Nineteen cases of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus infection reported in 2025.

Nineteen cases of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus infection have been reported in 2025 till 21 December, according to a press release issued by the World Health Organization on 24 December. Seventeen of these cases have been reported from Saudi Arabia, and two from France. There have been two fatalities attributed to the disease this year, both in Saudi Arabia. Both cases reported in France were individuals who had recently returned from the Arabian Peninsula. 

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus was first reported in Jordan in 2012, since when there have been 2635 cases reported from 27 countries in all six of the World Heath Organization's regions (Africa, the Americas, Southeast Asia, Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Western Pacific), with 964 associated fatalities (a case fatality ratio of 37%). However, 84% of these countries (2224 individual infections) have been reported from a single country, Saudi Arabia.

The epidemic curve of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus infections (2635) and deaths (964) reported globally between 2012 and 2025. World Health Organization.

Of the seventeen cases of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus infection reported in 2025, ten were reported in Riyadh Province, three from the city of Tiaf, two from Najran Province, one from Hail Province, and one from the city of Hafr Al-Batin. Details of the French cases, other than that they occurred in individuals who had recently returned from the Arabian Peninsula, are not available.

Geographical distribution of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus infections between 1 January and 21 December 2025. World Health Organization.

Both of the infections reported in France were in the month of December and are still under investigation. These cases bring the total number of reported cases in France to four, with two previous cases in 2013, also in individuals who had recently returned from the Arabian Peninsula.

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome is a viral respiratory infection caused by the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus, a form of positive sense single-strand RNA Virus. Approximately 36% of patients with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome have died, though this may be an overestimate of the true mortality rate, as mild cases of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus may be missed by existing surveillance systems, and the case fatality ratio is calculated based only on laboratory-confirmed cases.

Structure and genomic organisation of a Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Viron. Bleibtreu et al. (2020). 

Humans are infected with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus from direct or indirect contact with Dromedary Camels, which are the natural host and zoonotic source of the Virus. Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus has demonstrated the ability to transmit between Humans. So far, non-sustained Human-to-Human transmission has occurred among close contacts and in healthcare settings and outside of the healthcare setting, there has been limited Human-to-Human transmission.

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus infections range from showing no symptoms (asymptomatic) or mild respiratory symptoms, to severe acute respiratory disease and death. A typical presentation of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome disease is fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Pneumonia is a common finding, but not always present. Gastrointestinal symptoms, including diarrhoea, have also been reported. Severe illness can cause respiratory failure that requires mechanical ventilation and support in an intensive care unit. The virus appears to cause more severe disease in older people, persons with weakened immune systems, and those with co-morbidities or chronic diseases such as renal disease, cancer, chronic lung disease, and diabetes.

No vaccine or specific treatment is currently available, although several Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-specific vaccines and therapeutics are in development. Treatment is supportive and based on the patient’s clinical condition and symptoms.

See also...

Sueviota aethon: A new species of Dwarf Gobi from the Red Sea coast of Saudi Arabia.

First described in 1988, the Dwarf Gobi genus Sueviota is distinguished from the closely related Eviota on the structure of its pelvic fins. The genus currently contains eight species, found from Papua New Guinea and the northwestern coast of Australia through to the Red Sea.

In a paper published in the journal ZooKeys on 12 September 2024, Viktor Nunes Peinemann and Lucía Pombo-Ayora of the Red Sea Research Center of King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Luke Tornabene of the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences and Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture of the University of Washington, and Michael Berumen, also of the Red Sea Research Center of King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, describe a new species of Sueviota from the Red Sea coast of Saudi Arabia.

The new species is named Sueviota aethon, where 'aethon' derives from Aethon, one of the four Horses which drew the chariot of the Sun God Helios in Greek mythology; it is so named due to its similarity to the previously described Sueviota pyrios; Pyrios having been another of the four Horses. The species is described from ten specimens collected from exposed offshore reefs on the Saudi Arabian Red Sea coast, at depths of between 10 m and 30 m, although Nunes Peinemann et al. note that another specimen was observed at a depth of 53 m.

Holotype specimen of Sueviota aethon (UW 203365), shortly after being collected. Nunes Peinemann et al. (2024).

