Early Nabataean Bronze Coins

This is my own attempt at classifying early Nabataean coins, based on my fledgling collection and initial observations. It consolidates information from several sources: Ya’akov Meshorer’s “Nabataean Coins” (1975), Karl Schmitt-Korte’s “Nabataean Coinage Part II” (NC 150, 1990), and Oliver Hoover’s “Important Additions to the Corpus of Nabataean Coins Since 1990” (CCK, 2010). I’m missing one piece of important information: Rachel Barkay’s article on the earliest Nabataean coins in NC 171. I have it on order, and I expect it will shed a great deal of light on my project.

This isn’t a scholarly paper, so some important details are missing. I don’t quote my sources, and some of the coin descriptions don’t include weight, size, and orientation. Eventually I’d like to publish my own catalog of these coins, but I’ve got a lot of collecting and research to do. This post represents a first effort at consolidating the information I do have. Some of you have read this stuff in my other musings, so I apologize for repeating myself.

I’ve posted pictures of the various types directly under their descriptions, for the ease of reading a forum post. Most of the coins in this thread belong to me; one coin is taken from Coinproject. If the owner of that coin objects to my posting it, please let me know and I’ll remove the image.

Proto Nabataean

The earliest Nabataean coins exhibit a portrait of Athena on the obverse, with a portrait of Nike on the reverse, modeled after the gold staters of Alexander III. Sometimes the inscription Λ with a crescent can be found in the left field of the reverse, sometimes there is only an Λ, sometimes there is no inscription at all. They are overstruck on issues of Ptolemy I, II, or III.

Hoover makes a compelling argument that we consider the mid-to-late 3rd-century as a terminum post quem for the series, and I’m inclined to agree. If we accept that dating, we can no longer attribute these coins to Aretas II. They may have been struck during the time of Aretas I, known from an inscription dating to 168 BC, and mentioned in 2 Maccabees 5:8. The only other Nabataean king of this period known to history is Rabbel I, who succeeded Aretas I in 140 BC. But it is not known that these early coins were struck during the time, or under the authority of these rulers, so perhaps it’s best to leave that part of the attribution out altogether.

1. Anonymous coin. Obv.: Head of Athena r. wearing crested Corinthian helmet. Rev.: Nike standing left, holding wreath. In field letter Λ. 17 mm, 3.81g.

The Ptolemaic undertype is clearly visible on the reverse of this coin, but I have yet to determine which of the rulers it belongs to.



2. Anonymous coin. Obv.: Head of Athena r. wearing crested Corinthian helmet. Rev.: Nike standing left, holding wreath. In field letter Λ with crescent above.



This coin is overstruck on a Seleucid host, belonging to Antiochus, as evinced by the remnant legend TIoXoY on the reverse. It would seem the legend on the host coin survived due to a chip on the overstriking die. The obverse also exhibits a ghost portrait in Seleucid style. Exactly which Antiochus is yet to be determined, and I haven’t studied this piece sufficiently to make an educated guess at dating. This is the first Seleucid overstrike that I’ve come across in my collecting, but I may have discovered a second piece, which I’ll post at a later time.

For now, I believe two broad categories are sufficient for a typology of Proto-Nabataean overstrikes. Variations exist in the inscriptions, or lack thereof, and sometimes the host coin can be narrowed down to one or two possibilities, sometimes it can’t. On some coins the overstrike is so weak that barely any of the new design is present, on others, the strike is so strong that there is no evidence of an undertype, save for the center dimple created by the axel of a lathe used to machine the flan. In those cases, it’s possible that the host coin is either of Ptolemaic or Seleucid origin. Trying to sub-categorize all these differences seems persnickety to me, but I reserve the right to change my mind in the future.

Aretas II

Aretas II’s rule began in 120 or 110 BC, and he remained in office until 96 BC. His seat was in Damascus. During this time, the Seleucids had lost power over the Near East, and a number of cultures began minting their own coin. Here we find the early issues of the Nabataeans, city coins of Tyre and Ashkelon, and the dawn of Judaean coinage under the authority of Alexander Jannaeus.

There now exists sufficient archeological evidence to assign at least the next Nabataean bronze type to Aretas II. These issues continue the Athena/Nike designs, but they exhibit a significantly higher level of artistry than evinced on the Proto-Nabataean types. The Nabataean variation on this Greek design consists of rows of dots to render Athena’s and Nike’s wings. Athena is presented with decidedly feminine features.

These pieces do not have the appearance of being overstruck, and they don’t exhibit the center dimple indicative of lathe machining. They are quite round, however, so the flans may have been carefully adjusted on a cylindrical sander. Sometimes parts of the design are off flan – either the dies were too large or the flan too small – but they are generally well-centered.

