Contextualizing the Nabataeans: A Critical Reassessment of their History and Material Culture By Jeffrey Eli Pearson A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Ancient History and Mediterranean Archaeology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge: Erich Gruen, Chair Chris Hallett Andrew Stewart Benjamin Porter Spring 2011 Abstract Contextualizing the Nabataeans: A Critical Reassessment of their History and Material Culture by Jeffrey Eli Pearson Doctor of Philosophy in Ancient History and Mediterranean Archaeology University of California, Berkeley Erich Gruen, Chair The Nabataeans, best known today for the spectacular remains of their capital at Petra in southern Jordan, continue to defy easy characterization. Since they lack a surviving narrative history of their own, in approaching the Nabataeans one necessarily relies heavily upon the commentaries of outside observers, such as the Greeks, Romans, and Jews, as well as upon comparisons of Nabataean material culture with Classical and Near Eastern models. These approaches have elucidated much about this enigmatic civilization but have not always fully succeeded in locating specifically Nabataean motivations and perspectives within and behind the sources. To address this lacuna, my dissertation provides a critical re-reading and analysis of the ancient evidence, including literary, documentary, numismatic, epigraphic, art historical, and archaeological material, in order to explore the Nabataeans’ reaction to, effect upon, and engagement with, historical events and cultural movements during the period from 312 BCE, when the Nabataeans first appear in the historical record in the wake of the conquests of Alexander the Great, to the annexation of their territory by the Romans in 106 CE. I seek to properly acknowledge the ways in which the Nabataeans self-consciously shaped their own political and cultural destinies while interacting with the broader Mediterranean and Near Eastern worlds. While identification, analysis, and articulation of the Nabataean viewpoint guides the dissertation, the project also broadly challenges or qualifies several important assumptions about the Nabataean civilization. In treating the period from 312 BCE to the eastern settlement of Pompey in 63 BCE, I argue that the Nabataeans played a more important role in the Hellenistic world than has generally been acknowledged— especially for the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE—and I articulate the nature and significance of their position vis-à-vis their neighbors and rivals, both regional and further a-field, specifically from the Nabataean point of view. This analysis makes an important contribution to current discussions of the development of Nabataean identity and culture, and it can serve as a model for viewing other under-explored Hellenistic civilizations in the Near East. Events in the ensuing period, after 63 BCE, take place under the broad shadow of the extension of Roman power in the eastern Mediterranean, but by analyzing internationally important events of this period, such as the Roman expedition to Arabia ordered by Augustus, from a specifically Nabataean vantage point, I am able to show that 1 the Nabataeans’ self-interest often did not align with Roman objectives, and that their foreign policy flourished on its own merits. These conclusions appropriately acknowledge Nabataean individuality and autonomy, challenging the widely asserted notion that Nabataea fits a prescribed model of a client—or dependent—state of Rome. In examining the last generations of Nabataean independence, I argue against the traditional characterization that sees during these years a gradual political, economic, and cultural decline for the Nabataeans, culminating in their annexation by the Romans in 106 CE. I demonstrate that the period instead represents a time of increasing sophistication and self- confidence on the part of the Nabataeans, not one of resignation or submission to the inevitability of Roman domination. 2 Meis Parentibus i TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements . iii List of Figures . iv Introduction . 1 Chapter 1: The Nabataeans and the Early Hellenistic Context . 5 Chapter 2: The Nabataeans and the Late Hellenistic Context . 24 Chapter 3: Aretas IV and the Nabataean Kingdom, 9 BCE to 40 CE . 42 Chapter 4: The Last Decades of Nabataean Independence, 40 to 106 CE . 64 Conclusion . 83 Bibliography . 85 Appendix: Map and Figures . 