Aller au contenu | Aller au menu | Recherche

Résumé

Les portes de Zafâr l’himyarite
A propos des paysages urbains de l’époque himyarite, les sources écrites et archéologiques sont rares. La citation d’Abû Nasr al-Yahâri par al-Hamdânî au xe siècle concernant la configuration des portes de Zafâr a été discutée par des chercheurs comme Fares, al-Shamârî et Muhammad al-Akwa‘. Il existe de contradictions dans la transmission des noms dans les trois versions du manuscrit, du fait des divergences dans la ponctuation. En se basant sur des cartes à grande échelle et des prospections archéologiques à Zafâr, il est possible d’examiner à nouveau la question de savoir où se trouvaient les portes de la cité antique. Et bien qu’aujourd’hui, aucune de ces portes ne soit intacte, des restes des murs de fortification permettent de discerner leur emplacement originel. Le complexe de l’entrée principale  de la ville se trouve au sud et est restée en service, bien que sous une forme modifiée et réduite, jusqu’à récemment. Malgré certaines contraditions entre les indices textuels et archéologiques, ce rapprochement entre textes et archéologie pourrait conduire à de nouvelles questions et de nouvelles réponses.

Abstract

Regarding the appearance of Himyarite cityscapes, written and archaeological sources are rare. Hamdānī’s 10th century AD citation of Abû Na/sr regarding the appearance of /Zafār’s gates has been discussed by scholars, for example Fares, al-Shamârî and Mu/hammad al-Akwa‘. Some contradictions lie in the rendering of the names in the three Arabic manuscripts which contain the text, because the pointing is erratic. Based on new large-scale maps and archaeological investigation at /Zafār, it is possible to reopen the question of where the gates were positioned around the ancient city. Although today none of the city gates are intact, remains of the fortification walls shed some light on where these once stood. The main entry complex to the city lay to the south and remained in service, although in a very much changed and reduced form, until recently. Although these textual and archaeological evidence do not concur at all points, bringing them together may lead us to new questions and new answers.

Index

Keywords :
City, Gates, Hamdani, Himyar, Zafar

Plan

Texte intégral

Historiographically speaking, a main problem of Himyarite history and architectural history (110 BCE –570/630 CE) is that no descriptions of the appearance of centres has survived. The capital /Zafâr is such a case – with 110 hectares for the core area, one of the largest archaeological sites in Arabia. The few recorded building structures and finds from this rupestrian site require time, study and patience to place them in a larger historical context. It would be presumptuous to declare the known cultural remains there as wholly representative of specific definable time horizons, although in recent years the dramatically increase in excavated material gives a surer impression of its overall character. The lack of ancient written sources is partly attributable to preservation, but presumably also to the /Himyar's lack of interest in describing art and architecture, compared to contemporaries, the Greeks and Romans as well as others coming to mind, with their voluminous writings. To speculate about the relative amount of the Greco-Roman as opposed to Himyarite period descriptive literature in general, is to compare two unequal historic entities, conditioned in terms of time span and area. In any case, the former outclass the latter (OSA =Old South Arabian) in quantity and in the amount of information which illuminate ancient life and social thought. OSA texts which would correspond in detailed scope, length and intensity to the rich and nuanced descriptions and anecdotes of Pliny, Pausanius or Vitruvius are simply lacking. In terms of the social context of the buildings and patrons, terse OSA texts render little more than a mere shadow of the real architectural situation relative to contemporary Greco-Roman texts. Even OSA church records are largely silent regarding their own architecture, preferring to dwell on church history and hagiography (Cameron, 1982: 279). Although the Vita of Gregentius mentions the building of three churches in /Zafâr following the end of the war with Aksum, this source seems to be a later compilation (oral information, A. Berger, Munich).

