You are on page 1of 13

A NEW CLEOPATRA TETRADRACHM OF ASCALON

PLATE IX
OBVERSE -Bust of Cleopatra r., draped, wearing broad diadem with ends, earring
and necklace; border of dots.
Reverse- A•KAAQNITQN IEPA* A?YAOYbeginning above on r., mostly off flan.
Eagle standing 1. on thunderbolt, palm branch over r. shoulder; on lower 1., dove 1.
with closed wings on ground line, above which, monogram 4; in r. field, Greek letter-
date LI C.
A tetradrachm 29 mm. 13.52 grm., V. Adda Coll., Alexandria, Egypt (formerly
S. H. Chapman, U. S. A.;) Cat. Naville, XVI, 1933, P1. 49, 1473; P1. IX 2.
In the British Museum Catalogue, Palestine, the tetradrachm with Cleopatra's
portrait (P1. XII, 3) and the date LN6, "year fifty-five" is assigned to 30/29 B.C.,
being reckoned on an era assumed by Svoronos 1to have begun in 84 B.C.Clearly, the
known letter-dates on this coinage, L N (B?) 2 and L N6 could not be interpreted as
indicating regnal years of the queen as her rule covered only twenty-one years, 51 to
30 B.C. Svoronos, following Feuardent,3 thought that these dates must be based
upon an era in the eighties, since the coins would then be contemporary with
Cleopatra's supposed control of the city, and thus the appearance on the coinage
of Ptolemaic portraits, those of the queen, and of one or both of her younger brothers
would be explained. The coins with Cleopatra's head would, therefore, date around
30 B.c. when the queen, born in 69, would be about forty years old, a period con-
sidered appropriate by Svoronos, who regarded the portrait as representing a
woman nearing middle age. This conception is quite understandable, for, on the
British Museum specimen, Cleopatra so resembles an aged woman -children would
call her a witch or a hag, with her beak of a nose and deeply wrinkled neck-that it
is amusing to see this coin illustrated in connection with the sentimental verses
beginning: "Cclair d'amour qui blesse et de haine qui tue."4
The beautiful, new specimen here published with date LI -, "year 66," effectively
disposes of Svoronos' hypothetical era of 84 B.c. If the coin were dated from this era,
it would have been struck in 19 B.C. or ten years after Cleopatra's death. Reckoned
from the year of autonomy of the city,, 104 or 103 B.C., "year 66" of Ascalon is the
equivalent of 39 or 38 B.C. when the queen was about thirty years of age. Conse-
quently this coin, with as youthful a portrait as occurs on any of the tetradrachms, is
eleven years later than the British Museum specimen with the "elderly " head of
"year 55." Obviously, the London coin is merely an instance of very poor style.
Cleopatra was not intentionally represented as past her youth. Also the correspond-
ing coins (Fig. 1; B.M.C., P1. XII, 1) with heads of Ptolemaic kings, when correctly
reckoned, fall within the reigns of Ptolemy X and XIII. Hence it is their portraits
1 Svoronos, (v I, p. vo3'. 2 P1. IX, 1; Svoronos, op. cit., pl. LXIII, 10.
Td rHroXepalWv,
3 Rev. Num. 1874-77, pp. 184-194.
Noi.tor.tara
4 Bevan-Mahaffy, History of Egypt, p. 358.
5 Chron. Paschale, Ed. Dindorf, 1839, I, p. 346. 'AYKaXWrvaaL ro bs xp'ovs~ 01.
169, 1. •avr&, ,rewerev
&p.oTvrL,
459

THE ARCHAEOLOGICALINSTITUTE
OF AMERICA
A NEW CLEOPATRATETRADRACHMOF ASCALON 453

which appear on the coins and not those of Ptolemy XIV and XV "as boys, but with
the features of the early Ptolemies," as Feuardent and Svoronos conjectured.
Neither of the two points of departure suggested respectively by Feuardent and
Svoronos for the beginning of a special new era for the dating of the silver issues of
Ascalon was well founded, or otherwise known. Feuardent's year 81 B.c., the acces-
sion of Ptolemy Auletes, had little point, although it might explain the appearance
of his portrait on the coinage. But Svoronos' era of 84 B.c. when the Jewish king,
Jannai, Alexander Jannaeus, was defeated by Aretas III of Nabataea, has no con-
nection with the Ptolemies.
These considerations, however, were obscured by Svoronos' vigorously expressed
idea as to the aged portrait of Cleopatra, and de Saulcy's sober reasoning 1 that the
philo-Ptolemaic silver coins were dated, like the bronze issues 2 from the era of
Ascalon's independence, 104-103, was com-
pletely forgotten. A contributory cause for
the perpetuation of Svoronos' error was the
natural assumption that the coins were royal
issues from a mint under Cleopatra's control.3
The only period when this could be, it was
argued, was after the territorial gifts of M.
Antonius to the queen on the occasion of their
FIG. 1 -No. 5 (a)
open union (or marriage) in 37 B.C. when many
of the former overseas possessions of Ptolemy II Philadelphus were restored to the
Egyptian throne. These included the kingdom of Chalcis with its surrounding country,
i.e., Coele-Syria; most of the Phoenician and Palestinian coast towns, except Tyre
and Sidon; Cyprus; parts of Cilicia, etc. Svoronos realized that Ascalon never formed
part of Cleopatra's realm, but he assumed that it might have been within her sphere
of influence. The city certainly was never subject to Egypt, as was Berytus, which
issued coinage with the heads of Antonius and Cleopatra. It was always free from
the time of the declaration of autonomy. Herod the Great never possessed it, for
after the Roman conquest of Syria and the territorial settlements of Pompey in 63
B.C., Ascalon is not listed among the coast cities liberated from Jewish rule and
annexed to the province of Syria." In 47 B.c., after the battle of Pharsalus and the
conquest of Egypt, Caesar reversed the arrangement of Pompey in so far as Jewish
rule in Judaea was concerned. He restored to the Jews, loppa, the port of Jerusalem,
which had been theirs from 147 B.C. when Jonathan Maccabaeus seized it, until
Pompey took it away.5 When, later, Herod received from Augustus "the territory
which had been appropriated (lit. "cut off," "detached") by Cleopatra- and the
maritime towns of Gaza, Anthedon, loppa and Straton's Tower,"6 there is no mention
of Ascalon, which lay close to and just north of Gaza. Its continued freedom from
Jewish domination is further implied by its inclusion among the cities outside Her-
I
Rev. Num. 1874-1877, p. 124 f.
2
Except some small E and AR of the second century B.c., dated by the Seleucid era.
3 Head, Hist. Num., p. 859; Hill, B.M.C., Palestine, p. Ivi.
4 Josephus, Bell. Iud. I, 156 (Loeb Classics).
5 Emil SchUrer,History of the Jewish People, 1889, I, p. 81.
Josephus, op. cit., I, 396.
454 AGNES BALDWIN BRETT

od's realm which he adorned with porticoes, temples and baths during the period
25-13 B.C.1
Since, according to the revised datings given below, Ptolemaic portraits were used
on the coinage of Ascalon long before the gifts of land by Antonius in 37 B.C.,they
cannot be explained as royal Egyptian issues at an outlying mint of the empire.
It therefore becomes our task to discover why they were employed in general, and
then so far as possible, why they occur at these precise dates. First, let us determine
the true dates of the coins.
TETRADRACHMS OF ASCALON WITH PTOLEMAIC PORTRAITS
Dated from the Year of Autonomy, 103 B.C.
TYPES: Obverse-Bust to right, draped, with diadem; border of dots.
Reverse-Eagle standing to left on a thunderbolt, palm branch over right wing;
dove 1. in left field; date with or without L, sign for "year"; inscription and mono-
gram: border of dots.
PTOLEMY X SOTER II (LATHYRUS), 116-80 B.C.
1. Year of Ascalon Q0 = 84 B.C.; Examples: (a) date LKin r. field; M between eagle's
legs; A K[AA N ITQN] IEPAE AE AYTO(v6oov);13.47 grm., Newell Coll. Plate IX, 10;
purchased by the writer in Amman, Transjordan, 1936; (b) date LK in r. field;
Mbetween eagle's legs; A[2 KAAQNITQN I]EPA5 AYTO;13.21 grm., London, B.M.C.,
Ah
Palestine, lacking; Zeit. f. Num. XXIX, 1912, P1. V, 12, published as a Seleucid issue
of Antiochus VIII.
PTOLEMY XIII NEOS DIONYSOS (AULETES), 80-51 B.C.

