Hajar Kuḥlān [ancient Tamnaʿ]

City of ancient Yemen known in classical sources as a major caravan hub and the capital of the kingdom of Qatabān since the end of the 8th century BCE. Located at the northern edge of the Wādī Bayḥān, it was discovered in 1900 by George W. Bury, subsequently excavated by the American Foundation for the Study of the Man (1950-52), and by a joint Italian-French Archaeological Mission in the Republic of Yemen.

Location

Ancient Tamnaʿ is located along the lower course of the Wādī Bayḥān (Fig. 1), to the north, close to its alluvial fan flowing to the Ramlat a-Sabʿatayn, the core of the kingdom of Qatabān. In this piedmont area, a water catchment basin guaranteed relatively abundant water for intensive agricultural exploitation.

History of research

For almost two millennia, Tamnaʿ and Qatabān were forgotten names. Eratosthenes (d. 194 BCE) mentions that ‘Τάμνα’ was the capital of the Kattabaneis (Strabo, Geog. 16.4.2) and, later on, Pliny the Elder (d. 79 CE) did not add much information but stated that ‘Thomna’ was the capital of the Gebbanitae (HN 6.153, 12.63-64). Finally, Claudius Ptolemy (d. 170 CE) once again referred to Θούμνα (Geog. 6.7.31, 37). One last reference by the tenth-century Yemeni encyclopaedist al-Hamdānī quotes Qitbān or Qutbān among his Arab genealogies, a name that recall the Kattabaneis of Pliny (de Maigret & Robin 2006: 7). The name Tamnaʿ (and Qatabān) appears once again at the end of the 19th century thanks to the collection of hundreds of inscriptions by Eduard Glaser, who had correctly identified the name Tmnʿ with the recurring toponym of the classical sources (although he does not identify the location of the city), and after the 1909 publication of a first note on the kingdom of Qatabān by Martin Hartmann (Robin 2016: 21–22).

The ancient city was discovered on February the 6th, 1900, when the British explorer George Wyman Bury, member of the Südarabische Expedition of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, reached Hajar Kuḥlān, where he had made copies of the inscriptions from the ‘south gate’ of the ancient city. His report and documentation, sent to the Academy, were read by Nikolaus Rhodokanakis and published in his Die Inschriften an der Mauer von Kohlān-Timnaʿ (Rhodokanakis 1924). In 1936, another British national, Stewart Henry Perowne, a diplomat this time, went to Hajar Kuhlān (Robin 2016: 22).

The very first archaeological expedition to Tmnʿ was conducted by Wendell Phillips, promoter and director of the American Foundation for the Study of Man (AFSM). Between 1950 and 1952, the expedition extensively investigated both the urban area and its necropolis, Ḥayd bin ʿAqīl, as well as Hajar ibn Ḥumayd, the ancient dhū-Ghayl (Phillips 1955; Bowen & Albright 1958).

Before the beginning of ten years of archaeological activities by the joint Italian-French project at Tamnaʿ (1999-2008), more visits to the site took place, particularly to the ‘Grand Bâtiment’ or ‘Timna Temple 1’ and other architectonical remains. The 1967 visits by Brian Doe are particularly significant, and led to the unpublished excavation of two private houses (Doe 1971, 1983), as are the 1981 explorations (followed by other visits also focusing on the extra moenia dam), by a French team led by Jean-François Breton (Darles 2016: 99).

Place name

The Ancient South Arabian place name Tmnʿ was variously vocalised by scholars. Rhodokanakis, after comparisons with the biblical occurrences of the name Timnaʿ, as well as the homonymous site in the Negev, suggested a vocalisation subsequently largely adopted by the AFSM. From another point of view, in the same publication, H. von Wissmann also adopted the vocalisation of Tumnaʿ or Timnaʿ, in light of the toponym quoted in the classical sources. Nonetheless, the very first scholar involved in this matter, Glaser, had already adopted the vocalisation of Tamnaʿ, nowadays shared by Ch. J. Robin (de Maigret & Robin 2006: 9; Robin 2016: 22–23) and most of the scientific community, both for linguistic reasons and according to the recurrence of Ta- instead of Tu- at the beginning of most of the same types of Yemeni toponyms.

Archaeological remains

The tell of ancient Tamnaʿ appears as a northeast-southwest oriented oval mound, 350 x 700 m wide, covering a densely built-up surface of 23 hectares. This represents a relatively limited urban area compared to Maʾrib (100 ha) or Ẓafār (110 ha), but is nonetheless greater than the average dimensions of South Arabian urban centres (Fig. 2).

Before the archaeological excavations, the only known remains were the fortification walls and the southern and northern gates, respectively named after their commemorative inscriptions: dhu-Śadw, with its still preserved monumental masonry (Fig. 3), and Saqru, roughly estimated to be situated northwest of the enclosure (Robin 2016: 34–35, both vocalisations are uncertain). However, the epigraphic records refer to temples and sanctuaries located outside the city, such as the temple Riṣāf^um of Anbī (patron god) from the necropolis, and inside the urban area (Robin 2016: 37–52). Among the urban buildings, the temple Yashhal is cited, the only one identified and excavated by the joint Italian-French project. The epigraphic records also attest to other buildings, such as a dozen private houses or a household shrine from the house Yāfiʿ^um. The latter was identified among the buildings excavated by the AFSM close to the southern gate, where the famous bronze statue of Lady Barʾat was discovered.

The monumental splendour of the ancient capital of Qatabān was brought to light after the excavation seasons of 1950-1952 and 1999-2005. That extensive fieldwork revealed some of the most spectacular buildings known in Southern Arabia.

From an urbanistic standpoint, the main elements that seem to suggest a sort of city planning scheme are the ‘Market Square’ and the ‘Grand Bâtiment’ (Fig. 4). Connected by a large street, they both appear as the main architectonic conceptual parts of the city, as well as the most prestigious ones. The market square revolves around the ‘Stele of the Market’, where the most famous inscriptions of the city are carved (RES 4337A, B, C). On a 2.50-m-high granite stele, the king Shahr Hilāl decrees the rules of the market, by all accounts the economic and representative venue of Tamnaʿ. In addition, the excavations of both the southern gate (Fig. 5) and the market square define the typical southern Arabian monumental private architecture, by bringing to light almost two dozen structures, mostly houses, but also a store front (Loreto 2012) and a sanctuary (de Maigret & Robin 2006: 41). The most prestigious buildings, built from the 4th to the 1st centuries BCE, according to the foundation inscriptions, systematically repeat an architectural code composed of massive granite basements that stand up to 4 m above the ground, with an average of ca. 2 m, supporting imposing structures characterised by an articulated wooden framework and mudbrick walls. The profusion of architectonic decorative elements and bronze plaques, as well as the dedicatory inscriptions that identify the houses and their owners, reveal the luxury of the nobility of the capital (Loreto 2006).

The so-called ‘Timna Tempe 1’, as it was defined by the AFSM, or ‘Grand Bâtiment’ (or Monument) as suggested by Breton et al. (1997), is one of the most imposing urban buildings in the whole of the Arabian Peninsula urban context (Fig. 6). It is a ca. 40 x 50 m wide complex, composed of two main buildings, an open courtyard and a tower-house-like structure, erected in keeping with the architectural model of the private house. However, the latter is undeniably majestic since the basement itself reaches a height of ca. 10 m, 6 m of which rise above the ground, with the usage of a cyclopean granite block up to 4 x 4 m wide (Fig. 7). Since no inscriptions were discovered in the building, it is identified as a temple or even the royal palace of Tamnaʿ (the latter known as Ḥarīb in epigraphic documentation) (Loreto 2016: 313–314). Its construction date, in the first half of the 4th century BCE, can be deduced from the cyclopean masonry and architectonic comparisons with the southern gate and the most impressive private house of the market square, “Khamrān house” (Loreto 2006).

Yashhal temple, located in the north-eastern part of the city, is the only confidently identified sacred building in the urban area. The very first implantation reveals a sacred area limited to a monumental sanctuary in the shape of a well, bordered by a quartzite isodomic circular wall, 2.60 m in diameter, probably dated to the first half of the 4th century BCE, and obliterated shortly thereafter by the actual temple (de Maigret 2016: 165–170). The temple once again shows the typical 2-m-high stone basement underpinning wooden and mudbrick structures. It is a ca. 20 x 25 m open courtyard structure, covering an area of about 450 square metres. Its layout plan appears to have been improved over time, showing two main architectonic phases between the second half of the 4th century and the 2nd century BCE, and revealing a gradual enrichment of the temple (Fig. 8). Inscriptions, frescoes, architectonic decorative elements, artefacts (mostly abundant pottery but also incense burners and alabaster items), stone and bronze statues or reliefs from the Athirat temple, and also from the residential areas and the necropolis, are another tangible testimony to the richness of Tamnaʿ (de Maigret 2016: 205–257).

Among the monumental remains, the remains of a massive platform (5 m high and ca. 26 m long), documented by Doe (1983: 129–132, 173–174), Marcolongo & Morandi Bonacossi (1997) and Darles (2016: 99–105), recall an exploitation strategy based on the construction of artificial basins with dams to control the seasonal flows of the Wādī Bayḥān. As a matter of fact, up until now, none of the agricultural and hydraulic installations of the city and its environment had been documented, apart from the impressive wide alluvial conoid leading to the desert. The expanse of the latter alone, clearly visible by satellite imagery, testifies to the agricultural potential of this area.

History and chronology

On the basis of both the sources and the stratigraphic data from the soundings inside the urban area, Tamnaʿ is alleged to be rooted in a protohistoric past. The Sabaic epigraphic documentation from Ṣirwāḥ (DAI Ṣirwāḥ 2005-50) shows that Tamnaʿ was the capital of the kingdom of Qatabān since the late 8th century BCE, when Qatabān and the descendants of ʿAmm (a coalition of people revolving around Qatabān) are listed among those subdued by the Sabaean ruler Yathaʿʾamar Watār. A few years later (ca. 700–670), at the time of the Sabaean ruler Karibʾīl Watār, Tamnaʿ and Qatabān were no longer enemies of Sabaʾ, but allies against the kingdom of Awsān (RES 3945, RES 3946). These historical data imply that Qatabān was a fully established state since the late 8th century, but was founded long before these events (Robin 2016: 54). Indeed, archaeological soundings confirm this antiquity thanks to the identification of Sabaean ware in the lowest levels of the urban area. The lowest levels corresponding to the very first implantation of the city have not yet been reached, but its origin dates back to at least the 9th century BCE (de Maigret 2016: 203). At least 40 names of rulers of Tamnaʿ are known, although homonymy must be considered for some of them and the royal sequence can only be precisely established from the 2nd century BCE onwards (Arbach 2006). Again, epigraphic and archaeological records define the most flourishing period of ancient Tamnaʿ between the 4th and 1st centuries BCE, as most of the architectonic evidence and textual sources come from that period (Fig. 9). In addition, even the documentation from the necropolis of Ḥayd bin ʿAqīl indicates that the local nobility contributed to the expansion of Qatabān towards the south-western part of ancient Yemen. At the turn of the common era, Tamnaʿ no longer held a dominant position, and both the urban architecture and the material culture reflect such impoverishment. The last luxury materials from Tamnaʿ are examples of Roman terra sigillata aretina that date back to the 1st century BCE (de Maigret 2016: 196-197). The destruction and consequent abandonment of the city (but not of Qatabān), widely attested by huge levels of fire and collapse in the archaeological sequences, took place in ca. 140 CE, under the rule of the last known king of Qatabān, Nabaṭ^um Yuhanʿim, after a raid by Ḥaḍramawt or perhaps, by Arab groups (Robin 2016: 33).

Romolo Loreto

References

• Arbach, M. 2006. Tamnaʿ : histoire et chronologie d’après les inscriptions. Arabia 3 (2005-6): 115–34.
• Bowen, R.L. & F.P. Albright (eds) 1958. Archaeological Discoveries in South Arabia (Publication of the AFSM, II). Baltimore: AFSM.
• Breton, J.-F., C. Darles, C.J. Robin & J.L. Swauger 1997. Le grand monument de Tamnaʿ : architecture et identification. Syria 74: 33–72. DOI: 10.3406/syria.1997.7538.
• Darles, C. 2016. Le Grand Bâtiment extra-muros de Tamnaʿ : état de la question et nouvelles hypotheses, in A. de Maigret & C.J Robin (eds) Tamnaʿ (Yemen). Les fouilles Italo-Françaises. Rapport Final: 99–105. Paris: De Boccard.
• Doe, B. 1971. Southern Arabia. London: Thames and Hudson.
• Doe, B. 1983. Monuments of South Arabia. Naples: Falcon-Oleander.
• Loreto, R. 2001. L’architettura domestica e i palazzi reali di epoca sudarabica nello Yemen pre-islamico (VII sec. a.C. – VI sec. d.C.) (Dissertationes VII). Naples: Il Torcoliere.
• Loreto, R. 2006. A hypothetical reconstruction of the small palace (Baytān Khamrān) in the “Market Square” in Tamnaʿ. Arabia 3 (2005-6): 161–170, 335–343.
• Loreto, R. 2012. The House B/E. A contextual analysis of a workshop inside the “Market Square” in Tamnaʿ. Newsletter di Archeologia CISA 3: 229–264.
• Loreto, R. 2016. Il Grande Tempio (TT1) o Palazzo Reale, in A. de Maigret & C.J Robin (eds) Tamnaʿ (Yemen). Les fouilles Italo-Françaises. Rapport Final: 295–323. Paris: de Boccard.
• de Maigret, A. 2016. Il Tempio di Athirat. Rapporto finale degli scavi 1999-2000, in A. de Maigret & C.J Robin (eds) Tamnaʿ (Yemen). Les fouilles Italo-Françaises. Rapport Final: 109–257. Paris: De Boccard.
• de Maigret, A. & C.J. Robin 2006. Tamnaʿ, antica capital di Qatabān (YICAR Papers 3). Naples, Sana’a: Il Torcoliere.
• Marcolongo, B. & D. Morandi Bonacossi 1997. L’abandon du système d’irrigation qatabanite dans la vallée du wadi Bayḥān (Yémen): analyse géoarchéologique. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, 325: 79–86. DOI : 10.1016/S1251-8050(97)83276-4
• Phillips, W. 1955. Qatabān and Sheba. Exploring the Ancient Kingdoms on the Biblical Spices Routes of Arabia. London: Victor Gollancz.
• Rhodokanakis, N. 1924. Die Inschriften an der Mauer von Kohlān-Timnaʿ (Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 200/2). Vienna: Holder-Pichler-Tempsky.
• Robin, C.J. 2016. Tamnaʿ et Qatabān. L’état des lieux, in A. de Maigret & C.J Robin (eds) Tamnaʿ (Yemen). Les fouilles Italo-Françaises. Rapport Final: 21–97. Paris: de Boccard.

_{Alternate spellings: Hajar Kohlan, Hajar Kuhlan, Timna, Tamna, Tamnaʿ, Timnaʿ, Tamna', Timna', Tmnʿ, Tmn', Θούμνα, Τάμνα, Thomna}