terraceterrace

stone depot

reservoir

terrace

rubble

Husn Raydan

1571600

1571395

findspotzm01

cw01

z175

z178

lapid. 2

concretefoundation

Stone Bldg

z300

z028

lapid. 1 pier

Mapping:

Klein/Krahe (1998)

FH-Mainz, University of Applied SciencesProject leader: Dr Paul Yule

University of Heidelberg

Hilbrig (2008)

Legend:

1°06’

grid north

28° 36'

Meccatrue north

magnetic north1°15'other topography

recent building

antique feature

altitude

0 20m

excavation

Fig. 1. Plan of the n Rayd n, state: 26.03.2008.

1

af r, Capital of imyar.Seventh Preliminary Report, 2007 and20081

Paul Yule

Abstract/KurzfassungWork begun in 2004 continued on the spacious

imyarite so-called Stone Building, on the south-western flank of the n Rayd n mountain . Inthe ruined city, this is the first fairly intact build-ing to come to light, an ashlar structure sur-rounding a stone-paved courtyard. Goals includedlocating the exterior walls, the investigation im-mediately to the north and the clearing of thecourtyard. We mapped for the first time the damsand reservoir Sedd al- ayb n and Ma il al- ay-b n . Our project emphasizes the little-knownlatter part of late antiquity in a field of study butone hardly developed in South Arabia.

IntroductionWith a core area measuring some 110 ha, af rappears to be South Arabia's second largest ar-chaeological site . As the capital of the imyariteconfederation, the site's importance is historical-ly established from a variety of written sources .It

2

2

3

Die Grabungsmannschaft setzte ihre Tätigkeit imgeräumigen imyarische sog. Steingebäude fort.2004 begann diese Untersuchung an der südwest-lichen Flanke des Bergs n Rayd n. Es handeltsich um das erste teilweise intakte Gebäude, dasin der Ruinenstadt freigelegt wurde. Quader-mauern rahmen eine mit Steinen gepflastertenHof um. Ziele waren es die Außenmauern zu lo-kalisieren, den Bereich unmittelbar zum Nordenhin und den Hof von Schutt zu befreien. Wir kar-tierten erstmalig die Staudämme und das Wasser-reservoir.

dominated Arabia politically and militarily fromc. 270 until 525 for some 245 years. Annual exca-vation reports illuminate its archaeology. The ex-cavation campaigns of 2007 and 2008 continuedinvestigation on what we have come to call theStone Building, which is situated on the south-

nRayd n ( ), in al- (w) (standard Arabic: al-

wa). According to Y suf Abdull h, al-

western slope of the mountain locally calledFig. 1

1

2

nd

3

First, again this year we thank the DFG for enabling excavation(grants ar 231/9-1 and ar 231/9-2). A donation from Qassim YehyaAbdu Jalap enabled the roofing of the reliefs discovered in 2008,which are discussed below. We also express gratitude to the GeneralOrganisation for Antiquities and Museums (GOAM) authorities forpermission to conduct research.Participants eighth field season 2007 included K. Franke (excavator),M. Gruber, J. Hohenadel, J. Orrin (excavators), C. Ruppert (Arabist), I.Steuer-Siegmund, A. Ungelenk, H.-J. Welz (find specialists), P. Yule(leader). Our GOAM inspectors included lid al- nsi, Al Abdul-Kar m al- ak m and Isa Al al- ayb n . Nab l ali al-'A wal servedas a trainee in the field. In Jena, Norbert Nebes is our epigrapher. Weemployed upwards of 35 labourers. Following arrival on 09.02., wecleared formalities and began work on the 13.03. at af r, before de-parting on 26.03.2007 for an '. The text regarding the excavation of2007 was adapted from the text of Kristina Franke.In 2008, Following arrival on 02.02, we cleared formalities and beganwork on the 11.03. at af r, before departing on 31.03.2007 for an '.Our team also enjoyed the generous hospitality of the German Insti-tute of Archaeology in an ' at the beginning and end of the season,which allowed recovery from our Spartan field conditions. Partici-pants of the ninth field season included Curt Hilbrig (excavator of thesouthern end of the excavation), Martin Gruber and Jens Gutperle(excavators of the northern end of the excavation), Johanna Greskaand Sharlyn Lhuillier (draughtswomen), Tobias Schröder and IngoBuchmann (surveyors), Elske Fischer and Stella Tomasi (palaeobo-tanists), P. Yule (leader). Our GOAM inspectors included alid al-' n-si, Rafiq Mu ammed al-'Ar mi, 'Ali 'Abdul-Kar m al- ak m, Fath 'Alial-Julob and 'Abdu Tawab Mi raqi. In Jena, Norbert Nebes is our epi-grapher. I also thank Walter Müller and Peter Stein for discussing theinscription of the crowned figure with me. Christine Strube (Heidel-berg) pointed me in the right direction regarding the art historicalaspects of the figure. Last but not least, Armin Kirfel again carried outthe quantitative analyses of selected excavated materials. In both sea-sons we employed upwards of 35 labourers.We were pleased to receive a large number of Yemenite and foreignvisitors at the site in 2007 and 2008, especially Werner Arnold, ourproject patron. If not otherwise acknowledged, the illustrations arefrom P. Yule. Prior to the publication of the catalogue of the af rSite Museum, no attempt is made in the present report to find ex-haustive parallels for all of the artefacts which appear. Contexts des-cribed in previous reports are not reiterated.Previous annual reports: 1998-2004: Yule et al. 2007; 2005: Yule 2006:Franke et al. in press.

Site size = area + population density. The settled and unsettled partsof ancient Ma'rib – the largest site in the region –have been estima-ted variously from 70 to 114 ha. Without excavation, it is impossibleto judge how much of the total area was settled, and how dense thiswas. The 110 ha surface area cited for af r is 10 ha smaller than thatof our site-map (1000 m x 1200 m). af r's ancient habitation also isunequally dense, and lies in and outside the city wall. The moredensely populated area inside the city wall is approximately 1/3 ofthe total estimated area. Sabir is said to be a 6 km long site (source: B.Vogt, 11.06.2008) although there is a question if it is one or severalsites. Ma na'at M riya is a candidate as 2 largest site, but simply us-ing the entire surface area is an inadequate index of its size. Ist ag-gregate settled area appears to less than that of af r.

Müller 2001.

('the rump') is a common place-name in the Ye-men for the base of a mountain. The concentra-tion of imyarite tombs and other subsurfacestructures further impelled our work in al-( ) as this suggested an area with a specialreligious meaning to its ancient inhabitants.Unfortunately, the tombs cannot be dated moreclosely than probably pre-Islamic at best, a

Fig. 2

2

long period which therefore makes guessesrisky about the religion of the owners. Nonethe-less, after death, for Christians to lie close to thegrave of a saint is a privilege reserved for thefew . The practice of depositio ad sanctos providedeach community with a map of the ranking or-der of its departed members around the holygrave. A similar ranking principle may work forpolytheists there, but certainly not for Jews .Despite the warnings of our older labourers, in2003, we took up excavation in al- . Accordingto them, 40 or more years ago they and their fa-thers quarried here, and 100 square stones soldfor as little as two "French riyals" (Maria Theresadollars) to buyers in Bait al-'A wal and otherplaces. Especially in the upper debris, this exploi-tation results characteristically in a lack of soilbetween the stones, heavy white accretions onthem, and a lack of the small finds. Aside fromancient terrace walls (Arabic erab) in the sur-rounding area, this building is the first major in-tact antique structure to come to light at af r.

