The role of archaeological and cultural-historical records in long-range coastal fisheries resources management strategies and policies in the Pacific Islands

Ocean & Coastal Management 40 (1998) 237—252

The role of archaeological and cultural-historical records in long-range coastal fisheries resources management strategies and policies in the Pacific Islands Paul Dalzell* South Pacific Commission, Noume´ a, New Caledonia

Abstract The usefulness of conventional fisheries science for long-term fisheries management and policies in the resource-poor islands of the Pacific is very limited. Fishery managers can, however, make use of such alternative sources of information as archaeological and historical data to develop fishery management initiatives. Most Pacific Islands were settled by humans over the last three millennia, although human settlement in Western Melanesia dates from the late Pleistocene, a period of about 40 millennia. Archaeological studies over the past halfcentury contain information on the long-term subsistence exploitation of fish and invertebrates from nearshore coral reefs and lagoons. Molluscs appear to have been a very important food source for early human colonists in the Pacific Islands, but declines in abundance through harvest pressure and environmental changes forced a greater reliance on fin-fish capture and on agriculture. There is no firm evidence from the archaeological record to suggest that long-term subsistence exploitation of reef fish populations has had any serious negative effects on abundance or structure of reef fish communities. Sources for more recent historical information are also exemplified and briefly examined for their usefulness in assessing the impacts of commercial fishing. It is argued that fishery managers who adopt a data-less approach to fishery management could profitably use these sources of information to enrich their assessment of the impacts of various management scenarios.  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

*Corresponding address: Western Pacific Fisheries Council, Suit 1400, 1164 Bishop St., Honolulu, HI 96813, USA. E-mail: [email protected]. 0964-5691/98/$19.00  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 6 4 - 5 6 9 1 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 4 3 - X

238

P. Dalzell / Ocean & Coastal Management 40 (1998) 237–252

1. Introduction Coastal fishery resources continue to be major staples in Pacific Island diets and important sources of income for islanders, despite increasing urbanization and the availability of a wider range of foods. But human population growth rates are high in the Pacific Islands, typically averaging between 2 and 3% per year [1] or doubling in one generation. This situation potentially doubles the demand for fish and other seafood. An additional major challenge to fishery management in the Pacific during the next century will be the increased demands on coastal fisheries resources from neighboring East and Southeast Asia [27]. Already almost all the commercial nearshore invertebrate fisheries production, such as molluscs for mother-of-pearl and sea-cucumbers for beˆche-de-mer, supply East and Southeast Asia markets, which also now provide a rapidly increasing demand for live reef fish. Most Pacific Island nations have modest fishery administrations, usually with little or no research capacity to support fishery management. Consequently, coastal fisheries management in much of the region is based largely on intuition rather than on systematically collected observations and experience. Johannes [3, 4] has argued that this problem presents an opportunity to seek a new paradigm for fisheries management, based not on the conventional approach of intensive data gathering and analysis, but on self-reinforcing feedback systems at the local level. He termed this new approach ‘‘data-less marine resource management’’, but states that this is not management in the absence of information. Johannes notes that the accumulated knowledge of island fishers concerning local marine environments and fisheries has proven extremely useful for management purposes. Other information sources include health, nutrition and epidemiological surveys, population and agricultural census data, socio-economic surveys and anthropological studies [1, 5]. Archaeological evidence is another source of comparative information that merits consideration. That is the focus of this article. The Pacific Islands were among the last parts of the world to be settled by humans, settlement in most having occurred within the last two or three millennia. Extensive middens accumulated by prehistoric Pacific Island populations contain mollusc, crustacean and echinoderm shell fragments, teleost and elasmobranch skeletal remains, and fish hooks manufactured from shell, bone, wood, and stone. The evidence assembled from these remains provides information on the effects of long-term exploitation of subsistence coastal fisheries resources in the Pacific Islands. Some examples are summarized in this article.

2. Human settlement of the pacific The following brief chronology of the settlement of the Pacific Islands is intended to set the scene for consideration of archaeological evidence. The sections on prehistoric settlement are based largely on Bellwood [6] and Irwin [7], and the advent of European exploration and annexation summarized from Howe [8]. Humans first entered the Pacific from the west, toward the end of the latePleistocene Era, about 40 000 yr BP (Before Present). Those earliest migrants were

P. Dalzell / Ocean & Coastal Management 40 (1998) 237–252

239

hunter-gatherers, probably of Asian origin, who moved from island-to-island through the Indonesian chain to the New Guinea mainland [9], the New Guinea Islands, and probably the Solomon Islands. At that time sea levels were lower than now, and it is thought that crossing between islands was accomplished on simple rafts and canoes. Then, as today, it is possible to journey from the Asian mainland, via Indonesia, to the tip of the main archipelago of the Solomon Islands, without losing sight of land. Since further penetration into the Pacific required greater sailing and navigational skills, the transit from the Solomon Islands to the Vanuatu archipelago and the islands beyond was not possible for these simple voyagers. Current evidence puts the earliest settlement in the New Guinea Islands at 32 000 BP, in New Ireland, and 28 000 yr BP in Bougainville, at the northern end of the Solomons chain. The people of the New Guinea Highlands and Australian Aboriginals are remnant populations of these initial migrations, and are collectively termed Australoids. During the period from about 3500 to 4000 yr BP, migrants from the New Guinea Islands gradually spread eastward via Vanuatu, New Caledonia and Fiji, to Tonga and Samoa, some 5000 km distant in the central Pacific. These people were the makers of a distinctively stamped and incised pottery known as Lapita (named from an excavation site in New Caledonia). Unlike the earlier Australoid populations, they had developed the outrigger canoe and sailing, which enabled voyages over broad expanses of ocean. They had also developed the culture of root crops and pig-raising, techniques that permitted settlement of lands that could not have sustained a terrestrial hunter-gatherer existence. Those migrants to the western and central South Pacific demonstrated racial and linguistic affinities with contemporary East Asian mainland populations, who spoke related Austronesian languages. Nevertheless, the origins of the Lapita civilization are debated among Pacific anthropologists and archaeologists. Some (e.g. [6, 10—12]) suggest that the Lapita civilization was formed by a second wave of migrants from Southeast Asia, who moved initially to the New Guinea Islands and then eastward through the other archipelagos of the South Pacific. Others (e.g., [13, 14]) suggest that the Lapita civilization developed in the New Guinea Islands, but with linkages to Southeast Asia, and then migrated to the rest of Melanesia, and ultimately to Tonga and Samoa. Regardless of their origin, it seems clear that the initial Lapita settlers in Tonga and Samoa became the ancestors of the modern Polynesians. Later migrants northward from Melanesia, between 2000 and 2500 yr BP, colonized the islands of eastern nuclear Micronesia (Kiribati, the Marshall Islands and the eastern Caroline Islands), with an earlier migration, probably from the Philippines, around 3500 BP, settling the islands of western Micronesia (the Marianas, Palau and Yap). Early in the first millennium A.D. the western Polynesians began a third phase of voyages to colonize the islands of central and eastern Polynesia, east of the Andesite Line, that marks the boundary between the islands of the continental regions of the Western Pacific and the volcanic mountains on the Pacific Plate, which push to the surface to form small high islands and atolls. The Marquesas, and possibly the Society Islands, were probably settled in 300 A.D., during this third phase, and Easter Island perhaps a century later. Over the next 500 yr, a fourth and final phase of migrations by the Polynesians resulted in the settlement of Hawaii and New Zealand, on the margins of Oceania (this section is summarized in Fig 1).

240

P. Dalzell / Ocean & Coastal Management 40 (1998) 237–252

Fig. 1. Map of the South Pacific showing the countries and territories of the reigon. Easter Island (not shown) lies 2350 km to the east of Pitcairn Island. Also shown are the earliest settlement dates and migration routes as determined from archaeological investigations.

European exploration of the Pacific began in the 16th century, with Magellan. He was followed over the next three centuries by Dutch explorers, such as Tasman and Schouten, and British and French explorers like, Dampier, Cook and Bougainville. Howe [8] suggests that it is easy to overestimate the European impact on the Pacific Island communities before 1800, and that 300 yr of European exploration had minimal or no immediate effect on Pacific lifestyles. But this overlooks the disastrous consequences of the dramatic population loss in many islands as a result of epidemics, as in such places as Hawaii [15], the Caroline Islands [16], the Marquesa Islands [17], and Vanuatu [18]. The accounts of explorers, particularly after the mid-18th century, generated European commercial and missionary interests from about 1800 onward. As a consequence, the Pacific islands were gradually annexed throughout the 19th century, until by 1900 Tonga was the only independent nation left in the region. Apart from the Mariana Islands, annexed by Spain in 1565, all the remaining islands were colonized during the latter half of the 19th century. In some islands colonial administrations changed owing to conflict between colonial powers. Following the Spanish-American war of 1898, Spain relinquished possession of the Mariana Islands to the USA, and following WW I German possessions

P. Dalzell / Ocean & Coastal Management 40 (1998) 237–252

241

in Micronesia, Melanesia and Polynesia were re-distributed to Japan, Australia and New Zealand, respectively. During WW II, Japan controlled most of Micronesia and much of northern Melanesia (Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands). Following WW II, Japanese possessions in Micronesia were placed under the stewardship of the USA, until they chose either to remain US territories or opted for independence or free-association, in the mid-1980s. The last quarter century has witnessed the decline of colonial influence, as 14 independent countries emerged and greater autonomy was given to the remaining territories.

3. The archaeological record of anthropogenic effects on Pacific coastal fisheries resources Dalzell and Adams [19] briefly reviewed the archaeological information on coastal fisheries exploitation with respect to the sustainability of reef fisheries. In this article the results of archaeological investigations at seven Pacific Island sites are discussed in greater detail. These are Matenkupum (New Ireland, Papua New Guinea), Tongatapu (Tonga), Mangaia (Cook Islands), Tikopia (Solomon Islands), Mussau (northern Papua New Guinea), Kapingamarangi and Nukuoro (Caroline Islands), and Aitutaki (Cook Islands). 3.1. Matenkupum (New Ireland, Papua New Guinea) Archaeological excavations at Matenkupum have uncovered fish bones and mollusc remains dating from the late-Pleistocene Era, at 32 000 yr BP. According to Allen et al. [20] this is the earliest evidence anywhere in the world of the human capture of marine fish. This makes Matenkupum the world‘‘s longest continuously exploited reef and lagoon fishery. The midden sites contain crab, lobster and sea urchin shells, teleost and elasmobranch skeletal material, and turtle and crocodile bones. The marine shellfish comprise a wide variety of species derived mainly from the intertidal reef zone or coastal fringing mangroves. Shell densities are greatest for the strata between 32 000 and 20 000 BP. Shells deposited in the earliest strata of the Matenkupum midden were mainly large individuals from large species, whereas the uppermost strata contained the fewest large species and the smallest mean sizes of species. Gosden and Robertson (cited in [20] suggested that these patterns reflect low levels of human predation on largely pristine mollusc populations, and that some form of rotational cropping of the shellfish populations was probably practiced. It was also noted that there was no evidence of consumption of fish inhabiting the outer reef slope or the open sea. Fish remains were confined to species from the shallow reef zone. That is also the case in much of present day Melanesia. Further, there was no evidence of fishhooks from the late-Pleistocene strata in the middens, and none has been found of their manufacture in other Pacific sites. Allen et al. [14] therefore assumed that fish were taken either by netting, spearing, poisoning, or stone weir traps on the reef flat.

