Qatabān

The kingdom of Qatabān was one of the most important kingdoms of Ancient South Arabia. Its centre was in the Wādī Bayḥān, where the capital Tamnaʿ (now Hajar Kuḥlān) was located. Qatabān was the leading tribe of a confederation based on the alliance of various political entities, called ‘the children of ʿAmm’ (i.e., the tribes that identified themselves with the cult of the greatest Qatabanian god). Much of the southern Yemeni plateau was part of this confederation for centuries. The history of Qatabān can be dated from the beginning of the 7th cent. BCE to the 2nd cent. CE.

The vocalization of Qatabān (Qtbn) is conventional; in the classical sources, the Qatabanians are named Kɩτɩβαɩνíταɩ (with some variants). The kingdom, its people and its history have completely disappeared from the memory of Muslim authors; Yāqūt speaks of Qitbān as a locality in the Aden region.

Location and extension of the kingdom

The centre of the kingdom of Qatabān was in the Wādī Bayḥān. The capital Tamnaʿ (now Hajar Kuḥlān) is located at the mouth of the wādī towards the desert. Part of the city and its necropolis (Ḥayd Ibn ʿAqīl) were excavated by the American Foundation for the Study of Man in the 1950s (Bowen & Albright 1958), and more recently by the Italian-French mission (de Maigret & Robin 2006, 2016). The city of Hajar Ibn Ḥumayd, a settlement with a long history was excavated by G. van Beek (van Beek 1969). It became the capital of the kingdom in the final phase of its history (2nd cent. CE). From the earliest times, documentation in Qatabanic is attested in the Wādī Ḥarīb, running parallel to the west of the Wādī Bayḥān. The westward expansion of Qatabān is evidenced by inscriptions in the oasis of al-Jūba. Strabo, in his description of the kingdom of Qatabān, recalls its great territorial extension, as far as the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean; the distribution of the documentation in Qatabanic confirms these claims. Alliances with the tribes of the southern plateau gave rise to the presence of inscriptions in Qatabanic in regions a long way from the centre of the kingdom: in the regions of Laḥj, al-Bayḍāʾ, Radāʿ, Jabal al-ʿAwd, Wādī Markha, Wādī Ḍuraʾ, Wādī Lajiya, Wādī Shirjān. The Datīna region was also under Qatabanian control in some periods. The structure of the kingdom, a confederation based on the alliance of various political entities, which recognised the leadership of Qatabān, clearly emerges from the royal title: the king is ‘king of Qatabān and of all the children of ʿAmm’ (i.e., the tribes who identified themselves with the cult of the greater Qatabanian god) (Mouton & Schiettecatte 2014: 245). In the period of greatest political power, the king of Qatabān extended his authority over the territories of Awsān, Kaḥad, Dahasum, Tubanū. The authority of Qatabān was acknowledged by the powerful tribes of Radmān and Maḍḥà, who played an important role in the history of southern Arabia.

Periodization and foundations of chronology

Written documentation pertaining to the kingdom of Qatabān did not appear before the beginning of the 7th cent. BCE, but interesting information on the history of the kingdom at the end of the 8th cent. BCE can be found in the Sabaic inscription DAI Ṣirwāḥ 2005-50, by the king Yathaʿʾamar Watār son of Yakrubmalik. At that time, an alliance with the tribe of ‘the children of ʿAmm’ extended over much of the southern plateau; Awsān was an independent kingdom, at war with Qatabān and an ally of Sabaʾ. Qatabān was Sabaʾ’s enemy, its capital was set on fire, the king was killed and replaced by a king allied with Sabaʾ. This alliance lasted until the beginning of the 7th cent. BCE, and is clearly indicated not only in the Sabaic inscription RÉS 3945 by Karibʾīl Watār son of Dhamarʿalī, but also in the strong Sabaean cultural influence in the first texts written in Qatabanic. Qatabān received, as a reward for its loyalty, part of the territory of the kingdom of Awsān, which had then become one of the main enemies of Sabaʾ.

