Society for Arabian Studies Monographs No.

10
Series editors D. Kennet & St J. Simpson

Death and Burial

in Arabia and Beyond
Multidisciplinary perspectives

Edited by

Lloyd Weeks

BAR International Series 2107

2010
Published by

Archaeopress
Publishers of British Archaeological Reports
Gordon House
276 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7ED
England
bar@archaeopress.com
www.archaeopress.com

BAR S2107
Society for Arabian Studies Monographs 10

Death and Burial in Arabia and Beyond: Multidisciplinary perspectives

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2010

ISBN 978 1 4073 0648 3

Printed in England by CMP (UK) Ltd

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd

122 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 7BP
England
bar@hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available
free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com
 The Arabian Iron Age funerary stelae
and the issue of cross-cultural contacts
Jérémie Schiettecatte
Abstract
Studies on South Arabian anthropomorphic funerary stelae often suggest that there is North Arabian influence in their iconography,
and some claim that there was a migration of North Arabian populations, bringing their own practices. The issue of northern
influence will be debated here through the study of two types of South Arabian stelae: Eye stelae from the Jawf valley and square
stelae from Qatabān. The paper demonstrates that neither onomastics nor chronology yield evidence for a northern origin or
influence. This is followed by a wider discussion of the origins of South Arabian culture. Two hypotheses are discussed: the first is
the acculturation of southern populations by northern groups, or even the migration of people from Southern Levant or North Arabia
and the second is endogenous development. The second hypothesis appears to be more convincing.

Keywords: Arabia, funerary stelae, South Arabian culture, cultural contacts, acculturation.

Introduction South Arabian funerary stelae can be explained either by

The deceased were often represented on funerary stelae in
South Arabia in the 1st millennium BC. These
anthropomorphic stelae have been found in three areas:
the Jawf valley, which corresponded roughly to the
ancient kingdom of MaΚīn, the site of MaΜrib, capital city
of the ancient kingdom of SabaΜ, and the site of Дayd Ibn
ΚAqīl, the cemetery of TamnaΚ, capital city of the ancient
kingdom of Qatabān (Fig. 1). The stelae have common
features: the main elements of the face are schematically
represented, either in relief or incised. Nevertheless, all
these representations have their own unique qualities.
North Arabia has also yielded anthropomorphic stelae,
whether funerary or not, that show close iconographic
and onomastic parallels with those of South Arabia.
Therefore, it has been argued that the origin of these
an acculturation process, or by the settlement of North
Arabian populations in the south of the Peninsula (e.g.
Garbini 1976: 313; Garbini 1977: 378, n. 18).
The recent acquisition by the National Museum of Sanaa
of 581 funerary stelae and the discovery of several others
during the excavation of a necropolis at Barāqish
(Antonini and Agostini, this volume) makes it possible to
reopen the discussion on iconographic and wider cultural
links between South and North Arabia.
As the different categories of Arabian funerary stelae
have already been detailed elsewhere (see Arbach &
Schiettecatte 2006 and Arbach, Schiettecatte & al-Hadi
2008 for the Jawf stelae; for the Arabian funerary stelae
in general see Schiettecatte in press), only the possible

Figure 1. Political map of Southern Arabia in the 4th century BC.

191
DEATH AND BURIAL IN ARABIA AND BEYOND: MULTIDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES

Figure 2. Different types of anthropomorphic funerary stelae from the Jawf (Yemen): a – Eye stela (YM 28033, Arbach, Schiettecatte
& al-Hadi 2008, fig. 2 p. 37); b – Bas relief stela (YM 26595, Arbach, Schiettecatte & al-Hadi 2008, fig. 37 p. 49); c – Stela with
incised face elements (YM 28353, Arbach, Schiettecatte & al-Hadi 2008, fig. 330 p. 147); d – High relief stela (YM 29120, Arbach,
Schiettecatte & al-Hadi 2008, fig. 400 p. 171).

northern origin of South Arabian stelae will be discussed
here.
There are two categories of stelae, for which a North
Arabian origin has been postulated: Eye stelae from the
Jawf valley and Qatabānian square stelae (Garbini 1976;
Garbini 1977; Antonini, Arbach & Sedov 2002). These
categories will be presented and then the chronological
and onomastic arguments for a northern origin will be
reconsidered in the light of the recent discoveries. Next
we will turn to the larger issue of the formation and
development of the South Arabian culture, as it has been
suggested in the past that South Arabian culture was the
result of a strong northern influence, or even of incoming
populations (e.g., Knauf 1989; Sedov 1996; Nebes 2001;
Garbini 2004). The study of funerary stelae, together with
linguistic and archaeological evidence, leads to an
alternative hypothesis – an endogenous culture.

