Rock Art of the Central Negev: Documentation, Stylistic Analysis, Chronological Aspects, the Relation Between Rock Art and the N

Rock Art of the Central Negev: Documentation, Stylistic Analysis, Chronological Aspects, the Relation between Rock Art and the Natural Surroundings, and Reflections on the Mark Makers’ Society through the Art.

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of “DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY”

Davida Eisenberg Degen

Submitted to the Senate of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

6th of June 2012

Beer-Sheva

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of “DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY”

Davida Eisenberg Degen

Submitted to the Senate of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

Approved by the advisor

Approved by the Dean of the Kreitman School of Advanced Graduate Studies

6th of June 2012

Beer-Sheva

This work was carried out under the supervision of Professor Steve Rosen

In the Department of Bible, Archaeology and Near Eastern Studies Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences

III

Acknowledgments

The research was supported by a Zin Negev scholarship.

The present research consists of field work and many hours in the library – reading, discussing and writing. I was fortunate in receiving help at each stage of my work. I would like to single out my advisor, Prof. Steven Rosen who advised, directed, and taught me. He read and re-read the many versions of this thesis, always offering constructive criticism. Over the years I have noticed how Steve and I research similar topics, but from different points of view. I drew much knowledge and inspiration from working with Steve for which I am very grateful.

Before starting this research and venturing out into the field, Sass Pilako from the Nature and Parks Authority, Amir Erez from Kibbutz Reviveim, Shike Lender and Tali Erickson-Gini of the Israel Antiquity Authority helped me identify the sites to document, sharing with me their extensive knowledge of petroglyphs in the Central Negev.

The field and documentation work offered an opportunity for students of the archaeology department, students on the overseas program, and volunteers a glimpse of this little known area of rock art. These students and volunteers were of great help to me. Several individuals joined the field work only for a day while others were more persistent, joining the survey work on a weekly basis. Here I’d like to mention Janet Levy and Amir Weitzman, both good friends who contributed unlimited time in the survey work. Volunteers that worked on the documentation of the Har Michia petroglyphs include Aaron Dan, Rivka Eisenberg, Karni Golan, Milena Gosic, Nathan Habers, Yeara Ilan, Alon Katzanel, Janet Levy, Moshe Ainav, Tzur Netzer, Liron Rudiakov, Amir Weitzman, and Max Werner. Volunteers who worked on the documentation of Giva’t HaKetovot petroglyphs include Denis Adler, Anton Bugrashov, Janet Levy, Igal Radoshkovsky and Amir Weitzman. The mapping of a number of the Har Michia outcrops was directed by Prof. Steve Rosen, with the participation of Janet Levy, Liron Rudiakov, and Doron Shiner - to each of them, my sincere thanks.

After a few field outings and the preparation of the formal research proposal, I met with the advisory committee. The committee consisted of Prof. Steve Rosen, Prof. Itzik Gilad of the Archaeology unit at BGU and Prof. Dani Nadel from Haifa University. Each read my proposal seriously and offered advice. The committee members kept up with my progress and, on more than one occasion, came to my help. After submitting the dissertation, I received the comments of three reviewers which greatly improved the thesis.

Several individuals assisted me with carrying out the research itself. I would like to single out Alona Tzadik of the interlibrary loan department of the BGU library and Rivka Eisenberg for her help with Italian translations. Dr. Haim Goldfus, Prof. Oded Tammuz, Prof. Yonah Samir, Leha Fogel, Shifra Jan, Yaffa Naftalovitch, and Sharon Gal were always available and helpful with bureaucratic problems. Dr. Nitzan Amitai Preiss, Prof. Robert Hoyland, Dr. Peter Fabian, Dr. Gunnar Lehman, Prof. Eliezer Oren, Prof. Haim Cohen, Prof. Ted Eisenberg, Prof. Allan Degen, Dr. Joey Corbett, Dr. Eli Shimshilashvili, Dr. Sumio Fujii, and Prof. Michael Macdonald advised me on areas of their specialization. Prof. Oystein LaBianca kindly shared unpublished material from the Khirbet Rufies cave excavation and Paul Ray helped with interpreting data from the site. I would also like to thank Prof. Angelo Fossati and Dr. George Nash for their advice and encouragement throughout this work. Thanks are due to Yael Abadi-Reiss for translated the abstract into Hebrew and Allan Degen for meticulously editing this thesis. In addition, I’d like to mention and thank Naomi and Ronen Tiv and for their encouragement.

With completion of the research, I realize how much I’ve learned over the past years. Family and friends also learned as they suffered through years of monologues on my research progress and thoughts. I’d like to thank my best friend and husband, Doron, who assisted me in every way possible, including reading and editing, agreeing to make family ‘outings’ at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot, encouraging me to take days off to tour Har Karkom, take part in the Valcamonica field school, and most importantly for his belief in me.

I dedicate this work to my parents, Polly and Ted Eisenberg.

Table of Contents

List of Figures XII List of Tables XVII Abstract XIX 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Environment of the Negev, Past and Present 4 1.1.1. The Negev’s Structure and Division into Regions 4 1.1.2. Climate and Water Sources 5 1.1.3. Geology 7 1.1.4. Flora and Fauna 7 1.1.5 The Environment of Har Michia 8 1.1.6. The Environment of Giva’t HaKetovot 9 1.1.7. Paleoenvironment of the Negev 11 1.2. Archaeological Periods in the Negev 15 1.2.1 Upper Palaeolithic 18 1.2.2 The Epipalaeolithic 18 1.2.2.1. The Early Epipalaeolithic 19 1.2.2.2. The Late Epipalaeolithic 20 1.2.3. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period 21 1.2.4. Transitional Cultures, the Tuwailian and Early Pottery Neolithic 22 1.2.5. The Timnian Culture (Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages) 23 1.2.6. The Second Millennium BCE 28 1.2.7. Iron Age 28 1.2.8. The Babylonian and Persian Periods 32 1.2.9. Nabatean-Roman Period 34 1.2.10. Byzantine, Early Islamic and Abbasid Periods 35 1.2.11. The Middle Ages to Present 38 1.2.12. Bedouins of the Central Negev 39 1.3. Methods of Dating Petroglyphs 40 1.3.1. Stratification 41 1.3.2. Subject Matter 42 1.3.3. Style 42 1.3.4. Historical Documentation and Epigraphy 43 1.3.5. Micro-Erosion 44 1.3.6. Patina 45 1.3.6.1. Patina Shades and Relative Dating 45 1.3.6.2. Carbon Dating 47 1.3.7. Optically Stimulated Luminescence 47 1.3.8. Summary 48 1.4. Reading Rock Art 48 1.4.1. Analogical Based Interpretations 49 1.4.2. Informed Methods of Interpretation 50 1.4.3. Formal Methods of Interpretation 50 1.4.3.1. Geographic Information Systems 51 1.4.3.2. Quantified Methods 51

1.4.3.3. Neurophysiologic Similarities 52 1.4.4. Summary 53 1.5. A Brief History of Rock Art Research in the Negev 54 2. The Central Negev Rock Art Data 57 2.1. Methods of Survey and Data Collection 57 2.1.1. Introduction 57 2.1.2. Definitions 58 2.1.3. Pre-Survey Preparations 61 2.1.4. Conducting the Survey 69 2.1.4.1. Har Michia Survey 77 2.1.4.2. Har Arkov and Ramat Matred 78 2.1.4.3. Giva’t HaKetovot Survey 78 2.1.4.4. Har Karkom 80 2.1.5. Data Organization and Analysis 81 2.1.5.1. Outcrops and Drainage Basins 81 2.1.5.2. Photographs and Tracing 82 2.1.5.3. Abstract Elements 83 2.1.5.4. Zoomorphic Elements 83 2.1.5.5. Phases of Engraving and Patina Shades 86 2.1.5.6. Descriptive Statistical Analysis 86 2.2. Har Michia Survey Finds 88 2.2.1. Archaeological Architectural Remains 89 2.2.2. Outcrops and Panels and Elements 92 2.2.3. Abstract Motifs 96 2.2.4. Inscriptions 104 2.2.5. Zoomorphic Motifs 105 2.2.5.1. Birds 105 2.2.5.2. Camels 106 2.2.5.3. Dogs 109 2.2.5.4. Equids 111 2.2.5.5. Horned Ungulate 112 2.2.5.6. Lizards 117 2.2.5.7. Predators 118 2.2.5.8. Scorpion 120 2.2.5.9. Snake 121 2.2.5.10 Unidentified Zoomorphic Representations 122 2.2.5.11 Summary 124 2.2.6. Hand and Foot Prints 125 2.2.7. Anthropomorphic Motifs 131 2.2.7.1. Anthropomorphs Type 1 131 2.2.7.2. Anthropomorphs Type 2 132 2.2.8. Motif Combinations 144 2.2.81. Ibex-Dog 144 2.2.8.2. Ibex-Orant 144 2.2.8.3. Ibex-Foot Prints 144 2.2.9. Tools/Weapons 147

VII

2.2.10. Buildings 149 2.2.11. Abstract, Zoomorphic and Anthropomorphic Petroglyph Motif Ratios 151 and Patina Shade. 2.2.12 Summary 153 2.3. Giva’t HaKetovot Survey Finds 154 2.3.1. Archaeological Architectural Remains 154 2.3.2. Outcrops and Panels and Elements 157 2.3.3. Abstract Motifs 160 2.3.4. Inscriptions 165 2.3.5. Zoomorphic Motifs 167 2.3.5.1. Birds 168 2.3.5.2. Boars 168 2.3.5.3. Camels 169 2.3.5.4. Dogs 174 2.3.5.5. Equids 175 2.3.5.6. Horned Ungulate 175 2.3.5.7. Predators 180 2.3.5.8. Snakes 181 2.3.5.9. Spider 182 2.3.5.10. Unidentified Zoomorphic Representations 182 2.3.5.11. Summary 183 2.3.6. Hand and Foot Prints 184 2.3.7. Anthropomorphic Motifs 184 2.3.7.1. Anthropomorphs Type 1 184 2.3.7.2. Anthropomorphs Type 2 186 2.3.8. Combinations of Motifs 191 2.3.8.1. Ibex-dog 191 2.3.9. Zoomorphic and Anthropomorphic Petroglyph Motif Ratios and Patina 192 Shade 2.3.10 Tools/Weapons 193 2.3.11. Single representations 194 2.3.12 Summary 195 2.4. Intra and Inter Regional Comparisons 196 2.4.1. Generalizations Regarding the Rock Art of the Central Negev 196 2.4.1.1. Site Placement 196 2.4.1.2. Panel Type and Orientation 197 2.4.2. Differences found between Rock Art Assemblages in the Central Negev 197 2.4.2.1. Motif Type and Ratios 198 2.4.2.2. Differences noted between Patina covered and Patina Free Panels 200 2.4.2.3. Depicted Motifs 204 2.4.2.3.1. Abstract Elements 204 2.4.2.3.2. Complexity Levels and Patina Shades 205 2.4.2.4. Inscriptions 207 2.4.2.5. Zoomorphic Motifs 207 2.4.2.5.1. Horned Ungulates 208 2.4.2.5.2. Ibex – Dog Combinations 209

VIII

2.4.2.5.3. Unidentified Zoomorphs 210 2.4.2.5.4. Camels 210 2.4.2.5.5. Equids 211 2.4.2.6. Foot Prints 212 2.4.3. Attribute Combinations 213 2.4.3.1. Zoomorphs 214 2.4.3.1.1. Horned Ungulates 215 2.4.3.1.2. Camels 215 2.4.3.2. Anthropomorphs. 216 2.4.4. Conclusions 218 3. Findings and Interpretations 220 3.1. Chronology of the Central Negev Petroglyphs 220 3.1.1. Introduction 220 3.1.2. Superimposition and Relative Patina Shades 221 3.1.3. Abstract Motifs 225 3.1.3.1. Khirbet Rufeis, Jordan 227 3.1.3.2. Makhtesh Ramon 227 3.1.3.3. The Byzantine towns of the Negev 228 3.1.3.4. Early Islamic Sites and the Abandoning of the Central Negev 232 3.1.3.5. Bedouin and the Re-Settling of the Central Negev 234 3.1.3.6. Proposed dates for Specific Abstract Elements 235 3.1.4 Zoomorphic Motifs 237 3.1.4.1. Horned Ungulates – Involved in Superimpositions 238 3.1.4.2. Horned Ungulates – According to Engraving Phases 240 3.1.4.3. Horned Ungulate – In Comparison to Dated Representations 244 3.1.4.4. Camels 248 3.1.5. Anthropomorphic Figures 253 3.1.5.1. Armed anthropomorphs - Anthropomorphs with a Horizontal Line at the 253 Waist and Round Shield 3.1.5.2. The Axe, Helmet, Spear and Lance 257 3.1.5.3. Hunting scene with a Throwing Stick 258 3.1.5.4. Anthropomorphs with Specific Stylistic Attributes 258 3.1.5.5. Panel 102-29 259 3.1.5.6. Figures with Upraised Arms 262 3.1.5.7. Anthropomorphs Standing on Animal Back 265 3.1.6. Foot and Sandal Prints 266 3.1.7. Patina Free Panels 268 3.1.8. Conclusions 269 3.1.8.1. Chronology based on Style 269 3.1.8.2. Earliest Date of Rock Art 270 3.2. The Present Chronological Frame in Relation to Other Chronologies 273 Offered for the Negev 3.2.1. Yehuda Nevo and Judith Koren, Horse Petroglyphs of the Avdat Area 273 3.2.2. Davida Eisenberg-Degen, Camel Petroglyphs of Har Nafha 273 3.2.3. Beno Rothenberg and the Timna Panels 274 3.2.4. Emanuel Anati’s Rock Art Styles in the Negev and Sinai 275

3.2.4.1. Style 275 3.2.4.2. Technique 275 3.2.4.3. Size 276 3.2.4.4. Patina Color 277 3.2.4.5. Subject Matter 277 3.2.5. Conclusions 278 3.3. A Three-Tiered Comparative System and Rock Art Traditions of the 281 Central Negev 3.3.1. The Background for the Three-Tiered Comparative System 284 3.3.1.1 Distinction by Dress in the Baringo District, Kenya 284 3.3.1.2. Distinction by Beadwork Patterns of the Kalahari San 285 3.3.1.3. Distinction based on Ceramic Decoration, Form, and Clay in the 285 Philippines 3.3.1.4. Summary 286 3.3.2. Results: Populations, Rock Art Complexes and Chronology 289 3.3.2.1. The Negebite Complex 289 3.3.2.2. North Arabian – Thamudic Complex 290 3.3.2.3. Ottoman - Recent Bedouin Engravings 291 3.3.3. Conclusions 292 3.4. The Meaning of the Central Negev Rock Art 293 3.4.1. Introduction 293 3.4.2. Public versus Private Art 297 3.4.3 Highlighting Meaningfully Embedded Motifs and Panels 299 3.4.4. Altered States of Consciousness 301 3.4.5. Doodling 304 3.4.6. Totemism and Clan Emblems 305 3.4.7. Territory and Boundary Marks 309 3.4.8. Initiation Rituals 314 3.4.9. Mythical and Historic Accounts 317 3.4.10 Expressions of Adoration 319 3.4.10.1. Ibex 320 3.4.10.2. Orant 327 3.4.10.3. Anthropomorphs Standing on Animal Back 329 3.4.10.4. Foot and Sandal Prints 330 3.4.11. Changing Economies Redefine Gender Roles – the ibex petroglyphs of 332 the Early Bronze Age 3.4.11.1. Domestication 332 3.4.11.2. Man’s Perception of Wild versus Domestic Animals 333 3.4.11.3. Changes in Perceiving the Landscape 334 3.4.11.4. Gender Roles 335 3.4.11.5. Depicting Mature Male Ibex in a Herd Based Society 335 3.4.12. Summary 336 3.5. The Identity of the Central Negev Mark Makers 338 4. Conclusions 341 4.1. Suggested Future Research 344 5. Reference 346

א Hebrew Abstract Appendices

List of Figures

1. Graph of diurnal variability in temperatures (°c) as presented in four sites from 5 different regions of the Negev. 2. Graph of variability in annual rainfall (mm) in four sites from different regions 6 of the Negev. 3. Map of southern Israel with indication of isohyets and caves mentioned in the 15 text. 4. Four years of patina removal and development. 46 5. Example of engraving styles linear, fully engraved outlined ibex from Har 58 Michia. 6. Three unidentified characters forming an inscription. 59 7. Topographical map of Israel with sites mentioned in the text. 62 8. Satellite image of the Ezuz area with the different rock art sites referred to in the 63 text. 9. Aerial photograph of Har Michia. 64 10. Har Michia outcrops as numbered during the field survey. 65 11. Satellite image and combined elevation map of Har Michia with indication of 66 drainage basins. 12. Aerial photograph of Har Michia with location of cairns and sub-modern graves. 67 13. Aerial photograph of Giva’t HaKetovot with sub-site divisions. 68 14. Aerial photograph of Giva’t HaKetovot with location of sub-site divisions. 68 15. Aerial photograph of structure adjacent to outcrop no. 34. 68 16. Panel 14-3. 73 17. Panel 14-1. 73 18. Panel 14-9, interpreted once as an equid and once as an abstract. 73 19. Example of section sampled from Giva’t HaKetovot. 79 20. Element 102-56-18, example of zoomorphs. 85 21. Element 16-33-5, example of horned ungulate. 85 22. Element 5-29-2, example of mature male ibex. 85 23. Southern section of the enclosure adjacent to outcrop no. 34. 91 24. Round structure south of outcrops no. 39 and no. 40. 91 25. Two stele and their positioning in relation to Har Arkov and Har Retamim. 92 26. Example of marks hammered on the panel edge. 99 27. Graph presenting percentage of linear abstract elements in accordance to 100 complexity levels. 28. Graph presenting percentage of curvilinear abstract elements in accordance to 101 complexity levels. 29. Graph presenting linear versus curvilinear abstract elements according to 101 drainage basins. 30. Graph presenting percentage of linear elements according to patina shade. 103 31. Graph presenting percentage of curvilinear elements according to patina shade. 103 32. Example of ostrich petroglyph. 106 33. Example of partridge petroglyph. 106 34. Example of camel petroglyph. 107 35. Example of dog petroglyph. 107

XII

36. Equid petroglyph with Indication of a mane pointing towards a horse 111 representation. 37. Equid with long ears pointing towards a donkey representation. 111 38. Example of mature male ibex. 113 39. Element no. 11-5-1, ox or hartebeest (?), later retouched to form a camel. 115 40. Nannany and kid petroglyphs. 115 41. Element 34-42-31 petroglyph of a lizard. 118 42. Element 34-42-22 petroglyph of a lizard. 118 43. Predator hunting horned ungulate. 119 44. Element 39-44-4 of predator petroglyph. 119 45. Element 39-44-10 of predator petroglyph. 119 46. Element 1-2-33 of predator petroglyph. 120 47. Petraform of leopard from Uvda Valley. 120 48. Element 33-43-1 of predator petroglyph. 120 49. Element 39-78-7 of predator petroglyph. 120 50. Scorpion stinging a foot. 121 51. Panel 16-45 with snake and anthropomorph. 122 52. Example of a well formed unidentified zoomorph. 123 53. Element 34-17-9 recognized as a hand petroglyph. 127 54. Element 39-80-27 recognized as a hand petroglyph. 127 55. Element 39-28-26 recognized as a hand petroglyph. 127 56. Element 19-29-1 recognized as a hand petroglyph. 128 57. Element 18-30-3 recognized as a hand petroglyph. 128 58. Element 18-20-8 recognized as a six toed foot print petroglyph. 128 59. Typology of foot and sandal prints based on Verner (1973). 130 60. Anthropomorphic petroglyphs of Har Michia, Type 1, subtypes a-c. 137 61. Anthropomorphic petroglyphs of Har Michia, Type 1, subtypes d-f. 138 62. Anthropomorphic petroglyphs of Har Michia, Type 2, subtypes a-c. 139 63. Anthropomorphic petroglyphs of Har Michia, Type 2, subtypes d-f. 140 64. Anthropomorphic petroglyphs of Har Michia, Type 2, subtypes g-h. 141 65. Panel 7-7 with zoomorphic element following a horned ungulate petroglyph 145 66. Panel 33-87 with ridden equid petroglyph followed by horned ungulate 145 petroglyph. 67. Panel 33-21 with ibex lichen covered petroglyph and predator lichen covered 146 petroglyph. 68. Panel 33-204 with ithyphallic orant and ibex petroglyph. 146 69. Panel 33-125 with a pair of foot prints and ibex petroglyph. 146 70. Panel 41-20 with ithyphallic orant petroglyph and ibex petroglyph. 147 71. Panel 39-80. Anthropomorphic motif with a series of dots, possibly representing 148 slung stones in the direction of a horned ungulate. 72. Panel 33-131. Anthropomorphic motif with a series of dots, possibly representing 148 slung stones. 73. Panel 39-19 representing a concentric domed structure and camel moving towards 149 it. 74. Element 25-31-1 representing a domed structure. 149 75. Element 6-5-4 documented as an abstract element of type G6. This element may 150

XIII

represent an animal pen. 76. Panel 10-9 with hunt scene in desert kite. 150 77. Graph presenting Abstract/Zoomorphic/Anthropomorphic percentages within 152 each patina shade. 78. Aerial photograph of Giva’t HaKetovot with indication of cairn and structures 155 identified during the field survey. 79. Structure 1 of Giva’t HaKetovot. 155 80. View of structure 2 of Giva’t HaKetovot. 156 81. Structure 2 of Giva’t HaKetovot, looking south. 156 82. View of Giva’t HaKetovot from Giva’t Regalim. 158 83. Graph presenting linear complexity levels according to sampled areas of Giva’t 160 HaKetovot. 84. Graph presenting percentage of curvilinear abstract elements according to 161 complexity levels. 85. Graph presenting linear versus curvilinear abstract elements according to sampled 161 areas. 86. Graph presenting percentage of the linear abstract elements by complexity levels, 162 according to patina shade. 87. Graph presenting percentage of curvilinear complexity levels according to patina 163 shade. 88. Panel 100-151 with inscription “beware of your souls, this place is cursed”. 166 89. Altered character from Giva’t HaKetovot. 167 90. Altered character from Giva’t Regalim. 167 91. Element 101-29-1recognized as an ostrich petroglyph. 168 92. Element 102-15-1 recognized as a bird petroglyph. 168 93. Boar petroglyphs recorded at Giva’t HaKetovot. 169 94. Camel petroglyphs of Giva’t HaKetovot engraved on patina free panels divided 171 according to recent and ancient. 95. Camel petroglyphs of Giva’t HaKetovot engraved on panels with patina. 172 96. Panel 100-52 dog following an ibex petroglyphs. 174 97. Panel 101-3 birthing scene surrounded by three dogs. 175 98. Element 102-99-7 horned ungulate with a shoulder hump as that of an oryx and 176 long curved back horns of a male ibex. 99. Element 102-38-1 within turned horns such as those of a hartebeest. 176 100. Element 102-20-5 with horns resembling those of a bull. 176 101. Petroglyphs of predator with an animal neck in mouth. 180 102. Petroglyphs of predator following an ibex. 180 103. Petroglyphs of predator jumping on an ibex. 181 104. Element 100-156-1 of zoomorphs with long tail presented frontally, possibly a 181 predator of the feline family. 105. Element 102-51-8 representing a snake with a triangular shaped head. 181 106. Element 102-79-1 representing a snake with a triangular shaped head. 181 107. Element 100-165-1 spider and web. 182 108. Anthropomorphic petroglyphs of Giva’t HaKetovot Type 1, subtypes a-g. 188 109. Anthropomorphic petroglyphs of Giva’t HaKetovot Type 2, subtypes a-h. 189 110. Panel 101-19 with orant anthropomorph and ibex. 191

XIV

111. Graph presenting Abstract/Zoomorphic/Anthropomorphic recorded at 193 Giva’t HaKetovot percentages according to patina shade. 112. Ibex petroglyph with device attached to front leg. 193 113. Petroglyphs of Ibex with bow and arrow (?) placed above. 194 114. Element 101-45-1 eye petroglyph. 194 115. Panel 101-3 eye picgograph photographed in Feburary 2008. 194 116. Element 100-96-2 bird print petroglyph. 194 117. Number of Abstract, Zoomorphic and Anthropomorphic elements from sites in 199 the Ezuz region, Giva’t HaKetovot, Nahal Nizzana, and Giva’t Regalim. 118. Pie chart of elements engraved at Giva’t HaKetovot on patina covered panels. 201 119. Pie chart of ‘recent’ elements engraved at Giva’t HaKetovot on patina free 202 panels. 120. Pie chart of ‘ancient’ elements engraved at Giva’t HaKetovot on patina free 202 panels. 121. Pie chart of elements engraved at Har Michia on patina covered panels. 202 122. Pie chart of elements engraved at Har Michia on patina free panels. 202 123. Average length and height of horned ungulates petroglyphs from Har Michia and 208 Giva’t HaKetovot. 124. Graph presenting average length and height and standard deviation of camel 211 petroglyphs from Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot. 125. Graph presenting the average length and height and standard deviation of equid 212 petroglyphs from Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot. 126. Graph of average area used for sandal/foot print petroglyphs seen in a sample 213 from different sites in the Middle East. 127. South eastern face of panel 25-31 with a total of 218 elements and a minimum of 224 five engraving phases. 128. Panel 39-69 with three engraving phases. 224 129. Eastern wall of habitation cave with large red colored pictographs and a number 229 of petroglyphs, Avdat. 130. Christian modified pictographs cut by parallel lined petroglyph. 229 131. Eastern face of pillar, habitation cave with large red colored pictographs and a 229 number of petroglyphs Avdat. 132. Detail of pillar with petroglyphs cutting pictographs. 229 133. Northern wall of En-Nusra burial cave antechamber. 230 134. Linear ibex, element 39-2-2 over laying outlined ibex, element 39-2-4. 238 135. Linear ibex, element 39-2-2 over laying outlined ibex, element 39-2-4. 238 136. Single horned ibex over laying two horned ibex. 239 137. Single horned ibex over laying two horned ibex. 239 138. Panel 39-79 with linear ibex and Aramaic inscription. 240 139. Panel 37-9 with outlined ibex being hunted by two men. Hunt scene dated to the 241 Late Bronze/Iron Age. 140. Panel 33-115 outlined ibex and North Arabian inscription dated to the Roman 241 Period. 141. Panel 33-119 with ibex and stylized. 242 142. Ibex and arrow head. 242 143. Panel 39-40 with ibex and inscription dated to a time period ranging between 243

Hellenistic and Byzantine. 144. Panel 33-113 with ibex engraved in a similar fashion (linear, four legged, two 244 horned) in different phases. 145. Examples of different styled horned ungulates representations dating from the 245 Pre-pottery Neolithic B through the Iron Age. 146. Panel 1-2 with three of the eight horned ungulate roughly indicated with black. 246 147. Panel 1-17 with three outlined ibex. 246 148. Hunt scene in the upper section of panel 33-113. 247 149. Hunt/trapping scene of with anthropomorph and three ibex. 247 150. Panel 10-9 camel and bow and arrow engraved during roughly the same phase. 249 151. Panel 27-18 camel and bow and arrow engraved during roughly the same phase. 249 152. Panel 1-7 anthropomorph and camel petroglyph with roughly the same patina 250 shade. 153. A South Arabian saddle. 251 154. A North Arabian saddle. 251 155. Man riding camel behind hump petroglyph. 252 156. Camel and rider 1-13-8 in association with tribal marking. 252 157. Camel and rider and tribal marking. 252 158. Anthropomorphs with horizontal lines at waist. 256 159. Panel 10-9 interpreted as a hunt within a desert kite. 258 160. Tracing of panel 41-18 with North Arabian inscription and anthropomorph with 259 vertical line dividing the face into two. 161. Panel 102-29 with anthropomorph possibly representing Resheph. 261 162. Foot Pints and ibex in Early Bronze Age structure, Uvda Valley. 267 163. Panel 34-61 of footprint petroglyph overlaying Arabic inscription. 267 164. Camel and North Arabia inscription petroglyphs. 269 165. Camel petroglyph from Northern Jordan. 269 166. Ibex on patina free surface. 269 167. Horned Ungulate from Northern Jordan. 269 168. Horse and rider petroglyph made through a combination of techniques. 276 169. Chronological developments of the Negebite style as seen at Har Michia and 280 Giva’t HaKetovot. 170. The Al Saud tribal marking and variations. 283 171. The Azāzma tribal marking and several variations. 284 172. Proposed model for comparing degrees of similarity through rock art as 288 representing levels of social affinity. 173. Rough schema for chronology of rock art complexes in the Central Negev. 293 174. Panel 100-90 with restricted viewing area. 298 175. Panel 1-16 with motif C11 repeated five times. 398 176. Anthropomorph 33-182-2 with animal head. 303 177. Panel 33-159 with tribal marks expressing the relations between tribes. 313 178. Camel and ibex from Har Karkom. 318 179. Panel 7-26 coupling scene. 318 180. Orant flanked by horned ungulates. 324 181. Two ibexes facing each other. 325 182. Orant standing on ibex back. 325

XVI

List of Tables

1. Fauna 4f the Central Negev Highlands. 9 2. Fauna of the Giva’t HaKetovot Area. 10 3. Summary of archaeological settlement periods in the Negev from the Upper 17 Paleolithic Period through Present. 4. Example of entry in Outcrop – Site Card as documented at Har Michia. 75 5. Example of entry in Panel – Site Card as documented at Har Michia. 75 6. Example of entry in Motif – Site Card as documented in the field. 75 7. Example of entry in descriptive form of Equid. 76 8. Example of form used for sampling rock art in the Ezuz region. 76 9. Outcrops included within each drainage basin. 81 10. Coordinates of Har Michia outcrops and other rock art sites documented and 81-82 viewed. 11. Example of chi square application. 88 12. Engraved face of rock of Har Michia panels. 95 13. Har Michia recorded elements of each motif type. 95 14. Typology of abstract elements based on the recorded material from Har Michia. 97 15. Abstract elements according to linear and curvilinear complexity levels. 98 16. Chi square test of linear and curvilinear elements in the different drainage 102 basins. 17. Inscriptions of Har Michia based on language and patina shade. 104 18. Zoomorphs documented at Har Michia. 105 19. Chi square test results for Har Michia camel petroglyphs. 108 20. Chi square test results for Har Michia dog petroglyphs. 109 21. Chi square test results for Har Michia equid petroglyphs. 110 22. Chi square test results for Har Michia horned ungulate petroglyphs. 116 23. Chi square test results for Har Michia unidentified zoomorphic petroglyphs. 123 24. Typology of footprint petroglyphs documented at Har Michia. 129-130 25. Patina shades of hand and foot print petroglyphs as documented at Har Michia. 130 26. Chi square test results for Har Michia anthropomorphic petroglyphs. 142 27. Chi square test results for combinations of weapons held by Har Michia 142 anthropomorphic petroglyphs. 28. Chi square test results for weapons held by Har Michia anthropomorphic 143 petroglyphs and a number of recorded details. 29. Ibex dog/predator combinations documented. 143 30. Abstract/zoomorphic/anthropomorph ratio according to drainage basins. 151 31. Orientation of engraved panels documented at Giva’t HaKetovot. 159 32. Angle of the panel surfaces documented at Giva’t HaKetovot. 159 33. Giva’t HaKetovot elements recorded for each motif type. 159 34. Linear and curvilinear abstract elements according to documented area of Giva’t 160 HaKetovot. 35. Chi square test of linear and curvilinear elements in the different sampled areas 161 of Giva’t HaKetovot. 36. Typology of abstract elements documented at Giva’t HaKetovot. 164 37. Inscriptions according to language and patina shade. 165

XVII

38. Inscriptions according to sampled area. 167 39. Zoomorphic motifs documented at Giva’t HaKetovot. 167 40. Chi square test results for Giva’t HaKetovot camel petroglyphs. 173 41. Chi square test results for Giva’t HaKetovot horned ungulate petroglyphs. 179 42. Chi square test results for Giva’t HaKetovot unidentified zoomorphic petroglyph 183 43. Chi square test results for Giva’t HaKetovot anthropomorphic petroglyphs. 190 44. Chi square test results for Giva’t HaKetovot armed anthropomorphic 190 petroglyphs. 45. Ibex dog/predator combinations documented at Giva’t HaKetovot. 192 46. Abstract: Zoomorphi, Abstract : Anthropomorph relation by sampled areas. 192 47. Table comparing relative percentages of abstract, zoomorphic and 200 anthropomorphic elements from Giva’t HaKetovot and Nahal Nizzana. 48. Table comparing relative percentages of abstract, zoomorphic and 200 anthropomorphic elements from Giva’t HaKetovot and Giva’t Regalim. 49. Table comparing relative percentages of abstract, zoomorphic and 200 anthropomorphic elements from Giva’t Regalim and Nahal Nizzana. 50. Elements recorded at Giva’t HaKetovot according to surface type. 202 51. Three main recent and ancient motifs of the zoomorphic category, on patina free 203 panels at Giva’t HaKetovot. 52. Distribution of Azāzma Tribal Markings at Har Michia. 205 53. Abstract motifs documented at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot. 207 54. Inscriptions documented at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot. 208 55. Direction of Ibex petroglyphs when presented as ibex-dog pair. 210 56. Orientation of Ibex petroglyphs when presented as ibex-dog pair. 210 57. Relation Between Ibex and Dog Petroglyphs when presented as a pair. 210 58. Direction of dog petroglyph when presented as ibex-dog pair. 210 59. Orientation of dog petroglyphs when presented as ibex-dog pair. 210 60. Direction of ibex tail when Orientation of Ibex petroglyphs when presented as 210 ibex-dog pair. 61. The setting of horned ungulate petroglyphs as documented at Har Michia and 216 Giva’t HaKetovot. 62. Stylistic form and sample size of camel petroglyphs from three sites in the 217 Negev Highlands. 63. Percentages of over and under laying motifs from Har Michia and Giva’t 224 HaKetovot. 64. Zoomorphs from Har Michia according to size of engraving and layer. 277 65. Har Michia foot print sizes and age sets. 317

XVIII

Abstract

The present dissertation concentrates on rock art of the Central Negev through the study of petroglyphs from two sites, Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot. In addition to these two sites, several additional sites were visited. The dissertation consists of three sections - Introduction, The Central Negev Rock Art Data, and Findings and Interpretations.

Section 1 – Introduction

The Introduction section is composed of five chapters: (1) Environment of the Negev - Past and Present, (2) Archaeological Periods in the Negev, (3) Methods of Dating Petroglyphs, (4) Reading Rock Art, and (5) A Brief History of Rock Art Research in the Negev. The first chapter offers a geographic review, placing both rock art sites within arid regions of the Negev though within different sub-regions. Looking at the past environment of the region, it is evident that since the Holocene, the Negev has experienced several moist – arid cycles. Since about 3,200 BCE, the Negev has experienced relatively stable weather even though the slightest fluctuations in rainfall may alter the barren land into a green lush field.

The second chapter of the introduction reviews the chronology, site distribution, economy, social organization, seasonality, and artifacts of sites between the Beer Sheva - Arad valley in the north and the Ramon Crater in the south. This review begins with the Upper Paleolithic and concludes with the relatively recent Bedouin infiltration into the region. This review later serves as one of the bases for setting a chronological frame for the rock art.

The final three chapters of the section review previous rock art research in the Negev, methods for dating petroglyphs and different forms through which to understand, i.e. read rock art set a general background for the research presented in the second section.

Section 2 - The Central Negev Rock Art Data

The section on data opens with a chapter on methods. Within this chapter, all terms used in this dissertation are defined. The rest of the chapter describes the conduct of the survey and data

XIX collection, from the first stages of choosing which sites to study through the post-survey data organization and analysis. Two chapters follow which describe the rock art setting, finds from Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot and a short review of the visited sites.

The rock art of Har Michia was recorded exhaustively with a total of 965 panels and 5104 documented elements. Giva’t HaKetovot was sampled through the documentation of 406 panels with 1486 elements. With the documentation of each of these 6585 elements, several details were recorded. The details include the dimensions of the element, its color (using a Munsell chart), the orientation and angle of the engraved panel, the type of panel (patina covered or patina free), the number of elements per panel, the type of motif, and a range of stylistic nuances. These details served as a base for comparison and evaluation of the relationship between the two sites. The section concludes with a detailed comparison of the data from Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot.

The comparative chapter concluding the second section assesses the differences of the petroglyphs between Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot. Chi square tests were applied on attribute combinations for the anthropomorphic and zoomorphic elements from each site separately. Statistically significant attribute combinations were found for each animal and human type. For example, the chi square test was able to answer whether or not the frequency of turned up tails and a fully engraved body within the ibex images is statistically significant. Several hundred such combinations were examined. Few of these significant chi square tests were found to be true at both Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot. Another form of numerical comparisons used 3was Z levels, which measures the difference between two independent proportions by calculating the number of petroglyphs from each category in relation to the total number recorded. Z levels were applied to questions such as whether or not the number of ibex in relation to all zoomorphs engraved is similar at both sites.

Chi square and Z levels examine different aspects of the same data. Chi square tests were used on a micro level examining attribute combinations within a single image while Z levels reflect a more macro level of the rock art repertoire. A third method used to compare the rock art was by calculating the ratio between documented abstract/zoomorphic/anthropomorphic elements at

XX each site. These three modes of comparison offered a base for defining a Negebite style.

Section 3 – Findings and Interpretation

The first chapter of this section is devoted to chronology, starting with an examination of overlaying/underlying and engraving elements. Here, it was found that abstract elements are most often involved in superimpositions (overlaying), being engraved on older elements. Zoomorphs and anthropomorphs are superimposed, covered by other elements up to 4 times more often than they themselves cover other elements. Engraving phases of individual panels, based on superimposition as well as patina shade, provide a relative chronology by which anthropomorphs, horned ungulates, dogs, equids, tools and enclosures all tend to be engraved in the first phases. Unidentified zoomorphs (including birds) and inscriptions tend to be in the following phase while abstracts and camels usually belong to the last phase of engraving.

Motifs are dated based on subject matter and attributes. Certain attributes help limit the time frame of elements to defined time periods. These include the horizontal line at the waist of anthropomorphs, the shape and size of shields, the orant stance, the riding of an equid or camel and inscriptions. Certain stylistic changes seem to have taken place over time, including the late appearance of the linear two legged, single horned ungulate and fully engraved camels. These changes were not followed by all mark makers as in several cases it was noted that different styles were in use during a single period. Likewise certain stylistic forms, especially that of the four legged, two horned linear ibex image, were in continuous use over several millennia. Abstract motifs are dated based on the documented data, related material from other sites, and ethnoarchaeology, providing a post Abbasid date for the majority of the abstract elements.

The chronological frame reached in the present research is in agreement with Beno Rothenberg’s work but not with Emmanuel Anati’s stylistic forms and chronological schema. Rothenberg sees the Central Negev rock art as a form of expression, one that saw little change over the history of the desert settlement. He dates the rock art to a period that post-dates the 6th millennium BCE. Anati, in contrast, distinguished between seven styles (and several sub-styles), ranging in time from the Stone Age to recent times. He sees the transition from one style to the next as expressed

XXI through an overall change over time in engraving technique, size, patina color, and subject matter, which, according to Anati, reflect the evolving economy. In the present research, none of Anati’s basic assumptions, such as that the rock art reflects the economy of the mark makers or that different engraving techniques were not in use during the same period, were confirmed. The conclusions of the present study are in disagreement with Anati’s framework and thus undermine his chronology.

The second chapter of the section outlines a proposed three-tiered system through which to asses similarities and differences in rock art. The three-tiered system points towards the existence of three rock art traditions within the documented material. Within the newly defined Negebite style/tradition, abstract elements outnumber zoomorphs and anthropomorphs. Most elements are of a linear style, serving as a characteristic of Negev petroglyphs through all engraving phases. Within the use of the linear style, some chronological developments can be followed. For example, earlier linear figures of the ibex are presented, with four legs and two horns while later figures have two legs and one horn. Fully engraved and outlined figures are engraved alongside the linear style, which are usually found in the earlier engraving layers.

The second rock art style/tradition recognized is North Arabian. A number of outlined animals documented at Giva’t HaKetovot on patina free panels were recognized as the work of Thamudic speaking people. Within this tradition, zoomorphs are presented twice as often as patina covered panels, while anthropomorphs drop in relative numbers. At Giva’t HaKetovot, there was a certain North Arabia influence, contact and/or presence at the site.

Through the patina free panels of Har Michia, a third rock art tradition was recognized. This tradition may be characterized as employing a majority of abstract elements. Alongside the abstract elements are Arabic inscriptions, foot/sandal prints, few zoomorphs and anthropomorphic petroglyphs. As many of the abstract elements engraved in this phase may be recognized as wusum (tribal marks), the style as a whole may be seen as Bedouin. This style is not restricted to a specific panel type.

The third chapter of this section explores a ray of possible meanings the petroglyphs may have

XXII held. Comparative research has shown that certain patterns emerge within rock art, based on the place rock art held in the society of mark makers. By comparing patterns, different interpretations were considered. Altered states of consciousness, doodling, totemism and clan emblems, and initiation rituals are reviewed for the Central Negev elements and their setting. It was found that abstract marks, especially those of the first complexity level, could have been made in relation to ASC, though a more likely interpretation is that they resulted from doodling. Ethnographic material points towards some abstract marks as being tribal markings serving as territory marks. The territory and boundary mark interpretation can be expanded to include most abstract motifs. Horned ungulates, orant anthropomorphs and anthropomorphs standing on the back of an animal seem to reflect religion related beliefs, though they may also have been related to mythical and historical accounts.

Additional insights that may be reached from the documented data are reviewed in the last chapter of the section. By looking at the anthropomorphic petroglyphs in which males and females are presented, we concluded that the majority of images (at least of anthropomorphs) were made by men.

Ibexes8 are presented in several settings, the most common being isolated images. Less common depictions include hunting scenes, and ibex in association with orant figures and foot prints. Recognizing the pattern of wild male animals depicted by herd based societies may be a reflection of the changing gender roles within the society. The repetitive use of the ibex while failing to integrate the bull iconography shows that the Negev population, that of the mark makers, deliberately chose to differentiate themselves from the Northern culture.

XXIII

1. Introduction

This dissertation concentrates on rock art in the Central Negev. Rock art of the Negev consists almost entirely of petroglyphs (the intentional marking of a natural surface through the technique of reduction). Cosmas Indicopleustes, in the 6th century CE was the first person to try to identify the mark makers and decode the meaning of their engravings (Pearse 2003). Traveling through the Sinai Peninsula, Cosmas saw petroglyphs, which he described in book 5 of his Christian Topography:

“And when they had received the law from God in writing, and had learned letters for the first time, God made use of the desert as a quiet school, and permitted them for forty years to carve out letters on stone. Therefore, in that wilderness of Mount Sinai, one can see, at all their halting-places, all the stones, that have there been broken off from the mountains, inscribed with Hebrew letters, as I myself can testify, having travelled in these places. Certain Jews, too, who had read these inscriptions informed me of their purport, which was as follows: The departure of so and so of such and such a tribe, in such and such a year, in such and such a month, just as with ourselves there are travelers who scribble their names in the inns where they have lodged. And the Israelites, who had but newly acquired the art of writing, continually practiced it, and filled a great multitude of stones with writing, so that, all those places are full of Hebrew inscriptions, which, as I think, have been preserved to this day for the sake of unbelievers”. (Cosmas Indicopleustes, Christian Topography, Book 5 pages 159-160).

From this account, we may deduce that the inscriptions, or at least some of inscriptions known today, predate the 6th century CE and that the inscriptions are accounts of tribally affiliated people.

A millennium and a half later, Cosmos' pilgrims and antiquarians traveled though Negev exploring ruins in search of biblical sites. Although these travelers and researchers were

1 intrigued by inscriptions they found, they made little mention of non-literate rock art. For example, Forster (1862:15-33) studied inscriptions which he attributed to Israelites of the Exodus. For the zoomorphic elements he wrote:

“That many of the inscriptions are rudely executed and many of those animals as rudely drawn, never has been questioned, and is freely admitted. Who said they were not rude? Who expected them to be otherwise? Their very rudeness indicates the workmanship of shepherds, and such were the Israelites of Exode ( sic).” (Forster 1862:33).

In similar fashion, Palmer wrote that the inscriptions:

“are mere scratches on the rock, the work of idle loungers, consisting for the most part of, mere names interspersed with rude figures of men and animals. In a philological point of view they do possess a certain interest, but otherwise the “Sinaitic inscriptions” are as worthless and unimportant as the Arab, Greek, and European graffiti with which they are interspersed”. (Palmer 1871:190-191)

This interest in the epigraphic rather than in the pictorial image is a common occurrence in the writings of both early antiquarians and 21st c. archaeologists (Bednarick and Khan 2002; Jung 1991; Khan 1996a; 1996b, Woolley and Lawrence 1915:64-65). The zoomorphic and anthropomorphic motifs were interpreted literally as representing the mark maker’s economy.

The present research transfers the emphasis from the literate to the non literate rock art. The work is of an exploratory character presenting, for the first time, data on rock art of the Central Negev. Basic questions such as the quantity, diversity, and geographic distribution of depicted elements were addressed. Inter site distribution and –comparisons between rock art sites were examined. The framework of the research is based on a hypothesis by which the level of compatibility between rock art assemblages translates to the level of social affiliation. By comparing rock art assemblages set in two distinctly different geographic and archaeological

2 settings, it was possible to see how the culture of the mark maker was stronger than the environment in determining which motifs were depicted. Certain recurring trends helped define a Negebite rock art tradition.

The chronology of the petroglyphs is a complex matter which was addressed from the documentation stage. Stylistic developments as well as specific datable attributes set the ground in this direction. The last aspect of the Central Negev petroglyphs addressed is their meaning. Through recognition of patterns based on the setting of the rock art in the landscape and recognizing meanings imbedded in the motifs, seven different interpretative schemas are presented.

The amount of data contained within each rock art element is immense. In order to study rock art elements in an empirical fashion, the data (type of element, form, dimensions, engraving phase, and patina shade) must first be transformed into a numerical schema. Prior to this thesis, no systematic data base was available through which Negev rock art could be researched. It was necessary, therefore, to develop a database. The main sites studied, Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot were chosen for their different geographic settings and their rich and diverse rock art. In addition to these two sites, five additional sites which are situated in different sub-regions of the Central Negev and have different topological characteristics (plateau, isolated hill, foot hill etc.), were visited. These sites. Through the data collected at these sites, the underlying research questions guiding this work were addressed.

From the collected data, additional topics arose such as the relationship of the Central Negev mark makers with neighboring cultures. Through the motifs depicted, it is possible to assess the effect of interaction and contact with other regions as expressed through the iconography incorporated. The study of Central Negev rock art offers a common ground for future regional comparative overviews.

1.1 .Environment of the Negev, Past and Present

The present chapter, is the first of five introductions, is intended to set the discussed petroglyphs into a geographic frame. In the present introduction the differences and similarities between the geographic setting of Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot are emphasized. After a review of the Negev’s structure and regions, climate, geology, flora and fauna, the chapter turns to the paleoenvironment of the Negev.

1.1.1. The Negev’s Structure and Division into Regions

Geographically the Negev is placed in the center of a 7,500 kilometer long arid and extremely arid region, stretching from the Sahara in the west to the Arabia in the east (Evenari et al. 1971:8-9). The Negev, a triangular shaped arid zone, covers approximately 12,500 square kilometers. Natural geographic features, combined with modern political ones, define the borders of the Negev as follows: the northern border roughly runs from the Mediterranean coast, south of Gaza, to the southern basin of the Dead Sea (Hillel 1982:73), generally following the 200 mm. precipitation line (Stern et al. 1986:I). Northwest the Negev gradually blends into the Shefela hills and coastal plain, while in the Northeast it merges with the Judean Desert. The border between the Negev and Sinai Peninsula is defined by the international border with Egypt. The eastern border, the most clearly distinct, is formed by the Arava rift fault (Evenari et al. 1971:43).

The Negev may be divided into four main sections: the Northern Negev, the Central Negev, the Southern Negev, and the Arava. The northern Negev may further be divided into the Coastal Plain, and the Northwestern Plains and Foothills. Each of these sections may subsequently be divided into sub-regions. The Central Negev includes the Central Highlands, and the lower sedimentary Negev (Evenari et al. 1971:43-51).

1.1.2. Climate and Water Sources

The Negev is characterized by dramatic fluctuations in air temperature between summer and winter and between day and night. Differences in climate may be tied to elevation, topography, distance from the Mediterranean Sea, and latitude. As one moves inland (east) and southwards, the temperature rises and the quantity of rainfall declines (Figs. 1 and 2). In addition, for every 100 meters elevation there is an average 0.5-0.6°C drop in temperature (Stern et al. 1986:60). As the Negev skies are usually clear, the full strength of the sun’s radiation reaches the ground. The lack of cloud cover has the opposite effect at night. With sunset, the ground begins to dissipate heat absorbed throughout the day. The heat disperses, as there are no clouds to act as barrier, and the temperatures may drop by up to 25°C (Paz and Eshbol 1991:225-226). In September- October and May through mid-June, there are sharav1 days. Sharav conditions, caused by barometric highs subsiding with compressed and heated air, may last three or more days. During the sharav days, temperatures may rise by 15°C accompanied by a drop in humidity and by sandy winds (Orni and Efrat 1973:141).

35 Beer-Sheva 25 Sde-Boker 15 Mitzpe Ramon 5 Eilat

-5 Temp. of hottest Mean daily temp. Mean night temp. Temp. of coldest day night Figure 1. Variability in temperatures (°C) between night and day in four sites from different regions of the Negev.

1 Sharav is a Hebrew term to describe extreme hot dry weather at times accompanied by strong winds which may terminate with rain. Sharav weather is most common in the transitional seasons.

250 200 150 100 Annual average rainfall 50 0 Max. amount of rainfall in 24 h.

Figure 2. Variability in annual rainfall (mm) in four sites from different regions of the Negev. The metrological station is situated at Beer-Sheva in the Northern Negev at an elevation of 195 masl, Sde Boker in the Northern portion of the Central Negev at an elevation of 470 masl, Mitzpe Ramon in the Southern portion of the Central Negev at an elevation of 875 masl, and Eilat in the Southern Negev at an elevation of 12 masl. Data presented in figure 1 and 2 is based on information from the Israel Meteorological Services for the years 1981-2000. When rain falls on the almost bare Negev hills, runoff water is formed draining to the wadis2

(Yair 2004). Runoff water, together with rain water, result in floods in the wadi courses. Floodwater seeps through the gravel beds in the wadi filling free spaces between gravel stones and sand grains. The gravel beds in the Negev usually lie over less permeable limestone formations. Therefore, the infiltrated flood and rainwater form underground water tables which can be reached by digging holes in the wadi or wells on the wadi banks. After extracting water from a waterhole, the hole replenishes at a rate of between 0.03-10 liters per-day, depending on the slope and matrix of the gravel bed. Other water sources are the natural and man made cisterns in and along the wadi banks. Natural cisterns, as large as 100 square meters and one meter deep, formed in exposed bedrock eroded by floods are filled by floodwater. Depending on their placement, excavated cisterns, may fill with either floodwater or channeled runoff water. The walls of the earliest (Iron Age) hewn cisterns were lined with stones to strengthen the structure and prevent their collapse. Starting in the Nabatean-Early Roman Period, covered cisterns were hewn into bedrock and their walls lined with mortar plaster. The amount of water collected is based on the placement of the cistern and its size. Likewise, evaporation may be calculated based on surface area and solar radiance (Evenari et al. 1971:150-159).

2 Wadi is a Hebrew term for an ephemeral stream. Wadis flow only with flash floods.

In addition to collected runoff water and wells that tap into ground water, there are a number of springs. In the Avdat region (the vicinity of Har Michia) three springs emerge from the Avdat wadi bed. These springs, Ain Ma’arif, Ain Mor and Ain Avdat, are active year round.

1.1.3. Geology

Over 90% of the Negev consists of marine sedimentary rocks, primarily limestone and chalk of varying degrees of hardness, ranging in age from Triassic through Jurassic and Cretaceous to Tertiary and Quaternary (Hillel 1982:74). The desert soils are a veneer of silt mixed with gravels, cobbles, and boulders. The silt, which is highly saline and gypsiferous, is called ‘reg’. It contains calcium sulfate and interferes with plant growth, In many cases, the fine grained material is carried away by wind and a layer of boulders and gravel forms on the surface. This layer is resistant to erosion and is termed ‘hamada’. There are two general types of hamada, conglomerate and rock. Rock hamada consists mostly of loose angular stones that remain after the silt and decomposed particles of bedrock have been blown away. Conglomerate hamada consists of rounded stones originating from conglomerates in which the cement binding has decomposed. Both types of hamada contain very little soil and, in most cases, this soil is less saline than that of the reg due to flushing by flood water. The common denominator of rock hamada, conglomerate hamada, and reg soils is the presence of a stone cover overlaying the surface known as desert pavement (Evenari et al. 1971:51-54, Issar 1990:27).

1.1.4. Flora and Fauna

The vegetation of the Negev is determined by the amount of annual rainfall and roughly corresponds to the subdivisions of the Negev. The vegetation of the Northern and Central Negev is Irano-Turanian (with C3 and C4 vegetation), while the Southern Negev and Arava are characterized by Saharo-Arabian vegetation. Irano-Turanian vegetation is found in regions with 300-80 mm. of annual rainfall (Danin 1983:35). Over a thousand different flora species grow in the deserts of Israel and, of these, five hundred are restricted to the Negev desert (Paz and Eshbol 1991:229). The majority of desert vegetation is annual plants and low bushes with thickened

7 leaves and thorns. The vegetation in the Central Negev is sparse, often with no more than one plant per square meter (Orni and Efrat 1973:173). In the wadi beds, where loess may reach several meters in depth, vegetation is denser and richer, and includes trees and shrubs (Hillel 1982:87-91).

The fauna of the Negev includes 50 different reptile species (30 of which are strictly desert species), 50 mammal species (30 of which are strictly desert species), and 65 different bird species (45 are desert species). Although the fauna is rich, there is no single place in the Negev where all 165 species may be found. Each animal has its own clearly defined habitat, determined by the animal’s dependency on water. For example, during the summer, ibex must drink daily and therefore are found near springs. Gazelle, in contrast, like many other desert animals, obtain all their water needs through their diet and, therefore, can survive in extremely arid areas (Paz and Eshbol 1991:229-263).

1.1.5. The Environment of Har Michia

Har Michia is situated in the Central Highlands. The Central Highland region is composed of a series of parallel anticlinal ridges and synclinal valleys running on a northeast-southwest axis. The southeast facing slopes of these ridges are quite steep, while the northwest ones are gently inclined (Hillel 1982:79). The Nahal Zin canyon divides the region into northern and southern halves. Har Michia and Har Arkov are situated south of Zin Canyon and north of the Ramon Crater. The highest ridge situated in the southern section is Mt. Ramon, reaching an elevation of 1035 meters (Goring-Morris 1987:30). The highest ridge included in this study is Mt. Arkov, reaching 660 meters. The exposed rock in this region is Eocene limestone, Mesozoic limestone, and sandstone. The soils are conglomerate hamada, reg, and desert pavement. The annual rainfall in the northern portion of the central highlands is 100 mm. over an average of 18 days of rainfall per year, and the vegetation is Irano-Turanian (Evenari et al. 1971:49, 54, Juli 1978:49-56, Orni and Efrat 1973:165, 172). The nearby Avdat riverbed presents a reliable water source with three active springs. The present day fauna found in the Central Highlands region is presented in table 1. Prior to the damages done by man and domestic animals (overgrazing and soil loss on the hill tops) the area would have been considerably richer in vegetation and probably in fauna, though

8 not radically different from that today (Munday 1976).

Mammals Birds Reptiles Capra ibex nubiana Pterocles alchata Agama stellio Gazella dorcus Erythrina sinaica Agama sinaita Gazella gazella Erythrospize githaginea Varanus griseus Hyena striata Turoides squamiceps Uromastix aegyptius Vulpes rupelli Oenanthe leucopyga Acanthodctylus boskianus Felis ocerata Aegyptius tracheloitus Ophisops elegans Felis caracal Convus corax ruficollis Eremius guttulata Procavia capensis Alectoris graeca sinaica Telescopus dhara Sekeetamys Ammoperdix heyi heyi Telescopus hoogstraali Hystrix indica Stenodactylus Stenodactylus Spalerosophic Clifford Acomys russatus Tropiocoletes studneri Coluber rogersi Acomys cahirinus Agama pallid Coluber rhodorhachis Gerbillus dasyurus Bufo viridis Meriones crassus Psammomys obesus Paraechinus aethiopicus Table 1. Fauna of the Central Negev Highlands (Munday 1976:22).

1.1.6. The Environment of Giva’t HaKetovot

Giva’t HaKetovot is situated between Nahal Be’erotyim and Nahal Takif. These two dry riverbeds are situated between the Central Highlands, Northwestern Plains and Foothills, and Sinai. The Northwestern Plains and foothills, 30-60 kilometers wide, are mostly flat to gently undulating . The underlying bedrock is Eocene chalk and limestone (Hillel 1982:76). There are shifting sand dunes and sand fields in the west, and hamada, reg soils, and desert pavement in the east. A number of large wadis, originating in the Central Highlands, cut through the aeolian- fluviatile plains, and drain toward the Mediterranean. With an elevation of 200-300 masl, and 90 mm. average rainfall, the vegetation is Irano-Turanian (Evenari et al. 1971:40-51, Orni and Efrat

1973:165, 172). Water in this region is mostly collected in cisterns of runoff and ground water wells. Fauna found in the Giva’t HaKetovot region is presented in table 2.

Birds Mammals Reptiles (migrating birds omitted) Canis aureus Nephron percnopterus Scincus scincus Canis lupus Pandion haliaetus Chalcides ocellatus Felis sp. Falco tinnunculus Sphenops sepsoides Gazella gazella Alectoris chukar Acanthodactylus div. Gerbillus. Chlamydotis undulata Varanus griseus Hyaena hyaena Cursorius cursor Cerastes vipera Hystrix indica Columba livida Ptyodactylus hasselquistii Jaculus jaculus C. livida f. domestica Stenodactylus indet. Lepus capensis Athene noctua Hemidactylus turicus Mus musculus Upupa epos Trapelus (Agama) savignyi Paraechinus aethiopicus Ammomanes cicturus Calandrella brachydactyla Sorexˆindet. Chameaeleo chamaeleon Calandrella brachydactyla Ammomanes deserti Chameaeleo chamaeleon Calandrella brachydactyla Fringilla coelebs Scotocerca inquieta Galerida cristata Calandrella rufescens Cercomela melanura Sylvi conspicillata Oenanthe deserti Lanius meridionalis Oenanthe lugens Lanius senator Oenanthe isabellina Corvus corax Bucanetes githagineus Corvus ruficollis

Table 2. Fauna of the Giva’t HaKetovot Area (Filser and Prasse 2008:125-137).

1.1.7. Paleoenvironment of the Negev

Information related to past climates of the Negev is based on several interdisciplinary studies. Not all researchers are in agreement concerning the reconstructed paleoenvironments. The most disputed subject is dating. which results in conflicting conclusions such as dry periods verses wet ones. Data such as pollen charts from the Hula Valley, core analyses of Lake Kinneret and elevation levels of the Dead Sea are all derived from and reflect climates which prevailed in northern Israel. At present, it is not possible to determine the relationship between rainfall changes in the north and those in the south of the country (Goodfriend 1990). Archaeological data such as sites existing in arid areas, density of sites as well as archaeological finds including ground stone implements, sickle blades, and silos, are often interwoven into our understanding of past climates. For example, Goldberg and Bar-Yosef (1982) noted that changing prehistoric site densities in marginal settings reflect environmental conditions. Others such as Clark (1960) claimed that:

“it is essential that the environment and ecological setting of cultures … be established as accurately as possible, for, without this knowledge, we can hardly begin to interpret the cultural evidence” (Clark 1960:30; Butzer 1971).

Environment/man relations fluctuate and are debatable (for example see Bryson 1978, Rosen and Rosen 2001). Therefore, to avoid circular based arguments, archaeological assemblages and site distribution will not be included in the present overview. As small scale climatic changes may have significant effects in arid and semi-arid regions, the emphasis will be on data related directly to the Negev. Rosen and Rosen (2001) have shown that climatic change is a complex matter. Therefore, given the constraints of the present work, only a simplified overview is offered.

During the late Pleistocene, (a period that includes the Upper Paleolithic period, the date of Eurasian cave art), the climate of the Negev and Northern Sinai was cold and humid. With increased precipitation, the Feiran (Southern Sinai) and Lisan (Jordan Valley) lakes, formed prior to this period, were still in existence (Bar-Yosef 1982:47). Based on radiocarbon dates and

11 pollen analysis from sites in the Avdat area, Horowitz (1976:66) suggested that the Central Negev maintained a rich Mediterranean environment. Analysis of isotopic compositions of speleothems from theTzavoa (Northern Negev) and Ma’ale Deragot caves (Judean Desert, Fig. 3) supported these conclusions (Vaks et al. 2006).

The Last phase of the Last Glacial Period (25,000-16,0003 BCE) over lapped partially with the Epipalaeolithic period. The high elevation of Lisan Lake (Issar and Zohar 2004:48-49), radiocarbon dates, and O18/D ratios from water underlying Nubian Sandstone in the Negev and Central Sinai (Issar et al. 1972) indicate that a cold and humid climate existed during this period. Data from Tzavoa and Ma’ale Deragot caves suggest an arid interval between 25,000- 23,000 BCE, followed by an increase in humidity and a drop in temperatures of 5-10°C (Vaks et al. 2006). The isotopic compositions of Soreq Cave speleothems (western slopes of the Judean Hills) suggest a cold but dry climate (Bar-Matthews et al. 1996). This contrast may be explained by the fact that in arid regions, a decrease in temperature results in a decrease in evaporation and an increase- in humidity. At Tzavoa and Ma’ale Deragot caves, situated further south than the Soreq Cave, this change may have been more evident.

The period from the latest phase of the Pleistocene to the early Holocene (roughly corresponding with the “Deglaciation Period” in Europe from 13,000-9,500 BCE) was one of global climate changes related to the melting ice sheets and increasing temperatures. In inland areas such as the Negev, changes in this period were primarily in increasing amounts of precipitation. These changes are supported by increased arboreal pollen in the Central Negev, the examination of cores from the Red Sea (Bar-Yosef 1982:47), and the development of a calcic horizon (which occurs in relatively high though, still semi-arid, rainfall conditions) in the Northern Negev, coastal plain of Israel and Northern Sinai (Magaritz and Goodfriend 1987). Some researchers connect the high elevation level of Lisan Lake (attributed by others to the last phase of the Last Glacial Period) to the Deglaciation Period (Magaritz and Goodfriend 1987). A lack of speleothems formation during this period in the Tzavoa and Ma’ale Deragot caves reflects annual rainfall not exceeding 300 mm. and/or higher evaporation levels (Vaks et al. 2006). This

3 As the subject of this research is historic, all dates mentioned are calendar years, i.e. Before Current Era. All Carbon based dates are calibrated either by the original author, or by the present author through Oxcal.

12 period of increasing temperatures came to an end with the Younger Dryas, a brief return to glacial conditions (11,000-9,500 BCE) (A. M. Rosen 2007:49). The Younger Dryas seems to have to have had less of an impact on the Southern Levant than on areas farther north (A. M. Rosen 2007:69).

The Holocene (starting approximately at 9,500 BCE and geologically continuing to the present, A. M. Rosen 2007:71) began with an arid period characterized by dune migration. The movement of dunes caused the blockage of Nahal Sekher, creating a fresh water lake. Magaritz and Goodfriend (1987), based on land snails, date the arid climate and migration of the desert boundary northwards to 9,000-8,500 BCE (corresponding with the late Epipalaeolithic in the Negev). Tsoar and Goodfriend (1994), also studying sand snails, date the earliest penetration of dunes to the latest Pleistocene Age. Goring-Morris (1987:42) dates the dune migration, blockage of drainage systems, and the formation of a number of playas and fresh water lakes to the Terminal Pleistocene 13,000-9700 BCE (the Deglaciation Period).

Based on land snails from the Northern Negev, the Early Holocene (7,000 BCE) presents a transition to wetter conditions. The northern limit of semi-shrubs was found to be more than 30 km. north of its present position, implying an approximate double amount of rainfall in comparison to the present. When rainfall in the Northern Negev increases, the rainfall in more arid regions of the Negev, such as Sde Boker, will, also increase, though at lower percentages

(Goodfriend 1990). Vertebrate fauna, endolithic lichen scars on rocks, and C3 plant communities all support the existence of a wetter climate (Magaritz and Goodfriend 1987).

Radiocarbon dates and the identification of plant types found in flood sediments of salt caves in Mount Sedom (on the southwestern shores of the Dead Sea) point towards a transition from an arid (peaking at 5,500 BCE Cal) to a moist period (during the Middle Holocene, beginning at 4,500 BC, peaking at 3,200 BCE Cal) corresponding to the Chalcolithic – Early Bronze Age I. Two additional wet periods are indicated in the Mount Sedom Caves, the first at the start of the first century CE (early Roman Period) and the second at 1300 CE Cal (Frumkin et al. 1994). However, slightly different dates were presented in a previous research done in the same region, (see Frumkin et al. 1991). One lamina at Ma’ale Deragot cave was dated at 1,800 BCE (Vaks et

13 al. 2006), while data from speleothem of Nahal Qana Cave (situated in the western Samaria Hills) indicated that the wet period peaked at 3100 BCE Cal (Frumkin et al. 1999). A wet period peaking at 3100 BCE Cal is also attested to at Nahal Soreq Cave. This wet period was followed by a much drier climate between 3100-3000 BC, a return to moist conditions from 2900-2600 BCE , followed by another cycle of a dry episode (2600 BCE) ending with moist conditions (2500-2200 BCE). Very dry conditions prevailed at 2200-2000 BC, corresponding with the end of Early Bronze III (Bar-Matthews and Aylon 2004, Rosen A. M. 2007:82). In the study of zoogenic deposits from Ramon Crater (Central Negev), Babenko et al. (2007) suggested the existence of four humid periods (over the past 6000 years). These are dated as follows: 3,600- 2,200 BCE Cal, 1,900-1,500 BCE Cal, the end of the first millennium BCE through the first millennium CE, and 1,200 CE Cal to the 17th century CE. Thislast period is similar to that reached by Goodfriend (1990) who dates the decrease in rainfall to sometime after 1000 BC and continuing through to today.

To summarize, the Pleistocene came to an end in the Negev with a cold and humid climate. The Holocene, characterized by several moist-arid cycles, began with an arid period characterized by dune migration, and subsequently, the formation of fresh water lakes. Though the climate of the fourth millennium BCE was more favorable than today, with increased amounts of precipitation, these changes were less apparent in the Central Negev (in comparison with the North).

Figure 3. Map of southern Israel with indication of isohyets and caves mentioned in the text. 1. Ma’ale Dargot Cave. 2. Tzavoa Cave. 3. Soreq Cave. 4. Nahal Qana Cave 5. Mt. Sedom Caves. Image after Vaks et al. 2006. Figure 1c p. 385.

1.2. Archaeological Periods in the Negev

The rock art of the Negev does not clearly belong to, or form part of the cultural or material assemblage of any specific period. Though the age of the rock art documented in the present survey is unknown, the mark makers, or artists, no doubt left other remains as evidence of their existence. The social organization and population size, the economic base of each period, site distribution, seasonality and decorated artifacts help place Central Negev petroglyphs into a cultural and chronological frame in subsequent chapters. As the earliest European rock art is dated to the transition to the Upper Palaeolithic (Lewis-Williams 2002a:40), the Middle Paleolithic period is not included in the following review.

The settlement patterns of the Negev were dynamic, fluctuating with the changing climate, substance base of the society (hunter gatherers vs. pastoral or agro-pastoral based societies) and political considerations. Sites found up to the Beer-Sheva – Arad valley in the north and the

Ramon Crater in the south have been included in the present review. These boundaries serve to define the area of the Central Negev culture, though, if during certain periods, such as the Timnian, there is a clear relation between the Southern and Central Negev cultures, then the southern boundaries may stretch to include them. Table 2 presents a summary of the present review.

Complex and Chronology Economy Social Art Other Characteristics Organization Upper Paleolithic - 45,000-21,000 BCE Hunter-Gatherers Micro bands Early Epipalaeolithic Hunter-Gatherers Micro bands Incised ostrich egg shells Kebaran / Mushabian, Ramonian - 21,000- 13,000 BCE Late Epipalaeolithic -13,000-10,000 BCE Hunter-Gatherers Micro bands Incised ostrich egg shells, fossil Round/oval living structures. pendants, use of meander design. Domestication of the dog. Pre-Pottery Neolithic A - 9,700-6,400 BCE Settlements from this period have not been recognized in the Central Negev Pre-Pottery Neolithic B -9,700-6,400 BCE Hunter-Gatherers Macro and micro Pendants with three holes Beehive formation pit houses with bands adjacent storage facilities, Rock art in Jordan. Transitional Cultures - 6,000-5,500 BCE Hunting, Herding Micro bands Early pottery Neolithic – round structures rounded by installations. Timnian Culture Herding-Gathering, Tribal Incised and combed decorations on Early Timnian - Open air sanctuaries. th Early Timnian 6 mill. BCE communal hunting ceramic. Early - Terminal Timnian - Massabot, th Middle Timnian 5 mill. BCE Zoomorphic mosaics. and cairns. Late Timnian 3000-2300 BCE Terminal Middle through Late Timnian in Sinai – Timnian 2,300-2,000 BCE Nawamis. Late Timnian - desert kites. Middle - Late Bronze Age - 2,000-1,200 BCE. Settlements from this period have not been recognized in the Central Negev Iron Age, Traditional Chronology- Agriculture, Monarchy or Early Iron Age - Timna Tent Single spaced structures with pens, four Iron Age I 1,200-1000 BCE terracing and dams, Sedenterized Temple assemblage. roomed houses (concentrated between Iron Age II 1000-586 BCE Agro-Pastoral tribal pastoral Late Iron Age – Dimona and Avdat), “fortresses”. Late Low Chronology- supplemented by nomads, and En Hazeva cultic ceramic Iron Age – the Negev was sparsely th th Iron Age I late 12 -late 10 c. BCE hunting. tribal pastoral assemblage and Kuntillat ‘Ajrud’s settled. th Iron Age IIa late 10 – 800 BCE nomads painted ceramics and wall murals. Iron Age IIb 800-701BCE Iron Age III 701-586 BCE Babylonian 586-538 BCE Trade Tribal Painted ceramics, incised alters Fortresses. Persian 538-332 BCE. and a single cast bronze figurine. th Nabatean-Roman 4 C. BCE-106 CE Trade, husbandry Tribal, urban. Decorated pottery, clay and bronze Cities, hamlets, military bases and Early Roman in Israel 63 BCE -135 CE and agriculture figurines, jewelry and betyls. related structures, and camp sites. Late Roman 135-324 CE th Byzantine 324-mid 7 c. CE Cities – agriculture. Tribal, urban. Mosaic floors, fresco, sculptured Cities, hamlets, and camp sites. th th Umayyad mid 7 - mid 8 c. CE. Ephemeral sites – architectural elements, statues and th Abbasid mid8th - mid 10 c. CE. husbandry. figurines’, graffiti and petroglyphs. th Bedouin - 16 c. CE – Present. Traditionally – Tribal. Painted and incised ceramic Tents and sedentary settlements. agro-pastoral. vessels.

Table 3. Summary of archaeological settlement periods in the Negev from the Upper Paleolithic through Present.

1.2.1. Upper Palaeolithic

Chronology: 45,000-21,000 BCE non-calibrated, Early Upper Palaeolithic, and 22,000-17,000 BCE Late Upper Palaeolithic (Bar-Yosef and Garfinkil 2008:28). Site Description and Distribution: The Negev and Sinai sites are ephemeral (Gilead 1991). Site location was determined by the distance to fresh water. Large sites are situated less than a kilometer from springs, while temporary camps and workshops were in a radius of up to 3 km from water sources (Marks 1971). Economy: The economy was that of hunter-gatherers (Marks 1977a). Social Organization: The limited size of sites suggests micro bands (Bar-Yosef 1982, Gilead 1989). Seasonality: Different models have been offered suggesting that the sites were occupied seasonally on several different occasions (there is no consensus as to during which season) (Gilead 1993, Gilead and Bar-Yosef 1993, Marks 1977b). Art: At present there is only a single artifact indicating the existence of art in the Southern Levant Upper Palaeolithic. The artifact, found in Hayonim D (northern Israel), consists of an incised limestone slab with a number of lines forming the shape of an ungulate. In the southern sites, no art was found. Red ochre, a very prominent find in several Upper Palaeolithic assemblages, may have been used in the decoration of artifacts, body decorations, ritual practice, and/or daily activities such as hide processing (Gilead 1991)

1.2.2. The Epipalaeolithic

The Epipalaeolithic in the Negev may be roughly divided into early and late. Comparing the cultural entities in the Negev during the Epipalaeolithic with those in the center and north of the country, there are a number of gaps. The Kebaran (Early Epipalaeolithic) and the Early Natufian (Late Epipalaeolithic) are not present in the Negev.

1.2.2.1 The Early Epipalaeolithic

The Early Epipalaeolithic may be divided into Geometric Kebaran4, which coexisted with the Mushabian, later to develop into the Ramonian. Each of these cultures may be further subdivided into entities. The Geometric Kebaran is a widespread culture well represented in the Central and Northern Levant. The Mushabian and Ramonian cultures are restricted in their distribution to the Western Negev and Northern Sinai (Bar-Yosef 1982:51, Marks 1977a). Chronology: 21,000-13,000 Cal BCE (Bar-Yosef and Garfinkel 2008:x; Goring-Morris 1987:421-434). Site Description and Distribution: Sites are found in two different relations. The first seems to have been determined by the distance to fresh water with a preference of lowlands, and dune margins (Gilead and Marder 1989; Goring-Morris 1987:424). The second site location shows a preference for high topographic features (Marks 1977a; 1977b). Sites in both settings are ephemeral (Marks 1977b). Economy: The economy was that of hunter-gatherers. Ground stone tools are lacking from Geometric Kebaran sites suggesting that cereal grasses were not exploited (Goring-Morris 1987:425; Marks 1977b). Social Organization: Sites are small and ephemeral indicating micro bands (Goring-Morris 1987:96, 429). Seasonality: The Geometric Kebaran of the Western Negev has close analogues to the central coastal plain material. The western Negev sites may reflect mobility between these sites, though mobility within a more restricted area is also possible (Goring-Morris 1987:424-425). Art: Ostrich egg shells (most likely used as canteens) from Geometric Kebaran (Gilead and Marder 1989) and Mushabian sites (Goring-Morris 1987:195) are decorated with incised bands. These are decorated with patterns of parallel slashes, cross-hatching, or herring bone design (Gilead and Marder 1989). Red ochre is found in many sites in small lumps and on artifacts (Goring-Morris 1987:139, 195). Yellow ochre, less common than the red ochre, is found in Mushabian sites.

4 At different times the Ramonian was also termed Geometric Kebaran B, the Negev variant of the Kebaran, Negev Kebaran, and Negev Mushabian.

1.2.2.2. The Late Epipalaeolithic

Within the Late Epipalaeolithic period the Natufian and Harifian are included. Chronology: 13,000-10,000 Cal BCE (Belfer-Cohen 1991). Site Description and Distribution: Sites are found in highlands, lowlands and dune margins. Highland sites are situated in close proximity to fresh water (distanced approximately 0.5 kilometer away). In these sites, architectural features built of undressed field stones have been found. Round and oval structures, some of which are semi-subterranean, are usually set near one another forming a line. Lowland sites are often located to provide maximum access to different ecological and topographic areas. These sites are up to 12 kilometers from water sources (Goring-Morris 1987:437; 1991). Economy: The economy was that of hunter-gatherers. Different types of ground stone tools, point toward both grinding and pounding, suggesting the processing of nuts and seeds (Goring-Morris 1991; 1999). Social Organization: Although several dwellings were found at numerous sites, it seems that only a few were occupied at any one time by micro bands (Goring-Morris 1991). An oval structure excavated in Rosh Zin with a monolith and cache near its base, containing a pair of grooved stones, a lime stone disc, and five pyramidal cores, may have had a ritual significance (Henry 1976). Domestication: Based on burials from the north of the country, we know that the dog was domesticated during this period (Bar-Yosef 1996). No dog remains (nor human burials) have been found at Negev Epipalaeolithic sites, though the state of preservation of the fauna from Abu-Salem and Ramat Harif is consistent with changes that occur with digestive juices, suggesting the presence of dogs (Goring-Morris 1991). Seasonality: The exposed Epipalaeolithic Negev sites were occupied during summers while sites on the highland fringes and protected slopes were winter residences (Horwitz and Goring- Morris 2001; Goring-Morris 1991). Art: Incised ostrich eggshells were found at several sites. The incised motifs include parallel lines filled with either cross-hatching or diagonal slashes, and rough herringbone patterns. Some stone and bone artifacts are decorated with incised net, zigzag, and meandering patterns (Bar-Yosef 1996). A small pestle, which showed no signs of wear or use, was

decorated with a continuous meandering design. (Goring-Morris 1998). Sandstone bell shaped fossil pendants have been recovered from Harifian sites. In addition, hatched lines appear on rock crystals, on a bottle shaped fossil, and a perforated limestone plaque (Goring- Morris 1991; 1998). In Natufian sites from non-arid areas, animals dominate the assemblage of figurines (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989.) To date, no zoomorphic or anthropomorphic figurines, as those found in the north of the country (Bar-Yosef 1996; Noy 1991), have been recovered from the Negev. Red ochre was recovered from a number of sites (Henry 1976.)

1.2.3. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic Period (PPN)

This period may be divided into PPNA, PPNB, and PPNC. In the center and north of the country, the Neolithic economy, once based on hunting and gathering, became an agricultural one. In the north, the social organization was complex with domestic and public rituals and the development of ancestor worship (Gopher 1995). During the PPNC, a period recognized as the collapse of the PPN system, there is a settlement gap and reduction in settlement size in the north and central regions of the country (Gopher and Gophna 1993). In the Central Negev, there are no PPNA dated sites. Following is a review of the PPNB. The Negev culture coexisting with the northern PPNC is presented below under the Tuwailan culture. Chronology: PPNB in the Negev, second half of the 9,700 – 6,400 BCE Cal (Kuijt and Goring- Morris 2002). Site Description and Distribution: There are four different site types. 1) “Major” sites,: this group consists of sites usually found in high elevated regions of the Negev with several interlocking or beehive formation pit houses (Gopher et al. 1995; Gopher and Goring-Morris 1998; Goring-Morris 1993, Simmons 1981). Several of these beehive structures had adjacent storage facilities (Goring-Morris and Gopher 1987). 2) Single family units: sites with single structures (Goring-Morris 1993). 3) Short term open air activity sites: primarily focusing on hunting and related activities (Goring-Morris et al. 2006). These sites have no architectural remains, consist of tool scatters and are usually situated on plains and in dune areas (Simmons 1981). 4) Knapping stations: limited in size and lacking architectural remains. These sites display a

high frequency of flint waste and cores (Goring-Morris 1993). Economy: The economy was that of hunter-gatherers. Extensive grain processing took place at few high elevation sites (Simmons 1981). The plain and foothill sites centered on hunting gazelle, though they maintained a self supporting economy (Simmons 1981). Social Organization: Simmons (1981) suggested that the sites situated in the highlands were occupied by macro-bands while the plain and dune areas were occupied seasonally by micro- bands. Withstanding the different settings of the PPNB sites, the material finds point towards the different sites of this period belonging to the same cultural identity. Seasonality: A circulating mobility pattern was reconstructed by several researchers (Lieberman 1993; Noy 1975:50-54; Simmons 1981). Some researchers (Lieberman 1993 and Simmons 1981) see the lowland sites as being seasonally occupied in spring and summer, and highland sites as seasonally occupied in fall and winter. Others (Noy 1975:50-54) have suggested that the highlands, with more comfortable weather conditions, were exploited during summer, while the lowlands were exploited during winter and spring. At present, neither theory has been proven as cementum bands from gazelle teeth at two highland sites show that gazelle were killed during different seasons, indicating that different highland sites were occupied during different times of the year (Lieberman 1993). Art: Pendants made of mother of pearl (Goring-Morris and Gopher 1987) with three holes, two small and a larger one between them, may present simplified faces or the genitals of a female. In non-arid sites north of the Central Negev female figurines dominate the artistic assemblage (Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989). Hundreds of engravings were found on basalt boulders and isolated cobbles in Jordanian Late PPNB sites, while some were found on and in buildings. The majority of engraved motifs are of zoomorphs, primarily gazelle, anthropomorphs and abstract designs. Outlined and linear styles and different techniques are attributed to the same period (Betts 1987; Fujii 2008).

1.2.4. Transitional Cultures, the Tuwailian and Early Pottery Neolithic (PN)

Transitional cultures from the end of the PPNB through the formation of the Timnian culture in the Central Negev include the Tuwailian and Early PN. The Tuwailian corresponds roughly to the northern PPNC (Goring-Morris 1993), while the Early PN coexists with the

Yarmukian culture (Rosen 2011). As little research has been conducted on these periods in the Negev, the material below is preliminary and may change with more in-depth examinations. Chronology: Seventh millennium – 5,500 BCE Cal (Rosen 2011) Site Description and Distribution: Tuwalian and Early PN sites include occupation sites, specialized, ephemeral workshops and hunting stations (Goring-Morris 1993). The majority of Tuwalian sites are found in the western Negev and northeastern Sinai, situated near water sources and on dune margins (Goring-Morris 1993). At present, no structures dating to this period have been surveyed or excavated (Rosen 2002a). Early PN period sites, rare in the highlands, occur in the dune margins of the Western Negev (Noy and Cohen 1974; Goring- Morris 1993) and Southern Negev (Avner et al. 1994; Goring-Morris and Gopher 1987). Early PN sites consist of single rounded structures surrounded by hearths, stone filled pits, and slab lined installations (Gopher 1994:112; Goring-Morris 1993). Other settlements may have adjoining rounded structures enclosing a courtyard with a number of installations (Goring-Morris and Gopher 1987). Economy: The economy was transitional from hunting to herding and the cultivation of adjoining fields (though not cereals) (Goring-Morris 1993; Goring-Morris et al. 1994; Rosen 2011; Rosen et al. 2005). Social Organization: Based on the limited number of sites and their restricted sizes, we concluded that there was a considerable drop in population density in the Negev (Goring- Morris 1993). Seasonality: As apparent from previous periods, vertical round movement routes seem to have been the prevailing seasonal migration (Rosen 2002a). As transitional highland sites are rare, the character of seasonal movement during these periods should be further investigated. Art: No art related to the transitional periods has been found in the Negev.

