Academia.eduAcademia.edu
STUDIES IN ANCIENT ART AND CIVILIZATION 14 Kraków 2010 Agnieszka Fulińska Kraków iconoGraPhy of the Ptolemaic QueenS on coinS: GreeK style, eGyPtian ideas? the popular notion that the Ptolemies ruled in alexandria without any consideration for the needs and mentality of their Egyptian subjects has long ago been abandoned; the concept of a far more syncretic character of the Greek rule in Egypt produced many views, from poorly documented hypotheses about an Egyptian aristocrat among the wives of Ptolemy Soter (Tarn 1929), to the recent stress on the blending of cultures (Koenen 1993; Ashton 2001; Stanwick 2008). Nowadays hardly anyone denies the importance of the Egyptian factor in the general image of the dynastic politics, art, and propaganda, but Ptolemaic coinage seems to be exempt from such treatment, mostly due to the entirely Greek means and style that it presents. A closer look at some aspects of monetary imagery, however, makes one wonder if this approach is substantiated, since several elements seem to be inexplicable within the Greek/Macedonian frame of mind only, and therefore must have originated elsewhere, which in turn implies that they were aimed at an audience other than Greek. In this paper I would like to analyse four types of coins, either issued in the names of the Ptolemaic queens or bearing a queen’s portrait and/or name in the legend, in order to supply arguments for the thesis that coins, despite their general ‘non-Egyptian’ character, conveyed meanings understandable only when both Greek and Egyptian contexts were taken into consideration. Unlike other major Hellenistic kingdoms Egypt had hardly had monetary tradition of its own before Alexander and subsequently the Ptolemies (Curtis 1957). In the wake of the royal rule of the Lagids, Ptolemy Soter changed the style of his coinage from the satrapal types that continued Alexander’s 74 A. Fulińska main issues to a more pronounced programme of emancipation of his kingdom and dynastic propaganda (Mørkholm 1991, 63-64). At irst he chose Alexander, the ktistes of the new capital, as one of his protective deities, the other being Athena Alkidemos, but soon he abandoned these associations, placing on the obverse of dominant silver issues his own portrait, and on the reverse the symbol which had certain tradition in Macedonian imagery (Bellinger 1979, 27-29), but was to become the ‘coat of arms’ of the house of Ptolemy: an eagle standing on thunderbolt. The gold issues bearing similar imagery were short-lived, to be replaced one generation later by a new set of iconographic types, representing among others the royal ladies of the dynasty. Around the year 278 BC Ptolemy Philadelphus married his own full sister Arsinoe, which resulted in a wide range of reactions from the Greeks. Theocritus, court poet to Ptolemy, praised this incestuous union by comparing it to the sacred marriage (hieros gamos) of Zeus and Hera in his Encomium of Ptolemy Philadelphus (17.131-134), while another poet, Sotades, paid with his life for the open and vulgar criticism of the royal couple (Ager 2005, 5). Sotades went along the traditionally Greek lines: in spite of the example given by the highest Olympic gods, in both Greek poleis and kingdoms, including Macedonia, full sibling marriages were not practised, and in many cases regarded as heinous (Shaw 1992, 270-271). Quite the contrary in the Egyptian tradition: here the king’s marriage to his own sister had always been a common practice (Middleton 1962, 603-606), because it was perceived as the relection of the divine union between two major deities, Osiris and Isis, the gods represented on earth by the royal couple respectively. In this context of particular interest is a note by a Theocritus scholiast on the verse 17.61, which erroneously states that Ptolemy Soter and Berenice I were also siblings (Hazzard 1995, 3): either a notion that originated from an attempt to stress the holiness of the incestuous union, or a per analogiam attribution of the title of royal sister (adelphe) to an earlier generation. The question arises therefore at this point, what was the political meaning of such union in case of the Philadelphoi, since it apparently gained the king nothing in the eyes of his Greek/Macedonian subjects. The romantic aspect set aside, since it is impossible to assess its plausibility, the only answer lies within the local mentality: this move was directed at the Egyptian elites; the pharaoh married his sister in order to bring about the universal harmony represented by the goddess Maat, one of the aspects of the queen of Egypt (Troy 1986, 60-64). The Egyptians would not perceive ethnically foreign kings as unlawful, as long as they Iconography of Ptolemaic queens... 75 complied in his actions with the ages-long traditions of royalty (Koenen 1993, 39), therefore one of the most pronounced elements of Ptolemaic propaganda which had in mind the legitimization of their rule, had to be this divine aspect of royal power. Whatever the reasons for this marriage and reactions to it, Philadelphus made it the focal point of his propaganda mostly after Arsinoe’s death c. 270 BC, by means of instant deiication of his sister and wife. Some time earlier, as attested by Athenaios (5.197C-203B), and again Theocritus (17.121-125), he arranged for the apotheosis of both his parents, a deed with certain tradition in Macedonia, since we do have evidence of ancestral cult, and sources telling us about Alexander’s plans of deiication of both Philip and Olympias (Curt. 9.6.26 and 10.5.18). In Egypt, again, the notion that the deceased king became a god, united with his predecessors and Osiris himself, was fundamental for the understanding of pharaonic rule, therefore in this case Ptolemy combined two traditions, without seriously going against Greek mentality. It is, therefore, of consequence that the irst royal issues bearing the portraits of the queens appeared some time after the death of Arsinoe, when she became one of the central points of religious life in the kingdom, the thea synnaos with both Egyptian deities, and Alexander, perceived as the son of Ammon. The two types that require detailed