‘The OSA renowned Ghumdân palace (‘Abdullâh, 1990, 103–125; Lewcock, 2005, 74–75) and the cathedral both in Sanaa are exceptions, the former being known exclusively from diverse, imaginative Arabic sources, for example al-Hamdânî (Müller, 1986 : 141–143). The latter is mainly known from a few OSA epigraphic texts (Ir 11, Ir 18, CIH 429, Ja 577) and  from early medieval Arabic descriptions. Owing to the sketchy content of Himyarite sources, in terms of architectural history, the main task of the archaeologist amounts to little more than to venture guesses on the size and date of a given monument, or turn to buildings of earlier or later periods as points of comparison regarding the possible appearance. Recent research again raises the question of the development of the ancient city. Did it grow in size and elaboration up to the late period (c. 523–570/630 CE) or, following the Aksumite conquest, did the victors simply occupy what was erected in the centuries before ?

Image1Agrandir

1. Map of places cited (Tactical Pilotage Chart, sheet K-6A, edition 3-GSGS).

The work of a research team based at Heidelberg University illuminates /Zafâr's history and more particularly its architectural history. Inscriptions of the 3rd–4th centuries recount the refurbishing of the city defences, and mention « bastions and the city wall, which on the entry to the city /Zafâr were located… /Zafâr with the recovery of houses which…and the wbt and the gate and the city trench, and the bastions of the entry of the city /Zafâr… » (Excerpted from zm2263+zm2262+zm2264, Sima 2002). The urban area measures some 1200 x 800 m, the inner third of which lies inside the inner city wall. Magnetometer investigations of the remains of the southern gate area show images of building structures, but these are difficult to interpret (Yule, in press 2).

Regarding the topography of /Zafâr, one notes first its high altitude, rising to more than 2800 m above the surrounding valleys and plains. Except for trails, this centre is largely blocked off from all directions by mountains except to the agriculturally rich al-/Haql plain a few kilometres to the west (Fig. 1). In place of a dirt road used in antiquity, today, a fine tarmac road, which the Spanish government financed in 2002, links /Zafâr to the towns al-Ribâ/t and Kitâb in that plain. Paradoxically, /Zafâr does not lie along the assumed antique north-south trade routes which lie further east on the zone between desert and highlands.

Other texts give further information about the fate of the city. In 523 Yûsuf ’As’ar Yathar reports burning the church and killing the Abyssinians in /Zafâr, but clearly does not mention destroying the city (Ry 507/4, Ry 508/3, Ja 1028/3). Since in Ry 507 he explicitly discusses the destruction of other fortifications aside from the ones in /Zafâr, one can assume that the latter he left intact. A main question remains whether the Aksumite king, Abraha, chooses to move the capital as a result of the stamping out of Sumûyafa‘ Ashwa‘'s revolt in 535, as a result of the insurrection of 547, or as a general reorientation in the 560s. A possible later destruction of the capital makes more sense than one assumed prior to this during the Aksumite-Himyarite war, after which, the traditional capital is at least partly still in use. In any case, in the 560s Sanaa undisputedly superseded /Zafâr as the capital.

Image2Agrandir

2. /Zafâr in the surrounding landscape (N. Carstensen 2005).

Subsequently, in light of 1500 years of war, weathering and finally stone robbing, the preservation of the once proud gates of /Zafâr, not surprisingly, is hardly worth mention. Until recently there was no archaeological evidence for building activity in the late period (523–630 CE), the emphasis period of a research project currently being carried out by the Heidelberg team. Despite /Himyar's great size, military power and economic influence, after losing the war in 525 to Aksum and an insurrection in the 6th century against those rulers, its power is definitely spent and in 630 officially succumbs to a new power - Islam.

