The antiquity of sustained offshore fishing.

Anderson, Atholl

Introduction

Discussion about the level of maritime capability required in Pleistocene voyaging includes an argument that archaeological remains of pelagic fish indicate routine travel offshore, which implies the existence of relatively sophisticated boats. In regard to Wallacea, O'Connell et al. (2010: 60) cite remains of tuna and deep-water shark at Buang Merabak (New Ireland, Papua New Guinea, 35-45 kya), of pelagic fish at Kilu Cave (Buka Island, Papua New Guinea, >30 kya) and of tuna at Jerimalai (Timot-Leste, 42 kya), and conclude that "these data are best read to indicate angling from boats, well offshore". The proposition is plausible but validating it is mote difficult than such assertions suggest. I argue here that the Jerimalai evidence does not identify tuna or sustain a conclusion of systematic offshore fishing, that inshore fishing was more probable, and that the general history of fishing for tuna, the pelagic type nonpareil, does not imply the existence of advanced maritime technology much before the Holocene. As there are ambiguities in defining marine zonation from an archaeological perspective (Pickard & Bonsall 2004), I will use 'inshore' to mean the coastal or neritic zone (shoreline to 200m deep), and 'offshore' to mean the oceanic or pelagic zone beyond 200m deep. Similarly, as 'systematic' implies a degree of planning that is not necessarily inherent in the relative abundance of a captured species, I prefer 'sustained' to describe archaeological data in which a species, or small group of related fish, appears at > 10 per cent amongst fish numbers over a long period.

Jerimalai fish bone

Amongst fish bone from a 1[m.sup.2] excavation at Jerimalai shelter, on the eastern tip of Timor, Scombridae (tunas and mackerels) comprised 34 per cent of MNI in level I (42-38 kya), 26 per cent in level II (17-9 kya), and 17 per cent overall (O'Connor et al. 2011: tab. 3). But was the scombrid bone from tuna?

Scombridae includes 13 Thunnini tuna, 8 Sardini (of which bonito and dogtooth are commonly grouped with tuna), and 28 species of mackerels, including wahoo (Collette & Nauen 1983). With that diversity, a comparative fish bone collection for Jerimalai would have included, ideally, at least the 22 scombrid species found currently in the area (Table 1), especially as the archaeological bone, analysed by Rintaro Ono (pers. comm. 26 September 2012) consisted entirely of vertebrae that were identified mainly by the size and shape of centra. They appeared closer to those from yellowfin and skipjack tuna than to dogtooth tuna or Spanish mackerel, these constituting the only species available for comparison, but not sufficiently for Ono to identify any sub-family, tribe, genus or species of Scombridae.

In other words, no tuna bone was identified from Jerimalai. It is difficult to understand, therefore, how O'Connor et al. (2011: 1117, 1119) could decide to gloss the Jerimalai scombrids exclusively as 'tuna'. In addition, while O'Connor et al. (2011: 1117, tab. 3) locate Scombridae entirely within the 'pelagic' or 'offshore' zone, it is apparent that most scombrids around Timor occur inshore. Oceanic tunas, such as yellowfin, albacore and skipjack, are outnumbered by neritic tunas and mackerels (Table 1). The diversity of neritic scombrids contradicts the assumption in O'Connor et al. (2011) that the Jerimalai scombrids must have been oceanic and caught in the pelagic zone. Therefore, the two core propositions of O'Connor et al. (2011; O'Connor 2007, 2010), that scombrid bone from Jerimalai came only from tuna, and that tuna were caught exclusively offshore, are supported neither by fishbone identification nor by the habitat range of scombrids currently available in the area. Further considerations are possible in assessing the likelihood of offshore versus inshore fishing near Jerimalai.

Fishing offshore

If there was sustained offshore fishing for tuna then several characteristics of the catch might be expected. First, fish that occur frequently in association with scombrids could also be represented, e.g. dolphin fish (Coryphaenidae), billfish (Istiophoridae) and mackerel sharks (Lamnidae) (Gillett 2011). Bone from those families occurs often with tuna bone in archaeological assemblages, sometimes more frequently than tuna, in undoubted offshore fisheries of the late prehistoric western and central Pacific (Kuang-Ti 2001; Amesbury & Hunter-Anderson 2008) and in California (Rick et al. 2008). None are represented at any stage in the Jerimalai data. Of the families that are included amongst 'pelagic' taxa at Jerimalai (O'Connot et al. 2011: tab. 3), the jacks and trevallies (Carangidae) and the requiem sharks (Carcharhinidae) are very speciose and include many which are common inshore, while barracudas (Sphyraenidae) and needlefish (Belonidae) are mainly neritic taxa.

Second, fishing offshore could hardly have avoided catching some of the large individuals characteristic of oceanic scombrids (Table 1). O'Connor (2007: 530, 2010: 50) refers to "jaws and vertebrae from large individuals of pelagic species such as tuna" but, in fact, it seems that no scombrid jaws were identified and that the distinguishing feature of the pelagic fish bones at Jerimalai is their unusually small size, indicative of individuals only 50-60cm in length (O'Connor et al. 2011: 1119). The authors suggest that they might have been immature fish caught in nets such as purse seines and leader nets, but the former have nineteenth-century origins (Morgan & Staples 2006) and the latter, in the tonnare form, developed out of beach seining in the last millennium (Fonteneau 2009). Consistent size selection could imply drift (gill) nets, the history of which is obscure, but they did not occur in the Pacific until the historical era. In any case, nets of most types would not preclude catching the much larger individuals that form the 'common size' (the expected size range, by fork-length, in a catch) of the oceanic scombrids (Table 1).

Third, the eastern tip of Timor-Leste is a hazardous area for unmotorised watercraft, and local fishermen work the inshore waters for scombrid mackerel and trevally, leaving tuna and billfish offshore to recreational fishers in large boats (Lloyd et al. 2008). Powerful tidal rips are overlaid upon a main branch of the Indonesian Throughflow, which moves Pacific water to the Indian Ocean. The strongest mean wind-flow in Timor-Leste also curls around the eastern tip creating heavy seas offshore. At 40 kya, sea level was around 80m lower than today, with Jaco Island joined to the mainland. The eastern strait would have been narrowed to less than half its present width, forcing higher current and surface-wind velocities in which boats would have little manoeuvrability and a strong chance of being carried beyond return. A sustained offshore fishery would have been a very high-risk endeavour. Could scombrid fishing represented in Pleistocene Jerimalai have occurred without boats?

Inshore fishing

A preponderance of small scombrids at Jerimalai suggests that fishing occurred more probably inshore, where at least six neritic species, three tuna and three mackerel, existed in common sizes overlapping with the estimated size range of the Jerimalai specimens (Table 1). The catch could also have included immature scombrids of oceanic taxa chasing baitfish inshore, but equally it could have included large individuals of the small neritic scombrids. On balance it was most likely to have been composed mainly of the neritic mackerels and tuna that overlapped the Jerimalai size range.

There is no clue to catching methods in the material culture at Jerimalai, except for a few pieces of shell bait-hooks after about 20 kya. If the basic coastal structure was much the same at 40 kya as it is now, which is a reasonable assumption on these steep coasts, then it would have alternated headlands dropping almost directly into deep water with stretches of wave-cut intertidal platform, upon which there was either coral reef or beaches of coral sand. These too dropped away steeply into deep water, often <150m from the tideline. Intertidal platforms around the eastern tip of Timor-Leste would have suited the use of fish-traps built from coral slabs and boulders or, on soft shores, of fences constructed from stakes and wattling. These were methods employed widely in the Indo-Pacific (e.g. Pernetta & Hill 1981; Barham 2000).

Simple seines of a traditional Pacific type where foliage is twisted into and suspended from a top rope could have been used on beaches. Seines of this kind were held at short intervals by people, instead of floats, and an apparent wall of turbid water, legs and foliage deterred fish from escaping. Woven seine nets, if available, could have been dragged out by wading, swimming or paddling a small raft. Beach seines are common in tropical regions and often catch scombrids. In Southeast Asia, fence traps catch king mackerel, Indian mackerel and short mackerel, while beach seines catch bullet tuna, frigate tuna, kawakawa, skipjack tuna, Spanish mackerel, Indian mackerel, king mackerel and seerfish (Tietze et al. 2011).

Angling from headlands, or reefs at low tide, is also possible. Shore-based tuna fishing, including for oceanic species, is a modern sport (Hays 2000), and most scombrids take bait readily. It could have been conducted at Jerimalai without hooks by using baited gorges made from bone, bamboo or large fish spines. High ground close to the coast may have facilitated the tracking of scombrid schools and the deployment of fishing gear.

Discussion and conclusions

The very small fish bone sample size from Pleistocene levels at Jerimalai (386 pieces) precludes any more profound conclusion than that it had a high incidence of scombrid vertebrae (63 per cent). Whether this suggests that fishing sought scombrids especially, or only that they were relatively abundant in areas where fishing occurred, is unknown. Systematic targeting cannot be assumed. Strong currents and upwelling probably supported large scombrid populations near Jerimalai at 40 kya, as they do today, and deep water adjacent to the intertidal zone probably facilitated catching of scombrids, including small tunas, by shorebound fishing methods. However, which scombrid species were caught at Jerimalai is unknown. The claim for tuna fishing is without empirical foundation. There is no evidence of a systematic offshore fishery. If there is a lesson to be drawn from the Jerimalai case it is that most fish families referred to casually as 'pelagic' include neritic as well as oceanic species, and establishing the difference securely is often critical to arguments about maritime technology.

When, then, did sustained tuna fishing begin anywhere? It is not evident in the Pleistocene Wallacean evidence, as has just been demonstrated. In European cases, northern bluefin tuna [Thunnus thynnus), at 28 kya in Gorham's Cave, Gibraltar, is doubtfully cultural (Morales-Muniz & Rosello-Izquierdo 2008), and bluefin and little tunny (Euthynnus alleteratus) occur only sparsely in Holocene levels at Cueva de Nerja, Spain (Morales-Muniz & Rosello-Izquierdo 2008). At Franchthi Cave, Greece, however, bluefin appear at the end of the Pleistocene, and sustained fishing for them is apparent by the early-mid Holocene (Stiner & Munro 2011). In the Americas, tuna occur archaeologically at 11 kya in Ecuador, 9 kya in California (Rick et al. 2001: tab. 5), and 7.5 kya in Peru (Bearez 2000), but sustained fishing began in the mid-Holocene for bluefin on the northern Pacific coast (Crockford 1997) and for albacore, skipjack and black skipjack (Euthynnus lineatus) in Mexico (Kennett et al. 2008). In the Californian Channel Islands, occupied since 10 kya, tuna fishing began about 1.5 kya (Rick et al. 2008), and it was similarly late, <2 kya, in the West Indies (Wing & Wing 2001; Steadman & Jones 2006). In the Indo-Pacific, Thunnus sp. and Euthynnus affinis are evident in frequencies of 5-40 per cent at Arabian Gulf sites of the sixth to fourth millennia BC (Beech 2002; Popov et al. 2005). Frequent fishing for Thunnus sp. and Katsuwonus sp. began in Japan by the early Holocene (Habu 2010). In the central Pacific, where colonisation occurred 3 kya, tuna fishing is mostly later than 2 kya, often later than 1 kya (e.g. Ono & Clark 2010). Most data refer only to Scombridae (tuna values unknown) but, of 34 sites (Amesbury & Hunter-Anderson 2008; Ono & Intoh 2011), only five have NISP values greater than 10 per cent.

Incomplete as this survey is, it suggests that while tuna bone can be found in Pleistocene sites, though rarely, sustained fishing did not begin until the Holocene, when bone from other offshore species and direct evidence of complex gear and boats support a conclusion of routine offshore fishing. It is possible that earlier sustained offshore fishing is evident in regard to some other fish species, but the argument cannot be made for tuna. I conclude that there is no evidence yet available to support a hypothesis of sustained pelagic fishing in Wallacea or anywhere else much earlier than the Holocene. On that ground, the argument for advanced boat technology in the Pleistocene fails, as it does on others, not least in the Indo-Pacific (Anderson 2000, 2010) where the level of a seafaring capability sufficient to find Australia from Timor was unable to breach the boundary of Near Oceania for a further 40 000 years.

Acknowledgements

My thanks to Rintaro Ono for information about analysis of the Jerimalai scombrids and to Geoff Clark for comments on a draft.

References

AMESBURY, J.R. & R.L. HUNTER-ANDERSON. 2008. An analysis of archaeological and historical data on fisheries for pelagic species in Guam and the northern Marianas islands. Report for the University of Hawai'i, Guam.

