Fish Story

[kbs2244]

Ouch!
So now you are challenging on of the basic premises of the original story?

[Digit]

Nope! I'm challenging your idea of cutting a slice of snail shell, the report says....

we think they just put bait on and dropped the hook in the water from a boat (at the) edge of a reef,"

...I doubt that a sliced shell would hold a big fish as listed in their report.
Also I doubt very much that fishing was the start, as I said, somehow I can't see Og turning to Mog and saying, 'today I'm gonna invent angling and I'm off to catch Tuna.'
I equally doubt that our species waited till they had an IQ greater than a Hamster before they started scavenging along the tide lines, nor that they waited for boats to be developed before they ate fish.
The list of fish in the report suggests that by the time the scenario they are reporting on came about, angling was something of a specialist trade, I can't see people going after Tuna simply to produce a Tuna sandwich. Aside from sport fishing you'd only go after such large specimens you wished to feed a number of people, nothing goes 'off' in heat quite as fast as fish!
There is also another point not covered, and that is that the snail shell might well have had an occupant! Why bait an empty shell if the bait comes ready supplied. There is a lot not covered in that report. I await further discoveries

Roy.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

There would have been plenty of enticements to head for the shore. Shellfish, birds, sea mammals and then the occasional fish washing up with a totally different taste.

But at some point ideas had to form about how to catch them on a more regular basis.

[Digit]

Agreed Min, but I suspect that scavenging the tide ocurred many generations before we were capable of reasoning, after all Komodo Dragons scavenge the tide line!
The report glosses over certain practical problems, it states that Tuna were probably caught with a lure, fine, but without a hook or a gorge the lure is simply a decoration on the end of the line.
Most fish have rearward facing teeth at the back of the throat, useless for chewing but it prevents them from spitting out what they have swallowed normally, thus a bait and a gorge is more practical for a large fish than a hook made from snail shell.
Then we have the problem of a line, Tuna are fast swimmers, when they want to be, and strong. Today when hooked by sports fishermen they are 'played' to tire them by a friction brake on the reel, something Og didn't have. Running a hempen cord through your hands is a sure fire method of flaying your fingers, trust me!
This also requires a considerable length of line, it would also have to be capable of holding a heavy thrashing fish without braking.
That same length of fine line would be much better used in producing a net, instead of the fish being restrained by a single cord it is now restrained by multiple cords. A net will also catch birds and animals, something a hook won't do, also a damaged net can be repaired, a broken fishing line is a lost line, along with all the effort that went into making it.
I think there is a substantial amount of guess work in that report Min.

Roy.

[circumspice]

Agreed Min, but I suspect that scavenging the tide ocurred many generations before we were capable of reasoning, after all Komodo Dragons scavenge the tide line!
The report glosses over certain practical problems, it states that Tuna were probably caught with a lure, fine, but without a hook or a gorge the lure is simply a decoration on the end of the line.
Most fish have rearward facing teeth at the back of the throat, useless for chewing but it prevents them from spitting out what they have swallowed normally, thus a bait and a gorge is more practical for a large fish than a hook made from snail shell.
Then we have the problem of a line, Tuna are fast swimmers, when they want to be, and strong. Today when hooked by sports fishermen they are 'played' to tire them by a friction brake on the reel, something Og didn't have. Running a hempen cord through your hands is a sure fire method of flaying your fingers, trust me!
This also requires a considerable length of line, it would also have to be capable of holding a heavy thrashing fish without braking.
That same length of fine line would be much better used in producing a net, instead of the fish being restrained by a single cord it is now restrained by multiple cords. A net will also catch birds and animals, something a hook won't do, also a damaged net can be repaired, a broken fishing line is a lost line, along with all the effort that went into making it.
I think there is a substantial amount of guess work in that report Min.

Roy.

Your premise makes a lot more sense than the original article Dig. Although a net large enough to net any type of large fish represents a huge investment in time and materials, it would indeed
be repairable and reusable. The hooks could have been used for smaller, shallow water fish. Just because the shell hooks were found with the skeletal remains of larger fish doesn't necessarily
mean that the hooks caught the big fish. I think that the authors were employing wishful thinking in the absense of concrete evidence. Organic artifacts such as nets are rarely found in such
ancient archaeological sites.

But I still believe that ancient humans would have surely used the hooks, which they expended so much effort to manufacture, for fishing in shallow waters. It just doesn't make sense otherwise.
Why make a hook if you don't intend to use it? I researched hooks and gorges a little. I agree with you that gorges are an elegantly simple method of catching fish. In some places archaeologists
have found both gorges and hooks in the same sites, in the same archaeological horizons. So it would seem that they employed both, possibly the equivalent of having a tackle box full of lures.

Also, no-one has mentioned the possibility of ancient people using cast nets for really shallow water. I have used a 5 foot cast net to catch my own bait in shallow Gulf of Mexico coastal bays.
They work like magic, low tech but reliable. I never had to buy bait when I wanted to surf fish in the Gulf of Mexico.

[Digit]

I agree that if hooks were made they were used C, as you suggest, for smaller fish, but when these experts use these throw away lines such as 'lures were used to catch Tuna,' with no suggestion as to how this was accomplished, I feel a desperate urge to ask them to accompany you on one of your fishing expeditions to obtain some practical experience.
A net is indeed a great investment of time and effort, but a large Tuna, which won't keep, will feed a lot of people, the same people who helped make the net, which of course can be made in smaller sections then joined to make one large net, so here we are talking about co-operation between people.
This is the only sensible reason for catching large fish I suggest.

Roy.

[kbs2244]

So:
We have hooks and we have Tuna remains near each other but we are saying that they may not be related?

That brings up some questions:
If the Tuna was not by hooks, then how?
They would be virtually impossible to harpoon, especially from shore, and I know of no history of them stranding themselves on beaches. They are a deep water fish.

And if the hooks were not for the Tuna, then what were they for?
Was there any other fish remains found?

[Minimalist]

If the tuna did not come to the shore then the fisherman had to go to the tuna.

Boats....and nets?

But such an industry could not grow overnight. I have to think there was a long developmental period.

[Digit]

We have hooks and we have Tuna remains near each other but we are saying that they may not be related?

That's correct, the report actually states that Tuna were probably taken with lures, suggesting that the hooks were not used for big fish.
Tuna etc feed on other fish so a live bait would probably be the best bait, attaching a gorge to a live bait is simple and the Tuna can't escape, but I still have difficulty with a line strong enough to hold such a fish.

Was there any other fish remains found?

23 species in all. Also they state Tuna, which is a generic term not a specific, 'Tuna' come in various guises.
Gorge fishing was only banned in the UK when it became possible to manufacture hooks from steel, in the 19C!

Roy.

[kbs2244]

Tuna are not very netable.
Too strong and too sleek.
They are a “swordfish” and can use that sword to slash themselves out of trouble.
When sport fisherman go for them, they use about 150 feet of steel line behind the hook to keep the fish from turning and cutting itself free.

Even today, with synthetic materials for nets, they are caught with “long line” trolling and baited hooks on steel “branch” lines off the main long line.

Tuna are voracious eaters. I remember watching a video where a guy on a shark research dive videoed one going through a school of anchovies. It just kept coming back through the school, which looked about the size of a six flat, until there were only 5 to 10 fish left.

It ignored the diver.

Nets would just take too much cordage.

If they were regularly eating tuna, they were very good deep water fishermen.
Bit it may not have been a hook in the mouth.
The bait may have been taken all the way into the stomach with the line attached.
Even today that is how Bass are hooked.

[Digit]

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... Jw&cad=rja

As I pointed out, the word Tuna is generic kb.
I also pointed out that nets would logically be a communal effort, as would the eating of the fish, so each person would only produce a small piece. Even today nets are not always produced in continuous lengths.
If you were to play a large fish you would need many yards of line anyway.
Frankly I would try a live bait with gorge attached, a moderate length of line and a large lump of timber as I buoy.

Roy.

[circumspice]

Tuna are not very netable.
Too strong and too sleek.
They are a “swordfish” and can use that sword to slash themselves out of trouble.
When sport fisherman go for them, they use about 150 feet of steel line behind the hook to keep the fish from turning and cutting itself free.

Even today, with synthetic materials for nets, they are caught with “long line” trolling and baited hooks on steel “branch” lines off the main long line.

Tuna are voracious eaters. I remember watching a video where a guy on a shark research dive videoed one going through a school of anchovies. It just kept coming back through the school, which looked about the size of a six flat, until there were only 5 to 10 fish left.

It ignored the diver.

Nets would just take too much cordage.

If they were regularly eating tuna, they were very good deep water fishermen.
Bit it may not have been a hook in the mouth.
The bait may have been taken all the way into the stomach with the line attached.
Even today that is how Bass are hooked.

kbs, you seem to be intent upon insisting that early humans HAD to have used longline fishing to catch tuna. I think that you are trying to look at the process from a modern perspective.
Early humans were keen observers of their environment because they had to be to survive. Who is to say whether or not some ancient human, out on a boat, observed tuna schooling
out in open waters and decided that he would devise a way to bring home some of those big fish? That is not to say that he or succeeding generations were particularly successful, but
sooner or later, they would have met with some success. I personally believe that they would have used harpoons and worked with a team of boats to maximize the possibility of bringing
home some of those fish.

A quote from one of the websites I checked:
"Harpooning is a traditional method for catching large fish—and it's still used today by skilled fishermen. When a harpooner spots a fish, he thrusts or shoots a long aluminum or wooden harpoon into the animal and hauls it aboard. Harpooners catch large, pelagic predators such as bluefin tuna and swordfish. Harpooning is an environmentally responsible fishing method. Bycatch of unwanted marine life is not a concern because harpoon fishermen visually identify the species and size of the targeted fish before killing it."

Another observation: If nets are so very useless for catching tuna, then why do many commercial fishers use gillnets, trawlnets and seines? Those types of nets are so extraordinarily
sucessful at catching tuna that they have been cited as being responsible for overfishing in certain areas. Also, bycatch is such a big problem that environmentalists have tried to have
the use of some of these nets outlawed.

[Digit]

I personally believe that they would have used harpoons and worked with a team of boats to maximize the possibility of bringing
home some of those fish.

Plus beating the water etc to drive them in shore, seine netting. As kb pointed out, some Tuna are very large, thus a snail hook simply ain't on!
I gain the impression that the report's writer have never fished.
I used to poach Trout and Grayling as a kid, Grayling are difficult to hook as they are soft mouthed, a harpoon works well, the double toothed, forked branch type even better as you don't have to be so accurate and they damage the fish less.
A large net is not needed in rivers at least, under the right circumstances, in swift water Trout will often lay up in the water behind a jutting rock for example. Spooking them will cause them to dash away, place your net in the correct position and dinner is served.
Then there's Duck eggs in season, Crayfish, Mussels through out the year as well.
Bin there, done that etc.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

I also pointed out that nets would logically be a communal effort, as would the eating of the fish, so each person would only produce a small piece.

That implies a social structure which is okay, too. Scholars have been wrong about the capabilities of our ancestors before.

[Digit]

Well Min I wouldn't go to all the trouble of fashioning the necessary equipment to take a 50lb fish simply to make a Tuna and Mayo sandwich! The size of some of the species listed infers feeding a group, from there it becomes a group enterprise to catch 'em.

Roy.