Scavi del Tempio B e ricerche e restauri connessi

Archaeopress Archaeology www.archaeopress.com

Barāqish/Yathill (Yemen) 1986-2007

Volume 1:

Excavations of Temple B

and related research and restoration

Scavi del Tempio B e ricerche e restauri connessi

Edited by / A cura di

Sabina Antonini and Francesco G. Fedele

Antonini and Fedele ( eds) Barāqish/Y athill (Y emen ) 1986-2 007 - Volume 1

This first volume of the study is particularly devoted to the temple of god ʿAthtar dhu-Qabḍ (Temple B), dated to the second half of the 1st millennium BCE. Six chapters fully illustrate its excavation, architecture, restoration, findings, inscriptions, and dating. The contribution of this work and monument to regional history transcends its local significance. The report is framed by ten chapters detailing the historiography of research on Barāqish, the initial surveys carried out in 1986-1987, the architecture and restoration of Temple A together with the extramural excavation at the adjacent curtain wall, the cultic equipment, and radiocarbon datings. The nine contributors are leading scholars in the above fields and include recognized experts in South Arabian archaeology.

Sabina Antonini heads the Italian Archaeological Mission to Yemen c/o Monumenta Orientalia (Rome). Since 1984 she has taken part in archaeological surveys and excavations of prehistoric sites in Khawlān al-Ṭiyāl and Ramlat al-Sabʿatayn and of South Arabian sites, including Yalā, Tamnaʿ, Ḥayd ibn ʿAqīl, and Barāqish. She is a specialist in South Arabian archaeology and history of art. Her contribution, ‘The Italian Archaeological Mission at Šibām al-Ġirās, Yemen’, has appeared in Festschrift in honour of Professor Mikhail Piotrovsky (2019).

Francesco G. Fedele has been Professor of Anthropology and Prehistoric ecology at the Università di Napoli ‘Federico II’, Naples, until retirement in 2011. As a member of the Italian Archaeological Mission to Yemen since 1984 he has conducted excavations in Khawlān al- Ṭiyāl and at Barāqish, with a particular focus on site geoarchaeology and archaeofaunas.

His recent publications include ‘New data on domestic and wild camels in Sabaean and Minaean Yemen’ in Archaeozoology of the Near East 9 (2017).

Antonini and Fedele Vol 1 cover.indd 1

Antonini and Fedele Vol 1 cover.indd 1 19/04/2021 10:40:1119/04/2021 10:40:11

1986-2007

Edited by / A cura di

Sabina Antonini and Francesco G. Fedele

Contributions by / Contributi di

Alessio Agostini, Sabina Antonini, Mounir Arbach, Vittoria Buffa, Christian Darles, Francesco G. Fedele, Solène Marion de Procé,

Alessandra Paladino, Jérémie Schiettecatte, Saverio Bruno Scigliano, Rosario Valentini

Volume 1:

Excavations of Temple B and related research and restoration

Scavi del Tempio B e ricerche e restauri connessi

Arabic translation of abstracts by / Riassunti in arabo di Khālid al- ʿ Ansī

Archaeopress Archaeology

Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978-1-78969-470-3 ISBN (e-Pdf)

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2021

Cover: View of Barāqish from the southeast after a major rainstorm (22 July 1992; cf. Chapter 1, section 3.3) (A. de Maigret 1992 © MAIRY)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License This book is available in print and as a free download from www.archaeopress.com

i

VOLUME 1

Contents ...i

Preface ...v

Premessa ... vii

Contributors ...x

Dates and Arabic Names ... xi

Barāqish: Reference Map and Plan ... xii

Introductory Information

Sabina Antonini and Francesco G. Fedele¹ Chapter 2 Risultati della prima prospezione della Missione archeologica italiana a Barāqish nel 1986 ...63

Sabina Antonini

The Temple of ʿAthtar dhu-Qabḍ (Temple B)

Alessio Agostini Chapter 4 Il tempio di ʿAthtar dhu-Qabḍ. Le iscrizioni ...151

Alessio Agostini Chapter 5 Il tempio di ʿAthtar dhu-Qabḍ. Gli oggetti ...172

Sabina Antonini Chapter 6 An Obsidian Cache from Temple B ...187

Francesco G. Fedele Chapter 7 The Temple of ʿAthtar dhu-Qabḍ. The Pottery ...195

Vittoria Buffa

Extramural Excavation at Recess R44/45 (Minaean Wall)

Sabina Antonini con Rosario Valentini Chapter 9 Lo scavo fuori mura in R44/45 a Barāqish. Le iscrizioni ...224

Alessio Agostini

Architecture and Cult

Christian Darles Chapter 11 Le mobilier de culte dans le temple de Nakraḥ à Barāqish ...254 Solène Marion de Procé

ii

Unless indicated otherwise, the illustrations are from the archives of the Italian Archaeological Mission to Yemen (© MAIRY).

The research for, and production of, the manuscript for this volume were made possible through a generous grant from The Shelby White and Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications (2017-2020).

Restoration: Temples A and B

Chapter 13

Restauro conservativo e strutturale degli elementi architettonici della sala ipostila del Tempio di

Nakraḥ (Tempio A) a Barāqish ...278 Saverio Bruno Scigliano e Alessandra Paladino

Chapter 14

Restauro, movimentazione e messa in sicurezza degli elementi architettonici del tempio di ʿAthtar

dhu-Qabḍ (Tempio B) a Barāqish ...321 Saverio Bruno Scigliano e Alessandra Paladino

Barāqish/Yathill: Corings and Radiocarbon

Chapter 15

Exploratory Coring at Barāqish, 1987 and 1990 ...340 Francesco G. Fedele

Chapter 16

Radiocarbon Determinations 1987-2006: Corings, Temples A and B, Area D. A Survey and Reappraisal ...355 Francesco G. Fedele

Bibliography for Volume 1 ...368

MISSIONE ARCHEOLOGICA ITALIANA NELLA REPUBBLICA DELLO YEMEN

iii

Extramural Excavations in Area C

Chapter 17

Excavations in Area C. Setting, Stratigraphy, and Geoarchaeology ...383 Francesco G. Fedele

Chapter 18

Excavations in Area C. Chronology and the Historical Sequence ...583 Francesco G. Fedele

Chapter 19

Excavations in Area C. Economy, Trade, and the Environment ...612 Francesco G. Fedele

Chapter 20

The Area C Collection Catalogue and Related Works ...651 Francesco G. Fedele

Chapter 21

Area C. The Objects ...657 Francesco G. Fedele and Sabina Antonini

Area C. The Objects ...657 Chapter 22

Area C. The Minaean Pottery ...720 Vittoria Buffa

Chapter 23

Area C. The Sabaean Pottery: a Survey ...736 Francesco G. Fedele

Chapter 24

Area C. Il materiale epigrafico ...773 Alessio Agostini

Ceramic Typology, Territory, and a Historical Outline of the Jawf

Chapter 25

The Typological Classification of the Minaean Pottery from the Temple of ʿAthtar dhu-Qabḍ and the Extramural Excavations in Area C ...779 Vittoria Buffa

Chapter 26

A Glimpse of ‘Greater Yathill’: Sabaean Settlement and Tell Evolution ...800 Francesco G. Fedele

Chapter 27

Les inscriptions de Barāqish : apport à la connaissance de l’antique cité de Yathill et du royaume de

Maʿīn ...822 Jérémie Schiettecatte avec la collaboration de Mounir Arbach

Chapter 28

Risultati di una prospezione archeologica nel sito di Darb al-Ṣabī ...869 Rosario Valentini

Abstracts of Chapters ...884 Bibliography for Volume 2 ...896

v

We considered it a duty to devote a substantial publication to Barāqish at the end of the archaeological works — surveys, excavations, restorations — conducted at this amazing and challenging site by Professor Alessandro de Maigret from 1986 to 2007. Readers will be able to understand the importance of this site in the Jawf from Chapter 1, dealing with the history of explorations carried out at Barāqish and its territory since 1870, until the first systematic survey by the Italian Mission (MAIRAY, afterwards MAIRY) in 1986. A site further investigated through excavations and restorations between 1989 and 2007, with major work at the temples of Nakraḥ (Temple A) and ʿAthtar dhu-Qabḍ (Temple B) as well as in extramural areas.

Not only does the volume feature previously unpublished results and materials from reconnaissance and excavations, together with architecture studies and the MAIRY restoration projects, but, thanks to the generosity and determination of Professor Francesco Fedele — who deserves most of the credit for this publication — it also reveals a great deal of forgotten data alongside more recent and newly-acquired information. This has resulted in the acquisition of crucial knowledge about the history and economy of this splendid caravan city.

Access to Barāqish and the whole Jawf has not been allowed for security reasons since 2007, which is why the excavations and the study of collections came to a halt. For instance, we could not complete the excavation in the southern sector, beyond Temple B, or in the area between Temples A and B. This would have helped to understand how the two temples were connected, since Temple B is situated about 2 metres above Temple A. Of course, we would have liked to bring to completion the study of all archaeological materials, including those of the Islamic period. We are therefore fully aware of some obvious limits in this publication.

As mentioned above, it was impossible to return to Barāqish after 2007. The archaeological material studied (objects, ceramics, inscriptions etc.) were deposited in storage rooms and in the ‘antiquarium’, which was built especially for that purpose by MAIRY in the southwestern area of the site. The rest of the material which was being studied at the time was left on shelves and tables in the laboratory. During my last stay in Ṣanʿāʾ in September 2013 I managed only to make sure that a small part of the material reached the capital, mostly the Islamic pottery that was still sealed in bags.

It ought not to be forgotten that during the current conflict in Yemen, which started in March 2015, the Barāqish site was bombed by Saudi Arabia as the leader of a coalition formed to stop the Houthi advance in Yemen. Part of the city wall was destroyed, the temple of Nakraḥ was virtually wiped out, and the Temple of ʿAthtar dhu-Qabḍ was severely damaged. Recent satellite images show that all what had been built by the Italian Mission, including the storage rooms, the ‘antiquarium’, and the laboratory, is now just a pile of rubble and debris.

Acknowlegements

The excavations in Barāqish were directed by Professor Alessandro de Maigret, to whom this volume is dedicated. He was particularly fond of this site, so much so that his dearly-missed friend, Prime Minister ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Iryānī, called Alessandro ‘Abu Barāqish’ in a speech on 10th December 2006, at Ṣanʿāʾ University during the presentation of a book dedicated to qāḍī Ismā‘īl al-Akwaʿ (Robin and Jazim 2006).

We would like to dedicate this book to our friend and colleague Mario Mascellani, who died on 11th September 2015.

A CNR (National Research Council of Italy) researcher, Mario had collaborated with the Italian Mission in Yemen since 1985. His last topographic survey on the Ġaymān site dates back to 2010. His scientific contribution in the field of archaeological discovery and environmental exploration is incomparable, and his production of high-resolution cartography is of great scientific value.

We would like to thank all collaborators who have taken part in the more recent excavation missions: the officials of GOAM (General Organisation of Antiquities and Museums): Khālid al-ʿAnsī, Ṣādiq Saʿīd ʿUthmān, Mabkhūt Muhtamm, Manaʿ Allāh Sārī al-Naṣrī, Muḥammad Ḥajar, ʿAbd al-Baṣit Nuʿmān, ʿĪsa ʿAlī al-Shaybānī, Jamāl Thābit, Aḥmed Shamsān; archaeologists Alessio Agostini, Francesco Di Grazia, Romolo Loreto and Rosario Valentini; epigraphists Christian J. Robin and Mounir Arbach; architects Jean-Marie Gassend and Ghislain Richoux; topographer Mario Mascellani; restorers Saverio Scigliano and Alessandra Paladino; nurse Patrizio Morlupi; and last but not least the students from the University of Naples ‘L’Orientale’ Danilo Mongiello, Serena Vessichelli, Marilena Scuotto, Gennaro Di Rosa e Stefano Javarone. The ceramics studied by Vittoria Buffa were drawn by Giuseppina Stelo, to whom we are grateful. A special mention goes to Laetitia Munduteguy, who made the plates of pottery and did the final drawings, from the original drafts, of the report on the excavation of the Temple of ʿAthtar dhu-Qabḍ.

vi

We also want to thank GOAM’s former President, ʿAbdallāh Bāwazīr, and the current President, Muhannad al- Siyyānī, and the Director of Excavations for the Yemen, Muḥammad al-Aṣbaḥī, for their support and collaboration with the Italian Mission.

We are also grateful to all the Yemeni soldiers who served in Barāqish, for protecting us and providing us with a feeling of stability for the length of our stay. Moreover, they safeguarded the site and the headquarters of the Italian Mission when we were not there.

Finally, we would like to thank the staff of the Italian Embassy in Ṣanʿāʾ with a special mention for Ambassadors Giacomo Sanfelice di Monteforte and Mario Boffo for their never-failing professional and altruistic assistance and support of the Italian Mission in the Yemen and, in particular, the more recent excavation and restoration projects in Barāqish.

The 2004-2005 and 2006 archaeological campaigns were funded by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (Direzione Generale Sistema Paese) and by the Yemeni Ministry of Finance, supported by the then Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente (IsIAO) in Rome and by the University of Naples ‘L’Orientale’.

The publishing of this volume would not have been possible without the generous support of The Shelby White and Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications (2017-2020), to which I extend my heartfelt thanks.

S. Antonini de Maigret Perugia, 27 September 2019 Between 2005 and December 2007 — the last days of the Italian archaeological mission in the Jawf — I carried out a particular project of extramural investigations at Barāqish combining excavation, small-scale geological approaches, animal and plant residue retrieval, and limited site survey (alas very limited, due to security restrictions). The chapters in this volume that I suggested for inclusion, and my own, are intended as a tribute to a remarkable place, particularly at a time when Yemen’s people and heritage are horribly suffering, and as a testimony to a marvellous experience both intellectual and human. My Yemeni co- workers at Area C in 2005 and 2006, soldiers in the Yemeni army, were often in my thoughts while I was writing in the comfort of a quieter and paler Europe.

It was a privilege, as well as a challenge, to work as a member of Alessandro de Maigret’s mission at Barāqish. What I attempted to do, as a contribution to the mission’s general objectives, was to disclose and understand the overall history of a settlement. A town-size settlement on Yemen’s desert margin in particular. In the circumstances, sadly, only a minimal fraction of that lofty goal could be accomplished, confining the project to its designed limits of a first phase only — a simple beginning, and no more than a glimpse. The results are presented in this volume as a final report.

If the acquisitions from Area C appear to overcome their limitations, it is only because they concur to show what the Barāqish site has in store for the future. And not merely within the bulk of the mound. There can be no doubt that a tremendous wealth of significant information is awaiting discovery all around its circumference: down in the adjacent plain, up the talus and flanks outside the magnificent wall. Just think — from Area C and the western sectors alone — of earliest Yathill, buried at a depth we cannot gauge; or of the relationships between the settlement and the first irrigated zone; or of the nature and extent of Karibʾīl the Great’s walling. From the site as a whole, think of the record of early dromedary use which we can reasonably expect (Fedele 2017, 306). All that and much more had to remain terra incognita after 2007. To borrow from a reflection on Tell Brak (Matthews 2003a, 229), it can only be hoped that the wait for such historical treasures to be discovered will not prove endless.

F. G. Fedele Turin, 4 October 2019

vii

A conclusione di prospezioni archeologiche, scavi e restauri diretti dal Professore Alessandro de Maigret a Barāqish dal 1986 al 2007, abbiamo ritenuto doveroso dedicare una corposa pubblicazione a questo sito del Jawf, tanto stupefacente quanto complesso e impegnativo per tante ragioni. Di queste il lettore si renderà conto leggendo il Capitolo 1, che è consacrato alla storia delle ricerche archeologiche su Barāqish e sul suo territorio, condotte a più riprese da studiosi di diversi ambiti e competenze, sin dal 1870, e via via sino alla prima esplorazione della Missione archeologica italiana (MAIRAY, poi MAIRY) nel 1986; a seguire gli scavi e i restauri, discontinuamente, dal 1989 al 2007, del Tempio di Nakraḥ (Tempio A), del Tempio di ʿAthtar dhu-Qabḍ (Tempio B), e gli scavi fuori dalle mura.

Nel volume non vengono presentati soltanto i risultati inediti di ricognizioni e scavi, i materiali, l’architettura e i restauri condotti dalla MAIRY; ma, grazie alla generosa disponibilità e alla tenacia del Professore Francesco Fedele – cui spetta gran parte del merito di questa pubblicazione – l’elaborazione di molti dati rimasti a lungo in sospeso accanto ad altri di più recente acquisizione. Ciò ha permesso di ottenere alcune informazioni cruciali sulla storia e l’economia di questa splendida città carovaniera.

Per ragioni di sicurezza, dal 2007 è stato proibito l’accesso nel Jawf e, nel caso specifico, a Barāqish, per cui furono interrotti gli scavi e lo studio dei materiali. Per esempio non riuscimmo a completare lo scavo né nel settore meridionale oltre il Tempio B, né nell’area compresa tra questo e il Tempio A, che avrebbe rivelato il raccordo tra i due templi rispetto al piano di calpestio dell’area sacra; il Tempio B si trova, infatti, ad una quota maggiore di circa 2 m rispetto al Tempio A. Avremmo voluto naturalmente che lo studio di tutti i materiali, inclusi quelli di epoca islamica, fosse completato. Siamo, dunque, consapevoli delle ovvie lacune che questa pubblicazione presenta.

Come accennato sopra, dopo l’ultima campagna di studio del 2007 è stato impossibile recarsi a Barāqish per problemi di sicurezza. Il materiale archeologico studiato (oggetti, ceramica ed iscrizioni) all’epoca fu sistemato nei magazzini e nell’antiquarium appositamente costruiti dalla MAIRY nell’area a sud-ovest del sito. Il resto del materiale che era in corso di studio fu disposto sugli scaffali e sui tavoli nel laboratorio. Durante il mio ultimo soggiorno a Ṣanʿāʾ, nel settembre del 2013, riuscii a far arrivare nella capitale soltanto una parte dei materiali, e cioè la ceramica di epoca islamica che era ancora chiusa nei sacchetti.

È doveroso ricordare che durante il conflitto in Yemen, iniziato nel marzo del 2015, il sito di Barāqish è stato l’obiettivo dei bombardamenti aerei da parte dell’Arabia Saudita, che guida la coalizione formatasi per fermare l’avanzata degli Houthi nello Yemen. Un settore delle mura è stato distrutto, il tempio di Nakraḥ irrimediabilmente raso al suolo e il Tempio di ʿAthtar dhu-Qabḍ fortemente danneggiato. Dalle recenti immagini satellitari si nota che tutte le costruzioni del campo della Missione, inclusi i magazzini, l’antiquarium e il laboratorio, sono solo un cumulo di macerie.

Ringraziamenti

Gli scavi a Barāqish sono stati diretti dal Professore Alessandro de Maigret, cui dedichiamo questo volume. Era nota la sua particolare passione per questo sito, tanto che il 10 dicembre del 2006, alla presentazione all’Università di Ṣan‘ā’ del libro dedicato al qāḍī Ismā‘īl al-Akwaʿ (Robin e Jāzim 2006), l’amico e compianto Primo Ministro ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Iryānī nel suo discorso definiva Alessandro ‘Abū Barāqish’.

Dedichiamo questo libro anche all’amico e collega Mario Mascellani, scomparso l’11 settembre 2015. Ricercatore del CNR, Mario ha collaborato con la Missione Italiana in Yemen sin dal 1985. L’ultimo suo rilievo topografico nel sito di Ġaymān è del 2010. Il suo contributo scientifico nel campo del rilievo delle emergenze archeologiche e dell’esplorazione ambientale è stato insostituibile, con la produzione di cartografia di grande precisione e valore scientifico.

Si ringraziano tutti i collaboratori che hanno partecipato alle più recenti campagne di scavo: gli ispettori del GOAM Khālid al-ʿAnsī, Ṣādiq Saʿīd ʿUthmān, Mabkhūt Muhtamm, Manaʿ Allāh Sārī al-Naṣrī, Muḥammad Ḥajar, ʿAbd al-Baṣit Nuʿmān, ʿĪsa ʿAlī al-Shaybānī, Jamāl Thābit, Aḥmed Shamsān; gli archeologi Alessio Agostini, Francesco Di Grazia, Romolo Loreto e Rosario Valentini; gli epigrafisti Christian J. Robin e Mounir Arbach; gli architetti Jean-Marie Gassend e Ghislain Richoux; il topografo Mario Mascellani; i restauratori Saverio Scigliano e Alessandra Paladino, l’infermiere Patrizio Morlupi e, infine, gli studenti

viii

Tempio di ʿAthtar dhu-Qabḍ. Un mio speciale ringraziamento è rivolto al Professore Francesco Fedele che, con il suo profondo ed esteso sondaggio stratigrafico eseguito fuori dalle mura di Barāqish, ha dato un grande contributo alla ricostruzione cronologica ed estensiva dell’insediamento.

Si ringrazia inoltre l’allora Presidente del GOAM, ʿAbdallāh Bāwazīr e l’attuale Muhannad al-Siyyānī, e il Direttore degli scavi dello Yemen, Muḥammad al-Aṣbaḥī per il sostegno e la collaborazione con la Missione italiana.

Particolare riconoscenza a tutti i militari yemeniti di stanza a Barāqish, che durante la nostra permanenza sugli scavi hanno garantito protezione e stabilità, e in nostra assenza salvaguardia del sito e della sede della Missione archeologica.

Vorremmo concludere ringraziando tutto il personale dell’Ambasciata d’Italia a Ṣanʿāʾ. Un particolare grazie agli Ambasciatori Giacomo Sanfelice di Monteforte e Mario Boffo, che hanno assistito e supportato costantemente con professionalità e generosità l’attività della Missione Italiana in Yemen e, nello specifico, le più recenti campagne di scavi e restauri a Barāqish.

Gli scavi delle campagne 2004-2005 e 2006 furono finanziati dal Ministero italiano degli Affari Esteri e della Cooperazione Internazionale (Direzione Generale Sistema Paese) e dal Ministero yemenita delle Finanze, e con il patrocinio dell’allora Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente di Roma (IsIAO) e dell’Università di Napoli ‘L’Orientale’.

La produzione di questo volume non sarebbe stata possibile senza il generoso sostegno da parte di The Shelby White and Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications (2017-2020), che ringrazio con tutta la mia riconoscenza.

S. Antonini de Maigret Perugia, 27 settembre 2019 Tra il 2005 e il dicembre 2007 — gli ultimi giorni nel Jawf della Missione archeologica italiana — ho condotto a Barāqish un particolare progetto di indagini fuori-mura che ambiva a combinare scavo, geoarcheologia di piccola scala, recupero di residui animali e vegetali, e limitata prospezione del sito (ahimé molto limitata a causa delle restrizioni di sicurezza). I capitoli che ho suggerito di includere in questo volume, e i miei propri, intendono essere un tributo a un luogo straordinario, soprattutto in questo momento in cui la gente e il patrimonio dello Yemen soffrono in maniera orribile, e la testimonianza di una esperienza meravigliosa sia intellettuale sia umana. I miei collaboratori yemeniti del 2005 e 2006 nell’Area C, soldati dell’esercito dello Yemen, sono stati spesso nei miei pensieri mentre scrivevo queste pagine, nella quiete confortevole di un’Europa monotona e pallida.

È stato un privilegio e una sfida lavorare come membro della missione di Alessandro de Maigret a Barāqish. Ciò che ho cercato di fare, per recare un contributo agli obiettivi collettivi della missione, è stato di dischiudere e comprendere la storia complessiva di un insediamento. In particolare un insediamento urbano al margine del deserto dello Yemen. Purtroppo, nelle circostanze, si è potuta adempiere soltanto una minima parte di tanto elevato obiettivo, arrestandosi il progetto alla prima fase in programma — ossia un semplice inizio, e non più che uno sguardo. I risultati presentati in questo volume ne costituiscono il rapporto finale.

Se le acquisizioni ottenute a Barāqish Area C sembrano superare i loro limiti, è solo perché concorrono a mostrare quanto il sito di Barāqish abbia in serbo per il futuro. E non semplicemente nel ventre del tell. Non c’è dubbio che un’enorme ricchezza di informazioni significative attende di essere scoperta tutt’intorno al suo perimetro: giù nella piana attigua, sui fianchi e sul talus all’esterno dello stupendo muro. Basti pensare — per limitarsi all’Area C e ai soli quadranti occidentali — alla Yathill delle origini, sepolta a profondità sconosciuta; o ai rapporti tra l’insediamento e la più antica zona irrigua; o alla natura e all’estensione del muro di cinta di Karibʾīl il Grande. Circa il sito nel suo insieme, si pensi soltanto alla documentazione sull’uso incipiente del dromedario, quale è lecito attendersi da una Yathill (Fedele 2017, 306). Con il 2007 tutto ciò, e molto altro, è obbligatoriamente rimasto terra incognita. Per riprendere una riflessione dei recenti scavatori di Tell Brak (Matthews 2003a, 229), si deve e si vuole sperare che l’attesa di scoprire siffatti tesori storici non si riveli infinita.

F. G. Fedele Torino, 4 ottobre 2019

ix

President of the General Organization of Antiquities and Museums of Yemen since 2012. Together with the authors, we wish to remember him not only as a sincere friend, but also as one of the best leaders of GOAM for its tireless commitment to the preservation of the cultural heritage of Yemen.

10 August 2020

يذلاو ,(2020 - 1962) ينايسلا دمحأ دمهم ةينميلا فحاتملاو راثلآل ةماعلا ةئيهلا سيئرل ةئجافملا ةافولا نع ملؤملا ربخلا انيقلت ,دلجملا جاتنإو دادعإ ءانثأ ةماعلا ةئيهلا ةداق لضفأ نيب نم ًاضيا نكلو صلخم قيدصك طقف سيل نيفلؤملا عم هركذتن نأ دون للجلا باصملا اذهبو .2012 ةنس ذنم ةئيهلا ةسائر ىلوت .نميلل يفاقثلا ثارتلا ىلع ظافحلاب بوؤدلا همازتللا ةينميلا فحاتملاو راثلآل

2020 سطسغأ 10

x

Alessio Agostini is a researcher at the University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’, where he teaches Semitic Epigraphy and Philology. As a member of the Italian Archaeological Mission to Yemen since 2002 he has participated as archaeologist- epigraphist to the excavations at Barāqish, Tamnaʿ and Ḥayd ibn ʿAqīl. More recently he has conducted fieldwork in Oman and Ethiopia. Among his recent publications, ‘The Jawf valley as a crossroad. Some observation about the tribe of Amīr in South Arabia’ in ARAM 30 (2018).

Sabina Antonini heads the Italian Archaeological Mission to Yemen c/o Monumenta Orientalia (Rome). Since 1984 she has taken part in archaeological surveys and excavations of prehistoric sites in Khawlān al-Ṭiyāl and Ramlat al-Sabʿatayn and of South Arabian sites, including Yalā, Tamnaʿ, Ḥayd ibn ʿAqīl, and Barāqish. She is a specialist in South Arabian archaeology and history of art. Her contribution, ‘The Italian Archaeological Mission at Šibām al- Ġirās, Yemen’, has appeared in Festschrift in honour of Professor Mikhail Piotrovsky (2019).

Mounir Arbach is director of research at the French National Centre for Scientific Research (UMR 5133 – Archéorient, Lyon). He is a specialist of languages and history of pre-Islamic South Arabia. He has been taking part to French and Italian archaeological missions in Yemen (1993-2009) and in Saudi Arabia (2006-2019). He is currently heading the Saudi-French archaeological Mission in the region of al-Fāw (Saudi Arabia). His recent publications include

‘Premiers échos de l’expédition romaine d’Ælius Gallus dans la documentation sudarabique’ (with J. Schiettecatte) in Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, comptes rendus des séances de l’année 2017 (2017).

Khālid ʿAlī al-ʿAnsī obtained a BA in Classical Archaeology at the University of Ṣanʿāʾ (1988) and specialized in Near Eastern Archaeology and Art at the Università di Napoli ‘L’Orientale’. In 1988 he joined Yemen’s General Organization for Antiquities and Museums, where he was director for the Province of Ibb (2002–2007) and since 2012 heads the Al-Bayḍaʾ office. He has done extensive fieldwork in Yemen, both for GOAM, including directorships of excavations, and as a participant in foreign archaeological missions, publishing widely on ancient Yemen.

Vittoria Buffa is a member of the Italian Mission of the University of Pisa to Oman, in this capacity conducting excavations at Khor Rori in Dhofār (Sultanate of Oman) since 2000. As a member of the Italian Archaeological Mission to Yemen she has participated in the excavations at Tamnaʿ and Barāqish. She is a specialist in South Arabian archaeology and ceramic studies. A forthcoming publication is Sumhuram. The becoming of a town (V. Buffa, editor; ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider).

Christian Darles is an architect and archaeologist, honorary professor at the Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture (Toulouse) and research associate of several French institutions, including CNRS UMR 5608, ENSA- Toulouse, and CEFAS-Ṣanʿāʾ. Since 1976 he has been a member of both French and international archaeological missions to Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Tunisia, and Morocco, and an expert for the UNESCO’s World Heritage city of Shibam. He is a corresponding member of the Académie d’Architecture and a Knight of the National Order of Arts and Letters.

Francesco G. Fedele has been Professor of Anthropology and Prehistoric ecology at the Università di Napoli

‘Federico II’, Naples, until retirement in 2011. As a member of the Italian Archaeological Mission to Yemen since 1984 he has conducted excavations in Khawlān al-Ṭiyāl and at Barāqish, with a particular focus on site geoarchaeology and archaeofaunas. His recent publications include ‘New data on domestic and wild camels in Sabaean and Minaean Yemen’ in Archaeozoology of the Near East 9 (2017).

Solène Marion de Procé specializes in the archaeology of the ancient Arabian Peninsula. She heads the Saudi- French archaeological mission to the Farasān Islands in the southern Red Sea and is currently working on the Maparabia project (ANR-18-CE27-0015, dir. J. Schiettecatte). Her recent publications include ‘Un petit temple inédit au sud de la mer Rouge’ in Semitica et Classica 11 (2018) and ‘What evidence for the 6th cent. conflict in the Farasān Islands?’ in La guerre en Arabie antique (Geuthner, 2019).

Alessandra Paladino has been dealing since 1998 with conservation and restoration of stone artefacts, mosaics, and wall paintings of archaeological, artistic and architectural interest, for cultural heritage, in Italy and abroad. From 2003 to 2006 she took part in the restoration works of the Temples of Nakraḥ and ʿAthtar dhu-Qabḍ at Barāqish for the Italian Archaeological Mission to Yemen.

xi

the Arabian settlement process, the land-use in arid environments, and the Late Antique to Early Islam transition.

Among his latest publications, ‘The political map of Arabia and the Middle East in the third century AD’ (with M.

Arbach) in Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy (2016).

Saverio Bruno Scigliano has been dealing since 1998 with conservation and restoration of stone artefacts, mosaics, wall paintings, and canvas and wood of archaeological, artistic and architectural interest, in Italy and abroad. From 2003 to 2006 he was chief restorer for the Italian Archaeological Mission to Yemen, carrying out the project on the restoration of the Temples of Nakraḥ and ʿAthtar dhu-Qabḍ at Barāqish.

Rosario Valentini is an archaeologist and topographer at the Università di Napoli ‘L’Orientale’. He has taken part in archaeological surveys and excavations in Yemen — with a particular focus on Tamnaʿ and Barāqish as a member of the Italian Archaeological Mission to Yemen since 1999 — as well as in Saudi Arabia, Oman, Turkey, Uzbekistan, and Italy. Among his recent publications, ‘Trial Trenches at Koitepe, Samarkand Area (Sogdiana). Eighth Interim Report 2018’ in Newsletter di Archeologia CISA, Ricerche e Studi (2019).

*

Dates and Arabic Names

Dates

Dates in the English-language chapters of this book will be expressed in the text as ‘BCE’ or ‘CE’, i.e., before or in the current era, respectively. However, following standard international practice, in the tables with chronological content the technical abbreviations ‘BC’ and ‘AD’ will be employed. Expanded as ‘cal BC’ or ‘cal AD’, cal meaning both calendar and calibrated, these latter abbreviations might also be used in text passages specifically concerned with radiocarbon dating.

Arabic names

In the transcription of Arabic names, unless indicated otherwise, the lam of the article al- is never assimilated with the initial letter of the following word, regardless of how it is pronounced. Both common and proper names will be so transcribed.

xii

Map of Southern and central Arabia. Barāqish and the so-called ‘incense’ route.

xiii

Barāqish/Yathill (Yemen) 1986-2007 Vol 1, Archaeopress 2021: 1–62 Barāqish as an archaeological site¹was brought to the

attention of the wider world outside Yemen in the last decades of the 19th century. Further visits and reports were rare and only followed much later, due to the persistent difficulties the area presented (and still presents) to access and stay. Formal recording, mostly epigraphic, began in the late 1970s. However, it was only in 1986 that a sustained archaeological initiative could be arranged to bring Barāqish into focus and make its significance well known. This effort by the Italian Archaeological Mission to Yemen, led by A. de Maigret, developed in two phases until 2007, supported by prompt publication. Notable restoration work of the excavated monuments was also accomplished. The present volume contains a final report on the Italian project, mainly devoted to the unpublished records and to a detailed reappraisal of some previously presented information. Research at Barāqish proved impossible after 2007 because of mounting tension in the Jawf.

A. de Maigret’s death (2011) and war in Yemen (2015) contributed to make this halt permanent. In 2015 the Barāqish archaeological site was damaged by a Saudi Arabian attack and the Italian Mission’s base was razed to the ground.

1. Early visits and observations, 1870-1947

The first western observer to report about Barāqish ‘in the lower Jawf’ was the Jew erudite and great Semitist,

1 This chapter is intended as both a narrative of archaeological research and an introduction to the contents of the two volumes comprising this book. It was proposed and outlined by FGF in consideration of — and as a complement to — the cataloguing of the archives of the Italian Archaeological Mission to Yemen which has been carried out by SA since 2016 and is being completed. The chapter was written in English by FGF in April-July 2018 with archival information and partial texts contributed by SA for sections 3.2–3.3 and 4.2–4.6; SA also drafted a preliminary bibliography on Barāqish (for previous bibliographies see Schiettecatte 2006a, 134–135; 2011, 51; 2019a). Sections 1, 2, 3.1, 4.1, and 5 were researched and written by FGF, who also copied and annotated the documents in Appendix A.

The entire chapter underwent a final revision in October 2019. The reader is advised that in the transcription of Arabic proper names the lam of the article al- is never assimilated with the initial of the following name, regardless of how it is pronounced. This convention will be followed throughout the English-language chapters of this book.

Chapter 1

A History of Archaeological Research at Barāqish and in Its Area

Sabina Antonini and Francesco G. Fedele

Joseph Halévy (1827-1917),² who in 1869 had been sent to Yemen by the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles- Lettres specifically to look for epigraphic sites and

‘copy Sabaean or Himyaritic inscriptions’.³ He visited the area in the spring and torrid summer of 1870 with a younger Yemeni Jew from Ṣanʿāʾ as his hired assistant, Ḥayyim Ḥabshūsh, who was already personally interested in ancient inscriptions as well as magic.

Carried out between February and some time in the late summer or autumn, their perilous mission was a great success, but by the time they returned to Ṣanʿāʾ their relationship had become strained. The appearance in 1939 of Habshush’s own version of the journey⁴ stirred

2  Halévy (ha-Levi) was most likely a Hungarian Jew (Verskin 2018b, 13, note 33), who had been wandering for religious and social pursuits for most of his life. Although his career as a scholar took place largely in France, he only settled there in 1868 when he was already middle aged. See Verskin 2018b, 3, 13–25; Tobi 2005; both with further references.

3  As Halévy records (1873, 5), ‘Ce voyage avait pour but de rechercher et de copier les textes des monuments épigraphiques des anciens Sabéens’.

Cf. Halévy 1872a [= 1872b], 5, letter of 21 July 1871 to the Minister of Public education: ‘Une mission dans le Yémen, afin de rechercher et de copier les inscriptions sabéennes ou himyarites existant dans le pays.’ Behind Halévy’s epigraphic mission was the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (CIS), the ambitious initiative launched by Ernest Renan and two colleagues in 1867. Renan’s role in eventually choosing Halévy and shaping such a difficult mission was instrumental, as was his unfailing support of Halévy in the aftermath of the journey (Chevalier 2012, 56;

Verskin 2018b, 20–22, 24). On Halévy‘s mission from the perspective of Sabaeology see, e.g., de Maigret 1996, 43–45; 2009a, 46–47 [from here onwards only this English edition of the book will be cited]; de Maigret and Robin 1993, 493 (Robin); Schiettecatte 2006a, 135; 2011, 51–52, and elsewhere; 2019a; Charloux and Robin 2016, 25–26; all with further references. The proceedings and results of the mission were made known in two complementary publications, issued in several instalments for a total of 381 printed pages: Halévy 1872a, reissued as a volume (1872b); 1873, with a large folding map in the July issue of the journal showing the itinerary; and 1877. The Rapport has been partly translated into Arabic (Halévy 1992). A landmark publication on ‘Sabaean’ philology followed in the same years (Halévy 1873-1874;

reissued as a volume, 1875).

4  Ḥabshūsh’s remarkable travelogue, Ruʾyat al-Yaman (‘A vision of Yemen’), was written twenty-three years after the journey when the Austrian orientalist Eduard Glaser urged him to commit his recollections to paper. However, the manuscript was only rediscovered in 1936 and published in 1939 (Ḥabshūsh 1939, in Hebrew; announced in Goitein 1938). For subsequent editions see Goitein 1941; Ḥabshūsh 1976, 1983, 1992, 1995, 1998. The first English translation (Ḥabshūsh 2018) has just appeared as part of a wider-ranging study (Verskin 2018a), and it will be followed here. For an interesting review of Ḥabshūsh 1976 see Müller 1980.

2 a scholarly dispute about their respective accounts, reviving late 19th century criticisms of Halévy and lingering suspicions about the behaviour of both.⁵ This subject will be commented upon in some detail because it has a direct bearing on the archaeological discovery of Barāqish.⁶

As Jews who could count on the support of Jewish groups in an otherwise difficult land, Halévy and his companion set off towards Mārib taking a northern route from Ṣanʿāʾ into and across the Wādī Jawf depression. Undeterred by its descriptions as ‘a problem area’ and ‘a real carnage for foreigners’, Halévy had become attracted to the Jawf because of

‘the appeal of the unknown’, in addition to the tales of ancient cities provided by the classical authors and a personal ambition to retrace the steps of Aelius Gallus, the Roman prefect who reached Mārib.⁷ A highlight was the discovery and identification in this region of Maʿīn, the ancient Qarnaw or Qarnā of the Minaeans; another one was the so-called Banāt ʿĀd temple at Haram.⁸ Back in the Jawf in August, after a demanding excursion to Najrān in present-day Saudi Arabia, they were told of an ancient ‘Jewish’ city a little to the south, now uninhabited, which was in fact Barāqish.⁹ Halévy briefly described it:¹⁰

5  The respective roles of Ḥabshūsh and Halévy in recording antiquities have repeatedly been debated without reaching total consensus. In fact, the dispute needs to be analyzed at a higher level and on different registers: as a character clash between two individuals with hugely different life histories and aims (see below);

as emblematic of the collision between the cultures each of them represented, i.e., an issue in Orientalism (Verskin 2018b, 35–36; 2018c, 41–44); as contrasts and tensions within Judaism itself.

6  This section on Halévy and Ḥabshūsh summarizes research on most of the original sources conducted between May 2018 and September 2019; on the controversy it reflects personal interpretation. [FGF]

7  By his own admission: Halévy 1872, 13–14. He often compares himself to the ancients who had been his only European predecessors in the Jawf or having dealt with the Jawf (Aelius Gallus, Strabo, Pliny).

Classical memories feature repeatedly in Halévy’s pages as a source of guidance and strength: e.g., Halévy 1872, 27–28 (‘J’avais la certitude de fouler une terre classique, et je sentis revivre en moi une énergie assez grande pour braver les dangers de la situation’), 34–35, 43; 1873, 583, 600–604.

8  ‘One of the famous buildings to which the Arabs give the picturesque name of Binat Ad, the daughters of the patriarch Ad’

(Halévy 1873, 583–584, translated). Ḥabshūsh himself (2018, 134–135, 145) was well acquainted with ʿĀd as the forefather of a mythic tribe mentioned in the Qurʾān (cf. Verskin 2018a, 241, note 15; 244, note 4).

9  This is Halévy’s version (1872b, 43). Ḥabshūsh is completely silent about how the existence of Barāqish became known, in spite of having learned, from a Jewish graveyard ‘close to the ruin’, that his ancestors had lived there (Ḥabshūsh 2018, 144–145). Furthermore, contrary to Ḥabshūsh, Halévy places the ‘discovery’ of Barāqish on the return journey from Najrān, not during their stay in the Jawf two or three months earlier. This is only the most glaring discrepancy between the two versions of the proceedings of the journey, strangely overlooked by commentators; or the three versions, since there is disagreement on several details also between Halevy’s Rapport and Voyage. But on matters of itinerary the reliable chronicler must be Halévy, as he alone was the undisputed leader of the expedition and was always behaving as such; in his eyes Ḥabshūsh was a mere paid servant with no say in the choice of route or in scientific decisions.

10  Halévy 1872b, 85; an English translation in Schiettecatte 2019a. In

[Une] ruine fort imposante, quoique de moindre étendue que Méʿîn [Maʿīn]. Le mur d’enceinte est en grande partie conservé et porte de nombreuses inscriptions. Des fragments de stèles se voient à profusion, aussi bien dans l’intérieur que hors de la ville.[¹¹] Les édifices publics ne forment qu’un tas de décombres. On sent pourtant que c’était une ville religieuse par excellence, car les vestiges de temples, reconnaissables par les débris des portes et par la disposition des stèles,[¹²] abondent de tous les côtés.

Whether Halévy ever saw Barāqish himself is not clear;

in fact, it is to be doubted.¹³ In many instances he clearly only relied on what Ḥabshūsh would report to him, as well as on the freshly copied inscriptions which his companion was bringing. Here lies the crux of the Ḥabshūsh-Halévy debate, triggered by the former’s revelations.¹⁴ The issue is particularly intriguing in

Halévy’s Rapport (1872b), Barāqish is dealt with on pages 43–44 (discovery), 85–90 (list of inscriptions), 184–214 (original texts), and 254–260 (translations). On p. 43 Halévy cites an old written contract indicating that ‘Berâqisch’ — as he spells the place name — had been abandoned since no more than a century. A Jewish community ‘close to Barāqish’ is mentioned in a document of 1922 cited by Tobi (2005, 287).

11  This observation was echoed decades later by Aḥmed Fakhrī: ‘[a]

stela lying near the mosque, another stela outside the girdle-wall, and three fragments reused in the wall-restorations^sic of the Arab period’ (Fakhry and Ryckmans 1951–1952, I, 142). It is worth noting that Fakhrī (see below in this section) greatly admired Halévy’s accomplishments, stating that the scope of Halévy’s voyage remained unrivalled even in his own time (Verskin 2018b, 25, summarizing Fakhry and Ryckmans 1951-1952, I, 23).

12  By ‘stèles’ Halévy almost always referred to the tall stone blocks that constituted columns or beams, see footnote 25. Identically Ḥabshūsh 2018, 134.

13  As first revealed by Glaser (1913, 165; cf. Goitein 1941, 10), it appears that Halévy did not see Barāqish, nor did he work personally on a number of other sites (see, e.g., Philby 1938, 125; Calvet and Pic 1997, 79; Tobi 2005, 289, 290; Schiettecatte 2006a, 136, note 422,

‘Il semble en realité que J. Halévy se soit contenté d’y envoyer son guide à en croire le récit de ce dernier’; 2011, 70, 74, 97). In comparison to the profusion of details about Maʿīn and Haram, sites he actually visited (cf. footnote 25), Halévy is laconic and banal about Barāqish precisely in the same way he was about Kamnā (Robin 1992, 149). Besides, Barāqish is wildly misplaced on Halévy’s map, while in the text of Voyage it is not even mentioned. Ḥabshūsh’s account, on the contrary, is detailed and eloquent and rich in anecdotes (Ḥabshūsh 2018, 142–147; notes in Verskin 2018a, 241), although the reader would hardly find an expression of wonder at the spectacle of Barāqish — Ḥabshūsh was no archaeologist, and when he reached the place he rather felt like a pilgrim. The likely inference is that Halévy did not visit Barāqish, or at least did not examine it, and certainly he did not copy inscriptions. At most, he might have caught a glimpse of the site accompanying Ḥabshūsh on one brief occasion, when, after Najrān, his mind was now totally and characteristically focused on the next step (reaching Mārib), hence relatively distracted.

14  Nowhere in his reports does Halévy mention Ḥabshūsh, or even admits that he had a partner throughout his journey. This was his inexcusable failing. Halévy’s deliberate ignoring the contribution of his companion had possibly to do with his manifest disdain for the Jews of Yemen (Tobi 2005, 289) and eventually for Ḥabshūsh as a person. But arguably no less impelling was an obligation towards himself and his sponsors to portray his journey as a solo feat and a great European success. Of this he was rightly proud, and since for his career he deemed it essential that his authorship of the copies was not doubted (cf. Halévy 1875, 237, here reproduced in footnote 17), he kept quiet about his companion’s role accordingly (cf. Chevalier 2012, 56).

3 the case of Barāqish, this being the site that produced about a quarter (22.6 per cent) of all Halévy’s ancient inscriptions,¹⁵ besides being a remarkable archaeological site in itself.

Ḥayyim ibn Yaḥyā Ḥabshūsh (1839-1899) was a coppersmith by trade, and later a historian and community activist, for whom the encounter with Halévy was transformational.¹⁶ He was taught to read and copy inscriptions in Old South Arabic, a script with which he was already superficially familiar because of his habit of melting ancient bronze plaques.¹⁷ During their journey Halévy would often send him off alone to inspect sites, particularly if these were difficult to reach or seemed too risky. It was Ḥabshūsh who copied most of the inscriptions, especially during their long stay in the Jawf on the outward journey, and it is to him in particular that all the copies from Barāqish must be attributed.¹⁸ As he was paid by lines of copy, and the curtain wall of Barāqish was found to offer exceptionally long inscriptions, he matter-of-fact admits to secretly dividing the longer ones into shorter pieces to earn more money.¹⁹ Halévy’s Rapport lists in

15  Of the total of 686 inscriptions (Halévy’s raw count), Barāqish had produced 155 (nos 424-578; Halévy 1872b, 85–90). The Jawf as a whole had produced 467 inscriptions, or more than two thirds (68.2 per cent) of the total.

16  Verskin 2010. The encounter and mission with Halévy were for Ḥabshūsh ‘the journey of discovery and self-discovery of a [Yemen’s]

native son’, observes Verskin (2018a, 4), and the same can be said of writing A vision of Yemen. On the Jews of Yemen, for perspective, see Klein-Franke 1988; Nini 1991; Tobi 1999, 1–108; Verskin 2018b, 20–21;

2018c.

17  Not just melting, but also reproducing? In 1872, soon after the

‘Sabaean’ texts in Halévy’s Rapport had become known, Ḥabshūsh was suspected of forgery in connection with several inscribed bronze plaques acquired by the British Museum, an accusation that Halévy — when questioned — indeed endorsed (Tobi 2005; Phillips and Simpson 2007, 207–209; Verskin 2018b, 33–34). Wrote Halévy later in Études Sabéennes (1875, 237 [‘Additions et corrections’, referencing p. 50]):

‘L’original du n° 157 de mes textes est un de ceux qui m’ont été soustraits par mon guide de Ṣanʿa, et qui ont servi à la fabrication des fragments [...], fragments que le falsificateur a imité, car cet homme ne savait pas lire le sabéen [...]. De quelques-uns des textes volés, je possède d’autres copies faites sur les lieux mêmes.’

18  Cf. Ḥabshūsh 2018, 109, 116, 134–135, 139–140, 142–147 (Barāqish), 154. Halévy would take the texts copied by his guide and write them down again in his own hand (Ḥabshūsh 2018, 143). Concerning the Jawf, Ḥabshūsh (2018) claims that it was he and not Halévy who had made the vast majority of the transcriptions (p. 135), and even that Halévy barely left the house of his Jewish hosts: ‘As for my teacher Joseph, he was so afraid during our sojourn in the Jawf that he did not venture out of home except to go to Maʿīn and Banāt ʿĀd — and it was in the Jawf that we stayed the longest’ (p. 154). See Verskin 2018b, 33. While such assertions have found acceptance with most critics, understandably there have been dissenters siding with Halévy (cf. Verskin 2018b, 34–35). Philby, for instance (1943), reacting to Goitein 1941, expressed outrage that Halévy’s word could be doubted, and thought that Ḥabshūsh had contrived part of his story from a later revisiting of the places (and copying inscriptions) by himself.

More recently Bianchi (2003; 2008, 141–142) suggested that Ḥabshūsh had belittled Halévy to please Glaser. Although ‘inclined to believe Ḥabshūsh’s claim’, Verskin (2018b, 35) concludes that ‘the question cannot be definitively resolved on the basis of the available evidence’.

19  Stressing, however, that he behaved in this way only in the case of Barāqish (Ḥabshūsh 2018, 142). See Robin and de Maigret 1994, 49; de

fact more individual texts from Barāqish than actually existed.²⁰

The reader of Halévy’s and Ḥabshūsh’s versions had better take an eclectic stance. In fact, both accounts are biased: both are at the same time reliable and unreliable, albeit in a complementary way depending on context and topic. Both men had a temperament as well as reasons to tell a subjective and often highly personal story of their journey together: Halévy, quietly and tactfully to advance his standing and reputation in Paris, and Ḥabshūsh to get the record straight — to get back his moral due. Halévy was a driven and self-centred man,²¹ ambitious and secretive, single-mindedly striving for his one goal. Part character, part survival strategy, these personal qualities enabled him to carry out one of the remarkable exploration and archaeological feats of the 19th century. From this point of view the Académie could not have chosen better. On his part, Ḥabshūsh was curious and adventurous, and tended to be boyishly cunning. But he can be trusted about what interested, affected, or impressed him more: the people and places and incidents of the journey; the work he did to his very best as an enterprising partner; and his respect for the intellectual stature of his ‘master’ and ‘teacher’, in spite of all their differences — Ḥabshūsh had been imprinted by Halévy.

Ḥabshūsh’s perseverance, directness, and spirit of observation thus played a greater role in understanding the antiquities of the Jawf than is still commonly admitted: his informations and opinions inevitably informed — uncredited — Halévy’s own thinking and writing. In describing Barāqish, for example, he showed remarkable intuition when he recognized the site’s successive strata: ‘three discernible layers from the Islamic period on top of a Minaean layer’, the very sequence — as de Maigret noted admiringly — that excavations revealed 120 years later.²² Another case

Maigret 2009a, 47–48.

20  As firstly noted by Goitein (in Ḥabshūsh 1983, 112, note 52a).

Robin, citing Halévy 1872a, mentions 154 inscriptions (de Maigret and Robin 1993, 493). For an independent assessment of their number cf. de Maigret’s topographic listing compiled in 1986 (Appendix B, below) and Gushchina 2015 (see footnote 41).

21  ‘Indifferent’ to the needs and merits of others: cf. W.F. Prideaux, letter of July 1872 to H.F. von Maltzan, as quoted in Phillips and Simpson 2007, 208. Prideaux had met Halévy in Aden in 1870 on this latter’s return from his journey.

22  de Maigret 2009a, 48, from which the quotation is taken. In fact, Ḥabshūsh described four layers or periods. In his own words (Ḥabshūsh 2018, 145): ‘After I had examined the ruin [= Barāqish], I discovered that it had been rebuilt and inhabited three times after it was first built.’ This first building clearly was Minaean (one could think of Temple A): ‘Through [a torn-down wall] I could see ancient and magnificently constructed buildings. I cannot begin to describe their grandeur and splendor, the size of their stones, and their craftsmanship and architecture. It was as though each stone was laid so close to a matching one that a hair could not fit between them.

There was no plaster or mortar in the first building.’ ‘Once the first building had been destroyed and covered in earth, they had built

4 in point is Halévy’s claim that Barāqish, ancient YṮL (Yathill),²³ was ‘a religious city without equal’: at the origin of this idiosyncratic interpretation of Yathill²⁴ was clearly the fact that Ḥabshūsh had noticed quite a number of half-buried monolithic pillars similar to those characterizing the temples he and Halévy had seen at Maʿīn and Haram.²⁵ Ḥabshūsh seems to have inspected with keenest curiosity the cavernous, largely buried structure existing near the southern wall of Barāqish, which the Italian excavations in 1989-1990 would indeed reveal to be a temple dedicated to the patron god of the town.²⁶

During the last decades of the 19th century the identification of Islamic Barāqish with ancient South Arabian Yathill became established.²⁷ The extraordinary wealth of inscriptions from the wall of Barāqish, painstakingly copied by Ḥabshūsh and reported with erudition by Halévy, was crucial to this effect.

No further archaeological research in the Jawf followed this pioneering episode until the 1940s, when imām Yaḥyah cautiously began to admit the occasional foreign scholar into the country. Two Egyptian scholars had then a chance briefly to inspect Barāqish on their way to Maʿīn.²⁸ The first was Muḥammad Tawfīq, an entomologist and keen amateur archaeologist, in 1944 and 1945. He had already been to Yemen as a natural scientist with the Egyptian University Expedition of 1936 led by Sulaymān Aḥmad Huzayyin, a prehistorian.²⁹ Although short and imperfect, Tawfīq’s account reliably documented for the first time a number of Barāqish inscriptions and reliefs; the inscriptions were subsequently published in four instalments by Khalīl Nāmī.³⁰

another above it with bricks and also with some stones from the earlier building. Then, the second building had been destroyed and covered, and they had built above it a third, and when that had been destroyed and covered, they had built a fourth time.’

23  Iṭoul or Iṭâl in Halévy’s (1872b, 44) transliteration and vocalization.

On Yathill as a place name cf. al-Sheiba 1987, 60.

24  A notion that was not only repeated in Halévy’s own publications (1872b, 43, 85; this latter passage is reproduced above, see footnote 10), but also appeared in the encomium introducing the gold medal he was awarded for geographic discovery (Duveyrier 1872, 37): a text inspired, if not actually written, by Halévy himself.

25  Square-section colums and beams are standard architecture in the temples of the Jawf (cf. footnote 12), although not exclusively (Darles 2009b). Maʿīn and Haram were the only two sites which, according to Ḥabshūsh (see above), Halévy had personally visited.

26  The god Nakraḥ, see section 3.3 below; cf. de Maigret 2009a, 313.

As to the state and appearance of this particular ruin — no less bewitching in the 1980s than it must have been for Ḥabshūsh in 1870

— see footnote 68.

27  E.g. von Müller 1896a, 1896b (YṮL vocalized Iathull).

28  de Maigret 2009a, 66–69.

29  Huzayyin 1937; cf. Zimmerman 2008, 150. Huzayyin’s expedition contributed to inspire G. Caton Thompson’s own mission to Ḥurayḍa the following year (Caton-Thompson 1938, 139).

30  Tawfīq 1951; Nāmī 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957. Notable among the reliefs are those of the so-called Banāt ʿĀd motifs in the extramural

In 1947 Barāqish was visited by Aḥmad Fakhrī (1905- 1973), professor of ancient history at Cairo University, during a three-month journey to Ṣirwāḥ, Mārib, and the Jawf.³¹ This was in many respects an institutional follow-up on the above mentioned Egyptian expedition of a decade earlier, Fakhrī also personally following in the footsteps of Huzayyin. Fakhrī’s account tends to be impressionistic and often lacks precision, nevertheless his observations, drawings, and particularly photographs concerning Barāqish were a significant improvement on all previous records.³² Among his many merits, Fakhrī documented Temple A and clearly recognized other similar monuments, still barely emerging from the ground.³³ More generally, and more importantly in retrospect, this journey represented one of the first professional archaeological surveys ever conducted in Yemen, a field in which the pioneering role played by both Huzayyin and Fakhrī deserves to be acknowledged.³⁴

2. The ‘renaissance’ of the 1970s and work at Barāqish 1976-1986: epigraphy and architecture

‘Modern’ archaeology commenced at Barāqish in the 1970s, and effectively only in the second half of the decade. This was an outcome of developments of a very particular time in both international politics and research. The 1970s witnessed a social and intellectual

‘renaissance’³⁵ in the two new republics that now formed Yemen. In South Yemen the British had retreated in 1967 from the former Aden Protectorates, where they had set up — and left as an important legacy — the first Department of Antiquities in the Arabian Peninsula and

temple of Maʿīn/Qarnā, cf. footnote 8 (Antonini 2004, 37–38). M. Tawfīq visited the Jawf and other parts of Yemen to study the behaviour and migrations of grasshoppers (Robin 1992, 150; cf. Antonini 2004, 9).

31  Fakhry 1948; Fakhry and Ryckmans 1951-1952. As Fakhrī recounts,

‘the famous Baraḳish’ was reached on 15 May ‘after six and a half hours’ march [in] intense heat’ (Fakhry and Ryckmans 1951-1952, I, 12); ‘the traveller can see Baraḳish from a great distance, as it is quilt [sic: built] over a high ridge commanding the whole neighbourhood’, and ‘the bastioned wall is the best preserved in the northern Yemen’

(I, 141).

32  Fakhry and Ryckmans 1951-1952, I, 141–142; III, plates XIII, LII–LV (pl. XIII mistakenly attributed to Ṣirwāḥ, see Van Beek 1958, 289, note 4, acknowledging A. Jamme for the correction). For a balanced evaluation of Fakhrī’s survey see de Maigret 2009a, 46, 67, 71, 313.

Among the expressions of interest for Barāqish in the two decades following Fakhrī’s publication, H. von Wissmann’s is particularly worth mentioning (von Wissmann 1962, e.g. 200, fig. 7, about the town wall).

33  Fakhry and Ryckmans 1951-1952, I, plates LII (Temple A), LIV; II, 141; von Wissmann 1964, 230, fig. 12; Doe 1983, 171–172, fig. 55 (a sketch view of Temple A based on Fakhrī’s photographs); de Maigret 2006, 81–82 (in reference to Temple B).

34  Almost all previous fieldwork in Yemen had focused on site excavation, not survey (C. Rathjens and H. von Wissmann, G. Caton Thompson, Major R.A.B. Hamilton), or had been more travel adventure than research (H.St J.B. Philby, a self-proclaimed ‘common explorer’, not an archaeologist — Philby 1938, 128). Only von Wissmann and D.

Van der Meulen in 1930-1931, in Ḥaḍramawt, had set out to do field reconnaissance.

35  ‘Renaissance’ is Robin’s term (2016, 4).