Zafar, WatershedofLatePre-IslamicCulture Introduction,StateoftheResearch Newresearchandthedisseminationofthisinformationtoascholarlyaswellasabroader publicarerevolutionisingourunderstandingofthenatureoflatepre-Islamic Arabiansocie- ty.IntheintroductiontoourconferenceinFebruary2006,andinseveralnewpublications, ChristianRobinhasarticulatedthatuntilrecentlytheHimyarite Agehasbeenlittleunder- stood;itslatepre-Islamicinhabitantsbeingpurportedlypoor,isolated,illiterate,lackinga stablepoliticalsystem,andlivingasnomadsinthedesert.Recentresearch,however,con- tradictsthisimage.Sincethe1970s,thetempoofresearchhasacceleratedand,withnew textualandinterpretationalstudies,onecanspeakofageneralreinterpretation,especially regardingHimyar.Isonetoexplainthedramaticandfar-reachingpost-Himyaritereligious, cultural,andeconomicdevelopmentsoflate6th early7 th century Arabiaasissuingfull-grown fromahistoricalvacuum?Dodecisiveculturalinfluencesin Arabiaatthistime,then,derive fromabroad,Himyar,andotherindigenousformativebodiesthatplayednorealroleorjust anegativeone? Today,noscholarwouldseriouslyconsiderIslamtohavegainedwidespread acceptancesolelywiththediplomaticandmilitaryeffortsoftheprophetMuhammedinhis generation.Otherfactorsplayedarole,butwhich?1 Followingcommentsonthestateofresearchoflatepre-Islamic Yemen,thereaderwillfind abriefcharacterisationofhighlightsofarchaeologicalfieldworksince1998inZafar,capital ofancientHimyar. A shortoverviewoftheresearchonthislateOldSouth Arabian(OSA) centrecorrespondswiththegoalsofourconference.SincetheexcavationreportsonZafar arestillinpress(Yuleinpress),newexcavationresultsfromthesitearenotcommonly known. Themaintopicsofthepaperincludethenatureofthedefences,theappearanceof Zafar'scityscape,anditspost-Himyaritehistory. Thefinalsectiondiscussesbrieflyand fromanarchaeologicalpointofviewselectaspectsoflatepre-IslamicJudaisminthehigh- lands. FewsitesyieldremainsoftheHimyariteperiod,andevenfeweroftheselieintheHimyar- iteheartland.Qaryatal-FawoftheKinda(al-Ansary1981)andNagran(Zarinsetal. 1983), keysitesthat haveyieldedsignificantrelevantcontextsandfinds,lietothenorthandout- sideoftheHimyaritehomelandperse .Ontheotherhand,ZafarandQanilieinsidethe generallimitsofthekingdom,thelatteraspoilthatfelltoHimyarafteritsconquestofthe kingdomofHadramawt. ThesettlementofthelowertownofQaniencompassesanareaof 100x250m.Inaddition,poisedonanextinctvolcano,the“fortofthecrow”measures some150x150m(allinall5ha).Inthe1st centuryCEQaniwasausefulprovisionssta-, tionbeforecontinuingtosailtotheeastorwest. Theexcavator, A.Sedov,describesthe presenceofalighthouse,storehouses,a“customshouse”aswellasasynagogueandatem- plededicatedtoalocaldeity(1998:276).Fromthe2to5nd th centuriesQani'stradeblos-, somed,judgingbyitsimportsfromNorth Africa.Inthe6th and7 th centuriesonlythenorth-, westernpartofthetownwasinhabited(1998:278). Thefindingof80%ofamphorasherds, whichwerethebest-knownimportsdiscoveredintheexcavationsat Ayla/Aqaba(southern 1TheresearchbelowwasconductedmainlyduringaperiodofmunificentgrantsfromtheFritz ThyssenStif- tung(20042005)andtheDFG(2006). TheGeneralOrganisationfor AntiquitiesandMuseums(GOAM)gen- erouslysupportedourannualcampaignsinthe Yemen. Thepresentpaperisanabbreviatedversionoftheoral