Neat article pushes way back the time when we now know humans were using hook and line for catching fish. If they had line this strong, then they also had nets and baskets. And probably for a LONG time prior to this, as this is very advanced fishing and tackle. http://news.discovery.com/history/ancient-human-fishermen-111128.html
That's a very interesting discovery, adoucette. Thank you for posting this tidbit. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Very interesting - good find. I wonder what the fishing was like when the seas were teeming with life. It's hard to imagine catching a tuna, or any sizeable fish, with a handmade hook. It's even amazing that they recognized that the jaw could be hooked at all. I'm not sure that would have ever occurred to me if I hadn't already seen it done. Something that seems odd to me is the that food bones are often found at such sites, giving the impression they lived with their trash. Between the smell and the bugs, even if they did have trash pits, it seems a little odd that they might have put up with this. (I suppose they might have just used the place to cook.) 39,000 fish means they were there for quite a while.
A lot different to be sure. There's an anecdote I've read of when The first white people arrived in Australia, they'd shot some swans and offered some to the local Aborigines. The Aborigines repayed the favour and came back about an hour later with 200 odd lobsters. You can still find lobsters in Oz but not 200. Remember also the Aborigines were cating these without SCUBA or pots or masks or even gloves.
the only find were "hooks" as per article cited or "hook" as per article cited no line in sight let alone the unwarranted idiocy of extrapolating nets and baskets "fishing and tackle"? wtf? did sue find a prehistoric bass pro shops? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The Australian Aborigines had elaborate stone fish traps and woven ones as well. I don't think that the thought of a strong, durable natural fibre being used as a line is too big a stretch.
sure but when? not at all the hook has to be attached to something yes? yet....... ...i read and see no mention of a line. i mean fiber does degrade fairly rapidly so it is hardly surprising there are none to be found so adoucette pretending the article supports his assertion is bogus. for all we know it could have been attached to a really long stick eyeball the maldivians...... Once a school is sighted, the boat will slowly pass the school while the chummer (en keyolhu) throws out the bait as the school follows. The baitfishes have the desirable characteristic of diving beneath the shadow of the boat when used as chum. The idea is for the baitfish to draw the tuna toward the stern and the poles of the fisherman. Fishing takes place from the stern platform, where about eight fisherman stand and face aft. Water is also sprayed from the stern in an effort to give the appearance of a larger school of baitfish, while also concealing the boat from the quarry. The unbaited hooks are swung into the spray; the fisherman use barbless hooks in the shape of the letter 'C', or a question mark ( ? ). The broad shank appears like a small silvery fish to the tuna and is effective as both a lure and hook. The hook is attached to the pole with nylon fishing line. Traditionally, poles were made of bamboo, but today glass fibre rods are the most popular among Maldivian fisherman. Once the tuna are roused into a frenzy by the baitfish, they do not hesitate to bite the barbless hooks. When the fish are hooked they are hauled onboard. However, because the hooks are barbless there is an art to this type of fishery. The tunas come off the hook once the strain is off the line, so the skill is in taking the strain off at exactly the right moment. If the swing is perfectly controlled, fish come off the hook, fly forward and hit the wooden board set up behind the fisherman and aft of the mast. The entire operation is undertaken at great speed and there may be two or three fish in the air at once. The tunas then drop down into the fish well. According to the United States National Marine Fisheries Service, on average one Maldivian consumes 175.5 kilograms of tuna every year. This is a greater consumption per person than any other country in the world and almost twice as much as the worlds second largest consumer, Iceland - which consumes only 91.0 kilograms of tuna per person, per annum. It is clear that the tuna fishing methods employed in the Maldives for centuries is sustainable and perhaps most importantly is almost entirely without bycatch. The rate of bycatch - non target species, is exceptionally low when compared to the preferred tuna fishing methods of long lining and perse seining, where bycatch includes turtles, sharks, birds and small cetaceans.
This wasn't the only article I read Gustav. http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=87684&Cat=1
poor adoucette ever so worshipful of authority figures Tuna can be caught using nets or by trolling hooks on long lines through the water, O'Connor said. and the actual archeological finds consists of a single/multiple hook(s) "Either way it seems certain that these people were using quite sophisticated technology and watercraft to fish offshore." and the actual archeological finds consists of a single/multiple hook(s) everything else is an assumption without an ounce of evidence. where are the boats? the baskets? the nets? the lines?
Sure, when they are in fact AUTHORITIES. As she is. So when she writes: O’Connor, the study’s lead author, told Reuters by telephone from Canberra. “(This study showed) you got ability to make hooks, you are using lines on those hooks. If you can make fibre lines, you can make nets, you are probably using those fibres on your boats.” I'm going to believe her take on it much more than yours.
Actually, adoucette is spot on. That they had hooks is very strong evidence that they had cordage of some sort, even without any cordage being preserved. And did you follow any of the articles, or google a bit to find out what species were identified from the fish bones at the site? It is fairly easy to tell if people were fishing from shore, or fishing from boats in deeper water by the species caught. I'd say she's got the upper hand on this one. Rich
This was why wolves were welcomed into our settlements. They thought we were crazy for leaving mounds of perfectly good food lying on the ground, and then thanking them for eating it! Most wolves would rather hunt than scavenge, but a few lazy ones who were attracted to the easy life of camp-following were welcomed into our lives and eventually evolved into the subspecies of dogs. Yes, perhaps they smoked the fish and then carried it with them on their hunting and gathering expeditions. Humans didn't stop migrating and get into the business of building permanent settlements until much later than this. But I suppose this could have been an early instance of Mesolithic technology: settling in one place but getting food by fishing instead of farming and herding (Neolithic technology). Mesolithic cultures were not very successful. There's no evidence of a single one of them eventually inventing agriculture and making the transition to the Neolithic. That transition was always directly from the Paleolithic (nomadic hunter-gatherers). Yet there's apparently no evidence that they made the next step into agriculture, which supports a much larger community.
Living on the coast is one of the things that prevented the adoption of agriculture in the late mesolithic of northern Europe. Food was so plentiful, and so easily collected, along the coast that there was no incentive for agriculture to develop. Many of the areas along the coast there did not see agriculture until it was introduced by the Indo-European invaders.