Coins of Cleopatra VII

Ouch. Scathing is an understatement. The paragraph that pertains to this thread...

The largely baseless claims that underlie the reattribution of these fairly common bronze coins may tend to make readers suspicious that they have been made not so much as a result of questionable scholarship but as part of a marketing ploy. This feeling is perhaps strengthened by the large numbers of Svoronos 1160-1161 attributed to Cleopatra that are available for purchase on the author's website. It probably does not need pointing out that the historical interest of a coin associated with Cleopatra VII makes it much more valuable on the market than one of the comparatively obscure Arsinoe III. Still, one must not hastily rush to judgment. Although the treatment of Ptolemaic Cyprus and the new identifications of certain coins as issues of Cleopatra VII are problematic to say the least, this disturbance of longstanding Hellenistic coin attributions is relatively minor in comparison with the riot of reattribution that follows in the discussion of Cyprus under the Romans. As many of these coins are already valued by collectors in their own right, and reattribution to Cyprus is not likely to enhance that value, it may be that the new attributions to Cleopatra are actually the work of a true believer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In this light, I think it is dishonest of dealers to confidently attribute the Cyprus issues to Cleopatra VII based on Kreuzer - without stating that this attribution is tentative and controversial.



As far as I’m concerned – if there’s any doubt, there’s no doubt. Ie, I won’t buy one.



As a general rule, I won’t buy a coin if it doesn’t bear the image or name of the claimed issuer. I don’t believe in “Pontius Pilate” coins either – if it was any other governor, we’d call it a Tiberius provincial. Likewise, a 1980 British coin is a coin of Queen Elizabeth II, not Margaret Thatcher, or the mayor of London.

 

This may be throwing the baby out with the bath water. The prefects of Judaea are generally always named in the attributions of prutoh, even though they are not named on the coins, much as magistrates are named on other provincials (if they are known), even though their names may not appear on the coins. So there's really no need to exclude Pontius Pilate simply because he makes the coins popular.

 

I'm not an ancient scholar and therefore I cannot confirm nor dispute the statements that Kreuzer, Svoronos, or Oliver Hoover have made. All of them are far more knowledgeable of this subject matter than I am. However, I do believe I have tangible evidence that may support Kreuzer's theory about the smaller bronze units (1/4 and 1/8 units) being produced under Cleopatra VII. Here's why:

1. Cleopatra VII was queen of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt from 51 - 30 B.C.
2. Ptolemy IV was king of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt from 221 to 204 B.C.
3. Arsinoe III (spouse of Ptolemy IV) was queen of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt from 220 to 204 B.C.
4. Octavian engaged in a war of propaganda, forced Antony's allies in the Roman Senate to flee Rome in 32 BC, and declared war on Cleopatra. After defeating Antony and Cleopatra's naval fleet at the 31 BC Battle of Actium, Octavian's forces invaded Egypt in 30 BC and defeated Antony, leading to Antony's suicide. Basically the control of the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt transitioned to Roman control around 30 B.C.
5. The 1/4 and 1/8 bronze units, along with other larger denominations, were produced with the Greek god Zeus on the obverse and Zeus Salaminios holding grain ears on the reverse (reference coin 1 below). The grain ears were representative of the fertile Nile soil which provide an abundant food source and therefore wealth to the region. However at some point in time, most likely around 30 B.C., the reverse portrait of Zeus holding grain ears was modified to a portrait of Zeus holding a Roman patera (reference coin 2 below).

Why was this portrait modified to a Roman symbol? This could not and would not have occurred under Ptolemaic leadership. Therefore I believe this is a transitional coin that was minted shortly after the defeat of Cleopatra VII, sometime around 30 B.C., therefore supporting Kreuzer's theory that, at least, these coins were produced under Cleopatra VII / Octavian around 30 B.C. and not under Ptolemy IV / Arsinoe III from 221 to 204 B.C.


Coin 1 - Issued before 30 B.C. under Cleopatra VII (Ptolemaic rule) - not my coin


Coin 2 - Issued around 30 B.C. under Cleopatra VII / Octavian (Roman rule) - coin in my collection

 

The link to the ANS book review is broken (posted above by @Ardatirion) but here is a current one: ANS Magazine, Winter 2005, pp. 68-71