Excavation of 2007In 2003, excavation commenced on the south-western flank of the n Rayd n ( ). In2004, 20 m to the south-east we began a trenchdesignated z400 of the north-western corner ofthe Stone Building. Its courtyard was furthercleared in 2006. In the following season, twoadjacent surfaces were excavated, z400 and to itseast, z500 ( ). The Stone Building consists ofa stone-paved courtyard and rooms at the north-ern end. The main activities in 2007 were thepartial clearing of the western and eastern wallsto floor level, including a heavy mass of slag(operations 400~025 and z400~025b) 1 m deep( The western wall of the StoneBuilding rests on a foundation of porous, dark,volcanic ashlars in the Yemen known as aba i.On top of these, a single course of limestone ash-lar are preserved. This nearly completely plun-dered wall was rebuilt of smaller wadi stoneswith raised bastions over 1 m in height (z430,z431, z434, z438). The original western wall ofthe courtyard is preserved to a maximal heightof 60 cm; that at the northern side is better pre-served. The deeper the debris, the better thepreservation of the architecture. Both the west-ern and northern interior courtyard walls showfeatures which may have been entrances in the

4

5

+

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5 and 6).

4

5

6

Brown 1985: 7.Yule – Galor in press.Physical analysis: Yule et al. 2007: 538–9 (context z400~025, lz04~256).

A second sample (lz07~399) was taken from the upper surface of thedeposit z400~025b: "An X-ray recording shows calcium carbonate (cal-cite) to be the main phase. In addition, two feldspars, quartz, maghe-mite and hematite also occur. Furthermore, vaterite (another calciumcarbonate) was registered. The complex appears to be a degraded limemortar, not however, like freshly burnt segregated lime". We thankDirk Kirchner (German Mining Museum, Bochum) for this information(translated, letter 05.11.2007).

Fig. 2 imyarite tomb concentration in al- plotted ona Quickbird satellite image from 1 February 2004, northis above.

1571510

1571500

1571490

1571480

1571470

excav.terraces

excav.terraces

Fig. 3. n Rayd n, excavation progress since 2003.

3

af r, Capital of imyar

z380

z390

z379

z395

z394z388

z389

z384

z382

z386

z373

z374

z385

z370

z391 bedrock

z392

z387

z378

10m

Fig. 4. Plan of the Stone Building which shows the main contexts, state: 26.03.2007. Area z500 lies adjacently E of z400 inthe courtyard. The shaded areas are slag deposits.

4

Paul Yule

z505z508

z400~025b

reliefs

5 m

ashy porous, greyhard, whitish grey, heterogenousreddish brown, heterogeneous, softsame as 3, softer, mixed with adjacent debris

cross-sectionof slag deposit z400~025b

Fig. 5.Plan and section of context z400~025b.

Fig. 6.The pointed end on the stairs may be a relict of acharging opening for context z400~025b.

Fig. 7. Stone reliefs as found inside the context z400~025b.

earlier of several building phases.Two slag deposits filled most of the courtyard.The larger is op400~025; the smaller, op400~025b,lay just to its north. The two deposits differ fromeach other in their makeup (infra). The hetero-geneous mixture of slag, charcoal and stonefragments of op400~025 form an irregular heap,and appear to be the debris of a pyrotechnicalprocess, possibly reducing limestone to lime forthe production of cement. Two slag sampleswere analysed in the hope of determining theirorigin . Both operationss op400~025 and op400~025b rest on the same 10 cm charcoal layer(z500~041, z500~044, z500~045) as observed in2004 and subsequently directly on the stonepavement of the inner courtyard, z413 .The smaller slag deposit, op400~025b, was conicalin plan, its pointed end facing the east-north-east. In section, it is biconvex. This heterogene-ous mass contains layers different in density,colour, and contains inclusions. The body has noobvious exterior shell, but rather is a densely lay-ered mass of slag with many charcoal inclusions.The upper surface is formed of a porous slag. Be-neath it a hard heterogeneous grey-white layercontained charcoal and small stones and showedclear traces of burning. A thick layer of softerbrown earth forms the lowermost zone. A hollowwas formed beneath the eastern end of the slag.operation op400~025b lies in different brownish,ashy contexts which contain charcoal, botanicalremains, and in some areas slag (contexts z500~033, z500~036, z500~043). Some reliefs from con-text op400~025b bear traces of burning, and slagadheres to them. More than 16 fragmentarylimestone reliefs neatly stacked in the westernend of op400~025b include bucranion plaques andlow reliefs show different subjects ( ) .

Excavation of 2008In 2008 we continued the clearance of churnedup surface debris and the obdurate slag beneathit from the courtyard of the Stone Building (

6

7

8

+

Fig. 7

Fig.

7

8

Cf. preliminary reports for the seasons 2004 and 2006 (Yule et al. 2007,533; Franke et al. in press).

In contexts z500~018, z500~024 and z500~025: sculptures lz07~187,07~191, 07~199, 07~346, 07~348, 07~352, 07~358, 07~361, 07~362, 07~370,07~371, 07~372, 07~373, 07~381, 07~398, 07~438 (lz is the abbreviationfor Laufzettel, that is find slips).

5

af r, Capital of imyar

N

0 10m

1571470

1571515

z382z370

z609

z605

z379

z378

z380

z422

z507

z413

z502

z610

z608

z606

z607

z603

z601

z374

z423

z423

Fig. 8. Loci excavated in 2008 are outlined with a heavy line.

8

Fig. 9

). In the southern part of our excavation, onthe pavement we cleared some 120 m (north-west – south-east 6 m x north-east – south-west20 m) of debris at a maximal depth of 6 m belowthe recent surface. The amount of debris re-moved from the southern and northern excava-tions and periphery in 2008 amounts to some501 m . Our southern excavation alone account-ed for 314 m . Some of this volume derives fromour excavation terraces, which are much broaderthan the Stone Building. These prevent stonesfrom careening into the building and comprisethe upper levels of next season's excavation.The profile shown in , which transects thecentre of the courtyard and the slag deposit(op400~025) in it, reveals a complex series of e-vents after the Stone Building fell out of use.While the slag, which appears to be a primarycontext, is abundant, paradoxically no traces ex-ist of furnaces from whence it came. Given theheap-like stratigraphic form of the slag op400

2

3

3

~025, it is more likely to reflect dumped indus-trial waste than be the result of an intense fire inthe Stone Building, the only explanations whichplausibly might explain the origin of the slag .This adamant deposit served an unintentional

positive function: It shielded the stones of pave-ment z413 below it from stone robbing. Al-though slag flowed onto and adhered to a fewpavement stones, paradoxically hardly anyshow discolouration or damage from intenseheat. An uneven layer of charcoal, maximally10 cm in thickness lies between them. Wherepresent, this layer prevented bonding. It mayhave originated from wooden timbers used inthe construction. But not enough is present tosupport the assumption of a roofed courtyard.The compact slag deposit postdates earth andstone debris lying below it. Thus, prior to the

9

See Yule et al. 2007, 538–539 for qualitative/quantitative analysis ofthis material

9

.