1.2.5. The Timnian Culture (Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages)

The Timnian Culture5 developed from the Early Pottery Neolithic in southern Sinai, southern

5 Timnian Culture is referred to by Rothenberg (1999, 2001) as the Sinai-Arava Copper Age, which, too, may be subdivided. The Timnian is chronologically equivalent to the Northern PN, Chalcolithic, and Early Bronze I-IV. 23

Jordan and southern Negev. The Timnian Culture may be subdivided into four phases: Early (6th millennium BCE), Middle (5th millennium BCE), Late (EBA II-III) and Terminal (EBIV/Intermediate Bronze Age/Middle Bronze Age I) (Rosen 2009). All four phases are present in the southern Negev where there seems to be no extensive settlement gap (Avner et al. 1994; 2001; Burton and Levy 2001; Rothenberg 1999; Rothenberg and Glass 1992). Early Timnian occupation sites are missing from the central and western Negev (Rosen 1988). Changes from Early to Terminal Timnian are in the economy, which developed a number of trade channels, and in the expansion of settlement distribution and size, reflecting fluctuations in population size (Avner et al. 1994; Rosen 2002a; 2002b). In the present overview, the Timnian Culture will be addressed as a single rather than a four stage culture. Chronology: 5,500 – 2000 BCE Cal (Rosen 2009). Site Description and Distribution: Early-Middle Timnian settlement clusters, solitary habitation sites, and camping sites are found in the southern Negev and Arava mainly around copper ore deposits. These sites include one or two round structures with adjacent work areas (Rothenberg 2001; Rothenberg and Glass 1992). Middle Timnian sites in the central Negev, limited in size, are positioned on low wadi terraces. Late Timnian habitation sites and more ephemeral sites are found both in the highlands and lowlands of the central and western Negev. The main differences between Middle and Late Timnian sites are in their sizes, distance to fresh water, and scale of construction. Constructed habitation sites situated in close proximity to natural water sources consist of a series of enclosures surrounded by round or oval rooms. More temporary sites consist of one of the following: a group of single room dwellings, campsites with circular walls, and hearths and lithic scatters with no architecture. These ephemeral sites are usually situated at some distance from natural water sources (Cohen 1999:71-72; Haiman 1992a). Cairns, phenomena related to Timnian Culture (Avner 1984; Avner et al. 1994; Rosen 2008; 2009; 2011), are found in two locations; the first as fields (Haiman 1991) and the second within settlements (Beit-Arieh 1974; Haiman 1992b; Kochavi 1967:20; Reich 1990). Based on a carbon date from a cult complex in the southern Negev (Avner et al. 1994) and an OSL sample, (Porat et al. 2006; Rosen et al. 2007) it seems like the cairn field phenomenum began with the Early Timnian Culture. Yet, based on proximity to habitation sites (Haiman 1991; 1992b; Kochavi 1967:20) and architectural similarities (Cohen 1980; Haiman 1993a),

other cairn fields (usually including rectangular shaped cairns) have been dated to Middle through Terminal Timnian Culture. Rothenberg and Glass (1992) see these burial fields6 as an indication of continuity of the indigenous population throughout the entire Timnian sequence. Cairns within settlements are usually interpreted as post-dating the settlement (Beit-Arieh 1974; Haiman 1992b; Kochavi 1967:20; Reich 1990) and, as such, are datable to the Late and Terminal Timnian Culture.

Nawamis, dating to the Chalcolithic and EB (corresponding to the Middle and Late Timnian), are constructed on the fringes of the central mountain region of Sinai and the Nubian sandstone fringes (Bar-Yosef et al. 1977). Clustering, which may be interpreted as different families, was noted within the nawamis fields , (Goren 1980). It is possible that each nawamis field belonged to a different tribe, with the nawamis field placed in the center of that tribe’s spring and winter grazing territory (Bar-Yosef et al. 1983).

Massabot (single standing stones, rows of stones, stone circles), open air sanctuaries and related cairn fields seem to have emerged with the Early Timnian retaining their sacred context through the Terminal Timnian Culture. Over a hundred open sanctuaries have been located in the Negev, Sinai and southern Jordan. The open air sanctuaries are essentially open courtyards, defined by a single or double line of fieldstones one course high. The sanctuaries are usually set in groups of two, with a rectangular shaped courtyard with an additional ‘cell’ in the back. To the left, and slightly set back to the right, is a second square shaped courtyard, with a round installation in its center (Avner 1984; Uzi Avner personal communication; Rosen and Rosen 2003; Eddy and Wendorf 1999:70). The corners of the sanctuaries are usually oriented to the cardinal points of the compass (Avner 1984, 2002; Yogev 1983). The first open air sanctuaries emerged with the Early Timnian Culture (Port et al. 2006; Rosen et al. 2007; Miller 1999). Additional sanctuaries were constructed during the Middle Timnian Culture (Avner 1984). Desert kites, dated to the PPNC in Jawa and Dhuwiela, eastern Jordan (Helms and Betts

6 Cairn fields are termed burial fields and are understood as having a role in the mortuary cult (Haiman 1993a) though there exact use is debatable as in less than 3% of the excavated cairns from cairn fields bones were found (verses over 80% of cairns set in settlements) (Haiman 1992b).

1987), made their first appearance in the Negev in the Late Timnian Culture (Bar-Oz et al. 2008; Holzer 2002:13-19; Holzer et al. 2010). Economy: The Timnian Culture was a pastoral herding-gathering based economy (Haiman 1998; Rosen 2002a; 2002b; 2009; Rothenberg and Glass 1992). Hunting, practiced in the traditional manner, was less practiced in the Middle Timnian as arrow heads numbers diminish (Rosen 2010). Communal hunting through the construction and use of desert kites seems to have replaced traditional hunting (Bar-Oz et al. 2008; Holzer 2002:13-19; Rosen 2009). Agriculture was undertaken intensively in the Biqat Uvda area (Avner et al. 1994; Cohen 1999:73-74), and from the Late Timnian phase, to some degree, at all Negev sites (Rosen 1988). Trade developed through the different phases of the Timnian culture, intensifying in the Late Timnian although it remained at a ‘cottage industry’ level (Rosen 2003; 2009). Social Organization: During the Middle Timnian, micro bands seem to have lived in the central Negev (Juli 1978:248). Larger Late Timnian constructed habitation sites may, as Beit-Arieh and Gophna (1981:134) suggested, be “central ‘tribal’ settlements” while “small isolated sites, sometimes at a considerable distance from each other, may represent the nomadic wanderings of single families belonging to these tribes.” Rosen (2009) commented that variability in site size and material culture reflected seasonal aggregation and dispersion patterns (Rosen 2011). Seasonality: Seasonal migration patterns for the Middle Timnian in the southern and central Negev sites center around patterns of aggregation in the summer but around water sources and disaggregation in the winter (Kozloff 1981). Transhumance movement has been suggested for the Early Timnian in Sinai (Bar-Yosef 1981). Other migration patterns have been presented by Haiman (1998) for the Middle-Late Timnian (by which the majority of the society remained near the well constructed sites and only one member of each family moved with the flock to more ephemeral sites) and Dever (1987) for the Terminal Timnian (a summer northward movement towards the Hebron Hills area). Art: Ceramic vessels belonging to the Southern Group, dated to the Terminal Timnian Culture, bear decorated motifs. The most commonly used decorations are combed straight or wavy lines bordered between straight ones. Other decorations include diagonal and zigzag combed decorations, wavy or thumb imprinted rims, double thumbed ‘rope’ decoration on the body and incised motifs such as a continuous row of incised reed or incised lines forming

26 floral/vegetal motifs (own identification) (Cohen 1999:230-256). A single limestone stamp with a geometric design follows the general lack of figurative depictions (Cohen 1999:221- 223).

Different motifs, formed by small stone slabs positioned in a vertical manner inserted into the ground (to a depth of approx. 10 cm, leaving approx. 10 cm visible above ground), have been found in the southern Negev and Sinai (Avner 1984; Yogev 1983). These motifs, including geometric designs and zoomorphs (also termed zoomorphic mosaics), reach 170 cm in length in the Sinai and 120 cm in the southern Negev. The zoomorphs are composed of an outlined elongated body and a ring/square head with a black flint serving as an eye. Some animals have four lines for the legs, while others have only two legs. The legs are outlined in the same fashion as the body (Avner 1984). Other additions to the basic form include horns, tails, ‘spots’, and two smaller animals interpreted as cubs (Yogev 1983). As the identification of the depicted species is difficult, different animal species have been proposed. These include oryx, antelope, gazelle, leopard, as well as sheep and goat (Avner 1984; Eddy and Wendorf 1999:75; Yogev 1983). At Biqat Uvda, the stone formations placed eight meters east of an open air sanctuary are of 15 leopards and a single antelope (or gazelle), all oriented to the east (Yogev 1983). Four groups of zoomorphic mosaics placed southeast of sanctuaries were recorded at Khashm et-Taref (Sinai) (Eddy and Wendorf 1999:67; Miller 1999). The mosaics, each consisting of 7-9 animals randomly constructed, were recognized by the surveyors as a shrine (Eddy and Wendorf 1999:75). Zoomorphic mosaics and other stone formations have been found in five different instances in relation to open-air sanctuaries. The similar construction technique places them in the same time frame as the Early Timnian. At Terminal Timnian Har Yeruham, two animal figurines were recovered. Both figurines, now broken, present simplified depictions of unrecognizable zoomorphs with two legs (rather than four). The first figurine, made of stone, has a number of depressions representing the animal’s eyes, nostrils and mouth (?). The second figuring, made of clay, has two short horns/ears (Kochavi 1963).

On the doorjamb of a surveyed Late or Terminal Timnian structure is an incised hunt scene (Haiman 2007). As the scene is exposed today and incised figures are not a common find in

the domestic domain, it cannot be dated accurately. Several researchers have suggested rock art (petroglyphs) of the Negev to be part of the sanctuary, cairn, massaba, and desert kite innovations of the Early Timnian (or slightly later addition) in the Negev (Southern Jordan and Sinai) (Bar-Yosef 1981; Goring-Morris 1993; Rosen 2011; Rothenberg 2001).

1.2.6. The Second Millennium BCE

Based on the number of sites documented in the Archaeological Survey of Israel – Negev Emergency Survey monographs, the Negev was unsettled or only sparsely settled throughout the second millennium BCE (for example see the following surveys: Avni 1992a:14*-18*; Cohen 1981:vii-xi; Haiman 1986:14*-20*; Lender 1990:xix-xxiii; Rosen 2009). Research conducted in recent years has begun to challenge this view (as well as many other gaps in settlement) (Avner et al. 1994; 2001; Hendrik Bruins personal communication). Until these controversies are clarified, the traditional views are presented in this thesis.

1.2.7. Iron Age

Chronology: The Iron Age may be divided into two, Iron Age I and Iron Age II. Iron Age II may be subdivided into three stages (a-c) with further subdivisions of early and late (i.e. early IAIIa). With the recent debates over high and low chronologies, several dates have been suggested for each sub-period. The different chronologies began with ceramic assemblages and were rooted with carbon dating and decay counting (Boaretto et al. 2005). Sites south of Beer-Sheva have not been re-examined directly, though the interpretation may change greatly based on the application of the different chronologies. Settlements in the Negev are of Iron Age IIa and Late Iron Age date. The majority of Negev sites were built and deserted/destroyed during the Iron Age IIa. Whether this period corresponds to the reign of the biblical Saul, David or Solomon is of no consequence to the material researched in the present dissertation.- Therefore, only a generalized schema will be presented for each chronology. Chronology: Traditional chronology, mainly supported by Mazar (1997; 2005) and Ortiz (2004), dates Iron Age I to 1200-1000 BCE and Iron Age II to 1000-586 BCE (for a further

subdivision see Mazar 2005). Low chronology, supported by Boaretto et al. (2005), Finkelstein (1995a, 2005), Fantalkin and Finkelstein (2006), Hagens (1999), and Ussishkin (2007), places the beginning of the Iron Age I in the later part of the 12th century BCE (1130 BCE) and the Iron Age IIa to the late 10th-early 9th century BCE ending at ca. 800 BCE. Iron Age IIb 800 - 701 BC, Iron Age III 701-586 BCE (Ussishkin 2007). Site Description and Distribution: There are approximately 400 sites dated to the Iron Age IIa in the Negev (Shahack-Gross and Finkelstein 2008). These sites, situated north of the Ramon Crater with a clustering in the Central Highlands, are single stratum sites (Cohen 1979; Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004; and Shahack-Gross and Finkelstein 2008). Negev Iron Age IIa sites include living structures, animal pens, four-roomed houses, agricultural installations, and 58 fortresses (compounds) (Haiman 2003). Living structures consist of single rounded, square, or horse shoe shaped room. Single- spaced houses were usually adjacent to cisterns (Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004:150-151). Concentrations of buildings were found in the Ramat Matred and Ramat Barnea regions (Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004:151; Haiman 1994). Half the number of animal pens, usually built on high hill slope, were attached to living structures, the remaining pens were set at a short distance to other structures (Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004:154). The total number of pens was 1:3 or 1:4 in ratio to Iron Age IIa living structures (Haiman 1994). Four-roomed houses were the prevailing living structure throughout the Iron Age IIa in the southern Levant. Four-room houses in the Negev are mostly found in the region between the modern city of Dimona in the north and Avdat in the south. Four roomed houses were commonly situated on hill slopes in close proximity to agricultural land. Haiman (1994; 2003) and Shahack-Gross and Finkelstein (2008) believe that wadi and field terracing postdates the Iron Age IIa settlements, while Bruins (2007), Bruins and Van der Plicht (2005) carbon dated the terracing to the second half of the 11th century or first decades of the 10th century BCE. Agricultural installations include threshing floors, silos, and cisterns. In the Dimona-Avdat area, there is a ratio of 1 cistern per every 4.6 structures. In the Ramat Matred and Ramat Barnea regions, the ratio changes to three cisterns per structure, at Kadesh Barnea the ratio is as high as 38 cisterns per structure (Haiman 1994).

Fortresses are one of the Iron Age IIa characteristics. The term “fortress” includes oval (or irregular) and square structures (with or without towers). The majority of fortresses were built on mountain ridges and slopes, though slightly below the ridge line. Of the fortresses with large courtyards, 87% were built at an elevation of 550 masl or higher (Finkelstein 1984). In this way they had a wide panoramic view of surrounding settlements, yet still remained concealed from below (Haiman 2003). With as little as a kilometer and a half between fortresses, many of the fortresses overlook one another (Meshel and Cohen 1980). The oval fortress is the most common type of fortress in the Negev Highlands. These fortresses consist of a casement wall surrounding a central courtyard. To date, the courtyards have been found empty of installations and with few ceramic sherds (Cohen and Cohen- Amin 2004:146-147). Square/rectangular fortresses are formed with one to four casement rooms surrounding a central courtyard (Haiman 2003). At times square fortresses were constructed in the central courtyard of oval fortresses. Late Iron Age (Iron Age IIb-c) - During this period, the Negev was sparsely settled. Few Negev Iron Age IIa sites had Late Iron Age ceramics. Only two sites (Horvat Rogem and Kadesh Barnea) presented continuous settlement with Late Iron Age and Persian strata. In addition, a single new site (Kuntillet ‘Ajrud) was constructed during this period. These Late Iron Age settlements were restricted to the area between Sde Boker and south of Kadesh Barnea, most likely built as stops along the trade route from Arabia to the Gaza port (Cohen and Cohen- Amin 2004:159, 198; Cohen, Cohen-Amin and Israel 2004:160-172). Each site represents a different plan with different installations (Beck 1982; Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg 2007:9- 11; Cohen, Cohen-Amin and Israel 2004; Hadley 1993). Economy: The economy was agro-pastoral (Bruins 2007; Bruins and Van der Plicht 2005; Co hen and Cohen-Amin 2004:151-154; Haiman 2003), supplemented by gazelle hunting (Cohen and Bernick-Greenberg 2007:9). Shahack-Gross and Finkelstein (2008) claimed that sickle blades were missing from the assemblages of IAIIa fortress courtyards, and that seasonal dry- farming was not practiced. Following this, the threshing floors of the Negev are of a later date. They suggested that the main livelihood was herding of goats. Following this interpretation, the fortress’ courtyard would have served as a nighttime pen for animals (Finkelstein 1984). Grain to supplement the diet would have been outsourced (Shahack- Gross and Finkelstein 2008).

During the Late IA, when the number of settlements (with architecture) shrank to three, it is difficult to offer a generalized picture for the economy. Social Organization: Cohen and Cohen-Amin (2004:154-157) and Haiman (1994, 2003) suggested the Iron Age IIa Negev settlements was related to the Israelite United Monarchy. This interpretation of the Iron Age IIa settlement understands the fortresses as forming a defensive barrier between Israel, Egypt, and Edom, securing the trade routes, and creating both a political and ethnic boarder. Finkelstein (1984) interpreted the fortresses as enclosed compounds which represent the sedentarization process of local pastoral-nomadic groups. Seasonality: It is generally agreed (Haiman 1994; Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004:197; Finkelstein 1995b:62) that there was a nomadic society in the Iron Age Negev, though only Haiman (1994) suggested an actual seasonal movement by which rounded, isolated buildings, found mainly in the Ramat Matred and Ramat Barnea regions, were occupied by a few family members during the winter. Art: The Late Iron Age female Judean pillar figurines identified with the cult of Asherah (Yezerski and Geva 2003), and zoomorphic figurines (Kletter 2007), found in several Beer- Sheva basin and more northern sites, are missing from the Negev Iron Age material culture (Kletter 1996:45, 96, 41). At Late Iron Age ‘En Hazeva (in the Arava), a large cultic ceramic assemblage was found. The assemblage includes a number of ceramic pomegranates, cuboid altars (usually attributed to the Persian Period, see below), and incense burners, three of which are anthropomorphic (for further detail see Cohen and Israel 1995). Kuntillet ‘Ajrud’s finds may be divided into two: drawings on ceramic vessels and wall paintings. The wall paintings are mostly applied to gypsum-plastered walls. The subjects of the murals include a human figure on a city wall, a number of different border designs (a band decorated with a zigzag, dots, a checkered border, a lotus chain, and guilloche border), palm trees, a seated figure, two additional human heads, a goat, and a lotus flower, all painted in various shades of red, yellow, and black (Beck 2002:139-159). The scale and execution of the murals indicate that they were planned in advance and painted by commissioned artists Beck’s (2002:160). The ceramics present drawings painted in red, black, and yellow pigment after firing by a number of different artists. On pithos A are a horse, a boar, two lions, a tree with lotus flowers flanked by ibexes, a chariot horse, an ibex and a garland, a cow and a suckling calf, the hindquarters of an additional animal, two Bes

figures, and a seated lyre player. On pithos B are an ibex, an archer, a lion’s tail, a cow, a procession of five worshippers, and a bull. The motifs on painted sherds are of a boar and a seated figure (Beck 2002:94-105) (for a more detailed review of the finds see Beck 1982, 2002). In the Timna Tent Temple, dated to the Late Bronze Age - Early IA, several and diverse finds have been recovered. Among the offerings were Hathor sculptures (in a variety of sizes and qualities), painted sherds, faience artifacts, molluscs from the Red Sea, as well as cast figurines. One figurine presents a well cast male ibex, a second is a copper serpent, while two other figurines present very simplified images. One may represent a predator, while the other seems to be of a ridden pack animal. While the predator is presented with four parallel legs, the pack animal has only two legs. Another cast figurine is of a naked ithyphallic male figure. All of the Timna Tent Temple artistic finds are of foreign origin, Egyptian and Midianite (Rothenberg 1972:127-176, for further discussion see Rothenberg 1972).

1.2.8. The Babylonian and Persian Periods

Chronology: Babylonian Period 586-538, Persian Period 538-332 BCE. The Babylonian material culture converges with that of the Late Iron Age and is not presented independently (Stern 1973:225). Site Description and Distribution: At present only six sites with a Persian horizon have been identified in the central Negev and an additional two in the southern Negev and Arava. Of these, three are single strata sites. The Persian Period fortresses, which do not have an Iron Age stratum, were constructed near Iron Age IIa sites (Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004:160). The Negev Persian Period sites consist of single square fortresses with rooms arranged around a central courtyard. An exception is at Be’erotyim (found only a couple of km from Giva’t HaKetovot) which differs slightly in plan. In Persian Period courtyards and near the fortresses were hewn though not plastered cisterns. Different installations were found within the rooms and vicinity of the fortresses (Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004:188-172). Economy: The Arabs monopolized the trade in the Negev throughout the Persian Period, transporting incense and precious stones. Still the nature of the Persian settlement in the

Negev is uncertain. The square fortresses have received a variety of interpretations which include serving as supply centers, administrative centers, way stations serving the military units and caravans, or in defense against infiltration of Edomite-Arab populations. The fortresses could have been housed with a Judean or Phoenician population subjected to Persian rule (Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004:199-201; Meshel 1977). Social Organization: Cohen and Cohen-Amin (2004:201) identified the population of the central Negev throughout the Persian Period as belonging to the Kedar tribe which controlled areas in southern Israel, Sinai, and southern Jordan. Other views are that the population was Arab, Edomite, Judean or Phoenician (Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004:199-201; Meshel 1977). Seasonality: There is no clear evidence of seasonal movement in the Negev during this period. Art: Few artistic finds have been recovered from the Negev Persian Period sites. These include ceramic sherds with painted decoration, a single worked bone with a decorative pattern of a row of concentric circles, incised cuboid limestone altars, and a single bronze figurine. Small cuboid incense altars with short legs and a concave surface are a common find throughout the Persian Period in modern Israel, South Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Cyprus. The sides of these altars are usually decorated (or bear inscriptions) by incision or through the application of red, brown, or black paint. Altars are usually decorated with a geometric border and central zoomorphic, vegetal, or anthropomorphic images or scenes (Stern 181-194, see also O’Dwyer Shea 1983). Of the Negev incense alters, few are decorated. Examples of motifs used are a band of triangles, camels, a possible human figure with a skirt, vegetal motif (lotus flower or date tree?) flanked by two birds (cranes?) and a ladder design border (Cohen, Cohen-Amin and Israel 2004; Cohen-Amin 2004; Glueck 1971). The image of the camel may be related to the god Allat-Nemesis (Cohen-Amin 2004; Al-Salihi 1998). A bronze figurine of a female (?), made in a simple two sided stone mold was recovered. The figurine is standing with exposed breasts wearing a cylinder shaped head cover. The legs are closed and straight, extending at the heel to a peg while the arms’ position is unclear as they are broken. Although this figurine cannot be identified, it may be said with some certainty that it has a religious – ritual meaning (Erlich 2004).

1.2.9. Nabatean-Roman Period

As archaeological remains of Nabatean settlements in the Negev predating 106 CE (the date of the Nabatean kingdom annexation) are extremely scant, the Nabatean and Roman Periods are reviewed together. Chronology: Nabatean Kingdom 4th century BCE - 106 CE (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003:7*- 8*). Early Roman Period in Israel 63 BCE – 135 CE, Late Roman Period in Israel 135 -324 CE. The Negev was under the Nabatean rule until 106 CE and then under the Imperial Roman Rule (Stern 1984:142). Site Description and Distribution: Settlements in the Negev throughout this period may be divided into two: sedentary and ephemeral. Clustered sedentary sites of the Nabatean and Roman Period in the Avdat area include rectangular structures built of hewn stone. The distribution of villages, farmhouses, and towers, reflects the relation between sedentary sites and the spice route. As one progresses south, the number of sedentary sites and structures drops (Erickson-Gini and Israel 2003; Rosen 2007). With Diocletian’s reform, the reassignment of the tenth legion and the reorganization of the provinces (the formation of Palestina Tertia), the Negev enjoyed a period of intensive construction. Late Roman military forts were constructed at several sites (Erickson-Gini and Israel 2003). In addition to the towns, Roman dated sites are found in small numbers throughout the Negev. Some of these are associated with animal pens (Avni 1992a:18*; Erickson-Gini and Israel 2003). Camp sites may be divided into two, those with architectural remains (round or oval structures constructed of un-worked fieldstones) and those with no architectural structures. The latter may be characterized by ceramic scatters, hearths, stone lines, stone piles, and cleared areas. The number of ephemeral sites grows in relation to the distance from the Ancient city of Avdat southwards, with a concentration in and north of the Ramon Crater. Camp sites during this period were relatively small in relation to later periods. This may indicate a more mobile society or a more contracted social system (Rosen 2007, 2009). Economy: The Nabateans were involved in trade of perfumed oils produced at Petra (Avni 1992a:18*; Erickson-Gini and Israel 2003; Stern 1984; Zohar 2003). A goat based economy is apparent in the Jordanian assemblages. The goats provided mainly milk and fiber. Camels may have been exploited in a similar manner as well as serving as pack animals (Studer

2007). A herd based economy fits well with osteological data from Negev sites and excavated pens (Avni 1992a:18*; Studer 2007). During the Nabatean and Late Roman Period, hunting served as a minor activity (Studer 2007). Terracing and consequently agriculture were practiced (Cohen 1981:xi; Oleson 2003; 2007; Stern 1984:148). Social Organization: The Nabateans were a tribal based society divided into two groups, nomads and a settled population. As Rosenthal-Heginbottom noted, “this region was multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious” (2003:23*) Seasonality: Based on the ephemeral sites, it is clear that some seasonal movement took place, though the details for such a system have yet to be suggested. Art: Nabatean material culture includes decorated pottery, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines of clay and bronze, gold jewelry, pendants, beads, bronze bells, and fibula. Betyls simplified stela with eyes (usually square) and at times a nose representing deities are characteristic of Nabatean religious artifacts. The majority of these may be dated to the 1st century BCE through the 2nd century CE. Nabatean pottery was decorated with floral motifs such as rosettes, pomegranates, and wreaths of olive and laurel leaves. Other motifs included horned altars, and geometric shapes like triangles, stars, and dots arranged in pyramid shapes. Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figures were rarely depicted (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003:24*). Anthropomorphic figurines seem to be related to religious beliefs and cults, representing offerings and images from the Nabatean, Egyptian, Greek and Roman pantheon. Zoomorphic figurines usually represented saddled and, at times mounted, horses and camels. Few figurines represented other animals such as ibex and birds. Crescent shaped motifs occurred repeatedly in both figurines and jewelry (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 2003:26*-27*).

1.2.10. Byzantine, Early Islamic and Abbasid Periods

The Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods are presented together as, throughout the period of intensive surveying in the Negev in the 1980s, and later, archaeologists were unable to distinguish between the two (Lender 1990:xxiii-xxv; Magness 2003:157, 162). With the Arab conquest in the second half of the seventh century CE, there was no abrupt change in the life of the Negev population. Sites were not demolished and the ceramic assemblage shows only

a slow and gradual change with the introduction of new vessel types (Avni 1996:8; 2009; Nahlieli 2007). The accepted date for the decline and subsequent abandonment of the Negev was until recently thought to be the mid 8th century as Cohen (1985:XIV) wrote, “the settlements gradually flickered out, and by the middle of the 8th century C.E. they had ceased to exist”. This date may reflect the abandonment of some sites, but does not reflect the Negev as a whole, as Arabic inscriptions dated to the 8th – 10th centuries CE clearly show (Magness 2003:137, 147; Rosen-Ayalon et al. 1982; Sharon 1990). In recent years archaeologists have taken up the challenge of trying to separate and redefine the Byzantine, Early Islamic (Umayyad), and Abbasid Periods, re-examining the date of decline and final abandonment of the Negev (for example Avni 1996; Haiman 1995a; 1995b; Magness 2003; Nahlieli 2007; Nevo 1991; Rosen-Ayalon et al. 1982; Sharon 1990:9*-12*; and Sharon et al. 1996). Chronology: Byzantine Period mid 4th – mid 7th century. Early Islamic (Umayyad) mid 7th – mid 8th century CE (Nevo 1991:6), Abbasid Period mid 8th – mid 10th century CE (Peleg et al. 2004). Site Description and Distribution: Sites of the Byzantine-Early Islamic period may be divided into three groups: sites with square/rectangular structures, sites with circular/elliptical structures, and campsites (for a further subdivision of sites see Rosen 1992). Square/rectangular roofed structures were built in the Central Negev Highlands. As one proceeds southwards (south of the Ramon Crater’s northern ledge), the number of rectangular structures decreases verses a rise in the number of circular/elliptical structures. Emitting the six Byzantine cities of the Negev, built-up sites (both square/rectangle and circular/elliptical structures) were constructed mainly on wadi banks, or other low wind protected areas. Square/rectangular buildings are constructed of dressed stone and include ornamented hewn architectural elements (Avni 1996: 19-25; Haiman 1995a). These structures usually consist of 1-3 adjoining rooms facing a courtyard surrounded by a low wall. The courtyards served for installations such as ovens, work areas, and storage bins. Circular/elliptical structures are usually defined by double walls constructed of field stones, only a few courses high and with no permanent roofing. Most circular/elliptical structures consist of a single room, though multi roomed structures with courtyards have also been documented. The floor level of many structures (square/rectangular and circular/elliptical

shaped) was semi-subterranean (Avni 1996: 19-25; Rosen 1992). Animal pens are found in or near most built-up settlements. Settlement size varies from isolated structures to large urban centers (Avni 1996: 19-32). The number of large camps increases south of the Ramon Crater (1:12.5 sq. km north of the Ramon Crater verses 1:4 sq. km in and south of the Crater) (Rosen 1987). Large campsites are usually located on the terraces of secondary wadi and include rows of stones (indicating where the tent was pitched), cooking installations, on occasion storage installations, cleared areas, and pottery sherds (Avni 1996:24-32; Rosen 1987). Adjoining the larger sites dump areas with a concentration of ash and potsherds were found. Terracing and dams are found in almost every wadi of the central Negev as far south as Har Saggi and Har Karkom (Avni 1996: 19-32). Near the cultivated wadi beds are threshing floors, watchtowers, cisterns, and silos (Avni 1996: 19-32; Rosen 1992). Cemeteries are many times situated on wadi terraces above the settlement. Graves are usually rectangular pits with an east-west orientation; few are in the form of isolated cairns set at the edge of the settlement. In addition to the dwelling structures and pens, a number of cultic installations are attributed to this period. These include churches in the cities, small shrines, stela (anywhere between a single stone to a row of up to 15), and roofed and open-air mosques (Avni 1992b; 1996:19-32). For the Umayyad settlement pattern in the Arava see Avner (1993b); Porath (1995); and Nol (2008). Economy: The Byzantine urban centers were agriculture based (Hirschfeld and Tepper 2006; Rubin 1986: 115-150; 1996; Shereshevski 1991). Ephemeral sites of the Byzantine, Early Islamic and Abbasid Periods were herd based. Other income came from joining different military units, working as temporary labor in the urban settlements, serving as guides for pilgrims crossing to Mount Sinai, supplying the military with camels (Avni 1996:84), raising horses (Nevo 1991:104) and raiding (Rosen 1987). In regard to whether agriculture was part of the pastoral nomad economy, the opinions are split. Nahlieli (2007) and Rosen (1987) do not see evidence of the pastoral nomads of the Negev practicing agriculture. Avni (1996:84), on the other hand, sees a close relation between early Islamic agricultural installations and large settlements in the southern Negev Highlands. Nevo (1991:99-103) suggests that cultivation of the wadi banks was for fodder. Social Organization: Haiman (1995a) has suggested connecting between ‘Saracens” mentioned in the sources to the nomad Byzantine population (Mayerson 1994:162).

Seasonality: Large camps represent lowland, late winter-early spring aggregation camps, while smaller campsites may reflect the upland summer pastoral occupations. Though a certain percentage of the population may have remained at one site year round (Rosen 1992). Art: In the urban centers art takes on many forms including Roman-Byzantine complex mosaic floors in churches, frescos in bath houses and private homes, bas relief and sculptured architectural elements in private homes and industrial areas, fully sculptured marble and bronze, and less refined pictographs and graffiti (Negev 1993: 485-490, 831-843, 1137-1145; Tzafrir 1984:389-449; 1993:1461-1464). In Early Islamic Negev sites artistic material seems limited to petroglyphs and graffiti (Rosen-Ayalon et al. 1982; Magness 2003:146-148; Sharon 1990, 1993). The petroglyphs securely dated to the Islamic Period include depictions of horses (Nevo 1991:104-106), camels, and human figures (Rosen-Ayalon et al. 1982: panel 3156).

1.2.11. The Middle Ages to Present

During the Crusader Period only the route connecting between the center of the country passing through the Negev to Eilat was maintained by the Crusade regime. With the Ayyubid regime and through 1883 with the conquest of Egypt by the British, this route became the Darb el Hagg, used by pilgrims going to Mecca (Peleg et al. 2004:215-218). After the abandonment of Abbasid Period urban sites and, subsequently the abandonment of the semi-nomadic society, the Negev seems to have been only sporadically exploited by shepherds (Babenko 2007; Rosen et al. 2005; 2009). Bedouin tribes began infiltrating through the barren Negev from Arabia (Ben- David 2000) through Sinai (Marx 1974:14) to the northern sections of the country starting with the 16th century CE. Bedouins infiltrated into the Negev with the 17th century CE (Bailey 1985). Throughout the Ottoman Period the government dealt with security problems resulting from Bedouin tribal raids on agricultural settlements and trade routes. The growing force of the Bedouin and the need for pastureland and food during drought years resulted in an enlarging the unsettled land. During the Ottoman Period the border between the desert and the sown was 80 km north of Beer-Sheva (Peleg et al. 2004:215-216), this situation was reversed during the British mandate (Al-Aref 1937:222). With the formation of the state of Israel Bedouins were confined to an area between Dimona, Beer-Sheva and Arad (Ben-David 1993:22; Goering 1979;

Porat 2009:36).

1.2.12. Bedouins of the Central Negev

Chronology: Infiltration for tribes into the Negev, 17th century CE to present (Bailey 1985) Site Description and Distribution: Traditionally Bedouins used goat hair “black tents” for winter months and a more improvised setup in the summer made with simple sheets or even with no cover they would sleeping under the stars. When the black tent was used year round, it was reduced in size and smaller for the duration of the winter months. Winter campsites show a preference for moderate slopes or natural terraces above wadi beds. Tents are usually oriented opening to the east (Havakook 1986:39-40, 82, 103; Oshry-Frenkel 2007:90, 132 ). Summer camps tend to be placed in high unprotected areas (Avni 1992c; Havakook 1986:82- 87). Besides the remains of campsites, there are also storage installations used for grain or tools. These installations consist of a stone and/or dried mud-brick wall built near a cliff or steep slope with a small square opening (Avni 1992c). With the Ottoman, British Mandate and peaking with the Israeli state, there have been efforts in settling the semi-nomadic Bedouins (Peleg et al. 2004:217-220, 230-231; Porat 2009:145). Over the past century the Bedouin community has started to change, some have settled in urban centers, others (the majority of the Negev Bedouins) build with non-perishable materials (Havakook 1986:33- 34), and form what are at present unrecognized sedentary Bedouin settlements. These settlements are usually situated along central transportation routes (Peleg et al. 2004:239). Economy: The traditional semi-nomadic Bedouin economy was agro-pastoral (Ashkenazie 2000:149-150; Oshry-Frenkel 2007:96). The main herd animals were sheep and goat. Other livestock included chickens, cows, horses, and camels (Ashkenazie 2000:161-170; Havakook 186:35-38; Moore 1971). Camel herds, numbering approximately a third in relation to sheep and goat herds at the beginning of the 19th century, are still found today, though in diminishing numbers (approximately 1 camel verses 25 sheep/goat in the 1960s) (Moore 1971). Agriculture is practiced in the winter months in cleared fields with ancient dam systems (Moore 1971). Today livestock serves only as a secondary source of livelihood (Abu-Rabia 1994:26, 43, 114; Marx 1974; Moore 1971). Social Organization: By 1948 there were approximately 65,000 Bedouins in the Negev

(including the Beer-Sheva valley) divided into 8 groups and 95 tribes. In 2005-2006 147 families of the Janabib and Azāzma tribes lived in the area between Halukim Junction and Mitzpe Ramon (Oshry-Frenkel 2007:86). The social (and political) organization of the Bedouins is tribal (see Ashkenazie 2000:57-80 and Bar-Zvi and Ben-David 1978). Seasonality: The Bedouins of the Negev tended to migrate a number of times throughout the year (Marx 1974:75). Winter campsites are usually inhabited throughout all of the winter months (Oshry-Frenkel 2007:88). These campsites show a preference for moderate slopes or natural terraces above wadi beds. During the coldest and wettest months the herds graze near the campsite. In late February and early March, the herds are taken to farther pastures and in May, the winter camps are dismantled with the move to summer campgrounds (Oshry- Frenkel 2007:88-89). Summer camps tend to be placed in high unprotected areas (Avni 1992c, Havakook 1986: 39-40, 82-87, 103), for different migration patterns see Bar-Zvi and Ben-David 1978. Art: Gaza Ware (pottery originating in the urban Gaza center) decorations are restricted mainly to thumbed rims, incised decorations (clustered dots) straight, wave or “ladder” combed lines, incised inscriptions, and floral motifs. Other decorations added with pigment are also restricted to floral motifs, mostly the “tree of life” (Israel 2006:71). Formal art usually takes form in weaving, embroidery and basketry. Exceptions of these media and of the prohibition of figurative motifs are found in small-scale sculptures made by one individual, Salem Hamid in Sinai (Avner 2007). His work may point towards other “undiscovered” artists as well as to the subjects and forms in the Bedouin realm.

1.3. Methods of Dating Petroglyphs

The question of the Central Negev petroglyphs chronology is a complex one and will be dealt with in the third section of the dissertation. The following chapter serves as a general introduction to different methods for dating rock art. Rock art may be set into a chronological framework in two ways, through relative and absolute dating. Relative dating examines the internal relationship between motifs on a single panel7 through superimposition, subject matter

7 The term ‘panel’ is defined under ‘Defentions’ chapter 2.1.2.

9what is depicted) , style, and degree of weathering (Betts 2001:791-792). With supporting data, localized relative dates may be projected onto a larger scale of rock art, such as a rock art tradition of a single site, or region. Absolute dates may be achieved through forming a tie with datable archaeological material, such as stratification, subject matter, and historical documentation. Other dates may result through a variety of scientifically (empirically) based methods. Rock art dating methods may also be divided according to the type of rock art studied. Different methods may be applied for painted elements with mineral, charcoal based pigments, bee’s wax or guano. Methods for dating petroglyphs presented below are: stratification, subject matter, style, historical documentation and epigraphy, micro-erosion patina (color and carbon dating) and luminescence based methods. Each method introduced will be evaluated in relation the Central Negev rock art to assess its potential contribution to the present study.

1.3.1 Stratification

There are two types of stratification; the first is stratification of the panel, the second is stratification of elements within a panel. Rock art panels may be stratified, presenting relative dates. If, as in Galicia, Spain, the rock art panels are covered by Iron Age fortifications and other urban structures, then a relative date is offered, in the Galician case a pre-Iron Age date (Bradley et al. 1995; for other examples see Betts 1998:144). Other types of stratification may be reached through excavating material related to the production of the panel, such as directly below the panel surface, offering through association an absolute date (Loendorf 1994).

Superimposition is a form of stratification. With respect to petroglyphs this stratification takes the form of one image overlapping, or cutting through another. The over written image was created prior to the latter one offering a relative date. Although, when several images overlap, it may be difficult to be certain of the sequence (Betts 2001:792). There is at present no way of telling the length of time that elapsed between the two stages of engraving. It is even suggested that in certain cases the superimposition was a deliberate act, with the original and then later additions carried out by one artist during the same occasion for ideological reasons (Lewis- Williams 1974).

The majority of Central Negev petroglyphs, and all of the petroglyphs documented in the present study, are surface finds, with no direct connection to other archaeological remains. In few cases petroglyphs have been found in structures (Haiman 2007), or on walls enclosing fields, but the relation between the two is unclear and cannot indicate a date of the petroglyphs. The superimposition of elements, on the other hand, is a tool used in the formation of a chronology for the Central Negev rock art.

1.3.2. Subject Matter

Subject matter of the petroglyph many times includes information which can help date the time of the engraving. Some of these images may be of either extinct (such as the hartebeest in the Negev) or domesticated animals (such as the camel) giving a limited but strictly relative timeframe. An absolute date may be reached through depictions of specific weapons, structures, or technology. These elements may then be compared to excavated finds and dated. In the present research subject matter presented both relative and absolute dates. The most commonly engraved motifs could not be dated based on subject matter.

1.3.3. Style

Style, or the study of attributes and their variation from one motif to the next may be chronological, though, it may also be related to different artist or different function of the art (Whitley 2005:47-48). Style “may pertain to tribes, broad regions that cross-cut tribal boundaries, particular crafts or media, specific ritual groups, longer or shorter time periods, initiatory cults”, and “the sexual division of labor” (Whitley 2005:49). Stylistic traits may be affected by artist’s age, gender and other social factors (Rosenfeld and Smith 1997:407). Taking these difficulties into account style may cautiously be used as a chronological indicator. Similarly to subject matter, different styles may be dated based on comparisons to excavated finds. For example, petroglyphs of the British Isles may be dated to the Neolithic based on similarities to decorated Grooved Ware (Bradley 1976). It is preferable that the material used for comparison be found in close geographic connection.

Combining stylistic changes with superimposition, more data and better based seriating may be reached. The combination of these two methods was employed in chapter 3.3.1. dealing with chronology.

1.3.4. Historical Documentation and Epigraphy

The most accurate dating obtainable is through inscriptions. Detailed inscriptions may explain what is depicted, who engraved it, on whose behalf and when. The inscription may indicate the year, month and day of engraving. Inscriptions with no mention of date or ruler are set into a chronologic frame through epigraphy, i.e. the character shape, as well as through mentioned names, use and absent use of certain expressions (Magness 2003:146; Sharon 1990:9). Based on the specific panel dated, an inscription may also date an accompanying petroglyph, or other petroglyphs through its stratification and engraving phase.

Historical documentation refers to texts that mention and/or describe rock art. Most if not all historic documents post-date the rock art they mention but still offer important information. First, historic documents offer a terminus ante quem date for the rock art they describe. This fact may seem mundane though realizing that there is a sixth century CE document which discusses the petroglyphs of Sinai or that China’s petroglyphs first appear in Chinese literature in the 3rd c. BCE (Zhao Fu 1995, n.d.) and are already viewed as ancient, serves as an eye opener. In some cases, in the time a document mentioning petroglyphs was written, the author had access or was informed of facts no longer available to the modern researcher. A good example is pre-Islamic poetry that uses metaphors and scenarios which may be projected on Roman Period rock art (Corbett 2010:117-148).

In reference to the Central Negev petroglyphs, as far as is known, these petroglyphs have not been mentioned in pre-modern documents. In relation to the elements documented (as will be detailed in sub-chapters 2.2.4. and 2.3.4.) inscriptions are few. Inscriptions were used as a tool for dating both specific elements and a rock art tradition (see chapter 3.1.).

1.3.5. Micro-Erosion

Micro-erosion is an umbrella term for examining waning rates of rock art. Examining the micro- erosion may be performed through optical observation on a macroscopic level. This method is applicable to sedimentary rocks with grains or crystals, and free from deposits such as pigment, lichen, and patina. The waning rate, the rate at which the edges of the rock broken during the process of making a petroglyph gradually become more rounded, differs based on the rock type, its mineral composition, and the climate. This method assumes that no chemicals have accelerated the waning process, and that the waning rate is linear. After examining the wane levels of different sedimentary rocks, the effect of environmental variability and comparing it to data from reliably dated petroglyphs, calibrated curves may be formed. These curves, according to Bednarick (1992), translate to absolute dates for the time of making the petroglyph. Examining different petroglyphs from the same panel or region, even without calibrated curves, according to Bednarick, may still assist in forming a relative chronology (Bednarick 1992).

In an experiment on the natural and broken edges of rocks, Pope (2000) found that fractures caused by the making of the petroglyph will with time cause the eroded surfaces to spall and form new sharp edges. In addition, wane rates as measured by geographers are measured through numerous readings from extensive areas of rock surface. It is questionable whether micro- erosion analysis may be performed on a single or small area as there is no control for variability.

Micro-erosion does not take into account the fact that micro-erosion may vary through time and be susceptible to environmental factors. Bednarick sees these factors as minor, claiming that “no common natural agent could appreciably affect the micro-wane formation of quartz” (Bednarick 1992). Likewise, research examining the effect of different tools, hammer stone materials and techniques on the rock section, and its breakage shape, have not been taken into account.

To date the worldwide wane curves have not been completed, impairing the credibility of dates reached through this method. At present this method is not applicable to the Central Negev petroglyphs.

1.3.6. Patina

1.3.6.1 Patina Shades and Relative Dating

Patina, the crust like substance which is broken to form petroglyphs, may technically offer relative or absolute dates. Patina changes in color, darkening with time. The formation of patina and the rate at which it develops may be broken down according to several parameters. Krumbein (n.d.) explains these as follows: “changes of climate and exposure, as well as any past human intervention. The formation of patina can come to a standstill under conditions wherein the mutual characteristics and influences compensate each other. However, this process of ageing or patina formation can be revived even if one parameter of the interacting systems is changed or changing.”

In this way daily and seasonal variation in temperature, precipitation, wind direction and atmospheric dust will affect the rate at which patina forms. In addition to environmental conditions, the physical character of the underlying rock has an effect on the patina formation. Smaller rocks (less than 10 cm) have been found to have a more developed patina than larger rocks. Patina usually starts to develop in depressions, therefore rocks with relatively rough surfaces encourage a more rapid development of patina. This is caused by the moisture maintained in the minute depressions of the rock (Schneider and Bierman 1997).

The rate at which patina develops is unknown. There is no doubt that in some cases the formation of patina is a slow process, this has been proven by the patina color of some dated inscriptions, but the opposite extreme must also be presented. In a study carried out in the Avdat area in the Negev Highlands, patina was intentionally removed from boulders by hammer and chisel. This process was repeated four times with intervals ranging between a year and four years (Fig. 4). Within 13 years the color of the newly formed patina was as dark as the older surrounding patina (Krunbein and Jens 1981).

Figure 4. Four years of patina removal and development. Image after Krumbein (n.d) Figure 5.

Relative dates may be achieved by comparing elements and their degree of patina formation. In the Negev the darker the patina, the longer it has taken for it to form (Krunbein and Jens 1981). There are exceptions to this basic rule, applying varying degrees of pressure or using different tools in which case same aged petroglyphs will penetrate the patina to different depths resulting with diverse patina shades (Macdonald 1981). Therefore by comparing the shades of patina while taking note of the technique used and the depth of the marks, relative dates may be reached or at least suggested tentatively.

In the present research patina color was noted as part of the details documented in the field (chapter 2.1). This data regarding patina color was used in two fashions. The first is in determining engraving phases. Engraving phases could be recognized based on the different patina shades of elements on a single panel. The second form in which patina color was examined is through motif type. Here the patina from all panels and all elements were examined. To take into account the fact that each panel may develop patina at a different rate, the documented 30 hews were grouped into 6 groups. The trends that emerged in the patina shade/motif type graph were found to be compatible at both Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot supporting the results. The graph produced in this fashion illustrates trends and does not serve as

46 a chronological indicator. It stills remains impossible (and methodologically ungrounded) to date an element strictly based on its patina shade.

1.3.6.2. Carbon Dating

Carbon dating of organic matter from beneath or from within the patina, technically, offers a minimum date for the making of the petroglyph. Rocks hosting rock art are open systems with younger and/or older organic material possibly penetrating the rock through micro fractures. As it is hard to determine what carbon is being dated and its source results of carbon dating are debatable (Dorn 1997; Pope 2000). Solving this problem and achieving accurate and reliable dates still does not make carbon dating ideal for the Negev petroglyphs. The Negev petroglyphs present similar shaped images over great spans of time. Dating one image will not help date similarly shaped images. Before implementing carbon dating, a rough stylistic, chronologic schema must be reached. The carbon date could then help anchor the schema.

1.3.7. Optically Stimulated Luminescence

Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) is one of several dosimetric based dating methods. OSL measures the amount of radiation absorbed in mineral grains (Lepper 2007). Through OSL it is possible to date the last sunlight exposure in a mineral’s history (Porat et al. 2006). For example, with the building of a structure (or in rock art, the forming of an earth figure), the natural terrain is altered. In the process of building, sand is covered causing the mineral to absorb or 'trap' naturally occurring electrons from their surroundings. This happens at a measurable and regular rate until the material becomes saturated with electrons after roughly 50,000 years. These electrons can be released and counted to give the date the mineral was last exposed to the sun, the date the rock was placed in its present position, i.e. the date of construction. In the case of petroglyphs, if the underlying rock contains a mineral such as quartz, then OSL will date the last time the underlying rock was exposed to the sun (and released all trapped electrons). This exposure of the underlying rock is the date of engraving, though, the mineral will only start absorbing electrons when it is once again protected from the sun’s rays, after the reformation of patina. As the time lapse between engraving and the formation of patina is unknown, OSL offers

47 a minimum date for the petroglyph (Phillips et al. 1997; Zilhao 1995). With similar reasoning to that presented with regard to carbon based dating, dating one image will not help date similarly shaped images. Before implementing OSL dating, a rough stylistic, chronologic schema must be reached. The OSL date could then help anchor the schema.

1.3.8. Summary

To form a well based chronology of rock art, several methods must be put to use. With reference to the Negev petroglyphs, the most reliable of these is superimposition. If elements overlap other elements of the same type such as ibex on ibex, and if a pattern is discerned by which the superimposed elements are of one style (or certain attribute combination) then the base for a stylistic chronology is formed. Other methods which may assist with the formation of a chronology are elements accompanied by inscriptions and engraving phase (comparing the relative patina shade from a single panel). With the documentation of more panels there is a higher chance of recognizing a pattern. Only after forming the chronological schema should carbon and OSL be used to anchor the schema.

1.4. Reading Rock Art

The Central Negev rock art was made over several millennia. Fundamental changes took place over this time both in the people that populated the Negev, their economic base, form of life and social organization. The rock art may seem traditional with a few symbols reoccurring in the different engraving phases, but it is more likely that the meaning of these symbols evolved. The meaning a single element holds may differ based on the audience and its relation to the mark maker. Even individuals of the same culture may not interpret an element in the same way. For these reasons several interpretations are examined as suitable for each motif. Taçon and Chippindale (1998) divide rock art interpretations into three: analogy, informed, and formal. Through implementing informed and formal methods a number of interpretations are offered for the Central Negev petroglyphs in chapter 2.4. Following is an introduction of the analogy, informed, and formal methods of interpretation.

1.4.1. Analogical Based Interpretations

Analogical understanding of rock art, according to Taçon and Chippendale (1998), is when an interpretation is offered not based on the actual art at hand but from a separate artistic tradition which shares certain similarities with the first. Whitley (2005:104-107), aware of the possible misuse of analogical reasoning, has set a number of guidelines by which this method can be used in rock art studies. The most weakly based type of analogy termed “formal analogy” is based on similarities in form. For example, if motif "A" from site "X" resembles motif "B" from site "Y", then based on formal analogy the meaning of A and B are similar. Whitley (2005:104) suggested that formal analogy is best used “in the generation of hypotheses to be tested using other lines of data”. The second type of analogical reasoning is “genetic analogy”. Here, in order to take information from site "Y" and project it on site "X", there must be more than mere visual similarities. The two rock art sites, X and Y, must be linguistically and culturally related. The relationship between the two sites may be over space (two sites of related cultures) or over time (descendents of the first site which maintained certain aspects of the ancient culture recognized in a second site). This type of analogy is sufficient for forming a hypothesis but not proving it. The third type of analogy is “functional analogy”. Functional analogy, termed by Taçon and Chippendale as formal method of interpretation, is based on “uniformitarian principles” such as Lewis-Williams’s neuropsychological model (to be discussed in chapter 2.4).

Art for art’s sake, totemism, and sympathetic magic were among the first interpretations offered for rock art. These all fall into the formal analogical based interpretations. “Art for art’s sake” is a theory by which rock art is thought to have served entirely for enjoyment and decoration, with no further meaning or intent. Totemism (discussed in detail in chapter 2.4) interprets the image of an animal (or plant) as a reflection of a special connection formed between the animal and a specific social group. This connection may be one of lineage or protection (Levi-Strauss 1963:1-36; Lewis-Williams 2002a:46; Ucko and Rosenfeld 1967:123-127, 176). Sympathetic magic interpretation suggests that rock art served in a desire to ensure fertility of a species. A similar concept is hunting magic, which suggests that by depicting different images and acting out hunts, hunters gained power over their prey and ensured a successful hunt (Laming 1959:156; Ucko and Rosenfeld 1967:123-137, 174-181).

Art for art’s sake projects a western, modern, perception of aesthetics onto prehistoric man (Conkey 1997). Totemism and sympathetic magic also attempt to bridge over culture, climate, and economic differences, suggesting that a 19th or 20th century hunter-gatherer society (such as aboriginal Australians used as a base for the analogy interpretation) presents the prehistoric man frozen in time (Lewis-Williams 2002a:46-48; Ucko and Rosenfeld 1967:150-158; Stone 2009). In the present research, totemism is discussed as a possible interpretation for central Negev petroglyphs though when combining this analogical based interpretation with formal methods it becomes clear that the data does not support a totemic interpretation.

1.4.2. Informed Methods of Interpretation

Informed methods of interpretation include ethnographical and ethno-historical sources, that is, “some source of insight passed on directly or indirectly from those who made and used the rock-art” (Taçon and Chippendale 1998:6). In this way the researchers aim at understanding how the artist and the artist’s society preserved the art. It is traditionally believed that the informed method is restricted to research of rock art cultures in South Africa (Lewis- Williams 1981, 1983; Ouzman 1998), North America (Whitley 1998), and Australia (Morphy 1991). Whitley (2005:86) stressed the importance of ethnographic readings, as they may offer “us a context within which the plausibility of any particular rock art interpretation can be assessed” providing “a series of competing hypotheses that can be evaluated for any empirical case”. He continues and reasons that “a prehistoric case should be reasonably close to the known range of variation in the ethnography”. In the present research, ethno-historical and historical documents related to the Bedouin assist in interpreting recent abstract motifs.

1.4.3. Formal Methods of Interpretation

Formal methods include a wide range of interpretations which do not rely on any “inside information” such as ethnographic based data. These formal methods fall roughly into: different uses of style, the use of geographical information systems, quantified methods, and interpretations based on the concept of neurophysiological similarities. In addition, there is

51 research on a variety of specific subjects such as gender studies (Hays-Gilpin 2004), contact period art (Jolly 1998), and technological aspects of the culture (Manhire et al. 1985).

1.4.3.1. Geographic Information Systems

Geographic information systems (GIS) is a tool of analysis through which queries combining spatial information merged or overlaid with databases. This can be performed manually or through a number of software programs developed for this purpose (Kvamme 1999). By implementing GIS into rock art studies, examining relations between rock art sites and land use (Bradley 1994), storage facilities, territorial boundaries, and visibility (Hartley and Wolley Vawser 1998), along with several other layers of information, is possible. Results may help the researcher better understand the art and its role in the society.

1.4.3.2. Quantified Methods

The use of quantified methods is first and foremost in the managing of large quantities of data. Simple descriptive statistics are a preliminary stage before reaching more complex analyses (Richards and Ryan 1985:7). For example, by performing a simple count of a motif type, together with an analysis of the type of coloring used, it became clear that “more time and care was lavished on paintings of eland than any other animal species” (Lewis-Williams 1981:19-20). A more in-depth understanding of the data may be reached through comparative statistics. For example, when rock art from several sites in Eastern Siberia were compared, the results pointed towards the existence of different cult animals in two different regions (Ernits 2001). Other methods of processing the data may be through adapting existing formulas. For example, Shannon information theory, which “gives an expression for how many bits of information can be transmitted without error per second over a channel with a bandwidth of W Hz” (Lundhiem 2002), was adapted in rock art studies to “calculate the initial measures of information for each rock art assemblage” (Hartley and Wolley Vawser 1998).

1.4.3.3. Neurophysiological Similarities

Neurophysiological similarities are based on the fact that all human brains work in the same manner. The functions of the brain, on which neurophysiological similarities interpretations are based, are constant and not culture related. It is for this reason that a phenomenon observed in one Homo Saipien should be true for all Homo Sapiens (Lewis-Williams and Dowson 1988). Whitley (2005:104-107) termed neurophysiological similarities as a form of functional analogy while Taçon and Chippendale’s (1998:7-8) terminology placed it as a formal method.

The first neurophysiological interpretation was structuralism, developed in the second half of the twentieth century. Structuralism stems from structural anthropology, developed by Levi-Strauss (which in turn developed from structural linguistics). Levi-Strauss claimed that language always follows a certain binary pattern of parallel constructions. In search of similar binary relations in kinship structures and relations that unite mythologies, he proposed that culture emerges from universal unconscious mental structures (Kurzweil 1980:15-22, Levi-Strauss 1963:329-330; 1968). In rock art binary patterns translate to recognizing the pattern formed by sets of motifs (for an example of binary parallels in rock art see Whitley 1998 and 2000).

With the application of structuralism, elements were examined in relation to the whole as compositions, rather than as isolated motifs (Laming 1959:57-96, Leroi-Gourhan 1972, Ucko and Rosenfeld 1967:139-141). The search for binary oppositions, universal mental structures, and viewing each motif in relation to other motifs has found its way from structuralism to most rock art approaches practiced today.

A second form of neurophysiological interpretation is altered states of consciousness (ASC). ASC laboratory research was carried out independently by a number of researchers over the past century. These researchers concluded that visual hallucinations, in the form of geometric patterns, occur to all humans in an ASC state, unrelated to their cultural background (Lewis- Williams and Dowson 1988). Geometric visual perceptions may be induced in several ways, both natural (fatigue, fasting, hyperventilation, rhythmic movement, flickering light, pressure on the eyes, etc.) and through drugs (Lewis-Williams 2002b:176). The altered state of mind, the

52 level of trance entered, can be divided into three stages. A person who is experiencing an altered state of consciousness may or may not experience all three stages. In the first and lightest stage, people experience geometric visual percepts. In the second stage, the visual imagery is developed into objects and forms. In the third stage, the visual hallucinations are often accompanied by physical and emotional feelings such as the feeling of being pulled through a tunnel, drowning, etc. The geometric patterns seen in the first stage are universal and empirical, resulting in hallucinations within a defined visual vocabulary. The images experienced in the second and third stage are culture related (Lewis-Williams 2002a:126-129).

Of the formal methods outlined above, all served as a base to examine and understand the central Negev petroglyphs. The use of GIS software does not stand at the base of this research but different geographic related aspects were taken into consideration. For example, visibility between outcrops of Har Michia was examined manually. The direction and orientation were noted for each panel and element. The data were processed through basic descriptive statistics but with all data now available, further studies using GIS software are possible. Formulas such as the Shannon Formula were not implemented though principals concluded from other rock art sites which did use such formulas were examined in relation to the petroglyphs documented in the present research.

1.4.4. Summary

After evaluating the different interpretations deriving from analogy, formal and informed methods, it is evident, as presented in detail in chapter 2.4, that several interpretations may be valid for central Negev petroglyphs. Many elements were found to fit with the pattern of doodling and tribal and boundary marks. Some elements employed iconography, suggesting religious aspects, while others motifs seemed to present mythical/historical accounts. Each motif and element holds a meaning though it is impossible to say that all central Negev petroglyphs fall under the same category of use and importance.

1.5. A Brief History of Rock Art Research in the Negev

The first source to mention rock art in the Negev-Sinai region was Cosmas Indicopleustes’s 6th century CE book Christian Topography. Traveling through the Sinai Peninsula, Cosmas saw petroglyphs, as he described in book 5 of his Christian Topography: “And when they had received the law from God in writing, and had learned letters for the first time, God made use of the desert as a quiet school, and permitted them for forty years to carve out letters on stone. Therefore, in that wilderness of Mount Sinai, one can see, at all their halting-places, all the stones, that have there been broken off from the mountains, inscribed with Hebrew letters, as I myself can testify, having travelled in these places. Certain Jews, too, who had read these inscriptions informed me of their purport, which was as follows: The departure of so and so of such and such a tribe, in such and such a year, in such and such a month, just as with ourselves there are travelers who scribble their names in the inns where they have lodged. And the Israelites, who had but newly acquired the art of writing, continually practiced it, and filled a great multitude of stones with writing, so that, all those places are full of Hebrew inscriptions, which, as I think, have been preserved to this day for the sake of unbelievers”. (Cosmas Indicopleustes, Christian Topography, Book 5 pages 159-160).

This account is of great value as we may deduce from it that some inscriptions predate the 6th century CE. and that the inscriptions are accounts of tribally affiliated people.

Over a millennia passed before the Negev-Sinai inscriptions were once again discussed. In the 17th century, pilgrimage and travel through the region was renewed, setting the ground for future research. First pilgrims and later research expeditions located, copied, and attempted to decipher inscriptions (see Negev 1981 for a detailed account of the progress over the 17th-19th centuries). By the beginning of the 20th century, close to 3000 inscriptions were published. Petroglyphs were not included in these works. The interest in the epigraphic rather than in the pictorial image was a common occurrence in the writings of early antiquarians and work of archaeologists alike

54 throughout the Middle East (Bednarick and Khan 2002; Jung 1991; Khan 1996a; 1996b, Woolley and Lawrence 1915:64-65).

The first to write on Negev petroglyphs was Nelson Glueck. Glueck (1957) conducted explorations in the Negev throughout the 1950s. He pointed out that engravings in the Negev usually followed travel routes, way stations, burial sites, crossroads and strategic guarding points.

Emanuel Anati was the first to conduct a rock art survey in the Negev. Anati conducted two major surveys, the first in 1954 and the second in 1979. In the course of these two surveys over 15,000 petroglyphs on 600 rocks in 100 clusters were documented from Nahal Edom and Timna Valley, Nahal Havara, and Nahal Avdat, (Anati 1979) (this material has not been fully published and its status remains unclear). Based on these surveys, Anati proposed a schema for the development of human forms that divided rock art into phases, formed a distribution map and noted regional differences (1965). The rock art phases were based on a combination of overlapping images, patina color, style and subject (Anati 1956). The distribution of petroglyphs in the Negev was published in 1965 (p.126), though this map lacked precision and did not convey quantities. Anati found that the Wadi Havara petroglyphs presented a mixture of styles. Alongside the common Negev style, Egyptian styled petroglyphs and central Arabian style petroglyphs were found. Central Arabian were not found in the other regions he surveyed (וואזות) petroglyphs known as Wazit style (Anati 1979:18-19).

From 1980 through the present, Anati has been directing the documentation of an estimated 40,000 petroglyphs at Har Karkom (Anati:1999). A full data base has not been published. Based on the data collected in these surveys and the Har Karkom project, Anati refined his original stylistic and chronological schema for the Negev petroglyphs (Anati 2001:154, fig. 172) (to be discussed in detail in chapter 3.1.).

Following the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty, training grounds and a number of Israel Defense Forces bases were moved from the Sinai to the Negev. In preparation for this move, several surveys were conducted in the early 1980’s (Avni 1992; Cohen 1981; Haiman 1986,

1991, 1993b; Lender 1990; Rosen 1994). Petroglyphs were noted in the published Archaeological Survey of Israel – Negev Emergency Survey monographs. These volumes covered approximately ten percent of the area of the Negev. The references to petroglyph sites in the Archaeological Survey of Israel series often lacked essential information, such as the dimensions of the panels and of the engraved markings, a list of motifs, and graphic documentation. For example, in Haiman's survey map of Har Hamran – Southwest site 203 was described as “stone engraving on western bank of a tributary of Nahal Sirpad” (1986:83*). Exact distributions, quantities, and dates of the Negev petroglyphs are still unknown.

Based on the survey monographs, rock art in the Negev consists of petroglyphs and pictographs. Pictographs are rare and, to -date, are found strictly in a single rock shelter in the Ramon Crater (Steve Rosen personal communication) and at Timna (Rothenberg 1972:119- 124). No research has been conducted on the Ramon Crater pictographs. Petroglyphs were studied by Anati (see above), Nevo and Eisenberg-Degen.

Yehuda Nevo (1991:104-119) concentrated on stallion representations in the Sde Boqer area. He dated the stallion motifs to the Early Islamic Period and attributed them to the importance breeding held for the local population. Few of these stallion petroglyphs have been published.

Davida Eisenberg-Degen (2006) concentrated on camel petroglyphs within the Ramat Matred region. She recorded 81 camel petroglyphs, interpreted them, and proposed dates for specific attributes.

Other than the sites mentioned above, rock art in the Negev has not been systematically researched.

2. The Central Negev Rock Art Data

2.1. Methods of Survey and Data Collection

2.1.1. Introduction

The following chapter describes the methods which guided the fieldwork, data organization and the ways in which patterns and significance were tested. There are a variety of methods for rock art documentation, of which each emphasizes a different aspect of the rock art recorded. Whitley writes in the preface of his book Introduction to Rock Art Research (2005:xii) that his intents are

“… to provide a guide for the minimum level of field recording…..the message here is simple: professional fieldwork cannot be divorced from all of the other commitments and tasks related to research. (Anyone who still thinks that rock art research is just fieldwork, in my opinion, is not conducting research)”.

Recording may not be the pure essence of archaeological research, but the recording method employed can have a great affect on the research direction and results. Choosing a method for recording rock art is, in effect, a decision which combines aspects of conservation, determining the work pace and subsequently the sample size, the dependence on the original panel, and the type of research questions which can be asked and answered. There are two basic forms of rock art documentation, the first traces panel limits, natural features and all rock art with the use of plastic sheets. In this form, a replica of the panel is formed. The second form of traditional rock art recording is that of the “hands off” method in which contact with the panel surface is kept to a minimum. This method protects the panel from contamination and all numerical data must be collected in the field, as will be further discussed below.

Chippindale (2004) pointed towards the need for a uniform use of terms such as motif, panel, and site. Only with absolute transparency of methods employed and terms used can rock art documented in different surveys be compatible for comparison.

2.1.2. Definitions

Abstract Motif: Any mark that does not resemble an anthropomorph or zoomorphic form or other recognizable form such as a foot print, inscription or structure. Anthropomorphic Motif: A petroglyph that resembles a human form. Drainage Basin: The area defined between two water-shed lines. The drainage basins of Har Michia were determined based on a combined satellite image and topographical map purchased from the Survey of Israel department (Fig. 11). Element: A single image. This can be simple, as an isolated mark or more complex design composed of many marks relating to each other and forming a definite shape. Based on the distance between marks, they were either documented separately or grouped together. When no clear, recognizable motif could be discerned, elements were separated rather than grouped. When a number of marks (not forming a defined shape) were documented as a single element, the element was then described either as a cluster of marks or marks spread over an area transmitting the true character of the element. In the present research, horseback riders were documented as a single element as there is no clear break or separation between the horse and rider. Fully engraved: When the body is made-up of more than the minimum line required, resulting in an image resembling a silhouette (Fig. 5b).

a b c Figure 5. . Example of engraving styles a. linear ibex, element 33-48-4 (measuring 7.5x8 cm). b. fully engraved ibex, element 1-8-1 (measuring 6x7 cm). c. outlined ibex, element 19-11-6 (measuring 12.5x14 cm).

Graffiti: Any intentional man-made mark by reduction or addition on a built surface which is not part of a premeditated ornamental or decorative plan. Inscription: A letter or combination of characters from any language. In some cases, elements were defined as inscriptions without identifying the language of the characters based on the relationship between the characters (Fig. 6 as for an example).

Figure 6. Three unidentified characters forming an inscription (element 1-4-1, measuring 13x6 cm).

Linear: When each body part is indicated by a single line (Fig. 5a). Motif: The minimum number of different elements. For example, if a panel has 10 elements that include seven rings, one line, one anthropomorph and one camel petroglyph, then the number of motifs depicted is 4. North Arabian Script: Is a general term not referring to a particular script or dialect but rather to a collection of languages originating in pre-Islamic Northern Arabia. Amongst these North Arabian languages are Thamudic (Thamudic B, C, D and E), Nabatean, Safaitic (now termed Hismaic), Dedanitic (also termed Dedanite and Lihyanite), and Hasaitic. These languages may have been in use from as early as the 8th century BCE to at least the mid-3rd century CE. Texts in the various North Arabian scripts have been found from southern Syria and Iraq through Yemen and upper Egypt (Macdonald and King 2000:436-438) Outcrop: The use of the word outcrop refers to hard limestone rocks which have developed

patina. Patina covered rocks may be isolated, dispersed in the landscape or found in dense concentrations. These concentrations, usually slightly elevated from the surrounding area, are termed outcrops in the present research. The limits of the outcrops of patina covered rocks are defined by the natural formation of the rock. Thus, the measurements of outcrops included all patina covered stones rather than being restricted to engraved rocks. At Har Michia, only one clear patina free area was recorded. This area (no. 18), which differed from the surrounding area, presented a large, flat and exposed hard limestone bed rock. This exposed area was measured regardless of the more limited area engraved. Outlined figures: When a section of the body is outlined (Fig. 5c). Panel: Panel refers to any natural continuous surface which contains rock art. Different rock faces of a single rock were documented as separate panels. Even when elements connected between panels by forming a continuous scene or being engraved on more than one surface, panel division remained. When an engraved rock surface is cracked, the size of the crack determined whether the surface was documented as a number of panels or a single panel. Rocks with cracks deep enough or wide enough to trap dust were documented as separate panels. This segmentation of the rock surface into panels may be misleading as it is possible that the cracks formed after the time of engraving. When the engraved surface included areas with developed patina and areas with no patina, the surfaces were documented as separate panels. Patina: A definition for patina and its formation are presented in detail in chapter 1.3. Patina Free: The term patina free refers to panels which have not developed a black patina crust. These hard limestone panels have a cream colored rather than a dark surface. Engraving within this surface results with a lighter color than the undamaged rock face. Similar to the marks made by breaking patina, petroglyphs made on patina free surfaces also darken over time until reaching the shade of the surrounding rock. As such, the petroglyph does show signs of weathering, though it does not develop the standard desert varnish. Petroglyph: Any intentional man-made mark on a natural surface by a reduction technique such as pecking, scratching, incision, or hammering. Pictograph: Any intentional man-made mark on a natural surface made by any technique of addition such as paint or chalk. Research Area: Giva’t HaKetovot is a distinct hill with some hundred meters between it and the

next closest petroglyphs. , In this study, it is termed as a rock art site. The research at Har Michia was confined by property and ownership restrictions. Har Michia is only a section of a much larger rock art site and therefore is a research area. In the present research, Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot are considered as two rock art research areas. Style (in the documentation forms): refers to the way in which zoomorphs and anthropomorphs are formed: linear, outline, or fully engraved. Wadi: Dry riverbed of an ephemeral stream which flows only on flood occasions. Zoomorphic Motif: A petroglyph that resembles an animal form. Zoomorphic elements include incomplete and schematic animal-like images.

2.1.3 Pre-Survey Preparations

The wide distribution of rock art in the Negev is reflected by short entries in survey maps conducted in the Negev (Avni 1992a; Cohen 1981, 1985; Haiman 1986, 1991, 1993b; Lender 1990, Rosen 1994). Numerous additional rock art sites are marked on trail and hiking maps of the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel and Survey of Israel maps, or, they may be known strictly to enthusiasts and local residents of communities bordering rock art sites. Criteria which helped single out the sites to be studied included easy accessibility (not requiring a four wheel drive vehicle and not with restricted IDF access). Sites with a rich repertoire of motifs were preferred. Based on this framework, it was decided to concentrate on two central sites from two geographically distinct areas. The first research area is Har Michia in the Central Highlands. The second research area is Giva’t HaKetovot, 28 km west of Har Michia (1.5 km from the Egypt/Israel boarder) in the northwestern plains and foothills region, bordering the central Highlands to the east (Evenari et al. 1971:43). These research areas were recorded intensively forming a large data base. To this data, basic information from five other locales was added. These locals are Har Arkov, Ramat Matred (Har Nafha), Nahal Nizzana, Giva’t Regalim, and Har Karkom (60 km south of Har Michia) (Figs. 7 and 8).

2 3

Figure 7. Topographical map of Israel with sites mentioned in the text. 1. Har Michia and Har Arkov. 2. Giva’t HaKetovot, Nahal Nizzana, and Giva’t Regalim. 3. Ramat Matred 4. Har Karkom.

2 Egypt

3 1 km N

Figure 8. Satellite image of the Ezuz area (no. 2 in Fig 7) with the different rock art sites referred to in the text. 1. Giva’t Regalim. 2. Giva’t HaKetovot. 3. Nahal Nizzana.

Figure 9. Aerial photograph of Har Michia (no. 1. In Fig 7) taken in 1962. Square depicts the surveyed area, roughly measuring 360,000 sq meters. When the photograph was taken, the Bedouin settlement did not exist.

100 m

Figure 10. Har Michia outcrops as numbered during the field survey.

Figure 11. Satellite image and combined elevation map of Har Michia with indication of drainage basins.

Cairn Field and Sub- Modern Graves

Sub-Modern Graves

N Cairns

Figure 12. Aerial photograph of Har Michia with location of cairns and sub-modern graves.

Figure 13. Aerial photograph of Giva’t HaKetovot with location of sub-site divisions.

Figure 14. Aerial photograph of structure Figure 15. Aerial photograph of structure adjacent to outcrop no. 33 adjacent to outcrop no. 34

2.1.4. Conducting the Survey

Har Michia was surveyed exhaustively. An area of roughly 360,000 sq m. was surveyed by foot. A total of 965 panels with the initial documentation of 5104 elements were recorded. The panels were found on the slopes, foot hills and within the wadis. No panels were located on the plateau of Har Michia.

Giva’t HaKetovot was sampled rather than exhaustively documented. The sampling concluded 406 panels all geographically defined by Giva’t HaKetovot (6,000 sq m.). The panels were found on the plateau and slopes of the hill.

Both Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot surveys were conducted by foot; all archaeological finds were noted, but only rock art was recorded in detail. The rock art was documented through a series of four forms, photographs, and un-scaled sketches. The first stage of documentation was drawing a rough sketch of the documented panel. Each sketch was numbered in accordance to the outcrop and panel. Elements were numbered on the sketch, offering quick reference for the recorder. After completing the sketch, the recorder worked through the four forms of data required. The first three forms consisted of measurements of the outcrop, panel, and element. The fourth form consisted of descriptive information according to the element type, described in detail below.

Outcrops were documented through an “outcrop - site card” form (the first of four forms). In this form, the size (width/length/height), number of panels, and geographic location (plain/tributary/terrace/foot slope/mid slope/crest/plateau) of each outcrop were noted (Table 4).

The second form “panel - site card” assigned each panel a number in the form of outcrop-panel, for example Outcrop 33 Panel 6, i.e. 33-6 (Table 5). Data recorded in this form included maximum dimensions of the panel taken with a flexible measuring tape. The flexible measuring tape can remain flat, even on uneven and rough surfaced rocks. Other details recorded were the orientation of the engraved panel (with the compass divided into sections of 45°), the angle of the panel (vertical = 90, horizontal =180), the number of elements, number of patina shades as separated by the naked eye, and a note of other panels on the same rock. It is important to note

69 that the documented location of the panel is as it stands at present. It is apparent that a slow process of detachment is taking place with sections of the rock separating. As these boulders detach from the rest of the outcrop, their orientation and angle change.

The third form, “element - site card” assigned each element an identification number which combined the number of outcrop, panel and element. For example, Outcrop 33, Panel 6 and Element number 1 was written as 33-6-1 (Table 6). Information recorded in this form included maximum dimensions of the element. If the element consisted of a cluster of marks, then the dimensions of the cluster were noted as well as the size of each single marking.

The elements were given a classification: abstract, zoomorphic, anthropomorph, hand/foot print, inscription or isolated tool/weapon (i.e. not held by an anthropomorph) motifs. If the element was recognized as a zoomorphic, then the type of animals was noted. If any clear relation between elements was apparent, the identification numbers of the related elements were listed. Using the 7.5YR Munsell Soil Color Chart, the shade closest to the patina of the engraved element was noted. The accuracy level of the Munsell chart for this purpose proved to be poor with panels having a range of hues from redder to more yellow than those of the Munsell chart. In some cases a single element had a number of patina shades emphasizing the difficulty in implementing this method. Nonetheless, as patina may offer a relative date for the elements on a single panel (if the depth of engraving is uniform), the patina shade was recorded. Petroglyphs on patina free stones were always documented as having an 8/1 patina color. For easy reference, the identification of patina shades on patina covered panels as 8/1 was in most cases avoided. The elements on the patina free stones presented different levels of weathering, though these were too subtle and could not be expressed through the Munsell color chart. In addition, style (linear/outline/fully engraved) of the non-abstract elements was noted as were any superimpositions, the technique of engraving and the formation of scenes. The recognition of technique proved difficult, as the level of expertise needed to differentiate between techniques proved to be high. As such, the data related to petroglyphs in the present research should be addressed with this in mind.

In the present research all elements were recorded from single markings spread over the panel surface through inscriptions in modern Arabic and Hebrew to oil painted pictographs. The decision to document even the most recent rock art was based on the notion that rock art is a reflection of the society. Understanding the most recent rock art, its place and importance in our own society is of equal importance as the study of ancient rock art. The study of recent rock art may enlighten and help us bridge the gap of centuries that separate us from the earliest mark makers. At times, it is difficult to know what information is of importance. Winkler (1938:10), in his survey of Southern Upper Egypt, found recent Arabic inscriptions to be of no interest and therefore did not record them. It is possible that data collected in the present research, the meaning of which and importance escapes us now, could be interpreted differently in the future. Full documentation in the present will serve future heritage and site management.

The fourth form filled out in the field was according to the classification of the element (Table 7). If the element was classified as abstract, then the form was purely descriptive. For example, element B2 was described as two parallel lines. The descriptive form of anthropomorphs included entries on the position of the arms, existence of hands, fingers, eyes, shape of head, hair, indication of sex, weapons, dress, the direction and orientation of the figure, relation to other elements and the size of the figure in relation to zoomorphs which are in a clear relation to the anthropomorph. Later it became apparent that a number of details should be added such as the existence of legs and feet and the direction in which the feet are pointing. Each attribute listed had coded possible answers. For example the figure’s arms; the figure may not have arms or the arms may be presented – upward, out from the body, straight down, forming a ring over the head, one arm up and the other out, one arm down and the other out and down but bent at the elbows. Each possible placement was numbered from 0-7 respectably. In a similar fashion, weapons, dress and proportion to the riden animals were coded. This system was adopted from Lewis-Williams’s (1981:17) who used a punch card documentation system in South Africa. In addition to the coded and descriptive data, the recorder sketched the recorded element once more.

Elements classified as zoomorphic were described according to specified attributes. The animal species dictated which attributes were to be recorded. The most detailed zoomorphic form was of

71 the camel, which was based on previous research conducted on camel petroglyphs (Eisenberg- Degen 2006). Other zoomorphic motifs examined fewer details. The direction, orientation, existence of details such as eyes, tail, and number of legs were noted in all animals (Table 7).

The choice of which attributes are to be examined in the field is a natural process, as Lewis- Williams and Loubser explained: “Only certain features of the art can be chosen from the almost infinite range of possibilities. There is no such thing as raw data; an item or measurement becomes a datum only because of the status granted to it by a theory. Some discrimination must be made between relevant facts worth noting and irrelevant data not worth recording; for a fact to be relevant to something – a theory, hypothesis, or research framework ”. (Lewis-Williams and Loubser 1986:255)

With the completion of the first stage of documentation, each panel was photographed a number of times from different angles, with and without a scale, and at times shaded as well as in full sunlight. Close range photographs were taken of some elements. At times close-ups of engraved lines and hammered areas were taken. Contact with the engravings was kept to a minimum. Cleaning was done only occasionally with a soft bristle broom.

Recording was extremely subjective, starting with the definition of a panel and noting the elements and their classification. This was best expressed through the following occurrence: At one point of the survey an outcrop was documented twice. The first time it was documented solely by myself. Six months later it was documented mistakenly a second time, by myself and Janet Levy, an archaeologist volunteer. During each recording one panel was overlooked, but each each time it was a different panel. Each of these two panels included a single motif, a number of hammered markings (Figs. 16 and 17). In addition, one motif was recorded once as an equid and once as an abstract (Fig. 18). Other than these two points, the collected data, the size of the panels, the size of the elements, the number of elements on each panel and the classification of the elements from the two sessions were accorded similarly. This occurrence points to both the weak and strong points of the survey conducted.

Figure 16. Panel 14-3 with a number of stray Figure 17. Panel 14-1, with a cluster of marks (indicated by a circle) not recorded the marks (indicated by a circle) not reordered first time. Panel size 57x29 cm. the second time. Panel size 40x32 cm. .

Figure 18. Panel 14-9, interpreted once as an equid and once as an abstract. Panel size 40x32 cm.

The documentation method described above, which followed the English Rock Art Code (Sharpe, Barnett, and Rushton 2008), was developed after considering documentation methods employed elsewhere (Fossati and Arcà 1997) while taking into account time and budget limitations. Rubbing was found to be unsuitable to the rough surfaces of the engraved panels. Tracing and scaled copies were both time consuming. Tracing a standard paper (80 x 60 cm) can take several hours to complete (Fossati and Arcà 1997). In addition, tracing with plastic sheets spread across the panel and pushed into the engraved markings with a permanent pen, may contaminate the petroglyph for future carbon based dating. Countering this disadvantage, tracing results in the formation of a type of substitute panel for the cataloguing stage.

Fossati and Arcà (1997) described tracing as follows: “A tracing is like an enhanced picture, where the filter is given by the eye and by the mind of the tracer, under a correct archaeological control.” ‘Transporting’ the panel to an office setting without the human filter may be achieved by 3D scanning. 3D scanning accounts for the depth of engraving and minimizes the need for cleaning (and possibly damaging) the panel surface (Sharpe, Barnett, and Rushton 2008). At times, the mark is wider on the panel surface narrowing at a deeper level. Tracing the surface level (as was performed in the present research by tracing two dimensional images) does not necessarily represent the mark makers intended image. Hammered and superimposed images may be best understood by using 3D scanning. 3D scanned imaging registers the depth of the engraving, and so one may compute and form an image based on the deepest level (Cai 2010). At present, 3D scanning is beyond the scope of the current research budget.

Beyond the actual documentation, the method of cataloging (the four form method) is almost identical in the data collected to that of the Cooperativa Archeologica Le Orme dell'Uomo (personal observation). The essential difference between the two was that the present survey team catalogued in the field and traced 2D reduced images in the office while at Valcamonica the Cooperativa Archeologica Le Orme dell'Uomo the survey team traced in the field and catalogued in the office based on the trace images (personal observation).

Outcrop - Site Card X Y Length of Width of Height of Geographic Number of Outcrop Notes Coordinate Coordinate Outcrop Outcrop Outcrop Location Panels 1 175171.33 525901.77 1100 850 250 4 21 one large outcrop of black stones, few spaces, almost all rocks are connected. Table 4. Example of entry in Outcrop – Site Card as documented at Har Michia. Geographic Coding: Plain=1, Terrace=2, Foot-slope=3, Mid-Slope=4, Crest=5, Plateau=5, tributary=6 All measurements are taken in cm.

Panel - Site Card No. of Length of Width of Angle of No. of No. of Patina No. of Outcrop Face of rock Notes Panel Panel Panel Panel elements shades 5 7 47 18 180 2 2 on same rock as 5-8, 5-9, 5-10 Table 5. Example of entry in Panel – Site Card as documented at Har Michia. Face of Rock Coding: N=0, NE=45, E=90, SE=135, S=180, SW=225, W=270, NW=315 All measurements are taken in cm.

Motif- Site Card Patina Type Is Super- No of No of No of Length Width Color In relation Super- Part of Motif No. of Animal Style imposed Technique Notes Outcrop Panel Elem. of Elem. of Elem. of to imposes scene Elem. by Elem. 16-41-57 16 41 57 23 12 1 7/6 camel 1 16-41-64 No Table 6. Example of entry in Motif – Site Card as documented in the field. Type of Motif Coding: Zoomorph = 1, Anthropomorph = 2, Feet = 2.1, Hands = 2.2, Phallus = 2.3, Abstract = 3, Tool/Weapon = 4, Inscription = 5, Building = 6. Style Coding: Linear = 1, Outline = 2, Full Engrave = 3, 3D = 4 Technique Coding: Engraving = 1, Scratching = 2, Hammering = 3, Paint = 4, Rubbing = 5

Equid In Motif Technique Indication of Ears Tied Ridden Association Saddle Hooves Direction Orientation Sex Eye Notes Number of Fill Movement with Man 19-16-1 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 2 0 0 No legs set at an Lines not well formed, linear, legs set angle indicating at an angle to the body indicating gallop gallop. Tail straight, continues body line, horse is ridden, rope from muzzle is held by man. Table7. Example of entry in descriptive form of Equid. Direction Coding : Left = 1, Right = 2. Orientation Coding: N = 0, NE = 45, E = 90, SE = 135, S = 180, SW = 225, W = 270, NW = 315.

linear / bird ibex total total other linear equid camel marks human panel no. panel Inscription Stone color Stone

Curve Total 1 B 2 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 B 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 B 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 B 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 4 Nahal Nizzana 1 5 B 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 6 B 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 7 B 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 B 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 B 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Table 8. Example of form used for sampling rock art in the Ezuz region.

