Egyptian hieroglyphs on coins

[DonnaML]

1 hour ago, Ancient Coin Hunter said:

The Arsinoite nome and the area around Lake Moeris were known for continuing the memory of Amenemhat III even until Roman times (Diodorus Siculus) and his pyramid was at Hawara. 

For anyone interested in that subject, see my footnote to my writeup of my Hadrian Nomes obol with pharaoh reverse (image posted above):

The Nomes (from Greek: Νομός, "district") were the 60-70 administrative divisions of Egypt under the Ptolemies and Romans; the Egyptian term for a nome was “sepat.” See https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Nomes. The Arsinoite Nome (known as “Arsinoites”), the capital of which was the city of Arsinoe, corresponded to the area of the Fayum Oasis or Basin, Lake Moeris, etc., west of the Nile and southwest of Cairo. See https://www.trismegistos.org/fayum/fayum2/gen_intro.php. It encompassed, among other things, the pyramid of Amenemhet III near the town of Hawara, north of the lake (the site of the famous necropolis where the Fayum mummy portraits were discovered). See id., see also the discussion, with photos including one of the Hawara pyramid, by “@jochen1” at https://www.cointalk.com/threads/amenemhet-iii.370249/#post-5138482. 

The Nomes coins were small bronze issues minted in Alexandria, each with the head of the reigning emperor on the obverse, and the name (in full or abbreviated, as with this coin) of a different Nome written in Greek on the reverse, together with an image ostensibly bearing some relationship to a deity or to cult worship associated with that Nome. They were issued under Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius Caesar. See Numiswiki, supra. See also Emmett at p. xv for a discussion of the Nomes coinage, noting that Hadrian issued “the most nome coins in terms of numbers of coins issued, numbers of different reverse types and numbers of nomes.” Indeed, Emmett specifically singles out this type from among Hadrian’s extensive series of bronze Nome obols and dichalkons issued in Year 11, as one of “only two interesting reverse types that appear on Hadrian’s obols: that of a bust of an Egyptian King on his Arsinoite nome obol”; it is the only Nomes type bearing such an image. Id. Emmett makes no attempt to identify which “King.” However, RPC III 1749 expressly identifies the reverse image as “head of Premarres (Amenemhet III),” who reigned in the 12^th Dynasty, from 1842-1797 BC. (The more common spellings seem to be “Pramarres” and “Amenenhat.”).  The evidence available online appears to support that identification.

Thus, Emmett states that “[t]hese coins depict the local cult-worship of each nome,” with “Horus and Isis . . . the god and goddess most often represented in their various forms on the reverses of the nome coins.” Id. But the entry for Nomes in Numiswiki, supra, argues that the fact that the Nomes coins were minted in Alexandria “robs them of the interest they would otherwise have possessed as calculated to throw light on local cults,” and that the purpose of the Nomes coinage should be regarded as “primarily commemorative.” See also BMC Alexandria 16 at pp. xcviii-c, discussing the issue at length, citing various examples, and concluding that it seems “certain that the Nome types were not only selected at Alexandria, but that the selection was independent of local worship unconnected with Alexandria. Thus the series loses much of its interest as its mythological value is small and uncertain,” except for Nomes near Alexandria. (Id. at p. c.)

But regardless of the significance of the reverse image on other Nome coins, a strong argument can be made that the image on the reverse of this type of the Nome coinage of Hadrian, bearing the name of the Arsinoite Nome -- unquestionably the image of a pharaoh, given the presence of the nemes and uraeus -- was, in fact, directly connected to cult worship in that Nome, which was the center of the cult of the deified Amenemhat III.

It would seem farfetched to conclude that it could be purely a coincidence that the Arsinoite Nome was the only one for which a Nome coin was issued depicting a pharaoh, and that the very same Nome was the center of the cult of Amenemhat III, as the site of his pyramid, up to and into the Greco-Roman period, until the rise of Christianity. The available evidence strongly suggests that it was not a coincidence. See Uytterhoeven, Inge, and Ingrid Blom-Böer. “New Light on the Egyptian Labyrinth: Evidence from a Survey at Hawara.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, vol. 88, 2002, pp. 111–120,. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3822339 , accessed 5 Jan. 2021, stating as follows on its first page:

See also https://www.trismegistos.org/fayum/fayum2/747.php?geo_id=747 -- trismegistos is “a platform aiming to surmount barriers of language and discipline in the study of texts from the ancient world, particularly late period Egypt” -- for a lengthy discussion of the archaeological excavations at Hawara, including at the pyramid of Amenemhat III. The discussion specifically notes that “the fullest topographical description [of the location] in the Graeco-Roman period is found in P.Hawara Lüdd. XIX (85 BC): ‘the necropolis, which is in the Souchos village Hawara in the exo topoi in the area on the north side of the Moeris canal in the meris of Herakleides in the Arsinoite nome.’" (Emphasis added.) Thus, the location of the tomb of Amenemhat III within the Arsinoite Nome is not in question.