6

Paul Yule

inception of the slag, the Stone Building was al-ready a ruin.A 3 x 2.5 m room (z507), which is delineated bythree walls and a step, lies at the northern end ofthe courtyard ( ). Differentbuilding phases are in evidence. The northernfoundation wall, z423, which possibly reflects apredecessor of the Stone Building, was built of

aba i stones. It is documented together with itsfoundation trench from room z507 to 10 m to thewest, where a corner still exists. Preserved stonesreveal a sandwich wall, the northern ones ofwhich faced north and the two preserved south-ern stones, south. This wall forms the northernfaçade of the Stone Building. The broad mono-lithic step, bordering to the south on room z507,is a late addition which belongs together chron-ologically with flanking bastions which show themarginally drafted and pecked masonry of VanBeek type 6 . These two bastions are the onlyplace in the Stone Building where swallow-tailmortises occur. The largeness and broadness ofthe step, excellent workmanship and manifestlight use-wear from the traffic of ancient visitors,show this once to have been an important en-trance. The eastern and western aba i founda-tion walls of z507 face respectively outwardly. Inthe north-east of the room, four stones show theinterior face of this sandwich wall. The room a-mounts to about a third the width of the court-yard. To the immediate west of room z507, a pre-sumed adjacent room and entrance existed, butwere destroyed by the building of the heavystone settings z412 and z414, which stratigraph-ically postdate the Stone Building per se. On theother side to the east, the room adjacent z507 wasnot completely cleared during its excavation in2007 because it lay immediately below the steepeastern edge of the trench. Further excavationmight well unleash a subsidence. The pavementstones of this room also originally also may haveexisted in room z507, which was destroyed downto its foundations. The location of the northernfaçade of the Stone Building is now clear. Heavy,well-masoned stone slabs of pavement z422 buttup against the northern face of room z507. Thepavement which they form extends 5 m towardthe north and disappears in the balk. To the east,the flat surface consists of bed rock at the sameheight.North of the Stone Building proper ( ) and

10

Fig. 4, 10 and 11

Fig. 8

south of the building complex, z300, the transi-tion is evident from the excellently masonedstone pavement, z422 , to one adjacent to thewest, z380, which is of rustic appearance andworkmanship. The latter pavement appears tobelong structurally/chronologically with thenorthern group of rooms designated z300, whichalso has a rustic masonry. In the case of pave-ment z380, the long axis of the rectangularstones is oriented north-north-east south-south-west; in contrast, those of z422 are orient-ed north-west south-east. Evidently there was aplaza north of the Stone Building during and af-ter its lifetime.In this same area, we cleared an estimated 57 mat pavement level and a far larger amount in thehigher-lying excavation terraces ( ). Furthernorth in the chambers and pavement designatedz300, reinvestigation of the already excavatedroom z374, yielded storage vessel sherds. In roomz382 a stone floor appeared which lay below thatexcavated in 2003. The southern corner of a jer-ry-built angular wall (z378 and z379) came tolight built on pavement z380 and z422. Its re-mains extend into the unexcavated area immedi-ately to the north-east. Since this corner strati-graphically postdates both pavements, and thenorthern complex, z300, it belongs to the latestcontexts at af r. It and other such primitive fea-tures are best explained as squatter construc-tions.In 2008, eastern exterior walls of the Stone Build-ing emerged, cut into the bedrock. The decoratedinterior courtyard wall, z502, abuts the parallelwall, z608, to its east (Fig. 12 and 13). Wall z502 isnot preserved to its original height, despite thepresence of four flat cap stones (context z610),which are held in place by means of white cem-ent ( ) . There is no room on either side foran ambulatory. The outer stone wall faces west,that is, toward the courtyard, as is clear from theflat outer surfaces of its 'pyramidally' formeddark aba i stones. This same type of masonryoccurs at the north-western corner outside of theStone Building (wall z423, supra), which can betaken as the remains of a predecessor building.

11

2

12

–

–

10 Yule et al. 2007, 533 note 72, Pl. 36.1 (field contains multiple smallerrectangular pecked fields).

11

12Quartz 15.42%, sanadine Na 0.85 84.58% (orthoclase feldspar).Quartz 6.79%, anorthite 14.66%, calcite 64.31%, sanidine Na 0.85

14.04% (orthoclase feldspar).

Fig. 8

Fig. 14

7

af r, Capital of imyar

unexcavated surface

bedrock2521

17

13

14

1918

242322

20

12

levelling layercharcoal layer

sand layers

slag layer

5 m0

z432z400~025

z413z502

z606z603

metre above sea level2800m

2805

2804

2803

2802

2801

2807

2806

Fig. 9. Profile toward the south-south-east through thecourtyard, state: 26.03.2008.

Legend1 Rubble layer of unworked broken rock, mostly dm 15-20cm, up to even dm 50 cm; loosely mixed with finer earthand sand.12 Lime slag-like block white to cream-yellow, crumbly,burnt limestone; fine charcoal inclusions but also as largeones as 10 x 10 x 10 cm, melted with burnt red brick slag.13 Mixture of soil, ash and slag, dark brown slightly pen-etrated by plants´ roots.14 Red brick slag, partly coloured black from the ash; withinclusions of burnt limestone and charcoal.15 Gravel layer of loose broken brick, worked stone, darkbroken stone, glassy slag, stone with adhering sand, nearlyblack slag [slag, nearly black], partly burnt ochre limestone.16 Ochre coloured burnt limestone with red brick-slag, andcharcoal small inclusions17 Reddish-grey brick slag melted to a dense mass, withsmall inclusions of burnt limestone (dm about 2 cm) and

charcoal (dm about 0.5-3 cm)18 Reddish brick slag, with heavier concentration of lime-stone inclusions, partly burnt, mainly whitish grey tocreme coloured material.19 Brick slag layer with small amount of other kinds ofmaterial; fragile + porous quality20 Gravel layer comprised of unworked broken stone andearth.21 Dark slaggy layer with heavy charcoal inclusions, littlelimestone and some red brick slag.22 Dark bluish-red brick slag, crumbly with black inclu-sions (ash and charcoal), fewer small ochre-coloured lime-stone inclusions.23 White burnt limestone with charcoal particles.24 Red brick inclusions with charcoal and limestone, melt-ed to a homogenous mass.25 Black ashy layer, hard and dense.

