A Companion To The Hellenistic and Roman Near East - 2021 - Kaizer - The Nabataeans

10.1002/9781119037354.ch23, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119037354.ch23 by <Shibboleth>-University of Exeter, Wiley Online Library on [02/12/2022].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CHAPTER 23
The Nabataeans
David F. Graf
The term “Nabataean” is generally employed as an ethnic designation, but it is better under-
stood as a political “umbrella” term for a vast confederation of Arab tribes and peoples across
North Arabia who wrote in various languages and utilized different scripts, and who were incor-
porated into a kingdom we call “Nabataean.” During the Hellenistic–Roman era, their kingdom
stretched from the Hauran in southern Syria (Nehmé 2010) to the northern Hijaz in the north-
west of the Arabian Peninsula (Nehmé e.a. 2010, 2011, 2015) and from Jauf (ancient Dumah
al-Jandal) in the Syrian Desert (Loreto 2018) across the Jordan rift through the Negev of
Palestine to the Suez and Egypt (Durand 2010), including the Sinai Peninsula (Avner 2015b).
Extensive surveys of this landscape have now catalogued well over a thousand Nabataean sites
(Wenning 1987, which must now be updated), identified mainly from their distinctive dateable
Nabataean painted fine ware (Schmid 2007). Most of these sites are small villages, rural shrines,
and farmsteads. The major urban centers were the capital at Petra, numerous towns in the
Hauran in southern Syria, Taymaˉ’ and Hegra (modern Madā’in Ṣāliḥ) in the northwest of the
Arabian Peninsula, and a string of small settlements across the Negev of Palestine: Oboda,
Mampsis, Nessana, Sobata, and Elusa, leading to the Mediterranean ports at Gaza and
Rhinocolura (Erickson-Ginni 2010). From the fourth century bc until its annexation by Rome
in ad 106, the Nabataean kingdom dominated the aromatics trade between South Arabia
(Yemen) and the Mediterranean (Graf and Sidebotham 2003; Nehmé e.a. 2018), so that
“Nabataean” became synonymous with “merchant” in the Roman world (Apul. Flor. 6:
Nabathaeos mercatores).
In the absence of any native Nabataean literature, one is forced to cull the history of the
Nabataeans from a variety of Greek and Latin writers, of which Josephus’s Jewish War and
Antiquities of the Jews are primary (Chapter 7). Although there are more than seven thousand
recorded Nabataean Aramaic inscriptions (CIS II, 157–1471, plus many subsequent additions),
the majority are concentrated in the Sinai (almost four thousand), and the rest scattered across
the Nabataean realm, with only about a thousand in the Petraean heartland (Nehmé 2012), and
mere hundreds in the Hauran of Southern Syria (Nehmé 2010: 451–492 for a list) and the Hijaz
(recent texts by al-Theeb 1993: 69–200), with just dozens in central Transjordan and the Negev.
They provide little information about the political and commercial aspects of the Nabataeans,
consisting mainly of laconic graffiti with stereotyped phrases and religious petitions (Lewin
2014: 117–125). It is generally assumed the Nabataeans utilized Aramaic as a public language,
A Companion to the Hellenistic and Roman Near East, First Edition. Edited by Ted Kaizer.
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2022 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
c23.indd 272 14-12-2021 14:51:52