ANDERSON, A. 2000. Slow boats from China: issues in the prehistory of Indo-Pacific seafaring, in S. O'Connor & P. Veth (ed.) East of Wallace's Line: studies of past and present maritime cultures of the Indo-Pacific region: 13-50. Rotterdam: Balkema.

--2010. The origins and development of seafaring: towards a global approach, in A. Anderson, J.H. Barrett & K. Boyle (ed.) The global origins and development of seafaring (McDonald Institute Monographs): 3-16. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archeological Research.

BARHAM, A.J. 2000. Late Holocene maritime societies in the Torres Strait Islands, northern Australia--cultural arrival or cultural emergence?, in S. O'Connor & P. Veth (ed.) East of Wallace's Line: studies of past and present maritime cultures of the Indo-Pacific region: 223-314. Rotterdam: Balkema

BEAREZ, P. 2000. Archaic fishing at Quebrada de los Burros, southern coast of Peru. Reconstruction of fish size by using otoliths. Archaeofauna 9: 29-34.

BEECH, M. 2002. Fishing in the 'Ubaid: a review of fish-bone assemblages from early prehistoric coastal settlements in the Arabian Gulf. Journal of Oman Studies 12: 25-40.

COLLETTE, B.B. & C.E. NAUEN. 1983. Scombrids of the world (FAO species catalogue, volume 2). Rome: FAO.

CROCKFORD, S.J. 1997. Archaeological evidence of large northern bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus, in coastal waters of British Columbia and northern Washington. Fishery Bulletin 95: 11-24.

FONTENEAU, A. 2009. Atlantic bluefin tuna: 100 centuries of fluctuating fisheries. Collected volumes of the Scientific Papers of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 63: 51-68.

GILLETT, R. 2011. By-catch in small scale tuna fisheries, a global study. Rome: FAO.

HABU, J. 2010. Seafaring and the development of cultural complexity in northeast Asia: evidence from the Japanese archipelago, in A. Anderson, J.H. Barrett & K. Boyle (ed.) The global origins and development of seafaring (McDonald Institute Monographs): 159-70. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

HAYS, R. 2000. Fishing overseas (part 2)--from the shore. Available at: http://www.fishing.co.uk/article. php3?id=279 (accessed 19 February 2013).

KENNETT, D.J., B. VOORHIES, T.A. WAKE & N. MARTINEZ. 2008. Long-term effects of human predation on marine ecosystems in Guerrero, Mexico, in T.C. Rick & J.M. Erlandson (ed.) Human impacts on ancient marine ecosystems: 103-24. Berkeley: University of California Press.

KUANG-TI, L. 2001. Prehistoric marine fishing adaptation in southern Taiwan. Journal of East Asian Archaeology 3: 47- 74.

LLOYD, J., C. ERRITY, K. HOWARD, K. DYSART, J. DAMASO, N. DE CARVALHO, C. JESUS, J. MONFEIRO, C. DA CUNHA BARRETO, G. DO SANTOS & R.P. GONCALVES. 2008. The Timor-Leste coastal/marine habitat mapping for tourism and fisheries development project. Project no. 5: fisheries development in the Com-Tutuala-Jaco Island area. Darwin: Charles Darwin University.

MORALES-MUNIZ, A. & E. ROSELLO-IZQUIERDO. 2008. Twenty thousand years of fishing in the Strait: archaeological fish and shellfish assemblages from southern Iberia, in T.C. Rick & J.M. Erlandson (ed.) Human impacts on ancient marine ecosystems: 243-77. Berkeley: University of California Press.

MORGAN, G.R. & D.J. STAPLES. 2006. The history of industrial marine fisheries in Southeast Asia. Bangkok: FAO.

O'CONNELL, J.F., J. ALLEN & K. HAWKES. 2010. Pleistocene Sahul and the origins of seafaring, in A. Anderson, J.H. Barrett & K.V. Boyle (ed.) The global origins and development of seafaring (McDonald Institute Monographs): 57-80. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

O'CONNOR, S. 2007. New evidence from East Timor contributes to our understanding of earliest modern human colonisation of the Sunda shelf. Antiquity 81: 523-35.

--2010. Pleistocene migration and colonization in the Indo-Pacific region, in A. Anderson, J.H. Barrett & K. Boyle (ed.) The global origins and development of seafaring (McDonald Institute Monographs): 41-55. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

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.

