2
Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume II
and synthesis of widely scattered information on prehistoric and ancient historic
interactions between marine turtles and people in different societies, in different
parts of the world. The information is grouped into three principal themes: zooarchaeology (or archaeozoology), cultural artifacts, and ancient textual accounts.
The following summaries do not pretend to be complete; they focus on two
separate geographic regions for which relatively large amounts of information are
readily available: one is the western Indian Ocean basin, particularly the Arabian
Peninsula; the other is the southeast U.S., Caribbean, and Yucatán Peninsula areas.
As a result, vast regions have been omitted or very superficially covered in this
review, namely the shores of Africa, Asia, Mediterranean, Oceania, and much of
South and Central America. For the time period, it was arbitrarily decided to use
the European conquest of the Americas as an end point. This means that there is a
gap of half a millennium between this chapter and Chapter 12, which focuses on
contemporary issues. As a result, valuable ethnographies that detail and elucidate
human–turtle interactions in numerous societies around the world are omitted.
Accounts of societies in which marine turtles play, or have played, central roles —
the Carancahua of coastal Texas (Hammond, 1891), the Miskito of Caribbean Honduras and Nicaragua (Nietschmann, 1973; 1979), the Seri (or Comcaac) of the Sea
of Cortez (Felger and Moser, 1991; Nabhan et al., 1999), the Vezo of western
Madagascar (Astuti, 1995), Renaissance Christian-pagan comportments in the Mediterranean (Maffei, 1995), and nineteenth-century ladies of high society in Buenos
Aires (Gudiño, 1986), to name but a few — are simply not included here. However,
Thorbjarnarson et al. (2000) provide a recent review of human use of marine turtles
from around the world, focusing mainly on the last few centuries.
As Campbell (Chapter 12) explains, it is much easier to appreciate “culture”
when it is distinct from one’s own. Another common conception of culture is that
it is something to be displayed, as in a museum. The accounts in this chapter are
very much about “other” cultures: those that were part of societies that no longer
exist, and those that produced curious artifacts from bygone days that are routinely
put on display. If we can appreciate better the diversity of ways in which people
and marine turtles have interacted over the ages, by focusing on the other cultures,
perhaps it will enlighten our view of contemporary and future relations between
Homo sapiens and these marine reptiles.
1.2 ZOOARCHAEOLOGY: ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SPECIMENS OF MARINE TURTLES
As zooarchaeologists have explained, “animal remains from archaeological sites
represent not only a piece of nature but more significantly, the relationship between
culture and the natural environment” (Hamblin, 1984:17). The data allow for analyses of types and intensities of utilization, in relation to past cultures and their
environments, providing insights into prehistoric subsistence strategies (Wing and
Reitz, 1982: 14; see also Daly, 1969: 146). Not only are marine turtle remains
distinctive, but the bones are large and relatively robust, making them resistant to
degradation after death, and hence available to zooarchaeological investigations.
1123_C01.fm Page 2 Friday, November 15, 2002 11:13 AM
Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume II
and synthesis of widely scattered information on prehistoric and ancient historic
interactions between marine turtles and people in different societies, in different
parts of the world. The information is grouped into three principal themes: zooarchaeology (or archaeozoology), cultural artifacts, and ancient textual accounts.
The following summaries do not pretend to be complete; they focus on two
separate geographic regions for which relatively large amounts of information are
readily available: one is the western Indian Ocean basin, particularly the Arabian
Peninsula; the other is the southeast U.S., Caribbean, and Yucatán Peninsula areas.
As a result, vast regions have been omitted or very superficially covered in this
review, namely the shores of Africa, Asia, Mediterranean, Oceania, and much of
South and Central America. For the time period, it was arbitrarily decided to use
the European conquest of the Americas as an end point. This means that there is a
gap of half a millennium between this chapter and Chapter 12, which focuses on
contemporary issues. As a result, valuable ethnographies that detail and elucidate
human–turtle interactions in numerous societies around the world are omitted.
Accounts of societies in which marine turtles play, or have played, central roles —
the Carancahua of coastal Texas (Hammond, 1891), the Miskito of Caribbean Honduras and Nicaragua (Nietschmann, 1973; 1979), the Seri (or Comcaac) of the Sea
of Cortez (Felger and Moser, 1991; Nabhan et al., 1999), the Vezo of western
Madagascar (Astuti, 1995), Renaissance Christian-pagan comportments in the Mediterranean (Maffei, 1995), and nineteenth-century ladies of high society in Buenos
Aires (Gudiño, 1986), to name but a few — are simply not included here. However,
Thorbjarnarson et al. (2000) provide a recent review of human use of marine turtles
from around the world, focusing mainly on the last few centuries.
As Campbell (Chapter 12) explains, it is much easier to appreciate “culture”
when it is distinct from one’s own. Another common conception of culture is that
it is something to be displayed, as in a museum. The accounts in this chapter are
very much about “other” cultures: those that were part of societies that no longer
exist, and those that produced curious artifacts from bygone days that are routinely
put on display. If we can appreciate better the diversity of ways in which people
and marine turtles have interacted over the ages, by focusing on the other cultures,
perhaps it will enlighten our view of contemporary and future relations between
Homo sapiens and these marine reptiles.
1.2 ZOOARCHAEOLOGY: ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SPECIMENS OF MARINE TURTLES
As zooarchaeologists have explained, “animal remains from archaeological sites
represent not only a piece of nature but more significantly, the relationship between
culture and the natural environment” (Hamblin, 1984:17). The data allow for analyses of types and intensities of utilization, in relation to past cultures and their
environments, providing insights into prehistoric subsistence strategies (Wing and
Reitz, 1982: 14; see also Daly, 1969: 146). Not only are marine turtle remains
distinctive, but the bones are large and relatively robust, making them resistant to
degradation after death, and hence available to zooarchaeological investigations.
1123_C01.fm Page 2 Friday, November 15, 2002 11:13 AM