1
Size estimations of archaeological groupers
(Epinephelinae) as indicators for fisheries
exploitation in the eastern Mediterranean
Priscilla I. Verplanke
Master thesis Archaeology, University of Groningen
Ma-scriptie en scriptieklas Archeologie (LPX999M20)
Mentor: Canan Çakirlar
Second reader: Dr. Dick Brinkhuizen
2
Table of contents
List of Tables & Figures ___________________________________________________ 3
Tables ______________________________________________________________ 3 Figures ______________________________________________________________ 3
List of abbreviations _____________________________________________________ 4 Chapter 1 Introduction _____________________________________________ 6 Chapter 2 Dissertation of literature & Background________________________ 10
2.1 Ichthyoarchaeology _____________________________________________ 10 2.2 Groupers _____________________________________________________ 10 2.3 Overfishing ____________________________________________________ 13 2.3.1 Definition of overfishing _______________________________________________ 13 2.3.2 Overfishing in history and archaeology ___________________________________ 15 2.4 The history and overfishing of the eastern Mediterranean ________________ 17 2.5 Solutions to overfishing of groupers in the Eastern Mediterranean _________ 20
Chapter 3 Methods ________________________________________________ 24
3.1 Fish in the archaeological record ___________________________________ 24 3.2 Retrieval methods ______________________________________________ 25 3.3 Identification of species and element _______________________________ 26 3.4 Measurements and estimating fish size ______________________________ 26 3.5 Data manipulation ______________________________________________ 32 3.5.1 Descriptive _________________________________________________________ 32 3.5.2 Interpretative _______________________________________________________ 32 Chapter 4 Results _________________________________________________ 33 4.1 Introduction ___________________________________________________ 33 4.2 The assemblage ________________________________________________ 33 4.3 Archaeological context ___________________________________________ 36 4.4 Distribution of elements and periods ________________________________ 37 4.5 Measurements and length estimations _______________________________ 41 4.6 Butchery marks ________________________________________________ 42 4.7 The importance of sieving ________________________________________ 43
Chapter 5 Discussion & Conclusion ___________________________________ 45
5.1 (Grouper) fisheries in Kinet Höyük __________________________________ 45 5.2 Estimation of total lengths ________________________________________ 45 5.5 Other measurements ____________________________________________ 51 5.6 Butchery marks ________________________________________________ 54 5.7 Comparison to modern data _______________________________________ 54 5.8 Conclusions and recommendations _________________________________ 56
3
List of Tables & Figures
Tables
Chapter 2 Dissertation of Literature & Background
Table 1 Overview of grouper species occuring in the Eastern Mediterranean 10
Chapter 4 Results
Table 2 Overview of number of bones from Kinet Höyük identified as Epinephelus 34 Table 3 Number of identified specimens of each fish taxain two periods of the Late
Iron Age 35
Table 4 Overview of chronology and periodization of Kinet Höyük 37 Table 5 Differences between total lengths calculated through measurements of hand
collected and sieved specimens 43
Figures Chapter 1
Figure 1.1 Location of Kinet Höyük on a map of Eastern Mediterranean area 7
Chapter 2 Dissertation of Literature & Background
Figure 2.1 Barren wastelands on the bottom of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea 19 Figure 2.2 Roman mosaic depicting a grouper swallowing a fisherman 22
Chapter 3 Methods
Figure 3.1 Retrieval of fish remains from Kinet Höyük by sieving 25 Figure 3.2 Measurement of Total Length on a Dusky grouper 27
Figure 3.3 Measurements of dentary 30
Figure 3.4 Measurement of premaxilla 30
Figure 3.5 Measuement of quadrate 30
Chapter 4 Results
Figure 4.1 NISP of each identified fish taxa found in two periods of the Late Iron Age from
Kinet Höyük 33
Figure 4.2 Aerial view of Kinet Höyük in current situation 36 Figure 4.3 Number of grouper skeletal elements per period 38 Figure 4.4 Distribution of head bones in hand collected material 38 Figure 4.5 Distribution of head bones in sieved material 39
Figure 4.6 Portions of elements present 39
Figure 4.7 Picture of anterior parts of dentaries found in the assemblage 40 Figure 4.8 Histogram of number of specimens measured per period 41 Figure 4.9 Number of measurements taken per skeletal element 42
Figure 4.10 Dentary with butchery mark 43
Figure 4.11 Dentary with butchery mark 42
Chapter 5 Discussion & Conclusion
Figure 5.1 Estimations of total lengths through time, hand collected material 46 Figure 5.2 Total lengths estimated per period, sieved and hand collected 47 Figure 5.3 Distribution of total lengths over periods in hand collected material 48 Figure 5.4 Distribution of total lengths over periods in sieved material 48 Figure 5.5 Comparison of estimations of total lengths between Late Bronze Age and Late
Iron Age/Early Hellenistic period from the hand collected material 51 Figure 5.6 Correlation between the transversal diameter of articulation and the maximal
height of margo posterior of the quadrate 52 Figure 5.7 Correlation between greatest medio-lateral breadth of articular surface and
greatest length of the articulare 53
Figure 5.8 Correlation between minimum anterior height and maximum anterior height of
the dentary 53
Figure 5.9 Comparison of estimations of total lengths between archaeological data from
4
List of abbreviations
Abbreviation Meaning AH Almost Half ANT Anterior AR Articular AW Almost complete CRT Ceratohyal DENT DentaryEBA Early Bronze Age
ECT Ectopterygoid
Ehell Early Hellenistic EIA Early Iron Age
EPI Epihyal
F Fragment
HE Hellenistic
HPA pmx Height of articular process of premaxilla
HYO Hyomandibulate
IA Iron Age
INT Interopercular LBA Late Bronze Age
LIA Late Iron Age
M&R 1/2/3/4 Measurement from Morales & Rosenlund 1979 number 1/2/3 Ma AH dent Maximum anterior height of dentary
MAX Maxilla
MBA Middle Bronze Age
MED Middle Ages
MHMP quad Maximal height of margo posterior of quadrate Mi AH dent Minimal anterior height of dentary
MIA Middle Iron Age MPA Marine Protected Area
NAS Nasal
NISP Number of Indidual Specimens
5 Abbreviation Meaning
TDA quad Transversal diameter of articulation of quadtraum TDC cv Transversal diameter of centra first vertebrae
TL Total Length
VT Thoracic vertebrae
6
Chapter 1
Introduction
Overfishing has been a topic of fierce discussion in the last several decades. However, extinction and/or decrease of the population of specific marine species by overfishing is not only a modern problem. Various studies have shown that ancient societies also contributed to the overexploitation of fisheries (Owen & Merrick 1994; Leach & Davidson 2000; Luff & Bailey 2000; Rick & Erlandson 2000; Jackson et al. 2001; Plug 2008).
The decrease or extinction of one or more fish species in a specific marine ecosystem initiates a series of ecological changes, rendering the entire ecosystem more vulnerable to disturbances. Consequences include an increase in the density of the next lower trophic level, the depletion of oxygen in the water and the outbreak of toxic algal blooms and diseases (Jackson et al. 2001).
7 Groupers are the most frequently found fish of the faunal assemblage of Kinet Höyük (Hatay, Turkey), the case study for this research (Çakirlar et al. 2014). Kinet
Höyük is an archaeological settlement mound located on the coast of the Mediterranean, on the east side of the Gulf of Iskenderun (see fig. 1.1). This mound has functioned as a harbour and has known phases of occupation for six millennia (Gates 1999; Beach & Luzzadder-Beach 2008). The first people to inhabit Kinet Höyük arrived there in the Late Neolithic (6th millennium B.C.). The site has been inhabited until the Late Middle Ages (twelfth to fouteenth century A.D.) with a period of abandonment in the Roman Period (Beach & Luzzadder-Beach 2008).
Fig. 1.1 Location of Kinet Höyük on map of Eastern Mediterranean area (https://maps.google.nl/).
As a Mediterranean harbour site it is not surprising that, aside from the extensive animal husbandry, fishery was an important aspect of the inhabitants’ lives. Therefore, when the site was excavated during several campaigns in the period of 1992 to 2008, a rich fish bone assemblage was uncovered.1 Due to the
well-structured and documented excavations, these assemblages may prove to serve as
8 a great insight in the fish stocks throughout the different occupation phases of this site. Moreover, unlike many other archaeological excavations in this region, soil from this site has been sieved. This creates a unique opportunity to examine even the smallest of remains, which is significant when researching fish remains. As fish bones are usually very small, they are easily missed when there is no sieving at the excavation, resulting in a distortion in the archaeological record. The abundance of groupers in this assemblage creates the opportunity to gain understanding of the exploitation of these fish throughout the habitation periods of this tell.
The main question of this research is whether groupers have been overfished during one or more occupation phases of Kinet Höyük. In order to be able to answer this question and determine the impact of fishery of groupers, it was necessary to make size reconstructions using osteometric data (the measurements of bones). If an impact of fishing is present, a decline or disappearance of the species will show in the archaeological data. If such a decline is present, the average size of the fish will also decrease (Van Neer et al. 2009; Thieren et al. 2012). The indication towards overfishing is especially strong when the data show that the groupers do not, or less often, reach the age of sexual maturity. Additionally, a decline in the proportion of the specific fish species (i.e. groupers) in the total fish species composition is indicative for the overexploitation of that particular species.
By analysing the biometric variability and other quantitative data, this study will focus on finding an indication of the overfishing of groupers. Furthermore the information obtained about fish size, species composition, butchery marks etc. will be used to reconstruct other aspects of the fisheries in Kinet Höyük. Fishing strategies will be analysed by looking at the distribution of skeletal elements, presence and absence of elements, as well as butchery marks on the bones. This will result in an interpretation of the overall fishery activity of groupers on this site.
9 and the proportion of the amount of groupers in the species composition throughout time.
10
Chapter 2
Dissertation of literature & Background
2.1 Ichthyoarchaeology
Small animals such as fish have been an important source of food for hominids since at least the Upper Pleistocene times. In the Eastern Mediterranean, the first known evidence of fish being included in the human diet dates back to the early Middle Palaeolithic (Wheeler & Jones 1989, xiii; Van Neer et al. 2005). Since then, the economic and cultural role of fish has only ever increased. Fish was and still is a vital component in the human diet and, for many people, the source of their livelihood.
The study of fish remains, ichthyoarchaeology, can uncover a valuable source of information on former distribution of fish species, the time of introduction or extinction of a species and palaeoclimates. The remains can also give an insight into the inhabitants of the archaeological site in the form of their environment, fishing methods, seasonal habitation and especially their diet (Clason 1986; Wheeler & Jones 1989, 7; Colley 1990; Orchard 2000).
In order to be able to gain this knowledge, it is crucial to pay special attention to fish remains when excavating by sieving in small meshes (Van Neer & Ervynck 1993, 11-13; Nicholson 1996). As fish remains are generally quite small and do not preserve as well as mammal and bird bones they will be easily missed otherwise.
2.2 Groupers
11 There are more than 100 subspecies of groupers in the world. Seven of these occur in the eastern Mediterranean, the study area for this research. Table 1 shows an overview of these groupers. The maximum total length (TL; from the tip of the snout to the tail extremity) of the different species vary from 80 to around 160 centimetres. Remarkably, yet not surprisingly, the species that grow larger are in general more endangered than the smaller species. The grouper with the most positive status is the Mottled grouper (Mycteroperca rubra), which is one of the smallest groupers in this overview, reaching a maximum TL of 80 centimetres. The Orange spotted grouper (Epinephelus coioides) and the White grouper (Epinephelus aeneus) both have less bright prospects and are near threatened. They can grow up to a TL of 95 and 120 centimetres, respectively. The Dusky grouper (Epinephelus marginatus) can reach a TL of 120 centimetres and is unfortunately actually endangered. There are insufficient data to determine the status of the largest grouper in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Dogtooth grouper (Epinephelus caninus), which can reach a maximum TL of 157 centimetres. The same applies to the Goldblotch grouper (Epinephelus costae) and the Haifa grouper (Epinephelus haifensis).
Table 1. Overview of grouper species in the eastern Mediterranean, their maximum TL and their current status (Heemstra & Randall 1993, 104-106, 122-123, 130-132, 134-136, 162-163, 186-188, 275-276; http://www.fishbase.org/).
Groupers are found in the tropical and subtropical waters of all oceans and are rocky-bottom-associated. Although most species only occur in depths less than 100 metres, some inhabit depths down to 200 metres (Heemstra & Randall 1993, 1;
Max TL
in cm Status
Epinephelus aeneus White grouper 120 Near threatened
Epinephelus caninus Dogtooth grouper 157 Data deficient Epinephelus coioides Orange spotted grouper 95 Near threatened Epinephelus costae Goldblotch grouper 80 Data deficient Epinephelus haifensis Haifa grouper 110 Data deficient Epinephelus marginatus Dusky grouper 120 Endangered Mycteroperca rubra Mottled grouper 80 Least concern
12 Andrello et al. 2013). Groupers are counted among the major predators in marine ecosystems with many individuals reaching sizes of more than one metre in length (Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2012, 4). Most of their day is spent scouring the reef or shallows for a meal that usually consists of a variety of fishes, larger crustaceans and cephalopods (Heemstra & Randall 1993, 1). Because the groupers’ inwardly-depressible sharp teeth prevent their prey from escaping, overall their victims do not stand a chance (Heemstra & Randall 1993, 1; Andrello et al. 2013).
In their adult phase groupers are sedentary and generally solitary, following their dispersive larval phase (Andrello et al. 2013). They play a large role in the moderation of abundances of prey species and also have a physical effect on their habitat through burrowing behaviour (Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2012, 4). Groupers are slow growing and long-lived; they can reach ages up to four decades (Begossi et al. 2012; Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2012, 10). Under natural living conditions, large groupers can be found at the entrance of their rocky shelters in shallow waters where they can be caught with simple fishing gear (Desse & Desse-Berset 1996a, 122). Nowadays they are caught with hook and line as well as through spearfishing, which is probably also how they were captured in the past (Lernau 1986; Andrello et al. 2013).
