Chronology of Southwest Arabia (8th cent. BCE-6th cent. CE)

It is now possible to establish a chronological framework for the long history of Ancient South Arabia (ASA), although data from the 1st millennium BCE are rather tenuous on the whole, compared to historical reconstructions for other areas of the Ancient Near East. Historical synchronisms with external events are very scarce. Therefore, palaeographic criteria are often the only tools available to define an at-least-relative chronology for the 1st millennium BCE, despite the fact that they are methodologically fragile. However, more precise data are available for the historical and chronological reconstruction of the 8th–early 6th centuries BCE and from the 1st century BCE to the end of the ASA history in the 6th century CE.

The long history of ASA extends from the beginning of the 1st millennium BCE to the 6th century CE. Researchers have outlined a chronological grid of historical events, political and cultural developments over this long period and, for some periods and for some areas of southern Arabia, such reconstructions are pertinent and precise. However, in ASA documentation, few references to external events can be dated with certainty and very few references in indirect sources allude to specific moments in ASA history. For much of the first millennium BCE, it is not easy to shift from a relative to an absolute chronology. Palaeographic criteria have greatly helped to create relative chronological grids (Stein 2013). Despite methodological criticisms of the use of palaeography to obtain absolute chronological data (just think of the possibility of a scribe deliberately using an archaic style), palaeographic evolution is still often the main tool for inferring the date of a text. Although the beginning of the history of the ASA kingdoms dates back to the end of the 2nd millennium BCE (for the ¹⁴C dates of texts in minuscule script, see Drewes et al. 2013), the evolution of historical events can only be reconstructed from the 8th–7th cent. BCE onwards. Archaeological research began at a late stage in Yemen, compared to the rest of the Near East. Foreign archaeological expeditions, with the collaboration of Yemenite scholars, only started systematic work over long periods in several regions of Yemen in the 1980s. We sadly note that archaeological research has now been suspended in Yemen, due to the dramatic situation of the country, at a time when forty years of research was just beginning to shed light on the chronology of the region.

Beginning of the story (8th–7th centuries BCE)

For the oldest phase of ASA history, one of the few cases of historical synchronism in ASA documentation provides a firm chronological anchor. Two Sabaean kings are mentioned in Assyrian sources: Itaʾamra at the end of the 8th cent. BCE, and Karib-ilu at the beginning of the 7th cent. BCE. The latter could be identified with the well-known Karibʾīl Watār son of Dhamarʿalī; the former with king Yathaʿʾamar Watār, son of Yakrumalik (Nebes 2016). Already at the end of the 19th century, Karibʾīl Watār was identified with the king mentioned in the Assyrian annals and a "long"-chronology hypothesis was formulated, tracing the beginning of ASA history back to the 8th cent. BCE (Glaser 1889). However, for many years, many of the leading scholars of ASA history supported a "short"-chronology hypothesis, formulated by J. Pirenne (1956). Based on the history of writing, J. Pirenne postulated that the beginning of written documentation went back to the 5th cent. BCE in ASA. According to her, regular and geometric ASA alphabetic writing derived directly from the Phoenician alphabet, and showed a long evolution that could not be almost contemporary with the earliest Phoenician documentation. Not much remains today of the hypothesis of a "short" chronology for the beginning of ASA history. Archaeology on the one hand and the ¹⁴C dating of texts in minuscule writing on wooden sticks (see Script) on the other hand confirm a "long" chronology and seem to confirm the above-mentioned Assyrian synchronism. The city-states of Jawf and Sabaʾ are the main protagonists of this historical phase. Sabaʾ extended towards the east and south to the Indian Ocean and westward into the Tihāma, past the Red Sea and as far as Ethiopia (Avanzini 2016: 79–111, 127–130).

Second half of the first millennium BCE (6th–2nd centuries BCE)

During the first millennium BCE, all four major ASA kingdoms left written records in their respective languages and some kingdoms clearly acquired greater importance than others at different periods. Written documentation recounts territorial expansions to the detriment of neighbouring kingdoms. It is not easy to propose absolute dates for many of the major events in ASA history during this period. Due to the lack of synchrony with events or historic characters outside southern Arabia, the chronological clarification of much of ASA documentation for the first millennium BCE remains hypothetical. No definite chronological indication is known until 300 BCE, in the form of two Sabaic inscriptions with the presence of a date based on the Seleucid era (Ry 547; A-20-216, see Stein 2013: 189-190, n. 8). In the middle of the 6th cent. BCE, a clear crisis in Sabaean hegemony occurred, linked by A. Lemaire (Lemaire 2010) to events outside the history of ASA. The presence of Nabonidus in Taymāʾ in the mid-6th cent. BCE may have interrupted Sabaean hegemony over caravan routes to Mesopotamia. References to external events are reported in two important inscriptions, one in Minaic (RES 3022), the other in Sabaic (Demirjian 1) from the Jawf region, but the references are ambiguous and it is not easy to securely anchor the narrated events to a definite period. For Demirjian 1, a date was proposed around the early/mid-6th cent. BCE (S. Antonioz, appendix to Robin & de Maigret 2009; Bron & Lemaire 2009), but A. Multhoff (Multhoff 2019) recently proposed bringing the date of the text forward to the late 5th-early 4th cent. BCE, in the same period as RES 3022 (hypothesis also supported by Sørensen & Geus 2019 and Schiettecatte & Arbach 2020). However, recently, the date (beginning of the 4th cent. BCE) for the Minaic inscription RES 3022 has been dramatically brought forward (Sørensen & Geus 2020) to 168 BCE. The latter hypothesis is highly unlikely, but it gives a clear idea of the difficulties involved in securing a firm foothold for the chronology of southern Arabia in the second half of the first millennium BCE. Alongside purely palaeographic criteria, evolutionary linguistic traits have also been identified in Sabaic documentation (Stein 2005). Stein proposes a transition from the Early Sabaic to the Middle Sabaic around the 4th cent. BCE. A trend emerging in recent studies, as we have seen for the inscriptions Demirjian 1 and RES 3022, seems to push forward the dates of many texts to the second half of the first millennium BCE. A much more recent date has also been advanced for Qatabanic documentation, dating back to the political heyday of the kingdom (Mazzini 2020). Archaeology indicates a long period of crisis and lack of documentation in the Qatabanian capital Tamnaʿ (see Hajar Kuḥlān) between the mid-6th cent. and the 4th cent. BCE (De Maigret & Robin 2016). This period may have covered all of southern Arabia and not just Qatabān.

2nd century BCE–1st century CE

The chronological framework of ASA history is clearer in this period. Absolute dating is still imprecise, but fluctuations are limited to decades rather than the longer gaps characteristic of the first millennium BCE. The history of the Qatabanian dynasty of kings can be securely reconstructed (Robin 2016). From a linguistic viewpoint, Sabaic documentation no longer presents the typical Early Sabaic features, and in addition to the two abovementioned inscriptions dated to the Seleucid era, one of the very few known bilingual ASA inscriptions comes from this period: a text in Sabaic and Nabataean dated to year 3 of King Aretas 4 (7–6 BCE) (DAI Ṣirwāḥ 2004-12A + 2004-6 + 2002-83 + 1993/3-x; Stein 2013: 190, n. 10). It is not easy to interpret the date (Avanzini 2016: 170), between the 1st cent. BCE and the 1st cent. CE, but the political autonomy of the realm of Maʿīn and documentation in Minaic came to an end at that time. An external event, a Roman expedition (see Aelius Gallus) provides a secure chronological marker, even though its repercussion on ASA history is still somewhat vague (Arbach & Schiettecatte 2017). Qatabān retained its political importance at the beginning of this period, but in the second half of the 1st cent. BCE, it lost control of the southern plateau, where a new political entity, the kingdom of Ḥimyar, took shape. It was destined to a great fortune to all the subsequent centuries of ASA history. Ḥimyar was culturally and politically dependent on Qatabān, but already in the 1st cent. CE, it forged a structured alliance with Sabaʾ: the reign of Sabaʾ and dhu-Raydān. The Periplus Maris Erythraei, written in Greek by an anonymous author, provides valuable information on the history of southern Arabia in the first half of the 1st century CE. It is clear that by then, political power, at least in the vast area overlooking the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, was divided between the new kingdom, based on the alliance between Sabaʾ and dhu-Raydān, and the kingdom of Ḥaḍramawt. Alliances between the two kingdoms were formed by pacts, although these were often broken and wars broke out between the two kingdoms in the second half of the 1st cent. CE (Ja 643). Until this period, time was perceived by the inhabitants of southern Arabia as cyclical (years were specified by eponymous unctionaries). The tribes of the southern plateau were responsible for a fundamental shift in mentality, with the creation of eras beginning in a given year.