10.1002/9781119037354.ch23, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119037354.ch23 by <Shibboleth>-University of Exeter, Wiley Online Library on [02/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The Nabataeans 273
and Arabic as a private language as attested by their onomasticon and loanwords (Cantineau
1930: 9; Al-Khraysheh 1986). Their inscriptions indicate they were polylingual, speaking and
writing in other languages, as indicated by Aramaic–North Arabian bilingual texts (Hayajneh
2009: 203–215, add Milik 1980; cf. Al-Salameen e.a. 2018), North Arabian texts in proto-
Arabic with Nabataean content (Graf and Zwettler 2004), and an increasing number of Arabic
loanwords embedded in Aramaic texts, primarily of a funerary or legal nature (Yardeni 2014).
There also are scattered Nabataean epigraphic finds across the Mediterranean, from Sidon in
Lebanon, in the Aegean at Rhodes, Delos, and Miletus (Graf 2013c), and at Naples and Rome
in Italy (Hackl et al. 2003: 107–131; Schwentzel 2007). Additions to the corpus continually
emerge, such as the striking bilingual Sabaean (South-Arabian)–Nabataean dedication to
Dushara dated to the Nabataean king Aretas IV in 6 bc in Sirwah, Yemen (Nebes 2009 with
Bowersock 2019).
The entrance of the Nabataeans into our historical records is in connection with the campaigns
of the Macedonian general Antigonos Monophthalmos (“One-Eyed”), whose army attacked
them at their center called “the Rock” in 311 bc, according to Hieronymos of Cardia (in Diod.
Sic. 19.94–100). In his account, they are described as completely nomadic, but the details and
inconsistencies suggest this is a “stylized” portrayal filled with stock motifs traditionally utilized
in Greek historiography to describe peripheral peoples (Graf 1990: 51–53). The next detailed
description of Nabataea is not until that of Athenodorus of Tarsus sometime in the 60s bc (Graf
2009), who depicts Petra as a sophisticated and cosmopolitan center, with an advanced political
and legal system (as recorded by Strabo Geogr. 16.4.21). Between these two rather different
descriptions, several centuries apart, Nabataean society has been characterized as initially nomadic
and the kingdom a “bedouin state” until the Romans arrived (Schmid 2001). Several pieces of
evidence suggest otherwise. Already in 129 bc, Moschion, a diplomatic envoy from Priene in
western Asia Minor, was sent to Alexandria in Egypt and to “Petra in Arabia” (Hiller von
Gaertringen 1906: 108, l.168 = Hackl et al. 2003: 126–127), and a Han Chinese envoy, Zhang
Qian probably became aware of Petra at about the same time (Graf 2018: 454).
After Petra’s rediscovery by the Swiss explorer Johann Burckhardt in 1812, long known in the
Semitic world as Reqem/Raqmu (Joseph. AJ 4.161), it was more than a century before archaeo-
logical work began at the Nabataean capital and only sporadically until recent decades (Figure 23.1).
Much of the initial focus was on the temples and rock-cut tombs of the large necropolis of the
settlement, almost all assigned to the first century bc or ad (McKenzie 1990). The period before
the Roman era was virtually unknown, but French excavations at Qasr al-Bint between 2004 and
2009 exposed Hellenistic levels in front of the sanctuary complex near the central altar (Mouton
e.a. 2008; Renel e.a. 2012; Renel and Mouton 2013). The earliest level revealed domestic struc-
tures with Greek and Hellenistic sherds of the fourth and third centuries bc, followed by a second
phase of settlement in the second and first centuries bc. This chronological sequence is supported
by numismatic evidence and multiple 14C radiocarbon tests ranging between c. 400 and 175 bc
(Saliège e.a. 2013). In addition, excavations along the colonnaded street, 90 m east of the
Monumental Gate leading to Qasr al-Bint, revealed a similar early settlement, confirming the finds
of Peter Parr’s adjacent Trench III of 1958–1962, which contained an “undisturbed sequence” of
structures in the Persian and Hellenistic period. The recent finds include Persian pottery, Greek
Attic ware, and Hellenistic black-glazed ware, dating from the fifth to the third centuries bc (Graf
2013a, 2013b; Graf e.a. 2020). Further evidence of the early Hellenistic period in Nabataea
comes from the French–Saudi Project at Madā’in Ṣāliḥ (ancient Hegra). Previously, it was assumed
from the dated inscriptions of ad 1–75 from the rock-cut tombs at the site (Healey 1993a) that
the Nabataean settlement was founded under Aretas IV and dated primarily to the first century ad.
But in 2011, during the fourth season of the project, excavation at the site produced substantial
amounts of Hellenistic material, including a tetradrachm of Alexander the Great and Ptolemaic
and Arados (Phoenician) issues (Nehmé e.a. 2011). Included in the excavations at Madā’in Ṣāliḥ and
elsewhere in North Arabia including Petra are imitation Athenian issues of the late fifth century bc
and later issued from a mint in Arabia, probably at Dedan-Hegra (Huth 2010b), demonstrating
c23.indd 273 14-12-2021 14:51:52

274 David F. Graf
Figure 23.1 The so-called Khazneh (“Treasury”) tomb at Petra. © T. Kaizer.
the early commercial relations of the region. The various types indicate their longevity for several
centuries, perhaps associated with the Qederite confederacy (Graf e.a. 2020).
Recent papyri and epigraphic finds corroborate this picture of an early Hellenistic sedentary
culture in Nabataea. The Milan papyrus of the Hellenistic poet Posidippus of Pella, who operated
at the Ptolemaic court in Alexandria between c. 272 and 252 bc, contains the earliest reference to
a Nabataean king embedded in a badly fragmented epigram in the Lithika section of his corpus
(Graf 2006: 60–61). This anonymous Nabataean king commanded “a powerful cavalry force”
perhaps in support of the Ptolemies, but the only clue to his missing name is the M- in the gap
following the word “king,” which can be restored as M[alichos]). The context of the Lithika
c23.indd 274 14-12-2021 14:51:53

The Nabataeans 275
suggests the missing lines may have contained also an allusion to the “Rock” (i.e. Petra) of the
Nabataeans. Additional support for early Hellenistic Nabataean kings is the newly published
Aramaic inscription by J.T. Milik now in the Damascus Museum, probably originating from the
Hauran, which mentions another anonymous Nabataean king dating to c. 200 bc (Milik 2003: 275).
These earlier references to several anonymous Nabataean kings indicate the royal dynasty can now
be traced back to the early third century bc, a century earlier than the previously attested Nabataean
kings. The so-called anonymous Nabataean issues, now recognized as representing four types,
also begin in the third century bc, initiated by overstruck Ptolemaic issues of that century (Barkay
2011: 67–73 = 2019: 7–11). It is now clear that our enumeration of the Nabataean kings based
on literary sources is provisional, subject to revision. There is a history of Nabataea before the
Roman era yet to be discovered.
Lost Arabian Histories