Groupers are protogynous hermaphrodite fish, meaning that they are born female and some of them will change sex to male at a later point in their life. They will mature as females between their second to tenth year, with their TL measuring between 20 and 60 centimetres. Sexual transition can only take place between the ages of 9 and 16 years when their TL will be about 55 centimetres or more (Heemstra & Randall 1993, 104-276).
13 more males will be available in the coming season (Heemstra & Randall 1993, 3-4; Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2012, 10).
Consequently, groupers are extremely prone to overfishing. Due to their relatively late sexual maturity, groupers are often caught at immature stages, before they had a chance to reproduce (Begossi et al. 2012). Furthermore, as male fish are usually bigger and are more likely to attack bait, they are caught more often. Considering that males are also less numerous than females, the grouper populations can easily become distorted. Fishing also disturbs the behavioural interactions that i.a. result in the female-to-male sex change, so the population is less or not able to compensate the disproportionate loss of males (Heemstra & Randall 1993, 4; Mazurek 2004, 14; Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2012, 1). In addition, the spawning aggregations that are formed by groupers on a yearly basis are a great opportunity for the fisherman to catch an enormous amount of fish in short periods of time. As the locations of these aggregations are very predictable, fisheries can very easily target them causing severe population declines (Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2012, 8-10).
About 12 to 15 % of grouper species worldwide are threatened with extinction due to overfishing (Hilborn & Hilborn 2012, 120; Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2012, 1-8). Additionally, 22 species (13 % of all grouper species) are considered to be near threatened (Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2012, 5). The threatened and near threatened species all tend to have a larger maximum size than their non-endangered nephews (Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2012, 5). Despite the economic importance of groupers, there are still few measures taken to protect these fish by regular monitoring or managing grouper fisheries (Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2012, 1).
2.3 Overfishing
2.3.1 Definition of overfishing
14 However, the most frequent cause of extinction or decrease in the biomass of a fish species is overfishing (Jackson et al. 2001). There are different forms of overfishing:
I. Yield overfishing
a. Recruitment overfishing b. Growth overfishing II. Economic overfishing
The most common form is yield overfishing. Yield overfishing prevents a population from producing as much sustainable yield as it could when less intensively fished (Mantel & Vertegaal 1982, 22-23; Hilborn & Hilborn 2012, 3). Yield overfishing can be divided in two components. These are recruitment overfishing, the overfishing of spawning fish, causing a shortage of newly spawned fish, and growth overfishing, the overfishing of the young, still fast growing fish (Mantel & Vertegaal 1982, 22-23; Hilborn & Hilborn 2012, 25-26). The second form of overfishing is economic overfishing, which is less relevant for this study. This occurs whenever too much fishing pressure causes the economic benefits to be less than they could have been. In other words, fishery resources are not being used as efficiently as they should thus the total revenues of the catch does not cover or surpass the cost of the fishing (Mantel & Vertegaal 1982, 22-23; Hilborn & Hilborn 2012, 3).
15 2.3.2 Overfishing in history and archaeology
Overfishing has long been recognised as the leading environmental and socioeconomic problem that has reduced the biodiversity and has manipulated the functioning of ecosystems (Worm et al. 2009). Solutions to this problem and the future prospects of fisheries are currently hotly debated (Worm et al. 2009). Overfishing is however not only a modern-day problem but has been observed throughout the ages (Van Neer & Ervynck 1993, 36-38; Worm et al. 2009). Archaeological research provides the opportunity to place the phenomenon of overfishing in a historical perspective (Van Neer & Ervynck 1993, 45).
In their research about historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems, Jackson et al. (2001) state that historical documentation of long-term effects of fisheries exploitation, provides an essential perspective on the successful management and restoration of coastal marine ecosystems. Reitz (2004) has a similar standpoint and suggests helping conservation biologists and resource managers to use the valuable historical record of the interaction between humans and their environment. As most ecological research has been carried out in local field studies, lasting only a few years and conducted sometime after the 1950s, these studies cannot show a historical perspective. After all, these observations can never encompass the life-spans of many ecologically important species, environmental disturbances and longer term cycles or shifts in oceanographic regimes and productivity (Jackson et al. 2001). Therefore, archaeological and historical research is essential to get a good grasp of the long-term effects of (over)fishing and any possible solutions to this problem. Archaeological studies may also provide more information about older baselines which could be compared to the present situation. As present day policy makers emphasise the desire to return to a sustainable use of resources, it is useful to know the situation in which human predation still had a low impact. Historical information does not go as far back in time to reveal these low impact conditions, as opposed to the more useful archaeozoological data (Van Neer et al. 2009).
16 Leach & Davidson 2000; Luff & Bailey 2000; Rick & Erlandson 2000; Plug 2008; Van Neer et al. 2009). Insights into the status of past fish populations, such as their exploitation and environmental conditions can be acquired by means of estimations of fish lengths (Plug 2008). When documenting the growing impact of fishing two lines of investigation are important: firstly the observation of a decline or disappearance of species, and secondly a decrease of the average size of the fish (Van Neer et al. 2009). The following paragraphs will describe and discuss several studies that have been executed in this field.
Sternberg’s osteometric research (1994) of the archaeological bones of the European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) from Hérault (France) showed a decrease in the size of individual animals captured between the first century B.C. and the first century A.D. The two likely causes for these results mentioned by Sternberg are the evolution of the fishing techniques or the natural evolution of this species. However the latter hypothesis seems less likely than the first. If fishing techniques and intensity increased while habitation progressed, the decrease in size of the fish would be an inevitable consequence.
17 Luff & Bailey (2000) analysed size changes and incremental growth structures in their research on African Catfish (Synodontis schall) from Tell el-Amarna (Middle Egypt). Incremental growth structure analysis means the examining of growth rings, which in fish are present in scales, otoliths, vertebrae and the pectoral and dorsal spines. They can provide information about the age and growth rates of the individual fish. Fish growth rates have been proved to increase as fishing pressure intensifies. Taking this in consideration, Luff & Bailey demonstrated that there was a more intensive level of fishing pressure in the Late Roman period as opposed to that in the Pharaonic and modern periods. Additionally their results show that the African Catfish suffered from pressure from environmental changes and increased level of fishing intensity by human populations simultaneously. According to Luff & Bailey these two pressures were linked in the form of e.g. a comet strike or volcanic activity. This could have had a great negative impact on the environment of the fish and would additionally cause the human population to be more dependent on the fish resources, as crops and livestock were likely destroyed. As Luff & Bailey already imply themselves, an interesting, yet specific hypothesis such as this should be backed up by more evidence besides just incremental growth structures in fish.
In the study of estimated sizes of three southern African freshwater species by Plug (2008) a decrease in size was identified for all three species observed. The overexploitation of these species has been given as a likely cause for this pattern (Plug 2008). Although this was still a preliminary investigation and the results were based on a small dataset, the study shows that this form of research may provide useful conclusions about fish size.
2.4 The history and overfishing of the eastern Mediterranean
18 history which includes drastic changes in climate, sea level and salinity and isolation from the world ocean which nearly caused the Mediterranean Sea to dry out 5.96 million years ago. In addition to the geological history, the biogeography, ecology, and human history have contributed to the high cultural and biological diversity that is characteristic for the Mediterranean (Coll et al. 2010; Micheli et al. 2013).
The earliest archaeological evidence of human interaction with marine fauna in the Mediterranean Sea originates from the early Middle Palaeolithic. During the Epipalaeolithic the first clear evidence for fish exploitation and intensive fishing activity emerges in this region (Van Neer et al. 2005). Studies have demonstrated that near-shore fishing was a fundamental and an optimal strategy, giving coastal populations the chance to survive and even flourish (Van Neer et al. 2005). A shift toward fishing for large fish on the open sea has been observed in the eastern Mediterranean as early as the Early Bronze Age or possibly even the Late Neolithic (Van Neer et al. 2005). From the Early Bronze Age onwards, there is an increase in settlement intensity along the coastal zone (Van Neer et al. 2005). Aristotle first reported negative effects of marine exploitation in the Mediterranean in the fourth century B.C., when he observed the disappearance of scallops caused by an instrument introduced by fishermen that scratched the bottom of the sea (Coll et al. 2010).
Further historical traces of overfishing in the Mediterranean Sea appear in the early Imperial period in some parts of the western Mediterranean (Coll et al. 2010). Even back then measures were taken to manage or counteract the decline of fish stocks by the prohibition of certain fishing techniques and by introducing fish and shellfish stocks from elsewhere (Coll et al. 2010). However, human interventions such as coastal development, sediment loading and pollution already led to negative consequences for the species diversity (Coll et al. 2010; Sala et al. 2012; Micheli et al. 2013).
19 early as the sixteenth century, fishermen organisations expressed their concerns about the possible negative effects on fished stocks (Coll et al. 2010). With the arrival of an increased industrialisation in the nineteenth century, these negative effects intensify even further. Existing fishing gear keeps increasing in efficiency and new fishing methods are being introduced, such as midwater pelagic trawls, hydraulic dredged and iron-toothed dredges (Coll et al. 2010).
Fig. 2.1. Barren wastelands, empty of sea life, the bottom of the sea in waters off Turkey (Photo by: Murat Draman; http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/03/02/ overfishing-leaves-much-of-mediterranean-a-dead-sea-study-finds/)
The industrializing of fishing exerted further pressure on marine fauna, their habitats and ecosystems and a severe depletion of top predators in the basin was observed (Coll et al. 2010).
20 petrochemical and energy plants are placed along the coastline (Everts 2012). According to environmental groups, excessive declines in populations of marine creatures and reef ecosystems are taking place. Some regions in the eastern Mediterranean are almost barren (Everts 2012; see figure 2.1).
Unfortunately, management effectiveness in the Mediterranean is low (Coll et al. 2010; Everts 2012). Stakeholders of Mediterranean countries have been meeting for several decades, discussing these extensive environmental problems. However, taking actions on solving these problems proves to be a great challenge due to the 21 nations political, economic, linguistic and cultural differences (Everts 2012; Micheli et al. 2013).
2.5 Solutions to overfishing of groupers in the Eastern Mediterranean In order to prevent the threatened grouper species from extinction and to give declining populations a chance to recover, several possible solutions have been proposed. Renones et al. (2010) suggest a minimum landing size increased to a minimum TL of 50 centimetres and a maximum of 80 centimetres. This will give individuals the time to become sexually mature and reproduce before being captured. Additionally, the largest and or oldest groupers can be protected. This has also successfully been done for other populations of large serranids (Renones et al. 2010). Size limits are a good aid to protect large mature fish and males, allowing more young fish to reach the age of sexual maturity. Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. (2012) also mention quotas and limits to numbers of fishes as relevant elements in the protection of groupers. Begossi et al. (2012) state that urgent conservation measures should be taken in order to protect the Dusky grouper (Epinephelus marginatus), including closed fishing seasons. Compensatory arrangements to encourage fishermen to protect this endangered species should also be made (Begossi et al. 2012).
21 In order to start the reverse of the decline of fish species like groupers, several measures have already been taken in the Mediterranean. Over 100 areas in the Mediterranean are assigned as a Marine Protected Area (MPA) with many others in the planning stages (Andrello et al. 2013; Micheli et al. 2013). Humans are not allowed to fish in these MPAs, and the rare examples of successful recovery of the ecosystem for the Mediterranean are all related to the presence of MPAs (Sala et al. 2012).
However, major area’s and priority habitats are still overlooked for MPA designation and marine management. Especially the eastern and southern parts of the Mediterranean are underrepresented when it comes to marine conservation (Micheli et al. 2013). Additionally, MPAs are often too small in relation to the typical lifetime movements of larger reef fishes (Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2012, 11). Especially for the groupers that aggregate to spawn, these MPAs seem to be of little use.
Andrello et al. (2013) tested the effectiveness of Mediterranean MPAs for the Dusky grouper (Epinephelus marginatus). The results showed that the MPAs were far from shaping a well-connected network. For fish such as the groupers, which have a sedentary adult phase and a dispersive larval phase, the connectivity between MPAs is crucial for their effectiveness. Fortunately, new MPAs will be created in the coming 5-10 years which will strengthen the connectivity and merge clusters (Andrello et al. 2013)
22 Researchers have already tried to
form a comparison by looking at depictions of groupers in ancient art (see fig. 2.2). Guidetti & Micheli (2011; 2012) carried out a survey in which they examined 73 Roman mosaics; 23 of them represented groupers. In ten of these mosaics, the groupers were portrayed as being extremely large, resembling “sea monsters” (Guidetti & Micheli 2011). According to Guidetti & Micheli (2011), this proved that groupers were, in ancient times, far
larger than they are now. Additionally, a shift in habitat use and depth distribution can be observed when comparing these historical images to modern grouper behaviour. In the mosaics the groupers were portrayed in shallow waters where they are now rare or completely absent (Guidetti & Micheli 2011). The results of the study by Guidetti & Micheli (2011) have not been without contradiction. In a reply to Guidetti & Micheli (2011), Blanford & Stoehr (2012) provide a ruthless criticism to these conclusions. They claim that the idea that historical representations of fish and fisheries are actually based on honest assessments is hard to believe. According to Blanford & Stoehr (2012) fishermen are notorious for the distortion and exaggeration of facts about the place, time and techniques that were used for their catch. Guidetti & Micheli (2012) bravely oppose these comments and argue that these fishermen are unique witnesses to marine life. Ancient artists did also not only base their artistic depictions on the accounts of fishermen but also on their own direct observation and experience. This is proved by the fact that certain portrayed fish show characteristic profiles after death, caused by rigor mortis, meaning the artist must have seen the captured fish to be able to reproduce these details (Guidetti & Micheli 2012).
Fig. 2.2. Roman mosaic depicting a giant grouper swallowing a fisherman (Bardo National Museum, Tunis; from:
23 The reconstruction of baselines for marine ecosystems by the use of non-traditional sources of information like ancient art is still not widely accepted as it is not an exact science. It may however be useful in complementing other research studies with a more scientific approach in an attempt to reconstruct baselines. On itself the results from research to depictions on ancient mosaics are not very trustworthy. It is rather certain that fishermen overall exaggerate matters about their catch. It is for a good reason that the commonly used phrase “a fish story” is defined as “an exaggerated or incredible story”2 or even “a great big lie”.3 Assuming images based
on fishermen stories as facts cannot lead to any reliable conclusions. Therefore research such as this should be used at most as an addition to research that is based on actual facts.
In conclusion, research based on archaeozoological data provides information about the actual size of the caught fish and is therefore the best way to reconstruct ancient baselines to compare to the modern day situation.
24
Chapter 3
Methods
3.1 Fish in the archaeological record
The process of using archaeological remains from a site to learn about the inhabitants’ diet, fishing methods, the distribution of fish species, etc., starts at the excavation. However, many fish remains may never be included in the archaeological record as they will be swallowed by man or animal or never even reach the location of habitation due to off-site deposition (Colley 1986; Van Neer & Ervynck 1993, 13-14).
Ethnohistorical research has shown that fish remains can be deposited in a number of places which may vary from the site of the fishing station to the merchants’ booth or the domestic dwellings of the fishermen and that it is not uncommon that the fish heads are already removed at sea (Colley 1986; Colley 1990). Furthermore, fish remains can also be brought to an archaeological site through non-human agents, for example in the stomach of a bigger fish, a bird or large sea animal (Colley 1990).
Another problem with the analyses of fish remains is that it is difficult to establish the importance of each fish species as there is much variation in the extent and way the skeletal elements decay. This also varies per skeletal element (Colley 1990; Van Neer & Ervynck 1993 11-13; Van Neer et al. 2005). It has been proved that fish remains do not preserve as well as the bones of mammals and birds (Van Neer & Ervynck 1993, 11-13; Nicholson 1996). This makes it difficult to assess the importance of fish in relation to other food resources (Van Neer et al. 2005).
25 1990) are mentioned. It is therefore safe to say: the smaller the better. This research also proves the importance of sieving at an excavation.
3.2 Retrieval methods
The fish assemblage from Kinet Höyük was collected by hand retrieval and sieving methods. For the latter, samples have been sieved through several different mesh sizes: 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 millimetres. As discussed earlier, the bigger mesh sizes (4 millimetres and bigger) still do not represent an accurate range of fish species and body sizes. Soil that has been sieved through the 1 and 2 millimetres meshes however, will be able to provide a great increase of knowledge about species richness, skeletal part representation, body size distribution and taphonomic patterns (Colley 1990; Van Neer et al. 2005; Zohar & Belmaker 2005).
Fig. 3.1. Retrieval of the fish remains from Kinet Höyük by sieving (courtesy of Kinet Höyük excavations)
26 unknown. Therefore, the hand retrieved and sieved materials will be mainly treated separately and will be compared in some cases.
3.3 Identification of species and element
The first step in this research was the determination and identification of the grouper bones in the fish assemblage and entering them in a Microsoft Access 2010 database. Most of the identification could be done with the help of the reference collection of the Groningen Institute for Archaeology (GIA). Unfortunately, many fish species that occur in the area of interest (eastern Mediterranean) were not present in the reference collection. The collection did have one grouper skeleton available which was the highest aid in the identification process. The Standard Length (SL: from the tip of the snout to to the posterior end of the last vertebrae) of this individual was 446 millimetres. Additionally, some literature (Wheeler & Jones 1989) and websites (http://fishbone.nottingham.ac.uk; http://fish.library.usyd.edu.au) were used to identify the fish bones to element and species.
Aside from groupers, several specimens from other fish taxa were observed, the most common of them being the North African catfish (Clarias cf. gariepinus) and species from the sea breams (Sparidae), mullets (Mugilidae) and skates (Rajidae) families. However, only the bones that could be determined as grouper were recorded in detail.
The grouper bones were also checked for butchery marks. Observed butchery marks were recorded and described in the database.
3.4 Measurements and estimating fish size
27 2012). Impact of fishing by a human population will manifest as a decrease of the average size of fish (Van Neer et al. 2009; Thieren et al. 2012).
There are several standardised measurements describing the overall size of the fish. One of the most common measurements is SL, which measures the length from the tip of the snout to the posterior end of the last vertebrae (excluding the caudal fin). Another common measurement is the TL, which encompasses the
length from the tip of the snout to the tip of the longer lobe of the caudal fin (see fig. 3.2.). The latter measurement is used in this study as it uses only formulas that calculated the groupers’ TLs.
Several methods are available to estimate the TL of fish using measurements of individual bones. There are different opinions about which skeletal elements are most suitable for these estimations. Casteel (1976, 93-123) states that the most appropriate skeletal elements for estimating the total length of the fish are the otoliths, scales, and vertebrae. Yet, scales are rarely present in the archaeological record and otoliths are also only found occasionally. In the study of the body length estimation of the European eel (Anguilla anguilla) by Thieren et al. (2012), the vertebrae proved to provide the most accurate estimations as opposed to the “less reliable” cranial elements. This can however be explained by the fact that the European eel is characterised by high intraspecific variation in head shape, thereby reducing the accuracy of size estimations based upon these elements (Thieren et al. 2012). Consequently, this conclusion may not necessarily be applicable to size estimations of other fish species. Brinkhuizen (1989, 107) states that the vertebrae are not suitable for body lengths estimations as these are serial elements: they occur in high frequency and in a variation of sizes within fish bodies. In other words, vertebrae can be used to estimate a minimal and maximum length at best. Colley (1990) agrees and argues that the dentary, premaxilla, maxilla, articular,
28 quadrate, preopercular, operculum and cleithrum are the most useful for estimating TLs. Wheeler & Jones (1989, 141) mention the premaxilla, dentary, articular, quadrate, basioccipital, parasphenoid and abdominal vertebrae as most suitable.
For this study measurements of the dentary and premaxilla were used to estimate the TL of the fish as there are formula’s available by Desse & Desse-Berset (1996a) that use the measurements of these two elements in order to estimate the groupers’ TL. The dentary and premaxilla occur frequently in the archaeological material and are often in good condition, offering the possibility of many accurate measurements. The correlation coefficients between the measurements of these elements and fish lengths usually vary between 0.95 and 0.99 (Desse & Desse-Berset 1996b).
Naturally, the estimations of lengths are, as the word estimation already implies, not always completely accurate. There can be, for example, variations in bone size between two fish of the same species and same length (Brinkhuizen. 1989, 66-67). Furthermore, Wheeler & Jones (1989, 140) introduce three important qualifications regarding the estimations of length through bone size measurements:
• The correct identification of skeletal element and species is essential; • The location of positive reference points between which to measure is vital; • The proposed measurements should be made on points that did not suffer
damage in the soil, or during recovery or processing.
29 There are several ways through which a fish’s TL can be estimated. The following paragraphs will discuss the three most frequently used methods including the method used in this research.
Firstly, the simplest way to give an estimate of the approximate length of the archaeological fish is to compare the archaeological bone with a bone of a fish of known size (Casteel 1976, 104-105; Wheeler & Jones 1989, 141; Colley 1990). This is a simple and fast method. Regrettably, it may not always prove to be very accurate. For this study this method was particularly unsuitable since there was only one grouper specimen available for comparison.
Secondly, there is the single regression method. This method is especially appropriate for fish size estimations, as fish, unlike mammals, grow exponentially. Using this method, fish size can be predicted from a specific bone measurement by means of a single regression formula, given that fish size and bone size are directly correlated (Casteel 1976, 95-101). To use this method, empirical data from a series of specimens of particular fish species are plotted on a system of Cartesian coordinates (Casteel 1976, 95-96). The fish size is the dependent variable (Y) and the bone size is the independent variable (X). This should result in a curvilinear relationship between the variables (Casteel 1976, 96). The regression formulas can be deduced from these data. These can be applied to archaeological fish bone measurements to calculate the TL of the fish. This method has been proved to be the best one available by Casteel (1976, 122) as it only requires a single regression equation for making estimates. Moreover, it is highly accurate. Single regression equations particularily for groupers were made available by Desse & Desse-Berset (1996a) making this method perfect for this study.
30 as opposed to just one, the accuracy is not higher. Therefore the double regression method was not used in this study.
Desse & Desse-Berset (1996a) provide single regression equations specifically for groupers. Their article has been used to estimate the TLs of the groupers when possible.
According to their work the following measurements have been taken:
• Dentary: minimum anterior height and maximum anterior height (see fig 3.3) • Premaxilla: heighth of process. articularis (see fig 3.4)
• Quadratum: maximum height of the margo posterior and transversal diameter of articulation (see fig 3.5).
Fig. 3.3. Measurements of dentary (measurements according to Desse & Desse-Berset (1996a), drawing by P. Verplanke)
Fig. 3.4. Measurement of premaxilla (measurement according to Desse & Desse-Berset (1996a), drawing by P. Verplanke)
31 The works of Desse & Desse-Berset (1994; 1996a) demonstrate that all different grouper species fit a similar set of regression equations, and that they all have the same relationship between TL, SL and bone measurements. This relationship worked well for all 25 groupers that were tested by Desse & Desse-Berset (1996a). Therefore, the calculations in their publications could be used on all the grouper bones without having to identify to the level of species.
For the measurements taken of the dentary and the premaxilla, formulas were available to calculate the TL of the fish (Desse & Desse-Berset 1996a). For the dentary this was as follows, 79,43+43,134*maximum anterior height=TL.
In some cases, a measurement of the maximum anterior height was impossible, due to fragmentation, but a measurement of the minimum anterior height could then be taken. Then the formula (minimum anterior height-0,705)/0,727=maximum anterior height was used. Subsequently the TL could be calculated using this outcome.
Additional measurements have been taken according to the article by Morales & Rosenlund (1979). This work gives standard measurements on many frequently found bones that are not mentioned in Desse & Desse-Berset (1996a), such as the maxilla and articulare. Unfortunately, it was not possible to calculate the fish TL with these measurements. Luckily, due to the standardisation of the measurements, the results could be plotted against each other per bone element, which also gives much information about the size increase and decrease throughout time (Desse & Desse-Berset 1996b). Although the standardised measurements by Morales & Rosenlund (1979) have been referred to as “not useful for all fish species” (Brinkhuizen 1989, 72) and “not practical” (Wheeler & Jones 1989, 139), they have proved their utility for this study. Considering that Morales & Rosenlund (1979) demonstrate the measurements on bones from fish from the same order as groupers (Perciformes), their research did provide usable and recognisable measuring points.
32 3.5 Data manipulation
3.5.1 Descriptive
Data were recorded in Microsoft Access. In order to visually clarify and illustrate data and results such as the distribution of skeletal elements and distribution of bones over the different periods, this study uses computer software programmes Microsoft Excel 2010 (tables and graphs) and Past 3.0 (graphs).
3.5.2 Interpretative
Two different statistical tests were applied to the length estimations. Firstly, in order to analyse the differences between the means of groups of data (for example the TLs in the different time periods), comparisons by analysis of variance (ANOVA) were made. ANOVA is a statistical test which will prove whether the differences between the means of several groups of data are of statistical significance (Drennan 2004, 171-177).
Secondly, the chi-squared test was used in order to check whether and how two groups of measurements differed from each other. For example, the hand collected bones were compared to the sieved material. The chi-squared test checks whether the observed data deviate from the expected numbers, through which it can be determined to what extent sets of data differ from one another. In the application of the chi-squared test, a single number adds up all differences between the actual data and the expexted data. When they are identical, the chi-squared value will be 0.
33
Chapter 4
Results
4.1 Introduction
This chapter contains the results of this study. To begin with, the assemblage as a whole and the context of it will be discussed. Subsequently, the distribution of the different skeletal elements and the distribution of the bones over the different periods are given. The following paragraph will showcase the measurements taken and the corresponding specimen length estimation. Lastly, the butchery marks visible on some of the bones and the observed benefits of sieving at the excavation will be discussed. The interpretations of the results offered in this chapter will be further discussed in chapter 5.
4.2 The assemblage
The database used for this research contains 1,367 Epinephelus bones (see table 2). Of these bones 1,118 (81.8%) were from the hand collected material and 249 (18.2%) were collected from the sieved material. Measurements were taken from 191 (14.0%) of these bones. Of these 191, 151 (79.1%) were from the hand collected material and 40 (20.9%) from the
sieved material. Hence, in the end 13.5% of the bones from the hand collected material and 16.1% of the sieved material was measured. Where there was more than one bone from the same specimen measured, only one measurement was used for analysis.
Butchery marks were observed on 48 of the grouper bones. These will be discussed in more detail in paragraph 4.6.
As the complete assemblage has not yet been studied to its entirety, it is not possible to establish the importance of groupers within the total assemblage.
34 However, two periods of the Late Iron Age have been studied entirely (Çakirlar et al. 2014). Table 3 and figure 4.1 show the Number of Identified Specimens (NISP) based fish species composition of these periods. The hand collected assemblage shows a predominance of groupers. As much as 68.2% of the hand collected assemblage could be identified as grouper. This abundance has also been observed in other chronological periods at Kinet Höyük (Çakirlar et al. 2014).
Table 2. Overview of number of bones identified as Epinephelus from Kinet Höyük, the percentage per skeletal element and the number and percentage of measured bones.
