The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt 9780198858225, 0198858221

Table of contents :
Cover
The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt
Copyright
Preface
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Abbreviations
List of Contributors
Map of Egypt in the Ptolemaic period
Chapter 1: Introduction: The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt
1.1 Introduction
1.2 A Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions
1.3 The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt
1.4 Conclusion
Chapter 2: Imaging Inscriptions: The Kingston Lacy Obelisk
2.1 The Obelisk in Philae
2.2 Moving the Obelisk
2.3 The Philae Obelisk and the Decipherment of Hieroglyphs
2.4 New Images of the Obelisk
2.5 The Results
2.6 Philae in the News
Chapter 3: Beyond Rosetta: Multilingual Inscriptions, the Antiquities Trade, and the Decipherment of Egyptian Scripts
3.1 Two Texts are Better than One
3.2 An Inscription at Menouf
3.3 The Decree in Honour of Kallimachos
3.4 Foundation Plaques from a Temple of Hathor-Aphrodite
3.5 A Sphinx from Koptos
3.6 Conclusion
Chapter 4: Greek Texts on Egyptian Monuments
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Types of Egyptian Monuments
4.2.1 Stelai (147 Items)
4.2.2 Statues (18 Items)
4.2.3 Door Lintels on Egyptian Temples (7 Items)
4.2.4 Temple Furniture, e.g. Offering Tables (7 Items)
4.2.5 Mummies (27 Items) and Sarcophagi (12 Items)
4.3 Types of Greek Text
4.3.1 Official Texts
4.3.2 Private Texts
4.4 Some Conclusions
4.4.1 Dates
4.4.2 Self-Identification and Onomastics
Chapter 5: The Epigraphy of the ‘Greek Cities’
5.1 Introduction
2 Naukratis
5.3 Alexandria
5.4 Ptolemais
5.4.1 Citizenship and Population
5.4.2 Governance
5.4.3 Religion and Culture
Appendix: A Note on the Dating of Inscriptions from Ptolemais
Chapter 6: Religious Life in Ptolemaic Alexandria under the Royal Aegis: An Overview of the Epigraphic Evidence
6.1 Introduction
6.2 The Sarapieion and its Gods
6.2.1 The Sarapieion under Ptolemy II
6.2.2 The Sarapieion under Ptolemy III and IV
6.3 The Sacred Topography of Alexandria
6.3.1 Sarapis and Isis
6.3.2 The Boubastieion
6.3.3 Other Gods
6.4 The Reign of Ptolemy IV
6.4.1 The Reign of Ptolemy IV: Sarapis and Isis
6.4.2 The Reign of Ptolemy IV: Other Gods
6.5 The Dark Age of Alexandrian Epigraphy
6.6 Conclusion
Chapter 7: Foundation Deposits from Third-Century BC Egypt
Chapter 8: Hellenistic Sacred Dedications: The View from Egypt
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Hellenistic Sacred Dedicatory Inscriptions
8.3 Kleon and Antipatros
8.4 Apynchis and His Family
8.5 Greek and Egyptian Dedicatory Practices
8.6 Concluding Remarks
Chapter 9: Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Soldiers on the Move
9.2.1 Safe Travel, the Elephant Hunt, and Cities under Siege
9.3 Groups of Soldiers Acting Together
9.4 Avoiding Local Disruption by Foreigners
9.5 Soldiers with Multiple Residences
9.6 Military Hierarchy, Socio-Economic Status, and the King
9.6.1 Army and Royal Cult in the Gymnasium
9.6.2 The Economic, Military, and Familial Status of Soldiers
9.7 Soldiers and Religion
9.7.1 Soldiers and Egyptian Temple-Building
9.7.2 Soldiers’ Petitions to the Kings for Rights of Asylia for Local Egyptian Temples
9.8 Conclusion
Chapter 10: Inscriptions and Papyri: Two Intersecting Worlds
10.1 Quantitative Overview
10.2 Epigraphic Typology
10.3 Temples and Cults
10.4 Important Events
10.5 Prosopographical Overlaps
10.5.1 The Upper Class in Alexandria
10.5.2 Local Elites
10.6 Conclusion
Chapter 11: Epigraphic Habits of Private Associations in the Ptolemaic Chora
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Epigraphic Typologies
11.2.1 Decrees
11.2.2 Dedications
11.2.3 Topos Inscriptions
11.3. Inscriptions in the Visual Landscape
11.4 The xenoi Apolloniatai of Hermopolis Magna
11.5 Conclusions
Chapter 12:The Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions: The Metrical Texts
12.1 Overview
12. 2 The Sonic Epiphany of Pan (CPI 563 TM 81459, Appendix 12.1).
12.3 The Herodes Dossier (CPI 403 and 404)
Appendix
Chapter 13: The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions from Egypt
13.1 Introduction
13.2 The Egyptian Context
13.3 Ptolemaic Palaeography
13.4 Priestly Synod Decrees
13.4.1 Priestly Synod Decree for Ptolemy Euergetes, 243 BC
13.4.2 Kanopos Decree, 238 BC
13.4.3 Raphia Decree, 217 BC
13.4.4 Rosetta Stone Decree, 196 BC
13.4.5 Discussion
13.5 Case Studies
13.5.1 The Decrees of Ptolemais
13.5.2 Saviour Gods
13.5.3 Boidas the Persian
13.6 Identifiable Hands
13.7 Conclusion
Appendix: List of Texts in the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions
Volume I: Alexandria and the Delta (1-206)
Alexandria 31.12, 29.53; TM GEO 100; Pleiades 727070
Civic Decrees
Civic Institutions
Dedications by and for the Royal House
Dedications to the Royal House
Dedications to Deities by Individuals
Honorific Inscriptions for High-Ranking Individuals
Funerary Monuments
Miscellaneous
Delta Sites
El Kanais, n-w of Kafr el-Dauwar 31.7, 30.7; TM GEO 4403
Lake Manzala Area 31.6, 32.12; TM GEO 3687
Xenephyris (Kom el-Akhdar) 31.44, 30.83; TM GEO 31, 6066
Taposiris Parva 31.27, 30.00; TM GEO 2261; Pleiades 727242
Kanopos and Region 31.19, 30.4; TM GEO 1001; Pleiades 727242
Mareia 31.15, 29.89; TM GEO 3431 Pleiades 727154
Schedia 31.13, 30.19; TM GEO 2096; Pleiades 77221
Psenamosis (Kom Tukala) 31.1; TM GEO 1151; Pleiades 727207
Xois 31.1; TM GEO 2507; Pleiades 727256
Damanhur Region 31.03, 30.47; TM GEO 817; Pleiades 727123
Tanis (Sar el Hagar) 30.97, 31.87; TM GEO 2252; Pleiades 727236
Psenemphaia 30.96, 30.13; TM GEO 1953; Pleiades 727208
Kom Saggari 30.79, 30.60; TM GEO 1149
Leontopolis (Tell el-Yahoudia) 30.49, 31.55; TM GEO 1239; Pleiades 727146
Pharbaithos (Rosetta Region, Horbeit) 30.73, 31.62; TM GEO 2059, 1751; Pleiades 72719
Kom el-Hisn 30.79, 30.60; TM GEO 1148; Pleiades 727165
Leontopolis (Tell el-Moqdam) 30.68, 31.35; TM GEO 1238; Pleiades 727147
Mehallet el-Kubra 30.96, 31.16; TM GEO 3669
Sebennytos 30.96, 31.23; TM GEO 2104; Pleiades 727227
Taposiris Magna 30.94, 29.51; TM GEO 2260; Pleiades 727241
Thmuis (Tell Timai) 30.93, 31.51; TM GEO 2405; Pleiades 727249
Pithom (Tell el-Maskhutah) 30.55, 32.09; TM GEO 2297
Naukratis 30.90, 30.59; TM GEO 1424; Pleiades 727169
Kom Abu Afrita (nw Delta) 30.90, 30.14; TM GEO 31
Kom Sanhur (Senhu); TM GEO 1150
Terenouthis 30.43, 30.81; TM GEO 2318; Pleiades 727244
Boubastis 30.57, 31.50; TM GEO 462; Pleiades 727088
Athribis 30.47, 31.18; TM GEO 369; Pleiades 727078
Ghazin (Prosopites?) 30.25; TM GEO 714
Nitria (Tell el-Barnugi) 30.92, 30.38; TM GEO 1473; Pleiades 727176
Memphis 29.84, 31.25; TM GEO 1344; Pleiades 736963
Volume II: The Fayum, Middle and Upper Egypt (207–409)
Fayum Sites
Soknopaiou Nesos 29.53, 30.66; TM GEO 2157; Pleiades 737053
Philadelphia 29.45, 21.08; TM GEO 1760; Pleiades 737008
Dionysias 29.40, 30.41; TM GEO 565; Pleiades 73690
Karanis 29.51, 30.89; TM GEO 1008; Pleiades 736932
Hawara 29.25, 30.89; TM GEO 747; Pleiades 736918
Euhemeria 29.38, 30.53; TM GEO 675; Pleiades 736909
Theadelphia 29.34, 30.49; TM GEO 2349; Pleiades 737081
Krokodilopolis–Arsinoe 29.32, 30.83; TM GEO 327; Pleiades 736948
Magdola 29.13, 30.58; TM GEO 1284; Pleiades 736893
Narmouthis 29.19, 30.64; TM GEO 1421; Pleiades 73697
Tebtynis 29.10, 30.76; TM GEO 2287; Pleiades 737072
Arsinoite Nome, Provenance Uncertain; TM GEO 332
Middle and Upper Egypt
Aphroditopolis 29.40, 31.25; TM GEO 236; Pleiades 736889
Herakleopolis 29.08, 30.93; TM GEO 801; Pleiades 736920
Spania 28.73, 30.80; TM GEO 2813; Pleiades 737056
Oxyrhynchos 28.54, 30.65; TM GEO 1524; Pleiades 736983
Akoris (Tehna) 28.18, 30.77; TM GEO 2309; Pleiades 737077
Speos Artemidos (Beni Hassan) 27.93, 30.88; TM GEO 3203; Pleiades 756625
Antinoopolis 27.81, 30.88; TM GEO 2774; Pleiades 756518
Hermopolis Magna 27.77, 30.80; TM GEO 816; Pleiades 756574
Alabastron Polis 28.04, 30.84; TM GEO 2684; Pleiades 736885
Koussai 27.43, 30.81; TM GEO 1176; Pleiades 756588
Antaeopolis 26.89, 31.51; TM GEO 188; Pleiades 756515
Tentyra–Dendera 26.14, 32.67; TM GEO 2312; Pleiades 786127
Abydos (Memnoneion) 26.18, 31.91; TM GEO 34; Pleiades 756512
Koptos 25.99, 32.81; TM GEO 1159; Pleiades 786010
Hermonthis 25.55, 32.50; TM GEO 812; Pleiades 786036
Ptolemais 26.47, 31.80; TM GEO 2023; Pleiades 756635
Diospolis Parva 26.02, 32.31; TM GEO 577; Pleiades 756566
Apollonopolis Parva 25.85, 32.71; TM GEO 270; Pleiades 7859475
Eileithyiopolis (El-Kab) 25.11, 32.79; TM GEO 611; Pleiades 786020
Hierakonpolis 25.09, 32.77; TM GEO 848; Pleiades 786037
Deir el-Bahari 25.63. 32.56; TM GEO 1341; Pleiades 786067
Kerameia-Madou 25.70, 32.70; TM GEO 1281; Pleiades 786088
Diospolis and Thebaid 25.68, 32.63; TM GEO 576; Pleiades 786017
Memnoneia (Syringes, Royal Cemetery) 25.63, 32.56; TM GEO 1341; Pleiades 786067
Apollonopolis 24.97, 32.87; TM GEO 269; Pleiades 785974
Gebel el-Silsila 24.48, 32.93; TM GEO 699; Pleiades 786118
Omboi 24.28, 24.45; TM GEO 1589; Pleiades 786021
Volume III: Southern Border, Oases, and Incerta (410-650)
Southern Border
Elephantine—Syene 24.80-24.09, 32.87-32.88; TM GEO 621, 2207; Pleiades 786021, 786123
Sehel Island—Setis 24.09, 32.88; TM GEO 2105; Pleiades 786107
Philae 24.02, 32.88; TM GEO 1767; Pleiades 786089
Petitions
Dedications by and for the Royal House
Dedications to the Royal House
Dedications to Deities by Individuals
Proskynemata
Honorific Inscriptions for High-Ranking Individuals
Hiera Sykaminos 23.04, 32.68; TM GEO 846; Pleiades 795815
Oases, Eastern Desert, and Coast
Adulis 38.45; TM GEO 47, Pleiades 619285
Siwa 29.20; TM GEO 149; Pleiades 716520
Oasis Parva 28.32, 28.85; TM GEO 3168; Pleiades 716628
Wadi Abu Diyeba 26.52, 33.75; TM GEO 698
Kharga (Hibis Temple) 25.43, 30.55; TM GEO 2786; Pleiades 776181
Wadi Bir el-Ain. 26.67, 31.83, TM GEO 2845
Bir Alayyan 24.96, 33.73; TM GEO 2742
Paneion, El Kanais 25.00, 33.31; TM GEO 2047; Pleiades 786040
Pselkis 23.89, 32.83; TM GEO 1949; Pleiades 795846
Berenike 23.91, 35.47; TM GEO 416; Pleiades 7859856
Unknown or Uncertain Location
Royal Edict
Decrees
Dedications by and for the royal house
Dedications to Deities by Individuals
Texts of Uncertain Ptolemaic or Roman Date
Bibliography
Index of Sources
1. Index of Literary Passages Cited
2. Index of Inscriptions Cited
3. Index of Papyri and Ostraka Cited
Index of Places
Index of Names
A. Personal Names
B. Divine names
General Index

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

OXFORD STUDIES IN ANCIENT DOCUMENTS General Editors Andrew Meadows Alison Cooley

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

OXFORD STUDIES IN ANCIENT DOCUMENTS This innovative new series offers unique perspectives on the political, cultural, social, and economic history of the ancient world. Exploiting the latest technological advances in imaging, decipherment, and interpretation, the volumes cover a wide range of documentary sources, including inscriptions, papyri, and wooden tablets.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt Edited by ALAN BOWMAN and C H A RL ES C R O W T H ER

1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Oxford University Press 2020 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2020 Impression: 1 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, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2020930013 ISBN 978–0–19–885822–5 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

Preface The origin of this volume of studies of the Greek and bilingual epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt (332–30 ) (see Fig. 0.1) lies in a conference held in Oxford in April 2016 as part of a project to compile a Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions from Egypt based in the Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents in the Faculty of Classics (University of Oxford), led by Professor Alan Bowman (as Principal Investigator) and funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council from 2013–16. It has also been supported by the Leverhulme Trust and the University of Oxford’s John Fell Fund. The outcome of the main project will be a Corpus of 650 numbered items which will be published both online and in book format. The aim of the conference was to present a series of contextual studies, both by members of the project team and by a number of invited scholars, exploring the broader political and cultural connotations of different aspects of this large aggregate of Greek and Greek-Egyptian epigraphic documentation. With one exception, the chapters are revised versions of the papers presented and discussed at the conference. Chapter 4, by Willy Clarysse, was in the course of preparation at the time of the conference as a separate publication, and it seemed appropriate to add it when the opportunity arose. We hope that the collection of studies will prove an enduring and selfstanding contribution to the study of Ptolemaic epigraphy as well as an indispensable complement to the publication of the main Corpus. The members of the editorial team of the Corpus, who have contributed to this volume, are Professor Alan Bowman, Dr Charles Crowther, Professor Simon Hornblower, Professor Rachel Mairs (University of Reading), and Dr Kyriakos Savvopoulos. Throughout the whole period of the research project and subsequently we have received invaluable research support from Ms Margaret Sasanow and Dr Chloe Colchester, for which we are very grateful. We are indebted to the support provided by the staff of the Ioannou Centre for Research in Classical and Byzantine Studies in organizing the conference. We have also received much valuable support from colleagues and students too numerous to mention here, with the exception of the late Professor François Kayser (Université Savoie Mont-Blanc), who very generously made available to us the photographic archive of the late Étienne Bernand, of which he was the curator, and Peter Houten, who drafted the map of Ptolemaic Egypt in Figure 0.1. Alan Bowman Charles Crowther University of Oxford August 2020

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

Contents List of Figures List of Tables List of Abbreviations List of Contributors Map of Egypt in the Ptolemaic period

ix xv xvii xxv xxvii

1. Introduction: The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt Alan Bowman and Charles Crowther

1

2. Imaging Inscriptions: The Kingston Lacy Obelisk Jane Masséglia

9

3. Beyond Rosetta: Multilingual Inscriptions, the Antiquities Trade, and the Decipherment of Egyptian Scripts Rachel Mairs

20

4. Greek Texts on Egyptian Monuments Willy Clarysse

35

5. The Epigraphy of the ‘Greek Cities’ Alan Bowman

59

6. Religious Life in Ptolemaic Alexandria under the Royal Aegis: An Overview of the Epigraphic Evidence Kyriakos Savvopoulos

76

7. Foundation Deposits from Third-Century  Egypt Dorothy J. Thompson

94

8. Hellenistic Sacred Dedications: The View from Egypt Supratik Baralay

114

9. Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt Christelle Fischer-Bovet

127

10. Inscriptions and Papyri: Two Intersecting Worlds Willy Clarysse

159

11. Epigraphic Habits of Private Associations in the Ptolemaic Chora Mario C. D. Paganini

179

12. The Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions: The Metrical Texts Simon Hornblower

208

13. The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions from Egypt Charles Crowther

226

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

viii

Contents

Appendix: List of Texts in the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

269

Bibliography Index of Sources 1. Index of Literary Passages Cited 2. Index of Inscriptions Cited 3. Index of Papyri and Ostraka Cited Index of Places Index of Names General Index

313 333 333 334 344 346 348 351

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

List of Figures 0.1. Map of Egypt in the Ptolemaic period

xxvii

Drawn by P. H. A. Houten

2.1. William John Bankes (1786–1855) by George Sandars, 1812

10

Reproduction courtesy of the Creative Commons

2.2. The Philae Obelisk at Kingston Lacy, Dorset

10

2.3. Giovanni Battista Belzoni (1778–1823) by William Brockedon

12

Reproduction courtesy of the Creative Commons

2.4. Scaffolding around the Philae Obelisk, September 2014

16

2.5. The ‘Cleopatra’ cartouche in various RTI settings: (a) normal lighting, (b) raking lighting, and (c) specular enhancement

17

2.6. 3D scans of the obelisk’s (a) main shaft and (b) base

17

Courtesy of GOM UK

2.7. Possible traces of lettering in the area of the painted inscriptions

18

3.1. CPI 387: Decree in honour of Kallimachos

26

4.1. CPI 403: Funerary epigram of Aphrodisia

36

4.2. Funerary stele of Hathor-ity. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, inv. 22018

37

4.3. CPI 223: Dedication of a topos. Musée du Louvre, E27113

39

Photograph courtesy of the Musée du Louvre

4.4. Funerary stele of Peteminis. Abdalla 20 no. 15 (SEG 42 1520) TM 105397

40

4.5. Dedication by Tesenouphis. I.Fayoum 1 79. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, CG 1190

41

4.6. Dedication by Pedon, reign of Psammetichos I (664–610 )

42

4.7. CPI 368: Dedication to the god Haroeris and the synnaoi theoi

43

4.8. Dedication to Isis. SEG 41 1628 (TM 103461)

43

4.9. Dedication to Osiris. SEG 41 1629 (TM 102571)

44

4.10. (a) Mummy of Artemidoros in a cartonnage mummy case; (b) close-up of the inscription. British Museum EA 21810

45

© The Trustees of the British Museum

4.11. Sarcophagus of Dioskorous. Musée du Louvre, E13044

45

Photo courtesy of A. M. Aubert and R Cortopassi

4.12. Mummy mask of Titus Flavius Demetrios. SB 1 4179 (TM 8709)

46

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

x

List of Figures

4.13. Wooden sarcophagus from Thebes with a trilingual inscription, Staatliche Museen Berlin, ÄM 504

46

Photograph courtesy of the Staatliche Museen Berlin

4.14. CPI 175: Dedication to Anoubis

48

4.15. Building inscription of Parthenios. Short Texts 1 186 (TM 53843)

50

4.16. CPI 274–276: Narmouthis sphinxes

51

Photographs courtesy of Thomas Corsten

4.17. Pie chart showing general view

52

4.18. Pie chart of Ptolemaic and earlier inscriptions

52

4.19. Pie chart of Roman inscriptions

52

4.20. CPI 295: Dedication of a topos to Souchos

55

4.21. Funerary inscription of Apollonios son of Hermogenes I.Louvre 91

56

4.22. Temple of Dendera with Greek inscription ( 42)

57

Drawings courtesy of Sylvie Cauville

7.1. CPI 18: Gold foundation plaque from the temple of Harpokrates

108

9.1. Dedications by regions and by individuals versus groups

129

9.2. Dedications by regions and by reigns

130

11.1. Distribution of associations in Greek and Demotic texts of the Ptolemaic period

180

11.2. Distributions of associations in Greek texts of the Ptolemaic period

181

11.3. Distribution of associations in Greek and Demotic texts of the Roman period

182

11.4. Distribution of associations in Greek texts of the Roman period

182

11.5. Ratio of inscriptions of associations in the Hellenistic period

184

11.6. Ratio of inscriptions of associations in Ptolemaic Egypt (poleis and chora)

184

11.7. Ratio of inscriptions of associations in the Ptolemaic chora

185

11.8. Ratio of inscriptions of associations in villages of Ptolemaic Egypt

185

11.9. CPI 113: Decree of the association of landowners of Psenamosis

188

11.10. CPI 200: Decree of the politeuma of the Idumaeans of Memphis

189

11.11. CPI 202: Fragment of the decree of the κοινὸν τῶν κτιστῶν of Memphis

190

11.12. CPI 423: Dedication by the basilistai assembled in Setis

192

11.13. CPI 319: Upper part of one of the twin dedications of the xenoi Apolloniatai of Hermopolis Magna

193

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

List of Figures

xi

11.14. CPI 320: One of the twin dedications of the xenoi Apolloniatai of Hermopolis Magna

194

11.15. CPI 599: Dedication of revenue to Ptolemy III, Berenike II, and the Dioskouroi

195

11.16. CPI 220: Dedication by the synodos of Pramarres

196

11.17. CPI 256: Dedication by the sitometrai of Ptolemais Euergetis

197

11.18. CPI 295: Topos inscription of the ex-ephebes under Asklepiades in the Arsinoite Nome

198

11.19. Floor graffito indicating the topos of the association (?) of Nechtharaus at Omboi

199

11.20. CPI 241: Topos inscription of the synodos of gooseherds of Theadelphia

199

11.21. CPI 297: Topos inscriptions of the Esenchebiake synodos

200

11.22. CPI 223: Topos inscriptions of the Snonaitiake synodos

201

12.1. The Family of Ptolemaios—Pamenches

216

12.2. The Family of Ptolemaios—Pamenches (simplified)

216

13.1. CPI 210: Dedication to Anoubis by the kynoboskos Pasos in favour of Apollonios and Zenon

228

13.2. P.Cair.Zen. I 59002, a letter of introduction from Apollonios to Zenon dated to November 260

229

13.3. CPI 96: Gold foundation plaque from Kanopos (Abukir) for a sanctuary of Osiris, dating to the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes

230

13.4. CPI 341: altar plaque dedicated by Apollonios as dioiketes to Apollo Hylates, Artemis Phosphoros, Artemis Enodia, Leto Euteknos, and Herakles Kallinikos

231

13.5. CPI 251: Dedication from Krokodilopolis by two Cyrenaean women of a shrine to Thoeris in favour of Ptolemy III and Berenike

233

13.6. CPI 186: Dedication by Alexandros, perhaps Alexander the Great, probably from Memphis

236

13.7. CPI 605: Dark granite statue base with a bilingual text for Ptolemy I Soter

237

13.8. CPI 9: Dedication of a temenos to Sarapis and Isis in favour of Ptolemy II by Archagathos, epistates of Libya, and his wife Stratonike

238

13.9. CPI 625: List of victors at the Basileia festival dated to 8 March 267

239

13.10. CPI 93: Dedication on a limestone plaque to Sarapis, Isis, Neilos, Ptolemy III and Berenike, Benefactor Gods, by Kallikrates

240

13.11. CPI 314: Monumental architraval dedication to Ptolemy III and Berenike II from Hermopolis

241

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

xii

List of Figures

13.12. CPI 130: Dedication by the priest Horos to Ptolemy and Arsinoe, Gods Philopatores

242

13.13. CPI 20: Dedication from Alexandria to Sarapis and Isis by Archepolis in favour of Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III

242

13.14. CPI 22: Dedication from Alexandria to Anoubis in favour of Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III by the elders of the olyrokopoi

243

13.15. CPI 581: Dedication to Ares Nikephoros Euagros in favour of Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III by the commanders of an elephant-hunting expedition

244

13.16. CPI 132: Dedication to Ptolemy VI, Kleopatra II and their son, the future Ptolemy VIII, by Satyrion, commander of the fort at Leontopolis, dating to 172/169

245

13.17. CPI 133: Honorific from Leontopolis for the First Friend and strategos Dionysios, dating to 165/4

246

13.18. CPI 239: Architraval dedication from Theadelphia in favour of Ptolemy VIII, Kleopatra II and Kleopatra III, Benefactor Gods, and their children, dating to 128/116

246

13.19. CPI 592: Dedication in favour of Kleopatra II, Kleopatra III and Ptolemy VIII to Isis, Sarapis, Horos, and Anchoris by the hipparch Ptolemaios, dated to 114–108

247

13.20. CPI 200: Decree of the politeuma of the Idumaeans and those from the city of Memphis for the kinsman and strategos Dorion, dated perhaps to 112/111

248

13.21. CPI 208: Dedication from Soknopaiou Nesos of wheat in favour of Ptolemy X Alexander God Philometor and Lysanias the Kinsman and strategos to Soknopaios, dated to 95

249

13.22. CPI 245: Grant of asylia status on Egyptian-style stele, without relief above, dated to 70

251

13.23. CPI 113: Dossier of honorific decrees of the association of landowners from the village of Psenamosis for the Kinsman Paris, dated to 62/61

252

13.24. CPI 129: Greek text of Kanopos Decree stele from Kom el-Hisn

254

13.25. CPI 190: Raphia Decree fragment from Kom el Qala’a (Mit Rahineh: ancient Memphis)

256

13.26. CPI 354: Honorific decree of Ptolemais for prytaneis responsible for restoring public order

259

13.27. CPI 355: Decree of Ptolemais for the lifetime prytanis Dionysios the son of Mousaios

260

13.28. CPI 323: An ex-voto honorific for Ptolemy and Berenike as Saviour Gods

261

13.29. CPI 382: Honorific decree from Thebes (Luxor) for the gymnasiarch Boidas son of Demetrios, the Persian

262

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

List of Figures

xiii

13.30. CPI 38: Statue base for Ptolemy IX Soter II offered by the kinsman and chief steward Apollonios

264

13.31. CPI 57: Statue base for a kinsman and dioiketes offered by fellow members of a cult association for Aphrodite

264

Whilst every effort has been made to secure permission to reproduce the illustrations, we may have failed in a few cases to trace the copyright holders. If contacted, the publisher will be pleased to rectify any omissions at the earliest opportunity.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

List of Tables 7.1. Material and size of inscribed plaques from Ptolemaic foundation deposits

95

7.2. Chronology and content of Ptolemaic foundation deposits

99

9.1. Dedications by officers and groups of soldiers with attested provenance

129

10.1. Inscriptions and papyri: Quantified overview

160

10.2. Spread of the Greek documentation by century

160

10.3. Geographical spread of the Greek documentation

161

10.4. Spread of the Greek documentation over smaller geographical units

161

10.5. Spread of the Greek documentation in the Hermopolite Nome

161

10.6. Spread of documentation by type of document

162

10.7. Epigraphic and papyrological scripts

162

10.8. The asylia inscription CPI 271 TM 8160 (I.Fayoum 3 152)

164

10.9. The career of the strategos Lysanias (Pros.Ptol. I and VIII 277, Trismegistos P10095)

165

10.10. Hadrian’s visit to Egypt

169

10.11. The prefect Rutilius Lupus in dated papyri and inscriptions

171

13.1. Table of letter forms

265

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

List of Abbreviations The abbreviations for volumes of inscriptions and periodicals in the list below follow the conventions of L’Année philologique and Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Abbreviations of papyrological publications (not all listed individually) follow the conventions of Checklist of Editions of Greek Latin, Demotic and Latin papyri, ostraka and tablets at https://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/clist. html. Abbreviations of names and works of classical authors: follow the conventions of OCD⁴, pp. xxvii–liii Abdalla

Abdalla, A. and Garstang, J. (1992) Graeco-Roman Funerary Stelae from Upper Egypt, Liverpool

ABSA

Annual of the British School at Athens

Acta Alexandrinorum

Musurillo, H.A. (2000) The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs: Acta Alexandrinorum, Oxford

AE

L’Année épigraphique

Aegyptus

Aegyptus, Rivista italiana di egittologia e papirologia

AJPh

American Journal of Philology

AncSoc

Ancient Society

APapyrol

Analecta papyrologica

APF

Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete

ASAE

Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte

Asylia

Rigsby, K. J. (1996) Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World, Berkeley, CA

Austin²

Austin, M. M. (2006) The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest: A Selection of Ancient Sources in Translation, 2nd edn, Cambridge

Bagnall/Derow²

Bagnall, R. S. and Derow P. S. (2004) Greek Historical Documents, the Hellenistic Period, 2nd edn, Oxford

Barr

Talbert, R. J. A. (2000) Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, Princeton, NJ

BASP

Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists

BCH

Bulletin de correspondance hellénique

BE

Bulletin épigraphique, annually in REG

Berytus

Berytus: Archaeological Studies

BIE

Bulletin de l’Institut d’Égypte

BIFAO

Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

xviii

List of Abbreviations

BL

Bilabel, F. and Preisigke, F. (1913– ) Berichtigungsliste der griechischen Papyrusurkunden aus Ägypten, Berlin

BMQ

British Museum Quarterly

BO

Bibliotheca Orientalis

BSAA

Bulletin de la Société archéologique d’Alexandrie

Bull. Antieke Beschaving

Bulletin van de Vereeniging tot Bevordering der Kennis van de Antieke Beschaving

CAH

Cambridge Ancient History

CAP

Copenhagen Associations Project

CE

Chronique d’Égypte

CEG

Hansen, P. (1983–9) Carmina epigraphica graeca, 2 vols., Berlin and New York

CGC

Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire

CIG

Boeckh, A (1826–77) Corpus Inscriptionorum Graecarum, Berlin

CIL

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (1862– ), Berlin

C.Ord.Ptol.

Lenger, M.-T. (1980) Corpus des Ordonnances des Ptolemées, Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des lettres, Mémoires, 2nd edn, Brussels

CPI

Bowman, A. K., Crowther, C. V., Hornblower, S., Mairs, R. and Savvopoulos, K. (eds.) (2020–1) Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions, Part I: Greek, Bilingual, and Trilingual Inscriptions from Egypt, Volume 1, Alexandria and the Delta (Nos. 1-206) (Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents) (2021), Oxford; Volume II: The Fayum and Middle and Upper Egypt (Nos. 207-409) (Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents (forthcoming), Oxford; Volume III: Upper Egypt, the Oases, the Eastern Desert, Inscriptions of Uncertain Provenance or Date (Nos. 410-650) (Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents (forthcoming), Oxford

CPJ

Tcherikover, V. et al. (1957–1964) Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum I–III, Cambridge, MA

CQ

Classical Quarterly

CRAI

Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et des Belleslettres

CRIPEL

Cahiers de recherches de l’institut de papyrologie et d’égyptologie de Lille, Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Université Charlesde-Gaulle, Lille-III

DDbDP

Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri: http://papyri.info/ ddbdp

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

List of Abbreviations

xix

Dendara XII

Cauville, S., Lecler, A., and Hamed, Y. (2007) Dendara, vol. 12.2, Cairo

DHA

Dialogues d’histoire ancienne, Besançon

Dynastie

Strack, M. L. (1897) Die Dynastie der Ptolemäer, Berlin

Enchoria

Enchoria. Zeitschrift für Demotistik und Koptologie

Erga-Logoi

Erga-Logoi. Rivista di storia letteratura, diritto e culture dell’antichità, Milan

FGE

Page, D. L. (1981) Further Greek Epigrams, Cambridge

FgrHist

Jacoby, F. (1954) Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Leiden

GRBS

Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies

GVI

Peek, W. (1955–7) Griechische Vers-Inschriften, Berlin

HE

Gow, A. S. F. and Page, D. L. (1965) Hellenistic Epigrams, 2 vols., Cambridge

I.Akôris

Bernand, É. (1988) Inscriptions grecques et latines d’Akôris. Cairo

I.Alex.Imp.

Kayser, F. (1994) Recueil des Inscriptions grecques et latines (non-funéraires) d’ Alexandrie impérial, Cairo

I.Alex.Ptol.

Bernand, É. (2001) Inscriptions grecques d’Alexandrie ptolémaïque. Cairo

I.British Museum

Hirschfeld G. and Marshall, F. H. (1893–1916) The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, Part IV, London

I.Cairo

Milne, J. G. (1905) Greek Inscriptions (Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire), Oxford

I.Deir El-Bahari Łajtar

Łajtar, A. (2006) Deir el-Bahari in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. A Study of an Egyptian Temple based on Greek Sources (The Journal of Juristic Papyrology. Supplement 4), Warsaw

I.Délos

Bizard, L. and Roussel, P. (1904) Fouilles de Délos exécutées aux frais de M. le duc de Loubat (1904): Inscriptions

I.Delta

Bernand, A. (1970) Le Delta égyptien d’apres les textes grecs, 1 —Les confins libyques, 1-3. Cairo, 1970

I.Éthiopie

Bernand, É., Drewes, A. J., and Schneider, R. (eds.) (1991) Recueil des inscriptions de l’Éthiopie des périodes pré-axoumite et axoumite, Paris

I.Fayoum 1-3

Bernand, É. (1975–81) Recueil des inscriptions grecques du Fayoum 1, La ‘Méris’ d’Hérakleidès; 2. La ‘Méris’ de Thémistos; 3. La ‘Méris’ de Polémôn, Cairo

IG

Inscriptiones Graecae (Berlin, 1873– )

IGIAC

Rougemont, G. (2012) Inscriptions grecques d’Iran et d’Asie centrale, London

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

xx

List of Abbreviations

I.Hermoupolis

Bernand, É. (1999) Inscriptions grecques d’Hermoupolis Magna et de sa nécropole, Cairo

I.Kaunos

Marek, C. (2006) Die Inschriften von Kaunos (Vestigia 55) Munich

I.Louvre

Bernand, É. 1992 Inscriptions grecques d’Égypte et de Nubie au Musée du Louvre, Paris

ILS

Dessau, H. (1892–1916) Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, Berlin

I.Memnonion

Perdrizet, P. and Lefebvre, G. (1919) Les Graffites grecs du Memnonion d’Abydos, Nancy

I.Métriques

Bernand, É. (1969) Inscriptions métriques de l’Égypte grécoromaine: recherches sur la poésie épigrammatique des Grecs en Égypte, Paris

I.Miletos

Rehm, A. and Herrman, P. (eds.) (1997) Inscriften von Milet, 1, Berlin and New York

I.Mother of Apis

Smith, H. S., Andrews, C. A. R., and Davies, S. (2011), The Sacred Animal Necropolis at North Saqqara. The Mother of Apis Inscriptions. I. The Catalogue—II. Commentaries and Plates (Egypt Exploration Society. Excavation Memoirs 14), London

I.Musée d’Alexandrie Breccia, E. (1911), Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée d’Alexandrie. Iscrizioni greche e latine, Cairo I.Oasis

Wagner, G (1987) Les Oasis d’Égypte à l’époque grecque, romaine et byzantine d’après les documents grecs: recherches de papyrologie et d’épigraphie grecques, Cairo

I.Pan du Désert

Bernand, A. (1977) Pan du Désert, Leiden

I.Paneion

Bernand, A. (1972) Le Paneion d’el-Kanaïs, Leiden

I.Péluse

Carrez-Maratray, J.-Y. (1999), Péluse et l’angle oriental du delta égyptien aux époques grecque, romaine et byzantine, Cairo

I.Pergamon

Fraenkel, M. (1890–5) Die Inschriften von Pergamon, I–II, Berlin

I.Philae I-II

Bernand, A. and Bernand, É. (1969) Les Inscriptions grecques de Philae, Paris

I.Portes du Désert

Bernand, A. (1984) Les Portes du désert. Recueil des inscriptions grecques d’Antinooupolis, Tentyris, Koptos, Apollonopolis Parva et Apollonopolis Magna, Paris

I.Priene

Hiller von Gaertringen, F. (ed.) (1906) Inschriften von Priene, Berlin

I.Priene²

Blümel, W. (ed.) (2014) Inschriften von Priene, Bonn

I.Prose I–II

Bernand, A. (1992) La Prose sur pierre dans l’Égypte hellénistique et romaine. Tome I: Textes et traductions. Tome II: Commentaires, Paris

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

List of Abbreviations

xxi

I.Syr.

Baillet, J. (1926), Inscriptions grecques et latines des tombeaux des rois ou syringes à Thèbes, Cairo

I.Temple Hibis

Evelyn-White, H. G. and Oliver J. H. (1938) The Temple of Hibis in El Khārgeh Oasis. Part II, Greek Inscriptions, New York

I.Th.Sy.

Bernand, A. (1989) De Thèbes à Syène. Paris

I.Varsovie

Łajtar, A. and Twardecki, A. (2003) Catalogue des inscriptions grecques du Musée National de Varsovie, Warsaw

JEA

Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

JHS

Journal of Hellenic Studies

JIGRE

Horbury, W. and Noy, D. (1992) Jewish Inscriptions of GraecoRoman Egypt, Cambridge

JJP

Journal of Juristic Papyrology

JRS

Journal of Roman Studies

JS

Journal des Savants

JSSEA

Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities

JWI

Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, London

Kaibel

Kaibel, G. (1878) Epigrammata Graeca ex lapidibus conlecta, Berlin

Kernos

Kernos: revue internationale et pluridisciplinaire de religion grecque antique, Liège and Athens

Lepsius, Denkmäler

Lepsius, K. R. (1897–1913), Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, Leipzig

LGPN

Fraser, P. M., Matthews, E. et al. (eds.) (1987–2018) Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, Oxford: http://www.lgpn.ox.ac.uk/

LSJ

Liddell, H. G and Scott, R. (1996) A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edn revised and augmented, Oxford

M.Chr.

Mitteis, L. and Wilcken, U. (1912) Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, II. Bd. Juristischer Teil, II. Hälfte Chrestomathie. Leipzig and Berlin

MDAI(K)

Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo

MDAI(R)

Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung

Mémoires IFAO

Mémoires publiées par les membres de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, Cairo

ML

Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D. M. (1969) A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC, Oxford

OAth

Opuscula Atheniensia

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

xxii

List of Abbreviations

OCD⁴

Hornblower, S., Spawforth, A., and Eidinow, E. (2012), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 4th edn, Oxford

OGIS 1–2

Dittenberger, W. (1903–5) Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae, Leipzig

OLP

Orientalia Lovanensia Periodica

Pap.Lugd.-Bat.

Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava, Leiden

PBA

Proceedings of the British Academy

P.Feste

Vandoni, M. (1964) Feste pubbliche e private nei documenti greci, Milan

PHI

Packard Humanities Institute, Searchable Greek Inscriptions: http://epigraphy.packhum.org

Phoenix

Phoenix: Journal of the Classical Association of Canada

Pleiades

https://pleiades.stoa.org/places/

Pros.Ptol.

Peremans, W. and Van ’t Dack, E. (1950–1981), Prosopographia Ptolemaica, Leuven

PSBA

Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology

PSD

Simpson, R. S. (1996) Demotic Grammar in the Ptolemaic Sacerdotal Decrees, Oxford

Ptol.Alex.

Fraser, P. M. (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria, Oxford

PW

Pauly, A. F. and Wissowa, G. (1894– ) Paulys RealEncyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart and Munich

REG

Revue des Études Grecques

REgypt

Revue d’Égyptologie

RFIC

Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione classica

RICIS

Bricault, L. (2005) Recueil des inscriptions concernant les cultes isiaques, Paris

RPh

Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes

RSO

Rivista degli Studi Orientali

Samothrace 2:1

Fraser, P. M. (1960) Samothrace. 2:1, The Inscriptions on Stone, New York

SB

Preisigke, F. et al. (1913– ) Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten, Strasbourg and Berlin

ScAnt

Scienze dell’antichità. Storia, archeologia, antropologia

SEG

Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum

Short Texts 1

Vleeming, S. P. (2001) Some Coins of Artaxerxes and Other Short Texts in the Demotic Script Found on Various Objects and Gathered from Many Publications, Leuven

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

List of Abbreviations

xxiii

Short Texts 2

Vleeming, S. P. (2011) Demotic and Greek-Demotic Mummy Labels and Other Short Texts Gathered from Many Publications, Leuven

Short Texts 3

Vleeming, S. P. (2015) Demotic Graffiti and Other Short Texts Gathered from Many Publications, Leuven

Syll.

Dittenberger, G. et al. (eds.) (1915–1924) Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum, 3rd edn, Leipzig

TAPhA

Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association

ThesCra

Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum, J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles

TM

Trismegistos: http://www.trismegistos.org/

Top.Bib.

Porter, B. and Moss R. L. B. (1964– ) Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, 2nd edn revised and augmented by Jaromír Málek, Oxford

Topoi

ΤΟΠΟΙ: Orient-Occident, Lyon and Paris

TrGF

Snell, B., Kannicht R., and Radt, S. (1971–2004) Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, Göttingen

Tyche

Tyche: Beiträge zur alten Geschichte, Papyrologie und Epigraphik

W.Chr., W.Gr.

Mitteis, L. and Wilcken, U. (1912) Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, 1. Bd. Historischer Teil, 1. Hälfte Grundzüge; 2. Hälfte Chrestomathie. Leipzig and Berlin

ZÄS

Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde

ZPE

Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

List of Contributors Supratik Baralay took an MPhil in Ancient History at Oxford in 2016, holds a Frank Knox Memorial Fellowship, and is a PhD candidate in Ancient History at Harvard University. He is currently writing a dissertation on the ideologies and institutions of the Arsacid (Parthian) state. Alan Bowman is the former Principal of Brasenose College, and Camden Professor Emeritus of Ancient History, University of Oxford. His areas of research are Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, papyrology, the social and economic history of the Roman Empire, and the Vindolanda tablets. Willy Clarysse is Professor Emeritus at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium. He has published numerous Greek and Demotic papyri and ostraca as well as studies on prosopography, language, onomastics, institutions, and religion. His main projects concern the bilingual documentation of GraecoRoman Egypt, with books on Fayum villages, papyrus archives, and tax lists. He is a member of the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium. Charles Crowther is a Fellow of The Queen’s College, Associate Professor of Greek Epigraphy, and Associate Director of the Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents, University of Oxford. He is a specialist in Greek epigraphy and has particular research interests in Chios, Commagene, and institutional history. Christelle Fischer-Bovet is an Associate Professor of Classics and History in the Department of Classics at the University of Southern California. She specializes in the social and cultural history of the Eastern Mediterranean from Alexander the Great to the Romans (fourth century  to first century ). She is currently preparing a new book called The Ptolemaic Empire for Oxford University Press. Simon Hornblower held teaching and research posts at Oriel College, Oxford, and University College London. He was Senior Research Fellow in Classical Studies at All Souls College from 2010 until retirement in 2016. His research interests include classical Greek historiography and the relationship between historical texts as literature and as history. He has written commentaries on Thucydides, Herodotus, and Lykophron’s Alexandra; his next book (forthcoming) is a co-authored commentary on Livy, Book 22 for Cambridge University Press. Rachel Mairs is Professor of Classics and Middle Eastern Studies in the Department of Classics, University of Reading. Her research addresses the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

xxvi

List of Contributors

interaction between Greeks and ‘non-Greeks’ in the Hellenistic world, with a particular emphasis on Egypt and on Central Asia. She is particularly interested in ancient multilingualism, especially Greek-Egyptian. Jane Masséglia is a Lecturer in Ancient History at the University of Leicester. She has a particular interest in the visual culture of Hellenistic society, including its body language, plastic arts, and epigraphic habits. She has been attached to Oxford’s Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents since 2013, initially with the Ashmolean Latin Inscriptions Project (funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council) and currently with the LatinNow Project (European Research Council). Mario C. D. Paganini is research associate at the Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften at Vienna. His area of study is Greek documentary papyrology and he has conducted research on the socio-cultural history of Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, in particular on the institution of the gymnasium and on private associations. Lately he has been involved in the first global edition of the papyri belonging to the archive of Apollonios, strategos of the Apollonopolites Heptakomias (second century AD). Kyriakos Savvopoulos was a Research Associate for the Arts and Humanities Research Council-funded Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions project. His research addresses Alexandria during the Hellenistic and Roman periods and the Ptolemaic Kingdom, both in Egypt and in its overseas possessions. He is currently working on a collaborative project between Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents and the Department of Antiquities at the Cyprus Museum to document the island’s Hellenistic inscriptions. He is also helping to plan the Hellenistic and Roman sections of the new Archaeological Museum of Nicosia. Dorothy J. Thompson is a Fellow of Girton College and former Newton Trust Lecturer in the Faculty of Classics at Cambridge. She is a Fellow of the British Academy and Honorary President of the International Association of Papyrologists. Most of her published work is on Hellenistic Egypt.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

Fig. 0.1. Map of Egypt in the Ptolemaic period Drawn by P. H. A. Houten

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

1 Introduction The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt Alan Bowman and Charles Crowther

1.1 I NTRODUCTION In a reflective afterword to a translated collection of his papers on Ptolemaic Egypt, Jean Bingen¹ drew attention to the distinctive character of the Greek epigraphical evidence from ‘the tiny slice’ of the history of Egypt represented by the three centuries from its conquest by Alexander III to the death of Kleopatra—the ‘Ptolemaic intermezzo’, as he termed it.² For Bingen, the Greek epigraphy of Hellenistic Egypt drew its particular character from the combination of a documentary environment shared by inscriptions with large numbers of Greek and Demotic papyri and the continuity of an older, autochthonous epigraphic tradition, which rarely overlapped with the Greek, except in the great multilingual priestly synodal decrees, where parallel Egyptian and Greek texts appear alongside, or above, one another.³ The richness and diversity of this documentary culture offer the material and opportunity to examine the interaction of Greek and Egyptian society in the Ptolemaic period in depth and from within. The chapters in this volume, which began life as the papers presented to a conference on the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt held at the Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents in Oxford in ¹ Bingen (1920–2012), like those other twin pioneers of the epigraphy of Graeco-Roman Egypt Étienne and André Bernand (1923–2013), was a near contemporary of Peter Fraser. For his life and career, see Martin (2013). ² Bingen (2007), 280: ‘it should be noted that when Hellenists have epigraphical sources for Hellenistic Egypt, these differ substantially from what is available for the remainder of the Greek world’. For the ‘intermezzo’, see Bingen (2007), 279. ³ Bingen (1989), translated as Bingen (2007), 258–61. It is worth reminding ourselves, however, that the cultural specificity of an epigraphic tradition imported by the Greeks was present in the Delta, at Naukratis, long before the conquest of Egypt by Alexander in 332; see now Johnston (2014). Alan Bowman and Charles Crowther, Introduction: The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt In: The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt. Edited by: Alan Bowman and Charles Crowther, Oxford University Press (2020). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198858225.003.0001

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

2

Introduction

April 2016, explore this epigraphical landscape with all its diversities and discontinuities in format, content, and presentation from a variety of perspectives. Together they are intended to form a companion to the concurrent publication of a Corpus of the Greek and bilingual or trilingual inscriptions of Ptolemaic Egypt, from Alexander the Great to the death of Kleopatra and the Roman annexation (332–30 ).⁴

1.2 A CORPUS OF PTOLEMAIC I NSCRIPTIONS The core of the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions—the 650 records listed in the Appendix to this volume—is made up of a collection of 346 text editions drafted in manuscript by the late Peter Fraser.⁵ Fraser began to collect the inscriptions of Ptolemaic Egypt in 1953 when he was elected to an Extraordinary Research Fellowship at All Souls College.⁶ The form which this collection was to take evolved as his attention diverted to what was initially intended to be the ancillary project of writing a history of Alexandria in the Ptolemaic period but eventually in 1972 became the three volumes of Ptolemaic Alexandria. Fraser undertook much of the primary work of examining and recording inscriptions, taking photographs and paper squeezes, in museum collections and in situ, between 1953 and 1956, but continued to collect, publish, and collate texts into the early 1970s. Although the great majority of the inscriptions that he collected were from outside Alexandria, the Hellenic culture and character of the Greek city of Alexandria was central to his scholarship on Ptolemaic Egypt and informed his conception of a unified collection of Ptolemaic inscriptions.⁷ The collection, which he characterized as ‘almost a Corpus’, was intended, in his words, to ‘serve in the epigraphical field the same purpose as that achieved with such outstanding success by Wilcken in the first part of the Chrestomathie’.⁸ For the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions we have ⁴ CPI. ⁵ P. M. Fraser FBA (1918–2007), University Lecturer in Hellenistic History and Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. Simon Hornblower’s British Academy memoir provides a detailed assessment of his scholarly career and explores in depth his life, influences and academic interests: Hornblower (2013). ⁶ Fraser took over from his mentor Marcus Tod the compilation of a semi-annual bibliographical register of new epigraphical publications and discoveries in the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology in 1952: Fraser (1952), 115. ⁷ Fraser’s collection and selection were based on specific principles of organization. His manuscript shows a division into six sections: I. Decrees; II. Royal Letters and Edicts; III. Petitions; IV. Dedications, further divided into nine subsections, including proskynemata; V. Miscellaneous and Uncertain; and VI. Funerary monuments. Funerary monuments are barely represented in the manuscript, other than by a small number of Hadra vase inscriptions, and this section seems not to have been systematically attempted. ⁸ The quotations are from the typescript of Fraser’s draft preface.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Alan Bowman and Charles Crowther

3

updated Fraser’s draft editions, and added both new inscriptions published after he ceased systematic collection of material and the metrical and other texts which he passed over. We have also included the Egyptian-language texts (Hieroglyphic and Demotic) of bilingual and trilingual inscriptions, which Fraser had not, and could not have on his own, attempted. We aim to set the Greek epigraphy of Hellenistic Egypt within the broader context of the bicultural landscape of the Egyptian chora, which, in Bingen’s words, was ‘astonishingly distinct from the rest of the Hellenistic world, including Alexandria’,⁹ and have chosen a different, geographic principle of organization for the Corpus. The broader contextual studies in this volume serve as an introduction to the potential of the Corpus and give a sense of the range and variety of material and its historical importance. In a sense they stand for the extended introductory sections which Fraser intended, and drafted, for his epigraphical Chrestomathie.¹⁰ In what follows, we draw on these contributions to amplify and illustrate some of the issues raised in Bingen’s discussion. We make no attempt to include a general political or administrative history of the Ptolemaic regime, of which there are excellent recent treatments,¹¹ but aim instead to indicate the ways in which the Corpus and the chapters in this volume contribute to a deepening understanding of the social and cultural complexities of the multicultural landscape of Hellenistic Egypt.

1.3 THE EPIGRAPHY OF P TOLEMAIC EGYPT The great bilingual and trilingual priestly decrees reveal a set of deeply institutionalized religious traditions which underpin the power of the immigrant royal dynasty and reach out to both Greek and Egyptian elements of the populace. They reflect a cultural and monumental landscape in which the Greeks absorbed features of the indigenous religion and the Egyptians adapted to the introduction of dynastic royal cult. Although these texts are directed towards or involve groups with different native languages and cultures, they present what is essentially the same content in different linguistic, social, and institutional terminology. Despite a scholarly consensus that the language and

⁹ Bingen (2007), 280. ¹⁰ “Each part is introduced by a discussion of the type of document concerned and the significance of the material here presented…I regard these introductions as an essential part of the study of the inscriptions themselves, and express the hope that the reader will attempt to see the inscriptions in the light of the introductory essays.” Fraser: draft preface. ¹¹ Notably by Hölbl (1994) and (2001), Huß (2001), and the chapters by Heinen (1984) and Thompson (1994a) in CAH, new edn, VII, Part 1 and Part IX, respectively.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

4

Introduction

the literature of the Greek immigrants was influenced only to a limited degree by Egyptian language and literature in the Ptolemaic period, there is a mass of evidence for the upward mobility of elite Egyptians who lived their lives and careers in administrative, institutional, legal, and social milieux in which Greek was the required linguistic medium. We can see that the same people or families, Greek, Egyptian, or of ‘mixed’ ethnicity, are presented in monuments in both languages and perform social or administrative functions in each.¹² There is room for debate about exactly how these dual identities reflected political dominance or conciliation or acculturation at different times and places.¹³ Regional differences, particularly between the Thebaid and the Delta, the Fayum and the Middle Valley, and changes over time are important, and the choice of a geographical organization for inscriptions in the Corpus may help to illuminate this. The physical aspects of the monuments, architectural and iconographic, also need to be taken into account. The fact that, in many respects, they retain their separate traditional forms,¹⁴ often adjacent in one contextual landscape, does not necessarily mean that they are ‘disconnected’ messages for separate audiences. We hope that this volume, in addressing these questions, will contribute to larger debates about the multicultural society of Egypt which reach beyond the epigraphical traditions. The history, recording, decipherment, and reception of the Hellenistic inscriptions of Egypt have their own stories, which are explored from different perspectives by Jane Masséglia and Rachel Mairs in Chapters 2 and 3. In a significant number of cases we are dependent on copies made by earlier scholars, as far back as the eighteenth century, for texts which are now either lost or partially eroded and no longer straightforwardly legible. Mairs vividly describes the fate of a bilingual inscription recorded by Jean-Baptiste Jollois and Jean-Marie du Bois-Aymé in a house in Menouf in the autumn of 1799 (Chapter 3.2). A monument which survived removal from its original context to play a subsidiary role in the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphics is the Philae obelisk now standing in the grounds of Kingston Lacy house in Dorset (CPI 424 TM 6331, 103007). The inscriptions on the obelisk have not been systematically studied since the nineteenth century and now provide a challenge for the potential of new technologies to create clearer visualizations. ¹² A classic case in point is the Kallimachos stele (CPI 387 TM 6325) and the family of the Kallimachoi, in the wider context of the so-called ‘indigenous strategoi’ of Upper Egypt in the first century . See also the discussions of the family of Ptolemaios in Chapters 4.1, 10.5.2, and 12.3 of this volume. ¹³ Bingen (1989), translated as Bingen (2007), 256–78. For bilingualism in general, cf. Adams (2003). ¹⁴ Including, notably, stelai with the triangular Greek style of pediment or tympanon, in contrast to the Egyptian form in which the top of the stele is semicircular. This is very obvious in the case of the ‘Greek city’ of Ptolemais (Bowman, Chapter 5). The Egyptian form is exemplified in the dedication by Boethos son of Nikostratos to the local gods of the Cataract region (CPI 422 TM 6398), discussed by Clarysse in Chapter 4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Alan Bowman and Charles Crowther

5

Masséglia provides an account of the discovery, acquisition, and recording of the obelisk and its inscriptions in Chapter 2, together with a case study of the use of Reflectance Transformation and optical 3D Imaging. The opportunity to use Reflectance Transformation Imaging exists for only a small proportion of our inscriptions, whether in the field, such as the Kingston Lacy obelisk or, more accessibly, in museum collections, as for a stele from Elephantine-Syene recording a prostagma and correspondence file from the reign of Ptolemy IX (CPI 420 TM 6403: I.British Museum 1066). In other cases, we have relied on an older technology. Fraser made a large number of excellent paper squeezes of the inscriptions which he recorded. Close study of these has generated new readings and, in some cases, surprises. The improvement of readings is normally incremental and often addresses apparently small details, but their cumulative value can be significant, whether in clarifying details of institutional practice, as in the well-known decree of Ptolemais concerning an outbreak of civic disorder (CPI 354 TM 6372, discussed by Alan Bowman in Chapter 5.4.2), or in revealing letter traces or primary or secondary use of the inscribed surface which had previously passed unnoticed.¹⁵ The specificity of the Greek epigraphic tradition is found in its purest form in the cities of Naukratis, Alexandria, and Ptolemais, where the institutions of Greek civic government—assemblies, councils, magistrates, and privileged citizen bodies—are found and commemorated in public and private inscriptions comparable in language and context to those of other Hellenistic cities (Bowman, Chapter 5). There is an important sense in which these are both confined and not confined to the three cities. Administrative autonomy, whether it is viewed as a reality or part-fiction, is exercised within civic boundaries and ultimately subject to royal authority. Over time, however, and particularly after the period of heavy immigration from Greece and western Asia Minor, aspects of that institutional culture permeated other communities, as we can see in the language applied to the foundation of ‘poleis’,¹⁶ by the granting of citizenship to individuals with strong connections to other communities and in some cases primary residence in them,¹⁷ and by the spread of gymnasia and gymnasial culture to other Egyptian towns and even to villages, especially in the Fayum (Paganini, Chapter 11). In the Ptolemaic period these were not as integral to the urban institutional structure as they were to become in the Roman period, but that integration could not have occurred without the Ptolemaic precedents.¹⁸

¹⁵ CPI 60 (TM 6366), for example, the well-known statue base for Mark Antony, shows unexpected traces of an earlier inscription which might be part of an aretalogy or hymn for Isis. ¹⁶ See, for example the papyrological evidence for the activity of the κτίστης Boethos, Heinen (1997) and (2000). ¹⁷ E.g. Dryton; see Vandorpe (2002). ¹⁸ Bowman and Rathbone (1992).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

6

Introduction

These phenomena can be set alongside other institutional developments which reveal the adoption of civic or corporate features with Greek or Hellenized characteristics. One such is the assertion by sanctuaries of inviolability (asylia), a phenomenon which is widespread in the Greek and Hellenistic world outside Egypt and appears in temples in Egypt after 100  with distinctive local features.¹⁹ In Egypt we find it invoked not merely for temples of Greek or Graeco-Egyptian cult, but in one case also for a synagogue.²⁰ The Jews are only one example of the ethnic communities which assert their corporate identity through epigraphy, in associations of various kinds and politeumata which commemorate themselves in forms that can broadly be described as Greek or Hellenistic and may incorporate a range of ethnicities originating in Greece, Asia Minor, and the Levant. The politeumata of the Idumaeans discussed by Mario Paganini in Chapter 11.4 belong in this category and remind us of the importance of the military elements in the membership of such communities—exemplified most clearly at Memphis and in the garrisons at Hermopolis in the late second and the first century .²¹ In addition to these communal profiles, the desire of individual soldiers or kleruchs (allotment-holders) to commemorate themselves as individuals is a phenomenon not found in anything like this form before the Ptolemaic period (Fischer-Bovet, Chapter 9). These characteristics of the Greek epigraphy belong to a culture of power in which the relationship between the monarchy and the individual or the social group is more clearly and personally represented in the Greek tradition than in the indigenous. The form of dedication adopted by individuals, expressed in Greek through the formula ὑπέρ (‘in favour of ’) the monarch(s) discussed by Supratik Baralay in Chapter 7, shows consciousness of a personal relationship more direct than anything found in pharaonic epigraphy;²² the intimacy of this connection is consonant with the way in which writers of petitions on papyrus address the monarch personally and directly. As we would expect, the religious landscape is more diverse and eclectic in Alexandria than the other Greek cities,²³ and correspondingly more markedly Egyptian in the other towns, especially in Upper Egypt, even as immigrant civilians and military personnel, individually and in groups, became increasingly embedded in their socio-religious milieu. This is vividly illustrated by the votive inscriptions, the proskynemata and the verse forms of funerary ¹⁹ Asylia, pp. 540–44, Bingen (2007), 266–73. ²⁰ CPI 125 (TM 6400), probably of the reign of Kleopatra VII and Kaisarion; cf. Rigsby (2003), with the qualifications of Fischer-Bovet (2014b). ²¹ Memphis CPI 202 (TM 6572) and 200 (TM 6421), see Rapaport (1969), Thompson Crawford (1984), Thompson (2012), 100. Hermopolis, CPI 320 (TM 6298), 319 (TM 7099), 315 (TM 6537), 318 (TM 60880); see Fraser (2007). ²² Bingen (2007), 274–6, Fassa 2015; cf. Fischer-Bovet in Ch. 9 of this volume, 130–1 with n. 8. ²³ Discussed in Chapter 6 by Kyriakos Savvopoulos.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Alan Bowman and Charles Crowther

7

commemoration which constitute such a significant part of the epigraphic corpus.²⁴ To these can be added the plaques found in foundation deposits of temples and discussed by Dorothy J. Thompson in Chapter 7. This material raises questions of identity and cultural change, in which the phenomenon of bilingualism and multilingualism in the epigraphy is central. Immigrants adapt to local institutions, particularly religious, while the indigenous population, or part of it, becomes more Hellenized. These adaptations are visible in the complex and distinctive onomastic patterns which are in some ways better revealed in the epigraphy, because addressed to a wider public audience, than in the papyri. Cases in which the same individuals, or people from the same backgrounds, describe or display themselves in different languages and different terminology in the same inscriptions or set of inscriptions are discussed in Chapter 10 by Willy Clarysse, who shows how much there is to be learned from a juxtaposition of the epigraphic and the papyrological evidence. Two particular respects in which the evidence of the Ptolemaic epigraphic corpus can be set in the context of the culture of the wider Hellenistic world are literary epigraphy and palaeography. Although Fraser discussed the metrical inscriptions of Alexandria and the Delta region in the wider context of Alexandrian epigram and provided texts and translations of many of them in Ptolemaic Alexandria,²⁵ they are absent from the surviving drafts of his collection; perhaps they would have been placed alongside the Hadra inscriptions in the section on funerary epigraphy which he originally envisaged. For the Corpus, Simon Hornblower has re-edited all the incised or inscribed poems that can securely be placed within the Ptolemaic period—a total of forty-six epigrams, together with the four hymns from the temple of Isis at Narmouthis (CPI 281 TM 6304-7) composed by Isidoros for Isis and Porramanres (Amenemhat III).²⁶ Hornblower examines in Chapter 12 the linguistic and literary criteria on which these poems (whether composed individually or ‘made-to-order’ for specific deceased persons) can be judged against the wider canvas of Hellenistic epigram. These texts have much to tell us both about the ethnicity and literary and cultural preferences of the men and women who commissioned and set them up, Egyptian, Greek, and Jewish, and, more generally, about the social context of Hellenistic Egypt; seventeen of the epigrams are for women. Although it is rare to find examples of cultural assimilation in individual monuments, the range and forms of lapidary writing from the Ptolemaic period offer opportunities to explore the interaction of writing cultures and systems and the development of distinctively Egyptian ways of writing Greek ²⁴ Three-quarters (481 of 650) of the texts in the Corpus. ²⁵ Ptol.Alex. I, 10.III, ‘The Epigram’, at 612–17, with II, nn. 431–66. ²⁶ These texts represent an updated subset of the 176 Graeco-Roman metrical inscriptions collected by É. Bernand in I.Métriques in 1969.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

8

Introduction

texts. This is the matter of palaeography in a broad sense.²⁷ There is no systematic treatment or handbook of Ptolemaic, or indeed Hellenistic, palaeography and the inscriptions are generally assessed against what we normally conceive to be the characteristics exemplified in the wider body of Hellenistic epigraphy. The Fraser archive preserves an elaborated discussion of the palaeography and chronology of Hellenistic inscriptions among which Ptolemaic inscriptions from Egypt are well represented. For Fraser, palaeography was a key to dating, rather more so than a visual and visible projection of identity or assimilation or power or artistic expression.²⁸ Charles Crowther offers a survey of these questions in Chapter 13.

1.4 CONCLUSION The aim of this companion volume is to open pathways and to point to possibilities offered by the larger Corpus. Coverage of the social and economic history of Hellenistic Egypt is inevitably lacunose. Individual chapters examine multilingual texts and their reception, Greek and Egyptian lapidary cultures, the Greek cities, the religious landscape of Alexandria, foundation deposits in Ptolemaic temples, dedicatory forms, the epigraphies of soldiers and associations, the interrelationships of papyri and inscriptions, metrical inscriptions, and palaeography. There are no dedicated contributions for the economy, for family life, above all for the women of Ptolemaic Egypt, but readers will find them represented in vignettes discoverable in the index; and there is much more to mine in the Corpus itself. The contributions offer overlapping perspectives: dedications, which form the subject of Chapter 8, also provide the core of the epigraphy of soldiers in Chapter 9. The Hieroglyphic and metrical Ptolemaios and Aphrodisia—Hathor-ity dossiers are examined from different perspectives by Willy Clarysse and Simon Hornblower in Chapters 4, 10, and 12, just as discussions in Chapters 9 and 10 intersect for the family of Machatas. Aspects of the evidence from Alexandria and the cities are explored in Chapters 5 and 6, from the chora and the Fayum in Chapters 8 and 11. The overall approach is evolutionary rather than determinedly innovative, but the perspectives are fresh and, we hope, offer a sense of the dynamic possibilities that the Corpus will offer as a resource for future scholarship, and for writing new histories of the Ptolemaic intermezzo. ²⁷ For the complementary development of cursive documentary and book hands in the papyri of Ptolemaic Egypt, see Cavallo and Maehler (2008), 6–13. ²⁸ Fraser posed the question at the beginning of his manuscript: why ‘palaeography’ and not just ‘chronology’, and offered the following ‘very simple’ answer: ‘in the absence of an absolute date—that of an Emperor or an archon or of internal reference to a known event—the only method of dating an inscription is by the style of writing, by its palaeography’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

2 Imaging Inscriptions The Kingston Lacy Obelisk Jane Masséglia

In 2014, a team from the Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents (CSAD) made a journey to the National Trust property of Kingston Lacy in Dorset, to inspect the well-known seven-metre Ptolemaic obelisk which stands in its grounds. As plans to procure new readings developed, the CSAD team was joined by colleagues from University College London and GOM UK, and imaging the obelisk quickly became one of the most logistically complex and publicly visible undertakings of the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions project.¹

2.1 THE OBELISK I N P HILAE Kingston Lacy is an 8,500-acre estate and stately home in Dorset, and was the seat of the Bankes family from 1636 to 1981, when it finally passed into the hands of the National Trust. The current house is the result of extensive remodelling during the eighteenth century, but owes its remarkable Egyptian collection to its nineteenth-century proprietor, the noted traveller and antiquarian William John Bankes (1786–1855) (Fig. 2.1). It was Bankes who brought the pink granite obelisk from Egypt and set it in dramatic isolation on the south lawn, facing the house (Fig. 2.2). ¹ Numbered 31 in Fraser’s manuscript; the new edition will appear as CPI 424 (TM 6331 and 103007). Contributors to the Philae Obelisk imaging project in 2014 were Alan Bowman, Charles Crowther, Uxue Rambla Eguilaz, Rachel Mairs, Jane Masséglia, Sarah Norodom, Maggy Sasanow, Kyriakos Savvopoulos, Gwyneth Thomas (CSAD and Oxford); Ben Altshuler, Roger Michel (Institute for Digital Archaeology); Lindsay MacDonald (UCL); Andrew Cuffley (GOM UK); James Grasby, Andy McLaughlin, and the staff of the Kingston Lacy Estate (National Trust). Jane Masséglia, Imaging Inscriptions: The Kingston Lacy Obelisk In: The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt. Edited by: Alan Bowman and Charles Crowther, Oxford University Press (2020). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198858225.003.0002

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

10

Imaging Inscriptions

Fig. 2.1. William John Bankes (1786–1855) by George Sandars, 1812 Reproduction courtesy of the Creative Commons

Fig. 2.2. The Philae Obelisk at Kingston Lacy, Dorset

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Jane Masséglia

11

The provenance of the obelisk was Philae, a small island in the Nile, dominated by a high-walled sanctuary and temple of Isis.² The Philae obelisk was one of a pair that stood in front of the east pylon of the temple and, significantly, was inscribed in both Greek and hieroglyphs. It was the proximity of the two scripts which caught Bankes’s eye while travelling in Egypt in 1815.³ The Greek texts—a combination of two painted⁴ and one long, incised inscription dating to the latter half of the second century —recorded the success of a petition by the priests of Philae to their king, Ptolemy VIII, and his sister (and first wife), Kleopatra II and his second wife Kleopatra III. Tired of absorbing the costs of the island’s many visitors, the priests had made an appeal for financial relief. On being granted a tax exemption, they celebrated their gratitude by recording a transcript of their communications in ancient Greek, the king’s own language,⁵ on the base of the obelisk beneath an inscription in Egyptian hieroglyphs on the shaft.⁶ At the time of Bankes’s visit, Egyptian hieroglyphs had not yet been deciphered and were the focus of intense academic interest. He therefore arranged to have the obelisk transported to England in the hope that it would offer him and his like-minded circle an opportunity to ‘crib’ the meaning of the hieroglyphs from the familiar Greek.

2.2 M OVIN G THE OBELISK In order to transport the great granite obelisk from Egypt to England, Bankes engaged the services of the resourceful and flamboyant Giovanni Battista Belzoni (Fig. 2.3). Belzoni, an engineer, excavator, and former circus strongman of 6ft 7in, had developed a reputation among collectors of antiquities

² By the twentieth century, the ancient island of Philae had become flooded, with its stones at risk from changing water levels (MacQuitty and MacQuitty (1976), 8). The Egyptian Antiquities Authority and UNESCO oversaw a block-by-block transportation and the reconstruction of Philae’s historic monuments on the nearby, and higher, island of Aigilkia (Edwards (1980)). Subsequent photographs of Philae, therefore, are of this careful anastylosis, not the original site. ³ Usick (2002), 21, Sebba (2004), 63–4. ⁴ The painted texts were not noticed in the first appraisal of the obelisk. They were later identified by one of Bankes’s workmen. Bankes then ‘found several letters traced in red paint; and on continuing his researches by different lights, mirrors, and also by the light of torches, he succeeded in deciphering the greater part’ (Lepsius (1839), 280). ⁵ Burstein (1985), 141–2, no. 108. ⁶ Budge (1904), I, 148–59. These hieroglyphs were unlikely to have been comprehensible to most ancient Egyptian visitors (Vassilika (1989), 156), but would have given a traditional ‘weight’ to the monument.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

12

Imaging Inscriptions

Fig. 2.3. Giovanni Battista Belzoni (1778–1823) by William Brockedon Reproduction courtesy of the Creative Commons

looking to transport their acquisitions home.⁷ The transportation of the Philae obelisk was especially challenging and began inauspiciously with an accident during its loading onto the boat that was to convey it along the Nile. Giovanni Finati, an eyewitness, recalled how: the obelisk had been brought on rollers to the water’s edge, and a boat below to receive it; all hands were at work, and five minutes more would have sufficed to set it afloat; when all at once the temporary pier built for it gave way under the pressure, and the monument plunged end long into the river almost out of sight . . . Mr Bankes said little, but was evidently disgusted by the accident, and set sail within a day or two afterwards, leaving me to witness Mr Belzoni’s further operations respecting it.⁸

After various further challenges,⁹ the obelisk arrived in London in September 1821, the first Egyptian obelisk on English soil.¹⁰ During its time in a ⁷ In his former occupation, he was billed as ‘the Patagonian Sampson’ (Mayes (1959), 31–2). It was Belzoni who oversaw the transportation of the great head of ‘the Younger Memnon’ (Ramesses II) to London: Mayes (1959), 123–31, Disher (1957), 78–91. Belzoni’s own account of his travels appears in a large colour volume, edited by Siliotti (2001). ⁸ Finati (1830), 308–9. ⁹ Zatterin (2000), 188–9, Usick (2002), 99–100. ¹⁰ A statement released by The Times on 13 October 1821, p.2, described the obelisk as ‘the first ever brought to England’. The report was subsequently syndicated in many of that year’s news annuals, e.g., The Gentleman’s Magazine, and Historical Chronicle 1821, 91.2, 354, The Annual Register of World Events: A Review of the Year 1821 63, 148, and The Philosophical Magazine and Journal 1821, 58.283, 393.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Jane Masséglia

13

warehouse in Deptford, George Scharf produced a series of detailed lithographs, illustrating both the inscriptions and the scale of the monument.¹¹ For the final leg of the journey to Dorset, the obelisk was transported in a gun carriage lent to Bankes by the Duke of Wellington, and arrived at Kingston Lacy in 1829.¹² Using granite from Libya donated by King George V, the damaged bottom of the main shaft was repaired and, finally, in 1830, the obelisk was raised into position by nineteen horses.¹³

2.3 THE PHILAE OBELISK AND THE DECIPHERMENT OF HIEROGLYPHS The English polymath, Thomas Young, a friend of Bankes, had already made an important observation in 1816: that framed groups of symbols (i.e. ‘cartouches’) which appeared on the Rosetta Stone were likely to represent royal names, and that one particularly frequent example was a phonetic representation of ‘Ptolemaios’.¹⁴ With the arrival of the Philae obelisk in England, Bankes began to distribute copies of the lithographs he had commissioned from Scharf among interested parties.¹⁵ Inspired by Young’s identification of the ‘Ptolemy’ cartouche, Bankes tentatively identified a second cartouche as ‘Cleopatra’, marking his suggestion in pencil in the margin of (at least some) of the lithographs he distributed.¹⁶ It transpired that Bankes was correct in his identification of the ‘Cleopatra’ cartouche, but two fundamental misunderstandings hampered further progress by him and the English circle: first, the Greek and Hieroglyphic texts on the Philae obelisk were not parallel texts, and so attempts to cross-reference them could have only limited success; second, both Young and Bankes maintained their belief that hieroglyphs were, in general, logographs (one symbol for one word). Remarkably, they continued to believe that the phonetic-syllabic method of the cartouches was an exception, devised to spell out the ruler’s foreign names for which there were no existing symbols.¹⁷ In France, however, Jean-François Champollion was taking a different approach, focusing on the derivative relationship between Demotic script

¹¹ Bankes (1821), plates 1–3. ¹² MacQuitty and MacQuitty (1976), 137–41; Usick (2002), 155, 195–6. ¹³ Finati (1830) 341: ‘The heaviest block weighs nearly eleven tons, and was not removed till 1822, nor brought to England till 1829, when nineteen horses were required to drag it to its position at Kingston Hall.’ ¹⁴ MacQuitty and MacQuitty (1976), 177. ¹⁵ Lepsius (1839), 280. ¹⁶ Adkins and Adkins (2000), 170. ¹⁷ Parkinson (1999), 31–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

14

Imaging Inscriptions

and hieroglyphs.¹⁸ By, in essence, reverse-engineering from Demotic to hieroglyphs, he produced a hypothetical cartouche for a royal name— ‘Cleopatra’. When he received, through his friend Jean Letronne, a copy of Bankes’s lithograph,¹⁹ he was able to verify that his hypothetical cartouche closely resembled one of those on the shaft of the Philae obelisk, a context in which the queen’s name was likely to be present. This confirmation of certain phonetic values and a belief in the relationship between Demotic and hieroglyphs allowed him to begin the process of deciphering the phonetic values of the latter, culminating in his famous Lettre à M. Dacier in 1822.²⁰ The reception of these breakthroughs was famously chilly, not least among Bankes’ own circle, who felt that credit for the incremental advances had not been duly given. Thomas Young felt aggrieved, as he considered himself the originator of the phonetic decipherment (although he failed to apply it), while Henry Salt claimed Champollion was dishonest in not acknowledging Bankes’s marginalia on the lithograph as his inspiration.²¹ But we might also argue that, with the ‘Ptolemy’ cartouche already identified, ‘Cleopatra’ was the obvious next step for anyone engaged in the decipherment. In the often nationalistic narratives which surround the decipherment of hieroglyphs, the Rosetta Stone has taken a leading role, but the Philae obelisk should be recognized as an important part of the cast.²²

2.4 NEW IMAGES OF THE OBELISK When the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions (CPI) project came to the edition of the Greek and Hieroglyphic texts on the Philae obelisk, it became clear that the monument required careful autopsy. First, there were no published photographs of either the Hieroglyphic or Greek texts in any epigraphic corpora; ¹⁸ Adkins and Adkins (2000), 176. Progress in the decipherment of Demotic had already begun at the turn of the nineteenth century, with the work of linguists such as J. H. Åkerblad (1763–1819) and Baron A. I. Silvestre de Sacy (1758–1838), for which, see Parkinson (1999), 31. ¹⁹ Lepsius (1839), 279–80. ²⁰ ‘Lettre à M. Dacier relative à l’alphabet des hiéroglyphes phonétiques’, to the Académie des Belles-Lettres in Paris on Friday, 27 September 1822. ²¹ Salt (1825), 7. The origin of Champollion’s ‘Kleopatra’ idea was also questioned by Lepsius: But it might be asked, ‘Where did Champollion obtain his previous acquaintance with the meaning of the Cleopatra cartouche, a name which was so evidently calculated to confirm that of Ptolemy?’ . . . all the elements upon which M. Champollion founded the induction which he published a year after that he had received the drawings of Mr. Bankes—viz. in 1822—had been furnished him by discoveries already made by the English upon monuments in England. (Lepsius (1839), 279–80) ²² For a more detailed account of the role of Bankes in the decipherment of hieroglyphs, see Usick (2002), 77–80.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Jane Masséglia

15

and, secondly, the Greek texts were barely visible to the naked eye. By 2014, the painted Greek texts noticed on its discovery had completely disappeared,²³ and the inscribed Greek text could only be read in full in raking light. Existing publications, such as that by André Bernand,²⁴ were heavily indebted to transcriptions made by Lepsius in the nineteenth century, which were themselves informed by Bankes’s own readings.²⁵ Fortunately, modern imaging technology could now be applied which would allow us to read what had survived and to both republish and conserve the texts in a digital format. The first of these new technologies was Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI), which the CSAD had already used with some success in the reading of the wooden stylus writing-tablets from Vindolanda and elsewhere.²⁶ At the time of the CPI project, a portable version of the RTI equipment, which could be used in the field and on much larger objects, was available, and its use was being spearheaded by Ben Altshuler, a visiting student supported by the Institute for Digital Archaeology. The second new technology was 3D imaging, generously offered by GOM UK, a commercial measurement firm, as an opportunity to apply their equipment to an unusual subject. With the assistance of the National Trust’s South-West Curator, James Grasby, and the Kingston Lacy Estate Manager, Andy McLaughlin, a plan was hatched to construct a scaffold around the obelisk to allow both imaging techniques (RTI and 3D) to be applied from base to tip (Fig. 2.4). After an initial period of cleaning and conservation by the National Trust, the imaging campaign began in September 2014. Both techniques required multiple images to be taken around all four faces of the obelisk, and on three difficult platforms of the scaffold. The imaging campaigns were made more challenging by the vagaries of the weather and light levels, the effect of movement and temperature on the equipment, the irresistible appeal to flying insects of the chemicals used by the conservation team, and the sheer height of the monument. Since the scaffolding was not strictly concentric around the obelisk, the distance between the camera and the face of the obelisk was inconsistent. In some cases, the gap between the stone and the platform was distractingly wide, and the teams had to be equipped with hard hats and harnesses for safety. Because of the configuration of the scaffold, which obstructed the base of the obelisk, only the Hieroglyphic text could be captured during the autumn campaign. The team returned in the spring of 2015 to complete the project and produce new images of the Greek texts.

²³ It appears that the painted Greek texts did not long survive in the English climate. The obelisk was inspected by Ulrich Wilcken in the late nineteenth century, by which time they had already disappeared: Wilcken (1887), 11–12. ²⁴ I.Philae 1, 19 A–C, 160–96. ²⁵ Bankes (1821), plate 3, Lepsius (1839), 270. ²⁶ Earl et al. (2011).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

16

Imaging Inscriptions

Fig. 2.4. Scaffolding around the Philae Obelisk, September 2014

2.5 THE RESULTS Once the data had been captured, both the RTI and 3D images could then be processed. For RTI, this meant the use of an open-access software to create an interactive digital display which can be manipulated by the user. On screen, an artificial ‘sun’ can be moved into any position over the inscription to highlight textural details, and additional settings (such as specular enhancement) can be used to remove colour from a ‘busy’ image. This was particularly useful for the Philae obelisk, where the distracting shapes created by the mottled pink granite could effectively be removed (Fig. 2.5). The quality of the RTI scans was further enhanced by Dr Lindsay MacDonald from University College London, who was able to correct the slight fish-eye effect caused by the camera lens and ensure that the images were uniformly aligned for pinpoint accuracy. The 400 images which had been taken in the course of the 3D imaging were processed using GOM UK’s own Inspect Software and merged into a single

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Jane Masséglia

17

Fig. 2.5. The ‘Cleopatra’ cartouche in various RTI settings: (a) normal lighting, (b) raking lighting, and (c) specular enhancement

Fig. 2.6. 3D scans of the obelisk’s (a) main shaft and (b) base Courtesy of GOM UK

point cloud. The result was a complete 3D image of the obelisk which can be spun and manipulated on-screen and could, if the need ever arose, underpin a 3D print of the obelisk and its inscriptions (Fig. 2.6). On the basis of these new images, some small corrections were possible to the incised Greek text, and the hieroglyphs in Scharf ’s lithograph were found to be reliable (especially remarkable as they were recorded without being understood). The imaging campaign, therefore, allowed the CPI team to produce a new edition of the obelisk, fully updated and with new translations of the texts on the base and all four faces of the shaft, as no. 424 in the Corpus.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

18

Imaging Inscriptions

Fig. 2.7. Possible traces of lettering in the area of the painted inscriptions

The search for the painted Greek inscriptions recorded by Bankes and Lepsius²⁷ proved more challenging. With all trace of the original red paint now gone, the team nonetheless discovered a number of potential letter strokes which may have been incised before the application of paint, and potentially of gilding (Fig. 2.7).²⁸ The RTI scans have effectively ‘frozen in time’ the current state of the inscriptions, and will allow further research on these traces.

2 . 6 PH I L A E I N THE NE WS It was serendipitous that, at exactly the same time that the imaging teams were completing their research on the Philae obelisk, the European Space Agency (ESA) was preparing to launch the Philae lander (containing the Ptolemy ²⁷ Published in Lepsius (1839), 279.

²⁸ A suggestion first made by Bankes (1821), 280.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Jane Masséglia

19

instrument) from the spacecraft Rosetta, to land on Comet 67P/Churyumov– Gerasimenko. The name of the mission and its constituent parts derived directly from the role of the eponymous multilingual inscriptions in the act of decipherment and the advancement of knowledge. On the day before the launch, the National Trust hosted a UK press conference at Kingston Lacy during which cometary scientists from the Philae lander team, and ancient historians representing the Philae obelisk team came together to present their methods and aims to assembled journalists. Dr Gerhard Schwehm, ESA’s Mission Manager for Rosetta, told the media: ‘The Oxford team like to say they are engaged in digital archaeology. We’re also doing some archaeology, if you like—but in space.’²⁹ Photographs and interviews with members of CSAD and the CPI project were published in the national press and online, bringing research at the cutting edge of epigraphy to public notice.

²⁹ ‘Egyptian Philae Obelisk Revealed Anew’, BBC online, 24 October, 2014: www.bbc.co.uk/ news/science-environment-29734975, accessed 18 July 2016.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

3 Beyond Rosetta Multilingual Inscriptions, the Antiquities Trade, and the Decipherment of Egyptian Scripts Rachel Mairs

3.1 TWO TEXTS ARE BETTER THAN ONE It is scarcely conceivable, by a person who has not made the experiment; how much the difficulty of reading a depraved character is almost universally diminished by the comparison of two or three copies of the same or of similar passages.¹

Thomas Young’s sentiment is still widely shared by those who work on the inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt, almost two hundred years later. Two fragmentary copies of a single Egyptian- or Greek-language text may be used to verify readings or reconstruct a more complete original. For multilingual texts, comparison of the Egyptian and Greek portions allows us to examine the cultural and political priorities of their writers, for example in the titles of kings and political and religious office holders. They allow us to establish equivalences between Egyptian and Greek concepts, people, and places, such as the equation of the Egyptian Hathor-who-is-in-Heaven with Aphrodite Ourania in one of the texts discussed in Section 3.4 below. Examining translation methodologies sheds light on the sociolinguistic situation in individual communities, and in Egypt as a whole. The discovery of multilingual texts in Egyptian and Greek was instrumental in the modern decipherment of Egyptian scripts. Although the Rosetta Stone is the most famous example, a large number of inscriptions and papyri played

¹ Young (1823), 63. Rachel Mairs, Beyond Rosetta: Multilingual Inscriptions, the Antiquities Trade, and the Decipherment of Egyptian Scripts In: The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt. Edited by: Alan Bowman and Charles Crowther, Oxford University Press (2020). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198858225.003.0003

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Rachel Mairs

21

a role in this scholarly endeavour; many of them are included in the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions (the Rosetta Stone will be republished as CPI 126). Invaluable though multilingual inscriptions are to our understanding of language, script, and society in Ptolemaic Egypt, their potential is often impeded by the circumstances of their discovery and sale on the antiquities market. Many inscriptions in the Corpus consist of fragments in more than one modern collection. The history of their modern ownership and the role they have played in Egyptological scholarship are inextricably linked. The examples discussed here come from inscriptions now located in Egypt, Europe, and North America, as well as some whose present location (or very survival) is uncertain. Although some were discussed by scholars as early as the expedition of Napoleon, the significance of others has been recognized only recently.

3.2 AN INSCRIPTIO N AT MENOUF In October 1820, the French naturalist Frédéric Cailliaud, becalmed near Menouf in the Nile Delta, decided to kill some time by tracking down an inscription mentioned in the Description de l’Égypte.² The stone in question, bearing a bilingual Demotic-Greek text, had not been seen (at least by foreigners) for some time. Cailliaud knew that the French consul in Alexandria and other resident Europeans had searched for it in vain, and would be interested to have more information on it. As he walked through the streets of Menouf, examining ancient stones reused in the construction of modern houses, he attracted a crowd of amused onlookers. Finally, Cailliaud gave up and told his new entourage what he was looking for. A Copt ‘d’un air mystérieux’ offered to lead him to the inscription. Cailliaud’s guide took him into the local prison, and showed him a mastaba (bench) which he said had been constructed using the stone of the inscription eighteen years previously. The jailer was reluctant to let Cailliaud demolish the mastaba, but gave in to his own curiosity, and a tip, and had it broken apart. Helped by the prisoners, Cailliaud was able to turn the block of black granite until he found the inscription. No Demotic was visible, but some lines of Greek were preserved. Cailliaud gives neither dimensions nor any indication of the content of the text. According to some of the older locals, the stone had been moved to its present location shortly after the departure of the French army. It had been broken during transport, and the other part of the stone— presumably that bearing the Demotic inscription—had been used in construction at some unknown location elsewhere in the town. Unable to get

² Cailliaud (1826), 289–92.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

22

Beyond Rosetta

permission to copy the inscription, either from the jailer or by contacting the consul, Cailliaud returned to his boat and the next morning caught a north wind and sailed on to Cairo. From Cairo, he wrote to the French consul, Bernardino Drovetti, recounting his visit to Menouf and rediscovery of the inscription. Taking the stone itself, he thought, was not worth the effort, but if Drovetti were able to make a facsimile of the stone, he would appreciate a copy: ‘Si à votre passage venant au Caire vous vouliez faire prendre la pierre, ou au moins une copie de l’inscription, car je crois que pour la pierre elle n’en vaut pas la peine, je vous serai infiniment obligé de m’en conserver une copie.’³ Nineteen years earlier, in autumn 1799, Jean-Baptiste Jollois and JeanMarie du Bois-Aymé, members of Napoleon’s expedition, had found the Menouf bilingual inscription reused in a house.⁴ The site was otherwise an unpromising one for antiquities; a member of the British expedition which displaced the French wrote only that ‘Menouf is a wretched place, and has a fort of a miserable construction.’⁵ Both parts of the inscription—the ‘cursive’ and the Greek—were poorly preserved. Jollois and du Bois-Aymé recognized that the cursive characters were the same script as used on the Rosetta Stone. Of the Greek, they were able to make out only the first few words, which they read βασιλέος νέου αἰεὶ υω [sic] ‘Du jeune Roi, toujours &c.’ (‘of the young king, always, etc.’)—which remains the full text of the inscription in the Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (SEG 8 471). Jollois and du BoisAymé proposed that the Menouf inscription, like the Rosetta Stone, was a priestly decree in honour of the king, and furthermore that ‘l’analogie remarquable qui existe entre ces deux pierres, porte naturellement à conclure que celle de Menouf avoit aussi une troisième en caractères hiéroglyphiques’.⁶ Du Bois-Aymé retained sufficient interest in the inscription to mention it in a letter to Drovetti as late as 1819, requesting that the latter find and remove it.⁷ This letter may have had something to do with Cailliaud’s visit of the following year. The Menouf inscription makes its next appearance in 1823, in Thomas Young’s Account of Some Recent Discoveries in Hieroglyphical Literature, and Egyptian Antiquities. It was not mentioned by Jean-François Champollion in his Lettre à M. Dacier of the previous year, and this is significant. Although Young takes care to state that ‘I fully and sincerely acquit Mr. Champollion of any intentions actually dishonourable’,⁸ his whole Account is an extended

³ ‘If on your journey to Cairo you would like to take the stone, or at least a copy of the inscription, since I think that it would not be worth the trouble for the stone (itself), I would be infinitely obliged to you if you would keep me a copy of it’: Curto and Donatelli (1985), no. 124. ⁴ Description de l’Égypte VI, État moderne II (1812), 98–9. ⁵ Wilson (1802), 112. ⁶ ‘The remarkable analogy which exists between these two stones leads (us) naturally to conclude that that of Menouf also had a third (part) in hieroglyphic characters.’ ⁷ Curto and Donatelli (1985), no. 95. ⁸ Young (1823), 39.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Rachel Mairs

23

response to Champollion’s recent publication. Young contends that his own role in the collaborative scholarly endeavour to decipher ancient Egyptian scripts has not been sufficiently recognized. As well as indicating the ways in which Champollion’s discoveries built upon his own research, Young seizes the opportunity to publish new material and propose new readings of Demotic characters: Young—ever a master of overlong sentences—relates: I thought myself extremely fortunate, in my return from the short excursion to Rome and Naples, that I made in the autumn of 1821, to have discovered at Leghorn [Livorno], among a multitude of Egyptian antiquities, belonging to Mr Drovetti, the French consul at Alexandria, which had long lain warehoused there, a stone containing an enchorial and a Greek inscription, which was known to have existed formerly at Menouf, but which had been lost and almost forgotten by European travellers in Egypt.⁹

Young could not read the inscriptions in the poor light of the warehouse, and could not get permission from the merchants under whose keeping the collection was to move it to make a copy. Even as he travelled on to Pisa, the inscription continued to weigh on his mind; he recognized its similarities to the Rosetta Stone and was concerned that it might be damaged or destroyed before the texts could be studied. He therefore wrote to the caretakers of the inscription, proposing the following plan: Young would send an artist from Florence to make tracings and plaster impressions of the inscription. These copies would belong to Drovetti, who could sell them to Young or the British Museum if he saw fit, or keep them himself. If the inscription was sold on and somehow lost, a copy would thus be preserved. This was a reasonable fear: during the transport of the collection from Livorno to the Museo Egizio in Turin, in 1824, some pieces were indeed damaged.¹⁰ In the end, no copy was made: the artist dispatched from Florence did not do his job, and Drovetti refused to part with the inscription or permit a copy to be made. It would be seven years before Young was able to examine the contents of the inscription. Young was disappointed in his goal to use Drovetti’s inscription to confirm his readings of signs on the Rosetta Stone. All he knew of the contents of the Menouf inscription was what was included in the Description de l’Égypte. He had corresponded on the subject with Edmé François Jomard, editor of the Description, and concluded that the garbled text recorded by Jollois and du Bois-Aymé must refer to Ptolemy Neos Dionysos. His disappointment was tempered, however, by a serendipitous discovery: that of a Greek papyrus from the archive of the Theban choachytai (mortuary officers) which was a translation of a Demotic text which Champollion had earlier examined in Paris.

⁹ Young (1823), 34–5.

¹⁰ Curto and Donatelli (1985), no. 221.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

24

Beyond Rosetta

The Greek opens with the statement that it is an ἀντίγραϕ[ον συ]νγραϕῆς Αἰγυπτίας μεθηρμηνε[υ]μένης κατὰ δύ[ναμιν] ‘a copy of an Egyptian document translated as far as possible’ (UPZ II 175; P.Choach. Survey 12, l. 1). This is still one of the very few preserved pairs of translated Greek-Demotic documents, and its value as evidence of linguistic and cultural interaction in Ptolemaic Egypt is, as Young recognized, immense.¹¹ How, then did the inscription get from Menouf in 1820 to Livorno in 1821? Did Drovetti manage to acquire it, at du Bois-Aymé’s prompting, even though Cailliaud thought it not worth his while? The answer, unfortunately, is that it did not. As the Young-Champollion spat continued, the Menouf inscription continued to play a part in it. In June 1824, Champollion wrote to his elder brother, Jacques-Joseph Champollion-Figéac, from Turin, saying that he still held out hope of finding the Menouf stone among the numerous unopened cases of the Drovetti collection, now in the Museo Egizio.¹² He was, however, able to examine a bilingual decree of the priests of Amonrasonther. Later, it became clear that this bilingual was the ‘Menouf inscription’ of Young’s account. It was Champollion l’aîné who pointed out—with, one suspects, a certain pleasure—that the inscription Young had glimpsed in a dark Livorno warehouse could not have been the inscription seen at Menouf by Cailliaud and the compilers of the Description:¹³ it differed in too many particulars.¹⁴ So Cailliaud’s visit in 1820 is in fact the last anyone saw of the Menouf inscription. Georges Daressy made enquiries about it in the 1920s, but when Tewfik Effendi Boulos (later Chief Inspector of the Department of Antiquities) visited Menouf, he found the prison long gone and its site covered by recent construction.¹⁵ The Menouf inscription remains a puzzle. Was it really a trilingual decree (with missing Hieroglyphic portion), as the savants of Napoleon’s expedition first thought? Did Young guess correctly that a reference to Ptolemy (XII) Neos Dionysos ‘Auletes’ lay behind the mangled 1799 transcription? It seems unlikely that both of these suppositions can be correct, although either is possible on its own. Any trilingual decree of Ptolemy XII would postdate the latest currently attested such inscription by over a hundred years. It is to be hoped that the Menouf inscription was simply another copy of one of the attested priestly decrees; if it was an original text, then it is lost, and nothing much can be done about that.

¹¹ See further Mairs (2018). ¹² Hartleben (1909), I, 19–20. ¹³ Champollion-Figéac (1824). ¹⁴ Champollion-Figéac took his information from a paper read by Amedeo Peyron in Turin some months earlier. Peyron’s description of the inscription, and correction of Young’s attribution to Menouf, was not published until the following year, in the Memorie dell’Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, Vol. 29. ¹⁵ Daressy (1923).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Rachel Mairs

25

3.3 THE DECREE IN HONOUR OF KALLIMACHOS The Menouf stone is not included in the new Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions since it was never fully described or published. The inscription which Young saw in Livorno and Champollion in Turin, however, is. It is numbered 14 in Fraser’s manuscript, a priestly synod decree of 18 March 39  in honour of Kallimachos (see Fig. 3.1), a member of a prominent family from Upper Egypt. It will be republished as CPI 387 (TM 6325, P.Feste 5). Like the Menouf stone, it is made of black granite, which explains in part Young’s misidentification. In the upper field of the stele, a winged sun disc hovers above a symmetrical scene with a king and queen, depicted in traditional Egyptian style, offering to the gods Amon-Ra and Montu. A vertical band of Hieroglyphic text runs down the centre of the lunette. Hieroglyphic captions give the names and titles of the king and queen. Twelve lines of Demotic and thirty-two of Greek follow below. Scholars have worked on this inscription for almost two hundred years. Although the full editio princeps was not to be published until 1829, the inscription achieved a certain celebrity even before this because of its potential to aid in the decipherment of Egyptian scripts. Divine and royal names in the Greek could be compared with the Hieroglyphic captions. The instruction that τὸ δὲ ψ̣ήϕισμα ἀναγράψαι εἰς στήλην λιθίνην τοῖς τε Ἑλληνικοῖς καὶ ἐγ̣χ̣ωρίοις γράμμασι (l. 30: ‘the decree is to be set up on a stone stele, in both Greek and native letters’) further revealed that the Demotic and Greek texts were translations of one another, and that the inscription might therefore be used to help decipher Demotic. The inscription was also of historical interest, since the queen and king depicted on the stele and named in the Greek were Kleopatra VII and her son by Julius Caesar, ‘Ptolemy also called Kaisar’ (l. 2 [Π]τολεμ̣αίο̣υ̣ τοῦ καὶ Καίσαρ̣ος), commonly nicknamed ‘Kaisarion’. The two scholars keenest to work on the inscription were naturally Young and Champollion. Using the Greek text, Champollion was able to confirm his readings of several signs in the Hieroglyphic portion of the text, notably the name of the god Amon-Ra. The Demotic text, he found to be ‘dans un état presque désespéré’.¹⁶ Young finally got his copy of the text on a visit to Geneva in 1828, when: I received from Turin, by the kindness of the Chevalier San Quintino, some very excellent casts of the bilingual inscription which I wished to purchase of Drovetti seven years ago: though I am sorry to say I fear I shall not be able to decipher but very few words of the enchorial part. The hieroglyphic inscription, although short, is of great importance.¹⁷

¹⁶ ‘In an almost hopeless state’: letter to his brother, 1824: Hartleben (1909), I, 19–20. ¹⁷ Letter to François Arago, printed in The Classical Journal 38/75 (1828), 161–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

26

Beyond Rosetta

Fig. 3.1. CPI 387: Decree in honour of Kallimachos

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Rachel Mairs

27

Giulio Cordero di San Quintino, curator of the Museo Egizio, had in fact pleaded Young’s case with Drovetti, in a letter of 1824. He had read Young’s Account and sympathized with his frustration at being unable to copy the inscription. Drovetti’s refusal, Cordero di San Quintino wrote, was unworthy of him.¹⁸ He added that study of the inscription had been entrusted to Amedeo Peyron, and asked for further information about the circumstances of its discovery. He knew only what he had heard, that it was found at Thebes and had been purchased by Drovetti for a large sum. I have been unable to find out anything further about the circumstances of the inscription’s acquisition by Drovetti. Drovetti was at Karnak in the autumn of 1818, which may be when he acquired it. Any knowledge of its precise provenance, still less its immediate archaeological context, is lost. The editio princeps of the Kallimachos stele was published in 1829 by Peyron, whom Champollion had described, ‘plein d’ardeur’, revelling in the Greek papyri of the Museo Egizio during his 1824 visit. The main Hieroglyphic text, Peyron reads ‘Così dice Amon Ra generatore delle tre Zone del mondo, dell’inondazione, e delle regioni di Opt, e Mandu creatore dell’alta regione; noi ti abbiamo dato vita divina, stabilità, regio potere.’¹⁹ The CPI 387 version of the text, in transliteration and translation, is as follows: ḏd mdw ἰn Ἰmn-RꜤ nb ns.wt tꜢ.wy ḫnt.t Ἰpt-swt Mntw ̱ nb WꜢs.t dἰ.n=n n=k Ꜥnḫ ḏd wꜢs nb ḫr n=n mἰ RꜤ ḏt Words to be said by Amun-Ra, lord of the thrones of the Two Lands, foremost of Ipet-Sut (Karnak), Montu, lord of Thebes: ‘We have given to you all life, stability, strength which falls to us, like Ra, forever.’

Peyron’s reading is inaccurate in many respects, but nevertheless reveals how much progress had been made in the decipherment of the Hieroglyphic script since the breakthroughs of the early 1820s. Like Champollion, Peyron was frustrated in his attempts to read the Demotic. The letters were so shallow that he could not make out a single word—but then, as he noted with some comfort, neither could Champollion or Young. There has been little progress in the reading of the Demotic since. Aside from editorial conventions, Peyron’s Greek text differs little from more modern readings. He offers only the most conservative of restorations. His commentary on the Greek focuses on the historical importance of the inscription, chiefly the appearance of Kleopatra VII and her son by Julius Caesar. Kallimachos himself receives very little attention, and his titles are discussed relatively briefly. ¹⁸ Curto and Donatelli (1985), no. 221. ¹⁹ Peyron (1829), 5: ‘So says Amon Ra, generator of the three zones of the world, of the flood and of the regions of Opt, and Mandu creator of the high region; we have given you divine life, stability, and royal power.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

28

Beyond Rosetta

In the 1820s, scholars engaged in the decipherment of Egyptian scripts had only a small number of bilingual texts, or groups of texts, to work with. Young, as we have seen, had been distracted from pursuing the ‘Menouf inscription’ (actually the decree in honour of Kallimachos) by the discovery of a Greek papyrus from Thebes (UPZ II 175; P.Choach. Survey 12, l. 1, quoted in Section 3.2 above). By coincidence (the early years of modern Egyptian philology were full of fortunate coincidences) the name of the Egyptian god Amonrasonther appears in both the stele of Kallimachos and this Theban papyus. Like the Greek names of the Rosetta Stone, it was therefore a potential key to the phonetic value of certain Hieroglyphic signs. Using his knowledge of Coptic, Peyron spends some time tying himself up in knots, trying to find a plausible Egyptian root of Amonrasonther. He then turns to the Hieroglyphic portion of the Kallimachos stele to attempt to find the Hieroglyphic signs which were to be read ‘sonther’. (The characters for Amon-Ra had already been securely identified.) Following the name Ἰmn-RꜤ in the Hieroglyphic text, Peyron found a sign which was familiar to him, and the subject of competing interpretations by Champollion, Young, and Ippolito Rosellini. This character is now read nb. Champollion read it as an ancestor of the Coptic nēb ‘lord’, Rosellini as nim ‘every’, and Young translated it ‘bestowing’. Champollion and Rosellini were both correct. As a noun, nb means ‘lord’, and as an adjective, following a noun, ‘all’ or ‘every’; it still causes confusion among elementary students. Unfortunately for Peyron, the Amon-Ra named in the Hieroglyphic text was not actually the Amonrasonther of the Greek (which would have been ἸmnRꜤ-nsw-ntṟ w ‘Amon Ra, King of the Gods’), but Amon-Ra Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands (Ἰmn-RꜤ-nb-nswt-tꜢwy). In this case, the Greek could not act as a key to the Egyptian; not every multilingual inscription was a Rosetta Stone.

3.4 F OUNDATION PLAQ UES FROM A TEMPLE OF HATHOR-APHRODITE A set of bilingual foundation plaques of Ptolemy IV Philopator, dedicated to Aphrodite Ourania, also known as Hathor-who-is-in-Heaven, present an interesting—and in many ways frustrating—case of pieces dispersed on the antiquities market and brought together in modern scholarship (these are discussed in detail with a different perspective by Dorothy J. Thompson in Ch. 7 of this volume). Although they were not used in the decipherment of Egyptian scripts, the name of the Rosetta Stone has been invoked in connection with them. The Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions includes several sets of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Rachel Mairs

29

such foundation plaques, bearing Hieroglyphic Egyptian and Greek text. Two of these sets are complete, and come from controlled excavations at the Sarapieion of Alexandria (CPI 12 and CPI 18). They comprise ten pieces: one each of gold, silver, bronze, and mud, the six remaining in faience or glass of various colours. The foundation plaques for Aphrodite/Hathor are listed as five separate items in the Corpus (CPI 324): Hieroglyphic: nsw-bἰty Ptwlmys Ꜥnḫ ḏt mry Ἰst sꜢ n nsw-bἰty Ptwlmys ḥnꜤ nb(.t) tꜢ.wy BrnyḳꜢ.t nt ṟ .wy mnḫ.wy n Ḥ wt-Ḥ r r nty pt The King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Ptolemy, living forever, beloved of Isis, son of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt Ptolemy and the mistress of the two lands Berenike, the benevolent gods, to Hathor who is in heaven. Greek:

4

Βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης Βερενίκης Θεῶν Εὐεργετῶν Ἀϕροδίτηι Οὐρανίαι.

King Ptolemy, son of King Ptolemy and Queen Berenike, the Beneficent Gods, to Aphrodite Ourania.

In order of publication or citation, the attested pieces are: 1. A gold plaque, seen by Breccia on the antiquities market in Egypt, moving between Cairo and Alexandria. He did not purchase it, because the provenance was not known.²⁰ The dealer said that this piece, and No. 2, below, came from Hadra, but Breccia did not find this plausible. This item is now in a private collection in Athens, belonging to a Greek family formerly resident in Alexandria.²¹ 2. A plaque in ‘terra cotta smaltata’ (i.e. faience, but this was frequently confused with glass by early dealers, and so may be identical with one of the other plaques). It was described by the same antiquities dealer in whose possession Breccia saw No. 1. The Egyptian dealer said that this was now in the hands of a dealer in Paris.²² 3. A glass plaque purchased by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1948.²³ 4. Another purchased by the British Museum in 1959.²⁴

²⁰ Breccia (1931), 276. ²¹ Now published as Savvopoulos (2018). ²² Breccia (1931), 276. ²³ Hayes (1948); Accession Number 48.45. ²⁴ Shore (1961); BM EA 65844.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

30

Beyond Rosetta 5 and 6. Two glass plaques acquired in London around 1960, in the private collection of Charles Ratton in Paris at the time of their first publication,²⁵ now in the Schøyen Collection (MS 204).

The Sarapieion examples suggest that the original number of plaques was ten. Of these, five are lost or otherwise unavailable to scholars, and only four are now in publicly accessible collections. Fraser proposed that the original provenance was a temple of Hathor at Koussai (modern al-Qūṣiya), in Middle Egypt, mentioned by Aelian as being the site of a cult of Aphrodite Ourania, where a cow (i.e. Hathor) was also worshipped.²⁶ It is possible to partially reconstruct the trajectory of these foundation plaques through antiquities markets in Egypt, Europe, and North America, collectively and individually. Their earliest appearance on the market is around 1930, so they came from unofficial excavations before this date. In 1931, at least one was in Egypt (No. 1: gold) and one in Paris (No. 2: faience?). The location of the others at this time is unknown. By 1948, one was in New York (No. 3: glass). This plaque is listed in the online catalogue of the Metropolitan Museum of Art as having been purchased from one Jerome Mallon, supported by the Jacob S. Rogers Fund (Accession Number 48.45). It appears to be the only item in the Metropolitan’s collection to have come from Mallon, a real estate appraiser from Philadelphia. According to his obituary, Mallon (1918–99) served in the US Army during the Second World War and was a frequent traveller.²⁷ The only information recorded on the object’s provenance, in its first publication, is that ‘the plaque is said by its former owner to have been obtained in Upper Egypt’.²⁸ Mallon may have either bought it in Egypt himself, or acquired it from someone who did. Since he was aged just twelve in 1930, it most probably only passed into his hands some considerable time after the first discovery of the deposit. In 1959–60 three of the pieces were to be found in London, and here it becomes difficult to separate out their histories. The British Museum piece (Registration Number 1959, 1212.45) was purchased from the auction house Spink and Son, from the sale of the collection of Rev. George Denis Nash (Cork 1866–Hollywood 1943). The British Museum acquired many items from the same sale. Unlike Mallon, we can place Nash in Egypt in the early 1930s. He took a round-the-world trip in 1906,²⁹ and travelled frequently over the next four decades. He seems to have made a habit of wintering in Egypt in the 1920s and 1930s. Passenger manifests record him arriving in Southampton from Alexandria in late March 1927, 1930, and 1932 and in Port Said from

²⁵ Clère (1963). ²⁶ Aelian, Nat. Anim. 10.27; Fraser (1956). ²⁷ The Philadelphia Enquirer, 18 October 1999. ²⁸ Hayes (1948), 114. ²⁹ Los Angeles Herald, 28 September 1906.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Rachel Mairs

31

London in January 1930 and 1932.³⁰ So it is quite possible that he acquired his plaque at around the same time as Breccia saw two others on the market. Nash was wealthy (he left an estate of £141,560 3s. 4d³¹) and spent heavily on antiquities. In 1931, his wife lent her collection of ancient Egyptian jewellery to the Egypt Exploration Society. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology recorded that this exhibition ‘would not have been possible without the ready co-operation of many collectors, among whom Mr. H. S. Beck and Mrs. G. D. Nash laid the Society under particular obligation’.³² Nash collected under the guidance of Egyptologists such as Alan Wynn Shorter of the British Museum and V. S. Golenischeff, a Russian collector who travelled frequently to Egypt before settling there permanently in 1909.³³ It is at present impossible to say whether the two other glass plaques (Nos. 5 and 6) also came from Nash’s collection. Circumstantial evidence (their acquisition in London c.1960, when Nash’s collection was sold off following the death of his widow) suggests that they did. If so, why did the British Museum not acquire all three? They may have been split across more than one auction, or the British Museum may simply have been outbid. When Clère published the plaques in 1963, they were in the possession of Charles Ratton (1895–1986), a collector and dealer best known for his contribution to the study of ‘primitive’ and outsider art. Ratton did also collect Egyptian antiquities: many small pieces of Egyptian glass and faience inlay were included in the collection of his widow, Madeleine Meunier, auctioned by Christie’s in Paris in December 2016. Ratton had acquired his plaques about three years earlier (i.e. 1960) from a dealer in London. Clère had no information on their location before this date. In 1988, after Ratton’s death, the plaques were auctioned by Christie’s (Fine Antiquities, Tuesday 13 December 1988, Lots 253 and 254). The provenance given is the Temple of Hathor at Koussai, and reference is made to the Clère article, but no information is provided on the objects’ ownership history. The catalogue estimate was £400–600 for one plaque, £500–800 for the other. No reason is given for the difference in estimates. Lot 254 was illustrated in the catalogue; 253 was not. The prices realized were significantly higher: £7700 and £8250, including 10 per cent buyer’s premium. Bidding had evidently been fierce. We cannot now know which individuals or institutions were so keen to acquire the plaques, but the winner was the Schøyen Collection, where they are held today, billed as ‘Miniature Rosetta Stones’ (www.schoyencollection.com/papyri-ostraca-collection/hieroglyphic/ miniature-rosetta-stones-ms-204). Ironically, for pieces so long separated ³⁰ UK, Outward Passenger Lists, 1890–1960, https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/ 2997/, accessed 3 December 2019. ³¹ England & Wales, National Probate Calendar (Index of Wills and Administrations), 1858–1966, 1973–1995, https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/1904/, accessed 3 December 2019. ³² JEA 17 (1931), 254. ³³ Reeves (1988), 98.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

32

Beyond Rosetta

from the provenance and assemblage necessary to understand them, they were shown in the exhibition ‘Preservation for Access: Originals and copies’ at the Astrup Fearnley Museum of Modern Art in Oslo, from 3 June–14 July 1996, in conjunction with the 1st International Memory of the World Conference, organized by the Norwegian Commission for UNESCO and the National Library of Norway. The description of the Schøyen plaques as ‘Miniature Rosetta Stones’ on the Collection’s online catalogue shows the popular currency—and commercial value—of multilingual inscriptions from Egypt, however innocently this comparison may be invoked.

3.5 A SPHINX FROM KOPTOS Part of a sphinx from Koptos, with Greek and Demotic dedication to Koptite Min (CPI 350), may be found in the University of Pennsylvania Museum (Object Number E2499). The Museum received it as a distribution from the Egyptian Research Account in 1898, from Petrie’s 1893–4 excavations at Koptos; it is not mentioned in Petrie’s publication of his work at the site (Petrie 1896). Distribution lists from the archives of the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology at University College London show that items from these excavations went to Cairo, Berlin, Bonn, Leipzig, Manchester, and Oxford, as well as Philadelphia.³⁴ The Cairo fragment of the sphinx, bearing a Demotic text, receives a brief description in Borchardt’s Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleuten im Museum von Kairo IV (CG 1294, 1934). Its location prior to this date is not known; presumably it was allotted to the Cairo Museum around the same time as the other piece was given to Philadelphia. Borchardt includes a sketch of the Demotic, but provides neither transcription nor translation. The description is purely art-historical (with details irrelevant to the philologist such as ‘Hoden sichtbar’). We are told that the head, forelimbs, and left side of the rear body are missing, but no information is given on provenance or the location of the missing piece, nor does Borchardt appear to have known that it bore Greek text. Although the fragment was in Cairo at the time of the compilation of Borchardt’s catalogue, Vleeming states that ‘reportedly, the lion CGC 1294 is in the Museum of Port Said’.³⁵ The National Museum of Port Said was officially opened in 1987, and appears to have received much of its collection from the National Museum in Cairo. There is no published

³⁴ ‘Distribution of Finds from Koptos’, Digital Egypt for Universities: www.ucl.ac.uk/mu seums-static/digitalegypt/archaeology/koptosdistribution.html, accessed 27 January 2017. ³⁵ Short Texts 1, no. 118.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Rachel Mairs

33

catalogue of the Port Said collection and the sphinx does not appear in the brief guidebook produced for the museum’s opening.³⁶ Without knowledge of the Philadelphia piece and its Greek inscription, Borchardt could only estimate a date (‘Spätzeit’). The separation of these two fragments in 1894 made it impossible for scholars to take full account of this piece and its significance for over a hundred years. It received full publication only in 2001, in Vleeming’s edition, which brings together both Greek and Demotic for the first time. This edition has been used in the CPI entry: Demotic: A Mἰn Ḳbṱ pꜢ nt ṟ [ꜤꜢ dἰ.t] Ꜥnḫ n ⸢Hgr⸣ sꜢ PꜢ-dἰ-Ἰmn B [Mἰn] Ḳbṱ pꜢ ntṟ ꜤꜢ dἰ.t Ꜥnḫ n Hgr sꜢ PꜢ-dἰ-[Ἰmn] Koptite Min, the great god, gives life to Hagar, son of Petamun. Greek: [Π]ανὶ Εὐόδ[ωι… Δ]ιονύσιος Σ[…] To Pan of the Good Road, Dionysios, (son of?) S… Although the equation between Koptite Min and Pan Euodos is a well-attested one, at Koptos and at other sites such as the Paneion at el-Kanais, it is not clear whether both sections of this bilingual Demotic-Greek dedication were made at the same time by the same person. Even if Dionysios were the Greek name used by Hagar, the following word in the Greek, presumably the patronymic, begins with a sigma, not the expected pi of Petamounis. Hagar (Greek: Hakoris) is a name of Semitic origin, found most frequently in Middle Egypt.³⁷ Reuniting the two texts on this sphinx, therefore, complicates rather than simplifies the picture. The analogy of the Rosetta Stone, once again, is far from applicable to this multilingual inscription.

3. 6 CON CLU SI ON The study of all these inscriptions has been affected—in many cases, compromised—by the circumstances of their excavation and passage into modern collections, public and private. The catalogues of major auction houses, even today, rarely document an item’s provenance and chain of ownership in any detail, and often accept the word of consigners on where and how they acquired the items.³⁸ The possibilities for abuse of the system, ³⁶ Matḥaf Būr Sa`īd al-Qawmī (1986). ³⁷ Clarysse (1991) collects and discusses the small number of examples in the papyri. ³⁸ Brodie (2014), Mazza (2015). In a period spent working in the rare book trade, I also observed how poorly documented provenance often was, and how little this troubled some who should have known better.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

34

Beyond Rosetta

especially given the current political instability in Egypt and the Middle East, are obvious. Items which passed into overseas collections before the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property may not count as ‘illegal’ according to modern definitions, but they were often brought from the ground to the display case in ways that stripped them of their archaeological and historical context, in times of European economic and political dominance over Egypt. Egypt’s heritage (and more particularly its Graeco-Roman heritage) was appropriated by the West, and the contributions of Egyptian scholars to Egyptological and classical scholarship have, until recently, been neglected—especially when they have written in Arabic.³⁹ Bilingual inscriptions and papyri from Hellenistic Egypt are not numerous, and those where the Greek and Egyptian texts are translations are fewer still. When Thomas Young matched up the Demotic-Greek translations from the archive of the Theban choachytai, he was amazed that: a most extraordinary chance had brought into my possession a document which was not very likely, in the first place, to have existed, still less to have been preserved uninjured, for my information, through a period of near two thousand years: but that this very extraordinary translation should have been brought safely to Europe, to England, and to me, at the very moment when it was most of all desirable to me to possess it, as the illustration of an original which I was then studying, but without any other reasonable hope of being able fully to comprehend it; this combination would, in other times, have been considered as affording ample evidence of my having become an Egyptian sorcerer.⁴⁰

Young was not a sorcerer, and the simultaneous appearance of the two documents was not a coincidence. They will have been excavated, in the same place, at the same time, by the same people, and passed through the hands of the same dealers, before being purchased, separately, by Europeans. It was the antiquities trade that separated them, not the passage of two thousand years. The multilingual inscriptions discussed here show how common an occurrence this was, and that it can take considerable time and scholarly ingenuity to restore and reassemble their dispersed pieces.

³⁹ See, for example, Colla (2007), Reid (2002), and the Classics in Arabic blog maintained by Usama Ali Gad: http://classicsinarabic.blogspot.co.uk/. ⁴⁰ Young (1823), 58.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

4 Greek Texts on Egyptian Monuments Willy Clarysse

4.1 I NTRODUCTION The subject of this chapter is the combination of Greek texts with monuments or objects in Egyptian style. As a rule, Greek and Egyptian monuments each have their own style and text and are kept neatly apart. A well-known example is the tombstones for Aphrodisia and Hathor-ity found in el-Hassaya near Edfou. Aphrodisia receives a Greek epigram, signed by the poet Herodes, on a Greek funerary stele (with triangular pediment) (Fig. 4.1),¹ Hathor-ity is honoured with a Hieroglyphic text on a typically Egyptian stele (Fig. 4.2), with the winged sun disc above an offering scene.² In fact Aphrodisia is the Greek name of the lady who is called Hathor-ity in Egyptian.³ One can envisage a tomb with a Greek and an Egyptian section, as in some Alexandrian catacombs, where a Greek scene with the abduction of Persephone is represented below a funerary scene with Osiris.⁴ This study is limited to texts that are part of the monument, either from the start or in a form of reuse. It does not take into account Greek graffiti (often proskynemata), where the Greek text is added to the Egyptian monument at a later stage. Though it might be interesting to study this kind of text, e.g. the poems on the Memnon colossi or the Greek signatures in the Syringes or in the Paneion of El-Kanais, this remains outside the scope of this chapter.⁵ I do include inscriptions on mummies and on sarcophagi, but not texts written on the mummy portraits (see Section 4.2.5 below).

¹ CPI 403 TM 43979 I.Métriques 35. ² CGC 22018 TM 44169. ³ Cf. Yoyotte (1969); the texts are discussed in Clarysse (1985), Gorre (2009), 17–22, and Vandorpe (2018), Chs. 18 and 19. ⁴ Guimier-Sorbets et al. (2015). ⁵ I have also excluded bilingual foundation deposits (e.g. CPI 12 TM 6209 and CPI 18 TM 6210) and bilingual mummy labels. Willy Clarysse, Greek Texts on Egyptian Monuments In: The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt. Edited by: Alan Bowman and Charles Crowther, Oxford University Press (2020). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198858225.003.0004

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

36

Greek Texts on Egyptian Monuments

Fig. 4.1. CPI 403: Funerary epigram of Aphrodisia

It is not always easy to see whether a Greek text belonged to the Egyptian object from the outset—as is clearly the case with the inscriptions of Parthenios in Koptos or with I.Louvre 90 (TM 103028), where the three brothers mentioned in the text are represented in the scene above it—or if it is a later reuse of an existing monument.⁶ ⁶ e.g. the Kallimachos stele (CPI 387 TM 6325, OGIS 1 194), a New Kingdom stele reused; I.Fayoum 3 212 TM 92028, a funerary scene above a dedication by the guild of the bakers; stele Abdalla 57 TM 105410, a Hieroglyphic stele reused with a bilingual text; stele Abdalla 204 TM 102576 Bingen (1994b), 330–1, where the deceased is represented as a male, but the Greek text has

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

37

Fig. 4.2. Funerary stele of Hathor-ity. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, inv. 22018

My database now contains 227 Greek inscriptions on an ‘Egyptian background’.⁷ Compared to the sum of Greek inscriptions from Egypt (about

the feminine name Senapaeis; I.Métriques 73 TM 103916, where the deceased has the masculine name Apollos, but the scene represents a woman; SB 4 7424 TM 104246, where the Greek text, indicating a topos taken by Apollonios son of Petenephotes in  78, does not seem to have any relation to the Hieroglyphic scene, where Shu offers many years to Thoth and his consort Nehmetaouai. ⁷ The database can be downloaded (in Excel format) from www.trismegistos.org/ tmcorpusdata/8/.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

38

Greek Texts on Egyptian Monuments

11,000), this is a very small percentage. Even if graffiti (about 6,000) are omitted, that leaves us with 227 inscriptions with Egyptian ‘backgrounds’ from about 5,000 Greek inscriptions, amounting to less than 5 per cent of the whole. I have certainly missed some items because Greek epigraphers are usually not interested in the Egyptian monuments on which their texts are inscribed. The Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (OGIS), the Sammelbuch (SB), or the Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (SEG), for instance, offer hardly any information on the monument itself (and no pictures at all). Sometimes only a line drawing is given and then not always of the Egyptian part of a stele, as, e.g., in I.Musée d’Alexandrie, passim, or for an inscription published with plate of the Greek text only (CPI 420 TM 6403 = AncSoc 26 (1995), 158–9 = I.Th.Sy. 244). I therefore started from editions accompanied by photographs, such as the corpora of A. and É. Bernand, museum catalogues (e.g. Cairo and Alexandria), and exhibition catalogues. But even the Bernand brothers give only limited information on the Egyptian monuments in their corpora, and hardly discuss the relation between monument and text. In the case of I.Louvre 93, for instance, the Hieroglyphic text of the stele is not transcribed and it is not even mentioned that the scene above the Greek verse epitaph for a male person represents a woman.⁸

4.2 TYPES OF EGYPTIAN MONUMENTS

4.2.1 Stelai (147 Items) Nearly all Egyptian-style stelai are round-topped with a winged sun disc on top;⁹ under this there is often an Egyptian-style scene with figures of gods and men; below is a text, which is normally in hieroglyphs, but in the GraecoRoman period it can also be in Demotic or in Greek (see Figs. 4.3 and 4.4). The appearance of such Greek texts, alone or in combination with Demotic and/or Hieroglyphic, is what interests me here.

⁸ I have added systematically the Trismegistos (TM) number to the traditional reference because there the reader can find a full bibliography which also lists the editions of the Hieroglyphic and Demotic texts, although Trismegistos, being text-based, offers hardly any information concerning the monument itself. ⁹ One exception is I.Fayoum 1 98 (CPI 210 TM 2495; Fig. 13.1 in Ch. 13 of this volume), which has an Egyptian scene with Anoubis, but a Greek triangular pediment with akroteria. The Greek text is dedicated by Pasos, a breeder of sacred dogs, in honour of Zenon and Apollonios. I have also included the inscription for Tithoes on a square block (without sun disc), I.Portes du Désert 83 TM 88391, though the Egyptian character of the monument itself is rather doubtful.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

39

Fig. 4.3. CPI 223: Dedication of a topos. Musée du Louvre, E27113 Photograph courtesy of the Musée du Louvre

4.2.2 Statues (18 Items) Egyptian statues usually offer written information on a back pillar, Greek statues sometimes give this information on the statue base. I have been looking for Egyptian statues accompanied by a Greek text, either on the statue itself or on the base of the statue. More often than not the statue base and the statue itself can only be linked if they are preserved together, e.g. when they are cut from a single block (as in Figs. 4.5 and 4.6). Statues found in situ together with their bases, such as the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

40

Greek Texts on Egyptian Monuments

Fig. 4.4. Funerary stele of Peteminis. Abdalla 20 no. 15 (SEG 42 1520) TM 105397 Photograph courtesy of the Garstang Museum, Liverpool

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

41

Fig. 4.5. Dedication by Tesenouphis. I.Fayoum 1 79. Cairo, Egyptian Museum, CG 1190

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

42

Greek Texts on Egyptian Monuments

Fig. 4.6. Dedication by Pedon, reign of Psammetichos I (664–610 ). SEG 37 994 TM 144201

sphinx in Medinet Madi (CPI 274 TM 244021, SEG 59 1766) or the statue of Ptolemy XII found at Tebtynis (CPI 283 TM 105092, SEG 39 1705) are exceptional.

4.2.3 Door Lintels on Egyptian Temples (7 Items) This type of text is Greek rather than Egyptian, but I have only included Greek texts on Egyptian-style buildings, most of them with an Egyptian scene (winged sun disc) above or below the text (see Fig. 4.7).¹⁰

¹⁰ I.Philae 1 4, CPI 427 TM 6379 (Philae, 244–240); OGIS 1 98, CPI 431 TM 6330 (Philae, 186–180); OGIS 2 734, CPI 325 TM 6420 (Koussai, 172–169); I.Fayoum. 2 107, CPI 237 TM 8154 (Theadelphia, 137); I.Portes du Désert 104 CPI 368 TM 6324 (Apollonopolis Parva, 116–107, Fig. 4.7); I.Th.Sy. 193 TM 47451 (Kom Ombo,  88); SEG 31 1548 TM 102276 (Luxor,  126).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

43

Fig. 4.7. CPI 368: Dedication to the god Haroeris and the synnaoi theoi

Fig. 4.8. Dedication to Isis. SEG 41 1628 (TM 103461)

4.2.4 Temple Furniture, e.g. Offering Tables (7 Items) I have identified a handful of items, as examples of which I illustrate a dedication plaque to Isis (Fig. 4.8) and an offering table (Fig. 4.9).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

44

Greek Texts on Egyptian Monuments

Fig. 4.9. Dedication to Osiris. SEG 41 1629 (TM 102571)

4.2.5 Mummies (27 Items) and Sarcophagi (12 Items) For example, the mummy cases of Artemidoros (SB 1 5979 TM 34015; Fig. 4.10), Tatyis (SB 1 5984 TM 40593), and Demetrios (SB 12 11089 TM 8724) have their name on the stucco mummy case, and the names of Eudaimonis (SB 20 15115 TM 23882), Dioskorous (TM 115767; Fig. 4.11), and Artemidora are written on the mummy shrouds.¹¹ The names of Aphrodite, daughter of Didas (SB 1 4177 TM 8707) and Titus Flavius Demetrios (SB 1 4179 TM 8709; Fig. 4.12) are engraved upon the head band of the mummy mask. In the case of Artemidoros and Eudaimonis the name is accompanied by the religious formula εὐψύχει. The lady Demos is identified in gold letters on a red linen strip found on the mummy (SB 1 1425 TM 8713). A Greek formula ἐπ᾿ ἀγαθῷ τῇ κώμῃ is written on the stuccoed crocodile mummy head (SB 20 14125 TM 26166). Greek texts on sarcophagi are mainly found in the burial of the Soter family (Fig. 4.13).¹²

¹¹ For Greek inscriptions on mummy shrouds, see Boswinkel and Pestman (1978), 226–31. ¹² SB 5 8365–8369, 8373; for the texts and the family, see Van Landuyt (1995), 69–82.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

45

Fig. 4.10. (a) Mummy of Artemidoros in a cartonnage mummy case; (b) close-up of the inscription. British Museum EA 21810 © The Trustees of the British Museum

Fig. 4.11. Sarcophagus of Dioskorous. Musée du Louvre, E13044 Photo courtesy of A. M. Aubert and R Cortopassi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Fig. 4.12. Mummy mask of Titus Flavius Demetrios. SB 1 4179 (TM 8709)

Fig. 4.13. Wooden sarcophagus from Thebes with a trilingual inscription, Staatliche Museen Berlin, ÄM 504 Photograph courtesy of the Staatliche Museen Berlin

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

47

4.3 TYPES OF GREEK TEXT

4.3.1 Official Texts Honorific decrees: the main group here is the priestly decrees in honour of the reigning king (in six copies both the Egyptian scene and Greek text are preserved). The Rosetta Stone (CPI 126) and the other trilingual decrees are not royal inscriptions (a mistake still often repeated), but honorific inscriptions for the king by the Egyptian priests. Their basic text is that of a Greek honorific decree, with dating formula mentioning the eponymous priests of the city of Alexandria, arguments (‘considérants’, introduced by ἐπεί), decision formula (ἔδοξεν, δεδόχθαι), and honours in the infinitive.¹³ They are put up in the forecourts of the major temples in Hieroglyphic, Demotic, and Greek. Hieroglyphic usually precedes on the stone, though it came last in the redactional process. Honorific decrees can also be made for high officials, e.g. the inscription for the prefect Balbillus by villagers of Bousiris in Giza (I.Prose 55 TM 103023,  37–41) and for the strategos Kallimachos in late Ptolemaic Thebes (OGIS 1 194, CPI 387 TM 6325). The trilingual inscription by Cornelius Gallus is a special case: it is a self-honorific text presented as a dedication in Hieroglyphic, Latin, and Greek (I.Philae 2 128 TM 80859). Asylia decrees (9 items): these stelai were erected by the priests in Egyptian temples, and they were written in Greek for greater impact. All examples date from the late Ptolemaic period; most come from the temples of Theadelphia (I.Fayoum 2 116–18, CPI 247 TM 8805, 6605, 7232) and neighbouring Euhemeria (I.Fayoum 2 135, CPI 228 TM 7230); one trilingual copy is from Athribis in the Delta (Short Texts 1 152, CPI 183 TM 6542). Those without decoration are omitted from the database (e.g. I.Fayoum 2 113–14 CPI 244–5 TM 7228, 7229, 7237), though they are round-topped like most Egyptian stelai.

4.3.2 Private Texts Dedications, including building inscriptions (72 items): dedications of objects, usually with a text written on the object itself, already occur in the prePtolemaic period, e.g. the statue of Pedon (Fig. 4.6) or the bronze Apis bull presented by Sokydes (SEG 27 1116 TM 6667).¹⁴ The Greek texts on the statue ¹³ Cf. Clarysse (2000b). ¹⁴ Other examples are the statue base dedicated by Melanthios to Zeus Thebaios in Greek and by Belles to Amon in Egyptian, perhaps a Greek-Egyptian double name (SEG 27 1106 TM 6656), the bronze statues of Isis with Horos dedicated by Pythermos (SEG 27 1115 TM 104709), and by Alexiades and Tabo (SEG 44 1484 [644] TM 6182).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

48

Greek Texts on Egyptian Monuments

Fig. 4.14. CPI 175: Dedication to Anoubis

of Eirenaios the younger, son of Pisois, prostates in Soknopaiou Nesos, is written on the fringe of his dress (I.Fayoum 1 77 TM 47191), whereas in I.Fayoum 1 79 TM 47193 the dedication by Tesenouphis to the god Pramenis is written on the statue base. The mechanikos Heroides dedicates a stele in Greek to Anoubis, who is also represented in the scene (SB 1 310, CPI 175 TM 48150; Fig. 4.14).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

49

Offering tables could also be dedicated, e.g. by the freedman Epaphroditos to Isis (SB 1 1603 TM 103461; Fig. 4.8 in Section 4.2.3 above), by Apollos and by Paminis-Paniskos to Osiris/Sarapis (Short Texts 1 260 TM 52931; 250, CPI 388 TM 52924), and by the army scribe Ptolemaios to Ptensenis (I.Louvre 15, CPI 398 TM 2638). Most building dedications are written on stelai and on door lintels. In early Roman Koptos Parthenios, the epistates of the Isis temple, commemorated his extensive building activity with Hieroglyphic, Demotic, Greek, and bilingual stelai, all of the same type. Four of them are wholly or partially in Greek: Short Texts 1 184–6, 198 (TM 53837, 53841, 53843, 53874) (see Fig. 4.15).¹⁵ The lintel inscription I.Philae 1 8 (CPI 431 TM 6330) was apparently written on the occasion of a royal visit of Ptolemy V. In Kom Ombo, Petronia Magna and her children dedicated a building for Aphrodite inside the temple precinct by means of an inscription on the door lintel (I.Th.Sy. 193 TM 47451). The small Sarapis temple in Luxor (with its divine statue) is dedicated by the Roman decurio C. Iulius Antoninus, who functioned also as its neokoros (SEG 31 1548 TM 102276). In Karanis and Narmouthis the building of a dromos is dedicated by inscriptions on the bases of sphinxes flanking the entrance to the temple avenue (Fig. 4.16), one by the soldier Valerius Serenus (I.Fayoum 1 92 TM 91964), the other by Protarchos son of Herodes, found in situ (CPI 275, 276 TM 244021–3). Funerary Texts (118 items): the largest group here is the 71 funerary stelai from Abydos, which can be generally dated to the Roman period.¹⁶ Most stelai were found during the excavations by Garstang in 1906 and 1907 and published by Abdalla in 1992. They are nearly all round topped stelai divided into three registers: a winged sun disc with uraei at the top, a funerary scene with Osiris and the deceased in the middle, and a text in Demotic or in Greek, rarely in Hieroglyphic, below (see, e.g., Fig. 4.4). A couple of stelai from Leontopolis are for the sacred lion.¹⁷ For texts on mummies and on sarcophagi, see Section 4.2.5 above.

¹⁵ A century later similar building works in the same temple were dedicated by Paniskos son of Ptollis, a successor of Parthenios (I.Portes du Désert 73 and 74 TM 88380 and 88381). The stele I.Fayoum 1 73 TM 42851 celebrates the building of an enclosure wall around the temple of Soknopaiou Nesos by the families of local shepherds in the time of Augustus. ¹⁶ Short Texts 1 175 TM 50861, dated to the reign of Tiberius, is of a different type (no funerary scene); the only other dated stele is Abdalla 204 TM 10256 (Bingen (1994b), 328–9), which belongs to the reign of Domitian. The gymnasiarch Apollonios son of Hermogenes (I.Louvre 91 TM 6323) was included in Pros.Ptol. III 5378a, but this is corrected in Pros.Ptol. VI 17134 and in I.Louvre 91. ¹⁷ SB 28 17121 CPI 134 TM 93289; Clarysse and Yan (2007), 86–7 no. 13 TM 112271 and no. 14 TM 128990.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

50

Greek Texts on Egyptian Monuments

Fig. 4.15. Building inscription of Parthenios. Short Texts 1 186 (TM 53843)

4.4 SOME CONCLUSIONS

4.4.1 Dates The pie charts show the proportions of different types of texts on stelai, monuments, and other media for the Ptolemaic and Roman periods combined (Fig. 4.17) and disaggregated for the periods of Ptolemaic (Fig. 4.18) and Roman (Fig. 4.19) rule.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

Fig. 4.16. CPI 274–276: Narmouthis sphinxes Photographs courtesy of Thomas Corsten

51

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

52

Greek Texts on Egyptian Monuments

honorific asylia dedication funerary

Fig. 4.17. Pie chart showing general view

BC

honorific asylia dedication funerary

Fig. 4.18. Pie chart of Ptolemaic and earlier inscriptions

AD

honorific asylia dedication funerary

Fig. 4.19. Pie chart of Roman inscriptions

In the Roman period funerary monuments clearly predominate, as 76 out of 82 funerary stelai date to that time. Except for three lion stelai from Tell Moqdam (see n. 17) and two stelai which probably belong to the third century ,¹⁸ Ptolemaic dates are uncertain.¹⁹ ¹⁸ Wagner (1972), 159–160, no. 16 TM 8543 and Devauchelle (2012), 409 TM 145323. In the latter text the deceased Zopyros is represented in Greek costume. ¹⁹ Abdalla 187 TM 54600, 196 TM 103999, 197 TM 103997 and I.Louvre 92 TM 103918 are dated to the late Ptolemaic or early Roman period in Trismegistos. The last may be a later reuse of a Hieroglyphic stele; for the others I see no reason for a Ptolemaic date.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

53

There are 18 Greek decrees on Egyptian monuments, mainly honorific decrees by priests, but also a few asylia decrees. These are all Ptolemaic except for three belonging to the early Roman period: the trilingual Gallus inscription (I.Philae 2 128 TM 80859, 29 ), a decree by the bakers for their president Herakleides (I.Fayoum 3 212 TM 92028,  3), and a decree for the prefect Balbillus (I.Prose 55 TM 103023,  37–41). Dedications (73 items) are already in evidence in the pre-Alexandrian period (7 examples, all written on statues).²⁰ They predominate in the early and Hellenistic periods, but continue into the Roman period.

4.4.2 Self-Identification and Onomastics The mummy portraits show the deceased portrayed in a Greek style, with Greek clothing and jewellery, a Greek haircut, and with a Greek portrait, though these elite Egyptian Greeks were mummified and wrapped up in the traditional Egyptian way (see Section 4.2.5). The names recorded on the portraits are without exception Greek: Ammonios, Antinoos, Artemidoros, Didyme, Eutyches, Hermione, Isidora, Claudiane, etc.²¹ In our inscriptions Greek names also predominate, for all types of documents. One should, however, not overestimate the importance of onomastics to establish the Hellenization of the population, as is proposed by É. Bernand (1992), 219 with reference to the stele Abdalla 204 TM 102576 of Senapaeis (Senapathis?) daughter of Peteminis: ‘bien qu’il s’agissse du porteur d’un nom et d’un patronyme indigène, dans un stèle de style égyptien, l’inscription est écrite en grec. Le fait n’est pas sans importance pour juger de l’hellénisation dans un certain milieu populaire à l’époque impériale.’ Taking one single stele (published with a facsimile in 1841 and now lost) for drawing conclusions concerning the Hellenization of Egyptians on the basis of just the names is a rather daring enterprise. My database contains 119 Greek funerary inscriptions (some of them bilingual Greek-Demotic) ‘on an Egyptian background’: in 69 of them the deceased has a Greek name and in 38 also a Greek patronymic; in 40 the deceased has an Egyptian name and in 36 also an Egyptian patronymic. In 27 instances the language of the deceased’s name ²⁰ SEG 37 994 TM 144201 (block statue of Pedon, 664–610 ); SEG 27 1116 TM 6667 (bronze Apis bull, 664–300 ), SEG 27 1106 TM 6656 (dedication of Melanthios to Zeus Thebaios, 599–500 ), SEG 27 1115 TM 104709 (bronze statue of Isis with Horos, 550–450 ), SEG 44 1484 TM 6182 (bronze statue of Isis lactans, about 400 ), SEG 27 1107 TM 104706 (bronze statue of Osiris-Lunus, about 400 ), Bosch-Puche (2008), CPI 519 TM 145327 (dedication by Alexander the Great to Amon, 332–23 ). ²¹ Most examples can be found in Riggs (2005), passim. The texts on the portraits are also written in Greek with the exception of that for Eirene (Short Texts 2 1092 TM 58021), which is in Demotic.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

54

Greek Texts on Egyptian Monuments

is different from that of his father.²² The language of the name was clearly not the decisive factor when choosing the language of the inscription. In my opinion the undertakers’ shop in Abydos, where most of these stelai come from, presented its customers with a limited choice; only round stelai with winged sun disc above an Egyptian funerary scene were on offer. The customers could then choose whether they wanted a Demotic or Greek text under it (21 Demotic vs 54 Greek texts, 3 bilinguals, and 2 Hieroglyphic). This does not provide information about ‘the Hellenization of certain population groups’, but rather shows how the undertakers used either the traditional native languages or the more ‘modern’ Greek according to the wishes of their clients. In my opinion these stelai are all of Roman date, and roughly contemporaneous with the Kom Abou Billou stelai.²³ In Kom Abou Billou both the stelai themselves and the texts on them are always in Greek style and Greek language, no doubt because that is what was on offer at the local undertakers’ shop. Bianchi (1988), 189, has acutely remarked that ‘one has yet to identify a monument from Egypt with a Greek visual motif accompanied by a pharaonic text’, though he himself notices that on the Raphia stele (CPI 396 TM 6082) the king on horseback is represented partly in Greek style. This description is exact, but I do not agree with his far-reaching conclusion: ‘Such intellectual exercises on the part of the Greeks have no counterparts in the material cultural expressions of the native Egyptians,’ and ‘the Greek population attempted to cross cultural frontiers to effect a degree of intellectual assimilation by means of the written word, whereas the native Egyptian counterparts were content to remain locked deep within the confines of their own traditions’. He seems to forget that the priestly decrees were written by Egyptian priests and that the whole undertakers’ business, with mummification and mortuary cult, was in the hands of minor native priests. In fact, the Egyptians and, more specifically, the Egyptian priests had no qualms about using Greek for promoting their view or for presenting information to the world outside the temples, as is shown by the asylum decrees and the honorific inscriptions for kings and officials. On the other hand, Greek notables used Egyptian-style monuments, which were readily at hand, to present themselves in Greek, as did the ephebes in I.Fayoum 3 201 (CPI 295 TM 6407, 95 ): the ex-ephebes (ἐϕηβευκότες) of the class (αἵρεσις) of Asklepiades, with their prostates and secretary Ptolemaios son of Ptolemaios, dedicate a topos of 7 × 22 m near the dromos of the temple to the twice-great crocodile god Souchos. This shows the ²² In the database the language of the names is indicated in the field ‘names’ as g1 (Greek name), gg (Greek name and Greek patronymic), e1 (Egyptian name), ee (Egyptian name and Egyptian patronymic), eg (Egyptian name, Greek patronymic), and ge (Greek name, Egyptian patronymic). There is some overlap because of double names and stelai for more than one person. ²³ For this group of stelai, see, e.g., Hooper (1961), with a broad choice of examples.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

55

Fig. 4.20. CPI 295 TM 6407: Dedication of a topos to Souchos

Greek gymnasium, the Greek organization par excellence, honouring the local crocodile god with a Greek text engraved upon a typically Egyptian stele (Fig. 4.20). Similarly Apollonios son of Hermogenes, ex-gymnasiarch, ex-agoranomos, and former high priest in the city of Lykopolis, is introduced by Anoubis to Osiris and Isis in a typical Egyptian scene, but the text is written in Greek (I.Louvre 91; Fig. 4.21). The text clearly belongs to the second century  when the metropoleis gradually organized themselves as Greek cities. But even

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

56

Greek Texts on Egyptian Monuments

Fig. 4.21. Funerary stele of Apollonios son of Hermogenes. I.Louvre 91 TM 6323

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

57

Fig. 4.22. Temple of Dendera with Greek inscription ( 42) Drawings courtesy of Sylvie Cauville

these city notables saw no problem in using an Egyptian-style funerary monument for themselves. The dossier of Parthenios, more than 25 inscriptions, nicely illustrates how Hieroglyphic, Demotic, and Greek could be used side by side by the same person, a priest in the service of Isis in the Egyptian temple of Koptos, advertising his numerous building activities all over the precinct. To conclude, I present a scene in the temple of Dendera (Dendara XII, plates 68–9, outside the south wall, Fig. 4.22), which is unique both by its location (a Greek text on the wall of an Egyptian temple) and for its content (I.Portes du Désert 30 TM 88343). The Egyptian scene shows the Emperor Claudius as an Egyptian pharaoh offering flowers to Osiris-Neferhotep and Geb, gods of Diospolis Parva and unexpected in Dendera. On the pedestal under the throne of the gods is a Greek inscription dated to year 2 of Claudius and introduced by the words ὑπὲρ εἰρήνης καὶ ὁμονοίας ‘for peace and concord’, which the Greek epigraphers could not parallel or explain. In a seminal article the French Egyptologist Sylvie Cauville (2007) showed that the Greek text should be read alongside the two offering scenes above it. The top scene shows the gods Horos and Souchos shaking hands. In fact these two gods are arch-enemies and in the great temple of Edfou Horos is continuously chasing and killing the crocodile, the sacred animal of Souchos; in Dendera, too, the crocodile is execrated. Cauville also noted that both Egyptian scenes were, in fact, reworked and that, as a result, in the upper scene the arm of Souchos is

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

58

Greek Texts on Egyptian Monuments

too long. In the new version Souchos and Horos are friends, by imperial order, and this explains the words ‘peace and concord’ of the Greek inscription. The Greek text shows how the emperor (and the prefect, who is also mentioned) established peace between the quarrelling nomes, Edfou and Dendera (nomes of Horos and Hathor) on the one side and Koptos and Kom Ombo (nomes of the crocodile god Souchos) on the other. The imperial order was expressed both in the new Greek text and in the altered Egyptian scenes above it. But this remains, thus far, a unique example of Greek breaking into the world of the temples.²⁴

²⁴ With thanks to Katelijn Vandorpe and Dorothy J. Thompson for several useful suggestions.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

5 The Epigraphy of the ‘Greek Cities’ Alan Bowman

5.1 I NTRODUCTION Within the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions, the combined number of inscriptions from the three ‘Greek cities’ of Naukratis, Alexandria, and Ptolemais is disproportionately large at almost 20 per cent (with approximately two-thirds of that number coming certainly or probably from Alexandria). The ‘normality and specificity’ of the Ptolemaic epigraphic corpus as a whole has been well characterized and analysed by Bingen (see the Introduction, Section 1.2, above), with some attention to bilingual and trilingual texts, against the background of the coexistence of two strikingly different epigraphic traditions.¹ The epigraphic record of the Greek cities in Egypt is almost exclusively Hellenophone (with the notable exception of dedication plaques for temples of Egyptian or Graeco-Egyptian cults²) and is thus in important respects somewhat insulated from the indigenous environment with which there must nevertheless have been some significant interaction.³ This is particularly true of the public and civic inscriptions with which I am here concerned (notably excluding many private dedications from Alexandria and a substantial number of metrical funerary texts).⁴ It shows some of the major instruments of Hellenization being introduced quite deliberately and explicitly in the form of civic administrative and governmental institutions. In particular, there is the opportunity in the epigraphic record to juxtapose these civic institutions with the progress of Hellenization and urbanization in the other Egyptian towns. There is also a significant number of important papyri which substantively complement the picture to be drawn from the epigraphic ¹ Bingen (1989), translated in Bingen (2007). ² On which, see Thompson, Ch. 7 of this volume. ³ The evidence of Demotic papyri and bilingual archives modifies this picture somewhat for Ptolemais: see Section 5.4.1 below. ⁴ See Savvopoulos, Ch. 6 of this volume and Hornblower, Ch. 12 of this volume. Alan Bowman, The Epigraphy of the ‘Greek Cities’ In: The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt. Edited by: Alan Bowman and Charles Crowther, Oxford University Press (2020). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198858225.003.0005

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

60

The Epigraphy of the ‘Greek Cities’

sources. I here discuss the surviving epigraphic evidence for the institutions of each of the cities separately, drawing attention to aspects of the broader picture of institutional Hellenization in the Ptolemaic period, as appropriate. Of the three so-called ‘Greek cities’⁵ of Egypt which existed in the Ptolemaic period, Naukratis was the earliest foundation, followed by Alexandria, and then Ptolemais in Upper Egypt founded by Ptolemy I Soter. Around 400 years later a fourth Greek city, Antinoopolis, was founded by Hadrian as a memorial to his lover Antinoos, who was said to have drowned in the Nile during Hadrian’s visit to Egypt. The three Ptolemaic foundations share important features but also show significant differences. The most important common features are a supposedly significant degree of civic autonomy and institutions, protection of the status of the citizen body, and νόμοι (understood as both institutions and laws in the strict sense) drawn from precedents in the cities of old Greece and Asia Minor. The tradition that Naukratis drew on Miletos for its institutions is well known (see Section 5.2 below), and the Hadrianic foundation of Antinoopolis in turn drew on Naukratis. The connections of Alexandria with Athens were certainly emphasized, but we have no information for any significant such precedents for Ptolemais.

5.2 NAUKRATIS Naukratis in the Delta, first excavated by Petrie, was founded as a Greek trading post towards the end of the seventh century .⁶ The tradition that it was founded from Miletos, from which it is supposed to have derived its laws and some other institutions, is well known, but is seriously doubted by Bresson (followed by Redon), who demonstrated that this tradition was created in the third century .⁷ The existence of such traditional connections with Greece and Asia Minor, whether real or invented, was clearly an important element in emphasizing the status distinctions between Greek and indigenous foundations at this early stage of Ptolemaic rule. There is, nevertheless, one item in the epigraphic record which probably indicates a Milesian connection (CPI 165 TM 103521). More importantly, as Bresson also shows, until the conquest ⁵ The term is a modern one, but see CPI 358 TM 5983, line 2 for the phrase πόλιν Ἑλληνίδα. Cf. Jones (1971), 305–6 and n. 13, suggesting a privileged ‘Greek’ status of some sort for Paraetonium in the Libyan Nome from the Augustan period, but nothing at all is known for the Ptolemaic period. ⁶ Petrie (1886). TM GEO 1424: the modern name is cited as Kom el-Gajef, or el-Nibeira. The vast majority of all references to the name of the site are Greek. What little Demotic there is comes mostly from the Ptolemaic period: BꜢ-dd and NꜢy=w-KꜢrḏ are used with about equal frequency as the toponym. I am grateful to Rachel Mairs for this information. ⁷ Bresson (1980), Redon (2012), 65–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Alan Bowman

61

by Alexander it remained simply a trading post and did not formally acquire the status of a Greek polis, with the associated ‘autonomy’, before 332 .⁸ Not surprisingly, the epigraphic record from Naukratis includes a number of items which clearly precede the conquest, although dating mostly depends on palaeographical criteria and precision is therefore difficult to claim. Naukratites appear in the Greek epigraphic record before the Ptolemaic period,⁹ but the testimony from the Ptolemaic period is fairly meagre, consisting of twentyfour items, including some brief dedications, five metrical epigrams, some fragmentary texts of unknown nature, and a list of individual names arranged by tribal affiliation (CPI 151 TM 5953, the longest text) which is generally understood to be a list of bouleutai (members of the council).¹⁰ The polis status of Naukratis is not in doubt for the Ptolemaic and Roman periods and, if Bresson is right, the conferral of the status of an autonomous polis is therefore a deliberate act of ‘Hellenization’ by Alexander or his immediate successor(s). The inscription in which it is explicitly called a πόλις, and which first enabled Petrie to identify the site as Naukratis, is CPI 149 TM 43908 (post-246 ), a dedication by the city to Heliodoros son of Dorion, a priest of Athena and syngraphophylax:

4

Ἡ πόλις ἡ Ναυκρατιτ̣[ῶν] Ἡλιόδωρον Δωρίωνος Φιλο[- - -] τὸν ἱερέα τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς διὰ βίου̣ [καὶ] συγγραϕοϕύλακα ἀρετῆς καὶ [εὐνοίας] ἕνεκα τῆς εἰς αὐτὴν.

The city of the Naukratites (commemorates) Heliodoros son of Dorion of the deme Philometor [or Philopator (?)], lifetime priest of Athena and keeper of records, because of his virtue and his goodwill towards it [i.e. the city].

In the Roman period Naukratis is explicitly recorded as having a βουλή (‘council’).¹¹ We would naturally suppose that its polis status inevitably implies the existence of a βουλή in the Ptolemaic period, and the evidence in the Ptolemaic inscriptions for the gymnasiarchy, for minor officials, the antigrapheus, grammateus, and syngraphophylax (CPI 149 TM 43908, 150 TM 48292, 147 TM 119367), certainly lends support to this assumption. This is reinforced by CPI 151 TM 5953 (probably third century ), from which further interesting detail may be drawn. The inscription comprises two pieces of a basalt block which were found separately and then reunited in a composite edition by Scholl (1997). The 48-line text contains a list of names in ⁸ See also Johnston (2014), 10. ⁹ See Bresson (1980), Redon (2012). ¹⁰ If this identification is correct, it would be the only piece of evidence to confirm the existence of a βουλή in the third century ; see the discussion later in this section. The metrical texts have been re-edited by S. Hornblower for the Corpus (CPI 155, 156, 158, 159, 160). The stone inscriptions are presented and discussed in some detail by Johnston (2014). ¹¹ P.Gen. 10, fourth century , and see also on CPI 149 TM 43908.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

62

The Epigraphy of the ‘Greek Cities’

two columns, probably of members of the council (bouleutai), rather than other groups such as ephebes or timouchoi or new citizens (the last a possibility considered by Scholl) arranged on the basis of phylai (tribes); there are 10 individuals from each phyle named, as is evident from the indented headings in lines 1 and 12. There is no heading specifying the purpose of the list, which might perhaps have been on another block, now lost (so Scholl). This is the earliest evidence we have for the civic organization and is the first and only attestation of phylai of Naukratis, the names of two of which survive (Herais and Neilias). Two other tribal names will have stood in in lines 25 and 36 but are lost. These tribe names cannot go back to the seventh-century foundation, since the practice of naming phylai after deities began only in the fourth century . The Naukratian phylai may well have been created in the time of Alexander, at the same time as Naukratis acquired its polis status, if we accept the argument of Bresson.¹² This document shows no sign of demotics for the individuals named, which could well reflect the fact that membership of a phyle in itself carried entitlement to civic rights and also to eligibility for membership of the council; there is a similar situation in Miletos, where citizens can belong to the same phyle, but to different demes. It is reasonable to suppose that there will have been deme divisions at Naukratis too and CPI 149 TM 43908, line 2, quoted earlier in this section, appears to have a Naukratian deme named after either Ptolemy IV Philopator or Ptolemy VI Philometor.¹³ The number of Naukratian phylai was at least four (see above), and if the people listed are indeed bouleutai, there were at least 40 of them, plus magistrates and officers, including the ἀντιγραϕεύς and the γραμματεύς mentioned in lines 23 and 47, but possibly more depending on how much of the original is lost. A papyrus of the second century  attests that the Greek city of Antinoopolis, founded by Hadrian, derived its laws (nomoi) from Naukratis and enjoyed the privilege for its citizens of intermarriage (epigamia) with Egyptians without loss of status, which Naukratites lacked, at least in the Roman period.¹⁴ This may not be true of the Ptolemaic period too, but if it were, it would suggest that the Greek ethnicity of the citizen body of Naukratis was protected from the outset and that it continued to be so into the Hadrianic period. There is no other certain evidence for the content of the νόμοι of Naukratis, but attention should be drawn to a papyrus of the third century  which contains details of the regulations relating to slavery. This must derive from one of the ‘Greek cities’, and arguments have been advanced for both

¹² Bresson (1980) and cf. SEG 30 1884. ¹³ See Ptol.Alex. II, 124, n. 75. ¹⁴ W.Chr. 27.17–23, (after  161) and cf. W.Gr. 12–3, Redon (2012), 62, n. 23: ἡ ἐπι|γαμία ἐδόθη ἡμεῖν πρὸς | Αἰγυπ[τί]ου[ς] κατ̓ ἐξαίρετον | ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ Ἁδριανοῦ, ἥν|περ {ου} οὐκ ἔχουσι Ναυκρα|τεῖται ὧν τοῖς νόμοις χρώ|μεθα (‘the right of intermarriage with Egyptians was specially granted to us by the divine Hadrian, which the Naukratites, whose laws we use, do not possess’).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Alan Bowman

63

Ptolemais and Naukratis.¹⁵ The reference in the text to export trade has been argued to favour the latter (lines 13–14: μηθενὶ ἐξέστω σώματα πωλεῖν | [ἐπ̓ ] ἐξαγωγῆι, μηδὲ στίζειν, ‘no one is to be allowed to sell persons for export nor to brand them’). Other points of interest in this text are the clear evidence for the existence of jury courts and for the limits on civic autonomy imposed by royal ordinances (lines 9–12: καὶ ἡ πρᾶξις συντελείσθω | κατὰ τοὺς νόμους τοὺς περὶ τῶν | οἰκετῶν ὄντας, πλὴν ὧν τὸ διά|γραμμα ἀπαγορεύει, ‘the sale is to be completed according to the laws in force concerning slaves, except where it is prohibited by royal ordinance’).¹⁶ Greek religion at Naukratis is represented by reference to a number of deities and buildings, including the palaestra of Apollo (CPI 145 TM 103201), the priest of Athena (CPI 150 TM 48292), Zeus Thebaios (CPI 146 TM 6877), a temenos possibly connected with Miletos (CPI 165 TM 103521), as well as Artemis, Demeter, Dionysos, and Hermes, all appropriate to the landscape of a Greek polis.¹⁷

5. 3 ALEXAND RI A The quantity and range of epigraphic evidence for Alexandria is very substantial,¹⁸ and some of the issues which it illuminates are discussed elsewhere in this volume.¹⁹ Here I make no attempt at a comprehensive account but focus very selectively on civic organization and institutions, for which there is a limited amount of epigraphic evidence and rather more papyrological information.²⁰ There has been much discussion about the foundation constitution, by Fraser and many others, complicated by the fact that Alexandria did not possess a council (βουλή) at the beginning of the Roman period. If it originally had one, as seems certain, it must, therefore, have been abolished, probably either under Ptolemy VIII or at the end of the Ptolemaic period.²¹ There is a good deal of evidence for the organization of the city’s population into tribes and demes, discussed by Fraser, and the problematic issues relating to

¹⁵ P.Lille 29 = M.Chr.369 = C.Ptol Sklav.1 = Bagnall/Derow² (2004), no. 142 = TM 3231. ¹⁶ Note also the reference to an οἰκονόμος τῶν κατὰ Ναύκρατιν (‘finance officer of those at Naukratis’) in a third-century inscription from Diospolis (Thebes), CPI 379 TM 6362. ¹⁷ For a summary list, see Johnston (2014), 6–10; some of the inscriptions may be prePtolemaic. ¹⁸ See I.Alex.Ptol. ¹⁹ Savvopoulos, Ch. 6 of this volume. ²⁰ The civic organization of Alexandria was discussed in great detail by Fraser at Ptol.Alex. I, 93–101 and summarized by Cohen (2006). ²¹ The views of modern scholars are divided but there is no solid evidence either way.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

64

The Epigraphy of the ‘Greek Cities’

Alexandrian citizenship, especially its expansion later in the Ptolemaic period²²—and the epigraphic record does not add much to that. The claim that Alexandria derived its laws (νόμοι) from Athens comes from a papyrological source which does not inspire total confidence as an accurate historical record, but the possibility that the link was due to Demetrios of Phaleron has some attraction.²³ It is significant that Alexandria had its own πολιτικὸς νόμος (city law-code) which codified civic legal and administrative arrangements, including building regulations and supervision of women by gynaikonomoi (the latter with an Athenian parallel).²⁴ The important but problematic inscription CPI 1 TM 7092 is fundamental and has been much discussed and cited as being the major item of evidence for the existence of a civic council (βουλή) at Alexandria in the early Ptolemaic period. Much depends on restorations of the text, most of which have been adopted with some confidence by some, but not all, editors and commentators. The lettering is an elegant example of third-century stonecutting and most expert opinion would assign it with prudence to the first half of the century;²⁵ the pertinent details are recorded by Fraser,²⁶ and little hard evidence of material significance has been added since then. A summary of the main points is as follows: Provenance: Fraser regarded it certainly as Alexandria (see line 8, restored as [τὴν πόλιν τὴν Ἀλεξαν]δ̣ρέων ‘the city of the Alexandrians’), discarding the suggestion of some scholars that it might be from Rhodes. The arguments that it might possibly commemorate someone honoured in another city are not robust enough to constitute proof or disproof or to persuade us to exclude it from the Corpus.²⁷ Date: third century, palaeographically earlier rather than later (see above); the suggested link with a priest ‘Dioteles’ of 211/210  is certainly to be rejected, and Dioteles son of Menestratos (of CPI 4 TM 5975) is much later.²⁸ The council: the word βουλή does not survive on the stone, but Fraser regarded the restoration of [ἔδοξε τῆι βου|λῆι καὶ τῶι] δήμωι (‘resolved by the council and the assembly’) in lines 4 and 5 as virtually certain, which we accept. The occurrence of πρυτά[νεις] is reinforced by the evidence of

²² Ptol.Alex. I, Ch. 2. ²³ P.Oxy. XVIII 2177.13–15; see P.Hib. II 196, ad loc. ²⁴ P.Hal. 1.13–15 (third century ) quotes a section of the code on regulations for building and the protection of graves in a dossier probably intended for guidance in legal judgments. For gynaikonomoi, see also P.Hib. II 196. ²⁵ There is extensive recording of citations and discussions in I.Alex.Ptol. 40, which it is unnecessary to repeat here. ²⁶ Ptol.Alex. I, 94–6; II, 173–4, n. 3; 178, n. 21; 179, n. 24; 361, n. 184; for the lettering, which Fraser believed was early, see the discussion by Crowther in Ch. 13.3 of this volume. ²⁷ See BE 2002, 506 and Łajtar (2003). ²⁸ See Clarysse and Van der Veken (1983), 17, no. 79.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Alan Bowman

65

Satyros, On the Demes,²⁹ where the context must be Alexandria shortly after 267 , and the precedence of the prytaneis in the procession must favour the suggestion that they are presidents of the council. The references to the γραμματεύς (‘secretary’) and the δῆμος [i.e. ekklesia, ‘assembly’] are certain. From this it would follow that, in all likelihood, Alexandria was endowed with a council at its foundation, although this text offers no help on the issue of its abolition later, in the Ptolemaic or in the Augustan period. The other civic institutions and magistracies will presumably have been comparable to those of Ptolemais (for which, see Section 5.4.2 below). Evidence for magistrates, particularly the exegetes, and for the organization of the population into tribes and demes was discussed at length by Fraser and is well summarized by Cohen.³⁰ An inscription of particular note is CPI 58 TM 6670, probably of the first century , honouring Lykarion son of Noumenios and listing the offices he held:³¹

4

Λυκαρίωνα Νουμηνίου ἀδελϕὸν Πτολεμαίου τοῦ πατρὸς Νουμηνίου τὸν συγγενῆ καὶ κατὰ τειμὴν ἀρχιγέροντα καὶ διοικητὴν καὶ ἐξηγητὴν καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως καὶ γυμνασίαρχον

The city (honours) Lykarion son of Noumenios, brother of Ptolemaios whose father is Noumenios, the Kinsman and honorary head of the elders (archigeron) and finance officer (dioiketes) and exegetes and in charge of the city and gymnasiarch.

This is the only attestation of an officer with the title ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως,³² which might indicate a move to control ‘democratic’ elements by a royal appointment in the governance of the city in the later period. If the post of dioiketes is the well-known crown office, rather than something local, the combination of civic and royal responsibilities vested in this individual is also notable. It may

²⁹ P.Oxy. XXVII 2465 fr.2 i.2. ³⁰ Ptol.Alex. I, 96–7, 106–7, II, 193, nn. 96–9, 195 n. 105, Cohen (2006), 367, nn. 18–27, esp. 25–7. For a στρατηγὸς πόλεως at Ptolemais, see n. 54. ³¹ See Ptol.Alex. II 177 n. 16, 193 n. 94. ³² See Ptol.Alex. I 96, II 194, nn. 98–102. There is also a στρατηγὸς τῆς πόλεως in the Roman period, assumed also to be a Ptolemaic office: see P.Oxy. XLIX 3463.2 note (‘captain of the civil guard’), Ptol.Alex. II, 195, n. 105. The title occurs at Ptolemais (see Section 5.4.2 below) but is not directly attested in Ptolemaic Alexandria, as far as I can see, and the connection with the title ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως held by Lykarion is unclear. The term occurs in P.Bad. IV, 48 (126 ) in the context of a petition, and the formulation is used by Polyb. 5.39.3 and Diodorus 31.20, clearly suggesting a military or policing role. See also Bengtson (1952), 131–2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

66

The Epigraphy of the ‘Greek Cities’

be, however, that, as the order of titles suggests, this is a civic office and in effect another type of dioiketes.³³ The titles of ἀρχιγέρων (‘head of the elders’) and gymnasiarch borne by Lykarion lead us to consideration of the role of a gerousia and the gymnasia in the civic landscape. Important evidence is provided by CPI 5 TM 104985, a stele which is frustratingly incomplete but nevertheless important for the light it throws on the civic institutions of Alexandria, if we accept the Alexandrian provenance, as most previous scholars have.³⁴ The nature of the text as a whole is unclear, but it may be a record of a vote of honours by the gerousia or koinon of gerontes (‘council of elders’, line 31). In so far as the content can be inferred, lines 1–10 seem to be concerned with a gift or benefaction which conduces to the beauty (of the city or some part of it?) and benefits the members of a gerousia at a time of need, perhaps when numbers of members are increasing (lines 10–11). There follows a possible reference to the gymnasiarchy and perhaps some infringement of regulations (lines 13–14), which might fall within the remit of the exegetai (line 18). The section which begins at line 19 with the first word (ἐκρίθη ‘it was decided’) in ekthesis at the left seems to record the decision to exclude certain persons from a specific institution or status, perhaps aphelikes (‘youths’) with some exceptions involving a lapse of time. There follow references to payments of sums of money of 1,000, 360 and 500 drachmas (lines 22–6), perhaps connected with infringement, for which the exact conditions are lost, and additional sums accruing (? lines 27–8) before the reference to the erection of the stele, resolved by the γέροντες (‘elders’, line 31). The inscription securely attests the existence of a gerousia of some sort and γέροντες (lines 5, 31), the gymnasiarchy (probable in line 13), and the exegetes (lines 18, 24). These references are important in attempts to identify the civic institutions of Alexandria in the relevant period (uncertain but probably the second century ), allowing for the caveats about provenance and dating, but there are further complications introduced by Fraser’s distinction between two different types of gerousia, one a body associated with a gymnasium (therefore mainly social?), the other a ‘municipal’ or civic council. This leads him to the conclusion, with which we agree, that the present document will be ‘a decree of the koinon and not of the civic gerousia’.³⁵

³³ Some support for this suggestion may be derived from CPI 354 TM 6372, where the appointment of a dioiketes at Ptolemais is envisaged (see Section 5.4.2 below); cf. Mooren (1977), 157. I am grateful to Willy Clarysse for advice on this point. Note also the mention of a προστάτης (‘president’) of Alexandrians (οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως) in CPI 59 TM 7165 (I.Alex.Ptol. 33), but this may refer to a group of Alexandrians resident in the chora. ³⁴ This is supported by by the history of its acquisition in that city, though Bingen (1984) is agnostic. See Ptol.Alex. II, 177, n. 16. ³⁵ CPI 58 TM 6670 (quoted earlier in this section) is also relevant. See the notes in Ptol.Alex. II, 177, nn. 15, 16 and 193 n. 94, Fraser’s discussion of these matters is somewhat unclear, but the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Alan Bowman

67

Two other inscriptions relate to the gymnasial institutions of Alexandria. CPI 49 TM 103909 is a dedication to Hermes and Herakles, the gods normally associated with the gymnasium, by a group of 14 μέλλακες, who can be identified as youths registered as being of pre-ephebic status at Alexandria. In view of the firmer indication of an Alexandrian provenance, it constitutes important evidence for the city’s gymnasium and the ephebic structures associated with it. With one exception (line 8), the names are recognizable in the standard Greek onomastic repertoire.³⁶ A papyrus of the early Roman period is relevant because it guarantees that this very rarely attested term (μέλλακες) does refer to the existence of lists (γραϕαί) of Alexandrian youths of pre-ephebic status and reinforces the strong probability that the provenance of the inscription is Alexandria.³⁷ CPI 4 TM 5975 is a dedication of the seats of a gymnasium in favour of Ptolemy VI Philometor and Kleopatra II by Dioteles son of Menestratos, who had served as agonothetes (the official in charge of games and festivals).³⁸ The upshot of this is that there is no good evidence for a gerousia with a civic governance role in the cities of Ptolemaic Egypt, and we should be thinking of a body with social status and privileges linked to the gymnasial elite and to a gymnasium drawn from the ἀϕήλικες (‘youths’) under regulations apparently spelled out in the mutilated lines 19–32 of CPI 5 TM 104985. If this is correct, it will follow that the gerousia itself was the body responsible for making and implementing such regulations in Ptolemaic Alexandria. This conclusion deserves an emphasis which it has not previously received in scholarly discussion of the evidence.

5.4 P TOLEMAIS The city of Ptolemais was founded by Ptolemy I Soter at the site of the native Egyptian village of Psoi (in the Thebaid) and clearly intended as a large ‘πόλις’

characteristics of a gerousia of social and economic privilege seem to rest on much later (thirdcentury) evidence from Oxyrhynchus (see P.Ryl. IV 599 and P.Oxy. XLIII 3099–102) which may or may not be of relevance to Ptolemaic Alexandria. The more ‘private’ status of the gymnasium in Ptolemaic Egypt is probably more to the point, though there may be a distinction between the ‘Greek cities’ and the towns and villages in this respect. ³⁶ For discussion, see Ptol.Alex. I, 86 and I.Louvre 17. μέλλακες: full discussion in Ptol.Alex. II, 166, n. 326. ³⁷ P.Oxy. XLIX 3463.20,  58. P.Teb. II 316, also of the Roman period ( 99), contains declarations of Alexandrian ephebic status which refer to subdivisions of the population called συμμορίαι, a term which was originally connected with tax imposition. There is no Ptolemaic evidence for these, and it is not unlikely that they were an innovation of the Roman period. ³⁸ For further references to gymnasia in Alexandria, see Ptol.Alex. I, 77 and n. 35 above.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

68

The Epigraphy of the ‘Greek Cities’

and the Upper Egyptian counterpart of the city of Alexandria.³⁹ The precise date of its foundation is unknown.⁴⁰ By the time Strabo visited it in the reign of Augustus, it was larger than Memphis. A major reason for its foundation must surely have been to create a focus of Greek political and institutional culture in an area in which indigenous Egyptian culture was particularly strong.⁴¹ The site has never been excavated, and recent oral reports suggest that there has been significant damage and looting. In the evidence from the Ptolemaic period its name appears only as Πτολεμαὶς τῆς Θηβαίδος (‘Ptolemais in the Thebaid’).⁴² The name Πτολεμαὶς Ἑρμείου (or Ἑρμίου), of which the origin is unknown, is commonly used for the Ptolemaic period in modern references, but it has so far appeared only in primary evidence from the Roman period.⁴³ There are a number of inscriptions of the third century  which provide evidence for the political institutions of Ptolemais in the Ptolemaic period and, in fact, give more information about these aspects of the city’s organization than we have for Alexandria. It is noteworthy that the stelai which are sufficiently well preserved are in the Greek style, with triangular pediments and akroteria, in contrast to the Egyptian style in which the top is semicircular (note particularly CPI 354 TM 6372, 356 TM 6416, 360 TM 7236, 365 TM 7090).

5.4.1 Citizenship and Population The evidence is of particular importance for understanding the contemporary perceptions of ‘Greek’ status in relation to the indigenous context. If the language of CPI 358 TM 5983 can be taken at face value, this was an ‘Hellenic City’. The original population will surely have been drawn from the cities of mainland and Aegean Greece and Asia Minor, and CPI 358 TM 5983 refers to drafts of new citizens (presumably in the later third or in the second century ) from Argos and perhaps Thessaly. It is interesting to consider whether in the early stages new citizens might also have been drawn from surrounding Egyptian towns, and this raises the question of the relationship between ³⁹ Modern El-Mansha, TM GEO 2023, Pleiades 756635. The Egyptian name continues to be used in Demotic papyri into the first century , referring to priests of dynastic cult: see Plaumann (1910), 40–1. ⁴⁰ Strabo 17.1.42 (C813). For the lost work on Ptolemais, in more than one book, by Istros, a friend (or a slave) of the poet Kallimachos, see FGrHist. 334 F47, with Ptol.Alex. I, 512, II, 737–8, nn. 140, 149. ⁴¹ The first attempt at synthesis of the evidence was that of Plaumann (1910). More recently, the evidence has been collected and summarized by Cohen (2006), 350–2. See also Fraser (2009), 364–5, Jones (1971), 305, Rhodes and Lewis (1997), 467, Manning (2003), 36–7. ⁴² E.g. BGU VI 1249.6, 148–7 . Πτολεμαὶς ἡ ἐν Θηβαίδι occurs in P.Oxy. XXIV 2723.3 (third century ). ⁴³ P.Oxy. II 268.2 ( 58), Ptolemy 1.15.11, 4.5.66, 8.15.13.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Alan Bowman

69

citizenship, ethnicity, and residence. For this, the evidence of a dossier of documents in a papyrus from Ptolemais is crucial.⁴⁴ Here, the dispute over a petition and claim to citizenship, which may or may not be mendacious, certainly involves a hereditary element (lines 2–4: καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ϕα[ίνεται (?) - - -] | Πτολεμαιέων εἰσαχ[θῆναι (?) - - ἵνα] | τύχω τοῦ δικαίου [- - -]). In Frag. 2 there are references to sales of property in Elephantine, Abydos, Ibis, Sythis, and Lykopolis. This might imply that citizens of Ptolemais were entitled to own property (and reside?) elsewhere, as was certainly later the case with Alexandrians (and with citizens of Antinoopolis in the Roman period). The archive of Dryton adds valuable information on this aspect for the second century . Dryton was a military officer of Cretan ancestry (his father Pamphilos was probably an immigrant) and a citizen of Ptolemais. His first marriage was to Sarapias, also a citizen of Ptolemais. His second wife, Apollonia, was of Cyrenaean origin, and in this period of his life he was resident in the nearby Egyptian town of Pathyris. As far as we know, Apollonia was not a citizen of Ptolemais, and this implies that citizens of Ptolemais had the right of intermarriage (ἐπιγάμια)—i.e. to marry non-citizens without loss of status (cf. the evidence for Naukratis, discussed in Section 2). Dryton appears to have maintained his status and his connection with Ptolemais.⁴⁵ This is an important factor in the role of Greek cities in fostering ‘Hellenization’ and a degree of integration with the populations of the neighbouring Egyptian communities. This may be important as an antecedent for the much later situation at Antinoopolis, where epigamia was permitted; its citizens were evidently drawn from many other communities, particularly in the Fayum, and perhaps did not even have to establish primary residence in Antinoopolis. In the case of Dryton, the other side of the coin is equally important. The archive clearly shows acculturation to the indigenous Egyptian context and extensive use of the Demotic language in the documentation of his affairs. There is important evidence for the organization of the citizen body of Ptolemais into tribes, demes, and phratries, as at Alexandria and Naukratis (see CPI 354 TM 6372). The origins of the demotics may either derive from geographical locations or from gods and ancestral heroes. There is also an important but fragmentary papyrus text of possible relevance.⁴⁶ The date and provenance of this papyrus have been debated (and it has also been considered as a literary fragment), but it is generally accepted that it is more likely to be from Ptolemais rather than Alexandria and should be placed in the period around 265 . It describes a citizen body in which there are five tribes (ϕυλαί), each divided into twelve demes and further subdivided into twelve phratries ⁴⁴ SB 4 7403. The first document refers to a ninth year which should post-date the document cited thereafter, which refers to Apollonios the dioiketes of Ptolemy II Philadelphos c.262–45 ; year 9 should, therefore, be that of Euergetes (239/8 ). ⁴⁵ See Vandorpe (2002). ⁴⁶ P.Hib. I 28 = W.Chr. 25; cf. West (1983).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

70

The Epigraphy of the ‘Greek Cities’

per deme, a total of 720 phratries.⁴⁷ Responsibility for religious sacrifices is shared by two phratries for each of 360 days of the year.

5.4.2 Governance Central to the constitutional arrangements are the assembly and council, the latter headed by a board of presidents (prytaneis), who seem to have served for a year rather than on a system of rotation between the tribes (CPI 354 TM 6372, CPI 364 TM 6697 for the title of archiprytanis and the prytaneion), and the jury court (dikasterion). The council and assembly passed decrees honouring individuals and dealing with other civic matters. The boule played the same probouleutic role as in other cities of the Hellenistic world. The formulae for presenting civic resolutions are standard.⁴⁸ CPI 354 TM 6372 is particularly interesting (see Fig. 13.26 in Ch. 13 of this volume). The inscription is confidently to be placed in the third century,⁴⁹ and in the choice between Ptolemy II and III we cautiously favour the latter. The decree states that because of unruliness in the βουλή and the ἐκκλησία, particularly in magisterial elections, henceforth the jury court and the boule are to be chosen ἐξ ἐπιλέκτων ἀνδρῶν (from preselected men), reflecting emphasis on a more oligarchical, less democratic system of civic government in which the presidents (prytaneis) propose the decree (ἐψηϕίσαν[το], line 13: see below). Six prytaneis of year 8 (probably of Ptolemy III Euergetes) are named, each with a different demotic, and also referred to as administrators of the city. They are obviously responsible not only for the boule but also for the other administrative institutions of the city, and they will have performed the duties of ordering the agenda for meetings of the boule and the ekklesia. The constitution is therefore comparable to the Rhodian system in which the college serves ⁴⁷ For details on the tribes and demes of Ptolemais, see Jouguet (1897), 194–8, Plaumann (1910), 4–25, Ptol.Alex. II, 178–9, nn. 21–4. Dionysia is probable as a tribe name; Satyros, On the Demes (see n. 29 above) cites Hylleus and Karanos son of Aristodamas as descendants of Dionysos. Others are Berenikeus, from the wife of Soter; Philotereios, from the sister of Soter, Philotera; Koineus in P.Tor. XIII, 5–6, the hero Koinos, ancestor of Soter; Danaeus from Danae mother of Perseus; Megisteus, from the Lykian town or island near Rhodes or the epithet of Zeus and Apollo; Andanieus, from the Messenian town of Andane—perhaps a source of citizens; Sostrateus: see P.Grenf. 10.12 (cf. CPI 356 and 357, TM 6416, 6375). See also Ptol.Alex. II 122, n. 54, preferring Danaeus from the Danaus-cycle, with the argument that demotics were originally distributed between Alexandria and Ptolemais, (cf. Schubart (1913), 92, Plaumann (1910), 20–4); Ptol.Alex. II, 125, n. 76, on Philotereios and Berenikeus; 126, n. 80, Karanos alternatively the hipparch in Alexander’s army. ⁴⁸ See Rhodes and Lewis (1997), 467. They note that Plaumann (1910), 6–7 argued for individual proposers in the assembly and collegiate presentation by the prytaneis through the council but see no evidence for different procedures (with Fraser 1959/60, 128, n. 17). ⁴⁹ Jouguet (1897), 192–4, discusses the palaeography of CPI 354 alongside 352 and 353, all of which he considered contemporary; cf. the discussion in Ch. 13.5.1 of this volume.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Alan Bowman

71

for the whole year, rather than the Athenian system. This is reflected in the formula πρυτάνεις οἱ σὺν Διονυσίωι Μουσαίου τοῦ [ὀ]γδόου ἔτους (‘Dionysios and his colleagues, the presidents of the eighth year’) in CPI 354 TM 6372 and the occurrence of the title archiprytanis in CPI 364 TM 6697 in the later Ptolemaic period (78 or 49 ). It is unfortunate that the last part of the text of CPI 354 TM 6372, apparently referring to the possible appointment of a dioiketes (finance officer) is lacunose. It is particularly striking that there is already a public statement about dysfunction in civic government within a generation or two of the foundation, and signs of intervention, possibly with royal authority. The election of magistrates and jurymen seems to have been the heart of the matter and the reaction is described in lines 13–17:⁵⁰ καὶ ἐψηϕίσαν[το] | ἐξ ἐπιλέκτων ἀνδρῶν τὴν βουλὴν [καὶ τ]ὸ δικαστή[ριον ἑλέ]σθαι ἐϕ’ οἷ[ς] | παροξυνόμενοι οἱ νεώτεροι καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι πο̣λ̣ῖ ̣ται προαιροῦν̣τ̣αι βέλτιον πο[λιτεύ]|ε̣σ̣ θαι καὶ περὶ ὧν ὑπελάμβανον συμϕέρειν τῆι πόλει διοικηθῆνα[ι | διο]ικητὴν οἱ̣ π̣ρο[- - -].

These last two lines are difficult to understand and the translations of Austin and É. Bernand⁵¹ are problematic. They render παροξυνόμενοι with a negative or pejorative sense, ‘irritated’ or ‘antipathetic’, though the positive sense ‘spurred on’ also seems possible and perhaps preferable (see below). Austin has ‘the younger men were incensed at this/but [my italics] the other [citizens who were selected thought that? ] the city would be better governed’, etc.⁵² The meaning of the term οἱ νεώτεροι in this text is important and has been much discussed.⁵³ It seems to me to make sense to see them not as institutionalized but simply as those under the age of thirty who were annoyed by being excluded from certain positions, especially the boule and the magistracies. So I prefer to translate:

⁵⁰ This version of the text reflects what we believe to be improved readings by Bowman and Crowther on the basis of a re-examination of the squeeze. ⁵¹ In Austin², no. 293 and I.Louvre 4. ⁵² Austin’s translation requires us to take καὶ in καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι πολῖται in a strongly adversative sense, as if we had a μέν…δέ…construction; and yet it is natural to take those words coordinately with νεώτεροι. Both translations rely on the reading αἱρο[ύμενοι], which the squeeze reveals to be clearly erroneous; προαιροῦνται (‘choose’) fits the context satisfactorily; Fraser rightly regarded the reading αἱροῦν̣τ̣αι as clear but for some reason crossed out in his notes the reading of the equally clear three preceding letters; cf., however, Ptol.Alex. II, 178, n. 23. ⁵³ First by Jouguet (1897), 189–93, and Plaumann (1910), 4–5, without definitive argument or conclusion, then later recapitulated by Fraser (1959/1960), 130–2 and discussed with reference to this decree by Legras (1999), 229–31. Kennell (2013), 222–3, sees them as younger citizens, a defined status group of young men between 20 and 30 years of age, as at Beroia, where they are neoi, neoteroi, or neaniskoi in the gymnasiarchal law (Kennell (2013), 218). He takes παροξυνόμενοι in the positive sense: the neoteroi, a faction within the ruling elite, were spurred on to appoint an administrator, following the lead of the prytaneis and thus showing an oligarchic orientation.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

72

The Epigraphy of the ‘Greek Cities’

they then voted that the council and the jury court should be chosen from preselected men; the younger citizens and the other citizens, spurred on by this, choose to improve the city’s governance, and concerning the matters they thought would benefit the city…to be administered…a dioiketes…

We have no further explicit indication of civic strife at Ptolemais and there is no evidence that a dioiketes was actually appointed on this occasion (cf. nn. 30–1 above, on Lykarion at Alexandria) but it is notable that there is an undated dedication of the Ptolemaic period, probably but not certainly from Ptolemais, made by Πτολεμαῖος στρατηγὸς πόλεως, a title not otherwise known.⁵⁴ Civic unrest might also be discouraged by more overt means. Another dedication from Ptolemais of 138/7  is probably connected with the presence of a military garrison (CPI 360 TM 7236). Three-quarters of the names of the dedicants are from the Greek repertoire,⁵⁵ but the mixture of Greek, Macedonian, Egyptian, Iranian, and Semitic names suggests that the body of dedicants is at least partly connected with the military garrison at Ptolemais.⁵⁶ The reference to οἱ νεώτεροι naturally leads to consideration of the organization of the young, pre-citizen population. As in Alexandria, there must have been ephebic institutions of some sort and these will have been connected with the gymnasium, as is standard in Hellenistic cities. This is attested in an interesting but problematic text, from the end of the second century  (CPI 361 TM 6294): references to the gymnasium and the use of the term πολιτογραϕῆσαι (line 8) guarantee that it comes from a Greek city, and Ptolemais is much more likely than Alexandria to be the provenance. The stone contains two distinct documents. The first, covering document is a resolution of the boule to erect a bronze statue of the king and of a gymnasiarch or former gymnasiarch, Sarapion, to be financed by the contributions made by fifteen new members enrolled into the gymnasium and citizenship and to allow Sarapion the privilege of enrolling a further ten members of the gymnasium. The second, later document is a resolution of the assembly of members of the gymnasium to implement the decree of the council and erect the statue. Despite the uncertainties of some readings in the text, it seems reasonably clear that there is a reference to shortage of funds, which will have been the stimulus to the enrolment of new members of the gymnasium and new citizens. It is also interesting that the civic authorities did not feel able to ⁵⁴ CPI 367 TM 6426. Compare the title ἐπὶ τῆς πόλεως held by Lykarion at Alexandria (CPI 58; for which, see nn. 30, 32 above). ⁵⁵ See Peremans (1972), 74 and (1978), 92. ⁵⁶ For detailed discussion, see most recently Martin (1993), 217–18 and cf. Launey (1987), I, 570. For a ὕπαιθρον (camp) of some sort, see P.Amh. II 32 and W.Chr. 447, both second century , and cf. Winnicki (1978), 38–40. See also CPI 450 TM 80769 I.Philae 1 20, 118–16 , [καὶ αἱ ἐ]ν̣ Πτολεμαίδι τεταγμέ[ναι δυνάμεις | πε]ζ̣ικαὶ καὶ ἱππικαὶ καὶ ναυτικα[ί] (‘the forces of infantry, cavalry, and sailors stationed in Ptolemais’).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Alan Bowman

73

erect statues of former gymnasiarchs until a statue of the king was in place. It is hardly surprising that royal prerogative made itself felt in the supposedly autonomous polis, or that the gymnasium was a key element in civic institutions, in contrast to the other Egyptian towns.

5.4.3 Religion and Culture Before discussing the relevant inscriptions, an important item of papyrological evidence should be noted. This records details of a dispute which arose in  160 about the status of the neokorate of a temple of Ptolemy Soter in Koptos. It is clear that from the foundation of Ptolemais the revenues derived from the neokorate were assigned to Ptolemais and were to be preserved (lines 9–14):⁵⁷

12

[ἐ]πιστολῆς γραϕείσης μοι ὑπὸ πρυτανέων καὶ βουλῆς καὶ δήμου Πτολεμαιέων τ̣ῶν ἐν Θηβαίδι ἀντίγρ(αϕον) ὑποτέτακται. ἐπεὶ οὖν, ὥς ϕασιν, ἡ νεωκορία τοῦ ἐν Κόπτωι ἱεροῦ Σωτῆρος τῆι πόλει αὐτῶν προσήκει, ἀκόλουθόν ἐστι τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἔθος αὐτοῖς ϕυλάσσεσθαι.

A copy of the letter written to me by the prytaneis and the council and the assembly of the Ptolemaeans in the Thebaid is appended. Since, therefore, as they say, the neokorate of the temple of Soter in Koptos belongs to their city, consequently the custom established from the beginning should be preserved for them.

This is an important testimony not merely to the durability of such institutions of Ptolemaic dynastic cult, but also to the fact that from the very foundation links were established with important neighbouring towns which would foster the processes of interaction between the Hellenic and the indigenous populations and cultures. The inscriptions provide precious evidence for the Greek and GraecoEgyptian temples and cults in Ptolemais, for a theatre (CPI 353 TM 6373), and for festivals and games with a significant ‘international’ dimension. In CPI 360 TM 7236 we have the dedication of a shrine to Thripis (i.e. Triphis), Kolanthes, Pan and the synnaoi theoi in favour of Ptolemy VIII, his sister, wife, and their children, by Paniskos son of Lykophron and twenty eight fellow members of an association, probably with military connections, of which Paniskos is epimeletes (‘supervisor’).⁵⁸ An inscription, which may be from the Ptolemaic or the early Roman period (possibly the reign of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (138/7 ) or Ptolemy IX (84 )), mentions a temple of Isis and an altar to the Graeco-Egyptian deities Harbaktes and Hierax which

⁵⁷ SB 6 9016.

⁵⁸ See nn. 55, 56 above.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

74

The Epigraphy of the ‘Greek Cities’

(surely significantly) lie outside the city wall (CPI 363 TM 6373).⁵⁹ CPI 359 TM 6396 is a dedication of an altar by Nikomachos, a priest of Zeus, to Ptolemy VI Philometor in favour of Hippalos, an epistrategos (regional governor) and priest of Ptolemy I Soter and Ptolemy IV Epiphanes. A temple of Dionysos is mentioned in CPI 355 TM 6374. Two further items give details of special regulations for temples in Ptolemais. One prescribes regulations for purification prior to entering an unidentified sanctuary or temple at Ptolemais, and we assume that the column on which it was inscribed originally stood at the entrance to the temple (CPI 362 TM 103548). We have found no precise parallel for the particular prohibitions from Egypt or elsewhere, but analogous prescriptions from the Hellenistic and Roman east are well known.⁶⁰ The second (CPI 365 TM 7090), to be dated to 46  (or less plausibly 75 ), is a letter from a certain Theon, evidently an important official, to the city of Ptolemais, transmitting a royal proclamation concerning the tax-free status and the right of asylia for a temple of Isis built by the epistrategos Kallimachos (see n. 59). The right of asylia in Egypt differed significantly from the institution in other Hellenistic kingdoms and, as Rigsby notes, this is the only one from Ptolemais and the monument differs in type from those at other Egyptian towns.⁶¹ Finally, two important inscriptions (CPI 355 TM 6374, Fig. 13.27 in Ch. 13 of this volume, and 357 TM 6375) record votes of honours to presidents of the council (prytaneis) of Ptolemais by the Artists of Dionysos, asssociated with the Theoi Philadelphoi. Both decrees are explicit in attesting the celebration of the Dionysia at Ptolemais and are of very great interest as evidence for the cultural life of Ptolemais, for the active presence in Hellenistic Egypt of the Artists of Dionysos,⁶² and for dramatic performances in Ptolemaic Egypt of both tragedy and comedy (note especially the named tragic, comic, and epic poets at CPI 357, 31–9).⁶³ It is unclear whether this decree is made by a ‘national’ association or a local chapter (CPI 357 records two Thracian names in lines 62 and 66); but the size and character of the membership

⁵⁹ See Criscuolo (1985); if the inscription is Ptolemaic, it might be the temple of CPI 365 TM 7090, built by Kallimachos. See Bingen (1994a), Van Minnen (2003). ⁶⁰ Material cited by Sokolowski (1962). The commentary by Plaumann (1910), 54–8 is useful and detailed. Fraser had seen the stone in the Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria; we have worked from his photograph and squeeze, the latter much more useful. By far the best recent discussion and analysis is that of Bingen (1993), although there are some serious doubts about readings and meaning. He argues convincingly that it is arranged in two parallel sections, with the prescriptions for men in lines 3–8 and those for women in lines 8–14. ⁶¹ CPI 365 TM 7090, Asylia, no. 226. ⁶² See Pickard-Cambridge (1968), 279–321, and Aneziri (2003), 109–18 and (2009). I am grateful to Simon Hornblower for much of the material cited in this paragraph. See also his discussion of Herodes (Ch. 12.3 of this volume). ⁶³ For tragedy, see Ziegler (1937), col. 1971, and Hornblower (2018).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Alan Bowman

75

strongly suggests that the cultural ramifications will have spread well beyond Ptolemais, and even if these individuals were all based there, they will surely have performed in other cities both in Egypt and the wider Hellenistic world.

A P P E ND I X : A N OT E ON TH E DA T I N G O F I N S C R I P TI O N S F R OM P TO L E M A I S Six of the inscriptions are from the third century , but there is considerable uncertainty about the precise dates, as between the reigns of Ptolemy II Philadelphos (284/282–246 ) and Ptolemy III Euergetes (246–222 ). We believe that CPI 352 can be assigned with some confidence to the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphos (a little after 267 ; see Koenen (1977), 3–8, TM 8542) and 353 to that of Ptolemy III Euergetes. As for the others, 354 and 355 concern Dionysios son of Musaios, and 356 and 357 concern Lysimachos son of Ptolemaios. If it is the case that in both pairs the ‘executive’ office preceded the honorary titles, 354 will be earlier than 355, and 356 earlier than 357, thus suggesting a relative dating. Fraser thought that the references to Theoi Adelphoi in 355 and 357 strongly suggest the reign of Philadelphos, post 272/1 and in any case before 243/2 (see Ptol.Alex. I, 216, Rice (1983), 53–5), but we do not find this argument for the earlier dating compelling since the Theoi Adelphoi do appear in later texts. In fact, we believe that the palaeographical characteristics of 354 strongly suggest a later rather than earlier date, which argues for allocation of these four inscriptions to the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes.⁶⁴ If that is correct, of these six inscriptions, only 352 will date to the reign of Philadelphos, the other five to that of Euergetes.

⁶⁴ For the palaeography of these inscriptions, see the discussion at Ch. 13.5.1 of this volume.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

6 Religious Life in Ptolemaic Alexandria under the Royal Aegis An Overview of the Epigraphic Evidence Kyriakos Savvopoulos

6.1 INTRODUCTION The most widely read and cited chapters in Fraser’s Ptolemaic Alexandria are probably those relating to religious life and its associated royal policies.¹ They offer a fascinating, though difficult path for students and researchers to follow. A broad range of epigraphic evidence emphasizes the key role of religious institutions and activities, under direct or indirect royal patronage, in the formation of a diverse and flexible cultural environment affording multiple permutations. As part of this environment, religion became the vehicle for the promotion of a composite ideological programme, appropriate for communicating the dual (Macedonian and Egyptian) character of the Ptolemaic monarchy in which the individual rulers had both human and divine characteristics.² This chapter will attempt to provide an updated overview of the relevant epigraphic evidence, focusing on the roles and relationships of the Ptolemies and their courtiers as well as of other prominent individuals involved in the ¹ Particularly Ptol.Alex. I, Ch. 5 ‘The Cults of Alexandria’. ² Studies of the subject post-dating the publication of Ptolemaic Alexandria in 1972 are somewhat limited, not only due to the recognized wide impact of the latter, but also because of the paucity of new evidence, which has not been sufficient to require a systematic reconsideration of the whole corpus. The main contributions to the subject since 1972 have been the publications of Jean Bingen, particularly the selection of papers included in Bingen (2007), which are notable for their comparativist approach to ‘Egyptian’ and ‘Hellenistic Mediterranean’ culture; and É. Bernand’s I.Alex.Ptol. of 2001, which is the only catalogue of the Ptolemaic epigraphic collection in the Graeco-Roman Museum of Alexandria since E. Breccia’s I.Musée d’Alexandrie of 1911. Kyriakos Savvopoulos, Religious Life in Ptolemaic Alexandria under the Royal Aegis: An Overview of the Epigraphic Evidence In: The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt. Edited by: Alan Bowman and Charles Crowther, Oxford University Press (2020). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198858225.003.0006

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Kyriakos Savvopoulos

77

Alexandrian cults and temples. The discussion will be chronological, and will follow the Ptolemaic dynastic lineage. Along the way, there will be comparisons with other types of material evidence, where possible, providing as panoramic a view as possible of the phenomena under consideration. The selection of inscriptions discussed here, thirty texts in all,³ is significantly less than the complete body of available evidence and can only be partially representative, since it covers a period of only three centuries in the largest metropolis in the Mediterranean region. The lack of material is a significant consideration particularly when new evidence comes to light, such as the unexpected discovery of the Alexandrian Boubastieion.⁴ It is cases such as this that demonstrate the need for a fresh collection and synthesis of the epigraphical evidence, integrating new texts, and making it possible to reconsider received views.

6 . 2 TH E S A RA PI E I ON AND I TS GOD S

6.2.1 The Sarapieion under Ptolemy II The so-called Alexandrian Divine Triad⁵—Sarapis, Isis, and Harpokrates— was without doubt the focal point of Ptolemaic religious policies. Yet, as the discussion below will show, they were located at the centre of a much broader cycle of Egyptian deities, who were also accorded high status and profile in the Alexandrian community. The main cultic centre for the Triad was the Great Sarapieion, situated in what was originally the indigenous Egyptian district of Rhakotis. The earliest—at least archaeologically traceable— systematic construction phase, represented by three inscribed monuments, two statues and an altar, dates to the reign of Ptolemy II. The altar is identified by means of a faded painted inscription on its surface. The first line is the best preserved, bearing the words βασιλέως Πτολεμαί[ου]. The second line is no

³ Assured Alexandrian provenance and Ptolemaic dating are the two strict criteria for the selection of this group of inscriptions, except where noted. Thus, several possibly relevant items have been excluded in order to ensure a demonstrably authentic picture for Ptolemaic Alexandria. ⁴ See Thompson, Ch. 7 of this volume for the foundation plaques from the Boubastieion, and Fischer-Bovet, Ch. 9.3 of this volume, for the honorific inscription for a First Friend and military officer, found in the same area. ⁵ In terms of name and image Sarapis was the Hellenized version of the god Osiris-Apis, a very popular Memphite deity. Sarapis was further identified with Zeus, Hades, Asklepios, and Dionysos. His consort Isis was also assigned a Hellenistic image and was associated with Greek goddesses with similar attributes, such as Demeter and Aphrodite. Finally, Harpokrates, the third member of the Alexandrian divine triad, was the Hellenistic version in form, content, and name of Horos the Child (in Egyptian Ḥ r-pꜢ-ẖ rd), the son of Isis and Osiris.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

78

Religious Life in Ptolemaic Alexandria

longer legible, but most probably read καὶ Ἀρσινόης Φιλαδέλϕου (Arsinoe Philadelphos), since the third line starts with the word θεῶν (‘gods’), the remainder being illegible, suggesting that the deified sister-wife of Ptolemy was also included. With the alternative supplements Σωτήρων (i.e. children of the Saviour Gods) or Ἀδελϕῶν (Sibling Gods, i.e. Philadelphoi),⁶ the whole text can be reconstructed to read: ‘(Altar of) King Ptolemy and Queen Arsinoe Philadelphos, (children of) the gods Soteres (or gods Adelphoi?).’ This inscribed altar, if correctly restored, would be the earliest known indication of the ‘divine nature’ of the Philadelphoi in the city⁷, suggesting a de facto status of synnaoi (‘sharing the temple’)—at least in terms of ritual— with the sanctuary’s principal deities. This can be further justified by complementary monumental evidence relating to Arsinoe II, which includes a statue of the deified queen in the Egyptian style.⁸ The other two examples appear to be of a similar date to the altar, or possibly even slightly earlier.⁹ These are two dedications of statues of Sarapis and Isis, although only the inscribed bases survive today. The two texts read: Δηλοκ[λῆς (?) ἐπ]οίε̣[ι]· Ἀριστόδημος Διοδ[..]ου Ἀθηναῖος Σαράπει καὶ Ἴσιι.¹⁰ Delokles (?) made it; Aristodemos, son of Diodoros (or Diodotos), Athenian, (dedicated it) to Sarapis and Isis. Ἀσκληπιόδ[..ος, Εὔ]. βουλος : ΕΥ[- - -] Σάραπ[ει].¹¹ Asklepiodotos (or Asklepiodoros), Euboulos […] to Sarapis.

The striking monumentality of the divine statuary carrying the dedications leaves no doubt of the prominent status of the dedicants, despite both texts providing minimal information. In the first, Aristodemos son of Diodoros or ⁶ CPI 34 TM 6414. ⁷ Another portable altar dedicated to the Theoi Adelphoi was found in the Western Harbour. CPI 33 TM 107253. See also the examples in Section 6.2.2 below, from the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes. ⁸ The lower half of a cultic statue of Arsinoe II (Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 14941) shares similar characteristics with those found in other areas of the kingdom, such as Memphis, and might have been related to the individual cult of the deified queen in the Sarapieion. For further epigraphic evidence from Alexandria and the neighbouring area related to Arsinoe II and her cult, see CPI 32 TM 6602, 597 TM 6447 (but provenance uncertain), 29 TM 7033 and 42 TM 5951. ⁹ The dating is based on palaeographical criteria, for which cf. the discussion in Ch. 13 of this volume. ¹⁰ CPI 43 TM 5944; see Fraser (1964), 81–2, no.12a and Ptol.Alex. II, 422, n. 644. The patronymic will be either Διοδ[ώρ]ου or Διοδ[ότ]ου. The reading of the sculptor’s name as Delokles offers an unicum and may be a mistake for Demokles. ¹¹ CPI 42 TM 5951.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Kyriakos Savvopoulos

79

Diodotos declares that he is an Athenian.¹² In the second, we have the names of Asklepiodotos or Asklepiodoros and Euboulos, followed by another word which could be reconstructed either as the patronym Εὐβούλου (‘son of Euboulos’; cf. I.Alex.Ptol. 4), or, less likely, as εὐχήν (‘as a vow’). No further information is provided, such as whether they were courtiers, Alexandrian citizens, ambassadors, newcomers, or visitors to the city. If Aristodemos was acting publicly as an Athenian representative, as is possible, this dedication could be based on the outcome of some matter related to the ‘friendship’ between Athens and the Ptolemies. In such a context, Aristodemos’ dedication could manifest the respect of Athens for Alexandria’s emblematic deities, the most ambitious cultural project of the Ptolemies. Furthermore, from a Ptolemaic point of view, such a dedication would have been very welcome in the early days of the sanctuary, even if it were only the private initiative of a prosperous individual. A dedication ‘from Athens’ would in any case have added prestige to the sanctuary, manifesting the diffusion of the Sarapis cult—and whatever represents it in ideological terms—beyond the ‘Alexandrian borders’.¹³

6.2.2 The Sarapieion under Ptolemy III and IV Systematic construction activities on the site of the Sarapieion continued more intensively under Ptolemy II’s successors. Among other projects, the main temple for Sarapis was built by order of Ptolemy III, while a shrine dedicated to Harpokrates was added under Ptolemy IV. The site was further adorned with monuments in both Greek and Egyptian styles, including royal statues and colossal sphinxes.¹⁴ Such activities are represented by three epigraphic examples. The first, and probably earliest, concerns the foundation of the Sarapis temple. It is made up of a group of small plaques made of various materials, including gold, silver, glass, and mud, inscribed in both Greek and hieroglyphs.¹⁵ The Greek text reads (CPI 12 TM 6209): Βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος Πτολεμαίου καὶ Ἀρσινόης θεῶν Ἀδελϕῶν Σαράπει τὸν ναὸν καὶ τὸ τέμενος. King Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy and Arsinoe, gods Adelphoi, to Sarapis, the temple and the sanctuary.

¹² For the presence of Athenians in Alexandria, see Ptol.Alex. II, 149, n. 206. ¹³ Cf. Habicht (1992), Hölbl (2001), 23–4. ¹⁴ For an updated revision of the architecture in the Sarapieion, see McKenzie et al. (2004). For related sculptural monuments, Albersmeier (2002), 285, no. 10; Ashton (2001), 118–119, no. 69; 2003, 21–2; 2004, 22; (in Walker and Higgs, (2001)), no 53; Ashton and Seif el-Din (2001), no. 54; Savvopoulos and Bianchi (2012), 15–17 and nos. 1, 22, 23, 32, 34; appendix V, 1. ¹⁵ These are analysed in more detail by Thompson, Ch. 7 of this volume.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

80

Religious Life in Ptolemaic Alexandria

Ptolemy III appears as the son of his royal parents, without his wife, Berenike II, and also without his cultic title Euergetes. A possible explanation for such a titulature might be that Ptolemy inaugurated the construction of the temple after his accession but before his marriage to Berenike, but this interpretation faces a number of objections. First, there is no cultic title, which should certainly be present in the case of a reigning monarch. Second, the same formula—single ruler, without cultic title and identified by her closest relatives—is also used in another dedication in the Sarapieion. Here, Berenike II appears as the sole dedicant, despite acting on behalf of her husband. She also bears no cultic title, although she certainly had one by that time (CPI 14 TM 6479):

4

[Βασίλισ]σα Βερενίκη [ὑπὲρ βασι]λέως [Πτολεμαίου το]ῦ αὐτῆς [ἀδελϕοῦ καὶ ἀν]δ̣ρ̣ός.

Queen Berenike, on behalf of King Ptolemy, her brother and husband.

The bilingual foundation plaques at the shrine of Harpokrates, built by order of Ptolemy IV, present a similar case. The king appears as son of Ptolemy (III) and Berenike (II) without either a spouse or cultic title (CPI 18 TM 6210):

4

Βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης Βερενίκης θεῶν Εὐεργετῶν Ἁρποχράτει κατὰ πρόσταγμα Σαράπιδος καὶ Ἴσιδος.

King Ptolemy, son of King Ptolemy and Queen Berenike, gods Euergetai, to Harpochrates on the instruction of Sarapis and Isis.

In conclusion, although we might be dealing with slightly different circumstances, regarding the foundation of temples in Alexandria by the Ptolemies, one could suggest the following: • No cultic title is necessary for the king when the role of the king appears to be limited to that of founder. • It is the royal-human nature—not the divine—that is stressed, and thus required. • Joint foundation by the royal couple is not necessarily required. The bilingual nature of these dedications reminds us at the same time that both Greek and Egyptian traditions contributed to the formation of the Sarapis cultic cycle. Hence, while Sarapis is obviously linked by name to the Egyptian pantheon, associations with major Greek deities—by both name and role, Zeus and Asklepios among them—are also attested in Alexandria.¹⁶ ¹⁶ An inscribed fragment from an architrave found in the street of Sidi el-Wast, very close to the Sarapieion, has been excluded from CPI as evidently Roman from its palaeography, although it is registered as Ptolemaic by É. Bernand (I.Alex.Ptol. 52, TM 103227, Alexandria,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Kyriakos Savvopoulos

81

We should look at Harpokrates and his shrine from a similar perspective. The Harpokratieion appears to be the Alexandrian version of the Egyptian birth-house (Mammisi), a common element in the temple complexes around the chora. Mammisis are dedicated to the ‘holy’ child of a major female goddess; for Alexandria, this is Horos the Child (Harpokrates), son of Isis and Sarapis. At the same time, the widespread identification of Horos the Child with Apollo would also allow the introduction into the site of the latter by his Greek name.¹⁷ Further monumental evidence suggests that such extensive syncretism owes much not only to Ptolemaic aspiration, but also to the knowledge and contribution of major representatives from both traditions. Such were the high priests of Memphis, the most highly esteemed priestly family in Egypt and the Ptolemies’ most valuable Egyptian supporters, who were accordingly honoured in Alexandria’s most important sanctuary.¹⁸ The final example from the third-century  Sarapieion is a family dedication to Isis and other goddesses. This is the only case known so far where the dedicants attached an epithet to the names of the gods, addressing them as Saviours:

4

Ἴσι καὶ ταῖς ἄ̣[λλαις θε]αῖς ταῖς σῳ[ζούσαις] Πύρρανδρος [τοῦ δεῖνος καὶ] Δημητρία [ἡ γυνὴ ὑπὲρ αὑ]τῶ[ν κ]αὶ τ[ῶν τέκνων].¹⁹

To Isis and the other saving goddesses, Pyrrhandros [son of NN and] Demetria, his wife (dedicated this) for themselves and their children.

Graeco-Roman Museum 17524); possibly it was displaced from its precinct in a later period. The text reads: [․․․ Διὶ μ]ε̣γάλῳ σωτῆρι Σ[αράπιδι] (‘To Zeus great saviour Sarapis’). Regarding Asklepios, Sarapis seems to have fully absorbed the identity of the most popular healing deity of the Greek world. Hence, Asklepios on his own appears in one private epigraphic monument, dating as early as the late fourth century  (CPI 39 TM 103550). Sarapis was already demonstrating his effectiveness as a ‘healer’ within the reign of Ptolemy I Soter. According to Diogenes Laertius, ‘He [i.e. Demetrios] is said to have lost his sight when in Alexandria and to have recovered it by the gift of Sarapis’ (Diog. Laert. 5.5). ¹⁷ The popular Greek god was widely identified with Horos around the country, while the ‘land of Horos’, the Nome of Edfu, was given the Greek name Apollonopolis, after Apollo. Hence the dedication in the Sarapieion could be justified by the existence, from the reign of Ptolemy IV, of the Harpokrates (Horos) shrine and cult (CPI 44 TM 6693). ¹⁸ Two statues depicting the Memphite high priest Psenptais I have been found on the site, dating to between 263/2 and 249/8  (Alexandria, Graeco-Roman Museum 17533 and 17534; cf. Savvopoulos and Bianchi (2012), no. 34). The high priesthood of Memphis was at the head of the Egyptian religious establishment in the kingdom, including the cult of Arsinoe II. The priests were also valued advisers to the kings, while in some cases there was even intermarriage, as in the case of Princess Berenike, daughter of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II and Kleopatra III, who was married to the high priest Psenptais, and then became the mother of the high priest Petobastis III. See the grave stele of Petobastis III (82) in Reymond (1981), 27–30, 105–112, no. 15 (Vienna). ¹⁹ CPI 47 TM 104506.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

82

Religious Life in Ptolemaic Alexandria

It is well known from other types of evidence that Isis was venerated in the private sphere for taking care of humankind in matters of everyday life, death, and the afterlife. Yet epigraphic examples from the rest of the city, which will be discussed in Section 6.3.1 below, indicate a systematic, state promotion of the identity of Sarapis and Isis as Saviours in the reign of Ptolemy IV. As for the rest of the female ‘Saviour Deities’ indicated in the text, one could speculate about a wide variety of candidates, including Greek and Egyptian deities as well as deified queens. Yet the text does not impose a limitation of candidates to those residing within the precinct (περίβολος) of the Sarapieion.

6.3 THE SACRED TOPOGRAPHY OF ALEXANDRIA

6.3.1 Sarapis and Isis The remainder of the epigraphic evidence under investigation comes from across the city. Unfortunately the exact provenance of several examples remains unclear, due to the uncertain circumstances of their discovery. What is not in doubt, however, is the dominance of Sarapis and Isis in the sacred topography of Alexandria during the third century . Accordingly, the Alexandrian kings and their ‘people’ appear in a wide variety of roles, from founders to ‘temple-sharing’ gods (synnaoi). The earliest example must date to the first quarter of the third century , perhaps the reign of Ptolemy I Soter (306–284 ).²⁰ The text reads:

4

Ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ τῶν τέκνων Σαράπιδι Ἴσιδι Νικάνωρ καὶ Νίκανδρος Νίκωνος Πολυδεύκειοι²¹

Nikanor and Nikandros, sons of Nikon, members of the deme Polydeukeios, (dedicated this) in favour of King Ptolemy and his children, to Sarapis and Isis.

As in most of the cases from the Sarapieion, the text includes the minimum of information: two siblings, Nikanor and Nikandros, dedicate to Sarapis and Isis in favour of Ptolemy and his children.²² At first sight, such a statement illustrates a relationship to, or an act in collaboration with, the royal house, ²⁰ For palaeography-based dating of Ptolemaic inscriptions, see Crowther, Ch. 13 of this volume. ²¹ CPI 8 TM 6369. For this deme, see Ptol.Alex. I, 44. ²² The formula καὶ τῶν τέκνων is quite frequent from the reign of Ptolemy III onwards. The palaeography of the inscription, however, leaves little doubt as to its date, and this seems to be an early example; cf. the discussion in Ch. 13.3 of this volume.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Kyriakos Savvopoulos

83

albeit probably a symbolic rather than an actual one. Hence it would be safer to understand such dedications in terms of public acts of loyalty and adherence to the royal house and its policies.²³ While the ὑπὲρ βασιλέως dedication of Nikanor and Nikandros most probably suggests their loyalty to the king in symbolic terms, there are cases where the formula takes on a more literal meaning. An inscription found in the Mahmoudieh Canal, in the area of the Antoniades Gardens, refers to the foundation of a sanctuary dedicated to Sarapis and Isis. In this case, the king is ‘represented’ by Archagathos, governor of Libya, and his wife Stratonike:²⁴

4

Ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Πτολεμαίου καὶ Βερενίκης Σωτήρων Ἀρχάγαθος Ἀγαθοκλέους ὁ ἐπιστάτης τῆς Λιβύης καὶ ἡ γυνὴ vv Στρατονίκη Σαράπιδι Ἴσιδι τὸ τέμενος.²⁵

In favour of King Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy and Berenike, Soteres, Archagathos, son of Agathokles, governor of Libya, and his wife Stratonike, (dedicated) the sanctuary to Sarapis and Isis.

The involvement of such prominent figures in the promotion of Sarapis and Isis cults, also well documented in other areas of the kingdom, suggests another fact: that the Ptolemies recruited senior members of the court and state machinery for the needs of the project, giving emphasis to the state aspect of the activity. Hence, ‘state’ cultic branches of Sarapis and Isis seem to have been established around the city as early as the reign of Ptolemy II, while in the centre the Sarapieion represents Alexandria’s ‘cathedral’, particularly after Ptolemy III. Nevertheless, the attention of Ptolemy III enjoyed by Sarapis and Isis was no obstacle to the king’s expansion of the city’s divine repertoire, encompassing both the Greek and Egyptian pantheons.

6.3.2 The Boubastieion The discovery of the Boubastieion has been the most unexpected result of Alexandrian archaeology so far in the present century. The sanctuary, ²³ For the interpretation of the formula as an act of loyalty, see Ptol.Alex. I, 115–16, with the associated notes in vol. II. ²⁴ Archagathos was the son of the tyrant of Syracuse, Agathokles, who before his death sent his family to the court of Ptolemy I Soter. Archagathos seems to have grown up in the Ptolemaic court during the reign of Ptolemy Soter; his mother Theoxena was the daughter of Berenike I, from her first marriage to a general of Alexander the Great, Philip, who died in 318 . Cf. Moretti (1965), 173, Bagnall (1976). Fraser is more hesitant about this identification: Ptol.Alex. II, 427 n. 676. ²⁵ CPI 9 TM 6083.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

84

Religious Life in Ptolemaic Alexandria

dedicated to the Egyptian cat-goddess Bastet (Boubastis), was situated in a prime public site in the city, next to major venues such as the royal quarters and the gymnasium.²⁶ The Boubastieion is not mentioned in any of the ancient written sources, and only limited information can be extracted from epigraphic evidence from the rest of the country.²⁷ As seen in the foundation deposits at the site, written in both Greek and hieroglyphs, Berenike II appears as founder of the sanctuary, in favour of her husband:²⁸

4

Βασίλισσα Βερενίκη ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου τοῦ αὑτῆς ἀδελϕοῦ καὶ ἀνδρὸς καὶ τῶν τούτων τέκνων τὸν ναὸν καὶ τὸ τέμενος καὶ τὸν βωμὸν Βουβάστει.²⁹

Queen Berenike in favour of King Ptolemy her brother and husband and their children (dedicated) the shrine and the precinct and the altar to Boubastis.

Boubastis is known as a protector of women in childbirth. Hundreds of ex-voto dedications, including terracotta statuettes of cats and children, were found at the site, providing strong evidence for the popularity of the cult; and while the cat represents the animal manifestation of the deity, the statuettes of children recall the dedications in the sanctuaries of Artemis, the Greek protector of motherhood and pregnancy.³⁰ Boubastis, therefore, seems to have fulfilled the Ptolemaic requirements of cross-cultural compatibility after incorporating the cultic elements of her Greek equivalent. Just as interesting is another rather typical ‘Greek’ use of the sanctuary as a public spot for displaying non-religious messages. This is exemplified by the honorific statue of a First Friend, erected by a military association, for his goodwill towards Ptolemy VI (CPI 55 TM 380605).³¹

6.3.3 Other Gods Meanwhile, there were royal plans to extend Alexandria’s religious repertoire to major representatives of the Olympian pantheon such as Zeus. A dedication

²⁶ For a preliminary report, Abd el-Maksoud and Seif el-Din (2012), 427–46. ²⁷ Cf. CPI 586 TM 6181, 179 TM 6606, 612 TM 102639, 114 TM 103840, 85 TM 6509, 648 TM 102471, 174 TM 4169. ²⁸ In terms of the headline formula, there are profound similarities with the dedication of the same queen in the Sarapieion, discussed in Section 6.2.2 above. See also Thompson, Ch. 7 of this volume. ²⁹ CPI 13 TM 828689, 828690, 828691. Text as transcribed in Abd el-Maksoud, Abd el-Fattah, and Seif el-Din, (2015). ³⁰ Cf. Bobou (2015), nos. 1–18. ³¹ Quoted and discussed as Text 9.3 by Fischer-Bovet in Ch. 9.3 of this volume.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Kyriakos Savvopoulos

85

plaque found in the Victoria neighbourhood, on the eastern side of the city, suggests that patronage at a sanctuary in the area was shared between the Gods Adelphoi and Zeus (CPI 15 TM 6381):³²

4

8

12

Ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Πτολεμαίου καὶ Ἀρσινόης θεῶν Ἀδελϕῶν καὶ βασιλίσσης Βερενίκης τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ ἀδελϕῆς τοῦ βασιλέως θεῶν Εὐεργετῶν ⁚ {καὶ} θεοῖς Ἀδελϕοῖς ⟨καὶ⟩ Διὶ Ὀλυμπίωι καὶ Διὶ Συνωμοσίωι³³ τοὺς βωμοὺς καὶ τὰ τεμένη καὶ τὴν συνκύρουσαν αὐτοῖς γῆν Κλέων καὶ Ἀντίπατρος οἱ ἱερεῖς τοῦ Διός.

