Interesting article. But I understand Altera´s and Yeez´ scepticism.
The argumentation of Sijpesteijn doesn´t make very clear what parts are based on known historic facts and what part is attributed to the islamic tradition where the lines between story telling and facts are very blurry.
Her central argument to explain away the strange papyrus contents in which the Caliph calls for a hajj (while it should according to the tradition already be an established phenomenon) by saying it was just informative about it being "the right time" for the hajj, seems contradicted by the content of the papyrus itself. No further explanation is given about this timing.
The note doesn´t at all seem te be preparatory to a long and stressfull journey from Egypt to a distant place like Mecca. No details about timing, meeting place, provisions, preparations.... Rather seems a call for a journey to a not so far away place, the next door village?
Does anyone know if the word "hajj" is exclusively used for a religious pilgrimage? Or are other meanings known?
In Sijpestein´s conclusion she says the following interesting thing:
Our sources indicate that the ceremonies of the ḥajj and even the location at which they were per-formed were not fixed in the earliest period of Islam.
We know that the first mention of the name "Mecca" is in the Spanish chronicle (Crónica mozárabe) of 754 AD and it placed Mecca in the biblical location for Abraham in Mesopotamia.
Seen all these uncertainties, is seeing this papyrus as confirmation of the early hajj to Mecca a bit optimistic?