In the western part of the main courtyard, z413,beneath the pavement slabs, an irregularlyshaped 1.50 x 1.50 x 0.50 m cavity designated z601( ) came to light, undermined over the cen-turies by flowing water. Similar to the 1 x 1 x1.5 m sounding, op400~035, excavated in 2004 and2007 a few metres to the west ( ), it also con-tained the bones of large mammals.Since 1998, the villagers maintained that 30 msouth-west of the southern edge of this year'strench, a 6 m long stone pier lay buried. Thisyear an elderly villager described its exact posi-tion. In a 4.3 x 3.3 x 1.5 m trench the pier came tolight ( ). Not in its primary context, itevidently was simply too troublesome for thestone robbers to further transport. Accompany-ing finds included the rear light of a motor vehi-

Fig. 8

Fig. 4

Fig. 8 and 15

cle (c. 1950s) and a plastic bag, telltale evidenceof pillaging which took place in recent decades.An irregularly formed, poured, concrete founda-tion appeared in the northern part of the trenchand 10 m north-west of the pier ( ), thelikes of which we have not yet encountered in

af r. Since all of the building remains in the ar-ea are antique, there is no reason yet to presumeany other date for this foundation. The questionarises whether this white cement can be datednarrowly.Centimetres south of the point where we stoppedexcavation in 2007, the eastern wall, z502, jogs tothe east at a right angle. This forms a limestonepaved rectangular 1.8 x 6.0 m space which wedesignated z606, as it is presently known. Thedebris here consisted mostly of stones, the larg-

Fig. 16

8

Paul Yule

9

af r, Capital of imyar

Fig. 11. Room and walls designated z507 viewed toward thenorth-north-west, state: 26.03.2008.

Fig. 12. Profile photo of the eastern courtyard wall, z502,toward the east.

est of which was nearly 1.4 m in height. At thesouthern excavated end of the limestone relief-decorated wall, carved from a massive (0.67 x1.70 x 0.50 m) basaltic block, a standing reliefwhich shows a frontal male figure came to light( ). This is the first life-size Himyarite figureto occur of a kind preserved hitherto only infragments.

SculptureFour bands of relief sculpture grace the wall, z502( ), moving downward, they arecomprised of alternating rosettes and leaf cros-ses, antithetic animal compositions, alternatingwine leaves and grapes as well as bucrania.

13

Fig. 17

Fig. 12 and 13

Fig.

18

Fig. 19

Fig. 17

shows an antithetic animal composition fromthe eastern wall. Such animals appear in raisedrelief with incised details. The modelling andstyle are basically homogeneous, although differ-ent details are stylistically somewhat variable.Depicted are deer, lambs, leopards, sphinxes andtigers. They show peculiar features; some wearcollars, for instance. The deer show shovel notspike antlers. Whereas some of the quadrupedsappear to be depicted with five legs, the fifth onein fact is a tail. Since some of these reliefs are cutoff, perhaps the reliefs were also reused from anearlier building or building programme.Reliefs identical in type and style to the friezez502 are known from other parts of the excava-tion, from Qaryat af r and from neighbouringBayt al-'A wal – the latter two a result of the ex-ploitation of the villagers. The find situation sug-gests that this took place perhaps in the decadesbefore the inception of the antiquities authorityin the 1970s. If it happened much earlier, fewersuch reliefs would have survived. As mentionedabove, the villagers tell us that this exploitationserved as a livelihood for their fathers and grand-fathers.The upper surface of one antithetic animal reliefbears the remnants of the standard two-panelcomposition of a woman holding her breasts jux-taposed to a bucranion ( ), which were chi-selled off when the image pair no longer weredesirable. This iconoclasm shows a succession ofpre-Islamic cultic attributes away from the imagepair type.

The Standing Crowned Figure, z607The figure's position within the Stone Buildingprovides a first indication of its date ( ).This structure underwent various changes

14

15

13 Fig. 18 lz07~126 antithetic animals 56.5 x 36 x 31 cm, limestoneFig. 20 lz07~361 anthropomorphic relief 50 x 25 x 8 cm, limestoneFig. 21 lz07~031+083 winged figure 26 x 25 x 11 cm, limestoneFig. 22 lz07~112 face with 2° figure 20 x 19 x 11 cm +lz07~192 26.3 x9.6 x 35.8 cm, limestoneFig. 23 lz07~263 bust of woman 18.5 x 13 x 11.5 cm, limestoneFig. 24 lz07~408 woman elab. hairdo 13 x 09 x 10 cm, limestoneFig. 25 lz07~451 head 8 x 6 cm, limestoneFig. 26 lz08~146.03 snake column 16.5 x 20.5 x 11 cm, marbleFig. 27 lz08~511 face 20 x 19.5 x 11 cm, marbleFig. 28 lz08~050 head 9.5 x 16 x c. 8 cm, limestoneFig. 29 lz08~065 interlace 11 x 11 x 05 cm, marbleHouse of Al Hussain al- af ri in af r=Pirenne 1979: 41, figureabove.House of 'Abdullah Al al- A wal in Bait al- A wal=Costa 1973, pl. 22.1.

14

15

10

Paul Yule

11

af r, Capital of imyar

which rarely can be dated in absolute years, butrather only as relative dated alterations. Itscourtyard, z413, is paved with rectangularstone slabs homogeneous in form, which appearto derive from a single build. Walls built of re-used limestone ashlars incorporated reliefs,seemingly also as one event. At the time of writ-ing, the dating of the court pavement rests ona single C determination of charcoal sampledimmediately beneath a pavement stone fromthe levelling course into which it is set. This cal-ibrates to a 104 year long time slot of 42 BCE to62 CE at the 2 standard deviational level . Therelatively precise masonry of the Stone Build-ing strengthens a dating as early as the firstcentury BCE–CE . The crowned figure postdatesthe rest of wall z502 (infra). It stands 20 cmdeeper than the niche pavement, z606, beforeit, the latter representing an even later addi-tion to the building, which cannot have beenused much before it fell out of use. Excavationhalted at the end of the 2008 season centi-metres south of the standing figure.The standing figure is depicted wearing an e-laborate fenestrated crown. In each of the reliefsquares a raised circular form appears sugges-tive of a jewel. Multiple relief lines form fiveconcentric pentagonal points on the crown'supper edge. The figure's right hand holds astaff, which above terminates as a pointed pen-tagon, likewise formed of multiple relief lines.It abuts below a short cross member is formedalso of multiple relief lines. The left hand holdsa leafy branch bouquet which at first glancemight be taken to be a torch or a mirror, espe-cially in similar depictions from af r on asmaller scale or fragmentary ones . The figure isrendered wearing a pendulous double necklace.A sword pointing to the figure's left hangs froma baldric which is slung over the shoulder. Thescabbard slide is geometrically ornamented.The upper left of the figure's shirt is gaily pat-terned in relief. Over it the figure wears a dia-phanous wrapped garment with multiple folds.Its border terminates in a zigzag. Just below thewaist a leaf-cross panel adorns the garment.The right foot is viewed frontally and the left inprofile – both barefoot, presumably because thefigure stands on holy ground.The iconography and typology of the standingfigure require comment. The fashioning and

14

nd 16

17

18

placing per se of statues of men single them outas high status individuals an act which is poten-tiated by the Lysippean pose of an heroic leaderin its innate superiority . Declarative gestures of-ten find use in dramatic scenes of gods, kings andemperors. The grasp at the upper end of the staffwith the right hand and the presentation of theleafy branch bouquet with the left appear to a-dopt the semaphoric gesticulation with botharms characteristic of Roman imperial and LateRoman statuary . Although here the strongerright hand grasps the staff, not the left one, inLate Antique and Byzantine imperial representa-tions, both right and left handedness appear insimilar poses . As is the case with Byzantine ivorydiptychs of the late 5 and early 6 century, ourfigure does not exist in space, but is confined in acompositional frame. Moreover, an enormoushead rests on an underdeveloped bust. Glaringeyes in the large head and the elaborate costumeecho Late Antique Roman imagery.Turning to the figure's individual attributes, overthe centuries numerous Mediterranean antiquerulers were posed holding a spear, or staff , butnone to my knowledge hold a staff with a crossmember. The cross member is slightly tapered inthe direction of the figure. It does not cite Romanvexilla, sceptra, hastae or other Roman insigniae,such as the more common knobbed Roman andByzantine staff, but is a different sign of authori-ty. In its left hand, the figure does not hold atorch or branch, but rather a bundle of brancheswhich has no close relevant comparisons .The moustache, curly hairdo and the narrowtorso have several parallels including e.g. of the2 – 3 century CE Hatraean statue of Sana r qII . Elaborate curls are fashionable in imperial

19

20

21

th th

22

23

nd rd

24

Kia-29699, lz 06~088, C date 1988 23, calibrated at S.D. 1: -36–52 CE,at S.D. 2: -42 – 62CE: Yule – Franke – Kromer in preparation.The ashlars of the walls are more precisely worked and regular inform than the pavement stones.

Cf. zm2294= Costa 1973, 193 no. 050 pl. 12; zm0227= Costa 1976, 449–450, pl. 11.137.Brilliant 1963, 13.Cf. Brilliant 1963, 196–7 fig. 4.89, which shows a colossal statue of anunknown emperor from Barletta. The right hand holds a staff andthe left an orbis.

L'Orange 1995, 106-7 figs. 48 & 49: ivory relief of the empress Amala-suntha; Janson 1977 202 fig. 280: ivory relief of the Archangel Mich-ael, early 6th century. The left hand grasps the staff and the righthand the earth orb.

E.g. an image from Nemrud Dagh shows Antiochos and HeraklesVerethragma (69–34 BCE), the king holding a sceptre: Ghirshman1962, 66 fig. 79.Unless we assume it to derive from a syncretism of a barsam fromZoroastrian Sasanians living in South Arabia at that time.

16 14

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

+

12

Paul Yule

Rome, perhaps originating among her southernneighbours . The tight curls of the figure z607match among others those of the ByzantineBoethius image which is dated to 476 CE . Thefigure's long garment is unique but seems in-spired perhaps by Roman-looking togati . Theleaf-cross motif in a quadratic panel occurs ininnumerable reliefs at af r, but also in earlyByzantine depictions . Given its widespread oc-currence in official contexts and its prominentdepiction on the new figure, it may well havebeen a symbol of authority.Further iconographic parallels illuminate themeaning and dating of the crowned figure. Thecrown is not the laurel wreath worn by Greekand Roman heroes as a token of victory or hon-our. Its height and gaudy decoration imbue arank which distinguishes the figure from itscontemporaries. Wreathed polos headgear ap-

25

26

27

28

Ghirshman 1962, 94 fig. 105; Sommer 2003, 24 Abb. 28.Ghirshman 1962, 90 fig. 101 (Hatra, head of a man, 2nd century CE);94 fig. 105; 99 fig. 110 (Hatra, warrior, 1 –3 century CE).Kitzinger 1977, 46, fig. 81.Cf. Schmidt-Colinet 2005, 45 Abb. 63, 4th figure from the left whichis some 200 years earlier than our figure.Kitzinger 1977, 46, fig. 81 (the consul Boethius, 487 CE) and fig. 86(the consul Anastasius, 517 CE).

24

25

st rd

26

27

28

Fig. 14. Walls z502 and z608 toward the north-north-east.

a viewb

viewa

CS 1 CS 2

CS 3

b

0 1 2 3m

a

b

c

a

a coarse surfaceb relatively smooth surfacec relatively smooth surface, damaged

Fig. 15. The pier excavated 30 m south-east of the edge ofthe main excavation surface.

Fig. 16. White cement foundation 18.5 m south-east of theedge of the main excavation surface.

Fig. 17. Crowned standing figural relief z607 imbeddedin the courtyard wall, z502.

13

af r, Capital of imyar

pear in reliefs of the tower tombs at Palmyraand have Roman parallels as well. The crownsof the late Roman tetrarch statue group inVenice also are comparable in basic form , al-though their missing metallic parts, might havechanged their original appearance. Unlike con-temporary elaborate Sasanian depictions, thepolos crown is cylindrical and austere in its basicform. It brings to mind the famed hangingcrowns, in Paris and Toledo, of the 7 centuryVisigothic king, Recceswinth with their reces-ses, each containing a jewel.Some 34 life-size figures of the typologically re-lated relief series from af r show no traces of acrown. The most complete and important ofthese images hitherto known is the limestonehead of the so-called Queen of imyar . This headis not depicted frontally, as is the crowned figure,but rather aspectively in profile, with a frontallydepicted mouth and eye. The new crowned fig-ure provides an anchoring point for the dating ofthe large and growing group of nearly life-sizefigural fragments from af r. Different types forthe pose, rendering of the hair and other detailsare emerging for this group. Further relief fig-ures in wall z502 presumably stood south of thenew one in the Stone Building, but await furtherexcavation to tell their story. The question ariseswhether the crowned figure and its relativesshow a single kind of figure, for example repres-ent rulers, or show anthropomorphic figureswith different functions and identities. Theiconography of the crowned figure results fromthe cross fertilisation of Roman, Late Antique,Byzantine and Sasanian influences on indigenousart forms.For the dating of the crowned figure, most im-portant evidence is the inscription cut into thestone block. Walter W. Müller reads the broken

late Sabaic inscription originally aswd [b]: (the god) Wadd (is) father. This apotropa-ic invocation finds use over the entire Old SouthArabian (OSA) cultural realm on amulets, in rockinscriptions and on buildings. The calligraphical-ly inverted triangle inside the aleph first occursin the 4 century and becomes more common inthe 5 . At which point this inscription fits intothe 200 year time-frame for such palaeographicdetails affects our understanding of the meaningof the figure. Might this Sabaic expression simply