Kleon and Antipatros, the priests of Zeus, (dedicate) the altars and the precincts (temene) and the land belonging to them to the gods Adelphoi, and Zeus Olympios and Zeus Synomosios in favour of King Ptolemy (III), son of Ptolemy (II) and Arsinoe (II) gods Adelphoi, and Queen Berenike (II) the sister and wife of the king, gods Euergetai.

Ptolemy III is identified in the headline formula both by his patronymic as son of the Sibling Gods (Adelphoi), and by his own cultic title, Euergetes, stressing the divine progenitor relationship with his predecessors, who were also temple-sharing deities in the sanctuary. The choice of the Olympian Zeus, head of the Greek Pantheon, seems to complete the range of gods, in terms of cultural variety, with which the Adelphoi, and particularly Arsinoe II, appeared as synnaoi.³⁴ It further illustrates the flexible terms upon which the royal cult was developed, as a common denominator in the religious life of Alexandria—and Egypt—regardless of cultural preferences and audiences. The establishment of royal cults for individual rulers attached to those of Greek deities is also attested in the reign of Ptolemy IV. Here the temple

³² Although the text in I.Alex.Ptol. has been followed here, in CPI the reading on the stone, without Mahaffy’s relocation of καί, from line 6 to line 7, has been retained; cf. Ch. 8.3 of this volume, with n. 11. ³³ The adjective synomosios could be interpreted as referring to those in whose names oaths are made. As an epiklesis of Zeus it is unique and probably evokes a role as ‘guardian’ or ‘protector of oaths’. ³⁴ See the discussion of the Sarapieion in Section 6.2 above. The cult of Arsinoe was introduced into every major temple around the country, while a traditional Egyptian cult for the Adelphoi and Ammon seems also to appear in Alexandria (cf. n. 48 below).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

86

Religious Life in Ptolemaic Alexandria

was dedicated to the Benefactor Gods (Euergetai) and Hestia (CPI 24 TM 107255):

4

8

[Ὑπὲρ βα]σιλέως Πτολεμαίου [καὶ βασιλί]σσης Ἀρσινόη[ς] [τὸ τέμε]νος καὶ τὸν βωμὸν [Ἡστίας] παν⟨θ⟩έου̣ κ̣αὶ εὐσεβῶν [θεῶν βα]σιλέως Πτο[λ]ε̣μαίου [καὶ βα]σιλίσσης Β̣ [ερ]ε̣νίκης [θεῶν Ε]ὐεργετῶν· τὸ τέμενος [καὶ τὸν βω]μὸν Ἡστίας πανθέου [….. c.¹⁰…..]ης Ἀριστοϕάνους [….. c.¹²…..]Υ.Α.[…..]

[In favour of] King Ptolemy and Queen Arsinoe the sanctuary and the altar of [Hestia] Pantheos and the pious [gods], King Ptolemy and Queen Berenike, [gods] Euergetai; [- -]es the son of Aristophanes [established?] the sanctuary and the altar of Hestia Pantheos.

Hestia appears with the epiklesis Pantheos (‘all-divine’). This is a unique epithet for the Ptolemaic period, which has no clear Hellenistic parallel. It is therefore difficult to comprehend its exact meaning, whether as a literal interpretation in religious terms or as an emphatic expression of the overarching competence of the deity. It is difficult to trace a specific reason for the ‘Pantheos’ status of Hestia (whatever it means) since, at least in a public context, the deity has only a minor role in Egypt. Still, Hestia was part of the group of Greek female deities assimilated to Isis.³⁵ Also, in a traditional Greek context, the domestic nature of Hestia would have provided the means for the royal cult to penetrate the domestic sphere of religious life, particularly among the Greek community.

6 . 4 TH E R E I G N OF P T O L E M Y I V

6.4.1 The Reign of Ptolemy IV: Sarapis and Isis Further evidence from the reign of Ptolemy IV suggests that the cults of Sarapis-Isis experienced a high point at this time, while their relationship with the king appears to have been more complex than before. In the first of

³⁵ The Greeks would call her ‘Ἀϕροδίτην, καὶ Ἑστίαν ἀγαθήν, καὶ Ῥεῖαν, καὶ Δήμητρα’. Hymn to Isis, CPI 281 TM 6304–7, line 22.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Kyriakos Savvopoulos

87

the four surviving examples, Ptolemy IV acts as the founder of a temple of Isis in Alexandria. The foundation plaques of the temple read (CPI 16 TM 5973):

4

Βασιλεὺς Πτ[ολεμαῖος] Πτολεμαίου κ[αὶ Βερενίκης] θεῶν εὐεργε[τῶν Ἴσιδι θεᾶι] μεγίστηι τῆι α[ἰτίαι πολλῶν?] εὐεργεσιῶν εἰς [ἑαυτόν].³⁶

King Ptolemy the son of Ptolemy and [Berenike], gods Euergetai, [to Isis,] the greatest [goddess, who is responsible for many] benefactions to him.

In the headline formula, Ptolemy appears without his cultic title, but still as the son of the Benefactor Gods (Euergetai). The actual reason for the royal initiative is also included. Isis was repeatedly benevolent to Ptolemy, her ‘beloved king’.³⁷ Obviously, in this case, the royal status of the dedicantfounder suggests an approach more in the context of public life or ideology than in terms of any private personal relationship between them. A slightly more elevated role for Ptolemy IV is preserved in the foundation plaques of another temple, once in the heart of the city.³⁸ There, Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III, Father-loving Gods (Philopatores), appear as synnaoi with the Saviour Gods (Soteres) Sarapis and Isis (CPI 23 TM 6691): Σαράπιδος ⟨κ⟩αὶ Ἴσ⟨ι⟩δος θεῶν Σωτήρων καὶ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης Ἀρσινόης θεῶν Φιλοπατόρων. (Foundation deposits of the temple of ) Sarapis and Isis, gods Soteres, and King Ptolemy and Queen Arsinoe, gods Philopatores.

So far, the Philopatores are the only Ptolemaic couple in the Corpus who claim such an equal and direct divine partnership with Sarapis and Isis, the Saviour Gods of the kingdom and its sovereign. As for the Saviour Gods, it is clear here that this role was promoted at the state level, perhaps in relation to major historical events. For instance, Ptolemy IV’s victory at the battle of Raphia (217 ) could have been such an event in which the saviour capacities of Sarapis and Isis acted as catalyst.³⁹ Hence, the term ‘Saviour’ might also be interpreted in a military context, referring to the protectors of the Ptolemaic

³⁶ Regarding the identification of the missing patron deity as Isis, μεγίστη (‘Greatest’) is a common epithet for her all over Egypt (e.g. CPI 279–80 TM 6301–2). ³⁷ Isis is the strongest candidate for being ‘repeatedly benevolent’ to Ptolemy IV (ἠγαπημένου ὑπὸ τῆς Ἴσιδος, ‘beloved of Isis’ in the Raphia Decree, CPI 146 TM 2984, line 6). ³⁸ Found in 1885, during the construction of the so-called Toussoun Bourse. ³⁹ The gratitude of Ptolemy IV was further expressed through the circulation of a silver tetradrachm, depicting the jugate busts of Sarapis and Isis. See also Sfameni Gasparro (2007), 62–3, Bricault (1999), 334–43.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

88

Religious Life in Ptolemaic Alexandria

army, who were worshipped along with their royal and deified protégés who had saved the kingdom from its enemies.⁴⁰ Epigraphic evidence from the reign of Ptolemy IV also includes dedications by eponymous individuals. In two specific examples, elite Alexandrian citizens made dedications to Sarapis and Isis—referred to in one case as ‘Saviour Gods’—as in the example mentioned above. Of course, the typical headline formula clarifies that this is an act of loyalty to the royal couple and their policies.

4

Ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης Ἀρσινόης θεῶν Φιλοπατόρων Σαράπιδι Ἴσιδι Διόδοτος Φυρταίου Ἀλεξανδρεὺς καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ v Διόδοτος Ἀπολλόδοτος, Δημήτριος, Ἀρίστων.⁴¹

In favour of King Ptolemy and Queen Arsinoe, gods Philopatores, to Sarapis and Isis, Diodotos, son of Phyrtaios, Alexandrian, and his sons Diodotos, Apollodotos, Demetrios, and Ariston.

4

Ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσης Ἀρσινόης θεῶν Φιλοπατόρων, Σαράπιδι καὶ Ἴσιδι Σωτήρσιν Ἀρχέπολις Κόσμου v Λεοννατεύς.⁴²

In favour of King Ptolemy and Queen Arsinoe, gods Philopatores, to Sarapis and Isis, Soteres, Archepolis, son of Kosmos, of the Leonnateus deme.

6.4.2 The Reign of Ptolemy IV: Other Gods Finally for the reign of Ptolemy IV, we should notice two other dedications, which, as in the case of the reign of his predecessor, suggest a much wider cycle of religious activities under the royal aegis. As also mentioned in ancient sources, one of the earliest temples founded by the Ptolemies was the Thesmophorion, dedicated to Demeter and Kore. It was situated in Eleusis, on the east side of the city, and it maintained royal attention throughout the

⁴⁰ The epithet Soter is very frequent in dedications to Zeus, the most common protector of military associations or individuals. Cf. CPI 325 TM 6420, 306 TM 8355, 591 TM 110353, 348 TM 110350. Further evidence related to Isis and Sarapis as saviours: CPI 430 TM 6389 (Philae), 449 TM 80763 (Philae), 379 TM 6362 (Thebes), 169 TM 7217 (W. Delta). ⁴¹ CPI 19 TM 107254. ⁴² CPI 20 TM 6535; Fig. 13.13 in Ch. 13 of this volume.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Kyriakos Savvopoulos

89

Ptolemaic period. In the following case, Demeter and Kore, along with Dikaiosyne, were the recipients of one dedication, the text of which reads:

4

Ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης Ἀρσινόης θεῶν Φιλοπατόρων Ἀπολώνιος Ἀμμωνίου καὶ Τιμόκιον Κρισιλάου καὶ τὰ παιδία Δήμητρι καὶ Κόρῃ καὶ Δικαιοσύνῃ.⁴³

In favour of King Ptolemy and Queen Arsinoe, gods Philopatores, Apollonios son of Ammonios, and Timokion, daughter of Krisilaos, and their children, to Demeter and Kore and Dikaiosyne.

In terms of structure, this dedication seems quite similar to previously discussed examples. Although we cannot guess the occasion of this dedication and the particular role of ‘Justice’, the headline ‘salute’ to the ruling couple naturally leads to thoughts of the occasion of a ‘royal’ decision in favour of Apollonios and Timokion and their family. One should be aware, however, of the danger of seeing Demeter’s cult in Alexandria as being traditionally Greek, given the close interconnection of this goddess with Isis. Clearly, this association would have allowed the incorporation of Egyptian elements into the monumental environment of the sanctuary, which included sphinxes and royal statues with Egyptian divine characteristics.⁴⁴ The second example is also a small votive, but dedicated to an Egyptian god, Anoubis, by a group of Egyptian priests (CPI 22 TM 43668; Fig. 13.14 in Ch. 13 of this volume).

4

8

Ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης Ἀρσινόης θεῶν Φιλοπατόρων Ἀνούβει οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τῶν ὀλυροκόπων. ἱερεὺς Ἀμεννεύς. Παχὼς Παᾶπις Παψώβθης Παθβοῦς Πετοσῖρις Πεσιέχων.

In favour of King Ptolemy and Queen Arsinoe, gods Philopatores, to Anoubis, the elders of the emmer-millers, Ammeneus, priest, Pachos, Paapis, Papsobthes, Pathbous, Petosiris, Pesiechon.

Anoubis represents another case of a major Egyptian deity who was incorporated into Ptolemaic stratagems from an early period. In the reign of Ptolemy

⁴³ CPI 17 TM 6387. ⁴⁴ Cf. the discussion by Bianchi in Savvopoulos and Bianchi (2012), no. 29.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

90

Religious Life in Ptolemaic Alexandria

II, grandfather of Philopator, a temple dedicated to Anoubis, Sarapis, and Isis was founded in the area of Kanopos, where another Egyptian priest, Pasis, was in charge. No temple of the god has yet been found in Alexandria. Nonetheless, there is evidence that the Anoubis cult was connected to the cult of Sarapis and Isis.⁴⁵ In terms of the dedicants, the votive reflects the close collaboration between the Egyptian priesthood and the House of Ptolemy— more than vital for both sides—and this clearly also obtained in Alexandria. Yet this is one of the rare cases in the capital where Egyptian loyalty was expressed in the Hellenistic lingua franca.

6.5 THE DARK AGE OF ALEXANDRIAN EPIGRAPHY The period from the reign of Ptolemy V to the end of the Ptolemaic kingdom can be described as the ‘dark age’ of Alexandrian epigraphy. This seems paradoxical, considering the large quantity of related epigraphic evidence surviving from the Egyptian chora, as well as from the Aegean and Cyprus. There is no need to reiterate the obvious lack of evidence, or to offer further explanation. However, it would be worth exploring what other parameters might be involved, such as changes in public life, in the context of the general decline of the kingdom and the royal house itself. For example, it is commonly asserted that the absence of evidence from the Sarapieion marks a decline of the cult of Sarapis, due to the discontinuation of royal support (lack of interest or available funds) and the limited popularity of Sarapis, especially among Egyptians. The withdrawal of support is also seen as a symbolic act of condemnation or the disapproval of society for the disastrous governance of Ptolemy IV and his courtiers in the last part of his reign. This reminds us that the disfavour of society stemmed from some extremely bloody events in the area of the Lageion, the stadium of Alexandria, adjacent to the Sarapieion.⁴⁶ Indeed, the death of Ptolemy IV was the eventual turning point not only for Sarapis, but also for the city and the kingdom in general, which would never again achieve the glory of the third century . As for public

⁴⁵ Anoubis shares an altar with Sarapis and Isis, found in Hadra, inscribed with the words: Ἴσιος Σαράπιος, Ἄνούβιος, θεῶν (CPI 83 TM 107258). ⁴⁶ After a catastrophic period of his reign following the Battle of Raphia, Ptolemy IV Philopator eventually died in 204 . The royal house was left in the control of Sosibios and Agathokles. The two courtiers succeeded, isolating the 6-year-old Ptolemy V, while gradually wiping out almost the entire royal family, including Arsinoe III. This last act, however, proved to be the turning point for Agathokles. Riots soon erupted, during which rebel Alexandrians seized him and his family. The captives were all moved to the stadium, where they were tortured and killed by the angry Alexandrian mob. Polyb. 15. 25.3–12, 33; cf. Huß (1976), chapters I and VII.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Kyriakos Savvopoulos

91

religious activities expressing loyalty to the Crown, these would not only be redundant but also dangerous in a period of decadence and civil war. Yet we might explore further parameters, beyond the concept of decline. For example, we should not exclude the possibility that the Soma, the mausoleum of Alexander the Great and the Ptolemaic family, might have eventually overshadowed the divine royal aspect of the Sarapieion. If Sarapis really did suffer a decline in popularity, Isis seems to have maintained, if not increased, her popularity, and the royal attention to her seems to have been more intensive than ever.⁴⁷ Isis is the recipient of a major dedication dating to the reign of Ptolemy XII, the only surviving epigraphic evidence of the kind from the late Ptolemaic period (CPI 27 TM 6424):

4

8

Ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου θεοῦ Νέου Διονύσου καὶ τῶν τέκνων αὐτοῦ θεῶν Νέων Φιλαδέλϕων Εἴσιδι θεᾷ μεγίστῃ καὶ Σέραπι θεῷ μεγίστῳ Νεϕερῶς Βαβαῦτος ἐκοσμήσατο τὸν ἱερὸν τόπον τοῖς κυρίοις θεοῖς μεγίστοις. (ἔτους) κθʹ Παχώνι κθʹ.

In favour of King Ptolemy, god New Dionysos, and his children, gods New Philadelphoi, for Isis the greatest goddess, and Serapis the greatest god, Nepheros the son of Babays had the sacred place embellished for the lords the greatest gods. Year 28, Pachon 28.

The headline formula addresses the king and his heirs, Ptolemies XIII, XIV, and Kleopatra VII. The royal children already appear with their joint cultic title, Theoi Adelphoi. The occasion of the dedication was the embellishment of an Isis temple by Nepheros, son of Babays, self-evidently a citizen of prominent status, who could afford the costs of the decoration. Nepheros and the aforementioned Egyptian dedicants to Anoubis are currently the only Egyptian representatives in this collection of Alexandrian inscriptions. Such limited evidence corresponds to the general impression deriving from other types of evidence: the Egyptians, presumably the largest

⁴⁷ This relationship is well illustrated in the most monumental way in the statuary of the period, in which we can distinguish two outstanding examples. The first concerns a colossal statue of Isis or of a queen dressed as Isis found in the water near Pharos Island in the 1960s (cf. Walker and Higgs (2001), no. 24b; Ashton, (2001), no. 56). It was probably part of group of colossal Ptolemaic statues in the area, as indicated by the fragments of another six Ptolemaic statues discovered in the 1990s by the Centre d’Études Alexandrines. Another impressive female head of Isis or a Ptolemaic queen with the characteristics of Isis, dating to the second or first century  (Alexandria, Graeco-Roman museum 21992. Cf. Savvopoulos and Bianchi (2012), no. 38). On the relationship between the Ptolemaic queens and Isis, see Ashton (2003).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

92

Religious Life in Ptolemaic Alexandria

of the ethnic groups outside the Greek citizen body appear to be silent (or muted) in the general ‘Greek’ public ambience of the city. Yet one could find several reasons to challenge such a doctrine. First, Rhakotis, the Egyptian domestic quarter (the modern districts of Karmus and Anfuchi), is one of the least investigated areas of Alexandria, as having been almost continuously occupied since antiquity. Even so, sporadic evidence suggests the existence as early as the reign of Ptolemy II of traditional Egyptian cults there, including that of the Adelphoi.⁴⁸ Secondly, the absence of the Egyptians would be more or less guaranteed in a Hellenophone context. Yet evidence from all over the country leaves no doubt that in a public context Egyptians frequently communicated in Greek for their kings.⁴⁹

6.6 CONCLUSION As noted at the beginning of this chapter, this discussion does not aim to be and could not be comprehensive, due to the relatively limited quantity of evidence, which scholars have compiled piece by piece over the last two centuries, Nonetheless, the selected epigraphic evidence does allow us to construct a more nuanced view of the roles and relationships of individual kings, members of the court, and other individuals prominent in the Alexandrian cults and temples, mainly during the reign of the first four Ptolemies. Nevertheless, whatever surprises still lie hidden under modern Alexandria, one can safely conclude that the Ptolemies aimed to augment—not to replace or detach—the divine milieu of their kingdom; and their contribution was more than just to place a group of deities ‘made in Alexandria’ next to the traditional gods. Rather, it was a pioneering, comparative way of thinking and living for those who wished to become part of the ‘New Egypt’ of the Ptolemies’, regardless of their cultural background and lifestyle. The terms were extremely flexible, particularly in matters of religion. Citizens were able to develop their own individual repertoire of choices or even encompass them all, ‘confessing’ their faith to θεοῖς πᾶσι καὶ πάσαις.⁵⁰ When the cultural background does not allow such a flexible modus vivendi, however, as in the case of the Jews, they were free to ignore all options of ‘old and new gods’ and

⁴⁸ See the so-called Anfuchi Triad, a traditional Egyptian statue group, inscribed with hieroglyphs. It represents Ptolemy II, Ammon, and Arsinoe II. Alexandria Graeco-Roman Museum 11261. For an updated overview, see Savvopoulos and Bianchi, (2012), no. 29. ⁴⁹ Cf. CPI 251 TM 6628, 226 TM 6086, 235 TM 8152, 310 TM 6051, 583 TM 6391, 222 TM 6431, 130 TM 104516 and 574 TM 6429. ⁵⁰ From the dedication of Pythogeiton, son of Neilon, CPI 610 TM 7025.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Kyriakos Savvopoulos

93

offer their own divine representative to the Ptolemies for consideration.⁵¹ Once the terms and conditions of the crown had been met, there would be a place reserved for them in the Ptolemaic oikoumene.

⁵¹ There are two fragmentary epigraphic texts related to the foundation of synagogues in Alexandria: [Ὑπὲρ] β̣α̣σ̣[ιλίσ|ση]ς̣ καὶ β[ασι|λ]έως θεῶ[ι με|γάλωι ἐ[πηκό]||ωι. Ἄλυπ̣̣[ος τὴν] | προσε[υχὴν] | ἐπόει, | (ἔτους) ιεʹ Με[χεὶρ - -] (CPI 28 TM 6425, Gabbari, 37 ). [Ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης - - - θε]ωι ὑψίστ̣ωι | [τ]ὸν ἱερὸν | [περίβολον καὶ] τὴν προσ|[ευχὴν καὶ τὰ συγ]κύροντα. (CPI 25 TM 6533, Hadra, third–second century ). Both follow the ὑπὲρ βασιλέως dedication model common in pagan temples, except for the substitution of the term προσευχή (‘synagogue’) instead of ‘the shrine’ or ‘the temple’. Also, the divine nature of the Ptolemies is not acknowledged, as it would have conflicted with the Jewish tradition. Still, papyrological evidence suggests the familiarity of the Jewish community with the divine titulary, indicating the permeability of the boundaries, in such a multifaceted cultural environment (Cf. P. Tebt. III 817).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

7 Foundation Deposits from Third-Century  Egypt Dorothy J. Thompson

In 1943 the young Peter Fraser was stationed in Alexandria with a local Greek family in order to learn their language. He left on 12 July to be dropped into the Peloponnese under the command of Special Operations in Greece. A month and a half later, on 27 August, Alan Rowe and his colleagues, excavating on the site of the Alexandrian Sarapieion made the dramatic discovery below the stone wall at the southeastern corner of the main temple enclosure wall of a cache of foundation plaques embedded in a deposit of sand. A similar set of plaques was discovered over a year later under the wall in the southwestern corner of the Sarapieion.¹ Each deposit consisted of ten plaques: one each of gold, silver, and copper alloy, five of opaque glass, one of mud, and a small square-sectioned piece of faience. All except the piece of mud carried writing, and the dedication they recorded was bilingually inscribed, in both Greek and Egyptian hieroglyphs. The three metal plaques had their inscriptions punched onto the surface, with the hieroglyphs written vertically to the left of the Greek dedication, which was punched in on horizontal lines; for those in glass, black ink was used, though in some cases this had faded and practically disappeared. Three of the opaque glass plaques were of much the same size as the metal examples (c.5.8 cm high by 17.3 cm wide; see Table 7.1) and on these the layout of the two scripts was the same; two, however, were smaller (5.7 cm high by just 6.3 cm across) and on these the Greek and Egyptian hieroglyphs lay one to each side. Later, in his Ptolemaic Alexandria, Fraser was to observe that these ‘foundation deposits may reasonably be

¹ Rowe (1946), 1–10. For their location, see McKenzie (2007), 53–5, with figs. 66–7; Sabottka (2008), 95–6 (the plaques), 156–81(the Ptolemaic Sarapieion). Dorothy J. Thompson, Foundation Deposits from Third-Century BC Egypt In: The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt. Edited by: Alan Bowman and Charles Crowther, Oxford University Press (2020). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198858225.003.0007

Table 7.1. Material and size of inscribed plaques from Ptolemaic foundation deposits Reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes (246–222 ) From the Sarapieion, Alexandria (CPI 12 TM 6209) Plaques

Dimensions (H × W × D)

Inscriptions

1 gold

5.9 × 17.3 × 0.05 cm Bilingual. Greek punctured from front (3 horizontal lines); hieroglyphic (3 vertical lines) painted in black ink to the left.

1 silver

5.8 × 17.3 × 0.2 cm

As above, but hieroglyphic text (in ink) now gone. Traces of white plaster.

1 copper alloy

5.9 × 17.5 × 0.3 cm

Ditto.

1 glass: opaque, green

5.8 × 17.2 × 0.4 cm

Bilingual. Greek text painted (3 lines); hieroglyphic to left (3 vertical lines). All black ink very faded. Bilingual. Greek and hieroglyphic texts (in black ink) faded away.

1 glass: opaque, faded green

5.5 × 17.2 × 0.8 cm

Bilingual. Greek text (3 lines); hieroglyphic text to left (3 vertical lines). Black ink much faded.

1 glass: opaque, green

5.7 × 6.3 × 0.6 cm

Greek text on one side (4 lines); black ink; hieroglyphic text on other (3 vertical lines); black ink.

1 glass: opaque, green

5.7 × 6.3 × 0.6 cm

Ditto.

1 faience (?): faded green

W: 6.9 × D: 1.4 cm

Greek text (2 lines) on each of two long sides; hieroglyphic text (1 line) on each of other two sides; described as box-like

1 Nile mud

5.0 × 16 × 2.7 cm

No trace of text.

From undocumented location (CPI 629 TM 397817) 1 silver

12.4 × 5 cm

Greek text with punctured dots (3 lines).

From near Abukir (Kanopos) (CPI 96 TM 6318) 1 gold + 2 opaque glass?

5.8 × 17.1 cm

Greek punctured dots (4 lines). Rowe (1946), 10, mentions two more of opaque glass.

From Herakleion/Thonis (CPI 97 TM 700881) 1 gold

5 × 10.8 × 0.1 cm

Greek punctured dots (6 lines).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

1 glass: opaque, brown, violet, etc. 5.9 × 17.2 × 0.6 cm

From the Boubastieion, Alexandria (CPI 13 TM 828668–70, 828689–91) 1 glass: red turned to blue

5.7 × 12.3 × 0.3 cm

Faded Greek inscription (5 lines) in black ink.

1 glass: red turned to blue

5.6 × 12.3 × 0.3 cm

Faded Greek inscription (5 lines) in black ink.

1 glass: blue-green

5.5 × 12.3 × 0.3 cm

Greek inscription (5 lines) on recto; hieroglyphic (3 lines) on verso, black ink.

1 glass: blue

6.0 × 11.0 × 0.5 cm

Faded hieroglyphic inscription (3 lines) in black ink

1 glass: light blue

6.0 × 7.0 × 0.5 cm

Faded hieroglyphic inscription (3 lines) in black ink.

1 faience: light blue-green

5.7 × 13.5 × 0.6 cm

No inscription preserved; traces of black ink.

Reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (222–204 ) From the Harpokrates shrine, Alexandria (CPI 18 TM 6210) 1 gold

5.15 × 10.85 cm Weight: 13.4 g

Bilingual punched from front with Greek dedication (4 lines) above hieroglyphic text.

1 silver

5.5 × 11.2 cm

Bilingual once punched with Greek and hieroglyphic texts.

1 bronze (copper alloy)

W: 6.40 cm

Probably once with punched Greek and hieroglyphic texts.

1 glass: opaque, greenish

6.0 × 12.0 × 0.65 cm

1 glass: opaque, bluish-green

5.9 × 10.1 × 0.3 cm

1 glass: opaque, greenish

5.7 × 10.0 × 0.3 cm

1 glass: opaque, dark green

5.6 × 12.8 × 0.45 cm

1 glass: opaque, light green

6.0 × 12.9 × 0.6 cm

1 glass: opaque, bluish

6.4 × 14.2 × 0.95 cm

1 mud brick

Traces of Greek and hieroglyphic texts on one side in black ink. Fragments of brick plaque.

Originally 2 × 4 sets of corner plaques. Those given here are from deposit 1. Deposit 3 (with slightly different measurements) lay in a ‘kind of a plaster box’, Rowe (1946), 56.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Table 7.1. Continued

Table 7.1. Continued

From the temple at Taposiris Magna 1 glass: blue in 5 pieces

5.7 × 11.5 × 0.5 cm

Bilingual. Hieroglyphic text (2 lines) above; Greek (3 lines) below.

1 glass: green in 10 pieces

5.5 × 12.3 × 0.5 cm

Bilingual. Greek text (3 lines) above; hieroglyphic below.

1 ‘lead’ (copper alloy?)

5.1 × 10.3 × 0.1 cm

poor condition; under restoration.

Found in 2007/2008, cf. Hawass and Martinez (2013), 241–2, 249 with figs. 14 and 15. Four corner deposits. Three plaques from NW deposit. Dedications to Isis by King Ptolemy, son of King Ptolemy and Queen Berenike. The temple was previously cleared by a Hungarian expedition whose members already found one deposit. From Koussai, Hermopolite / Lykopolite nomes (CPI 324 TM 6061, 109059, 113171, Savvopoulos (2018). 5.3 × 10.2 × 0.3 cm 5.4 × 10.6 × 0.3 cm

Bilingual. Greek (5 lines); plaster on hieroglyphic side. Bilingual written in black ink. Hieroglyphic text on front; Greek (5 lines) on back.

1 glass: opaque, green

5.9 × 10.5 × 0.3 cm

Bilingual. Hieroglyphic text on front; Greek on back.

1 glass: opaque, green

5.5 × 10.0 × 0.3 cm

Ditto.

1 glass: opaque, green

5.5 × 10.5 × 0.3 cm

Ditto.

1 faience

Reported by Breccia (1931), 272, no. 1, passed into the hands of an antiquary in Paris; Weinstein (1973), 389–91, no. 169, plaque F.

From Alexandria, now in private collection (CPI 16 TM 5973) 1 gold

5.0 × 4.5 cm

Greek (5 lines) in punctured dot technique.

From below the Toussoun Bourse, Alexandria (CPI 23 TM 6691) 1 gold

5.3 × 11.45 cm

Bilingual. Greek (3 lines); hieroglyphic (2 lines).

1 silver

now lost.

1 copper alloy

now lost.

1 glass: greenish

now lost.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

1 gold 1 glass: opaque, green

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

98

Third-Century  Foundation Deposits

described as the most important archaeological find of the Ptolemaic period made in Alexandria’.² These and similar inscribed dedicatory plaques are the subject of this chapter, in which I want to examine the traditions from which they came, the nature of the plaques themselves—their number, the materials of which they were formed, the writing and scripts that they bore—and the more general historical significance of the dedicatory practice in which they were involved. Three features are immediately notable. First, all bilingual dedicatory plaques found to date are from a limited period—from the reigns of Ptolemies III and IV in the second half of the third century (from between 246 and 204  at the latest). Secondly, the dedications they record are royal dedications of temples, shrines, and other related structures, made to a variety of local gods. And, thirdly, although the majority of examples are from Alexandria and immediately neighbouring areas, it is notable that this was not a phenomenon confined to the capital. Examples survive from elsewhere in Egypt (see Table 7.2)—from Taposiris Magna, along the coast to the west of Alexandria, and from Koussai in Middle Egypt. It will not be surprising if yet others turn up in future excavations. As a preliminary to further discussion, Table 7.2 provides a chronological overview of the contents of the ten deposits discovered to date, which form the base of the current study. Those edited previously will be included in the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions (forthcoming in 2021 and also available online). Where a full publication is still lacking, interim bibliographic references are provided. What was the origin of this practice? Foundation deposits are known from earlier periods in both the Greek and Egyptian worlds.³ They have been found in a number of Greek temples, most notably in the sixth-century temple of Artemis at Ephesus, where some of the earliest electrum coins were included in a mixed deposit. A deposit of coins was also placed below the statue base of Athena at Priene.⁴ Such deposits, however, are not widely found in the Greek world—they are possibly confined to Asia Minor—and unlike the Ptolemaic examples, they do not include written records. In Egypt, on the other hand, foundation deposits go back a very long way. They came in different forms, often containing model tools or miniature offering vessels and, in the Late Period, plaques of different materials, occasionally inscribed with a pharaoh’s name.⁵ Furthermore, the foundation plaques were visually displayed on the walls of temples. So, for example, in the second hypostyle hall of the Ptolemaic

² Ptol.Alex. I, 28, encompassing comparable deposits from the Harpokrates shrine close to the main Sarapieion enclosure. ³ See Goyon et al. (2004), 225–7, terming these ‘deposits of consecration’. ⁴ Rowe (1946), 18; Weinstein (1973), 18, discussing other possible examples. ⁵ The most comprehensive study remains that of Weinstein (1973).

Table 7.2. Chronology and content of Ptolemaic foundation deposits Date ()

No.

Further details of dedicatory plaques

Alexandria, Sarapieion CPI 12 TM 6209

Ptolemy III 246–222 (early)

9 or 10

Dedication of naos and temenos to Sarapis/Osor-Apis by Ptolemy III. In four corner pits on sand. 1 gold, 1 silver, 1 copper alloy, 5 glass (2 once red; 3 green), 1 faience, 1 mud. Bilingual × 9 (2 with recto and verso texts).

Provenance uncertain CPI 629 TM 397817

Ptolemy III 246–222 (early)

1

Dedication of naos to Sarapis by Ptolemy III according to (divine) command. 1 silver plaque. From ‘Alexandria (or area)’ according to SEG 54 1723. Acquired by Bodmer from the New York dealer H. P. Kraus; no provenance recorded.

Kanopos (Abukir) CPI 96 TM 6318

Ptolemy III 246–222 (early)

1+

Dedication of temenos to Osiris by King Ptolemy III and sister wife Queen Berenike II. 1 gold in Greek with punctured dot technique (4 lines). Rowe (1946), 10 records 2 further plaques of opaque glass.

Herakleion/Thonis CPI 97 TM 700881

1

Alexandria, Boubastieion CPI 13 TM 828668–70, 828689–91

Ptolemy III 246–222 (mid–late) Ptolemy III 246–222 (mid–late)

Dedication of a [ko]masterion to Herakles by King Ptolemy III, in favour of self, Queen Berenike II, his sister wife, and their children. 1 gold in Greek with punctured dot technique (6 lines). Dedication of naos, temenos, and bomos to Boubastis by Queen Berenike II in favour of King Ptolemy III, her brother husband, and their children. 5 glass (2 once red; 3 blue-green), 1 faience. 2 Greek; 1 bilingual (recto + verso); 2 hieroglyphic; 1 now illegibly faded (faience).

Alexandria, shrine of Harpokrates CPI 18 TM 6210

Ptolemy IV 222–204 (early?)

9 or 10

Originally 8 deposits, 2 to a corner. Bilingual with Greek (4 lines) above. Dedication by King Ptolemy IV son of Ptolemy and Berenike to Harpochrates according to a command from Sarapis and Isis.

Taposiris Magna Hawass and Martinez (2013), 241–2, 249, with figs. 14 and 15 (description only).

Ptolemy IV 222–204 (early?)

3

Dedication (of shrine?) to Isis by King Ptolemy IV son of Ptolemy and Berenike. Bilingual. 2 glass (1 blue; 1 green); 1 lead (copper alloy?) in poor condition. 4 corner deposits.

Koussai, Hermopolite/Lykopolite Ptolemy IV CPI 324 TM 6061, 109059, 222–204 113171 (early?)

5 or 6

Dedication (of shrine?) to Aphrodite Ourania/Ḥ atḥōr who is in Heaven by King Ptolemy IV son of Ptolemy and Berenike. Bilingual. 1 gold (5 lines); 4 glass; 1 faience (sold).

Alexandria CPI 16 TM 5973

Ptolemy IV 222–204 (early?)

1

Dedication (of shrine?) to [Isis], greatest [goddess], (by) king Ptolemy IV son of Ptolemy and Berenike. 1 gold rectangular plaque in Greek (5 lines).

Alexandria, earlier site of Toussoun Bourse CPI 23 TM 6691

Ptolemy IV 220–204

4

Dedication (of shrine?) for Sarapis and Isis, Theoi Soteres, and for King Ptolemy IV and Queen Arsinoe III, Theoi Philopatores. 1 gold in Greek with punctured dots (3 lines); 1 silver; 1 copper alloy; 1 glass now lost.

6

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Provenance

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

100

Third-Century  Foundation Deposits

temple at Edfu, Pharaoh Ptolemy IV is portrayed taking part in traditional Egyptian temple foundation rituals together with an accompanying text. First, he measures out the temple with a cord and moulds mud bricks for the four corners of the temple; next, he prepares a bed of sand in each corner for the deposits which he then presents to Horos, the god of the temple. In Edfu, seventeen tablets were depicted on the pharaoh’s platter, while in Dendera there were twenty-four reportedly made of gold and precious stones.⁶ Such scenes illustrate traditional rituals involved in Egyptian temple foundation. Not all Ptolemaic deposits came inscribed in tablet form and many of them continued to resemble those of earlier periods.⁷ For instance, at Tukh elQaramus in the eastern Delta five deposits were excavated on the main temple site, dating from early in the new regime. There, corner deposits contained a few small uninscribed plaques of stone and metal, while axis deposits in the same temple contained blue faience saucers, limestone mortars, grindstones and grinders, jars and carnelian pins, and a small green faience cartouche plaque bearing the name of Philip Arrhidaios. Similarly, from Naukratis under Ptolemy I six corner deposits have been excavated from rectangular pits filled with clean desert sand. These deposits, now in the British Museum, consisted of faience cups and libation jars, small model tools of copper alloy, a mortar, grindstone, grinder, a model mud brick, nine rectangular plaques of precious metal and stone (without writing), a lapis lazuli cartouche plaque, and samples of various other precious stone—of turquoise, obsidian, jasper, and lapis lazuli.⁸ The mix of plaques with stones is interesting and may indeed be relevant to the inscribed foundation plaques that form our subject here. And it is clear from the number and nature of deposits recorded from all periods of Egyptian history that Ptolemaic foundation deposits belong to a wellestablished Egyptian tradition, which was adopted and adapted in both Alexandria and elsewhere after Alexander’s takeover of Egypt. Following this conquest, the new Ptolemaic pharaohs together with their queens continued to dedicate shrines to Egyptian gods, and these were furnished with foundation deposits in the traditional manner. What was new, however, was the introduction to such deposits of more complex written records and the bilinguality of the commemoration. As earlier, Ptolemaic deposits contained within them varying numbers of tablets or plaques (Table 7.2), and these were made of different materials (Table 7.1). In three of the four examples now represented by a single plaque, the surviving item is made of gold; in the fourth example the survivor is silver. We may assume that

⁶ See Montet (1964), 86–92 and Karkowski (2016), 113–14, for the ritual; Thompson (1993), 151, for further details. ⁷ See Weinstein (1973), 351–95. ⁸ Weinstein (1973), 374–6, no. 156, Tukh el-Qaramus; 376–8, no. 158, Naukratis.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Dorothy J. Thompson

101

plaques of lesser value have been lost along the way.⁹ In other cases, glass plaques may have been mislaid in the course of the years.¹⁰ The recently excavated deposit from the Alexandrian Boubastieion interestingly lacks any metal plaques. No silver or bronze (copper alloy) examples have survived from the Koussai deposit from Middle Egypt, and what has survived of this deposit is known only through the antiquities trade, so it lacks any sure provenance.¹¹ Where, however, other deposits have been discovered intact and properly excavated, as from the Alexandrian Sarapieion and the Harpokrates shrine close by, then there appears to have been a fairly standard number for a full deposit—three of different metals,¹² five of glass, one of faience, and one mud brick. What, if any, is the significance of ten as the number of dedicatory plaques? Alan Rowe, the original excavator, asked this same question. ‘Perhaps’, he suggested, ‘each plaque represented a particular deity from a group of 10 worshipped in the temple: Serapis, Isis, Harpocrates, Anoubis + 6 others,’ but which these six should be is left unspecified.¹³ For Weinstein, however, the number of plaques was never ten but simply nine. On the pattern of earlier deposits, he considered the item of mud as a model mud brick (as used in a temple’s foundation ritual) rather than as an uninscribed plaque. Model mud bricks, he reminds us, were included in deposits from the earliest times. The number of plaques (nine or ten, for instance, in the case of the Alexandrian Sarapieion) thus depends on whether a rectangle of mud that shares its main dimensions (though not its thickness/depth) with the plaques whose company it keeps is or is not itself a plaque. Nine, Weinstein further suggested, was a particularly sacred number for Egyptians, recalling the collection of nine gods (the ‘Ennead’) connected with various cultic centres, especially with Heliopolis (though also with Memphis and elsewhere).¹⁴ However, I nowhere find the Ennead connected to Sarapis or Osiris-Apis (as the god appears in the hieroglyphic texts), or indeed to any of the other gods named in deposits of nine inscribed plaques. Weinstein was probably right to look for some ⁹ As with the single surviving gold plaque from an Osiris temple, possibly that at Kanopos (Rowe (1946), 10). The gold plaque from underwater excavations at Herakleion had moved from its original location (Goddio and Fabre (2006), 128). Nothing is known of the find-spot, assumed to be in Alexandria, of CPI 16 TM 5973, a dedication of Ptolemy IV for [Isis] as the greatest goddess. ¹⁰ E.g. the deposit from below where the Toussoun Bourse once stood in Alexandria or the deposits from Taposiris Magna, which still await publication. ¹¹ The identification of Koussai as the origin for this deposit depends on that of the goddess bilingually named Aphrodite Ourania/Ḥ atḥōr who is in heaven, whose cult is only known from here: Fraser (1956), 98. Cf. Savvopoulos (2018). ¹² The silver and copper alloy plaques from the south-eastern corner of the Sarapieion show traces of white plaster (Rowe (1946), 6); cf. the hieroglyphic side of the gold plaque from Koussai (Breccia (1931), 276, no. 1). Was this some form of disguise to prevent their recognition—but if so, by whom? ¹³ Rowe (1946), 59. ¹⁴ Weinstein (1973), 369.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

102

Third-Century  Foundation Deposits

symbolic explanation for the number, and a possible explanation will shortly be proposed. It is, however, important to bear in mind the different numbers of plaques found depicted in the foundation rituals on the walls of the Edfu and Dendera temples. Nine is just the number of the written plaques from the Alexandrian Sarapieion and possibly elsewhere. In contrast, the possible symbolism of the different materials used for these inscribed plaques is worth some exploration. What could have dictated the choice of materials used to form the plaques on which the royal dedications were written? Precious metals are fairly straightforward. Gold, silver, and copper alloy were the three most standard metals and, with the punctured dot technique, provided a reasonable surface for inscription. Glass too provided a fair surface for writing on with black ink, as is found on surviving examples. And since glassmaking was one of the major industries of Ptolemaic Egypt, centred in Alexandria and involving new techniques and products,¹⁵ glass might at the same time represent a prestige material put here to a new use. There could, however, have been yet more to this innovation. A further explanation may emerge from a consideration of Weinstein’s full corpus of deposits, which often contained plaques without writing. For instance, a corner deposit from the great temple at Tanis in the Delta dated under Ptolemy I included a rectangular faience plaque inscribed with the pharaoh’s name in Egyptian, together with small uninscribed plaques of faience, gold, silver, copper alloy, alabaster, carnelian, lapis lazuli, green jasper, and breccia, plus a model mud brick (of the kind elsewhere described as a plaque) and various other objects.¹⁶ These stones are not all the same as those we noted earlier from Naukratis, but in that case gemstones were also deposited in addition to nine plaques of precious metal and stone. What is clear from a whole range of deposits is that, alongside precious metals, faience and mud brick, gemstones were considered suitable offerings to a temple’s gods.¹⁷ Could our glass plaques, providing as they did a good surface to write on, also stand as a substitute for gemstones? In Egypt substitution of one substance by another was a fairly regular practice, and the use of coloured glass in place of minerals was not uncommon.¹⁸ Which stones might then be represented in the Ptolemaic glass plaques is a matter for speculation. According to J. R. Harris, there were five Egyptian stones that were particularly valued and often recorded together, especially in the Graeco-Roman period.¹⁹ These were lapis lazuli, turquoise, red jasper, carnelian, and green feldspar, often found ¹⁵ Ptol.Alex. I, 136. ¹⁶ Weinstein (1973), 375–6, no. 157. ¹⁷ Gemstones were a subject of interest to both Greeks and Egyptians. For gemstones listed on the wall of the Edfu temple (and elsewhere), see Harris (1961), 140, and cf. Theophrastus, On Stones, and Posidippus, AB 1–20, under the heading Lithika. ¹⁸ Harris (1961), 16, 115; cf. Aston et al. (2000), 25–7, 29–30, 39–40, 45–6, 62–3, on these stones and their sources. For this suggested substitution, see already Thompson (1993), 152. ¹⁹ Harris (1961), 140.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Dorothy J. Thompson

103

together with faience; most of these we have already met in temple deposits elsewhere. To the eye, all the opaque glass plaques now appear as mainly green or greenish-blue in colour, but in the case of the Sarapieion glass plaques from Alexandria, as first observed by Alfred Lucas, the Honorary Chemist attached to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, the two smaller examples (see Table 7.1) were once a different colour. When Lucas examined these plaques shortly after their excavation, reporting on their original composition, he described their colour as having originally been a dark opaque red, the red of sealing wax.²⁰ The red oxide, still visible in one place that was chipped, had—he wrote— gradually been converted into green copper carbonate under the influence of moisture and carbon dioxide. If, then, my suggestion has anything to it, the two smaller deep red glass plaques of this particular deposit could well represent red jasper and carnelian.²¹ The three larger plaques, now green and in one case with traces of violet, could stand for the other three stones. If so, alongside the old Egyptian practice of dedicatory deposits made for the temples and shrines of Egyptian gods came a double innovation—not just the introduction of elaborate written records in both Egyptian and Greek but also the substitution of glass for gemstones. What of the written message of these dedications? The wording on these dedications differs slightly from one to the other, as did the shrines or buildings involved and the deities to whom these dedications were made. Two features, however, have already been noted. The dedicants were royal and the dedications themselves were regularly (though not always) written bilingually in Egyptian hieroglyphs and Greek. If it is the Greek inscriptions that are primarily discussed in this chapter, that is because these are the prime texts for inclusion in the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions. Their Egyptian counterparts should never be overlooked. The use of (often bilingual) writing for these foundation plaques forms a striking feature of the period when, through the encouragement of literacy in schools with tax breaks given to teachers, the new pharaohs were championing a literate culture. Literacy, of course, was not new in Egypt. In the New Kingdom priests formed a large part of a literate elite, and even the gods were portrayed as writing letters in their dealings one with another.²² But with the Greeks a new language had come to Egypt, and the language of the new rulers was more widely taught and practised, not just by the earlier literate classes for whom the writing of Greek now took place alongside that of Egyptian (both Hieroglyphic ²⁰ In Rowe (1946), 7. ²¹ The contemporary deposit from the Alexandrian Boubastieion also contained two glass plaques that were originally red: Abd el-Maksoud, Abd el-Fattah, and Seif el-Din (2015), 139, nos. 1 and 2 (not, however, different in size from the other glass plaques). ²² In the contest between Horos and Seth for control of the kingship of Egypt, Neith and Osiris each communicate by letter and Thoth acts as literate scribe, Lichtheim (1976), 214–23; cf. (1980), 127–38, for the book of magic written by the god Thoth in the Ptolemaic tale of Setne I.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

104

Third-Century  Foundation Deposits

and Demotic). In the end it was Greek that came to dominate, but these bilingual plaques are a striking product of early Ptolemaic rule. Normally, the dedicant was the ruling monarch, defined by the names of his parents designated (for Ptolemy III) as Theoi Adelphoi (Brother-Sister gods), or (for Ptolemy IV) as Theoi Euergetai (Benefactor gods). Sometimes wives joined their husbands in making a dedication, but on the foundation plaques from the main Sarapieion in Alexandria (CPI 12 TM 6209) the dedication of the shrine (naos) and sacred enclosure (temenos) to Sarapis is, like the silver plaque from an unrecorded location, recorded in the name of Ptolemy III alone (cf. Ch. 6.2.2 of this volume): Βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος Πτολεμαίου καὶ Ἀρσινόης, θεῶν Ἀδελϕῶν Σαράπει τὸν ναὸν καὶ τὸ τέμενος. King Ptolemy son of Ptolemy and Arsinoe, Brother-Sister gods, (dedicates) to Sarapis the naos and the temenos.

In view of other dedications from this reign, the absence here of the queen, Berenike II, is surprising. Ptolemy had been betrothed to the daughter of Magas of Cyrene, half-brother of his father Ptolemy II, when the latter was still alive, and, following a somewhat colourful interlude in Cyrene, the couple was probably married shortly before his succession.²³ It could be that the Sarapieion dedications came early in his reign and that the addition of the queen that is found in other dedications from this reign was a later development. The conversations that possibly led to such an innovation must be left to the imagination. Queen Berenike does, however, appear together with Ptolemy III on the dedication of a sacred enclosure (temenos) to the god Osiris (CPI 96 TM 6318): Βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος Πτολεμαίου καὶ Ἀρσινόης, θεῶν Ἀδελϕῶν, καὶ βασίλισσα Βερενίκη, ἡ ἀδελϕὴ καὶ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ, τὸ τέμενος Ὀσίρει. King Ptolemy, son of Ptolemy and Arsinoe, Brother-Sister gods, and Queen Berenike, his sister and wife, (dedicate) the temenos to Osiris.

The designation of Berenike II as ‘sister’ as well as spouse is conventional rather than strictly accurate; it implies a looser usage of family terms than is familiar to us. This particular gold plaque is not a bilingual but a purely Greek dedication, written in punctured-dot lettering; two others found with it have

²³ See Huß (2001), 333–4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Dorothy J. Thompson

105

not survived.²⁴ Discovered during construction work under Mohamed Ali in the area of Kanopos, this dedication records a sacred enclosure of the god Osiris.²⁵ However, despite its dedication to Osiris, it is not at all certain that the plaque actually comes from the great Osiris temple of Kanopos. The marriage of Ptolemy III and Berenike II was a fertile one blessed with many offspring, and the children may have accompanied their parents on royal visits. And, even if left behind in Alexandria, they were not forgotten when their parents travelled and visited the main religious sites of the land. Thus, from early in the reign, in a long one-line inscription from the temple of Philae in Upper Egypt, the young children were associated in a more visible dedication together with their parents.²⁶ The same phenomenon is to be found in dedicatory plaques from beneath the earth. So, on a gold plaque inscribed in Greek from the site of Herakleion/Thonis (close to Kanopos), Ptolemy III was recorded as the sole dedicator, as on the plaques from the Alexandrian Sarapieion, but his queen and their children were here added to the dedication in a later ‘in favour of ’ clause. The text reads as follows (CPI 97): Βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος Πτολεμαίου καὶ ᾿Αρσινόης θεῶν ἀδελϕῶν τὸ [κω]μαστήριον Ἡρακλεῖ ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ καὶ βασιλίσσης Βερενίκης τῆς ἀδελϕῆς αὑτοῦ καὶ γυναικὸς καὶ τῶν τέκνων. King Ptolemy son of Ptolemy and Arsinoe, Brother-Sister gods, (dedicate) the festival centre to Herakles in favour of himself and Queen Berenike, his sister and wife, and the children.

The main recipient of this dedication, so fortunately recovered from the seabed in recent underwater excavations, is Herakles, the local god of the city, and we may assume that the [ko]masterion mentioned here was connected to his temple.²⁷ Such buildings served as headquarters for the komastai, ²⁴ What have survived from this reign (original find-spot unknown) are several green or green-blue faience plaques bearing the name of Ptolemy III in hieroglyphs (Weinstein (1973), 283, no. 164). ²⁵ Found ‘on a foundation stone, between two vitrified tiles’ (since lost) (Weinstein (1973), 379, no. 161). In 1818 Mohamed Ali sent the plaque to Admiral Sir Sidney Smith; since 1895 it has been in the British Museum (BM 1895: 1030). ²⁶ See Bingen (1997 = 2007), 31–43, on CPI 427 TM 6379 (I.Philae 1 4): ‘King Ptolemy, son of King Ptolemy and Arsinoe, Brother-Sister gods, and Queen Berenike, the sister and wife of Ptolemy, and the couple’s young children (teknia) (dedicate) the shrine (naos) to Isis and Harpokrates’; Bennett (2002). ²⁷ For the plausible supplement of [κω]μαστήριον (rather than [γυμ]ναστήριον, as suggested by M. Clauss in Goddio and Fabre (2008), 140, with fine plate), see Kayser in BE 2007, no. 544 (SEG 56.1986). Independently, from the published plate Mario Paganini also suggested the reading [κω]μαστήριον. On the function of a κωμαστήριον, see Łukaszewicz (1986), 61–4 (reference from Kayser).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

106

Third-Century  Foundation Deposits

those charged with the organization of festivals in which statues of the relevant gods were carried in procession; this one presumably lay within the main temenos of Herakles’ temple. The additional ‘in favour of ’ clause allowed for a further level of royal dedication,²⁸ in this case for members of the family more widely: Queen Berenike as well as King Ptolemy, together with their children. Queens and other family members were never named in such a context before the Ptolemaic period, and the introduction of the wider royal family seems to have been a Greek innovation.²⁹ Once they were introduced, the presence of children alongside their parents became a standard element of these (and other) dedications. Indeed, it is worth noting that the public acknowledgement of members of the wider royal family becomes a fairly regular feature of the Hellenistic world, not just of the Ptolemaic kingdom.³⁰ Family, of course, is essential for the successful continuation of an hereditary monarchy, but such prominence given to the royal family was not always quite so marked. The final set of dedicatory plaques to survive from the reign of Ptolemy III is unique in recording a dedication of the queen alone. Deriving from rescue excavation of the site of the temple of the Egyptian cat-goddess Boubastis in Alexandria, a set of six plaques made of glass and faience record the act of dedication bilingually as follows (CPI 13):³¹ Βασίλισσα Βερενίκη ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου τοῦ αὑτῆς ἀδελϕοῦ καὶ ἀνδρὸς καὶ τῶν τοῦτων τέκνων τὸν ναὸν καὶ τὸ τέμενος καὶ τὸν βωμὸν Βουβάστει. Queen Berenike in favour of King Ptolemy, her own brother and husband, and their children (dedicates) the temple, the sacred enclosure and the altar to Boubastis.

There are three striking features to this recently uncovered set of plaques. The first is the unparalleled presence of the queen as sole dedicant, though she acts ‘in favour of ’ the whole family. This is not altogether surprising, since, to judge ²⁸ On the use of ὑπέρ in dedications, see Ptol.Alex. I, 226–7; Jim (2014), 620; Bingen (2007), 256–78; Baralay, Ch. 6, Savvopoulos, Ch. 7, and Fischer-Bovet, Ch. 9 of this volume. ²⁹ See Weinstein (1973), 360–1, drawing attention to four deposits from Tanis of plaques inscribed in Egyptian only; Ptolemy IV and his wife, with his predecessors and their wives, are all named in the hieroglyphs following Greek practice. ³⁰ E.g. on the cylinder from Borsippa (268 ), Antiochos I is joined by his son Seleukos and wife Stratonike in the concluding prayer to Nabu (ii.24–9) (Stevens (2014), 69); later, Arsinoe and Laodike, queens respectively of Ptolemy IV and Antiochus III, were recorded as present at the battle of Raphia (217 ) (Thompson (2013), 22); cf. Ma (1999), 285–87, no. 2, letters of Laodike and Antiochos III to Sardis (213 ); 308–17, nos. 17–18, Teian decrees for king and queen (?203 ); 321, no. 20 (?197 ), dedication by nephew Themison for Great King Antiochos III, queen Laodike, Antiochos their son, and the children. ³¹ See Abd el-Maksoud, Abd el-Fattah and Seif el-Din (2015), editio princeps, and (2016); cf. Carrez-Maratray (2014), a somewhat over-imaginative interpretation.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Dorothy J. Thompson

107

from the numerous statuettes excavated from the site, in this particular Alexandrian cult the cat-goddess Boubastis (Egyptian Bastet) was worshipped as protector of children (as a ‘kourotrophic’ deity). The second is the wideranging scope of the dedication, with not just a shrine and sacred enclosure specified but also an added altar, a bomos. Finally, we note the absence of plaques made of precious metal. Whether these were missing from the start— making this a sort of second-class royal dedication?—or perhaps from early on is something we cannot know. However, Berenike II as the prime dedicant here parallels her spouse in the dedication to Herakles from Herakleion/ Thonis. And, as there too, the missing spouse and their children are later included in the act through the additional ‘in favour of ’ clause. Once the practice of depositing inscribed foundation plaques below ground had been established under Ptolemy III Euergetes I, it continued into the reign of his successor. At present, most of the dedications from the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (in four cases out of five of those recorded to date) appear to date from early in his reign, from before his marriage to Arsinoe III sometime around October 220 . At least this is the simplest explanation of the lack of a queenly presence. In Alexandria, as already noted, Ptolemy III had dedicated both a sanctuary and its main shrine to the god Sarapis, the Apis bull from Memphis³² in its new, Greek (anthropomorphic) form, as established under his predecessors. Now, early in his reign, Ptolemy IV also left his mark on this same key Alexandrian landmark. Just to the east of the main Sarapis temple, in autumn 1945 eight further deposits were discovered, buried in shallow rectangular pits at the corners of a small adjacent shrine.³³ These dedications were made in the name of the king alone and the Greek text, which is followed by cryptographic hieroglyphs, reads (CPI 18 TM 6210; Fig. 7.1): Βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης Βερενίκης θεῶν Εὐεργετῶν Ἁρποχράτει κατὰ πρόσταγμα Σαράπιδος καὶ Ἴσιδος. King Ptolemy (IV), son of King Ptolemy and Queen Berenike, Benefactor gods, (dedicate this) to Harpochrates, in accordance with a command from Sarapis and Isis.

Each of the four main deposits was presumably once made up of nine or ten plaques, though for two deposits only fragments survived. As earlier in the Sarapieion deposits, there were three metal plaques (gold, silver, and copper alloy), one of mud, five of opaque glass, together with, in one case, a green

³² Osiris-Apis (Osor-Apis) in the hieroglyphs. ³³ Wace (1945), 107–8; Rowe (1946), 54–8; McKenzie (2007), 55, fig. 67; Sabottka (2008), 181–6, fig. 40.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

108

Third-Century  Foundation Deposits

Fig. 7.1. CPI 18: Gold foundation plaque from the temple of Harpokrates

faience plaque and, in the other, a sixth plaque of opaque glass (see Tables 7.1 and 7.2). The inscriptions were all written on one side only, either in ink or, on the metal plaques, inscribed in the punctured dot technique.³⁴ Through the words of the dedication, the small shrine adjacent to the Sarapieion is identified as that of Harpokrates, Horos the child, the young son of Isis and Osiris, who regularly appears with the Horos lock and his finger to his mouth. The record of the gods’ command echoes that of Sarapis recorded on the silver plaque CPI 629 from a temple dedicated to him by Ptolemy III. Commands (προστάγματα) normally came from the king or high officials but in Ptolemaic Egypt gods too might give instructions. It is not recorded whether in this case, as so often, the command from Sarapis and Isis to initiate construction of a shrine to the young Harpokrates came to Ptolemy IV in a dream.³⁵ With Sarapis (Osor-Apis) standing in for Osiris, the deities named in this dedication make up what may be considered the main family group of the gods: Osiris, his sister-wife Isis, and their offspring, Horos the child.³⁶ Of these three deities, however, it is Osiris/Sarapis and Isis who figure more often as the subject of similar dedications (see Table 7.2). Other foundations made by Ptolemy IV Philopator alone are those from an Isis shrine at Taposiris Magna (still awaiting publication),³⁷ another most probably for the same goddess (Isis, the greatest goddess) from Alexandria ³⁴ For a fine reproduction of the gold plaque P.10035, from the Graeco-Roman Museum in Alexandria, see (most recently) Goddio and Masson-Berghoff (2016), 129. ³⁵ P.Cairo Zen. I 59034.19 (257 ): instructions of Sarapis to Zoilos to build him a temple come in a dream, cf. Renberg (2017), I, 421–3; III 59426.6–7 (mid-third century ): Dromon requests honey for his eyes as specified κατὰ πρόσταγμα τοῦ θεοῦ; UPZ I 20.27 (163 ): Ptolemaios son of Glaukias in the Memphite Sarapieion, κατὰ πρόσταγμα δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ. ³⁶ Ptol.Alex. I, 261, on the rarity of this combination in Alexandria and Delos. ³⁷ Described by Hawass and Martinez (2013), 241–2, 249, with figs. 14 and 15; the reference to an Osiris temple is puzzling (Isis is the goddess named). See Tables 7.1 and 7.2 for details.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Dorothy J. Thompson

109

(CPI 16 TM 5973),³⁸ and a deposit of bilingual plaques, probably originating from the shrine or temple at Koussai, which record a dedication by the king to Hathor who is in heaven, according to the hieroglyphic text, or to Aphrodite Ourania/Heavenly Aphrodite, in the Greek (CPI 324 TM 6061, 109059, 113171).³⁹ The Greek text (taken from the gold plaque) reads:

4

Βασιλεὺς Πτολεμαῖος βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης Βερενίκης θεῶν Εὐεργετῶν Ἀϕροδίτηι Οὐρανίαι.

King Ptolemy son of King Ptolemy and Queen Berenike, Benefactor gods, (dedicate this) to Aphrodite Ourania.

The final set of plaques from the reign of Ptolemy IV is far from straightforward. All that now survives is a rectangular gold plaque with letters punched in three lines of Greek with two of hieroglyphs below. This was discovered in 1885 beneath the corner of an unidentified Ptolemaic structure that once lay on the site of the Toussoun Bourse; with it were three further plaques of silver, copper alloy, and opaque glass (reportedly also with writing).⁴⁰ The Toussoun Bourse no longer survives, nor do the three further plaques. The surviving example, however, gives rise to sufficient problems in its somewhat unusual form. Here, at last, Philopator’s queen—Arsinoe III—is named together with her husband, but the royal pair are not, as elsewhere, named as making the dedication. Instead, in their guise as Father-loving gods (Theoi Philopatores), they are closely joined with the Saviour Gods Isis and Sarapis as recipients of—presumably—a shrine. The hieroglyphs support this interpretation of the Greek. The genitive (not the dative) case is used for the gods involved, and no mention is made of the object of dedication (CPI 23 TM 6691): Σαράπιδος ⟨κ⟩αὶ Ἴσ⟨ι⟩δος θεῶν Σωτήρων καὶ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης Ἀρσινόης θεῶν Φιλοπατόρων.

For Sarapis and Isis, Saviour Gods and for King Ptolemy and Queen Arsinoe, Fatherloving gods.

Nor is any mention made of who the dedicant was. Some have assumed that a high-ranking official was responsible,⁴¹ while on the pattern of other bilingual ³⁸ The goddess’s name is, in fact, missing, but Isis seems most likely; so Fraser (1959/60), 135–6, no. 4, in the first edition of the text; Weinstein (1973), 386, no. 167. ³⁹ See Weinstein (1973), 389–91, no. 159, for this particular Hathor cult, known only from Koussai; cf. CPI 325 TM 6420 (OGIS 2 734) mid second century , for dedication to Zeus Soter. There are too many areas of Egypt for which our knowledge is minimal. ⁴⁰ For the location of the find-spot, see McKenzie (2007), 21, fig. 22. ⁴¹ So Rowe (1946), 11–13, Weinstein (1973), 385–6, no. 166.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Third-Century  Foundation Deposits

110

foundation plaques from this and the previous reign, Fraser argued that this too was a royal dedication.⁴² The king and queen would then be dedicating a temple to themselves as Father-loving gods combined in worship with two prominent Alexandrian deities. But whoever the dedicant, it appears that the worship of the ruler gods was facilitated by their introduction to a joint cult with Sarapis and Isis, here termed Saviour Gods (Theoi Soteres).⁴³ At the same time it was during this reign that Ptolemy I Soter and his queen were finally introduced to the dynastic cult as Theoi Soteres, the epithet here applied to Sarapis and Isis.⁴⁴ And so these two Alexandrian deities were both allusively and explicitly linked to the royal house, as the royal cult of the Ptolemies was given particular prominence. Such is the sum of the foundation plaques discovered to date that carry a written record. Inscribed in Greek or bilingually in Greek and Egyptian hieroglyphic, they record the dedication of temples or other religious buildings to a (limited) range of local gods by members of the royal house, both kings and queens, either alone or together in a family unit. They were placed on a bed of clean sand beneath the corners of temples or related religious buildings, which were then constructed above. The message they carried was fairly straightforward, naming the relevant deity and those who made the dedication. But a final question remains as to who the intended audience of such dedicatory plaques may have been. As written records buried beneath the earth, these plaques were not alone. Curse tablets survive from many periods and areas of the ancient world and sometimes these were buried underground. In earlier Egypt, letters might be written to the dead for burial in their tombs.⁴⁵ In such cases, underworld gods and dwellers of the nether regions were presumably the recipients intended. These Ptolemaic dedicatory plaques are somewhat different in both the message they carry and the gods involved (not primarily those of the underworld).⁴⁶ In the symbolism of the materials on which they were penned bilingually and in their emphasis on the role of the royal family (as both human and divine) the message of these dedicatory plaques was universal and for all time. Like the script they carried and the gods that they named, both Greeks and Egyptians were implicated in the process of dedication. Once buried, it did not matter that their messages were now available only to supernatural powers. It was rather the initial act of inscription and the literate form of these dedications that appear essential to their impact.

⁴² ⁴³ ⁴⁴ ⁴⁵ ⁴⁶

Fraser (1960), 12, n. 4. For this usage, see Fraser (1964), 79–80, n. 27, with CPI 20 TM 6535 line 1. See Ptol.Alex. I, 218–19: Theoi Soteres added to the dynastic cult. Wente (1990), 210–20. For Sarapis as a chthonic god, however, see Ptol.Alex. I, 206 and 252–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Dorothy J. Thompson

111

In attempting to draw together and make sense of this limited set of data, we note again the mix of elements involved in the acts of dedication that are recorded on these plaques. Involving a written communication in the language of the new rulers of Egypt together with the sacred script of the Egyptians inscribed on a range of symbolic materials, the plaques provide an insight into how the new rulers presented themselves in a new adaptation of old Egyptian ways. Bilingual literacy was an important feature, as exhibited also in the bi- and trilingual priestly decrees that survive from the reign of Ptolemy III and later. At the same time, in some places Egyptian dedicatory practices continued unchanged. From a temple of Ptolemy IV at Tanis, four large foundation deposits were discovered beneath the corners of the temple pavement.⁴⁷ Each contained a rectangular gold foil plaque and varying numbers of blue or green faience plaques, inscribed with two lines of hieroglyphs recording the name of the king together with the dynastic gods of his line, a red glass plaque, and other, smaller, uninscribed plaques made of alabaster, carnelian, turquoise, copper alloy, silver, lead, iron, and lapis lazuli, a model mud brick, and a collection of tools and model vessels, grindstone and grinder, and other mineral objects. Unlike the case of Koussai upriver in middle Egypt, at Tanis in the Delta no Greek was inscribed, and the deposits buried here were more varied in what they contained. The new ways did not drive out the old. Indeed, the most notable and significant aspect of the written dedications is the limited period from which they survive. As already noted, these bilingual foundation plaques all date from the reigns of Ptolemies III and IV. They remain a third-century phenomenon, and as such their chronological limits pose further questions. Why were they introduced and why did the practice apparently come to end in the late third century ? An entirely satisfactory answer is probably not possible given the small number of surviving examples; later discoveries may well upset the following, hypothetical picture. Nevertheless, some observations may be made. It is striking that all examples from the reign of Ptolemy III come from Alexandria and its immediate neighbours—from the main Sarapieion area in the city, from nearby Kanopos and Herakleion/Thonis. Maybe this phenomenon started in the capital and only spread beyond at a later date, since it is only from under Ptolemy IV that examples come from farther afield. That may be a plausible scenario, but the question would still remain why no similar deposits have been found from the reigns of Ptolemies I and II. In part, the answer may lie in the lack of evidence but it is also the case that over time there were changes in royal priorities and the ways in which these played out.⁴⁸ And if, as suggested above, the dedication of the Sarapieion enclosure made by

⁴⁷ See Weinstein (1973), 386–9, no. 168, for details. ⁴⁸ On Ptolemy I, see, for instance, Thompson (2018).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

112

Third-Century  Foundation Deposits

Ptolemy III is the earliest example of bilingual foundation records, then the provision of plaques in the Egyptian fashion but in a new form may be seen as linked to the development of the cult of Sarapis, a cult which most probably was started under Ptolemy I. It took time for Sarapis, the new (anthropoid) aspect of the older Egyptian god Osor-Apis, to become established in the city, which itself was under development.⁴⁹ The Sarapieion area in the south of the city on its western side seems to have been designated as a central religious site. Now, some sixty years after Ptolemy I was officially recognized as king, under Ptolemy III the Greek layout and architecture of the main temple enclosure of the Sarapieion was matched by the presence of Egyptian statues, a Nilometer, and by Egyptian-style foundation plaques, formed of a range of symbolically precious materials and inscribed bilingually in Egyptian and Greek. Here, as in the Alexandrian cult of the cat-goddess Boubastis, the mixed population of the capital, as indeed of the kingdom at large, was addressed in a language they could recognize (if not always read) and, furthermore, members of the royal family were shown to be visibly supporting the worship of local gods. The explicit use of a bilingual address to the gods of Egypt in the new Egyptian capital of Alexandria was an imaginative innovation in the dual presentation of the monarchy, which may be charted in so many other, different aspects.⁵⁰ Over time the practice spread and under Ptolemy IV, at least in his early years, bilingual dedications continued to be made, both in the capital and now also beyond. This was the reign when the monarchy became still further entrenched in the country, with a dynastic cult centre in the capital and a new dynastic priesthood set up in the southern city of Ptolemais. As noted above, the Theoi Soteres (Ptolemy I and Berenike I) were now added to the regular dynastic cult, which was promulgated throughout the land. The regime was firmly established and, at least until now, the inheritance had run smoothly. Why the practice of recording foundations with sets of inscribed dedicatory plaques should be abandoned after the reign of Ptolemy IV is unknown. Temple building continued, but no similar plaques have been found.⁵¹ Bilingual dedications buried underground appear, therefore, to have belonged to an earlier phase in the development of Ptolemaic rule, when it was of crucial importance that members of the new dynasty present themselves, for both Greeks and Egyptians as indeed for the gods, as traditional rulers of Egypt.

⁴⁹ On the development of the cult, see Ptol.Alex. I, 246–64; on the city and specifically the Sarapieion, see McKenzie (2007), 20–30, Sabottka (2008), Brophy (2014), 352–3. ⁵⁰ Cf. Thompson (2000) on the Ptolemaieia under Ptolemy II. ⁵¹ Weinstein (1973), 391–3, no. 171, records nine deposits of uninscribed plaques from the Montu temple at Karnak North that may date to the reign of Ptolemy X.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Dorothy J. Thompson

113

This need, of course, continued, but once the dynasty had survived for at least a century, some earlier practices, it seems, were abandoned, as new cultic practices came to the fore and the now established dynasty was more visibly displayed to all. In this respect at least Polybius was right in marking the reign of Ptolemy IV as one of change.⁵²

⁵² Several participants at the CPI meeting in Oxford (1–2 April 2016) kindly provided me with further references and helpful comments. In addition, I wish to thank Kathryn Stevens and John Thompson for their invaluable input.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

8 Hellenistic Sacred Dedications The View from Egypt Supratik Baralay

8.1 INTRODUCTION The study of Greek sacred dedicatory formulae of the Hellenistic period has mostly been concerned with questions of typology: what were the typical dedicatory formulae used in the Archaic and Classical periods? Did these change in the Hellenistic period? However, there has been little interest in questions of regional and local variation: which dedicatory formulae were particularly common in Thrace? Do some formulae occur exclusively on Delos?¹ Hellenistic Egypt (323–30 ) is one region that is particularly rich in sacred dedicatory inscriptions; yet the formulae employed in these documents have been subjected to relatively little serious study.² The publication of the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions will render the epigraphy of Hellenistic Egypt much more accessible and allow us to redress the balance.³ In this chapter I begin by setting out the typical formats employed in Greek sacred dedicatory inscriptions during the Hellenistic period. Then I look closely at a pair of documents: an inscribed marble plaque from Alexandria dated to the mid-third century  and an inscribed limestone stele from Krokodilopolis (Arsinoe) dated to the mid-second to mid-first century . I intend to demonstrate that although both inscriptions are part of a wider Hellenistic epigraphic koine, they exhibit ¹ Typological approaches: Lazzarini (1989–1990), McLean (2002), 246–59, Parker (2006), 274–6, Bodel (2009), 20–1. On the simplification of local variation: Ma (2013), 18. ² Only the βασιλεῖ/βασιλίσσηι and ὑπὲρ βασιλέως/βασιλίσσης formulae have received some attention: Ptol.Alex. I, 226–8 and 282–3, Iossif (2005), 235–57, Bingen (1989), 30–2 (in English, Bingen (2007), 274–6), Gladić (2007), 110–17, Fassa (2015), 133–53. ³ My discussion of the relevant items in the Corpus is keyed to the entries in the Concordance in the Appendix to this volume, which have brief summaries of the content of each dedication. Supratik Baralay, Hellenistic Sacred Dedications: The View from Egypt In: The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt. Edited by: Alan Bowman and Charles Crowther, Oxford University Press (2020). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198858225.003.0008

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Supratik Baralay

115

features that are peculiar to the sacred dedications of Hellenistic Egypt and arose due to particular social processes at work there.

8.2 HELLENISTIC SACRED DEDICATORY I N S CR IPTI ONS It hardly needs emphasizing that dedications of physical objects placed in a sanctuary or some other space sacred to the gods were very common in all places and at all times in the Graeco-Roman world. While a number of these dedications were not inscribed, many dedicators chose to make a written record of their act of dedication, usually upon the object itself.⁴ During the Hellenistic period, such dedicatory inscriptions typically stated the dedicator’s name in the nominative, a verb of dedication (usually ἀνατίθημι), and the divine recipient in the dative: ὁ δεῖνα ἀνέθηκε τῷ θεῷ (not necessarily in this word order). Some sacred dedicatory inscriptions also explicitly mentioned the object being dedicated in the accusative; in cases where an individual dedicated a portrait sculpture of another person to a deity the name of that person would appear in the accusative. More laconic inscriptions might omit some of these elements.⁵ In addition to these basic elements, dedications made in fulfilment of a vow were generally inscribed with the formula (ὁ δεῖνα ἀνέθηκε τῷ θεῷ) εὐχὴν/κατ’ εὐχήν and were referred to as χαριστήρια.⁶ Those made in favour of a living person, in the name of a deceased person, or for the sake of something employ the preposition ὑπέρ + the genitive to indicate this: for example (ὁ δεῖνα ἀνέθηκε τῷ θεῷ) ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ/ἐκείνου/τῆς ἑαυτοῦ σῶτηρίας.⁷ Furthermore, the dedications that declare that they have been made in accordance with an instruction or inspired by a dream generally utilize the formulae: (ὁ δεῖνα ἀνέθηκε τῷ θεῷ) κατὰ πρόσταγμα/ὄψιν ἰδών. These occur most frequently in dedications made to Egyptian gods, who often had dream interpreters associated with their cults.⁸ ⁴ Parker (2006), 270–1, 274. ⁵ McLean (2002), 246–54, Parker (2006), 274–6, Ma (2013), 24–31. ⁶ McLean (2002), 254–7, Parker (2006), 276. ⁷ Jim (2014), 616–37. For the translation of this formula, see further Bingen (1989), 30–2 (in English, Bingen (2007), 274–7) and n. 12 below. ⁸ Van Straten (1976), 12–14, Lazzarini (1989–90), 852–4, Parker (2006), 276, Moyer (2011), 165–74. However, only four examples of this type of dedication have been found in Ptolemaic Egypt (CPI 18 TM 6210, CPI 265 TM 6411, CPI 46 TM 5986, CPI 578 TM 6428). This formula was, therefore, mainly employed in dedications made to Egyptian deities outside Egypt. For example, Athens: SEG 42 157; Delos: IG XI.4 1230; Kaunos: I.Kaunos 67; Soloi: SEG 25 1122; Tyre: SEG 39 1596a. For dream interpreters, cf. CPI 196, which cites τοῦ θεοῦ πρόσταγμα, with the discussion of Renberg (2017), II, 717–34, esp. 728–30.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

116

Hellenistic Sacred Dedications

Some dedications, especially on altars, were inscribed with no more than the name of the deity in the genitive (τοῦ θεοῦ) to indicate divine ownership of the object.⁹ Like other types of documents, certain dedications were also inscribed with the date on which the dedication was made. Of course, the precise dating formula that was employed differed from region to region.¹⁰

8.3 KLEON AND ANTIPATROS How then do the sacred dedicatory inscriptions from Hellenistic Egypt compare to this epigraphic koine? One instructive example is a sacred dedication that was found in Alexandria and can be dated to the reign of Ptolemy III (246–222 ).¹¹

4

8

12

Ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου τοῦ Πτολεμαίου καὶ Ἀρσινόης θεῶν Ἀδελϕῶν καὶ βασιλίσσης Βερενίκης τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ ἀδελϕῆς τοῦ βασιλέως θεῶν Εὐεργετῶν ⁚ {καὶ} θεοῖς Ἀδελϕοῖς ⟨καὶ⟩ Διὶ Ὀλυμπίωι καὶ Διὶ Συνωμοσίωι τοὺς βωμοὺς καὶ τὰ τεμένη καὶ τὴν συνκύρουσαν αὐτοῖς γῆν Κλέων καὶ Ἀντίπατρος οἱ ἱερεῖς τοῦ Διός.

Kleon and Antipatros, the priests of Zeus, (dedicate) the altars and the precincts (temene) and the land belonging to them to the gods Adelphoi and Zeus Olympios and Zeus Synomosios in favour of King Ptolemy (III), son of Ptolemy (II) and Arsinoe (II) gods Adelphoi, and Queen Berenike (II) the sister and wife of the king, gods Euergetai.

By and large this inscription adheres to the formulae described in Section 8.2 above. The dedicators, Kleon and Antipatros, appear in the nominative at lines 10–12, and the divine recipients—the gods Adelphoi, Zeus Olympios, and Zeus Synomosios—are mentioned in the dative at lines 6–8. Moreover, the items being dedicated—altars, precincts (temene), and the land given to the priests— are listed in the accusative at lines 8–10. The entire dedication was also made ⁹ Lazzarini (1989–90), 843, Ma (2013), 20. ¹⁰ Dated sacred dedicatory inscriptions: Rhamnous: IG II² 1570–1; Lykosura: IG V.2 546, 1; Delos: I.Délos 2086; Paphos: SEG 20 238; Susa: IGIAC 13. ¹¹ CPI 15 TM 6381 (I.Alex.Ptol. 14), where, however, the reading on the stone, without Mahaffy’s relocation of καί, from line 6 to line 7, has been retained; cf. Ch. 6.3.3 of this volume, with n. 32.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Supratik Baralay

117

ὑπέρ or ‘in favour of ’ the reigning monarchs King Ptolemy III and Queen Berenike II gods Euergetai, who are mentioned in the genitive at lines 1–6. The function of this prepositional phrase is to indicate to the gods mentioned in the dative that they should send the χάρις associated with the offering in the direction of Ptolemy III and Berenike II.¹² Only the verb connecting all these elements has been omitted. This inscription also highlights some of the features that make the sacred dedications from Hellenistic Egypt so distinct. If we focus our attention on lines 1–6 of our inscription, we see that Kleon and Antipatros were making this dedication ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης Βερενίκης θεῶν Εὐεργετῶν. Hellenistic dedications that employ the ὑπὲρ βασιλέως/βασιλίσσης variant of the ὑπέρ + genitive formula (referred to here as ὑπὲρ βασιλέως/ βασιλίσσης dedications) have been found in several regions and are made in favour of rulers from a wide range of dynasties.¹³ However, what is striking is that the majority of the extant Hellenistic ὑπὲρ βασιλέως/βασιλίσσης dedications were found in Hellenistic Egypt and made in favour of the reigning Ptolemaic monarchs (and their children).¹⁴ Furthermore, in the dedications made in favour of rulers from most dynasties, the monarchs are usually referred to using their royal titles, personal names, and royal epithets. However, dedicators often stop short of directly calling the monarchs θεοί; the only notable exceptions are two dedications from Thracian Bisanthe made in favour of Eumenes II in which the Attalid ruler is called θεός.¹⁵ In contrast, 70 per cent of those made in favour of the Ptolemies refer to the reigning couple using their royal titles, personal names, as well as their cult names, in which they are explicitly called θεοί. For example, in line 6 of CPI 15 TM 6381 King Ptolemy III and Queen Berenike II are called Theoi Euergetai. The precise implication of this can be teased out by examining the dedications made by communities of Jews in Hellenistic Egypt in favour of the

¹² Jim (2014), 617–23. Iossif (2005), 237–48 suggests the construction indicates that the reigning Ptolemaic king would act as an intermediary between the dedicators and the traditional gods and ensure that their prayers were favorably received. The Ptolemaic kings were perceived as being able to carry out this function because they presented themselves as pharaohs, who traditionally fulfilled this role in Egyptian society. Iossif ’s formulation, however, runs up against the problem noted by Bingen (2007), 276 that people made dedications ὑπέρ figures such as queens, princes, princesses, and Ptolemaic administrators who did not have this particular religious function. In this volume and in the inscriptions in CPI the translation of this formula as ‘in favour of ’ follows the sense suggested by Bingen (2007), 276 (Bingen (1989), 31–2). ¹³ E.g. dedication from the Thracian Panion in favour of King Attalos II Philadelphos and Queen Stratonike IV: SEG 49 877; Delos in favour of King Mithradates VI Eupator (and Mithradates Chrestus): I.Délos 1561; Miletos in favour of King Antiochos IV Epiphanes: I.Miletos 79; Hanisa in favour of King Ariarathes VI Epiphanes: SEG 1 466. ¹⁴ Ptol.Alex. I, 190, 226–8, Iossif (2005), 241, Bingen (2007), 274–6, Fassa (2015), 135. ¹⁵ Dumont (1892), 406, 80, 407, 81a.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

118

Hellenistic Sacred Dedications

Ptolemies. Although Jewish communities were perfectly happy to make sacred dedications in favour of the Ptolemies, they never referred to the Ptolemies as θεοί because Jews considered only Yahweh to be divine.¹⁶ This is illustrated by the dedication made by the Jews of Nitria (CPI 185 TM 6457) in favour of King Ptolemy VIII, Queen Kleopatra II, and Queen Kleopatra III in which the rulers are simply called Euergetai; the word θεοί is pointedly dropped. However, the reluctance of the Jews to dedicate in favour of the Ptolemies and call them θεοί suggests that when non-Jewish dedicators in Hellenistic Egypt made sacred dedications in favour of the Ptolemies and did use the word θεοί, they were dedicating in favour of rulers whom they perceived to be divine. These ὑπὲρ βασιλέως/βασιλίσσης-type dedications make up a staggering 48 per cent of the extant sacred dedications from Hellenistic Egypt and begin to appear in significant numbers from the sole reign of Ptolemy II. They have been found across the region from Alexandria to Syene, and the dedicators come from a variety of professional backgrounds that range from goose-keepers (CPI 241 TM 8156), to nome strategoi (CPI 127 TM 6607). If we now turn to lines 6–7 of the inscription, we see that Kleon and Antipatros were also making this dedication in part to the Theoi Adelphoi: none other than the deified (and by this date deceased) Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II. Hellenistic dedications that name kings and queens as divine recipients in the dative (referred to here as βασιλεῖ/βασιλίσσηι dedications) are rather uncommon, appearing only in a few regions and were made to monarchs from only three or four different dynasties.¹⁷ However, what is striking is that βασιλεῖ/βασιλίσσηι dedications from Egypt made to the Ptolemaic dynasty constitute the majority of those extant from the Hellenistic world.¹⁸ We can be sure that the vast majority of the Egyptian βασιλεῖ/βασιλίσσηι dedications were made to the reigning couple because they refer to the rulers using their royal titles as well as their personal names and cult names. The few that were made to deceased rulers (for example CPI 15 TM 6381, CPI 272 TM 6240, CPI 314 TM 5949, CPI 576 TM 93312) almost always refer to them using only the personal and cult names. In the case of inscriptions like CPI 15, the cult name alone sufficed. From time to time princes and princesses also appear as divine recipients in the dative (for example CPI 132 TM 6430, CPI 121 TM 7265, CPI 422 TM 6398) and are only referred to by their personal names. The βασιλεῖ/ βασιλίσσηι-type of dedication forms a good 23 per cent of the total extant sacred dedications from Hellenistic Egypt and also begins to appear in the sole

¹⁶ ὑπὲρ βασιλέως/βασιλίσσης dedications made by Jews in Hellenistic Egypt: Ptol.Alex. I, 282–3. ¹⁷ E.g. dedication from Soli made to Antiochos III: OGIS 1 230; from Pergamon to Attalos I: I.Pergamon 43; from Amphipolis to Philip V: RICIS 113/0902. ¹⁸ Iossif (2005), 248–51, Fassa (2015), 135.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Supratik Baralay

119

reign of Ptolemy II (283–246 ). The single professional group that most frequently makes these dedications is the Ptolemaic army (whose members account for 42 per cent of the named dedicators), which explains why these dedications are clustered in heavily garrisoned areas, especially in Upper Egypt.¹⁹ Why were both types of dedication more frequently made in Hellenistic Egypt than in other regions? Here I elaborate on an argument first presented by Fraser that both types of dedications were made in response to the Ptolemaic dynastic cult.²⁰ In 272/1  Ptolemy II established a centrally organized Greek-style cult of himself and Arsinoe II as Theoi Adelphoi, which was modelled on the already existing cult of Alexander at Alexandria. After the reign of Ptolemy II, each successive royal couple was assimilated into the cult and had their own cult names, such as Theoi Euergetai or Theoi Philopatores. However, the dynastic cult also spoke to the culturally Egyptian population, since the cult names of the rulers echoed the language used to describe the pharaohs and the traditional Egyptian gods. For example, to a culturally Egyptian audience, the name Theoi Adelphoi might have associated Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II with the Egyptian brother-sister deities Osiris and Isis or Shu and Tefnut.²¹ Although the dynastic cult and its eponymous priest were based in Alexandria, all of the literate inhabitants of Egypt would have been well acquainted with it because Greek and Demotic contracts till at least the late second century  were dated by the eponymous priest who held office at the time the document was drawn up. The dating protocol not only mentioned the name of the priest but also his full titulature: ‘in the priesthood of X, of Alexander, the Theoi Adelphoi, the Theoi Euergetai…’ Furthermore after the meeting of the Egyptian priestly synod at Kanopos in 238  the dynastic cult was also introduced into the temples of Egyptian gods, where the Ptolemies became synnaoi theoi, sharing the temple with the traditional gods.²² Since most of the ὑπὲρ βασιλέως/βασιλίσσης and βασιλεῖ/βασιλίσσηι dedications appear after the sole reign of Ptolemy II and refer to Ptolemaic royal couples using their dynastic cult names, both types of dedication can be interpreted as private acts of ruler cult made in response to the widely disseminated dynastic cult. The ὑπὲρ βασιλέως/βασιλίσσης dedications should

¹⁹ Distribution of garrisons in Ptolemaic Egypt: Fischer-Bovet (2014a), 261–79. See also Fischer-Bovet, Ch. 9 of this volume. ²⁰ Ptol.Alex. I, 226–8. See also Jim (2017) on the complex relationship between Hellenistic dynastic cults and sacred dedications made by individuals in honour of Hellenistic monarchs. ²¹ Dynastic cult of the Ptolemies: Ptol.Alex. I, 213–46, Koenen (1993) 46–81, Hölbl (2001), 77–98, Pfeiffer (2008); for civic cults of the Ptolemies, see Habicht (2017), 79–90, 196–9. ²² Contracts dated by eponymous priests: Ptol.Alex. I, 214–16, Koenen (1993), 46–7. Ptolemies as synnaoi theoi in Egyptian temples: Quaegebeur (1989), 93–116, Koenen (1993), 53–7, Hölbl (2001), 105–11.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

120

Hellenistic Sacred Dedications

perhaps be understood as being made by individuals who accepted that the reigning couple were θεοί, but not quite the same as the traditional gods. As a result, they reached a compromise and honoured the royal couple as θεοί but did so by dedicating to the traditional gods in favour of them and to secure their well-being. In fact, the inhabitants of Egypt were not the only ones to regard their rulers as both assimilated to and distinct from the traditional gods: a handful of civic ruler-cult inscriptions from other regions in the Hellenistic world stipulate that sacrifices are to be made to the rulers being honoured—like sacrifices to the traditional gods—but also in favour of them to the traditional gods.²³ By contrast, the βασιλεῖ/βασιλίσσηι dedications were made by those who recognized the divinity of the reigning Ptolemaic couple and chose to honour them just as they would the traditional gods through dedications made to them in the dative case as divine recipients. It comes as no surprise that the majority of the dedicators were military and administrative personnel who were closely bound to the Ptolemaic state and therefore likely to adopt the dominant currents of Ptolemaic royal ideology. The case of Kleon and Antipatros (as well as CPI 24 TM 107255, CPI 576 TM 93312, and CPI 272 TM 6240) shows that some dedicators felt that the royal couple became more comparable to the traditional gods and therefore liable directly to receive dedications only when they were deceased. If we accept that most of the ὑπὲρ βασιλέως/βασιλίσσης and βασιλεῖ/ βασιλίσσηι dedications of Hellenistic Egypt were made in response to the Ptolemaic dynastic cult, then the paucity of such dedications in other regions can be explained. Although other Hellenistic dynasties such as the Seleukids and the Orontids of Kommagene established dynastic cults, ‘the dynastic cult nowhere found fuller and more complex expression than in Ptolemaic Egypt’.²⁴ If the Ptolemies emphasized their divinity to their populace more extensively than any other dynasty, the people of Hellenistic Egypt in turn responded to this state policy by making more ὑπὲρ βασιλέως/βασιλίσσης and βασιλεῖ/βασιλίσσηι dedications to their divine rulers than the inhabitants of any other region.

²³ E.g. the divine honours of the Ionian koinon for Antiochos I and Stratonike I: OGIS 1 222 (Habicht (2017), 66–7, no. 36); of Cyrene for a King Ptolemy and Queen Kleopatra: SEG 9 5; of the technitai of Dionysos for Ariarathes V: IG II² 1330. For Hellenistic rulers being both assimilated to and separated from the traditional gods in acts of ruler cult: Price (1984), 222–7, Chaniotis (2003), 433, (2011), 181, Parker (2011), 281; and cf. Habicht (2017), 169–71. ²⁴ Ptol.Alex. I, 214. Although more evidence has since been found which suggests that other Hellenistic dynasties, mostly notably the Seleukids, set up vibrant dynastic cults, the evidence for the Ptolemaic cult remains more abundant and consistent over time, suggesting that their dynastic cult was more established. For a similar judgement, see now Erickson (2018) esp. 1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Supratik Baralay

121

8.4 A PYN CHIS AND HIS F AMILY Like the dedication of Kleon and Antipatros, another inscription that was found on a limestone stele from Krokodilopolis and dates to the period 150–30  also adheres closely to the typical Hellenistic sacred dedicatory formulae.²⁵

4

8

12

Σοκον̣ ν̣ ο̣ βχνοῦβι θεῶι μεγάλωι μεγάλωι Ἀπύνχις Πετοσίριος καὶ ἡ γυνὴ καὶ τὰ τέκνα εὐχήν οἱ τὸν περίβολον· (ἔτους) εʹ, Χοιὰχ ιζʹ.

Apynchis son of Petosiris and his wife and their children (dedicated) this enclosure to Sokonnobchnoubis, the great, great god in accordance with a vow. Year 5, Choiach 17 [13–14 September].

The dedicators, Apynchis son of Petosiris, his wife, and their children, are mentioned in the nominative in lines 5–9, and the recipient deity, Sokonnobchnoubis the great, great god, is mentioned in the dative in lines 1–5. The item being dedicated—in this case an enclosure—is also stated in the accusative in lines 10–11. Furthermore, we are told that this particular dedication was made in fulfilment of a vow to Sokonnobchnoubis, as the εὐχήν formula appears in line 9. In line 12 the dedication is dated by the regnal year of an unknown Ptolemaic monarch, Egyptian month, and day.²⁶ As in our first inscription, the verb of dedication is implied. However, this inscription also exhibits features that are almost exclusively found in the sacred dedications from Hellenistic Egypt. In lines 5–7 we see that the only named dedicator carries the personal name Apynchis, a Hellenized version of the thoroughly Egyptian name Ἰw=f-ʿnḫ, but also the patronymic Petosiris, a Greek rendering of the Egyptian theophoric name PꜢ-dἰ-Wsἰr.²⁷ During the Hellenistic period, the vast majority of dedicators who appear in the nominative in sacred dedicatory inscriptions use Greek personal names

²⁵ CPI 268 TM 43000 (I.Fayoum 1 20). ²⁶ For Egyptian calendars and dating, see now Stern (2012), 125–66. The dating formula, standard in Greek documentary papyri from the early Ptolemaic period, only begins to appear in dedicatory inscriptions from the early to mid-second century  and becomes increasingly common thereafter. It is unclear whether this is significant or coincidental. ²⁷ Apynchis: www.trismegistos.org/name/67; Petosiris: www.trismegistos.org/name/893.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

122

Hellenistic Sacred Dedications

and patronymics. Although non-Greek names crop up from time to time in the epigraphic record, especially on Delos, they are relatively uncommon. This is especially true of Egyptian names. Outside Egypt, we see a very small handful of dedications made by individuals using Egyptian names: the Recueil des inscriptions concernant les cultes isiaques [RICIS] (where Egyptian-named dedicators are most likely to appear) provides only four examples.²⁸ Yet things were different in Hellenistic Egypt itself, where around 13 per cent of (the extant) sacred dedications were made by individuals like Apynchis who chose to use Egyptian personal names. The divine recipient of this dedication is Sokonnobchnoubis, a form of the Egyptian crocodile god Sobek.²⁹ Over the course of the Hellenistic period, Egyptian cults spread from Egypt far and wide, especially across the Eastern Mediterranean. As a result, we possess a large number of sacred dedicatory inscriptions from various regions that mention Egyptian deities as divine recipients in the dative.³⁰ The most popular deities were Sarapis and Isis, but other gods and goddesses such as Harpokrates, Anoubis, and Boubastis also appeared frequently. Of course, these deities also featured as recipients in the sacred dedications from Egypt: of the extant dedications, around 34 per cent are made to Egyptian deities who also received dedications outside Egypt. Around 10 per cent of the dedicatory inscriptions from Egypt mention Egyptian divine recipients, like Sokonnobchnoubis, who are not represented at all on dedications from outside Egypt. Other such dedications include those made to Pnepheros (another Egyptian crocodile god), Hermouthis (an Egyptian cobra goddess), and Pramarres (the divinized pharaoh Amenemhat III).

8.5 GREEK AND E GYPTIAN DEDICATORY P RACTICES Around 65 per cent of our extant sacred dedicatory inscriptions that mention either dedicators using Egyptian personal names (henceforth referred to as Egyptian-named dedications) or Egyptian divine recipients who received no dedications outside Egypt (referred to as Egyptian-deity dedications) have their provenance in the settlements of the Fayum and were set up from the late third to early second centuries . However, this suggests a question: given that Hellenistic Egypt was home to more culturally Egyptian individuals and Egyptian cults than elsewhere, why ²⁸ Delos: Taessa: RICIS 202/160; Horos: RICIS 202/199–200; Samos: Horos: RICIS 205/0101. ²⁹ Forms of Sobek: I.Fayoum 1, pp. 59–60. ³⁰ Fraser (1960), 20–49. Egyptian deities as divine recipients: Eretria: Sarapis, Isis, Osiris, Anoubis, and Harpokrates: RICIS 104/0111; Chalcis: Sarapis, Isis, Anoubis, and Apis: RICIS 104/ 0201; Delos: Sarapis, Isis, Anoubis, and Boubastis: RICIS 202/0371.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Supratik Baralay

123

do we not possess a larger number of Egyptian-named and Egyptian-deity dedications? One explanation for the dearth of such dedications might be that they belong in a dedicatory context in which Greek names were used in preference to Egyptian (where there was a choice) and were made only to deities who were either Greek or at least familiar to Greeks. This can be illustrated by two dedicatory inscriptions from Hellenistic Diospolis (Thebes) and Koptos. The first (CPI 388 TM 52924) is a trilingual HieroglyphicDemotic-Greek document in which the Demotic and Greek versions are closely related to one another.³¹ The translation of the Demotic version reads: Koptite Osiris, Foremost of the Gold House, gives life to Pamin son of Psenosire, with his brothers, with his servants, unto eternity.

The text of the Greek version runs: Σαράπιδι, θεῶι μεγάλωι Πανίσκος Σαραπίωνο[ς] ἔτους ιηʹ, Παχὼν κζʹ. To Sarapis the great god, Paniskos son of Sarapion. Year 18, Pachon 27.

The second (CPI 350 TM 53566) is a bilingual Demotic-Greek inscription that follows a similar pattern. The translation of the Demotic version reads: Koptite Min, the Great God gives life to Hagar, son of Petamun.

The Greek version on the other hand runs: [Π]ανὶ Εὐόδ[ωι… Δ]ιονύσιος Σ[…].³² To Pan, provider of good travel … Dionysios …

In the Demotic versions of both inscriptions our dedicators choose to refer to themselves using Egyptian personal names and patronymics. However, in the Greek versions, Pamin uses the thoroughly Greek personal name and patronymic Paniskos son of Sarapion, and Hagar styles himself as Dionysios and employs an apparently different patronymic too. This cultural code-switching also extends to the names of the recipient deities: in the Demotic texts, the recipient deities are referred to using their traditional Egyptian names, whereas in the Greek versions Koptite Osiris is interpreted as the more Hellenized Sarapis and Koptite Min is construed as Pan Euodos.³³ Why were so many of our surviving Egyptian-named and Egyptian-deity dedications made in the Fayum in the mid-to-late Hellenistic period? From the late fourth century  the Ptolemies hired fewer mercenary troops and instead started to remunerate foreign soldiers by granting them plots of land

³¹ For Diospolis (Karnak) as the likely provenance, rather than Koptos, see Moje (2012–13), 89–100 no. 1. ³² Demotic texts and translations: Short Texts 1, nos. 250 and 118. ³³ On the context-specific use of Egyptian or Greek personal names in the papyri from Hellenistic Egypt: Clarysse (1985); divine-names: Bikerman (1938), 188–9.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

124

Hellenistic Sacred Dedications

(kleroi) in Egypt. This had several benefits for the Ptolemaic state: the soldiers would be less prone to desert, since their property was on Ptolemaic territory, they did not have to be paid in silver (a rare commodity in Egypt), and they increased the state’s revenue by augmenting the amount of land cultivated. Our papyrological evidence, albeit limited, tells us that during the late fourth and the third centuries  these kleruchs, the majority of whom were of Macedonian and Greek descent, were settled in large numbers in the newly reclaimed areas of the Fayum.³⁴ However, these culturally Greek military settlers in the Fayum did not live in isolation but side by side with a sizeable Egyptian populace; indeed, some settlers were even billeted in the houses of Egyptians. Over the course of the third century , the close proximity of the kleruchs to the Egyptian population of the Fayum resulted in increasingly regular interaction between the two groups. In a handful of cases kleruchs even married Egyptian women and had children who were raised with both Greek and Egyptian cultural influences.³⁵ It was surely inevitable that, as the Greek and Egyptian populations of the Hellenistic Fayum interacted with each other over time, a degree of acculturation in many respects, including onomastics and religious practices, would have occurred. One result of this might have been that the inhabitants of this region, unlike those living elsewhere in Hellenistic Egypt, were less reluctant to adapt what was essentially a Greek tradition and to make dedications with Egyptian names and to Egyptian deities. Some individuals such as Apynchis even went as far as to address the recipient deities using a reduplicated epithet, thus importing a feature of Hieroglyphic epigraphy into a Greek dedicatory formula.³⁶ Others had Greek-style sacred dedicatory texts inscribed on stelai decorated with culturally Egyptian figures and motifs.³⁷ In the GraecoEgyptian milieu of the Hellenistic Fayum such dedications would not have seemed as jarring as they might have done elsewhere. Why then do we not find any Egyptian-style Hieroglyphic or Demotic dedicatory inscriptions from the Hellenistic Fayum to Greek deities by individuals who used their Greek names? To put it another way, why do the Greeks not adapt their traditional mode of dedication to the Egyptianlanguage milieu? One disarmingly simple answer is that it should be noted that there is little evidence for culturally Greek individuals wishing to learn

³⁴ On the settlement of kleruchs in Hellenistic Egypt, see now Stefanou (2013), 108–31, Fischer-Bovet (2014a), 199–237. Although it is difficult to gauge the exact number of kleruchs in the Fayum at any given time, it has been estimated that during the mid-third century  Greeks (including kleruchs) made up about 30 per cent of the total population (Clarysse and Thompson (2006), 94–95, 154–7, Thompson (2011b), 401). ³⁵ Interaction between kleruchs and the local populace: Fischer-Bovet (2014a), 238–61. ³⁶ I.Fayoum 1, 60. Other dedications that exhibit this feature include CPI 235 TM 8152, CPI 246 TM 7258, CPI 224 TM 8623. ³⁷ e.g. CPI 222 TM 6431, CPI 175 TM 48150, CPI 309 TM 105118, CPI 276 TM 8161.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Supratik Baralay

125

Demotic (and the same is even more likely to apply to Hieroglyphic).³⁸ From the reign of Ptolemy II the Ptolemaic state encouraged the spread of Greek literacy to ensure that successive generations of individuals were trained to serve the needs of the administration, which from the third century  functioned predominantly in Greek. In order to do this, the state made both didaskaloi grammaton (teachers who taught Greek ‘letters’ in the Greek medium) and didaskaloi Aigyptioi (who taught Greek ‘letters’ in the Egyptian medium) exempt from the obol and salt taxes.³⁹ This, in turn, encouraged individuals in the Egyptian countryside to become teachers of Greek.⁴⁰ However, Greek teachers were apparently not evenly spread throughout the chora. The didaskaloi grammaton set up shop in areas such as the Fayum, which were inhabited by large numbers of kleruchs who would be culturally inclined and financially able to pay for a Greek education for their children.⁴¹ The didaskaloi Aigyptioi in the Fayum would also have had no trouble in finding students: if an Egyptian scribe literate in Demotic became literate in Greek as well, he could secure a job in the local administration.⁴² One of the direct results of this concentration of Greek teachers in the Fayum, especially in Krokodilopolis (Arsinoe), coupled with the dearth of evidence for culturally Greek individuals wishing to learn Demotic, was that the lingua franca of written communication in the Fayum rapidly became Greek.⁴³ This is reinforced by the fact that so far we have only one Demotic Egyptian-style dedicatory inscription from the Fayum, whereas in most other parts of Egypt Hieroglyphic and Demotic dedicatory inscriptions outnumber those made in Greek.⁴⁴ Moreover, the overall quantity of Greek inscriptions set up in the Ptolemaic Fayum outnumbers the Demotic inscriptions by about 8 to 1.⁴⁵ When it came to publicly recording an act of sacred dedication in the Fayum, people chose to do so using Greek-style sacred dedicatory inscriptions since this was the language which could be read by the majority of the literate population.