consideration are the so called ‘dynastic issue’ and the ΑΡΣΙΝΟΗΣ ΦΙΛΑΔΕΛΦΟΥ type, both of them launched in the 260s BC (Mørkholm 1991, 102-104). The ‘dynastic’ coinage (Fig. 1) shows jugate heads of Ptolemy Soter and Berenice I on one side, and Ptolemy Philadelphus and Arsinoe II on the other, resembling a medal with no clearly indicated obverse and reverse, rather than an ordinary coin, unless a closer look at the legend is taken. First, very short issue of this series bore a legend ΘΕΩΝ ΑΔΕΛΦΩΝ over the heads of the Philadelphoi, but it was very quickly replaced by a variety with the legend divided between the two sides: ΘΕΩΝ belonging to the Soteres, and ΑΔΕΛΦΩΝ to the Philadelphoi. Much as this change might be ascribed to the artistic purpose of creating a more symmetric, harmonious image, it seems to bear a deeper meaning, especially since it goes very much against the Greek standards of placing the legend only on the reverse. This division of the inscription points clearly at the dynastic continuity; moreover, it stresses the descendancy of the ruling couple from the gods, or deiied pharaohs. It also allows to distinguish between the obverse and reverse in compliance with the Hellenistic model: 76 A. Fulińska the obverse bearing the image of the issuer, while on the reverse a protective deity is represented. Dynastic continuity had certainly been important in Macedonia; after the extinction of the Argeads the Macedonian empire ceased to exist, and the kingdom under the Antigonids reverted to the state from before Philip’s ascension; moreover, in the turmoil after Alexander IV’s death it seems that it was the dynastic discontinuity rather than political differences which led to the decline of Macedonian power. The Argeads had been descendants of Heracles by his great grandson Temenos, therefore they could claim descent from Zeus himself; similar ancestry had now and then been hinted by the Ptolemaic propaganda (Theoc. 17.18-27), and the symbolism of the royal eagle corresponded perfectly with such pretensions. Of less consequence seem to be the alleged claims of Ptolemy to be the son of Philip, especially that the only sources for such rumours are the Roman historians (Curt. 9.8.33; Paus. 1.6.2). All such legends served the Lagids in the eyes of the Macedonian populace in Alexandria, but again the Egyptian factor in this case appears to be much more important. One of the foundations of the Egyptian state, and therefore of the harmonious existence of the universe, was the unbroken sequence of royal power together with its divine sanction, combined with the notion that the new pharaoh by the act of ‘rebirth’ avenged in a symbolic way the god’s death and re-uniied the country (Myśliwiec 1993, 19). By issuing this coin, so untypical in terms of imagery, Philadelphus stressed the continuity of his line from the irst pharaoh of the new dynasty, himself being – which had been also attested by the monetary programme – the direct successor of the god Alexander, proclaimed the son of Amunby the Oracle at Siwa, and regarded as liberator from the unholy Persian rule (Hölbl 2001, 77). The change in the placement of the legend implied the shift of meaning; the earlier issue would stress only the position of current rulers, while the later underlined the divine succession on the throne. All this easily accounts for the presence of both kings on the coins, but there is one more element, so far not encountered in Greek monetary tradition: both rulers’ portraits are accompanied by conjoined heads of their respective wives. Jugate heads on coins had been very rare so far, they became popular in the Hellenistic times, where they would mostly be the heads of the Dioskouroi or other deities. There is one earlier instance, of co-rulers, both of them male (Perdiccas and Balacros during the campaign Iconography of Ptolemaic queens... 77 in laranda c. 323, SNG France 2311), otherwise this representation is novel, and therefore of particular interest. Royal women played substantial role in Macedonian politics and succession, to mention only Philip’s mother, Eurydike, or Alexander’s mother Olympias and his sister Cleopatra, who took part in the rule of both Macedonia and Epirus during Alexander’s eastern campaign and after his death. Neither of these women, however, appears on coins, and there is very scarce archaeological, let alone iconographic, evidence that can be connected with any of them; moreover, the fact that Philip allegedly erected the statues of his mother and wife in Olympia, seems to had been regarded as inappropriate at some point, since according to Pausanias (5.20.9-10) they were relocated to the temple of Hera at a time unknown to us (Carney 2000, 24). The concept of elevating royal women to divine status can have therefore originated to some extent from the recent Macedonian tradition, but it seems unlikely that this would be the only or main source for such idea, because it could not convey any genuinely important meaning to the Greek audience. If, however, we look into the Egyptian tradition, we ind prominent and distinguished female igures ever since the irst dynasty (Ciałowicz 1999, 149-151). Moreover, we very often see, especially in temple relief, either queens accompanying pharaohs, or goddesses standing behind their thrones and taking the rulers into their protective embrace. What is even more important, these protective goddesses are irst of all Isis and Hathor, to great extent assimilated by the Hellenistic times, and associated in cult with Aphrodite (Witt 1971, 126), and therefore the very same deities, whose synnaoi theai became both Berenice and Arsinoe (Fraser 2001, 197). The coins in question show the two couples in Greek attire, with the men wearing the chlamydes and royal diademata on their heads, and the women with veiled heads and diademata. In both cases the queens are shown behind their respective husbands, which on the political level may denote the actual model of power (in late 2nd century BC Seleucid coins of Cleopatra Thea and her male co-rulers this order is reversed, as if to stress the queen’s political role), but can also be interpreted symbolically, as the divine power standing behind