Author Topic: The "feminised" portrait on coins of Cleopatra VII-are they Ptolemy or Cleopatra (Read 4589 times)

coldavo · « **on:** January 12, 2012, 02:03:53 am »

A discussion that I would like to see is regarding the "feminised " portrait of (?) Ptolemy on tetradrachms of Cleopatra VII as shown in Wildwinds. I am fortunate enough to have one of these (year 3) and, through Photoshop, have compared the (?) Ptolemy portrait on Svoronos 1818 (my silver tetradrachm) with the two portraits of Cleopatra VII on Svoronos 1871 and 1871.1 (Wildwinds bronze coins) and find that the similarities seem to far outweigh the differences.

I am wondering if, rather than a feminised portrait of Ptolemy, it might be a portrait of Cleopatra VII given some male attributes (mainly the hair)?? I know that affluent women of the time had short hair and wore wigs - I presume that they would not normally be depicted with short hair.

I have attached a photo of the three coins in question plus four photos to be merged and compared in Photosop. Simply copy or drop "CleoA" and "CleoB" into Photoshop - , copy and paste one onto the top of the other and then, going to the Layers box and clicking on the opacity arrow, you can see the similarities by holding down the Shift key while continually hitting the Left-Arrow button . Do this with "CleoC" and "CleoD" to compare these. (the reason for two photos of the tetradrachm is that each exactly lines up with the appropriate bronze coin

I feel that the eyes, bottom half of nose, mouth, chin, jaw and throat line and neck width all match up on the three coins. Apart from the male hair-do (and even it looks a little overdone for a male), the only other real difference that I can see is the bridge of the nose and brow - and these are possibly no more major that, for example, the differences between the two portraits on Svoronos 1871 and 1871.1.

I would appreciate input from collectors more experienced than me.

All the best,).
Col

coldavo · « **Reply #1 on:** January 12, 2012, 02:37:56 am »

A discussion that I would like to see is regarding the "feminised " portrait of (?) Ptolemy on tetradrachms of Cleopatra VII as shown in Wildwinds. I am fortunate enough to have one of these (year 3) and, through Photoshop, have compared the (?) Ptolemy portrait on Svoronos 1818 (my silver tetradrachm) with the two portraits of Cleopatra VII on Svoronos 1871 and 1871.1 (Wildwinds bronze coins) and find that the similarities seem to far outweigh the differences.

I am wondering if, rather than a feminised portrait of Ptolemy, it might be a portrait of Cleopatra VII given some male attributes (mainly the hair)?? I know that affluent women of the time had short hair and wore wigs - I presume that they would not normally be depicted with short hair.

I have attached a photo of the three coins in question plus four photos to be merged and compared in Photosop. Simply copy or drop "CleoA1" and "CleoB1" into Photoshop - , copy and paste one onto the top of the other and then, going to the Layers box and clicking on the opacity arrow, you can see the similarities by holding down the Shift key while continually hitting the Left-Arrow button . Do this with "CleoC1" and "CleoD1" to compare these. (the reason for two photos of the tetradrachm is that each exactly lines up with the appropriate bronze coin

I feel that the eyes, bottom half of nose, mouth, chin, jaw and throat line and neck width all match up on the three coins. Apart from the male hair-do (and even it looks a little overdone for a male), the only other real difference that I can see is the bridge of the nose and brow - and these are possibly no more major that, for example, the differences between the two portraits on Svoronos 1871 and 1871.1.

I would appreciate input from collectors more experienced than me.

All the best,).

justinopolitanus · « **Reply #2 on:** January 12, 2012, 12:58:37 pm »

Cleopatra and Ptolemy were brothers.

PtolemAE · « **Reply #3 on:** January 12, 2012, 11:58:24 pm »

Quote from: justinopolitanus on January 12, 2012, 12:58:37 pm

Cleopatra and Ptolemy were brothers.

If Cleopatra intended to put herself on these silver coins she could easily have done so unambiguously using the same portrait and named inscription as on the bronzes. She certainly had no problem identifying and depicting herself on those coins. The evolution of the portrait style of Ptolemy I on the obverse of silver tetradrachms took place over 250 years and there's no persuasive reason to conclude this portrait represents anyone else. Ptolemaic rulers *did* put contemporary queen portraits on certain coins. E.g. bronze coins with the portrait of Berenike III with her name right on them - no speculation required. Likewise silver coins with Arsinoe and Berenike with their names. This speculation comes up from time to time based solely on the vaguely (in our eyes, 2000 years after the fact) 'feminized' appearance. Anyone is free to believe it's Cleopatra VII if they wish but imho there's no particularly convincing reason to believe that it so, at least any more so than it's a portrait of the cute curly-haired Gerber baby. Ok, call me skeptical, but skepticism is justified

PtolemAE

coldavo · « **Reply #4 on:** January 13, 2012, 02:30:35 am »

My thanks to PtolemAE for his reply and I do agree with most of your points and agree that there is no "persuasive" reason to conclude definately that the portrait on the tetradrachm is not that of Ptolemy I - BUT I do find it intriguing and interesting that the portrait on each of the bronze issues, when placed over the one on the silver is probably in excess of 80% to being an exact match. Such a closeness to being nearly exactly the same is greater than many portraits of the same person on different coins.
I also can give no reason why Clepatra would have herself depicted as a male but possibly (?) the engravers copied the silver portrait from the bronze - or the same engraver did both.
As mentioned - it is interesting to see the features on the three coins show not only marked similarities but are close to being EXACTLY the same in most areas.
Questions, amswers and points of view all make the science of Numismatics that much more interesting.

Col

PtolemAE · « **Reply #5 on:** January 13, 2012, 03:37:24 pm »

Quote from: coldavo on January 13, 2012, 02:30:35 am

My thanks to PtolemAE for his reply and I do agree with most of your points and agree that there is no "persuasive" reason to conclude definately that the portrait on the tetradrachm is not that of Ptolemy I - BUT I do find it intriguing and interesting that the portrait on each of the bronze issues, when placed over the one on the silver is probably in excess of 80% to being an exact match. Such a closeness to being nearly exactly the same is greater than many portraits of the same person on different coins.
I also can give no reason why Clepatra would have herself depicted as a male but possibly (?) the engravers copied the silver portrait from the bronze - or the same engraver did both.
As mentioned - it is interesting to see the features on the three coins show not only marked similarities but are close to being EXACTLY the same in most areas.
Questions, amswers and points of view all make the science of Numismatics that much more interesting.

Col

I suspect many bronze coin portraits overlaid on this silver portrait would also have a good bit of 'agreement'. We often see what we have pre-disposed ourselves to want to see. By pre-selecting only these two coin types it's guaranteed you will see the agreement that does happen to exist between them and nothing else. Try overlaying a Cleo VII bronze portrait with Antiochos VIII - some will no doubt marvel at that resemblance, too.

There's a book on the wiki area of this web site that even resorted to pseudo-scientific 'genetics of facial resemblance' in discussing this topic.

But we are left with a very simple refutation that obviates having to jump through so many speculative hoops: Cleopatra put her picture and her name quite boldly right on the coins she wanted to have them. Parsimony trumps long chains of 'maybe'.

I once saw a portrait of Cleopatra VII in a cloud, or was it Antiochos VIII?

PtolemAE

rover1.3 · « **Reply #6 on:** January 13, 2012, 03:47:38 pm »

Quote from: PtolemAE on January 13, 2012, 03:37:24 pm

I once saw a portrait of Cleopatra VII in a cloud, or was it Antiochos VIII?

PtolemAE

It depends on the exact size of the nose, i would say...

Joe Sermarini · « **Reply #7 on:** January 13, 2012, 04:27:44 pm »

The portraits look like a woman, and in fact, they look like Cleopatra. I find it a bit difficult to ignore that. Undoubtedly they still had a few examples of Ptolemy I's bust or coins around if they wanted to accurately depict the founder of the dynasty. The intent likely was to emphasis Cleopatra's relationship to her ancestor by pretending she looked like him (by making him look like her). Examples of Ptolemy's portraits on the coins of earlier kings may also have had similar intent. The evolution of Ptolemy I's portrait was the likely result of intent, not accident.

Similar propaganda was used by Tiberius, whose earlier coins sometimes depict his bust modified to resemble Augustus.

coldavo · « **Reply #8 on:** January 15, 2012, 12:56:37 am »

My thanks to PtolemAe but especially to Joseph Sermarini who seems to have put a lot of thought and gives a reasonable possible conclusion to my request for discussion.
I feel that the arguments by PtolemAe, however, do not seem “to hold much water”. He concludes that the portrait is a simple 250 year evolution of the portrait of Ptolemy I and that there is no persuasive reason to conclude that it represents anyone else. Apparently PtolemAE did not bother to compare the portraits in the manner that I suggested. When I first did this I was amazed that the three portraits were almost EXACTLY alike. Not similar, not alike but almost identical. I would ask anyone interested to read my first entry and do this comparison. I feel that the degree of exactness is a persuasive reason to, at least, consider that it might be a representation of Cleopatra. It beggars belief that the 250 years of evolution (?) of Ptolemy’s portrait SUDDENLY shot off at a completely different tangent and looked like Cleopatra at just the time that she reigned.
PtolemAE also points out that the speculation arises based “solely on the vaguely (in our eyes, 2000 years after the fact) ‘feminised’ appearance’ and “that there is no convincing reason “ to believe that it is Cleopatra. My point was that it is not just the feminised appearance but the almost identical likeness to portraits of Cleopatra that gives a valid reason to consider it.
He also states that he suspects that many coin portraits would show similar agreement – PtolemAe – I have shown you mine – how about you showing me yours. Rather than suspect please give me examples of just a few of the “many” similar portraits. And as to seeing the agreement between the portraits “and nothing else” because we see “what we want to see” – I feel that if you had done as I suggested with regarding to comparison of the portraits you might have seen what I saw.
By the way, I did as you suggested and compared the feminised portrait to those of Antiochus VIII – I could not see any resemblance to marvel at and, if as you state, you cannot work out whether your cloud was Cleopatra or Antiochus VIII please refer to example of portraits of the two in Wildwinds. As to your suggestion that it is as likely to look like the curly-haired Gerber baby – I feel that it looks much more like Cleopatra.
Thanks to all,
Col

PtolemAE · « **Reply #9 on:** January 15, 2012, 04:05:17 pm »

Quote from: coldavo on January 15, 2012, 12:56:37 am

My thanks to PtolemAe but especially to Joseph Sermarini who seems to have put a lot of thought and gives a reasonable possible conclusion to my request for discussion.
I feel that the arguments by PtolemAe, however, do not seem “to hold much water”. He concludes that the portrait is a simple 250 year evolution of the portrait of Ptolemy I and that there is no persuasive reason to conclude that it represents anyone else. Apparently PtolemAE did not bother to compare the portraits in the manner that I suggested. When I first did this I was amazed that the three portraits were almost EXACTLY alike. Not similar, not alike but almost identical. I would ask anyone interested to read my first entry and do this comparison. I feel that the degree of exactness is a persuasive reason to, at least, consider that it might be a representation of Cleopatra. It beggars belief that the 250 years of evolution (?) of Ptolemy’s portrait SUDDENLY shot off at a completely different tangent and looked like Cleopatra at just the time that she reigned.

...

Actually I've looked at this topic quite a bit and am somewhat surprised people think these two faces look exactly alike (two attached cutouts from your photos above to help with simple facial comparison; the hair is obviously not comparable anyway). One has a hooked nose and one has a long ski-slope nose with opposite curvature. They look completely different to me but others might disagree.

The entire range of Ptolemy I portrait tetradrachms over their 250 years shows the portrait did evolve quite a bit. Joe's point is well-taken. Some other variations even in the 2nd C. BC are already quite different from the earliest portraits of Ptolemy I of the 3rd C. BC (e.g. a very high-art portrait often seen on Ptolemy VI tetradrachms). Changes in depictions of idealized figures seem to have taken place in ancient times as much as they do in modern times (see the change in how Liberty looks on early US coins vs. Morgan dollars or Barber and 'mercury' dimes a hundred years later).

Other Ptolemaic rulers who wanted their pictures and names on silver coins just plain put them there. So why not Cleo? That seems to be the more interesting question that would benefit from insightful analysis - why did the famous and powerful queen relegate her depiction and inscription to 'lowly' bronze?

Alexander tetradrachm portrait styles evolved, too, but it isn't clear that contemporary rulers put their own visages into them 150 years after Alexander.

A difference of opinion on facial resemblances is OK with me. It's an old perennial subject that people like perhaps because folks can't get enough of speculating about Cleo VII (about whom legends abound but facts are thin). Not sure it tells us much either way anyone thinks it looks.

PtolemAE

coldavo · « **Reply #10 on:** January 15, 2012, 05:24:55 pm »

Aw c’mon PtolemAe – that’s cheating.
Like myself in trying to make my point and using photographs which I thought showed great similarity - you, to make your own point, picked the worst of my examples to show dissimilarities. I showed the two photos of Cleopatra to point out that even her own portraits are different - but even the “hook-nosed” variety still matches up practically exactly with the tetradrachm except for the “hook”, the bridge of the nose and, of course, the hair. I feel that, if you compare the two photos of Cleopatra to each other and then compare the “straight-nose” portrait to the tetradrachm, then you will find nearly as much difference between the two Cleos as you will with the other two. It is fairer to show the three portraits – not just the two that you picked.
I haven’t had so much fun since I nearly won a debate with my wife.
All the best to all,
Col

PtolemAE · « **Reply #11 on:** January 16, 2012, 01:07:24 am »

Quote from: coldavo on January 15, 2012, 05:24:55 pm

Aw c’mon PtolemAe – that’s cheating. ...

I haven’t had so much fun since I nearly won a debate with my wife.
All the best to all,
Col

It's no more cheating than selectively choosing examples that meet the alternative criterion. We can pick coins that have a resemblance and others that don't. That's the point. There's also the sharply square cutoff of the jaw in front of the tetradrachm's ear (not seen in the face cutouts).

Maybe, maybe not... just one of those perennial topics that recurs from time to time

PtolemAE

coldavo · « **Reply #12 on:** January 16, 2012, 07:41:16 am »

Once again my thanks to both Joseph Sermarini and PtolemAE - the discussion that I hoped for certainly came good.

I had hoped for more people inputting opinions but feel that all bases have probably been covered.

This Forum is marvelous for persons like myself who need information and help with their queries and it is made possible only through people like Joseph Sermarini and PtolemAE who willingly give their time and expertise to answer questions and advise.

My thanks to all,
All the best,
Col

PtolemAE · « **Reply #13 on:** January 16, 2012, 10:22:45 pm »

Quote from: coldavo on January 16, 2012, 07:41:16 am

Once again my thanks to both Joseph Sermarini and PtolemAE - the discussion that I hoped for certainly came good.

I had hoped for more people inputting opinions but feel that all bases have probably been covered.

This Forum is marvelous for persons like myself who need information and help with their queries and it is made possible only through people like Joseph Sermarini and PtolemAE who willingly give their time and expertise to answer questions and advise.

My thanks to all,
All the best,
Col

Always fun. Stay tuned - I'll bet this come up again

Meantime there are lots of other interesting questions concerning Ptolemaic coins.

PtolemAE

Randygeki(h2) · « **Reply #14 on:** January 16, 2012, 11:12:39 pm »

Definitely an interesting topic!

PtolemAE · « **Reply #15 on:** January 18, 2012, 03:48:01 am »

Quote from: Randygeki(h2) on January 16, 2012, 11:12:39 pm

Definitely an interesting topic!

One of the many 'resemblance' kinds of topics that's fun maybe because we probably can't know (it's easy to make a case pro or con) if the pic on the silver is Cleo and even if we did know, what exactly *would* we know? That she 'concealed' her picture on silver coins but didn't bother to put here name on them? Cleopatra always tends to intrigue. Those folks would have done us better to at least leave some cellphone camera videos on youtube for posterity - maybe some shots of Cleo lazing around the palace playing with the kids with her hair down or vacation shots of her and Julius or Marc on a barge promenading down the nile

Is it true that Romans destroyed sculptures of her? Too bad.

PtolemAE

rover1.3 · « **Reply #16 on:** January 18, 2012, 03:56:10 am »

Alexandrian Kings

The Alexandrians turned out in force
to see Cleopatra's children,
Kaisarion and his little brothers,
Alexander and Ptolemy,
who'd been taken out to the Gymnasium for the first time,
to be proclaimed kings there
before a brilliant array of soldiers.

Alexander: they declared him
king of Armenia, Media, and the Parthians.
Ptolemy: they declared him
king of Cilicia, Syria, and Phoenicia.
Kaisarion was standing in front of the others,
dressed in pink silk,
on his chest a bunch of hyacinths,
his belt a double row of amethysts and sapphires,
his shoes tied with white ribbons
prinked with rose-coloured pearls.
They declared him greater than his brothers,
they declared him King of Kings.

The Alexandrians knew of course
that this was all just words, all theatre.

But the day was warm and poetic,
the sky a pale blue,
the Alexandrian Gymnasium
a complete artistic triumph,
the courtiers wonderfully sumptuous,
Kaisarion all grace and beauty
(Cleopatra's son, blood of the Lagids);
and the Alexandrians thronged to the festival,
full of enthusiasm, and shouted acclamations
in Greek, and Egyptian, and some in Hebrew,
charmed by the lovely spectacle --
though they knew of course what all this was worth,
what empty words they really were, these kingships.

Constantine P. Cavafy 1912

Matt Kreuzer · « **Reply #17 on:** January 21, 2012, 04:03:47 pm »

Col,

I agree that the portrait on the billon tetradrachm does share many features with that more certainly of Cleopatra VII. If you compare the billon tetradrachm with the portrait on silver tetradrachms struck with the portrait of Ptolemy I in c. 290 BC, there are few common elements.

This is an idea mentioned in my book on the coins of Cyprus.

Matt Kreuzer

Matt Kreuzer · « **Reply #18 on:** January 21, 2012, 04:21:35 pm »

Quote from: PtolemAE on January 18, 2012, 03:48:01 am

Quote from: Randygeki(h2) on January 16, 2012, 11:12:39 pm
Definitely an interesting topic!

One of the many 'resemblance' kinds of topics that's fun maybe because we probably can't know (it's easy to make a case pro or con) if the pic on the silver is Cleo and even if we did know, what exactly *would* we know? That she 'concealed' her picture on silver coins but didn't bother to put here name on them? Cleopatra always tends to intrigue. Those folks would have done us better to at least leave some cellphone camera videos on youtube for posterity - maybe some shots of Cleo lazing around the palace playing with the kids with her hair down or vacation shots of her and Julius or Marc on a barge promenading down the nile Is it true that Romans destroyed sculptures of her? Too bad.

PtolemAE

Cleopatra VII was a woman, in a world that valued men more than woman. In Egypt, women could barely venture into legal contracts. Cleopatra found it politically expedient to marry her brother Ptolemy XIII. After his drowning death, she married another, even younger brother, Ptolemy XIV. He was executed by order of his sister, in the wake of the death of Julius Caesar. She next took her son, Ptolemy XV Caesarion as consort. He proved the most open to her instruction. In dating formula, the male was usually listed first.

Silver coinage was a type of legal contract. The tetradrachm was a certified weight of silver. Each tetradrachm was "signed" by the name of "Ptolemy King" on the reverse, as a certification that it contained the proper weight of silver. The image of the ruler, the eagle, and the name were all symbols of this certification.

The image is very far from Ptolemy I. The image on the billon tetradrachm does not share much connection with this ancestor. It may be an image of the male Ptolemy, who was mentioned on the reverse. So Ptolemy XII, Ptolemy XIII, Ptolemy XIV, and Ptolemy XV. Morkholm saw a distinct break in the style of hair, with two hair styles. Cleopatra would have looked like her brothers, yes? They were much more related than the average family. ;-)

Matt

OldMoney · « **Reply #19 on:** January 21, 2012, 11:28:58 pm »

What is the point of two identical threads?
In the same place, by the same person, at the same time?

coldavo · « **Reply #20 on:** January 23, 2012, 04:28:13 pm »