2. Year of Ascalon 34 =70 B.C.; date LA A in r. field; monogram 0 in 1. field;


[AEK]AAQNITQN[AEYAOYAYTO]; 12.88 grin., Athens; Svoronos II, No. 1878, P1.
LXIII, 9. Plate IX, 11.
3. Year of Ascalon 38= 66 B.C.; date HA in r. field; magistrate's initials Ah in 1.
field; [AEKAAQNITQN]IEPAd [AYTO],or A YA[OYAYTO];12.20 grm., Athens, Svoronos,
IV, No. 1778 (a), P1. A,?4, "gift from Jerusalem," Athens, 1906/7, AF 108.
4. Year of Ascalon 40=64 B.C.; date LM in 1. field; magistrate's letters MI, or
MW,above which, A, in r. field; A KAA NITQN A YAOYAYTONO;13.62 grm., Newell,
acquired from a Damascus dealer, 1936. Plate IX, 12.
5. Year of Ascalon 41 = 63 B.C. Examples: (a) date L M A in 1. field; monogram o
between the eagle's legs; [AEKA]AQNITQNAdYAOY [AYTO]; 12.59 grm., London,
B.M.C., Palestine, P1. XII, 1 = Svoronos, 1879, P1l.LXIII, 11, here, Fig. 1; (b) date,
AMin r. field; same monogram and inscription; 13.50 grm., Paris, Babelon, Rois de
Syrie, 1403, P1. XXIV, 18 = Svoronos, 1880, and IV, P1. A, 95. This coin (b), here,
Plate IX, 13, was attributed to Antiochus VIII of Syria, but is easily recognizable
as Ascalonian.2 It came from the same find as all of the previously known specimens.
6. Year of Ascalon 50=54 B.c.; date LN in r. field; monogram IP in 1. field;
AEKAAQ[NITQNIE]PAMAEYAOY;19.18 grm., London, B.M.C., Palestine, P1. XII, =
Svoronos, 1881, P1. LXIII, 19.
1Josephus, op. cit., I, 4~2. 2
Hill, B.M.C., Palestine, p. xlviii, note 3.
A NEW CLEOPATRATETRADRACHMOF ASCALON 455

CLEOPATRA VII, 51-30 B.C.


TYPES: Obverse - Bust to right, draped, wearing broad diadem, earring and neck-
lace; border of dots.
Reverse-Eagle standing to 1. on thunderbolt; palm and dove as before; date
always with L; inscription and monogram; border of dots.
7. Year of Ascalon 55 = 49 B.C. Examples: (a) date L N ? in r. field; monogram FIN
in l. field; A*KAA[Q NITQN IElPA*A*YAOY;13.04 grm., London, B.M.C., Palestine, P1.
XII, 3= Svoronos, 1885, P1. LXIII, 13; (b) similar types; 13.35 grm., Svoronos,
1884, Hoffman 91.
Feuardent read the letter-date on the London example as L N, the 6 being mis-
taken for an omega, shaped thus, (0, forming part of the ethnic inscription around
the coin. This date suited very nicely his preconceived idea that the coin repre-
sented Cleopatra as forty years old, since "year 50" of Ascalon based on 81 B.C.
gives 32 B.C. as the date. Svoronos read the date correctly as LN , "year 55,"
and, consequently, adopted a slightly earlier era, 84 B.C.,thus obtaining 30 B.C. as the
date of issue. Since the battle of Actium took place on September 2, 31 B.C., and
Octavian entered Alexandria on August 1, 30 B.C., the striking of an honorary coin
with Cleopatra's head at Ascalon in the year 30 B.C. is extremely unlikely. The
Hoffman coin (b), Svoronos read as bearing the letters L N B, the same date which he
discerned on the Athens specimen, next following. "Year 52," reckoned from the
supposed era of 84 B.C., gives 33 B.c., but calculated correctly, from 103, the date of
issue would be 52 B.C., which does not fall within Cleopatra's reign. The reading
cannot, therefore, be admitted. The coin was not illustrated but was described by
Svoronos as similar to the London example. The date remains uncertain.
8. Year 56 (?) of Ascalon = 48 B.c.; date LNE (?) in r. field; same monogram and
inscription; Athens Museum; 12.48 grm., Svoronos, 1883, PI. LXIII, 10. Pl. IX, 1.
Although the second numeral is illegible, owing to the worn and damaged state
of the reverse, we would hazard a guess that Eis the third letter, since part of the up-
right stroke is visible. The obverse and reverse dies are different from those of the
London example, No. 7, of "year 55," but the monogram and probably the inscrip-
tion are identical, so that a "year 56" issue of Ascalon is probable. The crucial
letter is certainly not to be read as 6, though a straight E is possible. Another read-
ing L N F is an allowable alternative, as this would place the coin in 51 B.C., the first
year of Cleopatra's rule.
9. Year of Ascalon 66=38 B.C.; date LIECin r. field; monogram o in 1. field;
same inscription; 13.52 grm.; Cat. Naville, XVI, 1933, No. 1473, P1. 49. P1. IX, 2.
This coin, the finest of all the Cleopatra tetradrachms of Ascalon, was formerly
in the possession of Mrs. S. H. Chapman, havingbeen secured by her late husband
in Palestine a few years ago. Its date proves that the Ascalonian year of autonomy
is the era from which these silver coins were dated.
From the above list we see that the extant coins include: one issue for Ptolemy X
in 84 B.c.; five for Ptolemy XIII in 70, 66, 64, 63 and 54 B.c., and two with certain
years for Cleopatra, Nos. 7 and 9, in 49 and 38; and a third issue, No. 8, possibly in
48. The surviving coins are so exceedingly rare that one must conclude that they
456 AGNES BALDWIN BRETT