192
 JÉRÉMIE SCHIETTECATTE: THE ARABIAN IRON AGE FUNERARY STELAE AND THE ISSUE OF CROSS-CULTURAL CONTACTS
Anthropomorphic funerary stelae from the Jawf
Description
The stelae from the Jawf are carved from roughly shaped
rectangular stone slabs. The material is hard limestone, or
less frequently sandstone or alabaster. Four main types
can be distinguished in the Jawf valley:
Eye stelae (Fig. 2a): this category was documented by C.
Rathjens’ ‘Augenstelen’ (1955: 81). They only show a
pair of eyes, incised or in relief.
Bas relief stelae (Fig. 2b): the whole face is represented
in a low, generally sunken relief, the stone being cut
away around the ornament, which is left in slight relief.
Stelae with incised face elements (Fig. 2c): this type
adopts the iconography which developed on the bas relief
stelae; it is an incised, less time-consuming variant.
High relief stelae (Fig. 2d): these consist of plain
rectangular slabs with a high relief representation of the
face. Some of these are sculpted in the round, probably to
be inserted in a niche, as were the alabaster portraits of
the Awwām temple at MaΜrib (Gerlach 2002).
The alleged North Arabian origin of the Eye stelae: a
reconsideration
Two arguments have been put forward to suggest that Eye
stelae came from or reflect North Arabian influence: the
use of names that differ from the South Arabian
onomastic tradition and the anteriority of the North
Arabian anthropomorphic stelae in relation to that of
South Arabia. Recent work does not support these
differences.
The onomastic issue
The anthroponomy of Jawf funerary Eye stelae was first
studied by G. Garbini in 1976. Because the only known
names on inscriptions were written in the so-called North
Arabian languages, Garbini inferred that there was a
strong North Arabian component in the onomastics of
these stelae, and consequently in the ethnic fabric of the
Jawf.1
Several points contradict this hypothesis. Firstly, the
geographic or ethnic origin of a name does not
necessarily reflect the geographic or ethnic origin of its
bearer. Examples are legion in our modern societies. Of
course, a name can sometimes be associated with an
ethnic group or a territory, such as when it includes the
name of a local deity, but these cases are rare and do not
appear in Garbini’s study.
1
Garbini (1976: 313): “Appare pertanto innegabile la forte componente
nordarabica nell'onomastica (ed evidentemente nel tessuto etnico)
yemenita non-sabea nel periodo più antico della documentazione.”
193
Secondly, even when a name is reflective of the
geographic origin of its bearer, one cannot compare the
names attested in the Ancient South Arabian inscriptions
(Hadramitic, Sabaic, Qatabanic or Madhabic), called by
default “South Arabian names”, to those mentioned in the
so-called North Arabian inscriptions (Lihyanite,
Thamudic and Safaitic), considered “North Arabian
names”, without taking chronological and geographical
considerations into account. Indeed, such a comparison
would imply names attested in languages that are not
necessarily in use at the same time. For example, most
inscriptions in Safaitic were written at a time when
Madhabic was no more in use. Similarly, Thamudic
inscriptions are often considered North Arabian yet they
are found throughout the western half of the Peninsula,
from Yemen in the south to the extreme north of Arabia.
Thirdly, the significance of such comparisons is limited
by the fact that they are most often based on G. Lankester
Harding’s practical but now dated and very incomplete
index (1971). For example, three out of the five names
defined by G. Garbini as exclusively North Arabian have
now been attested in South Arabian inscriptions.2
Therefore, the proposed connection between the names
attested on the Jawf Eye stelae and North Arabian
onomastics are no proof of a North Arabian onomastic
tradition in South Arabia, even less of an ethnic North
Arabian fabric.
Having discussed the problems with the previously held
theory, how can the Jawf Eye stelae data be understood?
A study of 381 names displayed on funerary stelae
(Arbach, Schiettecatte & al-Hadi 2008), led Arbach and
the author to point out some singularities of the Jawf
onomastics. These are the scarcity of mimations and
nunations at the end of the names (11%) and the rarity of
family names (8.9%), both very frequent features in the
monumental inscriptions in the Jawf.
These observations can be explained two ways: by an
external influence or by a difference in social status. As
these peculiarities are frequent in the Central and North
Arabian onomastic tradition, it is tempting to interpret the
data as the evidence for a northern influence. Yet, this
feature may also reflect the tradition of a lower social
class, which is rarely represented in the large monumental
inscriptions from the Jawf area, the only onomastic
source until the recent discovery of the stelae. As the
percentage of stelae names that are only attested outside
South Arabia is very low for the 381 stelae (2.9%) and
zero for Eye stelae, the theory that these individuals
belong to a different social class appears to be more
probable.3
2
These are Еzf (al-Kāfir 14); Mrdn (Mrd in CT 22, RÉS 2761, MaΚīn
94, Mrdm in MuB 717, Aylward 1); Κnbr (RÉS 4994 and Antonini, AAE
9, fig. 11; Κnbrm in BAQ 4+2).
3
See Arbach, Schiettecatte & al-Hadi 2008: 15. A. Avanzini had
already put forward the hypothesis that the presence or absence of
mimation/nunation could mark a social differentiation between the
names used by the ruling classes and those used by the rest of the
population (Avanzini 1979: 218).
DEATH AND BURIAL IN ARABIA AND BEYOND: MULTIDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES
The chronological issue
Regarding the anthropomorphic funerary stelae, G.
Garbini suggested in a second study (1977) a direct
influence of North Arabian cultural trends in the Jawf
region. His explanation, amongst others, was the
anteriority of North Arabian anthropomorphic stelae from
TaymāΜ in relation to the South Arabian Eye stelae.4
Leaving aside the clear stylistic differences between these
two groups, the hypothesis of this anteriority requires
closer examination.
Dating the Eye-stelae from the Jawf
There are two ways to date the stelae: their archaeological
context and/or a palaeographic analysis of their
inscriptions. For most of the stelae, the excavation data is
absent as they come from illegal excavations. Only the
excavations of Barāqish yielded provisional dating for the
funerary stelae in the Jawf. They are thought to date to
the last two centuries BC, although the excavation data
are still under study and the precise chronological span
remains to be determined.5 No Eye stela has been found
so far in this site. All the stelae discovered at Barāqish are
Stelae with incised face elements or Stelae in relief.
In order to date the Eye stelae, it is therefore necessary to
rely on a palaeographic study of the inscriptions. It must
be highlighted that some limits are inherent in such
dating methods. In general the funerary stela inscriptions
are roughly carved; their texts were probably not
inscribed by trained stone-cutters. The dating possibilities
are therefore limited to the proportions of the letters in
respect to one another, the flared footings at the end of
the vertical strokes or the evolution of the curved shape
of the letters. Therefore, the stelae can only be dated
palaeographically to within a range of one or two
centuries.
M. Arbach and the author have carried out the
palaeographic classification of 446 stelae (including 17
Eye stelae) from the Jawf region, now in the Sanaa
National Museum (Arbach & Schiettecatte 2006; Arbach,
Schiettecatte & al-Hadi 2008). The chronological
distribution of the different stela types and their
palaeographic dating is represented in Fig. 3.
The Eye stelae are all dated between the 8th and 4th
centuries BC. They tend to become rarer from the 5th
century BC onward. Concurrently, other types of funerary
anthropomorphic stelae develop. This chronological
distribution also applies to the 21 Eye stelae published by
4
Garbini (1977: 378): “... si tratta di categorie monumentali funerarie di
evidente origine settentrionale, introdotte in Yemen, presumibilmente,
da gruppi etnici nord-arabici e da quei minei che per ragioni
commerciali erano in più stretto contatto con questi ultimi [...] Le
Augenstelen trovano il loro immediato precedente nelle stele funerarie
aramaiche di Teima.”
5
The excavation of the cemetery of Barāqish was conducted by S.
Antonini in 2005, as part of the Italian Archaeological Mission directed
by Alessandro de Maigret. She kindly communicated some of the main
results to the author.
194
G. Garbini showing written forms characteristic of the
period lasting from the 8th to the 6th century BC. This is
also the case for two out of the three Eye stelae housed in
the Aden Museum, NAM 244 and NAM 1721, whereas
stela NAM 95 seems to have been produced in a later
period, c. 3rd century BC (Aqīl 1984: 58-59, 62, fig. 3-4,
11). Eye stelae thus appear to be an archaic form of the
anthropomorphic stelae. They are mainly known from the
8th to the 5th century BC and not later than the 4th-3rd
centuries BC.6
Figure 3. Chronological distribution of the stelae against their
palaeographic dating (based on stelae published in Arbach &
Schiettecatte 2006; Arbach, Schiettecatte & al-Hadi 2008)
Are there earlier North Arabian funerary stelae?
The TaymāΜ stelae mentioned by G. Garbini are the
Aramaic stelae.7 These are rectangular slabs with a rather
standardized face representation (Fig. 4). The inscription
they bear reveals Imperial Aramaic script, which is dated
from the 6th/5th to the 4th/3rd centuries BC (Edens &
Bawden 1989: 62, footnote 44). In the seventies G.
Garbini, an advocate of a short chronology for South
Arabia which dated the most ancient South Arabian stelae
no earlier than the 5th century BC, could only postulate
the anteriority of the North Arabian stelae to the South
Arabian ones. Yet since then adherence to the short
chronology has been abandoned by almost all scholars for
a longer chronology in which the earliest South Arabian
monumental inscriptions and stelae are dated to the 8th
century BC. Therefore, there is no evidence which
confirms the anteriority of the Aramaic stelae from
TaymāΜ. Despite this, G. Garbini’s northern influence
theory is still regularly accepted in works dealing with
funerary practices in South Arabia.8
Other North Arabian stelae may be considered. A second
category of TaymāΜ stelae was discovered after G.
Garbini published his paper. It includes two coarse stelae
6
The latest examples are NAM 95 and the wooden stela RÉS 4746
(Hamburg Museum für Völkerkunde): Rathjens 1955: phot. 245, Höfner
1964: fig. 1.
7
See Degen (1974: 89, 93), al-Rāshad (dir.) (2003: 107), Abu Duruk
(1986: pl. LI).
8
Note alongside the contribution of A. de Maigret in the catalogue of
the exhibition held at the Institut du Monde Arabe (Robin & Vogt (eds)
1997: 167). See also Roux (1997: 209) and Vogt (2002: 184).
 JÉRÉMIE SCHIETTECATTE: THE ARABIAN IRON AGE FUNERARY STELAE AND THE ISSUE OF CROSS-CULTURAL CONTACTS

Figure 4. Aramaic Stelae from TaymāΜ (Photographic acknowledgment: William Facey): a – TaymāΜ Museum WF. 00808; b –
TaymāΜ Museum WF. 00813; c – TaymāΜ Museum WF. 00871; d – TaymāΜ Museum WF. 00861

much more similar to the South Arabian ones from an
iconographic point of view. The first comes from the
“Industrial Site” graveyard at TaymāΜ (Abu Duruk 1989:
pl. 8), dated between the 2nd millennium and the second
half of the 1st millennium BC. It is not possible to
determine whether it was produced earlier or later than
the South Arabian stelae. The other (TA 514) was found
at TaymāΜ (Area S) by the Saudi-German archaeological
joint project, in a disturbed stratigraphical context (Tomb
T. 1007). Radiocarbon dates place the occupation of the
area between the 9th and the 5th centuries BC.9 The stela is
a simple limestone slab on which the face elements are
roughly pecked. As with the previous example, nothing
9
Unpublished data provided by Dr. Arnulf Hausleiter (DAI, Orient
Abteilung). Concerning the datings, see Eichmann 2009: 62-63,
footnote 14.

195
DEATH AND BURIAL IN ARABIA AND BEYOND: MULTIDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES

Figure 5. Qatabanian stelae: a – Square stelae with face representation (TC 1668, Cleveland 1965, pl. 37); b – Rectangular stelae with
face representation (TC 1692, Cleveland 1965, pl. 38); c – Non figurative stelae (TC 2183, Cleveland 1965, pl. 74); d – Stelae with
bull head (TC 1686, Cleveland 1965, pl. 65); e – Stelae with head sculpted in the round (TC 1884, Cleveland 1965, pl. 24); f – Stelae
with high relief representation of the deceased (TC 1557, Cleveland 1965, pl. 45).

indicates whether this stela is older or younger than the therefore cannot be the forerunners of earlier South
Eye stelae from the Jawf. Arabian stelae.

Finally, there are often parallels drawn between the stelae
from Petra (Roche 1985; Moutsopoulos 1990), wādī
Ramm (Grohmann 1963: Abb. 31), and MadāΜin СāliΉ
(Grohmann 1963: Abb. 30) and the South Arabian
stelae.10 The influence of one region on the other is not
usually mentioned, though this could be considered.
These stelae generally represent the eyes and nose on a
stone slab in a very schematic way (Fig. 7a). They differ
from the South Arabian or TaymāΜ stelae because they are
not funerary stelae but betyls, i.e. representations of
deities. Those found in stratigraphical context date at the
latest to the first centuries of Christian era11 and
Thus, there is no North Arabian anthropomorphic
funerary stela which can be clearly dated prior to the 8th
century BC, the time of the appearance or the Jawf Eye
stelae. No influence from North to South can be mapped
out so far.
Anthropomorphic Qatabanian square stelae
Description
Hundreds of funerary stelae were unearthed at Дayd ibn
ΚAqīl, the graveyard of the Qatabānian capital TamnaΚ

10
For example: Cleveland (1965: 16-17) or Roche (1985: 143-144, 153-
154).
11
The anthropomorphic betyls discovered in stratigraphical context are
dated between the 1st and the 4th centuries AD: stela from the Temple of dated to the end of the 1st century AD (Bignasca, Desse-Berset,
the Winged Lions in Petra dated to the 1st century AD (Baratte 1978: Fellmann Brogli et al. 1996: 26-30, 337-38, Abb. 943-44); another in a
42); a betyl discovered in the destruction level of Haus III – Raum XXI 4th century context in Petra (Zayadine 1974: 147-148).

196
 JÉRÉMIE SCHIETTECATTE: THE ARABIAN IRON AGE FUNERARY STELAE AND THE ISSUE OF CROSS-CULTURAL CONTACTS
Figure 6. Qatabanian Square Stelae: a – TC 1366 (Cleveland 1965: pl. 39); b – TC 2039 (Cleveland 1965: pl. 39); c – TC 920
(Cleveland 1965: pl. 38); d – TC 1604 (Cleveland 1965: pl. 39); e – TC 1822 (Cleveland 1965: pl. 37); f – TC 1668 (Cleveland 1965:
pl. 37); g – Van Lesen 11 (Bron 1992: 24); h – Hon 8 (Honeyman 1962: pl. 8).
(Jamme 1952; Cleveland 1965; Antonini, Arbach &
Sedov 2002). This corpus is divided into six categories:12
- Square stelae with face representation (Fig. 5a)
- Rectangular stelae with face representation (Fig. 5b)
- Non figurative stelae (Fig. 5c)
- Stelae with bull head (Fig. 5d)
- Stelae with head of the deceased sculpted in the round
(Fig. 5e)
- Stelae with high relief representation of the deceased
as head-and-shoulders or full-length portraits (Fig. 5f)
The first category, the Qatabānian Square stelae, show
close similarities with some Taymanite and Nabataean
stelae, and are worth closer examination. About 80
examples are known so far.13 This category has been
divided up into two types by R. L. Cleveland (1965: 16-
20, pl. 36-40). In type A, the facial features are elegantly
stylized, with the nose forming a thin vertical band
connected to the eyebrows and almond-shaped eyes.
Type B is extremely simplified and limited to the
symbolic U-shaped representation of the eyes, to which a
nose, represented by a vertical line, is sometimes added.
However, the distinction between these two types is not
always clear. A synoptic presentation of several of these
artefacts reveals the stylistic continuity between types A
and B (Fig. 6). It is not possible to decide whether the U-
shaped eyes are an ancient and archaic production
evolving toward the type A form, or whether the
simplified treatment reflects an economy of means.
12
The four first categories have been identified by Antonini, Arbach &
Sedov (2002).
13
Lankester-Harding (1964: 48, pl. XLIII), Cleveland (1965), Aqîl
(1984), Robin & Vogt (eds) (1997: 173), Antonini, Arbach & Sedov
(2002: 4-5, tav. IIIc-d), Avanzini (2004: n° 382, 636, 658, 777, 780,
781, 931, 1057, 1066).
197
An alleged North-Arabian origin: reconsideration
S. Antonini published two of these stelae, suggesting that
they were produced at the turn of Christian era, had
Arabian names, and were evidence for the arrival of
nomadic tribes in South Arabia from northwestern
Arabia, where similar stelae have been found.14
The onomastic issue
Antonini does not specify the basis on which she
considers the names to be Arabian and therefore a few
comments are necessary. With regard to these two names,
Arbach indicates in the same volume that the first of
these names is partly reconstructed and that it is the name
of the lineage Rdmt, attested as a personal name in the
Qatabānic inscriptions, but which is unknown to the Arab
tradititonists (Antonini, Arbach & Sedov 2002: 77). The
second is a theophoric name, LΉyΚm, that comprises the
name of the main deity of the Qatabānian pantheon,
ΚAmm, which is therefore characteristic of the Qatabānian
sphere. It is followed by the patronymic ДΨmt, not
attested yet in the Qatabānic texts but known in South
Arabia as a Sabaean lineage name (Ir 69, Ja 567). In both
cases, the onomastics suggest that the names on the stelae
are not Arabian.
Furthermore, the inscriptions born by other stelae in this
category show several compound names using the name
of the Qatabānian deity ΚAmm (Κmkhl, LΉyΚm).
Patronymics and names of common lineages in the
Qatabān area (S1flyn, Гrbm, СlfΚn, Лbw, etc.) also appear
regularly. All these pieces of evidence tend to support the
hypothesis of a local onomastic tradition.
14
Antonini, Arbach & Sedov (2002: 4-5): “Questo tipi di stele, entrato
in uso nel costume funerario sudarabico intorno all’era di Cristo, […]. I
nomi dei defunti sono arabi, e testimoniano l’arrivo di nuove tribù di
nomadi in Arabia meridionale, probabilmente dal nord-ovest della
Penisola arabica, dove sono state trovate stele molto simili a queste.”
DEATH AND BURIAL IN ARABIA AND BEYOND: MULTIDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES
Figure 7. Jordanian anthropomorphic stelae: a – Betyl from Petra (Petra archaeological Museum, Bienkowski (ed.) 1991: fig. 49); b –
Betyl from the Temple of the winged lions, Petra (Amman archaeological Museum, Bienkowski (ed.) 1991: fig. 47); c –
Anthropomorphic stela from Khirbet Rizqeh (Amman archaeological Museum, Bienkowski (ed.) 1991: fig. 50).
The chronological issue
The important issue is whether Qatabānian Square stelae
appear at the turn of Christina era, as postulated by S.
Antonini. Do they appear earlier or later than the North
Arabian productions bearing iconographic parallels and
can they be the result of any North Arabian influence?
Dating these productions is not easy. There is no
information regarding the precise stratigraphic context of
the square stelae from the Дayd ibn ΚAqīl necropolis.
Moreover, the frequent lack of inscriptions on Square
stelae with U-shaped eyes or the coarse written form of
the inscriptions makes any palaeographic study difficult.
It is not clear why Antonini dated the two stelae so late.
Especially as Arbach dates them, in the same volume, to
an earlier period according to the written form of the
inscriptions, one dating to the 2nd century BC and the
other to the 1st century BC (Antonini, Arbach & Sedov
2002: 77, 81).
As a whole, it is difficult to date the inscriptions on the
stelae. All the stelae the author could gather were
examined by Arbach who dated them from the 5th to the
1st century BC. They are representative of a written form
that is characteristic of the second half of the 1st
millennium BC, but it is not possible to be more precise.
The only reliable chronological limits for this type would
be the terminus post quem given by the beginning of the
occupation of the necropolis (7th-6th centuries BC) and the
terminus ante quem of the date of abandonment of the
site, at the beginning of Christian era (Glanzmann 1997:
171). Although there is no strong evidence that this type
of stela appears after the turn of Christian era, TamnaΚ,
the city linked to the Дayd ibn ΚAqīl necropolis, may not
have been abandoned until the 2nd century AD (de
Maigret 2003).
198
Three areas have yielded comparable anthropomorphic
stelae in North Arabia: TaymāΜ (Aramaic stelae), Petra in
Jordan (stela from the temple of the winged lions) and
Khirbet Rizqeh in southern Jordan (Figs. 4 and 7).
As we established earlier, TaymāΜ Aramaic stelae should
be dated from the 6th/5th to the 4th/3rd centuries BC.
Qatabānian Square stelae should be dated to the second
half of the 1st millennium BC. Therefore there is no
evidence that the latter appear later than the former.
Furthermore, Qatabānian U-shaped-eyes Square stelae
(Fig. 6a-6d) are a simplified version of face
representation Square stelae (Fig. 6e-6h). If these U-
shaped-eyes stelae can be interpreted as “cheap” funerary
stelae, contemporaneous to the finer productions, it is
also possible to think them as an archaic form leading to
more carefully carved productions —many of them bear
no inscriptions and therefore cannot be dated. If this were
the case, they could date back to the beginning of the
occupation of the Дayd ibn ΚAqīl necropolis in the 7th
century BC, and therefore may have appeared two
centuries earlier than the TaymāΜ stelae. If this were the
case it would not be possible that the North Arabian
stelae were older.
The iconography of a stela from Petra (Fig. 7b) is very
similar to the TaymāΜ Aramaic stelae and the Qatabanian
square stelae. It has been found in the Temple of the
Winged Lions at Petra and it is dated to the 1st century
AD (Baratte 1978: 42). However, this stela did not have a
funerary purpose; it was a betyl representing the goddess
Hayyan. Due to the different function and the later date, it
is highly probable that these stelae reflect South Arabian
or Taymanite influence rather than the opposite, solely
from an iconographic point of view.
 JÉRÉMIE SCHIETTECATTE: THE ARABIAN IRON AGE FUNERARY STELAE AND THE ISSUE OF CROSS-CULTURAL CONTACTS

Figure 8. Synoptic table of anthropomorphic stelae from North and South Arabia

The final anthropomorphic stelae to be compared to the
Qatabanian square stelae come from the Jordanian site
of Khirbet Rizqeh (Fig. 7c) (Kirkbride 1960; 1969;
Bienkowski (ed.) 1991: fig. 50). They are full-length
statues with the eyes and nose simply represented, which
have a similar iconography to the Aramaic stelae of
TaymāΜ or of the Qatabanian square stelae.
These stelae, set in a circle, form what D. Kirkbride has
interpreted as a sanctuary devoted to an ancestors’ cult.
Fragments of these stelae were reemployed in later
graves. Therefore, they appear not to have had a funerary
purpose. As for their dating, the only known element is
the setting of the sanctuary, which dates the production of
the stelae to between the Chalcolithic and the end of the
1st millennium BC (Kirkbride 1960; 1969; Schiettecatte
in press). Nothing supports a dating to the 1st century
BC/AD as it has been suggested elsewhere (Bienkowski
(ed.) 1991: fig. 50). Without any precise dating, it is
problematic to suggest that there is a link between the
southern Jordanian stelae and the South Arabian ones.
Thus, it cannot be maintained that Petra, Khirbet Rizqeh,
or TaymāΜ stelae were made earlier than the Qatabān ones
– or even the stelae from the Jawf – and that they
influenced the South Arabian examples. On the contrary,
the connections that have been established all indicate
contemporaneousness or that the South Arabian stelae
pre-date the North Arabian examples.

199
DEATH AND BURIAL IN ARABIA AND BEYOND: MULTIDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES
Figure 9. Map a: South Arabian Cultural Area (C) resulting from acculturation or migration from the North (B); Map b: South
Arabian Cultural Area (C) and North Arabian Cultural Area (B) as the legacy of a common cultural background (A).
Acculturation versus endogenous evolution
The available chronological data for the dating of the
stelae from South and North Arabia (Fig. 8) does not
support cultural diffusion, either from North to South or
the other way around. The only observation that can be
made at this point is the general contemporaneity of many
of these artefacts. As was discussed above, the
onomastics also do not support the hypothesis of a North
Arabian origin for the South Arabian anthropomorphic
stelae. Therefore this discussion should be taken further.
The idea of a formation of the South Arabian culture at
the beginning of the 1st millennium BC by acculturation
or adoption of northern cultural elements has been
regularly put forward not only for the anthropomorphic
funerary stelae, but also for South Arabian culture as a
whole. By the 8th century BC, South Arabians were living
in fortified cities surrounded by vast irrigated areas. The
use of an alphabetic script, the construction of
monumental stone architecture, and the production of
original artistic works was well established. These major
developments appear to have taken place rather suddenly
around the beginning of the first millennium BC.
How are we to explain this leap forward? The 20-year-old
debate on this issue is still dominated by a diffusionist
approach that maintains South Arabian culture was the
product of northern innovations, brought with the
migrations of South Levantine or North Arabian
populations, who arrived in South Arabia and came into
contact with local populations. The arguments put
forward for this migration theory are of a linguistic and
archaeological nature, and include the transmission of a
South Semitic alphabet originating in the southern Levant
and a series of ceramic parallels between pottery from the
200
ДaΡramawt and Northern Arabia (Knauf 1989; Sedov
1996; Nebes 2001; Garbini 2004).15
However, this settlement process remains largely
hypothetical. It was suggested largely because of the
absence of documents from Central Arabia and, until
recently, due to gaps in the South Arabian archaeological
data.16 Without denying that there were contacts with
North Arabian populations and that foreign influences
impacted on South Arabia, a migratory settlement model
should be treated with caution, as very recently put
forward by A. Avanzini,17 especially as the theory is
based only on the transmission of an alphabetical order.18
This diffusionist pattern sees the 1500 kilometres
separating the southern Levant and South Arabia as a
cultural void without any capacity for indigenous
innovation.
15
Concerning ceramic parallels: Sedov (1996: 74-76, 1997: 45);
concerning migrations: Sedov (1996: 86).
16
These gaps were filled in by a series of studies insisting on the
continuity of settlement between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age: in
the Tihāma (Vogt, Buffa & Brunner 2002; Keall 2004; Khalidi 2006), in
the Lowlands (Brunner 1983, 1997; Overstreet & Grolier 1996), in the
ДaΡramawt (McCorriston 2000; Benoist, Mouton & Schiettecatte
2007), or in the Highlands (Wilkinson, Edens & Gibson 1997;
Wilkinson & Edens 1999).
17
Avanzini (2009: 206): “Much of the Near East historiography which
has emerged in recent years has deemed the exogenous model for the
formation of a culture methodologically obsolete.”
18
Avanzini (2009: 207-208): “[Garbini] has not altogether abandoned
his idea of several groups of nomads from Mesopotamia stopping first
in Palestine and then happily arriving in that desolate area bordering the
desert at the foot of the Yemeni high plateau to find their Arabia Felix
[…]. Even if we accept the alphabetical order as a north-western
creation, it does not mean that south Arabian culture was brought by
groups who came from Palestine. Nobody has ever attributed the origin
of the Greeks to a mass movement of peoples from the East despite the
alphabetical order of Greek clearly deriving from Phoenician.”
 JÉRÉMIE SCHIETTECATTE: THE ARABIAN IRON AGE FUNERARY STELAE AND THE ISSUE OF CROSS-CULTURAL CONTACTS
Yet, recent archaeological research within this previously
insufficiently-explored area has begun to sketch the
progressive appearance of a common cultural
background. Several observations support this idea:
- Bronze age architectural similarities between the
Yemeni Highlands (de Maigret 1990), the Jawf valley
(Cleuziou, Inizan & Robin 1988), the Rajājil area in
North Arabia, Be’er Resisim in the Negev (Cohen &
Dever 1980) and Sheikh Awad, Nabi Salah and
Sheikh Muhsen in the Sinai (Beit-Arieh 1974; 1981;
Zarins 1992).
- Shared Bronze Age funerary practices in Sinai, the
southern Levant, and western and southern Arabia
(Newton & Zarins 2000; Steimer-Herbet 2004).
- A convergent development of Bronze Age pottery in
the Yemeni Highlands and in Palestine (Edens 1999:
125).
- Similarities between domestic tripartite South Arabian
architecture of the first half of the 1st millennium BC
and that of Palestine, built around the 11th century BC
and possibly inspired by nomadic populations in the
South Arabian and Levantine steppe (Fritz 1980: 122;
de Maigret 2005).
- The possible existence of a ‘proto-western verb
system’, shared by populations settled in the western
half of the Arabian Peninsula, from Syria to Yemen
(Avanzini 2009).
Thus, rather than explaining the formation of South
Arabian culture by a migratory model implying an
acculturation of autochthonous populations to the culture
of North Arabia or South Levantine groups of population
(Fig. 9: left), the hypothesis of cultural convergences
between groups B and C, made possible by a pre-existing
West Arabian common cultural background – of which
groups B and C are direct cultural heirs – should be
proposed (Fig. 9: right). Although the caravan incense
trade was clearly a means by which technical, cultural
and artistic innovations were transmitted from
Mesopotamia and the Levant to South Arabia, it is
equally clear that South Arabian funerary stelae – and
South Arabian culture in general – cannot be understood
solely through the lens of this “northernisation”.
Acknowledgments
I wish to express my gratitude to Mounir Arbach for the
palaeographic analysis he provided for me, as well as Dr
Arnulf Hausleiter and Mrs Sabina Antonini-de Maigret
for having informed me of the results of recent
unpublished fieldwork. I sincerely thank Prof. Michael
Macdonald for giving me access to photographs of
unpublished stelae from the TaymāΜ Museum, and Mr
William Facey for allowing me to use some of them here.
Finally, I thank Dr Astrid Emery for her thorough reading
of this paper.
201
References
Aqīl A.A. 1984. Les stèles funéraires du Yémen antique.
Paris: Université Paris 1. [unpublished master’s
dissertation].
Abu Duruk H.I. 1986. Introduction to the Archaeology of
Tayma’. A Critical and Comparative Discussion of
Certain Ancient Monuments (part of the City-wall,
Qasr ar-Radm, and Qasr al-Hamrâ’), in the North-
Arabian City of Taymâ’ in the light of evidence
furnished by excavations. Riyadh: Deputy Ministry of
Antiquities and Museums.
Abu Duruk H.I. 1989. Preliminary Report on the
Industrial Site Excavation at Tayma, First Season,
1408/1987. Atlal 12: 9-19.
Antonini S., Arbach M. & Sedov A.V. 2002. Collezioni
sudarabiche inedite. Gli oggetti dalla missione
archeologica italo-francese a TamnaΚ, Yemen (1999-
2000). (Supplemento n. 91 agli ANNALI - vol. 60-
61). Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale.
Arbach M. & Schiettecatte J. 2006. Catalogue des pièces
archéologiques et épigraphiques du Jawf au musée
national de СanΚāΜ. Sanaa: UNESCO.
Arbach M., Schiettecatte J., al-Hadi I. 2008. СanΚāΜ
National Museum. Part III. Collection of Funerary
Stelae from the Jawf Valley. Sanaa: Printart.
Avanzini A. 1979. Alcune Osservazioni sulla
documentazione epigrafica preislamica dell’oasi di al-
’Ulā. Egitto e Vicino Oriente II: 215-224.
Avanzini A. 2004. Corpus of South Arabian Inscriptions
I-III. Qatabanic, Marginal Qatabanic, Awsanite
Inscriptions. (Arabia Antica 2). Pise: Edizioni Plus.
Avanzini A. 2009. Origin and Classification of the
Ancient South Arabian Languages. Journal of Semitic
Studies 54.1 (Spring 2009): 205-220.
Baratte F. 1978. Un royaume aux confins du désert, Pétra
et la Nabatène. Lyons: Muséum de Lyon.
Beit-Arieh I. 1974. An Early Bronze Age II site at Nabi
Salah in Southern Sinai. Tel Aviv 1: 144-156.
Beit-Arieh I. 1981. A Pattern of Settlement in Southern
Sinai and Southern Canaan in the Third Millennium
BC. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 243: 31-55.
Benoist A., Lavigne O., Mouton M. & Schiettecatte J.
2007. Chronologie et évolution de l’architecture à
Makaynûn: la formation d’un centre urbain à l’époque
sudarabique dans le Hadramawt. Proceedings of the
Seminar for Arabian Studies 37: 17-35.
Bienkowski P. (ed.). 1991. Treasures from an Ancient
Land: The Art of Jordan. Stroud: Alan Sutton
Publishing.
Bignasca A., Desse-Berset N., Fellmann Brogli R. et al.
1996. Petra. Ez Zantur I. Ergebnisse der
Schweizerisch-Liechtensteinischen Ausgrabungen
1988-1992. (Terra Archaeologica II). Mainz: Philipp
von Zabern.
Bron F. 1992. Memorial Mahmud al-Ghul. Paris: P.
Geuthner.
Brunner U. 1983. Die Erforschung der antiken Oase von
Mārib mit Hilfe geomorphologischer
Untersuchungsmethoden. (ABADY II). Mainz:
Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
DEATH AND BURIAL IN ARABIA AND BEYOND: MULTIDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES
Brunner U. 1997. Geography and Human Settlements in
Ancient Southern Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and
Epigraphy 8: 190-202.
Cleuziou S., Inizan M.-L. & Robin Ch. 1988. Premier
rapport préliminaire sur la prospection des vallées
nord du wādī al-Jawf. République Arabe du Yémen.
[Unpublished circulated report].
Cleveland R.L. 1965. An ancient South Arabian
Necropolis. Objects from the Second Campaign
(1951) in the Timna Cemetery. (Publications of the
American Foundation for the Study of Man IV).
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Cohen R. & Dever W.G. 1980. Be’er Resisim. Israel
Exploration Journal 30: 228-231.
Degen R. 1974. Die aramäischen Inschriften aus TaimāΜ
und Umgebung. Neue Ephemeris für Semitische
Epigraphik 2: 79-98.
Edens Ch. 1999. The Bronze-Age of Highland Yemen:
Chronological and Spatial Variability of Pottery and
Settlement. Paléorient 25/2: 105-128.
Edens Ch. & Bawden G. 1989. History of TaymāΜ and
Hejaz trade during the first millenium BC. Journal of
the Economic and Social History of the Orient 32: 48-
103.
Eichmann R. 2009. Archaeological evidence of the pre-
Islamic period (4th–6th c. AD) at TaymāΜ. Pages 59-66
in J. Schiettecatte & Ch. Robin (eds), L’Arabie à la
veille de l’Islam. Bilan clinique. (Orient et
Méditerranée 3). Paris: De Boccard.
Fritz V. 1980. Die kulturhistorische Bedeutung der
früheisenzeitlichen Siedlung auf der Hirbet el-Msas
und das Problem der Landnahme. Zeitschrift des
Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 96: 121-135.
Garbini G. 1976. Iscrizioni sudarabiche. Annali
dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 36
(N.S. XXVI): 293-315.
Garbini G. 1977. Su alcuni tipi di stele e statuette
sudarabiche con iscrizione. Annali dell’Istituto
Universitario Orientale di Napoli 37 (N.S. XXVII):
375-381.
Garbini G. 2004. The origins of South Arabians. Pages
203-209 in A.V. Sedov (ed.), Scripta Yemenica.
Studies in Honor of M.B. Piotrovkij. Moscow.
Gerlach I. 2002. Der Friedhof des Awām-Tempels in
Mārib. Bericht der Ausgrabungen von 1997 bis 2001.
Pages 41-91 in I. Gerlach & B. Vogt (eds),
Archäologische Berichte aus dem Yemen IX. Mainz:
Philipp von Zabern.
Glanzmann W.D. 1997. Le cimetière de Tamna. Pages
171-177 in Ch. Robin & B. Vogt (eds), Yémen, au
pays de la reine de SabaΜ, catalogue de l’exposition
présentée à l’Institut du Monde Arabe. Paris:
Flammarion.
Grohmann A. 1963. Kulturgeschichte des alten Orients –
Arabien. Munich: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuch-
handlung.
Höfner M. 1964. Altsüdarabische Stelen und Statuetten.
Pages 217-232 in E. Haberland, M. Schuster & H.
Straube (eds), Festschrift für A.E. Jensen. Munich: K.
Renner.
202
Honeyman A.M. 1962. Ephigraphic South Arabian
Antiquities. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 21: 38-
43.
Jamme A. 1952. Les pièces épigraphiques de Heid bin
ΚAqīl, la nécropole de TimnaΚ (Hagar Kohlān).
(Bibliothèque du Muséon 30). Leuven: Publications
universitaires.
Keall E. 2004. Possible connections in antiquity between
the Red Sea coast of Yemen and the Horn of Africa.
Pages 43-56 in P. Lunde & A. Porter (eds), Trade and
Travel in the Red Sea Region. Proceedings of Red Sea
Project I Held in the British Museum, October 2002.
(BAR International Series 1269, Society for Arabian
Studies Monographs No. 2). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Khalidi L. 2006. Settlement, Culture-Contact and
Interaction Along the Red Sea Coastal Plain, Yemen:
The Tihamah cultural landscape in the late
prehistoric period, 3000-900 BC. University of
Cambridge. [Unpublished PhD Dissertation].
Kirkbride D. 1960. Khirbet Rizqeh. Revue Biblique
LXVII (1960): 232-235.
Kirkbride D. 1969. Ancient Arabian Ancestor Idols, part
I. Archaeology 22.2 (April 1969): 116-121; part II.
Archaeology 22.3 (June 1969): 188-195.
Knauf E.A. 1989. The Migration of the Script, and the
Formation of the State in South Arabia. Proceedings
of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 19: 79-91.
Lankester-Harding G. 1964. Archaeology in the Aden
Protectorates. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office.
Lankester-Harding G. 1971. An index and concordance of
pre-Islamic Arabian names and inscriptions. (Near
and Middle East Series 8). Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
de Maigret A. 2003. TamnaΚ, ancient capital of the
Yemeni desert. Information about the first two
excavation campaigns (1999-2000). Pages 135-140 in
M. Liverani & F. Merighi (eds), Arid Lands in Roman
Times. Papers from the International Conference
(Rome, July 9th-10th 2001). (Arid Zone Archaeology,
Monographs 4). Rome: Edizioni all’insegna del
Giglio.
de Maigret A. 2005. Some Reflections on the South-
Arabian Bayt. Pages 101-110 in I. Gerlach (ed.),
Archäologische Berichte aus dem Yemen X. Mainz:
Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
de Maigret A. (ed.) 1990. The Bronze Age Culture of
Khawlan at-Tiyāl and al-Hadā’ (Republic of Yemen),
A First General Report. (Memoirs and Reports
XXIV). Rome: IsMEO.
McCorriston J. 2000. Early Settlement in Hadramawt:
Preliminary report on prehistoric occupation at ShiΚb
Munayder. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 11:
129-153.
Moutsopoulos N.C. 1990. Observations sur les
représentations du panthéon nabatéen. Pages 53-75 in
F. Zayadine (ed.), Petra and the Caravan Cities.
Amman: Department of Antiquities.
Nebes N. 2001. Die Genese der altsüdarabischen Kultur:
Eine Arbeitshypothese. Pages 427-435 in R.
Eichmann & H. Parzinger (eds), Migration und
Kulturtransfer. Der Wandel vorder- und
 JÉRÉMIE SCHIETTECATTE: THE ARABIAN IRON AGE FUNERARY STELAE AND THE ISSUE OF CROSS-CULTURAL CONTACTS

zentralasiatischer Kulturen im Umbruch vom 2. zum Wilkinson T.J., Edens Ch. & Gibson McG. 1997. The
1. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend, Berlin-Bonn. Archaeology of the Yemen High Plains: A
Newton L.S. & Zarins J. 2000. Aspects of Bronze Age art preliminary chronology. Arabian Archaeology and
of southern Arabia: The pictorial landscape and its Epigraphy 8: 99-142.
relation to economic and social political status. Zarins J. 1992. Pastoral nomadism in Arabia:
Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 11: 154-179. ethnoarchaeology and the archaeological record - a
Overstreet W.C. & Grolier M.J. 1996. Summary of case study. Pages 219-240 in O. Bar-Yosef & A.
Environmental Background for the Human Khasanov (eds), Pastoralism in the Levant,
Occupation of the al-Jadidah Basin in Wadi al-Jubah, Archaeological Materials in Anthropological
Yemen Arab Republic. Pages 337-429 in M.J. Perspectives. Madison: Prehistory Press.
Grolier, R. Brinkmann & J.A. Blakely (eds), The Zayadine F. 1974. Excavations at Petra (1973-74).
Wādī al-Jubah Archaeological Project, vol.5: Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan
Environmental Research in Support of Archaeological XIX (1974): 135-150.
Investigations in the Yemen Arab Republic, 1982-
1987. Washington: American Foundation for the Author’s Address
Study of Man. Jérémie Schiettecatte
Al-Rāshad S. (ed.). 2003. AΕār manΓaqat Tabūk. Riyadh: Post-doctoral Researcher
Ministry of Knowledge, Antiquities and Museums. CNRS - UMR 8167 “Orient et Méditerranée”
Rathjens C. 1955. Sabaeica. Bericht über die 27 rue Paul Bert
archäologischen Ergebnisse seiner zweiten, dritten 94204 Ivry-sur-Seine Cedex
und vierten Reise nach Südarabien. II. Teil. Die France
unlokalisierten Funde. (Mitteilungen aus dem jeremie.schiettecatte@mae.u-paris10.fr
Museum für Völkerkunde, 24). Hamburg.
Robin Ch. & Vogt B. (eds). 1997. Yémen, au pays de la
reine de SabaΜ, catalogue de l’exposition présentée à
l’Institut du Monde Arabe. Paris: Flammarion.
Roche M.-J. 1985. Niches à bétyles et monuments
apparentés à Pétra. Unpublished PhD dissertation,
University of Paris 10.
Roux J.-C. 1997. Le monde des morts. Pages 205-215 in
Ch. Robin & B. Vogt (eds), Yémen, au pays de la
reine de SabaΜ, catalogue de l’exposition présentée à
l’Institut du Monde Arabe. Paris: Flammarion.
Schiettecatte J. In press. Considérations sur les stèles
funéraires sudarabiques, leurs origines et la formation
de la culture sudarabique. Arabia 4.
Sedov A.V. 1996. On the Origin of the agricultural
settlements in Hadramawt. Pages 67-86 in Ch. Robin
& I. Gajda (eds), Arabia Antiqua, Early Origins of
South Arabian States, Proceedings of the First
International Conference on the Conservation and
Exploitation of the Archaeological Heritage of the
Arabian Peninsula. (Serie Orientale Roma LXX, 1).
Rome: IsMEO.
Steimer-Herbet T. 2004. Classification des sépultures à
superstructure lithique dans le Levant et l’Arabie
occidentale. (BAR International Series 1246). Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Vogt B. 2002. Death and Funerary Practices. Pages 180-
186 in St J. Simpson (ed.), Queen of Sheba. Treasures
from Ancient Yemen. London: The British Museum
Press.
Vogt B., Buffa V. & Brunner U. 2002. MaΚlayba and the
Bronze Age Irrigation in Coastal Yemen. Pages 15-26
in I. Gerlach & B. Vogt (eds), Archäologische
Berichte aus dem Yemen IX. Mainz: Verlag Philipp
von Zabern.
Wilkinson T.J. & Edens Ch. 1999. Survey and
Excavation in the Central Highlands of Yemen:
Results of the Dhamār Survey Project, 1996 and
1998. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 10: 1-33.

203