Cleopatra and kandake

Adam Łukaszewicz Department of Papyrology, Institute of Archaeology University of Warsaw [email protected]

Keywords Ptolemaic Egypt, Roman history, Cleopatra VII, Meroitic Kingdom, women rulers in antiquity

Abstract The author discusses the circumstances of Cleopatra VII taking power as the sole ruler of Egypt in 49/48 BC. The queen was forced out of Alexandria by her brother and co-regent Ptolemy XIII. When she reappeared in Egypt, it was from Palestine. The author considers the possibility that she traveled from Alexandria through the Thebaid, the Meroitic Kingdom and Arabia to Palestine, where she expected to obtain financial support necessary for recruiting mercenaries. She need not have modeled her political activity on that of the Meroitic kandake, but personal contacts between the two queens are plausible. The author suggests that a woman’s head represented on the cover of a box containing a mirror, found at Faras in Nubia, may be a portrait of Cleopatra.

During the reign of Cleopatra VII (51–30 BC) Alexandria was certainly the biggest commercial center of the Mediterranean. Most luxury goods from abroad reached Alexandria via harbors of the Red Sea where they arrived either from India or from the Arab peninsula, or from the East of Africa, including the mysterious land of Punt of the ancient Egyptians and the region of Adulis and Axum which was so important in the history of Ethiopia (Bowersock 2013). At the beginning of the reign of the last Ptolemaic queen, the international situation was extremely complex. The victory of the Parthians over the Roman

Aegyptus et Nubia Christiana 691 Miscellanea Adam Łukaszewicz

army at the end of the reign of Ptolemy XII brought temporary relief to the weakened Alexandrian dynasty. Direct Roman exploitation of Egypt was delayed. Ptolemy XIII, the brother and co-regent of Cleopatra VII, was not yet able to elaborate a policy of his own. Next to him stood an ominous trio of tutors: the eunuch Potheinos, the army commander Achillas and Theodotos of Chios, the educator of the young king. These Alexandrian worthies took part in a vehement conflict between Ptolemy and Cleopatra, who reigned together since March of 51 BC. According to Hölbl, Cleopatra initially succeeded in expelling her brother from joint rule for a period of about 18 months (Hölbl 2001: 231). A stele in the Louvre of the 2nd of July 51 BC (year 1) (I. Fay. 205 = I. Louvre 21; Bianchi 1988: Cat. 78) can perhaps be interpreted in favour of such a hypothesis, although the dedicatory text for Queen Cleopatra, the goddess loving her father, does not mean that year 1 refers to her sole reign and not to the joint kingship. In the autumn of 50 BC (year 3) the king is named first and the queen is mentioned after him (BGU VIII 1730 [see BL III] = C. Ord. Ptol. 73). The priority of the king shows, in Hölbl’s opinion, that the party of the young Ptolemy prevailed again. Two demotic documents of March 49 BC mentioned the joint reign of “king Ptolemy and queen Cleopatra, the gods loving their father” (P. Cair. Dem. 30616a, b). Dramatic events must have occurred in the royal palace shortly after that. Year 3 of the joint reign of Ptolemy XIII and Cleopatra VII began on the 5th of September of 50 BC and ended on the 3rd of September 49 BC. During that year a new dating system was introduced. The new dating formula consisting of year 1 (of a new era) equal to year 3 (of a former era) is known from three papyri.1 Hölbl assumed that Ptolemy XIII introduced dating formulas based on the count of years of his own reign (Hölbl 2001: 231). However, one of these documents mentions “queen Cleopatra and …” (SB VI 9065.1). Although the petition directed to the “queen and …” and mentioning the year 1 = 3 apparently refers to the past, it seems also possible that the dating formula of 50/49 BC was a consequence of Cleopatra’s move, maybe even of an attempted coup d’état. Year 1 could be the first year of the reign of Cleopatra, also called year 3 of the joint reign. This otherwise unknown action of Cleopatra was undoubtedly a failure, and an open war between the royal siblings followed. In any case, the party of the young Ptolemy succeeded in expulsing the queen from Alexandria. This took place probably not earlier than in the summer of 49 BC. Cleopatra did not reappear until 48 BC.