Among the vast amount of literature lost from antiquity are a number of treatises called Arabika
produced in the Hellenistic era (Graf 2020). Most of these survive only by title or haphazard cita-
tions by later writers, but the Nabataeans must have been a subject discussed in the lost Hellenistic
texts. The earliest author who produced an Arabika is the enigmatic Palaiphatos of Abydos, a
student of Aristotle and contemporary of Alexander the Great (FGrH 44 T3 = Suda). It has com-
pletely disappeared, but another of his works, his Trojan History, mentions an Arabian tribe,
whose name ended in -roi and whose territory “reaches to the Red Sea” (BNJ 44 F3bis).
This recalls the reference in his contemporary Theophrastus, the botanist, that Antigonus
Monophthalmos had branches of the Frankincense tree transported to him by the Arabs (Hist.
Plant. 9.4.8; cf. Pliny HN 12.56). Another early Arabika was produced by Teukros of Kyzikos,
which contained five books, the same number as his treatises on Mithridates and on Tyre, and only
one less than his six books on Jewish History (Suda in Jacoby, FGrH 274 T1), probably sometime
during or in the aftermath of Pompey’s eastern campaign in 66–63 bc, perhaps as a member of his
entourage. The length of his Arabika suggests a heritage for Arabia of some complexity and lon-
gevity. A third early Arabika was written by Juba of Mauretania while accompanying Gaius Caesar
during his eastern expedition in ad 1 (Roller 2003: 212–226). Most of what we know of the latter
text is scattered in Pliny’s Natural History (6.141), which indicates Gaius had a “glimpse
(prospexit) of Arabia” (ibid. 6.160; cf. expeditio Arabica in CIL XI.1421 = ILS 140, lines 9–10,
for bellum gerens; cf. in HN 2.168). The Arabia at stake is generally assumed to be in the Nabataean
realm or its fringes (Bowersock 1983: 56; Roller 2003: 223). Juba’s companion was Isidorus of
Charax, the author of the Parthian Stations, who also may have written an Arabika, as one frag-
ment of his works mentions Dushara, the Nabataean god, whom he associated with Dionysus
(FGrH 781 F5; Roller 2003: 217–219). The surviving 30 fragments of Juba’s Arabika are less
revealing (FGrH 275; Roller 2003: 227–243), but refer to frankincense (HN 12.63–65 = FGrH
275 F63) and myrrh (HN 12.66–72 = FGrH 275 F64), the primary items in Nabataean com-
merce. Juba’s only reference to the Nabataeans per se concerns the Nabataean caravans passing
from Petra west to Gaza and east through Dumatha to Forat and Charax in southern Babylonia
(HN 6.142–148 = FGrH 275 F30–33). A fourth early Arabika was produced by an unknown
individual named Glaukos, whose 13 fragments are mainly preserved in Stephanus of Byzantium
(FGrH 674). Glaukos probably wrote in the Hellenistic period (Fraser 2009: 296), but his frag-
ments contain only a single reference to the Nabataean world, a mention of “Gea, a city near
Petra” (FGrH 674 F12), which suggests the Nabataeans must have played a part in his Arabika.
The sum total of these fragments from authors of Arabika is hardly illuminating regarding the
proto-history of the Nabataeans. There is no indication in the surviving fragments on Arab cus-
toms or a mythological or legendary past, but the special agenda of the Byzantine lexicographers
and compilers was fairly narrow, focussing mainly on toponyms, not ethnographic and historical
c23.indd 275 14-12-2021 14:51:53

276 David F. Graf
information. As the lost Arabika indicate, there is much we do not know, including sources
which provided a far more extensive perspective than what is reflected in the few citations gath-
ered by Byzantine lexicographers, including sources on Nabataean proto-history and Nabataean
society and religion in the centuries before they appeared in Hieronymous of Cardia and during
the dark centuries that followed before they become visible in our extant historical sources of the
Roman era.
The Nabataean Dynasty

As a result of the almost complete loss of these Arabian corpora, Nabataean dynastic history must
be pieced together from occasional allusions in Greek and Latin writers and Nabataean inscrip-
tions, cognizant that there are significant gaps in our information about the succession and
sequence of the royal dynasty, especially the anonymous kings in the earlier periods, and even
some confusion in the traditional order. The iconography of the dynasts is also limited (Kropp
2013a: 371–382). What follows, particularly for the early period, must be considered schematic
and provisional.
Aretas I (fl. 170–160 bc). The “Aretas, tyrant (tyrannos) of the Arabs” (2 Macc. 5:8) has been
equated with the “Aretas, king of the Nabataeans” mentioned in a Nabataean inscription from
Elusa (Khalutza) in the Negev (Starcky 1966: 905), but an even earlier date is possible, perhaps
even the third century bc (Bowersock 1983: 18–19). These Nabataeans appear to have had
friendly relations with the Hasmonean rulers Judas and Jonathan (1 Macc. 5:24–28; 15:22; cf. 2
Macc. 12:10–12).
Aretas II (fl. c. 120–100 bc). During Alexander Jannaeus’s siege of Gaza, the inhabitants
expected to be rescued by “Aretas, king of the Arabs” (Joseph. AJ 13.360), but his intervention
never materialized. He has been equated with the “Herotimus, king of the Arabs” mentioned in
Justin (Epit. 39.5).
Obodas I (fl. 96–90 bc). After the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus conquered Moab and
Galaaditis, he was defeated by “Obodas, king of the Arabs” in a battle at Garada near the Golan
in c. 95–93 bc (Joseph. BJ 1.90, AJ 13.375). This momentous victory is probably the basis for his
deification and the cult of “Obodas the God” (Nehmé 2012c), but the circumstances are obscure
(cf. Dijkstra 1995: 319–321). There also is an early inscription that refers to him in a triclinium
near the Bab es-Siq entrance to Petra, a dedication “in honour of Dushara, god of Mankatū [=
Malichus?], for the life of Obadas, king of the Nabataeans, son of Aretas, king of the Nabataeans,
year one” (Nehmé 2012a: MP 3–4, who prefers to read Manbatū, a rare personal name), and
assigned the dedication to the hypothetical Obodas [II, which is doubtful). If “Malichus” is
correct, it suggests a dynastic sequence of Malichus – Aretas [II] – Obodas [I] (Starcky 1966:
906), and a king named Malichus before the one we designate as Malichus I (in 61–30 bc). The
problems continue.
Rabbel I (c. 87–82 bc). In an inscription from Qasr al-Bint at Petra, a statue is dedicated to
“Rabbel, king of the Nabataeans, [……]t, the king of the Nabataeans” in the eighteenth year of
Aretas the king (CIS 349). The missing phrase can be restored as “son of Aretas” ([br ‘brt]t) or
“son of Obodat” ([br ‘bd]t). Starcky dated it to Aretas III (Starcky 1966: 905), suggesting a
dynastic sequence of either Aretas – Rabbel – Aretas or better Obodas [I] – Rabbel – Aretas
[III], which means there was a king named “Rabbel” who must be squeezed in between Obodas
I and Aretas III. Further complications arise from Uranius’s Arabika, which lists under the Arab
village Motho, the place “where Antigonus the Macedonian was killed by Rabbel, king of the
Arabs” (FGrH 675 F25). But it is known that Antigonus, one of Alexander’s successors, died at
Ipsus in 301 bc. So the tendency has been to emend the text to “Antiochus” and make it refer
to the Nabataean defeat of Antiochus XII in 83/2 bc, in which the Seleucid ruler was killed by
c23.indd 276 14-12-2021 14:51:53