242

P. Dalzell / Ocean & Coastal Management 40 (1998) 237–252

3.2. Tongatapu (Tonga) Other archaeological studies in the Pacific concern the ancestors of the modern Polynesians, Micronesians and coastal Melanesian populations. This gives a time frame for most archaeological evidence of between 3500 yr BP to 300—400 yr BP, or to the period shortly before European contact. As the data from the late-Pleistocene site at Matenkupum demonstrate, prehistoric island populations may have heavily exploited sedentary invertebrates, particularly molluscs. Spennenman [21] showed that the initial human population on Tongatapu (Tonga) relied heavily on molluscs (especially Anadara antiquata and Gafrarium tumidum and G. gibbosium) from the adjacent lagoon and reefs. When Tonga was initially settled, between 3000 to 3500 yr BP, Fanga’’Uta Lagoon, on Tongatapu, was much larger than now. Its present reduced size seems to been caused by a combination of tectonic uplift and declining sea levels. At the same time the lagoon water became diluted. This reduced salinity and favored Gafrarium spp. But was disadvantageous to A. antiquata. During the period between 3500—2000 yr BP, Anadara spp. gradually declined in importance, owing partially to exploitation but also to increasing dilution of the seawater in Tongatapu Lagoon. In contrast, Gafrarium spp. became more common in the shell middens. Spennenman [21] obtained an age-at-size relationship for G. tumidum from spawning checks on the shell, by assuming that each mark was deposited annually. The size frequency distributions of G. tumidum in the various midden levels were then converted into age frequencies, from which survivorship curves could be calculated. The survivorship curves for the G. tumidum showed that the population age composition shifted with time toward younger, smaller molluscs during the late-Lapita Period on Tonga. This has continued to the present. Spennenman [21] concluded that diminishing shellfish returns, both in quantity and quality, characterized the subsistence economy of the late-Lapita Period. As a response to the declining shellfish resource, the human population of Tongatapu was forced to expand horticulture in inland areas, increase pit construction for food storage, and increase the proportion of pig in the diet, as demonstrated by the greater amount of pig bones in the late-Lapita Period. The declining shellfish resource may also have been marked by intensified exploitation of reef and lagoon fish, although evidence for this is mostly circumstantial. In support of that hypothesis Spennenman [21] noted osteoarthritic changes in human spines of skeletons from 800 to 600 yr BP indicate that canoeing, and therefore presumably fishing, was a daily occurrence. But no fish bones have been recovered from archaeological strata of that period. 3.3. Tikopia (Solomon Islands) Excavations on Tikopia, a Polynesian outlier in Solomon Islands, suggest a similar pattern of prehistoric exploitation to Tongatapu. Tikopia was colonized about 3000 BP, and molluscs appear to have been a major source of animal protein for the initial settlers. Ark shells and other clams, such as Periglypta spp. , Atactodea spp. , together with the gastropod Strombus strombus, seem to have been particularly important [22].

P. Dalzell / Ocean & Coastal Management 40 (1998) 237–252

243

Like Tongatapu, environmental changes also had an influence on mollusc exploitation on Tikopia. Today Tikopia has a shallow coastal brackish lake that was previously a circular bay with a narrow entrance. Kirch and Yen [22] suggest the bay entrance silted up, possibly as a result of agricultural activities on surrounding slopes contributing sediments to the runoff, combined with tectonic uplift of the coastal margin. After the bay was sealed and became a brackish lake, the dietary importance of molluscs declined, whereas pig became increasingly more important as a source of animal protein, and there was a greater reliance on agriculture in general. A variety of shore fishes comprise the ichthyofaunal remains found by Kirch and Yen [22]. They found that porcupinefish (Diodontidae) and moray eels (Muraenidae) were particularly evident within the lower levels of the archaeological strata, but disappeared from the record in the post-Lapita Period. There is now a customary taboo on the consumption of these fishes on Tikopia. Kirch and Yen suggest that repeated incidences of ciguatera poisoning may have led the prehistoric Tikopians to avoid and ultimately proscribe porcupinefish and moray eels from the diet. Ciguatera is certainly common in moray eels where this form of ichthyosarcotoxism is prevalent, and probably more so than in most other reef species (porcupine fish are not associated with ciguatera and toxicity is more likely to be related to very potent tetrodotoxins concentrated in the gonads, liver and intestines of porcupinefish and other related pufferfishes). Kirch [23] noted that a similar situation occurred at Niutoputapu, where diodontids were also common in excavations but never eaten by the contemporary population. Similarly, Leach and Davidson [24] found that moray eels and pufferfish (although not porcuinefish) had been avoided by fishers on the Micronesian atoll of Nukuoro for about a millennium (see below), although they are common on the reefs and were actively targeted over the same period by fishers on neighboring Kapingamarangi Atoll. Porcupinefish remains are a common feature of such Polynesian archaeological sites as Aituaki, Cook Islands [25], and Rurutu, French Polynesia [26] and are still consumed in some parts of Polynesia and Fiji, despite the associated health risk [27]. 3.4. Aitutaki (Cook Islands) Changes in the abundance of mollusc populations may also have had a profound influence on fishing technology and the resources exploited by prehistoric populations of Pacific Islands. Allen [25] notes that earlier sequences (1000 BP) in archaeological excavations at Aitutaki, in the southern Cook Islands, contain hooks made from the shell of the pearl oyster (Pinctada margaritifera), but these are replaced in later sequences (550—450 BP) by hooks made predominantly from the turban shell (¹urbo setosus). The decline in pearl shell hooks at Aitutaki (and at other islands in the southern Cook Islands) may have resulted from a general breakdown in communication between the islands, which involved the loss of exchange materials, such as pearl shell [28]. Allen [25], on the other hand, argues that because pearl oysters are locally available at Aitutaki, declines in pearl shell hook manufacturing may have been the result of cumulative changes in the local marine environment, and in particular

244

P. Dalzell / Ocean & Coastal Management 40 (1998) 237–252

a result of gardening on the eastern side of the island that accelerated sedimentation of the lagoon and caused a decline in the pearl oyster population. However, contemporary pearl oyster populations are extremely low at Aitutaki, as observed during fisheries resource assessment surveys during 1992 and 1995 [29, 30] and the shallow enclosed lagoon is not particularly suitable for maintaining high densities of this species. It is possible that P. margaritifera was never common locally. Whatever the reason, the loss of availability of pearl oyster forced a shift to the use of turban shell hooks by fishers at Aitutaki. However, turban shell and pearl oysters represent two different basic shell structural types. As summarized by Allen [25], turban shell has a composite structure that includes both an outer prismatic layer of aragonite and a pearly inner laminar layer. A thin, inclined prismatic layer also overlies this inner layer. This makes the turban shell very hard but not very elastic. Pearl oyster shell, in contrast, is a nacreous structure in which tabular aragonite crystals are arranged in layers with an organic matrix. These nacreous structures are most resistant to breakage in tension, compaction, impact, and bending. Based on the composition changes in fish bone assemblages at Aitutaki, Allen [25] suggests that the reliance on weaker hooks forced fishers to operate mainly in the Aitutaki lagoon, targeting smaller fish that would not break the turban shell hooks, as opposed to fishing for large carnivorous species, such as snappers (Lutjanidae) and groupers (Serranidae), on the outer reef slope. It also presumably led to an increased use of fishing methods other than angling. Allen [25] cites as evidence for this the decline in the relative abundance of snappers (Lutjanidae), caught mainly on the outer reef slope, and the increase in the importance of triggerfish and porcupinefish, thought to be caught mainly by netting. Allen also predicts that further study may reveal that Aitutaki serranid remains change through time from species from predominantly outer reef slope taxa to those more commonly caught in shallow inshore waters. 3.5. Mangaia (Cook Islands) Excavations in a rock shelter at Mangaia, Cook Islands, by Kirch et al. [31] showed sustained exploitation between 980 and 330 yr BP of the gastropod ¹urbo setosus, an important species used throughout Polynesia for food and making shell fishhooks. Kirch et al. [31] found that the average size of the operculae of ¹. setosus in the middens decreased by 50% between the earliest strata in the sequence and those in later years (i.e., a period of about 500 yr). There is a significant increase in the frequency of molluscan remains from about the middle of the sequence (500 yr BP). Similar increases were noted with sea urchin tests and spines, but the initially abundant crustacean remains declined markedly to only small quantities in later strata. Kirch et al. [31] note that at the time of European contact the population of Mangaia was at least 2000—3000 and may have been higher (the present is about 1300). This was one of the most densely populated islands in central Polynesia, and where both terrestrial and near-shore marine faunas were limited. Not surprisingly, there was intense competition for these resources, particularly the arable land for growing taro, the staple root crop.

P. Dalzell / Ocean & Coastal Management 40 (1998) 237–252

245

Kirch et al. [31] found that reef and freshwater-brackish fishes provided most of the bones deposited between 980 and 330 yr BP. Of the marine fishes, acanthurids, labrids, serranids, and cirrihitids (hawkfish) were the most common. The abundance of hawkfish (15%) in the fish bone composition has not been noted elsewhere in Oceania, and it is not known whether this reflects local abundance on the reef at Mangaia or the development of a specialized fishing strategy targeting these species. The other unusual feature by the Mangaia excavations — among Pacific Island sites — was the prominence of freshwater and brackishwater fishes, particularly the freshwater eels (Anguillidae) and gudgeons (Eleotridae), comprising respectively 6 and 22% of the fish bone assemblage. Eleotrids are a common feature of the streams and lakes on Mangaia and were caught in the past by netting, handlines and with gorges [32]. An analysis of the fish bone assemblages from Mangaia by Butler [33] suggests that there was no significant reduction in the body size of the coral reef fishes and eleotrids. However, the data did suggest that intensive fishing for anguilids led to a reduction in size in the population with time, and to a decline in the relative abundance in the bone assemblages. 3.6. Kapingamarangi and Nukuoro (Federated States of Micronesia) Analyses of fishing folklore and traditions may suggest that certain fish species are of particular nutritional importance for island communities. However, this totemic assumption may be given undue weight because evidence from other sources sometimes suggests the contrary. Leach and Davidson [24] report on the cultural importance of the Rainbow runner (Elegatis bipinnulatis) on Nukuoro and Kapingamarangi, two Polynesian outlier atolls in Micronesia. The Rainbow runner is held in great esteem in both islands, is a subject of folklore and song, and would appear to be both the most sought after and most frequently caught species on both atolls. However, Leach and Davidson [24], from historical evidence and from excavations (to between 500 and 700 yr BP on Nukuoro, and 750 and 1050 on Kapingamarangi) suggest that the importance attached to Rainbow runner is symbolic rather than it being truly important as a food fish. Historically, the bulk of landings (85%) from both atolls were groupers, parrotfish, eels, triggerfish, and jacks, all fishes taken on the reef or in the lagoon. Leach and Davidson [24] suggest that the difficulty attached to catching large pelagics, such as the Rainbow runner, from non-motorized canoes makes them attractive and more worthy of admiration and mystique, unlike such lagoon species as parrotfish, that are easily caught by netting or spearing. However, these proximate reef and lagoon species form the basis of food security in many Pacific Islands, now, as in the past. Nukuoro is renowned for the manufacture of fishhooks from pearl oyster shell, whereas on Kapingamarangi hooks are made mainly from less durable materials, such as turtle shell and coconut shell. Leach and Davidson [24] note, however, that angling with baited hooks appears to be more productive on Kapingamarangi, whereas on Nukuoro netting appears to be main the method of fisheries production. The authors concluded that while medium sized and large pelagic fishes, like Rainbow runner and tunas, may have great socio-cultural importance to fishers on the two atolls, their

246

P. Dalzell / Ocean & Coastal Management 40 (1998) 237–252

economic role has been relatively insignificant over the last millenium. The fishes most actively sought by fishers, even at the subsistence level, are not necessarily those most frequently caught. 3.7. Mussau (Papua New Guinea) Excavations at Mussau, about 110 km north of New Ireland, have uncovered fish bones and trochus shell hooks extending from 3400 to 350 yr BP [34]. Many of the fish bones can be identified to the level of the family taxon, and the same eight families (Serranidae, Lutjanidae, Lethrinidae, Labridae, Scaridae, Acanthuridae, Balistidae, and Diodontidae) were prominent at all sites, comprising between 71 and 90% of the assemblages. Further, there is very little change in the relative frequencies of the different families in nearly four millennia. This suggests a relatively stable reef fish fauna at Mussau, with subsistence fishing pressure by prehistoric human populations having little influence on the various reef fish populations. Butler [35] showed that the fish bone assemblages from Mussau are similar to other Lapita sites in the western and central Pacific, and those same eight families account for more than 85% of fish remains at sites in Solomon Islands, Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa. The same families (minus the Diodontidae) still form between 22 and 70% of landings in contemporary reef fisheries landings in the South Pacific, with an overall mean among countries of 50% [1]. The major difference between Mussau and the other Lapita sites is the relative unimportance of Diodontidae, which form just over 5% of the Mussau fish bone assemblages, but between 6.5 and 41.5% (mean"21%) of those elsewhere. Later analyses by Butler [36] compared the family composition from fish bones in Lapita sites in Melanesia, including Mussau, and Polynesia. Most western Melanesian assemblages, such as at Mussau, are comprised of similar frequencies of carnivores and herbivores/omnivores, but eastern Lapita site assemblages are dominated by herbivores/omnivores. Butler [36] suggests that the faunal assemblages are possibly explained by differences in fishing strategies. Hook-and-line fishing, spearing and net fishing appear to have been widely practiced in the western Lapita sites, whereas in the east hook-and-line fishing, which catches mainly carnivores, was less common. Another possible interpretation, however, might be that the reduction in reef carnivores in the eastern Lapita sites was caused by higher fishing pressure that reduced the populations of these species. That would accord with contemporary the differences between Polynesia and Melanesia in the trophic composition of fish catches [37].

4. Discussion The above examples illustrate some of the topics that can be gleaned from scanning the archaeological record of the Pacific Islands. They can be broadly summarized as follows: z Pacific island reef and lagoon fisheries resources have been continuously exploited for many centuries, and in Western Melanesia for periods of between 20 and 30

P. Dalzell / Ocean & Coastal Management 40 (1998) 237–252

247

millennia. This makes them some of the oldest known continuously exploited reef fisheries in the world. z Mollusc resources appear to have been extremely important as a food source for early Pacific Island human populations. In some instances, declines in mollusc resources forced early human populations to increase exploitation of other marine resources, and to rely increasingly on agriculture. z The paleo-ichthyological record suggests that the sustained effects of exploitation on sessile invertebrates, such as molluscs, can be quantitatively determined from shell assemblages, and that in some cases long-term subsistence exploitation can markedly reduce the average size composition of mollusc populations and the species structure of communities. z Decline in populations or loss of supply of some molluscs, such as the pearl oyster, can also have a large effect on fishing technology and target species, as was the case on Aitutaki. z The pre-historic record with respect to fish exploitation is less conclusive. There does not appear to be much strong evidence that long-term subsistence exploitation of reef fish has had a major impact on reef fish populations. But smaller, more accessible fish populations, such as freshwater eels, may be more vulnerable to sustained exploitation. z The archaeological record for subsistence fin-fisheries on reefs and in lagoons suggests long-term stability, with changes in relative composition of different fish taxa in the temporal sequence possibly resulting more from other factors, such as changes in fishing technology, or repeated cases of ichthyosarcotoxism affecting human behavior, than from fishing activities. z Some differences in catch composition of fin-fish between western and eastern Lapita sites reflect differences in absolute levels of fishing activity observed in contemporary Melanesian and Polynesian populations. So their effects on the abundance of larger carnivorous species may not simply reflect differences in the fishing methods employed. Apart from a record of the impacts of exploitation, another important aspect of the archaeological and historical record is its potential to reinforce the social and cultural importance of fisheries, and to help ascertain traditional property rights, even though these may have declined through European colonization and progressive urbanization. This latter point has been amply demonstrated in New Zealand (Aotearoa), where the original Polynesian Maori population was economically and socially marginalized following European settlement in the 19th century. As a consequence of European settlement, indigenous Maori property concepts and rights with respect to fisheries resources were not recognized and the rights of indigenous fisheries were generally usurped. As the Maori population declined and laws effectively dispossessed them of their fishing rights, the European settlers, who were initially minor users of marine resources, gradually came to dominate fishing. By the late 19th century Maori fishing had declined to subsistence activities, leading, until recently, to the perception by modern New Zealanders that Maori fishing practices in the past were limited to little more than near-shore gleaning of shellfish [38, 39].

248

P. Dalzell / Ocean & Coastal Management 40 (1998) 237–252

However, many early European explorers recorded a range of diverse fishing activities and expertise in seamanship and navigation among the Maori. Some traditional fishing grounds were up to 40 km from shore, and the Maori regularly made catches, numbering many thousands of fish, using large seine nets [39]. Further, fishing played a central role in the traditional economy of the Maori, in trade and barter between coastal and inland tribes, and latterly between Maori and early European settlers and whaling vessels [38]. Archaeological studies have also produced evidence of a diverse range of Maori fishing activities exploiting a wide range of fishes and marine mammals, such as seals, and including the preservation of large amounts of fish (see sources listed in [38, 40]). Indeed in some areas, such as the Muriwhenua Region of North Island, fishing became a principal source of nutrition as human populations increased and food from hunting and agriculture became increasingly limited. Such evidence has been successfully used by the New Zealand Maori in seeking restoration of their traditional fisheries property rights, as were guaranteed under the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. As this example demonstrates, the patterns of fisheries exploitation in the South Pacific were irrevocably changed from the period of European expansion in the region, at the beginning of the 19th century. Apart from colonial settlement on the Pacific Islands, European, American and Asian traders also entered the region, and the era of commercial fishing commenced. The prehistoric record shows that subsistence exploitation can have a noticeable influence on sessile invertebrates, but that these can continue to be productive over many centuries. But the scale of commercial exploitation during the 19th century demonstrated how susceptible sessile invertebrates over a wide area could be to very heavy levels of exploitation. An excellent example is the history of the Fijian beˆchede-mer trade between 1828 and 1852. Together with harvesting pearl oysters, the gathering or fishing for sea cucumbers (Holothuroidea) for processing into beˆchede-mer is one of the oldest commercial fisheries in the South Pacific. Sea cucumbers are not important in Pacific Island diets, and are consumed as a condiment in only a few locations. Prior to European contact sea cucumber populations were therefore subject to minimal fishing pressure. During the first half of the 19th century, Spanish, Australian and American vessels operated throughout the Pacific trading for both beˆche-de-mer and sandalwood [41, 42]. Then as now the main target species for the beˆche-de-mer trade were sandfish (Holothuria scabra), white teatfish (Holothuria fuscogilva) and black teatfish (Holothuria nobilis), with less valuable species such as blackfish (Actinopyga miliaris) and prickly redfish (¹helanota ananas) also contributing to harvests. Then, as now, the main market for beˆche-de-mer was China. Fiji had become the center of the beˆche-de-mer trade by the mid-19th century. A massive increase in exploitation occurred there between 1828 and 1852, [41, 43], when an estimated 1000—1500 t of beˆche-de-mer was exported. By 1852 the stocks were near exhaustion. At this time, the High Chief, Ratu Seru Cakobau, ordered two sloops from the USA and Australia and tried to pay for them by beˆche-de-mer exports. His entire army of several hundred men was deployed in over 100 canoes, but failed to collect more than 32 t, far less than required to pay for the vessels. Anecdotal

P. Dalzell / Ocean & Coastal Management 40 (1998) 237–252

249

accounts from the period suggest that some reefs recovered quickly from this overexploitation, whereas others showed no signs of recovery after 20 yr [43]. Bayliss-Smith [44, 45] has suggested that a tropical Pacific human island’s carrying capacity was primarily a function of the land area available and the volume of taro (Colocasia spp. and Cyrtosperma spp.) that could be cultivated. Competition for coastal fisheries resources may also have been a limiting factor, especially on small islands where human population densities were high. The impact of Western civilization on Pacific populations was initially disastrous in many locations, leading to wholesale human population decline through disease, slavery and migration [46]. And it is likely that fish catches from reefs and lagoons declined in many locations during the 19th century as human populations were reduced. Although in many contemporary populations imported foods have partially replaced fish in the diet, demand remains high, and will continue to grow as human populations increase. Subsistence and commercial reef and lagoon fisheries must therefore continue to play an important role in the food security of the Pacific Island populations. It is also important to understand how new ‘traditions’ have arisen in the Pacific during the two centuries since European expansion. One of the most striking was the introduction of Christianity, and in particular the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Adherents follow a dietary code that proscribes, among other things, fish without scales (sharks) and shellfish. Islands such as Mussau, discussed above, where the population is now predominantly Adventist, are havens for marine molluscs, crabs, lobsters, prawns, as well as turtles and dugong that are also not eaten. Such islands may therefore be important for conservation and management as refuges and reservoirs for breeding populations. The concept of closed areas or marine reserves as a management tool for reef fisheries is increasingly important worldwide [47, 48]. Islands in the Pacific with large Seventh Day Adventist populations merit particular examination from this perspective. Despite the continuing dietary and economic role of reef and lagoon fisheries in Pacific Islands, it is generally believed that comparatively little is know about them, particularly their sustainability. That is not necessarily true. In this article I have attempted to demonstrate that, outside of the fisheries literature normally consulted by managers, there is a rich vein of information about long-term subsistence exploitation of reef and lagoon fisheries resources to be gleaned from Pacific Island archaeological records. Some might argue that the archaeological record has little relevance to contemporary fisheries management. Considered in isolation this is probably true. However, the data-less management model proposed by Johannes [3, 4], requires examples and scenarios developed under in various contexts to illustrate possible scenarios. Examples from the archaeological record may be used comparatively with sources from the colonial era and post-colonial era for developing fishery management initiatives in the Pacific Islands. Fisheries managers could develop and adopt novel multi-disciplinary approaches to coastal fisheries management by making use of a broader range of information sources as inputs into the management process, particularly where conventional fisheries data are poor or even completely lacking.

250

P. Dalzell / Ocean & Coastal Management 40 (1998) 237–252

5. Acknowledgements I thank Tim Adams and Reg Sanday of the South Pacific Commission for their comments on this paper, and Dr Virginia Butler of Portland State University, Oregon for help with understanding the archaeological literature. The comments of the anonymous reviewers assisted greatly with revisions of an earlier draft. Lastly, I thank Kenneth Ruddle for inviting me to contribute to this special edition and for his help and guidance in finalizing the article.

References [1] Dalzell P, Adams T, Polunin N. Coastal fisheries in the Pacific Islands. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review, 1996;34:395—531. [2] Crocombe R. Workshop overview. In: South GR, Goulet D, Tuqiri S, Church M, editors. Traditional marine tenure and sustainable management of marine resources in Asia and the Pacific. Suva: International Ocean Institute, South Pacific, 291—300. [3] Johannes RE. Design of tropical nearshore fisheries extension work beyond the 1990s. In: South GR, Goulet D, Tuqiri S, Church M, editors. Traditional marine tenure and sustainable management of marine resources in Asia and the Pacific. International Ocean Institute, University of the South Pacific, 1994:162—174. [4] Johannes RE. The case for data-less marine resources management: examples from tropical nearshore fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 1998; 13(6): 243—246. [5] Dalzell P. The value of nutritional surveys for fisheries workers. South Pacific Commission Fisheries Newsletter, 1991;56:27—28. [6] Bellwood PS. The peopling of the Pacific. Scientific American 1980;243(5):138—147. [7] Irwin G. The prehistoric exploration and colonisation of the Pacific. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. [8] Howe KR. Where the waves fall (Pacific Islands Monograph Series No 2). Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, 1984. [9] Groube L, Chappell J, Muke J, Price DA 40,000 year-old human occupation site at Huon Peninsula, Papua New Guinea. Nature 1986; 324:453—455. [10] Bellwood P, Koon P. Lapita colonists leave boats unburned. The question of Lapita links with Southeast Asia. Antiquity 1989;83:613—622. [11] Kirch PV. the Talepakemalai site and Oceanic prehistory. National Geographic Research 1988;4(3):328—342. [12] Serjeantson S, Hill A. The colonization of the Pacific—The genetic evidence. In: Hill AVS, Serjeantson SW editors. The colonization of the Pacific: a genetic trail. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. [13] Terrell JE. Prehistory in the Pacific Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. [14] White P, Allen J, Specht J. The Lapita homeland project. Australian Natural History 1988;22(9):410—416. [15] Bushnell DA. The gifts of civilization: germs and genocide in Hawaii. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, 1993. [16] Connell J. Migration, employment and development in the South Pacific. Country Report No. 3, Federated States of Micronesia. International Labour Organisation and South Pacific Commission, Noume´a, New Caledonia, 1983. [17] Rallu JL. Les populations oce´aniennes aux XIX er XX sie`cles. Travaux et Documents Cahier 128, Institut National d’Etudes De´mographiques, Presses Universitaires de France, 1990. [18] McArthur N. New Hebrides population 1840—1967: a re-interpretation. Occasional Paper No. 18, South Pacific Commission, Noume´a, New Caledonia 1981.

