A PALEOLITHIC SHRINE IN THE SINAI PENINSULA?

 

Flint nodule manuports erected in the shrine on Har Karkom. Image from Emmanuel Anati.

This column originated when I accidentally ran across a picture on the internet of a shrine on Mount Har Karkom in Israel’s Sinai Desert. It was labeled Paleolithic in age and what attracted my interest was that it is centered on upright standing stones that look weirdly human. When I tracked it down it came from a book by Emmanuel Anati (2001) titled “The riddle of Mount Sinai: Archaeological discoveries at Har Karkom.”

This book presents a great deal of archeological work in this area and mentions hundreds of features and thousands of petroglyphs, unfortunately, it does not give any scientific facts so the reader has to take Anati’s conclusions on trust. For instance, Anati seems to have set the age of this shrine as Paleolithic based on the styles and shapes of a large number of stone tools located there. There is no mention of any scientific dating.

Eastern cliff of Har Karkom, site HK86B. Emmanuel Anati, Fig. 9, p. 20.

Anati’s writings, of which the book cited is only one sample, ostensibly about the archaeology of Mount Har Karkom, are actually expressing Anati’s interpretation of the facts to prove his theories about biblical truth and that this is indeed Mount Sinai. “Presuming that the Israelites travelled across the Sinai Peninsula towards Petra in a fairly straight line, a number of scholars have contemplated the possibility of Har Karkom being the biblical Mount Sinai. Following this theory, Emmanuel Anati excavated at the mountain, and discovered that it was a major Paleolithic cult centre, with the surrounding plateau covered with shrines, altars, stone circles, stone pillars, and over 40,000 rock engravings. Although Anati, on the basis of his findings, advocates the identification of Har Karkom with Mount Sinai, the peak of religious activity at the site may date to 2350-2000 BCE, and it appears to have been abandoned perhaps between 1950 and 1000 BCE. The Exodus is sometimes dated between 1600-1200 BCE. However, there is no archaeological evidence supported by scholars to maintain a date of 1600-1200 BCE. Anati instead places the Exodus, based on other archaeological evidence, between 2350 and 2000 BCE.” (Wikipedia)

View of the two "breasts," the twin summits of Har Karkom, from the Paleolithic shrine site HK 86B. Emmanuel Anati, Fig. 198, p. 176.

Now I am uninterested in whether Har Karkom is or is not Mount Sinai, but the discovery of the shrine on top of the mountain fascinates me.  “In 1992 the discovery of the Palaeolithic ‘sanctuary’ (HK86B) changed the previous assessment of Har Karkom’s cult use. The flint industry in the sanctuary belongs to a phase known in several sites at Har Karkom as ‘Karkomian,’ that is the initial phase of the Upper Paleolithic age, likely to be about 40,000 years old. This site is located on the eastern edge of the plateau, where its heights dominate the Paran Desert from above.”  (Anati 2001:16)  I cannot say that Anati does not have hard dates for any of this. I can only state that I have been unable to find any. So to repeat what I said above, Anati apparently is basing his paleolithic age for the shrine on the style of flint tools found there in large numbers. A practice that I find somewhat shaky.

Petroglyph on a nodule shaped like a resting animal. Emmanuel Anati, Fig. 193, p.171.

“Traces of Neolithic and Hellenistic cult sites have thus been found in the area of Har Karkom. Further, the discovery of the Paleolithic sanctuary HK86B provides a new temporal frame for the cult functions of this mountain. We know of no other cult sites with such a testimony: a Paleolithic sanctuary likely to be 35,000 to 40,000 years old, a Neolithic sanctuary, and over 100 BAC (Note: BAC stands for Bronze Age Culture.) cult sites, then, after a lapse of time, an Iron Age sanctuary and a Hellenistic sanctuary.” (Anati 2001:111-114) But, once again notice no sign of actual data on how these dates were assigned.

Anati uses a number of features in the landscape to back up his conclusions. “Another ceremonial trail runs from the Paran Desert to the Paleolithic sanctuary (HK68B). These various roads show a tradition of ceremonial processions while people climbed to the Har Karkom plateau.” (Anati 2001:117) Notice that this is a ‘ceremonial’ trail. If it is a ceremonial trail it must lead to somewhere that ceremonies happen.

Modified manuport, Emmanuel Anati, Fig. 192, p.171.

What immediately caused my interest in this is the use of large flint upright stones in this shrine. As can be seen in the photographs there are some that are eerily human looking. These remarkable examples of pareidolia would also be great evidence for the fringies who look for ancient aliens. “About forty flint monoliths with sinuous and provocative shapes were grouped in the ‘sanctuary’ by Paleolithic man. Some were collected locally and erected, while others derive from two different flint sources, one of which is nearly three kilometers away. Some, more than one meter high, are still standing, like silent ghosts with human forms, while others have fallen from upright positions. On the surface of this area of about four hundred metre, several flint stones of natural anthropomorphic and zoomorphic shapes have been found, along with numerous flint tools. Some have been retouched by man, modified by an Upper Paleolithic technique of flaking, picking, and etching to produce figurative details and more defined facial features.” (Anati 2001:16) Large numbers of these flint forms are manuports, having been gathered from around the mountain together as a collection at this shrine. And, as reported, some have been altered to emphasize an appearance.