were only occasional issues. They are also the only large silver coins ever struck at
this mint. All of those in the British Museum, with L M A and L N for Ptolemy
XIII, and L N 6 for Cleopatra, came from a find said to have been made at Safed
in Galilee and are the coins recorded by de Saulcy. The coin in the Athens Museum,
L A A for Ptolemy XIII and No. 7 (b) with uncertain date for Cleopatra are of the
same origin. It may be concluded, therefore, that No. 8 in the Athens Museum
is also from the hoard.
A particular reason must have existed for the homage rendered to the Egyptian
rulers on these coins, which comprise an extraordinary issue of large silver pieces
that contrast conspicuously with the modest and not very abundant currency in
bronze. In 103 B.C., Ptolemy X Lathyrus went to the aid of the Palestinian and
Phoenician cities on the coast, which were threatened by Alexander Jannaeus who
had conquered most of Palestine, and at Asophon, in the Jordan valley, he defeated
the Jewish king. Saved from Jewish domination, Ascalon declared its independence.
That this is the origin of the friendly attitude of the city towards Egypt is confirmed
by a numismatic record. In the same year, Tyre issued a remarkable gold coin,' a
double shekel or octadrachm (P1. IX, 14): Bust of Tyche, r., veiled and turreted,
with stephane; border of dots. Reverse -Double cornucopiae filled with fruits and
hung with a fillet or diadem, TYPOYIEPA: KAI AYAOY,"Tyre sacred and inviolable ";
in left field F K "(year) 23." The type of the city goddess, employed now for the
first time at Tyre,2 emphasizes anew her autonomy, achieved originally in 125 B.C.
The occasion for the striking of this medallion-like piece, the only gold issue of the
free city, is clear from its date, "year 3 " = 103 B.C.,and from the reverse type which
is similar to that of the Arsintie gold octadrachms of Egypt the denomination of
which it also follows. The coin commemorates the preservation of the freedom of
Tyre by the assistance of Ptolemy Lathyrus. In support of this it may be recalled
that Ptolemy landed near the Phoenician city, Ptolemais-Ace, which had first ap-
pealed for aid. Tyre, too, the most powerful of the coast cities, surely gave support
to and received military aid from Ptolemy in this crisis.
Incidentally, it may be noted that Tyche here wears a stephane as well as the mural
crown, and this detail indicates even closer affinity to the Arsinoeitype. The immedi-
ate prototype, however, was the silver tetradrachm of Cleopatra Thea of Syria,3
daughter of Ptolemy VI Philometor, issued in 195 B.C. (Fig. 2), which itself was
adapted from the Arsinoe type. Now, since Tyre in 103 B.C.modelled its coin com-
memorating the retention of freedom upon the Syrian coin of 195 B.C., the first year
of its autonomy, and since Demetrius II, the rival of the Syrian queen for the
throne, was killed in Tyre in 195, doubtless at the command of Cleopatra Thea, it is
reasonable to conjecture that it was Cleopatra who granted autonomy to the city.
The murder of Demetrius would have been the price which she exacted from Tyre for
its liberty.
At first glance there seems to be a discrepancy of one year in our dates relating to
I
B.M.C., Phoenicia, pl. XLIV, 4, Berlin Cabinet.
2
Derived from the earlier autonomous coinage of Aradus where the veiled and turreted type began
in 137-6 B.C.
B.M.C., Syria, pl. XXIII, 1; Babelon, Rois de Syrie, p. clii; Head, Hist. Num.2, p. 769, fig. 339.
A NEW CLEOPATRATETRADRACHM OF ASCALON 457

