2,743
edits
[checked revision] | [checked revision] |
No edit summary |
Lightyears (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
===Dearth of archaeological evidence=== | ===Dearth of archaeological evidence=== | ||
Very little is known through archaeological and historically relied-upon channels about the early and pre-Islamic history of Mecca, as the city is neither referred to unambiguously by any document prior to the rise of Islam, nor is there any architecture in Mecca that has been determined to have persisted from the life of Muhammad at the beginning of the seventh century.<ref>Robert Schick, ''Archaeology and the Quran'', Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an</ref> Indeed, even while contemporary Romans produced detailed descriptions of Arabia at large and Western Arabia (the Hijaz) in particular, no references can be found to anything that could be described as a pilgrimage or trade-center at Mecca. | Very little is known through archaeological and historically relied-upon channels about the early and pre-Islamic history of Mecca, as the city is neither referred to unambiguously by any document prior to the rise of Islam, nor is there any architecture in Mecca that has been determined to have persisted from the life of Muhammad at the beginning of the seventh century.<ref>Robert Schick, ''Archaeology and the Quran'', Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an</ref> Indeed, even while contemporary Romans produced detailed descriptions of Arabia at large and Western Arabia (the Hijaz) in particular, no references can be found to anything that could be described as a pilgrimage or trade-center at Mecca. | ||
A place called Macoraba in Arabia is mentioned in a geographic work by Ptolemy in the 2nd century CE. Many academic scholars believe this is a reference to Mecca (first proposed in the 16th century), and some even think that the name derives from an ancient South Arabian word for temple, mkrb. Others historians such as Patricia Crone and Ian D. Morris have argued that there is no good reason to believe Macoraba and Mecca are the same place. The idea has never been backed by any significant academic investigation, nor has any other ancient source been shown to describe Mecca or its temple.<ref>See the conclusion in Ian D. Morris (2018) [https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/alusur/article/view/6850 Mecca and Macoraba] in: al-Usur al-wusta vol. 26 (2018)</ref> | |||
Historian Patricia Crone is widely considered to have established that Mecca was of no wider importance at the time of Islam's emergence, was not on the major trade route, and traded in goods like leather, wool and other pastoral products.<ref>This was definitively argued by Crone in her 1987 book ''Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam'', and further defended and refined in her 1992 article [https://www.jstor.org/stable/4057061 Serjeant and Meccan Trade] and her 2007 article [https://www.jstor.org/stable/40378894 Quraysh and the Roman Army: Making Sense of the Meccan Leather Trade]</ref> | |||
===Petra hypothesis=== | ===Petra hypothesis=== | ||
Among other factors, because geographical descriptions provided of Mecca in Islamic scriptures fail to map reliably onto the geography of the actual city of Mecca, because ample archaeological evidence demonstrates that for roughly a century after Muhammad's death Muslim prayed toward Petra as their ''qibla'', and because studies have demonstrated the prevalence of Syriac words in the Qur'an, many critical scholars have been led to hypothesize that the Mecca we know today may not have been the Mecca known by early Muslims. Mounting evidence suggests that the city Muhammad lived in, preached in, and came to conquer, may in fact have been Petra, located in Syria. This | Among other factors, because geographical descriptions provided of Mecca in Islamic scriptures fail to map reliably onto the geography of the actual city of Mecca, because ample archaeological evidence demonstrates that for roughly a century after Muhammad's death Muslim prayed toward Petra as their ''qibla'', and because studies have demonstrated the prevalence of Syriac words in the Qur'an, many critical scholars have been led to hypothesize that the Mecca we know today may not have been the Mecca known by early Muslims. Mounting evidence suggests that the city Muhammad lived in, preached in, and came to conquer, may in fact have been Petra, located in Syria, or at least somewhere in the vicinity of northern Arabia, though this is disputed. This interpretation collides heavily with the explicit statements of Islamic scriptures and conforms more readily with Islamic scriptures' implicit, geographical descriptions of Mecca, as well as with the archaeological evidence available to us today. | ||
==Relevant Quotations== | ==Relevant Quotations== |