Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. All Items Purchased From Forum Ancient Coins Are Guaranteed Authentic For Eternity!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Internet challenged? We Are Happy To Take Your Order Over The Phone 252-646-1958 Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: Nabataean Numismatics  (Read 37203 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Aarmale

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1544
  • Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #25 on: October 22, 2013, 06:01:55 pm »
In the picture above, the letters are confused in few places.  The obverse should be
חרתת מלך נבטו רחם עמה

(Het, Resh, Taf, Taf, Mem Lamed, final Kaf, Nun, Bet, Tet, Vav, Resh, Het, final Mem, ayin, mem, hey)

and the reverse should be
שקילת מלכת נבטו שנת ...

(Shin, Kuf, Yud, Lamed, Taf, Mem, Lamed, Kaf, Taf, Nun, Bet, Tet, Vav, Shin, Nun, Taf,....)
Gallery: http://tinyurl.com/aarmale
היינו דאמרי אינשי: טבא חדא פילפלתא חריפתא ממלי צנא קרי

Offline John Anthony

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #26 on: October 22, 2013, 06:25:01 pm »
Thank you kindly for your help Aarmale! I was hoping someone fluent in Hebrew would come along and assist. I've had some trouble reading Meshorer's attributions and transliterating them to the Nabataean.

I've removed the image until I've had a chance to correct it. Much appreciated!

Edit: the revised image in Reply 21 is now uploaded.

Offline John Anthony

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #27 on: October 23, 2013, 12:34:23 pm »
In Reply 12 I mentioned lead tesserae and their possible connection to the early bronze coinage, and in this post I’ll examine the pertinent questions concerning these pieces.

Meshorer cataloged two tesserae, Coins 3 and Sup 1, but believed Sup 1 to be composed of silver. Both of these coins exhibit a king’s bust on the obverse, with Nike standing on the reverse. Naturally, he concluded these two coins were related to the family of bronze issues of similar type. (NCQ3, pp. 85-86)

Schmitt-Korte subjected coin Sup 1 to an X-ray fluorescence analysis and found its composition to be 60% lead and 40% tin. He interpreted the piece as a test strike. (NC 150, p. 107)

In the last few decades, a number of tesserae have appeared on the Israeli antiquities market, in addition to several pieces discovered in private collections. These examples have shed a new light on their classification, demonstrating that they can no longer be considered members of the bronze family. For one thing, the tesserae exhibit a number of designs not found on any of the bronze coinage: portraits of Heracles (or Milkom?), bearded heads of Zeus (Hadad?), various portrayals of Nike that differ from the bronze issues, and charging bulls, right and left. Furthermore, some of the coins present unique and hitherto undeciphered inscriptions. (A Reassessment of Nabataean Lead Coinage in Light of New Discoveries, Oliver Hoover, CCK, pp. 105-119)

The variety of lead coins that are not typologically related to any bronze issues is enough to consider the tesserae a separate branch of Nabataean numismatics. We can safely remove them from Meshorer’s and Schmitt-Korte’s catalogs of early bronzes, and set them aside for separate study. I own three such tesserae which I’ll list below, saving a detailed discussion of them for a future post.

1. Anonymous tessera, Pb14, 2.4g, 11h
Obv.: Uncertain head right, wearing crested Boeotian helmet
Rev.: Nike standing left, holding palm branch or cornucopia in left hand, wreath in right (?)
Reference: Hoover Group A (?) or unlisted

Hoover lists only one known coin of a helmeted bust in his catalog of tesserae. My coin may represent a second specimen - all other known examples of this type have bare, laureate, or diademed busts. This coin also presents what appears to be a T, or three points of a four-pointed star at the top of the reverse. The device seems quite intentional, but could be nothing more than a flan anomaly.

2. Anonymous tessera, Pb14, 2g, 6h
Obv.: Head of Nabataean ruler (Obodas III?) right, with hair cascading in rows of curls; dotted border
Rev.: Winged Nike standing left, holding palm branch (or cornucopia?) in left hand and wreath in right; dotted border
Reference: Hoover Group B

The reverse of this coin is all but obliterated, but the portrait is a decent example of the archaic style associated with Obodas III and the early coins of Aretas IV. Robert Brenchley has a far more fetching example of the type in his gallery...

https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=1793&pos=5

3. Anonymous tessera, Pb14, 1.9g, 12h
Obv.: Laureate head of Zeus (Hadad?) right; linear border
Rev.: Bull charging left; linear border
Reference: Hoover Group K

An example of the Zeus/Bull types. These devices are not found on any Nabataean bronze or silver issues.

Offline John Anthony

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #28 on: October 25, 2013, 11:07:31 am »
The Proto-Nabataean Overstrikes

In 1990 Karl Schmitt-Korte published two examples of the Athena/Nike types overstruck on Ptolemaic bronzes. Coin 5 is larger than the norm at 21mm, 5.4g, but exhibits no detail of the undertype other than the pivot dimple commonly found on lathe-adjusted Ptolemaic bronzes. Coin 6 is smaller, at 19mm, 3.38g, and presents enough detail to discern the undertype as a coin of Ptolemy II, featuring Alexander III clad in elephant skin.

As with the tesserae, the last two decades have seen a number of these overstruck pieces discovered in hoards and made available to collectors. The gradually increasing amount of these discoveries suggests that at some point, the Nabataeans engaged in a substantial remonetization of the older bronzes. When exactly did this happen? Oliver Hoover and Rachel Barkay suggest the mid-third century BCE as a terminus post quem for the series. The following is a paraphrase of their analysis.

Ptolemaic bronzes were gradually demonetized and replaced with Seleucid coins after the conquest of Coele Syria by Antiochus III. Host coins would have been readily available at this time. Furthermore, many of the Proto-Nabataeans are overstruck on coins with fresh details, suggesting that the hosts did not circulate long before they were remonetized. The early date also accounts for the typology of the overstrikes, inspired by the Athena/Nike staters of Alexander the Great. This was a popular design in the third century, but faded away during the second, replaced by various dynastic, personal, and civic types. (Important Additions to the Corpus of Nabataean Coins Since 1990, CCK, pp. 198-199).

On most of these overstrikes, the undertype is completely obliterated, the only evidence of a Ptolemaic host coin being the pivot dimple. Of the undertypes that can be recognized, most belong to Ptolemy II and III, and many are found to be Alexandria emissions. One might expect to see more undertypes from the Tyre mint, but during the third and second centuries BCE, the Nabataeans engaged in extensive trade with Egypt by way of their primary seaport at Gaza. Their presence in the Southern Levant guaranteed they would have more access to coins minted in Alexandria than Tyre. It wasn’t until the first century that they lost control of Gaza and migrated northward to eventually occupy Damascus in 85 BCE.

Does this also suggest that the Proto-Nabataean overstrikes were produced at Gaza? A number of them have recently been discovered at Tel Beer-Sheva, a mere thirty miles from the ancient Nabataean seaport (Numismatic evidence from Tel Beer-Sheva and the beginning of Nabataean coinage, Kushlir-Stein, Gitler, INJ 12). It’s a question only further archaeological evidence can answer.

1. Proto-Nabataean Overstrike, AE17, 3.81g, 12h; Unknown mint (Gaza?)
Obv.: Head of Athena right, wearing crested Corinthian helmet.
Rev.: Nike standing left, holding wreath. :Greek_Lambda: to left.
Reference: Schmitt-Korte 6

Some of the undertype is visible on this coin, particularly on the reverse: an eagle’s claw, the thunderbolt, and the inscription from 9 to 11. There may not be enough detail to discern the exact host coin, but another member of this forum, PtolemAE, has suggested Svoronos 417, 969, or 970.

2. Ptolemy III AE16, 2.77g, 12h, Tyre mint, Club series.
Obv.: Diademed head of Zeus Ammon right.
Rev.: Eagle standing left on thunderbolt, club in front,  :Greek_Pi_3: :Greek_Tau: :Greek_Omicron: :Greek_Lambda: :Greek_epsilon: :Greek_Mu: :Greek_Alpha: :Greek_Iota: :Greek_Omicron: :Greek_Upsilon:    :Greek_Beta: :Greek_Alpha: :GreeK_Sigma: :Greek_Iota: :Greek_Lambda: :Greek_epsilon: :Greek_Omega: :GreeK_Sigma:
Reference: Svoronos 711

I’ve included this coin simply as an example of one undertype. Hoover catalogs one Proto-Nabataean overstrike with an undertype of Sv711.

Offline John Anthony

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2013, 12:20:29 pm »
A Coin of Aretas III Bearing His Name

Concerning the events surrounding the decline of Seleucid control in the northern Levant, Josephus writes, “After his [Antiochus XII’s] death, Aretas began to reign over Coele-Syria, being called to the throne by those who held Damascus because of their hatred of Ptolemy, the son of Mennaus. From there he marched on Judaea and defeated Alexander in a battle near the fortress of Adida, but, after coming to terms with him, withdrew from Judaea.” (AJ, VIII, 392)

Aretas III commemorated his rise to power in Damascus by issuing a series of coins that bore his portrait and name, establishing a tradition in Nabataean minting that clarifies the attribution of later coins. These new coins fall into three types. The bronzes feature a portrait of Aretas III on the obverse, with either Tyche of Damascus seated, or Nike in the guise of Tyche standing on the reverse. A third type mimics the Bust/Nike-seated coins in silver, but the coin Meshorer catalogs may have been a singular presentation issue - to my knowledge, the British Museum owns the only known example.

The coin I’ve attached to this post arrived yesterday from Dubai. It belongs to the category of Bust/Nike of Damascus types, Meshorer 6 and 6A. This particular rendition of Tyche was established on Seleucid coinage, and continued in use through various Roman Provincial issues. Of this rendition, Newell writes, “Like the more famous Tyche of Antioch, from whose well-known statue our present type is directly copied, she is seated, turreted, on a rock, while beneath her feet is depicted the swimming figure of the River Chrysaroas. Unlike the Tyche of Antioch, she holds a cornucopiae in her left arm, and stretches the right straight out before her, as if blessing with her beneficent powers the happy and industrious populations of her fertile oasis. These particular details always clearly differentiate the Tyche of Damascus from her numerous sisters throughout the Greek world, even down to her last appearance on the issues of the city under the Emperor Volusian, more than three hundred years later.” (E.T. Newell: Late Seleucid Mints, etc., NNM 84, pp. 93-94)

Meshorer reports that these issues are found only in Damascus, suggesting they were city coins not intended to circulate in the greater Nabataean Empire. (The anonymous Athena/Nike issues would have been serving that purpose at this time.) One of these types, however, was discovered far from Damascus in the Nisibis hoard, but we can consider it an exception - a traveler’s lost pocket change, perhaps, or a memento.

1. Nabataea: Aretas III, r. 87-62 BCE

AE20, 7g, 1h; Damascus Mint, 83/4 - before 74 BCE

Obv.: Diademed head of Aretas III right

Rev.: Tyche of Damascus, turreted, seated left on rock,wearing mantle on lower part of body, holding cornucopiae in l. hand, extending r. hand, river god (of Chrysorrhoas river) swimming below; in field, in three vertical lines, inscr. ΒΑΣΙΛΕ[ΩΣ]/ΑΡΕΤΟ[Υ]/ΦΙΑ-ΕΛΛΗΝ[ΟΣ], in left field, [A]P

Reference: Meshorer 6A

Offline John Anthony

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #30 on: October 31, 2013, 06:54:35 pm »
Dating the Coins of Aretas III

Meshorer gives the date 84 BCE as the beginning of Aretas III’s rule in Damascus: “Antiochus XII died in 84 BCE. We assume that in the same year, immediately after his death, Aretas ascended the throne of Damascus, and, furthermore, that upon his accession the local Damascus mint issued coins in his name.” (NCQ3, p.14) Using a methodology of estimating annual die usage in combination with textual and metrological evidence, Oliver Hoover has adjusted the date of Antiochus XII’s death to 83/82 BCE. (‘Revised Chronology for the Late Seleucids at Antioch (121/0-64 BC)’, Historia 65/3, pp. 280-301)

Meshorer assumed that the coins of Aretas III would have been continually struck at Damascus until it was conquered by Tigranes II. Setting the start date of Tigranes’ rule in Damascus would also establish the terminus ante quem for the Nabataean series. “The earliest clear date on a Damascus coin of Tigranes, now in the British Museum, is BMΣ, i.e., 242 of the Seleucid era, corresponding to 71 BCE. This, then, is the first year in which coins of Tigranes were struck in Damascus. Hence the Damascus coins of Aretas III could have been minted no later than this year.” (NCQ3, p.14)  An example of this coin can be found at coinproject here...

http://www.coinproject.com/coin_detail.php?coin=285124

I’ve also attached the image to this post.

Hoover’s aforementioned revision of the chronology of Late Seleucid kings narrows Tigranes’ rule to 74/73 - 68 BCE, but does not affect Meshorer’s analysis, if the reading of the date on the above coin is correct.

Therein lies the rub. The chronology, mint, and ruler attributions of Artaxiad issues are hotly debated. There is no question concerning the mint of the attached coin, given the portrayal of Tyche of Damascus on the reverse, and Tigranes' name is clearly spelled out. But there has been disagreement among scholars concerning the reading of the sequential Greek letters. Do some represent years and others months? Are some controls? I have neither the expertise nor the desire to engage in this debate, so I accept Meshorer’s date of 71 BCE as an endpoint for the Damascene coins of Aretas III, with the caveat that the issues may have been discontinued earlier.

Aretas was called to rule over Damascus at the request of its citizens, but upon the death of his brother Rabbel I, he also became king of the greater Nabataean Empire, and the seat of that empire was quickly becoming Petra. The Nabataeans were undertaking enormous building projects in the southern Levant at this time, and although there is no empirical proof for it, it is possible that Aretas III willingly left Damascus before it was conquered by Tigranes II, to take his throne at Petra. If so, would the mint at Damascus have continued to issue his coins in his absence?