95 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I could not have completed a project of this scope without the considerable support, guidance, and encouragement I received along the way. I have been very fortunate in having so many outstanding teachers during the course of my academic studies. I begin by acknowledging my professors at Villanova University, especially Daniel Doyle, Ed Jaworowski, John Hunt, and the late Effie Coughanowr, and those at St. Andrews and Cambridge Universities, especially Christopher Smith, John Patterson, and Christopher Kelly. During my doctoral studies at Berkeley, I have studied and worked with many incredible professors, but I would like to particularly thank several for sharing some of the depth and breadth of their knowledge, for their infectious enthusiasm, and for their advice and counsel to me as an aspiring scholar: Sonia Shiri, Mark Griffith, Todd Hickey, Andrew Stewart, Chris Hallett, and Benjamin Porter. These latter three also served as members of my dissertation committee and provided me with invaluable feedback on various drafts of the project. All chapters in this dissertation also at some stage received careful scrutiny from a working group consisting of fellow PhD candidates in AHMA and Classics. During our colloquia, Nandini Pandey, Noah Kaye, Ryan Boehm, Tim Doran, Carolynn Roncaglia, Amy Russell, David Rosenberg-Wohl, Greg Smay, and Jason Schlude all helped to improve my arguments and to clarify my thinking with their careful readings, critiques, and insightful suggestions. I am extremely appreciative. My dissertation chair, Erich Gruen, presided over these meetings, generously opening up his house for the occasions and sharing his wisdom, experience, and great knowledge of the ancient world. He has been for me, as for so many others, both an exacting critic and a fierce advocate. I could not have wished for a better teacher and mentor. I also thank the Graduate Group in Ancient History and Mediterranean Archaeology for its financial assistance, especially in the form of grants for archaeological work, language study, and travel in the Near East. The tireless members of the departmental staff, especially Janet Yonan and Nancy Lichtenstein, also have my fond appreciation for all the help, kind words, and advice they have provided over the years. Finally and most importantly, I am extremely grateful to my close friends and family. I give special mention here to Jason Schlude, Jordan Bulger, Ginelle Hustrulid, Nicole Robinson, to my brother Tommy, and to my parents, who know me best, who understand the true value of a good education, and who have always believed in me. iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Coin of Aretas III Philhellenos 96 Figure 2: Coin of Alexander Jannaeus 96 Figure 3: Coin of M. Scaurus with Aretas III 96 Figure 4: Coin of Obodas II 97 Figure 5: Coin of Aretas IV and Syllaios 97 Figure 6: Coin of Aretas IV with Laurel Wreath 97 Figure 7: Coin of Rabbel II 98 Figure 8: The Khazneh (the “Treasury”), Petra 98 Figure 9: Al-Dayr (the “Monastery”), Petra 99 Figure 10: Crenellated Tombs, Petra 99 Figure 11: Nabataean Painted Bowl from Phase 3b 100 iv INTRODUCTION For at least four centuries, from the days of the Successors of Alexander the Great in the late 4th century BCE until the last meaningful eastern expansion of the Roman empire under the emperor Trajan at the beginning of the 2nd century CE, a partially nomadic and highly prosperous civilization governed a capacious territory stretching at its height from the Hawran in southern Syria to the Arabian Hejaz and including large parts of the Negev, Sinai, and eastern Jordanian desert, while consistently occupying an important place in the ancient Mediterranean political, cultural, and economic landscapes. With such a resume, this people ought to be well known, understood, and appreciated, but replying “the Nabataeans” to a query about the subject of one’s dissertation will, more than likely, elicit a quizzical look from the interlocutor. Numerous recent museum exhibitions, cameo appearances of their monuments in modern cinema, increased access for archaeologists and tourists to remains of their culture in previously off-limits or politically fraught areas of Jordan, Syria, and even Saudi Arabia, and—not least—the recent designation of their ancient capital of Petra as one of the new seven wonders of the world, have certainly helped in raising the Nabataean profile. Still, while a serious academic discussion of ancient trade, water management, Semitic linguistics, or Alexandrian-inspired architecture might now be expected to include the Nabataeans, this fascinating civilization remains, even to the general scholar of the ancient Mediterranean world, highly enigmatic, perplexing, and often surprising. For both political and academic reasons, in particular the traditional (and largely artificial) boundaries that have often persisted between disciplines interested in the ancient Classical and Near Eastern worlds, the Nabataeans long languished in relative obscurity. This situation has fortunately