Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of Classical Studies Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East

Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

2019 Filip Hájek

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts Department of Classical Studies

Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East

Filip Hájek

Seafaring and maritime interactions in the Arabo- during the sixth and fifth millennium BC

Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Dr. phil. Maximilian Wilding

2019

DECLARATION

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. I agree with storing this work in the library of the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East at the Masaryk University in Brno and making it accessible for study purposes.

Brno, 14th of May 2019 ...... Signature

ABSTRACT Title: Seafaring and maritime interactions in the Arabo-Persian Gulf during the sixth and fifth millennium BC Author: Filip Hájek Department / Institute: Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Classical Studies, Centre of Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East Supervisor of the Master’s thesis: Dr. phil. Maximilian Wilding

Abstract: The thesis is focused on the nature of the seafaring and maritime contacts in the Arabo-Persian Gulf during the sixth and fifth millennium BC and compiles available data related to seafaring as the palaeoclimatic conditions, the distribution of sites and imported materials and boat-related finds. These data originate in the areas surrounding the Gulf, such as the eastern and southeastern Arabia, southern and the Iranian coastline. The thesis subsequently deals with the description of boats, based on the morphology of boat models as well as ethnographic sources and the availability of building material. The trading commodities which may have overseas origin or are proposed to be traded with distant regions are described in this work as well as the possible interpretation of maritime routes and contacts, based on the distribution of imported materials, pottery and available palaeoclimatic data. This thesis aim is to shed a new light on the question of seafaring and overseas connections during the Ubaid period.

Keywords: Ubaid Period, Boats, Trade, Seafaring, Pottery, Persian Gulf, Arabian Neolithic, Iranian Coastline

ANOTACE Název práce: Aspekty neolitického mořeplavectví v Arabo-perském zálivu. Autor: Filip Hájek Katedra / Ústav: Masarykova univerzita, Filozofická fakulta, Ústav archeologie a muzeologie, Pravěká archeologie Předního Východu Vedoucí magisterské práce: Dr. Phil. Maximilian Wilding

Abstrakt: Tato diplomová práce je zaměřena na podstatu mořeplavectví a námořních styků v Arabo-perském zálivu během šestého a pátého tisíciletí př.n.l. a spojuje dostupná data vztahující se k mořeplavectví, jako paleoklimatické podmínky, distribuce lokalit, importovaných materiálů a nálezů týkajících se lodí. Tyto data pocházejí z oblastí obklopujících záliv, jako východní a jihovýchodní Arábie, jižní Mezopotámie a pobřežní oblasti Íránu. Teze se současně zabývá i popisem lodí a to na základě morfologie modelů lodí, etnografických zdrojů a dostupnosti stavebního materiálu. Obchodní komodity, jenž mohou mít zámořský původ nebo jsou považovány za zboží obchodované se vzdálenými oblastmi, jsou rovněž popsány v této práci, stejně jako možné interpretace námořních cest a styků vyplývajících z distribuce importovaných surovin, keramiky a dostupných paleoklimatických dat. Tato teze má za úkol poskytnout nový pohled na mořeplavectví a zámořských kontaktů během Obejdského období.

Klíčová slova: Obejdské období, Lodě, Obchod, Mořeplavectví, Keramika, Perský záliv, Arabský neolit, Íránské pobřeží

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Phil. Maximilian Wilding for his guidance and his inspiring ideas that helped my research, as well as for reviewing my thesis. I would also like to thank whole team of the Centre of Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East for their support. Further I would like to extend special thanks for personal consultations, discussions and literature to Zuzana Wygnańska, PhD.(University of Warsaw), Prof. Frans Wiggermann (VU University Amsterdam), Mgr. Inna Mateiciucová, Ph.D (Masaryk University Brno) and Dr. Hans Georg K. Gebel (Free University of Berlin). I would also like to thank Mgr. Hana Kubelková for the help with the language corrections and my friends and family for patience and support.

CONTENT 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. Methodology ...... 2 2. GEOGRAPHY ...... 3 2.1. Geomorphology ...... 3 2.2. Evolution of levels ...... 4 2.3. Climate and wind patterns ...... 5 3. CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE OF COASTAL REGIONS AROUND THE GULF ...... 7 3.1. Southern Mesopotamia ...... 7 3.2. Arabian Coastline ...... 9 3.3. Iranian Coastline ...... 9 3.4. Ubaid in the Gulf ...... 12 3.4.1. Pottery on the Arabian coast ...... 12 3.4.2. Ubaid Ware ...... 13 3.4.3. Red Coarse Ware ...... 14 4. MARITIME TRADE ...... 15 4.1. Distribution of Mesopotamian material culture along the Arabian coast ...... 15 4.2. Trading commodities ...... 16 4.2.1. Invisible and assumed trade items ...... 16 4.2.2. Bitumen ...... 17 4.2.3. Marine products...... 19 4.2.4. Obsidian ...... 21 4.2.5. Floral remains ...... 21 4.2.6. Pigments ...... 22 4.2.7. Copper ...... 23 4.2.8. Semi-precious stones ...... 24 5. WATER TRANSPORT ...... 25 5.1. Boat-related finds ...... 27 5.2. Watercraft ...... 28 5.2.1. Reed craft ...... 30 5.2.2. Frame boats ...... 32 5.2.2.1. Skin boats ...... 32 5.2.2.2. Wooden boats ...... 33 5.2.2.2.1. Availability of wood in southern Mesopotamia ...... 34

5.2.2.2.2. Monoxylons ...... 34 5.2.2.2.3. Planked boats ...... 36 5.3. Motive power ...... 37 5.4. Processing of bitumen ...... 38 6. DISCUSSION ...... 39 6.1. Boat models ...... 39 6.2. Boats of the lower Gulf ...... 41 6.3. Maritime routes and overseas voyages ...... 42 6.3.1. Connection with ...... 45 6.3.2. Chronology ...... 47 6.4. Inter-regional contacts and distribution of pottery ...... 48 6.4.1. Inland distribution of pottery...... 49 6.4.2. Red Coarse Ware and inter-regional visits ...... 50 7. CONCLUSION ...... 51 REFERENCES ...... 52 LIST OF FIGURES ...... 60

1. INTRODUCTION During the sixth and fifth millennia BC, the area of the Arabo-Persian Gulf1 witnessed the first archaeologically visible maritime interaction in the region (Oates et al. 1977, Carter 2006, Carter and Crawford 2010a, Maggee 2014, Drechsler 2018a, Carter 2018). This period is characterized by an emergence of marine-focused, seasonal coastal camps of local Neolithic societies on the coast of the , often having imported materials as pottery from southern Mesopotamia, obsidian from Anatolia as well as southwestern Arabia, bitumen from northern Mesopotamia and semi-precious stones possibly from Iran and/or Yemen. It is assumed that the most of these artefacts were transported by boats via the sea (Oates et al. 1977, De Cardi 1986, Carter 2010a, Carter and Crawford 2010, Maggee 2014, Carter 2018). Ubaid-Arabian Neolithic2 interaction was part of the wider Ubaid period trading network extended as far as Mediterranean sea, the Caucasus and (Carter 2018: p.43).

Sailing and overseas voyages require skills in navigation which may have developed during inshore and offshore fishing and the exploitation of marine products. The utility of sails and bitumen for the coating of boat’s points to the high level of development of boat building. Moreover, boats, as a new form of transport provided the transfer of people as well as bulks of material across long distances which paved the way for emergence of inter-regional contacts (Carter 2018: p.69-70). These boats were most likely made out of reed3 though other materials as wood or skin may have been utilized in boat construction, as it is suggested by the design of several boat models. Moreover, such vessels are attested in cuneiform texts and also in ethnographic records. The nearest Ubaid-related4 sites in the Gulf are located in northern , over 200km away from the southernmost Mesopotamian cities, the farest sites are more than 1000 km away as the crow flies. For overcoming such considerable distances, boats needed to have sails and to use winds for motion. Moreover, distribution of Mesopotamian material culture indicates a strong Mesopotamian influence in the northern Gulf. It is assumed that societies living in modern-day

1 Although the term Persian Gulf is officially recognised as the name of the Gulf, Arabian countries do not accept it. It is unwritten rule that the name of the Gulf depends on country of focus. In other words, in the context of Arabian countries, the name is Arabian Gulf whereas in association with Iran - Persian Gulf. For purposes of this work and its unity, the used term will be Arabo-Persian Gulf or simply The Gulf. 2 The Arabian Neolithic is technical term and does not refer to Arabs as an ethnique but to Arabia as name of the peninsula. In this thesis, the term “Arabian” is thus related to geographic subject. 3 The term reed will be used in this work as a general name for tall grass-like plants of wetlands and do not refer to any specific species. 4 During the sixth and the fifth millennium BC, southern Mesopotamia and Iran are determined as the Chalcolithic. These areas are characterized by Black-on-buff ceramics attributed to the Ubaid culture in southern Mesopotamia and to the Bakun culture in Iran. On the other hand, Arabia, as well as its coastline of the Arabo-Persian Gulf, is referred to as Arabian Neolithic. Black-on-buff pottery found along the Arabian coast is related to Ubaid, therefore these sites are determined as Ubaid-related. 1

Kuwait, were in direct contacts with Mesopotamia and more likely were middlemen situated between southern Mesopotamia and area of the central Gulf (Carter and Crawford 2010b: p.208- 209). The participation of Iran in the maritime trade is unclear. The contacts between and southern Iran are reported from the mid fourth millennium BC (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: p.97, p.183-184). However, the big part of Iranian coastline remains uninvestigated (Chaverdi et al. 2008: p.36).

This thesis aims to point out the elements which relate to prehistoric seafaring itself. For that purpose, this work contains data about watercrafts, the distribution of sites and material culture and weather conditions. Whereas Early Bronze Age seafaring and maritime contacts were described by several authors as Ratnagar (2004), Cleuziou and Tosi (2007) or Vosmer (2000,2007), only a little is known about maritime activity during the Ubad period. This topic was briefly mentioned in Carter’s article “The origin of Neolithic Seafaring” (2003) though only half of a page was dedicated to it. Carter continued and maritime contacts are described in his other publications (2006,2010a,2018, Carter and Crawford 2010). In context of sailing, these authors applied nowadays wind patterns, though different climatic conditions prevailed in the past in the Gulf area.

Qualls processed boat models in her PhD dissertation (1981) and Carter added recently found pieces in his articles where he latter briefly interpreted possible boats according to his observation (2012, 2018). The description of possible boats, based on the work of Qualls and Carter as well as on availability of building material and ethnographic sources, is contained in the thesis. One of the author’s questions is whether Iranian coastline was participating in inter-regional interaction and if yes, how intensely. Beside that, some thought is also given to the possible origin of pottery, nature of interaction and long-distance trade.

1.1. Methodology The data from different fields of research (weather patterns, distribution of sites, material remains as pottery and exotic material, boat-related finds and hypotheses about autochthonous watercrafts) are described in the requisite chapters, related to the topic. Chapter 2 is dedicated to geography. It contains a brief description of the region, evolution of sea levels and wind patterns. Winds are motive power for sailing boats and without suitable wind patterns, maritime voyages can be excluded. Chapter 3 characterizes material cultures of the Arabo-Persian Gulf in sixth and fifth millennium BC for an understanding of the cultural context. Pottery is contained in this chapter 2

due to its tight relation with Ubaid culture. Many foreign materials occurs in the Gulf area and several of those have been transported via the sea thus may indicate possible overseas connections. Trading commodities are therefore described in Chapter 4. At last, boat-related finds as well as description of available boats are contained in Chapter 5. Boat types are introduced based on the previous work of C. Qualls (1981) and Carter (2012,2018) as well as on the availability of building material and archaelogical records from later periods and ethnographic studies. Some thoughts about boat models, the distribution and the spread of material culture and people as well as maritime connections will be discussed in chapter 6.

It must be noted although Iran is involved in the thesis, there is a lack of evidences of its participation and most of the work deals only with Mesopotamian-Arabian interaction. Iranian coastline as a region surrounding Arabo-Persian Gulf is described in Chapter 3 as well as its brief research history. Regarding other regions (southern Mesopotamia and Arabian coastline), the thesis do not contain a separate research history chapter because the author of the thesis comments in detail on research view points throughout this work.

2. GEOGRAPHY 2.1. Geomorphology The Arabo-Persian Gulf (Fig.1) is a relatively recent sea that started to be formed after the last glacial maximum around 16 000 BC due to increase of sea level. The rise of sea level stopped approximately shortly before 4000 BC when present-day shoreline was reached (Dingwall 2014: p.20-24). The Gulf is connected with by Strait of Hormuz, and . Sea has an area of about 214 000 square km, some 990 km in legth and from 340 km5 to 55 km6 in width (Graham 2018).

The northern end of the Gulf is marked by major river-delta Shatt al-Arab, formed by runoff of rivers of Tigris, Euphrates and Karun7. The Arabo-Persian Gulf is surrounded by Iran in the north, northeast and east. While, the most of the Iranian coastline is formed by with cliffs and steep ridges which rise directly from the sea (Chaverdi et al. 2008: p.23-26), Arabian coastline is mostly a narrow coastal plain with sandy beaches, muddy flat shores, coral reefs and many small islands. Only exceptions are and Musandam peninsula of northern Oman where

5 The maximal width of the Gulf. 6 The minimal width of the Gulf, located in the Strait of Hormuz. 7 Shatt al-Arab creates a border between and Iran. 3

the coastline consists of rocks and cliffs. Beside Omani Musandam peninsula in the southeast, Arabian coastline is surrounded by Iraq and Kuwait in the northwest, by , Qatar and in the west and by UAE in the south.

Fig.1. Map of the Arabo-persian Gulf (modified Google Earth).

The Gulf is relatively shallow sea. The deepest waters occurs along the Iranian coastline and in Strait of Hormuz where depth reaches 120m. Along the Arabian coast the sea is more shallow, usually less than 35m deep (Graham 2018).

2.2. Evolution of sea levels During the Late Pleistocene and Early and mid-Holocene, area of Arabo-Persian Gulf was attested by changing of climate and environment. From around 16 000 BC, glaciers in northern hemisphere started to retreat a caused rise in global sea levels from more than 100m below their presents levels (Dingwall 2014: p.20).

4

Up to this event, Arabo-Persian Gulf basin was free of marine influence and Euphrates and Tigris rivers were floating through the basin into the Gulf of Oman from where sea waters started to fill in to Arabo-Persian Gulf basin from around 10 500 BC. Although present day Iranian coastline was reached around 8000 BC (Dingwall 2014: p.22-23), the coast of Arabian peninsula was established in later sixth millennium BC, according to spatial distribution of coastal Ubaid-related sites (Carter 2010a: p.193). Around 5600 BC, sea level was at least 1-2 metres above present day levels and reached southernmost Mesopotamian sites as Ur (Fig.2)(Pournelle 2003b: p.120-121). Present day sea levels were reached around 4000 BC (Dingwall 2014: p.23).

Fig.2. Shoreline of the Arabo-Persian Gulf during the second half of sixth millennium. Reconstructed by Pournelle (2003b: Fig.44).

2.3. Climate and wind patterns Nowadays, arid conditions prevail in the Arabo-Persian Gulf. North and northwestern winds called shamals dominate for most of the year. Shamal winds are caused by cyclonic depressions from Mediterranean and drive hot arid air in summer and in winter also precipitation from Mesopotamia to Musandam peninsula (Parker 2010: p.199). In winter months, between December to April, these winds are warmed by the Arabo-Persian Gulf waters and change into a southeastern wind called the quas. The suahili wind blows from the southwest and replaces the quas after the passage of depression (WeatherOnline 2010). High temperatures in the Gulf cause a intense heating of the land which leads to gentle offshore winds in the morning hours and strong onshore winds in the 5

afternoons and evenings (Graham 2018).

However, different climatic conditions prevailed during the Early and mid-Holocene when Arabian peninsula experienced more rainfall which resulted in higher moisture than in present day. Higher precipitation was caused by fluctuation in global weather patterns due to certain changes in higher latitudes. Between the mid seventh millennium BC and the fifth millennium BC, Indian Ocean Monsoons (IOM) migrated northward and it is generally believed that IOM did not reach farer than 23-24°N, whereas the northern Gulf was influenced by cyclonic winter rainfall from Mediterranean (Fig.3). Palaeoenvironmental evidences indicate moister conditions in inland areas of Saudi Arabia as Nafud Desert and northwards and it is yet not clear whether the higher moisture in northern Arabia was caused by IOM or Westerlies (Parker 2010: p.199-201, Cuttler and Al- Naimi 2013: p.15). Cuttler and Al-Naimi (2013: p.14) suggest that Westerlies became weaker

Fig.3. The map showing the proposed Holocene IOM maximum and direction of Mediterranean winter cyclonic rainfall (Parker 2010, Cuttler and Al-Naimi 2013 and Enzel et al. 2015). due to the retreat of glacier, other scholars tend to think that Westerlies were more intensive in the northern Gulf due to stronger influx of Mediterranean depressions (Enzel et al. 2015, Engel et al. 2016: p.16, Lüning and Vahrenholt 2019: p.537). In addition, according to Lüning and Vahrenholt the sea waters around Arabia were warmer for one or several more degrees in Early Holocene than in Late Holocene (2019: p.537). Such differences would have markant effects on wind patterns.

6

The true nature of climate and wind patterns in the Arabo-Persian Gulf is yet not clear and this topic is highly discussed.

3. CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE OF COASTAL REGIONS AROUND THE GULF In the sixth and fifth millennium BC, the Arabo-Persian Gulf was surrounded by three material cultures. The Ubaid culture in Mesopotamia, the Bakun culture along the Iranian coastline and the Arabian Neolithic culture on the Arabian side of the Gulf (Masry 1997, Prosecký et al. 1999, Carter 2006, Carter 2010a, Carter and Crawford 2010, Carter nad Phillips 2010, Mutin 2012, Maggee 2014)

3.1. Southern Mesopotamia The Ubaid culture originated in southern Mesopotamia in mid-seventh millennium BC and lasted almost 3000 years. This material culture was for the first time recognized at the site of Tell al- Ubaid (Prosecký et.al. 1998: p.287). Among other major sites belong Ur, Uruk, Tell Oueili or Hajji Mohammad (Fig.4). The pottery is fine, buff or greenish colored, with brown or black painted geometric motifs (Fig.5). Houses are rectangular with a tripartite ground plan, i.e. one central room flanked by two rows of rooms (Roaf 1990: p.56)8. Several small stone or clay objects called tokens are assumed to represent records of social or economic transactions, probably regarding to specific commodities (Carter 2018: p.54-55). Approximately from the Ubaid 3 period, Ubaidian material culture started to expand until it reached as far as Levant and Anatolia, western Iran and Strait of Hormuz.

The major sites were situated on raised lands called “turtlebacks”, surrounded by marshes and lacrustine environment (Pournelle 2003a: p.9-10, Carter 2010a: p.198)9. Ubaid villagers started to cultivate plants and created irrigation system, raised livestock and exploited marsh resources such as fish, shellfish, game, birds, reed or riparian wood, and they used river boats to transport cargoes among neighbors (Huot 1989: p.39, Prosecký et.al. 1998: p.287, Pournelle 2003a: p.11, Pournelle 2003b: p.190-191, Carter 2010a: p.198). It is assumed that Ubaid sites were connected with the

8 The tripartite plan is associated mainly with Ubaid 3 and Ubaid 4 periods. House plans of earlier periods are not known (Roaf 1990: p.56). Beside mud-brick houses, huts of reed are assumed to have been built in Mesopotamia. These huts were coated with plaster or bitumen (McClure and Al-Shaikh 1993: 110, Pournelle 2003b: p.189-190). 9 The area is affected by fluvial sediments and only a few sites are known from this period. Sediments were found also at sites of Ur, Tell Oueili or Hajji Mohammad and it is assumed that more sites lie beneath the sediments (Huot 1989: p.24, Roaf 1990 : p.51-52). 7

Fig.4. Location of the Ubaid sites of southern Mesopotamia mentioned in the text.

Fig.5. Ubaid pottery from Ur. a)pinch vessel (britishmuseum.org(a), b)footed bowl (britishmuseum.org(b), c)spouted jar (britishmuseum.org(c)

Gulf via the marshes and canals, even more, that the marshlands around Mesopotamian cities were swamped by marine incursion from the mid-sixth millennium BC (Pournelle 2003b: p.182, p.188). Fish remains indicate rather fresh water fishing (Huot 1989: p.27, Pournelle 2003a) though some quantity of presumably marine fish was found in Ubaid 4 layer at Eridu temple, probably representing offerings (Pournelle 2003b: p.188).

8

3.2. Arabian Coastline According to archaeological investigations, a high number of sites emerged in Arabia during the Middle Neolithic (Fig.7), probably due to better climatic conditions (Carter 2010a: p.193, Drechsler 2018b: p.13). Some raw materials as obsidian or shells overcame a long distance from their place of origin and thus a highly mobile life-style is assumed for the local communities. Moreover, lithic assemblage contains a high number of arrowheads associated with hunting (Masry 1997, Drechsler 2018a). Herding and exploitation of marine resources (on the coast) was a major component of their subsistence (Masry 1997, Carter and Crawford 2010a, Maggee 2014, Drechsler 2018a).

The area of the upper Gulf (northern Kuwait) and the central Gulf (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain) revealed evidence of intense pearl fishing (Dosariyah in Saudi Arabia) and specialized shell bead production (H3, Bahra 1 in Kuwait, Abu Khamis in Saudi Arabia). Finds of manufactured or natural shells remains suggest a big-scale shell industry and shell ornaments as a trading commodity (Carter and Crawford 2010, Smogorzewska 2016). Beside H3 and Bahra 1, shell remains are attested also at smaller sites in Kuwait which were discovered after 2000 (Almutairi 2011: p.80-86). The lower Gulf (from Qatar to the Strait of Hormuz) is characterized by more straight and specific assemblages of artifacts, i.e. shell and maritime faunal middens (Drechsler 2018a). Moreover, deep sea fishing is more attested in the lower Gulf and the occupation of islands of and Marawah suggests the usage of boats in the mid and the late sixth millennium BC (Beech 2013).

Most of the sites in Arabia are of a small size and do not contain any architectural remains, therefore, they are interpreted as seasonal camps. Large sites as H3 or Dosariyah are situated on the shoreline of the Gulf. The coastal environment likely provided a year-round food supply and facilitated at least semi-sedentary life (Drechsler 2018b: p.13). Many of these coastal sites also contain foreign objects, especially pottery (see below).

3.3. Iranian Coastline During the recherches it became apparent that different to the Arabian coastline of Gulf, the Iranian coastline (Fig.6) is not given very much attention. Therefore, I would like to describe here not only archaeological context of this region but also its brief research history.

9

The first known and excavated sites along the Iranian littoral were Tol-e Pir and Tump-i-Podu which were discovered by Sir M. Aurel Stein in the 1930s (Chaverdi et al. 2008: p.23, p.26). These sites revealed Bakun10 black-on-buff pottery, the oldest identified pottery in Fars (Mutin 2012: p.165). These sites were discovered in the Galehdar Valley in southern Fars, situated 20 km from the coastline, behind the ridge of Zagros which extends to the sea (Chaverdi et al. 2008: p.23). According to Chaverdi et al., Stein conducted more surveys in the area, but along the coast and his survey is based on the observation from the boat. Furthermore, Stein’s survey was more opportunistic, rather than systematic, depending on local information about old remains (2008: p.36).

Fig.6. Iranian coastal sites and sites related to the chapter.

In the 1970s, the Chalcolithic/Ubaid-related site of H200 was discovered near the village Halileh on the peninsula (Oates 1983: p.255, Carter et al. 2006: p.16). Petrographic analyses of sherds revealed possible import, and part of pottery assemblage was attributed to the Ubaid 2/Hajji Mohammad, due to types, identical with assemblage from Eridu XIV-XII ,whereas other part of the assemblage was of local or non-Mesopotamian origin (Oates 1983: p.255). Unfortunately, due to the deaths of its finders - Andrew Williamson and Martha Prickett, an information about the site and the pottery assemblage is not published, moreover, the site has not been relocated yet(Carter et al. 2006: p.16). Nonetheless, Carter et al. confirm that, based on the recent re-examination of

10 The name is derived from the site of Tall-i Bakun where such pottery was first recorded in the late 1920’s (Weeks et al. 2010: p.245). 10

H200 pottery, the assemblage relates to the Middle Susiana 2 of Khuzestan and to the Ubaid 2/Hajji Mohammad of Southern Mesopotamia (Carter et al. 2006: p.16, Oates 2010: p.46).

Since 2000, more small-scale surveys have been conducted. In 2004, Carter et al. conducted a survey of coastal areas adjacent to the Bushehr peninsula and identified more than fifty sites dated from the fifth millennium BC to the modern era (2006). BH56 was the only site from this survey dated to the Chalcolithic period, and pottery assemblage has parallels with Iranian as well as Mesopotamian Ubaid traditions. Nonetheless, Ubaid 2/Hajji Mohammad pottery has some decorative elements common with the Ubaid-related Chalcolithic Buff ware traditions of Khuzestan and other regions, therefore, direct Mesopotamian influence is discutable (Carter et al. 2006: p.17). Also in Galehdar Valley,several Chalcolithic sites were discovered, also in Galehdar Valley, adjacent to Tol-e Pir (Chaverdi et al. 2008: p.23) and recently one systematic research was conducted at site of Chachar Rustayi (Bargahi and Rezaei 2015)(however, author of this thesis was not able to localize this site and thus assumes that Chachar Ruastayi is the local name for BH56). Nevertheless, the Iranian littoral remains poorly documented. Khuzestan littoral has not been surveyed yet and the vicinity of BH56 deserves further investigations, thus more Chalcolithic sites may be discovered in the future (Carter et al. 2006: p.13, Chaverdi et al. 2008: p.36).

In contrast to the western shoreline of the Gulf, it is assumed that the Iranian coastal sites were farming villages. According to Chaverdi et al., due to the Zagros mountains and the arid conditions in the area, the human occupation was limited to intermontane valleys with available water resources and arable land (2008: p.23, p.39). This claim is supported by the lack of evidence of coastal sites in Iran and Pakistan, albeit finds of cowrie shells from Arabo-Persian Gulf are known from Bakun period context in the Kur River basin or whale bone from Tol-e Nurabad indicates a connection with coastal communities (Weeks et al. 2010: p.265, Mashkour 2009: p.137). As Chaverdi et al. (2008: p.36-7) claim, it is unusual that the inhabitants of the Iranian littoral did not exploit the local, easily accessible resources of adjacent Arabo-Persian Gulf, and currently it seems that settlements focused on marine exploitation did not exist along the Iranian coast during the prehistory, remains are not preserved due to demanding conditions or are submerged beneath the Gulf waters . In the vicinity of Bushehr peninsula where Carter et al. conducted their survey, most of the littoral contains alluvial sediments from rivers, so if any more settlements ever existed in the area, it would have been washed away by river or covered by sediments (Carter et al. 2006: p.4). A similar role alluvial deposits likely played in other Iranian and Pakistani areas, and earlier

11

settlements may be buried beneath the sediments (Mutin 2012: p.173). However, according to Carter et al., Bushehr peninsula was probably an island during the Ubaid period (2006: p.4-5). The presence of the site of H200 on the island indicates the utilization of boats in the region.

3.4. Ubaid in the Gulf Beside probable presence of Ubaid pottery in Bushehr peninsula, three sherds were documented also from inland Tepe Yahya11, in Kerman province. Mineralogical analysis of one of those sherds indicates western import and their style refers to Late Ubaid period in Mesopotamia (Mutin 2012: p.167). However, compared to the large assemblages from Arabian coast, Iranian littoral contains only sporadic finds.

3.4.1. Pottery on the Arabian coast As mentioned above, Ubaid objects, mostly pottery are reported from Arabian coast. Although most of the Middle Arabian Neolithic sites are aceramic, Ubaid pottery is known from more than 40 sites situated along the western coastline of the Gulf, with some exceptions in Arabian inland (Fig.7)(Drechsler 2018b: p.15). These sites, which were occupied by local Arabian Neolithic

Fig.7. The sites of the Arabian littoral and Ubaid-related sites mentioned in the thesis.

11 Tepe Yahya is situated more than 130 km from the coastline. 12

societies, are assumed to be seasonal camps and yielded evidence of exploitation of marine resources. The sites with largest sherd assemblage appear in upper and central Gulf region, i.e. shoreline of Saudi Arabia (Dosariyah, Abu Khamis, Ain as-Sayh) and Kuwait ( H3 and Bahra 1 in as-Sabiyah). Smaller amounts are reported from Bahrain, Qatar, UAE and Oman. (Uerpmann and Uerpmann 1996, Masry 1997, Carter and Crawford 2010a, Beech 2013, Magee 2014). Ubaid pottery represents a main indicator of inter-regional contacts. Analyses of samples of Ubaid pottery collected at Ubaid-related sites revealed their Mesopotamian origin (Oates et al. 1977, Roaf and Galbraith 1994).

3.4.2. Ubaid Ware The Ubaid Ware assemblage from Ubaid-related sites of the Gulf contains large amount of highly decorated vessels, varying in shape but mainly open shaped vessels indicating that rather than being pots and containers for Mesopotamian fishermen or resource-gathering expeditions, the trays, cups and bowls represent another functional aspect of Ubaid pottery, i.e. the displaying of food and a use in feasting (Carter 2006, Carter and Crawford 2010a). Vessel forms are documented in different quantities along the Arabian coast of the Gulf, and whereas H3 or Dosariyah contain large amount of cups and bowls, the Bahra 1 pottery assemblage consists also of a remarkable amount of jars, in contrast to other Ubaid-related sites (Smogorzewska 2016). Moreover, although Ubaid pottery is not generally assumed to be used in daily life, due to the marginal supplying suggested by frequency of Ubaid Ware (Drechsler 2018a), pottery assemblage of Bahra 1 and H3 are not limited only to luxury items, because vessels related to household activities are also present. H3 has large vessels only sporadically whereas they are common at Bahra 1. Rectangular basins are significantly present at Bahra 1 and H3 but are not attested at other Ubaid-related sites in the

Fig.8. Ubaid pottery from the Gulf: a) jar from H3 (Carter 2003: Fig. 6) b) rectangular basin from Bahra 1 (Smogorzewska 2016: Fig. 7).

13

Gulf (Fig.8)(Carter and Crawford 2010a, Smogorzewska 2016p.613).

Based on the shapes of imported vessels, it is assumed that Ubaid Ware had a special value for Arabian communities as a token of high social status and for displaying and serving of food or for ceremonial gift-giving (Carter 2006, Carter and Crawford 2010a). Finds of imitations support this idea. Plaster vessels with Ubaid motifs, which were discovered at DA11 (Dalma Island) and MR11() in the UAE, correspond to the exotism and valuability of Ubaid pottery (Beech 2000, Carter and Crawford 2010a, Smogorzewska 2016). A small amount of imitating pottery sherds are reported from Bahra 1 or Dosariyah (Smogorzewska 2016) and some Ubaid sherds were transformed into pendants (Drechsler 2018a).

It is assumed that the distribution of Ubaid Ware was undertaken by local individuals (Carter and Crawford 2010a). Pottery is distributed along the coast with one exception. Ubaid Ware has been also discovered in a few inland sites, especially at Ain Qannas in the Al-Hasa Oasis, 70 km away from shoreline (Masry 1997: p.65-77, Carter 2006). Many artefacts as obsidian, shells or lithic industry survived at a long distance from their place of origin which indicates a high mobility or exchange ability of Arabian Middle Neolithic societies, thus it is suggested that complex exchange system could already have existed in the fifth millennium BC (Carter and Crawford 2010, Drechsler 2018a). The limited distribution of Ubaid pottery suggests that the imported vessels were not considered as a regular trading commodity. Pottery is associated with settled communities, rather than with a nomadic lifestyle due to its fragility and ceramics are by roving groups substituted by other, less breakable materials. Nevertheless, Ubaid pots - or only sherds - with the connotation of prestige and exotic good could still permeate further inland (Drechsler 2018: p.19).