The website states as follows:

“Hawara owed its fame to Pramarres, the 12th Dynasty pharaoh Amenemhat III, who built his funerary complex at Hawara around 1800 BC. The Labyrinth, south of the pyramid, was evidently the main cult centre of the deified pharaoh (photo). The cult is attested by Ptolemaic dedications, such as I.Fayum I 34 and 35 (both 1st cent. BC) and the demotic stele Stewart 1983 Nr. 81 (Ptolemaic period).”

The website also discusses how well-known the necropolis near the pyramid was, as far away as Alexandria (where this coin was minted), specifically because of its connection with the deified Amenemhat III. Note the reference to a will executed between 117 and 138 AD, i.e., during the reign of Hadrian:

“Hawara, ideally located at the desert edge and easily accessible from the metropolis by the Bahr Yussuf, was a logical choice as necropolis for the nome capital. For some it was a privilege to be buried in the sacred area near the tomb and temple of the deified Amenemhat. Thus an anonymous metropolite, who lived at Tebtynis, explicitly mentioned in his last will that he wanted to be buried 'near the Labyrinth' (SB VIII 9642 l.4; 117-138 AD). At least part of the Hellenized elite buried at Hawara must have lived in the metropolis, e.g. the gymnasiarchs Tiberius Iulius Asklepiades and Dios and their wives. The specification ᾿Αρσινοείτης added to the occupation of the wool merchant Apollinarios (SB I 3965/III 7084; 2nd century AD) and the mention of the agora; τῶν ἱματοπωλῶν on the mummy label of Diodoros (SB XVIII 13654; Roman period) suggest that these too were inhabitants of Arsinoe.

Hawara also attracted persons from other places in the Arsinoite nome. Thus the body of an undertaker of Alexandrou Nesos had to be placed in a family tomb at Hawara (P.Hawara Lüdd. IV; 220 BC). The unpublished account P.Ashm. I 30 lists deceased from the village Mendes, from Ptolemais Hormou and even from Meidoum in the Memphite nome. There may even be a relation between the place of origin of the dead and the cult places of Pramarres in the Fayum (e.g. Alexandrou Nesos and Tebtynis).

Indeed, even people from outside the Fayum found their last resting place at Hawara, as is attested by the correspondence between the undertakers of Alexandria with those of Hawara (SB I 5216; 101, 68 or 39 BC) and by the mummy label of Pantagathos, sent "to the Arsinoite nome" (SB I 3967).”

(Emphasis added.)

The conclusion that the image of a pharaoh on the reverse of this coin of the Arsinoite Nome was intended to represent the deified pharaoh Pramarres, i.e. Amenemhat III -- regardless of the fact that the coinage was minted in Alexandria -- appears inescapable

Edited September 26, 2023 by DonnaML

[kirispupis]

5 hours ago, Tejas said:

That is interesting, However, I think the description is wrong. I think this is not Amun-Re, but the god Khnum:

god khum - Suchen (bing.com)

Sheedy has a paper detailing the history of this coin's misattribution as Khnum and his argument for Amun-Re.

Catherine Lorber concurs with it in her latest CPE.

[Tejas]

I think we tend have a somewhat wrong view about Egyptian religion and the nature of its deities. We tend to regard Egyptian gods and goddesses as separate entities. Instead, the Egyptians viewed them as amorph concepts, where different combination of deities were possible. Hence, they practiced something that Egyptologists call syncretism, where two or more gods can be combined into one. The best known of this is of course Amun-Re himself, which is a combination of Amun (Ymen) and Re (or Ra), but any other combination existed as well, including Amun-Khnum, Hathor-Khnum and sometimes even three or more deities were combined into one.* Given that this ram head on the coin shows Khnum, but apparently in a role that is better associated with Amun, could point to such a syncretism. In this sense, I think the dispute whether the ram head represents Khnum or Amun may be a beside the point.

*Interestingly, the god Serapis (Ser - apis) is a combination of Osiris (Azir in Egyptian) + Apis + Zeus + Helios. So from Azir-Apis, we got Ser-apis/Serapis.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Tejas

[kirispupis]

5 hours ago, Tejas said:

I think we tend have a somewhat wrong view about Egyptian religion and the nature of its deities. We tend to regard Egyptian gods and goddesses as separate entities. Instead, the Egyptians viewed them as amorph concepts, where different combination of deities were possible. Hence, they practiced something that Egyptologists call syncretism, where two or more gods can be combined into one. The best known of this is of course Amun-Re himself, which is a combination of Amun (Ymen) and Re (or Ra), but any other combination existed as well, including Amun-Khnum, Hathor-Khnum and sometimes even three or more deities were combined into one.* Given that this ram head on the coin shows Khnum, but apparently in a role that is better associated with Amun, could point to such a syncretism. In this sense, I think the dispute whether the ram head represents Khnum or Amun may be a beside the point.

