In previous
Forum discussions, I have listed facts that support an
attribution to
Cleopatra VII. Facts matter.
"Matt
Kreuzer here. I am the author of the book that is the focus of attention here.
I wish this argument could be decided by facts rather than emotion. Oliver Hoover and I don't get along. I question the motivation for
his review. And I am not alone in my view of
his work. Rather than calling each other names, can we discuss the facts that support the
attribution to
Cleopatra VII?
There are a large group of facts that support the
attribution to
Cleopatra VII over Arsinoe III. I
hope we can focus on these.
1) The flans do not have central dimples. This is unlike ALL other bronzes produced by
Ptolemaic mints in
Cyprus,
Phoenicia,
Egypt and Kyrene between c. 264 BC and c. 96 BC. ALL OF THEM!!!
2) The flans fit a series of
denominations with the other late
Ptolemaic coins. There is a 1/16 (
scarce), 1/8 (this coin,
Svoronos 1161), 1/4, 1/2 and the 1 (
rare)
denomination with a very similar design.
2a) The Paphos
denominations above parallel those of
Alexandria for
Cleopatra VII.
3) The middle coins in this series are the most common
Greek coins on
Cyprus.
4) The finds at "
Paphos II", which include limestone molds used for casting the blanks, support the use of these
types together.
5) Other bronze finds support this pattern, including published expeditions.
6) Arsinoe III was not a powerful queen, by comparison. There is little explanation for a massive coinage of tiny bronzes on
Cyprus. Her only other coinage is some gold octadrachms issued c. 200 BC.
7) The female
portrait does have a down-turned mouth, melon-coif, and (often a)
scepter. Like other
Cleopatra coins, there is a range of
portraits.
This list of facts is a stronger list than is usually associated with an
attribution. In particular, it is wonderful to have the
mint itself. There is a lot of evidence here, which should be discussed."
There is not much to support an
attribution to Arsinoe III, who appears only on a modest gold issue after her death. Why Arsinoe III? In fact, the only argument I have heard is "
Svoronos says . . . ." That's not really a fact. And, some of
Svoronos is not accepted already. For instance, all of the silver
Ptolemaic tetradrachms attributed by
Svoronos to
Cleopatra VII are
corrected to
Ptolemy XII by
his German colleague.
His coins attributed to
Ptolemy XII are
corrected by the same
German author to
Cleopatra VII (and 2nd reign of
Ptolemy XII). I mention this to show that, even in
his day, there were fact-based disagreements with
Svoronos.
I have laid out some facts that support a hypothesis. It's a better argument than many. The other
side lacks facts.
Matt
Kreuzer