1 SB VI 9065.2; VIII 9764.6–7; BGU VIII 1839.5. Nota bene, the editor of BGU 1839.5 suggested “year 1 also called [30]” and referred it to the last year of Ptolemy XII being the first year of his successors. “Year 1 also called [3]” is more convincing.

692 Aegyptus et Nubia Christiana Cleopatra and kandake

The events in Egypt were undoubtedly connected with the situation in Rome. Since early 49 BC, the civil war between Caesar and Pompey introduced into Egypt’s unstable foreign policy an unavoidable choice between the conflicting parties in Rome. This was probably the main reason of a controversy between Cleopatra and the body of tutors. In the autumn of 49 BC Pompey’s Roman Senate in exile at Thessalonike recognized the legitimacy of Ptolemy XIII as the sole ruler of Egypt. Like his father before him, he was proclaimed amicus et socius populi Romani. Pompey became formally the tutor of the young king of Egypt. No mention was made of Cleopatra. The decision of Pompey’s senate meant that Cleopatra was left with no choice. She could only look for help from Julius Caesar, Pompey’s enemy (Chauveau 2002: 18). What happened then to the young queen of Egypt? Malalas, a late author who passed on some reliable information, mentions Cleopatra’s escape from Alexandria to the Thebaid (Malalas IX 279; see Hölbl 1994: 207). When she reappeared on the political scene in 48 BC, she was coming back to Egypt from Palestine. As a matter of fact Cleopatra had no other choice. To enrol a mercenary army, she had to reach the Near East. But what itinerary could she take to get to Palestine? The shortest route via the Delta and Pelusium, Rhinocolura (today’s El-Arish) and Gaza was most probably closed. The harbors enabling a direct crossing of the Red Sea (Leukos Limen, Myos Hormos and Berenike) were probably under the control of Ptolemy’s government. Passage to the Thebaid, while not entirely safe, at least opened the way to the south, which was beyond the reach of the Alexandrian government. Travel from Egypt to Syria via the Meroitic kingdom has been hypothesized by some researchers. Egypt’s southern neighbor, Nubia, was not terra incognita. Cleopatra seems to have had many reasons to choose the route upstream. From the Egyptian point of view, the dwellers of the oros situated south of Egypt, the Blemmyes and the Nubae, were wild and dangerous tribes. In his praise of Rome, the mid-2nd century AD rhetor Aelius Aristides qualified the “peoples who live along the Red Sea” as “unfortunate”.2 However, the Meroitic kingdom on the Nubian Nile was by no means a negligible place. The sojourn of Cleopatra in Nubia is entirely hypothetical, but very probable. The road from Kush to Arabia was not very difficult. There is extensive information about contacts between these regions in later periods. The