³⁸ Torallas Tovar (2010), 29–30, 33–4. ³⁹ See Clarysse and Thompson (2006), 71, 88. ⁴⁰ Spread of Greek literacy in Hellenistic Egypt: Thompson (1992), 39–52. (1994b), 67–83, esp. 75, Clarysse and Thompson (2006), 125–33. ⁴¹ Clarysse and Thompson (2006), 129–31. ⁴² Clarysse and Thompson (2006), 6–7, 70; Torallas Tovar (2010), 31–2. ⁴³ Lack of evidence for culturally Greek individuals being inclined to learn Egyptian languages: Torallas Tovar (2010), 29–30, 33–4. ⁴⁴ See Thiers (2006), 294–5. ⁴⁵ Ratio of Greek to Egyptian language dedications in Hellenistic Egypt: Thiers (2006), 279. The Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions records a total of 93 Greek inscriptions from the Hellenistic Fayum. In contrast, according to Trismegistos there were only 12 Demotic texts inscribed on stone stelai in the Fayum.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

126

Hellenistic Sacred Dedications

8.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS In this chapter I have moved away from a typological approach to the study of Hellenistic sacred dedicatory formulae and, instead, have tried to show what a localized approach to these formulae might look like. But how does such an approach change the way in which we think about the history of a region? In the case of Hellenistic Egypt, social history is almost exclusively written using the tens of thousands of papyri that have been unearthed in areas south of the Nile Delta.⁴⁶ However, a close examination of distinct sacred dedicatory formulae found in Hellenistic Egypt can allow us usefully to supplement the papyrological evidence. In my analysis of the extant sacred dedications from Hellenistic Egypt, I have emphasized that around 71 per cent of our dedications were made either to or in favour of the divine Ptolemaic monarchs. This can be explained by the fact that both types of dedication were private acts of ruler cult made in response to the Ptolemaic dynastic cult. In this context, the sacred dedicatory formulae give us an invaluable insight into the extent to which the ideology of the Ptolemaic dynastic cult impacted on private religion in Egypt. This aspect of religious history is largely undetectable in the papyri. Furthermore, I have shown that around a quarter of our extant sacred dedications from Hellenistic Egypt were made either by Egyptian-named dedicators or to Egyptian deities who received no cult outside Egypt and were unfamiliar to Greeks. Almost two-thirds of these were found in the Fayum. I have argued that one of the reasons why this came about was because the Ptolemies’ encouragement of literacy in Greek resulted in a concentration of Greek teachers in the Fayum, which in turn led to Greek becoming the lingua franca of written communication there. Although the papyrological evidence from the Fayum shows that the lingua franca of the Ptolemaic bureaucracy shifted from Demotic to Greek in the course of the third century , the evidence from the sacred dedications suggests that this was symptomatic of a wider linguistic change in the area, since the language of public inscriptions too was overwhelmingly Greek.⁴⁷ Localized studies of these short sacred dedications have the potential to shine a new light on the social history of the Hellenistic world.⁴⁸

⁴⁶ Good examples of such social histories include Lewis (1986) and Clarysse and Thompson (2006). ⁴⁷ Shift in the language of bureaucracy: Thompson (1992), 47–51. ⁴⁸ I wrote the first version of this chapter as a graduate student at Oxford under the guidance of Charles Crowther, for his Greek epigraphy seminar in 2015. Since then it has benefited greatly from the advice and comments of Alan Bowman, Chloe Colchester, Paul Kosmin, Robert Parker, Felipe Soza, Peter Thonemann, and the volume’s anonymous reviewers. All faults are my own.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

9 Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt Christelle Fischer-Bovet

9.1 I NTRODUCTION Why do soldiers engrave words, names, and messages on stone? This chapter aims to illuminate the contribution of soldiers’ inscriptions to the social, cultural, military, and economic history of Ptolemaic Egypt, though not all these issues can be treated here in equal depth. While inscriptions contain messages (usually) carefully chosen for public display, papyri mostly preserve administrative correspondence about soldiers’ land allotments and payments, public and private accounts, as well as private documents such as contracts or letters.¹ For this reason, inscriptions shed more light on different aspects of military life than do papyri, with some limited overlaps, either when the same individuals or families are known from both types of documentation or when a form of document which is normally recorded on a papyrus, a petition for instance, is also engraved on stone for a particular reason. A few dozen inscriptions set up by members of the military were also preserved in Hieroglyphs and Demotic Egyptian on statues and stelai and sometimes concern individuals who are also known from the Greek documentation. Egyptian inscriptions will not be discussed systematically here, since the present volume is devoted to Greek and bilingual inscriptions; they will, however, be referred to when necessary. Soldiers are heavily represented within the corpus of Greek inscriptions from Egypt, sometimes acting individually—especially officers—and sometimes as a group. The most common types of documents are dedications, along with signatures and proskynemata (acts of adoration)—generally simple

¹ See further Clarysse, Ch. 10 of this volume. I thank Dorothy J. Thompson and Willy Clarysse for reading an earlier version of this chapter. Christelle Fischer-Bovet, Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt In: The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt. Edited by: Alan Bowman and Charles Crowther, Oxford University Press (2020). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198858225.003.0009

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

128

Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt

graffiti. Smaller in number are the funerary inscriptions (mostly from Alexandria), and finally a few honorific decrees and petitions involving soldiers. Many funerary inscriptions and a few acts of adoration are in fact epigrams, a particular form of inscription examined by Simon Hornblower in Chapter 12 of this volume, while Hellenistic epigrams concerning soldiers have recently been analysed by Silvia Barbantani.² The aim of this chapter is more generally to explain why there were so many inscriptions concerning soldiers and why their number increased over time, through the analysis of their content, form, and functions. Dedicatory inscriptions offer the clearest evidence for investigating this increase and therefore will be the focus of the chapter, though some of the new habits are also reflected in other types of inscriptions. Dedicatory inscriptions set up by soldiers are of two kinds. Dedications of statues of kings and of non-royal individuals form the smallest category. Dedications to a deity or a series of deities form the largest category, and these might be made by a group or by a single individual, sometimes with family members, colleagues, or other members of an association. The dedicants place themselves under the protection of the relevant gods or at least advertise a particular relationship, even in absentia. Whereas this is also the prime aim of signatures and proskynemata, it is only one of the many functions of the dedicatory inscriptions. In addition, dedications have a more official character for several reasons. First, they imply some costly process, such as the making of a stele or the cutting of a rock (in a more professional way than for a graffito) and/or the fabrication of objects such as statues, altars, libation tables, wooden doors, sundials, or buildings (e.g. wells, chapels, doors, monumental doors, or temples). Secondly, most of these objects and constructions improved the material and/or non-material welfare of the local population at large, or of particular population groups such as soldiers, members of the gymnasium, or socio-religious associations. Thirdly, dedications were probably accompanied by some form of inaugural ceremony and, in the case of buildings, the beneficiaries (for instance, an association or priests) honoured their benefactors by inscribing their name(s) on the building, often on the architrave or the lintel.³ The corpus of all the dedicatory inscriptions from Ptolemaic Egypt by soldiers and officers, systematically collected for the present investigation, amounts to about one hundred. In 10 per cent of cases (11 instances), one cannot be certain that the dedicants were soldiers, but the context strongly suggests that they belonged to the military because of the gods to whom the dedications were made and/or because of the link with the gymnasium (where the gods were Hermes and Herakles). Dedicatory inscriptions by officers and ² Barbantani (2014). ³ This is clearly stated in I.Delta 3, p. 899 no. 2 TM 103907 (I.Prose 49, 5 ): the association of farmers of Psenemphaia mentions, among other things, the new banqueting room.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Christelle Fischer-Bovet

129

25 20 15 10 5 0 Alexandria

Delta + Memphis

Fayum Single

Valley + Desert

Thebaid

Group

Fig. 9.1. Dedications by regions and by individuals versus groups Table 9.1. Dedications by officers and groups of soldiers with attested provenance

Alexandria Delta + Memphis Fayum Nile valley + Eastern desert Thebaid TOTAL

Ptolemy I–III

Ptolemy IV–VI

Ptolemy VIII to Kleopatra VII

Total

0+0=0 2+0=2 0+0=0 0+1=1 1+0=1 3+1=4

1+2=3 5+0=5 0+0=0 3+0=3 4+4=8 13 + 6 = 19

0+2=2 1+4=5 20 + 10 = 30 8 + 4 = 12 13 + 3 = 16 42 + 23 = 65

1+4=5 8 + 4 = 12 20 + 10 = 30 11 + 5 = 16 18 + 7 = 25 58 + 30 = 88

soldiers represent one third of the corpus. In Table 9.1 only texts of known provenance and for which the number of dedicants is preserved have been included, 88 in total.⁴ In each column, the first figure indicates the number of dedications by named individuals, usually one officer, sometimes conjointly with a few fellow officers or his family, whereas the second figure records those made by groups of soldiers, often with their officers. On average, one-third of the dedications were made by groups of soldiers, a sign of their capacity for collective action and esprit de corps (see Fig. 9.1). The number of all types of dedications increased from the early third century to the reigns of Ptolemy IV–Ptolemy VI (221–145 ), and even more in the period from Ptolemy VIII to Kleopatra VII (145–30 ), with some regional peculiarities (see Fig. 9.2). The increase is first visible in Upper Egypt (Nile valley, Eastern desert, and Thebaid) and occurs later in the Fayum.⁵ ⁴ CPI 200 TM 6421, the decree of the politeuma of the Idumaeans in Memphis to honour the strategos Dorion has been included, since many members of the politeuma were soldiers. ⁵ In Philae, from the period of Ptolemy IX on, dedications disappeared and proskynemata multiplied on the walls of the temple.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

130

Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Alexandria

Delta + Memphis Ptol. I-III

Fayum Ptol. IV-VI

Valley + Desert

Thebaid

Ptol. VIII-Cleo

Fig. 9.2. Dedications by regions and by reigns

The examination of the corpus in the following sections seeks to offer some explanation of these new trends and suggests that the growing number of dedications by soldiers from the time of Ptolemy VI and Ptolemy VIII on is not due simply to the chance of preservation. Rather, it reflects the spread of earlier forms of sporadic behaviour that developed into an increasing ‘dedicatory habit’ connected to political, religious, and social developments of the late Hellenistic period (c.150–30 ). First, there is the increasing importance of benefactions for the local community made by non-royal persons, a form of behaviour traditionally known as euergetism and linked to the functions of the benefactors as officials when the donations were made ob honorem.⁶ Secondly, statues of non-royal benefactors were increasingly erected in public spaces with inscriptions on the pedestals. Sometimes, however, the record of honours, like statues, granted by the dedicants was inscribed on a separate stele as an honorific decree. Thirdly, a growing number of socio-religious associations is found, including professional associations.⁷ Use of the preposition ὑπέρ in dedications from the Ptolemaic territory has been explained by Bingen as perhaps an expression of a deep solidarity towards the king.⁸ To go one step further, it is suggested here that the use of ὑπέρ offered dedicants a new way to display their special connection to the royal family and to influential officers and that this possibility may explain the increasing use of ⁶ On the concept of euergetism ob honorem as a special type of benefaction connected to the functions of the benefactor who is also an official, see Thiers (2006), 287–9, following Veyne (1976), 214. ⁷ e.g. Ascough et al. (2012) and Monson (2019). ⁸ Bingen (2007), 256–78, first published in French as Bingen (1989). See also Savvopoulos and Baralay (Chs. 6 and 8 of this volume). The preposition is often translated as ‘for’ or ‘on behalf of ’; the editions in CPI follow Bingen’s suggestion that the sense is better reflected by ‘in favour of ’. Here the word ‘for’ is used throughout as a shorthand.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Christelle Fischer-Bovet

131

dedications. This allowed a dedicant to make a dedication to a deity (in the dative) and at the same time for royal persons or for officials.⁹ Twice from the Thebaid under Ptolemy VIII there survive dedications made to a god, both for the kings and for an important official.¹⁰ Soldiers and officers could express their loyalty to the king and acknowledge the administrative hierarchy not only with the hope of further promotions or privileges, but also as a way of increasing their own social capital and enhancing their own image as trustworthy individuals. Thus, the term ‘social capital’ is used here not simply with the meaning of ‘standing’ but to refer to how an individual is able, through investment in social relations, to ‘gain access to embedded resources and to enhance expected returns of instrumental or expressive actions’.¹¹ Investments go beyond the economic sphere and refer to cultural and even emotional spheres. The use of ὑπέρ in dedications by soldiers, which later became the norm, is already attested in Egypt at a time when dedications were scanty, once under each of the first three Ptolemies,¹² Interestingly, in the newly discovered dedication plaques from the Boubastieion in Alexandria, Berenike II dedicated the naos for Ptolemy III her ‘brother’ and husband both in the Greek and in the Hieroglyphic texts (ὑπέρ and ḥr).¹³ In the corpus of dedications made by soldiers, ὑπέρ is used 37 times for royal individuals and the dative 14 times. The use of the dative for the kings and queens is confined to the Thebaid under Ptolemy VIII, except for one dedication dated to the reign of Ptolemy VI. Almost all the dedications with the king and queen in the dative display the particular feature of including both the royal family and a military officer: they were made for an officer but since the dedicants wanted to add the kings and queens, they (or their scribes) chose the dative case for the royal recipients, as for the gods, rather than ὑπέρ.¹⁴ With a view to explaining why so many inscriptions, especially dedications, were made by army officers and soldiers, the following sections will examine what, in Ptolemaic Egypt, soldiers inscribed on stone and what this reveals about their lives, military hierarchies, and statuses, the relationships between soldiers and civilians, and religion. I first explore the evidence reflecting ⁹ On the religious, social, and economic implications, see also Caneva (2016) and Fassa (2015) on how the two types of dedications closely connect Sarapis and Isis to the royal couple. ¹⁰ CPI 447 TM 88948 and CPI 448 TM 47462. In this particular configuration, the dative is usually preferred for kings and queens; see below. ¹¹ Lin (1999), 39. ¹² Respectively CPI 89 TM 6367, CPI 92 TM 6505 and CPI 581 TM 6364. Cf. Jim (2014). ¹³ Abd el-Maksoud et al. (2015); Pfeiffer (2008) 92–3 has shown that the Egyptian term is a translation of the Greek and not the reverse; See further Thompson, Ch. 7 of this volume pp. 106–7. ¹⁴ The dative was used in dedications to the gods and to the royal persons in CPI 409 TM 6328, CPI 416 TM 43986, CPI 415 TM 88865, CPI 422 TM 6398, CPI 440 TM 47410, and CPI 446 TM 43853. Only in CPI 444 TM 88945 and CPI 445 TM 88946 are no officers mentioned, but it is not certain that these two dedications were made by soldiers, as the dedicants’ names are lost.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

132

Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt

soldiers on the move and the consequences both for themselves and for the population around them (Section 9.2). Section 9.3 focuses on the possibilities offered by messages on stone to display the corporate identity of groups, their military and socio-economic status, or connection to the king, and thus to enhance their social capital. I then discuss the role of soldiers in ensuring the safety and welfare of the civilian communities (Section 9.4); examples of military personnel with multiple residences (Section 9.5); the evidence for the use of inscriptions to display hierarchical rank and socio-economic status, in which soldiers and their officers appear to mimic the royal ideology of benevolence (Section 9.6). I finally focus on the religious sphere (Section 9.7), which includes records on stelai of petitions sent by soldiers to the king concerning local temples.

9.2 S OLDIERS ON THE MOVE Soldiers and mercenaries belonged to the category of mobile people. To be ‘in transit’ implied all sort of risks, not only insecurity for themselves, as travellers and foreigners, but also for the civilian population. This is true even in time of peace, in the case of forced billeting and exploitation of the population through confiscations of local resources. There was, of course, another side to the coin, when soldiers protected the population or when they spent their income locally with some benefits for the local inhabitants, or invested their income in the welfare of the whole community, aspects explored in Sections 9.3 and 9.4. To be on the move encompassed a large variety of situations, of which (at least) four different types can be identified in soldiers’ inscriptions from Egypt, especially in dedications.¹⁵ The first comes from the dangers of travelling on land and sea or from fighting in a city under siege. The second type reflects the situation and social organization of troops of mercenaries on the move to Egypt. The third involves garrison commanders, who protected the local population from disruptions caused by the visits of officials and soldiers. The final type concerns soldiers who had at least two places of residence. Many of these inscriptions show how the epigraphic medium, with a fixed message delivered by individuals on the move, by men who might at first sight appear untrustworthy, was not simply used to increase an individual’s social capital, but more specifically to generate some level of trust in those who read it.¹⁶ ¹⁵ See Moatti (2018) for past and current approaches to mobility, and Archibald (2011) and Oliver (2011) for mobility in the Hellenistic period. ¹⁶ Trust is here understood as one form of (social) capital, according to Hosking (2014), 27–8, 37, which ‘covers at least three phenomena: a personal feeling, an attitude, a relationship, the latter two are in part socially constructed…trust is an attachment to a person, collective of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Christelle Fischer-Bovet

133

9.2.1 Safe Travel, the Elephant Hunt, and Cities under Siege Many dedications made by travelling soldiers come from Koptos and the eastern desert, which connected the Nile valley to the Red Sea.¹⁷ In one of the earliest military dedications, Apollonios son of Sosibios from Thera (Text 9.1) thanked the Great Gods of Samothrace for travel safely completed, expressing the gods’ names in the dative and without any mention of the dedication being made for a king or his family (Text 9.1: CPI 342 TM 6382, Koptos):¹⁸

4

8

Θεοῖς μεγάλοις Σαμοθρᾷξι Ἀπολλώνιος Σωσιβίου Θηραῖος ἡγεμὼν τῶν ἔξω τάξεων σωθεὶς ἐγ μεγάλων κινδύνων ἐκπλεύσας ἐκ τῆς Ἐρυθρᾶς θαλάσσης, εὐχήν.

To the Great Gods of Samothrace Apollonios son of Sosibios from Thera, officer of the ἔξω τάξεων, who was saved from great dangers, having accomplished his journey on the Red Sea (has dedicated this) as a vow.

The dedication was not made for the king but was already used as a medium to display the dedicant’s ethnic designation (patris) and rank in the Ptolemaic army (the ἔξω τάξεων, literally ‘outside the ranks’, are discussed in Section 9.6.1). In practice, soldiers indicated their ethnic designation in more than one-third of dedications.¹⁹ Arguably, the designation of Apollonios’ patris as Theraios, from the Cycladic island of Thera, might also, in the added information this provided about his experience at sea, serve to reassure whoever sailed with him in the future. The message had a double function: thanking the deities for past good luck with the hope of maintaining their goodwill and calling attention to Apollonios’ experience in a previous expedition on the Red Sea. Elephant hunters also travelled back and forth from hunting areas in the Red Sea basin south to modern Sudan to bring to Egypt elephants for the persons or institutions, based on the well-founded but not certain expectation that she/they will act for one’s own good’. ¹⁷ On new excavations between Koptos and the Red Sea, see Sidebotham and Gates-Foster (2019), Redon and Faucher (2015) and the forthcoming publication of new Demotic and Greek texts by Marie-Pierre Chauffray and Hélène Cuvigny presented at the International Congress of Papyrology in Barcelona in 2016. ¹⁸ For the date, see the discussion of the ἔξω τάξεων in Section 9.6.1 below; Apollonios’ choice could be explained by the fact that ὑπέρ was not used outside the Ptolemaic territories and that Ptolemaic control over Thera was perhaps recent. ¹⁹ Thirty-seven of one hundred dedicants, without counting the patris of the person for whom the dedication is offered. This is already the case in the earliest dedication, CPI 89 TM 6367.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

134

Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt

army. The animals were transported on special boats on the Red Sea up to Berenike Trogodytica, and from there they crossed the desert to Edfu or Koptos. Four dedications from the reign of Ptolemy IV complement our knowledge of elephant hunters, also known from a series of third-century papyri and from Strabo’s description of the Red Sea.²⁰ The Acarnanian Lichas son of Pyrrhos recorded that he had been dispatched on the elephant hunt for a second time in at least two inscriptions.²¹ The dedicant carefully displays his experience—and success—and stresses his quality as a trustworthy leader of expeditions, in the same way as Apollonios did in the inscription from Koptos. Lichas made his dedications to Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III (in the dative), followed by Sarapis and Isis in the inscription of Edfu, thoughtfully projecting the royal ideology of the royal couple with their associated deities, and to Dionysos and a deity whose name is lost in the inscription which probably comes from the eastern desert.²² Another hunter also made a dedication to Isis and Sarapis, this time with the gods Harpokrates and Ammon, all carrying the epithet Σωτήρ (‘Saviour’), but without any mention of the royal couple. This dedication was inscribed on an altar ‘for the safety of the elephants’ in Philae, the island of Isis, probably under Ptolemy II or Ptolemy III, since Philae was no longer on the itinerary of elephant hunters under Ptolemy IV.²³ Finally, in the fourth dedication by elephant hunters (Text 9.2), Alexandros from Oroanna in Ionia advertised that he was sent with the strategos responsible for the elephant hunt, presumably in the eastern desert, and that he was his successor (Text 9.2: CPI 581 TM 6364, reign of Ptolemy IV, eastern desert?):

4

Ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης Ἀρσινόης καὶ Πτολεμαίου τοῦ υἱοῦ θεῶν Φιλοπατόρων τῶν ἐκ Πτολεμαίου καὶ Βερενίκης θεῶν Εὐεργετῶν Ἄρηι Νικηϕόρωι Εὐάγρωι Ἀλέξανδρος Συνδαίου Ὀροαννεὺς ὁ συναποσταλεὶς διάδοχος.

²⁰ On elephants, see Burstein (2008) and Charles (2007), with bibliography and papyrological sources; Strabo 16.4. ²¹ Respectively CPI 397 TM 6386 (Edfu) and CPI 601 TM 6446 (Eastern desert?); for a new ostrakon from the eastern desert mentioning Lichas, see Cuvigny (2017). ²² A. Bernand, I.Pan du Désert, p. 245 suggests that the lost deity could be Pan. ²³ CPI 450 TM 88941 (Philae). I thank Stanley Burstein, email communication in April 2016, for his comment on the date, which A. Bernand had as Ptolemy IV(?). The translation of ὑπὲρ [τ]ῆς τῶν ἐλεϕάντων σωτηρίας̣ was questioned during the conference in 2016 but must rather refer to the fact that hunters hoped to bring them safely back (see I.Th.Sy., p. 284) rather than that they hoped to be protected from them, even if the genitive can theoretically be translated either way. Stanley Burstein pointed me to inscriptions from the Paneion of el-Kanaïs about dedicatees saved ‘from the Trogodytes’, e.g. CPI 567 TM 56502 (second century ?) and CPI 564 TM 48124 (third century ); in these cases, the preposition ἐκ is used, whereas it is not present on the altar. See also CPI 563 TM 81459; cf. Hornblower (Ch. 12 of this volume) for ‘saved [from] the land of the Trogodytes’ where ἐκ is restored; ἀπό is used in CPI 560 TM 81544 (150–30 ).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Christelle Fischer-Bovet 8

12

135

Χαριμόρτωι τῶι στρατηγῶι ἐπὶ τὴν θήραν τῶν ἐλεϕάντων καὶ Ἀπόασις Μιορβόλλου Ἐτεννεὺς ἡγεμὼν καὶ οἱ ὑπ’ αὐτὸν τεταγμένοι στρατιῶται.

For King Ptolemy (IV) and Queen Arsinoe (III) and Ptolemy the son of the gods Philopatores, children of Ptolemy (III) and Berenike (II), gods Euergetai, to Ares bringer of victory and of good hunting, Alexandros, son of Syndaios from Oroanna (Ionia) successor—who was dispatched conjointly—of Charimortos, strategos responsible for the elephant hunt, and Apoasis, son of Miorbollos from Etenna (Pisidia), officer, and the soldiers posted under him (have made this dedication).

Once again, soldiers on the move—here specialized hunters—by making a public dedication and advertising their connection with the current strategos responsible for the elephant hunt, emphasized their trustworthiness and legitimate position in the hierarchy. Alexandros dedicated the stele together with the officer Apoasis (from Pisidia) and his soldiers. It seems reasonable that strategoi in charge of dangerous missions, such as the elephant hunt, were sent with men who could replace them in case of an emergency or in the near future.²⁴ This dedication by a group of soldiers acting together with their superiors is one of the earliest of its kind, one which was gradually to become more common.²⁵ The joint dedication may also imply that Alexandros and Apoasis were particularly proactive in developing an esprit de corps. The whole group asked for the protection of the gods, here Ares ‘victorious’, though Pan was more commonly invoked in this region. Hunters and soldiers continued to place messages on stone in the eastern desert in the late Hellenistic period (c.150–30 ) but by then they were no longer hunting elephants but wild animals, in one case at least billy-goat hunters carving rock-cut dedications to Pan; such dedications were not made to or for the king, so their exact dating remains uncertain.²⁶ The main concern of the dedicants, whose names were Greek and Egyptian, seems to be to obtain the protection of the deities; such dedications thus resemble proskynemata, except for the absence of the verb προσκυνέω, and allude to local hunting parties rather than state expeditions. Some of these soldier-hunters held thirty-aroura kleroi, probably in the Panopolite Nome, but others did not, which is evidence of the use of mixed troops for expeditions through ²⁴ A. Bernand, I.Pan du Désert, 250–1 calls him an ‘adjoint’. ²⁵ The earliest evidence is CPI 314 TM 5949 (reign of Ptolemy III), the dedication by the katoikoi hippeis serving in the Hermopolite Nome of a temple to the king and queen (no mention of officers). ²⁶ CPI 535 TM 6469, CPI 537 TM 6475, and CPI 538 TM 6476, CPI 543 TM 6472, and CPI 540 TM 6474, the last two to Ἀγαθῇ Τύχῃ and to Lord Ammon, respectively; regnal years 22 and 23 are recorded in CPI 538 TM 6476 and CPI 536 TM 6468 (billy-goat hunters); elephant hunts ceased with Ptolemy IV.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

136

Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt

the desert.²⁷ In contrast, two slightly earlier soldiers’ dedications from the eastern desert, made on stelai to the royal family and to Pan, advertised the dedicants’ military rank and were made in favour of their officers.²⁸ When soldiers invested in the cost of a stele (compared with a rock-cut inscription), the aim was no longer limited to requesting the protection of a god but extended to a claim about their social status. A last example of soldiers’ inscriptions made in a time of extreme anxiety and insecurity, such as a city under siege, are two graffiti on the walls of temples in Abydos inscribed during the Great Revolt (205–186 ), when a native Egyptian pharaoh took control of most of the Thebaid.²⁹ In 199 , Ptolemy V’s soldiers were besieged in Abydos. Since temple precincts offered the best protection, soldiers were often garrisoned within them. This explains why Philokles from Troizen (in the Peloponnese) wrote on the walls of the temple of Isis that he came there to make a proskynema for Sarapis.³⁰ Yet things probably turned out badly for him, since the Ptolemaic troops lost the city. In 189/188 a man, presumably a soldier, used the Greek alphabet for writing an Egyptian text, the first of its kind, on the wall of the mortuary temple of Seti I at Abydos: ‘Year 5 of pharaoh Hyrgonaphor loved by Isis and Osiris, loved by Amon-Re king of the gods, the great god’.³¹ Willy Clarysse has pointed out that, as in Demotic act prescripts, the pharaoh is protected by Isis, Osiris, and Amon-Ra-Sonter, the main god of Thebes, one of the centres of the revolt.³² Graffiti too fixed the short-lived presence of soldiers on the move and aimed to bring protection from the gods to their authors, and at times of internal revolts, from the gods associated with their kings.

9.3 GROUPS OF S OLDIERS ACTING TOG ETH ER The earliest evidence for soldiers making a dedication as a group is the monumental inscription of the cavalry kleruchs (κάτοικοι ἱππεῖς) of the Hermopolite Nome on the architrave of the temple of Ptolemy III and Berenike II, which records the building of a sanctuary devoted to the cult of ²⁷ Paniskos son of Theon, Cyrenaean, in CPI 537 TM 6475 (hunter and kleruch), as well as five of the hunters in CPI 535 TM 6469. ²⁸ CPI 520 TM 6090 (175–45 ) is dedicated to Ptolemy VI, his wife, Pan ‘the one who listens’, and Apollo also called Haroeris, great gods, for an officer, and CPI 522 TM 6091 (150–30 ) to Pan and Harpokrates for the safety and health of a man whose military titles are lost. ²⁹ On the Egyptian revolts, see McGing (1997) and Véïsse (2004). ³⁰ CPI 328 TM 7075, with Pros.Ptol. II 4126 and La’da (2002), E2520, with references for the date. ³¹ Short Texts 3 previously discussed by Clarysse (2004), Text 3; on the rebel pharaohs, who may be only one person bearing successively two names, see now Véïsse (2013). ³² Clarysse (2004), Text 3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Christelle Fischer-Bovet

137

the royal couple; no other gods are mentioned.³³ Another early instance of elephant hunters making a group dedication has already been discussed (CPI 581 TM 6364, Text 2, in Section 9.2.1); this dates no later than the reign of Ptolemy IV. A new inscription put up by an association (koinon) of soldiers, discovered in 2009 in the Boubastieion of Alexandria, was initially dated to the reign of Ptolemy IV and thus would have been the earliest securely dated dedication from Hellenistic Egypt of a statue of a non-royal person, more specifically of a high military officer (Text 9.3: CPI 55 TM 380605, the Boubastieion of Alexandria, late in the reign of Ptolemy IV).³⁴ On the basis of Charles Crowther’s new reading of the name of the queen and of the royal epithet, which, as he explains in CPI 55 TM 380605, remains provisional until an examination of the stele itself is possible, the dedication is now probably to be dated in the period between 175 and 145.³⁵ This would make it the second oldest dedication of a non-royal statue, if one accepts that the koinon of the Lykians, who dedicated a statue to Ptolemaios, archisomatophylax and archikynegos (‘Master of the Royal Hunt’) around 182–180, was indeed an association of soldiers, as recently argued by Lanciers, and not the League of the Lykians.³⁶ The provenance of these two inscriptions and the milieu to which the honorands and the dedicants belong is strikingly similar. The stele of the koinon of the Lykians was discovered in Alexandria, while the Boubastieion was located near the Paneion mentioned by Strabo 17.1.6–12 and near the royal palace area, the modern Kom el-Dikka quarter. It seems almost certain that such an epigraphic fashion was started for and by military individuals close to the court; it might serve as a model for immigrant soldiers trying to build a trustworthy image of themselves within their new environment:

³³ CPI 314 TM 5949 (shortly after the Third Syrian War, 246–1 ): see Suto (2004), Scheuble-Reiter (2012), 289–91, Fischer-Bovet (2014b), 340–1, and Gorre (2017). ³⁴ We owe the discovery of the inscription to the team of the Supreme Council of Egyptian Antiquities led by Mohamed Abd el-Maksoud, together with Jean-Yves Carrez-Maratray, whom I thank for sharing their work with me before its publication in Abd el-Fattah et al. (2014) 149–61 (SEG 64 1894 = BE (2015) no. 729); for a date before 210/09 , see Lanciers (2018), esp. 51–3, 74; yet the change of the reading of the name of the queen from Arsinoe to Kleopatra indicates a date under Ptolemy VI. ³⁵ For the reading Kleopatra, see also Zellmann-Rohrer in SEG 64 1894; it remains unusual to mention the ‘sons’ rather than the ‘children’ of the couple, as well as the ‘not yet born’ descendants, since Kleopatra (Thea) was the firstborn and was explicitly mentioned in a similar inscription, CPI 133 TM 44047. I wonder whether the words τοὺς υἱούς could be used wishfully and suggest a date before the birth of any children, i.e. between c.175 and 170, following the reasoning that Lanciers (2018), 51–3 had proposed for Ptolemy IV’s children; for ‘children,’ see, e.g., Cayla (2018), no. 39. ³⁶ CPI 56 TM 6315 Another possible early dedication of a statue by the Macedonians of the gymnasium is CPI 136 TM 6599, Text 9.6 (Sebennytos), discussed in Section 9.6.1 below; this cannot be securely dated, since the stone is lost (200–30 ); for Ptolemaios and his father’s titles and military functions, see Lanciers (2017), 117–18 and Polyb. 18.53–5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

138

4

8

Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt [- - - - - - - -]αμήδ̣[ους?] τῶν πρώτων ϕίλων [τὸ] κοινὸν τῶν Τραλέων Θ̣ ραικῶν καὶ τῶν παραγενομένων [ἀπ]ὸ τῆς Λιβύης Μασύλ[ω]ν καὶ [τῶ]ν τούτοις προσκειμένων [κα]ὶ̣ Περσῶν καὶ Κυπρ̣ί [̣ ων τῶ]ν συν⟨σ⟩τρατευομένων [ἀ]ρ̣ετῆς ἕνεκεν καὶ εὐνοί[ας] τ̣ ῆς εἰς βασιλέα Πτολεμαῖον καὶ βασίλισσαν Κλε̣ο̣ π̣ [άτραν] θεοὺς Φιλομή̣ τορας καὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτῶν καὶ τοὺς ἐγ̣γόνους καὶ τὰ πράγματα καὶ τ̣ ῆ̣ ς̣ τ[ε] ε[ἰς] τὸ κοινὸν αἱρ̣έσεως καὶ ϕιλοτιμίας̣.

The association of Thracian Traleis and the Masyloi who came from Libya, and those attached to them, the Persians and Cypriots who are serving with them, (honour) [- - the son of (?) - -]ame[des], One of the First Friends, for his excellence and goodwill towards King Ptolemy and Queen Kleopatra, gods Philometores, and their sons, and their descendants, and their affairs, and for his disposition and love of honour towards the association.

Although the name of the honorand cannot be read securely, for convenience I here still refer to him as ‘Megamedes’. The first editors assumed that the title τῶν πρώτων ϕίλων (‘of the First Friends’) was the earliest instance of an honorific court title, a system otherwise attested only from the reign of Ptolemy V, but Lanciers demonstrated that in the 210s τῶν πρώτων ϕίλων (‘of the First Friends’) was a military title, more precisely one of the real court titles created in the third century for high-ranking officers of the royal (body)guard and members of the royal entourage; such real court titles could still occur in later centuries; it is to be contrasted with the honorific court titles created under Ptolemy V, which were followed by the functions of their holders and often accompanied by a patris.³⁷ This point is important, since, if the inscription is now to be dated to the reign of Ptolemy VI, it would explain why no functions are attributed to ‘Megamedes’, and apparently no patris. Still, the content of the inscription makes clear he was a high-ranking military officer, and the location of the inscription and the dedicants shed light on his military rank. The first editors explored various hypotheses regarding the type of soldiers composing the association of the Traleis from Thrace and of the Masyles from Libya, with whom Persians and Cyrenaeans—now corrected into Cypriots—served together;³⁸ they conclude that these troops probably belonged to a cavalry regiment led by Megamedes and stationed in Alexandria, basing their argument primarily on the location of the dedication.³⁹ They ³⁷ Lanciers (2018), 65–78, esp. 76–7: the honorific court title τῶν πρώτων φίλων appears only in the 180s but τῶν πρώτων φίλων continued also to be used as a real court title; so it can only securely be identified as an honorific title when it is followed by its holder’s function(s). ³⁸ See the commentary in CPI 55; the reading Κυπρ̣ί̣[ων] remains provisional, since only the first two letters are safely read, and the ethnic is little attested in Egypt (Pros.Ptol. X 1122 and 1123, one being perhaps a name instead of an ethnic and the other partially restored). ³⁹ Abd el-Fattah et al. (2014), 156–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Christelle Fischer-Bovet

139

emphasize the multi-ethnic character of this association but consider that it could also only be the koinon of the Traleis to which the other groups were joined.⁴⁰ It remains difficult to be certain that these troops actually were cavalrymen, but it is almost certain that they belonged to the royal guard, even if the soldiers do not state it explicitly. At least three arguments can be made here. Firstly, the proximity between the Boubastieion and the court and garrison of Alexandria could explain why the soldiers did not state their functions at the court. Indeed, soldiers tended to state that they were ‘at the court’ or ‘stationed in Alexandria’ when they made dedications outside Alexandria.⁴¹ Secondly, Megamedes’ support for the royal family, paralleled in inscriptions honouring high persons at the court, points to some proximity to the king and his belonging to the royal guard.⁴² Thirdly, later dedications by soldiers of the royal guard, often gathered in associations, display strong similarities with that of the Boubastieion.⁴³ Not only are these dedications found only in the Delta and in the Fayum but they are also dedications of statues of eminent men at the court, in contrast to most dedications by soldiers in Egypt, which were offered to a god in favour of the royal couple (so-called ‘sacred dedications’) and did not form statue bases. The statue base of ‘Megamedes’ carried one of the earliest dedications in Egypt made by a koinon of soldiers of a statue of a military man honoured for his excellence and loyalty. This inscription allows us to explain changes in the epigraphic habits of soldiers starting around 200  and the increasing number of inscriptions in the following centuries. A comparison with the corpus of one hundred dedicatory inscriptions by soldiers sheds new light on the erection of statues for non-royal persons and on the soldiers who set up the statue and dedication. While statues of individuals were still rare in the fourth century and became gradually more frequent, poleis were the first to set up statues of kings as benefactors and then of royal officials and officers. This new habit was soon imitated by individuals and groups, as has been shown by John Ma.⁴⁴ The mention of the εὔνοια (goodwill) of ‘Megamedes’ towards the royal family and his αἵρεσις and ϕιλοτιμία towards the dedicants also replicated the formulas of statue dedications made by cities outside Egypt. The display of the honorand’s

⁴⁰ Abd el-Fattah et al. (2014), 154, 157–8. ⁴¹ e.g. CPI 267 TM 6276 (42 ) and CPI 290 TM 42999 (150–30 ). ⁴² Fischer-Bovet (2015), 9; e.g. Cayla (2018), no. 39, statue honouring the strategos of Cyprus Archias. ⁴³ On these inscriptions, see Fischer-Bovet (2014a), 153–4; it is also worth mentioning CPI 133 TM 44047, the dedication of (probably) a statue of a non-royal individual made by a member of the royal guard for Dionysios, son of Hermias, Cyrenaean, of the First Friends and strategos around 165–164 in Leontopolis (Delta); for the connection of the strategoi with the royal guard, where many may have started their career, see Fischer-Bovet 2014a, 156–7. ⁴⁴ Ma (2013), 4–5.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

140

Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt

name with his title ‘of the First Friends’ in slightly larger characters and without any further designation or function suggests that the inscription was taken as an opportunity to stress his high military function and in this case real court title. The two other earliest dedications for a non-royal individual by a group of soldiers within the Ptolemaic empire, made in Cyprus under Ptolemy IV, also only mentioned his high function.⁴⁵ From the reign of Ptolemy VI on, it became a ‘Ptolemaic’ trend everywhere to mention not only the function or military rank(s) but also one’s patris, preceded by the honorific court title in accordance with the system that developed from the reign of Ptolemy V. The multiplication of such dedications in the following two centuries shows the successful penetration of royal ideology.

9.4 AVOIDING L OCAL DISRUPTION B Y F O RE I G NE RS One of the functions of military officers in garrisons was to make sure their soldiers respected the local population. The stakes were even greater when officials, officers, and soldiers stayed in a place only on a temporary basis. One is reminded of the earliest Greek papyrus found in Egypt, the order of Peukestas, one of Alexander’s generals, not to enter a particular house because it was that of a priest. As already noted by Turner in his editio princeps, the lettering resembled that of an inscription, and the papyrus was probably nailed to a door.⁴⁶ In Philae two hundred years later, a surviving text illustrates that avoiding conflicts with civilians was still a major concern (Text 9.4: CPI 513 TM 88952, Philae, 115 ):

4

[- - - - - -]α̣ιο̣ ̣ ς Ἀμμωνίου τῶν διαδόχων ϕρουραρχ̣ [ῶ]ν τὸν τόπον ἔτη μβʹ καὶ ἀνέγκλητος γε̣γονὼς τοῖς ἐνταῦθα κατοικοῦσι ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τοῖς παρεπιδημοῦσι ξένοις καὶ ἐν ταῖς τῶν στρατηγῶν παρουσίαις ἐπαίνου τετευχὼς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆι γενομένηι τοῦ κυρίου βασιλέως

⁴⁵ One in Old Paphos by the members of the gymnasium for the son of Pelops, the strategos of the island, and another in Salamis by the soldiers of the garrison for the wife of the same Pelops, both in Mitford (1960), 110; for Old Paphos, see now Cayla (2018), no. 31, and no. 30 (217–204 ) for another dedication for his wife, but by the polis; at this time, only Pelops’ function (strategos of the island) was stated, while later strategoi of the island would also have a court title. ⁴⁶ Turner (1974) TM 4274 with nail holes visible at the corners. Another well-known papyrological example is a decree of Ptolemy II forbidding billeting in Arsinoe near Edfu: see P.Hal. 1, ll. 179–85 = Sel.Pap. II 207, ll. 166–85 = C.Ord.Ptol. 24, ll. 14–20 (Apollonopolite Nome, after 259 ).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Christelle Fischer-Bovet 8

141

θεοῦ Φιλομήτορος Σωτῆρος τοῦ βʹ (ἔτους) ἐϕόδωι ἐπισημασίας τετευχώς, εὐχὴν καὶ χαριστήρια.

[…]aios, son of Ammonios, of the Successors, being phrourarch of the place for 42 years and having been irreproachable vis-à-vis those who inhabit the place and similarly vis-à-vis the foreigners who are currently in residence here, who has received praise during the visits of the strategoi and during the present approach of our lord the king Ptolemy (IX), god Philometor Soter, during his second year, in receipt of recognition, (has made this dedication) as a votive offering and thank-offering.

This inscription advertised a long military career ending with a royal visit. As already noted by Sandra Scheuble in her analysis of dedications by phrourarchs (garrison commanders) throughout the Ptolemaic territories, the inscription of the son of Ammonios did not follow the formula of traditional dedications but started with the dedicant’s name in the nominative and mentioned the name of the king only towards the end in relation to an upcoming royal visit.⁴⁷ Even more surprising is the length of his career as garrison commander of the ‘place’ (τόπος) for forty-two years, thus from 157 to 115 , and his survival of many dynastic changes. The fact that he did not use the usual title ϕρούραρχος suggests that he was a sort of adjunct commander of the garrison of the place, in this case Philae, with another phrourarch. Other phrourarchs, such as Nestor in 116 , seem to have been ‘super’ garrison commanders of the three garrisons in Syene, Elephantine, and Philae during the career span of the son of Ammonios.⁴⁸ The son of Ammonios had played the role of permanent representative and a sort of ‘interface’ with the local population since 157 , when Ptolemy VI dedicated the Dodekaschoinos (part of Lower Nubia) to Isis of Philae.⁴⁹ His care for the population was not an exaggeration if, as Dietze suggests, the king visited Philae in 115  in order to investigate a complaint by the priests about abuses of passing officials and soldiers at the instigation of the son of Ammonios, who aimed to prove his innocence.⁵⁰ The royal decisions were later recorded on the base of one of the obelisks in Philae, now in Kingston Lacy and discussed elsewhere, in Chapter 2 of this volume.⁵¹ ⁴⁷ Scheuble (2009), 43–5. ⁴⁸ A. Bernand (I.Th.Sy. 305) provides the list: Herodes (Pros.Ptol. II/VIII 2059, 2083), Asklepiades (Pros.Ptol. VIII 2054a), Apollonios, (Pros.Ptol. 2053), Mnasis (Pros.Ptol. 2062), Apollonios (Pros.Ptol. 2054), Nestor, CPI 448 TM 47462, to which one must add Peteesis, whose functions are not clear: see Gorre (2009), no. 3 and Ray (1987), with Ray (1989), and also probably Philotas, CPI 447 TM 88948, with Scheuble (2009), 43; the son of Ammonios, however, held the same aulic title as other garrison commanders in Egypt. ⁴⁹ Hölbl (2001), 166, Török (2009), 400; Eide, T. et al. (eds. 1996) Fontes Historiae Nubiorum II, Bergen, 137. ⁵⁰ Dietze (1994), 85–7. ⁵¹ CPI 424 TM 6331, 103007.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

142

Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt

9 . 5 S O L D I E R S WI T H MU LTI P LE RE S I D E NC E S The inscription from Philae discussed in Section 9.4 above (Text 9.4) made evident the disruptions created for the local population by visiting foreigners and other temporary official visitors. Therefore, it may not be surprising that soldiers who were not just temporarily present but had (at least) two residences aimed to commemorate their presence in a positive way when away from the place, in order to distinguish themselves from those visiting soldiers or officials who caused disturbances. The converging Egyptian and Greek traditions of forming socio-religious associations, often among individuals belonging to the same profession, and their growing numbers from the second century onwards offered such an opportunity to soldiers.⁵² Associations tended to advertise their existence positively in the physical landscape through meeting places near the local (usually) Egyptian temples, dedications of objects, buildings (even of temples), and inscriptions.⁵³ Most such associations emphasized their connection with the king and the court, or at least their loyalty, by making the dedication in favour of the king. Belonging to such associations could increase one’s level of trustworthiness with other members but also within the local community at large. The strong epigraphic presence in the Fayum of members of the royal guard in Alexandria can be explained by the fact that many of them, at least from the second century  on, lived for part of the year in the Arsinoite and neighbouring nomes and took care to increase their social capital by displaying the existence of their group, for example by honouring one of them with a statue for the high positions he achieved (Text 9.5: CPI 267 TM 6276, Krokodilopolis, 42 ).⁵⁴

4

8

Τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείαι ἱππέων τῆς θεραπείας Πτο[λε]μαῖον Ἀχιλλέως τὸν συγγενῆ καὶ στρατηγὸν καὶ ἐξηγητ̣ ὴ̣ ν τοῦ Ἀρσινοΐτου τὸν ἑα[υτ]ῶ̣ν συστρατιώτην ἀρετῆς καὶ εὐνοίας χάριν, (ἔτους) ι̣, [Φ]αρμοῦθι β.

The group of the cavalrymen of the household in Alexandria (has dedicated a statue of ) Ptolemaios son of Achilles, Kinsman, strategos, and exegetes of the Arsinoite Nome, their fellow soldier, for his merit and goodwill. Year 10, Pharmouthi 2.

⁵² Ascough et al. (2012) and Monson (2019). ⁵³ Monson (2019), Fischer-Bovet (forthcoming). ⁵⁴ Fischer-Bovet (2014a), 150–7; on the structure of elite troops, see Fischer-Bovet (2014b), 148–53 and Fig. 4.12.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Christelle Fischer-Bovet

143

The term πλῆθος is translated here as ‘group’ and understood as denoting an association of fellow soldiers, following Bernand.⁵⁵ This group and the πλῆθος of the sabre-bearers in Memphis, who also belonged to the royal guard, both suggest that a πλῆθος was a smaller and less formal entity than a koinon (and than a politeuma) and included only military members of the unit in question, while a koinon was larger and included civilians, unless specified otherwise.⁵⁶ Members of the royal guard seem to have been particularly inclined to form associations and the synodos (‘association’) of the First Friends and chiliarchoi and machairophoroi of the court, also attested in papyrological evidence, with around 140–150 members, appears to have had meeting places in both the Arsinoite and Herakleopolite.⁵⁷ Three other inscriptions by members of the royal guard, which were in fact petitions engraved on stelai, concern the welfare of the local Egyptian priesthood and its temples. They thus present the royal guards as trustworthy vis-à-vis the local communities; two of these are described as ‘of the First Friends’ and chiliarchoi (see Section 9.7.2 below).⁵⁸ A similar concern was already expressed earlier by cavalry kleruchs in the Fayum, as in the case of Agathodoros examined in the Section 9.6.⁵⁹ The presence on the island of Setis, just south of Elephantine, of soldiers with connections to Ptolemais in the Thebaid also suggests that some of them shared residence between two places. In fact, Asklepiades son of Ptolemaios and Ammonios son of Ammonios, two members of a synodos in Ptolemais, whose president was a cavalry officer, were also recorded in the list of twentyeight members of an association of basilistai (whose purpose was the celebration of the royal cult) on Setis Island under Ptolemy VIII, as noted by Lefebvre a century ago.⁶⁰ In Ptolemais, their names were recorded in the list of members who dedicated a temple to Triphis, Kolanthes, Pan, and the synnaoi theoi. In Setis, the two men followed one another in the list of thirty names, which suggests that they knew each other as members of the synodos in Ptolemais. The dedication on Setis Island was made to Khnub also called Ammon and other local gods on Setis, each time with their Egyptian and Greek names, by the basilistai and by Herodes from the deme Berenike of the ⁵⁵ I.Fayoum 1, p. 43; Launey (1987), II, 1034, 1064. ⁵⁶ On the sabre-bearers, see Thompson (1984) and Gorre (2009), no. 54, Thompson (2011a), 109–10 and (2012), 92–6. ⁵⁷ If one agrees with Launey that the synodos of 148 members in BGU IV 1190 (Herakleopolite Nome, after 80 ) and of 143 members in CPI 290 TM 42999 (150–30 ) is the same organization. ⁵⁸ CPI 245 TM 7237, 228 TM 7230, and 271 TM 8160. ⁵⁹ CPI 237, 238 TM 8154–5. ⁶⁰ CPI 360 TM 7236, Lefebvre (1914b), 215–21, esp. 219 (Ptolemais, 138/7 ), col. (a) l. 1 and col. (b) l. 21 and CPI 423 TM 6329 (Elephantine-Setis, 144–2 ) lines 35 and 36, but it escaped the notice of A. Bernand at I.Philae 1, 200, commentary to no. 20 and I.Th.Sy. 273, because he used the text from OGIS I 130 published before Lefebvre’s remark, as does Heinen (1996), 348–9, which records Ἀμμώνιος Ἀπολλωνίου based on Letronne’s drawing. An examination of highquality pictures confirms Lefebvre’s reading Ἀμμώνιος Ἀμμωνίου.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

144

Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt

polis of Ptolemais.⁶¹ Herodes was strategos, i.e. governor of the first nome of Upper Egypt, and held the aulic title ‘of the Bodyguards.’ The purpose of the Setis stele was to record publicly the names of those participating in financing the sacrifices and libations for the monthly meetings, in other words, of those who subsidized the royal cult. Both lists recorded mainly Greek names, some Egyptian, and also one Semitic and one Persian name in Ptolemais, which points to a Graeco-Egyptian milieu.⁶² Many of the Greek names were typical of those borne by individuals from an Egyptian and Graeco-Egyptian milieu, and there are many so-called abnormal filiations, i.e. a son with a Greek name and father with an Egyptian name or the reverse. The same Herodes was already an officer in Setis under Ptolemy VI, then with Pergamon as his patris and carrying the lower military titles of officer ἐπ’ ἀνδρῶν (i.e active officer), garrison commander of Syene, and guardian of the wicker barrier (γερροϕύλαξ); he was also prophet of Khnub and high priest of the gods of Elephantine, Abaton, and Philae.⁶³ Herodes and all the other priests of the fifth tribe (ϕυλή), which included the priests of all the dynastic couples, had made an earlier dedication to local gods—with the Greek name of the god mentioned first—at a meeting of the synodos (line 24) in order to celebrate the annual festivals for the royal family and the birthday of Boethos, strategos and founder of poleis in the Triakontaschoinos.⁶⁴ The royal cult was closely connected to the worship of the local gods, as already stressed by Bernand and Heinen, both of whom emphasize the absence of any hostility between the state and the Egyptian temple.⁶⁵ The inscriptions from Ptolemais and Setis help us identify new forms of social behaviour regarding soldiers’ dedications, the functioning of associations, and the relationship of trust between soldiers and the local population. On this basis, one can argue that the meeting place of the synodos in the sanctuary of Setis was, in fact, inaugurated under Ptolemy VI by Herodes and became the, so to speak, ‘local chapter’ of the synodos of Ptolemais, an association of basilistai. The three texts confirm that associations of basilistai gathered together Egyptian priests (as is clear in CPI 422, some probably also in the military) and soldiers. In Ptolemais, the members of the association were presumably mainly soldiers, who gathered in the sanctuary of Triphis Kolanthes and Pan, while in Setis the association gathered priests, soldiers, and ⁶¹ Since at least two other members (Asklepiades and Ammonios) were connected to Ptolemais, it is clear that Herodes also came from this polis; previously A. Bernand, I.Th.Sy., p. 271 hesitated between Berenike on the Red Sea or a deme in Ptolemais; on Herodes, see Mooren (1975), no. 0149, Heinen (1996), and Gorre (2009), no. 1. ⁶² Lefebvre (1914b), 219–21 and I.Th.Sy., p. 273. ⁶³ CPI 422 TM 6398 (152–45 ). ⁶⁴ On Boethos, see Heinen (2000) with earlier bibliography; the fifth tribe was created in the Kanopos decree in 238 , CPI 119 TM 6378, there described as ‘of the Benefactor Gods’ (Euergetai). ⁶⁵ I.Th.Sy., p. 263, Heinen (1996).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Christelle Fischer-Bovet

145

soldiers-priests, who met in the sanctuary of Khnub and other local gods.⁶⁶ These texts discredit Launey’s hypothesis of a dichotomy between Greek soldiers honouring the kings as members of the gymnasium and Egyptians doing so as basilistai, and show that social networks between diverse groups of the population were far more entangled than he thought.⁶⁷ Trust could be cultivated between the members of the local chapter, some of them only temporarily in Setis, but also with members of the ‘head chapter’ in Ptolemais. The public involvement of the synodos in the religious sphere also offered its members the opportunity to develop trustworthy relationships with the local inhabitants, whether in Ptolemais or in Elephantine.

9 . 6 MI L ITA R Y HIE R A R C H Y , S O C I O - EC O N O M I C STATUS , AND THE KI NG Because inscriptions belonged to the public sphere, they became a favoured medium for displaying ranks, titles, and careers of officers and soldiers. Far more is recorded about their careers than in the papyrological sources, since users of administrative documents and letters on papyri already knew the military structures and organization. Our knowledge of officers in papyri is almost entirely limited to the indication of a rank without any further military context or to soldiers recorded in official documents as ‘of the troop of ’ followed by the name of the officer(s), without indication of the latter’s rank.⁶⁸ As mentioned in Section 9.1, about two-thirds of dedications from soldiers were made by officers and one-third by larger groups of soldiers, often together with one of their officers. The men most inclined to make dedications were the highest in the hierarchy. Strategoi, often nome strategoi with a clear military career, are found eleven times in the corpus of about one hundred dedications, followed by ten garrison commanders, of whom nine came from the Thebaid.⁶⁹ Garrison ⁶⁶ The inscription from Ptolemais, not discussed in Fischer-Bovet (2014b), 288–9, confirms previous hypotheses. ⁶⁷ Launey (1987), II, 867–9 and Dietze (2000), 87–8; an early piece of evidence was Papias, a basilistes who was also probably a member of the gymnasium: see Fischer-Bovet (2014b), 288; on associations as vehicles of Graeco-Egyptian integration, see Fischer-Bovet (2014b), 288–9, 338–9, Monson (2019). ⁶⁸ List of eponymous officers in Pros.Ptol. II and VIII 1825–2015; on the debate regarding their military functions, see Fischer-Bovet and Clarysse (2012), 29–30 contra Bagnall (1969), 79–82. ⁶⁹ Strategoi, from north to south: CPI 127 TM 6607, Farid (1993), no. 13 TM 44175, CPI 115 TM 7262, CPI 397 TM 6386, CPI 601 TM 6446, CPI 581 TM 6364, CPI 405 TM 6627 (nome strategos), CPI 423 TM 6329, CPI 451 TM 80769, CPI 435 TM 44151, CPI 448 TM 47462, and perhaps Ray (1987) on stele Aswan 1057. Garrison commanders: CPI 194 TM 43943, CPI 422 TM 6398, CPI 416 TM 43986, CPI 415 TM 88865, CPI 440 TM 47410, CPI 433 TM 43944, CPI 446 TM 43853, CPI 447 TM 88948, CPI 448 TM 47462, CPI 513 TM 88952. Thus more than onethird of the garrison commanders recorded in Pros.Ptol. II and VIII 2051–66 are found in dedications.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

146

Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt

commanders could be transferred from outside to inside Egypt, especially when strongholds were abandoned under Ptolemy VIII, for instance from Itanos in Crete to Philae in Upper Egypt.⁷⁰ Members of the royal guard inscribed seven dedications in Alexandria and the Delta with another ambiguous instance from Berenike Trogodytica.⁷¹ Acting almost as commonly as dedicants but spread throughout Egypt were the cavalry officers of 400 or 500 cavalrymen, that is two hipparchai and four hipparchai ἐπ’ ἀνδρῶν (active cavalry officers), as well as seven officers (ἡγεμόνες), among whom three were officers ἐπ’ ἀνδρῶν.⁷² In contrast, the infantry officers of 1,000 men, the chiliarchoi, are far less represented.⁷³ Lower in the hierarchy were three instances of ἔξω τάξεων, whose exact functions in the army are still debated (and discussed in Section 9.6.1), and the hunters (κυνηγοί), who were sometimes also kleruchs.⁷⁴ The exact location of the stelai is rarely known, but the context was often the gymnasium or a temple devoted to Egyptian and/or Greek deities, both places where loyalty to the royal dynasty was traditionally displayed. Section 9.6.1 analyses a few inscriptions providing evidence for the organization of the royal cult but also showing how difficult it is to reconstruct the military hierarchy. Section 9.6.2 turns to dedications of architectural elements in Egyptian temples made by individual soldiers who were not officers but often acted with family members, in order to shed light on their socio-economic status, the dynamics of military families, and their allegiance to the king.

⁷⁰ e.g. CPI 447 TM 88948 (124–116 ) with Scheuble (2009), 41–2: Philotas kept the same aulic titulature ‘of the First Friends’ and was certainly the superior of the son of Ammonios discussed above in CPI 513 TM 88952. ⁷¹ CPI 133 TM 44047, CPI 36 TM 6418, CPI 267 TM 6276, CPI 290 TM 42999. In three cases CPI 255 TM 6629, CPI 260 TM 5687, and CPI 228 TM 7230 they hold the rank ‘of the First Friends and chiliarchoi’, which I suggest implies members of a regiment of the royal guard rather than infantry commanders of 1,000; less certain is CPI 571 TM 6661, where Echephylos has the aulic title of the archisomatophylakes (Mooren (1975) no. 0319), but no specific functions. ⁷² Hipparchai: CPI 214 TM 5981 and CPI 270 TM 8159; hipparchai ἐπ’ ἀνδρῶν: CPI 238 TM 8155, CPI 360 TM 7236, CPI 347 TM 6295, CPI 512 TM 6551 (officer in Alexandria), CPI 255 TM 6629; officers: CPI 292 TM 8172 and CPI 581 TM 6364, CPI 440 TM 47410 (also garrison commander; see n. 69 above); officers ἐπ’ ἀνδρῶν: CPI 132 TM 6430, CPI 327 TM 88337, CPI 422 TM 6398 (also garrison commander); Fischer-Bovet (2014b), 128 and 156 on ἐπ’ ἀνδρῶν hipparchai. ⁷³ CPI 110 TM 7104 and CPI 215 TM 5981. It is possible that after the reforms of the second century the rank of chiliarchos did not refer to the same function: see Fischer-Bovet (2014b), 144–6 and Sekunda (2001), 27–8. ⁷⁴ ἔξω τάξεων: CPI 589 TM 113380, CPI 136 TM 6599 (with Van ’t Dack (1984)), and CPI 342 TM 6382; hunters in CPI 535 TM 6469, CPI 542 TM 6471, CPI 538 TM 6476, CPI 543 TM 6472, CPI 540 TM 6474, CPI 520 TM 6090, CPI 450 TM 88941.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Christelle Fischer-Bovet

147

9.6.1 Army and Royal Cult in the Gymnasium The gymnasium in Egypt was an institution closely connected to the army, where soldiers regularly maintained their physical training. It developed outside the framework of the Greek poleis in nome capitals and even in the villages of the Arsinoite Nome.⁷⁵ Eighteen dedications from our corpus relate to the gymnasium; five of them come from the Delta (Alexandria not included), a region for which papyrological sources are lacking and whose military network can only be reconstructed on the basis of inscriptions and archaeological material.⁷⁶ The mention of officers and of a gymnasium in an inscription from Sebennytos (central Delta) indicates, for instance, that there was a garrison there (Text 9.6). Van ’t Dack has offered several conjectures on the text but some are problematic because he could not verify them on the original inscription or on any facsimile of it since it has been lost.⁷⁷ In particular, the conjecture ἔξω τάξεων instead of ἐπὶ στάσεων in line 5 has now been shown to be erroneous.⁷⁸ Ἐπὶ στάσεων is in fact attested several times in Greek and equivalent Demotic texts, most recently on an ostrakon from the eastern desert, and designates a garrison officer, while the term has also been borrowed as a title in religious associations (Text 9.6: CPI 136 TM 6599, with conjectures by Van ’t Dack (1984) in lines 1 and 4–5, Sebennytos, second or first century ):

4

[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -] τὸ[ν̣ προστάτην or ϕρούραρχον(?)] καὶ ἀρχιβουλευτὴν καὶ ἱερέα τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ κτίστην τοῦ τόπου οἱ ἐκ τοῦ γυμνασίου τοῦ Ἡρακλείου Μακεδόνες καὶ ἡγεμόνες καὶ ἐπὶ στάσεων καὶ οἱ συνπολ̣ιτ̣ ευόμενοι ϕιλαγαθίας ἕνεκεν τῆς εἰς ἑαυτούς.

[NN son of NN, court title, rank?] the (prostates or phrourarchos?) and archibouleutes, priest of the king and founder of the place [of cult?], the Macedonians from the gymnasium attached to the shrine of Herakles, the officers, the ἐπὶ στάσεων, and the fellow members of the politeuma (οἱ συνπολιτευόμενοι) for his benevolence towards them (dedicate this statue).

⁷⁵ Habermann (2004), Paganini (2012), Fischer-Bovet (2014b), 280–90. ⁷⁶ CPI 127 TM 6607, CPI 136 TM 6599, SB V 8818 TM 88389 (Severan period), CPI 142 TM 7263, out of 18 inscriptions from the Delta; on the military network in the Delta, see Redon (2014) with three maps, esp. 63–4 on SB 1 1164. ⁷⁷ CPI 136 TM 6599. Van ’t Dack (1984), 86–8 also gives the editio princeps: in line 2 Van ’t Dack proposes ἀρχιβα̣ σ̣ ι λ̣ ̣ισ̣ ̣ τήν instead of ἀρχιβουλευτήν, but as both are hapaxes among the inscriptions from Egypt, the editio princeps is preferred until the stone is found, whereas in line 5 the conjecture οἱ συνπόλ̣ιτ̣ ευόμενοι is probably preferable to the unusual οἱ συνπόσιον γευόμενοι. ⁷⁸ See Zauzich 2010–11 who shows that the Demotic equivalent proposed by Van ’t Dack (1969), 157–60 = Van ’t Dack (1988), 66–71, is erroneous, followed by Clarysse (2013), 16 and Cuvigny (2017), 117–18, who gives the new list of ἐπὶ στάσεων, removing several attestations of ἔξω τάξεων added by Van ’t Dack.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

148

Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt

A statue or a bust of a military officer whose name and titles are lost was dedicated by members of the gymnasium attached to the shrine of Herakles (god of the gymnasium) for his role as priest of the king and founder of the topos, that is the place where the members of the association would meet to perform the royal cult.⁷⁹ The enumeration of the dedicants offers an indication of the many subgroups who could join the association devoted to the royal cult. Its members belonged to the gymnasium, some were officers, some ἐπὶ στάσεων, and all of them belonged to the politeuma, including some civilians, if οἱ συνπολιτευόμενοι is translated as ‘those who share the politeuma’ and does not refer to a separate group.⁸⁰ Associations devoted to the royal cult were hierarchically organized, normally with a president (prostates) and a priest, but so far the title of ‘priest of the king’ is attested only in this inscription.⁸¹ I suggest that this title could be restored in the recently published dedication of a statue of King Ptolemy VI dedicated by a ‘Macedonian’, who was an officer of the ἔξω τάξεων (the restoration of [ἡγεμὼν τῶν] is certain, Text 9.7: CPI 589 TM 113380 = Scheuble 2005 [unknown provenance, 152/1 ], with new restoration of line 6).⁸²

4

8

Βασιλέα Πτολεμαῖ[ον θεὸν Φιλομήτορα] βασιλέως Πτολε[μαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης] Κλεοπάτρας θεῶ[ν ἐπιϕανῶν ὁ δεῖνα] Φιλοστράτου Μακ[εδὼν ἡγεμὼν τῶν] ἔξω τάξεων, γυ[μνασιαρχήσας] τὸ κηʹ καὶ τὸ κθʹ (ἔτος) κ[αὶ ἱερεὺς τοῦ] βασιλέως Πτολε[μαίου θεοῦ] Φιλομήτορος καὶ [γυμνασιαρχῶν] τὸ λʹ (ἔτος) Ἡρακλεῖ.

⁷⁹ According to Van ’t Dack’s conjecture ἀρχιβα̣ σ̣ ι λ̣ ̣ι σ̣ ̣ τήν in line 2, they were basilistai (‘royal worshippers’) but this cannot be accepted without being checked against the original inscription, if it is ever recovered; for the close link between the gymnasium and a local shrine, see the Osireion dedicated by the neaniskoi in CPI 246 TM 7258 and the dedications of topoi by former ephebes to the gods Souchos and Soknebtunis in the Fayum; see CPI 295 TM 6407 (Krokodilopolis or Euhemeria, 98 and 95 ) and CPI 296 TM 6273 (Tebtynis [?], 94 ). ⁸⁰ The link between Macedonians and the politeuma is too vague to posit the existence of a politeuma of the Macedonians nowhere attested in our sources. On the politeuma and the army, see Thompson (1984), Honigman (2003), and Sänger (2013). ⁸¹ On the uncertain titles in line 2, see Van ’t Dack (1984) and n. 73 above; on priests of military associations, see, e.g., Dorion in CPI 200 TM 6421; cf. Gorre (2009), no. 54, who also includes his function as prophet of several Egyptian gods. ⁸² Scheuble (2005), 37 calculates the gap after καί at c.10 characters and suggests ‘being friend of the king’ (ϕίλος ὢν τοῦ βασιλέως) as in SEG 1 40 from Samos before rejecting it because the expression is not used in dedications, and if it was a court title, it should come before the functions and the formulation would be new. She considers ‘priest’ as equally problematic and without any reference, but its attestation in CPI 136 TM 6599, a text of the same kind, makes it highly plausible.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Christelle Fischer-Bovet

149

King Ptole[my, god Philometor (i.e. his statue)], son of King Ptole[my and Queen] Kleopatra, god[s Epiphaneis, NN], son of Philostratos Mac[edonian officer of the] ἔξω τάξεων who was gy[mnasiarch] in the 28th and 29th year a[nd priest of] King Ptole[my god] Philometor and [serving gymnasiarch], the 30th year. To Herakles.

This inscription provides some context for the ἔξω τάξεων, literally ‘outside the ranks’, so far found in three inscriptions and in five second-century papyri.⁸³ One of these inscriptions, probably a dedication in which the names of 159 officers and soldiers in the garrison of Hermopolis are preserved, is our main evidence for the new organization of regiments in the second century.⁸⁴ Officers (ἡγεμόνες) of the ἔξω τάξεων and ἔξω τάξεων are found in the Greek documentation, in total respectively five and three attestations all dated to the second century with the exception of the inscription from Koptos mentioned in Section 9.2.1 above (Text 9.1), which dates from the late third or early second century.⁸⁵ Van ’t Dack considers that the first term corresponds to officers and the second one to soldiers but it has been debated whether in fact the second was not simply the abbreviation of the first.⁸⁶ These soldiers ‘outside the ranks’ have been interpreted as select veterans still in active duty by Van ’t Dack, followed by Scheuble, or as serving on ships by Cowey.⁸⁷ For Sekunda, the ἔξω τάξεων were ‘under-officers’ of smaller infantry units and the officers (ἡγεμόνες) of the ἔξω τάξεων were their officers, an innovation due to the infantry reforms in the 160s.⁸⁸ For now, the most plausible hypothesis is that, from the 160s  and perhaps as early as 188  (SB 6 9521), the ἔξω τάξεων were middle-rank officers and could belong to religious associations of soldiers devoted to the royal cult. ⁸³ Inscriptions: CPI 315 TM 6537, CPI 342 TM 6382, Welles (1934), no. 30, 8. Papyri: O.Strasb. I 772, P.Med. II 22, UPZ II 227, SB 3 7169, P.Phrur.Diosk. 4; see also Pros.Ptol. II and VIII, 2105–9 and 4276–7. ⁸⁴ CPI 315 TM 6537, see Zucker (1938) and more recently Vandorpe (2014); two later inscriptions of soldiers of the same garrison in 80/79 and 78  were clearly dedications of a sanctuary to Apollo, Zeus and the other gods, CPI 319 TM 7099, and CPI 320 TM 6298. ⁸⁵ For officers, see CPI 342 TM 6382 (Text 9.1 in Section 9.2.1 above) and UPZ II 227, as well as a restoration in Text 9.7; the new date for CPI 342 is proposed by La’da (2002); cf. Pros.Ptol. X E 695, though the earlier suggestion that it dated to Ptolemy III, when a garrison was established in Thera, from where the dedicant came, no longer holds (though accepted by Scheuble (2005), 35). I thank Willy Clarysse and Charles Crowther for confirming the new date. ⁸⁶ Van ’t Dack (1988), 67–71 contra Holleaux (1942) 1–14; but É. Bernand in I.Hermoupolis 4, line 42, CPI 315 TM 6537 accepts Holleaux’s argument that the third man mentioned is also an officer of the ἔξω τάξεων, the scribe having forgotten to include him with the two officers of the ἔξω τάξεων; thus, the only attestation of the two terms together could be due to a scribal error. ⁸⁷ Scheuble (2005), 33–5 with Van ’t Dack (1969), 157–60, Cowey et al. (2003), 128. ⁸⁸ He was the first to challenge a date under Ptolemy III for Text 9.1; see Sekunda (2001), 41–6, for whom they were, before the reforms, simply non-combatants. The only other attestation from the late third century, Welles (1934), no. 30, l. 8 cannot be safely ascribed to a king (either Ptolemy IV or Antiochus III): see Chaniotis (2005), 70–1; note that only two papyri are precisely dated to 188  (SB 6 9521) and to 134  (UPZ II 227); on these reforms of the army, see also Fischer-Bovet (2014b), 142–7.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

150

Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt

Some similarities between the two dedications (Texts 9.6 and 9.7) may suggest that they come from the same milieu. In one case an association of soldiers and officers (with some civilians) dedicated the statue of a priest of the king and in the second case, if one accepts the restoration proposed earlier in this section, a priest of the king who was an officer of the ἔξω τάξεων dedicated a statue of the king. In both cases this involved members of the gymnasium—in the second case the dedicant had been gymnasiarch for the past two years—and the dedication was made to Herakles, one of the main gods of the gymnasium. Finally, one subgroup of dedicants in Text 9.6 and the single dedicant in Text 9.7 bore the so-called pseudo–ethnic designation ‘Macedonian’, which by the second century  did not refer to their origin but carried an organizational significance within the army.⁸⁹ It seems plausible that both inscriptions come from the same place (the Herakleion of Sebennytos) and perhaps even from the same period.⁹⁰

9.6.2 The Economic, Military, and Familial Status of Soldiers Officers were most inclined to make dedications because they were wealthier and had a greater incentive to promote their social capital than soldiers. Groups of soldiers often joined their officers and sometimes acted on their own as a group. Yet at least three non-officers—without any fellow soldiers— made a dedication that implied a generous donation. They were all cavalrykleruchs living in the Fayum, more precisely in the village of Theadelphia, in the second half of the second century . The earliest dedication recording architectural additions to the village gymnasium—a door (θύρωμα), a portal (δίθυρον), and a monumental entrance (πυλῶνα)—was made by Leonides, son of Ptolemaios, Thracian of the men of Hexakon, 80-aroura-man, gymnasiarch for the first time, for the king and his family to honour Hermes and Herakles.⁹¹ Leonides recorded his generous donations on two similar inscriptions (one was slightly abridged) in order to mark what he had accomplished during his gymnasiarchy. He aimed to increase his social capital and appear trustworthy, perhaps with the hope of promotion. This dedication suggests that a cavalrykleruch, even with 80 arouras, was sufficiently well-off to afford this kind of investment in addition to his function as gymnasiarch. Another Thracian and his two sons also dedicated the propylon and door of a gymnasium in Assiut two decades earlier to Zeus Soter, though no titles are mentioned and we

⁸⁹ On ‘Macedonian’, see Fischer-Bovet (2014b), 161, 175–91, with previous bibliography. ⁹⁰ Moreover, Text 9.6, now lost, was in the possession of a private collector, as Text 9.7 had been until it was sold by Christie’s in 2005. ⁹¹ CPI 233, 234 TM 7233, 7234 (150/49 ).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Christelle Fischer-Bovet

151

cannot be certain therefore that they were soldiers.⁹² Nothing else is known of the gymnasium of Theadelphia but Leonides may have triggered emulation among his fellow soldiers and officers, who generously embellished other public buildings of the village, like the local temples—a trend also visible in other villages of the Fayum in the same period.⁹³ The second similar dedication made by a non-officer and dated to the reign of Ptolemy VIII sheds light on the question of promotion and its (possibly loose) connection to generous donations (Text 9.8: CPI 237 TM 8154, Theadelphia, 137 , and Text 9.9: CPI 240 TM 8155, Theadelphia, 137–116 ):

4

8

Ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης Κλεοπάτρας τῆς ἀδελϕῆς καὶ βασιλίσσης Κλεοπάτρας τῆς γυναικός, θεῶν Εὐεργετῶν, καὶ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῶν Ἀγαθόδωρος Ἀγαθοδώρου Ἀλεξανδρεὺς τῆς (δευτέρας) ἱπ(πα)ρχ(ίας) καὶ Ἰσιδώρα Διονυσίου ἡ γυνὴ καὶ τὰ τέκνα τὸ πρόπυλον καὶ τὸν λίθινον δρόμον Πνεϕερῶι θεῶι μεγάλωι μεγάλωι εὐχήν· (ἔτους) λδʹ Θῶυθ θʹ.

For King Ptolemy (VIII) and Queen Kleopatra (II) his sister and Queen Kleopatra (III) his wife, gods Euergetai, and their children Agathodoros, son of Agathodoros, Alexandrian, of the second hipparchy, and Isidora, daughter of Dionysios, his wife and his children (have dedicated) the propylon and paved dromos to Pnepheros, Twice-Great God, as a votive-offering. Year 34, Thoth 9.

4

8

Ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης Κλεοπάτρας τῆς ἀδελϕῆς καὶ βασιλίσσης Κλεοπάτρας τῆς γυ[ν]αι[κ]ός, θεῶν Εὐεργετῶν, καὶ τῶν τέκν̣ ων αὐτῶν Ἀγαθόδωρος Ἀγαθοδώρου Ἀλεξανδρεύς, ἱππάρχης ἐπ’ ἀνδρῶν κατ̣ οίκων ἱππέων, καὶ ἡ γυνὴ καὶ τὰ τέκνα τ[ὴν] θύραν καὶ τὸ κλεῖθρον Πνεϕερῶ[ι] θε[ῶ]ι μεγάλωι εὐχήν· [(ἔτους) . . , Με]χε̣ὶρ αʹ.

For King Ptolemy (VIII) and Queen Kleopatra (II) his sister and Queen Kleopatra (III) his wife, gods Euergetai, and their children Agathodoros, son of Agathodoros, Alexandrian, hipparch ἐπ’ ἀνδρῶν of the katoikoi hippeis, and his wife and children, (have dedicated) the door and its bolt to Pnepheros Great God, as a votive offering. [Year .., Me]cheir 1.

⁹² CPI 325 TM 6420 (172–169 ); another example of a wealthy Thracian soldier, victim of burglary, in P.Heid. IX 423 (158 ): see Fischer-Bovet and Lorber (forthcoming). ⁹³ In Theadelphia, Farid (1993), no. 22 TM 8814, the Osireion dedicated by the neaniskoi in CPI 246 TM 7258, and the two inscriptions discussed below (Texts 9.8 and 9.9).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

152

Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt

Agathodoros, the dedicant, was promoted to the rank of officer between the time of his first donation of architectural elements for the temple of the crocodile god Pnepheros and that of his second donation of the door and its bolt. This dedication suggests that benefactions towards local Egyptian temples were well perceived by the military hierarchy and might facilitate promotion. Similarly, concern for the royal cult by officers, as in the case of Herodes at Elephantine discussed in Section 9.5 above, may have facilitated promotion.⁹⁴ Agathodoros’ second dedication possibly occurred to mark his promotion to the rank of cavalry officer in service.⁹⁵ It may seem at first sight remarkable that Agathodoros was involved in the local cult of the crocodile god Pnepheros when he was an Alexandrian. Like the soldiers with at least two residences discussed in Section 9.5 above, he probably spent a considerable amount of time in the Fayum and therefore cared for the welfare of this community, not only for increasing his social capital there but also because of some genuine religious attachment. The mention of his wife and children as co-dedicants reinforces this perception. In the corpus of dedications by soldiers, sons or children are mentioned six more times, twice in the context of the gymnasium, twice in Demotic inscriptions, and twice in dedications to local gods by men whose military status cannot be securely established.⁹⁶ The inclusion of children, presumably male, expressed a desire to make them known as future or current members of the military and added social standing to the whole family, as in the case of the three dedications made by male siblings.⁹⁷ More surprising is the inclusion of a wife, found in Texts 9.8 and 9.9 above and in two other dedications. The earlier (186–181 ) also comes from Theadelphia and is the dedication of a propylon to the god Heron by Petosiris son of Herakles, one of the two men whose military status is uncertain.⁹⁸ The later (107–101 ) is also the third and last example of a dedication of an architectural element by a regular soldier.⁹⁹ Heliodoros son of Ptolemaios, with the pseudo-ethnic Macedonian, a kleruch with 100 arouras who had accumulated key functions in the village as epistates, archiphylakites, and komogrammateus, dedicated the pylon of the ⁹⁴ See CPI 422 TM 6398 and CPI 423 TM 6329, discussed in Section 9.5. Close collaboration with one’s superior was another obvious variable, as in CPI 448 TM 47462 (Philae, 116 ), where Nestor makes a dedication to Isis and other gods for the royal family and for the strategos who has established him as garrison commander of Syene; see also CPI 581 TM 6364 (Text 9.2 above), where an adjutant to the strategos responsible for the elephant hunt will succeed his superior. ⁹⁵ For a parallel, see CPI 257 TM 6544, which for É. Bernand marks the promotion of an ilarches (officer of a squadron) to the rank of hipparches. ⁹⁶ Gymnasium: CPI 280 TM 6302; Demotic: Farid (1993), no. 13 TM 44175 and no. 22 TM 8814; perhaps military men: CPI 243 TM 91976, 246 TM 7258. ⁹⁷ CPI 36 TM 6418, CPI 269 TM 8158, and again Farid (1993), no. 13 TM 44175. ⁹⁸ CPI 246 TM 7258. ⁹⁹ SEG 33 1359 = Wagner and Leblanc (1983), previously only line 5 in I.Fayoum 3 209; CPI 240 TM 8181.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Christelle Fischer-Bovet

153

temple of Pnepheros, possibly that of Theadelphia, just as Agathodoros had done a generation earlier. Heliodoros’ dedication was followed by two additional lines indicating that Ptolemaios also called Mestasytmis, son of Didymos— possibly Heliodoros’ father—as well as one or two persons whose names are lost and their mother Haunchis, and finally Orsenouphis, also participated. It is thus possible that the grandmother of the main dedicant, bearing the Egyptian name Haunchis, was also involved in Heliodoros’ donations. Such dedications by non-officers to the god Pnepheros point to local Egyptian families investing family wealth in the maintenance of a local temple. Perhaps some members served the god as priests or administrators but in any case the leading member of the family held the status of kleruch in the army. The Alexandrian Agathodoros seems to be a good example of a kleruch originally from an old immigrant family who married a well-to-do woman of Theadelphia, Isidora daughter of Dionysios, herself possibly the offspring of a similar union. Except for Leonides, the Thracian kleruch involved (without family members) in the embellishment of the gymnasium, the two other examples of dedications by non-officers can be explained by their family situation, in other words, by the economic advantages of unions between kleruchs and local priestly families. The three dedications by non-officers do not directly support any increase in the economic status of the kleruchs in the second and early first century  but rather its maintenance.

9.7 S OLDIERS AND RELIGION Except for the twelve dedications of statues, all from the Delta (including Alexandria) and the Fayum, the inscriptions that form the bulk of our corpus are dedications made to one or a series of deities. The pre-eminence of Isis cannot be explained solely by the fact that many inscriptions by soldiers were set up in her temple in Philae, whose precinct also served as garrison. In fact, Isis appeared already in one of the first inscriptions by a military man, the high naval commander Kallikrates, who built a temple for Isis, together with Anoubis, in the Delta.¹⁰⁰ The admiral dedicated the temple to the two deities in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy and Queen Arsinoe, perhaps coining in Greek the formula followed by the name of the king and queen.¹⁰¹ Kallikrates reinforced the association between Isis and Queen Arsinoe by building a temple for Arsinoe-Aphrodite at Cape Zephyrion near Alexandria, which was celebrated in one of Posideippos’ epigrams.¹⁰² In our corpus, six ¹⁰⁰ CPI 92 TM 6505, with Hauben (2013). ¹⁰¹ CPI 89 TM 6367 (305–283 ) is the only earlier evidence of the use of ὑπέρ in the Corpus. ¹⁰² Bing (2003), esp. 255 on Posidippus VI.30–7 = AB 39.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

154

Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt

dedications by soldiers were made to Isis and Sarapis and the other gods, and seven to Isis, Khnum, and the other gods, some of them dedicated to all three gods; in six additional cases, Isis was addressed alone.¹⁰³ There are seven dedications to local forms of the crocodile god, and often these are found in more modest contexts than are those to Isis. Other popular gods among soldiers were Pan, usually in association with other gods, whose dedications are always found in the Nile valley, desert, and Thebaid, whereas dedications to Hermes and Herakles, the patrons of the gymnasium, are mainly located in Alexandria, the Delta, and the Fayum. Moreover, soldiers dedicated temples for the royal and dynastic cult, as, for example, a Ptolemaion, a temple of Berenike, and the Kleopatreion.¹⁰⁴ In such cases, sometimes they paid for their construction and sometimes were only partially involved.

9.7.1 Soldiers and Egyptian Temple-Building Without the epigraphic corpus, almost nothing would be known about the participation of soldiers in temple-building, and especially about groups of soldiers acting together. In one case, however, involving one soldier’s family there is a notable prosopographical overlap between a stone and papyrus.¹⁰⁵ In a petition to King Ptolemy III preserved on a papyrus, the widow Asia explained that her former husband Machatas had built a private chapel to the Syrian goddess and Aphrodite-Berenike in his stathmos (billet) in the village of Pelousion in the Fayum but that the stathmouchos (the owner of the house partially confiscated for the kleruch) had prevented her from building a wall.¹⁰⁶ The decision recorded at the end was to conciliate between them or to send the parties to the official, but a later inscription reveals that the matter ended favourably for the widow. According to the later text, the two sons of Machatas, Apollonios and Machatas, Macedonians and priests, dedicated a private altar to Zeus Soter, the Syrian goddess, and the gods who shared their temple.¹⁰⁷ On the small marble plaque (23 cm × 31 cm), the two soldiers stated that they acted in favour of Ptolemy V and the royal family, as ¹⁰³ Isis and Sarapis, sometimes with other gods: CPI 397 TM 638, CPI 450 TM 88941, CPI 440 TM 47410, CPI 444 TM 88945, CPI 445 TM 88946, and CPI 435 TM 44151; Isis, Khnum, and other gods: CPI 416 TM 43986, CPI 415 TM 88865, CPI 419 TM 88867, CPI 444 TM 88945, CPI 445 TM 88946, CPI 435 TM 44151, and stele Aswan 1057; Isis alone: CPI 282 TM 8157, CPI 297 TM 8170, CPI 310 TM 6051, CPI 347 TM 6295, CPI 440 TM 47410, CPI 430 TM 6389. ¹⁰⁴ The Ptolemaion and a throne by the strategos of the Pharbaithite Nome, CPI 127 TM 6607; temple of Berenike Trogodytica, perhaps by a member of the royal guard who held the title ‘of the archisomatophylakes’, CPI 571 TM 6661; and the Kleopatreion to Kleopatra III in Schedia, CPI 110 TM 7104. ¹⁰⁵ Also discussed by Clarysse in Ch. 10.3 of this volume. ¹⁰⁶ P.Enteux. 13 (222 ). ¹⁰⁷ CPI 269 TM 8158, with Launey (1987), II, 991–2 and Ptol.Alex. II, 327 n. 20, 391 nn. 402 and 435.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Christelle Fischer-Bovet

155

was typical in dedications, and also indicated their ethnic designation—which is not stated in the petition by their mother. Soldiers and their families tended to associate cults of different origins while promoting the dynastic cult in the private sphere as here, but also in the public one. A particular aspect of the soldiers’ engagement with religion was, as we have seen, their construction and embellishment of local Egyptian temples. Out of sixty-three cases attested by diverse sorts of inscriptions, twenty-seven came from soldiers.¹⁰⁸ While temple-building by officers and soldiers was only sporadic in the third century, it became frequent under Ptolemy VI and VIII. This can be explained by the development of a Graeco-Egyptian milieu and the integration of army men in the villages, as well as by the incorporation of the local Egyptian village elite into the army, especially in the south, where they helped the kings to control again his territory after the Great Revolt (205–186 ) and the invasion of Antiochos IV from the 180s onwards.¹⁰⁹ Text 9.10, engraved above a chapel of the temple, encapsulates the esprit de corps of soldiers acting for the king and the building of a temple to the local deity called by both its Greek and Egyptian names (Text 9.10: CPI 407 TM 6327, Omboi, 174–160 ):¹¹⁰ Ὑπὲρ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου καὶ βασιλίσσης Κλεοπάτρας τῆς ἀδελϕῆς θεῶν Φιλομητόρων καὶ τῶν τούτων τέκνων Ἀροήρει θεῶι μεγάλωι Ἀπόλλωνι καὶ τοῖς συννάοις θεοῖς τὸν σηκὸν οἱ ἐν τῶι Ὀμβίτηι τασσόμενοι πεζοὶ καὶ ἱππεῖς καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι εὐνοίας ἕνεκ̣ ε̣ν̣ τ[ῆ]ς̣ ε̣ἰς αὑτούς. For King Ptolemy and Queen Kleopatra, the sister, gods Philometores and their children, to Haroeris, the great god, to Apollo and the gods who share the temple, the infantrymen and cavalrymen and others stationed in the Ombite Nome (have dedicated) this shrine because of their goodwill towards them.

One generation later, under Ptolemy VIII, the same group of soldiers— presumably partly succeeded by their offspring—embellished the double sanctuary of Haroeris-Apollo and Souchos in Kom Ombo by dedicating an altar to Souchos and the other gods of the temple.¹¹¹ The same phenomenon occurred in the Fayum through the action of officers and officers-to-be (see Section 9.6.1 above), who sometimes inscribed their dedications in Demotic and in this case gave the name of the king and the queen and their epithets as found in the dating formula, without translating the expression ὑπέρ.¹¹² Finally, the contribution to temple-building made by military men with

¹⁰⁸ Fischer-Bovet (2014b) 356–7 on soldiers with Table A.2. for sources, and Thiers (2006). ¹⁰⁹ Fischer-Bovet 2014b: 355–62. ¹¹⁰ See I.Th.Sy. 188, plate 74, 1 and 2. ¹¹¹ CPI 409 TM 6328 (131–24 ). ¹¹² Farid (1993), no. 22 TM 8814, a mr-mšꜤ dedicated the pylon of a temple to Harmotnis, great god in Philadelphia; see also Ray (1987) for Peteesis mentioned earlier.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

156

Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt

priestly functions might also be recorded in Hieroglyphic texts on the dorsal pillars of statues erected in the temple precincts.¹¹³

9.7.2 Soldiers’ Petitions to the Kings for Rights of Asylia for Local Egyptian Temples The construction or restoration of a local temple was usually recorded in a dedication made to the god(s), but in at least one interesting case, the authorization for restoring the temple was displayed on a stele that recorded the exact content of the original petition of a soldier to the king.¹¹⁴ Apollophanes son of Bion, from Antioch, One of the First Friends and chiliarchoi, and of the spear-bearers, asked for the restoration of the temple of Psosnaus, Pnepheros, and Soxis, the crocodile gods of Euhemeria in the Fayum, as well as for a grant of asylia for this temple.¹¹⁵ He also had his petition engraved, as well as the very short royal ordinance that served as a response to his request, ἐπιχωρῆσαι, i.e. ‘grant it’. The text starts with the words ‘inviolable according to what has been decreed’, followed by the petition and royal ordinance. The stele served, in fact, as a boundary stone to mark the inviolable space. Recording a petition on stone was rare unless the ordinance was meant to reach a broader audience. This particular function of petitions concerning the inviolability of sanctuaries explains why they were inscribed on stone and why stelai were erected on each of the four sides of the temple, each carrying the same petition; one of these petitions actually requests that several stone stelai should be prepared.¹¹⁶ Bronze plaques to indicate such an inviolable place seem not to have been sufficiently authoritative.¹¹⁷ Three of the six petitions regarding the asylia of village sanctuaries, which are all from the first-century  Fayum, were initiated by soldiers belonging to the royal guard (see Section 9.5).¹¹⁸ The earliest was written by Herodes son of Charidemos and Herodes son of Neilos, of the first division of the Therapeia (‘the household’), while the third was sent by Philippos son of Timokrates, Corinthian, of the First Friends and chiliarchoi, of the sabre-bearers (machairophoroi).¹¹⁹ They all insist that a grant of asylia would increase the importance of the temple and of the royal cult within it—whose maintenance was difficult at the present moment—and they either denounced the violent behaviour of ¹¹³ Fischer-Bovet (2014b), Table A.2, twelve cases marked in bold. ¹¹⁴ CPI 228 TM 7230 (69/8 ). ¹¹⁵ On chiliarchoi, see Sections 9.5 and 9.7.2. ¹¹⁶ CPI 271 TM 8160 (Magdola, 95/4 ). ¹¹⁷ See the request to replace one of these bronze plaques in P.Tebt. II 790, with Fischer-Bovet (2014a), 150. ¹¹⁸ On these petitions, see Heinen (1994), Rigsby, Asylia, with the Greek text and an English translation, and Fischer-Bovet (2014a) for a detailed analysis of these texts. ¹¹⁹ CPI 271 TM 8160 (see n.116 above) and CPI 245 TM 7237 (Theadelphia, 70 ).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Christelle Fischer-Bovet

157

officials or aimed at preventing future abuse. These inscriptions also displayed the rank and ethnic designations of the petitioners, when available, and from many points of view they resemble dedications. Indeed, the earliest stele starts with a dedication for (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy X and his family to the god Heron and is thus actually framed as a dedication.¹²⁰ In the first century , the Graeco-Egyptian milieu of soldiers and officers played an important socioeconomic role at village level, also bridging two sociopolitical spheres, that of the court at Alexandria and of villages in the chora. Soldiers’ concern for the religious welfare of the community might increase their social capital, in a way imitating royal benevolence, but also expressing a genuine attachment to local Egyptian gods.

9. 8 CON CLU SI ON This study of soldiers in the epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt has aimed to shed light on aspects of social, cultural, military, and economic history for which the papyrological sources are less informative. At the same time, one of its goals was to understand why there were so many inscriptions put up by soldiers and officers, and why the number of dedications increased across the period. It has been suggested that, linked to the social developments of the late Hellenistic period sketched in the introduction, soldiers developed the practice of making dedicatory inscriptions as a new medium to increase their social capital but also to enhance their image as trustworthy individuals or groups within the community. First, soldiers often multiplied the number of those honoured through the use of ὑπέρ, which allowed them to make a dedication to a deity (in the dative) and for the king (using ὑπέρ). They might also make dedications for officers and officials, even for associations, in addition to or instead of the royal family. Secondly, the display of the soldiers’ court titles, rank, and ethnic (also called patris) served to enhance the social status of their holders by offering them a way to make public their loyalty to the king and to acknowledge the hierarchy in which they served, with the hope of further promotions or privileges. These dedications provide a way to evaluate the degree of penetration of the royal ideology and to identify its more successful aspects. First, the king and the royal family were not only unifying figures but also flexible ones, who could easily be associated with the traditional gods, offering to soldiers (and others) the possibility of connecting multiple worlds—their local culture and ¹²⁰ On this text see also Clarysse, Ch. 10.2 of this volume; on Heron as a Thracian god modified by Hellenistic, Egyptian, and Syro-Anatolian elements, see Launey (1987), II, 954–72 and Nachtergael (1996).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

158

Soldiers in the Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt

the Ptolemaic royal/imperial culture—without betraying any of these. These developments have been emphasized while examining the relationships between soldiers, local religions, temple buildings, and their connection to the king. Secondly, the public display of court titles might reinforce the creation of an artificial entourage around the person of the king. I suggest that dedications partly flourished for this very reason, since the phenomena are chronologically, socially, and politically connected. Finally, the socio-economic situation of officers was most favourable for making donations, and such actions seem to have fuelled military promotions, though only a few cases can be followed over time. Regular soldiers usually acted as a group, but the few cases of non-officers making costly donations suggest that kleruchs maintained a good standard of living in the second century. Two examples suggest that they gained economic advantages by marrying with members of Egyptian priestly families, with whose support they dedicated architectural elements of local Egyptian temples. The whole corpus of inscriptions put up by soldiers complements the papyrological sources by shedding a different light on the close relationships between soldiers, their local community, the Egyptian temples, and the king which had developed by the first century .

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

10 Inscriptions and Papyri Two Intersecting Worlds Willy Clarysse

As a source of written documents Graeco-Roman Egypt is a special case because only here can the epigraphical and papyrological documentation be compared and be seen to overlap to some extent.¹ This chapter offers, first, a quantitative overview of the two kinds of documents on the basis of the Trismegistos database and, secondly, discusses a few cases where papyri and inscriptions illustrate the same historical reality, each from its own point of view.

1 0 . 1 Q U A N T I T A TI V E OV E RV I E W Trismegistos lists c.11,000 Greek inscriptions from Egypt, compared to c.70,000 papyri and ostraka. Nearly half of the inscriptions, however, are graffiti, often giving just the name of a person, written on a rock, on the wall of a building or in a tomb in the Valley of the Kings (3,000 inscriptions were published by Baillet in 1926 (I.Syr.), most of them without a date). If these are discounted, papyri and ostraka are over ten times more common than are inscriptions (see Table 10.1). The documentation in the form of both papyri and inscriptions is spread very irregularly. This spread is, moreover, completely different for papyri and for inscriptions. ¹ In their anthology of 1911, Wilcken and Mitteis exclude literary papyri but include several inscriptions, without explicit justification: see W.Chr. nos. 4, 51, 54, 70, 73, 116, 141, 142, 163, 168 and M.Chr. nos. 2, 4, 102. Two decades later, the Select Papyri of Hunt and Edgar (1932) includes literary papyri in a separate volume, but omits inscriptions.

Willy Clarysse, Inscriptions and Papyri: Two Intersecting Worlds In: The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt. Edited by: Alan Bowman and Charles Crowther, Oxford University Press (2020). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198858225.003.0010

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

160

Inscriptions and Papyri Table 10.1. Inscriptions and papyri: Quantified overview

Inscriptions (on stone) Graffiti Others Papyrological material Papyri Ostraka Wood

Greek

Latin

11,267 4,694 6,573 71,891 48,975 20,222 3,108

725 408 317 838 674 126 38

Table 10.2. Spread of the Greek documentation by century¹ Cent.

III 

III/II 

II 

II/I 

I 

I /I 

I 

I/II 

II 

II/III 

III 

III/IV 

Inscr.

306 356

99

271 413

184

358 543

186

429 651

258

478 753

291

304 569

238

Pap.

4037 5006

137

2687 2832

152

1072 1220

143

2274 2593

493

7749 8910

1829

5065 6238

515

Ostr.

405 525

240

961 1151

139

434 668

327

2152 2647

661

5684 6634

1237

1583 2622

840

¹ For each of the three types of document, the first line gives the total by century. The second line adds the uncertainly dated texts, 50% for each of the two possible centuries: e.g. for inscriptions 306 + 50 (half of 99) = 356 for the third century , 271 + 50 + 92 = 413 for the second century , and so on.

For papyri the chronological pattern is well known (see Table 10.2), with a dip in the first century  and the early first century , an increase in the later first century, reaching a peak in the second century and continuing into the third.² The high number of papyri in the third century  (5,000) is largely due to the Zenon Archive (2,000). The ostrakological documentation is even more irregular, though again it peaks in the second century . The number of ostraka from the second century  is three times that of the preceding and following centuries. Inscriptions are much more evenly distributed: the highest number (including graffiti dated within two centuries) is, again, in the second century , but it is hardly double that of the lowest number, in the third century . The Fayum, just one regional division (nome) alongside fifty others, accounts for nearly 20,000 papyri and ostraka as against 30,000 for the whole of Upper Egypt and a mere 1,400 for Lower Egypt, including Memphis and Alexandria (with, for instance, letters sent from the capital by the dioiketes Apollonios or by the prefect; these are counted twice, as place of sender and place of addressee). In the epigraphic documentation, Lower Egypt (2,000 items) is nearly as well represented as Upper Egypt (2,200 items), thanks ² See Habermann (1998). My figures differ from those of Habermann, because they have been calculated nearly twenty years later than his and include literary papyri as well as documents.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

161

mainly to the finds from Memphis and Alexandria, but the Fayum has yielded only 334 inscriptions. As a result, inscriptions count for nearly half of the written documents from the north, compared with less than 10 per cent from the south and an insignificant percentage from the Fayum (see Table 10.3). A similar disequilibrium appears when we go down to smaller units in space and time (see Table 10.4). Thus, the Oxyrhynchite Nome provides nearly 9,000 published papyri, against a mere fifteen Greek inscriptions on stone. From Memphis there are 527 papyri as against 234 inscriptions: inscriptions make up more than 20 per cent of the written documentation here. In the Theban area ostraka predominate: 6,830 as against 372 papyri and 368 inscriptions (excluding the 3,000 graffiti of the Valley of the Kings). Only four papyri come from Kom Ombo, compared with 40 inscriptions (eleven of them graffiti from inside the temple). Hermopolis forms another interesting case: our documentation is largely papyrological and Roman to Byzantine, with ostraka playing hardly any role, but in the Ptolemaic period inscriptions are twice as common as papyri (see Table 10.5). Table 10.3. Geographical spread of the Greek documentation Lower Egypt (incl. Alexandria)

Fayum

Upper Egypt

1,354 35 2,010

16,691 2,229 334

18,109 11,086 2,269

Papyrus Ostraka Stone (without graffiti)

Table 10.4. Spread of the Greek documentation over smaller geographical units

Memphis Oxyrhynchite Hermopolite Thebes Kom Ombo

Papyri

Ostraka

Stone (without graffiti)

Total (without graffiti)

527 8,860 4,074 372 4

25 235 38 6,830 27

234 15 435 368 29

869 9,312 5,045 7,760 60

Table 10.5. Spread of the Greek documentation in the Hermopolite Nome Hermopolite Nome





Papyri Ostraka Inscriptions (no graffiti)

92 0 173

4,047 134 435

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

162

Inscriptions and Papyri

10.2 EPIGRAPHIC TYPOLOGY Most inscriptions in Egypt are graffiti and funerary inscriptions, which are private and, in the case of graffiti, were not necessarily intended to serve as a permanent record (see Table 10.6). Though graffiti make up more than half our epigraphical documentation, they are often not considered to be typical of epigraphy. Honorific decrees (including priestly decrees like the Rosetta Stone, CPI 126 TM 8809) and building inscriptions are very rare in Egypt compared to the record found in the contemporary Hellenistic world. The most typical Egyptian inscriptions are proskynemata (which may be considered a subcategory of graffiti), which are attested from the mid-second century  onwards.³ In Greek papyrus letters the proskynema formula is not found before the very end of the first century . Here epigraphy and papyrology illustrate the same habit, but there is a gap of nearly 250 years. They both cease in the fourth century .⁴ Except for the earliest period inscriptions and papyri are also distinctive in their respective scripts (see Table 10.7).⁵ The standard epigraphic script uses straight strokes, linked by sharp angles; letters are detached from each other by small open spaces; the letter-forms tend to be of the same height and breadth Table 10.6. Spread of documentation by type of document Epigraphy

Papyrology

Graffiti Funerary/epitaphs Dedications Honorific inscriptions Building inscriptions

4,700 1,365 988 71 28

Receipts Lists and accounts Letters Contracts Petitions Declarations

14,000 8,342 (3768 + 5,574) 8,000 3,500 2,136 976

Table 10.7. Epigraphic and papyrological scripts Inscription

Documentary papyrus

Ptolemaic Roman Byzantine

³ On this form of inscription, see Geraci (1971). ⁴ Cf. Bingen (2005), 88–90. ⁵ For the so-called Inschriftenstil in late fourth and early third century papyri: see Crisci (2011), 283 and n. 8, with further bibliography.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

163

and formed to fit a square. The writing of documentary papyri is far less uniform, but strokes are usually curved, strokes change direction gradually, and the letters are of different dimensions, attached to an imaginary upper line in the Ptolemaic period and raised above the upper and lower lines in the Byzantine period. In most documents, the pen is not raised between consecutive letters, so that they form a continuous line, broken here and there for letters that cannot be linked. Gradually documentary script and epigraphic script become even more differentiated so that it is difficult to recognize the epigraphic letter-forms in Byzantine cursive manuscripts. The epigraphic script is, however, never forgotten, because that is what novice pupils learned at school. The influence of the documentary script on epigraphy is best visible in the rounded forms of the lunate letter forms which replace earlier E, Σ, and Ω from the late Ptolemaic period onwards (see Table 13.1). In some inscriptions, e.g. CPI 210 TM 2495, the stonecutter has imitated the writing of the papyri (cf. the discussion in Ch. 13.2 of this volume, with Fig. 13.1). This is often the case in graffiti, which are carved more quickly than normal inscriptions, though they usually keep the letters separate. On the other hand, epigraphic letter-forms continue to influence the book hands found in literary papyri. The so-called biblical majuscule, used up to the tenth century  for Coptic manuscripts in the White Monastery of Achmim, imitates the epigraphic script of the Roman period. A remarkable feature common to both inscriptions and papyri was identified in 1990 by D. Hagedorn, when studying a famous inscription from Leontopolis (SB 8 9997 TM 104001).⁶ Jokingly termed the lex Albaspinina de filiis filiabusque curialium nuncupandis by J. Bingen,⁷ the feature also applies to papyrus documents and is a great help in understanding the genealogical stemmata in both forms of text. In normal filiation the name of the father is put in the genitive following the name of the son (Πτολεμαῖος Πτολεμαίου), but when the father bears a municipal title the word υἱός/θυγάτηρ is inserted between the name and the patronymic (Πτολεμαῖος υἱὸς Πτολεμαίου βουλευτοῦ). Epigraphic and papyrological documents are usually clearly distinguished. There are only a few exceptions, where papyrus documents are quoted on a stone or where an inscription is quoted on a papyrus. Thus, in the asylia inscription CPI 271 TM 8160 (I.Fayoum 3 152) from the temple of Magdola (see Table 10.8) a dedication to the god Heron from March 94  is followed by a petition for asylia which two Greek soldiers addressed to the king, a short subscription by the king (2 December 95 ) and a letter in which the strategos Lysanias orders the local epistates to follow suit to the royal prostagma (22 February 94 ).⁸ Here two (or three) papyrological documents are ⁶ Hagedorn (1990). ⁷ Bingen (2005), 57. ⁸ CPI 271 TM 8160 (OGIS 2 740; I.Fayoum 3 152; I.Prose 32; Asylia 220); discussed by Bingen (2005), 116.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

164

Inscriptions and Papyri

Table 10.8. The asylia inscription CPI 271 TM 8160 (I.Fayoum 3 152) Text

Date

Dedication Petition

15 Mar. 94 before 2 Dec. 95

Prostagma Official order

2 Dec. 95 22 Feb. 94

Sender Herodes son of Charidemos and Herodes son of Neilos Ptolemy X Alexander Lysanias (strategos)

Addressee the god Heron Ptolemy X Alexander Lysanias (strategos) nameless epistates

incorporated in the inscription.⁹ In the case of I.Fayoum 1 75 TM 47190 the priests of Soknopaios copied on stone a letter from the prefect Lusius Geta which released them from forced cultivation in order to give this wider publicity.¹⁰ P.Oxy. LXXIX 5202 is a copy, on papyrus, of an honorific inscription for the Alexandrian poet and public figure Apion; in his introduction the editor lists only a few parallels for this, e.g. the Latin papyrus P.Oxy. XLI 2950, penned in large ‘epigraphic’ capitals¹¹. The well-known edict of Ti. Iulius Alexander is not only preserved on two stone copies (I.Prose 57,  68), but also on a fragmentary papyrus (BGU VII 1563). One could add P.Giss. 99 TM 27877, an extract of juridical proceedings in which a lawyer discusses the religious ceremonies of a group of foreigners from Hermopolis which continued in use to his own day (perhaps 2nd or 3rd century ). As proof of his description he quotes verbatim two stelai erected in front of the temple from the time of Ptolemy XII Auletes (80–69 ), three centuries before the papyrus was written. The dedication formula quoted in the papyrus may ⁹ Other examples where papyrus documents are quoted in inscriptions are CPI 424 TM 6331, 103007 (I.Prose 21, 22, the Kingston Lacy obelisk) and CPI 420 TM 6403 (I.Prose 24). Royal ordinances and letters were sometimes engraved on stone: see CPI 408 TM 44156 (C.Ord.Ptol. 48–9), CPI 424 TM 6331, 103007 (C.Ord.Ptol. 51–2), CPI 420 TM 6403 (C.Ord.Ptol. 57–60, 89), CPI 183 TM 6542 (C.Ord.Ptol. 64–70), CPI 271 TM 8160, CPI 244 TM 7228/7229, CPI 365 TM 7090, CPI 245 TM 7237, CPI 228 TM 7230, CPI 229 TM 7231, CPI 247 TM 6605, 7232 (C.Ord.Ptol. 72), CPI 303 TM 6449 (C.Ord.Ptol. 75–6); see also the discussion of CPI 408 TM 44156 (I.Th.Sy. 189) in Section 10.5.1. This practice was also common outside Egypt, as may be seen in Welles (1934). ¹⁰ Similarly in I.Prose 56 (edict of L. Iulius Vestinus, copied on stone in the temple of Hibis) TM 105133 and I.Prose 57 (copy of the edict of Ti. Iulius Alexander in Hibis) TM 105134, 103024. SB 4 7337 contains a royal letter to the strategos of the Herakleopolite Nome, with a royal prostagma attached, which ‘should be copied in Greek and native letters and posted up publicly in the metropolis and in the most conspicuous places of the nome’. In this case, only the version on stone is preserved (CPI 303 TM 6449 (C.Ord.Ptol. 75–6, I.Prose 45)). ¹¹ See also the ostrakon found in Mons Claudianus with a dedication to Sarapis written with red ink in beautiful capitals, no doubt a model to be copied on stone: Cuvigny (2016) TM 388522; cf. also TM 68650 with Véïsse (2017). See also SB 22 15460, a decree by an Alexandrian association ‘recorded on papyrus, but it was probably meant to be inscribed and displayed in their meeting-house, alongside other honorific statues and monuments’ (Venticinque (2016), 106).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

165

Table 10.9. The career of the strategos Lysanias (Pros.Ptol. I and VIII 277, Trismegistos P10095) Reference

Type of document

Title of Lysanias

Period

Place

P.Mil.Vogl. III 128

hypomnema (petition?)

συγ[γε]νεῖ κα[ὶ] στρατηγ[ῶι]

119

Karanis, Kerkesoucha

*CPI 208 TM 6408 (OGIS 1 179 = I.Prose 31)

dedication of aparche to temple of Soknopaiou Nesos

συγγενὴς καὶ στρατηγὸς καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν προσόδων τοῦ Ἀρσινοίτου

Nov. 95

Soknopaiou Nesos

*CPI 271 TM 8160 (SB 3 7259 = I.Fayoum 3 152 = OGIS 2 740)

dedication with attachments

συγγενεῖ καὶ στρατηγῶι

Dec. 95/ Feb. 94

Magdola

*CPI 244 TM 7228 (I.Fayoum 2 112 = I.Prose 33)

asylia inscription (Isis Sachypsis) with attachment

σ̣υνγενεῖ καὶ στρατηγῶι τοῦ νομ[οῦ]

Feb. 93

Theadelphia

*CPI 244 TM 7229 (I.Fayoum 2 113 = I.Prose 34)

asylia inscription (Isis Sachypsis) with attachment

τῶι συγ[γ]ενεῖ καὶ στρατηγῶι τοῦ νομοῦ

Feb. 93

Theadelphia

P.Tebt. I 41

petition to the chief of police

συγγενοῦς καὶ στρατηγοῦ

Kerkeosiris

P.Yale I 57

official letter

τ̣ὸν̣ [συγγενῆ] καὶ πρὸς ταῖς ἀνακρίσεσι

c.105–90 (BL 6, p. 197) c.93–70

Koites toparchy

be found in CPI 319 TM 7099 (I.Hermoupolis 5), which is the very stone quoted in P.Giss. 99, lines 20–8.¹² A second link between the asylia inscriptions of the Themistos meris of the Arsinoite Nome and the papyri is the strategos Lysanias, who occurs in both types of documents. I return to the prosopographical links in Section 10.5, and Table 10.9 shows how Lysanias’ career is known both from papyri and inscriptions.¹³ In what follows, I aim to illustrate the differences and complementarity of the two forms of documentation with a few examples. I start with one institution, the Egyptian temple, I then discuss one event, the solemn parousia (visitation) of kings, emperors, and high officials, and end with some prosopographical examples, showing how use of the two kinds of sources helps to obtain a more complete view of individuals living in Graeco-Roman Egypt. ¹² See the fundamental commentary by Zucker (1938), who shows that the foreigners in these texts are Idumaeans linked to two similar stelai found in Memphis CPI 200 TM 6421 (I.Prose 25) and CPI 202 TM 6572 (SB 1 681). ¹³ In Tables 10.9. 10.10. and 10.11, inscriptions are marked with an asterisk.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

166

Inscriptions and Papyri

1 0 . 3 TE M P LE S AND CU LTS None of three temples in Theadelphia known from epigraphic evidence (Sachypsis CPI 244 TM 7228 (I.Fayoum 2 112); Pnepheros CPI 237 TM 8154, 8155 (I.Fayoum 2 107–8), and Heron CPI 236 TM 8153 (I.Fayoum 2 106)) is attested in the hundreds of papyri from that village. Similarly, the local gymnasium is found in two inscriptions CPI 233 TM 7233 (I.Fayoum 2 103) and CPI 234 TM 7234 (I.Fayoum 2 104) but nowhere in papyri. This may be due to the fact that the inscriptions date from the Ptolemaic period and the papyri are nearly all Roman, but more important is the character of the archives from this village: these are official and private texts in which priests and associations play no active role. According to P.Enteux. 13 TM 3290, Machatas I, the husband of Asia, had built a temple of the Syrian goddess and the divinized queen Aphrodite Berenike before his death, shortly before 222 . A problem arose with Pooris, the owner of the house where Machatas was billeted, about a dividing wall between the temple and Pooris’ house. Forty years later (between 186 and 182 ) a temple was dedicated to Zeus Soter and the synnaoi theoi, no doubt including the royal family, by two brothers Apollonios and Machatas II, sons of Machatas I, who are described as Macedonians and priests. Given the rarity of the name Machatas, this is certainly the same temple, with slightly changed divinities.¹⁴ É. Bernand (I.Fayoum 3 150, CPI 269 TM 8158) places the temple in Magdola, on the grounds that the papyrus was found in cartonnage from that village, but the petition clearly states that the temple was in Pelousion, a village in the meris of Themistos. The differences here are not due to the type of text but to the chronological gap between the two sources. For Tebtynis, also well represented in the papyri (2,721 items for papyri and ostraka in all languages), we have only a handful of inscriptions.¹⁵ One is a tombstone of the late imperial period (I.Fayoum 3 146), a second a dedication to Soknebtynis by the otherwise unknown strategos Noumenios from year 24 of Augustus (SEG 38 1692, 6 ). Another late Ptolemaic dedication of an Isieion with a paved stone dromos was found in the sebbakh (CPI 282 TM 8157, I.Fayoum 3 145); this could be the temple of Isis-Thermouthis described in a few Demotic papyri and excavated by Gallazzi in 1988, which does indeed have a stone pavement.¹⁶ Even more interesting for our purpose is the

¹⁴ Cf. already Strack (1903), 547; and see the discussion at Ch. 9.7.1 of this volume. ¹⁵ Only two are listed by É. Bernand under the village heading Tebtynis (I.Fayoum 2 145–6), but several more can be added, e.g. CPI 296 TM 6273 (I.Fayoum 3 202, dedication to the god Soknebtynis, provenance possible but not certain), CPI 643 TM 45404 (SB 24 16051, bilingual dedication to the god Heron, possibly Roman) and five texts (re)published by Rondot (2004), 137–8, 147–9; see SEG 54 1758. ¹⁶ Cf. Gallazzi and Hadji-Minaglou (2000), 62–3. É. Bernand, I.Fayoum 3, 16 refers to the Isieion in P.Tebt. III 700 col.i. l. 17, but this temple is explicitly situated in Oxyrhyncha, not Tebtynis (see line 89).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

167

inscription found near the wall of a dining hall (deipneterion) from along the dromos, published by Bastianini and Gallazzi in 1991. The text (SB 20 15149 = SEG 41 1638) records that this building was erected by Onnophris son of Potamon, who was prostates of the association (synodos) of Doryphoros in the second half of the first century . Doryphoros (written Δωρόϕορος in the text) is Claudius Doryphoros, a libellis under Nero from  54 to 62 (PIR² 194) and recipient of estates from the emperor. Three papyri confirm that part of Doryphoros’ estate was indeed situated in Tebtynis.¹⁷ Onnophris was probably a family member of Potamon son of Onnophris, who bought part of a three-storey house with courtyard in Tebtynis in P.Mich. V 298 and PSI VIII 913. These papyri and the inscriptions all date from the first century . Alongside the more than 2,000 papyri of the Zenon archive, there is one single inscription, bought in Medinet el-Fayum, but said by the dealer to come from Philadelphia (Lefebvre (1914a), 93), the village where Zenon had established himself. It is a Greek dedication by an Egyptian kynoboskos, a ‘dog breeder’, to his god Anoubis (the dog-headed god is represented on the stele in Egyptian fashion with a short Hieroglyphic label).¹⁸ The dedication is made in favour of (ὑπέρ) Apollonios (without title but certainly the dioiketes)¹⁹ and Zenon. The Zenon papyri date it to the period when Zenon was managing the dorea (gift estate) of the dioiketes, i.e. between April 256 and December 247 .²⁰ The cult of Anoubis in Theadelphia is also attested in a Greek papyrus mentioning Onnophris the dog-burier (kynotaphos) (P.Lips. II 125, 173 ) and by several Demotic self-dedications on papyrus dating to the late third or early second century . In one of these the Greek Neoptolemos, alias Onnophris son of Stratippos, dedicates himself to Anoubis. He is undoubtedly a son of a Greek kleruch Stratippos son of Neoptolemos mentioned in P.Cairo Zen. II 59236.²¹ In 2008 the Italians excavated the full length of the dromos at Medinet Madi (Narmouthis). A kiosk for the sacred barge was preceded by two crouching lions, and on the statue base of each of these was a dedicatory inscription by Protarchos son of Heroides, his wife Tamestasytmis, and their children dating from 116  (CPI 274–276 TM 244021-23 SEG 59 1766 and 1767A-B), two ¹⁷ P.Mil.Vogl. II 75, with the spelling Dorophoriane, as in the inscription, and probably P.Giss. Univ.-Bibl. 52 and P.Bingen 71.25. ¹⁸ The text was published as I.Fayoum 1 98 (CPI 210 TM 2495), with photograph, but see also Pap.Lugd.-Bat. XX F among the ‘related texts’ of the Zenon archive. ¹⁹ Apollonios the dioiketes also makes a dedication on a limestone plaque, probably from Koptos, to Apollo, Artemis, Leto, and Herakles (CPI 341 TM 6377, OGIS 1 53; Fig. 13.4 of this volume). ²⁰ Lefebvre (1914a), 96, wrongly dates the stele to the late Ptolemaic period on the basis of the script; A. Bernand, I.Portes du Désert 47 dates it to the reign of Euergetes, but see Bingen CE 59 (1984), 365. The date is also interesting from a palaeographical point of view, because the informal writing is clearly influenced by the contemporary cursive; see the discussion in Ch. 13.2 of this volume, with Fig. 13.1. ²¹ Clarysse (1988).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

168

Inscriptions and Papyri

years before the first papyrus to mention Narmouthis. Protarchos and his family dedicate the whole dromos to the crocodile god Sokonopis, a few months before the death of Ptolemy VIII. In front of the lions is an altar, around which a pile of ashes was found.²² Probably this altar formed part of Protarchos’ dedication. With a little imagination, one might find a link here with a libellus, submitted by Aurelius Haunes son of Silvanus of Narmouthis in  250 (P.Wisc. II 87). Perhaps Aurelius Haunes sacrificed to the gods on this very altar during the persecution of the Emperor Decius.