Al-Hamdânî's 10th century brief description in 'al-Iklîl', is one of the few to discuss /Zafâr's cityscape: « Zafar lies on the top of a mountain in the north of Qitâb, close to the city of the Sukhtiyîn which is Mankath. According to Abû Na/sr al-Yahârî (same source), /Zafâr had nine gates: as listed, the Walâ’ (a place known as « friendship »), Aslâf, Kharaqah, the Manah (navel), the Hadwân, the Khubân, the /Hawrâh, the /Sayd also called Sumârah, and the /Haql gate. It is said that the waters of /Haql are drawn from a distant place. » (Faris, 1938, 22–23). Even if N.A. Faris did not recognize them in the 1930s, at a time when few maps and no gazetteers of place names for the Yemen were yet available for study, today these place-names are well-known in the area surrounding /Zafâr. Contradictions in the correct rendering of the names lies in that in the three Arabic manuscripts which contain the text, the pointing is erratic. It has been long suspected that the gates of /Zafâr face toward other outlying places, but an update on this matter seems appropriate in light of new information. Mu/hammad al-Akwa‘'s edition of 'al-Iklîl' (2004) proposes some names for the gates and their name-sakes.

Historic-geographical notes on the names of the gates

a. Walâ’: First of the gates of /Zafâr which Abu Na/sr al-Yahârî mentions, is probably the main gate. For the position of this gate there is no external corresponding place-name. The term means perhaps the « first gate ».

b. al-’Aslâf (Salâf): In the direction of Iryân (14°16'N; 44°12'E) lies a place called Najd al-’Aslâf (14°18'N; 44°17'E).

10 c. Kharaqah, mentioned with other areas near Ibb. In the census of Yemen cf. al-Yesah. Akwa‘ reads this name as « Kharafah » (Akwa‘, 2004: 53). However he village al-Khalaqah lies nearby (14°25'N; 44°28'E). The liquid r could conceivably be replaced by the liquid l.

11 d. Man’ah: al-Akwa‘ reads this name Mâbah (14°17'N; 44°16'E), a village on a mountain in al-/Hârith in the direction of Ba‘dân district (sic). Another possibility is the town of Mâwah (14°14'N; 44°20'E), 2 km north-west of /Zafâr.

12 e. Hadwân: al-Akwa‘: town in the mountains of Iryâb (14°09'N; 44°19'E).

13 f. Khubân area lie between the al-Ra/zmah landscape (centre: 14°12’N; 44°27'E) and al-Saddah (14°07’N; 44°25'E). It is one of the easiest names to localise. Khubân occurs in Sabaic texts (Robin/Brunner 1997).

14 g. /Hawrâh means the « settlement », and lies south-west from /Zafâr. Not unexpectedly, a number of settlements in the Yemen bear this name.

15 h. /Sayd (14°11'N; 44°16'E) pass (old name: Sumârah pass), toward Ibb (14°12’N; 44°16’E). /Sa’idam occurs in Sabaic sources (Robin/Brunner, 1997). A Turkish fort is preserved nearby.

16 i. Qa‘a al-/Haql (‘the plain of al-/Haql’). Today a major agricultural area centring on Kitâb and al-Rubâ/t (60 000 tons of agricultural produce per year). It does not simply mean 'field' in Arabic, but from other sources it is known to refer to a particular area.

17 Turning closer to the gate-names, Table 1 localises some of them on the basis of nearby present-day places (cf. also Fig. 2 and 3).

gate name after Faris

gate name after al-Akwa‘

description of place

direction of place

km from /Zafâr

coordinates, centre

other sources

a. Walâ’

Wilâ

no similar place-name

-

-

-

-

b. Aslâf

al-’Aslâf

near Yarîm

NW

14

14°18'N; 44°17'E

-

c. Kharaqah

Kharafah

near Ibb

SSW

15

Khalaqah: 14°25'N; 44°28'E

K, M, B2 /Sifah p. 68 line 4

d. Man’ah

Mâbah

Mâbah?

