Nelson Glueck and Nabataean Ethnicity: an Appraisal
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ARAM, 21 (2009) 353-371. doi: 10.2143/ARAM.21.0.2047100 NelsoN Glueck aNd Nabataean EtHNIcIty: An AppraIsal Dr. FaHad M. Al-otaIbI (al-Qasim University – Saudi Arabia) INtroductIoN since the discovery of the Nabataean metropolis of Petra, the Nabataeans have attracted scholars’ opinions, both as explicans as well as explicandum. As the former, they, for example, have been used to explain the fiasco of Gallus’ expedition to South Arabia. Strabo attributed the misfortune of this expedition to the treachery of the Nabataean vizier Syllaeus. Similarly, Diodorus Siculus (first century b.c.e.) argued that the Nabataeans lived in the open air, did not build houses, plant grain, nor drink wine. This nomadic life, he went on to argue, was the reason why the Greeks failed to conquer them. Modern scholars also use the Nabataeans to account for the destruction of the Edomite society; to explain the flourishing trade that existed between arabia Felix and the Mediterranean,in which the Nabataean was a main player; and to explain the emergence of the Arabic script, to give but three examples. As explicandum,however, these people have been treated for their own sake. their highly developed civilization has appealed to interested scholars since ancient times. Therefore, we find accounts regarding their customs and way of living. For instance, Strabo (c. 64 B.C.E.–c. 25 C.e.) was interested in Naba- taean civilization, yet his account of the Nabataeans gives a different picture from that of Diodorus. Strabo described a sedentary people who did not rely much on slaves but rather served themselves. Those people did drink wine in a sophisticated manner; they drank out of golden cups and built very costly houses. Their common meal which they prepared regularly was entertained by two female singers. Their royal institution is democratic in that the king serves his subjects. However, in spite of the fact that Strabo’s account may seem to give a positive picture of the Nabataeans and their society, a careful reading undertaken elsewhere1 may show a different picture. scholars have approached Nabataean history from different angles: archae- ology, epigraphy, theology, and history. However, no one has tried so far to 1 Al-Otaibi, F, (2005). Rome and Nabataea: Post-Colonialism and the Writing of History, Ph.D., Manchester University. • I would like to thank Prof. John F. Healey for his valuable comments to improve the content of the manuscript of this article. 1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 353 21/04/10 11:51 354 NelsoN Glueck aNd Nabataean EtHNIcIty: An AppraIsal utilize an interdisciplinary approach to Nabataean history. In this essay, we shall look at the method by which scholars identify sites as Nabataean. Nelson Glueck is taken as an example. Glueck relied heavily on Nabataean pottery in this process. His approach had been accepted by old scholars in Nabataean studies. However, since I am interested in modern theories of criticism and the interdisciplinary approach to history, I find many problems with Glueck’s approach. For example, pottery cannot be taken as an ethnic symbol owing to its actual nature. We have many stories of archaeologists who have tried to use pottery to establish the ethnic status of certain sites but failed. to give only one example, one may mention the story of Colono-Indian Ware in North America2. The ware was dated to the period of colonization and was similar to the Native American ware that prevailed in the eastern part of United States of america. However, the difficulty, which Glueck may not have noticed when he discussed Nabataean pottery, is that this pottery was also found in sites that Native Americans never dwelt in. In addition, scholars have noticed that this ware is always found in the area of African-american slaves. In addition, the use of the pottery in establishing the ethnic status of these sites by Glueck rests on two related erroneous assumptions. The first assump- tion is that there was a fixed relationship between the style of this pottery and Nabataean identity. the second one is that Nabataean identity was homoge- nous and bounded regardless of many variables such as the different time, place, or socio-economic factors which evidently affect ethnicity. Such suppositions need to be evaluated. One may ask why, if the Nabataean pottery had been the single clear ethnic marker of the Nabataean sites, has it not been found in the Jebel Druze in southern Syria and northern Transjordan, which were undoubtedly Nabataean areas as attested by Nabataean sculpture, temples, and inscriptions? Hence, we can see how delicate is the equation made by Glueck between the Nabataeans’ identity and their pottery. When Glueck tried to find a cause for thisabsence of Nabataean ware from these Nabataean sites, he gave the follow- ing justification: the number of the Nabataeans who lived there might not have been adequate to ‘warrant manufacturing or even importing their strikingly unique and beautiful pottery’ (cf. Glueck, 1965: 249). Such justification cannot be accepted at face value. We believe that the existence of even only a single member of an ethnic group is enough to articulate ethnicity. Looking again at the Jebel Druze where Nabataean ware is absent, we find that Nabataean dei- ties were present. What is more,the Nabataeans inhibited these lands for around two hundred years which, one may say, must have been accompanied by a fairly wide Nabataean presence there. 2 More information about the dramatic story of Colono-Ware and the different ways used by archaeologists to interpret this pottery is found in (orser, 1996: 118-123). 1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 354 21/04/10 11:51 F.M. al-otaIbI 355 this essay is divided into two parts. In the first part, the historical back- ground of the Nabataeans is given. The second part focuses on evaluating Nelson Glueck’s approach to Nabataean ethnicity, highlighting its main weakness. After that, our conclusion is drawn drawn. PART ONE THE NABATAEANS: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The Nabataeans called themselves Nb†w, which is translated as ‘Nabataeans.’ this term was employed in four different ways. First, the word Nb†w was used in the context of the royal title of the Nabataean kings, ‘X the king of the Nabataeans’, or as the Nabataeans put it ‘X malik nabatu’. This shows, on the assumption that the majority of these inscriptions were written by Nabataeans, that the Nabataeans looked at themselves as a distinct socio-political entity dif- ferent from other peoples and having political institutions headed by a malik. the importance of the latter, the king, is due to the fact that kingship was one of the clear indicia of nationalism3 in the ancient Near East (Mendels, 1992: 1). other indications of the fact that the Nabataeans constituted a nation include: their land, their coins, and their army. To these it may be added that the Naba- taeans apparently retained their autonomy from their first appearance in the political arena of the ancient Near East in the 4th century B.c.e. until their sub- jugation by the Romans in the 2nd century C.e. By contrast, the Jews lost their political independence more than once, but they are still regarded by ancient and modern scholars as a nation (see schwartz, 2001: 5-6). thus Mendels insists that a nation could exist in the ancient Near East even without a country (1992: 15). In fact the Nabataeans kept their nationhood up till the final destruc- tion in 106 C.e. and were an example of ‘an indigenous population successfully creating a national state’ (1992: 26). at any rate, the above use of the word ‘Nabataean’ by the Nabataeans to refer to themselves means that they stated their identity emically. The other emic attestation of Nabataean identity brings us to the second use of the term Nb†w, namely the reference of some individuals to themselves as ‘Nabataeans.’ However, in the case when such a reference to the Nabataeans was made by non-Nabataeans, this is a clear etic attestation of Nabataean identity. For this latter use, we have clear evidence. shubayth ‘the Jew’, a resident of Hegra, dated his inscription to ‘the first day of Ab, the third year of king Maliku, king of the Nabataeans’ i.e. July/august 42/43 C.e. (Healey, 1993: 95, n. 4, line 7). Here Shubayth knew that he was living in the midst of a distinct social entity, which was headed by their own political institution symbolized by their malik. 3 For the appropriateness of the use of the term ‘nationalism’ in antiquity, see (Mendels, 1992: 13). 1675-08_Aram21_18_Otaibi.indd 355 21/04/10 11:51 356 NelsoN Glueck aNd Nabataean EtHNIcIty: An AppraIsal the third employment of the term nb†w can be seen in the context of the legal prohibition concerning the sanctity of tombs: “inviolable according to the nature of inviolability among the Nabataeans and Salamians”. This last use of this name makes it clear (contra al-Fassi, 2000: 62-62) that it is an ethnic usage and there is no reason for her wondering whether it is a family name. that is, as starcky (1966:900) already argues, nb†w ‘doit être un nom eth- nique’ since it is mentioned side by side with the Salamians, and we know the latter was an ethnic group. the fourth usage of the term nb†w is seen in royal coins where Nabataean kings describe themselves by using the phrase mlk nb†w. In all the above-mentioned cases, by referring to themselves as a collectiv- ity, these people recognized their similarity on the one hand as well as their difference from others on the other.