10.4 IMPORTANT EVENTS Twenty years ago, I collected all available evidence for royal visits by the Ptolemies to the Egyptian chora from both inscriptions and papyri, Greek, Demotic, and Hieroglyphic.²³ I could find no case in which a royal visit was attested in both a Greek papyrus and a Greek inscription. I have, therefore, taken the following examples from the Roman period, with the welldocumented visit of Hadrian in  130 (see Table 10.10).²⁴ The poems by the poet Iulia Balbilla (I.Colosse Memnon 28–31) celebrate the visit of the empress and of the emperor (separately) to the singing statue of Memnon, hardly three weeks after the foundation of Antinoopolis. This is part of the ladies’ programme of the trip, and one week later the emperor was back in Oxyrhynchos. The same cultural world of high-sounding court poetry is found in two Oxyrhynchos papyri concerning the lion hunt with Antinoos, the red lotus flower dedicated to him, and his death by drowning in the Nile. The entry of the emperor to Oxyrhynchos and the Arsinoite Nome is dated to the day by two later cult calendars, which show that the event was still being celebrated three generations later. The first two texts in Table 10.10 show how the visit was prepared a year in advance and how provisioning and payment fell as a duty upon the villagers in Thebes and in the Oxyrhynchite Nome.²⁵ One could draw a similar picture for the visit of Septimius Severus in  200:²⁶ the logistics appear in exactions of all kinds of provisions ‘for the most ²² For views of the dromos with the lions and altar, see Bresciani and Giammarusti (2015), 128–39. ²³ Clarysse (2000a). ²⁴ As earlier, an asterisk denotes an inscription. SB 10 10583 is connected to this visit by Sijpesteijn (1969), but after a critical note by Lewis (1971), 19–20, the supplements linking this ostrakon to the imperial visit were abandoned in O.Leid. 267. ²⁵ Imperial visits are studied in detail by Halfmann (1986), who devotes a short chapter to the contribution of the papyri under the heading ‘Aegypten’ (pp. 82–5). ²⁶ The visit is discussed by Halfmann (1986), 216–23, but his Egyptian documentation is far from exhaustive. For this visit in general, see Heinen (1991), and for the inscriptions linked to it, especially pp. 278–9, n. 33.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

169

Table 10.10. Hadrian’s visit to Egypt. Date

Place

Reference

Type of information

129: 4 Nov.

Thebes, Memnoneia

O.Strasb. I 141

tax payment for paroche

129: 19 Dec.

Oxyrhynchos SB 6 9617 = Papyrol. Primer²

list of provisions for visit

130: July/Aug.

Alexandria

130: Aug./Sep.

Libyan desert P.Oxy. VIII 1085; LXIII 4352

lion hunt

130: 2 Oct.

Thebes

tax payment for visit

130: 30 Oct.

Antinoopolis Chron. Paschale

130: 18–21 Nov. Thebes, Memnoneia

34 coins O.Strasb. I 452 *I.Colosse Memnon 28–31

foundation of Antinoopolis imperial visit to the colossus

130: 29 Nov.

Oxyrhynchos P.Oxy. XXXI 2553.11–13

cult calendar ( 200)

130: 1(?) Dec.

Tebtynis

P.Oslo III 77

cult calendar ( 170)

130–1

Narmouthis

O.Med.Madi 298 (Egitto e Vicino Demotic memorandum Oriente 27 (2004): 27–31) about imperial visit half a century earlier

noble soldiers’ in November 199 (PSI VI 683, P.Oxy. LI 3614, and several other texts),²⁷ the daily routine of the emperor is found in the numerous imperial responses given in Alexandria (P.Col. VI 123 (Apokrimata) TM 14250), and the ceremonial side in an inscription celebrating the renovation of the platform near the sphinx in Memphis (SB 5 8561 TM 102689). The harsh letter of the prefect forbidding all forms of divination (SB 14 12144 TM 18193) may be part of safety measures that surrounded the imperial visit. Diocletian’s visit of  298 is reflected in the inscription on Pompey’s Pillar in Alexandria (I.Alex.Imp. 15 TM 103043) and in a now lost imperial letter on stone, seen earlier at Philae (SB 20 14998 = SEG 45 2085 TM 88876). The preparations for the visit are illustrated in the correspondence of the strategos of the Panopolite Nome with the city council: both tried to escape obligations of feeding the imperial escort (P.Beatty Panop. 1 and 2).²⁸

10.5 P ROSOPOGRAPHICAL OVERLAPS In 2005 the French started excavating the small fortress of Dios, some 200 km along the road from Koptos to Berenike in the Eastern Desert. On the very first day they found in the gate of the fort a Latin inscription which was set up to commemorate the building of the place (AE 2010.1751 TM 130149). The short ²⁷ The numerous imperial judgments delivered by Severus during his stay in Alexandria illustrate his intensive juridical activity; for a list, see P.Oxy. LI 3614 and Papathomas (2000). ²⁸ For the visit of Diocletian and the reorganization of the Thebaid, see, e.g., Bowman (1978).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

170

Inscriptions and Papyri

text starts with a dedication to the Emperor Traianus Optimus, in  114/5, in the name of the praefectus Aegypti Rutilius Lupus and by order of the praefectus montis, the governor of the Eastern desert, Cassius Taurinus. All three are also known from papyrological documents. Trajan, of course, though he never set foot in Egypt, is mentioned in the dating formula of thousands of papyri and ostraka, and one would not expect to find any new information in this building inscription. But there is a surprise here: in this official Latin inscription, his tribunicia potestas is indicated rather than his regnal year as in the Greek papyri. The military prefect Cassius Taurinus (Trismegistos P429406) is attested on two ostraka found in Krokodilo, a station between Koptos and Berenike, some 60 km east of Koptos. In O.Krok. 160 he gives orders to the curatores of the praesidia along the Berenike road concerning a robbery in which three monomachoi (‘gladiators’) have been killed. O.Krok. 165 deals with a prisoner (in custodia) who is to be sent to the prefect. Both texts were only dated by their archaeological context but can now be safely attributed to the end of Trajan’s or the beginning of Hadrian’s reign. Finally, Rutilius Lupus is the Egyptian prefect who was in charge from  113 to 117 (PIR² R 252, with full references for his whole career). In this period, he crushed the Jewish revolt of  115–17. He appears in several papyri, like most prefects of the Roman period, but also in four inscriptions (see Table 10.11). In three of these, his name is mentioned as part of the dating formula (in papyri this is exceptional); in AE 2010.1751, he appears in the nominative as the person in charge of the foundation of the camp, though he was probably represented by the officer Cassius Taurinus. Most papyri refer to juridical decisions by him (often used as precedents); twice he is the addressee of a request; once he is recorded leading Roman troops against the Jewish revolt. The case studies in Sections 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 are given in rough chronological order, illustrating different social contexts.

10.5.1 The Upper Class in Alexandria. The highest Alexandrian nobility appears in the papyri as (fathers of) eponymous priests (and priestesses), as eponymous officers, or as owners of transport boats.²⁹ In the inscriptions we sometimes catch a glimpse of their ²⁹ What follows is just a selection of interesting examples. For more instances of overlaps between literary texts, papyri, and inscriptions for people at court or in the administration, see, e.g., Mooren (1975), nos. 010–013, 018, 024 = 049, 042, 043, 055, 058, 085, 088, 0100, 0173, 0178, 0191. Here we have limited ourselves to inscriptions found in Egypt. Ptolemaic courtiers, e.g. Polykrates of Samos and his family, and Roman procuratores, e.g. M. Iulius Sanctus Maximinus, who spent part of their career outside Egypt (see Devijver (1993), 110–11) have not been taken into account.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

171

Table 10.11. The prefect Rutilius Lupus in dated papyri and inscriptions Date

Reference

Type of text

Function of the prefect

113: 28 Jan.

*SB 1 4383 = I.Pan du Désert 20 TM 81585

dedication of temple

in dating formula

114: 24 Oct.

M.Chr. 372 iii l.18

decisions by prefects concerning soldiers’ marriage

juridical decision

114: 17 Dec.

SB 6 9050 vi l.8

official diary of prefects

juridical decision

114

Pap.Lugd.-Bat. VI 24 l.88 = SB 4 7404

legal proceedings

juridical decision

115: 4 June

M.Chr. 372 iv l.12

decisions by prefects concerning soldiers’ marriage

juridical decision

115: (?) Dec.

P.Brem. 1, line 16 = W. Chr. 16

Letter

leads an imminent military operation against the Jews

114–15

*Chiron 40 (2010): 246 (= AE 2010 1751) TM 130149

dedication of building (camp)

name in nominative as official in charge

116: Jan./ Febr.

M.Chr. 347 l.16 = P.Oxy. I 97

appointment of a representative

juridical decision

116: 26 April

*OGIS 2 677 = Dils (2000) dedication A01 TM 103027

in dating formula

117: 5 Jan.

M.Chr. 372

juridical decision

117

*SB 10 10502

dedication (?)

117

P.Fay. III 322 = Stud. Pal. IV 121

edict

113–17

*I.Th.Sy. 164 TM 88582

proskynema of a soldier

in dating formula

113–17

P.Brem. 4

petition by strategos Apollonios

addressee

113–17

P.Oxy. IV 706 = M.Chr. 81 legal proceedings

juridical decision

113–17

P.Giss. I 62

correspondence

decision quoted; Lupus on the back

113–17

C.Epist.Latin. 149

letter of a soldier, requesting to be allowed in auxilia

addressee

113–17 or later

P.Amh. II 70 = W.Chr. 149 official correspondence

decision quoted

113–17 Post-117¹

O.Berenike 2 121 P.Bodl. I 120.9

dedication to Isis legal proceedings

in dating formula earlier decision quoted

post-117

Stud.Pal. IV, p. 121 [322] fr. 1, line 6

fragment

earlier decision quoted

Post-117

BGU IV 1033.2

epikrisis document

earlier decision quoted

decisions by prefects concerning soldiers’ marriage

earlier decision quoted

(continued )

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

172

Inscriptions and Papyri

Table 10.11. Continued Date

Reference

Type of text

Function of the prefect

Post-117

BGU IV 1033.1, 31

official correspondence

Post-117

Acta Alexandrinorum 9C i literary text (pamphlet) l.5 and iv l.3 TM 58927

earlier decisions quoted

143–61

P.Diog. 6

roll of epikriseis

earlier decision quoted

166–7

PSI V 447

official correspondence

earlier decision quoted

unclear

¹ For the date, see Gonis et. al. (1998), 270–1, no. 298.

activities, as in the case of the Acarnanian Lichas son of Pyrrhos, στρατηγὸς ἀποσταλεὶς ἐπὶ τὴν θήραν τῶν ἐλεϕάντων under Philopator (CPI 397 TM 6386, I.Pan du Désert 77 and CPI 601 TM 6446, I.Pan du Désert 84; Pros.Ptol. II 4422). In the papyri he is attested, without patronymic, as an eponymous officer under Euergetes (Pros.Ptol. II 1938); given the rarity of the name and the parallels with other elephant hunters, we can be certain of the identification, which was already accepted by Launey.³⁰ The same is the case with Charimortos στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τὴν θήραν τῶν ἐλεϕάντων (Pros.Ptol. II 4428, cf. the ‘tent of Lichas’ in TM 704772 with Cuvigny (2017)). In an inscription dated between 210 and 204 , his companion and successor Alexandros son of Syndaios honours the king and queen (CPI 581 TM 6364, I.Pan du Désert 85). Charimortos recurs in a contemporary letter on ostrakon (O.Oslo 2) dealing with the transport of goods from Berenike to Koptos and in passages of Strabo (16.4.15) and Polybius (18.55.2). Strabo also mentions other elephant hunters, Lichas (see above), Eumenes and Pythangelos, who recur in the papyri as eponymous officers (Pros.Ptol. II 1938, 1904, and 1998). It has been suggested that eponymous officers were in charge of land distribution to kleruchs, but the link with the inscriptions (and Strabo) in my opinion favours a military command.³¹ Some of the troops who went with them to the deep south came from the Fayum area, where they are attested in the preceding reign. The extreme rarity of the name suggests that Arsinoe daughter of Charimortos, who was kanephoros of Queen Arsinoe in Alexandria in 157  (Pros.Ptol. III and IX 5033, attested only in Demotic documents) is a descendant of the same family. Aetos son of Aetos, eponymous priest of Alexander and the Ptolemies in Alexandria in 197/196 , is mentioned in the dating formula of the Rosetta ³⁰ Launey (1987), I, 206, Herbert (1972), 20, and I.Pan du Désert, p. 95, have misunderstood the position of the eponymous officer when they attribute to Lichas a career as ilarches and pentakosiarchos. Lichas is the superior of these men. ³¹ Cf. Fischer-Bovet and Clarysse (2012), 29–31.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

173

Stone CPI 126 TM 8809 (Pros.Ptol. III and IX 4988a). Inscriptions are not normally dated by eponymous priests, with the sole exception of the priestly decrees, but in this case no papyrus of that year has yet come to light. Sosin has identified the priest with the homonymous strategos of the Arsinoite Nome, attested in a papyrus of 202 .³² Following Jones and Habicht (1989), he uses not only papyri in his reconstruction of the family stemma, but also inscriptions from Cilicia and Syria. Kramer (1997), 316–17, has collected seventeen texts, four inscriptions and thirteen papyri, mentioning the epistrategos Boethos. Three of the four inscriptions are honorific (CPI 416 TM 43986 I.Th.Sy. 242; CPI 422 TM 6398 I.Louvre 14; CPI 446 TM 43853 I.Philae 1 15); the fourth contains a royal decree, quoting royal letters to the local gymnasium and to Boethos, and probably also an earlier letter sent by the members of the gymnasium to the kings (CPI 408 TM 44156 I.Th.Sy. 189, Omboi). The title κτίστης in I.Louvre 14 is now unexpectedly confirmed and further explained by two Greek papyri in which a building in the agora of the city founded by Boethos is described in detail (SB 24 15973–4). In the inscriptions, Boethos participates in the honours for the kings (CPI 416, 422, 446); in the papyri he is addressed as head of the civil administration by several petitioners (P.Amh. II 36; P.Erbstreit 13D; P. Lond. VII 2188.105; P.Merton I 5; SB 1 4512; 4638) or mentioned as officer of troops in his military capacity (P.Adler Gr. 1; P.Cairo Goodsp. 6; P.Heid.dem. 28; UPZ II 204; 210). A recently published papyrus mentions a θαλαμηγός (‘barge’) of Boethos as part of the royal river fleet. No doubt this was a luxurious boat used for the epistrategos while travelling in the chora.³³

10.5.2 Local Elites A monumental inscription (with letters nearly half a metre high) carved on top of a rock-cut temple near Tenis/Hakoris is dedicated to a local manifestation of Isis by Hakoris son of Herieus in the reign of Ptolemy V Epiphanes (c.199–194 ), when Egypt south of the town was in the hands of the rebel kings Haronnophris and Chaonnophris (CPI 310 TM 6051, I.Akôris 1). The Egyptian who had this inscription cut in honour of the Ptolemaic king was clearly a local grandee who had sided with the Ptolemies against his revolting countrymen. It seems likely that the city of Tenis was renamed Hakoriospolis after him at that time. The services of Hakoris during the civil war are documented by a fragment of official correspondence about the dispatch of

³² Sosin (1997), 143–5. The text is now available as SB 24 16285. ³³ Kramer (2009), 321–5, P.Poethke 18 TM 128333.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

174

Inscriptions and Papyri

a boat. The boat is sent to Komanos, the general who defeated the rebels, and it is to have a military escort ‘until it is received by Hakoris and his men’ (P.Col. VIII 208 TM 43871). The text is dated in an 18th year, certainly under Ptolemy V, one year before the end of the civil war. Hakoris here acts as an ally of Ptolemy V, and Komanos and his services to the king are therefore documented in a papyrus. Thirty years later (c.165 ) Euphron son of Hakoris was captured in a battle but set free ‘because of the services of his father Hakoris’, as is stated in a military report of a general of Ptolemy VI (P.Köln IV 186 TM 65863). In my view, Euphron is named after his grandfather Herieus: he has been given a Greek name with the same meaning, ‘the cheery one’. The family remains predominant in Tenis/Hakoris until the end of the second century , when the grain measure of the town is named ‘the measure of Euphron’ in Demotic papyri. Given the rarity of the name, it is possible that Akoreus, the native councillor of Kleopatra in Lucan’s Pharsalia, is a character based on a historical person who may well have been a descendant of the same family.³⁴ In the early twentieth century several stelai entered the Cairo museum from the necropolis of El-Hassaya near Edfu. Two attest a Greek family of military men, with as central figure the syngenes and general Ptolemaios (Pros.Ptol. VIII 1997), who was married to Aphrodisia daughter of Euagoras. The couple had a son Apollonios, who died in 103  while on campaign in Syria (CPI 404 TM 43972 I.Métriques 5, and CPI 403 TM 43979, I.Métriques 35; for the epigrams, cf. the discussion in Ch. 12.3 of this volume). Two Hieroglyphic stelai, which entered the Cairo museum in the same year, belong to a native military family, with a woman Hathor-ity, wife of the cavalry commander and brother of the king Pamenches, grandson of Pasas and mother of Pasas (Cairo 22018 and 22050). In 1969 Jean Yoyotte brilliantly demonstrated that there were not two leading military families in Edfu at the end of the second century, but just one, and that probably the Greek and Hieroglyphic stelai came from the same tomb and showed the same people from a different angle.³⁵ His main argument was the identification of Euagoras, the father of Aphrodisia, with Ἰwwrs the father of Hathor-ity. ‘Hathor comes’ is a perfect Egyptian equivalent of Aphrodisia; Ἰwwrs is an imperfect rendering of the Greek name Euagoras. This is confirmed by two Greek ostraka from Edfu (O.Edfou 2 233 and 237). These are routine tax receipts from the local granary, dated 143 and 140 , undersigned by a person with the rare name Euagoras. Yoyotte identifies him with the father of Hathor-ity, who in the Hieroglyphic text is called ‘director of the balance’, i.e. head of the weighing house in the granary. A Greek land survey from Edfu attests Ptolemaios son of Pasas, archisomatophylax and

³⁴ For the dossier of Hakoris and Euphron, see Clarysse (1991) and (2005). ³⁵ For this family, see now Gorre (2009), 17–41.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

175

belonging to the politikoi katoikoi, as the owner of a large plot of kleruchic land, part of which he had inherited from his father Pasas (Christensen, Thompson, and Vandorpe (2017)). Parthenios son of Paminis was prostates of Isis and responsible for largescale building in the temple of Koptos under Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero: no fewer than twenty-five Greek, Demotic, and Hieroglyphic building inscriptions testify to his activities.³⁶ His father Paminis son of Parthenios is mentioned in several ostraka found in Koptos and belonging to the archive of Nikanor (O.Tait 228, 229, 231, 248, 249). By his commercial activities between Myos Hormos and Koptos from  26 to 29 he laid the economic base for the priestly career of his son and grandson. Nikanor, the owner of the archive, carries goods for Paminis and for Psenpnouthis and Paniskos, brothers of Parthenios, to Myos Hormos and to Berenike.³⁷ The ostraka show the economic background behind the constructions of Parthenios and the expansion of the temple in Koptos. As stated by Bingen ‘seule la conjonction des trois dossiers [i.e. Greek and Demotic-Hieroglyphic inscriptions and Greek ostraka] transforme un dédicataire fantôme et un marchand insaissisable en un échantillon valable de la société bourgeoise de Koptos sous les JulioClaudiens’.³⁸ More than a century later a certain Paniskos son of Ptollis, prostates of Isis, reuses a stele of his predecessors Paminis and Parthenios (I.Pan du Désert 78 TM 53874,  78); he also restores two sides of the enclosing wall of the temple and dedicates a garden (I.Portes du Désert 73 and 74 TM 88380 and 88381,  149). One wonders if he is a descendant of Parthenios, since the name Paniskos, the Greek equivalent of Paminis, occurs in the family as one of Parthenios’ brothers. A homonym pays the dyke and bath tax in Thebes in  125, but the identification of the taxpayer of O.Wilck. 534 ( 125) and the prostates of Isis remains just a tempting possibility. In the same ostraka dossier of Nikanor, a certain Kastor receives twenty-two jars of wine for the account of Hermeros son of Athenion (O.Tait Petrie 287;  57) in Berenike, the Roman emporium far south on the Red Sea coast. The same Hermeros makes a fine dedication in Koptos (a stone 1.6 m. wide, with large well-cut letters) for Isis and Hera in July  70 (I.Portes du Désert 65 TM 88373). Here he is called Adanites (inhabitant of Aden) and merchant of the Red Sea (Ἐρυθραῖος ἔμπορος). The inscription, honouring also Vespasian and his house, was carved only a few weeks after the new emperor had left Alexandria for Rome.³⁹ Here again the ostraka illuminate the economic background to the festive dedication.

³⁶ For Parthenios and his son Paminis, see now I.Koptos à Kosseir 57–61 (Greek texts) and Short Texts 1, nos. 179–202 (Demotic and bilingual texts). ³⁷ For this family of priestly businessmen, see Denecker-Vandorpe (2007), 123. ³⁸ Bingen (1989), 19 = (2007), 261. ³⁹ Cf. Halfmann (1986), 178–80.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

176

Inscriptions and Papyri

In 238  Kleandros son of Monimos, an Alexandrian of the deme Andromacheios, aged 72, functions as guardian for Menneia, an Alexandrian female citizen (ἀστή) in P.Petrie² Wills 1, lines 55–56. The environment is Greek, and Menneia receives half of a sanctuary of Queens Berenike and Arsinoe as her inheritance. To my surprise his son Monimos son of Kleandros appears in a Demotic tax register as a salt-tax payer and husband of Esoeris, a woman with an Egyptian name. The couple have a daughter Demetria and own a female slave Sostrate (P.Count 4, lines 61–4). The marriage of an Alexandrian citizen to an Egyptian woman appears to contradict Fraser’s belief that such a mixed marriage was unlikely.⁴⁰ That an Alexandrian should pay the salt tax also comes as a surprise. In CPI 299 TM 8179, I.Fayoum 3 207, an inscription from the Arsinoite Nome, now lost, the Alexandrian Monimos son of Kleandros makes a dedication to the king. No doubt this is the same man, and the comparison of the Greek will, where his father is described as a citizen of the deme Andromacheios, and the inscription, where he is simply Ἀλεξανδρεύς, provides interesting information in the context of the discussion of different classes of Alexandrian citizens. Dryton son of Pamphilos is a well-known figure of early second-century  Pathyris. The archive of Dryton and his descendants, published as a whole by K. Vandorpe in 2002, contains some fifteen papyri addressed to or written by him; the rest (more than forty papyri) were kept by his wife Apollonia and her daughters. In 1995 Winnicki identified a few graffiti in the royal tombs of Ramesses IV and VI as belonging to this very same man (P.Dryton, App. B). In one of these Dryton is accompanied by Pelops son of Alexon, jailor, who is also attested in the Dryton archive and by the Cretan [(K)l]eonas. Dryton himself was also of Cretan origin. The graffiti may be dated to the first phase of Dryton’s career, when he lived in Thebes, before his marriage to Apollonia. It shows that the man was not only at home in the Greek world (he even copied out a paraklausithyron in his own hand), but was also interested in the pharaonic remains of the city where he lived. Prosopographical research of this type does not always lead to clear results, mainly because of the problem of homonymy. When a name is rare and the social context of the person well known, we can be pretty certain that a further reference with the same name and patronymic belongs to the same extended family. Names are, however, often passed on from grandfather to grandson and even amongst other members of the family. Since inscriptions and papyri come from different quarters, in this case confirming identity is an even more tricky business than when we work with a single type of source. I.Fayoum 1 93 TM 91965 is an altar dedicated at Karanis by Sarapion son of Papos and dated to the imperial period on palaeographical grounds. The ⁴⁰ Ptol.Alex. I, 72–3: ‘There is at present no individual evidence for intermarriage between Greeks (of whatever class) and Egyptians in Alexandria in the third century.’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Willy Clarysse

177

enormous tax list P.Mich. IV 223 TM 11998, where the whole population of Karanis is listed, mentions a homonym Sarapion son of Papos, married to Thaisas and father of Ptolemaios in  172 (line 3550). Sarapion is a common name in the village (forty different persons in the index to P.Mich. IV), but the name Papos is attested for only three persons, and it is not unlikely that the Sarapion of the papyrus and the Sarapion of the inscription are one and the same person, or at least members of the same family. The epigraphists who published the Greek inscriptions of the Fayum were on the whole not interested in identifying persons in other types of documents. CPI 131 TM 6419 (OGIS 2 732) is a dedication from Leontopolis to Ptolemy V Epiphanes and Queen Kleopatra by Apollonios son of Antipatros, the scribe of Ornymenes, which can be dated to the period 193–186 . The name Ornymenes is extremely rare (the LGPN lists only four examples, of which three in Miletos are probably from one family). In the papyri the name occurs for an official working in cooperation with the dioiketes Athenodoros (P.Hels. I 23, line 23 and P.Mich. XVIII 779, line 1), who was active from 197 to 190 . Given the rarity of the name, the superior of Apollonios is likely to be the representative of the doiketes, functioning in the Fayum and in Leontopolis. In an 11th year of an unknown ruler Pythiades dedicates a statue in Narmouthis to the goddess Ermouthis and to Anoubis (I.Fayoum 3 160 TM 8162). The editors attribute the inscription to the later Ptolemaic period on the basis of the script (for which reason it is retained as CPI 642). The name Pythiades, however, is very rare and the only homonym attested in Trismegistos is a village epistates mentioned in several papyri of P.Enteuxeis. He is active in Autodike (meris of Themistos) and Berenikis (meris of Polemon) (Pros.Ptol. I 706, 221–219 ). Narmouthis is situated on the frontier zone between the Polemon and Themistos merides. If we could date the inscription somewhat earlier (the photograph in Bernand’s edition is not clear enough for a palaeographical dating), then he could well be the same man; otherwise Pythiades in the inscription is almost certainly a descendant of the epistates. Nikandros son of Petesouchos dedicates, with his wife and children, a stele to the Dioskouroi in Theadelphia in  127 (I.Fayoum 2 123 TM 42996). We know the population of Theadelphia in that period well thanks to the tax lists in BGU and P.Col. In BGU IX 1892, lines 81–2 ( 133) Nikandros son of Petesouchos pays two unspecified taxes; in P.Col. V 1 verso 3, line 20 ( 155) Nikandros son of [NN], grandson of Nikandros, great-grandson of Petsouch() pays 14 dr. for taxes. There is a good chance that Nikandros in the inscription is the same person as the taxpayer in BGU IX 1892. The combination of a classical Greek name Nikandros with an Egyptian patronymic is uncommon, but further support for an identification here is lacking since the social status of the taxpayers is unknown. The person in the Columbia papyrus is probably a grandson of Nikandros I. Unfortunately the papyrus is damaged at exactly this spot.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

178

Inscriptions and Papyri

10.6 C ONCLUSION The primary difference between papyri and inscriptions regards their intended audience: papyri are directed to a limited audience (whether a single person in letters or contracts, or groups of people in administrative documents) for a limited period of time (ranging from an invitation to dinner on a specific day to documents addressed to several generations for the sale of a house). Inscriptions are meant for everybody and forever. This applies not only to official decrees, but even to humble tombstones and graffiti.⁴¹ With the exception of graffiti, inscriptions also tend to show us the upper classes and the official version of what happened, concentrating also on special or festive occasions, when leading persons were present. Official inscriptions were often put up on ceremonial occasions (it would be worthwhile checking every date with local festive calendars and with imperial festive days),⁴² whereas papyri reflect the day-to-day routine of the administration. Studying inscriptions alongside the far greater number of papyri can enhance our understanding of the texts and of the people who are mentioned in them in many ways, and has the potential to be as illuminating as studying Greek and Demotic side by side. As yet, neither epigraphists nor papyrologists have exploited these possibilities to the full. The task is much easier now than twenty years ago since we have databases at our disposal such as Trismegistos, where all the texts and (nearly) all the people are included. I am sure that the new epigraphic corpus will allow yet further progress, since my discussion here has only scratched the surface.⁴³

⁴¹ Cf. Bingen (1989), 16 = (2007), 258. ⁴² Thus, the chapel for Sarapis in front of the Luxor temple was dedicated by a Roman decurio, probably in the presence of the prefect T. Flavius Titianus, on 24 January,  126, the birthday of the Emperor Hadrian (SEG 31 1548 TM 102276). ⁴³ With thanks to Katelijn Vandorpe and Dorothy Thompson, who read an earlier draft of this article and offered numerous suggestions.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

11 Epigraphic Habits of Private Associations in the Ptolemaic Chora Mario C. D. Paganini

11.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter attempts to make a small contribution to one of the aims of the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions by illustrating the various ways in which Greek epigraphic habits became important and how they developed or were adapted to the local communities of Egypt.¹ In particular, it will focus on the epigraphic habits of private associations in Ptolemaic Egypt: these were groups of private individuals who decided to gather together—more or less of their own accord—for a variety of purposes and communal activities.² The epigraphy of associations provides a wide range of text typologies and formats, which nicely illustrate the full potential of epigraphic practices. However, rather than addressing civic epigraphy, which is the primary focus of Hellenistic historians and epigraphists, the object of inquiry will be the epigraphic habits of associations in the chora of Ptolemaic Egypt—that is to say, in places other than the three poleis of Alexandria, Naukratis, and Ptolemais in the Thebaid. In particular, the epigraphic presence of associations in villages will be scrutinized. Looking at the typology and format of inscriptions by associations in the chora will raise the question of socio-geographical differentiation and local variation, as well as the possible models (civic or not) for rural ¹ I thank the editors for their kind and generous invitation to the conference on the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions. The present study was conducted as part of the research activities of the Copenhagen Associations Project, funded by the Carlsberg Foundation. ² Bibliography on associations is vast. The standard reference work for associations in Egypt is San Nicolò (1972); see also (but with caution) Boak (1937) and Muszynski (1977). On specific aspects of associations in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, see, for instance, Monson (2006), Venticinque (2010), Gibbs (2011), Langellotti (2016), and Venticinque (2016). Various features of the fenomeno associativo in antiquity more generally are treated by papers in Kloppenborg and Wilson (1996), Fröhlich and Hamon (2013), and Gabrielsen and Thomsen (2015). Mario C. D. Paganini, Epigraphic Habits of Private Associations in the Ptolemaic Chora In: The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt. Edited by: Alan Bowman and Charles Crowther, Oxford University Press (2020). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198858225.003.0011

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

180

Epigraphic Habits of Private Associations

epigraphy. Furthermore, the impact that associations had on their local communities through their epigraphic habits, in particular on the visual landscape, will be highlighted. Although the analysis is unlikely to provide definite answers to these issues, it will clarify the potential for fuller investigation in the future. The data which are the object of investigation in this chapter have been collected as part of the Inventory of Ancient Associations of the Copenhagen Associations Project. The inventory is a collective endeavour, involving many international collaborators, and gathers references to all the associations of the Greek-speaking world from the seventh century  to the fourth century . It is open-access, provides unique reference IDs to every single association (in the form CAPInv. plus number), and allows quantitative analysis of the kind undertaken here, as well as many other types of research.³ In order to put the phenomenon of the epigraphic practices of associations into perspective, it may be useful to begin with an overview of the presence of associations in our documentary sources—with the usual caveat of the biased nature of the findings which makes every quantitative investigation approximate. The first chart (Fig. 11.1) shows the proportion of private associations in papyri and inscriptions both in Greek and in Demotic in the Ptolemaic period. Only certain individual associations have been taken into account: these are specific individual associations (as opposed to, say, general references to ‘associations’ in the sources) that can be recognized as such with certainty.⁴ The number of associations in question is not particularly high, normally

Inscriptions 40% Papyri 60%

Fig. 11.1. Distribution of associations in Greek and Demotic texts of the Ptolemaic period

³ https://ancientassociations.ku.dk/ ⁴ For a more detailed explanation of the criteria guiding the identification of a private association, see https://ancientassociations.ku.dk/CAPI/intro-criteria.php

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Mario C. D. Paganini

181

ranging from around sixty to eighty for the Ptolemaic period and around a hundred to a hundred and twenty for the Roman period. Limited as these data are, they nevertheless allow for some general quantification (with some degree of error, of course). We can see from the chart that there was a slight preference for associations to use the medium of papyrus for recording their business rather than inscriptions.⁵ If Demotic is taken out of the picture and only Greek sources are considered, the findings are modified, but the general picture does not change much: associations made almost equal use of both papyri and inscriptions in order to record their dealings (Fig. 11.2). What they liked least, it seems, was the use of Demotic in inscriptions. Whether this is due to the fact that epigraphy of this type was much less central in Egyptian culture than in Greek is possible but difficult to prove, as a more limited body of Demotic evidence has been so far published and the progress of Demotic studies may redress this imbalance in the future. By way of comparison one can look at the situation in Roman times. Comparing Greek and Demotic sources, we see that the result is exactly the same as in Ptolemaic times, with a slight preference for the production of papyri over inscriptions (Fig. 11.3). Taking Demotic out of the picture changes the situation by enhancing the apparent preference for papyri over inscriptions (Fig. 11.4). In contrast to Ptolemaic times, it appears that in Roman times associations rarely (or possibly never) recorded their dealings in Demotic on papyrus. This is not particularly surprising and is in keeping

Inscriptions 48%

Papyri 52%

Fig. 11.2. Distributions of associations in Greek texts of the Ptolemaic period ⁵ A small portion of these texts were not produced by associations themselves and therefore have no relevance in judging the associations’ documentary preferences; however, the percentage of these texts, both in papyri and inscriptions, is negligible for statistical purposes. Furthermore, associations which are attested both in inscriptions and in papyri obviously appear twice; this should also be discounted in the statistics.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

182

Epigraphic Habits of Private Associations

Inscriptions 40% Papyri 60%

Fig. 11.3. Distribution of associations in Greek and Demotic texts of the Roman period

Inscriptions 30%

Papyri 70%

Fig. 11.4. Distribution of associations in Greek texts of the Roman period

with the general linguistic trend of the papyrological documentation of Roman Egypt.⁶ It is worth stressing that the fact that we can compare and quantify—albeit with some uncertainty—the documentary habits (of associations, in this case) according to their choice of medium (papyri and inscriptions) is quite exceptional in the ancient world. However, despite the possibilities offered for the study of the history of Egypt by this fortunate occurrence, for most of the time the worlds of papyrology and epigraphy rarely overlap.⁷ The study of ancient associations clearly shows how papyri, inscriptions, and material culture, as well as sources in both Greek and Egyptian languages, need to be taken into ⁶ For a more detailed discussion of the switch from Demotic to Greek by associations in Roman Egypt, see Paganini (forthcoming a). ⁷ But see Clarysse’s discussion in Ch. 10 of this volume.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Mario C. D. Paganini

183

consideration together. This is difficult, but it is the only really satisfactory approach to a comprehensive analysis which would represent the varied complexities of Egyptian society. After this somewhat dogmatic statement, the reader will be aware of the shortcomings of the present chapter, which merely deals with inscriptions and furthermore with Greek inscriptions only. The aim here is to provide an overview of the typology of Greek epigraphy by associations in the rural communities of Ptolemaic Egypt in order to indicate potential relationships with Greek civic epigraphy and to assess the role of associations in their local communities and the visual field.

11.2 EPIGRAPHIC TYPOLOGIES The texts carved on stone in Greek by associations in villages and metropoleis of Ptolemaic Egypt can be gathered into three main groups: decrees, dedications, and topos inscriptions (that is to say stones that marked the meeting places or some property of associations). Anyone familiar with epigraphy will notice that an important category of epigraphic documents is missing: funerary epigraphy. One might thus assume that epitaphs were set up by individuals only, rather than by whole communities—since this is what associations were. However, associations did erect funerary inscriptions for some of their members: we have evidence for the practice on Euboea and in Boeotia. Similarly, on Cos, burial grounds belonging to associations were marked out by horoi; the associations’ inscriptions lent a specific character to the landscape of the necropolis. Furthermore, communal burial grounds are recorded in inscriptions of associations on Rhodes; no doubt, special monuments with funerary inscriptions by the associations were set up in those complexes, where the associations met for ceremonies.⁸ Therefore, far from being foreign to epigraphic practices of associations in general, funerary inscriptions simply do not seem to have been favoured by associations in Egypt, for whatever reason.⁹ Comparing the ratio of the three categories of inscriptions mentioned above (decrees, dedications, and topos inscriptions) in associations of the Hellenistic period and of Ptolemaic Egypt indicates that the epigraphic practices of the associations of Egypt follow the general patterns of the larger Hellenistic world ⁸ Associations setting up funerary inscriptions at Eretria (Euboea): CAPInv. 28, CAPInv. 59, and CAPInv. 90. At Chalkis (Euboea): CAPInv. 86. At Tanagra (Boeotia): CAPInv. 922, CAPInv. 923, CAPInv. 929, CAPInv. 930, CAPInv. 932, CAPInv. 934, CAPInv. 935, CAPInv. 988, CAPInv. 1745. Associations’ burial grounds on Cos (and their implications for foreigners): Maillot (2013), 207–10. On Rhodes: e.g. CAPInv. 10 and CAPInv. 1922. ⁹ However, associations did play a role in funerary ceremonies for their members: participation in the funerals, payment for the burial, or post-mortem honours were, in fact, important aspects in the life of associations in Egypt.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

184

Epigraphic Habits of Private Associations

Topos/horos 17% Decrees 38%

Dedications 45%

Fig. 11.5. Ratio of inscriptions of associations in the Hellenistic period

Topos 16%

Decrees 19%

Dedications 65%

Fig. 11.6. Ratio of inscriptions of associations in Ptolemaic Egypt (poleis and chora)

(Figs. 11.5–6): dedications represent the largest proportion of inscriptions, followed by decrees and the topos inscriptions (or horoi). In Egypt, however, decrees occupy a far smaller portion than they do in the wider Hellenistic world. If one looks at the typology of inscriptions in the Egyptian chora (villages and nome capitals), one sees that the trend remains pretty much the same as for the whole of Ptolemaic Egypt (Fig. 11.7): dedications occupy the first position, while decrees and topos inscriptions remain pretty much at the same level. The picture suddenly changes when one looks at the statistics for inscriptions in villages only (Fig. 11.8): although dedications remain the largest in number, topos inscriptions increase in comparison to dedications and especially decrees, which are only very marginally represented. According to these charts, the distinguishing feature of village epigraphy is the abundance of topos inscriptions, which are, in fact, never found in the poleis. We shall return to this later, in Section 11.2.3.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Mario C. D. Paganini

Topos 21%

185

Decrees 21%

Dedications 58%

Fig. 11.7. Ratio of inscriptions of associations in the Ptolemaic chora Decrees 6%

Topos 38% Dedications 56%

Fig. 11.8. Ratio of inscriptions of associations in villages of Ptolemaic Egypt

The following brief analysis of each of these typologies will present their main features and possible aspirations to monumentality—which will have a bearing on their impact on the visual landscape—as well as potential models for their production.

11.2.1 Decrees This typology of texts is the most standardized and follows well-established formal characteristics. It can be considered the Greek epigraphic type of text par excellence. Decrees by private associations recall the civic decrees of the Greek poleis; the way in which they are construed is also reminiscent of the workings of the poleis. In this sense, private associations may have developed the practice of producing decrees with cross influences from the civic

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

186

Epigraphic Habits of Private Associations

epigraphy of the Hellenistic poleis. An assembly of the association (the term usually employed in Egypt for the purpose is συναγωγή) is normally mentioned, where the matters in question had been discussed, a vote passed, and a decision taken (introduced by the traditional formula of ἔδοξε or δεδόχθαι); a decree (ψήϕισμα) was the end result of the process. This would sometimes (but not always) be inscribed on stone; often the indication of the place where such a decree was to be set up (together with the number of its copies) was appended.¹⁰ The marginal position occupied by decrees in the epigraphic habits of associations in the villages of Ptolemaic Egypt has been already mentioned. In fact, one decree only is preserved: the long late-Ptolemaic honorific decree of the landowners of Psenamosis, a village near Alexandria (CPI 113 TM 6460 CAPInv. 38; Fig. 11.9).¹¹ From the account given we learn that the association wanted to buy some land from Paris, a personage of considerable status and means, in order to build a gymnasium and an oikos where they could meet and sacrifice to the Royal House. The man refused to accept payment for the land but donated it. In a typical Hellenic fashion this act of euergetism triggered the granting of various honours to him. Three and five years later, Paris gave two other donations, and the association duly granted further honours—the landowners had, in fact, already promised to reward acts of further generosity by Paris at the time of his first donation (lines 15–19). This is a particularly rich example of its kind and attests in an extraordinary way the workings of a private association in the Ptolemaic chora. From the formal point of view of the text, all the typical elements are present: mention of the association’s assembly with discussion of the matters (lines 2–4); the formula of the passing of a decision by the body of the association (line 9 and reference to the decisions as δόγματα in lines 24–5 and 47); mention of the production of the decree (ψήϕισμα) and its setting up (lines 44–6); subscription as approval by the members (either in the form of a majority or unanimously: lines 19 and 47–9). As has been said, this text represents the only decree by associations produced or located in a village. Other decrees by associations in the chora come from Memphis (CPI 200 TM 6421 CAPInv. 163 and CPI 202 TM 6572

¹⁰ Decrees by associations preserved on papyrus but not on stone are P.Ryl. IV 590 = CPJ I 138 (unknown provenance, 51–30 ?: CAPInv. 674) and SB 22 15460 (from Alexandria?, 5 : CAPInv. 1411); this presumably represents common practice, according to which decrees were first written on more perishable material (but less expensive and easier to store for archival purposes) and might be only thereafter put on stone for display. Mention of several copies of a decree to be produced for different reasons is found in I.Prose 49.52–5 TM 103907 (Psenemphaia, Delta; 5 : CAPInv. 1441). See also Paganini (forthcoming a). ¹¹ For a detailed analysis of the inscription, see also Paganini (forthcoming b).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Mario C. D. Paganini

187

CAPInv. 181), a large multicultural city, and Hermonthis, a nome capital (CPI 351 TM 88459 CAPInv. 58).¹² Although we may be inclined to regard urban centres as the favourite places for epigraphic habits, especially of a more formalized fashion—and the evidence at our disposal may support this view—the example from Psenamosis clearly shows that perfectly appropriate decrees could be produced and set up in villages too. Given the character of the association involved and its links with the polis of Alexandria, we may certainly suppose the influence of civic epigraphy on that of the association. At all events, this example attests to the phenomenon of the distribution of particular formal Greek epigraphic practices in the rural communities of Ptolemaic Egypt by specific social groups and has important consequences for the configuration of the village’s visual landscape. The decrees by associations in the Egyptian chora show high levels of formality and careful execution; this required specific technical know-how, which was obviously available locally—or, at all events, made available locally for those who required it. The format, execution, and decoration of the stelai with the decrees are exquisitely Greek, with a clear aim at monumentality. This, for instance, is evident in the decrees by the already mentioned association of landowners from the village of Psenamosis (CAPInv. 38 CPI 113 TM 6460), by the politeuma of the Idumaeans of Memphis (CAPInv. 163 CPI 200 TM 6421), or by the κοινὸν τῶν κτιστῶν of Memphis (CAPInv. 181 CPI 202 TM 6572) (Figs. 11.9–11).¹³

11.2.2 Dedications As mentioned in Section 11.2, dedications constitute the largest group of inscriptions produced by associations. As such, they also have a variety of formats which allow for different degrees of formality in their execution. As in the case of other dedicants in the larger Hellenistic world, the associations of Egypt could dedicate buildings, statues, or altars, or specific objects ¹² To this picture one could add the decrees by the communities of the gymnasium (οἱ ἐκ τοῦ γυμνασίου), which also happen to come from urban centres or at any rate nome capitals: Thebes (CPI 382 TM 7301), Omboi (CPI 408 TM 44156 + TM 113053), and Aphroditopolis (CPI 300 TM 6245). Not to mention, of course, decrees (civic or not) in the three poleis; as far as private associations are concerned, we have the decrees by the technitai in Ptolemais (CPI 355 TM 6374 and CPI 357 TM 6375: CAPInv. 115). On the technitai, see Le Guen (2001), Aneziri (2003), van Nijf (2006), Aneziri (2009), and Remijsen (2015), 230–51. ¹³ My warmest thanks go to Kyriakos Savvopoulos and the CPI archives for their help with images of inscriptions. On the politeumata, see Honigman (2003), Kayser (2013), Sänger (2015), Kruse (2015) and Sänger (2019).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

188

Epigraphic Habits of Private Associations

Fig. 11.9. CPI 113: Decree of the association of landowners of Psenamosis

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Mario C. D. Paganini

Fig. 11.10. CPI 200: Decree of the politeuma of the Idumaeans of Memphis

189

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

190

Epigraphic Habits of Private Associations

Fig. 11.11. CPI 202: Fragment of the decree of the κοινὸν τῶν κτιστῶν of Memphis

(often connected with some religious or ritual usage) to deities or even to the association itself. Consequently, dedications could take the form of proper stelai (with various degrees of formal decoration), inscribed architectural elements, stone blocks and bases, plaques, and so on.¹⁴ The content of the texts is more or less standard: its elements can be exemplified by comparing the dedications by the basilistai of the island of Setis (CPI 423 TM 6329 CAPInv. 51) and by the great synodos of the great god Pramarres (deified Pharaoh Amenemhat III) possibly from Hawara or Soknopaiou Nesos (see TM 6608) in the Arsinoite Nome (CPI 220 CAPInv. 61): optional reference to the dedication being ‘in favour of ’ the rulers; name of the association making the dedication; optional reference to the deity to which the dedication is made; optional mention of the object dedicated; optional reference to (some of) the association’s officials, in this case employed as eponymous; (6) optional mention of the date.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

¹⁴ On the importance of dedication of honorific statues and portraits in Hellenistic cities, see Ma (2013).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Mario C. D. Paganini

191

This epigraphic type follows the standards of dedications that one finds from the other parts of the Hellenistic world. However, at the same time they show local influences (especially in decoration). In fact, decorative motifs follow either Greek or Egyptian figurative traditions, but never both: hybrids do not occur—however, the texts (being in Greek) follow the patterns of the Greek dedicatory tradition, as has been said before. The dedications may have a medium to high level of formality in their execution, with sometimes a vague attempt at monumentality in decoration and style. For instance, Greek decoration with high levels of formality and a good degree of monumentality is found in the dedications by the already mentioned basilistai of Setis (CPI 423 TM 6329 CAPInv. 51: Fig. 11.12) and by the xenoi Apolloniatai of Hermopolis Magna (CPI 319 TM 7099 and CPI 320 TM 6298, CAPInv. 194: Figs. 11.13 and 11.14). One of the oldest Greek documents by associations in Egypt, the plaque with the dedication by the synbasilistai and Dioskouriastai (CPI 599 TM 44043 CAPInv. 606), displays a careful execution and studied layout; it shows a good level of formality, following Greek epigraphic standards (Fig. 11.15). A neat Egyptian offering scene is depicted on the upper margin of the stele with Egyptian format, bearing the dedication of the above-mentioned synodos of Pramarres (CPI 220 TM 6608 CAPInv. 61), executed with a medium level of formality (Fig. 11.16). On the other hand, the sitometrai of the nome capital of the Arsinoite Nome, Ptolemais Euergetis (Krokodilopolis), set up a more modest dedication, with a small Egyptian decorative motif (CPI 256 TM 7154 CAPInv. 71: Fig. 11.17). The combination of the status displayed by the dedicants (military men and thus officially Hellenes, as opposed to people who tended to convey their local—even possibly Egyptian priestly— background) and of the form of the deities to whom the dedications were set up (belonging to either the Greek or Egyptian pantheons) seems to determine the choice of decoration employed, whether of Greek or Egyptian flavour. Circumstances dictated style.

11.2.3 Topos Inscriptions This last group of texts is characterized by the largest variety of formats and formality: topos inscriptions, in fact, range from proper stelai or similar, with detailed decorations, to simple graffiti on walls and floors; from structured texts with mention of the rulers in favour of whom the inscription was carved, with the name of the divinity under whose protection the place was put, and with the localization of the topos and its rough description, to the simple string of words ‘topos of X’. The two ends of this spectrum can be exemplified by the topos inscription of the ex-ephebes under Asklepiades in the Arsinoite Nome

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

192

Epigraphic Habits of Private Associations

Fig. 11.12. CPI 423: Dedication by the basilistai assembled in Setis

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Mario C. D. Paganini

193

Fig. 11.13. CPI 319: Upper part of one of the twin dedications of the xenoi Apolloniatai of Hermopolis Magna

(CPI 295 TM 6407 CAPInv. 74: Fig. 11.18) at the upper end and the possible topos inscription (or rather graffito) of an association in honour of the god Nechtharaus at Omboi (CAPInv. 828 SEG 39 1702: Fig. 11.19) at the lower end. Topos inscriptions were set up to designate meeting places of associations within larger architectural complexes, as well as plots of land (built or not) belonging to the associations (either used for meetings or otherwise) put under the protection of (or in fact dedicated to) a deity.¹⁵ These inscriptions were often found in temples or near them; this attests to the link that some associations entertained with the local temples and how associations used some of the temple premises as meeting places (matters of religious protection, beside devotion, may have played a role in the choice). The practice of meeting by a temple is well attested in the Demotic regulations of associations from

¹⁵ For the usage of τόπος in the Greek inscriptions of Egypt, see É. Bernand (1993). Property of or places reserved for associations are marked by horos-inscriptions in other parts of the Hellenistic world. On Rhodes, the term τόπος is almost exclusively employed to designate communal burial grounds in the jargon of associations: see, e..g., CAPInv. 10 and CAPInv. 1922.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

194

Epigraphic Habits of Private Associations

Fig. 11.14. CPI 320: One of the twin dedications of the xenoi Apolloniatai of Hermopolis Magna

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Mario C. D. Paganini

195

Fig. 11.15. CPI 599: Dedication of revenue to Ptolemy III, Berenike II, and the Dioskouroi

Ptolemaic Egypt and, in fact, also continued in the Roman period, as is attested by the Roman deipneteria or banquet halls along the dromos of the temple of Tebtynis.¹⁶ As noted before, topos inscriptions appear to be the characteristic feature of village epigraphy. Besides a true predilection for the practice by village associations, their popularity in rural contexts may be due to the state of the archaeological findings: their presence may be more easily documented in areas less populated, especially if later subject to human abandonment and desertification, rather than in larger urban centres with continuous patterns of habitation throughout their history and constant reuse of material—with its subsequent loss—especially if of modest dimensions, as topos inscriptions usually are (their average height is around fifty centimetres). The execution of the texts of the topos inscriptions often presents a low level of formality, and the layout can be somewhat inaccurate. When provided with some degree of decoration, topos inscriptions have either Greek or (mostly) Egyptian motifs. If the synodos of gooseherds of Theadelphia in the Arsinoite ¹⁶ On the Demotic regulations, see Cenival (1972). On the deipneteria of Tebtynis, see Rondot (2004), 150–2, 158–9, 184–7, 197–200.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

196

Epigraphic Habits of Private Associations

Fig. 11.16. CPI 220: Dedication by the synodos of Pramarres

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Mario C. D. Paganini

197

Fig. 11.17. CPI 256: Dedication by the sitometrai of Ptolemais Euergetis

Nome (CPI 241 TM 8156 CAPInv. 63) decided to set up their topos inscription as part of a Doric columnette in the first courtyard of the temple of Pnepheros (Fig. 11.20), most associations preferred to adorn their topos inscriptions with reliefs with Egyptian offering scenes (e.g. Figs. 11.21 and 11.22). The choice of decoration is not always the one we would expect on the basis of the status of the dedicants: for instance, in the case of the already mentioned ex-ephebes under Asklepiades (CPI 295 TM 6407 CAPInv. 74), this group of people with a past in the local gymnasium—a symbol of Greek culture and way of living—set up a topos inscription with an Egyptian offering scene to the crocodile god (Fig. 11.18). Although in some cases it is difficult to find evident reasons—if there were any—for the choice of motifs adopted, the decoration of the topos inscriptions is often dependent on the deity mentioned in the text itself to whose protection the place was entrusted, when not also linked to the identity of those setting up the inscription: the ex-ephebes, in fact, put their place under the protection of the crocodile god Souchos; whereas, for instance, the Esenchebiake synodos (CPI 297 TM 8170 CAPInv. 66) and Snonaitiake synodos (CPI 223 TM 8171 CAPInv. 68), both deriving their name from epithets of Isis, aptly have reliefs depicting that goddess at the head of their

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

198

Epigraphic Habits of Private Associations

Fig. 11.18. CPI 295: Topos inscription of the ex-ephebes under Asklepiades in the Arsinoite Nome

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Mario C. D. Paganini

199

Fig. 11.19. Floor graffito indicating the topos of the association (?) of Nechtharaus at Omboi

Fig. 11.20. CPI 241: Topos inscription of the synodos of gooseherds of Theadelphia

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

200

Epigraphic Habits of Private Associations

Fig. 11.21. CPI 297: Topos inscriptions of the Esenchebiake synodos

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Mario C. D. Paganini

Fig. 11.22. CPI 223: Topos inscriptions of the Snonaitiake synodos

201

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

202

Epigraphic Habits of Private Associations

topos inscriptions (Figs. 11.21 and 11.22)—the Esenchebiake synodos also included a mention of the goddess in their text.¹⁷ From what we have observed in the preceding discussion, it appears that certain typologies of inscriptions tended to prefer certain decorative motifs, drawing from specific artistic and cultural backgrounds. If decrees by associations always followed Greek formal standards of decoration and execution, in dedications there was more freedom to decide whether to use Greek or Egyptian decorative styles, whereas in the topos inscriptions one sees a clear propensity towards Egyptian imagery. This general observation in the trends of the epigraphic habits of private associations should by no means be taken as an absolute rule, nor should it be applied without due consideration to the epigraphic practices of Egypt as a whole: specific circumstances and particularities should always be borne in mind. Although one may be tempted to classify the epigraphic category of decrees as being characterized by Greek style and decorations, the famous (trilingual) priestly decrees (such as the Kanopos decree, CPI 119 TM 6378), for instance, which obviously display fine Egyptian reliefs, pointedly disprove any such blanket theorization—which, however, seems generally valid in some other respects.

11 . 3 I N S C R IP T I O N S I N T H E VI S U A L L A N D S C A P E Inscriptions are often studied by epigraphists and historians as sources of information about the most varied topics (economic, social, religious, cultural history, etc.) and only rarely put in their physical context. The present section endeavours to do exactly this: to assess the role of the epigraphic habits of rural associations in the shaping of the visual landscape of the chora. In doing this, one immediately encounters a difficulty: in many cases we do not know where such inscriptions were placed or displayed within the local space. If in decrees there might be the mention of the place where the stele is to be set up, for dedications and topos inscriptions such information is generally not given: the localization of the inscriptions is, therefore, left to the archaeological context— often unhelpful—or to the format of the inscription itself (if part of an architectural element, such as an architrave or lintel, for instance). Therefore, ¹⁷ In the case of the σύνοδος γεωργῶν ἰδίων of Euhemeria in the Arsinoite Nome (CPI 227 TM 91994 CAPInv. 65), for instance, there are no immediate reasons (either in the text or in the nomenclature of the group) for their decision to adorn their topos inscription with a relief of a seated, bearded Egyptian god and a deified crocodile: devotion to these deities by the association may have played a role in the matter, as well as the simple local availability of the imagery to the stonecutters.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Mario C. D. Paganini

203

most of the time we do not know anything certain about the place within the local space where the inscriptions stood, and we can only speculate. In this respect, in the case of a Hellenistic polis, we would not be surprised to find abundant examples of epigraphic and architectural monumentality, which created landmarks in the local topography; benefactors spent money on the erection, renovation, or monumentalization of buildings and their acts of generosity were immortalized on stones in various—usually very visible— fashions, giving specific shape to the public space. Associations in the Hellenistic poleis acted in the same way: they set up buildings, altars, honorific inscriptions, statues, etc. both in the private and in the public space (in their clubhouses vs temples or the agora). The question is now to see whether something similar happened at village level too and whether associations left a (significant) mark on the visual landscape of the villages and towns of Ptolemaic Egypt. On the basis of what can be gathered from their epigraphic habits, it seems certain that they did. In default of institutionalized public bodies, associations were, in fact, making a fundamental contribution in shaping the rural visual space, alongside the temples and the military.¹⁸ Although the full extent of such a role will probably remain largely unquantifiable due to the dispersed nature of the findings, on the basis of the extant evidence and with the help of some fictional abstraction we can reconstruct the impact of associations in the visual space of a village or small town of Ptolemaic Egypt. The centre of the village and its life is the temple and the dromos, with its pylons, shrines, courtyards, and stalls of vendors; priestly lodgings complete the ensemble. Along the dromos and in the first courtyards of the temple, banquet halls of various size and topos inscriptions visibly advertise the meeting places of associations, which gather on established days for communal celebrations. Land or built space belonging to associations is also found against the precinct of the sanctuaries or adjoining the dromos, all with their inscriptions advertising how the premises belong to the club and are entrusted to the protection of a specific deity to whom the association pays tribute. Shrines and temples of various sizes are built and restored by associations, as the inscriptions at their entrance proudly state. But the presence of associations is not only felt in the temple complex. Altars are paid for by associations and placed in various locations, with their dedicatory inscriptions, thus showing the devotion of the associations to the gods. Statues of gods and mortals who were benefactors of the association are set up in temples as well as on private buildings and in public space; they give testimony of the association’s gratitude towards its benefactors, while prompting further euergetism. Clubhouses also stand as proper and independent buildings here and there. Some ¹⁸ See also Fischer-Bovet, Ch. 9 of this volume. On the army in Ptolemaic Egypt more generally, see Fischer-Bovet (2014a) and Scheuble-Reiter (2012).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

204

Epigraphic Habits of Private Associations

resemble simple private dwellings with one or two rooms; others can be grander and stand out amongst the mud-brick houses: they can have monumental entrances covered in fine inscriptions and expensive decorations, with colonnades, marbles, porticoes, halls for banquets and other gatherings, a gymnasium, plenty of statues, busts, and stelai. Some clubhouses as well as shrines and altars of associations can become specific landmarks in the topography of the village, together with other structures of importance for local life, such as the temple, granaries, bathhouses, dovecotes, banks, garrisons, record offices, and canals. Although so far we have no epigraphic evidence of associations’ tombs for Egypt, associations could leave their mark in the landscape of necropoleis too.¹⁹

11.4 THE XENOI APOLLONIATAI OF HERMOPOLIS MAGNA The case of the association of the xenoi Apolloniatai (CAPInv. 194) of Hermopolis Magna, capital of the Hermopolite Nome, is a good example that embodies the impact that private associations could have on their local communities and their physical space, also over extended periods of time. This is, in fact, the case of one of the longest-lasting associations attested in our records—another certainly being the technitai of Dionysos, indubitably of different character and diffusion—with a documented time span of two or three hundred years, as well as one example of a case in which papyrology and epigraphy complement one another. The παρεϕεδρεύοντες ἐν Ἑρμοῦ πόλει ξένοι Ἀπολλωνιᾶται (together with their συνπολιτευόμενοι κτίσται) dedicated a temple with its enclosure and appurtenances (τὰ συγκύροντα πάντα) to Apollo in 79/8 , setting up two very similar inscriptions recording the fact (CPI 319 TM 7099 and CPI 320 TM 6298: Figs. 11.5 and 11.6).²⁰ The group was formed by soldiers stationed in the garrison at Hermopolis Magna, whose names are, in fact, recorded according to their six military units (some of them with their position within the military hierarchy). The onomastics point to an Idumaean origin of the group, although Greek or Hellenized names are generally employed.²¹ The group had ¹⁹ On necropoleis as places of social interaction, see Dhennin (2015). ²⁰ Another (fragmentary) inscription from the garrison of Hermopolis Magna (CPI 315 TM 6537, c.125 ), taken into account by Fraser (2007) in one of his last publications, records members of the contingent of the garrison, but there is no evidence to link them to the xenoi Apolloniatai nor to suggest that they were organized in an association (pace Fraser). ²¹ The phenomenon of the increasing replacement of Semitic names of the older generations with Greek names in the younger generations is attested in the decree by the Idumaean κοινὸν τῶν κτιστῶν of Memphis (CPI 200 TM 6421 CAPInv. 163): Thompson Crawford (1984), 1072.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Mario C. D. Paganini

205

religious officials: an ἀρχιερεύς (high priest), a ἱεραύλης (flute-player), and a ἱεροψάλτης (chanter), who were involved in the performance of chants and rituals in their own Semitic tongue and following their own traditions. We know this for certain thanks to a second/third-century  papyrus that contains the fragmentary proceedings of a trial against the same association:²² the papyrus states that the group—centuries after their temple dedication— still performed religious ceremonies ‘in a foreign language’ (γλώττῃ ξενικῇ) and with foreign sacrificial practices. Furthermore, the papyrus mentions the temple dedication of 79/78  and the inscriptions that were set up to commemorate the fact; they obviously had been standing for centuries and had probably become a recognizable landmark in the topography of Hermopolis Magna. The proceedings preserved on papyrus, in fact, record—pretty much verbatim—a copy of the text of the inscriptions themselves. Thanks to this papyrus, therefore, we know that the association of the xenoi Apolloniatai continued to exist for centuries, perpetuating their traditions unaltered (at least in religious matters); this meant that they had in place a system—clearly formalized or not—by means of which their religious officials were taught, generation after generation, to perform rites in their ‘foreign tongue’ and according to their customs. This, of course, does not tell us much about the actual language proficiency of the membership in general or even of the officials themselves: knowledge of the language may have been strictly limited to the religious context.²³ The fact that the names recorded in the list appear to be generally of Greek or Hellenized flavour seems to suggest that, although the original membership of the association may have been ethnically Idumaean, the members simply became more and more Hellenes—over time the group (and the soldiers of the garrison) probably also welcomed members from different backgrounds from the original one; in Roman times a link with the army can no longer be supposed. In this respect, the fact that they had the name of xenoi Apolloniatai is of no particular consequence for the membership’s actual make-up: associations’ names are chosen when they mean something for the members (or the founder), but tend to remain unaltered over time, also when that original meaning is lost or becomes no longer relevant.²⁴ ²² P.Giss. 99. ²³ Until the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (1962–1965), for instance, the Roman Catholic Church used Latin for their liturgy: the faithful generally recited prayers and hymns in Latin, although they were (no longer) Latin speakers. Another similar example is Piana degli Albanesi in Sicily: even today the community of Roman Catholic faithful perform their rites in Greek, following the Byzantine liturgy and chant traditions introduced in the fifteenth century by Albanian refugees and handed down orally ever since. However, the people of Piana degli Albanesi are not Greek speakers: they all speak Italian, and many speak Arbëresh, a variant of the Albanian language family. ²⁴ This trend is present also in modern times. It suffices to think of Masonry, for instance: this association retains its original name from the fraternities of stonemasons of the Middle Ages, although nowadays it contains hardly any stoneworkers.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

206

Epigraphic Habits of Private Associations

It is not known when the xenoi Apolloniatai were founded, but it seems unlikely that this had happened sometime close to the temple dedication of 79/78 : their personal names and those of their fathers, in fact, suggest a good level of integration in the environment of Egypt.²⁵ Regardless of the date of foundation of the association, their temple and inscriptions still stood fast, seemingly well known and visible to outsiders in the urban setting of Hermopolis Magna when the proceedings of the trial were produced centuries after the inscriptions were first set up. And by a fortunate coincidence of events, those very inscriptions and proceedings have survived the hostilities of time: papyrology and epigraphy together can now perpetuate the story of the xenoi Apolloniatai.

11.5 CONCLUSION S Some main points can be gathered from the preceding which can help to illustrate the role that epigraphic habits played in the life of associations and their impact on local communities in the Ptolemaic chora. Together with recording their business on papyrus and other perishable materials, associations entrusted their acts, decisions, and dealings to the more lasting and sometimes monumental medium of inscriptions. Practical reasons as well as a desire for publicity drove them to do so. In some cases, in fact, inscriptions were necessary to achieve the main purpose of the association’s particular piece of business (for instance, in order to signal some physical property, a stone such as a topos inscription or other visible architectonic element was required); in other cases they were simply chosen as a means to publicize the associations and their acts (in the case of decrees, for instance, the setting up of an inscription was not necessary for the validity of the decisions taken but was only done to show tangibly—to the association’s members and, sometimes, to outsiders—what the association had decided). The typologies of inscriptions set up by associations are limited to decrees (often of honorific character), dedications, and topos inscriptions—this last type is particularly represented in the villages of Ptolemaic Egypt. These inscriptions attest to the economic, religious, cultural, social, and building activities of associations, thus providing testimony of their general involvement in the local environment: associations paid for the construction or restoration of buildings, the setting up of statues, the purchase of objects and property, as well as of offerings, and were visible entities in the physical ²⁵ Other Idumaean groups are attested as being organized in associations in Memphis from the second century : see CPI 200 TM 6421 CAPInv. 163 (and CPI 202 TM 6572 CAPInv. 181 from probably the early first century ).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Mario C. D. Paganini

207

life of their communities, through their presence at meeting places, assemblies, sacrifices, and communal ceremonies. Given their distribution throughout the country—in villages, towns, cities, and Greek poleis—one may wonder whether there were differences in the epigraphy of associations based on geography. Or, to put it differently, whether associations in the chora were setting up different inscriptions from those in the poleis. Although local differences did certainly occur, pretty much all the typologies of epigraphic habits are present in the chora and in the poleis (although in different proportions)—the exception being, as indicated, the topos inscriptions. In this respect, the state of archaeological findings greatly influences the picture. However, it seems that the association’s dealings and social background, not the place, ultimately decided the format and typology of the inscriptions produced. Furthermore, a model for rural epigraphy cannot always be easily identified: assuming a priori that the inscriptions of the poleis always constituted the model is unwise. Much depends on the format of the inscriptions themselves. In some cases, such as decrees, one may find possible models in the civic epigraphic habits; however, ‘internal’ cross influences from associations’ practices and parallel developments can also be presumed to a certain extent. On the other hand, in the case of dedications, for instance, religious practices of both Greek and Egyptian tradition played an important role in the formal establishment of the inscriptions. It is, therefore, difficult—if not impossible— to reconstruct a model that is at all applicable or useful. From the point of view of the texts, given the fact that the inscriptions taken into account here are all written in Greek, the standard Greek formulae and formal principles are obviously generally followed. What is certain from the epigraphy in the chora of Ptolemaic Egypt is that associations played an important role in giving a specific shape to the physical landscape of the village or town where they were active. Their building activities, together with their epigraphic habits, contributed—sometimes greatly—to the ‘urban’ development of the villages. In an environment generally without independent institutionalized public bodies, associations collaborated with temples and the army in setting up recognizable landmarks, developing the physical and architectonic features of local topography.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

12 The Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions The Metrical Texts Simon Hornblower

12.1 O VERV IEW My role in the CPI project is to edit or re-edit the metrical inscriptions from Egypt in the Ptolemaic period. In this chapter, I explain why we have included the metrical inscriptions at all, although it seems that Fraser did not intend to edit them; and I discuss our decision to include only two of the Jewish epigrams from Egypt: the date of most of them is more likely to be early in the Roman period than the Ptolemaic. In Sections 12.2 and 12.3, I discuss three of the longer epigrams, chosen for their historical and/or literary interest; the Appendix provides texts and translations of all of them. There are about fifty Ptolemaic metrical texts in all, including one or two whose metrical character is dubious. Most are in elegiac couplets or other mixtures of hexameters and pentameters; two (CPI 63 TM 7211 I.Métriques 63 and CPI 569 TM 56504 I.Métriques 162) are in iambics. They are a mix of dedications and epitaphs; epitaphs preponderate (36). There are also four long Isiac hymns (CPI 281 TM 6304–7 I.Métriques 175). The Paneion or sanctuary to Pan (Egyptian Min) at El-Kanais in the Thebaid (modern Resedieh)¹ provides some dedicatory thank-offerings, mostly short, but one long and elaborate as will be seen. Of the thirty-six epitaphs, a depressing total of five are for young women who died in childbirth, a common theme in epitaphs and a common event in life. They died in agony, like Agathokleia (CPI 65 TM 104326 I.Métriques 30), who ‘encountered no gentle pangs when her child came to the light’. The reasons are likely to have been haemorrhaging, puerperal fever, and exhaustion, compounded by youth: many were hardly

¹ Barr. map 80 C2, TM GEO 2047; Pleiades 786040. Simon Hornblower, The Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions: The Metrical Texts In: The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt. Edited by: Alan Bowman and Charles Crowther, Oxford University Press (2020). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198858225.003.0012

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Simon Hornblower

209

more than girls. In a slightly different category from these unfortunates was a possibly Jewish woman of 25 called Dosithea, who seems to have died of illness in pregnancy, and so to have escaped the pains of childbirth (CPI 112 TM 7134 I.Métriques 37). A more certainly Jewish epitaph (CPI 125 TM 104125 I. Métriques 14) is for a man called Demas, praised because he helped many by his σύνεσις (understanding) or possibly skill (σοφία). In their edition of this text in the appendix to CPJ 3, no. 1490 D. M. Lewis and P. J. Parsons thought him a doctor. A. Wilhelm’s restoration of line 5 would yield the word πολίτευμα, the mot juste for a self-regulating Jewish community.² The gymnasium features in two epitaphs: one is for a gymnasiarch, an office often connected with Ptolemaic ruler cult (CPI 349 TM 43971 I. Métriques 4). The other (CPI 62 TM 7135 I. Métriques 62) is for a young man who died at Karian Kaunos. His father regrets that his son will no longer ‘rejoice [with the other young men] in the shady ground of the gymnasium’ (γυμνασίου σκιερῶι γηθόσυνος δαπέδωι). It is a mystery why Fraser did not include any of these appealing metrical texts in his intended corpus. A draft preface preserved among his papers makes no mention of them and offers no insight into their omission. One possible explanation is that he saw himself as redoing the Ptolemaic parts of the OGIS of Dittenberger, who—there and in the Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum—was very parsimonious with metrical texts, even those of clear historical importance.³ But OGIS was a selection, whereas Fraser planned a corpus, and this word implies completeness. The puzzle is compounded by Fraser’s own interest, manifested in his reporting and even editing of new metrical texts in the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, and by his own literary discussions in the epigram chapter of Ptolemaic Alexandria (Ch. 10.iii). I do not think he can have taken the view that epigrams are of no interest to historians, even on a narrowly politico-military definition of history. There is plenty for the social historian, as indicated by the thematic range of the poems I have mentioned; and it will be seen that high politics do, in fact, impinge on two of the epigrams I have chosen for detailed treatment. The metrical inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt were very well published by É. Bernand half a century ago, in 1969, with French translations and extremely ample apparatus and commentary (I.Métriques). Étienne was twin brother of that other prolific Egyptologist and epigrapher, André Bernand.

² More politically informative is JIGRE 39 (I. Métriques 16 TM 103770, probably of the Roman period; see Section 12.2) for Abramos, who is praised as πολιταρχῶν (‘chief magistrate’: this probably hints at the noun πολίτευμα) and was crowned in his wisdom by a magistracy exercised over all the Jewish people in the city. For the correct interpretation of this remarkable text, see Robert (1940). ³ An example: the metrical inscription (Moretti (1953), no. 41, Ebert (1972), no. 64; tr. Austin², no. 140) recording the victory at the Nemean Games of Diotimos of Phoenician Sidon in c.200  is of great interest for the Hellenistic historian, as shown by van Bremen (2007), 347. It was first published in 1862, but was ignored by Dittenberger.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

210

The CPI Metrical Texts

Étienne’s enormous metrical inscriptions volume was approved by J. and L. Robert in the Bulletin Epigraphique,⁴ which is high praise indeed. So, it may be asked, why do they need republishing? There are several answers: (1) In the decades since the publication of I.Métriques, there has been an explosion of literary work on Greek epigram generally and Hellenistic epigram in particular. This work includes an entire Brill’s Companion devoted to Hellenistic epigram, a monograph by Tsagalis, and an edited collection by Baumbach and the Petrovics. There has also been important epigraphic work, such as Peter Hansen’s two volumes of Carmina epigraphica graeca, and the Merkelbach and Stauber multivolume edition of the epigrams from the Greek east.⁵ I. and A. Petrovic are working on a continuation of Hansen’s work into the Hellenistic period, although we gather that they will be confining themselves to material from Delphi and the Peloponnese. (2) A few metrical inscriptions from Egypt have been found since 1969, and two of these are Ptolemaic in date. Thus, Bernand himself, when nearly 80, published a four-line epigram in 2002, but he did so surprisingly badly, and the text and interpretation were much improved by W. Clarysse and M. Huys the following year.⁶ The other post-1969 epigram comes from Bernand’s own archive and was generously put at the disposal of the CPI team by the late Professor François Kayser. It was published by Alan Griffiths and myself in 2016.⁷ (3) Finally, Bernand’s edition was in most respects very elaborate, and a more succinct and chronologically limited edition may be found more manageable. On the other hand, he was content to say vaguely that a word or phrase was Kallimachean or Homeric or whatever, without giving specific references. Memorable verse texts include the epitaph on a cobra, spoken as if in the first person: ‘pour forth a loud voice in lament for me, the long-lived sacred cobra who went down to join the dead, [slain] by wicked hands. What does it profit you, most dreadful of men, to have deprived me of life?’ The inscription (CPI 203 TM 107211 I.Métriques 102) is accompanied by a pictorial representation of the murdered creature rearing up indignantly. Notable too are the highregister epic borrowings in the epigram for Diazelmis (CPI 173 TM 43932 I.Métriques 10), who in the course of a long life ‘commanded a bloodthirsty band of Enyalios, in the vales of Asia, when repelling brigands’; he is made to ⁴ BE 1970, 651. ⁵ Bing and Bruss (2007); Tsagalis (2008); Baumbach, Petrovic, and Petrovic (2010); CEG; SGO. ⁶ CPI 99, TM 135626; see É. Bernand (2002), Clarysse and Huys (2003). ⁷ Hornblower and Griffiths (2016); CPI 286 TM 703113.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Simon Hornblower

211

boast that he had ‘plundered the booty of the local inhabitants who had been subdued by the spear’ (the word for this is δορίδμητος, an elevated hapax word, but of obvious meaning). The usual view that Diazelmis is a Thracian name is precarious; it rests only on the similarity of the ending to that of the Odrysian king Hebryzelmis in a fourth-century  inscription from Athens.⁸ Or there is Ammonios, who died young, ‘without achieving the complete honour of the scribal pen’, γραϕίδος τέχνας (CPI 69 TM 43990 I.Métriques 64). Equally moving are the two unpretentious lines for little Menneas, depicted on the accompanying relief as a young naked male child holding a goose and feeding a dog which jumps up at him (CPI 64 TM 7183 I.Métriques 92). Our decision to exclude all but two of the dozen Jewish epigrams in the excellent collection of the Jewish inscriptions of Roman Egypt edited by Horbury and Noy (JIGRE nos. 23, 29–40), given that the editors allow the possibility that the epigrams are of Ptolemaic date, calls for explanation. Most of these texts come from just one Egyptian site, the necropolis of Leontopolis, modern Tell-el-Yahoudieh, the ‘hill of the Jew’, in the southern Delta; the best recent discussion of the Jewish community there is by W. Ameling.⁹ The inscriptions were first published by C. C. Edgar in 1922, but excavation, and looting, began earlier than that.¹⁰ The history of the ancient Leontopolis settlement began in the middle of the second century , when Ptolemy VI Philometor gave a Jew called Onias permission to build a temple and some land to build it on. This is in Josephus, who in one passage quotes the earlier writer Strabo for ‘the place of Onias’.¹¹ But Strabo and Josephus are not the only evidence: one of the inscribed epigrams (JIGRE, no. 38, line 4) also alludes specifically to the area as the ‘land of Onias’, and this is a good poem to start with, because it is rightly agreed to be the most accomplished of the set from the literary point of view. It commemorates a married but childless young woman of 20 who has the dynastic name of Arsinoe. It takes the form of a dialogue between a passer-by and the deceased person, a sophisticated feature.¹² Leontopolis was clearly a flourishing centre of Hellenized culture. It has even been suggested that some of the earlier Sibylline Oracles originated there.¹³ The word ‘Hellenization’ is out of fashion in these post-colonial days, because of its supposed implication that a higher culture, i.e. Greek paideia, was imposed on or ingested by a lower or recipient culture. I do not

⁸ Tod (1948), no. 117. ⁹ Ameling (2008). See also Capponi (2007). ¹⁰ É. Bernand (1983) for the history of the site. ¹¹ AJ 12.388; FGrHist 91 Strabo F 4 = Jos. AJ 13.287. ¹² On dialogue form in Greek epigrams, as in JIGRE, no. 38 (and cf. perhaps no. 29, line 7), see Bettenworth (2007) 86–8, Tsagalis (2008), 253 and 257–8, Schmitz (2010), 27–9, Tueller (2010), 54–37, Hanink (2010), 25. For ‘Simonides’, Page, FGE, lines 808–9 (date uncertain), and for Leonidas of Taras, Gow and Page, HE, lines 2395–402 (mid-third century ). ¹³ Goodman (1986), 638.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

212

The CPI Metrical Texts

use it in an evaluative sense, but simply to indicate mix or coexistence of cultures. If—as seems virtually certain—the necropolis does not antedate the foundation of Leontopolis by Onias in the mid-second century , the epigrams all post-date the great period of Hellenistic poetry in the third century , and their authors could therefore have been influenced by Kallimachos, Leonidas, and the other famous literary epigrammatists. At least, they could have been influenced as far as mere chronology goes; whether they were or not will depend on how culturally isolated we take Leontopolis to have been, and how far we judge the thought and idiom of the epigrams to rise above the familiar or even commonplace. Since we have no Hebrew verse epitaphs, it is hard to say how Jewish the thought is. The terminal dates of the items in the Leontopolis dossier are routinely given by Horbury and Noy in JIGRE as early second century , the date of the Jewish revolt at the end of the reign of Trajan in  115–17. So they regularly say ‘mid-second century  to early second century ’ for individual texts. This is a very wide margin—nearly three centuries—which ought to be narrowed if possible. Letter-forms alone ought to enable greater precision. At JIGRE, p. 65 (on no. 32), Horbury and Noy provide a general statement about the date of Edgar’s (1922) group of texts. There they note that Edgar dated the whole Leontopolis group to the ‘Augustan age’, but they go on to say that the possible range of dates for the group runs from the mid-second century  to the Trajanic revolt of  115–17. On the same page they say that only one of Edgar’s 1922 group is fully dated, i.e. JIGRE, no. 84 (prose text, ‘in year 3 of Caesar’). This is true as far as it goes, but slightly misleading, because their no. 40 (metrical) is dated to ‘the 37th year of Caesar’ i.e.  8. This was found earlier than 1922. In their commentary on the text for Demas (see earlier in this section above, p. 209), they point out that that text, supposedly dated in line 7 to the 54th year of some ruler, ought to mean that Demas died in 117 , because the ruler has to be Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II. They go on to say ‘this is a much earlier date than those to which the Tell elYehoudieh/Leontopolis texts are usually assigned, and underlines the possibility that a number may be Ptolemaic rather than Roman’. It is not obvious why this one text should influence the dating of others, given that the site and cemetery were in use for a long time. In any case we must look harder at Demas, because, if 117  is right, his epitaph is easily the earliest of the entire Leontopolis dossier. Bernand tends to opt for ‘haute époque impériale’ for these texts. Louis Robert regarded JIGRE, no. 39 (for Abramos) as early Imperial.¹⁴ Charles Crowther has examined the lettering of the whole batch and thinks that none

¹⁴ Robert (1940), 23 n. 4.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Simon Hornblower

213

looks particularly Ptolemaic; but he noted that the Demas inscription has a number of odd features: lines 7–8, which give the date, are heavily damaged and the reading of line 7 is insecure at best. The Demas epigram itself seems to be cut over an erasure; there are traces of earlier lettering immediately below line 6 (noticed by Edgar and visible enough in Bernand’s photo), possibly above and below 1, between 2 and 3 and perhaps below 4. Crowther (p. c.) makes the radical and attractive suggestion that lines 7–8 belong with this earlier text rather than with the Demas epigram. If so, the regnal year 54 (in any case doubtfully read) would cease to be evidence for Demas and his epigram. In a special category is JIGRE, no. 114 (CPJ 3 1489 TM 104059 I.Métriques 69) from Demerdash near Heliopolis, not from Leontopolis. This too is probably Imperial. It uses the word πολῖται, which may possibly hint at the status of πολίτευμα. ὁμοϕροσύνη at line 6 recalls Odysseus to Nausikaa in Odyssey 6.183–4: married couples who are of the same mind, ὁμοϕρονέοντες, cause great pain to their enemies. The reading at line 8 is frustratingly doubtful (I was buried near ἀλλογενῶν or αἱμογενῶν, strangers or blood-relatives?). To sum up, we have decided to exclude the Leontopolis epigrams as a group. But we have included Demas as being controversial, and as providing a platform on which to discuss the dating question. We have also included Dosithea from Schedia (CPI 112 TM 7134 I.Métriques 37), although D. M. Lewis by implication did not think her Jewish, by excluding her funerary epigram from his appendix to CPJ 3. The main reason for supposing her to be Jewish is her name, which is of a non-specific theophoric type—i.e. formed from a divine name—common among Hellenized Jews. (Pagan examples are Apollonios and Dionysios, which are far and away the commonest ancient Greek personal names at all times and places, derived from Apollo and Dionysos). Other well-known examples of such non-specific theophoric Jewish names are Timotheos (‘he who honours god’) and Theodosios in JIGRE, no. 38. Horbury and Noy quote Tcherikover (CPJ 1, p. 19) for the claim that Dositheos, the masculine form of Dosithea, is borne almost exclusively by Hellenized Jews in the Hellenistic period. Now that eight volumes of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names are available, that formulation (‘almost exclusively’) can be seen to be much too strong. But it remains true that Dositheos is a common Jewish name: there is one in JIGRE itself (no. 34, line 5). And there are two Jewish Dositheoi and a Theodosios from Sedment near Herakleopolis, in a dossier published in 1998, so not available to Horbury and Noy.¹⁵ As for Dosithea, it is also relevant that the find-spot, Schedia near

¹⁵ Robert (1940), 22 n. 7, listed the probably Jewish names in the Leontopolis dossier; see also Ameling (2008), 124. Cf. now SEG 48 (Sedment near Herakleopolis), nos. 1991 and 1996 (Dositheos), 1995 (Theodosios), 1984 (Σαμβαταῖος, i.e. Jewish Shabbethai; cf. JIGRE, no. 40

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

214

The CPI Metrical Texts

Alexandria, was home to a Jewish community, though not such a large one as Leontopolis. It is one of eight Egyptian sites known to have contained synagogues.¹⁶ In Sections 12.2 and 12.3, I concentrate on three other items from the collection. In Section 12.3 I will examine two poems from a dossier of three, all for members of the same elite family, and all signed by an otherwise unknown later second-century  poet called Herodes. Then I offer some concluding remarks about the emotions expressed at second hand in all the epigrams, both Greek and Greek-Jewish. But first, I look at the literary star of the entire collection, a dedication by a man who was saved at sea by Pan.

1 2 . 2 TH E S O N I C E P I P HANY OF P AN ( CPI 56 3 TM 81 4 5 9 , A PP E N D I X 1 2 . 1) This epigram was published as recently as 1945,¹⁷ but the original stone is lost, and is presumably sitting on someone’s mantelpiece in New York City. So all we have is the drawing in the original publication, and this is frustrating because of a radical uncertainty towards the end of the poem. D. L. Page included it in Further Greek Epigrams (1981, lines 1704–17). This unexplained inclusion was contrary to his stated principle (p. ix) not to include epigrams preserved in inscriptions unless they appear also in literary texts. I suppose he simply thought, rightly, that the epigram was an exception to his characteristically dogmatic view, also asserted in the Preface, that the great majority of post-classical inscribed epigrams are ‘of low quality and little interest’. Page’s edition is important because he tried to emend the text. It is a charming poem, probably a dedication, which may show knowledge of Kallimachos; at line 8, the exact combination of words χε̣[ρ]σ̣ὶ ̣[ν ἐ]π̣αγροτά{τα}τα̣ι ς̣ ̣ is Kallimachean (cf. frag. 260.64 Pfeiffer), and the adjective ἔπαγρος is very rare.¹⁸ The dedicant is presumably an elephant hunter; this follows both from the remote southern locations specified and from the gratitude to Pan, god of hunting. But Pan was also protector of sailors and fishermen, so the dedicant owes his life to Pan (Egyptian Min), who blew gently on his reed pipes, i.e. sent a wind when the ships were becalmed. The epiphany of Pan is represented as

line 1). Abramos: JIGRE, no. 39, but for Abramos son of Abdastartos (a Phoenician from Sidon), see Thompson (2012), 82–3 and n. 36. Classical-period Korinthian called Machaon: Thucydides 2.83.4. For Greek personal names, see LPGN. ¹⁶ É. Bernand (1983), 110. ¹⁷ Householder and Prakken (1945). ¹⁸ See the Appendix to this chapter, no. 12.1, line 8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Simon Hornblower

215

purely auditory or ‘sonic’, as in the famous epiphany of Pan to Philippides before the battle of Marathon.¹⁹ D. L. Page,²⁰ by a slight alteration in line 9 (ν[ῦν δέ ] μ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρου not ν[ῦν φί]λε, Ἀλεξάνδρου), produced the excellent sense ‘now bring me safe to Alexandria’ instead of the usual sense ‘now save Alexandria’.²¹ It is strongly in favour of Page that, at line 11, the author speaks of himself (not Alexandria) as potentially ‘saved’, διασωθείς. Page gives parallels for πόλιν (no article) meaning ‘to the city’. If the inscription was intended to be placed in the temple of Pan at Redesieh, east of Apollonopolis Magna (Edfu),²² the prayer for a safe future journey home would make good sense. However, reviewing Page’s collection, Lloyd-Jones²³ suggested that the interpretation adopted by the editio princeps and by Bernand was misguided only in so far as it sought to identify a particular political or military context: there are poetic parallels for a vague closural prayer to save a city. Lloyd-Jones wrote, ‘In order to ask the god to save Alexandria, the poet would not need to know of troubles there; cf. Kallim. fr. 112. 9 or FGE 1565.’²⁴ Lloyd-Jones did not actually say that he thought Page’s interpretation was wrong, and the literary parallels are not compelling (as emended, the prayer reads less abruptly than would a prayer to save Alexandria in the present context); see also above for a particular argument from διασωθείς. Nor, as Gregory Hutchinson points out to us, is the double ϕίλε of the editio princeps attractive (lines 9 and 11; cf. above for the replacement of φί]λε at line 9). Page’s solution depended on an altered reading; only rediscovery of the inscribed object can settle the matter definitively.

1 2 . 3 TH E H E R O D E S DO SS I E R ( CPI 4 0 3 A N D 4 0 4 ) The Herodes dossier consists of three long signed poems, from which I include texts and translations of only two, the epigrams for Apollonios son of Ptolemaios and for Aphrodisia (CPI 404 TM 43972 I.Métriques 5 and CPI 403 TM 43979 I.Métriques 35; see the Appendix to this chapter, nos. 12.2a and 12.2b; and cf. Clarysse in Ch. 10.5.2 of this volume). This dossier is important for two reasons: the family commemorated in three Greek epigrams from Edfu²⁵ (two ¹⁹ Herodotus 6.105, with Petridou (2015), 14, Hornblower and Pelling (2017), 230–2. ²⁰ Page, FGE, 465. ²¹ The interpretation of the editio princeps, accepted by Bernand; also by the Roberts at BE 1949, 228: ‘le dédicant prie le dieu de sauver Alexandrie (sans doute dans la 4e guerre syrienne ou les troubles intérieurs, dans la période 220–203).’ ²² TM GEO 269; Pleiades 785974. ²³ Lloyd-Jones (1990), 229. ²⁴ For such city-saving prayers as hymnic closural formulae, see Homeric Hymn 13, to Demeter 3, Kallimachos, H. 6. 134, Lykophron, Alex. 1474. ²⁵ The sacred name of Edfu was Bakhthis, interestingly attested both in one of Herodes’ epigrams and now in the survey papyrus; see n. 41 below.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

216

The CPI Metrical Texts

men, one woman) is also the subject of Hieroglyphic Egyptian inscribed stelai and is attested on papyri which prove their economic importance; and the poet Herodes raises questions about authorship and borrowing between poets.²⁶ Here is a possible simple stemma of the family commemorated in the Greek and Egyptian material, though there are uncertainties. For instance, it is not certain that Apollonios I was the younger not the older brother of Ptolemaios. Also, some scholars²⁷ identify Apollonios I and II, but we believe they are different people (Fig. 12.1; the subjects of the epigrams are in bold). Euagoras

Pasas II

Aphrodisia/Hatheritis = Ptolemaios

Apollonios I (see above)

Apollonios II

Fig. 12.1. The Family of Ptolemaios—Pamenches

Fig. 12.2 shows a simplified version of the longer stemma at Christensen, Thompson, and Vandorpe (2017), 44, taking account of the Hieroglyphic evidence. Pasas I (fl. III BC)

Pasas II (d. 164–3 BC?)

Ptolemaios/Pamenches (active c. 164–141 BC) = Aphrodisia

Apollonios/Pasas III (d. 103–101 BC)

Chor (Hrw) = Tayris

Pasas IV

Fig. 12.2. The Family of Ptolemaios—Pamenches (simplified) ²⁶ The useful recent edition of our no.12.2a by Pfeiffer (2015), no. 32 discusses the first of these aspects admirably, but entirely neglects the second. ²⁷ Christensen, Thompson, and Vandorpe (2017), 44–5, following Gorre (2009), 17 n. 36.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Simon Hornblower

217

The great interest of these individuals, as of all the family commemorated by Herodes, is that they are also commemorated in Hieroglyphic carved stelai from the same locality, Edfu, ancient Apollonopolis, and are attested in newly published papyrus evidence. They therefore have a double identity, the one expressed by Egyptian names, the other by Greek ones. Furthermore, the flowery poetic tributes of Herodes are closely paralleled by the sentiments expressed in the Hieroglyphic texts. This was first pointed out by Yoyotte (1969), and has been generally accepted (see Pfeiffer (2015) on his no. 32 = CPI 404). Clarysse (1989) added that the local nobility of Edfu resembled the Ptolemies themselves, in that they alternately appeared as Greek gentlemen or as Egyptian priests and nobles according to the circumstances and to the public to which their monuments were directed. There are striking parallels of phrasing and content between the Greek epigrams and the Hieroglyphic texts. The Greek epigrams for Ptolemaios call him ‘the one who, in the armies of Phoibos [Apollonopolis], showed irreproachable courage’ (Aphrodisia’s epigram) and ‘the one who was rewarded by the Euergetai with the headband (μίτρα), sacred honour of the Kinsmen (συγγενεῖς) of the king. The Egyptian inscription for Pamenches-Ptolemaios says he received the golden crown of courage, (μίτρα), and wore the royal gtn, the Greek χιτών. Provisional transliterations and translations of the relevant Hieroglyphic texts are as follows:²⁸ CG 22018: mr mšꜤ sn ny-sw.t wr m tꜢ rsy general, brother of the king, great one in the southern land CG 22050: 5–9, omitting religious titles: mr mšꜤ wr ḥꜤw.ty smr wꜤ.ty / mr smsm ḳn m sky ἰdnw tpy n ḥm=f / ἰr sḫrw=f m-Ꜥ rsy … sn-ny-sw.r PꜤ-šw… Great general and commander, unique friend, chief of the cavalry, brave in battle, top deputy of his majesty, who accomplishes his decisions in the south…brother of the king, Pasais…

So, as is typical, strategos = mr mšꜤ ‘commander of the army’, syngenes = sn nsw ‘brother of the king’, etc. They translate, rather than transcribe, Greek titles. Mixed Graeco-Egyptian ethnicity, of the kind here exemplified, has also been discussed by Gorre.²⁹ Yoyotte’s hypothesis has now been greatly strengthened by the new evidence provided by the Edfu survey. It is now certain that Yoyotte was right to identify the Egyptian Pasas son of Pamenches with Apollonios son of Ptolemaios.³⁰ The Edfu survey has added an extra generation to the family (Pasas I on the longer stemma in Fig. 12.2), and provides precious information on the extensive and valuable kleruchic land ²⁸ CPI will provide revised versions of these texts, with commentaries. ²⁹ See Gorre (2013), based on Gorre (2009). ³⁰ Christensen, Thompson, and Vandorpe (2017), 100, 104–5, nn. on lines 38–40, 74, and 77 of the papyrus.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

218

The CPI Metrical Texts

which Ptolemaios and his son Apollonios received. As the survey’s editors put it: ‘it is clear that their economic standing in the community matched their pre-eminence in other spheres’.³¹ Naturally, it is these ‘other spheres’, especially the military, which are emphasized in the epigrams. I turn now to literary considerations. The poet Herodes is not otherwise known, but, as Fraser remarked, ‘in terms of bulk alone his sixty-five lines entitled him to consideration in the literary history of Ptolemaic Egypt’.³² But he does not rate a mention in modern histories of Hellenistic literature, not even in the 600-page Brill’s Companion edited by Bing and Bruss (2007), a collective work devoted to Hellenistic epigram. And yet (Fraser again) Herodes is one of the very few representatives of Alexandrian poetry of the second century ; the others are Moschos, the author of the Europa, and Isidoros. The only evaluation of his poetry remains that of Wilamowitz; for no obvious reason, Wilamowitz did not deal with CPI 400 TM 6310 I.Métriques 6, although it was published on later pages of the very same issue of the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique as the other two poems which he did discuss.³³ It was bad luck on Herodes to have been the victim of a literary assessment by such a great man. Wilamowitz concluded his treatment by saying that he himself might be thought to have written too many words about a bad poet, ‘einen schlechten Poeten’. But he conceded that in matters of metre, Herodes strove for an elegance which he did not always achieve (Wilamowitz identified only one howler [‘Schnitzer’], the fourth-foot trochaic break at CPI 404, line 17, a breach of the rule known as ‘Hermann’s bridge’. The rule is not inexorable: Homer breaks it and so, nearer Herodes’ own time, did Theokritos.³⁴ If Theokritos could do it, Herodes cannot have been all that bad. Poets avoided obviously ugly combinations, but not all the time. To give one example of striving for elegance: Herodes never ends a hexameter with a single monosyllable, although he does allow himself pairs of end-line monosyllables: ἔτι τὴν σήν at CPI 400, line 21, and CPI 404, line 15, the Homeric οὐδέ τί σὲ χρή, cf., e.g., Homer, Iliad 23.478. Wilamowitz disliked Herodes’ ‘pretentious’ inventions such as βιοκλώστειρα (CPI 400 TM 6310 I.Métriques

³¹ Christensen, Thompson, and Vandorpe (2017), 44. ³² Ptol.Alex. I, 616. If the fragmentary opening lines of CPI 403 TM 43979 I.Métriques 35 are included, the total is more like seventy-two. ³³ Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1900), 222–5 = (1941), 125–7. Wilamowitz’s curious disregard of CPI 400 was not corrected or noted in 1941 by Rudolf Pfeiffer, the editor of the Hellenistic section of vol. 2 of his Kleine Schriften; in the opening paragraph, the italicized editorial reference to BCH 20, 1896 ‘[u. Nachtrag 460]’ is not to Jouguet’s publication of I.Métriques 6 (Jouguet (1896), 462–4), but to his further thoughts about the other two epigrams. The great man’s oversight has misled others. Thus, the entry on the poet Herodes in PW (Radinger (1912)), speaks of him as author of just two epigrams, and is inaccurate about those. ³⁴ West (1982), 37–8 and n. 18, also 155 for Theokritos 18.15, ‘the most notable offence…in a reputable poet’; Magnelli (2007), 180–1; Sens (2010), lxxxvii.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Simon Hornblower

219

6, line 3) and CPI 404, line 15; of these poems only the second appears to have been known to Wilamowitz). In general, he thought Herodes a man of little education, as demonstrated by his inartistic vocabulary, compared to the Syrian epigrammatists. All this seems rather harsh, or at any rate overdone: Herodes is first castigated for meagreness of vocabulary, but then for pretentiousness when he tries for something more lexically ambitious. It is an interesting question whether any of the unsigned poems are by Herodes. Repeated words or even whole lines, however recherché, are not enough. For a striking example of such duplication of phraseology, see CPI 399 TM 7210 I. Métriques 7. This has been attributed to Herodes because of lines 3-4, which express far from conventional sentiments. Translate: ‘Ah! they have made good payment’, etc. This line is almost exactly the same as lines 19–20 of CPI 403 TM 43979 I. Métriques 35, a poem which is actually signed by Herodes. ‘Ah! you made good payment’ etc., though the first half of the pentameter uses slightly different wording. But it would be rash to take that as proof of shared authorship. Tsagalis and Bowie have discussed the ways in which formulae in epigrams might have circulated.³⁵ A fortiori, the same arguments apply to single words, such as ἀτραπιτός, ‘a path’; this is a Homeric variant of ἀτραπός and has obvious attractions for a writer of elegiac couplets. Herodes was noticeably fond of the word, and it also occurs in the (unsigned) CPI 399, but that too is not proof of Herodes’ authorship of that poem. Rather than seeking to attribute them all—signed and unsigned—to Herodes, we should rather accept that certain phrases and even whole lines floated around the Greek world and were available for recycling. An early example of this is the verse oracle in Herodotus, Book 6 given to Glaukos the Spartan, which contains a line also found in Hesiod (see n. 35). It is all the more plausible to suppose that in geographically circumscribed areas like the more Hellenized regions of Egypt, there should have been some borrowing and copying between jobbing poets. There might even have been handbooks or copybooks containing handily reusable phrases like ‘farewell even among the dead’, χαῖρε καὶ ἐν ϕθιμένοις. The ultimate model for this is Homeric, Achilles’ farewell to the dead Patroklos.³⁶ ³⁵ On ‘circulation of formulae’ between poets, see Bowie (2010), 364, discussing ἐν πολέμοι ϕθίμενον νεαρὰν hέβαν ὀλέσαντα, which is line 3 of both CEG 13 (Attica, 575–550 ) and 136 (Argive Heraion, 525–500 ). Cf. also Tsagalis (2008), 53–6 on ‘copybook-texts’. For a literary parallel see Herodotus 6. 86 γ 2, line 7 of oracular poem = Hesiod, Works and Days 285, with Gagné (2013), 279–80, Hornblower and Pelling (2017), 207–8. ³⁶ ‘farewell, even among the dead’: CPI 112 TM 7134 JIGRE, no. 23 (Dosithea, Jewish?), line 10, where the supplementation is virtually guaranteed by CPI 349 TM 43971 I.Métriques 4 line 13 (not Jewish): χαῖρε καὶ ἐν ϕθιμένοις, Πτολεμαῖε. Cf. Lattimore (1942), 57, 67. The ultimate model is Achilles’ farewell to Patroklos: Iliad 23. 179, ‘farewell, Patroklos, even in the house of Hades’, χαῖρέ μοι, ὦ Πάτροκλε, καὶ εἰν Ἀΐδαο δόμοισι. If we want a Jewish parallel for this part of the Dosithea epigram, with its idea of a relationship continuing even after death, cf. perhaps that great poem Psalm 139, verse 8, ‘if I make my bed in Sheol, thou art there’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

220

The CPI Metrical Texts

So far, I have avoided the word ‘emotion’, although it has been the subject of intensive work in recent years among classicists and ancient historians.³⁷ How far do these epigrams reflect real emotions? The inscribed epitaphs are status markers, to be sure, and their commissioning was a claim to status. But it would be a mistake to deny that the people who paid for them were not at the same time expressing real emotions and religious feelings. The problem is most acute where the Jewish epigrams are concerned: how can Jewish patrons have been happy to commemorate their kin with pagan Greek formulae? (It seems generally agreed that the Greek epigrams for Jewish patrons are virtually indistinguishable from those for Greek ones).³⁸ D. M. Lewis, discussing the Jewish epigrams (but the point has far wider applicability), suggested that the greater the level of literary accomplishment, the less likely the epitaph is to reflect the views of the deceased and her family. He continued, ‘granted that they wished to commemorate the dead with an elegant Greek poem, it is still not clear that they would fully accept the presuppositions of the poet they hired’.³⁹ That must be right, though the intriguing possibility—by implication rejected by Lewis—that the poets themselves were Greek-educated Jews cannot actually be excluded. Let us look more closely at literary and metrical accomplishment. The level of competence and even elegance of the Jewish dossier is pretty high, but there are troughs, as well as the peaks of which JIGRE, no. 38 TM 6271 I.Métriques 43, the dialogue epigram, is the outstanding example. Literary quality is subjective, metricality less so, and I concentrate mainly on that. There are false quantities in these Jewish epigrams, to be sure, even allowing for the usual convention in inscribed Greek epigrams by which personal names are allowed special metrical licence. Thus in JIGRE, no. 29, TM 103879 I.Métriques 70 line 3 is missing a long syllable and line 5 two shorts are needed before πίστις. Line 7, δεῦρ᾽ ἴθι…, contains two personal names, but is a terrible hexameter anyway. I have already mentioned the half-line at the end of the poem, line 8. In JIGRE, no. 30 TM 10425 I.Métriques 14, line 4, the unusual spelling and trochaic scansion of βοιθός, i.e. βοηθός or helper, earns this inscription a citation in the revised supplement of LSJ, so it would be unfair to call it an actual error. Lewis commented on JIGRE, no. 35 TM 104019 I.Métriques 94 for a five-year-old child, that ‘the sentiments are irreproachable; the verse and the cutting are as bad as it could be’. JIGRE, no. 36 TM 104020 I.Métriques 44 for Rachelis can be supplemented so as to start off all right, but the metre goes to pieces half ³⁷ See the entry ‘Emotions’ by A. Ch[aniotis] in OCD⁴. ³⁸ ‘Jewish epitaphs hardly differ from their pagan counterparts’: van der Horst (1991), 40; for similar conclusions, see Ameling (2008) and JIGRE, passim. Note however that van der Horst suggests that certain adjectives, such as those beginning ϕιλο-, were specially favoured by Jewish patrons. But examples of this in metrical texts are few. See JIGRE, nos. 30, line 8 (prose addition of words including πασίϕιλε), and 114, line 7, where ϕιλάδελϕος is thought to refer to the deceased’s relationship with the whole Jewish community. ³⁹ Lewis (1964), 162, commentary on his no. 1529 (epitaph for Rachelis) = JIGRE, no. 36.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Simon Hornblower

221

way through. Horbury and Noy comment with charitable restraint that ‘lines 4–5 can be discerned as verse only by the friendly ear’. In JIGRE, no. 39 TM 103770 I.Métriques 16 for Abramos the politarch, something has gone wrong at the end of line 10, and the metre can be saved only by emendation. But emendation is not easy because on any interpretation the thought in that couplet is obscurely and awkwardly expressed, as are lines 3–4. And so on. But it must be emphasized that this sort of thing is just as common among the pagan Greek epigrams from the Ptolemaic period. At a far lower level of attainment, CPI 624 I.Métriques 12 TM 47465, a four-line Ptolemaic epigram first published by Fraser and Maas in 1955, is written in rough Greek throughout, and line 3 cannot be made to scan, even by the friendliest of ears. Thus, nothing can be inferred about Jews and Judaism from the metrical lapses or anomalies to be found in the less proficient of the Jewish epigrams. This is provinciality, no more, no less. Although I agree with Lewis, therefore, that an elegantly expressed and metrically faultless poem is unlikely to be a vehicle for the views of the patron rather than the poet, I am not sure the converse is true. That is, a bad poem is no guarantee that the patron speaks in his or her own voice. Badness is evidence of—badness, and says no more about the patrons than that they could not or would not pay for anything or anyone better. Or they paid a lot for inferior quality and were stuck with it. In any case, we must ask whether the patrons would have minded bad verse, provided it expressed what they wanted to be said. A modern analogy might be the shops which sell greetings cards containing short rhyming poems appropriate for all the big events of life: births, birthdays, engagements, weddings, retirements, bereavements. The poems are normally not ‘signed’, and their formulae recur. Nowadays it is even possible that the poems are actually computer-generated. But who cares? They fulfil a need, and it is notable that such shops did not go out of business during the 2008 financial recession. More articulate and educated people may look down snobbishly on such poems, and prefer to buy postcards from museums and art galleries to write their own messages. But emotions can be no less real for being expressed in someone else’s apparently formulaic, even trite words. It is particularly interesting that Jewish families in ancient Egypt should have commissioned Greek poems to express their emotions. In JIGRE, no. 31 TM 104126 I.Métriques 84, the dead Jewish girl says that she has received the hateful tomb as her bridal chamber. It is easy to amass tragic and other Greek parallels for this thought, which finds its most celebrated, if enigmatic early expression in the two-line archaic epigram of a young woman from Attika called Phrasikleia (‘the tomb of Phrasikleia. I shall always be called a maiden, having received this name from the gods instead of marriage’).⁴⁰ But it would be a mistake to insist that ⁴⁰ See Sophokles, Antigone, 816, Ἀχέροντι νυμϕεύσω; CEG, no. 24 (Phrasikleia; cf. J. Svenbro, Phrasikleia (1993)), with Lattimore (1942), 192–4, citing Inscriptiones Creticae I.5.41, lines 3–4, ‘my parents, brother and husband did not enjoy my beauty, but gloomy Hades did’. Egypt: I.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

222

The CPI Metrical Texts

the Jewish epigram carries a great weight of literary learning, though it is in a recognizably Greek pagan idiom. Surely this stylish Greek epitaph shows knowledge not of Phrasikleia’s epitaph or of Sophocles’ Antigone, but of other and more nearly contemporary Greek epitaphs written in Egypt, or perhaps farther afield, for similarly bereaved customers. As for the epigram formula ‘farewell even among the dead’, the thought is, as we have seen, ultimately Homeric. In this chapter, I hope to have shown not only that the inscribed epigrams deserve a place in a corpus of Ptolemaic inscriptions, but also that they have something to offer to the student of Hellenistic literature. And to the student of history: some of them, notably the poems in the Herodes dossier, throw important light on Graeco-Egyptian ethnicity, when studied alongside social and economic evidence from very different types of source.