2 Aristid., Or. 26.70. See Bowersock 2013: 54, who interprets the Greek term kakodaimonia as “wickedness”.

Aegyptus et Nubia Christiana 693 Miscellanea Adam Łukaszewicz

Ptolemaic inscription on the throne of Adulis provides evidence of contacts in the early Ptolemaic period, albeit chiefly for hunting elephants (see Bowersock 2013: 36). We know from Strabo that Cleopatra’s younger sister Arsinoe was with her on the Palestinian outskirts of Egypt (Strab., Geographia 17.1.11[C 796]; Green 1997: 730, note 135). This may imply the presence of the same company already on the earlier stage of the journey. Finances were Cleopatra’s main problem in exile. She needed money for the military operation of a prospective comeback to Egypt. In Syria, she certainly received support from the city of Askalon. We have from that period coins of Askalon with the image of Cleopatra (Walker and Higgs 2001: Cat. No. 219). She could have done what her father did in exile, promising to repay her allies and creditors after gaining a victory. The ancient world knew many bankers willing to finance influential customers who could guarantee prospective payment. Also, financial support from the Nubian rulers during Cleopatra’s sojourn in their country was not unthinkable. Whatever the case, it seems that by late 49 BC or rather early 48 BC Cleopatra VII was already in Palestine or on her way there. The events that followed are much clearer than Cleopatra’s enigmatic itinerary. As we know, Cleopatra overcame and with the help of Julius Caesar succeeded in her struggle for the throne of Egypt. The romantic version of Cleopatra’s encounter with the Roman warlord may perhaps be true as far as the strange way of smuggling the queen into the palace occupied by the Romans is concerned (Plut., Vit. Caes. 49.2). However, Caesar may not have been quite that surprised. The two had corresponded before the famous meeting in Alexandria (Cass. Dio XLII 34.3– 6). Cleopatra and Caesar may even have met already during young Cleopatra’s uncertain stay in Rome with her father a few years earlier. From the time of Caesar’s victoria Alexandrina of 47 BC, Cleopatra was the sole ruler of Egypt. Some researchers have suggested that Cleopatra’s activities as a female ruler of Egypt could have been inspired by the role of kandake in the Meroitic kingdom (Scholz 1988: 226). However, even before Cleopatra VII, there had been in Egypt ambitious queens who ruled the country. The role of Ptolemaic queens was well known in the Mediterranean world. This is confirmed by Lucan who, in the 1st century AD, used the argument of the Egyptian tradition of female rulers in the text of Cleopatra’s speech intended to persuade Caesar to install her as queen of Egypt (Lucan, Pharsalia X 85–99). The application of Nubian patterns was not necessary. Nevertheless, the idea of Cleopatra’s friendship with kandake Amanishakhete (41–12 BC) is not far off the mark.

694 Aegyptus et Nubia Christiana Cleopatra and kandake

Plutarch and other authors insist on the luxury and splendor of Cleopatra’s court. There is no doubt that the queen was an expert in matters of the Hellenistic tryphe. On the other hand, as an active politician and a monarch in constant trouble, she must have been very busy indeed. Her famous beauty is a myth. Plutarch first remarked on her charm rather than beauty.3 She was unlucky. Her reign was a sequence of disasters, insurmountable obstacles despite the talent and effort that the ambitious queen put into overcoming them. Involved in the intricacies of a complex and dangerous Roman policy, she was confronted with vehement conflicts of ruthless leaders commanding great professional armies. To complete Cleopatra’s misfortune, Egypt’s economic situation was disastrous. Pliny mentions a very bad Nile flood of the year 48 BC (Plin., HN V 58). Famine, epidemics and increasing expenditure demanded by the Romans complete the picture. However, the fabulous wealth of Egypt was still sufficient to finance Antony’s wars and to provide Octavian with a motive for conquering Cleopatra’s kingdom. Cleopatra lost her siblings in the struggle for power. She was hated by the Alexandrians who held her responsible for the arrogant Roman presence in Egypt. Her only hope were alliances with successive Roman leaders, in whom she could not really place her trust. She survived Julius Caesar and engaged in a turbulent union with Mark Antony. She strived to extend the territory under her control and to secure the future rule of her children. The maladroit military campaigns of Antony, the treason of Roman generals, intrigues of her own courtiers and the intransigent hatred of Cleopatra by some minor kings of the region led to the tragic end of the queen and her dynasty. Under such circumstances it is easy to imagine Cleopatra treating the kandake, a queen from the remote South, as a reliable friend and ally. Towards the end of her dramatic reign, the Egyptian queen must have considered possible ways of escape. One tempting possibility was the Meroitic kingdom from which the road to India stood open. We may assume that Cleopatra, who had quite probably visited Nubia briefly, had a detailed knowledge of geography and a perfect orientation in the realities of the Kushite kingdom. Cleopatra’s plans were not implemented. She managed to send her son Ptolemy XV Caesarion to the South. There can be no doubt that the projected itinerary was through Nubia to the sea and then to India (see Locher 2002: 75). Caesarion’s tutor Rhodon either betrayed him and delivered the young king to the Romans or convinced him to surrender to Octavian who immediately had him executed. Plutarch repeats a story, which obviously belongs to Octavian’s propaganda, about

