Evidence for Local Fish Catch In Zooarchaeology

Abstract

Fish bones at archaeological sites may be used to address anthropological questions about past fishing practices and trade, as well as biological questions about past species distributions. In both cases, it is important to distinguish fish caught locally from those transported longer distances to the disposal site. The necessary standard of proof may vary by the geographic scale of the study and proximity to fish habitat, but multiple lines of evidence should be brought to bear, such as regional ethnography or oral history, fishing artifacts, available local habitat, skeletal parts frequencies, and bone chemistry. An example from the American Pacific Northwest demonstrates the complexity of determining catch location. The question at the Grissom site was whether the bones could demonstrate past salmonid and other fish occurrence in the adjacent Caribou Creek. Of seven fish species identified, three species were interpreted as local catch, one as local but indicating a change in range, and three as equivocal.

Anthropogenic habitat alteration leads to rapid loss of adaptive variation and restoration potential in wild salmon populations

“…To investigate the genetic composition of historical upper Klamath Chinook, we genotyped nine Chinook samples collected from four archaeological sites in the upper basin known to be historically important fishing places for Klamath peoples (39)(Figure 4). The samples ranged in age from post-European contact to approximately 5,000 years old and, based on the presence of all body parts in the archaeological sites, were likely caught locally as opposed to being acquired through trade(39)(40)(41)…”

Applications of vertebral morphometrics in Pacific Island archaeological fishing studies

“…Subsequently, Huber et al . () developed a method for making species‐level identifications of salmon using vertebral morphometrics (for application of the identification protocol, see Lubinski & Partlow ). While aDNA has been successfully extracted to identify Pacific Northwest archaeological assemblages of salmon vertebrae, its application is often limited to small samples due to cost (Butler & Bowers ; Cannon & Yang ; Ewonus et al .…”

“…Radiographic analysis, once used for identifications of salmon vertebrae (Cannon 1988), has been shown to be of limited use (Cannon & Yang 2006: 128). Subsequently, Huber et al (2011) developed a method for making species-level identifications of salmon using vertebral morphometrics (for application of the identification protocol, see Lubinski & Partlow 2012). While aDNA has been successfully extracted to identify Pacific Northwest archaeological assemblages of salmon vertebrae, its application is often limited to small samples due to cost (Butler & Bowers 1998;Cannon & Yang 2006;Ewonus et al 2011;Grier et al 2013;Kemp et al 2014;Moss et al 2014;Speller et al 2005;Yang et al 2004; for related work on herring DNA, see also McKechnie et al 2014;Speller et al 2012).…”

Variation in the Configuration of the Middle Snake River and Its Relationship to Prehistoric Fishing Site Locations

“…Archaic. An absence of evidence could be explained by river terraces still forming (Bentley 1981;Bentley 1983) and by the poor preservation of fish remains (Lubinski and Partlow 2012).…”

“…The presence of fish remains could be attributed to natural deaths (Butler 1993). Even when faunal evidence is present, fishing and some amount of processing could have been done at a location different from the location of deposition (Lubinski and Partlow 2012).…”