these events, the era of Ascalon being always given as 104 B.C. The explanation of
this is very simple. Our source is the Chronicon Paschale and the date is expressed
in Olympiads. Under Olympiad 169, 1, which was 650 A.U.C., Ascalon began its
own independent era. But the period covered by Olympiad 169, 1, tallies exactly 1
with June 22, 104 to June 11, 103 B.C. As 103 B.C. is established from other sources
as the date of Alexander Jannaeus' accession, and the foregoing analysis proves
that Tyre celebrated her retention of autonomy by Ptolemaic aid in 103 = "year 23 "
calculated from 125 (death of Demetrius), it follows that Ascalon's autonomy was
won in 103 B.C. In calculating the years of the Ascalonian coins, 103 B.c. has conse-
quently been taken as the true date. It is interesting to observe that before the exact
date of Ascalon's autonomy had been determined, the writer found that if the coin-
dates were calculated from 104, several of
the issues were just one year too early for
the events which would furnish reasonable
explanations of their issue.
Assuming, as the extant coins would sug-
gest, that they were struck only on par-
ticular occasions, to what special circum-
stances can we assign the issue of L K, year
FIG. 2.--TETRADRACHM. CLEOPATRA THEA
20= 84 B.c., with the portrait of Lathyrus?
OF SYRIA
In this year Ascalon may well have felt
her position extremely precarious, having just witnessed the collapse of Seleucid rule
and the paralysis of sea-trade due to unrestrained piracy following Sulla's with-
drawal from the East. Of all the free Greek cities on the coast Ascalon alone went
unscathed when Jannaeus pillaged their territories or laid them in ruins, because of
the immunity she had previously purchased from the Jewish king. It was a fitting
moment for the clients of Egypt to affirm their loyalty to the protector, who twenty
years earlier had enabled them to resist Jannaeus and achieve autonomy.
When the coin of year 34, AA = 70 B.c., was issued, Tigranes, ruler of Syria since
83, was engaged in warring against Rome on behalf of his father-in-law, Mithradates
the Great, and had already advanced along the Phoenician coast, and was besieging
Ptolemais-Ace where Cleopatra Selene, former wife of Lathyrus, was opposing him.
That the southward extension of his conquests appeared as a menace to the people
of Judaea is evident from the appeal sent him by Salome Alexandra, the queen,
offering treaties and gifts.2 The following year Tigranes, hearing of Lucullus' inva-
sion of Armenia, retired thither after capturing Ptolemais, taking Cleopatra, whom
he put to death. Under these circumstances Ascalon might naturally stamp on her
coinage types proclaiming her fealty to the ruling Ptolemy, Auletes, and asserting
her "inviolability and autonomy."
Ptolemaic types appear again on the Ascalonian coinage in 66 B.c. when danger
again threatened Ascalon's security. For some years the two sons of Jannaeus,
Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II, had been quarreling over the succession. In 65 B.C.,
Pompey's lieutenants, Gabinius and Scaurus, made a patch work settlement of the
SE. Mahler, ChronologischeVergleichungs-Tabellen,1889, I, p. 66.
2 Josephus, Bell. Iud., Loeb Classics, 5, 3.
1I,
458 AGNES BALDWIN BRETT

dispute, but not until the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 was the controversy
decided. It would be only natural that Ascalon, always bitterly anti-Jewish,'
should have been alarmed by this factional strife, and have given expression to its
continued reliance upon Egypt in 66, 64 and 63 by complimentary issues bearing
Auletes' portrait, Nos. 3-5. As a matter of record, Auletes sent to Pompey a cavalry
force of 8000 in 63, and the third issue may well have been struck in special recogni-
tion of this aid.
About ten years later, in 55 B.c., Gabinius performed the task avoided by Pompey
of restoring Auletes to his throne lost for three years. In the following year, 54,
Ascalon renewed its gesture of subordination to Egypt's supremacy by placing the
head of Auletes on its coinage, No. 6.
On this coin, and on the following pieces struck after Syria had been incorpo-
rated as a province of Rome in 63 B.c., Ascalon no longer employed the title
in the coin-formula, using only ipb~s Ka~lravXos.This probably indicates a
abrvTV6oOS
slight change of status under Roman sovereignty. But Ascalon was still a "free"
town.
The two issues bearing Cleopatra's head, No. 7 (a), with certain date, and Nos.
7 (b) and 8, with uncertain dates, will be considered together. The latter piece is the
coin in the Athens Museum, the date of which is perhaps to be read as L N C, "year
56 " = 48 B.c. To judge from the style of the eagle, this coin might be earlier than
the British Museum specimen, No. 7 (a) with L N6, "year 55 "= 49 B.c. In that case,
the date would have to be L N F, "year 53"= 51 B.C., and would then have been
issued in Cleopatra's first regnal year. If so, there would be no political or military
event, merely her accession, to account for the issue. If, however, the date is L N C,
"year 56" = 48 B.c., as seems more probable, this coin follows the British Museum
coin with L N6, the two belonging to 49 and 48. Or, with greater probability from the
point of view of interpretation, the date may be L N E, the same as that of No. 7 (a).
There is no apparent reason for the repetition of the homage in 48, whereas the sec-
ond of the two successive issues for Auletes may have had a particular motive, as we
have shown.
In 49 B.C.,the outbreak of the Civil War between Pompey and Caesar would most
decidedly have caused repercussions in distant Ascalon. Although the city doubtless
favored Pompey, whose lieutenant, Gabinius, had restored its protector, Auletes, to
his throne, we can hardly construe the expression of homage to Egypt at this junc-
ture as openly directed against Caesar. At any rate, we know that when in 49 Cn.
Pompey, son of the commander, visited Alexandria, Cleopatra met him and con-
tributed fifty ships, supplies of corn and 500 men from the army of occupation left
in Egypt by Gabinius. Ascalon would naturally be afraid that Pompey's arrange-
ment of Jewish affairs, whereby Hyrcanus II was made High Priest in Jerusalem,
without the title of King, might be upset. That such a fear would have been justified
is proved by subsequent events. Caesar freed Aristobulus whom Pompey had taken
to Rome as a prisoner of war. He sent him back to Jerusalem, and on the route
thither Aristobulus was murdered by the Pompeians.
'Philon of Alexandria, Legatio ad Caium: "les Ascalonites, et les Juifs de la Terre Sainte, leurs
voisins, ont entre eux une haine ancienne, indestructible," trans. F. Delaunay.
A NEW CLEOPATRATETRADRACHMOF ASCALON 459

