You are on page 1of 18

Rock art landscapes beside the Jubbah palaeolake, Saudi Arabia

Richard P. Jennings1 , Ceri Shipton2 , Abdulaziz Al-Omari3 , Abdullah M. Alsharekh4 , R emy Crassard5 , Huw Groucutt1 & Michael D. Petraglia1
The authors have undertaken a systematic survey of rock art along the Jubbah palaeolake in northern Saudi Arabia and interpret the results using GIS. They conclude that the overwhelming majority of prehistoric rock art sites overlook contemporary early Holocene palaeolakes, and that the distribution of later Thamudic rock art offers insights into human mobility patterns at Jubbah in the rst millennium BC.

km

1000

Riyadh

Keywords: Arabia, Holocene, tenth millennium BP, Thamudic, rock art, palaeolakes, landscape, GIS

Introduction
In a recent synthesis on rock art interpretation, Chippindale and Nash (2004) emphasised that images and depictions must be interpreted within their landscape setting in order to appreciate why a particular setting was chosen. Such an approach, they surmise, is applicable at different scalesthat of the rock surface on which a particular panel is painted or engraved, and the scale of the wider environment, which itself may change while the rock art endures. Previous research on the rock art of Arabia has largely focused on the imagery itself, with
1 2 3 4 5
C

School of Archaeology, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2HU, UK School of Social Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia Taif Antiquities Ofce, Taif, Makka, Saudi Arabia Department of Archaeology, College of Tourism & Archaeology, King Saud University, PO Box 2454, 11451 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia CNRS, UMR5133, Maison de lOrient et de la M editerran ee, 5/7 rue Raulin, 39365 Lyon cedex 07, France Antiquity Publications Ltd. 87 (2013): 666683 http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870666.htm

ANTIQUITY

666

Richard P. Jennings et al.

Figure 1. Jubbah palaeolake is located at the southerly extent of the Nefud desert. Major ancient caravan routes and trading towns (reproduced from MacDonald 2010) illustrate that the southern Arabia to Mesopotamia route passed the closest to Jubbah, and that Hail was its closest trading node.

systematic surveys being rare.1 Here we present the rst combined systematic survey and quantitative study of rock art distributions undertaken in the Arabian peninsula. The current study is part of a comprehensive programme of Late Pleistocene and Holocene archaeological research at Jubbah oasis, where palaeolake deposits have been identied (Petraglia et al. 2011, 2012). Our approach involved the systematic archaeological survey of four jebels (hills): Jebel Qattar, Jebel Gattar A, Jebel Gattar B and Jebel Katefeh. These are located south-west and east of a major rock art complex called Jebel Umm Sanman, which was surveyed in 1976 and 1977 (see Parr et al. 1978; Figures 1 & 2). The current survey covered 39km2 and documented numerous animal and human depictions and inscriptionsfor background see Parr et al. (1978), Khan (1993) and Aldowsari (2009). These fall into different chronological divisions which we refer to below as late prehistoric (Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age), Thamudic and recent.
1

Anati 1968a & b, 1972, 1974; Livingstone & Khan 1985; Khan 1993, 1998, 2000, 2007; Nayeem 2000; Aldowsari 2009; Al Talhi 2012 (Saudi Arabia); Garcia et al. 1991; Garcia & Rachad 1997; Crassard 2006; Braemer et al. 2007; Inizan & Rachad 2007 (Yemen); Clark 1975; Preston 1976; Insall 1999 (Oman); Ziolkowski 2007; Lancaster & Lancaster 2011 (United Arab Emirates); and Nayeem 1998; Hassiba et al. 2012 (Qatar).
C

Antiquity Publications Ltd.

667

Research

Rock art landscapes beside the Jubbah palaeolake, Saudi Arabia

Figure 2. The four jebels of the study area: (A) Jebel Katefeh, which has 42 rock art sites; (B) Jebel Qattar, with 37 rock art sites; (C) Jebel Gattar A and B with 28 sites. (D) represents Jebel Umm Sanman, the large rock art locality at Jubbah surveyed by Parr et al. (1978).

The rst aim of our research was to explore the spatial relationships between late prehistoric rock art sites and known palaeolakes in the area. Parr et al. (1978) hypothesised that late prehistoric rock art coincided with periods of high rainfall at Jebel Umm Sanman, where grazing bovids (i.e. wild or domesticated cattle), equids, ibex and caprids dominate the engravings. Radiocarbon dating of the main palaeolake at Jubbah, reported by Garrard et al. (1981), yielded a date of 6685+ 50 BP (Q-3118), but this age should be treated with caution given the era in which it was obtained. We recently determined that palaeolake deposits beside Jebel Qattar had formed in the early Holocene (Crassard et al. in press). This ts well with other palaeoenvironmental evidence in the region for the early Holocene being more humid than its present day arid environment: a perennial lake existed 240km west of Jubbah at Tayma oasis between 10 0009000 cal BP (Engels et al. 2012); an early Holocene humid phase (92507250 cal BP) is reported in cores taken from the Red Sea (Arz et al. 2003); and speleothem records at Soreq Cave in the southern Levant show an overall trend of increased precipitation from the onset of the Holocene to 7500 BP, with peaks at 8500 BP and 7500 BP (Bar-Matthews et al. 1997).
C

Antiquity Publications Ltd.

668

Richard P. Jennings et al.

The second aim of our research was to interpret the distribution of the Thamudic inscriptions and animal imagery around the jebels. Thamudic rock art is found primarily in desert environments of northern and central Arabia and to a lesser extent in southern Arabia, the Transjordan Plateau, the Negev Desert and Egypt (Al-Theeb 1999, Anati 1999; MacDonald 2010). The writing belongs to a branch of scripts known as South Semitic, which were written in Arabia from about the middle of the rst millennium BC to the arrival of Islam (Beeston 1981; Shah 2008). They are usually divided into Groups AE but these divisions are widely accepted as needing revision (see Al-Theeb 1999; MacDonald 2010). The scripts are poorly dated. A text bearing the name of the mid sixth century BC Babylonian king Nabonidus is the earliest known, while the latest is an inscription dated to AD 267 (MacDonald 2010). MacDonald (2010) believes Thamudic B, C and D scripts were written by nomadic peoples who had learned how to write from merchant traders at oasis towns such as Dedan, Tayma or Dumah (Dumat al Jundal). Such merchants crossed central Arabia en route from southern Arabia to the Near East during the rst millennium BC (Figure 1). Camels were the main pack animal of the caravan routes. The dromedary camel arrived in south-eastern Arabia about 50006000 years ago (Uerpmann & Uerpmann 2002). It is absent in late prehistoric art but is often depicted with Thamudic inscriptions (Parr et al. 1978; Khan 2007). Thamudic imagery at Jubbah also includes ibex and other species of goat, felids, ostrich, human gures, horse riders and palm trees (Parr et al. 1978).

Survey area and methods


Three of the sandstone jebels surveyed lie 16km east of Jebel Umm Sanman. Jebel Qattar (elevation: 800m base, 892m top) is c. 600m long 400m wide, with a north-south orientation. Many boulders lie on the base of the jebel, and ancient lake deposits are visible immediately to the north and east. Jebel Gattar A (elevation: 830m base, 930m top) is of a similar size to Jebel Qattar but with an east-west orientation and with dune sand running up the middle on both sides and breaching its centre. Jebel Gattar B (elevation: 840m base, 870m top) is one third of the size of its neighbours. The main palaeolake of Jubbah is less than a 30-minute walk away over the dunes to the west and is visible from the upper western slopes of these jebels. The fourth, Jebel Katefeh (elevation: 830m base, 1020m top), offers a useful point of contrast as it is 26km west-southwest of the other three and is 14.5km south-west of Jebel Umm Sanman. It is 1km long 500m wide, oriented north-south, and overlooks its own palaeolake to the east. The rock art was surveyed using handheld GPS and a total station. The lower reaches of the four jebels were systematically surveyed on foot while the middle and upper reaches were surveyed where it could be done safely. Each site was recorded and photographed and the data entered into a spatial database. Attribute data included coordinates, condition, visibility, method and style of application, density and type of content depicted, writing style and orientation, and association with other forms of cultural evidence. Google Earth photography and Aster 30m digital terrain models were used to make the maps, and analysis was undertaken in ESRI ArcGIS 9.3 software.
C

Antiquity Publications Ltd.

669

Research

Rock art landscapes beside the Jubbah palaeolake, Saudi Arabia


Table 1. Breakdown of the frequency of rock art styles at the four jebels in the study area, showing that Jebel Qattar and Jebel Katefeh, the two jebels with associated palaeolakes, contain the highest proportion of late prehistoric art. Styles represented Area surveyed Jebel Katefeh Jebel Qattar Jebel Gattar A Jebel Gattar B Total Number of rock art sites 42 37 21 7 107 Late prehistoric 25 16 4 0 45 Thamudic 22 19 14 5 60 Recent 3 11 6 3 23

Table 2. Location of rock art within the study area. Thamudic rock art is located exclusively on the jebel base, often on boulders, whereas late prehistoric art occurred both on the base and higher up the jebels, particularly in rockshelters. Physical location Jebel base and/or boulder on jebel base Rockshelter at jebel base Combination of 1 and 2 Total at jebel base Jebel slope and/or boulder on jebel slope Rockshelter elevated on jebel Total up jebel Total Late prehistoric 30 1 1 32 9 4 13 45 Late prehistoric % 66.7 2.2 2.2 71.1 20.0 8.9 28.9 Thamudic 45 8 1 54 6 0 6 60 Thamudic % 75.0 13.3 1.6 90.0 10.0 0.0 10.0