the ruler and protecting him. This interpretation gains greater plausibility if we assume that this issue was launched after Arsinoe’s death and deiication, which presently seems to raise no doubts among scholars. thus Berenice and arsinoe would become not only Isis/Hathor/Aphrodite but also the personiications 78 A. Fulińska of Maat, universal harmony, which was very often represented by the igure of the queen in Egyptian art (Troy 1986, 64). One more striking feature of this coin is that neither of the portrayed persons wear any attributes of divinity, despite the ΘΕΩΝ legend. The notion of monarchy could have been appealing for the Macedonians in Alexandria, but not necessarily so for the Greeks; moreover, if these images were addressed mostly at the Macedonians, it would have been enough to portray the king in the diadema to convey the idea of basileia, while the presence of the queens would do nothing to further the dynastic propaganda in these circles. The lack of divine attributes might in this context be a concession to the Greek mentality; Alexander’s example showed that the Greeks were not very keen on accepting the deiication of living or recently deceased people, considering it an act of excessive pride or hybris, and at best treating it contemptuously (cf. the famous anecdote about ‘Let’s agree that Alexander be called a god, if he so wishes’; for sources see Heckel 2006, 102). In Greek tradition the apotheosis of heroes always took place after their death, and the instances of women elevated to divine status were extremely rare; interestingly enough in all known cases, like for instance Ariadne, such elevation was possible only through a god’s personal intervention. For the Egyptian public, on the other hand, the clear message of royalty and dynastic continuity implied divinity. The very presence of the queen at the king’s side would strengthen this meaning of the image, because of the intrinsic interconnection of the complementary male and female elements in the notion of kingship (Robbins 1993, 42; Ashton 2008, 131). This leads to a conclusion that the ‘dynastic issue’ was meant to convey irst of all the ideas of monarchy, but even though all imagery and style is purely Greek, the understanding of royal rule seems to be rooted far more deeply in Egyptian tradition, in which the female factor, and duality in general, played a major role both in imagery and corresponding theology. The possible meanings conveyed by the ‘dynastic issue’ are stressed and continued on the second type whose minting began a very short time later, and apparently corresponded with the establishment of Arsinoe’s posthumous individual cult, separate from the cult of the Theoi Philadelphoi. The main ΑΡΣΙΝΟΗΣ ΦΙΛΑΔΕΛΦΟΥ series (Fig. 2), consisting of large silver and gold denominations, struck with great care for the detail and relief, which in most cases is unusually high, became the most popular type for Ptolemaic gold coinage until the time of Ptolemy Auletes, and remained the only type Iconography of Ptolemaic queens... 79 in gold long after such coinage was otherwise abandoned due to economic changes (Segrè 1942). Corresponding silver tetradrachms bear the same image on the obverse, and the standard Ptolemaic eagle on the reverse, which points at clear differentiation between ordinary denominations and the luxurious larger ones, which again resemble medals rather than everyday use coins. The obverse of these coins bears the portrait of Arsinoe, again veiled but also endowed with a large repertory of insignia, these being the two crowns: royal diadema and divine stephane, a sceptre, and a ram horn symbolizing divinity. All these attributes, apart from the sceptre, can be traced to either Greek/Macedonian or Hellenized Eastern tradition. Whatever its actual origins, the diadema in the form of a illet became one of the most popular royal insignia during Hellenistic times, and some kind of diadema is also attested in Macedonia (Ritter 1965, 31 and passim; Smith 1988, 35; Prestianni Giallombardo 1989). The elevated and decorated in carvings golden stephane is known both from cult oinochoai depicting Ptolemaic queens (these images ascertain us that the material of the stephane was gold, since they are always painted in yellow or gold; cf. Burr Thompson 1973, 28-29), and from earlier representations of goddesses, mostly Aphrodite (Smith 1988, 431; for coin image cf. e.g. BMC Cyprus, Pl. XX: 10); the ram horn, well known symbol of Zeus-Ammon, became an element of Alexander iconography in the times of the Diadochoi, if not in the king’s lifetime. It should be noted that it has been suggested (Burr Thompson 1955, 202-203) that Arsinoe’s horns do not allude to Zeus-Amun but to Mendes-Pan; nonetheless, even if this notion might be correct for Egyptian statuary, it seems unlikely in monetary context. Finally, the sceptre is the only element which, while having very few analogies in Greek imagery: it is an attribute of Homeric Zeus, but otherwise is rarely encountered (Smith 1988, 34), does possess, however, great meaning in Egyptian royal and divine iconography. The tip of the sceptre in question is atypical with its ‘lotus-formed inial’ (Mørkholm 1991, 103); the artefact in its general form resembles to some extent the papyrus sceptres held by Hathor and Isis in temple reliefs (there is evidence that Arsinoe herself was represented with this attribute, e. g. the Tanis relief in the British Museum, EA 1056), but the tip – better visible on later coins of Arsinoe III, which will not be discussed Smith, loc. cit., has it wrong that the stephane was a posthumous attribute of deiied queens, since we encounter it on Arsinoe III and Cleopatra VII lifetime issues, e.g. Svoronos 1904-1908, 1159 and ibidem, 1874 resp. 1 80 A. Fulińska here in detail, because despite of their particular visual attractiveness, they do not contribute any new elements to the topic – consists of beadlike petals instead of a triangular leaf. Since, as we shall see, the reverse of the coin contains a symbol invented solely for the purpose of Arsinoe’s cult, it seems not unlikely that the sceptre is likewise unique, and the fact that the lotus lowers as such