ⲛ̄ⲛ̄ⲡⲏⲩⲉ — 44 12

haplo­graphy ⲙ̣ⲛ̣ ⲉ̣ⲛⲉⲓⲟⲧⲉ — 79 6

b. Morpho­logy and syntax

article, def.: omitted ⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩⲥⲓⲥ — 44 1 article, def.: omitted by haplo­graphy ⲡⲁⲛⲧⲟⲕⲣⲁⲧⲱⲣ — 19 2; 47 3; 50 3 ⲕⲉⲗⲉⲩⲥⲓⲥ — 45 1 article, indef.: omitted ⲛ̄ⲛⲁⲡⲁⲩⲥⲓⲥ — 44 10 genitive marker: omitted ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ — 44 1 ⲁⲃ̣ⲣⲁⲁⲙ — 17 14 c. Other

Omission of verb — 140 4: [ⲉ]ϥ̣ⲉ ⲙⲧⲟ(ⲛ)

Concordances 1. Excavation Number G.12.01 G.12.02 G.12.03 G.13.001 G.13.002 G.13.003 G.13.004 G.13.005 G.13.006 G.13.007 G.13.008 G.13.009 G.13.010 G.13.011 G.13.012 G.13.013 G.13.014 G.13.015 G.13.016 G.13.017 G.13.038 G.13.039 G.13.057 Gh.2014.1.002 Gh.2014.1.003 Gh.2014.1.004 Gh.2014.1.005 Gh.2014.1.006 Gh.2014.2.002 Gh.2014.2.008 Gh.2014.2.009 Gh.2014.2.047 Gh.2015.1.001 Gh.2015.1.002 Gh.2015.1.003 Gh.2015.1.033 Gh.2015.1.034 Gh.2015.2.004 Gh.2015.2.006 Gh.2015.2.007 Gh.2015.2.008 Gh.2015.2.010 Gh.2015.2.013 Gh.2015.2.014 Gh.2015.2.015 Gh.2015.2.016 Gh.2015.2.017A

20 7 111 (= Gh.2014.2.047) 114 115 29 (g) 67 (b) 122 30 (b) 188 176 43 (b) 189 30 (a) 167 161 (b) 170 42 83 125 14 213 46 39 168 94 4 (a) 138 136 38 (a) 31 111 (= G.12.03) 41 (a) 4 (d) 4 (e) 5 10 (a) 214 (b) 154 155 32 (a) 215 216 221 32 (b) 217 149 (a)

Gh.2015.2.017B 153 (a) Gh.2015.2.017C 152 (a) Gh.2015.2.018 214 (c) Gh.2015.2.020 110 Gh.2015.2.021 17 Gh.2015.2.023 50 Gh.2015.2.024 150 Gh.2015.2.027 152 (b) Gh.2015.2.038 10 (b) Gh.2015.2.039 120 Gh.2015.2.040 184 (a) and (b) Gh.2015.2.042 186 Gh.2015.2.044 25 Gh.2015.2.045 118 (b) Gh.2015.2.048 91 Gh.2016.1.002 156 Gh.2016.1.004 59 Gh.2016.1.005 211 Gh.2016.1.006 157 Gh.2016.1.007 223 Gh.2016.1.008 193 Gh.2016.1.009 35 Gh.2016.1.010 194 Gh.2016.1.011 218 Gh.2016.1.012 180 Gh.2016.1.075 65 Gh.2016.1.076 60 Gh.2016.1.077 222 Gh.2016.1.078 128 Gh.2016.1.079 209 Gh.2016.1.142 127 Gh.2016.1.143 84 Gh.2016.1.144 185 Gh.2016.1.146 135 Gh.2016.1.162 184 (c) Gh.2016.1.181 70 Gh.2016.1.182 153 (b) Gh.2016.1.184 166 Gh.2016.1.189 81 Gh.2016.1.190 10 (d) Gh.2016.1.191 116 Gh.2016.1.192 197 Gh.2016.1.253 93 Gh.2017.1.002 187 Gh.2017.1.042 38 (b) Gh.2017.1.070 131 Gh.BM.2013.022 173