WNW

8

14°17'N; 44°16'E

K, M, B

e. Hadwân

Hadwân

in mountains of Iryâb

SW

11

-

K, B

f. Khubân

Khubân

Area

ENE

9

c 14°15’N; 44°30’E

K & M, Buldân ii, p. 397, 373/4, al-Shamāri 2004

g. /Hawrâh

/Hawrah

Place

SSW

6

14°09’N; 44°21'E

cf. Buldân ii, p. 359

h. /Sayd = Sumârah

/Sayyid (/Sa‘ad) = Sumârah

Area

WSW

13

14°11’N; 44°16'E

/Sayd: K & B, see Buldân ii, p. 441; /Sifah, p. 125; Sumârah: see Buldân iii, p. 441;

i. /Haql

al-/Haql

Area

W

5-10

14°12'N; 44°20'E

see Buldân ii, p. 299, line 11

Table 1. Summary of the names of the gates of /Zafâr (14°12'N; 44°24'E) listed in al-Iklîl giving the name of orientation for the gates.

Archaeological evidence for gates at /Zafâr

South

18 Although none of the city gates are intact, remains of the fortification walls shed some light on where these once lay. The main entry complex to the city lay to the south and remained in service, although in a very much changed and reduced form, until recently. In /Zafâr South on the slopes known as al-/Hayfah and al-‘Uwâr, present-day roads communicate with the west, the north-east and south-east (Fig. 5). Other potential access points for the main gate make less sense in terms of the rough topography. Roads follow topographically defined ways to communicate with the outlying settlements. In /Zafâr South, a stone-paved sloping corridor (Fig. 3) which leads to the present-day village was widened in February 2004 and in February 2006 and its archaeological vestiges thereby denatured. Its pavement stones seem to have been antique (Fig.6). Other road widening activities in 2000 and 2005 here took place where the main entrance complex is expected. Although no gates as such exist anymore, ancient walls and inscriptions still do, partly not yet excavated. In the ‘200 m distance from the slope from al-/Hayfah into the valley of al-‘Uwâr, where the roads to the north, east and south come together, is the most likely place for the main gate complex.

Image3Agrandir

3. Quickbird satellite image 01.01.2004 of /Zafâr showing the suspected positions of the city gates. The four names in the lower left (Hadwân, /Hawrah, Kharafah and Mâbah) are not precisely assignable to the gates.

19 Building inscriptions came to light here (ZM 2263+2262+2264, Sima, 2002; Sima, in press), which describe the reinvesting of the city defences (see above), « …in the year 347 of the era of Mab/hash, of the son of ‘Ab/hûsh (=232 CE)... (in) the two months dhMdh’n ». This text came to light in al-‘Uwâr, 200 m south of Qarîyat /Zafâr around 1980 (personal. communication C. Robin). What archaeologists dub « /Zafâr South », contains the main entry complex described in the inscriptions. Enormous stones in the southern slope of al- /Hayfah bear witness to the once-great casemate walls. Underneath one of these, wall z189 (Fig. 5), a 14C determination (1596+37 BP) of cal 392–550 CE at 95.3% probability (lab. no.: Hd-25322) suggests major expansion of the southern city defences toward the end of the empire period (270–523 CE).

Image4Agrandir

4. Geomagnetic prospection at /Zafâr.

20 In 2004 geomagnetic survey (Fig. 4) was conducted in al-‘Uwâr in the hope of elucidating the position of the city defenses (Yule, in press 2). Unfortunately, these yielded no concrete data to corroborate the visible negative patterns of growth of the vegetation here. Gates probably pierced the heavy walls which flank both sides of the E–W road in al-/Hayfah. Fig. 5 shows the situation as mapped in 2002, since then the entrance to the village and the downward slope toward the east was widened in 2003 and 2006. Recognisable are three ruined fortifications, two above in al-/Hayfah (context z184 and z185) and one below in al-‘Uwâr (z179). ENE-oriented walls connected these tower-like structures, which were still barely visible in 2002 before the first bulldozing took place. In 2006 the road was paved, the ruins covered and destroyed. In the valley, the ENE–WSW walls have been considered a dam, which they seem to have become once their original function was lost. This fortification / dam is the only part of /Zafâr which seems plausibly immediately post-Himyarite, to judge from the interpretation of the architecture (Yule, in press 1). Three of the gates must have been located here in order to communicate with the nearest settlements (gate nos. 1-3).

Image5Agrandir

5. Plan of /Zafâr South, state: 2000 (M. Schupp & K. Thiele).

East

21 /Zafâr South includes the anciently fortified Jabûbat al-Lagîyah slope (Fig. 3), which would not require a major gate of its own. In the saddle between /Zafâr South and the /Hu/sn Raydân would be a logical place for a gate which leads to the east (gate no. 4). At mid length of the north-south oriented settlement a way is visible here which may correspond with a Himyarite one. Glaser noted this « chaussée » in the late 19th century. Just below the eastern slope, fields have been built. But the road proceeds east directly to the neighbouring al-‘Arâfah. Just where the gate lay is debatable. But a well cut from the living rock just at this place where it is expected is probably Himyarite work (Fig. 7). Wells are a common feature beside roads and gates near cities.

22 Further north, between the /Hu/sn Raydân and Raydân North (al-Gusr) lies another saddle which appears to contain the remains of a large gate structure (Fig. 3). While the western access appears to lead to roadways, in the other direction no trace of such can be found. If a gate existed here, then it was a small one (gate no. 5).

Image6Agrandir

6. Entrance to Qarîyat /Zafâr (context z190) to the north-west before its destruction as a result of road-widening in February 2004.

North

23 At the north-eastern end of the al-Gusr defences two stone abutments have been fashioned into a gate post some 4 m in width (Fig. 3). Again here, unfortunately there are no obvious traces of a large road either to the settlements to the north and north-west, nor to those to the north-east (gate no. 6).

West

24 Gate no. 7 (Fig. 3) is not excavated but appears on the surface to be a gate. It faces to the west and leads to a way which zig-zagged down the hill. Traces of this are visible, mostly stone debris (Yule et al. in press 3).

25 Opposite the proposed gate on /Zafâr eastern flank lies an area with the name Bâb Sûq al-Layl (gate no. 8, Fig.9) which means the gate of the night market. Today a stairs winds up the slope into what is taken to be the main part of the ancient city, al-Jâ/h, a common place-name in the Yemen. Given the long distance between the gates which more clearly existed (especially gates 1–3, 6 and 7), this seems a likely place for a gate. Extensive cultivation has removed all traces of an east–west access until about 500 m to the west in al-Danân. Here scraps of a paving associated with water troughs and graves suggest traces an access point.

Image7Agrandir

7. Well z057, on the eastern part of Zafâr.

26 There are no other obvious sites at /Zafâr where one might expect a gate. Over long distances the walls are steep and unsuited for an entrance. A small entrance (z015) is preserved on the eastern flank of the /Hu/sn Raydân, but it is hardly a major entrance (Yule in press 1) mentioned in the description.

Synthesis

27 To reconstruct the positions of /Zafâr's city gates, one must reconcile textual and archaeological evidence which do not concur at all points. A first difficulty is that nine city gates named in the text but only seven or eight are archaeologically manifest at the present stage of research. While none of these are excavated, those especially in the south are partly visible on the surface. The clearest, least difficult gate name equates with the al-/Haql plain, which lies a few kilometre directly to the west. It might correspond to the gates 1, 7 or 8, but for one consideration: Since the Walâ’ gate is mentioned first, this is probably the most important one. It probably lies in a part of site today known as al-/Hayfah, which itself is a well-known place-name in the Yemen, for example the present-day seat of the district of Ar/hab to the north of Sanaa. The Sabaic place-name /HYFN (al-Sheiba, 1987, 26) shows the root. Also today, /Hayfân is a village name in Taez governorate. Thus, this is a potentially early name for the area in which the main gate complex is located. Partial confirmation of the position of the ancient main gate complex comes from the position of the main road and main access to present-day /Zafâr which proceeds from the south gate toward the west, to judge from the preserved road remains. The other directions of the southern gate complex lead to lesser settlements and correspondingly are less suited for this gate attribution.

Image8Agrandir

8. Zafâr/al-Sha‘ûb on the left and Bâb Sûq al-Layl on the right, view to the NE.

28 The Khubân area lies to the east of /Zafâr and could correspond with the gates 2–6 on this side of the settlement. Since the appearance of the inconspicuous and unexcavated 'gate' 5 is essentially unknown, this structure is questionable, and we can discount it as a possibility. Gates 3 and 4 also face in this general direction are more likely candidates for the Khubân gate.

Gate 7 faces al-’Aslâf, which lies to the NW.

29 The gate names Mâbah, Hadwân, Hawrah and Kharafah are names which can be found in the vicinity, but which do not correspond with the positions of the city gates. The reasons for the contradictions are unknown. It is clear from different contexts that place-names and different language fossils are uniquely conservative in the Yemen. At least several of the gate names can be clearly identified.

Bibliographie

Abdullah, Yûsuf

1990 : Awraq fi târikh al-yaman wa ’athârih. Dâr al-fikr al-mu‘â/sir, Beyrût.

al-Akwa‘, Mu/hammad

2004 : « Abî Mu/hammad al-/Hasan bin A/hmad bin Ya‘qûb al-Hamdânî », al-Iklîl. vol. 8, /San‛â’.

Cameron, A.

1982 : « Wandering Poets. The Empress and the Poet », Yale Classical Studies 27, 217–289.

Faris, Nabil A.

1938 : The Antiquities of South Arabia being a Translation... of the Eighth Book of al-Hamdani's al-Iklil, Princeton.

Lewcock, Ronald

2005 : « Early and Medieval Sana'a–The Evidence on the Ground », /Sanaa al-/ha/dârat wa- al-târikh. vol. 2, /San‛â’, 71–85.

Robin, Christian and Brunner, Uli

1997 : Map of Ancient Yemen, Munich.

Müller, Walter

1986 : « Ancient Castles mentioned in the Eighth Volume of al-Hamdanis Iklīl and Evidence of them in pre-Islamic Inscription », in: Y. Abdullah (ed.), Al-Hamdânî a Great Yemeni Scholar, /San‛â’, 139–157.

1991: « Himyar”, in: Reallexikon Christliches Altertum vol. 15, Stuttgart; 303–331.

Sima, Alexander

2002 (29.06) : « Die Geschichte der Stadt Zafâr », lecture held in Bamberg.

Katalog der Inschriften aus dem Museum Z.afâr, in press (ed. N. Nebes).

al-Shamâri, Mu/hammad /Dayfallah

2004 : Lahjat Khubân, /San‛â’.

al-Sheiba; Abdallah

1987: « Die Ortsnamen in den altsüdarabischen Inschriften », ABADY 4, 1987, 1–62.

Yule, Paul

2007 : « /Zafâr, Capital of /Himyar, First Preliminary Report: 1998 and 2000 », in press, in: ABADY 11, 479–505.

2007 : « Fourth Preliminary Report: 2004 », in press, in: ABADY 11, 530–547.

2006 : « Sixth Preliminary Report, February–March 2006 », in press, Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 1.

Notes

1 The author thanks Yûsuf ‘Abdullâh (DFG Mercator Professor at the University of Heidelberg), who during the course of several discussions, illuminated the Arabic part of what follows. The author is responsible for the interpretations given below. He also thanks the DFG for their support of our project and the referees of the Chroniques Yéménites for numerous corrections and suggestions. Where not otherwise cited, the writer furnished the figures. Finally, Albrecht Berger (Munich University) generously shared his research on the Vita of Grigentius. I thank Cornelia Ruppert for providing information with regard to the present-day topography of the area. Basic introduction to /Zafâr: Müller, 1991.
2 K, M, and B refer to the three manuscripts which N.A. Faris consulted for his study of 'al-Iklñl'.

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Paul Yule, « The Gates of Himyarite /Zafâr  », Chroniques yéménites, 14, Numéro 14, 2007, [En ligne], mis en ligne le 18 mars 2009. URL : http://cy.revues.org/document1446.html. Consulté le 07 novembre 2009.

Auteur

Paul Yule

Université de Heidelberg