Timeline

Lihyanite Colossal statue from Dadān, possibly of a king, it followed the standardized artistic sculpting of the Lihyanite kingdom, the original statue was painted white

Scholars have long grappled to establish a reliable timeline for the kingdoms of Lihyan and Dadan; numerous attempts were made to construct a secure chronology, but none of them so far came to fruition.^[10] This important chapter in the region's history remains fundamentally obscured. The main source of information regarding the date of the Lihyanite kingdom emanates from the collection of inscriptions within the precinct of Dadān and its contiguous environs.^[11] Thus, when attempting to piece together the history of the kingdom, previous historians have heavily relied on epigraphic records and sometimes scant archaeological remains due to the lack of comprehensive excavations. The absence of specific references to well-dated external events in these local inscriptions has made it challenging to establish a definitive and uncontested chronology.^[11] In the pursuit of a resolution, two notable chronologies were formulated: a short one proposed by W. Caskel, now discarded in contemporary scholarship, and a longer chronology put forward by F. Winnett, which is widely adopted despite the acknowledged chronological dearth.

A silver phiale, late 5th century BC, dedicated to the Arabian goddess al-ʾIlāt by Qainū son of Gešem, king of Qedar. His father, Gešem, is equated with both Biblical Geshem the Arab and Dadanitic Gashm bin Shahr

In his long chronology, F. Winnett agrees with Caskel that the Lihyanites succeeded an earlier, lesser-known local dynasty whose members were referred to as ‘king of Dadān’, which he places its beginning in the 6th century BC. The Lihyanites, on the other hand, appeared in the 4th century BC and disappeared in the 2nd century BC.^[12] To date the beginning of the Lihyanite kingdom, a key inscription discovered north of Dadān is widely considered, which reads: nrn bn ḥḍrw t(q)ṭ b-ʾym gšm bn šhr wʿbd fḥt ddn brʾ[y]... (lit. ' Nīrān b. Ḥāḍiru inscribed his name  in the days of Gashm b. Shahr and ʿbd the governor of Dadān, in the reig[n of]...').^[11] Notably, the inscription likely concluded with the name of a king, under whom Gashm b. Shahr and ʿAbd held their positions.^[13] Significantly, Winnett observed that the text references a governor (fḥt) of Dadān, without any mention of Lihyan, indicating that the Lihyanite kingdom did not exist at that time,^[11] given that Dadān is widely considered the capital of their realm.^[14] Moreover, based on the appearance of the word fḥt (from Aramaic pḥt; lit. ' governor'), which is understood as a title known only from the time of the Achaemenid empire,^[15] the inscription was dated by Winnett to the Achaemenid period^[11] and interpreted to be an allusion for a Qedarite rule over Dadān and elsewhere in northern Arabia as agents of the Achaemenid administration in the region.^[16] Winnett identified Gashm b. Shahr with Geshem the Arab who opposed Nehemiah's reconstruction of Jerusalem in 444 BC and accordingly narrowed the dating of the text to the second half of the fifth century BC. Later scholars supported this dating by equating both Dadanitic Gashm and Biblical Geshem with Geshem, father of Qainū king of Qedar, who is mentioned on a votive bowl from Tall al-Maskhūṭah, in Sinai, dated around c. 400 BC.^[17] If we accept these two main assumptions — the interpretation and tentative dating of the text to the Achaemenid period and the equation of Gashm b. Shahr with Geshem the Arab and Geshem father of Qainū — then we have a likely limit in the second half of the fifth century BC after which the Lihyanites must have emerged as an independent kingdom,^[11] possibly due to the fragmentation of the Qedarite realm.^[18] Such assumptions, however, are tenuous; for Achaemenid presence in northern Arabia is more difficult to ascertain since pḥt is shown to be used in Aramaic well before the Achaemenid period and was customary for regional governors in the Assyrian empire centuries prior.^[18] This fḥt could very well be a Qedarite governor of Dadān on behalf of the Neo-Babylonian ruler Nabonidus after the kings of both Taymāʾ and Dadān were slain in his enigmatic Arabian campaign (c. 552 BC).^[19] Indeed, only during Nabonidus' brief tenure in Tayma was the Hijaz explicitly under foreign control. It is in this time when the Aramaic term pḥt was likely introduced for officials in the region.^[18] As for the latter assumption, it has been criticised by several scholars, pointing out the frequent use of the name gšm in northern Arabia does not warrant this identification.^[11]

Gargoyle from Dadān in the form of a lion’s head, an Arabian adaptation of Syro-Hittite motifs

Overall, what we can discern is that the Lihyanite kingdom most likely came into being after the arrival of Nabonidus in north-west Arabia in 552 BC, as 'king of Dadān' is still mentioned during his Arabian campaign.^[11] Although no more precise terminus post quem can be provided to us by the Dadanitic inscriptions, they do grant us, however, the means to estimate the minimum duration of the Lihyanite kingdom.^[11] This estimation can be arrived at by simply summing the regnal years of all the 'kings of Lihyan' mentioned in the Dadanitic corpus. At present, our knowledge encompasses at least twelve such kings with a combined reign spanning 199 years.^[11] Consequently, this calculation establishes a terminus post quem for the kingdom's end. If we establish that the kingdom could not have come into existence before 552 BC, it logically follows that its downfall could not have transpired before 353 BC. Therefore, the earliest conceivable time range for the kingdom of Lihyan falls between the mid-sixth and the mid-fourth centuries BC.^[20]

Stages

Two colossal statues from the sanctuary of Dadān/al-Khuraybah, possibly a figurative representation of Lihyanite kings

Situated in Wadi al-Qura within modern al-ʿUla, al-Khuraybah is believed to be ancient Dadān^[21]—a significant hub of culture and commerce in ancient northwest Arabia. It thrived in the 1st millennium BC, fostering through the development of long-distance trade along the ‘Incense Road,’ acting as an important and strategic trade link connecting ancient South Arabia with Egypt, the Levant, and Mesopotamia. Dadān served as the capital for two successive kingdoms: the local kingdom of Dadān, in the early/mid-1st millennium BC, and the larger kingdom of Lihyan, which ruled over a broader domain in northwest Arabia.^[22] Biblical accounts refer to Dadān as early as the sixth century BC, mentioning its ‘caravans’ and ‘saddlecloth’ trade.^[23] At this time, Dadān is a place of undoubted significance, as it was also mentioned by Nabonidus in his Arabian campaign,^[24] where he claimed to have defeated ‘king of Dadān’ (šarru ša Dadana). However, neither the king’s identity nor how Nabonidus dealt with him are known. It’s plausible that he had him killed as he did to it-ta-a-ru (Yatar), king of Taymāʾ.^[25] Only few Dadanite kings are known—two funerary inscriptions of interest are that of Kabirʾil b. Mataʿʾil, who is called ‘king of Dadān’ (mlk ddn), and Mataʿʾil b. Dharahʾil, who may have been his father.^[26] It’s possible that Kabirʾil inherited his position from his father Mataʿʾil, in a dynastic tradition of paternal succession. While Mataʿʾil was not explicitly referred to as ‘king of Dadān’, a Dadanitic inscription found on the top of Ithlib mountain asks for the protection of both Mataʿʾil and Dadān by a man named Taim b. Zabīda, suggesting his likely kingship.^[27] A recent discovery of Dadanitic inscription found in a secondary context near the main temple at al-Khuraybah introduces another king, ‘ʿĀṣī, king of Dadān’ (ʿṣy mlk ddn), and has a dedication to a deity named Ṭaḥlān.^[28] ʿĀṣī might have been the son of Mataʿʾil and the brother of Kabirʾil.^[25] These internal and external sources were taken as an indication of the existence of a “well-organized state” in the region before the mid-1st millennium BC.^[29]

Despite weighty chronological challenges, it’s evident that the kingdom of Dadān was succeeded in al-ʿUla by the kingdom of Lihyan.^[30] It is not clear, however, when this transition occurred.^[23]

It appears, from recent epigraphic publications, that Lihyan controlled their trade rival Tayma (a fertile and rich oasis in North Arabia) for several generations.^[31] The hostility between the two oases is reflected by an inscription from Tayma that mention a war between them. After the Lihyanite annexation of Tayma, the Lihyanite kings may have visited the city to commemorate their rule on regular basis. Indeed, standing statues larger than human stature with legs aligned and hands hanging down, supposedly of Lihyanite kings, were found in the temple of Tayma, probably as a reminder to the population of subordination to the king of Dedan. The statues correspond with similar royal statues from Dedan, which display a standardized artistic model of dignitary sculpting. Thus suggesting the role of Dedan as a regional power.^[31] In the Biblical records, Dedan is mentioned alongside Tayma and Saba, but more often connected with Qedar. The kings of Lihyan were possibly the descendants of the Qedarites,^[32] and had close contacts with the Ptolemaic dynasty.

The oldest reference to Lihyan (lḥyn) comes from early Sabaean inscription dated to the first half of the sixth century BC that records the journey of a Sabaean merchant. He intended to go to Cyprus for trade, and on his way he passed through Dedan, the "cities of Judah", and Gaza.^[33]

Fall

Coin of Aretas IV, the annexation of Dadan was probably in his reign

Some authors assert that the Lihyanites fell into the hands of the Nabataeans around 65 BC upon their seizure of Hegra then marching to Tayma, and finally to their capital Dedan in 9 BC. Werner Cascel suggests that the Nabataean annexation of Lihyan was around 24 BC; this is based on two factors. The first, Cascel relied on Strabo's accounts of the disastrous Roman expedition on Yemen that was led by Aelius Gallus from 26 to 24 BC. Strabo made no mention of any independent polity called Lihyan. The second is an inscription which mentions the Nabataean king Aretas IV found on a tomb in Hegra (dated around 9 BC). It suggests that the territories of Lihyan were already conquered by the Nabataeans under his reign (that of Aretas IV.) Nearly half a century later, an inscription from a certain Nabataean general who used Hegra as his HQ mentions the installation of Nabataean soldiers in Dedan the capital of Lihyan.

The Nabataean rule over Lihyan ended with the annexation of Nabatea by the Romans in 106 AD. Although the Romans annexed most of the Nabataean Kingdom, they did not however reach the territories of Dedan. The Roman legionaries that escorted the caravans stopped 10 km before Dedan, the former boundary between Lihyan and Nabatea. The Lihyanites restored their independence under the rule of Han'as ibn Tilmi, a member of the former royal family that predated the Nabataean invasion. His name is recorded by a craftsman who dated his tomb by carving the fifth year of Han'as ibn Tilmi reign.