The dawn of Nabataean coinage.

I would assume they are a corruption of whatever symbols appeared on the Alexander-type stater the designs were loosely copied from.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

We'll probably never know. There is no extant Nabataean literature - apparently they just weren't interested in putting pen to papyrus. And what few carved inscriptions remain are in Nabataean Aramaic - I doubt they hold any clue to the meaning of the quasi-Greek marks on these coins.

 

After considering a number of the so-called proto-Nabataean coins, I finally decided to acquire this one today (#5 from post 33).

​

Of all the Athena/Nike overstrikes I examined, this coin was struck weakly enough so that significant parts of the host coin are visible, particularly on the reverse. The reverse is in fact quite busy:

1. In red I've outlined the ghost legend, which is clearly part of ΠΤΟΛΕΜΛІΟΥ.

2. Outlined in green is the branch that Nike is holding, to distinguish it from the legend.

3. In blue is the symbol Λ. This is probably part of the Nabataean device, as it's found in later strikes of the same coin on blank flans.

​

4. The yellow arrows point to the host coin devices: a claw and feathers from a common eagle design on Ptolemaic issues. Compare it to this coin for instance, and you get an idea of the ghost image.

​

The proto-Nabataean is also center-holed, which is characteristic of many Ptolemaic bronzes.

All in all, I think this is one of the most dramatic overstrikes I've ever come across, in terms of demonstrating both the host coin and the new devices.

 

Very sweet lookin' purchase, my gallant coin-friend ... well played!!

encil:

 

You ancient coin collectors have been putting up some amazing coins and write-ups! Thanks everyone, I've enjoyed oogling your coins and learning more about the ancient world.:thumb:

 

Meshorer and issues of morphology

Now that I have Meshorer's Nabataean Coins in hand, I've compared every piece of Aretas II in my collection with his typological classification. I've also tried to attribute every coin I could find on the web, and couple of questions have come up, which I think require a refinement of the morphology.

Meshorer starts with two types that exhibit Athena on the obverse and Nike on the reverse. Type 1 includes the symbol Λ with a crescent above it on the reverse.



Type 1A is the same, but without the symbols.



This much is clear, but when he gets to type 2, things get a bit muddy. His description of type 2 is as follows:

The following examples probably fit into type 2. In addition to the debased weights and irregular flans, they also tend to be struck considerably off-center.






The problem with the criteria for this class is that you can find a number of coins that are indeed struck on irregular flans, and could be called stylistically careless, but which are not debased in size and weight in the least. In fact, they are larger than some of the finer examples of 1 and 1A.



All of which raises a question of classification. Meshorer doesn't specify what he considers to be a debased weight, but three of the examples he cites in the British Museum have weights under 2.5 grams. The fourth weighs 3.26 grams, but nevertheless exhibits the "careless style" he associates with type 2.

This seems a bit vague. The lack of detail on these coins could just be circulation wear. And where do you draw the line between distinct types and stylistic differences (or just plain skill) between different engravers? Also, perhaps weight shouldn't be a consideration in their classification unless a majority of them are found to be debased, and the occasional large one is just a fluke...

 

Personally, I believe you have to, (absent other information), start with the premise coins shrink over time. It happens so bloody regularly as to be the rule. Sure, rules can be broken, but one should follow a rule unless you have evidence to the contrary.

So, assuming weight shrinkage, then you look at styles. If a normal pattern of coins shows a normal weight loss pattern, but then an oddball shows up, (higher weight but cruder style like lower weight examples), where do you put it? Remember all bronze coins are basically token coinage, (their metal value not being worth face value), is it really that unlikely a few heavier weight flans slip by? In ancient mints, usually a sum of metal was given to a mint, and a sum of coins returned. You can do that with bronze and still have a few heavy or light weight units slip by.

So, I don't have a problem with an occasional heavy coin being classified as a later strike. Your points are all valid, it IS equally as likely that you could have just had a poorly executed die strike an earlier issue. Not knowing more specifics, or if there were hoard evidence being used to date them, I really do not knwo more about the subject.