But this last is conjecture. As with the dating of so many ancient coins, often the best we can do is propose a range.

Offline Equity

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #31 on: December 30, 2013, 04:43:14 am »
John,

First, my apologies for this awfully belated response. Second, thanks much for your painstaking and informative research--I found your pictorial breakdown of the legends most illuminating. I can certainly supply higher resolution pictures of my coin if they will help clarify.

Tracing through my records, my coin was acquired from that renowned authority on coinage of the Levant, David Hendin (the author of Guide to Biblical Coins and other references). I apologise for not recalling this when I posed my question, but Mr. Hendin's original description cited Meshorer 103.


As you've noted, the silver issues of 20/21-39/40 AD, which would appear to correspond to Meshorer 99-111, apparently differed in the dates alone, offering no other stylistic clues. FORVM has an example of a Meshorer 103 here:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?param=11739q00.jpg&vpar=976&zpg=9404&fld=https://www.forumancientcoins.com/Coins/

and other sites I won't link to (vcoins and cng) have examples as well. I'm rather mystified as to how the fragments of the legend on the FORVM example map to reign year 53, when I compare what's visible to:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Nabataean%20Numerals%20and%20Number%20Words
(Is there an error on that numiswiki entry, by the way--there are two entries for "9"?).

Interestingly, when searching for Meshorer 103 examples, I encountered a book titled "The Pocket Guide to Saint Paul: Coins Encountered by the Apostle on His Travels" which seems like it could be rather interesting--it purports to extrapolate the apostle Paul's reaction to Nabatean culture. As I was only peripherally aware of the Aretas-St. Paul connection, this link was a fun read:
http://ferrelljenkins.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/paul-and-the-nabatean-ruler-aretas-iv/

Regards,
Derek
Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile.

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12144
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #32 on: December 30, 2013, 08:20:39 am »
I like this thread!
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #33 on: December 30, 2013, 06:27:12 pm »
We don't know what Paul did to upset Aretas or his official, but he says he went into 'Arabia' after his conversion, which could be Nabataea, though the term was used of a wider area. The Ethnarch would either have been the ruler of the city, if Aretas controlled it, or the leader of the Nabataean section of the population if he didn't.
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline John Anthony

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #34 on: January 01, 2014, 01:25:05 pm »
John,

First, my apologies for this awfully belated response. Second, thanks much for your painstaking and informative research--I found your pictorial breakdown of the legends most illuminating. I can certainly supply higher resolution pictures of my coin if they will help clarify.

Tracing through my records, my coin was acquired from that renowned authority on coinage of the Levant, David Hendin (the author of Guide to Biblical Coins and other references). I apologise for not recalling this when I posed my question, but Mr. Hendin's original description cited Meshorer 103.

No apologies necessary! I take every opportunity I get to exercise my fluency in reading these coins. I would be the last person to argue with Mr. Hendin's attribution, though. I'm sure he saw something in the date that I didn't catch.


As you've noted, the silver issues of 20/21-39/40 AD, which would appear to correspond to Meshorer 99-111, apparently differed in the dates alone, offering no other stylistic clues. FORVM has an example of a Meshorer 103 here:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?param=11739q00.jpg&vpar=976&zpg=9404&fld=https://www.forumancientcoins.com/Coins/

and other sites I won't link to (vcoins and cng) have examples as well. I'm rather mystified as to how the fragments of the legend on the FORVM example map to reign year 53, when I compare what's visible to:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Nabataean%20Numerals%20and%20Number%20Words
(Is there an error on that numiswiki entry, by the way--there are two entries for "9"?).

The FORVM coin is actually dated 34, which is an accurate reading. In fact, that coin represents one of the rare instances in which one finds a completely legible date on these issues. The "3" with an elongated base stands for 30, the "X" adds four. See attachment.

The page of Nabataean numbers on Numiswiki is taken from Schmitt-Korte, and the two 9's are obviously a misprint. The first should be 8, as it clearly presents the symbol for 5 with three additive titches.

Interestingly, when searching for Meshorer 103 examples, I encountered a book titled "The Pocket Guide to Saint Paul: Coins Encountered by the Apostle on His Travels" which seems like it could be rather interesting--it purports to extrapolate the apostle Paul's reaction to Nabatean culture. As I was only peripherally aware of the Aretas-St. Paul connection, this link was a fun read:
http://ferrelljenkins.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/paul-and-the-nabatean-ruler-aretas-iv/

Regards,
Derek

Thank you for that link!

Offline John Anthony

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #35 on: January 02, 2014, 03:24:49 pm »
We don't know what Paul did to upset Aretas or his official, but he says he went into 'Arabia' after his conversion, which could be Nabataea, though the term was used of a wider area. The Ethnarch would either have been the ruler of the city, if Aretas controlled it, or the leader of the Nabataean section of the population if he didn't.