 

Geoglyph near Paleolithic shrine. Emmanuel Anati. Fig. 188, p. 169.

“In a corner of this ‘sanctuary’ the paleosoil is covered by alignments of flint pebbles in non-figurative patterns.” (Anati 2001:16)

There are also geoglyphs here created, like the ones at Nazca, by removing stones to leave the soil bare, and alignments of stones as well.

“The geoglyphs of Har Karkom represent anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figures and a variety of patterns. Several details give clues to their dating. Non-figural geoglyphs in the palaeosoil of the Paleolithic sanctuary (KHK86B) seem to mark sectors in the area next to the sanctuary. Because of the quantity of Upper Paleolithic flint implements, it may be postulated that the geoglyphs belong to the same age as the sanctuary.” (Anatie 2001:114) So, once again we see that the whole dating construct is based upon the appearance of the stone tools. Anati may be correct, I really do not know, but again this seems to me to be a pretty shaky conclusion.

Anati’s main aim seems to be verification of the bible and to try to prove that Mount Har Karkom is the biblical Mount Sinai. I couldn’t care less about any of that, but am absolutely fascinated by the flint figures in and about the shrine HK86B recorded in his writings. I am really grateful he has recorded these and will let him interpret things any way he wishes. I just do not have to agree.

NOTE: Some images in this posting were retrieved from the internet with a search for public domain photographs. If any of these images are not intended to be public domain, I apologize, and will happily provide the picture credits if the owner will contact me with them. For further information on these reports you should read the original reports at the sites listed below.

REFERENCES:

Anati, Emmanuel, 2001, The riddle of Mount Sinai: Archaeological discoveries at Har Karkom, Studi Camuni Vol. 21, Valcamonica, Italy.

Wikipedia, Mount Karkom, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Karkom. Accessed online 26 July 2025.

A NEWLY DISCOVERED PRE-DYNASTIC EGYPTIAN ROCK ART PANEL:

Map of location of panel near Aswan, Egypt (the red dot in lower left). Image from cambridge.org.

A newly discovered rock art panel near Aswan in Egypt is considered pre-dynastic and thought to shed light on the beginnings of the Pharaohs. “A rock art panel near Aswan, Egypt, may depict a rare example of an elite individual from the First Dynasty, shedding light on the formation of the ancient Egyptian state. The late 4th millennium BC was a key period in Egyptian history which saw the beginning of political unification across Egypt, ultimately leading to the formation of the Egyptian state by the first pharaoh, Narmer, about 3100 BC.” (Egan 2025) The composition was carved at the bottom of a cliff and was pretty much covered by talus from above; soil washed down from above, sand blown up against the cliff, mud deposited from high water events and detritus from quarrying up above the petroglyphs position on the rock face.

Site of panel (seen on left). Photograph by Dorian Vanhulle.

Dorian Vanhulle, of the Musẻe du Malgrẻ-Tout, in Viroinval, Belgium, wrote “Uncovered on the west bank of the Nile at Aswan, the engraving consists of a putative authority representative seated in a processional boat, a scene that is otherwise well attested in Late Predynastic (Naqada IIC–D, c. 3450–3350 BC) and Protodynastic (Naqada IIIA–B, c. 3350–3085 BC) iconography. Stylistic similarities between this decorated rock panel and Protodynastic and early First Dynasty official imagery suggest the existence of rock-art specialists commissioned by regional authorities. Building on this contextual analysis, this article also advocates for the better integration of rock art in discussions focusing on the development of kingship and state formation in Egypt and Lower Nubia.” (Vanhulle 2025) The style of boat portrayal is pre-dynastic and the figures are simple and lack much detail, indeed, the five individuals pulling the rope seem to be simple vertical lines.

                               

Image on cliff partly covered by talus. Photograph by Dorian Vanhulle, Figure 5.

The identification of the lines on the right as five figures pulling a rope would seem to be reasonable. What was important was the boat and its passenger (and the steersman) so they are the parts of the composition that deserved more careful attention to detail. “The engraved composition consists of an ornate boat dragged by five figures to the right. The boat is propelled by a standing figure holding a rudder-oar and transports what seems to be a seated figure. The engraving is positioned at the eastern edge of a long, flat and otherwise untouched sandstone canvas that is visible from the modern road, although the drawing is too small to be observed from that distance. The current topography of the hill has, however, been drastically altered by quarrying activities and does not offer a pristine image of the original landscape. The (lack of) visibility of the panel in antiquity would have varied depending on factors such as the level of river water during flooding, light levels and the time of day/year.” (Vanhulle 2025) This suggests that it represents either a procession with an elite individual being pulled on the boat, or perhaps the boat is in the Nile being pulled upstream by the five individuals at the end of the rope. In either case, the passenger must be an important person.

                              

Panel exposed showing petroglyph. Photograph by Dorian Vanhulle. Figure 6A.

As stated elsewhere, the boat image is in the style of pre-dynastic watercraft on the Nile river. “The outline of the boat is traced by an accumulation of peck marks. The inner part of the hull is left untouched. No trace of smoothing nor any kind of enhancement of the final image has been identified. The boat consists of a sickle-shaped hull completed by two vertical extremities. The apex of the prow (pictured right) ends with a horizontal bar from which emerge two short garlands that curl down inwards and another that falls vertically outwards. The stern (pictured left) adopts a slightly incurved movement and shows a rounded profile. The standing figure, with a rounded head and square shoulders, is wedged between the stern and the rear deck structure. Only the right arm and front leg are depicted, the other limbs being hidden as an effect of the perspective. The figure is holding a long rudder-oar that ends with a rounded blade. The prow is oriented to geographical north, and the boat is thus depicted sailing downstream, against the wind, which could justify the presence of the stylized figures that appear to be pulling it. Yet even if the direction of travel is incidental, ceremonial barques, with no proper means of propulsion, were presumably always dragged.” (Vanhulle 2025) In other words, with no sign of a sail or oars for propulsion, this watercraft can be reasonably assumed to be a ceremonial craft. This is, in effect, a stage setting to show off a very important person. This boat is oriented north because the cliff it is carved into is oriented north/south. The artist may have chosen to have it pointing downriver, or may have not thought about that at all. Presumably, a boat going downriver could have drifted on the current so five figures pulling may in fact suggest that it was intended to indicate that it is going up river, against the current. I do not believe we can know this one.

                              

Drawing of petroglyph by Dorian Vanhulle, Figure 6B.

Vanhulle is here assuming that the location of the boat is purposeful, in this place that was an ancient power center in Egypt. “The Aswan-Kom Ombo region and the First Cataract were inhabited by a population mixing Upper Egyptian and Lower Nubian cultural traits. Various forms of political and territorial power could, therefore, have emerged at the same time in the Lower Nile Valley, with their evolution shaping the process of state formation in Egypt. It could also be suggested that Lower Nubian polities were less able to control a population that largely remained attached to a nomadic way of life. Differences in pace and form in the structuring of power in Egypt and Nubia could partly explain the outcome, which saw Narmer found the First Dynasty in Egypt c. 3085 BC and the A-Group disappear from the Nubian archaeological record in the subsequent reigns. Pharaonic kingship is the result of a centuries-long process, and its inception was not as straightforward as generally assumed, nor was it restricted territorially or culturally.” (Vanhulle 2025) This, the most stable of ancient cultures, developed a political system that, although it had its ups and downs lasted for over one millennium.

Enlarged from the Photograph by Dorian Vanhulle. Figure 6A.

Vanhulle is assuming that the panel was created upon instruction by a person in authority. “Rock art was not an accidental practice but rather a social action that followed rules and had intrinsic meanings, functions and goals. Addressing the use of rock art by local and regional rising powers in Egypt during the fourth millennium BC offers new insights on the Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods. It also facilitates discussions about the constitution of a centralized management of the original Egyptian territory and its administrative delimitation. It offers information on how Nilotic and desert landscapes were invested with

codified messages by local authorities, and the ways in which these messages were diffused, influenced and appropriated by groups of different ethnic origins. The rock panel at SM36 is an important addition to the existing corpus of engravings that can help us to better understand the role of rock art in the crucial events that led to the

formation of the Egyptian state. Its fortuitous discovery shows the extent of the work to be done and the wealth of data yet to be discovered in the vast open-air museums of Egypt and Nubia.” (Vanhulle 2025: 14) Here, I take him to be saying that this image would not have been created without permission. This description of the importance of the rock art may make sense in a society as tightly controlled by a small number of elites as ancient Egypt, but I am not sure that this would preclude independent creation of petroglyphs by commoners. If this were done on the instruction of an elite these early period stone carvers are certainly not as accomplished as the sculptors of later Pharaohnic Egypt.

REFERENCES:

Egan, Robert, 2025, Rock art hints at the origins of Egyptian kings, Antiquity Publications Ltd., https://phys.org/news/2025-07-art-hints-egyptian-kings.html. Accessed online 10 July 2025/

Vanhulle, Dorian, 2025, An early ruler etched in stone? A rock art panel from the west bank of Aswan (Egypt), Antiquity Publications Ltd., published online by Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2025.60. Accessed online 10 July 2025.