The Ubaid pottery, found at H3 in Kuwait is sequenced to Ubaid 2 and Ubaid 3; there is also evidence for a local pottery similar in colour to Ubaid pottery, but made with non-Mesopotamian clays. This pottery perhaps came from Central Arabia because similar pottery was found in many sites in Central Arabia, for example at al-Dusariya (Carter and Crawford 2002, 7). Masry (1997) and Piesinger (1983) have suggested that populations from Mesopotamia and the central Gulf had a common ethnic origin. Masry (1997) proposed that Ubaid pottery, which has been found along the Eastern Arabian Peninsula, moved as a consequence of the cyclical migration of some part of the population. Piesinger (1983) argued for an economic hypothesis; she stated that an ethnically continuous population developed and adapted animal husbandry, riverine and marine fishing, whilst settling down to cultivate both regions. Carter (2002) suggested that both opinions were incorrect because the new archaeological operation in the south of Mesopotamia at ‘Awailī illustrates a pottery culture dated to Ubaid 0, and therefore ancestral to all the Ubaid phases.
Uerpmann and Uerpmann (1996) argued against Piesinger’s (1983) hypothesis, stating that agriculture already existed in southern Mesopotamia and that Arabian Peninsula life still depended on herding. Ubaid pottery may have moved because of exchange in the Arabian Gulf (e.g. 80 % of H3 pottery was imported from Mesopotamia and maybe exchanged with beads), or by festival exchange in public events as gifts. The ceremonies that pottery was used in were possibly akin to
celebrations, where objects were transferred by presentation or gift exchange. This could be in such cases as, exchange with neighbouring or visiting groups, marriage and (re)negotiation (Carter and Crawford 2010, 67). In another context, Gamble (1999) stated that Venus figurines were made to be exchanged with other people to assist communication when languages were different, to aid and facilitate marriage arrangements and to help transfer information about good hunting grounds, places of resource or shelter in Upper Paleolithic environments. Here, I think both Carter and Crawford (2010) and Gamble (1999) concentrate on the social network and activity. The distribution of Ubaid pottery could therefore have facilitated a wider social information network. The information may have been functionally motivated, such as the best ways to make a well, build a temple, boat or repair a broken pot; or it may have been more abstract, such as belief system narratives or fables.
Potts (2003a) reported that through Hoogerwoerd’s description (he was General Dutch Consulate in Bushire in 1886), we have a probable reason why Ubaid pottery spread out to the south towards the Ras al-Khaimah Emirate. He gives an example of the Oman coastal society or as he calls them, the Real Bedouin Sea. Their community consists of several ethnicities, Arabs, Baluch, Mehri and some of the Hadramout people. These people were mobile, seasonally wandering from place to place, spending at least three months each year on the Baluchistan Coast. They salted and dried their fish before their return to Oman to sell parts of them. In the time of Hajj (pilgrimage season) they sailed to the Jeddah and Hijaz coasts to sell their fish there. It is possible to imagine that the fishermen of southern Mesopotamia (Ubaid people) were working in the opposite part of the Eastern Arabian Peninsula coast where the fish ovulated, and then they stayed for several months to salt and dry their fish. Potts (2003a) suggests this is why perhaps Ubaid pottery is found in the Eastern
Arabian Peninsula. In such an interpretation, the movement of pottery is secondary – almost a by-product of other activities such as fishing. Given the ubiquity of Ubaid pottery in Kuwait, Syria and Iran, I think it is unlikely that this explanation sufficiently covers all pottery movements in these regions.
Furthermore, sheep and cattle bones found at H3 may be a residue of the people who worked with herding or husbandry animals. Some gazelle bones were found with cutmarks in the same site suggesting that the people at that time were hunting animals (Beech 2010, 129). Large quantities of fish bones were also found at the site with fishing equipment, such as stone net or line sinkers, circular disks and bone gorges (Carter and Crawford 2001, 4). Cattle bones were discovered, but so far without butchery cutmarks. This is mostly due to the extremely poor preservation of the bone material, or it may suggest that cattle were used more for milk, blood or maybe status or social purpose. For example, Whittle (2003) stated that looking after cattle in the Nuer and Dinka societies from east Africa was predominantly a male activity. Tandury men and women both keep cattle but the main tasks such as getting them to pasture, returning them home to the fold and exchanging them were just for boys and men (see also Parker Pearson 2000, 217-32).
In these societies, social status and prestige are also linked to cattle numbers. Might a similar social framework have existed for the Ubaid? The most common fish bones are shark, catfish, grouper, sea-bream, needlefish and cuttlefish (see Figure 3.24). Most of these fish can be caught in shallow water but cuttlefish can also be caught in deep water (Carter and Crawford 2001, 4-5). This suggests that people were fishing and maybe seafaring. The key question is whether this building was used as a seasonal camp or as permanent settlement. H3 contains a lot of otoliths (ear bone) from sea catfish. Recent investigations by the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research
(KISR) have been conducted to search for the taxonomy and identification of recent sea catfish in the waters of Kuwait to investigate their growth, reproduction and to separate otoliths from both modern and archaeological samples. Six archaeological otoliths samples were prepared. The results suggest that some people from H3 were fishing in the summer (Beech 2010, 151). This might again supports that it was a seasonal camp
Regarding the architecture at H3, Carter (2010, 32) reported that it could represent a link between Ubaid routes in Mesopotamia and Arabia. The structure of H3 is not unparalleled. It is similar to semi-permanent houses of pastoralists whether in northern or southern Arabia. For example, the Shagra site in Qatar is a small cellular structure measuring about 5 x 3m to 2.8 x 1.7m. It is similar to area G at H3. The stones of the wall in H3 are built directly on top of each other. In Shagra architecture walls are created by a vertical slab technique (Carter and Crawford 2003, 81).
