MOHAMED G.

ELMAGHRABI

A D EDICATION Z EUS H ELIOS M EGAS S ARAPIS

TO
ON A GAZOPHYLAKION FROM A LEXANDRIA

aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 200 (2016) 219–228

© Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn

 219

A D EDICAT ION TOZ EUS H ELIOS M EGAS SA R A PIS

ON A GA Z OPH Y L A K ION F ROM A LEX A N DR I A 1

An inscribed basalt block was incidentally found by me in a street market in Alexandria (Souq El-Hadara –
Ancient Eleusis). The stone was reutilized by one of the merchants as a stand for the umbrella which he
used to protect the vegetables from the sun. I informed the authorities to confiscate the stone and later trans-
ported it to the Graeco-Roman Museum of Alexandria where it is preserved under inventory number 31949.
The block is quadrangular and measures h. 15 cm, w. 30 cm and d. 25 cm. Three sides of the block are
inscribed; front = side A, right = side B and left = side D, while the back = side C is uninscribed. The three
inscriptions seem to be contemporarily written as is evident from the shape of the letters and the tendency
towards similar ligatures (see appendix).
The top surface has a central recess of hemispherical shape of which the upper diameter is slightly
oval and measures 18 × 15 cm, the bottom ends in a round hole with a diameter of c. 4 cm. The block is
quite well preserved, despite the wears and breakings along the edges and corners (especially the upper
edge of face D and the angle of CD). The upper surface of the block is carefully polished as well as the
surface of the opening and all sides A–D. The bottom surface is roughly cut, with remains of what might
be ancient sealant. The surviving stone was inserted into another structure no longer preserved. As stated
in the inscription, the block was part of a γαζοφυλάκιον, a box determined to collect money for a particular
purpose, an offertory box.
The subject of the main inscription (side A) is a dedication (ex voto – εὐχή)2 of a γαζοφυλάκιον and
various objects to Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis made by Publius Iulius Pius who was centurio cohortis
and τριήραρχος of a Liburnian ship. The other two sides, B and D, include two προσκυνήματα of an
ἐπίτροπος – procurator named Tiberius Claudius Ionicus and a woman Claudia Thetis (apparently Ionicus’
wife).

Text
Front side (A):
This main inscription of the block consists of eight lines executed by the same stonecutter as the other two
faces. The first part of the first line, which contained the name of the deity, has been damaged; however, we
can still trace some letters at the beginning of that line whereas letterheads in the middle towards the end
of the line are missing.
The height of the letters of the first six lines is 1.1 cm and 1.2 cm, while the height of the letters in the
last two lines ranges from 1.5 cm to 1.7 cm.
[∆ΙΙΗΛΙΩΙ]ΜΕΓΑΛΩΙΣΑ[ΡΑ]ΠΙ∆ΙΤΟΝΓΙΓΑΝΤΑΚΑΙΤΟΓΑΖ[Ο]
ΦΥΛΑΚΙΟΝΚΑΙΤΑΠΕΡΙΑΥΤΟΠΑΝΤΑΚΑΙΤΟΝΠΙΝΑΚΑΚΑΙΠΡΟΣ
ΤΩΚΟΛΟΣΣΩΤΑΣΤΥΛΑΡΙΑΚΑΙΤΑΣΕΠΑΥΤΟΙΣΠΡΟΤΟ
ΜΑΣΚΑΙΤΟΒΗΜΑΚΑΙ∆ΕΛΦΙΚΗΝΤΡΑΠΕΖΑΝΕΠΙ
5 ΓΕΓΡΑΜΜΕΝΗΝΠΟΠΛΙΟΣΙΟΥΛΙΟΣΠΕΙΟΣ
ΓΕΝΟΜΕΝΟ[Σ]ΡΤΑΡΧΗΣΣΠΙΡΗΣΚΑΙΤΡΙΗΡΑΡΧΗΣΑΣ
ΛΙΒΥΡΝΟΥΕΥΧΗΝ
1 I thank F. Burkhalter and C. Römer for their support and helpful advice and discussions on various occasions, as well as
W. Eck for commenting on a previous version of this paper.
2 Rouse’s treatment of votive offerings still remains the major study on the subject, but is substantially outdated as far
as archaeological and epigraphical evidence is concerned, cf. W. H. D. Rouse, Greek Votive Offerings (Cambridge 1902);
W. Eisenhut, RE Suppl. XIV (1974) 964–973 s.v. votum; D. Wachsmuth, Der Kleine Pauly V (1975) 1355–1359 s.v. Weihungen,
provides a good introduction to the topic. See also the forthcoming I. Weinryb (ed.), Ex voto. Votive Giving across Cultures
(New York 2016).
220 M. G. Elmaghrabi

