Possible portrait of Cleopatra VII from the House of the Orchard in Pompeii

[Roma_Victrix]

Hello young crime stoppers, it's time to investigate something new today, because only you can prevent Rome's urban fires (the more you know, learning is half the battle).

I need the best and the brightest minds here to help track down a potential portrait of the famous Hellenistic queen Cleopatra VII Philopator of Ptolemaic Egypt. However, I cannot seem to locate it anywhere online, if it exists freely online at all instead of being tucked away in some elusive photographic archive. It is apparently located in the House of the Orchard in Pompeii, which would make it the third identified painting of Cleopatra from that archaeological site (after those in the House of Marcus Fabius Rufus and the House of Giuseppe II). Unlike the now lost Roman encaustic painting from Hadrian's Villa showing Cleopatra committing suicide by asp while wearing the radiant crown of Helios sometimes worn by the Ptolemies (per their coinage), the unifying theme or item in these portraits is the depiction of Cleopatra wearing at least a headband if not a recognizable Hellenistic Greek royal diadem crowning her head (corresponding with all of her surviving coinage). According to Walker, Susan; Higgs, Peter (2001), "325 Painting with a portrait of a woman in profile", in Walker, Susan; Higgs, Peter (eds.), Cleopatra of Egypt: from History to Myth, Princeton University Press (British Museum Press), pp. 314–315., in relation to the posthumous painted portrait of Cleopatra seen below from the nearby Roman site of Herculaneum:

A close comparison to this painted portrait is to be found on the walls of the House of the Orchard at Pompeii. This house contained several Egyptianizing scenes, and the comparable bust is painted in a frame, not unlike this one, next to a Greek-style sphinx. The woman in the Pompeian painting has a blue crossed-band around her head, not quite a royal diadem, but the form of the bust is identical. The paintings from the House of the Orchard have been classified within the Third Style of Pompeian Painting, and the room in question has been identified as a Vespasianic (AD 69-79) addition to an Augustan suite, its style following that of earlier rooms. This portrait from Herculaneum is so like the bust in the House of the Orchard that the two works, though from different sites, may even be by the same painter. Who exactly this woman represents is a mystery, and her resemblance to Cleopatra VII may be coincidental, but it is not completely out of the question that a posthumous image of the famous queen (perhaps derived from a cameo) would have been painted in a Roman house, and possibly in a room with Egyptianizing decoration, like that in the House of the Orchard at Pompeii.

Does anyone have access to an online database that showcases Pompeian frescoes systematically, from house to house? If so that would be extremely useful. Or perhaps a book about the subject showing frescoes from each house? I've seen frescoes from this site online, but none of them have noticeable Egyptianizing themes. The women I've seen in the frescoes from this site also only include figures of ladies reclining and relaxing, or random floating heads with the front of their faces, not profile portraits.

[Roma_Victrix]

Immediate update: University of Cambridge Research Associate Dr. Sophie Hay has contacted me on Twitter and delivered, providing the following images from the House of the Orchard! There are apparently two different painted busts in profile. Kudos to her for sharing these. They come from Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli's Pompeii: Pitture e Mosaici (1990), Vol 2.



To be honest, contrary to Walker and Higgs, I think they are different enough from the Herculaneum portrait to have been by a different artist. They look interesting, though. The fact that an Egyptian Apis bull is seen in a nearby fresco of the same house only adds to the suggestion that these could be depictions of Cleopatra (who restored the Buchis bull at Hermonthis near Thebes as one of her first acts as Queen of Ptolemaic Egypt in 51 BC). With the aid of Dr. Hay, I'm glad that I was able to answer my own OP so quickly.

[Akar]

I have nothing to add except that this is super cool .

[Roma_Victrix]

Thanks. I try sometimes.

A closer look at this portrait from Pompeii's House of the Orchard depicts a woman with a hair bun, aquiline nose and overall facial portrait that is similar to Cleopatra, but just like Walker and Higgs note, the cloth headband isn't exactly wrapped around the head like a royal diadem. It instead gets wrapped around the hair bun instead of the back of the head. I cannot make out if she is wearing pearl earrings like in the Herculaneum portrait, and instead wears a necklace with some sort of jewelry. The hair is just as blondish red (or strawberry blonde) as the Herculaneum portrait, it seems, with wavy tufts around the forehead like we see in other portraits of Cleopatra. The prominent large eye is similar to the other portraits of Cleopatra and the later Ptolemies as well. I uploaded a version to Wikimedia Commons just this morning:



It is important to note that Carratelli, Giovanni Pugliese (1990), Pompei : pitture e mosaici, vol. 2, Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, provides an alternative identification of the woman. He suggests that the portrait, with its wavy hair around the temples, is similar to those of Livia Drusilla, wife of emperor Augustus.

[Cookiegod]

I am going to try not to repeat what others have said already so I can't be helpful at all:
1) I am shocked by the fact that you have more followers on twitter than I here. :/
2) she hot!

[Roma_Victrix]

I am going to try not to repeat what others have said already so I can't be helpful at all:
1) I am shocked by the fact that you have more followers on twitter than I here. :/
2) she hot!

Not that it's terribly important, but Cleopatra probably looked fine or at the least average looking.

Greco-Roman historian Plutarch of the 2nd century AD remarked how Cleopatra was not an unsurpassed beauty, so she instead wooed Julius Caesar and Marcus Antonius with her charm and wit. It was said that her hypnotically soothing voice was aided by the fact that she could converse in several foreign languages aside from her native Koine Greek. In reality, as classicists like Duane W. Roller would argue, it was far more likely Caesar and Antony were simply wooed by her enormous wealth and political power as one of the most strategically important client state rulers allied to the Roman Republic (representing the last chunk of land in the Mediterranean not yet directly controlled by the Romans as provincial territory). For that matter Cleopatra looks far more feminine and elegant in her Roman sculptures and frescoes, whereas on her coinage she often looks a bit more stern if not slightly masculine. Depicting herself this way on occasion was a likely attempt to align herself firmly with her father Ptolemy XII Auletes or more illustrious Macedonian forebears like the Diadochi ruler Ptolemy I Soter, one of Alexander's greatest companions.

Cleopatra even has Mark Antony conforming to this trend, contorting his facial features on some of her coinage to make him appear more like an inbred Ptolemy. LOL.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The fact that Cleopatra doesn't look ugly isn't a reason to be bothered by that fresco. While a lot of people might assume that it is an idealized portrait, there is no reason to take these coins at face value (pun intended). A lot of Roman artwork from this period and onward had a specific theme (a break from earlier Roman artwork and portraits), so in this case it appears to be a faux Egyptian and Hellenic theme. But for example there are busts of Marcus Antonius which intend to portray him as similar to Hercules. This fresco is similar in that regard in that it is portraying the recognizable Cleopatra. Yes, this face was recognizable to the Romans and it is probably more accurate and of higher quality than the faces on the coins. If not somewhat more idealistic as well, as art often is. The aquiline nose in particular is key. Only thing that throws me off is the red hair... maybe there is more about Cleopatra that we didn't know.

The coinage of this period wasn't exactly high quality and we can tell from the events of this era that their primary goal was to strike lots of coins in order to pay for large construction projects and paying armies. Creating an accurate portrait wasn't the priority, nor was producing a quality image. But it is also a stylistic choice to make the figures recognizable to the people using the coins. In fact they have uncovered specially commissioned coins to commemorate certain events and they look far better. All the high quality commemorative coins from this period were uncovered in Rome. We might assume that the Egyptians had no need for this practice, but we just don't know because diggers haven't found very many Egyptian coins from this period.