Specimens of Sueviota aethon are between 9.2 mm and 16.7 mm in length, and most known specimens are dark red in colour (one was a yellow-orange colour). The first dorsal fin is rounded-to-square in shape, with the second and third spines longer than the first. The rays of the second dorsal fin are commonly branched (at least some of these are branched in all known specimens). The body is covered by ctenoid (comb-edged) scales, but these are absent from the head and breast. Two rows of irregularly spaced conical teeth are present on both the lower and upper jaws. Both jaws also have enlarged canine teeth, with these forming part of the outer tooth-row in the upper jaw and the inner tooth-row in the lower jaw.

Micro-CT scan of Sueviota aethon (UW 203365, holotype) showing its osteological characters. (a) Close-up of head showing the enlarged canines on the upper jaw, (b) dentary, showcasing two enlarged canines in the internal row of teeth, (c) lateral view of the complete skeleton. Nunes Peinemann et al. (2024).

See also...

Living Stromatolites from Sheybarah Island, Saudi Arabia.

Fossil Stromatolites form some of the earliest evidence for life on Earth, being present in deposits from the Palaeoproterozoic and Archaean, with the oldest known examples currently dated to about 3.48 billion years ago. However, their importance has declined in the Phanerozoic, forming significant proportion of carbonate reefs only for brief periods following the End Ordovician and End Permian extinctions. Stromatolites still exist today, and understanding formation presents us with the possibility of understanding some of the oldest ecosystems on Earth, although modern forms are generally restricted to extreme environments, such as hypersaline marine settings and alkaline lakes, with living Stromatolites only known from two modern open-marine environments, Shark Bay in Western Australia and in the Exuma Islands of the Bahamas. 

In a paper published in the journal Geology on 15 February 2024, Volker Vahrenkamp and Viswasanthi Chandra of the Physical Sciences and Engineering Division at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Elisa Garuglier and Ramona Marasco of the Biological and Environmental Sciences and Engineering Division at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Kai Hachmann, also of the Physical Sciences and Engineering Division at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology,  Pankaj Khanna of the Department of Earth Sciences at the Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, Daniele Daffonchio, also of the Biological and Environmental Sciences and Engineering Division at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, and Alexander Petrovic, again of the Physical Sciences and Engineering Division at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, and of Carmeuse, describe the discovery of a colony of living Stromatolites in the intertidal zone on Sheybarah Island on the Red Sea coast of Saudi Arabia.

Sheybarah Island forms part of the Al Wajh Carbonate Platform on the northwest coast of Saudi Arabia. The Al Wajh Carbonate Platform is connected to the Arabian mainland, and is enclosed by a 115 km reef-shoal belt. The central part of the platform hosts a lagoon with a maximum depth of 42 m, which is surrounded by 92 islands and patch-reefs. Sheybarah Island is located on the southwest edge of this platform, and has an area of 27 km², with a maximum elevation of 2 m above sealevel. The lagoon-facing rim of the southern slope of the Al Wajh Carbonate Platform is dominated by Mangroves, behind which is a sandy and rocky, then a rocky reef flat facing towards the open sea.

(A) Location of study area in northern Red Sea. (B) Sheybarah Island on the southwest Al Wajh Carbonate Platform. White arrows indicate prevailing wind direction based on annual average wind data over 10 years. (C) Location of Stromatolite field at southwestern extent of Sheybarah Island. Vahrenkamp et al. (2024).

The Red Sea is semi-enclosed, with slow surface-water renewal, creating a low nutrient environment. In the northeast part of the Red Sea, the average surface temperature is typically about 28°C during the summer, falling to about 23°C in winter, and surface salinity can reach 41‰. Prevailing winds come from the north-northwest, with an average windspeed of 4 m per second, although in winter strong southwesterly winds sometimes occur. The prevailing winds bring with them a high load of iron-rich sediment.

The presence of Stromatolites on Sheybarah Island was discovered during a scouting visit made to the island in January 2021. The Stromatolites form a field in the intertidal to shallow subtidal zone, on a flat slope which dips towards the sea, formed from a fossil Coral reef. A core drilled into this reef produced a radiocarbon date of 5264 years before the present, suggesting that it was formed during the Holocene sealevel highstand, between 4000 and 8000 years ago, when sealevels in the area would have been about 2 m higher than today. The surface of this reef is eroded, presumably due to modern wave action lowering the flat upper reef to the modern sealevel. A lithified sand layer beneath the Stromatolites yielded a date of 1640 years before present, which dates obtained from laminations within the Stromatolites ranged from 120 to 325 years before the present. This implies that the onset of Stromatolite growth was no more than 300-400 years ago; it is possible that it was more recent and that sand grains from a now absent upper layer have been incorporated into the Stromatolite structure.

