The Fackelmann Papyri

This paper reveals that the famed manuscript conservator and antiquities dealer, Anton Fackelmann, made demonstrably false claims about the provenance of papyri he sold. My discoveries in the Duke University archive suggest that Dr. Fackelmann, leveraging his status as a well-known conservator (cf. Fackelmann, 2015; Nongbri), disguised commonplace Roman-era papyri as much earlier and more valuable pieces of Ptolemaic mummy cartonnage.

P.Duk.inv. 34 is a fragmentary papyrus palimpsest which was purchased by Duke University from Dr. Anton Fackelmann in January of 1970 (Fackelmann, 19 January 1970; Oates). The under-text of the palimpsest, a documentary account, was erased in antiquity, and the papyrus was reused by a scribe to practice dating formulae. Dr. Fackelmann claims that he acquired this papyrus in Faiyum, Egypt in January of 1969 (Fackelmann, 18 March 1969). He reports that he purchased the chest of a mummy from a mummy looter in Faiyum and extracted from it 17 pieces of early Ptolemaic papyri (including P.Duk.inv. 34), all of which had been used as mummy cartonnage (Fackelmann, 18 March 1969; cf. Fackelmann, 1 July 1969, 14 August 1969, 5 November 1969). Among these papyri are five documents verifiably dateable to the early Ptolemaic period, ca. 256 BCE (P.Duk.inv. 23, 24, 25, 26, 28). If one takes Fackelmann at his word—that is, that his papyri were all extracted from the same Ptolemaic mummy—this would date all 17 pieces of the cartonnage archive to the mid-third century BCE.

My paper shows, however, that Fackelmann’s claims of provenance are demonstrably false. The dating formula practiced in the scribal exercise on P.Duk.inv. 34 is an imperial Roman formula, “ἐπ᾽ αὐτοκράτορος” (“under emperor x”). This discovery means that this papyrus cannot be dated earlier than the reign of Augustus in the late first century BCE, a severe contradiction to Fackelmann's early Ptolemaic dating. Moreover, close analysis reveals that there is no residual gesso visible on the papyrus. This substance, an adhesive used for funerary wrappings, is typically found on papyrus cartonnage used to wrap Ptolemaic mummies. In sum, it is very unlikely that P.Duk.inv. 34 was extracted from mummy cartonnage, certainly not from the same cartonnage as the five verifiably Ptolemaic pieces Fackelmann sold to Duke. This casts doubt not only on the provenance of P.Duk.inv. 34 but also on the provenance of all the undated pieces of “early Ptolemaic” papyri sold to Duke University (and to numerous other institutions) by Dr. Fackelmann. Early Ptolemaic papyri were exceptionally rare and difficult to acquire in the 1960s-70s (Willis). By thus misrepresenting the provenance of papyri such as P.Duk.inv. 34, Fackelmann increased their retail value threefold (Willis).

Scholars in recent decades have grown increasingly suspicious of Anton Fackelmann’s claims about provenance (Pruneti; Nongbri; cf. Fackelmann, 1986). My paper confirms these suspicions and firmly demonstrates that any information about artifact date or provenance which comes from Dr. Anton Fackelmann is compromised.