Look closely at the coins which Roma posted. The first one has Latin writing where as the others are in Greek. Now I am going to suggest that none of those coins are actually Ptolemaic and that they are in fact all Roman coins, following Roman standards. The reason they are in Greek is because of Antony's Hellenization policies. Also the presence of Cleopatra on these coins is good evidence that Cleopatra's position as Antony's co-ruler and legal spouse was not as precarious as later histories have led us to believe. Although these coins aren't too different from displaying the two consuls, or a general or emperor displaying their victorious colleagues. The other suggestion is that Antony was following Ptolemaic standards for coinage, but I find this extremely unlikely for the reason that all of these coins follow styles and methods consistent with other coins of the Late Republic period, and we can see this in coins issued by Pompey or Caesar or Octavian, and so on. Those particular coins above display certain features which might be more desirable in Hellenistic art however. They really are theatrical in the way that they portray their likenesses (the huge chiseled jaws and brows seem more consistent with Hellenistic standards than Roman ones). So I am willing to believe that at least in stylistic choices they are copying some kind of Hellenistic trend but the general image looks quite Roman.

I've long criticized the historiography concerning Antony and Cleopatra as basically being state propaganda on the part of Augustus. Naturally Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra were known supporters of the Caesarian faction. It doesn't surprise me in the least that they were still remembered in Rome decades later. In fact their burial was paid for by a wealthy Roman citizen. Mind you that the above frescoes are instantly recognizable as Cleopatra. But that Cleopatra and Antony are displayed together on coins, I think is a good indication that the claims in the texts about their partnership being unstable or merely pragmatic, to most likely be incorrect. If that were the case then there would be no need what so ever to display both of them on the same coin. Where as there are far more finds of Antony-Cleopatra coins (including Latin and Greek) than there are Antony-Octavia coins. Probably equal to the amount of Antony-Octavian coins that have been discovered. Antony's alliance with Octavian does not appear to be very publicized in the East, where Antony followed Hellenic traditions and attempted to present himself as a Basileios rather than as a Roman.

A far better Ptolemaic coin from earlier (note the difference in quality to the Cleopatra era Egyptian coins, and the lack of consistency between them):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Another coin issued by Marcus Antonius from Gallia Cisalpina. The text reads "M. Antonius Imperator" and the obverse side "Caesar Divus". Gallia Cisalpina you say? Why yes, this is likely a coin from after Caesar's assassination when Marcus Antonius assumed the consulship and purged the assassins. Also notice the similarity in style to the well known Cleopatra & Antony coins (albeit the faces are portrayed differently). Same thing with the Antony & Octavian coin below. It uses a similar style but the image of Antony has been changed to conform to a new standard, which becomes more common until Octavian takes power. The style of image in the first one is more similar to the images on coins from Pompey and Caesar. Interestingly Antony has a beard in the earlier coin.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This one is interesting and with somewhat of a more subtle political nature (Marcus Antonius Imperator, but on the obverse side we can see Octavia above the shrine of Apollo, surrounded by serpents, the serpents are a symbol of Apollo, the patron deity of Augustus):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now look at this far better coin of Marcus Antonius. It was likely made to commemorate the victory at Philippi and was specially designed. The beard is both a symbol of Hellenism and a symbol of Hercules. It makes reference to "Anton" who was the purported ancestor of the gens Antonia and the son of Hercules. The quality of this one really blows the rest out of the water and is comparable to later Imperial coins meant to commemorate victorious emperors.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Roma_Victrix]

The aquiline nose in particular is key. Only thing that throws me off is the red hair... maybe there is more about Cleopatra that we didn't know.

Cleopatra's hair seems to have become redder in posthumous frescoes of Pompeii and Herculaneum. This contemporary fresco made around 46 BC in Pompeii's House of Marcus Fabius Rufus, imitative of her devotional statue as Venus Genetrix erected in Rome's Forum of Caesar, shows her with only slightly reddish brunette hair in comparison.

The coinage of this period wasn't exactly high quality and we can tell from the events of this era that their primary goal was to strike lots of coins in order to pay for large construction projects and paying armies. Creating an accurate portrait wasn't the priority, nor was producing a quality image. But it is also a stylistic choice to make the figures recognizable to the people using the coins. In fact they have uncovered specially commissioned coins to commemorate certain events and they look far better. All the high quality commemorative coins from this period were uncovered in Rome. We might assume that the Egyptians had no need for this practice, but we just don't know because diggers haven't found very many Egyptian coins from this period.