An important point, thank you. Damascus had been under Roman control since Pompey’s annexation of Syria in 64 BC, but Caligula decreed that the rule of the city should transfer to Aretas IV in 37 AD. Since we don’t know the exact date of Paul’s adventure, the most we can say of the Ethnarch is as you’ve stated: either/or.

I like this thread!

Thank you Joe. I like your site!

I have a recent acquisition to share related to the proto-Nabataean overstrikes discussed in Reply #28. This is the only Nabataean coin I’ve discovered to be struck over a Seleucid bronze. After some (admittedly cursory) research, I believe the undertype to be an issue of Antiochus IV, but my knowledge of Seleucid bronze is minimal, and I welcome any suggestions.

This is a rather dramatic overstrike, the obverse presenting an unintentional jugate portrait combining the busts of Antiochus and Athena. The reverse exhibits part of the inscription of the undertype: TI·X·Y. This inscription is so clear, it suggests to me that it survived on account of a chip in the overstriking die.

We know the Nabataeans engaged in a wholesale remonetization of small Ptolemaic bronzes. Is this coin unique, or will new finds discover that they remonetized Seleucid issues on a larger scale as well?

1. Proto-Nabataean Overstrike, AE17, 3.79g, 12h; Unknown mint
Obv.: Head of Athena right, wearing crested Corinthian helmet.
Rev.: Nike standing left, holding wreath.  :Greek_Lambda: to left,  :crescent: above.
Reference: Unlisted, overstruck on Seleucid issue.

Online Jochen

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12309
  • Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat.
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #36 on: January 02, 2014, 03:36:25 pm »
Hi John Anthony!

A nice thread. I wait eagerly for the next contributions.

In the meantime I have a question. Here is a coin of my Nabatean coins (https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=5212):

Obodas III, 30 - 9 BC
Nabatean: Abadad
AE 14, 2.68g, 13.9mm, 0°
Petra, 9 BC - AD 6
obv. laureate head of Obodas III, r.
rev. 2 crossed filleted cornucopias
       in l. field S (shin, for Syllaeus), in r. field H (heth, for Harithath = Aretas)
ref. Meshorer Nabatean 42
rare

This coin was wrongly attributed by the seller to Aretas. But it is obviously the typical portrait of Obodas on the obv. and Meshorer has attributed it correctly to Obodas. But why we see on the rev. heth, the abbreviation of Aretas (Harithat)?

Best regards


Offline John Anthony

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #37 on: January 02, 2014, 03:55:46 pm »
Jochen: that is, in fact, a coin of Aretas IV. The attribution Me 42 is correct, but Meshorer does not attribute it to Obodas - check your sources again. These "archaic" portraits are found on the earliest issues of Aretas IV/Syllaeus, as a carryover from the coinage of Obodas.

The history of the end of Obodas' reign, Syllaeus' misadventures with Rome that eventually led to his execution, and the beginning of Aretas IV's reign is convoluted and rather wild. Dan Gibson does a yeoman's job of relating it here...

http://nabataea.net/mhistory.html

Online Jochen

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12309
  • Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat.
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #38 on: January 02, 2014, 06:13:21 pm »
Dear John Anthony!

I have checked my sources again. Here is the description of Meshorer p. 93 for #42: Obv. Same as No. 40.  #40: Obv. Diademed head of Obodas III r.

The Syllaeus coins of Aretas start with #44.

Have I overlooked something?

Best regards
Jochen

Offline John Anthony

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #39 on: January 02, 2014, 07:28:48 pm »
Dear John Anthony!

I have checked my sources again. Here is the description of Meshorer p. 93 for #42: Obv. Same as No. 40.  #40: Obv. Diademed head of Obodas III r.

The Syllaeus coins of Aretas start with #44.

Have I overlooked something?

Best regards
Jochen

No. It's my mistake. Apologies! I took a very quick look at Meshorer as I was pressed for time earlier. Going back to his discussion of the coins, the first four paragraphs on pages 36 and 37 describe Syllaeus' political role quite succinctly. Then refer to pages 39 and 40 for a discussion of silver issues of the same type. The gist of the analysis is this: the bust is that of Obodas III, the letter Shin is Syllaeus' monogram, and Heth is of uncertain meaning. Heth does not necessarily refer to Aretas, as the letter found on earlier issues of Malichus I. On page 40, he concludes...

"Despite the detailed manner in which we have described these coins and despite our 'feeling' that they were struck in the confused period of 9 BCE, since they lack the clear stamp of one particular ruler, we still consider them enigmatic issues, about which there is a great deal of uncertainty. Additional finds may shed more light on them."

Now in the above analysis, Meshorer is referring to silver issues of the same type, but applies the analysis to the bronze coins as well.

So in fact, according to Meshorer, the coin is issued by Syllaeus and exhibits his monogram, but the bust is of Obodas, and Heth does not necessarily refer to Aretas.

BTW, that's one of the finest examples of the type I've seen. Nice find!

Edit: Another caveat apropos to this discussion is that Martin Huth makes a convincing argument that there was no Obodas II as Meshorer desribes him (CCK), and that all the coins of Obodas II should be attributed to Obodas III, who should properly be called the new Obodas II. But that's a lengthy discussion for another time.

Offline Joe Sermarini

  • Owner, President
  • FORVM STAFF
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 12144
  • All Coins Guaranteed for Eternity.
    • FORVM ANCIENT COINS
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #40 on: January 02, 2014, 08:28:55 pm »
A portrait of Obodas would be appropriately neutral for the joint issue of two joint ruling successors. Also, it is a stylized head of a king, more than a realistic portrait of a particular person.

I think the heth probably does refer to Aretas.
Joseph Sermarini
Owner, President
FORVM ANCIENT COINS

Offline John Anthony

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #41 on: January 02, 2014, 08:52:02 pm »
A portrait of Obodas would be appropriately neutral for the joint issue of two joint ruling successors. Also, it is a stylized head of a king, more than a realistic portrait of a particular person.

I think the heth probably does refer to Aretas.

I'm inclined to agree. I'm not at all convinced of Meshorer's claim that heth is enigmatic. The letter occurs consistently on the coins of Aretas IV, then disappears altogether on the issues of his successors, Malichus II and Rabbel II. The simplest solution is that heth is Aretas' monogram.

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #42 on: January 03, 2014, 05:16:59 pm »
I imagine it is, but what does Meshorer have to say about the Malichus I issues?
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline John Anthony

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #43 on: January 03, 2014, 07:02:40 pm »
I imagine it is, but what does Meshorer have to say about the Malichus I issues?

"The letter ח and the mark  :Greek_Omicron: (the latter an ordinary circle which is neither a Nabataean letter nor a Nabataean numeral) constitute an important and notable element in the issues of Malichus I, as well as those of his successors Obodas III and Aretas IV.

Appearing first on the coins of Malichus I and ending at a certain stage in the reign of Aretas IV, the letter and the mark, hitherto unexplained, have troubled us for a considerable time. They undoubtedly have some special significance in view of their occurrence for some fifty-five years, sometimes separately, sometimes together, and sometimes more than once on the same coin.

On coins of the ancient world there are various marks, single-letters, monograms, as well as other signs and symbols in the field of the coin. Some of these refer to the name and site of the mint. On the basis of this prevailing custom we hope to be able to solve the problem of the letter and the mark under discussion.

The letter ח stands, it seems, for the name of the mint-master, or the Nabataean magistrate, or some such personage. That this letter did not change during the reign of Malichus I, Obodas III, and Aretas IV does not necessarily mean that it referred to the same person, for it could have stood for the hereditary family-name of the mint-masters, or, by sheer coincidence, all the mint-masters during these kings' reigns may have had names beginning with the letter ח. Perhaps in the course of time this letter came to be the special symbol of the mint-master. In the absence of more definitive data we are inclined to favor this last supposition." (Meshorer, p. 27)

I suppose it's as good a conjecture as any, in the absence of hard evidence. It would seem that the letter in question is enigmatic after all.

Offline John Anthony

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #44 on: January 03, 2014, 07:48:40 pm »
Karl Schmitt-Korte, however, considers the letter heth on the coins of Sylleaus to be the monogram of Aretas IV...

"The coinage of Sylleaus presents us with a number of anomalies. Sylleaus had been the all-powerful minister under Obodas III and upon the death of the monarch in 9 BC he tried to take the throne. His rival was a man called Aeneas, who later changed his name to Aretas, as Josephus reports (Ant. xvi, 295). He was obviously of noble origin, but not of royal descent. The disputes between the two contestants and the intrigues of Sylleaus grew to such proportion that the matter had to be settled by the emperor Augustus himself. He confirmed Aretas on the Nabataean throne and condemned Sylleaus to death. The numismatic evidence shows that there must have been a transitional period during which both men held some power at the same time, but the exact relationship between Sylleaus and Aretas remains obscure.

.
.
.

There are no coins which can be identified as an individual portrait of Sylleaus or which bear his name alone. Sylleaus, even when written out in full always appears together with the initial of Aretas ח."