The Nabataeans 277
an unnamed “Arab king” (Joseph. BJ 1.99–102, AJ 13.387–91). The decisive conflict was
located in the environs of Kana, identified as Khirbet Gazza at the entrance of Wadi al-Qina/
Qena, just east of the southern end of the Dead Sea (Schmitt 1995: 202), in proximity to modern
Mauta in Moab, which provides some credibility to the emendation. Antiochus XII’s coinage
begins in 87/6 bc at Damascus and ends in 83/2 bc (Houghton et al. 2008: no.2471 and
2472A), suggesting Rabbel I reigned until at least 82 bc, perhaps dying from wounds suffered
in the battle.
Aretas III (82–63 bc). Immediately after the defeat of Antiochus XII, Aretas III was
declared by the Damascenes as “king of Coele Syria” (Joseph. BJ 1.103) and began issuing
coins at Damascus in 82 bc (Barkay 2019: 17–18). Although his Damascus issues proclaim
him a “Philhellene,” this appears to be a local Damascene title. After assuming rule, he
defeated Alexander Jannaeus at the fortress at Adida, near Lydda (Lod) in Judaea, just south-
west of modern Tel Aviv (Joseph. AJ 13.392). Earlier, as a young prince, he founded
the Nabataean settlement at Hawara (modern Humayma), about 50 km south of Petra, on
the basis of an oracle received by his father Obodas I (FGrH 675 F1, with Oleson 2010:
50–52). In 63 bc, Aretas III was subjected to Pompey, and the Nabataean kingdom came
under the sway of Rome. With this action, he passed from our purview, and by 61 bc was
succeeded by Malichus I.
Previous attempts to squeeze a putative king Obodas II in between Aretas III and Malichus
I were based purely on coins dated to the first three years of an “Obodas” and assigned to a
brief reign of 62–60 bc. This figure has been squeezed out of the dynastic picture (as early as
Starcky 1966: 909). New epigraphic evidence now indicates that there was a gap of only
slightly over a year between the known kings Aretas III and Malichus I, which is better filled
by Aretas III. As a consequence, the numismatic issues are more likely assigned to the later
king Obodas (II, formerly identified as III), dating to 30–9 bc (Huth 2010b: 214–217; Barkay
2019: 24).
Malichus I (61–30 bc). The Tell esh-Shuqafiya Nabataean inscription from the Suez area of
Egypt, dated to the twenty-sixth year of the reign of Malichus I and the eighteenth year of the
reign of Cleopatra VII (35/4 bc), indicates that Malichus began his reign in Nisan 61 bc (correct-
ing Jones e.a. 1988: 47–57; Fiema and Jones 1990: 239–248; Barkay 2009–10: 39). In 47 bc,
Malichus provided military aid to Caesar in Alexandria, along with Crete, Rhodes, and Cilicia in
Syria (B. Alex.1.1; cf. Joseph. BJ 1.178, AJ 14.128). In 55 bc, Gabinius, the governor of Syria,
marched against the Nabataeans and defeated them, forcing several Parthian fugitives to flee to
Gabinius for safety (Joseph. BJ 1.178, AJ 14.103). Malichus’s Persian sympathies also are indi-
cated in the Parthian invasion of 40 bc, when he refused Herod asylum (Joseph. BJ 1.274–276,
AJ 14.370–374), and later was forced to pay a large sum to Rome for supporting the Parthian
cause (Dio Cass. 48.41.5). In 34 bc, Cleopatra received some of the prime Nabataean territory
(Dio Cass. 49.32.5; Joseph. BJ 1.360, AJ 15.92), probably in the Wadi Arabah (Plut. Ant. 36),
the revenues from which were leased to Herod (AJ 15.96). This obligation exacerbated the rela-
tions between Malichus and Herod, when the former refused to make his payments to the Judaean
king (AJ 15.106–107). Spurred by Antony, Herod launched a retaliatory campaign against
Malichus and the Nabataeans in the Hauran where he defeated them at Kanatha, assisted by a
Ptolemaic general (BJ 1.364–388, AJ 15.108–112). It is implied that Cleopatra was involved in
Malichus’s death (BJ 1.440), perhaps as a result of the conflict in the Hauran, but the exact reason
is lacking.
Obodas II (30–9 bc) is characterized as uninterested in administrative and military affairs
(Strabo Geogr. 16.4.24) and as “inactive and sluggish by nature” (Joseph. AJ 16.200). As a
result, his reign was dominated by his vizier Syllaeus. In 26/5 bc, Syllaeus served as the guide for
Aelius Gallus’s Arabian expedition, supplying 1000 Nabataean troops for the enterprise, which
in spite of Strabo’s character assassination of him (Geogr. 16.4.22–24) must be deemed a success.
Both the Res Gestae of Augustus (26.5) and the imperial cult center at Aphrodisias include
c23.indd 277 14-12-2021 14:51:53

278 David F. Graf
“Arabia” as under the sway of Rome (Bowersock 1983: 49 n.15; Speidel 2015). Nabataean con-
nections with the South Arabian aromatics trade are now evident from finds of pottery at the
emporium at Qaryat al-Faw and Jurash in southwest Saudi Arabia, the Sabaean capital at Marib,
and the Hadramawt port at Qana (Graf and Sidebotham 2003). The vizier Syllaeus remerged
again in 12–10 bc, when the Leja Arabs revolted against Herod and were offered refuge in
Nabataea by Syllaeus, precipitating a retaliatory raid by Herod against the Nabataean strong-
hold. Syllaeus traveled to Rome to protest Herod’s action, and while pleading his case with
Augustus, King Obodas II died (Graf 2016: 146–151; for the coinage of the period, see Barkay
2019: 23–42).
The lengthy reign of Aretas IV (9 bc–ad 40) is generally considered the zenith of the Nabataean
kingdom, but it began with a shaky start and had a ditto end. His given name was Aeneas and he
was not the son or direct successor of Obodas, but assumed the throne and took the dynastic
name of Aretas (IV) without the approval of Augustus (it is possible that Malichus I was his uncle
or grandfather, and that his connections with the royal family were maternal: Schwentzel 2005:
155, citing Starcky). His action drew Augustus’s displeasure, but he was finally approved by the
emperor (Joseph. AJ 17.54–57). The episode displays explicitly that Nabataea was a client-state
of Rome (Braund 1984: 26, 62). Aretas’s competitor for the Nabataean throne was Syllaeus, but
he was discredited and removed, and Aretas confirmed as king (AJ 16.293–355; for the coinage,
see Barkay 2019: 43–61). Aretas’s inscriptions designate him as the “lover of his people,” and he
appears to have been responsible for the architectural development of the civic center at Petra
(McKenzie 1990). His close relations with the Herodians came to an end in c. ad 31, when
Herod Antipas, tetrarch of the Galilee and Peraia, divorced his Nabataean wife, the daughter of
Aretas, precipitating a punitive campaign by the Nabataean king in which Antipas suffered a dis-
astrous defeat (AJ 18.112–115). The episode is placed at the end of Tiberius’s reign in ad 37,
which must be a mistake by Josephus, if the traditional date of John the Baptist is accepted
(Bowersock 1983: 65).
Malichus II (ad 40–70). His lengthy reign has been characterized as one of political and eco-
nomic decline, but there are signs that this was hardly the case. He appears to be the Nabataean
king “Malichus” mentioned in the Periplus Maris Erythrae (19), indicating that Red Sea com-
merce was still flowing into the Arabian port at Leuke Kome. The Nabataean inscription at Jauf
(Dumat al-Jandal) dated to ad 45 of Ganimu, son of the strategos Damasippos at Hegra, indicates
he dedicated a sanctuary to Dushara, the god of Gaia (Wadi Musa, Petra), and identifies him as
the “chief of the barracks (camp)” (rb mšryt = cf. stratopedarcheˉs or praefectus castrorum) at the
oasis, which had strategic political and economic importance (Savignac and Starcky 1957: 196–
217). During the Jewish Revolt, he supplied one thousand cavalry and five hundred archers in
support of the Roman army (Joseph. BJ 3.68). There is no silver coinage of Malichus I dated to
the end of his reign (from ad 64–70), precisely when one would expect it to appear for the pay-
ment of troops, but the decrease in the silver content of his earlier issues has been exaggerated
(Barkay 2014a: 101–111). He is represented on his coins with long hair (after year 6) with queen
Shuqailat II.
Rabbel II (ad 71–106). It appears that Shuqailat II acted as regent during her son Rabbel’s
minority (years 1–6, when he is represented with short hair), perhaps as late at year 10 of his reign,
since no coins can be dated to the years 7–10 of his reign (Barkay 2014b: 29–33). Whatever the
case, inscriptions from ad 75 and afterward appeared with the phrase “He who brought life and
deliverance to his people” as part of his titular. During years 11–17 of his reign (ad 80–86), he
appeared with longer hair and the king’s mother was replaced by his wife and sister, Queen
Gamilat. These silver issues ended in ad 92. Afterward, Hagaru, a new queen, appeared on his
bronze coinage, issues assigned to ad 93 and afterwards. It has been suspected that his accession
had been opposed by Damasi, an important member of an aristocratic family at Hegra, supported
by North Arabian tribes, and that Rabbel’s emergence from the shadows of his mother was due
to his role in quelling the revolt (Winnett 1973: 54–57; Al Salameen e.a. 2018: 66–71). Another
inscription from Imtaˉn in the Hauran, dated to ad 93, refers to Rabbel as “our lord who is in
c23.indd 278 14-12-2021 14:51:53

The Nabataeans 279
Bostra” (Cantineau 1932: 21–23, X), which has led to the suggestion that Bostra in the Hauran
was being developed into a second capital during his reign.
Between Judaea and Rome