29

30

th

31

th

th 32

WdA b( )

have survived beyond its time of currency intothe period when the first monarch converted tomonotheism (after c. 375), or does the figure de-pict a 5 century apostate ruler who turned awayfrom the monotheistic deity of his day back totraditional ones? Taking the inscription at facevalue in historical context, a dating for the figureand its inscription in the later 4 century, i.e. tolate polytheistic times, better fits the evidencethan a subsequent one. Thus, the depicted kingpostdates ammar Yuhar'i (c. 312) and probablypredates the monotheist Malk karib Yuha'nim (c.375). The following kings come into question asbeing depicted: Karib l (Wat r) Yuhan'im, Y sirYuhan'im II, a ran Ayfa', amar'al Yuhabirr,

ran Yuhan'im .As discovered, above and right of the crownedfigure the corner of the block was broken, itsright edge moulding and the beard werechipped. In addition, the upper edges of thisand other reliefs in the southern part of wallz502 were spalted lengthwise, as seen fromabove ( ). To what extent this damage re-sults from chemical or mechanical stress is un-known. GOAM authorities want the original re-liefs to remain in situ in the Stone Building. I-deal would be to protect at least the crownedfigure from potential (ubiquitous) vandalism ina sheltered air conditioned environment. Suchgood intentions, however, lie beyond the graspof GOAM, in its present state. At the end of theexcavation season, we roofed the excavated 10m long eastern courtyard wall and its reliefs toshield these from daily temperature fluctuationand from rain. We also placed a protectiveheavy glass plate in front of the figure and builta one-room house for the watchmen.The remains mentioned above of what mayhave been a lime furnace (op400~025b) con-tained high and low reliefs including bucranionplaques. For example, one of the reliefs (Fig. 20)shows a frontal figure which holds a spear in istright hand. Just to the left, a small hand holds aribbon or filet. The heavily rendered eyebrows

th

th

um

33T D

T

29

30

31

32

33

E.g. Schmidt-Colinet 2005, 40 Abb. 52–54. Such appear to date muchearlier, that is between 9 BCE and 128 CE (p. 39).L'Orange 1995, 57–9 Abb. 16–17.Yule 2007a, 139 Fig. 100 bears only the collector's ( Abdull h ali al-Ann bi) provenance, " af r".

Kitchen 2000, table lxiii.Robin 2006, 196–197.

Fig. 14

14

Paul Yule

Fig. 18. Antithetic composition of leopards and sheepfrom wall z502, in situ.

Fig. 19. Anciently obliterated image of a woman and abucranion panel, upper surface of a relief ashlar fromwall z502.

Fig. 20. Anthropomorphic relief from context op400~025b (lz07~361).

Fig. 21. Two fragments of a winged human, image 07~031(surf.) & 07~083 (z400~066).

and nose of the main figure fortuitously bringto mind late Cubist works. Had this sculpturenot come to light in an archaeological context,one readily might doubt its authenticity. Someof the reliefs from op400~025b are rather na-turalistic in style, others schematic.Certain reliefs deserve closer attention.shows two fragments which have been juxta-posed in order to give an idea of the original ap-pearance of the motif. As depicted, such wingedfigures float in the air above the ground line. Thewinged genius, angel or victory is certainly wide-spread and by no means Arabian by birth or in-spiration. We encounter it in the art of Rome, theSasanian Near East and eastern Africa as well.Similarly, motifs including a series of humanheads/faces reoccur repeatedly and are stereo-type in appearance. , for example, shows afrontally depicted moustached man, flanked byan ancillary figure that extends a wreath to him.To judge from similar fragments, the composi-tion originally may have been bisymmetrical.Common among the small figures are busts of afigure with long hair ( ). Some of the num-erous heads from the excavation show hairdos ofsuch elaborateness ( ), that they no doubthad some special meaning to the imyariteswhich remains inexplicable to us. A variety of re-liefs came to light in the debris which filled thetwo excavation surfaces. shows such an a-symmetrical head of unique type.One of the finest depictions is a finely renderedminiature column fragment constricted by asnake. The image in derived from the ex-cavated terraces just north of the Stone Build-ing, near wall z402 in surface debris. A rapportpattern of tendrils evenly covers the surface. Itis singular in the motifs selected, its veristicand precise modelling. Its damaged state doesnot obscure the fact that originally it was a mi-nor masterpiece.

Fig. 21

Fig. 22

Fig. 23

Fig. 24

Fig. 25

Fig. 26

15

af r, Capital of imyar

Another depiction of a life-size face ( )shows a full physiognomy and smooth skin whichsuggest the depiction of a young woman. It cameto light in terrace 2 in the southern part of thetrench.

shows an example of another sculpturalgroup of which numerous examples occur in theexcavation, this one from the southern excava-tion terraces. These are small heads which showsimple features with little modelling. Several ex-amples have turned up each season. They repre-sent images for the masses and probably wereplaced in shrines in a temple.Several depictions exist of interlace of a kind thatbrings to mind early medieval European art. Theinterlace motif depicted in derives fromthe northern excavation terraces. A decorativeelement used in Coptic and early medieval art onthe whole is interlace, which also has come tolight in several examples at af r. While Copticinfluence in OSA art might well be expected, it issurprisingly difficult to point out clear examplesand isolate them as being from this source.

Small FindsIn 2007, 41 metal finds came to light in the StoneBuilding, most of them small fragments to be re-used as raw material. The largest of these (lz07~446) is made of copper (cuprite) mantled lead(cerrusite), is some 15 cm long in plan is curvedand plano-convex in cross section. Its function isunknown. The variety of small finds increased in2008 as a result of digging in levels less disturbedthan those of previous seasons. Thus, glass frag-ments became more numerous. Arabian glass isstill a rarity. Most of the examples from theStone Building belong to small vessels ( )and beads. Rare are more complex kinds of glasssuch as millifiori.A silver coin came to light in the southern ter-races which has few close parallels ( ). Coin08~024av is a struck-over anima that is silverplated on a bronze core, possibly a drachma.The 18 mostly Sabaic inscriptions unearthed in2007 and the 19 more in the following season areunder study with Norbert Nebes. Two are writtenin Ge'ez.

MappingM. Barceló and his colleagues described the his-toric irrigation facilities around af r. His results

34

35

Fig. 27

Fig. 28

Fig. 29

Fig. 30

Fig. 31

help us to reconstruct the densely populatedlandscape there during imyarite times. Irriga-tion features have changed greatly over thecenturies since they originated, evidently in the

imyarite period. The two most important fea-tures are the irba/ irab and sedd/ asd d, es-sentially fields and dams. The fieldwork of theBarcelona team was brief, lasting only onemonth, and the report shows only the ancientirrigation facilities east – not west – of af r.Also, the mapping is selective, sketchy and dif-ficult to understand, even for one familiar withthe area. With few exceptions, what centuriesago were built as reservoirs have silted up andhave become fields. The largest (230 x 160 m,24200 m ) existing one known to me is the res-ervoir Ma il al- b n and the two dams backto back at its western end, Sedd al- b n (

). Such place-names are important since ma-ny have never been written before, and maycontain pre-Arabic names. The dam at the east-ern end of the reservoir bears this same name.The water is 2 m or deeper during the rainyseasons. This site was probably already very oldwhen mentioned by al-Hamd n in the 10thcentury CE, as one of the largest asd d in theYar m region. Another large example lies 800 mwest of af r village; the sedd al- aqaq (dialect:al- agog) measures 45 x 6 m, as compared withthe Sedd al- b n , which measures 50 x1.5 m, partial confirmation of Hamd n 's des-cription. Both are presumed to originate in the

imyarite period. But some of Hamd n 's infor-mation in his book, al-Ikl l, may refer to thoseduring the imyarite period, half of a millenni-um before. Originally, the area around af rhad numerous reservoirs and was greener thantoday.

arf As ad near the Village al-NizhahAt the beginning of this year's activity, Y sufAbdall h suggested paying a visit to an allegedimyarite temple locally known as ubb As ad

(more politely, arf As ad). The first expression

2

37

38

39

34

35

36

37

38

39

Freestone et al. 2005.Letter, Martin Huth, 24.04.2008.Barceló – Kirchner – Torró 2000.Barceló – Kirchner – Torró 2000, 31, 34–35.Barceló – Kirchner – Torró 2000, 35 citing al-Akwa' 1986, 188.Franke et al. in press.

