The Kingdom of the Stone Markers

From an aircraft, or from a satellite, the oldest human decision in Arabia is still visible. Across the black lava fields of the Hijaz, archaeologists mapping the Harrat Khaybar found nearly four hundred long rectangular structures they first called gates, low walls of piled stone that turned out to be older than everything around them. Cairns lie on top of them, tombs lie on top of them, the great hunting traps lie on top of them, and nothing lies beneath. They are the first thing built into this landscape, and they were not houses. They were claims. Before anyone in this desert raised a roof to sleep under, someone laid stone across the ground to say a thing that architecture has been saying ever since. This is ours. You are outside it.

That order of events is worth sitting with, because it reverses the story we usually tell about building. We tend to assume architecture begins with shelter and only later learns to mark territory. In Arabia the record runs the other way. The mustatils of the northern Nefud, elongated rectangles with monumental platforms at each end, some more than six hundred meters long, have been dated to around 5000 BC, which makes them the oldest large scale stone monuments on the peninsula, and their purpose was never habitation. They gathered people, they held ritual, and above all they announced presence, the emergence of territoriality among herders competing for pasture and water. The same logic raised the trapezoidal platform at Dumat al-Jandal, built more than seven thousand years ago and ringed by sixty six cairn tombs, which the excavators read plainly as territorial markers by which mobile pastoralists materialized their presence and asserted their inheritance over a well watered oasis. The first architecture of Arabia was not a building. It was a boundary.

This is where the Arabic word matters, and where the title of this piece has to be defended before it can be used. Tahjir does not mean to build in stone. It means to mark land with stones in order to hold it and to keep others off it, and only afterward, sometimes, to enclose or cultivate what has been marked. The root is prohibition and definition, not construction. So the stone markers of my title are not primarily carvers of rock. They are the people who drew the first line, who set the cairn, who mixed the mud and raised the wall, and who in doing so converted open ground into a place with an inside and an outside. And this reframes everything that follows, because it means the deepest subject of Arabian building was never ornament or style. It was sovereignty. Before a state became a map, it was a wall, and before rule became an institution, it was the simple capacity to tell inside from outside.

By the Bronze and Iron Ages, that capacity had scaled up from scattered monuments to the enclosure of entire territories. The comparative study of the walled oases of northwestern Arabia shows that places such as Dumat al-Jandal, Tayma, Khaybar and Qurayyah were girdled by outer stone ramparts that enclosed not only the settlement but its fields, its wells and sometimes its dead, across hundreds of hectares, with perimeters reaching sixteen kilometers. At Dumat al-Jandal the western rampart still runs some two and a half kilometers and survives in places above four and a half meters high, built in regular coursed masonry with buttresses, bastions, staircases and a hidden postern, raised in the Hellenistic period. Those ramparts, the researchers argue, were at once defensive, ostentatious and political, and their construction demanded a central authority capable of mobilizing a large labor force. The wall was not merely protection. It was the physical signature of a power able to command bodies and to define a domain. The construction of a perimeter was itself a declaration of statehood.

Central Arabia, the Najd and al-Yamamah that concern this article most, chose a different grammar of marking, and the difference is instructive rather than inferior. Where the northwest built continuous oasis walls, the heartland built fortified nuclei, town walls studded with towers, citadels, and free standing watchtowers rising from the palm groves. The classical geographers remembered al-Yamamah, the basin of Wadi Hanifa and the plateau around ancient Hajr, the predecessor of Riyadh, as one of the most densely settled and cultivated regions of pre Islamic Arabia, a land of oasis towns, date gardens, walls and forts, home to the great tribe of Banu Hanifa. The archaeology confirms the geographers. The largest site of the al-Kharj oasis, a ruin field of seventy five hectares, yielded four phases of occupation running from before Islam through the Abbasid centuries into the late Islamic period, including a mosque with prayer hall and courtyard, sustained across two millennia by an economy of camels and date palms. This was not empty desert dotted with tents. It was a worked and defended landscape.

The tower is the purest expression of that landscape, and it carried the whole argument in a single form. The surveys of traditional Najdi settlement describe towns that were rectangular in plan, walled, reinforced by round and rectangular towers, with a citadel in one corner and a mosque set into the town wall itself. Alongside the town defenses stood the tall watchtowers, the marqab of the community and the husn of the family, eighteen to thirty meters of tapering mud raised on stone foundations, from which fire and smoke were signaled against raiders. The study of these towers reaches the conclusion that matters here. They did not only defend the settlement and its fields. They symbolically defined territorial demarcation. They were the built expression of a community’s claim to its land and of its readiness to defend it, which is to say they were tahjir raised into the vertical, the boundary stone grown tall enough to be seen from the next oasis. Here the design of a structure and the assertion of a territory are the same act.

Behind the physical marking stood a legal one, and no account of Arabian land is complete without it. The hima, the protected reserve, set aside pasture and woodland under a recognized authority, its perimeter known, announced and enforced, and the haram extended the same principle to sanctuary, the inviolable zone around Mecca and Medina within which even hunting was forbidden. The dirah was the customary territory of a tribe, a defined and defended space. What unites these institutions with the walls and the towers is that they are all systems for marking land, some in stone and some in law, and often in both at once. Even in a twentieth century revival of the hima, cooperative reserves were demarcated on the ground by piles of stones and by ploughed strips along their edges, the identical gesture the mustatil builders had made seven thousand years before. The instinct to draw the line in stone never left. It only changed its legal costume.

All of this converges on one place and one name. Diriyah, founded in 1446 in Wadi Hanifa at the heart of the old al-Yamamah, became in the 1740s the capital of the first Saudi state, and its architecture embodied the Najdi tradition at the scale of a state. The citadel of Turayf on the west bank held the palaces and the great congregational mosque, a rectangular enclosure with an open courtyard and a roofed sanctuary carried on colonnades of stacked stone drums, the whole built of unfired brick and stone, the humblest materials raised to the dignity of a capital. And the name the state carried into battle is the key that unlocks the entire subject. The rallying cry of the first Saudi state, its nakhwa, was al-Awja, and al-Awja was Diriyah itself. The word is the feminine of crooked, and it should by every ordinary measure have been a flaw, a name that sounds like an insult. It came from the bend, the crookedness of Wadi Hanifa as the valley twisted at Diriyah, its quarters strung along both banks of the winding watercourse. The town was named for what looked like a defect in the land, and it turned that defect into its foundation.

Consider how completely the crookedness became the strength. The bend in the wadi was what gave Diriyah its water, its fertile terraces, its defensibility, and its position on the routes that carried pilgrims and trade through central Arabia. The people who took the name of the crooked valley, the people of al-Awja, rose from it to unify most of the peninsula, and the histories are candid that their ascent rested as much on the openness of Diriyah as on its walls, its willingness to receive a reform movement, to absorb merchants and scholars, to build alliances across the oases. There is a moment in the sieges of the town, remembered in the sources, when the fortunes of the defenders were failing and the response was architectural before it was military. The war parade, the ardah, was staged outside the wall at dusk, and the sight and sound of it, raised against the backdrop of the fortified town, restored the courage of the defenders and turned the battle. The nakhwa, the wall, and the morale of a people were a single system. A name that should have been a wound became the proudest word a Najdi could shout, and it is difficult to imagine a sharper illustration of a civilization that built its power out of precisely what others would have discarded as a weakness.

It helps, at this point, to set Arabia beside Europe in the same centuries, briefly and without the tired hierarchy of advanced and backward. Around 1500, while the towns of Najd were organizing themselves around water, cultivation and local defense in mud and stone, the cities of Italy were rebuilding the classical language of proportion, symmetry, the column and the dome, and inventing the figure of the architect as author. Around 1740, while Diriyah rose in unfired brick and raised its defensive wall near 1758 to protect an expanding state, Europe was closing the age of the Baroque and opening the neoclassical, building royal palaces, geometric gardens and civic squares to embody a central power that already existed. The contrast is not one of quality but of task. Europe was building the representation of a power it already held, using worked stone and marble as instruments of political display. Najd was building the very condition of stability, using mud as a strategic material and the wall as the tool that made authority possible in the first place. Diriyah was not a poor copy of Versailles, and Versailles was not an advanced version of Diriyah. Each was an exact answer to its own system of power, economy, climate and available material. While Europe built palaces to show a power that stood, Najd built walls to make power stand at all.

The rest of the story is the story of that grammar being overwhelmed. In 1818 an Ottoman and Egyptian army took Diriyah and set out, in the words of a European who saw the ruins, to render the spot a wilderness, razing the walls, the forts and the houses and destroying the date plantations, and the town stood empty for generations. The architecture became, in that instant, a direct record of political struggle. The state that had established itself through the wall and the citadel was dismantled by the deliberate destruction of its wall and its citadel, which is the most literal proof possible that these were never mere buildings. In the same decades Europe was moving in the opposite direction, out of the city of palace and church and into the city of factory, station and railway, its old defensive walls losing their purpose and coming down because expansion, traffic and industry had become more important than any perimeter. Two continents, two demolitions of the wall, but for opposite reasons, one because a state was being erased and one because a new kind of cities was being born.

Arabia held to the fortified town, the wall and the gate far longer, because its conditions of security, economy and transport were different, and because the mudbrick settlement was a complete and rational technical system within its own limits, thick walls, courtyards, calculated openings, wind capture, and eaves against the rare rain. Then unification in the twentieth century and the arrival of oil overturned the model within a single generation, and the clustered defensive town gave way to the extended city of the automobile and reinforced concrete. The sustainability that had been unconscious, the local material, the passive cooling, the settlement compact against heat and threat, was abandoned almost overnight for imported forms that the climate did not ask for. Today Turayf is a protected monument and Diriyah is the subject of vast restoration projects and international design competitions, and the news treats the mud capital as heritage to be recovered, which is a return worth making, provided we recover the intelligence of the thing and not only its surface. The architectural research now mapping the mustatils from orbit and excavating the oasis ramparts on the ground is, in the end, reading the same continuous text that runs from 5000 BC to the last Ikhwan settlement, a sentence about marking land that this landscape has been writing without interruption for seven thousand years.

So the claim of this article is not the easy boast that the people of Arabia were the finest builders on earth, which the evidence does not support in that form. It is something more precise and more defensible. The peoples of Najd, al-Yamamah and the Hijaz were among the most capable societies in history at converting scarce and humble materials into complete systems that secured water, property, community and rule, and the proof is that they built a state out of mud before they ever built one out of stone. Al-Awja is the whole thesis compressed into a single word. A name that sounded like a flaw, a valley that looked like a defect, a material that others despised, assembled by people open enough to turn all three into strength. Before this was a kingdom of oil, or a kingdom of stone, it was a kingdom of the line drawn in the ground, and everything that stands here now was built on the oldest decision anyone ever made in this desert, the decision to mark a place and call it home.

✦ ArchUp Editorial Insight

The mustatil is not a monument — it is a property instrument, and the article’s most structurally significant contribution is its demonstration that the first act of Arabian architecture was not the enclosure of a human body against weather but the enclosure of land against competing claims, which means that sovereignty preceded shelter in this landscape by millennia and that every building raised here since has been, at some level, a continuation of that original territorial argument in more elaborate materials. The word tahjir — to mark land with stones in order to hold it and exclude others — is the article’s conceptual key, because it names an act that modern legal systems have divided into property law, planning regulation, and building code, but which in its original form was a single gesture: the line drawn in the ground that converted undifferentiated territory into a place with an inside and an outside. The comparison the article draws between Diriyah in unfired mud and Versailles in dressed stone is its most analytically precise passage, because it dissolves the quality hierarchy that development narratives impose on building materials and replaces it with a task analysis: Versailles was built to represent a power that already existed, while Diriyah was built to make power possible in the first place, a distinction that connects directly to what Stone Was the Payroll established about the mason’s mark — in both cases, the most structurally consequential architecture is never the architecture of display but the architecture of claim, and what the current restoration of Turayf must recover, if it is to be anything more than the surface gesture that Vernacular Architecture and Cultural Identity identified as the profession’s default failure mode, is not the appearance of the mud wall but the territorial intelligence that made the mud wall the exact and sufficient answer to its conditions.

Ibrahim Fawakherji — ArchUp

Sources

1. Groucutt HS, Breeze PS, Guagnin M, et al. Monumental landscapes of the Holocene humid period in Northern Arabia: the mustatil phenomenon. The Holocene, 2020, 30(12), 1767 to 1779.
2. Kennedy D. Gates: a new archaeological site type in Saudi Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 2017, 28(2), 153 to 174.
3. Munoz O, Cotty M, Charloux G, et al. Marking the sacral landscape of a north Arabian oasis: a sixth millennium BC monumental stone platform and surrounding burials. Antiquity, 2020, 94(375), 601 to 621.
4. Charloux G, AlMalki T, AlQaeed A. The walled oases phenomenon: a study of the ramparts in Dumat al-Jandal and other pre Islamic sites in north western Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 2021, 32(S1), 256 to 290.
5. AlOboudi SM. Najd, the Heart of Arabia. Arab Studies Quarterly, 2015, 37(3).
6. Monchot H. Camels in Saudi oases during the last two millennia: the examples of Dumat al-Jandal and al-Yamama. Anthropozoologica, 2014, 49(2), 195 to 206.
7. King G. Traditional Najdi mosques. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 1978, 41(3), 464 to 498.
8. Saleh MAE. From symbolism to functionalism and back again: towers of traditional settlements in the Arabian Peninsula. Architectural Science Review, 1996, 39(1), 25 to 37.
9. Gari L. A history of the hima conservation system. Environment and History, 2006, 12(2), 213 to 228.
10. Al-Hathloul S, Edadan N. Evolution of settlement pattern in Saudi Arabia. Habitat International, 1993, 17(4), 31 to 46.
11. Petersen A. The archaeology of the Syrian and Iraqi Hajj routes. World Archaeology, 1994, 26(1), 47 to 56.
12. Smith P. Solid Rock: landscape and word painting in the Arabias of Palgrave, Pelly and Burton. Journeys, 2001, 2(2), 1 to 28.
13. Higgs A, Bidwell R. Travellers in Arabia. The Geographical Journal, 1977, 143(2), 322.
14. Al-Samari FA. Ahl al-Awja. Riyadh: King Abdulaziz Foundation for Research and Archives (Darah).