So, if only one person in each group of Paleolithic humans were as
intelligent as Ron Hoggan was as a boy, :-), he/she would show his/her
mates how to catch fish without leaving any traces for archaeologists.
Another possible source of bias is close to one of those Loren Cordain
mentioned (see below):
Could it be that those ancestors that have been found exploited a habitat
which for some reason were more likely to become fossilized, or just
happened to do so? The odds are heavily against any person or artifact
becoming fossilized AND coming up to the ground in this century AND being
found before being destroyed in the open air. However, I would expect
fishing ancestors living near waters to be more likely to fall in the river
and thus be preserved, and if this is true we could actually overestimate
the proportion of fishers.
As for optimal foraging theory, which according to Loren would suggest that
the aquatic environment would generally not be exploited until more easily
obtained resources (i.e. large easily killed pleistocene beasts) were
depleted, I have a question: Does such theory consider our obvious urge for
thrill and excitement (or whatever made Ron go fishing although he probably
didn't need it) in a habitat where only 2-3 hours per day are needed for
subsistence activities (as for contemporary hunter-gatherers)? And what
would optimal foraging theory have to say about my cat who mostly would
want her mouse victims to give her much more of a match before she eats
them?
>Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 12:26:36 -0600
>From: Ron Hoggan <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: More on Fishing
>
>>> Perhaps their fishing tools were made from materials which are less
>>> prone to become fossilized than other artifacts?
>>
>>The cat fish can apparently be caught by spear. At Wadi Kubbaniya c
>>16.000-15 000 BC (18000 BP) The Nile flowed at higher levels than today.
>>at this site catfish and other fish bones are found along with waterfowl
>>It is thought that the catfish swam into shallows in the flooding and
>>were caught in the receding waters, so I expect they could be caught by
>>hand or net, too
>
>As a kid, my brother was much better at fishing than I was, so I figured out
>a way to compete. The water level rose and fell in the bow river. So I chose
>a spot where the water would form pools, and be isolated when water levels
>were low, but would allow fish to enter when the levels were high. I also
>chose a place that was shaded by trees, as the fish seemed to prefer that.
>
>I dug a pool deeper, and lined the perimeter with rocks that were large
>enough that the gaps between them would allow the minnows and smaller fish
>out, but hold in fish of a size I was interested in. During the summer, I
>regularly caught several fish each day, until my brother followed me so he
>could have access to my secret fishing hole.
>
>While my brother considered himself cheated, I felt that I had proven myself
>to be the superior fisherman. :-) I believe that my "net" was
>indistinguishable to most passers-by. No trace would have been left of it
>after a few months.
>
>As an adult, I was talking with a good friend. He told me that as a child
>(he was from a poor immigrant family) he had developed a similar system for
>catching fish, in the same river, but a few miles upstream.
>
>I don't think that paleolithic humans would have had much difficulty
>catching fish in a similar manner. And my friend's similar "inspiration"
>suggests to me that it was not a unique insight on my part.
Loren's posting:
"The fossil record which is obviously incomplete generally doesnt show
any evidence of exploitation of the aquatic environment until about
35,000 years ago. Clearly, part of the problem is that the
technologies which may have been used to capture fish: nets, lines,
weirs and bone hooks likely disintegrated. However, there should have
been a record of fossilized portions (heads, tails, fins etc) of uneaten
fish parts along with other animal foods consumed in the caves and camps
of our ancestors. Except for the recent report from Africa 90,000
years ago, there are virtually no reports showing evidence for large
scale fish consumption. The date of the African data has been
challenged because of the difficulty in dating fossils in this general
time period (C14 dating only can go back about 40,000yrs). Since
humans reached Australia by 50,000-60,000 yrs ago, it can be inferred
that they had mastered at least somewhat sophisticated boating/rafting
procedures - it is difficult to believe that they did not exploit the
creatures in the medium in which they sailed. Also, the sites of most
of the coastal dwelling people (most likely to have consumed fish) are
now under water and generally unavailable for archaeological
exploration. One final comment - optimal foraging theory would
suggest that the aquatic environment would generally not be exploited
until more easily obtained resources (i.e. large easily killed
pleistocene beasts) were depleted."
|