2.1.4.1. Har Michia Survey

Har Michia is included in the uncompleted Archaeological Survey of Israel Map number 171, conducted by Yesha’yahu Lender (Yesha’yahu Lender personal communication). The area surveyed in the present research extended to route 40 in the east and the Carmey Avdat farm access road to the north. The peak of the mount (approx 1000 meters to the west of route 40) served as the western limit. This peak also offered a view of the facing hill slope, an area with no patina covered outcrops. The southern boundaries were determined by the last patina covered outcrop which coalesces with the outskirts of the nearby Bedouin settlement (Fig. 9)

The goal of the Har Michia survey was to form a complete data base of the rock art found within a defined area. This was achieved through approximately 70 field days over a period of 18 months, between February 2007 and July 2008. The area defined above was surveyed by foot, generally following single elevation lines from north-west to south-east, deliberately taking a slightly different route each time. The survey team covered the 0.36 sq. kilometers numerous times. The survey resulted in 965 panels with the initial documentation of 5104 elements8.

Three outcrops were mapped at a scale of 1:50. All outcrops were marked on both an aerial photograph (from 1962, Fig. 10) and a combined satellite photograph and elevation map (scale of 1:5,000, Fig. 11) of the area, purchased from the Survey of Israel offices.

Beyond the documentation work, which directly fed the growing data base, the repeated visits to Har Michia contributed to our understanding the dynamics of the research area and region. The survey team witnessed the seasonal growth of flora and migration of fauna. After rainy days the patina covered rocks absorbed moisture, grew darker in color and small pools of water formed in rock nooks. The patina retained heat, welcome on winter days but not so on summer afternoons. The rock art is also part of a dynamic system. Some panels were partially covered by alluvium sediment, others had recently collapsed. There were panels which pointed towards some type of vandalism, as panels were intentionally removed or broken. In addition, shepherds from the

8 This number reflects the number of elements recorded in the field. After re-examining the data, several marks were re-grouped, reducing the number of elements to 5077.

77 nearby Bedouin settlement have maintained the tradition of rock art production.

2.1.4.2. Har Arkov and Ramat Matred

Har Arkov is set geographically in Lender’s uncompleted 171 survey map. Ramat Matred is published in Lender’s 1990 Har Nafha survey map. Unlike Har Michia which was surveyed and documented exhaustedly, Har Arkov and Ramat Matred were visited and panels were photographed. Har Arkov has relatively few panels, each with only a number of engraved elements. The majority of Har Arkov panels have been photographed. Ramat Matred is a large area with numerous panels, some densely engraved. As this area was researched in the past (Eisenberg-Degen 2006), it was possible to make use of existing basic data and photographs of panels and elements.

2.1.4.3. Giva’t HaKetovot Survey

Giva’t HaKetovot (the mound of inscriptions) falls into the incomplete survey map no. 156, conducted by Erickson-Gini (Saidel et al. 2006). “Giva’t HaKetovot” is a small hill measuring 100X60 meters, with an undetermined number of panels, numbering perhaps as many as two thousand. After documenting 206 panels from an area measuring approximately 1000 sq. meters, it was decided to change methods. Taking time limitations into consideration, and the fact that the data recorded was to be set against the Har Michia data base, Ezuz in general, and the mound specifically were sampled rather than documented exhaustively. The first 206 panels were all from the most southern limits of the mound. These panels were numbered 100-1 through 100- 206. Each panel was recorded in the same manner as those from Har Michia (described above). In addition to the southern area, 100 panels on the central plateau (numbered 101-1 through 101- 100), and 100 panels on the northern edge of the plateau and slopes were documented (numbered 102-1 through 102-100) (Fig. 13). Within each sampled sub-area a continuous section was documented.

For reference, the work at Giva’t HaKetovot was marked on a map of the immediate area at a scale of 1:5,000. The relation between the mound and the surroundings were examined on a 1979

78 aerial photograph (Fig. 13; both purchased from The Survey of Israel offices). Satellite images were not obtainable due to security reasons.

Documentation of Giva’t HaKetovot was conducted from October 2008 through May o 2009 over approximately 30 field days. Vandalism in the form of breakage and defacement was not seen. Natural changes, similar to those noted at Har Michia, such as the detachment of boulders and collapse of panels, were apparent.

The rock art surveys of Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot were conducted under Israel Antiquity Authority survey permits S-25/2007 and S-25/2008.

Giva’t HaKetovot is a defined mound, pronounced against the surroundings presenting a very specific aspect of rock art in this region. To clarify whether Giva’t HaKetovot is unique, more densely engraved than other areas of the Ezuz region, a second form of sampling was conducted. Sections of 1x5 meters were measured (five meters set at an east-west axis and one meter on a north-south axis line) (Fig. 19).

Figure 19. Example of section sampled from Giva’t HaKetovot.

The sampling took note of the number of panels and engraved elements on each panel were counted. The panel type and whether, patina free or patina covered were noted. Abstract elements were divided into marks, linear and curvilinear. Zoomorphs were marked according to species (Table 8). When a panel was not entirely positioned within the sectioned 5X1 meters, the entire panel was included. In this fashion, one count was conducted at Giva’t HaKetovot, at the north-eastern limits of the plateau.

Five sections were counted at Giva’t Regalim (approximately 750 meters to the north of Giva’t HaKetovot, Fig. 8, no. 1.) and an additional three counts were carried out on the plain west of Nahal Nizzana (approx. 2.5-3 km east of Giva’t HaKetovot) (Fig. 8, no. 3). The section on Giva’t HaKetovot served as a control group for this sampling method. The ratio of abstract : zoomorphs : anthropomorph elements, of the material collected via sampling and via the four form method from Giva’t HaKetovot, was not significantly different (chi square test comparing numbers of abstract, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic, p>0.05. Chi square test comparing ratios of abstract, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic elements was significant, p<0.05). This sampling, at the three different sections (one sample at Giva’t HaKetovot, 3 at Nahal Nizzana and 4 at Giva’t Regalim) resulted with the examination of 78 panels and the categorization of 304 elements.

2.1.4.4. Har Karkom

Har Karkom was visited and approximately 200 panels were photographed. These panels were restricted to the southern section of the plateau. Additional data was obtained from published photographs (Anati 1962, 1984, 1993, 2001; Anati and Mailland 2009), and through photographs taken by acquaintances who visited the site.

Throughout this research, in both fieldwork and interpretation, Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot served as the central sites. The other sites served as a control, group representing other sites in the central Negev as well as sites closer geographically and ecologically to Sinai. The control group was important in clarifying issues such as the distribution of rock art, regional differences and the effect of the micro environment.

2.1.5. Data Organization and Analysis

This section refers to data collected from Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot.

2.1.5.1. Outcrops and Drainage Basins

During the Har Michia survey, 43 outcrops were defined (Table 10). These outcrops were documented in the field, at times, in a fragmented fashion, based on micro distinctions (especially outcrops 6-8 and 9-13) while others were grouped together (such as outcrops nos. 33, 34, and 37 [Fig. 10]). After the documentation process was completed, the material was regrouped. The 43 outcrops documented in the field were grouped into 6 drainage basins and labeled A-F, from north to south (Fig. 11 and Table 9).

Drainage Basin Outcrops included in each drainage basin A 41, 42, 42, 43 B 1, 2 C 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 23, 24, 25, 28 D 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36 E 15, 16, 17, 37, 38, 39, 40 F 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 35 Table 9. Outcrops included in each drainage basin

Outcrop no. Coordinates Outcrop no. Coordinates 1 175171.33/525901.77 12 175213.34/525702.67 2 175179.60/525903.70 13 175213.34/525694.41 3 175213.34/525867.71 14(=32) 175212.68/525675.22 4 175224.91/525865.39 15 175226.57/525575.67 5 175229.87/525854.48 16 175237.15/525571.04 6 175231.86/525839.60 17 175237.15/525575.67 7 175226.90/525839.60 18 175212.68/525411.30 8 175226.90/525828.02 19 175205.40/525445.70 9 175210.03/525709.29 20 175235.83/525381.20 10 175204.41/525701.02 21 175238.80/525385.17 11 175207.71/525697.71 22 175312.89/525403.03

Outcrop no. Coordinates Outcrop no. Coordinates 23 175260.30/525800.24 37 175502.06/525576.83 24 175269.89/525805.55 38 175420.70/525479.60 25 175313.55/525789.33 39 175408.14/525483.57 26 175280.81/525714.44 40 175389.62/525515.98 27 175295.35/525706.60 41 175443.17/526094.26 28 175232.52/525832.98 42 175435.92/526097.57 29 175281.10/525853.30 43 175435.92/526104.84 30 175245.75/525659.35 Giva’t 31 175232.19/525662.99 HaKetovot 147094/524175 32(=14) 175212.68/525675.22 Har Arkov 175427/523016 33 175498.09/525746.83 Har Nafha 172776/510193 34 175596.65/525654.88 Nahal Nizzana 149283/524009 35 175212.18/525473.45 Giva’t Regalim 147255/524781 36 175657.51/525616.52 Har Karkom 173000/464000 Table 10. Coordinates of Har Michia Outcrops and other sites documented and viewed.

2.1.5.2. Photographs and Tracing

After each field day of documentation, a day was spent entering the data into the computer. The first stage consisted of renaming the photographs according to the panel number and element photographed. For example, a general picture of panel 6 from outcrop 33 was named 33-6 and a picture of the first element was named 33-6-1. After renaming the photographs, a copy of the photo presenting the general view of the panel was edited, adding the numbers of the elements. In some cases, when elements were ambiguous, additional copies were made with line drawings or copies in which the color, contrast and brightness levels were altered.

As tracings are the most comprehensible way of presenting rock art, all of the anthropomorphs and some of the zoomorphs were traced from reduced photos (Figs. 60-64). As some motifs were extremely difficult to see, not all of the tracings were made on the photos taken parallel to the panel surface, but rather on those taken at an angle (such as 2-13-1, fig. 60). In a number of cases, the relationship between elements was unclear, such as 39-63-14 (fig. 64) where two patina shades were visible. To express this, the human figure was filled in while the equid with a lighter patina shade was outlined. The equid was included as, it was engraved with a clear relation to the already existing human figure even if it was engraved after the human. Extremely

82 vague figures (39-25-13 fig. 64, and 3-4-1 fig. 63) were outlined as the details of engraving were unclear and, therefore, presenting them filled in would be misleading. When the limits of the engraved lines were unclear, dotting was used as a border. When the engraved line was not visible but could be reconstructed , then a dotted outline was used. In one case, a hatching fill was used to convey uncertainty in the traced figure (25-49-13, fig. 63) and in another case the suggested reconstruction was presented in gray (25-31-105, fig. 61). One engraving (2-13-1, fig. 60) was traced a number of times from different photographs. As each tracing offered a different interpretation, two tracings were presented in Fig. 60 Other important technicalities to note were the indication of eyes. Most eyes were patina islands and seen relatively easily in the tracings (despite the small scale). Other forms of indicating eyes were through a deeper incision or as in 37-9-1 (fig. 61), with the addition of a material. These eyes would not be apparent with the two dimensional, monochrome tracing. Therefore, they too were presented as patina islands in the tracings. Engraved images on patina free surfaces were filled with a hatched line.

2.1.5.3. Abstract Elements

Abstract forms were organized in a table developing in form from simple to complex and from linear to curvilinear. The table consisted of 9 rows, the number of columns was in accordance to variations of a basic theme. In this fashion, 75 different abstract motifs were coded (Table 15). Note should be made that the majority of abstract elements were of the simplest form, single markings, cluster of markings and single lines. These elements may be the byproduct of the making of a nearby element or they may present the first stages of creating an element, representing an incomplete element.

2.1.5.4. Zoomorphic Elements

In the field, zoomorphic motifs were documented separately based on species. Macdonald (2005, 2009) brought attention to certain traits which he saw as representative of each animal. He wrote: “the subject’s most easily identifiable characteristics are emphasized. Thus the long straight horns of the oryx or the back-curving, often annulated, horns of the ibex are usually exaggerated in order to allow drawings of them to be recognized even when they

are merely stick figures” (2009:159).

Some depictions were accompanied by north Arabian inscriptions (Roman Period), reinforcing the connection between certain traits and forms of depiction. Thus, Macdonald was able to identify gazelle, and based on a number of engravings accompanied by inscriptions, he suggested that gazelle petroglyphs have relatively short backward pointing horns and very short tails. Another detail which, with the aid of inscriptions, has been recognized as a form of differentiating is the camel tail. Upturned tails identify a camel as female (Winnett 1957 figs. 60, 803). The use of these visual conventions in the Roman period may reflect a long lived tradition. To these well based relations between animal species and iconography, Macdonald (2005) proposed that domesticated goats (not mentioned in any of the North Arabian inscriptions) were depicted with upturned ‘erect’ tails. The distinctions in details, that according to Macdonald translate to different species, were not clearly depicted in the present documented material. Difficulties in the recognition of different species brought the identification to follow a hierarchal form (Figs. 20-22). If an element had four (or two) legs, a clear neck and head, or any other distinct and easily recognizable form then it was recognized as a zoomorph. After recognizing an element as zoomorphic, the question asked was of what family. This general category was required as, on many occasions, no distinction could be made between ibex and goat or between horse and donkey. Therefore, categories were tagged in a general fashion as horned ungulates or equids. When possible, more specific information of species was indicated.

Figure 20. Zoomorph, element no. 102-56-18 (measuring 9.5x7.7 cm) includes several features. Each feature on its own could serve as an attribute for a specific species. The up turned tail could be that of a dog or camel though the length of the tail suggests a predator. The hump over the shoulder, if presented with a long neck, would be that of a camel though it could also represent the distinct shoulder hump of a male oryx. On the head are two straight lines. These may represent erect ears or horns. If the lines are interpreted as horns, then they may belong to a young male ibex, a mature female ibex, a gazelle (of either sex) or a young oryx. As the possible interpretations are so varied, this petroglyph was documented as a zoomorphs.

Figure 21. Element 16-33-5 (measuring 8x10 cm) is a zoomorph. The length of the two straight lines on this zoomorph head point towards its being a horned ungulate. As this animal could technically represent a mature female ibex, a gazelle (of either sex) or an oryx, further classification was avoided.

Figure 22. Element 5-29-2 (measuring 16x17 cm) has two long curved back lines in its head making the identification as a mature male ibex unquestionable.

2.1.5.5. Phases of Engraving and Patina Shades

Engraving phases within a single panel was determined based on superimposition and relative patina color. An element covered, either partially or entirely by a second element, reflected the sequence of engraving. Patina color, as described in chapter 1.3., may offer a relative chronology. As the patina crust is first broken, the freshly exposed under rock is light in color. As time goes by, patina starts to develop on the exposed under rock. The longer the underlying rock is exposed, the darker the newly forming patina becomes (Krunbein and Jens 1981). The first instance of engraving on a rock is considered layer 1, the following occurrence of engraving is layer 2 and so on.

In the field, the patina color of the petroglyph was documented based on the closest hue in the Munsell chart 7.5YR. In the laboratory, following the field work, the 35 hues were re-grouped into six groups. These are as follows: all hues ranging between 2.5/1-4/4 were viewed as a single group, those between 4/6-5/4, were seen as a second group, hues between 5/5-6/8, formed a third group, hues between 7/1-7/8 were a fourth group and hues between 8/2-8/6, formed a fifth group. Petroglyphs engraved on patina free limestone were documented as patina color 8/1 and formed a sixth group. This was done to minimize differences in documentation based on lighting conditions and eye sight. The patina shade and engraving phase, as well as all other data recorded during the field survey, was then examined through descriptive statistics.

2.1.5.6. Descriptive Statistical Analysis

After collecting and organizing the data, descriptive statistics were used to summarize and present the materials. To determine whether the petroglyphs were engraved in a systematic form of combined attributes, chi square tests were run according to motif type. Each zoomorphic category with 20 or more elements was examined separately, as were anthropomorphs. Within each motif type, every combination of two attributes was examined. All possible forms of depiction were examined in combinations of two. For example, the direction of the animal (left/right) was crossed with its orientation (N, NW, W, SW, S, SE, E, NE), engraving style, size, number of legs as well as the appearance of several other stylistic nuances and attributes. For this purpose, most forms of depiction were coded, including element dimensions. For zoomorphs, a total of ten details were crossed and examined through a series of chi square tests. 86

Anthropomorphs were divided into two basic types, riding and not riding. These types were further divided into sub groups based on the position of the arms and type of weapon held. Twelve combinations of details were run through chi square tests for unarmed figures while 25 details were tested against each other for armed ones. Several patterns emerged; these were rooted in the sex of the image and its size.

When applying the chi square tests, a number of basic rules were employed. When the value was zero (for example looking at the direction the figure is facing, if no figures were facing right, i.e. zero) then 0.1 was used. This method of dealing with a value of zero in a chi square test is similar to the Yates Correction Factor solution (see Spiegel 1961:201-216). When translating the size of the image into the coded large, medium and small, (the conversion was as follows: elements measuring less than 10 cm = small, between 10-20 cm = medium, exceeding 20 cm = large): figures on animal back where reduced as the measurements taken included the ridden animal. When examining the orientation of anthropomorphs, frontal figures were noted as having no direction. Therefore, within the chi square test on anthropomorphic petroglyphs, the sample size (n) for all tests crossing an attribute with the direction of the figure was smaller than in the other tests. Likewise, when a detail was ambiguous, the element was not included in the chi square tests (such as when the tail and head could not be clearly determined, and, therefore, no data regarding the direction and orientation of the figure was unavailable). When examining the number of legs of zoomorphs, three legs were counted as four. This decision follows two lines of logic; the first is that many of the three legged zoomorphs originally had four legs but now, due to superimposition or weathering, not all four legs were visible. The second reasoning is that depicting a zoomorphic figure with two legs is a certain level of abstraction. If the zoomorph was intentionally depicted with three legs then the mark maker was either portraying the zoomorphic figure in perspective or, perhaps, did not complete the petroglyph.

Throughout the dissertation, chi square test results are presented, the chi square test used

( ) was the usual one for testing the hypothesis of the independence of categories of contingency tables. For example, when looking at the relationship between the size of the camels of Har Michia and whether or not they were being ridden, the chi square result is 0.08, not significant at the 0.05 level which was used as the level of significance throughout this work. For

87 example, looking at the data for the Har Michia camels (Appendix, Table 8), we see that there is no significant difference between those ridden and not ridden based on the different size of the engraving. This chi square test was used in this manner throughout this study (Table 11).

Size not ridden ridden sum Observed 13 0 13 Expected S 10.50685 2.493151 Observed 36 9 45 Expected M 36.36986 8.630137

Observed 10 5 15 L Expected 12.12329 2.876712 Table 11. Example of chi square application, testing the dependency between the size of the camel petroglyphs and the camel being depicted with a rider.

After examining the data from each site separately, the data from the two major sites (Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot) were compared. In addition to comparing results and conclusions reached through chi square tests, the size of subcategories in relation to the whole was calculated by use of proportion tests. Comparing proportions and calculating Z levels were used in estimating the degree to which the two sites (and inter-site variability) reflected different populations. Another method of comparison employed was through ratios. The numerical data reflecting the number of elements of each motif, especially abstracts, zoomorphs and anthropomorph was reduced to ratios. These ratios helped identify different stylistic traditions in the central Negev petroglyphs.

2.2. Har Michia Survey Finds

This chapter presents a summary of the Har Michia field survey finds, opening with a description of the archaeological architectural features. Following, generalizations regarding the rock art position, panel size and orientation are presented. The elements documented are listed according to motif type. Abstract elements, anthropomorphs and foot prints, were divided into subtypes. The criteria for identifying each motif and subtype are discussed. In the present review,

88 zoomorphs are listed following alphabetical order. If the number of elements documented within a single motif was 20 or more, then they were examined through descriptive statistics. Statistically significant combinations complete the description of each documented motif type.

2.2.1. Archaeological Architectural Remains

Cairn fields were found on the plateau of Har Michia . These cairns were of the filled type (Kochavi 1967:19-25), consisting of a stone ring (roughly 2-2.5 meters in diameter) filled with stones with no apparent systematic organization. Some cairns had a stele placed in the center; no cist was visible in any of the cairns. Alongside these cairns were additional burials. These burials were low, elongated mounds of earth and gravel. A cleared path, marked by two large stones, lead from the access route (from route 40 to the military base) to the sub-modern cemetery. A number of additional cairns were located some 600 meters to the east, on lower ground. A second cemetery with burial mounds similar to those found on the plateau was located some three hundred meters to the south-east on the hill slope, directly east of outcrop no. 19, (drainage Basin F). Standing at the cairn field of Har Michia, looking south, Har Arkov and its cairn field were visible (Fig. 12).

Several series of dams were found in wadis of Har Michia and in most of the narrow tributaries draining into the wadi plains. These dams were clearly visible in aerial and satellite images (Fig. 14 and Fig. 15). Other stone lines, constructed along the slopes, were visible only when surveying by foot. These stone lines too related to the agricultural utilization of the region, directing run-off water towards cultivated fields.

Few ceramic sherds were found at Har Michia, the majority of which were Gaza Ware sherds (dated to the past few hundred years). Worked flint was found in different concentrations throughout the surveyed area. The densest concentration was found along the crest and southern mid slope of Har Michia. Along the foot-hills, flint concentrations were smaller and usually included large flint chunks (bulbous) and few worked flakes. These concentrations represented deflated sites. The majority of the flint was attributed to the Mousterian complex (Steve Rosen personal communication).

Stone piles, small shelters and instillations have been built on, and adjacent to, patina covered outcrops. The largest stone pile measured approximately 2.5 meters across. The small shelters in contrast, were usually no larger than 1.5 meters in size. In addition to the small sized shelters or fenced areas there were two larger structures. The first structure was adjacent to outcrop no. 33 from the east (Fig. 14). The structure, constructed almost entirely of patina covered rocks, was almost rectangular in shape with three built walls and rounded corners. Although the rocks were patina covered, they were not engraved. The inner dimensions were: N-S axis 740 cm, E-W axis 770 cm. The width of the wall varied between a single stone to 4 stones thick measuring up to 140 cm. The wall was a single course high, ranging between 35-60 cm. The enclosed area sloped slightly to the south-east.

The second structure was adjacent to outcrop no. 34 from the east (Fig. 15). This structure was oval in shape with subdivisions of three smaller round and oval shaped sections. The maximum dimensions of the structure were 35x22.5 m. The best preserved section was to the south-west, closest to outcrop number 34. This section measured 1.00x1.25 m (Fig. 23). The stones used in the construction were mostly patina free limestone, with a number of patina covered rocks. A few of these patina covered rocks were engraved, likewise there were a number of panels within the enclosed area that were engraved. In addition, on a flat limestone outside of the enclosed area was a mortar 17x16 cm, 9 cm deep. The first time the mortar was noted, it was clean of sediment. In the survey days that followed, the mortar was always full of sediment and almost indistinguishable from the surrounding rock. This exemplifies the ongoing dialogue between the archaeological remains, the natural elements, and the local population in the region.

A third set of structures was found some 100 meters east of outcrops no. 38 and no. 39. These round structures (radius is approximately two meters) were better preserved with 5 courses of stone still standing (approximately 1.3 m high, Fig. 24).

Figure 23. Janet Levy standing within the Figure 24. Round structure south of outcrops southern section of the enclosure adjacent to no. 39 and no. 40. outcrop no. 34.

Stelae (Masseba), standing stones of relatively small dimensions, were noted in two locations. The first stelae consisted of two small (less than 50 cm high) stones set at an angle to each other. The stone to the right was the taller of the two. The combination of the two stones, one tall and slender and the second shorter and wider, was similar to those described by Avner (1984, 1993a). These stones were placed on an elevated area, overlooking the south-eastern foothills of Har Michia. The position of the standing stones was such that they seemed to protrude in the basin formed between Har Arkov and Har Retamim (Fig. 25). The second stele was adjacent to outcrop no. 33. The stone measuring 61X27 cm high and 21-1 cm in thickness (the stone narrows towards the top) was not very prominent in the landscape. Near the base of the stone were three additional, smaller stones, between which a vertebra (most likely of a goat and of a recent date as it was entirely exposed) was placed. Even though this stele was less noticeable, the offering at its base indicated its use as a stele at some point.

Figure 25. Two stele and their positioning in relation to Har Arkov (to the left) and Har Retamim (to the right).

More recent remains may be attributed to the IDF activity in the region and the local Bedouin population. IDF remains are in the form of concentrations of empty canned goods, cutlery (stamped with the year of manufacture and IDF emblem) and scattered ammunition. Plastic bottles, cans (of drink and canned foods) containers (jerry-cans), shoes, clothing, blankets, porcelain cups, metal scraps and car parts, associated with the local population, were distributed mostly along the wadis of a second and third level.

2.2.2. Outcrops, Panels and Elements

The mark makers9 of Har Michia showed a preference for patina covered limestone. At Har Michia, the majority of patina covered limestone rocks were found in outcrops, few were more isolated. The patina covered outcrops were prominent in the landscape and visible from nearby

9 As we are uncertain of the place petroglyphs had in ancient societies, the term mark maker is used. This term is also useful as it includes all elements and is not restricted to complete and coherent motifs.

92 elevated areas such as from Avdat, some 4.5 km away. In some instances, patina free limestone was engraved10. The patina free panels represent 7% of the Har Michia engraved panels. These relatively few panels were found between the patina covered outcrops. Although the rock art at Har Michia followed a certain pattern of being engraved on patina covered outcrops, we must question whether the governing principle was determined by the need of communication or availability. Other than the patina covered outcrops there are few appropriate surfaces for engraving. The ground was covered with small, rough stones (desert pavement). When a relatively smooth surface was available, such as outcrop no. 18, it too was engraved. The engravings on patina covered rocks stood out against the dark background, in comparison to the white on gray effect received from engraving patina free limestone surfaces. The smoothness of the patina covered outcrops was a more appropriate place to sit when out with a flock. The prominent outcrop offered both a look out and small wind protected areas for building a fire (as the many remains attest to). In addition, the patina retains heat offering a warm surface on cold days. Therefore it is possible that the mark maker did not seek the patina covered outcrops for engraving but rather that other reasons, such as those stated above, drew people to the outcrops and only then did they decide to engrave there.

The majority of patina free panels were concentrated at outcrop no. 18. Outcrop no. 18, consisting almost entirely of patina free limestone, was parallel to outcrop no. 19 (which was patina covered). When comparing between these two outcrops, outcrop no. 18 had a larger number of panels than outcrop no. 19, but, each panel was less densely engraved. Following Bradley et al. (1995) who suggested that: “if rock art had acted as a system of messages between groups of people who were not present on the same occasions, it is essential that the intended audience would have been able to find it. That could only have happened if the carvings had been located in a consistent manner.” We can see that the governing rule (though not every patinated rock was engraved, engraved panels were found at each outcrop) for the mark makers of Har Michia was the patina covered

10 To simplify on reference to the petroglyphs, I do not list all of the techniques employed but rather generalize with the use of the word engraved.

93 outcrops. Understanding this rule of distribution is relatively simple even for someone visiting the site for the first time.

The patina covered panels may present a natural choice, being available, visible, and well situated. Even though patina covered limestone, potential panels were found in abundance, in some instances the mark maker chose to engrave on a patina free rather than patina covered panel. This fact suggests that they were intentionally chosen. The patina free panels stood at a contrast to the patina covered ones in color and motifs engraved. The differences between the patina covered and patina free panels will be discussed in detail in chapter 2.4. As for the few isolated, patina free panels, we may assume that the message they contain was personal and not meant for a wide audience.

Looking at the engraved rocks versus the un-engraved rocks, no clear pattern of choice emerged. The engraved panels presented a great range in size, levels of smoothness, and quality of patina. This lack of consistency was perhaps best exemplified through levels of density. Density levels defined by (panel size was measured in centimeters) ranged between

0.02 and 0.000012. There was a positive linear correlation (Pearson Product Moment Correlation [Ferguson 1966:106] of 0.22, n=965, p< 0.025) between panel size and the number of engraved elements. When looking at of outcrops with petroglyphs, the correlation was still positive and more significant (0.88 n=510411, p< 0.005) suggesting that larger outcrops were preferred. The larger the outcrop, the more elements that were engraved (Appendix, Table 2).

Examining the direction of the engraved panels (omitting flat panels), twice as many faced south, southeast and southwest than faced north, northeast and northwest (Table 12). This is most likely the result of availability rather than predetermined choice. As for the angle of the panel, 21% were vertical, 37% were of an angle ranging between 45° and 90° and 25% were horizontal.

11 Here the initial number of recorded elements was used in calculation.

Direction of Panel Percentage North 8% North-East 10% East 13% South-East 14% South 22% South-West 14% West 14% North-West 5% Table 12. Engraved face of rock.

The rock art of Har Michia presented three main types of motifs: abstract, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic. Each of these categories were further sub divided. Listed in table 13 are the number of elements recorded, their characterization into motif types as they were documented in the field and later, after reorganizing in office settings.

Elements Documented at Har Michia After % of all Elements Documented As Documented Reorganizing (after reorganization) Abstract 4352 4346 85.60% Zoomorphs 563 557 10.97% Anthropomorph Type 2 55 59 1.16% Anthropomorphs Type 1 91 86 1.69% Inscriptions 37 27 0.53% Hand and Foot Prints 37 37 0.73% Tool/Weapon 21 21 0.41% Building 2 2 0.04% Phallus 1 1 0.02% Total (not including Anthropomorphs Type 2) 5104 5077 100.00% Table 13. Har Michia recorded elements by motif type.

The elements recorded are of various sizes. This diversity is best expressed within the abstract elements. Single scratched and incised lines may be as thin as 0.1 cm. Single markings many times range around 0.3X0.3 cm is size. More complex abstract motifs may reach 25 cm in size

95 though few abstract elements were seen to extended over 15 cm in size. Zoomorphs of Har Michia range from 1X3 cm to 26X44 cm. Most zoomorphs are of a size ranging between 10 and 15 cm. Anthropomorphs similarly are mostly between 10 and 15 cm in size. The largest documented element (element 1-12-2, Fig 60 subtype b) is an anthropomorph. This anthromorph (1-12-2) is formed of hammered marks.

2.2.3. Abstract Motifs

Abstract motifs include all forms which are not zoomorphic and anthropomorphic, most being geometric. At Har Michia, 4346 abstract elements were recorded. These may be categorized as representing 75 different motifs (Table 14). These 75 motifs were divided into linear (49 motifs, 3912 elements) and curvilinear (26 motifs, 434 elements). The level of complexity of each abstract motif was assessed on a scale of 1-5,was based on the number of lines and angles of the motif (Table 15). The lowest level of complexity included undefined elements such as isolated marks (A1), marks over an area (A2), and clusters of marks (A4). Some elements were composed of marks clearly following the panel’s formation such as marks in depressions, along cracks, and on projecting areas (A6). A common and repetitive motif (309 recorded occurrences) was marks hammered on the panel edge (A3). This motif may be in the form of a few isolated marks or, when the hammered marks were continuous, the natural boundaries formed a frame for the engraved panel, (Fig. 26). The hammering of the edge of a panel is technically undemanding.

Table 14. Typology of abstract elements based on the recorded material from Har Michia. The letters in the x column and the numbers in the y column for a code form each abstract element. For example, a square is E1 while a Y shape is C16. The A row consist of ‘stray marks’ and/or incomplete elements.

Linear Curvilinear 1 Marks in Scratched natural line I formations II III 2 III III IIII IIII IIII IIII >IIII >IIII IIII

III III IIII IIII >IIII III II T + 3 H Z

4 Complex Curvilinear

5 Complex Linear

Table 15. Abstract elements according to linear and curvilinear complexity levels.

Figure 26. Example of marks hammered on the panel edge. Photograph of panel 33-124 with hammered marks framing the panel.

The division into complexity levels was as follows: elements shaped as the letter L (Table 14:C2, types following refer to those defined in Table 14), the letter T (C3) and a + shape (C4) for example, are all composed of two strokes set at an angle to each other and therefore are at a level two complexity. Other motifs which contained several strokes which were not set at an angle, or which did not exceed one angle, such as parallel lines (B5 through B12), also fell into this Z (C8), or Y (C16) were motifs composed ,א ,(category. Elements shaped like the letters H (C6 of three connected strokes, and were of a level three complexity. The motifs of the fourth level were either composed of more than three strokes such as a square, a ladder and a grid or demand pre-visualization and planning of angles and size such as a triangle. Complexity level five was not defined by a specific shape but rather by any combination of elements together forming a motif that surpassed the previous levels of complexity.

Looking at the complexity levels of the linear abstract motifs, a clear pattern emerged. As the complexity level rose, the number of motifs dropped. Almost 80% of the linear abstracts were of the first complexity level (Fig. 27). In complexity levels 2-5 the numbers continued to decrease. This pattern of decrease in abstract elements was found to be uniform in all six basins.

90.00%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00% Percentage of linear abstract elements 10.00%

0.00% Complexity level 1 2 3 4 5

Figure 27. Percentage of linear abstract elements in accordance to complexity levels.

The distribution of curvilinear elements was slightly different. Within the curvilinear abstract elements there were four levels of complexity versus the five of the linear motifs. The lowest level of complexity was a curved line whereas within the linear abstract motifs the lowest level of complexity included single markings as well as single lines. The second level of curvilinear complexity was comprised of rings (outlined), circles (fully engraved rings), open rings, , and shapes. The third level of complexity consisted of a sun shape, a ring subdivided, a row of attached rings, etc. The fourth level, similar to the definition used with the linear abstracts was not defined by a set of shapes but rather by the use of curvilinear elements forming a shape that exceeded those of the lower complexity levels. As the definition of the first complexity level was different than that of the linear abstracts, it was not surprising that this category included only 10% of the total number of curvilinear elements. Over 50% of curvilinear abstracts were of a level 2 complexity, after which there was a drop in the third and fourth complexity levels (Fig.

111

28).

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00% Percentage curvilinearof abstract elements

0.00% Complexity level 1 2 3 4

Figure 28. Percentage of curvilinear abstract elements in accordance to complexity levels,

2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 Linear 800 Curvilinear No. of abstract elements 600 400 200 0 Basin A B C D E F

Figure 29. Linear versus curvilinear abstract elements according to drainage basins.

111

When comparing the number of linear abstract elements to the number of curvilinear ones, the overwhelming majority were linear (9:1). Comparing the relative ⁄ ratio of abstract elements from the six drainage basins, they were found to be significantly different from each another (Fig. 29 and table 16). The meaning of this variability is still unclear. Dropping the A’s and B1 from this equation (as these simple marks, especially the single marks on the panel and marks over an area were not truly linear and may distort the real picture), linear motifs outnumbered curvilinear ones at a ratio of 4:1.

Drainage A B C D E F total Linear Observed 106 92 679 1804 1058 173 3912 Expected 109.81 94.51 687.70 1764.27 1067.56 188.12 Curvilinear Observed 16 13 85 156 128 36 434 Expected 12.18 10.48 76.29 195.72 118.43 20.87 Table 16. Chi square test showing that the distribution of linear and curvilinear elements in the different drainage basins was not coincidental. The distribution is significant at the 0.0001 level.

Looking at the frequency of appearance of each motif type (through complexity levels) via patina shades, the distribution was uniform. All five levels of linear complexity, as well as the four levels of curvilinear complexity levels, were found equally within each patina group, peaking at a 5/6-6/8 patina shade and then gradually dropping to 7/1-7/8 patina shade ( Figs. 30 and 31). Thus, the different complexity levels were clearly not chronological indicators.

112

60.00% y level 50.00%

Patina shade 40.00% 2.5/1-4/4 4/6-5/4 30.00% 5/6-6/8 7/1-7/8 20.00% 8/2-8/6 % of linear elements by complexit

10.00%

0.00% Complexity level1 2 3 4 5

Figure. 30 Percentage of linear elements according to patina shade.

80.00%

70.00%

60.00% Patina shade 2.5/1-4/4 50.00% 4/6-5/4 40.00% 5/6-6/8

complexity level 30.00%

7/1-7/8

20.00% 8/2-8/6

Percentage curvilinear of element by 10.00%

0.00% Complexity level1 2 3 4

Figure 31. Percentage of curvilinear elements according to patina shade. Each patina shade adds up to 100%.

113

2.2.4. Inscriptions

During the field work 37 written inscriptions were documented. After the completion of the field work it was noticed that some of these inscriptions were documentations of separate characters that could be grouped into a single inscription12. It is of importance to note that parallels for many of the abstract motifs can be found in English, Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Thamudic, Safaitic and Nabatean characters. In those cases, if the motif was composed of a single element, it was documented as an abstract and not an inscription. A sequence of three elements was documented as an inscription. As such, only 27 inscriptions remained from the original 37. Prof. Robert Hoyland of Oxford University was kind enough to review photographs of these inscriptions and offer some interesting insights. Seven inscriptions composed of a number of characters could not be deciphered. Other inscriptions could be set into general language groups based on the shape and use of the letters. The majority of inscriptions were in Arabic. Several of these Arabic inscriptions seemed to be of a recent date. Most of the inscriptions were single words and most likely, private names. The inscriptions were divided into groups based on the language and patina color (Table 17).

Inscribed Patina Shade Hebrew Arabic Thamudic Safaitic Aramaic Unidentified modern Total dates 2.5/1-4/4 - - 2 1 - - 1 4 4/6-5/4 - 2 - - 1 1 - 4 5/5-6/8 - - 2 - - 6 - 8 7/1-7/8 - - - - 1 - 1 2 8/2-8/6 - 1 - - - - - 1 8/1 (patina- 1 7 - - - - - 8 free stones) Total 1 10 4 1 2 7 2 27 Percentage 3.70% 37.04% 14.81% 3.70% 7.41% 25.93% 7.41% 100.00% Table 17. Inscriptions of Har Michia based on language and patina shade.

12 As noted above, several abstract elements were identical to characters in a number of languages. At times a sequence of elements could be interpreted as abstract elements or as characters forming an inscription. Several times this decision was made in the laboratory following the field work.

114

2.2.5. Zoomorphic Motifs

The number of zoomorphic elements documented (after reorganization) was 557. These represent 10 different animal species: bird, camel, dog, equid, horned ungulate, lizard, predator, scorpion, snake, and unrecognized zoomorphs (Table 18).

Bird 9 1.61% Camel 73 13.04% Dog 20 3.57% Equid 66 11.79% Horned Ungulate 254 45.36% Lizard 2 0.36% Predator 6 1.07% Snake 1 0.18% Scorpion 1 0.18% Unidentifiable Zoomorph 125 22.32% Total 557 100.00% Table 18. Zoomorphs documented at Har Michia.

2.2.5.1. Birds

Few (n=9 representing 1.6% of the zoomorphic elements) bird engravings were found and recorded at Har Michia. These birds, most likely, represent the ostrich (Fig. 32), though some may represent partridges (Fig. 33). Partridge (Alectoris chukars sinaica) flocks were seen at Har Michia during the summer of the field work. Ostriches (Struthio camelus syriacus), now extinct, were once plentiful in the Negev. The last known specimen was reported to have been hunted in 1929, (Paz 1979:231). The bird petroglyphs were represented with any combination of the following: two legs, round body, long neck. As the sample is small, chi square tests were not carried out.

115

Figure 32. Element 39-44-7 (measuring Figure 33. Element 33-253-2 11X11 cm) identified as an ostrich petroglyph. (measuring 21X12 cm) may represent a partridge. 2.2.5.2. Camels

Seventy three camel (Camelus dromedaries, representing 13% of the zoomorphic category) petroglyphs were documented at Har Michia. Zoomorphs may be identified as camels if they have a hump (Fig. 34). Some zoomorphs lacking a hump (either incomplete elements or zoomorphs being ridden) were identified as camels based on the length and angle of the neck. Chi square tests showed that the way in which the Har Michia camel petroglyphs were engraved, the combination of elements (i.e., hump size and style, length and position of tail, number of legs etc.) followed certain stylistic conventions (Table 19). These conventions are: - Fully engraved camels have full humps. - Full humped camels tend to face right. - Camels facing right tend to be ridden. - Ridden camels tend to have four legs. - Camels with four legs tend to be presented with an upturned tail. - Outlined camels are depicted with outlined humps. - Outlined camels tend to face left.

116

- Large (>20cm) sized camels tend to be depicted with long tails and small humps. - Small (5-10 cm) sized camels tend to be depicted with large humps and no tail.

Camel herders see up-turned tails as an indication of a pregnant camel (Wosene 1991). Up- turned tails in petroglyphs of Transjordan, Syria (Winnett 1957 nos. 60 and 803, Winnett and Harding 1978 for example nos. 2018, 2112, 2763, 2731 and 3615b) and possibly the Negev (Eisenberg-Degen 2006) represent females.

Generalizing, most of the Har Michia camels were not ridden, associated with people or other animals. Camel petroglyphs were usually single representations though, at times, pairs of camels were engraved. Many camels were depicted with large outlined humps and up-turned tails. These may be intended to represent female camels. No clear male camels were documented.

Figure 34. Camel petroglyph Figure 35. Example of dog petroglyph (1-13-8 measuring 18X23). (element 25-33-6 measuring 22X9 cm).

117

Facing Size of Hump Length of Tail No. of Style of Chi Square Orientation Ridden Eye Size of L/R Hump Full/Outlined Tail Position Legs Engraving Engraving

Size of Engraving 0.92 0.61 0.08 0.0004 0.98 0.008 0.58 0.02 0.16 0.56 Style of 0.07 0.06 0.34 0.05 0.0000008 0.23 0.25 0.95 0.06 Engraving Eye 0.50 0.79 0.85 0.60 0.32 0.99 0.77 0.55

No. of Legs 0.78 0.23 0.005 0.06 0.37 0.10 5.35E-17

Tail Position 0.11 0.03 0.50 0.70 0.59 0.38

Length of Tail 0.21 0.02 0.0000004 0.60 0.75

Hump 0.45 0.003 0.73 0.18 Full/Outlined Size of Hump 0.62 0.64 0.58

Ridden 0.22 0.03

Facing 0.13

Orientation Table 19. Chi square test results for Har Michia camel petroglyphs.

118

2.2.5.3. Dogs

Dogs (n=20, representing 3.6% of the zoomorphic category) were identified. Zoomorphs were reorganized as dogs with any degree of certainty only when the figure was part of a scene with other animal species. The relative size and/or role in hunting helped with the recognition process. In some cases, zoomorphs were categorized as dogs based on the shape of the head (Fig. 35), and a certain degree of resemblance to different dog species. At present, 20 dogs have been identified at Har Michia though it is possible that an additional percentage of the zoomorphic category (see below) were intended to represent dogs. No significant relation between the compositions of different elements was apparent (Table 20), which may be due to the small sample size.

Tail No. of Direction Tail Length Direction Legs Eye Size Size 1.00 0.18 0.34 0.26 0.85 Eye 0.33 0.37 0.81 0.42 No. of Legs 0.18 0.07 0.07 Tail Direction 0.31 0.67 Tail Length 0.64 Direction Table 20. Chi square test results for Har Michia dog petroglyphs.

119

Length of Tail Style of Chi Square Orientation Direction Ridden No. of Legs Eye Size of Tail Position Engraving Engraving Size of Engraving 0.11 0.14 0.29 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.51 0.66 Style of 0.45 0.02 0.03 0.48 0.75 0.64 0.88 Engraving Eye 0.66 0.86 0.96 0.56 0.36 0.07 No. of Legs 0.33 0.55 0.23 0.001 0.006 Tail 0.28 0.34 0.004 Direction 0.39 Length of 0.34 0.26 0.003 Tail Ridden 0.61 0.42

Direction 0.01

Orientation Table 21. Chi square test results for Har Michia equid petroglyphs.

111

2.2.5.4. Equids

A total of 66 equids (representing 12% of all zoomorphic representations) were documented at Har Michia. The term equid was used for any member of the equid family (donkey, hinny, horse, mule, and onager), as distinction between the engraved species was usually not possible. When the mark maker invested attention in the addition of attributes, the equid could be identified. For example, two elements may be added to same linear, minimalistic image which transfers an equid into a horse or donkey. The mane served as an attribute for a horse (Fig. 36) and long ears (Fig. 37) for a donkeys.

Figure 36. Equid petroglyph with Figure 37. Equid with long ears pointing Indication of a mane pointing towards a towards a donkey representation. horse representation. (element 19-16-1 (element 28-2-1 measuring 16.5X23 cm.) measuring 14X10 cm.)

Based on chi square tests, it is apparent that the way in which the equids were engraved followed certain stylistic conventions (Table 21), these conventions are: - Small (>10 cm) sized equids tend to have no legs. - Equids with no legs have no tails. - Equids with no tails tend not to be ridden. - Medium (10-20 cm) sized equids tend to be depicted with four legs. - Four legged equids tend to have down-turned tails. - Down-turned tails tend to be long.

111

- Equids with long tails tend to be ridden. - Large (>20cm) sized equids tend to be depicted with two legs. - Large sized equids tend to be depicted with long down-turned tails. - Up-turned tails tend to be short. - Equids with short tails tend not to be ridden. - Equids facing left tend to be oriented westwards.

In general, we see that the majority of equid petroglyphs were ridden (without a rider identification is problematic), presented in a linear fashion with four legs and a long down-turned tail. For some reason, almost all equids were facing right.

2.2.5.5. Horned Ungulates

A total of 254 horned ungulates (representing 45% of all zoomorphic elements) were documented at Har Michia. The term horned ungulate was chosen to refer to ibex, gazelle, and oryx. Although the ibex (Capra ibex nubiana) prefer mountainous steep desert terrain, and gazelle (Gazelle dorcas) usually prefer open plains (Aronson 1982:19), both frequented the Har Michia area. Ibex are still seen in the region with an estimated 500 individuals in the Negev (Alkon et al. 2008). A flock of adult males have a winter home range some five km north of Har Michia. In 1983-4, a gazelle herd was tracked and followed in the Sde Boker area (5 km northeast of Har Michia). The population of the Negev gazelle at that time was estimated at 1,400 (Bartuv 2007; Fletcher 1987). It remains unclear whether oryx (Oryx leucoryx) were once common in the Negev as oryx are not represented in archaeological osteological assemblages (Holzer et al. 2010; Horwitz et al. 1999).

Ibex, gazelle and oryx differ from one another morphologically. Ibex have relatively short legs and large bodies (adult males weigh approximately 80 kg, females weigh approximately 35 kg). The male’s horns curve back over its body reaching a maximum length of 114 cm. Female ibex have shorter (25 cm) horns which have a slight backwards angle (Aronson 1982:21). Gazelles are relatively slender, light weight (11-18 kg) (Shalmon et al. 1993:158), long legged and long necked animals (Aronson 1982:19). Male gazelle horns reach 23 cm, the horns of female gazelle

112 are of a similar length reaching 20 cm (Ferguson 2002:103). Arabian Oryx (Oryx leucoryx), the largest of the three species, weighing up to 100 kg with horns reaching a length of up to 41 cm (by the age of two), is easily distinguishable as both sexes have a distinct shoulder hump (Harrison and Bates 1991:189; Horwitz et al. 1999).

An animal depicted with long horns may be a male ibex or male/female oryx depending on the angle of the horns. The angle of the horns may not be taken as a reliable characteristic as the angle may be the result of the panel surface, the formation of the patina and the competence of the engraver. The length of the depicted horn, too, is an insufficient attribute. An animal with short straight horns could indicate a kid or female ibex. Kid horns at the age of a year reach a length of 26 cm while adult females’ horns reach 21-25 cm. Therefore, the horns of a ibex kid older than one year exceed in length the horns of an adult female (Aronson 1982:28-29). Horns of a gazelle kid , just over a year in age are the same length as an adult female and slightly longer than ears length (Walther et al. 1983:11). Likewise, the depiction could be of a young oryx. As the rock art under discussion is simplified verging on abstract, differences in leg and neck length cannot account for different animal species accurately. In addition, no horned ungulate petroglyph at Har Michia had details such as the oryx’s shoulder hump. Nonetheless, there was a tendency (83% of the horned ungulates) to exaggerate and present long, sweeping-back horns, i.e. those of adult ibex (Fig. 38).

Figure 38. Example of mature male ibex (element no. 5-34-2 measuring 15.5X20 cm.)

During the ibex mating period (late October) the males change their stance with a lowering of the neck and head and raising of the tail. This stance makes the horns less dominant and intimidating

113 for the female. From a side view, the horns actually touch the ibex’s back, and depending on their length, his stomach as well (Aronson 1982:60-61). Over 40% of the ibex petroglyphs were presented with an up-turned tail (significant through chi square at the 0.005 level). The up-turned tail connected the depicted ibex with the mating season, possibly as an expression of the engravers own masculine manhood (Beni Shalmon personal communication).

Horned ungulates may be presented in a number of forms with the appearance of horns (a single horn or two horns) serving as the central attribute. Based on chi square tests (Table 22) it is apparent that: - Linear horned ungulates tend to be of a medium size (10-20 cm). - Linear horned ungulates tend to have short tails. - Horned ungulates depicted with short tails tend to have two horns. - Horned ungulates depicted with two horns tend to have up-turned tails. - Horned ungulates depicted with two horns tend to have short tails. - Horned ungulates depicted with short tails tend to have four legs. - Outlined horned ungulates tend to be of a large size (>20cm). - Outlined horned ungulates tend to have no tails. - Horned ungulates depicted with no tail tend to have no indication of an eye. - Horned ungulates depicted with no eye tend not to have a goatee. - Fully engraved horned ungulates tend to be of small size (>10 cm). - Fully engraved horned ungulates tend to have no tails. - Horned ungulates depicted with no tail tend to have one horn. - Horned ungulates depicted with no eye tend not to have a goatee. - Horned ungulates depicted with straight tails tend to have no indication of an eye. - Horned ungulates facing left tend not to be oriented eastwards. - Horned ungulates facing right tend not to be oriented westwards.

Generalizing, most horned ungulates were presented as isolated images. Even when there were a number of horned ungulates engraved on the same panel, there was no clear connection between the animals (exceptions are panels 1-17 and 5-34). Horned ungulates were usually presented in a linear fashion with four legs, few details other than two long turned back horns and an up-turned tail.

114

A number of engravings differed from the majority presented in this category. Element 11-5-1 (Fig. 39) was a horned quadruplet though, in this case, the horns were slightly curved and inverted. The head of the animal was fully engraved and triangular in shape resembling the head of an ox or hartebeest (Alcelaphus bucelaphus). Hartebeest remains have been found in Early Bronze and Iron Age assemblages from the Negev and Sinai (Davis 1982; Holzer et al. 2010). Recognizing 11-5-1 as a hartebeest fits well with a majority of zoomorphs representing wild rather than domestic animals. In contrast, 1-15-5 and 1-15-6 (Fig. 40), seem to be goats. These two animals were the only two with no indication of horns.

Figure 39. Element no. 11-5-1, ox or hartebeest? Figure 40. Nanny (element 1-15-5 measuring (measuring 15.5X20 cm.), later retouched to 8X15 cm) and kid (element 1-15-6 measuring form a camel. 4X7 cm).

115

No . Of No. of Tail Tail Size Style Goatee Horns Legs Length Direction Direction Orientation Eye Eye 0.13 0.86 0.00001 0.49 0.32 0.004 0.0003 0.20 0.78

Orientation 0.32 0.37 0.94 0.51 0.49 0.36 0.31 3.95E-10 Direction 0.86 0.54 0.66 0.18 0.27 0.84 0.61 Tail Direction 0.44 0.06 0.50 0.003 0.00003 0.76 Tail Length 0.69 0.04 0.09 0.003 0.000006 No. of Legs 0.16 0.24 0.17 0.000002 No. of Horns 0.58 0.72 0.31 Goatee 0.87 0.56 Style 0.01 Size Table 22. Chi square test results for Har Michia horned ungulate petroglyphs.

116

2.2.5.6. Lizards

At Har Michia, two lizards (representing 0.36% of the zoomorphic elements) were recorded. They were identified as lizards due to the length of the tail and the depiction of the lizard’s toe- pads, most likely identifying the lizard as a house gecko (Hemidactylus frenatus).

The common representation of lizards in rock art was a view from above (see for example in Israel at Har Karkom, Anati 2001:137; Timna, Otto n.d.: 165-166; and for additional examples: Australia, Layton 1991:35 Figure 5c; Arizona, Hays-Gilpin 2004:25; Indonesia, Kosasih 1991:74; and Jordan, Jobling 1986:484, no. 1:AM85/96B/15; Figure 7b). This view results in a line for a body (usually with some volume) and four additional lines representing the limbs. Based on the level of minimalism, lizards and humans may be interchanged. The essential difference between humans and lizards was the length of the body line. When the body line was longer than the mid-leg, it may be interpreted as a tail. But whether this tail was a lizard’s tail or clothing accessory (such as a fox’s tail) should be considered (Hays-Gilpin 2004:25). As the visual identification of a motif, determining whether it was human or lizard was culturally derived (Layton 1991:35-36), many researchers prefer to use the term lizard man or human/lizard to stress the ambiguity in recognition (Hays-Gilpin 2004:25, Layton 1991:36).

The Har Michia lizards (34-42-22, 34-42-31) were placed on the same panel at 90° to each other. The first (34-42-22) was presented in a vertical stance, with a large ring around its head (Fig. 42). The second lizard (34-42-31, Fig. 41) was horizontal. This lizard’s toe-pads were clearly evident. As the sample of lizards was restricted, chi square tests were not carried out.

117

Figure. 41. Element 34-42-31 (measuring 12 Figure 42. Element 34-42-22 (measuring X28.5 cm) petroglyph of a lizard. Black 27X35 cm) petroglyph of a lizard. Black lines added with photoshop to enhance lines added with photoshop to enhance engraving. engraving.

2.2.5.7. Predators

A group of six animals (representing 1/07% of all zoomorphic elements) presented unusual attributes in relation to all other zoomorphs; these may represent predators. The first of the predator group (1-2-33) was a straight backed animal. The head was at body height and the tail was long, straight and raised. The long tail and relatively straight body line put three additional recorded elements into the same category. Element 39-1-2 pursuits a horned ungulate (Fig. 43), suggesting that it was a predator. The predator’s head was at body height of the wild ruminant though its legs were slightly longer. It is possible that the depicted animal was meant to represent a dog though consistency in the tail position suggested otherwise. The tail was engraved as going-up, and then curving downwards. Elements 39-44-10 (fig.45) and 39-44-4 (Fig. 44) were similar animal species with long up, and then down curved tails. Element 39-44-10’s tail was thick, narrowing at the tip. These three animals had short ears. Although the three were all found at outcrop 39, these figures did not seem like the work of a single hand. Of the Negev predators, it seems like these animals (forming the first of two predator sub-categories) represented leopards. Leopards (Panthera pardus) are still found in the Negev though in continuously decreasing numbers (Aronson 1982:14-16; Paz 1979:117).

118

Observations of leopards have shown that as long as the leopard has not been noticed while hiding and getting ready to pounce, the tail is kept low, parallel to the ground. Once the leopard is in clear view, it raises and curves its tail above its back (Tamna 2000:68) as presented at Biqat Uvda (Yogev 1983), and similar to the 1-2-33 depiction (Figs. 46-47). The curving up of the tail is also used by female leopards, exposing the white underside of the tail, indicating to her young to follow (Tamna 2000:68). Although the up-turned tail has become one of the leopards attributes, the leopard uses and curves its tail in a number of fashions. The identification of 39- 44-10, 39-44-4 and 39-1-2 as leopards was strengthened by the fact that all have similar tails, and that 39-1-2 followed a horned ungulate. Horned ungulate make up to 67% of the leopards’ diet (Tamna 2000:44-45).

A second predator category is represented by 33-43-1 (Fig. 48), and 39-78-7 (Fig. 49). These animals were fully engraved, presenting a large bodied animal with a big head, a snout (?), four legs (possibly running), and a long tail. These animals, too, seemed to be of the feline family. As the number of predators sample was limited, chi square tests were not carried out.

Figure 44. Element 39-44-4 (measuring 13X5.5 cm. ) identified as predator.

Figure 43. Predator hunting horned ungulate (predator – 39-1-2 measuring 7X9 cm, horned ungulate 39-1-1 measuring 10X11 cm). Figure 45. Element 39-44-10 (measuring 13.5X6 cm.) identified as predator.

119

Figure 46. Element 1-2-33 measuring (7X11 Figure 47. Petraform interpreted as a leopard, cm.) identified as predator. Black lines Uvda Valley. added with photoshop to enhance element.

\ Figure 48. Element 33-43-1(measuring Figure 49. Element 39-78-7 (measuring 5X6 cm) identified as predator. 8.5X10 cm. ) identified as predator.

2.2.5.8. Scorpion

A single representation of a scorpion (representing 0.18% of all zoomorphic elements) was noted at Har Michia. This scorpion (33-80-11) was engraved in a minimalistic fashion with only the essential attributes included (Fig. 50). Two curved lines represented the pincers, and a straight line indicated the tail, neglecting the rest of the body parts (the actual body, four sets of legs, moveable claws, and mouth. These details were apparent on scorpions from Har Karkom [Anati 2001:137] and Giva’t HaKetovot [personal observation]). The scorpion was roughly shaped as a Y and set at 90° to a foot print, with the pincers crossing over the foot outline. Even though the tail was farthest from the foot, this juxtaposition may indicate the instant of being stung.

121

Figure 50. Scorpion stinging a foot (scorpion element 33-80-11 measuring 6.5X15 cm, foot element 33-80-10 measuring 8X14.5 cm).

2.2.5.9. Snake

There is a single representation of a snake (representing 0.18% of all zoomorphic elements). The snake (16-45-1, Fig. 51), presented side-winding, and was positioned at face level with a human figure (16-45-2). The shape of the snake's head was unclear. Below the head, which nearly touched the figures arm, were short line markings which may represent the snake’s venom. There are six species of poisonous snakes in the Negev (Paz 1979:216-219). This human/snake scene may be interpreted as the human being bitten, the human killing the snake or, the human milking it. A squiggly line at the figures legs (16-45-5, Fig. 51) may represent the same snake either before or after the encounter with the human (or, as it is documented, an abstract motif).

121

Figure 51. Panel 16-45 with snake (top, element 16-45-1, measuring 1X25 cm), anthropomorph (right of snake, element 16-45-2 measuring 10X21 cm), and possible second snake (bottom, element 16-45-5, measuring 1X17 cm).

2.2.5.10. Unidentified Zoomorphic Representations

Unidentified zoomorphs comprised the second largest category (n=125, representing 22% of the entire zoomorphic category). Elements in this category were termed unidentified zoomorphs if a body line and legs, or, body line and neck were visible. In some cases, the engraved animal was well formed though without specific attributes (Fig. 52), thus it could not be securely identified. As noted above, the minimalistic style prevented the identification of isolated animals such as canines, different feline species, sheep and female goats (nanny) as many nannies are horn-less (French:1970:181). Zoomorphs with no legs (10% of the unidentified zoomorphic category) were either incomplete engravings, or the leg details were no longer visible due to superimposition, quality of the rock surface, or shade of patina.

122

Figure 52. Well formed unidentified zoomorph (element 19-30-2 measuring 8X8 cm) following a horned ungulate (element 19-30-1 measuring 10X10.5 cm).

Based on chi square tests (Table 23) it is apparent that: - Unidentified zoomorphs with no legs tend to have no tail. - Unidentified zoomorphs depicted with two legs tend to have short, straight tails. - Unidentified zoomorphs depicted with two legs tend to be fully engraved. - Unidentified zoomorphs fully engraved tend to be small sized (<10 cm). - Unidentified zoomorphs depicted with four legs tend to have long tails. - Long tails of unidentified zoomorphs tend to be down turned. - Unidentified zoomorphs depicted with four legs tend to be linear. - Linear Unidentified zoomorphs tend to be large sized (>20cm).

Size Style Eye Legs Tail direction Tail Length Direction Orientation Orientation 0.05 0.35 0.22 0.004 0.98 0.99 0.28 Direction 0.99 0.05 0.96 0.35 0.50 0.68 Tail Length 0.12 0.44 0.25 0.009 0.0003 Tail Direction 0.13 0.64 0.28 0.004 Legs 0.93 0.002 0.13 Eye 0.71 0.16 Style 0.05 Size Table 23. Chi square test results for Har Michia unidentified zoomorphic petroglyphs.

123

2.2.5.11. Summary

Summing up, at Har Michia there were nine animal species and an additional category of unidentified zoomorphs petroglyphs. These were divided into domesticated and undomesticated animals. Most zoomorphic elements did not exceed 10X20 cm in maximum dimensions. The largest category of zoomorphic elements consisted of horned ungulates. It is clear that the majority were mature male ibex, which were characterized by large back swooping horns. Some males included additional details such as a goatee and an up-turned tail.

Of the domesticated animals, camels were the most often depicted. In none of the camels was the sex shown clearly, though up-turned tails may be an iconographic indication of females. Several camels were ridden. Other camels were presented as single animals or in pairs, most likely of a female camel and her young.

Goats, birds, lizards, scorpions and snakes were rarely presented while sheep were entirely missing from the Har Michia repertoire. As the inclusion of details was minimalistic it was impossible to identify several animals. These were animals with either no specific identifying characteristic, or that we still have been unable to identify the characteristic. These technically include equids not being ridden, dogs, young male ibexes, female ibexes, foxes, and probably several other species that have not even been suggested in the present research.

Most zoomorphs were presented on their own. Even when a number of zoomorphs were presented on the same panel, there seems to be no connection between them. There was no feeling of a herd or animals grazing. This is probably because there was no clear ground and landscape in the panels. Animals were turned according to where the mark maker was sitting. This is apparent especially on flat (horizontal) panels.

A few scenes apparently included anthropomorphs. It is the dynamics of the anthropomorph, the upraised arms, the drawn weapons which ties the elements together into a scene. The equid/camel on which the warrior/hunter is riding was almost always static. In a few cases, ibexes were hunted by anthropomorphs or predators. In hunting scenes, the moment of chase was

124 depicted.

Based on chi square tests (Tables 19-23) it is clear that certain systematic forms were employed. These differed from animal to animal, reinforcing their identification as different species. As each species was exploited differently, it was regarded in a different way by the mark maker’s society. The combination of specific elements has a cultural meaning and importance. Of special interest were the up-turned tails of the female camel and male ibex, both gender specific. The up- turned tail of the camel identified it as a female. Female camels could be exploited for their milk production (Eisenberg-Degen 2006:84) (other interpretations and meanings of female camels are discussed in chapter 3.4).

Male ibex (identified as such by the shape and length of their horns) with up-turned tails are shown presenting behavior reflecting the rutting season.

Within the unidentified zoomorphic category some of the significant chi tests results point towards relatively easily explained situations. For example, the lack of details such as legs, was accompanied by the lack of a tail. This suggested that legs and tails were added after the first lines were engraved, forming the zoomorphs body and head. Thus zoomorphs without legs and/or tails were probably incomplete elements. Other statistically significant combinations may help identify the depicted species. For example, unidentified zoomorphs depicted with four legs were similar to equids, both tending to have long down turned tails. This was in contrast to camels depicted with four legs but tended to have up-turned tails.

2.2.6. Hand and Foot Prints

Thirty seven isolated hand and foot prints were recorded at Har Michia. The hand prints, the minority of this group, did not show any consistency in depiction, size, or patina color. Of the five hand prints one (34-17-9, Fig. 53) was fully engraved, two (39-80-27, and 39-28-36, Figs. 54-55) were presented with the fingers outlined but have no indication of the wrist or arm while the remaining two did (19-29-1, Fig. 56 and 18-30-3, fig. 57). The number of fingers depicted in each case differed, ranging between two (thumb and index finger) and five fingers.

125

Footprints were more uniform than hand prints at Har Michia . The foot and sandal prints may be divided into seven pairs of feet presented side by side, one pair of walking feet and 19 representations of single prints. Ten of these present left feet, 13 present right feet and ten were unidentifiable.

Verner (1973:28-39) formed a typology based on the 139 foot and sandal prints, documented on a Czechoslovakian survey in Nubia. He divided the prints into three types: Type I, foot prints with indications of toes, five variants are based on the details of how the toes are formed. Type II, footprints with no indication of toes, four variants reflect the shape of the footprint and one variant is totally engraved, and Type III for sandal prints. Variants III/1- III/3 are of feet wearing sandals seen from above, variants III/4 and III/5 are of sandal prints. The remaining variants (III/6-III/14) are sandals not worn and seen from above, differing based on the position of the straps (Fig. 59). This typology is suitable for most prints found in the Mediterranean Basin (Kaper and Willems 2002:86; Guarducci 1942; Monson 2000; Nehmé 1995) and, therefore, was adopted for the foot and sandal prints documented at Har Michia.

In Verner’s Type III (1973:31-33), the sandal straps are always presented as lines. At Har Michia sandal straps in the form of lines did occur though small markings presented in the same position were more common (six prints have knob like marks versus two line mark straps). Sandal prints with knob marks rather than lines (straps) could be classified as Type III/15 though as this variant is not present in Nubia, it is more suitable to add a fourth type of foot and sandal print. Type IV/1, is a sandal print with a small marking on either side of the outlined print, above the heel. Two variants reflect the number of toes presented, IV/2 is a sandal print with indications of toes and knobs, IV/3 is a sandal print with an indication of big toe and knobs.

Comparing the size of the Har Michia prints to those published by Verner (1973:32-33), the Har Michia prints were found to be slightly smaller. The length of Type I prints from Nubia ranged between14 - 25 cm, while those at Har Michia ranged between 8 - 25.5 cm in length (averaging 15.5 cm). Type II in Nubia averaged 20 cm in length while the ones at Har Michia averaged 18.5 cm and Type III average 25 cm long in Nubia and those at Har Michia averaged 21.5 cm. As for Type IV, the average length was 18.6 cm. Verner found a connection between the foot/sandal

126 type and the angel of the rock. This pattern did not repeat itself at Har Michia. Likewise, no correlation was found between the prints, the different types, the different basins and a specific orientation to which they point.

For the division of the Har Michia foot and sandal prints into variants Table 24. Table 25 shows the different patina shades of the foot and hand prints.

Relatively few (less than 20% of the total number of prints and 30% of the prints with indications of digits) of the Har Michia hand and foot/sandal prints presented all five digits. One sandal (18-20-8, Fig. 58) print was unique at Har Michia in that six toes were clearly engraved.

Figure 53. Element 34-17-9 Figure 54. Element 39-80-27 Figure 55. Element 39-28-26 (measuring 5X9 cm) recognized (measuring 15X15.5 cm) (measuring 24X29 cm) as a hand petroglyph. recognized as a hand recognized as a hand petroglyph. petroglyph.

127

Figure 56. Element 19-29-1 (measuring Figure 57. Element 18-30-3 (measuring 12X20 cm) recognized as a hand petroglyph. 16X22cm) recognized as a hand petroglyph.

Figure 58. Element 18-20-8 (measuring 14X28) recognized as a six toed foot print petroglyph.

128

Element no./Type I/1 I/2 I/3 I/4 I/5 II/1 II/2 II/3 II/4 II/5 III/1 III/2 III/3 III/4 III/5 IV/1 IV/2 IV/3 41-15-3 1 41-15-4 1 1-11-2 1 34-37-15 1 34-37-16 1 34-37-17 1 34-37-18 1 33-125-3a 1 33-125-3b 1 33-67-19 1 33-67-28 1 33-67-36 1 33-67-24 1 33-68-3 1 33-80-10 1 33-113-3 1 33-67-5 1 33-124-4 1 33-65-8 1 34-61-16 1 33-67-32 1 18-18-1 1 18-20-6 1 18-20-8 1 18-35-1 1 18-39-1 1 18-39-2 1 19-22-2 1 19-22-3 1 19-22-6 1 19-22-7 1 19-12-1 1 18-18-2 1 Total 4 0 3 1 2 7 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 Percentage 12% 0% 9.1% 3% 6.1% 21.3% 0% 0% 6.1% 6.1% 0% 3% 6.1% 6.1% 3% 3% 12% 3% Table 24. Typology of footprint petroglyphs documented at Har Michia (continuation from previous page).

129

Type I I/1 ` I/2 I/3 I/4 I/5

Type II II/1 II/2 II/3 II/4 II/5

Type III III/1 III/2 III/3 III/4 III/5

III/6 III/7 III/8 III/9 III/10

III/11 III/12-13 III/14

Type IV IV/1 IV/2 IV/3

Figure 59. Typology of foot and sandal prints based on Verner (1973). Type I, foot prints with indications of toes, Type II, footprints with no indication of toes, Type III sandal prints. Type IV prints with small marking on either side.

131

Patina Foot Hand

2.5/1-4/4 12 0

4/6-5/4 4 1

5/5-6/8 4 1

7/1-7/8 2 1

8/1 10 2

8/2-8/6 0 0

Paint 1 0

total 33 5

Table 25. Patina shades of hand and foot print petroglyphs as documented at Har Michia.

2.2.7. Anthropomorphic Motifs

The term anthropomorph is used for human figures, elements which contain human attributes as well as elements that lack any human resemblance but which, based on their placement, may be interpreted as human. 145 anthropomorphs were documented at Har Michia which can be divided into two types: Type 1 – anthropomorphs, and Type 2 – ridden animals.

2.2.7.1 Anthropomorphs Type 1

Type 1 includes 86 anthropomorphic depictions which may be divided into six sub-types (Figs. 60 and 64). These sub-types are defined primarily by the placement of the figure’s arms, and secondly by the figure’s actions. Sub-types 1a through 1d are static, whereas 1e and 1f are more dynamic in nature. In 1a, no arms are depicted. In 1b, one of the two largest sub-categories, the arms are positioned extending upwards. In 1c, the arms are stretched out to the sides. In 1d, the arms are down, alongside the body. In 1e, the figures are in clear motion, running, walking, or in one case (33-124-5) resembles dancing with an uplifted leg. Sub-type 1f, the second of the two largest categories, consists of figures carrying weapons. The figures placed at the start of this sub-type in Fig. 61 have a line extending from one hand. This line may represent a stick, dagger,

131 sword, or lance. In some cases, the length of the line and position in relation to the body (parallel to the body or held above the head) help eliminate some of these possibilities. Next presented are figures holding shields. All the depicted shields are round and relatively small. Following these is figure 40-2-6 holding a bow (presented backwards). Two figures (39-80-5 and 33-151-5) are clearly associated with dot markings, which may be interpreted as slung stones. Few figures have weapons difficult to identify. At the end of the table are two figures which may be interpreted as wearing helmets (39-41-15 and 26-6-5).

Of Type 1 anthropomorphs, 30% are defined sexually. Females are indicated by breast (patina islands) or vulvae shaped patina islands between the legs. Both breasts and vulva are represented only in one case (33-124-5). Males, indicated either with a short line extending downwards between the legs, a downward line between the legs of equal length to the legs, or a horizontal or curved line extending from the figure’s waist, present 21.5% of type 1 anthropomorphs. Here, a line between a figure’s legs is interpreted as a penis; others (Anati 1956) have interpreted similar lines as short skirts. All the males with an erect phallus are in sub-category 1b.

2.2.7.2. Anthropomorphs Type 2

Type 2 includes 59 ridden animals. Thirteen are ridden camels, while the rest are equids. These ridden animals may be divided into eight sub-categories based on the form of the anthropomorph, the position of the hands and weapons depicted. In each subcategory, ridden camels are always presented at the start of the column (Figs. 62-63). In sub-categories 2a-2c, the anthropomorphs are presented as single lines (with the exception of 36-3-2 which has a body and head though no arms). In sub-category 2d-2h, the anthropomorph is presented with more details, starting with arms and in the more elaborate representations with hair and eyes.

Sub-category 2a consists of camels and equids ridden by armless anthropomorphs. In 2b, the reins of the animal are shown indicating that they are held by the anthropomorph. 2c, represented by a single example, is of an armed line shaped anthropomorph. A horizontal line placed above the anthropomorph may be interpreted as a lance. In category 2d, the anthropomorphs are all presented with a horizontal line. In the first eight entries in Fig. 62, the line is long, interpreted as

132 a lance. Following these are two representations of anthropomorphs with shorter lines. These are held at waist level and may be interpreted as swords or daggers. The anthropomorphs of 2e also hold lines, though these are held along the body or, in any case, not in an ambushing mode. Two examples in this sub-category (7-12-1, and 19-16-2) seem to be wearing helmets. In 2f, the anthropomorphs have one arm raised in a smiting position; the second arm is stretched forward towards the animal’s neck, interpreted as holding the reigns. In 2g, the figure’s arms are stretched to the sides, extended from the body. In 2h, the anthropomorph is presented with upraised arms, standing on the animal’s back.

The anthropomorphs riding animals (not including sub-category 2h) are almost all (over 90%) placed over the body line of the animal, presented from waist up with no legs.

Applying chi square tests on Type 1 and 2, the following significant (Tables 26-28) relations became apparent: Females: - Females tend to have legs. - None of the females have feet. - None of the females have a line at the waist, or weapon. Males: - Males tend to be of a large and medium size. - Males tend to be depicted in a linear style. - All male figures have legs. - Male figures tend to have feet. - Males tend to have a line at the waist. - No males are depicted riding. Sexually ambiguous figures: - Anthropomorphs with no legs tend have no sexual indications. - Ambiguously sexed figures tend not to be depicted with a line at the waist. - Anthropomorphs depicted with outstretched arms tend to have no sexual indications. Fully styled anthropomorphs: - Anthropomorphs without weapons tend to be fully engraved.

133

- None of the fully engraved anthropomorphs hold sticks. - Fully engraved anthropomorphs tend to be oriented towards SW. - Anthropomorphs with eyes tend to be fully engraved. Linear styles anthropomorphs: - Linear styled figures tend not to hold sticks. - Linear styled anthropomorphs tend to be oriented northwards. - Anthropomorphs with no eyes tend to be of a linear style. Small sized anthropomorphs: - Small sized (5-10 cm) anthropomorphs are not male. - Small sized anthropomorphs tend to face north. - Small sized anthropomorphs tend to have no arms. - Small size anthropomorphs tend to be riding and not to have legs. Large sized anthropomorphs: - Large (>20cm) and medium (10-20 cm) sized anthropomorphs tend not to be riding and to have legs. Armed anthropomorphs: - Anthropomorphs depicted with legs and feet tend to hold a shield. - Anthropomorphs with a shield tend to hold a sword. - Anthropomorphs depicted with a shield tend to have a line at the waist. - Anthropomorphs depicted with a line at the waist tend to have legs. - Anthropomorphs depicted with a helmet tend to hold a stick. - Anthropomorphs holding a stick tend to be depicted in an outlined style. - Anthropomorphs with no eyes tend to have weapons. - Anthropomorphs with weapons tend to be linear. - Anthropomorphs facing right tend to hold a lance. - Anthropomorphs facing left tend to have weapons. - Anthropomorphs depicted with outstretched arms or one outstretched arm, tend to be armed. - Anthropomorphs with eyes tend not to have weapons. Concentrating on Type 2 anthropomorph: - Riding anthropomorphs tend not to have feet.

134

- Riding figures tend to face right. - Riding figures tend to have no hair. - Riding anthropomorphs tend to have no sexual indication. In addition: - Anthropomorphs depicted with upraised arms tend to have sexual indications. - Anthropomorphs with hair tend to have eyes. - Anthropomorphs with eyes tend to be oriented eastwards. - Anthropomorphs oriented eastwards tend to have fingers. - Anthropomorphs with fingers tend to have eyes. - Anthropomorphs with fingers tend to have feet. - Anthropomorphs with feet tend not to be riding. - Anthropomorphs with no feet tend not to have fingers. - Anthropomorphs with no feet tend to be depicted with no shield. - Anthropomorphs with no legs tend not to be depicted with a shield. - Anthropomorphs depicted with no shield tend not to have a sword or a line at the waist. - Anthropomorphs with no hair tend not to have eyes. - Anthropomorphs with no eyes tend not to be orientated eastwards. - Anthropomorphs with no line at the waist tend not to have legs. - Anthropomorphs facing right tend not to have legs. - Anthropomorphs facing left tend to be oriented towards S-NW. - Anthropomorphs not depicted riding tend to have upraised arms. - Anthropomorphs not depicted riding tend to have hair. - Anthropomorphs facing right tend to be oriented towards N-SE

Concluding these occurrences, it is clear that certain conventions were followed. Upraised arms, a well rooted and significant gesture (to be discussed in chapter 3.4) are related to sexually defined anthropomorphs. Females are not presented with weapons and tend to be depicted in a minimalistic manner, without fingers, feet, eyes, and hair. Males in contrast are more detailed and armed. The first weapon combination consists of a line at the waist (a sword sheath), shield and sword. The second statistically significant combination is a helmet and a stick. Ridden figures tend to be of ambiguous sex and holding a lance (Type 2c and 2d). The lack of details

135 amongst the ridden figures, such as sexual definition, legs and feet, seem due to technical difficulties of the artist in spatial conception. It is also possible that there was no need for sexual classification as both the smiting position (Type 2f) and the figures armed with lances (Type 2c and 2d) are gender specific formulas, as suggested by the Type 1f anthropomorphs. As for the sex of other riding figures (Types 2a, 2b, 2e, and 2g), we cannot deduce from the fact that they are riding as to their sex. Type 2h, with standing figures and upraised arms, is closest in style, and probably in meaning, to the Type 1b anthropomorphs.

136

Figure 60. Anthropomorphic petroglyphs of Har Michia, Type 1, subtypes a-c. Type 1a, static figures with no arms. Type 1b, static figures with up raised arms. Type 1c, static figures with outstretched arms. 137

Figure 61 Anthropomorphic petroglyphs of Har Michia , Type 1, subtypes d-f. Type 1d, static, arms are alongside the body. Type 1e, dynamic figures. Type 1f, dynamic, anthropomorphs carrying weapons according to appearance: line extending from one hand (representing a stick, dagger, sword, or lance), shield, bow, slung stones difficult to identify, helmet.

138

Figure 62. Anthropomorphic petroglyphs of Har Michia , Type 2, subtypes a-c. Type 2a, figures represented as lines. Type 2b figures represented as lines connected to the reigns. Type 2c, Figure represented as a line with a lance.

139

Figure 63. Anthropomorphic petroglyphs of Har Michia , Type 2, subtypes d-f. Type 2d Figures with a horizontal line representing a lance, sword/daggers. armed Type 2e, figures holding a line next to the body (stick?). Type 2f, figures with one arm raised in a smiting position; the second arm is stretched forward towards the animal’s neck, holding the reigns. 141

Figure 64. Anthropomorphic petroglyphs of Har Michia , Type 2, subtypes g-h. Type 2g, figures with arms stretched to the sides. Type 2h, Figures with upraised arms, standing on the animal’s back.

141

Chi Square Size Style Hair Arms Direction Orientation Sex Eyes Weapon Legs Feet Riding Finger Fingers 0.35 0.81 0.62 0.44 0.60 0.01 0.17 0.03 0.09 0.77 0.007 0.09 Ridding 0.001 0.79 0.02 0.002 0.0005 0.22 0.00006 0.33 0.39 1.06E-20 0.0001 Feet 0.32 0.31 0.67 0.23 0.53 0.59 0.0002 0.74 0.09 Legs 0.03 0.37 0.42 0.001 0.006 0.12 2.07E-05 0.87 0.19 Weapon 0.84 0.41 0.43 0.20 0.04 0.19 0.06 0.15 Eyes 0.14 0.02 0.00004 0.16 0.05 0.01 0.94 Sex 0.04 0.005 0.78 0.04 0.33 0.29 Orientation 0.0001 0.051 0.53 0.68 0.02 Direction 0.55 0.06 0.18 0.005 Arms 8.95E-05 0.22 0.19 Hair 0.92 0.07 Style 0.77 Size Table 26. Chi square test results for Har Michia anthropomorphic petroglyphs.

Chi Square Other Sword Stick Lance Sword/Lance/Stick Helmet Shield Line at waist Line at waist 0.61 0.59 0.27 0.38 0.14 0.63 0.0003 Shield 0.53 0.006 0.11 0.14 0.08 0.69 Helmet 0.67 0.67 0.004 0.55 0.03 Sword/Lance/Stick 0.26 Lance 0.43 0.34 0.43 Stick 0.60 0.43 sword 0.43 other Table 27. Chi square test results for combinations of weapons held by Har Michia anthropomorphic petroglyphs.

142

Chi Square Size Style Arms Direction Orientation Sex Eyes Legs Feet Hair Line at waist 0.36 0.19 0.55 0.29 0.45 0.004 0.68 0.02 0.05 0.22 Shield 0.33 0.65 0.97 0.63 0.53 0.40 0.53 0.02 0.04 0.33 Sword 0.80 0.28 0.89 0.27 0.76 0.48 0.60 0.85 0.47 0.20 Lance 0.06 0.34 0.25 0.01 0.62 0.44 0.15 0.10 0.75 0.14 Stick 0.19 0.000002 0.61 0.71 0.59 0.53 0.26 0.36 0.31 0.31 Table 28 Chi square test results for weapons held by Har Michia anthropomorphic petroglyphs and a number of recorded details.

Orientation Direction Orientation Tail of Direction of of Panel of Ibex of Ibex Ibex Dog/Predator Dog/Predator Relation 5-35 L N Up-turned L N Behind/Following 7-7 L W Up-turned L W Behind/Following 25-33 R N Up-turned R N Behind/Following 33-21 L SW No tail R SW Behind - upside-down 33-65 R N Straight R N Behind/Following 33-87 R NW Up-turned R NW Behind/Following 33-126 L NW Straight R SE Facing 33-149 L N Up-turned L N Behind/Following 33-216 R N No tail R N Behind/Following 37-22 R NE Up-turned L SW Back to Back 37-33 L SW Up-turned L SW Behind/Following 39-1 L E Up-turned L E Behind/Following 39-12 L SE Up-turned L SE Behind/Following 39-69 R N Up-turned R NE Behind/Following 41-10 R N Up-turned R N Behind/Following Table 29. Ibex dog/predator combinations documented.

143

2.2.8. Motif Combinations

Motif combinations which may infer to the meaning of a motif or panel (to be discussed in detail in chapter 3.4) include ibex-dog, ibex-orant (anthropomorph of Type 1b), and ibex-feet13.

2.2.8.1. Ibex-Dog

As noted above, dogs are recognizable with certainty only in a number of cases. As such all panels with horned ungulates and zoomorphs engraved in the same layer were examined (n=32). A clear relationship between zoomorphs (probably dogs or predators) and horned ungulates was apparent in 15 panels. In two cases (7-7 and panel 33-87, Figs. 65 and 66) riding anthropomorphs may be associated with the zoomorphs/horned ungulate combination. In 14 of the 15 panels, the dog closely followed the horned ungulate, which in all but one case (33-87), may be recognized as a mature male ibex. In one case (33-21, Fig. 67) the dog was placed behind the ibex, though upside-down. No consistency in direction or orientation was noted. Most ibex (73%) were presented with an up-turned tail (Table 29).

2.2.8.2. Ibex-Orant

In two cases (33-204, 41-20, Figs. 68 and 69) an anthropomorph was presented in orant and associated with a horned ungulate. These anthropomorphs (33-204-3, 41-20-5) stood with upraised arms and had an erect penis. Above the figures’ arms (and to the left in Fig. 70) was a mature, male ibex.

2.2.8.3. Ibex-Foot Prints

Of the 17 panels bearing footprints, five panels included horned ungulates. Of these a single panel (33-125, Fig. 69) presented both motifs in a relatively clear relation. A pair of adjoined foot prints points towards a mature male ibex. The ibex is at an angle oriented northwards.

13 I am grateful to Dr. Uzi Avner for pointing out these reoccurring combinations.

144

Figure 65. Panel 7-7 with zoomorph petroglyph (element 7-7-2 measuring 10X12 cm) following horned ungulate petroglyph (element 7-7-1 measuring 17X23 cm). Below is a camel petroglyph (element 7-7-3 measuring 15X20).

Figure 66. Panel 33-87 with ridden equid petroglyph (33-87-8 measuring 21.5X29 cm) followed by horned ungulate petroglyph (33-87-6 measuring 6X16.5 cm) and zoomorph petroglyph (33- 87-5 measuring 6X7.5 cm).

145

Figure 67. Panel 33-21 with ibex (33-21-1 measuring 17X21 cm) and predator (upside-down, 33- 21-2 measuring 7.5X16 cm) lichen covered petroglyph. Black lines added with photoshop to clarify engraved lines.

Figure 68. Panel 33-204 with ithyphallic Figure 69. Panel 33-125 with a pair of foot prints orant petroglyph (33-204-3 measuring petroglyph (33-125-3 measuring 20X25 cm) and 9X13 cm) and ibex petroglyph (33-204-2 ibex petroglyph (33-125-8 measuring 14X16.5 cm, measuring 9X10 cm). there is a T shaped device placed behind of or attached the ibex’s back leg). Black lines added with . photoshop to clarify engraved lines.

146

Figure 70. Panel 41-20 with ithyphallic orant petroglyph (41-20-5 measuring 14.5X34 cm) and ibex petroglyph (41-20-2 measuring 8.5X10.5, tail direction unclear). Black lines added with photoshop to enface elements.

2.2.9. Tools/Weapons

This category consists of tools or weapons presented independently, not held by anthropomorphs. Twenty-one elements were documented in this category. These may be divided into four types of tools: bow and arrows, arrows, slung stones and a T shaped device. All of the bows (n=6) seem to be of the simple segmented type (Rausing 1967:130-135). These, presented as a simple line perpendicular to the bow, are interpreted as an arrow in place. Other arrows are presented independently from the bow. These take the form of small arrows, most likely meant to indicate the arrow head itself. Elements 39-80-3 and 33-131-6 (Figs. 71 and 72) are sets of round marks associated with anthropomorphs, interpreted as sling stones. The associated anthropomorphs hold a line shaped device in the hand farthest from the dots/stones. These isolated examples may shed light on markings found in many instances near or on the horns of horned ungulates (documented as abstract), which may represent slung stones. The T shaped device has been interpreted by Anati (1968:107) as a leg trap.

147

Figure 71. Panel 39-80. Anthropomorphic motif (39-80-5 measuring 10.5X11 cm) with a series of dots, possibly representing slung stones (39-80-3 measuring 9.5X14 cm) in the direction of a horned ungulate (39-80-4 measuring 8.5X9 cm).

Figure 72. Panel 33-131. Anthropomorphic motif (33-131-5 measuring 13X14 cm) with a series of dots, possibly representing slung stones (33-131-6 measuring 4X8 cm).

148

2.2.10. Buildings

One element clearly depicts a building. Element 39-19-1(Fig. 73) is a representation of a domed structure with three vertical sections, each divided into four horizontal sections14. The dome is filled with dot markings. These markings were at first concentric, following the dome's outline. The building seems to represent a concentric structure. A second element, which may be a representation of a structure, is depicted in 25-31-3 (Fig. 74). Here, a domed building seems to be represented, though the simplistic representation leaves the interpretation much up to the viewer. In addition to these two elements, several elements documented as abstract (E10, G1, G2, and G6 Types in Table 14, Fig. 75) may be interpreted as overviews of living structures, corals, and other enclosures. In one case (10-9-20 and 10-9-38, Fig. 76), a hunt scene with a desert kite is tentatively suggested (Eisenberg-Degen 2010).

Figure 73. Element 39-19-1 representing a concentric Figure 74. Element 25-31-1 domed structure (measuring 26X46 cm) and camel moving representing a domed towards it (element 39-19-2, measuring 9X11). structure (measuring 8X19).

14 This element, as many other,s may be interpreted in several ways. For example Yehuda Rotblum sees element 39-19-1 as a visualization of an Egyption myth of the sky supported by four pillers.

149

Figure 75. Element 6-5-4 (measuring 14X23 cm) documented as an abstract element of type G6. This element may represent an animal pen. Black lines added with photoshop to enface shape.

Figure 76. Panel 10-9 with scene interpreted as a hunt with a desert kite (indicated in black, scene roughly measures 12X67 cm). Scene of the hunt in the desert kite was blacked through photoshop to enhance the connection between elements.

151

2.2.11. Abstract, Zoomorphic and Anthropomorphic Petroglyph Motif Ratios and Patina Shade

One form through which to examine the data is by comparing ratios between depicted motifs. The relative numbers, or ratio, of the three most commonly depicted motifs can be compared to other sites. At Har Michia, the ratio between the different motif types averages 30 abstracts for each anthropomorph and 4 zoomorphic elements for each anthropomorph (30:1, 4:1). This number includes all of the recorded abstract elements. When omitting the first level of complexity from this calculation, the number of abstracts drops to 14 abstract to every anthropomorphic element (14:1).

Looking at the relationship between depicted motifs, it is apparent that there is a clear relation between the number of first level abstract elements and the number of more complex abstract elements. Abstracts of the first complexity level are, on average, engraved three times more often than more complex abstracts.

When examining the abstract : anthropomorph and zoomorph : anthropomorph ratios according to drainage basin (Fig. 11), it is apparent that the relative number of abstracts rises from north to south, peaking in basins D and E. The ratio drops slightly in basin F. The relation of zoomorphic per anthropomorphic elements also seems to rise as one progresses southwards (Table 30). At present this phenomenon cannot be explained.

Drainage A B C D E F Total Ratio of abstract:anthropomorph, zoomorphs:anthropomorph 12:1, 12:1, 23:1, 38:1, 37:1, 30:1, 30:1, petroglyphs of Har Michia. 2:1 3:1 3:1 4:1 5:1 4:1 4:1 Ratio of abstract:anthropomorph, zoomorphs:anthropomorph petroglyphs of Har Michia, omitting the abstract first level of 3:1, 7:1, 7:1, 10:1, 11:1, 10:1, 9:1, complexity. 2:1 3:1 3:1 4:1 5:1 4:1 4:1 Table 30. Abstract: anthropomorphic, zoomorphic: anthropomorphic ratios according to drainage basins.

151

Because many variables affect the color and rate of patina development, caution should be taken in comparing patina shades from different panels and dating a motif based on its patina shade. Nonetheless, the larger the data base is, we may hope for some type of mid-range on how the patina is affected. Enlarging patina shade groupings from a single hew to 7, and comparing not only adjacent patina shades but also alternating groupings, can reduce the effect of the recorders subjectivity and present an average for the diversity in patina development rate. Looking at abstract:anthropomorph and zoomorphic:anthropomorph ratios based on patina shade, we noticed that abstract elements increase in number as the patina shade lightens, peaking at 5/6-6/8 patina shade. The number of zoomorphic elements, in contrast, stays constant within the first three darkest patina shades, dropping from an average of 30% to less than 7% in 7/1-7/8 patina shade. The percentage of anthropomorphic elements is consistent within the two darkest patina shades, peaking to 45% in 5/6-6/8 patina shade and then, as with the abstract and zoomorphic elements, anthropomorphic representations drop in percentage within the lighter patina shades (Fig. 77).

60.00%

50.00% Patina Shade

40.00% 2.5/1-4/4 4/6-5/4

30.00% 5/5-6/8 7/1-7/8 20.00% 8/2-8/6

Percentage motifof type Patina free

10.00%

0.00% Motif typeAnthropomorph Zoomorph Abstract

Figure 77. Abstract/Zoomorphic/Anthropomorphic percentages within each patina shade. Each motif type adds up to 100%.

152

2.2.12 Summary

The rock art survey of Har Michia included a brief description of all archaeological finds. These archaeological remains include agricultural implements (dams, terracing and drainage channels), structures and possible pens, tumuli and stele. Rock art was found concentrated almost entirely on dark faced boulders. No clear connection can be made between rock art and other archaeological remains.

The documented petroglyphs represent three main categories: abstract, zoomorph and anthropomorphic. Slightly more than half of the abstract elements are of the first complexity level. These include isolated marks, clusters of marks, marks on the panel edge, marks in natural formations of the rock and single lines. Within the zoomorphic category there are 9 species. The most often depicted is the mature male ibex. Anthropomorphs are divided roughly equally between Type 1 (standing) and Type 2 (riding).

Other rock art categories found at Har Michia include inscriptions, foot/sandal prints, weapon and tools, and structures. Few elements were in a direct relation to inscriptions. Most elements seem to be isolated and do not form structured scenes. Combinations of elements such as anthropomorph and ibex, ibex and dog/predator and sandals and ibex were noted and found in a number of instances.

Har Michia petroglyphs present a beacon through which to study petroglyphs from the region. This data may help monitor the changes observed and serve as a base for a management plan. The site is extremely dynamic with elements weathering, panels being covered by colluvium material, and some panels detaching (naturally collapsing or purposely damaged) from boulders, obscuring their original position. New elements are still being engraved. The interaction of the Bedouin community and the rock art in the past and present has formed a separate rock art tradition. The Bedouin rock art tradition and the Negebite tradition clearly seen at Har Michia will be further described in chapters 2.4 and 3.3.

153

2.3. Giva’t HaKetovot Survey Finds

This chapter presents a summary of the Giva’t HaKetovot’s field survey finds, opening with a description of the archaeological architectural features. Next, generalizations regarding the rock art position, panel size and orientation are presented. The elements documented are listed according to motif type. Abstract elements and anthropomorphs, divided into subtypes follow those presented in chapter 2.2. In the present review, zoomorphs are listed in alphabetical order. If the number of elements documented within a single motif is 20 or more, then they were examined through descriptive statistics. Statistically significant combinations complete the description of each documented motif type.

2.3.1. Archaeological Architectural Remains

On Giva’t HaKetovot there is a single structure. A visible corner suggests a square or rectangular structure, possibly a square based cairn, of the type described by Haiman (1986:15*-16*, 1992b). The structure is a single course high measuring approximately 4.80x4.80 m. Cairns on Giva’t Regalim to the north are visible from Giva’t HaKetovot’s plateau. In the wadi along the foot-hill of Giva’t HaKetovot are two additional structures (Fig. 78).The first, adjacent to the eastern slope of the hill, is rounded, standing to a height of 6o cm. The inner dimensions are 3.5X3.45 m and the outer dimensions reach 4.60X4.80 m. (Fig. 79).The second structure, situated approximately 15 meters north of the hill, is square. This structure, in contrast to the first, seems to have been in recent use. Two steps lead to the structure from the north. The inner dimensions are 2.90x3.50 m and the outer dimensions, including the steps, are 8.00x3.70 m. The structure is preserved to a height of two courses, 70 cm. (Figs. 80-81).

154

Figure 78. Aerial photograph of Giva’t HaKetovot with indication of cairn and structures identified during the field survey.

Figure 79. Structure 1of Giva’t HaKetovot with Janet Levy, looking east.

155

Figure 80. View of structure 2 of Giva’t HaKetovot with Amir Weitzman. View from Giva’t HaKetovot, facing north West.

Figure 81. Structure 2 of Giva’t HaKetovot, looking south.

The wadis surrounding Giva’t HaKetovot, Nahal Takif, Nahal Be'erotyim, and Nahal Ezuz are all terraced with stone walls. Two stone dams end at the western slopes of Giva’t HaKetovot (Fig. 78).

156

Ceramic finds from the hill and slopes include Gaza Ware, Byzantine cooking ware, and other non indicative sherds. Flint implements are numerous at the site, most dating to the 5th-3rd millennia BCE. In addition to the archaeological past, there are physical and literary evidence of the region’s role in World War I, during the British Mandate, and later, under the Israeli state (Ainy and Orion 1994:63-75; Gullett 1941:497-510; Markovitzky 2007:32; Peleg et al. 2004:219-220; Zevon 2004). The WWI phase is best seen at the settlement site situated 2.5 km to the east, and is unquestionably apparent at the hill as is evident by a 1916 inscription15. A trench east of the hill is attributed to Israel Defense Forces activity in the area, and is post 1979.

2.3.2. Outcrops , Panels and Elements

The hill is prominent in the landscape, rising some 15 meters in height over the surrounding plain. The hill combines patina covered outcrops with patina free limestone. The patina covered outcrops cover the northern slope and sections of the southern slope. The plateau is almost free of patina covered rocks. Looking south from the higher elevated Giva’t Regalim, Giva’t HaKetovot is clearly visible and distinguishable from the surroundings (Fig. 82).

Both patina covered and patina free stones were engraved. A preference for engraving patina covered rocks was observed. Patina free panels account for 17% of the documented panels at Giva’t HaKetovot, though with 32% of all elements on patina free panels, the patina free surfaces were engraved more densely than the patina covered panels. Density levels defined by

range between 0.00006 and 0.24 (panels were measured in cm,

Appendix, Table 4). The correlation between the size of the panel and the number of engraved elements was insignificant (p>0.05). Adopting Bradley’s et al. (1995) concept of conveying information to an audience not present at the time of engraving, we can assume that the visibility of the hill, its position in the center of first level tributary riverbeds, overlooking pastoral plains (exploited to this day by goat flocks, camel herds and gazelle alike) and cultivated fields drew people to the hill. The hill itself serves as the definition of the site. It is possible (as will be

15 The inscription dated to 1916 was found on the eastern slopes of the hill. As the panel does not fall into the sampled areas, it was noted but not documented in detail.

157 discussed in chapter 3.1 and evident from the data presented below) that patina covered and patina free panels were not engraved during the same periods or by the same cultural groups. If this is the case, then each cultural group would know on what type of rock the art is to be engraved and thus could limit panels to view, panels which bear relevant information.

Examining the direction of the engraved panels (omitting flat panels), panels oriented to the north, east, south and west are more commonly engraved than panels facing northeast, southeast, southwest, and northwest. Panels oriented westward and southward are most frequently engraved presenting 43% (rather than the expected 25%) of the documented panels at Giva’t HaKetovot (Table 31). As for the angle of the panel, the most commonly engraved surface is flat (47%) (Table 32).

Figure 82 view of Giva’t HaKetovot from Giva’t Regalim (looking southwards).

158

Panel Orientation Percentage Angle Percentage North 14% >45 7.69% North-East 8% 45 13.65% East 15% 45>x>90 8.93% South-East 7% 90 15.63% South 22% 90>x>135 0.25% South-West 9% 135 0.25% West 21% 135>x>180 5.71% North-West 4% 180 47.89% Table 31. Orientation of engraved panels Table 32 Angle of the panel surfaces documented at Giva’t HaKetovot. documented at Giva’t HaKetovot.

The rock art of Giva’t HaKetovot re presents three main types of motifs: abstract, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic. Listed in Table 33 are the number of elements recorded, their characterization into motif types as they were documented in the field and later, after reorganizing, in office settings.

As After % of all Elements Documented (after Element Documented Reorganizing reorganization) Abstract 1158 1144 78.04% Zoomorphic 202 202 13.78% Ridden Zoom/Anthro Type 2 5 6 0.41% Anthropomorph Type 1 35 34 2.32% Inscriptions 82 75 5.12% Hand and Foot Print 1 2 0.14% Tool/Weapon 1 1 0.07% Animal Print 1 1 0.07% Eye 1 1 0.07% Total 1486 1466 100.00% Table 33. Giva’t HaKetovot elements recorded for each motif type.

The elements recorded are of various sizes. Abstract element range from single markings to large compositions. Though most abstract elements average less than 10 cm in size, larger elements close to 30 cm in size were recorded. Anthropomorphs and zoomorphs of Giva't HaKetovot range in size from 1.5X3 cm to 18X35 cm. Most are of a size ranging between 10 and 15 cm.

159

2.3.3. Abstract Motifs

Of the 1466 elements recorded at Giva’t HaKetovot, 1144 are abstract. The abstract elements represent 78 different motifs (Table 36). These 78 motifs can be divided into linear (51 motifs, 986 elements) and curvilinear (27 motifs, 158 elements, Table 34).

Area 100 101 102 Total Linear 405 85.08% 288 93.51% 293 81.39% 986 86.19% Curvilinear 71 14.92% 20 6.49% 67 18.61% 158 13.81% Total 476 100.00% 308 100.00% 360 100.00% 1144 100.00% Table 34. Linear and curvilinear abstract elements according to documented area of Giva’t HaKetovot.

90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 100 40.00% 101 30.00% 102 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% 1 2 3 4 5 complexity level

Figure 83. Linear complexity levels according to sampled areas of Giva’t HaKetovot.

Looking at the division of the linear elements according to the levels of complexity from the three sampled areas together, it is clear that level one complexity elements prevail (for definitions of complexity levels, see pages 92-95 exact page no? ). The number of elements decreased as the complexity level increased, in each of the sampled areas (Fig. 83). Only in area 100, in the most southeastern section of the hill, did level four complexity levels reach 16% (versus 3% in areas 101 and 102). The nature of the engraved elements (14 hexagrams, 6 pentacles and 13 grids), the type of engraved panel (all of the pentacles, 86% of the hexagrams and 50% of the grids are engraved on patina free stones), and the minimal degree of weathering, suggested a recent/modern date.

161

Looking at the distribution of curvilinear elements, a slightly different pattern emerges. The first complexity level presents less than 10% of the total number of curvilinear elements. Of the curvilinear abstracts, 54% are of a level 2 complexity, after which there is a drop in the third and fourth complexity levels (Fig. 84). This pattern was repeated in the curvilinear elements

Linear elements outnumber curvilinear ones by 6 to 1. Comparing the relative

⁄ abstract elements from the three sampled areas, they are significantly different (based on chi square at a 0.05 level, see Table 35 and Fig. 85), ranging between 1:4 (area 102) and 1:14 (area 101). Dropping the first level of linear complexity from this calculation, linear elements no longer outnumber curvilinear elements. In areas 100 and 101 the

ration between ⁄ drops to 2:1, while in area 102 curvilinear elements are slightly more numerous numbering 67 curvilinear elements to 56 linear ones.

60.00% 50.00% Liner 40.00% Curvilinear 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% % of curvilinear elements 0.00% No. of documented No. elements Area Complexity level1 2 3 4

Figure 84. Percentage of curvilinear Figure.85. Linear versus curvilinear abstract abstract elements according to elements according to sampled areas. complexity levels.

Sampled Area 100 101 102 Total Observed 405 288 293 986 Linear Expected 410.25 265.46 310.27

Observed 71 20 67 158 Curvilinear Expected 65.74 42.53 49.72

Table 35. Chi test showing that the distribution of linear and curvilinear elements in the different sampled areas of Giva’t HaKetovot is not coincidental. The distribution is significant at a 0.00002 level.

161

Looking at the frequency of appearance of each abstract motif type (through complexity levels) via patina shades, an interesting picture arises (Fig. 86). Each complexity level peaks within a separate patina shade. Complexity level five is found most commonly within the darkest patina shade, while complexity level four is almost entirely missing from the same patina shade. Level four complexity peaks between 4/6 and 6/8 patina shades. The more simple elements, i.e., complexity levels one and two, steadily rise in quantity peaking at 5/6-6/8 and 7/1-7/8 respectably. As discussed in chapters 2.2 and 3.3, abstract elements may have served as tribal markings. This suggests the existence of different tribes in the region, each with a tribal marking derived from a different set of abstract symbols.

45.00% 40.00% 35.00% Patina Shade 30.00% 2.5/1-4/4 25.00% 4/6-5/4 20.00% 5/6-6/8 15.00% 7/1-7/8 10.00% 8/2-8/6 5.00%

% of linear abstracts shade by patina 0.00%

1 2 3 4 5 Linear complexity level Figure. 86. Percentage of the linear abstract elements by complexity levels, according to patina shade. The sum of each complexety levels adds up to 100% (patina free elements are not included).

The division of the curvilinear elements into patina shade groups shows great diversity between the four complexity levels and their frequency within the different patina shade (Fig. 87). Level four complexity peaks in the darkest patina shade, while levels two and three complexity (with a statistically significant positive correlation between them) steadily increase in numbers peaking in 5/6-6/8 shades. The simplest level of complexity, entirely missing in the 2.5/1-4/4 patina shade, peaks within the 4/6-5/4 shade. This is somewhat misleading as n=5. No elements are of an 8/2-8/6 patina shade.

162

70.00%

60.00% Patina shade 50.00% 2.5/1-4/4 40.00% 4/6-5/4 5/6-6/8 30.00% 7/1-7/8 20.00% 8/2-8/6

10.00%

Percentage curvilinearof abstract elements 0.00%

Complexity level 1 2 3 4

Figure 87. Percentage of curvilinear complexity levels according to patina shade. Each patina shade adds up to 100% (patina free elements are not included).

163

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

A Marks in natural formations B Scratched > line > > C T + H Z Y D D

E Complex Undisting linear -uishable motifs F

G Complex Curvilinear

Table 36. Typology of abstract elements documented at Giva’t HaKetovot.

164

2.3.4. Inscriptions

During the field work, 82 inscriptions were documented. After the completion of the field work it became apparent that some characters were documented as separate elements rather than as a single inscription. After regrouping, 73 inscriptions remained. These inscriptions are written primarily in Hebrew and English. A few inscriptions are written in Arabic, Russian, Greek, and North Arabian languages (Table 37). Three inscriptions could not be deciphered. Most of the inscriptions are single words, private names. Few longer inscriptions such as a Hebrew inscription which translated as: Beware of your souls, this place is cursed, and accompanied by three sixes forming a spiral (Fig. 88). This inscription was most likely done by teenagers from the nearby settlement. The majority of the inscriptions are scratched into patina free stones. The Greek inscription with the darker patina shade, three of the four Arabic inscriptions and the four North Arabian inscriptions were hammered rather than scratched.

Patina Shade Hebrew English Russian Arabic Thamudic Safaitic Greek Total 2.5/1-4/4 ------1 1 4/6-5/4 - - 1 1 - - - 2 5/5-6/8 6 4 1 - 1 - - 12 7/1-7/8 4 5 - - - - - 9 8/2-8/6 ------0 8/1 (patina free stones) 23 18 - 4 2 1 1 49 Total 33 27 2 5 3 1 2 73 Percentage 45.21% 36.99% 2.74% 6.85% 4.11% 1.37% 2.74% 100.00% Table 37. Inscriptions according to language and patina shade.

The majority of inscriptions are not accompanied by any other elements. Exceptions are as follows: panel 102-6 has four hammered words in Hebrew, all seem to be names. Some letters are written backwards which is characteristic of new immigrants. This inscription is accompanied by the engraving of an object which resembles a smoking pipe, above which is the number four. Panel 102-74 has a lightly scratched inscription (most likely in Hebrew) in angular characters accompanied by a sun motif. Panel 101-7 has a single engraved word resembling Hebrew characters and accompanied by an anthropomorphic figure. Panel 102-64 has a single word in a North Arabian language accompanied by a camel.

165

Figure 88. Panel 100-151 (measuring 35X45 cm) with inscription “beware of your souls, this place is cursed”. Black lines added with photoshop to enhance the engraving.

The inscription on panel 100-80 is of special interest as the letters have been altered. Here the North Arabian letter h, has been changed to represent a face. The vertical line became a nose and a short horizontal line formed the mouth. Two marks represent the eyes. A similar use of the letter was noted at Giva’t Regalim. At Giva’t Regalim, a patina covered rock was chosen, the letter was transformed as follows: a short horizontal line was added only to one side of the vertical line, thus the vertical and added horizontal line together form the nose. Eyes have been added but there is no indication of a mouth (Figs. 89 and 90).

166

Figure 89. Altered character 100-80-1, Figure 90. Altered character from (measuring 8.5X9 cm) from Giva’t Giva’t Regalim (measuring 7X8 cm). HaKetovot.

The distribution of inscriptions on the hill according to language and sampled area (Table 38) shows that the different areas were engraved equally. Area Hebrew English Russian Arabic Thamudic Safaitic Greek Total 100 13 8 - 3 1 - - 25 101 9 12 2 1 1 - - 25 102 11 7 - 1 1 1 2 23 Total 33 27 2 5 3 1 2 73 Percentage 45.21% 36.99% 2.74% 6.85% 4.11% 1.37% 2.74% 100.00% Table 38. Inscriptions according to sampled area.

2.3.5. Zoomorphic Motifs

202 zoomorphs, representing ten different animal species, were recorded at Har Michia. These are: bird, boar, camel, dog, equid, horned ungulate, predator, snake, spider and unrecognized zoomorphic elements (Table 39). Bird 2 0.99% Predator 8 3.96% Boar 2 0.99% Snake 2 0.99% Camel 20 9.90% Spider 1 0.50% Dog 6 2.97% Unidentifiable Zoomorph 47 23.27% Equid 6 2.97% Total 202 100.00% Horned Ungulate 108 53.47% Table 39. Zoomorphic motifs documented at Giva’t HaKetovot.

167

2.3.5.1 Birds

Two birds were recorded at Giva’t HaKetovot. The first (102-29-11, Fig. 91) is a clear depiction of an ostrich (Struthio camelus syriacus), with two long legs, a fully engraved body, a long erect neck and a head. The second bird (102-15-1, Fig. 92), engraved on a patina free surface is less clearly defined. It is linear with a horizontal line for the body and tail, ending with a head. In addition it has two legs and feet.

Figure 91. Element 101-29-11 Figure 92. Element 102-15-1 (measuring 6X10 cm) (measuring 3X6 cm) recognized recognized as a bird petroglyph. Black lines added with as an ostrich petroglyph. photoshop to enhance the image.

2.3.5.2 Boars

Two zoomorphs are recognized as representing wild boars. These are fully engraved with large rounded snouts, short ears, short upturned tails and clearly depicted hooves. The larger animal (101-68-5, Fig. 93) is more clearly depicted and easier to recognize. The smaller of the two (101- 68-4) is a young boar.

The present day distribution of wild boars in the Negev and Judean Hills is restricted to areas south of the Dead Sea (Ferguson 2002:98). Wild boars were seen as late as the end of the nineteenth century in the northern Negev (Harrison and Bates 1991:211-212). There is no clear evidence that boars were found in the Ezuz region.

168

Figure 93. Boar petroglyphs recorded at Giva’t HaKetovot (element 101-68-5 measuring 10X10 cm, element 101-68-4 measuring 6X6 cm).

2.3.5.3. Camels

A total of 20 depictions of camels, 18 dromedaries (Camelus dromedaries) and two Bactrian camels, were documented at Giva’t HaKetovot. Bactrian camels, compared to dromedaries, have two humps, longer and darker colored hair, shorter legs, and a more massive body which is adapted to cold climates (Gauthier-Pilters and Dagg 1981:3). As such, the Bactrian camel is restricted to areas ranging from the Caspian Sea through Northeastern Asia (Manchuria) (Brewer et al. 1992). Dromedaries in contrast, are adapted to dry, arid climates (Gauthier-Pilters and Dagg 1981:3), such as those which prevail in the Negev Desert. The two depictions of bacterian camels (elements 100-63-4 and 101-64-2) are modern, lightly scratched into patina free surfaces. They do not represent the existence of the species in the area (Fig. 94).

Examining the different details of engraving through chi square tests, the following relations were found to be significant (Table 40): - Camels depicted in an outlined fashion have outlined humps. - Camels depicted in a linear fashion tend to have outlined humps. - Camels with outlined humps tend to have four legs.

169

- Fully engraved camels tend to have fully engraved humps. - Camels depicted with two legs tend not to have a hump. - Camels with no tail tend to be facing left. - Camels with long tails tend to be facing right.

The correlation between the style of engraving and style of hump is evident even within this limited sample. The relatively few statistically significant relations between the different elements may be explained by the limited number of recorded camels, and the wide chronological and cultural span of the mark makers. The range of mark makers’ societies active and responsible for the engraving of camels at Giva’t HaKetovot is clarified by the level of weathering, related inscriptions which, evidently, translates to style and technique (Figs. 94 and 95). Six of the twenty camels are lightly scratched on patina free stones (two of which, as noted above, are Bacterian camels). The fact that these petroglyphs are still visible suggests that the time of engraving (scratching) was recent. Six additional camels, also engraved on patina free surfaces, represent three clearly different time periods and mark maker cultures. The camels of these three groups were all hammered rather than scratched. The first recognizable tradition is that responsible for camel petroglyph 102-64-1 and the accompanying north Arabian inscription. The second rock art tradition consists of three engraved camels (elements 100-40-1, 102-15-6 and 102-60-3), which all present a hammered, weathered, linear camels with outlined humps and four legs. The last camel, element 100-38-4, is fresher than the other four, with each mark still visible, though more weathered than the scratched camels. This camel petroglyph is different from the more weathered group as it represents a camel with no hump, no tail and with only two legs. The different way of portraying the camels may be connected to the way in which each society/culture related to the animal. For example, the recent camel petroglyphs were engraved by a society which had minimal experience and exposure with camels. The knowledge of how a camel looks does not derive from first hand information but rather from the media and literature. Therefore, the accuracy of these engravings is low with the representation of two rather than one hump.

171

Figure 94. Camel petroglyphs of Giva’t HaKetovot engraved on patina free panels divided according to recent and ancient.

171

Figure 95. Camel petroglyphs of Giva’t HaKetovot engraved on panels with patina.

172

Facing Size of Hump Length of Tail No. of Indication Style of Size of Chi Square Orientation Ridden L/R Hump Full/Outlined Tail Position Legs of Eye Engraving Engraving

Size of 0.27 0.12 0.06 0.36 0.40 0.24 0.71 0.76 0.54 0.63 Engraving Style of 0.21 0.09 0.74 0.89 0.001 0.27 0.24 0.16 0.34 Engraving Indication of 0.33 0.86 0.61 0.25 0.64 0.47 0.68 0.11 Eye No. of Legs 0.27 0.44 0.05 0.40 0.01 0.11 0.08

Tail Position 0.78 0.27 0.61 0.94 0.76 0.37

Length of tail 0.82 0.04 0.40 0.90 0.64

Hump 0.44 0.90 0.13 0.77 Full/Outlined Size of Hump 0.63 0.95 0.25

Ridden 0.61 0.17

facing 0.17

Orientation

Table 40. Chi square test results for Giva’t HaKetovot camel petroglyphs.

173

2.3.5.4. Dogs

In the rock art of the Negev, dogs are only identifiable in context, usually taking part in a hunt or following an animal. At Giva’t HaKetovot, six zoomorphs have been categorized as dogs, two of which participate in a hunting scene. One motif (100-52-2,Fig. 96), in which a dog is chasing an adult male ibex, unaccompanied by a man, may actually represent any one of the canine family (such as jackal or wolf). Three ‘dogs’ were engraved on a single panel (100-3,Fig. 97) in clear association with a birth scene. All three ‘dogs’ have long up-turned tails, and open mouths. One (100-3-2) is placed behind the head of the pregnant figure. The remaining two face away from the figure, in what may be interpreted as a defensive pose. It, therefore, seems like these zoomorphs represent dogs rather than other canines. As the sample size is small, no chi square tests were applied.

Figure 96. Panel 100-52, dog (element 100-52-2 measuring 3X5.5 cm) following an ibex (100- 52-1 measuring 12X13.5 cm) petroglyphs. Elements outlined with black lines using photoshop.

174

Figure 97. Panel 101-3 birthing scene (101-3-1 measuring 4X16 cm) surrounded by three dogs (101-3-2 measuring 4X8.5, 101-3-3, measuring 6X6 cm, 101-3-7 measuring 6.5X9 cm).

2.3.5.5. Equids

Six equids were documented at Giva’t HaKetovot. These are equally engraved on patina covered and patina free panels. Only one, being lightly scratched, is of a recent date. Within this limited number of engravings, no consistency in style was noted. As the sample size is small, no chi square tests were applied.

2.3.5.6 Horned Ungulates

Over 50% of the documented zoomorphs at Giva’t HaKetovot are of horned ungulates (n=106, +2, possible ox/hartebeest), the majority of which are ibex (n=83). Ibex (Capra ibex nubiana), usually restricted to mountainous steep desert terrain, are not found in the Ezuz region today nor did they populate the region in the past (Aronson 1982:19). Gazelles (Gazelle dorcas), animals indigenous to the region, are clearly depicted only twice. Animals resembling oryxes (Oryx

175 leucoryx) are presented six times. Five of these examples have relatively straight, long horns. One engraving, 102-99-7 (Fig. 98), has a distinct shoulder hump characteristic of oryx though it is presented with two long curved back horns, such as that of the ibex. As it is unclear whether the oryx was indigenous to the Negev (Horwitz et al. 1999), and the depicted form is more schematic then naturalistic, the identity of these six animals, as well as the remaining 16 cannot be determined confidently.

Figure 98 (left). Element 102-99-7 (measuring 10X10 cm) horned ungulate with a shoulder hump as that of an oryx and long curved back horns of a male ibex. Figure 99 (center). Element 102-38-1 (measuring 9X20.5 cm ) horned ungulate with in-turned horns such as those of a hartebeest, outlined with the use of photoshop. Figure 100 (right). Element 102-20-5 (measuring 7X10.5 cm) horned ungulate with horns resembling those of a bull, outlined with the use of photoshop.

Two engravings, 102-38-1 and 102-20-5 (not included in the group examined below, Fig. 99 and 100), have two horns presented in a frontal view. These horns are turned in at the top. This frontal view, as well as the shape of the horns suggests that these animals are of a different species than the others, perhaps a hartebeest (Alcelaphus bucelaphus).

Chi square tests show that some combinations of different attributes are of statistical significance (Table 41). These combinations are as follows: - Linear styled engravings tend to be engraved on patina covered rocks. - Linear styled horned ungulates tend to face south. - Linear styled horned ungulates tend to be presented with no eye. - Horned ungulates with no eye tend not to have a goatee. - Fully engraved horned ungulates tend to be engraved on patina covered rocks. - Fully engraved horned ungulates tend to have an indication of an eye.

176

- Horned ungulates with an indication of an eye tend to have a goatee. - Horned ungulates with goatees tend to have down turned or straight tails. - Horned ungulates with goatees tend to have four legs. - Horned ungulates with four legs tend to be of medium size. - Medium sized horned ungulates tend to have short up-turned tails. - Horned ungulates with four legs tend to have up-turned tails. - Horned ungulates with four legs tend to have two horns. - Horned ungulates with four legs tend to be oriented NE. - Outlined horned ungulates tend to be engraved on patina free surfaces. - Horned ungulates engraved on patina free surfaces tend to be oriented westwards. - Outlined horned ungulates tend not to have an indication of an eye. - Horned ungulates without an indication of an eye tend to have no goatee. - Horned ungulates without an indication of a goatee tend to have up-turned tails. - Horned ungulates with upturned tails tend to have four legs. - Horned ungulates with four legs tend to have two horns. - Horned ungulates without legs tend to be oriented northwards. - Horned ungulates without legs tend not to have a tail. - Horned ungulates with two legs tend to be oriented southwards. - Horned ungulates with two legs tend to have only one horn. - Horned ungulates with two legs tend to be small sized. - Small sized horned ungulates tend not to have a tail. - Horned ungulates with an up-turned tail tend to be medium sized.

Summing up the above information, there seems to be a clear connection between the surface engraved (light or dark colored) and the style employed. Outlined horned ungulates engraved on patina free surfaces are presented 4 times more often than statistically expected. The details of each style vary. The connection between linear styled horned ungulates and the existence of specific details is presented less strongly than in those outlined and fully engraved. Fully engraved horned ungulates are presented with the most details: eyes, goatee, four legs and two horns. Although the position of the tail is not strongly related to any specific style, 48% of the horned ungulates are presented with an up-turned tail (significant through chi square at the 0.005

177 level). The tail position relates to ibex behavior during rutting season. The up-turned tail connects the depicted ibex with the mating season (Aronson 1982:60-61), possibly as an expression of the engravers own masculine manhood (Beni Shalmon personal communication). The fact that the ibexes are represented with an up-turned tail and long back sweeping horns, that is, denoting rutting behavior, suggests that these petroglyphs were derived from the mark maker’s memory. These petroglyphs represent a mindscape rather than a landscape.

178

No . Of No. of Tail Tail Panel Size Style Goatee Direction Orientation Eye Horns legs Length Direction Type Panel type 0.06 0.0000007 0.05 0.93 0.48 0.55 0.43 0.38 0.29 0.20

Eye 0.19 0.06 0.001 0.88 0.56 0.61 0.77 0.98 0.31

Orientation 0.75 0.05 0.10 0.65 0.02 0.54 0.96 0.79

Direction 0.40 0.64 0.48 0.90 0.36 0.08 0.43

Tail 0.04 0.58 0.001 0.21 0.000003 0.76 Direction

Tail Length 0.05 0.46 0.00008 0.89 6.64E-09

No. of Legs 0.01 0.37 0.27 0.0000009

No. of 0.47 0.85 0.94 Horns Goatee 0.19 0.15

Style 0.54

Size

Table 41. Chi square test results for Giva’t HaKetovot horned ungulate petroglyphs.

179

2.3.5.7. Predators

Eight animals are identified as predators. All of these are engraved on patina covered surfaces. Six of these zoomorphs have extremely long up-turned tails, possibly identifiable as leopards. Three are in clear association with other animals. Element 102-33-7 (Fig. 101) seems to be dragging the neck and head of an animal. Element 102-36-2 (102-36-6 is a revised version of 102-36-2) and 102-92-2 (Figs. 102 and 103) are each pursuing an adult male ibex. The small dimensions of these zoomorphs in relation to the ibex indicates that the animal may not be a leopard. Furthermore, the lack of a long tail suggests that these zoomorphs may belong to the canine rather than feline family.

An unusual engraving is 100-156-1(Fig. 104), which is of an animal presented in frontal position. The species is unclear though it also appears to belong to the feline family.

Figure 101. Petroglyphs of predator Figure. 102. Petroglyphs of predator (102-36-2 (102-33-7 measuring 9.5X10.5 cm) with measuring 4X6 cm) following an ibex (102-36-1 an animal neck in mouth (102-33-8 measuring 3.6X8 cm) set at an angle measuring 8X9.5 .cm) on the panel. Elements were outlined with the use of photoshop.

181

Figure 103. Petroglyphs of predator (102-92- Figure 104. Element 100-156-1 (measuring measuring 4X8.5 cm) jumping on an ibex 17X28 cm) of zoomorph with long tail (102-92-1 measuring 12X13 cm). presented frontally, possibly a predator of the feline family. Element outlined with the use of photoshop.

2.3.5.8. Snakes

There are two representations of snakes. These present triangular headed, side winding snakes. In both 102-51-8 and 102-79-1 (Figs. 105-106), both snake eyes are presented. Based on the triangular shape of the head, these snakes may be recognized as venomous snakes though the exact species cannot be determined (Theodor 1954:10-34).

Figure 105. Element 102-51-8 Figure 106. Element 102-79-1 (measuring (measuring 3X12.5 cm) representing a 7.5X14 cm) representing a snake with snake with a triangular shaped head a triangular shaped head. (snake head is in the upper left corner).

181

2.3.5.9. Spider

A single spider was documented at Giva’t HaKetovot. This spider (100-165-1, Fig. 107) is presented as a small marking at the center of a web. The engraving, on a patina free panel, is lightly engraved and clearly of a recent date.

Figure 107. Element 100-165-1 (measuring 5X14 cm) spider and web. Black lines added by Photoshop to enhance scratched lines. p

2.3.5.10. Unidentified Zoomorphic Representations

Unidentified zoomorphs is the second largest zoomorphic category (23%, n=47). Elements in this category are identified as zoomorphs if a body line and legs or body line and neck are visible. In some cases the engraved animal is well formed but without specific attributes, thus it cannot be securely identified. Chi square analyses on these unidentified zoomorphs revealed that few stylistic combinations proved to be more than random (Table 42). These are as following: Unidentified zoomorphs engraved on patina covered panels tend not to have legs. Unidentified zoomorphs with no indication of legs tend to have an eye. Unidentified zoomorphs with an eye tend to be fully engraved on patina covered panels. Unidentified zoomorphs engraved on patina free panels tend to have four legs. Unidentified zoomorphs with four legs tend not to have an indication of an eye. Unidentified zoomorphs engraved on patina free surfaces tend not to have an indication of an eye. eye.

182

Tail Tail Direction of Chi Square Panel type Size Style Eye Legs Orientation direction length zoomorph Orientation 0.30 0.36 0.21 0.14 0.72 0.78 0.62 0.14

Direction 0.50 0.54 0.15 0.57 0.13 0.40 0.24

Tail Length 0.25 0.96 0.39 0.75 0.03 0.51

Tail 0.29 0.50 0.96 0.97 0.05 Direction Legs 0.02 0.90 0.63 0.01

Eye 0.06 0.51 0.005

Style 0.03 0.59

Size 0.19

Table 42. Chi square test results for Giva’t HaKetovot unidentified zoomorphic petroglyphs.

2.3.5.11. Summary

Summing up, at Giva’t HaKetovot there are nine animal species and an additional category of unidentified zoomorphs petroglyphs. These may be divided into domesticated and undomesticated animals. Most zoomorphic elements do not exceed 10X20 cm in maximum dimensions. The largest category of zoomorphic elements consists of horned ungulates and it is clear that the majority are mature male ibex. The ibex had large back swooping horns and some males had a goatee and up-turned tail.

Of the domesticated animals, camels are the most depicted. In none of the camels is the sex clearly shown although up-turned tails may be an iconographic indication of females. Only two of the twenty camels are ridden. The camels are presented as single animals.

Birds, boars and snakes are rarely presented while sheep are entirely missing from the Giva’t HaKetovot repertoire. As the inclusion of details was minimalistic, it was impossible to identify several animals. These are animals which either no specific identifying attributes, or that we still have been unable to identify the attribute. These include equids not being ridden, dogs, young male ibexes, female ibexes, foxes, and probably several other species that have not even been suggested in the present research.

Most zoomorphs are presented on their own. Even when a number of zoomorphs are presented

183 on the same panel, there seems to be no connection between them. There is no feeling of a herd or animals grazing. This is probably because there is no clear ground and landscape in the panels. Animals are turned according to where the mark maker was sitting. This is apparent especially on flat (horizontal) panels.

Based on the chi square tests of the unidentified zoomorphic and horned ungulates, the two largest zoomorphic groups reflect the basic character of the site. Within both groups eyes are depicted on fully engraved figures on patina covered surfaces. Patina free surfaces, however, present no eyes. These occurrences of repetitive use of systematic forms help define different styles employed. These seem to be dictated by the panel type and form of the animal. Fully engraved zoomorphs, eyes and patina covered panels form the base to one style. A second style is based on patina free surfaces.

2.3.6. Hand and Foot Prints

A single foot print was documented at Giva’t HaKetovot. This foot print is of Verner’s (1973:28) type I/5 (Figure 59).

2.3.7. Anthropomorphic Motifs

Forty anthropomorphs were documented at Giva’t HaKetovot. Following the typological division presented in the Har Michia survey (Page no/), these may be divided into two types, Type 1 – anthropomorphs, and Type 2 – ridden animals.

2.3.7.1. Anthropomorphs – Type 1

Type 1 includes 34 anthropomorphic depictions which may be divided into seven sub-types (Fig.108). The first six sub-types are identical to those formed at Har Michia, with sub-types defined primarily by the placement of the figure’s arms, and secondly by the figure’s actions. As with the Har Michia figures, this table does not reflect chronology. Some figures belonging to different sub-groups (100-171-1 and 100-111-1, as well as 101-16-1, 101-16-2) are, based on

184 technique and weathering, clearly of the same, very recent period. The largest sub-category (n=12) is 1b, with figures’ arms extending upwards. The second largest group is 1f (n=7), consisting of figures carrying weapons. The figures placed at the left end of this sub-type in Figure 108 have a line extending from one hand. Based on the relation of the human to the line, and the place of contact (bottom portion versus center of the line), we can identify these three figures as armed with a stick rather than a sword. Using the distinction of where the anthropomorph and line connect, one possible lance is depicted (100-171-1). As the identification is questionable and no arms are depicted, the figure is considered to belong to subtype 1a. Following the figures armed with sticks are three figures holding shields. One shield (102-82-1) is round, a second (102-29-10) is elongated while the third (102-45-20) is rectangular. To the right is 102-45-2, armed with a bow and helmet.

The additional seventh sub-type consists of a human face with no body. Here 100-80-3 is included though the alteration of this letter to resemble a face is (most likely) secondary in importance to its use as a character in an inscription. As such, this element was catalogued twice. Interestingly, a similar letter/face was seen at Giva’t Regalim (Figs no. 89 and 90). Element 100- 103-1 presents a similar engraving of a human face. Here the entire face is free of patina. The eyes and nose are patina islands. Looking at this panel, it seems the original patina formation was similar and few alterations were made to create this image. These faces present some similarities to Nabatean betyls.

Of Type 1 anthropomorphs, 22.5% are sexually defined. Of these, one is clearly female. Element 101-3-1 of sub-type 1b, presents a female in profile with a single breast, nipple, and an enlarged, pregnant stomach (Fig. 97). Between the figure’s legs is a smaller, less clearly defined human (not included in the 40 anthropomorphs counted). These two figures form a scene of a breached birth.

Males are indicated either with a short line extending downwards between the legs (n=6), or with an exaggerated phallus (n=2).

185

2.3.7.2. Anthropomorphs Type 2

Type 2 includes 6 ridden animals of four different sub-groupings (Fig. 109). Two are riding camels, one is riding an equid, two are ambiguous, and one is standing on the back of a horned ungulate. ungulate.

The anthropomorphs riding animals, (not including sub-category 2h where the anthropomorphs are standing on the animal’s backs), are all placed over the body line of the animal, presented from waist up with no legs.

Based on chi square tests (Table 43 and 44), the following occurrences proved to be significant: - Fully engraved anthropomorphs tend to be engraved on patina covered panels. - Fully engraved anthropomorphs tend not to be frontal. - Fully engraved anthropomorphs tend to have an indication of hair. - Fully engraved anthropomorphs tend to have indications of eyes. - Fully engraved anthropomorphs tend to have indications of fingers. - Anthropomorphs with fingers tend to be facing right. - Anthropomorphs turned right tend to have indications of eyes and hair. - The arms of anthropomorphs turned right tend to have one arm up and the second arm out or down. - Anthropomorphs with fingers tend to have two weapons. - Anthropomorphs with weapons tend to have indications of feet. - Linear styled anthropomorphs tend to have no indication of hair. - Linear styled anthropomorphs tend to be presented in a frontal position. - Anthropomorphs in a frontal position tend to have no indication of fingers and eyes. - Anthropomorphs with no eyes tend to have no indication of hair. - Anthropomorphs in a frontal position tend to be presented with upraised arms. - Anthropomorphs with upraised arms tend to be of medium size. - Outlined anthropomorphs tend to be engraved on patina free surfaces. - Outlined anthropomorphs tend to be presented in a frontal position. - Anthropomorphs in a frontal position tend to have no indication of fingers and eyes.

186

- Anthropomorphs with no eyes tend to have no indication of hair. - Anthropomorphs in a frontal position tend to be presented with upraised arms. - Anthropomorphs with upraised arms tend to be of medium size. - Riding anthropomorphs tend to be presented with no legs. - Anthropomorphs not riding tend to be presented with legs. - Anthropomorphs with feet tend to have weapons. - Anthropomorphs with no indication of feet tend to have no weapons.

Summarizing these occurrences, it is apparent that armed figures tend to be depicted with more care to details including fingers, feet, eyes, and hair. These figures are fully engraved on patina covered surfaces. The unarmed figures and linear and outlined styled anthropomorphs are more schematic with few details.

187

Figure 108 Anthropomorphic petroglyphs at Giva’t HaKetovot Type 1, subtypes a-g.

188

Figure 109. Anthropomorphic petroglyphs at Giva't HaKetovot, Type 2, subtypes a-h.

189

Panel Chi Square Type Size Style Hair Arms Direction Orientation Sex Eye Weapon Legs Feet Ridding Finger Fingers 0.36 0.47 0.02 0.35 0.32 0.02 0.77 0.62 0.14 0.0002 0.29 0.37 0.54 Ridding 0.29 0.70 0.22 0.40 0.36 0.30 0.33 0.52 0.16 0.47 0.0003 0.22 Feet 1 0.43 0.26 0.60 0.23 0.42 0.29 0.57 0.42 0.002 0.03 Legs 1 0.22 0.71 0.60 0.08 0.76 0.29 0.53 0.42 0.40 Weapons 0.89 0.62 0.58 0.35 0.52 0.13 0.72 0.93 0.45 Eyes 0.22 0.81 0.003 0.001 0.47 0.002 0.38 0.24 Sex 0.23 0.65 0.53 0.63 0.19 0.08 0.95 Orientation 0.63 0.84 0.07 0.45 0.95 0.94 Direction 0.26 0.48 0.01 0.002 0.001 Arms 0.05 0.009 0.25 0.08 Hair 0.18 0.64 0.0002 Style 0.005 0.18 Size 0.12 Panel Type Table 43. Chi square test results for Giva’t HaKetovot anthropomorphic petroglyphs. Chi Square Bow and Arrow Stick Lance Sword / Stick Helmet Shield Other Line at Waist Line at Waist 0.81 0.62 0.81 0.58 0.81 0.73 0.01

Other 0.32 0.62 0.62 0.58 0.81 0.77

Shield 0.77 0.54 0.7 0.49 0.77

Helmet 0.87 0.77 0.87 0.70

Lance 0.87 0.73

Stick 0.73

Sword/Stick 0.70

Bow and Arrow Table 44. Chi square test results for Giva’t HaKetovot armed anthropomorphic petroglyphs

191

2.3.8. Combinations of Motifs

The Giva’t HaKetovot data were scanned for three motif combinations: ibex-dog, ibex-orant (anthropomorph of Type 1b), and ibex-feet. Unlike Har Michia where all three combinations were noted, at Giva’t HaKetovot the combination of ibex-feet and Ibex-orant are missing from the recorded repertoire. Only one panel (101-19 Fig. 110) includes an orant figure and ibex on the same panel of the same phase, though the relation between the two elements is unclear.

Figure 110. Panel 101-19 with orant anthropomorph (element 101-19-3 measuring 3X7 cm) and ibex (element 101-19-2 measuring 14.5X16 cm). Black lines added with photoshop to enhance lements. elements.

2.3.8.1 Ibex-dog

Ibex followed by a zoomorph, dog or predator was recorded in seven instances (Figs. 102 and 103). No systematic form was noted in the direction or orientation of the ibex. Likewise, no preference for a specific panel type was noted (Table 45).

191

Direction Orientation Direction of Orientation of Panel Type Panel of Ibex of Ibex Tail of Ibex Dog/Predator Dog/Predator Relation Black 100-30 R E Up-turned R E Behind/Following White 100-52 R NW Straight R NW Below White 100-58 L W Straight L W Behind/Following Black 102-36 L N Up-turned L NW Behind/Following White 102-70 R N No tail R N Below Black 102-82 L NW No tail L NW Behind/Following Black 102-92 L SE Up-turned L S Behind/Jumping Table 45. Ibex dog/predator combinations documented at Giva’t HaKetovot. (Black = patina covered panels, White = patina free panels).

2.3.9. Zoomorphic and Anthropomorphic Petroglyph Motif Ratios and Patina Shade

The relation between the different motif types averages out be 29 abstracts to each anthropomorph and 5 zoomorphic to each anthropomorph. The relative number of abstracts to anthropomorphic figure is largest in the southern section (area 100) and lowest in the flat central part of the plateau (area 101). The relative number of zoomorphs to anthropomorphs is largest in the north-western section of the hill (Table 46).

Area Area 100 Area 101 Area 102 Total Abstract:Anthropohmorph 33:1 24:1 30:1 29:1 Zoomorph:Anthropomorph 4:1 4:1 7.5:1 5:1 Table 46. Abstract: Zoomorphi, Abstract : Anthropomorph relation by sampled areas.

Looking at abstract, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic elements based on patina shade, we see that abstract elements increase in number as the patina shade lightens, peaking at 5/6-6/8 patina shade. The number of zoomorphic elements, in contrast, is most prominent in the darkest patina shade, dropping in percentage as the patina shade lighten. Anthropomorphic figurers are presented almost equally within the darkest patina shades, dropping in percentage starting with the 7/1 patina shade (Fig. 111).

192

60.00%

50.00%

40.00% Abstract 30.00% Zoomorphic 20.00% Anthropomorphic

10.00%

0.00% Patina Shade 2.5/1-4/4 4/6-5/4 5/6-6/8 7/1-7/8 8/2-8/6

Figure 111. Abstract, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic elements recorded at Giva’t HaKetovot. Percentages are presented according to patina shade. Each motif type adds up to 100%. Patina free panels are not included.

2.3.10. Tools/Weapons

This category consists of two traps/weapons presented in clear association with horned ungulates. The first, 100-32-1 (Fig. 112) is placed below and attached to one of the ibex’s front legs. The second device (102-84-1, Fig. 113) is placed over an ibex. This contraption may have been intended to depict a bow and arrow .

Figure 112. Ibex petroglyph with device attached to Figure 113. Petroglyphs of Ibex (102- front leg (100-32-1 measuring 14x15 cm). 84-2 measuring 8X14) with bow and arrow (?) placed above (102-84-1 measuring 10X13 cm).

193

2.3.11 Single representations

In addition to the motifs described above, there are two motifs which appear within the documented data only once. The first motif is an engraving of an eye (101-45-1, Fig. 114). When visiting the site in February 2008, a pictograph (on panel 101-3, Fig. 115) almost identical in design to the eye petroglyph was photographed. The pictograph was no longer visible (erased) in December 2009 when element 101-45-1 was documented (Panel 101-3 in December, Fig. 91). Both eyes (petroglyph and pictograph) are simplified depictions with an almond shaped eye and outlined pupil (the pictograph’s pupil may have been filled).

Figure 114. Element 101-45-1 (measuring Figure 115. Panel 101-3eye pictagraph 6.5X13.5 cm) eye petroglyph. photographed in Feburary 2008.

The second isolated motis is 100-96-2 (Fig. 116) of a bird’s foot print.

Figure 116. Element 100-96-2 (measuring 2X3 cm), identified as a bird print petroglyph.

194

2.3.12. Summary

After reviewing the anthropomorphic and zoomorphic depictions at Giva’t HaKetovot, a more precise definition of the most basic stylistic division can be made. Two stylistic traditions are apparent. The panel type (patina covered or patina free) corresponds to the style of the engraved petroglyph; fully engraved images are placed on patina covered panels; fully engraved images are more detailed than linear and outlined engravings. With humans, this is evident with the addition of eyes, hair, fingers and feet. With zoomorphs, such as the horned ungulate, fully engraved figures tend to have an eye and goatee. The patina free petroglyphs show a preference for the use of outlined figures and few details.

An interesting point that arises from the examination of the unidentified zoomorphs is the fact that incomplete images, with no legs, tend to have eyes. This is a reflection of the engraving process. The body and head were engraved first. As the eye is usually a small patina island, the decision of leaving that patina island and having an eye must be reached in the first stages of engraving. The pictograph visible in 2008 (panel 101-3, Fig. 115) may give insight in to the engraving process reflecting the early stages of creating a petroglyph.

In the following chapter, the data from Giva’t HaKetovot will be compared to that from Har Michia. The similarities and differences noted will be related to the history of each site and its present day occupancy. The Negebite style recognized at Giva’t HaKetovot has much in common with the Har Michia petroglyphs. The nuances that set the two sites apart will be discussed in chapter 3.1.

195

2.4. Intra and Inter Regional Comparisons

The general impression made on the recorder and visitor to Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot is that the two sites differ from each another. It is hard to pin point what exactly sets the two sites apart. Their settings, for example, are profoundly different. Likewise, the present day neighboring societies (the Jewish Ezuz community versus the Bedouin in the Avdat area) have an effect on the site, its rock art and the visitor’s impression. The aim of the present chapter is to assess the differences between Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot. Diversity was noted not only between sites but also within sites and regions. Comparing each set of data collected transforms a feeling, an impression, into testable inter-site, sub-regional and regional comparisons. The data may be compared on three levels, the most general level consists of motif type and the ratio between motif types. The second level examines the makeup of each motif type. Here the ratios between linear and curvilinear elements, between standing and riding anthropomorphs, and within the zoomorphic category are compared. The third and most detailed data to compare is the attribute combinations. In addition to the differences noted, there are several observations which were found at the sites documented and visited. The common finds are as important as those that differ. The common attributes found will be presented first. The chapter concludes with a set of data which expresses the rock art ‘assemblage’ of each site. In the following chapter, these numerical abstractions of the rock art assemblages will be translated into rock art traditions.

2.4.1.Generalizations Regarding the Rock Art of the Central Negev

2.4.1.1. Site Placement

Looking at Har Michia, Giva’t HaKetovot (both documented in detail), Giva’t Regalim, Nahal Nizzana (which were sampled), Har Arkov, Ramat Matred (which were visited) and Har Karkom (based on personal observations and published data), it is apparent that petroglyphs are found at all elevations and not restricted by topography. These petroglyphs were primarily, though not exclusively, engraved on patina covered panels. The material examined at Ramat Matred falls into the category of rock art in drainage basins (Eisenberg-Degen 2006: 19, 112-150). Har Arkov, geographically placed between Har Michia and Ramat Matred, forming part of the series of ridges

196

running northeast-southwest through the central Negev (Hillel 1982:79), bears engravings almost solely on the plateau. These are almost entirely restricted to patina covered panels. The restriction of engraving to the plateau of Har Arkov may be explained by the steep climb and relatively scarce pasture available on the slopes. On the plateau there are cairns, structures, and tent site remains as well as a spectacular view of the surroundings, which may have attracted the mark makers.

At Har Michia, most petroglyphs were on dark faced boulders though here too light colored panels were documented. Giva’t HaKetovot, in the northwestern plains, is a defined and prominent hill, visible from a distance. The petroglyphs are on both patina free and patina covered panels. This hill is similar, though on a much smaller scale, to Har Karkom (being elevated and prominent [Anati 1999]). Har Karkom, like Giva’t HaKetovot, presents several patina free panels. Giva’t Regalim, only a few hundred meters from Giva’t HaKetovot, has rock art both on the plateau and western ridge and on patina covered as well as patina free surfaces. A third site, also geographically close to Giva’t HaKetovot, consists of rock art along the western bank of Nahal Nizzana. Thus, petroglyphs may be found in all topographical and geographical locations.

2.4.1.2. Panel Type and Orientation

A clear preference for patina covered surfaces was noted at all sites examined. This fact may be explained by the characteristic of patina covered panels. Petroglyphs on patina covered surfaces are visible for a long duration and from a relatively large distance (several dozen m away). Perhaps more interesting is the phenomenon of some mark maker’s clear preference for patina free surfaces. These surfaces are softer than the patina covered ones and are easily engraved. The engravings, even when fresh, cannot be seen from more than a few meters away (though the orientation of the panel and illumination at different times of the day must also be taken into consideration).

Comparing the panel orientation as documented at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot, a preference for southern facing panels is apparent. At both sites, southern facing panels make up 22% of all non horizontal panels. The angle of panel chosen for engraving is unique to each site. At Har Michia, 25% of all engraved panels are horizontal whereas it is 47% at Giva’t HaKetovot. This seems to reflect natural state for at Giva’t HaKetovot the available surfaces are low outcrops whereas at Har

197

Michia the outcrops are larger and more prominent. If an outcrop is low, then the mark maker will, most likely, sit on it while engraving. The engraving on a small sized vertical panel entails an uncomfortable physical position. With larger, more prominent outcrops, vertical panels are at a more convenient height and, therefore, are more accessible for engraving.

2.4.2. Differences found between Rock Art Assemblages in the Central Negev

2.4.2.1. Motif Type and Ratios

The three central motif categories of rock art in the central Negev are abstract, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic. These three categories were found within all of the documented and visited sites. In all cases, abstract elements outnumber zoomorphic elements which in turn outnumber anthropomorphic ones. The ratio among the three categories was compared on an intra site, sub-regional and regional level.

At Har Michia the ratios of abstract : anthropomorphic and zoomorphic:anthropomorphic elements were calculated for the six drainage basins (Table 16). The ratios between the rock art categories are 30:1 and 4:1. These ratios take into account all periods of engraving. As Figs. 77 and 111 suggest, when the chronology of the Negev petroglyphs will be better understood and more easily divided, these ratios will not be found to be true nor consistent over the different periods. Nonetheless, the repetitive 30:1 and 4:1 ratios may be seen as a type of regional (central Negev), occurrence. In other words, any researcher surveying in the Negev and documenting in a similar way (i.e. including all marks) should measure similar ratios.

Data from the Ezuz region were evaluated through the difference between two independent proportions formula (which calculates the number of petroglyphs from each category in relation to the total number recorded [Ferguson 1967:176-177]). Tables 47-49 (and Fig 117) show that the petroglyphs of Nahal Nizzana and Giva’t HaKetovot belong to the same population while the Giva’t Regalim petroglyphs differ significantly from both. This suggests underlying differences: perhaps .the petroglyphs served different functions, were made at different periods, or were made by mark makers of different cultures.

198

1000

800

Abstract 600 Zoomorphic Anthropomorph 400

200

0 Giva't HaKetovot Nahal Nizzana Giva't Regalim

Figure 117. Number of abstract, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic elements from sites in the Ezuz region, Giva’t HaKetovot, Nahal Nizzana, and Giva’t Regalim.

Giva't Nahal Z Motif HaKetovot Percentage Nizzana Percentage levels Abstract 1144 78.36% 78 89.66% -1.72 Zoomorphic 203 13.90% 8 9.20% 1.4 Anthropomorph 40 2.74% 1 1.15% 0.95

Giva't Giva't Z Motif HaKetovot Percentage Regalim Percentage levels Abstract 1144 78.36% 105 74.47% 2.02 Zoomorphic 203 13.90% 30 5.67% -2.19 Anthropomorph 40 2.74% 4 3.55% 0.009

Nahal Giva't Z Motif Nizzana Percentage Regalim Percentage levels Abstract 78 89.66% 105 74.47% 2.63 Zoomorphic 8 9.20% 30 5.67% -2.42 Anthropomorph 1 1.15% 4 3.55% -0.85 Table 47- 49. Tables comparing relative percentages of abstract, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic elements from the sites sampled and documented in the Ezuz area. Light gray marked Z levels are significant at the 0.02 level, dark gray, significant at the 0.05 level.

199

2.4.2.2. Differences noted between Patina covered and Patina Free Panels

Another difference noted in the rock art of the Ezuz region is in the relative number of abstracts, zoomorphs and anthropomorphs between patina covered and patina free panels from the Ezuz region.

The ratios of the number of abstract to anthropomorphic elements and zoomorphic to anthropomorphic elements (from Giva’t HaKetovot together with the sampled panels on Giva’t Regalim; no patina free panels were recorded at Nahal Nizzana) were found to be identical between patina free surfaces (Table 48), and patina covered panels, 30:1 and 4:1 respectably. Using the difference between the two independent proportions formula, the data collected for Giva’t Regalim samples differed greatly from that of Giva’t HaKetovot. At Giva’t Regalim, the proportion of abstract elements was found to be considerably lower.

Concentrating on Giva’t HaKetovot patina free panels, the ratio is 46 abstract to 1 anthropomorph and 7 zoomorphic to 1 anthropomorph. The documented data (Hebrew, English, Russian, and Arabic inscriptions, some accompanied by mobile phone numbers), technique (scratching and superficial incision) and weathering (minimal) show, beyond doubt, that many of the patina free panels were engraved in the recent past. Dividing the Giva’t HaKetovot patina free panels into ‘ancient’ and ‘recent’ (roughly dating to post the formation of the State of Israel), these ratios change. The ‘ancient’ patina free panels from Giva’t HaKetovot provide a ratio of 40:1 (abstract : anthropomorphic elements) and 10:1 (zoomorphic : anthropomorphic elements). This is in contrast to the recently engraved panels with a ratio of 53:1 (abstract : anthropomorphic elements) and 5:1 (zoomorphic:anthropomorphic elements) (significant through the chi square test at a 0.0024 level). , , Within the ‘ancient’ patina free panels, curvilinear elements appear more often than in the patina covered panels. A second and clear distinction to be made between ‘ancient’ and recent patina free elements is in the zoomorphic category. Recent abstract elements outnumber zoomorphic elements 11 to one. This is in comparison of four abstract to every zoomorphic element among the ‘ancient’ patina free panels. The division within the zoomorphic category is also considerably different (Tables 50 and 51, Figs. 118-122). To conclude, at a clear distinction can be made between recent (approximately the past 40-60 years) and ‘ancient’ engravings (roughly a period ranging between the

211

1st c. BCE and the 4th c. CE (Graf 1997:8; Oxtoby 1968:6; Winnet 1957:146), (more on this subject in chapter 3.1.) Giva’t HaKetovot. These data lead us to assume that within each period and tradition, a relatively limited repertoire was drawn upon. The different populations governed by different cultural environments, livelihoods, social makeup, religion and language engraved the same motifs though with changing ratios.

Animal petroglyph ‘Ancient’ Patina free panels ‘Recent’ Patina free panels Camel 15% 37% Horned Ungulate 41% 37% Unidentified Zoomorphs 33% 16% Table 50. Three main recent and ancient motifs of the zoomorphic category, on patina free panels at Giva’t HaKetovot.

Giva’t HaKetovot Patina Covered Linear (1) Linear (2-5) Curvilinear Anthro Type 1 Anthro Type 2 Bird Boar Camel Dog Equid Horned Ungulate Lizard Predator Scorpion Spider

Figure 118. Pie chart of elements engraved at Giva’t HaKetovot and Har Michia according to panel type.

211

Giva’t HaKetovot Patina Free Har Michia Patina Free Recent Linear (1) Linear (1) Linear (2-5) Linear (2-5) Curvilinear Curvilinear Anthro Type 1 Anthro Type 1 Anthro Type 2 Anthro Type 2 Bird Bird Boar Boar Camel Camel Dog

Giva’t HaKetovot Patina Free Har Michia Patina Covered Ancient Linear (1)

Linear (1) Linear (2-5) Linear (2-5) Curvilinear Curvilinear Anthro Type 1 Anthro Type 1 Anthro Type 2 Anthro Type 2 Bird Bird Boar Boar Camel Camel Dog

Figure 119-122. Pie charts of elements engraved at Giva’t HaKetovot and Har Michia according to panel type.

212

Giva’t HaKetovot Har Michia Patina Free Patina Covered Recent Ancient Patina Covered Patina Free Linear (1) 556 57.03% 93 33.21% 68 33.01% 2980 61.66% 127 52.05% Linear (2-5) 139 14.26% 89 31.79% 41 19.90% 751 15.54% 54 22.13% Curvilinear 78 8.00% 30 10.71% 50 24.27% 402 8.32% 32 13.11% Anthro Type 1 28 2.87% 4 1.43% 3 1.46% 82 1.70% 4 1.64% Type 2 Anthro 4 0.41% 0 0.00% 2 0.97% 58 1.20% 1 0.41% Bird 1 0.10% 0 0.00% 1 0.49% 8 0.17% 1 0.41% Boar 2 0.21% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Camel 7 0.72% 7 2.50% 6 2.91% 72 1.49% 1 0.41% Dog 5 0.51% 0 0.00% 1 0.49% 19 0.39% 1 0.41% Equid 3 0.31% 1 0.36% 2 0.97% 63 1.30% 3 1.23% Horned Ungulate 85 8.72% 7 2.50% 16 7.77% 254 5.26% 0 0.00% Lizard 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 0.04% 0 0.00% Predator 8 0.82% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 0.12% 0 0.00% Scorpion 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.02% 0 0.00% Spider 0 0.00% 1 0.36% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Snake 2 0.21% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.02% 0 0.00% Unidentified Zoomorph 31 3.18% 3 1.07% 13 6.31% 125 2.59% 0 0.00% Building 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 0.04% 0 0.00% Foot Print 2 0.21% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 21 0.43% 11 4.51% Hand Print 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 0.06% 2 0.82% Phallus 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.02% 0 0.00% Bird Foot Print 1 0.10% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Tool/Weapon 2 0.21% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 21 0.43% 0 0.00% Inscriptions 25 2.56% 45 16.07% 5 2.43% 19 0.39% 8 3.28% Total (not including anthro Type 2 to avoid double counting) 975 100.00% 280 100.00% 206 100.00% 4833 100.00% 244 100.00% Table 51. Elements recorded at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot according to surface type.

213

2.4.2.3. Depicted Motifs

2.4.2.3.1. Abstract Elements

At Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot, 92 different abstract motifs were catalogued, the majority being tribal markings (chapter 3.1.). Inter-site variability in tribal marking distributions was noted at Har Michia. Motif C11, the basic Azāzma tribal marking, and variations of this mark C12, C13, C14, C15, are found most commonly in drainage basin D (Table 52). Some of the documented engravings (of the type discussed here) were engraved during the duration of the survey. As noted in chapter 2.2., a permanent Bedouin settlement is adjacent to the documented section of Har Michia. This community, affiliated with the Azāzma tribe, move daily through the engraved outcrops with their flocks. It is probable that they are responsible for the recently engraved petroglyphs. The concentration of tribal marks in drainage basin D may be explained by the large sized outcrops within this drainage and their placement relatively low in the basin near the wadi, which is richer in vegetation.

Drainage A B C D E F Total

C11 2 7 23 43 23 4 102

C12 1 2 5 10 9 0 27

C13 0 0 3 11 0 0 14

C14 0 0 2 11 12 0 25

C15 0 0 0 11 1 3 15

Total 3 9 33 86 45 7 183

Percentage 1.64% 4.92% 18.03% 46.99% 24.59% 3.83% 100.00% Table 52. Distribution of Azāzma tribal markings at Har Michia.

No Bedouin reside in the Ezuz area today and the region is no longer used by Bedouin as pasture land. Yet, the Azāzma tribal markings in their variations also occur in a similar percentage of the Giva’t HaKetovot documented data. These petroglyphs offer a clear testimony to the Azāzma’s presence in the Ezuz region in the past. This observation is reinforced by a number of historical accounts (‘Al-Aref 1937:83; Yoseph 1978; Epstein 1939).

214

Of the 92 abstract motifs, ten were found only at Har Michia and an additional 13 were restricted to Giva’t HaKetovot (Table 53). Of the 13 motifs documented strictly at Giva’t HaKetovot, seven are modern while six are ‘ancient’. The modern motifs include the Olympic emblem, the dollar sign, and a three dimensional square. Three elements (B5, B10 and B15) are tribal markings (chapter 3.4.). The presence of elements B5 and B10 at Har Michia and element B15 at Giva’t HaKetovot, but not vice versa, suggests the presence of a specific group at the family or ‘clan’ level rather than a tribe.

2.4.2.3.2. Complexity Levels and Patina Shades

Har Michia’s abstract complexity levels graphed according to patina shades clearly presents the use and existence of all complexity levels equally in each patina shade (Figs. 30, 31, 83 and 84). These linear and curvilinear motifs peaked in quantity in the 5/6-6/8 patina shade. Abstract elements from Giva’t HaKetovot graphed in a similar way show less unity, though the linear and curvilinear elements of the site seem to be governed by similar rules. Complexity levels four and five peak within the 2.5/1-4/4, the darkest patina shade. Level three complexity peaks at 5/6-6/8. The drop in petroglyphs within the 8/2-8/6 patina shade is consistent at both sites, suggesting few recent engravings on patina covered surfaces.

The complexity levels do not reflect chronology. This is clearly shown by examining complexity level according to patina shade (Figs. 30, 31, 830 and 84) and by the fact that Bedouin still use level one and two abstract motifs as tribal markings. This conclusion stands in contrast to the once prevailing concept of simple developing to complex which governed the chronology of Upper Paleolithic cave art (Honour and Fleming 2005:27).

215

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

A Marks in natural formations B >IIII IIII Scratched I II III III III III IIII IIII IIII IIII line >IIII

III II IIII IIII >IIII III C T + H Z Y D D

E Complex Undistingui linear -shable motifs F

G Complex Curvilinear

Table 53. Abstract motifs documented. Gray colored motifs are restricted to Har Michia. Pink colored motif documented strictly at Giva’t HaKetovot.

216

2.4.2.4. Inscriptions

Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot are distinguished, among other criteria, by their geographic location. Har Michia is, as noted above, adjacent to a Bedouin community. Giva’t HaKetovot is near a Jewish settlement and an ecotourism center. Throughout our field work at Har Michia, only once did we see non Bedouins looking at the petroglyphs. At Giva’t HaKetovot, tourists, almost all Israelis, were encountered often. This difference in exposure to tourism is well reflected by the number and language of documented inscriptions. At Har Michia, a single Hebrew inscription was documented versus 33 at Giva’t HaKetovot. Likewise, no English or Russian inscriptions were found at Har Michia while 29 were documented at Giva’t HaKetovot. Concentrating on North Arabian script, the two sites are more similar with five inscriptions at Har Michia and four at Giva’t HaKetovot. Aramaic and Greek (two inscriptions each) were found but at different sites; Greek at Giva’t HaKetovot and Aramaic at Har Michia (Table 54).

Hebrew Arabic Thamudic Safaitic Aramaic Unidentified Inscribed English Russian Greek Total Modern Dates N= 1 10 4 1 2 7 2 0 0 0 27 Har Michia % 3.70% 37.04% 14.81% 3.70% 7.41% 25.93% 7.41% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% Giva't N= 33 5 3 1 0 0 0 27 2 2 73 HaKetovot % 45.21% 6.85% 4.11% 1.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 36.99% 2.74% 2.74% 100.00% Table 54. Inscriptions documented at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot.

2.4.2.5. Zoomorphic Motifs

At both sites examined, ten animal species were recorded, eight of which were the same species presented at both sites. The percentage in which each species is presented is similar (except for equid and predator, based on the difference between the two.

217 independent proportions formula) at both sites.

2.4.2.5.1. Horned Ungulates

The most commonly depicted zoomorphs are horned ungulates, representing 45% of the zoomorphs at Har Michia and 53% at Giva’t HaKetovot. When comparing the size of the horned ungulates from the two sites, it is apparent that the proportion between the length and height differs. At Giva’t HaKetovot the two are similar while at Har Michia the proportion between the height and length is slightly over 150%. The larger the difference between the length and the height, the more slender the animal appears and has relatively larger, longer horns (Fig. 123).

The majority of these are of mature male ibexes. Gazelles, hartebeests, oryxes and oxen are present, if at all, in small numbers. At Har Karkom, mature male ibexes form up to 60% of the depicted horned ungulate zoomorphs (Anati and Mailland 2009:25).

cm .

Figure 123. Average length and height of horned ungulate petroglyphs from Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot.

218

2.4.2.5.2. Ibex – Dog Combinations

The combination of a mature male ibex pursued by a second animal identified as a dog or predator have been documented at Har Michia, Giva’t HaKetovot and noted at Har Karkom and Ramat Matred. The combination of these two animals, not directly related to hunting (as anthropomorphs are not included in the composition, and the predator is not at the ibex’s neck) is not accidental. The meaning this combination held for the mark makers was not related to a specific theme, though a preference for the animals to face north was noted (Tables 55-60). A similar composition of a male ibex followed by a predator was impressed into the walls of a 4th millennium structure of Hujayrāt al-Ghuzlān, southwest Jordan. Here the ibex-predator pair is part of a limited repertoire consisting of hand impressions, male ibex and orant figures. Seeing the ibex-predator combination in this context suggests a sacred meaning (Schmidt 2009). Direction of Ibex Direction of Dog/Predator L 12 54.55% L 11 50.00% R 10 45.45% R 11 50.00% Table 55. Direction of ibex petroglyphs Table 58. Direction of dog petroglyph when presented as ibex-dog pair when presented as ibex-dog pair.

Orientation of Ibex Orientation of Dog/Predator N 9 40.91% N 7 31.82% NE 1 4.55% NE 1 4.55% E 2 9.09% E 2 9.09% SE 2 9.09% SE 2 9.09% S 0 0.00% S 1 4.55% SW 2 9.09% SW 3 13.64% W 2 9.09% W 2 9.09% NW 4 18.18% NW 4 18.18% Table 56. Orientation of ibex petroglyphs Table 59. Orientation of dog petroglyphs when presented as ibex-dog pair. when presented as ibex-dog pair.

Relation between Motifs Tail of Ibex Behind/Following 16 72.73% Up-turned 14 63.64% Back to Back 1 4.55% No tail 4 18.18% Behind – upside-down 1 4.55% Straight 4 18.18% Behind/Jumping 1 4.55% Table 60. Direction of ibex tail when Below 2 9.09% Orientation of Ibex petroglyphs when Facing 1 4.55% presented as ibex-dog pair Table 57. Relation Between ibex and dog petroglyphs when presented as a pair.

219

2.4.2.5.3. Unidentified Zoomorphs

The second largest zoomorphic category (22% Har Michia and 23% Giva’t HaKetovot ) is comprised of unidentified zoomorphs. At both sites, the majority of this category are unidentified due to superimposition, weathering, obscure details, incomplete, or extreme stylization. Few are well formed yet still unrecognizable.

2.4.2.5.4. Camels

From the third through the tenth remaining zoomorphic categories, percentages diminish. Camels, the third most frequently depicted zoomorphic category, present only 13% of the Har Michia zoomorphic category. At Giva’t HaKetovot camels account for 10% but when counting only the ‘ancient’ petroglyphs, the percentage drops to 8%. Camels were stationed in the region (Nizzana) in the Byzantine period (Kraemer 1958:108). But camels are not as numerous as may have been expected. Stylistically there are similarities in the form of liner styled camel petroglyphs between Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot. This is so even though linear camels present 72% of all camel petroglyphs of Har Michia and only 45%, or 50% when omitting the recent examples (almost all in an outlined style), of the Giva’t HaKetovot sample. At Har Michia, there are a few examples of linear styled camels with fully engraved humps. This combination was not found at Giva’t HaKetovot. Another distinct difference is the percentage of camels being ridden. At Har Michia, 60% of the camels are presented with a rider while at Giva’t HaKetovot only 10% are. Comparing the size of the petroglyphs, the average camel petroglyph at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot is similar though the standard deviation is larger at Giva’t HaKetovot (Fig 124).

211

11 SD 9

7 Average

3 cm H. Michia H. Michia G. HaKetovot G. HaKetovot . Leangth Height Leangth Height

Figure 124. Average length and height of camel petroglyphs from Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot.

2.4.2.5.5. Equids

Ridden animals in general, and equids specifically, are depicted less often at Giva’t HaKetovot than at Har Michia. At Giva’t HaKetovot, ridden equids represent 1% of zoomorphs and equids in general (ridden and not ridden together) reach 3% of the zoomorphic repertoire. The equids of Har Michia, in comparison, present 11.9% of the zoomorphic repertoire, ridden equids ac count for 8.5%. The average size and standard deviation of the equid petroglyphs are similar at both sites (Fig. 125).

Donkeys are robust and adapted to eating desert scrub (Borowski 1998:90-93). During the First Word War, the 11th Light Horse Regiment was stationed in the Ezuz area alongside a camel crop (Woerlee 2008). Therefore, the fact that equids are almost entirely missing from the Giva’t HaKetovot rock art repertoire is not due to adaptation problems.

211

14 SD

12 Average 10

6 cm H. Michia H. Michia G. HaKetovot G. HaKetovot . Leangth Height Leangth Height

Figure 125. Average length and height of equid petroglyphs from Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot.

2.4.2.6. Foot Prints

Foot prints were documented at Har Michia (n=32), Giva’t HaKetovot (n=1) and noted at Ramat Matred (Eisenberg-Degen 2006:125) and Har Karkom (Anati 1993:63). These appear either as a single print or as a pair. In the Negev, the size of the foot print does not, in my opinion, reflect the size/age of the mark maker as suggested by Fossati in regard to Valcamonica foot prints (2007:150). The Har Michia foot prints are similar in area size as those documented in Egypt (Kaper and Willems 2002)), Jordan (Nehmé 1995) and Har Karkom (personal observation). They are slightly larger than a sample in Saudi Arabia (Fig 126) and smaller that those documented by Verner (1973:32-33) in Nubia. Sandal/foot prints are another characteristic that helps define the Har Michia rock art. A six toed print, unlike the foot prints that are more figurative than an exact testimony of an individual, makes a clear statement of individuality as a mark maker or group.

212

Average Sandal/Foot Print Petroglyph Size

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Sq. cm cmcmc Saudi Arabia Egypt n=3 EAU n=5 UAE n=7 Petra n=7 Har Michia Giva't n=20 n=32 HaKetovot n=1

Figure 126. Average area used for sandal/foot print petroglyphs seen in a sample from different sites in the Middle East.

2.4.3. Attribute Combinations

Each petroglyph element is composed of numerous types of data (descriptive as well as numerical). One data type is the form employed; linear, outlines or fully engraved. In addition, several attributes were examined against each other as well as in relation to the stylistic form. The attribute combinations and statistical tests examine the micro consistency of the anthropomorphic and zoomorphic petroglyphs. The macro picture that arises is that of conservative rock art tradition that expresses few changes over time. The most prevalent style of zoomorphs and anthropomorphs is the linear form. This, together with the dominance of abstract elements, was found to be consistent in all of the documented Negev corpora . In chapter 3.3, this consistency is interpreted as a reflection of the similarities in the cultural makeup of the mark makers.

Attribute combination, the fashion in which each animal was engraved, was found to differ between one site and corpus and the next. For example, at Har Michia the combination of tail positions and number of legs of camel petroglyphs was found to be statistically significant (Table 19). This combination was not found to be more than statistically random at Giva’t HaKetovot while a different combination, number of legs and hump style (outlined versus fully engraved)

213 was found to be of importance as the chi square test suggest (Table 40). It was argued in chapters 2.2 and 2.3 that the combination of attributes was governed by a conscious decision made by the mark maker society. In chapter 3.3, it is suggested that the attribute combination uniqueness at each site reflects the cultural makeup. Similarities in style reflect the general cultural level. Attribute combination reflect the cultural makeup and the activity of bands and extended families.

2.4.3.1. Zoomorphs

2.4.3.1.1. Horned Ungulates

At Har Michia, the basic stylistic form of horned ungulate petroglyphs seems to have been based on whether the image was engraved in a linear, out-lined or fully engraved manner and the size of the image. To this basic form, different details were added such as the number of legs, horns, eye, goatee and direction of tail (Table 22). At Giva’t HaKetovot, a distinction was found between panel type and style and between style and details, but with no clear regard to size or style (Table 41). Statistically significant differences were also noted in the difference between the two independent proportions formula in regard to the setting in which the animal is depicted. At both sites, horned ungulates were most commonly depicted as a single animal with no clear relation to other zoomorphs. The second largest category consists of a group of horned ungulates. These groups, ranging in number between two and ten horned ungulates on a single panel (usually with no clear relation between them) present on an average 32% of the horned ungulate category. Horned ungulates, in association with anthropomorphs, dogs, weapons, and traps range between 14% at Giva’t HaKetovot and 18% at Har Michia. Horned ungulates with a large marking on their horns (at times added some time after the making of the original engraving) were noted at both sites, though were more commonly found at Har Michia. This marking was not found consistently with any specific group (Table 61).

214

Har Michia Giva’t HaKetovot Z Levels Assoc. with anthro, weapon, trap, or dog. 18.11% 14.15% 3.40 Group of horned ungulates 29.53% 33.96% 3.00 Single horned ungulate 47.24% 50.00% 4.73 Tribal marking 1.57% 0.00% 1.80 Mating/fighting 1.57% 1.89% 0.56 Assoc. with an enclosure 1.97% 0.00% 2.02 Mark on horns 7.87% 5.66% 2.29 Table 61. The setting of horned ungulate petroglyphs as documented at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot. Yellow, significant at the 0.01 level, turquoise, significant at the 0.05 level.