Right side (B):

The right side has four complete lines. The size of the letters is larger than those on the front. They measure
1.5 cm in the first line and almost 2.0 cm in the following two. The fourth line begins with letters 2.5 cm
high and ends with letters 1.5 cm high.
ΤΟΠΡΟΣΚΥΝΗΜΑ
ΤΙΒΕΡΙΟΥΚΛΥ∆ΙΟΥΙΩΝΙΚΟΥ
ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΟΥΩ∆Ε
ΚΑΙΘΕΤΙ∆ΟΣΕΠΑΓΑΘΩΙ

Left side (D):

This side has four lines. The first two thirds of the first line are broken away; this did not happen on purpose
as the shape of the broken part demonstrates. The size of the letters is larger than the letters on the front,
and on the right sides. They measure 2.5 cm.
[ΤΙΒΕΡΙΟΥΚΛ]ΑΥ∆ΙΟΥ
ΙΩΝΙΚΟΥΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΟΥ
ΚΑΙΚΛΑΥ∆ΙΑΣΘΕΤΙ∆ΟΣ
ΕΝΘΑ∆Ε

The reading text is:

Front side (A):
[∆ιὶ Ἡλίωι] μεγάλωι Σα[ρά]πιδι τὸν γίγαντα καὶ τὸ γαζ[ο]/φυλάκιον καὶ τὰ περὶ αὐτὸ πάντα
καὶ τὸν πίνακα καὶ πρὸς / τῶ κολόσσω τὰ στυλάρια καὶ τὰς ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς προτο/μὰς καὶ τὸ
βῆμα καὶ δελφικὴν τράπεζαν ἐπι/γεγραμμένην Πόπλιος Ἰούλιος Πείος / γενόμενο[ς] (ἑκα-
τον)τάρχης σπίρης καὶ τριηραρχήσας / λιβυρνοῦ εὐχη ́ν.

Right side (B):

τὸ προσκύνημα / Τιβερίου Κλ(α)υδίου Ἰωνικοῦ / ἐπιτρόπου ὧδε / καὶ Θέτιδος ἐπ’ ἀγαθῶι.

Left side (D):

[Τιβερίου Κλ]αυδίου / Ἰωνικοῦ ἐπιτρόπου / καὶ Κλαυδίας Θέτιδος / ἐνθάδε.

Translation:
A: To Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis, Pu⹂b⹃lius Iulius Pius, ex-centurio cohortis, ex-trierarch of a
Liburnian (ship) (dedicated) the Gigas(?), the offertory box and all that is part of it, the tablet/
plaque, and in front of the statue the half-pillars and the busts above them, the bema, and a
Delphian decorated table. ex voto. (In fulfillment of a vow.)
B: This is the proskynema of Tiberius Claudius Ionicus, procurator, and Thetis. For their good.
D: (This is the proskynema) of Tiberius Claudius Ionicus, procurator, and Claudia Thetis.

Discussion
The identification of the block as a part of a θησαυρός is confirmed by the main inscription on side A,
ll. 1–2, which refers to a γαζοφυλάκιον.3 The treasuries of temples, for which the terminus technicus in

3 The main work on offertory boxes is G. Kaminski’s extensive study of the physical typology of stone boxes, concen-
trating primarily on aspects of construction, shape and locking mechanisms (Thesauros. Untersuchungen zum antiken Opfer-
stock, JdI 106, 1991, 63–181). Since the work of Kaminiski other examples have been published with important commentaries:
F. Catalli, J. Scheid, Le thesaurus de Sora, Rev. Num. 36 (1994) 55–65; D. Knoepfler, Le tronc à offrande d’un néocore érétrien,
Antike Kunst 41 (1998) 101–115, pl. 20. More recently a new θησαυρός was studied by S. Ranucci, A Stone Thesaurus with
a Votive Coin Deposit Recently Found in the Sanctuary of Campo della Fiera, Orvieto (Volsinii), in Proceedings of the XIV
 A Dedication to Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis on a gazophylakion 221