The relationship between Rome’s “friendly kings” (Chapter 31) is perhaps best illustrated by the
Herodian dynasty and the Nabataean kings (Schwentzel 2013), involving both cooperation and
conflict (Graf 1994: 270–290; Tholbecq 2007). Antipater, Herod’s father, had formed bonds of
friendship with the Nabataeans, not surprisingly as he was married to a woman named Cyprus
from a “high ranking Arab family” (Joseph. BJ 1,181, AJ 14.121), who was presumably a
Nabataean. In 65 bc, Antipater even entrusted his family to Aretas III at the Nabataean court at
Petra, while engaged in war with the Hasmonean heir Aristobulus II (AJ 14.122, 15.184). This
must have included his sons Phasael (b. 77 bc), Herod (b. 72 bc), Joseph II (b. 70 bc), and per-
haps Pheroras (b. shortly before 65 bc). The arrangements even included Hyrcanus II, the
Hasmonean rival of Aristobulus (AJ 14.14). As these negotiations demonstrate, Antipater was a
close friend of the Nabataean king Aretas III. His hope was once Hyrcanus became king of
Judaea, he would restore the Nabataean territory previously lost to the earlier Hasmonean king
Alexander Jannaeus (AJ 14.14–18). In support of Hyrcanus, Aretas’s army defeated Aristobulus
in battle and besieged him in the temple of Jerusalem (AJ 14.19–20), but the intervention of
Pompey’s forces in 64 bc led to the dismissal of Aretas III and his Nabataean army, who initially
supported Aristobulus (BJ 1.130, AJ 14.33). Pompey later favored the appointment of Hyrcanus,
without the agreed return of the lost Nabataean territory. Instead, in 62 bc, Scaurus, the former
Roman officer of Pompey, now proconsul of Syria, with military force extorted from the Nabataean
king Aretas III a large sum of silver talents, embarrassingly supported and negotiated by his old
ally and friend Antipater (BJ 1.159; AJ 14.80–81). The humiliation was symbolized on a coin
later issued by Scaurus at Rome celebrating his achievement, depicting Aretas in the humiliating
posture of kneeing beside his camel in submission to Rome (Bowersock 1983: 34).
The Herodian regime had a similar ambivalence with Nabataea. In the Parthian invasion of 40
bc, Herod attempted to flee to Malichus I at Petra for assistance to ransom his brother Phasel,
either as a loan or gift, based on the debts he owed to his recently deceased father Antipater, but
he was rejected and prohibited from entering Nabataea by the Nabataean king (Joseph. BJ 1.267,
AJ 14.362) in spite of the fact that persons of high standing had received money from Antipater,
perhaps for security (BJ 1.267–277, AJ 14.362–372). Later, Malichus relented, and was prepared
to receive other Idumaeans fleeing from Masada (BJ 1.286, AJ 14.390), but bad blood between
the two obviously lingered. In 31 bc, Herod waged war against Malichus I. Under the Augustan
regime, relations seem to have warmed. Herod cooperated in 26/5 bc with Aelius Gallus’s cam-
paign, guided by the Nabataen Syllaeus. Later Syllaeus’s rejection as suitor of Salome and the
Herodian administrative protrusions east of the Jordan led to conflicts with the Nabataeans, cul-
minating in debates at Rome before Augustus by the two parties, with Herod again triumphant,
aided by the counsel of Nicolaus of Damascus. But there were still vestiges of close relations.
Pheroras, Herod’s brother, governor of the Peraea east of the Jordan River, may have retained
empathy with Nabataea. The Babatha archive (Chapter 11) mentions property called “Pheroras’
orchard” at Mazoa near Zoar, southeast of the Dead Sea (P Yadin 21.10 and 22.11 = Lewis 1989:
95, 98). The Hasmoneans and Herodians had crown property in the vicinity of En-Geddi (Lewis
1989: 42) and Rabbel II had an orchard at Mazoa, probably a royal inheritance, and Pheroras’s
orchard in the same vicinity suggests that the Idumeans may also have had property in the area,
perhaps stemming from Antipater’s Nabataean wife.
There is also evidence of Arabs/Nabataeans being recruited for the Herodian army. This began
in 43 bc, when Antipater raised forces in Transjordan, including an “army of Arabs” and some
“natives” (Joseph. AJ 14.277), which must have included some Nabataeans. Herod must have
c23.indd 279 14-12-2021 14:51:53

280 David F. Graf
continued this recruitment from Nabataea, as some members of his bodyguard (somatophylax)
were Arabs, such as Corinthus, who had Nabataean friends – one a friend of Syllaeus, the
Nabataean vizier, and the other a chief (phylarchos) of an Arab tribe (Joseph. BJ 1.576–577, AJ
17.55–57). This episode suggests that Nabataeans and Arabs resided in Herod’s court and main-
tained relations with Nabataea.
After being appointed as king of Judaea in 37 bc, Herod began collecting tribute from the
Nabataeans, and continued to do so for Augustus, as well as the custom duties from the Mediterranean
ports that he controlled, including Gaza, one of the main Nabataean outlets for the aromatics trade.
Herod also received direct taxes from his administrative districts in the Hauran (Batanaea,
Trachonitis, Auranitis) and the Peraea, where some Nabataeans still resided. The amounts are
known only from those listed for Herod’s sons after his death: 100 talents from the former and 200
from the latter, which included the Galilee, so approximately the same for the Peraea (Joseph. BJ
2.94–98, AJ 17.318–320). Herod also lent money with interest to Obodas II: 60 talents on a loan
of 500 talents or 12% interest (AJ 16.279, 16.343), which he was reluctant to pay (Pastor 1997:
108). In addition, Obodas II rented grazing lands from Herod (AJ 16.291), perhaps the inherit-
ance he received from Cyprus, his Nabataean mother, or his father Antipater. The fact that the
Nabataeans were in arrears in their payments was a source of conflict with Herod and provides at
least a partial causus belli for his military conflicts with the Nabataeans during his reign.
As is typical in the client-kingdoms of Rome, there is some evidence for intermarriage between
the kingdoms. During the reign of Obodas II, it is clear that his vizier Syllaeus was a regular visitor
to Herod’s court at Jerusalem, even a suitor for the hand of Herod’s sister Salome (Graf 2016:
135–138), but both Herod and Salome’s friend Livia, the emperor’s wife, opposed the mar-
riage (Joseph. AJ 16.221–226, 17.10). After Herod’s death, his son Herod Antipas married one
of Aretas IV’s daughters, but his infidelity led to a controversial war with Nabataea (AJ
18.109–125).
Religious Aspects
There have been recent dramatic changes in our understanding of Nabataean culture and reli-
gion (Healey 2001; Alpass 2013). The supreme deity of Petra was Dushara, whose name (“the
one of Shara”) reflects the Shara Mountains of Edom, and therefore he is often identified with
the Edomite god Qos/Qaus. As the dynastic deity (CIS II.218, 350 with Dijkstra 1995: 311),
he is worshipped throughout the kingdom, and John Healey has made an impressive case for
identifying him with the Sun god, as the Greek epithet anikeˉtos (“unconquered”) appears for
him (Waddington, IGLS no.2312), generally associated with Sol invictus (Healey 2001: 102–
105, id. 2011; Nehmé 2012b: 153–166), and supported by Strabo (Geogr. 16.4.26). What is
strange is that Allat, the “queen of heaven,” a lunar deity, is absent in the epigraphy of Petra,
whereas the Arab goddess Al-‛Uzza is frequently attested. In addition, at nearby Baidha, 7 km
north of Petra, an excavated rock-cut colonnaded cultic center or cryptoporticus, with a triclin-
ium, has been identified as a Dionysian thiasos based on the associated divine and zoological
sculptures, and its location in a wine-growing region, and assigned to the reign of Malichus I
(Bikai et al. 2008). A nearby inscription of a marzeˉah (“symposium”) at Baidha is now matched
by similar attestations at Wadi Mūsā, the ancient al-Gaia (Al-Salameen and Falahat 2012: 37–51).
Since the “god of al-Gaia” is identified in several Nabataean texts as “Dushara,” it may be
assumed the Nabataean supreme god had Dionysiac associations, probably through Ptolemaic
influence, which also brought the worship of Isis into the Nabataean cultic world (Vaelske 2013).
The extensive wine presses in the northern hinterland (Al-Salameen 2005) may even have com-
prised the royal vineyards, providing the wine for the Dionysiac cult activities (Graf forthcoming).
In this regard, it is interesting that the iconographic imagery from coins suggests the Nabataean
kings and queens are portrayed as Dushara-Dionysos and al-‘Uzza ˉ-Isis, respectively (Schwentzel
c23.indd 280 14-12-2021 14:51:53