Element Hand
collectedSieved Total
Measured h. collected Measure d sieved Total measured Hand
collected Sieved Total
35 Table 3. Number of identified specimens of each fish taxa in two periods of the Late Iron Age (Çakirlar et al. 2014).
This is probably not only due to the popularity of the groupers in the past but may also have to do with the bones themselves. Due to their large size, they are easy to collect by hand. This idea is also confirmed by the quantification data of the sieved assemblage where the percentage of specimens identified as grouper is as low as 4.1. In the sieved assemblage the African sharptooth catfish (Clarias cf. gariepinus) is the most frequent taxon with a presence of 19.7% of the total. Following are the Sea breams (Sparidae) with a total proportion of 9.7%. In the total assemblage (sieved and hand collected specimens combined) the total proportion of the Epinephelus is 14.2% of the NISP. This is still a rather high percentage, as the only
Hand
collected Sieved Total
Hand
collected Sieved Total
Hand
collected Sieved Total
Argyrosomus regius 2 2 4 0,53 0,10 0,17 0,62 0,28 0,39 Balistes carolinensis 6 6 1,59 0,25 1,86 0,58 Carcharchinidae 2 2 4 0,53 0,10 0,17 0,62 0,28 0,39 Centracanthidae 3 3 0,15 0,13 0,42 0,29 Clarias cf. gariepinus 4 395 399 1,06 19,71 16,76 1,24 55,56 38,59 Clupeidae 1 1 0,05 0,04 0,14 0,10 Cyprinidae 2 2 0,10 0,08 0,28 0,19 Dentex cf. dentex 1 1 2 0,27 0,05 0,08 0,31 0,14 0,19 Dicentrarchus spp. 2 3 5 0,53 0,15 0,21 0,62 0,42 0,48 Diplodus sp. 1 1 0,27 0,04 0,31 0,10 Epinephelidae 257 82 339 68,17 4,09 14,24 79,57 11,53 32,79 Lamnidae 1 1 0,27 0,04 0,31 0,10 Mugilidae 13 9 22 3,45 0,45 0,92 4,02 1,27 2,13 Rajidae 14 14 0,70 0,59 0,00 1,97 1,35 Sciaenidae 1 1 0,27 0,04 0,31 0,10 Scombridae 1 1 0,05 0,04 0,14 0,10 Scophthalmidae 1 1 0,27 0,04 0,31 0,10 Sparidae 24 158 182 6,37 7,88 7,64 7,43 22,22 17,60 Sparus aurata 7 18 25 1,86 0,90 1,05 2,17 2,53 2,42 Sparus pagrus 1 19 20 0,27 0,95 0,84 0,31 2,67 1,93 Umbrina cirrosa 1 1 0,05 0,04 0,14 0,10 Total identified 323 711 1034 85,68 35,48 43,43 100,00 100,00 100,00 Unidentified 54 1293 1347 14,32 64,52 56,57 Total 377 2004 2381 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00
% Total % Excluding unidentified
Number of Identified Specimens
36 species that was more frequently found in the total assemblage was the African sharptooth catfish (16.8%). However, as this is a freshwater species, it was not fished from the same waters as the groupers.
4.3 Archaeological context
Kinet Höyük is an archaeological tell situated at the north-eastern corner of the Mediterranean, on the east side of the Gulf of Iskenderun (see fig. 4.2). Measuring 26 metres in height and compassing an area of 3.3 hectare, it is the largest mound of eastern Cilicia (Gates 1999). The tell is located on the narrow coastal Erzin Plain, bordered by the Mediterranean coast to the west and the Amanus Mountains to the east (Çakirlar et al. 2014). Excavations conducted between 1992 and 2008 have uncovered a sequence of six millennia of occupation (Gates 1999; Beach & Luzzadder-Beach 2008; Çakirlar et al. 2014; see table 4).
Fig. 4.2. Aerial view of Kinet Höyük in current situation (courtesy of Kinet Höyük excavations).
37 be desolated in the fourteen following centuries. Possible causes for this abandonment are the occurrence of an earthquake or the siltation (pollution) of the harbour (Beach & Luzzadder-Beach 2008). Habitation returned to Kinet Höyük in the late twelfth century which lasted until the fourteenth century AD (Late Middle Ages) (Beach & Luzzadder-Beach 2008; Çakirlar et al. 2014).
Table 4. Overview of chronology and periodisation Kinet of Höyük (Gates 1999).
Nowadays, the site of Kinet Höyük is situated about 400 metres away from the coastline. This is very different than the circumstances in the tell’s glory days when it provided a view over the sea and was flanked by an estuary to the south and controlling a natural bay to the north (Çakirlar et al. 2014).
The fish remains discussed in this study are obtained from all over this tell. The majority of them could be associated with living areas and were found near walls, in floors, and in pits.
4.4 Distribution of elements and periods
Figure 4.3 shows the distribution of the grouper bones over different time periods. Most of the material by far is dated to the Late Bronze Age as the deposits from this period were excavated more frequently than those from other periods (Gates, 2005).
In figures 4.4 to 4.5 the distribution of the skeletal elements is illustrated. In most cases the proportions between numbers in hand collected and sieved samples are quite balanced which is confirmed by a chi-squared test (P = 5.5879E-10).
Chronological
period Dates Occupation Kinet Höyük
Late Neolithic 6th to 5th millennium B.C. Start occupation from 6th milennium B.C. onwards Early Bronze Age 3rd millennium B.C.
Middle Bronze Age 2000 to 1500 B.C. Late Bronze Age 13th century B.C. Early Iron Age 12th to 10th century B.C. Middle Iron Age 9th to 8th century B.C. Late Iron Age 7th to 4th century B.C. Hellenistic Period 330 B.C. to 50 B.C.
38 However, some bones, like the
coracoid, urohyal, and interhyal were only found in the hand collected material. These are all small and fragile so probably only the bigger fragments in the hand collected material were identified. The otolith is the only element that was found exclusively in the sieved material. As this element is often not recognised as bone and incorrectly identified as mollusc shell, the otoliths from the hand collected material may be
found among the mollusc samples from the site.
Fig 4.4. Distribution of head bones in hand collected material. Neurocranial material, branchiostegals and other non-symmetrical bones are not included because of possible distorting/biasing values. Based on table 2. Total NISP: 781 (Drawing by: P. Verplanke, after Seeman 1986).
39 Fig 4.5. Distribution of head bones in sieved material. Neurocranial material, branchiostegals and other non-symmetrical bones are not included because of possible distorting/biasing values. Based on table 2. Total NISP: 182 (Drawing by: P. Verplanke, after Seeman 1986).
Figure 4.6 shows the portions of the elements that were present in the assemblage. Although almost half of the assemblage was fragmented in such a way that less than half of the element was present (42-45%), another large part was (almost) complete (38-45%).
40 Fig. 4.7. Anterior parts of dentaries found in the assemblage,
not to scale (below: intact dentary from:
http://fishbone.nottingham.ac.uk/)
In the hand collected material, 18.7% of the grouper bones were vertebrae. In the sieved assemblage this percentage was 19.2. This seems a rather low amount that cannot be attributed to differential preservation or a lack of identification, considering that these vertebrae are very recognizable and robust. Cakirlar et al. (2014) state that the low percentage of vertebrae in the Iron Age assemblage may be a consequence of sampling techniques, although remarkably the percentage of vertebrae of that assemblage is even lower (12%).
41 4.5 Measurements and length estimations
A total of 191 specimens were measured, of which 180 could be dated to a specific period. The distribution of the taken measurements of the periods is illustrated in Figure 4.8. As the Late Bronze Age is over represented in the material, it is logical that this is also the period with the most measurements. From the Middle and Late Iron Age as well as the Middle Ages a reasonable amount of measurements have been obtained. Unfortunately the amount of measurements from the Early and Middle Bronze Age is quite small.
