Spinning or sailing?: the boat models from Eridu.

Spinning or sailing?: the boat models from Eridu. A sceptical view of received wisdom is much to be encouraged, and inthat sense we welcome Thomas Strasser's reinterpretation re��in��ter��pret?tr.v. re��in��ter��pret��ed, re��in��ter��pret��ing, re��in��ter��pretsTo interpret again or anew.re , in theDecember ANTIQUITY, of the so-called boat models from Eridu. There are,however, strong arguments for rejecting his spinning bowl hypothesis.The known spinning bowls from Egypt and Palestine are massive and heavy,in order to provide tension against which to pull and ply or twist thefibres being prepared. (Technically these bowls are not for spinning perse: Barber 1992: 72.) They must be sufficiently stable to stay in placeand not overturn. Barber suggests that they are also used for'wetting' and that these bowls were associated specificallywith the production of linen (Barber 1992: 72). The easternMediterranean examples have heavy handle-like loops within the basewhich show thread wear on the undersides. The Eridu vessels are far toofragile for such usage and the Eridu 'thwart' is notsufficiently heavy to have survived the necessary tension: nor would theboat-shape itself have been stable (see illustration in Safar et al.1981: 227). Strasser also suggests - on the model of Aztec spinningbowls - that the socket, preserved in one of the boats and previouslyassumed to have held a mast, in fact held a rotating spindle from whichthe thread was drawn. However, the surviving socket is off-centre, whichwould have produced an unreliable wobble wobble/wob��ble/ (wob��'l) to move unsteadily or unsurely back and forth or from side to side. See under hypothesis. wob��blen.1. , as would the shape of thevessel itself.The Eridu 'boats' date from the early 5th millennium BC, atime when no spinning bowls are attested anywhere. They are found,moreover, within a culture in which yarn and thread are traditionallyproduced by the use of handheld spindles (widespread by the time of theNeolithic villages of the 7th millennium BC and more suitable for wool).Unlike Egypt, no spinning bowls are illustrated even in later periods,nor have they been found, whereas the use of hand-held spindlescontinues (for example, the 3rd-millennium BC spinning ladies of Mari:Parrot 1962: plate 11). The only Mesopotamian bowls with 'innerhandles' are a small number, largely from the Early Dynasticperiod Early Dynastic Period may refer to a period of the 3rd millennium BC in either Egypt or Sumer: Early Dynastic Period of Egypt Early Dynastic Period of Sumer , with interior clay 'flaps', originating at the rim andusually isolating a central area in the bowl. Their purpose is notclear; the three- and four-flapped varieties have been interpreted aspot-stands, possibly for collecting seepage from the supported vessel(cf., inter alia [Latin, Among other things.] A phrase used in Pleading to designate that a particular statute set out therein is only a part of the statute that is relevant to the facts of the lawsuit and not the entire statute. , Abu Salabikh: Moon 1987: 43; the Nuzi 'goose neckpotstand': Starr 1937: plate 95B; Tepe Gawra Tepe Gawra(tĕ`pĕ gourä`)[Kurdish,=great mound], locality in N Iraq, 15 mi (24 km) NE of Mosul. In 1927 the archaeologist Ephraim Speiser discovered it to be the site of ancient settlements. Level IV: Speiser1935: plate 29b; and the massive single-strap example from Habuba KabiraSud: Strommenger 1970: figure 24). These show no sign of having servedas spinning bowls, nor would their design have been efficient for such apurpose (see now Allen in press). In the eastern Mediterranean theearliest spinning bowl would appear to be that from Myrtos, illustratedby Strasser (Early Bronze Age Bronze Age,period in the development of technology when metals were first used regularly in the manufacture of tools and weapons. Pure copper and bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, were used indiscriminately at first; this early period is sometimes called the ): such vessels are not attested in Egyptbefore the Middle Bronze Age (12th Dynasty, with a single model datingto the 11th Dynasty), and appear later still in Palestine. Strassersuggests that the boat interpretation is 'precocious' and'incongruously early'; the same can be said of the spinningbowl hypothesis.Nor has Strasser read carefully the Roaf & Galbraith article(1994) which is said to 'cast doubt on' the neutron activation Neutron activation is the process in which neutron radiation induces radioactivity in materials, and occurs when nuclei capture free neutrons, becoming heavier and entering excited states. analyses of 'Ubaid pottery from sites along the Arabian Gulf Arabian Gulf:see Persian Gulf. withwhich the Eridu boats have been coupled. Roaf & Galbraith suggestmore sophisticated statistical techniques and point out severalregrettable errors, the most serious of which involves the attributionof the same data to two sites. The original computer data are now lost,but the first print-out, at which time only the Arabian sherds had beenanalysed, shows these data to be correctly attributed to the Arabiansite of Dosariyah, so it is the Eridu results that should be ignored(Oates et al. 1977:226-7 and figure 2; Roaf & Galbraith 1994: 773).This unfortunate error in no way invalidates the overall results whichare further supported by Kamilli's thin-section data. Indeed itserves to emphasize the similarity of 'Ubaid pottery from the Gulfand from southern Mesopotamia. Moreover, Roaf & Galbraith concludethat their study 'supports the two main conclusions of SMU SMU Southern Methodist UniversitySMU Solid (Waste)Management UnitSMU Saint Mary's University (Halifax, Nova Scotia; Philippines)SMU Singapore Management UniversitySMU Saint Mary's University of Minnesota [Oateset al. 1977]: some (or indeed most) of the Ubaid pottery found in theGulf have been imported from southern Mesopotamia; the