APPENDIX

(A full critical edition of each text will be provided in CPI) 12.1. Thanksgiving (?dedication) to Pan for rescue from Trogodytes, etc. CPI 563 TM 81459 I.Métriques 164, FGE 1704–17. Probably from El-Kanais, third century  Π̣ ανὶ τόδε Εὐάγρ̣ῳ καὶ Ἐπ[ηκό]|ω̣ ι ̣, ὃ̣ς̣ δ̣ιέ̣ σωισεν Τρωγο̣δ̣υτῶν με [ἐκ] | γῆς, πολλὰ παθόντα πόνοις δισσοῖς, Σ̣ [μυρνο]|ϕόρου θ’ ἱερᾶς̣ Κ̣ ο̣λοβῶν τ̣ε ̣ ἀπὸ - - σώισα̣ς̣ [δὲ(?) ἐν πε]|λάγει πλαζο̣μ̣έ ν̣ ους Ἐ̣ρ̣υ̣θ̣ρ̣[ῷ], οὖρον νευσὶ με|θῆκας ἑλισσ[ομ]έναις ἐνὶ πόντωι, συρίζων | λ̣ιγυροῖς πνεύ̣μασιν ἐγ δονάκ[ων] μ̣έχ̣ρ̣ι κ̣α̣ὶ εἰ[ς | λιμ]ένα Πτολε̣μ̣αΐδος ἤγαγες αὐτὸς σ̣αῖσι κ̣[υ|βε]ρ̣νήσας χε̣[ρ]σ̣ὶ ̣[ν ἐ]π̣αγροτά{τα}τα̣ι ̣ς̣. ν[ῦν | δέ ] μ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδ̣ρ̣ο̣υ̣ [σ]ῶισον πόλ̣ιν ἥν πο̣[τε] | π̣ρῶτο̣ς̣ τε[ῦ]ξ[ε]ν̣ [ἐ]π’ Αἰγύπτ̣ου, κλ̣ε̣ινο[τάτην | π]ο̣λ̣ί̣ων, | [α]ὐ̣δή[σω] δ̣[ὲ] τ̣ὸ σὸν κράτος, ὧ̣ [ϕ]ίλε [Πάν], | [δ]ι ̣α̣σω̣[θ]εὶς. πρ̣ὸς Πτολεμαῖ[ον(?) - - - | τ]ε Ἀρσινοίη̣ν. Ε̣ὐάγρους̣ [- - - - - - - | βα]σιλείας | ․․․․․ ․․Α̣․․Ο̣․Α̣ Ι̣Τ̣․ΤΗΑΝ̣- - - - - - -

4

8

12

Translation: [I dedicate this] to Pan, Good Hunter and Listener to Prayers, who saved me from the land of the Trogodytes, after I had suffered much in double tribulation, both from the Myrrh-producing land and from the Kolyboi. You saved us when we were wandering in the Red

4

Métriques 67 TM 102901 of a young man: ‘Herakleides wasn’t brought to the bride’s chamber but to the house of Lethe.’ As for Jewish parallels, Horbury and Noy in JIGRE cite III Maccabees 4. 6–8, θρῆνον ἀνθ᾽ ὑμεναίων, ‘laments instead of marriage songs’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Simon Hornblower Sea: you sent a breeze to our ships as they circled on the deep, and you played your pipe of reeds with gentle breath, until you yourself led us to the harbour of Ptolemais, guiding us with your hands propitious for hunting. Now bring me safe to the city of Alexander, which he was once the first to build next to Egypt, most famous of cities. So I shall proclaim your power, dear Pan, after being saved, to Ptolem[y ? the king and his consort] Arsinoe Good hunters [- - -]

223

8

12

12.2a. Herodes’ epigram for Apollonios son of Ptolemaios: CPI 404 TM 43972 I. Métriques 5. From Apollonopolis Magna (Edfu), later second century  [πατρ]ίδ’ ἐμὴν συνγνοὺς καὶ τίς τίνος εἰμὶ προσελθώ[ν], [ξ]εῖνε, σὺν εὐτυχίηι στεῖχε δι’ ἀτραπιτοῦ εἰμὶ γὰρ εὐκλειοῦς Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ Πτολεμαίου κοῦρος, ὃν Εὐέρκται μίτρᾳ ἐπηγλάισαν, συγγενικῆς δόξης ἱερὸν γέρας· εὔνοια γάρ μιν βαῖνε καὶ εἴσω γᾶς ἄχρι καὶ ὠκεανόν. τοὔνεκα κἀμὲ πατρὸς καλὸν κλέος εἰσορόωντα τῆς αὐτῆς ψαύειν θυμὸς ἔθηγ’ ἀρετῆς, καὶ πατρίδος καλῆς τὸν ἐπάξιον ἑσμὸν ἑλέσθαι, αἰπ{υ}είας Φοίβου τῆσδ’ ἱερᾶς πόλεως, πατρὸς ἐμοῦ γνωτοῖσι συνεκπλεύσαντα ϕέριστε ξεῖνε, ὅτε σκάπτρων ἤλ̣̣ υθ’ Ἄρης Συρίην. καὶ γενόμην εὔνους, γλυκερὰν τηρῶν ἅμα πίστιν καὶ δορὶ καὶ τόλμᾳ πάντας ἐνεγκάμενος. ὡς δ’ ἐμὲ Μοῖρ’ ἐδάμασσε βιοκλώστειρα, τί σὲ χρὴ τοῦτο μαθεῖν, νόστου μνησάμενον γλυκεροῦ, ἡλικίης ἀκόρητον, ὅτ’ ο̣ὐδὲ ϕίλων ἐνέπλησα θυμὸν ἐμῶν τέκνων, ὧν̣ λίπον ἐν θαλάμοις; ταῦτα μαθών, ὦ ξεῖνε, λ̣έ̣γοις πατρὶ τῶι κτερίσαντι, “σαυτὸν μὴ τρύχειν μνησάμενον β̣ιότου” καὶ σοὶ δ’ εὐοδίης τρίβον ὄλβιον εὔχομαι εἶναι πρός γ’ ἔτι καὶ τέκνοις σοῖσι ϕιλοϕροσύνοις. Ἀπολλώνιε χρηστέ, χαῖρε. Ἡρώδου.

4

8

12

16

20

24

Translation (with some indebtedness to Ptol.Alex. I, 615–16): Stranger, come near and learn what was my fatherland, who I am, and who was my father; then take the road and good fortune be with you. I am Apollonios the son of the glorious Ptolemaios, whom the Euergetai honoured with a headband, the sacred token of a ‘Kinsman’s’ glory. His devotion took him far inland, and to the ocean. So when I contemplated the glorious fame of my father, it sharpened in me the desire to touch the same heights of manly virtue,

4

8

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

224

The CPI Metrical Texts

and to choose a squadron worthy of my fine fatherland, this steep and holy city of Phoibos. Brave stranger, I went to sea with my father’s brothers, when Ares of Sceptres came to Syria. I was loyal and kept my fair faith: I carried off all with my spear and my bold spirit. But Fate, who spins the thread of life, subdued me —why do you need to know this?—when I was thinking of my sweet return home, and had not yet had my fill of life, or had satisfied my love for my dear children, whom I left behind in my halls. You, stranger, learn this, and tell the father who buried me ‘Do not torment yourself, but think of your own life’. And I pray that the good journey of your own life may take a prosperous path, and that the same be true of your loving children. Good Apollonios, farewell. (This poem is the work) of Herodes.

12

16

20

24

12.2b. Funerary epigram of Aphrodisia: CPI 403 TM 43979 I. Métriques 35. From Apollonopolis Magna (Edfu), 103–101  (?) Εὐαγόρου κούρην συνγνούς, ξένε, τῶιδ’ ὑπὸ τύμβῳ στεῖχε σὺν εὐτυχίηι τῆσδε δι’ ἀτραπιτοῦ Βάχθεος ἐν σκοπέλοισιν ὀρηάδος, ᾗ με λαχοῦσα θάλπει Φερσεϕόνης ἥιδ’ ἱερὰ κλισία καὶ κλέος ἀείμνηστον ἐπιχθονίοισιν ἔχουσαν, γνωστὸν ὅσοι πάτραν τήνδ’ ἐπέβησαν ἐμήν. οὔνομὰ μοι ’στ’, ὦ ξεῖν’, Ἀϕροδισία, ἣν Πτολεμαῖος γῆμεν ὁ καὶ βουλᾶι καὶ δορὶ θαρσαλέος καὶ στρατιᾶι Φοίβου δικνὺς σέλας αἰὲν ἄμωμον συγγενικῆς τε ϕορῶν δόξαν ἰσουρανίαν. ὧι γενόμην εὔνους βίοτον διάγουσ’ ἅμα κοινῆι καὶ γενέσει τέκνων, ἣν λίπον ἐν προκοπαῖς· ὧν μ’ ἀεχώρισ’ ὁ πά’ ἐϕορῶν Χρόνος, ἠδὲ σὺν αὐτῷ Μοῖραι κλωστείρων νῆσαν ἀπ’ ἀθανάτων· τοῦ χάριν ἡ τλήμων κατοδύρομαι εἰν Ἀίδαο, παντοίων χαρίτων κάλλος ἐνεγκαμένηι· καὶ με συνάορον οὖσαν ἐμὸς πόσις ἐκτερέιξεν, προϕρονέως δικνὺς εὔνοιαν, ἣν ἔχε μοι· ὢ καλὸν εἰς ἄλοχον θέμενος χρέος, ὢ καλὰ θυμῶι ῥέξας καὶ ζώσηι κα παρὰ Φερσεϕόνηι. ταῦτα μαθὼν χαίροντι νόωι παράμειβε κέλευθον, ξεῖνε, σὺν εὐτυχίηι πρός γ’ ἔτι καὶ σὰ τέκνα· καὶ λέγ’ ἐμὲ κτερίσασι· “μένοιτ’ ἐπὶ γῆς ἀμάραντοι, ὅσσον ἐγὼ ναίωι δώματα Φερσεϕόνης”. Ἀϕροδισία χρηστή, χαῖρε. Ἡρώδης ἔγραψεν.

4

8

12

16

20

24

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Simon Hornblower

225

Translation: Stranger, learn that I, who am now under this tomb, was the daughter of Evagoras; then take the road and good fortune be with you: among the rocks of mountainous Bakhthis,⁴¹ this sacred resting place of Persephone received me and now comforts me. 4 That I possess everlasting fame among all mortal men is well known to all those who have visited my fatherland. My name, stranger, is Aphrodisia, whom Ptolemaios married, a bold counsellor and fighter with the spear, 8 who always displayed a blameless brilliance in the army of Phoibos, as he carried, as high as heaven, the glory of a Kinsman. I was devoted to him while we shared our life, and in the birth of our shared children, whom I left behind in the flower of their success. 12 But Time, who watches over all, took me away from them; And with him the Fates spun my life’s thread from their immortal spindles. Therefore I, miserable wretch, bewail my lot in Hades, where I have taken the beauty of all my charms. 16 My husband buried me, his companion, devotedly displaying the love which he had for me. Ah! you made good payment of your debt to your spouse; ah! with good heart you acquitted yourself towards her, whether alive or with Persephone. 20 Now that you have learned this, go on your way with a happy heart, Stranger, and may good fortune attend you and your children. Say to those who buried me: ‘May you remain on earth, imperishable, For as long as I inhabit the house of Persephone.’ 24 Good Aphrodisia, farewell. Herodes wrote this.

⁴¹ For this interesting toponym (the sacred name of Edfu), see now Christensen, Thompson, and Vandorpe (2017), 46 and esp. 94, note on line 6 of the papyrus.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

13 The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions from Egypt Charles Crowther

13.1 INTRODUCTION In an essay published thirty years ago Jean Bingen raised the question of how far the distinctive conditions of environment, circumstances, and historical culture affected and conditioned the epigraphical culture of Graeco-Roman Egypt.¹ His challenge is taken up from a range of perspectives elsewhere in this volume.² Bingen emphasized the intentionality of lapidary writing,³ of which style and presentation, that is legibility in a visual sense, are essential components. The present chapter is concerned with these formal characteristics of Greek inscribed writing and their variety and evolution, with palaeography in a broad sense. In Section 13.3 it draws on an unpublished manuscript on Hellenistic palaeography by P. M. Fraser to trace the development of lettering styles over the course of the Ptolemaic period. The particular case of the lengthy multilingual decrees of Egyptian priestly synods is then examined in Section 13.4; Section 13.5 considers a small number of inscriptions for the dating of which palaeographical considerations may provide clarification, and Section 13.6 the possibility of identifying individual stonecutters’ hands within the Corpus.

¹ Bingen (1989), 15–16, reprinted in translation in Bingen (2007), 256–7. ² See the Introduction to this volume, Section 1.1. Bingen picked out for particular attention the documents of associations, which are examined by Mario Paganini in Ch. 11 of this volume, and the ὑπὲρ βασιλέως dedication formula, discussed by Supratik Baralay in Ch. 8. ³ Bingen (2007), 257–8: Carving on stone—and this is true for all languages—presumes the will to ensure a wide and durable access to the document…It is a fundamental feature of epigraphy on stone or coins that these texts are purposefully created to be read for a long time and as often as possible. Charles Crowther, The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions from Egypt In: The Epigraphy of Ptolemaic Egypt. Edited by: Alan Bowman and Charles Crowther, Oxford University Press (2020). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198858225.003.0013

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

227

13.2 THE E GYPTIAN CONTEXT The lapidary epigraphy of Graeco-Roman Egypt can be followed back to the employment by Psamtik II in the early sixth century of Greek mercenaries who inscribed their identities on the left leg of the statue of Rameses at Abu Simbel (Bernand and Masson (1957); ML 7). The Greek settlement at Naukratis had an established epigraphic culture before the Ptolemies, reflected, for example, in a fine stoichedon copy of a Lindian decree for Damoxenos from the second half of the fifth century (I.Prose 2) cut within an incised grid pattern⁴ or a fourth-century base recording the dedication of a palaistra to Apollo, which may fall on the cusp of the Macedonian conquest.⁵ But the establishment of Ptolemaic rule and the diffusion of Greek as an official language brought a more invasive and broader interaction between different cultures of writing. The resulting epigraphic landscape, reflected in the 650 texts collected in the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions from Egypt and the topics and approaches represented in the present volume, is diverse indeed: ranging from documents punched into precious metal, painted on glass plaques, inscribed on granite and basalt, incised on wooden boards, as well as cut into limestone and imported marble, and varying in register from proskynemata and graffiti, epitaphs,⁶ epigrams, hymns, and dedications to civic and royal chancery documents, and multilingual priestly decrees,⁷ for all of which a common documentary background of Greek writing is provided by the papyri; and a broader literate context by the continuity of local traditions. A point of convergence is offered by a small (0.49 m high, 0.15 m wide) limestone pedimental stele from Philadelphia, recording a dedication to Anoubis by the kynoboskos (‘jackal rearer’) Pasos in favour of two individuals named without further qualification as Apollonios and Zenon (Fig. 13.1: CPI 210; I.Fayoum 1 98; cf. Ch. 10.3 of this volume).⁸ The inscription recording the ⁴ For Naukratis and stoichedon, see also the first half of the fifth century grave marker for Metrodoros, I.Delta 2, p. 761 no. 33 (Milne, I.Cairo 60, CG 9241; Johnston (2014), 3–4, no. 2); and cf. in general Butz (2015). ⁵ I.British Museum 1083; Johnston (2014), 7. We have included this inscription in the Corpus as CPI 145, although its spare forms and diverging mu and sigma might also be compatible with an earlier fourth-century date. ⁶ Graffiti and simple epitaphs, which are often difficult to date closely, have, with a limited number of exceptions, been omitted from the Corpus, although a register of the plausibly Ptolemaic examples of the latter will be included in an online appendix. ⁷ The largest groups of texts in the Corpus are made up of dedications in a broad sense (315 examples), proskynemata (118), honorifics (53), funerary texts (48), civic and other decrees (19), priestly decrees (16), catalogues and lists (14). ⁸ In his editio princeps, Lefebvre suggested that the hapax κυνοβοσκός might have been a mistake of the engraver for the better attested χηνοβοσκός, goose-rearer; but this seems an unnecessary intervention (Lefebvre (1914a), 95–6). The stele has been discussed most recently by Blasius (2011), 157–9, Moje (2014), 141–2, and by Clarysse in Chs 4.2.1, 38 n. 9, 10.1 and 10.3 of this volume.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

228

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

Fig. 13.1. CPI 210: Dedication to Anoubis by the kynoboskos Pasos in favour of Apollonios and Zenon

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

229

Fig. 13.2. P.Cair.Zen. I 59002, a letter of introduction from Apollonios to Zenon dated to November 260

dedication is in Greek, cut on the lower panel of the stele, and beneath a relief depicting a figure identified by a short, apparently incomplete Hieroglyphic label as Anoubis, Lord of the Two Lands (’Inpw nb tꜢ.wy ḏd=s ?). Its first editor, Gustave Lefebvre, dated the stele tentatively to the first century BC, evidently on stylistic grounds.⁹ In doing so, he was unaware of the recent discovery and imminent diffusion and publication of the Zenon archive of documentary papyri, which secured the identification of Apollonios and Zenon as, respectively, the finance minister (dioiketes) of Ptolemy II, already known from an elegantly inscribed altar plaque dedication from Kanopos (CPI 341), and the manager of his gift estate at Philadelphia.¹⁰ The lettering of the Greek inscription is cut in a semi-cursive style, with lunate epsilon, sigma, and cursive omega, narrow beta and alpha with upward-sloping crossbar, which may have seemed to Lefebvre a sign of a later date, but is reminiscent of the dominant palaeography of the correspondence preserved in the Zenon Archive—for example, P.Cair.Zen. I 59002, a letter of introduction from Apollonios to Zenon dated to November 260 (Fig. 13.2). The resemblance is not perfect, but is sufficient nonetheless to be indicative.¹¹ ⁹ Lefebvre (1914a), 96: ‘La stèle me paraît être de la fin de l’époque ptolémaïque, probablement du premier siècle avant notre ère.’ ¹⁰ Edgar (1919), 159–60: Who was Zenon? His name is preserved on a stele from Philadelphia along with that of his patron Apollonios, [Published by Lefebvre…I think there is not much doubt that it refers to Zenon of the papyri] but nothing was known about him till the papyri which he had so fortunately stored away were brought again to light. ¹¹ For example, in the forms of alpha with upward-sloping crossbar, narrow beta, pi, lunate epsilon and sigma, and omega.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

230

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

Fig. 13.3. CPI 96: Gold foundation plaque from Kanopos (Abukir) for a sanctuary of Osiris, dating to the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes

This is one of the more remarkable documents to have survived from Ptolemaic Egypt. It brings together a Greek monumental representational form, an Egyptian relief sculpture, and two writing systems, one of which is expressed in a style more representative of a different medium.¹² Bingen emphasized, with some justification, its exceptionality as an example of cultural assimilation and the overlap of writing systems.¹³ It reflects, however, the confluences and cross-currents brought by the Graeco-Macedonian invasion of Egypt; and it is not altogether alone in its fusion of monumental form and writing from different traditions.¹⁴ A contemporary official inscription from Bir Alayyan in the Eastern Desert cut on a sandstone stele with the curved upper border characteristic of Egyptian monuments,¹⁵ recording a distance marker from the Nile and dated to August–September 257 (CPI 545; SEG 46 2120), also shows rounded letter-forms comparable to those of the papyri.¹⁶ Cursive style and lettering are equally represented in a number of the third-century foundation plaques discussed in Chapter 7 of this volume by Dorothy J. Thompson—for example CPI 96 (I.British Museum 1063: Fig. 13.3), from Kanopos (Abukir) for a sanctuary of Osiris, dating to the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes.¹⁷

¹² For the development of documentary and book hands in Ptolemaic Egypt, see Cavallo and Maehler (2008), 8, and an important series of discussions by Del Corso (2007), (2008), (2010). ¹³ Bingen (2007), 231: ‘an effort of acculturation absolutely without any successors in our Greek documentation’. ¹⁴ Cf. perhaps CPI 175 (Chapter 4, Fig. 4.14 of this volume), with its Anoubis portrait, but rather Greek second-century lettering. ¹⁵ Clarysse, Ch. 4 above. ¹⁶ Rounded epsilon, sigma, omega; beta with barely differentiated double loop; pi with a curved full right vertical; see the photograph at Bagnall et al. (1996), 321, Plate 1. ¹⁷ Cf. the opaque glass foundation plaques dating to the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator from the temple of Aphrodite Ourania, CPI 324, on which the bilingual text is written in ink, using cursive forms for the Greek; see the discussion in Chapter 3 of this volume by Rachel Mairs.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

231

Fig. 13.4. CPI 341: altar plaque dedicated by Apollonios as dioiketes to Apollo Hylates, Artemis Phosphoros, Artemis Enodia, Leto Euteknos, and Herakles Kallinikos

In sharp contrast to the cursive forms of the dedication to Anoubis for Apollonios and Zenon, an altar plaque dedicated by the same Apollonios as dioiketes to Apollo Hylates, Artemis Phosphoros, Artemis Enodia, Leto Euteknos, and Herakles Kallinikos has an intensely formal rectangular script cut in a purely Greek style (Fig. 13.4: CPI 341). Lettering of this kind is not uncommon in the third century, for example in CPI 9 (Fig. 13.8, early in the reign of Philadelphos) and CPI 20 (Fig. 13.13: Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III). The Hellenistic civic and chancery script tradition within which it belongs persists in Egypt throughout the Ptolemaic period, in, for example, CPI 359 (not illustrated here, a dedication of an altar to Ptolemy VI dating between 181 and 175), CPI 38 (Fig. 13.30: honours for Ptolemy IX), CPI 59 (not illustrated here, of 60/59), CPI 365 (perhaps of 46, on a granite pedimental stele with akroteria, from Ptolemais). A different contrast is offered by a dedication made by a Boubastite merchant (kapelos) named Bynchis in favour of Ptolemy II and Arsinoe Philadelphos inscribed between firmly drawn guidelines on a small limestone stele with a curved upper edge (CPI 575; Coll.Froehner no. 72, with pl. XXXVIII). The form of the stele and the dedicator are both Egyptian; the lettering is irregular, unpractised, and undecorated with serifs, but

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

232

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

maintains predominantly early Hellenistic letter-forms (small suspended omicron, sigma with diverging outer strokes, pi with overhanging top bar and short right descender) with the exception of a broad mu with a single curved internal stroke and a cursive omega.¹⁸ Elsewhere in this volume a distinction is drawn between Egyptian and Greek monumental and representational forms.¹⁹ The progressive adaptation of Greek writing to Egyptian lapidary contexts represents a distinctive, but by no means uniform strand in Ptolemaic epigraphy. CPI 251 (Fig. 13.5), a dedicatory inscription from Krokodilopolis for a shrine to Thoeris offered by two Cyrenaean women in favour of Ptolemy III and Berenike, reflects a different approach to inscribing Greek letters in an Egyptian style, with its deeply cut lettering in which alpha has an upward slanting crossbar, theta is oval with a full bisecting bar, and pi has a curved right hasta.²⁰ These inscriptions represent the predominant trends in lapidary writing from Ptolemaic Egypt: cursive, Greek chancery and civic, and Egyptian, although the last has a wide range of forms.²¹

13.3 P TOLEMAIC PALAEOGRAPHY Peter Fraser was an acute and experienced judge of Ptolemaic palaeography; Ptolemaic Alexandria, his occasional reports on Graeco-Roman Egyptian Epigraphy, his editions, articles, and manuscript corpus are replete with incidental judgements; but for the most part the methodology is unwritten in formal publications.²² The fully elaborated manuscript of a seminar course from the early 1980s²³ on the palaeography of Hellenistic inscriptions preserved in the Fraser archive in the Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents contains a series of considered reflections on the evolution of formal Ptolemaic ¹⁸ For a more refined and slightly later script, but similarly traced lightly on a stele ruled with guidelines, cf. CPI 250 (I.Fayoum 1 1), the dedication of a synagogue by the Jews of Krokodilopolis, dated to the reign of Ptolemy III. ¹⁹ Clarysse, Chapter 4.1, drawing attention, for example, to the disjunction of Greek and Egyptian forms in the funerary monuments from Apollonopolis for Aphrodisia (CPI 403, I. Métriques 35), in Egyptian Hathor-ity (TM 44169); for the Greek epigram for Aphrodisia, see also Simon Hornblower’s discussion in Chapter 12.3 of this volume. ²⁰ Other examples discussed here: CPI 130 (Fig. 13.12), 22 (Fig. 13.14), 132 (Fig. 13.16), 133 (Fig. 13.17), 592 (Fig. 13.19), 245 (Fig. 13.22). ²¹ Cavallo and Maehler (2008), 8; cf. Del Corso (2007), 2008), (2010) for a range of qualifications. ²² Fraser (1960), 125–6, on the palaeography of a decree of Ptolemais, CPI 358, inscribed in the Hadrianic period, is an example of a more discursive and reflective discussion. ²³ The manuscript is undated, but was composed after Heisserer (1980), which it cites, and before Sherwin-White (1985), which it does not. Simon Hornblower tells me that he attended one iteration of the course in Oxford Hilary and Trinity terms 1982.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

233

Fig. 13.5. CPI 251: Dedication from Krokodilopolis by two Cyrenaean women of a shrine to Thoeris in favour of Ptolemy III and Berenike

lettering down to the end of the third century; these observations in a number of cases tacitly correct judgements offered in Fraser’s earlier published work; they are almost entirely confined to formal and chancery documents in a broad sense, and set within a wider discussion of Hellenistic palaeography in civic and royal epigraphy. Fraser offers a picture of a gradual stylistic evolution from the rare inscriptions of the later years of Soter’s reign to that of Euergetes and the early years

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

234

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

of Philopator, over a seventy-year period, with obvious continuities in letter shape and general ductus (epigraphic style), but with a clear break beginning in the reign of Philopator. Alongside this mid-third century stylistic uniformity in dedicatory and honorific inscriptions, a different path of development can be followed in a group of civic decrees of Ptolemais considered separately below in Section 13.4 and discussed in detail by Alan Bowman in Chapter 5 of this volume. The broad continuities in letter shape from the reign of Ptolemy I to Ptolemy IV are represented by alpha with straight crossbar, mu and sigma with mildly diverging outer strokes gradually turning closer to parallel, pi with a shorter right hasta; decoration initially through broadening of terminal letter strokes but increasingly taking the form of clearly defined serifs. The size of round letters varies throughout the period, but theta, with a central point, and omicron tend to be smaller and set above the baseline. The overall shape of the ductus is rectangular. Beyond the reign of Philopator, lettering becomes increasingly stylized in Greek civic and chancery documents, with a proliferation of serifs, standardization of the broken-bar form of alpha and pi with projecting top bar, and the evolution of a distinctive blocky, furrowed lettering style, frequently set between deeply incised guidelines in Egyptianizing monuments, perhaps in emulation of the articulation of Hieroglyphic texts. In discussing individual inscriptions Fraser distinguished a number of letters and features that he considered representative for general palaeographical trends and, with qualification, potentially diagnostic for dating. They can be summarized, and illustrated, as follows: Alpha: with a straight (Figs. 13.4, 13.6, 13.7, 13.8, 13.9, 13.10, 13.12, 13.13, 13.14, 13.17, 13.23, 13.27, 13.28, 13.30, 13.31), upward sloping (Figs. 13.1, 13.3, 13.5, 13.14), curved (Fig. 13.27), or broken (Figs. 13.11, 13.15, 13.16, 13.18, 13.19, 13.20, 13.21, 13.22, 13.26, 13.27, 13.29) crossbar. Beta: with open (Figs. 13.1, 13.15, 13.23), separate or closed (Figs. 13.7, 13.8, 13.10, 13.11, 13.13, 13.14, 13.18, 13.21, 13.22, 13.23, 13.28, 13.31) loops (or ‘buckles’) of equal (Figs. 13.7, 13.8, 13.10, 13.11, 13.13, 13.22, 13.23, 13.28) or different (Figs. 13.3, 13.14, 13.15, 13.18, 13.29, 13.31) sizes. Epsilon: with a shorter (Figs. 13.4, 13.6, 13.8, 13.9, 13.10, 13.13, 13.15, 13.16, 13.17, 13.18, 13.19, 13.20, 13.22, 13.23, 13.28, 13.29, 13.30) or equal (Figs. 13.14, 13.21) central bar; or lunate (Figs. 13.1, 13.3). Eta: broad or narrow, with straight or curved verticals, in particular a curved right vertical characteristic of lettering cut by Egyptian masons (Fig. 13.12). Zeta: with a perpendicular (Figs. 13.1, 13.9, 13.22, 13.23, 13.24) or diagonal (Fig. 13.21) medial stroke joining the horizontals.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

235

Theta and omicron: almost full-size (Figs. 13.4, 13.10, 13.18, 13.22, 13.29, 13.30, 13.31) or small (Figs. 13.6, 13.12, 13.15, 13.16, 13.26), resting on the baseline (Figs. 13.20, 13.22, 13.30, 13.31), or set in midline or above (Figs. 13.11, 13.12, 13.13, 13.14, 13.15, 13.16, 13.19, 13.21, 13.27); round (Figs. 13.4, 13.13, 13.16, 13.18) or oval (Figs. 13.5, 13.14, 13.17, 13.27); the former with a central dot (Figs. 13.4, 13.9, 13.10, 13.11, 13.13, 13.24, 13.26, 13.27, 13.28) or bar (Figs. 13.12, 13.15, 13.18, 13.19, 13.20, 13.29) or bisecting stroke (Figs. 13.5, 13.14, 13.16, 13.17, 13.21, 13.22). Mu: broad (Figs. 13.14, 13.15, 13.16, 13.22, 13.29) or regular-size, with parallel (Figs. 13.10, 13.12, 13.18, 13.20, 13.22) or diverging (Figs. 13.7, 13.13, 13.16, 13.11, 13.19, 13.21, 13.26, 13.27, 13.30, 13.31) outer strokes; with intersecting straight internal strokes (Figs. 13.4, 13.7, 13.18, 13.21) or a single curve (Fig. 13.16). Pi: with a short (Figs. 13.4, 13.11, 13.13, 13.15, 13.16, 13.18, 13.26), shorter (Figs. 13.1, 13.9, 13.10, 13.12, 13.14, 13.19, 13.20, 13.28, 13.29, 13.30), or equal (Figs. 13.21, 13.22, 13.23, 13.27) right vertical; with (Figs. 13.4, 13.8, 13.13, 13.14, 13.16, 13.18, 13.19, 13.20, 13.21, 13.26, 13.29, 13.30) or without (Figs. 13.6, 13.17, 13.22, 13.23, 13.29) a projecting upper stroke; with straight (Figs. 13.4, 13.8, 13.10, 13.11, 13.18, 13.22, 13.26) or curved (Fig. 13.1) verticals, in particular the right vertical hasta (Figs. 13.12, 13.15, 13.16). Sigma: with diverging (Figs. 13.5, 13.6, 13.7, 13.11, 13.21, 13.26, 13.27, 13.28, 13.31) or parallel (Figs. 13.10, 13.12, 13.13, 13.15, 13.16, 13.17, 13.18, 13.19, 13.20, 13.22) outer strokes; or lunate (Figs. 13.1, 13.3); or quadrate (Fig. 13.23). Phi: with a regular or extended (Figs. 13.14, 13.20, 13.21, 13.22, 13.27, 13.29, 13.30) stem; a small (Figs. 13.9, 13.11, 13.15, 13.16, 13.17, 13.19, 13.21) or medium (Figs. 13.4, 13.14) round, flattened (Fig. 13.3) or semicircular (Fig. 13.27) buckle, formed from one or two (Fig. 13.31) loops. Omega: with a partly (Figs. 13.4, 13.9, 13.13, 13.17, 13.18, 13.19, 13.26, 13.28, 13.30) or fully (Figs. 13.14, 13.20) closed or open (Figs. 13.7, 13.15, 13.21, 13.22, 13.27, 13.29) loop; almost full-size and set on the baseline (Figs. 13.8, 13.13, 13.14, 13.17, 13.18, 13.19, 13.20, 13.22, 13.27, 13.28, 13.30) or smaller and suspended (Figs. 13.5, 13.11, 13.12, 13.15, 13.21, 13.26, 13.29); with short (Fig. 13.22) or extended (Figs. 13.10, 13.12, 13.15, 13.17, 13.19, 13.20, 13.21, 13.29) finials; or cursive (Figs. 13.1, 13.3, 13.23). Alongside letter shapes, Fraser drew attention to changes over the course of the third century in the way in which terminal letter strokes were finished, initially by broadening (‘blocking’: Figs. 13.4, 13.6, 13.7, 13.13), and later with short (Figs. 13.8, 13.9, 13.10, 13.15, 13.18, 13.20, 13.26, 13.28) or prominent

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

236

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

Fig. 13.6. CPI 186: Dedication by Alexandros, perhaps Alexander the Great, probably from Memphis

(Figs. 13.21, 13.29) serifs (‘apication’), which might also be applied to the apex of joining letter strokes (Figs. 13.18, 13.20, 13.21, 13.29). Regnal dates and titulatures provide a chronological framework to tie individual cases to and for the reconstruction of a general stylistic sequence. Although Fraser was cautious of applying palaeographical criteria for close dating,²⁴ his discussion provides the material for tracing the development of lettering styles not only through the third century, but with the addition of other more or less closely dated or datable inscriptions in the Corpus down to the end of the Ptolemaic period and back to its beginnings. Inscriptions on which Fraser commented in detail in his palaeographical manuscript are marked in what follows with an asterisk. *CPI 107, a concise altar plaque for Zeus Soter (Διὸς | Σωτῆ|ρος: ‘Of Zeus the Saviour’) from Schedia in the Delta with strongly diverging outer strokes in sigma, is among the earliest texts in the Corpus and may belong to the first years of Ptolemy’s satrapy. CPI 186 (Fig. 13.6), an inscription donated to the Ashmolean Museum by Flinders Petrie in 1909, has just enough text to be intriguing and may be even earlier; it records in monumental lettering what appears to be a dedication by an Alexandros.²⁵ Its lettering belongs to the late Classical or early Hellenistic period: the outer bars of sigma diverge slightly, pi has a short right descender, the right vertical of nu is shorter than the left, and omicron is small and set in midline; terminal strokes are finished with a slight broadening rather than full serifs. With the exception of the small omicron, the lettering is reminiscent of monumental dedicatory inscriptions by Alexander ²⁴ In the early Ptolemaic period ‘differences of style do not point to a difference of date’. In this connection Fraser cited the relatively small differences in ductus between CPI 9 (Fig. 13.8: 283–279) and CPI 20 (Fig. 13.13: 217–204): ‘when no regnal date is present, we have to be very careful how we date inscriptions in the third century, and unless we can find other criteria not present in these pieces, the same will be true everywhere’. ²⁵ Bowman et al. (2016), 100–2, no. 1, where Alexandros is tentatively identified with Alexander III.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

237

Fig. 13.7. CPI 605: Dark granite statue base with a bilingual text for Ptolemy I Soter

III to Athena at Priene (I.Priene 156; I.Priene² 149), and by Philip III and Alexander IV to the Great Gods at Samothrace (SEG 29 800); another dedicatory inscription to the Great Gods at Samothrace, by Adaios son of Korrhagos, dating to the late fourth or early third century (Samothrace 2.1 no. 9), has a similar small omicron, but shows the beginnings of serifs. From the reign of Ptolemy I Soter *CPI 605 (Fig. 13.7) a dark granite statue base with a bilingual text for the king, identified with the epithet Σωτῆρ (‘Saviour’), has narrow beta, alpha with a straight crossbar, simple pi, with a short right descender and a slight left projection; diverging and deep sigma and mu; open oval omega, with wide finials; a broadening of terminal strokes and incipient serifs in pi and sigma. Fraser regards this and CPI 8, discussed below, as ‘virtually’ the only inscriptions that can securely be placed in the reign of Soter.²⁶ The scarcity of comparanda makes dating texts in or before Soter’s reign far from easy. Fraser notices in this context CPI 1, the Alexandrian decree for [- -]nios the son of Dorieus, which he describes as an almost faultless documentary hand which should belong late in the reign of Soter or early in that of Philadelphos. Fraser also considered CPI 187, the dedication of a λυχνάπτιον (‘locale of the sacred lamplighters’) at Memphis, which he had previously been inclined to date to the reign of Philadelphos,²⁷ to be of similar quality to and contemporary with CPI 605.²⁸ ²⁶ At Ptol.Alex. II, 120 n. 143, he placed this inscription in the mid-third century, but evidently later changed his view. ²⁷ Fraser (1955), 108 no. 19; cf. Ptol.Alex. II, 402 n. 498. ²⁸ Fraser in his manuscript discussion raises the possibility that CPI 120, a dedication by Gaius and a cavalry troop to an unnamed Ptolemy which he had initially placed in the first

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

238

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

Fig. 13.8. CPI 9: Dedication of a temenos to Sarapis and Isis in favour of Ptolemy II by Archagathos, epistates of Libya, and his wife Stratonike

Another possible inscription from the reign of Ptolemy Soter is *CPI 8 (I.Varsovie 43, with pl. XLIII), a dedication in favour of Ptolemy and his children to Sarapis and Isis, which Fraser had earlier dated to the mid-third century,²⁹ but in his manuscript discussion prefered to assign to the early years of the third century from its lettering, in which omicron and omega are smaller and cut in the middle or upper half of the line, the latter with prominent finials; iota, kappa, upsilon, beta, and rho are consistently taller than other letters; the right descender of pi barely reaches midline; the right vertical of nu does not reach the baseline; mu and sigma have diverging outer strokes; the branches of upsilon curve from a high stem; small serifs are applied consistently to the ends of free letter strokes. From the reign of Philadelphos the volume of datable epigraphical documentation increases sharply. The following examples are representative: *CPI 9 (Fig. 13.8), a dedication of a temenos to Sarapis and Isis in favour of Ptolemy II by Archagathos, epistates of Libya, and his wife Stratonike, dated c.283–279, is a particularly good example of elegant large (c.0.025 m) lettering: sigma has slightly, mu more sharply, diverging outer strokes; alpha has a straight crossbar, pi a short right vertical and projecting top bar; round letters are three-quarter size and sit slightly above the baseline; theta has a central dot; terminal letter strokes broaden into serifs, the shorter middle bar of epsilon especially. *CPI 10, a dedication in favour of Ptolemy II to all the gods by Aristion the son of Pythion, is another notably refined example of early Hellenistic

century, might be very early because of its small omicron and splayed sigma and the absence of epithets or filiation for Ptolemy; but the later date still seems to us more plausible. ²⁹ Ptol.Alex. II, 120 n. 143.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

239

Fig. 13.9. CPI 625: List of victors at the Basileia festival dated to 8 March 267

lettering, with broadening of terminal strokes to form small, precise serifs; round letters are smaller and set just above the baseline; pi has a short right vertical and a top bar projecting right to a small serif; mu and sigma have diverging outer strokes; upsilon has a high stem and predominantly curving branches. *CPI 625 (Fig. 13.9), a list of victors at the Basileia festival, inscribed in a fine, clear script on a dark basalt stele, is dated to 8 March 267 and provides a fixed point for lettering evolution within the reign of Philadelphos: alpha has a predominantly straight crossbar, mu and sigma slightly diverging outer

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

240

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

Fig. 13.10. CPI 93: Dedication on a limestone plaque to Sarapis, Isis, Neilos, Ptolemy III and Berenike, Benefactor Gods, by Kallikrates

strokes; theta, with a central point, and omicron are almost full-size and set above the baseline; omega is round and almost closed, with full finials, sitting on the baseline; pi has a two-thirds-length right descender, and a top bar projecting slightly on the left; terminal letter strokes are finished with small button serifs. The number of datable inscriptions increases again during the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes. Besides the honorific and dedicatory inscriptions discussed in the following paragraphs, a group of civic decrees from Ptolemais is considered separately in Section 13.5.1, since for a variety of reasons their palaeography shows a different evolution. *CPI 93 (Fig. 13.10), a dedication on a limestone plaque to Sarapis, Isis, Neilos, Ptolemy III, and Berenike by a Kallikrates, has a similar fine script, again with clearly formed serifs: alpha has a straight crossbar; pi has a projecting top bar and a half-length right descender; mu and sigma have parallel outer strokes; theta, with a central point, and omicron are almost full-size; omega is smaller, almost closed with prominent finials, and sits above the baseline; delta, with a slanting base stroke, floats in midline. *CPI 94, a dedication on a limestone plaque to Sarapis, Isis, Neilos, Ptolemy III, and Berenike by Artemidoros from Bargylia, has a fine script with fully formed serifs: alpha has a straight crossbar; pi has a projecting top bar and a half-length right descender; mu and sigma have slightly diverging outer strokes; theta, with a central point, and omicron are smaller and midline;

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

241

Fig. 13.11. CPI 314: Monumental architraval dedication to Ptolemy III and Berenike II from Hermopolis

omega is also smaller and almost closed, sitting on the baseline; delta is slightly compressed and floats above the baseline. *CPI 95, a dedicatory plaque of white marble for Sarapis, Isis, Ptolemy III, and Berenike, with fully developed serifs, has alpha with a straight crossbar, pi with a two-thirds-length right descender; mu and sigma have slightly diverging outer strokes; theta, with a central point, and omicron are smaller and midline; omega is smaller, almost closed, and sits on the baseline. *CPI 314 (Fig. 13.11) is a monumental architraval dedication to Ptolemy III and Berenike II from Hermopolis cut in fine and distinctive lettering, with an early appearance of alpha with a broken crossbar: mu and sigma have diverging outer strokes; theta, with a central dot, omicron and omega are placed in midline; pi has a short right vertical; beta and rho are both narrow, and phi has a small loop; the right vertical of nu begins above the baseline. CPI 599 (Fig. 11.15 in Mario Paganini’s discussion of associations, in Ch. 11.2.2 of this volume), a dedication of revenue to Ptolemy III and Berenike II, has an interesting plain script, with minimal serifs, broken-bar alpha, oval omicron and theta, the last with a full bisecting bar. For Fraser the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator marked the point at which significant changes in lettering styles become discernible, although we can already see the first signs of this in CPI 599 above and the decrees of Ptolemais discussed in Section 13.5.1 below. *CPI 130 (Fig. 13.12) of 221–204, a dedication by the priest Horos to Ptolemy and Arsinoe, gods Philopatores, is inscribed within deeply drawn guidelines across a recessed frame in a distinctive and elegant script characterized by Fraser as Egyptianizing: pi and eta have characteristic outward curving right hastae; omicron and omega are small and set high in the line, the former sometimes very small, the latter with elongated finials; mu and pi have parallel outer strokes; alpha retains a straight crossbar.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

242

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

Fig. 13.12. CPI 130: Dedication by the priest Horos to Ptolemy and Arsinoe, Gods Philopatores

Fig. 13.13. CPI 20: Dedication from Alexandria to Sarapis and Isis by Archepolis in favour of Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III

*CPI 20 (Fig. 13.13): Fraser compared this dedication to Sarapis and Isis in favour of Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe to CPI 9 (Fig. 13.8), to emphasize how at one level changes in lettering over time can be almost imperceptible and to underscore the difficulty in separating texts of seventy years apart from palaeography alone:³⁰ its lettering is regular and undecorated, with terminal ³⁰ Quoted in n. 24 above.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

243

Fig. 13.14. CPI 22: Dedication from Alexandria to Anoubis in favour of Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III by the elders of the olyrokopoi

strokes broadening into button serifs; alpha has a straight crossbar, pi a slightly projecting top bar and a short right descender; theta, with a central point, and omicron are smaller and set in midline; mu has diverging, sigma predominantly parallel outer strokes; omega is almost full-size and closed, sitting on prominent finials on the baseline. *CPI 21, a dedication by Ptolemy IV to Euodia, offers another example of fine lettering with short well-formed serifs; alpha has a straight crossbar; round letters are full-size, theta with a central point; mu has diverging, sigma almost parallel outer strokes; pi has a two-thirds-length right descender. Fraser picked out this script for its symmetry and refined serifs in comparison with CPI 93–5 discussed earlier in this section. CPI 22 (Fig. 13.14), a dedication to Anoubis from Alexandria, offers a clear instance of Egyptian lettering from the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator; all the names of the dedicators, a priest and the elders of a cult association, are Egyptian; the script, although it appears irregular and plain in comparison to the dedications just considered, is consistently articulated with oval theta and omicron, the former with a bisecting bar, a closed omega sitting on the baseline and underlined by its finials, an overhanging pi with an almost equal right hasta, and a tall beta with unequal buckles.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

244

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

Fig. 13.15. CPI 581: dedication to Ares Nikephoros Euagros in favour of Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III by the commanders of an elephant-hunting expedition

*CPI 397, a dedication from Apollonopolis to Ptolemy IV, Arsinoe III, Sarapis, and Isis by the strategos Lichas in command of an elephant hunt, dating to 220–210, shows a very fine late third-century script on a dark basalt plaque, with straight alpha, parallel sigma, but slightly diverging mu; smaller midline round letters; theta with a dot; projecting pi, with a two-thirds-length right vertical, and clearly marked button serifs. In comparison, CPI 581 (Fig. 13.15), a dedication to Ares Nikephoros Euagros in favour of Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III by the commanders of an elephant-hunting expedition, shows a new and rather different style. CPI 581 is a particularly fine example of, to use Fraser’s formulation, ‘the baroque style’ of late third-century lettering, with broken-bar alpha, distinctive tall beta, small omicron, theta with a central bar, and a suspended wide omega. Similar trends in Greek and Egyptian-style lettering continue through the second century. CPI 359, a dedication of an altar to Ptolemy VI from Ptolemais by Nikomachos the priest of Zeus, dating to 180–175, not illustrated here, has a fine bold early second-century script with strong serifs, broken-bar alpha, short projecting pi, tall phi, and a smaller omicron.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

245

Fig. 13.16. CPI 132: Dedication to Ptolemy VI, Kleopatra II and their son, the future Ptolemy VIII, by Satyrion, commander of the fort at Leontopolis, dating to 172–169

CPI 132 (Fig. 13.16), a dedication to Ptolemy VI and Kleopatra II by the commander of the fort at Leontopolis dating to 172–169, has a regular Greekstyle script without serifs, but with some local elements, notably a broad shallow mu, with a curved internal stroke rather than separate bars and a round theta with a full bisecting bar; alpha has a broken crossbar, pi a projecting top bar and short right descender; omicron is consistently small and placed in the upper line, and beta is narrow. CPI 133 (Fig. 13.17), an honorific also from Leontopolis, for the First Friend and strategos Dionysios, dating to 165/4, is set within a formal ruled Egyptianstyle panel, with a stylized quadrate crescent above and margins on all sides; it has an elegant but plain script, with straight-bar alpha, more or less parallel sigma, slightly diverging mu, epsilon with a short central bar, pi with a slightly projecting top bar and a half-height right vertical; oval omicron and theta, the latter with a full crossbar; narrow beta and rho; in general, despite the support, this looks very Greek as a hand. CPI 239 (Fig. 13.18), a dedication in favour of the ruling Ptolemaic house from Theadelphia, dating to 128–116, has a fine square architraval script cut

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

246

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

Fig. 13.17. CPI 133: Honorific from Leontopolis for the First Friend and strategos Dionysios, dating to 165/4

Fig. 13.18. CPI 239: Architraval dedication from Theadelphia in favour of Ptolemy VIII, Kleopatra II and Kleopatra III, Benefactor Gods, and their children, dating to 128–116

within light guidelines: deeply broken alpha, parallel sigma, and deep mu; small serifs at additional intersections (alpha, epsilon, mu, sigma), full-size round letters, projecting pi with a short right vertical, theta with a short central bar, broad epsilon and kappa; upsilon in Πτολεμαίου in l. 1 has a short stem. CPI 592 (Fig. 13.19), a dedication by a hipparch in favour of the Ptolemies to Isis, Sarapis, and Horos, dated to 114–108, has a square, Egyptian-style

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

247

Fig. 13.19. CPI 592: dedication in favour of Kleopatra II, Kleopatra III and Ptolemy VIII to Isis, Sarapis, Horos, and Anchoris by the hipparch Ptolemaios, dated to 114–108

regular, deeply cut script: alpha has a broken crossbar, theta a short central bar, projecting pi a half-height right vertical; omega is almost a full loop with long finials; mu has slightly diverging, sigma parallel outer strokes; there is some widening of terminal strokes but without discernible serifs. CPI 200 (Fig. 13.20), an honorific decree from Memphis of the politeuma of the Idumaeans for the Kinsman Dorion, dating probably to 112/111, shows a fine, distinctive script on a carefully finished pedimental stele, with akroteria and a projecting cornice: alpha has a deeply broken crossbar, mu and sigma parallel outer strokes; theta, with a short central bar, and omicron are alternately small and almost full-size and set close to or on the baseline; omega is ovoid and almost closed, sitting above underlining and sometimes separated finials; pi has a projecting top bar with a half-height right vertical; xi lacks a central vertical; the stems of phi and psi rise into the interlinear space; serifs are applied throughout for both terminal strokes and intersections (alpha, mu, sigma). A culmination of these developments can be seen in the lettering of CPI 208 (Fig. 13.21), a dedication of wheat in favour of Ptolemy X and the Kinsman and strategos Lysanias from Soknopaiou Nesos on a pedimental granite stele, with small akroteria, dated to 95; its finely drawn script is replete with serifs, at intersections (alpha, delta, lambda, mu, nu, sigma) as well as terminal points;

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

248

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

Fig. 13.20. CPI 200: Decree of the politeuma of the Idumaeans and those from the city of Memphis for the kinsman and strategos Dorion, dated perhaps to 112/111

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

249

Fig. 13.21. CPI 208: Dedication from Soknopaiou Nesos of wheat in favour of Ptolemy X Alexander god Philometor and Lysanias the Kinsman and strategos to Soknopaios, dated to 95

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

250

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

zeta has a diagonal medial stroke; theta is oval with a full crossbar; alpha has a broken crossbar; pi has equal verticals, with a short projection, serifs, and a tendency to curvature in the right hasta; delta is set regularly above the baseline; omicron is predominantly smaller and midline; omega is open with extended finials; upsilon at the beginning of line 1 branches from a minimal base, but has regular stems thereafter. CPI 245 (Fig. 13.22), an asylia award from Theadelphia on an Egyptianstyle stele with curved upper border and pediment, dated to 70, provides a fine example of developed regular and square Egyptian-style characters without serifs, cut, for the most part, within finely traced guidelines, with broken-bar alpha, parallel sigma and mu, a projecting almost equal pi, full-size round letters, theta with an almost complete central bar, tall phi, open omega, zeta with a slightly off-centre vertical. For comparison, the contemporary CPI 297 (Fig. 11.21), also from the Fayum dated to 68, also on an Egyptian-style naiskos stele, with an inset relief scene above, also has lightly ruled guidelines, but its fine and regular lettering belongs to a different aesthetic: sigma is quadrate; phi has a small loop not crossed by its vertical stem; upsilon has a tall stem; omicron and theta are oval, the latter with a full crossbar; the horizontal of pi projects slightly and the verticals are of equal length; abbreviations are used in lines 4–5; serifs are formed from the broadening of terminal strokes. CPI 113 (Fig. 13.23: CAPInv. 38; discussed by Mario Paganini in Ch. 11.2.1 of this volume) records two honorific decrees of the association of landowners from the village of Psenamosis for the kinsman Paris on a pedimental stele, dated to 62/61: its elegantly cut and regular lettering has a quadrate sigma, cursive omega, alpha with a straight crossbar, parallel mu, and theta with a central bar. CPI 387 (Fig. 3.1 in Ch. 3 of this volume), the black granite Kallimachos stele of 39 BC, for its Greek text has a small, flowing script with parallel or slightly diverging mu and sigma, alpha with a broken or curved crossbar, almost full-size round letters, theta with a central bar, an open omega with small hooked finials, pi with an equal or slightly shorter right vertical, frequently with curvature in both verticals, and a flat delta.

13.4 P RIESTLY S YNOD DECREES The four multilingual priestly synod decrees, which survive in multiple copies, in honour of Ptolemy Euergetes in 243 (CPI 395, 410), the Kanopos Decree (CPI 119, 129, 176, 369, 377, 573) of 238, the Raphia Decree of 217 (CPI 144, 190, 396), and the Memphis Decree of 196 (CPI 122, 126, 413), represent a different aspect of the development of lapidary writing in the second half of the third and early years of the second century. Their Greek texts are extended,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

251

Fig. 13.22. CPI 245: Grant of asylia status on Egyptian-style stele, without relief above, dated to 70

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

252

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

Fig. 13.23. CPI 113: Dossier of honorific decrees of the association of landowners from the village of Psenamosis for the Kinsman Paris, dated to 62/61

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

253

running to many thousands of characters (c.8,000 for the Greek of the Rosetta Stone, c.8,400 for the Kanopos Decree) and are inscribed in small, in some cases very small, lettering, ranging from a half centimetre to just over a centimetre in height, on hard granite, basalt, limestone, and sandstone surfaces; Greek texts are inscribed below or on adjoining sides to texts in Hieroglyphic and Demotic scripts, with in some cases evident interaction between the different blocks of texts, and in every case on formally Egyptian monuments. To a degree the material of their supports conditions how their lettering is cut, or etched, in granite and basalt, in rapid flowing lines (so the Rosetta Stone and the much later Kallimachos Decree, CPI 387), with some curvature in letter strokes but limited elaboration or decoration and predominantly simple forms of alpha, beta, theta, mu, omicron, pi, sigma, and omega, although these show considerable variation in execution.

13.4.1 Priestly Synod Decree for Ptolemy Euergetes, 243 BC CPI 395, from Touphion (El Tod) in Upper Egypt, is now lost. The material of its support is not recorded; Fraser suggested perhaps a hard sandstone, but the nummulitic limestone of other inscribed stones found at Touphion seems equally likely. Although the technique of cutting is different from etching in granite, the result is similar to that of the other surviving copy of this decree, CPI 410 below. Letters are 0.011 m high, with a smaller omicron of 0.006 m,³¹ cut in a plain, somewhat irregular hand; alpha has a straight crossbar, sigma slightly diverging outer strokes; pi has a shorter right descender; epsilon has equal bars; round letters are small and placed in the upper line. CPI 410, from Elephantine, is cut on a grey granite block, in accomplished regular lettering with some broadening of terminal strokes, ranging in height from 0.01–0.012 m, with a taller phi (0.015 m) and smaller omicron (0.006 m): alpha has a curved crossbar, mu and sigma diverging outer strokes; pi has an overhanging top bar and curved, almost equal diverging verticals; theta and omicron are small and set in mid- or upper line; omega is almost full-size, with well-defined finials.

13.4.2 Kanopos Decree, 238 BC CPI 119, from Tanis, is inscribed on a fully preserved limestone stele, with a letter height (estimated from photographs) in the range 0.008–0.01 m; beta is ³¹ Approximate measurements estimated from the photograph and the recorded size of the stone, as for the also lost CPI 396.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

254

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

Fig. 13.24. CPI 129: Greek text of Kanopos Decree stele from Kom el-Hisn

taller at 0.012 m, and the round letters theta, with a central dot, omicron and omega, which are placed in mid- or upper line, smaller at 0.004–0.006 m. The lettering is tightly spaced: alpha has a straight crossbar, sigma widely diverging, but mu almost parallel outer strokes; pi has a curved right descender, sometimes almost reaching the baseline; omega is distinctively open and flattened and consistently placed in the upper line. CPI 129 (Fig. 13.24), from Kom el-Hisn, is cut on a limestone stele, with very regular, evenly spaced Greek lettering of 0.006–0.008 m: phi is taller at 0.011 m; omicron smaller at 0.005–0.006 m; alpha has a low straight crossbar, pi a short right descender and top bar extended slightly to the left; sigma and mu are predominantly parallel; theta, with a central dot, and omega with welldefined finials are full-size. CPI 176, from Boubastis, is cut on a dark granite stele in small, regular lettering 0.006 m high,³² with omicron consistently somewhat smaller: alpha has a straight or slightly curved crossbar; sigma has slightly diverging, a broad

³² In the editio princeps, Tietze, Lange, and Hallof (2005), 23, Hallof notes: ‘Die Inschrift ist durchaus professionell geschrieben’; the central point of theta and crossbar of alpha are occasionally omitted.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

255

mu predominantly parallel outer strokes; pi has a short right descender; theta is oval with a central point. CPI 573, of uncertain provenance, but perhaps from Memphis, cut on a dark basalt stele, of which only the severely abraded right half is preserved, has small, but well-spaced and regular lettering, measured by Fraser at 0.004–0.005 m for omicron and theta with a central dot, and otherwise in the range 0.006–0.008 m: alpha appears on photographs to have a curved crossbar; sigma and a broad mu have parallel outer strokes; omega with full finials is set slightly above the baseline; pi has a shorter right descender. CPI 369, from Eileithyiopolis (El-Kab), is cut on a hard sandstone opisthographic stele, in lettering ranging from 0.005 m for theta, omicron, and an open omega with extended finials to 0.010 m for other letters: alpha has a straight crossbar, sigma diverging outer strokes; mu is broad with a single curved internal stroke; pi has a short right descender; round letters are set in the upper line.

13.4.3 Raphia Decree, 217 BC CPI 144, from Pithom (Tell el-Mashkoutah), is cut on the reverse face (not preserved) and the right and left returns of a limestone stele in somewhat irregular lettering of a height range of 0.006–0.008 m (estimated from the photograph), with a smaller theta at 0.005 m: alpha has a straight crossbar, theta a bisecting bar; sigma has diverging, but a broad mu almost parallel outer strokes; omega is both full-size and set on the baseline and sometimes smaller and in mid- or upper line; pi has almost equal verticals, zeta a central vertical. The Greek text of CPI 190 (Fig. 13.25), from Memphis (Kom el-Qala’a, Mit Rahineh), is cut on a dark basalt stele in a small (0.005–0.006 m, with omicron 0.004–0.005 m), irregular, and rapid script, with letters imprecisely formed, from its ductus probably inscribed by the same cutter as the Demotic text above it: the bars of kappa are detached from the stem; sigma has diverging, mu both parallel and diverging outer strokes. The copy of the Raphia Decree from Touphion (El Tod), CPI 396, which is now lost, was inscribed on a limestone or hard sandstone stele in lettering of 0.008–0.010 m, with a taller beta at 0.014 m, and a smaller omicron of 0.007 m: alpha has a straight crossbar, sigma diverging outer strokes, pi a shorter right descender; omega is almost closed and has wide finials; theta has both a central dot and bar; beta is tall and narrow.

13.4.4 Rosetta Stone Decree, 196 BC The Greek text of CPI 122, from Pharbaithos in the Delta, is inscribed on the left and right faces of a basalt stele later recut on its front face to form an oil

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

256

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

Fig. 13.25. CPI 190: Raphia Decree fragment from Kom el Qala’a (Mit Rahineh: ancient Memphis)

press: the letters on the right face are somewhat larger (0.005–0.010 m) and more widely spaced than on the left edge (0.005–0.007 m): round letters are smaller and midline, omega open with extended finials and placed in the upper line; alpha is almost cursive, with an upward sloping crossbar; beta is tall and narrow; mu and sigma have diverging outer bars; pi has a projecting top bar and almost equal curving vertical strokes. CPI 126, the Rosetta Stone, has very small, c.0.005 m, carefully cut, for the most part regular Greek lettering, with some minor variations: alpha has a

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

257

straight crossbar, not always clearly cut, and a projecting apex shared by lambda, so that the letters are not always distinct; pi has an almost fullheight right descender; omicron is small and set in midline; mu and sigma have alternately diverging and parallel outer strokes. CPI 413, from Elephantine, on a reddish sandstone stele, now in the Louvre, is inscribed in irregular, rapid lettering of 0.008–0.010 m (omicron 0.006 m): alpha has a straight crossbar, sigma slightly diverging outer strokes; pi has a shorter right descender; omega is almost full-size.

13.4.5 Discussion What is striking about this group of extended texts is the accomplishment of the letter cutting in almost every case. The Greek text of CPI 129, a copy of the Kanopos Decree, is a model of miniature Greek lettering marching across the epigraphical field in unbroken, undecorated, regular ranks. Even CPI 190, a copy of the Raphia Decree incised in rapid, superficially untidy lettering, is a product of a skilled stonecutter who was able to reproduce a lengthy Greek text in tiny lettering barely more than half a centimetre high. Within this group of texts, there is considerable variation in the formation of individual letters, and no two are quite the same, not least the two copies of the Kanopos Decree cut on large limestone stelai, CPI 119 and 129, which fortuitously have adjacent Cairo Egyptian Museum inventory numbers; the increasingly crowded lettering of the former, with its sharply diverging sigma and hanging flattened omega, is altogether less regular than that of the latter, but has its own distinctive elegance and appropriateness. Who inscribed these texts? Fraser in his palaeographical manuscript emphasized the harmonious presentation of the complete Kanopos decree limestone stelai from Tanis (CPI 119) and Kom el-Hisn (CPI 129). To a degree, the same quality is apparent in the aesthetic of the Rosetta Stone, and perhaps also the Memphis copy of the Raphia Decree. The Greek texts in each, as we have seen, are approached in rather different ways. The regularity of the lettering of CPI 129 is matched by the accuracy and orthodoxy of its copying, with only a handful of orthographic variants and fewer errors; its cutter was evidently familiar and at home with inscribing extended Greek texts. The Tanis copy, CPI 119, by contrast, shows an increasing number of minor errors as its lettering becomes more densely inscribed to fit the text within the compass of the lower boundary of the stele. For Fraser, some of these errors are explicable only if the cutter’s Greek was imperfect.³³ He concluded that the letter cutter was Egyptian and the vertical harmony of form of the stele, from the solar disc ³³ For example, ΕΙΚΔΙΚΛΙ in l. 68 for εἶ⟨να⟩ι καί; in 72 ΑΡΤΟΠ and ΕΥΝΑΙΞΙΝ for ἄρτο⟨ν⟩ and ⟨γ⟩υναιξίν; mu cut with a curved inner stroke and eta are not always clearly distinguished.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

258

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

and uraei in its curved pediment through the Hieroglyphic text, with its horizontal guidelines and oval cartouches, through the diminishing size of the Greek text to the lower edge of the stone reflected a dominant Egyptian aesthetic.³⁴ Nevertheless in the inscribing of the Greek characteristic letterforms are held consistently and professionally even as the scale decreases. The hieroglyphos may have been Egyptian but was entirely at home in cutting Greek.

13.5 CASE S TUDIES The palaeographical trends traced in Section 13.3 above potentially provide guidance for placing otherwise unclearly or ambiguously dated texts. In Sections 13.5.1–13.5.3, three cases will be considered.

13.5.1 The Decrees of Ptolemais A group of third-century civic decrees from Ptolemais in Upper Egypt, discussed in Section 5.4 of Chapter 5 of this volume, cite regnal years or events without specifying the reigns to which they belong. CPI 353, an honorific decree for Antiphilos the son of Agathanor, for which the reference to an accession day on the 25th indicates a date early in the reign of Ptolemy III, is described by Fraser as a good example of an undecorated hand of c.250–225; this judgement seems broadly right for its lightly brokenbar alpha, almost full-size omicron, pi with a two-thirds-length right hasta, sigma with slightly diverging outer strokes and full-size rounded omega. If our suggested date in the Corpus of 244/3 BC or a little earlier is correct,³⁵ this should be the earliest appearance of the broken crossbar form of alpha in a Ptolemaic inscription. *CPI 354 (Fig. 13.26: OGIS 1 48) is an honorific decree for a college of prytaneis dated to a year 8. As Fraser emphasizes, the ductus of this decree is distinctive, with tall and thin lettering lacking strong serifs, small round letters, diverging sigma, nu with a raised right vertical, and alpha with a broken crossbar. Fraser was initially inclined to date this text to the reign of Philadelphos, to 278/7, but eventually found the palaeographical obstacle of brokenbar alpha, which would be significantly the earliest example of its appearance ³⁴ ‘To my mind (CPI 119) tells us a great deal about the process of which we read so much which tells us so little, the fusion of Egyptian and Greek. The victory here is with the Egyptian, but I like to think that the whole stele was engraved by one and the same ἱερογλυφός, a word which already occurs in ii BC in the famous Dream of Nectanebo, UPZ 81, I.2.’ ³⁵ Following Bingen (1994), 19–21.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

259

Fig. 13.26. CPI 354: Honorific decree of Ptolemais for prytaneis responsible for restoring public order

in Hellenistic civic lettering,³⁶ insurmountable in his palaeographical manuscript. A single letter criterion, even as a terminus post quem, is intensely vulnerable, but seems in this case decisive, and Fraser’s palaeographical judgement is followed both in Chapter 5 of this volume and in the Corpus. *CPI 355 (Fig. 13.27), dating to 240/239, or possibly later, has straight, curved, and broken-bar alpha, midline smaller, sometimes oval omicron; theta still with a central dot; pi with equal hastae and an overhanging top bar; sigma with diverging outer strokes; almost semi-circular omega with finials extending inwards slightly as well as extending out. The honorand of this decree, Dionysios the son of Mousaios, qualified here as lifetime prytanis (πρύτανις διὰ βίου), appears in CPI 354 among the college of prytaneis, which is designated after him.

13.5.2 Saviour Gods CPI 323 (Fig. 13.28), an honorific ex-voto from Alabastron Polis in the Hermopolite Nome for a King Ptolemy and Queen Berenike identified as θεοὶ Σωτῆρες (‘Saviour Gods’) is dated to 88–80 by A. Łajtar in his re-edition ³⁶ Arsinoe’s elegant monumental dedication of a rotunda on Samothrace, IG XII 8, 227, provides an early (before 281) example of alpha with curved crossbar, but the broken form is not attested elsewhere until the second half of the century.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

260

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

Fig. 13.27. CPI 355: Decree of Ptolemais for the lifetime prytanis Dionysios the son of Mousaios

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

261

Fig. 13.28. CPI 323: An ex-voto honorific for Ptolemy and Berenike as Saviour Gods

in I.Varsovie 50, although O. Rubensohn in the editio princeps excluded an identification with Ptolemy IX Soter II and Berenike III because of the simplicity of its script and formulation. The inscription has plain, boldly cut lettering: pi with a right vertical descending just beyond halfway, slightly diverging mu and sigma, smaller omicron and theta just above the baseline, the latter with a central dot, alpha with a straight crossbar, upsilon with curving branches from a shortish stem; terminal strokes are either blocked or carry short serifs. For Łajtar, an insuperable obstacle to Rubensohn’s dating to the reign of Ptolemy I Soter is the absence of secure attestations of Ptolemy I with the epithet Saviour God (θεὸς Σωτῆρ) before 282. Having excluded Ptolemy I, Łajtar necessarily turned to Ptolemy IX Soter II as the honorand. His argument, however, that there is nothing in the way of placing the inscription palaeographically in the second half of the Ptolemaic period is hard to substantiate since there are no clear later parallels for lettering of this type. The palaeographical comparison that he offers with I.Varsovie 43 (CPI 8), rather reinforces than counters the case for an earlier dating since his, and our, palaeographical analysis of both inscriptions is in outlines similar. The exceptionality of the epithet θεοὶ Σωτῆρες in the present case is mitigated, as Fraser noticed,³⁷ by the circumstances of the ex-voto, which the dedicators, Heliodoros, Thymoides, and Hermogenes offered in acknowledgement of deliverance (σωθέντες: ‘having been saved’) from an unspecified peril.

³⁷ Fraser (1956), 51 n. 1, Ptol.Alex. II, 368 n. 229.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

262

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

Fig. 13.29. CPI 382: Honorific decree from Thebes (Luxor) for the gymnasiarch Boidas son of Demetrios, the Persian

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

263

We accordingly prefer to add this text to the small count of inscriptions belonging to the reign of Ptolemy Soter.

13.5.3 Boidas the Persian CPI 382 (Fig. 13.29), an honorific decree for Boidas son of Demetrios, the Persian, praising and awarding him a painted portrait and crowning him with a foliate crown annually at the birthday festival of the king on 28 Hyperberetaios was placed palaeographically by its first editor, Henri Henne, in the late third or early second century, perhaps in the reign of Ptolemy IV or Ptolemy V:³⁸ alpha has a broken crossbar, pi a shorter right hasta and occasionally overhanging top bar, sigma parallel outer strokes, and omega is open and placed in midline. These forms in themselves are compatible with Henne’s proposed dating range, but the consistent use of strong bar serifs, not just at terminal points but also at the intersections of sigma, mu, nu, and corners of delta and apex of alpha, as in CPI 239 (Fig. 13.18: 128–116), 200 (Fig. 13.20: 112/111), and 208 (Fig. 13.21: 95), point to a rather later date, in the second or early first century, which Fraser too preferred, although without explanation.³⁹

13.6 IDENTIFIABLE HANDS The elegant micro (0.003–0.007 m) lettering of an Alexandrian dedication for Ptolemy III and Berenike II (CPI 15) provides evidence, alongside the priestly synod decrees discussed in Section 13.4, for accomplished practitioners and a familiarity with inscribing Greek texts. But in the absence of a decree culture in the Ptolemaic poleis, despite the small concentration of evidence from Ptolemais in the the reign of Ptolemy III, or a volume of civic or court publication that might have generated continuous work for stonecutters, identification of individual hands is subject to more than the usual hasard of random preservation.⁴⁰ We might expect to find the same stonecutter at work on specific repeated commissions, as in the three asylia stelai from the temple of ³⁸ Henne (1923), 191–3, citing at 193 n. 1 the opinions of Jouguet (third century), Holleaux and Edgar (second century), and Lefebvre (agnostic). ³⁹ These features perhaps underlie Fraser’s implicit palaeographical judgement that the decree should belong to the second century or later Fraser (1961), 145 no. 26: ‘a third- or even a secondcentury date seems very unlikely’; Ptol.Alex. II, 383 n. 345: second century. ⁴⁰ For the identification of the hands of individual stonecutters, see Tracy (1975), (1990a), (1990b); and cf. Crowther (2004).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

264

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

Fig. 13.30. CPI 38: Statue base for Ptolemy IX Soter II offered by the kinsman and chief steward Apollonios

Fig. 13.31. CPI 57: Statue base for a kinsman and dioiketes offered by fellow members of a cult association for Aphrodite

Pnepheros at Theadelphia with more or less identical texts (CPI 247 a–c), but even here there are at least two styles in play. The large lettering, above 0.015 m in height, characteristic of honorific statue base dedications presents different challenges for identification. Stephen Tracy in discussing the lettering of late Hellenistic Attic inscriptions has emphasized the differences in technique required to cut lettering on a larger scale—by furrowing rather than vertical cuts.⁴¹ The technique and shapes of large lettering even so may be as distinctive as the hand of a letter cutter ⁴¹ Tracy (1990a), 5–6, noticed the absence of a securely formulated sequence for the development of this lettering, at least for Athens.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

Table 13.1. Table of letter forms

265

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

266

The Palaeography of Ptolemaic Inscriptions

Table 13.1. Continued

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Charles Crowther

267

inscribing long texts in small lettering, and a plausible identification can be offered for the cutter of at least two Alexandrian honorific inscriptions on granite statue bases, respectively for a portrait of Ptolemy IX Soter II offered by the Kinsman and Chief Steward (ἀρχεδέατρος) Apollonios, dated to 116–107 or 88–80 (Fig. 13.30: CPI 38; OGIS 1 169), and for the Kinsman and dioiketes [- -]os the son of Asklepiades offered by fellow members of a cult association for Aphrodite, dated provisionally to the last quarter of the second century (Fig. 13.31: CPI 57): the distinctive features of these two inscriptions, their fully formed serifs at terminal strokes, upsilon with a short stem and with wide straight branches, mu with internal bars projecting beyond its diverging outer strokes, and omega almost fully closed with prominent finials, suggest that they were the work of the same stonecutter. A fragment of a third honorific inscription on a dark basalt block (CPI 52), which mentions an ἀρχιθυρωρóς (‘Chief Doorkeeper’), appears to be another example of this hand. We can perhaps see in this case the activity of an artisan who specialized in inscribing statue bases for individuals of high aulic rank.

13.7 CONC LUSION The inscriptions examined in this chapter are a subset of the whole Corpus. Discussion has been selective, and the picture is inevitably incomplete; the Corpus will offer palaeographic commentaries on individual texts wherever possible. But the general outlines and specific representative cases offered here should serve to indicate both the variety of forms of Greek lapidary writing produced in Ptolemaic Egypt (see Table 13.1 above) and to illustrate at least some of the creative tensions produced by the interactions of distinct and developed epigraphical cultures.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

APPENDIX

List of Texts in the Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions1 Volume I: Alexandria and the Delta (1-206) Alexandria 31.12, 29.53; TM GEO 100; Pleiades 727070

Civic Decrees 1

I.Alex.Ptol. 40 (TM 7092) c.300–250. Decree of the city of Alexandria.

2

I.Alex.Ptol. 30 (TM 53707) 112. Decree of a priestly synod.

Civic Institutions 3

I.Louvre 12 (TM 107200) Alexandria(?) c.250–150. Dedication: by Apollophanes, victor at the Basileia, to Hermes and Herakles; on a limestone plaque.

4

I.Alex.Ptol. 28 (TM 5975) 163–145. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI and Queen Kleopatra II and their children, by the former agonothete Dioteles, to Hermes and Herakles, of seats of the gymnasium(?)

5

I.Musée d’Alexandrie 162 (TM 104985) c.150–50. Document concerning the gerousia.

6

I.Alex.Ptol. 32 (TM 5976) Alexandria(?) 112/1 or 76/5. Dedication: by the politeuma of garrison soldiers in Alexandria and their prostates Dionysios and grammateus Philippos, to Zeus Soter and Hera Teleia; year date; ex-voto.

7

I.Alex.Ptol. 45 (TM 7166) I(?) Honorific decree(?) of an association.

¹ Entries in the Catalogue are arranged in geographical order: following the toponym, coordinates together with references to Trismegistos Place (TM GEO: https://www.tri smegistos.org/geo) and Pleiades Gazetteer (https://pleiades.stoa.org/places) are given for each geographical subheading. Entries for individual texts list the CPI number with a current publication reference, followed in parentheses by a Trismegistos (TM) text number, and a date or dating range; for the latter Roman numerals are used to indicate a century span (‘III’ for ‘third century’, and so on). A brief description is added for each text; descriptions for dedicatory inscriptions are more extensive and provide a complement to the discussion in Chapter 8.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

270

Appendix

Dedications by and for the Royal House 8

I.Alex.Ptol. 1, I.Varsovie 43 (TM 6369) 304–282. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy I(?) and his children, by brothers Nikanor and Nikandros, of the deme Polydeukeios, to Sarapis and Isis; on a marble block.

9

I.Alex.Ptol. 5 (TM 6083) 283–274. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy II, by Archagathos governor of Libya and his wife Stratonike, to Sarapis and Isis, of temenos; on a plaque.

10

I.Alex.Ptol. 6 (TM 107252), Alexandria(?) 285/4–246. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy II, by Aristion, to all the gods.

11

I.Alex.Ptol. 38 (TM 107256). Alexandria(?) 279–270 or 217–204. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy and Queen Arsinoe.

12

I.Alex.Ptol. 13 (TM 6209) 246–222. Foundation plaques of the Sarapieion. Dedication: by King Ptolemy III, to Sarapis, of temple and temenos; on a set of ten foundation plaques.

13

Abdel-Maksoud et al. (2015) (TM 828668-70, 828689–91) 246–222. Foundation plaques of the Boubastieion. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy III, by Queen Berenike II, to Boubastis, of temple, sanctuary, and altar; on a set of foundation plaques.

14

I.Alex.Ptol. 16 (TM 6479) 246–222(?) Dedication: by Berenike for her husband.

15

I.Alex.Ptol. 14 (TM 6381) 246–222. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy III and Queen Berenike II gods Euergetai and for gods Adelphoi, by Kleon and Antipatros priests of Zeus, to Zeus Olympios and Zeus Synomosios, of altars, temene, and land; on a plaque.

16

I.Alex.Ptol. 17 (TM 5973) 222–204. Foundation plaque of a temple of Isis. Dedication: by King Ptolemy IV, to Isis, of temple; on a foundation plaque.

17

I.Alex.Ptol. 22 (TM 6387) 222–204. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IV and Queen Arsinoe III, gods Philopatores, by Apollonios and Timokion and their children, to Demeter, Kore, and Dikaiosyne, of altar.

18

I.Alex.Ptol. 21 (TM 6210) 222–204. Foundation plaques of the temple of Harpokrates. Dedication: by King Ptolemy IV, to Harpokrates, of temple; on foundation plaques; ‘according to instruction’ (kata prostagma).

19

I.Alex.Ptol. 20, I.Varsovie 45 (TM 107254) 216–204. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IV and Queen Arsinoe III gods Philopatores, by Diodotos, Alexandrian, and his sons Diodotos, Apollodotos, Demetrios, and Ariston, to Sarapis and Isis; on a plaque.

20

I.Alex.Ptol. 19 (TM 6535) 216–204. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IV and Queen Arsinoe III, gods Philopatores, by Archepolis, of the deme Leonnateus, to Sarapis and Isis; on a marble plaque.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

271

21

I.Alex.Ptol. 23 (TM 6385) 222–204 (217?) Dedication: by Ptolemy IV, to Euodia; on a plaque.

22

I.Alex.Ptol. 24 (TM 43668) 216–204. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IV and Queen Arsinoe III gods Philopatores, by the elders of the olyrokopoi, with the priest Amenneus, to Anoubis; on a plaque.

23

I.Alex.Ptol. 18 (TM 6691) 216–204. Foundation plaque of the temple of Sarapis and Isis and Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III.

24

I.Alex.Ptol. 25 (TM 107255) 216–204. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IV and Queen Arsinoe III, to Ptolemy III and Berenike II gods Euergetai and Hestia Pantheos, of temenos and altar; on a plaque.

25

I.Alex.Ptol. 62 (TM 6533) II. Dedication: to the supreme God (θεὸς ὕψιστος), of a synagogue and its appurtenances; on a marble plaque.

26

I.Musée d’Alexandrie 40 (TM 6496) 107–101(?) Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Queen Kleopatra III and King Ptolemy X, gods Philometores and Soteres.

27

I.Alex.Ptol. 34 (TM 6424) 52. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy XII, god New Dionysos and his children, gods New Philadelphoi, by Nepheros, to Isis the greatest goddess, of sacred topos; on Egyptian-style stele; dated by year, month, and day.

28

I.Alex.Ptol. 35 (TM 6425) 37. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) queen and king, by Alypos, to the great god, of synagogue; on a plaque; dated by year and month.

Dedications to the Royal House 29

I.Alex.Ptol. 12 (TM 7033) c.272–246. Dedication: to Arsinoe Philadelphos; on a marble plaque.

30

I.Alex.Ptol. 11 (TM 104539) c.272–246. Dedication: by Asklepiades, to Arsinoe Philadelphos; on a white marble plaque.

31

I.Alex.Ptol. 9 (TM 5974) c.274–246. Dedication: by Satyrion, to gods Adelphoi; on a marble plaque.

32

I.Alex.Ptol. 10 (TM 6602) c.272–246. Inscribed base of a statue of Arsinoe Philadelphos.

33

I.Alex.Ptol. 7 (TM 107253) c.272–246. Dedication: by priests, to King Ptolemy II and Arsinoe Philadelphos, of altar.

34

I.Alex.Ptol. 8 (TM 6414) c.272–246. Dedication: to King Ptolemy II and [Arsinoe Philadelphos], of altar.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

272

Appendix

35

I.Alex.Ptol. 37 (TM 58448) c.270–222. Dedication: by a priest of Arsinoe and Aphrodite, for King Ptolemy and Queen Berenike; on a marble plaque.

36

I.Alex.Ptol. 26 (TM 6418) 204–193. Inscribed base of a statue group for King Ptolemy V.

37

I.Alex.Ptol. 39 (TM 107257) II. Honorific dedication for Queen Kleopatra II or III.

38

I.Alex.Ptol. 31 (TM 6316) 88–81(?) Inscribed base of a statue of King Ptolemy IX.

Dedications to Deities by Individuals 39

I.Alex.Ptol. 60 (TM 103550) early Ptolemaic. Dedication: by Damokles and his brothers, to Asklepios, of altar.

40

Kritzas (2004) (Not in TM) Late IV(?) Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Nikanor, by Kokalos, to Eudotes; on a plaque; ex-voto.

41

SB 1 412 (TM 93365) c.305–250. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) NN, to Sarapis and Isis; on marble plaque; exvoto.

42

I.Alex.Ptol. 4 (TM 5951) c.305–275. Dedication: by Asklepiod[- -], [- -]boulos, and Eu[- -], to Sarapis, of statue; on a statue base.

43

I.Alex. Ptol. 2 b (TM 5944) c.305–275. Dedication: by Aristodemos, Athenian, to Sarapis and Isis, of statue group; on a statue base; made by Delokles (or Demokles?).

44

I.Alex.Ptol. 57 (TM 6693) III. Dedication: by Theotimos, to Apollo Blastys; on a marble plaque.

45

I.Alex.Ptol. 61 (TM 104505) c.270–222. Dedication: by Porres, to gods; on marble fragment; ex-voto.

46

I.Alex.Ptol. 53 (TM 5986), Alexandria(?) c.225–150. Dedication: by Ischonidas, Cretan from Phaistos, to Osiris; ‘according to instruction’ (kata prostagma).

47

I.Alex.Ptol. 49 (TM 104506) c.225–150. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) their children, by Pyrrhandros and his wife Demetria, to Isis and the other saviour goddesses; on a limestone plaque.

48

I.Alex.Ptol. 50 (TM 103545) Alexandria(?) c.250–150. Dedication: by Hektor, to Zeus(?) and Isis, of statue.

49

I.Louvre 17 (TM 103909) 134/3. Dedication: by 14 pre-ephebic youths (mellakes), to Hermes and Herakles; on a limestone stele.

50

I.Alex.Ptol. 55 bis (TM 107267) c.250–150. Dedication: by Libys and his wife and children, to Isis, Sarapis, Hermes, gods; on a marble plaque; image of Thoth beside inscription.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

273

51

I.Alex.Ptol. 54 (TM 98606) II–I. Dedication: for (ὑπέρ) her children, by Timanthe, to Anoubis, of jackal figure; ex-voto.

52

I.Alex.Ptol. 43 (TM 47693) c.100–70. Fragment mentioning a head doorkeeper (archithyroros).

53

I.Alex.Ptol. 59 (TM 103738). Ptolemaic. Dedication: by a member of the ephebic class, to Herakles(?), of statue; on a dark granite statue base.

Honorific Inscriptions for High-Ranking Individuals 54

I.Alex.Ptol. 15 (TM 6084) 246–222. Honorific inscription by King Ptolemy III for his doctor.

55

SEG 64 1894 (TM 380605) 175–145. Honorific inscription for a First Friend by a military association.

56

I.Alex.Ptol. 27 (TM 6315) c.182–180. Inscribed statue base in honour of the chief bodyguard Ptolemaios.

57

I.Alex.Ptol. 41 (TM 7136) c.100–70. Honorific inscription on the base of a statue of a Kinsman and dioiketes.

58

I.Alex.Ptol. 42 (TM 6670) c.90–30. Statue base for Lykarion.

59

I.Alex.Ptol. 33 (TM 7165) Alexandria(?) 60/59. Honorific inscription for Tryphaina.

60

I.Alex.Ptol. 36 (TM 6366) 34. Honorific inscription on the base of a statue of M. Antonius.

Funerary Monuments 61

I.Métriques 29 (TM 104055) c.250–150. Funerary epigram of Stratonike.

62

I.Métriques 62 (TM 7135) c.250–150. Funerary epigram of Philoxenos.

63

I.Métriques 63 (TM 7211) II. Funerary epigram in iambics for the son of Eirenaios.

64

I.Métriques 92 (TM 7183) III. Funerary stele of Menneas.

65

I.Métriques 30 (TM 104326) c.300–250. Funerary stele of Agathokleia.

66

I.Métriques 28 (TM 47494) III. Funerary epigram of Niko.

67

I.Métriques 31 (TM 7186) c.250–100. Funerary stele.

68

I.Métriques 65 (TM 7139) II. Funerary epigram of Nikolaos.

69

I.Métriques 64 (TM 43990) II. Funerary epigram of Ammonios.

70

SB 5 7838 (TM 6282) c.200–150. List of names from a tomb.

71

SEG 41 1609 (TM 102570) c.150–50. Funerary epigram of Talous.

72

I.Métriques 34 (TM 102895) II. Funerary epigram of Aline.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

274

Appendix

Miscellaneous 73

I.Alex.Ptol. 44 (TM 47446) c.250–150. List of Anatolian names.

74

CE 42 1967, 355 (TM 115834) 215 or 205(?) Petition (enteuxis).

75

I.Alex.Ptol. 29 (TM 44328) c.180–148. Statue base with artists’ names.

76

I.Alex.Ptol. 47 (TM 104507) II. List of names.

77

I.Alex.Ptol. 48 (TM 6672) II(?) List of names.

78

I.Alex.Ptol. 66 (TM 6497) I. Signature of a sculptor.

79

I.Alex.Ptol. 70 (TM 93851) II. Fragment.

80

I.Alex.Ptol. 46 (TM 58482) Alexandria(?) 95/4 or 62/1(?) Dedication: by Ptolemaios of the deme Aiakideus, to an association of landowners.

81

I.Alex.Ptol. 65 (TM 107260) c.150–30. Granite base of a portrait bust(?) of Dioskourides.

82

I.Alex.Ptol. 71 (TM 103737) II–I. Fragment.

83

I.Alex.Ptol. 55 (TM 107258) Ptolemaic. Altar of Isis, Sarapis and Anoubis.

Delta Sites

El Kanais, n-w of Kafr el-Dauwar 31.7, 30.7; TM GEO 4403 84

JEA 56 (1970), 179–82 (TM 102448) 63. Royal edict (prostagma).

Karioun–Chereum (Kafr el-Dawar) 31.7, 30.7; TM GEO 4403 (cf. GEO 2096) 85

I.Delta 1, p. 417 no. 6 (TM 6509) c.305-250. Dedication: by Libys, of the deme Neileus, and his wife Berenike, to Boubastis and Anoubis; on a marble plaque.

Lake Manzala Area 31.6, 32.12; TM GEO 3687 86

I.Péluse 488 (TM 105114) 240/239. Prescript with dynastic and priestly dating formulae.

Xenephyris (Kom el-Akhdar) 31.44, 30.83; TM GEO 31, 6066 87

JIGRE 24 (TM 7216) 141–130 or c.124–116. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII, Queen Kleopatra II and Queen Kleopatra III, by the Jews of Xenephyris, of pylon of the synagogue; on a plaque.

Taposiris Parva 31.27, 30.00; TM GEO 2261; Pleiades 727242 88

OGIS 1 97 (TM 6393) 194/3–180. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy V and Queen Kleopatra I, gods Epiphaneis, by Sparis, komegetai and thiaseitai, to Osiris, Sarapis, Isis, Anoubis, and all the gods and goddesses, of altar and persea trees; on a plaque.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

275

Kanopos and Region 31.19, 30.4; TM GEO 1001; Pleiades 727242 89

I.Louvre 7 (TM 6367) 305–282. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy I, by Epikrates, Athenian, to Artemis Soteira; on a plaque.

90

I.Delta 1, p. 246 no. 17 (TM 6300) c.250–200. Dedication: for (ὑπέρ) Polianthes and Bakchis, by Barthybas, to Sarapis, Isis, Herakles; on a plaque.

91

I.Delta 1, pp. 233–4 no. 3 (TM 6370) c.272–246. Dedication: for (ὑπέρ) himself, his wife and children, by The[on(?)], to Arsinoe Philadelphos; on a marble plaque.

92

I.Delta 1, p. 232 no. 2 (TM 6505). Between 273/2 and 268. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy II and Queen Arsinoe II, by the nauarchos Kallikrates, to Isis, Anoubis, of sanctuary; on a plaque.

93

I.Delta 1, pp. 235–6 no. 6 (TM 102617). Kanopos(?) 246–222. Dedication: by Kallikrates, to Sarapis, Isis, Neilos, King Ptolemy III, and Queen Berenike II gods Euergetai.

94

I.Delta 1, p. 235 no. 5 (TM 6528) 246–222. Dedication: by Artemidoros from Bargylia, to Sarapis, Isis, Neilos, King Ptolemy III and Queen Berenike II, gods Euergetai; on a plaque.

95

I.Delta 1, p. 234 no. 4 (TM 6529) 246–222. Dedication: to Sarapis, Isis, King Ptolemy III and Queen Berenike II, gods Euergetai; on a marble plaque.

96

I.Delta 1, pp. 236–7 no. 7 (TM 6318) 246–222. Dedication: by Ptolemy III and Berenike II, to Osiris, of a temenos; on a gold foundation plaque.

97

SEG 56 1986 (BE 2007, 544) (TM 700881) 244–222. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy III, Queen Berenike II, and their children, by King Ptolemy III, to Herakles, of komasterion; on a gold plaque.

98

I.Delta 1, pp. 237–8 no. 8 (TM 6272) 211–204. Inscribed base of a statue of Queen Arsinoe III.

99

SEG 52 1782 (TM 135626) c.350-250. Epitaph of a soldier.

100

I.Delta 1, pp. 247–8 no.19 (TM104042) c.150–30. Inscription concerning a rest-house (ζωθήκη).

101

I.Delta 1, p. 238 no. 9 (TM 7238) 143–37 or 132–24. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII and Queen Kleopatra II gods Euergetai, by Ptolemaios and Herakleides, to Mother of Gods (Isis); on a plaque; ex-voto.

102

I.Delta 1, p. 239 no. 10 (TM 7266) 116–101. Inscribed base of a statue of Queen Kleopatra III.

103

SEG 59 1769 (TM 290103) 118. The Thonis-Herakleion Stele of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, Kleopatra II and Kleopatra III.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

276

Appendix

104

I.Delta 1, p. 245 no. 16 (TM 6506) Ptolemaic. Dedication: for (ὑπέρ) NN and their children, to Isis; on a limestone plaque.

105

I.Delta 1, pp. 246–7 no. 18 (TM 6319) II(?) Dedication: for (ὑπέρ) themselves and their children, by Polykrates and Hermione, to Mother of Gods (Isis); on a plaque; ex-voto.

Mareia 31.15, 29.89; TM GEO 3431 Pleiades 727154 106

SB 1 358 (TM 6486) III. Explanatory text for a sundial.

Schedia 31.13, 30.19; TM GEO 2096; Pleiades 77221 107

I.Delta 1, p. 413 no. 1 (TM 6695) Late IV. Dedication: to Zeus Soter, of an altar; on a plaque.

108

I.Delta 1, p. 413 no. 2 (TM 6696) Late IV. Dedication: to Athena Polias, of an altar; on a plaque.

109

JIGRE 22 (TM 6415) 246–222. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy III, Queen Berenike II, and their children, by the Jews, of synagogue; on a plaque.

110

I.Delta 1, pp. 415–16 no. 4 (TM 7104) 116–107 or 101–88. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IX and Queen Kleopatra III, gods Philometores and Soteres, by garrison of Schedia, of a Kleopatreion; on a plaque.

111. I.Delta 1, pp. 416–17 no. 5 (TM 6458) 60. Honorific inscription for Ptolemy XII from the dioiketes Hephaistion. 112

I.Métriques 37 (TM 7134) c.150-30. Funerary epigram of Dosithea.

Psenamosis (Kom Tukala) 31.1; TM GEO 1151; Pleiades 727207 113

I.Prose 40 (TM 6460) 62/1(?) Decree(s) in honour of Paris.

114

I.Delta 1, pp. 462–3 (TM 103840) II–I. Dedication: for (ὑπέρ) themselves and their children, by Diogenes and Kitias, to Boubastis, of statue; on marble block; ex-voto.

Xois 31.1; TM GEO 2507; Pleiades 727256 115

SB 3 6664 (TM 7262) c.157–145(?) Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI and Queen Kleopatra II, gods Philometores, and their children, by Kaphisodoros and the politeuma of the Boiotians, to Zeus Basileus and the other ancestral gods; on a plaque.

Damanhur Region 31.03, 30.47; TM GEO 817; Pleiades 727123 116

OGIS 2 724 (TM 6413) c.272–246. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy II and Arsinoe Philadelphos, by Dionysios son of Potamon; on a marble plaque.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

277

117

SB 1 435 (TM 6508) 170–145. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI, Queen Kleopatra II, gods Philometores, their children and ancestors, to Isis, Horos, Semthopos; on a plaque.

118

I.Delta 2, pp. 523–5, no. 1 (TM 103203) I. Dedication: to Zeus Amarios and Athena Amaria, of altar.

Tanis (Sar el Hagar) 30.97, 31.87; TM GEO 2252; Pleiades 727236 119

OGIS 1 56 A (TM 6378) 238. The Kanopos Decree (Tanis Stele)

Psenemphaia 30.96, 30.13; TM GEO 1953; Pleiades 727208 120

I.Delta 3, p. 892, no. 1 (TM 5979) c.150–50. Dedication: by Gaius and the cavalry, to Ptolemy; on a limestone block.

Kom Saggari 30.79, 30.60; TM GEO 1149 121

I.Delta 3, p. 1036 no. 2 (TM 7265) 209–204. Dedication: by Posidonios and the rest of the members of the thiasos, to King Ptolemy IV, Queen Arsinoe III, gods Philopatores, and their son Ptolemy, of a dining hall; on a plaque.

Leontopolis (Tell el-Yahoudia) 30.49, 31.55; TM GEO 1239; Pleiades 727146 122

I.Prose 17 (TM 5958) 196. Decree of a priestly synod (the Memphis Decree).

123

JIGRE 30 (TM 104125) 117(?) Funerary epigram of Demas.

124

JIGRE 129 (TM 44142) Leontopolis(?) I(?) Fragment of a decree(?)

125

Asylia 228 (TM 6400) Leontopolis(?) 47–31(?) Royal edict about a synagogue.

Pharbaithos (Rosetta Region, Horbeit) 30.73, 31.62; TM GEO 2059, 1751; Pleiades 72719 126

OGIS 1 90 (TM 8809) 196. Decree of a priestly synod in honour of Ptolemy V Epiphanes (the Memphis Decree, ‘Rosetta Stone’).

127

I.Louvre 13 (TM 6607) 163–145. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI, Queen Kleopatra II, gods Philometores, and their children, to Hermes and Herakles, of a Ptolemaion and throne; on a plaque.

128

I.Varsovie 49 (TM 110351) c.130–110. Honorific inscription for Theagenes.

Kom el-Hisn 30.79, 30.60; TM GEO 1148; Pleiades 727165 129

OGIS 1 56 B (TM 6378) 238. The Kanopos Decree (Kom el-Hisn stele).

Leontopolis (Tell el-Moqdam) 30.68, 31.35; TM GEO 1238; Pleiades 727147 130

SB 10 10696 (TM 104516) 216–204. Dedication: by the priest Horos, to King Ptolemy IV and Queen Arsinoe III, gods Philopatores, of pyrgos and its appurtenances; on a limestone block.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

278

Appendix

131

OGIS 2 732 (TM 6419) 193–186. Dedication: by Apollonios, grammateus of Ornymenes, to King Ptolemy V, god Epiphanes and Eucharistos, and Queen Kleopatra I, of sanctuary of the lion and its appurtenances; on a limestone plaque.

132

SB 5 8956 (TM 6430) 175–170. Dedication: by Satyrion from Miletos, commander of the troops in the camp of Leontopolis, to King Ptolemy VI, Queen Kleopatra II, gods Philometores, and their brother Ptolemy.

133

SB 1 3941 (TM 44047) 165–164. Honorific inscription for a strategos.

134

CE 82 (2007), pp. 79, 84 (TM 93289) II–I. Bilingual marker of a temple of Miysis.

Mehallet el-Kubra 30.96, 31.16; TM GEO 3669 135

I.Varsovie 52 (TM 110354) Mehallet el-Kubra(?) c.150–100. Dedication: by the landowners of the city, to the Great Hero and templesharing gods; year and month date.

Sebennytos 30.96, 31.23; TM GEO 2104; Pleiades 727227 136

SB 1 1106 (TM 6599) II-I(?) Honorific inscription for an archibouleutes.

Taposiris Magna 30.94, 29.51; TM GEO 2260; Pleiades 727241 137

SEG 60 1812bis (TM 701156) late IV–III. Dedication: by Zoilos; on a limestone disc.

138

SEG 60 1812ter (TM 701158) III. Dedication: to Sarapis and Isis Nikephoroi; on a marble plaque.

139

SB 1 1554 (TM 103459) c.150–30. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy and Queen - -; on a marble plaque.

140

Breccia (1914), 123–4 (No entry in TM) Ptolemaic. Honorific inscription for Chares by the priests of Taposiris.

Thmuis (Tell Timai) 30.93, 31.51; TM GEO 2405; Pleiades 727249 141

SB 5 8118 (TM 6299) 189/8. Honorific inscription on the base of a statue of the gymnasiarch Philoxenos.

142

SB 3 6665 (TM7263) 152/1 or 141/0(?) Honorific inscription on the base of a statue of the gymnasiarch Leonides.

143

BSAA 19 (1923), 125 no. 3 (TM 7264) c.150–100. Dedication by a college of chrematistai.

Pithom (Tell el-Maskhutah) 30.55, 32.09; TM GEO 2297 144

PSD Raphia M, Gauthier and Sottas (1925) (TM 2984) 217. Decree of a priestly synod (the Raphia Decree)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

279

Naukratis 30.90, 30.59; TM GEO 1424; Pleiades 727169 145

I.Delta 2, pp. 755–6 no. 20 (TM 103201) IV. Dedication: by Kleainetos and Maiandrios, to Apollo, of palaistra; on a marble block.

146

I.Delta 2, pp. 748–9 no. 12 (TM 6877) early Ptolemaic(?) Dedication: by Ampelion to Zeus Thebaios; on a marble statue base.

147

I.Delta 2, pp. 747–8 no. 11 (TM 119367) 285–246. Altar of King Ptolemy II Philadelphos.

148

I.Delta 2, p. 747 no. 10 (TM6711) 285–246(?) Fragment possibly mentioning (Arsinoe?) Philadelphos.

149

I.Delta 2, pp. 751–2 no. 15 (TM 43908) II. Honorific inscription for Heliodoros son of Dorion.

150

I.Delta 2, pp. 750–1 no. 14 (TM 48292) 222–204. Honorific inscription for Ptolemy IV Philopator.

151

SB 24 16212 (TM 5953) III. List of bouleutai(?) of Naukratis.

152

I.Delta 2, pp. 765–6 no. 42 (TM 109742) III. List of names(?)

153

I.Delta 2, p. 767 no. 45 (TM 103190) Ptolemaic. Fragment.

154

I.Delta 2, pp. 766–7 no. 44 (TM 6467) III. Fragment.

155

I.Varsovie 67 (TM 47422) c.250–150. Funerary epigram of Sosibios.

156

I.Métriques 2 (TM 44036) III–II. Funerary epigram of a Teian man.

157

I.Delta 2, p. 756 no. 21 (TM 103452) IV–III. Dedication: by Dionysie, to Demeter, of offering table(?)

158

I.Métriques 11 (TM 102892) c.150–30. Funerary epigram of Apollos.

159

I.Métriques 66 (TM102900) Naukratis(?) c.150–50. Funerary epigram of Philonides.

160

I.Métriques 113 (TM 107214) II–I. Funerary epigram for Neiloussa.

161

I.Delta 2, p. 752 no. 16 (TM 7012) 80–58 or 55–51. Honorific inscription(?) for King Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos(?)

162

I.Delta 2, pp. 752–3 no. 17 (TM 103496) 80-50 or 55–51. Honorific inscription for King Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos.

163

I.Delta 2, pp. 758–9 no. 25 (TM 103782) I(?) Dedication: to Dionysos and other gods; on a fragment of a marble stele(?)

164

I.British Museum 4 1090 (TM103519) III. Address or dedication(?) to Apollo (Phoibos).

165

I.Delta 2, p. 757 no. 22 (TM 103521) c.250–150. Fragment mentioning a sanctuary (temenos).

166

I.Delta 2, p. 757 no. 23 (TM47384) c.250–150. Fragment mentioning Herakles(?)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

280

Appendix

167

I.Delta 2, p. 759 no. 26 (TM 103783) Ptolemaic. Dedication(?): by Akratetos.

168

I.Delta 2, p. 759 no. 27 (TM 119914) I(?) Statue base.

Kom Abu Afrita (nw Delta) 30.90, 30.14; TM GEO 31 169

I.Delta 3, pp. 925–8 no. 1 (TM 7217) c.250–200. Dedication: by Nikagoras, Alexandrian, to Sarapis-Dionysos and Isis-Aphrodite; on a plaque.

Kom Sanhur (Senhu); TM GEO 1150 170

SB 4 7426 (TM 6455) II-I. Honorific inscription on the base of a statue.

Terenouthis 30.43, 30.81; TM GEO 2318; Pleiades 727244 171

I.Métriques 103 (TM 7267) III. Dedication: by Dionysios of Halikarnassos, to Kypris–Hathor, of two sphinxes; on limestone slab; in elegiacs.

172

SEG 64 1983 (TM 113054) Terenouthis(?) c.186–180. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy V and Queen Kleopatra I, gods Epiphaneis, and their children, by Theodoros, gymnasiarch, and the members of the gymnasium, to Hermes and Herakles.

173

I.Métriques 10 (TM 43932) II–I. Funerary epigram of Diazelmis.

Boubastis 30.57, 31.50; TM GEO 462; Pleiades 727088 174

SB 16 12783 (TM 4169) c.325–275. Dedication: by Nikippe, to Boubastis, of cat statuette; on a statue base.

175

SB 1 310 (TM 48150) II. Dedication: by the mechanikos Heroides, to Anoubis; on Egyptian-style stele; ex-voto.

176

Sauneron (1957), SEG 55 1816 (TM 107245) 238. The Kanopos Decree (Tell Basta copy).

177

SB 1 2637 (TM 7013) c.186–180. Honorific inscription for Ptolemy V Epiphanes.

178

SB 5 8874 (TM 6394) c.186–180. Honorific inscription on the base of a statue.

179

I.Louvre 16 (TM 6606) Boubastis(?) c.141–130. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII, Queen Kleopatra II, and Queen Kleopatra III, gods Euergetai, and their children, to Boubastis Soteira.

Athribis 30.47, 31.18; TM GEO 369; Pleiades 727078 180

SB 1 1541 (TM 6617) c.270–246. Dedication: to Arsinoe Philadelphos, of an altar; on a limestone plaque.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

281

181

JIGRE 28 (TM 6395) II or I(?) Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy V and Queen Kleopatra I, by Hermias, his wife Philotera, and their children, of exedra of synagogue; on a plaque.

182

JIGRE 27 (TM 6392) II or I(?) Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI and Queen Kleopatra I, by Ptolemy son of Epikydes, chief of police, and the Jews of Athribis, to the supreme god, of synagogue; on a plaque.

183

OGIS 2 761 (TM 6542) 96. Edict of Ptolemy X Alexander I granting asylia to the Temple of Horos.

Ghazin (Prosopites?) 30.25; TM GEO 714 184

SB 5 8877 (TM 6397) 172. Dedication: by panel of chrematistai to King Ptolemy VI and Queen Kleopatra II, gods Philometores; on a plaque.

Nitria (Tell el-Barnugi) 30.92, 30.38; TM GEO 1473; Pleiades 727176 185

I.Delta, pp. 959–60 (TM 6457) 141–30 or c.124–116. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII, Queen Kleopatra II, and Queen Kleopatra III, Euergetai, by the Jews of Nitria, of synagogue and appurtenances; on a plaque.

Memphis 29.84, 31.25; TM GEO 1344; Pleiades 736963 186

ZPE 200 (2016), pp. 100–102 no.1 (TM 703107) 332-323(?) Dedication: by Alexander (the Great?); on limestone slab.

187

I.Louvre 11 (TM 103479) c.305–280. Dedication: of a lychnaption; on a limestone wall block; ex-voto.

188

I.Louvre 10 (TM 6285) c.285–246. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy II and [Queen] Arsinoe II.

189

a. SB 2 616618 (TM56498) c.275–175(?); b. SEG 49 2292 (TM106912) c.275– 225(?) Graffiti from the Sarapieion dromos at Saqqâra.

190

PSD Raphia Q (TM 2985) 217. Decree of a priestly synod (the Raphia Decree).

191

SEG 24 1200 (TM 104525) III(?) Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy and Queen Arsinoe, by Abrames, to Astarte the great goddess of the homeland, for the good (ἐπ’ ἀγαθῶι); on a sandstone plaque; probably a forgery.

192

Lauer and Picard (1955), pp. 51–2 (TM 113156) Ptolemaic(?) Statue group of poets and philosophers.

193

SB 5 8772 (TM 6365) Memphis(?) 246–222. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy III, Queen Berenike II, gods Euergetai, and their children, to Sarapis and Isis, of temple and peribolos; on a limestone plaque.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

282

Appendix

194

APF 2, 549 no. 29 (TM 43943) Memphis(?) 194–180 or 180–145. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy V, god Epiphanes, and Queen Kleopatra I or Ptolemy VI and Kleopatra II, by Damon, phrourarchos of Memphis, and those under his command.

195

I.Métriques 32 (TM 56464) c.250–150. Funerary epigram of Hedyle.