No clear connection was apparent between attributes and tail position (an up-turned tail in a male ibex may be related to behavior during rutting season) at Giva’t HaKetovot. This may be due to the spatial distance and time lapse between the mark maker’s exposure to rutting related behavior and the time of engraving. Other reasons may be that for the Giva’t HaKetovot mark makers, the ibex’s significance was unrelated to mating and rutting behavior. This subject will be further discussed in chapter 3.4..

2.4.3.1.2. Camels

In addition to the combinations of attributes (based on chi square tests) found Har Michia, which do not repeat themselves at Giva’t HaKetovot, more generalized data such as the relative percentage of linear formed camels versus outlined and fully engraved ones are also dissimilar. This phenomenon could be explained either by the small sample size of camels at Giva’t HaKetovot or by the fact that recent and ancient camel petroglyphs were alike at Giva’t HaKetovot. However, it is more than likely that every rock art site in the Negev (including Har Michia) includes a certain percentage of recent petroglyphs.

The most obvious difference between Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot is a geographic one. To clarify whether the weight of the geographic setting is a substantial one in this equation, the same chi square test as those examined on the Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot camel petroglyphs was run on 81 camel petroglyphs documented at Ramat Matred (Eisenberg-Degen 2006:71-73,

215

101-157) (Table 62, Appendix, Table 35). Theses chi square tests resulted in a list of statistically significant attribute combinations but only one of which (fully engraved camels are presented with a fully engraved hump) was found similar to those of Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot. Based on this comparison, we can say for certain that none of the reoccurring combinations (such as camels facing right tend to be ridden) are based on the psychological/neurological subconscious or on cultural imbedded behavior. Each combination of attributes was intentionally engraved as indicated by the chi square tests. We cannot attribute the stylistic differences to the distance between Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot, as Ramat Matred, just over 6 km (as the crow flies) from Har Michia, exhibits the use of entirely different conventions than those used at Har Michia (though it should be noted that the relative linear versus fully and outlined formed camels were similar). Yet the geographic, geomorphic characteristics of Har Michia and Ramat Matred, though more similar than when comparing Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot, still are not identical. Environmental distinctions such as the width of a wadi, inclination of a ridge or size of an outcrop do not seem to affect the camel attributes chosen directly . Har Michia presented diverse settings for the rock art, and still the chi square test came out entirely different from those at the other two sites. The engravings at Giva’t HaKetovot of camels with long tails and facing right and at Har Michia of camels with four legs and up-turned tails, while neither is true for Ramat Matred camels, suggest that the message of the art was a private one and the intended audience a small one. As the conventions change from area to area, these engravings seem to be private rather than public art, perhaps representing the work of a distinct mark maker group, perhaps on a band or extended family level. Fully Site/Style N Linear Engraved Outlined Total Har Michia 73 75.34% 19.18% 5.48% 100.00% Giva’t HaKetovot 20 45.00% 20.00% 35.00% 100.00% Ramat Matred 81 79.01% 11.11% 9.88% 100.00% Table 62. Stylistic form and sample size of camel petroglyphs from three sites in the Negev Highlands.

2.4.3.2. Anthropomorphs.

At both Har Michia (n= 145, 2.86 %) and Giva’t HaKetovot (n=40, 2.73%), anthropomorphic elements make up slightly less than 3% of all depicted elements. The number of sexually defined

216 and clearly male anthropomorphs are similar standing on 20%-21.5%. Another similarity noted is the form in which the anthropomorphs are depicted. At both sites, linear styled anthropomorphs account for 60-67% of the anthropomorphic category. The two subcategories with the largest number of documented elements are subcategory 1b, anthropomorphic elements with upraised arms, and subcategory 1f, anthropomorphic elements armed with weapons.

The most noticeable difference between Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot anthropomorphic elements is found in the type 2 forms. At Har Michia type 2 anthropomorphs form 40% of the anthropomorphic category while at Giva’t HaKetovot they represent only 15%.. At Har Michia, most type 2 anthropomorphs, 78% are riding equids while at Giva’t HaKetovot, more than 50% of Type 2 anthropomorphs are on camel back.

A positive correlation between fully engraved figures and the inclusion of eyes, and the relation between eyes and hair were the only chi square tests results which proved statistically significant for anthropomorphs from both sites. Other stylistic conventions apparent at Har Michia are based on sexed figures, mounted figures and armed anthropomorphs. These are not apparent at Giva’t HaKetovot. The lack of any connection found between different attributes, sex, and weapons may be due to the limited sample size at Giva’t HaKetovot

Additional visually apparent differences between the anthropomorphs of Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot are as follows: Several males are depicted at Har Michia with an erect, over-sized penis. Type 2, subtypes b, d, e and f, i.e. armed and mounted warriors are entirely missing from the Giva’t HaKetovot material. The single outlined anthropomorph at Giva’t HaKetovot (100-111-5) is unlike those of Har Michia ( 9-1-2, 9-5-2, or other variations such as 33-3-6, and 39-79-18). At Giva’t HaKetovot ring headed people (some are of a recent date) are engraved, a stylistic feature not found at Har Michia.

217

2.4.4. Conclusions

This part has been rewritten and now opens with the following paragraph: Concluding the comparison between Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot petroglyphs, there is no doubt that the corpora hold many similarities. The division into categories and subcategories, extensive use of linear forms, the similar repertoire of abstract elements, percentage of male anthropomorphs, and the preference to depict mature male ibex over all other zoomorphs are the most evident examples.

Of the differences between the corpora, the most important is found in the fact that the relative proportion of horned ungulates is not significantly different while the appearance of equids is extremely significant. Ibexes are indigenous in the Har Michia area as gazelles are in the Giva’t HaKetovot area (Aronson 1982:19), yet ibexes dominate both horned ungulate categories. The closest home range of ibexes to Giva’t HaKetovot is found to the east in the Highlands, some 15 kilometers away or to the west at Gebel Maghara in Northern Sinai, approximately 70 kilometers away (Harrison and Bates 1991:183).

Through the examination of the relative relations between abstract, zoomorphs, and anthropomorphs, the general 30:4:1 ratio reflect a type of Negebite reoccurring phenomena. The second level of stylistic definition is based on linear : curvilinear ratios, the division of species within the zoomorphic category, and the division of anthropomorphs into types and subtypes. The most detailed level deals with the consistent form of attribute combinations and displays (the chi square tests). Comparing Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot at these three levels, it is evident that the petroglyphs of both sites fall within the now forming umbrella term of Negebite style. This is reinforced by the horned ungulate category and, specifically, the ibex depictions at Giva’t HaKetovot. Differences, such as attribute combinations, seem to reflect more localized regional differences resulting from specific mark makers’ habits and forms of transmitting information. In other words, the Negev petroglyph grammar is formed by the proportion of abstracts that outnumber zoomorphs that outnumber anthropomorphs. The semantics of each rock art site reflects the more specific character of the mark maker

218

This conclusion is presented for the documented rock art as a complete unit. The rock art is not the result of a single engraving phase, though the continuity between engraving phases, the limited and repetitive repertoire support the definition of a Negebite style. These subjects will be discussed further in chapters 3.1 and 3.3.

219

3. Findings and Interpretations

This chapter is composed of related subjects: chronology, the introduction of a three-tiered comparative system, a review of possible meanings for the Negev rock art tradition and the recognition of some of the Negev rock art’s mark makers.

The chronology section is constructed in such a way that a generalized chronological frame for the rock art at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot is presented. This chronological frame is then set against Nevo and Koren (1991), Eisenberg-Degen (2006), Rothenberg (1972:119-124, 2001, 2008), and Anati’s (1956, 1962:181-214, 1965, 1993:71) previously formulated chronologies.

The second part of the chapter, a three-tiered comparative system, presents a hierarchical form of comparison of rock art corpora and their interpretation. In the present research, three rock art traditions, Negebite, North Arabian and Bedouin, are recognized and defined.

The third part of the chapter puts forward possible meanings for the Negev rock art tradition. Here, general patterns are examined to identify motifs and panels with special meaning and importance. An array of meanings and interpretations are offered and discussed.

The chapter concludes with observations regarding the mark makers of the Negev rock art, their influences, traditions and cultural identity.

3.1. Chronology of the Central Negev Petroglyphs

3.1.1. Introduction

The rock art of Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot, documented as elements, panels and motifs, reflect an accumulation of engraving phases that were done over an extensive period of time. Each element can be viewed in relation to other elements on the same panel through superimposition and relative patina color. Few panels include scenes in which the date (relative or absolute) offered for one element may be projected on other elements in the composition.

221

Motifs may be dated based on subject matter and attributes. The material comprising the first part of this chapter will be reviewed in the following order: superimposition and patina color of all recorded elements and superimposition and attributes according to motif type. Abstract motifs are dated based on documented data, related material from other sites, and ethno-archaeology, providing a post Abbasid date for most of the abstract elements. Within the zoomorphic category, horned ungulates and camels, the two most commonly depicted species, are examined. Anthropomorphs are dated almost entirely based on attributes and weapons. Following the anthropomorphs, foot and sandal print motifs are presented briefly. Based on similarities in form to dated material, some elements engraved on patina free panels from Giva’t HaKetovot are given a Roman date. The datable elements are presented in the appendix, tables 36-41. General observations of changes in form serving as a chronological indicator are presented in Figure 169.

3.1.2. Superimposition and Relative Patina Shades

The many phases of engraving resulted in superimpositions, which includes both overlying and underlying elements. The superimposition and patina shade recorded in the field reflect engraving phases of individual panels. At Har Michia, 565 cases of superimposition were documented. At Giva’t HaKetovot, fewer cases of superimposition were noted in that only 152 elements were partially or entirely covering other elements. Examining the recorded instances of superimposition, together with the motif type, it is apparent that abstract elements are most often involved in superimpositions. Of the recorded material from Har Michia, 86% of all overlaying elements and 54% of all underlying ones are abstract. With zoomorphic and anthropomorphic elements involved in superimpositions, up to 4 times more were recorded as underlying. These findings were repeated at Giva’t HaKetovot with the percentage of underlying anthropomorphs and zoomorphs surpassing the percentage of those overlaying. These zoomorphic and anthropomorphic motifs clearly pre-dated the abstract ones overlaying them (Table 63).

This picture is strengthened by the reconstructed engraving phases based on superimposition and patina shade. Several panels displayed numerous engraving phases. Panel 33-113 (Fig. 124) was the panel with the most engraving phases. The 8 engraving phases recognized are characterized by different motifs, forms, and levels of details. The first engraving phase of panel 33-113

221 presents a hunting scene and the sequential phase includes several male ibexes, though, this time, no anthropomorph is association with them. Camels, ibexes, and a large number of abstract elements were added in later engraving phases. Motifs of the final three phases consist almost entirely of abstract elements.

Panel 25-31 is a large panel with 218 recorded elements and five engraving phases (Fig 127). In the first engraving phase, an anthropomorph, a phallus and an ibex are depicted. Ibexes continue to serve a preferred motif in the following three phases. The final phases consist almost entirely of abstract elements.

Panel 39-69 has three engraving phases (Fig. 128). The first phase includes two ibexes and an unidentified zoomorphic element. The second and third phases present strictly abstract elements. Panels with more than a single engraving phase form a stratigraphy with a relative chronology. When comparing panels with multi-engraving phases, it must be taken into consideration that the first engraving phase of the rock is not necessarily the same on all panels. Panels with more than one engraving phase were not all engraved during the same period; the panels were not all “active” simultaneously. Thus we cannot take the three phases of panel 36-69 and compare them to the first three phases of panel 25-31 or 33-113. Nontheless, examining 73 of Har Michia’s panels which exhibit clear relative chronology, certain general trends are apparent. These are not presented phase by phase but rather are grouped into four general engraving phases, each with its characteristic composition of motifs. Ibexes, isolated or in a group, at times in association with an anthropomorph consist of the first engraving phase. Anthropomorphs, horned ungulates, dogs, equids, tools and enclosures all tend to be engraved in the early phases. Zoomorphs (including birds) and inscriptions tend to be in the following phase while abstracts and camels usually belong to the last phase of engraving.

222

Har Michia Giva’t HaKetovot overlying=565 underlying n=560 overlying n=152 underlying over n=151 % of % of motif % of % of motif % of % of motif % of % of motif Motif type overlaying category underlying category overlaying category underlying category Zoomorph 10.44% 10.77% 34.29% 35.04% 10.53% 7.96% 34.44% 25.87%

Anthropomorph 1.59% 6.21% 7.32% 28.28% 0.66% 2.50% 4.64% 17.50%

Foot Print 0.35% 6.25% 1.96% 34.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Hand Print 0.18% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Abstract 86.19% 11.21% 53.75% 6.93% 78.29% 8.04% 56.95% 5.81% Tool/Weapon 0.00% 0.00% 1.07% 28.57% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Inscription 1.24% 18.92% 1.43% 21.62% 10.53% 19.28% 3.97% 7.23% Building 0.00% 0.00% 0.18% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Table 63. Percentages of over and under laying motifs from Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot

223

Figure 127. South eastern face of panel 25-31 (measuring 270X93 cm) with a total of 218 elements and a minimum of five engraving phases.

Figure 128. Panel 39-69 (measuring 73X51 cm) with three engraving phases.

224

3.1.3. Abstract Motifs

The repertoire of abstract motifs at Har Michia may be divided into three categories. 1. Incomplete elements, elements which are the result of the making of other elements (stray blows) and marks inspired by the rock itself such as marks on elevated areas, depressions, and along the panel edge (A1-A6). This category is equivalent to linear elements of a level one complexity. 2. Abstract elements which are of a clear form and are not recognizable objects to the modern eye (B3-G3, H1-H2). 3. Abstract elements which are symbols understood and employed by our own society such as a hexagram or tic-tac-toe game (H3-I2).

Motifs which are less clear in their affiliation. for example the sun shape (G4-G5), arrows (E7) and grids (E5), which may belong to the second or third group. In terms of chronology, the second and third groups are of interest.

Graphing the abstract elements of Har Michia according to complexity level and patina shade, (Figs. 30 and 31), it is apparent that the complexity levels do not represent a chronological development. All complexity levels are engraved in relatively equal percentages throughout each patina shade (following the conventional interpretation of different patina shades presenting different periods). Also apparent in these graphs is that the percentage of abstract elements increases during a certain period. Graphing the same data type from the material documented at Giva’t HaKetovot resulted in the highest complexity levels presented most often within the darkest patina shade (Figs. 80 and 81). The second most complex abstract elements present an opposite picture, increasing as the patina shades lightens. Thus, the Giva’t HaKetovot material also indicates that from complexity levels do not reflect chronology.

Throughout history and prehistory, abstract elements, similar to those documented at Har Michia, have been in use. To provide a few eclectic examples, single lines, sets of parallel lines, rectangles, rings and V and X elements were engraved and painted in Perigord and Cantabria Upper Paleolithic caves (Leroi-Gourhan 1967: 516 chart XXXVI and chart XXXVII, 515 chart XXXV, 514 chart XXXIV; Ucko and Rosenfeld 1967:218, Fig 94, 222, Fig 98). Sets of parallel

225 lines, grids, and + shaped elements were incised on pebbles of the Yarmukian Culture (dated to the second half of the sixth millennium B.C [Garfinkel 1993, figure 13; Stekelis 1972 Pl56, 58, 60 and Pl70 ]). Similar elements were engraved on Early Bronze tabular scrapers (Greenhut 1989; Rosen 1988). Several pre-firing potter’s marks from Middle and Late Helladic periods (c.2100- 1060 BCE) in Greece are identical to abstract elements of complexity levels two and three documented at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot (Lindblom 2001:45-51). A more restricted repertoire of Early Bronze and Iron Age potter’s marks has been recorded in a number of South Levantine sites (for example see Barkay 2003; Golani 2003:217-219; Hirschfeld 2007; Macalister and Duncan 1926:175). Iron Age mason markings also resemble the abstract elements recorded in the Negev (Yadin 1970). The abstract petroglyphs derive from a well known and repeated repertoire. Based on this short review, it is apparent that single abstract elements may date to any period.

Many of the abstract motifs documented in the Negev, as well as marks documented in other deserts of the Middle East. are similar, if not identical, to characters of North and South Arabian languages (Bent and Bent 1900:369; Conder 1883; Harding 1953; Oxtoby 1968:205), ancient Hebrew (Shoham 2000:17), Greek, and Latin. This fact does not help define the mark makers as part of a literate or illiterate society because, even within literate societies, abstract motifs continued to be in use as exemplified through engravings of travelers in the United States during the first half of the twentieth century (Reisner 1971:78-79).

All of the Southern Levantine examples listed above present a single marking on a surface. The appearances of numerous markings of a relatively limited repertoire on a single surface have been documented in a number of instances. Of these, Khirbet Rufeis (Jordan), Maktesh Ramon, and the Byzantine cities of the Negev serve as examples (detailed below), which all suggest a post Abbasid date. Recognizing several abstract elements as tribal markings, including those identified with the ‘Azāzma tribe, helps secure a more limited date for many of the abstract elements.

226

3.1.3.1. Khirbet Rufeis, Jordan

At Khirbet Rufeis, Jordan, the walls of a cave used for seasonal habitat were densely and repetitively engraved with abstract elements. Examining a series of photographs taken with the completion of the excavation at the site16, more than 32 abstract motifs were counted, most repetitively engraved. These superimposed elements represent a minimum of three engraving phases. The earliest petroglyphs partially cover pictographs. The pictographs, painted in red, seem to be of a single motif repeated at least 9 times. These pictographs are on a larger scale than the petroglyphs. The excavators did not differentiate between these phases in their report, dating the period of engraving (and painting?) to 800-1000 CE (Ray and Alliance 1995). The proposed date is based on the ceramic finds from the last phase of occupation in the cave (Paul Ray personal communication).

The Khirbet Rufies cave served as a dwelling over a period and was abandoned rather than destroyed (Ray and Alliance 1995). These facts together with the cave’s proximity to a modern settlement (based on photographs of the excavation, provided by Alliance), indicate that some activities (such as engraving) could have continued to take place after the proposed 1000 CE.

3.1.3.2. Makhtesh Ramon

Within a rock shelter in the Ramon Crater, a number of pictographs were found (Steve Rosen personal communication). Superimposing these pictographs are two phases of petroglyph engraving. The pictographs (dated to the Classical Era, Nabatean-Early Islamic, Steve Rosen personal communication) present a riding anthropomorph, zoomorphs, cross and dots within a ring, elongated pod shaped elements, and a L shaped motif. The pictographs are not on a much larger scale than the petroglyphs. The first phase of engraving is relatively limited with one clear petroglyph of a riding anthropomorph hunting or leading a zoomorphic element. The second phase of engraving consists strictly of abstract motifs including C6, C9, C13, C11, and C14 (Table 53 for reference). The C11 motif is repeated six times. The rock art of this rock shelter is

16 Kindly provided by Oystein LaBianca.

227 undated, but the sequence of pictographs pre-dating petroglyphs is again repeated here.

3.1.3.3. The Byzantine towns of the Negev

At Avdat, there are an estimated 410 byzantine habitation caves (Fabian 2005:35). These caves, most of which have yet to be excavated or mapped, are accessible at different levels. The entrance to several caves is almost entirely sealed by debris and silt, though once within the cave, the cave has little damage, fill or debris. Within several such caves engravings were found. These petroglyphs (or graffiti) are located close to doorways within the caves. An exceptional cave presenting both a decorated façade and interior was examined (by the present writer, unpublished). The façade of this cave is decorated with pictographs of crosses, a horned alter, anthropomorphs (possibly representing saints), a hunt scene, a chariot, and some abstract elements. Within the cave, most of the walls of the ante-chamber are decorated. The eastern wall is most intensely painted (Figs. 129-130). The pictographs within the cave, limited to abstract elements, include crosses, intersecting lines, a triangle, half a circle, as well as other motifs. Petroglyphs were engraved below the eastern niche of the northern wall and on the northern section of a pillar (Figs. 131-132). In both cases, these cut through the pictographs. The petroglyph motifs are of a grid (E5), door shape (C11), L shape (C2) and two parallel lines (B3) (Table 53 for reference). The petroglyphs are of a reduced scale (measuring less than 10 cm) in comparison to the pictographs, the largest of which measures 61x81 cm.

The use of red paint was also documented at the Byzantine Saint’s Cave (Negev 1997:164-166). The vestibule to the “Saints’ Cave” bears painted images of St. George spearing a serpent and holding the reigns of what appears to be a camel, St. Theodore, an additional camel and camel driver, a cross and a number of inscriptions (Jaussen et al. 1905; Negev 1997:164). No abstract elements (other than the cross, here in a clearly Christian context) were engraved in the vestibule (personal observation).

The red paint, together with the Christian based motifs found on the façade of the cave described above, help place the pictographs within the Byzantine period (Peter Fabian personal communication). The abstract elements from within the cave differ from the Byzantine ones in

228 size and subject matter and. Therefore. it is tentatively suggested that they post-date the Byzantine period. The abstract petroglyphs cutting these pictographs must, therefore, post date the Byzantine-Early Islamic period. Similar intersecting lines and crosses drawn in charcoal on the ceiling of a first c. CE burial cave are accompanied by Arabic script (Abu Raya and Zissu 2005), suggesting a medieval to modern date.

Figure 129. Eastern wall of a habitation cave with large red colored pictographs and a number of petroglyphs, Avdat. Scale is 25 cm. Figure 130. Christian modified pictographs cut by parallel lined petroglyph.

. Figure 131 Eastern face of pillar, habitation cave with large red colored pictographs and a number of petroglyphs Avdat. Figure 132. Detail of pillar with petroglyphs cutting pictographs.

Another example from Avdat is the En-Nusra burial cave where the ante-chamber is engraved

229 with abstract motifs (Fig. 133). These motifs, found at a height of 116 cm from the floor (and higher), cover the upper parts of the walls and vault. There are 14 different abstract motifs engraved, four of which appear repeatedly, as many as a dozen times each. The most common are B7, C11, and F5 (personal observation). Greek inscriptions found in and near the burial cave date it to the Middle Nabatean –Early Roman Period. Later, in the late Roman Period, the cave seems to have been cleared and reused (Negev 1997: 88). The cave has been described in the writings of several 19th and 20th century travelers, none of whom mention the engraved ante- chamber (Negev 1997:79-84). In 1960, Negev (1997:84-88) cleared the ante-chamber which was partly filled with debris. Negev attributes the initial clearing of the cave and the engraved elements to the work of Bedouins who used the ante-chamber as shelter. He dates the Bedouin occupation at the site to “perhaps hundreds of years ago” (Negev 1997:85) 17. As there was no settlement gap between the Roman and Byzantine occupations at Avdat (Fabian 2005:168), we can conclude that the intensive engraving of the En-Nusra cave post-dates the Byzantine settlements.

Figure 133. Northern wall of En-Nusra burial cave ante-chamber.

17 In 1963, Negev was of the opinion that some of the graffiti may be dated to 2nd century CE, when Arabian nomadic tribes infiltrated the area.

231

Avdat was destroyed by an earthquake in the mid seventh century (631-633 CE) and, thereafter, was not rebuilt (Fabian 1995, 1996; Korjenkov and Mazor 1999). The site was abandoned, though not entirely. A 70 cm thick layer of ash, with remains of rope, wood, textiles, and Khirbet El-Mefjer ware was unearthed in the “Saints’ Cave”, providing, based on carbon based dates, evidence of two post Byzantine living levels in the cave. The first occupation phase is dated to the 8th-9th century CE (Magness 2003:187-188; Tahal 1994), while the second is dated to the 12th -13th c. CE (Shamir and Baginski 2001). Both phases were, most likely, pastoral nomadic based populations (Fabian 2005:68; Shamir and Baginski 2001). Other than the En-Nusra ante- chamber, few isolated abstract markings were found engraved near the gates of the retaining wall of the acropolis.

At other Byzantine sites, abstract elements were noted and, in all cases, these post date the period of initial settlement. For example, a number of abstract elements were engraved into the plaster and walls of the central and southern apses of Shivta’s Central Church18. The most common abstract elements engraved on the ashlars are B7 and C11 (Table 53 for reference). These elements superimpose other graffiti, including Hebrew, Arabic and English inscriptions, suggesting that all the graffiti is of a modern date. Motifs engraved into plaster of the apse are C7, E6 and B13. This graffiti post dates the occupation periods of the site. A new pavement laid in the South Church in 640 CE and the last dated burial (of clergy) in 679 CE, suggest a flourishing active Christian population. The mosque, adjacent to the same church, indicates that during the 7th century a mixed population lived peacefully at Shivta (Negev 1993). Arabic inscriptions on the mosque walls, dated to the 8th and 9th centuries CE, suggest that the town was abandoned during the Abbasid Period (Hirschfield 2003). A late, post Abbasid date (most likely 20th-21st century date) is, therefore, offered for both sets of graffiti.

Similarly, elements B12, C2, C4, C7, C11, C12, C14, C15, E1, and E5 (Table 53 for reference) were engraved on different structures at Mamshit (personal observation).

Shivta, Nizzana, Mamshit, Halutza and Rehovot-in-the-Negev, were not destroyed by the 7th

18 Based on photographs taken and kindly given to me by Karni Golan.

231 century earthquake that occurred 15 km south of Avdat (Korjenkov and Mazor). These sites have an Umayyad occupation layer which is characterized by changes in architecture, Arabic inscriptions, pottery and coins (Magness 2003:177-194; Negev 1969). The occupation at Nizzana, similar to Shivta, continued into the Abbasid Period (Magness 2003:177-194). Engraved abstract elements, isolated or concentrated, were not found in association with the Umayyad and Abbasid layers (Baumgarten 2004; Casson and Hettich 1950; Negev 1988, 1997; Rosenth al-Heginbottom 1982; Segal 1983; 1986, 1988; Tsafrir et al. 1988; Magness 2003, and personal observation19).

3.1.3.4. Early Islamic Sites and the Abandoning of the Central Negev

A post Abbasid period date for clusters of abstract elements is strengthened by scores of late 7th, 8th and early 9th century Arabic inscriptions (Nevo 198520, et al. 1993; Rosen-Ayalon 1988; Sharon1981, 1985, 1990). Approximately 600 Arabic inscriptions from the Central Negev (Nahal Haro’a [Nevo et al. 1993; Rosen-Aylon 1988; Sharon1981, 1985]. Har Arkov [Nevo et al. 1993], and Ramat Matred [Nevo et al. 1993; Sharon 1990]) have been documented and published. Documentation of inscriptions has also been carried out in the region of Nizzana in the Western Negev (Nevo et al. 1993; Rosen-Ayalon et al. 1982). Of the hundreds of inscriptions, most are restricted to writing. Few inscriptions are accompanied by zoomorphic elements and even fewer are accompanied by anthropomorphic motifs. An even more meager percentage of inscriptions include abstract elements. The inscriptions, accompanied by figurative and/or abstract elements, are equally distributed among all the documented areas (Haiman 1995b; Magness 2003:138-141; Nevo et al. 1993 Pl 2-30). These inscriptions and additional

19 At Mamshit, and Avdat, I examined the architecture, stressing the walls and pavements of the churches in which most of the squatter activity seems to have taken place. I also took special note of the town’s retaining walls. At Avdat, I made a point of surveying several caves from the western and southern slopes. Karni Golan, researching at Nizzana, Shivta, and Rehovot-in-the-Negev, examined these sites. Halutza was not surveyed as after the 2000 excavation architectural remains were intentionally buried.

20 Unfortunately Nevo (1993) does not make note of the type of rock engraved. All of the Nahal Haro’a inscriptions are on patina free limestone (see Sharon 1981:87-88, 1985:106-103, personal observation). Har Arkov and Ramat Matred have many petroglyphs engraved in patina covered stones (Eisenberg-Degen 2006, Sharon 1990) though we may not be certain that all of the inscriptions presented in Nevo’s publication are indeed engraved on these patina covered rocks.

232 elements were engraved during one sitting or over a very short period as the equal degree of weathering of both elements shows (personal observation). These motifs are always engraved as a pair consisting of the inscription and the lone abstract motif. Few inscriptions are accompanied by more than a single abstract element (see for example Nevo et al. 1993: MA 4207A, PL 15, and MA 4256E, PL 17).

Abstract motifs accompanying the Early Islamic inscriptions are the pentagram, and a square subdivided into four squares, each crossed by two diagonal lines and a single vertical line. These two motifs were documented most commonly at Nahal Haro’a on patina free limestone. Nahal Haro’a provides the largest number of dated inscriptions; these are found in the vicinity of a rural agricultural settlement and under the constructed walls of a mid 8th century open mosque (Avni 1992b, 2009; Nevo: 1985:5-9). A motif, similar to the subdivided square, was engraved on the floor of Hamat Gader thermae. It was dated to the Umayyad period and interpreted as a board game (Amitai-Preiss 1997; Bell 1969:57). Pentagrams and hexagrams are commonly found in Early Islamic contexts (see for example the stamped jar handles from northern Samaria [Magen 2008:334]).

At Ramat Matred, a ring with two slightly curved lines attached to either side was engraved twice near an inscription dated to 735 CE. The abstract elements and the inscription are of the same patina shade (Nevo et al. 1993: HS3150(5); Sharon 1990: 66.IV; personal observation).

The pentagram, subdivided square and ring with two lines attached are found at sites surrounding Har Michia, though they are entirely missing from the Har Michia repertoire of abstract elements.

The Nabatean and Roman international trade and military supply routes which crossed the Central Negev went out of use in the 3rd century CE. During the Byzantine period, trade in the Negev was strictly local (Avni 2009). The abandonment of the Negev towns in the 8th- 9thcenturies CE and the desertion of the urban population brought an end to trade and barter with the nomadic population, forcing them to abandon the Negev Highlands (Avni 2009; Magness 2003: 177-194; Rosen and Avni 1997). This desertion of the Negev is dated to the 8th century in

233 the Highlands (Nahal Haro’a mosque postdates inscriptions dated to 782 [Avni 2009; Magness 2003:140]), 9th-10th centuries in the Central Negev (based on the Har ‘Oded sites [Avni 2009; Rosen and Avni 1997]) and 10th century in the Western Negev (as a 912 CE date inscription implies [Nevo et al. 1993:56, Rosen-Ayalon et al. 1982]).

3.1.3.5. Bedouin and the re-settling of the Central Negev

After establishing that the majority of abstracts are of a post Abbasid period, and that the central Negev was hardly settled by the end of the 10th century, the question arises as to when was the central Negev re-settled. Sharon (1988) identified two waves of Bedouin tribe infiltrations into Israel after the 10th century CE. The first wave took place during the Fatimid Period (969-1096 CE) (Frankel 1979; Sharon 1988). During this period Israel, serving as a land bridge between Cairo and Damascus, was repeatedly crossed by Fatimid and Byzantine armies, reinforced by Bedouin tribes (Frankel 1979). The route taken along the coast does not relate to the situation in central Negev, which may not have been inhabited during this period. In the western Negev the Tiyaha confederation, originating in Southern Arabia, camped along Nahal Ketziot (Sharon 1988). The second wave is dated to the Ottoman Period (Sharon 1988).

Bailey (1980, 1985), researching the infiltration of Bedouin tribes into the Negev through Bedouin oral traditions, writings of travelers (mostly of the 19th century), and Ottoman maps recognized the following tribes in the Negev21: Jabārāt in the 10th-13th century CE, Jarm and Tha‘labah Tayy in the 12th-13th century CE; ‘Ā’idh, Rutaymāt, and Wuhaydāt in the 16th century CE; Jabārāt prior to 1799; Zullām (Tu’allem), Banī ‘Ugbah, ‘Atawa, Ramādhīn, Rumaylāt, and Hukūk in the 18th century CE; Tiyāhā, Tarābīn and ‘Azāzma in the 19th century CE.

Following the Abbasid abandonment of the Negev, Bedouin tribes constituted the area’s only population (Bailey 1980). The dominance of the tribe determined its territory. As the tribe grew

21 One difficulty found with Bailey’s work is his terminology. Bailey notes that in the past, the southern part of the Negev was known as the Gaza District, and today is called the Negev. But comparing the data presented in the article to that found in the maps illustrating the articles, it is clear that Bailey’s use of the term Negev is indeed interchangeable with ‘Gaza District’ rather than referring to the geographic region south of Gaza (Bailey 1980).

234 and strengthened, it could take over regions with more rain fall, claiming it their own and displacing tribes that had weakened (Bailey 1980; Ben-David and Orion 1998). This change in dominance followed by a change in territory is best exemplified by the ‘Azāzma tribe’s history. After the ‘Azāzma were, defeated by the Tiyāhā and lost territory to them they turned to their allies, the Tarābīn, to be compensated with land, but were refused. This feud led to war between the ‘Azāzma and Tarābīn tribes, which resulted in the ‘Azāzma’s defeat (Bailey 1980). Following this war (which took place in 1877-1890), the ‘Azāzma have been residing in the arid central Negev (Bailey 1978; Marx 1974:16).

Several surveys documenting both present deserted Bedouin camps and some dating to the Ottoman period have been carried out in the Negev and Jordan (Avner and Puny 2001; Avni 1992b; Banning and Köhler-Rollefson 1992; Kuijt and Russell 1993; Marx 1974; Oshry-Frenkel 2007; Saidel 2000; Simms 1988; Simms and Russell 1997, to list a few). Petroglyphs, in general, and abstract elements, in particular, are not mentioned in any of the publications noted above. This fact is not surprising as, taking the rock art documented at Har Michia as a test case, rock art has not been found directly related to any present or past Bedouin settlements. As noted in chapter 2.2., Bedouin at Har Michia presently reside as close as 250 m. from engraved outcrops. Likewise, drop sites were noted at a similar distance from the petroglyphs. Some architectural remains have been found but a) these remains do not coincide with remains such as those documented by Avni (1998) and are, therefore, not likely to have been Bedouin (tents) and b) the chronological relation between these architectural structures and the petroglyphs is dubious. A similar occurrence was noted in Jordan where petraforms were documented some 400-500 meters from an abandoned Bedouin camp (Benjamin Siadel personal communication).

3.1.3.6. Proposed dates for Specific Abstract Elements

In Saudi Arabia, thousands of abstract elements engraved in clusters have been documented (Bent and Bent 1900; Field 1952; Khan 2000). Based on ethnographic studies, these abstract elements have been interpreted as tribal markings (wusum22) of present and ancient tribes (Khan

22 Singular – wasm, plural – wusum (Khan 2000:1)

235

2000:23). Other petroglyphs and graffiti identified as tribal markings have been collected in the Eastern Desert of Upper Egypt (Winkler 1938), Iran (Field 1952), and ‘east and west of Jordan’ (Conder 1883). In Israel, a partial list of brands was composed (Ashkenazie 1957; Conder 1883). In general, it seems the two are compatible as Khan (2000:104) explains that when a wasm is engraved on a rock it serves as a landmark for that tribe. When the mark is on a camel, then it is a camel brand, and when the mark is on a document, it will serve as a signature for the entire tribe.

Following Khan’s (2000) work in Saudi Arabia in attempting to identify tribal entities through the abstract marks recorded, only few marks could be recognized with certainty. This is because documentation of tribal markings began only in the late 19th century. Some documentation, such as that of Al-‘Āref’ (1937: 63-130), is literal and does not include a visual description. Other tribal marking lists were composed in more northern regions and do not include the tribal markings of the Negev tribes (Ashkenazie 1957; Conder 1883). To these, some more recently collected anthropological information has been be added23.

Some tribal markings are extremely simplified; these forms could be incomplete zoomorphs, or other, unidentifiable markings. The frequency of engraving a specific element repeatedly over the landscape such as element C11 [Table 53 for reference], which is engraved 102 times at Har Michia, and at times even on a single panel, helps identify the element as an ownership marking (Hartley and Wolley Vawser 1998). The possibility that a single element may hold a different meaning for different people should not be dismissed.

Based on the data described above, the second group of abstract elements (abstract elements which are of a clear form of non-representable objects [elements B3-G3, H1-H2]) were engraved post 10th century CE. The most commonly engraved abstract elements may be attributed to the Azāzma tribe (elements C11-C15), post dating 1890 (Bailey 1980, 1985). Other abstract elements may be markings of tribes no longer residing in the region, such as those documented in Saudi Arabia (Khan 2000:105).

23 Collected through conversations Allan and Doron Degen held with Sayeed Abu-Ghanem and El-Gilad at Tel Sheva.

236

The third group of abstract elements (elements H3-I2) cannot be dated in an inclusive manner. The hexagram, six pointed star, is included in this third group of abstract motifs. This motif has been in use from the Early Bronze period by many civilizations. Some uses of the hexagram are decorative, others magical. The hexagram is found in churches, mosques and synagogues (Shalom 1971:687-697). The use of the hexagram by diverse religions continued also post 1948 (when the hexagram officially became the symbol on the Israeli flag) (see for example Bar-Zvi 2006). Based on the patina shades and technique of engraving (5 of the 6 are scratched) of the six hexagrams documented at Har Michia, , we they were recently engraved. Hexagrams documented at Giva’t HaKetovot are also recent, probably engraved over the past 60 years.

The heart shape, elements I1 and I2, were recorded seven times at Har Michia and three times at Giva’t HaKetovot. The heart shaped first appears as an ornamental decorative shape in the middle ages. It started to be in use in the arts, as a representation of emotions rather than a decorative element, in the 15th century CE. The first hearts with arrows piercing through them are dated to the 16th century CE and later (Vinken 2000: 44-63). The hearts documented at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot, though they could technically date to the 16th century, are most likely modern. The notion that the medieval Negev population would be aware of new artistic representations emerging in Italy is unlikely.

3.1.4. Zoomorphic Motifs

Two types of data are available to date zoomorphic representations. The first derives entirely from the rock art and panels in the form of superimposition, relative degrees of patina shading and the association with inscriptions. The second type of data comes from stylistic similarities with datable material such as decorated pottery, seals, and rock art. Parallels for chronology were limited to the southern Levant.

The most commonly depicted zoomorph, as is apparent at Har Michia, Giva’t HaKetovot, and Har Karkom, is the horned ungulate category, in general, and the ibex specifically. The second most commonly depicted zoomorphic element is the camel. Therefore the horned ungulate and camel should serve as founding images on which a chronological frame for the central Negev

237 rock art could be built.

3.1.4.1. Horned Ungulates – Involved in Superimpositions

Horned ungulates are most commonly presented in the central Negev rock art in a linear fashion with four legs, two horns, and a short tail. Less frequent are ibexes depicted in a full or outlined style, some presented with a single horn, two legs and varying tail length and position. The most general stylistic distinctions were examined to see if they are period specific.

At Har Michia, 19 horned ungulates superimpose other elements, six of which superimpose previously engraved horned ungulates. In ad dition, one horned ungulate is engraved entirely within the previously engraved horned ungulate, refreshing it. Examining these superimpositions, the following is apparent: Three of the six overlaying horned ungulates are linear while the underlying ones are fully engraved. One of the six overlaying horned ungulates (element 39-2-2) is a linear horned ungulate engraved over an outlined one (element 39-2-4, Fig. 134 and 135)

Two of the six overlaying horned ungulates are two legged and linear while the underlying ones have four legs and are fully engraved.

Figures 134 and 135. Linear ibex, element 39-2-2 (measuring 8X11 cm) over laying outlined ibex, element 39-2-4 (11X11 cm). Black lines added with the use of photoshop.

At Giva’t HaKetovot, three horned ungulates are superimposed on previously engraved horned

238 ungulates. In addition, one horned ungulate is engraved entirely within the previous one refreshing it. Two of the three superimposing horned ungulates have a single horn while the underlying ones are presented with two horns (Fig. 136 and 137).

Figures 136 and 137. Single horned ibex (outlined for emphasis, element 102-76-5, measuring 11X11.5 cm) over laying two horned ibex (blackened element, element 102-76-4 measuring 13X13.5 cm). Black lines added with photoshop.

Of the 19 superimposing horned ungulates at Har Michia and the six at Giva’t HaKetovot, none are superimposed over tribal markings or over two legged or single horned animals.

At Har Michia, 94 horned ungulates are superimposed over either entirely or partially covered by other elements. Eighty of the 94 horned ungulates are superimposed by abstract markings, 20 of which are clearly tribal markings. Two horned ungulates are superimposed by Arabic inscriptions. One horned ungulate petroglyph (39-79-5, Fig. 138) is accompanied by an Aramaic inscription dated to the 4th-5th century CE (Robert Hoyland personal communication).

At Giva’t HaKetovot, 32 horned ungulates are superimposed over. Twenty six of the 32 horned ungulates are superimposed by abstract markings ofh whic one is a tribal marking. Two horned ungulate petroglyphs are superimposed by Arabic inscriptions, one of which includes a cellular phone number. One horned ungulate petroglyph is superimposed by an English inscription.

Based on 151 horned ungulate petroglyphs from Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot involved in

239 superimposition, it is apparent, even if within this limited sample, that outlined and fully engraved horned ungulates with four legs and two horns pre-date linear horned ungulates presented with two legs and a single horn.

Figure 138. Panel 39-79 with linear ibex (39-79-5 measuring 14.5X14.5 cm) and Aramaic inscription (39-79-6 measuring 19.5X41 cm).

3.1.4.2. Horned Ungulates – According to Engraving Phases

After examining all of the Har Michia horned ungulates according to engraving phase (layer), the above statement of stylist changes over time is slightly refined. The 254 horned ungulates of Har Michia are engraved on 154 panels. Of these, 24 panels include horned ungulates engraved in different styles and/or in different phases showing that horned ungulates were being engraved during roughly the same period in different styles (at times, clearly by the same artist and during the same engraving session). Within the 24 panels, fully engraved and outlined horned ungulates with two/four legs and one/two horns were found to be in the lowest layers of engraving. Three panels strictly outlined figures with linear ones post dating them. Four additional panels have fully engraved horned ungulates with no linear ones engraved. It is therefore plausible that the first styles employed for horned ungulates were in the form of outlined and fully engraved bodies. Linear styled horned ungulates appear at a later stage, co-engraved along with the fully and outlined ones, finally to remain the only form engraved.

Two of the outlined horned ungulates may be given an absolute date. The first, 37-9-3 is being hunted by figures 37-9-1 and 37-9-4 (Fig. 139). These figures are presented with round shields and a sword sheath at the waist, datable to the Late Bronze/Iron Age (see below). The second

241 petroglyph, 33-115-2 (Fig. 140), is accompanied by a North Arabian inscription, roughly dated to the 1st century BCE – 4th century CE. Therefore, even within a single style (outlined horned ungulates), which superimpositions and relative patina color indicate a relatively limited use and ancient date, a more precise date than a span of a millennium cannot be reached.

Figure. 139 (to the left). Panel 37-9 with outlined ibex (element 37-9-3 measuring 9X10 cm) being hunted by two men (elements 37-9-1 measuring 13X13 and element 37-9-4 measuring 11X13 cm). Hunt scene dated to the Late Bronze/Iron Age.

Figure 140 (above). Panel 33-115 outlined ibex (element 33-115-2 measuring 14X14 cm) and North Arabian inscription (element 33-115-1 measuring 12X55 cm) dated to the Roman Period.

In panel 33-119, there seems to be the earliest datable linear, four legged, two horned ungulate. The use of this form, linear, four legs, two horned, is the most commonly engraved form of horned ungulates. In this example, the horned ungulate can be dated to the Early Bronze Age (based on the accompanying anthropomorph, panel 33-119, Fig. 141 [see below]). .

241

Figure 141. Panel 33-119 with ibex (element 33-119-8 measuring 8X24.5) and stylized anthropomorph (element 33-119-8 measuring 10X22 cm) roughly indicated in black through photoshop.

Ungulate 5-17-1 (Fig. 142) is accompanied by an arrow/spear head. The arrow is of a broad triangle shape with a straight square/rectangle tang. Considering this arrow head representation as schematic, it may represent a Neolithic flint (Gopher 1994 for example p.52 figure 5.1 no. 3 or p. 69 figure 5.12 no. 24; Nadel et al. 1991), or an iron arrow head dating to the Hellenistic (Gichon and Vitale 1991) or even medieval period (Edge and Paddock 1988).

Figure 142. Ibex (element 5-17-1, measuring 11X14 cm) and arrow head (element 5-17-2 measuring 3X4 cm).

The latest absolute date for a linear, four legged, two horned ungulate comes from panel 39-40 (Fig. 143). Here, a horned ungulate is accompanied by an inscription. The characters could be

242 either Greek, or a North Arabian language. Either option places the inscription within the Hellenistic-Byzantine period.

Figure 143. Panel 39-40 with ibex (element 39-40-6 measuring 6X6.5 cm) and inscription (element 39-40-9 measuring 6X20 cm) dated to a time period ranging between Hellenistic and Byzantine.

Panel 33-113 (Fig. 144) includes three horned ungulates engraved during three different phases. The engraving phase is based on patina color and superimposition. All three are of a similar linear style with four legs and two horns. Thus, it is clear from examining engraving phases and the few securely grounded examples that this schema for depicting horned ungulate was extremely long lived.

Examining 12 panels from Giva’t HaKetovot, which have different styled horned ungulates engraved either in the same layer or in different layers, resulted in the same general chronological scheme presented above.

243

Figure 144. Panel 33-113 (measuring 92X111 cm) with ibex engraved in a similar fashion (linear, four legged, two horned) in different phases. Example of these ibexes are indicated in black (added with photoshop).

3.1.4.3. Horned Ungulate – In Comparison to Dated Representations

After examining a sample of representations of datable horned ungulates, painted, incised as well as three dimensional figures (formed of various materials including metal, basalt and ceramic) from sites across Israel, no clear chronological evolution could be discerned (Fig. 145). Linear, outlined and fully formed horned ungulates are apparent in periods ranging from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic through the Iron Ages. These horned ungulates are with two or four legs and a single or two horns. The only missing representation in these parallels is that of a linear styled, two legged, single horned animal. At Megiddo, for example, different styled representations of horned ungulates, all painted on ceramics, are dated to a single period, late Bronze Age (nos. 14-

244

16 in Fig. 145). Late Bronze fully bodied horned ungulates such as nos. 14-16 in Fig. 145, painted on imported Cypriot, Mycenae and Philistine ware, have no equivalent in the documented petroglyphs of Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot.

Figure 145. Examples of different styled horned ungulates representations dating from the Pre-pottery Neolithic B through the Iron Age. Not drawn to scale. 1. Molded clay, Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Beidha (Kirkbride 1967:15). 2. Incised cauldron, Chalcolithic Qarqar, (Fabian 2006). 3. Finger impressions in mud brick wall, 3900-3500 BCE (cal) Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan (Khalil et al. 2003:165 figure 6). 4. Stamp seal, Early Bronze Yoqne’am (Zuckerman 2005:359). 5. Pottery sherd with scratched ibex, Early Bronze (Saller 1965:11) Gezer (Macalister 1912:2 figure 218). 6. Pottery sherd with scratched ibex, Early Bronze Megiddo (Engberg and Shipton 1934:figure. 10, Stage VI, o). 7. Incised ibex on jar, Early Bronze Bab edh-Dhra (Amiran 1989:22 figure 3; Saller 1965:161-162). 8. Incised ibex, Early Bronze Ai (Amiran 1989:22 figure 2). 9. Relief of ibex on basalt bowl, Early Bronze, Beth Shean Valley (Amiran 1989:18 Pl I). 10. Ibex hatched on shoulder of juglet, Middle Bronze Age II Gibeon (Pritchard 1963:43, figure 35:1). 11. Scratched horned animal on wall of Middle Bronze I shaft tomb, (Kenyon 1957:205-206 figure 13). 12. Painted juglet, Middle Bronze age II Ginosar (Epstein 1974:33 no. 5, p. 22). 13. Painted jug, Late Bronze Age Megiddo (Loud 1948:Pl 56 no. 8). 14. Painted Philistine strainer-spout jug, Late Bronze Age II Meggido (Dothan 1982:149-152, figure 28 no. 1). 15. Cypriot/Minoan decorated flask, Late Bronze Age Meggido (Aharoni 1978:Pl 20, page 98.). 16. Cypriot/Minoan decorated jug, Late Bronze Age Meggido (Aharoni 1978:Pl 20, page 98.). 17. Incised Negebite cauldron, Iron Age Kadesh Barnea (Bernick-Greenberg 2007:207, Figure 12.81). 18. Incised pottery stand, Iron Age Tel Kinrot (Pakkala et al. 2004). 19. Incised limestone altar, Iron Age Lachish (Tufnell 1953:Pl 68 no. 5). 20. Incised Iron Age phitos, Khirbet Avot (Braun 1992:1147). 21. Incised limestone altar, Iron Age Lachish (Tufnell 1953:Pl 68 no. 2). 22. Incised ibex on Iron Age limestone altar, Beer-Sheva (Singer-Avitz 1999:figure 11). 23.

245

Incised Iron Age jar, Lachish (Tufnell 1953:Pl 50 no. 1). 24. Painted Iron Age Pithos, Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet ‘Ajrud) (Beck 1982: Figure 4). 24

Looking at the horned ungulates development over time, as expressed by patina shade and superimposition and engraving phase, it is apparent that the first representations include groups of animals; see for example panel 1-2 (Figs. 146, ) and 1-17 (Fig. 147). These herds are, at times, in association with an anthropomorph (panels 33-113, Figs. 144 and 146 and 33-123, Fig. 149).

The orant figures in panels 33-204 (Fig.68) and 41-20 (Fig. 70), possibly worshiping ibexes, seem to represent a second phase in horned ungulate depiction. The last and most commonly found horned ungulate is a single, isolated image with no apparent relation to an anthropomorph.

Figure 146. Panel 1-2 with three of the eight Figure 147. Panel 1-17 with three outlined ibex horned ungulate (element 1-2-10 measuring (element 1-17-2 measuring 12X12 cm, element 10X10 cm, element 1-2-18, measuring 6X8 cm, 1-17-3 measuring 13X13 cm and element and element 1-2-14 measuring 10X0 cm) 1-17-4 measuring 10X12 cm). Two of the three roughly indicated with black (added with ibex are indicated with black Added with photoshop). photoshop.

Horned ungulates limited to a specific time frame are present in Appendix I, Tables 40 and 41.

24 The double headed ibex mace-head from Nahal Mishmar (Bar-Adon:1980:100) was not included as the style (of body- full versus linear, and legs – 2 versus 4) is obscure and may be defined in more than one way. Nos. 14-16 serve as examples of the common Philistine, Cypriot and Minoan wares decorated with ibex.

246

Figure 148. Hunt scene in the upper section of panel 33-113 (anthropomorph 33-113-37 measuring 7.5X14.5 cm, horned ungulate to the right 33-113-38 measuring 10X17 cm, horned ungulate to the left 33-113-42 measuring 14X14 cm and horned ungulate on the bottom row 33- 113-53 measuring 5X10 cm). Lines drawn with photoshop.

Figure 149. Hunt/trapping scene of three ibex (anthropomorph – element 33-123-16 measuring 9X22 cm and ibex, element 33-123-19 measuring 12X15 cm, element 33-123-20 measuring 12X17.5 cm and element 33-123-6 measuring 9X13.5). Hunt scene indicated with black (added with photoshop).

247

3.1.4.4. Camels

There are not many instances of camels of different styles (i.e., different ways of presenting the hump and body) engraved on the same panel. After examining 59 panels on which the 73 camels of Har Michia are engraved, three panels were found to include camels engraved with different stylistic attributes. Based on these three panels, we may say that linear bodied, four legged camels with outlined humps pre-date fully engraved camels and humps. Though outlined camels in general pre-date the full humped ones, the form of outlined camels was still used on occasion. Thus, outlined figures pre-date but may also be contemporary to the fully engraved camels. Camels with fully engraved humps and linear bodies with four or two legs seem to be of the same period of fully engraved bodies and humps.

Linear styled camels and humps are engraved within the same layers as linear horned ungulates. Notably, horned ungulates with outlined/fully engraved bodies are not found within the same layers as camels. A number of camel petroglyphs may assist in constructing a chronological frame. The first group of camels is engraved in the same layers as bows and arrows, the second is clearly associated with a structure and the third group can be examined based on anthropomorphs engraved in the same phase. The camel petroglyphs, which can be placed in a time frame, are presented in Appendix I, Tables 42 and 43.

There are two instances in which bows and arrows are engraved in the same phase as camels (10- 9-52, a ridden camel, Fig. 150 and 27-18-23, Fig. 151). Whether these bows are of a simple convex type or composite bows is of no significance as both have a long and overlapping period of use. The simple segment type was used from the Epipalaeolithic period (Bocquentin and Bar- Yosef 2004) throughout Classical times (Rausing 1967:130-135). The composite bow, attributed to the end of the fourth millennium BCE, continued to be in use throughout the fifth century CE (Rausing 1967:135-138).

248

Figure 150. Panel 10-9 with camel (indicated by an arrow to the right, element 10-9-52, measuring 21X21.5 cm) and bow and arrow (indicated by an arrow to the left, element 10-9-9, measuring 5X10 cm) engraved during roughly the same phase.

249

Figure 151. Panel 27-18 camel (indicated by lower circle, element 27-18-23 measuring 10X18 cm) and bow and arrow (indicated by upper circle, element 27-18-14, measuring 9X12 cm) engraved during roughly the same phase.

244

If we are to assume that all camel petroglyphs present domesticated camels, then a terminus post quem is offered by the period the camel was first introduced into the region, i.e., the Late Bronze IIB (thirteenth century. BCE) (Jasmin 2006) or according to a number of different researchers, the Iron Age II (1000 BCE) (Eisenberg-Degen 2006:79-80, Rosen and Saidel 2010). Based on the presentations of bows, a terminus ante quem of the classical period is offered for the first fully humped camel petroglyphs. It is possible that some camels represent wild camels rather than domesticated ones but, as morphological changes between wild and domesticated camels such as length of hair and size of teeth (Ucko and Dimbleby 1968:208) are not indicated in graphic representations such as petroglyphs, the wild camel representation could only be recognized as such based on a pre Iron Age or Late Bronze Age dates. Even though fragments of camel bones were recovered from Early Bronze Arad and interpreted as hunted wild camels (Amiran 1978:87), at present there is no evidence to support the recognition of wild camels in the central Negev rock art. One panel, 1-7 (Fig. 152) does include an Old Kingdom dated anthropomorph (1-7-14, Fig. 61, subcategory F, to the right, first line) (for the date of the anthropomorph see below) and a camel (1-7-17) of similar patina shade. But after examining the marks by which the petroglyph was made, it is apparent that the camel and anthropomorph were not made by the same hand. As there is no clear relation between the dated anthropomorph and camel engraving, a pre Late Bronze/Early Iron Age cannot be attached to the camel engraving.

Figure 152. Panel 1-7 (measuring 47X89 cm) with anthropomorph (element 1-7-14, measuring 20X20 cm) and camel petroglyph (element 1-7-17, measuring 8X15 cm) with roughly the same patina shade.

251

Camel 39-19-2 (Fig. 73, left of the structure) is engraved moving towards a centrally planned building. The structure is divided into three vertical and four horizontal sections. These divisions seem to represent a hexagonal or octagonal structure with a large round dome. Round structures originated in the Hellenistic world in the sixth century BCE. (Lawrence 1967:183), continuing in the Roman, Byzantine and later Islamic periods. The earliest octagonal structures in Israel date from the 4th century CE. Structures dating to the 4th –mid 5th century CE include the Anastasias, Church of the Nativity and the church at Kefar Nahum (Berrett and Ogden 1996:130, Ettinghausen et al. 2001:17, Segal 1978:fig. 66) Katisma (Avner and Puni 2001) and Mount Grizim Church (Magen 1991). The octagonal structures of the Anastasias and Church of the Nativity are integrated into larger basilica structures, while the octagonal shape of the Katisma and Grizim Churches is more obvious to the observer. Another possible model for this structure is the Dome of the Rock. The Dome of the Rock is octagonal and roofed with a round dome. Whether the structure represents a church or mosque is the difference between a terminus post quem of the 4th or 7th century CE for the accompanying fully engraved camel.

Ridden camels are presented both with outlined and full humps. In all, but perhaps one case (25- 33-8, Fig. 155), the riders, placed high on the hump, are using a North Arabian saddle type, dated at the earliest to 1000 BCE (Figs. 153-154, Bulliet 1977:69-71). Two camels, 1-13-8 and 39-35-3 (Fig. 156 and 157) are engraved in clear association to tribal markings. These abstract elements are not included in the recognizable Bedouin tribal markings and, therefore, may pre-date them.

Figure. 153. South Arabian saddle, after Bulliet 1977, Fig. 27, p. 74 Figure. 154. North Arabian saddle, after Bulliet 1977, Fig. 59, p. 144

251

Figure 155 (left). Man riding camel behind hump petroglyph (element 25-33-8, measuring 10X13 cm), lines added with photoshop. Figure 156 (center). Camel and rider 1-13-8 (measuring 18X23 cm) in association with tribal marking above the figure ridding and possibly within the hump (element 1-13-7, measuring 7X8 cm). Figure 157 (right). Camel and rider (element 39-35- 3, measuring 15X16.5 cm) and a possible tribal marking below the camel (element 39-35-4, measuring 5X9.5 cm).

Comparing the central Negev camel petroglyphs to other datable camel depictions strengthens the concept that both linear camels with outlined humps and fully engraved camels and humps were, to a degree, contemporary. Persian Period dated cuboid limestone altars from Ezion Geber (Glueck 1971), Tel Jemmeh (Stern 1973:52) and Beer-Sheva (Aharoni et al. 1973: Pl 52 nos. 5 and 6) are adorned with engraved camels. The Ezion Geber camel is linear with an outlined hump. At Beer-Sheva, one camel is linear with a full hump and an additional two camels are outlined with full humps. The camels from Tel Jemmeh have a fully engraved body and hump. Representations of camels in an outlined and full hump continue to appear engraved through the Roman, Byzantine and Early Islamic periods (Eisenberg-Degen 2006:51-54). Linear styled camels have not been documented (omitting recent depictions) later than the Persian period in the ornamental, decorative graffiti of the Southern Levantine.

Concluding the above, linear camels with outlined humps chronologically pre-date and then are contemporary with fully humped and fully engraved camels. Full humps evolved before classical times. As wild camels seem to have been rare (Clutton-Brock 1987:126) and no camel representation clearly presents a wild camel, we may assume that all camels represent domesticated camels. The ridden camels, all with North Arabian saddles, point towards a post Late Bronze/Iron Age date.

252

3.1.5. Anthropomorphic Figures

At Har Michia, 145 anthropomorphic figures were recorded (Figs. 60-64) and an ad ditional 40 were recorded at Giva’t HaKetovot (Figs. 108, and 109). These figures may be divided into types based on placement of the arms and the weapons held. This typology does not reflect chronology. At best, we may say that the typology presented in fig nos. 60-64, 108-109 is an expression of differences in meanings. A figure riding with an arm raised in a smiting position and a phallic figure standing with upraised arms may have been engraved during the same period though they present different situations conveying different messages. Likewise, two figures with upraised arms, both of Type 1b, may have been engraved thousands of years apart with a similar meaning. To place the human figures into a chronological frame, specific details, such as dress and weapons, must be examined..

3.1.5.1. Armed Anthropomorphs - Anthropomorphs with a Horizontal Line at the Waist and Round Shield

One anthropomorph of Type 2 (25-33-16) and twelve Type 1 figures have a line at the waist (Figs. 63, 108 subtype f). As the line at the waist is not held, indicating an independent accessory, it might be interpreted as a belt, sword, or sheath tied in place. This line varies in length and thickness. Figures with a line at the waist are presented as isolated figures standing, mounted on a horse, engaged in combat, or hunting. Of these 13 figures, nine are holding weapons and four are presented with a round shield, one with a bow and arrow, one holds a lasso/whip or other weapon, one holds a lance, and one holds a line which may be a stick, dagger or sword. By reviewing the date of horse domestication and introduction of the round shield, a time frame for these figures can be reached. This date can then be viewed against the date proposed for other anthropomorphs depicted similarly with a horizontal line at the waist.

Horses were domesticated and in use in the southern Levant by the 16th century BCE (Drower 1969). The round shield was introduced to the region from the east Mediterranean in the early 13th century BCE, becoming common around 1200 BCE (Drews 1993:178-179).

253

The line at the waist of the Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot figures is horizontal, in some instances thick and long. It is plausible that the line at the waist represents a sheath, though none of the armed figures is holding a sword. Four anthropomorphs are holding something but as the line extends in both directions from the hand, it cannot be intended to represent a sword. Therefore, the armed anthropomorphs are more likely armed with a lance or spear. Comparing these representations to more detailed representations of anthropomorphs in different media with a similar horizontal line at the waist strengthens the assumption that the horizontal line is a sheath, perhaps suspended over the shoulder (Potts 1998, figure 10). None of the Negev petroglyph representations offer details sufficient for recognizing an actual sword or dagger. Examining the anthropomorphs in a literal fashion, we can say that the implement at their waist must be a minimum of 70 cm long (for it to seen on both sides of the body). Possible identification for such an object includes a rod and a sword. Egyptian weapons include a bronze rod, which was used to beat the opponent (Drews 1993:195-196). Though the rod would have been long enough to be seen on both sides of a warrior’s waist, it was strictly an Egyptian weapon and was not worn across the waist. Long swords, exceeding 70 cm in length were introduced into the Mediterranean in the second millennium BCE, no earlier than 1200 BCE. Prior to this date, cutting and thrusting weapons consisted of daggers, dirks, and sickle blade daggers, none of which exceeded 50 cm (Drews 1993:193-208; Philip 1989:102-143). The sword (reaching an average length of 75 cm) replaced these short bladed weapons and became the most commonly used weapon from the Late Bronze Age through the Hellenistic period. During the Hellenistic period, the lance and spear served as the preferred weapon. As the lance and spear replaced the sword, the sword was reduced in length transforming it back into a dirk. Late Bronze Age sickle-blade swords were a luxury item and seem restricted to the 14th century BCE elite (Gernez 2008; Shalev 2004:78). Long curved swords were re-introduced into the area with the Roman infantry (Gonen 1979:26-28). Although the anthropomorphs present minimal detail, we may interpret the horizontal line at the waist as a straight bladed sword rather than dagger or curve bladed sword. This identification places these figures roughly within an 800 year span, ranging from 1,200 – mid fourth century BCE.

Examining parallels for the Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot anthropomorphs (collected from a wide range of sites chronologically and geographically) the Pre-Pottery Neolithic and Neolithic

254 examples (Fig. 158 nos. 1 and 2) represent different aspects of clothing (Betts 1998:143; Mellaart 1967:134). From the Early Bronze Age and onwards, it is clear that the line at the waist represents a weapon. The parallels presented in Fig. 158 dating to the Middle Bronze – Iron Age, are widely varied in geographic range as well as use of medium. In the Early Islamic petroglyph (Fig. 158 no. 12), the sword is a curved sickle sword. With the later medieval representation, the sword is placed at an angle so it does not form a horizontal line visible on either side of the anthropomorph’s waist.

If we assume that the Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot anthropomorphs with a horizontal line at the waist are contemporary then, based on the images presented in Fig. 158, they may be placed roughly within a time frame of Middle Bronze – Iron Age II. The terminus post quem of Middle Bronze goes well with the other terminus post quem dates offered by the date of horse domestication and the introduction of the round shield and sword (Drews 1993:93-208). Although a terminus post quem of Middle Bronze Age is offered, based on the number of sites as documented in the Archaeological Survey of Israel – Negev Emergency Survey monographs, the Negev was unsettled or only sparsely settled throughout the second millennium BCE (for example see the following surveys: Avni 1992b:14*-18*, Cohen 1981:vii-xi, Haiman 1986:14*- 20*, Lender 1990:xix-xxiii, Rosen 2009)25. Therefore, it is more likely that the use of round shields in the Negev began with the Iron Age. The round shield continued to be in use through Roman times (Gonen 1979:75-79).

Examining each of the Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot anthropomorphs separately, it is evident that 1-7-14 (Fig. 63, subcategory f, last to the right, first row) differs from the rest of the anthropomorphs of the group discussed above. Anthropomorph 1-7-14 is the only un-mounted figure presented in a smiting position. This figure’s legs suggest movement to the left, while the placement of the upraised arm, usually placed behind the head, suggests movement to the right. The figure seems to be wearing head gear, possibly with a feather (Colleen Manassa personal communication). The style of this anthropomorph can be compared to depictions of Egyptian royalty slaying the enemy (e.g., Aldred 1965:64 figures 54 and 55), or to depictions of a Syrian

25 For recent research concentrating on the Southern Negev which attempts to challenge settlement gaps in the Central Negev see Avner 2001 and Avner et al. 1994.

255 menacing deity (e.g., Negbi 1970:80). Both figures are presented with headdress and are clad with short kilts. Whether the mark maker intended to represent one of these two images or was familiar with them, and thus incorporated the stance and head dress within his own image, is unclear. Both imageries infiltrated through material culture to Southern Israel (see for example the scarab from Tel Masos [Aharoni et al. 1973] and a menacing deity figurine from Lachish [Negbi 1976:41]). If the model originated from the west, then it could date to the fourth millennium (Aldred 1965:64) or later. If the imagery originated in the north, then a post Middle Bronze Age date is suggested.

256

Figure 158. Anthropomorphs with horizontal lines at waist. Each representation in the figure is a single example of several existing in each medium. 1. Pre Pottery Neolithic wall painting, Dhuweila, Jordan (Betts 1998:144 figure 7.1). 2. Neolithic wall painting, Catalhöyük (Mellaart 1967:figure 61, figure taken from http://users.hol.gr/~dilos/prehis/prerm5.htm). 3. Early Bronze Age petroglyph, Southwest Arabia (Newton and Jarins 2000:156 figure 1c). 4. Middle Bronze Age Petroglyph, Central Arabia, (Anati, 1968:72, figure 37). 5. Middle Bronze Age plaque, Arslan Tash, Northern Syria (Cornelius 1994:180, figure 43). 6. Late Bronze Age petroglyph, Timna, Israel (traced from Otto n.d.:71). 7. Bronze figuring Middle Bronze II-Iron Age I, Syria (origin unknown). (Negbi 1976:29 figure 42, p. 162, Plate 20 no. 1311. 8. Iron Age II stela, Bethsaida, Keneret (Cornelius 1994:180-181, figure 37; Lewis 2005:76, figure 4.9). 9. Incised stone pendant, Iron Age, Tell Abraq, United Arab Emirates (Potts 1991:95-96, figure 137). 10. Basalt relief, Iron Age II, Sam’al, Turkey (Akurgal and Hirmer 1962: Plate no. 28). 11. Petroglyph with Safaitic inscription, Jordan (Winnett 1957:727, PL 69 no. 3914). 12. Early Islamic Petroglyphs, Anati (1968:32, figure 14). 11. Medieval Manuscript (Zaky 1965:274, figure 3).

3.1.5.2. The Axe, Helmet, Spear and Lance

Element 25-33-8 (Fig. 155) is the only example documented in the present survey of an anthropomorph holding a battle axe. The battle axe was in use from the third millennium BCE. With the introduction of the sword, the battle axe was no longer needed (Gonen 1979:17-20). Anthropomorph 25-33-8 is riding a camel, thus limiting the date to after the date of camel domestication, but still within the time span when the battle axe was still in common use. The representation of these two elements helps place 25-33-8 within the Late Bronze/Iron Age.

Three figures are presented with helmets, 26-6-5, 7-12-1, 19-16-2 (Fig. 61 subcategory f, last line, the last two in the line and Fig. 62, subtype e, second row ). A fourth unclear anthropomorph, 39-41-15, may also be presented with a helmet. The first evidence of warriors wearing helmets comes from Sumerian grave goods. The shape and structure of the helmet changed over the periods as is seen in sculptured reliefs (Gonen 1979: 8-83). The helmets presented at Har Michia cannot be dated based on morphology.

Many of the documented anthropomorphs are presented holding a spear/lance or attacking with the use of one. The difference between a spear and lance cannot be distinguished based on the petroglyphs. The spear/lances developed from a sharpened branch to a weapon with differently shaped metal arrow heads fastened to the edge. The use of spear/lances was more than that of

257 other long lived weapons (Gonen 1979:28-41) used throughout the 19th century by local Bedouin (Benbenishti 1984:81-83; Burckhardt 1831:52-57). Depictions of spears and/or lances do not help date the documented anthropomorphs.

3.1.5.3. Hunting Scene with a Throwing Stick

Panel 10-9 includes a hunting scene (Fig. 159). Based on the interpretation of elements 10-9-20 and 10-9-38 as the guide arms of a desert kite and element 10-9-35 (placed above the horned ungulate and indicated by an arrow) as a throwing weapon, an Early Bronze age is suggested (Eisenberg-Degen 2010).

Figure 159 Panel 10-9 interpreted as a hunt within a desert kite. Scene measures roughly 12X67 cm. Arrow points a throwing stick.

3.1.5.4. Anthropomorphs with Specific Stylistic Attributes

Of the anthropomorphs, a few are presented with attributes distinct to a specific period. Four Type 2 (9-5-2 subtype d, 9-1-2 subtype e, 33-2-8, and 41-15-2 subtype f, Fig 61) and one Type 1 (39-79-12, subtype f, last row, Fig 61 ) anthropomorphs are presented with a square

258 outlined chest. Graffiti from Tel ‘Eton (Edelstein et al. 1971:90; Tzaferis 1982), Khorvat Zichri (Zissu 1996: Figure 4), and a wall painting from Saint’s Cave, Avdat (Jaussen et al.1905:78), all present anthropomorphs in a similar fashion. These parallels are dated to the Hellenistic/Roman – Byzantine periods. A proposed classical date goes well with the fifth century date provided for 39-79-12 (Fig. 138) by the accompanying inscription.

Two anthropomorphs have a large head divided by a vertical line, forming two eyes. A slightly more elaborate form, though resulting with the same dominating eyes, comes from Byzantine Mamshit (Negev 1988:116 Figure 16). A second example of a similar division of the face by a vertical line comes from a painted Nabatean sherd from Avdat (Peter Fabian personal communication). These classical dates fit well with anthropomorph 41-18-7 (Fig. 160) associated with a North Arabian inscription26.

Figure 160. Tracing of panel 41-18 with North Arabian inscription (element 41-18-5, measuring 44X98 cm) and anthropomorph with vertical line dividing the face into two (element 41-18-7, measuring 10X14 cm).

3.1.5.5. Panel 102-29

Panel 102-29 presents a unique depiction of an anthropomorph (Fig. 161). This figure (102-29- 10) is positioned horizontally (opposed to the vertical zoomorphs) and holds an elongated shield. The figure is either horned or masked. Horned and/or masked anthropomorphs are found in the Southern Levant in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age periods (Beck 1995b; Ben-Tor 1985;

26 I am greatful to Prof. Robert Hoyland for looking at the inscription of panel 41-18 and others. Hoyland explained that most inscriptions are of personal names and though they can be prenounced according to the letters, to reach the true value of the meaning and use of the name, in deapth research is required in which the name is compared to the documented epigraphic data from the Negev-Southern Jordan region. At present, this has not been done.

259 de Miroschedji 1993; Negbi 1970; Tadmor 1985). The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze horned anthropomorphs are usually presented with caprine horns and/or heads. Ibexes and ibex horns are interpreted as signifying divine power or perhaps an evocation of a divinity related to water (Beck 1995b; de Miroschedji 1993).

Horned anthropomorphs are also found within Iron Age figurines and seals. These figures are presented either horned or wearing a type of horned headgear with two or three horns (Seger 1973). The documented Iron Age horned anthropomorphs have a relatively short pair of curved horns on the sides of the head (versus being in the upper section of the forehead in the Chalcolithic – Early Bronze examples) and a third horn in the center or upper section of the forehead (see for example Seger 1973; Negbi 1970; Beck 1991).

The horned anthropomorph of panel 102-29 is holding an elongated rectangular shaped shield in its left hand. Late Bronze – Iron Age warrior deities are often presented holding a shield in their left hand (Negbi 1970; Lipiński 2009:140). The shape of the shield suggests an Egyptian influence (Negbi 1976:30). The reduced size of the rectangular shaped shield indicates a second millennium date (Gonen 1979:76).

The horns and shield help identify 102-29-10 as a warrior deity. Several deities are regularly presented with horns, including Šedu, Mikal, Seth, Hathor and Resheph (Cornelius 1994:112; Fulco 1976:29; Lipiński 2009:143). Resheph is a likely candidate for the recognition of 102-29- 10. Resheph, like most Syro-Palestinian deities is usually armed, though unlike Baal, Resheph is also equipped with a shield (Cornelius 1994:125-133). Part of Resheph’s iconography is a gazelle head/skull on the front of his Upper Egyptian crown (Fulco 1976:29). In most examples the gazelle horns (and head/skull) are reduced in size. Nonetheless, a few examples (such as Cornelius 1994:Pl 32 BR1, and figures 44a and 49) have larger horns, reinforcing the identification of 102-29-10 as Resheph. Identifying the horned anthropomorph as Resheph places it within the Late Bronze- Iron Age I time frame (Lipiński 2009:143).

261

Figure 161. Panel 102-29 (measuring 46X46 cm) with anthropomorph presented horizontally (element 102-29-10, measuring 8X14 cm) possibly representing Resheph (indicated with a rectangle). Scale is 25 cm.

261

3.1.5.6. Figures with Upraised Arms

The human stance of upraised arms, bent at the elbows with the palms facing outwards, is usually interpreted as a dancing or praying position (Garfinkel 2003:32; Maringer 1979; Schwarz 1983; Westenholz 2000:116). These interpretations are given to single as well as groups of figures. Many times, dance is seen as part of public religious ceremonies (Collen 1987:151; Garfinkel 2003:85). Thus, whether the images are dancing as part of a religious ceremony or reflecting the actual act of a praying priest or deity, this stance may be termed as orant (orans or orante from the Latin root “oro” meaning to pray) (Kirby 1972:42). In addition to the orant stance, figures with upraised arms may be a symmetrical schematized way of presenting an anthropomorph or may hold meanings other than religious ones.

The examples of Type 1b of the anthropomorphs documented in the present research are all presented with upraised arms. Most of these are clearly in the orant position. A few of the Type 1b anthropomorphs, such as 33-72-2, 34-61-25, 16-22-7 and 33-119-8 (Fig. 57), seem schematized rather than orant figures.

Orant figures, first appearing within the European Upper Paleolithic mobile art, seem to have remained in consistent use in nearly all European prehistoric ages (Maringer 1979). Male, female and ambiguously sexed orant anthropomorphs were found in Neolithic horizons in Southeastern Europe, Anatolia, Iran, Mesopotamia, Syria, and northern Israel (Garfinkel 2003:118-231). Chalcolithic examples come from Anatolia, Iran and Mesopotamia (Garfinkel 2003:161-203; Yakar 1991:119). Orant figures start to appear in Egypt (Pre-Dynastic Period), southern Israel and Jordan with the Early Bronze Age (Amiran 1972; Beck 1995b; Beit-Arieh 2003:425; Ben-Tor 1977; 1991; Garfinkel 2003:233-267; Maringer 1979; Yakar 1989). Later representations of humans in the orant stance come from Middle Bronze cylinder seals from Iran, Mesopotamia, and Syria (Collon 1987:152-153; Garfinkel 2003:276-289). Examples of orant anthropomorphs presented on stamps dating from the Iron Age I-II have been uncovered in excavations in Israel (Keel and Uehlinger 1998:150). With the Persian period, orant figures are presented on limestone altars from Cyprus, with a single example from Lachish (Stern 1973:186- 193). Orant anthropomorphs are commonly presented within Jordanian Safaitic petroglyphs,

262 accompanied by inscriptions (for example Van Den Branden 1956:80-83; Winnett 1957:669 no. 43, 671 nos. 568, 576, 707 nos. 2740 and 2673).

The orant reappeared in Israel (if indeed it went out of use towards the end of Iron Age I as suggested by Keel and Uehlinger [1998:150]) with the Roman period. This standing position, with arms stretched out and palms forward, was the common attitude for prayer among Roman Christians, Jews, and pagans. In Roman (pre-Christian) iconography, the orant figure represented Pietas, a personification of dutifulness especially towards parents, country and benefactors. The Roman orant was strictly female suggesting that male orant images are of a pre-Roman date. With the rise of Christianity, the orant posture was used in relation to themes dealing with faith and deliverance. By the fourth century CE. saints began to take form as orants. At this time, orant images in funerary contexts begin to depart from an idealized image and start to represent the deceased individual (Kirby 1972:42-52). The orant iconography continued to be used throughout the Middle Ages (see for example Schiller 1971: figure 2; Westenholz 2000:116-131 ).

Although the orant stance was in use from the Upper Paleolithic period, it seems to have been introduced into the sacred iconography of the southern Levant only in the Early Bronze Age (Beck 1995b; Beit-Arieh, 2003:425). We can confidently use the Early Bronze Age as a terminus post quem for the orant petroglyphs documented in the central Negev. A terminus ante quem is more difficult to form, as we know that the orant stance was in use almost continuously from the Early Bronze through the Middle Ages. Even during periods when the orant was less popular, it may have continued to serve as a prayer stance in the desert regions. If we are to compare it to the standing stones (Masseba), then we see that even after standing stones were neglected in the more Northern urban communities, they continued to serve as religious foci in the desert through Nabatean times (Avner 2001) and probably later as suggested by the standing stones incorporated in the Early Islamic mosque of Nahal Oded (Avni 1996).

To help limit the time frame proposed for the orant figures, we may focus on the sexually defined orant anthropomorphs, and look at the patina shade. Ithyphallic anthropomorphic representations have been found in Pre-Pottery Neolithic Gobekli Tepe, Anatolia (Peters and

263

Schmidt 2004), and Late Bronze Age Timna in the Arava in southern Israel (Rothenberg 1972:184, Figures 102-104). These representations are each of a male with erect penis though they do not have up raised arms as the orant figures. The Egyptian God Min (representation of this God date to the Middle kingdom) is presented ithyphallic with his right arm raised. However, the meaning of a single raised arm is different than two up raised arms (Ogdon 1985- 6; Wilkinson 1991-2). Ithyphallic depictions are often found in Hellenistic and Roman art (Stewart 1997) but once more the iconography, as indicated by the position of the arms, is different suggesting that the Negev figures held a different meaning than ithyphallic parallels.

Ithyphallic and clearly female figures do not fit in with Byzantine iconography. The Byzantine concept of sexuality was that the body is shameful and should remain covered (Kazhdan 1990). To what level were the desert dwelling societies affected by the urban culture is unknown. Though, following the above review, we can say with some certainty that the male orant are of an Early Bronze/Iron Age date. Other less defined orant figures can be placed roughly within the larger time frame of Early Bronze – Byzantine. It should be noted that this argument does not hold in Southern Arabia. There, large images are presented with up raised arms. These figures are clearly female with an emphasis on body shape and long hair. These images are at times covered by Thamudic inscriptions, placing them between the Roman and Islamic periods (Bednarik and Khan 1996, 2009).

Patina shade does not reflect the antiquity of a petroglyph. It has been proven that practically black patina can develop in as short a time as 13 years (Krumbein n.d). It has yet to be proven that a petroglyph of thousands of years can stay fresh with no or light patina shade. As such, it seems unreasonable to date fresh unpatinated orant petroglyphs to the Early Bronze Age.

Three of the orant figures have a horizontal line at the waist, as noted above, giving them a post Late Bronze Age date. As these figures carry weapons (interpreting the horizontal line as a sheathed sword) and two are part of hunt scenes, it is likely that here the up raised arms did not serve as religious statement, i.e. these anthropomorphs are not in a true orant stance, and, therefore, cannot be dated securely to the Early Bronze Age.

264

Anthropomorph 33-119-8 (Fig. 141) has close parallels in cylinder seals dated to the Early Bronze (Ben-Tor 1977:Fig. 1, and 6).

3.1.5.7. Anthropomorphs Standing on Animal’s Back

Within the documented material, six anthropomorphs are standing on the backs of animals. One (101-99-1) stands on a horned ungulate, two (39-63-14 and 25-49-4 last row in subtype h, Fig. 64) are on horses, 5-2-1 is on a camel and the species of two (25-49-16 and 25-49-6, first row, subtype h, Fig. 64) cannot be identified. In the case of 39-63-14, it is unclear whether the anthropomorph and horse were engraved during the same phase but, as the result resembles an anthropomorph standing on an equid’s back, it was placed within Type 2h. Of these six figures, none are clearly male. Two (39-63-14 and 25-49-16) might be female, though these identifications are tentative.

Anthropomorphs standing and sitting (enthroned) on the back of crouching, sitting and standing animals are interpreted as deities (Collon 1987:164-165; Givon 2002; Ornan, 2006; Tadmor 1981; Yakar 1991:117-119). These deities are usually presented frontally while the animal is in profile. The animal on which the anthropomorph is placed may be a lion (Collon 1972; Givon 2002), panther (Smith 1961), bull (Ornan 2006), stag (Collins 2005:35 figure 2.9; Yakar 1991:117), horse (Cornelius 1994:209; Lewis 2005), crocodile (Ben-Tor 1997) or mystical animal (Collon 1987:168 no. 786). It has been proposed that deities standing on bulls were male (representing the storm god), while female dei ties stood on lions and horses. This division may be true in concept but several exceptions have been noted (Cornelius 2004:78; Ornan 2006).

Deities presented standing on an animal are found in cylinder seal impressions, painted and relief plaques, figurines, petroglyphs and pictographs. The earliest dated representation of an anthropomorph standing on the back of an animal is an Anatolian pictograph dating to the Chalcolithic Period (Yakar 1991:117). Within the Mesopotamian cylinder seals, this composition seems to first appear in the 4th millennium BCE, lasting through the 1st millennium BCE (Collon 1987:164-165, no. 758, p.166 no. 777, p.168 no. 786, p. 169 nos. 791, 792 Jakubiak 2008). In Israel, deities on the back of animals first appeared in the Middle Bronze Age (Keel and Uehlinger 1998:22; Ziffer et al. 2009). These images remained in the sacred iconography and

265 appeared commonly through the Late Bronze and Iron Age I. Rarely are deities presented on the back of animals (not riding) within the Levantine Iron Age II (Collon 1987; Cornelius 2004:71; Givon 2000; Keel and Uehilnger 1998:192; Lewis 2005; Ornan 2001; 2006; Tadmor 1981). In Egypt, this iconography was in use throughout the Roman period (Ben-Tor 1997). Concerning the six anthropomorphs on the back of animals from Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot, they may be dated to the Middle Bronze –Iron Age II. Given the lack of sites dated to the Middle-Late Bronze Age sites in the central Negev (Chapter 1.2.), an Iron Age II date is more likely. The longevity of deities on the back of animals in Egypt should not affect this proposed date as the Egyptian influence on the discussed petroglyphs seems to have been limited.

3.1.6. Foot and Sandal Prints

Human feet in a variety of forms such as prints (Zaccagnini 1994), sculpted in the round (Bartl 2007), and engraved (Kaper and Willems 2002) are found throughout the Near East. The earliest examples date to the Syrian Neolithic period (Bartl 2007). The earliest securely dated foot print petroglyph is datable to the Egyptian Old Kingdom (Kaper and Willems 2002). In Uvda Valley there is a single example of foot print and ibex petroglyphs on a large stone (massaba) incorporated in an Early Bronze Age structure (Fig. 162. Uzi Avner personal communication). Following the Old Kingdom, foot/sandal prints are continuously engraved through the Arab periods (Jaussen et al. 1904; Nehmé 1995; Negev 1971; Nevo 1989; Verner 1973:21-27). Within the material documented during the present research, only one foot print may be dated. Foot print 34-61-16 (Fig. 163) is superimposed over an Arabic inscription giving it a terminus post quem of the mid 7th century CE. Other than this single print, none of the other foot prints can be dated securely. Even if we are to accept the suggested post 7th century date for the patina free panels (see below), a post 7th century CE date cannot be given to all foot prints.

266

Figure 162. Foot prints and ibex in Early Bronze Age structure, Uvda Valley. Photograph enhanced with photoshop.

Figure 163. Panel 34-61 of footprint petroglyph (element 34-61-16, measuring 14X24 cm) over Arabic inscription (to the left, reading Allah. Element 34-61-18, measuring 5.8X17 cm).

267

3.1.7. Patina Free Panels

A limited number of patina free panels are engraved at Har Michia (7% of the documented panels). Most of these panels were found within outcrop no. 18. The engraved motifs documented at outcrop no. 18 are restricted to abstracts, foot prints and a few inscriptions. The limited repertoire of images suggests that the mark makers were governed by non-iconic, religious restrictions. The repetitive use of certain abstract forms points towards their use as tribal markings. At Nahal Haro’a, panels securely dated to late 7th – 9th century CE (Nevo 1985, Nevo et al. 1993; Rosen-Ayalon 1988), are all patina free surfaces. The patina free panels of Har Michia may be dated roughly to post 7th century CE.

At Giva’t HaKetovot, the patina free panels are more numerous (representing 17% of the samples panels) with more of a variety in the depicted motifs. These panels are not restricted to a certain area and are found dispersed over the hill. The engraved motifs include zoomorphs and anthropomorphs as well as a number of North Arabian inscriptions. Panel 102-64 presents a camel and North Arabian inscription. Exact parallels for the camel may be found in the rock art of Northern Jordan (Figs. 164 and 165). Panel 100-70 with an ibex also resembles North Jordanian Safaitic rock art (Figs. 166 and 167). These two examples serve as a clear testament of activity of northeastern tribes in the Central-Western Negev.

The zoomorphs engraved on the patina free surfaces at Giva’t HaKetovot do not all follow the same stylistic lines as presented in Fig. 142 and 143. The rock art of northern Jordan also presents a number of styles reflecting different hands. At Giva’t HaKetovot, not all of the art is restricted to patina free panels, though it is these panels which illuminates the existence of at least two distinct ethnic groups engraving activity at the site. We cannot answer why the North Arabian tribes chose to engrave patina free surfaces but the tribes in Northern Jordan chose patina covered surfaces. One possible explanation may have been to form a clear distinction between their panels and those that already existed at the site with their arrival. The petroglyphs of the North Arabian tribes’ descendents are dated roughly to the 1st century BCE – 4th century CE (equivalent to the Roman period).

268

Figure 164. Camel (element 102-64-1, measuring Figure 165. Camel petroglyph from 13X14.5 cm) and north Arabia inscription northern Jordan (After Winnett (element 102-64-2, measuring 12X14 cm) on 1957:729 no. 3615 b) patina free surface.

Figure 166. Ibex on patina free surface (element Figure 167. Horned Ungulate 100-40-1, measuring 11X14 cm). from northern Jordan (Van Den Branden 1956:173b)

3.1.8. Conclusions

3.1.8.1. Chronology based on Style

Certain stylistic changes seem to have taken place over time. These include the late appearance of the linear two legged, single horned ungulate and the fully engraved camels. Similar stylistic developments have been noted by Huyge (2002) in regard to the style of rock art from Egypt’s eastern desert. But these stylistic nuances are not sufficient to form the base of a chronological schema. This is best exemplified through the parallels of horned ungulates from datable materials. Within Fig. 145 all three forms of depicting horned ungulates are presented in all archaeological periods. Betts (2001) taking the horned ungulate as a test case, demonstrates how a similar representation may be in use over several millennium. Therefore, to date a petroglyph, each motif and each element must be examined separately.

269

The time frame of some petroglyphs may be more focused based on certain attributes. These include the horizontal line at the waist of anthropomorphs, the shape and size of a shield, the orant stance, the riding of an equid or camel and inscriptions. Unfortunately, in most cases, even with the presence of one or more of these attributes, the exact time frame remains uncertain, often ranging over four millennia. In more ideal cases, the time frame may be limited to Early Bronze – Iron Age I, a time frame still exceeding two millennia (with settlement gaps). The difference between the Early Bronze and Iron Age settlement pattern and cultures in the Negev are substantial and at this point in the research, rock art, a visual testament of the people living in the desert during antiquity, cannot be securely related to one period over another and, thus, valuable data is lost. The first phase of engraving is unknown. Clear and indisputable evidence proves that rock art engraving was practiced intensively throughout the Early Bronze and Iron Age I-II. This fits well with the picture arising from Egypt where 53% of the seriated petroglyphs date to the Early Dynastic period (3650-2650 BCE) (Huyge 2002), overlapping with the Negev Early Bronze Age. However, many of the central Negev elements cannot be dated, especially the majority of zoomorphs and horned ungulates. Therefore, the question remains whether the documented rock art may pre-date the Early Bronze Age.

3.1.8.2. Earliest Date of Rock Art

Anati (2004) recognized large outlines of animals from Har Karkom in a cave near Avdat (only a few km from Har Michia), at Kilwa, Jordan, and Dahthami Wells in Central Arabia as an upper or, at the latest, an Epi- Paleolithic engraving phase, but offered little evidence for this claim. Later Paleolithic rock art in Egypt, characterized by large bovid engravings averaging 80 cm, comprised naturalistic outlined depictions (Huyge 2009; Huyge and Ikram 2009). No engravings documented in the present survey are large, naturalistic depictions and, if the Egyptian materials are representative of the general phase, no Negev rock art can be dated to these phases.

Art found in the archaeological assemblages from Negev transitional period sites (Epipalaeolithic) consists of incised ostrich eggshells. The incised motifs include parallel lines

271 filled with either cross-hatching or diagonal slashes and rough herringbone patterns (Bar-Yosef 1996). Some stone and bone artifacts are decorated with incised net, zigzag, and meandering patterns (Bar-Yosef 1996). These abstract motifs were not found in the central Negev rock art repertoire. Assuming that the material finds do not fully represent the place that rock art held in the Negev hunter-gather communities, then the rock art itself points against this interpretation. If the rock art was the product of hunter-gatherers, we would expect to find a much larger number of animal species, between 15-25, rather than the eight (omitting the domesticated camel and equid) that were documented (Sauvet et al. 2009).

In the 6th millennium BCE, changes in domestic and ritual architecture took place in the Negev (Rosen 2011). Domestic architecture changed from honeycomb formation to that of “pen and room” structures (Rosen 2002a). Open air sanctuaries and cairns were constructed (Avner 1984; Avner et al. 1994; Rosen 2008, 2009, 2011). Cairns are found in two relations, as cairn fields (Haiman 1991) and within settlements (Beit-Arieh 1974; Haiman 1992b; Kochavi 1967:20; Reich 1990). Based on a carbon date from a cult complex in the Southern Negev (Avner et al. 1994) and an OSL sample from cairns in the Ramon Crater (Porat et al. 2006; Rosen et al. 2007) it seems that the cairn field phenomena began with the 6th millennium BCE (Early Timnian Culture). Based on proximity to habitation sites (Haiman 1991; 1992b; Kochavi 1967:20) and architectural similarities (Cohen 1980; Haiman 1993a), other cairn fields (usually including rectangular shaped cairns) have been dated to Early Bronze Age II-III, and Early Bronze Age IV (Intermediate Bronze Age/Middle Bronze Age I) (Middle through Terminal Timnian Culture). Rothenberg and Glass (1992) see the burial fields as an indication of continuity of the indigenous population throughout the entire Timnian sequence.

Standing stones (Massebot), open air sanctuaries and related cairn fields, seem to have emerged with the 6th millennium (Early Timnian), retaining their sacred context through the Early Bronze Age IV (Terminal Timnian Culture). Over a hundred open sanctuaries have been documented in the Negev and Sinai (Avner 1984; Eddy and Wendorf 1999:70; Rosen and Rosen 2003). Art in the form of petraform zoomorphs was found along side open-air sanctuaries (Avner 1984; Eddy and Wendorf 1999:75; Yogev 1983). Desert kites made their first appearance in the Negev prior to the 3rd millennium BCE (Nadel et al. 2010).

271

The Neolithic/Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age of the Central Negev, spanning over three millennia (roughly from 5,500 BCE – 2000 BCE), comprises a distinct desert culture and ethnic identity (Rosen 2010, 2011). Within this time frame a number of technical developments are noted. Incised tabular scrapers appear post 4000 BCE. Microlithic lunates begin to appear around 3100 BCE while arrow heads diminish in numbers towards the end of the 3th millennium (Rosen 2011). In the 4th millennium BCE, many sites of different sizes (satellite settlements, temporary and permanent settlements) reflect a population growth in the central Negev (Haiman 1992a).

Rosen (2002a, 2008) suggested that the changes that took place over the 6th millennium BCE are an indication of a level of territoriality of formative tribal organization. In addition to the 6th millennium initial changes, the end of the 4th millennium BCE, as briefly described above, also points towards a cultural change. It may be within this time frame that the central Negev rock art fits in. As petroglyphs are not directly related to open sanctuaries or cairns (even if petroglyphs were directly related to cairns, the cairn construction and use are not restricted to the 6th millennium BCE) it is impossible to say whether some elements date to the 6th millennium BCE, forming part of the Neolithic – Chalcolithic transformation (Early Timnian culture) or whether the first rock art dates to the 4th millennium BCE (Chalcolithic – Early Bronze transformation). In any case, no evidence is available by which to date the documented material to pre- 6th millennium BCE.

A rock art corpus, similar to the one described above, was studied in southeastern Jordan (Gebel and Mahasneh 2009). The rock art in Eastern Jafr, Jordan, consists of panels with individual elements, few clear scenes, and a predominance of ibexes. Similar to the ibex of Giva’t HaKetovot, the ibexes in Eastern Jafr are geographically distant from their natural habitat. This rock art engraved on stones incorporated in cairn constructions and circular structures have been dated by Gebel and Mahasneh (2009) “to the late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age, around 4,000 BCE or slightly later”.

Rock art from the ‘Aqaba region, Southwestern Jordan, presents a wide variety of elements and subjects, including hunting, fighting and religious themes. Depictions of agriculture are missing from the corpus. The zoomorphic category is dominated by ibex and then camel petroglyphs.

272

Ibexes, in comparison to domesticated animals, are presented more often isolated. Comparing rock art to wall paintings, Hecht (2009) concluded that “the oldest rock pictures that are associated with humans are not earlier that the late Chalcolithic”, mid 4th millennium BCE.

3.2 The Present Chronological Frame in Relation to Other Chronologies Offered for the Negev

In the past, the Negev rock art was studied by Nevo and Koren, Eisenberg-Degen, Rothenberg, and Anati. The work of each of these researchers will be examined and the conclusions described in the first section of this chapter, will be discussed in relation to their findings. The order in which the researchers are presented corresponds roughly to the extent of their work.

3.2.1. Yehuda Nevo and Judith Koren, Horse Petroglyphs of the Avdat Area

Nevo and Koren, in the book Pagans and Herders, a Re-examination of the Negev Runoff Cultivation Systems in the Byzantine and Early Arab Periods (1991) refer to horse petroglyphs. These petroglyphs, recorded in the Avdat region (based on the map published on page 12, this area is 5-13 km south of Har Michia), reflect in Nevo and Koren’s (1991:104) opinions of “normal depictions of the realities of daily life…”. These petroglyphs are dated to the Early Arab period based on accompanying inscriptions and a consistency in depicted form. The majority of horses published (Nevo and Koren 1991:105) are outlined. Some horses are presented with enlarged genitals.

None of the horses in the documented material of the present research follow this form of depiction. No horse petroglyphs recorded in this study had an indication of genitals. At this stage, the lack of these styles is not sufficient proof for suggesting that the material documented at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot is not of an Early Arab date.

3.2.2. Davida Eisenberg-Degen, Camel Petroglyphs of Har Nafha

The present author documented 81 camel petroglyphs in the Har Nafha area. In an unpublished

273

MA thesis (2006:69-82), these petroglyphs were divided into stylistic forms and a chronological frame was offered. The more generalized conclusions concerning camel petroglyphs, that is, that linear, outlined humped camels are of an earlier date than full humped and fully engraved camels, were confirmed in the present research. . The development of fully engraved camels seems to have taken place by the classical period.

3.2.3. Beno Rothenberg and the Timna Panels

Rothenberg (1972:119-124, 2001, 2008) recorded and published a number of rock art panels from the Timna region (Arava). Rothenberg (2001), based on similarities to the Chalcolithic Teleilat el-Ghassul frescoes and other parallels, dated the first engraving phase to the Chalcolithic Period (Late 5th-4th millennium BCE, equivalent to the Middle Timnian Age) He recognized some rock art as intrusive though saw the majority of petroglyphs found throughout the Negev as the work of the indigenous population. Here, chronology is expressed through style and subject matter as Rothenberg wrote: “During early periods of prehistory, 6th-4th millennium BCE, especially in the Negev mountains but also in the Arabah, hunting scenes were not linear engraved but fully pecked onto the rockface, which created more dynamic, realistic representations…” (2001: footnote 1). “…chronology-related differences [are apparent] mainly in their material- culture and socio-economic details as well as in the change-over from extinct to newly domesticated/introduced items of fauna and flora.” (2001:4)

None of the recorded elements of the present research are similar in any manner to what Rothenberg defines as an intrusive Chalcolithic style. The Late Bronze age panels of Timna have more in common with the data recorded here and served as parallels for dating certain attributes in the present research. As for Rothenberg’s observation relating the first date of engraving and reference to a change in style, the present research resulted in similar conclusions.

274

3.2.4. Emanuel Anati’s Rock Art Styles in the Negev and Sinai

Anati (1956, 1962:181-214, 1965, 1993:71) distinguishes between seven styles (and several sub styles), ranging in time from the Stone Age to recent times. The transition from one style to the next is expressed through an overall change over time in engraving technique, size, patina color, and subject matter which, Anati believes, reflects the evolving economy. In the present research, none of the above points have been proven correct. Each of these points will be discussed in regard to the data documented in this study.

3.2.4.1. Style

In Anati‘s definition of style (1962:197), he comments on the level of naturalism, harmony, beauty, dynamic action and proportion. These adjectives are subjective and cannot be measured numerically or can they be compared. In the present research, the style of the elements has been defined in the most basic terms of form, i.e. linear, outlined or filled in. Changes in form/style, dealt with in detail in the second section of this chapter, were found to evolve over time. These changes are slow, with long periods of overlap and continuity and, at present, cannot serve as defined chronological indicators.

3.2.4.2. Technique

The use of different engraving techniques during the same period has been attested to in a number of recorded elements, most clearly visible in 39-28-26 (Fig. 168) and other examples include 1-2-14, 19-3-1, and 33-1-5 (also see Betts 2001:792; Harding 1953; Huyge 2002; Lemaitre and Van Berg 2008; Preston 1976; and Whitcomb and Johnson 1979:328). Thus, claims that engraving techniques can be used to make chronological distinctions cannot be upheld.

275

Figure 168. Horse and rider petroglyph (element 39-28-26, measuring 15.5X15.5) made through a combination of techniques including scratching (of the tail), hammering (horse and anthropomorph), and incision (reigns).

3.2.4.3. Size

To see whether the size of the petroglyphs reflect on the period of engraving, the elements were divided by engraving phase. No correlation was found between the size of the petroglyph and the engraving layer. Within each layer (phase) of engraving there is a certain (and almost consistent) percentage of large, medium and small petroglyphs (Table 64).

Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5 Layer 6 L 67.86% 17.86% 8.33% 4.76% 1.19% 0.00% M 71.98% 17.70% 7.96% 1.77% 0.59% 0.00% S 67.41% 20.74% 5.93% 3.70% 1.48% 0.74% Table 64. Zoomorphs from Har Michia according to size of engraving and layer.

276

3.2.4.4. Patina Color

Anati (1962:187-189) explains that the color of repatination depends on various natural influences. He suggests that an engraving will reach the darkest patina shade after a minimum period of 2,500 years. Anati (1962:189) continues and states that: “Dark-brown patina is mainly found in Styles II, III, IV-A and IV-B. Styles IV-c and V usually have a light-brown color, Style VI has a yellowish-brown color, and Style VII is very frequently yellow or light yellow, thus approaching the natural color of the inner rock.”

Anati (1962:189) does note that although the patina shade reflects the period of engraving that “there are examples of lighter engraved surfaces in all styles, with the exception of Style I” (which was found only in one site in the Negev).

At present, it is still unknown how patina develops, if it is a linear process and if the patina starts to develop immediately after engraving or whether there is a time lapse between the time of engraving and the time that the patina starts to develop (Pope et al. 2002). However, it has been demonstrated that patina may develop and blacken within a single decade (Fig. 4) Therefore, patina as a chronological indicator is limited to single surfaces.

3.2.4.5. Subject Matter

Anati (1962:181-214) sees subject matter as a chronological indicator. Scenes of hunting, in his opinion, pre-date pastoral ones. When dating his Style I, Anati (1962:195) wrote that the art does not belong to the Neolithic period as “careful analysis has shown that the “Neolithic” way of life is not illustrated by the pictures”. Assuming that the rock art reflects the economic base and way of life is unfounded.

In the documented data of the present research, subject matter may be identified only within a small percentage of the petroglyphs, as very few panels were found to include clear narrative compositions. Often, these are of a dog chasing a horned ungulate. Jung (1991) suggested that

277 this scene (commonly engraved in North Yemen) presents ritual ibex hunts. Evidence of ritual ibex hunts performed by people with agriculturally based economies come from both pre-Islamic inscriptions (Beeston 1948) and 20th century CE observations (Ingrams 1937; Serjeant 1976). If the ibex hunt scene, as suggested by Jung (1991), depicts a ritual rather than a reflection of the peoples’ livelihood, then the subject matter cannot be taken as a chronological indicator. As discussed above, the petroglyphs do not pre-date the 6th millennium BCE and seem to reflect a more intensive engraving phase dated to the Early Bronze age. As such, all of the documented petroglyphs are the product of a developing pastoral based society (Haiman 1998; Rosen 2002a, 2002b, 2009; Rothenberg and Glass 1992). Hunting in the traditional manner and in a communal fashion (through the construction and use of desert kites) (Bar-Oz et al. 2008; Holzer 2002:13- 19; Rosen 2009) supplemented the gathering and pastoralism. Wild species present less than 9% of the faunal assemblage and approximately 2% of the southern Early Bronze assemblages (Forenbaher 1997; Horwitz and Tchernov 1989). Herding scenes, goats, and penned animals (the livelihood of the Negev inhabitants from Early Bronze through present) are almost entirely missing from the documented repertoire.

3.2.5. Conclusions

The state of rock art research in the Negev is in its first stages of development. The number of researchers that have studied Negev rock art are few. Most of these, as described above, concentrated on either a single motif or a single site. As such, the conclusions reached could not be all encompassing. Anati, who surveyed and documented thousands of elements (some from the same regions as those studied in the present research), formed a detailed chronology. Anati’s basic assumptions, for instance that the rock art reflects the economy of the mark makers, undermine his chronology rather than strengthen it. With the completion of the present research, the chronology of the Negev is partially clarified. Rothenberg (2001:4) sees the fact that some motifs seem to be engraved in a consistent manner for thousands of years due to the slow changing Negev culture, as he writes: “….the fundamental stylistic congruity of most of the rock drawings – which we now understand as evidence for the continuity of the pastoral lifestyle of indigenous population of these arid regions during several thousands of years”.

278

The conclusions of the present research are in agreement with Rothenberg. Some chronological changes are detected though these are found alongside (summarized in Fig. 169) the constant linear 4 legged animal. The Central Negev rock art shows a long term, slow changing traditional society.

279

Figure 169. Chronological development of the Negebite style as seen at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot

281

3.3. A Three-Tiered Comparative System and Rock Art Traditions of the Central Negev

The rock art documentation at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot was collected in a hierarchical fashion, reflecting three levels, from the general to the specific. The most general level is the rock outcrop, followed by the panel dimensions and placement. The most detailed data relates to each motif, its dimensions, orientation and attribute combination. These data were found to be compatible between the two sites only at the most general levels. As the data became more detailed, the sites were found to differ more. The present chapter attempts to interpret the different levels of similarities and differences presented in chapter 2.7. Based on analogies, the rock art similarities are understood as representing similarities in social organization and affiliation.

It seems that the majority of petroglyphs studied in this research were made by pastoral, tribal societies. Traditional nomadic societies in the Middle East are tribal based. A tribe may be defined as a cultural and linguistic kind of political unit, referring to a defined “territory”. The size of the tribal territory is determined by the pasture and water used by the tribe members for their subsistence during numerous seasons and the number of members needed to secure it. Another aspect that has a direct affect on territory size is the size of the herd. For example in the early 20th century the seasonal migration of the Azāzma (situated in the Central Negev), ranged over 60 kilometers, forming their territory. In 1948, the Azāzma tribe consisted of 12,000 people (Marx 1977).

Segmented lineages are organized hierarchically. The smallest social unit of the tribe is the nuclear and then extended family. A number of extended families (tracing themselves to one ancestor) together form sub-tribes or lineages. The tribe is formed of a number of sub-tribes (usually numbering 4-6) which trace themselves to a real or fictional ancestor. The largest social group consists of a confederation of tribes (Barakat 1993:50-52).

Bedouin have no generic term and refer to each other by name of the descent groups while they are aware that they are actually referring to territory (Marx 1977). Thus each tribe is automatically associated with territory which is dynamic both in terms of the shape of the

281 territory and the composition of the group in it. Ethno-historic data points towards several abstract elements documented at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot as being Bedouin tribal markings (wasm, see chapters 3.1 and 3.3). These tribal markings are, to a degree, interchangeable with the tribal name and define a territory. The tribal marking may be understood on three levels.

1. Culture: Identifying the mark as a tribal marking.

An abstract petroglyph element may be identified and interpreted as a tribal marking if the observer is of the same general tribal culture. Culture may be defined as “patterns of behavior, thought and feeling that are acquired or influenced through learning and that are characteristics of groups of people rather than individuals” (Harris 1971:136). People within the same general culture perceive, relate and interpret forms in similar ways (Goodenough 1957:67) and, therefore, will recognize certain patterns of thought and behavior. In this way Bedouin, belonging to the same general tribal culture, were able to recognize abstract elements as tribal marks of ancient tribes no longer residing in the region (Khan 2000).

2. Tribe: Identifying the mark as belonging to a specific tribe.

Many tribal markings serve the tribe as a whole. In order for the observer to recognize the identity of the tribe through its wasm, then he must be familiar with the population residing in the area. As these marks may represent a social group consisting of thousands of people dispersed over a large territory, the observer could, technically, be familiar with one section of the tribe from one area and be able to recognize the mark throughout the entire area (Allan Degen personal communication).

3. Sub-tribal/family: Identifying the social group (family) based on variations made to the initial tribal marking.

As the tribe grows, the need for different sections within the tribe to differentiate themselves from the whole may arise. In regard to the wasm, this may be expressed through adopting a separate mark unrelated to the traditional tribal marking. A second form of expressing this need to differentiate the family/extended family from the whole (tribe) may be through altering the

282 prototype wasm (Dikson 1951:422). Variations to an initial tribal marking may take on the form of small additions such as short lines or rings. The relation between the initial wasm and the altered form reflects the connection between the section and the whole. If the tribe is distinguished, then the different clans of the tribe will be slower in adopting new markings and will have fewer or even a single identifying tribal mark (Dikson 1951:420). For example the basic Al Saud (Saudi Arabia) tribal mark consists of two rings flanking a vertical line (Hilden 1991). Within four variations of this mark adopted by first kin relations, the basic design was maintained (Fig 170).

b c d e

Figure 170. a. The Al Saud tribal marking. b and c. Mark of the brothers, King Khalid Prince Abdullah and Sultan Abdul Aziz. d. Mark of Prince Migrin bin Abdul Aziz al Saud. e. Mark of his brother Prince Mit’ib bin Abdul Aziz al Saud, after Hilden 1991 p.3.

If the observer is of the same general culture, he will recognize all of the marks above as tribal markings. If the observer is familiar with the tribes of the area, he will identify the mark (Figure 171:a) as being that of the Al Saud tribe. But to differentiate between the marks used by the family members, the observer must be familiar with the specific tribal make up.

Another example comes from the Azāzma tribe. The Azāzma initial tribal marking is door shaped (C11, Table 53; Fig. 112, upper part of pillar). From this shape, several variations have been made (C12-C15, Table 53, Figure 171-f). In several of the tribe’s wusum, the original door shape is prominent reflecting their tribal affiliation. A Bedouin residing in Tel-Sheva, some 80 km north of Har Michia, could recognize the variations of a tribal marking only as variations of

283 the Azāzma tribal mark and could not specify as to which clan the mark belonged (Allan Degen personal communication).

Figure 171. a. The Azāzma tribal marking. b-f variations of the tribal marking of sub-tribal units.

Similarly, Winkler (1938:11), working on rock art in Upper Egypt, was able to identify tribal markings of different sub-tribes. These tribal markings are distinguishable by slight variations from the ancestral sign, though to which family or sub-tribe each mark belonged today remains unknown.

This form of comparison by which the level of similarity in the rock art reflects the level of affiliation between social groups is proposed as follows: Rock art from different sites which have a similar ratio of abstract : zoomorphic : anthropomorphic elements reflect similar cultures. Rock art from different sites which present similar ratios between linear and curvilinear abstract elements, similar division of species within the zoomorphic category, and a similar division of anthropomorphs into types and sub-types may be explained by the mark makers belonging to the same tribe. Rock art which represents similar attribute combinations likely belonged to the same family or sub-tribe. This hypothesis, by which the level of compatibility between rock art assemblages translate to the level of social affiliation, is based on the fact that decoration and form have been found to relate similar information.

3.3.1. The Background for the Three-Tiered Comparative System

3.3.1.1. Distinction by Dress, Decorations, and Shields, in the Baringo District, Kenya

Studying the use of material culture among tribes in the Baringo District, Kenya, Ian Hodder

284

(1982:26-35) found that wearing uncharacteristic dress would identify a woman as a stranger within her own people. A woman dressed as the rest of the tribe helps to recognize her as a friend and not an enemy. Boundaries between groups were marked in several aspects of material culture including ear decorations, shield types, and ceremonial dress. When tribes were in competition over resources these distinctions were most emphasized.

3.3.1.2. Distinction by Beadwork Patterns of the Kalahari San

Comparing designs and variations in beaded headbands of the Kalahari San, Polly Wiessner (1984) found a relationship between designs employed and kin relations. A repertoire of common designs was used by all San groups. The San were unwilling to incorporate elements from beadwork designs shown to them from other cultures in the claim that they did not know the people that made them. Variations in the combination and use of designs were most noticeable between neighboring groups. Thus, there is a hieratical relation between form and kin. The most general use of beaded head bands and a limited number of background designs and attributes reflect the San as a culture. The exact combination of backgrounds and elements reflect kinship.

3.3.1.3. Distinction based on Ceramic Decoration, Form, and Clay in the Philippines

Ceramic ware, form, and decoration of vessels from two neighboring Philippine villages were compared (Graves, 1985, 1991). The members of the two villages intermarried and interacted, although they had different political alliances, dividing the villages between two separate regions. On the broadest scale, differences were evident between vessel forms of Pasil pottery and pottery made in neighboring river valleys. At a smaller scale, stylistic and morphological differences were evident between the two Pasil villages. Styles of incised and painted design were found to vary between the two groups of potters in subtle but measurable ways (Graves, 1985, 1991). For example by comparing vessel circumference/height and aperture/height ratios of cooking pots, 82% were classified correctly to their village. The most detailed distinction between vessels was found in the petrography composure of the clay, reflecting different quarrying holes. These microscopic differences represent the individual potters’ preferences and

285 help distinguish between potters. Miriam Stark et al (2000) found that the degree by which these vessels differ relate to social boundaries on three levels: the river valley, the region, and the village level. The social boundaries, that is, the identity and affiliation of the potter was communicated through the vessel to the Pasil consumers who recognized and discussed these differences.

Stark’s results have been repeated in other areas on similar scales. Gosselain (1998), doing research in southern Cameroon, found that technical distributions correspond to individuals, village communities and other social groupings. Chilton (1998), comparing technical and decorative variability and choices encountered in ceramic production of New England Late Woodland Period vessels, found that these were determined by the economic base (degree of mobility) of the society and the production level. Chilton’s research concluded that the Algonquians pottery made on a house hold production level for the members of the household presented a low level of variability. Iroquois pottery, in contrast, produced on a household industry level, presented a high degree of variability. The Iroquois society was characterized by communal living and, therefore, they produced vessels decorated with a range of forms which were shared within and between lineages and clans. Stark and Heidke (1998) found a duality in architecture, settlement morphology and ceramic patterning in the Tonto Basin, Brazil. They suggested that domestic architecture presents ‘fine-grained cultural variability’ reflecting local conceptions of group identity.

3.3.1.4. Summary

To summarize, it is apparent that material culture reflects social boundaries. When resources are low, boundaries tend to have more importance and are maintained in several ways including dress, decoration, pottery production, architecture, and settlement morphology (to mention a few examples). When a certain aspect of material culture is intended for and used by a diverse social group (as with the example of the Iroquois), high variability and diversity will be present. Though it is important to add a note of caution - material culture serves many ends. Each form of material culture is composed of a chain opératoire which is determined by choices governed by several factors. Similarities and dissimilarities in production and of the final product (in our case

286 of the petroglyph) may be the result of a complex set of choices made by the mark maker. Here, it is suggested (based on ethnography) that one factor defining the type of mark formed was the social affiliation within and between families and tribes, though other aspects may have also played a role.

Implementing the hierarchical frame presented above onto rock art is possible, though what forms of the Negev rock art reflect social relations, affiliation and boundaries are less clear. Dealing with more ancient, pre-ethnographic rock art, it is unclear what combination of motifs served as the highest level of the hierarchal unity (comparable to the door shape of the Azāzma or the two rings and line of the Al Saud tribes). Based on patina shade (Figs. 77 and 111), superimposition and engraving phase it is evident that the ratio of abstracts : zoomorphs : anthropomorphs changes over time. Abstract elements in the central Negev rock art have always outnumbered zoomorphs and anthropomorphs, though the ratio between the motifs has changed. Zoomorphs account for over 30% of the motifs engraved in the earliest phases. Later, in more recent phases (as suggested by the patina shade), the percentage of zoomorphs drops to just over 3%. At both Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot similar changes in motif in accordance to patina shade were found.

Based on chapter 2.7, Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot can be compared as follows: the most general level of comparing rock art is based on the ratio of motifs: abstract, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic. The second more detailed breakdown of motif type is through comparing specific motifs within the general categories, intra-class comparisons. The final and most in- depth comparison is based on chi square tests of attribute combinations (Fig. 172). As the treatment of the data is global and not period specific, the conclusions reached through this three- tiered comparison are also on a macro scale and are not period specific.

287

Figure 172. Proposed model for comparing degrees of similarity through rock art as representing levels of social affinity.

288

3.3.2. Results: Populations, Rock Art Complexes and Chronology

Following the modus operandi presented above by which the most general type of similarity reflects the most general type of group affiliation, the rock art at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot present three distinct rock art complexes: Negebite, North Arabian-Thamudic, and Ottoman-Recent Bedouin. The Negebite complex is the most common being present at every rock art site of the Central Negev. It is characterized by a preference for dark patina covered surfaces and the predominance of the linear formed mature male ibex within the zoomorphic category. The North Arabian complex differs from the Negebite complex in a preference for light colored (patina free) surfaces and use of the outlined form for zoomorphic elements. The Ottoman-Recent Bedouin complex consists almost entirely of abstract elements engraved on dark patina covered surfaces.

3.3.2.1. The Negebite Complex

The data from Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot suggest an integrated repertoire defining a Negebite complex. This Negebite complex is found on dark, patina covered panels. The repertoire consists of three major categories: abstract, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic elements. To these, a few additional categories may be added such as inscriptions, buildings, human and animal foot prints, but these represent a meager percentage of the total number of elements engraved. Based on the sites documented and sampled, the total ratio between abstract : zoomorphic : anthropomorphic elements ratio is 40:4:1. Looking at the same ratio while excluding A level abstract elements, the ratio changes to roughly 14:4:1. The ratio between linear and curvilinear elements (not including the A level of abstracts) is roughly 2:1. It is unlikely that these ratios will persist and recur with precision at all rock art sites of the Negev. But the trend, abstracts outnumbering zoomorphs which in turn outnumber anthropomorphs, characterizes the region’s rock art.

Ibex petroglyphs account for, on average, 50% of all zoomorphs depicted. The majority of these are mature males presented in a linear fashion. A line represents the body, four legs and tail and two long, swooping arcs form the horns. Other than the ibex, there are few wild animal species

289 depicted. Camels, equids, and dogs represent the most commonly engraved domesticated animals. These three animals, like the ibex, are usually presented in a simplified linear fashion. The linear style served from the earliest through most recent engraving phases and, therefore, is the most characteristic of the Negev petroglyphs.

Anthropomorphic petroglyphs were found to be the most varied category. At Har Michia, standing and riding anthropomorphs are presented in equal numbers. At Giva’t HaKetovot, few of the anthropomorphs are on back of animals. At both sites anthropomorphs with up raised arms and armed anthropomorphs form the two most commonly depicted sub types of standing anthropomorphs. No generalizations can be made regarding the style of anthropomorphs. Linear, fully engraved and outlined anthropomorphs are found in both anthropomorphic types (standing and riding) as well as in each of the sub types. Generalized observations which may be made, such as fully engraved figures are usually presented with eyes, and that anthropomorphs with eyes are depicted with hair, are related to technical aspects. For example, without a fully engraved image, it is near impossible to leave patina island eyes.

This Negebite complex definition is based on Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot petroglyphs. The abstract : zoomorphic : anthropomorphic ratios represent the final product of thousands of years of engraving. Abstract elements have always outnumbered zoomorphs and anthropomorphs, though the ratio between the motifs has changed. These changes were found to be almost identical at both Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot. This fact strengthens the use of abstract : zoomorphic : anthropomorphic ratios as a Negebite complex characterization. Knowing that the ratios in the first phases of engraving were along the lines of 6:3:1 while a site with a higher percentage of recent engravings will have a ratio of 90:1:1, may even help assess the dominant engraving phases at a site.

3.3.2.2. North Arabian – Thamudic Complex

A number of outlined animals documented at Giva’t HaKetovot on patina free panels may be recognized as made by Thamudic speaking people. These zoomorphic depictions account for

291 close to 50% of all animal elements engraved on patina free panels at the site. For comparison, at Giva’t HaKetovot, outlined zoomorphs account for 20% of zoomorphs engraved into patina covered panels and 8% of the zoomorphs of Har Michia. It is unclear which abstract elements form part of this North Arabian complex detected at the site. It is technically possible, and plausible, that several people engraved on both patina covered and patina free panels. This is clearly evident in the recent engravings documented at Giva’t HaKetovot, many of which are on patina free panels. Nevertheless when eliminating these recent engravings from the statistics, it is evident that the 40:4:1 ratio (with all engraved elements) or the 14:4:1 ratio (eliminating the A category of abstract elements) roughly characterizing the Negevbite complex is found on the patina covered panels of Giva’t HaKetovot, though not on the patina free ones. Looking at the composition of the elements on patina free panels (eliminating recent engravings), zoomorphs are presented twice as often than on patina covered panels, while anthropomorphs drop in relative percentages. The ratio of zoomorphs to anthropomorphs on patina free panels is 10:1. Thus the ratio of abstract : zoomorph : anthropomorph is 31:10:1. At Giva’t HaKetovot there was a certain North Arabia influence, contact or perhaps presence at the site.

3.3.2.3. Ottoman - Recent Bedouin Engravings

Through the patina free panels of Har Michia, a third rock art tradition can tentatively be recognized. This tradition is characterized as employing a majority of abstract elements. In addition, Arabic inscriptions, foot/sandal prints and few zoomorphs and anthropomorphs are displayed. Looking at the data through ratios, abstract : zoomorphs : anthropomorph ratios roughly offer a 31:1:1. Foot prints are twice more common than zoomorphic and anthropomorphic elements. This style is the only rock art complex engraved on the patina free panels of Har Michia. An engraving phase with a majority of abstract elements and few zoomorphs and anthropomorphs is also recognized within the patina covered panels. This suggests that this complex is not restricted to a specific panel type. As many of the abstract elements engraved in this phase may be recognized as wusum, the complex as a whole may be seen as a Bedouin style.

291

3.3.3. Conclusions

Concentrating on the Negebite complex, the similarities noted between the rock art of Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot suggest that it was the product of groups within the same general culture (desert based tribes). This conclusion is supported by the archaeological record (see chapter 1.2). The more detailed breakdown of motif type by comparing animal species and anthropomorph types and subtypes shows a general level of similarities in the dominance of the ibex. However, differences in the percentage of camels and equids suggest that each site was governed by slightly different interests, needs and/or traditions. Using kin relations as a metaphor, we suggest that the mark makers of Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot could be of the same tribe though the most in-depth comparison based on the chi square test results differ to a degree. The similarities in subject matter would present information easily understood. The more detailed nuances reflect more precise ideas and information that only a limited group would know how to translate.

Using the tier system (described above), three different rock art complexes are recognized, suggesting that the Negev rock art is less homogenous than previously thought. These complexes differ from each other culturally and chronologically (Chapter 3.1.) (Fig. 173). The first complex presented in the majority of panels documented at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot is indigenous of the Negev, characterized by a preference for patina covered panels. Within the zoomorphic category, the mature male ibex clearly plays an important role. At Giva’t HaKetovot a second complex is clearly discerned. This complex, best seen on patina free panels consisting of a relatively larger percentage of zoomorphs, is identified as North Arabian based on inscriptions and use of form. The third complex, especially noticed on the patina free panels of Har Michia, may be attributed to Ottoman and post Ottoman Bedouin originating in Arabia. The rock art of these Bedouin is almost entirety abstract in character. The two intrusive complexes stand in contrast to the Negebite one.

292

Figure 173. Rough schema for chronology of three rock art complexes in the Central Negev.

3.4. The Meaning of the Central Negev Rock Art

3.4.1. Introduction

After reviewing the data, the depicted motifs, the nuances of attribute combinations, the levels of similarity between Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot and the chronology of the rock art, this 293 chapter shifts the emphasis from the descriptive towards the functional and the idea realm. Trying to decode the petroglyphs, several possible interpretations are at hand. Morris (1979 cited in Bradley 1995) listed 104 possible interpretations for British Isle petroglyphs. A similar list of possible interpretations can be formed for any rock art, including that of the Negev. Lewis- Williams and Loubser (1986) suggested that models which explain a quantity and diversity of data are better fit than those which are less encompassing. Barfield and Chippendale, (1997) likewise, encouraged hypotheses derived from recurring motifs, rather than the unusual and unique figures that may be intriguing in their own right, but offer little to the study in depth. With these guidelines, it is possible to recognize the motifs which are potentially of the greatest meaning, though the meaning itself may elude us (Barfield and Chippendale 1997).

Bradley (2002) points towards multiple meanings of different levels, suggesting that meaning retrieved is dependent on the audience. People of the same culture though of different status or roles in the society will possess different knowledge and, as such, will change, restrict or expand the meaning they receive through rock art. Barfield and Chippendale turned to the opposite extreme, writing in reference to the Mont Bégo petroglyphs (1997) that “Even if the figures had no intended meaning in their own time, many centuries after we can see in them records from prehistoric Europe in a form which offers us knowledge we find instructive: that is, meaning. The recovery of the original meaning or – in all likelihood – the several original meanings is not the goal. The meaning we hope to recover will be a meaning that makes sense to us, archaeologist researching in our own era and culture, a meaning that makes sense of these old things in terms we can grasp”.

Rock art (as any archaeological material find) holds two sets of meanings; these fall into the categories of emic and etic. The terms emic and etic in archaeology derive from linguistics and later, from anthropology. Emic (from the word phonemic) is defined by Harris (1976) as discovering patterns with respect to what goes on inside people’s heads. Harris explains that to derive the emic, one must get into people’s heads and that the way to do this is by talking with them and asking questions about what they think and feel. Translating this definition to the

294 understanding of rock art, the emic meaning is that which would have been meaningful for the mark maker himself and for others within the same culture and society. Distanced from the mark makers chronologically and culturally, emic meanings may be recognized through direct ethnology and related texts such as myths, mythologies and poetry. An example of an emic meaning would be the symbolism the image of a rainbow serpent holds as an ancestral being for Australian aborigines.

Etic (from the word phonetic) refers to all conclusions which developed through observations of “what people do during natural course of behavior stream events” (Harris 1976). In linguistics, etic meanings are from within the speech act. To identify and understand the etic, one must understand the language which is used to communicate. In reference to rock art, etic statements are the recognition of existing patterns. The pattern or schema studied is one that developed as a byproduct of rock art, for example the study of the distribution of rock art in the landscape. Returning to the example of the Australian rainbow serpent, etic observations could consider the meaning of the relation between rainbow serpents and waterholes. Or for example, in the present research, the different levels of distinction of the petroglyphs seen as a reflection of similar culture, tribe or clan (extended family), is an etic analysis.

Differences in rock art meanings may be reflected in the placement of the art, the depicted motifs and the intended audience. Rock art is created in a different setting according to its meaning. The interpretation offered for the patterns may be an emic meaning (the symbolic essence of the engraved element as it was understood by the mark maker) or an etic one, in accordance to what significance the rock art holds for the researcher. Emic and etic meanings are intertwined. Emic meanings form patterns. The recognition of these patterns is etic, thus etic may or may not lead back to the emic. Barfield and Chippindale (1997) expand on this point in presenting the following scenario from a hypothetical conversation between a researcher and a mark maker from Mont Bégo:

“The researcher would for once be able to ask of his prehistoric subject the direct question: ‘What is the meaning of your work?’ … we might hope the prehistoric engraver would say plainly to us: ‘It is to show that I am now become a man’. We

295

might also hope he be young, accomplished in learning the mysteries by a wise and senior man. But we doubt that. He might say: ‘It is to show this is my land’, an account which would also fit with our understanding of the figures’ significance, or: ‘As my father did it, so must I,’ a view which might also fit with our analysis. Or he might say – directly or obscurely: ‘I do this because I do it. Why do you want it to have meaning?’

Certainly he would not say: ‘Its meaning is rooted in the Remedello cultures of northern Italy’ or, ‘It derives from the social transformations in the Chalcolithic of the southern Alps, precursors of the high Bronze Age of Europe in the 2nd millennium BCE.’ The entities of these last ‘meanings’ had no existence in the societies of their own times. … Even if the figures had no intended meaning in their own time, many centuries after we can see in them records … which offers us knowledge we find instructive: that is, meaning” (Barfield and Chippindale 1997:103)

Rock art that is made for a specific intent or purpose often follows a certain pattern. This pattern may be reflected in the subject matter or distribution (distance from other sites, viewing area, difficulty in access etc.). Recognizing these patterns may assist in explaining the setting in which rock art was produced and/or what purpose it served. In this chapter, the framework behind the possible patterns will be presented and followed by the observed patterns formed by the central Negev petroglyphs. The patterns detailed below are: the setting of rock art in the landscape, and recognition of the meaning of imbedded motifs. In addition, interpretative schemas of altered states of consciousness, doodling, totemism and clan emblems, territory and boundary markings, initiation rituals, mythical and historic accounts, and expressions of adoration/worship will also be examined. Altered states of consciousness, totemism, clan emblems, and initiation ritual are examined as possible interpretations but dismissed as appropriate schemas as they are not supported by the documented data. The recognition of mythical and historic accounts in rock art is presented briefly, but no attempt is offered to follow this line within the documented data. Finally, under the sub heading of changing economies redefine gender roles, emic patterns identified help form an emic setting for the earliest phases of ibex engravings.

296

Sympathetic magic is not offered as an interpretation because the majority, if not all of the rock art assemblage under discussion, is the work of pastoral societies in which hunting did not serve as the main form of food production.

3.4.2. Public versus Private Art

The topographical access to a rock art site and the organization of the space in front of the panel, whether large enough to accommodate large or small gatherings, reflect the size of the intended audience (Bradley 2002). The rock art itself may also indicate the intended audience. Bradley (1994) was able to show that rock art of the British Isles differed in complexity levels based on its placement and intended audience. Lowlands in Britain suitable for year round land use, which would have been visited daily by a limited group, presented less complex rock art than that found in the uplands. The elevated woodland areas would have served as seasonal pasture land and hunting grounds. The highland rock art, which would have been viewed by a larger, more varied audience, showed a higher degree of complexity then the art of the valley floor.

Hartley and Wolley Vawser’s (1998) using the Shannon Formula for calculating the amount of information transmitted by petroglyphs of the Colorado River, found a relation between the number of depicted motifs on a panel and the intended audience. Panels with a limited number of motifs, but presented several times were found to reflect ownership markings over the property. A relatively simple message intended for a wide and varied audience.

Looking at the two documented sites of the present research, a number of general observations can be made. The petroglyphs at both Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot are situated within pasture lands on the periphery of archaeological peripheral settlements. Sedentary settlements are missing from the Giva’t HaKetovot region while Avdat is the only one in the Har Michia vicinity. The rock art sites are easily reached, demanding relatively little effort. These facts place the rock art into the realm of public rather than restricted art. The great diversity in panel size and placement does not enable an all encompassing statement. Each panel may be evaluated independently to answer whether it was intended to be viewed by a large group simultaneously

297 or was of a more private setting. For example, panel 102-29 (Fig. 161), a vertical panel with well defined elements situated on the western edge of Giva’t HaKetovot, elevated some 2.5 meters from the plain below, could have been viewed easily by some fifty people at one time. Panel 100-90 (Fig. 174), in contrast, is a small sized panel situated such that no more than a single person could see it at one time. Some panels, such as panel 1-16 (Fig. 175) with the door shaped motif (C11) repeated five times, could, following Hartley and Wolley Vawser (1998), have been intended for a more varied audience.

To conclude, the settings of the rock art, the panel size and the viewing area are extremely diverse and present no consistent pattern. Therefore, these data suggest that the central Negev petroglyphs did not all hold a single meaning and purpose.

Figure 174. Panel 100-90 (measuring 21X59 cm) with restricted viewing area.

Figure 175. Panel 1-16 (measuring 47X123 cm) with motif C11 (door shape) repeated five times.

298

3.4.3. Highlighting Meaningfully Embedded Motifs and Panels

Assessing the amount of energy employed in the act of rock engravings may reflect its importance (Fiore 2007). If the materials with which rock art is made are quarried (minerals for creating a pictograph or raw material for the making of tools with which to form a petroglyph), transported from a distance, worked (ground and mixed to make paint), and are demanding in time and energy invested, then we may conclude with certainty that the art was of importance for the mark maker. Following Fiore’s (2007) list of factors, it is possible to assess the degree of energy and time invested in the making of a petroglyph in the central Negev.

Little effort and planning seems to have been invested in making the central Negev petroglyphs. They were made on easily accessible outcrops which are suitable for engraving and are found in abundance. Patina free panels are easily marked and raw materials with which to engrave are scattered between the outcrops. The majority of central Negev petroglyphs are hammered (pecked) which is the most effective technique for marking hard surfaces (Fiore 2007). Thus, the act of petroglyph making at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot, most likely, did not put additional stress on the economy and resources of the mark maker.

In the case of the two sites studied in the present research, the location of the art does not assist in highlighting certain panels as more time invested than others, and it is, therefore, difficult to attach a deeper meaning to specific panels (Fiore 2007). It is possible that all documented elements are imbedded with an equal level of importance however, for the purpose of the present research, the methods Barfield and Chippindale (1997, outlined above) are adopted.

Barfield and Chippindale doing research in the French Alps noticed that axes, frequent in the material culture, are not depicted in the petroglyphs while daggers, found less frequently as physical objects, are commonly engraved. Commonly depicted motifs, which do not reflect the archaeological assemblage, are those to be studied as meaning imbedded.

Looking at the collected data from the central Negev, the ibex stands out against the archaeological material finds. Ibexes are the most commonly depicted animal yet almost absent

299 in the osteological material of Holocene dated sites. Equids and camels, the most commonly depicted domesticated animals, account for, on average, 20% of all zoomorphs. This is in contrast to the archaeological, osteological records that points towards sheep and goat outnumbering equids and camels (Avni 1992b:18*; Finkelstein 1984; Haiman 1998; Studer 2007). Abstract elements accounting for over 85% of the Har Michia and 75% of Giva’t HaKetovot documented elements (as noted in chapters 2.2. and 2.3.) are not reflected in the material culture.

Based on patina shade, superimposition and engraving phase, (Figs. 77 and 111, and Table 57), abstract elements comprise between 60% of the oldest phases of engraving with darkest patina shades and 96% of the more recent phases of engraving repertoire. A more detailed breakdown of elements reveals that abstract motifs are essentially composed of two groups. The first group, which also dominates the abstract category, is of marks clustered in one area of the panel, marks on the panel edge, around natural depressions/elevations in the rock and single blows (A’s in Table 53). Following this category, the most commonly engraved abstract elements are single lines (n=478), parallel lines (n=103), open rings (n=103) and then a door shape (n=96).

Wild ruminants and especially ibexes are the most commonly engraved zoomorphs. The existence of a similar percentage of ibex petroglyphs both within and outside of their natural habitat, points towards the important role the ibex held for the mark makers. The significance of the ibex is reinforced by the exaggeration of its most noticeable attribute, the horns. The emphasized horns assist in identifying the wild ruminant species as well as emphasizing the sex as male.

Concentrating on patterns reflected in the engraving of abstract A category elements, the single lines, parallel lines, open rings, the door shape, together with the ibex motif; the etic schemas of altered states of consciousness, doodling, totemism and clan emblems, and initiation rituals will be reviewed.

311

3.4.4. Altered States of Consciousness (ASC)

Altered States of Consciousness (hence forth ASC) (also termed the Neuropsychological Model, the Entoptic Phenomena, or the Three Stages of Trance), is a theory developed by Lewis-Williams and Dowson (1988) which details the three stages through which deep trance is reached. ASC can be induced in two basic ways: naturally (fatigue, fasting, hyperventilation, rhythmic movement, flickering light, pressure on the eyes, etc.) or through ingestion of drugs (Lewis-Williams 2002b:176). The altered state of mind, the level of trance entered, can be divided into three stages. A person experiencing an altered state of consciousness may or may not experience all three stages.

In the first and lightest stage of ASC, people experience geometric visual percepts (Entoptic designs, visual events arising from the stimulation of the retinal receptors within the eyeball by means other than simply light [Helvenston et al. 2003]). In the second stage, the visual imagery is developed into objects and forms. In the third stage, the visual hallucinations may be accompanied by physical and emotional feelings, such as being pulled through a tunnel, drowning, etc. The geometric patterns seen in the first stage are universal and empirical, resulting in hallucinations within a defined visual vocabulary. The images experienced in the second and third stage are culturally related (Lewis-Williams 2002a:126-129). Based on the understanding of the ASC stages, and the fact that ASC is a cross cultural phenomenon unrelated to the economic base of the people (De Rios 1984:10-13), Lewis-Williams and Dowson (1988) were able to identify the San (South Africa), Coso (California) and Upper Paleolithic Franco-Cantabrian rock art as ASC related (see also Lewis-Williams 2002a 136- 179; 2002b:119-132, 163-190). As shamanistic activities often incorporate entering a trance, hallucinations and visions, the ASC interpretation has been used as a tool through which to recognize shamanism activity in rock art. Since 1988, ASC interpretations (as related to shamanism) have been adopted by many researchers in rock art world wide (to list a few: Chippindale et al. 2000; Devlet 2001; Francfort 1998:302-318; Lahelma 2005; Whitley 1998; Winkelman 2002).

311

With the soaring popularity of the ASC interpretation for rock art, the basic assumptions of ASC have been re-examined (Helvenston et al. 2003). Several of the original definitions of the ASC theory, such as the three stages of trance and the ways in which ASC are reached, have been questioned (see counter opinions: Clottes 2004; Lewis-Williams 2004; Pearce 2004; Wilson 2004).

ASC in a cultural context takes place in many societies. Bourguignon (1973:9-11) presents data by which 90% of 488 examined societies have institutionalized, culturally patterned forms of ASC. Examining the data based on region, the percentage of societies from the ‘Circum-Mediterranean’ which have institutionalized ASC in this area was found to be slightly lower than 80%. The institutional patterning of ASC within traditional societies is reached within the sacred-religious realms.

With pre-literate societies, the identification of ASC and its place within ancient societies relies heavily on material finds. Gilead (2002), interprets horned anthropomorphs and geometric elements in southern Levant Chalcolithic assemblages as associated with activities of magicians, healers, saints, and/or secret societies. The prospect that ancient central Negev populations initiated ASC in their rituals is high. Therefore, the possibility that the central Negev rock art may reflect visions seen in ASC must be examined.

The rock art that has been classified as being associated with ASC is identified through entoptic designs, incorporation of natural formations of the rock, especially cracks and therianthrope images found in various panels. In ad dition, in shamanistic rock art, a relatively small number of animals predominate individual sites and whole regions. Antelope account for 51% of zoomorphs in San rock art while mountain sheep represent a similar percentage of all documented elements in the Coso region (Sauvet et al. 2009; Vinnicombe 1976:364).

Examining the central Negev rock art in search of examples which follow the ASC model, few surfaced. Of the eleven most common entoptic geometric designs seen in ASC (Lewis- Williams and Dowson 1988:Figure 1), four were found and categorized within the central Negev geometric repertoire. These include sets of parallel lines, grids, rings and marks.

312

Grids, multiple (four or more) parallel lines and rings present slightly over 1% of the Har Michia motifs and 3% of those documented at Giva’t HaKetovot. At both sites, marks (marks over an area, marks on the edge of the panel, cluster of marks and marks in natural depression or elevated area of the rock account for nearly 30% of all elements. These marks are usually unrelated to the rest of the elements on the panel. The rock edge was hammered many times, however cracks did not seem to play a role in the placement of the figures/marks on the panel.

From the 185 anthropomorphs documented at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot only two represent therianthropes. Element 33-182-2 (Fig. 176) has a head which may be interpreted as canine like. This figure is not related to other elements. The possibility that he elongated jaw is the result of an incapable hand cannot be discounted. Figure 176. Anthropomorph 33-182-2 (measuring 12X14 cm) with animal head.

A second and more obviously intended therianthrope is element 102-29-10 documented at Giva’t HaKetovot (Fig. 138). This element presented a horizontally rather than vertically (the direction of the other engraved elements, has two horns and, depending on the interpretation of the direction of the figure, a possible bird head. Other than the head, the figure is of a humanoid design. This therianthrope is surrounded by five animals representing four different species. The richness of the panel in elements, in clear relation to each other and to the anthropomorph, the large number of animal species, the quality of the engraved figures and the therianthrope, set this panel aside in meaning, time and effort invested. Panel 102-29 is situated at the northwestern perimeter of the hill and faces west. The mark maker was, therefore, facing the hill and was not overlooking the plain, suggesting that this panel was not

313 produced as a past time while watching over a herd or waiting for a gazelle to hunt. Elevated from the surrounding, the panel could be viewed by a large group standing below it and looking up. Whether presenting an ASC related occurrence or a deity (possibly Resheph, see chapter 3.1.), this panel is exceptional and is not typical of the rock art at Giva’t HaKetovot or the central Negev.

Concentrating on the zoomorphic motifs, the pattern found follows that of shamanistic rock art. One animal, the ibex, dominates the zoomorphic category. This is true for individual sites, i.e. Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot, as well as for the region (as is evident at Har Karkom).

To conclude, it is possible that some of the central Negev rock art was related to ASC though the majority of panels and elements do not support this notion. Shamanism and ASC is not the only context in which a specific animal species dominates (as will be detailed below) just as the predominance of a single species is not a necessary condition for shamanistic rock art (Sauvet et al. 2009).

3.4.5. Doodling

Doodles consist of visual imagery produced absent-mindedly. As doodling is an activity of secondary importance to the activity which occupies the person, the result, to a degree is derived from the subconscious. Taking the doodling of children that have not yet developed a culture specific style, it is clear that the imagery develops from a basic repertoire. This repertoire is similar to the entoptic imagery seen in ASC (Kellogg et al. 1965; Watson 2008). The similarities between the entoptic group and the imagery produced by doodling can be explained by the human nervous system and the structuring of the human visual system. Doodling has been identified as being a behavior which is consistent over time (Battles 2004; Watson 2008).

Rock art may be identified as the result of doodling based on ethnographic data (for example Dematté 2004) or based on the imagery, skill (Taçon 2008) and placement of the art within

314 the landscape (Jeffreys 1953). One argument against rock art being made absent mindedly in a similar way to doodling is the fact that marking of a hard surface demands control and hand-eye coordination, not characteristic of doodling (Hodgson 2006). This reasoning is valid though considering the most commonly engraved element in the central Negev, cluster of marks, marks on the panel edge, around natural depressions/elevations in the rock and single blows, it is more plausible that these marks do not fit into any pre-formulated design. Here, Hodgson’s (2008:51) definition of doodling is appropriate: “Doodling is more of an untidy business with less attention to the precise location of angles involving much overlap and disregard for the overall gestalt”. This description places many of the abstract elements of central Negev rock art (the A category) into the realm of doodling.

The recognition of doodling in the rock art context does not suggest rock art is meaningless; it simply places it with a context. Although the basic repertoire of doodles is similar to entoptic designs, doodles also reflect on the actual person (Battles 2004). Doodles may reflect an internal state, the structuring of the human visual system and/or the current situation incorporating external stimuli (Watson 2008). Thus, the act of engraving could start as an idle past time and develop within the same sitting into a meaningful image (Faulstich 2008). Likewise, the imagery resulting from doodles may reflect on the cultural setting of the mark maker (Watson 2008).

3.4.6. Totemism and Clan Emblems

Totemism is the definition of a clan through a common ancestral connection to an animal, plant, or natural phenomena (such as rain, lightning, thunder, wind, clouds and celestial related names such as moon, sun and constellations). Each clan has a different totem; clans of the same tribe do not share totems. In several societies, exogamy is followed by the totem. If the totem is transferred through the mother, then the social group will be formed of several different totems. In patrilineal-linear societies where children receive the fathers’ totem, only the totems of married women differ from the totem common to the rest of the clan (Durkheim 1965:124-127; Levi-Strauss 1963a:1-36).

315

Totems are usually derived from the animal and plant world. Consumption of the totem animal or plant may be totally forbidden or in any case will not serve for everyday food by the clan members (Durkheim 1965:150-153). Eating a totemic animal usually follows restrictions, including the required presence of all clan members at the time of the slaughter of the totemic animal. The slaughtered animal will then be served at a public feast and/or at a public sacrifice. This communal responsibility and presence in the killing and consumption of the totem by all kinsmen is an essential element in the union of the clan/tribe as well as an additional source of nutrition (Robertson Smith 2005:285-296). Partaking in a feast of a slaughtered sacrificed totem symbolizes the individual’s inclusion in and acceptance of the greater community that provides its members with safety and prosperity (Corbett 2010:147).

Totems are represented as emblems which become a type of “coats-of-arms”, being depicted on shields, helmets, and skins in North America. The totem may even be presented through the actual animal being stuffed and placed before the house. In the domestic realm, the totemic emblem may be on the exterior and/or interior walls of the dwelling (including tents), on the house posts, canoes, different utensils and tombs. In Australia, totemic emblems have been painted in rock shelters as an assertion of ownership of the site (Layton 1985). During festivals (and at times battle) the participants may wear garments representing their totem. The totemic emblem is also placed on the clan members. The resemblance to the totem may be through special haircuts and arrangements, body painting, body-mutilation, or tattoos (Durkheim 1965:140-162). Totemic emblems play an important part in ritual and sacred realm though it is important to point out that the totem animal is not worshiped per se. The totem is understood to be related through kinship rather than serving as a god. Sacred objects are distinguished from similar secular objects by having the totem drawn or engraved on them (Durkheim 1965:140-162). The representation of the totem is a form of expressing the virtues and strengths that create and enable tribal order (Corbett 2010:117). Among the Alawa of Australian Northern Territory, if a person were to wear another clan’s designs without permission, it would be as though he was stealing their ‘land and life’ (Layton 1985).

The totemic emblem does not always reflect the image of the totem. Among Australian aborigines, totemic emblems consist of geometric designs and straight and curved lines

316 organized in different ways. Men and women are generally represented by semi-circles, animals by whole circles or spirals and tracks of men and animals by lines of points. As a result, the different totemic emblems may have the same appearance (Durkheim 1965:148- 149).

Taking rock art from known Australian contexts, Sauvet et al. (2009) found that where animals functioned as clan totems, each animal species was present at a low proportion of sites examined. No specific animals were found to dominate the repertoire of a site or region. This distribution pattern reflects clans in which the totem is transferred through the mother. In patrilinear clans, we may expect a pattern comprised of specific animals dominating the zoomorphic repertoire.

To identify clan emblems of ancient tribes of the central Negev, we must first question whether the tribes residing in the Negev followed totemism as described above. Robertson Smith (1880) shows that Semitic sub-tribes of Arabia, Canaan, Judea and Israel originated in animal named tribes. The animal names seem to have developed from animal gods from which the tribe members believed to be the offspring. These animals, many of which are considered unclean animals such as dog, mouse and hyena, were not used as a regular food sources.

Assuming that the societies in Arabia and southern Levant originated from totemic based tribes, we will attempt to identify the central Negev rock art as totemic. Among the Edomite tribes, Dishan may translate to ibex (Robertson Smith 1880; Haim Cohen, personal communication). Though there is no evidence of laws prohibiting eating ibex, it is extremely difficult to hunt an ibex. According to Jewish law, the ibex is a clean animal and may be eaten as long as it is slaughtered according to tradition, i.e. first captured and only then slaughtered by sufficiently slicing the trachea and esophagus, (Shoshan 1963). Thus, although the ibex may be eaten, it probably was not consumed often due to the difficulty in capturing these animals alive. In regard to religious artifacts, ibex horns may be used as a shofar if horns of a ram are not obtainable.

There is no clear taboo against Muslim and pre-Islamic ibex consumption. In an observation of

317 an ibex hunt in the 20th century (which may reflect more ancient traditions), preparations prior to the hunt and the actual ibex hunt were accompanied by rituals and taboos tying ibex consumption to a ritual ibex hunt. The ritual hunt took place over several days after proper preparations. These included being granted permission to hunt, the visiting of sacred places, sacrificing a sheep, and the drinking of coffee after which the participants were forbidden to eat. Dancing and singing preceded and followed the hunt . When the ibex was killed, the men of the hunting party would cry-out “the old man is killed” passing on the message until word reached the village. The ibex may only be eaten if slaughtered traditionally. An animal which dies a natural death may not be eaten. The killed ibex was divided among the huntsmen who number up to 20 (Serjeant 1976: 45-59). This tradition of a ritual hunt was not carried out for obtaining food and may reflect the type of ceremony surrounding the killing and eating of a totem.

In support of the ibex – totem identification, we may point out that the traditions surrounding the consumption of ibex by Jews, Muslims, and pre-Islamic people (as detailed above) might fit with the rules of consumption of the totemic animal. As for the ibex petroglyphs fitting into the patterns outlined above based on totemic elements in Australian rock art, the ibex dominates the repertoire of the Central Negev and is not one of several animals detected in similar percentages. This pattern coheres with imagery (of totemic emblems) accepted in patrilinear societies. By the Late Bronze – Early Iron Age, patrilinear society existed in Israel (as reflected in the bible) (Friedman 1987:33; Robertson Smith 1880). Contradicting the ibex-totemic emblem identification is the fact that the ibex prevails not only at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot but also at Har Karkom (Anati and Mailland 2009:25). If the ibex is a clan emblem, then we would expect to see other animals at similar percentages (though probably in different sites) representing the emblem of other clans. Ibexes are not only common in the central Negev but also dominate the rock art in several other regions such as Oman, Yemen (El Mahi 2000), and Iran (Ghasrian 2007). To conclude, in ancient times, the ibex was adopted as a tribe name but the pattern of ibex distribution in the central Negev rock art does not support its use as a clan emblem. Additional interpretations related to the ibex are presented below.

Similar to the ibex, in antiquity, camels were tribal totems (Robertson Smith 2005:285-286;

318

Stetkevych 1993:39). Following Robertson Smith’s research and based on studies regarding camels in pre-Islamic poetry, especially female camels, Corbett (2010:117-148) proposed that camel representations in southern Jordanian rock art reflect a totemic belief system. Camel petroglyphs are found at each visited rock art site in the Negev and are not restricted to specific sites corresponding to a clan’s movement in the region. It is, therefore, unlikely that a clan would adopt an element such as the ibex or camel, commonly engraved by many people, as a specific identification mark. Additional interpretations related to the camel are presented below.

Following ethnographic data from Australia, the totemic emblem may be abstract composed of straight and curved lines organized in different ways (Durkhiem 1965:148-149). Based on analogy, knowing that totemic based tribes resided in the general region, it is possible that the totemic emblem was not zoomorphic but rather abstract, though identifying which abstracts may have been totemic emblems is, at present, impossible.

3.4.7. Territory and Boundary Marks

Tribal marks/emblems27 of Bedouins may be recognized through ethnography. Bedouin tribal markings, or signatures (wasm), are used in a similar fashion to the totemic emblems. Tribal markings drawn in the sand, made-up of stones or sticks, branded on animals, painted or engraved near or on wells, graves, ruins, menhires, dolmens, rocks, and incorporated into weaving of storage bags and tent dividers28 are related to Bedouin tribes from a wide geographic setting (Bates 1915; Bent and Bent 1900:369; C. R. C. 1883; Field 1931; Gennep 1902; Hilden 2010:49-53; Murray 1935:44; Wendrich 2008; Wilkinson 1977:187). These tribal marks, not related to totemism (as far as it is known, though little studied) do not seem to have developed from a religious prototype. The tribal markings are almost entirely made-up of abstract marks. These may consist of a single shape or a combination of geometric forms. Each tribal marking has a name; at times the name reflects the form of the marking such as “hump of a camel”, “beak

27 The difference between an abstract totemic emblem and an abstract tribal marking is that the term tribal marking is not dependent on a totemic belief system.

28 The incorporation of tribal markings in weaving may be a recent development related to sedentarization, see Hilden 2010:53.

319 of a flying bird”, “pillar”, “comb” etc. Why these specific shapes, objects and animal parts were chosen as a tribal marking is unknown. These marks may simply be after familiar objects (Khan 2000:17-18). Other marks bear names unrelated to the form of the tribal marking (Khan 2000:43- 47). It seems that the Bedouin tribal markings do not contain a particular meaning and are not associated with mythical or historical stories (Kahn 2000:17-20).

The Bedouin tribal markings serve as a means of transmitting information regarding movements of the tribe (or sub-tribal division), ownership of livestock, and claims over resources including pasture lands (Wendrich 2008). This is best explained through the following occurrence recorded by Field (1931): “We learnt that when a tribe passes a prominent landscape or group of wells, the tribal mark is hammered on a conspicuous stone to show that the tribe has passed that place. This is of value because two large tribes with their flocks of sheep and camels can never converge at the same watering place without serious bloodshed. As the tribe approaches the wells, scouts are sent forward to report on the situation. A recent Beni Sukhr wasm, together with the litter and refuse recently deposited by a herd of camels, would indicate that this tribe, having recently watered their camel at the wells, had moved to new pastures”.

The age of a wasm may be determined by comparing its patina color to the color of the hosting rock (into which it as engraved).

It remains unclear as to the size of the group associated with each ‘tribal” marking. Gennep (1902), traveling through Arabia, wrote that it is unclear whether the mark was by tribe, clan, paternal family or individual. Dickson (1951), who collected tribal markings in the early 20th century in Kuwait, found that all the tribes he encountered except `Awazim have: “dozens and dozens of different brands in accordance with the number of sections and subsections into which they are divided, or the number of shaikhs who think they ought to have their own special distinguishing marks for their camels” (1951:420).

311

Several of the abstract petroglyphs recorded in the Central Negev are recognized (based on ethnographic material) as tribal markings (Al-Aref 1937: 63-100; Ashkenazie 1957) (see more about the identification of abstract marks recorded as tribal markings in chapters 3.1. and 3.3.). Many times, these tribal markings are engraved in a simple form and are not emphasized in their placement, size or thickness of an engraved line. In a sense these marks are doodles and were not intentionally formed as “sign posts” of ownership. Shepherds doodling as a past time have been documented in Iran (Watson 1979:203) and Mongolia (Demattè 2004). As many of the tribal marks recorded in the Negev (especially those of the Azāzma still active in the area of Har Michia) seem to have originated from doodling and were not directly intended as ownership marks, they are spread throughout the tribe’s pastoral territory and are not placed strictly on the periphery, such as examples from north of Israel.

In addition to wasm markings, formal boundary stones are also known. In northern Israel several distinctly different examples of institutionalized Hellenistic-Roman boundary stones with Greek, Hebrew or bilingual (Hebrew/Greek) inscriptions have been found (Aharoni 1955; 1959; Barag 1988; Kessler 2011; Rosenfeld 1988; Syon and Hartal 2003). Some flat, horizontal stones with inscriptions seem to have served the community marking the boundary between two separately Sabbath) indicates the) שבת owned tracts of land (Rosenfeld 1988), or as a stone inscribed with eruv, the region in which Jews could travel on the Sabbath (Kessler 2011). Other vertical boundary stones of a standard size and formula were official village territory markers (Aharoni 1955; 1959; Barag 1988; Syon and Hartal 2003). These engravings of standard size and script placed on rocks and used as a boundary line exemplify the lack of organization behind the engraving of the wasm document in the central Negev.

Tribal marks may be used as ownership marks, but the engraving of a tribal mark may also serve as a strengthening bond between members of a social group (Khan 2000:20). The spatial distribution of tribal marks and their relationship to other marks may express the nature of their relationship to one another. Two tribal marks engraved at the same site or even on the same stone may express peaceful relations between tribes (Gennep 1902: Khan 2000:20). Examples of tribal markings reflecting the relation between tribes have been documented in several instances at Har Michia, though the identity of most of the markings and their reflective social group is unknown

311

(being more ancient than the Azāzma markings and not attributed to tribes residing in the region in present and recent past). In one case, the marks of two identifiable tribes (or sub-tribes) are engraved on the same panel. These are of the Janabib (of the Aldilam tribal confederation, element B7, Table 53 for reference) and the Azāzma tribe and confederation (elements C11 and C14). These two tribes presently reside peacefully in the area. The Janabib resided in the Negev before the Azāzma lost lands in tribal wars and were forced southwards (Bailey 1989, also see chapter 3.1. ). Janabib is a small tribe and therefore the weaker of the two (Bailey 1978). The relation between the two tribes, reflected in the engraving of their identifying marks, is clearly expressed in panel 33-159 (Fig. 177). Based on patina shades, the Janabib marking (33-159-25) was engraved first, followed by that of the Azāzma (33-159-21). This panel is covered by several other (at present unidentifiable) tribal marks.

Bedouin tribal marks may work as territory marks as the element engraved is identified with a group of people. There are two drawbacks with this form of identification. The first is the lack of data regarding the use of the tribal marking, the size of social group and the length of time a single marking remains in use. The second drawback is in the restricted area of the surveys. Both Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot are set within the Azāzma’s tribal territory, which covers the entire central Negev (Bar-Zvi and Ben-David 1978).

In essence, in accord with the emic outlook, any motif identified with a specific group may serve as an ownership marking, including zoomorphs, related or unrelated directly to totemism. The intent of the engraver may be unrelated to marking territory, though the moment an element can be identified by both affiliated and unaffiliated people as belonging to a certain group, then a territorial mark is formed. This point is especially important in relation to the doodling of shepherds as a shepherd will only engrave his own (tribal) mark and will graze only within his own pasture land. It may be argued that a tribal mark will not stop an invader and does not qualify legally as a document but, nonetheless, the end product of the shepherd’s presence in the field develops an effective meaning which cannot be ignored.

312

Figure 177. Panel 33-159 (measuring 71X94 cm) with tribal marks. The Azāzma tribal marking is indicated by a ring to the right. The Janabib marking is indicated by the ring to the left.

313

3.4.8. Initiation Rituals

Some of the world rock art has been identified as being related to rites of passage (Whitley 2000:28; Zubieta 2010:254-298). The passage of an individual from one age group to another and from one occupation to another is accompanied by special acts or rites (Gennep 1960:3). Initiation rites are practices for both sexes and are found within both hunter-gatherer and agricultural based economies. It has been reported that these rites tend to reach maximal expression in relatively small-scale, stable societies (Gennep 1960:66; Turner 190:93; Zubieta 2010:99-101). A number of rites such as those related to pregnancy and child birth, or coming of age (sexually and/or socially) include separation and, at times, seclusion from the social group. In this transitional period, the individual or group initiated may be instructed, subjected to dietary taboos, and restricted in movements and people with whom they may come contact. The transitional period may last for a period ranging between a few days and several months (Cohen 1964:103-119; Gennep 1960:41-49).

The role of art (sculptured figurines, wall paintings, floor paintings, floor moldings, body decorations and rock art) in initiation rites has been studied in detail in south-central Africa. There it was found that the figures (unrelated to the medium employed) served as a form of instruction, with different figures and colors holding information to be transferred to the initiated (Zubieta 2010:164-243). Rock art sites related to initiation rites were found to be at a distance from settlements. The location of the shelters and the superimposition of images and designs, sometimes numbering in the hundreds, suggest a very specific and repeated use of these places as secret ritual places (Zubieta 2010:100). In California, some rock art has been identified as having being produced as part of girls’ initiation into womanhood. These sites, distanced from the settlements, contained pictographs similar to designs painted on the girls’ faces during the ceremony. The designs, in the shape of diamond chains and zigzag motifs, represent rattlesnakes, visions of the initiate’s spirit helpers (Hays-Gilpin 2004:117-126; Whitley 2000:86-101).

In the Polynesian islands, based on ethnology, vulva petroglyphs are understood to be related to “coming of age clitoris stretching ceremonies”. The petroglyphs were made by priests after

314 inspecting the initiated girls (Hays Gilpin 2004:165-168).

In southern Jordan, petroglyphs of female camels accompanied by north Arabian script (placing them within the Roman Era) have been related to initiation rites (Corbett 2010:140). This connection is reinforced by symbolism used in pre-Islamic poetry. For instance,: the female camel was the preferred riding animal used by males of pastoral tribes. The depiction of the female camel could then present a luminal rite of passage when the rider is separated from his fellow clan and tribe members. It has been suggested that the female camels express the transition the rider is experiencing from adolescent to adulthood. The initiate’s journey alone in the harsh arid desert, accompanied only by his camel, may be seen as parallel to the soul’s journey after death (Corbett 2010:140). This interpretation, proposed for Roman Era Jordanian camel petroglyphs, relies heavily on pre-Islamic Arabian poetry (post dating the petroglyphs by roughly 500 years). These writings offer a unique insight on tribal life through the use of metaphors.

Fossati (2007), studying rock art of the Valcamonica region in the Italian Alpes, suggested that much of the Iron Age rock art portrays initiation related scenes and symbols. These elements include dueling, horse-riding, balancing feats, racing, dancing armed and deer hunting. At times, the deer hunting scenes do not include a representation of the actual hunter. Groups of deer stags, according to Fossati (2007), could similarly symbolize groups of initiates. Small sized foot prints are understood by Fossati as corresponding to the young age of the engravers.

Following Fossati’s literal readings of rock art, by which the size of engraved foot/sandal print represents the true foot size, we could recognize the Har Michia recorded foot prints as belonging to individuals of the following age groups29 (Table 57).

29 Sizes are based on the size of the petroglyph in centimeters and compared to a shoe sizes table (such as http://worth-yourlove.blogspot.com/2011/04/shoe-size-chart.html).

315

No. of foot/sandal prints Age 1 infant 11 under 6-7 14 adolescent males or adult females 6 adult males Table 65. Har Michia foot print sizes and age sets.

There is nothing within the central Negev rock art to support literal readings of the engraved elements. There is also no supporting data by which to identify any of the engraved elements as related initiation rites. Coming of age rites are not practiced among the modern Bedouins of the Negev and Sinai.

As the examples presented above show, rock art produced in relation to passage rites does not follow a specific pattern. The rock art may be made prior to or as part of the ritual. The images may be made for the initiates, by the initiates or of the initiates. The imagery may be in accordance with the gender of the initiate (vulvas), or symbols associated with the opposite sex (rattlesnakes). The imagery employed in south-central Africa is, in modern eyes, entirely asexual. Without relevant ethnographic data, images related to initiation rituals were interpreted as mythological characters, cosmology and totemic animals (Zubieta 2010:101). At present, it seems that the only common denominator between the three examples is the distance between the rock art and the habitation sites. Thus, to assess whether some of the central Negev rock art is related to initiation rites, the only valid criteria is distance to habitation sites. The research conducted on the relation between rock art and rites of passage (i.e. Hays-Glipin 2004; Whitley 2000; Zubieta 2010) do not specify what the actual distance is between the living site and the rock art site. Even if the distance was specified and consistent between societies (which is highly unlikely), without a detailed chronology it is impossible to know where the mark makers of each engraving phase lived in relation to the recorded rock art. In addition, as noted in chapters 2.2. and 2.3., a number of structures interpreted as habitat sites were found adjacent to engraved rock outcrops, negating this direction of interpretation.

316

3.4.9. Mythical and Historic Accounts

Rock art panels around the world are sometimes interpreted as representing historic/mythical or mystical events (Berengum and Martinez 1989; Keyser 1979; Klassen 1998; Layton 1995; Molyneaux 1989; Ross 2001; Schaafsma 1989; Smith and Van Schalkwyk 2002). The reference to the event may take two forms. The first is through the portrayal of a narrative, expressed through integrated scenes (Klassen 1998). In Australia, South Africa and America post contact biographic panels are accompanied by dates and inscriptions, thus referring to a specific happening that was documented (Molyneaux 1989). The second form of reference to historic/mythical or mystical events is through symbolism. Certain motifs and/or motif combinations may serve as a type of shorthand record of myths or ceremonies (Schaafsma 1989). Naturally, this form of interpretation is deeply interwoven with other forms of interpretation, as myth and ritual are not always separable and much depends on the context in which the art was made. For example, a panel might be a narrative expression of a shamanistic, ASC experience. If the panel were painted as part of the ASC, then each stage of image making is imbued with significance. If the art was made post hoc to the ASC occasion then it served an illustrative function (Solomon 2008). We may argue that even ASC related art after their making become a historical account.

Some rock art panels of the Negev have been interpreted as relating mythical and historical events. Rothenberg (1972:119-124) understood Panel 2 from Timna, with a detailed scene of chariots manned with battle-axe brandishing charioteers as representing a processional array with cultic or magic related significance. Rothenberg’s interpretation is, on part, based on the fact that the panel is securely dated to the Late Bronze Age and, thus, set into a cultural setting in time and place. Anati (1993:65), in relation to Har Karkom petroglyphs, saw many panels as “referring to mythological epics, some of which show similarities to biblical narrations”. The panels that Anati identifies from Har Karkom as related to mythological and possible biblical narrations may be considered minimalistic symbolic representations. They are static depictions of a limited number of elements and are at present non-dateable (Fig. 178). No evidence can, at present, support any connection between the biblical narrative and the rock art of Har Karkom.

317

Figure 178. Camel and ibex from Har Karkom. Scale is 25 cm.

Figure 179. Panel 7-26 coupling scene (female - element 7-26-1, measuring 10X22 cm and male - element 7-26-2, measuring 9X23 cm) roughly indicated through black line added with photoshop.

Few of the recorded panels from the Central Negev present elements in clear relation to one another to form scenes. The scenes recognized are of hunting and combat. One example of coupling (panel 7-26, Fig. 179) and one birthing scene (panel 101-3, Fig. 97) were noted. These panels, in theory, may reflect a historical or mythical account, with possible more in-depth meanings beyond storytelling, though to what end, is at present unknown and debatable.

318

3.4.10. Expressions of Adoration

The term employed here, expressions of adoration, is a general term intended to include depictions of deities, animals of special significance and the act of worship. The question of how to differentiate between an animal or anthromorph depicted as part of a cultic act, or whether the image as a domestic or mundane use, has been embarked upon. For example Renfrew (1985:2) asks: “How, for instance, does one recognize the archaeological evidence of religious behavior, of cult practice, for what it is? On what grounds, for instance, is on pit, with animal bones and a few artifacts, dismissed as domestic refuse, while another is seen as a ritual deposit with evidence of sacrifice? In what circumstances shall we regard small terracotta representations of animals and men as figurines, intended as offerings to the deity, and when shall we view them as mere toys for the amusement of children?”

Attempting to answer these and related questions Renfrew (1985:17) observed that “The sacred area for practice of ritual is likely to be a place apart, associated with prescribed observances and proscriptions, with special requirements of purity and attendant risks of pollution”.

Expanding on these observations, Renfrew notes 18 correlations which, some if not all, would apply to public/communal acts of worship. He follows these observations with three steps through which to analyze prehistoric religion. Of the 18 correlations two may be applied, although vaguely, to certain elements of the central Negev rock art. Renfrew’s points 13: “the sacred area is likely to be rich in repeated symbols (redundancy)” (Renfrew 1985:19). and 14: “The symbols used will often relate iconographically to the deities worshipped and to their associated myth. In particular specific animal symbolism (of real or mythical animals) may be employed, particular animals relating to specific deities or powers.” (Renfrew 1985:19)

319

Renfrew (1985:24) proposes three steps for recognition which are summarized as follows: Step 1. The identification of a cult assemblage. Step 2. Recognition within the cult assemblage of certain specific symbols as carrying a religious meaning. Step 3. The use of those symbols to identify as ritual or sacred other contexts whose cult status might not otherwise be evident.

Based exclusively on the documented material, it is, at present, not possible to identify the elements belonging to or forming a cult assemblage (i.e. Step 1). Step 2 on the other hand, helps highlight ibex, orant anthropomorphs, anthropomorphs on animal backs, and foot and sandal prints as holding a possible sacred meaning. The problem that may arise here is that Step 2 is based almost entirely on imagery which originated in sedentary agriculture and urban settings. This is the result of the number of excavations conducted in urban rather than rural sites. But more importantly, it is due to the character of finds recovered from rural and seasonal pastoral sites. It is possible that a single individual or a group of people, a sect could have developed a private ritual with accompanying imagery. Without textual evidence, we will not be able to identify any short lived, place specific traditions.

Following interpretations for ibex, orant anthropomorphs, anthropomorphs on backs of animal, and foot and sandal prints will be offered based on the use of these images in other, ritual related contexts. Then an attempt at outlining a pattern through which to understand the male ibex petroglyphs is offered.

3.4.10.1. Ibexes

Ibexes have been part of the visual repertoire of the sedentary northern Negev imagery from as early as the Chalcolithic period. Ibexes form a central and recurring motif in the Nahal Mishmar finds (Bar-Adon 1980: 24, 44, 100), a hoard most likely originating from and consisting of a local temple’s treasury (Moorey 1988). Horned animals and horned anthropomorphs adorn Chalcolithic ossuaries (Milevski 2002). The finding of ibex imagery in a ritual and funerary

321 context enforces the identification of ibex (and horns) as part of the period’s religious symbolism (Renfrew1985:19).

In Early Bronze Age, ibex imagery continued to be in use. The fact that the ibex continued to be a rich symbolic image can be seen through cylinder seals presenting scenes of feeding the ‘holy herd’ (Ben-Tor 1992) and horned anthropomorphs in a ‘ritual dance’. Ibex are also found on basalt bowls of the period (Amiran 1989).

From the Middle Bronze Age IIb through the Persian period, ibexes are presented on seals, ornaments, and vessels in a range of forms. In one example, a Late Bronze Age plaque presents a woman pregnant with twins, wearing a crescent shaped pendent and with a mature male ibex within/on each thigh. The most common ancient representation, depicted to this day, is that of an ibex flanking a tree, either with or without a clear association to a female deity and/or a lion (Ornan 2008).

Ben-Tor (1977), Keel and Uehlinger (1998:19), Miroschedji (1993), Ornan (2009), and Seger (1973), have speculated on the ibex symbolized in the Chalcolitic-Early Bronze Age. They see the ibex as representing virility, strength and power, a mythological figure, or a goddess. With these interpretations in mind, horned anthropomorphs may be understood as an evocation of a divinity, clergy presented in ritual context, or related to a rain making ritual. The context of the Late Bronze Age tree flanked by mature male ibexes places the ibex within the sacred imagery and associated with a female deity (Ornan 2008). Whether this identification may be transferred to all ibex imagery or even if it holds for all ibexes flanking trees in the discussed period is unknown.

Keel and Uehlinger (1998:19-20), Milevski (2002) and Miroschedji (1993) found the ibex, from the Chalcolithic through the Late Bronze Age, to be associated with female deities, water, milk production , and fertility. If some of the ibex petroglyphs fit with this interpretation, the contrast between the clearly male animals and the representation of a female deity is of interest. The representation of conflicting or opposed characteristics within deities follows several examples from Ancient Near East religions (though may not be true for the desert region religions).

321

Dualism is expressed through gods and goddesses controlling or representing both good and evil, fertility and war, death and resurrection, and male and female (Green 2003:282; Kilmer 2000; Smart 1998:196-223). Interestingly, when an attempt was made to develop a herd of hornless goats in our modern society, it became apparent that there is a genetic link between hornless goats with sterility (French 1970:189). The details of this oddity would not have been known as a scientific fact in ancient times, but might have been discovered as an empirical relation, forming a positive relation between the existence of horns and fertility.

Ibex imagery in Egypt may be seen in a number of ways according to the context. The tail of an ibex presented as an Egyptian uraeus may symbolize defense and protection. In a different context, Keel (1995:197) and Uehlinger (1998:82) see the ibex image as a metaphor used to depict hostile mountain dwellers. Here, animals play the role of humans, describing other people and tribes (Kent 1989:14)

Slightly more geographically distant, central plateau Iran ibex figurines and ceramics decorated with ibex forms have been interpreted by Haghighat and Sa’Doddin (2010) as representing the Capricorn constellation. Reconstructing the Capricorn constellation alignment with the beginning of autumn in the Chalcolithic period, they suggest that this stood behind the Mesopotamian and Egyptian festivals celebrated in autumn. This they propose was part of a transition of the ibex from serving as a totem to its being integrated as a god in pagan polytheistic religions.

Based on the form of the ibex’s horns, Berggren (2004) made a connection between the ibex and Sin, the Lunar god. Concentrating on the rings, Sala and Deom (2011) suggested that the ibex provided a form of counting solar years. Referring to the solar cycle, horns could then serve as a generator and regenerator of life. A connection between the ibex and the sun can be reinforced by the behavior of the ibex itself. Throughout the day, the ibex absorbs solar energy to prevent cold stress from the cold desert nights. In Sinai, ibexes were documented to follow the sun’s path throughout the day. The ibex started foraging on the eastward facing slopes in the morning, moving with the sun, and by evening the ibexes were found on the southwestern slopes (Baharav and Meiboom 1982). Which of these conflicting interpretations (Lunar or Solar deities), if either,

322 reflect the emic meaning imbedded in the ibex image is questionable.

In Mesopotamia and the Near East, the ibex is an attribute of Apsû, a divinity of underground water (Jacobsen 1976:111). The ibex, in contrast to the gazelle which receives all its water needs from vegetation, depends on daily water (Paz and Eshbol 1991:229-263). The ibex’s ability to find water in the harsh desert environment would then also serve human needs. In other words, if the ibex is about, there must be water in the region, thus making it hospitable for human occupation.

In south-western Arabia, there is a long history of ritual ibex hunting (as briefly presented above under the Totem subhead, Beeston 1948; Corbett 2010:173; Serjeant 1976). These hunts were necessary to ensure an adequate amount of rainfall to irrigate the crops. Evidence of this comes from pre-Islamic inscriptions, poems, and a tradition which was still practiced in the 20th century. One poem as is follows “ if no game is taken, there will be a lack of rains, high prices, and already his dates have become dried up” (Serjeant 1976:76-77).

Interestingly, the Arabian ibex hunt concentrated on mature male ibex (as does the rock art). The hunters regretted the killing a female ibex accidently (Serjeant 1976:22).

Summarizing the interpretations of ibex images in the Near East, the ibex is associated with power, fertility, water, milk and cosmology and represents clergy or a deity. These interpretations are basic elements of nature and include a series of opposed identifications. None of the above interpretations are textually based nor are conformed by other clear strands of data. Looking at the ibex image in a geographical context, it has also been used as representing an ethnos. Taking these interpretations at face value, they represent an urban religion, tradition and iconography. The ibex was clearly an important iconographic element in the desert regions though what meaning it held in these regions is open to speculation.

323

The possible sanctity of some central Negev ibex petroglyphs is expressed as follows: - Ibex placed in association with an ithyphallic orant figure (panels 33-204-3, Fig. 68; 41- 20-5, Fig. 70, additional orant/ ibex combinations were seen at Har Karkom [Anati 2001:142], see also Hecht 2009). - An orant figure flanked by ibex (panel 33-180, Fig. 180) - Ibexes facing each other (panel 101-24, Fig. 181) (several examples of this composition were seen at Har Karkom). Ibexes facing each other may represent the same composition as that of the intentionally missing deity (see for example the intentional void in Ornan 2008) - An orant figure standing on the back of an ibex (or horned ungulate as the animal cannot explicitly be identified as an ibex) (101-99-1, Fig. 182). - Ibex in association with foot/sandal (panel 33-125, Fig. 69, additional examples come from Har Karkom [Anati 2001:143]). - Ibex – Dog or Ibex – Predator combinations may also have a religious meaning (Uzi Avner personal communication; Gebel and Mahasneh 2009, Fig. 40, 62, 90, 96 and 97).

Figure 180. Orant (element 33-180-3, measuring 10X13.5 cm) flanked by horned ungulates (element 33-180-2, measuring 8X10 cm, and element 33-180-4, measuring 7.5X8 cm).

324

Figure 181. Two ibexes facing each other (element 101-24-2, measuring 13X13 cm and element 101-24-4, measuring 10.5X11 cm).

Figure 182. Orant (element 101-99-1, measuring 8X11 cm) standing on the back of an ibex (element 101-99-2, measuring 6X11 cm).

325

The semantics of these panels have no direct parallels in other Ancient Near Eastern media. In addition: - Orant figures and ibex appear on cylinder seals but never in clear association where the orant faces the ibex, as documented in the present material. No examples of ithyphallic orant and ibex combinations are found in the relevant literature. - Ibex and gazelle in pairs or in herds are found on seals though, there, the animals are either all facing the same direction or are set crouching, facing opposite directions with their head turned back towards the second animal (see for example Collon 1975:Plate 41). - Figures standing on horned ungulates have a number of parallels. Similar New Kingdom examples of anthropomorphs standing on horned (interpreted as gazelle or antelope) animals have been recognized as deities. The identification of this deity include Egyptian Resheph, Canaanite Mekal, Ba’al/Seth and Hittite Hadad, all male deities (Dabrowski 1991; Keel 1995:209-210). It is interesting to note that the arms of the New Kingdom deity examples are along the body and not raised, as are the arms of the Giva’t HaKetovot example.

These examples point towards the fact that the desert did not directly mirror the northern sedentary agricultural religious compositions. The panels with ibex and orant, ibex and foot prints, ibex followed by a predator and ibex facing each other are few in number. The iconography employed in these few examples indicate the ibex (in these specific panels) as being sacred or related to the sacred realm (serving as an attribute). Style and iconography point towards the possibility that all of the above listed panels are from a single period of the Timnian Culture (roughly dating to the Early Bronze Age). Identifying the ibex as being related to the sacred realm is supported by the fact that the ibex did not serve as the main food staple in the mark maker’s economy (see chapter 3.1.). The mark makers’ did not represent their prey, but they also did not portray the natural animalscape. Instead they represented a motif of the mindscape (following Gebel and Mahasneh’s terminology 2009). The sanctity of the ibex, as shown through the feeding of the holy herd, as an attribute of Apsû or as representing the Lunar/Solar god are interpretations derived from the Mesopotamian pantheon and iconography (though it seems that the connection between the ibex and the moon god was wide spread and not confined to Mesopotamia [Hect 2009; Serjeant 1976:6, 36, 74]). If we accept these

326 interpretations, then the ibex serves as a symbol for a northern connection. Northern culture could infiltrate the desert through gateway communities such as Arad (Cohen 1999:73). Taking the Early Bronze settlements of the Negev as an example, it is known that trade with the north took place (Rosen 2002a, 2009). Through this contact the desert population could have been exposed to and influenced by different spiritual beliefs related to the ibex. It is unknown to what degree the desert dwellers’ pantheon was influenced by northern, eastern or western cultures. Weakening this theory is the fact that no ibex related imagery has been found at Arad (Beck 1984). Ibexes, or capriods in association with a tree, one of the most commonly depicted scenes relating horned ungulates in northern Palestine (Keel and Uehlinger 1998:56, 186; Ornan 2008) is missing in Negev rock art. Another argument dismissing a foreign influence is that certain beliefs and understandings such as the association between ibex and water are cross cultural and did not necessarily originate from a single source (see for example cross cultural associations with the spotted hyena [Kilmer 2000]). This would mean that the ibex held certain meanings in the spiritual realm of both the urban and desert dwellers belief systems. These may or may not have originated from a single source, and may or may not have had common meanings. The iconography suggests that the deities worshiped in central Negev and portrayed in rock art differed from those of the urban centers.

The ibex presented in a ritual/spiritual realm cannot project a similar meaning and interpretation to the ibex associated with orant figures and foot/sandal prints. Some isolated ibex and some groups of ibex dating to roughly the same period may represent deities or serve as attributes but this has yet to be proven. Looking at the ibex in accordance with patina shade and engraving phase, it is clear that the above examples represent a defined time period (possibly related to the Early Bronze Age). Within later period engravings it seems that the ibex held additional/other meanings.

3.4.10.2. Orant

Orant figures are found within the imagery of European Upper Paleolithic mobile art through Pre-Dynastic Period Egypt, though in the Southern Levant it is only with Early Bronze Age that a connection between the orant stance and ritual can be made (Amiran 1972; Beck 1995b; Beit-

327

Arieh 2003:425; Ben-Tor 1977; 1991; Garfinkel 2003:118-231; Maringer 1979; Yakar 1989; 1991:119). From the Arad Early Bronze Age stele and later Mesopotamian, Syrian and Iranian cylinder seals (Collon 1987:152-153; Garfinkel 2003:276-289) it is clear that humans with upraised arms present dancing, praying individuals, or an indication of an epiphany (Garfinkel 2003:32; Maringer 1979; Renfrew 1985:23; Schwarz 1983; Westenholz 2000:116). Orant is identified as a position of prayer in the Bible, in 7th century BCE Persian and later Greek, Roman and Christian literature. Extending one’s arms and elevating the eyes towards heaven is an external expression of devotion (Hunnicutt 1967:22-26). The exact meaning of the orant stance may differ with the setting and religion. In funerary contexts, the uplifted arms may reflect prayer for one’s self, for a deceased, or to a God asking for deliverance, giving thanks or expressing faith (Kirby 1972:42-52). In Christian contexts, the orant indicates the pleading and quest for salvation (once practiced daily with the reading of Mass) while in its pagan origin it could be giving praise or thanksgiving, intensifying the sense of communication between two (Hunnicutt 1967:22-26). The Orant stance may be a form of representing a person’s soul (Kirby 1972:46). The upraised arms (especially with enlarged hands and fingers – a combination not found in the documented material) may be warding off evil.

Figures with up-raised arms may be an image of a god radiating divine protection, or signifying the transformation of spiritual strength (Giedion 1962:117-122; Monson 2000). The actual stance with feet rooted in the ground and arms upraised and palms open to the heavens transforms the figure from simply human to a connecting rod between heaven and earth (Schwarz 1983).

It is known that within Roman (pre-Christian) iconography the orant figure represented Pietas, a personification of the goddess of dutifulness especially towards parents, country and benefactors. The roman orant was always a female figure, representing patriotism, kindness and compassion. These orant representations, when on Roman Age tombs, did not represent the deceased as their intent was to convey the meaning of a virtue rather than an individual. With the rise of Christianity, the orant posture was used in relation to themes dealing with faith and deliverance. By the fourth century CE, recognizable saints began to take form as orants. Likewise, funerary orant images were rendered in a more personalized fashion, representing the individual (Kirby 1972:42-52). In the Byzantine period, the orant was used in religious scenes such as Daniel in

328 the lion’s den or Mary with child, as well as less clearly interpreted images such as figurines of “dancers” (Elgabish 1969; Schiller 1971: figure 2; Westenholz 2000:116-131).

Several (n=44) of the central Negev anthropomorph petroglyphs are with up-raised arms. The Negev orant figures may differ from the examples and interpretations above both chronologically and culturally. As for a more precise understanding and interpretation of these figures, little can be added.

3.4.10.3. Anthropomorphs Standing on the Back of an Animal

Figurines, cylinder seals, painted pottery and plaques presenting anthropomorphs standing and sitting (enthroned) on the back of crouching, sitting and standing animals are interpreted, based on the context, as deities (Collon 1987:164-165; Givon 2002; Ornan, 2006; Tadmor 1981; Yakar 1991:117-119). These deities are usually presented frontally while the animal is in profile. The animal on which the anthropomorph is placed may be a bull (Ornan 2006), crocodile (Ben-Tor 1997), horse (Cornelius 1994:209; Lewis 2005), lion (Givon 2002; Collon 1972), panther (Smith 1961), stag (Collins 2005:35 figure 2.9; Yakar 1991:117), or a mystical animal (Collon 1987:168 no. 786). It has been proposed that anthropomorphs standing on bulls represented the male storm god, while female deities were associated with lions and horses. This division may be true in concept but several exceptions have been noted (Cornelius 2004:78; Ornan 2006).

Six of the anthropomorphs documented at Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot are presented on the back of animals. None of these are placed on bull or lion backs. Four images seem to fit in with the equid group of female deities. It should be noted that none of the six documented anthropomorphs are clearly male. It is possible that anthropomorphs on the back of animals represent a foreign urban iconography. If this is so, panel 101-99 (fig. 182) represents an example combining this “foreign” or imported imagery with local beliefs. This element combines a standing anthropomorph with a horned ungulate, possible an ibex. This image reinforces the identification of the ibex as a symbol embedded with cultural and/or religious meaning. Whether this single example represents a widely known local deity or is a hybrid of local and foreign iconography cannot be answered.

329

3.4.10.4. Foot and Sandal Prints

Foot and sandal prints engraved in bedrock, on pavement or roofing slabs, or depicted in mosaic floors present variable meanings. The meaning of these prints is first and foremost understood by the setting and context. Whether the prints come from a sanctuary or a secular setting determines the possible interpretations to be considered. As pointed out above, the central Negev petroglyphs do not seem to be restricted to either secular or sacred realms, as such all possible and relevant interpretations for foot and sandal prints will be reviewed. Several of the interpretations reviewed below are unsuitable for the central Negev documented foot print petroglyphs. They are included to present the range of meanings attached to the foot element.

Single or pairs of foot/sandal prints in sanctuaries may represent the deity, priest or worshiper. The intended persona may be identified by accompanying attributes such as size and placement of the print or an inscription. Footprints facing the sanctuary entrance are interpreted as representing the presence of the residing deity and mark the sacredness of the place (Achrati 2008; Dunbabin 1990; Guarducci 1942). Larger than life prints entering the sanctuary or facing the entrance also represent deities (Dunbabin 1990; Monson 2000). Stepping within over-sized foot prints could convey to the pilgrim a feeling of connection with the divinity (Takács 2005). Depicting footprints may be a way of depicting a god while respecting the ban of portraying its image (Verner 1973:15). In North African sanctuaries, footprints placed in front of a cult statue had specific ritual functions, indicating to the initiate where to stand. Likewise footprints may indicate to a visitor how to walk into the cella, for example, both feet together, left foot and then right foot. In this way they insure that the right foot will be the first to touch the cella (Dunbabin 1990; Takács 2005).

Life size prints may be engraved by clergy or worshipers. The placement of the engravings and accompanying inscriptions may assist in differentiating between the two. In Egypt, roofing blocks of several temples are covered by engravings made by clergy (Jacquet-Gordon 2003). Foot/sandal prints of worshipers and higher ranking clergy may have been votive dedications, or tokens of reverence. The prints might commemorate a pilgrimage or a wish for a successful return home (Dunbabin 1990; Nevo 1989; Takács 2005). Engraving a print may represent a

331 permanent presence of the worshiper near the deity whose protection they sought. Foot/sandal prints on the threshold may be a way of expressing the ritual of removal of shoes before entering. When prints face east, they may be interpreted as evidence of, or related to, a solar cult or deity (Verner 1973:16-23). Foot prints may themselves be a symbol of sanctity (Negev 1971).

Foot/sandal prints on thresholds convey a wish for safe passage in and out of a structure. If only the right foot is engraved then the engraving might have indicated that the threshold should be crossed with the right foot (Dunbabin 1990). Foot/sandal prints may have been marked as memorial signs at camping and living sites (Khan 2008).

Feet are symbols of good luck and good omen. Engraving a foot or sandal print may be a wish for prosperity and success in life (Dunbabin 1990). Foot prints may also be a form of signature, expressing the individuality of a person and its existence on the given spot. Feet are considered to be a characteristic and distinguishing sign. Foot/sandal prints thus may be ownership marks (Kaper and Willems 2002; Rahmani 1980; Verner 1973:13, 47). Other interpretations offered include foot/sandal prints as representing ritual offering for the dead and symbolizing the afterlife (Achrati 2008), a symbol of victory over foreign armies (Verner 1973:15), an indication of means of payment (Achrati 2003), a symbol of cosmic importance connecting man to the universe (Achrati 2003) and as a phallic object and symbol of fertility (Achrati 2008).

In the central Negev rock art, we may recognize a number of possible meanings invested in the foot/sandal prints. Based on association, we may say that if orant figures are related to sanctity and a number of orant figures are associated with the ibex, then foot prints related to the ibex (element no. 33-125-3, Fig. 64) also indicate sanctity (for an example from Har Karkom see Anati 1993:63). This reasoning suffices only for recognizing the meaning of element 33-125-3 as related to ritual.

A single six toed foot print (element 18-20-80, Fig. 55) fits with foot prints serving as a distinguishing mark of an individual. The remainder of foot/sandal prints are neither over sized nor placed in any defined sacred realm, thus point away from their being interpreted as representing a deity. The prints are orientated in all directions and therefore cannot, as a group,

331 relate to a specific belief system or direction of prayer. As such, the foot/sandal prints seem to belong to the secular sphere with the options of related meanings such as an omen of good luck, the wish for a safe journey, identity marking and ownership.

3.4.11. Changing Economies Redefine Gender Roles – the ibex petroglyphs of the Early Bronze Age

Looking at the data from the documented and visited sites of the present research, it is apparent that wild animals dominate the zoomorphic category of the central Negev. There is no evidence that this rock art was made by hunter-gatherers. On the contrary, the rock art seems to have been a phenomenon which developed after the domestic goat and herding were introduced into the central Negev and, thus, is the art of herd based society (see chapter 3.1.). Wild zoomorphic iconography dominating imagery by societies sustained by domestic herds is not unusual; see for example sedentary agro-herd based Pre-Pottery Neolithic Catalhöyük (Cauvin 2000:28-32; Russell and Meece 2005:106), Ain Ghazal (Cauvin 2000:106), and Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age sedentary agro-herd based Tall Hujayrat al-Ghuzlan (Schmidt 2009). With the slow transformation from hunter-gatherers to herding, several changes took place. These are related to human cognitive understanding of wild versus domestic animals, changes in use and perception of the landscape, and division of labor indicating new gender roles. It is suggested that the dominance of male ibex petroglyphs in the Early Bronze Age Central Negev is a reflection of these changes. Next, changes brought on by domestication are presented. The section concludes with a proposed reason and meaning for the Early Bronze Age ibex petroglyphs.

3.4.11.1. Domestication

With the Neolithic revolution, the dependence of humans on wild life was redefined. With the first stages of domestication, livestock is confined and must be cared for. In the Negev, this change is identified through the adoption of the “pen and attached room architecture” (Rosen 2008). The herd is either taken out to pasture or provided with food in other manners. With the increase in herd size (most likely a later phase of herding) a need to pasture animals further afield would have developed and encouraged part of the population to move out into the steppes

332 and deserts for the spring and early summer. The ability to rely on milk from the herd would have provided the shepherds with an opportunity to stay in remote areas for longer periods of time (Martin 2000).

Domestication altered animal size and livestock composition. If a domestic goat herd is intended mainly as a meat source, then slaughter age is within the first three and a half years (Martin 2000). Ethnography shows that 50% of animals born each year (principally male) are sold or slaughtered. Once a male has reached the age of two years, further investment of food or time yields little additional return (Wenke 1984). Dairy herds consist almost entirely of female animals, with male goats culled before reaching maturity. Domestic female animals are usually hornless as well as reduced in size in comparison to similarly aged males (Wenke 1984:166). Wild herds of mature males will differ from domestic ones in composition, physical size and the existence of horns.

3.4.11.2. Man’s Perception of Wild versus Domestic Animals

Domestic animals are animals which man, through selective slaughtering, castration and mating and penning (isolating a number of animal and limiting the gene pool), has caused an alteration in the genetic composition and behavioral and phenotypic attributes of the animal (Wenke 1984:165-166). With domestication, man has become the caregiver of the livestock, controlling reproduction, assuring adequate pasture and water as well as protection from predators. Human control over domesticated animals resulted in a fundamental change in human life, including the spiritual realm.

Ingold (1987:247-255) stated that wild animals are regarded as manifestations of an essential type of spirit soul termed the animal ‘master’ or ‘guardian’. The animal ‘master’ is of a higher order than the animal charges, representing the collective form of an animal species. In societies that have no domestic livestock, humans and animals are seen as being on the same level, being equal to one another. Animals are perceived as having intellectual capabilities that are similar to or even above those of humans (Kent 1989:11-13). The animal world often represents creatures with magical or superhuman potencies (Ingold 1987:245). Common themes in mythology

333 consist of animals teaching humans customs, skills and knowledge necessary for survival. Plants do not share these traits which humans and animals have in common (hallucination plants differ from those defined in this group).

The equilibrium between humans and wild animals did not pass on to domesticated species. In societies that have domesticated animals and hunt wild animals, the two are seen as belonging to separate categories. Wild animals and humans form one category while domestic animals and plants form a second one. Domesticated animals are stripped of their intelligence and are viewed as more distant from humans and more object like. Domestic animals become socially, ritually, politically and economically valuable in a different way than wild animals. They become analogous to objects. Domesticated animals become an important source of wealth (Kent 1989: 15-16) but lose their independent status. With domestic animals, man sees himself as an equal with the animal ‘master’. As the animal ‘master’ dominates relationships of a particular class of wild animals, influencing their actions, the herdsman dominates the domestic animal serving as their ‘master’. This understanding of wild animals has been found true to hunter-gatherers and horticulturalist nomads as well as sedentary societies (Kent 1989:11-13). Thus the herd based Negev population would have seen domestic herds differently than the wild ones.

3.4.11.3. Changes in Perceiving the Landscape

Hunter-gatherer perceptions and use of landscapes differ from that of agricultural and pastoral- based societies. For example, hunter-gatherers mark the landscape through its natural features, hills, ridges, watercourses or changes in soil and vegetation. Territories are defined by sites and paths. The territory is that which is seen from a specific site and experience when walking along the paths connecting sites. As such, boundaries are not clearly discerned and marked (Ingold 1987: 152-155). Agriculturists in contrast, define territories by enclosing them (Bradley 1994) and forming plots (Ingold 1987:153). Cross culturally, pastoral nomads alter the landscape, some with the construction of corrals. Some pastoral nomads also clear pasture fields, construct fences, cairns, dig wells and construct storage facilities (Chang and Koster 1986). In hunter-gatherer societies, cosmological meaning and importance are found in existing landscape features (Ingold 1988:50). Agriculturists model cosmic ideas through structures they

334 build rather than in nature, they disconnect the natural features harnessing the landscape into the construction of an artificial, substitute environment (Ingold 1987:154; 1988:50). For pastoral nomads, water and tombs of holy-men serve as focal points in their view of the landscape (Johnson 1978). These distinct forms of viewing the world are incorporated into daily tasks and are mirrored in all forms of life, including forms of burial (Zohar 1992) and distribution of rock art (Bradley 1994).

3.4.11.4. Gender Roles

With the transition from hunter-gatherers to herders , gender roles were redefined. Cross cultural studies of hunter/gatherer societies have shown that certain divisions of labor are constant. Males hunt, tend to travel more extensively, and are active in defense (Hayden 1992). Herding of sheep/goats is usually done by women and both sexed children (Köhler-Rollefson and Rollefson 2002; Sinn et al. 1999; Shami et al. 1990:22). The age and sex of the shepherd depends on the size of the flock, the distance needed to travel for pasture and whether collective or individual transhumance is practiced (Olaizola et al 1999). A herd of up to 150 head led to pasture daily (in contrast to transhumance) can be guarded by children (unrelated to their gender) (Akkermans 1994). Based on these generalizations it is possible to see that pre-domestication males were those that had contact with midsized-large mammals. Hunting men made a considerable contribution to the group’s nutrition. With domestication and the growing size of herds, traditional hunting was practiced less (as expressed through the drop of arrow heads in the lithic assemblage [Rosen 2010]). Human-animal contact no longer fell strictly within the male realm (though, or perhaps because of this change, it is to this period of early herding in the Central Negev that the Negev desert kites are dated (Holzer et al. 2010; Nadel et al. 2010).

3.4.11.5. Depicting Mature Male Ibexes in a Herd Based Society

The transition from hunter-gatherer to herders affected many aspects of life. The domestic architecture evolved, the spiritual realm adjusted but the most profound change was social. Before domestication, the male was in contact with animals. Male animals were seen in herds, stately with prominent horns. With domestication, animals reduced in size, horns were no longer

335 seen in full length (as males were slaughtered young) and men stopped being primarily hunters. Female responsibilities increased as female animals were preferred over male ones. Men lost a valuable place within society. It is on this backdrop that petroglyphs of mature male ibexes start to transform in composition. In the first phase of engraving ibexes are presented in groups. Later, ibexes are presented associated with orant figures, footprints and dogs/predators.

Verhoeven (2002) points out that bringing the undomesticated and wild into the domestic and ritual contexts is a type of counter reaction to the domestication of society, animals and plants. Wild animals might have served as a metaphor and mechanism for the control of society, serving as a way of dealing with gender, control of nature and vitality. In the central Negev, this may be related to the emergence of herding and the consequences of changing gender roles. This change in ibex petroglyphs, with the continued emphasis on the mature male ibex, was consciously or unconsciously a result of the redefinition of the gender roles.

This interpretation does not determine the sex of the mark maker or the setting in which the petroglyphs were engraved and served. Technically, all phases of ibex engravings could be done by either sex. This is proposed as the change identified in the rock art that reflects the change which occurred in the spiritual realm of the society as a whole. The source and process of transformation, which unquestionably was lengthy, was most likely unknown to the actual mark makers. Returning to Barfield and Chippendale’s statement (quoted at the opening of this chapter in relation to Mount Bégo) in a hypothetical conversation with the mark maker, when asked why he engraves, he would not say: ‘Its meaning is rooted in the Remedello cultures of northern Italy’ or, ‘It derives from the social transformations in the Chalcolithic of the southern Alps, precursors of the high Bronze Age of Europe in the 2ndmillennium BCE’ (Barfield and Chippindale 1997:103). Likewise, we cannot expect the mark maker of the male ibex of the central Negev petroglyphs to say that ‘the ibex is a form through which to reminisce the past role of males in society, and of male animal majesty’.

3.4.12 Summary

Each of the above interpretative realms can account for some of the documented rock art.

336

Abstract marks, especially those of the first complexity level, could have been made in relation to ASC, though a more likely interpretation is that they resulted from doodling. Abstract elements of the second and third complexity levels and zoomorphic elements could technically serve as totemic emblems; however, the evidence, especially the fact that these elements are not geographically restricted, does not support this identification. Ethnographic material points towards some abstract marks as being tribal markings which served de facto as territory marks. The territory and boundary mark interpretation can be expanded to include most abstract motifs. Horned ungulates, orant anthropomorphs and anthropomorphs standing on the back of animals seem to reflect religious related beliefs. Anthropomorphs riding equids and camels, together with hunting scenes, can be interpreted as representing mythical or historic accounts. Thus, each motif may fit into a number of posited interpretations. These interpretations probably cover only a few of the multiple meanings (polysemy) that rock art held for the mark makers and the rock art audience. It has been recognized that almost all symbols have more than one association for the people who make and use them. When an element has multiple associations, it can be restricted to a specific meaning through the context in which it is presented (Lewis-Williams 1998:88; Zubieta 2010:120-121). In the documented material, this is best expressed through the ibex. Some ibexes are presented in hunting scenes, others are isolated images (totemic/tribal emblem or doodling?) while one group of ibexes, presented with orant figures and foot prints, direct their meaning towards the realm of ritual. Recognizing the pattern of wild male animals depicted by herd based societies, as discussed above, may be a reflection of the changing gender roles within the society.

In addition to the polysemy that the rock art had for the mark maker, we must consider how the person viewing the rock art understood it. This understanding may have differed greatly from that of the engraver. Nash (2000), concerned with the archaeologist’s view of rock art, lists a number of factors which may affect and alter the researchers’ understanding of the material. These include the number of times an individual visits a rock art site/panel, the season and weather and climatic conditions. The gender and education also relate to the experience. The phenomenology of the archaeologist viewing rock art is unquestionably similar to that which would have affected the ancient viewer. The meanings imbedded within the rock art are many, changing over time and from one person to the next.

337

3.5. The Identity of the Central Negev Mark Makers

The petroglyphs recorded indicate certain, even if limited, level of Egyptian influence/contact at both Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot. The Har Michia anthropomorph (element 1-7-14, Fig. 152) with Old Kingdom Egyptian parallels fits in well with Egyptian material recovered from a number of Early Bronze Age Ib sites in Israel (dating to 3200-3050 BCE) (Yekutieli 2004) including Nahal Avdat (Yekutieli 2004) situated just 6 km south of Har Michia (Lender 1990:11). Although Early Bronze Age Ib material has been found at Rogem Be’erotyim (Saidel et al. 2006), situated only 3 km southeast of Giva’t HaKetovot, Giva’t HaKetovot horned deity (element 102-29-10, Fig. 102 and 138) does not date to this period. This Egyptian iconography (assuming that the depicted deity is Resheph) must be related to later Egyptian contact. Egyptian Late Bronze/Iron Age (the proposed date for the Giva’t HaKetovot Resheph) relations are well documented in the Tel Amarna tablets (Goren et al. 2004:333-335) and through Egyptian iconography in local cylinder seals (Teissier 1996).

In the earlier phases of engraving, cultural identity and affiliation are expressed through the ibex image. Ibexes are indigenous to the central Negev while gazelles are found in the northwestern plains. This distinction is not reflected in the rock art because ibex dominate the zoomorphic category at both sites. This find is important, placing Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot mark makers within the same general culture while setting themselves culturally apart from the settlers of neighboring regions.

The bull was one of the iconographic symbols of the Early Bronze Age II-III cities in Israel30 (Bar-Adon 1962; Beck 1995a; Callaway 1974; Cleveland 1961; Garstang 1967; Getzov 2006:95- 96; Sussman 1980). In Proto-Dynastic Egypt (contemporary with Early Bronze Age I), the bull was a symbol used often to depict goddess Hathor and the kings of the period (Yekutieli 2002). With the onset of the Iron Age, bull imagery transformed from representations of the animal per se, to incorporating bull horns in the iconography of deities. The local deities, Ba’al, Šedu, Seth, Mikal and Resheph are all depicted as being horned or wearing horned head gear (Cornelius

30Similar bull head figurine findings are noted from Bab Edh-Dhra, across the Jordan Valley (Schaub and Rast 1989:456-457).

338

1994:112; Fulco 1976:29; Lipiński 2009:143).

In Israel, the most southern sites with bull imagery are Early Bronze Age II Arad in (Beck 1995a) and Late Iron Age II Horvat Qitmit (Beck 1995b:125-141). These sites reflect the expansion of northern societies into the central Negev. Bull iconography found to the north and west of the central Negev is not reflected in central Negev petroglyphs. The central Negev is unsuitable for wild and domesticated cattle alike, in that cattle, in comparison to sheep and goats, need more water more frequently (Akkermans 1994). The Judean Desert, i.e. the Arad area, is likewise inadequate for cattle herding. Few cattle bones were recovered from Early Bronze Arad (Beck 1995a), yet the bull image was integrated into the ritual realm as evident by a bull statue found in the vicinity of the temple complex (Amiran 1972) and engraved into the front of an altar. The bull image was repeatedly used in the Horvat Qitmit shrine imagery, shaped in clay and attached to stands. The use of the bull at Horvat Qitimit, as at Arad, contradicts the osteological finds from these sites were restricted to sheep and goat bones (Beck 1995b:140; Horwitz and Raphael 1995).

The Negev dwellers were most likely exposed to bull iconography and its importance as Arad served as a gateway city through which desert based communities traded with the north in the Early Bronze Age (Amiran 1978:114). Contact between the central/western Negev with Egypt during roughly the same period has been documented archaeologically. The present study upholds this conclusion with element 1-7-14 (Fig. 152) of Har Michia.

Singh (1974:29) has suggested that the ibex in the southern limits of the Levant filled the role of the bull in the north. Finding an ibex figure and ibex horn cores in shaft graves he wrote: “the ibex, in preference to the bull, was the chief sacred animal of Neolithic Beidha”.

Schmidt (2009:108) expands on this point concluding that: “The demonstrably important bull symbolism, present in the Eastern Mediterranean since the 10th millennium BCE, is irrelevant in the southern Wadi Araba; at least it does not appear in the iconographic findings. Its

339

place is taken by the ibex.”

The central Negev petroglyphs strengthen Singh’s and Schmidt’s conclusions; bulls (and cattle) are missing from the repertoire, while ibexes are abundant. By not adopting the bull iconography, the Negev population defines itself as an independent entity with its own distinct culture and symbols.

341

4. Conclusions

This dissertation concentrated on two archaeological issues which have mostly been neglected by Israeli archaeologists. The first is rock art. Central Negev rock art may seem unaesthetic, but it is a rich source of information. The present research documented and analyzed the rock art concentrating on a number of different aspects including rock art in its natural setting, chronology, and the meaning/use of petroglyphs. With the study of each, additional understandings and implications arose. These are either directly related to rock art or to the methodology of rock art research. The second aspect which sets this study apart from mainstream archaeological research is the emphasis on the individual molded by the society rather than on the collective.

The rock art of the Negev is found in all geographic settings, from mountain crests to wadi floors. A preference for dark faced, patina covered rocks was clearly demonstrated.

The question of chronology, though not entirely resolved, did conclude with the first phases of rock art being pre-Early Bronze (though not pre-dating the 6th millennium). None of the recorded elements were dated to the Epipalaeolithic, and probably not the Early Neolithic. Certain stylistic trends formed over time. These include the late appearance of linear two legged, single horned ungulates, and fully engraved camels. Specific elements may be dated (such as anthropomorphs with a horizontal line projection at the waist), though isolated petroglyphs will, in most cases, still be impossible to date securely.

The body of central Negev rock art is much more expansive and diverse than previously realized, no doubt reflecting diversity within the mark makers’ societies. The central Negev rock art should not be read literally; that the rock art is not an account or reflection of the people’s mundane activities is emphasized. If we were to try to deduce the economic base of the mark makers’ society solely from the engravings, we would fail. Hunting scenes were depicted by herders while caravans, plowing and herding scenes, which were the main economic bases of the Negev, are missing from the rock art repertoire.

341

The information embedded within the rock art offers insight into the private, intimate world of the individual, the mark maker. The chosen motif and way in which it is done (style) reflect on the mark maker’s interests, state of mind, and relation to the society in which he lived. The mark maker’s society in turn is fashioned by the period and contact (friendly or hostile) with neighboring societies. As presented above, rock art from two sites was documented in detail. The rock art was compared and contrasted through descriptive statistical calculations. In this realm, the individual mark maker, clan, tribe and culture were highlighted.

The later phases of engraving express well the association between the individual, his collective society and the environment. It is within these layers that tribal markings (wusum) are engraved repetitively. Through these marks, the individual is presenting not only himself, but also the family, clan or tribe as a whole (depending on each wasm and its use within the tribe and its subdivisions). The inclusion within a larger collective presents the individual with a sense of affiliation and security, acting as a bond among members of the social group (Kahn 2000:20).

The semantics of the Negev rock art and images made by the local population reflect on the Negev population in different periods. The emergence of ibexes in the lowest levels of engraving, the emphasized maleness and the tie to the first stages of the Timnian Culture are all significant. The Early - Middle Timnian was the period in which the Negev population grew, communal hunting supplemented traditional hunting, and the economy was sustained by large flocks of domestic goats. The new divisions of labor, with the man power mustered for the construction of desert kites, cairns, shrines and domestic structures, peaked in this period. One expression of these changes is seen in the ibex petroglyphs.

In the earlier phases of engraving, cultural identity and affiliation are expressed through the ibex image. Ibexes are indigenous to the central Negev while gazelles are found in open plains such as the northwestern plains. This distinction is not reflected in the rock art because ibexes dominate the zoomorphic category at both sites. This finding is important, placing Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot mark makers within the same general culture while setting themselves culturally apart from the settlers of neighboring regions. The dominance of the ibex in the south contrasts with the dominance of the bull in the Southern Levant, north of the Negev.

342

Ibex petroglyphs presenting mature wild males, by a central Negev herd based society may be related to the emergence of herding and the consequences of changing gender roles.

Aspects of the gender divisions within the mark makers’ society may be deduced from the anthropomorphic images. Females for the most part were depicted as being static, not engaged in any activity. This view of women goes well with Yates’ (1990) description by which women are feminine/domestic/private/inside and passive. In contrast, petroglyphs of men depict them as armed and in an orant stance. Males with up-raised arms are presented with either over-sized erect penises or with an extended line between their legs. This combination of an orant position with the exaggerated and clearly defined masculinity suggests that men or masculinity may have had a more defined place in the ritual realm. Armed males, in contrast, have a shorter line (representing a penis) between their legs. Armed males are presented with stick, sword, lance and shield. As only males are armed, we may assume that the weapon served as a type of gender marker. The majority of the anthropomorphs are unsexed figures. As noted above, none of the riding figures (on equid and camel back) are sexed. This is, most likely, the result of technical difficulties, especially since most are presented without legs. Although the initial reason was probably technical rather than ideological, it seems like there was no need for a male sex organ in order to recognize the figures in a smiting position or proceeding with a lance held ready for attack as being male. The recognition of the male as the warrior corresponds with the traditional gender roles as documented worldwide (Hayden 1992). Women seem to have held a less integral role within the society or, more likely, that the engravings were made by males, and as such present a male interest and outlook.

Both Har Michia and Giva’t HaKetovot’s rock art reflect several millennia of life in the desert. Certain themes such as the abstract : zoomorph : anthropomorph and the linear : curvilinear ratios are roughly consistent at both sites. The ratios also consist of the most general level of comparison. Using a three-tiered hierarchical system, the level of similarity between assemblages may be tied to cultural, tribal, and/or clan levels. By interpreting the statistical results of attribute combinations and element ratios through this three-tiered system, it was possible to place rock art of both sites within the same general culture, within the emerging rubric of a Negebite style.

343

At Giva’t HaKetovot, a second tradition is defined by the preference of light colored panels (‘patina free’) and animals formed in an outline fashion. Based on parallels from northeastern Jordan and an accompanying inscription, the mark makers of this style may be recognized as Thamudic speaking people originating from the northeast. These people infiltrated the region during the Roman Period, though their presence was not detected at Har Michia. The archaeology of the region and documented inscriptions also identify a wide and long term presence of Nabatean speaking people in the Roman Period central Negev (no Nabatean inscriptions were found in the present field work). At present, the Nabatean ethnos is usually identified through the distinct Nabatean ceramic ware and inscriptions were not recognizable through the rock art. No specific element or form of engraving may be tied strictly to Nabateans. Similarly Safaitic inscriptions have been documented in the central Negev, though no Safaitic style is recognized at present.

At Har Michia, alongside the ‘Negebite’ tradition, a third engraving tradition was also identified. This tradition is apparent on both light surfaced panels (patina free panels) and dark faced patina covered panels. This tradition, dateable to Ottoman and post Ottoman Bedouin migrating from Arabia, consists almost entirely of abstract elements.

The Thamudic and Ottoman intrusive traditions stand in contrast to the local desert tradition in panel preference, form (style) and abstract : zoomorphic : anthropomorphic and linear : curvilinear motif ratios.

How the rock art was understood by the mark makers’ society is less certain. A mark identifiable with a certain group, even if it were not engraved with conscious preconceived thought of serving as such, inevitably forms as a territorial mark. This was found to be true, especially regarding recent Bedouin tribal marks, and may be projected on other elements and periods.

4.1. Suggested Future Research

The present research concentrated on two rock art sites from a region with dozens if not hundreds of sites. The first step that should be taken in the future is the formation of a

344 distribution map of rock art. With a detailed map of rock art in the central Negev, even without carrying out detailed documentation, it will be possible to answer several questions regarding this phenomenon. For example, it will be possible to examine whether there is a clustering of rock art sites along travel and trade routes, water sources or certain period settlements. The existence of such a distribution map will also place future rock art studies in relation to the archaeological remains of the region.

Only with a large and detailed data base can an accurate chronology be formed. Exact sciences have revolutionized archaeological research with a growing body of information that can be retrieved from each computer classification and find. Carbon dating, luminescence dating, micro- erosion, and micro-stratification within the patina are a few of the methods which, under the right circumstances, may be used to date rock art. Not a single panel from the Negev has been dated through any one of these empirical methods. There are many reasons for this, most related to financial considerations, but more importantly is the fact that scientifically based dating will only be of use if a clear chronological schema can be formed. Comparing stylistic trends stood at the base of archaeological research and has assisted in developing chronologies for ceramics. In regard to the Negev petroglyphs, a chronology cannot be formed strictly on stylistic trends, as the same linear ibex was engraved over thousands of years. Therefore, dating a single specimen ibex petroglyph will not help date similarly shaped images. To be able to date an ibex image, which is the most commonly depicted animal, changes in the form of the animal must be recognized and constant over time. A reliable chronology of petroglyphs can be formed based only on over and underlying images, their relation to inscriptions and other period-defined iconography. With a growing number of documented panels, more stratified elements will be noted and a more detailed chronological schema might emerge.

With further studies in the central Negev, future research should attempt to present a regional view. Comparative studies on rock art that focus on abstract : zoomorph : anthropomorph ratios, use of techniques, size and attribute combinations, should be carried out on rock art of southern Jordan, Sinai, Nubia and Arabia and compared to findings of the central Negev. Knowing whether engravings were consistent within regions and within larger geographic zones is of great importance to desert archaeology.

345

5. References

Abu-Rabia, A., 1994 The Negev Bedouin and Livestock Rearing Social, Economic and Political Aspects. Oxford: Berg. Abu Raya, R., and Zissu, B., 2005 A Second Temple Period Burial Cave from the Mount of Olives, Jerusalem ‘Atiqot 49:33-37. Achrati, A., 2003 Hand and Foot Symbolism: From Rock Art to the Qur’an Arabica 50(4):464-500. 2008 Hand Prints, Footprints and the Imprints of Evolution Rock Art Research 25(1):1-11. Aharoni, Y., 1955 Three New Boundary – Stones from the Western Golan ‘Atiqot 1:109-114. 1959 Two Additional Boundary Stones from the Hule Valley ‘Atiqot 2:152-154. 1978 The Archaeology of Eretz-Israel. Jerusalem: Shikmona Publishing Company. (Hebrew) Aharoni, Y., Fritz, V., and Kempinski, A., 1973 Vorbericht über die Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet el-Mšāš (Tēl Māšǒš), 1. Kampagne 1972 Zeitschrift des Deutshen Palästina-Vereins 89:197-210. Ainy, Y., and Orion, E., 1994 To Nizzana and the Western Boarder, Nature has no Boundaries, the Society for Protection of Nature in Israel Annual Conference. Sde Boker: Medreshet Sde Boker. Akkermans, P. M. M. G., 1994 Villages in the Steppe Later Neolithic Settlement and Subsistence in the Balikh Valley, Northern Syria. International Monographs in Prehistory. Archaeological Series 5. Akurgal, E., and Hirmer, M., 1962 The Art of the Hittites. London: Thames and Hudson. Al-Aref, A., 1937 The History of Beer-Sheva and her Soundings translated by M. Kopliok. Tel-Aviv: Soshani Publications. (Hebrew). Al-Salihi, W., 1998 The Camel-Rider’s Stele and Related Sculpture from Hatra Iraq 40:103-108. Aldred, C., 1965 Egypt to the End of the Old Kingdom London: Thames and Hudson. Alkon, P.U., Harding, L., Jdeidi, T., Masseti, M., Nader, I., de Smet, K., Cuzin, F. and, Saltz, D. 2008 Capra nubiana. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1. . Amiran, R., 1972 Reflections on the Identification of the Deity at the EB II and EB III Temples at Ai Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 208:9-13. 1978 Early Arad, the Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City I First-Fifth Seasons of excavation, 1962-1966. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society. 1989 An Early Bronze I Basalt Cult-Bowl with Ibex Reliefs The Israel Museum Journal 8:17- 23. Amitai-Preiss, N., 1997 Arabic Inscriptions, Graffiti and Games in The Roman Baths of Hammat Gader Final Report. Ed. Y., Hirschfeld. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society. pp. 267-278.

346

Anati, E., 1956 Depiction of Human Beings in Ancient Rock Drawings Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society 20: 1–12. (Hebrew) 1962 Palestine Before the Hebrews. London: Jonathan Cape. 1965 The Art of the Stone Age: Forty Thousand Years of Rock Art. ed. H. G. Bandi New York: Crown Publishers. pp. 123-142 1968 Rock-Art in Central Arabia, 1. The ‘Oval-Headed’ People of Arabia, Louvain 1979 Rock Art Survey Hadashot Arkheologiyot 69-71:18-19 (Hebrew). 1984 Har Karkom Montagna Sacra Nel Deserto Dell’Esodo. Milan: Jaca Book. 1993 Har Karkom in the Light of New Discoveries. Studi Camuni Edizioni del Centro. 1999 Rock Art of the Negev Desert Near Eastern Archaeology 62(1): 22-34. 2001 The Riddle of Mount Sinai: Archaeological Discoveries at Har Karkom. Valcamonica: Edizioni del Centro. Studi Camuni no. 21. 2004 Introducing the World Archives of Rock Art (WARA): 50.000 Years of Visual Arts in New Discoveries, New Interpretations, New Research Methods, XXI Valcamonica Symposium , Capo di Ponte, Edizioni del Centro. pp.51-69. Anati, E., and Mailland, F., 2009 Archaeological Survey of Har Karkom (229). Italy: Centro Internazionale di Studi Preistorici ed Ethnologici. Aronson, L., 1982 The Ibex of Ein-Gedi. Gevatayim: Masada LTD. Ashkenazie, T., 1957 The Bedouins, their Origin, Life and Traditions. Jerusalem: Rubin Mass Ltd. 2000 The Bedouin in Eretz Israel. Jerusalem: Ariel. (Hebrew) Avner, R., 2007 The Kathisma: A Christain and Muslim Pilgrimage Site ARAM 18-19:541-557. Avner, R., and Puny, S., 2001 Architectural Evolution of the Byzantine Period – The Katisma Church Judea and Sameria Research Studies ed. Y. Eshel. 10:171-180. Avner, U., 1984 Ancient Cult Sites in the Negev and Sinai Deserts Tel Aviv 11:115-131, Pl 13-14. 1993a Mazzebot Sites in the Negev and Sinai and their Significance in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990 Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. pp. 166-181. 1993b A History of the Eilat Region and Southern Negev in Light of Recent Research in Eilat Man, Sea, and Desert. eds. M. Cohen and E. Shiller. Jerusalem: Ariel. pp. 113-184. (Hebrew) 2001 Sacred Stones in the Desert Biblical Archaeology Review 27(3):30-41. 2002 Studies in the Material and Spiritual Culture of the Negev and Sinai Populations During the 6th-3rd Millennia B.C. Unpublished PhD Theses. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Avner, U., and Carmi, I., 2001 Settlement Patterns in the Southern Levant Deserts During the 6th-3rd Millennia BC: A Revision Based on 14C Dating Radiocarbon 43(3):1203-1216. Avner, U., Carmi, I., and Segal, D., 1994 Neolithic to Bronze Age Settlement of the Negev and Sinai in Light of Radiocarbon

347

Dating: A View from Southern Negev Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleoclimate of the Eastern Mediterranean eds. O. Bar-Yosef and R. S. Kra. Tucson: University of Arizona. pp. 265-300. Avni, G., 1992a Archaeological Survey of Israel Map of Har Saggi Northeast (225). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 1992b Ancient Mosques in the Negev Highlands ‘Atiqot 21:69*-81*. (Hebrew) 1992c Survey of Deserted Bedouin Campsites in the Negev Highlands and its Implications for Archaeological Research in Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives. Monographs in World Archaeology no. 10. eds. O. Bar- Yosef and A. Khazanov. Madison: Prehistory Press. pp: 241-254. 1994 Early Mosques in the Negev Highlands: New Archaeological Evidence on Islamic Penetration of Southern Palestine Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 294:83-100. 1996 Nomads, Farmers and Town Dwellers, Pastoralist - Sedentist Interaction in the Negev Highlands, 6th -8th Centuries CE. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 1998 Survey of Deserted Bedouin Campsites in the Central Negev and its meaning for the Archaeological Research in Archaeological Studies of Nomads in Archaeology and the Nomads of Sinai and the Negev. Sde Boker: Medreshet Sde Boker. pp. 153-173. (Hebrew) 2009 The Invisible Conquest: The Negev in Transition between Byzantium and Islam in the Light of Archaeological Research in Man Near A Roman arch Studies Presented to Prof. Yoram Tsafrir. eds. L. Di Segni, Y. Hirschfeld, J. Patrich and R. Talgam. Jerusalem: the Israel Exploration Society. pp. 29-42. (Hebrew) Babenko, A. N., Kiseleva, N. K., Plakht, I., Rosen, S., Savinetskii, A. B., and Khasanov, B. F., 2007 Reconstruction of the Holocene Vegetation in the Central Negev Desert, Israel, on the Basis of Palynological Data on the Atzmaut Zoogenic Deposit Russian Journal of Ecology 38(6)417-426. Baharav, D., and Meiboom, U., 1982 Winter Thermoregularity Behaviour of the Nubian Ibex in the Southern Sinai Desert Journal of Arid Environments 5(4):295-298. Bailey, C., 1978 Notes on the Bedouins of the Central Negev Notes on the Bedouins 9:62-69. (Hebrew) 1980 The Negev in the Nineteenth Century: Reconstructing History From Bedouin oral Traditions Asian and African Studies 14:35-80. 1985 Dating the Arrival of the Bedouin tribes in Sinai and the Negev Journal of economic and Social History of the Orient XXVIII:20-49. 1989 The Janabib Tribe at Har-Hanegev Facts and Folkloric Traditions Notes on the Bedouin 20:9-21. Banning, E. B., and Kohler-Röllefson, I., 1992 Ethnographic Lessons for the Pastoral Past: Camp Locations and Material Remains near Beidha, Southern Jordan in Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials and Anthropological Perspectives. eds. O. Bar-Yoser and A. Khazanov. Madison: Prehistory Press. pp. 181–204. Bar-Adon, P., 1962 Another Ivory Bull’s Head from Palestine Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

348

Research 165:46-47. 1980 The cave of the Treasure the Finds from the caves in Nahal Mishmar. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society. Barakat, H., 1993 The Arab World Society Culture and State. Berkley: University of California Press. Bar-Matthews, M., and Ayalon, A., 2004 Spelothems as Palaeoclimate Indicatores: A Case Study from Soreq Cave Located in the eastern Mediterranean Region, Israel in Past Climate Variability through Europe and Africa ed. R. Battarbee, F. Gasse and C. E. Stickley. New York: Springer. pp. 363-391. Bar-Matthews, M. Ayalon, A. Matthews, A. Sass, E., and Halicz, L., 1996 Carbon and Oxygen Isotope Study of the Active Water-Carbonate System in a Karstic Mediterranean Cave: Implications for Paleoclimate Research in Semiarid Regions Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 60(2):337-347. Bar-Oz, G., Avner, U., Malkinson, D., Or-Gat, T., and Nadel, D., 2008 The “Desert Kites” of the Negev: the Earliest Mass Hunting Devices in the Country. Poster presented at the 20th Conference of the Israeli Prehistoric Association, Jerusalem, Israel. Bar-Zvi, S., and Ben-David, Y., 1978 Bedouins of the Negev in the Thirties and Forties of the 20th Century, as a Semi-Nomadic Society. Geographic Studies of Israel. 10:107-136. (Hebrew) Bar-Yosef, O., 1981 The ‹‹Pre Pottery Neolithic›› Period in the Southern Levant in Préhistoire du Levant Chronologie et Organisation de L’espace Depuis les Origines Jusqu’au VIe Millénaire Colloques Internationaux du Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique no. 598. pp. 555-569. 1982 The Late Palaeolithic Period, the Pre Pottery Neolithic Period, and the Neolithic Period in The History of Eretz Israel Introductions the Early Periods. Jerusalem: Keter. pp. 46-75. (Hebrew) 1996 The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Threshold to the Origins of Agriculture Evolutionary Anthropology 6(5):159-177. Bar-Yosef, O., and Belfer-Cohen, A. 1989 The Levantine “PPNB” Interaction Sphere in People and Culture in Change Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic Populations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin part i. ed. I. Hershkovitz BAR International Series 508(i) pp. 59-72. Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer, A., Goren, A., and Smith, P., 1977 The Nawamis Near ‘Ein Huderah (eastern Sinai) Israel Exploration Journal 27:65-88 Bar-Yosef, O., and Garfinkel, Y., 2008 The Prehistory of Israel, Human Cultures before Writing. ed. G. Barkay and E. Schiller. Jerusalem: Ariel Publishing House, Museum of Yarmukian Culture at Sha’ar Hagolan. Bar-Yosef, O., Hershkovitz, I., Arbel, G., and Goren, A., 1983 The Orientation of Nawamis Entrances in Southern Sinai: Expressions of Religious Belief and Seasonality? Tel-Aviv 10:52-60. Bar-Zvi, S., 2006 Talismans and Spells in the Folk Medicine amongst the Bedouin on the Negev and Sinai Ariel 174:5-21. (Hebrew)

349

Bar-Zvi, S., and Ben-David, Y., 1978 The Negev Bedouin During the Thirties and Forties of the Twentieth Century: A Semi- Nomadic Society Studies in the Geography of Israel 10:107-136. Barag, D., 1988 Geva and Geva Parashim in Geva Archaeological Discoveries at Tell Abu-Shusha, Mishmar Ha-‘Emeq. Ed. B. Mazar. Beni-Brak: HakibbutzHameuchad Publishing House Ltd. pp. 4-12. (Hebrew) Barfield, L., and Chippindale, C., 1997 Meaning in the Later Prehistoric Rock-Engravings of Mont Bégo, Alpes-Maritimes, France Proceedings of Prehistoric Society 63:103-128. Barkay, G., 2003 Iron Age II Incised Potsherds and Potters’ Marks in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969-1982. Volume II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X-2 Final Report. Ed. H., Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. pp. 50-62. Bartl, K., 2007 Neolithic Foot-Shaped Objects Found in Shir, Middle Orontes Region Neo-Lithics 2:57- 59. Bartuv, E., 2007 The Wide Range of Wildlife Living in the Desert and Desert Frontier in The Frontier Desert of Eretz-Israel Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting. ed. Y. Eshel. Susya Survey and Learning Center. pp. 77-93. (Hebrew) Bates, O., 1915 Ethnographic Notes from Marsa Matruh Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 717-739. Battles, M., 2004 In Praise of Doodling American Scholar 73(4):105-108. Baumgarten, Y., 2004 Archaeological Survey of Israel Map of Shivta (166),Jerusalem : The Department of Antiquities and Museums the Archaeological Survey of Israel. Beck, P., 1982 The Drawings from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet ‘Ajrud) Tel Aviv 9:3-68. 1984 The Seals and Stamps of Early Arad Tel Aviv 11:97-114. 1991 Scepter from Qitmit in Edom in Judea. Ed. A. Navon. Tel Aviv: The Kibbutzim Movement. Pp. 21-23. (Hebrew) 1995a Issues in the History of early Bronze Age Art in Eretz Israel Cathedra 76:3-33. (Hebrew) 1995b Catalogue of Cult Objects and Study of the Iconography in Horvat Qitmit and Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev ed. I. Beit-Arieh. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University. pp. 27-197. 2002 Imagery and Representation Studies in the Art and Iconography of Ancient Palestine: Collected Articles Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Bednarik, R. G., 1992 A New Method to Date Petroglyphs Archaeometry 34(2):279-291. Bednarick, R. G., and Khan, M., 1996 A Critical Review of Anati’s Book on ‘The Rock Art of Central Arabia’ Atlal 1475-101. 2002 The Saudi Arabian Rock Art Mission of November 2001 Atlal 17(3):75-99. 2009 The Rock Art of Southern Arabia “Reconsidered” Adumatu (July):7-20.

351

Beeston, A. F. L., 1948 The Ritual Hunt Muséon 61:183-196. Beit-Arieh, I., 1974 An Early Bronze Age II Site at Nabi Salah in Southern Sinai. Tel-Aviv 1:144-156. 1986 Two Cultures in Southern Sinai in the Third Millennium B.C Bulletin of the American School of Research 263:27-54. 1995 Horvat Qitmit An Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University. 2003 Archaeology of Sinai the Ophir Expedition. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Beit-Arieh, I., and Gophna, R., 1981 The Early Bronze Age II Settlement at ‘Ain El-Qudeirât (1980-1981) Tel Aviv 8:128-135. Belfer-Cohen, A., 1991 The Natufian in the Levant Annual Review of Anthropology 20:167-186. Bell, R. C., 1969 Board and Table Games from Many Civilizations 2. London: Oxford University Press. Ben-David, J., 1993 The Urbanization of the Nemaid Bedouin Population of the Negev, 1967-1992. Jerusalem: the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies the Hay Elyachar House. (Hebrew) 2000 The Cultural Heritage of the Negev Bedouin. Education for the Bedouin in the Negev Society. (Hebrew) Ben-David, Y, and Orion, E. 1998 Life Styles and Patterns of Existence of the Azāzma Bedouin in the Central Negev at the End of the 19th and Early 20th Century in Studies in the Archaeology of Nomads in the Negev and Sinai. ed. S. Ahituv. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. pp.175-216. Ben-Tor, A., 1977 Cult Scene on Early Bronze Age Cylinder Seal Impressions from Palestine Levant 9:90- 100. 1985 Glyptic Art of the early Bronze Age Palestine and its Foreign Relations in The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations. Ed. E. Lipiński. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. Pp. 1- 25. 1991 New Light on Cultic Cylinder Seal Impressions from the Early Bronze Age in Eretz Israel Eretz-Israel 23:28-44. 1992 New Light on Cylinder Seal Impressions Showing Cult Scenes from Early Bronze Age Palestine Israel Exploration Society 4:153-164. Ben-Tor, D., 1997 The Immortals of Ancient Egypt from the Abraham Guterman Collection of Ancient Egyptian Art. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. Benbenishti, M., 1984 The Cities and Sites of Israel during the Crusade Period Kardom 35-36. (Hebrew) Bent, T., and Bent, M., 1900 Southern Arabia. London: Smith, Elder and Co. Berengum, J., and Martinez, J. L., 1989 Camelids in the Andes: Rock Art Environment and Myths in Animals into Art eds. H. Morphy and U. Hyman. One World Archaeology Series 7. Pp. 390:416.

351

Berggren, K., 2004 When the rest of the world thought male ibex, why did the people of San Giovenale think female sheep?" in Man and Animal in Antiquity. Proceedings of the conference at the Swedish Institute in Rome, September 9-12, 2002. ed. Barbro Santillo Frizell (The Swedish Institute in Rome. Projects and Seminars, 1), Rome 2004. pp. 154-159. Bernick-Greenberg, H. 2007 The Negbite Ware Typology in Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell El-Qudeirat) 1976- 1982 IAA Reports 34/1. eds. R, Cohen and H, Bernick-Greenberg. pp. 187-210. Berrett, L. C., and Ogden, D. K., 1996 Discovering the World of the Bible. Grandin Pub Co. Betts, A., 1987 The hunter’s Perspective: 7th Millennium BC Carvings From eastern Jordan World Archaeology 19(2):214-225. 1998 The Harra and the Hamad Excavations and Explorations in Eastern Jordan Volume 1. London: Sheffield Academic Press. 2001 Graffiti from Qusayr ‘Amra: A Note on Dating of Arabian Rock Carvings Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 12:96-102. Boaretto, E., Jull, T. A. J., Gilboa, A. and Sharon, I., 2005 Dating the Iron Age I/II Transition in Israel: First Intercomparison Results Radiocarbon 47(1):39-55. Bocquentin, F. and Bar-Yosef, O. 2004 Early Natufian Remains: Evidence for Physical Conflict from Mt. Carmel, Israel, Journal of Human Evolution 47: 19–23. Borowski, O., 1998 Every Living Thing Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. Bourguignon, E., 1973 Religion, Altered States of Consciousness and Social Change. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Bradley, R., 1976 Rock Carvings and decorated Monuments in the British Isles in Cultural Change and Continuity Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin. ed. C. E. Cleland. New York: Academic Press. pp. 107-129. 1994 Symbols and Signposts – Understanding the Prehistoric Petroglyphs of the British Isles in The Ancient Mind (eds.) C. Renfrew, and E. B. W. Zubrow. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 95-106. 1995 Rock Carbings and Decorated Monuments in the British Isles in Preceiving Rock Art : Social and Political Perspecives.eds. K. Helskog and B. Olsen. Oslo: Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning. pp. 107-129. 2002 Access, Style and Imagery: The Audience for Prehistoric Rock Art in Atlantic Spain and Portugal, 4000-2000 BC Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21(3):231-247. Bradley, R., Boardo, F. C., and Valcarce, R. F., 1995 Rock Art and the Prehistoric Landscape of Galicia: the Results of Field Survey 1992- 1994 Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 61(347-370). Braidwood, R. J., 1957 The old world: Post Paleolithic in The Identification of Non-Artifactural Archaeology

352

Materials. Washington D.C. pp-26-27. Braun, E., 1992 Khirbet Avot The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land Volume 3:1146-1147. (Hebrew) Brewer, D. J., Redford, D. B., and Redford, S., 1992 Domesticated Plants and Animals: The Egyptian Origins. England: Aris & Phillips LTD. Bruins, H., 2007 Runoff Terraces in the Negev Highlands During the Iron Age: Nomads Settling Down or farmers Living in the desert? in On the Fringe of Society: Archaeological and Ethnoarchaeological Perspectives on Pastoral and Agricultural Societies. eds. B. A. Saidel and E. J. van der Steen. BAR International Series 1657. pp. 37-43. Bruins, H., and Van der Plicht, J., 2005 Desert Settlement Through the Iron Age Radiocarbon Dates from Sinai and the Negev Highlands in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science. eds. T. E. Levy, and T. Higham. London: Equinox Publishing. pp. 349-362. Bryson, R. A., 1978 Cultural, Economic and Climatic Records in Climatic Change and Variability A Southern Perspective. Cambridge. pp 316-327. Bulliet, W. R., 1977 The Camel and the Wheel. London: Harvard University Press. Burckhardt, J. L., 1831 Notes on the Bedouins and Wahabys Vol. I. London: Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley. Burton, M, and Levy, T. E., 2001 The Chalcolithic Radiocarbon Record and its use in Southern Levantine Archaeology Radiocarbon 43(2-3):1223-1245. Butzer, K. W., 1971 Environment and Archaeology an Ecological Approach to Prehistory second edition Chicago. Cai, Yang. 2010 Discovering Patterns from Eroded Rock Surfaces in Digital Imaging for Culture Heritage Preservation - Analysis, Restoration and Reconstruction of Ancient Artworks. ed. F. Stanco., S. Battiato and G. Gallo. Taylor & Francis. Casson, L., and Hettich, E. L., 1950 Excavations at Nessana. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Callaway, J. A., 1974 A Second Bull’s Head from Ai Bulletin of the American School of Research 213:57-61. Cauvin, C., 2000 The Birth of the Gods and the Origin of Agriculture translated by T. Watkins Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chang, C., and Koster, H. A., 1986 Beyond Bones: Towards an Archaeology of Pastoralism in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory volume 9. Ed. M. B. Schiffer. pp. 97-148. Chilton, E. S., 1998 The Cultural Origins of Technical Choice: Unraveling Algonquian and Iroquoian Ceramic Traditions in the Northeast in The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. ed. M. T. Stark. Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 132-160.

353

Chippindale, C., 2004 From Millimeter up to Kilometer: A Framework of Space and of Scale for Reporting and Studying Rock-Art in its Landscape in The Figured Landscapes of Rock Art Looking at Pictures in Place. eds. C. Chippindale and G. Nash. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 102-117. Chippindale, C., Smith, B., and Taçon, P. S. C., 2000 Visions of Dynamic Power: Archaic Rock Paintings, Altered States of Consciousness and ‘Clever Men’ in Western Arnhem Land (NT), Australia Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10(1):63-101. Clark, J. D., 1960 Human Ecology during Pleistocene and Later Times in Africa South of the Sahara Current Anthropology pp-307-324. Clottes, J., 2004 Hallucinations in Caves Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(1):81-82. Cleveland, R. L., 1961 An Ivory Head from Ancient Jericho Bulletin of the American School of Research 163:30-36. Clutton-Brock, J., 1987 A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, R., 1979 The Iron Age Fortresses in the Central Negev Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 236:61-79. 1980 Ramat Matred Rescue Excavations. Israel Exploration Journal 30:231-234. 1981 Archaeological Survey of Israel, Map of Sde Boqer – East. Israel: Publications of the Department of Antiquities and Museums. 1985 Archaeological Survey of Israel Map of Sede-Boqer – West (167) 12-03. Jerusalem: The Department of Antiquities and Museums the Archaeological Survey of Israel. 1992 The Nomadic or Semi-Nomadic Middle Bronze Age I Settlements in the Central Negev in Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives. Monographs in World Archaeology no. 10. eds. O. Bar-Yosef and A. Khazanov. Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. pp 105-131. 1999 Ancient settlement of the Central Negev IAA Reports No. 6. Israel Antiquity Authority: Jerusalem. (Hebrew) Cohen, Y. A., 1964 The transformation from Childhood to Adolescence Cross-Cultural Studies of Initiation Ceremonies Legal Systems, and Incest Taboos. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Cohen, R., and Cohen-Amin, R. 2004 Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highlands Volume II The Iron Age and the Persian Period IAA Reports No. 20. Israel Antiquity Authority: Jerusalem. (Hebrew) Cohen, R., Cohen-Amin, R., and Israel, Y., 2004 Site no. 50. Horvat Rogem in Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highlands Volume II The Iron Age and the Persian Period. ed. R. Cohen and R. Cohen-Amin. IAA Reports No. 20. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquity Authority. pp. 160-172. (Hebrew) Cohen, R., and Bernick-Greenberg, H., 2007 Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell El-Qudeirat) 1976-1982 IAA Reports 34/1. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquity Authority.

354

Cohen, R. and Israel, Y., 1995 ‘En Hazeva – 1990-1994 Hadashot Arkheologiyot 103:96-102. (Hebrew) Cohen-Amin, R., 2004 The Finds from the Persian Period in Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highlands Volume II The Iron Age and the Persian Period IAA Reports No. 20. eds. R. Cohen and R. Cohen-Amin. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquity Authority. pp. 189-196. (Hebrew) Collins, B., 2005 A Statue for the Deity: Cult Images in Hittite Anatolia in Cult Image and Divine Representation in the Ancient Near East. Boston: American School of Oriental Research. pp. 13-42. Collon, D., 1972 The Smiting God: A Study of A Bronze in the Pomerance Collection in New York Levant 4:111-134. 1975 The Seal Impressions from Tell Atchana/Alalakh. Neukrichnen-Vluyn: Verlan Butzon and Bercker Kevelaer. 1987 First Impressions Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Corbett, J., 2010 Mapping the Mute Immortals: A Location and Contextual Analysis of Thamudic E/Hismaic Inscriptions and Rock Drawings from the Wādī Hafīr of Southern Jordan. Unpublished PhD dissertation Chicago University. Conder, C. R., 1883 Arab Tribe Marks (Ausam) Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 178-180/ Conkey, M. W., 1997 Mobilizing Ideologies Paleolithic “Art”, Gender Trouble, and Thinking about Alternatives in Women in Human Evolution. Ed. L. D. Hager. London: Routledge. pp. 172-200. Cornelius, I., 1994 The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Ba’al: Late Bronze and Iron Age I periods (C 1500-1000 BCE). Fribourg: Orbis biblicus et orientalis. 2004 The Many Faces of the Goddess. The Iconography of the Syro-Palestinian Goddesses Anat, Astart, Qedeshet, and Asherah c. 1500-1000 BCE. Orbis Biblicus Orientalis 204. Firbough: Academic Press Fribourg. Dabrowski, B., 1991 Some Remarks on a Winged Asiatic Deity Standing on an Animal in Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization. Cracow : Uniwersytet Jagiellonski. pp. 21-24. Danin, A., 1983 Desert Vegetation of Israel and Sinai. Jerusalem: Cana. Darvill, T., 2002 The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davis, S. J. M., 1982 Climatic Change and the Advent of Domestication: The Succession of Ruminant Artiodactyis in the Late Pleistocene-Holocene in the Israel Region Paléorient 8(2):5-14. De Cupere and Duru, R., 2003 Faunal Remains from Neolithic Höyücek (SW-Turkey) and the Presence of Early Domestic Cattle in Anatolia Paleorient 29(1):107-120.

355

De Miroschedji, P., 1993 Cult and Religion in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990. eds. A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. pp. 208- 220. De Rios, M. D., 1984 Hallucinogens: Cross-cultural Perspective. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Demattè, P., 2004 Beyond Shamanism: Landscape and Self-expression in the Petroglyphs of Inner Mongolia and Ningxia (China) Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(1):5-23. Deom, J. M., 2011 Samples of Rhetoric Forms from the Kazakhstan Petroglyph Archive in Rock Art in Modern Society On the 29thAnniversity of the Discovery of Tomskaya Pisanitsa Book of Papers of the International Conference August 22-26 Kemerovo, Russia. Volume 2.Occasional SAPAR publications VIII. pp. 125-129. Dever, W. G., 1987 Funerary Practices in the EB IV (MBI) Palestine: A Study in Cultural Discontinuity in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East. eds. J. H. Marks and R. M. Good. Guilford: Four Quarters Publishing House. pp. 9-19. Devlet, E., 2001. Rock art and the material culture of Siberian and Central Asian Shamanism, in The Archaeology of Shamanism. N. Price (ed.), London: Routledge. Pp. 43–55. Dickson, H. R. P., 1951 The Arab of the Desert. London: Butler and Tanner Ltd. Dorn, R. I., 1997 Constraining the Age of the Côa Valley (Portugal) Engravings with Radiocarbon Dating Antiquity 71(271):105-115. Dothan, T., 1982 The Philistines and Their Material Culture. Israel Exploration Society. Dothan, M., and Freedman, D. N., 1967 Ashdod I the First Season of Excavation Jerusalem: Atiqot. Drews, R., 1993 The End of the Bronze Age Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe CA 1200. B.C. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Drower, M. S., 1969 The Domesticated Horse in The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals eds. P. J. Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby. London : Gerald Duckworth & Co LTD. pp. 471- 478. Dunbabin, K. M. D., 1990 Ipsa deae vestigial… Footprints Divine and Human on Graeco-Roman Monuments Journal of Roman Archaeology 3:85-110. Durkheim, E., 1965 The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Translated by J. W. Swain. New York: The Free Press. Eddy, F. W., and Wendorf, F., 1999 An Archaeological Investigation of the Central Sinai, Egypt. Cairo: The American

356

Research Center in Egypt, Inc. and The University Press of Colorado. Edelstein, G., Ussishkin, D., Dothan, T., and Tzaferic, V., 1971 A Necropolis at Tell ‘Eton Qadmoniot 4:86-90. Edge, D., and Paddock, J. M., 1988 Arms & Armor of the Medieval Knight An Illustrated History of Weaponry in the Middle Ages. New York: Crescent Books. Eisenberg-Degen, D., 2006 Deciphering the Camel Petroglyphs of the Negev: Har Nafha Region as a Test Case. Unpublished Master Thesis Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. 2010 A Hunting Scene from the Negev: The Depiction of a Desert Kite and Throwing Weapon Israel Exploration Journal 60(2):146-165. Elgabish, Y., 1969 Byzantine Figurines from Eretz Israel. Haifa: Museum of Ancient Art. (Hebrew) El Mahi, A. T., 2000 The Ibex Hunt in the Rock Art of Oman in New Arabian Studies 5 eds. G. Rex Smith, J. R. Smart, and B. R. Pridham. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. pp.97-114. Engberg, R. M., and Shipton, G. M., 1934 Notes on the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery of Megiddo. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Epstein, C., 1974 Middle Bronze Age Tombs at Kefar Szold and Ginosar ‘Atiqot 7:13-39. Epstein, E., 1939 Bedouin of the Negeb Palestine exploration Quarterly 71:59-73. Erickson-Gini, T., and Israel, Y. M., 2003 Recent Advances in the Research of the Nabatean and Roman Negev in The Nabateans in the Negev. ed. R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom. Haifa: Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum, University of Haifa. pp. 9*-14*. Erlich, A., 2004 A Bronze Figurine from Be’erotayim in Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highlands Volume II The Iron Age and the Persian Period IAA Reports No. 20. eds. R. Cohen and R. Cohen-Amin. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquity Authority. pp. 217-219. (Hebrew) Ernits E., 2001 Statistics of Rock Art in the Tom Region Folklore 18&19. http://haldjas.folklore.ee/folklore accessed 4th of October 2009. Ettinghausen, R., Grabar, O., and Jenkins-Madina, M., 2001 Islamic Art and Architecture 650-1250. Yale: Yale University Press. Evenari, M. Shanan, L . and Tadmor, N., 1971 The Negev the Challenge of a Desert. Massachusetts. Fabian, P., 1995 The Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some Recent Archaeological Research Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series. 14:235-240. 1996 Evidence of Earthquake Destruction in the Archaeological Records – The Case of Ancient Avdat, in Big Cities World Conference on Natural Disaster Mitigation in Conjunction with the 10th International Seminar on Earthquake Prognostics, Abstracts January 5-10, 1996. Cairo. p. 25. 2005 Avdat during the Establishment of the Provincia Arabia: The Roman Military Camp and

357

its Position in the Eastern Defense System of the Empire PhD Thesis Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. 2006 A 6,000 Year Old Burial Discovered in the Kiryat Gat Region http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3212308,00.html accessed on the 21st of December 2010. Fantalkin, A., and Finkelstein, I., 2006 The Sheshonq I Campaign and the 8th Century BCE Earthquake — More on the Archaeology and History of the South in the Iron I-IIAIIA Tel Aviv 33:18-41. Faulstich, P., 2008 The Fine Art of Doodling Rock Art Research 25(1):47-49. Ferguson, G. A., 1966 Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ferguson, T. S., 1967 Mathematical Statistics: A Decision Theoretic Approach. Academic Press. Ferguson, W. W., 2002 The Mammals of Israel. ed. S. Menache. Jerusalem: Gefen Publishing House. Field, H., 1931 Among the Bedouins of North Arabia The Open Court 45(10):577:595. 1952 Camel Brands and Graffiti from Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Iran, and Arabia Supplement to the Journal of the American Oriental Society 1-41. Filser, J., and Prasse, P., 2008 A Glance on the Fauna of Nizzana in Arid Dune Ecosystems the Nizzana Sands in the Negev Desert Ecological Studies Volume 200. eds. W. B. Siegmar, A. Yair, and M. Veste. pp. 125-147. Finkelstein, I., 1984 The Iron Age “Fortresses” of the Negev Highlands: Sedentarization of the Nomads Tel Aviv 11:189-209. 1995a The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines in Canaan Tel Aviv 22:213-239. 1995b Living on the Fringe the Archaeology and History of the Negev, Sinai and Neighboring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 2005 A Low Chronology Update Archaeology, History and Bible in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science. eds. T. E. Levy, and T Higham. London: Equinox Publishing. pp. 31-42. Fiore, D., 2007 The economic Side of Rock Art: Concepts on the Production of Visual Images Rock Art Research 24(2):149-160. Fletcher, D., 1987 Herding Habits of the Desert Gazelle in Sde Boker (Gazella dorcas) in The Gazelles of Israel Collection of Articles. Ed. B. Salmon. (no page numbers) (Hebrew) Forenbaher, S., 1997 A Terminal Neolithic/Chalcolithic Assemblage from Har Harif (Central Negev Highlands) Journal of the Israel Prehistoric Society 27:83-100. Fossati, A., 2007 The Rock Art Tradition of Valcamonica-Valtellina Northern Italy: A World Heritage View in Landscape Enquiries the Proceedings of the Clifton Antiquarian Club 8:139- 155.

358

Fossati, A., and Arcà, A., 1997 Tracing the Past, Petroglyph reproduction for Rupestrian Archaeology TRACCE Online Rock Art Bulletin, 7, online http://www.rupestre.net/tracce/tracing.html accessed 16th of August 2009. Forster, C., 1862 Sinai Photographed, or, Contemporary Records of Israel in the Wilderness. London: R. Bentley. Francfort, H-P., 1998 Central Asian Petroglyphs: Between Indo-Iranian and Shamanistic Interpretations in The Archaeology of Rock Art eds. C. Chippindale and P. S. C. Taçon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 302-318. Frankel, Y., 1979 The infiltration of Bedouin into Israel during the Fatimid Period (968-1096) Cathedra 11:86-108. (Hebrew) French, M. H., 1970 Observations on the Goat. FAQ Agricultural Studies 80. Friedman, R. E., 1987 Who Wrote the Bible? New York: Summit Books. Frumkin, A. Carmi, I. Zak, I., and Magaritz, M., 1994 Middle Holocene Environmental Change Determined From Salt the Salt Caves of Mount Sedom, Israel. Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean eds. O. Bar-Yosef, R. S. Kra. Radiocarbon pp. 315-332. Frumkin, A. Carmi, I Gopher, A. Ford, D. C. Schwarcz, H. P., and Tsuk, T., 1999 A Holocene Millennial-Scale Climatic Cycle from a Speleothem in Nahal Qanah Cave, Israel The Holocene 9(6):677-682. Frumkin, A. Magaritz, M. Carmi, I., and Zak, I., 1991 The Holocene Climatic Record of the Salt Caves of Mount Sedom, Israel The Holocene 1(3):191-200. Fujii, S., 2008 Two Petroglyphs from Wadi Abu Tulayha, a PPNB Agro-Pastoral Outpost in the Jafr Basin Neo-Lithics 1:9-16. Fulco, W. J., 1976 The Canaanite God Rešep. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Garfinkel, Y., 1993 The Yarmukian Culture in Israel Paléorient 19(1):115-134. 2003 Dancing at the Dawn of Agriculture. Austin: University of Texas Press. Garstang, J., 1967 Jericho: City and Necropolis Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 19:3-22. Gauthier-Pilters, H., and Dagg, A. I., 1981 The Camel Its Evolution, Ecology, Behavior, and Relationship to Man. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Gebel, H. G., and Mahasneh, H. M., 2009 Petroglyphs and Sepulchral Contexts Preliminary Note on Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age Findings at QulbanBeniMurra, Wadi as-Sahab al Abyad Journal of Epigraphy & Rock Drawings 3:1-9.

359

Gennep, A. V., 1902 Les “Wasm” ou marques de propriètè des Arabes Internationales Archivfür Ethnographie Herausgeben 15:85-98. 1960 The Rites of Passage translated by M. B. Vizedom and G. L. Caffee. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gernez, G., 2008 Metal Weapons and Cultural Transformations in Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East Volume II. eds. H. Kühne, R. M. Czichon and F. J. Kreppner. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Pp. 125:146. Getzov, N., 2006 The Tel Bet Yareh Excavations 1994-1995. IAA Reports no. 28. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquity Authority. Ghasrian, S. M., 2007 Sangestoon: A New Rock Art Site in Central Iran Rock Art Research 24(1):59-64. Gichon, M., and Vitale, M., 1991 Arrow-Heads from Horvat ‘Eqed Israel exploration Journal 41:242-258. Giedion, S., 1962 The Eternal Present: The Beginnings of Art. New York: Pantheon Books. Gilead, I., 1989 The Upper Palaeolithic in the Southern Levant: Periodization and Terminology in Investigations in South Levantine Prehistory Préhistoire du Sud-Levant eds. O. Bar- Yasef and B. Vandermeersch. BAR International Series 487. pp. 231-254. 1991 The Upper Palaeolithic Period in the Levant Journal of World Prehistory 5(2):105-154. 1993 Upper Palaeolithic Sites in the Ramat Matred Area Palestine Exploration Quarterly 125:19-42. 2002 Religio-Magic Behaviour in the Chalcolithic Period of Palestine Beer-Sheva15 (AharonKempinski Memorial Volume Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines ed. E. O. Oren and S. Ahituv). pp. 103-129. Gilead, I., and Bar-Yosef, O., 1993 Early Upper Paleolithic Sites in the Qadesh Barnea Area, NE Sinai Journal of Field Archaeology 20(3):265-280. Gilead, I., and Marder, O., 1989 Geometric Kebaran Sites in Nahal Rut Area, Western Negev, Israel Paléorient 15(2):123-137. Givon, S., 2000 Six Female Figurines from the Late Bronze Age from Tel Harasim Beer-Sheva 15:24*- 37*. (Hebrew) 2002 Six Female Figurines from the Late Bronze Age from Tel Harasim Beer-Sheva 15:24*- 37*. (Hebrew) Glueck, N., 1957 The Fifth Season of Exploration in the Negev Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 145L11-25. 1971 Incense Altars Eretz Israel 10:120-125. (Hebrew) Goering, K., 1979 Israel and the Bedouin of the Negev Journal of Palestine Studies 9(1):3-20.

361

Golani, A., 2003 Potter’s Marks and Decorated Sherds in Salvage Excavations at the Early Bronze Age Site of Qiryat Ata. IAA Reports No. 18. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. pp. 217- 221. Goldberg, P., and Bar-Yosef, O., 1982 Environmental and Archaeological Evidence for Climatic Change in the Southern Levant in Palaeo-Climates, Palaeo-Environments and Human Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region in Later Prehistory. eds. J. Bintliff and W. Van Zeist. BAR 133. pp 399-414. Gonen, R., 1979 Weapons of the Ancient World. Jerusalem: Keter. (Hebrew) Goodenough, W. H., 1957 Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics in Report of the Seventh Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Study, ed. P. Garvin, pp. 167–73. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Goodfriend, G. F., 1990 Rainfall in the Negev Desert during the Middle Holocene, Based on 13C of Organic Matter in Land Snail Shells Quaternary Research 34:186-197. Gopher, A., 1994 Arrowheads of the Neolithic Levant Dissertation Series 10 American Schools of Oriental Research. 1995 Early Pottery-Bearing Groups in Israel – the Pottery Neolithic Period in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land ed. T. E., Levy. Leicester University Press, London. pp. 203- 225. Gopher, A., and Gophna, R., 1993 Cultures of the Eighth and Seventh Millennia BP in the Southern Levant: A Review for the 1990’s Journal of World Prehistory 7(3):297-353. Gopher, A., and Goring-Morris, A. N., 1998 Abu Salem: A Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Camp in the Central Negev Highlands, Israel Bulletin of the American School for Oriental Research 312:1-20. Gopher, A., Goring-Morris, A. N., and Rosen, S. A., 1995 ‘Ein Qadis I: A Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Occupation in Eastern Sinai ‘Atiqot XXVII:15- 33. Goren, A., 1980 The Nawamis in Southern Sinai in Sinai in Antiquity Researches in the History and Archaeology of the Peninsula. eds. Z. Mesel and I. Finkelstein. Tel-Aviv: Hakkibutz Hameuchad Publishing House. (Hebrew) Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I., and Na’aman, N., 2004 Inscribed in Clay Provenance Study of the Amarna Tablets and other Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Goring-Morris, A. N., 1987 At the Edge Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev and Sinai Part I BAR International Series 361(i). 1991 The Harifian of the Southern Levant Art in The Natufian Culture in the Levant eds. O, Bar-Yosef and F. R., Valla. International Monographs in Prehistory Archaeological Series 1. pp. 173-216.

361

1993 From Foraging to Herding in the Negev and Sinai: The Early to Late Neolithic Transition Paleorient 19(1):65-89. 1998 Mobiliary Art from the Late Epipalaeolithic of the Negev, Israel Rock Art Research 15(2):81-88. 1999 Saflulim: A Late Natufian Base Camp in the Central Negev Highlands, Israel Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131:36-58. Goring-Morris, A. N., Birkenfeld, M., and Barzilai, O., 2006 Nahal Lavan 1006: An Ephemeral PPNB Camp Site in the Western Negev Neo-Lithics 2:26-32. Goring-Morris, A. N., and Gopher, A., 1987 Nahal ‘Issaron – A Neolithic Site in the Southern Negev Qadmoniot XX(1-2):18-21. Goring-Morris, A. N., and Gopher, A., and Rosen, S. A., 1994 The Neolithic Tuwailan Cortical Knife Industry of the Negev Proceedings of the First Workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries in Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent eds. H. G. Gebel and S. K. Kozlowski. Berlin: Ex Orient. pp. 511-524. Gosselain, O. P., 1998 Social and Technical Identity in a Clay Crystal Ball in The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. ed. M. T. Stark. Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 78-106. Graf, D. F., 1997 Rome and Arabian Frontier: From the Nabateans to the Sacracens. Ashgate. Graves, M. W., 1985 Ceramic Design Variation within a Kalingo Village: Temporal and Spatial Process in Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics. ed. B. Nelson. Carbondale: South Illinois University Press. pp. 5-34. 1991 Pottery Production and Distribution Among the Kalinga: A Study of the Household and Regional Organization and Differentiation in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. ed. W. Longacre, Arizona: University of Arizona Press. pp. 112-143. Green, A. R. W., 2003 The Storm God in the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Greenhut, Z., 1989 Flint Tools in Excavations in the Judean Desert. ed. P. Bar-Adon. ‘Atiqot 9:60-77. Guarducci, M., 1942 Le Impronte del Quo Vadis e Monumenti Affini, Figuratied Epigrafici Attidella Rendiconti Accademia d’Italia 19:305-344. Gullett, H. S., 1941 Official History of Australia in the War of 1914-1918 Volume 17. 10th Edition. http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/first_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67893 accessed 1st of April 2011. Hadley, J. M., 1993 Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: Religious Center or Desert Way Station? Palestine Exploration Quarterly 125:115-124. Hagens, G., 1999 An Ultra-Low Chronology of Iron Age Palestine Antiquity 73:431-439. Haghighat, A. and Sa'doddin, A., 2010 Toteganism: towards the definition of a missing phase in Ancient Metaphisics ACTATS 10(1):65-83.

362

Haiman, M., 1986 Archaeological Survey of Israel Map of Har Hamran Southwest (198)10-00, Jerusalem: The Department of Antiquities and Museums the Archaeological Survey of Israel. 1991 An Early Bronze Age Site near Har Horsha. ‘Atiqot 20:1-21. (Hebrew) 1992a Sedentarism and Pastoralism in the Negev Highlands in the Early Bronze Age: Results of the Western Negev Highlands in Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives. Monographs in World Archaeology no. 10. eds. O. Bar- Yosef, and A. Khazanov. Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. pp. 93-104. 1992b Cairn Burials and Cairn Fields in the Negev. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 287:25-45. 1993a An Early Bronze Age Cairn Field at Nahal Mitnan. ‘Atiqot 12:49-61. 1993b Archaeological Survey of Israel Map of Har Hamran Southeast (199). Jerusalem: The Department of Antiquities and Museums –The Archaeological Survey of Israel. 1994 The Iron Age II Sites of the western Negev Highlands Israel Exploration Journal 144:36-61. 1995a Agriculture and Nomad – State Relations in the Negev Desert in the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 297:29-53. 1995b An Early Islamic Period Farm at Nahal Mitnan in the Early Negev Highlands ‘Atiqot 26:1-13. 1998 Nomads and Sedentary Sites in the Negev Highlands during the Early Bronze Age in Researches in the Archaeology of Nomads in the Negev and Sinai. Israel Antiquity Authority and the Ben-Gurion University Publishing House. pp. 103-122. (Hebrew) 2003 The 10th Century B.C. Settlement of the Negev Highlands and the Iron Age Rural Palestine The Rural Landscape of Ancient Israel eds. A. M. Maeir, S. Dar Z. Safrai. BAR International Series 1121. pp. 71-90. 2007 Archaeological Survey of the Kadesh Barnea Vicinity: ‘Ein el-Qudeirat and ‘Ein Qadis in Excavations at Kadesh Barnea (Tell El-Qudeirat) 1976-1982 eds. R. Cohen and H. Bernick-Greenberg . IAA Reports 34/1. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquity Authority. pp. 307- 352. Haiman, M., and Goren, Y., 1992 “Negbite” Pottery: New Aspects and Interpretations and the Role of Pasteralism in Designating Ceramic Technology in Pasteralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthological Perspectives. eds. O., Bar-Yosef and A Khazanov. Monographs in World Archaeology no. 10. pp. 143-151. Harding, L. G., 1953 The Cairn of Hani. Annual of the Department of Antiquities Jordan 2:8-56. Harris, M., 1971 The Nature of Cultural Things. New York: Random House. Hartley, R. and WolleyVasner, A. N., 1998 Spatial Behavior and Learning in the Prehistoric Environment of the Colorado River Drainage (South-Eastern Utah), Western North America in The Archaeology of Rock Art eds. C. Chippindale and P. S. C. Taçon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 185-211.

363

Harris, M., 1976 History and Significance of the Emic/Etic Distinction Annual Review of Anthropology 5:329-350. Harrison, D. L., and Bates, P. J. J., 1991 The Mammals of Arabia Harrison Zoological Museum Publication. Hartley, R., and A. M. Wolley Vasner., 1998 Spatial Behavior and Learning in the Prehistoric Environments of Colorado River Drainage (South-Eastern Utah), Western North America in The Archaeology of Rock-Art eds. C. Chippindale and P.S.C. Taçon. pp. 185-211. Havakook, Y., 1986 From Goat Hair to Stone. Transition in Bedouin Dwellings. Tel-Aviv: Defense Department. (Hebrew) Hayden, B., 1992 Observing Prehistoric Women in Exploring Gender through Archaeology: Selected Papers from the 1991 Boone Conference. ed. C. Claassen. pp.3-47. Monographs in World Archaeology. Hays-Gilpin, K., 2004 Ambiguous Images Gender and Rock Art. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. Hecht, D., 2009 Rock Art in the Aqaba Area in Prehistoric Aqaba I. eds. L. Khalil and K. Schmidt. Rahden: Orient-Archaologie. pp. 113-125. Helms, S., and Betts, A., 1987 The Desert “Kites” of Badiyat Esh-Sham and North Arabia Paléorient 13(1):41-67. Helvenston, P. A., Bahn, P. G., Bradshaw, J. L., and Chippindale, C., 2003 Testing the ‘Three Stages of Trance’ Model Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13(2):213-224. Henry, D. O., 1976 Rosh Zin: A Natufian Settlement Near Ein Avdat Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel vol I The Avdat/Aqev Area, part 1 ed. Marks, A. E. Southern Methodist University: Institute for the Study of Earth and Man Reports of Investigation 2. pp. 317-348. Hilden, J. T., 1991 The Use of Wasm (Animal Brands) in Beduin Weaving AlMa’thurat Al-Sha’biyyah 22:1- 21. 2010 Bedouin Weaving of Saudi Arabia and is Neighbors London: Arabian Publishing. Hillel, D., 1982 Negev Land, Water, and Life in the Desert Environment. New York. Hirschfeld, Y., 2003 Man and Society in Byzantine Shivta Qadmoniot 36(125):2-17). 2007 Potmarks in Tel Mor The Moshe Dothan Excavations, 1959-1960. ed. T. J., Barako. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. pp. 183-189. Hirschfeld, Y., and Tepper, Y., 2006 Columbarium Towers and Other Structures in the Environs of Shivta Tel-Aviv 2006 33(1):83-116. Hodder, I.. 1982 Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

364

Hodgson, D., 2006 Understanding the Origins of Paleoart: The Neurovisual Resnance Theory and Brain Functioning Paleo Anthropology 54-67. 2008 Stopping Doodles from Getting Out of Hand Rock Art Research 25(1):51-52. Holzer, A., 2002 Desert Kites in the Southern Negev Their Date & Function as Part of an Ancient Environmental System Unpublished Master These Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew) Holzer, A., Avner, U., Porat, N., and Horwitz, L. K., 2010 Desert Kites in the Negev Desert and Northeast Sinai: Their Function, Chronology and Ecology Journal of Arid Environments 74:806-817. Honour, H., and Fleming, J., 2005 A World History of Art Fleming-Honour LTD. Horowitz, A., 1976 Late Quaternary Paleoenvironments of Prehistoric Settlements in Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel Volume I ed. A. E. Marks. Dallas. pp. 57- 68. Israel Meteorological Service online http://www.ims.gov.il/IMS/CLIMATE/LongTermInfo/ accessed the 29th of July 2009. Horwirz, L. K., and Goring-Morris, N., 2001 Fauna from the Early Natufian Site of Upper Besor 6 in the Central Negev, Israel Paléorient 26(1):111-128. Horwitz, L. K., and Raphael, O., 1995 Faunal Remains in Horvat Qitmit an Edomite Shrine in the Biblical Negev. ed. I., Bet- Arieh. Tel Aviv: Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University. Pp. 287-302. Horwitz, L. K. and Tchernov, E., 1989 Animal Exploitation in the Early Bronze age of the Southern Levant: An Overview. L’urbanisation de la Palestine á l’âge du Bronze ancient ed. P. de Miroschedji. Part ii BAR International Series (527) pp.279-296. Horwitz L. K., Tchernov, E., and Weksler-Bdolah, S., 1999 The Past Biogeography of the Arabian Oryx (Oryx leucoryx Pallas, 1777) in the Southern Levant in the light of New Archaeological Data Mammalia 63(4):465-474. Hunnicutt, B. B., 1967 The Stylistic and Iconographic Development of the Orant Image. Unpublished Masters George Washington University. Huyge, D., 2002 Cosmology, Ideology and Personal Religious Practice in Ancient Egyptian Rock Art in Egypt and Nubia Gifts of the Desert. ed. R. Friedman. London: The British Museum Press. pp. 192-206. 2009 Late Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic Rock Art in Egypt: Qurta and El-Hosh Archeo-Nil 19:108-120. Huyge, D., and Ikram, S., 2009 Animal representations in the Late Palaeolithic rock art of Qurta (Upper Egypt) within Desert Animals in the Eastern Sahara. eds. H. Riemer, F. Forster, M. Herb and N. Pöllath. Colloquium Africanum. pp. 157-174. Ingold, T.,

365

1987 The Appropriation of Nature Essays on Human Ecology and Social Relations. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. 1988 Notes on the foraging mode of production. In Hunters and Gatherers I: History, evolution and social change, eds. T. Ingold, D. Riches and J. Woodburn. Oxford: Berg. pp 269-285. Ingrams, W. H., 1937 A dance of the Ibex Hunters in the Hadhramaut Man 37:12-13. Israel, Y. M., 2006 The Black Gaza Ware from the Ottoman Period Unpublished PhD Theses. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. (Hebrew) Israel Meteorological Service online http://www.ims.gov.il/IMS/CLIMATE/LongTermInfo/ accessed 21st of May 2009. Issar, A. S., 1990 Water Shall Flow from the Rock. New York. Issar, A. Bein, A., and Michaeli A., 1972 On the Ancient Water of the Upper Nubian Sandstone Aquifer in Central Sinai and Southern Israel. Journal of Hydrology 17:353-374. Issar A. S. and Zohar M., 2004 Climate Change – Environment and Civilization in the Middle East. New York: Springer. Jacquet-Gordon, H., 2003 The Graffiti on the Khonsu Temple Roof at Karnak : A Manifestation of Personal Piety. Chicago:Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Jakubiak. K., 2008 Eski Dogubayazit – A Tomb or Sanctury? In Proceedings of the 4th International congress of the archaeology of the ancient Near East, 28.3-3.4.2004, Freie Universität Berlinvol.1. pp. 403-412. Jasmin, M., 2006 The Emergence and First Development of the Arabian Trade across the Wadi Araba in Crossing the Rift Resources, Routes, Settlement Patterns and Interaction in the Wadi Arabah. eds. P, Bienkowski and K. Galor. Oxbow Books. pp. 143-150. Jaussen, A., Savignac, R., and Vincent, H., 1904 ‘Abdeh Revue Biblique 235-244. 1905 ‘Abdeh Revue Biblique 74-89. Jeffreys, M. D. W., 1953 Doodling: Forest Vale and Redan The South African Archaeological Bulletin 8(29):15- 19. Jobling, W. J., 1986 North Arabian (Thamudic) Inscriptions & Rock Art From the ‘Aqaba-Ma’an Area of Southern Jordan Annual of the department of Antiques of Jordan XXX : 261-266, 478- 485. Johnson, D. L., 1978 Nomadic Organization of Space: Reflections on Patterns and Process with Dimensions of Human Geography. ed. K.W. Butzer. Chicago: University Department of Geography Research Paper 186. pp. 25-47. Jolly, P., 1998 Modeling Change in the Contact Art of the South-Eastern San, Southern Africa in The Archaeology of Rock-Art. Ed C. Chippindale and P. S. C. Tacon. Pp. 247-267.

366

Juli, H. D., 1978 Ancient Herders of the Negev: A Study in Pastoral Archaeology. Unpublished thesis submitted for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Brown University. Jung, M., 1991 Research on Rock Art in North Yemen Annali Istituto Universitario Orientale 51(1):41- 75 Supplement 66. Kaper, O. E., and Willems, H. 2002 Policing the Desert: Old Kingdom Activity Around the Dakhleh Oasis in Egypt and Nubia Gift of the Desert. ed. R. Friedman. London: The British Museum Press. pp. 79-94. Kazhdan A., 1990 Byzantine Hagiography and Sex in the Fifth to Twelfth Centuries. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44. Keel, O., 1995 Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amuletteaus Palästina/Israel von den Anfängenbiszur Perserzeit Einleitung. Orbis Biblicuset Orientalis 10. Keel, O., and Uehlinger, C., 1998 Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel translated by T. H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Kellogg, R., Knoll, M., and Kugler, J., 1965 Form-Similarities Between Phosphenes of Adults and Pre-School Children’s Scribbling Nature 208(5015):1129-1130. Kent, S., 1989 Cross-Cultural Perceptions of Farmers as Hunters in Farmers as Hunters the Implications of Sedentism. Ed. S. Kent. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1-17. Kenyon, K. M., 1957 Digging up Jericho. London: Ernest Benn Limited. Kessler, O., 2011 Shabbat Boundary Rock with Hebrew Etching Discovered The Jerusalem Post July 14th. Keyser, J. D., 1979 The Plains Indian War Complex and the Rock Art of Writing-on-Stone, Alberta, Canada Journal of Field Archaeology, 6(1):41-48. Khalil, L., Eichmann, R., and Schmidt, K., 2003 Archaeological Survey and Excavations at the Wādī Al-Yutum and Al-Magass Area – Al-‘Aqaba (Aseym): A Preliminary Report on the Third and Forth Seasons Excavations at Tall Hujayrat Al-Ghuzlān in 2002 and 2003 Wādī Al-Yutum Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 27:159-175. Khan, M., 1996a A Critical Review of Anati’s Books on ‘The Rock Art of Central Arabia Atlal 14(3):75- 88. 1996b Rock Art Research in the Arabian Peninsula, Levant and Anatolia in P. G. Bahn and A. Fossati. (eds.) Rock Art Studies: News of the World I Recent Developments in Rock Art Research (Acts of Symposium 14D at the NEWS46 World Rock Art Congress, Turin and Pinerolo, Italy). Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 72. 2000 Wusum the Tribal Symbols of Saudi Arabia Part 1 and 2. Riyadh: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Education. 2008 Symbolism in the Rock art of Saudi Arabia: Hand and Footprints Rock Art Research

367

25(1):1-10. Kilmer, A. D., 2000 An Ideal Animal Totem/Model for Inanna/Ištar? Problems of Geography and Time in Landscapes Territories, Frontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near East Papers Presented to the XLIV RencontreAssyriologiqueInternationaleVenezia, 7-11 July 1997.Part III Landscapes in Ideology, Religion, Literature and Art. eds. L. Milano, S. de Martino, F. M., Fales, and G. B., Lanfranchi. Padova: Sargon srl. pp. 53-61. Kirby J. P., 1972 Orant, Good Shepherd, and Anchor: A Study of the Epistemology of Christian Faith in the Adaptation of Symbols. Unpublished Masters DePaul University. Kirkbride, D., 1967 Beidha: An Early Neolithic Village in Jordan in Archaeological Discoveries in the Holy Land . Thomas Y. Crowell Company: Ney York pp. 9-18. Klassen, M. A., 1998 Icon and Narrative in Transition: contact-Period Rock Art at Writing on Stone, Southern Alberta, Canada in The Archaeology of Rock Art. eds. C. Chippindale and P. S. C. Taçon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 42-72. Kletter, R., 1996 The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Ashera BAR International Series 636. 2007 A Group of Clay Figurines in Horvat ‘Uza and Horvat Radum Two Fortresses in the Biblical Negev ed. I. Beit-Arieh. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. pp. 188-193. Kochavi, M., 1963 The Excavations at Tel Yeruham Yediot XXVII(4):284-292. (Hebrew) 1967 The Settlement of the Negev in the Middle Bronze (Canaanite) I Age. Unpublished thesis submitted for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Hebrew University Jerusalem. (Hebrew) Köhler-Rollefson, I., and Rollefson, G., 2002 Brooding About Breeding: Social Implications for the Process of Animal Domestication in The Dawn of Farming in the Near East Studies in the Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment. eds. R. T. J. Cappers and S. Bottema. Berlin: Ex Oriente. pp. 177-181. Korjenkov, A. M., and Mazor, E. 1999 Seismogenic Origin of the Ancient Avdat Ruins, Negev Desert, Israel Natural Hazards 18:193-226. Kosasih, E. A. 1991 Rock Art in Indonesia in Rock Art and Prehistory Papers Presented to Symposium G of the AURA Congress, Darwin 1988. eds. P. Bahn and A. Rosenfeld. Oxbow Monograph 10. Kozloff, B. 1981 Pastoral Nomadism in the Sinai: An Ethno-Archaeological Study Production Pastorale st Societe: Bulletin d’Ecologie ed d’Anthropologie 8:19-24. Kraemer, C. J., 1958 Excavations at Nessana Volume 3 Non-Literary Papyri. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

368

Krumbein, W. E., n.d. Pinta and Patina – How Microbes change Surfaces. http://www.akseli.tekes.fi/opencms/opencms/OhjelmaPortaali/ohjelmat/PINTA/fi/Dokum enttiarkisto/Viestinta_ja_aktivointi/Seminaarit/PINTASeminaari031021/8.KrumbeinPatin aHelsinki2.doc Accessed the first of December 2009. Krumbein, W. E., and Jens., 1981 Biogenic Rock Varnishes of the Desert (Israel) an Ecological Study of Iron and Manganese Transformation by Cyanobacteria and Fungi Oecologia 50:25-38. Kuijt, I., and Goring-Morris, N., 2002 Foraging, Farming, and Social Complexity in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: A Review and Synthesis Journal of World Prehistory 16(4):361-440. Kuijt, I., and Russell, K. W., 1993 Tur Imdai Rockshelter, Jordan: Debitage Analysis and Historic Bedouin Lithic Technology Journal of Archaeological Science 20:667-680. Kurzweil, E., 1980 The Age of Structuralism Levi-Strass to Foucaut. New York: Columbia University Press. Kvamme, K., 1999 Recent directions and developments in geographical information systems Journal of Archaeological Research 7(2):153-201. Lahelma, A., 2005 Between the Worlds. Rock Art, Landscape and Shamanism in Subneolithic Finland Norwegian Archaeological Review 38(1):29-47 Laming, A., 1959 Lascaux Painting & Engravings translated from French by E. F. Armstrong. Penguin Books. Lapp, P. W., 1967 The Cemetery at Babe dh-Dhra’, Jordan in Archaeological Discoveries in the Holy Land. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company. pp. 35-40. Lawrence, A. W., 1967 Greek Architecture Penguin Books. Layton, R., 1985 The Cultural Context of Hunter-Gatherer Rock Art Man 20(3):434-453. 1991 Figure, Motif and Symbol in the Hunter-Gatherer Rock Art of Europe and Australia in Rock Art and Prehistory Papers Presented to Symposium G of the AURA Congress, Darwin 1988. eds. P. Bahn and A. Rosenfeld. Oxbow Monograph 10. 1995 Rereading Rock Art: Text and Discourse in Perceiving Rock Art: Social and Political Perspectives.eds. K. Helskog and B. Olsen. Oslo: Novus Forlag. pp. 217-227. Lemaitre, S., and Van Berg, P., 2008 The Engraved Rock Sites of Hemma (Syria) International Newsletter on Rock Art 52:5-12. Lender, Y., 1990 Archaeological Survey of Israel, Map of Har Nafha. Jerusalem: Publications of the Department of Antiquities and Museums. Lepper, K., 2007 Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dating an Introduction New Mexico Geology

369

29(4):111. Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1967 Treasures of Prehistoric Art. New York: Harry N. Abrams, INC Publishers. 1972 The Evolution of Paleolithic Art in Old World Archaeology: Foundations of Civilization. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company. pp.13-23. Levi-Strauss, C., 1963a Totemism. Translated by R. Needham. Boston; Beacon Press. 1963b Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books. 1968 The Raw and the Cooked. New York: Harper and Row. Lewis, T. J., 2005 Syro-Palestinian Iconography and Devine Images in Cult Image and Divine Representation in the Ancient Near East. ed. N. H. Walls. American Schools of Oriental Research Books Series Number 10. pp. 69-107. Lewis-Williams, J. D., 1974 Superimpositioning in a Sample of Rock Paintings from the Barkly east District South African Archaeological Bulletin 29:93-103. 1981 Believing and Seeing: Symbolic Meanings in Southern San Rock Painting. London: Academic Press. 1983 The Rock Art of Southern Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998 Quanto? The issue of 'many meanings' in southern African San rock art research. South African Archaeological Bulletin 53: 86–97. 2002a The Mind in the Cave Consciousness and the Origins of Art. New York: Thames and Hudson. 2002b A Cosmos in Stone Interpreting Religion and Society through Rock Art. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. 2004 Neuropsychology and Upper Paleolithic Art: Observations on the Progress of Altered States of Consciousness Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(1):107-111. Lewis-Williams, J. D., and Dowson, T. A., 1988 The Signs of All Times Entopic Phenomena in Upper Palaeolithic Art Current Anthropology 29(2):201-245. Lewis-Williams, J. D., and Loubser, J. H. N., 1986 Deceptive Appearances: A Critique of Southern African Rock Art Studies Advances in World Archaeology 5:253-289. Lieberman, D. E., 1993 The Rise and Fall of Seasonal Mobility Among Hunter-Gatherers Current Anthropology 34(5):599-631. Lindblom M., 2001 Marks and Makers: Appearance, Distribution and Function of Middle and Late Helladic Manufacturers; Mark on Aeginetan Pottery. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 128. Jonsered: Astrom. Lipiński, E., 2009 Resheph A Syro-Canaanite Deity. Orient Alia Lov Aniensia Analecta 181. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Department Oosterse Studies. Loendorf, L. L., 1994 Traditional Archaeological Methods and their Applications at Rock Art Sites in New Light on Old Art Recent Advances in Hunter-Gatherer Rock Art Research. eds. D. S.

371

Whitley and L. L. Loendorf. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology University of California. pp. 95-103. Loud, G., 1948 Megiddo II Seasons of 1935-1939 Plates. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lundhiem, L., 2002 On Shannon and “Shannon’s formula” Telektronikk 98(1):20-31 http://www.fysel.ntnu.no/projects/beats/Documents/LarsTelektronikk02.pdf accessed 4th of October 2009. Macalister, R. A. S., 1912 The Excavations of Gezer 1902-1905 and 1907-1909 Volume II. London: John Murray. Macalister, R. A. S., and Duncan, J. G., 1926 Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem 1923-1925. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Macdonald M.C.A., 2005 Of Rock-Art, “Desert Kites” and Mesāyid in Arabia Vitalis Arabskii Vostok, islam, drevnyaya Araviya: Sbornik Naychnykh statei, posvyashchennyi 60-letiyu V.V. Naumkina. eds. A.V. Sedov & I.M. Smulyanskaya. Moscow: Rossiikaya Akademiya Nauk. pp. 332-345. 2009 Wheels in a Land of camels: Another Look at the Chariot in Arabia Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 20:156-184. Macdonald, M. C. A., and King, G. M. H., 2000 Thamudic in The Encyclopedia of Islam. eds. P.J. Bearman, T. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. Van Donzel and W. P. Heinrichs. Leiden: Brill. pp. 436-438. Macdonald, S., 1981 The Study of Engraving Techniques and Patina Annual of the Department of Antiquities 26:Appendix A p. 171. Magaritz, M. and Goodfreind, G. A., 1987 Movement of the Desert Boundary in the Levant from the Latest Pleistocene to Early Holocene in Abrupt Climatic Change eds. W. H. Berger and L. D. Labeyrie. Dordecht. pp 173-183. Magen, Y., 1991 Mount Gerizim – A Hellenistic Temple City Judea and Samaria Research Studies Proceedings of the 1st Annual Meeting. eds. Z. H. Erlich and Y. Eshel. pp. 36-60. Jerusalem: Rubin Mass LTD. 2008 Judea and Samaria research and Discoveries. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquity Authority. Magness, J., 2003 The Archaeology of the Early Islamic Settlement in Palestine Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Manhire, T., Parkington, J., and Yates, R., 1985 Nets and Fully Recurved Bows: Rock Paintings and Hunting Methods in Western Cape, South Africa. World Archaeology 17(2):161-173. Maringer, J., 1979 Adorants in Prehistoric Art: Prehistoric Attitudes and Gestures of Prayer Numen 26(2):215-230. Marks, A. E., 1971 Settlement Patterns and Intrasite Variability in the Central Negev, Israel American Anthropologist 73(5):1237-1244.

371

1977a Introduction: A Preliminary Overview of Central Negev Prehistory in Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel vol II The Avdat/Aqev Area, and the Har Harif part 2 ed. A. E. Marks, Southern Methodist University: Institute for the Study of Earth and Man Reports of Investigation 2. pp. 3-34. 1977b The Epipalaeolithic of the Central Negev the Current State of Research Eretz Israel 13:216*-228*. Marks, E., 1977 The Tribe as a Unit of Subsistence: Nomadic Pastoralism in the Middle East American Anthropologist 79(2):343-36. Markovitzky, Y., 2007 MACHAL Overseas Volunteers in Israel’s War of Independence. http://www.mahal-idf- volunteers.org/about/Machal.pdf Accessed 25th of May 2009. Martin, L., 2000 Mammal Remains from the Eastern Jordanian Neolithic, and the Nature of Caprine Herding in the Steppe Paléorient 25(2):87-104. Marx, E., 1974 Bedouin of the Negev. Tel-Aviv: Reshafim. (Hebrew) 1977 The Tribe as a Unit of Subsistence: Nomadic Pastoralism in the Middle East American Anthropologist 79(2):343-363. Mayerson, P., 1994 Monks, Martyrs, Soldiers and Saracens Papers on the Near East in Late Antiquity (1962- 1993). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and New York University. Mazar, A., 1997 Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkelstein Levant XXIX:157-167. 2005 The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant: Its History, the Current Situation, and a Suggested Solution in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science. eds. T. E. Levy, and T Higham. London: Equinox Publishing. pp. 15-30. Mellaart, J., 1967 Catal Hüyük A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. London: Thames and Hudson. Meshel, Z., 1977 The Negev During the Persian Period Cathedra 4:43-50. 1978 Kuntillet ‘Ajurd. A Religious Center from the Time of the Judean Monarchy on the Boarder of Sinai. Jerusalem: The Israel Museum. Meshel, Z and Cohen, R., 1980 Refed and Hatira: Two Iron Age Fortresses in the Northern Negev Tel Aviv 7:70-81. Milevsky, I., 2002 A New Fertility Figurine and New Animal Motifs from the Chalcolithic in the Southern Levant :Finds from Cave K-1 at Quleh, Israel Paleorient 28:135-144. Miller, J. J., 1999 Excavations at Sinai-18, the Khasem El Taref Site, Zarnoq Locality in An Archaeological Investigation of the Central Sinai, Egypt eds. F. W. Eddy, and F. Wendorf. Cairo: The American Research Center in Egypt, Inc. and The University Press of Colorado. pp. 181- 192. Molyneaux, D., 1989 Concepts of Humans and Animals in Post-Contact Micmac Rock Art in Animals into Art.

372

Ed. H Morphy. London: Onwin Hyman. pp. 193-214. Monson, J., 2000 The New ‘Ain Dara Temple Closest Solomonic Parallel Biblical Archaeology Review 26(3):20-35. Moore, U., 1971 HaBedouim (A Collection of Articles). Jerusalem: Prime Minister's office – Office of the advisor to Arab affairs. pp. 1-27. (Hebrew) Moorey, P. R. S., 1988 The Chalcolithic hoard from Nahal Mishmar, Israel, in Context World Archaeology 20(2):171-189. Morphy, H., 1991 Ancestral Connections: art and an Aboriginal system of knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Morris, R. W. B., 1979 The Prehistoric Rock Art of Great Britain: A Survey of all Sites Bearing Motifs more Complex than Simple Cup-Marks Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 55:45-88. Munday, F., 1976 The Avdat/Aqev Area, Its Habitat and Geologic Setting. Pp. 9-24 in Prehistory and Paleoenviron-ments in the Central Negev, Israel, Vol. I (The Avdat/Aqev Area, Part 1), ed. A. E. Marks. Institute for the Study of Earth and Man, Reports of Investigations 2. Dallas: Southern Methodist University. Murray, G. W., 1935 Sons of Ishmael A Study of the Egyptian Bedouin. London: George Rutledge and Sons. Nadel, D., Bar-Oz, G., Avner, U., Boaretto, E., and Malkinson, D., 2010 Walls, Ramps and Pits: the Construction of the Samar Desert Kites, Southern Negev, Israel. Antiquity 84:976-992. Nadel , D., Bar-Yosef, O., and Gopher, A., 1991 Early Neolithic Arrowhead Types in the Southern Levant: A typological Suggestion Paléorient vol 17/1. pp. 109-119. Nahlieli, D. 2007 Settlement Patterns in the Late Byzantine and early Islamic Periods in the Negev, Israel in On the Fringe of Society: Archaeological and Ethnoarchaeological perspectives on Pastoral and Agricultural Societies. eds. B. A. Saidel and E. J. van Steen. BAR International Series 1657. pp. 79-86. Nash, G., 2000 Defining a Landscape/place – Rock Art as a Boundary of Cultural and Socio-Political Identity: A Norwegian Perspective in Signifying Place and Space: World Perspectives of Landscape and Rock-art. Ed. G. Nash. Oxford: BAR International Series S902. pp. 1- 16. Negbi, O., 1976 Canaanite Gods in Metal an Archaeological Study of Ancient Syro-Palestinian Figurines of Ancient Syro-Palestinian Figurines. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology. 1970 Metal Figurines from Israel and her Neighbors Qadmoniot 3:78-87. (Hebrew) Negev, A., 1963 Nabatean Inscriptions from ‘Avdat (Oboda) Israel Exploration Journal 13:113-124.

373

1969 The Excavation at Kurnub (Mamshit) Qadmoniot 2(1):17-22. (Hebrew) 1971 The petroglyphs of Sinai Qadmoniot 4(1):21-24. (Hebrew) 1981 The Greek Inscriptions from the Negev. SBF Collectio Minor 25. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. 1988 The Architecture of Mempsis Final Report Volume II The Late Roman and Byzantine Periods. Qedem 27. 1993 Edoba Halutza, and Kurnub in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Carta. ed. E. Stern. pp. 485-490, Volume II, pp. 831-843 Volume 3, and pp. 1461-1464 Volume IV. (Hebrew) 1997 The Architecture of Oboda Final Report. Qedem 36. Nehmé, L., 1995 Nouvelles gravures rupestres à Pétra: techniques, religion, épigraphie in Studies in The History and Archaeology of Jordan V. eds. K. ‘Amr, F. Zayadine and M. Zaghloul. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. pp. 427-435. Nevo, Y. D., 1985 Sde Boqer and the Central Negev 7th-8th Century AD 3rd. Jerusalem: Israel Publication Services. 1989 A New Arabic Inscription Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 52(1):18-23. 1991 Pagans and Herders A Re-examination of the Negev Runoff Cultivation Systems in the Byzantine and Early Arab Periods. Midreshet Ben-Gurion: IPS Ltd. Nevo, Y., Cohen, Z., and Heftman, D., 1993 Ancient Arabic Inscriptions from the Negev. Midreshet Ben-Gurion: IPS Ltd. Nevo, Y., and Koren, J., 1991 Hydromechanics, Agricultural and Economic Aspects in Pagans and Herders a Re- examination of the Negev Runoff Cultivation Systems in the Byzantine and Early Periods. Ed. Y. Nevo. Jerusalem: Achva Press. pp. 87-108. Newton, L.S. and Zarins, J., 2000 Aspects of Bronze Age Art of Southern Arabia: The Pictorial Landscape and Its Relation to Economic and Socio-Political Status, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 11: 154–179 Nol, H., 2008 Settlement, Economy and State in the Arava during the Early Islamic Period from the Archaeological Data. Unpublished thesis submitted for Degree of Masters at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. (Hebrew) Noy, T., 1975 Six Neolithic Sites, A Sample from Different Geographic Zones of Israel. Unpublished thesis submitted for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Hebrew University Jerusalem. 1991 Art and Decoration of the Natufian at Nahal Oren in The Natufian Culture in the Levant eds. O. Bar-Yosef and F. R. Valla. International Monographs in Prehistory Archaeological Series 1. pp. 557-568. Noy, T., and Cohen, R., 1974 Nahal Boker: An Early Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Site Mitekufat Haeven 9:14. (Hebrew) O’Dwyer Shea, M., 1983 The Small Cuboid Incense-Burner of the Ancient Near East Levant XV:76-109.

374

Ogdon, J., 1985-6 Some Notes on the Iconography of the God Min Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 7:29-41. Olaizola, A.M., Manrique, E. and LópezPueyo, M.E., 1999 Organization logics of transhumance in Pyrenean sheep farming systems. Options Méditerranéennes, Série A, 38:227-230. Oleson, J. P. 2003 Nabatean Water Supply in The Nabateans in the Negev. ed. R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom. Haifa: Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum, University of Haifa. pp. 39*-42*. 2007 Nabatean Water Supply, Irrigation, and Agriculture: An Overview in The World of the Nabateans Volume 2 of the International Conference the World of the Herod’s and the Nabataeans held at the British Museum, 17-19 April 2001. Ed. K. D. Politis. Oriens et Occidens 15. pp. 217-249. Ornan, T., 2001 Ištar as Depicted on Finds from Israel in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan. ed. A. Mazar. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 331. pp. 235-256. 2006 The Lady and the Bull: Remarks on the Bronze Plaque from Tel Dan in Essays on Ancient Israel in Its Near Eastern Context A Tribute to NadavNa’amaneds. Y. Amit, E. Ben Zvi, I. Finkelstein, and O. Lipschits. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. pp. 297-312. 2008 Gods and Symbols in the Art of Israel/Palestine c. 1000-600 BCE in Ancient Gods Polytheism in Eretz Israel and Neighboring Countries from the Second Millennium BCE to the Islamic Period. eds. M., Kister, J. Geiger, N. Na’aman and S. Shaked. Jerusalen:Yad Ben-Zvi Press. pp. 64-89. (Hebrew) 2009 Twins a Dangerous Pregnancy Biblical Archaeology Review 35(1):54-60. Orni, E. and Efrat, E., 1973 Geography of Israel. Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society of America. Ortiz, S., M., 2004 Deconstructing and Reconstructing the United Monarchy: House of David or Tent of David (Current Trends in Iron Age Chronology) in The Future of Biblical Archaeology Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions eds. J. K. Hoffeier and A. Millard. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing. pp. 121-147. Oshry-Frenkel, L., 2007 Iron-Age Settlements and Bedouin Encampments in the Central Negev Desert: Spatial Analysis, Site Characteristics and Resource Management Unpublished thesis submitted for the degree of Masters at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert Research, Albert Katz International School for Desert Studies. (Hebrew) Otto, J., nd Research on Rock Art in South Israel Region Timna -Valley Rock Art of Timna Valley www.stonewatch.org accessed 28th of April 2010. Ouzman, S., 1998 Towards a Mindscape of Landscape: Rock-Art as Expression of World-Understanding in The Archaeology of Rock-Art. eds. C. Chippindale and P. S. C. Tacon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 30-41. Oxtoby, W. G.,

375

1968 Some Inscriptions of the Safaitic Bedouin American Oriental Society. Pakkala, J., Münger, S., and Zangenberg, J., 2004 Kinneret Regional Roject: Tel Kinrot Excavations Tel Kinrot – Tell el-‘Orēme – Kinneret. ed. S. Aro-Valjus. Vantaa: Tummavuoren Kirjapaino. Palmer., E. H., 1871 Desert of the Exodus Journeys on Foot in the Wilderness of the Forty Years’ Wanderings. London: Bell and Daldy. Paz, I., 1979 Nature and Landscape from Negev to Mount Hermon. Tel-Aviv: Am Oved Publishers Ltd. (Hebrew) Paz, U. and Eshbol, Y., 1991 Of the Herbs of the Field and Animals of the Land. (Hebrew) Pearce, D., 2004 ‘Testing’ and Altered States of Consciousness in Upper Paleolithic Art Research Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(1):82-85. Pearse, R., 2003 Cosmas Indicopleustes, Christian Topography. Preface to the Online Edition. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/cosmas_00_0_eintro.htm accessed 6th of April 2011. Peleg, R, Zohar, G., and Baruchi, S., 2004 The Negev, Man and the Environment throughout the Ages. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi. (Hebrew) Peters, J., and Schmidt, K., 2004 Animals in the Symbolic World of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, Southeastern Turkey: A Preliminary Assessment Anthropozoologica 39(1):179-218. Philip, G., 1989 Metal Weapons of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in Syria-Palestine part I, BAR International Series 526(i). Pope, G. A., 2000 Weathering of Petroglyphs: Direct Assessment and Implications for dating Methods Antiquity 74(286):833-843. Pope, G. A., Meierding, T. C., and Paradise, T. R., 2002 Geomophology’s Role in the Study of Weathering of Cultural Stone Geomorphology 47:211-225. Porat, H., 2009 The Bedouin of the Negev between Nomadism and Urbanism 1948-1973 Ben-Gurion University of the Negev: Negev Center for Regional Development. (Hebrew) Porat, N., Rosen, S. A., Boaretto, E., and Avni, Y., 2006 Dating the Ramat Saharonim Late Neolithic Desert Cult Site Journal of Archaeological Science 33:1341-1355. Porath, Y., 1995 Qanats in the Arava Eilat Studies in the Archaeology, History and Geography of Eilat and the Arava. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. pp. 243:260. Potts, D. T., 1991 Further Excavations at Tell Abraq : The 1990 Season. Copenhagen: Munksgaar. 1998 Some Issues in the Study of the Pre-Islamic Weaponry of Southeastern Arabia Arabian

376

Archaeology and Epigraphy 9:182-208. Preston, K., 1976 An Introduction to the Anthropomorphic content of the Rock Art of Jebel Akhdar Journal of Oman Studies 2:17-38. Pritchard, J. B., 1963 The Bronze Age Cemetery at Gibeon. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania. Rahmani, L. T., 1980 Miscellanea – Roman to Medieval Atiqot14:103-105. Rausing, G., 1967 The Bow. Some Notes on Its Origin and Development, Bonn: R Habelt Verlag. Ray, P. J., and LaBianca, O. S., 1995 Sedentarization and Nomadization in Transjordan in the Early Islamic Period: the Khirbet Rufeis Cave Complex Excavations and Wusum. Lecture presented at the Annual Meeting of the American School of Oriental Research Philadelphia, Penn. November 19, 1995. Reich, R., 1990 Two Sites in Biqat Uvdah. ‘Atiqot 10:13-17. (Hebrew) Reisner, R. G., 1971 Graffiti: Two Thousand Years of Wall Writing. Spokane: Cowles Book Co. Renfrew, C., 1985 The Archaeology of Cult. The Sanctuary at Phylakopi. The British School of Archaeology at Athens: Thames and Hudson. Richards, J. D. and Ryan, N. S., 1985 Data Processing in Archaeology Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robertson Smith, W., 1880 Animal Worship and Animal Tribes among the Arabs and in the Old Testament Journal of Philology 9(17):75-100. 2005 Lectures on the Religion of the Semites Lexington: Elibron Classics. Rosen, A. M., 2007 Civilizing Climate Social Responses to Climate Change in the Ancient Near East. Lanham: AltaMira Press. Rosen, A. M., and Rosen, S. A., 2001 Determinist or not Determinisit? Climate, Environment, and Archaeological Explanation in the Levant in Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse. ed. S. R. Wolff. ASOR books vol 5. Atlanta. pp. 535-549. Rosen, S., 1987 Byzantine Nomadism in the Negev: Results from the Emergency Survey Journal of Field Archaeology 14:29-42. 1988 Notes on the Origins of Pastoral Nomadism: A Case Study from the Negev and Sinai Currant Anthropology 29:498-506. 1992 The Case for Seasonal Movement of Pastoral Nomads in the Late Byzantine/Early Arabic Period in the South Central Negev in Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives. Monographs in World Archaeology no. 10. eds. O. Bar-Yosef and A. Khazanov. Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. pp: 153-164. 1994 Archaeological Survey of Israel Map of Makhtesh Ramon (204). Israel Antiquity Authority. 2002a The Evolution of Pastoral Nomadic Systems in the Southern Levantine Periphery in In

377

Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Ram Gophna eds. E. C. M. van den Brink and E. Yannai. Tel Aviv: Ramot Publishing. pp. 23-44. 2002b An Economic Model for Early Bronze Age Pastoral Nomadism. Beer-Sheva XV:344- 359. 2003 Early Multi-Resource Nomadism: Excavations at the Camel Site in the Central Negev Antiquity 77(298):749-760. 2007 The Nabatean as Pastoral Nomads: An Archaeological Perspective in The World of the Nabateans Volume 2 of the International Conference the World of the Herods and the Nabataeans held at the British Museum, 17-19 April 2001. ed. K. D. Politis. Oriens et Occidens 15. pp. 345-373. 2008 Desert Pastoral Nomadism in the Longue Durée. A Case Study from the Negev and the Southern Levantine Deserts in The Archaeology of Mobility. eds. H. Barnard, and W. Wendrick. Los Angeles : Cotsen Institute of Archaeology ,University of California. pp. 115-140. 2009 History Does Not Repeat Itself: Cyclicity and Particularism in Nomad-Sedentary Relations in the Negev in the Long Term in Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East Cross – Disciplinary Perspectives. ed. J. Szuchman. Chicago: University of Chicago Oriental Institute Seminars no. 5. pp. 57-86. 2010 The Desert and the Sown: A Lithic Perspective in Lithic Technology in Metal Using Societies Proceedings of a UISPP Workshop, Lisbon, September 2006. ed. B. V. Eriksen. Højbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Society. pp. 203-220. 2011 Desert Chronologies and Periodization Systems in Culture, Chronology and the Chalcolithic: theory and Transition. eds. J. Lovell and Y. Rowan. London: Council for British Research in the Levant. pp. 69-81. Rosen, A. S., and Avni, G., 1997 The ‘Oded Sites Investigations of Two Early Islamic Pastoral Camps South of the Ramon Crater. Beer-Sheva ed. S. Ahituv Volume XI. Rosen, S. A., Bocqentin, F., Avni, Y., and Porat, N. 2007 Investigations at Ramat Saharonim A Desert Precinct in the Central Negev. Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 346:1-27. Rosen, S. A., and Rosen Y. J., 2003 The Shrine of the Setting Sun: Survey of the Sacred Precinct at Ramat Saharonim. Israel Exploration Journal 53(1):1-19. Rosen, S. A, and Saidel, B. A., 2010 The Camel and the Tent: An Exploration of Technological Change among Early Pastoralists Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 69:63–77. Rosen, S. A., Savinetsky, A. B., Plakht, Y., Kisseleva, N, K., Khassanov, B. F., Pereladov, A. M., and Haiman, M., 2005 Dung in the desert: Preliminary Results of the Negev Holocene Ecology Project Currant Anthropology 46(2):317-327. Rosen-Ayalon, M., 1988 New Discoveries in Islamic Archaeology in the Holy Land in The Holy Land in History and Thought Papers Submitted to the International Conference on the Relations Between the Holy Land and The World Outside it Johannesburg 1986. ed. M. Sharon. Leiden: E. J. Brill. pp. 257-269.

378

Rosen-Ayalon, M., Ben-Tor, A., and Nevo, Y., 1982 The Early Arab Period in the Negev. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Institute of Archaeology. Rosenfeld, A., and Smith, C., 1997 Recent Developments in Radiocarbon and Stylistic Methods of Dating Rock-Art Antiquity 71:405-411. Rosenfeld, B-Z., 1988 The ‘Boundry of Gezer’ Inscriptions and the History of Gezer at the End of the Second Temple Period Israel Exploration Journal 38(4):235-245. Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R., 1982 Die Kirchen Von Sobota und die Dreiapsidenkirchen des Nahen Ostens. Wiesbaden:Otto Harrassowitz. 2003 The Nabateans in the Negev. Haifa: Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum, University of Haifa. Rothenberg, B., 1972 Timna Valley of the Biblical Copper Mines. London: Thames and Hudson. 1999 Archaeo-Metallurgical Researches in the Southern Arabah Part I: Late Pottery Neolithic to Early Bronze IV The Palestine Exploration Fund 131(1):68-89 2001 Rock Drawings in the Ancient Copper Mines of the Arabah – New Aspects of the Region’s History Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies 21:4-9. 2008 Rock Art Styles in the Negev and Sinai in Research on Rock Art in South-Israel Timna- Valley. StoneWatch. Rothenberg, B., and Glass, J., 1992 The Beginnings and the development of Early Metallurgy and the Settlement and Chronology of the Western Arabah, from the Chalcolithic Period to Early Bronze IV Levant 24:141-157. Ross, M., 2001 Emerging Trends in Rock-Art Research: Hunter-Gatherer Culture, Land and Landscape Antiquity 75:543-548. Rubin, R. 1986 Settlement Pattern and the Agricultural Base in the Rehovot Ba-Negev Region During the Byzantine Period. Unpublished thesis submitted for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Hebrew University. 1996 Urbanization, Settlement and Agriculture in the Negev Desert – The Impact of the Roman-Byzantine Empire on the Frontier Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina Verein 112:49-60. Russell, N., and Meece, S., 2005 Animal Representations and Animal Remains at Catalhöyük in Catalhöyük Perspectives Reports from the 1995-99 Seasons. Ed. I. Hodder. Pp. 209-230. Saidel, B., 2000 A Preliminary Report on the Bedouin Ethnoarchaeological Survey Project in Southern Jordan Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 44:569-580. Saidel, B., Erickson-Gini, T., Vardi, K., Rosen, S. A., Maher, E., and Greenfield, H., 2006 Test Excavations at Rogem Be’erotayim in Western Negev Mitekufat Haeven Journal of The Israel Prehistoric Society 36:201-229.

379

Sala, R., and Deom, J. M., 2010 Semiological Methods in Rock Art Studies in Rock Art in Modern Society on the 290th Anniversary of the Discovery of Tomskaya Pisanitsa Vol. 2. pp. 109-129. Saller, S., 1965 Bab edh-Dhra’ Liber Annuus 15:137-219. Sauvet, G., Layton, R., Lenssen-Erz, T., Taçon, P and Wlodarczyk, A., 2009 Thinking with Animals in Upper Palaeolithic Rock Art Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19(3):319-36. Schaub, R. T., and Rast, W. E., 1989 Bâb Edh-Dhrâ Excavations in the Cemetery. Winona Lake: Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan, Vol 1, Schaafsma, P., 1989 Supper or Symbol: Roadrunner Tracks in Southwest Art and Ritual in Animals into Art eds. H. Morphy and U. Hyman. One World Archaeology Series 7. pp. 253:269. Schiller, G., 1971 Iconography of Christian Art Volume I Translated by J. Seligman. London: Lund Humphries London. Schmidt, K., 2009 Tall Hujyrāt al-Ghuzlān – the Wall Decorations in Prehistoric Aqaba I. eds. L. Khalil and K. Schmidt. pp. 99-112. Schneider, J. S., and Bierman, P. R., 1997 Surface Dating Using Rock Varnish in Chronometric Dating in Archaeology eds. R. E. Taylor, and M. J. Aitken. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 357-388. Schwarz, A., 1983 La Dimensione Verticale Dell’Androgino Immortale in Valcamonica Symposium 1979 Proceedings The Intellectual Expressions of Prehistoric Man: Art and Religion. eds. A. Beltran, R. W. Brockway, B. Chiarelli, S. Marstrander, G. C. Oosthuizen, and J. Ries. Capo di Ponte: Edizionidel Centro. pp. 79-97. Segal, A., 1978 Ancient Sites of the Holy Land in the Classical Period Selected Plans. Beer-Sheva: Ben- Gurion University of the Negev. 1983 The Byzantine City of Shivta (Esbetia), Negev Desert, Israel . BAR International Series 179. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1988 Architectural Decoration in Byzantine Shivta. BAR International Series 420. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. 1986 Shivta Portrait of a Byzantine City in the Negev Desert. Haifa: Haifa University Press. Seger, J. D., 1973 Limping About the Altar Eretz Israel 23:120*-127*. Serjeant, R. B., 1976 South Arabian Hunt. London: Luzac. Shahack-Gross, R., and Finkelstein, I., 2008 Substance Practices in an Arid Environment: A Geoarchaeological Investigation in an Iron Age Site, the Negev Highlands, Israel Journal of Archaeological Science 35:965- 982. Shalev, S., 2004 Swords and Daggers in Late Bronze Age Canaan. Prähistorische Bronzefunde Abteilung

381

IV Band 13. Stuttgrat: Franz Steiner Verlag. Shalmon, B., Kofyan, T., and Hadad, E., 1993 A Field Guide to the: Land Mammals of Israel Their Tracks and Signs. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House Ltd. (Hebrew) Shalom, G., 1971 Magen David in Encyclopaedia Judaica volume 11. eds. B. Jaffe and S. Klaidman Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem pp 687-697. Shami, S., Taminian, L., Morsy, S.A., El Bakri, Z.B., and El-Wathig, M.K., 1990 Women in Arab Society: Work Patterns and Gender Relations in Egypt, Jordan, and Sudan. New York: Berg Publishers limited & UNESCO. Shamir, O., and Baginski, A., 2001 Textiles and Cordage from ‘Avdat – the Cave of the Saints ‘Atiqot 42:243-260. Sharon, M., 1981 Arabic Inscriptions from Sede Boqer in Archaeological Survey of Israel, Map of Sde Boqer – East. ed. R. Cohen. Israel: Publications of the Department of Antiquities and Museums. pp. xxxi-xxxii. 1985 Arabic Inscriptions from Sede Boqer in Archaeological Survey of Israel Map of Sede- Boqer – West (167) 12-03. ed. R. Cohen. Israel: Publications of the Department of Antiquities and Museums. pp. 31*-34*. 1988 The Bedouin in Israel under the Islamic Rule The Bedouin, Notes and Articles 36-57. 1990 Arabic Rock Inscriptions from the Negev Archaeological Survey of Israel Ancient Rock Inscriptions Supplement to Map of Har Nafha (196) 12-01. eds. Y. Kuris and L. Leder. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquity Authority. pp. 9*-35*. 1993 Five Arabic Inscriptions from Rehovoth and Sinai Israel Exploration Journal 43:50-59. Sharon, M., Avner, U., and Nahlieli, D., 1996 An Early Islamic Mosque near Be’er Ora in the Southern Negev: Possible Evidence for an Early Eastern Qiblah? ‘Atiqot 30:107-114. Sharpe, K., Barnett, T., and Rushton, S., 2008 The Prehistoric Rock Art of England: Recording, Managing and Enjoying Our Carved Heritage. English Heritage and Northumberland County Council. http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-836- 1/dissemination/pdf/ERA_Brochure.pdf accessed 19th of October 2010. Shereshevski, J., 1991 Byzantine Urban Settlements in the Negev Desert Beer-Sheva ed. S. Ahituv. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. Shmueli, A., 1980 The End of Nomadism in Bedouin Societies in the Process of Sedentarization. Tel Aviv: Reshafim Books. (Hebrew) Shoham, Y., 2000 Inscribed Pottery in City of David Excavations Final Report VI. Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. pp. 17-28. Shoshan, A., 1963 Animals and Us. Jerusalem: Shoshanim Publishers. (Hebrew) Simmons, A. H., 1981 A Paleosubsistence Model for Early Neolithic Occupation of the Western Negev Desert Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 242:31-49.

381

Simms, S. R., 1988 The Archaeological Structure of a Bedouin Camp Journal of Archaeological Science 15:197-211. Simms, S. R., and Russell, K. W., 1997 Tur Imdai Rockshelter: Archaeology of recent Pastoralists in Jordan Journal of Archaeological Science 24:459-472. Singer-Avitz, L., 1999 Beersheba – A Gateway Community in Southern Arabian Long-Distance Trade in the Eighth Century B.C.E. Tel Aviv 26(1):3-74. Singh, P., 1974 Neolithic Cultures of Western Asia. London: Seminar Press. Sinn, R., Ketzis, J., and Chen, T., 1999 The Role of Woman in the Sheep and Goat Sector Small Ruminant Research 34:259-269 Smart, N., 1998 The World’s Religions Old Traditions and Modern Transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, B. W., and Van Schalkwyk, J. A., 2002 The White Camel of Witwatersrand Journal of African History 43:235-254. Smith, W. E., 1961 Ancient Egypt as Represented in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Solomon, A., 2008 Myths, Making, and Consciousness Differences and Dynamics in san Rock Arts Current Anthropology 49(1):59-86. Spiegel, M. R., 1961 Theory and Problems of Statistics. New York: Schaum Publishng Co. Stark, M. T., Bishop, R. L., and Miksa, E., 2000 Ceramic Technology and Social Boundaries: Cultural Practices in Kalinga Clay Selection and Use Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(4):295-331. Stark, M. T., and Heidke, J. M. 1998 Ceramic manufacture, productive specialization, and the Early Classic period in Arizona’s Tonto Basin. Journal of Anthropological Research 54: 499–520. Stekelis, M., 1972 The Yarmukian Culture of the Neolithic Period. Jerusalem: The Magness Press, the Hebrew University. Stetkevych, S. P., 1993 The Mute Immortals Speak Pre-Islamic Poetry and the Poetics of Ritual. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Stern, E., 1973 The Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period 538-332 B.C.E. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute and the Israel Exploration Society. 1984 Part A: From the Early Roman Rule through the end of the Second Temple Period (63 B.C.E – 74 C.E) (my translation) in The History of Eretz Israel the Roman Byzantine Period the Roman Period from the Conquest to the Ben Kozba War (63 B.C.E – 135 C.E). ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Keter, Yad Ben Zvi. (Hebrew)

382

Stern, E. Gradus, Y. Meir, A. Krakover, S. and Tsoar, H., 1986 Atlas of the Negev. Beer-Sheva: The Geography Department, Ben-Gurion University. Stewart, P., 1997 Fine Art and Coarse Art: The Image of Roman Priapus Art History 20(4)575-588. Stone, A., 2009 Shamanism and European Prehistory Northern Earth Adventures in the Landscape http://www.northernearth.co.uk/stone.htm accessed 24th of September 2009. Studer, J., 2007 Animal Exploitation in the Nabatean World in The World of the Nabateans Volume 2 of the International Conference the World of the Herod’s and the Nabataeans held at the British Museum, 17-19 April 2001. ed. K. D. Politis. Oriens et Occidens 15. pp. 252-272. Sussman, V., 1980 A Relief of a Bull from the Early Bronze Age Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 237:75-77. Syon, D., and Hartal, M., 2003 A New Tetrarchic Boundary-Stone from the Northern Hula Valley Scripta Classica Israelica 22:233-239. Taçon, P. S. C., 2008 Doodles, Rock Art and Arousal: An Alternative to the Entopic Explanation Rock Art Research 25(1):52-53. Taçon, P. S.C. and Chippindale, C., 1998 Introduction: an archaeology of rock-art through informed methods and formal methods in The Archaeology of Rock-Art. eds. C. Chippindale & P. S.C. Taçon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1-10. Tadmor, M., 1981 Female Relief Figures of the Late Bronze Age Cannan Eretz-Israel 15:79-84. (Hebrew) 1982 Female Cult Figurines in the Late Canaan and Early Israel: Archaeological Evidence in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays Papers Read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 5-7 December 1979. ed. T. Ishida. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. pp. 139-173. 1985 Two Ivory Figurines from the Chalcolithic Period: Technique and Iconography Eretz Israel 18:428-434. Tahal, G., 1994 ‘Avedat Excavations and Surveys in Israel 14:130-133. Takács, S. A., 2005 Divine and Human Feet: Records of Pilgrims Honouring Isis in Pilgrimage in Graeco- Roman & early Christian Antiquity Seeing the Gods. eds. J., Elsner, and I., Rutherford. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 353:369. Tamna, Y., 2000 Leopards of the Judean Desert. Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel. (Hebrew)

Teissier, B., 1996 Egyptian Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle Bronze Age. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 11 Seiries Archaeologica. Fribourg: University Press Fribourg Switzerland.

383

Theodor, O., 1954 On Poisonous Snakes and Snake Bites in Israel. Jerusalem. Tsafrir, Y., Patrich, J., Rosenthal-Heginbottom, R., Hershkovitz, I., Nevo, Y. D., 1988 Excavations at Rehovot-In-The-Negev Volume I: The Northern Church. Qedem 25. Tsoar, H., and Goodfriend, G. A., 1994 Chronology and Paleoenvironmental Interpretation of Holocene Aeolian Sands at the Inland Edge of the Sinai-Negev The Holocene 4(3):244-250. Tufnell, O., 1953 Lachish III (Tell Ed-Duweir) The Iron Age. London: Oxford University Press. Turner, V., 1970 The Forest of Symbols Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. New York: Cornell University Press. Tzaferis, V., 1982 Rock-Cut Tombs on Mount Scopus ‘Atiqot (Hebrew Series) 8:22-25. Tzafrir, Y., 1984 Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the second Temple to the Muslim Conquest Volume Two Archaeology and Art. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi Publications. 1993 Rehovot BaNegev in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Volume IV. Jerusalem: Carta. ed. E. Stern. pp. 1461-1464. (Hebrew) Ucko, P. J., and Dimbleby, G. W., 1968 The Domestication and Exploration of Plants and Animals. London: Gerald Duckworth and Co. Ltd. Ucko, P. J., and Rosenfeld, R., 1967 Palaeolithic Cave Art New York: World University Press. Ussishkin, D., 2007 Archaeology of the Biblical Period: On Some Questions of Methodology and Chronology of the Iron Age in Understanding the History of Ancient Israel ed. H. G. M. Williamson. Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy. pp. 131-141. Vaks, A. Bar-Matthews, M. Ayalon, A. Mattews, A. Frumkin, A. Dayan, U. Halicz, L. Almogi- Labin, A., and Schilman, B., 2006 Paleoclimate and Location of the Border Between Mediterranean Climate Region and the Saharo-Arabian Desert as Revealed by Speleothems from the Northern Negev Desert, Israel Earth and Planetary Letters 249:384-399. Van Den Branden, A., 1956 Les Textes Thamoudéens de Philby Volume II. Louvain: Pulications Universitaires Institut Orientaliste. Van Noten, F., 1978 Rock Art of the Jebel Uweinat. Graz: Akadem Druck. Verhoeven, M., 2002 Ritual and Ideology in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of the Levant and Southeast Anatolia Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12(2):233-258. Verner, M., 1973 Some Nubian Petroglyphs on Czechoslovak Concessions. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Philologica Monographia XLV. Praha: Universita Karlova. Vinken, P., 2000 The Shape of the Heart. New York: Elsevier

384

Vinnicombe, P., 1976 People of the Eland: Rock Paintings of the Darkensberg Bushman as a Reflection of Their Life and Thought. Pietermaritzburg : University of Natal Press. Walther, F. R., Mungall, E. C., and Grau, G. A., 1983 Gazalles and Their Relatives A study in Territorial Behavior. New Jersey: Noyes Publications. Watson, B., 2008 Oodles or Doodles? Doodling Behaviour and its Implications for Understanding Palaeoarts Rock Art Research 25(1):35-60. Watson, P, J., 1979 Archaeological Ethnography in Western Iran. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Wendrich, W., 2008 From Objects to Agents: The Ababda Nomads and the Interpretation of the Past in The Archaeology of Mobility: Nomads in the Old and in the New World. ed. H. Barnard and W. Wendrich. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Publications. pp. 509-538. Wenke, R. J., 1984 Patterns in Prehistory Humankind’s First Three Million Years. Second Addition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Westenholz, J. G., 2000 Images of Inspiration the Old Testament in Early Christian Art. Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem. Whitcomb, D. S., and Johnson, J. H., 1979 Quseir al-Qadim 1978 Report. Cairo: American Research Center in Egypt. Whitley, D. S., 1998 Finding Rain in the Desert in The Archaeology of Rock Art eds. C. Chippindale and P. S. C. Taçon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 11-29. 2000 The Art of the Shaman Rock Art of California. Salt Lake City: The University of Utha Press. 2005 Introduction to Rock Art research. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Whitley, D. S., Johannes, H. N., and Hann, D., 2004 Friends in Low Places: Rock-Art and Landscape on the Modoc Plateau in The Figured Landscapes of Rock-Art Looking at Pictures in Place. eds. C. Chippindale and G. Nash. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 217-238. Wiessner P. 1984. Reconsidering the Behavioral Basis for Style: A Case Study among the Kalahari San Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3:190-234.Wilkinson, J. C., 1977 Water and Tribal settlement in South-East Arabia A Study of the Aflāj of Oman Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wilkinson,, R. H., 1991-2 Ancient Near eastern Raised-Arm Figures and the Iconography of the Egyptian God Min Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar 11:109-118. Wilson. D., 2004 ‘People Talk About Heaven. . .’ Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(1):86-90. Winkler, H. A., 1938 Rock-Drawings of Southern Upper Egypt I. London: The Egypt Exploration Society.

385

Winkelman, M., 2002 Shamanism and Cognitive Evolution Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12(1):71-101. Winnett, F. V., 1957 Safatic Inscriptions from Jordan . Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Winnett, F. V., and Harding, G. L., 1978 Inscriptions from Fifty Cairns. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Woerlee, B., 2008 Maghaba and Kress Sabretash http://alh- research.tripod.com/Light_Horse/index.blog/1965378/the-battle-of-magdhaba-sinai- december-23-1916-magdhaba-and-kress/ accessed 11th of October 2010. Woolley, L. C., and Lawrence T. E., 1915 The Wilderness of Zin Annual of the Palestine Exploration Fund. Wosene, A., 1991 Traditional Husbandry Practices and Major Health Problems of Camels in the Ogaden Nomadic Peoples 28:21-29. Yadin, Y., 1970 The Megiddo of the Kings of Israel Qadmoniot 2(10):38-62. (Hebrew) Yair, A., 2004 Slope Hydrology, the Collection of Run-Off Water, and the Spatial Distribution of Ancient Agricultural System in the Northern Negev in Nessana Excavations and Studies I Beer-Sheva vol. XVII. ed. D. Urman. pp. 91-111. (Hebrew) Yakar, J., 1989 The So-Called Anatolian Elements in the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Cultures of Palestine: A Question of Ethnocultural Origins in L’urbanoisation de la Palestine à l’âge du Bronze ancient Part II. BAR International Series 527(ii). Pp. 341- 354. 1991 Prehistoric Anatolia the Neolithic Transformation and the early Chalcolithic period. Tel Aviv: Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology Tel Aviv University. Yekutieli, Y., 2002 Divine Royal Power in In Quest of Ancient Settlements and Landscapes. eds. E. C. M. van den Brink and E. Yannai. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. pp. 243-253. 2004 The Desert, the Sown and the Egyptian Colony Egypt and the Levant 14:163-171. Yezerski, I. and Geva, H., 2003 Iron Age II Clay Figurines in Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem Conducted by Nahman Avigad, 1969-1982 Volume II: The Finds from Areas A, W and X- 2 ed. H. Geva. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. pp. 63-84. Yogev, O., 1983 A Fifth Millennium BCE Sanctuary in the ‘Uvda Valley Qadmoniot 4(64):118-122. (Hebrew) Zaccagnini, C., 1994 Feet of Clay at Emar and Elsewhere Orientalia 63(1):1-4. Zaky, A. R., 1965 On Islamic Swords in Studies in Islamic Art and Architecture In Honour of Professor K. A. C. Creswell. Cairo: The Center for Arabic Studies. The American University in Cairo Press. pp. 270-291.

386

Zevon, Z., 2004 The Ottomans in the Negev in Eretz Israel in the First World War, the Negev and Sinai Campaign. eds. E. Pimental and E. Shiller. Jerusalem:Ariel. Zhao Fu, C., n.d Look Back the Chinese Rock Art Research in Twenty Century http://www.chenzhaofu.cn/lax/BA.htm accessed 14th of October 2009. 1995 Rock Art in Northern China in Social and Perspectives. ed. K. Helskog and B. Olsen. Oslo: The Ins Comparative Research in Human Culture. pp. 367-377. Ziffer, I., Bunimovitz, S., and Lederman, Z., 2009 Divine or Human? An Intriguing Late Bronze Age Plaque Figurine from Tel Beth- Shemesh Egypt and the Levant 19:333-341. Zilhao, J., 1995 The Age of the Coa Valley (Portugal) Rock-Art: Validation of Archaeological Dating Palaeolithic and Refuting of Scientific Dating to Historic or Proto-Historic Times Antiquity 69:883-901. Zissu, B., 1996 A Graffito Depicting A Horseman From the Judean Foothills Palestine Exploration Quarterly 128:52-56. Zohar, M., 1992 Megalithic Cemeteries in the Levant in Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Materials in Anthropological Perspectives. Monographs in the world Archaeology 10.eds. O. Bar-Yosef and A. Khazanov. Madison WI: Prehistory Press. pp. 43-63. Zubieta, L., 2010 The Rock Art of Chinamwali: Material Culture and Girls’ Initiation in South-Central Africa. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand. Zuckerman, S., 2005 The Early Bronze Age Remains in Yoqne’am III The Middle and Late Bronze Ages Final Report of the Archaeological Excavations (1977-1988). eds. A. Ben-Tor, D. Ben-Ami, and A. Livneh. Qedem Reports 7. pp. 351-360.

387

תקציר

המחקר הנוכחי עוסק באמנות הסלע של הנגב המרכזי תוך התמקדות בחרותות משני אתרים6 הר מחיה וגבעת הכתובות. בכדי להשלים את התמונה בנוגע לאמנות הסלע של הנגב המרכזי נבדקו, נוסף על שני אתרים אלו, גם מספר אתרים נוספים. המחקר מורכב משלושה חלקים - מבואות, נתוני אמנות הסלע של הנגב המרכזי, ממצאים ופרשנות.

1חלק – מבואות

בחלק המבואות חמישה פרקים6 אקלים וסביבת הנגב בהווה ובעבר, ארכיאולוגית הנגב, שיטות תיארוך חרותות, אופנים שונים להבנת או לקריאה של אמנות סלע, וסקירה של תולדות חקר אמנות הסלע בנגב. הסקירה הגיאוגרפי ת המוצגת בפרק הראשון ממקמת את שני האתרים ששימשו מוקד למחקר זה באזורים צחיחים של הנגב, אך בתתי אזורים הנבדלים זה מזה. במבט על אקלים הנגב בעבר ניכר כי מתקופת ההולוקן הנגב חווה מחזוריות מסוימת של תקופות לחות יותר – ותקופות יבשות יותר. מאז שנת 3,200 לפנה"ס לערך האקלים בנגב יציב יחסית. עם זאת, שינוי קל במשקעים הופך איזור צחיח לשדה פורח.

הפרק השני של חלק המבואות סוקר כרונולוגיה, תפוצת ישובים, כלכלה, ארגון חברתי, עונתיות, וממצא אמנותי מאתרים הממוקמים בין בקעת באר שבע – ערד בצפון ומכתש רמון בדרום. הסקירה מתחילה בתקופה הפליאוליתית העליונה ומסתיימת עם כניסת הבדואים המודרניים לאזור. סקירה זו משמשת בהמשך בסיס לקביעת מסגרת כרונולוגית לאמנות הסלע בנגב המרכזי.

שלושת הפרקים האחרונים בחלק זה מציגים שיטות תיארוך חרותות ואופנים שונים לקריאת אמנות סלע ומהווים רקע למחקר המוצג בחלק השני.

2חלק – נתוני אמנות הסלע של הנגב המרכזי

חלק הנתונים נפתח עם פרק המוקדש למתודה לשיטות המחקר. בפרק זה מוגדרים כל המונחים המופיעים בדיסרטציה ומתואר אופן ביצוע הסקר ואיסוף הנתונים, החל מהשלב הראשון של בחירת אזורי המחקר וכלה בארגון הנתונים לאחר הסקר והניתוח הסטטיסטי. שני פרקים נוספים מתארים את אמנות הסלע של הר מחיה ושל גבעת הכתובות ו של האתרים הנוספים שנכללו במחקר.

אמנות הסלע של הר מחיה תועד ה באופן מקיף כולל 565 פנלים 5104ובהם אלמנטים. אמנות הסלע של גבעת הכתובות נדגמה עם תיעוד של 406 פנלים ובהם סה"כ 1446 אלמנטים. בתיעוד של כל אחד מ 6545 האלמנטים 6545 נרשמו פרטים כדוגמת גודל האלמנט, צבעו )תוך השוואה לטבלאות צבע מנסול(, כיוון והצפנת האלמנט, זווית הפנל, סוג הפנל )מכוסה פטינה או ללא פטינה(, מספר האלמנטים על הפנל, סוג המוטיב וסידרה של ניואנסי ם ם סגנוניים. פרטים אלו שימשו בסיס להערכה והשוואה של אמנות הסלע של שני האתרים. חלק 2 מסתיים 2 א

בהשוואה מפורטת בין הנתונים שנאספו מהר מחיה לאלו שנאספו מגבעת הכתובות.

הפרק ההשוואתי המסכם את החלק השני של המחקר מעריך את השוני שבין חרותות הר מחיה וחרותות גבעת הכתובות. מבחני חי בריבוע בוצעו על מוטיבים דמויי חיה ודמויי אדם מכל אתר בנפרד. במבחנים אלו הוצלבו כל זוג מאפיינים ודקויות סגנוניות. שילובים בעלי משמעות סטטיסטית, שילוב העולה על סבירות רנדומאלית, נמצאו לחרותות מכל סוג של בעל חיים וכן לחרותות דמויי האדם. כך, לדוגמא, מבחני החי הוכיחו כי יעלים עם זנב מורם וגוף מלא )משוברר כולו( אינם בעלי משמעות סטטיסטית. מאות שילובים שונים נבחנו כך. מעטים מתוך השילובים שנמצאו בעלי משמעות סטטיסטית באתר אחד נמצאו ככאלו גם באתר השני. עוד צורה לכימות המידע ולהשוואה בין האתרים הוא ערכי Ζ. ערכי Ζ המשווים את ההבדל בין שתי פרופורציות בלתי תלויות, כלומר חישוב מספר החרותות מכל קטגוריה ביחס למספר הכולל של החרותות אשר תועדו. ערכי Ζ עזרו בפתרון שאלות כגון האם היעלים מהווים אחוז דומה מכל חרותות דמוי החיה בהר מחיה ובגבעת הכתובות.

חי בריבוע וערכי Ζ בוחנים את אותם הנתונים מהיבטים שונים. בעזרת חי בריבוע ושילובי מאפיינים, נבחנו היבטים ברמת המיקרו הקשורים לדמות יחידה. ערכי ה- ,Ζ לעומת זאת, משקפים מבט רחב יותר של ררפרטוא אמנותי, את המקרו. שיטה שלישית שיושמה להשוואת חרותות משני האתרים הייתה השוואת יחסי החרותות המופשטים כנגד חרותות דמוי החיה, וחרותות דמוי האדם מכל אתר כנגד היחס מהאתר השני. שלושת אופנים אלו של השוואה היוו את הבסיס להגדרת סגנון אמנות סלע נגבי.

3חלק – ממצאים ופרשנויות

הפרק הראש הון של חלק השלישי מוקדש לנושא הכרונולוגיה. תחילה נבחנים המקרים השונים של סופראימפוזיציה )חרותות המכסות זו את זו( ותקופות הפעילות השונות של הוספת חרותות על פנל יחיד על ידי השוואת צבעי הפטינה. כאן נראה כי המוטיבים המופשטים תופסים חלק עיקרי בסופראימפוזציה, בעיקר בהיותם בשכבות העליונות המכסות חרותות קדומות. חרותות דמוי חיה וחרותות דמוי אדם ממוקמות פי ארבעה יותר בשכבות התחתונות ומכוסות על ידי חרותות אחרות יותר מאשר מכסות בעצמן חרותות. בבחינת שלבי הוספת חרותות על פנלים )כל פנל נבחן בפני עצמו( נוצרה כרונולוגיה יחסית המראה כי חרותות דמוי אדם, חיות עם קרניים, כלבים, משפחת הסוסיים, כלים ומכלאות, לרוב מופיעות בשכבות הראשונות, הקדומות של הפנל. חיות לא מזוהות, ציפורים וכתובות מופיעות בשלבי פעילות החרותות הבאות. שלב הפעילות האחרון של הוספת חרותות לרוב כולל תיאורי גמלים וחרותות מופשטות.

מוטיבים מסוימים ניתנים לתיארוך על בסיס נושא החרותה ומאפיינים כדוגמת הופעת קו אופקי במותן דמויות אדם, צורה וגודל של מגנים, דמויות בעמדת אורנט )העומדים עם ידיים מושטים כלפי מעלה(, חיות רכובות וכתובות. בנוסף נראה כי ניתן לעקוב אחר שינויים סגנוניים מסוימים לאורך זמן. שינויים אלו כוללים הופעה מאוחרת יחסית של יעלים בסגנון קווי )לינארי( בעלי שתי רגליים וקרן בודדת וגמלים בעלי דבשת וגוף

מלאים. שינויים אלו לא היו חד משמעיים וישנם מקרים רבים שבהם ניתן לראות את השימוש בסגנונות שונים באותו פרק זמן. ישנם מקרים רבים בהם סגנון אחד היה בשימוש לאורך זמן )אלפי שנים(,כפי שניתן לראות בבירור עם דמות היעל בסגנון הקווי המוצג עם ארבע רגליים ושתי קרניים. מרבית החרותות המופשטות מתוארכים על בסיס אתנוארכיאולוגיה, בהשוואה לממצא מאתרים אחרים בנגב ונתונים היסטוריים לתקופה המאוחרת לתקופה העבאסית.

הסכמה הכרונולוגיות שנוצרה במהלך המחקר הנוכחי תומכת במסקנותיו של בנו רותנברג אך עומדת בניגוד לאופן התיארוך שגיבש עמנואל ענתי. רותנברג רואה את אמנות הסלע של הנגב המרכזי כצורת ביטוי שעברה שינויים מועטים במהלך ההיסטוריה של ישוב הנגב. הוא מתארך את אמנות הסלע בנגב לתקופה שאינה קדומה מהמילניום השישי לפנה"ס. ענתי, בניגוד אליו, מבדיל בין שבעה סגנונות שונים )ומספר תתי סגנונות( המתפרשים על זמן המתחיל מתקופת האבן ועד לזמנים מודרניים. ענתי רואה את השינוי מסגנון אחד לסגנון שני בטכניקת יצור החרותה, גודל החרותה, צבע החרותה ונושא החרותה שהוא רואה כביטוי לשינוי בכלכלה. ממצאי המחקר הנוכחי אינם תומכים בהשערותיו של ענתי, בעיקר בנוגע לרעיוניות כי האמנות משקפת את הכלכלה ושטכניקות יצור חרותות מוגבלות לתקופות מסוימות. כך ההשערות שעליהן הושתתה הסכמה הכרונולוגית של ענתי נחלשות.

הפרק השני של חלק זה מציג שיטה להערכה והבנת השוני בין מכלולי אמנות סלע. השיטה מבוססת על שלוש רמות והיא מראה כי בחרותות המתועדות במסגרת מחקר זה באות לידי ביטוי שלוש מסורות שונות. הסגנון/המסורת הנגבי מוגדר על ידי מספר רב של חרותות מופשטות ביחס למספר החרותות דמויי החיה ואדם. מרבית האלמנטים הם בסגנון קווי שהפך לאחד ממאפיינ י הסגנון הנגבי לאורך כל תקופות הפעילות האמנותית. עם הסגנון הקווי אובחנו מספר שינויים כרונולוגיים6 חרותות קדומות, כבמקרה של היעל עם ארבע הרגליים ושתי הקרניים,חרותות מאוחרות יותר כיעל בעל שתי רגליים וקרן אחת בלבד וחרותות המציגות גוף המוגדר בקו קונטור וחיות שכל גופן מולא כצללית מופיעים לצד הסגנון הקווי בשכבות הראשונות שנראו על גבי הפנלים.

סגנון אמנות הסלע השני שזוהה הינו סגנון צפון ערב. מספר חרותות דמויי חיה מגבעת הכתובות זוהו כתוצר של אנשים המשתייכים לקבוצות דוברות צפאדית. במסגרת זו חרותות דמויי חיה מופיעות פי שתיים יותר על פנלים ללא פטינה מאשר על פנלים המכוסים פטינה. חרותות דמויי אדם מוצגים באחוזים מועטים ביחס לסגנון הנגבי. בגבעת הכתובות זוהתה רמה מסוימת של השפעה, מגע או אולי אף נוכחות ממקור צפון ערב באתר.

סגנון אמנות סלע שלישי נראה דרך הפנלים ללא הפטינה של הר מחיה. מסורת זו מאופיינת בעיקר בחרותות מופשטות. לצד החרותות המופשטות ישנן כתובות בערבית, מספר טביעות רגלים/סנדלים ומספר מועט יחסית של חרותות דמויי חיה ואדם. חלק מהחרותות המופשטות מזוהות כוואסם, סימני שבטים בדואים. ניתן לראות בתרבות אמנות סלע זו ככלל בדואית. סגנון אמנות סלע זה אינו מוגבל לסוג פנל מסוים.

הפרק האחרון של החלק השלישי בוחן משמעויות אפשריות של חרותות הנגב המרכזי. מחקר משווה קודם הראה כי ישנם דפוסים שונים הנוצרים על בסיס מקום אמנות הסלע בחברה היוצרת. על ידי השוואת דפוסים שונים נבחנו האפשרויות כי האמנות נעשתה במסגרת מצבי תודעה משתנים, שירבוט, טוטמיזם וסימני קלאן וטקסי מעבר. בבחינת אמנות הסלע כקשורה ל/או כתוצר של אחת מאלו, נמצא כי האלמנטים המופשטים, במיוחד אלו ברמת המורכבות הנמוכה ביותר, היו יכולים להיות קשורים למצבי תודעה משתנים. אך פרשנות סבירה יותר היא כי אלו הם תוצר של שרבוט. כתבים אתנוגראפיי ם מצביעים על כך כי חלק מהאלמנטים המופשטים הינם סמלי שבטים )וואסם( ושימשו כסימוני טרטוריה. ניתן להרחיב את פרשנות סימוני טרטוריה וגבולות ולכלול בתוכה את מרבית האלמנטים המופשטים שתועדו במחקר. אלמנטים דמויי חיות בעלי קרניים, דמויי אדם בעמדת אורנט, ודמויי אדם העומדים על גב חיה ככל הנראה משקפים אספקט דתי וקשור לאמונות שונות. קיימת גם האפשרות כי מוטיבים אלו מהווים ביטוי של אירוע היסטורי או מיתי.

עוד עולה מהמחקר כי בהסתכלות על חרותות דמויי האדם, ועל האופן בה הזכרים והנקבות מתוארות, ניתן להסיק כי מרבית החרותות )לפחות אלו של דמויי האדם( נעשו על ידי גברים.

חרותות יעלים מתוארות במספר מסגרות שונות כשהשכיחה ביותר היא דמות יעל בודדת. אופני תיאור נוספים אך פחות שכיחים כוללים סצנות צייד, יעל בהקשר דמות אורנט או טביעות רגליים. זיהוי דפוס שבו חיות בר מתוארות על ידי חברה המבוססת על עדרים יכול לשקף את שינויי המגדר שחלו בתוך החברה. הבחירה והשימוש החוזר בדמות היעל וזניחת דמות ואיקונוגרפיית השור המראה כי החברות הנגבית שיצרה את חרותות הסלע, בחרה בצורה זו להבדיל את עצמה מתרבויות הצפון.

אמנות סלע בנגב המרכזי: נ ,דועיתיתוח סגנוני, היבטים כרונולוגיים,הקשר בן האמנות לסביבה הטבעית, והשלכה על החברה היוצרת מתוך האמנות

מחקר לשם מילוי חלקי של הדרישות לקבלת תואדו" רקטור לפילוסופיה"

מאת

דוידה אייזנברג דגן

הוגש לסינאט אוניברסיטת בן גוריון בנגב

טז בסיוון תשע"ב 6.6.2012

באר שבע

מחקר לשם מילוי חלקי של הדרישות לקבלת תואדו" רקטור לפילוסופיה"

מאת

דוידה אייזנברג דגן

הוגש לסינאט אוניברסיטת בן גוריון בנגב

אישור המנחה ______

אישור דיקן בית הספר ללימודי מחקר מתקדמים ע"ש קרייטמן ______

טז בסיוון תשע"ב 6.6.2012

באר שבע

העבודה נעשתה בהדרכתו של

פרופ' סטיב רוזן

לבמחלקה מארכיאולו ,ארקגיה ומזרח קדום

בפקולטה למדעי הרוח והחברה

iii