A palaeographic grid (A, B1, B2, C, D), based not only on the graphic evolution, but also on morphological and historical-cultural elements, has been proposed for Qatabanic documentation. However, it is very problematic to switch from relative dating to absolute dating (Avanzini 2004a: 26–33).

Unlike in the rest of the Near East, royal genealogies do not help with chronology. As in the rest of Ancient South Arabian culture, kings have special names, used exclusively by them, and not by other members of society. Few royal names are attested in Qatabanic documentation, followed by one or sometimes two epithets; and homonymy is very frequent. Furthermore, sometimes the same king can be identified both by a three-element name and a two-element name (e.g., Yadaʿʾab Dhubyān Yuhanʿim son of Shahr = Yadaʿʾab Dhubyān son of Shahr). It is thus impossible to confidently reconstruct royal genealogies until the end of the 1st millennium BCE.

No era from which to start counting the years is attested in Qatabān; time was circular and the years were marked by an eponym, who remained in office for two years (Lundin 1977, Bron 1987: 26–27, Mazzini 2020: 72).

Certain synchronisms with the outside world are lacking in Qatabanian history and we can only use synchronisms with events in the Ancient South Arabian history, which in turn are only hypothetically dated. The Sabaic inscription RÉS 3943 is most likely dated to the second half of the 7th cent. BCE. The war declared on Qatabān by Sabaʾ, a former ally (RÉS 3945), had evidently put an end to this alliance. If Sumhūwatar, the king of Qatabān mentioned in RÉS 3943, corresponds to the father of Hawfāʿamm Yuhanʿim bin Sumhūwatar (a historically important king, cited in numerous inscriptions of the oasis of al-Jūba and one of the authors of the edict Ja 2361), we would have a date for the reign of this king. However, the patronymic does not always refer to the true father of a king and the hypothesis that Sumhūwatar, the enemy of Sabaʾ at the end of the 7th cent. BCE, was the father of Hawfāʿamm Yuhanʿim, cannot be proven.

RÉS 3858 is a historically important inscription. It testifies to the annexation of the region near the Jabal al-ʿAwd by Qatabān, after a victorious war against the Sabaeans, who previously controlled the territory (the recently published inscription Āl Ṣabāḥ, LNS 1756 M also alludes to the same events). In RÉS 3858, the enemy, Sabaean kings are mentioned. A comparison with the Sabaic text Ja 550 is very constructive: this records a war against Qatabān and mentions the same Sabaean kings as those in RÉS 3858. The Sabaean inscription is dated by P. Stein to the 4th cent. BCE, on the basis of the presence of morphological features typical of the Middle Sabaic language (Stein 2005; see the discussion of this date in Avanzini 2010).

These synchronisms with the kingdom of Maʿīn, certainly to be connected with the management of the caravan trade, are historically interesting, but using them to obtain precise absolute dates is still problematic (Arbach 2014, Avanzini 2014).

Recently, G. Mazzini (Mazzini 2020: 24–25) proposed pushing back much of the documentation which is palaeographically datable to the so-called period B (Avanzini 2004 a) to the second half of the 1st millennium BCE. Archaeologically, in fact, a period of crisis towards the middle of the millennium is attested, which seems to affect not only Qatabān, but also other Ancient South Arabian states.

The period between the end of the 2nd cent. BCE and the 1st cent. CE is better known, and some royal genealogies can be reconstructed. Qatabān experienced a period of splendour. It was probably able to exploit the inception of the development of maritime trade; at the same time, it maintained close relations with the cities of the Jawf and was present in Qaryat al-Fāw (al-ʿĀdī 5), that is, it managed a large part of the trade on land. It helped the king of Ḥaḍramawt against the rebel tribes (Arbach Sayūn 1, al-ʿĀdī 22); it was present on the southern Yemeni plateau. However, independent kingdoms formed on the plateau. Awsān was experiencing a movement of independence. The kingdom of Ḥimyar emerged; at first, closely united with Qatabān, but the integration of Sabaʾ in the Himyarite kingdom proved fatal to Qatabān by the end of the 1st cent. BCE.

The fate of Qatabān was played out in the 1st cent. CE. Qatabān lost control of part of the Wādī Ḥarīb. A Qatabanian inscription from Ḥinū az-Zurayr (RÉS 4329) mentions in the final invocations Warawʾīl Ghaylān Yuhanʿim son of Shahr Yagul Yuhargib, king of Qatabān, while the second one from the nearby city of Maryamat (Ja 2898) mentions Karibʾīl Watār Yuhanʿim king of Sabaʾ and dhu-Raydān. In the 2nd cent. CE, the kingdom of Qatabān had a new capital, Hajar Ibn Ḥumayd, but by then the history of the kingdom had come to an end. Documentation in Qatabanic then ceased, even if the tribe of Qatabān persisted until the 3rd cent. CE. During this period, Hajar Ibn Ḥumayd was annexed to the kingdom of Ḥaḍramawt (Ja 2888).

Political and religious functions of the king

In the second half of the 1st mill. BCE, a long title was bestowed upon the king when he was the author of important construction works, starting with that of mukarrib (mkrb), followed by a long list of territories under his dominion and a series of religious and political offices held by him. The implications of those offices escape us, but some elements are interesting: the lexicon is unusual and includes many hapaxes; some new functions can be inserted, but always within a fixed structure of the title. The king at Qatabān certainly performed both political and religious functions. The king is the firstborn (bkr) of what seems to be a divine couple (Anbī and Ḥawkam), although the hypothesis of a divine couple remains problematic since Ḥawkam appears in other contexts to be a god and not a goddess.

Important construction works in the capital Tamnaʿ and in other cities of the kingdom can certainly be dated to the long period defined paleographically as period B. The walls and gates of the capital were built, certainly not from scratch, but restored and embellished to become increasingly impressive (CIAS 47.11/b 2). In this period, roads were built in the mountains, connecting valleys (RÉS 3550, RÉS 4328 and in the southern plateau, ʿAqabat Buraʿ 1). Those works were of political importance for the control of the territory and the flow of trade.

Royal edicts constitute very interesting Qatabanian documentation. In some decrees the king is flanked in his legislative function by a tribal council (gw ms³wd). Like all the kings of Ancient South Arabia, the Qatabanian king led his troops in victorious wars (at least according to Qatabanian propaganda).

Religion, economy, art

Many gods and goddesses form the Qatabanian pantheon, whose official composition, as attested in the documentation in the central territory of the kingdom, is: ʿAthtar, ʿAmm, Anbī, Dhat Ṣanatum, Dhat Ẓahrān. From Qatabān comes the largest number of dedications to the Banāt ʾIl, the ‘daughters of Il’. All major deities have a number of hypostases, distinguishable by different epithets. In the inscriptions from the periphery of the kingdom, the local gods are mentioned.

Trade is, as for the other Ancient South Arabian states, fundamental in the kingdom’s economy. One of the most interesting texts in this sense is the inscription in the market square of Tamnaʿ (RÉS 4337), which reaffirms the rights of the state in the management of trade. The tribe of Maʿīn is mentioned in the inscription and there is evidence of the presence of Minaeans in Tamnaʿ as a structured group, regulated by an official (VL 9/1: kbr Mʿnm b-Tmnʿ ). An inscription from Maryamat (Maraqten-Qatabanic 1) shows Qatabān’s active international participation as far as the land of the Nabataeans, of Chaldea, Egypt, and Ionia.

Before the discovery and publication of this inscription, evidence of Qatabanian contacts with the outside world had already been identified in the history of art. Influences from the classical world in Ancient South Arabia appear, in fact, for the first time in Qatabanian art. In some of the objects found in the necropolis of Tamnaʿ it is evident that the local artistic tradition was influenced by different traditions over time (Avanzini 2004 b, Betti 2016). The numerous heads, statuettes and plaques from this necropolis constitute some of the best specimens of Ancient South Arabian culture.

Alessandra Avanzini

References and suggested readings

• Arbach, M. 2002. La chronologie du royaume de Qatabān du I^er siècle avant J.-C. au I^er siècle après J.-C. Chroniques Yéménites 10: 7–12.
• Arbach, M. 2002-2006. Tamnaʿ: histoire et chronologie d’après les inscriptions. Arabia 3: 115–133.
• Arbach, M. 2014. Quelques remarques sur la chronologie de l’Arabie aux II^e – I^er siècles avant l’ère chrétienne, in A.V. Sedov (ed.) Arabian and Islamic studies. A collection of papers in honour of Mikhail Borishovich Piotrovskij on the occasion of his 70th birthday: 50–57. Moscow.
• Avanzini, A. 2004a. Corpus of South Arabian inscriptions I-III. Qatabanic, marginal Qatabanic, Awsanite inscriptions (Arabia Antica, 2). Pisa: Edizioni Plus.
• Avanzini, A. 2004b. The ‘Stèles à la déesse’: problems of interpreting and dating. EVO 27: 145–152. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24233351
• Avanzini, A. 2010. A reassessment of the chronology of the first millennium BC. AuOr 28/2: 181–192.
• Avanzini, A. 2014. Appendix to M. Arbach “Quelques remarques sur la chronologie de l’Arabie aux IIe – Ier siècle avant l’ère chrétienne”, in A.V. Sedov (ed.) Arabian and Islamic studies. A collection of papers in honour of Mikhail Borishovich Piotrovskij on the occasion of his 70th birthday: 58–65. Moscow.
• Betti, E.F. 2016. Tradizione classica e cultura sudarabica: osservazione sulla statua bronzea di Lady Barʾat. EVO 39: 201–216. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26490813
• Bowen, R.L. & F.P. Albright 1958. Archaeological discoveries in South Arabia (Publications of the AFSM, 2). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
• Bron, F. 1987. À propos de l’éponymie qatabanite, in Ch. Robin & M. Bāfaqīh (eds) Ṣayhadica. Recherches sur les inscriptions de l’Arabie préislamique offertes par ses collègues au professeur A.F.L. Beeston: 21–27. Paris: Geuthner.
• De Maigret, A. & C.J. Robin. 2006. Tamnaʿ, antica capitale di Qatabān / Tamnaʿ, capitale antique de Qatabān (YICAR Papers, 3). Sana’a, Naples: Il Torcoliere.
• De Maigret, A. & C.J. Robin (eds) 2016. Tamnaʿ (Yémen). Les fouilles italo-françaises. Rapport final (O&M, 20). Paris: De Boccard.
• Lundin, A.G. 1977. Le système d’éponymat de Qatabān. PSAS 7: 101–111. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41223305
• Mazzini, G. 2020. The ancient South Arabian royal edicts from the Southern gate of Timnaʿ and the Ǧabal Labaḫ (EFAH, 8). Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
• Mouton, M. & J. Schiettecatte 2014. In the desert margins. The settlement process in ancient South and East Arabia (Arabia Antica, 9). Roma: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider.
• Robin, C.J. 2018. Qatabān (royaume de l’Arabie méridionale antique) et son grand dieu ʿAmm. Sem. Clas. 9: 93–141. DOI: 10.1484/J.SEC.5.116796.
• Stein, P. 2005. Linguistic contributions to Sabaean Chronology. ABADY 10: 179–189.
• Van Beek, G.W. (ed.) 1969. Hajar bin Humeid, Investigations at a Pre-Islamic Site in South Arabia (Publications of the AFSM, 5). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.

_{Alternate spellings: Qatabân, Qataban, Qtbn, Qitbān, Qitbân, Qitban, Kɩτɩβαɩνíταɩ, Kattabania, Kattabaneis}