Figure 4.9 shows the number of measurements taken per skeletal element. Most of the measurements were taken from the dentary bones. The dentary was one of the most frequently encountered elements so this is
not surprising. The
measurements had to be taken from the anterior part of the dentary. This portion of the dentary bone is solid and well preserved so in most cases the measurements could easily be taken. From most of the other bones that were often found (i.e. premaxilla, articulare and quadrate) the standard measurements are on parts that were very fragile and so, sadly, missing in a lot of cases.
Seventy-five of the measurements could be used to estimate the TL of the fish. Out of these, 63 of the bones are from the hand collected material and 12 are from the Fig 4.8. Histogram of number of specimens measured
42 sieved assemblage. All individual measurements and estimated TLs can be found in Appendix 1.
Fig. 4.9. Number of measurements taken per skeletal element. Total NISP 191.
4.6 Butchery marks
Butchery marks could be observed on 48 bones, of which the most evident were on two dentaries (see figures 4.10 and 4.11). Both dentaries were collected from Late Bronze Age deposits. All butchered bones were obtained from the hand collected material; the sieved assemblage does not contain any butchery marks on grouper bones.
43 .
4.7 The importance of sieving
A fact that has been confirmed by the results of this research is that sieving should be an essential part in the excavation of fish remains. Table 5 shows a summary of the differences between the data derived from the TL estimations. The minimum estimated TL of the hand collected assemblage is 355.5 millimetres. This is even higher than the average of the sieved assemblage (338.9 millimetres). This shows that the sieved assemblage adds much
to the entire range of fish sizes. There seemed to be no correlation between the mesh sizes and the estimations of lengths of the fish.
As is visible in Table 3, many fish species are not included in the total assemblage when there is no sieving. Fish that were not found in the hand collected material but that were present in the sieved material were species from the Centracanthidae, Clupeidae, Cyprinidae, Rajidae, and Scombridae families and Umbrina cirrosa. Additionally, no otoliths would have been included in the assemblage had there been no sieving. Although it is unclear whether the otoliths Fig. 4.10. Dentary with butchery mark (KT number:
23222) not to scale.
Fig. 4.11. Dentary with butchery mark (KT number: 8964) not to scale.
Table 5. Differences between total lengths calculated through measurements of hand collected and sieved specimens.
44 have been misidentified and ended up in the wrong material category or if they just have not been gathered by hand at all.
45
Chapter 5
Discussion & Conclusion
5.1 (Grouper) fisheries in Kinet Höyük
Groupers were undoubtedly an important part of the diet in Kinet Höyük in ancient times. Grouper fishing is nowadays usually done with hook and line or by means of harpooning, which is probably also how they were caught in the past (Lernau 1986, 88). Groupers make an especially easy target when they assemble during their yearly spawning aggregations; during that time they are easily caught with archaic fishing gear.
The archaeological data from Kinet Höyük poses an excellent chance to learn more about grouper fisher in the eastern Mediterranean basin, as archaeological research of fish remains research is still feeble in this area (Çakirlar et al. 2014). The research regarding the TLs of groupers in the early habitation of Kinet Höyük can be used to compare data collected about modern fisheries; TL is the standard measurement for many fisheries.4 Calculations towards the weight of fish from
archaeological data may cause problems, as the weight, as previously mentioned, tends to fluctuate and so loses its direct correlation to the bone size and/or length of the fish.
5.2 Estimation of total lengths
Measurements taken from the dentaries and premaxillae allowed the calculations of estimation of the TL of 75 specimens according to the work of Desse & Desse-Berset (1996a). Unfortunately, four of the estimated total lengths could not be linked to any time period and were therefore not useful for this study. The total result of TLs calculated from the dentaries have a wider range than those from the premaxillae, but this could be anticipated since the measurements from dentaries were more numerous.
Figure 5.1 shows the evolution of the TL estimations throughout time in the hand collected material. Periods with less than four estimations of TL have been excluded (Middle Bronze Age, Eary Iron Age and Hellenistic period). A similar illustration
46 could not be made for the sieved material due to a lack of a sufficient amount of measurements.
Fig 5.1. Estimations of TL throughout periods with 25-75% quartiles in boxes, minimum, maximum and median shown in horizontal lines. Only hand collected material. NISP per period: LBA: 22, MIA: 8, LIA-EH: 20, MED: 4. Total NISP: 54.
47 abandonment of Kinet Höyük. After the reoccupation of the tell in the Middle Ages, the median of the estimated TLs is at an all-time low at less than 560 millimetres. However, as the dataset from this period is very small (4 specimens) no reliable conclusions could be drawn.
Figures 5.2 to 5.4 give a schematic view of TLs throughout time. A specimen that has a very broad phasing (Iron Age, TL: 81 cm) has been excluded here. Figure 5.2 shows how most of the medium sized and large specimens were part of the material that was collected by hand. Because the sieved material was not as structurally excavated, the data set is not as complete. It is clear that many specimens with a smaller TL would have been absent from the data, had there not been use of sieves at the excavation at all. One can only imagine how much more data would have been gained had there been more sieving.
48 Fig. 5.3. Distribution of TLs over periods in the hand collected material in percentages. Total NISP 59.
49 Remarkably, there are very few specimens between the lengths of 500 to 700 millimetres in the hand collected material, and in the sieved material the specimens of this length are completely absent. A reason for this could be certain sampling techniques that were used at the excavation. Another explanation has been posed by Van Neer & Ervynck (1993, 50-51) who mention how size distribution may illustrate seasonal fishery. A comparable example has been found in a Mesolithic site of the Ertebølle culture in Denmark. Here, size reconstructions of the Common roach (Rutilus rutilus) showed peaks similar to the ones from Kinet Höyük in the size distributions. These peaks represented different age groups of the fish. As the Common roach (like groupers) only spawns in spring, a catch at one place at a certain time of the year will always show a clear size difference between the fish that were born in consecutive years (Van Neer & Ervynck 1993, 50-51).
This may very well be what also happened at Kinet Höyük, explaining the ‘gap’ in size distributions. All species from the Epinephelinae subfamily that occur in the eastern Mediterranean mature when they are roughly five years old. TL will then vary from around 400 to 600 millimetres (Heemstra & Randall 1993, 104-276). Fish usually grow very fast in their first years, but after they start to mature their growth slows down. More of their energy will be used for reproduction and less for growth (Hilborn & Hilborn 2012, 26). The fish in the size groups smaller than 500 millimetres TL were probably not yet mature or only starting to mature. The capture of relatively many of these small individuals is an indicator for overfishing.
50 fishermen. However, it could also indicate a form of early sustainable fishery, or that fish just did not grow very old anymore. The latter explanation seems more credible as fishermen also had no trouble with catching fish that had not reached sexual maturity yet. The extremely large fish were not found in the data from the Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age and the Middle Ages. This is remarkable as the Late Bronze Age is the period that has by far the largest dataset and so should give a relatively complete image. As they were fishing so intensively in this period, perhaps there were no or very few old and therefore large fish left. Naturally, this is difficult to establish as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
