Archaeologists Found a 5,000-Year-Old Walled Oasis Hidden in the Desert
Researchers confirmed a total of six different fortified walls surrounding a network of oases in the northwest Arabian Desert.
The oldest wall is upwards of 5,000 years old, with some new finds dating back 4,000 years.
Experts claim the walls show community structure, not just a defensive mindset.
Researchers discovered that an Arabian Desert oases environment had a full network of walled fortifications over 4,000 years ago, not only showing off defensive insight, but also socioeconomic development of an expansive Arabian Peninsula civilization.
A new study published in Antiquity confirmed four new walled oases coming as part of a network that now boasts six confirmed walled oases structures in the northwest Arabian complex. 'The recent identification of a walled oases complex in northwest Saudi Arabia signals a radical shift in our understanding of the socioeconomic evolution of this vast, largely unexplored region,' the study authors wrote.
Get the Issue
Get the Issue
Get the Issue
Get the Issue
Get the Issue
Get the Issue
Get the IssueGet the Issue
Get the Issue
A walled oasis protected not only the critical water source, but settlements within, likely full of goats and sheep, as well as crops of grains, fruit trees, and even date palms. 'Outer walls, serving as a display of power as well as a means of protection,' the authors wrote, 'required substantial investments form local populations not only for their initial construction but also for maintenance and modification over time.'
Archaeologists already were aware of walled structures at Tayma and Qurayyah, but the experts confirmed four more—first Khaybar in 2024, and now Dumat al-Jandal, Hait, and Huwayyit. The team used satellite imagery and then field visits to understand more about the newly confirmed walled structures.
With some of the fortifications as old at 5,000 years—and some of the newly confirmed structures roughly 4,000-years-old—the network surrounds at least 10 oases. The experts believe the extensive nature of the walls show that it wasn't nomads dominating the area, instead settled communities looking to take ownership of the vital wells of water to keep humans and livestock alive, all while developing an agricultural system that featured cereals, fruits, and dates.
The mudbrick walls didn't just provide protection. 'The walled oasis is not just defensive,' the authors wrote. 'It represents a model of socioeconomic development that marks the takeover of a rural landscape by a political entity.'
Some of the newest mudbrick fortifications still stretch up to five miles in length and over six feet in thickness.
The 2025 study comes on the heels of the same research team highlighting the confirmation in a 2024 study of the Khaybar Oases via the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, according to a statement from French National Centre for Scientific Research. When confirmed, it was considered one of the two largest in Saudi Arabia. At points, this nine-mile walled section was over 16 feet tall and between 5.6 and 7.9 feet thick. Preserved at a little less than half of its original length, researchers believe it enclosed a rural and sedentary territory from about 2250 to 1950 B.C.
'While the study confirms that the Khaybar Oasis clearly belonged to a network of walled oases in northwestern Arabia, the discovery of this rampart also raises questions regarding why it was built as well as the nature of the populations that built it,' the team wrote in 2024, 'in particular their relations with populations outside the oasis.'
The research team wrote in the new study that the continual finds of fortified oases settlements show the desert civilization was more complex than originally anticipated and varied greatly from one community to the next.
Get the Guide
Get the Guide
Get the Guide
Get the Guide
Get the Guide
Get the Guide
Get the Guide
You Might Also Like
The Do's and Don'ts of Using Painter's Tape
The Best Portable BBQ Grills for Cooking Anywhere
Can a Smart Watch Prolong Your Life?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
19 minutes ago
- Medscape
Claims Data Fail to Accurately Identify MI Types
TOPLINE: Clinical auditing reveals significant misclassification in administrative codes for myocardial infarction (MI), with only 39% of type 1 (T1MI) codes and 72% of type 2 (T2MI) codes for the condition accurately reflecting the true diagnosis, researchers found. Nearly half of patients coded for T1MI had T2MI, whereas 26% of T2MI codes represented myocardial injury. METHODOLOGY: Researchers identified 350 randomly sampled patients with T1MI codes and 350 patients with T2MI codes during inpatient encounters using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10th Revision. The analysis included patients aged 65 years and older from October 1, 2017, to May 9, 2024, within eight hospitals in the Mass General Brigham system. Using the 4th Universal Definition of MI, the researchers reviewed the clinical encounters to assess evidence of plaque erosion or thrombus vs oxygen demand-supply imbalance. A second physician review was conducted for 146 challenging and 146 nonchallenging cases. TAKEAWAY: Among the 350 patients coded as having had T1MI, clinical adjudication revealed 138 (39%) as correctly diagnosed; 159 (45%) in fact had T2MI, and 35 (10%) had myocardial injury. Of the 350 patients coded as having had T2MI, 251 (72%) were confirmed, four (1%) were found to have T1MI, and 91 (26%) had myocardial injury. A second physician review demonstrated a high degree of agreement with the initial review, with a 94% agreement in nonchallenging cases and 86% in challenging cases. Hospitals equipped with vs without cardiac catheterization laboratories showed significantly lower misclassification rates (43% vs 58%; P = .0298). IN PRACTICE: 'Among individuals assigned a T1MI claims code, nearly one half have T2MI and many others have myocardial injury; fewer than one half have true T1MI,' the researchers reported. 'Our results also confirm and extend previous work showing that among those with T2MI codes, slightly more than one half have true T2MI, with most of the misclassification related to myocardial injury rather than T1MI. This has critically important implications for epidemiology and public policy' related to acute myocardial infarction. SOURCE: The study was led by Andrea Martinez, MD, of the Department of Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. It was published online on July 21 in Journal of the American College of Cardiology. LIMITATIONS: The results may not be generalized to other hospital systems and countries, where patterns of misclassification might differ. The researchers noted external validity assessment across multiple healthcare systems and in countries that have already introduced International Classification of Diseases-11th revision coding would be beneficial. While patterns of misclassification might have changed over time, the analysis was intentionally restricted to the period when codes for both T1MI and T2MI were available. DISCLOSURES: The study received support through a grant to Jason Wasfy from the Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research. Individual authors reported receiving other grants and support, including grants from industry. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