3 Plut., Vit. Ant. 27.3–5. For more appreciation of Cleopatra’s beauty, see Cass. Dio XLII 34.4–5.

Aegyptus et Nubia Christiana 695 Miscellanea Adam Łukaszewicz

the Alexandrian philosopher Areios advising Octavian to kill Caesarion (Plut., Vit. Ant. 81.2). Cassius Dio gives a less complicated version. He states that the boy was captured and murdered on his way to Ethiopia (Cass. Dio LI 15.5). These facts seem to imply good relations and mutual trust between Egypt and Meroe. It may even be possible to suggest another interpretation for the series of conflicts between the Ethiopians and Rome, which followed the Roman occupation of Egypt. The Ethiopians had avoided attacking Ptolemaic Egypt. Their invasion of Upper Egypt at the beginning of the Roman period comes as a surprise. It was allegedly an act of defence against the “injustice of the nomarchs”. Certainly it was not a simple robbers’ raid (Strab., Geographia XVII 53–54; Cass. Dio LIV 5.4; Plin., HN VI 29 (35). 181–182; see Łukaszewicz 2010). It is possible that Meroitic action in this situation was a consequence of an alliance of the two neighboring kingdoms dating from the late Ptolemaic period. Diodorus mentions meeting Ethiopian ambassadors during his visit to Egypt (Diod. Sic. III 11.3). Anyway, a permanent peace on the southern border of Egypt was established again by an agreement between Rome and the Meroitic kingdom (Strab., Geographia XVII 54). Contacts between Meroe and Hellenistic Egypt are confirmed by archaeology. Richly represented among the finds from Nubian sites are imported objects and local imitations of Egyptian artefacts. A remarkable object, a cover of a box containing a mirror, came from tomb 2589 at Faras (now at the Ashmolean Museum of Arts and Archaeology in Oxford). On one side, there is an engraved image of Harpocrates on a lotus flower, surrounded by nine images of animals, real or fantastic. On the other side of the cover a raised relief shows a young woman’s head in profile, simple and summary, without many details, depicted in a different, Hellenistic style (reproduced in Shinnie 1967: Fig. 116). The face seems to have been of white complexion and her hair style is of the Cleopatra type. She wears no diadem, but this is not a sufficient argument against Cleopatra VII as the prototype of the image. Relevant differences between various types of portraits of Cleopatra VII make an identification of the supposed Cleopatras difficult. However, it seems very probable that the image decorating the mirror cover of the Ashmolean was inspired by a portrait of Cleopatra VII or perhaps of her sister Arsinoe. The presumed Cleopatra portrait may have served in this context as a symbol of beauty and body care. Cleopatra was also known as an author of treatises on cosmetics (Galen, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos XII 403–404; see Rowlandson 1998: 41, No. 15). In any case, the decoration of the object from Faras is not a direct copy of a known image of Cleopatra. It must have originated from an unknown

696 Aegyptus et Nubia Christiana Cleopatra and kandake prototype, glyptic or monetary. It may also have been a synthesis of various versions of Cleopatra’s portrait on her coins (see, for example, Cadario 2013).

References

The abbreviated references to documentary sources follow J.F. Oates et al., Checklist of Greek, Latin, Demotic and Coptic papyri, ostraca and tablets, available online at http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/clist.html.

