Prehistoric fishing strategies on themakateaisland of Rurutu

Abstract

Recent observations of fishing, the ethnohistoric literature, the archaeological fishing tool kit, marine environments adjacent to the site, and the fish bone assemblage were considered to understand fishing strategies on the makatea island of Rurutu, Austral Islands, French Polynesia. Excavations totalling 53.5 m2 at the Peva dune site (ON1) were conducted in 2003. The sandy, calcareous deposits from Area 2 (33 m2) were dry sieved through 3.2 mm mesh and 5,011 fish bones weighing 2,229.7 g were retained for analysis. Two distinct cultural layers were identified. Archaic period layer D had 20 fish families inventoried from a total of 141 minimum numbers of individuals (MNI) and 1,081 numbers of identified specimens (NISP). Average bone weight was 0.42 g and median vertebra width between 5–6 mm (n=747). The Classic period layer A, associated with a marae complex, contained only seven fish families, a MNI of 24 and NISP of 403. Average bone weight was 0.63 g and median vertebra width between 10–11 mm (n=107). While a broad spectrum fish capture strategy is inferred for the Archaic, selective larger fish, including an order of magnitude increase in shark, were likely prestige items used in ritual offerings during the Classic period. Comparisons of the archaeological assemblages from five makatea islands show that in all but one case, sites are dominated by groupers, unlike many other Pacific island sites where parrotfish are most frequent. This, alone, might be the unique signature of makatea assemblages.

Marginalization of the Margins: The Importance of Smaller Islands in Human Prehistory

“…The Ghyben-Herzberg lens can be accessed by constructing wells (e.g., coralScott M. Fitzpatrick et al lined holes) and used directly for growing plants such as taro in the interior parts of the island or in mounded features. Atolls typically offer abundant opportunities for capturing fish and other marine resources that can be more difficult to harvest on larger "high" islands (Butler 2001;Weisler 2001b;Weisler et al 2010). Terrestrial resources brought to atolls to supplement marine foods, particularly important given the paucity of native island biota, included numerous plants (e.g., coconut, taro, bananas) and animals (e.g., chicken, pig, dog, rat) that would have provided the necessary means to survive over the long term (Anderson 2009;Christensen and Weisler 2013;Davidson 1992:294;Weisler 2001b, but see Giovas 2006).…”

Assessing Protocols for Identifying Pacific Island Archaeological Fish Remains: The Contribution of Vertebrae

“…In the Pacific fishing literature there has been a trend towards completing morphometrics of unidentified fish vertebrae to ascertain broad changes in fish size over time (e.g. Rolett, ; Jones, ; Jones & Quinn, ; Weisler et al ., ). ‘This procedure is based on the assumption that both the identified and unidentified fish vertebrae represent a cross section of the species present in the assemblage’ (Jones, : 622), an assumption that may not be true for all assemblages due, at least, to varying taphonomic conditions within the same site.…”

“…The list of all cranial elements and specials is provided to assess the distribution of elements used for the identification of each taxon (e.g. Weisler et al ., : Table ). Vertebrae types are also included to ensure the transparency of quantification calculations and replication of methods to facilitate comparisons between studies.…”

“…Weisler et al . (: 135) provided a detailed account of the strengths and weaknesses of quantifying archaeological fish bone using MNI or number of identified specimens (NISP); Grayson () has shown the strong correlation between these values. Lyman (: 80–81), however, has argued that MNI is redundant with NISP as ‘interdependence of identified specimens is randomly distributed across taxa’, and as MNI is a derived value and heavily affected by aggregation, NISP is a more suitable method to measure taxonomic abundance.…”

“…The implications for fishing studies require further analysis, as MNI is predominately utilised to discuss taxonomic abundance in the Pacific literature. In this study, both quantification methods are reported to facilitate better comparisons between all Pacific fishing literature irrespective of whether MNI or NISP were calculated (Allen et al ., : 61; Weisler et al ., : Table ).…”