Stromatolite samples being collected from the location. Vahrenkamp et al. (2024).

The tidal range in the area where the Stromatolites are growing is typically 50-60 cm, with a maximum of about 1 m, although occasional storm surges can inundate lower lying parts of the island. Sea temperatures measured at a depth of 5 m varied between 21°C and 31°C over the course of a year, though in the intertidal zone the temperature variation was much higher, between 8°C and 48°C, as very shallow seawater was exposed to highs of day time and lows of night time air temperatures. Salinity measured in March was 42‰; at the same time the water pH was 7.8 and dissolved oxygen was 5.9 mg per litre.

The Stromatolites are found over an area of about 50 000 m³, which could be divided into three zones, upper intertidal or beach-adjacent, mid-intertidal, and shallow subtidal, each of which was dominated by Stromatolites of a different morphotype. Stromatolites in the beach-adjacent zone, referred to as Type 1 Stromatolites, tend to be grey-green to dark brown in colour, and elongated-sinusoidal to rhomboidal in shape, aligned so that their long axis is perpendicular to the predominant wave crest direction. These tend to be less than 15 cm high, 5-50 cm wide, and 10-100 cm long, although they often coalesce into larger structures, which can be as much as 10 m long. The surface of these Stromatolites tends to be pustular in texture, and their interiors fairly well lithified. The Stromatolites of the mid-to-lower intertidal zones, referred to as Type 2 Stromatolites, are flatter, reaching a maximum of about 5 cm  in height, forming irregularly shaped, ovoid to tabular clusters which can cover as much as 100 m³. The base of these Stromatolites is often raised above the platform, on a small column of eroded Holocene Coral. In the lower intertidal to shallow subtidal zones Type 3 Stromatolites are low relief and poorly lithified, and often covered by a thin layer of carbonate sand.

(A) Drone survey image of Stromatolite fields, showing three main morphotypes of Stromatolites and their distributions. (B)–(C) Type 1 Stromatolites in upper intertidal zone, with elongated sinusoidal to rhomboidal morphology, laminated internal structures, and pustular exterior. White arrows show grazing Gastropods during high tide (underwater photo). (D)–(E) Type 2 Stromatolites, consisting of low-relief, irregularly shaped ovoid clusters of Stromatolites in the outer field. (F)–(G) Type 3 Stromatolites, composed of less-defined, low-relief microbial mats covered by a thin coating of carbonate sand. Vahrenkamp et al. (2024).

The internal structure of Type 1 Stromatolites was found to be laminated, with undulating layers of sediment interspersed with layers with clotted fabrics and vugs (cavities lined with mineral crystals), which in the fossil record would be interpreted as Thrombolitic Stromatolites. When sections of this material were cut and washed, dense lithified layers stood out in relief. Grazing organisms such as Gastropods were often trapped in the matrix. Millimetre scale microlitic crusts (microbially derived calcium carbonate crusts) alternated with millimetre scale sediment layers, within which lithification was beginning to break down grain boundaries. These grain layers often showed high levels of microboring, suggesting ongoing micritization even after sediment accretion.  Rim cements contained numerous aragonite needles, while microlitic crusts were predominantly aragonite (85%), with significant proportions of high magnesium calcite (9%) and low magnesium calcite (5%), and small amounts of quartz and clay minerals.

(A) Hand sample of Type 1 Stromatolite demonstrating layered structures. (B) X-ray micro–computed tomography (µCT) X-Z cross-section image of Type 1 Stromatolite exposing denser internal laminations (red). Colour bar represents range of µCT values corresponding to CT density; blue represents a void. (C) Thin-section micrograph illustrating micritic crust at surface of Stromatolite. (D) Millimetre-scale lithified sediment grain layers (yellow arrows) and fused grains (green arrows). (E) Grains infested with microborings near outer rims and fused at grain contacts (green arrows). (F) Acicular needle aragonite cements (AA) formed around the grain (G) rims. Vahrenkamp et al. (2024).

Examined through a scanning electron microscope, filamentous Cyanobacteria appeared to be the most abundant organisms within the structure of the Stromatolites, enveloping sediment grains in single strands of bundles, covered with mucous sheaths made up of excreted biological polymers. These filament and biopolymer masses also contained large numbers of sub-micron sized calcium and magnesium carbonate crystals. Also present were biofilm structures with Bacterial cells, and Navicula-like Diatoms. The upper and lower surfaces of the topmost microbial mat included numerous reticulated filament structures. An investigation into the biodiversity of the mats using 16S rRNA gene metabarcoding found that the most abundant micro-organisms were Proteobacteria, which made up 49% of the total (30% Alphaproteobacteria, 12% Gammaproteobacteria, and 7% Deltaproteobacteria), with Cyanobacteria making up 16% of the total, and Bacteroidetes 11%.

(A)–(E) Representative scanning electron micrographs showing (A) extensively microbored sediment grains (MG) wrapped in cyanobacterial filaments and extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) films (arrows); (B) High magnesium calcite microcrystals (triangles) associated with Cyanobacterial filaments; (C) filamentous structures, possibly bunches and strings of Cyanobacteria (black arrows), and single cells of various shapes (white arrows) surrounded by desiccated EPS; (D) filamentous structures of different dimensions (black arrows), surrounding bored surface of sand grain. A Diatom is also present (white arrow); and (E) reticulated filaments (black arrows) surrounded by copious amounts of EPS (white arrows). (F) Microbial diversity of Sheybarah Island Stromatolites. Vahrenkamp et al. (2024).

The presence of Stromatolites on the intertidal platform of Sheybarah Island appears to be driven by environmental factors. The platform surface here is exposed to frequent wetting and drying cycles, as well as extreme temperature fluctuations, with generally low current conditions, apart from the occasional storm event. Similar conditions are found on the other islands of the Al Wajh Carbonate Platform, making it likely that these to are home to Stromatolite colonies. The conditions here are similar to those found in the Exuma Islands of the Bahamas, where Stromatolites are also found; the much lower profile of the Sheybarah Island Stromatolites (never more than 15 cm high) probably reflect the limited tidal range of the Red Sea.

Growth of the Sheybarah Island Stromatolites appears to be driven by microbial activity, which leads to the accretion and differential lithification of sediment grains. The range of structures observed appears to be driven by a cycle of grain-entrapment followed by sedimentation, similar to that which has been documented in the Bahamas. The microbial community within the Stromatolites appears to be made up of a combination of photoautotrophic organisms (Cyanobacteria), and heterotrophic organisms, including ones capable of reducing sulphates.

The reticulated filaments seen in the Sheybarah Island Stromatolites are a surprising structure. Such filaments have previously been observed in microbial mats from aphotic environments, such as caves. At Sheybarah Island they appear to be ubiquitous in the upper layer of Stromatolites, and have a variety of morphologies, including horizontal ridges supported by vertical columnar structures. The nature and composition of these filaments is unclear, and will be the subject of future research.

Vahrenkamp et al. believe the Sheybarah Island Stromatolites to be the first open marine Stromatolites discovered in the Middle East, providing a new opportunity to study structures sparsely distributed on the modern Earth, but which were an important part of the Earth's earliest ecosystems. To date, the Stromatolites of the Bahamas have been considered the best analogue for the shallow-marine Stromatolites which formed throughout the Proterozoic, making the similar, but not identical, Stromatolites from Sheybarah Island a significant discovery with the potential to greatly enhance our understanding of Proterozoic ecosystems.

See also...

Investigating the walled oasis at Khaybar, Northwest Arabia.

Walled oases appear to have been a key part of the development of early settled societies on the Arabian Peninsula. Unlike other defensive systems, such as isolated towers, fortresses, or even walled cities, walled oases comprised an extensive system of defences enclosing an entire agricultural system, and marking a boundary between this managed farmland and the surrounding desert. Two such walled oases, Tayma and Qurayyah, have been familiar to archaeologists for a long time, and been the subject of numerous studies. However, recent examination of satellite images of the region has exposed a series of previously unknown walls around other oases, including Khaybar, Huwayyit, Dumat al-Jandal, Hait, Al-Wadi, Al-Ayn, and al-Tibq. This process of urbanization and oasis protection appears to have begun during the Bronze Age and persisted into the Iron Age, paying a major role in the appearance of the  caravan kingdoms.

Khaybar has a pre-Islamic period fortress located on a mesa at the centre of the great wadis which dominate the site, but a wall enclosing the entire oasis had not previously been observed or even suspected. The walls are spread over a wide area, and for the most part have been dismantled to the point at which they are hard to recognise. The area is rugged, and made up largely of basalt rock with almost zero sedimentation, so that any and all archaeological remains sit on the surface. This has created a lunar landscape, dotted with archaeological remains from a wide range of periods, including desert kites, mustatils, funerary avenues and dense necropolises, encampments, forts, plot walls, a range of less identifiable structures. To date, about 16 000 such structures have been counted within the 56 km² of land which constitutes the oasis. Determining that dismantled and fragmentary walls scattered over a wide area formed part of a single original structure requires extensive fieldwork and careful examination of the components.

In a paper published in the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports on 10 January 2024, Guillaume Charloux, Shadi Shabo, Guillaume Chung-To, and Bruno Depreux of the French National Centre for Scientific Research, independent researcher François Guermont, Kévin Guadagnini, also of the French National Centre for Scientific Research, Thomas Therasse and  Mylène Bussy, also independent researchers, Saifa Alshilali of the Royal Commission for AlUla, Diaa Albukaai and Rémy Crassard, again of the French National Centre for Scientific Research, and Munirah AlMushawh, another independent researcher, demonstrate the presence of a defence wall around the entire Khaybar Oasis, as well as providing dating information on its construction and use.

Location map of the Khaybar walled oasis (red and white circle) and other major sites in north-western Arabia. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

Six seasons of fieldwork were carried out between October 2020 and March 2023, as part of the Khaybar Longue Durée Archaeological Project. Khaybar is about 670 m above sealevel, and is located in the Hijaz Region of Saudi Arabia, between Medina and AlUla. It was an important agricultural centre in the Early Islamic Period, with the entire oasis measuring about 8 km by 7 km. The oasis is at the confluence of three alluvial valleys, Wadi al-Suwayr/Halhal, Wadi al-Zaidiyyah, and Wadi al-Sulamah, which merge on the western side of the oasis to form the Wadi Khaybar. The wadis are cut into the surrounding Neogene-Quaternary basalt plateau, and contain a series of perched sediment beds. The first (brief) archaeological survey of the oasis was carried out in 2015. This was followed by an aerial survey by the Aerial Archaeology in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia project in 2018, with the Khaybar Longue Durée Archaeological Project beginning in 2020.

Aerial views of the dry-stone basement of the outer rampart: (A) Segment KH00911 facing south; (B) Segment KH01130 facing north; (C) Segments KH00904-KH00905 and KH00906 facing south; (D) segment KH00922. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

Charloux et al. used ArcGIS mapping software to combine aerial photography with high resolution geological maps and e architectural, archaeological and geomorphological surveys of the oasis to build up a map of the wall network. They also dug 19 test pits into sections of the remaining ramparts. 

Map of the main ramparts of Khaybar, with identification of main segment walls and location of bastions and soundings in 2021–2023. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

Charloux et al. discovered 5.9 km of previously unknown wall, 5.9 km of which are interpreted as being part of a network which once enclosed the entire oasis. There were 146 large wall segments remaining, ranging in length from a few metres to several hundred metres. The discovered walls were placed into five groups. Group A comprised aligned accretion walls 2.4-4.5 m thick, with both bastions and towers, and without any obvious discontinuity, which formed part of the enclosure surrounding the al-Natah Site. Group B walls comprised two exterior faces with a rubble in-fill, 1.4-2.4 m thick, with bastions, forming part of an inner enclosure wall. Group C walls were similar to Group B walls, but formed part of the outer perimeter enclosing the entire oasis. Group D walls are made from multiple types of masonry, are between 50 cm and 4 m thick, lack bastions, and again form part of an inner enclosure. Group E walls were smaller segments, similar in construction to Group D walls, which did not form part of any obvious larger structure.

View of the ramparts KH00905-KH00906 and a bastion KH00974 during excavation, looking west. Kévin Guadagnini in Charloux et al. (2024).

The remaining outer wall around the Khaybar oasis has a length of 5912.78 m, which is thought to represent 41% of an original wall which would have measured 14.5 km, enclosing an area of 11.8 km². The wall is interrupted by a variety of newer roads, buildings, gardens, etc., making it difficult to reconstruct the entire shape of the perimeter boundary, particularly on the southern side. 

Rampart KH00909, looking north. Charloux et al. (2024).

Seventy four bastions are still present on this outer wall, wall facing out towards the desert rather than in towards the oasis, which Charloux et al. consider to be strong evidence for the entire enclosure to have been built in a single phase of construction, albeit one which would have taken some time and been subject to subsequent additions and alterations.

Rampart KH00911 situated on the crest (right on the picture), looking east. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

The walls of the outer perimeter are also very similar throughout their extent, most being rubble-filled, double-faced dry-stone walls, between 1.8 m and 2.4 m thick, which again supports a single interval of wall building. The walls appear to have been built in separate segments, with the thinnest section on the slopes and summits of Jabal Mushaqqar, where it is only 1.1 m thick and built of simple drystone masonry, which was apparently acceptable to the builders for this s high position along a ridge on the top of a rhyolite mountain. Earlier stone structures in the region appear to have been raided extensively for building stone.

View of the currently preserved masonry of the outer enclosure wall (rampart KH01130) facing north. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

The majority of the wall is made up of curvilinear sections which for the most part follow the contours of the plateau, with connections between these long sections crossing valleys at their narrowest points. Ramparts are between 120 m and 250 m from the cliff edge, apparently built at this distance to avoid the topological irregularities associated with the cliff. Building the wall in this way would have given good visibility over both the oasis and the surrounding desert, while enclosing the minimum amount without encroaching on the agricultural land.

Rampart KH00911 on top of the cliff, looking north. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

The height of the original walls is impossible to determine; only the stone bases of the walls remain, but there are traces of mud bricks in places, which suggests a brick superstructure existed on top of the stone wall. The highest remaining section of wall is 3 m tall, at Makidah on the southern section. Charloux et al. suggest another 2 m of brick wall may have existed on top of this, possibly with a walkway. The walls at the Tayma Oasis, have been estimated at 6 m high, with an inner enclosure which might have been 14 m high, while the walls at Dumat al-Jandal have been estimated at 6.5 m, and a section of walkway has been identified.

Rampart KH00919, with dismantled infilling, looking northeast. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

There are no contemporaneous structures attached to the outer wall, which is made of basalt and has been heavily eroded by the desert winds and runoff from the annual rains, as well as depletion due to raiding by later builders of other structures, all of which tend to make dating of any structure difficult. However, the wall is built over several older pendant tombs, some of which were also raided for stone by the wall builders. These tombs have been dated to the middle of the third millennium BC, which makes it impossible for the wall to have been built before about 2600-2200 BC. 

Rampart KH00918, looking northeast. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

Charloux et al. were able to obtain radiocarbon dates from eight charcoal samples obtained from five test pits sunk into the remaining wall segments. The oldest of these come from beneath the wall, providing a maximum age for the overlying wall segment. Other samples come from layers abutting the rampart or in the immediate vicinity of its foundation, suggesting they provide a time for the construction or first use of the wall, while other pieces come from the wall infill, which again makes it most likely they date from the time of wall construction. Finally, sone charcoal pieces come from beneath what appear to be gates in the wall, and could therefore have been deposited while the wall was in use.

Rampart KH00918, looking southwest. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

Based upon these radiocarbon dates, Charloux et al. suggest that the outer perimeter wall at Khaybar Oasis was built after 2279 BC, and probably after 2139 BC, but probably before 2201 BC and definitely before 1980 BC. The wall appears to have still been in use as late as 1741 BC and 1542 BC.

Location of dating samples on rampart KH00905 (plan on orthophotography and sections). Section 1: KH00906.002 and KH00906.004 are filling layers above ash area KH00906.005 on top of construction floor KH00906.006; Section 2: KH00905.002 is a collapse layer above a thin ash dump above fills KH00905.003 and KH00905.005 above possible construction floor KH00905.004. Guillaume Charloux, François Guermont & Kévin Guadagnini in Charloux et al. (2024).