Nabataean Coinage - Part II, NC Volume 150, p. 127

Offline Arados

  • Comitia Curiata
  • Procurator Monetae
  • Caesar
  • *****
  • Posts: 1720
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #45 on: January 04, 2014, 10:41:30 am »
Hello John,

You mentioned earlier in your post that certain coins of Malichus I (מלכו) also bare the letters ḥet and sameh, so has to understand better the dilemma you are facing in trying to decipher these coins, would it be possible for you to share a photo of any Malichus I coins showng these letters, of type Meshorer, pp. 27 ?

I am aware that Meshorer implies that het could be the magistrates mark and that sameh could according to him mean of Petra. Personally, i'm not convinced with his theory.  ???

Would i be right in saying that Shin, on Obodas III and Aretas IV coins is the monogram/mark of Syllaeus who was the chief minister for Obodas III and shortly shared power with Aretas IV (חרתת) after Obodas (עבדת) death.

I look forward to hearing of any breakthroughs when they occur.

Good luck and thanks for this most fascinating and detailed study of Nabataean coinage.

All the best
Arados

Offline John Anthony

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #46 on: January 04, 2014, 01:01:50 pm »
Hello John,

You mentioned earlier in your post that certain coins of Malichus I (מלכו) also bare the letters ḥet and sameh, so has to understand better the dilemma you are facing in trying to decipher these coins, would it be possible for you to share a photo of any Malichus I coins showng these letters, of type Meshorer, pp. 27 ?

I don't own any such coins, but I took a picture of Meshorer's plate, see attached. Coins 12 and 17a exhibit the marks in question.

Quote
I am aware that Meshorer implies that het could be the magistrates mark and that sameh could according to him mean of Petra. Personally, i'm not convinced with his theory.  ???

The :Greek_Omicron: mark is clearly not samekh. It does not correspond to any Nabataean letters or numerals. When samekh occurs in Nabataean inscriptions, it never looks anything like :Greek_Omicron:. I agree with you that his theory concerning the :Greek_Omicron: representing Petra is unconvincing. The idea that heth represents a mint-master sounds like reasonable (albeit tenuous) conjecture, but here is his analysis of :Greek_Omicron:, which I find altogether flimsy...

"We associate the enigmatic mark :Greek_Omicron:, which occurs in no Nabataean context other than on coins, with the site of the mint. We have previously suggested (p. 20) that Petra, the capital of the Nabataean kingdom, was the natural site for a mint, and we should therefore expect to find some link between this mark and Petra. Indeed, such a link exists. Petra was known to the Nabataeans as Reqem. In Aramaic, Reqem means a stain, a spot, a (circular) piece of embroidery. Although there are no specific instances in which the word Reqem means a circle, the connection between one and the other meanings of the word - a stain, a spot - points to a possible identity between the circle and the name Reqem. We would therefore suggest that the circle depicted on Nabataean coins is intended as the mint-mark, and derives from the meaning of the city's name." (Meshorer, pp. 27-8)

I suppose you do what you can when the epigraphy is so scant. There has been some research into Nabataean inscriptions since Meshorer and Schmitt-Korte, and perhaps it will eventually proffer some clues as to the interpretation of these marks.


Quote
Would i be right in saying that Shin, on Obodas III and Aretas IV coins is the monogram/mark of Syllaeus who was the chief minister for Obodas III and shortly shared power with Aretas IV (חרתת) after Obodas (עבדת) death.

Yes, in the transitional period around 9 BCE, Shin is most certainly the monogram of Sylleaus. The letter occurs later in the reign of Aretas IV as the monogram of his second wife, Shuqailat, but that comes considerably later, and there is no confusion involved between the two instances.

Quote
I look forward to hearing of any breakthroughs when they occur.
Good luck and thanks for this most fascinating and detailed study of Nabataean coinage.
All the best
Arados

Thank you. I have also enjoyed your work concerning the coins of Arados, and look forward to more.

Offline John Anthony

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #47 on: February 22, 2014, 09:00:17 am »
Today I would like to offer two coins of the same type, Me 97, that commemorate Aretas IV's marriage to his second wife, Shuqailat. What can be said of these coins has been said very well by Meshorer, so I quote his analysis in full.

Quote
There is an unusual group of coins (No. 97) which constitutes an innovation in Nabataean numismatics and was apparently struck immediately after Shuqailat’s coronation. Its description is as follows:

Obv. Aretas IV, laureate, standing to front as soldier, looking left, holding spear in right hand and supporting with left sword in scabbard attached to girdle, his hair falling onto nape of neck; in field on left, palm branch, on right, monogram.

