When Ya'akov Meshorer published the first sylloge of Nabataean coins in 1975, he catalogued a small bronze with the bust of Aretas IV on the obverse, and an uncertain fringed, bell-like object on the reverse. Under the mysterious object was the single word, HAGRA, referring to the second largest Nabataean city (modern-day Hegra, or Madā'in Ṣāliḥ in Saudi Arabia). Meshorer conjectured that the coin was a city commemorative, and that the object was associated with a cult peculiar to that city. At the time, there was only one known specimen. Since then, a few more have surfaced, adding up to ten. Recently I won (to my considerable surprise) one of those handful of coins... NABATAEA. Aretas IV. Circa 9/8 BC-AD 40. Æ13, 2.7g, 12h. Petra mint. Struck circa 8/7 BC–AD 15/6. Obv.: Laureate head right. Rev.: Uncertain bell-shaped object with five fringes; [HAGRU] below. Ref.: CN 149; Meshorer, Nabataea 87. Ex Classical Numismatic Group Electronic Auction 512 (23 March 2022), lot 243. Ex Classical Numismatic Group Electronic Auction 439 (6 March 2019), lot 152. I wish that the lettering on my coin were clearer, as on the one below, but with so few examples to choose from, one can't get choosy... We all know that rarity doesn't always equate to market value, and my auction win is a case in point. The coin had sold in 2019 for $132, but my opening bid of $60 went unchallenged in Auction 512. I have always refused to pay large premiums for Nabataean coins for the simple reason that archeology has barely scratched the surface of the Arabian environs, and large hoard finds that would make rarities commonplace are always a very real possibility. For instance, it's estimated that only about 25% of Petra has been excavated in any substantial way. The situation is even more pronounced in Hegra. The site had originally been settled by Lihyanite peoples in the 7th century BC, hugely urbanized by the Nabataeans, and eventually incorporated into the Roman province of Arabia Petraea. But the overland trade routes transitioned into sea routes, and the city was gradually abandoned, to lie in obscurity for centuries, much like Petra. Only in 2008 did it become Saudi Arabia's first World Heritage Site, and only recently has it been opened to tourists, see this article in the Smithsonian. Click on that article if for no other reason than to look at the fascinating pictures of the rock-hewn structures similar to those of Petra. I give you one... So what is the inscrutable object on the reverse of the coin? On other examples, the object appears to be made of braided cloth, as in this one, cited from Rachel Barkay's Coinage of the Nabataeans... In The Formation of Nabataean Art, Prohibition of a Graven Image Among the Nabataeans, Joseph Patrich suggested that it was a decorative cloth covering for a stele (or baetyl). When it's time for the god to go to bed, you cover him up... Image By Anderson, Bjorn. University of Iowa - Private collection, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=45382306 If so, it's an odd thing to put on a coin, but no odder than the religious implements we find on Roman coins I suppose. Perhaps the new archeological interest in Hegra will one day unravel the mystery of this coin's reverse.
Very interesting! My first impression actually was a cluster of some sort of fruit; the later folles of Carthage came immediately to mind: Very impressive that you were able to get it so cheaply - these days clueless newbies jump all over anything described as "rare" and drive prices up to astronomical heights.
This Nabataean coin of Aretas IV is a numismatic enigma. Nobody knows what can be the broom-like object on the reverse. The hypothesis of a cloth-covered baetyl is a possibility, but it does not explain the T-shaped object on top. Hegra is named ḥgr’, but this word in Nabataean also means "enclosure" or "consecrated object". There have been more than 1100 coins found in Hegra by archaeologists who surveyed and excavated the site in the 1980s and since 2002. Many are too worn and corroded to be identified. Among those which have been identified, there are a few Hellenistic and East Arabian coins, more than 200 Lihyanite, more than 300 Nabataean and c. 150 Roman coins. The Nabataean coins are by far the most numerous, though they cover a little more than 1 century only (from 9 BC to 106 AD). Almost all of them are of Aretas IV (9 BC-40 AD), plus a handful of Rabbel II (70-106 AD). In Hegra not a single specimen of Meshorer 87, the " ḥgr’ " coin, has been identified. If it had been supposed that these coins were struck at Hegra, this hypothesis must be abandoned. But there are a dozen curious copper alloy coins, struck on irregular flans of different modules and weights. On one side there is a large Nabataean Het, on the other a large O. The design of the Het is obviously Nabataean; the O is not a Nabataean letter, but the association Het - O can be found on several bronze Nabataean coins, and nobody knows what it means. The fact that these H/O coins are found only in Hegra makes it likely that they were minted there, for local circulation. AE 15-17 mm, 3.30 g. (found in Hegra) A better specimen from trade (unknown findspot): AE 2.71 g H / O flanking eagle on an Obodas II silver coin :
I like a good mystery, @John Anthony, and your coin is mysterious and interesting. Here's my non-mysterious Aretas IV: Aretas IV, Philopater, 9 BC - AD 40, and wife Shaquilath I. Nabatean AE 17.5 mm, 4.30 g. Nabatea, Petra. Obv: Jugate busts of Aretas and Shaquilath to right. Rev: Two cornuacopiae, crossed; between them Aramaic legend, "Aretas, Shaquilath" in three lines. Refs: Meshorer 114; SGI 5699; BMC 28.9,23; Forrer 212.
