Although (^uatremere recovered the broad outlines of the religion and language of the Nabat, a more extended knowledge of these points hangs mainly on the genuine- ness or spuriousness of the work of Kuthami. If M. Chwolson's theory be correct, that people present to us one of the most ancient forms of idolatry; and by their writings we can trace the origin and rise of successive phases of pantheism, and the roots of the comiilicated forms of idolatry, heresy, and philosoi)hical intidelity, which abound in the old seats of the Aramseau race. At present we may conclude that they were Sabians (Sal)i- lim, i. e. "apostates"), at least in late times, as Sabieism succeeded the older religious; and their doctrines seem to have approached (how nearly a further knowledge of these obscure sul)jects will show) those of the Jlendicans, Mendailes, or Gnostics. Their language presents similar difficulties; according to j"\I. Chowlson it is tlie ancient language of Babylonia. A cautious criticism would (till we know more) assign it a place as a comparatively mod- ern di.ileit of Svro-Chaldee (comp. Quatreraere, Mem. p. lOO-iii:;).
Tims, if ^I. t'lnvolsou's results are accepted, the "Book of Nabat Auiirulture" exhibits to us an ancient civil- izaiion, befoic that of the Greeks, and at least as old as that i)t' the Egyptians, of a great and powerful nation of leuiote antiquity; making us ac(iuainted with sages hitherto unknown, and with the religions and sciences they either founded or advanced; and thi'owing a Hood of iight on what has till now been one of the darkest pages of the world's history. But until the original text of Kiithanii's treatise is published we must withhold our
ascribed to it even by Quatremeie as extremely douhttul. It is sufficient for the present to know that the most im- Iiortjint facts advanced by the latter— the most impoi'tant when regarded by sober criticism— are supported by the results of the later inquiries of M. Chwolson and others. It remains for us to .^^tate the grounds for counecting the Nabat with the Nabathajans.
As the Arabs speak of the Nabat as Syrians, so con- versely the Greeks and Romans knew the Nabathieans
(Sept. ol Na/3aTTaroi and Na/SuTmoi ; Alex. Na/3uTto< ; Vulg.
Nahuthcei; classical writers, 'ATraraioi or NairaTato., Ptol. vi, 7, § 21 ; Nu/3aTai, Suid. s. v. ; Lat. Nabathoei) as
While the inhabitants of the peninsula were comparative strangers to the classical writers, and very little was known of the further-removed peoiiles of Cliaktea and Mesopotamia, the Nabathffians bordered the well-known Egyptian and Syrian provinces. The nation was liimous for'its wealth and commerce. Even when, by the decline of its trade (diverted througli Egypt), its prosperity waned, Petra is still mentioned as a centre of the trade both of the Sabseaus of Southern Arabia [see Siieba] and the Gerrha;ans on the Persian Gulf. It is this extension across the desert that most clearly connects the Nabathte- aii colony with the birthplace of the nation in CliakUea. The famous trade of Petra across the well-trodden des- ert-road to the Persian Gulf is sufficient to account for the presence of this colony; just as traces of Abraliamic peoples [see Dedan, etc.] are found, demonstrabl.v, on the shores of that sea on the east, and on the borders of Pal- estine on the west, while alon^ the nortliern limits of the Arabian peninsula remains ot the caravan stations still exist. Nothintr is more certain than the existence of this great stream of commerce, from remote times, until the opening of the Egyptian route gradually destroyed it. Josephus {Ant. i, 12, 4) speaks of NabntKa (Nu/iaTai«, Strabo ; Na/Jarnv';, Josephus) as embracing the country from the Euphrates to the Red Sea— i. e. Petitea and all the desert east of it. The Nabat of the Arabs, however, are described as famed for agriculture and science; iu these respects offering a contrast to the Nabathreans of Petra, who were found by the expedition sent by Antigo- nus (B.C. 312) to be dwellers iu tents, pastoral, and con- ducting the trade of the desert; but in the Red Sea again they were piratical, and by seafaring qualities showed a non-Shemitic character.
We agree with M. Quatremere {Mem.-p. SI), while reject- ing sonie of his reasons, that the civilization of the Naba- threans of Petra, far advanced on that of the surrounding Arabs, is not easily explained except by supposing them to be a different people' from those Arabs. A remarkable confirmation of this supposition is found in the character of the buildings of Petra, which are uidike anything con- structed by a purely Sheniitir imco. Architecture is a characteristic of Aryan or niixid lacc--. In Southern Ara- bia, Nigritians and Sheniites .Idkiiinin-) to-etlier built huge edifices; so in Babylonia and As-yria, and so too iu Egypt, mixed races left this unmistakable mark. See AuABiA. Petra, while it is wanting in the colossal feat- ures of those more ancient remains, is yet unmistakably foreign to au unmixed Shemitic race. Furtlier, tlie sub- jects of the literature of the Nabat, wliich are scientific and industrial, are not such as are found iu the writings of pure Sheiuites or Aryans, as Renan (HiHt. des Languea Seinitiques, p. 227) has well observed: and he points, as we have above, to a I'orci'jn (■■ (.'..usrliiie,"' or partly Ni- gritian) settlement in l;,ib\ Inula. It i< noteworthy that 'Abd-el-Latif (at the end <>[ the t.iurtli secticni ofliis lirsl book, or treatise— see De Lai y's ed.) likens the Copts iu Egvpt (a mixed race) to the Nabat iu El-'Irak.