The Nabataeans 281
2005). Evidence of the ruler cult is explicitly connected with Obodas, who is associated also with
a marzeˉah at Petra (Nehmé 2012c) and is well attested at Avdat in the Negev (Negev 2003), but
probably extends to all the later kings and queens to the end of the dynasty (Graf and Smith
2017). Finally, it should be noted that the excavations of two major sanctuaries in central
Nabataea, Khirbet et-Tannur and Khirbet ed-Dharih, probably constructed by the same archi-
tects and sculptors, have now been published (Villeneuve and Al-Muheisen 2003; McKenzie e.a.
2013), along with the excavations at the great temple at Qasr al-Bint (Zayadine et al. 2003). In
contrast, the temple of the Winged Lions at Petra (Figure 23.2) still awaits final publication, and
the so-called Great Temple appears rather to be a Nabataean administrative complex or royal
audience hall (Seigne 2000).
The Nabataeans after the Annexation

The annexation of the Nabataean kingdom in ad 106 by Cornelius Palma, the governor of Syria
(Dio Cass. 68.14.5: “subdued”; cf. Amm. Marc. 14.8.3), marks the end of the royal house at
Petra, perhaps prompted by the death of Rabbel II. It has been surmised since Palma allegedly
received the ornamenta triumphalia immediately afterward in ad 107, and a statue was erected
for him in the Forum Augustum (Dio Cass. 68.16.2), that Arabia was acquired only after “some
significant military resistance” (Parker 2009: 1591; Al-Otaibi 2011: 70). But the acephalous
inscription attesting ornamenta triumphalia (CIL VI.1386 = ILS 1023) bears neither Palma’s
name nor any reference to Arabia, and is better attributed to one of the victorious generals of the
Dacian War, who received such awards in ad 107. Palma’s recognition only came later in ad 109
(cos. II), after returning from Arabia, probably when his statue was placed in the Roman forum.
Figure 23.2 The Monumental Gate and the so-called Great Temple in the civic center of Petra. © D.F. Graf.
c23.indd 281 14-12-2021 14:51:53

282 David F. Graf
Moreover, numismatic evidence declares Arabia adquisita for the new province, not Arabia
capta, and Arabicus is absent from Trajan’s titulature (Bowersock 1983: 79–84). After the annex-
ation, one of the first visible Roman administrative actions was the construction of a major high-
way between Bostra, the new capital, and Aqaba on the Red Sea, the Via Nova Traiana, in which
it was announced on milestones dating between ad 111 and 114 that the new territory has been
redacta in formam provinciae Arabiae, “reduced to the form of the province of Arabia” (Graf
1995). At the same time, the core of the Nabataean army was incorporated into the Roman army,
as six units of cohortes Ulpiae Petraeorum, in preparation of and for service in Trajan’s Parthian
campaign of ad 114–117 (Graf 1994: 296–305; Lewin 2014: 132–136; cf. Nehmé 2017). But in
the process, the name “Nabataea” vanished from official nomenclature, replaced by “Arabia,” and
the royal Nabataean house also disappeared from our view without a trace. In the absence of a
historical narrative of Cornelius Palma’s mission, the motivation and circumstances of the expedi-
tion remain outside our purview, but any major military confrontation remains questionable. The
Babatha archive (dating from ad 93 to 132) and other Nabataean papyri from the Dead Sea
(Chapter 11) illuminate the transition to Roman rule (Lewis 1989; Yardeni 2000: B.85–98; Yadin
et al. 2002). Although Bostra in the Hauran was chosen for the capital of the new province, there
is gnawing suspicion that Petra was the initial capital (Cotton and Eck 2005: 40; Eck 2014: 192
n.30), if not of equal status immediately after the annexation with Bostra (Gagos 2009), sup-
ported by a governor buried at Petra in ad 127 (IGLS XXI, no.51). Petra also was given the title
of metropolis under Trajan, Hadrianeˉ under Hadrian, and colonia under Elagabalus, titles it main-
tained with pride into late antiquity.
The lucrative Red Sea trade was also a major focus in Roman administration, as indicated by the
southern trajectory of military activity after the annexation. On the southern frontier of Nabataea
at Hegra (Mada ˉ’in S∙ˉlih
a ∙), recent excavations have revealed a Nabataean rectilinear military ram-
part with four or five gates, protecting a residential area inside the walls, which was transformed
and reoccupied in the late second century ad by a detachment of legio III Cyrenaica, including
stationarii and dromedarii, as attested by the barracks and dozens of inscriptions on the walls of
one of the gates (G2) in the southern sector (Fiema et al. 2020; cf. Villeneuve in Nehmé 2015:
17–44; Romer in Nehmé 2015: 125–130; cf. al-Talhi and al-Daire 2005, for an inscription dated
to ad 175–7), probably the entry point for the South Arabian caravans. Further south, on the
Farasan Islands in the Red Sea, off the coast of southwest Saudi Arabia, 1000 km south of the
Egyptian frontier, a Latin dedication was discovered which was set up to Antonius Pius in ad
143/4 by the prefect of the customs post on Pontus Herculi (“Sea of Hercules”) and a detach-
ment (vexillatio) of legio II Traiana from Egypt, regulating the Red Sea commerce with Arabia
and India (Villeneuve 2004). An even earlier Latin text by legio VI Ferrata (before ad 120), from
the province of Arabia (Villeneuve 2007: 13–27), indicates the initial designs on the Red Sea
trade after the annexation.
FURTHER READING
The best comprehensive narrative of the Nabataeans remains Starcky 1966. The relevant literary and
epigraphic sources have been collected, with a German translation and commentary, by Hackl et al. 2003.
Such a comprehensive and authoritative monograph is still lacking in English. Nabatean religion has been
masterly dealt with by Healey 2001, with some perspectives expanded by Alpass 2013. For the capital at
Petra, there is now available the first of the three-volume catalogue of all the rock-cut monuments and
inscriptions, focussing on the eastern sector (Nehmé 2012a), with the subsequent volumes on the western
sector eagerly awaited. Excavations and surveys of the Petra capital continue at a rapid pace. The Swiss
excavations at Ez-Zantur have reached four volumes (1996–2010). In addition, three volumes of Martha
Joukowsky’s The Great Temple (Brown University Excavations) have appeared (1998, 2007, 2016), with the
more detailed ceramic and chronological details yet to unfold. The publication of the Finnish excavation
project has reached completion, with the publication of the Nabataean sanctuary on the Mountain of Aaron
c23.indd 282 14-12-2021 14:51:53

The Nabataeans 283
of particular relevance (Fiema, Frösen and Holappa 2016). The French excavations at Qasr al-Bint continue
(Augé e.a. 2016), and the American excavations of the Temple of the Winged Lions are currently being
prepared for publication by ACOR. The search for the location of the royal palatial residence of the Nabataean
kings continues, but in the process has exposed a number of luxurious villas (Schmid e.a. 2012). A number
of cultic centers in the civic landscape have also been investigated (Tholbecq 2017: 1053–1074). The corpus
of Nabataean Aramaic texts is more than a century old, and a new corpus is defied by a steady stream of
scattered publications of new texts. The most substantial increase in Nabataean inscriptions has been almost
1000 new texts from the Darb al Bakrah (Nehmé e.a. 2018), which mention a strategos, centurion, guards,
cavalry, and gate-keepers probably involved in transporting commerce from South Arabia. Included in the
caravans are Hegrites, Moabites, and a Jew. Only one text is dated to the Nabataean era (ad 41/2), with six
other texts dated to the post-annexation period ranging in date from ad 124 to 456. Individuals who use the
ethnic “Nabataean” to identify themselves also date to the post-annexation period (Al-Salameen amd Hazza
2018: 87–89; for seven more in Safaitic, see Al-Jallad and Jaworska 2019: 102). There are now well over a
hundred dated texts, and the new additions suggest a fresh reinvestigation of the paleographical development
of Nabataean Aramaic is needed. The organization of the vast Nabataean kingdom into provinces is facilitated
by additions to the known stratēgoi, now totaling 25 such officials, with five additions in northwest Arabia
(Nehmé 2015). The Nabataean numismatic record has expanded significantly in recent years, and an
authoritative update with many new types has been provided by Barkay 2019. There is much more that could
be listed and much more yet to come, but these items will address most of the current issues and provide the
keys for further investigation of the expanding literature.
c23.indd 283 14-12-2021 14:51:53

A Companion To The Hellenistic and Roman Near East - 2021 - Kaizer - The Nabataeans

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Companion To The Hellenistic and Roman Near East - 2021 - Kaizer - The Nabataeans

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10.1002/9781119037354.ch23, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119037354.ch23 by <Shibboleth>-University of Exeter, Wiley Online Library on [02/12/2022].

c23.indd 272 14-12-2021 14:51:52

c23.indd 273 14-12-2021 14:51:52

Figure 23.1 The so-called Khazneh (“Treasury”) tomb at Petra. © T. Kaizer.

c23.indd 274 14-12-2021 14:51:53

Lost Arabian Histories

c23.indd 275 14-12-2021 14:51:53

The Nabataean Dynasty

c23.indd 276 14-12-2021 14:51:53

c23.indd 277 14-12-2021 14:51:53

c23.indd 278 14-12-2021 14:51:53

Between Judaea and Rome

c23.indd 279 14-12-2021 14:51:53

c23.indd 280 14-12-2021 14:51:53

The Nabataeans after the Annexation

c23.indd 281 14-12-2021 14:51:53

c23.indd 282 14-12-2021 14:51:53

c23.indd 283 14-12-2021 14:51:53

You might also like