Fish Lab
Introduction
A portion of the bones found in the archaeological assemblage can be identified as fish. To continue the processes of compiling the data and then the interpretation based on the background information of context in which it was found, and the ecological and anthropological setting where they were utilized. The twenty-two pieces I examined were part of bag TS 25, and site FTS. The purpose of this initial report is to identify the species present within the assemblage and quantify the numbers of each type of the ‘big 5’ elements of the fish skull and therefore the number of a species or overall number of organisms represented in the “Fish Bone Mouth Parts Teaching Set”.
Methods
To identify the bones first it was required to spread them apart while creating groups of similar shapes and then look at each one individually, comparing the pieces of the cranium to recorded examples in the laboratories’ leaflets and manuals. The majority of pieces could be identified as being examples of the ‘Big 5’ portions of the skull, which are the: Articular, Dentury, Maxilla, Premaxilla, and Quadrate. Using the illustrations of identified and sided pieces from A Guide to the Identification of Fish Remains… by Leach, 1997 and the previously identified species in the fishbone collection in The University of Otago’s Lab I was able to side the specimens from the shapes and positions of the landmark portions, also the easiest method of identifying the species. Once all of the pieces are identified are placed into specifically labeled bags, one bone in each, from 25-1 to 25-22.
The main purpose of the report is to quantify what has been found. To accomplish this goal the NISP, MNE, and MNI must be involved. The number of identified species (NISP) means the total number of separate pieces. The minimum number of elements (MNE) is based on the number of specific bone fragments, with which one could identify the bone and the side. The minimum number of individuals (MNI) that can be identified is based on the number of parts of the landmark portions of bone MNE. The reason for doing this counting is to get an accurate reading of how much fishing is occurring in an area and therefore future researchers would be able to interpret the ecological differentiation over time. One fish may have been broken into hundreds of bone fragments, but when the data is interpreted it would have less of a far-reaching environmental effect than if fifty fish were broken into a few larger fragments. The conclusion reached of the former could be natural death from another animal while the latter could have been a cultural midden stash.
Results
As part of my findings, I found that TS 25 contains at least four different identified species with two extra fragments that I was unable to discernibly identify. The four species identified were: Thyrsites atun (Barracouta), Genypterus blacodes (Ling), Pseudophycis bachus (Red Cod), and Lotella rhacinus (Rock Cod). Directly below is a graph showing the separation of types of bones between each of the identified species and the unknown bones from unidentified species. The two charts underneath the graph are the calculations of my findings.
*none of the photos are mine
Based on the calculations made in the charts above nine is the minimum number of species contained in this set of twenty-two total fragments and nineteen landmark elements. The most commonly found species is the Barracouta with the least being the Rock Cod. The premaxilla is the most common element of the ‘big 5’ skull fragments with eight, possibly nine pieces found, and the least common element in the data set is the quadrate, the one found being from a Barracouta.
Of the unidentified specimens the one in sub-bag 25-21 had a similar color to and could fit into the premaxilla of a Red Cod, specifically the premaxilla element in sub-bag 25-19. The other unidentified fragment was likely the landmark portion of a post-temporal bone, while not part of the ‘big 5’ bones can be used to possibly identify species. The posttemporal specimen in sub-bag 25-22 looks like it could be from the Ling species, but the fold in the bone has more of an overlay while the other examples of the species in the archives are shaped more like crab claws.
Conclusion
Within the bagged data set labelled as FTS-25, I found a minimum of four different species: Barracouta, Ling, Red Cod, and Rock Cod, with two fragments of which could be from non-listed species, but were unidentifiable. The most likely elements found in the set were identified as the premaxilla and dentary, suggesting that they are more durable within the archaeological context because they are often the largest and thickest bones in fish skulls. The species found the most were the Barracouta followed by the Red Cod, suggesting that in this area these two species were the most commonly fished by either humans or wildlife. With a sample size as small as what I’ve examined, however, these conclusions are not definitive. But, I have achieved the purpose of this report, which was to identify and quantify the species present in the small assemblage I was given. The data that I have provided in this report can be further utilized in the future after combining with the other data sets from the same site and the ecological and archaeological contexts to come up with substantiated conclusions.