3.4.3. Red Coarse Ware Mesopotamian Ubaid Ware occurs together with Red Coarse Ware, which appears only at sites with Ubaid Ware and only during the Ubaid influence (Oates et al. 1977: p.233). Some authors suggest that these ceramics were produced by locals inspired by imported pottery. Other scholars propose that the Red Coarse Ware was produced locally by Mesopotamian visitors to provide a know-how of pottery making to Arabian inhabitants (Smogorzewska 2016). Based on the shape of vessels, local coarse carelessly-made undecorated ceramics are assumed to be produced to be used in households as cooking pots or for food preparation, storage and transportation (Smogorzewska 2016, Carter 2006, Carter and Crawford 2010a). Due to the high concentration of 14

Red Coarse Ware in central Gulf region, it is assumed that the production took place in this area, probably at Dosariyah (Carter and Crawford 2010a) and pottery was then exported to other parts of the Gulf. However, Smogorzewska claims that the Red Coarse Ware assemblage from Bahra 1 contains a larger diversity in vessel shapes than assemblage from Dosariyah (Smogorzewska 2016: p.606). Moreover, recent excavations at Dosariyah did not yielded evidence of actual pottery production and thus origin of this class of pottery is unknown (Drechsler 2018: p.463-464).

4. MARITIME TRADE Archaeologically visible maritime trading network emerged in second half of the sixth millennium, shortly after sea level reached close to present day level. If any trading network existed before, its remains would be now submerged (Carter 2010a: p.192). It must be noted that main indicator of maritime inter-regional trading network is Ubaid pottery or as mentioned above, other Mesopotamian-styled small objects and ornaments. However, some artefacts located in the Gulf overcame a long distance from their place of origin and though some of them indicate terrestrial access, maritime access can not be excluded. The most indicative commodities will described in this chapter.

Coastal sites of eastern Arabia yielded evidence of imported objects as well as hints of possible exported items. Based on this evidence, maritime trading network lasted almost one thousand years, from Ubaid 2 until Ubaid 5, though intensity of contacts was decreasing since half of Ubaid 4 and Early Uruk pottery is absent in eastern Arabia (Carter 2010a: p.195).

4.1. Distribution of Mesopotamian material culture along the Arabian coast Due to the distribution of Ubaid-related sites along the coastline, it has been proposed that foreign materials and objects were transported to the Arabian coastline via the sea (Oates et al. 1977). Moreover, there is no evidence of development of land transport in this period12 and thus transport of high bulks of material would be very demanding (Carter 2018: p.71). No terrestrial routes between Arabian coastline and southern Mesopotamia were so far identified.

It is not known whether Arabian-Ubaid maritime interaction was conducted by Mesopotamian or Arabian sailors. Although Ubaid towns had easy access to the Persian Gulf waters via marshes and canals, more advanced sailing abilities can be associated with societies who lived in maritime

12 Carter mentions that first evidences of usage of pack or draught animals as donkeys, camels or cattle appeared in later periods (2018: p.71). 15

conditions of eastern Arabia littoral (Piesinger 1983: p.717-718, Carter and Crawford 2010b: p.210). However, investigations of Mesopotamian sites did not reveal any signs of presence of Arabian sailors/traders or any imported material from Arabia. On the other hand, strong Mesopotamian influence is visible at coastal Arabian sites. Moreover, as distance from Southern Mesopotamia grows, occurrence of Ubaid pottery (and other artefacts) decreases (Drechsler 2018b: p.16).

Carter and Crawford divided the areas of the Gulf into three groups based on the occurrence of Mesopotamian material culture (2010b: p.208-209). They pointed out that Bahra 1 and H3 - the sites of upper Gulf - revealed a strong Mesopotamian influence as architecture and variety in Mesopotamian imported material13, while central Gulf contains a large amount of pottery but a little of other Mesopotamian objects. Lower Gulf, the area from Qatar to Strait of Hormuz was probably disadvantaged by long distance from the source (i.e. southern Mesopotamia) and a small number of sherds is accompanied by plaster vessels imitating Ubaid Ware. Qatar peninsula could present a natural barrier and occurrence of Ubaid pottery southward can be a result of exchange with central Gulf agents and not with Mesopotamia itself (Carter 2010a: p.195, Carter and Crawford 2010b: p.209).

Although Ubaid-related sites are assumed to be occupied by Arabian Neolithic societies, due to strong Mesopotamian influence, especially at sites of upper Gulf, at least occasional presence of Mesopotamian visitors is considered (Smogorzewska 2016). Carter and Crawford suggest that inhabitants of upper Gulf may represent consumers of imported goods or middlemen (of pottery only) between southern Mesopotamia and central Gulf area and though H3 is the only coastal Ubaid-related site in Kuwait, more yet undiscovered sites of H3 pattern could exist along the former Kuwaiti shoreline (2010b: p.208, p.302).

4.2. Trading commodities 4.2.1. Invisible and assumed trade items It has been repeatedly suggested that Ubaid pottery may be traded for perishable commodities invisible in archaeological record. It involves fresh and dry fish, hides, textiles and livestock (Oates 1977: p.233, Carter 2010a: p.199, Carter and Crawford 2010b: p.209, Drechsler 2018d: p.469).

13 Beside pottery, Bahra 1 and H3 contain a significant number of flanged discs, nails/plugs and other stone and ceramic objects of Mesopotamian style. From other Arabian parts of the Gulf, these objects are reported only sporadically (Crawford and Carter 2010: p.87).

16

Another possibility is that Mesopotamian sailors and fishermen traveled northward for better conditions for fishing. Pottery may be given to local commodities for permission (Oates 1977: p.233). Carter and Crawford (2010b: p.209-210) suggest that pottery could be exchanged for access to fresh water, supplies or safe anchorage. They further continue that exchange of marriage partners would encourage a multi-directional network of family connections and exchanges which may explain mixture of material culture in the Gulf region.

4.2.2. Bitumen Bitumen was primary source for waterproofing and adhesive purposes all across the ancient Near East (Bigourdan 2009: p.69). For adhesive purposes it was utilized in art, architecture or for sealing ceramic vessels. In boat construction it was used as caulking layer of hull to provide waterproofing and protection of ship against mechanical damage (Connan et al. 2005: p.22, Ratnagar 2004: p.140-141, Connan and Van de Velde 2010: p.3).

Bitumen, created by thermal degradation of organic material in the sediments, occurs in solid or semi-liquid condition in oil seeps all over . In the Near East, bitumen seeps out on to the crust of the earth in various places but only in four areas was exploited on larger scale in the past, i.e. Hit, Mosul, South-western Iran and (Ratnagar 2004: p.140, Connan and Van de Velde 2010: p.2).

In the Gulf region, bitumen was attested at Ubaid-related sites as H3, Dosariyah, Ayn as-Sayh (Fig.9). Apart from plugs bitumen was found in form of fragmented slabs with impression of reed and/or ropes. Samples from H3, despite of samples from next two sites, contain barnacles on opposite sites which indicate submersion in sea water and thus are assumed to be remains of boat. It can not be certainly said if bitumen fragments from Dosariyah and Ayn as-Sayh also represent boat remains or not (Drechsler 2018a, McClure and Al-Shaikh 1993, Carter 2012).

Besides that, bitumen beads are reported from burial at Umm al-Qaiwain 2 (Kiesewetter et al. 2000: p.144). While bitumen fragments from H3 revealed Kuwaiti origin from Burgan Hill other finds are of Mesopotamian origin (Carter and Crawford 2010a, Connan et al. 2005). The only assemblage from Dosariyah contains a few Kuwaiti bitumen fragments beside Mesopotamian (Drechsler 2018c: p.332, Van de Velde 2018: p.348). It is necessary to mention that in area C at

17

Fig.9. Location of sites related to bitumen, mentioned in the text. the site of Ayn as-Sayh, where bitumen was recovered, along with Ubaid sherds also later ceramics is reported, therefore, dating of bituminous fragments to Ubaid period is speculative (Connan et al. 2005: p.23).

Bitumen analyses of material from Tell Oueili dated from Ubaid 0 to Ubaid 2 revealed origin from northwestern Iran which corresponds to general views that during that time, the economic and personal interactions were situated along the west-east axis whereas from Ubaid 3 to Ubaid 5, the interactions turned to north-south axis and Mesopotamian bitumen material is found from Anatolia to western shoreline of the Arabo-Persian Gulf (Connan and Van de Velde 2010: p.6).

Small oil seeps occur also in the Gulf region. Apart from Burgan Hill in Kuwait, local sources were rarely exploited and for example in Bahrain, no exploitation of local oil seep has been 18

documented from prehistory or antiquity (Ratnagar 2004: p.140, Connan and Van de Velde 2010: p.3). As Connan and Van de Velde (2010: p.3-4) claim, explanations may be better suitability of bitumen from main oil seeps for elaboration, complicated exploitation from local oil seeps, bitumen was imported frequently, no relevant bitumen piece has not yet been analyzed or amount of local bitumen was exceeded by imported bitumen and thus local one is no longer detectable.

In the case of the sixth and the fifth millennium BC, low frequency of finds at Ubaid-related sites in the Gulf indicates that bitumen was not the main commodity in inter-regional trade/exchange system. During the Ubaid period, bitumen was used abundantly only by those who had access to it locally and only small quantities appear in more distinct areas (Connan 2005). This fact is supported by situation in lower Gulf where bituminous samples are known only from Neolithic burial at Umm al-Qaiwain. The necklace, with bituminous beads was part of grave goods, indicates special value of bitumen which was apparently transferred to lower Gulf via hand-to-hand trade (Connan et al. 2005, Cleuziou and Tosi 2007).

In upper and central Gulf, bitumen was more frequent and was used as sealing of ceramic vessels or in boat building/repairing, eventually as adhesive for tools or in architecture (Carter and Crawford 2010a, Drechsler 2018a, Connan et al. 2005). For example, due to frequency of material at Dosariyah, it is more likely that bitumen was deliberately traded rather than for it to be the remains of recycling (Drechsler 2018c: p.341). Based on the finds from Ras al-Hamra, Cleuziou and Tosi (2007: p.190) also suggest that Mesopotamian bitumen may have been transported in original containers - Ubaid pottery - and then by local fishermen and sailors in their own vessels as a 2. 7 kg weight bitumen lump with impression of inner side of tortoise carapace indicates.

4.2.3. Marine products Based on archaeological investigations in the Arabo-Persian Gulf region, fish, pearls and shell jewelry may be part of the trade. Fishing played an important role in diet of coastal communities of eastern Arabia littoral as large amount of fish bones of various species found at coastal sites indicates (Beech 2010, Beech 2013, Drechsler 2018d: p.465-466). Sites as al-Markh (Bahrain), Al-Da’asa or al-Khor (Qatar) yielded many fire pits associated with fish bones and shells indicating a massive production, perhaps for curing drying of fish (Masry 1997: p.93-95).

Local shell bead industries are attested at several Ubaid-related sites including Bahra 1, H3 and perhaps Abu Khamis (Fig.10). These sites provided evidence of production as failed beads as well 19

Fig.10. The demonstration of shell jewelry from H3 (Almutairi 2011: Fig. 3.14). as microlithic tools which were used in the process (Oates 1977: p.233, Masry 1997: p.90, Carter and Crawford 2010b: p.207-208, Smogorzewska 2016). Smogorzewska (2016: p.611) claims that evidence from Bahra 1 and H3 suggest specialized shell bead industry, with careful selection of molluscs and because no complete jewelry was found at Bahra 1 but waste pieces and fragments, it is suggested that jewelry was made for export. Nonetheless, the only evidence of shell necklace is from Eridu graves and these shells could originate in Mesopotamian rivers or in former coastline of the Gulf (Carter 2010a: p.199, Carter and Crawford 2010b: p.209).

Pearls are often suggested as a trade commodity with Mesopotamia though no pearls from the Gulf region, dated to Ubaid period have been yet identified (Oates 1977: p.233, Potts 1998: p.23, Carter 2006: p.60, Carter and Crawford 2010b: p.209, Magee 2014: p.71-72). Dosariyah contains large shell middens indicating intensive pearling at the site though it is not clear if the shells were exploited for pearls or for their flesh (Drechsler 2018d: p.465). Pearls played an important role in the Arabian Neolithic and they occur at numerous sites including H3, Dosariyah, Umm al-Qaiwain 2 or al-Buhais 18 (Kiesewetter et al. 2000, Carter and Crawford 2010: p.209, Drechsler 2018d: p.465). Beside Arabo-Persian Gulf, pearls occur also along the coast of Arabian sea, Gulf of Oman and Red sea (Charpentier et al. 2012: p.1, p.4). Mother of pearl shells were manufactured into fish hooks (Beech et al. 2008, Magee 2014: p.72) and pearls were used in jewelry production and were found in burial contexts (Kiesewetter et al. 2000, Charpentier et al. 2012).

20

During the excavations, identification of pearls is very challenging due to their small sizes and the seawing which is inevitable was not used during most of investigations. Therefore, many scholars propose to re-excavate southern Mesopotamian sites (Carter and Crawford 2010b: p.209, Magee 2014: p.72, Drechsler 2018d: p.469).

4.2.4. Obsidian Obsidian, reported from sites of the Arabo-Persian Gulf, including H3 As-Sabiyah, al-Khor, Dosariyah and Abu Khamis.(Masry 1997, Carter and Crawford 2010a, Drechsler 2018a), was gained from an extremely long distance and the trade pattern down-the-line is suggested. Obsidian would be transfered from one hand to another until it reached the final destination - in typical small amounts (Carter and Crawford 2010b: p.206-207). It has been believed for long time that beside pottery, also obsidian found at coastal Arabian sites originated in Anatolia and was brought to the Arabo-Persian Gulf by Mesopotamian sailors but recent analysis revealed also a Yemeni origin of the found obsidian (Magee 2014: p.69). Anatolian/ transcaucasian obsidian was already identified at some sites of Eastern Arabia, such as Dosariyah or on Bahrain and for H3 it can not be ruled out albeit a Yemeni origin is considered (Cuttler and Al-Naimi 2013: p.15,Carter 2018: p.54, Drechsler 2018d: p.463). The distribution of Anatolian/ transcaucasian obsidian correlates to the Mesopotamian north-south trading axis, whereas samples of Yemeni origin were probably exchanged among migrating groups in the Arabian hinterlands. Obsidian which originated in southwestern Arabia could be also exported to Mesopotamia (Carter 2010a: p.199).

4.2.5. Floral remains Date stones and seeds were discovered in all regions surrounding the Arabo-Persian Gulf (Fig.11) though it is not known if the samples belong to wild date palms or already to cultivated trees (Parker 2010: p.198, Magee 2014: p.58, Carter 2018: p.52). Date palm remains are reported from the site of H3 and from Dalma island, dated to the late sixth and the early fifth millennium BC (Parker 2010: p.198, Beech 2013: p.37). Contemporary finds are reported from Tepe Gaz Tavila in southern Iran and in Mesopotamia, the occurrence of date palm is attested at Tell Oueili in Ubaid 4 context where palm wood was identified and at Eridu, dated to fourth millennium BC. Other examples are reported from Mehrgahr in Pakistan, dated to sixth millennium BC (Huot 1989: p.41, Parker 2010: p.198, Magee 2014: p.58). Due to the wide range of distribution, scholars suggest that date palm remains may indicate connection between Arabia, southern Mesopotamia and southern Iran, perhaps even maritime contacts and beside the fruit, also date palm products as 21

wood, unprocessed leaves and rachis, fiber or matting were traded (Potts 1998: p.10, Magee 2014: p.58, Carter 2018: p.52). Moreover, for their great nutrition facts, dates were consumed by sailors and caravan travellers in later times (Gebel 2019, pers.comm). Thus it is tantalizing to imagine that dates could have been loaded on Ubaid-times ships and consumed by sailors during a long journey.

Investigations at H3 in Kuwait revealed also cereal grains, including barley which was not previously recorded from Arabian Neolithic context (Parker 2010: p.197). The cultivation of cereals started in southern Mesopotamia as early as the Ubaid 0 (Huot 1989: p.26), and it is suggested that cereals were traded or at least brought to H3 from Mesopotamia, evenmore, grains indicate farming activities (Parker 2010: p.198, p.201, Carter 2018: p.51). Crops grown in the vicinity of H3 could support the hypothesis that individuals of Mesopotamian origin were permanently or seasonally present in Northern Kuwait. Cereal growing was perhaps introduced to local inhabitants or was grown by the Mesopotamian visitors or by their descendants (Carter 2018: p.51).

Fig.11. The sites with attested date remains.

4.2.6. Pigments Pigments may be part of the trade. Red ochre is attested at several sites as Dosariyah, Shagra or al-Buhais 18 and could be exploited from hematite of which sources can be found in Saudi Arabia mainland, and particularly in Qatar(Drechsler et al. 2018: p.307-308). Red ochre was found as the painting of pottery or shells beads and also in burial and ceremonial contexts in the Gulf (al-Buhais 18) as well as in Mesopotamia (Tell Abada, Eridu) (Drechsler et al. 2018: p.308-309). Excavation works at Ras Abaruk in Qatar yielded many molluscs of Murex species which was probably used 22

for dyeing (Masry 1997: p.95). Murex species are known from antiquity, when Phoenicians exploited them to produce famous and very valuable dye. Nonetheless, it is not yet known if the purple-colored textiles or the dye itself were part of the export as it was in Mediterranean millennia later.

4.2.7. Copper The discovery of a copper object (Fig.12) at the site of Bahra 1 in Kuwait, is mentioned in the report from the sixth and the seventh season. Analysis revealed that the object is almost pure copper (98%), and an Omani origin is suggested (Bieliński 2016: p.29). This copper object is unique in the Gulf region. The only other find was unearthed at Ayn as-Sayh in the central Gulf area where copper tools appeared among the mixed material culture of site D (McClure and Al- Shaikh 1993). Therefore, it is speculative if copper finds belong to the Ubaid assemblage.

Up to the present, no sign of copper mining in this period has been found (Oates et al. 1977: p.233, Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: p.90, p.184-185, Magee 2014: p.71). The earliest evidence of use of the copper does not dated before 3400 BC (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: p.90). On the other hand, on the opposite side of the Strait of Hormuz, agriculture and metallurgy started to appear during the sixth millennium BC in south-eastern Iran. Copper samples from the Iranian part of the Zagros Mountains were found in Iranian cities such as Susa and also in Mesopotamian cities (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: p.185), although very little of copper is known from Southern Mesopotamian sites from the Ubaid period (Pollock 2017).

Fig.12. Fragment of copper artefact from Bahra 1 (Bieliński 2016: Fig. 11.64).

In later periods, Oman was an important source of copper for the Sumerians. However, due to a lack of evidence of copper mining in Oman and its rare distribution in southern Mesopotamia and the Gulf region, copper as a commodity that has been exchanged between Mesopotamians and Arabians can be rejected (Maggee 2014: p.71). Nonetheless, the abundant contacts of inhabitants of Bahra 1 and Mesopotamian visitors may suggest an import of the copper tool from southern 23

Mesopotamia and its origin in Iran. In all cases, this copper object overcame a long distance from its place of origin.

4.2.8. Semi-precious stones During the Neolithic, humans began to exploit also hardstones and several minerals. Carnelian started to be exploited in Baluchistan by the eight millennium BC. One millennium later, the exploitation emerged also in northern Mesopotamia and during the fifth millennium BC, carnelian beads started to occur also at sites of lower Mesopotamia (Charpentier et al. 2017: p.182). Carnelian is brownish-red mineral, very hard for handworking. It can be chipped into the flakes but it is hard to drill it due to its hardness. Although long barrel and etched carnelian beads were traded from India to Mesopotamia in the Bronze Age, Stone Age or Chalcolithic sites yielded only small, often irregular, vaguely disc-shaped carnelian beads due to its hardness (Ratnagar 2004: p.146-147).

In southeastern Arabia, carnelian, agate and other types of chalcedony were exploited at Jebel al Ma’taradh in the Emirate of Ras al-Khaimah, and samples from this site are distributed in the UAE and Oman, including coastal sites such as Umm al Qaiwain 2 or Akab, but not farer than Marawah MR1 (Fig.13)(Charpentier et al. 2017: p.181-182). Carnelian can be mostly found in burial contexts (Kiesewetter et al. 2000, Charpentier et al. 2017).

However, Carnelian beads were recorded also in the central Gulf (Fig. 13), at the site of al-Khor (Qatar) in a burial context, and one carnelian bead was discovered in a fire pit at the al-Da’asa (Masry 1997: p.94-95). Carnelian beads are reported also from al-Markh (De Cardi 1986: p.92). Their origin is unknown and because central Gulf does not contain any sources of this mineral, an overseas connection is assumed (De Cardi 1986: p.92, Masry 1997: p.94) Although firstly a Mesopotamian import was proposed, no Mesopotamian carnelian has yet been identified in the Gulf region and thus an Emirati and even Iranian origin is suggested (Charpentier et al. 2017: p.183). Beside the UAE andr some other parts of Arabia, carnelian sources are located also on the Bushehr peninsula, in Afghanistan and India (Kiesewetter et al. 2000: p.143, Ratnagar 2004: p.145).

24

Fig.13. The sites with reported semi-precious stones mentioned in the text.

The site of Ras Abaruk 4 yielded also several pieces of amazonite, and according to De Cardi, it may originate in India (Fig.13)(De Cardi 1986: p.92). This light-green mineral is of limited occurrence. In later periods, amazonite occurred in some quantities at Harappan sites in India, however, only very sporadic finds are known from regions located westwards (Ratnagar 2004: p.149). Charpentier et al. note that Yemen contains beside obsidian, chalcedony and nephrite, also amazonite which was utilized here also in the Neolithic (Charpentier et al. 2017: p.183).

Although carnelian could be transported from the Emirates or some other parts of Arabia, the Bushehr peninsula as a place or origin can not be excluded. Occurrence of carnelian in burial contexts may point to the value of the material and its rare availability which may indicate transport from a long distance. If carnelian originated in Afghanistan or in India, rather than indicating direct contact is it more likely that carnelian as well as amazonite were exchanged through the same pattern as obsidian - from hand to hand - and that the inhabitants of eastern Arabia acquired this commodity from Iran via the sea.

5. WATER TRANSPORT In the previous chapters, aspects of inter-regional maritime interaction and possible trade commodities were described. This chapter is dedicated to water transport and discusses both evidence: direct and indirect.

25

Arid conditions of the Near East impede a conservation boats due to the usage of perishable materials in boat construction (wood and reed) (Bigourdan 2009) and the high salinity of the sea waters causes fast decomposition and thus no ancient shipwrecks were discovered in Arabo- Persian Gulf. Nonetheless, the usage of boats is well attested as early as Ubaid period when boat models, depictions and remains are reported from Syria to Arabo-Persian Gulf. Water transport is assumed to be a cheap and fast form of communication and transportation of people and goods among different communities and regions which may facilitate the spread of Ubaid material culture beyond the borders of southern Mesopotamia ( Carter 2018).

Ubaid cities in southern Mesopotamia were situated in lacustrine environment where rivers and marshes ensured building material as mud or reed and food resources as fish and game. Such environment also provided suitable conditions for development of riverine transport where watercrafts of various types and shapes were utilized for transport people, fishing and exchange. Pournelle (2003b) also attested that Arabo-Persian Gulf waters were reaching Ubaid cities and Eridu and other sites were in immediate proximity of sea waters, accessible via canals, rivers and marshes.

In the Gulf region, inhabitants of coastal sites exploited marine resources as shells, fish and mammals, moreover deep sea fishing, associated with the usage of boats, is attested from Kuwait up to the Straits of Hormuz in the sixth and the fifth millennium BC. Another indicator of seafaring in the Gulf is occupation of islands as Bahrain, Dalma and Marawah along the coast of UAE (Beech 2013, Carter 2018). Moreover, presence of domesticated faunal remains on Marawah island indicates high development of watercraft and it is likely that boats were utilized by people along the coast of Arabo-Persian Gulf and in southern Mesopotamia much earlier than they started to be archaeologically visible (Rose 2010: p.864). Therefore, it can be assumed that human coastal populations, adapted to maritime conditions, were skilled in sailing and had knowledge of navigation during Ubaid period.

Although maritime inter-regional contacts are well attested in the Gulf region, scholars differ in conclusions by whom was the pottery and other materials transported to the Gulf. While some scholars, as Oates et al. (1977) assume Mesopotamians as a main agents others, as Piesinger, suggest Arabian sailors to participate predominantly in the sea trade, based on their location and adapting to marine conditions (Piesinger 1983: p.717-718, Carter and Crawford 2010b: p.210).

26

5.1. Boat-related finds Up to the date, 15 boat models are known from Ubaid period depicting maritime and riverine vessels (Carter 2018). The Earliest boat models were uncovered at Tell Oueili and Eridu, dated to Ubaid 1 and more models are attested in Ubaid 3 and Ubaid 4 at sites as Eridu, Tell Oueili, Al- Ubaid, Tell Zeidan, Dosariyah, Mashnaqa, Abada, Uruk, As-Sabiyah and Tell Uqair (Fig.14)(Carter 2012: p.348, Carter 2018: p.66-71). The purpose of boats models is unknown though functions as toys or ceremonial objects are suggested (Quall 1981, Carter 2010b: p.90).

As mentioned in chapter 4, boat remains in form of bitumen slabs are attested at H3 As-Sabiyah in Kuwait, Kosak Shamali in northern Syria and partly at Ayn as-Sayh and Dosariyah in Saudi Arabia (McClure and Al-Shaikh 1993, Connan et. al. 2005, Carter and Crawford 2010a, Drechsler 2018a). Bitumen fragments were interpreted as waterproof coating of boat’s hull. Fragments from H3 contain impression of reed from one side and/or barnacles from opposite side (Fig.15). Barnacles are marine crustacean, encrusting themselves permanently to a hard substrate and their

Fig.14. Location of the sites related to the text.

27

present on bitumen indicate long-term submersion. Bitumen pieces from central Gulf bear impression of reeds thus apart from boat remains it can be interpreted as coating of baskets or mats around buildings.

Beside boat model and bitumen fragments, Kuwaiti site H3 As-Sabiyah revealed re-used ceramic disc depicting two-footed (bipod) mast. It is considered to be the earliest known evidence of the use of mast (Carter 2006: p.55, Carter 2010b: p.91). Another evidence from Mesopotamia is boat model from Eridu suggesting socketed mast (Carter 2010b: p.91, Carter 2012: p.350).

Fig.15. Fragment of bitumen from H3 with reed impression (1) and barnacles on opposite side (2) (Carter 2006: Fig.5).

5.2. Watercraft It should be noted that, based on the available evidence, it is not possible to say with certainty how these boats were designed or constructed. Generally, identifiable features are compared with indigenous boats spotted in recent times (Ratnagar 2004: p.213-214). Moreover, though boat models represent the only indicator of a boat shape or its type, it is necessary to keep in mind that purpose of these finds is uncertain and boat models may not reflect the current real boats. Qualls described in her dissertation six models dated to Ubaid period (Qualls 1981). Carter summarized information about newly discovered boat models and interpreted them based on visual observation (Carter 2012, Carter 2018).

Author of this thesis used data from his predecessors and described and expanded previous interpretative base through archaeological and ethnographic evidence. It is necessary to add that seagoing boats require different construction than riverine boats. A seagoing boat has to resist the strain of sea waves or to cope with outflow of accumulated water. Therefore, ethnographic records

28

related to boats and rafts of Iraqi marshlands, as well as boat models14 from northern Mesopotamia15, may not be corresponding with the seagoing craft. Nonetheless, riverine boats are not differentiated from seagoing vessels in this chapter and the following typology may relate to both types. Moreover, due to the availability of information, typology is more focused on Mesopotamian water transport16.

Whereas in the later periods, cuneiform texts and depiction on cylinder seal reveal information about boat building techniques and their possible appearance, information about boats and their construction during the Ubaid period is limited mainly to boat models. Boat building technology was based on local natural resources, i.e. reed, bitumen, and possibly skin (Qualls 1981: p.287).

Reeds were heavily abundant along the Euphrates and Tigris, as well as around Arabo-Persian Gulf. Phragmites and Typha, the most plentiful reeds were both used in boat building in various forms: bundles as a frame or planks for boat’s hull, fibers as ropes and fastening, mats as a covering of hull or as a sail (Vosmer 2000: p.154). Reed was an important resource utilized in basketry as well as in architecture.

The usage of bitumen in antiquity is well attested in cuneiform texts as early as Bronze Age. As mentioned above, bitumen fragments are reported from several Ubaid-related sites. Moreover, the boat model from Eridu bears a thick layer of bitumen indicating that this technology was known already in the mid sixth millennium BC (Qualls 1981: p.12-13, Carter 2012: p.349).

Boat models are reported from both fluvial and maritime areas. Spatial distribution and variability of boat models indicates a range of boat types varying in construction and material (Carter 2012: p.350, Carter 2018: p.68). Curved ends are the most common pattern among models, whereas the shape of the hull is more diverse, from slender to rounded, broad-beamed body (Qualls 1981: p.238, Carter 2012: p.350). Curled, inturned ends of some models may indicate reed-bundle construction whereas other models seem to have the frame construction made of wood or skin (Carter 2012: p.350, Carter 2018: p.68).

14 In case of acceptation of their relation to real boats. 15 These boat models more likely refer to riverine boats, used in areas of the origin of the models, rather than to seagoing boats. 16 The most of the collected data relates to Mesopotamian sources - archaeological and ethnographic. 29

5.2.1. Reed craft Based on the archaeological evidence such as bitumen fragments and boat models, reed boats or boat-like rafts are considered to be used in Mesopotamia and the Gulf region since the sixth millennium BC. Reed crafts appear in tropical and temperate areas of the world and prevail especially in areas with lack of wood (Johnstone 1980: p.15). Due to plenty available building materials and ease in construction process it is assumed that reed crafts were used already in Pleistocene (Johnstone 1980: p.16, Vosmer 2000: p.152, Pydyn 2015: p.194).

Reed crafts are constructed by lashing bundles made out of reed tightly to each other and shaping them into flat rafts or oval boats. Grass, hay, leaves, bark or thick branches may have also been used as building material (Pydyn 2015: p.194) although reed is assumed to be used most frequently in Mesopotamia and Arabo-Persian Gulf as cuneiform tablets from later periods claim. Ubaid period revealed boat models with curved ends which is a typical sign of reed-bundled boats which lashed ends of bundles rise up and may be turned slightly in, however, this pattern appears also on wooden boats (Carter 2012: p.350). Curved ends are visible at models from Tell Oueili (Ubaid 3), Al-Ubaid and a model with socket from Eridu (Fig.16). In addition, models with broken tips may also contain the same component (Carter 2012: p.350).

Fig.16. a) boat model with curved end from Al-Ubaid (Carter 2012: Fig.19.1) b) reed-bundle boat used in marshes in Iraq (Holtzman 2018).