The quality of these pieces obviously suggests a professional mint, and just such a mint could have been found in Damascus during the reign of Aretas II. The Seleucids had produced a large quantity of beautiful coinage in Damascus during their stay there, and they undoubtedly left a school of minting, replete with the necessary technology and skilled artisans.

3. Aretas II Obv.: Head of Athena r. wearing crested Corinthian helmet. Rev.: Nike standing left, holding wreath. In field letter Λ with crescent above.

3a. Aretas II Obv.: Head of Athena r. wearing crested Corinthian helmet. Rev.: Nike standing left, holding wreath. No letter or crescent. 16mm, 3,3g.

These are Meshorer types 1 and 1a. 1 is with inscription, 1a is without. I’ve retained this convention and applied it to the next two types as well. Here are two pieces from my collection that illustrate differences in flan and die sizes. The second example is more common.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Four Kings

Although type 3 is safely assumed to have been issued by Aretas II in Damascus, the remaining types could have been minted during the reigns of Aretas II, Obodas I, Rabbel I, and Aretas III, spanning a period between 120/110 BC to 62 BC. Since there is no evidence to assign the various types to various kings, I call them the “Four Kings” versions. The order of the remaining types does not constitute a chronological order. Thankfully, Aretas III eventually puts his name on a coin (Me 5, SK 9) and takes the guesswork out of dating all the Nabataean coins that come after.

4. Four Kings Obv.: Stylized, helmeted head of Athena r. Rev.: Nike standing left, holding wreath. In field letter Λ with crescent above.

4a. Four Kings II Obv.: Stylized, helmeted head of Athena r. Rev.: Nike standing left, holding wreath. No letter or crescent.

4b. Four Kings Obv.: Stylized, helmeted head of Athena r. Rev.: Nike standing left, holding wreath. Letter ח in field.

Athena changes aspect in this type. She takes on decidedly masculine facial features, the helmet shows a sharp rim, and there is no ball or hair brush. Meshorer suggests that these busts are modeled after certain issues of Alexander Bala, and there are indeed similarities. Was Athena transforming into a Nabataean deity here? Or does this type illustrate the first efforts of Nabataean die cutters to portray their kings? Is it a portrait of Aretas II? Those are questions I can’t answer, but these coins present a distinctive departure in style from type 3, and deserve their own category. I have yet to find an example of 4b on the market, but hope springs eternal.



4b is a re-categorization of Me 4, which is in the stylized Athena version, but presents the intriguing letter ח in the reverse field. This is the first letter of Aretas’s name spelled in Nabataean Aramaic, read from right to left : חרחח. One frequently finds the first initial of kings’ names on later Nabataean issues, so it’s probably safe to assume this letter is referring to Aretas II or III. Since early Nabataean coinage shifted from Greek inscriptions to Aramaic, is it also fair to assume that the letter Λ refers to Aretas on the other types? It seems likely, but there just isn’t enough evidence to say so definitively.

5. Four Kings Obv.: Stylized, helmeted head of Athena r. Rev.: Nike standing left, holding wreath. In field letter Λ with crescent above. Careless style.

5a. Four Kings Obv.: Stylized, helmeted head of Athena r. Rev.: Nike standing left, holding wreath. No letter or crescent. Careless style.

Type 5 is distinguished from 4 by the careless style of the minting. These types are number two in Meshorer’s catalog, and of them he says, “Difficult to distinguish the details. Many of these coins are of a debased weight and struck on irregular flans”.



Of the early Nabataean types, these are numerous and readily available. The 1st-century BC was a time of tremendous growth in the empire, and doubtlessly many workers and soldiers needed to receive salaries. The careless style and abundance of these coins suggests that they were produced quickly and in large quantities to meet an urgent economic necessity, and art be damned.

6. Four Kings Obv.: Unknown head r. Rev.: Nike standing left, holding wreath. No letter or crescent. Careless style.

The prior types I’ve listed are simply a reorganization of coins cataloged by Meshorer and Schmitt-Korte. Type 6 is my own concoction, and I believe it can be distinguished from Type 5 in several ways. I’ve seen a handful of these coins on the market, and I own two which illustrate the possibility that the obverse design is an intentional attempt to portray a specific person.



Despite the barbarous character of the reverse, these coins exhibit a certain amount of artistry not evident in type 5. The busts are clearly trying to portray someone, likely one of the four kings. Hoover assigns such a coin with an Arabian bust to Aretas III, which is highly likely, but unprovable. Unless he has information not expounded in CCK (which is entirely possible) I think it’s safer to assign these coins to the “Four Kings” category.