The native Egyptians apparently began striking their own coins at the tail end of the 30th dynasty under pharaohs Teos and Nectanebo II in order to pay Greek mercenaries a standard wage. The obverse of this gold stater here has the Egyptian hieroglyphs for "good gold" and quite frankly it's of fairly decent quality. The figure of the horse is at least as impressive as very early Macedonian coinage.



Even with the pressure of the Persians bearing down on them, the Egyptian 30th dynasty was at least able to produce quality coinage. As you suggest, Alexander the Great and all the early Ptolemaic rulers had very high quality coinage, but this took a nosedive halfway through the dynasty after Ptolemaic Egypt got sucked into the Roman orbit as an increasingly subservient client state relying on the Romans to keep the Seleucids at bay. As you hint below, there were no gold coins of Cleopatra, who desperately revived the use of bronze coins that had been discontinued since Ptolemy IX and even debased her silver drachm currency by roughly 40% by the time her regime collapsed.

Look closely at the coins which Roma posted. The first one has Latin writing where as the others are in Greek. Now I am going to suggest that none of those coins are actually Ptolemaic and that they are in fact all Roman coins, following Roman standards. The reason they are in Greek is because of Antony's Hellenization policies. Also the presence of Cleopatra on these coins is good evidence that Cleopatra's position as Antony's co-ruler and legal spouse was not as precarious as later histories have led us to believe. Although these coins aren't too different from displaying the two consuls, or a general or emperor displaying their victorious colleagues. The other suggestion is that Antony was following Ptolemaic standards for coinage, but I find this extremely unlikely for the reason that all of these coins follow styles and methods consistent with other coins of the Late Republic period, and we can see this in coins issued by Pompey or Caesar or Octavian, and so on. Those particular coins above display certain features which might be more desirable in Hellenistic art however. They really are theatrical in the way that they portray their likenesses (the huge chiseled jaws and brows seem more consistent with Hellenistic standards than Roman ones). So I am willing to believe that at least in stylistic choices they are copying some kind of Hellenistic trend but the general image looks quite Roman.

Yes, they are Roman denarii, the first time a living foreign queen ever appeared on any Roman coin and was probably the inspiration for Caesar to become the first living Roman featured on Roman coinage. They contain either Latin or Greek inscriptions as you've mentioned. Instead of having the lettering placed horizontally or vertically as in Classical and Hellenistic Greek coinage, the ones struck with Antony and Cleopatra - whether in Greek or Latin - circle around the edges of the coins in the Roman fashion.

Whereas the dual images with Antony were Roman issued, they were still created as you would suggest to cater to eastern Mediterranean and Hellenistic sensibilities. At the very least they represent a type of eastern fusion that did not exist in the Western Mediterranean under Octavian. Despite these being Roman coins, as argued by Rachel Sabino and Theresa Gross-Diaz (2016), Cleopatra had Antony's facial features conform to hers and that of her Ptolemaic ancestors in order to present him as a legitimate member of the royal household to her skeptical subjects (especially the rowdy mob in Alexandria who had previously exiled her own father). Roller (2010), Fletcher (2008), and Kleiner (2005) present similar arguments.

Cleopatra also continued making her own coinage without Antony, even as late as 31 BC as seen in this hemiobol of Patra with the crown of Isis on the obverse. Funny how the quality of it is incredibly poor compared to early Greco-Bactrian gold stater coins produced at the fringes of Hellenistic civilization. It makes sense, though, because this coin was made either mere months before, during or shortly after the Battle of Actium and her retreat back to Egypt.

I've long criticized the historiography concerning Antony and Cleopatra as basically being state propaganda on the part of Augustus. Naturally Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra were known supporters of the Caesarian faction. It doesn't surprise me in the least that they were still remembered in Rome decades later. In fact their burial was paid for by a wealthy Roman citizen. Mind you that the above frescoes are instantly recognizable as Cleopatra. But that Cleopatra and Antony are displayed together on coins, I think is a good indication that the claims in the texts about their partnership being unstable or merely pragmatic, to most likely be incorrect. If that were the case then there would be no need what so ever to display both of them on the same coin. Where as there are far more finds of Antony-Cleopatra coins (including Latin and Greek) than there are Antony-Octavia coins. Probably equal to the amount of Antony-Octavian coins that have been discovered. Antony's alliance with Octavian does not appear to be very publicized in the East, where Antony followed Hellenic traditions and attempted to present himself as a Basileios rather than as a Roman.