The size of the boats is unknown and it is likely that more sizes and shapes were in use, depending on environment and purpose for what a vessel was built. Vosmer (2000: p.156) suggests that bigger boats may have been built as the reed-built houses in marshes of southern Iraq, i.e. boat was built upside down. Although this is suggested for Early Bronze Age boats, it is necessary to mention that reed-built houses and huts are attested also in Ubaid Period Mesopotamia (Eridu) and the Gulf (Ayn as-Sayh) thus this method may be in use already in the earlier periods.

30

Boat model from H3 As-Sabiyah (Fig.17) in Kuwait depicts parallel lines along the outside of the hull, interpreted as reed bundles which are visible also on real reed boats even after being

Fig.17. Boat model from H3 interpreted as reed-bundle boat, made of Coarse Ware (Carter 2006: Fig.3).

Fig.18. a) zaima (McGrail 2015: Fig.2.4.) b) quffa (Holtzman 2016). These indigenous boats were still used in Iraqi marshland even in early 20th century. 31

coated with bitumen (Carter 2010b: p.89-90). Vosmer (2000: p.155) also suggests that reed bundles creating the hull were covered by woven mat and then bitumen was applied. This method would provide a smooth surface of hull as have zaima and quffa (Fig.18) and also, as McGrail (2015: p.30) claims, worsen the distinguishability between reed and planked boats in ancient illustrations. If this method was used also during the Ubaid period is unknown but it may clarify the exceptionality of H3 model and the absence of depiction of reed bundles on other models.

5.2.2. Frame boats Several boat models indicate another type of construction and utilization of other materials as skin or wood. Frame boats are boats built from materials as skin or reed on frame made of reed, wooden poles or planks. Wooden planks provide stability to reed-bundle craft which may have been needed for construction of larger boats (Carter 2012: p.350, Ratnagar 2004: p.215).

Qualls (1981: p.265) claims that nearly vertical ends may refer to wooden construction and since boats made out of wood have not been proven for Ubaid period, Qualls (1981: p.261) and Carter (2018: p.68) suggest that boat models from Abada (Early Ubaid 3 model) and Uruk may represent skin boats of wooden frame or dugout boats. According to Carter (2012: p.350), boat model from Eridu (Ubaid 4) bears features of mast socket. If this hypothesis is true, such a vessel indicates wooden construction or at least would require sturdy wooden frame. Besides that, two boat models from Oueili (Ubaid 1) as well as a model from Mashnaqa (Ubaid 3) show paint below the surface of hull. It may indicate a painting on paintable surface as skin or wood (Carter 2012: p.350).

5.2.2.1. Skin boats Skin boats are water crafts made of skin fastened together within wooden framework. Their utilization in Mesopotamia is well attested in recent times as well as in antiquity as depictions in Sennacherib’s palace proves (Fig.19)( McGrail 2015: p.28-33). Moreover, Pydyn claims that skin boats as well as reed boats represent one of the simplest vessels for water transportation to build (2015: p.190). Although skin as a perishable material is hard to be recorded in archaeology, Late Neolithic site of Umm Dabaghiyah in northern Mesopotamia was proposed to be an outpost for distribution and trading with skins. Economic cuneiform texts from Isin period provided evidence of utilization of skins in boat building (Qualls 1981: p.256-257).

Boats as zaima or quffa which were still visible in marshes of southern Iraq in the 20th century, are of small reed bundles, strengthened with light wooden framing and coated with bitumen. 32

According to Dombrowski (1984: p.107), in the past the quffa was coated with animal hides (and not bitumen) based on the description of Herodotus from the fifth century AD. During the Ubaid period, influence of southern Mesopotamia is attested as far as in Anatolia. Several sites in northern Mesopotamia, Syria or Anatolia were interpreted as Ubaid outposts and it can be assumed that long-distance trade or contact was undertaken by boats via the rivers (Carter 2018). Buoyed rafts as kelek (Fig.19) may have been utilized for transport of bulky commodities. Rafts were constructed in the north from locally available tree trunks, fastened together to create platform which floated on inflated hides. When such vessel with cargo arrived to southern Mesopotamia, the wooden platform was dismantled, wood was sold, and skins were fetched back to north (Dombrowski 1984: p.107-108, Prosecký et.al. 1998: p.211). This method is known from recent times, as well as from antiquity when the buoyed raft is depicted on two reliefs from the reign of Sennacherib (McGrail 2015: p.28-29).

Fig.19. A kelek - buyonded raft. The depiction from the Palace of Sennacherib of c. 700 BC (McGrail 2015: Fig.2.2.).

5.2.2.2. Wooden boats Due to arid conditions, wood resources are underestimated in southern Mesopotamia.Thus reeds and hides are expected to be the main material used for boat construction from the very earliest evidence of boats till the third millennium BC. Nonetheless, utilization of wood in boat building process can not be ruled out. It is necessary to point out that in the sixth millennium BC, moister conditions are expected in Arabia as well as in the southern Mesopotamia owing to higher rainfall caused by monsoons and Westerlies. The environment would have consisted of grasslands and some woody elements (Parker 2010: p.201).

33

5.2.2.2.1. Availability of wood in southern Mesopotamia One of the first evidence of overseas trade comes from ED III period when transport of wood into southern Mesopotamia is mentioned in Ur-Nanshe’s inscription (Ratnagar 2004: p.213-214). Wood as a perishable material and invisible in archaeological record may have been transported to Mesopotamia even earlier.

Although wood for boat building is usually associated with import, some wood species growing in Mesopotamia were also suitable for boat construction. Palm trees were profiting in southern Mesopotamia and utilized in boat building as well as poplar, tamarisk tree or juniper (Mäkelä 2002: p.20-23)17. Date stones reported from region of Persian Gulf (H3, Dalma island) as well as from southern Mesopotamia (Tell Oueili, Eridu) indicates the usage of material from date palms as fruit, fibers and even wood (Huot 1989, Carter 2018: p.52). Mulberry grows in northern Mesopotamia and is highly used in boat building, especially for hull parts (Mäkelä 2002: p.20-23, McGrail 2015: p.33). According to McGrail (2015: p.3), tamarisk and date palm may produce planks less than 6m in length and also poplar can not provide planks as long as imported species (Ratnagar 2004: p.129). The trade with the lands of Lower Sea as Dilmun, Magan and Meluha is attested during the third millennium BC. However, timber was imported also from the north via the rivers. Cedar is the most known wood species utilized also in Egyptian boat building during the early Pharaonic times (Ratnagar 2004: p.213, McGrail 2015: p.4). Nonetheless, it is questionable if such trade existed already in the Ubaid period and if cedar and other trees as pine or laurel, used in Mesopotamian boat building, were at that time already transported from the north to the south. It should be noted, in accordance to Mäkelä and Ratnagar, that only few species were unearthed during investigations in Mesopotamia and the identification of species in cuneiform texts is very demanding, not certain and usually hypothetical (Mäkelä 2002: p.20-23, Ratnagar 2004: p.129).

5.2.2.2.2. Monoxylons Monoxylons, known also as dugout boats, are vessels made from hollowed tree trunk. Such vessels are expected to emerge already during the late Stone Age or even earlier because they do not require sophisticated tools and are only limited by the availability of suitable material, i.e. tree trunks in the right diameter (Pydyn 2015: p.198). The boat is made by cutting the inner part of log

17 According to Huot, poplar is attested for Ubaid 4 period and together with tamarisk they grew along the water courses (1989: p.26). 34

by stone or bone tools, sometimes also fire was used (Fig.20). Johnstone (1980: p.46-47) suggests that in prehistoric times, boat building process may have taken a long time due to the use of simple tools and thus onoxylons are associated with settled communities that stayed long enough at one place and were able to finish the watercraft. Due to utility of simple tools, it is more likely that soft wood species were chosen for dugout boats.

Generally, monoxylons are associated with temperate parts of the world due to requirement of large trunks though ethnographic observations confirms utility of dugout boats also in southeastern . In the fourth century AD, monoxylon was spotted on the Euphrates by Amorianus (McGrail 2015: p.33). Another example comes from the beginning of the 20th

Fig.20. Fire and stone tools were used in construction of dugout boats. The images come from the experiment conducted by Czech team within The Monoxylon I Expedition (Hýža 2016). century, when dugout boat with keel and sail was popular fishing vessel along the Makran coast (Ratnagar 2004: p.215). These boats, called hora, were of simple dugout with planks or pure planks construction usually using an outrigger for better stability and they occurred far out on the open sea (Dombrowski 1984: p.114) . Leaving aside the transport of wood from the north to the south, it is more likely that monoxylons were used in Mesopotamia in northern parts with more available suitable material, although poplar, growing along the rivers in southern Mesopotamia, could be

35

also used, as Pydyn notes (2015: p.200).

5.2.2.2.3. Planked boats Planked boats are assumed to be descendants of more primitive vessels as skin boats, reed-bundle rafts/boats or monoxylons. However, sewn-planked construction suggests that in Mesopotamia more advanced wooden boats developed from reed-bundled boats. Planks were sewn to each other, based on the experience from reed craft construction where bundles were lashed together with frame of wooden planks (Pydyn 2015: p.206). Sewn-planked boat or reed boat with wooden frame is attested from Ras al-Jinz where from bitumen slabs bear impression of sewn planks (Fig.21), dated to the second half of the third millennium (Cleuziou and Tosi 1994, Cleuziou and Tosi 2007). As descendants of reed-bundle crafts, Ratnagar claims that early wooden boats would have bipod mast, which is more suitable for reed-bundle vessels and thus well attested by early boatbuilders (2004: p.215). According to Qualls, wooden boats start to appear in the third millennium BC in

Fig.21. Bitumen slab from Ras al-Jinz represents a coating of sewn wooden boat (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: Fig.201).

Mesopotamia and they are adopted from traders from Dilmun, Magan and Meluha (1981: p.289- 290). Moister conditions prevailed in eastern Arabia even in the sixth and the fifth millennium BC, therefore, it can be speculated that wooden boats of Dilmun, located in the central Gulf, were

36

developed during millennia of utility of wooden elements, located in eastern Arabia. Due to environmental conditions, the first wooden boats or boats with wooden elements may have been used already during the Ubaid period. This technology spread and was used abundantly also in the arid area of southern Mesopotamia during later periods when larger cargo was transported and a more developed building technology was used.

5.3. Motive power As mentioned above, the boat model from Eridu is assumed to contain a base for socket mast, whereas ceramic disc from H3 depicts boat with bipod mast (Fig.22). Thus it can be assumed that the two types of masts were used during the Ubaid period (Carter 2012: p.350). Bipod mast is used when construction of hull is inadequately strong to support a socket mast and thus is more suitable for reed crafts (Carter 2006: p.55). Qualls suggests that reed mats, attested at Ubaid sites, may be used as a sail (1981: p.265-266) but other materials, such as fabric, skin

Fig.22. a) painted ceramic disk with depiction of boat with two-footed mast from H3 (Carter 2006: Fig.4) b) boat model from Eridu with a base for socket mast (Carter 2012: Fig.19.1) or animal hair can not be excluded. Rectangular shape is assumed for Early Bronze Age boats and triangular sails, typical for modern indigenous boats in Arabo-Persian Gulf and Arabian sea, emerged in later periods (Ratnagar 2004: p.222). This can indicate that rectangular sails were used in the Ubaid period.

The boat models from H3 and Eridu with masts and the unpublished model from Eridu (No.5 in Qualls’s catalogue of models) have piercings along their edges, interpreted as holes for rigging or steering oars (Qualls 1981, Carter 2006: p.55, Carter 2012: p.350). According to Ratnagar (2004: 37

p.221), rectangular sail is useful only for sailing in the direction of wind and thus boats need oars or paddles when wind is not in favorable direction or in order to change direction, for example to put into the port. It is more likely that rowing and punting poles, depicted in cylinder seals from later periods, were abundantly used in riverine environment and marshes, especially punting poles which are applicable only in shallow waters, not more than two meters in depth (Qualls 1981: p.267-269). Sails would be primarily useful for overseas voyages. Due to prevailing winds from the north it is not possible to sail on rivers (Euphrates and Tigris) upstream, and rowing or towing would have to be applied.

5.4. Processing of bitumen Bitumen as a material and finds is described in Chapter 4.2.2. As a solid or semi-liquid raw material, bitumen is heated in a container and then in its liquid form applied to boats hull. Based on ethnographic, archaeological and linguistic sources, the technique of bitumen coating is known at least from the Bronze Age to Modern era (Carter 2006: p.57).The protection was not permanent. It was necessary to recaulk the layer, sometimes even during the travel (Connan and Van de Velde 2010: p.3).

Fig.23.The partial bitumen layer on the interior surface of Ubaid pottery sherd (Drechsler 2018c: Fig.16.3). 38

At Omani site Rass al-Hamra, the first imported pottery is dated to the mid fourth millennium BC. Some sherds bear black tarry incrustation, identified by investigators as the remains of bitumen heating in pots (Fig.26). Cleuziou and Tosi (2007: p.88) thus suggest that in this case, Omani fishermen used ceramic vessel to heat Mesopotamian bitumen for caulking of sea-going boats. Archaeological finds indicate utilizing of this technique even earlier.

Some pottery sherds with samples of bitumen were discovered at Dosariyah (Fig.23)(Drechsler 2018c) and similar find was unearthed also at Ayn as-Sayh (McClure and Al-Shaikh 1993). Small size of the pottery vessel was used to heat the bitumen rather than as a container (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: p.88). At H3, bitumen was present in a chamber which may suggest storing for later usage (Connan and Van de Velde 2010: p.287).

6. DISCUSSION In this chapter, I will discuss what can be assumed about maritime routes and also my thoughts about other topics, such as boat models and boats themself as well as possible contacts based on the distribution of pottery.

6.1. Boat models As mentioned in Chapter 5, the function of boat models is unknown and though models are of various shapes and bear different and common features, it is necessary to keep in mind that depicted model may not reflect a real boat. Nonetheless, distribution of boat models may reveal new information. Several models (models from Uruk, Mashnaqa and all tree models from Eridu) (Qualls 1981: p.12-15, Carter 2018: p.67) occurred in or around temples or cemeteries which indicates a ceremonial or ritual context. Boat models as form of transport may represent safe passage to the netherworld. In burial context, the boat model may indicate a connection of the dead person with water transport or may represent a real vessel, symbolically buried with its owner. Outside of southern Mesopotamia, boat models are reported from houses from H3 and Tell Zeidan (Carter 2006: p.53-55, Stein 2010: p.125). If sacred meaning would remain also in areas with Ubaid influence, occurrence of boat models in households may have had the function of a talisman which should secure safe passage or journey to their owner (Carter 2010b: p.90).

Boat models are reported only from sites related to Ubaid culture. No boat models are known from Halaf culture (Carter 2018: p.66), contemporary with Ubaid in northern Syria and only two models

39

are known from Arabo-Persian Gulf18. However, it is safe to assume that boats existed in fluvial areas of northern Syria as well as along the coastline of the Gulf. The boat model from H3 is made out of local red clay, whereas the fabric used for fragmented boat model from Dosariyah (Fig.24) revealed Mesopotamian origin (Carter 2018: p.67, Kainert 2018: p.219). Rather than importing the fabric from Mesopotamia and modelling the boat at Dosariyah, it is more likely that the finished boat model was imported from southern Mesopotamia. Moreover, the occurrence of boat models in Arabo-Persian Gulf may relate as well as pottery to occurrence of Mesopotamian visitors in the region. Permanent presence of Mesopotamian visitors, which is considered for large centers as Bahra 1 or H3 in the northern Gulf, may explain production of Red Coarse Ware and other Mesopotamian aspects, such as ornaments or architecture (Bahra 1) and also the occurrence of boat model at H3, produced locally with local fabric but by Mesopotamian sculptor or by Arabian sculptor influenced by the Ubaid trends. Moreover, the distribution of boat models is limited to great centers in Mesopotamia and in the Gulf. Thus, we can suggest spiritual meaning or permanent presence of Mesopotamian sailors/traders.

