> The mustatils themselves look like efficient pens

From the article: "initial theories suggested they were used as territorial markers for ancestral grazing grounds. Yet, as more and more were found, all dating to the same period, a different understanding emerged."

So the cult idea wasn't the archeologists' default description and their initial ideas were the same as yours. There aren't many hints in the article on why they revised that idea, but the following paragraph says this: "They've uncovered large numbers of cattle, goat and wild gazelle skulls and horns in small chambers in the heads of the mustatil, but found no indication that these were kept for domestic use. Since no other animal's body parts were found, it led the team to deduce that these were sacrificial. It further suggested that the animals were sacrificed elsewhere. This is important because it is evidence of a highly organised, cultic society, much earlier than was previously thought – predating Islam in the region by 6,000 years." Any theory will need to explain away the piling of animal skulls, and absence of the rest of the animal bodies, in the mutatils.

"Cult" should not be read negatively. It's probably a way to describe a proto-religion. Not as organised and consistent as modern religions, but enough similarities to indicate common worshipping practice. Certainly the most interesting part is the common culture across a large geographical area, which is quite sophisticated for the times.

Thanks for this reply. I wonder though if it was so unusual for there to be large communities of people living together this long ago and sharing a common culture.

I would think that there would be strength in numbers and that people would gravitate to those places where their daily needs were likely to be satisfied. If there were resource issues, such as food in particular, then we would expect to see more nomadic settlements like we see in north America from pre-Clovis sites. Those sites tended to be occupied seasonally with no permanent structures erected. The people who visited used natural shelters such as the caves or overhangs along creeks and rivers and evidence indicates they were used for thousands of years.

For these people to construct a city they would need not only to have reliable food sources to feed everyone living there but they would need fresh water and shelter.

It appears that they constructed dwellings for many people and this implies the availability of food and water. Food would obviously involve taking advantage of local wild and domesticated animals. To insure daily supplies were adequate these animals would need to be kept close enough to the settlements that it was convenient to get fresh food daily. That is why I think some of these are likely pens. They don't all have to be though. As the settlement size increases the supply of food on hand must also increase. It is likely that since they obviously had fresh water available back then they likely engaged in some form of agriculture, harvesting seeds or fruits of berries, etc locally.

Since some of these sites are large it is reasonable to assume that they share a culture and that each site knew of and traded with their neighbors sharing the burdens of managing food supplies and defense from predators and from common enemies.

Cult to me, being here in Texas, has negative connotations for obvious reasons. We have been host to more than one over the last few decades and a new one has moved in that could turn out to be worse than all the previous cults combined.

I would prefer that these ancient people who shared a culture and beliefs and who enjoyed living in close proximity to each other had a name that humanize them instead of one that could demonize them. The Al Ula people sounds better to me or the Khaybar society.

These links [0], [1] look to have a lot more information about the sites and may have been part of the source for the BBC article.

[0](https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/mus...)

[1](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/mu...)

I am assuming the article is contrasting the long periods of nomadic lifestyle that ruled over Arabia with the more stationary society suggested by the existence of those mustatils.

As for the heads of the cattle, I can easily imagine the mustatils to be some sort of combination farm-market where you would kill the cattle, burry the head, and give the rest to the consumer who would take it far away to their dwelling or on their journey if they happen to be nomadic; leading to random distribution of the rest of the carcass pieces.

> a name that humanize them instead of one that could demonize them.

"cult" has several meanings:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/cult

It's worth remembering that words aren't static over time and the negative connotations you attach to the word 'cult' wouldn't have existed for the early romans and greeks we get the word from. Early archaeologists and historians, being gigantic geeks for classical civilizations, basically copied the meaning during the renaissance / early modern period and that's where the modern term-of-art comes from. If it helps, you can understand it as "specific practices of worship by a group, especially if they're non-christian and non-western". There's some historical pejorative implications from colonial mindsets, but that's a different discussion.

I understand how words and meanings can change over generations and how some words fall out of favor. Here in Texas we have not had good luck with groups described as cults over the last few decades and if you grew up here in a fundamentalist Christian family watching TV preachers every Sunday and a large part of the week then you would not have a favorable opinion of them and would be likely to describe them as cults.

As an American, I understand that and even avoid using 'cult' in my own work because of the pejorative connotations. However, it's a term of art for certain disciplines and the intended meaning should be understood.

I understand the origin of the word but in common usage it has different connotations.

You are apparently familiar with archaeology since you have commented several times on this thread and it is possible from some posts to infer that you may be familiar with operations in this region. If that is accurate how do you interpret these rock structures?

I have included one that I found [0] out near Khaybar on Google Earth. I studied it for quite a while and decided that though it is probably multiple overlapping structures that may not be related, it could be interpreted as I have in my own analysis. What are your thoughts on this? I am wrong I know but this jumped out at me from this complex arrangement.

[0]https://imgur.com/a/JzWydAJ

I'm not really familiar with Arabian archaeology (never been my area), but my initial guess on only the image is that it looks like a hunting funnel/pen (often called 'kites'). I have absolutely no idea whether that's accurate and someone who's actually done groundwork there would have a better idea.

Also worth noting that kites are a separate phenomenon from the mustatil the article is about.

I am familiar with kites though it was more in the context of fish traps. I had seen some ancient examples in other places out on the west coast of the US and had read of their use by Native Americans in rivers and bays to catch fish sustainably.

While rafting out in the western US a few years back I built one on the river from memory using driftwood poles, rocks carefully positioned, etc to funnel fish into the shallow water. I didn't catch anything but, like fishing with any form of fishing pole, that really wasn't the point.

I'm not an archaeologist though I have followed discoveries for years and it all interests me. I love history. I do get annoyed when something new is discovered and the same narratives are applied to make it appear that the people were somehow less sophisticated than ourselves. They made do with the things at hand and had a better grasp of local resources and how to use them sustainably than we will. Or maybe they didn't and we keep repeating the same mistakes they made to the point where it is a genetic defect among humans by now.

Thanks for adding to the discussion.

Fishing traps are actually considered cultural and historical items in the region.

I am from Kuwait and this is the first time I read about desert kites. I am now interested to find out if they have history here.

If you are interested, fishing traps are called gargoor (قرقور)[0][1].

[0] https://www.kuwaittimes.com/gargoor-fishing-trap-past/

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324702737_Gargoor_t...

"It's pretty easy for some people with the benefit of 8000 years of learning to look at something like this and call it a cult."

8000 years of learning - charitable! We have learned many things and forgotten them and rediscovered all sort of things. I'm not sure how old our knowledge really is or if that actually means anything.

Cult: terminology.

Why on earth is Stonehenge mentioned at all? This is the stone age in the modern Arabian peninsula and bugger all to do with a bit of Wiltshire.

I love the BBC but it would be nice if they decided to give up nonsensical parochialism or at least drop it for things like this - it's almost as daft as describing a dinosaur as coming from say London ...

The modern London comes from ... Lundunwic is an early anglisc name (-wic: -wijk, -wick, -vic - probably others). Obvs: Lundumwic came from Londiumium (Roman). So where did Londinum come from? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londinium - no one really knows. It is unlikely that Geoff off of Monmouth has a clue and frankly it is one of those things.

To effectively engage with our forebears we have to start with dropping dodgy nationalistic labels.

Says British bloke!

I think Stonehenge serves the same purpose as the Eiffel Tower here. It gives a reference that the reader may already be familiar with even though it makes little sense as a marker.

Looking back at the history of the British Isles is like looking across the Channel at northern Europe. A lot of those towns and cities date to Roman times or earlier, to the Gauls and have been renamed. I often wondered how the French language evolved to ignore so many consonants and wonder if they preserved the traditional spellings but chose to change pronunciation over time so it was simpler.

Pretty funny for a Texan who kinda-sorta speaks English, but with a noticeable accent.

English is nominally a Germanic language (German, English, Dutch etc) and French is a Romance language (French, Spanish, Italian etc).

Before the Romans rocked up, a Greek bloke called Pytheas sailed to the region and sailed around the mainland Britain and wrote up his travels and mentioned the Pretanike as the locals so that's an early description of the name that eventually became Britain/Britons.

You are a Texan and I'm sure that if you and I met we would understand each other perfectly well. My brother lived and worked in Plano for a couple of years and my niece was born there - she's a Texan!

English is what we make of it. It is just as much yours (US-TX) as mine (GB). I think the beauty of English is it shows a bit of thigh to everyone.

English is quite an odd language - it wants to be spoken by everyone and will quite happily take from other languages. I suspect that some languages may have evolved simply to be different ... to differentiate.

Anyway, it's probably time I visited a TL&C.

Just to reiterate: you speak English - the same one as me. I'm a Brit and you are a Yank but we both have exactly the same ownership of the language. It is very polite of you to say otherwise - and I think that is a Texan thing.

> "cult to me has negative connotations"

What about the Roman Catholic cult?

It's a big'un!