I 1 I 10 I 12 I 14 I 15 I 17 I 22 I 29 I 51 I 65 I 67 (a–c) I 69 I 74 I 78 T.106 T.109 T.112 T.115 T.118 T.120 T.121 T.124A T.124B T.125 T.126 T.137 T.138A T.138B T.139 T.143 T.144 T.145 T.156

49 (visible on the photo) 33 (visible on the photo) 146 (visible on the photo) 68 (mentioned by Łajtar) 162 (mentioned by Łajtar) 4 (b) (visible on the photo) 30 (c) (visible on the photo) 108 (visible on the photo) 8 (mentioned by Łajtar) 210 (mentioned by Łajtar) 29 (a), (c), (d) (visible on the photos) 175 (visible on the photo) 95 (visible on the photo) 147 (visible on the photo) 105 102 106 164 117 121 129 163 137 73 103 82 100 192 141 144 99 101 98

not registered: 1, 2, 3, 4 (c), 6, 9, 10 (c), 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29 (b) and (f ), 34, 36, 37, 41 (b), 43 (a), 44, 45, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67 (a), 69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 96, 97, 104, 107, 109, 112, 113, 118 (a), 119, 123, 124, 126, 130, 132, 133, 134, 139, 140, 142, 143, 145, 148, 149 (b), 151, 158, 159, 160, 161 (a), 165, 169, 171, 172, 174, 177, 178, 179, 181, 182, 183, 190, 191, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 212, 214 (a), 219, 220

334 con cor da n c e s

2. Collections Ägyptisches Museum, Berlin

1482 63 (= SMBK 9683; lost) 1483 90 (= SMBK 9684) 1484 69 (= SMBK 9672) 1485 140 (a) (= SMBK 9671) 1488 140 (b) (= SMBK 9680) 1489 (?) 26 (= SMBK 9682?; lost) 1491 104 (lost) 1492 27 (= SMBK 9999) 1493 47 (= SMBK 9750; lost) 1494 28 (lost) 1495 79 (a) (lost) 1496 145 (= SMBK 9681; lost) 1497 80 (= SMBK 9787; lost) 1499 72 (lost) 1500 126 (lost) 1501 69 (= SMBK 9672) 1502 69 (= SMBK 9672) 1503 79 (b) (= SMBK 9996) 1505 44 (lost) 1506 74 (lost) 1507 45 (= SMBK 9786) 1508 21 (= SMBK 9673) 2256 206 (lost) 12835 29 (b) (= SMBK 10001) 12836 172 (= SMBK 10000) Skulpturensammlung und Museum für Byzantinische Kunst, Berlin

9671 140 (a) (= ÄM 1485) 9672 69 (= ÄM 1484+1501+1502) 9673 21 (= ÄM 1508) 9680 140 (b) (= ÄM 1488) 9681 145 (= ÄM 1496; lost) 9682 (?) 26 (= ÄM 1489?; lost) 9683 63 (= ÄM 1482; lost) 9684 90 (= ÄM 1483) 9750 47 (= ÄM 1493; lost) 9786 45 (= ÄM 1507) 9787 80 (= ÄM 1497; lost) 9996 79 (b) (= ÄM 1503) 9999 27 (= ÄM 1492) 10000 172 (= ÄM 12836) 10001 29 (b) (= ÄM 12835)

Gebel Barkal Museum, Karima (not registered)

4 (a) and (d)+(e), 5, 6, 10 (a), (b), and (d), 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20 (missing), 24, 25, 29 (g), 30 (a) and (b), 31, 32, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41 (a), 42, 43 (b), 46, 50, 59, 60, 65, 67 (b), 70, 71, 75, 81, 83, 84, 91, 93, 94, 110, 111, 114, 115, 116, 118 (b), 120, 122, 125, 127, 128, 131, 135, 136, 138, 149 (a), 150, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 161 (b), 166, 167, 168, 170, 173, 176, 180, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 193, 194, 197, 209, 211, 213, 214 (b) and (c), 215, 216, 217, 218, 221, 222, 223 Sudan National Museum, Khartoum

7871 11160 11267 11268 11269 11270 11271 11272 11273a 11273b 11273c 11273d 11273e 11273f 11273g 11273h 11273i 11273j 11273k 11273l 11273m 11273n 11273o 11273p 11273q 11273r 11273s 11274 11275 11276 11277 11278 11279 11280 11281 11282 11567

37, 53, 169 33 8 143 (one fragm.) 61 51 208 161 (a) 9 159 160 92 130 88 174 54 66 96 43 (a) 52 56 10 (c) 41 (b) 97 64 179 212 109 77 30 (c) 119 142 2 23 58 18 22

11591 11592 11593 11594 11596 11598 11599 11601 11602 11603 11604 11605 11606 11607 11608 11609 11610 11611 11612 11613 11614 11616 11617 11618 11619 11620 11621 11622 11623 11624 11624b 11624c 11624d 11624e 11624f 11624g 11624h

49 62 151 16 112 133 29 (e) 87 146 15 68 162 36 4 (b) 29 (f ) 78 148 76 86 143 (two fragm.) 57 165 34 108 85 48 210 134 29 (a), (c), (d) 89 175 30 (c) 67 (a) 4 (c) 107 95 132

concor da n ce s 3 3 5

11624i 11625 11626 11627 11734a 11734b 11734c 11734d 11734e 11734f 11734g 11734h 11734i 11734j 11734l

158 3 147 1 202 183 198 190 123 199 200 195 55 201 182

11734m 13 11734n 171 11734o 191 11734p 139 11734q 203 11734r 177 11734s 181 11734t 178 11734u 196 11734v 204 11734w 205 11783 118 (a) 32115 149 (b) not registered 214 (a), 220

in situ on the site

7, 73, 82, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 117, 121, 129, 137, 141, 144, 163, 164, 192 missing

98 location unknown

113, 124, 207, 219

3. Publications Barns in Shinnie and Chittick 1961

p. 70, no. 1 49 p. 70, no. 2 62 p. 70, no. 3 151 p. 71, no. 4 16 p. 72, no. 6 112 p. 72, no. 8 133 p. 72, no. 9 29 (e) p. 73, no. 10, ll. 1–4 33 p. 73, no. 10, ll. 5–10 30 (c) p. 73, no. 11 87 p. 73, no. 12 146 p. 74, no. 13 15 p. 74, no. 14 68 p. 75, no. 15 162 p. 75, no. 16 36 p. 75, no. 17 4 (b) p. 75, no. 18 29 (f ) p. 76, no. 19 78 pp. 76–77, nos 20+21 76 p. 77, no. 23 86 p. 77, no. 24 143 p. 78, no. 25 57 p. 78, no. 26 148 p. 78, no. 27 165 p. 78, no. 28 34 p. 78, no. 29 108 p. 79, no. 30 85 p. 79, no. 31 48 p. 79, no. 32 9

p. 80, no. 33 p. 80, no. 34 p. 80, no. 35 p. 80, no. 36 p. 81, no. 37 p. 81, no. 38 p. 81, no. 39 p. 81, no. 40 p. 82, no. 41 p. 82, no. 42 p. 82, no. 43 p. 82, no. 44 p. 82, no. 45 p. 83, no. 46 p. 83, no. 47 p. 83, no. 48 p. 83, no. 49 p. 84, no. 50 p. 84, no. 51 p. 84, no. 53 p. 85, no. 54 p. 85, no. 55 p. 85, no. 56 p. 85, no. 57 p. 86, no. 58 p. 86, no. 59 p. 86, no. 60 p. 87, no. 61