Primary sources Aelius Aristides, Aelii Aristidis Smyrnaei quae supersunt omnia II. Orationes XVII–LIII, ed. by B. Keil, Berlin: Weidmann, 1898 Cassius Dio, Cassii Dionis Cocceiani historiarum Romanarum quae supersunt, ed. by U.P. Boissevain, 3 vols, Berlin: Weidmann, 1895–1901 Diodorus Siculus, Diodori bibliotheca historica, ed. by K.T. Fischer (post I. Bekker and L. Dindorf) and F. Vogel, 5 vols, 3rd ed., Leipzig: Teubner, 1888–1906 Galen, De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos. In Galen, Claudii Galeni opera omnia XII–XIII, ed. by C.G. Kühn, Leipzig: Knobloch, 1826–1827 Ioannes Malalas, Ioannis Malalae chronographia, ed. by I. Thurn [=Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. Series Berolinensis 35], Berlin–New York: De Gruyter, 2000 Lucan, M. Annaei Lucani belli civilis libri decem, ed. by C. Hosius, 3rd ed., Leipzig: Teubner, 1913 Pliny the Elder, C. Plini Secundi Naturalis Historiae libri XXXVII, ed. by K. Mayhoff (post L. von Jan), 6 vols, Leipzig: Teubner, 1875–1906 Plutarch, Antonius. In Plutarch, Plutarchi vitae parallelae, ed. by K. Ziegler, vol. 3.1, 2nd ed., Leipzig: Teubner, 1971 Plutarch, Caesar. In Plutarch, Plutarchi vitae parallelae, ed. by K. Ziegler, vol. 2.2, 2nd ed., Leipzig: Teubner, 1968 Strabo, Strabonis geographica, ed. by A. Meineke, 3 vols, Leipzig: Teubner, 1877 Secondary sources Bianchi, R.S. (1988). Cleopatra’s Egypt: Age of the Ptolemies. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum Bowersock, G.W. (2013). Throne of Adulis: Red Sea wars on the eve of Islam. Oxford– New York: Oxford University Press Cadario, M. (2013). Il vero volto di Cleopatra. In G. Gentili (ed.), Cleopatra: Roma e l’incantesimo dell’Egitto (pp. 39–43). Milan: Skira Chauveau, M. (2002). Cleopatra: Beyond the myth. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press Green, P. (1997). D’Alexandre à Actium : du partage de l’Empire au triomphe de Rome. Paris: Laffont

Aegyptus et Nubia Christiana 697 Miscellanea Adam Łukaszewicz

Hölbl, G. (1994). Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches: Politik, Ideologie und religiöse Kultur von Alexander dem Grossen bis zur römischen Eroberung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buschgesellschaft Hölbl, G. (2001). A history of the Ptolemaic empire. New York: Routledge Locher, J. (2002). Die Anfänge der römischen Herrschaft in Nubien und der Konflikt zwischen Rom und Meroe. Ancient Society, 32, 73–134 Łukaszewicz, A. (2010). Cornelius Gallus and the beginnings of Roman policy in Nubia. In W. Godlewski and A. Łajtar (eds), Between the cataracts: Proceedings of the 11th Conference for Nubian studies, Warsaw University, 27 August–2 September 2006, II.2. Session papers [=PAM Supplement Series 2.2/2] (pp. 535–540). Warsaw: Warsaw University Press Rowlandson, J. (ed.). (1998). Women and society in Greek and Roman Egypt: A sourcebook. Cambridge–New York: Cambridge University Press Scholz, P.O. (1988). Frühchristliche Spuren im Lande des anēr Aithiops: historisch- archäologische Betrachtungen zur Apostelgeschichte 8: 26–40 (Ph.D. diss.). University of Bonn Shinnie, P.L. (1967). Meroe: A civilization of the Sudan [=Ancient Peoples and Places 55]. London: Thames and Hudson Walker, S. and Higgs, P. (eds). (2001). Cleopatra of Egypt: From history to myth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

698 Aegyptus et Nubia Christiana