Page 58 - TINA Dergi Sayi 09

Figure 4: The proportion of different faunal taxa in EBA Beşiktepe subsistence. Fish constitutes only 2% of the
total faunal assemblage while mammals make up 97% (data based on NISP figures in von den Driesch 1999).
TINA
Figure 4: Beşiktepe Erken Tunç 1 toplumu beslenmesinde farklı hayvanların oranı. Balıklar sadece %2 gibi
küçük bir değere sahiptir (Veriler von den Driesch 1999’den derlenmiştir).
Denizcilik Arkeolojisi Dergisi

Fig. 5: Habitat ve yaşam biçimlerine
Fish Types in the Prehistoric Aegean göre farklılık gösteren balık türle-
Prehistorik Ege’de Balık Türleri rinin prehistorik Ege’de avlanma
oranları. Koyiçi balık türleri çağlar
90
boyunca en çok avlanan türler olarak
80 öne çıkar. Veriler Mylona 2003, Tab-
lo 19.1’den alınmıştır. Ege’de Me-
70
zolitik-Orta Çağ arasına tarihlenen
60
25 farklı yerleşimin elek kullanılarak
50 toplanmış verilerini içerir (Tunç Çağı
verileri ağırlıktadır).
40
% Fig. 5: Relative abundance (=%
30
of NISp) of fish taxa captured by
20 prehistoric Aegean communities,
representing different habitats and
10
life styles. . Inshore taxa are domi-
0 nant. Based on Mylona 2003 (Table
Inshore 19.1; summary of 25 sites, S and N
Kıyı içi Migrating
Göç eden Schooling Aegean, and from Crete;only sieved
Sürü Euryaline samples; Mesolithic-Medieval but
Örihalin primarily Bronze Age.
Figure 5: Relative abundance (=% of NISP) of fish taxa captured by prehistoric Aegean communities,
igational skills, sophisticated fishing techniques, and
Secondly, few exceptions aside (see below), coastal/
representing different habitats and life styles. . Inshore taxa are dominant. Based on Mylona 2003 (Table
inshore resources were procured more intensively and boat-building technology capable of open-sea travel
19.1; summary of 25 sites, S and N Aegean, and from Crete;only sieved samples; Mesolithic-Medieval but
primarily Bronze Age. 17 22
more regularly than offshore fish (Fig. 5) . The hallmark and carrying heavy cargo . The fascination with the
fish species of prehistoric Aegean are sea bream, bass, bluefin may be linked
Figure 5: Habitat ve yaşam biçimlerine göre farklılık gösteren balık türlerinin prehistorik Ege’de avlanma to the fact they are the ultimate
oranları. Koyiçi balık türleri çağlar boyunca en çok avlanan türler olarak öne çıkar. Veriler Mylona 2003, Tablo located at the top of the food
grouper and mullet, which live in brackish and marine predators in the seas,
coastal waters and display limited seasonal mobility chain. The regularity of their migration has also con-
19.1’den alınmıştır. Ege’de Mezolitik-Orta Çağ arasına tarihlenen 25 farklı yerleşimin elek kullanılarak
within inshore regions.
21
toplanmış verilerini içerir (Tunç Çağı verileri ağırlıktadır). tributed to their significance . Their size and aggres-
Mollusc evidence, dominated by a few well-known sive behaviour are well respected by humans, and cap-
occupants of rocky coastal (e.g. limpets, topshells) and turing of bluefin is still a major recreational activity in
brackish waters (e.g. lagoon cockles), is in full agree- the western Atlantic .
22
ment with the fish bone evidence, in that it unequivocally This notion penetrated archaeological scholarship,
demonstrates the significance of resource procurement in giving tuna a privileged position among all fish. It is
inshore areas . Morphometric and incremental analyses the large (up to 2 meters) bluefin tuna from Franch-
18
of most common species, namely limpets and cockles, thi’s Upper Mesolithic deposits which caused much
indicate that shellfish gathering was conducted regularly excitement among prehistorians. Bintliff wrote, for
and to such an extent that mollusc populations were neg- instance: “Some sites with well preserved faunal col-
atively affected by over-exploitation in the EBA . lections demonstrate that seasonal fish such as the tuna
19
Prehistoric diets of the Aegean depended neither on constituted the main item in the diet .” Some scholars
23
shellfish nor on fish, but the time and effort spent in in- saw bluefin remains as unequivocal evidence for spe-
shore waters, lagoons, and rocky coasts alike must have cialized deep-water fishing or offshore fisheries . As
24
been considerable. we will try to demonstrate, based on the database com-
tHe rOLe OF DeeP SeA FISHInG: piled by the International Union for Conservation of
CHAnGInG PerSPeCtIVeS Nature , these are problematic statements considering
25
Having established these basic points, we can now the habitat and behaviour of bluefin:
re-examine the most debated topic in Aegean prehistory “[Thunnus thynnus] is a pelagic, oceanodromous
in terms of fishing activities: the role of deep sea fishing. species that seasonally can be found close to shore and
Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) has been presented in lit- can tolerate a wide range of temperatures. This species
erature from the 1970’s onward as the ultimate symbol schools by size, sometimes together with Albacore,
of pelagic fishing, an activity that required strong nav- Yellowfin, Bigeye, Skipjack, etc.

17 MYLONA 2003a, b; THEODOrOPOULOU 2011.
18 ÇAKIrLAr 2009a; 2009b; 2015; KArALI 1999.
19 ÇAKIrLAr 2009b, 131-148.
20 BINTLIFF 1977, 121; jAMESON et al. 1994; MEE 1978, 148; VON DEN DrIESCH 1987.
21 rOSE 1994, 432.
22 COLLETTE et al. 2015.
23 BINTLIFF 1977, 121.
56