The last coin, No. 9, was struck in 38 B.c. after the recognition by Rome through
the Treaty of Brundisium in October, 40 B.C.,that the eastern provinces belonged to
Antonius. Here, it seems, we are on particularly firm ground in attributing the issue
to the current political situation. Early in 40, the whole of Syria had fallen into the
hands of the Parthians. Under Pacorus, son of King Orodes, and of Q. Labienus,
renegade Roman general, Syria was invaded and all of Phoenicia (Tyre excepted)
and Palestine were conquered. In Judaea, Antigonus Mattathias, who was the son
of the murdered Aristobulus and the Hasmonaean rival of Herod the Great, bribed
Pacorus to seat him on his throne. Herod fled late in this year to Alexandria, where
he was cordially received by Cleopatra, from whom he obtained a ship in which to
sail to Rome. There he was formally declared King of Judaea by Antonius and the
Roman Senate. The next year, 39 B.C., the Parthians and Antigonus being still
supreme in the East, Ventidius was sent by Antonius to drive them out. He was
successful, but did not put Antigonus off his throne, having received large sums of
money as a bribe, cs Xprn-6rc,1 says Josephus. It was not until the following
ivewX•Mo07
year that the Parthians were routed decisively, and Herod did not gain the throne
until 37 B.c.
Under the condition of changing rulers in Palestine, Ascalon must have felt very
uneasy. A renewal of Ascalon's expression of loyalty to Cleopatra would seem
highly appropriate under these circumstances, when Judaea was torn by violent
strife, and the throne was occupied up to 37 by Antigonus, whose sentiments were
strongly anti-Roman as well as pro-Parthian.
The portrait of Cleopatra at Ascalon is so similar to that on her Alexandrian
bronze coins, Plate IX, 3-5, that it was probably copied from the latter. Since the
earliest tetradrachm was struck in 49 B.C., the bronze issues must belong early in
her reign. This invalidates the assumption of W. Giesecke,2 who thought that since
their weight is reduced to one quarter of that of Auletes' bronze coins, they must
have been issued at the end of her reign, when she was obliged through economic
necessity to reduce the standard. But this change may equally well have taken place
at the beginning of her rule. There are some examples (P1l.IX, 4) of a rather youthful
portrait on these bronze pieces, which go well with the famous drachm in the British
Museum (P1. IX, 6) of her sixth regnal year, L C, "year 6"= 47/6 B.C. (Egyptian
Year)." This unique specimen is generally considered to bear her finest portrait.
There is an expression of force and vitality in this head, and, as the heavy chignon
which gives the Ascalonian heads a more matronly look is nearly obliterated in the
striking, we seem to catch in this portrait more of the youthful Cleopatra of our
imagination. On another drachm of her eleventh regnal year, LIA, "year II "= 42/1
B.C. (Egyptian Year), in the Boston Museum (P1. IX, 9), the portrait is that of the
"elderly" type. Yet it antedates the new tetradrachm of Ascalon of 38 B.c. One
cannot judge the age from the coin-portraits, and allowance must certainly be made
for the coiffure with the drooping "bun," which to modern eyes detracts from the
youthful appearance of the head.

I Josephus, op. cit., I, 279. 2Das Ptolemdergeld,p. 71.


B.M.C., Ptolemies, pl. XXX, 5; Svoronos, Noy. nroX., no. 18'53.
460 AGNES BALDWIN BRETT

In order to show the strong resemblance which Cleopatra bore to her father, an
example of one of his rare drachms 1 with authentic portrait (Fig. 3 and P1. IX, 7),
struck in his twenty-eighth regnal year, L K H, "year 08 "=54/3 B.C. (Egyptian
Year) is placed alongside the British Museum drachm (Fig. 4 and Plate IX, 6), both
enlarged.2 Especially to be remarked is the pronounced hooked nose of both. Perhaps
as youthful a portrait as any is the head on the unique bronze coin of Berytus (P1.
IX, 8) in the Athens Museum.3 Here the chignon is relatively smaller, the head is
tilted upwards, giving an appearance of alertness and youth. The style is vastly
superior to that of the other Berytian bronze issues with heads of Cleopatra and
Antonius.4 All of these coins of Berytus are dated in Cleopatra's twenty-first regnal

FIG. 3. -DRACHM. PTOLEMY AULETES. FIG. 4. -DRACHM. CLEOPATRA. BRIT-


NEWELL COLLECTION. ENLARGED ISH MUSEUM. ENLARGED

year, those with the two heads having the inscription ?TOVCKATOVKAIC OAC
NEWTC PAC,"of the year 21 which is also 6 of the New Goddess," while the Athens
LC
coin has L A K year 6, year 21." This latter piece has as reverse type the local
Poseidon of Berytus and the ethnic B H in the left field. It should, therefore, be re-
garded as a civic issue in contrast to those with the two portraits which form a
purely royal coinage.5The coin bears on the obverse another letter-date L N, "year
50," which we believe to be most intimately connected with Cleopatra.
All of the Berytian coins with double dating, "year 21 = 6," belong to an era based
upon the Egyptian year, starting in the autumn of 37 B.c. This era was inaugurated
in 35/34 B.C. (An.Aeg.), more precisely in August 34 B.c. (Julian Calendar), which
was still 35 according to the Egyptian calendar, which lagged eight months behind
the Julian. Of this era the following double numerations on Egyptian papyri, stelae,
etc., are known: 18=3, P. Rylands II, No. 69; 19=4, OGIS, 195; 20 = 5, OGIS,
196 and Greek Ostracon, Bodleian Library, Tait, No. 222; 2 = 7, P. Oxyrhyncus
Svoronos, op. cit., no. 1838; specimen from the Newell Coll.
2Photographs by A. Genthe, for permission to use which the writer is indebted to the publishers,
Boni and Liveright. B.M.C., Phoenicia, pl. XL, 2. 4 Ibid., pl. VII, 10.
5 In the C.A.H. X, p. 100 and note 4, Kahrstedt's view, Klio 1910, pp. 276 ff., that the civic coin-
age preceded the royal, since the reverse order would imply a rebellion against Cleopatra, an impos-
sible assumption in view of the retention of her portrait, is completely misunderstood.
A NEW CLEOPATRA TETRADRACHM OF ASCALON 461

III, 1453. These datings confirm the statement of Porphyrius that Cleopatra's six-
teenth year was called also her first, rb8' fKKa5kKarTO 7ToKa ~
I
vOlVcrO•trl
irpw^rov.Porphyrius
thought that these double datings referred, respectively, to Cleopatra's regnal year
in Egypt and her new regnal year as queen in the East. Svoronos and Regling 2
accepted this explanation, but it has long been realized that since they occur on
Egyptian documents they could not relate to a local era of Cleopatra in the East.3
Hill 4 recognized that the second numeral must refer either to Ptolemy Caesar,
"Caesarion," or to M. Antonius. It remained for Tarn 5 to point out that the era
was obviously created for Antonius, who was thereby designated as overlord with
Cleopatra of Rome and the whole East. This is entirely consistent with the royal
issues of Berytus which have Cleopatra's portrait on the obverse, while that of
Antonius takes a subordinate position on the reverse. These two declared them-
selves supreme sovereigns, but Antonius did not have the title of King. The queen is
the mint authority. Her name and title, pacrLXatrcs, are inscribed around her por-
trait on the obverse, and her regnal year precedes in the inscription around the head
of Antonius on the reverse.
When the Berytian coins were struck, probably in 31 B.C., Antonius had com-
pleted the assembly of a vast fleet, and we find very attractive the suggestion of
Kahrstedt 6that Berytus was the naval base for some of his ships. This city, Beirut,
with an excellent harbor, centrally located, lying north of Tyre and Sidon which
were not under Antonius' control, would have been a most convenient port for his
forces recruited in Syria.
As stated, the coin with B H bears on the obverse the letter-date LN, "year 50,"
which has been thought to be based upon 80 B.C., an otherwise unknown era of Bery-
tus, difficult to explain. But "year O21 =6" of the reverse, equal to "year 50" of the
obverse, is not precisely equivalent to 31 B.C.It represents the Egyptian year 32/31,
and hence "year 50" is to be equated with 81/80 B.C. which is the accession year of
Auletes. In whatever part of the Egyptian year Ptolemy acceded (summer of 80
B.C. is the accepted date), his accession was reckoned from Thoth 1, New Year's
Day, September 1, 81 B.c. Therefore, "year 50" on this coin dated in Cleopatra's
twenty-first year, is the year of Ptolemy's accession, autumn of 81 to autumn
of 80 B.C. If, as we believe, L N does not relate to a local era of Berytus (for which no
satisfactory explanation has been proposed) then "year 50" probably represents an
era created by Cleopatra at this supreme moment of her life when she and Antonius
were preparing to contend with Octavianus for the mastery of the world. In
adding
this new era to the one she had already created for Antonius, Cleopatra com-
memorated Auletes' accession, thinking perhaps in this way to legitimize her
family
in the eyes of the Eastern world. She was establishing a record of her dynasty by
documenting it on a coin. This reference to her father's accession may be interpreted
as a gesture of defiance to Rome, which for many years had disputed the succession
of this son of a concubine of Ptolemy XII, and also to the generation which had
called him Nothos.
' In Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, I, 170. 2Zeit. f. Num. 25, 1906, p. 396.
3 C.A.H. X, p. 81. 4 B.M.C., Phoenicia,p. li. 6 C.A.H., ibid. 6 Op. cit., p. 277.
46 AGNES BALDWIN BRETT