Here's Lorber's take from CPE:

The symbol of this issue is conventionally identified as Khnum, the god of the source of the Nile, associated with the inundation and by extension with silt, pottery, and the creation of bodies, and whose sacred sites were at Elephantine island and Esna. J. Yoyotte pointed out that the ram's head could just as well represent Banebdjed (the Ram of Mendes), Herishef (Heracles), or Amun( see G. Le Rider, 2007, p. 193, n.82) K. Sheedy and B. Ockinga (forthcoming) argue convincingly that the symbol depicts Amun, the source of Egyptian kingship and the god with whom Alexander was especially associated, both through his visit to the oracle of Zeus-Ammon at Siwah and through the construction of shrines dedicated to Alexander in the Egyptian temples of Amun at Karnak and Luxor. The display of Amun's head in a recognizably Egyptian form on Ptolemy's first issue of coinage announced the succession of the new king, Philip Arrhidaeus, within the Egyptian tradition. Ptolemy later proceeded to add a shrine to Philip in the temple of Amun at Karnak.

It was likely the Sheedy article that led Harlan J Berk to attribute the coin to Amun-Re. I read the same article and was also convinced, as evidently was Lorber. Since I have yet to see an argument superior to theirs, I stand by my attribution.

 

[Tejas]

Fair enough. As I said the whole debate of EITHER Khnum OR Amun-Re is probably missing the point. The depiction is clearly that of Khnum (or the much less known and less likely lower Egyptian pendent Banebdjed), but if the position on this coin should be reserved for Amun-Re, than it is Khnum-Amun-Re, a typical and common form of syncretism. In any case, we will never know the true intention of the creator of the die.

The middle image below is from the Khnum temple in Esna, so we can be certain that this is a representation of Khnum (note he is wearing the feathers of Ma'at). On the left is the depiction from the coin and on the right is the name Khnum spelled out. The last sign on the right is the determinative, i.e. the hierogplyph that clarifies that the god Khnum is meant. The name Khnum can also be written with just the determinative or just the head of the figure. Hence, in a sense, the depiction on the coin can in my view be understood as a determinative hieroglyph of the god Khnum, and I would be surprised if a literate Egyptian would have read it in any other way.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Tejas

[DonnaML]

33 minutes ago, Tejas said:

Fair enough. As I said the whole debate of EITHER Khum OR Amun-Re is probably missing the point. The depiction is clearly that of Khnum (or the much less known and less likely lower Egyptian pendent Banebdjed), but if the position on this coin should be reserved for Amun-Re, than it is Khnum-Amun-Re, a typically and common form of syncretism. In any case, we will never know the true intention of the creator of the die.

Here's another numismatic example of such syncretism:

Hadrian, Billon Tetradrachm, Year 12 (127/128 AD), Alexandria, Egypt Mint. Obv. Laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust right, seen from rear, ΑΥΤ ΚΑΙ - ΤΡΑΙ  ΑΔΡΙΑ ϹƐΒ / Rev. Mummiform Ptah-Sokar-Osiris* standing right, wearing solar disk as headdress, holding was scepter tipped with jackal head, L ΔWΔƐ-ΚΑΤΟΥ [= Year 12 spelled out].  RPC [Roman Provincial Coinage] Vol. III 5713 (2015); RPC III Online at https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/3/5713,  Emmett 883.12 [Emmett, Keith, Alexandrian Coins (Lodi, WI, 2001)]; BMC 16 Alexandria 637 & Pl. XXIII [Poole, Reginald Stuart, A Catalog of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, Vol. 16, Alexandria (London, 1892)]; Sear RCV II 3732; Köln 982 [Geissen, A., Katalog alexandrinischer Kaisermünzen, Köln, Band II (Hadrian-Antoninus Pius) (Cologne, 1978, corrected reprint 1987)]; Dattari (Savio) 1445 [Savio, A. ed., Catalogo completo della collezione Dattari Numi Augg. Alexandrini (Trieste, 2007)]; Milne 1262 at p. 31 (scepter with jackal-head top) [Milne, J.G., Catalogue of Alexandrian Coins (Oxford 1933, reprint with supplement by Colin M. Kraay, 1971)]; K&G 32.458. 24 mm., 13.85 g., 11 h.

*From the description in the CNG Triton XXI Catalog (Staffieri Collection, Jan 9. 2018) of the example from the Dattari Collection (No. 1445), sold in the Triton XXI auction as Lot 61: “The image of the Ptah-Sokar-Osiris divinity belongs to Egyptian theology, and in particular to funeral worship. It brings together three famous members of the Pharaonic Pantheon through their respective symbols: the headdress and scepter for Ptah, the solar disk for Osiris, and the mummiform wrappings for Sokar – the ‘Lord of the Necropolis.’ These three associated divinities call upon the concepts of ‘mourning’ and ‘life’, evoking at the same time the pain associated with death and the hope of resurrection. The main sanctuaries of Ptah, Sokar, and Osiris were at Memphis and Abydos.”