Hi Numismo,
Sorry about that - I'm new to the forum and didn't realise that the query had actually been entered - then I wasn't able (lack of knowledge on how to) to delete it.
Col

PtolemAE · « **Reply #21 on:** January 24, 2012, 02:48:12 am »

Quote from: Matt Kreuzer on January 21, 2012, 04:21:35 pm

Cleopatra VII was a woman, in a world that valued men more than woman. In Egypt, women could barely venture into legal contracts. Cleopatra found it politically expedient to marry her brother Ptolemy XIII. After his drowning death, she married another, even younger brother, Ptolemy XIV. He was executed by order of his sister, in the wake of the death of Julius Caesar. She next took her son, Ptolemy XV Caesarion as consort. He proved the most open to her instruction. In dating formula, the male was usually listed first.

Silver coinage was a type of legal contract. The tetradrachm was a certified weight of silver. Each tetradrachm was "signed" by the name of "Ptolemy King" on the reverse, as a certification that it contained the proper weight of silver. The image of the ruler, the eagle, and the name were all symbols of this certification.

The image is very far from Ptolemy I. The image on the billon tetradrachm does not share much connection with this ancestor. It may be an image of the male Ptolemy, who was mentioned on the reverse. So Ptolemy XII, Ptolemy XIII, Ptolemy XIV, and Ptolemy XV. Morkholm saw a distinct break in the style of hair, with two hair styles. Cleopatra would have looked like her brothers, yes? They were much more related than the average family. ;-)

Matt

Egyptian contract law aside (maybe for another thread some day) ...

The Zeus portraits on Egyptian coins of this time don't look much like the Zeus portraits of 100 or 200 years earlier, either. Styles change (compare Liberty on 1810 US coins 1910 coins and you could easily wonder, 2000 years hence, if US kings had multiple queens named Liberty). 'Ptolemy I' portraits on the tetradrachms had already evolved from the original after only 100 years and it's hard telling if there's anything more to the portraiture change on these coins than additional artistic evolution. Some 3rd C. BC Egyptian coins appear to be influenced by styles imported from Sicily (and vice versa) and this portrait might simply reflect influence of Roman style of its time. Certainly more elegant the the original mug of Ptolemy I. Most theories of this portrait style can't be proven wrong so .. take your pick.

PtolemAE

OldMoney · « **Reply #22 on:** January 24, 2012, 10:10:16 am »

No problems Col,
I was a little perplexed and just thought it would cause nothing
but confusion to have them both running at the same time, etc.
I am sure there are Moderators out there who may be able to
somehow merge the two identical threads.
Welcome to the Forum.

Walter Holt
btw - if you ask the people at the Celator real nice, they may be
able to direct you to a brief article I wrote about Cleopatra some
years ago (if you do not know about the Celator, do a google
search - all will ultimately be revealed).

Matt Kreuzer · « **Reply #23 on:** January 24, 2012, 11:31:41 am »

Here are better images of 3) the coin type in question, placed near coins with:

2) Portrait of Ptolemy I and
1) Portrait of Cleopatra VII.

Which portrait image does 3) look more like? 2) or 1)

The last two images are from CNG auctions, while the image of the Cleopatra bronze is from the Hunterian Museum.

PtolemAE · « **Reply #24 on:** January 24, 2012, 11:59:59 am »

Quote from: Matt Kreuzer on January 24, 2012, 11:31:41 am

Here are images of 1) the coin type in question, placed near coins with:

2) Portrait of Ptolemy I and
3) Portrait of Cleopatra VII.

Which portrait image does 1) look more like? 2) or 3)

The first two images are from CNG auctions, while the last is from the Hunterian Museum.

Hard to tell where that leading question leads ...

On this particular pack of cherry-picked pix it is remarkable how much more the nose of Cleopatra resembles that on the coin of her distant ancestor than the ski-slope long pointed nose on the contemporary silver coin. Yet the sloped-back foreheads and jaw lines on the two silver coins resemble one another more than they resemble those features on the Cleo bronze.

PtolemAE

News:

Author Topic: The "feminised" portrait on coins of Cleopatra VII-are they Ptolemy or Cleopatra (Read 4589 times)

justinopolitanus