Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T03:09:08.913Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tuna Tagging and Shell Fishhooks: A Comment from Oceania

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Fred M. Reinman*
Affiliation:
Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois

Abstract

The possibility of tuna fish being an agent for the diffusion of the circular shell fishhook found in California and Oceania is discussed. Data from the latter area indicate a specific type of hook and of fishing technique for these fish, suggesting that the circular shell hook would not be used in this way. The experimental evidence of Robinson (1942) and Glidden (Heye 1921) and an examination of the function of fishhooks further suggest that the circular shell hooks function best in a different subenvironment of the sea and for a different group of fish than the tunas. While it is impossible to state unequivocally that the tunas could not be the agents of diffusion for this hook, the specificity of the existing tuna-fishing techniques and the evidence for a different use of the circular hook make it more improbable than is suggested by Heizer or Landberg.

Type
Facts and Comments
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anell, Bengt 1955 Contribution to the History of Fishing in the Southern Seas. Studia Ethnographica Upsaliensia, Vol. 9. Uppsala.Google Scholar
Bowers, Stephen 1883 Fishhooks from Southern California. Science, old series, Vol. 1, No. 20, p. 575. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, Vernon E. 1962 On the Nature of the Selective Fishing Action of Longline Gear. Pacific Science, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 314. Honolulu.Google Scholar
Buck, Peter H. 1930 Samoan Material Culture. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin, No. 75. Honolulu.Google Scholar
Buck, Peter H. 1957 Arts and Crafts of Hawaii. Bemice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication, No. 45. Honolulu.Google Scholar
Godsil, H. C. 1938 The High Seas Tuna Fishery of California. California Division of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin, No. 51. Sacramento.Google Scholar
Heizek, Robert F. 1964 The Western Coast of North America. In Prehistoric Man in the New World, edited by Jesse D. Jennings and Edward Norbeck, pp. 11748. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Heye, George C. 1921 Certain Artifacts from San Miguel Island. Indian Notes and Monographs, Vol. 7, No. 4. Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
Landberg, Leif C. W. 1966 Tuna Tagging and the Extra-Oceanic Distribution of Curved, Single-Piece Shell Fishhooks in the Pacific. American Antiquity, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 48593. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mais, Kenneth F. and Jow, Tom 1960 Exploratory Longline Fishing for Tunas in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, September 1955 to March 1956. California Fish and Game, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 11750. Sacramento.Google Scholar
Nordhoff, Charles 1930 Notes on the Off-Shore Fishing of the Society Islands. Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol. 39, pp. 13773, 221–62. New PlymouthGoogle Scholar
Reinman, Fred M. 1967 Fishing: An Aspect of Oceanic Economy. Fieldiana: Anthropology, Vol. 56, No. 2. Chicago, (in press)Google Scholar
Rlentjes, J. W. and Klng, J. E. 1953 Food of the Yellowfin Tuna in the Central Pacific. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish Bulletin, Vol. 54, No. 81, pp. 91110. Washington.Google Scholar
Robinson, Eugene 1942 Shell Fishhooks of the California Coast. Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Occasional Papers, Vol. 17, No. 4. Honolulu.Google Scholar
Rogers, David B. 1929 Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar