"Carved into a sandstone cliff on the edge of a bygone river in the Arabian Desert, a hunter draws his bow for the kill. He is accompanied by 13 dogs, each with its own coat markings; two animals have lines running from their necks to the man’s waist." Source: Science.
"The engravings likely date back more than 8000 years, making them the earliest depictions of dogs, a new study reveals. And those lines are probably leashes, suggesting that humans mastered the art of training and controlling dogs thousands of years earlier than previously thought."
"New archaeological research from The Australian National University (ANU) has found that Homo erectus, an extinct species of primitive humans, went extinct in part because they were ‘lazy’." Source: Eurasian Review.
"An archaeological excavation of ancient human populations in the Arabian Peninsula during the Early Stone Age, found that Homo erectus used ‘least-effort strategies’ for tool making and collecting resources."
Comment: These archaeologists claim to have found evidence that Homo erectus used whatever rocks were lying around to make their tools while ignoring higher quality rocks available (with a little more effort) at a nearby outcrop:
"They knew [the better rock outcrop] was there, but because they had enough adequate resources they seem to have thought, 'why bother?'
"This is in contrast to the stone tool makers of later periods, including early Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, who were climbing mountains to find good quality stone and transporting it over long distances."
These Homo erectus layabouts also seem to have stubbornly kept to their old ways of doing things even though their environment was going through changes that threatened their survival if they didn't alter their habits:
"Not only were they lazy, but they were also very conservative," according to one of the researchers, and this lack of adaptability in the face of climate change may have contributed to their extinction.
If you take all of this at face value Homo erectus doesn't sound too bright, but there are other ways to interpret the finds at this site. For instance, the archaeologists are assuming that "least-effort strategies" are a sign of laziness, but they could be a sign of basic practicality. After all, why work harder than you have to if it isn't necessary to achieve your goals? It's also possible that Homo erectus simply lacked the mental capacity for innovation found in modern humans. Considering the fact that they weren't modern humans, that wouldn't be very surprising.
They were smart enough to use fire and make handaxes, though. According to The Smithsonian, "the appearance of Homo erectus in the fossil record is often associated with the earliest handaxes, the first major innovation in stone tool technology," and "evidence for the controlled use of fire by Homo erectus, beginning some 600,000 years ago, has wide scholarly support." (Wikipedia) They were social animals as well. According to Wikipedia, "Homo erectus was probably the first hominin to live in a hunter-gatherer society, and anthropologists such as Richard Leakey believe that erectus was socially more like modern humans than the more Australopithecus-like species before it."
If any of this is accurate, I guess you could say that Homo erectus was innovative up to a certain point, but too limited mentally to develop any further. They weren't necessarily "lazy" -- I don't see how you could call any of these early hominins lazy considering the effort it must have taken just to stay alive back then -- but when they found a system that worked they never bothered to improve it. They were creatures of habit who stuck to the routines that had worked for them in the past and this led to their eventual extinction when they couldn't adapt to changing environmental conditions.
In a way, they sound a lot like modern humans. Based on my own experience, I'd say that we have a tendency to settle into ruts and stay there until some outside force compels us to change our ways. In the case of Homo erectus, maybe the thing that finally forced them out of their behavioral rut was their own extinction event.
"Socotra Archipelago, in the northwest Indian Ocean near the Gulf of Aden, is 250 km long and comprises four islands and two rocky islets which appear as a prolongation of the Horn of Africa. The site is of universal importance because of its biodiversity with rich and distinct flora and fauna..." Source: UNESCO.
Socotra was called Dioskouridou ('of the Dioscurides') or Dioscorida in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, a first century AD shipping manual. According to the author of the Periplus, "Dioscorida ... is very large but desert and marshy, having rivers in it and crocodiles and many snakes and great lizards, of which the flesh is eaten and the fat melted and used instead of olive oil." Source: Fordham University Internet History Sourcebooks (paragraph 30).
Note: I'm not sure about this, but I think the Erythraean Sea is the old name for the Red Sea and at least part (?) of the Arabian Sea in the Indian Ocean. A map of the Erythraean Sea drawn in 169 BC by the Greek historian and geographer Agatharchides of Cnidus, can be found here.
Socotra has been called "the world's strangest place" with good reason. The plants on Socotra are truly bizarre, as can be seen in these pictures. The island's spectacular and alien landscape looks like something out of a science-fiction movie.
The ancient history of Socotra is obscure, but its inhabitants traded spices and the sap of their Dragon's Blood trees to Egypt and Rome. Its location near the mouth of the Red Sea made it an important stopover for cargo ships involved in the thriving maritime trade with the far east.
"The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans all tapped the treasures of Socotra’s natural world: aromatic resins such as frankincense, medicinal aloe extract, and the dark red sap of the dragon’s blood tree, used for healing and as an artist’s color. Adventurers came to harvest the island’s wealth, despite stories that it was guarded by giant snakes living in its caves. The Queen of Sheba, Alexander the Great, and Marco Polo were among those who coveted Socotra’s riches." Source: National Geographic.
"The value of incense and dragon’s blood peaked during the time of the Roman Empire. Afterward, the island served mostly as a way station for traders, passing centuries in relative cultural isolation. Socotra’s residents lived generation after generation as their ancestors had: the mountain Bedouin minding their goats, the coastal residents fishing, and everyone harvesting dates. Island history was passed down through poetry, recited in the Socotri language."
According to Socotra Eco-Tours, Aristotle, Alexander the Great's tutor, selected a group of colonists to settle on Socotra. The idea was to harvest its myrhh, valued for its medicinal properties, and turn the island into a base for Alexander's invasion of India. The Greek historian Diodorus of Sicily (1st cent BC) mentions Socotra as a major source of myrhh, ladanum and various aromatic plants. The island was an important way station where "[s]ailors and tradesmen not only bought precious resins and medical herbs...which they later on sold at markets in the Roman empire or the Indian kingdoms, but also gained strength and supplies necessary for their long journeys to the African coast, Madagascar or to Persia." Inscriptions in various languages have been found inside Hoq cave on the island. (See video below)
Considering the island's strategic location and valuable resources, I imagine it was fought over repeatedly by various empires in the ancient world. Most of this history, unfortunately, has been lost forever.
Notes: "The Belitung shipwreck (also called the Tang shipwreck or Batu Hitam shipwreck) is the wreck of an Arabian dhow which sailed a route from Africa to China around 830 AD. The ship completed the outward journey, but sank on the return journey, approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) off the coast of Belitung Island, Indonesia." Source: Wikipedia.
The Belitung shipwreck, along with two other ships discovered in the area, "turned out to be an undersea treasure trove of such massive historical significance that Shanghai, Singapore and Doha in Qatar are vying with each other to buy the cargo," according to The Independent (2011) .
"The treasure was part of a huge cargo of eighth-century porcelain that traders from the Chinese Tang dynasty had put aboard an Arab dhow for export to Malaysia, India and what is now Saudi Arabia. The dhow's remains, found among the treasure, suggest the ship was wrecked on the treacherous underwater reefs of Indonesia's Karimata straits on its outward voyage through the Java sea." (Ibid)
"At a remarkable site in northwest Saudi Arabia, archaeologists have discovered camelid sculptures unlike any others in the region. They are thought to date back to the first centuries BC or AD. The find sheds new light on the evolution of rock art in the Arabian Peninsula." Source: Science Daily.
Note: Located near caravan routes in the desert, this site may have been a way station or place of worship.
Note: "Qasr Bshir [ancient name Mobene] belongs to the chain of forts and watchtowers that is known as the Limes Arabicus and was meant to protect the province of Arabia against roaming desert nomads. They were not extremely dangerous or exceptionally violent, but their dromedaries made them swift, and if trouble arose, they could pillage large parts of the Roman countryside. The Limes Arabicus had to counter this threat, and Mobene was one of the fortifications." Source: Livius.org.
"Until the 1980s, the Roman frontier in modern Jordan was among the least studied of the empire’s far-flung border regions. From 1980 until 1989, the Limes Arabicus Project investigated the frontier east of the Dead Sea. Excavation focused on the late Roman legionary fortress of el-Lejjun as well as soundings of four smaller but contemporaneous forts. The project’s regional survey recorded over five hundred other archaeological sites in the area, dating from the Paleolithic to the Late Islamic periods." Source: "The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan, Final Report of the Limes Arabicus Project," 1980-1989, Harvard University Press.
"Arabia Felix—Fortunate Arabia—was the name chosen by the Romans for the lands on the southern fringe of the Arabian Peninsula, some of which were known until recently as the Aden Protectorates, now the Federation of South Arabia, and Yemen. It would seem today, perhaps, in looking upon a region that is little more than empty plateau and arid desert, that the Romans exercised somewhat less than acute judgment in choosing such a name. But that's today. At the time there were many reasons for the Romans to believe that South Arabia was a blessed land." Source: Saudi Aramco World.
Notes: The Arabian Peninsula has a long and complex history. According to the Oxford Classical Dictionary (OCD), 3rd ed revised, "Greeks of the Classical period were familiar with the cost of Arabia and with Arabia Petraea. They knew less about the other divisions into which by Ptolemy's time they [the Romans?] had divided the peninsula -- Arabia Felix in the south and Arabia Deserta."
Alexander the Great planned "the conquest of the eastern Arabian coast, in preparation for which he sent naval expeditions into both the Persian Gulf and Red Sea." (OCD) Arabia was important for the Greeks and Macedonians for its incense, spices, gold and gems, "and [for] its role as middleman for the Indian trade."
"Augustus sent a military expedition under Aelius Gallus to Arabia Felix which failed, but Roman naval predominance in the Red Sea was secured and the reduction of Aden (Arabia Eudaemon) in the early Principate eased the movement of Roman merchantmen beween Egypt and India."
I don't know a lot about the early history of Islam and apparently no one else does, either. From what I can tell, the story of how Islam first appeared is very similar to the story of how Christianity first appeared. You have many of the same ingredients: the prophet with a foggy biography, the companions or disciples who supposedly wrote down his story from an early oral tradition which may or may not have existed, the early documents of doubtful authenticity, the borrowed elements from other belief systems, the gradual appearance of an organized religion. It's all very murky.
In the case of Islam, the figure of Muhammad is even more obscure than that of Jesus, mostly because the sources that do exist don't provide much biographical information and because so little is known about the world of pre-Islamic Arabia. The sources are so sketchy and questionable that it's impossible to write any kind of reliable biography of Muhammad:
"On the one hand, it is not possible to write a historical biography of the Prophet without being accused of using the sources uncritically, while on the other hand, when using the sources critically, it is simply not possible to write such a biography." Source: "Historicity of Muhammad," Wikipedia.
Muhammad, like Jesus and the Buddha, may be a totally legendary character. And the Islamic version of its early history, like the version of early Jewish history found in the Old Testament, may be legendary as well. According to one book, "Crossroads to Islam," Muhammad probably didn't exist and monotheistic Islam didn't come into existence until much later than traditionally believed.
These claims have apparently been rejected by most mainstream scholars, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. The whole question of whether Muhammad was an actual historical figure is just as contentious and politicized as the question of whether Jesus actually existed. Both issues are obscured by a fog of rhetoric, misinformation and intractable arguments about the authenticity of ancient sources, so it's impossible to come to any definite conclusions one way or another.
It doesn't really matter, though. Until someone comes up with concrete evidence to the contrary, I'd have to say that none of these characters actually existed in the real world.