196

I.Métriques 112 (TM 6574) c.250–150. Stele of a Cretan dream interpreter.

197

I.Louvre 118 (TM 104138) c.250–150. Inscription of Dorkon and his son(?)

198

SEG 29 1656 (TM 104796) I(?) Dedication: to Anoubis; on a fragment of a limestone stele(?); year date.

199

I.Louvre 24 (TM 104137) c.150–30. Fragment mentioning members of crew of a sacred barge.

200

I.Prose 25 (TM 6421) probably 112/11. Honorific decree of the Idumaeans of Memphis.

201

SEG 33 1320 (TM 104967) c.200–50. Proskynema of Argaios and his family to the Sphinx-Harmakhis.

202

SB 1 681 (TM 6572) Late II(?) Dedication: by the association of the Founders (τὸ κοινὸν τῶν κτιστῶν), of a sanctuary(?) for Zeus and Apollo(?); on a marble stele.

203

I.Métriques 102 (TM 107211) Memphis(?) c.150–50. Funerary epigram for a cobra.

204

a. I.Mother of Apis 112 (TM 130976) c.100–50; b. SEG 61 1522 (TM 145250) II. Inscriptions from the Sacred Animal Necropolis.

205

I.Louvre 23 (TM 105440) I(?) Dedication: by Horion, ‘for the good’ (ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ); on a limestone block.

206

SB 1 2098 (TM 93997) 222–204 or 204–180. Dedication: by King Ptolemy, of gateway(?); on architrave of east pylon.

VOLUME II:

The Fayum, Middle and Upper Egypt (207–409) Fayum Sites

Soknopaiou Nesos 29.53, 30.66; TM GEO 2157; Pleiades 737053 207

I.Fayoum 1 70 (TM 6406) 96. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy X Alexander, god Philometor, by Apollonios, to Soknopaios and Nepherses, of wheat; on a black granite stele; dated by year, month, and day.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

283

208

I.Fayoum 1 71 (TM 6408) 95. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy X Alexander, god Philometor, and Lysanias the kinsman and strategos, to Soknopaios, of wheat; on a black granite stele; dated by year, month, and day.

209

I.Fayoum 1 72 (TM 6281) 68/7. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy XII and Queen [Kleopatra VI (?)], gods Philopatores, and for himself, his wife, and sons, by [- -] the son of Eudaimon, to Soknopaios, (of two statues of Ptolemy?); year date.

Philadelphia 29.45, 21.08; TM GEO 1760; Pleiades 737008 210

I.Fayoum 1 98 (TM 2495) Philadelphia(?) 256–247. Bilingual dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Apollonios and Zenon, by Pasos, feeder of jackals (kynoboskos), to Anoubis; on Greek pedimental stele with Egyptian relief and Hieroglyphic inscription; ex-voto.

Dionysias 29.40, 30.41; TM GEO 565; Pleiades 736904 211

I.Fayoum 2 137 (TM 44444) 222–180. Fragmentary dedication: perhaps in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IV and Queen Arsinoe III, gods Philopatores, by Chares, to - - gods Epiphaneis, of a doorway; on a stone block (architrave?).

212

I.Fayoum 2 138 (TM 44446) c.148–116. Dedication: for (ὑπέρ) the members of a family.

213

SEG 28 1470 (TM 104718) 99 or 66 or 37(?) Dedication: by Heliodoros, epistates of Dionysias, of a dromos; on a stone block; dated by year, month, and day.

Karanis 29.51, 30.89; TM GEO 1008; Pleiades 736932 214

I.Fayoum 1 83 (TM 5981) 154(?) Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI and Queen Kleopatra II, gods Philometores, and their children, by the chiliarch Horos and soldiers, of pronaos; on a limestone lintel; dated by year and month.

215

I.Fayoum 1 84 (TM 6183) 95. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy X Alexander, god Philometor, and Queen Berenike III and their children, of propylon; on lintel block; dated by year, month, and day; ex-voto.

216

SEG 64 1946 (TM 102543) 72. Dedication: by Petesouchos and his family, to King Ptolemy XII, god Philopator Philadelphos, of propylon of the sanctuary of Soxis; on lintel block; dated by year, month, and day.

217

I.Métriques 83 (TM 104015) c.150–30. Funerary epigram of Lysandra

Hawara 29.25, 30.89; TM GEO 747; Pleiades 736918 218

I.Fayoum 1 33 (TM 6322) 180–145(?) Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI and Queen Kleopatra II, gods Philometores.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

284

Appendix

219

I.Fayoum 3 198 (TM 8168) 81(?) Imprecatory epitaph of Eirene.

220

I.Fayoum 1 6 (TM 6608) 104. Dedication in favour of (ὑπέρ) Queen Kleopatra III and King Ptolemy X Alexander, god Philometor, by the synod of Pramarres; on Egyptian-style stele; dated by year, month, and day.

221

I.Fayoum 1 69 (TM 6404) 104. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Queen Kleopatra III, goddess Euergetis, and King Ptolemy X Alexander, god Philometor, by Dionysios and his wife Thases, to Isis Sonais, Harpokrates, and Pramarres, of dromos, bridges, altar; on a granite block; year, month, and day date.

222

SB 5 8957 (TM 6431) 87. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IX Soter, by Ptolemaios and his wife Oasychion and children, to Isis Sonais and the temple-sharing (synnaoi) gods; on Egyptian-style stele; dated by year, month, and day; ex-voto.

223

I.Fayoum 3 205 (TM 8171) 51. Topos dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Queen Kleopatra VII, goddess Philometor, by Onnophris, synagogos and lesones of the Snonaitic synod; on Egyptian-style stele; dated by year, month, and day.

224

I.Fayoum 1 34 (TM 8623) 88-58 or 55–51. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy XII New Dionysos, by Petenephies, to Pramarres; on Egyptian-style stele.

Euhemeria 29.38, 30.53; TM GEO 675; Pleiades 736909 225

I.Fayoum 2 132 (TM 7214) 193–180. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy V and Queen Kleopatra I gods Epiphaneis; on lintel.

226

I.Fayoum 2 133 (TM 6086) 172–170. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI and Queen Kleopatra II, gods Philometores, by Nechthnibis and his sons, to Pramarres, the great god, of propylon; on architrave; ex-voto.

227

I.Fayoum 2 134 (TM 91994) 79. Topos dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy XII, god Philopator and Philadelphos, by synod of farmers; on Egyptian-style stele; dated by year, month, and day; ex-voto.

228

I.Fayoum 2 135 (TM 7230) 69. Petition for asylia.

229

I.Fayoum 2 136 (TM 7231) 69/8. Petition for asylia.

Theadelphia 29.34, 30.49; TM GEO 2349; Pleiades 737081 230

I.Fayoum 2 102 (TM 7158) 176–169. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI, Queen Kleopatra II, gods Philometores, and Ptolemy their brother, by Timokrates, Demetria, and two others, of altar.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

285

231

I.Fayoum 2 120 (TM 7271) 169 or 102 or 69(?). Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI or Ptolemy VIII, for the great god Petesouchos; on plaque with relief above; dated by year, month, and day.

232

I.Fayoum 1 21 (TM 7235) 157/6. Dedication: by Ammonios, ephebe in year 25, to Hermes and Herakles.

233

I.Fayoum 2 103 (TM 7233) 150/49. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI and Queen Kleopatra II, gods Philometores, and their children, by Leonides, Thracian, gymnasiarch in year 32, to Hermes and Herakles, of door frame, double door, and pylon of the gymnasium; on architrave; year date.

234

I.Fayoum 2 104 (TM 7234) 150/49. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI and Queen Kleopatra II, gods Philometores, and their children, by Leonides, Thracian, gymnasiarch in year 32, to Hermes and Herakles, of door frame and double door; on architrave; year date.

235

I.Fayoum 2 105 (TM 8152) 145–116. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII and Queen Kleopatra II, gods Euergetai, and their children, by Phnebses and his wife Tnepheros and children, of propylon and peribolos; on lintel.

236

I.Fayoum 2 106 (TM 8153) 151. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII and Queen Kleopatra II and their children, by Phatres, to Heron, of dining area and altar; on architrave; dated by year, month, and day.

237

I.Fayoum 2 107 (TM 8154) 137. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII, Queen Kleopatra II, Queen Kleopatra III, gods Euergetai, and their children, by Agathodoros, Alexandrian, and his wife Isidora and children, to Pnepheros the great god, of propylon and stone dromos; on inscribed panel above the doorway; dated by year, month, and day; ex-voto.

238

I.Fayoum 2 108 (TM 8155) 137–116. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII, Queen Kleopatra II, Queen Kleopatra III, gods Euergetai, and their children, by the hipparch Agathodoros and his wife and children, to Pnepheros the great god, of the door and the closure; on wooden door at back of propylon of temple of Pnepheros; dated by [year], month, and day; ex-voto.

239

ZPE 200 (2016), pp. 102-3 no. 2 (TM 703108) 128–116. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII, Queen Kleopatra II, Queen Kleopatra III, gods Euergetai, and their children.

240

SEG 33 1359 (TM 8181) 107–101. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Queen Kleopatra III, goddess Euergetis, and Ptolemy X Alexander, god Philometor and Soter, by the Macedonian Heliodoros, epistates and archiphylakites, to Pnepheros the greatest and listening god, of stone propylon; on architrave.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

286

Appendix

241

I.Fayoum 2 109 (TM 8156) 102. Topos dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Queen Kleopatra III and King Ptolemy IX, gods Philometores and Philopatores, by synod of goose-keepers; on column; dated by year, month, and day.

242

I.Fayoum 2 110 (TM 91975) 101–88. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy X, god Philometor; on Egyptian-style stele.

243

I.Fayoum 2 111 (TM 91976) 95. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy X and Queen Kleopatra III, gods Philometores, by Apollonios and his children, to Pramarres, of sekos (precinct); on lintel; dated by year, month, and day.

244

I.Fayoum 2 112, 113 (TM 7228, 7229) 93. Petition to King Ptolemy X Alexander I about asylia.

245

I.Fayoum 2 114 (TM 7237) 70. Grant of asylia.

246

I.Fayoum 2 115 (TM 7258) 67. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy XII, god Philopator and Philadelphos, by Petosiris and his wife and children, to Heron, of propylon; on Egyptian-style stele; dated by year, month, and day.

247

I.Fayoum 2 116–18 (TM 6605, 8805, 7232) 57. Grant of asylia.

248

I.Fayoum 2 119 (TM 7195) I. Inscription of an association of young men.

Krokodilopolis–Arsinoe 29.32, 30.83; TM GEO 327; Pleiades 736948 249

I.Fayoum 1 1 (TM 6427) 245–222. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy III, Queen Berenike II and their children, by the Jews of Krokodilopolis, of synagogue; on a small stele.

250

I.Fayoum 1 3 (TM 7155) 243–222. Dedication: to King Ptolemy III and Queen Berenike II, gods Euergetai, of altar.

251

I.Fayoum 1 2 (TM 6628) 244–222. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy III, Queen Berenike II, and their children, by the Cyrenaeans Eirene and Theoxena, to Thyeris, of sanctuary and its appurtenances; on a limestone block.

252

Pintaudi and Rathbone (forthcoming) II-I(?) Inscription of Queen Kleopatra and King Ptolemy mentioning a theatre.

253

I.Fayoum 1 22 (TM 5980) c.250–100. Dedication: for an unnamed Ptolemy and queen, of an altar; on a limestone plaque.

254

I.Fayoum 1 4 (TM 42997) 186–181. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy V and Queen Kleopatra I, gods Epiphaneis, and their son Ptolemy, of propylon; on a limestone block.

255

I.Fayoum 1 5 (TM 6629) 142–116. Honorific inscription for the Kinsman, royal tutor and epistrategos Apollodoros, on the base of a statue.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

287

256

I.Fayoum 1 7 (TM 7154) Krokodilopolis(?) 101. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy X Alexander, god Philometor, and Queen Berenike III, goddess Philadelphos, by the sitometrai, to Sokopichonsis the great god; on Egyptian-style stele; dated by year, month, and day; ex-voto.

257

I.Fayoum 1 16 (TM 6544) II(?) Inscription concerning a military association.

258

I.Fayoum 1 19 (TM 7157) II–I. Dedication: by Herakleides, epistates, and those from Dionysias, Philoteris and Kanopias; on a plaque; dated by year, month, and day.

259

I.Fayoum 1 18 (TM 5947) II–I. Prohibition on woodcutting.

260

I.Fayoum 1 15 (TM 5687) 107, 71 or 42. Dedication: by the royal guard Arrenides, from Syrbenda, to Zeus, Athena and the politeuma of the Kilikians, of pylon etc.; dated by year, month, and day.

261

I.Fayoum 1 9 (TM 6543) 80–68. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy XII and Queen Kleopatra VI, gods Philopatores and Philadelphoi, by the cavalry of the Arsinoite Nome; on a limestone plaque.

262

I.Fayoum 1 10 (TM 42998) 80–68. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy XII and Queen Kleopatra Tryphaina VI, gods Philopatores and Philadelphoi, by the hegemon Diodoros; on a limestone plaque.

263

I.Fayoum 1 8 (TM 6630) 88-80 or 69–50. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IX or XII, the great god Philometor and Philadelphos and Soter, by Apollonios, Kinsman and kosmetes and gymnasiarch; on a limestone block.

264

I Fayoum 1 11 (TM 6483) after 69. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy XII, the great god, New Dionysos, Philopator and Philadelphos, to Isis Esenchebis, Pnepheros, and the temple-sharing (synnaoi) gods; on Egyptian-style stele.

265

I.Fayoum 1 12 (TM 6411) 58. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy XII, god New Dionysos, by Apollonios from Talesis(?), to Petesouchos, of crocodile statue; on a statue base; year, month, and day date.

266

I.Fayoum 1 14 (TM 6631) 44–30. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Queen Kleopatra VII, goddess Philopator, King Ptolemy Kaisarion, and their ancestors, by Artemidoros, to Souchos; on Egyptian-style stele.

267

I.Fayoum 1 13 (TM 6276) Krokodilopolis(?) 42. Inscribed base of a statue for the Kinsman and Arsinoite strategos Ptolemaios.

268

I.Fayoum 1 20 (TM 43000) Krokodilopolis(?) II-I(?) Dedication: by Apynchis and his wife and children to Sokonnobchnoubis, of peribolos; on a stele; year, month, and day date; ex-voto.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

288

Appendix

Magdola 29.13, 30.58; TM GEO 1284; Pleiades 736893 269

I.Fayoum 3 150 (TM 8158) Magdola(?) 186–181. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy V and Queen Kleopatra I, gods Epiphaneis and Eucharistoi, and their son, by the priests and brothers Apollonios and Machatas, to Zeus Soter, the Syrian goddess (Astarte), and the temple-sharing (synnaoi) gods; on a marble plaque.

270

I.Fayoum 3 151 (TM 8159) 118. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII, Queen Kleopatra II, and Queen Kleopatra III, gods Euergetai, and their children, by a hipparch, to Heron, of propylon etc.; on propylon; dated by year and month.

271

I.Fayoum 3 152 (TM 8160) 94. Petition for asylia.

Narmouthis 29.19, 30.64; TM GEO 1421; Pleiades 73697 272

I.Fayoum 3 155 (TM 6240) 163–145. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI and Queen Kleopatra II, gods Philometores, and their children, by Archypsis, Petesouchos, and Pamounis, to Arsinoe and the gods Euergetai, of temenos; on a plaque.

273

I.Fayoum 3 156 (TM 6303) 124–116. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII, Queen Kleopatra II, gods Euergetai, and their children, by Ptolemaios; on a limestone block.

274

SEG 59 1766 (TM 244021) 117–115. Dedication: by Protarchos and his wife Tamestasytmis and children to Hermouthis and Sokonopis, of dromos; on podium; dated by year, month, and day; ex-voto.

275

SEG 59 1767A (TM 244023) 116/15. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IX and Queen Kleopatra II or III, gods Philometores and Soteres, by Protarchos and his wife and children, to Hermouthis; on Egyptian-style lion statue; ex-voto.

276

SEG 59 1767B (TM 244022) 116/15. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IX and Queen Kleopatra II or III, gods Philometores and Soteres, by Protarchos and his wife and children to Hermouthis; on Egyptian-style lion statue; ex-voto.

277

I.Fayoum 3 157 (TM 8161) 116–107. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Queen Kleopatra III and King Ptolemy IX, gods Philometores and Soteres, by Herodes; on Egyptian-style stele.

278

I.Fayoum 3 161 (TM 8163) I(?) Dedication: by craftsman who made it, to Isis-Isermouthis and ‘for the good’ (ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ); on stone block.

279

I.Fayoum 3 158 (TM 6301) 96. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IX, god Soter, by Herakleodoros and his wife Isidora and children, to Hermouthis and Sokonopis, of entrance and lion statues; on pilaster; dated by year, month, and day.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

289

280

I Fayoum 3 159 (TM 6302) 96. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IX, god Soter, by Herakleodoros and his wife Isidora and children, to Hermouthis and Sokonopis, of entrance and lion statues; on pilaster; dated by year, month, and day.

281

I.Métriques 175 (TM 6304–7). I. Hymns to Isis.

Tebtynis 29.10, 30.76; TM GEO 2287; Pleiades 737072 282

I.Fayoum 3 145 (TM 8157) 80–68. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy XII and Queen Kleopatra VI Tryphaina, gods Philopatores and Philadelphoi, by a laarches, to Isis, of temple (Isieion), masonry etc.; on lintel.

283

SEG 39 1705 (TM 105092) 55. Honorific inscription for Ptolemy XII on statue base.

Arsinoite Nome, Provenance Uncertain; TM GEO 332 284

I.Fayoum 3 193 (TM 7269) III. Catalogue of names.

285

SB 18 13316 (TM 2550) III. Prohibition of Access.

286

ZPE 200 (2016), pp. 109–14 (TM 703113) late III. Metrical epitaph of a woman, Kleo[- -].

287

I.Fayoum 3 195 (TM 8166) 204–194(?) Dedication: of statue of King Ptolemy, ἐπ’ [ἀγαθῷ(?)].

288

I.Fayoum 3 196 (TM 8167) 194–180(?) Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy V and Queen Kleopatra I, gods Epiphaneis, by Petesouchos and Phatres, to Stotoetis, Sokommetis, and Pnebtynis and the temple-sharing (synnaoi) gods, of altar; on Egyptian-style stele; dated by year (5), month, and day; ex-voto.

289

I.Fayoum 3 199 (TM 5982) II. Dedication: by Pamphylians, to Artemis Pergaia; on a plaque; ex-voto.

290

I.Fayoum 1 17 (TM 42999) c.130–30. Honorific inscription of an association of royal guards on the base of a statue.

291

I.Métriques 39 (TM 104044) c.150–30. Funerary epigram of Hedeia.

292

I.Fayoum 3 206 (TM 8172) c.150–30. Dedication: for (ὑπέρ) himself and his wife Eirene, by Eleazaros, of clock and water tank; on a limestone block.

293

SEG 44 1447a (TM 121892) c.95–31. Boundary text (of a sanctuary?)

294

I.Fayoum 3 200 (TM 6405) 98. Topos dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy X Alexander, by exephebes, to Souchos; on Egyptian-style stele; dated by year, month, and day.

295

I.Fayoum 3 201 (TM 6407) 95. Topos dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy X Alexander, god Philometor, by ex-ephebes, to Souchos; on Egyptian-style stele; dated by year, month, and day.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

290

Appendix

296

I.Fayoum 3 202 (TM 6273) 94. Topos dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy X, god Philometor, by exephebes, to Sokneptynis; on Egyptian-style stele; dated by year and month.

297

I.Fayoum 3 204 (TM 8170) 68. Topos dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy XII, god Philopator and Philadelphos, by the members of the Esenchenbiake synodos; on Egyptianstyle stele; dated by year, month, and day.

298

I.Fayoum 3 208 (TM 8180) Ptolemaic. Dedication: by Asklepiodotos, to Artemis Soteira, of statue; on a statue base.

299

I.Fayoum 3 207 (TM 8179) III. Dedication: by Monimos, an Alexandrian citizen, to a Ptolemaic king; on a limestone block.

Middle and Upper Egypt

Aphroditopolis 29.40, 31.25; TM GEO 236; Pleiades 736889 300

I.Prose 41 (TM 6245) 58–55. Honorific decree of the gymnasium.

Herakleopolis 29.08, 30.93; TM GEO 801; Pleiades 736920 301

I.Musée d’Alexandrie 105 (TM 6984) c.300–250. Dedication: by Aristophanes to Sarapis and Isis; on basalt block; ex-voto.

302

SEG 48 1984–2003 (TM 142360–79) II–I. Jewish funerary stelai from the necropolis of Sedment el-Gebel.

303

I.Prose 45 (TM 6449) 41. Edict of Queen Kleopatra VII and King Ptolemy XV.

304

I.Métriques 33 (TM 102894) II–I. Funerary epigrams for Ammonia.

305

I.Métriques 9 (TM 104056) c.150–100. Funerary epigram of Archippos.

306

APF 5 (1913), pp. 160–1, no. 6 (TM 8355) Herakleopolis(?) c.250–150. Dedication: by the hipparch NN son of Limnaios and his family, to Zeus Soter and Apollo; on a granite base.

Spania 28.73, 30.80; TM GEO 2813; Pleiades 737056 307

SEG 41 1634 (TM 47419) c.140–116. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII, Queen Kleopatra II, and Queen Kleopatra III, gods Euergetai, and their children, by military unit.

308

SEG 41 1365 (TM 47368) c.140–116. List of members of a military association.

Oxyrhynchos 28.54, 30.65; TM GEO 1524; Pleiades 736983 309

SEG 40 1573 (TM 105118) 101–83. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy X, god Philometor, and his children, by Onnophris and syntheagoi, to Thoeris, of propylon; on rectangular block.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

291

Akoris (Tehna) 28.18, 30.77; TM GEO 2309; Pleiades 737077 310

I.Akôris 1 (TM 6051) c.197–193. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy V, god Epiphanes great Eucharistos, by Akoris, to Isis; in monumental lettering on a rock-cut panel.

Speos Artemidos (Beni Hassan) 27.93, 30.88; TM GEO 3203; Pleiades 756625 311

SB 1 2138 (TM 6692) 204–180(?) Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy V and Queen Kleopatra I(?)

Antinoopolis 27.81, 30.88; TM GEO 2774; Pleiades 756518 312

Pintaudi (2012), 411–19 (no TM record) 80–58 or 55–51. Inscribed base of a statue of King Ptolemy XII.

Hermopolis Magna 27.77, 30.80; TM GEO 816; Pleiades 756574 313

I.Hermoupolis 2 (TM 6274) c.250–100. Dedication: of circular altar of King Ptolemy.

314

I.Hermoupolis 1 (TM 5949) 246–222. Dedication: by katoikic cavalry, to King Ptolemy III and Queen Berenike II, gods Euergetai, and King Ptolemy II and Queen Arsinoe II, gods Adelphoi, of statues, a temple etc.; on architrave blocks of Doric temple.

315

I.Hermoupolis 4 (TM 6537) c.150–100. Dedication: by members of the garrison of Hermopolis.

316

I.Hermoupolis3 (TM 44138) II–I. Honorific inscription on the base of a statue for the Kinsman and Hermopolite strategos Leonnatos.

317

I.Hermoupolis 8 (TM 6087) II–I. List of names.

318

I.Hermoupolis 7 (TM 6088) 83/2. Dedication: by Hermaios and Thais and their children, to Aphrodite; on a statue base; year date.

319

I.Hermoupolis 5 (TM 7099) 80/79 or 79/8. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy XII and Queen Kleopatra Tryphaina, gods Philopatores and Philadelphoi, by the garrison of Hermopolis Magna, to Apollo and Zeus and the hearth-sharing (synhestioi) gods, of a temple etc.; on a pedimental limestone stele.

320

I.Hermoupolis 6 (TM 6298) 78. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy XII and Queen Kleopatra Tryphaina, gods Philopatores and Philadelphoi, by the garrison of Hermopolis Magna, to Apollo and Zeus and the hearth-sharing (synhestioi) gods, of a temple etc.; on a pedimental limestone stele.

Alabastron Polis 28.04, 30.84; TM GEO 2684; Pleiades 736885 321

SB 5 7748 (TM 6246) II–I. Dedication: by Protos, to Apollo, of sphinx; on a statue base.

322

I.Varsovie 53 (TM 6247) c.150–30. Dedication: by Demetrios, of falcon statue; on a statue base.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

292 323

Appendix I.Varsovie 50 (TM 110352) 305–282. Honorific dedication: by Thymoides and Hermogenes, for King Ptolemy I and Queen Berenike; on a plaque; ex-voto.

Koussai 27.43, 30.81; TM GEO 1176; Pleiades 756588 324

SB 5 7782 (TM 6061), SB 8 10017 (TM 109059), Cooney, EA BM Glass (TM 113171), Savvopoulos 2018 (No TM number) 222–204. Dedication: by King Ptolemy IV and Queen Berenike, to Aphrodite Ourania; on a set of foundation plaques.

325

OGIS 2 734 (TM 6420) 172–169. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI, Queen Kleopatra II, gods Philometores, and Ptolemy the brother, by Lysimachos and his sons, to Zeus Soter, of propylon and gateway; on architrave.

Antaeopolis 26.89, 31.51; TM GEO 188; Pleiades 756515 326

OGIS 1 109 (TM 103006) 172–146. Dedication: by King Ptolemy V and Queen Kleopatra I, gods Philometores, to Antaios and the temple-sharing gods (synnaoi), of pronaos; on epistyle.

Tentyra–Dendera 26.14, 32.67; TM GEO 2312; Pleiades 786127 327

I.Portes du Désert 23 (TM 88337) c.145. Dedication: by the diadochos Heroides, hegemon of troops and epitropos of the quarries, to Harbaktis and other gods, of Egyptian-style offering table.

Abydos (Memnoneion) 26.18, 31.91; TM GEO 34; Pleiades 756512 328

I.Memnonion 32 (TM 7075) 199(?) Proskynema of the Troizenian Philokles to Sarapis.

329

I.Memnonion 174 (TM 8576) II. Proskynemata of four Gauls.

330

I.Memnonion 368 (TM 7080) II. Proskynema of Agatheinos, Demetrios, and Dionysia.

331

I.Memnonion 439 (TM 7088) II. Proskynema of the doctor Neoptolemos.

332

I.Métriques 137 (TM 7149) Ptolemaic. Proskynema of Polyaratos of Cyrene.

333

I.Memnonion 377 (TM 103426) Ptolemaic. Proskynema of Spartakos son of Phaidros.

334

I.Memnonion 390 (TM 103420) Ptolemaic (year 15). Proskynema of Peithagoras son of Peithagoras.

335

I.Memnonion 407 (TM 103424) Ptolemaic. Proskynema of Amyntas son of Astregalos.

336

I.Memnonion 414 (TM 118944) Ptolemaic. Proskynema of Kotys.

337

I.Memnonion 444bis (no TM record) Ptolemaic. Proskynema of the brothers Doros and Theuphilos.

338

I.Memnonion 450bis (TM 7115) Ptolemaic. Proskynema of Protos son of Protos, Thessalian.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

293

339

I.Memnonion 454 (TM 118966) Ptolemaic. Proskynema of Sarapion, his mother Zoarion, and wife Eirene.

340

I.Memnonion 467 (TM 118977) Ptolemaic. Proskynema of Asklepiades.

Koptos 25.99, 32.81; TM GEO 1159; Pleiades 786010 341

I.Portes du Désert 47 (TM 6377) 259–246. Dedication: by the dioiketes Apollonios, to Apollo Hylates, Artemis Phosphoros, Artemis Enodia, Leto Euteknos, Herakles Kallinikos; on a plaque.

342

I.Portes du Désert 48 (TM 6382) 246–222(?) Dedication: by Apollonios, from Thera, leader of the ἔξω τάξεων, to the Great Gods of Samothrace; on a plaque; ex-voto.

343

I.Portes du Désert 54 (TM 6545) II. List of names (of soldiers?)

344

I.Portes du Désert 50 (TM 88363) 80–58 or 55–51(?) Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy [XII], of the propylon of the temple of Min and Isis.

345

I.Portes du Désert 51 (TM 88364) c.150–30. Fragment mentioning a Saviour (god?)

346

I.Portes du Désert 52 (TM 88365) c.150–30. Dedication: by a prostates, to the Greatest God (Min-Horos); on a basalt block; month date.

347

I.Portes du Désert 49 (TM 6295) 74/3 or 45/4. Dedication: by Apollodoros, Kinsman and strategos of the Diopolite Nome, and his brother, to Isis, of water tank; on epistyle with cornice; year date.

348

I.Varsovie 47 (TM 110350) 133. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII, Queen Kleopatra II, and Queen Kleopatra III, gods Euergetai, and their children, by Ptolemaios and Tryphon, to Zeus Soter, Sarapis, Isis, Harpokrates, Pan Euodos, Kronos, Dionysos, Dioskouroi, Herakles Kallinikos; on a plaque; year, month, and day date.

349

I.Métriques 4 (TM 43971) c.200–175. Funerary epigram for Ptolemaios and his son Menodoros.

350

Short Texts 1 118 (TM 53566) Koptos(?) Ptolemaic. Bilingual dedication: by Dionysios to Pan Euodos (Min–Pan), of sphinx.

Hermonthis 25.55, 32.50; TM GEO 812; Pleiades 786036 351

I.Th.Sy.5 (TM 88459) 80–57(?) Decree in honour of a strategos and nomarch.

Ptolemais 26.47, 31.80; TM GEO 2023; Pleiades 756635 352

I.Louvre 6 (TM 8484) shortly after 267. Decree of Ptolemais.

353

I.Louvre 5 (TM 6373) 244/3 or a little earlier. Decree of Ptolemais.

354

I.Louvre 4 (TM 6372) probably 240/39. Decree of Ptolemais.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

294

Appendix

355

OGIS 1 50 (TM 6374) reign of Euergetes after 240/39. Honorific decree for Dionysios by the Dionysiac Artists.

356

OGIS 2 728 (TM 6416) probably 238/7. Honorific decree of the city for Lysimachos.

357

OGIS 1 51 (TM 6375) probably reign of Euergetes after 238/7. Honorific decree for Lysimachos by the Dionysiac Artists.

358

I.Prose 62 (TM 5983) Roman copy of III–II original. Decree of the city of Ptolemais.

359

OGIS 1 103 (TM 6396) 180–170. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Hipallos, First Friend, epistrategos, and priest of King Ptolemy I and King Ptolemy Epiphanes and Euergetes, by Nikomachos, priest of Zeus, to King Ptolemy VI, god Philometor, of altar; on a plaque.

360

JIGRE 154 (TM 7236) 138/7. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII and Queens Kleopatra II and III and their children, by the archisomatophylax and hipparch Paniskos and fellow members of a synodos, to Thripis, Kolanthes, Pan, and templesharing (synnaoi) gods, of a shrine; on a black granite stele; year date.

361

I.Prose 27 (TM 6294) Before 104. Honorific decree for a gymnasiarch.

362

I.Prose 47 (TM 103548) c.125–1. Temple regulations concerning purification.

363

OGIS 1 52 (TM 6376) 137 or 84. Dedication: to Harbaktes and Hierax the great gods and Isis and templesharing (synnaoi) gods, of shrine etc. and adjacent Isieion; on limestone architrave; dated by year, month, and day.

364

SB 1 2264 (TM 6697) 78 or 49. Dedication: by Kallimachos, Kinsman, strategos, epistrategos of Thebaid, Red Sea, and Indian Sea, archiprytanis, and gymnasiarch; on a plaque(?); dated by year, month, and day.

365

I.Prose 36 (TM 7090) 46 (or 75?) Letter and proclamation of the asylia of the temple of Isis.

366

APF 1 (1901), p. 209 no. 26 (TM 43545) Ptolemaic. Proskynema of Ptolemaios and another person.

367

OGIS 2 743 (TM 6426) I(?) Dedication: by Ptolemy, strategos of the city; on a granite block (stele?).

Diospolis Parva 26.02, 32.31; TM GEO 577; Pleiades 756566 367bis ZPE 209 (2019), 131-6 (TM 818053) c.145–120. Honorific base for a dioiketes.

Apollonopolis Parva 25.85, 32.71; TM GEO 270; Pleiades 7859475 368

I.Portes du Désert 104 (TM 6324) 116–107. Dedication: by Queen Kleopatra II or III and King Ptolemy IX, great gods Philometores and Soteres, and their children, to Haroeris and the templesharing (synnaoi) gods; on cornice of west pylon of temple.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

295

Eileithyiopolis (El-Kab) 25.11, 32.79; TM GEO 611; Pleiades 786020 369

I.Prose 10 (TM 88492) 238. Decree of a priestly synod (Kanopos Decree).

Hierakonpolis 25.09, 32.77; TM GEO 848; Pleiades 786037 370

SB 1 1104 (TM 6598) c.272–246. Dedication: by the phrourarchos Ptolemaios and the soldiers under his command, to King Ptolemy II and Arsinoe Philadelphos.

Deir el-Bahari 25.63. 32.56; TM GEO 1341; Pleiades 786067 371

I.Deir el-Bahari Łajtar 60 (TM 96830) Ptolemaic. Proskynema of Andromachos.

372

I.Deir el-Bahari Łajtar 68 (TM 56463) Ptolemaic. Proskynema of Andromachos, Macedonian.

Kerameia-Madou 25.70, 32.70; TM GEO 1281; Pleiades 786088 373

I.Louvre 18 (TM 6308) 105(?) Address to Herakles by the priests of Touphion.

374

SB 5 8200 (TM 104221) I(?) Dedication: by [Arch]ebios, of statue of Herakles(?)

375

SB 5 8201 b (TM 104222) I(?) Dedication: by Thebans and Kerameians, to ancestral god; on a column.

Diospolis and Thebaid 25.68, 32.63; TM GEO 576; Pleiades 786017 376

SEG 20 691 (TM 5984) Thebes(?) c.272–246. Bilingual dedication: of statue of Arsinoe Philadelphos.

377

Lauffray, Kêmi 20 (1970), pp. 74–5 (TM 290106) 238. Decree of a priestly synod (Kanopos Decree).

378

OGIS 1 85 (TM 6388) Thebes(?) 222–204. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IV and Queen Arsinoe III, gods Philopatores, by the phylakites Teos.

379

OGIS 1 89 (TM 6362) bought in Thebes. 210–204. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IV, great god Philopator and Soter, by Komon, oikonomos for Naukratis, to Isis, Sarapis, and Apollo; on marble plaque.

380

ZPE 17 (1975), p. 33 (TM 102537) 217–204. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IV and Queen Arsinoe III, gods Philopatores, to Isis Taposiris, of temple and statues; on plaque.

381

SB 1 683 (TM 6573) c.250–150. Dedication: by Theomnestos, to Apollo Lykaios; on Egyptian-style jackal statue.

382

I.Prose 15 (TM 7301) c.150–30. Honorific decree for a gymnasiarch.

383

BIFAO 70 (1970), pp. 1–21 no. 1 (TM 98534) 182–180 or 142. Decree of a priestly synod.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

296

Appendix

384

I.Musée d’Alexandrie 39 (SEG 20 671) (TM 6185) 116–108. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Queen Kleopatra III and King Ptolemy IX her son and his children, by ephebes, to Ammon, Pan, Apollo, Hermes, Herakles; on a plaque.

385

SB 5 8209 (SEG 8 714) (TM 6309) II. Dedication: by Attalos and Onesimos, to Thracian Dionysos, of an altar.

386

SB 3 6840 A-C (TM 7270, 104181, 104182) II. Obscene graffiti.

387

OGIS 1 194 (TM 6325) 39(?) Decree of a priestly synod for the Kinsman Kallimachos.

388

JSSEA 39 (2012–13), pp. 89–100 no.1 (TM 52924) c.150–30(?) Trilingual dedication: by Paniskos, to Sarapis, of offering table; dated by year, month, and day.

Memnoneia (Syringes, Royal Cemetery) 25.63, 32.56; TM GEO 1341; Pleiades 786067 389

I.Syr. 414 (TM 95124) c.200–150. Proskynema of Pelops.

390

BIFAO 38 (1939), 151 no. 15 (SEG 31 1556.15) (TM 80194) II–I. Proskynema of Pthomonthes.

391

I.Syr. 693 (TM 8388) c.150–30. Proskynema of Dadas.

392

I.Syr. 30 (TM 58505) 75(?) Proskynema of Euphranor.

393

I.Syr. 771 (TM 8545) Ptolemaic. Proskynema of Artemidoros.

394

I.Syr. 1998 (TM 8427) Ptolemaic. Proskynema of Dionysios

Touphion 25.35; TM GEO 2458; Pleiades 78613 395

I.Th.Sy. 1 (TM 6080) 243. Decree of a priestly synod.

396

I.Th.Sy. 2 (TM 6082) 217. Decree of a priestly synod (Raphia Decree).

Apollonopolis 24.97, 32.87; TM GEO 269; Pleiades 785974 397

I.Pan du Désert 77 (TM 6386) 220–210. Dedication: by Lichas, strategos in charge of elephant hunt, to Sarapis, Isis, King Ptolemy IV, and Queen Arsinoe III, gods Philopatores; on a basalt plaque.

398

I.Louvre 15 (TM 2638) 146 or 135. Dedication: by Ptolemaios grammateus of the forces in Elephantine, to Ptensenes, of libation table; year and month date.

399

I.Métriques 7 (TM 7210) 145–116. Funerary epigram of Aphrodisia.

400

I.Métriques 6 (TM 6310) 145–116(?) Funerary epigram of Apollonios.

401

I.Métriques 8 (TM 47949) 145–116. Funerary epigram of a soldier.

402

I.Métriques 38 (TM 88453) 145–116. Funerary epigram of the mother of Melas.

403

I.Métriques 35 (TM 43979) c.103–101. Funerary epigram of Aphrodisia.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

297

404

I.Métriques 5 (TM 43972) c.103–101. Funerary epigram of Apollonios.

405

I.Portes du Désert 108 (TM 6627) c.100–50. Honorific inscription on the base of a statue.

Gebel el-Silsila 24.48, 32.93; TM GEO 699; Pleiades 786118 406

I.Th.Sy. 40 (TM 88494) 250. Signature of Heraion.

Omboi 24.28, 24.45; TM GEO 1589; Pleiades 786021 407

I.Th.Sy. 188 (TM 6327) 160–145. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI and Queen Kleopatra II, gods Philometores, and their children, by the infantry and cavalry, to Haroeris-Apollo and the temple sharing (synnaoi) gods, of sekos (shrine).

408

I.Varsovie 42 (TM 44156 + 113053) 135. Decree and royal correspondence.

409

I.Th.Sy. 190 (TM 6328) 131–124. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Menander and his son Mikros and Ptolemaios, by the infantry and cavalry, to King Ptolemy VIII, Queen Kleopatra III, gods Euergetai, Souchos, and the temple-sharing (synnaoi) gods, [of altar].

VOLUME III:

Southern Border, Oases, and Incerta (410-650) Southern Border

Elephantine—Syene 24.80-24.09, 32.87-32.88; TM GEO 621, 2207; Pleiades 786021, 786123 410

I.Louvre 2 (TM 6079) 243. Decree of a priestly synod.

411

SEG 60 1812 (TM 701155) III. Dedication(?): by members of a cult association, of a banquet room; on a sandstone block.

412

SB 1 172 (TM 6465) Syene(?) II. Dedication: for (ὑπέρ) himself and his children, by Sasines from Syene, to Sitabnebouan; on altar; ex-voto.

413

I.Louvre 3 (TM 6311) 196. Decree of a priestly synod (Memphis Decree).

414

I.Th.Sy. 224 (TM 7145) 180–145. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI, god Philometor, by a Kinsman; on Egyptian-style stele.

415

I.Th.Sy. 243 (TM 88865) 142–116. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Ptolemaios, First Friend and strategos, and his sons, by Asklepiades, Macedonian, diadochos, and phrourarchos of Elephantine, to King Ptolemy VIII, Queen Kleopatra II, Queen Kleopatra III, gods Euergetai, and their children, and Chnoubis, Hera, Anoukis, Isis, Dionysos, and the other gods.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

298

Appendix

416

I.Th.Sy. 242 (TM 43986) 163–145. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Boethos, son of Nikostratos, archisomatophylax and strategos, by Chaireas son of Melas, phrourarchos of Elephantine, to King Ptolemy VI, Queen Kleopatra II, gods Philometores, their children, and Chnoubis, Hera, Anoukis, Isis, and Dionysos, of an altar.

417

MDAI(K) 66 (2010), p. 175 (TM 53481) 152. Bilingual honorific inscription for King Ptolemy VI and Queen Kleopatra II from the priest Pelaias.

418

I.Philae 1 12bis (TM 5950) 148. Royal prostagma(?) of Ptolemy VI and Kleopatra II and petition.

419

I.Th.Sy. 246, MDAI(K) 26 171 no. 3 (TM 88867, 44130) 142–131 or 124–116(?) Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII, Queen Kleopatra II, and Queen Kleopatra III, gods Euergetai, and their children, to Chnoubis, Hera, Anoukis, Isis, Dionysos, and the other gods, of an altar(?)

420

I.Th.Sy. 244 (TM 6403) 115. Royal prostagma(?) and dossier of correspondence.

421

I.Th.Sy. 245 (TM 88866) II. Proskynema of Apollonios.

Sehel Island—Setis 24.09, 32.88; TM GEO 2105; Pleiades 786107 422

I.Th.Sy. 302 (TM 6398) 152–145. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Boethos, archisomatophylax and strategos, by Heroides and the priests of Chnoum Nebieb, to King Ptolemy VI, Queen Kleopatra II, gods Philometores, and their children, and to Ammon-Chnoubis, Hera-Satis, Hestia-Anoukis, and Dionysos-Petempamentis; on Egyptianstyle stele.

423

I.Th.Sy. 303 (TM 6329) 144–142. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII and Queen Kleopatra II, gods Euergetai, by Heroides, archisomatophylax and strategos, and the worshippers of the king (basilistai), to Chnoubis-Ammon, Satis-Hera, AnoukisHestia, Petempanentis-Dionysos, Petensetis-Kronos, Petensenis-Hermes, the great gods, and other divinities of the Cataract, of the stele and money for sacrifices and libations; on a granite stele.

Philae 24.02, 32.88; TM GEO 1767; Pleiades 786089 Petitions 424

I.Prose 22 A–B (TM 6331, 103007) 124–116. Reply of King Ptolemy VIII and Queen Kleopatra to the priests of Philae (Philae obelisk).

425

I.Th.Sy. 317 (TM 88947) 124–116. Fragmentary petition(?) by priests and residents of Philae.

Dedications by and for the Royal House 426

I.Philae 1 2 (TM 80762) c.246–222. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy III and Queen Berenike II, by Imoutes, to Isis.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

299

427

I.Philae 1 4 (TM 6379) 244–240. Dedication: by King Ptolemy III, Queen Berenike II, and their children, to Isis and Harpokrates, of temple; on doorway of hypostyle hall.

428

I.Th.Sy. 307 (TM 88937) 211–204. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IV and Queen Arsinoe III.

429

I.Philae 1 7 (TM 6410) 211–204. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IV and Queen Arsinoe III, gods Philopatores, and their son.

430

I.Philae 1 5 (TM 6389) 209–204. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IV and Queen Arsinoe III, and for Ptolemy their son, by Sokrates, to Sarapis and Isis the Saviours.

431

I.Philae 1 8 (TM 6330) 186–180. Dedication: by King Ptolemy V, Queen Kleopatra I, gods Epiphaneis, and Ptolemy the son (VI), to Asklepios; on cornice.

432

I.Philae 1 127 (TM 80854) c.186–184(?) Dedication: to Asklepios(?)

433

I.Philae 1 11 (TM 43944) Before 172(?) Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI, god Philometor, and Queen Kleopatra II, by the phrourarchos and members of the association of Herakles, to Arsenouphis, of temple.

434

OGIS 1 107 (TM 6346) 163–145. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Ptolemy VI and Kleopatra II, to Isis and the temple- sharing (synnaoi) gods, [of propylon].

435

I.Philae 1 64 (TM 44151) 125–119. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII, Queen Kleopatra II, and Queen Kleopatra III, gods Euergetai, and their children, by Hermias, First Friend and strategos, and his sons, to Chnoubis, Isis, Hera, and Athena, and the gods of the adyton; on a plaque.

436

I.Philae 1 17 (TM 6402) 127–116. Dedication: by King Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II and Queen Kleopatra II, gods Euergetai, to Aphrodite; on lintel.

437

I.Philae 1 18 (TM 80768) 127–116. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII and Queen Kleopatra II and Queen Kleopatra III, to Isis of Philae and the Abaton and all the other gods, of altars and an offering table.

Dedications to the Royal House 438

I.Philae 1 1 (TM 80760) c.246. Dedication: to King Ptolemy III and Queen Berenike II.

439

I.Philae 1 3 (TM 6380) 240–222. Dedication: by Taurinos, to Sarapis, Isis, King Ptolemy III and Queen Berenike II, gods Euergetai.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

300

Appendix

440

I.Th.Sy. 314 (TM 47410) 187–184. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Ptolemaios, First Friend and chief hunter, and his wife Agathokleia and son Ptolemaios, by Kleon, hegemon and phrourarchos of Philae, to King Ptolemy V and Queen Kleopatra I, gods Epiphaneis and Eucharistoi, and Isis.

441

I.Philae 1 10 (TM 80764) Philae(?) 180–172. Inscribed base of a statue of King Ptolemy VI.

442

I.Philae 1 12 (TM 53478) 153–150. Bilingual inscribed base for Ptolemy VI, Kleopatra II and their son Ptolemy.

443

I.Philae 1 16 (TM 80766) c.143–127. Dedication: to King Ptolemy VIII and Queen Kleopatra II, gods Euergetai, Isis, and Sarapis.

444

I.Th.Sy. 315 (TM 88945) 143–124. Dedication: to King Ptolemy VIII and Queen Kleopatra II, gods Euergetai, and their children and to Isis and Sarapis, Harpokrates, Anoubis, Ammon, Chnoubis, Arsenouphis.

445

I.Th.Sy. 316 (TM 88946) 143–124. Dedication: to King Ptolemy VIII and Queen Kleopatra II, gods Euergetai, and their children and to Isis and Sarapis, Harpokrates, Anoubis, Ammon, Chnoubis, Arsenouphis.

446

I.Philae 1 15 (TM 43853) 135–116. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Boethos, Kinsman, epistrategos, Thebarch, and strategos of Thebaid, by Apollonios, one of the diadochoi and phrourarchos of Philae, to [King Ptolemy VIII, Queen Kleopatra II, Queen Kleopatra III, gods Euergetai], and all the gods in Philae and Syene.

447

I.Th.Sy. 318 (TM 88948) 124–116. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Parthenios, Kinsman, and strategos of Thebaid, by [Philotas], First Friend and phrourarchos, to King Ptolemy VIII, Queen Kleopatra II, and Queen Kleopatra III, gods Euergetai, and Isis, Sarapis, Horos.

448

I.Th.Sy. 320 (TM 47462) 116. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Athenaios, Kinsman and strategos of Elephantine, by Nestor, archisomatophylax, phrourarchos of Syene and Elephantine and Philae, to King Ptolemy VIII, Queen Kleopatra II, and Queen Kleopatra III, gods Euergetai, and their children and to Isis, Sarapis, Horos, and the gods in the Abaton; on stone block; year, month, and day date.

Dedications to Deities by Individuals 449

I.Philae 1 6 (TM 80763) 222–204(?) Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IV and Queen Arsinoe III, to Sarapis and Isis; on altar.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

301

450

I.Th.Sy. 309 (TM 88941) c.285–222(?) Dedication: to Isis, Sarapis, Harpokrates, Ammon, the Saviour gods.

451

I.Philae 1 20 (TM 80769) 118–116. Dedication: [in favour of (ὑπέρ)?] Apollonios, one of the diadochoi and phrourarchos of Philae, by Demetrios, epistrategos and strategos of Thebaid, and the forces in Ptolemais, to Kolanthes, Pan Euodos and god Soter, of an altar; on a limestone base.

Proskynemata 452

I.Philae 1 9 (TM 44051) 204–180. Proskynema of Ptolemaios, archisomatophylax and archikynegos, and his son Ptolemaios, archisomatophylax.

453

I.Philae 1 21 (TM 80770) 116/5. Proskynema of Achilleus son of Demetrios.

454

I.Th.Sy. 324 (TM 88954) 115. Proskynema of Apion son of Dionysios, Alexandrian.

455

I.Philae 1 25 (TM 44131) 115. Proskynema of the grammateus Philoxenos.

456

I.Philae 1 24 (TM 80772) 116–107. Proskynema of Ptolemaios son of Demetrios.

457

I.Philae 1 26 (TM 6357) 107/6 or 104/3. Proskynema of [- -]ixos(?) son of Ptolemaios.

458

I.Philae 1 27 (TM 6332) 101/100. Proskynema for Ptolemy X Alexander.

459

I.Philae 1 35 (TM 6409) 99–88. Proskynema to Isis for Ptolemy X Alexander.

460

I.Philae 1 47 (TM 8342) before 80. Proskynema of the Gortynian Kephalas.

461

I.Philae 1 48 (TM 80783) before 80. Proskynema of Korax for his teacher Kabatas and family.

462

I.Philae 1 49 (TM 80784) before 80(?) Proskynema of Kabatas for his wife.

463

I.Philae 1 70 (TM 47385) I. Proskynema of an unnamed Mylasan.

464

I.Philae 1 73–5 (TM 80793-5) 88–81. Proskynemata of a group of visitors on the same day.

465

I.Philae 1 85 (TM 80805) I(?) Proskynema of the priest Syron.

466

I.Philae 1 94 (TM 80814) I(?) Proskynema of Dem[etri]os(?)

467

I.Philae 1 95 (TM 80815) c.99–51(?) Fragmentary proskynema of NN the son of Menippos.

468

I.Philae 1 110 (TM 8345) I. Fragmentary proskynema of an unnamed individual from Antiocheia-on-the-Maeander.

469

I.Philae 1 126 (TM 80852) I(?) Proskynema of Didymos.

470

I.Philae 1 46 (TM 80782) Before 80. Proskynema of Harpalos together with Hermogenes.

471

I.Philae 1 28 (TM 80773) 95/4. Proskynema of Hepiodoros for his family.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

302

Appendix

472

I.Philae 1 118 (TM 80844) 94 or 61. Fragmentary proskynema.

473

I.Philae 1 119 (TM 80845) 62/1(?) Fragmentary proskynema.

474

I.Philae 1 29 (TM 80774) 93(?) Proskynema of Herodes for his family.

475

I.Philae 1 30 (TM 6337) 90. Proskynema of the Kinsman Theodoros.

476

I.Philae 1 23 (TM 44164) 90(?) Proskynema of the Kinsman Eraton.

477

I.Philae 1 36 (TM 80776) 90–88. Fragmentary proskynema.

478

I.Philae 1 37 (TM 80777) 90–88(?) Proskynema of Niko[- -].

479

I.Philae 1 31 (TM 6341) 89. Proskynema of Libanos for his brother Hieronymos and for Alexas and Zarbinas.

480

I.Philae 1 14 (TM 80765) 89(?) Proskynema of the Kinsman and priest Eraton.

481

I.Philae 1 34 (TM 80775) 89. Proskynema of Achilleus for his family.

482

I.Philae 1 32 (TM 6338) 89. Proskynema of Tryphon for the Kinsman and Idios Logos Kastor.

483

I.Philae 1 33 (TM 6412) 89. Proskynema of Tryphon for parents and siblings and friends.

484

I.Philae 1 43 (TM 80780) 82/1. Proskynema in verse of Menelaos.

485

I.Philae 1 40 (TM 80778) 88–80. Proskynema for Ptolemy IX.

486

I.Philae 1 39 (TM 44185) 88–80. Proskynema of Apollonios, Thracian, naval architect.

487

I.Philae 1 38 (TM 44172) 88–80. Proskynema of the Kinsman and Panopolite strategos Paniskos.

488

I.Philae 1 41 (TM 44163) 88–80. Proskynema of an unnamed strategos of the Tentyrite and other nomes.

489

I.Philae 1 71 (TM 80791) c.88–81. Fragmentary proskynema for members of a family.

490

I.Philae 1 89 (TM 80809) 84/3. Fragmentary proskynema.

491

I.Philae 1 42 (TM 80779) 82/1. Proskynema of Apollonios.

492

I.Philae 1 22 (TM 80771) 116/15. Proskynema of an unidentified individual.

493

I.Philae 1 45 (TM 80781) Before 80. Proskynema of Amynandros.

494

I.Philae 1 50 (TM 6334) 69. Proskynema for Ptolemy XII Neos Dionysos.

495

I.Philae 1 51 (TM 6355) 68. Proskynema of Kinsman and Pathyrite and Latopolite strategos Nikomachos.

496

I.Philae 1 44 (TM 6356) before 60. Proskynema of the Kinsman and epistrategos Hephaistion.

497

I.Philae 1 53 (TM 7098) 62. Proskynema of the Kinsman, strategos and epistrategos Kallimachos.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

303

498

I.Philae 1 52 (TM 6333) 62. Proskynema of the Kinsman, strategos and epistrategos Kallimachos.

499

I.Philae 1 55 (TM 6335) 59/8 or 55–51. Proskynema of Theodotos, Achaian, for Ptolemy XII and his children.

500

I.Philae 1 56 (TM 6339) 51. Proskynema of Sarapion son of Drakon for the Kinsman, strategos and epistrategos Kallimachos and his children.

501

I.Philae 1 57 (TM 6350) 50. Proskynema of the Kinsman Kronios son of Kallimachos.

502

I.Philae 2 262 (TM 81012) 44. Proskynema of Kolanthos.

503

I.Philae 2 263 (TM 81013) 44. Proskynema of Dionysios.

504

I.Philae 1 59 (TM 6353) 44. Proskynema of the Kinsman and strategos Ptolemaios son of Dionysios.

505

I.Philae 1 60 (TM 6354) 44. Proskynema of Demetrios.

506

I.Philae 1 61 (TM 6351) 44. Proskynema of the Kinsman Ision son of Kallimachos.

507

I.Philae 1 62 (TM 6352) 44. Proskynema of Ision the son of Isidoros.

508

I.Philae 2 134 (TM 6336) 44. Proskynema of the Kinsman and strategos Apollonides.

509

I.Philae 158 (TM 44126) after 39. Proskynema of the Kinsman and epistrategos Kronios son of Kallimachos.

510

I.Philae 1 63 (TM 48083) 32. Proskynema of the prefect Gaius Iulius Papius.

511

I.Philae 2 146 (TM 44148) 32. Proskynema of the Kinsman and strategos Nikomachos.

Honorific Inscriptions for High-Ranking Individuals 512

I.Philae 1 13 (TM 6551) 145 or 143(?) Honorific inscription for a dioiketes.

513

I.Th.Sy.322 (TM 88952) 115. Honorific inscription for the phrourarchos [- -]aios son of Ammonios, ex-voto.

514

I.Th.Sy. 321 (TM 88950) 116. Signatures of Roman visitors.

Hiera Sykaminos 23.04, 32.68; TM GEO 846; Pleiades 795815 515

SB 1 1918 (TM 6659) 144/3 or before. Inscription of Herodes son of Demophon from Pergamon, hegemon, phrourarchos and gerrophylax in the Dodekaschoinos.

Oases, Eastern Desert, and Coast

Adulis 38.45; TM GEO 47, Pleiades 619285 516

I.Éthiopie 276 (TM 6347) 246–222. The Monumentum Adulitanum of Ptolemy III Euergetes.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

304

Appendix

Siwa 29.20; TM GEO 149; Pleiades 716520 517

SEG 47 2138 (TM 102466) 150–100. Dedication: by NN for (ὑπέρ) themselves, their wives, and children, to Ammon, Parammon, Poseidon, Hera, Libye, and all the gods and goddesses.

518

ZPE 200 (2016), p. 107, no. 6 (TM 703112) Early Ptolemaic. Content uncertain.

Oasis Parva 28.32, 28.85; TM GEO 3168; Pleiades 716628 519

BIFAO 108 (2008), pp. 29–44, SEG 59 1764 (TM 145327) 332–323. Bilingual dedication: to Ammon, by Alexander the Great; on a pyramidal sandstone pedestal.

Wadi Abu Diyeba 26.52, 33.75; TM GEO 698 520

I.Pan du Désert 59 (TM 6090) 175–170(?) Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) the hegemon Dionysios and his sons, to King Ptolemy VI, Queen Kleopatra II, gods Philometores, Pan and Haroeris; on sandstone block.

521

I.Pan du Désert 61 (TM 6092) 175–170(?) Proskynemata by the same individuals who dedicated 520.

522

I.Pan du Désert 60 (TM 6091) 150–30. Dedication: by Alexandros and others, to Pan Euodos and Harpokrates, for (ὑπέρ) safety and health; on a stele(?)

Kharga (Hibis Temple) 25.43, 30.55; TM GEO 2786; Pleiades 776181 523

I.Temple Hibis 7 (TM 105136) 285–246. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy II, of temple, peribolos, and pylon gates.

524

I.Temple Hibis 13 (TM 6358) III. Proskynema of Iason son of Dexandros.

525

I.Temple Hibis 15 (TM 43988) Ptolemaic. Proskynema of Dionysios son of Aphrodisios.

526

I.Temple Hibis 17 (TM 43989) Ptolemaic. Proskynema of Ptollis.

527

I.Temple Hibis 20 (TM 44034) Ptolemaic. Proskynema of Diodotos son of Sarapion.

Qasr el-Ghoueita, Kharga Oasis 25.28, 30.56; TM GEO 2040; Pleiades 776215 528

I.Oasis 22 no. 5 (TM 8101) III–II. Proskynema of Theophilos son of Satyrion, from Megara.

529

I.Oasis 22 no. 6 (TM 8102) III. Proskynema of Alexandros son of Perigenes, Macedonian.

530

I.Oasis 22 no. 7 (TM 8103) III. Proskynema of [Herm]olykos son of Eutychides, from Xanthos.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

305

531

I.Oasis 23 no. 8 (TM 8104) III–II. Proskynema of Hierokles son of Philoxenos.

532

I.Oasis 23 no. 9 (TM 8105) III–II. Proskynema of Ammonios.

533

I.Oasis 23 no. 10 (TM 8106) III–II. Proskynema of Eumelos son of Dion, from Chalkis.

534

I.Oasis 24 no. 11 (TM 8107) III–II. Proskynema of Xenon son of Eumelos.

Wadi Bir el-Ain. 26.67, 31.83, TM GEO 2845 535

I.Pan du Désert 1a (TM 6469) c.150–30. Dedication: by a group of hunters under the command of the therophylax Perigenes, to Pan Oreobates; on rock face.

536

I.Pan du Désert 5 (TM 6468) c.150–30. Proskynema of Epidexios hierophylax of Pan and a group of hunters.

537

I.Pan du Désert 3 (TM 6475) c.150–30. Dedication: to the Mother of the Gods, Ares Symmachos, Zeus Olympios, Pan Synstrateuomenos, by the hunter Paniskos son of Theon; on rock face; exvoto.

538

I.Pan du Désert 4 (TM 6476) c.150–30. Dedication: to Pan Oreobates, by three cavalrymen under the phylarch Dexios; on rock face.

539

I.Pan du Désert 6 (TM 6473) c.150–30. Signature of Apollonios.

540

I.Pan du Désert 8 (TM 6474) Ptolemaic. Proskynema of Apollonios son of Sarapion.

541

I.Pan du Désert 10 (TM 81573) c.150–30. Signature of the politikos hippeus Tryphon.

542

I.Pan du Désert 2 (TM 6471) Ptolemaic. Signature of the archikynegos Andronikos.

543

I.Pan du Désert 7 (TM 6472) Late Ptolemaic. Dedication: by two pairs of hunters; on rock face.

544

I.Pan du Désert 11a (TM 6470) Ptolemaic. Inscription of a party of hunters led by the archikynegos Messoueris.

Bir Alayyan 24.96, 33.73; TM GEO 2742 545

SEG 46 2120 (TM 8474) 257. Distance marker.

546

SEG 46 2121 (TM 141166) c.257. Fragments of an inscription with a royal dating formula.

Paneion, El Kanais 25.00, 33.31; TM GEO 2047; Pleiades 786040 547

I.Paneion 9 (TM 6348) c.272–246. Dedication: by Satyros, to Arsinoe goddess Philadelphos.

548

I.Paneion 9bis (TM 44049) 270–264(?) Thanksgiving notice by Dorion.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

306

Appendix

549

a-c: I.Paneion 10, 4, 20 (TM 43938, 56506, 81462) 255, III, and II–I. List of names of the soldiers of Neoptolemos, verse proskynema of Poseideos, and signature of Botres.

550

I.Paneion 43 (TM 6383) II–I. Proskynema of Melanias from Perge, for safe return.

551

I.Paneion 13a (TM 6384) 246–222(?) Proskynema of Akestimos, Cretan, for safe return.

552

I.Paneion 12 (TM 6326) 270 or 232 or 67/6. Inscription concerning the cleaning of the well in the Paneion.

553

I.Paneion 46 (TM 6626) 164–152(?) Proskynema of the archisomatophylax and strategos Apoll[odoros] or Apoll[onios].

554

I.Paneion 42 (TM 47402) III-II. Proskynema of Theudotos, Ioudaios, for safe return.

555

I.Paneion 36 (TM 6349) I(?) Proskymena of Kallimachos.

556

I.Paneion 34 (TM 47439) II–I. Proskynema of Ptolemaios, Ioudaios.

557

I.Paneion 66 (TM 8477) II–I. Proskynema of Il[- -] and Paris to Pan Euagros.

558

I.Paneion 72 (TM 81535) II–I. Proskynema to Pan Euodos and Apollo, for safe return.

559

I.Paneion 80 (TM 81542) II–I. Proskynema of Apollodoros and his companions.

560

I.Paneion 82 (TM 81544) II–I. Proskynema of Agathonikos and Diogenes, for safe return.

561

I.Paneion 44 (TM 43913) II or I. Proskynema of [soldiers] in the unit of Artemidoros, for safe return.

562

I.Paneion 7 (TM 81457) c.150–30. Proskynema of Antiochos.

563

I.Paneion 8 (TM 81459) probably from El Kanais. III. Thanksgiving to Pan Euagros, for rescue from Trogodytes.

564

I.Paneion 47 (TM 48124) Ptolemaic. Proskynema of Meneas, for safe return.

565

I.Paneion 1 (TM 56500) Ptolemaic. Verse proskynema of Pheidon, Cretan, for safe return.

566

I.Paneion 2 (TM 56501) Ptolemaic. Verse proskynema of Zenodotos, for safe return.

567

I.Paneion 3 (TM 56502) II or I. Verse proskynema of Eutychides, for safe return.

568

I.Paneion 5 (TM 56503) c.150–30. Verse proskynema of Pasithemis, Cretan.

569

I.Paneion 6 (TM 56504) Ptolemaic. Verse proskynema of Ariston of Naupaktos.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

307

Pselkis 23.89, 32.83; TM GEO 1949; Pleiades 795846 570

OGIS 1 131 (TM 6292) 146–115(?) Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII and Queen Kleopatra II, gods Euergetai, and their children, to Hermes-Paotpnouphis and the templesharing (synnaoi) gods; year date; on architrave.

Berenike 23.91, 35.47; TM GEO 416; Pleiades 7859856 571

I.Pan du Désert 70 with ZPE 213 (2020), 108-10 (TM 6661) 133. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII, Queen Kleopatra II, and Queen Kleopatra III, gods Euergetai, and their children, by the archisomatophylax Echephylos, to all the gods; on a limestone plaque.

Unknown or Uncertain Location

Royal Edict 572

Arvanitakis (1904), 152 (no TM number) III–II. Fragment mentioning a prostagma.

Decrees 573

I.Louvre 1 (TM 7221) Memphis(?) 238. Decree of a priestly synod (Kanopos Decree).

574

SB 8 10038 (TM 6081) Memphis(?) 222–204. Decree of a priestly synod.

Dedications by and for the royal house 575

SB 5 8955 (TM 6429) c.272–246. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II, goddess Philadelphos, by Bynchis son of Armais; on Egyptian-style stele.

576

SB 10 10687 (TM 93312) 282–246. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy II, by Simonides, to Adonis, Dioskouroi, Ptolemy I Soter; on a limestone plaque.

577

I.Louvre 8 (1–3) (TM 58443, 103241, 102225) 274–268. Dedications: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy II and Queen Arsinoe, by the priest Moschos, to Agdistis the listening god, of temple and temenos; on limestone and marble plaques.

578

SB 5 8954 (TM 6428) 246–222. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy III and Queen Berenike II and their children, by Soteles and Charito and their children; on a plaque; ‘according to instruction’ (kata prostagma).

579

ZPE 200 (2016), pp.103–4, no. 3 (TM 703109) c.244–222. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy III Euergetes and Queen Berenike II and their children, to Sarapis; on a sandstone block.

580

ZPE 200 (2016), pp.104–6, no. 4 (TM 703110) 210–204. Dedication: to Dionysos, Neilos, King Ptolemy IV Philopator and Queen Arsinoe III and their son and the other gods.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

308

Appendix

581

I.Pan du Désert 85 (TM 6364) 210–204. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IV Philopator, Queen Arsinoe III, and Ptolemy the son, by Alexandros and the hegemon Apoasis, and their troops, to Ares Nikephoros Euagros.

582

OGIS 1 92 (TM 6390) Alexandria(?) 204–180. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy V, god Epiphanes and Eucharistos, by Theon, to Isis, of temple, sanctuary and storerooms; on a limestone plaque.

583

OGIS 1 95 (TM 6391) Memphis(?) 204–180. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy V and Queen Kleopatra I, gods Epiphaneis and Eucharistoi, by Semenouphis son of Phaneus, to the great god Semenouphis; on a marble plaque.

584

ZPE 200 (2016), pp. 106–7 no. 5 (TM 703111) 204–180. Dedication: to King Ptolemy V and Queen Kleopatra I, gods Epiphaneis and Eucharistoi, and the gods Soteres; on a limestone plaque.

585

SB 8 10010 [SEG 15 874–5] (TM 6053, 102242) 193–180. Dedications: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy V and Queen Kleopatra I, gods Epiphaneis and Eucharistoi, by the priest Chares, to Poseidon Hippios, of temenos, temple and statues; on limestone plaques.

586

I.Fayoum 3 197 (TM 6181) 175–170. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI and Queen Kleopatra II, gods Philometores, by Asteria and Timarion, to Boubastis; on a limestone plaque.

587

SB 8 9822 (TM 5985) 175–170. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI, Queen Kleopatra II, gods Philometores, and Ptolemy VIII.

588

SB 1 1436 (TM 6614) 170–164. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VI, Queen Kleopatra II, and King Ptolemy VIII, gods Philometores, by recruits under Hieronymos, archisomatophylax and strategos.

589

SEG 55 1847 (TM 113380) 152/1. Dedication: in honour of Ptolemy VI Philometor, by NN son of Philostratos, Macedonian, commander of the ἔξω τάξεων and gymnasiarch, to Herakles; on a marble plaque.

590

I.Pan du Désert 86 (TM 6401) Koptos(?) 130. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II and Queen Kleopatra II, gods Euergetai, and their children, by Sotirichos, archisomatophylax, to Pan Euodos and all the other gods and goddesses; on a limestone plaque; dated by year, month, and day.

591

I.Varsovie 51 (TM 110353) 117–107 or 88–80. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IX, god Soter, to Zeus Horkios; on a granite statue base.

592

APF 2 (1903), 552, no. 34 (TM 43960) Sebennyte Nome(?) 114–108. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) Queen Kleopatra III, King Ptolemy IX and Kleopatra Selene and their children, by the hipparch Ptolemaios; on a plaque.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

309

593

SEG 37 1651 (TM 105065) c.150–100. Fragmentary honorific(?) inscription.

594

I.Fayoum 3 203 (TM 8169) Arsinoite or Herakleopolite Nome(?) 88–80. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy IX, god Soter, and for (ὑπέρ) himself and his wife and children, by Philoxenos, to Herakles Kallinikos and the temple-sharing (synnaoi) gods Soteres, of pylon; on a plaque.

595

SB 1 4963 (TM 7163) 80–68. Dedication: in favour of (ὑπέρ) King Ptolemy XII and Queen Kleopatra VI, gods Philopatores and Philadelphoi, and their children, by the strategos Xenokles, to Zeus-[Helios-Sarapis], of temple and peribolos; on a plaque.

596

SEG 58 1830 (TM 113247) Ptolemais(?) c.150–50. Dedication: by Eidos son of Telephos, Alexandrian, to King Ptolemy, of statue; on a plinth.

597

SB 4 7326 (TM 6447) Alexandria(?) c.272–246. Dedication: by the priestess Timo, to Arsinoe Philadelphos; on a plaque.

598

SB 1 434 (TM 6507) Lower Egypt, c.272–246. Dedication: to Arsinoe goddess Philadelphos; on altar.

599

I.Varsovie 44 (TM 44043) 246–241(?) Dedication: by the priest Theoros, and the synbasilistai and Dioskouriastai of the nome, to King Ptolemy III, Queen Berenike II, and the Dioskouroi, of the revenue for monthly sacrifices; on a plaque.

600

I.Varsovie 46 (TM 110349) 242–222 or 193–181. Dedication: to King Ptolemy III or V and his Queen; on a limestone plaque.

601

I.Pan du Désert 84 (TM 6446) 217–204. Dedication: by Lichas to King Ptolemy IV and Queen Arsinoe III, gods Philopatores, Sarapis [and Isis]; on a plaque.

602

SB 4 7453 (TM 6456) 222–204. Honorific inscription for King Ptolemy IV.

603

I.Musée d’Alexandrie 33 (TM 7091) 204–180. Dedication: by the hegemon Kallistratos and the soldiers under his command, to King Ptolemy V, god Epiphanes; on a limestone plaque.

604

OGIS 1 128 (TM 6320) 146–116. Honorific inscription for King Ptolemy VIII.

605

OGIS 1 19 (TM 6368) 305–282. Bilingual statue base for King Ptolemy I Soter.

606

SB 10 10710 (TM 104538) c.272–246. Dedication: to Arsinoe Philadelphos; on a plaque.

607

I.Louvre 9 (TM 6342) c.272–246. Dedication: to Arsinoe goddess Philadelphos, of altar; on a limestone plaque.

Dedications to Deities by Individuals 608

SEG 31 1558 (TM 47475) c.300–250. Dedication: by Pitotos, Cretan, to Herakles; on a limestone plaque.

609

SEG 44 2117 (TM 56468) c.300–250. Dedication: for (ὑπέρ) himself and his father, by Timokles, to Sarapis and Aphrodite; on a limestone plaque.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

310

Appendix

610

I.Th.Sy. 223 (TM 7025) Syene(?) III. Dedication: by the Samian Pythogeiton, to all the gods and goddesses, of altars; on a limestone altar.

611

SEG 30 1777 (TM 104865) c.225–175. Dedication: by Isodotos, to Isis; ex-voto.

612

I.British Museum 4 1079 (TM 102639) IV-III. Dedication: by Galateia, to Boubastis, of statue; on a limestone base.

613

I.Alex.Ptol. 51 (TM 104540) Alexandria(?) c.175–125. Dedication: for (ὑπέρ) his wife Demarion and sons, by Ptolemaios, to Isis.

614

I.Cairo, p. 43 no. 9301 (No TM entry) c.150(?) Dedication: by ephebes, to Hermes, of statue; on a circular granite base.

615

I.Varsovie 55 (TM 112415) 153/2 or 141/0 or 88/7. Dedication: by Hephaistion, gymnasiarch, in year 28, to Hermes, of a sundial.

616

SB 5 7786 (TM 6275) c.125–75. Dedication: by Philokrates and Hellagion, to Aphrodite-Akraia-Arsinoe; on a limestone plaque.

617

SEG 48 2067 (TM 142345) II. Dedication: by Prokles son of Antilochos, to Isis; on a basalt offering table.

618

I.Louvre 26 (TM 6317) Alexandria(?) I. Dedication: by Apollonios and Apollodoros, to Apollo and Kore; on a round altar; ex-voto.

619

I.Varsovie 48 (TM 7194) Pharbaithos(?) c.130–100. Honorific inscription for First Friend Theon.

620

SB 4 7456 (TM 6459) Alexandria(?) II–I. Honorific inscription for Karadyses.

621

I.Métriques 1 (TM 104362) c.270–246. Funerary epigram of Menelaos.

622

SB 10 10719 (TM 104548) III. Funerary monument of Thaues; perhaps a forgery.

623

I.Métriques 36 (TM 102896) c.150–30. Funerary epigram of Telesion.

624

I.Métriques 12 (TM 47465) Ptolemaic. Funerary epigram of Herakleitos.

625

SEG 27 1114 (TM 8542) Arsinoite Nome(?) 267 Dedication: by Herakleitos, to King Ptolemy II, of a catalogue of victors at the Basileia; on a basalt stele; year, month, and day date.

626

I.Louvre 119 (TM 6288) II(?) List of names.

627

SB 10 10713 (TM 104541) II–I. List of names.

628

Asylia 227 (TM 55699) Between 95/4 and 57/6(?) Temple boundary inscription(?)

629

SEG 54 1723 (TM 397817) 246–241. Dedication: by King Ptolemy III, to Sarapis, of temple; on a silver foundation plaque; ‘according to instruction’ (kata prostagma).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

Appendix

311

Texts of Uncertain Ptolemaic or Roman Date 630

SEG 24 1238 (TM 104547) Alexandria. Ptolemaic(?) Funerary epigram of Sarapion, of uncertain authenticity.

631

SB 1 345 (TM 93335) Alexandria. Funerary text(?)

632

SB 1 365 (TM 93343) Alexandria. Funerary text(?)

633

I. Alex.Ptol. 56 (TM 7146) Alexandria I(?) Dedication: by Ammonarin (aste) to the fair goddess (Isis) in Pandoitis and the temple-sharing (synnaoi) gods, of statue; on a statue base.

634

I.Alex.Ptol. 76 (TM 103542). Uncertain provenance. Late Ptolemaic or Roman(?) Dedication: perhaps to Demeter; on a dark granite slab.

635

I.Alex.Imp. 123 (TM 104031). Alexandria. 71/0, 42/1 or 20/19. Dedication: by Dorion to Apollo, of statue, shrine etc.; on a plaque; year, month, and day date.

636

Chiron 39 (2009), p. 471, no. 3, (TM 104034). Schedia, III(?) Fragment of a dedication.

637

JIGRE 93 (TM 104128) Leontopolis (Tell-el-Yahoudia). Funerary text(?)

638

JIGRE 64 (TM 103872) Leontopolis (Tell el-Yahoudia). I BC–AD I. Epitaph of a woman.

639

I.Delta 2, p. 764 no. 35 (TM 119915) Naukratis. Ptolemaic(?) Fragmentary inscription.

640

I.Fayoum 1 78 (TM 47192) Soknopaiou Nesos, 34/3 BC or 12/11 BC or AD 32/3(?) Statue of a priest.

641

I.Fayoum 1 77 (TM 47191) Soknopaiou Nesos, c.50 BC – AD 50. Statue of a priest.

642

I.Fayoum 3 160 (TM 8162) Narmouthis. II-I (year 11). Dedication: for (ὑπέρ) himself and his wife and children, by Pythiades, to Hermouthis and Anoubis, of a statue; year and month date; ex-voto.

643

SB 24 16051 (TM 45404) Tebtynis. 89 or 5(?) Bilingual dedication: by the fuller Manres, of relief of Heron; on a limestone stele.

644

SB 1 169 (TM 6464) Abydos, Ptolemaic (222-204) or Roman(?) Dedication: by Dioskoros, the eklogistes of the nome, to Sarapis-Osiris the greatest Saviour and ‘for the good’ (ἐπ’ ἀγαθῷ); on five foundation deposit blocks.

645

I.Philae 1 54 (TM 80786) Philae, 61(?) Proskynema of Philainos and Horion.

646

I.Philae 1 65 (TM 80787) Philae, Ptolemaic(?) Proskynema of [- -]chos.

647

I.Philae 1 66 (TM 8344) Philae, Ptolemaic(?) Signature of Sosigenes of Naxos.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 4/9/2020, SPi

312

Appendix

648

Ptol.Alex. II, 325 n.12 (vi) (TM 102471) Uncertain provenance. Late Ptolemaic or early Roman. Dedication: by Arete, to Boubastis and Harmaïs; on a granite base; ex-voto.

649

I.Varsovie 54 (TM 110356) Uncertain provenance. Late Ptolemaic or early Roman. Fragmentary dedication: of a doorway; on a granite plaque.

650

SB 10 10721 (TM 104550). Uncertain provenance. Late Ptolemaic or early Roman(?) Funerary monument of Menandros.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Bibliography Abd el-Fattah, A., Abd el-Maksoud, M. and Carrez-Maratray, J.Y. (2014) ‘Deux inscriptions grecques du Boubasteion d’Alexandrie’, AncSoc 44, 149–77. Abd el-Maksoud, M. Abd el-Fattah, A. and Seif el-Din, M. (2015) ‘Foundation Deposit Plaques from the Boubasteion’, BSAA 49, 133–54. Abd el-Maksoud, M. and Abd el-Fattah, A. and Seif el-Din, M. (2016) ‘Le Boubastieion: Un lieu de culte populaire’, in Nenna, M.-D. (ed.) Alexandrie grecque, romaine, égyptienne (Dossiers d’archéologie 374), 34–7. Abd el-Maksoud, Μ. and Seif el-Din, Μ. (2012) ‘La Fouille du Boubasteion d’Alexandrie: présentation préliminaire’, In Hermar, A. and Dubois, C. (eds.) L’Enfant et la mort dans l’Antiquité. III, Le Matériel associé aux tombes d’enfants. Actes de la table ronde internationale organisée à la Maison méditerranéenne des sciences de l’homme (MMSH) d’Aix-en-Provence, 20–22 janvier 2011. Paris, 427–46. Adams, J. N. (2003) Bilingualism and the Latin Language, Cambridge. Adkins, L. and Adkins, R. (2000) The Keys of Egypt: The Race to Decipher Hieroglyphs, London. Albersmeier, S. (2002) Untersuchungen zu den Frauenstatuen des ptolemäischen Ägypten, Mainz am Rhein. Ameling, W. (2008) ‘Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis nach den Inschriften’, in Karrer, M. and Kraus, W. (eds.) Die Septuaginta—Texte, Contexte und Lebenswelten, Tübingen, 117–23. Aneziri, S. (2003) Die Vereine der dionysischen Techniten im Kontext der hellenistischen Gesellschaft: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte, Organisation und Wirkung der hellenistischen Technitenvereine (Historia Einzelschriften 163), Stuttgart. Aneziri, S. (2009) ‘World Travellers. The Associations of Artists of Dionysus’, in Hunter, R. and Rutherford, I. (eds.) Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture. Travel, Locality and Panhellenism, Cambridge, 217–36. Archibald, Z. H. (2011) ‘Mobility and Innovation in Hellenistic Economies’, in Archibald, Z. H., Davies, J. K. and Gabrielsen, V. (eds.) The Economies of Hellenistic Societies, Third to First Centuries , Oxford, 42–65. Arvanitakis, G. (1904) Ελλήνιον: Δελτίο του εν Καϊρω ελληνικού επιστημονικού συλλόγου 2, 152. Ascough, R. S., Harland, P. A. and Kloppenborg, J. S. (2012) Associations in the Greco-Roman World: A Sourcebook, Berlin. Ashton, S.-A. (2001) Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt. The Interaction between Greek and Egyptian Traditions, Oxford. Ashton, S.-A. (2003) The Last Queens of Egypt, Harlow. Ashton, S.-A. (2004) ‘The Egyptian Tradition’, in Hirst, A. and Silk, M. (eds.) Alexandria Real and Imagined, Aldershot, 15–40. Ast, R. (2020) ‘I.Pan 70, a Dedication from the Year 133 ’, ZPE 208, 108–10. Aston, B. G., Harrell J. A. and Shaw, I. (2000) ‘Stone’, in Nicholson, P. T. and Shaw I. (eds.) Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Cambridge, 5–77.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

314

Bibliography

Aubert, M. F. and Cortopassi, R. (2008) Portraits funéraires de l’Égypte romaine II, Paris. Bagnall, R. S. (1969) ‘Some Notes on P. Hibeh 198’, BASP 6, 73–118. Bagnall, R. S. (1976) ‘Archagathos, Epistates of Libya’, Philologus 120, 195–209. Bagnall, R. S., Manning, J. G., Sidebotham, S. E. and Zitterkopf, R. E. (1996) ‘A Ptolemaic Inscription from Bir ‘layyan’, CE 71, 317–27. Bankes, W. J. (1821) Geometrical Elevation of an Obelisk from the Island of Philae, London. Barbantani, S. (2014) ‘ “Déjà la pierre pense où votre nom s’inscrit”. Identity in Context in Verse Epitaphs for Hellenistic Soldiers’, in Hunter, R., Rengakos, A. and Sistakou, E. (eds.) Hellenistic Studies at a Crossroads. Exploring Texts, Contexts and Metatexts, Berlin and New York, 303–38. Bastianini, G. and Gallazzi, C. (1991) ‘Un’iscrizione inedita di Tebtynis e la synodos di Doryphoros’, ZPE 89, 44–6. Baumbach, M., Petrovic, A. and Petrovic, I. (eds.) (2010) Archaic and Classical Greek Epigram, Cambridge. Bengston, H. (1952) Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit: ein Beitrag zum antiken Staatsrecht 3 (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, Heft 36), Munich. Bennett, C. (2002) ‘The Children of Ptolemy III and the Date of the Exedra of Thermos’, ZPE 138, 141–5. Bennett, C. (2011) Alexandria and the Moon: An Investigation into the Lunar Macedonian Calendar of Ptolemaic Egypt (Studia Hellenistica 52), Leiden. Bernand, A. and Masson, O. (1957) ‘Les Inscriptions grecques d’Abou Simbel’, REG 70, 1–46. Bernand, É. (1983) ‘Au dieu très haut’, Hommages à Jean Cousin (Annales littéraires de l’université de Besançon 273), 107–11. Bernand, É. (1992) ‘Sur une stèle d’Abydos copiée par Samuel Sharpe’, ZPE 91, 217–20. Bernand, É. (1993) ‘Τόπος dans les inscriptions grecques d’Égypte’, ZPE 98, 103–10. Bernand, É. (2002) ‘Épitaphe d’un soldat-bouvier’, ZPE 140, 97–8. Bettenworth, A. (2007) ‘The Mutual Influence of Inscribed and Literary Epigram’, in Bing, P. and Bruss, J. S. (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram, Leiden, 69–93. Bianchi, R. (1988) Cleopatra’s Egypt (Studia Hellenistica 52), New York. Bikerman, E. (1938) ‘Anonymous Gods’, JWI I.3, 187–96. Bing, P. (2003) ‘Posidippus and the Admiral: Kallikrates of Samos in the Milan Epigrams’, GRBS 43, 243–66. Bing, P. and Bruss, J. S. (eds.) (2007) Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram, Leiden. Bingen, J. (1984) ‘Le Document gymnasial Breccia 162’, in Biscardi, A., Modrzejewski, J. and Wolff, H.-J. (eds.) ΜΝΗΜΗ Γεωργίου Α. Πετροπούλου (1897–1964) I, Athens, 239–43. Bingen, J. (1989) ‘Normalité et specificité de l’épigraphie grecque et romaine de l’Égypte’, in Criscuolo, L. and Geraci, G. (eds.) Egitto e storia antica dall’ellenismo all’età araba; bilancio di un confronto: Atti del colloquio internazionale, Bologna, 31 agosto–2 settembre 1987 (Bologna), 15–35 [translated as ‘Normality and Distinctiveness in the Epigraphy of Greek and Roman Egypt’, in Bingen (2007), 256–78].

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Bibliography

315

Bingen, J. (1993) ‘La lex sacra SB I 3451 = LSCG, Suppl. 119 (Ptolémaïs, Haute-Égypte)’, CE 68, 219–28. Bingen, J. (1994a) ‘Ptolémaïs (Haute-Égypte): C.Ord.Ptol. 67 et décrets de la cité’, in Melaerts, H., De Smet, R. and Saerens C. (eds.) Studia Varia Bruxellensia 3, Leuven, 11–21. Bingen, J. (1994b) ’Sur quelques stèles funéraires d’Abydos et de Coptos’, CE 69, 323–31. Bingen, J. (1997) ‘I.Philae I 4, un moment d’un règne, d’un temple et d’un culte’, Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses. APF Beiheft 3. Leipzig, 88–97 [translated as ‘Ptolemy III and Philae: snapshot of a reign, a temple and a cult’, in Bingen (2007), 31–43]. Bingen, J. (2005) Pages d’épigraphie II. Égypte (1983–2002) (Epigraphica Bruxellensia 3), Brussels. Bingen, J. (2007) Hellenistic Egypt: Monarchy, Society, Economy, Culture, ed. R. S. Bagnall, Edinburgh. Blasius, A. (2011) ‘Die lokalen Eliten im ptolemaïschen Ägypten’, in Dreyer, B. and Mittag P. F. (eds.) Lokale Eliten und hellenistische Könige. Zwischen Kooperation und Konfrontation, Berlin, 132–90. Boak, A. E. R. (1937) ‘The Organization of Gilds in Greco-Roman Egypt’, TAPhA 68, 212–20. Bobou, O. (2015) Children in the Hellenistic World: Statues and Representation, Oxford. Bodel, J. (2009) ‘“Sacred Dedications”: A Problem of Definition’, in Bodel, J. and Kajava, M. (eds.) Dediche sacre nel mondo greco-romano: diffusione, funzioni, tipologie. Religious Dedications in the Greco-Roman World: Distribution, Typology, Use. Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, American Academy in Rome, 19–20 April, 2006, Rome, 17–30. Borchardt, L. (1934) Statuen und Statuetten von Königen und Privatleuten im Museum von Kairo IV (CG 1294), Berlin. Borgeaud, P. (1988) The Cult of Pan, Chicago. Bosch-Puche, F. (2008) ‘L’Autel du temple d’Alexandre le Grand à Bahariya retrouvé’, BIFAO 108, 29–44. Boswinkel, E. and Pestman, P. W. (1978) Textes grecs, démotiques et bilingues (Pap. Lugd-Bat. 19), Leiden. Botti, G. (1894) Rivista Egiziana VI, [also sometimes cited as Revue égyptienne, Revue bimensuelle, or Rivista quindicinale], Alexandria. Bowie, E. (2010) ‘Epigram as Narration’, in Baumbach, M., Petrovic, A. and Petrovic, I. (eds.) Archaic and Classical Greek Epigram, Cambridge, 313–84. Bowman, A. K. (1978) ‘The Military Occupation of Upper Egypt in the Reign of Diocletian’, BASP 15, 25–38. Bowman, A. K., Crowther, C. V. and Savvopoulos, K. (2016) ‘The “Corpus of Ptolemaic Inscriptions from Egypt” Project: Unpublished Texts’, ZPE 200, 100–8. Bowman, A. K. and Rathbone D. W. (1992) ‘Cities and Administration in Roman Egypt’, JRS 82, 107–27. Breccia, E. (1914) Alexandrea ad Aegyptum. Guide de la ville ancienne et moderne et du Musée Gréco-romaine (Bergamo) [= Breccia, E. (1922) Alexandrea ad Aegyptum. A Guide to the Ancient and Modern Town and to its Graeco-Roman Museum. Bergamo (English translation)].

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

316

Bibliography

Breccia, E. (1931) ‘Note epigrafiche’, BSAA 26, 276–94. Bresciani, E. and Giammarusti, A. (2015) I templi di Medinet Madi nel Fayum, Pisa. Bresson, A. (1980) ‘Rhodes, l’Hellénion et le statut de Naukratis (Ve–IVe siècle a.C.)’, DHA 6, 291–349. Bricault, L. (1999) ‘Sarapis et Isis, sauveurs de Ptolémée IV à Raphia’, CE 74, 334–43. Brodie, N. (2014) ‘Auction Houses and the Antiquities Trade,’ in Choulia-Kapeloni, S. (ed.) 3rd International Conference of Experts on the Return of Cultural Property, Athens, 71–82. Brophy, E. (2014) ‘Where Were Royal Statues Placed in Ptolemaic Egypt’, in Grieb, V., Nawotka, K. and Wojciechowska, A. (eds.) Alexander the Great and Egypt: History, Art, Tradition, Wiesbaden, 347–55. Budge, E. A. W. (1904) The Decrees of Memphis and Canopus (3 vols.), London. Burstein, S. M. (1985) The Hellenistic Age from the Battle of Ipsos to the Death of Kleopatra VII, Cambridge. Burstein, S. M. (2008) ‘Elephants for Ptolemy II: Ptolemaic Policy in Nubia in the Third Century ’, in McKechnie, P. and Guillaume, P. (eds.) Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World, Boston, MA, 135–47. Butz, P.A. (2015) ‘Egyptian Stylistic Influence on Stoichedon and the Hekatompedon Inscription at Athens’, in Kousoulis, P. and Lazaridis, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, 22–29 May 2008 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 241), Leuven, 1961–73. Cailliaud, F. (1826) Voyage à Méroé, au fleuve Blanc, au-delà de Fâzoql dans le midi du royaume de Sennâr, à Syouah et dans cinq autres oasis; fait dans les années 1819, 1820, 1821 et 1822, Vol. I, Paris. Caneva, S. G. (2016) ‘Ritual Intercession in the Ptolemaic Kingdom. A Survey of Grammar, Semantics and Agency’, Erga–Logoi 4, 117–54. Capponi, L. (2007) Il tempio di Leontopoli in Egitto: identità politica e religiosa dei giudei di Onia, c. 150 a. c.-73 d. C., Pisa. Carrez-Maratray, J.-Y. (2014) ‘Le Boubasteion d’Alexandrie’, in Méla, C. and Möri, F. (eds.) Alexandrie la Divine, Geneva, 268–73. Cauville, S. (2007) ‘L’impossible serrement de main ou la pax romana à Dendara’, REgypt 58, 29–39. Cavallo, G. and Maehler, H. (2008) Hellenistic Bookhands, Berlin. Cayla, J.-B. (2018) Les Inscriptions de Paphos: la cité chypriote sous la domination Lagide et à l’époque impériale, Lyons. Cenival, F. de (1972) Les associations religieuses en Égypte d’après les documents démotiques, Cairo. Champollion-Figéac, J. J. (1822) Lettre à M. Dacier relative à l’alphabet des hiéroglyphes phonétiques, Paris. Champollion-Figéac, J. J. (1824) ‘Notice sur un papyrus grec et sur une inscription égyptienne et grecque du Musée royal égyptien de Turin’, Bulletin Universel des Sciences et de l’Industrie, Paris, 387 [reprinted as a pamphlet, 1825]. Chaniotis, A. (2003) ‘The Divinity of Hellenistic Rulers’, in Erskine, A. (ed.) A Companion to the Hellenistic World, Cambridge, 431–45. Chaniotis, A. (2005) War in the Hellenistic World: A Social and Cultural History, Oxford.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Bibliography

317

Chaniotis, A. (2011) ‘The Ithyphallic Hymn for Demetrios Poliorketes and Hellenistic Religious Mentality’, in Iossif, P. P., Chankowski, A. S. and Lorber, C. C. (eds.) More than Men, Less than Gods: Studies on Royal Cult and Imperial Worship. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Organized by the Belgian School at Athens, Leuven, 157–97. Charles, M. B. (2007) ‘Elephants at Raphia: Reinterpreting Polybius 5.84–5’, CQ 57, 306–11. Christensen, T., Thompson, D. J. and Vandorpe, K. (2017) Land and Taxes in Ptolemaic Egypt. The Edfu Land Survey (P.Haun. IV 70), Cambridge. Clarysse, W. (1985) ‘Greeks and Egyptians in the Ptolemaic Army and Administration’, Aegyptus 65, 57–66. Clarysse, W. (1988) ‘A Demotic Self-Dedication to Anoubis’, Enchoria 16, 7–10. Clarysse, W. (1989) ‘Papyri’, in Van ’t Dack, E. et al. (eds.) The Judaean-Syrian Egyptian Conflict of 103–101 : A Multilingual Dossier concerning a ‘War of Scepters’, Brussels, 37–81. Clarysse, W. (1991) ‘Hakoris, an Egyptian Nobleman and his Family’, AncSoc 22, 235–43. Clarysse, W. (2000a) ‘The Ptolemies Visiting the Egyptian chora’, in Mooren, L. (ed.) Politics, Administration and Society in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Proceedings of the International Colloquium (Studia Hellenistica 36), Leuven, 29–53. Clarysse, W. (2000b) ‘Ptolémées et temples’, in Valbelle, D. and Leclant, J. (eds.) Le Décret de Memphis. Colloque de la Fondation Singer-Polignac à l’occasion de la célébration du bicentenaire de la découverte de la Pierre de Rosette, Paris, 41–65. Clarysse, W. (2004) ‘The Great Revolt of the Egyptians (205–186 )’, https://www. lib.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/files/TheGreatRevoltoftheEgyptians.pdf, accessed 18 November 2019. Clarysse, W. (2005) ‘The Archive of Euphron’, AncSoc 35, 129–34. Clarysse, W. (2013) ‘Determinatives in Greek Loan-Words and Proper Names’, in Vleeming, S. P. (ed.) Aspects of Demotic Orthography. Leuven, 1–24. Clarysse, W. and Huys, M. (2003) ‘A Soldier’s Epitaph Rescued from the Sea’, ZPE 143, 147–8. Clarysse, W. and Thompson, D. J. (2006) Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt, Vol. 2, Historical Studies, Cambridge. Clarysse, W. and Van der Veken, G. (1983) The Eponymous Priests of Ptolemaic Egypt: Chronological Lists of the Priests of Alexandria and Ptolemais with a Study of the Demotic Transcriptions of their Names (Pap. Lugd.-Bat. 24), Leiden. Clarysse, W. and Yan, Hai-Ying (2007) ‘Two Ptolemaic stelae for the sacred lion of Leonton Polis’, CE 82, 77–100. Clère, J. J. (1963) ‘Deux nouvelles plaques de fondation bilingues de Ptolémée IV Philopator’, ZÄS 90, 16–21. Cohen, G. M. (2006) The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, the Red Sea Basin, and North Africa, Berkeley, CA, and London. Colla, E. (2007) Conflicted Antiquities: Egyptology, Egyptomania, Egyptian Modernity, Durham, NC. Cowey, J. M. S., Maresch, K. and Barnes, C. (2003) Das Archiv des Phrurarchen Dioskurides (154–145 v. Chr.?) (P.Phrur.Diosk.) Papyri aus den Sammlungen von Heidelberg, Köln, München und Wien, Schöningh and Paderborn.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

318

Bibliography

Crisci, E. (2011) ‘Le scritture dell’archivio di Zenon. Note e riflessioni’, in D’Agostino, M. and Degni, P. (eds.) Alethes philia. Studi in onore di Giancarlo Prato, Spoleto, 279–99. Criscuolo, L. (1985) ‘OGIS 52 e il culto di Iside a Ptolemais’, ZPE 61, 37–42. Crowther, C. V. (2004) ‘The Dating of Koan Hellenistic Inscriptions’, in Höghammar, K. (ed.) The Hellenistic Polis of Kos. State, Economy and Culture, Uppsala, 21–60. Curto, S. and Donatelli, L. (eds.) (1985) Bernardino Drovetti: epistolario (1800–1851), Milan. Cuvigny, H. (2016) ‘Une Dédicace à Zeus Hèlios grand Sarapis honorant un desector sur un ostracon du Mons Claudianus’, in Freu, C. et al. (eds.) “Libera curiositas’. Mélanges d’histoire romaine et d’Antiquité tardive offerts à Jean-Michel Carrié, Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité tardive 31, Turnhout, 17–21. Cuvigny, H. (2017) ‘Quand Lichas plantait sa tente à Abbad. Un dossier de distribution d’eau sur la route d’Edfou à Bérénice (c. 240–210a)’, CE 92, 111–28. Daressy, G. (1923) ‘La Pierre bilingue de Menouf ’, ASAE 23, 49–52. Del Corso, L. (2007) ‘Segni e layout delle iscrizioni greche in Egitto. Un sondaggio su testi esposti in prosa’, in Nocchi Macedo, G. and Scappaticcio, M. C. (eds.) Signes dans les textes, textes sur les signes, Liège, 43–59. Del Corso, L. (2008) ‘La scrittura greca di età ellenistica nei papiri greco-egizi. Considerazioni preliminari’, APapyrol 18–20, 207–67. Del Corso, L. (2010) ‘Scritture epigrafiche e scritture su papiro: spunti per un confronto’, in Bravo García, A. and Pérez Martín, I. (eds.) The Legacy of Bernard de Montfaucon: Three Hundred Years of Studies on Greek Handwriting: Proceedings of the Seventh International Colloquium of Greek Palaeography (Madrid-Salamanca, 15–20 September 2008), Turnhout, 3–16. Denecker, E. and Vandorpe, K. (2007) ‘Sealed Amphora Stoppers and Tradesmen in Greco-Roman Egypt: Archaeological, Papyrological and Inscriptional Evidence’, Bull. Antieke Beschaving 82, 115–28. Devauchelle, D. (2012) ‘Fier d’être rhodien et d’avoir vécu 106 ans!’ in Zivie-Coche, C. and Guermeur, I. (eds.) ‘Parcourir l’éternité’. Hommages à Jean Yoyotte 1, Turnhout, 409–25. Devijver, H. (1993) ‘The Inscriptions of the Neon-Library of Roman Sagalassos’, in Waelkens, M.-J. and Poblome, J. (eds.) Sagalassos II. Report on the Third Excavation Campaign of 1992, Leuven, 107–23. Dhennin, S. (2015) ‘La Nécropole à l’époque hellénistique et romaine en Égypte. Espace funéraire, espace sociale?’, Topoi 20, 143–64. Dietze, G. (1994) ‘Philae und die Dodekaschoinos in ptolemäischer Zeit. Ein Beitrag zur Frage ptolemäischer Präsenz im Grenzland zwischen Ägypten und Afrika an Hand der architektonischen und epigraphischen Quellen’, AncSoc 25, 63–110. Dietze, G. (2000) ‘Temples and Soldiers in Southern Ptolemaic Egypt. Some Epigraphic Evidence’, in Mooren, L. (ed.) Politics, Administration and Society in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Bertinoro 19–24 July 1997, Leuven, 77–89. Dils, P. (2000) Der Tempel von Dusch, Cologne. Disher, M.W. (1957) Pharaoh’s Fool: The Story of Giovanni Belzoni, London.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Bibliography

319

Dumont, A. (1892) ‘Inscriptions et monuments figurés de la Thrace’, in Dumont, A. and Homolle, T. (eds.) Mélanges d’archéologie et d’épigraphie, Paris, 307–581. Earl, G., Basford, P., Bischoff, A., Bowman, A. K., Crowther, C. V., Dahl, J., Hodgson, M., Isaksen, L., Kotoula, E., Martinez, K., Pagi, H. and Piquette, K. E. (2011) ‘Reflectance Transformation Imaging Systems for Ancient Documentary Artefacts’, in Dunn, S., Bowen, J. P. and Ng, K. C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Electronic Visualisation and the Arts (EVA ’11), Swindon, 147–54. Ebert, J. (1972) Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger an gymnischen und hippischen Agonen, Berlin. Edgar, C. C. (1919) ‘Selected Papyri from the Archives of Zenon’, ASAE 18, 159–82. Edgar, C. C. (1922) ‘More tomb-stones from Tell el Yahoudieh’, ASAE 22, 7–16. Edwards, I. E. S. (1980) Philae Resurrected, Paris. Erickson, K. (2018) ‘Another Century of Gods? A Re-Evaluation of the Seleucid Ruler Cult’, CQ 68.1, 97–111. Fabiani, R. (2015) I decreti onorari di Iasos: cronologia e storia (Vestigia 66), Munich. Farid, A. (1993) Die demotischen Inschriften der Strategen, San Antonio, TX. Fassa, E. (2015) ‘Sarapis, Isis and the Ptolemies in Private Dedications: The HyperStyle and the Double Dedications’, Kernos 28, 133–53. Festugiere, A.-J. (1970) ‘Les Proscynèmes de Philae’, REG 83, 175–97. Finati, G. (1830) Narrative of the Life and Adventures of Giovanni Finati, London. Fischer-Bovet, C. (2014a) Army and Society in Ptolemaic Egypt, Cambridge. Fischer-Bovet, C. (2014b) ‘Un Aspect des conséquences des réformes de l’armée lagide: soldats, temples égyptiens et inviolabilité (asylia)’, in Véïsse, A.-E. and Wackenier, S. (eds.) L’Armée en Egypte aux époques perse, ptolémaïque et romaine, Geneva, 139–72. Fischer-Bovet, C. (2015) ‘The Ptolemaic Army’, Oxford Handbooks Online. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935390.013.75. Fischer-Bovet, C. (forthcoming) ‘Ptolemaic mercenaries in Egypt and Cyprus: loyalty and trust in dedicatory inscriptions’, in Scheuble-Reiter, S. and Sänger, P. (eds.) Shaping Politics and Society—Mercenaries in the Greek World, Halle. Fischer-Bovet, C. and Clarysse, W. (2012) ‘A Military Reform before the Battle of Raphia?’, APF 58, 26–35. Fischer-Bovet, C. and Lorber, C. (forthcoming) ‘Getting Paid in Second-Century  Egypt’, in Faucher, T. (ed.) Money Rules! The Monetary Economy of Egypt, from Persians until the Beginning of Islam, Cairo. Fraser, P. M. (1949) ‘Alexandria ad Aegyptum Again’, JRS 39, 56. Fraser, P. M. (1952) ‘Bibliography: Graeco-Roman Egypt. Greek Inscriptions (1950–1951)’, JEA 38, 115–26. Fraser, P. M. (1955) ‘Bibliography: Graeco-Roman Egypt. Greek Inscriptions (1954)’, JEA 41, 131–40. Fraser, P. M. (1956) ‘A Temple of Ḥ atḥōr at Kusae’, JEA 42, 97–8. Fraser, P. M. (1959/60) ‘Inscriptions from Ptolemaic Egypt’, Berytus 13, 123–61. Fraser, P. M. (1960) ‘Two Studies on the Cult of Sarapis in the Hellenistic World’, OAth 3, 1–54. Fraser, P. M. (1961) ‘Bibliography: Graeco-Roman Egypt. Greek Inscriptions (1960)’, JEA 47, 139–49.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

320

Bibliography

Fraser, P. M. (1962) ‘Two Dedications from Cyrenaica’, ABSA 57, 24–7. Fraser, P. M. (1964) ‘Inscriptions from Greco-Roman Egypt’, Berytus 15, 71–93. Fraser, P. M. (1965) ‘Current Problems concerning the Early History of the Cult of Sarapis’, OAth 7, 23–45. Fraser, P. M. (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I–III, Oxford. Fraser, P. M. (2007) ‘The Ptolemaic Garrison of Hermoupolis Magna’, in Matthews, E. (ed.) Old and New Worlds in Greek Onomastics (PBA 148), Oxford, 69–85. Fraser, P. M. (2009) Greek Ethnic Terminology, Oxford. Fraser, P. M. and Maas, P. (1955) ‘Three Hellenistic Epigrams from Egypt’, JEA 41, 115–18. Fröhlich, P. and Hamon, P. (eds.) (2013) Groupes et associations dans les cités grecques (IIIe siècle av. J.-C. – II e siècle apr. J.-C.), Geneva. Gabrielsen, V. and Thomsen, C. A. (eds.) (2015) Private Associations and the Public Sphere. Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 9–11 September 2010, Copenhagen. Gagné, R. (2013) Ancestral Fault in Ancient Greece, Cambridge. Gallazzi, C. and Hadji-Minaglou, G. (2000) Tebtynis I. La Reprise des fouilles et le quartier de la chapelle d’Isis-Thermouthis (Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 42), Cairo. Geffcken, J. (1916) Griechische Epigramme, Heidelberg. Geraci, G. (1971) ‘Ricerche sul proskynema’, Aegyptus 51, 3–211. Gibbs, M. (2011) ‘Trade Associations in Roman Egypt: Their raison d’être’, AncSoc 41, 291–315. Gladić, D. (2007) ‘ “Für das Leben des Königs”. Kultische Loyalitätsformulen im hellenistischen Vergleich’, in Pfeiffer, S. (ed.), Ägypten unter fremden Herrschern zwischen persischer Satrapie und römischer Provinz, Frankfurt am Main. Goddio, F. and Fabre, D. (2006) Trésors engloutis d’Égypte. Catalogue de l’exposition présentée au Grand Palais 9 décembre 2006 au 15 mars 2007, Paris and Milan. Goddio, F. and Fabre, D. (2008) Egypt’s Sunken Treasures, Munich, Berlin, London, and New York. Goddio, F. and Masson-Berghoff, A. (2016) Sunken Cities: Egypt’s Lost Worlds, London. Gonis, N. et al. (1998) ‘Bemerkungen zu Papyri XI (=Korr. Tyche)’, Tyche 13, 250–312. Goodman, M. (1986) ‘Jewish Writings under Gentile Pseudonyms’, in Schürer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, III (rev. edn, ed. by Vermes, G., Millar, F., Black, M. and Goodman, M. D.), Edinburgh, 610–700. Gorre, G. (2009) Les Relations du clergé égyptien et des Lagides d’après les sources privées (Studia Hellenistica 45), Leuven. Gorre, G. (2013) ‘A Religious Continuity between the Dynastic and Ptolemaic Periods? Self-Presentation and Identity of Egyptian Priests in the Ptolemaic Period’, in Stavrianopoulou, E. (ed.) Shifting Social Imaginaries in the Hellenistic Period, Leiden, 99–114. Gorre, G. (2017) ‘Communautés nouvelles ptolémaïques et téménè deltaïques’, in Kayser, F. and Médini, L. (eds.), Communautés nouvelles en Égypte hellénistique et romaine, Chambéry, 105–34.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Bibliography

321

Goyon, J.-C., Golvin, J.-C., Simon-Boidot, C. and Martinet, G. (2004) La Construction pharaonique du moyen empire à l’époque gréco-romaine: Contexte et principes technologiques, Paris. Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M., Pelle, A. and Seif el-Din, M. (2015) Renaître avec Osiris et Perséphone. Alexandrie, les tombes peintes de Kôm el-Chougafa (Antiquités Alexandrines 1), Alexandria. Habermann, W. (1998) ‘Zur chronologischen Verteilung der papyrologischen Zeugnisse’, ZPE 122, 144–60. Habermann, W. (2004) ‘Gymnasien im ptolemäischen Ägypten—eine Skizze’, in Kah, D. and Scholz, P. (eds.) Das hellenistische Gymnasion, Berlin, 335–48. Habicht, C. (1992) ‘Athens and the Ptolemies’, ClAnt 11, 68–90. Habicht, C. (2017) Divine Honors for Mortal Men in Greek Cities. The Early Cases, Ann Arbor, MI. Hagedorn, D. (1990) ‘Zur Verwendung von υἱός und θυγάτηρ vor dem Vatersnamen in Urkunden römischer Zeit’, ZPE 80, 277–82. Halfmann, H. (1986) Itinera principum. Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im römischen Reich (Heidelberger althistorische Beiträge und epigraphische Studien 2), Berlin. Hanink, J. (2010) ‘The Epitaph for Atthis: A Late Hellenistic Epitaph on Stone’, JHS 130, 15–34. Harris, J. R. (1961) Lexicological Studies in Ancient Egyptian Minerals. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaft zu Berlin. Institut für Orientforschung 54, Berlin. Hartleben, H. (ed.) (1909) Lettres de Champollion le jeune. (Bibliothèque égyptologique), Paris. Hauben, H. (2013) ‘Callicrates of Samos and Patroclus of Macedon, Champions of the Ptolemaic Thalassocracy’, in Buraselis, K., Stefanou, M. and Thompson, D. J. (eds.) The Ptolemies, the Sea and the Nile: Studies in Waterborne Power, Cambridge, 39–65. Hawass, Z. and Martinez, K. (2013) ‘Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Taposiris Magna 2002–2006’, in Flossmann-Schütze, M. C., Goecke-Bauer, M., Hoffmann, F. et al. (eds.) Kleine Götter—große Götter. Festschrift für Dieter Kessler zum 65. Geburtstag (Tuna el-Gebel 44), Vaterstetten, 235–51. Hayes, W. C. (1948) ‘A Foundation Plaque of Ptolemy IV’, JEA, 34, 114–15. Heinen, H. (1984) ‘The Syrian-Egyptian Wars and the New Kingdoms of Asia Minor’, in Walbank, F. W. et al. (eds.) Cambridge Ancient History VII, Part I, new edn, Cambridge, 412–45. Heinen, H. (1991) ‘Herrscherkult im römischen Aegypten und damnatio memoriae Getas’, MDAI(R) 98, 263–98. Heinen, H. (1994) ‘Ägyptische Tierkulte und ihre hellenischen Protektoren. Überlegungen zum Asylieverfahren SB III 6154 (= IG Fay. II 135) aus dem Jahre 69 v.Chr’, in Winter E. et al. (eds.), Aspekte spätägyptischer Kultur: Festschrift für Erich Winter zum 65. Geburtstag, Mainz am Rhein, 157–68. Heinen, H. (1996) ‘Ein griechischer Funktionär des Ptolemäerstaates als Priester ägyptischer Kulte’, in Funck, B. (ed.) Hellenismus: Beiträge zur Erforschung von Akkulturation und politischer Ordnung in den Staaten des hellenistischen Zeitalter:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

