This post is a response to the earlier conversation initiated by
Robert Brenchley, concerning the role of non-figurative art in
Nabataean culture. I recently acquired
The Formation of Nabatean Art - Prohibition of a Graven Image Among the Nabateans, by Joseph Patrich, The
Magnus Press, Hebrew University, 1990. This volume has proved an excellent resource for examining the coinage in the larger context of
Nabataean art.
Patrich draws a distinction between the art of the royalty, heavily influenced by Greek and
Roman aesthetics, and the art of the common
man, which adhered to its ancestral roots. While the kings of
Nabataea sought to fashion a figurative
architecture and coinage modeled after foreign ideals, ordinary citizens practiced a non-figurative approach to
pottery,
jewelry, and the representation of their gods by baetyls and
stele.
Extant
Nabataean stele are found by the hundreds, while figurative representations of Greek gods and goddesses are few and far between. The ancestral religion is attested well into
Roman times by coin evidence. On the city issues of Adraa,
Bostra, Charachmoba, and Medaba, one finds
reverse types that depict an
altar on which a
baetyl is placed.
This dichotomy between the royal and conservative ideologies created some overlap, and no small amount of religious tension. A cult of
Isis is evinced in various locations, with figurative representations of the goddess, while in other locations, figurative art has clearly been defaced. Suffice it to say, the
Nabataeans were nowhere near as rigorous about non-figurative aesthetics as their neighbors, the Judaeans.
Patrich’s analysis leads me to believe that there may be no significant religious symbolism in the most common and frequent
Nabataean reverse types, namely, cornucopias, wreaths, and eagles. These are merely an appropriation of common Greek
themes, used to enhance the circulation of the coins. In fact, once Malichus I began minting the first truly
Nabataean coinage, the Greek tradition of portraying gods on coins was rejected altogether, in favor of these generic
types. Even the progressive royalty
had to make concessions to tradition: portraiture was acceptable, but the anthropomorphic representation of gods was not.
The
Nabataeans did experiment with a few
reverse designs that may have
had religious significance, but these coins are extremely
rare, and they gained no purchase whatsoever in the greater scheme of
Nabataean minting. I will discuss these issue in a future post.
By the middle of
Aretas IV’s reign,
Nabataean coinage, both silver and bronze, featured only the busts of the
king and queen, and crossed double cornucopias. These
themes would be relentlessly repeated during the reigns of Malichus II and
Rabbel II, for some 75 years till the end of the empire. It’s clear that the
Nabataeans simply lost interest in varying their coinage in any substantive way. This points to a very utilitarian approach, and underscores the idea that we should not look for any religious symbolism in the common
types. It was
good enough for government
work, and why fix it if it ain’t broke?