It is perhaps fair to say their relationship was strained after the disaster at Actium and defections of Antony's troops to Octavian in mainland Greece, but before all of that Antony was funded and supported by Cleopatra even when he limped back from his failed campaign against Parthia. She apparently still believed in him and hitched her wagon to his, so to speak, as evidenced by the fact that she funded his far more successful campaign subduing Parthia's ally Armenia and capturing its king Artavasdes II of Armenia. I absolutely agree about Antony ignoring Octavian in the east and presenting himself as a Greek Basileios, especially with his mock triumph in Alexandria dressing as Dionysos celebrating the aforementioned victory over Armenia, if not the brazen distribution of eastern provincial lands under his triumviral authority to be inherited by Cleopatra, their children, and Caesar's son Ptolemy XV. I think this was overplayed in Augustan propaganda, though, because if Antony had triumphed and Octavian had lost the civil war, then Antony would have basically become Rome's first emperor. Cleopatra would have most likely remained his prestigious wife not only retaining her nominal client ruler status but in practice acting as part of Rome's unofficial royal family operating alongside the neutered government of the "Republic" in the eastern half of the Mediterranean.

A far better Ptolemaic coin from earlier (note the difference in quality to the Cleopatra era Egyptian coins, and the lack of consistency between them):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Another coin issued by Marcus Antonius from Gallia Cisalpina. The text reads "M. Antonius Imperator" and the obverse side "Caesar Divus". Gallia Cisalpina you say? Why yes, this is likely a coin from after Caesar's assassination when Marcus Antonius assumed the consulship and purged the assassins. Also notice the similarity in style to the well known Cleopatra & Antony coins (albeit the faces are portrayed differently). Same thing with the Antony & Octavian coin below. It uses a similar style but the image of Antony has been changed to conform to a new standard, which becomes more common until Octavian takes power. The style of image in the first one is more similar to the images on coins from Pompey and Caesar. Interestingly Antony has a beard in the earlier coin.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This one is interesting and with somewhat of a more subtle political nature (Marcus Antonius Imperator, but on the obverse side we can see Octavia above the shrine of Apollo, surrounded by serpents, the serpents are a symbol of Apollo, the patron deity of Augustus):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now look at this far better coin of Marcus Antonius. It was likely made to commemorate the victory at Philippi and was specially designed. The beard is both a symbol of Hellenism and a symbol of Hercules. It makes reference to "Anton" who was the purported ancestor of the gens Antonia and the son of Hercules. The quality of this one really blows the rest out of the water and is comparable to later Imperial coins meant to commemorate victorious emperors.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Fantastic work, Oda! I would give you rep for all of this, but sadly I am not allowed to do so. It's funny how HBO's Rome got it right showing Mark Antony with a beard during certain military campaigns, then, even if his beard on coinage was used as a means to link him to legendary Hercules and his son Anton. Also interesting how at least one later piece of Augustan art used the figure of Anton as a means to criticize Mark Antony as his disapproving ancestor. For instance, in the Portland Vase where the bearded figure of Anton gazes at Antony being seduced by Cleopatra right as she is about to be struck by a serpent (with a little eros figure flying above). Antony forgot his illustrious past and his Roman virtue, being pulled in by that THOT, apparently.

Portland Vase:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Also, as noted above, I agree with the overall decline in quality of Ptolemaic coins, to the point that they stopped using gold altogether, routinely debased their silver currency, and resorted to the use of bronze. Aside from the metallic contents, the raised relief illustrations on the coins also diminish in quality as you suggest. Scholars like Kleiner and Fletcher observe the differences in the feminine busts and frescoes of Cleopatra versus the coins, but IIRC they do not make bold claims about one being more accurate than the other in depicting the queen. I guess all we can do here is make estimated guesswork based on general knowledge of artistic conventions or common sense, because without explicit evidence suggesting one was more accurate over the other, I think a definitive statement on that matter would still be unsubstantiated. The same kind of propaganda and idealizing found in Roman coinage can be seen in Roman sculpture for that matter, along with deliberate attempts to link actual people with mythological figures. It almost becomes annoying to see yet another Ptolemaic queen as Isis or yet another Roman emperor dressed up as Hercules. Even the Barca family of Carthage played dress up as Heracles (Melqart) on their shekel coinage, including Hannibal and his father Hamilcar.

I will say this, though, that the higher quality commemorative coinage you described probably represents a more realistic depiction of their dead or living subjects. Some of them strike me as being just as impressive as Greco-Roman sculpture. I mean, just look at this absolute masterpiece, a gold 20 stater of Greco-Bactrian King Eucratides I from the 2nd century BC. Imagine being a regular Greco-Bactrian military officer having a bunch of these clinking around in your coin purse!

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The hemiobol which you posted doesn't look too different from the painted fresco. The reason I think that the fresco is a better likeness is because it is a higher quality image than most of those coins. That fresco depicts the icon that was Cleopatra, it is certainly an idealized picture but the general idea of who Cleopatra was has been represented fairly well. It isn't much different from how people recognize the likenesses of Napoleon, or Lincoln, or Marilyn Monroe etc. Most of those coins are not meant to be accurate depictions, a general idea of what they looked like sure, but they take stylistic liberties... and generally the image is just bad.

Quick question but was Caesar really the first Roman to be depicted on coins? I recall there being coins of Sulla as well as ones of Pompey. Were those coins struck posthumously?

One of the only busts of Marcus Antonius that we have is this one. It is an idealized portrait in the Hellenic style and it portrays the subject as Hercules. Interestingly though not a bearded Hercules that was popular in Athens, Thebes or Rome, but the youthful "immortal" Hercules which was common in Argos and popularized in the Hellenistic period (and which follows similar trends to the artwork of Alexander). The Hellenic images are not just symbolic, notice the Hellenic hair style. Roman art took a turn for the Hellenistic during this time (a trend possibly started by Pompey), Antony's rule in the East saw this trend increase. Hellenization was frowned upon by many Romans but it is hard to deny that it had a following especially among the wealthy elite. Later during Hadrian's rule the supremacy of Hellenistic culture was cemented. Compare the Antony bust to the one of Hercules, very similar.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

There is also this silver bowl uncovered in Arretium which is contemporary to the reign of Augustus. It uses the Hercules and Omphale imagery as a theme.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Maybe this Egyptian coin has the best image:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Roma_Victrix]

The hemiobol which you posted doesn't look too different from the painted fresco. The reason I think that the fresco is a better likeness is because it is a higher quality image than most of those coins. That fresco depicts the icon that was Cleopatra, it is certainly an idealized picture but the general idea of who Cleopatra was has been represented fairly well. It isn't much different from how people recognize the likenesses of Napoleon, or Lincoln, or Marilyn Monroe etc. Most of those coins are not meant to be accurate depictions, a general idea of what they looked like sure, but they take stylistic liberties... and generally the image is just bad.

Very true, but on rare occasions some coins almost live up to the standards of realism in Greco-Roman sculpture. For instance, these coins of Alexander the Great (including a bust of Athena), Philip V of Macedon, and Perseus of Macedon:

Quick question but was Caesar really the first Roman to be depicted on coins? I recall there being coins of Sulla as well as ones of Pompey. Were those coins struck posthumously?

Those of Sulla and others before Caesar must have been struck posthumously, because from what I've read Caesar was the first living Roman to be featured on Rome's coinage. This departure from custom would have been a grandiose political statement, for sure, something Caesar was fond of doing anyway with moments like the Lupercalia festival where Antony playfully tried to place a diadem on Caesar's head a million times and Caesar coyly pushed it away each time, feigning the rejection of kingship. As for reading materials, take this one for instance, from Joann Fletcher (2008), Cleopatra the Great: The Woman Behind the Legend, p. 205: "Cleopatra was the only female Ptolemy to issue coins on her own behalf, some showing her as Venus-Aphrodite. Caesar now followed her example and, taking the same bold step, became the first living Roman to appear on coins, his rather haggard profile accompanied by the title 'Parens Patriae', 'Father of the Fatherland'."

