Digit wrote:Agreed Min, but I suspect that scavenging the tide ocurred many generations before we were capable of reasoning, after all Komodo Dragons scavenge the tide line!
The report glosses over certain practical problems, it states that Tuna were probably caught with a lure, fine, but without a hook or a gorge the lure is simply a decoration on the end of the line.
Most fish have rearward facing teeth at the back of the throat, useless for chewing but it prevents them from spitting out what they have swallowed normally, thus a bait and a gorge is more practical for a large fish than a hook made from snail shell.
Then we have the problem of a line, Tuna are fast swimmers, when they want to be, and strong. Today when hooked by sports fishermen they are 'played' to tire them by a friction brake on the reel, something Og didn't have. Running a hempen cord through your hands is a sure fire method of flaying your fingers, trust me!
This also requires a considerable length of line, it would also have to be capable of holding a heavy thrashing fish without braking.
That same length of fine line would be much better used in producing a net, instead of the fish being restrained by a single cord it is now restrained by multiple cords. A net will also catch birds and animals, something a hook won't do, also a damaged net can be repaired, a broken fishing line is a lost line, along with all the effort that went into making it.
I think there is a substantial amount of guess work in that report Min.
We have hooks and we have Tuna remains near each other but we are saying that they may not be related?
Was there any other fish remains found?
kbs2244 wrote:Tuna are not very netable.
Too strong and too sleek.
They are a “swordfish” and can use that sword to slash themselves out of trouble.
When sport fisherman go for them, they use about 150 feet of steel line behind the hook to keep the fish from turning and cutting itself free.
Even today, with synthetic materials for nets, they are caught with “long line” trolling and baited hooks on steel “branch” lines off the main long line.
Tuna are voracious eaters. I remember watching a video where a guy on a shark research dive videoed one going through a school of anchovies. It just kept coming back through the school, which looked about the size of a six flat, until there were only 5 to 10 fish left.
It ignored the diver.
Nets would just take too much cordage.
If they were regularly eating tuna, they were very good deep water fishermen.
Bit it may not have been a hook in the mouth.
The bait may have been taken all the way into the stomach with the line attached.
Even today that is how Bass are hooked.
I personally believe that they would have used harpoons and worked with a team of boats to maximize the possibility of bringing
home some of those fish.
I also pointed out that nets would logically be a communal effort, as would the eating of the fish, so each person would only produce a small piece.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest