Proto-Nabataean Overstruck on Seleucid Host

Here’s a Proto-Nabataean bronze overstruck on a Seleucid host. This is the only example of such an overstrike I’ve ever seen, so I had to jump on it. The overstrike creates a dramatic, if unintentional jugate portrait between Antiochus and Athena, and on the reverse you find the bold lettering (AN)TIoXoY, The dealer suggests that the host coin is of Antiochus VII, but I believe it belongs to Antiochus II or III – I’ll explain my reasoning later.



With the decline of the Seleucid Empire, various cultures in the Middle East began minting their own coinage. The first experiments of the Nabataeans consisted of striking Athena/Nike designs over extant small bronzes. To date, I’ve only seen overstrikes on Ptolemaic coins. Some of them are quite dramatic in displaying both the new design and remnants of the host coin. It’s likely that the host coins were not sufficiently annealed before being restruck. I have such an example here…



On the reverse, you find remnants of the Ptolemaic single-eagle device – yellow arrows point to the claws and feathers. You also find part of the legend, outlined in red.



Meshorer wasn’t aware of these pieces when he published “Nabataean Coins” in 1975, or if he was, he didn’t attribute them to the Nabataeans. After that time, however, several of these restrikes were discovered among Nabataean hoards, and the typology linked them directly to the earliest issues of Aretas II. By 1990, Schmitt-Korte lists two of them in his addendum to Meshorer’s sylloge, “Nabataean Coinage – Part II, New Coin Types and Variants”, NC Volume 150. Hoover and Barkay examine a few more in CCK.

This is the first Proto-Nabataean coin that I’ve seen overstruck on a Seleucid host. My reasons for attributing the original coin to Antiochus II or III (as opposed to Antiochus VII) is somewhat involved, so I’ll put it together and post it later.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nice write up and interesting coins. I like the first especially.

 

That is a very interesting specimen indeed. Great find!

 

It's the only example known to me, but I doubt it's unique. Archeology has barely touched the Nabataean culture - it's estimated that only 25% of Petra has been excavated with any thoroughness. Who can tell what curious and fascinating coins are going to emerge over time?

 

I need some Nabateans, I need some Nabateans...
Purchase,Purchase Purchase, these old demons...
It amounts to empty bank accounts...
I need some Nabateans, I need some Nabateans...

 

Very interesting. I'm a collector of overstruck coins and this is an excellent example. I like it!

By any chances would you happen to pictures of the original host coin? Unfortunately I don't really collect ancients and this is a grey area for me.

 

This is a typical Ptolemaic bronze, belonging variously to Ptolemy I, II, or III. This type is the host to the second coin in my first post...



I'll post the coins of Antiochus II and III, which I believe may be the hosts to the first coin a bit later, in my explanation of why I believe the host coin may belong to those emperors as opposed to later ones.

 

You don't have to empty bank accounts AN. The most common Nabataean coins are the bronzes of Aretas IV with jugate busts of the king and queen on the obverse, and double cornucopiae with legends on the reverse.

If all you want is a representative coin for an ancient empires type set, you can find a "nice" one of these for a reasonable price. Just be aware that "nice" isn't so nice when it comes to Nabataeans.

 

Ah but I would like it in Silver, I have seen some really nice bronzes though, that really are not all that crappy. At some point someone cut nice coins. But yes. Go ahead JA feed the beast.

 

JA , Wow awesome coin, i like the fact that we have so many different collectors. Well done..

 

In a nutshell, here are my reasons for attributing the host coin to Antiochus II or III. First off, let me say that I know very little about Seleucid bronzes – this is just a preliminary foray. If any of you folks see something I’ve missed, please chime in!

Here are two examples, coins of Antiochus II and III, respectively…





The legend on the reverse of these pieces reads ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ, with the word ANTIOXOY on the left side, running roughly from 11 to 7 o’clock. If you rotate the reverse of either of these coins 45 degrees counter-clockwise, you get exactly the orientation of the letters on my Proto-Nabataean.


By Antiochus IV, however, the words ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ appear entirely on the right side of the reverse, and the left has descriptive clauses such as ΦΙΛΟΠΑΤΟΡΟΣ. If the Proto-Nabataean host was a bronze of Antiochus IV or later, the remnant legend TIoXoY would read upside-down and backwards, unless the host coin was struck radically off-center. (That is a possibility of course, and I need to look for other markers to rule it out, if it can be ruled out.)