One of the only busts of Marcus Antonius that we have is this one. It is an idealized portrait in the Hellenic style and it portrays the subjects as Hercules. Interestingly though not a bearded Hercules that was popular in Athens, Thebes or Rome, but the youthful "immortal" Hercules which was common in Argos and popularized in the Hellenistic period (and which follows similar trends to the artwork of Alexander). The Hellenic images are not just symbolic, notice the Hellenic hair style. Roman art took a turn for the Hellenistic during this time (a trend possibly started by Pompey), Antony's rule in the East saw this trend increase. Hellenization was frowned upon by many Romans but it is hard to deny that it didn't have a following especially among the wealthy elite. Later during Hadrian's rule the supremacy of Hellenistic culture was cemented.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

There is also this silver bowl uncovered in Arretium which is contemporary to the reign of Augustus. It uses the Hercules and Omphale imagery as a theme.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Maybe this Egyptian coin has the best image:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Good points all around! Thanks for sharing these. I had seen that bust of Antony a million times but for some reason I never thought to connect it to Hercules/Heracles. That does make a lot of sense, especially with the stylish curly locks of hair as if he'd just stepped outside of a Greek barbershop.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Sure I understand your point. But when I said that they favored stylistic designs over an accurate likeness, I was referring to those cheap Late Republic coins that we find from Julius Caesar or Antony and Octavian. The earlier coins from Caesar are less stylistic, the Antony and Octavian coins are basically caricatures but follow a similar style, after Augustus became Emperor the coins go up in quality, not just metal content but also the designs on them.

Some more Antony coins.

Antony and Octavia, obverse side shows the shrine of Apollo flanked by serpents:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Marcus Antonius on one side and his brother Lucius Antonius on the other:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Another coin of Marcus Antonius with yet a different type of portrait:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Three different coins of Marcus Antonius with different styles, on the obverse side they both depict the deity Sol:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[AqD]

-- deleted --, not interested in fake Egyptian queen

I will say this, though, that the higher quality commemorative coinage you described probably represents a more realistic depiction of their dead or living subjects. Some of them strike me as being just as impressive as Greco-Roman sculpture. I mean, just look at this absolute masterpiece, a gold 20 stater of Greco-Bactrian King Eucratides I from the 2nd century BC. Imagine being a regular Greco-Bactrian military officer having a bunch of these clinking around in your coin purse!

Do you think there is any truth in the horse and the man on the coins?

If the coins were true, they'd literally be adults riding ponies, which would confirm the cavalry requirement of being able to mount a running horse without aid. But it'd be quite a sight to see someone like this charging toward you:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

While average warhorses were tiny back then, elite cataphract (I assume it's a konto not xyston on their hands?) cavalrymen shouldn't sit on mount like that. Also there aren't saddles in the coins.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Greeks don't use saddles.

https://www.comitatus.net/cavalrycanter1.html

Celts were the first ones in Europe, who used a 4-horned saddle.

The Roman Cavalry introduced this early saddle after the conquest of Gallia in the first century BC.

[Morifea]

It was said that her hypnotically soothing voice was aided by the fact that she could converse in several foreign languages aside from her native Koine Greek.

Never underestimate the Power of a sexy Voice.
Great Thread again, you really have a penchant for this old Lady.

[AqD]

Greeks don't use saddles.

https://www.comitatus.net/cavalrycanter1.html

Celts were the first ones in Europe, who used a 4-horned saddle.

The Roman Cavalry introduced this early saddle after the conquest of Gallia in the first century BC.

I meant Greeks in Bactria. Wasn't it among the first place where cataphracts with two handed kontos were introduced? would be difficult to imagine they did real charge (not poking with xyston) without saddle - it was told the 4 horned saddle helps absorb force.