Addendum

When Meshorer published “Nabataean Coins” in 1975, he was in the possession of two lead tesserae, one of which he thought was silver. They were both placed in his catalog of early Nabataean coins, as Me 3 and Sup 1, as they both exhibited the Bust/Nike designs. Schmitt-Korte submitted Me 3 to an X-ray fluorescence analysis, and it was discovered to be made of an alloy of 60% lead and 40% tin, making it the second known Nabataean tessera. SK, however, interpreted the coin as a test piece, as Meshorer did Sup 1. Since then, approximately 60 tesserae have appeared on the Israeli antiquities market, and they’ve been carefully categorized by Hoover as a separate species, taking Me 3 and Me Sup1 out of the family of early Nabataean bronze issues.

I have two such tesserae, which in the past would have been attributed as Me 3 and Me Sup 1…



If you actually read this whole post, PM me your address and I will mail you a cookie.

 

Here's a plate-style version of the six types. It's interesting to look at the differences side-by-side, and at least on my screen, it's a fairly accurate depiction of the actual size of the coins.

 

I read the entire post, but I don't need a cookie. Thanks

 

nice coins and write up JA.

the first thing i think of when i hear "nabatean coins" are those double cornucopia coins with the double bust on the front. a quick look at vcoins shows me these come from later, for some reason i thought they older than they are.

 

The majority of the Jugate portrait/Double cornucopia types were issued by Aretas IV (9 BC - 40 AD). In fact, the majority of all Nabataean coins belongs to this king - Meshorer estimates 8 in 10. Nabataean currency was a powerful force in the first century - their coins can be found in excavations ranging from Italy and Egypt to the entire Middle East and Arabian Peninsula.

The earlier pieces are found mixed in with the later, which suggests they were never demonetized, and may have circulated for 200 years. It's difficult to find them in decent shape.

 

Yeah, Jerry, in case you haven't noticed, I'm a nerd.

 

ahaha, actually JA => that "Nose-pickin' Martin-image, from The Simpsons" was supposed to be indicating how little I know about this coin-type!! ... not how freakin' geeky you are!! (man, we're coin collectors => we are all Geek-Lords!!) ...

Yah occasionally, my wife thinks I'm kinda fun and a wee bit hot, but the coin-collecting thingy has absolutely "zero" to do with it!! (she calls me "Coin Nerd" when I'm in mode!!)



=> cool coins, JA

 

NERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDS!

 

Thank you for this most informative and interesting thread, JA.

 

You're welcome TIF - I appreciate that you liked it.

I feel like I've finally started to wrap my brain around this early series. The only coin I don't own is a Type 4, with the bust style akin to issues of Alexander Bala. There are a few on the market now, but they're not as strong as the rest of the coins in the set, so I'm holding out.

I'm going to continue exploring these early issues, but I feel like I'm ready to move on to the next phase. With Aretas III, we get the first Nabataean coins that can be accurately dated, and I'm hoping to add one of those to my collection soon.

 

Why are so many of these coins ebony black in color ???

 

I don't recognize those pieces, Ripley, except for Tyche on the last one. What are they? City issues?

 

Tyke (Turret head) / Nike

 

Yes, but do you know the attributions?

 

Obviously coins that have experienced prolonged exposure to hot, arid conditions take on a desert patina. Is it fair to assume that the ebony patina on those coins has to do with humidity? I don't know.

Also, I've been told that soaking in olive oil darkens copper - I've never tried it so I can't say. But perhaps a cleaning contributed to the color?

 

No..... I do not know much about these. Perhaps someone will ID for us.

 

I spoke today with Daniel Wolf, the author of the The PtolemAE Project and a leading authority on Ptolemaic bronzes. He suggested that the undertype to coin 1 (above) may be Svoronos 417, 969, or 970, but there isn't enough of the host coin's details to make an accurate assessment. At any rate, it belongs to an issue of Ptolemy II or III, as bronzes of Ptolemy 1 do not exhibit the center dimple.

He also informs me that most of the Proto-Nabataean overstrikes are on host coins minted in Alexandria, as opposed to Tyre. This is a curious factoid, but it makes a certain amount of sense. According to Dan Gibson, a leading Nabataean historian, the Nabataeans had extensive trades routes through the Northern Sinai Peninsula and Egypt by the middle of the 3rd-century BC. It wouldn't have been difficult for them to acquire coins minted in Alexandria.



They did not move further north, into the region of Tyre and Damascus, until they lost their port in Gaza to Jewish control in the 1st-century BC.