ABSTRACT

There were not equal opportunities for advancement for all the inhabitants of Arabia. Monsoon rains in the south and abundant groundwater in the east allowed agriculture to flourish there, whereas in the north and centre this was only possible in a limited number of locations, chiefly scattered oases. Easy moorings in the south and east and a strategic setting favoured trade, whereas ‘to set a course along the [west] coast of Arabia is altogether risky, since the region with its lack of harbours offers poor anchorage, is foul with rocky stretches, cannot be approached because of cliffs, and is fearsome in every respect’ (Periplus 20). Moreover the peoples of north Arabia were more prey to the whims of the great powers than were those of the south and east. Thus the polities of the Nabataeans, Characenes, Hatrans and Palmyrenes were each in their turn abolished by Rome or Iran. This disparity in opportunities and in potential for state formation is reflected in the historical sources for Arabia. Whereas the kingdoms of Saba, Dilmun and Magan achieve semi-legendary status in the writings of outsiders, famed for their wealth and exoticism, the rest of Arabia is mostly dismissed by outsiders as a wilderness and its inhabitants disdained for their peripatetic and parasitic mode of existence:

Whenever Israel sowed seed, the Midianites would march up with Amalek and the sons of the east. . . . They would pitch camp on their territory and destroy the produce of the country as far as Gaza. They left Israel nothing to live on, not a sheep or an ox or a donkey . . . They entered the country to pillage it.