The Arabian desert is technically considered to be part of the Sahara, climate-wise, and participes in the same cycle [2].
This article is about researching evidence for ehat those transitions looked like, focusing on evidence that dates around the end of that particular dry period, pre-Holocene.
> Prior to the onset of the Holocene humid period, little is known about the relatively arid period spanning the end of the Pleistocene and the earliest Holocene in Arabia. An absence of dated archaeological sites has led to a presumed absence of human occupation of the Arabian interior. However, superimpositions in the rock art record appear to show earlier phases of human activity, prior to the arrival of domesticated livestock25.
it was greener (grassland, savannas) but definitely not a rain forest.
And in fact it was also the same for Arabia. More grassland and savannas than today.
But it was only partial: there was some desert area too.
They were just not a large and mostly very dry desert like today.
People lived in arid places for as long we have existed. Civilizations rose and fell in deserts. Depicting these places as barren lifeless voids is a relatively new thing usually used to minimize the impact of whatever the current power is doing there (i.e. extraction, murder, exploitation). There is a good book about that "Deserts are not empty".
Wow, what a tangent! The Sahara is extremely inhospitable and was harsh enough to separate human populations for long enough that it lead to racial differentiation between sub-Saharan Africans and north Africans.
They built canals for farming and understood how to use wild plants. Other cultures ( Akimel Oʼodham for one) are also interesting to read about how they lived.
The panels at Jeba Misa caught me for a second - they reminded me of graffiti on high buildings and overpasses and the like.
As an anthropology aficionado, I’m supposed to say we don’t know the purpose of these artifacts and any attempt to guess would be cultural projection, but privately I’m taking some comfort in the human connection.
This isn't meant as a criticism of you personally, but rather of the general tendency to label all petroglyphs and pictographs as "(rock) art." There's no evidence that these were viewed that way by their creators, and using that term can bias how we interpret them
When the flush of a newborn sun fell first on Eden's green and gold,
Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mold;
And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,
Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it Art?"
I think the argument is there is a distinction to be made between signs that were made for practical purposes (as a sort of proto-writing) versus ones that were made to be pretty. We don't obviously know why these signs were made, but the the hypothesis that they were there to guide travelers to water sources suggests the former.
> practical purposes (as a sort of proto-writing) versus ones that were made to be pretty.
Why not both? It's obvious some effort was put into carving the figures as they look pretty to me. I am sure some people were better than others at making rock carvings making them artists IMO.
I've read/heard that the Sahara was a rainforest around 6,000 BCE (or at least the area around the Great Pyramids was).
Why do we believe that what is now Saudi Arabia was a desert in 11,000 BCE?
Not rainforest, but rather savanna [1].
The Arabian desert is technically considered to be part of the Sahara, climate-wise, and participes in the same cycle [2].
This article is about researching evidence for ehat those transitions looked like, focusing on evidence that dates around the end of that particular dry period, pre-Holocene.
> Prior to the onset of the Holocene humid period, little is known about the relatively arid period spanning the end of the Pleistocene and the earliest Holocene in Arabia. An absence of dated archaeological sites has led to a presumed absence of human occupation of the Arabian interior. However, superimpositions in the rock art record appear to show earlier phases of human activity, prior to the arrival of domesticated livestock25.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period
[2]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/green...
it was greener (grassland, savannas) but definitely not a rain forest. And in fact it was also the same for Arabia. More grassland and savannas than today.
But it was only partial: there was some desert area too. They were just not a large and mostly very dry desert like today.
Was the climate different back then? How can one thrive in the desert
People lived in arid places for as long we have existed. Civilizations rose and fell in deserts. Depicting these places as barren lifeless voids is a relatively new thing usually used to minimize the impact of whatever the current power is doing there (i.e. extraction, murder, exploitation). There is a good book about that "Deserts are not empty".
Wow, what a tangent! The Sahara is extremely inhospitable and was harsh enough to separate human populations for long enough that it lead to racial differentiation between sub-Saharan Africans and north Africans.
In Arizona one example is the Hohokam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohokam
They built canals for farming and understood how to use wild plants. Other cultures ( Akimel Oʼodham for one) are also interesting to read about how they lived.
Hohokam and the O'odham are related in much the same way the US is related to the British empire. One descends from the other.
The panels at Jeba Misa caught me for a second - they reminded me of graffiti on high buildings and overpasses and the like.
As an anthropology aficionado, I’m supposed to say we don’t know the purpose of these artifacts and any attempt to guess would be cultural projection, but privately I’m taking some comfort in the human connection.
Absolutely fascinating. I'm surprised by the quality. Indicative of both a keen eye and a fine skill for art.
This isn't meant as a criticism of you personally, but rather of the general tendency to label all petroglyphs and pictographs as "(rock) art." There's no evidence that these were viewed that way by their creators, and using that term can bias how we interpret them
When the flush of a newborn sun fell first on Eden's green and gold, Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mold; And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart, Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it Art?"
— Rudyard Kipling, The Conundrum of the Workshops
+1 for quoting Kipling in 2025
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroglyph
"A petroglyph is an image created by removing part of a rock surface by incising, picking, carving, or abrading, as a form of rock art."
I think the argument is there is a distinction to be made between signs that were made for practical purposes (as a sort of proto-writing) versus ones that were made to be pretty. We don't obviously know why these signs were made, but the the hypothesis that they were there to guide travelers to water sources suggests the former.
> practical purposes (as a sort of proto-writing) versus ones that were made to be pretty.
Why not both? It's obvious some effort was put into carving the figures as they look pretty to me. I am sure some people were better than others at making rock carvings making them artists IMO.
Why not both? A lot of art has practical purposes.
You’re right, it’s not art until the artist has shown at a reputable gallery and sold their first piece to a collector.
"art" as a separate concept which is only for expression or decoration or things along those lines is relatively modern
[flagged]
gaza doesn't even neighbor arabia btw