5-Grass SLIT Shows Benefit in Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis
TOPLINE: Five-grass-pollen liquid sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) reduced symptoms and the need for medications to treat symptoms in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) with or without asthma — while maintaining a favorable safety profile and providing consistent benefits across ages, comorbidities, and treatment durations. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of five-grass-pollen liquid SLIT in patients with ARC with or without asthma. Nine studies comparing the efficacy of interventional immunotherapy with that of placebo in this population were included. The key outcomes comprised symptom severity, assessed as the symptom score; a reduction in medication use, assessed as the medication score; and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). TAKEAWAY: A pooled analysis of eight studies showed a significant reduction in symptom score in the interventional immunotherapy group vs the placebo group (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.34; 95% CI, -0.62 to -0.06; P < .05) over a mean follow-up of 19 months. Analysis of data pooled from six studies showed a significant reduction in use of drugs for symptoms in the interventional immunotherapy group vs the placebo group (SMD, -0.54; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.10; P < .05) over a mean follow-up of 20 months. AEs occurred in 20.6% of participants in the interventional immunotherapy group vs 17.5% in the placebo group (P = .46), with treatment discontinuation rates due to AEs of 3.0% and 1.8%, respectively (P = .41). Treatment efficacy remained consistent regardless of cumulative dose, treatment duration, or asthma status. IN PRACTICE: '[The findings] suggest that the dose of five-grass SLIT-liquid can be safely adjusted for better adverse event management without compromising treatment outcomes,' the authors of the study wrote. 'This flexibility makes it possible to tailor treatment according to the patient's condition while addressing their needs and expectations,' they added. SOURCE: Danilo Di Bona, with the University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy, was the corresponding author of the study, which was published online on July 17 in the Journal of Investigational Allergology and Clinical Immunology. LIMITATIONS: The analysis had a relatively small sample size, variation in dosages and treatment durations across studies, and incomplete reporting of AEs in some studies. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Stallergenes Greer, a pharmaceutical company. One author declared receiving fees from this company. Some authors reported receiving consulting fees; payments or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events; or support for attending meetings or travel and serving on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for various pharmaceutical companies. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
More Data Cement COVID's Impact on Patients With Cancer
TOPLINE: New data confirm the impact COVID infection can have on patients with cancer and identified several risk factors associated with hospitalization and death. Receipt of chemotherapy as well as a baseline history of stroke, atrial fibrillation, or pulmonary embolism were each associated with nearly double the risk for COVID-related hospitalization. Prior vaccination halved this risk. Older age and earlier hospitalization were associated with a greater risk for death. METHODOLOGY: Patients undergoing active cancer treatment are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 due to immunosuppression, but risk factors for hospitalization and death are not well-defined. Researchers conducted a prospective cohort study involving 1572 patients with cancer (median age, 60 years; 53.4% women), enrolled within 14 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test; participants had received active treatment for cancer within 6 weeks before testing or had undergone prior stem cell transplant or CAR T-cell therapy. Patient screening and enrollment took place between May 2020 and February 2022. Treatments included chemotherapy (34.3%), targeted therapy (27.7%), and immunotherapy (10.6%). Breast (23.6%) and lung (13.9%) cancers were the most common cancer types. Overall, 64% of participants had metastatic disease, and at enrollment, 64% had not received a COVID vaccine. Study outcomes were COVID-related hospitalization or death. Risk factors for hospitalization and for death among hospitalized patients were evaluated separately. TAKEAWAY: At 90 days after an initial positive test, COVID-related mortality was 3% and remained stable at subsequent follow-ups. The highest incidence occurred in patients with lymphoma, followed by those with acute leukemia or lung cancer; the lowest incidence occurred in those with other types of solid tumors and blood cancers. Hospitalization for COVID-19 occurred in 18.4% of patients within 90 days of enrollment. The risk for hospitalization was elevated among patients who received chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 1.97) and those with a history of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and pulmonary embolism (HR, 1.78). Vaccination prior to infection reduced the risk for hospitalization by nearly half (HR, 0.52). Hospitalization for COVID-19 within 30 days of infection was associated with an increased risk for death (HR, 14.6). Among patients hospitalized for COVID within 30 days, age 65 years or older was the only significant predictor of COVID-specific death (HR, 3.49). Over the 2-year follow-up, there were 1739 disruptions to cancer treatment; 50.7% of these were attributed to COVID-19, and most occurred within 30 days of a positive test. IN PRACTICE: 'The data from this prospective cohort study confirm and expand previous retrospective case series that have found factors, including hematologic cancers, chemotherapy receipt, and lung cancer, as associated with COVID-19 severity,' the authors of the study wrote, noting that the results 'showed that COVID-19 had a significant impact on patients with cancer, including hospitalization, treatment disruptions, and death.' SOURCE: This study, led by Brian I. Rini, MD, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee, was published online in JAMA Oncology. LIMITATIONS: Information on specific strains was not available. This study lacked a control group of patients without COVID-19, which limited causal inference. Additionally, as participants were enrolled through the National Cancer Institute trial networks, generalizability to a broader population could be limited. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded in part by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and the National Cancer Institute National Clinical Trials Network, Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network, and Community Oncology Research Program grants via the U10 funding mechanism. Several authors declared receiving grants and/or personal fees and having other ties with various sources. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