Survey outcome
A total of 107 rock art sites were recorded (recent: 23, Thamudic: 60, late prehistoric: 45) (Table 1). A few sites contained multiple phases. Late prehistoric and Thamudic feature in similar numbers at Jebel Katefeh and Jebel Qattar with Thamudic styles dominant at Jebel Gattar A and B. Eight sites contain richly decorated panels, 16 are of medium density, and 73 are of low density. The survey also documented 19 lithic scatters, 13 sites with one or more cairns, and the remnants of seven walled structures. The rock art is predominantly found along the base of the jebels, although variation was detected between phases (Table 2). A chi-square test revealed that fewer occurrences of Thamudic rock art than expected are located up the jebels in comparison to late prehistoric sites (n = 90, 3 d.f. = 16.23, p> 0.037). Instead, Thamudic sites are on boulders scattered on the base of jebels or on bedrock. 13 late prehistoric sites are higher up the jebels, notably JQ-34, 42, 43, 44 and 45 on Jebel Qattar.

Recent petroglyphs
A total of 23 recent rock art sites were recorded. These comprise unpatinated engravings of Arabic script that were most often carved with a metal object. The script is commonly
C

Antiquity Publications Ltd.

670

Richard P. Jennings et al.

a persons name with a date in the 1400s of the Hijri calendar, meaning the words were inscribed within the last 30 years. A few of the undated Arabic inscriptions were pecked with another stone rather than carved using metal, providing a link with Thamudic inscriptions and suggesting greater antiquity. There are depictions of mounted camels and occasionally ght or battle scenes with stick-gure people using lances to ght on horses. There are also scenes that resemble Thamudic styles of people hunting ostriches with ries, and an image of a motor vehicle.

Thamudic petroglyphs
Thamudic rock art is comprised exclusively of pecked engravings with low levels of patination. It is dominated by Thamudic inscriptions and depictions of camels (Figures 3 & 4). There are 42 sites with inscriptions. Most are written vertically, while some rarer longer ones are written horizontally. Site JQ-6 on Jebel Qattar has an exceptional series of short horizontal inscriptions on a boulder on the base of the jebel (Figure 5). It is written in Thamudic B, in contrast to ve other sites with vertical inscriptions on the same jebel (JQ-3, 6, 23, 31 & 40) which are written in Thamudic C or D. These sites contain lines written in pairs of 46 Thamudic characters (Figure 6). Other examples contain only 14 characters. Some may be wusum signstribal signs left throughout the ages (Khan 2000). Thamudic-style camels were found at 36 sites (Table 3). The majority (25 out of 36) are associated with Thamudic inscriptions, especially on Jebel Gattar A and B, where all but one camel have an associated inscription. Sometimes an image of a camel and a short vertical inscription are contained within a circle (Figure 6). Other images in Thamudic style are depictions of ostriches, dogs, date palms and ibex. The date palms may be indicative that date cultivation was practised. There is no clear association between Thamudic writing and material remains, although two scatters of quartz lithics with Thamudic scripts beside them at the base of Jebel Qattar and Jebel Gattar A and B (JQ-40 and JG-19) may be candidates. The lithics in question are small cores and akes that demonstrate seemingly expedient bipolar reduction of whitish pebble quartz, but which lack technologically diagnostic features that would make links with Thamudic engravings conclusive. The remnants of four structures were also found in the vicinity of Thamudic writing. These are: a small hearth or possible water collection structure at JQ-22; a dug-out shelter 4m in diameter at JQ-31; a linear structure 7m long of unknown use at JQ-38; and a linear windbreak structure 5m long and 0.5m wide at JG-B1.

Late prehistoric petroglyphs


Late prehistoric petroglyphs feature at three of the four jebels (Figures 7 & 8). The engravings are larger and denser compared to Thamudic rock art: seven of eight panels with a high density rank belonged to this phase. The engravings are pecked, heavily patinated and are overlain by unpatinated Thamudic script and camels at a few locations, as was noted earlier by Parr et al. (1978) and Khan (1993) at Jebel Umm Sanman. Two of the more elaborate sites at Jebel Qattar (JQ-31 and JQ-34) are rockshelters that overlook an extensive, multi-period, late prehistoric surface site (JQ-101). A short climb is required to view the art at JQ-34, which is prominently placed high in the landscape (Figure 911).
C

Antiquity Publications Ltd.

671

Research

Rock art landscapes beside the Jubbah palaeolake, Saudi Arabia

Figure 3. Thamudic rock art sites at Jebel Qattar and Jebel Gattar A and B. Camels and Thamudic writing/grafti formed the main component of this art style. The map shows the prevalence of camel depictions on the west side of Jebel Qattar and Jebel Gattar A, and on the east side of Jebel Gattar B. The majority of the camel depictions also contain Thamudic scripts. The longest inscriptions occur on the east side of Jebel Qattar, with the most signicant being the Thamudic B inscription at site JQ-06. Given its orientation, we propose that the Thamudic art may have been anking a caravan route passing from Jubbah oasis to Hail.

The style of the engravings, limited skills of the engravers and difcult rock surfaces mean it is not always a straightforward process to identify the animals depicted to species level. This is apparent with some of the cattle and goat depictions, and in particular whether they are wild or domesticated forms. Overall, the range of species observed broadly matches the observations of Parr et al. (1978) at Jebel Umm Sanman. However, while they reported
C

Antiquity Publications Ltd.

672

Richard P. Jennings et al.

Figure 4. Thamudic rock art sites at Jebel Katefeh. This map conveys how the majority of Thamudic rock art is on the eastern side of the jebel, mainly on boulders along the jebel base. The position on this side of the jebel may reect the movement of peoplenomadic groups or merchant tradersbetween Jubbah and localities beyond the Nefud Desert to the south, perhaps Tayma oasis.

cattle as the dominant animal depicted, the majority of animals recorded in this study area are Nubian ibex (Capra nubiana), which feature at 29 sites. The species is identied by its huge swept-back horns and beard (Figure 11). It is commonly shown with a stripey coat, although piebald and fully engraved plain bodies are also known. The ibex images range from around 0.15m to over 1m in length. Cattle are the next most common animals, with examples from 25 sites. These are among the most elaborate engravings in the survey. They display large aring horns and have a large body size in comparison to ibexthe largest is 1.5m long 1.5m tall. The cattle are usually shown with their heads tilted to the side, so that both their horns and ears are visible (Figure 9). This is referred to as the Jubbah style by Parr et al. (1978). It is not clear if wild or domesticated species are represented, or both. If wild, they are likely to be the extinct wild aurochs (Bos primigenius) or the giant long-horned buffalo (Pelorovis antiquus). The presence of some piebald coats (Figure 12) may indicate that they are a domesticated species, as this is a known trait among domesticated animals (McCorriston & Martin 2009). Images of other animals with beards and parallel horns that curve in opposite directions at the top appear to be wild rather than domesticated goats (Capra aegagrus) (sites JKF-39, 40, 41, 43, 47 and 51). Sites JQ-14, JKF-25 and JKF-34 contain images of an ungulate with
C

Antiquity Publications Ltd.

673

Research

Rock art landscapes beside the Jubbah palaeolake, Saudi Arabia

Figure 5. The only example of a Thamudic B inscription at Jebel Qattar (site JQ-06). It is written horizontally rather than vertically and is made up of different characters than those of the more common Thamudic C and D scripts.

Figure 6. Thamudic C/D script and camels are often depicted on the same rock art panel, such as on this boulder at Jebel Gattar B (site JG-B4).

Antiquity Publications Ltd.

674

Richard P. Jennings et al.


Table 3. The number of times that inscriptions and camel depictions, the main components of Thamudic art, occur together on the same panels. This occurs most often at Jebel Gattar A.

Area surveyed Jebel Katefeh Jebel Qattar Jebel Gattar A Jebel Gattar B Total

Thamudic sites 22 19 14 5 60

Scripts 14 14 11 3 42

Camels 13 9 11 3 36

Script and camels at same site 7 5 10 3 25

a large head, probably a wild ass (Equus africanus). The asses have two short forward-facing appendages on the head which are probably the ears, while two images were found with manes on the back of the neck. JKF-25 also contains a depiction of a horse. One of the asses and one of the aurochs appear to be pregnant. Some of the ibex are juveniles, based on their relative size. Canids were also noted at JKF-22. Late prehistoric human gures were found at 13 sites. They tend to be tall and elongated (some were 1m high but only 0.1m wide). Some very elaborate elongated human gures were found in rockshelter JQ-43. They are male (they have erect penises) and appear to be wearing grass skirts and some kind of head-dress. Two appear to be wielding hooked implements, while one has a bow and arrow. Other examples of human gures are seen at JQ-34 (Figure 9), JQ-31 and JKF-49. Several smaller, less elongated human gures were found in JQ-34 and JQ-43. They are also armed with bows and arrows. Similar examples were recorded at Jebel Umm Sanman by Parr et al. (1978) and Khan (1993).

Late prehistoric pictographs


In the largest rockshelter (JQ-34; Figure 10), which has a small cave at the back, there is a fourth type of rock art painted in red ochre. This is the most sheltered of all the rock art localities, so painted art may originally have been more widespread but only survived here. The art includes three bovids, one of which was possibly an aurochs, hence it may be late prehistoric. However, there is also a series of abstract designs that do not occur in the engravings. The designs consist of square-lled dots, approximately 100mm in size. These occur ve times on one panel. In one case, an ibex has been painted around the square, but it is unclear which was painted rst. The ochre occurs in two different shades: a brownish-red in which the bovids are painted and a purplish-red in which the squares and dots are painted. In another instance, the brownish-red ochre is clearly overlying the purplish-red ochre. Behind this panel are six sequences of parallel lines in red ochre. These parallel lines also do not occur in the engraved art.