Rev. Shuqailat standing left, veiled, wearing long robe, raising right hand with palm extended; in field on left, wreath, on right, in three lines, inscription שק/יל/ת(Shuqa/ila/t)

   This coin is interesting for several reasons. Depicted here for the first time is the full figure of a Nabataean king, dressed apparently in a military uniform consisting of a cuirass and a coat of mail. Tied around his neck is a kind of caffya, fluttering in the wind. The inscription ‎חד (after deciphering the monogram), standing for Aretas’ name, indicates who the figure is. The conspicuous element alongside the king is the palm-branch which occurs here for the second and last time in Nabataean numismatics, the first time being on the coins of Phasael. It was suggested that on those coins the palm branch was associated with a personal event of importance in Aretas’ life, namely his marriage to Shuqailat, his second wife, and her coronation.

   This series of coins is unique not only it its designs but also in its execution. The coins are small, comparatively thick, and well made. On the reverse of the coins, the queen Shuqailat is depicted exactly as her predecessor Huldu is on the bronze coins of Aretas of 6-4 BCE, but, whereas Huldu’s name is not mentioned, that of Shuqailat is, to make it quite clear that the figure on the coin was the new queen Shuqailat.

The fact that her name is emphasized in this way on the coins indicates, we believe, that its date is close to Shuqailat’s coronation, which is associated in some special way with the wreath on the left (a royal wreath?).

   All the features which distinguish these coins from other issues of Aretas are, we suggest, characteristic of an extremely limited period, extending from 18 to 20 CE, during Shuqailat’s first years as queen. Their denomination is half that of the larger bronze coins, which were struck from this time until the end of the days of Aretas IV.

---Nabataean Coins, Ya’akov Meshorer, 1975, pp. 57-8

I've collected two of these coins. The second presents the complete inscription of Shuqailat's name. It's interesting to note that Meshorer considers these coins well-made, while Karl Schmitt-Korte calls them crude and poorly-made. Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder.

Attributions to follow in edit.

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #48 on: February 22, 2014, 05:48:18 pm »
They were struck on small flans, which gives the impression that they're badly made, but the dies were carefully engraved. Is there any other evidence showing what Nabataean royal dress was like?
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline John Anthony

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: Nabataean Numismatics
« Reply #49 on: March 11, 2014, 09:13:19 am »
Robert, I’ve encountered an almost complete dearth of scholarship on the internet concerning Nabataean clothing. Strabo says, “They wear no tunics, but have a girdle about the loins, and walk abroad in sandals. The dress of the kings is the same, but the color is purple.” Of course, this is just a snapshot. Nabataean fashion probably changed and evolved over time, as fashion does in every culture.

I did find an intriguing paper entitled “Woman in the Nabataean Society” by Mahdi Alzoubi, Eyad al Masri, and Fardous al Ajlouny of Hashemite University. An excerpt from the paper discusses women’s clothing and jewelery, based on coin and coroplastic evidence. (It’s clear that the authors’ first language isn’t English, but I haven’t edited the excerpt as there’s nothing particularly confusing about it.)

Quote
Costumes and jewelry

The archaeological excavations in the Nabataean sites yielded artistic works including costumes, jewellery and accessories that shed important light on the life of women.Various jewellery pieces of different shapes, some Nabataean terracotta figurines representing women, coins and Nabataean mural painting recovered during archaeological excavations from different Nabataean sites demonstrated the significant status of women in ancient Nabataean society.

Crowns, earrings, nose rings, necklaces, torques, fibula, girdle, rings, hand bracelets armlets and anklets represented the most frequent accessories used by Nabataean women from different social ranks. Nabataean women clothes and accessories designate the social and the political situation of the woman; crowns were used only by women from the royal family, diamonds were used by women of high level social status while rings and hand bracelets used by all women.

Nabataean coins and figurines exhibit types of Nabataean woman traditional clothes (Fig.1); these archaeological remains demonstrated two form of traditional clothes: the first one is a long twisted ribbon on an earring made of gold (al-Muheisen et al., 2002),the second one is a tubular cloth folded inside-out from the top about halfway down, altering what was the top of the tube to the waist and the bottom of the tube to ankle-length (Fig.3,4) (cf. Glueck 1965:Pls. 188a,b; 189 a,b).

As shown by some figurines Nabataean woman seemed to have had a special hairstyle. Women used to wear luxurious necklaces, belts and bracelets (Fig. 2) (al-muheisen at al. 2002). Several Nabataean sculptures from Petra and from other Nabataean sites reflect the different social classes by showing differences in clothes and costumes. The crown, for instance, was one of the most significant accessories that indicated the high social situation of the Nabataean woman.

The complete paper is available as a free download here...

https://eis.hu.edu.jo/deanshipfiles/pub102423624.pdf

There are a couple of references which I intend to acquire: “The Nabataean Terracotta Figurines” by Lami Salem al-Khouri, and “The Nabataean coroplastic arts: A synthetic approach for studying terracotta figurines, plaques, vessels, and other clay objects” by Christopher A. Tuttle. But in the meantime, this is the best I can do concerning Nabataean clothing.

Figures from the above paper attached...

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity