An archaeological history of Mecca 3

  By Dr. Rafat Amari

KINGDOMS AND CITIES SOUTH OF MECCA MAINTAINED PLENTY OF HISTORICAL RECORDS

We refer the reader to the book of Dr. Amari, Islam in light of History, for more arguments on the true history of Mecca.

Previously, we have examined the kingdoms and cities north of where Mecca was later built. We saw how some of these kingdoms as far as 500-600 miles  away maintained plenty of historical records. What about the kingdoms and cities south of Mecca’s eventual location? The southwestern portion of Arabia has even clearer records than kingdoms to the north. In some cases, thousands of records, many of them stone inscriptions, have been discovered. This makes southwestern Arabia one of the most abundant archaeological regions in the world. In addition to stone inscriptions, writings have also been found on royal and private monuments, building texts, decrees, dedications, temples, and more.  Based on such records, historians and archaeologists have followed the succession of rulers for each kingdom and each city. In most cases, these genealogies of the various rulers can be mapped without any gaps in the chronology.

     

The Rulers of the Kingdom of Main

A line of rulers for the kingdom of Main, in southern Arabia, starts with King Abkarib I, who reigned from 430-415 B.C. He began an unbroken line of 26 rulers, which ended with Ilyara’ Yashur II. He reigned from 65-55 B.C. Their records include the names of many of the kings’ brothers and sons who reigned alongside them. Consequently, we know for certain the names of rulers of the kingdom of Main for the time between 430 and 55 B.C.^[11]   

Small kingdoms south of where Mecca was eventually built are documented with great accuracy in the ancient history of Arabia, yet Mecca has no records to support the Islamic claim about its ancient existence.

Many small kingdoms near the kingdom of Main also have documented royal lines with very few gaps. Some of these small kingdoms are located close to where Mecca was later built. These small kingdoms existed in the centuries before Christ as modest, but not prominent, kingdoms. Yet, there are historical and archaeological records which clearly testify about their existence and their lines of kings.

    These records present an obvious challenge to the claims that Mecca existed in the centuries before Christ – because there are no such similar records for Mecca. This challenge to the existence of Mecca is further supported by the fact which I emphasized previously: the lack of rain in Arabia allows archaeological records to remain intact for long periods of time. Therefore, no city or kingdom in southern Arabia is left without a wealth of inscriptions describing it. This is true, whether the kingdom had a short or long existence, and whether it was modest or important in the region. The inscriptions bring to light the nature of the cultures, the lines of rulers, and the main wars and events in which the kingdoms were involved.

     Let us look at some of the small kingdoms. First, there was the kingdom of Haram, which had a line of rulers starting with King Yaharil in 600 B.C.,^[12] and ending with King Maadikarib Raydan, who ruled from 190-175 B.C.^[13] Next was the kingdom of Inabba. Its most prominent ruler was King Waqahil Yafush, who reigned from 550-530 B.C.^[14] The kingdom of Kaminahu started with King Ammiyitha, who reigned from 585-570 B.C.^[15] The line continued through eight more documented rulers to King Ilisami II Nabat, who reigned between 495–475 B.C.^[16]  Records show that this kingdom flourished under the rule of Wahbu, son of Mas’ud, around 160-140 B.C. Then there was the kingdom of Nashan, whose first documented ruler was King Ab’amar Saqid. He reigned around 760 B.C.^[17] Another line of three kings is documented to have ruled between 520-480 B.C. The last of these three kings was Yadi’ab Amir, who reigned between 500-480 B.C.^[18]

    Thus, we see that there is substantial documentation of the chronology of these kingdoms, even though they were small and had little influence when compared to other kingdoms in the region. This shows that even small kingdoms near where Mecca was eventually built are documented with accuracy in the ancient history of Arabia. Islamic tradition claims that Mecca was a prestigious and pre-eminent religious city throughout the history of Arabia. The tradition also claims that this pre-eminence of Mecca extended back to even before the time of Abraham. Yet there are no historical records regarding Mecca, similar to the examples above, which can support these claims of the Islamic tradition. These claims about Mecca have absolutely no support in the historical and archaeological record.

  

We Have an Amazing Amount of Records for the Kingdom of Qataban  

But our study doesn’t stop there. In the kingdom of Qataban, we find more proof that Mecca did not exist before Christ.  This kingdom was located in southwestern Arabia. We have amazing amounts of knowledge about the sequence of events and the name of the rulers of this kingdom. There is line of 31 rulers whose reign started in 330 B.C. and continued through the last ruler, Marthadum, who reigned at the very end of the Qataban kingdom (150-160 A.D.). Historians have documented all but two of these 31 rulers: they are numbers 2 and 27. This reflects the completeness of the inscriptions and records of the kingdom of Qataban.^[19]

SABA AND HIMYAR

Saba and Himyar present a series of 102 kings which started in the 9th century B.C. and ended in the 6th century A.D. This is a proof that Mecca did not exist in ancient times. If it had existed, it should have had archaeological documentation for each generation of its history.

Even more impressive than the kingdom of the north which we have studied, is the kingdom of Saba and its successor in the region, the kingdom of Himyar. Many archaeological records document a series of rulers, beginning with Karibil A., who ruled around 860 B.C. The series continues with 31 Makrab. The Makrab were kings who not only ruled Saba, but other nearby regions. The last Makrab king was Yitha’a Amar Bayyin II, who reigned between 360-350 B.C. Saba then lost control of its surrounding states, and its rulers could no longer enjoy the title of Makrab, but were kings, instead.

    After the Makrab, the line of kings continued with number 32, Yadi’ubil Bayyin, who reigned between 350-335 B.C.  And the line goes on to number 55, a king ofSaba named Yada’il Dharih IV. He reigned between 0–15 A.D. The kings of Saba and Dhu-Radydan followed this series of rulers.

    But the documentation doesn’t end here. We have continuing records of the kings of Himyar and Saba. King Dhamar’alay Warar Yahan’ifm was the 56th ruler in the series. He was followed by a line of kings which ended with ruler number 79, the last king of Saba. His name is Nasha’karib Yuhamin II Yuharhib, and he reigned between 260-275.

    Then the line of rulers shifts to the first king of the empire of Himyar, Yasir Yuhan’im I, who reigned between 275-285 A.D. The kings of Himyar reigned over the kingdoms ofSaba, Himyar and other states in the region. This series finally ends with Maadikarib III, who reigned between 575-577 A.D. Maadikarib was ruler number 102 in a long series of kings which covers a period of 1,437 years, starting in the 9th century B.C., just a few decades before the Queen of Saba had visited Solomon, and ending in the 6^thcentury A.D.^[20]

    A study of these kings has something significant to tell us. The abundance of records over such a long period of time shows us that southern and western Arabia are some of the most well-documented regions in the ancient world. We could not document such a series of rulers for any European country in the 1^st millennium B.C. with the same degree of accuracy.  Here we have a series of kings in Yemen dating back to the 9th century B.C., with very few gaps in the lines of documented rulers, especially when we look at the long series of rulers in Saba and Himyar. Therefore, the claim that a central religious city, like Mecca, could have been present, without any records to substantiate it, is implausible and unacceptable.

The Kingdom of Kinda, East of Mecca, and its Archaeological Records

We've looked at the north and south, now let’s come to the regions east of Mecca.  We have the kingdom of Kinda, which dominated central and northern Arabia. The capital was Dhu-Kahilum, known today as Qaryat al-Fau, near the old city of Yamama, about 500 miles from Mecca. The ancient site of Dhu-Kahilum is abundant in archaeological findings from which we can discern important information about the kings of Kinda and their wars. The first king was Rabi’a, who ruled from 205 to 230 A.D. He is mentioned in the Sabaean inscriptions as “King of Kinda and Kahtan.”^[21] We know about the history of Kinda, particularly through inscriptions. For example, in the year 290 A.D., Kinda lost its domain to the kingdom of Saba. In fact, we read in  Sabaean Inscriptions from Mahram Bilqis–Ma'rib, the following statement about a Sabaean king: “Saadta Iab Yatlaf, descendant of Gadanum, leader of the Arabs of the King of Saba and of Kindat ...”^[22]  

  

It is illogical to claim that an ancient Mecca existed for 2,400 years without any record in a region where every kingdom which existed in history has been attested to.