322

Bibliography

Akten des Internationalen Hellenismus-Kolloquiums, 9.–14. März 1994 in Berlin, Tübingen, 339–53. Heinen, H. (1997) ‘Der ktistes Boethos und die Einrichtung einer neuen Stadt. Teil II’, APF 43, 340–63. Heinen, H. (2000) ‘Boéthos, fondateur de poleis en Égypte ptolémaïque (OGIS I 111 et un nouveau papyrus de la collection de Trèves)’, in Mooren, L. (ed.) Politics, Administration and Society in the Hellenistic and Roman World. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Bertinoro 19–24 July 1997, Leuven, 123–53. Heisserer, A. (1980) Alexander the Great and the Greeks: The Epigraphic Evidence, Norman, OK. Henne, H. (1923) ‘Inscriptions grecques, décret des membres d’un gymnase d’époque ptolémaïque’, BIFAO 22, 191–202. Herbert, K. (1972) Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the Brooklyn Museum (Brooklyn Monographs 4), New York. Hölbl, G. (1994) Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches: Politik, Ideologie und religiöse Kultur von Alexander dem Grossen bis zur römischen Eroberung, Darmstadt. Hölbl, G. (2001) A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, London and New York. Holleaux, M. (1942) Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques, Tome III, Paris. Honigman, S. (2003) ‘Politeumata and Ethnicity in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt’, AncSoc 33, 61–102. Hooper, F.A. (1961) Funerary Stelai from Kom Abou Billou, Ann Arbor, MI. Hornblower, S. (2013) ‘Peter Marshall Fraser 1918-2007’, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the British Academy XII, 137–85. Hornblower, S. (2015) Lykophron: Alexandra. Greek Text, Translation, Commentary, and Introduction, Oxford. Hornblower, S. (2018) ‘Hellenistic Tragedy and Satyr Drama; Lycophron’s Alexandra’, in Liapis, V. and Petrides, A. (eds.) Greek Tragedy after the Fifth Century, Cambridge, 90–124. Hornblower, S. and Griffiths, A. (2016) ‘A Hitherto Unpublished Ptolemaic Metrical Inscription’, ZPE 200, 109–14. Hornblower, S. and Pelling, C. (2017) Herodotus Book VI, Cambridge. Hosking, G. (2014) Trust: A History, Oxford. Householder, F. W. and Prakken, D. W. (1945) ‘A Ptolemaic Graffito in New York’, TAPhA 76, 108–16. Hunt, A. S. and Edgar, C. C. (eds.) (1932) Select Papyri, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA. Huß, W. (1976) Untersuchungen zur Aussenpolitik Ptolemaios’ IV, Munich. Huß, W. (2001) Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit 332–30 v. Chr, Munich. Iossif, P. (2005) ‘La Dimension publique des dédicaces “privées” du culte royal ptolémaïque’, in Dasen, V. and Piérart, M. (eds.) Ἰδίᾳ καὶ δημοσίᾳ. Les cadres ‘privés’ et ‘publics’ de la religion grecque antique. Actes du IXe colloque du Centre International d’Étude de la Religion Grecque Antique (CIERGA), tenu à Fribourg du 8 au 10 septembre 2003, Liège, 235–57. Jim, T. S. F. (2014) ‘On Greek Dedicatory Practices: The Problem of hyper’, GRBS 54, 616–37.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Bibliography

323

Jim, T. S. F. (2017) ‘Private Participation in Ruler Cults: Dedications to Philip Soter and Other Hellenistic Kings’, CQ 67, 429–43. Johnston, A. W. (2014) ‘Greek and Latin Inscriptions on Stone’, in Villing, A. et al. (2013–15), ‘Discovery and Excavations: Naukratis from the 19th Century until Today’, https://research.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/ naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/introduction/discovery_and_excavations.aspx, accessed 3 December 2019. Jones, A. H. M. (1971) Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, 2nd edn, Oxford. Jones, C. P. and Habicht, C. (1989) ‘A Hellenistic Inscription from Arsinoe in Cilicia’, Phoenix 43, 317–46. Jouguet, P. (1896) ‘Inscriptions grecques d’Égypte’, BCH 20, 167–96. Jouguet, P. (1897) ‘Ptolémaïs et sa constitution’, BCH 21, 184–208. Karkowski, J. (2016) ‘A Temple Comes to Being. A Few Comments on the Temple Foundation Ritual’, Études et Travaux 29, 111–23. Kayser, F. (2013) ‘Les Communautés ethniques du type politeuma dans l’Égypte hellénistique’, in Delrieux, F. and Mariaud, O. (eds.) Communautés nouvelles dans l’Antiquité grecque. Mouvements, intégrations et representations, Chambéry, 121–53. Kennell, N. (2013) ‘Who Were the Neoi’, in Martzavou, P. and Papazarkadas, N. (eds.) Epigraphical Approaches to the Postclassical Polis: Fourth Century  to Second Century , Oxford, 217–32. Kloppenborg, J. S. and Wilson S. G. (eds. 1996) Voluntary Associations in the GraecoRoman World, London and New York. Koenen, L. (1977) Eine agonistische Inschrift aus Ägypten und frühptolemäische Königsfeste, Meisenheim. Koenen, L.. (1993) ‘The Ptolemaic King as a Religious Figure’, in Bulloch, A.W., Gruen, E. S., Long, A. A., and Stewart, A. (eds.), Images and Ideologies: SelfDefinition in the Hellenistic World, Berkeley, CA, and London, 25–115. Kramer, B. (1997) ‘Der κτίστης Boethos und die Einrichtung einer neuen Stadt’, APF 43, 315–39. Kramer, B. (2009) ‘Anweisung des königlichen Schreibers an den Antigrapheus’, APF 55, 316–29. Kruse, T. (2015) ‘Ethnic Koina and Politeumata in Ptolemaic Egypt’, in Gabrielsen, V. and Thomsen, C. A. (eds.) Private Associations and the Public Sphere. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 9–11 September 2010, Copenhagen, 270–300. La’da, C. A. (2002) Foreign Ethnics in Hellenistic Egypt (Prosopographia Ptolemaica, Vol. X), Leuven. Łajtar, A. (2003) ‘Review of I. Alex.Ptol.’, BO 60, 616–20. Lanciers, E. (2017) ‘The Alleged Relations between Ptolemaic Egypt and Lycia after 197  and the Founding Date of the Lycian League’, ZPE 204, 116–27. Lanciers, E. (2018) ‘The Emergence of the Ptolemaic Honorific Court Titles’, AncSoc 48, 49–82. Langellotti M. (2016) ‘Professional Associations and the State in Roman Egypt: the Case of First-Century Tebtunis’, CE 91, 111–34. Lattimore, R. (1942) Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs, Urbana, IL.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

324

Bibliography

Launey, M. (1987) Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques I–II, rev. edn, Paris. Lazzarini, M. L. (1989–90) ‘Iscrizioni votive greche’, ScAnt 3–4, 843–60. Lefebvre, G. (1910) ‘Egypte gréco-romaine. II. Crocodilopolis et Théadelphie’, ASAE 10, 155–72. Lefebvre, G. (1914a) ‘Egypte gréco-romaine III: XVIII. Stèle gréco-égyptienne’, ASAE 13, 93–6. Lefebvre, G. (1914b) ‘Egypte gréco-romaine IV’, ASAE 13, 215–26. Lefebvre, G. (1914c) ‘Stèle gréco-égyptienne’, ASAE 13, 93–6. Legras, B. (1999) Néotes, recherches sur les jeunes grecs dans l’Égypte ptolémäique et romaine, Paris. Le Guen, B. (2001) Les Associations de technites dionysiaques à l’époque hellénistique, 2 vols. (Études d’archéologie classique 11–12), Paris. Lepsius, C. R. (1839) ‘Communication of Dr. Lepsius to the Archaeological Meeting at the Rooms of the Royal Society of Literature’, The Literary Gazette and Journal of the Belles-Lettres 1163, 279–81. Lewis, D. M. (1964) ‘The Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt’, Epigraphical Appendix to Tcherikover, V. A., Fuks, A. and Stern, M. (eds.) CPJ 3, 138–66. Lewis, N. (1971) ‘ΝΟΗΜΑΤΑ ΛΕΓΟΝΤΟΣ’, BASP 8, 19–20. Lewis, N. (1986) Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt, Oxford. Lichtheim, M. (1976) Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. II: The New Kingdom, Berkeley, CA, and London. Lichtheim, M. (1980) Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. III: The Late Period, Berkeley, CA, and London. Lin, N. (1999) ‘Building a Network Theory of Social Capital’, Connections 22/1, 28–51. Lloyd-Jones, H. (1990) Greek Comedy, Hellenistic Literature, Greek Religion, and Miscellanea. The Academic Papers of Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones, Oxford, 222–30 [Review of FGE, originally in CR 32 (1982), 139–44]. Łukaszewicz, A. (1986) Les édifices publiques dans les villes d’Égyte romaine, Warsaw. Ma, J. (1999) Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, Oxford. Ma, J. (2013) Statues and Cities: Honorific Portraits and Civic Identity in the Hellenistic World, Oxford. MacQuitty, W. and MacQuitty, B. (1976) Island of Isis: Philae, Temple of the Nile, London. Maehler, H. (2007) ‘Le scritture dell’archivio di Zenone e lo sviluppo della corsiva greca’, in Capasso, M. and Davoli, P. (eds.) New Archaeological and Papyrological Researches on the Fayum: Proceedings of the International Meeting of Egyptology and Papyrology; Lecce, June 8th–10th 2005, Galatina, 159–67. Magnelli, E. (2007) ‘Meter and Diction: From Refinement to Mannerism’, in Bing, P. and Bruss, J. S. (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram, Leiden, 165–86. Mahaffy, J.P. (1899) A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty, London. Maillot, S. (2013) ‘Les Associations à Cos’, in Fröhlich, P. and Hamon, P. (eds.) Groupes et associations dans les cités grecques (IIIe siècle av. J.-C.–IIe siècle apr. J.-C.), Geneva, 199–226. Mairs, R. (2018) ‘κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν: Demotic-Greek Translation in the Archive of the Theban Choachytes,’ in Cromwell, J. and Grossman, E. (eds.) Scribal Repertoires in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Bibliography

325

Egypt from the Old Kingdom to the Early Islamic Period (Oxford Studies in Ancient Documents), Oxford, 211–26. Manning, J. G. (2003) Land and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt, Cambridge. Martin, A. (1993) ‘Notes relatives à la dedicace SB III 6184’, CE 68, 212–18. Martin, A. (2013) ‘Jean Bingen (Anvers, 26 Mars 1920–Bruxelles, 6 Février 2012)’, Diogène 241, 3–6. Masséglia, J. E. A. (ed.) (2016) The Philae Obelisk: Tales from Egypt, Dorset and Outer Space, Oxford. Matḥaf Būr Saʿīd al-Qawmī (1986) Matḥaf Būr Saʿīd al-Qawmī = Port Saʿid National Museum, Bur Saʿid. Mayes, S. (1959) The Great Belzoni, London. Mazza, R. (2015) ‘Papyri, Ethics, and Economics: A Biography of P.Oxy. 1780 (P 39)’, BASP 52, 113–42. McGing, B. (1997) ‘Revolt Egyptian style. Internal Opposition to Ptolemaic Rule’, APF 43, 273–314. McKenzie, J. (2007) The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt c. 300  to  700, New Haven, CT, and London. McKenzie, J., Gibson, S. and Reyes A. T. (2004) ‘Reconstructing the Serapeum in Alexandria from the Archaeological Evidence’, JRS 94, 73–121. McLean, B. H. (2002) An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (323 — 337), Ann Arbor, MI. Mitford, T. B. (1960) ‘Ptolemaios Son of Pelops’, JEA 46, 109–11. Moatti, C. (2018) ‘Mobility in the Roman World: New Concepts, New Perspectives’, in Yoo, J., Zerbini, A. and Barron, C. (eds.) Migration and Migrant Identities in the Near East from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, London, 15–25. Moje, J. (2012–3) ‘Schrift und Sprachwahl bei epigraphischen Triskripten des griechisch-römischen Ägypten mit einem demotischen Textteil’, JSSEA 39, 87–123. Monson, A. (2006) ‘The Ethics and Economics of Ptolemaic Religious Associations’, AncSoc 36, 221–38. Monson, A. (2019) ‘Political and Sacred Animals: Religious Associations in GrecoRoman Egypt’, in Eckhardt, B. (ed.) Private Associations and Jewish Communities in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities, Leiden, 37–57. Montet, P. (1964) ‘Le rituel de fondation des temples égyptiens’, Kêmi 17, 74–100. Mooren, L. (1975) The Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt: Introduction and Prosopography, Brussels. Mooren, L. (1977) La Hiérarchie de cour ptolémaïque. Contribution à l’étude des institutions et des classes dirigeantes à l’époque hellénistique, Leuven. Moretti, L. (1953) Iscrizioni agonistiche greche, Rome. Moretti, L. (1965) ‘Epigraphica’, RFIC 93, 173–85. Morkot, R. G. (2012) ‘Trogodytae’ OCD⁴, 1511, col. 2. Moyer, I. S. (2011) Egypt and the Limits of Hellenism, Cambridge and New York. Müller, W. G. (1920) The Bilingual Decrees of Philae, Washington DC.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

326

Bibliography

Muszynski, M. (1977) ‘Les “Associations religieuses” en Égypte d’après les sources hiéroglyphiques, démotiques et grecques’, OLP 8, 145–74. Nachtergael, G. (1996) ‘Trois dédicaces au dieu Hérôn’, CE 71, 129–42. Niese, B. (1893–1903) Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea I–III, Gotha. Oliver, G. J. (2011) ‘Mobility, Society, and Economy in the Hellenistic Period’, in Archibald, Z. H., Davies, J. K. and Gabrielsen, V. (eds.) The Economies of Hellenistic Societies. Third to First Centuries , Oxford, 345–67. Paganini, M. C. D. (2012) ‘The Invention of the Gymnasiarch in Rural Ptolemaic Egypt’, in Schubert, P. (ed.) Actes du 26e Congrès International de Papyrologie, Genève, 16–21 août 2010, Geneva, 591–7. Paganini, M. C. D. (forthcoming a) ‘Documentary Practices of Private Associations from Egypt in the Early Principate’, in Rathbone, D. W. and Wilson, A. (eds.) Documents and the Mechanics of Roman Rule, Cambridge. Paganini, M. C. D. (forthcoming b) ‘ “So that, after building a gymnasium and an oikos, we may perform sacrifices on behalf of the Kings…” Religion and leisure: a gentry association of Hellenistic Egypt’, in Cazemier, A. and Skaltsa, S. (eds.) Associations and Religion in Context: the Hellenistic and Roman Eastern Mediterranean, Liège. Papathomas, A. (2000) ‘Ein neues Rescript der Kaiser Septimius Severus und Caracalla’, ZPE 131, 129–34. Parker, R. (2006) ‘Formulae of Dedication’, ThesCRA 1, 274–7. Parker, R. (2011) On Greek Religion, Ithaca, NY, and London. Parkinson, R. (1999) Cracking Codes: The Rosetta Stone and Decipherment, London. Peek, W. (1931) ‘Zu griechischen Epigrammen aus Aegypten’, Hermes 66, 317–36. Peek, W. (1932) ‘Nachträgliches zu den Epigrammen aus Aegypten’, Hermes 67, 130–2. Peremans, W. (1972) ‘Égyptiens et étrangers dans l’armée de terre et dans la police de l’Égypte ptolémaïque’, AncSoc 3, 67–76. Peremans, W. (1978) ‘Les indigènes égyptiens dans l’armée de terre des Lagides’, AnSoc 9, 83–100. Petridou, G. (2015) Divine Epiphany in Greek Literature and Culture, Cambridge. Petrie, W. M. F. (1886) Naukratis I, London. Petrie, W. M. F. (1896) Koptos, London. Peyron, A. (1829) Illustrazione d’una stele greca del R. Museo Egizio di Torino, Torino. Pfeiffer, S. (2008) Herrscher- und Dynastiekulte im Ptolemäerreich: Systematik und Einordnung der Kultformen, Munich. Pfeiffer, S. (2015) Griechische und lateinische Inschriften zum Ptolemäerreich und zur römischen Provinz Aegyptus (Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie 9), Munich and Berlin. Pickard-Cambridge, A.W. (1968) The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, 2nd edn rev. by J. Gould and D. M. Lewis, Oxford. Pintaudi, R. (2012) ‘Un’iscrizione tolemaica ad Antinoupolis’, in Del Francia, L. and Cappozzo, M. (eds.) Egitto e mondo antico. Studi per Claudio Barocas, RSO NS 85, Pisa and Rome, 411–19.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Bibliography

327

Plaumann, G. (1910) Ptolemais in Oberägypten: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Hellenismus in Ägypten, Leipzig. Price, S. R. F. (1984) Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, Oxford. Quaegebeur, J. (1989) ‘The Egyptian Clergy and the Cult of the Ptolemaic Dynasty’, AncSoc 20, 93–116. Radinger, K. von (1912) ‘Herodes (12)’, PW 18.1, 921. Rapaport, U. (1969) ‘Les Iduméens en Égypte’, RPh 43, 73–82. Ray, J. D. (1987) ‘A Pious Soldier: Stele Aswan 1057’, JEA 73, 169–80. Ray, J. D. (1989) ‘Further Notes on Stele Aswan 1057’, JEA 75, 243–4. Redon, B. (2012) ‘L’identité grecque de Naucratis. Enquête sur la fabrication de la mémoire d’une cité grecque d’Égypte aux époques hellénistique et romaine’, REG 125, 55–93. Redon, B. (2014) ‘Le maillage militaire du Delta égyptien sous les Lagides’, in Véïsse, A.-E. and Wackenier, S. (eds.) L’Armée en Égypte aux époques perse, ptolémaïque et romaine, Geneva, 45–80. Redon, B. and Faucher, T. (2015) ‘Gold Mining in Early Ptolemaic Egypt’, Egyptian Archaeology 46, 16–19. Reeves, C. N. (1988) ‘New Light on Kiya from Texts in the British Museum’, JEA 74, 91–101. Reid, D. M. (2002) Whose Pharaohs? Archaeology, Museums, and Egyptian National Identity from Napoleon to World War I, Berkeley, CA. Remijsen S. (2015) The End of Greek Athletics in Late Antiquity (Greek Culture in the Roman World), Cambridge. Renberg, G. H. (2017) Where Dreams May Come. Incubation Sanctuaries in the GrecoRoman World, 2 vols., Leiden and Boston, MA. Reymond, E. A. E. (1981) From the Records of a Priestly Family of Memphis, Wiesbaden. Rhodes, P. J. and Lewis, D. M. (1997) The Decrees of the Greek States, Oxford. Rice, E. E. (1983) The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus, Oxford. Riggs, C. (2005) The Beautiful Burial in Roman Egypt. Art, Identity, and Funerary Religion, Oxford. Rigsby, K. J. (2003) ‘A Jewish Asylum in Greco-Roman Egypt’, in Dreher, M. (ed.) Das antike Asyl: kultische Grundlagen, rechtliche Ausgestaltung und politische Funktion (Akten der Gesellschaft für Griechische und Hellenistische Rechtsgeschichte, 15), Cologne, 127–42. Robert, L. (1940) ‘Épigramme d’Égypte’, Hellenica I, Limoges–Paris, 18–24. Roberts, C.H. (1956) Greek Literary Hands: 350 B.C.–A.D. 400, Oxford. Rondot, V. (2004) Tebtynis II. Le Temple de Soknebtynis et son dromos (Fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 50), Cairo. Rowe, A. (1946) Discovery of the Famous Temple and Enclosure of Serapis at Alexandria (ASAE Supplement 2). Cairo. Sabottka, M. (2008) Das Serapeum in Alexandria: Untersuchungen zur Architektur und Baugeschichte des Heiligtums von der frühen ptolemäischen Zeit bis zur Zerstörung 391 n. Chr. (Études Alexandrines 15), Cairo.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

328

Bibliography

Salt, H. (1825) Essay on Dr. Young’s and M. Champollion’s Phonetic System of Hieroglyph, London. Sänger, P. (2013) ‘The Politeuma in the Hellenistic World (Third to First Century BC): A Form of Organisation to Integrate Minorities’, in Dahlvik, J., Reinprecht, C. and Wiebke, S. (eds.) Migration und Integration—Wissenschaftliche Perspektiven aus Österreich, Vienna, 51–68. Sänger, P. (2015) ‘Das politeuma in der hellenistischen Staatenwelt: Eine Organizationsform zur Systemintegration von Minderheiten’, in Sänger, P. (ed.) Minderheiten und Migration in der griechisch-römischen Welt: politische, rechtliche, religiöse und kulturelle Aspekte, Paderborn, 25–45. Sänger, P. (2019) Die ptolemäische Organisationsform politeuma. Ein Herrschaftsinstrument zugunsten jüdischer und anderer hellenischer Gemeinschaften, Tübingen. San Nicolò, M. (1972) Ägyptisches Vereinswesen zur Zeit der Ptolemäer und Römer (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 2, 2nd edn), Munich. Savvopoulos, K. (2018) ‘The Gold Foundation Deposit Plaque of Ptolemy IV from the Temple of Aphrodite Ourania at Koussai’, ZPE 208, 117–20. Savvopoulos, K. and Bianchi, R. S. (2012) Alexandrian Sculpture in the Graeco-Roman Museum (Graeco-Roman Museum, Series 1), Alexandria. Scheuble, S. (2005) ‘Eine Weihung an Herakles zu Ehren Ptolemaios’ VI. Philometor’, APF 51, 30–9. Scheuble, S. (2009) ‘Loyalitätsbekundungen ptolemäischer Phrurarchen im Spiegel epigraphischer Quellen’, in Coşkun, A., Heinen, H. and S. Pfeiffer, S. (eds.) Identität und Zugehörigkeit im Osten der griechisch-römischen Welt. Aspekte ihrer Repräsentation in Städten, Provinzen und Reichen (Inklusion/Exklusion. Studien zu Fremdheit und Armut von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart 14), Frankfurt am Main, 35–53. Scheuble-Reiter, S. (2012) Die Katökenreiter im ptolemäischen Ägypten (Vestigia 64), Munich. Schmitz, T. A. (2010) ‘Speaker and Addressee in Early Greek Epigram and Lyric’, in Baumbach, M., Petrovic, A. and Petrovic, I. (eds.) Archaic and Classical Greek Epigram, Cambridge, 25–41. Scholl, R. (1997) ‘Phylen und Buleuten in Naukratis: Ein neues Fragment zur Inschrift SB VIII 9747’, Tyche 12, 213–28. Schubart, W. (1913) ‘Alexandrinische Urkunden aus der Zeit des Augustus’, APF 5, 35–131. Sebba, A. (2004) The Exiled Collector: William Bankes and the Making of an English Country House, London. Seif el-Din, M. (2015) ‘Foundation Deposit Plaques from the Boubasteion’, BSAA 49, 125–34. Sekunda, N. (2001) Hellenistic Infantry Reform in the 160s , Lodz. Sens, A. (2010) Asclepiades of Samos: Epigrams and Fragments, Edited with Translation and Commentary, Oxford. Sfameni Gasparro, G. (2007) ‘The Hellenistic Face of Isis: Cosmic and Saviour Goddess’, in Bricault, L., Versluys, M. J. and Meyboom, P. G. P. (eds.) Nile into Tiber. Egypt in the Roman World (Proceedings of the IIIrd International Congress of Isis Studies, May 11–14 2005), Leiden and Boston, MA, 40–72.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Bibliography

329

Sherwin-White, S. M. (1985) ‘Ancient Archives. The Edict of Alexander to Priene. A Reappraisal’, JHS 105, 69–89. Shore, A. F. (1961) ‘Miscellaneous Objects from the Nash Collection’, BMQ 24, 33–6. Sidebotham, S. and Gates-Foster, J. (2019) The Archaeological Survey of the Desert Roads between Berenike and the Nile Valley: Expeditions by the University of Michigan and the University of Delaware to the Eastern Desert of Egypt, 1987–2015 (ASOR Archaeological Reports Series 26), Boston: American School of Oriental Research. Sijpesteijn, P. J. (1969) ‘A New Document concerning Hadrian’s Visit to Egypt’, Historia 18, 109–18. Siliotti, A. (ed.) (2001) Belzoni’s Travels: Narrative of the Operations And Recent Discoveries in Egypt and Nubia, London. Sokolowski, F. (1962) Lois sacrées des cités grecques. Supplément, Paris. Sosin, J. (1997) ‘P. Duk. inv. 677: Aetos, from Arsinoite strategos to Eponymous Priest’, ZPE 116, 141–6. Stefanou, M. (2013) ‘Waterborne Recruits: The Military Settlers of Ptolemaic Egypt’ in Buraselis, K., Stefanou, M. and Thompson, D. J. (eds.) The Ptolemies, the Sea and the Nile: Studies in Waterborne Power, Cambridge, 108–31. Stern, S. (2012) Calendars In Antiquity: Empires, States and Societies, Oxford. Stevens, K. (2014) ‘The Antiochus Cylinder, Babylonian Scholarship and Seleucid Ideology’, JHS 134, 66–88. Strack, M. L. (1903) ‘Inschriften aus ptolemäischer Zeit II’, APF 2, 537–61. Suto, Y. (2004) ‘Social Context of an Architraval Inscription at Hermopolis. Further Thoughts on the Text and Politics in the chora of Ptolemaic Egypt’, SITES. Journal of Studies for Integrated Text Science 2, 1–9. Svenbro, J. (1993) Phrasikleia, Ithaca, NY. Thiers, C. (2006) ‘Égyptiens et grecs au service des cultes indigènes. Un aspect de l’évergétisme en Égypte lagide’, in Molin, M. (ed.) Les Régulations sociales dans l’Antiquité, Rennes, 275–96. Thompson Crawford, D. J. (1984) ‘The Idumaeans of Memphis and the Ptolemaic politeumata’, in Manfredi, M. (ed.) Atti del XVII Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia III, Naples, 1069–75. Thompson, D. J. (1992) ‘Language and Literacy in Early Hellenistic Egypt’, in Bilde, P. et al. (eds.) Ethnicity in Hellenistic Egypt, Aarhus, 39–52. Thompson, D. J. (1993) ‘From Model Tools to Written Tablets: The Ptolemies in Egypt’, JJP 23, 149–56. Thompson, D. J. (1994a) ‘Egypt, 146–31 ’, in Crook, J. A. et al. (eds.) Cambridge Ancient History Vol. IX, new edn, Cambridge, 310–26. Thompson, D. J. (1994b) ‘Literacy and Power in Ptolemaic Egypt’, in Bowman, A. K. and Woolf, G. (eds.) Literacy and Power in the Ancient World, Cambridge, 67–83. Thompson, D. J. (2000) ‘Philadelphus’ Procession: Dynastic Power in a Mediterranean Context’, in Mooren, L. (ed.) Politics, Administration and Society in the Hellenistic and Roman World (Studia Hellenistica 36), Louvain, 365–88. Thompson, D. J. (2011a) ‘Ethnic Minorities in Hellenistic Egypt’, in Van Nijf, O. M., Alston, R. and Williamson, C. G. (eds.) Political Culture in the Greek City after the Classical Age, Leuven, 101–13.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

330

Bibliography

Thompson, D. J. (2011b) ‘The Multilingual Environment of Persian and Ptolemaic Egypt: Egyptian, Aramaic and Greek Documentation’, in Bagnall, R. S. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology, Oxford, 395–417. Thompson, D. J. (2012) Memphis under the Ptolemies, 2nd edn, Princeton, NJ. Thompson, D. J. (2013) ‘A Historian among the Papyri’, JJP 43, 17–31. Thompson, D. J. (2018) ‘Ptolemy I in Egypt: Continuity and Change’, in McKechnie, P. and Cromwell, J. (eds.) Ptolemy I Soter and the Transformation of Egypt, 404–282 , Leiden and Boston, MA, 6–26. Tietze, C., Lange E. R. and Hallof K. (2005) ‘Ein neues Exemplar des Kanopus-Dekrets aus Bubastis’, APF 51, 1–290. Tod, M. N. (1948) A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions: Vol. II. From 403 to 323 B.C., Oxford. Torallas Tovar, S. (2010) ‘Linguistic Identity in Graeco-Roman Egypt’, in Papaconstantinou, A. (ed.) The Multilingual Experience in Egypt, from the Ptolemies to the Abbasids, Farnham, 17–43. Török, L. (2009) Between Two Worlds: The Frontier Region between Ancient Nubia and Egypt, 3700 – 500, Leiden. Tracy, S. V. (1975) The Lettering of an Athenian Mason, Hesperia Supplement 15. Tracy, S. V. (1990a) Attic Letter-Cutters of 229 to 86 B.C., Berkeley, CA. Tracy, S. V. (1990b) ‘Hands in Samian Inscriptions of the Hellenistic Period’, Chiron 20, 59–75. Tsagalis, C. C. (2008) Inscribing Sorrow: Fourth-Century Attic Funerary Epigrams, Berlin and New York. Tueller, M. A. (2010) ‘The Passer-By in Archaic and Classical Epigram’, in Baumbach, M., Petrovic, A. and Petrovic, I. (eds.) Archaic and Classical Greek Epigram, Cambridge, 42–60. Turner, E. G. (1974) ‘A Commander-in-Chief ’s Order from Saqqâra’, JEA 60, 239–42. Usick, P. (2002), Adventures in Egypt and Nubia: The Travels of William John Bankes (1786–1855), London. Van Bremen, R. (2007) ‘The Entire House Is Full of Crowns’, in Hornblower, S. and Morgan, C. (eds.) Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals: From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire, Oxford, 345–75. Van der Horst, P. (1991) Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey of Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 –700 ), Kampen. Vandorpe, K. (2002) The Bilingual Family Archive of Dryton, his Wife Apollonia and their Daughter Senmouthis, Brussels. Vandorpe, K. (2014) ‘The Ptolemaic Army in Upper Egypt (2nd–1st centuries )’, in Véïsse, A. E. and Wackenier, S. (eds.) L’Armée en Égypte aux époques perse, ptolémaïque et romaine, Geneva, 107–38. Vandorpe, K. (ed.) (2018) A Companion to Greco-Roman and Late Antique Egypt, Chichester. Van Landuyt, K. (1995) ‘The Soter Family : Genealogy and Onomastics’, in Vleeming, S. P. (ed.) Hundred-Gated Thebes: Acts of a Colloquium on Thebes and the Theban Area in the Graeco-Roman Period (Pap. Lugd.-Bat. 27), Leiden, 69–82.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

Bibliography

331

Van Minnen, P. (2003) ‘A Royal Ordinance of Cleopatra and Related Documents’, in Walker, S. and Ashton, S.-A. (eds.) Cleopatra Reassessed (British Museum, Occasional Paper No.102), London, 35–43. Van Nijf, O. M. (2006) ‘Global Players: Athletes and Performers in the Hellenistic and Roman World’, Hephaistos 24, 225–35. Van Straten, F. T. (1976) ‘Daikrates’ Dream. A Votive Relief from Kos, and Some Other kat’onar Dedications’, Bull. Antieke Beschaving 51, 1–38. Van ’t Dack, E. (1969) ‘ “Exo taxeon” et “semeia” dans des papyrus démotiques’, APF 19, 155–65. Van ’t Dack, E. (1981) ‘Le Conflit judéo-syro-égyptien de 103/102 av. J.-C.’, in Bagnall, R. S. et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Congress of Papyrology, New York, 24–31 July 1980 (American Studies in Papyrology 23), Ann Arbor, MI, 303–12. Van ’t Dack, E. (1984) ‘Notice au sujet de SB I 1106’, in Manfredi, M. (ed.) Atti del XVII Congresso internazionale di papirologia, Napoli, 19–26 maggio 1983, Naples, 1325–33. Van ’t Dack, E. (1988) Ptolemaica Selecta: Études sur l’armée et l’administration lagides. Leuven. Vassilika, E. (1989) Ptolemaic Philae, Leuven. Véïsse, A.-E. (2004) Les “révoltes égyptiennes”: recherches sur les troubles intérieurs en Égypte du règne de Ptolémée III Évergète à la conquête romaine, Leuven. Véïsse, A.-E. (2013) ‘Retour sur les “révoltes égyptiennes” ’, Topoi, Suppl. 12, 507–16. Veïsse, A.-E. (2017) ‘Des sagesses delphiques en Haute Egypte. À propos de l’ostracon d’Amenothes’, in Kayser, F. and Médini, L. (eds.) Communautés nouvelles en Egypte hellénistique et romaine, Chambéry, 135–152. Venticinque, P. F. (2010) ‘Family Affairs: Guild Regulations and Family Relationships in Roman Egypt,’ GRBS 50, 273–94. Venticinque, P. F. (2016) Honor among Thieves: Craftsmen, Merchants, and Associations in Roman and Late Roman Egypt (New Texts From Ancient Cultures), Ann Arbor, MI. Veyne, P. (1976) Le Pain et le cirque: sociologie historique d’un pluralisme politique, Paris. Villing, A., Bergeron, M., Bourogiannis, G., Johnston, A. W., Leclère, F., Masson, A., and Thomas, R. (2013–15) ‘Discovery and Excavations: Naukratis from the 19th Century until Today’, https://research.britishmuseum.org/research/online_re search_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/introduction/discovery_and_exca vations.aspx, accessed 3 December 2019. Villing, A., Bergeron, M., Bourogiannis, G., Johnston, A. W., Leclère, F., Masson, A., and Thomas, R. (2013–15) Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt, London. Wace, A. B. (1945) ‘Recent Ptolemaic Finds in Egypt’, JHS 65, 106–9. Wagner, G. (1972) ‘Inscriptions grecques d’Egypte’, BIFAO 72, 139–67. Wagner, G. and Leblanc, C. (1983) ‘Dédicace d’un propylône au dieu Pnepherôs’, BIFAO 83, 335–41. Walker, S. and Higgs, P. (2001) Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth, London. Weinstein, J. M. (1973) ‘Foundation Deposits in Ancient Egypt’, PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 7/9/2020, SPi

332

Bibliography

Welles, C. B. (1934) Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigraphy, New Haven, CT. Wente, E. F. (1990) Letters from Ancient Egypt, Atlanta, GA. West, M. L. (1982) Greek Metre, Oxford. West, S. (1983) ‘P. Hibeh 28: Alexandria or Utopia?’, ZPE 53, 79–84. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1900) ‘Zwei Gedichte aus der Zeit Euergetes II’, APF 1, 219–25. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von (1941) Kleine Schriften, Vol. 2, Berlin. Wilcken, U. (1887) ‘Die Obeliskeninschrift von Philae’, Hermes 22, 1–16. Will, E. (1979–82) Histoire politique du monde hellénistique, Paris. Wilson, R. (1802) History of the British Expedition to Egypt, London. Winnicki, J. K. (1978) Ptolemäerarmee in Thebais, Wroclaw, Warsaw, Cracow, and Gdansk. Woess, F. von (1923) Das Asylwesen Ägyptens in der Ptolemäerzeit und die spätere Entwicklung, Munich. Young, T. (1823) An Account of Some Recent Discoveries in Hieroglyphical Literature, and Egyptian Antiquities. Including the Author’s Original Alphabet, as Extended by Mr. Champollion, with a Translation of Five Unpublished Greek and Egyptian Manuscripts, London. Yoyotte, J. (1969) ‘Bakhthis: religion égyptienne et culture grecque à Edfou’, in Derchain, P. (ed.) Religions en Égypte hellénistique et romaine. Colloque de Strasbourg 16–18 mai 1967, Bibliothèque des Centres d’Études supérieures spécialisés (Travaux du Centre d’Études supérieures spécialisé d’Histoire des Religions de Strasbourg), Paris, 127–41. Zatterin, M. (2000) Il gigante del Nilo: Storia e avventure del Grande Belzoni, l’uomo che svelò i misteri dell’Egitto dei faraoni, Milan. Zauzich, K.-T. (2010/2011) ‘Gegen die Soldaten ἔξω τάξεων’, Enchoria 32, 139–41. Ziegler, K. (1937) ‘Tragoedia’, PW 6A, cols. 1896–2075. Zucker, F. (1938) Doppelinschrift spätptolemäischer Zeit aus der Garnison von Hermopolis Magna (Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Jahrgang 1937), Berlin.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

Index of Sources 1. Index of Literary Passages Cited Aelian, Nat. Anim. 10.27 30 n.26 Chron. Paschale 168–9 Diodorus 31.20 65 n.32 Diog. Laert. 5.5 81 FGrHist 91 Strabo F 4 see Jos. AJ 13.287 FGrHist 334 F47 68 n.40 Gow and Page, HE, 2395–402 211 n.12 Herodotus 6.86 γ 2 219 Herodotus 6.105 215 Hesiod, Works and Days 285 219 Homer, Iliad 22.721 218 Homer, Iliad 23.179 219 Homer, Odyssey 6.183–4 213 Homeric Hymn 13.3 215 n.24 Jos. AJ 12.388 211 Jos. AJ 13.287 211 Kallimachos fr. 112 215 Kallimachos, H. 6.134 215 n.24 Lichtheim (1976), 214–23 103 n.22 Lichtheim (1980), 127–38 103 n.22 Lucan, Pharsalia 10.193 174 Lykophron, Alex. 1474 215 n.24 Maccabees III.4.6–8 222

Page, FGE, 808–9 211 n.12 Page, FGE, 1565 215 Page, FGE, 1704–17 see CPI 563 Polyb. 5.39.3 65 n.32 Polyb. 15.25.3–12 90 n.46 Polyb. 15.25.33 90 n.46 Polyb. 18.53–5 137 n.36 Polyb. 18.55.2 172 Posidippus VI.30–7 153 Posidippus, AB 1–20, Lithika 102 n.17 Psalm 139, verse 8 219 n.36 Ptolemy 1.15.11 68 n.43 Ptolemy 4.5.66 68 n.43 Ptolemy 8.15.13 68 n.43 Satyros, On the Demes see P.Oxy. XXVII 2465 Sophokles, Antigone 810–16 221–2 Strabo 16.4 134 Strabo 16.4.15 172 Strabo 17.1.6–12 137 Strabo 17.1.42 68 n.40 Theokritos 18.15 218 Theophrastus, On Stones 102 n.17 Thucydides 2.83.4 214 n.15

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

334

Index of Sources 2. Index of Inscriptions Cited

(References marked with an asterisk indicate pages on which the text is reproduced) Abdalla 15 40 Fig. 4.4 Abdalla 57 36 n.6 Abdalla 177 52 n.19 Abdalla 187 52 n.19 Abdalla 196 52 n.19 Abdalla 204 36 n.6, 49 n.16, 53 AE 2010 1751 169–71–71 AE 2016, 1805 164 n.11 AncSoc 26 (1995), 158–9 see CPI 403 Rigsby, Asylia 219 see CPI 183 Rigsby, Asylia 220 see CPI 271 Rigsby, Asylia 221 see CPI 244 Rigsby, Asylia 222 see CPI 245 Rigsby, Asylia 223 see CPI 247 Rigsby, Asylia 224 see CPI 229 Rigsby, Asylia 225 see CPI 230 Rigsby, Asylia 226 see CPI 365 Austin², no. 140 see Moretti (1953), no. 41 Austin², no. 293 see CPI 354 C.Ord.Ptol. 48–9 see CPI 408 C.Ord.Ptol. 51–2 see CPI 424 C.Ord.Ptol. 57–60 see CPI 420 C.Ord.Ptol. 64–70 see CPI 183 C.Ord.Ptol. 72 see CPI 247 C.Ord.Ptol. 75–6 see CPI 303 C.Ord.Ptol. 89 see CPI 420 CAPInv. 10 184 n.8, 193 n.15 CAPInv. 28 184 n.8 CAPInv. 38 see CPI 113 CAPInv. 51 see CPI 423 CAPInv. 58 see CPI 351 CAPInv. 59 184 n.8 CAPInv. 61 see CPI 220 CAPInv. 63 see CPI 241 CAPInv. 65 see CPI 227 CAPInv. 66 see CPI 297 CAPInv. 68 see CPI 223 CAPInv. 71 see CPI 256 CAPInv. 74 see CPI 295 CAPInv. 86 184 n.8 CAPInv. 90 184 n.8 CAPInv. 115 see CPI 357 CAPInv. 163 see CPI 200 CAPInv. 181 see CPI 202 CAPInv. 194 see CPI 319–20 CAPInv. 606 see CPI 599 CAPInv. 922 184 n.8, 193 n.15 CAPInv. 923 184 n.8 CAPInv. 929 184 n.8 CAPInv. 930 184 n.8 CAPInv. 932 184 n.8 CAPInv. 934 184 n.8

CAPInv. 935 184 n.8 CAPInv. 988 184 n.8 CAPInv. 1441 186 n.10 CAPInv. 1745 184 n.8 CAPInv. 1922 184 n.8 CE 69 (1994) 330–1 see Abdalla 204 CE 82 (2007), 86–7 no. 13 see SEG 64 1959 CE 82 (2007), 86–7 no. 14 49 n.17 CEG 13 219 n.35 CEG 24 221–2 CEG 136 219 n.35 CGC 1294 see CPI 350 CGC 22018 35, 37 Fig. 4.2 Coll.Froehner 72 see CPI 575 CPI 1 64, 237 CPI 4 64, 67 CPI 5 66, 67 CPI 8 82–3, 82*, 237, 238 with Fig. 13.8 CPI 9 83*, 231, 236 n.24, 238 Fig. 13.8, 242–3 CPI 10 238–9 CPI 12 29, 35 n.5, 79–80, 79*, Ch. 7 passim, 95 Table 7.1, 99 Table 7.2, 104* CPI 13 84*, 131, Ch. 7 passim, 96 Table 7.1, 99 Table 7.2, 106* CPI 14 80* CPI 15 84–5, 85*, 116*, 116–17, 118, 263 CPI 16 86–7, 87*, Ch. 7 passim, 97 Table 7.1, 99 Table 7.2, 101 n.9, 108–9 CPI 17 89* CPI 18 29, 35 n.5, 80*, 115 n.8, Ch. 7 passim, 96 Table 7.1, 99 Table 7.2, 107*, 108 Fig. 7.1 CPI 19 88* CPI 20 88*, 231, 236 n.24, 242 Fig. 13.13, 242–3 CPI 21 243 CPI 22 89–90, 89*, 232 n.20, 243 with Fig. 13.14 CPI 23 87*, Ch. 7 passim, 97 Table 7.1, 99 Table 7.2, 109* CPI 24 85–6, 86*, 120 CPI 25 93 n.51 CPI 27 91* CPI 28 93 n.51 CPI 29 78 n.8 CPI 32 78 n.8 CPI 33 78 n.7 CPI 34 77–78 CPI 36 146, 152 CPI 38 231, 263 Fig. 13.30, 267 CPI 39 80–81 n.16 CPI 42 78–9, 78* CPI 43 78–9, 78*

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

Index of Sources CPI 44 81 n.17 CPI 46 115 n.8 CPI 47 81* CPI 49 67 CPI 52 267 CPI 55 84, 137–40, 138* CPI 56 137 CPI 57 263 Fig. 13.31, 267 CPI 58 65*, 66 n.35, 72 n.54 CPI 59 66 n.33, 231 CPI 60 5 n.15 CPI 62 209 CPI 63 208 CPI 64 211 CPI 65 208–9 CPI 69 211 CPI 83 90 CPI 85 84 n.27 CPI 89 131 n.12, 133 n.19, 153 n.101 CPI 92 131 n.12, 153 CPI 93 240 with Fig. 13.10, 243 CPI 94 240–1, 243 CPI 95 241, 243 CPI 96 230 Fig. 13.3, Ch. 7 passim, 95 Table 7.1, 99 Table 7.2, 104* CPI 97 Ch. 7 passim, 95 Table 7.1, 99 Table 7.2, 105* CPI 99 210 CPI 107 236 CPI 110 146, 154 CPI 112 209, 211–14, 219 n.36 CPI 113 186, 187, 188 Fig. 11.9, 250, 252 Fig. 13.23 CPI 114 84 n.27 CPI 115 145 CPI 119 144 n.64, 202, 250, 253–4, 257–8 CPI 120 237–8 n.28 CPI 121 118 CPI 122 250, 255–6 CPI 125 6 n.20, 209, 212–13, 220 CPI 126 21, 47, 162, 172–3, 250, 253, 256–7 CPI 127 118, 145, 147, 154 CPI 129 250, 253–4, 254 Fig. 13.24, 257–8 CPI 130 92 n.49, 232 n.20, 241, 242 Fig. 13.12 CPI 131 177 CPI 132 118, 146, 232 n.20 CPI 133 139 n.43, 232 n.20 CPI 134 49 n.17, 245 with Fig. 13.16 CPI 135 245, 246 Fig. 13.17 CPI 136 137 n.36, 146, 147*, 148, 150 CPI 142 147 CPI 144 250, 255 CPI 145 63, 227 CPI 146, 6 63, 87 n.37 CPI 147 61 CPI 149 61*, 62

335

CPI 150 61, 63 CPI 151 61 CPI 155 61 n.10 CPI 156 61 n.10 CPI 158 61 n.10 CPI 159 61 n.10 CPI 160 61 n.10 CPI 165 60, 63 CPI 169 88 n.40 CPI 173 210–11 CPI 174 84 n.27 CPI 175 48 Fig. 4.14, 124 n.37, 230 n.14 CPI 176 250, 254–5 CPI 179 84 n.27 CPI 183 47, 164 n.9 CPI 184 145 CPI 185 118 CPI 186 236–7, 236 Fig. 13.6 CPI 187 237 CPI 190 250, 255, 256 Fig. 13.25, 257 CPI 196 115 n.8 CPI 200 6 n.21, 129 n.4, 148 n.81, 165 n.12, 186–7, 189 Fig. 11.10, 204 n.21, 206 n.25, 247, 248 Fig. 13.20 CPI 202 6 n.21, 165 n.12, 186–7, 190 Fig. 11.11, 206 n.25 CPI 203 210 CPI 208 165, 247–50, 249 Fig. 13.21, 263 CPI 210 38 n.9, 163, 167, 227–30, 228 Fig. 13.1 CPI 214 146 CPI 220 190–1, 196 Fig. 11.16 CPI 222 92 n.49, 124 n.37 CPI 223 39 Fig. 4.3, 197, 201 Fig. 11.22, 202 CPI 224 124 n.36 CPI 226 92 n.49 CPI 227 202 n.17 CPI 228 47, 143, 146, 156, 164 n.9 CPI 229 164 n.9 CPI 233 150 CPI 234 150, 166 CPI 235 92 n.49, 124 n.36 CPI 236 166 CPI 237 42 n.10, 143, 151*, 152–3, 166 CPI 238 143, 146 CPI 239 245–6, 246 Fig. 13.18, 263 CPI 240 151*, 152–3 CPI 241 118, 195–7, 199 Fig. 11.20 CPI 243 152 CPI 244 47, 164 n.9, 165, 166 CPI 245 47, 143, 156–7, 164 n.9, 232 n.20, 250, 251 Fig 13.22 CPI 246 124 n.36, 148 n.79, 151 n.93, 152 CPI 247 47, 164 n.9, 263 CPI 250 232 n.18 CPI 251 92 n.49, 232, 233 Fig. 13.5

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

336

Index of Sources

CPI 255 146 CPI 256 191, 197 Fig. 11.17 CPI 257 152 n.95 CPI 260 146 CPI 265 115 n.8 CPI 267 139, 142*, 143, 146 CPI 268 121*, 122 CPI 269 152, 154–5, 166 CPI 270 146 CPI 271 143, 156–7, 163–4, 164, 165 CPI 272 118, 120 CPI 274 39–42, 49, 51 Fig. 4.16, 167–8 CPI 275 49, Fig. 4.16, 167–8 CPI 276 49, Fig. 4.16, 124 n.37 CPI 279 87 n.36 CPI 280 87 n.36, 152 CPI 281 7, 86 n.35, 208 CPI 282 154, 166 CPI 283 42 CPI 286 210 CPI 287 124 n.36 CPI 290 139, 143 n.57, 146 CPI 292 146 CPI 295 54, 55 Fig. 4.20, 191–3, 197, 198 Fig. 11.18 CPI 296 148 n.79, 166 n.15 CPI 297 154, 197, 200 Fig. 11.21, 202 CPI 299 176 CPI 300 187 n.12 CPI 303 164 nn.9–10 CPI 306 88 n.40 CPI 309 124 n.37 CPI 310 92 n.49, 154, 173–4 CPI 314 118, 135 n.25, 136–7, 241 with Fig. 13.11 CPI 315 6 n.21, 149, 204 n.20 CPI 318 6 n.21 CPI 319 6 n.21, 149 n.84, 164–5, 191, 193 Fig. 11.13, 204–6 CPI 320 6 n.21, 149 n.84, 191, 194 Fig. 11.14, 204–6 CPI 323 259–63, 261 Fig. 13.28 CPI 324 29*, 30–32, 230 n.17, Ch. 7 passim, 97 Table 7.1, 99 Table 7.2, 109* CPI 325 42 n.10, 88 n.40, 109 n.39, 150–1 CPI 327 146 CPI 328 136 CPI 341 167 n.19, 229, 231 Fig. 13.4 CPI 342 133*, 146, 149 CPI 347 146, 154 CPI 348 88 n.40 CPI 349 209, 219 n.36 CPI 350 32, 33*, 123* CPI 351 186–7 CPI 352 70 n.49, 75 CPI 353 70 n.49, 73, 75, 258

CPI 354 5, 66 n.33, 68, 69, 70, 71–2, 75, 258–9, 259 Fig. 13.26 CPI 355 74, 75, 187 n.12, 259, 260 Fig. 13.27 CPI 356 68, 70 n.47, 75 CPI 357 70 n.47, 74–5, 187 n.12 CPI 358 60 n.5, 68, 232 n.22 CPI 359 74, 231, 244 CPI 360 68, 72, 73, 143–5, 146 CPI 361 72 CPI 362 74 CPI 363 73–4 CPI 364 71 CPI 365 68, 74, 164 n.9, 231 CPI 367 72 n.54 CPI 368 42, 43 Fig. 4.7 CPI 369 250, 255 CPI 375 110 n.43 CPI 377 250 CPI 379 63 n.16, 88 n.40 CPI 382 187 n.12, 262 Fig. 13.29, 263 CPI 387 4 n.12, 25–8, 26 Fig. 3.1, 36 n.6, 47, 250, 253 CPI 388 49, 123* CPI 395 250, 253 CPI 396 54, 250, 255 CPI 397 134, 145, 154, 170–2, 244 CPI 398 49 CPI 399 219 CPI 400 218–19 CPI 403 35, 36 Fig. 4.1, 38, 174–5, 215–19, 224–5*, 232 n.19 CPI 404 174–5, 215–19, 223–4* CPI 405 145 CPI 407 155* CPI 408 164 n.9, 173, 187 n.12 CPI 409 131 n.14, 155 CPI 410 250, 253 CPI 413 250, 257 CPI 415 131 n.14, 145, 154 CPI 416 145, 154, 173 CPI 419 154 CPI 420 5, 164 n.9 CPI 422 4 n.14, 118, 131 n.14, 144, 145, 146, 152, 173 CPI 423 143–5, 152, 190–1, 192 Fig. 11.12 CPI 424 4, 9–19, 141 n.48, 164 n.9 CPI 427 42 n.10, 105 CPI 430 88 n.40, 154 CPI 431 42 n.10 CPI 431 49 CPI 433 145 CPI 435 145, 154 CPI 440 131 n.14, 145, 146, 154 CPI 444 131 n.14, 154 CPI 445 131 n.14, 154 CPI 446 131 n.14, 145, 173

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

Index of Sources CPI 447 131 n.10, 141 n.48, 145–6 CPI 448 131 n.10, 141, 145, 152 n.94 CPI 449 88 n.40, 124 n.37 CPI 450 72 n.56, 134, 146, 154 CPI 451 145 CPI 458 118 CPI 471 118 CPI 512 146 CPI 513 140–1*, 145–6 CPI 519 53 n.20 CPI 520 136, 146 CPI 522 136 CPI 535 135–6, 146 CPI 536 135 CPI 537 135–6 CPI 538 135, 146 CPI 540 135, 146 CPI 542 146 CPI 543 135, 146 CPI 545 230 CPI 560 134 n.23 CPI 563 134 n.23, 214–15, 222–3* CPI 564 134 n.23 CPI 567 134 n.23 CPI 569 208 CPI 571 146, 154 CPI 573 250, 255 CPI 574 92 n.49 CPI 575 231–2 CPI 576 118, 120 CPI 578 115 n.8 CPI 581 131 n.12, 134–5*, 137, 145, 146, 152 n.94, 172, 244 with Fig. 13.15 CPI 583 92 n.49 CPI 586 84 n.27 CPI 589 146, 148–9*, 150 CPI 591 88 n.40 CPI 592 232 n.20, 246–7, 247 Fig. 13.19 CPI 597 78 n.8 CPI 599 191, 195 Fig. 11.15, 241 CPI 601 134, 145, 170, 172 CPI 605 237 with Fig. 13.7 CPI 610 92 CPI 612 84 n.27 CPI 624 221 CPI 625 239–40, 239 Fig. 13.9 CPI 629 Ch. 7 passim, 95 Table 7.1, 99 Table 7.2, 108 CPI 642 177 CPI 643 166 n.15 CPI 648 84 n.27 CPJ 3 1489 see JIGRE 114 Devauchelle (2012), 409 52 n.18 Dils (2000) A01 see OGIS 2 677 Ebert (1972), no. 64 see Moretti (1953), no. 41

337

Farid (1993), no. 13 see Short Texts 1 153 Farid (1993), no. 22 see Short Texts 1 140 Gauthier, NIS II, no. 2 106 n.30 I.Akôris 1 see CPI 310 I.Alex.Imp. 15 169 I.Alex.Ptol. 4 see CPI 42 I.Alex.Ptol. 14 see CPI 15 I.Alex.Ptol. 33 see CPI 59 I.Alex.Ptol. 52 80–81 n.16 I.British Museum 1066 see CPI 420 I.British Museum 1083 see CPI 145 I.Cairo 60, CG 9241 see I.Delta 2, p. 761, no. 33 I.Colosse Memnon 28–31 168–9 I.Creticae I.v.41, 3–4 221 n.40 I.Délos 1561 117 n.13 I.Délos 2086 116 n.10 I.Delta 1, p. 248 no. 20 see SEG 41 1628 I.Delta 2, p. 761, no. 33 227 n.4 I.Delta 3, pp. 899–913, no. 2 128 n.3, 186 n.10 I.Fayoum 1 1 see CPI 250 I.Fayoum 1 20 see CPI 268 I.Fayoum 1 60 124 n.36 I.Fayoum 1 73 49 n.15 I.Fayoum 1 75 164 I.Fayoum 1 77 48 I.Fayoum 1 79 39, 41 Fig. 4.5 I.Fayoum 1 79 48 I.Fayoum 1 92 49 I.Fayoum 1 93 176–7 I.Fayoum 1 98 see CPI 210 I.Fayoum 2 103 see CPI 233 I.Fayoum 2 104 see CPI 234 I.Fayoum 2 107 see CPI 237 I.Fayoum 2 108 see CPI 238 I.Fayoum 2 112 see CPI 244 I.Fayoum 2 113 see CPI 244 I.Fayoum 2 114 see CPI 245 I.Fayoum 2 116–118 see CPI 247 I.Fayoum 2 123 177 I.Fayoum 2 135 see CPI 228 I.Fayoum 3 145 see CPI 282 I.Fayoum 3 146 166 I.Fayoum 3 150 see CPI 269 I.Fayoum 3 152 see CPI 271 I.Fayoum 3 160 see CPI 642 I.Fayoum 3 201 see CPI 295 I.Fayoum 3 202 see CPI 286 I.Fayoum 3 205 see CPI 223 I.Fayoum 3 207 see CPI 299 I.Fayoum 3 209 see CPI 240 I.Fayoum 3 212 36 n.6, 53 I.Hermoupolis 4 see CPI 315 I.Hermoupolis 5 see CPI 319 I.Kaunos 67 115 n.8 I.Koptos à Kosseir 57–61 175

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

338

Index of Sources

I.Louvre 4 see CPI 354 I.Louvre 14 see CPI 422 I.Louvre 15 see CPI 398 I.Louvre 17 see CPI 49 I.Louvre 90 36 I.Louvre 91 49 n.16, 55, 56 Fig. 4.21 I.Louvre 92 52 n.19 I.Louvre 93 38 I.Métriques 2 see CPI 156 I.Métriques 4 see CPI 349 I.Métriques 5 see CPI 404 I.Métriques 6 see CPI 400 I.Métriques 7 see CPI 399 I.Métriques 10 see CPI 173 I.Métriques 11 see CPI 158 I.Métriques 12 see CPI 624 I.Métriques 14 see CPI 125 I.Métriques 16 see JIGRE 39 I.Métriques 30 see CPI 65 I.Métriques 35 see CPI 403 I.Métriques 37 see CPI 112 I.Métriques 43 see JIGRE 38 I.Métriques 44 see JIGRE 36 I.Métriques 62 see CPI 62 I.Métriques 63 see CPI 63 I.Métriques 64 see CPI 69 I.Métriques 66 see CPI 159 I.Métriques 69 see JIGRE 114 I.Métriques 70 see JIGRE 29 I.Métriques 73 37 n.6 I.Métriques 84 see JIGRE 31 I.Métriques 92 see CPI 64 I.Métriques 102 see CPI 203 I.Métriques 112 see CPI 196 I.Métriques 113 see CPI 160 I.Métriques 162 see CPI 569 I.Métriques 164 see CPI 563 I.Métriques 175 see CPI 281 I.Miletos 79 117 n.13 I.Pan du Désert 20 170–1 I.Pan du Désert 77 see CPI 397 I.Pan du Désert 78 175 I.Pan du Désert 78a see Short Texts 1 184 I.Pan du Désert 84 see CPI 601 I.Pan du Désert 85 see CPI 581 Cayla (2018) [I.Paphos] 30 140 n.31 Cayla (2018) [I.Paphos] 31 140 n.31 Cayla (2018) [I.Paphos] 39 137 n.35, 139 n.42 I.Pergamon 43 118 n.17 I.Philae 1 4 see CPI 427 I.Philae 1 8 see CPI 431 I.Philae 1 15 see CPI 446 I.Philae 1 19 see CPI 424 I.Philae 1 20 see CPI 450 I.Philae 2 128 47, 53 I.Portes du Désert 30 57 with Fig. 4.22

I.Portes du Désert 58 see Short Texts 1 186 I.Portes du Désert 59 see Short Texts 1 184 I.Portes du Désert 65 175 I.Portes du Désert 73 49 n.15, 175 I.Portes du Désert 74 49 n.15, 175 I.Portes du Désert 83 38 n.9 I.Portes du Désert 104 see CPI 368 I.Priene 156 see I.Priene² 149 I.Priene² 149 236–7 I.Priene² 408 42 Fig. 4.6, 47, 53 n.20 I.Prose 2 227 I.Prose 21 see CPI 424 I.Prose 22 see CPI 424 I.Prose 24 see CPI 420 I.Prose 25 see CPI 200 I.Prose 31 see CPI 208 I.Prose 32 see CPI 271 I.Prose 33 see CPI 244 I.Prose 34 see CPI 244 I.Prose 45 see CPI 303 I.Prose 49 see I.Delta 3, pp. 899–913, no. 2 I.Prose 55 47, 53 I.Prose 56 164 n.10 I.Prose 57 164 I.Th.Sy. 164 170–1 I.Th.Sy. 189 see CPI 408 I.Th.Sy. 193 42 n.10, 49 I.Th.Sy. 242 see CPI 416 I.Th.Sy. 244 see CPI 403 I.Varsovie 43 see CPI 8 I.Varsovie 50 see CPI 353 I.Varsovie 67 see CPI 155 IG II² 31 211 IG II² 1330 120 n.23 IG II² 1570 116 n.10 IG II² 1571 116 n.10 IG V 2, 546 116 n.10 IG XI 4, 1230 115 n.8 IG XII 6, 119 148 n.82 IGIAC 13 116 n.10 IGRR 1 1171 [a] see Short Texts 1 184 IGRR 1 1172 see Short Texts 1 186 IGRR 1 1173 see Short Texts 1 184 JIGRE 23 211–14 JIGRE 29 220 JIGRE 29–40 211–14 JIGRE 29, 7 211 n.12 JIGRE 30 see CPI 125 JIGRE 31 221 JIGRE 34 213 JIGRE 35 220 JIGRE 36 220–1 JIGRE 38 211–12, 213, 220 JIGRE 39 209 n.2, 212, 213–14 n.15, 221 JIGRE 40 213–14 n.15 JIGRE 84 212

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

Index of Sources JIGRE 114 213, 220 n.38 M.Chr. 2 159 n.1 M.Chr. 4 159 n.1 M.Chr. 102 159 n.1 Ma (1999), 285–7, no. 2 see Gauthier, NIS II, no. 2 Ma (1999), 308–11, no. 17 see SEG 41 1003, I Ma (1999), 311–17, no. 18 see SEG 41 1003, II Ma (1999), 321, no. 20 see SEG 49 1943 ML 7 227 Moretti (1953), no. 41 209 n.3 OGIS 1 48 see CPI 354 OGIS 1 53 see CPI 341 OGIS 1 98 see CPI 431 OGIS 1 130 see CPI 423 OGIS 1 169 see CPI 38 OGIS 1 179 see CPI 208 OGIS 1 194 see CPI 387 OGIS 1 222 120 n.23 OGIS 1 230 118 n.17 OGIS 2 675 see I.Th.Sy. 193 OGIS 2 677 170–1 OGIS 2 732 see CPI 131 OGIS 2 734 see CPI 325 OGIS 2 740 see CPI 271 P.Feste 5 see CPI 387 Pfeiffer (2015), no. 32 see CPI 404 RICIS 104/0111 122 n.30 RICIS 104/0201 122 n.30 RICIS 113/0902 118 n.17 RICIS 202/160 122 n.28 RICIS 202/199–200 122 n.28 RICIS 202/0371 122 n.30 RICIS 205/0101 122 n.28 Samothrace 2.1 9 237 SB 1 310 see CPI 175 SB 1 681 see CPI 202 SB 1 1425 44 SB 1 1603 see SEG 41 1628 SB 1 4177 44 SB 1 4179 44, 46 Fig. 4.12 SB 1 4383 see I.Pan du Désert 20 SB 1 5979 44, 45 Fig. 4.10 SB 1 5984 44 SB 3 7259 see CPI 271 SB 4 7337 164 n.10 SB 4 7424 37 n.6 SB 5 8365–8369 44, 46 Fig. 4.13 SB 5 8373 44, 46 Fig. 4.13 SB 5 8811 [a] see Short Texts 1 184 SB 5 8812 see Short Texts 1 186 SB 5 8813 see Short Texts 1 184 SB 5 8818 147 SB 5 8905 see I.Th.Sy.19 SB 8 9997 163 SB 8 10164 47 n.14

339

SB 10 10502 170–1 SB 12 11089 44 SB 20 14125 44 SB 20 14998 see SEG 45 2085 SB 20 15115 44 SB 20 15149 see SEG 41 1638 SB 24 16051 see CPI 643 SB 28 17121 see CPI 134 SEG 1 40 see IG XII 6, 1, 119 SEG 1 466 117 n.13 SEG 2 871 see CPI 115 SEG 8 471 22 SEG 9 5 120 n.23 SEG 20 238 116 n.10 SEG 20 644 47 n.14 SEG 25 1122 115 n.8 SEG 27 1106 47 n.14, 53 n.20 SEG 27 1107 53 n.20 SEG 27 1115 47 n.14, 53 n.20 SEG 27 1116 47, 53 n.20 SEG 29 800 236–7 SEG 30 1884 62 n.12 SEG 31 1548 42 n.10, 49, 178 n.42 SEG 33 1359 see CPI 240 SEG 37 994 see I.Priene² 408 SEG 38 1692 166 SEG 39 1284 see Gauthier, NIS II, no. 2 SEG 39 1596a 115 n.8 SEG 39 1702 193, 199 Fig. 11.19 SEG 39 1705 see CPI 283 SEG 41 1003, I–II 106 n.30 SEG 41 1628 43 Fig. 4.8, 49 SEG 41 1629 44 Fig. 4.9 SEG 41 1638 167 SEG 42 157 115 n.8 SEG 42 1533 see Abdalla 57 SEG 42 1600 see Abdalla 204 SEG 44 1484 47 n.14, 54 n.20 SEG 45 2085 169 SEG 46 2120 see CPI 545 SEG 48 1991 213 n.15 SEG 48 1996 213 n.15 SEG 49 877 117 n.13 SEG 49 1943 106 n.30 SEG 51 2153 see Short Texts 1 198 SEG 54 1723 see CPI 629 SEG 54 1758 166 n.15 SEG 56 1986 see CPI 97 SEG 59 1764 see CPI 519 SEG 59 1766 see CPI 274 SEG 59 1767 see CPI 275 SEG 64 1894 see CPI 55 SEG 64 1959 49 n.17 Short Texts 1 118 see CPI 350 Short Texts 1 140 151 n.93, 152, 155 n.112 Short Texts 1 152 see CPI 183

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

340 Short Texts 1 153 115, 152 Short Texts 1 175 49 n.16 Short Texts 1 179–202 175 Short Texts 1 184 49 Short Texts 1 185 49 Short Texts 1 186 49, 50 Fig. 4.15 Short Texts 1 198 49 Short Texts 1 250 see CPI 388 Short Texts 1 260 49 Short Texts 2 1092 53 n.21 Short Texts 3, 3 136 TM 638 see CPI 397 TM 2495 see CPI 210 TM 2638 see CPI 398 TM 2984 see CPI 146 TM 4169 see CPI 174 TM 5687 see CPI 260 TM 5793 see CPI 16 TM 5944 see CPI 43 TM 5949 see CPI 314 TM 5951 see CPI 42 TM 5953 see CPI 151 TM 5973 see CPI 16 TM 5975 see CPI 4 TM 5981 see CPI 214 TM 5983 see CPI 358 TM 5986 see CPI 46 TM 6051 see CPI 310 TM 6061 see CPI 324 TM 6082 see CPI 396 TM 6083 see CPI 9 TM 6086 see CPI 226 TM 6090 see CPI 520 TM 6091 see CPI 522 TM 6181 see CPI 586 TM 6182 47 n.14 TM 6209 see CPI 12 TM 6210 see CPI 18 TM 6240 see CPI 272 TM 6245 see CPI 300 TM 6273 see CPI 296 TM 6276 see CPI 267 TM 6294 see CPI 361 TM 6295 see CPI 347 TM 6298 see CPI 320 TM 6301 see CPI 279 TM 6302 see CPI 280 TM 6304–7 see CPI 281 TM 6310 see CPI 400 TM 6315 see CPI 56 TM 6318 see CPI 96 TM 6323 see I.Louvre 91 TM 6324 see CPI 368 TM 6325 see CPI 387 TM 6327 see CPI 407 TM 6328 see CPI 409

Index of Sources TM 6329 TM 6330 TM 6331 TM 6332 TM 6362 TM 6364 TM 6366 TM 6367 TM 6369 TM 6372 TM 6373 TM 6374 TM 6375 TM 6377 TM 6378 TM 6379 TM 6381 TM 6382 TM 6386 TM 6387 TM 6389 TM 6391 TM 6396 TM 6398 TM 6400 TM 6403 TM 6403 TM 6407 TM 6411 TM 6414 TM 6416 TM 6418 TM 6419 TM 6420 TM 6421 TM 6424 TM 6425 TM 6426 TM 6428 TM 6429 TM 6430 TM 6431 TM 6446 TM 6447 TM 6449 TM 6457 TM 6460 TM 6468 TM 6469 TM 6471 TM 6472 TM 6474 TM 6475 TM 6476 TM 6479 TM 6505

see CPI 423 see CPI 431 see CPI 424 see CPI 458 see CPI 379 see CPI 581 see CPI 60 see CPI 89 see CPI 8 see CPI 354 see CPI 363 see CPI 355 see CPI 357 see CPI 341 see CPI 119 see CPI 427 see CPI 15 see CPI 342 see CPI 397 see CPI 17 see CPI 430 see CPI 583 see CPI 359 see CPI 422 see CPI 125 see CPI 403 see CPI 420 see CPI 295 see CPI 265 see CPI 34 see CPI 356 see CPI 36 see CPI 131 see CPI 325 see CPI 200 see CPI 27 see CPI 28 see CPI 367 see CPI 578 see CPI 574 see CPI 132 see CPI 222 see CPI 601 see CPI 597 see CPI 303 see CPI 185 see CPI 113 see CPI 536 see CPI 535 see CPI 542 see CPI 543 see CPI 540 see CPI 537 see CPI 538 see CPI 14 see CPI 92

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

Index of Sources TM 6509 see CPI 85 TM 6533 see CPI 25 TM 6535 see CPI 20 TM 6537 see CPI 315 TM 6542 see CPI 183 TM 6544 see CPI 257 TM 6551 see CPI 512 TM 6572 see CPI 202 TM 6574 see CPI 196 TM 6599 see CPI 136 TM 6602 see CPI 32 TM 6605 see CPI 247 TM 6606 see CPI 179 TM 6607 see CPI 127 TM 6608 see CPI 207 TM 6627 see CPI 405 TM 6628 see CPI 251 TM 6629 see CPI 255 TM 6656 see SEG 27 1106 TM 6661 see CPI 571 TM 6667 see SEG 27 1116 TM 6670 see CPI 58 TM 6691 see CPI 23 TM 6693 see CPI 44 TM 6697 see CPI 364 TM 6877 see CPI 146 TM 7025 see CPI 610 TM 7033 see CPI 29 TM 7075 see CPI 328 TM 7090 see CPI 365 TM 7092 see CPI 1 TM 7099 see CPI 319 TM 7104 see CPI 110 TM 7134 see CPI 112 TM 7135 see CPI 62 TM 7154 see CPI 256 TM 7165 see CPI 59 TM 7183 see CPI 64 TM 7210 see CPI 399 TM 7211 see CPI 63 TM 7217 see CPI 169 TM 7228 see CPI 244 TM 7228–9 see CPI 244 TM 7230 see CPI 228 TM 7231 see CPI 229 TM 7232 see CPI 247 TM 7233 see CPI 233 TM 7234 see CPI 234 TM 7236 see CPI 360 TM 7237 see CPI 245 TM 7258 see CPI 246 TM 7262 see CPI 115 TM 7263 see CPI 142 TM 7265 see CPI 121 TM 7301 see CPI 382 TM 8152 see CPI 235

341

TM 8154 see CPI 237 TM 8155 see CPI 238 TM 8156 see CPI 241 TM 8157 see CPI 282 TM 8158 see CPI 269 TM 8159 see CPI 270 TM 8160 see CPI 271 TM 8161 see CPI 276 TM 8162 see CPI 642 TM 8166 see CPI 287 TM 8170 see CPI 297 TM 8171 see CPI 223 TM 8172 see CPI 292 TM 8179 see CPI 299 TM 8181 see CPI 240 TM 8263 see CPI 224 TM 8355 see CPI 306 TM 8543 see Wagner (1972), 159–160, no. 16 TM 8707 see SB 1 4177 TM 8709 see SB 1 4179 TM 8713 see SB 1 1425 TM 8724 see SB 12 11089 TM 8805 see CPI 247 TM 8809 see CPI 126 TM 8814 see Short Texts 1 140 TM 10256 see Abdalla 204 TM 10425 see JIGRE 30 TM 14310 see SB 10 10502 TM 23882 see SB 20 15115 TM 26166 see SB 20 14125 TM 30879 see JIGRE 29 TM 34015 see SB 1 5979 TM 40593 see SB 1 5984 TM 42851 see I.Fayoum 1 73 TM 42996 see I.Fayoum 2 123 TM 42999 see CPI 290 TM 43000 see CPI 268 TM 43668 see CPI 22 TM 43853 see CPI 446 TM 43908 see CPI 149 TM 43932 see CPI 173 TM 43943 see CPI 184 TM 43944 see CPI 433 TM 43971 see CPI 349 TM 43972 see CPI 404 TM 43979 see CPI 403 TM 43986 see CPI 416 TM 43990 see CPI 69 TM 44036 see CPI 156 TM 44043 see CPI 599 TM 44047 see CPI 133 TM 44151 see CPI 435 TM 44156 see CPI 408 TM 44156 + 113053 see CPI 408 TM 44169 see CGC 22018 TM 44175 see Short Texts 1, 153

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

342 TM 45404 TM 47190 TM 47191 TM 47193 TM 47410 TM 47422 TM 47451 TM 47462 TM 47465 TM 48124 TM 48150 TM 48292 TM 50861 TM 52924 TM 52931 TM 53483 TM 53566 TM 53837 TM 53841 TM 53874 TM 53874 TM 54600 TM 56502 TM 56504 TM 58021 TM 60880 TM 80763 TM 80769 TM 80773 TM 80859 TM 81459 TM 81544 TM 81585 TM 88337 TM 88343 TM 88373 TM 88380 TM 88381 TM 88389 TM 88391 TM 88459 TM 88582 TM 88865 TM 88867 TM 88876 TM 88941 TM 88945 TM 88946 TM 88948 TM 88952 TM 91964 TM 91965 TM 91976 TM 91994 TM 92028 TM 93289

Index of Sources see CPI 643 see I.Fayoum 1 75 see I.Fayoum 1 77 see I.Fayoum 1 79 see CPI 440 see CPI 155 see I.Th.Sy.193 see CPI 448 see CPI 624 see CPI 564 see CPI 175 see CPI 150 see Short Texts 1 175 see CPI 388 see Short Texts 1 260 see Short Texts 1 186 see CPI 350 see Short Texts 1 184 see Short Texts 1 185 see I.Pan du Désert 78 see Short Texts 1 198 see Abdalla 187 see CPI 567 see CPI 569 see Short Texts 2 1092 see CPI 318 see CPI 449 see CPI 451 see CPI 471 see I.Philae 2 128 see CPI 563 see CPI 560 see I.Pan du Désert20 see CPI 327 see I.Portes du Désert 30 see I.Portes du Désert 65 see I.Portes du Désert 73 see I.Portes du Désert 74 see SB 5 8818 see I.Portes du Désert 83 see CPI 351 see I.Th.Sy. 164 see CPI 415 see CPI 419 see SEG 45 2085 see CPI 450 see CPI 444 see CPI 445 see CPI 447 see CPI 513 see I.Fayoum 1 92 see I.Fayoum 1 93 see CPI 243 see CPI 227 see I.Fayoum 3 212 see CPI 134

TM 93312 see CPI 576 TM 102276 see SEG 31 1548 TM 102471 see CPI 648 TM 102571 see SEG 41 1629 TM 102576 see Abdalla 204 TM 102639 see CPI 612 TM 102892 see CPI 158 TM 102900 see CPI 159 TM 103007 see CPI 424 TM 103023 see I.Prose 55 TM 103024 see I.Prose 57 TM 103027 see OGIS 2 677 TM 103028 see I.Louvre90 TM 103043 see I.Alex.Imp. 15 TM 103201 see CPI 145 TM 103227 see I.Alex.Ptol. 52 TM 103461 see SEG 41 1628 TM 103521 see CPI 165 TM 103548 see CPI 362 TM 103550 see CPI 39 TM 103770 see JIGRE 39 TM 103840 see CPI 114 TM 103879 see JIGRE 38 TM 103907 see I.Delta 3, 899–913, no. 2 TM 103907 see I.Prose 49 TM 103909 see CPI 49 TM 103916 see I.Louvre 93 TM 103916 see I.Métriques 73 TM 103918 see I.Louvre 92 TM 103997 see Abdalla 197 TM 103999 see Abdalla 196 TM 104001 see SB 8 9997 TM 104020 see JIGRE 36 TM 104059 see JIGRE 114 TM 104115 see SEG 8 471 TM 104125 see CPI 125 TM 104126 see JIGRE 31 TM 104222 see CPI 375 TM 104246 see SB 4 7424 TM 104326 see CPI 65 TM 104506 see CPI 47 TM 104516 see CPI 130 TM 104706 see SEG 27 1107 TM 104709 see SEG 27 1115 TM 104985 see CPI 5 TM 105092 see CPI 283 TM 105118 see CPI 309 TM 105133 see I.Prose 56 TM 105134 see I.Prose 57 TM 105410 see Abdalla 57 TM 107211 see CPI 203 TM 107214 see CPI 160 TM 107253 see CPI 33 TM 107254 see CPI 19 TM 107255 see CPI 24 TM 107258 see CPI 83

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

Index of Sources TM 109059 TM 110350 TM 110353 TM 112271 TM 113171 TM 113380 TM 115767 TM 119367 TM 128990 TM 130149 TM 135626 TM 144201 TM 144201 TM 145323 TM 145327 TM 244021 TM 244022 TM 244023 TM 380605

see CPI 324 see CPI 348 see CPI 591 see SEG 64 1959 see CPI 324 see CPI 589 44, 45 Fig. 4.11 see CPI 147 see CE 82 (2007), 86–7 no. 14 see AE 2010 1751 see CPI 99 see I.Priene² 408 see SEG 37 994 see Devauchelle (2012), 409 see CPI 519 see CPI 274 see CPI 277 see CPI 275 see CPI 55

TM 388522 see AE 2016, 1805 TM 397817 see CPI 629 TM 700881 see CPI 97 TM 703113 see CPI 286 TM 828668–70, 828689–91 see CPI 13 TM 828689–91 see CPI 13 Tod (1948), no. 117 see IG II² 31 W.Chr. 4 159 n.1 W.Chr. 51 159 n.1 W.Chr. 54 159 n.1 W.Chr. 70 159 n.1 W.Chr. 73 159 n.1 W.Chr. 116 159 n.1 W.Chr. 141 159 n.1 W.Chr. 142 159 n.1 W.Chr. 163 159 n.1 W.Chr. 168 159 n.1 Wagner (1972), 159–160, no. 16 52 n.18 Welles (1934), no. 30 149

343

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

344

Index of Sources 3. Index of Papyri and Ostraka Cited

Acta Alexandrinorum 9C 170–1 Bagnall/Derow² no. 142 see P.Lille 29 BGU IV 1033 170–2 BGU IV 1190 143 n.57 BGU IX 1892, 81–2 177 BGU VI 1249, 6 68 n.42 BGU VII 1563 164 C.Epist.Latin 149 170–1 C.Ord.Ptol. 24 see P.Hal. 1 C.Ptol.Sklav. 1 see P.Lille 29 CAPInv. 674 see P.Ryl. IV 590 CAPInv. 1411 see SB 22 15460 Christensen, Thompson, and Vandorpe (2017) see P.Haun. IV 70 CPJ I 138 see P.Ryl. IV 590 Egitto e Vicino Oriente 27 (2004) 27–31 169 M.Chr. 81 see P.Oxy. IV 706 M.Chr. 347 see P.Oxy. I 97 M.Chr. 369 see P.Lille 29 M.Chr. 372 iii–iv 170–1 O.Edfou 2 233 174–5 O.Edfou 2 237 174–5 O.Krok. 160 170 O.Krok. 165 170 O.Leid. 267 168 n.24 O.Med.Madi 298 169 O.Oslo 2 172 O.Strasb. I 772 149 O.Strasb. I 141 168–9 O.Strasb. I 452 168–9 O.Tait 228 175 O.Tait 229 175 O.Tait 231 175 O.Tait 248 175 O.Tait 249 175 O.Tait Petrie 287 175 O.Wilck. 534 175 P.Adler Gr. 1 173 P.Amh. II 32 72 n.56 P.Amh. II 36 173 P.Amh. II 70 170–1 P.Bad. IV, 48 65 n.32 P.Bingen 71 167 P.Bodl. I 120 170–1 P.Brem. 1 170–1 P.Brem. 4 170–1 P.Cair.Zen. I 59002 229 with Fig. 13.2 P.Cair.Zen. I 59034, 19 108 n.35 P.Cair.Zen. II 59236 167 P.Cairo Goodsp. 6 73 P.Choach. Survey 12, 1 see UPZ II 175 P.Col. V 1, verso 3, 20 177 P.Col. VI 123 169 P.Col. VIII 208 174

P.Count 4, 61–4 176 P.Diog. 6 170–2 P.Dryton passim 176 P.Enteux. 13 154–5, 166 P.Enteux. 48 Ro 8, 12 177 P.Enteux. 65 Ro 12, 19 177 P.Enteux. 66 Ro 7, 13 177 P.Enteux. 74, 14 177 P.Erbstreit 13D 173 P.Fay. III 322 170–1 P.Gen.10 61 n.11 P.Giss. 62 170–1 P.Giss. 99 164–5, 205 P.Giss.Univ.-Bibl. 52 167 P.Grenf. 10, 12 70 n.47 P.Hal. 1, 13–15 64 n.24 P.Hal. 1, 179–85 140 n.46 P.Haun. IV 70 217–8 P.Heid. IX 423 151 n.92 P.Heid.dem. 28 173 P.Hels. I 23 177 P.Hib. I 28 69 n.46 P.Hib. II 196 64 nn.23, 24 P.Köln IV 186 174 P.Lille 29 63 n.15 P.Lips. II 125 167 P.Lond. VII 2188, 105 173 Pap.Lugd.-Bat. VI 24 see SB 4 7404 P.Med. I² 22 149 P.Merton I 5 173 P.Mich. IV 223, 3550 176–7 P.Mich. V 298 167 P.Mich. XVIII 779 177 P.Mil.Vogl. II 75 167 P.Mil.Vogl. III 128 165 P.Oslo III 77 168–9 P.Oxy. I 97 170–1 P.Oxy. II 268, 2 68 n.43 P.Oxy. IV 706 170–1 P.Oxy. VIII 1085 168–9 P.Oxy. XVIII 2177, 13–15 64 n.23 P.Oxy. XXIV 2723, 3 68 n.42 P.Oxy. XXVII 2465 65 n.29, 70 n.47 P.Oxy. XXXI 2553 168–9 P.Oxy. XLI 2950 164 P.Oxy. XLIII 3099 67 n.35 P.Oxy. XLIII 3100 67 n.35 P.Oxy. XLIII 3101 67 n.35 P.Oxy. XLIII 3102 67 n.35 P.Oxy. XLIX 3463 65 n.32, 67 n.37 P.Oxy. LI 3614 169 P.Oxy. LXIII 4352 168–9 P.Oxy. LXXIX 5202 164 P.Petrie² Wills 1, 55–6 176

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 2/9/2020, SPi

Index of Sources P.Phrur.Diosk. 4 149 P.Poethke 18 173 P.Ryl. IV 590 186 n.10 P.Ryl. IV 599 67 n.35 P.Tebt. I 41 165 P.Tebt. II 316 67 n.37 P.Tebt. II 790 156 P.Tebt. III 817 93 n.51 P.Tor. XIII, 5–6 70 n.47 P.Wisc. II 87 168 P.Yale I 57 165 PSI V 447 170–2 PSI VI 683 169 PSI VIII 913 167 SB 1 3841 146 SB 1 4512 173 SB 1 4638 173 SB 3 7169 149 SB 4 7403 69–70 SB 4 7404 170–1 SB 5 8561 169 SB 6 9016, 9–14 73 SB 6 9050 vi 170–1 SB 6 9521 149 n.88 SB 6 9617 168–9 SB 10 10583 see O.Leid. 267 SB 14 11942 140 SB 14 12144 169 SB 22 15460 164 n.11, 186 n.10

SB 24 15973 173 SB 24 15974 173 SB 24 16285 173 Sel.Pap. II 207 see P.Hal. 1 Stud.Pal. IV 121 170–1 TM 3231 see P.Lille 29 TM 3290 see P.Enteux. 13 TM 4274 see SB 14 11942 TM 11998 see I.Mich. IV 223 TM 14250 see P.Col. VI 123 TM 18193 see SB 14 12144 TM 27877 see P.Giss. 99 TM 40360 see SB 1 3841 TM 43871 see P.Col. VIII 208 TM 58927 see Acta Alexandrinorum 9C TM 65863 see P.Köln IV 186 TM 102689 see SB 5 8561 TM 128333 see P.Poethke 18 Turner (1974) see SB 14 11942 UPZ I 20, 27 108 n.35 UPZ II 175, 1 23–4, 28 UPZ II 204 173 UPZ II 210 173 UPZ II 227 149 W.Chr. 16 see P.Brem.1 W.Chr. 25 69 n.46 W.Chr. 27, 17–23 62 n.14 W.Chr. 149 see P.Amh. II 70 W.Chr. 447 72 n.56

345

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/8/2020, SPi

Index of Places Abukir (see also Kanopos) 95, 99, 230 Abydos 40, 49, 54, 69, 136 Alexandria 2, 5–8, 23, 29, 30, 35, 47, 63–70, 72, 74, 76–93, 94–113, 94, 116, 118, 119, 128–31, 137–9, 142, 146, 154, 157, 169–173, 187, 214, 215, 242, 243, 267 Antinoopolis 60, 62, 69, 168–9 Apollonopolis Magna, see Edfu Arsinoite Nome (see also Fayum) 142, 143, 147, 165, 168, 173, 176, 180, 191, 195, 198, 202 Athens 29, 60, 64, 79, 115 n.8, 211, 254 n.41 Athribis 47 Attika 221 Bakhthis see Edfu/Apollonopolis Magna Berenike Trogodytica 134, 144 n.61, 146, 164 n.104, 169, 170, 172, 175 Bir ‘Iayyan 230 Cairo 22, 29, 32, 103, 174 Cyrene 104 Delos 108 n.36, 114, 115 n.8, 117 n.13, 122 Demerdash (see also Heliopolis) 213 Dendera (Tentyra) 57–8, 100, 102 Diospolis Magna/Thebes 27, 46, 47, 63 n.16, 123, 136, 169, 176, 262 Diospolis Parva 57 Dodekaschoinos 141 Eastern Desert 129, 133–136, 147, 170, 230 Edfu (Apollonopolis Magna) 58, 81 n.17, 100, 134, 174, 175, 215, 217, 223–5, 232, 244 El-Kanais (Paneion) 33, 35, 208, 222 Elephantine 69, 141, 143, 144, 253, 257 Eleusis (suburb of Alexandria) 88 Ephesus 47 Euhemeria 156, 202 n.17 Fayum (see also Arsinoite Nome) 4, 5, 69, 122–6, 129, 142–3, 150–6, 160–1, 167, 172, 177 Hawara 190 Heliopolis 101, 213 Herakleion/Thonis 95, 99, 101, 105, 107, 111

Herakleopolis (Sedment) 213 Herakleopolite Nome 143, 164 Hermonthis 187 Hermopolis Magna 6, 149, 161, 164, 191, 193, 194, 204–206, 241 Kanopos (see also Abukir) 90, 101 n.9, 105, 111, 119, 230, 250, 253–4 Karanis 49, 176, 177 Kaunos 209 Kingston Lacy 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 19, 141 Kom Abou Billou (Terenouthis) 54 Kom Ombo (Ombos) 49, 58, 155, 161 Koptos 32–3, 36, 49, 57, 58, 73, 124–124, 133–4, 133, 134, 172, 175 Koussai 30, 31, 98, 101, 109 Krokodilopolis (see also Arsinoe, Ptolemais Euergetis) 114, 121, 125, 191, 232, 233 Leontopolis (Tell el-Moqdam) 49, 163, 177, 245 Leontopolis (Tell el-Yahoudieh) 211–14 Livorno 24 Lykopolis 55, 69 Magdola 163, 166 Medinet Madi (Narmouthis) 7, 42, 49, 51, 167–9, 177 Memphis 6, 81, 101, 107, 108 n.35, 143, 161, 169, 186, 187, 189, 190, 206, 236, 237, 247, 248, 255, 256, 257 Menouf 21–4 Miletos 60, 62, 63, 177 Narmouthis see Medinet Madi Naukratis 1 n.3, 5, 59–63, 100, 102, 227 n.4 Omboi (see also Kom Ombo) 199 Oxyrhynchite Nome 161, 168 Oxyrhynchos 67 n.25, 168–9 Paneion see El-Kanais Panopolite Nome 135, 169 Philadelphia (USA) 30, 33 Philadelphia (Fayum) 167, 227, 229 Philae 4–19, 47, 105, 129 n.5, 134, 140, 141, 142, 144, 146, 153, 169

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/8/2020, SPi

Index of Places Psenamosis 186–188, 250, 252 Psoi 67 Ptolemais 4, 5, 60, 66–75, 112, 143–5, 187 n.12, 223, 231, 232, 234, 240, 241 Ptolemais Euergetis (see also Arsinoe, Krokodilopolis) 191, 197 Rhakotis 77, 92 Samothrace 133, 237, 259 n.36 Schedia 154 n.104, 213, 236 Sedment see Herakleopolis Setis 143–145, 190–192

347

Soknopaiou Nesos 48, 49 n.15, 165, 190, 247, 249 Syria 173, 174, 224 Tanis 102, 106 n.19, 111, 253, 257, 259, 260 Taposiris Magna 97, 98, 99, 101 n.10, 108 Tebtynis 42, 166–7, 169, 195 Terenouthis see Kom Abou Billou Theadelphia 47, 150, 151–3, 156, 165–7, 177, 195, 199, 245, 246, 250, 264 Thebes see Diospolis Magna Thera 133, 149 n.85 Tukh el-Qaramus 100 Turin 23–5

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/8/2020, SPi

Index of Names A. Personal Names Abramos 209 n.2, 212 n.2, 214 n.15 Aetos son of Aetos (priest) 172 Agathodoros, son of Agathodoros 143, 151–153 Agathokleia 208 Alexander the Great 2, 61, 91, 100, 119, 236 Alexandros, from Oroanna 134, 135 Amenemhat III (pharaoh) 190 Ammonios 211 Ammonios son of Ammonios 141, 143, 144, 146 n.70 Antinoos 60, 168 Antiochus I 106 n.30 Antiochus III 106 n.30 Antipatros 85, 116–118, 121 Antonius, M. (Mark Antony) 5 n.15 Aphrodisia (Hathor-Ity) 8, 35, 36, 174, 215, 216, 224 Apollonios (dioiketes of Ptolemy II) 38, 69 n.44, 160, 167, 227–9, 231 Apollonios, son of Antipatros 177 Apollonios, son of Hermogenes 49, 55–6 Apollonios, son of Ptolemaios (Pasas) 215–218, 223 Apollonios, son of Sosibios 133, 134 Apynchis, son of Petosiris 121–122, 124 Archagothos, son of Agathokles 83, 238 Arsinoe 211 Arsinoe II Philadelphos (Queen) 78, 81 n.28, 85, 92 n.48, 118–19, 153 Arsinoe III, wife of Ptolemy IV Philopator 79, 87–8, 90 n.46. 99, 106 n.30, 107–109, 135, 242, 243, 244 Artemidoros 44–5 Asika, widow of Machatas 164 Bankes, W. J. 9–11, 13–15, 18 Belzoni, G. B. 11–12 Berenike I 83 n.24, 112 Berenike II 80–81, 84–5, 87, 99, 104–7, 109, 116–117, 131, 135–6, 232–3, 240–1, 259–61, 263 Bernand, A. 1 n.1, 38, 134, 135, 143 n.60, 144 n.61, 167 n.20, 209–210 Bernand, É. 1 n.1, 7 n.26, 38, 53, 76 n.2, 149 n.86, 163, 165, 166 nn.15–16, 209–210

Bianchi, R. 54 Bingen, J. 1, 3, 59, 74 n.60, 77 n.2, 117 n.12, 130, 175, 226, 230 Boethos (strategos and epistrategos) 4, 5 n.16, 144, 173 Boidas, son of Demetrios (‘Persian’) 262–3 Bois-Aymé, J.-M. du 22 Cailliaud, F. 21–2, 24 Cassius Taurinus 170 Champollion-Figeac, J.-J. 24 Champollion, J.-F. 13, 14, 22–4, 25, 2–87 Charimortos (strategos) 135, 172 Cordero di San Quintino, G. 27 Cornelius Gallus 47 Daressy, G. 24 Demas 209, 212–13 Diazelmis 210–11 Diocletian 169 Diotimos 209 n.3 Dorion (Kinsman) 129, 148, 247, 248 Dosithea 209, 213, 219 n.36 Drovetti, B. 22–5, 27 Dryton, son of Pamphilos 69, 176 Enyalios 210 Fraser, P.M. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 n.28, 25, 30, 63–6, 71 nn.52–3, 74 n.60, 75, 94, 110, 119, 176, 204 n.20, 208, 209, 218, 226, 232–234, 236–8, 241–4, 253, 255, 257–9, 261, 263 George V (King) 13 Hadrian 168–9 Hakoris, son of Herieus 173–4 Hathor-Ity see Aphrodisia Hebryzelmis 211 Herakleides 53 Herodes (poet) 35, 214–219, 224, 225 Herodes (strategos) 143–144, 152 Herodes, son of Charidemos 163–4 Herodes, son of Neilos 163–4 Homer 210, 218, 219, 222 Jollois, J.-B. 4, 22–3 Jomard, E.- F. 23

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/8/2020, SPi

Index of Names Josephus 211 Julius Caesar 25, 27 Kaisarion 25 Kallikrates (naval commander) 153 Kallimachos, epistratregos, strategos etc. 25, 27–8, 47, 74, 210, 212, 214, 250 family of 4 n.12 Kleon 85, 116–120 Kleopatra II 11, 137 n.35, 149, 151, 155, 245, 246, 247 Kleopatra III 11, 81 n.18, 118, 151, 246, 247 Kleopatra VII 25, 91, 174 Laodike, wife of Antiochus III 106 n.30 Leonidas of Taras 211 n.12, 212 Lepsius, K. R. 14 Lichas, son of Pyrrhos 134, 172, 244 Lysanias (strategos) 163–6, 247 Machatas 154, 166 Mallon, J. 30 Masyloi 138 ‘Megamedes’ 138–9 Menneas 211 Monimos, son of Kleandros 176 Moschos 218 Napoleon 21–2, 24 Nash, Rev. G. D. 30–1 Nepheros, son of Babays 91 Nikandros, son of Petesouchos 177 Nikandros, son Nikon 83, 175 Nikanor, son of Nikon 83, 175 Onias 211–12 Page, D.L. 214–215 Paris (Kinsman) 186, 250, 252 Parthenios son of Paminis 36, 49, 57, 175 Persians 138 Petobastis III 81 n.18 Petrie, W.M.F. 32, 60–1, 236 Peyron, A. 24 n.13 Philip Arrhidaios 100 Phrasikleia 221–2 Psenptais I 81 n.18 Ptolemaios (Kinsman and strategos) 174 Ptolemaios (Master of the Royal Hunt) 137 Ptolemaios-Pamenches 216–17 Ptolemy I Soter 60, 67, 81 n.16, 83 n.24, 110 Ptolemy II Philadelphos 70, 75, 77–9, 83, 92, 104, 118–119, 140 n.46, 238

349

Ptolemy III Euergetes 75, 79–80, 83, 85, 104–5, 107, 108, 111–12, 117, 131, 154, 195, 232, 233, 240, 241, 258, 259 Ptolemy IV Philopator 28, 62, 80, 82, 85–90, 99, 100, 101 n.9, 104, 106 n.29, 107, 108–9, 111–13, 134, 135 n.26, 137, 234, 241, 242, 243, 244 Ptolemy V Epiphanes 49, 90 n.46, 136, 138, 140, 154, 174, 177 Ptolemy VI Philometor 62, 67, 74, 84, 130, 131, 137, 138, 140, 141, 144, 148, 155, 211, 244, 245 Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II 11, 63, 73, 81 n.18, 118, 131, 146, 212, 245, 246, 247 Ptolemy IX Soter II 5, 129 n.5, 231, 261, 264, 267 Ptolemy X Alexander 112 n.51, 157, 164, 247, 249 Ptolemy XII New Dionysos 23, 24, 42, 91, 164 Pythiades 177 Ratton, C. 30–31 Rowe, A. 94, 101 Rutilius Lupus 170–172 Sarapion (gymnasiarch) 72 Sarapion, son of Papos 176–177 Seleukos, son of Antiochus I 106 n.30 Septimius Severus 168 Simonides 211 n.1 Strabo 211 Stratonike, wife of Antiochus I 106 n.30 Tewfik Effendi Boulos 24 Theokritos 218 Trajan 212 Traleis (Thracian) 138, 139 Wellington, Duke of 13 Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, U. von 218 Young, Thomas 13, 14, 20, 22–4 Zenon 38, 227–9

B. Divine names Amon-Ra 25, 28, 136 Anoubis 48, 55, 89–91, 101, 153, 167, 177, 227, 228–229, 231, 243 Aphrodite 49, 77 n.5, 153, 154, 166, 264, 267 Aphrodite/Ourania (Hathor) 20, 28–30, 99, 101 n.11, 109 Apis bull 47, 53 n.20, 107 Apollo 63, 81

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/8/2020, SPi

350

Index of Names

Artemis 63, 84, 231 Asklepios 81 n.1 Athena 61, 63 Boubastis (Bastet) 84, 106, 107, 112 Demeter 88–89 Dioskouroi 195 Harpokrates (see also Horos the Child) 77, 79, 96, 98 n.2 Hathor (see also Aphrodite) 109 Herakles 128, 150, 154 Hermes 128, 154 Hermouthis 122 Heron 152, 157 Hestia 86 Horus 57–58, 100, 108, 246, 247 Hors the Child (Harpokrates) 77 n.5, 81 Isis 7, 77–92, 99, 108–10, 119, 134, 136, 153–4, 175, 197, 236, 240–2, 244, 246–7 Khnub 143, 145 Khnum 154 Kore 88–89

Min (Koptite, see also Pan) 32 Montu 25 Osiris 35, 44, 55, 57, 77 n.5, 104–5, 108, 230 Osiris -Apis 77 n.5, 99, 101 Pan (Min) 123, 135, 136, 154, 214–15 Pnepheros (crocodile god) 122 Pramarres 122, 190, 191, 196 Sarapis 77–92, 99, 101, 104, 107–10, 112, 122–3, 134, 136, 154, 238, 240–2, 244, 246–7 Sobek (Sokonnobchnoubis) (crocodile god, see also Pnepheros, Souchos) 122 Souchos (crocodile god) 54–5, 57–58, 148 n.79, 155, 197 Thoth 103 n.22 Zeus 84–85, 88 n.40 Olympios 116 Soter 109, 150, 154, 236 Synomosios 85 n.33, 116

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/8/2020, SPi

General Index Alexandrian Triad 77 Altars 73, 74, 77, 78, 85, 86, 107, 116, 128, 154, 155, 168, 176, 187, 203, 204, 229, 231, 236, 244 Anfuchi Triad 92 Antiquities trade 11, 20–34, 101 Assembly (ekklesia) 5, 65, 70, 73, 186 Associations 73, 84, 128, 130, 137, 142, 143, 145, 179–207 regulations of 193 Asylia 6, 47, 52, 53, 74, 156–7, 163–5, 250, 251 Basilistai 143–145, 190, 191, 192 Battle of Raphia 87, 90 n.46 Bilingual texts 94, 100, 111, 123–125 Boubastieion 83–4, 96, 99, 131, 137, 139 Bouleutai 62 Boundary stone 156 British Museum 29–30 Building inscriptions 47, 162 Burial grounds 183 Cavalrymen 72 n.56, 138–9, 142, 155, 237 n.28 kleruchs (katoikoi hippeis) 136, 143, 150 officers (hipparchai) 143, 146, 151, 152 Childbirth 84, 208–9 Chiliarchoi 156 Citizenship 5, 62, 64, 68–70, 72 City government 5, 60, 70–73 Copenhagen Associations Project 180 Coptic 28, 163 Council (βουλή) 61, 63, 64, 70, 72 Courts (jury) 63 Curse tablets 110 Cypriots 138 Decorative motifs 191, 195, 197, 202 Decrees 47, 53, 162, 173, 183, 184, 185–7 priestly 111, 202, 250–259, (see also Kanopos Decree, Rosetta Stone) Dedications 47–50, 53, 78, 80, 81, 94, 105, 114–129, 183, 184, 187–191, 208–225 dative case 131 Deipneteria (dining-halls) 195 Demes 62, 63, 70 n.47 demotics 69–70 Demotic texts 21, 35–58, 47, 49, 119, 127, 155, 180, 181

Description de l’Egypte 21 Dioiketes (finance officer) 66, 71, 72 Dionysiac Artists 74, 204 Dioskouriastai 191 Dreams 108, 115, 195, 203 Dromos 195, 203 Dynastic cult 3, 68, 73, 110–12, 118–120, 126, 154–5 Egyptian Museum, Cairo 32 Elephant hunts 133, 134, 135, 214 Elites 173–7 Emotions 219 Ephebes 54, 67, 72, 191, 197, 198 Epigrams 7, 35–6, 61, 128, 208–225 Epiphany (of Pan) 214–15 Epitaphs 38, 162, 183, 208–25 Esprit de corps 129, 135, 154 Ethnicity 4, 6, 62, 69, 133, 217 Euergetism 130, 186, 203 European Space Agency (ESA) 18 Exegetes 65–6, 142 Festivals 73–4, 106 ‘First Friend’ 84, 138, 143, 156 Formulae 114–126 εὐχήν-formula 79, 121 ὑπέρ-formula 115–117, 130, 131, 155, 156 Foundation plaques 7, 28–32, 43, 59, 79–80, 85, 87, 94–113, 114, 131, 227, 229–31 Funerary inscriptions 49, 52, 128, 162, 183 Garrisons 72, 139, 140 Garrison commanders (phrourarchs) 141, 145–146 Gemstones 100, 102 Gerousia 66–7 Glassmaking 102 Graeco-Roman Museum, Alexandria 76 Graffiti 35, 38, 136, 159, 160, 163, 176, 191 Great Revolt (205–186) 136, 154 ‘Greek cities’ 59–75, 185, 187 n.12, 203 Gymnasium 5, 66, 67, 72, 84, 128, 147–150, 151, 154, 166, 186, 187 n.12, 197, 209 Gynaikonomoi 64 Harpokratieion 81 Hellenization 60, 61, 69, 211 Herman’s bridge 218

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/8/2020, SPi

352

General Index

Hieroglyphic texts 24, 35–58, 47, 49, 94–113, 127, 131, 216, 217 Horoi 183–4 Idumaeans 6, 129 n.4, 165 n.12, 187, 189, 247 Infantry officers see chiliarchoi Ink 94 Intermarriage (epigamia) 69 Isiac hymns 7, 208 Jews 6, 92, 117–18, 209, 211–14, 220, 220–2 Kanopos Decree 119, 202, 253–5, 257–8 Kleruch (see also cavalry kleruchs) 124, 136, 153 Komasterion (procession-house) 105 Lageion 90 Landowners 186, 188 Language 205 Latin texts 169 Letter-forms 234–250, 265–267 cursive 8, 22, 163, 167, 229, 230–2 Lintels 42–43, 49 Literacy 103, 125 Macedonians 148–50, 152 Machairophoroi (sabre-bearers) 143, 156 (see also Royal Guard), Magistrates 65, 70, 71 Meeting-places 183, 193 Mercenaries 227 Metals 102 Metre 208, 218, 220 Metrical texts 208–25 Metropoleis (nome-capitals) 183, 184, 187 n.12 Metropolitan Museum of Art 29 Minerals 102, 111 Mobility 132–136 Model tools 98 Multilingual texts 20, 34 Mummies 44–47, 53 Museum of Port Said 32 Names (onomastics) 53–4, 121–2, 204–5, 211, 213, 217 Neoteroi 70 n.53 New Kingdom 103 Offering tables 49 Offering vessels 98, 111 Officers (civic) 61, 62, 63, 65 Ostraka 159–62, 164 n.11 Palaeography 8, 75, 162–3, 226–67 Pantheos 86

Papyri 127, 159–178, 180, 181, 182, 186, 205–6 Petitions 154, 155, 156–157 Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology 32 Philae Lander 18, 19 Phratries 69–70 Poleis see Greek Cities Politeuma 148, 187, 189 Portrait sculpture 115 Priests 11, 24, 53–5, 81, 85, 89,103, 119, 141, 144–5, 147–50, 154164, 166, 173, 205, 241–4 of Athena 61, 63 of dynastic cult 68 n.39, 112, 119 of Isis 57 of the king 148, 150 of Zeus 74, 85, 116, 244 Promotion (military) 151–152 Proskynemata 6, 127–9, 136, 162, 171, 227 n.7 Punched texts 94 Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) 5, 15, 16 Rosetta spacecraft 19 Rosetta Stone 20, 172–3, 255–7 Royal Guard 139, 142, 143, 146, 156 Sacrifices 186 Sarapieion (Alexandria) 30, 77–85, 90–1, 94–5, 95–5, 98–9, 101–8, 112 Sarcophagi 44–47 Saviour Gods (Soteres) 82, 87, 88, 109–10, 134, 259–63 Schøyen Collection 31 Scripts 62–3, 227–232 cursive 22, 167 n.20, 229–32 Greek civic/chancery 231, 233–4 Egyptian 231–2, 241, 243–7, 257–8 Signatures 127 Slavery 62–3 Social capital 131–132, 142, 150, 152, 157 Soldiers 123, 127–158 families of 152 Soma (Mausoleum of Alexander) 91 Statues 39–42, 47–8, 78, 81 n.18, 89, 91 n.47, 127, 137, 139, 187, 203 of gods 106, 107 Stelai 127, 136, 146, 190, 191 Greek and Egyptian style 4 n.14, 35–58, 68, 227–32 Strategoi 146 Symbolism (of materials) 102 Synagogues 6, 93 n.51 Synbasilistai 191 Syrian goddess 154

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 28/8/2020, SPi

General Index Temple-building 154–156 Temples 28, 73–4, 94, 98, 100, 165–8, 193, 203 Egyptian 154, 156–157 of Aphrodite-Berenike 154 of Apollo 204 of Arsinoe-Aphrodite 153 of Artemis (Ephesus) 98 of Haroeris-Apollo 155 of Isis 7, 49, 73, 76, 153 of Hathor 30 of Herakles 106 of Onias 212–214 of Pnepheros 153 of Pnepheros 197 of Souchos 155 Theoi Adelphoi 75 Thesmophorion 88 Tombs 35 Tools 111

353

Topos inscriptions 183, 191–202, 203 Translation 20 Travel 133 Tribes (phylai) 62, 63, 70 n.47 UNESCO Convention (1970) 34 University of Pennsylvania Museum 32 Villages 183, 184, 185, 186, 195, 203 Women 7, 8, 35–6, 64, 74 n.60, 84, 124, 153, 174, 176, 208–9, 211–12, 221–2, 232 Xenoi Apolloniatai 191, 193, 194, 204–6 Zenon archive 229 Ἔξω τάξεων 146–9 Ἐπὶ στάσεων 147 Πλῆθος 143