Figure.3.24. Photograph showing Fish at H3: 1) sawfish (Pristidae); 2) requiem shark (Carcharhinidae); 3) eagle ray (Myliobatidae); 4) seacatfish (Ariidae); 5) needlefish (Belonidae); 6)Flathead (Platycephalidae); 7) Hind (Serranidae: Cephalopholis sp.) ; 8) Grouper (Serranidae: Epinephelus sp.); 9) Jack (Carangidae: Carangoides sp.), 10) Scad (Carangidae: Decapterus sp.); 11) Golden trevally (Carangidae: Gnathanodon speciosus); 12) Queenfish (Carangidae: Scomberoides sp.); 13) Grunt (Haemulidae: Pomadasys sp.);14) Emperor (Lethrinidae); 15) Seabream (Sparidae: Acanthopagrus sp.); 16) King soldierbream (Sparidae: Argyrops spinifer); 17) Goldstriped/Haffara seabream (Sparidae: Rhabdosargus sp.); 18) tuna (Scombridae – Thunninae); 19) Sole (Soleidae). (Carter and Crawford 2010, 139)
The twentieth century Mehri cattle pastoralist sites discussed by Zarins (1992), especially those in Dhofar, southern Oman and eastern Yemen, are very comparable to the H3 structures in that there are similar sized cells/rooms, in what is described as an organic style (Carter and Crawford 2010, 32), meaning, that there was no predetermined ground-plan, and the building grew and developed over time. This is another reason why houses may have been considered as living entities in their own right (see earlier discussions). Furthermore, there has recently been discovered a new Neolithic site on Marawah Island in Abu Dhabi, which is very similar to the H3 plan.
The site name is MR11 and Ubaid pottery was found (see Figures 3.25 and 3.26). It has at least three rooms with rounded ends (Beech et al. 2008, 32-4).
Figure 3.25. Photograph showing the structure of the Marawah site (Beech 2008, 33).
Figure 3.26. Photograph showing the main trench at the end of the excavations, 2002 (Crawford 2002).
Carter and Crawford (2003) reported that the flints and bitumen found in H3 were brought by some of the H3 people. Perhaps they brought them during their movements through the landscape. They migrated from one region to another, and came back to this area again, and rebuilt this architecture. The Mesopotamian materials or commodities which were found in the site are perhaps the result of gift exchange.
Large quantities of bitumen were found at H3. Most of them have reed impressions on one side and barnacles on the other (see Figure 3.27). It is possible that this bitumen comes from Oman (Carter and Crawford 2002, 9). This bitumen was compared with bitumen slab from the Bronze Age sea-going boats Ras al-Jinz in Oman (Cleuziou and Tosi 2000, 55-70), but this site was dated to the second half of the third millennium BC, some two and half millennium later than H3. From textual sources in Mesopotamia, it is suggested that bitumen was used over reed-bundles in boat construction. It is strongly possible that H3 bitumen quantities are seafaring reed- bundle boat remains. Although Carter and Crawford (2002, 9) suggest this bitumen comes from Oman, it seems more likely that it was sourced locally in Kuwait – possibly the Burgan field due to the ease in which it can be obtained there (see also Chapter 5 here).
Figure 3.27.Bitumen slab has reed impressions and on the other side has barnacles (Carter and Crawford 2003, 45).
A small model boat was found at H3 in the wall of chamber 15 (see Figure 3.28). It is about 14.5cm long, 7cm wide and 5cm high. It is made of a medium- coarse red ceramic, maybe the local coarse red ware. The boat was compared with the finds that have been made in Ubaid in Mesopotamia and the Ubaid site in northeast Syria, named Tell al-Mashnaqa, and it appears to be similar to al-Mashnaqa boat (see Figure 3.29). We do not know what the purpose of this boat was. It has a flat bottom, which might suggest that it was a vessel for water or a children's toy or a votive sign of protection for travellers (Carter 2002, 21).
The question here is why people made miniature things. Cochrane (2007) noted that miniaturisation can involve creating smaller copies of larger objects, be it jewellery, weapons, pottery, beads, figures of animals. These smaller copies were often not just for one purpose as some might suggest. People can be emotionally bonded with objects because humans explore surroundings with all their senses - touch, look, smell, checking texture. They name things, they like certain things or do not - some object recalls memories, places, other times and so on. He stated that some researchers have pointed out that those objects were created to develop certain feelings in other people (e.g. alienation, empowerment, amusement). The emotional states apply to people who created them and to people who interacted with them. It is not just about their material value but about having emotional value for their owners, and because our feelings are unique to each person, experiences and perception of certain things will always be different.
Figure 3.28. Photograph showing H3 boat (Carter and Crawford 2003, 46).
Figure 3.29. Photograph showing Tell al-Mashnaqa boat (Crawford 2002).
Pottery fragments were found during the 2002 excavations, including a drawing of a boat, which appears to have two masts. It is similar to the H3 boat (see Figure 3.30). It is suggested that the two ‘masts’ are in fact a single bipod mast (Carter and Crawford 2003, 46). This prevalent boat manufacture was used for the vessels that have weak frames to support the socket of a single mast (Vosmer 2000, 240).
Figure 3.30. Photograph showing pottery sherd with boat image (Carter and Crawford 2003, 86).