As we proceed down in the history of Islam, we find more archaeological sources. Yet, they are not enough to articulate a seamless story of events without consulting the textual sources. Actually, the only history which solely depends upon archaeological sources is that of pre-historical societies. After the advent of writing, textual sources become more elaborate than archaeological sources. There is another problem with the archaeological sources of early Islam. They are particularly scanty for the first seven decades of Islam, especially about religious themes. This fact has given birth to a lively debate around them. A group of historians believes that the religious themes attested in later physical sources were actually non-existent during the first seven decades. Lately, the opinion of historians is shifting away from this argument. “It is a mistake to give too much significance to absence of archaeological evidences as a proof of absence of religious declarations” writes Johns. He further elaborates, “There is little prospect that the discipline of archaeology will uncover new evidence of history of Islam during its first seventy years. The reason lies in the very nature of early Islamic state. It was a loose confederation of tribes”. 1. The early Islamic state did not strive actively to produce coins, monuments, victory inscriptions or similar material which makes rich source for archaeologists. Still papyri and inscriptions do exist and this text will include them where appropriate.2.
Textual evidence for the period covered under the “spread of Islam” is rich. Both Muslim and non-Muslim sources are numerous. Again, like previous periods of Islamic history, Christian writers are earlier and closer to the events. And again, like previous periods of Islamic history, Christian writers are brief and more concerned about the events in the Christian world. No historian has ever been able to produce a decently detailed history of the “spread of Islam” by using only non-Muslim texts and combining them with available archaeological sources. Hence, we have to depend upon Muslim sources.
Muslim sources, as usual, are later than the Christian ones. The very fact raises questions about their authenticity.3. Not only this, Muslim sources are biased against Umayyad rulers. “There is no doubt that in its board outlines as well as in its details Muslim tradition is generally hostile to the Umayyads”, notes Hawting, “And when the two can be distinguished, Shi’a tradition is more hostile than that of the Sunnis. The hostility of tradition is reflected in both what the tradition reports and the way it reports it.” 4. The general hostility of Muslim sources against the Umayyad caliphs can be traced to the fact that almost all material is produced by the opposition to the government and is penned down during Abbasid period.5. The psychologists tell us about confirmation bias. Readers only want to read what they already believe in and agree with.6 Each historical text we come across for this period is written with the reader in mind.
This text picks archaeological evidence over textual ones and selects earlier evidence over the later ones. It does not discriminate between Muslim or non-Muslim texts. Rather, it uses both to create a logical flow of the events.
Among the Muslim sources foremost in chronological order is Khalifa bin Khayyat. The chronicle written by Khalifa bin Khayyat notes the events up to the year 847 CE. 7. We can assume that he had published his book the same year. In this sense he wrote almost one century after the overthrowing of the Umayyad Caliphate.
Readers might be familiar with Baladhuri, Ya’qubi and Tabari from the previous sections. They all form important sources for the Umayyad Caliphate. This text does not use any text produced after Tabari because they are too late. Brief introduction to others will be given in the text when used for the first time.
Most non-Muslim sources are not dedicated historians of Islam. They mention events related to the Umayyad Caliphate, Muslims and Islam as ‘fleeting ideas’. However, a few of them have produced substantial material and merit a mention here. Two interdependent chronicles, the Byzantine Arab Chronicle of 741 and Hispanic chronicle of 754, were produced in Muslim Spain. Both are contemporary to the late events of the Umayyad Caliphate.
Readers might be familiar with Theophanes the Confessor and Michael the Syrian from the previous section. Others will be introduced when first used in the text.
End Notes
- Jeremy Johns, “Archaeology and the History of Early Islam: The First Seventy Years”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 46, No 4(2003), 411.
- There are around sixteen thousand Arabic Papyri available. (Alfred Grohmann, From the World of Arabic Papyri, (Cairo: Royal Society of Historical Studies, 1952), 2.
- For discussion around authenticity of early Islamic sources see: Herbert Breg (ed.), Method and Theory in the Study of Islamic Origins. Islamic History and Civilization. Studies and Texts, Volume 49. (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003).
- G. R. Hawting, The First Dynasty of Islam, (London: Routledge, 2000), 11
- Hawting explains it in detail. See: G. R. Hawting, The First Dynasty of Islam, (London: Routledge, 2000), 11 – 13.
- Raymond S. Nicherson, “Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises:, Review of General Psychology, 2 (2) (1998): 175 – 220.
- For the dating of Khalifa’s text and his biography see: Khalifa Ibn Khayyat, Khalifa ibn Khayyat’s History on the Umayyad Dynasty (660 – 750), ed. and trans. Carl Wurtzel, (Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, 2015),3.