This work by Laura Müller examines the representation and self-representation of the imperial family in Egypt during the Imperial period, from the beginning of the Principate under Octavian/Augustus to the end of Hadrian’s reign. The representation of the Augusti is deliberately excluded. Instead, the book focuses on the portrayal of the empresses and the presumed successors to the reigning Roman rulers.
The focus is on the coins issued by the Alexandria mint during the period under study, which feature the empresses and/or their successors in their designs. In this regard, Müller can draw on the published type catalog of the Roman Provincial Coinage Project. Other types of sources, such as papyri, are also included to the extent that they are relevant to the research question. During the Imperial period, Alexandria was the only mint operating in Egypt, thus continuing a Ptolemaic tradition (pp. 24–25). The silver and bronze coins minted there thus occupy a special position between the imperial Roman coinage and the so-called “Greek Imperials” of the poleis of the Greek East. Even though the exact organization of the mint remains unclear, the praefectus Aegypti is to be regarded as the authority ultimately responsible for the issuance (p. 27).[1] All inscriptions on the coins are in Greek.[2] They also offer the advantage that they specify the regnal year of the reigning monarch, allowing for precise chronological conclusions—unlike Imperial coins and most Greek Imperials.
In the introduction, the author focuses on the question of how the family, and in particular the empresses, were represented apart from the ruler himself. She explains why Alexandrian coinage is the focus of the study. Unlike in the Ptolemaic period, the female members of the ruling family are depicted on Egyptian temple walls only in isolated cases, rendering this type of source material less relevant for the Imperial period. She expertly reviews the history of research on the significance of female members of the ruling family for Egypt during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, as well as in the context of Imperial-era imperial coinage.
The following chapter discusses the current state of research on the communicative function of ancient coins. The discussion addresses the questions: Did people in antiquity take note of coin images? Who were the (primary) recipients of the coins? Who influenced the design of the iconographic programs? Müller ultimately aligns with the communis opinio of recent years that the coin images were deliberately used by those responsible for minting to communicate with a (primary) audience and were understood as such by that audience.
Finally, the third chapter provides an introduction to the Alexandria mint during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. It highlights Egypt’s unique position in the monetary system as a closed currency area beginning in the Ptolemaic era. Furthermore, the coin types issued during the Ptolemaic era and the Imperial period are presented: while the mint produced gold, silver, and bronze coins under the Ptolemies, during the Roman period it minted only silver and bronze coins. For the Imperial period, the chapter also discusses questions regarding the mint’s organizational structure as well as distinctive features of Alexandrian coinage (such as the inclusion of regnal years).
Chapter 4, “Herrscherverehrung bei den Ptolemäern”, is the first comprehensive chapter of the work. Müller examines the topic in three time periods. First, she examines the period from Ptolemy I to Ptolemy III, followed by Ptolemy IV to Ptolemy VI, and finally the period from Ptolemy VIII to the end of the dynasty. In each case, she presents both the Greek and Egyptian cults dedicated to the members of the ruling family. In keeping with her approach, Müller is primarily interested in the female members of the Ptolemaic dynasty.
Next, she examines the representation of the Julio-Claudian imperial families. In her analysis, Müller follows a very rigorous approach: she organizes the material according to the reigns of the individual emperors. First, she examines the representation of family members (with the exception of the Princeps) in the coinage of Alexandria and other Egyptian sources. She then contrasts this with the findings from imperial coinage. It is commendable that Müller also consistently discusses the individuals who are not depicted on the coins of Alexandria or the imperial coinage. This will be briefly illustrated using the example of coins from the reign of Augustus. The coins from Alexandria depict only Livia and Gaius Caesar alongside the emperor. In contrast, imperial coinage features Julia,[3] Agrippa, Gaius and Lucius Caesar, as well as Tiberius. Livia is completely absent from coins minted here during Augustus’s reign and does not appear on imperial Roman coins until the reign of Tiberius. For Egypt, one particularly interesting development during this period is the (short-lived) renaming of the months under Caligula in honor of members of the imperial family.