ONO, R. & G. CLARK. 2010. A 2500-year record of marine resource use on Ulong Island, Republic of Palau. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 22: 637-54. doi: 10.1002/oa. 1226

ONO, R. & M. INTOH. 2011. Island of pelagic fishermen: temporal changes in prehistoric fishing on Fais, Micronesia. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 6: 255-86.

PERNETTA, J.C. & L. HILL. 1981. A review of marine resource use in coastal Papua. Journal de la Societe des Oceanistes 37: 175-91.

PICKARD, C. & C. BONSALL. 2004. Deep-sea fishing in the European Mesolithic: fact of fantasy? European Journal of Archaeology 7: 273-90.

POPOV, S.V., A. MORALES-MUNIZ & E. ROSELLO-IZQUIERDO. 2005. A late Stone Age fishing station in the coast of Yemen. Paleorient 31: 116-25.

RICK, T.C., J.M. ERLANDSON & R.L. VELLANOWETH. 2001. Paleocoastal marine fishing on the Pacific coast of the Americas: perspectives from Daisy Cave, California. American Antiquity 66: 595-613.

RICK, T.J., J.M. ERLANDSON, T.J. BRAJE, J.A. ESTES, M.H. GRAHAM & R.L. VELLANOWETH. 2008. Historical ecology and human impacts on coastal ecosystems of the Santa Barbara channel region, California, in T.C. Rick & J.M. Erlandson (ed.) Human impacts on ancient marine ecosystems: 77-101. Berkeley: University of California Press.

STEADMAN, D.W. & S. JONES. 2006. Long-term trends in prehistoric fishing and hunting on Tobago, West Indies. Latin American Antiquity 17: 316-34.

STINER, M.C. & N.D. MUNRO. 2011. On the evolution of diet and landscape during the Upper Palaeolithic through Mesolithic at Franchthi Cave (Peloponnese, Greece). Journal of Human Evolution 60: 618-36.

TIETZE, U., R. LEE, S. SIAR, T. MOTH-POULSEN & H.E. BAGE. 2011. Fishing with beach seines (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 562). Rome: FAO.

WING, S.R. & E.S. WING. 2001. Prehistoric fisheries in the Caribbean. Coral Reefs 20: 1-8.

Atholl Anderson, Department of Archaeology and Natural History, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia (Email: atholl.anderson@anu.edu.au)

Table 1. Species of Scombridae found around and near Timor-Leste.
Data from Collette & Nauen (1983). The taxa are ordered according
to common size.

Common name Scientific name

Southern bluefin tuna Thunnus maccoyi
Wahoo Acanthocybium solandri
Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares
Dogtooth tuna Gymnosarda unicolor
Bigeye tuna Thunnus obesus
Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus commerson
Skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis
Albacore tuna Thunnus alalunga
Queensland school mackerel Scomberomorus queenslandicus
Australian spotted mackerel Scomberomorus munroi
Broad-barred king mackerel Scomberomorus semifasciatum
Longtail tuna Thunnus tonggol
Kawakawa tuna Euthynnus affinis
Spotted seerfish Scomberomorus guttatus
Striped bonito Sarda orientalis
Double-lined mackerel Thynnus bilineatus
Leaping bonito Cybiosarda elegans
Frigate tuna Auxis thazard
Spotted chub mackerel Scomber australasicus
Indian mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta
Bullet tuna Auxis rochei
Short mackerel Rastrelliger brachysoma

Common name Habitat Common size (cm)

Southern bluefin tuna oceanic 160-200
Wahoo oceanic 100-170
Yellowfin tuna oceanic 100-150
Dogtooth tuna neritic 100-150
Bigeye tuna oceanic 100-130
Spanish mackerel neritic 70-90
Skipjack tuna oceanic 70-80
Albacore tuna oceanic 60-80
Queensland school mackerel neritic 50-80
Australian spotted mackerel neritic 50-80
Broad-barred king mackerel neritic 50-70
Longtail tuna neritic 40-70
Kawakawa tuna neritic 50-60
Spotted seerfish neritic 40-50
Striped bonito neritic 30-50
Double-lined mackerel neritic 40-45
Leaping bonito neritic 35^10
Frigate tuna neritic 25-40
Spotted chub mackerel neritic 25-30
Indian mackerel neritic 20-25
Bullet tuna neritic 15-25
Short mackerel neritic 15-20