were associated with Aphrodite would perfectly serve the purpose of associating the queen with the goddess. Moreover, a lotus shape resembling very much that of the inial, appears on Ptolemaic coinage in different context: as a symbol in the ield of several series of bronzes from various reigns, attributed essentially to the Cyprus mint because of the obvious association with Aphrodite, and also other numismatic evidence, including the appearance of Aphrodite Cypria cult statue on earlier Ptolemaic coins (Lorber 2001, 39). In approaching the subject of the origin and meaning of this particular sceptre one might also want to take into account the complex symbolism of lotus in Egyptian tradition, both as the emblem of Upper Egypt, and symbol of creation and rebirth, but this would require further analysis, which does not fall into the scope of this article2. What is worth taking note of here, is that this attribute is present solely on coins with portraits of the queens; in sculpture and relief the sceptres are either absent (for the Greek-style representations), or repeat the traditional Egyptian imagery of wadj or papyrus sceptre, and never for instance that of the lotus divinity Nefertum. The reverse shows the image of a double cornucopia, the dikeras, which, according to our sources, was designed speciically for the needs of Arsinoe cult (Ath. 11.497b-c, quoting several contemporary writers). Coin evidence, however, makes this assumption questionable, because of an Asia Minor issue (Svoronos 1904-1908, 890-892) dated before her death: 280-271 BC, which is tentatively associated with Arsinoe, and bears a double cornucopia Interestingly, even the detailed analyses of Ptolemaic royal imagery in sculpture basically ignore the sceptres. The images of queens on cult oinochoai include some kind of spear-like sceptres but in all cases the state of preservation does allow for identiication of their tips (Burr Thompson 1973, 26). Stanwick (2008, 36), describes what he calls ‘lily scepter’ but the sculptural examples are different from the coin images both in appearance of the tip and shaft, and in the general composition: they invariably are held below the queens’ breasts. A closer sceptre-like analogy that I have found so far is a lower, possibly water lily, held by one of the igures on a relief from pyramid Beg. N. 6 in Meroe (Myśliwiec 1993, 253, il. 93), which, however, dates to the 1st century BC. The shape of the inial might also resemble the emblem of Upper Egypt, as encountered in the sematawi uniication symbol, but all these analogies demand a closer look and more detailed study. 2 Iconography of Ptolemaic queens... 81 on the reverse, with the only difference being that unlike on the main series it is not bound by the tainiai of the royal diadema. It is, of course, possible that some elements of cult were established during the queen’s lifetime; we do have textual evidence for her being a major igure in the celebrations of her mother Berenice in connection to Aphrodite during the great feast of Adonia (Theoc. 15.106-108), as well as an extensive corpus of inscriptions pertaining to her religious activities (Quaegebeur 1998). Mysteriously enough, Arsinoe is completely absent from the Athenaios’ description of the Ptolemaic pompe celebrated c. 275 BC (Foertmeyer 1988), which led scholars to speculations about the dates of both her death and lifetime vs posthumous introduction of her cult (Rice 1983, 28 and passim; ashton 2001, 17). If an early date of addition of the cult of Theoi Adelphoi to the cult of Alexander-ktistes is accepted, this might explain the appearance of the dikeras at the same time. Since, however, this attribute has not been so far otherwise attested in earlier imagery, one may assume that indeed it was designed at some point for Arsinoe, and gained popularity after her death, when her brother began a systematic propagation of her cult both in Egypt and abroad. The primary meaning of this symbol leads us to Tyche, the deity/ personiication of enormous importance for the Hellenistic times, both as a philosophical notion discussed by historians, and a goddess protectress of cities, states, and rulers; in the case of the latter, partly because of her association with euergetism. In this aspect she is commonly referred to as Agathe Tyche, the good fortune, whose presence in Ptolemaic iconography and propaganda is attested by inscriptions, on the cult oinochoai and elsewhere (Burr Thompson 1973, 51-52). This goddess is further associated with Agathos Daimon, a protective deity worshipped in Alexandria, and inluenced by both Greek and Egyptian tradition, and also a personal protective deity of the kings and queens (Whitehorne 2001, 193). These interpretations do not, however, explain the presence of two cornucopiae, which must be interpreted in the broader context of Arsinoe’s imagery. Duplicity is a recurrent motif in the queen’s iconography; we encounter it also in Egyptian-style sculpture and relief, where the queen wears a crown with two royal uraei, which is not unheard of in earlier Egyptian art, but not very common, either. Earlier examples are limited to two inluential queens of the 18th dynasty, Tiye and Nefertiti, and to one queen of the 19th dynasty, Meretatum, daughter and wife of 82 A. Fulińska Ramesses II. Male representations wearing double uraeus belong solely to kings of the Kushite 25th dynasty of the Late Period (Ashton 2001, 40-41). In the case of Arsinoe’s uraei, however, we seem to deal with a ‘reverse movement’ to what is being discussed here; since the traditional interpretation of this headdress as attribute of the ‘Mistress of the Two Lands’ cannot be applied to Arsinoe, it must be interpreted as a strictly Egyptian element corresponding to other elements of iconography that were represented in Greek form, apparently stressing the unity of the Theoi Philadelphoi: the double portraits on the ‘dynastic issue’ and the double cornucopia on Arsinoe’s coins. In recent scholarship the notion of double uraei being the representation of the queen’s rule with her brother was challenged on the grounds that it lacks support (Ashton 2008, 69), but it appears that the monetary