Cupules, symbols and grinding slicks


Cupules were found at six sites but their phasing is unclear. A cluster was found with grinding slicks at rockshelters JQ-31 and JQ-43. These cupules are approximately 0.25m
C

Antiquity Publications Ltd.

675

Research

Main representations

Rock art landscapes beside the Jubbah palaeolake, Saudi Arabia

Figure 7. Late prehistoric rock art sites and palaeolakes at jebels Qattar, Gattar A and Gattar B. The distribution shows clear associations between rock art positioning and the visibility of a palaeolake for 18 of the 20 sites. 16 are in the line of sight of a palaeolake on the eastern side of Jebel Qattar. Two sites (JQ-42 & JQ-43) overlook the main Jubbah palaeolake from the mid and upper western slopes of Jebel Qattar, which is across a sand dune. This leaves JQ-13 and JG-10 as the only sites with no direct visible link. The rock art thus probably relates to a humid phase when a lake and habitats supporting cattle, ibex and other bovid species were in existence and were being watched by late-prehistoric human groups.

in diameter. A large, red-stained cupule around 0.35m in diameter is visible on a boulder between JQ-101 and the JQ-31 rockshelter (JQ-32). Two possible cupules are associated with Thamudic and Arabic writing at JQ-38. Cupules also feature at JKF-22 and JKF-28 on Jebel Katefeh. These are associated with both late prehistoric and Thamudic art. Abstract symbols were recorded at 11 sites. Symbols accompany late prehistoric panels at JKF-34,
C

Antiquity Publications Ltd.

676

Richard P. Jennings et al.

Figure 8. Late-prehistoric rock art at Jebel Katefeh and the possible extent of its associated palaeolake. The image shows how the rock art sites overwhelmingly face the palaeolake. This infers that the lake was present at the time the rock art was created. The high proportion of grazing animals depicted suggests that the area around the lake was once grassland.

39 and 43 while two late prehistoric vulvic symbols are engraved at JQ-43. Other symbols are two Thamudic geometric shapes (JQ-5 and JG-B1), two of recent age (two crosses associated with Arabic script at JQ-37 and JGA-20) and two of uncertain age (JQ-8 and JQ-18).

Spatial analyses
Rock art and palaeolakes
The results show that 37 out of 45 (82.2 per cent) late prehistoric rock art sites overlook palaeolakes (Figures 2, 7 & 8). This is convincing evidence that lakes were present at the time the rock art was depicted. If the palaeolakes were dry when the art was drawn, one would expect the art to be randomly distributed around the jebels, but this is not the case. Recent dating of the Jebel Qattar palaeolake deposits suggests that the lake was present in the early Holocene, when the climate was more humid than in subsequent phases of the Holocene (Crassard et al. in press). The palaeolake at Jebel Qattar is visible from 12 out of 16 late prehistoric rock art sites on the jebel, and from three sites on neighbouring Jebel Gattar A. Two sites on the opposite side of Jebel Qattar overlook the main palaeolake at
C

Antiquity Publications Ltd.

677

Research

Rock art landscapes beside the Jubbah palaeolake, Saudi Arabia

Figure 9. Recording a richly decorated late prehistoric boulder at rockshelter JQ-34. This is the most densely decorated panel in the study area. Elongated human gures, characteristic of late-prehistoric rock art at Jubbah, are visible, as are depictions of goats (ibex or wild) and bovids (wild or domesticated cattle), including a large example on the right with horns ared and head turned to one side. Note the piebald decoration of some of the cattle.

Jubbah, which is 1km to the west of the jebel (Figure 7). The pattern is striking at Jebel Katefeh, where 22 out of 25 sites overlook a palaeolake to the east; only three sites are not on the lake-facing slopes of this jebel (Figure 8). The relationship between the animals depicted in the rock art and the presence of palaeolakes is unlikely to be a coincidence. A humid climate would have allowed grassland habitats to develop in the vicinity of the palaeolakes, probably on a seasonal basis. Such habitats would have supported the cattle and ibex that feature in the rock art. Further information comes from other aspects of the archaeological survey. JQ-101, a multi-period archaeological site, was identied beside the Jebel Qattar palaeolake. Its lithic assemblage included Pre-Pottery Neolithic A El-Khiam points, early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Helwan points and Chalcolithic points. The limited evidence for other phases of the lithic reduction sequence and the absence of structures or storage pits suggest that the site was occupied seasonally. The El-Khiam and Helwan points correspond very well with the early Holocene age for the palaeolake at Jebel Qattar (Crassard et al. in press). It seems highly likely, therefore, that at least some of the late prehistoric art was made by early Holocene populations on seasonal visits to Jubbah.
C

Antiquity Publications Ltd.

678

Richard P. Jennings et al.