We see that the closest cities to Mecca, whether in the north, south or east, are very well-documented through archaeological findings which allow us to discover the history of the region and a majority of the names of the rulers. With such complete records from kingdoms located less than 500 miles from the location of Mecca, we see that no city could have possibly existed in that area without leaving at least some records behind to tell us its history. To claim that Mecca existed in the region for at least 2,400 years, from the time of Abraham until the 4^th century A.D., without any record, would be inconsistent with everything that has been recorded by archaeologists. Not only do Greek and Roman geographers and historians fail to mention Mecca, but the archaeologists of ancient Arabia exclude its existence prior to the 4th century A.D. How, then, can we insert Abraham and monotheism into Mecca if it did not exist, not just in one period, but also in all periods of Arabia? Yet, Muslims around the world believe that Abraham and his son, Ishmael, founded a temple in Mecca. No one can rewrite history, trying to convince humanity of things which he claims happened over a land or region, whose history already has been written by historians and attested to by archaeologists.  

 Notes:

^[11] K.A. Kitchen, Documentation For Ancient Arabia, Part I, pages 175-180; 238

^[12] C.Robin, Inventair des Inscriptions Sudarabiques, 1ff. Paris/Rome, 1992 ff.1, 67-68, Haram 3 & 4; Repertoire d'Epigraphie Semitique, esp.V-VIII, Paris, 1929-1968, 2751/M.15; quoted by K.A. Kitchen, page 180

^[13] K.A. Kitchen, Documentation For Ancient Arabia, Part I,  pages 181; 239

^[14] C.Robin, Inventair des Inscriptions Sudarabiques, 1ff. Paris/Rome, 1992 ff.,1, 5-6, pls.2b,3a; Inabba; quoted by K.A. Kitchen, Documentation For Ancient Arabia, Part I, page 181; see also  K.A. Kitchen, page 239

^[15] Private building-dedication, al-Harashif 3 (C.Robin, Inventair des Inscriptions Sudarabiques,1ff. Paris/Rome, 1992 ff., 1, 200-201, pl.59b);  quoted by K.A. Kitchen, page 182

^[16] K.A. Kitchen, Documentation For Ancient Arabia, Part I, Liverpool University Press, 1994, pages 181, 182; see also  K.A. Kitchen, page 239

^[17] Comptes-rendus de l'académie des Inscriptions et Belleslettres, 1992, 68; cf.C.Robin in Robin(ed.), L'Arabie Antique de Karib'il à Mahomet, Aix-en-Provence, 1993,55,128, fig.20; quoted by K.A. Kitchen, page 183

^[18] K.A. Kitchen, Documentation For Ancient Arabia, Part I, pages 181, 182; see also  K.A. Kitchen, page 240

^[19] K.A. Kitchen, Documentation For Ancient Arabia, Part I,  pages 181, 182; see also  K.A. Kitchen, pages 183-188

^[20] See K.A. Kitchen, Documentation For Ancient Arabia, Part I,  pages 181, 182; see also  K.A. Kitchen, pages 90-222

^[21] A.Jamme, W.F., Sabaean Inscriptions from Mahram Bilqis (Ma'rib), the Johns Hopkins Press,Baltimore, 1962, Volume III, page 137

^[22] A.Jamme, W.F., Sabaean Inscriptions from Mahram Bilqis (Ma'rib), the Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1962, Volume III, page 169

http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/archeology.htm

undefined