Some thoughts on ibex on plinths in early South Arabian art

Some thoughts on ibex on plinths in early South Arabian art

Arab. arch. epig. 2005: 16: 144–153 (2005)
Printed in Singapore. All rights reserved
Some thoughts on ibex on plinths in early
South Arabian art
Ibex are an important iconographic element in the art of South Arabia. The
origins, geographical distribution, chronology and divine affinities of ibex are
considered, drawing on both archaeological and epigraphic sources.
Keywords: Yemen, ibex, iconography, Marib, Nashshan
Introduction
One of the best known iconographic elements of
South Arabia is undoubtedly the ibex. The frequency
with which this animal appeared is due both to the
highly symbolic value it enjoyed with respect to the
pantheon of South Arabian divinities (1), and to its
inherent qualities—lithe body, lightness of movement and curved horns—which made it particularly
suited to artistic reproduction. Representations of
ibex were obviously not exclusive to South Arabia;
there are numerous examples of them in Iranian art
throughout all periods, and elsewhere in the Near
East, particularly in the Bronze Age.
Interest thus focuses not so much on the fact that
ibex are depicted in South Arabia but rather on
identifying an artistic language which is ‘codified’
differently in South Arabia to neighbouring cultures.
Ibex representations in South Arabia
Elena Scigliuzzo (2) has ably identified a number of
codified stylistic traits in ibex representation during
the archaic period in South Arabia. For example, the
horns of the ibex (3) were the main decorative
element while the animal’s body was merely
sketched out and depicted as immobile. Representations of ibex continued to appear in later periods,
but their style changed and the entire animal
144
Alessandra Avanzini
University of Pisa
Dipartimento di scienze storiche del
mondo antico
Via Galvani
I-56126 Pisa
Università di Pisa
[email protected]
becames a decorative element. No longer leadenly
earthbound, it was portrayed as if flying upwards
into the void with its agility depicted realistically.
Examples where this was the case include the ibex
on the Nashshan (4) throne and the lamp from
Shabwa (5) (Figs 1–2).
The existence of an artistic language in South
Arabia in the early centuries of the first millennium BC is obviously a matter of great historical
significance. Since there is a style and artistic
language which is already consolidated and no
longer in evolution in the eighth century BC, the
inescapable conclusion is that there must already
have been a long process of gestation prior to the
earliest South Arabian documentation. In other
words, the eighth century marks the culmination,
not the beginning, of a process of iconographic
development.
Another interesting historical perspective that
seems to emerge from our documentation concerns
the geographical loci where this style of ibex
representation may have been codified, namely
Jawf and the region of Marib, where (6) the first
state structures were starting to take shape in the
early first millennium BC. Some fairly small ibex
sculptures in the round, set on a plinth, are typical
of the archaic period and illustrate well the artistic
language in this area. As such, they deserve special
IBEX ON PLINTHS
Fig. 1.
Detail of the carved ibex on the Nashshan throne.
comment. The ibex and its support comprise a
structurally distinct, geometrically rectangular
shape — in effect, a separate block ‘attached’ to
the object. Particular care has been taken in
depicting the horns, which are abnormally large
and decorative, as well as the animal’s profile,
while there is a lack of anatomical precision in the
rest of its body. Sometimes these sculptures are set
in series following the taste of the epoch, e.g. in
the case of the ibex that embellish the throne-backs
of Nashshan (Fig. 3) or the series of ibex from
Marib which crown the inscription at the Louvre
(7) (Fig. 4).
The similarities between these pieces are striking.
The upper part of the décor is identical, with
horizontal, denticulated lines on two levels. The
portrayal of the animal, too, is very similar, namely
in a static position on a support. The thrones bear
Fig. 2.
Bronze lamp from Shabwa.
the names of two kings of Nashshan, one of whom
was Lb)n, the father of Karibil’s enemy (8). The
Marib inscription mentions Karibil and S1mh(ly, who
probably succeeded him and has been dated by
Robin, in his edition of the text, to the end of the
eighth century or the beginning of the seventh
century BC. Here, the geographical origins and the
dates of the thrones and the inscription from Marib
are certain.
Sabaean and ‘Madhabaean’ (9) cultures blended
with each other in Jawf. In the religious, linguistic
and other spheres each was easily recognizable,
but the two shared many common cultural characteristics. In the eighth century, the Sabaean
145
A. AVANZINI
Fig. 3.
Carved ibex on the back of the Nashshan throne.
and Madhabaean combined presence in Jawf (10)
marked an important stage in the standardisation of
some of the principal elements of the culture of
southern Arabia, including writing, textual patterns
and artistic and aesthetic norms. Such a process, as
mentioned above, must have begun much earlier
than the eighth century.
It is difficult to say whether the characteristics
typical of early first millennium South Arabian
culture emerged from a Sabaean-Madhabaean cultural continuum in Jawf at the end of the second
millennium, or were developed earlier by one of the
two groups and then passed to the other. Only by
increasing our archaeological knowledge of the
region will it be possible to assess the material
culture of the earlier periods. Recent discoveries at
Nashshan (11) might suggest a ‘Madhabaean’ origin
for some of those elements of South Arabian culture
146
Fig. 4.
Detail of ibex on an inscription from Marib in the Louvre.
which appeared at the beginning of the first millennium, and extended to Saba) before spreading all
over Yemen. It is well known that after the eighth
century there was an increase in the cultural, if not
military, hegemony of ancient Yemen by Saba),
something Karibil himself would have desired. My
IBEX ON PLINTHS
Fig. 6.
Inscription from Jebel al-Lawd.
Fig. 5.
Inscription from Nashshan.
own view is that this is a ‘late’, secondary phenomenon which, on its own, certainly does not account
for all of the common cultural traits one sees in
South Arabian culture (12). On the other hand,
the ‘Sabaeanization’ of South Arabian culture
undoubtedly played a very important role in the
history of Yemen in the first half of the first
millennium BC.
Another example of the archaic kind of ibex
representation in Jawf and Saba) is found on the
frames surrounding some dedicatory inscriptions.
The vertical sides of the frame show a series of
crouching ibex, while the horizontal side at the top
of the frame has a bucranium frieze (or perhaps the
frontal heads of ibex?). Examples include two
strikingly similar inscribed slabs, one from Nashshan (13) (Fig. 5) and the other from Jebel al-Lawd
(14) (Fig. 6). Although one text is in Madhabic
and the other in Sabaic, and the pantheon mentioned
in each case is different, the style of representation
is absolutely the same and the letter shapes of
this period testify to an identical approach to
epigraphic masonry across South Arabia. The two
stelae thus provide evidence of a powerful cultural
continuum.
Sequences of crouching ibex reflect the artistic
taste of that particular period and show a preference
for the regular repetition of a single element, such as
geometric rectangles. A classic example of this is the
décor of Banat (Ad. The profiles of the animal,
whether standing or crouching, and the frontal
representations of the head are set in a rectangular
147
A. AVANZINI
Fig. 7.
Alabaster inscription from the Baran temple at Marib (height
110 cm, width 65 cm).
frame which is repeated, creating a marked decorative style. Some sequences of ibex or their heads are
almost abstract, deviating from a naturalistic depiction of the animal and tending towards the mere
repetition of the horns in profile or of the face.
The frame of ibex that decorates the sides of a
dedicatory inscription in Saba) is attested after the
reign of Karibil, but within the period of the Sabaean
mukarribs, for example on a beautiful stele from
Baran (15) (Fig. 7) and on LPC 5 (16) (Fig. 8).
The style of ibex representation on a plinth can
thus serve as an indication of both chronology
(eighth-seventh centuries BC) and geographical
provenance (west-central Yemen), characteristics
which are useful when objects of this type lack
either palaeographic or archaeological indications of
their place of origin. There is, for example, a type of
ibex with the same formal criteria as those men-
148
tioned here on a number of bronze incense burners.
One in the British Museum (17) (Fig. 9) takes the
form of a bowl with a splayed foot, one side of
which is surmounted by spikes. Although the
catalogues of the Yemen exhibition in which it was
published date it to the third century BC — perhaps
imagining Hellenistic influence (which, frankly, is
rather bizarre since there is nothing Hellenistic
about the object), or perhaps a carry-over from a
time when the short chronology was accepted by
most scholars — the bronze incense burner in the
British Museum should be dated to the eighthseventh centuries and attributed to the SabaeanMadhabaean culture of this period.
In this regard it is interesting to recall that forty
years ago R.D. Barnett suggested a ninth-century
BC ivory cup from Hama with ibex protome
was South Arabian (Fig. 10) (18). Although a thirdcentury BC date for the bronze incense burner in the
British Museum raised doubts about this hypothesis,
the redating of that piece suggested above adds
credibility to Barnett’s suggestion, as does a second
South Arabian bronze incense burner in the Metropolitan Museum (19) (Fig. 11) with which Barnett
made a comparison for the Hama cup. In my view,
the latter also comes from the same place and
cultural period, since the serpents on it represent
another typical decorative form of Banat (Ad.
Interestingly, the points on the highest side of the
bronze incense burner in the British Museum (Fig. 9)
are reminiscent of decoration found in Banat (Ad as
well.
If an archaic date and west-central South Arabian
provenance are correct for this type of incense
burner, then it may also be necessary to rethink
the origin and age of an incense burner in Philadelphia which was considered Qatabanian and published as such in the first volume of the CSAI (20)
(Fig. 12). Quite probably this piece was considered
Qatabanian only because it arrived in Philadelphia
together with a largely Qatabanian collection
of objects. Here the incense burner has the same
shape as those described above. Although an ibex
protome is obviously absent, Jamme (21) has pointed
out that traces of a broken protome are visible on
the back of the object. Moreover, the object’s inscrip_
tion (22) contains a name (’bkrb Grn)
which is not
typically Qatabanic. We have no proof, therefore, that
the Philadelphia incense burner is Qatabanian (23).
IBEX ON PLINTHS
Fig. 8.
Detail of LPC 5.
Further confirmation for the redating of these
three bronze incense burners and for the identification of their geographical origin is provided by a
stone incense burner from Jawf, recently published
by I. Gajda (24) (Fig. 13). Although made of a
different material, the stylistic parallels with the
bronze incense burners described above are striking, particularly the style of the ibex and the
splayed foot. Based on the stylistic principles
articulated above, the Jawf incense burner can be
dated to the eighth-seventh centuries BC. Another
iconographic element shared by the Jawf incense
burner and those in the Metropolitan Museum
and Philadelphia (25) is the serpent noted by
Gajda (26).
The date of the Jawf incense burner, however, is
not based merely on a stylistic analysis of the ibex
and the burner. Rather, the incense burner has an
inscription on the foot which reads Hywm bn
Tny d-Mrd s3l) Bs2mm krb s1brr b-)lyf( Rym,_ which I
translate as: ‘Hywm son of Tny of Mrd dedicated (this
_ to Bs2mm as a vow that has been
incense burner)
fulfilled, by Ilifam Riyam’ (27). This short text has
some interesting points. The name of the goddess
(28), easily referable to the Semitic root BŚM
‘balsam’, has been attested sporadically in South
Arabia. Bs2mm is also found in another archaic
boustrophedon inscription presently in the Louvre
(29) which reads: Ys1m()l bn )l(z h2qny Bs2mm w-Wdm
(b3dm w-Hwfm b-)lmqh. Quite rightly, Robin sought a
cultural setting outside Saba) for this inscription,
hypothesizing that it lay in Awsan — based on the
presence of the goddess Bs2mm in CSAI II, 14 ¼ R
4336 — but the Louvre inscription more probably
comes from Jawf during the Madhabaean-Sabaean
cultural continuum.
These divinities are interesting. Attested in the
archaic sources, they then disappear before cropping
up again much later in the texts from the high
plateau. As with many other cultural features, we
could suggest that a number of the divinities were
common to the entire South Arabian area, disappearing from the sources when states became established and an official, codified pantheon linked to
individual dynasties emerged. Such deities may,
however, have remained current in marginal areas,
eventually coming back into view when states arose
in these areas.
149
A. AVANZINI
Fig. 10.
Ivory cup from Hama.
Fig. 9.
Bronze incense burner in the British Museum (height 24 cm, base
diameter 13 cm).
The inscription, published by Gajda, names a
king of Ma(n, Ilifam Riyam. I feel that we must
consider the possibility of the existence of at least
two kings of Ma(n named Ilifam Riyam, one
attested in the inscriptions on the wall of Ma(n (30)
and another, older one, attested on the stone
incense burner being treated here and in Shaqab 6
(31) (Figs 14–15). The problem is to decide whether
there were two Minaean kings by this name (32) or
even three (33). Gajda, on the other hand, using
argumentation which is not altogether clear, seems
150
Fig. 11.
Bronze incense burner in the Metropolitan Museum.
IBEX ON PLINTHS
Fig. 12.
Incense burner in Philadelphia.
to maintain that there was only one Minaean king
named Ilifam Riyam, and she dates the incense
burner to the fifth century. Palaeographically, the
text on the incense burner recalls that of Shaqab 6
Fig. 13.
Incense burner from Jawf.
and, in my view, a Minaean king named Ilifam
Riyam who reigned in the eighth-seventh centuries
must be hypothesised. In sum, palaeography, textual features (absence of a royal title, typical of
Fig. 14.
Minaic inscription Ma(n 17.
151
A. AVANZINI
archaic documents) and the visual language used
in representing the ibex all argue for a date in the
eighth-seventh centuries.
Fig. 15.
Shaqab 6.
Conclusion
A particular style of representing the ibex, one of the
animals most strongly linked to the scared imagery
and aesthetic tastes of the ancient inhabitants of
South Arabia, is typical of the archaic period and of
the west-central area of Yemen. In these representations, sometimes isolated, sometimes repeated, the
animal is static. The horns perform an important
decorative function while the animal and the plinth
on which it stands are inserted into a rectangular,
geometric frame which either actually exists or can
easily be imagined around it. The artistic vocabulary
of such iconography presupposes a long period of
gestation which must have begun by the late second
millennium, even if our knowledge of this period is
still very poor.
The study of iconography is one of the many
fields of research in South Arabian studies which
urgently deserves to be developed. The history of
South Arabian art still remains to be written.
The identification of those iconographic elements
which appear exclusively on objects from a single
region in certain periods of South Arabian history
can support the use of other historical data, including the palaeography and content of texts which
may be present, and thereby help to pinpoint the
date of an object and identify the regions and
periods in which the iconographic element was
created. The future development of south Arabian
studies will depend very much on extensive collaboration between philologists, art historians and
archaeologists.
References
1. The two main gods of Saba) and
Qataban, )lmqh and (m, are known by
the epithet ‘the god of ibexes’. On ibex
iconography see Calvet Y & Robin C.
Arabie heureuse, Arabie déserte. Paris:
Éditions de la réunion des musées
nationaux, 1997: 73. For a discussion
on the hunting in South Arabia, connected to ibex symbolism, see Sima A.
Die Jagd im antiken Südarabien. WO
31: 2000/2001: 84–109.
152
2. Scigliuzzo E. A South Arabian ivory
vessel from Hama reconsidered. Ugarit-Forschungen 35: 2003: 629–647.
3. For the symbolism of the horns bound
up with divine protection, see Potts
DT. Notes on some horned buildings
in Iran, Mesopotamia and Arabia. RA
84: 1990: 33–40.
4. Garbini G & Francaviglia M. I troni di
Nashshan. Rendiconti della classe di
scienze morali storiche e filologiche
dell’accademia dei Lincei Ser. 9, 8: 1997:
239–252.
5. de Maigret A. ed. Yemen. Milano: Skira,
2000, cat. 185.
6. We know all too little of the other
political and cultural pole that was
probably very important, namely the
pre-Karibil kingdom of Awsan.
7. R 4226 ¼ Louvre 68 in Calvet &
Robin, Arabie heureuse, Arabie déserte:
139–141.
IBEX ON PLINTHS
8. On the alabaster throne can be read:
Lb)n Yd( bn Yd()b.
9. I use the term ‘Madhabaean’ in the
narrow sense for the archaic documentation of Jawf, see Avanzini A.
L’unité du sudarabique épigraphique:
certitudes et limites. Arabia 1: 2003: 30.
10. Robin C. Trois inscriptions sabéennes
de Barâqish. PSAS 17: 1987: 165–177. I
was also involved in it, see Avanzini A.
Saba) and the beginning of epigraphic
documentation in the Jawf. AAE 7:
1996: 63–68, and Korotayev A. The
earliest Sabaeans in the Jawf: A reconsideration. AAE 9: 1998: 118–124.
11. Audouin R & Arbach M. Un panthéon
de l’Arabie du Sud en images: le temple I
d’as-Sawdâ). Sana: Centre français
d’archéologie et de sciences sociales;
2004.
12. Compared to some years ago (for
example, compared to what I maintained in my communication in Aix in
early 1996, recently published in Arabia) I am increasingly convinced of the
significance of a phase of cultural
homogeneity at the end of the second
millennium, which changed when the
South Arabian states began to be
formed. By itself, Sabaean cultural
hegemony cannot account for the striking similarities amongst the various
South Arabian kingdoms.
13. YM 11126 and YM 11192, photo in de
Maigret, Yemen: cat. 215.
14. Ry 586, photo in von Wissmann H. Die
Geschichte von Saba’ II. Das Grossreich
der Sabäer bis zu seinem Ende im
frühen 4.Jh.v.Chr. Vienna: Sitzungsberichte der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist.
Kl, 402: 1982: photo 2.
15. YM 14329, photo in de Maigret, Yemen:
cat. 220. In my view, the fifth-fourth
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
century BC date suggested is too late. It
may have been reused in later phases
of the temple structure. Indeed, some
people are dedicated to the divinity in
the text, a dedication typical of the
archaic period. I would prefer a date
closer to the reign of Karibil in the
seventh-sixth centuries.
Kitchen KA. Three unusual Sabaean
inscriptions in bronze. PSAS 28: 1998:
151–152, Fig. 3. This inscription is
interesting with its clear repetition of
the same stylistic language independent of the material used. The same
frame is not only carved in alabaster
but also cast in bronze. The mukarribs
appearing on the bronze stele were
defeated by Qataban in the fifth century.
de Maigret Yemen: cat. 31.
Barnett RD. A South Arabian ivory
vessel. Eretz Israel 7: 1964: 4–5. Against
this hypothesis see Riis PJ & Buhl ML.
Hama. Fouilles et recherches de la fondation Carlsberg 1931–1938 II.2. Les objets
de la période dite syro-hittite (Âge du Fer).
Copenhagen: Nationalmuseets Skrifter, Større Beretninger, 12: 1990: 224
and Fig. 105.
Barnett, South Arabian ivory vessel: Pl.
2.1.
CSAI I, 627 ¼ Ja 862.
Jamme A. South Arabian antiquities in
the U.S.A. BiOr 12: 1955: 154. : ‘on the
back of the vertical section, there are
several ornaments in relief: on top, the
four lower parts of the denticulation
underlined with a large horizontal
stroke; under this latter, the double
symbol of the moon and the sun, and
finally a serpent parallel to each side.
The lower half is free, but was originally occupied by a small ibex’.
22. The writing is very similar to that of
the inscription on the bronze statue of
Madikarib in Marib.
23. During the ‘‘Rencontres sabéennes 9’’
in Jena in May, 2005, Alessandro de
Maigret showed an incense burner
from the necropolis of Timna( similar
to the Philadelphia burner. Therefore
some more thoughts on the provenance of the Philadelphia burner are
necessary.
24. Gajda I. Un autel brûle-parfum minéen
avec une dédicace au dieu Bs2mm.
Semitica 51: 2001: 129–132.
25. Cf. Jamme, South Arabian antiquities:
n. 16.
26. Difficult to see in the published photograph.
27. Unlike Gajda, I prefer not to consider
krb the object dedicated ‘une offrande
dont il s’est acquitté’. The object dedicated, as often happens, is the very
incense burner on which the text is
engraved.
28. Bs2mm is certainly a goddess in CSAI
II, 14 ¼ R 4336. We have no indication
of the gender of this divinity in the
more archaic period.
29. CIH 545 ¼ Louvre 100, in Calvet &
Robin, Arabie heureuse, Arabie déserte:
185.
30. Man 17, in Bron F. Inventaire des
inscriptions sudarabiques III. Ma(n.
Paris-Rome: de Boccard and Herder,
1998: 57–58, Pl. 20.
31. Gnoli G. Inventaire des inscriptions sudarabiques II. Shaqab al-Manassa, ParisRome: de Boccard and Herder, 1993:
80–82, Tav. 9.
32. Bron, Inventaire: 14.
33. As, inter alia, does Gnoli, Inventaire:
26–27, despite what Gajda maintains.
153