2nd–3rd centuries CE

The union between Sabaʾ and Ḥimyar lasted until the second half of the 2nd cent. CE (CIH 315), but already in this period the first signs of crisis between the two components of the kingdom became evident (CIH 140). Qatabān, with a new capital, experienced a last period of political autonomy, which came to an end, together with documentation in Qatabanic, in the middle of the 2nd cent. CE. The presence of Romans was much closer to southern Arabia than previously believed. A Roman legion was established in the Farasān archipelago in 144 CE (Villeneuve et al. 2004). Ethiopian presence in southern Arabia is mentioned from this period onwards. Throughout the 3rd cent. CE, the kingdoms of Sabaʾ, Ḥimyar and Ḥaḍramawt fought each other in perennial wars, as shown by the huge corpus of dedicatory texts from Maḥram Bilqīs. Sabaic and Ḥimyarite texts show that the kings of the two kingdoms both held the same title: "king of Sabaʾ and dhu-Raydān". In an inscription dated to the beginning of the 3rd cent. CE (CIH 308) the kingdom of Aksum becomes a protagonist in the wars between Sabaʾ and Ḥimyar. The Aksumite king Gadrat, mentioned in the inscription, is also known in an inscription in Geez. Attempts to sign agreements are recorded between Sabaʾ and Aksum, but quickly broken (Ja 631). A well-known Sabaean king in the documentation from Maḥram Bilqīs, Shaʿr Awtar, waged wars all over southern Arabia: to the north against the Arab tribe of Kinda, to the west against the Ethiopians in Tihāma (Ja 635) to the east against Ḥaḍramawt (Ir 13). The main wars against the former ally (Ja 576 + Ja 577, Ja 578) were led by two brothers, Ilīsharaḥ Yaḥḍub and Yazīl Bayān, against the Ḥimyarite king Shammar Yuhaḥmid (Ir 49) and his son (MAFRAY al-Miʿsāl 2). The Ḥaḍramawt dominated a large part of sea trade, as it maintained relations with distant peoples (in Ja 931 Palmyrenes, Chaldeans, Indians are named). However, after Sabaʾ, the Ḥaḍramawt was also conquered and incorporated into the Ḥimyarite kingdom at the end of the 3rd cent. CE (Ja 665; Ir 32).

4th–6th centuries CE.

Documentation for this long period of the last phase of ASA history is not abundant, but it is nonetheless possible to accurately reconstruct the royal dynasties as inscriptions are systematically dated. We now have access to the year and often also the month in which a text was written (Robin 2019). The last long text of the polytheist period is ʿAbadān 1 on the military career of a Yazanite nobleman and his descendants between 330 and 360 CE. In the mid-4th cent. CE, the Ḥimyarite ruling class adopted a monotheistic religion, undoubtedly with Judaizing features (Ry 534+MAFY Rayda 1; Gar Bayt al-Ashwāl 1 – see Judaism). An indirect Byzantine source from this period (reign of Constantius II, 337-361 CE) recounts how a mission to convert an anonymous Ḥimyarite king to Christianity was well received (Gajda 2009: 39-40). However, in direct documentation, we have no traces of a definite Christian faith until the 6th cent. CE. The most interesting historical element of this period is the expansion of Ḥimyar's power in northern Arabia, evidenced by the toponyms mentioned in inscriptions or their location in northern Arabia (Robin 2008, 2014, Robin & Tayrān 2012). Indirect Byzantine, Syriac, Ethiopian and Arab sources are available for this period. The reconstruction of the beginning of the Ḥimyarite era, widely accepted as the year 110 BCE, is based on the date of the siege of Najrān and the massacre of the Christians who resided there by king Yūsūf Asʾar Yathʾar. Three inscriptions of this reign (Ry 507, Ry 508, Ja 1028) are dated to 633 Ḥim.; indirect sources date these events to 835 of the Seleucid era, that is 523 CE. After King Yūsūf's defeat, the Ethiopians named a king of their choice in Ḥimyar; and one of the last kings of Ethiopian origin, Abraha, continued the expansion of the kingdom towards the north. Epigraphic documentation ends in the middle of the 6th cent. CE. Sasanian domination marked the end of ancient South Arabian history.

Alessandra Avanzini

References and suggested reading

• Arbach, M. & J. Schiettecatte 2017. Premiers échos de l'expédition romaine d'Ælius Gallus dans la documentation sudarabique. CRAI Apr.-Jun. 2017: 675–700.
• Avanzini, A. 2016. By land and by sea. A history of South Arabia before Islam recounted from inscriptions (Arabia Antica, 10). Roma: L'Erma di Bretschneider.
• Bron, F. & A. Lemaire 2009. Nouvelle inscription sabéenne et le commerce en Transeuphratène. Transeuphrathène 38: 12–29.
• De Maigret, A. & C.J. Robin (eds) 2016. Tamnaʿ (Yémen). Les fouilles italo-françaises. Rapport final (O&M, 20). Paris: De Boccard.
• Drewes, A.J., T.F.G. Higham, M.C.A. Macdonald & C. Bronk Ramsey 2013. Some absolute dates for the development of the Ancient South Arabian minuscule script. AAE 24(2): 196–207.
• Gajda, I. 2009. Le royaume de Ḥimyar à l'époque monothéiste. L'histoire de l'Arabie du Sud ancienne de la fin du IV^e siècle de l'ère chrétienne jusqu'à l'avènement de l'islam (MémAcInscr, 40). Paris: Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres.
• Glaser, E. 1889. Skizze der Geschichte Arabiens von den ältesten Zeiten bis zum Propheten Muhammad. Munich.
• Lemaire, A. 2010. Chronologie sabéenne et minéenne et histoire du Proche-Orient. Orientalia 79: 379–389.
• Mazzini, G. 2020. The ancient South Arabian royal edicts from the Southern gate of Timnaʿ and the Ǧabal Labaḫ (EFAH, 8). Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
• Multhoff, A. 2019. Merchant and Marauder. The adventures of a Sabaean clansman. AAE 30: 239–262.
• Nebes, N. 2016. Der Tatenbericht des Yiṯaʿʾamar Watar bin Yakrubmalik aus Ṣirwāḥ (Jemen). Zur Geschichte Südarabiens im frühen 1. Jahrtausend vor Christus (EFAH, 7). Tübingen: E. Wasmuth.
• Pirenne, J. 1956. Paléographie des inscriptions sud-arabes. Contribution à la chronologie et à l'histoire de l'Arabie du Sud antique. Brussels: Paleis der Academiën.
• Robin, C.J. (ed.) 1991. L'Arabie antique de Karibʾīl à Mahomet. Nouvelles données sur l'histoire des Arabes grâce aux inscriptions (REMMM, 61). Aix-en-Provence: Edisud.
• Robin, C.J. 2008. Les Arabes de Ḥimyar, des « Romains » et des Perses (III^e-VI^e siècles de l'ère chrétienne). Sem. Clas. 1: 167–202. DOI: 10.1484/J.SEC.1.100252.
• Robin, C.J. 2016. La chronologie de Qatabān. Premiers repères, in A. De Maigret & C.J. Robin (eds) Tamnaʿ (Yémen). Les fouilles italo-françaises. Rapport final (O&M, 20): 53–80. Paris: De Boccard.
• Robin, C.J. 2014. The Peoples beyond the Arabian Frontier in Late Antiquity: Recent Epigraphic Discoveries and Latest Advances, in J.H.F. Dijkstra & G. Fisher (eds) Inside and out: interactions between Rome and the peoples on the Arabian and Egyptian frontiers in Late Antiquity: 33–82. Leuven, Paris, Walpole: Peeters.
• Robin, C.J. 2019. Les calendriers de l'Arabie préislamique. JSAI 46: 1–65.
• Robin, C.J. & A. de Maigret 2009. Le royaume sudarabique de Maʿīn: nouvelles données grâce aux fouilles italiennes de Barāqish (l'antique Yathill). With an appendix by S. Anthonioz: 'Note complémentaire sur la guerre entre la Chaldée et l'Ionie'. CRAI 2009(1): 57–96.
• Robin, C.J. & S. Tayrān 2012. Soixante-dix ans avant l'islam : l'Arabie toute entière dominée par un roi chrétien. CRAI 2012(1): 525–553.
• Schiettecatte, J. & M. Arbach 2020. La chronologie du royaume de Maʿīn (VIII^e-I^er siècles av. J.-C.), in I. Zaytsev (ed.) Аравийские древности: Сборник статей в честь 70-летия Александра Всеволодовича Седова: 233–284. Moscow: Oriental Literature Publisher.
• Sørensen, S.L. & K. Geus 2019. A Sabaean eyewitness to the war of Euagoras against the Persians. Synchronising Greek and Ancient South Arabian Sources. ZPE 209: 196–204.
• Sørensen, S.L. & K. Geus 2020. Medes and Minaeans in Egypt – M 247: who, where and when? Journal of Ancient Civilizations 35: 147–160.
• Stein, P. 2005. Linguistic contributions to Sabaean chronology. ABADY 10: 179–189.
• Stein, P. 2013. Palaeography of the Ancient South Arabian script. New evidence for an absolute chronology. AAE 24(2): 186–195.
• Villeneuve, F, C. Phillips & W. Facey 2004. Une inscription latine de l'archipel Farasān (sud de la mer Rouge) et son contexte archéologique et historique. Arabia 2: 143–192, 229–232.