Remarks on the Data of Some Inscriptions

Author(s): P. J. Sijpesteijn
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 93 (1992), pp. 151-152
Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20188752 .
Accessed: 11/03/2013 04:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 04:47:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 151

Remarks on theData of Some Inscriptions

(1) I.K0.K0.1 4a
In thefirst line of this inscriptionof only two linesBernand deciphered fA6(piavou) y
which he translatesas ?l'an 3 d'Hadrien?. Inhis note on thislinehe gives severalreasonswhy his
translationis strangealthoughhe does notmention theabsence of ?xou? or thesymbol thereof.
True, when someone feels the urge to inscribe his and/or other names on a monument he usually
mentions the regnal year, themonth and the day of his performance. However, examples of such
inscriptions mentioning only themonth and day are not rare.21.Ko.Ko.4a also mentions only the
month and theday ofAnnion's inscription:'A5(piavo?) y = Xo?aK y = November 29/30.3This
implies for the date of this inscription thatwe cannot say exactly when itwas inscribed except that
itwas inscribed at some 29th/30th November after the introduction of the honorific month-name
'ASpiav?c.4

(2) LKo.Ko. 40
According to thelatesteditorthisinscription was dated to the2nd regnalyearof theemperor
Tiberius: Ti?[e]p[i]ou (?xou?) ?. It is rathercurious thatthename of theemperor("r?duite? son
expression la plus simple") would precede (?xou?) ?. On planche 35 (not 40 as stated in the
introduction one can find an admirablyclear squeeze of thisinscription
to thisinscription) and see
I
thatlines3 and4 of Ko.Ko.40 arenotGreek butDemotic.5The exactdate of thisinscription can,
therefore, not be established.

(3)I.FayoumI643
were published as follows: (?xou?) ?, xoi&(k) 6. I (?xc?v)
Lines 5 and 6 of thisinscription
i6.7 It seems strange that the age of the deceased was added as an afterthought after the date of the
inscription. On planche 32 (once again a photograph of excellent quality) one can see what actually
happened.The stone-cutter startedline5 ratherfar to therightand ran intodifficulties
when he
triedto squeeze in themonth and theday at itsend.On topof thathemade a mistake, sincehe

1This
siglum stands forA. Bemand, De Koptos ? Kosseir, Leiden 1972.
2
Cf., e.g., A. et E. Bemand, Les inscriptions grecques et latines du Colosse de Memnon, Le Caire
1960, nos. 46, 59, 67.
3
Unfortunately this conclusion cannot be supported by I.Ko.Ko. 73 where Bemand, following
Th. Reinach, tought to see above line 1 to the rightTu?i ?. Above I.Ko.Ko. 73 there stands not Greek
but Demotic (cf. H.-J. Thissen, Enchoria 9, 1979, 67, text no. 6a).
4 Cf. K.
Scott, Greek and Roman Honorific Months, YC1S II, 1929, 261f. Cf. also BASP 28, 1991,
104.
5
My impression was confirmed by S. P. Vleeming whom I consulted on this inscription and
whom I thank for his advice. In a letter (dated February 2, 1992) he states as his opinion that lines 3
and 4 of I.Ko.Ko. 40 contain the rests of 2 demotic graffiti which cannot be read totally or with
certainty (this is probably the reason why theywere not published by Thissen [cf. footnote 3]).
6 This
siglum stands for E. Bemand, Recueil des inscriptions grecques du Fayoum. Tome I: La
"m?ris" d'H?rakleid?s, Leiden 1975.
7 In a remark on line 6 Bemand writes "Le
sigle de l'?ge manque."

This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 04:47:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
152 P.J. Sijpesteijn

inscribedxoiaQ insteadof xoiai?L He did thebesthe could and changed (ratherclumsily) the9 at
theend of line5 intoa k and added theday (i8) in a separate,sixth line.This inscriptionhas,
therefore,tobe dated toXoiaK i0 (December 15/16)of an unknown6th regnalyear.

(4)I.FayoumII*123
Bernand read themonth in line 8 as Xoia[x] - -.On planche 27 we find a very clear
photographof thestone.It seems tome thatthe?aces which theeditor tookas a part (ia) of the
month-name are in fact the last letters of line 8, i.e. they represent the day of themonth, either ia or

up whichwould leadus to ['AGJ?p

i5.1 thinkthatit ispossible toread infrontof thesetwo letters
ia/i8. Ifmy readings are correct this inscription has to be dated to*
November 8 or 10,A.D. 127.

University of Amsterdam P.J. Sijpesteijn

8 This des inscriptions grecques du Fayoum. Tome II: La

siglum stands for E. Bemand, Recueil
"m?ris" de Themistos, Le Caire 1981.

This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 04:47:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions