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 Ha’il was its closest trading node. 

Contexts in source publication

Context 1

... Arabia, Holocene, tenth millennium BP, Thamudic, rock art, palaeolakes, landscape, GIS 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 scales—that 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 systematic surveys being rare. Here we present the first 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 identified (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 39km 2 and documented numerous animal and human depictions and inscriptions—for 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. The first 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 fits 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 10 000–9000 cal BP (Engels et al . 2012); an early Holocene humid phase (9250–7250 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). 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 first millennium BC to the arrival of Islam (Beeston 1981; Shah 2008). They are usually divided into Groups A–E 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 first millennium BC (Figure 1). Camels were the main pack animal of the caravan routes. The dromedary camel arrived in south-eastern Arabia about 5000–6000 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 figures, horse riders and palm trees (Parr et al. 1978). 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. 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. 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 a person’s 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 fight or battle scenes with ‘stick-figure’ people using lances to fight on horses. There are also scenes that resemble Thamudic styles of people hunting ostriches with rifles, and an image of a motor vehicle. 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 five 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 4–6 Thamudic characters (Figure 6). Other examples contain only 1–4 characters. Some may be wusum signs—tribal 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 ...

Context 2

... 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 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 identified 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. Elsewhere, the cairns in the study area await classification 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 five 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). 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 MacDonald’s (2010) hypothesis that many nomadic societies in ancient Arabia were literate and were profligate at marking graffiti 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 first millennium BC. The location of Thamudic art on the western sides of the jebels may be due to these areas receiving sufficiently high seasonal humidity to support grazing land (consider Lancaster & Lancaster, 1999: 108–109). 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 reflect 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 Ha’il. This town is 90km south- east of Jubbah and was an important node on the southern Arabia to southern Mesopotamia trade route in the first millennium BC (MacDonald 2010). There are no recorded ancient caravan routes between Ha’il 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). 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 identified 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 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 ...