No boat models or other boat-related finds are known from earlier periods though earlier use of more primitive boats and previous acquirement of boat building skills would be necessary to achieve the high level of technical development during the Ubaid period. Moreover, Carter claims that emergence of boat models hints at new attitude of boats as a form of transport which may be related with social development and the need of the Ubaid communities to communicate and trade intensively across large geographical scale (Carter 2012: p.252,Carter 2018: p.69). It is likely that the distribution of boat models does not correspond to the use of water transport but rather it reflects social purposes. A semi-nomadic society of Arabo-Persian Gulf littoral would not adhere to the same values as settled agricultural inhabitants of southern Mesopotamia. Thus it is more likely that no boat models will be discovered during the excavation in central and lower Gulf and if yes, only as a imported object of exotic value rather than indigenous epitome of local ideology. In later periods, boat models are reported from other sites in the Gulf region (clay model from Qala’at al Bahrain) which may corresponds to increasing influence of Mesopotamia.

18 One boat model was found at H3, another at Dosariyah. Beside that investigations at Dosariyah revealed also conical piece which may be part of another boat model. Unfortunately, the object is too small to ascertain its original form and interpretation as boat model is speculative (Kainert 2018: p.222). 40

Fig.24. The drawing of boat model fragment from Dosariyah (Kainert 2018: Fig.10.1).

6.2. Boats of the lower Gulf No direct evidences of boats are known from lower Gulf although their use is suggested due to occupation of islands Dalma and Marawah and also due to remains of large deep water species as tuna at coastal sites such as Umm al-Qaiwain (Beech 2000, Beech 2008). Arid conditions of the region impede the preservation of perishable materials which were the boats constructed from. It is necessary to keep in mind that the only actual boat remains present in the Gulf are bitumen slabs with impression of reed. Bitumen is available resource in southern Mesopotamia and upper Gulf but it would be very rare and very exotic material in lower Gulf, distant more than 700 km as the crow flies.

It is more likely that local inhabitants exploited local abundant and thus cheap materials and if they coated the boats they may have rather used resin or organic tar instead of bitumen. Material used for boat building may reflect the local environment and the fishermen may have used boats made of mangrove roots or palm fronds, as it is in present day with indigenous boats as Barasti and Shasha (Fig.25), still present along the coast of Arabo-Persian Gulf and Oman (Potts 1998, Holtzman 2017). As already noted above, wood can not be altogether excluded because according 41

to paleoenvironmental studies, due to increased precipitation in the fifth millennium BC, central and lower Gulf were areas of moist conditions with C3 savannah grasslands and greater woody elements, compared to upper Gulf and Mesopotamia as well as to present day (Parker 2010).

Fig.25. A shasha is traditional Omani bundle boat made of palm fronds (Holtzman 2017).

Bitumen slabs, similar to those from H3 or other sites of central Gulf in Ubaid period, are attested in lower Gulf and in Oman during the Bronze Age. One may assume that this technique spread southward as a result of increasing influence of Mesopotamia in later periods. At the turn of the fourth and the third millennium BC, copper started to be exported from Oman to Mesopotamia (Weisgerber 2007: p.195). Intensification of inter-regional contacts affected also the distribution of materials. As noted above, in Ubaid period, researchers believe that with increasing distance the distribution of Ubaid pottery and other materials is decreasing. This hypothesis is supported by finds of plaster vessels imitating Ubaid Ware. Qatar peninsula, as natural barrier, may have partly separated inhabitants of lower Gulf from events northwards (Carter 2010a: p.195).

6.3. Maritime routes and overseas voyages Long distance sailing is a very advanced discipline and whoever was the main agent in maritime trading network, they had to be skilled and experienced in navigation i.e. weather forecast, identification of depth by different color of water, knowledgeable about animal behavior and

42

landmarks, atmospheric effects at sea and astronomy19 (Ratnagar 2004, Vosmer 2007, McGrail 2014: p.40-41). According to Pournelle, Arabo-Persian Gulf reached southernmost Mesopotamian sites as Ur or Eridu by 5600 BC cal. (Pournelle 2003b: p.113-14, p.123) which provided access via sea to the sites of the Gulf region. The exact maritime routes can not be identified due to availability of only indirect evidence, although, the distribution of sites and artefacts, and weather patterns may point to them.

The nearest Ubaid-related sites lie in distance of over 200 km in northern Gulf and for sites of the central Gulf, the distance is around 700 km as crow flies away from southernmost Mesopotamian sites. The currents are generally moderate and affected by winds. Due to the significant distances which the boats had to overcome, the use of sails and sailboats is inevitable. According to Vosmer, inshore sailing is possible in all areas of the Arabo-Persian Gulf (2000: p.153). Carter (2003: p.46) suggests that boats were sailing along the coast, which may facilitate navigation, allow search of suitable campsites and provide safe anchorage in bad weather. Moreover, it is likely that voyages were conducted only during the day time. Sailing during the night was documented in antiquity, when Phoenicians navigated their boats owing to stars. Thus, it can be assumed that boats were moored for nights at beaches and lagoons to allow sailors to eat, sleep and restock their supplies (Carter and Crawford 2010: p.209).

Vosmer (2000,2007) and Ratnagar (2004) already dealt with maritime routes of the Early Bronze Age. However, they follow on from modern day wind patterns. As mentioned in Chapter 2, during the sixth and the fifth millennium BC, different weather patterns were present in Arabo-Persian Gulf and nature of these mechanisms is not clear. Whereas some scholars propose migration of IOM northward, others have a preference for more intense winter Mediterranean cyclones. Whichever scenario prevailed (or both) it is likely that different wind patterns occurred in the Gulf region. Moreover, warmer sea waters would have strong impact on wind patterns, too, especially on the creation of sea and onshore breezes20.

Carter addressed the question whether boats were visiting sites throughout the year or only during particular season (2003: p.46-47). During the Bronze Age, it is proposed that due to Indian Ocean

19 Knowledge of stars positions had the key role for transoceanic navigation and allowed an offshore sailing (Vosmer 2007: p.207).

20 Sea and onshore winds are caused by differences of air pressure, created by different absorb and emit properties of water and land. 43

Monsoons, maritime journeys21 may be conducted only during particular seasons and thus foreign sailors had to wait in their destinations for a more suitable season (Ratnagar 2004: p.229, Vosmer 2007: p.209). Northern winds, which prevail in the Gulf for most of the year, may have been stronger during the more intensive winter Mediterranean cyclones and weaker during summer due to influence of IOM. Such a scenario would affect maritime activity.

Ubaid-related sites are considered to be seasonal sites and several researchers suggest that these settlements may have been used as gathering places where groups dispersed across the surroundings were seasonally coming together, perhaps in period when boats were coming/returning from Mesopotamia (Carter 2018: p.52) .Otoliths of fish remains from H3 indicate that fish were caught during summer, autumn and early winter (Carter 2003: p.47, Beech 2010: p.155, Carter and Crawford 2010b: p.206). It may indicate increased maritime activity in this period of the year (Carter 2003). Moreover, identification of bones of Great Crested Grebe, which is currently a winter migrant in Kuwait, indicates that the site was occupied (maybe particularly) during winter months though this fact may not be valid during Ubaid period when different environmental conditions prevailed (Carter and Crawford 2010b: p.206). Nonetheless, according to Beech, the process of identifying of otoliths is very demanding and request further research (Beech 2010: p.155). Recently re-excavated Dosariyah yielded indications that the site may had been occupied permanently (at least particularly) and data referring to seasonality have not been identified (Drechsler 2018a) and thus can not be compared22.

It is likely that more sites can be identified along the former coast of the Gulf (Carter 2003: p.46, Carter and Crawford 2010b: p.208). These sites may be involved in maritime trade as H3 or sites in Central Gulf, or may be campsites of sailors who made a break during their journey. Carter and Crawford (2010b: p.206) suggest that beside a terrestrial route, bitumen and flint from Burgan Hill could be also transported via the sea. Transport by boat would provide the possibility of transferring of bulks of this material. Moreover, at least one Neolithic site at Khor Mutafa, near Khiran on the southern coast of Kuwait, was discovered (Carter and Crawford 2010b: p.206).

21 Especially from India to Oman but also around Musandam peninsula (see Vosmer 2007 or Ratnagar 2004). 22 The author of this work was not able to collect more related data from other sites of the central and upper Gulf. More data are needed for identification of the seasons during which Ubaid-related sites were occupied. Subsequently, it may refer to when boats arrived/departed. 44

6.3.1. Connection with Iran Due to the distribution of Ubaid-related sites along the Arabian coast of the Gulf, the participation of Iranian coastal societies is underestimated. Whereas the western coastline is mostly a flat plain with sandy beaches, flat muddy shores and rocky coast, most of the Iranian shoreline if formed by Zagros mountains where the coastline is mostly lined by steep ridges which rise directly from the sea. Moreover, the coast is often subject to onshore winds, which, according to Vosmer, can make navigation hazardous (2007: p.208). On the other hand, a slow current flows along the Iranian coast from the Straits of Hormuz (Dingwall 2014: p.18) which could be utilized by prehistoric sailors for northward travel. Furthermore, it must be noted that Iranian coastline is poorly understood (Ratnagar 2004: p.35, Chaverdi et al. 2008: p.36) and more sites, dated to the sixth and the fifth millennium BC, can be discovered in unsearched areas along the coast. Hints at the absence of maritime sites combined with the observation of marine artefacts located inland may indicate that such sites may have existed. Moreover, ports and harbors are documented along the Iranian coast in later periods (Ratnagar 2004: p.35-36).

The site H200 at Hallileh on Bushehr peninsula was assumed to be an Ubaid-related site, however, recent analyses indicate that most of the pottery assemblage from this site is of Iranian manufacture, and only minor amounts of sherds may have been imported from Mesopotamia (Carter et. al. 2006: p.16-17, Carter 2010a: p.192). From the Arabian coast, vessel shapes, decorative style as well as chemical composition of the clay propose that Black-on-Buff Ware originated in southern Mesopotamia but also possibly in Iran (Carter and Crawford 2010b: p.206, Drechsler 2018b: p.16). According to Carter and Crawford, Kuwaiti site H3 yielded a small number of sherds indicating Iranian origin, specifically Middle Susiana II pottery from Khuzistan, though comparative fabric analysis indicates rather Mesopotamian origin (2010b: p.206, p.302). However, many ornaments (especially flanged discs, plugs or nails and small trinkets) suggest Mesopotamian origin and could be also Iranian, based on stylistic grouping. Analyses did not provide conclusive results due to small size of the samples (Carter and Crawford 2010b: p.206, Drechsler 2018e: p.329). Three Ubaid style sherds were documented from the site of Tepe Yahya. Mineralogical analysis revealed Mesopotamian origin and relation to Ubaid 3-4 pottery as in the Gulf (Mutin 2012: p.167). In Oman, a very rare import from southern Iran was documented from the fourth millennium BC. Iranian pottery was found at RH-5 side by side with Mesopotamian ceramics (Fig.26) (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: p.96, Mutin 2012: p.177). According to Cleuziou and Tosi (2010b: p.206), it is possible that some innovations were brought from Iran into Oman as irrigation or pottery production. Moreover, copper occurred side by side with imported Iranian 45

fine painted Black-on-red pottery and thus it is assumed that knowledge of copper casting was brought to Oman from southern Iran via the sea (2007: p.184-185). They further argue, that distance between both coastlines is relatively short and maritime contacts could have been undertaken even during the earlier periods (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: p.87). Therefore, it can be considered that the sherds discovered at Tepe Yahya, could be the result of such early maritime contacts (Mutin 2012: p.177).

Imported pottery is the main indicator of long-distance trade/contacts in the Arabo-Persian Gulf and though it can be valuable and exotic for aceramic societies along the western shoreline of the Gulf, inhabitants of Iranian coastline already knew pottery and used their own ware and thus ceramics may not be involved in the trade with Mesopotamians. However, beside archaeologically invisible commodities, semi-precious stones could be imported from Iranian side of the Gulf, as carnelian or amazonite to the Arabian coastline.

Fig.26. Iranian pot found at RH-5. The vessel was used to cook bitumen (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: Fig.64).

In conclusion one can say that evidence of contacts between western and eastern sides of Arabo- Persian Gulf are rare but can not be excluded. It is likely that different weather patterns may

46

facilitate voyages between each region. These contacts possibly either were not frequent or artefacts and other evidence have not yet been discovered or they have perished23 .

6.3.2. Chronology Most of the Ubaid-related sites and pottery from the Gulf can be dated to between the Ubaid 2/3 and Ubaid 3 (Carter 2010d: p.34). However, it seems that nature of the interaction was changing during the time. The earliest sites are located in northern Kuwait, where Ubaid 2 pottery was identified at Bahra 1 and particularly at H3 (Smogorzewska 2016: p.613). These sites revealed strong Mesopotamian influence, with possible presence of Mesopotamian visitors and as Carter and Crawford (2010b: p.208) suggest, these sites interplayed as middlemen between southern Mesopotamia and sites of central Gulf. This is based on a narrower range of Mesopotamian artefacts found in central Gulf, compared to northern Kuwait. It is generally believed that early dates of sites in upper Gulf indicate that sites as Bahra 1 and H3 likely made contact with Mesopotamia as a first. However, Hajji Mohammad pottery (in other words Ubaid 2) are known also from central Gulf sites as Abu Khamis, Ain Qannas and Al-Da’asa, accompanied with Ubaid 3 pottery ,although occupation during Ubaid 2 period can not be certainly stated due to small amount of sherds and their equivocal chronological value (Carter 2010d: p.33, Smogorzewska 2016: p.613). Moreover, Hajji Mohammad pottery was identified also at H200 on Iranian coastline (Oates 1983: p.255, Carter 2006: p.16, Oates 2010: p.46).

Although less in number, several sites revealed also Ubaid 4 or even Ubaid 5 pottery. Ubaid 4 pottery is attested at Dosariyah (Saudi Arabia), Abu Khamis (Saudi Arabia), Dalma (UAE) and Ubaid 5 may be present at Ras Abaruk (Qatar) and al-Markh (Bahrain), however, the small assemblages may belong also to Ubaid 4 (Magee 2014: p.70-71, Carter 2010d: p.34). H3 or Bahra 1 did not yield any Ubaid 4 which means that area of central Gulf obtained Ubaid 4 pottery without mediation of northern Kuwait or at least those two sites (Carter and Crawford 2010b: p.203, Smogorzewska 2016: p.613). It is possible that sites in northern Gulf lost their dominant position in maritime trade, probably due to social or environmental reasons24, and sailors and merchants of central Gulf region started to obtain demanded commodities on their own. Although the amount of evidence of maritime inter-regional contacts decreased at the end of Ubaid period, Hussain and Levenson claim that despite of central Gulf, with exception of Bahrain, Uruk and later period’s

23 Such evidences may have been of perishable materials or may lie beneath the sediments, alternatively are submerged. 24 Cater claims that H3 may have been abandoned due to falling in sea levels and the lost of direct access to the sea in Ubaid 3 period (Carter 2010c: p.31-32). 47

pottery appears in lower Gulf which indicate change in initiating contacts in the Gulf region (2018: p.105-106). Moreover, Sumerian cuneiform texts, dated to 3300 BC, mention copper and trade connections with Dilmun (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: p.185). It is tantalizing to imagine that when contacts between Mesopotamia and central Gulf were stopped, traders and merchants started to create trading contacts in other regions as Iran or Oman and then started to trade with Mesopotamia again.

6.4. Inter-regional contacts and distribution of pottery In 2010, Dr. Jeffrey Rose pointed out the idea that the Arabo-Persian Gulf basin was before submersion occupied by humans who later migrated and settled around the newly established shoreline. Such a scenario would explain a disproportion in the number of Paleolithic and Neolithic/Ubaid-related sites, moreover, Neolithic sites were thereby established on previously unsettled land, except one stratified site - Ain Qannas (Rose 2010). The refugees would escape westward and northward and settle along the Arabian coast of the Gulf and in the area of southern Mesopotamia. The occurrence of pottery in Arabia may be thus the result of common ancestry (Drechsler 2018b: p.19-20). Beside pottery, also advanced knowledge of boatbuilding and the utilization of bitumen were proposed as common ancestry of these societies. This technology and perhaps even early maritime navigation techniques were developed during the lower sea levels of the early and middle Holocene (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007: p.193)25.

