DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49270#0339
252
0. Bates
“The. . ./gawaby’ is cone-shaped and made of the dried stalks of reeds lashed
together. ... It has two openings so arranged that when the fish pass through the smaller
one they are unable to find their way out again. At the other end the reeds are fastened
together by a cord, which can be easily undone and the catch shaken out. A loose barrier
is built across the stream so as to allow the water to pass down, but to check the passage
of the fish up-stream. The traps are placed in openings in this barrier, and the fish coming
up-stream to meet the fresh water force their way through the openings into the traps” 193
(fig. 134).
To Loat, also, I am indebted for the description of the Shilluk trap given in fig. 136.
This trap, used on the White Nile, is of the same conical form as that j ust mentioned, but
its likeness to the ancient weels is even a little closer in that it is strengthened at regular
intervals by transverse lashings. I again quote the same careful observer:—
“The only other method of fishing [soil, beside harpooning] which I saw on the White
Nile was making a dam across the mouth of a kore [khfrr = ravine], when the Nile is going
down and the water is running out of the kores and the big fish are making for the river,
as the kores become shallow and isolated from the main stream, many even drying up.
In this dam traps are set, made of dried reeds, about 7 ft. [ca. 2m. 15] long and the
diameter of opening 2 ft. [60 cm.]. Inside is a much smaller opening so that fish
passing in are unable to return”194. . . . (fig. 135).
When dealing with such a primitive and widely used device as the weel, it is rare
that even the most detailed examination of actual specimens affords the ethnologist any
sound evidence of racial contacts or of primitive cultural origins. The weel, indeed,
is to be classed among those inventions of which the absence is generally of more signifi-
cance than the occurrence, but, without venturing too far, some points of interest may be
here noted by way of conclusion. The wide spread use of fish pots by the lake and river
peoples of Africa I have already referred to:195 they are also employed for salt water fishing.
193 Loat, op, cit., p. xxxvii.
194 Ibid., p. xlvii. Cf. the size of these traps and of those used by the Manyuema (supra, n. 176) and by the
Bushmen (G. W. Stow, The native races of South Africa, London, 1910, p. 92 sq.) with the size of the ancient Egyp-
tian weel as here estimated in the text.
196 Supra, n. 186. To the citation there given from Cameron, and to the others in notes 187, 192, 194, may be
added these random references: H. Capello and R. Ivens, From Benguella to the territory of Yacca, trans. A. Elwes,
London, 1882, vol. 1, p. 154, 300 sq., for S. W. Africa; J. K. Tuckey, Narrative of an expedition to explore the river
Zaire, etc., London, 1818, p. 359, and Sir H. [H.] Johnston, George Grenfell and the Congo, London, 1908, vol. 2, p.
782-785, for the Congo; A. H. W. Haywood, Through Timbuctu and across the Great Sahara, London, 1912, p. 105,
186, for Nigeria; R. F. Burton, The Lake Regions of Central Africa, New York, 1860, p. 322; Sir H. H. Johnston,
British Central Africa, London, 1897, p. 436; Idem, The Uganda Protectorate, London, 1902, vol. 2, p. 668; A. L.
Hitching, op. cit., p. 119, 213 for E. Lake Kioga. Clay fish pots, perhaps derived from wicker prototypes, were
formerly used in W. Africa, at Badagry; R. and J. Lander, Journal of an expedition to explore the course and termi-
nation of the Niger, London, 1832, vol. 1, p. 45.
0. Bates
“The. . ./gawaby’ is cone-shaped and made of the dried stalks of reeds lashed
together. ... It has two openings so arranged that when the fish pass through the smaller
one they are unable to find their way out again. At the other end the reeds are fastened
together by a cord, which can be easily undone and the catch shaken out. A loose barrier
is built across the stream so as to allow the water to pass down, but to check the passage
of the fish up-stream. The traps are placed in openings in this barrier, and the fish coming
up-stream to meet the fresh water force their way through the openings into the traps” 193
(fig. 134).
To Loat, also, I am indebted for the description of the Shilluk trap given in fig. 136.
This trap, used on the White Nile, is of the same conical form as that j ust mentioned, but
its likeness to the ancient weels is even a little closer in that it is strengthened at regular
intervals by transverse lashings. I again quote the same careful observer:—
“The only other method of fishing [soil, beside harpooning] which I saw on the White
Nile was making a dam across the mouth of a kore [khfrr = ravine], when the Nile is going
down and the water is running out of the kores and the big fish are making for the river,
as the kores become shallow and isolated from the main stream, many even drying up.
In this dam traps are set, made of dried reeds, about 7 ft. [ca. 2m. 15] long and the
diameter of opening 2 ft. [60 cm.]. Inside is a much smaller opening so that fish
passing in are unable to return”194. . . . (fig. 135).
When dealing with such a primitive and widely used device as the weel, it is rare
that even the most detailed examination of actual specimens affords the ethnologist any
sound evidence of racial contacts or of primitive cultural origins. The weel, indeed,
is to be classed among those inventions of which the absence is generally of more signifi-
cance than the occurrence, but, without venturing too far, some points of interest may be
here noted by way of conclusion. The wide spread use of fish pots by the lake and river
peoples of Africa I have already referred to:195 they are also employed for salt water fishing.
193 Loat, op, cit., p. xxxvii.
194 Ibid., p. xlvii. Cf. the size of these traps and of those used by the Manyuema (supra, n. 176) and by the
Bushmen (G. W. Stow, The native races of South Africa, London, 1910, p. 92 sq.) with the size of the ancient Egyp-
tian weel as here estimated in the text.
196 Supra, n. 186. To the citation there given from Cameron, and to the others in notes 187, 192, 194, may be
added these random references: H. Capello and R. Ivens, From Benguella to the territory of Yacca, trans. A. Elwes,
London, 1882, vol. 1, p. 154, 300 sq., for S. W. Africa; J. K. Tuckey, Narrative of an expedition to explore the river
Zaire, etc., London, 1818, p. 359, and Sir H. [H.] Johnston, George Grenfell and the Congo, London, 1908, vol. 2, p.
782-785, for the Congo; A. H. W. Haywood, Through Timbuctu and across the Great Sahara, London, 1912, p. 105,
186, for Nigeria; R. F. Burton, The Lake Regions of Central Africa, New York, 1860, p. 322; Sir H. H. Johnston,
British Central Africa, London, 1897, p. 436; Idem, The Uganda Protectorate, London, 1902, vol. 2, p. 668; A. L.
Hitching, op. cit., p. 119, 213 for E. Lake Kioga. Clay fish pots, perhaps derived from wicker prototypes, were
formerly used in W. Africa, at Badagry; R. and J. Lander, Journal of an expedition to explore the course and termi-
nation of the Niger, London, 1832, vol. 1, p. 45.