coarse red ware .. . is very different and may have been produced locally' (Roaf& Galbraith 1994: 778). Recent archaeological work in the Gulfcontinues to demonstrate the maritime distribution of the 'Ubaidpottery (see, most recently, Uerpmann & Uerpmann 1996, whichpublishes 'Ubaid-related sites as far south as Umm al Qaiwain). Thefact that boat models from Mashnaqa on the River Khabur are of another,and better-known, design is irrelevant to the argument since suchcanoe-like vessels would have been suitable neither for carrying cargonor for negotiating the vast stretches of open water in the Gulf, whereaccess to drinking water drinking watersupply of water available to animals for drinking supplied via nipples, in troughs, dams, ponds and larger natural water sources; an insufficient supply leads to dehydration; it can be the source of infection, e.g. leptospirosis, salmonellosis, or of poisoning, e.g. is seriously limited. Technologically, thebroad beam of the Eridu 'boats' would have provided not onlyspace for cargo but also greater stability.We are not insisting that the Eridu vessels must be sailing boats,though we see no strong argument to the contrary and the'seafaring' activities of the 'Ubaid period remainsecurely attested, only that on closer examination the spinning bowlhypothesis would seem to be even less plausible. We are grateful toStrasser, however, for leading us to look more closely at theall-too-limited evidence for spinning techniques.Thomas F. Strasser(*) comments:Bourriau & Oates present several interesting observations thatwarrant a brief response.First, it is not entirely clear to me why the Eridu vessels are not'massive and heavy' enough to function as small domesticspinning bowls. Dothan (1963: figure 1) published several ceramicspinning bowls of the same size and even smaller. Second, not allspinning bowls had flat bottoms, so wobble must have been somehowmanaged, perhaps with a wedge (a piece of cloth?). Third, despite thedefinite evidence for spinning in the 'Ubaid levels at Eridu, theidea that contemporary spinning bowls would be just as precocious andincongruous as sailing boats is a valid criticism that reveals a point Ifailed to make in ANTIQUITY. There are more misinterpreted objects inthe Neolithic and Bronze Age archaeological record that will need to bereinterpreted as accoutrements ac��cou��ter��mentor ac��cou��tre��ment ?n.1. An accessory item of equipment or dress. Often used in the plural.2. Military equipment other than uniforms and weapons. Often used in the plural.3. of textile production, now thatarchaeologists have much updated research. I base this statement on myre-reading 'small finds' chapters in site reports, andvisiting provincial museums in Turkey. More re-interpretations ofNeolithic and Bronze Age artefacts will likely occur. Fourth, the onesentence I devote to Roaf & Galbraith's article was intendedonly to draw attention to their re-analysis of the NAA study thataffects our understanding of 'Ubaid sea-faring and state formationin the region. Perhaps the phrase 'cast doubt on' (p. 925) istoo strong, but Roaf & Galbraith at least reserve judgement on theevidence as it now stands. The quote cited by Bourriau & Oates failsto account for Roaf & Galbraith's far more equivocal commentson the meaning of the NAA analysis in light of other data.Whatever the case, this lively debate demonstrates that the Eriduvessels are more enigmatic than earlier publications indicated. Iappreciate Bourriau & Oates' close attention to the matter andhope one of us can soon visit the Baghdad Museum to examine the vesselswith this question in mind. Perhaps there are striations under the'thwart' that might resolve the issue. It would do much forour understanding of ancient seafaring and, I believe, shed light onweaving techniques during the 'Ubaid. * Department of Humanities & Religious Studies, and History,California State University Enrollment (Sacramento), Sacramento CA 95819, USA.ReferencesALLEN, S.J. In press. 'Spinning bowls': representation andreality, in J. Phillips (ed.), The Aegean and the Near East: studies inhonor of Martha Rhoads Bell. San Antonio (TX): Van Siclen.BARBER, E.J.W. 1992. Prehistoric textiles. Princeton (NJ): PrincetonUniversity Press.DOTHAN, T. 1963. Spinning-bowls, Israel Exploration Journal 13(2):97-112.MOON, J. 1987. Abu Salabikh Excavations 3: Catalogue of EarlyDynastic pottery. British School of Archaeology in Iraq The British School of Archaeology in Iraq is the only body in Britain devoted to research into the ancient civilizations and languages of Mesopotamia.The School was founded in 1932 as a memorial to the life and works of Gertrude Bell. .OATES, J., T.E. DAVIDSON, D. KAMILLI & H. MCKERRELL. 1977.Sea-faring merchants of Ur?, Antiquity 51: 221-34.PARROT, A. 1962. Les fouilles de Mari, douzieme campagne, Syria 29:151-79.ROAF, M. & J. GALBRAITH. 1994. Pottery and p-values:'Seafaring merchants of Ur?' re-examined, Antiquity 68:770-82.SAFAR, F., M.A. MUSTAFA & S. LLOYD. 1981. Eridu. Baghdad:Ministry of Culture and Information.SPEISER, E.A. 1935. Tepe Gawra I. Philadelphia (PA): American Schoolsof Oriental Research.STARR, R.F.S. 1937. Nuzi. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press The Harvard University Press is a publishing house, a division of Harvard University, that is highly respected in academic publishing. It was established on January 13, 1913. In 2005, it published 220 new titles. .STRASSER, T. 1996. The boat models from Eridu: sailing or spinningduring the 'Ubaid period?, Antiquity 70: 920-25.STROMMENGER, E. 1970. Kleinfunde, in E. Heinrich et al., Zweitervorlaufiger Bericht . . . in Habuba Kabira und in Mumbaqat, Mitteilungender Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft 102: 61-71.UERPMANN, M. & H.-P. UERPMANN. 1996. 'Ubaid Pottery in theeastern Gulf - new evidence from Umm al-Qaiwain (UAE), ArabianArchaeology and Epigraphy epigraphy:see inscription. 7: 125-39.