P. Dalzell / Ocean & Coastal Management 40 (1998) 237–252

251

[19] Dalzell P, Adams T. Sustainability and management of reef fisheries in the Pacific Islands. Paper presented at 8th International Coral Reef Symposium. Panama, 1996. [20] Allen JC, Gosden White JP. Human Pleistocene adaptations in the tropical island Pacific: recent evidence from New Ireland, a Greater Australian outlier. Antiquity, 1989;63:548—561. [21] Spennenman DHR. Availability of shellfish resources on prehistoric Tongatapu, Tonga: effects of human predation and changing environment. Archaeology in Oceania, 1987;22:81—96. [22] Kirch PV, Yen DE. Tikopia: the prehistory of a Polynesian outlier (BP Bishop Museum, Bulletin No. 238) Hawaii, 1982. [23] Kirch PV. Niuatoputapu: the prehistory of a Polynesian chiefdom (Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum Monograph No. 5), Seattle, 1988. [24] Leach BF, Davidson JM. The quest for the Rainbow Runner: prehistoric fishing on Kapingamarangi and Nukuoro Atolls, Micronesia. Micronesica, 1988;21:1—22. [25] Allen MS. Temporal variation in Polynesian fishing strategies: the Southern Cook Islands in regional perspective. Asian Perspectives, 1992;31(2):183—204. [26] Leach BF, Intoh M. An archaelogical fishbone assemblage from the Vitaria Site, Rurutu, Austral Islands. Journal de la Socie& te& des Oce& anistes 1984;78(15):75—77. [27] Julian D, Tim A. South Pacific Commission, New Caledonia, personal communications. [28] Walter R. The Southern Cook Islands in Eastern Polynesian prehistory. PhD dissertation, Auckland University, 1990. [29] Adams T, Nash W, Tuara P, Munro D, Amos M, Leqata J, Terekia O, Mataiti N, Teopa M, Whitford J. The Aitutaki trochus fishery: a case study (Inshore Fisheries Research Project Technical Document No. 9). South Pacific Commission, New Caledonia, 1995; and Betram, pers. comm. [30] Ian Bertram, Ministry of Marine Resources, Rarotonga, Cook Islands, personal communication. [31] Kirch PV, Steadman DW, Butler VL, Hather J, Weisler MI. Prehistory and human ecology in Eastern Polynesia: excavations at Tangatatu rockshelter, Mangaia, Cook Islands. Archaeology in Oceania, 1995;30:47—65. [32] Buck PH. Arts and crafts of the Cook Islands (BP Bishop Museum Bulletin No. 157) Honolulu, 1944. [33] Butler VL. Measuring effects of prehistoric predation and habitat alteration on fishes, Mangaia, Cook Islands. Paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology Meeting. St Louis, Missouri, 1993. [34] Kirch PV, Hunt TL, Weisler M, Butler V, Allen MS. Mussau Islands prehistory, results of the 1985—86 excavations (Occasional Papers in Prehistory No. 20). Department of Prehistory, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, 1991:144—163. [35] Butler VL. Lapita fishing strategies: the faunal evidence. In: Kirch PV, Hunt TL, editors. Archaeology of the Lapita Cultural Complex: a critical review. Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum Research Report 5, Seattle, 1988:99—115. [36] Butler VL. Fish feeding behaviour and fish capture: the case for variation in Lapita fishing strategies. Archaeology in Oceania 1994;29:81—90. [37] Adams T, Dalzell P Artisanal Fishing. Paper presented at the Workshop on Marine/Coastal Biodiversity in the Tropical Island Pacific Region. November 2—9 1994. Honolulu, Hawaii: East West Center, 1998; in press. [38] Waitangi Tribunal. Muriwhenua Fishing Report (WAI 27). Department of Justice, Wellington, 1988. [39] Ruddle K. The role of validated knowledge in the restoration of fisheries property rights: the example of the New Zealand Maori. In: Hanna S, Munasinghe M, editors. Property rights in a social and ecological context: part 2, Case studies and design applications. Stockholm and Washington, DC: The Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics and the World Bank, 1995:111—120. [40] Leach BF, Boocock AS. Prehistoric fish catches in New Zealand. British Archaelogical Research, International Series 584:1993. [41] Ward RG. The Pacific beˆche-de-mer trade with special reference to Fiji. In: Ward RG, editor. Man in the Pacific islands. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972:91—123. [42] Conand C. The fishery resources of Pacific island countries. Part 2 Holothurians (Fisheries Technical Paper No. 272.2). Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, 1990. [43] Adams T. The disappearing dri. Fiji Times, 28 July, 1988.

252

P. Dalzell / Ocean & Coastal Management 40 (1998) 237–252

[44] Bayliss-Smith T. Constraints on population growth: the case of the Polynesian outlier atolls in the pre-contract period. Human Ecology, 1974;2(4):259—293. [45] Bayliss-Smith T. Population pressure, resources and welfare: towards a more realistic measure of carrying capacity. In: Brookfield HC, editors. Population environment and resources in tropical islands: the case of eastern Fiji. MAB Technical Notes, No. 13, Paris: UNESCO, 1980:61—93. [46] McArthur N. Island populations of the Pacific. Canberra: Australian National University Press, Canberra, 1967. [47] Roberts CM, Polunin NVC. Are marine reserves effective in the management of reef fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 1991;1:65—91 [48] Roberts CM, Polunin NVC. How marine reserves can benefit reef and fishers. Sea Wind 1993;1:2—7.