

Humans Deep-Sea Fishing 42,000 Years Ago - tokenadult
http://www.smh.com.au/world/science/gone-fishing-42000-years-ago-20111125-1nxkn.html

======
DaniFong
I heard from Laura Cunningham's talk on 10,000 years of California ecology
that there were once Tuna in San Francisco Bay. If so perhaps these fish could
be caught on land?

[http://longnow.org/seminars/02011/oct/17/ten-millennia-
calif...](http://longnow.org/seminars/02011/oct/17/ten-millennia-california-
ecology/)

~~~
DaniFong
Have discussed a bit with the author. It seems there is still some question
but someone who knows fish would have to weigh in:

Not an expert by any means, but I recall a talk by Laura Cunningham on
historical California ecology that spoke of the existence of Tuna in the San
Francisco bay.

The talk is available here, if you're a member.

[http://longnow.org/seminars/02011/oct/17/ten-millennia-
calif...](http://longnow.org/seminars/02011/oct/17/ten-millennia-california-
ecology/)

Susan O'Connor: * Hi Danielle, Yes I think that you are correct and immature
tuna do come into shallower water but they are still difficult to catch as
they are very fast moving so cannot usually be caught on a baited hook thrown
offshore. Best Sue *

Danielle:

Hmm tricky. Are the bones you've found mostly adult? I don't have access to
the paper... would you mind forwarding it?

Susan: _The tuna we have are mostly between about 50 and 70 cm in length so
may be immatures that come close to shore. I'm not an expert but I have been
advised that the tuna would not be able to be caught on the single piece
circular baited jabbing hooks that I have in the site. I can't access the
library from Japan so can't send you a pdf. Best Sue_

Danielle:

Hmm, okay, thanks.

Really interesting find and evidence!

------
prawn
Does this really confirm deep-sea fishing? Could have just been a combination
of tuna/etc straying to shallower waters and those crossing straits
stockpiling food? Or does deep-sea fishing include surface fishing in deeper
waters? At first glance to me, it would be more about deep trawling or long
lines.

~~~
electromagnetic
Deep sea fish such as tuna are often found schooling in surface waters (just
google tuna surfacing and you find some good videos) in deep water areas.

With two boats, a strong net and a good knowledge of your local winds, it
would probably be rather easy to net a tuna and use a land-bound wind to haul
a good sized tuna to shallow waters where it could be hauled ashore by
manpower.

Given that arrow heads pre-date this 'fishing date' then tools would have been
available. It isn't hard to assume that people who can make arrow heads could
make a harpoon head (essentially a big arrow head that can have a line tied
through it and was often unattached to the spear portion - as you wouldn't
want the wooden pole pulling the harpoon out).

My guess would be that if they were using wooden harpoons or stone/bone, they
wouldn't likely be left unused. A harpoon would be kept with the fishing
equipment, not with the cooking utensils, and with a line attached you'd make
sure they were out and ready for the next day rather than leave them in.

I often don't get the logic of the researchers here in that they always seem
surprised no tools were found. I'm sorry, but I work in construction and you
don't find me leaving my hammer and drill laying around in my kitchen and
making new ones instead of using my perfectly good ones.

~~~
Steko
Fishing harpoons are dated from as early as 80k years ago from what is now in
Zaire:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semliki_harpoon>

"With two boats, a strong net and a good knowledge of your local winds, it
would probably be rather easy to net a tuna and use a land-bound wind to haul
a good sized tuna to shallow waters where it could be hauled ashore by
manpower."

That seems unlikely. More likely they speared the sorts of fish they could
carry in whatever sized craft they had (if any). From what I gather the bones
are from smaller tuna.

~~~
electromagnetic
So essentially all the new evidence this has given us is that they sailed into
deeper waters, which isn't especially a talented skill. If you can canoe in
shallow water, you're going to be able to canoe in deep water on a calm day.

------
tokenadult
Abstract of the Science article on the recent archaeological find in East
Timor:

[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6059/1117.abstract?sid...](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6059/1117.abstract?sid=63b76f8c-0fbb-473d-ae9d-15c882cbc16a)

------
hendler
"She said the first people who arrived in Australia at least 50,000 years ago
must have had boats because they had to cross hundreds of kilometres of deep
ocean channels to get here from south-east Asia."

As far as I know, this is debatable.

See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahul_Shelf>

May have been 60KM of ocean or may not have been:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Australia>

~~~
meric
I'd like to see someone crossing a mere 60km of ocean using anything but boat
(or anything flying).

~~~
electromagnetic
Uh, Petar Stoychev swam the English channel (32km) in less than 7 hours. In
1875 Matthew Webb made the crossing in under 22 hours (5 hours attributed to
fighting the tides) and getting a jellyfish sting along the way.

Kutral Ramesh at 13 became the youngest person to cross the English Channel,
prior to this he crossed the Palk Strait 53km wide at its narrowest. In the
same year, he completed a total of 6 channel crossings, the last of which was
the Ten Degree Channel, which is an approximate 150km swim.

If a 13 year old can swim 60km of ocean, I guess adults could have certainly
made the 60km stretch. Also given that there's been the suggested presence of
boats on Crete since about 130,000 years ago... they could have probably just
made a dugout boat from one of the many plentiful tropical forests.

~~~
meric
>> they could have probably just made a dugout boat from one of the many
plentiful tropical forests.

For me, that fits the definition of a boat. :)