Fig.32

16

Paul Yule

Fig. 23. Bust of a woman from context z500~041 (lz07~408).Fig. 24. Relief representation of a woman with elaborate

hairdo from context z500~037 (lz07~408).Fig. 25. Fragmentary sculpted head from debris layer z400~

078 (lz07~451).Fig. 26. High relief, snake wrapped constricting a column

(lz08~146.3).Fig. 27. High relief face (lz08~511).

17

af r, Capital of imyar

means the 'phallus of As ad', the second, the 'dig-ging of As ad'. The site lies some 20 km to thewest of Yar m, not far from the village of Iry n inthe Bani Muslim area ( ). We readilylocated the site, with the help of local villagers,although hardly few are aware of the name, evena short distance away. The name arf As ad refersfirst to a place which has been dug and secondlyto the great imyarite king Ab karib As ad. Theepithet As adi also means in Yemenite dialectthat something is really old or somehow special,such as an artefact or a nice amb yah.Posed alone in the beautiful mountainous land-scape, arf As ad is cut into a cliff. This site liessome 200 m north of the tarmac road, and is ac-cessible by means of steps recently cut into thecliff ( ). Inside the building, traces of carv-ing with a pick are visible in many places. Thisthree-chambered structure ( ) has a singleprimary entrance in room 2 which faces east.Chronologically primary and secondary pas-sages can be distinguished by means of their ge-ometric regularity and contrasting lack of such.A major feature of chamber 2 is that it is builton two levels. A window cut into room 1 showsthe same quality and style of workmanship asthe original cutting. The outside moulding a-round the primary entrance may be original.The lower parts of the walls and of a columnhave eroded away ( ). Immediatelybelow the column, a slight raising shows itsnow disintegrated base. The column literallyhangs from the ceiling, resembling an enor-mous phallus. The resemblance stops, however,with its cross-section, which is square. Thestructure has been used over time to housesheep and goats. Their urine chemically at-tacked the lower reaches of all the walls.The explanation of ubb/ arf As ad as a im-yarite temple is a popular belief which may goback to the alleged recent practice of womenembracing the 'phallus' in order to become fer-tile. This practice was described to us by noneother than 'Abdul Kar m al-Iry ni (previouspolitical advisor to the president of the Yemen),who was born and raised in the immediate vi-

40

40 In his lexicon of Yemenite place and tribal names, al-Maq af --

is reference and for his correcting of my Arabic translitera-tions into English.

vocalised the names al-Nuzha and Ban Mislim. I thank Walter W. Müller for th

Figs. 33 and 34

Fig. 35

Fig. 36

Fig. 36 and 37

28. Small head of which many occurred in the Stone Build-ing (lz08~050).

29. Interlace relief fragment (lz08~065.02).

18

Paul Yule

Fig. 30. Glass vessel fragments from the Stone Building.

10 cm5

4

3

2

1

Fig. 31. Partially cleaned silver and bronze coin (lz08~024).

cinity. The 'phallus' is the source for considerablejoking in the area. The question arises, whetheror not it is imyarite and what its original func-tion was. From the Islamic period such structuresare unknown to the author. The most likely ex-planation for arf As ad is as a tomb. Pre-Islamictombs rarely occur alone, unless they belongedto leaders. Still, arf As ad does not resembleother imyarite tombs in the area, heterogene-ous in plan. Naturally, a tomb would not requirewindows, which must be later additions.

ConclusionsThe size and position of room z507 and presumedflanking ones at the northern end of the StoneBuilding suggest the entire structure to have

been a temple, to judge from comparable struc-tures such as Bar n in M rib, which was con-ceived on a grander scale. If the Stone Buildingwere a palace, one would expect much largeruseable state rooms, as in the case of the palaceat abwa, which is comparable in plan withour Stone Building, but is twice as large. Smallcult rooms opposite the main entrance of thetemple are known at such OSA sites as the Bar -qi Nakra temple, 'Almaqah masagid, M rib,Bar n and Aw m. This may also be the casewith the Stone Building.The standing relief figure, z607, appears to be arare representation of an OSA king, to judgefrom the elaborate crown, staff and sword – in-dicators of rank. Naturally, deities also may bedepicted wearing a sword, but one would notexpect this for a priest. Other potential inter-pretations for the figure such as the literarytopos of a warrior-priest are impossible to sub-stantiate for the Ancient Near East, owing to alack of parallels. The figure can only be an offic-ial commission honouring the ruler of the dayand representing the best work possible in im-yarite Arabia.The dating evidence for the crowned figure issomewhat contradictory. Palaeographic, histor-ical and art historical arguments for the 4 andthe 5 centuries can be cited. The inscriptionshows that the individual depicted adhered tothe old religion, one may conjecture just beforethe new monotheistic religions – Judaism andChristianity – take hold in the upper classes.The figure (c. 370 400 CE) belongs to the lat-est datable remains in the Stone Building. Withthe conversion of the aristocracy to monothe-ism, still it must have taken several years forsuch religions to have forced all of the compet-ing traditional cults out of the capital, as wasthe case in Rome in 390.Representations of OSA mukarribs and kings arerare, but some figures without overtly royal at-

41

43

44

th

th

45

46

– c.

41

43

45

46

Breton 1998, 191 text fig.'Almaqah masagid: Schmidt 1997/98, 18–19 Abb. 14–16; M rib,Bar n: ibid. 20–25 Abb. 14–23; Bar qi Nakra : ibid. 26 Abb. 26;Aw m: ibid.

As observed by C. Robin.As does Baalshamin (1 ½ of the 1 century CE) in an image from Pal-

myra: Ghirshman 1962, 7 fig. 10. Another comparison from

: Vienna 1998, 286 Abb. 139, 383 Abb. 448, 384 Abb. 449, 386Abb. 456 & 457.

42

44 st st

32–33 Abb. 36–37.

NemrudDagh ( 67 fig. 80) shows Antiochos depicted with a sceptre andstanding beside Apollo-Mithra (69-34 BCE).

Yule 2007a, 95–97.Examples

ibid.

19

af r, Capital of imyar

tributes in fact may depict kings. One relief fig-ure is very similar in type and style with theroyal relief z607, except that it does not wear acrown ( ). The figural pose holding a staffin one hand and another object in the other is aborrowing from Greco-Roman iconographywhich continues in Late Antiquity, Byzantine andsubsequent Christian contexts. In 4 century CESouth Arabia, for some time kings were no longerconsidered to be deities. If so, why would a pro-fane figure be erected in a temple, constructedfor and used for sacred rights and ceremonies?Several models offer themselves, burial templesand coronation chapels, for example (supra, cf.depositio ad sanctos). In a 13 century Christiancontext, the famous profane 'Bamberger Rider',

th

th

Fig. 22

Fig. 32. Plan of the dams, Sedd al- a'b n , and reservoir, Ma il al- a'b n .

in high relief in the Bamberg Cathedral, comesto mind. Perhaps the Stone Building was a tem-ple which enjoyed royal patronage. Similarly,Solomon's First Temple or Herod's SecondTemple in Jerusalem come to mind. A king maywell aspire to heavenly identification or apoth-eosis, to enhance his authority or cater to hisvanity.For the latter part of the imyarite imperialperiod (270–525 CE) and the late/post period(525–632 CE) there is no internal chronology inthe visual arts – only a few chronological pointsof reference. In terms of the history of style, in4 century South Arabia, a beautiful body andhistorical events were no longer valued, similar

th

2742.202745.15

2749.41

2745.92

2747.44

2749.05

2754.32

2750.062753.21

2752.62

2748.01

2746.88

2750.96

2752.62

2752.05

2757.51

2757.35

2756.71

fieldroad, waywall, antique

wall, recentrock outcropping

0 200 m

N

Magil al-Sa bani

Sedd al- b n

20

Paul Yule

Fig. 33. arf As ad toward the west.Fig. 34. arf As ad toward the west, entrance.Fig. 35. Steps leading to arf As ad.Fig. 36. Interior view of room 1 toward the north-east.Fig. 37. Plan and cross-sections of arf As ad.

0 8m

D

rm 1

Garf As adnear al-Nizhah14°16’40.1”N; 44°15’16.2”E

rm 2

rm 3rm 1

py/jh/jo 28.03.2007

1.5m abovemain floor

D

CA B

A

C

B

rm 3

rm 2

rm 1

sectionsection

floor plan

1°

1° 2°

2°

1°

2°

21

af r, Capital of imyar

as in contemporary Rome. The individual char-acter which brought class and status to expres-sion in the art of the Roman Republic gave wayto implications of majesty for a society the soc-ial mobility in a rigid class structure. These ob-servations appear to hold for the Roman in-fluenced art of OSA.

Paul YuleInstitut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Vor-derasiatische Archäologie/Seminar für dieSprachen und Kulturen des Vorderen OrientsSchulgasse 2D-69117 Heidelbergpaul.yule@t-online.desubmitted 16.06.2008

47

48

Brilliant 1963, 163.Brilliant 1963, 163.

47

48

22

Paul Yule

BibliographySpecial abbreviation:

Vienna 1998W. Seipel (ed.), Jemen Kunst und Archäologieim Land der Königin von Saba . Ausstellungs-katalog Wien.

al-Akwa', M. 2004'Ab Mu ammad al- assan bin Ya'qub al-Ham-d n , al-Ikl l. vol. 8, an' .

Barceló, M. – Kirchner, H. – Torró, J. 2000Going around Z.af r (Yemen), the Ban Ru'aynField Survey: Hydraulic Archaeology andPeasant Work, Proc. Seminar for Arabian Stud-ies 30: 27–39.

Breton, J.-F. 1998Shabwa, Hauptstadt von Hadramawt, Vienna1998, 188–191.

Brilliant, R. 1963Gesture and Rank in Roman Art. Mem. Conn.Acad. Arts & Sciences vol 14.

Brown, P. 1985Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity. Berkeley.

Costa, P.M. 1973Antiquities from Z.afr (Yemen), Istituto Universi-tario Orientale di Napoli Annali 33, 185–206; 1976.36, 445–456.

Franke, K. – Rösch, M. – Ruppert, C. – Yule, P.2006

af r, Capital of imyar, Sixth Preliminary Report,February–March 2006, in: ZOrA.

Freestone, I.C. – Ambers, J.C. – as-Sayyani, M. –Simpson, St. J. 2005A Roman Mosaic Glass Bowl from the Wadi Durain Yemen, in: Journal of Glass Studies 47, 69-75.

Ghirshman, R. 1962Iran Parther und Sasaniden, Munich.

Janson, H.W. 1977History of Art, New York.

Kitchen, K. 2000Documentation for Ancient Arabia, pt. II, Biblio-graphical Catalogue of Texts.

Kitzinger, E. 1977Byzantine Art in the Making, London.

Müller, W.W. 2001af r. EI. vol. xi, fasc. 185–186, Leiden: 379–380.

L'Orange, H.-P. 1995Das römische Reich von Augustus bis zu Kon-stantin dem Großen. Stuttgart.

Pirenne, J. 1979Sud-Arabes à travers leur art, Dossiers de l'arch-éologie. Mars–avril, 33: 36 – 41.

Robin, C. 2006imyar juif et chretien (c. 380–560) Inventaire

et analyse des inscriptions locales les plus sig-nificatives pour les évolutions politiques et reli-gieuses. Prepublication text, privately distribut-ed.

von Saldern, A. 2004Antikes Glas. Handbuch der Archäologie. Munich.

Schmidt, J. 1997/98Tempel und Heiligtümer in Südarabien zu denmateriellen und formalen Strukturen der Sak-ralbaukunst, Nürnberger Blätter zur Archäol-ogie 14, 10–40.

Schmidt-Colinet, A. 2005Palmyra Kulturbegegnung im Grenzbereich,Mainz.

Sommer, M. 2003Hatra Geschichte und Kultur einer Karawanen-stadt im römisch-parthischen Mesopotamien,Mainz.

Stein, P. 2009The 'Himyaritic' Language in Pre-Islamic Yem-en. A Critical Re-evaluation, Arabia

Vogt, B. 1998Der Almaqah-Tempel von Bar n ('Arsh Bilqis),Vienna 1998, 219–222.

23

af r, Capital of imyar

Yule, P. 2007aHimyar–Die Spätantike im Jemen/Himyar LateAntique Yemen. Aichwald

2007b af r, Capital of imyar, Fifth PreliminaryReport, February–March 2005, Zeitschrift zur Ar-chäologie außereuropäischen Kulturen 2, 109–124.

Yule, P. – Franke, K. – Meyer, C. – Nebe, G. – Ro-bin, C. – Witzel, C. 2007 [2008]

af r, Capital of imyar, Ibb Province, YemenFirst Preliminary Report: 1998 and 2000, SecondPreliminary Report: 2002, Third Preliminary Re-port: 2003, Fourth Preliminary Report: 2004,ABADY 11, 479–547, pls. 1–47 + CD-ROM.

Yule, P. – Franke, K. – Kromer, B. in preparationRadiocarbon Studies: af r, Capital of imyar,Highland Yemen.

Yule, P. – Galor, K. in pressaf r, a Watershed of Late Pre-Islamic Near

Eastern Culture, Arabia.

24

Paul Yule