The movement of refugees to the west/north is assumed due to emergence of sites which have no earlier occupation. Flooding of the basin started in lower elevations situated along the Zagros mountains. No pre-Ubaid sites are known from southern Mesopotamia, however, Huot (1989: p.24) points out that investigations at Tell Oueili revealed that small and older sites can be buried beneath the alluvium and only large sites as Eridu, Tell Oueili or Ur emerged from the silt. The same situation may have occurred also in Iran where no marine-focused settlement has been discovered yet (Chaverdi et al. 2008). However, it should be noted that refugees from Arabo- Persian Gulf would likely be, after the period of incessant migration and integration with societies which already had occupied surrounding areas, fully integrated when the coastline was finally established.

25 It can be suggest that according this hypothesis, the shifting winds and earlier narrow Gulf could provide ideal conditions for the early development of coastal and intercoastal sailing (Wilding, pers.comm) 48

Long-distance trade and connections are associated with the Ubaid period, and though Ubaid influence is reported from Anatolia to Arabo-Persian Gulf and from Syria to Iran, lack of exotic items and materials in Mesopotamia indicates that people and/or ideas, ideologies and styles of pottery, architecture and other aspects of material culture were shared (Carter 2010a: p.198). In the Arabo-Persian Gulf, trading may already have existed in the region as proliferous production of shell jewelry, pearls or dry fish indicate. Moreover, objects as obsidian, bitumen or carnelian overcame long distances from their place of origin and long-distance trade existed in eastern Arabia during the Ubaid period, perhaps even earlier (Masry 1997: p.110-111).

6.4.1. Inland distribution of pottery The distribution of pottery corresponds with material properties of the objects. Imported pottery occurs only at coastal sites and not inland. Fragile pottery would not be able to overcome long distances and materials as baskets and skins were probably preferred (Drechsler 2018b: p.19)26. However, Ubaid pottery was discovered only in one area, at several inland sites in Al-Hasa Oasis and Abqaiq area in eastern Saudi Arabia. These sites do not contain any Red Coarse Ware or imitations as plaster vessels (Masry 1997: p.110).

Red Coarse Ware is assumed to be an imitation of imported Ubaid pottery, therefore, it is questionable why this imitation does not occur also inland. If inland inhabitants did not know pottery, prestige Ubaid Ware as well as “local” imitations would have the same value for them. Moreover, if Arabian inhabitants of the coast had knowledge of pottery making, as it is assumed due to “locally” made Coarse Ware, this knowledge would travel with people inland and perhaps would occur at some inland site.

Ain Qannas in Al-Hasa Oasis is the only known stratified Ubaid-related site in the Gulf. Ubaid- related layers contain foreign influences as architecture, cultivation of plants and animals and the use of pottery (Masry 1997: p.108-109). It is proposed that these influences may have been transferred from coastal areas as evidence of imported pottery indicate (Masry 1997: p.110, Drechsler 2018b: p.14). Stone and mud walls, as well as signs of cultivation indicate relatively permanent settlement and it is assumed that Ain Qannas represents a central site and other small sites in its vicinity are only outposts for the exploitation of plants, animals and raw materials as flint or clay (Masry 1997: p.67-69, p.107-108). Masry points out that Ain Qannas contains smaller

26 Except domestic household use, pottery (especially Ubaid Ware) is associated with prestige and exotic value and some pieces (whole vessels or at least some sherds) may have been transferred inland. 49

number of pottery than coastal sites, however, evidence of cultivation of plants and animals27 as a new form of diet may be related to the use of a new type of material culture - pottery (1997: p.108- 109). Would not thus the higher occurrence of ceramics be expectable? Evenmore, rather than expensive imported Mesopotamian pottery would not be more practical the use of “local” Red Coarse Ware? Investigations from the Makran coast revealed that pottery was known to coastal populations but was not used for an everyday use (Mutin 2012: p.176-177). Beside properties of pottery unsuitable for nomadic lifestyle, pottery is associated with diet, which in this case, may not be useful for coastal fish-eaters (Mutin 2012: p.177).

In conclusion one can say that if the knowledge of cultivation was imported inland beside Ubaid Ware, but the knowledge of pottery production does not appear at any inland site we are left with two options: (1) pottery was not produced by local individuals or to be exact by local individuals who were involved in migratory cycle and thus the knowledge did not spread inland, or alternatively (2) imported pottery was transferred only for its exotic and valuable status and was not used by locals for an everyday use.

6.4.2. Red Coarse Ware and inter-regional visits As mentioned above, Coarse Red Ware occurs only at sites with Ubaid pottery. Coastal Arabian societies may have adapted pottery for some of their daily activities, especially during their stay on the coast. On the other hand, with acceptation of seasonality of overseas voyages, could Red Coarse Ware have been produced by Mesopotamian sailors who were waiting for suitable weather conditions? Smogorzewska claims that locally made Red Coarse pottery is present from the beginning of appearance of Ubaid Ware, without any prototypes (2016: p.608). This supports the idea that Coarse Red Ware was made locally, but by Mesopotamian visitors, perhaps by those, who were waiting at Arabian sites for better season to sail back home.

It must be mentioned that pottery production is specialized craft. It requires special equipment as pottery tools and kilns. In case of Arabia, potters would also have to deal with different clay, which would be for ordinary Mesopotamian sailor very challenging (Wilding, pers.comm.). Therefore, it can be proposed that Mesopotamian potters occurred in the Gulf or that Arabian Neolithic individuals obtained the knowledge of pottery making in southern Mesopotamia. It is not possible

27 A grinder and bones of sheep and goat were unearthed at the site (Masry 1997). 50

to determine a maritime crew’s origin based only on the cargo that was transported. It is likely that Mesopotamian sailors would hire indigenous seafarers for sailing in the Gulf28.

Sites as Bahra 1 and H3 revealed a strong Mesopotamian influence and a mixture of material culture. At least seasonal (but also permanent) presence of Mesopotamian visitors is suggested for these sites (Carter and Crawford 2010a, Smogorzewska 2016, Carter 2018). Carter and Crawford claim that the hybridization of material culture, possibly demonstrated by presence of both Arabian and Mesopotamian styles of ornaments at H3, may indicate a practise of inter-regional exchange of marriage partners (2010b: p.210). The presence of Mesopotamian individuals and their demand for pottery may explain the production of “local” Red Coarse Ware for daily use.

It can be speculated whether also some Arabian sailors/merchants visited (for a longer period) or even settled in southern Mesopotamia. They would know about societies located in Arabian littoral and possibly traded with them and with the Mesopotamian cities. Merchant’s villages are known from the Early Bronze Age when cuneiform texts mention traders from Melluha settled in southern Mesopotamia (Prosecký et.al.1999: p.233). Moreover, Drechsler proposes that Dosariyah, due to its distance from the coast would be hardly localized by foreign sailors and it is more likely that voyages would be conducted by local individuals (2018d: p.469). However, it is likely that potential Arabian settlements in southern Mesopotamia would leave only a small trace (if some) and would be hardly identifiable.

7. CONCLUSION In the sixth and the fifth millennium BC, the Arabo-Persian Gulf experienced inter-regional overseas connections. These contacts were performed by sailing boats, probably made of reed, but the use of other materials as wood or skin is also possible. Wood can be taken in consideration due to higher moisture during the sixth and fifth millennia BC and the occurrence of woody covers are suggested for Mesopotamia as well as for the Gulf area (Parker 2010: p.200-201). It is also save to suggest that different boat types and rafts were in use during the Ubaid period (Carter 2012). For covering a long distance between areas of the Gulf and southern Mesopotamia, the usage of sail is inevitable, and though the climate of the mid Holocene is under ongoing debate, it is likely that suitable reciprocal winds, allowing the both-way voyaging, had to exist. It appears that palaeoclimatic data of the Arabo-Persian Gulf as well as rigorous analyses of faunal and floral

28 According to Vosmer, seafaring in unknown waters may require a hiring of knowledgeable individuals i.e. indigenous seafarers and navigators (2007: p.207). 51

remains from seasonal sites of the Gulf may answer more questions and further research is proposed. Ubaid-related sites along the Arabian coast revealed evidence of long distance trading as occurrence of pottery, bitumen, obsidian and other minerals indicate. Beside that, marine products as shells and pearls are proposed as trading commodities which may have been traded with the Mesopotamians. Since no such evidence of Ubaid-Arabian Neolithic trading were unearthed during the investigations in Iraq, some researchers suggest to re-excavate Ubaid sites of southern Mesopotamia (Carter and Crawford 2010a, Maggee 2014, Drechsler 2018a). It may be also possible that Mesopotamian objects along the Arabian coast are not result of maritime trade but of inter-regional migration of people as distribution of pottery and occurrence of Mesopotamian influences in the Gulf indicate.

For an Iranian participation in maritime interactions in the Gulf have not yet been found any direct evidence. The occurrence of Iranian pottery in Omani coastline is dated to the mid fourth millennium BC and it is likely that contacts occurred between southern Iran and northern Oman sporadically even earlier (Cleuziou and Tosi 2007). Moreover, on the base of the facts, it can be proposed that such sporadic contacts may occurred also along the northern coast of the Gulf between occupants of Bushehr and Khuzestan/southern Mesopotamia. The investigations were focused mostly on the Arabian coastline whereas Iranian coastline remains largely unknown (Chaverdi et al. 2008). It is conceivable that further findings about maritime contacts and seafaring of Ubaid period may not be found in Arabia but along the coast of Iran and in southern Mesopotamia. It is necessary to keep in mind that not only pottery may refer to inter-regional contacts and other objects as minerals or influence in architecture or decoration should be considered.

REFERENCES Almutairi, M. (2011) The Archaeology of Kuwait. PhD thesis. Cardiff University.

Bargahi, H. and Rezaei, M.H. (2015) The Emam Zadeh Chahar Rustayi Site, a Bakun Period Settlement in Bushehr Province, Southern Iran. Sociology and Anthropology, 3 (1), 45-51.

Beech, M. (2010) The animal and fish bones. In: Carter, R. and Crawford, H. (eds.) Maritime Interactions in the Arabian Neolithic: Evidence from H3, As-Sabiyah, an Ubaid-related site in Kuwait (American School of Prehistoric Research Monograph Series). Leiden and Boston, Brill, pp. 129–161.

52

Beech, M. (2013) In The Land of The Ichthyophagi - Prehistoric Occupation of The Coast and Islands of The Southern Arabian Gulf: A Regional Review. Adumatu: A Semi -Annual Archaeological Refereed Journal on the Arab World, 27, 31-48.

Beech, M. Charpentier, V. and Méry, S. (2008) Evidence for deep-sea fishing and cultural identity during the Neolithic period at Akab Island, Umm al-Qaiwain, . [Online] Available from: https://www.academia.edu/31957689/Evidence_for_deep- sea_fishing_and_cultural_identity_during_the_Neolithic_period_at_Akab_Island_Umm_al- Qaiwain_United_Arab_Emirates [Accessed 4th January 2019].

Beech, M. Elders, J. and Shepherd, E. (2000) Reconsidering the ‘Ubaid of the Southern Gulf: new results from excavations on Dalma Island, U.A.E. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 30, 41–47.

Bieliński, P. (2016) Excavations in Units 3, 6, 10, 11, 14 and the north part of House 2. In: Bieliński, P. and Szymczak, A. (eds.) Bahra 1, Excavations in 2014 and 2015. Preliminary Report on the Sixth and Seventh Seasons of Kuwaiti–Polish Archaeological Investigations. Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology, University of Warsaw, pp. 13-52.

Bigourdan, N. (2009) Neolithic and Early Bronze Age reed boats and watercraft from Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf: An overview. Bulletin of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, 33, 63–71.

British Museum (a) vessel 122892. [image] Available from: https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_i mage_gallery.aspx?assetId=1613033831&objectId=365431&partId=1 [Accessed 16th April 2019].

British Museum (b) bowl 122898. [image] Available from: https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_i mage_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid=1613033822&objectid=365432 [Accessed 16th April 2019].

British Museum (c). jar 122883 [image] Available from: https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_i mage_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid=1613033839&objectid=365433 [Accessed 16th April 2019].

Carter, R.A. (2003) The Neolithic origin of seafaring in the Arabian Gulf. Archaeology International, 2002/2003, 44-47.

Carter, R.A. (2006) Boat remains and maritime trade in the Persian Gulf during the sixth and fifth millennia BC. Antiquity 80 (307), 52–63.

53

Carter, R.A. (2010a) The social and environmental context of Neolithic seafaring in the Persian Gulf. In: Andersen, A. and Boyle,K. (eds.) The global origins and development of seafaring, Cambridge, pp. 191–202.

Carter, R.A. (2010b) Boat-Related Finds. In: Carter, R. and Crawford, H. (eds.) Maritime Interactions in the Arabian Neolithic: Evidence from H3, As-Sabiyah, an Ubaid-related site in Kuwait (American School of Prehistoric Research Monograph Series). Leiden and Boston, Brill, pp. 89-104.

Carter, R.A. (2010c) Stratigraphy and Architecture. In: Carter, R. and Crawford, H. (eds.) Maritime Interactions in the Arabian Neolithic: Evidence from H3, As-Sabiyah, an Ubaid- related site in Kuwait (American School of Prehistoric Research Monograph Series). Leiden and Boston, Brill, pp. 9-32.

Carter, R.A. (2010d) Pottery from H3. In: Carter, R. and Crawford, H. (eds.) Maritime Interactions in the Arabian Neolithic: Evidence from H3, As-Sabiyah, an Ubaid-related site in Kuwait (American School of Prehistoric Research Monograph Series). Leiden and Boston, Brill, pp. 33-66.

Carter, R.A. (2012) Watercraft. In: Potts, D. (ed.) (2012) A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, First Edition. Blackwell Publishing, pp. 347-372.

Carter, R.A. (2018) Globalising Interactions in the Arabian Neolithic and the ‘Ubaid. In: Boivin, N. and Frachetti, M. D. (eds) Globalization in Prehistory: Contact, Exchange, and the 'People Without History'. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43–79.

Carter, R.A. Challis, K. Priestman, S.M.N. and Tofighiam, H. (2006) The Bushehr Hinterland: results of the first season of the Iranian-British Archaeological Survey of Bushehr Province, November-December 2004. Iran, 44, 63-103.

Carter, R.A. and Crawford, H. (eds.) (2010a) Maritime Interactions in the Arabian Neolithic: Evidence from H3, As-Sabiyah, an Ubaid-related site in Kuwait. American School of Prehistoric Research Monograph Series. Leiden and Boston, Brill.

Carter, R.A. and Crawford, H. (2010b) Conclusions. In: Carter, R. and Crawford, H. (eds.) Maritime Interactions in the Arabian Neolithic: Evidence from H3, As-Sabiyah, an Ubaid- related site in Kuwait (American School of Prehistoric Research Monograph Series). Leiden and Boston, Brill, pp. 203-212.

Carter, R.A. and Philip, G. (eds.) (2010) Beyond the Ubaid. Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilisation). Chicago, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

54

Charpentier, V. Brunet, O. Méry, S. and Velde, C. (2017) Carnelian, Agate, and Other Types of Chalcedony: the Prehistory of Jebel Al-Ma'Taradh and Its Semi-Precious Stones, Emirate of Ra's Al-Khaimah. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 28 (2), 175–189.

Charpentier, V. Phillips, C.S. and Méry, S.(2012) Pearl fishing in the ancient world: 7500 BP. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 23, 1–6.

Chaverdi, A.A. Petrie, C.A. and Taylor, H. (2008) Early villages on the Persian Gulf littoral: Revisiting Tol-e Pir and the Galehdar Valley. Iran, 46, pp. 21-42.