BTW John, you know the reason I didn't send the book was I had given you the tip on the auction, right? I figured you would get it. I just thought you didn't want the hassle of mailing back and forth.

 

Yeah, no worries! If I didn't win the auction I was going to go back to begging you.

I have to consider your other points carefully before I respond. There are other issues with these early Nabataeans and I'm trying to wrap my head around a more precise system of classification. Meshorer had a very small sample to work with when it came to Aretas II - only 13 coins in all, in which he included the one lead tessera known at the time, a tessera that could in fact be attributed to any number of rulers.

 

First of all, I don't believe lack of detail should be a part of the criteria of Type 2. Meshorer himself gives evidence that these early bronzes circulated for many years after they were struck. One example that suggests they circulated well into the 1st-century AD is the Kadman Museum hoard, in which a group of the early bronzes, well-worn, were found alongside issues of Aretas IV, Malichus II, and Rabbel II.

This example, which I posted earlier, is a bit of a problem child. It can be classified as Type 1, but it's struck on an irregular flan, although the weight is consistent with Types 1 and 1A. The engraving style is not crude at all compared to just how crude these pieces can get. So perhaps irregular flan size and incomplete devices don't necessarily exclude a coin from this type.



This one is crude to the point that the dealer called it barbarous, but in fact all of this early Nabataean coinage can be considered at least pseudo-barbarous.

 

Wow JA => you're certainly all about the ol' Nabataean coinage, eh? (super cool, my friend)

:lurker:

:kewl: ... super cool

 

The Class 2 coins really jump out to me as being stylistically divergent from Class 1. As Chris alluded to, it is the average of the weights that is considered, even though that can make it tricky to place the individual specimens.

Where do the overstruck Ptolemaic issues fall in this spectrum?

 

Meshorer suggests that the Class 2 coins were being struck under Aretas III, which is entirely possible. It's possible that Class I coins were popular enough to warrant restrikes, and that they could have continued being struck even after the Nabataeans moved their capitol to Petra. A number of the pieces have been found there, but of course, that doesn't necessarily mean they were struck there.

However, that could account for the stylistic difference between the two types. Damascus had been a minting center long before the Nabataeans started striking coins, and the town was probably equipped with master engravers and the latest casting/machining/striking technology. When the Nabataeans had to retreat to Petra, they would have had to reestablish all of those elements, which might account for the "careless" coins. It wasn't until the reign of Aretas IV that Nabataean minting reached the same level of expertise found in Type 1.

As far as the proto-Nabataean bronzes go, I would put them in a class by themselves. Setting aside any argument over their dating, the fact that they are clearly overstruck on Ptolemaic hosts puts them in a separate category, despite the fact that they share the Athena/Nike typology.

 

Some of your questions may have been answered in this:

R. Barkay. “The earliest Nabataean coinage” in NC 171 (2011).

 

Ugh. Another expensive volume to buy. I'll email Rachael and see if she doesn't mind uploading the article to academia.edu. Can't hurt to ask...

 

It must be something in the water in that part of PA........

 

Heh. We're surrounded by cows. You don't have to guess what's in the water.

 

I'm glad I stumbled on this old thread of yours @John Anthony in my research for a cool Nabatean for my collection

I'm thinking this thread definetly deserves a bump for the benefit of our newer members.

I also enjoyed reading through your website as well...
http://www.nabataeannumismatics.com/index.html

Keep up the awesome coin educating my friend!

 

@John Anthony 's fascination with the Nabateans is akin to mine with the Etrurians... fascinating and mysterious people.

 

i'm glad he has that, he was able to ID my "now famous" Rabbel ll/Trajan strikeover

 

Well this is a blast from the past. This thread represents my earliest interests in Nabataean coinage. You're better off reading my website now, where the information is much better codified and organized... Nabataean Numismatics