159 160 92 130 88 174 54 66 96 43 (a) 52 56 10 (c) 41 (b) 97 64 179 212 8 61 51 208 161 (a) 109 77 119 142 2

p. 88, no. 62 p. 88, no. 63 p. 89, no. 64 p. 90, no. 65 p. 90, no. 66 p. 90, no. 67 p. 91, no. 68 p. 91, no. 69 p. 91, no. 71 p. 91, no. 72 p. 92, no. 73 p. 92, no. 74 p. 92, no. 75 p. 92, no. 76 p. 93, no. 77 p. 93, no. 78 p. 94, no. 79 CIG

IV 9122 IV 9123 IV 9124 IV 9125 IV 9126

126 72 148 124 206

23 58 18 210 134 29 (a), (c), (d) 89 175 67 (a) 4 (c) 107 95 132 158 3 147 1

336 con cor da n c e s Cramer 1949

Lefebvre 1907

pp. 12–13 27

606 607 608 609 610 611 612 658

Donadoni 1986

pp. 223–24 19 pp. 224–26 71 pp. 226–28 75 Junker 1925a

pp. 120–21 p. 121 pp. 121–22 p. 126

72 79 (a) 80 74

Łajtar 2001a

pp. 184–86 71 Łajtar 2003a

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 83

1 2 3 8 4 (b) 4 (c) 9 13 15 76 148 147 78 68 210 162 43 (a) 133 87 89 174 123 108 132 179 149 (b)

Leclercq 1920

col. 450 104

126 72 148 69 69 (ll. 1–5) 124 206 74

LD

pl. 99, Gr. 547 pl. 99, Gr. 548 pl. 99, Gr. 549 pl. 99, Gr. 550 pl. 99, Gr. 551 pl. 99, Gr. 552 pl. 99, Gr. 553 pl. 99, Gr. 554 pl. 99, Gr. 555 pl. 99, Gr. 556 pl. 99, Gr. 557 pl. 99, Gr. 558 pl. 103, 41 pl. 103, 42 pl. 103, 43 pl. 103, 44 pl. 103, 45 pl. 103, 46 pl. 103, 47 pl. 103, 48 pl. 103, 49 pl. 103, 50 pl. 103, 51 pl. 103, 53 pl. 103, 54 pl. 103, 55 pl. 103, 56

126 148 69 207 90 69 (upper left corner) 26 72 (lower part) 69 (upper right corner) 72 (upper part) 74 206 104 113 79 (a) 45 145 140 (a) 47 27 44 21 80 124 63 140 (b) 28

Mallon 1914

col. 2883 cols 2883–84

45 28

Monneret de Villard 1935

p. 256

206

Revillout 1885

p. 13, no. 18 p. 16, no. 23

69 148

p. 22, no. 26 p. 30, no. 41 p. 32, no. 46 p. 32, no. 47 p. 32, no. 48 p. 32, no. 49 p. 33, no. 50

74 126 28 21 45 47 44

SB

207 72 (l. 14) 126 72 (ll. 1–13) 148 206

I 4163 I 4164 V 8729 V 8730 V 8731 V 8732

SB Kopt.

79 (a) 80 104 28 21 45 47 44

I 430 I 431 I 485 I 490 I 491 I 492 I 493 I 494

Tibiletti Bruno 1964

28 148 29 124 33 74 van der Vliet 2003

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

53 37 169 143 61 51 208 161 (a) 159 160 92 130 88 54 66 96 52

concor da n ce s 3 3 7

60 56 61 10 (c) 62 41 (b) 63 97 64 64 65 212 66 109 67 77 68, ll. 1–4 33 68, ll. 7–12 30 (c) 69 119 70 142 71 23 72 58 73 18 74 49 75 62 76 151 77 16 78 112 79 29 (e) 80 146 81 36 82 29 (f ) 83 86 84 57 85 165

86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112

113 114 115 116 125

34 85 48 134 29 (a), (c), (d) 175 67 (a) 107 95 158 202 183 198 190 199 200 195 55 201 182 171 191 139 203 177 181 178

196 204 205 118 (a) 22

Weissbrodt 1905/06

74

p. 18, no. XVI Weissbrodt 1909

pp. 13–14, no. XXVI 148 unpublished 

4 (a) and (d)+(e), 5, 6, 7, 10 (a), (b), and (d), 11, 12, 14, 17, 20, 24, 25, 29 (b) and (g), 30 (a) and (b), 31, 32, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41 (a), 42, 43 (b), 46, 50, 59, 60, 65, 67 (b), 70, 73, 79 (b), 81, 82, 83, 84, 91, 93, 94, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 110, 111, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118 (b), 120, 121, 122, 125, 127, 128, 129, 131, 135, 136, 137, 138, 141, 144, 149 (a), 150, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 161 (b), 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 170, 172, 173, 176, 180, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 192, 193, 194, 197, 209, 211, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223

4. DBMNT 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

2 3 15 76 147 68 162 87 143 208 92 88 77 58 49 151 16 86 29

65 455 456 457 472 473 474 476 555 556 608 680 681 727 728 812 813 814 816

22 19 71 75 126 72 69 206 207 45 28 112 18 140 47 1 8 4 9

817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 853 877 878 879 880 881 882

13 148 78 210 43 133 89 174 123 108 132 179 149 53 37 169 61 51 161

883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901

159 160 130 54 66 96 52 56 10 41 97 64 212 109 30 119 142 23 62

903 904 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922

146 36 57 165 34 85 48 134 175 67 107 95 158 202 183 198 190 199 200

338 con cor da n c e s

923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 974 996 1417 1419 1420 1421 1422 2244 2245 2246 2247

195 55 201 182 171 191 139 203 177 181 178 196 204 205 118 124 74 21 145 63 80 27 90 26 104 113

2248 2249 2662 2663 2664 2693 2960 2961 3123 3124 3155 4204 4205 4206 4207 4208 4209 4210 4211 4212 4213 4214 4215 4216 4217 4218

79 44 24 11 12 219 20 7 14 46 111 102 103 73 70 99 17 128 5 6 25 31 32 33 35 38

4219 4220 4221 4222 4223 4224 4225 4226 4227 4228 4229 4230 4231 4232 4233 4234 4235 4236 4237 4238 4239 4240 4241 4242 4243 4244

39 40 42 50 59 60 65 81 82 83 84 91 93 94 98 100 101 105 106 110 114 115 116 117 120 121

4245 4246 4247 4248 4249 4250 4251 4252 4253 4254 4255 4256 4257 4258 4259 4260 4261 4262 4263 4264 4265 4266 4267 4268 4269 4270

122 150 125 127 129 131 135 136 137 138 141 144 152 153 154 155 156 157 163 164 166 167 168 170 172 173

5. Register of Findspots Cemetery 2 grave no. 1 119 (in situ) grave no. 2 57 (fill adjoining the grave) grave no. 3 64 (?), 66 (?), 77 (in situ), 142 (near) Tomb Ghz-2-004 149 (a), 152 (a), 153 (a) (all from superstructure of secondary burial) Tomb Ghz-2-009 154, 214 (b) between Tombs Ghz-2-009 and Ghz-2-010 214 (c) Tomb Ghz-2-013, fill of secondary burial 32, 221 Tomb Ghz-2-041 215 between Tombs Gh-2-041 and Gh-2-042 217 Tomb Ghz-2-106 105 (in situ)

Tomb Ghz-2-109 102 (in situ) Tomb Ghz-2-112 106 (in situ) Tomb Ghz-2-115 164 (in situ) Tomb Ghz-2-117 193 (in remains of mastaba) Tomb Ghz-2-118 117 (in situ) Tomb Ghz-2-120 121 (in situ) Tomb Ghz-2-121 129 (in situ) Tomb Ghz-2-124A 163 (in situ) Tomb Ghz-2-124B 137 (in situ) Tomb Ghz-2-125 73 (in situ) Tomb Ghz-2-126 103 (in situ)

4271 4272 4273 4274 4275 4276 4277 4278 4279 4280 4281 4282 4283 4284 4285 4286 4287 4288 4289 4290 4291 4292 4293 4294

