Report on Zooarchaeological
Remains from the Seven Site,
Nikumaroro, Phoenix Islands
July 5, 2008
Sharyn Jones
Department of Anthropology
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Heritage Hall, Rm. # 315
Birmingham, AL 35294-3350
Email: sharynj@uab.edu
This report details identifications of bones (fish,
turtle, and bird) from The International Group for Historic Aircraft
Recovery’s (TIGHAR) 2007 excavations of the Seven Site, Nikumaroro,
Phoenix Islands, sent by Dr. Tom King to Sharyn Jones in September
2008. The analyzed bone includes material from the following features:
SL-2, SL-3, and WR-1.
Habitat and Ecology
Almost any of the commonly identified fish species from the Seven Site assemblage
will take a hook, but all of these fishes could also have been collected
with a spear or net of some kind (a cast net, scoop net, or gill net). The
assemblage includes a diverse collection (see Appendix C for the diversity
calculations) of common reef-associated species that would also inhabit the
lagoon, especially when they are young and small-bodied. Indeed, the
majority of the fishes in the Seven Site assemblage are small or medium bodied
fishes that would inhabit the lagoon and near-shore reef. Serranids
and Carangids are by far the most abundant species identified; they contribute
17.6% each to the total MNI and 7.1 % and 12.9 %, respectively to the total
biomass (see Table 1). It is possible that all of the fishes in the
assemblage were collected on the lagoon side of the island or on the near-shore
reef edge. However, I suspect that collecting in the lagoon would be
easier and somewhat safer for someone that was not familiar with the island.
Marine Biological surveys of the Phoenix Island Group, including Nikumaroro,
have found that the Gymnosarda unicolor (Dogtooth tuna) was especially
abundant prior to 2001 (representing up to 75% of the large fish sampled)
as was the reef shark population (Uwate and Teroroko 2007). Dogtooth tuna
is known to occur around coral reefs; this species is generally solitary
or found in schools of six or less (Froese and Pauly 2004). Given their common
occurrence on coral reefs and in the inshore area, it is therefore not surprising
that both tuna (Scombridae) and reef shark (Carcharhinidae) were identified
from the Seven Site assemblage.4 Either
could easily have been taken with a hook and handline or with a spear.
Importantly, there may be ecological reasons to think that the people who
created the Seven Site assemblages were not Indigenous Pacific Islanders. First,
the Seven Site is on the windward side of the island. Pacific Islanders
generally prefer to position their atoll villages on the leeward side of
an island, which is more protected. Second, Pacific Islanders know,
and marine biological surveys have confirmed (see surveys cited in Uwate
and Teroroko 2007:36-37), that the numbers of fishes and fish species in
the lagoon decrease with increased distance from the lagoon opening. Specifically,
in the Phoenix Island surveys, marine biologists found that, “The richest
fish populations were on the reef slope outside the lagoon” (Uwate
and Teroroko 2007:37). The Seven Site is located far from the lagoon
opening on Nikumaroro. Therefore, the people who placed their camp at the
Seven Site were either uninterested in easy access to a diverse and abundant
supply fish or they had no knowledge of how to easily access local marine
resources.
Comparison Between the 2001 and 2007 Fish Bones
When comparing the material I identified from the 2007 excavations to that
from the 2001 excavations I noticed four trends.5 First,
the 2001 material does not appear to be significantly different in character,
make up, or abundance than the 2007 material. The 2001 material contained
some Acanthurids, Parrotfish scales, bone of Perciformes (likely Serranids),
Carangid caudal scutes (especially in the “Hole” unit), and bird
bones. The “Slope” unit contained turtle, Perciformes,
and a large Acanthurid, represented by a relitvely large hyomandibular (a
fish about 40-50 cm in TL). In particular, the 4D M-1, and M-2 features
contained material that looks very much like what I analyzed from the 2007
excavations.
Second, both the 2001 and 2007 excavations contained an abundance of Carangids
and Holocentrids. These two families were identified from every feature/unit
excavated in 2001. Carangids were major components of the material
I identified, being present in all the features. However, in the 2007
material, Holocentrids were only identified from WR-1. It is possible
that these two families are naturally abundant in Nikumaroro’s marine
environment. Both were commonly noted in numerous marine biological
surveys of the island (Uwate and Teroroko 2007:38).
Third, when looking over the 2001 material, I noticed that the Carangid bone
from unit “2D, Old #3” was relatively large, likely coming from
a couple individuals (average anterior width of vertebrae is 11.45 mm, representing
a fish that is about 45-50 cm TL). This fish, or fishes, from 2D is
larger than most, but not all, of the Carangid material I analyzed from the
2007 excavations. The 2001 material from 2D is less frequently burned than
the material I analyzed, but some of the 2-D bone is clearly from burn features.
Fourth, The assemblages from both the 2001 and the 2007 excavations are of
relatively small sample sizes (WR-1 had the highest frequency of fauna, with
a total MNI of 47). The 2001 identifications calculated a total MNI
of only 27 for all the excavation units, and the MNI estimates from each
of the features examined ranged from 1-7. The 2001 and 2007 assemblages
(each excavation unit or site being an assemblage: 2D, 4D, M-1, SL-2, etc.)
are so small and spatially distinct that they appear to represent single
incidents of eating and cooking. The WR-1 assemblage is significantly
larger, but still relatively small in comparison to archaeological features
I have examined from various Pacific Island archaeological sites. The
WR-1 fauna might represent a few cooking and eating incidents and/or the
remains of meals consumed by more than one individual.
The patterns observed in the Seven Site fauna is unusual in my experiences
analyzing assemblages created by Pacific Islanders. Based on the condition
and frequency of the faunal remains from the Seven Site I agree with the
interpretation of this site as an encampment and one that was likely created
by castaways who were not Pacific Islanders.
Important Questions
A number of important questions were posed in the TIGHAR preliminary report
on the excavations of the Triangle Site and the Seven Site. I will
answer these directly below, using data from my analysis of the 2007 faunal
materials and drawing from my experiences identifying zooarchaeological assemblages
and fishing with Pacific Islanders in Micronesia, Fiji, and Polynesia.
1. |
How many individuals are represented? |
|
|
Depending on the interpretation, conservative vs. non-conservative,
there are 46-75 individual fishes and turtles represented by the 2007
excavated material from the Seven Site (see Appendix A). |
2. |
What species are represented? |
|
|
See Table 1. At least 21 distinct taxa were identified
(> 20 fish,
a Reef shark, and Sea turtles). This estimate is based on the bone
I was able to identify to Family, genus, or species, but it is likely
a vast underestimate of the actual diversity contained in the assemblage.
My identifications are biased and limited by the fragmentary nature of
the bones and the breadth of my comparative collection. |
3. |
Where and how easily could the taxa represented in the
assemblage have been procured? |
|
|
The diversity and size of the fishes suggests that a net could have
been used for collecting the fish, and/or the collector was indiscriminate
in their collection. A net would be the easiest way to capture
this diverse assemblage or relatively small-bodied fishes. However,
the fish species represented could have been captured with a spear or
taken with a hook and hand line. I have found that when fishing
in a relatively unexploited habitat, throwing a hook in the water with
some bait (crab or other invertebrate) will almost always result in a
quick and easy catch. Using a spear to collect fish is the most difficult
of the three methods identified here.
Capturing turtles would have been extremely easy if the turtles were
nesting, or if they were recently hatched. Turtles may be taken when
they are breeding in the water as well. Invertebrates, including Giant clams, crabs, and
various gastropods are also easy to collect; it takes very little effort
or skill to assemble a meal of invertebrates. |
4. |
How were they prepared and cooked? |
|
|
Based on the physical state of the fish, bird, and turtle bones (being
very fragmentary and mostly burned on an open fire), I argue that the
animals were cooked on an open fire. They were likely just thrown
on hot coals and fire. The turtle bone is so fragmentary and burned
that it suggests that turtles were likely cooked in their shells on the
open fire. |
5. |
What parts were used and not used? |
|
|
Table 5 lists the elements represented in the assemblage.
