07-04-2008, 07:41 AM
I think you are reading a bit too much into this article, EG. First and foremost, the fact that spritsails (or rather one version of them), the earliest fore-and-aft sails and lateens existed long before the arabs took to sailing the mediterranean has been fairly well established (by those in the know) for almost half a century now - look at the references to Casson's earlier articles, for example.
What is most important about this article is that it clears up a few old maritime superstitions - the idea of the lateen sail as an all-or-nothing superior sail to the square sail (and rather argues the point that the different sail forms each have their different uses) and that it directly attacks, quite successfully, the idea that the indian ocean sailors were the ones who built the arab fleets in the 7th century (which is the purpose of the extended discussion of indian ocean and pasific sails in the article). It tries to add the continuity to mediteranean maritime history from ancient to medieval to early modern times that we see more and more of in the history of technology and crafts.
Considering that, as Campbell points out, merchant vessels appears to have stuck to square sails (seeing as they were quite satisfactory to their needs and in many ways superior to other sail forms), that's not necessary.
What is most important about this article is that it clears up a few old maritime superstitions - the idea of the lateen sail as an all-or-nothing superior sail to the square sail (and rather argues the point that the different sail forms each have their different uses) and that it directly attacks, quite successfully, the idea that the indian ocean sailors were the ones who built the arab fleets in the 7th century (which is the purpose of the extended discussion of indian ocean and pasific sails in the article). It tries to add the continuity to mediteranean maritime history from ancient to medieval to early modern times that we see more and more of in the history of technology and crafts.
Quote:WOW!! If that is correct, we must rethink Late Ancient economic history. The number of wrecks is usually taken as an indication of the trade volume, under the condition that (a) trade routes did not change (e.g., from a well-researched area to an unresearched area) and (b) naval technique did not change. If, indeed, in the second-fourth centuries the lateen sail was introduced, we may have an alternative explanation for the decline of the number of wrecks in that period: it was the introduction of the lateen sail, and not a decline of the trade volume.
Considering that, as Campbell points out, merchant vessels appears to have stuck to square sails (seeing as they were quite satisfactory to their needs and in many ways superior to other sail forms), that's not necessary.
