18
Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume II
them was not available; there was a taboo on taking turtles; preparation and transport
methods resulted in remains that are not detectable; and/or archaeologists have not
reported the remains systematically (Frazier and Bonavia, 2000; in preparation).
1.2.3 SUMMARY OF ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS
In fact, any one of the above explanations could apply for many of the archaeological
sites discussed above. In many cases, the lack, or low number, of marine turtle bones
that have been reported may be from the “schlep effect” — that is, “the larger the
animal and the farther from the point of consumption it is killed, the fewer of its
bones will get ‘schlepped’ back to camp, village, or other area” (Daly, 1969: 149;
see also Perkins and Daly, 1968: 104). Olijdam (2001: 200) hypothesized the same
thing in regard to large turtles’ being relatively underrepresented from Arabian sites.
Another problem is the way that archaeologists have treated animal bones. In
some cases they have knowingly discarded some of the osseous material, keeping
just the more intact or readily recognized bones, not understanding that the zooarchaeologist needs to have access to as much material as possible; on the other hand,
animal bones that have been culturally modified are occasionally kept from the
zooarchaeologist (Wing, in litt., 28 January 2002). As Daly (1969: 146) explained,
there has been a tendency to treat animal remains from archaeological sites as
“nonartifactual” and of rather second-class status. This is not to mention the biases
that can be caused by different sampling (e.g., sieving) techniques: in some cases,
such as at Saar, Bahrain, small mesh sieves have been used in meticulous efforts to
retrieve even minute faunal material, but in other — particularly older — studies,
if sieving were carried out it was with large-mesh screens. Another common problem
is that the faunal remains are often the last to be worked up from archaeological
studies, and in many cases the information available is only preliminary.
The methods used for capturing specimens documented in zooarchaeological
studies are rarely decipherable. On beaches, nesting turtles (or possibly individuals
that were sunning) likely have been captured by turning. The implements that are
most likely to have been used for catching marine turtles at sea include arrows,
harpoons, spears, tridents, nets, and traps (Wing and Reitz, 1982; Price, 1966).
One of the more curious methods of catching marine turtles was with wooden
decoys, which could be combined with set nets in which the turtles became
entangled (Shaw, 1933: 68, 70). Previously used in various parts of the Caribbean,
decoys seem to have been developed well before the Spanish conquest. There are
even reports in the early French literature about Carib Indians catching copulating
turtles by slipping a noose around a flipper or the neck, or even grabbing them
(see Price, 1966: 1365). In this light, there is an account “of an Indian fishing
slave, apparently Island Carib, who was dragged for two days by a frisky sea
turtle” (see Price, 1966: 1368).
Not only is there ample archaeological evidence of widespread exploitation of
marine turtles, evidently for consumption, but there is also evidence of using parts
of marine turtles for purposes other than food. Two carapaces in coastal Chile were
covering funerary urns, and it appears that carapaces have been used as shields both
in Yucatán and on the Atlantic coast of South America. Tortoiseshell (the epidermal
1123_C01.fm Page 18 Friday, November 15, 2002 11:13 AM
Biology of Sea Turtles, Volume II
them was not available; there was a taboo on taking turtles; preparation and transport
methods resulted in remains that are not detectable; and/or archaeologists have not
reported the remains systematically (Frazier and Bonavia, 2000; in preparation).
1.2.3 SUMMARY OF ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS
In fact, any one of the above explanations could apply for many of the archaeological
sites discussed above. In many cases, the lack, or low number, of marine turtle bones
that have been reported may be from the “schlep effect” — that is, “the larger the
animal and the farther from the point of consumption it is killed, the fewer of its
bones will get ‘schlepped’ back to camp, village, or other area” (Daly, 1969: 149;
see also Perkins and Daly, 1968: 104). Olijdam (2001: 200) hypothesized the same
thing in regard to large turtles’ being relatively underrepresented from Arabian sites.
Another problem is the way that archaeologists have treated animal bones. In
some cases they have knowingly discarded some of the osseous material, keeping
just the more intact or readily recognized bones, not understanding that the zooarchaeologist needs to have access to as much material as possible; on the other hand,
animal bones that have been culturally modified are occasionally kept from the
zooarchaeologist (Wing, in litt., 28 January 2002). As Daly (1969: 146) explained,
there has been a tendency to treat animal remains from archaeological sites as
“nonartifactual” and of rather second-class status. This is not to mention the biases
that can be caused by different sampling (e.g., sieving) techniques: in some cases,
such as at Saar, Bahrain, small mesh sieves have been used in meticulous efforts to
retrieve even minute faunal material, but in other — particularly older — studies,
if sieving were carried out it was with large-mesh screens. Another common problem
is that the faunal remains are often the last to be worked up from archaeological
studies, and in many cases the information available is only preliminary.
The methods used for capturing specimens documented in zooarchaeological
studies are rarely decipherable. On beaches, nesting turtles (or possibly individuals
that were sunning) likely have been captured by turning. The implements that are
most likely to have been used for catching marine turtles at sea include arrows,
harpoons, spears, tridents, nets, and traps (Wing and Reitz, 1982; Price, 1966).
One of the more curious methods of catching marine turtles was with wooden
decoys, which could be combined with set nets in which the turtles became
entangled (Shaw, 1933: 68, 70). Previously used in various parts of the Caribbean,
decoys seem to have been developed well before the Spanish conquest. There are
even reports in the early French literature about Carib Indians catching copulating
turtles by slipping a noose around a flipper or the neck, or even grabbing them
(see Price, 1966: 1365). In this light, there is an account “of an Indian fishing
slave, apparently Island Carib, who was dragged for two days by a frisky sea
turtle” (see Price, 1966: 1368).
Not only is there ample archaeological evidence of widespread exploitation of
marine turtles, evidently for consumption, but there is also evidence of using parts
of marine turtles for purposes other than food. Two carapaces in coastal Chile were
covering funerary urns, and it appears that carapaces have been used as shields both
in Yucatán and on the Atlantic coast of South America. Tortoiseshell (the epidermal
1123_C01.fm Page 18 Friday, November 15, 2002 11:13 AM