Still, I worried what an archaeologist could contribute to their study. Indeed, by my estimate only four of the twelve fellows at the CHS might have claimed the Hellenistic era as their primary area of expertise. So what could the rest of us offer to a group of distinguished specialists on this period? First of all, and perhaps most importantly, we offered a spirit of collegiality in a place where scholars do talk across disciplinary lines, and where all, I think, benefit from the exchange. Secondly, beyond the confines of the CHS most of us would never have been invited to participate in such a workshop. I believe the broader perspective that the CHS fellows provided is rare and that it will have served to push early discussion of this exciting new material beyond borders it might otherwise not so readily have crossed. I have no doubt that the immediate future will see numerous conferences on the new papyrus. I do doubt whether any will actively incorporate the disciplinary breadth provided by the twelve fellows who were at the CHS. So, it is with some exhilaration and much trepidation that I offer a few comments and reflections about these new poems and about our workshop.

These poems, then, somewhat unexpectedly provided many things to interest an archaeologist. Perhaps, if I had initially paid more attention to the subheadings (Lithika, Oiônoskopika, Anathematika, Epitymbia, Andriantopoiika, Hippika, Nauagika, Iamatika, Tropoi), I would not have been so surprised. After all, they describe physical objects or actions, aspects of natural history or folklore, all topics that fascinate archaeologists. It was the importance of the arrangement of individual poems within these subheadings or categories and the complexity of this structure that also turned out to be one of the fascinating themes of the workshop and its lively discussions. I would like to turn, then, to a few observations about the workshop and discussions.

Like the epigrams in the papyrus whose complex and subtle arrangement came to be appreciated over the course of the workshop, the careful design and structuring of the workshop papers and session, largely preserved in this volume, also became apparent over the course of the conference weekend. The arrangement permitted even those unfamiliar with the field to educate themselves by degrees so that eventually even detailed and specialized discussions could be appreciated. Papers began with background to the study of epigram (see introduction in this volume) and details of the papyrus itself. Stephens and Obbink very ably and succinctly presented the evidence for dating, context of production (including that it was written by a practiced professional scribe), damage and repair to the front, as well as the text written upside down on the reverse, and finally, its last use as mummy cartonnage. This presentation elicited discussion about the unusual numbering system. What does it mean, and at what point was it put on the papyrus? Both the view that it was original (Stephens) and that it was added later (Sider) were espoused. The vexing question of the marginal του and its meaning also were raised, various possibilities were rehearsed without any firm conclusions being reached. Obbink’s paper closing the first session in counterpoint to Stephens provided a minute analysis and commentary on a four-line epigram (AB 103) in the Tropoi. While the papyrologists’ observations provided a refreshing perspective on the papyrus, observing that the text must have been produced close in time to the composition of the epigrams, one would plausibly wonder who was choosing, collating, constructing this work and in what kind of social milieu. What if any, would its relationship be to activities at the Library in Alexandria? The papers dealing with the papyrus itself raise what also became another theme or leit motif of the workshop, that is, the social context in which and for which the papyrus was created. Nagy reminded us of the variant Homeric texts available in the third century BCE and proposed that a majority of the Homeric echoes might be drawn from the “Homerus auctus” current at the time. Sider addressed the effect of anthologists on the epigram itself, especially noting the shifting length over time. Smith observed the Lithika fit well in a Hellenistic context of scientific observation, proposing that Theophrastus’ On Stones was the immediate source for the poet’s specialized, accurate, and detailed knowledge of gemstones. Bing, likewise, linked the epigrams to other written documents, in this instance, noting that the Iamatika showed strong links to published descriptions of actual cures, such as those inscribed at Epidaurus. In discussion, we puzzled over the function of these epigrams, the reasons for a collection of cures, and wondered who would be the intended audience. Similarly, Dignas’ exploration of some of the Epitymbia noted the unusual presence of gravestones for initiates and the preponderance of women. Again, why this selection?

It was this issue of selection and crafting of the papyrus as a whole and especially within the various subgroups to which discussion returned time and again. At the end, I think no one doubted how carefully constructed the selection of epigrams was and that much of the elegance of this work derives from a realization of this ordering and its significance. While individual epigrams alone might not seem particularly interesting, sometimes they took on striking additional characteristics and meaning when combined with neighboring poems.

Of course, the realization of the complex structure of many subgroups provided a strong sense of authorial or at the very least editorial hand. Although the question “is this Posidippus?” was not overtly a focus of discussion, the papers of Acosta-Hughes, Sider, and Sens sidled up to or around this question.

I have not done justice to those who tackled the literary dimensions of the poems and their place in historical developments, especially Schur on the Lithika and Thomas on the Nauagika, but perhaps as an archaeologist, I can be forgiven this blunder. These papers were especially insightful and carried analysis deeply into the poetry and its context. Let me close then, with an observation and reminder of the breadth of disciplines involved in this workshop. There were archaeologists, scholars of comparative literature and Greek religion, historians, linguists, literary critics, paleographers, papyrologists, and even philosophers. Archaeologists will find much to interest them in these poems. I hope that these general comments from “an archaeologist’s perspective” as well as the other commentary and analysis of this papyrus by the CHS fellows and distinguished visiting scholars have helped to push forward the boundaries of thinking about these poems.