The Julio-Claudian period concludes with a chapter on the deification of Poppaea in Chapter 6. The discussion begins with a poem composed in Egypt that addresses this subject. In it, the deceased is likened to Aphrodite, a comparison in which Müller sees parallels to the early Ptolemaic queens (Berenice I and II, as well as Arsinoe I and II).[4] She then places the portrait in context by examining the broader tradition regarding Poppaea in Egypt, as well as the accounts of her death and deification as recorded by ancient authors.
Chapter 7, on the Flavians and the early adoptive emperors, formally follows the structure of the study on the Julio-Claudian period. Domitia is the only Flavian woman depicted on Alexandrian coins. While no family members other than the ruler appear on coin images under Nerva and Trajan, Hadrian’s wife Sabina appears on both the obverses and reverses of Alexandrian coins. This finding contrasts with imperial Roman coinage, where family members play a greater role—particularly with regard to the succession but also in terms of the ruler’s own legitimacy.
Chapter 8 serves, in a sense, as a digression on the time of Hadrian, addressing the presence of Sabina and Antinoos in Hadrian’s entourage during his journey to Egypt. On the coinage of 130/131 CE, the Alexandrian obverses depict Sabina for the first time; here she may be shown holding a poppy capsule as an attribute. Furthermore, on the reverses, she is likened to the deities Euthenia and Eusebeia. An interesting addition to the characterization of Sabina in Egypt are the epigrams on the so-called Colossus of Memnon, as examined by Müller. After his death in the Nile in 130 CE, Antinoos—who, strictly speaking, was not a member of the imperial family—was accorded divine honors. Furthermore, Hadrian founded Antinoopolis, whose phyle and deme system was closely linked to the imperial family. Antinoos was also featured on Alexandrian coinage. The obverses depict him wearing the Hemhem crown, symbolizing his identification with Osiris. In contrast, the reverses associated him with Hermes.
A brief summary outlines the most important findings of the study. The supplementary material includes, among other things, a list of sources, a bibliography, source indexes, and a subject index.
Laura Müller’s study is a thoroughly researched work that enriches scholarship on imperial-era Egypt. It presents the current state of research on the representation of the imperial family in Egypt. The various scholarly viewpoints are consistently weighed and compared. The work is written in a style that is easy to read.[5] The strength of her work lies in the clear structure of her approach, which enables her, above all, to highlight the differences in the depiction of family members in Alexandria compared to the imperial coinage. In the iconographic analysis of the depictions, a methodological approach—particularly with regard to the portrayal of deities—might have led to even more nuanced results.[6] The only point of criticism is the small number of illustrations. Of the 21 illustrations in total, 15 depict coins. The number of coins from Alexandria—which, after all, is the main subject of the study—amounts to only eleven over the study period of approximately 170 years.
Notes
[1] In this regard, the term “self-representation” used in the title may be an unfortunate choice, since the protagonists themselves had no influence over how they were depicted on Alexandrian coins.
[2] This is noteworthy in that, for example, the koinon coins of Cyprus may bear Latin inscriptions on both the obverse and reverse; see Danielle A. Parks, The Roman Coinage of Cyprus (Nicosia: Cyprus Numismatic Society, 2004) Groups 1–11, 33–34.
[3] For details on the coinage featuring Julia (RIC I² 404 and 405), see Alexa Küter, Zwischen Republik und Kaiserzeit. Die Münzmeisterprägung unter Augustus. Berliner Numismatische Forschungen, Neue Folge 11 (Berlin: Gebrüder Mann, 2014) pp. 244–248.
[4] In my opinion, this connection is a bit of a stretch. The poem’s link to Theocritus is perhaps based more on its form than on its content.
[5] There are only a few typos and repetitions (e.g., the comments on p. 3, note 10, are then repeated in the running text below).
[6] For example, Panagiotis P. Iossif, “Divine Attributes on Hellenistic Coinages: From noble to humble and Back,” in: Panagiotis P. Iossif, François de Callatay, Richard Veymirs (eds.), TYΠOI. Greek and Roman Coins Seen Through Their Images. Noble Issuers, Humble Users? Série Histoire 3 (Liège: Presses Universitaires de Liège, 2018) pp. 269–296.