Liḥyān [Kingdom and tribe]

Liḥyān, pre-Islamic tribe from northwest Arabia, which evolved into a flourishing kingdom sometime between the 6th and 1st centuries BCE. The oasis of Dadan is presumed to have been the centre of the kingdom, but Liḥyān extended its hold over a vast territory and ruled the oasis of Taymāʾ during a period. Several of the Liḥyānite kings are mentioned in Dadanitic inscriptions from al-ʿUlā and Aramaic inscriptions from Taymāʾ.

Sources

Sources referring to the Kingdom of Liḥyān are mostly based on the epigraphy and remains left by the Liḥyānites themselves in Dadan (currently al-ʿUlā) and its surroundings (al-Said & al-Ghazzi 2014: 13). These include a large number of Dadanitic inscriptions from the al-ʿUlā region, some Aramaic inscriptions from Taymāʾ (Stein 2021) and several monumental statues representing Liḥyānite kings deposited in the temples of Dadan and Taymāʾ (Hausleiter 2018). Liḥyān is also mentioned in Safaitic inscriptions (Macdonald et al. 1996: 458, 461), in two Sabaic inscriptions (Demirjian 1; Jabal Riyām 2006-17) and in a Minaic inscription (Maʿīn 93 B). In classical sources, the Liḥyānites are referred to as the ethnic Lechieni mentioned by Pliny (HN 6, 155). Significant as they are, these references are meagre in comparison to the role played by the kingdom of Liḥyān in ancient Arabia during the mid-first millennium BCE.

Medieval Arabic sources give an account of the Banū Liḥyān in more than one place. It is indicated that they were a branch of the tribe of Hudhayl b. Mudrika (Ibn Ḥazm: 466), and several Arabic sources refer to them as being settled northeast of Mecca where a group of that name still lives in the village of ʿAyn Shams. It is reported that the tribe of Liḥyān was in conflict with Prophet Muhammad who sent an expedition against them known as the “the Raid of the Banū Liḥyān” (Hārūn 1983: 235). According to tradition, part of the tribe migrated north towards al-Ḥīra, where a certain Aws b. Qullām al-Liḥyānī is said to have ruled as king and where a district of the city was named “Liḥyān” (Ibn Ḥabīb; Caskel 1954: 44).

The rise of the kingdom of Liḥyān

Archaeological fieldwork in the al-ʿUlā area led to the discovery of remains left by the Liḥyānites, including a large number of Dadanitic inscriptions at Dadan itself and at neighbouring sites such as Jabal ʿIkma and Umm Daraj. These inscriptions, however, only mention the kings of Liḥyān and do not include any reference whatsoever to their origins or to the development of their kingdom. Therefore, different hypotheses concerning the emergence and chronology of Liḥyān have been proposed.

According to Winnett (1937: 51), the kingdom of Liḥyān developed in the fifth century BCE at the expense of the kingdom of Dadan. Caskel, on the other hand, argued that the Liḥyānite kingdom witnessed two historical eras, a first between 115 BCE and 9 BCE, interrupted by Nabataean control of the region (9 BCE–80 CE), and a second era from 80 CE to 134 CE (Caskel 1954: 41). The latter hypothesis is not based on any physical evidence and can no longer be accepted. According to the inscription of the Sabaean king Yadaʿʾīl Bayān (Demirjian 1; Rohmer & Charloux 2015: 302), dating back to the beginning of the sixth century BCE, the Liḥyānites did not seem to have reached Dadan by that time. The inscription refers to a messenger of the Sabaean king who conducted trade and diplomatic missions with different countries and places in Arabia, including both Dadan and Liḥyān. Since the latter are mentioned separately, it seems likely that the Liḥyānites were not yet in Dadan, although their territory might not have been far from it. It is therefore possible that this corresponded to the political vacuum experienced by Dadan after Nabonidus’ departure from Taymāʾ in 543 BCE (al-Said 2000: 60) and that the Liḥyānites conquered and started to rule Dadan at that time (al-Said & al-Ghazzi 2014: 10–11; Rohmer & Charloux 2015: 300).

The Dadanitic inscriptions revealed the names of some of the kings who ruled, or may have ruled, the kingdom of Liḥyān:

• Gusham son of Shahr (JSLih 349)
• Nātān son of Gusham (al-Theeb 2019:78, fig. 1)
• Han-Aws son of Shahr (JSLih 53)
• Shahr son of Han-Aws (AH 13)
• Lawdhān son of Han-Aws (JSLih 82)
• Gusham son of Lawdhān (JSLih 85)
• Talmay son of Lawdhān (AH 197)
• Han-Aws son of Talmay (JSLih 75)
• Talmay son of Han-Aws (JSLih 45; al-Said 1999: 1)
• Masʿūd (JSNab 334, 335, 337)

This list has frequently been completed with the names of five other figures regarded as probable kings or governors, including Faḍīg (JSLih 70; Caskel 1954: 119-120), ʿAbdān (JSLih 72), Galatqaws (JSLih 83), Salḥān (JSLih 68; Caskel 1954: 115-116) and Dhū-Absamāwī (Nasif 1988: 96, pl. CXLIV-CXLV). However, the identification of those names as Liḥyānite rulers is no longer certain since it has been argued that the last four are certainly not personal names but local names of asterisms and that the term rʾy which precedes them is probably not a political title (Kootstra 2020).

Based on the names of the kings known so far, some scholars tried to establish a chronology using their genealogies and the palaeography of Dadanitic script. For instance, Caskel argues that Han-Aws b. Shahr was the first Liḥyānite king and Faḍīg the last one (1954: 41), while Kitchen claims that Shahr, the father of Han-Aws, was the first king and ʿAbdān the last (1994, i: 169-170). However, the archaeological and epigraphic material available so far does not provide any evidence supporting either of these claims and any attempt to draw up a chronological list of the Liḥyānite kings is still premature. Most of the Dadanitic inscriptions known so far come from the surface of the archaeological site of Dadan and the surrounding mountain plateaus. Inscriptions mentioning more Liḥyānite kings have yet to be discovered. The results of recent excavations in Dadan should contribute to establishing a complete and chronological list of the Liḥyānite kings.

Extent of the kingdom of Liḥyān

During its several centuries of existence, the kingdom of Liḥyān ruled an important region in northern Arabia, covering Dadan in its wider geographical sense (currently al-ʿUlā) and al-Ḥijr (currently Madāʾin Ṣāliḥ), 22 km north of the city of al-ʿUlā. It is generally admitted that the remains of al-Khurayba, 3 km northeast of the old town of al-ʿUlā, had been elected by the Liḥyānites to establish the headquarters of their government. It is also now known that the kingdom expanded to the north and controlled the oasis of Taymāʾ, as proven by archaeological evidence and references to the kings of Liḥyān in Aramaic inscriptions found at the site (Hausleiter 2012: 825-826; 2018: 267; Stein 2021).

On the other hand, scholars disagree about the exact geographical extent of the kingdom at its heyday. Based on the similarity between the name of the Najdi city of al-Kharj (see al-Yamāma) and the name of the deity Kharg worshipped at Dadan, Caskel argued that Liḥyānite power reached the southern part of the Najd region (Caskel 1954: 37). However, the resemblance between the two names is clearly not a valid argument to support this assertion, particularly considering the remote location of the al-Kharj oasis. Other scholars argued that the kingdom of Liḥyān would have reached the region of the current Jordanian capital of Amman (Abū al-Ḥasan, 1997: 74), on the basis of frequent mentions of a place called Dhū-ʿAmmān in Dadanitic inscriptions (AH 6, 33, 34, 37, 45, 60). However, this is also very unlikely since the city of Amman was ruled by strong imperial powers at the time of these inscriptions. Moreover, their dedicants all indicated that they performed religious ceremonies in honour of the god Dhū-Ghābat. It thus seems reasonable to deduce that they were members of the local Liḥyānite community and that the place of Dhū-ʿAmmān they refer to should probably be located in the vicinity of Dadan. The same applies to the site of Badr, also frequently mentioned in Dadanitic dedicatory inscriptions (AH 10, 17, 20, 21, 28). Although it has been argued that this would be a reference to the place of Badr, located southwest of Medina (Abū al-Ḥasan, 1997: 379), there is no archaeological evidence to support this view.

The fall of the kingdom of Liḥyān

As is the case with the rise of the kingdom, there is no scientific consensus on the date and circumstances of the fall of Liḥyān. According to Caskel, the decline of the kingdom came in two phases. He argued that the “early” Liḥyānite kingdom fell to the Nabataeans in 24-25 BCE. The latter would then have dominated the region until their realm was conquered by the Romans in 106 CE. This would have permitted the rise of a “late” Liḥyānite kingdom which controlled the region until the end of the reign of its last alleged king in 134 CE, “Faḍīg” (Caskel 1954: 42). This theory is now obsolete and must be definitively abandoned. An alternative view was suggested by Winnett, who related the fall of the kingdom to the figure of “Masʿūd” described as “king of Liḥyān” in three Aramaic inscriptions found south of Taymāʾ (JSNab 334, 335, 337). Since the script of these texts corresponds to an evolved form of Aramaic comparable to early Nabataean script, Winnett formulated the hypothesis of a Nabataean conquest of the kingdom of Liḥyān in the second century BCE (1937: 51). The main problem with this theory is that we now know, thanks to excavations in Taymāʾ, that Liḥyānite officials wrote and commissioned inscriptions in Aramaic (Stein 2021: 21-80). The three aforementioned inscriptions should therefore no longer be considered as evidence of the fall of the Liḥyānite kingdom. In recent times, Rohmer and Charloux suggested an earlier date for the fall of the kingdom. Based on a calculation of the years of Liḥyānite kings’ reigns, they provided a terminus post quem of 353 BCE as the earliest possible date for the end of the Liḥyānite dynasty (2015: 299-300). However, this is only a preliminary estimation and will require confirmation after the completion of the list of Liḥyānite kings.

Since there are no inscriptions documenting a conflict between the Nabataeans and the Liḥyānites, it may be tempting to explore other hypotheses to explain the end of the Liḥyānite kingdom. Among these, one pertinent possibility to be taken into account is to draw a connection with the devastating earthquake that hit the region of Dadan and seems to have caused its sudden abandonment, after having hypothetically forced the Liḥyānites to leave the region. Several signs of the occurrence of this earthquake were recorded during excavations in Dadan (al-Khurayba), including huge rock falls from the surrounding mountains, the collapse of buildings, such as the temple of Dhū-Ghābat in the city centre and the highly damaged states of the Liḥyānite statues discovered separated from their bases (al-Said & al-Ghazzi 2014: 11). Another factor that may have contributed to the decline of the Liḥyānites is the economic crisis experienced by Dadan, as reflected by the loss of its position as the main caravan centre when Arabian trade shifted from the land route to the sea route in the late first century BCE.

Despite the fall of its kingdom, the tribe of Liḥyān did not cease to exist. This is evidenced by the Islamic Arabic literary tradition about the Banū Liḥyān at the time of the Prophet, but also by some Safaitic inscriptions referring to Liḥyān (Macdonald et al. 1996: 458-452) around the Common Era which seem to suggest that the tribe was still independent at this time. More importantly, the Sabaic inscription Jabal Riyām 2006-17 referring to the “land of Liḥyān” in the third century CE, confirms that the Liḥyānites still controlled an important region during this period, on an equal footing with other major peoples mentioned in the inscription, such as the Nabataeans, the Palmyraeans and the Romans (Schiettecatte & Arbach 2016: 177–184).

Saʿid F. al-Saʿid

References and suggested reading

Sigla

• AH: Dadanitic inscriptions in Abū al-Ḥasan 1997 and 2002.
• JSLih: Dadanitic inscriptions in Jaussen & Savignac 1909-1922.
• JSNab: Nabataean inscriptions in Jaussen & Savignac 1909-1922.

Sources

• Ibn Ḥabīb, Muḥammad/ed. I. Lichtenstädter (n.d.). Kitāb al-Muḥabbar. Beirut.
• Ibn Ḥazm al-Andalusī, Abī Muḥammad Alī b. Saʿīd/ed. ʿA.S.M. Hārūn 1983. Jamharat ansāb al-ʿArab. Beirut.
• Pliny the Elder, Natural History, book 6.

References

• Abū al-Ḥasan, Ḥ. 1997. Qirāʾa li-kitābāt liḥyāniyya min ǧabal ʿIkma bi-minṭaqat al-ʿUlā. Riyadh: Maktabat al-malik Fahd al-waṭaniyyah.
• Abū al-Ḥasan, Ḥ. 2002. Nuquš liḥyaniyya min minṭaqat al-ʿUlā. Dirāsa taḥlīliyya muqārana. Riyadh: Wizārat al-maʿārif wakālat al-āṯār wa-ʾl-matāḥif.
• al-Said, S.F. 1999. Nuqūš liḥyāniyya ġayr manšūra min al-matḥaf al-waṭanī al-Riyāḍ. Al-mamlakat al-ʿarabiyya al-saʿūdiyya. Riyadh: Ǧāmiʿat al-malik Saʿūd.
• al-Said, S.F. 1999. Dirāsa taḥlīlīya li-nuqūš liḥyānīya ǧadīda, Mağalla ğāmiʿat al-malik Saʿūd 11: 1–34.
• al-Said, S.F. 2000. Hamlat al-malik al-bābilī Nabūnīd ʿalā šamāl ġarb al-ğazīra al-ʿArabiya. Riadh: Dirāsa fi tarīẖ al-ʿarab al-qadīm.
• al-Said, S.F. & al-Ghazzi, A.S (eds) 2014. Archaeological Treasures from Dadan. Results of Seven Seasons of Field Work. Riyadh.
• al-Theeb, S. 2019. Inscriptions from the Alula region: a chronology, in L. Nehmé & A. Alsuhaibani (eds) AlUla wonder of Arabia: 78–8. Paris: Gallimard.
• Caskel, W. 1954. Lihyan und Lihyanisch (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Wesfalen. Geisteswissenschaften, 4). Cologne: Westdeutscher Verlag.
• Farès-Drappeau, S. 2003. La chronologie des inscriptions dédanites et liḥyānites d’Al-ʿUlā: état de la question. Topoi Suppl. 4: 379–405.
• Farès-Drappeau, S. 2005. Dédan et Liḥyān. Histoire des Arabes aux confins des pouvoirs perse et hellénistique (IVe-IIe s. avant l’ère chrétienne). Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée.
• Hārūn, A.S.M. 1983. Tahḏīb Sīrat Ibn Hišām. Beirut.
• Hausleiter, A. 2012. North Arabian Kingdoms, in D.T. Potts (ed.) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World): 816–832. Chichester/Malden (Mass.): Wiley Blackwell.
• Hausleiter, A. 2018. Statuen der Zeit der Dynastie von Liḥyān (6.–2. Jh. v. Chr.?) aus Dadan und Taymāʾ, Nordwest-Arabien, im archäologischen Kontext, in F. Pedde, J. Marzahn (eds) Hauptsache Museum. Der Alte Orient im Fokus, Festschrift für Ralf-B. Wartke: 253–292. Münster: Zaphon.
• Jaussen, A. & R. Savignac 1909–1922. Mission archéologique en Arabie. 5 vols. Paris: Leroux/Geuthner.
• Kitchen, K.A. 1994. Documentation for ancient Arabia. 2 volumes. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
• Kootstra, F. 2020. Dadanitic b-rʾy as referring to a local calendar? BSOAS 83/1: 25–50.
• Macdonald, M.C.A., L. al-Muʾazzin & L. Nehmé 1996. Les inscriptions safaïtiques de Syrie, cent quarante ans après leur découverte. CRAI 140/1: 435–494.
• Nasif, A.A. 1988. Al-ʿUlā. An Historical and Archaeological Survey with Special Reference to its Irrigation System. Riyadh: King Saud University Press.
• Rohmer, J., & G. Charloux 2015. From Liḥyan to the Nabataeans. Dating the End of the Iron Age in Northwest Arabia. PSAS 45: 297–320.
• Schiettecatte, J. & M. Arbach 2016. The political map of Arabia and the Middle East in the third century AD revealed by a Sabaean inscription. AAE 27: 176–196.
• Stein, P. 2021. Section 2. Die reichsaramäischen Inschriften der Kampagnen 2005–2009 aus Taymāʾ, in M.C.A. Macdonald (ed.) Taymāʾ II. Catalogue of the Inscriptions Discovered in the Saudi-German Excavations at Taymāʾ 2004–2014: 20–80. Oxford: Archaeopress; DAI Orient-Abteilung, Heritage Commission at the Ministry of Culture.
• Winnett, F.V. 1937. A Study of the Liḥyanite and Thamudic Inscriptions (University of Toronto Studies – Oriental Series, 3). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

_{Alternate spellings: Lihyan, Lihyân, Liḥyân, Lihyān, Lḥyn}