There are two other reasons for considering an earlier Antiochus here. One is epigraphic. I’ve noticed that the coins of Antiochus II and III exhibit the most frequent use of a small “o” or dot to represent the letter Omicron. That’s exactly what appears on the Proto-Nabataean. Issues by later rulers use the open, large O almost exclusively, as do the coins of Antiochus I. Of course, this may be accountable simply to differences between individual engravers – I’m not sure. As I say, this is only my first look at Seleucid bronze. In fact, there may be types issued by later rulers that I’m not aware of, and my theories may get blown completely out of the water, but that’s OK – you’ve got to start somewhere.

The final reason I’m suggesting the host coin belongs to Antiochus II or III has to do with dating, but that’s still another post.

 

Quite the interesting catch John! I'm almost itching to get an ancient Persian coin like a Seleucid or Parthian.

 

Yeah, that makes two of us. I'm not interested in collecting things just to have representative examples from various kingdoms, but I could make an exception for Parthian silver.

 

Except the Seleucid empire only controlled parts of Persia for a short while. Seleucid coins mainly were struck in Syria. First the Central Asian Greeks revolted, then the Parthians destroyed the Seleucid power in the region.

Just mentioning it since most Persian collectors do not collect Seleucid issues. Maybe one or two in a narrow timeframe, but not usually.

 

Btw, sorry to mention it earlier, fantastic coin John. I love the unintentional(?) jugate busts as well. So much so I wonder if this counterstriking is where the Nabateans got the idea for thier series of jugate portraits later down the line?

I should look in "Overstruck Greek Coinage" to see if there is anything like this. Btw, if anyone is ever interested in this book let me know. I bought quite a few copies cheap from a closeout on Ebay a few years back.

 

Undoubtedly a very important coin. If you can properly identify the undertype, you can establish a terminus post quem for the entire series. But I don't think your argument attributing it to Antiochos II-III is strong enough yet.

 

Thanks for the history lesson Shows how much I know about these coins and their history

 

It's the barest start , Bill - I'm going to have to really study the Seleucid bronze types, so it'll take a while.

And Chris, I had the same thought concerning jugate portraits, but they exist in various Greek coinages prior to the heyday of minting at Petra. The influence probably comes from already well-known and established designs.

 

Bill, I’ve given the problem of determining the TPQ some thought, and I think I’ve at least isolated the right questions. As far as the Ptolemaic overstrikes are concerned, it’s currently assumed that the undertypes could belong to issues of Ptolemy I, II, or III. That would theoretically set the TPQ for the Proto-Nabataean/Ptolemaics somewhere in the mid fourth-century BC. However, I see some problems with such an early date.

First, although the Nabataeans had established extensive trade routes in the fourth and third centuries BC, they maintained a highly nomadic lifestyle – gypsies wandering the Arabian Peninsula, setting up tent villages on the outskirts of cities, trading in various commodities. They used whatever coinage was available to them, and probably many goods were exchanged by barter. They were also very diplomatic by way of adhering to, and adopting local customs. Trade was their first priority, and they consequently avoided any sort of conflict whenever they could, in order to maintain uninterrupted commerce. I find it highly unlikely that they would have experimented with their own coinage during these centuries. They didn’t need it, for one, and they wouldn’t have risked strained relations with the Ptolemaic Empire by usurping the right to coin money.

In CCK, Hoover notes that Ptolemaic coins were gradually demonetized after Antiochus III’s conquest of Coele Syria. That occurred in 199 BC. I like this date as a TPQ for the Ptolemaic overstrikes for several reasons. At this point, the Nabataeans had established bona fide settlements, and they probably needed coins for intranational commerce. Furthermore, restriking demonetized Ptolemaic bronzes wouldn’t have caused any political tension.

There is also the issue of flan adjusting techniques. Current scholarship assumes that all Proto-Nabataean bronzes were struck on Ptolemaic hosts (excluding the Seleucid in my first post) whether or not any of the host coin’s devices are visible on the restrike - the clue being the center dimple created by the axle of a lathe. Sometimes that’s the only feature that distinguishes a Proto-Nabataean coin from the first issues of Aretas II, since both types exhibit the Athena/Nike devices.

But is it necessarily so? Lathe machining of flans was practiced extensively by the Ptolemaic mints, but it was also employed by the Seleucids. Are some of the Nabataean overstrikes that don’t exhibit any trace of an undertype actually hosted by Seleucid coins? It’s entirely possible. Also, the lathe was not always used for flan adjustment. Are some of the coins we attribute to Aretas II (sans dimple) actually overstrikes?

I’d like to be able to say something more definitive but it’s going take nothing short of an extensive survey of Ptolemaic and Seleucid bronze before I dare an opinion.

 

Great coins JA!!

I have a couple of Ptolemy IV Philopators to add to your post


... and here is a Ptolemy X





... oh, and I may not have any Antiochos II, III, or IV's ... but I can add an Antiochos VI and Antiochos VIII to your thread as well ...