Figure 10. View from the base of Jebel Qattar up to late prehistoric rockshelter JQ-34. Two large boulders in front of the shelter contain the rock art seen in Figures 9 and 11. The archaeologist in the middle of the photograph offers a sense of scale. The rockshelter contained further petroglyphs and painted red ochre pictographs.

Figure 11. A pair of Nubian ibex with stripey coats and swept-back horns on a large boulder outside JQ-34 rockshelter. The rockshelter overlooks palaeolake deposits, which are partially visible in the background.
C

Antiquity Publications Ltd.

679

Research

Rock art landscapes beside the Jubbah palaeolake, Saudi Arabia

Figure 12. Cattle (Bos genus) with piebald coat and aring horns at JQ-31, the collapsed rockshelter at Jebel Qattar. The piebald patterning may be an indication that the animal is domesticated. Many domesticated species have piebald coats, seen as an indicator for the selection of tameness (McCorriston & Martin 2009).

Elsewhere, the cairns in the study area await classication and investigation. Cairns are ubiquitous across Arabia and typically date to the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age (Parr et al. 1978). A total of 28 cairns were recorded at 13 sites. The highest number is at Jebel Katefeh (18 cairns at six sites) followed by Jebel Qattar (seven cairns at ve sites) and Jebel Gattar A (three cairns at one site). Eight are large (>5m in diameter, e.g. JKF-20) and the rest medium-sized (2m 2m to 5m 5m). Only one cairn is linked to a rock art site (JQ-31), where a cairn is located in front of a collapsed rockshelter. No cairns were inscribed with late prehistoric rock art and no patterns were apparent in the distribution of cairns and rock art at Jebel Qattar. At Jebel Katefeh, cairns cluster at the south-eastern base of the jebel, over an area measuring 500m 150m (Figure 8).

Thamudic caravan routes


The expedient nature of Thamudic rock art and its focus at the jebel bases suggest that it was made by transhumant people. The lack of material remains, the limited themes presented in the rock art, and the profusion of camel images, which are occasionally mounted, all suggest that the people who created this rock art were nomadic. This supports MacDonalds (2010) hypothesis that many nomadic societies in ancient Arabia were literate and were proigate
C

Antiquity Publications Ltd.

680

Richard P. Jennings et al.

at marking grafti on rocks in the desert. Nomadic literacy, he suggests, came about from nomadic peoples coming into contact with merchant traders. The distribution of Thamudic rock art around the bases of Jebel Qattar and Jebel Gattar A and B exhibits a clear difference from late prehistoric rock art, in that the focus on palaeolakes was lost. Instead, the art is more evenly dispersed around the jebels but with an emphasis on their western sides, mainly on boulders on the base. One explanation for why Thamudic art is not focused on the palaeolakes is the possibility that these had dried up by the rst millennium BC. The location of Thamudic art on the western sides of the jebels may be due to these areas receiving sufciently high seasonal humidity to support grazing land (consider Lancaster & Lancaster, 1999: 108109). However, no palaeoenvironmental evidence exists to support this premise, and the absence of Bos depictions in the Thamudic rock art would suggest that cattle were not grazed here at this time. A plausible hypothesis for the location of Thamudic art at Jebel Qattar and Jebel Gattar A and B is that it may reect the route in which nomadic peoples, merchant traders and other travellers moved through the landscape as they traversed between Jubbah and neighbouring settlements to the south of the Nefud, such as the town of Hail. This town is 90km southeast of Jubbah and was an important node on the southern Arabia to southern Mesopotamia trade route in the rst millennium BC (MacDonald 2010). There are no recorded ancient caravan routes between Hail and Jubbah to support this hypothesis, but given that the jebels are highly visible in the landscape and are situated near the narrowest crossing point of the desert, it is not inconceivable that merchant traders, caravanserai or nomadic peoples passed through and encountered or made the rock art (Figure 3). The predominance of Thamudic rock art on the east side of Jebel Katefeh could also be an indicator of a caravan route (Figure 4). This route would have linked Jubbah to the major southern Arabia to northern Mesopotamia/Levant trade route (Figure 1). The likely destination was Tayma, a trading town where numerous Thamudic inscriptions have been recovered (Eichmann et al. 2006; MacDonald 2010).

Conclusions
The information presented above concerning rock art at four jebels in Jubbah shows the merits of interpreting rock art from a landscape perspective. Our results indicate that 82 per cent of late prehistoric rock art overlooks palaeolakes. This suggests that occupation took place during wet phases of the early Holocene. The elaborate nature of the late prehistoric art, along with its restricted horizontal distribution in the landscape, and its extensive vertical distribution at prime locations, suggest relatively long-term occupation. The absence of settlement structures indicates that this occupation stopped short of permanent settlement. However, the discovery of stone points and the common depiction of wild animals such as ibex, as well as humans with bows and arrows, suggest that the localities were used as seasonal hunting grounds. Spatial analysis of Thamudic rock art identied possible trade routes through the Jubbah landscape, based on the prevalence of camel depictions and inscriptions at the eastern base of Jebel Katefeh and on the western bases of Jebel Qattar and Jebel Gattar A. Variations in cultural adaptations and landscape-use behaviours therefore
C

Antiquity Publications Ltd.