presentation.K.GalorcontributedtothesectionontheJewishpresenceinZafar. Wearesubmittingthispaper priortoreceivingtheresultsofseveralradiocarbonsamplesthatmayalterthechronologyinZafar. Weare gratefultoChristianRobinfortheinvitationtodeliverthepaperandfortheopportunitytodiscussseveralof thepointsraisedtherein.Papersoftheconference, Vieillesthèsesetnouveauxdocumentslejudaïsmeen Arabie,desoriginesàl'aubedel'Islam,inprintin Arabiarevuedesabéologie. Diacriticsnotpossible. 1 Jordan),informusthattradestillflourishedatthistime.Inthe7th century,Qanihadlostits importanceanddisappearedfromhistoricalview. Atthesametime,Zafar,withitssubstantialruinswhichareattributablemostlytotheem- pire(c .270-523)andlate/postperiod(523-c .560/570),fillinthishistoricalpicture.Excav- ation,find-recordingandmappingatZafarsince1998haveshedconsiderablelightonthe natureofthecapitalandmaterialcultureoftheHimyar.Itisparadoxicalthatthecapitalof akingdom,whichdominateddirectlyandindirectlyanenormousareaencompassingmost ofpre-Islamic Arabiaforsome250years,untilrecentlyhasremainedamarginaltopicin Arabianstudies. Thisisallthemoresosinceearly Arabhistoriansandotherearlymedieval sourcesknewtheHimyarbetterthanthelong-vanishedkingdomsthatprecededthem.Most historianshaveshort-circuiteddirectlythisconnectionof Arabianhistory,preferringtohark backtotheageofthebiblicalandkoranicQueenofShebaandcircumventthe“decadent” Himyar. Excellentsyntheticarchaeologicalandhistoricalstudies(e.g. Vienna1998)haverevitalised theHimyarites.Forthoseofuswithoutextensivelibraryresources,C.Robin'sassembled relevantOSA textsinthepresentpublication(2006)arehelpful.Priortothis,numerous scatteredpublicationsdiscouragedallbutthemostdeterminedtowork,exceptsuperficially, inafewselectlibrariesonthe“lateperiod.” Asidefromtextualstudiesontheearlyhigh- lands,twosurveystookplace-onebroadlybasedinthearea(Wilkinsonetal. 1997)anda secondcentringontheagriculturalhistoryinandaroundZafar(Barcelóetal. 2000;2003). ThefirstcoversfromearliesttoHimyaritetimesandthesecondcoversessentiallythelatter periodtothepresentday. Whatiswrongwiththeusualcharacterisationoflatepre-Islamic Yemen?Certainconserva- tivecolleaguesdenigratethisperiodatsomelength,contrasting,forexample,the“good,” linear,earlyartwiththe“bad,”organic,laterart.J.Schmidtreferstothe“sinnentleerte Bastelei”(1997:34-37)andS. Antoninitothe“late”or“decadent1st -4 th century”(herquota- tionmarks;2001:23). Atfirstglance,thishistoricalinterpretationisappealinginlightof thebiologicalorDarwinianmodelofthebud,flower,andwithering.Butnewfindscontra- dictthisconservative,ifnotold-fashioned,schematicmethod,whichinrealityfunctions predictablyinfewcategoriesofancientartandresultsinaself-fulfillingprophecy. There- by,artefactsofmediocrequalitycanbeassignedtothelateperiodignoringotherdatingat- tributes. WehaveherethepleasantopportunitytorehabilitatetheHimyarandtheirculture. ThedenigrationofHimyariteartresemblesoutofhandanalogouslythecastigationofLate Antiqueartasdecadent,discordantwithitsmodernperception. AttheheartofmatterliesthesiteofZafar(14°13'N;44°24'E,125kmSSEofSan'aand 230kmNNW of Aden),wherecreativeculturalimpulsesaretobeexpectedowingtoitsas- sociationwiththeroyalhouse,itspatronageandasurplusofwealth.Zafarisnestledinthe chainofflattishcratersformedbyatleastfourirregularlyshapedextinctvolcanos. These riseabovethesurroundingrockylandscapetoanaltitudeofsome2800m. Thethreemain findareasoftheancientcityincludeZafarSouth(thepresent-dayvillage),theHusnRay- dan,andRaydanNorth(al-Gusrinthelocaldialect).Himyariteruinsareconcentratedmost heavilyonthesouthernandwesternslopesoftheHusnRaydan(Figs.1-3),particularly onabroadslopeknownasal-Jahw. 2 PrimaFacie AppearanceofHimyariteZafar Mappingoperationsilluminatethesize,shape,andlayofZafar. Themainruinsformaclus- terirregularinforminsidearectanglemeasuringsome800x1000m(E-W byN-S).One wouldexpectthemainpalacetostandatoptheHusnRaydan,themainlocalpromontory. In1998,afirsttesttrenchinsidea12x12mstructure(buildingz028)showedthatfurther workinthisprofoundlydisturbedareapresentedadubiousexcavationopportunityforthe investmentofprecious,limitedresourcesoftimeandmoney.Someyearslater, Abdullah Salihal-AnnabifromZafarinformedusthatthiswasthesiteofasub-recentsettlementthat wasallegedlylevelledbythe“imam”manyyears,evencenturies,agobecausethevillagers failedtopaytheirtaxes.Giventhevaguenessofthisstory,the“imam”easilycouldhave beenalocalgovernorofthefirst Turkishoccupation(945-1045/1538-1636),whowas knownforhisgreedandharshmethods(Smith2002:273b).Conditionsinthe Yemenand elsewheredeclinedgenerally,includingthepopulationdensity.Poorsitepreservationon theHusnRaydanprobablyresultfromtheaforementionedincidentinadditiontoextensive subsequentstonerobbing. Fig.1MainruinareasofZafar. 3 Fig.2 Overviewofthelateantiqueperioddefencesandroads/waysatZafar. Fig.3PlanofZafar/al-Jahwonthesouth-westernflankoftheHusnRaydan,condition:March2006. 4 BuildingruinsoftwokindsoccuratZafar:thoseobviouslyHimyarite,andrecent(<70 yearsold)stonehousesandtheirruins,thatarebuiltfromHimyaritespolia.Himyarite masonryoftheempireandlateperiodsischaracteristicallymadeofstone;itstimber-frame, wattle,anddaubconstructionhavenotsurvivedinZafar. Thismannerofbuildingisbest knownfromother,slightlyearliersites,particularlyShabwa(cf.Breton1991:217fig.5). Accordingtothesizeandpurposeofthebuilding,Himyaritebuildingstonemayvaryin sizeandshape,butareregularlymasoned. Withinagivenbuildingstructuretheyarerela- tivelyregularinsizeandoverallappearance(Fig.6 ). Terracewallsbuiltinthistechnique belongtostructurescomparabletointegralpartsofthemainHimyariteperiodfortifica- tions.Clusteredonthesouth-westernedgeofZafar,afewfoundationruinsformoneofthe fewexceptions:Relativelyisolatedandirregularhouseplansshowlarger,somewhatcoar- serstonesthanthetypicalHimyaritehouses. InZafarvillagethepopulationbegantoregeneratearound1950andhardlyabuildingthere predatesthis(Fig.4 ).Reportedlysome300yearsagowhateverinhabitantshadsurvived builtasmall(interiorsize3.7x3.4m)cubemosque(featureno.z070)ontopofwhatthe localpopulationconsideredtohavebeenanancientchurch(Fig.5 ,seebelow).Unfortun- ately,however,wehavelittlemeanstocorroboratethisdating. A phototakenofal-Jahwin 1970(Müller1979:cover)showsonlythecubemosque,z070,andasimplestoneshedover thelargeHimyaritetomb,z066.Inpastdecades,inhabitantsreturnedtoZafarfromtheout- lyingvillagestheyhadmovedtowhensubsistenceinZafarhadbecomeuntenable.