This suggests that the Khaybar Oasis, one of the largest in Arabia, was enclosed by a perimeter wall in the Bronze Age, around 2000 BC. The appearance of such walled oases is thought to have been a key step in the evolution of urbanization in the region. The walls presumably offered protection against raids from the desert, a danger to settlements on the Arabian Peninsula in the pre-Islamic and Early Islamic Periods, but one for which evidence has been absent in the Bronze Age until now, despite the presence of Bronze Age 'Warrior Burials' in northern Arabia. Such walls may have also plaid a role in controlling the environment within the oasis, helping to prevent soils from blowing away and helping to prevent flash floods from reaching crops. The walls would also have made a symbolic statement about the ownership of the oasis, clearly delimiting a boundary between the territory inside the wall and the open desert. This would have been a powerful symbol to any desert groups seeing it, and presented a clear social identity to those within.

Dismantled bastion at the front of rampart KH00918, looking southwest. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

The size of the surrounding wall suggests that a reasonably large workforce was involved, and that local political leadership was sufficiently organized to co-ordinate such a project. It has previously been assumed that large building works like this in Bronze Age societies would have required very large numbers of workers, but recent evaluations of workloads has suggested that much smaller numbers of people might have been able to undertake large projects. Constructing the outer wall to a height of 5 m would have required the movement of 164 000 m³ of stone, and/or bricks, which Charloux et al. would have required 170 000 working days. Whilst this seems a lot, a community of 500 people, in which half of the population could spend six months of each year on the project, would have been able to construct the outer wall in four years. Had half the population been able to work on the project full time, then only two years would be needed to construct the wall. Furthermore, while some degree of planning would no doubt have been needed to complete the project, many of the choices which would have had to be made are not complicated, so a large bureaucracy was probably not needed, again suggesting the task was within the grasp of a relatively small community.

Test pit in gate KH09039 on rampart KH01130 (plan on orthophotography and section), with location of dated samples. Outside the gate, KH09039.004 is a small layer of brown gravel laying directly on the substratum below the stone collapse. Inside the gate, the collapse was underlain by KH09039.009, an occupation level consisting of grey, coarse sandy sediment with some charcoal and animal bones. Below, a layer of brown gravel (KH09039.010) was laying on the bedrock. Guillaume Charloux, François Guermont & Kévin Guadagnini in Charloux et al. (2024).

Pastoralists from northwest Arabia, where local communities were already building walled and fortified settlements on the fringes of the desert in what is now southern Lebanon and Syria, are thought to have settled at Khaybar Oasis during the Early Bronze Age, building avenues of monumental funerary structures, as at other oasis in the region, and on the trails between them. The skill set needed to build these large funerary structures is not greatly different from the one that would have been needed to construct fortified ramparts around an oasis, so the construction of avenues of funerary monuments hay have been the first stage in a transition from a pastoralist, nomadic existence to a more settled farming one where strategic territories with good water supplies were enclosed and defended. The nature of such projects would have favoured the development of a more hierarchical society, leading in time to the development of more formal urban centres. This settling and enclosing of the oases may have been linked to a drying climate, which would have made wandering pastoralism more precarious and reliable sources of water more precious, although the history of the climate in the region is not well enough understood to make firm assertions about this.

Rampart KH01130, looking north. Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

Ramparts appear to have been erected around the entire oasis between about 2250 BC and 1950 BC, making these fortifications younger than the ones at Qurayyah, which were constructed in the first half of the third millennium BC, or and those at Tayma, built in the second half of the third millenium BC, but older than the Iron Age fortifications at Dûmat al-Jandal. This is interesting, as it shows a repeated process of oasis enclosure at different sites, over a lengthy period of time. Understanding why this happened would be a significant step in understanding the development of Bronze Age and Iron Age societies in Arabia, and the trajectory of urbanization followed there.

Reconstruction view of the northern part of walled oasis of Khaybar around 2000 BCE. Pending the results of definitive archaeobotanical analyses, the Plant cover at this stage is based on the identified species (Acacia, Tamarisk, Amaranth, cereals). Mylène Bussy & Guillaume Charloux in Charloux et al. (2024).

Charloux et al.'s field surveys and archaeological excavations have demonstrated that the Khaybar Oasis in Northwest Arabia was once enclosed by an immense surrounding wall, similar to that seen around other oases in the region. This dates from the late third millennium BC, and was probably constructed by a local pastoralist community settling and claiming the oasis as their territory. The walls appear to have remained in use for several centuries, before being partially dismantled and replaced with other structures. This marks out the oasis as an important stage in the development of urbanized communities in the region, and key part of the heritage of Arabia.

See also...