Interpreting archaeological fish remains.

Erlandson, Jon M.

In an important paper, O'Connor et al. (2011) described evidence for marine fishing from around 42 000-year-old (cal BP) deposits at Jerimalai Shelter on Timor-Leste. The paper's title referred to evidence for pelagic fishing and the maritime skills of anatomically modern humans (AMH). Considering that not long ago human seafaring and marine fishing were considered to be limited to the terminal Pleistocene or early Holocene (see Erlandson 2001), the paper's broader significance lies in the further evidence for Pleistocene voyaging required to colonise Timor-Leste and the quantities of fish bone that represent a substantial marine fishing effort at a relatively early date.

In his essay, Atholl Anderson (above) questions the pelagic nature of early fishing at Jetimalai, raising objections that suggest that these early fishers focused on nearshore rather than pelagic habitats. I will leave specific responses to Anderson's questions about the Jerimalai assemblage to O'Connor and her colleagues. Here, I discuss some broader issues raised about the antiquity of fishing, including some of my own experience regarding the antiquity of pelagic fishing and the interpretation of archaeological fish remains.

Years ago, I travelled to Gibraltar to examine stratigraphic sections and museum collections from Gorham's Cave, where a deep sequence of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic strata was excavated by Waechter between 1948 and 1954. Waechter's (1951, 1964) publications suggested that shellfish were regularly harvested by Neanderthals and Upper Palaeolithic peoples, a rare case of Pleistocene marine resource use at the time. In examining the Gibraltar Museum collections, I was surprised to open a box full of large Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) vertebrae that were not mentioned in the excavation reports. The bones from as many as five bluefin tuna had come from Waechter's Upper Palaeolithic strata D and E. From the latter, we obtained an AMS [sup.14]C date of 27 800 [+ or -] 350 uncal BP for a charred pine cone fragment, with a calibrated age range of c. 32 940 to 31 340 cal BP (Erlandson & Moss 2001). Understanding that bluefin tuna were pelagic, I concluded that Upper Palaeolithic peoples at Gibraltar engaged in pelagic fishing--which may or may not have been the case. What I didn't realise then was that even large pelagic fish can often be found close to shore--or scavenged along the shore--especially in areas such as Gibraltar where bathymetry is steep and submarine canyons or narrow straits can funnel pelagic fish into inshore waters. I later heard from a cultural anthropologist that local people sometimes simply opened a swinging gate and let bluefin tuna swim into a large corral where they were slaughtered. At times along the California coast, normally-pelagic species such as yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), which Anderson defines as 'oceanic', can also be caught close to shore in shallow waters. The problem is that fish are mobile and don't always follow the behavioural norms described in textbooks or nature guides.

These experiences leave me quite sympathetic to Anderson's cautions about interpreting the fish remains from Jerimalai as coming from pelagic versus nearshore habitats. Commendably, Anderson clearly defines most of the terms he uses, but terms such as 'pelagic' or 'systematic' are inevitably somewhat arbitrarily defined and fuzzy when addressed with archaeological data. He is explicit in defining inshore (coastal) versus offshore (pelagic) fishing zones, based on a water depth of 200m, a definition that works for Jerimalai with its steep bathymetry. I would hesitate to use such a definition globally, however, as it would require 'pelagic' fishers to venture hundreds of kilometres offshore in areas with broad continental shelves. In his conclusions, Anderson also uses the phrase 'advanced boating technology' without explicit definition. Clearly, 'advanced' is a relative term and some advance occurred between 800 000 years ago when Homo erectus may have crossed a few short straits to reach Flores, and c. 50 000 to 15 000 years ago when AMH made multiple voyages from Sunda to Sahul, the Bismarck Archipelago, the Ryukyu Islands and beyond (Erlandson 2010).

Ultimately, Anderson may be correct that most of the fish from the Pleistocene strata at Jerimalai come from nearshore habitats. In the broader scheme of things, I remain deeply impressed by O'Connor and colleagues' continuing documentation of Pleistocene colonisation and marine resource use in the islands of Wallacea. At Jerimalai and a growing number of sites worldwide, it is becoming cleat--despite the difficulties caused by rising post-glacial seas--that marine and aquatic resources were considerably more important to AMH and other hominins in the deep past.

References

ERLANDSON, J.M. 2001. The archaeology of aquatic adaptations: paradigms for a new millennium. journal of Archaeological Research 9: 287-350.

--2010. Food for thought: the role of coastlines and aquatic resources in human evolution, in S. Cunnane & K. Stewart (ed.) Environmental influences on human brain evolution: 125-36. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley & Sons.

ERLANDSON, J.M. & M.L. MOSS. 2001. Shellfish eaters, carrion feeders, and the archaeology of aquatic adaptations. American Antiquity66: 413-32.

O'CONNOR, S., R. ONO, & C. CLARKSON. 2011. Pelagic fishing at 42,000 years before the present and the maritime skills of modern humans. Science 334: 1117-21.

WAECHTER, J. 1951. Excavations at Gorham's Cave, Gibraltar: preliminary report for the seasons 1948 and 1950. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 17(3): 83-92.

--1964. The excavation of Gorham's Cave, Gibraltar, 1951-54. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 4: 189-213.

Jon M. Erlandson, Museum of Natural & Cultural History, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1224, USA