Cleuziou, S. and Tosi, M. (1994) Black Boats of Magan – Some thoughts on Bronze Age water transport in Oman and beyond from the impressed bitumen slabs of Ra’s al-Junayz. In: Parpola A. and Koskikalio K. (eds.) South Asian Archaeology, 2, 745–761.

Cleuziou, S. and Tosi M. (eds.) (2007) In the Shadow of the Ancestors: The Prehistoric Foundations of the Early Arabian Civilization of Oman. Muscat, Ministry of Heritage and Culture.

Connan, J. (2010) Appendix II: Technical Report on the Comparative, Compositional, and Isotopic Analyses of the H3 Bitumen. In Carter, R. & Crawford, H. (eds.) Maritime Interactions in the Arabian Neolithic: Evidence from H3, As-Sabiyah, an Ubaid-related site in Kuwait (American School of Prehistoric Research Monograph Series).. Leiden and Boston, Brill, pp. 261–287.

Connan, J. and van de Velde, T. (2010) An overview of bitumen trade in the Near East from the Neolithic (c.8000 BC) to the early Islamic period. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 21, 1– 19.

Connan, J. Carter, R.A. Crawford, H. Tobey, M. Charrie-Duhaut, A. Jarvie, D. Albrecht, P. and Norman K.K.(2005) A comparative geochemical study of bituminous boat remains from H3, As- Sabiyah (Kuwait), and RJ-2, Ra’s al-Jinz (Oman). Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 15, 21– 66.

Crawford, H. and Carter, R.A. (2010) Small Finds. In: Carter, R. & Crawford, H. (eds.) Maritime Interactions in the Arabian Neolithic: Evidence from H3, As-Sabiyah, an Ubaid-related site in Kuwait. American School of Prehistoric Research Monograph Series. Leiden and Boston, Brill, pp.67-87.

Cuttler, R. and Al-Naimi, F.A. (2013) From Land-locked Desert to Maritime Nation: Landscape Evolution and Taphonomic Pathways in Qatar from 14,000 BP. Adumatu: A Semi -Annual Archaeological Refereed Journal on the Arab World, 23, 7-22.

De Cardi B. (1986) Some aspects of Neolithic settlement in Bahrain and adjacent regions. In: Al- Khalifa, S.H.A. and Rice, M. (eds.) Bahrain through the Ages: The Archaeology. London, New

55

York, Sydney, Henley, Kegan Paul International, pp. 87-93.

Dingwall, L. (2014) Marine Remote Sensing and Seabed Characterisation Techniques for Investigating Submerged Landscapes off the Northwest Coast of Qatar. MA thesis, University of Birmingham .

Dombrowski, G. (1984) Boats from West Asia. [Boote aus Westasien]. In: Koch, G. (ed.) Boats from all over the world. [Boote aus aller Welt] Berlin, Frölich and Kaufmann, pp. 95-115.

Drechsler, P. (ed.) (2018a) Dosariyah, Reinvestigating of a Neolithic coastal community in eastern Arabia. Oxford, Archeopress.

Drechsler, P. (2018b) The Site and Its Context. In: Drechsler, P. (ed.) Dosariyah, Reinvestigating of a Neolithic coastal community in eastern Arabia. Oxford, Archeopress, pp. 1-20.

Drechsler, P. (2018c) Bitumen Objects. In: Drechsler, P. (ed.) Dosariyah, Reinvestigating of a Neolithic coastal community in eastern Arabia. Oxford, Archeopress, pp. 332-341.

Drechsler, P. (2018d) Conclusions. In: Drechsler, P. (ed.) Dosariyah, Reinvestigating of a Neolithic coastal community in eastern Arabia. Oxford, Archeopress, pp. 462-470.

Drechsler, P. (2018e) Personal Adornment. In: Drechsler, P. (ed.) Dosariyah, Reinvestigating of a Neolithic coastal community in eastern Arabia. Oxford, Archeopress, pp. 319-331.

Drechsler, P. Berthold, C. and Kainert, C. (2018) Hematite Objects and the Use of Red Pigments. In: Drechsler, P. (ed.) Dosariyah, Reinvestigating of a Neolithic coastal community in eastern Arabia. Oxford, Archeopress, pp.302-309.

Engel, M. Matter, A. Parker, A.G. Parton, A. Petraglia, M.D. Preston, G.W. and Prausser, F. (2016) Lakes or wetlands? A comment on 'The middle Holocene climatic records from Arabia: Reassessing lacustrine environments, shift of ITCZ in Arabian Sea, and impacts of the southwest Indian and African monsoons. Global and Planetary Change, 148, 258-267.

Enzel, Y. Kushnir, Y. and Quade, J. (2015) The middle Holocene climatic records from Arabia: Reassessing lacustrine environments, shift of ITCZ in Arabian Sea, and impacts of the southwest Indian and African monsoons. Global and Planetary Change, 129, 69-91.

Gebel, Hans Georg. Chairman I of ex-oriente at Free University, Berlin (Personal communication, 30th March 2019).

Graham, E. (2018) Persian Gulf. [Online] Available from: https://www.britannica.com/place/Persian-Gulf [Accessed 10th March 2019].

56

Holtzman, B. (2016) More Old Quffa Photos. [Online] Available from: http://indigenousboats.blogspot.com/2016/05/more-old-quffa-photos.html [Accessed 10th April 2019]

Holtzman, B. (2017) Bundle Boats in Oman and Elsewhere. [Online] Available from: http://indigenousboats.blogspot.com/2017/03/bundle-boats-in-oman-and-elsewhere.html [Accessed 18th December 2018]

Holtzman, B. (2018) The Boats of Iraq’s Madam. [Online] Available from: http://indigenousboats.blogspot.com/search/label/reed%20boat [Accessed 15th April 2019]

Hout, J. L. (1989) ‘Ubaidian villages of lower Mesopotamia. Permanence and evolution from ‘Ubaid 0 to ‘Ubaid 4, as seen from Tell el’Oueli. In: Henrickson, E.F. and Thuesen, I. (eds.) Upon This Foundation - The ‘Ubaid Reconsidered. Copenhagen, Museum Tusculanum Press., pp. 19-42.

Hussain, S.T. and Levenson, F. (2018) Defining the Archeological Setting: the Dosariyah Survey. In: Drechsler, P. (ed.) Dosariyah, Reinvestigating of a Neolithic coastal community in eastern Arabia. Oxford, Archeopress, pp. 56-133.

Hýža, M. (2016) Expedice Monoxylon 1995. [Online] Available from: http://www.historiedobrodruzstvi.cz/reportaze/expedice-monoxylon-1995/ [Accessed 17th April 2019]

Johnstone, P. (1980) The sea-craft of pre-history. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Kainert, C. (2018) Fired Clay Objects. In: Drechsler, P. (ed.) Dosariyah, Reinvestigating of a Neolithic coastal community in eastern Arabia. Oxford, Archeopress publishing, pp.219-226.

Kiesewetter, H. Uerpmann, H.P. and Jasim S.A. (2000) Neolithic jewellery from Jebel-al Buhais 18. Proceedings for the Seminar of Arabian Studies, 30, 137– 146.

Lüning, S. and Vahrenholt, F. (2019) Holocene Climate Development of North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. In: Bendaoud, A. Hamimi, Z. Hamoudi, M. Djemai, S. and Zoheir, B. (eds.) The Geology of the Arab World---An Overview. Cham, Springer.

Magee, P. (2014) The Archaeology of prehistoric Arabia. Adaptation and Social Formation from the Neolithic to the Iron Age (Cambridge World Archaeology 32). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Mäkelä, T. T. (2002) Ships and Shipbuilding in Mesopotamia. MA Thesis, Texas.

57

Mashkour, M. (2009) Faunal Remains from Tol-e Nurabad and Tol-e Spid. In: Potts, D.T. Roustaei, K. Petrie, C.A. and Weeks, L. R. (eds.) The Mamasani Archaeological Project Stage One: A report on the first two seasons of the ICAR - University of Sydney Expedition to the Mamasani District, Fars Province, Iran. 2nd Edition. Oxford, Archeopress, pp. 135-146.

Masry, A.H. (1997) Prehistory in Northeastern Arabia: The Problem of Interregional Interaction. London and New York, Kegan Paul International.

McClure, H.A.and Al-Shaikh, N.Y. (1993) Palaeogeography of an ‘Ubaid archaeological site, Saudi Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 4 (2), 107–125.

McGrail, S. (2015) Early ships and seafaring. Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Archaeology.

Mutin, B. (2012) Cultural Dynamics in Southern Middle-Asia in the fifth and fourth millennia BC: A reconstruction based on ceramic traditions. Paléorient, Prehistory of Textiles in the Near East [Préhistoire des Textiles au Proche-Orient], [Online] 38 (1/2), 159-184 Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43264570 [Accessed 6th December 2018].

Oates, J. (1983) 'Ubaid Mesopotamia reconsidered. In: Young, T.C. Smith, P.E.L. and Mortenson, P. (eds.) The Hilly Flanks: Essays on the Prehistory of Southwestern Asia Presented to Robert Braidwood, November 15th, 1982. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilisation 36, Chicago, University of Chicago press, pp. 251-81.

Oates, J. (2010) More Thoughts on the Ubaid Period. In: Carter, R.A. and Philip, G. (eds.) Beyond the Ubaid. Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilisation). Chicago, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, pp.45-50.

Oates, J. Davidson, T.E. Kamili, D. and McKerrell, H. (1977) Seafaring Merchants of Ur?. Antiquity, 51, 221–234.

Parker, A.G. (2010) Paleoenvironmental Evidence from H3, Kuwait. In: In: Carter, R. and Crawford, H. (eds.) Maritime Interactions in the Arabian Neolithic: Evidence from H3, As- Sabiyah, an Ubaid-related site in Kuwait. American School of Prehistoric Research Monograph Series. Leiden and Boston, Brill, pp.189-202.

Piesenger, C.M. (1983) Legacy of Dilmun - the roots of ancient maritime trade in Eastern Coastal Arabia in the 4th/3rd millennium BC. PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin. Michigan.

Pollock,S. (2017) The Chalcolithic in the Near East: Mesopotamia and the Levant. Presented at Masaryk University. Brno.

58

Potts, D. (1998) Maritime Beginnings. In: Hellyer, P. Waves of time: the maritime history of the United Arab Emirates. London, Trident Press, pp.8-43.

Pournelle, J.R. (2003a) The Littoral Foundations of the Uruk State. In: Gheorghiou, D. (ed.) Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Hydrostrategies (BAR International Series 1123). Oxford, Archeopress, pp. 5-23.

Pournelle, J.R. (2003b) Marshland of Cities: Deltaic Landscapes and the Evolution of Mesopotamian Civilisation. PhD thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of California, San Diego.

Prosecký, J. Heller, J. Hruška, B. Charvát, P. Nováková, N. Pečírková, J. Pecha, L. Sadek, V. Souček, V. and Součková, J. (1999) Encyclopedia of the Ancient Near East. [Encyklopedie starověkého Předního východu] Prague, Libri.

Pydyn, A. (2015) Argonauts of the stone Age: Early maritime activity from the first migrations from Africa to the end of the Neolithic. Oxford, Archeopress.

Qualls, C. (1981) Boats of Mesopotamia before 2000 B.C. PhD Thesis, Columbia University.

Roaf, M. (1990) Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. New York, Fact on File.

Rose, J. (2010) New Light on Human Prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf Oasis. Current Anthropology, 51 (6), 849–883.

Smogorzewska, A. (2016) Local and imported pottery in the Neolithic Gulf: A new perspective from the site of Bahra 1 in Kuwait. Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean, 25, 595-617.

Stein, G. (2010) Tell Zeidan. In: Stein, G. (ed.) 2010-2011 annual report. Chicago, IL, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, pp.121-138.

Uerpmann, M. & Uerpmann, H.P. (1996) ‘Ubaid pottery in the eastern Gulf – new evidence from Umm al-Qaiwain (U.A.E.). Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, 7, 125–139.

Van de Velde, T. (2018) Chemical Composition of Bitumen. In: Drechsler, P. (ed.) Dosariyah, Reinvestigating of a Neolithic coastal community in eastern Arabia. Oxford, Archeopress, pp.342-349.

Vosmer T. (2000) The naval architecture of early Bronze Age reed-built boats of the Arabian Sea. In: Potts, D. Al-Naboodah, H. and Hellyer, P. (eds.) Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates. Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Archaeology of the U.A.E. London, Trident, pp.152-7.

59

Vosmer, T. (2007) Early Bronze Age navigation and trade routes. In: Cleuziou, S. and Tosi M. (eds.) In the Shadow of the Ancestors: The Prehistoric Foundations of the Early Arabian Civilization of Oman. Muscat, Ministry of Heritage and Culture, pp.207-209.

Weeks, L. Petrie, C.A. and Potts, D. (2010) Ubaid-related-related? The “Black-on-Buff” ceramic traditions of highland southwest Iran. In: Carter, R.A. and Philip, G. (eds.) Beyond the Ubaid. Transformation and Integration in the Late Prehistoric Societies of the Middle East (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilisation). Chicago, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, pp.245-276.

Weisberger, G. (2007) Copper from Oman for Mesopotamian Cities. In: Cleuziou, S. and Tosi M. (eds.) In the Shadow of the Ancestors: The Prehistoric Foundations of the Early Arabian Civilization of Oman. Muscat, Ministry of Heritage and Culture, pp.195-196.

WeatherOnline (2010) Quas (Kaus, Cowshee). [Online] Available from: https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/wind/The-Quas.htm [Accessed 21th February 2019].

Wilding, Maximilian. Assistent professor at MU Brno (Personal communication, 11th March 2019).

LIST OF FIGURES Fig.1. Map of the Arabo-persian Gulf (modified Google Earth) Fig.2. Shoreline of the Arabo-Persian Gulf during the second half of sixth millennium. Reconstructed by Pournelle Fig.3. The map showing the proposed Holocene IOM maximum and direction of Mediterranean winter cyclonic rainfall Fig.4. Location of the Ubaid sites of southern Mesopotamia mentioned in the text Fig.5. Ubaid pottery from Ur. a)pinch vessel, b)footed bowl, c)spouted jar Fig.6. Iranian coastal sites and sites related to the chapter Fig.7. The sites of the Arabian littoral and Ubaid-related sites mentioned in the thesis Fig.8. Ubaid pottery from the Gulf: a) jar from H3 b) rectangular basin from Bahra 1 Fig.9. Location of sites related to bitumen, mentioned in the text Fig.10. The demonstration of shell jewelry from H3 Fig.11. The sites with attested date remains Fig.12. Fragment of copper artefact from Bahra 1 60

Fig.13. The sites with reported semi-precious stones mentioned in the text Fig.14. Location of the sites related to the text Fig.15. Fragment of bitumen from H3 with reed impression (1) and barnacles on opposite side (2) Fig.16. a) boat model with curved end from Al-Ubaid b) reed-bundle boat used in marshes in Iraq Fig.17. Boat model from H3 interpreted as reed-bundle boat, made of Coarse Ware Fig.18. a) zaima b) quffa. These indigenous boats were still used in Iraqi marshland even in early 20th century Fig.19. A kelek - buyonded raft. The depiction from the Palace of Sennacherib of c. 700 BC Fig.20. Fire and stone tools were used in construction of dugout boats. The images come from the experiment conducted by Czech team within The Monoxylon I Expedition Fig.21. Bitumen slab from Ras al-Jinz represents a coating of sewn wooden boat Fig.22. a) painted ceramic disk with depiction of boat with two-footed mast from H3 b) boat model from Eridu with a base for socket mast Fig.23.The partial bitumen layer on the interior surface of Ubaid pottery sherd Fig.24. The drawing of boat model fragment from Dosariyah Fig.25. A shasha is traditional Omani bundle boat made of palm fronds Fig.26. Iranian pot found at RH-5. The vessel was used to cook bitumen

61