176 180 184 185 186 187 188 189 192 193 194 197 209 211 213 214 215 216 217 218 220 221 222 223

concor da n ce s 3 39

Tomb Ghz-2-133 40 (reused in mastaba), 180 (reused in mastaba), 218 Tomb Ghz-2-134 209 Tomb Ghz-2-135 70 (inside burial pit) Tomb Ghz-2-137 82 (in situ) Tomb Ghz-2-138 35 (reused in mastaba), 100 (in situ, burial A), 192 (in situ, burial B), 194 (reused in secondary mastaba), 211 (reused in secondary mastaba) Tomb Ghz-2-139 65 (surface of mastaba), 141 (in situ), 157 (west of mastaba), 223 (south of mastaba) Ghz-2-141 (not tomb) 166, 222 Tomb Ghz-2-143 144 (in situ) Tomb Ghz-2-144 59 (reused in mastaba), 99 (in situ) Tomb Ghz-2-145 101 (in situ) Tomb Ghz-2-148 127 (reused in fill of burial pit), 135 (reused in fill of burial pit) Tomb Ghz-2-156 98 (in situ) unidentified tombs 2 (in situ), 147 (in situ) north part 212 south part 153 (b) surface 84, 155, 158 (?), 216 unknown circumstances 3, 4 (b) and (c), 9, 10 (c), 30 (c), 33, 36, 43 (a), 49 (a), 51, 52, 54, 56, 62, 78, 86, 92, 96, 108, 130, 134 (?), 143 (one fragm.), 148, 160, 162, 165, 174, 179, 208 main entrance 143 (two fragm.) northern church 7 (reused in pavement), 20 (niche in south pastophorium), 29 (f ), 49 (b), 111 (reused in pavement), 159, 202 fill to the east of 43 (b), 83, 176, 189 outside south door 151

outside monastery 10 (d) (south), 15 (west), 41 (b) (west), 81 (south), 88 (east), 116 (south), 118 (a) (south), 161 (a) (north), 185 (south), 197 (south) passage to the west of the northern church: 16 Room 3: 173 Room 8: 14, 46, 213 Room 13: 94 Room 21: 138 Room 22: 38 (b) Room 35: 39 Room 38: 41 (a) Room 60: 136 Room 65: 31 Room 67: 38 (a) Room 77–80: 17, 118 (b) Room 84: 4 (d) and (e) Room 94: 25, 150 Room 102: 60, 156 Room 104: 10 (b), 120, 131, 184, 186 Room 106: 93 Room 109: 152 (b) Room 212: 91 Room 235: 128 rooms to the north of the northern church: 18, 23, 61, 97, 109 Room A: 133 Room AA: 76 Room B: 87, 146 Room N: 8 Room W: 48 Room Y: 68 Room Z: 5, 10 (a) Unit 310: 187 southern church 29 (g), 30 (a), 42, 67 (b), 114 (probably Shinnie’s dump), 115, 122, 125, 161 (b), 167, 170 fill to the east of 30 (b), 188 surface finds 1, 4 (a), 6, 13, 55, 67 (a), 95, 107, 112, 123, 139, 168, 171, 175, 177, 178, 181, 182, 183, 190, 191, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205 findspot not recorded 11, 12, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29 (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), 34, 37, 44, 45, 47, 53, 58, 63, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 79, 80, 85, 89, 90, 104, 113, 124, 126, 132, 140, 145, 148, 149 (b), 169, 172, 206, 207, 210, 214 (a), 219, 220

NUBIA: STUDIES IN THE ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF NORTHEAST AFRICA

All volumes in this series are evaluated by an Editorial Board, strictly on academic grounds, based on reports prepared by referees who have been commissioned by virtue of their specialism in the appropriate field. The Board ensures that the screening is done independently and without conflicts of interest. The definitive texts supplied by authors are also subject to review by the Board before being approved for publication. Further, the volumes are copyedited to conform to the publisher’s stylebook and to the best international academic standards in the field.

Titles in Series Bayuda and its Neighbours, ed. by Artur Obłuski, Henryk Paner, and Mirosław Masojć (2021)