TABLE OF REGNAL YEARS OF PTOLEMY XIII AND CLEOPATRA

(Accordingto the EgyptianCalendar)


Ptolemy XIII = 1-30 Cleopatra = 1-22
81-80 B.C. A 1 30 52-51 B.C. A 1
80-79 B 2 (31) 51-50 B
79-78 F 3 (32) 50-49 F 3
78-77 A 4 (33) 49-48 A4
77-76 E 5 (34) 48-47 E 5
76-75 [ 6 (35) 47-46 [ 6
75-74 Z 7 (36) 46-45 Z 7
74-73 H 8 (37) 45-44 H 8
73-72 0 9 (38) 44-43 0 9
72-71 I 10 (39) 43-42 I 10
71-70 IA 11 (40) 42-41 IA 11
70-69 IB 12 (41) 41-40 IB 12
69-68 IT 13 (492) 40-39 IF 13
68-67 IA 14 (43) 39-38 IA 14
67-66 IE 15 (44) 38-37 IE 15
66-65 I[ 16 (45) 37-36 16=1
I[
65-64 IZ 17 (46) 36-35 IZ 17=2
64-63 IH 18 (47) 35-34 IH 18=3
63-62 I10 19 (48) 34-33 I0 19= 4
62-61 K 20 (49) 33-32 K 20=5
61-60 KA 21 (50) 32-31 KA 21=6
60-59 KB 22 31-30 KB • =7
59-58 Kr 23
58-57 KA 24
57-56 KE 25 Exile, no coins
56-55 K[ 26
55-54 KI 27
54-53 KH 28
53-52 K0 29

According to Porphyrius, in Eusebius' Chronicon,I, 168, and other evidence, Cleo-


patra reigned in:
Years 1-4 with Ptolemy XIV
" 5-7 " " XV
" 8-15 alone
" 16-9.22
with Antonius
Plutarch's description of her years 1 assigns 39 years of life, ~2 of rule and more than
14 to her reign with Antonius. Her 14 years as queen with Antonius is just double
the correct number. Plutarch seems to have reckoned these 14 years from the death
of Caesar, which is incorrect. Her regular coin-issues with the head of Ptolemy I bear
the letter-dates A to K B. Thus she counted ~ regnal years, though her actual reign
was only a few months over 21 years, her accession beginning in May or June, 51
B.c., and her rule ending on August 1, 30 B.c., when Octavianus took Alexandria.
Her death took place probably in September of that year.
The only sculptured portrait which has any claim to represent Cleopatra is the
I Antonius, 86.
A NEW CLEOPATRATETRADRACHMOF ASCALON 463

Parian marble head in the Vatican Museum,' which has been set upon a statue in
Italian marble of a standing draped female with attributes of Ceres, although it
does not belong to it. The identification, made by L. Curtius,2has much in its favor.
As regards the coiffure and the diadem, the marble head corresponds in minute de-
tail to the coin-portraits, but the nose is unfortunately modern, and thus the most
characteristic feature of Cleopatra is missing. Even when we attempt to restore it in
our imagination, there seems to be
something lacking. The mouth and
the chin lack that pronounced strength
which we associate with Cleopatra,
both because of the coin-portraits3
and because of what we know of her
character. The question then arises,
whom else could it represent? Cleo-
patra Selene, her daughter, who lived
for many years in Rome, was accus-
tomed to wear her hair in a similar
style. But there is no denying that the
coiffure of the coins of Cleopatra VII
is identical with that of the Vatican
head, while from the coins of Selene
we cannot be certain that she dressed
her hair in exactly the same style as FIG. 5. - P1. IX, 2. ENLARGED PHOTOGRAPH
her mother.
The chief objection to considering the portrait that of Cleopatra is the conviction
that an artist of the period of Julius Caesar would have produced a more vivid and
faithful likeness of one of the great figures in the Roman society of his day.
AGNES BALDWIN BRETT
AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY

1 Sala di Croce Greca, 567. 2 Rm. Mitt. 48, 1933, pls. 05-27. 3 P1. IX, 2, 5, 6 and fig. 5.
I1

10
o12 1

PLATE IX.- ColNS oF ASCALON WITH PTOLEMAIC PORTRAITS, AND ILLUSTRATIVE COINS

You might also like