Greece was θησαυρός, were of a twofold nature and capacity, namely, treasure-chests or offertory boxes
and treasure-chambers; the latter being a place where valuable belongings were kept, while the former is
an offertory box where worshipper could donate money to the deity either as a cult fee to participate in the
rituals or as voluntary donation. The block has all the characteristics of this class of objects, and in particu-
lar the hemispherical recess with the hole allowing the coins to be collected in a separate container (a small
box of metal, stone or clay) located below it. It is clear that the block rested on another object which must
have been the container for the collected money, as the inscription is supposed to be visible to the viewer
and not low and near the ground; face C, bearing no writing, probably faced a wall.
The reading of the first object of the dedication constituted some difficulty as the heads of the letters
are missing. The reading of the definite article τόν is sure as well as αντα. Depending on other ligatures,
which are common feature in the inscription (see Apendix), F. Burkhalter proposed the word γίγαντα as
a possible restoration. If this is correct, the block is one of a tripartite θησαυρός, with a statue of a Gigas
above it, perhaps functionally integrated into the γαζοφυλάκιον. Some θησαυροί had some sort of pro-
tection usually in the form of a serpent,4 mostly decorative, but sometimes functionally integrated into
the θησαυρός as in the case of IG XI 4. 1247 where a poem shows that a Gorgon was located above the
θησαυρός and was functionally incorporated into it; through the mouth of the gorgon a coin can be thrown
by the worshipper, passing through it and collected in the container, in this case the Gorgon’s belly.5 A
similar contrivance is also attested in the only other θησαυρός found in Egypt in the temple of Asklepios
and Hygieia at Ptolemais in the imperial period.6 In this case, a coiled-serpent constituted the lid of a now-
lost round receptacle; in the middle of the coils of the serpent, there is a narrow, well-worn slit of 4.5 cm,
which is close to the diameter of the hole in our θησαυρός.7 ‘Gigas’ may refer to many figures, and we have
to keep in mind that Gigantes and Titani are employed indiscriminately to denote the same mythological
creatures. The more probable Gigas could be a Typhon, who was associated with Egypt, being identified
with the Egyptian Seth, who became a target of execration “ritual of overthrowing Seth and his Crew”.8
Furthermore, as there is no sign of a locking system on the stone, it is possible that the now lost container
had some sort of opening with locks to remove the coins;9 the expression τὰ περὶ αὐτὸ πάντα (l. 2) may
refer, among other things, to this locking system.

Provenance
The investigation, both by the police and by myself, led to no conclusion about the provenance of the block;
the merchant informed us that he found it in the debris thrown on the shore of the Mahmoudeya Canal.
Though it is tempting to ascribe the block to the great Sarapeum of Alexandria, the provenance can not be
assigned to it with certainty. The dedication may have belonged to one of the small shrines of Sarapis in
Alexandria, at Eleusis, for example, or Nikopolis or even Canopus. Although Eleusis seems to be a prob-
able origin as it is the nearest site to the find spot, the geographical distribution of epigraphic attestations
for Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis throughout all of Egypt following the network of Roman military instal-
Intern. Num. Cong. (Glasgow 2011) 954–963. For the role of the θησαυροί in the rituals see I. A. Pafford, Cult Fees and the
Ritual of Money in Greek Sanctuaries of the Classical and Hellenistic Period, Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of California (2006).
4 See Kaminski (supra n. 3), 91–98.
5 This poem is inscribed on a θησαυρός from Delos, from around 20 BC, dedicated to Sarapis, Isis and Anoubis – the
missed figure describes itself as γοργώ, i.e. a horrible figure (see Kaminski, supra n. 3, 89–90, who does not exclude other
mythological monsters).
6 See C. C. Edgar, A Thesuarus from Egypt, ZÄS 40 (1902/03) 139–140.
7 The coiled serpent as a protector of a receptacle is attested in the Egyptian tradition in the story of Setne Khamwas
and Naneferkaptah. In this story, which was written in the Ptolemaic period, an ever living serpent coiled around the chest (or
sarcophagus; the story has tby.t) in which the book of Thoth was kept (P. Cairo 30646, see W. K. Simpson, ed., The Literature
of Ancient Egypt, 3rd ed., New Haven, Conn. 2003, 456–457).
8 See R. Lucarelli, Demonology during the Late Pharaonic and Greco-Roman Periods in Egypt, Journal of Ancient Near
Eastern Religions 11 (2011) 109–125.
9 For the locking system see Kaminski (supra n. 3), 80 ff. esp. 82 ff.
222 M. G. Elmaghrabi

lations10 makes Nikopolis, the site of the most important military camp, the most probable provenance of
our inscription. The removal of the inscription from its original site may be ascribed to the late 19th century
when the Khedive’s palace was built there.11