In the 2007 material, 22% of the fish bone comes from the crania and
78% of the bone is postcranial. Much of the postcrania are represented
by vertebrae. Fragments of carapace and plastron form the majority
of turtle remains. It is unclear what body parts of the animals were
eaten and what parts were not, however, the recovered bones represent
a relatively unbiased deposition of bone into the features/units. As
I stated above, the person or people who cooked and consumed the fishes
represented in the Seven Sites apparently threw out all the bones in
virtually the same way, that is: consuming all or part of each fish and
disposing of the remains in or on the fire features. |
6. |
How many individual cooking and eating episodes are represented? |
|
|
It is impossible to answer this question with the faunal data alone.
However, as explained above, I believe that the features or units each
represent one or more eating and cooking episodes. The larger features,
where the majority of the bone was recovered, such as WR-1 likely represent
multiple eating and cooking events. |
7. |
About how many people could have subsisted, for how long,
from each episode? |
|
|
The answer to this question depends on how many fishes the people
caught and consumed. For example, if a person consumes an average of
five of these small fish each day (this would be on the low end of
a typical level of consumption for a Pacific Islander, see Jones, in
press), WR-1 with 47 MNI could represent eating episodes over about
nine and a half days. However, this feature also includes a sea
turtle which could sustain a person for a couple of days, but it could
also have been consumed in a single sitting and along with other foods
(fishes, crabs, giant clams, etc.). At a rate of five fish a
day, the SL-2 and SL-3 features could represent two and three days
of meals. Of course this estimate
assumes that our faunal assemblage includes an accurate representation
of all the individual fishes eaten, but we know that the archaeologically
recovered fauna is subject to many transformational processes which impact
our data set.
If people were eating, but on the verge of starvation and were not adept
fishers, they might be hard pressed to collect five fish each day. Then
again, fishing on a relatively pristine atoll like Nikumaroro, even
an inexperienced fisher could be expected to have very good luck collecting
fish, and of course turtles and invertebrates. |
8. |
Could one or two individuals have carried the number of
Tridacna at the site, and the weight of the turtle meat represented by
the bones found there, to the site form their places of procurement? |
|
|
It is entirely possible that one or two hungry individuals could
have carried the Giant clams to the site, depending on how long they
spent at this encampment. Tridacna gigas, as the TIGHAR report identifies
the clams, are one of the most versatile of Tridacna species (Munro
1993:434). They are found in a variety of habitats, around both
high- and low-islands and on lagoon and fringing reefs. Therefore,
they could have been collected on either the lagoon side of Nikumaroro
or on the seaward reef.
In terms of indigenous exploitation patterns, Pacific Islanders typically
leave clam shells in place and extract the meat from the animal where
it sits on the reef. The exception to this pattern is when the
shells are desired for tool construction or other use. Munro discusses
this point and the way that Micronesians exploit Giant clams, saying
that,
“Fishing methods for giant clams are exceedingly simple. In
remote areas where the
shells have no significant value and have strong byssal attachments
to the reef, the flesh is simply excised from the shells by slipping
a sharp knife along the inner surface of the shell to cut one end of
the adductor muscle. This also applies to the larger species
in which the shell is too heavy to be readily lifted from the water” (Munro
1993:441).
Based on my experiences fishing and collecting with Pacific Islanders
on the reef, and my analyses of shell middens, I suspect that the piles
of Giant clams at the Seven Site were not deposited by Micronesians.
This depositional pattern is a-typical of Pacific Islanders, who generally
do not bring entire shells to their domestic sites unless they have
plans to use the shell for specific purposes. It is more likely
that this material was deposited by Europeans or Westerners, peoples
of non-Pacific Island descent.
It is also worth
noting that in a 1995 survey of Nikumaroro by the Government of Kiribati, “[Giant]
Clams were observed ne[ar] the village of Niku facing Maroro…Clam
density was 2 to 3 clams/m2” (cited in Uwate and Teroroko 2007:29).
It is likely that clam density was higher in the past, but if clams
occurred at a density of 2-3/m2 it would be relatively easy to collect
a mass of Giant clams in a small area over a period of two-four days,
working a couple hours at a time through out each day. |
9. |
Generally, are the species represented and the way in which
they are prepared, more consistent with traditional Micronesian and Polynesian
subsistence practices or with those of Europeans camping out? |
|
|
As I explained above, I believe that the nature of the material in
the Seven Site faunal assemblage suggests collection by non-native Pacific
Islanders. |
References Cited
Go to Previous Page
Go to Appendices
|