5. There is only one known case posed by Marucchi as similar to Filumena's, where two tiles were placed in the wrong order due to the re-using of marble (not brick) tiles from different original graves, but the circumstances were substantially different. In the case of "Noeti," the two tablets are from two different original slabs of marble; the handwriting is not the same on the two slabs but clearly written by two different persons; and the red inscribing is of different hue on each slab. In Filumena's case, the three tiles all possess the same handwriting, the same color, and the same brick material, all of which give no indications of being re-used and thereby not a valid comparison with the re-use evident in the Noeti loculus. 6. In response to the claim of tile re-use from another grave, it would have been just as easy for the mason to use the other side of the tile, as there was nothing written on it, or to erase the "FI" or to simply turn it upside or to leave it in an incoherent form rather than re-use two other tiles. But, in fact, the meaning of the inscription remained essentially clear even with the tile order changed, as it was instantly and correctly understood by the custodians of the Holy Relics to signify "PAX" (48) 7. The conclusions of Prof. Marucchi regarding the dating and re- use of the tiles were made without Marucchi making a single on-site scientific or archeological examination of either tiles or catacomb site. Examination of the archeological site and the tiles would have revealed the claim of tile dating and re-use in the case of Filumena to be erroneous and without any empirical foundation. (49) Another theory for the tile order was put forth by Trochu, and described in the following scenario: A young martyr is being buried. The loculus has been carved in the usual manner, a little higher at the head side than at the feet. The mason chooses two tiles he thinks will be sufficient to seal the tomb. He breaks the larger one into two smaller pieces. Now he has three tiles. He lays them down and writes the inscription. This having been completed, he starts the work of putting the tiles in place. At this point he realizes that because of the difference in height from one side of the tomb to the other, the last tile on which he had written "LUMENA" is not tall enough to seal the grave. To close a 3 centimeter gap along a length of 57 centimeters would be very difficult. Certainly it would be an unappealing idea to rewrite the whole inscription. His solution, therefore, is to change the order of the tiles so that the largest tile, with "CUM FI" inscribed on it, is placed at the head to cover the largest opening (at the far right) and the most important tile, the tile with "PAX TE" written on it, is placed in the middle. (50) The plausibility of this scenario is manifest, according to Bonavenia, when the tiles, now at Mugnano, are examined. The two tiles that are supposed to have been split fit each other perfectly. There is no doubt they originally formed one large tile. None of the tiles on Filumena's grave show any of the usual damage or mismatching (as in the Noeti case) that is normal for tiles that have been reused, signs that Marruchi himself said are always present in cases of tile reuse. Moreover, Bonavenia further concludes that the idea posited by Marruchi, that "FILUMENA" was cut in two and the tile "PAX TE" put in the middle, is untenable. (51) |