681

Research

Rock art landscapes beside the Jubbah palaeolake, Saudi Arabia

appear to be linked to changes in environments. Future research at Jubbah will further assess the relationships between rock art distribution, ecological settings and landscape behaviours. Acknowledgements
We thank HRH Prince Sultan bin Salman, President of the General Commission for Tourism and Antiquities, and Professor Ali I. Al-Ghabban, Vice President for Antiquities and Museums, for permission to carry out this study. We also thank Dr Hussain Abu Al Hassan, Habeeb Turki, Abdalrahman Al-Thobiti, Abdalrahman Almansour, Jamal S. Omar and the people of Jubbah for their support and assistance with the eld investigations. We acknowledge the nancial support of the National Geographic Society, the Leakey Foundation, the European Research Council (grant no. 295719) and the Saudi Commission for Tourism and Antiquities. Thanks also go to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

References
ALDOWSARI, S. 2009. Rock art at Jebel Umm Sanman in Hail region: an archaeological study. Unpublished MA dissertation, King Saud University. AL TALHI, D. 2012. Almulihiah: a rock art site in the Hail region, Saudi Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 23(1): 9298. AL-THEEB, S. 1999. Thamudic inscriptions from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Riyadh: King Fahad National Library (in Arabic). ANATI, E. 1968a. Rock art in central Arabia 1: the oval-headed people of Arabia. Louvain: Biblioth` eque du Mus eon. 1968b. Rock art in central Arabia 2 (parts I & II). Louvain: Institute Orientaliste, Universit e Catholique de Louvain. 1972. Rock art in central Arabia 3: corpus of the rock engravings (parts I & II). Louvain: Institute Orientaliste, Universit e Catholique de Louvain. 1974. Rock art in central Arabia 4: corpus of the rock engravings (parts III & IV) (Institute Orientaliste publication 4). Louvain: Institute Orientaliste, Universit e Catholique de Louvain. 1999. The rock art of the Negev Desert. Near Eastern Archaeology 62(1): 2234. ATZOLD, P.J. M ULLER & M.A. ARZ, W.H., F. LAMY, J. P PRINS. 2003. Mediterranean moisture source for an early-Holocene humid period in the northern Red Sea. Science 300: 11821. BAR-MATTHEWS, M., A. AYALON & A. KAUFMAN. 1997. Late Quaternary paleoclimate in the eastern Mediterranean region from stable isotope analysis of speleothems at Soreq Cave, Israel. Quaternary Research 47: 15568. BEESTON, A.F.L. 1981. Languages of pre-Islamic Arabia. Arabica 28(23): 17886.

SH. BRAEMER, F., P. BODU, R. CRASSARD & M. MANQU 2007. Jarf al-Ibil et Jarf al-Nab rah: deux sites rupestres de la r egion dal-D ali, in M.-L. Inizan & M. Rachad (ed.) Art rupestre et peuplements pr ehistoriques au Y emen: 95100. Sanaa: CEFAS. CHIPPINDALE, C. & G. NASH. 2004. Pictures in place: approaches to the gured landscapes of rock art, in C. Chippindale & G. Nash (ed.) The gured landscapes of rock art: looking at pictures in place: 136. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CLARK, C. 1975. The rock art of Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 1: 11322. CRASSARD, R. 2006. 1

[ Preliminary report on

the discovery of ALI-1 site in Wadi bin Ali, Hadramawt, Yemen]. Chroniques Y em enites en langue arabe 3: 310. Sanaa: CEFAS (in Arabic). CRASSARD, R., M. PETRAGLIA, A.G. PARKER, A. PARTON, R.G. ROBERTS, Z. JACOBS, A. AL-OMARI, A. ALSHAREKH, P. BREEZE, N.A. DRAKE, H.S. GROUCUTT, R.P. JENNINGS, E. REGAGNON & C. SHIPTON. In press. Beyond the Levant: rst evidence of a Pre-Pottery Neolithic incursion into the Nefud Desert, Saudi Arabia. PLoS ONE. 8: e68061. EICHMANN, R., H. SCHAUDIG & A. HAUSLEITER. 2006. Archaeology and epigraphy at Tayma (Saudi Arabia). Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 17: 163276. CKNER, A. PINT, K. WELLBROCK, A. ENGELS M., H. BRU GINAU, P. VOSS, M. GROTTKER, N. KLASEN & P. FRENZEL. 2012. The early Holocene humid period in NW Saudi Arabiasediments, microfossils and palaeo-hydrological modelling. Quaternary International 266: 13141. ehistorique, GARCIA, M. & M. RACHAD. 1997. Lart pr in C.H. Robin & B. Vogt (ed.) Y emen: au pays de la ` reine de Saba, catalogue de lexposition pr esent ea lInstitut du Monde Arabe: 2629. Paris: Flammarion.

Antiquity Publications Ltd.

682

Richard P. Jennings et al.


GARCIA, M., M. RACHAD, D. HADJOUIS, M.-L. INIZAN & M. FONTUGNES. 1991. D ecouvertes pr ehistoriques au Y emen, le contexte arch eologique de lart rupestre de la r egion de Saada. Comptes Rendus de lAcad emie des Sciences de Paris 313 series II: 120116. GARRARD, A.N., C.P.D. HARVEY & V.R. SWITSUR. 1981. Environment and settlement during the Upper Pleistocene and Holocene at Jubba in the Great Nefud, northern Arabia. Atlal 5: 13748. HASSIBA, R., G.B. CIESLINSKI, B. CHANCE, F.A. AL-NAIMI, M. PILANT & M.W. ROWE. 2012. Determining the age of Qatari Jabal Jassasiyah petroglyphs, QScience Connect 2012: 4. doi: 10.5339/connect.2012.4 INIZAN, M.-L. & M. RACHAD (ed.). 2007. Art rupestre et peuplements pr ehistoriques au Y emen. Sanaa: CEFAS. INSALL, D. 1999. The petroglyphs of Shenah. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 10: 22545. KHAN, M. 1993. Prehistoric rock art of northern Saudi Arabia. Riyadh: Ministry of Education, Department of Antiquities and Museums. 1998. A critical review of rock art studies in Saudi Arabia. East and West 48(3/4): 42737. 2000. Wusum, the tribal symbols of Saudi Arabia. Riyadh: Ministry of Education. 2007. Rock art of Saudi Arabia across twelve thousand years. Riyadh: Deputy Ministry of Antiquities & Museums. LANCASTER, W. & F. LANCASTER. 1999. Land and water in the Arab Middle East. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic. 2011. A discussion of rock carvings in Ras al Khaimah Emirate, UAE, and Musandam province, Sultanate of Oman, using local considerations. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 22(2): 16695. LIVINGSTONE, A. & M. KHAN. 1985. Epigraphic survey 14041984. Atlal 9: 12844. MACDONALD, M.C.A. 2010. Ancient Arabia and the written word, in M.C.A. MacDonald (ed.) The development of Arabic as a written language (Supplement to the Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, vol. 40): 527. Oxford: Archaeopress. MCCORRISTON, J. & L. MARTIN. 2009. Southern Arabias early pastoral population history: some recent evidence, in M.D. Petraglia & J.I. Rose (ed.) The evolution of human populations in Arabia: 23750. New York: Springer. NAYEEM, M.A. 1998. Qatar: prehistory and protohistory from the most ancient times (ca. 1 000 000 to end of BC era). Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers. 2000. The rock art of Arabia: Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, the Emirates and Yemen. Hyderabad: Hyderabad Publishers. PARR, P.J., J. ZARINS, M. IBRAHIM, J. WAECHTER, A. GARRARD, C. CLARKE, M. BIDMEAD & H. AL-BADR. 1978. Preliminary report on the second phase of the northern province survey 1397/1977. Atlal 2: 2950. PETRAGLIA, M.D., A.M. ALSHAREKH, R. CRASSARD, N.A. DRAKE, H. GROUCUTT, A.G. PARKER & R.G. ROBERTS. 2011. Middle Paleolithic occupation on a marine isotope stage 5 lakeshore in the Nefud Desert, Saudi Arabia. Quaternary Science Reviews 30: 155559. PETRAGLIA, M.D., ALSHAREKH, P. BREEZE, C. CLARKSON, R. CRASSARD, N.A. DRAKE, H.S. GROUCUTT, R. JENNINGS, A. PARKER, A. PARTON, R.G. ROBERTS, C. SHIPTON, C. MATHESON, A. AL-OMARI & M.-A. VEALL. 2012. Hominin dispersal into the Nefud Desert and Middle Palaeolithic settlement along the Jubbah palaeolake, northern Arabia. 2012. PLoS ONE 7(11): e49840. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049840 PRESTON, K. 1976. An introduction to the anthropomorphic content of the rock art of Jebel Akhdar. Journal of Oman Studies 2: 1738. SHAH, M. 2008. The Arabic language, in A. Rippin (ed.) The Islamic world: 26177. London: Routledge. UERPMANN, H.P. & M. UERPMANN. 2002. The appearance of the domestic camel in south-east Arabia. The Journal of Oman Studies 12: 23560. ZIOLKOWSKI, M.C. 2007. Rock on art: petroglyph sites in the United Arab Emirates. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 18(2): 20838.

Received: 11 July 2012; Accepted: 22 August 2012; Revised: 26 October 2012

Antiquity Publications Ltd.

683

Research

You might also like