context, largely ignored in this debate, may provide evidence for such interpretation. Most interesting in this context is the fact that an allusion to the queen’s brother and husband appears even on a coin which is otherwise dedicated to her individual cult. The explanation of this fact can be very simple; if the cornucopia is associated with Tyche as the goddess of abundance and euergetism, it is clear that it must refer not only to the protective goddess – the deceased and deiied queen – but also to the present ruler, who enjoys special protection of both Tyche and Arsinoe. One should also bear in mind the fact that the dualism in Egyptian thought denotes two elements that are complementary rather than opposite, and the union of the royal couple relects the marital union of the gods, as well as the original unity of the male and female elements (Myśliwiec 1993, 15). Moreover, the symbolic marriage of the king and the goddess of good fortune and plenty means the blessing for the land. Euergetism had become an important factor in the propaganda of many Hellenistic dynasties but in Egypt it had special meaning; ever since early dynastic times the prosperity of the land and the well-being of its citizens was associated with the virtue of the kings (Ciałowicz 1999, 150). Pharaohs were praised as good rulers when the loodings of the Nile were on the average which assured abundant crops and therefore wealth, without either drought or overlooding the land; the king was accordingly responsible for the natural disasters. Thus the dikeras may symbolize the union of the goddess of good fortune with her brother and husband, who appears here in a symbolic way as the ruler – benefactor of his people. Also the presence of the abovementioned tainiai around the dikeras suggests association of this attribute with royal symbolism, as well as the divine. Iconography of Ptolemaic queens... 83 This coin’s iconography combines, therefore, in a very complex way elements of Greek and Egyptian tradition, stressing in the irst place the divinity of the queen, very much within the Egyptian frame of mind, but with the use of partly Greek symbolism, while the aspect of her political role of the king’s consort is only suggested by the presence of the diadema. Also the title used for the legend refers in the irst place to the cult of both the Theoi Philadelphoi and Arsinoe herself. This type, without any changes in iconography or legend, was continued until the time of Ptolemy Auletes and his wife Cleopatra V Tryphaena; it is disputable whether the distortion of facial features on the later issues is due to the portrait quality of these representations, which would mean that the successors of Arsinoe had been portrayed in the guise of the dynastic goddess, or should be ascribed to the stylistic deterioration, and it was always Arsinoe who appeared on the coins struck by later queens (Mørkholm 1991, 183). Whatever the answer to this question, at present unanswerable because of lack of relevant evidence, the huge popularity of this type – statistically the second most popular of all types bearing a king’s or queen’s image, and invariably struck only in large precious metals denominations (since Ptolemy IV Philopator solely in gold) – shows how important from the point of view of dynastic propaganda were the actions taken by Ptolemy Philadelphus to establish the ruler cult based in many aspects on the Egyptian notions concerning royalty combined with divinity. Surprisingly, therefore, the coinage struck by Arsinoe’s direct successor, Berenice II Euergetis, shows a complete change of imagery (Fig. 3). The denominations were again large gold and silver, their engravings of great artistic value, and they were issued not just in the queen’s lifetime, but at the time of her regency during Ptolemy’s engagement in the Third Syrian War; a fact which may had been crucial for the choice of iconography. The Euergetai were called in inscriptions progeny of Theoi Philadelphoi (Bingen 2007, 33), even though Berenice was only cousin of her husband, and neither of them was biological child of Arsinoe II, who, however, adopted formally her brother’s children (White 1898, 249-250), and they are called gods in the time of their reign. Nevertheless the coins issued in the name of Berenice present an image completely devoid of any direct claims of divinity; on two types of three within this series there are stars or caps of the Dioskouroi lanking the cornucopia on the reverse, which, if we assume that these two issues were posthumous, may allude to the apotheosis of the queen, who was allegedly taken to heaven by the divine twins (Hazzard 1995, 5); other hypotheses point at the importance 84 A. Fulińska Fig. 1. AV octadrachm (Svoronos 1904-1908, 1247), obverse: Ptolemy II Philadelphus and arsinoe ii Philadelphus; reverse: Ptolemy I Soter and Berenice I (issued by Ptolemy V Epiphanes). British Museum 1964,1303.3 (AN527253) Fig. 2. AV octadrachm (Svoronos 1904-1908, 1011), arsinoe ii Philadelphus. British Museum 1868,0320.12 (AN143985) Fig. 3. AR pentadrachm (Svoronos 1904-1908, 989), Berenice ii euergetis. British Museum 1841,B.3710 (AN141177) Fig. 4. AE (Svoronos 1904-1908, 1874), cleopatra Vii British Museum 1844,0425.99 (AN144001) of naval operations at the time of the Euergetai reign (Kyrieleis 1975, 95). Otherwise the queen herself is portrayed with just one royal attribute only, this being the diadema on her head under the veil. As on the coins of her predecessor, the diadema is repeated on the reverse, with the loating tainiai, and just as previously it is bound around a cornucopia, this time, however, a standard single horn of plenty. Interestingly, there is also a slight change in the content of the cornucopia; instead of conical cakes offered to the dead (Burr Thompson 1973, 32), characteristic for Arsinoe’s dikeras, there is ear of corn, associated irst of all with Demeter, but in Ptolemaic imagery also with Isis (e.g. Svoronos 1904-1908, 1384 and passim), who was assimilated Iconography of Ptolemaic queens... 85 not only with Aphrodite but also with the goddess of crops. This is, in fact, the only clear hint at any deity on these coins; characteristically enough, the association here is on one hand again with Tyche, and on the other with the same Egyptian goddess as in the case of syncretic Isis/Aphrodite, but in her aspect of the goddess of wealth and abundance, which corresponds with the dynastic title of the royal couple: Euergetai. It is not only the imagery as such, however, but also the legend which catches the eye in this case. It reads ΒΕΡΕΝΙΚΗΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ, employing only the title of ‘queen’ without any other dynastic or cult nomenclature, even though Ptolemy III and Berenice II used their dynastic name from the beginning of their reign. And it is exactly this title basilissa which is the most interesting element of this particular series of coins, because it comes to use only in the Hellenistic times (the earliest known inscription from c. 306 referring to Phila, daughter of Antipater and wife of Demetrios Poliorcetes; Sig3 333, 6-7), and therefore does not form part of the Macedonian heritage. Moreover, in monetary context it appears for the irst time on coins of Cyrene struck about the year 274 BC, during the revolt of Magas against Ptolemy II, showing Berenice I (Koch 1923, 74-75; Mørkholm 1991, 102); it is absent from coinage of Philadelphus himself, although appears in inscriptions concerning Arsinoe II during her lifetime (Burstein 1982, 199 note 7), and then reappears on the issues of Berenice II. The question arises, why use a term, apparently not obvious for the Greeks, on the coins, which were allegedly a purely Greek means of propaganda. Our sources tell us quite clearly that the Macedonians were not eager to accept women’s rule; Plutarch (Vit. alex. 68) quotes Alexander himself commenting on his sister’s ambitions that ‘Macedonians would not suffer a woman’s rule’, and Diodorus (19.11.9) ascribes a similar statement to Antipater. Moreover, despite the royal women’s ambitions, inluence and actions, as well as their actual role in governing the kingdom, they were never granted a formal recognition, let alone a title. The usage of both titles basileus and basilissa by the Macedonians received in-depth analysis, and it was suggested that its assumption by Alexander could have been dictated by the need to translate Achaemenid Persian oficial forms of address into Greek terms (Price 1991, 32-33; Carney 1991, 157-158). If so, one might assume that the use of basilissa is similarly derived from Eastern tradition, and receives special importance in Egypt, where the role of the queen had been originally far more pronounced than in Persia or any other Near-Eastern state. 86 A. Fulińska Therefore, much as it was a common practice of the wives of the Diadochoi, and their successors, to assume a title corresponding to their husbands’, in case of Berenice Euergetis it appears not only as a Hellenistic invention but also, and probably primarily, reference to local tradition; the usage of this title refers to full legitimization of the queen’s rule in Alexandria during her husband absence from the city. Interestingly, the term as such, if considered from the linguistic point of view, seems to correspond with the female form of the title of pharaoh, attested in her case also in demotic sources (Hölbl 2001, 85) rather than any forms of traditional titulary used for a queen-consort, who usually was referred to as ‘king’s great wife’, ‘god’s wife’ and ‘king’s sister’ (Ashton 2008, 61-62). adelphe, indeed, became a title for Ptolemaic queens ever since Arsinoe II, which also agrees with the Egyptian tradition of queenship; basilissa therefore would be the term chosen to describe a royal woman who actually held political power of the pharaoh or his regent. Monetary evidence corroborates such notion: the only three queens who placed this legend on their coins were Berenice II who acted as regent during her husband’s absence, Cleopatra I Syra who ruled in the name of her son Ptolemy VI, and Cleopatra VII who assumed more actual power than any other woman of the dynasty. If any women were close to formal pharaonic status in Ptolemaic Egypt, these were the three. The ΒΕΡΕΝΙΚΗΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ series forms in fact a perfectly balanced message, understandable both for the Greeks and Egyptians, with elements that would satisfy both audiences; a method resembling the one employed for the ‘dynastic’ issue. The queen is not shown directly as a goddess: the only allusions at divinity appear on the reverse of the coins; the title used does not exceed contemporary Hellenistic practice and yet it points very clearly at the political tradition outside Greek experience. Within Macedonian tradition this coin is a great step forward: it attests the queen’s formal position within the state, which was unattainable even to the royal women of the last Argeads. What makes it possible to such extent and in such splendid way – again we deal with large denominations in precious metals, which remind us more of decorative medals than money – is both the Persian tradition adopted by Alexander, and the long-lasting Egyptian custom exploited by the Ptolemies. Interestingly, the only queen to repeat this kind of propaganda on her coins before Cleopatra VII was Cleopatra I Syra, who struck coins bearing the legend ΚΛΕΟΠΑΤΡΑΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ during her regency for her son, Ptolemy VI; the most interesting type in this respect is a British Museum coin (inv. no. 1978-10-21-1), which shows the young Iconography of Ptolemaic queens... 87 king on the obverse, and his mother’s portrait with the abovementioned legend on the reverse. The queen’s attire resembles Arsinoe’s to great extent, with the omission of the ram horn only: the clearest and most obvious symbol of divinity. The last coin which draws attention in this context comes from the very last decades of Ptolemaic rule over Egypt, and was struck in Cyprus by Cleopatra VII (Fig. 4). It is a small bronze denomination with exceptionally high relief, and carefully sculptured details, which may point at the coin’s importance as a message-bearer, and not only inancial value. On the obverse it bears the portrait of the queen wearing both the diadema and the stephane, as known from ΑΡΣΙΝΟΗΣ ΦΙΛΑΔΕΛΦΟΥ type, and with a sceptre behind her back, resembling in all details that of Arsinoe III, which, in turn, is a better compositionally rendered sceptre of Arsinoe II. This indicates that unlike on her other types, Cleopatra styled herself here as a goddess rather than a queen, which is further emphasized by two more elements: the child on the obverse, and the dikeras on the reverse. The child is usually identiied as Cleopatra’s son with Julius Caesar, Ptolemy XV Caesarion, and the issue is therefore dated to 47 BC (Hazzard 2000, 152-153), but from the iconographic point of view he is Eros, or, more precisely Horus, because the scene of the goddess suckling the child is far more popular in representations of Isis than of Aphrodite. The case for Cleopatra in the guise of Isis is furthered by the fact that one the queen’s titles was Nea Isis, and by the existence of sculptural evidence (e.g. stele E 27113 in the Louvre) for her either being portrayed as the goddess with the child or as the pharaoh worshipping isis with horus. We should assume that this particular coin image is of a syncretic divinity, Aphrodite/Isis, especially that attributes belonging to the two goddesses are present. Moreover, the double cornucopia on the reverse, the dikeras of Arsinoe II, stresses this double association. It is also worth noting that it is one of the very few occurrences of this particular attribute on coins apart from the continued ΑΡΣΙΝΟΗΣ ΦΙΛΑΔΕΛΦΟΥ types, and the only one on a coin whose legend (ΚΛΕΟΠΑΤΡΑΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΗΣ) refers directly to another queen. All other Cypriote mints which show analogous female busts on the obverse, and the dikeras on the reverse, bear legend ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ (Svoronos 1904-1908, 1160); some of these were, therefore, attributed by Svoronos to Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III, but the hairstyle and facial features, the fact that the coins are small bronzes, and also archaeological evidence, make this attribution questionable (Kreuzer 2004, 41-44). 88 A. Fulińska This raises a question whether the abandoning of the ΑΡΣΙΝΟΗΣ ΦΙΛΑΔΕΛΦΟΥ type by Cleopatra was an act of emancipation of the queen’s coinage, or was dictated only by the economic situation; ever since the time of Berenice II the ΑΡΣΙΝΟΗΣ ΦΙΛΑΔΕΛΦΟΥ types were struck exclusively in gold, even when such denominations became extremely rare in Ptolemaic monetary system, and from the time of Ptolemy VIII until the reign of Ptolemy XII they had remained the only types still struck in gold. Due to economic reasons Cleopatra struck no gold coinage, either with any of her brothers, or with Mark Antony, therefore the appearance of dikeras on her bronze coin, which at this time plays major role in both the monetary system and the propaganda, may be an attempt at recalling the dynastic tradition of associating all later queens with deiied Arsinoe II, and therefore at pointing at dynastic – and divine – continuity, so important for the Egyptian subjects. Such programme appears as even more plausible if we consider the fact that Cleopatra VII was the irst Ptolemaic ruler who assumed the title of Philopatris, suggesting clearly her intended close bond with the land – a trait characteristic for the Egyptian pharaoh rather than for the Hellenistic king-conqueror who ruled over the ge doriktetos (Hammond 1993, 20-21; Bingen 2007, 61-62). On the other hand, such title has also strong Greek connotations, since it was traditional in the Greek world to be identiied by the patronime and deme of origin; the titles Cleopatra Philopator Philopatris could be, therefore, interpreted as symbolic representation of such identiication, the patris being either Egypt, or Alexandria, or, possibly, Macedonia, if we consider Cleopatra’s ambitions concerning the renovation of Alexander’s empire. Even if so, the level of abstraction and generalization of her titles corresponds with the Egyptian notion of the pharaoh as representative of the gods rather than an individual, with the precedence of idea of monarchy over personal traits of the king. This little bronze coin, therefore, so remote in terms of splendour from the beautifully executed gold and silver medal-like earlier issues, would convey a very intricate message of a full assimilation of Greek and Egyptian elements in the person and political ideas of the queen, regarded here as both ruler (legend, diadema) and goddess (all other attributes). in this context also the Caesarion/Eros/Horus igure can be interpreted on a more complex theological/political level as the personiication of the land, represented by the prospective ruler, successor of the present queen, nurtured by the protective goddess. Moreover, if we associate the child correctly with Iconography of Ptolemaic queens... 89 the son of Julius Caesar, this coin may be considered the irst in the series of types, the later ones being minted with Antony, which point at Cleopatra’s larger scale political vision: of uniting the Greek East with Rome under the rule of her progeny. conclusion Even though coins are considered the most Greek of all means of propaganda in the Hellenistic world, the case of Ptolemaic coinage shows that they could be used to convey more complex messages, and that the stylistically Greek images were also able to contain and express ideas fully comprehensible within the Egyptian frame of mind. In my analysis i intended to show how these local theological and political traditions become intrinsically combined with the Greek ideas by means of iconography, some elements of which are hardly explicable if perceived only from the Greek point of view. The most important of these is the notion of monarchy, and in particular the concept of basileia represented both by the king and his female counterpart. The elements of iconography can be divided into three groups: those explicable entirely on Greek or Hellenistic grounds (diadema, cornucopia, symbols of the Dioskouroi), those that bear meaning for both groups and the Egyptian perspective broadens their interpretation (lotus, ram horn, royal title, ear of corn), and those that cannot be easily explained outside the Egyptian iconographical tradition (male/female duplicity, sceptre). The style employed by the engravers remains entirely Greek, hence the absence of two important Egyptian features: animal-headed deities, as well as rulers represented in the animal form, and representation of ruling queens in male attire and with attributes of male pharaohs, which was common in earlier times. Such imagery is attested in Ptolemaic sculpture and temple relief, but on coins all iconography remains within the stylistic frame of Greek art, which was apparently the requirement of the medium. However, the message expressed by this means contains both Greek and Egyptian ideas. the perspective proposed in this article allows to view Ptolemaic coinage as an inherent part of a larger body of royal iconography and propaganda, consistent with its other elements, and not a purely Greek form of address, largely separate in its expression and function from the statuary and temple representations. The adopted perspective allows 90 A. Fulińska to treat all aspects of Ptolemaic royal iconography as a premeditated entirety, in which every element corresponds with the others, forming a clear and rich message directed both at the Greek and Egyptian subjects of the dynasty. references Ager s. l. 2005. Familiarity breeds: incest and the Ptolemaic Dynasty. JhS 125, 1-34. Ashton s. A. 2001. Ptolemaic Royal Sculpture from Egypt: The Interaction Between Greek and Egyptian Traditions. Oxford. Ashton s. A. 2008. Cleopatra and Egypt. Oxford. bellinger A. r. 1979. Essays on the Coinage of Alexander the Great. New York. bingen J. 2007. Hellenistic Egypt. Monarchy, Society, Economy, Culture. edinburgh. bmc cyprus – Hill G. 1904. British Museum Catalogue of Greek coins 24. London. burr thompson d. 1955. Portrait of Arsinoe Philadelphos. aJa 59/3, 199-206. burr thompson d. 1973. Ptolemaic Oinochoai and Portraits in Faience. Aspects of the Ruler Cult. Oxford. burstein s. m. 1982. Arsinoe II Philadelphos: a revisionist view. In W. L. Adams and E. N. Borza (eds), Philip II, Alexander the Great and the Macedonian heritage, 197-212. Lanham. carney e. 1991. “What’s in a name?” The emergence of a title for royal women in the Hellenistic period. In S. B. Pomeroy (ed.), Women’s History and Ancient History, 154-172. Chapel Hill, London. carney e. 2000. The initiation of cult for royal Macedonian women. cP 95/1, 21-43. Ciałowicz K. M. 1999. Początki cywilizacji egipskiej. Warsaw, Krakow. curtis J. W. 1957. Coinage of Pharaonic Egypt. Jea 43, 71-76. Foertmeyer v. 1988. The dating of the pompe of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. historia 37/1, 90-104. Fraser P. m. 2001. Ptolemaic alexandria 1-3. Oxford. Iconography of Ptolemaic queens... 91 Hammond n. G. l. 1993. the Macedonian imprint on the hellenistic world. In P. Green (ed.), Hellenistic History and Culture, 12-37. Berkeley. Hazzard R. A. 1995. Ptolemaic Coins: An Introduction for Collectors. toronto. Hazzard R. A. 2000. Imagination of a Monarchy. Studies in Ptolemaic Propaganda. toronto. Heckel W. 2006. Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great. Prosopography of Alexander’s Empire. Oxford. Hölbl G. 2001. A History of the Ptolemaic Empire, trans. T. Saavedra. London, New York. Koch W. 1923. die ersten Ptolemäerinnen nach ihren Münzen. ZfN 34, 67-106. Koenen L. 1993. The Ptolemaic king as a religious igure. In A. Bulloch, E. S. Gruen, A. A. Long and A. Stewart (eds), images and ideologies. Self-deinition in the Hellenistic World, 26-115. Berkeley. Kreuzer M. 2004. The Coinage System of Cleopatra VII, Marc Antony and Augustus in Cyprus. Springield MA. Kyrieleis H. 1975. Bildnisse der Ptolemäer. Berlin. lorber c. c. 2001. The lotus of Aphrodite on Ptolemaic bronzes. revue Suisse de Numismatique 80, 39-51. middleton r. 1962. Brother-sister and father-faughter marriage in ancient Egypt. american Sociological review 27/5, 603-611. mørkholm o. 1991. Early Hellenistic Coinage. From the Accession of Alexander to the Peace of Apamea (336-188 B.C.), P. Grierson and U. Westermark (eds). Cambridge. Myśliwiec K. 1993. Pan obydwu krajów. Warsaw. Poole r. s. 1883. Catalogue of Greek Coins: The Ptolemies, Kings of Egypt. london. Prestianni Giallombardo A. m. 1989. ‘Kausia diadematophoros’ in Macedonia: testimonianze misconosciute e nuove proposte. Messana. Rassegna di studi storici e ilologici 1, 1-13. Price m. J. 1991. The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip arrhidaeus. a British Museum catalogue 1. Zurich, London. quaegebeur J. 1998. Documents égyptiens anciens et nouveaux relatifs à Arsinoé Philadelphe. In H. Melaerts (ed.), le culte du souverain dans l’Égypte Ptolémaïque au IIIe siècle avant notre ère. Actes du colloque international, Bruxelles 10 mai 1995, 73-108. Leuven. rice e. e. 1983. The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Oxford. 92 A. Fulińska ritter H. W. 1965. Diadem und Königsherrschaft. Untersuchungen zu Zeremonien und Rechtsgrundlagen des Herrschaftsantritts bei den Persen, bei alexander dem großen und im hellenismus. Munich, Berlin. robins G. 1993. Women in Ancient Egypt. cambridge Ma. segrè A. 1942. The Ptolemaic copper inlation, ca. 230-140 B.C. aJP 2, 174-192. Shaw B. D. 1992. Explaining incest: brother-sister marriage in GraecoRoman Egypt. Man (New Series) 27/2, 267-299. siG – dittenberger g. et al. 1915-1924. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, vol. I-IV, 3rd ed. Leipzig. snG France – Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Cabinet des Médailles, Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris 1993Stanwick P. E. 2008. Portraits of the Ptolemies: Greek Kings as Egyptian Pharaohs. austin. svoronos J. n. 1904-1908. Тά νομίσματα του κράτους των Пτολεμαίων 1-4. athens. tarn W. W. 1929. Queen Ptolemais and apama. cQ 23/3-4, 138-141. troy l. 1986. Patterns of Queenship in Ancient Egyptian Myth and History. uppsala. White r. e. 1898. Women in Ptolemaic Egypt. JhS 18, 238-266. Whitehorne J. 2001. cleopatras. London, New York. Witt r. e. 1971. isis in the ancient World. Baltimore. Agnieszka Fulińska agnieszka.fulinska@uj.edu.pl