Archaeological context
Although the object was not found in situ, a tentative reconstruction of its archaeological context may be
elaborated based on its internal textual context and in comparison with other evidence. It is clear from
the text that the dedication consisted of two sets of objects. The first set (ll. 1–2): τὸν γίγαντα καὶ τὸ
γαζ[ο]φυλάκιον καὶ τὰ περὶ αὐτὸ πάντα καὶ τὸν πίνακα. Where θησαυροί were found in situ, it appears
that they were located near the altar, in the temple/cult room, not far from the temple or small shrine or even
in public places near sanctuaries.12 The other sets of objects are indicated to be near the colossus (ll. 2–3:
καὶ πρὸς τῷ κολόσσῳ) and included (ll. 3–5) the half-pillars and the busts above them, the bema, and an
inscribed “Delphian Table”.
It is evident that the two sets of objects were near each other, for they should have been visible to those
who read the inscription. In a passage of Heron, Pneumatica II 21, the θησαυρός is mentioned in connec-
tion with the wheel (ἁγνιστήριον), which the worshipers turn upon entering the temple. The address of the
recipient of a letter of AD 217–218, from Oxyrhynchos,13 was a θαλλοδότης standing under the Pylon of
the Sarapeum at Oxyrhynchus near the great image of the god, μεγάλη εἴκων (i.e colossus?). The role of the
θαλλοδότης was to offer palm branches to those entering the temple, and this would be a good occasion
for worshippers to throw money into the γαζοφυλάκιον. It is more probable, therefore, that the group of the
objects in our inscription were located at the entrance of the temple and not inside the cult room, with the
γαζοφυλάκιον standing at the entrance against some wall on which the πίναξ was also hanging,14 not far
from the colossus in front of which the other set of objects stood.

Dating
A terminus post quem may be determined by the names of the ἐπίτροπος and his wife (face B and D), who
are both Claudii. The absence of the designation ἀπελεύθερος15 makes it quite possible that they are not
freedmen of Claudius or Nero themselves, but rather descendants of such a freedman, or that their families
had at some point acquired the Roman citizenship under Claudius or Nero and adopted the imperial name.
Many Tiberii Claudii are attested in Alexandria;16 they seem to have belonged to the elite families who
acquired Roman citizenship under Tiberius or Nero and held municipal magistracies during the first cen-
tury AD. Since Claudius died in AD 54, Ionicus and Thetis could hardly have lived later than AD 110, and
16 years later if they acquired their citizenship under Nero.
10 See L. Bricault, Zeus Hélios Mégas Sarapis, in Chr. Gannuyer et al. (ed.), La langue dans tous ses états. Michel Malaise
in honorem (Acta Orientalia Belgica 18; Bruxelles 2005) 243–254; H. Cuvigny, The Shrine in the Praesidium of Dios (Eastern
Desert of Egypt): Graffiti and Oracles in Context, Chiron 40 (2010) 245–299; G. Tallet, Zeus Hélios Megas Sarapis: un dieu
égyptien ‘pour les Romains’?, in N. Belayche, J.-D. Dubois (dir.), L’oiseau et le poisson: cohabitations religieuses dans les
mondes grec et romain (Paris 2011) 227–261.
11 Cf. R. Alston, Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt: A Social History (London–New York 1995) 192.
12 Kaminski (supra n. 3), 115–120; M. E. Gorrini – M. Melfi, L’archéologie des cultes guérisseurs. Quelques observations,
Kernos 15 (2002), 247–265, esp. specially 256 for a discussion on the thesauri in temples of Asklepios; Ranucci (supra n. 3).
13 P.Oxy. XLIII 3094.
14 For votive plaques display see G. Salapata, Greek Votive Plaques: Manufacture, Display, Disposal, BABesch 77 (2002)
19–42, esp. 28, fig. 28 (see infra comm. ad l. 2).
15 This cannot be taken as a definite indication that he was not an imperial freedman; it seems that the tria nomina in
itself would suffice as indication of his imperial servile status: Marcus Ulpius Chresimos, ἐπίτροπος τῶν μετάλλων, appears in
two inscriptions: in the first (Pan du desert, 21), where his tria nomina are used, no freedman designation is used, in the second
(Pan du desert, 42), where only his cognomen appears, the freedman indication is used.
16 Many Tiberii Claudii are attested in Alexandria; they seem to have belonged to the elite families who acquired Roman
citizenship and held municipal magistracies during the first century AD; see the prosopography of Greek Alexandrians in
D. Delia, Roman Alexandria: Studies in its Social History, Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Columbia (1983) 286 ff.
 A Dedication to Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis on a gazophylakion 223

From the name of the dedicator, Publius Iulius Pius, nothing can be gained for the purpose of dating
because his praenomen and his nomen gentile are common through the imperial period. However, since
trierarchs were freedmen until the end of Nero’s reign,17 and as we deal with a Roman citizen here, we
should expect a dating after Nero. Therefore the second century AD may be the more plausible dating.
Another more secure criterion for dating our inscription into the second century AD is Zeus Helios
Megas Sarapis, a divinity attested in many inscriptions during the reign of Trajan and Hadrian and after.
The spectrum of the chronological and geographical extension of epigraphic attestations for Zeus Helios
Megas Sarapis draws part of a process of creation and diffusion of the god through the second and third
centuries of our era, the reigns of Trajan to Caracalla.18 The first known attestation with a relatively precise
date comes from the reign of Trajan.19

The dedicator Publius Iulius Pius ex-centurio cohortis and ex-trierarch

The dedicator’s name may betray him as being of African origin, probably from Numidia, where most of
the P. Iulii are attested, but of course no final conclusion is possible. He served in an auxiliary unit as a
centurio cohortis and also held the office of a τριήραρχος of a Liburnian ship in the navy. It seems difficult
to reconstruct his actual career since he is not giving his cursus, but only – probably – two stages, which
are relevant for his dedication; as centurio he made a votum, as τριήραρχος he fulfilled his vow – or vice
versa.20 According to Preisigke, in Egypt the sequence of municipal offices in papyri usually occurs in
ascending (sequential) order whereas the sequence of offices in inscriptions usually occurs in descending
(reverse) order beginning with the highest down to the lowest ranking office.21 If the same practice is
applied here it would mean that Pius was first a τριήραρχος then a centurio cohortis.
There is not enough documentation to decide which rank was considered higher, τριήραρχος or cen-
turio cohortis, and it may be a mere transfer and not necessarily a promotion. “For the crew the centurio
classiarius is similar to the centurio cohortis, still it is ranked under it, because the latter can be promoted
to the legionary centurionate, and for the same reason it is ranked under the trierarchy.”22 This implies
that both the centurio cohortis and the τριήραρχος are equal in rank, as both of them can be promoted
to the legionary centurionate. The trierarchy, as Starr stated,23 must have been filled by promotion from
below, but for the lack of evidence we can not draw a clear picture of the promotion system especially in
the provincial fleets, and some were probably enrolled as such (i.e. as trierarchs).24

17 E. Sander, Zur Rangordnung des römischen Heeres: die Flotten, Historia 6 (1957) 347–367.
18 See Bricault (supra n. 10); Cuvigny (supra n. 10); Tallet (supra n. 10).
19 Mons Claudianus: SB V 8323 (AD 109–117); for a list of all attestations known so far cf. Bricault (supra n. 10), n. 17.
See also W. Eck, Sarapis und die legio VI Ferrata. Die Weihung einer Sarapisbüste für das Wohl des Kaisers, ZPE 198 (2016)
211–217.
20 Linguistically speaking the inscription reads ll. 6–7: γενομένο[ς] (ἑκατον)τάρχης σπίρης καὶ τριηραρχήσας λιβυρνοῦ.
Both γενόμενος with a substantive and the aorist participle are used to denote previous positions held by the dedicator, the only
parallel for both of them, copulated with καί to express previous positions, are some examples from Ephesos which show that
γενόμενος with a substantive is used to refer to the former position and the aorist participle to refer to an action performed
after holding that position: γενόμενος ἱερεὺς Ῥώμης ἐν τῶι ἐπὶ Γλαύκωνος ἐνιαυτῶι καὶ ἀγωνοθετήσας τὰ ∆ιονύσια ἐκ
τῶν ἰδίων. In the same inscription this construction was interchangeably used with two consecutive aorist participles, in which
the first aor. part. is also the former position: ἱερατεύσας τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπὶ Ἀγαθήνορος καὶ ἀγωνοθετήσας τὰ ∆ιονύσια παρ’
ἑαυτοῦ. It seems that it is a mere grammatical variant and does not refer to any priority, and that the two offices were listed in
chronological order.
21 F. Preisigke, Städtisches Beamtenwesen im römischen Ägypten (Halle 1903) 40.
22 E. Sander (supra n. 17), 355.
23 Ch. G. Starr, The Roman Imperial Navy 31 BC – AD 324, 2 nd ed. (London 1960) 45.
24 D. Kienast, Untersuchungen zu den Kriegsflotten der römischen Kaiserzeit (Bonn 1968) 21; all instances of advance-
ments to the trierachy are discussed in M. Reddé, La Rangordnung des marins, in Y. Le Bohec (ed.), La hiérarchie (Rang-
ordnung) de l’armée romaine sous le Haut-Empire, Actes du congrès de Lyon, 15–18 septembre 1994 (Paris 1995) 151–154.
224 M. G. Elmaghrabi

Pius did not mention any other details about his career such as the number and the name of the cohort;
many Iulii are attested in the prosopography of the Roman army in Egypt, belonging to different units, but
they were mostly Gaii, never Publii.25
It is not known in which fleet Pius had served, either in the classis Alexandrina or in the Misenian fleet
which was also represented in Egypt, as for example in the funerary στήλη probably from Tell Moqdam
(II/III AD) of the trierarch Publius Papirius Apollonius from the praetorian fleet.26 Other dedications erect-
ed by trierarchs from the Alexandrian fleet in Egypt include two Greek inscriptions27 and one dedication
in Latin from Akoris.28 The presence of members of the Alexandrian fleet in Akoris was associated with
the service of the classis Alexandrina Augusta in the Nile Police: the ποταμοφυλακία.29 A trierach on an
ostracon from Coptus of the first half of the 1st century AD was also connected with the presence of the
Roman fleet in the Red Sea.30
Ti. Claudius Ionicus – a new procurator in Egypt?
Sides B and D contain the προσκυνήματα of Tiberius Claudius Ionicus and his wife Claudia Thetis. On
both sides Ionicus designates himself as an ἐπίτροπος. The term ἐπίτροπος was the Greek equivalent of
Latin procurator and seems to have had a similar range of meanings.31 The term ἐπίτροπος, without any
further specification, makes it difficult to define Ionicus’ exact position in the administration. It is likely that
we are dealing here with an imperial procurator; the term ἐπίτροπος, again without further specification,
was used, e.g., in an inscription from Mons Claudianus to refer to one of these procuratores – in this case
the ἐπίτροπος μετάλλων.32
The fact that Ionicus was allowed to write his προσκύνημα on the object may refer to a connection
between Ionicus and Pius; the term ἐπίτροπος was also used for a steward who supervised the management
of an estate on behalf of the (generally absent) owner and so he may have contributed to the erection of
the dedication in some way. Two dedications are attested from Wadi Hammamat and Wadi Semna being
followed by προσκυνήματα of persons who contributed to the consecration referring to themselves as
ὁ ἐπιστήσας or ἐπὶ τῷ ἔργῳ either as overseer or the architects who constructed it.33

Notes and commentary

Side A:
1–2 The term γαζοφυλάκιον is rare in the epigraphic tradition. It was only once used in military
context for the military treasury (aerarium militare) in an inscription from Didyma of 253 B.C., OGIS 225
16–17. The usual word attested in the epigraphic sources is θησαυρός which was used for both treasury
buildings and offertory boxes.
2 τὸν πίνακα: πίναξ refers to all kinds of votive plaques which are considered as votive objects
deposited in a sanctuary regardless of their material (wood, terracotta, marble or bronze) and decoration
technique. Delos inscriptions make explicit reference to different categories: Πίνακες ἀναθεματικοί (reli-

25 R. Cavenaile, Prosopographie de l’armée romaine d’Égypte d’Auguste à Dioclétien, Aegyptus 50 (1970) 259 ff.; N. Cri-
niti, Supplemento alla prosopografia dell’esercito romano d’Egitto da Augusto a Diocleziano, Aegyptus 53 (1973) 124 ff.
26 G. Wagner, Deux inscriptions greques d’Egypte, ZPE 106 (1995) 126–130.
27 IGR 1129–1130 = SB 987–988.
28 Akoris 12, AD 203–205.
29 On this, see J. Modrzejewski, T. Zawdzki, Inscription latine d’un triérarque d’Egypte trouvée à Akôris, in Études
offertes à J. Macqueron (Aix-en-Provence 1970) 529–543.
30 G. Messeri, Un nuovo trierarco e la presenza della flotta romana nel Maro Rosso, in F. Crevatin and G. Tedeschi (edd.),
Scrivere, leggere, interpretare: studi di antichità in onore di Sergio Daris (Trieste 2005) 275–278.
31 H. J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis (Am. Stud. Pap. 30; Toronto 1974) index, 49
and 142–143. See also G. Geraci, Genesi della provincia romana d’Egitto (Bologna 1983) 164–165.
32 E. Bernand, Pan du desert, no. 38, and note ll. 5–6 p. 91.
33 OGIS 660 = Koptos à Kosseir 41 = IGRR I 1236 – SB V 8580; SEG XXVII 1112. For a discussion and interpretations
of the expression ἐπὶ τῷ ἔργῳ see A. Bernand, De Koptos à Kosseir (Leiden 1972) p. 91.
 A Dedication to Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis on a gazophylakion 225

gious-mythological paintings) and πίνακες εἰκονικοί (ideal portraits), see R. Vallois, Les Pinakes Déliens,
in Mélanges Holleaux (Paris 1913) 290–292; cf. M. Nowicka, Les portraits votifs peints dans la Grèce
antique, Eos 78 (1990) 133–136. Dedications by sailors of votive plaques are manifest in Cicero (De Natura
Deorum 3.89), where it is implied that they were decorated with representations of sailors. According to
their display, plaques may be hanging on trees or walls, laid around the altar or cult statue upon wooden
shelves or tables or on the ground, set upon pillars and columns or affixed on column shafts. In our case it is
quite possible that the plaque hanged on a wall beside the γαζοφυλάκιον, perhaps portraying Pius himself.
For further discussion see: M.-Ch. Hellmann, Recherches sur le vocabulaire de l’architecture grecque,
d’apres les inscriptions de Delos (Athens 1992), s.v. γραφή, esp. p. 93; Salapata (supra n. 14).
3–4 τὰ στυλάρια καὶ τὰς ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς προτομάς: For a discussion of the difference in terminology
between ἄγαλμα (usually a cult idol, but also in other contexts, e.g., a honorary statue set up in a temple as
an offering), ἀνδριάς (representation of a human being) and προτομή (a bust of a man or a divinity; not a
cult image in normal usage) see D. Fishwick, Statues Taxes in Roman Egypt, Historia 38 (1989) 335–347 on
pp. 340–343. The busts upon pillars may have been Hermae which seem to have been a common feature in
Alexandrian sanctuaries. An illustration can be seen on the wall painting of the tomb from Wardian where
we find a herm with the προτομή of Pan above a half-pillar located at the entrance of a sanctuary; see M. S.
Venit, The Painted Tomb from Wardian and the Decoration of Alexandrian Tombs, JARCE 25 (1988) 76.
4 τὸ βῆμα: The exact meaning of βῆμα is not certain; it has a variety of meanings, in P. Roussel,
Cultes Egyptiens, it occurs in two inscriptions from Delos; in the first, 60, 115 f., the βῆμα seems to be a
footprint, marking the passage of the deity, but in the second inscription, 151, 164 f., Roussel saw that the
marble block is an altar because it was too high. The word is also sometimes used to denote a statue base;
see M.-Ch. Hellmann, Recherches sur le vocabulaire de l’architecture grecque, d’apres les inscriptions de
Delos (Athens 1992), 69 s.v. βῆμα. For the use of the word for an altar see J. J. Coulton, Pedestals as ‘Altars’
in Roman Asia Minor, Anatolian Studies 55 (2005) 127–157, especially 136; P. Weiss, Ein agonistisches
Bema und die isopythischen Spiele von Side, Chiron 11 (1981) 315–346. A βῆμα is perhaps connected with
a θησαυρός in I.Lipara 4 l. 4: [τὸ βῆ]μα θησαυροῦ; in this case the bema was a rectangular limestone
altar with two dowel-holes on the right side to which the θησαυρός, probably a metal chest, was attached
by clamps, see G. Manganaro, Tra epigrafia e numismatica, Chiron 22 (1992) 388–390.
4–5 δελφικὴν τράπεζαν ἐπιγεγραμμένην: Delphian inscribed/ornamented table. Cult tables in general
are frequently attested in sanctuaries in connection with sacred meals, see D. Gill, Greek Cult Tables (New
York 1991) 26 ff; D. Andrianou, Late Classical and Hellenistic Furniture and Furnishings in the Epigraph-
ical Record, Hesperia 4 (2006) 561–584, 575 f.
The adjective “Delphian” denotes that the table here is made in imitation of the tripod; Valerius Maxi-
mus 4.1.7 speaks of an aurea Delphica mensa (extracta deinde magni ponderis aurea Delphica mensa orta
controuersia est) and in the same passage it is a tripod in the Greek quotation: τίς σοφίᾳ πρῶτος πάντων;
τούτῳ τρίποδ’ αὐδῶ.
Apion defines two shapes of tripods; the first for dry votive offerings called Delphian because it is
much used there, the other for burnt sacrifices and libation (Apollon., Lex. p. 154, 30 ff. Bekker = Apion,
gloss. Hom. fr. 139, ll. 2–4 Neitzel: δισσὸν γὰρ εἶδος τῶν τριπόδων, ἕτερον μὲν τῶν ἀναθηματικῶν, οὓς
∆ελφικοὺς λέγομεν διὰ τὸ πολλοὺς ἐν ∆ελφοῖς ἀνακεῖσθαι, ἕτερον δὲ τῶν καλουμένων ἐμπυριβητῶν,
ἐν οἷς θερμαίνεται τὰ λουτρά); it is surely connected with delivering of prophecies (Lucian, Pseudologista
10.4: τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ∆ελφικοῦ τρίποδος), especially of Apollo at Delphi. The Delphian tripod is also attested in
connection with delivering oracles at shrines of Sarapis in Plutarchus, De Pythiae oraculis 407 C.
∆ελφικοὶ τρίποδες are mainly made of bronze or marble but they are also mentioned at Athenaeus as
being made of silver (Deipnosophistae 5.29, l. 19) and of gold (ibidem 5.34, l. 17). Most writers speak of
∆ελφικοὶ τρίποδες but we can also find Delphian tables (τραπέζα) at Flavius Josephus (Antiquitates Judai-
cae 3.139), where he explains in detail the shape of a table similar to the Delphian tables. One may compare
Josephus’ description of such tripods with the shapes of the tripods found at Delphi (for this see C. Rolley,
Fouilles de Delphes. Tome V: Les trépieds à cuve clouée, Paris 1977). Delphian tables were famous around
226 M. G. Elmaghrabi

the Mediterranean, marble Delphian tables are mentioned by Cicero, In Verrem II 4.131 (mensas Delphicas
e marmore) which were placed in the sacred edifices of Syracuse. A mensa Delphica is also mentioned by
Martial 12.66.
5 Both Πόπλιος and Πούπλιος are attested; see G. Wagner, Deux inscriptions grecques d’Égypte, ZPE
106 (1995) 129 n. 11. For the cognomen Pius used by the soldiers of the Roman army see L. R. Dean, A
Study of the cognomina of Soldiers in the Roman Legions (Princeton 1916) 247.
6 (ἑκατον)τάρχης σπίρης, l. σπείρης (for the genitive in this form see LSJ s.v.) = centurio cohortis (on
the equation of σπεῖρα and cohors see Mason (supra n. 31) 85 s.v.). No mention of the number of the cohort
and its name is made as it is usually stated in such cases. Both ἑκατοντάρχης and ἑκατοντάρχος are used;
see F. Preisigke, Wörterbuch, s.v. As far as I know this is the first attestation of the abbreviation ρταρχης.
The office of trierarch has been always connected with that of the nauarch since Mommsen’s commen-
tary ad CIL X 3340 which mentioned both the posts. Mommsen believed that the trierarch commanded
triremes and smaller vessels and the nauarch the quadriremes and quinqueremes but Starr (supra n. 24,
43 ff.) proved its wrongness stating that trierarch was the ship’s captain, whether it is a trireme or not.
7 λιβέρνος and λυβέρνος are also recorded; see F. Preisigke, Wörterbuch, s.v. Λιβέρνος. This kind of
ship in the naval forces is well attested in inscriptions as well as by various ancient writers. See M. Reddé,
Mare Nostrum: les infrastructures, le dispositif et l’histoire de la marine militaire sous l’empire romain
(Rome 1986) 108 n. 342, fig. 38.

Side D:
1 The lacuna is large enough only to accommodate the praenomen of Ionicus unless any abbreviation
was used. The abbreviations frequently used for προσκύνημα are προσκυν( ) and πρ( ). On προσκύνημα
in general, see G. Geraci, Ricerche sul Proskynema, Aegyptus 51 (1971) 3–211; É. Bernand, Réflexions sur
les proscynèmes, in D. Conso, N. Fick, B. Poulle (eds.), Mélanges François Kerlouégan (Paris 1994) 43–60.

Appendix: Scriptura / Ligature

l. 1: νγ and γαντ in τονγιγαντα?

l. 2: αντ in παντα

l. 2: νπ in τονπινακα

l. 3: πρ in προτομασ

l. 4: ην in δελφικην

l. 5: ρη in σπιρησ

B l. 4: παγα in επαγαθωι

Mohamed G. Elmaghrabi, Alexandria University

mgelmaghrabi@edu.alexu.edu.eg
A Dedication to Zeus Helios Megas Sarapis on a gazophylakion 227

Face (A)

Side B (right)

Side D (left)
228 M. G. Elmaghrabi

Top Bottom