AN ANALYSIS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL DATA
ON FISHERIES FOR PELAGIC SPECIES
IN GUAM AND THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
Prepared for
Pelagic Fisheries Research Program
Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research
School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology
University of Hawai’i at Mānoa
By
Judith R. Amesbury
and
Rosalind L. Hunter-Anderson
Micronesian Archaeological Research Services
A Guam Non-Profit Corporation
May 2008
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the valuable contribution of Foss Leach and Janet
Davidson, Honorary Research Associates of the Museum of New Zealand, Te Papa
Tongarewa. Their recent analyses of fish bones from archaeological sites on Guam,
included as Appendices A and B to this report, have changed the picture of pelagic
fishing in the Mariana Islands during the Prehistoric Period.
The authors also acknowledge the valuable contribution of Wakako Higuchi,
Research Associate, Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam. Her study
of the pre-war Japanese pole-and-line fishery in Saipan, included as Appendix C to this
report, makes some of the information about this fishery available in English for the first
time.
For help in obtaining the post-war 20th century fishery data contained in Chapter
4, Judith Amesbury thanks the following people: Brent Tibbatts, Fisheries Biologist,
Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources; Keith Bigelow, Fishery Biologist,
Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC), National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS); David Hamm, Chief of the Fisheries Monitoring and Socioeconomics Division,
PIFSC, NMFS; and Paul Dalzell, Senior Scientist, Western Pacific Regional Fishery
Management Council.
For help with the interviews contained in Chapter 5, Judith Amesbury thanks John
Calvo, Guam Coordinator, and Jack Ogumoro, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands Coordinator, Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council.
The authors extend special appreciation to all of the fishers who were interviewed
and whose stories are part of the history of the Mariana Islands.
This project was funded (or partly funded) by Cooperative Agreement
NA17RJ1230 between the Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research (JIMAR)
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The views
expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of
NOAA or any of its subdivisions.
iii
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS ............................................................................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ xii
CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW OF THE PREHISTORY OF THE MARIANA
ISLANDS by Rosalind L. Hunter-Anderson ...................................................................1
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1
AN OVERVIEW OF THE MARIANAS PREHISTORIC RECORD
AND ITS CULTURAL ECOLOGY .............................................................................3
Lapita, Pre-Latte, and the Trader/Broker Niche ............................................................6
Small Islands, Sources and Sinks...................................................................................8
The Marianas and Visiting Trader-Brokers .................................................................11
Expectations Regarding Pelagic Fishing during the Early Pre-Latte Phase ................14
End of the Pre-Latte, End of the T-B Niche ................................................................14
The Latte Phase ............................................................................................................16
Expectations Regarding Pelagic Fishing during the Latte Phase.................................21
CHAPTER 2. PREHISTORIC PERIOD by Judith R. Amesbury ..................................23
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................23
FISH REMAINS AND FISHING GEAR FROM GUAM ............................................24
Ritidian.........................................................................................................................24
Tarague ........................................................................................................................26
Pagat.............................................................................................................................27
Mangilao Golf Course..................................................................................................28
Ylig Bay .......................................................................................................................30
Orote Peninsula ............................................................................................................33
North and South Finegayan, Communications Annex ................................................34
FISH REMAINS AND FISHING GEAR FROM THE CNMI .....................................35
Achugao, Saipan ..........................................................................................................35
Afetña, Saipan ..............................................................................................................37
Laulau, Saipan..............................................................................................................39
Military Leaseback Area, Central Tinian.....................................................................39
Tachogna, Tinian .........................................................................................................40
Mochong, Rota.............................................................................................................41
North Coast of Rota including the Uyulan Region ......................................................44
Songsong, Rota ............................................................................................................47
TURTLES FROM GUAM ............................................................................................49
TURTLES FROM THE CNMI .....................................................................................50
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION.................................................................................51
v
CHAPTER 3. SPANISH PERIOD by Judith R. Amesbury ...........................................55
EARLY EXPLORERS ..................................................................................................55
Antonio Pigafetta .........................................................................................................55
Martín de Uriarte..........................................................................................................56
Andrés de Urdaneta......................................................................................................56
Secondary Account by Martín Fernández de Navarrete ..............................................56
Father Fray Martín Rada ..............................................................................................57
Major Estéban Rodriguez ............................................................................................58
Secondary Account by Father Juan de Medina............................................................59
Secondary Account by Father Fray Gaspar de San Augustin ......................................59
THE FIRST SPANISH RESIDENTS OF THE MARIANAS ......................................60
Fray Antonio de los Angeles........................................................................................60
Fray Juan Pobre de Zamora .........................................................................................60
THE FIRST SPANISH COLONISTS ...........................................................................63
Brother (later Father) Lorenzo Bustillo .......................................................................63
Padre Diego Luis de Sanvitores ...................................................................................63
Two Accounts Pertaining to the Year 1670 .................................................................64
Secondary Account by Father Francisco García ..........................................................64
OTHER FOREIGN VISITORS .....................................................................................66
William Dampier .........................................................................................................66
Captain Woodes Rogers ...............................................................................................67
George Anson ..............................................................................................................67
Captain Crozet .............................................................................................................70
Louis de Freycinet........................................................................................................71
Hooks and Lines, Spears ............................................................................................71
The Poio or Fishing Stone .........................................................................................71
Nets ............................................................................................................................72
Traps and Weirs .........................................................................................................73
Mañåhak (Siganus spp., Juvenile Rabbitfishes) ........................................................73
Hachuman (Decapterus sp., Opelu in Hawaii) ..........................................................73
Låggua or Parrotfishes (Family Scaridae) .................................................................75
Flyingfishes (Family Exocoetidae) ............................................................................75
Anaho (Dorade?, Coryphaena hippurus) ..................................................................76
Turtles ........................................................................................................................76
Shipbuilding ...............................................................................................................76
SPANISH GOVERNORS .............................................................................................76
Henrique Olavide .........................................................................................................76
José de Soroa................................................................................................................76
Phelipe de Ceraín .........................................................................................................77
José Arlegui y Leóz .....................................................................................................77
Felipe María de la Corte y Ruano Calderón ................................................................77
Francisco Olive y García .............................................................................................78
SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................79
vi
CHAPTER 4. TWENTIETH CENTURY by Judith R. Amesbury ................................81
DIVERGING HISTORIES ............................................................................................81
FIRST AMERICAN PERIOD IN GUAM ....................................................................82
William Edwin Safford ................................................................................................82
Reports of the U.S. Naval Government of Guam ........................................................83
WORLD WAR II/JAPANESE PERIOD IN GUAM ....................................................84
SECOND AMERICAN PERIOD IN GUAM ...............................................................84
Reports of the U.S. Naval Government of Guam ........................................................85
Reports of the Presidentially Appointed Governors of Guam .....................................87
Reports of the Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources,
Western Pacific Fishery Information Network, and the
Pelagics Plan Team of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery
Management Council .................................................................................................88
Secretariat of the Pacific Community Oceanic Fisheries Programme .........................93
GERMAN PERIOD IN THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS ............................95
George Fritz .................................................................................................................95
JAPANESE PERIOD IN THE NORTHERN MARIANAS .........................................96
Reports to the League of Nations.................................................................................96
From Appendix C: Pre-War Japanese Fisheries in Micronesia ...................................98
Hans G. Hornbostel ......................................................................................................99
AMERICAN PERIOD IN THE NORTHERN MARIANAS........................................99
Neal M. Bowers and Rohma Bowers, Alexander Spoehr............................................99
Reports of the CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife, Western Pacific
Fishery Information Network, and the Pelagics Plan Team of the
Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council .........................................101
Secretariat of the Pacific Community Oceanic Fisheries Programme .......................104
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................104
CHAPTER 5. INTERVIEWS by Judith R. Amesbury .................................................109
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................109
GUAM .........................................................................................................................109
Manuel P. Duenas II ..................................................................................................109
Peter Plummer............................................................................................................113
Masao Tembata ..........................................................................................................116
SAIPAN .......................................................................................................................119
Mike Fleming .............................................................................................................119
Rafael I. Rangamar and Lino M. Olopai....................................................................120
Alfonso Reyes ............................................................................................................124
Juan San Nicolas ........................................................................................................125
TINIAN ........................................................................................................................126
Ana Pangelinan Cruz .................................................................................................126
Leonardo Flores Diaz .................................................................................................127
Alfred F. Fleming.......................................................................................................127
Lino Lizama ...............................................................................................................130
Carmen Sanchez.........................................................................................................132
vii
ROTA...........................................................................................................................134
Antonio Mesngon Sr. .................................................................................................134
Estanislao Taisacan ....................................................................................................135
Francisco Toves .........................................................................................................140
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................141
REFERENCES CITED..................................................................................................143
APPENDIX A: ANALYSIS OF FAUNAL MATERIAL FROM AN
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE COMPLEX AT MANGILAO, GUAM
By B. F. Leach and J. M. Davidson
APPENDIX B: ANALYSIS OF FAUNAL MATERIAL FROM AN
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE AT YLIG, GUAM
By B. F. Leach and J. M. Davidson
APPENDIX C: PRE-WAR JAPANESE FISHERIES IN MICRONESIA
FOCUSING ON BONITO AND TUNA FISHING IN THE
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
By Wakako Higuchi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Spoehr’s broad phases of Marianas prehistory as subdivided
by Moore and Hunter-Anderson ......................................................................................23
Table 2. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI)
and percent MNI from Pagat, Guam ................................................................................28
Table 3. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI)
and percent MNI from Mangilao Golf Course Site 25, Guam ........................................29
Table 4. Leach and Davidson’s four groups correlated with Mangilao
Golf Course strata and corresponding cultural phase or period .......................................29
Table 5. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI),
and percent MNI from Mangilao Golf Course Site 25 by time periods ..........................30
Table 6. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI)
and percent MNI from Ylig Bay, Guam ..........................................................................31
Table 7. Radiocarbon dates from Ylig Bay, Guam with corresponding
cultural phase or period ....................................................................................................31
viii
Table 8. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI),
and percent MNI from Ylig Bay by time periods ............................................................32
Table 9. Families of fishes and number of identified specimens (NISP)
from Orote Peninsula, Guam ...........................................................................................34
Table 10. Families of fishes and number of identified specimens (NISP)
from North and South Finegayan, Guam .........................................................................35
Table 11. Families of fishes and number of identified specimens (NISP)
from Achugao, Saipan .....................................................................................................37
Table 12. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI)
and percent MNI from Afetña, Saipan .............................................................................38
Table 13. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI),
percent MNI, number of identified specimens (NISP), and weight
of fish remains from the Tinian Leaseback Area .............................................................39
Table 14. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI)
and percent MNI from Tachogna, Tinian ........................................................................41
Table 15. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI)
and percent MNI from Mochong, Rota............................................................................43
Table 16. Likely catch methods of fishes from Mochong, Rota by families
with MNI and percent MNI .............................................................................................44
Table 17. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI)
and percent MNI from the Rota Airport Road Project ....................................................45
Table 18. Likely catch methods of fishes from the Rota Airport Road Project
by families with MNI and percent MNI ..........................................................................46
Table 19. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI),
percent MNI, number of identified specimens (NISP) and weight from
Vista Del Mar Resort, Rota ..............................................................................................47
Table 20. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI)
and percent MNI from Songsong, Rota ...........................................................................47
Table 21. Likely catch methods of fishes from Songsong, Rota by families
with MNI and percent MNI .............................................................................................48
ix
Table 22. Catch methods and percentage of total catch for different levels
of the excavation at Songsong, Rota ................................................................................49
Table 23. Number and/or weight of turtle remains from Guam sites .............................49
Table 24. Weight and density of turtle bones by horizon from Pagat, Guam.................50
Table 25. Number and/or weight of turtle remains from CNMI sites ............................50
Table 26. Number of turtle bones by strata from Unai Chulu, Tinian ............................51
Table 27. Number of turtle bones by horizon from Mochong, Rota ..............................51
Table 28. Summary of pelagic fish MNI and/or NISP from archaeological
sites in the Mariana Islands ..............................................................................................52
Table 29. Total MNI of families of pelagic fishes for the Marianas, Guam
only, and Rota only ..........................................................................................................52
Table 30. Percent of pelagic fishes in the total MNI of identified fishes from
ten sites in the Mariana Islands with pelagic fish remains and MNI analysis .................53
Table 31. Number of men on Guam deriving their living principally from
fishing, 1946-1950 ...........................................................................................................85
Table 32. Pounds of fish caught on Guam by year, month, and method,
1946-1950 ........................................................................................................................86
Table 33. Number of men engaged in fishing and pounds of fish, turtle,
and shellfish caught from 1951 through 1955 .................................................................87
Table 34. Pounds of fish, turtle, shellfish, and crustaceans caught from
1956 through 1968 ...........................................................................................................88
Table 35. Estimated annual effort and catch for trolling around Guam
from 1963 through 1981 ..................................................................................................89
Table 36. Percentages of the estimated total trolling catch of the five
most common species caught by trolling around Guam from
1966 through 1981 ...........................................................................................................90
Table 37. Estimated total landings of pelagic fishes by 1000 pounds in
Guam, 1982-2006 ............................................................................................................91
Table 38. Trolling catch rates (pounds/hour) for Guam, 1982-2006 ..............................92
x
Table 39. Average monthly estimated commercial landings of pelagic
fishes by 1000 pounds in Guam, 1980-2005 ...................................................................92
Table 40. Annual catches of skipjack and yellowfin tuna made by foreign
vessels doing pole-and-line fishing in the vicinity of Guam ...........................................94
Table 41. Quantity and value of marine products from the Saipan District
during the 1920s...............................................................................................................97
Table 42. Bonito (skipjack tuna) and tuna (probably yellowfin tuna) from
Saipan District, 1922 through 1941 .................................................................................98
Table 43. Pre-war and post-war production of the commercial fishing
industry, Saipan District.................................................................................................101
Table 44. Total commercial landings of pelagic fishes by 1000 pounds
in Saipan, 1983-2006 .....................................................................................................102
Table 45. Trolling catch rates (pounds/trip) for Saipan, 1983-2006.............................103
Table 46. Average monthly estimated commercial landings of pelagic
fishes by 1000 pounds in Saipan, 1981-2005 ................................................................104
Table 47. Annual catches of skipjack and yellowfin tuna made by foreign
vessels doing pole-and-line fishing in the vicinity of the Northern
Mariana Islands ..............................................................................................................105
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1. Latte set at Mochong, Rota ...............................................................................17
Photo 2. Human bone point of composite fishhook from Ylig Bay, Guam....................33
Photo 3. Poio or fishing stone made of argillaceous limestone found by
MARS near Marine Drive in Anigua, Guam ...................................................................72
Photo 4. Manny Duenas at the Guam Fishermen’s Cooperative Association
in Hagåtña, Guam, April 2008 .......................................................................................109
Photo 5. Peter Plummer at Chamorro Village, April 2008 ...........................................114
Photo 6. Masao Tembata at his office in Guam, April 2008 ........................................117
xi
Photo 7. Mike Fleming at his home in Saipan, February 2005.....................................119
Photo 8. Lino Olopai and Rafael Rangamar at the Seaman’s Restaurant,
Saipan, February 2005 ...................................................................................................121
Photo 9. Ana Pangelinan Cruz at the Aging Center, Tinian, February 2005 ................127
Photo 10. Alfred Fleming at his home in Tinian, February 2005 .................................128
Photo 11. Lino Lizama in his yard in Tinian with a Grumman aluminum
canoe built in 1946 or 1947 ...........................................................................................131
Photo 12. Carmen Sanchez on Tinian, February 2005 .................................................132
Photo 13. Antonio Mesngon Sr. at his home on Rota, February 2006 .........................134
Photo 14. Estanislao Taisacan with two canoes he and his son carved
from Hernandia logs in Rota .........................................................................................137
Photo 15. Estanislao Taisacan with two poio (fishing stones), one old
and the other a replica ....................................................................................................138
Photo 16. Stan Taisacan’s son holding the lagua’ hachuman (hachuman net) ............139
Photo 17. Frank Toves at his home on Rota, February 2006........................................140
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Mariana Archipelago .........................................................................................2
Figure 2. Portion of Southeast Asia showing “Austronesia” ............................................4
Figure 3. Hornbostel’s map of latte stone sites on Guam ...............................................19
Figure 4. Hornbostel’s map of Saipan showing latte stone distributions .......................19
Figure 5. Hornbostel’s map of Tinian showing distribution of latte stones....................20
Figure 6. Mean number of tropical storms and typhoons passing 5-degree
latitude by 5-degree longitude squares ............................................................................21
Figure 7. Timeline of the Prehistoric Period in Guam and the Northern
Mariana Islands ................................................................................................................23
xii
Figure 8. Guam, showing archaeological sites with pelagic fish and turtle
Remains............................................................................................................................25
Figure 9. Points of composite fishhooks from archaeological sites in Guam .................27
Figure 10. Saipan, showing archaeological sites with pelagic fish and turtle
Remains............................................................................................................................36
Figure 11. Human bone spear points found in association with Burial 6,
Afetña, Saipan ..................................................................................................................38
Figure 12. Tinian, showing archaeological sites with pelagic fish and turtle
Remains............................................................................................................................40
Figure 13. Rota, showing archaeological sites with pelagic fish and turtle
Remains............................................................................................................................42
Figure 14. “Flying proa” of the Mariana Islands ............................................................69
Figure 15. Timelines of the Historic Period in Guam and the Northern
Mariana Islands ................................................................................................................81
Figure 16. Composition of the trolling catch in Guam and Saipan ..............................106
xiii
xiv
CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW OF THE PREHISTORY
OF THE MARIANA ISLANDS
By Rosalind L. Hunter-Anderson
INTRODUCTION
Micronesian Archaeological Research Services (MARS) has been contracted by
the Pelagic Fisheries Research Program (PFRP) of the Joint Institute for Marine and
Atmospheric Research at the University of Hawaii School of Ocean and Earth Science
and Technology to perform an analysis of archaeological and historical data on pelagic
fisheries in the Mariana Archipelago. The study includes the Territory of Guam and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), comprised of all the islands
north of Guam in the Marianas chain. These U.S. flag entities form a northeast-southwest
trending archipelago lying between about 13 and 21 degrees north latitude, and between
about 144 and 146 degrees east longitude in the tropical western Pacific Ocean (see
Karolle 1997). Figure 1 shows the Mariana Archipelago within the western Pacific
region.
As archaeologists, we take an anthropological approach to the history of pelagic
fisheries. Based in cultural ecology, this approach recognizes cultural adaptive systems as
an appropriate interpretive framework for cultural differences and similarities. As open
systems comprised of matter, energy and information, cultural adaptive systems are
concrete [as opposed to conceptual and abstract systems] sensu Miller (1965:202-203).
Open concrete systems have "at least partially permeable boundaries, permitting sizeable
magnitudes of at least certain sorts of matter-energy or information transmissions to cross
them." The main components of a cultural adaptive system include its technological
organization, which intercepts and transforms matter and energy from the environment
and buffers the system from anticipated perturbations, its sociological organization,
which regulates production and consumption of materials, and its ideological
organization, which guides and mediates human actions vis a vis information generated
by the system.
From these abstractions comes a “down to earth” view of culture that focuses
upon physical environmental conditions and human responses to them. In archaeology
the clues to the latter lie in the detailed study of material remains such as artifacts and
human-constructed features such as house floors, burial pits, etc. and in a search for
regularities in the spatial patterning of these remains. In the present study we have sought
both archaeological and paleontological information that can inform on past adaptational
challenges that have "shaped" cultural systems in the Marianas and, specifically, the
various natural and cultural conditions under which pelagic fishing has been undertaken.
1
Figure 1. Mariana Archipelago. Courtesy of Barry Smith, University of Guam Marine
Lab.
Cultural ecology does not ignore human agency; clearly human beings make
decisions, affect the physical environment, and so on. It simply places individual and
group decisions and actions within a cultural evolutionary context, where the
effectiveness of human agency ultimately is "decided" by selective forces over which
individuals ultimately have no control. This is the same viewpoint that acknowledges the
truth that human intentions cannot affect the force of gravity, while granting that there are
human inventions that can overcome the effects of gravity under certain conditions.
Similarly, human inventions may be directed at solving an adaptive problem like food
shortage but whether such efforts succeed is determined by forces in the external world,
not by what people think or do. Nonetheless, common adaptive problems tend to be
solved by similar cultural solutions in similar environments, and it is this knowledge that
assists archaeologists in anticipating patterning in the archaeological record on a global
and local basis.
2
AN OVERVIEW OF THE MARIANAS PREHISTORIC RECORD AND ITS
CULTURAL ECOLOGY
Compared with other of Earth's major biomes, the tropical Pacific Ocean was first
occupied relatively late in human history, within the last four millennia. The earliest
records of human presence come from Micronesia, and specifically, the Marianas.
Radiocarbon dating has shown that the Marianas Archipelago had been reached via
sailing canoes by c. 3500 BP (before present). This arrival was about 500 years before
people entered other remote western Pacific islands. If the first Marianas arrivals came
from the nearest large landmass to the west, the Philippines, this implies an open sea
crossing of c. 2600 km. It is also possible that people came to the Marianas by “island
hopping” via Palau and Yap but the archaeological records of those island groups do not
support such a scenario.
In the southern hemisphere, ancient sailors had crossed the 950 km-long "water
gap" between the Bismarcks/Solomon Islands groups and the Reef/Santa Cruz Islands
groups by 3000 BP. Archaeological sites with later radiocarbon dates document
subsequent expansions east into the Pacific basin on both sides of the equator over the
ensuing millennia. By c. 1000 BP nearly all the island groups, whether high volcanic
islands or low coral atolls and raised coral islands, had been occupied and some were
about to be abandoned as the climate shifted from the Little Climatic Optimum to the
Little Ice Age.
In contrast with late human advent in the remote Pacific, the large, island-like
landmasses of New Guinea and Australia had been inhabited by c. 40000 BP, and new
dates from Australia suggest even earlier occupation there. The larger islands in the
Bismarcks and Solomons have a known human record of c. 35,000 years, and older sites
may yet be found. Human presence in the islands connected to the Asian mainland during
the late Pleistocene is evidenced by human fossils dated to 20000-30000 BP in Taiwan
off China's southeast coast. Similar situations no doubt prevailed elsewhere in the IndoPacific region when radically lower sea levels enabled overland travel across areas now
separated by wide, shallow seas.
As formerly connected land areas were separated by the rising seas at the end of
the Pleistocene, 15000-10000 BP, people who had been occupying low-lying coastal
areas were displaced. The new land/sea configurations necessitated radical adjustments,
mainly through inland migration and related changes in settlement and subsistence
practices. Flooding of shallow continental shelves probably occurred slowly enough for
displaced migrants to merge with populations in the Southeast Asian valleys and
plateaus.
Agricultural practices signaling the Neolithic in the middle reaches of China's
river valleys began by at least c. 8000 BP but the Paleolithic continued in island
Southeast Asia until c. 5000-3000 BP (Meacham 1984-85), when some groups began to
grow millet and rice. Paleoclimatic evidence from various parts of the Pacific rim
suggests modern climatic regimes became established after c. 5000 BP, and the rise of
3
grain agriculture in the larger Southeast Asian islands such as Taiwan and Luzon may be
related to this if only indirectly through demographic processes.
Throughout the western Pacific, hydro-isostatic sea level adjustments brought
maximum high stands in the mid-Holocene, c. 5000-6000 BP. In the as-yet uninhabited
Marianas, mid-Holocene seas peaked at c. 1.5-2.0 m above present sea level (apsl). In
Taiwan and elsewhere in island Southeast Asia, an open network of marine-oriented
peoples, many of whom interacted with adjacent land-based groups, had come into being.
This zone has been called "Austronesia" (Solheim 1984-85) to signify the probable
origins of Pacific island languages that are now classified within the large Austronesian
language family (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Portion of Southeast Asia showing “Austronesia.” From Meacham (1984-85).
The mobility of these putatively Austronesian-speaking "sea nomads," who must
have used sailing and paddling canoes, linked distant coastal and inland populations
through trade and exchange of manufactured valuables and other necessities. During this
time, it is likely that long-distance voyaging technologies and seasonal regularities in
ocean currents and winds were codified by groups frequenting particular portions of the
network. Regular weather patterns, especially predictable seasonal wind shifts, enabled
4
exploratory voyages, and remote islands such as the Marianas may have been discovered
but remained unsettled for several millennia.
The apparent neglect of the western Pacific islands until c. 3500 BP is best
explained through principles of biogeography and cultural ecology. The latter includes
considerations of past environmental changes and opportunities, such as climatic and sea
level oscillations, with related shoreline alterations and changes in the distribution of
surface and groundwater. These factors can strongly affect decision-making regarding
settlement and subsistence strategies. From a biogeographical standpoint, an island's or
island chain’s remoteness makes it less likely that immigrant species will reach it, and
small land area makes it less likely that new arrivals will become established.
Even if remote islands were known to exist by human groups capable of sailing to
them, small islands remain among the least favorable of habitats for people. Small islands
are characterized by relatively low floral and faunal diversity, and many lack surface
water and fresh groundwater. Those in trade wind belts and near seismically active zones
are subject to seasonal and extended droughts due to the El Nino cycle, typhoons and
earthquakes; the Marianas are an example. The usual question of how soon were the
small remote Pacific islands occupied might be turned around to ask, why did they
become inhabited at all, and how were continuous populations maintained…or were
they?
Throughout the tropical western Pacific, mid-Holocene sea levels covered all but
the tops of the highest undersea volcanic ridges. Steep coastlines, unprotected by fringing
reefs and lacking sandy beaches, were exposed to relentless wave action, making these
high-energy habitats undesirable. Lower-elevation island-peaks were submerged entirely,
and present-day atolls, on which thousands of people dwell today, had not yet formed.
Continuing hydro-isostatic adjustments in the western Pacific resulted in sea level decline
from the mid-Holocene high stands beginning c. 4000 BP. As the sea receded, small
volcanic peak-islands became larger islands once again, while fringing reefs, reef
platforms, mangrove-lined lagoons, and estuaries formed along their margins.
In the southern Marianas, former high-energy coastlines changed as small coves
and beaches formed on leeward shores. It is likely that habitat diversity along the island
perimeters increased compared with earlier millennia but this situation was not to endure
forever. The sea continued to recede over the next several centuries, albeit more slowly.
The conditions that would support temporary stays by maritime-oriented groups from
source areas in the west were in place by c. 3500 BP, as the archaeological record of
these groups attests.
Archaeological manifestations of human advent in the Marianas have been found
at a small number of beachside sites occupied between c. 3,500 and 3,000 years ago.
Archaeologists assign these occupations to the Pre-Latte Phase of Marianas prehistory
(see Spoehr 1957; Hunter-Anderson and Butler 1995; Moore and Hunter-Anderson
1999). A contemporary development was taking place in the southern hemisphere, in the
Bismarck Archipelago: beachside occupations from this time period have been
5
discovered and assigned to the Lapita cultural tradition or complex (for a popular
summary, see Kirch 1997). About 500 years later, similar sites to those in the Bismarcks
were created in the small islands east of the Bismarcks (Anderson et al. 2001). According
to current models, Lapita culture bearers subsequently moved on to colonize Vanuatu and
New Caledonia; see Allen and Gosden (1991), Summerhayes (2000), and Specht and
Gosden (1997).
That the Marianas Pre-Latte and the Bismarck Archipelago Lapita sites were
essentially contemporary and contain similar artifact assemblages has not seemed
important to Pacific researchers more concerned with defining local chronological
sequences. We propose that the coincidences in timing, location, and assemblage contents
from Pre-Latte and Bismarck Lapita sites signal a major regional adaptational process—
human populations adjusting to new environmental conditions—and therefore to a new
cultural evolutionary context. Below is a review of similarities and differences in the
Lapita and Pre-Latte assemblages that illustrate aspects of this adjustment process.
Lapita, Pre-Latte, and the Trader/Broker Niche
Like the Marianas Pre-Latte sites, the Bismarck Lapita sites whose occupation
dates fall between 3500-3000 BP are found on what were then narrow sand-covered reef
flats, often associated with mangroves and other wetland communities rich in birds and
other species that are not common today. Most of the Bismarck Lapita sites are located
on the small offshore islands within the archipelago, and in many cases they represent the
first human activities on these islands, at least the first "archaeologically visible" ones.
Similarities in Bismarck Lapita and Marianas Pre-Latte assemblages include red-slipped,
calcareous-tempered, mainly thin-walled ceramic remnants of bowls and jars (a small
proportion of the total pot sherds at each site are decorated with finely incised and
stamped geometric designs, some filled with powdered lime), marine shell ornaments
(beads, bracelets, circlets, pendants) in various states of completion, shell and stone
implements used to make the shell items (sea urchin files, small basalt hammers), shell
fish hooks, worked pieces of shell, and chert flakes. Other similarities are evident in the
faunal remains: abundant marine food shells, turtle and fish bones (of both reef and
pelagic fish), and the bones of fruit bat and of sea and land birds.
Contrasts between Marianas Pre-Latte and Bismarck Lapita archaeological
assemblages include artifactual and faunal differences, with Lapita assemblages having
more artifact types and more diverse faunal remains than the Pre-Latte, although
assemblage sizes are small in both areas. A prominent artifactual contrast between the
two areas’ assemblages is the prevalence of obsidian flakes at the Lapita sites and their
absence at Pre-Latte sites. Sourcing studies show that the obsidian was obtained from
quarries within the Bismarck Archipelago, suggesting a local exchange network. Ground
stone axes, mostly fragmentary but nonetheless suggesting agriculture, have been found
at Bismarck Lapita sites as well, while this artifact type is absent in Pre-Latte sites. Also
in contrast with Lapita sites, Pre-Latte flaked stone and ground stone tools are rare while
in the Bismarcks they are more common. Although obsidian sources are not known in the
Marianas, suitable volcanic rock for ground stone tools is present throughout the
6
archipelago but is not well represented in Pre-Latte assemblages. This may mean that
exchange networks were not in place at this time but also that Pre-Latte people were
narrowly exploiting the islands’ resources.
Bismarck Lapita faunal assemblages contain the bones of dog, pig, and chicken,
the murids Rattus exulans and R. praetor, as well as phalanger and small reptiles. PreLatte faunal assemblages lack all these species except small reptiles (which could be
naturally present at sites in both areas).
Finally it can be noted that post-holes, hearths and earth-oven features are present
at both Bismarck Lapita and Pre-Latte sites, and that material remains of more substantial
dwellings and permanent site furniture, such as large mortars or other stone features are
lacking in both areas.
In the Bismarcks, but not the Marianas, there is evidence for the very early use of
coastal caves and rock shelters as well as open-air coastal sites. This contrast suggests
again that the Pre-Latte people were more selective in their use of Marianas resources.
For more detailed information on Bismarck Lapita sites, see Anson (1983); Allen and
Gosden (1991); Clark et al. (2001); for early Pre-Latte sites see Spoehr (1957); Pellet and
Spoehr (1961); Moore et al. (1992); Amesbury et al. (1996); Butler (1995); Haun et al.
(1999).
The adaptive significance of the differences and similarities between Marianas
Pre-Latte assemblages and Bismarcks Lapita assemblages can be better appreciated when
considered within the particular "regional geographic system" (hereinafter RGS; see
Terrell 1977 and Rappaport 1969) in which the site occupants participated, and how that
participation was structured. Under this analytical frame, the somewhat more diverse
archaeological assemblages found in the Bismarck Lapita sites would be a consequence
of the cultural adaptive niche occupied by the creators of those assemblages. Defining the
parameters of that niche is beyond the scope of the present report but it can be noted that
the Bismarcks RGS differs in a number of basic ways from the Philippines/Marianas
RGS. For example, the greater total length of available coastline and large total area of
shallow reef flats in the Philippines/Marianas RGS may have favored economic
specialization by some marginal groups, in contrast to economic opportunities available
in the Bismarcks RGS.
According to Terrell (1977:65), a regional geographic system includes both
physical-geographic and cultural components connected through "a complex of
intercommunicating variables within which a change in any one variable or relationship
is likely to affect [sic] changes, of a greater or lesser degree, in all the others." Cultural
aspects of an RGS would include customary practices and social interactions while
physical aspects would include biological, geological, climatological, etc., conditions. As
Terrell (1977:65) emphasized, "such a complex of variables and relationships is unlikely
to respond only to single causes, although changes in some dimensions may be more
influential on the system as a whole than others." In the arguments presented below, sea
level was an especially influential variable.
7
The post-mid-Holocene similarities between the Philippines/Marianas and
Bismarcks RGS’s include the presence of human inhabitants of the large islands, some of
whom were practicing agriculture by this time. The practice of agriculture is a signal that
local population density thresholds had been reached, which precluded reliance only upon
foraging for at least some groups. In this adaptive context, simple socio-economic
arrangements probably had already developed among coastal hunter-gatherer-fishers and
those subsisting to some degree upon agriculture.
Small Islands, Sources and Sinks
Romantic stereotypes of idyllic south sea isles surrounded by turquoise waters
notwithstanding, in human ecological terms, small islands—whether near larger ones or
located more remotely—are demographic "sinks" as opposed to demographic "sources"
(Pulliam 1988, 1996). According to Pulliam (1988), source habitats produce excess
population of a given species while sinks absorb it. "Pseudo-sinks" are also possible; such
habitats appear to be sinks but if the source no longer provides immigrants, the sink
population does not disappear as happens with true sink populations but survives at a
much lower density (Pulliam 1996).
Large islands can be thought of as "source habitats" and small islands as "sink
habitats." These correspond, respectively, to habitats that generate excess people and
those that receive them but cannot sustain them as a population indefinitely—i.e., less
desirable habitats within the expanded (cultural) niche.
Theoretical ecologists have captured the concept of participation-structure by the
term niche, an n-dimensional environmental space within which a population is capable
of maintaining or increasing its size. Hutchinson (1958, cited in Pulliam1996:63-65)
differentiated the niche concept into "fundamental" and "realized." The fundamental
niche is the set of environmental conditions within which the population can exist. The
realized niche is the set of environmental conditions occupied in the presence of other
species, making the realized niche smaller than the fundamental niche because
competition from other species excludes the population from occupying some portions of
its fundamental niche.
Pulliam (1996) introduced the idea of the "expanded" niche to acknowledge that a
species may occupy habitats that are only marginally suitable. An expanded niche is the
entire range of environmental conditions utilized by the species and may include habitats
from which the species would disappear in the absence of continued immigration. The
expanded niche concept allows for situations of open populations that can migrate among
habitats, some of these habitats comprising conditions that are not part of the fundamental
niche. Roughly equating culturally organized human groups with species, this concept
captures the character of cultural adaptive systems in which Pre-Latte and Bismarck
Lapita groups participated. Their habitats were less than fully suitable for continuous
occupation: shallow seas, reefs, small islands, and island-margins on larger islands.
However, given maritime technology, the shallow seas provide corridors of travel that
8
enable a way of life to be created through mobility and negotiation with landed groups.
(While there is no evidence that the Pre-Latte occupants of the Marianas practiced
agriculture, the Bismarcks Lapita archaeological record indicates a niche difference:
some groups either practiced agriculture and raised pigs or received such produce in
regular exchanges.)
The anthropological arrangements whereby population transfers from source to
sink take place are complicated and dynamic and the details need not concern us here.
Suffice to say the very large islands adjacent to the Philippines and Bismarck RGS's
(Borneo and New Guinea, respectively) were potential "source habitats" that affected
human population size in their nearby RGS's, perhaps less directly than did the large
islands within each archipelago affect the small islands there. This is because human
cultural interactions occur most frequently with near-neighbors, making transfers of
population among closely neighboring large and small islands within an RGS more
likely.
Typically, nearby areas provide marriage partners and a degree of subsistence
security through cooperative arrangements for resource sharing. Such arrangements can
take different forms, from dyadic exchanges between two groups, say between a group
living on a large island and a group living on a nearby small island (or a similar dyadic
exchange relationship within a large island), to more complex connections that include
internal ranking and other relationships among occupants of several islands of differing
size and biological diversity.
The term "socio-economic heterarchy" (Crumley 1979, 1995; Ehrenreich et al.
1995) might be used to describe the various cultural arrangements in our two RGS's at the
time period under consideration. According to Crumley (1979:165-166), "[t]he
assumptions of the regional heterarchy model posit an open cultural system extending
over varied terrain whose boundaries fluctuate through time and space, depending on the
nature and frequency of communication/connectivity with other cultural systems." In
heterarchical socio-economic systems, as opposed to hierarchical ones, natural resources
tend to be both dense and spatially dispersed, and not necessarily evenly distributed in
space or time. For example, in the RGS's considered here, large trees suitable for making
canoes are only present and available on certain islands at certain times due to differences
in growth cycles and fluctuations in local demand. Because they are not highly
concentrated and yet fairly abundant throughout a region, such resources are not easily
monopolized for trade by hierarchical polities that normally develop to control access to
highly concentrated resources in high demand (see discussions in White [1995]).
This is not to say that dense and dispersed resources are never contested; on the
contrary, under sustained high human densities or elevated demand, they are contested,
and localized means of regulating competition for such resources usually arise. In nonindustrialized cultural systems this often takes the form of ethnic differentiation and
partitioning of access among local groups, regardless of their biological and/or linguistic
similarities. Ethnically organized groups protect the interests of constituent families,
lineages and clans, which are the social entities that own or are the recognized stewards
9
of specific lands or resources. Ethnic boundaries, although certainly permeable
biologically and socially, tend to discourage unauthorized access to claimed resources.
Given this understanding, ethnic diversity in our two RGS's is expected to have
developed by c. 4000 BP, as source areas contributed excess population to marginal
habitats, and to have been accompanied by 1) tension at boundary areas between different
ethnic groups, necessitating cultural conventions for interaction among them, 2) familial
and voluntary (friendship) relationships created across ethnic boundaries and marked by
exchanges of tokens both material and non-material, and 3) prominent use of symbols of
ethnic identification, ranging from styles of dress, personal ornamentation, architecture,
handicraft, and other less tangible ways that distinguished among local groups.
Demand for commonly understood high value symbols and commodities in the
social milieu of the Philippines and Bismarcks RGS's probably increased over time as
regional population increased with sea level decline from its mid-Holocene high stand.
The physical geography of these archipelagoes became more complicated and
heterogeneous; reef flats and saline lagoons emerged and smaller islands enlarged and
joined with others. Human population rose on the larger islands in response to more
favorable conditions for agriculture and food storage, relieving the demographic
constraint of the leanest period. As long as sink habitats existed (i.e., smaller islands and
sand bars in shallow seas), and were increasing in number and area as sea level declined,
excess population from source habitats could be absorbed and sink populations would
have appeared stable.
The basic problem for maritime populations occupying expanded niche habitats
was lack of direct access to sufficient land and its resources, the lack of access becoming
more acute with more co-contenders. A solution would have been to increase the number
and kinds of interactions with landed groups in source areas, for example, maritime
groups offering not only marine products in exchange for land products but also transport
and trading/brokering services.
The niche-space that the post-mid-Holocene maritime people in our two RGS's
came to occupy thus could be termed "trader-broker space" and its occupants traderbrokers (T-B's), whose usual habitats afforded direct access only to the products of
marine ecosystems. Among the islands of each archipelago, the seas were the medium of
movement and paddling and sailing canoes the technical means. Sea nomadism was an
economic niche that easily differentiated T-B's from landed groups and conferred a kind
of social neutrality. As long as they presented no direct competition, T-B's could
negotiate access to the products of land ecosystems in return for providing sea products
and for services such as brokering arrangements to obtain items and commodities for
landed groups whose members were unable to travel across ethnic boundaries.
The advantage of this kind of neutrality within the competitive, “heterarchical”
(i.e., complex but not hierarchical) social context is that it would allow for negotiated
passage for trade purposes through what would be hostile territory for others. Thus, T-B's
10
could participate in a wide network of relationships with relatives, neighbors, and distant
associates and clients, as they performed the services needed by landed groups.
Those who transport objects involved in complex exchanges are not always, or
even usually, the manufacturers of those objects but in the RGS's considered here, some
of the T-B's may have been. For example, smaller items not requiring much space to
make but requiring skilled hand labor could have been made by some T-B groups. Raw
materials from which these items were made, such as marine shells and turtle shells,
could be collected from reef flats and sandy shores and converted into pendants, beads,
armlets, ear and lip ornaments, the tokens of individual and group social relations needed
throughout the RGS. Larger items, representing greater investments in time, materials
and skill, would more likely come from land-based producers but brokered by T-B's for
others.
In addition to obtaining their own canoes through purchase, exchange, or in-kind
services, T-B's might be contracted to obtain large and expensive items such as canoes on
behalf of others willing to pay upon receipt of the item. Such economic arrangements
might be organized along kin, ethnic, and friendship lines, or all of these, and involve the
use of valuables or currency for payment. Lesser transactions might involve small items
obtained during the course of trips undertaken for a variety of reasons—trading and
procurement as well as visits with distant relatives, clients, and friends. This is the way
exotic items (rare marine shells, aromatic resins, colorful feathers, turmeric, and other
preparations) could enter and circulate within an RGS.
The main point here is that the T-B niche afforded people who lacked the ability
to produce all their own food and to satisfy other needs a way to obtain what they lacked
through trade and exchange, assuming there existed willing partners and clients. That
maritime peoples had access to fish and other marine resources, including turtles, is
certain but it is doubtful that pelagic species were a dietary mainstay given the inshoreoriented activities of mobile traders/brokers.
The Marianas and Visiting Trader-Brokers
As sea level declined after 4000 BP, creating more land and more geographical
diversity in the RGS's of the Indo-Pacific region, human population began to rise and
heterarchical socio-economic systems to evolve. As argued above, within these systems
the T-B niche developed from a previous basis in sea nomadism. Thus we can propose
that by 3500 BP, groups who occupied the Bismarck Lapita sites and the Pre-Latte sites
in the Marianas were the "cultural descendants" (not necessarily direct biological
descendants) of maritime people who had been the first to adapt to the conditions of
rising seas of Austronesia during the mid-Holocene.
For groups attempting to maintain a position within the T-B niche amidst the
increasingly competitive milieu of rising human densities, reliable access to raw materials
and finished items for use in trade was decreasing and ethnic differentiation sharpening.
In the Philippines/Marianas RGS, some T-B's experiencing the exclusionary tactics of
11
other groups of T-B's may have perceived travel to the uninhabited Marianas as an
opportunity, despite the risks of open ocean voyaging. Beaches, lagoons, and reef flats
had emerged and were unexploited. Small parties may have been able to survive for short
periods by fishing, shelling, catching turtles, and collecting sago, breadfruit, and
coconuts—plants that were already present—and other crops could be planted and left
until the next visit (see Rainbird 2004 for a similar idea).
Initially, permanent, long-term settlement in the Marianas was probably not
successful, although it may have been attempted. The problem was that the geographic
characteristics of these small remote islands made them human population sinks—like
the small islands and reef areas in the Philippines and Bismarcks—habitats with
insufficient carrying capacity for sustained human occupation without population and
other subsidies from source areas. Alluvial soils suitable for coastal agriculture had not
yet accumulated to a significant depth, groundwater was saline, and reefs were only just
forming and so could not buffer exposed shorelines against high waves during typhoons.
Living as "strand-loopers" (i.e., without agriculture) may have been possible for short
periods; Bayliss-Smith (1975) has calculated that a fisher-gatherer community of 30
persons requires some 17.2 km of reef when it is about 200 m wide as a minimum for
subsistence. In the Marianas c. 3500-3000 BP reef platforms and fringing reefs were
nowhere near that large nor were they continuous.
On the other hand, living as temporary occupants of the Marianas, Pre-Latte
groups of T-B’s could have used most of the exploitable reef area by ranging among the
large southern islands of Guam, Rota, Tinian, and Saipan rather than concentrating only
upon one of these islands. Reef and pelagic fish, turtles, and shellfish could have been
taken with techniques reflecting low and intermittent demand; if so, fishing gear would
not have been specialized and a variety of marine species should be represented in
archaeological assemblages. Over time, Pre-Latte visitors may have "seeded" the island
with plants such as wild yams, and certain varieties of coconuts, and seeded breadfruit
trees, that could survive unattended and would be usable when they returned.
What is the archaeological evidence for the proposal that the early Pre-Latte sites
were created by visitors from the Philippines rather than as determined settlers? What
would the signs be? One approach is to note the archaeological signature of temporary
visits—of people who can be regarded as occupying a sink habitat, namely, what is
lacking in the early Marianas archaeological record: dense accumulations of residential
debris; tools used in agriculture and to regularly process agricultural products (i.e., fleshy,
fibrous and woody materials); substantial architectural features; and graves. As we have
seen, the early Pre-Latte assemblages are in fact sparse and lack these items.
Ethnic differentiation arises under complex social and demographic conditions,
and is often expressed in material culture, such as in pottery decoration. The decorated
Pre-Latte pottery found at the early sites indicates that its makers/users were participants
in a socially complex cultural system, but likely one that arose elsewhere. Had Pre-Latte
groups been permanent residents rather than temporary occupants, they would have had
no reason to produce highly decorated pottery for local use, assuming that among other
12
aspects, the decorations conveyed social information such as ethnic affiliation. Being the
islands' only inhabitants living at very low densities, they would have had a simple social
system lacking internal ethnic differentiation, thus obviating the need for symbols of
ethnic affiliation.
In order to infer cultural connections between two areas, archaeologists have
looked for close similarities between items found in the two areas. If the two areas'
artifact assemblages are closely contemporary, the inference is that they were made by
the same people, or people sharing the same cultural tradition. If one area's assemblage is
older, it is thought to have been the "parent" and the younger assemblage with similar
contents is the "descendant." The marine shell ornaments and pottery at Pre-Latte sites
and those from contemporary coastal sites in the Philippines show striking similarities.
Spoehr (1957) was the first to suggest that the few pieces of decorated Pre-Latte
pottery (which he called "Lime-filled Impressed Tradeware") from a site at Chalan Piao,
Saipan were imported, probably from the Philippines. The layer with this pottery was
radiocarbon dated to c. 3500 BP. The decorated sherds from Chalan Piao were found
among many other undecorated sherds, which Spoehr called "Marianas Red" and thought
had been locally made. Regarding the significance of Marianas Red, he wrote, "The
presence of red pottery wares in the Philippines may link with Marianas Red. I believe
that through these red wares a relation will be established" (Spoehr 1957:174). We are
proposing that the relation was relatively direct, with Pre-Latte site occupants
representing a larger group of T-B's based in the Philippines. Precisely where such
groups lived within the Philippines is open to speculation; a likely place would be where
the pottery designs most closely resemble the Pre-Latte designs.
Later excavations at early Pre-Latte sites by Craib (1993) and by Butler (1995)
indicated that Spoehr's Lime-Filled Impressed Tradeware was quite common, and
researchers have assumed from this and geological analysis of the calcareous temper in
the pottery that it was produced locally. Local manufacture cannot definitely be
confirmed by reference to the calcareous sand temper in these ceramics because such
beach sands are not diagnostic of their island of origin (Dickinson et al. 2001). Thus
some, if not all, of the early Pre-Latte pottery may have been imported into the Marianas
after all. The study by Dickinson and colleagues found that volcanic and mixed sand
tempers from Guam and Saipan (but not the other main islands in the southern portion of
the chain, Rota and Tinian) dominate the later (non-Pre-Latte) pottery. This pattern was
recognized in a multivariate compositional cluster analysis of Mariana clays and
prehistoric pottery pastes (Graves et al. 1990), which included several Pre-Latte sherds.
Graves and colleagues found more variations in clay sources among the Pre-Latte sherds
than among the later prehistoric sherds, permitting an inference of higher rates of interand intra-island pottery exchange in the early period. Still, most of the Pre-Latte sherds
did not match known clay sources, and the possibility remains that some of the Pre-Latte
pottery may indeed derive from islands other than the Marianas.
That the geographic area within which calcareous-tempered redware was used
was extensive during the mid-late Holocene has been noted by Solheim (1984-85; 2002),
13
Shutler (1999) and others (Bellwood 1987; Bulmer 1999; Terrell and Welsch 1997). This
large zone includes eastern Indonesia (Sulawesi, Timor, and possibly Flores) as well as
Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, the Batanes Islands, and Taiwan. Of these ceramics,
the Philippine redwares bear the closest resemblance to the Marianas Pre-Latte ceramics.
In a recent review, Shutler (1999), like Spoehr, ties the Pre-Latte Phase in Saipan to
redware sites in the Philippines. The dates of the Philippines sites with redware range
from c. 6000 to 2000 BP, and these sites occur in northern, central, and southern Luzon
as well as in Palawan, generally in coastal settings. Non-ceramic artifacts and other
cultural materials found at these sites are not well described but appear to contain similar
items to those found at Pre-Latte sites. For example, at the Musang Cave in northern
Luzon, a layer dated to c. 4100-4950 BP yielded redware ceramics, marine food shells,
bone, flake tools, and beads (Thiel 1980).
Expectations Regarding Pelagic Fishing during the Early Pre-Latte Phase
What can be learned from these archaeological comparisons in respect to pelagic
fishing in the Marianas? By not confining our attention to the fish remains alone, but
considering the wider regional context in which these islands were first utilized, we can
propose certain expectations under the RGS/T-B niche model. For instance, Pre-Latte
groups' fish predation rates would have been quite low and not likely to have
significantly affected inshore or pelagic fish populations. Fishing gear would be
unspecialized, i.e., not designed to maximize catch size or rates, under conditions of low
consumer demand and no pressure for time efficiency. Large-bodied fish were probably
not systematically targeted, although not avoided, and meat preservation techniques
would have been only minimally developed. Land animals such as fruit bat along with
seabirds might have been taken expediently, but predation pressure is likely to have been
very light for these species. This would result in archaeological faunal assemblages in
which several vertebrate species and variable body sizes are represented with no evidence
of systematic hunting and processing.
In contrast, the Lapita archaeological assemblages in the Bismarcks RGS can be
expected to reflect patterned relationships with landed groups who owned the resources
of the considerably more diverse and productive large islands in the archipelago. Animals
of larger body size than were present in the Marianas were supported in this richer
biogeographical setting, and T-B's would have gained access to these through negotiation
and alliances, just as they did to other land resources. Pelagic fishing among most T-B's
was probably rare, since the majority of canoe travel was likely conducted in inshore
areas and shallower seas.
End of the Pre-Latte, End of the T-B Niche
The Pre-Latte Phase covers a period of about 2,500 years. Various authors have
proposed subdivisions of the Pre-Latte (Craib 1990; Hunter-Anderson and Butler 1995;
Moore 1983, 2002; Moore and Hunter-Anderson 1999). The details of these divisions
need not concern us here; suffice it to say that noticeable changes are marked in a long
archaeological sequence that appears to have "transitioned into" the Latte Phase by c.
14
1000 years ago. To assume that the Marianas archaeological record reflects a single
cultural system that grew continuously over time due to intrinsic population increase (the
usual model encountered in the Pacific literature) may be incorrect. We may abandon
that assumption and propose instead that the Marianas, as a sink habitat, temporarily
supported or absorbed immigrants but could not sustain any group for long. With regard
to the "transition" to the Latte Phase, the question is whether the character of the
immigration had changed; by 2500 BP were immigrants coming to stay, or still only
visiting?
To answer this and related queries we need to know if the adaptive milieu in the
source habitat(s) in Southeast Asia was changing. If so, and immigration to the Marianas
continued as implied by the archaeological record, the circumstances under which the
immigration process took place were also changing. Technological changes, specifically,
the introduction of iron working in the Philippines, may have greatly influenced the
context of immigration to the Marianas. In the Philippines, the Iron Age spans the time
period from c. 2500-1500 BP, precisely when we observe changes in the Marianas
archaeological record that have been termed "transitional."
Iron working and regional trade in iron implements comprised a new element in
the Philippines/Marianas RGS. This new technology likely caused new social and
political arrangements to form and older ones to be abandoned. For example, the T-B
niche may have narrowed through cessation of demand for the services of mobile traders
and brokers. If that niche was no longer viable for the same number of people (or indeed
for any), T-B's would have had few options to pursue a living within the RGS anymore,
and all would have involved loss of autonomy. One of these was emigration to
unoccupied locales such as the Marianas, where environmental changes were taking place
that made the islands more attractive for settlement than previously.
Between c. 2500-1500 BP, the archaeological record reflects a shift in the context
and character of human occupation in the Marianas. A re-orientation of immigrant groups
toward permanent settlement is indicated by artifact and settlement pattern changes. For
example, there was a decline and eventual absence of decorated redware pottery, a
decline in marine shell ornaments, larger and more complex artifact assemblages with
more ground stone tools, frequent use of Tridacna clam shells for adzes, site locations
that imply the utilization of more kinds of geographic settings and the use of pit
interments at residential sites and in inland and coastal rock shelters.
These archaeological changes in part reflect natural geographic enhancement
(from the human settlement point of view) of the southern islands, where sea level
decline resulted in ever-widening shorelines that had developed over exposed reef flats.
Amesbury's (2007, 1999) work on mollusk frequencies in Marianas coastal
archaeological deposits has yielded new information about changes in relative sea level
that imply changes in inshore environments and help explain changes in mollusk types
and abundances over time.
15
Also, there were now deeper alluvial soils in lowland catchments brought by
downcutting streams. Sea recession by 2500 BP had nearly eliminated mangroves at the
Laguas River mouth in southwestern Guam, according to dated sediment cores (Ward
1995). Other environmental changes could reflect the culturally engineered conversion of
the large southern islands from a natural sink habitat into a "pseudo-sink" that could
support more people than was previously possible. This process need not have been
abrupt but rather gradual, as immigrants and earlier settlers slowly "domesticated" the
landscape by planting imported cultigens, adapting them to local conditions, and through
the skillful management of the forests favoring certain useful species.
An indication that competition for optimal locales in the southern Marianas had
reached a threshold c. 2500 BP is the practice of human burials at coastal residential sites
beginning at this time. Under this understanding, burial-associated mortuary ritual was a
non-violent competitive tactic to demonstrate group claims to the few potentially
contested locales. In the local social idiom, such locales may have been regarded as clan
origin-sites where first landings took place, similar to customary beliefs regarding the
Anakena beach locale of Easter Island.
A late marker of the transition to the Latte Phase is a more complex and
geographically extensive settlement system. For example, in addition to coastal beach
and rock shelter sites, interior settings were more frequently used after c. 1500 BP, a
trend that continued throughout the Latte Phase. The kinds of sites occupied after c. 1500
BP include open ridge tops, caves and rock shelters, valley sides and river terraces. This
more extensive landscape coverage may reflect the final stages in the human-effected
conversion of the Marianas from sink to pseudo-sink, when an archipelago-wide system
of rainfall-dependent swidden agriculture, foraging, and fishing was developing, and
social organization was altered to fit this reality.
The Latte Phase
Throughout the c. 500 year-long Latte Phase (c. 1000-500 BP), certain trends and
directional changes in architecture and settlement patterns, as well as gradual and
episodic changes in material culture, have been recognized. For example, Latte Phase site
locations are more varied than the early Pre-Latte and transitional sites, although the
trend toward more spatially extensive use of the islands is apparent by c. 2000 BP. Latte
Phase sites are found along the islands' coasts in open sandy areas, some with deep
deposits, as well as in rock shelters. Many sites occur also in the island interiors, in ridge
top and valley settings, including rock shelters and caves. Interior sites usually have
shallow cultural deposits, although some are extensive in area. The latter pattern may
relate to a relatively mobile settlement system at times, in which some sites were
repeatedly visited but for short periods.
Judging from similarities in prehistoric artifacts and other archaeological
characteristics, and the fact of a common language spoken throughout the archipelago at
European contact in the 16th century, it is likely that prehistoric Chamorro groups within
the archipelago interacted frequently, with individuals traveling between islands on
16
sailing canoes. As in other Micronesian cultures, these interactions probably followed
clan and lineage relationships and were manifested in marriage, adoption, visitation, and
material exchanges of food and other resources.
The most prominent features of the Latte Phase are latte stones (Photo 1). When
found intact, latte stone sets are sited on level ground in configurations of two parallel
rows of columns inserted into a shallow pit with small stones supporting the wide base.
The two rows enclose a rectangular space. The columns are referred to as haligi in
Tagalog and Chamorro, after the Spanish word for post, harigue. Hemispherical
capstones (tasa in Tagalog and Chamorro, after the Spanish word for cup) were placed
atop the columns, flat side up, presumably to support the cross beams of a rectangular
wood structure. Site furniture in the form of large stone mortars embedded into the
ground is typical of latte stone sites. Called lusong (in Tagalog and Chamorro) stone
mortars were placed at one end of the feature and are thought to have been used to husk
rice prehistorically, as they are known to have been used historically.
Photo 1. Latte set at Mochong, Rota. Photo by J. Amesbury.
Latte sets are usually found in poor condition due to modern disturbances
(farming and construction). Many sets are incomplete and the elements displaced from
their original alignment but often the original configuration can be inferred. While some
sites contain several latte sets, most have only one or two sets.
Hunter-Anderson (1989) (see also Moore and Hunter-Anderson 1994) has argued
that latte stones, as part of the megalithic tradition of Southeast Asia, served symbolic
purposes, as well as practical purposes. As practical structural devices, latte stones (in a
set of opposing pillar and capstone pairs) were house posts that elevated the floor above
the ground and provided additional sheltered space beneath the house. This two-tieredspace use pattern is common in ethnographically known Ifugao architecture where
17
wooden pile houses are used for dwellings and for rice storage while the ground level is
used for daily activities (Perez et al. 1989). The physical similarities between Marianas
Latte Phase latte stone structures and the wood post structures of the Ifugao suggest
cultural connections in the prehistoric past but the symbolic content of latte stones was
probably unique to the Marianas.
The symbolic value of latte stone architecture, aside from its practical functions,
may have been as a conventional means of expressing group strength and ability to
defend claims to land. Megalithic traditions in Oceania stress the importance of height
and size to convey group solidarity and continuity. Such notions can be understood
anthropologically as competitive tactics. Placing latte sets in potentially contested areas
may have served to convey the intention of the builders to use those areas in future, just
as they had in the past. The ability of mute stone structures to "stand in" for people who
were absent would be important under a semi-mobile settlement system in which group
sizes were small and residential locations changed relatively frequently. Detailed
archaeological studies in particular regions of Guam have been conducted in the last two
to three decades; these indicate that latte sets occur precisely in potentially contested
areas: on ridges near interior wetlands, along river valleys and terraces, and along coastal
strands.
Figures 3-5 show the distributions of latte stones observed in Guam, Saipan and
Tinian in the 1920s by an amateur archaeologist, Hans Hornbostel (see Thompson 1932
for a summary of his work). The Guam map shows the most detail, as Hornbostel was
able to spend more time on the American-administered territory than in German-held
Saipan and Tinian.
The clustered distributions of latte on these maps depict areas where remains of
nearly ten centuries of latte stone construction were still visible. It is evident that latte
stones were erected most often in coastal settings and in river valleys, i.e., areas with
wetlands. The practice of erecting the megaliths was abandoned after the Spanish
conquest in the 1700s, although the abandonment process may have been somewhat
gradual; some latte stone sites have yielded evidence that they were utilized during the
early portion of the period, possibly as refuge sites.
Other types of sites occupied during the Latte Phase have been found in Guam's
interior. These include small open-air sites with surface scatters of artifacts, a variety of
pits and fire-related features such as earth-ovens and hearths. Rock shelters, some with
burials, have been documented as well. Moore and Hunter-Anderson (1994) have
proposed such sites reflect a diverse subsistence system during the Latte Phase that
included a terrestrial component of upland rice cultivation along the edges of small,
interior wetlands and streams, swidden gardens planted to bananas, taro, and yams, and
managed strand and limestone forests, in addition to a marine component of some
complexity given the variety of marine habitats, both nearshore and pelagic in the
Marianas.
18
Figure 3. Hornbostel’s map of latte stone sites on Guam. From Reed (1952).
Figure 4. Hornbostel’s map of Saipan showing latte stone distributions. From Hornbostel
(1924-1925).
19
Figure 5. Hornbostel’s map of Tinian showing distribution of latte stones. From
Hornbostel (1924-1925).
The proportions of these dietary components and patterns of consumption among
various local groups are unknown; probably they varied over time and space with local
weather and demographic conditions. For example, intrinsic growth may have
contributed to the total human population during favorable climatic periods such as the
Little Climatic Optimum (c. 1050-650 BP). Population subsidies from the Philippines
may have played a role as well.
As Figure 6 shows, the northern Philippines now suffers the highest frequencies
of typhoons in the western Pacific; moving to Guam from this area was a move from
typhoon zone 5 to typhoon zone 3.
During the late Latte Phase, the climate had oscillated from the Little Climatic
Optimum to the Little Ice Age (c. 650-100 BP) and storage of rice and other foods, such
as breadfruit, fish and shellfish by salting, smoking, and pickling probably increased.
These measures would have been put into place to buffer against weather-related food
shortages. Some evidence for this is the trend in ceramics for larger vessels to be made
after c. 1450 CE, a practice that continued into the Historic Period. Studies of
archaeological fish bone assemblages in northwest Rota and in northern Guam suggest a
late prehistoric preference for Scaridae over other fish species, which could signal a shift
in fishing tactics in response to caloric stress.
20
Figure 6. Mean number of tropical storms and typhoons passing 5-degree latitude by 5degree longitude squares; note Marianas are in intermediate zone 3. From Lander (2004).
Expectations Regarding Pelagic Fishing during the Latte Phase
Marine habitat complexity from variations in topography, soils, aspect or
orientation vis a vis the sun, and many other geographic and biological factors challenged
the Latte Phase occupants to be both knowledgeable and flexible in fishing behavior and
technology. However, this complexity probably did not select for technical specialization
in the pursuit of marine species taken for protein and calories. A preference for largebodied fish may have emerged as competitive social conditions involved frequent
displays of competence and ability. One of the ways individuals can achieve recognition
for themselves and their affiliates is to obtain difficult-to-procure but highly desirable
items, large pelagic fish being ideal candidates. The deep waters with submerged
seamounts and shoals probably presented excellent opportunities for this kind of activity.
An early historic account of a Guam fisherman bringing in a large blue marlin after
defending his catch from a shark, and then publicly distributing the fish in socially
meaningful ways, with enthusiastic approbation from his neighbors, appears exemplary
of this; see Driver (1989:16).
Fishing skill, like other motor behaviors, is not evenly distributed in a population,
although basic levels of competence were probably achieved by most men and women
during the Latte Phase. We can therefore anticipate that marine vertebrate assemblages
from most archaeological sites will not vary greatly from one another in species
composition, all else equal. For example, the type of site where the assemblage was
generated could condition its marine vertebrate assemblage; a fishing camp site’s
assemblage could differ in species composition from a midden at a residential site. The
latter could be larger and reflect a longer accumulation period as well as a greater variety
of processing and consumption events, while the former could be smaller and reflect a
more limited accumulation period and fewer kinds of processing and consumption events.
21
When assemblages from similar site types are combined, a more accurate judgment
regarding temporal trends in species composition may be made.
In the present project, through identification of fish bones from two roughly
similar prehistoric sites, both situated on Guam’s east coast and both with long
occupational time spans (although it is not known whether these sites were occupied
continuously or used in precisely the same manner over time), we attempted to determine
if there had been any significant changes in pelagic fishing practices from the Pre-Latte to
the Latte Phase. As will be discussed in detail later, no such evidence was found, and our
expectations of non-specialization and general similarities in species composition
generally reflecting available species in the marine habitats near the sites, regardless of
time period, were borne out.
22
CHAPTER 2. PREHISTORIC PERIOD
By Judith R. Amesbury
INTRODUCTION
The following review of the archaeological literature with regard to fish remains
and fishing gear includes only sites with pelagic fishes from the families Coryphaenidae
(mahimahi), Istiophoridae (marlins and sailfishes), Xiphiidae (swordfishes), and
Scombridae (wahoo and tunas). Sites with turtle remains are also reviewed in this
chapter. Sites with pelagic fish remains and turtle remains dating to the Prehistoric
Period are found on all of the four major Mariana Islands—Guam, Saipan, Tinian, and
Rota.
People have lived in the Mariana Islands for at least 3,500 years or about 3,000
years before European contact. Spoehr (1957) divided the long Prehistoric Period into
Pre-Latte Phase and Latte Phase. Subsequent authors have proposed various subdivisions
of the Pre-Latte Phase. The terms used in this chapter are based on Moore and HunterAnderson’s (1999) subdivisions (Table 1, Fig. 7).
Table 1. Spoehr’s (1957) broad phases of Marianas prehistory as subdivided by Moore
and Hunter-Anderson (1999).
Phase
Pre-Latte
Phase
Latte Phase
Subdivisions
Early Pre-Latte
Intermediate Pre-Latte
Transitional
Years Before Present
3500 to 2500 years BP
2500 to 1600 years BP
1600 to 1000 years BP
1000 years BP to AD 1521
Approximate Calendar Dates
1550 to 550 BC
550 BC to AD 350
AD 350 to 950
AD 950 to 1521
Figure 7. Timeline of the Prehistoric Period in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
Figure by Robert Amesbury.
23
Different faunal analysts use different methods. Some report only number or
weight of remains (e.g., bones, teeth, scales). Others report the number of identified
specimens (NISP), which refers to the number of bones identified, or minimum number
of individuals (MNI), which refers to the number of fishes identified. For an explanation
of these methods, see Grayson (1984).
This chapter reports the scientific names used by the faunal analysts. Some
analysts are “lumpers” and some are “splitters.” For example, Foss Leach and Janet
Davidson divide the scombrids (tunas and wahoo) into two groups,
Thunnidae/Katsuwonidae and Acanthocybiidae. According to Nelson (2006), this is not
a distinction at the family level; it is a distinction at the level of tribe within the subfamily
Scombrinae. Rather than rename these groups to the tribe level or obscure the distinction
by calling them all Scombridae, we are using the names reported by Leach and Davidson.
FISH REMAINS AND FISHING GEAR FROM GUAM
Ritidian
S. Amesbury (1989) analyzed fish remains from the archaeological excavations
by Kurashina et al. (1989) at the Naval Facility, Ritidian Point, the northernmost point of
Guam (Fig. 8). Fish bones from Test Areas 1 through 7 totaled 1,017. There were 34
bones from other proveniences. Most of the bones (n = 1005) came from Test Areas 4,
6, and 7. There were also 313 fish scales from Test Areas 3 and 6.
Six families of fishes were tentatively identified from the 30 mouthparts. They
are Acanthuridae (surgeonfishes), Labridae (wrasses), Lethrinidae (emperors), Lutjanidae
(snappers), Scaridae (parrotfishes), and Serranidae (groupers). Half of the identifiable
mouthparts (13 of 26) were from parrotfishes. Four mouthparts were indeterminate. A
seventh family, Balistidae (triggerfishes), was identified from two spines.
Sixty-one vertebrae had centrum diameters of 12 mm or less. One vertebra and
51 fragments had centrum diameters of 19 mm or more. No vertebrae measured 13-18
mm in diameter. All of the large vertebrae derived from Test Area 4. While it is possible
that these large vertebrae came from reef fishes such as large parrotfishes or humphead
wrasses (Cheilinus undulatus), it is likely they are from pelagic species (S. Amesbury
1989:215).
Charcoal from Test Area 4, Layer 7, the layer with the greatest number of fish
bones, yielded a radiocarbon date (C13 adjusted) of 660 +/- 70 BP or AD 1290 +/- 70
(Kurashina et al. 1989:180). Charcoal from Test Area 7, Layer 2, yielded a C13 adjusted
date of 750 +/- 50 BP or AD 1200 +/- 50. Both areas appear to date to the Latte Phase.
24
Figure 8. Guam, showing archaeological sites with pelagic fish and turtle remains.
Figure by Robert Amesbury.
25
Tarague
Tarague Beach is located on the northeast coast of Guam adjacent to the reef flat
and a natural channel through the reef (Fig. 8). From the archaeological excavations
conducted there by Kurashina et al. (1987), S. Amesbury (1987) analyzed 7,002 fish
bones from 27 excavation units and eight depositional layers. More than 40% of the
bones were vertebrae or vertebral fragments. Mouthparts numbered 337 or 4.8% of the
total. Caudal blades of surgeonfishes of the genus Naso numbered 11 or 0.2% of the
total.
Mouthparts from parrotfish (family Scaridae) were the most numerous (n = 217 or
64.4%) of all mouthparts. The percentage of parrotfish mouthparts among the total
mouthparts increased through time, from a low of 54.2% in Layer VIII to a high of 75.7%
in Layer I. Other families of fishes identified by mouthparts and the number of
mouthparts include the Serranidae (groupers) 32, Labridae (wrasses) 18, Lethrinidae
(emperors including Monotaxis grandoculis) 4, Diodontidae (porcupinefishes) 2, and
Hemiramphide (halfbeaks) 2. Undoubtedly additional families were represented by the
bone fragments, but only the genus Naso (family Acanthuridae) was identified by a part
other than a mouthpart.
Most of the vertebrae were relatively small (modal centrum diameter = 4 mm).
These vertebrae probably derived from reef fishes. A few large vertebrae with centrum
diameters up to 25 mm were recovered. Although these could not be identified, their size
indicates they are from pelagic fishes.
Moore (1983:65) reported three radiocarbon dates from the South Profile at
Tarague. Charcoal from Layer I yielded a date of 1150 +/- 80 BP or AD 800. Fish bone
from Layer V yielded a date of 2100 +/- 270 BP or 150 BC, and fish bone from Layer VII
was dated to 3060 +/- 350 BP or 1110 BC. These dates encompass both the Pre-Latte
and Latte Phases.
Moore (1983:183-185) also reported six shell fishhooks and gorges from Layers I,
III, and VII. An earlier excavation at Tarague Beach (Ray 1981) had recovered
numerous fishhooks and gorges of Isognomon and Turbo; 89 such items are illustrated.
In addition a human bone point of a composite hook (Fig. 9), a bone fishing spear point,
and five stone sinkers were collected. The composite hook and the fishing spear could
have been used to take pelagic fishes.
Subsequent archaeological research at Tarague (Liston 1996) recovered 253.64
grams of fish bones from 11 units at five sites. Alan C. Ziegler of Honolulu identified the
following families: Acanthuridae (surgeonfishes), Balistidae (triggerfishes), Carangidae
(jacks), Cirrhitidae (hawkfishes), Congridae (conger eels), Exocoetidae (flyingfishes),
Holocentridae (squirrelfishes), Kyphosidae (rudderfishes), Labridae (wrasses),
Lethrinidae (emperors), Lutjanidae (snappers), Mullidae (goatfishes), Muraenidae (moray
eels), Scaridae (parrotfishes), Serranidae (groupers), as well as marine eel and shark (not
26
identified to family). Weights of fish bones by unit and level are provided by Liston
(1996:441-455).
Nine radiocarbon dates were obtained from three of the Tarague sites that yielded
fish bone (Liston 1996:213). The calibrated (2 sigma) dates range from 1023-427 BC to
AD 1651-1995, encompassing all but the very earliest centuries of the human occupation
of Guam.
Figure 9. Points of composite fishhooks from archaeological sites in Guam. a = human
bone point from Tarague (Ray 1981); b and c = bone points from Pagat (Craib 1986); d =
shell point from Pugua Point (Olmo et al. 2000). Figure by Robert Amesbury.
Pagat
The fish bone from the Pagat excavations, conducted by the Guam Territorial
Archaeology Laboratory, was identified by the Department of Anthropology of the
University of Otago, New Zealand, and reported by Craib (1986). Horizon I yielded
2858.6 grams of fish bone with a density of 187.20 grams per cubic meter. The lower
Horizon II yielded 1789.7 grams of fish bone with a density of 378.37 grams per cubic
27
meter. Five radiocarbon dates were obtained from Horizon I. They range from AD
1080-1310 to AD 1520-1640 (Latte Phase and early Historic Period). The single date
from Horizon II is a late Pre-Latte date (AD 770-970). It appears, then, that the Pre-Latte
deposits had a higher density of fish remains, although the Latte deposits yielded a
greater quantity. The areal extent of the Pre-Latte deposits was much smaller than that of
the Latte deposits.
Thirteen families were identified and grouped by habitat (inshore, benthic, or
pelagic). Minimum number of individuals (MNI) and percent MNI were calculated
(Table 2). Inshore fishes account for 86% of the MNI; benthic fishes make up 9%; and
pelagic fishes 5%. All except the pelagic fishes could have been taken from the
immediate environs of Pagat. The inshore and benthic fishes could have been taken by
angling or spearing, and the pelagic fishes by trolling.
Table 2. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI) and percent MNI
from Pagat, Guam (Craib 1986).
Habitat
Inshore
Benthic
Pelagic
Family
Balistidae
Scaridae
Lethrinidae
Labridae
Acanthuridae
Carangidae
Diodontidae
Serranidae
Lutjanidae
Holocentridae
Pempheridae
Coryphaenidae
Istiophoridae
Total
Common Name
Triggerfishes
Parrotfishes
Emperors
Wrasses
Surgeonfishes
Jacks
Porcupinefishes
Groupers
Snappers
Squirrelfishes
Sweepers
Mahimahi
Marlins, sailfishes
MNI
64
42
22
16
12
1
1
11
3
2
1
8
2
185
Percent MNI
35
23
12
9
6
0.5
0.5
6
2
1
0.5
4
1
100.0
Fishing gear collected from the excavations includes 31 shell gorges (apparently
Isognomon), 8 shell hooks (both Isognomon and Turbo), 14 bone points from composite
trolling lures (Fig. 9), a possible shank for a composite hook made of Tridacna, and 14
worked pieces of limestone and shell that were classified as weights. In addition, there
are 13 pieces of barbed bone spears, which Craib (1986: 234-235) described as weapons,
but said they may have been used for spearing fish.
Mangilao Golf Course
The present PFRP project funded the analysis of the fish bone from Mangilao
Golf Course on the east coast of Guam (Fig. 8). A collection of approximately 8,000 fish
bones was sent to Foss Leach and Janet Davidson in New Zealand. Their complete report
(Leach and Davidson 2006a) is included as Appendix A.
28
From Mangilao Golf Course Site 25, 394 bones were identified. At least 20
families or other groups are present. MNI equals 267 (Table 3). Pelagic fishes account
for 22.9% of total MNI.
Table 3. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI) and percent MNI
from Mangilao Golf Course Site 25, Guam (Leach and Davidson 2006a).
Family or Other Group
Scaridae
Coryphaenidae
Coridae/Labridae
Lethrinidae
Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae
Epinephelidae
Elasmobranchii
Diodontidae
Balistidae
Acanthuridae
Nemipteridae
Lutjanidae
Acanthocybiidae
Teleostomi
Carangidae
Coridae
Scombridae
Echeneidae
Holocentridae
Kyphosidae
Total
Common Name
Parrotfishes
Mahimahi
Wrasses
Emperors
Marlins, sailfishes/Swordfishes
Groupers
Sharks and rays
Porcupinefishes
Triggerfishes
Surgeonfishes
Monocle breams
Snappers
Wahoo
Includes bony fishes
Jacks
Wrasses
Tunas
Remoras
Squirrelfishes
Sea chubs or rudderfishes
MNI
97
41
21
20
14
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
267
Percent MNI
36.33 +/- 6.0
15.36 +/- 4.5
7.87 +/- 3.4
7.49 +/- 3.3
5.24 +/- 2.9
4.12 +/- 2.6
3.75 +/- 2.5
3.37 +/- 2.4
3.00 +/- 2.2
2.62 +/- 2.1
2.25 +/- 2.0
1.87 +/- 1.8
1.50 +/- 1.6
1.50 +/- 1.6
0.75 +/- 1.2
0.75 +/- 1.2
0.75 +/- 1.2
0.75 +/- 1.2
0.37 +/- 0.9
0.37 +/- 0.9
100.00
In order to determine if there were changes through time, Leach and Davidson
(2006a) grouped the assemblages into four groups: Early Prehistoric, Middle Prehistoric,
Late Prehistoric, and Historic Periods (Table 4). Those groups were based on the
stratigraphy and the 41 radiocarbon dates from Mangilao Golf Course Site 25 (Dilli et al.
1998).
Table 4. Leach and Davidson’s four groups correlated with Mangilao Golf Course strata
and corresponding cultural phase or period.
Leach and Davidson’s
Four Groups
Early Prehistoric Period
Middle Prehistoric Period
Late Prehistoric Period
Historic Period
Mangilao Golf
Course Strata
IIIg
IIIb-IIIf
IIIa
I and II
Corresponding Cultural Phase or Period
Early Pre-Latte Phase
Intermediate and Transitional Pre-Latte Phases
Latte Phase
Historic Period
The MNI and percent MNI for the four time periods are presented in Table 5.
Based on percent MNI, it appears that there are changes through time. For example,
percent MNI of Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae rises from 2.5% in the Intermediate and
Transitional Pre-Latte Phase to 9.1% in the Latte Phase to 14.3% in the Historic Period.
29
However, Leach and Davidson (2006a:15) point out that this cannot be confirmed due to
the margins of error. They conclude that no changes through time or from one part of the
site to another can be confirmed.
Table 5. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI), and percent MNI
from Mangilao Golf Course Site 25 by time periods (Leach and Davidson 2006a).
Family or Other
Group
Scaridae
Coryphaenidae
Lethrinidae
Coridae/Labridae
Istiophoridae/
Xiphiidae
Epinephelidae
Elasmobranchii
Balistidae
Diodontidae
Acanthuridae
Lutjanidae
Acanthocybiidae
Nemipteridae
Teleostomi
Coridae
Scombridae
Echeneidae
Carangidae
Holocentridae
Kyphosidae
Total
Early Pre-Latte
Phase
MNI
6
1
1
1
1
10
Percent
60.0±39.1
10.0±25.9
10.0±25.9
10.0±25.9
10.0±25.9
100.0
Intermediate PreLatte and
Transitional PreLatte Phases
MNI
Percent
33
27.3±8.3
21
17.4±7.2
14
11.6±6.1
11
9.1±5.5
3
2.5±3.2
8
6
4
6.6±4.8
5.0±4.3
3.3±3.6
2
3
3
3
4
1
2
2
1.7±2.7
2.5±3.2
2.5±3.2
2.5±3.2
3.3±3.6
0.8±2.0
1.7±2.7
1.7±2.7
1
0.8±2.0
121
100.0
Latte Phase
Historic Period
MNI
43
18
4
5
9
MNI
2
Percent
28.6±46.5
1
14.3±37.6
1
14.3±37.6
1
14.3±37.6
1
1
14.3±37.6
14.3±37.6
7
100.0
Percent
43.4±10.4
18.2± 8.2
4.0± 4.4
5.1± 4.9
9.1± 6.2
2
2
2
6
2
2
1
1
2.0±
2.0±
2.0±
6.1±
2.0±
2.0±
1.0±
1.0±
3.3
3.3
3.3
5.3
3.3
3.3
2.5
2.5
1
1.0± 2.5
1
99
1.0± 2.5
100.0
Numerous artifacts identified as fishing gear were recovered from the Mangilao
Golf Course excavations. They include 119 one-piece fishhooks and gorges, 117 worked
shell tabs, 17 composite hook components, nine bone harpoon points, and five stone net
sinkers. The composite fishhook components include 14 bone points, two shell points,
and one possible shank preform. Eight of the nine harpoon points were manufactured
from human bone and one from non-human bone. Of the human bone harpoons, one was
made from a humerus, three from tibias, and four from unidentified elements. Holstrum
et al. (1998) said the harpoons were most likely used for fishing, but could have
functioned as weapons also.
Ylig Bay
The present PFRP project funded the analysis of fish bone from the excavation at
Ylig Bay, Guam, conducted by International Archaeological Research Institute (IARII).
The project is ongoing; the report has not been completed.
30
Approximately 2,000 fish bones were sent to Leach and Davidson in New
Zealand; 170 bones were identified. Fifteen families or other groups are present. MNI
and percent MNI are shown in Table 6. Pelagic fishes account for 43.1% of total MNI.
Table 6. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI) and percent MNI
from Ylig Bay, Guam (Leach and Davidson 2006b).
Family or Other Group
Coryphaenidae
Scaridae
Acanthuridae
Epinephelidae
Lethrinidae
Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae
Lutjanidae
Carangidae
Coridae/Labridae
Elamobranchii
Teleostomi
Sphyraenidae
Balistidae
Diodontidae
Holocentridae
Total
Common Name
Mahimahi
Parrotfishes
Surgeonfishes
Groupers
Emperors
Marlins, sailfishes/Swordfishes
Snappers
Jacks
Wrasses
Sharks and rays
Includes bony fishes
Barracudas
Triggerfishes
Porcupinefishes
Squirrelfishes
MNI
37
18
8
6
5
4
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
95
Percent MNI
38.9 +/- 10.4
18.9 +/- 8.5
8.4 +/- 6.2
6.3 +/- 5.5
5.3 +/- 5.1
4.2 +/- 4.6
4.2 +/- 4.6
3.2 +/- 4.1
2.1 +/- 3.4
2.1 +/- 3.4
2.1 +/- 3.4
1.1 +/- 2.6
1.1 +/- 2.6
1.1 +/- 2.6
1.1 +/- 2.6
100.0
The present PFRP project also paid for three of the six radiocarbon dates obtained
by IARII from the Ylig Bay excavation. The analysis of fish bone took place before the
radiocarbon dates were obtained. The archaeologists from IARII tentatively designated
the deposits “Pre-Latte,” “Latte,” or “Mixed” on the basis of the cultural contents. Those
are the designations used by Leach and Davidson (2006b). The radiocarbon dates (Table
7) enable us to designate the Pre-Latte deposits more precisely as “Transitional Pre-Latte
Phase” and to designate the Latte deposits more correctly as “Latte Phase/Historic
Period.” There were no significant differences from one time period to another (Table 8).
Table 7. Radiocarbon dates from Ylig Bay, Guam with corresponding cultural phase or
period.
Beta Number
Beta-219666
Beta-219667
Conventional
Radiocarbon Age
(BP = Before Present)
1620±40 BP
1490±40 BP
Beta-219665
Beta-216631
Beta-216633
Beta-216632
1230±40 BP
650±60 BP
380±40 BP
320±40 BP
2 Sigma
Calibrated
Results
AD 370-540
AD 460-480,
AD 520-650
AD 690-890
AD 1270-1420
AD 1440-1640
AD 1460-1660
31
Corresponding Cultural Phase
or Period
Transitional Pre-Latte Phase
Transitional Pre-Latte Phase
Transitional Pre-Latte Phase
Latte Phase
Latte Phase/Historic Period
Latte Phase/Historic Period
Table 8. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI), and percent MNI
from Ylig Bay by time periods (Leach and Davidson 2006b).
Family or Other
Group
Coryphaenidae
Scaridae
Acanthuridae
Epinephelidae
Lethrinidae
Istiophoridae/
Xiphiidae
Lutjanidae
Carangidae
Coridae/Labridae
Elamobranchii
Teleostomi
Sphyraenidae
Balistidae
Diodontidae
Holocentridae
Total
Transitional
Pre-Latte Phase
Deposits
MNI
Percent
5
35.7±30.9
3
21.4±26.9
2
14.3±23.5
1
7.1±18.2
1
1
7.1±18.2
7.1±18.2
1
7.1±18.2
14
100.0
Latte Phase/
Historic Period
Deposits
MNI
Percent
14
35.0±16.4
9
22.5±14.5
5
12.5±11.8
4
10.0±10.8
2
5.0± 8.2
1
2.5± 6.2
2
1
5.0± 8.2
2.5± 6.2
1
2.5± 6.2
1
40
2.5± 6.2
100.0
Mixed Deposits
MNI
18
6
3
Percent
43.9±16.8
14.6±12.3
7.3± 9.4
3
3
7.3± 9.4
7.3± 9.4
1
2
2
1
1
2.4±
4.9±
4.9±
2.4±
2.4±
1
2.4± 6.1
41
6.1
8.0
8.0
6.1
6.1
100.0
The Ylig Bay site has an unusually high percentage MNI of mahimahi. It is
possible that the large vertebrae were preferentially collected at the start of the
excavation. The project was originally designed to recover human burials, and midden
was not collected systematically in the upper (more recent) layers. However, as the
project progressed, midden from the lower (older) layers was collected with ¼” screen.
However Leach and Davidson (2006b) found consistently high percentages of mahimahi
in the three sub-collections. The percentage MNI in the Transitional Pre-Latte deposits is
almost identical to the percentage MNI in the Latte Phase/Historic Period deposits. So
preferential collection does not explain the abundance of mahimahi.
A second reason why the percentage MNI of mahimahi may be inflated is that
vertebrae were used to determine MNI. It is preferable to use unique bones with which
one bone represents one fish. However, Leach and Davidson (2006b:13) use the same
methodology with all assemblages and all sites. So even if the number of mahimahi is
inflated, the analysis is consistent from site to site. Evidently the people at Ylig Bay were
very successful pelagic fishermen.
The analysis of fishing gear from Ylig Bay has not been completed, but a human
bone hook from a compound fishhook was found (Photo 2). This item is nearly identical
to points found at two other east-coast Guam sites, Pagat (Craib 1986) and Tarague (Ray
1981) (Fig. 9).
32
Photo 2. Human bone point of composite fishhook from Ylig Bay, Guam. Photo by Rick
Schaefer.
Orote Peninsula
From three sites at Orote Peninsula, Carucci (1993) collected 604 fish bones and
548 fish scales. Most of the remains (92% of the bones and all but one of the scales)
came from the Dadi Beach Rockshelter, Site 2-1302. Dadi Beach is the west coast of the
southernmost part of Orote Peninsula (Fig. 8). Ziegler identified the vertebrate remains.
Families of fishes and NISP are shown in Table 9. No fishhooks were found in the Dadi
Beach Rockshelter, but a single piece of worked Isognomon was collected. Ten
radiocarbon dates were obtained from the rockshelter. The most probable calibrated age
ranges span AD 540-870 to 1450-1670, from the Transitional Pre-Latte Phase through the
Latte Phase and into the early Historic Period.
33
Table 9. Families of fishes and number of identified specimens (NISP) from Orote
Peninsula, Guam (Carucci 1993).
Family or
Other Group
Scaridae
Acanthuridae
Balistidae
Labridae
Belonidae
Diodontidae
Holocentridae
Chondrichthyes
Exocoetidae
Mullidae
Scombridae
Total
Common Name
NISP
Parrotfishes
Surgeonfishes
Triggerfishes
Wrasses
Needlefishes
Porcupinefishes
Squirrelfishes
Sharks and rays
Flyingfishes
Goatfishes
Tunas
15
13
11
9
7
3
3
1
1
1
1
65
North and South Finegayan, Communications Annex
North and South Finegayan are on the northwest coast of Guam, directly north
and south of the former FAA Housing (Fig. 8). From sites at Pugua Point and Haputo
Embayment in North Finegayan and Hilaan Embayment in South Finegayan, Olmo et al.
(2000) recovered 677 fish bones. Ziegler identified the vertebrate remains. Families of
fishes and NISP are shown in Table 10.
Citing Davidson and Leach (1988:350), Olmo et al. (2000) suggested that the
families present indicate four types of fishing: 1) nets (acanthurids, balistids, mullids, and
scarids), 2) demersal baited hooks (labrids, lethrinids, lutjanids, and serranids), 3) pelagic
lures (carangids, coryphaenids, and scombrids), and 4) general foraging (diodontids,
fistulariids, and holocentrids).
From North Finegayan, 24 shell fishhooks, fishhook fragments, and fishhook
blanks were recovered, as well as 6 shell gorges. Most of the fishing gear, including the
Isognomon point of a composite hook (Fig. 9), came from Pugua Point.
Seven radiocarbon dates were obtained, most from coconut shell. The 2-sigma
calibrated results range from AD 960-1030 to AD 1640-1950, covering most of the Latte
Phase and the Historic Period. The radiocarbon sample from the same provenience as the
Isognomon point of a composite hook yielded a date of AD 1020-1190, early in the Latte
Phase.
34
Table 10. Families of fishes and number of identified specimens (NISP) from North and
South Finegayan, Guam (Olmo et al. 2000).
Family
Scaridae
Acanthuridae
Balistidae
Holocentridae
Serranidae
Diodontidae
Labridae
Lethrinidae
Labridae or Lethrinidae
Carangidae
Scombridae
Coryphaenidae
Fistulariidae
Lutjanidae
Mullidae
Total
Common Name
Parrotfishes
Surgeonfishes
Triggerfishes
Squirrelfishes
Groupers
Porcupinefishes
Wrasses
Emperors
Wrasses or Emperors
Jacks
Tunas
Mahimahi
Cornetfishes
Snappers
Goatfishes
NISP
110
10
7
6
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
156
FISH REMAINS AND FISHING GEAR FROM THE CNMI
The three largest islands of the CNMI, from north to south, Saipan, Tinian, and
Rota, are discussed.
Achugao, Saipan
The Achugao Archaeological Project, undertaken by the Center for
Archaeological Investigations at Southern Illinois University, investigated four parcels
north and south of Puntan Achugao on the northwest coast of Saipan (B. Butler 1995)
(Fig. 10). Fish remains were identified by Virginia Butler of Portland State University.
Fish remains numbered 446 with 75 of the specimens identifiable to family and element
(V. Butler 1995) (Table 11). A comparison with fish remains from two projects on Rota,
the Rota Airport Road Project and Mochong, using data from Davidson and Leach
(1988), found that the three project areas are similar with regard to the inshore fishes, but
differ markedly with regard to the pelagic fishes. The families Coryphaenidae
(mahimahi) and Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae (marlins and sailfishes/swordfishes) are present
in the Rota collections, but lacking from Achugao. This difference was attributed to
major environmental differences between the two islands (V. Butler 1995).
Fishing gear recovered by the Achugao Archaeological Project includes one
complete fishhook, possibly of Turbo shell, from an Early Pre-Latte context, two
fishhook fragments of Turbo or Haliotis from Transitional contexts, and two fishhook
fragments of Isognomon (B. Butler 1995). In addition, there are 16 pieces of worked
shell, mostly Isognomon, including at least two fishhook blanks and six pieces that may
be fragments of lures.
35
According to B. Butler (1995:35), the Achugao area was occupied by at least
1500 BC. The 2-sigma calibrated dates from the area range from 1920-1630 BC to AD
1280-1395, almost the entire Prehistoric Period.
Figure 10. Saipan, showing archaeological sites with pelagic fish and turtle remains.
Figure by Robert Amesbury.
36
Table 11. Families of fishes and number of identified specimens (NISP) from Achugao,
Saipan (V. Butler 1995).
Family or
Other Group
Scaridae
Acanthuridae
Lethrinidae
Labridae
Serranidae
Balistidae
Holocentridae
Carangidae
Diodontidae
Elasmobranchii
Lutjanidae
Scombridae
Total
Common Name
NISP
Parrotfishes
Surgeonfishes
Emperors
Wrasses
Groupers
Triggerfishes
Squirrelfishes
Jacks
Porcupinefishes
Sharks and rays
Snappers
Tunas
25
15
14
6
5
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
75
Afetña, Saipan
Excavations at Afetña, Saipan (McGovern-Wilson 1989), southwest of Chalan
Piao (Fig. 10), revealed three occupations of the area. Three dates were obtained from
Tridacna shells, and a marine reservoir correction was applied. The dates calibrated
according to Stuiver and Pearson (1986) range from AD 420-650 to AD 650-810.
Amesbury et al. (1996) recalibrated the dates according to Stuiver and Reimer (1993).
The revised dates are a few hundred years later; the 2-sigma dates range from AD 6761161 to AD 901-1307 (Amesbury et al. 1996:56).
The faunal material from Afetña was analyzed by Leach et al. (1989a) (Table 12).
Pelagic fishes account for 2.6% of total MNI. McGovern-Wilson (1989) reported two
shell gorges and one fragment of a bone composite hook. In addition, there were seven
human bone spear points associated with a human burial (Fig. 11) and two bone spear
points not associated with the burial. The spear points may have been harpoons, or they
may have been used in fighting, or both.
37
Figure 11. Human bone spear points found in association with Burial 6, Afetña, Saipan.
From McGovern-Wilson (1989).
Table 12. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI) and percent MNI
from Afetña, Saipan (Leach et al. 1989a).
Family
Scaridae
Labridae/Coridae
Carangidae
Holocentridae
Lethrinidae
Thunnidae/Katsuwonidae
Common Name
Parrotfishes
Wrasses
Jacks
Squirrelfishes
Emperors
Tunas including yellowfin and
skipjack
Total
MNI
31
3
2
1
1
1
39
38
Percent MNI
79.5
7.7
5.1
2.6
2.6
2.6
100.0
Laulau, Saipan
Fish bone from the 1977 Laulau excavation (Marck 1978) was identified by
Thomas Dye, then at the Bishop Museum. Sixteen bones were identified to family.
Families present are Scaridae (parrotfishes), Acanthuridae (surgeonfishes), Serranidae
(groupers), Scombridae (tunas), and Lethrinidae (emperors). Dye tentatively identified
the scombrid tooth as dogtooth tuna (Gymnosarda unicolor), which according to
Amesbury and Myers (1982) is a solitary species and primarily a reef dweller. So it is
possible that no pelagic fishes were recovered from this site. Two Early Pre-Latte dates
were obtained: 960 BC and 940 BC. Eight fishhooks and one blank were found
throughout the sequence.
Military Leaseback Area, Central Tinian
Twenty-eight of 47 test units excavated during the Tinian Leaseback Area project
yielded 1289 fish bones weighing 196.0 grams (Gosser et al. 2002). Eight families were
identified. Number of identified specimens (NISP), MNI, percent MNI, and weight are
shown on Table 13. The mahimahi remains (family Coryphaenidae) account for 2.2% of
the total MNI of identified fishes. They were recovered from a latte site (TN-1/2/4-0592)
at Unai Masalok on the east coast of Tinian (Fig. 12).
Table 13. Families, minimum number of individuals (MNI), percent MNI, number of
identified specimens (NISP), and weight of fish remains from the Tinian Leaseback Area
(Gosser et al. 2002).
Family or Other
Group
Scaridae
Labridae
Serranidae
Lethrinidae
Diodontidae
Balistidae
Carangidae
Coryphaenidae
Total
Common Name
MNI
Parrotfishes
Wrasses
Groupers
Emperors
Porcupinefishes
Triggerfishes
Jacks
Mahimahi
29
4
4
3
2
2
1
1
46
Percent
MNI
63.0
8.7
8.7
6.5
4.3
4.3
2.2
2.2
100.0
NISP
42
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
61
Weight
(grams)
29.8
2.5
2.7
4.8
4.6
0.5
1.2
5.7
51.8
Gosser et al. (2002) calculated fish bone densities and correlated the radiocarbon
dates with layers of the excavation. The density of fish remains for ten layers dated to the
Pre-Latte Phase is 49.4 grams per cubic meter. The density of fish remains from eight
layers dated to the Latte Phase is 58.5 grams per cubic meter. Gosser et al. (2002:119)
concluded that there were no major changes in density or diversity of fish remains.
However, it should be noted that the total volume excavated is not large. Less than one
cubic meter was excavated of the ten layers dated to the Pre-Latte Phase, and just over
one-half cubic meter was excavated of the eight layers dated to the Latte Phase.
39
Figure 12. Tinian, showing archaeological sites with pelagic fish and turtle remains.
Figure by Robert Amesbury.
Tachogna, Tinian
Tachogna is an area on the southwest coast of Tinian, south of San Jose Village
(Fig. 12). On the USGS map the name is spelled “Tachungnya,” but Leach and Davidson
(2006a, b) spell this site “Tachogna.”
The fish remains from the site were recovered by John Craib and Graeme Ward of
Australia and studied by Andrew Piper at Otago University in New Zealand. The MNI
data presented here (Table 14) were extracted from the faunal database at the
40
Archaeozooology Laboratory, Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa by Foss
Leach (pers. comm. 2006). Pelagic fishes account for 3.3% of the total MNI.
Table 14. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI) and percent MNI
from Tachogna, Tinian (Leach pers. comm. 2006)
Family or Other Group
Scaridae
Lethrinidae
Holocentridae
Epinephelidae
Coridae/Labridae
Lutjanidae
Nemipteridae
Elasmobranchii
Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae
Balistidae
Scombridae
Carangidae
Coryphaenidae
Belonidae
Acanthuridae
Teleostomi
Mullidae
Kyphosidae
Aulostomidae
Acanthocybiidae
Total
Common Name
Parrotfishes
Emperors
Squirrelfishes
Groupers
Wrasses
Snappers
Monocle breams
Sharks and rays
Marlins, sailfishes/Swordfishes
Triggerfishes
Tunas
Jacks
Mahimahi
Needlefishes
Surgeonfishes
Includes bony fishes
Goatfishes
Sea chubs or rudderfishes
Trumpetfishes
Wahoo
MNI
132
34
24
24
24
23
13
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
304
Percent MNI
43.42
11.18
7.89
7.89
7.89
7.57
4.28
1.64
1.32
1.32
0.99
0.99
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
100.00
Mochong, Rota
Fish bone from Mochong, Rota (Craib 1990) (Fig. 13) was analyzed by Leach et
al. (1990). MNI was calculated for identifiable fishes. The total minimum number of
identifiable fishes is 313. At least 27 families or other groups were identified, and
percentage by MNI was calculated for each family (Table 15). Pelagic fishes account for
16.9% of MNI.
Method of fishing was estimated and percentage by MNI was calculated for each
method (Table 16).
The most numerous class of fishing gear at Mochong is the fishhooks (Craib
1990). Finished hooks and preforms number 18, while fishhook blanks and tabs number
13. All were made from Isognomon or Turbo. Fifteen gorges (eight finished and seven
unfinished) were recovered, all from Horizon 1. Three pieces of worked bone were
identified as barbs of two-piece hooks. Four spear points with grooves at right angles to
the shaft were recovered from Horizon 1. The spear points are classified as weapons, but
they may have been used to procure fish.
41
Figure 13. Rota, showing archaeological sites with pelagic fish and turtle remains.
Figure by Robert Amesbury.
42
Table 15. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI), and percent MNI
from Mochong, Rota (Leach et al. 1990).
Family or Other Group
Scaridae
Coryphaenidae
Lethrinidae
Epinephelidae
Balistidae
Lutjanidae
Holocentridae
Coridae/Labridae
Nemipteridae
Acanthuridae
Muraenidae
Carangidae
Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae
Acanthocybiidae
Coridae
Scorpaenidae
Elasmobranchii
Teleostomi
Bothidae
Istiophoridae
Tetraodontidae
Thunnidae/Katsuwonidae
Aphareidae
Kyphosidae
Platacidae
Diodontidae
Aluteridae
Total
Common Name
Parrotfishes
Mahimahi
Emperors
Groupers
Triggerfishes
Snappers
Squirrelfishes
Wrasses
Monocle breams
Surgeonfishes
Moray eels
Jacks
Marlins, sailfishes/Swordfishes
Wahoo
Wrasses
Scorpionfishes
Sharks and rays
Includes bony fishes
Left-eyed flounders
Marlins, sailfishes
Puffers
Tunas including yellowfin and
skipjack
Snappers
Sea chubs or rudderfishes
Batfishes
Porcupinefishes
Filefishes
43
MNI
68
37
35
30
25
18
15
12
11
9
8
8
8
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
313
Percent MNI
21.7
11.8
11.2
9.6
8.0
5.8
4.8
3.8
3.5
2.9
2.6
2.6
2.6
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
100.0
Table 16. Likely catch methods of fishes from Mochong, Rota by families with MNI and
percent MNI (Leach et al. 1990).
Likely Catch Method
Family or Other Group
Common Name
Bothidae
Scaridae
Acanthuridae
Balistidae
Aluteridae
Left-eyed flounders
Parrotfishes
Surgeonfishes
Triggerfishes
Filefishes
Epinephelidae
Lutjanidae
Nemipteridae
Lethrinidae
Coridae
Coridae/Labridae
Groupers
Snappers
Monocle breams
Emperors
Wrasses
Wrasses
Acanthocybiidae
Coryphaenidae
Carangidae
Thunnidae/Katsuwonidae
Wahoo
Mahimahi
Jacks
Tunas including
yellowfin and skipjack
Netting
Demersal Baited Hook
Pelagic Lures
Harpoons or Bait
Trolling
Istiophoridae
Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae
Marlins, sailfishes
Marlins, sailfishes/
Swordfishes
Holocentridae
Aphareidae
Kyphosidae
Scorpaenidae
Diodontidae
Tetraodontidae
Squirrelfishes
Snappers
Sea chubs or
rudderfishes
Scorpionfishes
Porcupinefishes
Puffers
Muraenidae
Moray eels
Elasmobranchii
Sharks and rays
Platacidae
Teleostomi
Batfishes
Includes bony fishes
General Foraging
Basket Traps
Opportunistic Catch
No Strong Opinion
Total
MNI
105
Percent
MNI
33.5
109
34.8
51
16.3
10
3.2
23
7.3
8
2.6
3
1.0
4
1.3
313
100.0
North Coast of Rota including the Uyulan Region
In 1984 Butler investigated a portion of the north coast of Rota affected by the
construction of a new road alignment between the airport and Songsong (Butler 1988).
Four prehistoric villages, from west to east, Salug-Songton, Unginao-Uyulan, TetetoGuata, and Tatgua, were identified in the vicinity of the road. The fish bones from the
44
Rota Airport Road Project were analyzed by Davidson and Leach (1988) at the
University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Neither total weight nor total number of
bones is reported, but MNI was calculated for identifiable fishes. At least 16 families or
other groups were identified (Table 17). Pelagic fishes account for 33.6% of MNI.
Families were grouped by likely catch methods (Table 18).
Table 17. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI), and percent MNI
from the Rota Airport Road Project (Davidson and Leach 1988).
Family or Other Group
Scaridae
Coryphaenidae
Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae
Epenephelidae
Thunnidae/Katsuwonidae
Lethrinidae
Holocentridae
Carangidae
Lutjanidae
Nemipteridae
Coridae/Labridae
Acanthocybiidae
Acanthuridae
Balistidae
Ostraciidae
Teleostomi
Total
Common Name
Parrotfishes
Mahimahi
Marlins, sailfishes/Swordfishes
Groupers
Tunas including yellowfin and
skipjack
Emperors
Squirrelfishes
Jacks
Snappers
Monocle breams
Wrasses
Wahoo
Surgeonfishes
Triggerfishes
Boxfishes and cowfishes
Includes bony fishes
MNI
54
30
17
16
12
Percent MNI
29.3
16.3
9.2
8.7
6.5
9
8
8
8
8
7
3
1
1
1
1
184
4.9
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
3.8
1.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
100.0
Davidson and Leach (1988) drew two conclusions from the analysis of the Rota
Airport Road Project fish remains. One is that the highly specialized fishing activities
observed at Mochong also prevailed for the area investigated by the Rota Airport Road
Project. The second is that there was a change either in fishing behavior or in patterns of
midden deposition in the area investigated by the Rota Airport Road Project. The big
game fishing for marlin and mahimahi, which took place early and through most of the
sequence, did not show up in the most recent deposits representing the late Prehistoric
Period.
Although fishing was an extremely important subsistence activity for the people
of the north coast of Rota, items of fishing gear are not especially numerous from the
Rota Airport Road Project (McNamara and Butler 1988). The scarcity may be due to the
fragility of the fishhooks and gorges. Fragments of finished fishhooks number 11, and
there are two finished gorges. Five pieces of Isognomon were classified as unfinished
fishhooks, and there are nine other worked pieces of Isognomon. Bone artifacts include
three spear points, five awls (?), and a possible portion of a fishing lure. Three grooved
stone items were classified as line or net sinkers (Weaver 1988). In addition, a single
large Turbo operculum was grooved like a stone sinker (McNamara and Butler 1988).
45
Table 18. Likely catch methods of fishes from the Rota Airport Road Project by families
with MNI and percent MNI (Davidson and Leach 1988).
Likely Catch Method
Family or Other Group
Common Name
Scaridae
Acanthuridae
Balistidae
Ostraciidae
Parrotfishes
Surgeonfishes
Triggerfishes
Boxfishes and
cowfishes
Epinephelidae
Lutjanidae
Nemipteridae
Lethrinidae
Coridae/Labridae
Groupers
Snappers
Monocle breams
Emperors
Wrasses
Acanthocybiidae
Thunnidae/Katsuwonidae
Wahoo
Tunas including
yellowfin and
skipjack
Mahimahi
Jacks
Netting
Demersal Baited Hook
Pelagic Lures
Coryphaenidae
Carangidae
Pelagic Harpoons
Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae
Marlins, sailfishes/
Swordfishes
Holocentridae
Squirrelfishes
Teleostomi
Includes bony fishes
General Foraging
No Strong Opinion
Total
MNI
Percent
MNI
57
31.0
48
26.1
53
28.8
17
9.2
8
4.3
1
0.5
184
100.0
Archaeological data recovery at the Vista Del Mar Resort in the Uyulan region
along the north coast of Rota yielded 792 fish bones weighing 659.5 grams (Craib 1998).
Nine fish families were identified and MNI was calculated for identifiable fishes (Table
19). Pelagic fishes account for 19.2% of the total MNI. Only two items of fishing gear
were recovered, a hook and a gorge.
In order to have a larger sample for analysis, Craib (1998) combined the Vista Del
Mar and Rota Airport Road assemblages. In the combined sample are 16 families (MNI
= 201) from both Transitional and Latte Phase deposits. Craib found that the Transitional
deposits yielded the widest range of fish families—all 16 families, with no single family
predominating. The two most common families were Scaridae and Coryphaenidae. In
the Latte Phase deposits, only five families were present, and the Scaridae dominate the
sample, accounting for 86% of the MNI. With the exception of Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae,
all the Latte Phase families are inshore fishes. Craib concluded that the fish bone
analysis indicates a trend from a generalized pattern of fishing to a more selective
approach where fewer kinds of fish were taken.
46
Table 19. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI), percent MNI,
number of identified specimens (NISP) and weight from Vista Del Mar Resort, Rota
(Craib 1998).
Family or
Other Group
Scombridae
Scaridae
Mullidae
Carangidae
Labridae
Istiophoridae
Lethrinidae
Balistidae
Acanthuridae
Total
Common Name
Tunas
Parrotfishes
Goatfishes
Jacks
Wrasses
Marlins, sailfishes
Emperors
Triggerfishes
Surgeonfishes
MNI
Percent MNI
3
9
2
2
3
2
1
1
3
26
11.5
34.6
7.7
7.7
11.5
7.7
3.8
3.8
11.5
100.0
NISP
3
18
7
3
5
3
1
1
5
46
Weight (grams)
69.8
24.5
5.6
4.1
2.2
1.4
1.2
0.7
0.5
110.0
Songsong, Rota
Leach et al. (1989b) analyzed the faunal material for The Archaeology of
Songsong Village, Rota (McManamon 1989). Pelagic fishes account for 10.6% of the
MNI, if the specimen identified to the Order Lamniformes is from a pelagic shark such as
a thresher shark or mako shark (Table 20).
Table 20. Families of fishes, minimum number of individuals (MNI), and percent MNI
from Songsong, Rota (Leach et al. 1989b).
Family or Other Group
Scaridae
Balistidae
Carangidae
Coryphaenidae
Nemipteridae
Lethrinidae
Diodontidae
Epinephelidae
Lutjanidae
Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae
Belonidae
Telostomi
Holocentridae
Acanthocybiidae
Mullidae
Acanthuridae
Scorpaenidae
Elasmobranchii
Lamniformes
Coridae/Labridae
Total
Common Name
Parrotfishes
Triggerfishes
Jacks
Mahimahi
Monocle breams
Emperors
Porcupinefishes
Groupers
Snappers
Marlins, sailfishes/Swordfishes
Needlefishes
Includes bony fishes
Squirrelfishes
Wahoo
Goatfishes
Surgeonfishes
Scorpionfishes
Sharks and rays
Mackerel sharks
Wrasses
47
MNI
37
7
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
86
Percent MNI
43.0
8.1
5.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.3
2.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
100.0
Leach et al. (1989b) also determined the likely catch methods and MNI for each
method (Table 21).
Table 21. Likely catch methods of fishes from Songsong, Rota by families with MNI and
percent MNI (Leach et al. 1989b).
Likely Catch Method
Family or Other
Group
Common Name
Scaridae
Acanturhidae
Balistidae
Parrotfishes
Surgeonfishes
Triggerfishes
Epinephelidae
Lutjanidae
Lethrinidae
Nemipteridae
Mullidae
Coridae/Labridae
Groupers
Snappers
Emperors
Monocle breams
Goatfishes
Wrasses
Carangidae
Belonidae
Coryphaenidae
Acanthocybiidae
Jacks
Needlefishes
Mahimahi
Wahoo
Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae
Marlins, sailfishes/
Swordfishes
Holocentridae
Diodontidae
Scorpaenidae
Squirrelfishes
Porcupinefishes
Scorpionfishes
Elasmobranchii
Lamniformes
Sharks and rays
Mackerel sharks
Teleostomi
Includes bony fishes
Netting
Demersal Baited Hook
Pelagic Lures
Harpoons
General Foraging
Opportunistic
No strong opinion
Total
MNI
45
Percent
MNI
52.3
16
18.6
12
14.0
3
3.5
6
7.3
2
2.3
2
2.3
86
100.0
In order to determine if there were changes through time, the fish remains were
grouped according to the depths at which they were found in the ground: 0-50 cm, 51-100
cm, and 101-150 cm. The three most common catch methods are consistent through time
(Table 22). Leach et al. (1989b) concluded, “there is nothing to indicate that fishing
behaviour significantly changed focus over the history of this site. This could indicate
one of three things, either it is a short duration settlement, or there was behavioural
conservation over a longer period, or the assemblage sizes are simply too small to make
an accurate judgement.”
There was no lack of time depth in the Songsong deposits. McManamon (1989)
concluded that the pottery analysis and the radiocarbon dates indicate continuous
occupation for 2000 years prior to European contact. This would be from the
48
Intermediate Pre-Latte Phase on. So it appears that there was little change in fishing
behavior through time.
Table 22. Catch methods and percentage of total catch for different levels of the
excavation at Songsong, Rota (Leach et al. 1989b).
Catch Method
Netting
Baited Hook
Pelagic Lure
Total
0-50 cm
52.0
12.0
16.0
80.0
51-100 cm
53.0
17.0
12.8
82.8
101-150 cm
50.0
35.7
14.3
100.0
Fishing artifacts include shell fishhooks (n = 7) and gorges (n = 3), but none
especially for pelagic fishing.
TURTLES FROM GUAM
Turtle remains are reported from seven sites in Guam (Table 23). In addition,
they are present in the Ylig midden collections, but not yet reported. All but two of the
sites with turtle remains also yielded pelagic fish remains. The two sites with turtle, but
without pelagic fishes, are at Tumon Bay—Villa Kanton Tasi (Amesbury 2002) and the
Leo Palace Hotel (Davis et al. 1992).
Moore (1983) reported five turtle bones from Layer III at Tarague. Sea turtle was
recovered from only one of Liston’s (1996) Tarague sites—Site 7-1614. From Pagat,
there are 210 grams of turtle bone (Craib 1986). Mangilao Golf Course Site 25 yielded
turtle remains weighing 60.87 grams (n = 21).
From the Dadi Beach Rockshelter on Orote Peninsula, Carucci (1993) collected
two turtle bones. A single bone from the Leo Palace Hotel site, Naton Beach, was
identified as sea turtle (Davis et al. 1992). From four of the five burial areas excavated at
Villa Kanton Tasi, there are 67.5 grams of turtle bone (Amesbury 2002). Olmo et al.
(2000) recovered three turtle bones from Pugua Point 13, North Finegayan.
Table 23. Number and/or weight of turtle remains from Guam sites.
Site or Area
Reference
Tarague
Tarague
Pagat
Mangilao Golf Course
Ylig Bay
Orote Peninsula
Villa Kanton Tasi
Leo Palace Hotel, Naton Beach
North Finegayan
Moore 1983
Liston 1996
Craib 1986
Dilli et al. 1998
In preparation
Carucci 1993
Amesbury 2002
Davis et al. 1992
Olmo et al. 2000
Number
Weight
(grams)
5
21
Present
2
2.07
210.0
60.87
67.5
1
3
49
Pagat is the Guam site with the greatest quantity of turtle remains. Most of the
turtle bone from Pagat came from the Pre-Latte Phase deposits. From Horizon I dating to
the Latte Phase and Early Historic Period, there are 15.9 grams or 1.04 grams per cubic
meter (Table 24). From Horizon II dating to the Pre-Latte Phase, there are 194.1 grams
or 41.04 grams per cubic meter.
Table 24. Weight and density of turtle bones by horizon from Pagat, Guam (Craib 1986).
Horizon
I
II
Time Period
Weight of
Turtle Bones
(grams)
Latte Phase and Early
Historic Period
Pre-Latte Phase
15.9
Density of
Turtle Bones
(grams per
cubic meter)
1.04
194.1
41.04
TURTLES FROM THE CNMI
Seven sites in the CNMI have yielded turtle remains (Table 25). Only two of
these sites did not have pelagic fish remains. They are Chalan Piao, Saipan (Moore et al.
1992) and Unai Chulu, Tinian (Haun et al. 1999).
Table 25. Number and/or weight of turtle remains from CNMI sites.
Site or Area
Reference
Chalan Piao, Saipan
Laulau, Saipan
Unai Chulu, Tinian
Mochong, Rota
Airport Road, Rota
Vista Del Mar, Rota
Songsong, Rota
Moore et al. 1992
Marck 1978
Haun et al. 1999
Craib 1990
Becker and Butler 1988
Craib 1998
Henry et al. 1999b
Number
Present
Present
225
114
9
17
2
Weight
(grams)
43.5
2.16
The two CNMI sites with the greatest number of turtle remains both show a
decrease in number of bones from the lower layers to the upper layers. At Unai Chulu,
Tinian (Haun et al. 1999), all of the turtle bones were recovered from Pre-Latte deposits,
but the vast majority of bones (89.33%) derived from Stratum VII, which dates to the
Early Pre-Latte Phase (Table 26).
At Mochong, Rota (Craib 1990), 78% of the turtle bones came from Horizon 3,
which dates to the Early Pre-Latte to Intermediate Pre-Latte Phases (Table 27).
50
Table 26. Number of turtle bones by strata from Unai Chulu, Tinian (Haun et al. 1999).
Stratum
II
IIIb
IIIc
IV
VI
VII
VIII
Total
Time Period
Early Transitional Pre-Latte Phase
Early Transitional Pre-Latte Phase
Early Transitional Pre-Latte Phase
Late Intermediate Pre-Latte Phase
Late Early Pre-Latte Phase to
Intermediate Pre-Latte Phase
Early Pre-Latte Phase
Turtle Bones
3
1
2
2
13
201
3
225
Table 27. Number of turtle bones by horizon from Mochong, Rota (Craib 1990).
Horizon
1
2
3
Time Period
Latte Phase
Transitional Pre-Latte Phase
Early Pre-Latte Phase to
Intermediate Pre-Latte Phase
Total
Turtle Bones
10
15
89
114
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) and Number of Identified Specimens
(NISP) for pelagic fishes from Marianas sites with analyzed remains reviewed in this
chapter are shown in Table 28.
The total MNI (based on combined MNI and the allowable NISP) for all of the
four largest islands of the Marianas together, for Guam only, and for Rota only are shown
on Table 29. The numbers on Table 29 indicate different ratios of the pelagic fishes in
the catch of Guam and Rota. For every 100 mahimahi caught around Guam, there were
23 marlins, sailfishes or swordfishes and 9 wahoo or tunas. For every 100 mahimahi
caught around Rota, there were 45 marlins, sailfishes or swordfishes and 35 wahoo or
tunas. However, these ratios changed greatly with the addition of the two Guam sites
(Mangilao Golf Course and Ylig Bay) analyzed for this project. It is likely the ratios will
change again when more sites are analyzed.
Percentages of MNI for the ten sites Marianas sites with pelagic fish remains and
MNI analysis are shown in Table 30.
Prior to the analyses of fish bones from Mangilao Golf Course and Ylig Bay, it
appeared that most of the pelagic fishing in the Marianas during the Prehistoric Period
occurred around Rota. This made sense, because Rota is smaller than Guam, Saipan, or
Tinian, and has less reef area. It also lacks the large protected west-coast bays and
lagoons of Guam and Saipan where reef fishing occurs.
The analyses from these two sites on Guam have changed the picture of pelagic
fishing in the Marianas during the Prehistoric Period. It is now clear that there were
51
simply more fish bone analyses for sites on Rota. Pelagic fishing was important on
Guam as well as on Rota.
Table 28. Summary of pelagic fish MNI and/or NISP from archaeological sites in the
Mariana Islands.
Site or
Area
Coryphaenidae
MNI
Pagat,
Guam
Mangilao,
Guam
Ylig Bay,
Guam
Orote,
Guam
Finegayan,
Guam
Achugao,
Saipan
Afetña,
Saipan
Laulau,
Saipan
Central
Tinian
Tachogna,
Tinian
Mochong,
Rota
Airport
Road,
Rota
Vista Del
Mar, Rota
Songsong,
Rota
Total
NISP
Istiophoridae/
Xiphiidae
MNI
NISP
8
2
41
14
37
4
Scombridae
MNI
NISP
Thunnidae/
Katsuwonidae
MNI
NISP
2
Acanthocybiidae
MNI
NISP
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
37
10
2
4
30
17
12
3
15
1
13
4
160
3
3
2
3
3
56
8
1
5
Table 29. Total MNI of families of pelagic fishes for the Marianas, Guam only and Rota
only.
Island/s
Four largest of the
Mariana Islands
Guam only
Rota only
Coryphaenidae
Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae
Scombridae
161
87
71
56
20
32
40
8
25
52
Table 30. Percent of pelagic fishes in the total MNI of identified fishes from ten sites in
the Mariana Islands with pelagic fish remains and MNI analysis.
Site or Area
Coryphaenidae
Percent MNI
Scombridae
Percent MNI
4.0
Istiophoridae/
Xiphiidae
Percent MNI
1.0
Pagat,
Guam
Mangilao,
Guam
Ylig Bay,
Guam
Afetña,
Saipan
Central
Tinian
Tachogna,
Tinian
Mochong,
Rota
Airport
Road, Rota
Vista Del
Mar, Rota
Songsong,
Rota
Average of
10 Sites
15.4
5.2
2.3
38.9
4.2
Lamniformes
Percent MNI
All Pelagics
Percent MNI
5.0
22.9
43.1
2.6
2.6
2.2
2.2
0.7
1.3
1.3
3.3
11.8
3.2
1.9
16.9
16.3
9.2
8.1
33.6
7.7
11.5
19.2
4.7
3.5
1.2
1.2
10.6
9.4
3.5
2.9
0.1
15.9
Mahimahi was identified at eight of the ten Marianas sites with pelagic remains
and MNI analysis shown in Table 30. Marlin was also identified at eight of the ten sites.
This is very unusual for Pacific islands. The database of fish remains from
archaeological sites at Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa contains
information on more than 75 tropical Pacific island sites and more than 125 sites in New
Zealand, but none of the sites outside the Marianas have mahimahi remains and only one
site outside the Marianas has marlin remains (Leach and Davidson 2006b). Marlin
accounted for less than 1% of MNI at Motupore, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.
However there is another part of the Pacific with evidence of pre-contact fishing
for mahimahi and marlin. This is the area on either side of the Luzon Strait, which
includes southern Taiwan and the northern Philippines. Coryphaenidae and Istiophoridae
are among the most common taxa from archaeological sites at O-luan-pi (or Eluanbi) on
the southernmost tip of Taiwan, which date to approximately the same time period as the
Early Pre-Latte Phase in the Marianas or somewhat earlier (Li 2002, 1997). Across the
Luzon Strait from Taiwan in the Batanes Islands of the Philippines, mahimahi bones have
been recovered from a site on the island of Sabtang (Campos pers. comm. 2008). Also
the Yami of Botel Tobago, an island off the southeast coast of Taiwan, traditionally
fished for mahimahi (Hsu 1982; Kano and Segawa 1956).
53
Leach and Davidson (2006a) noted that pre-contact people in both southern
Taiwan and the Marianas possessed highly specialized fishing skills not seen in other
parts of Oceania. The people of the northern Philippines should be added to that group of
exceptional pelagic fishermen. Pelagic fishing skills may be one of the pieces of the
puzzle that will help to answer the question of where the people of the Marianas came
from.
54
CHAPTER 3. SPANISH PERIOD
By Judith R. Amesbury
EARLY EXPLORERS
Many of the early European explorers to reach the Marianas remarked on the
islanders’ foods, fishing practices, and fishing gear. The years shown in the headings
below are the years in which the individual was in the Marianas. In the case of secondary
accounts, the years pertain to the time that the voyage or expedition was in the Marianas.
The important arrivals of the 1500s were Magellan’s voyage of discovery in 1521, the
Loaysa expedition just five years later in 1526, and the voyage of Legazpi, who claimed
the Marianas for Spain, in 1565.
Antonio Pigafetta—1521
Magellan’s historian on the first expedition to circumnavigate the globe, Antonio
Pigafetta, recorded the European discovery of the Mariana Islands in March 1521
(Lévesque 1992a:189-202). The stop at Guam was brief and hostile. The log of the pilot
Alvo (Lévesque 1992a:221-229) shows that the Spanish arrived on March 6 and departed
on March 9. The islanders came aboard Magellan’s ships and took things from them.
Magellan was angered by the removal of a skiff, which had been tied to the poop of his
own ship. He went ashore with 40 armed men, burned 40 or 50 houses and many canoes,
killed seven islanders, and recovered his skiff.
As the Europeans departed, the islanders followed them for a league in 100 or
more canoes. They came close to Magellan’s ships, showing the Europeans fish as if
they were offering the fish to them, but instead they shot stones at them [according to
Lévesque, they were using slings to throw stones, Ed. note 1, p. 200]. Pigafetta marveled
at the speed and skill with which the islanders maneuvered their canoes.
In his brief description of Guam, Pigafetta provided the following information
about the islanders’ food and fishing practices:
Their food is from certain fruits called coconuts, and potatoes [either yams or
taro, according to Lévesque, Ed. note 6, p. 200]. There are birds, bananas as long
as one palm, sugar-cane and flying fish…
The pastime of the men and women of the said place, and their sport, is to
go with their canoes to catch some of these flying fish with some fish-hooks made
of fish bones (Lévesque 1992a:200-202).
The significance of Pigafetta’s observation to this report is that flying fish are the
main food of mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurus). This was demonstrated in a pelagic fish
feeding study conducted on Guam from 1981 to 1983 (Myers 1984:77, 79). Flying fishes
made up 74.5 percent by weight of the stomach contents of the mahimahi samples. This
means that it would be possible for a fisherman who was catching flying fish with a hook
55
and line to also catch mahimahi. We know from the archaeological record that the precontact Chamorros did catch mahimahi (see Chapter 2).
Martín de Uriarte —1526
The Loaysa expedition, under the command of Fray García Jofre de Loaysa, left
Spain in 1525 and arrived in the Marianas in 1526. One of the pilots of the expedition
was Martín de Uriarte. Portions of his log are included in the report to the King by
Hernando de la Torre (Lévesque 1992a:424-452). Uriarte observed, “They kill plenty of
fish with fishhooks made of either wood or bone and with line which they make out of
tree bark” (Lévesque 1992a:438).
Andrés de Urdaneta—1526
Andrés de Urdaneta sailed on board one of the Loaysa expedition vessels, which
was captained by Juan Sebastian Elcano, who completed the voyage of Magellan after
Magellan’s death in the Philippines. Urdaneta later became an Augustinian friar and
returned to the Marianas in 1565 with the Legazpi expedition.
In Urdaneta’s first eyewitness account (Lévesque 1992a:453-460), written at
Valladolid in 1537, he described the Marianas. “In these islands, there is no livestock
whatever, no chickens, nor any other animals nor food supplies, except rice, which they
have in abundance, as well as fish, coconut, coconut oil, and salt” (Lévesque 1992a:456).
In the second eyewitness account by Urdaneta (Lévesque 1992a:461-469), he
remarked on the islanders’ use of tortoise shell. “As for tortoise shells, they praise them
very much for making combs and hooks to fish with…As for fish, they kill many with
hooks” (Lévesque 1992a:465-466).
Urdaneta also described the canoes of Guam (Lévesque 1992a:466):
The canoes they use for fishing are small and they have a counterweight
on one side, made of a big piece of wood shaped like a tunny fish. This
counterweight is always kept to windward. It is fastened to two sticks that come
out of the hull of the canoe. The canoe is made with two prows, which without
any interruption can become poop as well as prow. It runs as swiftly one way as
the other. The sails are lateen, made of closely-woven mats. They run fast under
sail. In order to tack, they do not turn the canoe around but only the sail; they
tack with the poop, which is the same as the prow and thus the counterweight
remains continuously to leeward [sic].
Secondary Account by Martín Fernández de Navarrete—1526
In describing the canoes of Guam, Martín Fernández de Navarrete paraphrased
Herrera and Oviedo (Lévesque 1992a:481-482). Oviedo had interviewed Urdaneta and
Martín de Islares in 1539. So Navarrete’s information was second or third hand.
Concerning trade with the Mariana Islanders, he said,
56
Before the nao [Manila galleon] anchored at the island, many canoes went
aboard with water, that they carried in gourds, salt, fish, potatoes, rice, coconuts,
bananas and other local fruits. They did not wish anything other than iron, nails
or things with metal tips in exchange for them. All such things they called
herrero. They appreciate tortoise shell very much in order to make combs and
hooks for fishing (Lévesque 1992a:481).
Navarrete described the canoes as follows:
Most of their canoes were of one piece, although some were composed of
many. Usually they were 4 to 5 fathoms in length, were narrow, being two cubits
or a little less in width and their depth came up to a man’s knee, although there
were bigger ones and smaller ones. They fasten the boards of the canoes that are
made up of many pieces by drilling the edges and tying one to the other with cord
made from tree barks. On the inside, they would have some pieces of wood
drilled, upon which they pushed through sticks that they also fastened, in order to
strengthen them [according to Lévesque, this means that the canoes had thwarts,
Ed. note 3, p. 481]. On the outside, they would caulk them, sealing all the seams
with pitch made of lime and oil, so that they did not leak. Every one of them had
on one side a counterweight of wood shaped like a tunny fish, almost as long as
half the length of the canoe, strongly fastened to two sticks that projected from it
[i.e. the canoe] and kept it [i.e. the float] separated from the side something like
one fathom.
Their poops could not be differentiated from their prows, and they carried
lateen sails made of mats, very well woven. In order to change direction, they did
not tack, but only changed the sail because they made the poop the prow
whenever they wanted (Lévesque 1992a:481-482).
Father Fray Martín Rada—1565
Miguel Lopez de Legazpi was the Spaniard who formally claimed the Mariana
Islands as a possession of Spain on January 26, 1565. Like Magellan’s visit in 1521,
Legazpi’s visit was brief and ended in hostility. The longest narrative of Legazpi’s
voyage is attributed to Father Fray Martín Rada (Lévesque 1992b:148-170). According
to Rada, the fleet sighted land on January 22, and the ships anchored at Guam on January
23. On board was Fray Andrés de Urdaneta who had visited Guam briefly with the
Loaysa expedition in 1526. The day the ships anchored, Urdaneta delighted the
Chamorros by speaking a few words he remembered in their language. However two
days later as the vessels attempted to refill their water supply at the mouth of a cove, the
islanders showered the Spaniards with spears and slingstones. The hostilities culminated
in the murder of a ship’s boy who had fallen asleep on land and the retaliation on the part
of the Spaniards by killing some islanders and burning houses and canoes. The ships
sailed from Guam on February 3, less than two weeks after their arrival.
When Legazpi’s ships anchored, more than 400 proas came out to meet them.
The following day, they came in larger numbers. Rada described the proas as follows
(Lévesque 1992b:158):
57
Their canoes are so well finished and very well made, fastened with cords. On
their surface, they applied a white or orange-colored pitch instead of tar. They are
very light and they sail aboard them with their palm-mat lateen sails, cutting
against the wind and tacking so swiftly that it is [a] marvelous thing to watch.
According to the sailors aboard the fleet, they have never seen any kind of fustas
[small ships rigged with lateen sails] so light as these. They have neither poop
nor prow [as such] so that as they go sailing they just change the point of the
lateen sail and, as fast as they went forward, they come back with the poop [acting
now] as a prow. It certainly is something to see how fast they sail and how easily
they change direction.
Concerning the food and fishing practices of Guam, Rada wrote the following
(Lévesque 1992b:164):
No-one was found who ate or had any kind of meat, any wild or domestic cattle,
any birds whatever except a few turtle doves that they kept in cages; as for the
Indians we kept captive on board, they did not wish to eat any meat at all and at
the beginning they did not want to eat any of our things. They have fish in
quantity which they take with fish-hooks, and fish-nets, some of which are rather
large implements. Some people noticed a few times, when the Indians were
bartering at the ships, if some fish of any kind swam by the ship, they dove in
after it and took it out with their [bare] hands, which is something wonderful to
see. They are excellent swimmers.
In describing the boat sheds, Rada gave the following details about the oceangoing sailing canoes (Lévesque 1992b:164):
They have other large houses used as boat sheds, not to live in but used as
community halls. They place their large proas and their canoes in the shade there.
Each village has one of these sheds. There was one of them where we took our
water [Umatac], very nice with four naves, made in the shape of a cross, that
could hold 200 men, 50 in each wing. They were very spacious, wide and high,
and worth seeing. Inside the above, mass was said on the days we were there;
there could be seen also some large proas, which they say are meant for crossing
the high sea between the islands and which carry a heavy load. All of them come
with a counterweight on the windward side, in proportion to the size of the proa,
with which they sail safely because they cannot capsize.
Major Estéban Rodriguez—1565
Major Estéban Rodriguez was the pilot of the flagship of Legazpi’s voyage.
Rodriguez also described the canoes of Guam (Lévesque 1992b:91):
The proas they brought along are the lightest sailboats in the world.
Neither galley nor brig can be compared with them. They are very narrow and
long. The prow and the poop are interchangeable. They have as a counterweight
on one side, in order not to capsize, a thick but light pole, stuck out at the end of
some [cross-]bars, that touches the water. This counterweight is kept to
windward, and the side in question is always the windward side, with the other
58
side to leeward. That is why they make one end the prow when they go one way
and the other end when they tack back. The sails are lateen sails, cut in the shape
of a triangle, on the side of the yardarm as well as on the side of the boom, which
serves to trim the sail. [Hence,] they carry the sail on two yards, one above and
the other below. With the lower yard, they make the sail bigger, or smaller; if
there is much wind, they roll up the sail upon the lower yard as much as they
want. The sails are made of finely woven palm and looked like coarse linen.
Each proa carried 9 to 10 Indians. One of them was kept busy bailing out water,
because such boats are not water-tight. They do not caulk them nor nail them
together; [rather,] they have the boards fastened to the others with reed lashings.
They then apply a pitch made of red earth [mixed] with lime and coconut oil.
When new, they caulk them with this pitch, and they do not leak; the water that
comes in is not much. These people are graceful and fast, expert with these boats.
Rodriguez added the following:
Their food consists of tamales made of rice, some toasted and others fresh; the
toasted ones keep much longer. They also eat big yams and small potatoes,
bananas, fish and coconuts. They make oil from the coconuts for lighting and
cooking purposes. There is much ginger here, and other fruits whose names I do
not know.
These islanders have many canoes, big and small. One day I saw more
than 500 of them alongside the ships; they all came to barter, bringing food of the
type mentioned above. They called for nothing else but nails in exchange
(Lévesque 1992b:94).
Secondary Account by Father Juan de Medina—1565
A secondary account of Legazpi’s voyage by Father Juan de Medina (Lévesque
1992b:258-265) also reported on the islanders’ skills at sailing, swimming, and fishing.
Medina wrote, “Both men and women are fine sailors and swimmers, for they are
accustomed to jump from their little boats after fish, and to catch and eat them raw”
(Lévesque 1992b:262).
Secondary Account by Father Fray Gaspar de San Augustin—1565
Another secondary account pertaining to the voyage of Legazpi is by Father Fray
Gaspar de San Augustin (Lévesque 1992b:267-281). Father San Augustin wrote, “The
natives are not used to eating meat; they were unable to have those held captive aboard
the ships eat meat either, except fish. They caught the fish with hooks made of bone, or
something that produced the most admiration, by diving underwater to get it, as they are
such awesome swimmers that only those who have seen them can believe it” (Lévesque
1992b:280).
59
THE FIRST SPANISH RESIDENTS OF THE MARIANAS
Before the end of the 16th century and at the beginning of the 17th century,
individuals motivated by religious zeal jumped ship in the Marianas in order to convert
the islanders to Roman Catholicism. Other Spaniards resided in Guam as a result of
shipwreck. Their longer tenure in the islands allowed them to learn more of the customs
of the islanders.
Fray Antonio de los Angeles—1596-1597
Fray Antonio de los Angeles, who is considered the first missionary to the
Mariana Islands, jumped ship at Guam in 1596. Two men from his ship jumped into the
water to bring him back, but they were unable to overtake him, and all three Spaniards
remained in the Marianas until 1597.
De los Angeles wrote, “When our ships pass by, they come to barter palm mats
that are very well made, coconuts and fish, for iron, of which they are very fond, not
caring for gold nor silver” (Lévesque 1993:71).
“Their occupation is fishing and bartering the fish with the islands where they do
not have any, bringing back as a reward what they need and is lacking in their island”
(Lévesque 1993:72). [According to Lévesque, the word “islands” is used to mean
“villages”, Ed. note 1 on p. 71. However, the Chamorros were traveling between islands
of the Marianas as well.]
Concerning the customs associated with dying, de los Angeles said, “When a sick
person is about to die, they take him upon a board to the house of a friend and they give
him a little raw fish to eat, and those present eat some of it also” (Lévesque 1993:72).
After a person died and was buried,
They placed on top of the burial site a paddle or a [model] canoe, a bow and
arrow, or all the fishing nets, fishhooks and knives, all of it made into
bundles…They praise him for his skill at fishing and the great strength with
which he used to throw spears and shoot the sling, that he would go to the Spanish
ships passing by there and bring back iron, that he built canoes, gave feasts to
which he invited the town people, and that he owned many tortoise shells, which
they placed on the grave and which they value a great deal (Lévesque 1993:73).
De los Angeles said that fishing nets and fishhooks were also offered to their idols
at feasts (Lévesque 1993:73).
Fray Juan Pobre de Zamora—1602
Fray Juan Pobre de Zamora, a lay brother of the Franciscan order of Discalced
Friars, was aboard a ship in a fleet that departed Acapulco on February 4, 1602 (Driver
1983). The fleet carried the new governor of the Philippines, Don Pedro Bravo de
Acuña. Governor de Acuña had learned in Acapulco of the shipwreck of the Santa
60
Margarita at Rota one year earlier in February 1601, so he ordered the fleet to put in at
Rota where they recovered 21 survivors. An additional four survivors were recovered
from Guam.
Moved by a desire to see the people of Rota converted to Roman Catholicism,
Fray Juan Pobre and a religious brother Fray Pedro de Talavera jumped ship at Rota.
Fray Juan Pobre remained there seven months until October 1602 when he left on a ship
bound for the Philippines.
While on Rota, Fray Juan Pobre was visited by a Spaniard named Sancho, one of
the three Spanish survivors of the Santa Margarita that had remained in the Marianas.
Sancho lived on Guam as the servant to a Chamorro master named Suñama. Islanders
from Pago, Guam, brought Sancho to Tazga, Rota, where he visited for several days with
Fray Juan Pobre and Fray Pedro de Talavera. At the end of their visit, Fray Juan Pobre
accompanied Sancho back to the village of Guaco, Rota, where he was to meet the
villagers from Pago, Guam, who had brought him to Rota (Driver 1988). As the two
slept at Guaco that night, Sancho was speared in the back, and nine or ten days later, in
the month of August, he died at the home of Fray Juan Pobre’s master in Tazga.
In Chapter 70 of his account, Fray Juan Pobre related what Sancho had told him
about the customs of the Mariana Islands (Lévesque 1993:175-188). Sancho said the
islanders “use all the known nets and inventions to catch fish, and many more” (Lévesque
1993:175). Concerning flyingfishes (family Exocoetidae), Sancho reported the
following:
The common fish they catch in the islands is the flying-fish which is a
very good fish (in the islands). They use many different kinds of hooks, of very
hard wood, of shells, and they make them with surprising workmanship although
most of them now make them with nails from the ones the ships give them and
those they found in the sad ship, the Santa Margarita, which must have supplied
the whole island. When they fish for these flying-fish, those from one town all
come together in a bunch and they go out in their canoes, each one with from ten
to twelve gourds; to each gourd is tied with a very slim cord a small two-pointed
shell hook. One hook is baited with coconut meat and the other with shrimp or
some minnow from the sea. All the fishermen throw these gourds into the sea
together, everyone taking care of his own. It is by watching the gourds and seeing
them wiggle that they know they have a flying-fish. There are so many fishermen
because all those living on the coast of all the islands are fishermen. There are
flying-fish for all of them as there are sardines in Spain. The average fish
measures about one palm in length, and others about two. The first flying-fish
they catch, they then eat it raw. The second one is placed as a bait on a large
hook and the cord is thrown over the poop and in this manner they usually catch
many dorados, swordfish, and other big fishes. They are much enemies of the
sharks and they do not eat them. The Indian chiefs do not eat any fish with
leathery skins nor soft-water river fishes either. I want to conclude, as far as their
fishery is concerned, with two things I have seen by which the reader will be
61
convinced that they are the most skillful fishermen and sailors who have been
discovered (Lévesque 1993:176).
The two stories that Sancho then related were one demonstrating the swimming
and diving skills of the islanders and one about how his master landed a billfish, possibly
a blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) according to S. Amesbury (Driver 1983). Details of
the story differ in the two translations by Driver (1983) and Lévesque (1993). Below is
the translation by Driver (1983:209):
My master, whom they called Sunama, went fishing far out to sea. After
having eaten the first flying fish (bolador), and after having baited his hook with
the second, as I described earlier, a very large blue marlin (aguja paladar) took
the hook. His line was very thin and, as he did not want to break it, he hesitated
to pull it in. Yet he was very anxious to land the fish; therefore, he very
cautiously began playing and tiring it. This took a long time. Meanwhile, a large
shark appeared and attacked the blue marlin in the midsection of its back. In
order not to let go of his line, the indio allowed his boat to capsize. Then he tied
the end of the line to the capsized funei, followed the line through the water to the
shark, and diverted him from his catch. Then he brought the blue marlin back to
his boat, righted the craft, and sailed home, flying a woven mat as a banner from
the masthead. Once ashore, he began to tell us what had happened and, like a
person who believes he has accomplished a great feat, very proudly strutted
pompously along the beach.
Sancho concluded his discussion of fishing by giving the Chamorro equivalents
for his Spanish names of the fish. “They call the bolador ‘gaga’ [flying fish], the dorado
‘botague’ [mahimahi], and the aguja paladar ‘batto’ [blue marlin]” (Driver 1983:209).
In regards to the Chamorro system of justice, Sancho commented on the value of
turtle shell.
When one kills another, if they are from the same town he absents himself
from that town to go to another island so that the relatives will not kill him. He
remains absent until from the killer’s house or from that of his father or mother
they take one or two palms of tortoise [shells] which is the thing that is most
valued among them and with some big fish and rice they pay the father or mother
or wife of the deceased for the death. Once this has been done, they send word to
the exile and he can come freely and walk about fearlessly through his town and
that is their form of justice (Lévesque 1993:212).
In fact this practice of paying for a death with valuables, including tortoise shells,
was carried out after Sancho’s own death (Lévesque 1993:195). The native who killed
Sancho, a man named Sínaro from Guaco, Rota, made a trip to Guam to take a piece of
tortoise shell, a few fish, and other little things to Sancho’s master, Suñama, to atone for
Sancho’s death. However, once the payment was made, Sínaro did not quickly return to
Rota, because he feared the natives of Tazga, Rota, where Fray Juan Pobre’s master
lived.
62
THE FIRST SPANISH COLONISTS
In 1668 the first permanent mission in the Marianas was established. The
superior of the mission was Father Diego Luis de Sanvitores, a Jesuit priest who arrived
on Guam on June 15, 1668 (Carano and Sanchez 1964). Along with Father Sanvitores
were four other Jesuit priests, a lay brother and lay assistants. In addition to the
missionaries, there was a garrison force consisting of a captain, Don Juan de Santa Cruz,
and 32 soldiers. Some of the soldiers and most of the lay assistants to the missionaries
were natives of the Philippines.
After an initial period of apparent success in converting the islanders to Roman
Catholicism, the mission met with hostility. Open rebellion on the part of the Chamorros
against the Spaniards broke out in 1670, and Father Sanvitores was killed in 1672. The
Spanish-Chamorro Wars continued until 1695 when the final battle took place on
Aguiguan or Aguijan (Fig. 1).
Brother (later Father) Lorenzo Bustillo—1668-1671 and 1676-1712(?)
An account by Father Bustillo, made in 1691 (Lévesque 1995a:497-504),
described the landing of Father Sanvitores, then-Brother Bustillo, and the other
missionaries in the Marianas in 1668. Their entrance into the Marianas was facilitated by
General Antonio Nieto, who became Captain of the galleon San Diego after the death at
sea of Admiral Bartolomé Muñoz just three days prior to their arrival in the Marianas.
Bustillo described a banquet with mutual giving of presents that took place
between the islanders and the Spanish at the house of Chief Quipuha in Hagåtña. After
eating, Nieto rewarded the Chamorro chiefs with the things they appreciated, “such as
hats, clothes, tortoise shells, beads, iron hoops, knives, axes, etc.” So in 1668 the
islanders still valued tortoise shells, but they were receiving them from the Spanish.
Padre Diego Luis de Sanvitores—1668-1672
Father Sanvitores, in a letter to the Queen of Spain, requested that tortoise shells
be sent to him (Lévesque 1995a:528-545). The enclosure to the letter is dated June 1669
and entitled, “List of the things which we will accept for the love of God.” The list
includes “Tortoise shells, as many as possible. These are used here as money for the
payment of freight, etc.” (Lévesque 1995a:535).
In a later letter, dated July 5, 1671, to Father Solano, Father Sanvitores requested
that a man named Bungi be paid either with half of a large [iron] hoop or a whole small
hoop. In a P.S. to the letter, Father Sanvitores wrote, “Bungi is asking for a tortoise shell.
If he promises to go to Tinian, he can be given one, instead of the hoop and, since he is
our friend, and that eventually we may have to give one to all the chiefs of Agadña,
keeping some for those who deserve them” (Lévesque 1995b:150).
63
Two Accounts Pertaining to the Year 1670
Two accounts pertaining to events on Tinian in the year 1670 relate how a turtle
shell was used in a Roman Catholic religious context. The second biography of Father
Luís de Medina, another of the priests who arrived in 1668, edited by Father Francisco de
Florencia (Lévesque 1995b:20-51) tells how Father Medina and Father Sanvitores
arranged peace between two enemy villages on Tinian. On January 22, there was a
procession.
Father Luís de Medina was leading it with the Standard of the most holy Virgin,
and of our Fathers St. Ignatius and St. Francis Xavier. Behind him were the
catechism children, then the youths, and finally the older ones, and the old men
from 7 villages. They all carried some thing in their hands, be it a fruit, or rice.
There was a big [turtle] shell which, according to their custom is a sure sign of
what they call Tarioyot, which means “gratitude”. Thus they were walking along,
repeating the Act of Contrition, sung out by the fervent Fr. Luís, towards the
village of Sungharon, the opposite side” (Lévesque 1995b:41)
As for the [turtle] shell, which is, as we have said, their best sign of
gratitude, it was placed as a permanent reminder of past discords at the feet of Our
Lady of Guadalupe of Mexico, the patroness and protectress of the Island of
Tinian (Lévesque 1995b:42).
The same event was described by Francisco García in his biography of Father
Sanvitores.
Padre Medina led those of Marpo, with the Standard of the Holy Virgin,
San Ignacio and San Francisco. After him followed the children who were
receiving instruction in the Doctrine, and after them the youths and the older
Principals of the village, each with a small gift of fruit or rice. Last of all they
carried a great shell, the chief sign of friendship, which only a few days before
had come to their hands on one of the rare turtles which are found in these waters.
It was believed that the turtle was like a dove of peace, for it was caught at the
time that peace was being adjusted, but when they lacked the concha [sea shell]
that was customarily used at such a time (García 1985:111-112).
Secondary Account by Father Francisco García—1668-1681
Father Francisco García’s (1985) The Life and Martyrdom of the Venerable
Father Diego Luis de Sanvitores includes a history of Guam from 1668 to 1681. García,
a Jesuit priest, never served on Guam, but wrote his history in Spain based on
correspondence with the Jesuit missionaries in the Marianas and other documents
available to him. The work was originally published in 1683 just two years before García
died. García recorded the early years of the Spanish-Chamorro wars, and although he
mentioned fish or fishing only incidentally, the events he recorded indicate the decline of
pelagic fishing.
On May 17, 1672 (García 1985:164-165), a group of soldiers led by Captain Juan
de Santiago left Hagåtña to search for the murderers of Sanvitores and to punish other
64
villagers who had assisted them. In Tumon, they did not find Matapang, the principal
murderer of Sanvitores, but they burned his house, as well as a dozen more, and
destroyed several boats. García noted that this was a form of punishment the natives used
against each other.
When Juan Antonio de Salas became the governor of Guam in June 1678, he
sacked and burned rebellious villages including Tarague, Tupalao, Fuuna, Orote, and
Sumay. In the village of Agofan (located between Piti and Sumay), the governor burned
the homes of those who fled but spared the homes of those who remained in the village.
García (1985:269) noted that, “…this kind treatment was not sufficient to reassure the
Indios,” and a few days later, some villagers from Agofan departed Guam for the island
of Rota. The governor was chagrined by this development and with a native canoe
overtook one of the fleeing canoes and made prisoners of its occupants. García
(1985:270) added, “This affair made such an impression on the people that for a long
while no boats passed along that side of the Island for fear of being seized by the
Governor.”
In the fall of that year, the same governor burned the villages of Picpuc and
Talofofo “with all the goods contained therein, including more than twenty bancas”
[canoes] (García 1985:272). The following year he burned the village of Janum, and
García (1985:285) related, “Fifty boats that were taken as spoils of war were given to the
friendly Indios” (villagers from Nisihan who had blocked the port of Janum to prevent
the escape of the Janum residents by sea).
In 1680, during the first of his three terms as governor, José de Quiroga went to
Rota to round up fugitives who had fled from Guam. In Rota he burned some villages
where the “malefactors” had been received, and he ordered more than 150 fugitives
returned to Guam. He then began the relocation of the islanders into larger settlements
more accessible to his administration and to the priests. García (1985:298-299) reported
that a furious typhoon on November 11, 1680, destroyed every native house and wooden
structure on the island, as well as nearly half the boats, but he added, “The storm served a
useful purpose in destroying the houses of the Indios, thus facilitating the matter of
gathering them into the larger villages.”
Some consideration was given to the fishing industry in the relocation process
however (García 1985:296-297). When Inapsan was selected as the site for a settlement
in the eastern part of Guam, it was found that the river there did not have a good sand bar
from which to launch boats, so a channel was made with some difficulty by breaking
through the coral reef. Referring to Pago, García (1985:297) said, “Here they established
a large settlement, no less agreeable that the other (Inapsan), for it is served by a large
river which cuts the village in two, and which has a mouth suitable for launching boats.”
65
OTHER FOREIGN VISITORS
During the Spanish Period, the Mariana Islands were host not only to the Spanish,
but also to many other foreign visitors who described the islands. William Dampier, a
seaman aboard an English privateer commanded by Captain Swan, visited Guam in 1686
and published a narrative of his round-the world voyage, which includes a lengthy
description of the Chamorro “proes” (proas) (Dampier1937). Captain Woodes Rogers,
who commanded the British privateer Duke and spent ten days on Guam in 1710,
described the “flying proa” in his diary (Rogers 1928). The English Commodore George
Anson, who spent nearly two months on Tinian in 1742, also described the proa (Barratt
1988). The French expedition led by Captain Crozet spent nearly two months on Guam
in 1772. The Freycinet expedition, a French scientific endeavor, spent several months in
the Marianas in 1819.
William Dampier—1686
William Dampier was a seaman aboard an English privateer commanded by
Captain Swan, which sighted Guam on May 20, 1686. In his narrative of their round-theworld voyage, Dampier (1937:196) said it was well for the captain that they sighted land
when they did, because the ship was almost out of provisions and, as they learned later,
the crew had planned to kill and eat the captain and any others responsible for the
voyage.
Before they had anchored at Guam on the night of May 21, they were met by a
priest and three islanders who mistook them for Spaniards. The priest was detained
aboard ship as a hostage, and the following morning the islanders were sent to the
governor of Guam with letters from the priest and from Captain Swan requesting
provisions. A cordial exchange of gifts and letters followed until Captain Swan released
the priest on May 30 and sailed from Guam on June 2, 1686. Although a Spanish galleon
arrived in sight of Guam while Swan was anchored there, there was no hostile action
between the English and Spanish ships.
Dampier (1937:206-207) provided a lengthy description of the Chamorro “proes”
(proas) and gave the following reason for his description. “I have been the more
particular in describing these Boats, because I do believe, they sail the best of any Boats
in the World.”
Concerning the islanders’ sailing ability, he said, “The Native Indians are no less
dextrous in managing than in building these Boats. By report they will go from hence to
another of the Ladrone Islands about 30 leagues off, and there do their Business, and
return again in less than 12 Hours. I was told that one of these Boats was sent Express to
Manila, which is above 400 Leagues, and performed the Voyage in four Days time”
(Dampier 1937:207).
66
Captain Woodes Rogers—1710
Captain Woodes Rogers commanded the British privateer Duke, which
accompanied by the Duchess, left England on August 1, 1708. Their voyage around the
world concluded on October 14, 1711, and Woodes Rogers published his journal in 1712.
The ships anchored at Guam on March 11, 1710, and departed ten days later on
March 21, 1710. Captain Woodes Rogers used the same ploy that Captain Swan had
used in 1686. Pretending to be Spanish, he invited two Spaniards aboard ship and
detained one of them as a hostage while a letter was sent to the governor demanding
provisions. The governor accommodated them with an abundance of food, and their visit
was entirely friendly.
The governor also presented them with a “flying proa,” which Woodes Rogers
described in his diary (Rogers 1928:268-269). He took the boat back to London, thinking
“it might be worth fitting up to put in the Canal in St. James’s Park for a Curiosity, since
we have none like it in this Part of the World.”
George Anson—1742
George Anson left England on September 18, 1740 with seven vessels intent on
assaulting the Spanish sea towns of South America and the South Seas and seizing the
Manila galleon off Acapulco (Barratt 1988). The voyage proved to be extremely costly
in ships and lives, but Anson did indeed seize the treasure galleon Nuestra Señora de
Covadonga off the Philippines in June 1743 before returning to England one year later.
He had lost all the ships except the Centurion and more than 1300 men.
When the Centurion anchored at Tinian August 27, 1742, Anson found no
permanent population, because the Chamorros had been moved to Guam. Instead he
encountered a party of about two dozen men, islanders under the command of a Spanish
sergeant, who had come from Guam to kill and cure beef for the garrison in Guam and
for the galleon, which would stop on her way from Acapulco to Manila. After an
eventful two-month stay, the Centurion departed Tinian on October 21, 1742.
Anson and some of his lieutenants captured a proa on their arrival at Tinian, later
dismantled it, and then burned it before they left the island (Barratt 1988:11, 69, 14).
Their descriptions and drawings of the proa are among the last in history. Below are
Anson’s description and a drawing of the proa (Fig. 14) from Haddon and Hornell
(1975:413-415).
These Indians [inhabitants of the Marianas] are a bold, well-limbed
people; and it should seem from some of their practices, that they are in no way
defective in understanding; for their flying proas in particular, which have been
for ages the only vessels used by them, are so singular and extraordinary an
invention that it would do honor to any nation, however dexterous and acute. For
if we consider the aptitude of this proa to the particular navigation of these
67
islands, which, lying all of them nearly under the same meridian and within the
limits of the trade-wind, require the vessels made use of in passing from one to
the other to be particularly fitted for sailing with the wind upon the beam; or, if
we examine the uncommon simplicity and ingenuity of its fabric and contrivance,
or the extraordinary velocity with which it moves, we shall, in each of these
articles, find it worthy of our admiration and meriting a place amongst the
mechanical productions of the most civilized nations, where art and sciences have
most eminently flourished. As former navigators, though they have mentioned
these vessels, have yet treated of them imperfectly,…I shall here insert a very
exact description:
The name of “flying proa” given to these vessels is owing to the swiftness
with which they sail. . . . From some rude estimations made by our people of the
velocity with which they crossed the horizon at a distance, while we lay at Tinian,
I cannot help believing that with a brisk trade-wind they will run near 20 miles an
hour, which, though greatly short of what the Spaniards report of them, is yet a
prodigious degree of swiftness. . . .
The construction of this proa is a direct contradiction to the practice of all
the rest of mankind. For as the rest of the world make the head of their vessels
different from the stern, but the two sides alike; the proa, on the contrary, has her
head and stern exactly alike, but her two sides very different; the side intended to
be always the lee side is flat, and the windward side is made rounding in the
manner of other vessels: And, to prevent her oversetting, which from her small
breadth and the straight run of her leeward side would, without this precaution,
infallibly happen, there is a frame laid out from her to windward, to the end of
which is fastened a log, fashioned into the shape of a small boat and made hollow.
[Haddon and Hornell questioned the statement that the float is hollow.]
The weight of the frame is intended to balance the proa, and the small boat
is by its buoyancy (as it is always in the water) to prevent her oversetting to
windward; and the frame is usually called an outrigger. The body of the proa (at
least of that we took) is made of two pieces joined endways and sewed together
with bark, for there is no iron used about her. She is about 2 inches thick at the
bottom, which at the gunwale is reduced to less than 1 inch. The dimensions of
each part will be better known from the uprights and views contained in the
annexed plate, which were drawn from an exact mensuration [Fig. 14]… When
[the proa] alters her tack, they bear away a little to bring her stern up to the wind,
then by easing the halyard and raising the yard and carrying the heel of it along
the lee side of the proa, they fix it in the opposite socket [Fig. 14 c, 7-8], whilst
the boom at the same time, by letting fly [one] sheet [Fig. 14 a, 3-4] and haling
the [other], shifts into a contrary situation to what it had before, and that which
was the stern of the proa now becomes the head, and she is trimmed on the other
tack. When it is necessary to reef or furl the sail, this is done by rolling it round
the boom. The proa generally carries six or seven Indians, two of whom are
placed in the head and stern, who steer the vessel alternately with a paddle
according to the tack she goes on, he in the stern being the steersman; the other
Indians are employed either in baling out the water which she accidently ships, or
in setting and trimming the sail. From the description of these vessels it is
68
sufficiently obvious how dexterously they are fitted for ranging this collection of
islands called the Ladrones. For as these islands bear nearly north and south of
each other and are all within the limits of the trade wind, the proas, by sailing
most excellently on a wind, and with either end foremost, can run from one of
these islands to the other and back again, only by shifting the sail, without ever
putting about; and, by the flatness of their lee side and their small breadth, they
are capable of lying much nearer the wind than any other vessel hitherto known,
and thereby have an advantage which no vessels that go large can ever pretend to:
the advantage I mean is that of running with a velocity nearly as great, and
perhaps sometimes greater than that with which the wind blows.
Figure 14. “Flying proa” of the Mariana Islands. a, view from leeward with sail set: 1,
one of two stays supporting mast, the other hidden behind sail; 2, matting sail; 3, 4,
running stays. b, head view, outrigger to windward: 1, mast shore; 2, shroud. c, plan: 1,
proa; 2, “boat” at end of outrigger frame; 3, 4, braces from the ends to steady frame; 5,
thin plank placed to windward to prevent shipping of water, to serve as seat for native
who bales, and sometimes as rest for goods transported; 6, part of middle outrigger boom
on which mast is fixed; 7, 8, horseshoe sockets, in one of which yard is lodged according
to tack (after Anson 1748). Figure and caption from Haddon and Hornell (1975:414).
69
Captain Crozet—1772
Captain Crozet became the leader of a French expedition sent to explore the South
Seas when the original leader, Marion du Fresne, was eaten by cannibals in New Zealand
(Crozet 1891:54). The Crozet expedition anchored at Guam on September 27, 1772, and
did not depart until November 19, 1772. They were so well received by Governor Tobias
that Crozet considered Guam a “terrestrial paradise” (Crozet 1891:82). He wrote that his
sailors fished for freshwater fish on Guam, while the natives preferred the saltwater fish.
The rivers of Guam, which after all are only brooks, or torrents, abound in
fish. During their convalescence, our sailors amused themselves by fishing, and
caught eels, mullets, gobys and a sort of carp. All these fish are excellent, but the
Indians do not eat them, preferring salt-water fish, which are generally very
inferior in quality to the fresh-water ones. It is true that the abundance of meat,
vegetables, and fruit is so great in Guam, and the Spanish Commandant provided
us with them so generously, that during the whole stay we hardly thought of
getting any sea-fish (Crozet 1891:91).
Crozet went on to describe a problem with some marine fishes. Probably he was
referring to ciguatera poisoning.
There is, besides, some inconvenience in a preference for salt-water fish.
Among those which are caught on the coast of Guam, as in all the Marianne
Islands, there are some which are very unwholesome, for they nourish themselves
on the little polyps, which form the coral. It appears that these sea-insects, like
the sea-galleys and sea-nettles, have some caustic property which is imparted to
the fishes, and the fishes have a coralline taste which betrays their poisonous
properties. The Indians know which are unwholesome, but it is better not to eat
any sea-fish at all. This, however, does not hold good with the sea-turtles which
are caught on the coasts of Guam. They are very good and as big as those of the
island of Ascension, but the Spaniards and Indians do not eat them. I collected
sufficient to form a good supply during our journey to the Philippines (Crozet
1891:91).
Crozet (1891:94-96) included a detailed description of the Chamorro proas, which
he prefaced with this evaluation:
In acquiring new knowledge by their contact with civilization, the
islanders have at the same time preserved perfectly the art of making canoes
received from their forefathers. In this respect they had nothing new to learn. It
is quite certain that the invention of the form of their craft would do honour to any
boatbuilder amongst the most advanced maritime people. This form has not been
copied from any model, for it differs from all those which have been given to seagoing vessels by any of the known peoples in different parts of the world.
Haddon and Hornell (1975:417) noted that Crozet was the last voyager to describe
the Chamorros’ “flying proa,” but they questioned his description because it “coincides
so closely with that of Dampier that it is impossible to resist the conclusion that Crozet
70
had Dampier’s account before him as he wrote and that he based his own almost entirely
upon it.” As proof of their conclusion, they cited the fact that Crozet repeated Dampier’s
error in saying that the outrigger was on the lee side of the boat, rather than the windward
side, as correctly reported by other writers.
A footnote in Crozet (1891:96), added by the translator H. Ling Roth, says that
Dumont D’Urville wrote that at the time of his first visit to the Mariana Islands in May
1828, the islanders were no longer able to make these canoes and instead used similar
ones from the Carolines. This statement was confirmed to Roth in August 1888 by ViceAdmiral E. Paris, who had been a midshipman with D’Urville.
Louis de Freycinet—1819
The Freycinet expedition, which arrived at Guam March 17, 1819, was a French
scientific expedition that included the zoologists Quoy and Gaimard, the botanist Charles
Gaudichaud-Beaupré and the artist and writer Jacques Arago (Carano and Sanchez 1964).
The expedition spent several months in the Marianas, visiting Tinian and Rota as well as
Guam.
Freycinet (1824) provided a lengthy and detailed account of the tools and
techniques of fishing in the Marianas. He described the methods of fishing for mañåhak
(spelled magnahak by Freycinet, juvenile rabbitfishes, Siganus spp.), hachuman (spelled
atchoman by Freycinet, Decapterus sp. or opelu in Hawai’i), parrotfishes (family
Scaridae), flyingfishes (family Exocoetidae), anaho (probably mahimahi), and other
marine resources including turtles. The tools are described below, followed by the
techniques of fishing for certain fishes.
Hooks and Lines, Spears
Hooks (hagoit) were made of shell, including mother-of-pearl, bone, and coconut
shell. By the time of Freycinet’s arrival, the preference was for iron hooks. Lines were
made of plant fibers, including banana fiber. A special arrangement of lines and hooks
used to fish for flyingfishes was known as kinatchit gomahga. A main line was held
afloat by gourds (tagoadji), and lateral lines were attached to it at intervals of six to nine
feet [based on “une brasse” equaling one fathom or six feet].
On some occasions, a fisherman used a thick stick or bludgeon, or a barbed
wooden spear. The wooden spear had been replaced by one with a single or multiple iron
points by the time of Freycinet.
The Poio or Fishing Stone
The poio or fishing stone (Photo 3) was a type of chumming device used to fish
for hachuman (Decapterus sp., opelu in Hawai’i). The stone was hemispherical and flat
on top. A coconut shell cap about the same size as the stone was attached to the flat top
with cords to hold the two pieces together. A plant fiber braid served as a handle, with a
71
long cord that would allow the stone to be lowered to a depth of 8 fathoms or 48 feet.
Chewed coconut meat was placed inside the coconut shell cap, and the device was used
to attract fish toward the surface where they could be taken in a net. The poio is shown in
Plates 63 and 79 of Freycinet (1824). The use of the poio is described below under
Hachuman.
Photo 3. Poio or fishing stone made of argillaceous limestone found by MARS near
Marine Drive in Anigua, Guam, and refitted with lines and coconut shell. Photo by Frank
Wells.
Nets
Freycinet described several kinds of nets and gave their Chamorro names. The
most important was the lagoa pola, used to catch small fish from the beach. The net
consisted of three rectangular mats joined together. The side mats were six feet high by
three feet long, while the one in the middle was 12 feet high by 20-30 feet long. At each
end of the net, a stick was tied to hold the net upright. Wooden floats were attached to
the top of the net and stone weights to the bottom. The net was maneuvered in the same
way as the French seine or seinette. Nets of this kind differed in the tightness of the
weave, which depended on the size of fish to be caught.
For hachuman fishing, a net called lagoa atchoman was used. It was similar to
the French nets known as chaudière or caudrette. The net, which measured nine feet in
diameter and four and a half feet in length, was in the shape of a large bag with a circular
opening. The mouth was held open by a circle of lodogao wood [Clerodendrum inerme
according to Moore and McMakin 1979]. Four cords attached around the circumference
72
of the opening came together in the center where the fisherman set the line. The lagoa
atchoman is shown at the far left of Freycinet’s Plate 63.
A net similar to the lagoa atchoman, but much smaller and with a long handle
was known as lagoa popo or lagoa omo-soho. This net had the same form and function
as the French truble, and it was used especially in Tinian where the large quantity of
stones and corals scattered on the coast made the use of the lagoa pola impractical. The
net had an oval opening measuring one and one-half by two feet and was one foot deep
with a five or six foot long handle.
The Chamorros also used a conical net known as lagoa djoti, similar to the French
l’épervier. This worked well for certain large and small fish.
Traps and Weirs
The stone fish traps (ghigao) once built along the coastlines no longer existed by
Freycinet’s time. They had been replaced by multi-chambered weirs, illustrated by
Freycinet (1824:438). The most developed of these constructions was found between the
island of Apapa [probably Cabras Island] and Guam near the mouth of the Masso River.
The lagoa popo was used to scoop fish from the reservoirs, or if the fish were large they
were speared with the iron-tipped spear.
Mañåhak (Siganus spp., Juvenile Rabbitfishes)
Freycinet (1824:439-440) reported that mañåhak were caught regularly during the
months of April, May, and June, and rarely in September and October, but only at the
time of the moon’s last quarter. Mañåhak that appeared during the fall months were
called magnahak ababa or crazy mañåhak, because they appeared only about once every
25 years.
Freycinet reported that these fishes are always prodigious in number. Two
species occur in the Marianas. The smaller fish are Siganus spinus (Linnaeus) and the
larger are Siganus argenteus (Quoy and Gaimard) (Amesbury and Myers 1982). The
smaller fish appear first and then the bigger ones, sometimes on the same day or on
subsequent days. Once the larger species appears, it means the run is coming to a close.
Plate 63 in Freycinet (1824) shows the mañåhak fishing. People are dragging a
lagoa pola on the shore. On a mat to one side are the fish that have already been caught.
The women are putting the fish into bags to transport them to the place where they will
be salted.
Hachuman (Decapterus sp., Opelu in Hawai’i)
Freycinet (1824:440-441) described the hachuman fishing as follows. This fish
was caught beyond the reefs, one-half league to five leagues from land. Closer to land,
73
one would catch none or almost none. The fishing began in August and continued until
October when the fish were full grown.
The fisherman filled a poio with the chewed pulp of a young coconut and lowered
the device on a line to a depth of six to eight fathoms [36-48 feet]. The fisherman shook
the line from time to time to disperse the coconut meat into the water. The hachuman
came in great numbers to eat the coconut. When the poio was empty, the fisherman took
it out, refilled it, and continued the operation until evening.
The following morning, the fisherman returned to the same spot, but this time he
lowered the poio one or two feet less deep than the previous day. He did this each day
for a month and a half or two months except when bad weather prevented him. By this
time the hachuman were coming almost to the surface. Ordinarily this fish was caught at
a depth of one fathom [six feet].
The process did not need to take so long if the fisherman was satisfied with a less
abundant harvest. If he did not begin the operation until September when the fish were
full grown, 15 days of feeding would have been sufficient. In that case, instead of
gradually shortening the cord by one or two feet, he shortened it more each day.
With the poio at a depth of one fathom and always in motion, the fisherman or his
helpers put the large caudrette (lagoa atchoman) into the water and slid it carefully under
the poio. The net was lifted gradually until the circle that surrounded the opening came
to the top of the water. The men then took the net out of the water and threw the fish into
their boat. Then they began the same maneuvers again. They could obtain a second and
third catch on the same day. The fish were taken to the women who dried them in the sun
with salt.
The 1943 unedited translation done for the Yale University Human Relations
Area Files mistakenly translates the French to say that the fisherman could obtain two or
three fish on the same day. However, the French word “capture” is better translated
“catch” here. The fisherman was able to obtain a second or third catch, meaning a second
or third netful.
In the section on fishing law, Freycinet said that an hachuman fisherman would
sometimes throw his poio into the water while crossing several fishing grounds. The fish
would follow his canoe, and when he arrived at his own ground, he would have a better
catch. However, if the fisherman were caught doing this, he would receive the death
penalty.
Freycinet (1824:440) said that hachuman fishing took place one-half league to
five leagues from land. The length of a league has varied with time and place from about
2.4 to 4.6 statute miles. Two sources dating to the late 1500s stated that an English sea
league contained 2500 fathoms and a Spanish sea league contained 2857 fathoms, and
that a fathom is six feet (Marden 1986:576-577). One of the sources added that a
Portuguese sea league was the same as the Spanish. This means that the English sea
74
league was 2.47 nautical miles, while the Iberian sea league was 2.82 nautical miles.
Currently, a French league equals four kilometers (Chevalley and Chevalley 1966) or
2.16 nautical miles. Based even on the most conservative equivalent, one-half league
was more than a nautical mile and five leagues were more than ten nautical miles.
Knudson (1987) estimated five leagues at 15 statute miles and felt that distance
was excessive because of the difficulty of placing a small boat in the same spot that far
from shore each day. However, it would be possible to place the boat in the same spot
each day even at that distance from shore if the spot were over an offshore bank, and that
was probably the case according to the late Richard K. Sakamoto, a Guam fisherman. In
1989 Sakamoto reported that Decapterus sp. were found at offshore banks such as 11Mile Bank, Galvez Bank, and Santa Rosa Reef, as well as parts of the Guam reef system,
such as Double Reef (Amesbury and Hunter-Anderson 1989:27).
Låggua or Parrotfishes (Family Scaridae)
Freycinet (1824:441-442) described two types of fishing for parrotfishes. One
took place at night and the other by day. The nighttime fishing occurred at the time of
the new moon in the months of August thru December. After sunset, when the tide was
low and the sea was calm, a canoe went out with a man in front holding a torch. The
light of the torch permitted the fishermen to see the parrotfishes sleeping near the outer
edge of the reef. In times past, the fishermen carried a barbed wooden spear, but by
Freycinet’s time, they used the multi-prong iron spear to take the fishes.
The daytime fishing for parrotfishes involved the use of a live fish as a decoy.
The live parrotfish had a line attached through its lower jaw. The fisherman carried the
fish in his canoe to an appropriate place where there were natural basins formed by corals
inside the reefs. The fish was put into the water and allowed to swim as far as the cord
extended. The other parrotfish saw the captive fish and hurried to attack it. The
fisherman then removed the decoy fish from the water and made a sliding knot near the
spot where the fish was wounded. When he put the decoy fish back into the water, the
other fish attacked the bleeding spot, and the fisherman pulled the noose around the
attacking fish. Freycinet reported that a skilled fisherman would not catch more than six
or eight parrotfish per day in this way. The live decoy could be kept in water near the
shore and used for a week.
Flyingfishes (Family Exocoetidae)
Freycinet’s description of fishing for flyingfishes (Freycinet 1824:443) is much
the same as that provided by Sancho to Fray Juan Pobre (above). Both Freycinet and
Fray Juan Pobre noted that in the past the fishhooks were made of shell, but by early
Spanish times were made of iron.
75
Anaho (Dorade?, Coryphaena hippurus)
Freycinet (1824:443) also mentioned fishing for what he called in French l’anaho
(dorade?). The addition of the word dorade indicates that he was talking about
mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurus). The Spanish word used by Fray Juan Pobre (above) is
dorado. The content of Freycinet’s description also indicates he was talking about
mahimahi, because he said the fish was caught using a recently killed flying fish.
However, Freycinet said that this fish was taken formerly. He used the past tense.
Turtles
Freycinet (1824:443) reported that the islanders had no method for catching
turtles other than tipping them over onto their backs.
Shipbuilding
Freycinet included a description of the Chamorro sailing canoes written by
Gemelli Careri, who saw them in 1696, just after Spanish conquest, when the canoes
were still being built. Freycinet concluded that the craft of the Mariana Islanders of old
were similar to those of the Carolinians still used in Freycinet’s time. He said, “The craft
used nowadays to make crossings from one island to another are of Carolinian
construction, and they are even manned by natives of those islands, rather than by natives
of the Marianas” (Freycinet 2003:178).
SPANISH GOVERNORS
The Spanish governors of the second half of the 18th century confirmed the end of
inter-island travel by the flying proas of the Chamorros. Two governors of the 19th
century wrote about the seasonal fisheries for mañåhak, ti’ao, and atulai. They also
wrote about fishing for hachuman, but it is doubtful that they ever saw that.
Henrique Olavide—1749-1756 and 1768-1771
When Governor Olavide took office in 1749, he noted a lack of sea-going vessels
and decided to change the situation. During his first term, he had three 30-foot vessels
built at Hagåtña. He also had eleven bancas (sea-going canoes) built for inter-island
travel—six in Guam, four in Rota, and one in Tinian (Driver 2005:37).
José de Soroa—1759-1768
During Soroa’s term as governor, he sent bancas to Tinian for meat (Driver
2005:38). One of the canoes was lost at sea.
76
Phelipe de Ceraín—1776-1786
In 1777 Governor Ceraín issued a proclamation ordering the district
administrators to see to it that each village had a large panga (flat-bottomed boat) for the
use of the natives “to attain a better livelihood, by being able to buy and sell whatever
they want, whenever, and wherever it is best for them to do so” (Driver 2005:46). The
proclamation did not indicate that these boats were for fishing. Instead they were for
transportation of products. Ceraín noted that the villages of Agat, Umatac, Merizo,
Inarajan, and Pago were unable to transport their products, because they had no boats.
José Arlegui y Leóz—1786-1794
During Governor Arlegui’s administration, several disasters highlighted the
importance of the Carolinians and their ocean-going canoes (Driver 2005:54-57). Interisland travel was dependent on the Carolinians. The bancas traveled to Rota for purposes
of the government and church, and they traveled to Tinian to obtain meat and produce.
Felipe María de la Corte y Ruano Calderón—1855-1866
Felipe María de la Corte y Ruano Calderón was the governor of Guam from May
1855 to January 1866. Carano and Sanchez (1964:141) said that de la Corte was one of
three 19th century Spanish governors who “stand out from the rest as having worked hard
and well for the benefit of Guam.” His administration consisted of a series of agricultural
and economic experiments, and in his lengthy report, he concluded that the principal
problem in Guam was poverty.
Concerning pelagic fishing, de la Corte (1970:143) made this statement: “In the
contiguent seas there are considerable large fish, but as the natives never go fish them
beyond the reef few fish are caught.”
He described the fishing for three seasonal fishes: 1) mañåhak, which de la Corte
spelled atañaja (juvenile rabbitfishes, Siganus spp.); 2) ti’ao (juvenile goatfishes, family
Mullidae); and 3) atulai, which de la Corte spelled atislai (big-eye scad, Selar
crumenophthalmus).
De la Corte (1970:144) said the mañåhak “come in through the reefs at low tide in
some moons of May to July and sometimes come in compact layers of five and six feet
thick and many braces wide and long. The town comes out in mass to catch all they can
in small nets and sometimes this lasts two or three days each moon. This fish is tasty and
besides eating it fresh, they pickle it and keep it the whole year round.”
It is uncertain whether the word “brace” used here is the same as the French word
“brasse”, which equals six feet (see Freycinet above). In another place, de la Corte
(1970:144) said that the diameter of the net used with the poio for hachuman fishing is a
brace. Freycinet (1824:437) said the lagoa atchoman is nine feet in diameter. Using the
77
more conservative figure of six feet, the mañåhak arrived in schools that were many
times six feet in width and length.
The ti’ao, he said, “also comes in shoals, but not as big as those of the atañaja.
They turn up around April to August.”
Concerning the atulai, de la Corte (1970:144) said, “Some shoals of fish like
mackerel or large sardines also appear which are called atislai and they catch them in the
same way, but they do not come in such great abundance nor every year. They are
caught during the moons of June to August and are eaten like the others, fresh and
pickled.”
De la Corte’s description of hachuman fishing (de la Corte 1970:144-145) is quite
similar to Freycinet’s, except that he said the fish are fattened for one to three months.
He also quantified the catch, “With this operation they sometimes catch more than a ton
of fish a day, and repeat the fishing for a month, around August.” However, he added,
“As this requires a certain amount of patience, perseverance and experience, only certain
old men practice this, and I do not think anybody does so nowadays. This practice seems
to have originated from the old natives.” This raises the question of whether de la Corte
ever saw catches of a ton per day, or whether he had just been told that was the size of the
catch in the past.
De la Corte (1970:145) also said, “Sharks abound and another fish called
rompecandados [padlock breaker] which is more voracious than the shark,” but he did
not mention that either was fished. He added, “There are no carey turtles [sea turtles] or
pearl shells or any other articles of value.”
Concerning navigation, de la Corte (1970:146) remarked, “In spite of the fact that
on their discovery these natives created a reputation as good navegators [sic], and
notwithstanding the fact that they individually have a good disposition as sailors, they do
not at present exercise it whatsoever, on the island since there is no boat capable of
making a trip even to the nearest route.” He reported there were three or four boats or
“whale hunters’ canoes” used for transporting good from the harbor to Hagåtña or for
carrying unmilled rice from Inarajan or Merizo at harvest time. He said the islanders
used small canoes or “galquides” [galaides] for fishing, but added, “they are so small,
they cannot be used for anything other than going between the reefs, and thus nobody
fishes beyond them.” He said that in 1863 there were only 24 of these small canoes and
concluded, “Consequently, we can say there is no navegation [sic] of any kind on the
island.”
Francisco Olive y García—1884-1887
Governor Francisco Olive y García’s notes (1984) pertain to the years 1884-1887.
The section of his report concerning fishing is almost item for item the same as de la
Corte’s. He described the same seasonal runs for mañåhak, ti’ao, and atulai, as well as
78
the fishing for hachuman. The similarity to de la Corte’s descriptions leads one to
conclude that Olive copied them from de la Corte.
Olive added that the hachuman fishing was still done on the island of Rota, saying
“we believe this is practiced only by an occasional person, especially on the island of
Rota” (Olive y García 1984:34).
Concerning turtles, Olive (1984:34) said, “There are turtles—but no tortoise
shell.”
SUMMARY
European contact with the Mariana Islands occurred with Magellan’s arrival in
1521, and Legazpi claimed the islands for Spain in 1565. However, it was not until more
than 100 years later that the Spanish colonized Guam in 1668. During the period
between European contact and colonization, the early explorers and first Spanish
residents marveled at the sailing, swimming, and fishing ability of the Chamorros.
Pigafetta in 1521 and Pobre in 1602 wrote about fishing for flying fish. Pobre
related Sancho’s story of how his Chamorro master used a flying fish as bait to hook a
marlin, then fought off a shark in order to land the marlin. Sancho said the fishermen
caught many mahimahi, billfishes, and other large fishes. There is no reason to doubt
that, because bones of mahimahi, marlin, and other pelagic fishes have been identified in
the pre-contact archaeological assemblages (see Chapter 2). Sancho concluded that the
islanders of the Marianas were the most skillful fishermen and sailors ever discovered.
Pelagic fishing during the Prehistoric Period and the first couple hundred years of
the Spanish Period depended on the flying proa, the large ocean-going sailing canoe. An
idea of the number of proas comes from the narrative of Legazpi’s voyage attributed to
Father Martín Rada. Rada reported that more than 400 proas surrounded Legazpi’s ships
anchored at Umatac, Guam in 1565. Rada also described a boathouse in the village of
Umatac that would hold 200 men.
However, soon after colonization in 1668, hostilities broke out, and the SpanishChamorro Wars continued for 25 years from 1670 to 1695. García’s history of the years
1668-1681 tells how the Spanish governors systematically burned Chamorro villages and
canoes and captured fugitives who escaped to other islands. Eventually the islanders
were relocated into villages on Guam to make them more accessible to the Spanish
government and priests.
Several foreign visitors, including Dampier in 1686 and Anson in 1742, described
the flying proas, and Anson said they “are so singular and extraordinary an invention that
it would do honor to any nation.” Crozet in 1772 was the last visitor to describe the proa,
but his description coincides so closely with Dampier’s that it appears to have been
copied. By the time of Freycinet’s visit in 1819 and D’Urville’s visit in 1828, the
Chamorros no longer built and sailed the flying proas, although Carolinians sailed similar
79
canoes. Anson may have been the last European visitor to see the flying proa in use. The
Spanish governors confirmed the lack of sea-going vessels by the mid-1700s. Apparently
the Chamorros no longer fished for pelagic fishes after that time.
Freycinet, who spent months on Guam in 1819, mentioned that formerly the
islanders fished for mahimahi. He appears to have been the first to describe fishing for
mañåhak and hachuman. De la Corte, who governed Guam from 1855 to 1866, did not
think anyone fished for hachuman in his day, but Olive, writing about the years 18841887, said that people on Rota still fished for hachuman. Olive was correct, because
Fritz and Hornbostel both reported that the poio was in use on Rota in the 20th century
(see Chapter 4). In fact, one of the fishermen interviewed on Rota, Estanislao Taisacan,
still uses the poio (see Chapter 5).
The Spanish Period writers documented a change in the use of turtle. Early
writers from the 16th century and beginning of the 17th century including Andrés de
Urdaneta, Fray Antonio de los Angeles, and Fray Juan Pobre de Zamora, told how the
islanders valued tortoise shell. Later in the 17th century, Brother Bustillo and Father
Sanvitores recorded that the islanders received tortoise shell from the Spanish. An
incident in Tinian in 1670 incorporated tortoise shell in a Roman Catholic ceremony.
The writers of the late 18th century and 19th century, including Crozet, Freycinet, de la
Corte, and Olive, indicated that turtles and tortoise shell had diminished in importance.
80
CHAPTER 4. TWENTIETH CENTURY
By Judith R. Amesbury
DIVERGING HISTORIES
Just prior to the beginning of the 20th century, Spain lost control of the Mariana
Islands. Guam was ceded to the U.S. in 1898 as a result of the Spanish-American War,
and in 1899 Germany purchased the Mariana Islands north of Guam (Fig. 15). The
histories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands continued to diverge as Japan
occupied the Northern Marianas for 30 years, while Guam was occupied by the Japanese
for less than three years during World War II. Both Guam and the Northern Marianas
have been part of the U.S. since 1944, but their governments were never reunited. At
present Guam is an unincorporated territory of the U.S., while the Northern Mariana
Islands are a commonwealth. This chapter covers the 20th century in Guam first, then the
20th century in the Northern Marianas.
Figure 15. Timelines of the Historic Period in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
Figure by Robert Amesbury.
81
FIRST AMERICAN PERIOD IN GUAM (1898-1941)
In December 1898, President William McKinley issued an executive order
placing Guam under the control of the Department of the Navy, and in 1899 the U.S.
Naval Government of Guam was established under Captain Richard P. Leary, the first
American governor of Guam. The First American Period in Guam lasted until December
1941 when the Japanese invaded Guam.
William Edwin Safford—1899-1900
William Edwin Safford was a U.S. Navy lieutenant who spent a year on Guam
from August 1899 to August 1900 as an aide to Governor Richard P. Leary. In 1902 he
resigned his commission in the Navy to become the assistant curator of the U.S.D.A.
Office of Tropical Agriculture (Carano and Sanchez 1964:189), and in 1905 he published
The Useful Plants of the Island of Guam. In both that work and his diary, excerpts of
which were published in the Guam Recorder from 1933 to 1936, Safford described
fishing on Guam.
The fishing method that Safford described in most detail was the use of the fruit
of Barringtonia asiatica (puting in Chamorro) to stupefy reef fish (Safford 1905:81-82).
This method had been forbidden by the Spanish government, because it kills many young
fishes, but it was revived under the American administration. Concerning other methods
of fishing, Safford wrote the following:
The natives do not now devote themselves to fishing so extensively as
formerly, yet many of them have cast nets with which they catch small fish
swimming in schools near the beach, and a few have traps and seines. To-day the
large pool in which the poison [Barringtonia] was sunk was surrounded by seines.
Among the fish we caught there were very few pelagic species. We got no
bonitos nor flying-fishes. The custom of trawling [trolling] for these is nearly
obsolete. In the olden times one of the favorite sports of the natives was to go out
under sail in their wonderful ‘flying praos’ [proas] trawling [trolling] for bonitos.
Wives accompanied their husbands and vied with them in managing the sails and
in swimming and diving (Safford 1910:238) [brackets added by Amesbury].
Safford (1905:83-89) provided a list of what he called the principal fishes of
Guam. He listed them by their Chamorro names but included the scientific names and
descriptions of the fishes. All the fishes listed can be found on the reef or in nearshore
waters, although flying fish (gahga) also occur around offshore banks and at least one
species of jack (tarakito) occurs in deep waters. Since Safford was a scientifically
trained and observant individual who spent an entire year on Guam, his failure to list any
offshore or deepwater fish species (with the possible exception of tarakito) is an
indication that these species were not being harvested on Guam at the time.
Safford (1905:90) wrote, “The natives eat many kinds of marine animals, but they
do not depend upon the reef to the extent that the Samoans and Caroline Islanders do,
82
having become essentially an agricultural people, and few of them find it to their
advantage to neglect their fields for fishing.”
Reports of the U.S. Naval Government of Guam—1901-1941
From 1901 through 1941, the U.S. Naval Government of Guam issued annual
reports. During the early years of the First American Period, almost no mention was
made of fishing in the reports. In 1904 (p. 2) Governor George L. Dyer wrote, “The
people are purely agricultural,” and in another place (p. 17), “The people are, almost
without exception, small farmers, raising only corn and sweet potatoes.” In 1905 (p. 16),
he said, “This is purely an agricultural community.”
The 1915 report (p. 18) showed that 505 pounds of preserved fish worth $45.10
had been exported to Manila in 1914. The 1918 report (p. 18) listed ten cases of fish
poisoning [ciguatera] under admissions to the hospital. The 1932 report (p. 54) listed one
case of the use of dynamite in fishing under criminal cases, and under criminal cases in
the 1933 report (p. 61), there were two cases of fishing in a restricted zone. During these
years, the Chamorro people were fishing, but apparently not for much more than their
own needs and not beyond the reef.
In 1934 (p. 10) Governor George A. Alexander wrote that a fishing school was
begun in October 1933 “to establish fishing beyond the reef.” He said, “Twelve men
from each village undergo a course of training for a period of 3 months. To prevent
accident all fishing instruction is given within view of a fishing lookout at Orote Point.
To give greater safety to such fishing parties are carried homing pigeons trained to bring
back messages as may be necessary.” Governor Alexander hoped that within a year or
two there would be a sufficient number of trained men with power boats and proper
fishing equipment to supply all the people of Guam with an abundance of fish.
In 1935 (p. 10), Governor Alexander reported on advances in the fishing industry.
A Fish Warden had been appointed who was successful in curtailing the forays of thieves
on fish weirs and traps. The Fishing School had been continued with 12 men from each
seaside village undergoing three months of training in offshore fishing methods. Fishing
inside the reef had improved over the year, but offshore fishing had not progressed due to
a lack of suitable boats. Steps had been taken to procure boats from the Navy, which
would be reconditioned and distributed to the seaside villages. Governor Alexander
added, “It is believed that when this plan is inaugurated off-shore fishing will be
developed to an extent that will justify any governmental expenditures involved. At the
present time this immense potential source of food supply lies practically untouched.”
The 1935 report (p. 74) showed that $24,344.63 worth of fish had been imported. This
exceeded the value of meat imported by nearly $9,000.
The 1936 (p. 26) and 1937 (p. 34) reports of Governor McCandlish contained the
very same information on the deep-sea fishing classes. The Fish Warden instructed 12
men at a time from seashore villages. To safeguard the boats, a lookout was maintained
83
at Orote Point. Each boat carried trained homing pigeons to carry messages in case of
danger. After 1937 there was no more mention of the fishing school.
In the remaining pre-war reports from 1938 to 1941, the fisheries section is
entitled only “Fishweirs” and is usually only one sentence about the number of licensed
fishweirs. The 1941 report listed fishing under labor performed by prisoners (p. 64) and
also under recreation of enlisted men (p. 137).
WORLD WAR II/JAPANESE PERIOD IN GUAM (1941-1944)
On December 8, 1941, the Japanese bombed Guam just a few hours after the
bombing of Pearl Harbor. On December 10, the Japanese invaded Guam and the
Governor of Guam, Captain George J. McMillan, USN, surrendered the island.
During the Japanese occupation, most Chamorros were engaged in subsistence
farming, but they were also fishing within the reef (Rogers 1995; Sanchez 1979, 1984).
Commerce was curtailed. The demand for meat exceeded the supply, and Japanese
personnel had priority in buying. Carano and Sanchez (1964) reported that a Japanese
tuna-fishing company came to Guam about the middle of the occupation, and the same
priority system prevailed. The Japanese were allowed to buy before the local people.
According to Higuchi (Appendix C of this report), two Japanese pole-and-line
bonito vessels from Saipan were sent to Guam. In 1942 and 1943, the vessels fished
southwest of Merizo, the southernmost village of Guam, and between Guam and Rota to
the north in order to support the Japanese military. Catches were disappointing due to
“an unfavorable period of migratory fish, and few schools of baitfish in the Guam and
Saipan areas” as well as “the influence of seasonal winds and rough waters” (Sanbo
Hanbu 1944 quoted in Higuchi—Appendix C). The vessels were later used to patrol
around Guam in case of attack by the U.S.
Particularly during the last six months of the Japanese occupation, food was
scarce, and the Chamorros were required to produce food for thousands of Japanese
troops sent to defend the island. Some local men were assigned to fish under Japanese
supervision (Amesbury et al 1986). As pressure increased to provision the Japanese
troops, the use of explosives to harvest fish on the reef increased. It is very unlikely that
there was any pelagic fishing done by the Chamorro people during the Japanese
occupation.
SECOND AMERICAN PERIOD IN GUAM (1944-PRESENT)
After the war, the U.S. Navy resumed governing Guam until 1949 when President
Truman transferred the administration of Guam from the Secretary of the Navy to the
Secretary of the Interior. From 1949 through 1970, Guam had civilian governors
appointed by the U.S. president. Since 1971, Guam has had popularly elected governors.
Governor Carlos Garcia Camacho was both the last presidentially appointed governor
and the first elected governor.
84
Reports of the U.S. Naval Government of Guam—1946-1950
After the war, the U.S. Naval Government of Guam issued monthly reports during
1946 and 1947 and quarterly reports for 1948 through 1950. These reports provide
information on the number of men deriving their living principally from fishing (Table
31). Although the reports do not give information on the race of the fishermen, for the
most part the naval governor’s reports are talking about the Chamorro people. When
they talk about a person who is not Chamorro, they frequently name the nationality or
race of the individual. Guamanian was the term used to refer to Chamorros at this time.
Table 31. Number of men on Guam deriving their living principally from fishing, 19461950. “Guamanian” is the word used to refer to Chamorros during this time period.
From the monthly and quarterly reports of the U.S. Naval Government of Guam.
Time Period
July 1946
August 1946
September 1946
October 1946
November 1946
December 1946
January 1947
February 1947
March 1947
April 1947
May 1947
Third Quarter 1948
Fourth Quarter 1948
Second Quarter 1950
Number of Men
Deriving Their
Living Principally
from Fishing
72
71
71
71
71
71
75
75
75
97
97
Up about 150 to 289
302
253 reduced to 211
Total Number of
Adult Guamanian
Males (age 16 & up)
5,844
5,862
5,871
5,870
5,880
5,903
5,907
6,014
6,469
Percentage of
Guamanians in
the Total Resident
Population
97.48
97.38
97.38
97.31
97.30
97.29
95.03
95.07
95.35
During the years 1946-1950, Guamanians made up approximately 95 to 97
percent of the resident population. Due to the large number of military personnel and
American and Filipino workers involved in the rebuilding of Guam, the non-resident
population exceeded the resident population for all the periods in which the number of
fishermen is known, but the non-residents would not have been engaged in fishing as an
occupation. The naval security clearance required to enter the island prevented anyone
from moving to Guam who was not employed, for example, by the U.S. military or civil
service or by construction companies contracted by the military and the dependents
thereof.
If we assume that the men deriving their living principally from fishing are
Chamorros or at least that the percentage of Chamorros among the fishermen is the same
as the percentage of Chamorros in the total resident population, between one and five
percent of adult Chamorro men were earning their living principally from fishing.
85
The post-war naval governors’ reports also provide information on the amount of
fish caught (Table 32). The reports distinguish between fish caught by traps and by other
methods, but they provide no information on what the other methods were or what
species of fish were harvested.
Table 32. Pounds of fish caught on Guam by year, month, and method, 1946-1950.
Non-fish marine food products are excluded. From the monthly and quarterly reports of
the U.S. Naval Government of Guam.
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Method
Traps
Other
Total
Traps
Other
Total
Traps
Other
Total
Traps
Other
Total
Traps
Other
Total
Traps
Other
Total
Traps
Other
Total
Traps
Other
Total
Traps
Other
Total
Traps
Other
Total
Traps
Other
Total
Traps
Other
Total
1946
37,386
5,277
35,610
40,887
1947
4,690
23,875
28,565
5,880
17,398
23,278
10,519
13,005
23,524
8,107
46,020
54,127
8,705
6,795
15,500
18,063
13,370
31,433
18,025
15,005
33,030
19,627
19,823
39,450
14,940
3,445
18,385
5,635
10,870
16,505
16,221
9,458
25,679
1948
16,835
2,800
19,635
11,538
800
12,338
16,820
240
17,060
10,324
46,290
56,614
8,885
6,372
15,257
15,352
11,611
26,963
36,100
28,895
64,995
92,417
35,340
127,757
34,802
395,979
430,781
39,723
43,663
83,386
37,442
42,243
79,685
25,984
30,009
55,993
1949
42,447
31,982
74,429
31,441
33,243
64,684
28,010
37,761
65,771
2,115
9,542
11,657
11,688
15,865
27,553
8,665
6,840
15,505
10,020
10,115
20,135
3,875
11,695
15,570
18,560
8,280
26,840
12,275
9,440
21,715
7,180
8,680
15,860
2,830
8,220
11,050
1950
3,400
4,190
7,590
5,880
6,810
12,690
5,700
6,660
12,360
6,150
6,950
13,100
5,500
23,950
29,450
5,600
7,060
12,660
The 1947 reports (June, p. 24; September, p. 23; October, p. 21; November, p. 29)
refer to two commercial fishermen equipped to do deep-sea fishing. However, these
reports invariably state that the fishermen were handicapped by a lack of qualified labor,
mechanical trouble, or rough seas.
86
Reports of the Presidentially Appointed Governors of Guam—1951-1970
The governors’ reports for the years 1951 through 1954 give the number of men
engaged in fishing (Table 33). This varied from 262 to 315. The total pounds of seafood
harvested in the years 1951 through 1955 varied from 375,000 to 691,000.
Table 33. Number of men engaged in fishing and pounds of fish, turtle, and shellfish
caught from 1951 through 1955. From the annual reports of the presidentially appointed
governors of Guam.
Year
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
Men Engaged
in Fishing
262
315
312
312
Fish Caught
by Traps
376,800
Fish Caught by
Other Methods
258,380
Turtle
Shellfish
Total
15,985
39,975
691,140
559,620
375,279
405,164
376,000
The reports for 1956 through 1970 give various breakdowns of the catch,
including shallow-water fish caught by weirs and shallow-water fish caught by other
methods; the seasonal fishes, mañåhak (juvenile rabbitfishes, Siganus spp.), ti’ao
(juvenile goatfishes, family Mullidae), mackerel (atulai or big-eye scad, Selar
crumenophthalmus), and i’e’ (juveniles of Caranx melampygus and other similar jacks);
tuna and trolling catch; turtle, shellfish, and crustaceans (Table 34). The year 1956 is the
first year in which tuna or trolling catch is listed separately, probably indicating that
pelagic species were not an important part of the catch until sometime in the 1950s.
According to the 1968 report, the estimated minimum number of man-days fishing is
10,000. This is the only report with information on effort. No statistics on fishing are
given for the years 1962, 1965, 1966, 1969, and 1970.
87
Table 34. Pounds of fish, turtle, shellfish, and crustaceans caught from 1956 through
1968. From the annual reports of the presidentially appointed governors of Guam.
Year
1956
Year
1957
1958
Year
Shallowwater
Fish
Caught
by
Weirs
128,865
Weirs
84,816
Weirs
1959
1960
Year
1961
Year
55,090
75,896
Weirs
92,085
Weirs
1963
1964
Year
102,200
1967
1968
Reef
Fish
51,000
Shallowwater
Fish
Caught
by Other
Methods
252,800
Other
Methods
229,000
218,900
Mañåhak
and
Ti’ao
47,500
Mañåhak
34,000
Tuna
Mañåhak
Mackerel
41,400
39,750
Mackerel
4,125
21,900
Mañåhak
17,778
4,000
12,450
Mackerel
156,960
Shellfish
26,570
10,988
Ti’ao
Trolling
Turtle
Crustacean
2,575
4,750
I’e’
6,400
16,300
13,700
Trolling
15,000
Trolling
5,790
7,101
Turtle
5,479
6,636
4,948
Crustacean
1,710
Surround
Net
15,000
86,000
Rabbit
Fish
22,000
Turtle
Mackerel
Trolling
61,000
114,000
9,250
Total
462,688*
Total
376,556**
Total
323,516
359,645
Total
295,412
Total
200,000*
573,000
Total
248,000
343,500
Mañåhak = juvenile rabbitfishes, Siganus spinus and S. argenteus
Ti’ao = juvenile goatfishes, family Mullidae
Mackerel = atulai or big-eye scad, Selar crumenophthalmus
I’e’ = the young of Caranx melampygus and other similar jacks
* The total given in the report is less than the sum of the parts.
** The total given is more than the sum of the parts.
Reports of the Guam Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources—1956-present,
Western Pacific Fishery Information Network—1981-present, and the Pelagics Plan
Team of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council—1987 to
present
The Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR, formerly the Division
of Fish and Wildlife) of the Guam Department of Agriculture has produced annual
reports since 1956. According to Gerry Davis, former Chief of the Division, there were
cursory efforts to collect data on fisheries beginning in the 1960s. However, the surveys
done the way they are now began in 1979 for boat-based fisheries and 1982 for coastal
fisheries.
The annual reports contain information on both offshore and inshore fishing.
Offshore fishing is broken down into five methods (trolling, bottomfishing, spearfishing,
atulai night-light jigging, and other methods). Data are collected by interviewing
88
returning fishing parties at the three major boat ramps on island: Hagåtña Boat Basin,
Agat Marina, and Merizo boat ramp. In 2007 Acfayan Bay ramp in Inarajan was added
to the monitoring program. Data are collected on weekdays and weekends and mornings
and evenings. Complete interviews include information on catch, participation, and
effort. Expansion algorithms are used to extrapolate the total catch, participation, effort,
and catch per unit effort. Composition of the catch for each method is reported by
species and weight.
Table 35 shows estimated annual effort and catch for trolling around Guam from
1963 through 1981. This table is derived from the data in DAWR reports.
Table 35. Estimated annual effort and catch for trolling around Guam from 1963 through
1981. From DAWR annual reports.
Fiscal
Year
Time Period Covered
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
7/1/62-6/30/63
7/1/63-6/30/64
7/1/64-6/30/65
7/1/65-6/30/66
7/1/66-6/30/67
7/1/67-6/30/68
7/1/68-6/30/69
7/1/69-6/30/70
7/1/70-6/30/71
7/1/71-6/30/72
7/1/72-6/30/73
7/1/73-6/30/74
7/1/74-6/30/75
7/1/75-12/31/76 *
1/1/77-6/30/77 **
7/1/77-6/30/78
7/1/78-9/30/79
10/1/79-9/30/80
10/1/80-9/30/81
Estimated Effort
Person
Boat
Hours
Hours
Estimated
Trolling Catch
(1000 pounds)
86.0
114.0
14,270
27,093
11,490
26,291
48,645
65,185.4
21,090
42,355
9,031
3,830
2,614
3,547
3,754
4,519
8,037
9,882
8,170
13,123.8
91.3
38.4
24.9
8.6
66.3
20.6
34.3
20.5
118.8
187.1
148.0
102.6
149.4
* annual estimates derived from 18 months of data
** estimated six month effort and catch
Table 36 shows the composition of the trolling catch of the five most common
species caught by trolling around Guam: skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis), mahimahi
(Coryphaena hippurus), marlin (Makaira nigricans), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)
and wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri). These data are derived from DAWR reports.
89
Table 36. Percentages of the estimated total trolling catch of the five most common
species caught by trolling around Guam from 1966 through 1981. From DAWR annual
reports.
Fiscal
Year
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
14 Year
Average
Time Period
Covered
7/1/65-6/30/66
7/1/66-6/30/67
7/1/67-6/30/68
7/1/68-6/30/69
7/1/69-6/30/70
7/1/70-6/30/71
7/1/71-6/30/72
7/1/72-6/30/73
7/1/73-6/30/74
7/1/74-6/30/75
7/1/75-12/31/76
1/1/77-6/30/77
7/1/77-6/30/78
7/1/78-9/30/79
10/1/79-9/30/80
10/1/80-9/30/81
Skipjack
Mahimahi
Marlin
Yellowfin
Wahoo
24.7
30.1
60.0
34.4
52.6
6.2
26.2
32.7
64.3
7.3
63.5
9.4
0.0
20.2
15.3
3.8
11.9
7.8
3.7
12.0
0.0
34.2
0.0
0.0
9.3
58.3
17.2
5.0
0.0
35.9
0.0
3.4
0.0
26.2
0.4
12.8
13.5
23.2
12.5
8.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.9
10.2
7.2
23.5
27.6
12.0
29.9
35.3
27.9
33.0
45.0
34.3
16.9
22.6
40.6
7.0
16.8
1.7
12.5
8.1
8.0
13.6
16.8
24.3
9.5
27.0
12.7
16.6
8.6
5.5
11.0
11.7
In 1981 the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) Southwest Fisheries
Science Center (SWFSC) started the Western Pacific Fishery Information Network
(WPacFIN) to work cooperatively with the Pacific islands fisheries agencies to collect
and disseminate fisheries statistics. These statistics are available through the WPacFIN
web site and the administrative reports produced by the Honolulu Laboratory, SWFSC.
Beginning in 1987, the Pelagics Plan Team and staff of the Western Pacific
Regional Fishery Management Council have produced reports to the Council on the
pelagic fisheries of the Western Pacific region based on the statistics produced by the
island agencies and WPacFIN. Pelagics Plan Team reports use the Guam data from 1982
on.
Table 37 shows the estimated total landings of the five most abundant pelagic
species from 1982 through 2006. These include non-charter and charter landings. These
data are from the 2006 Annual Report of the Pelagics Plan Team.
90
Table 37. Estimated total landings of pelagic fishes by 1000 pounds in Guam, 19822006. From Pelagics Plan Team and Council Staff (2007).
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
25 Year
Average
Percent
of Five
Species
Mahimahi
112.2
156.3
26.1
72.7
102.9
80.3
338.4
96.0
140.3
416.1
87.6
235.0
138.0
327.4
327.6
265.2
265.4
162.2
85.6
183.0
172.3
84.1
194.8
107.2
162.5
173.6
31.1
Skipjack
126.7
97.8
218.6
107.8
77.7
62.3
213.5
128.1
149.3
118.8
123.8
109.6
188.8
178.6
238.4
219.2
202.5
123.7
267.5
331.5
175.5
183.2
167.6
99.4
146.7
162.3
29.1
Wahoo
55.9
86.5
53.8
130.3
69.6
87.0
99.1
127.2
85.3
56.0
82.2
62.6
50.5
77.4
146.9
65.0
158.5
76.5
70.5
119.6
71.7
63.9
119.9
43.9
105.9
86.6
Yellowfin
112.7
66.0
68.0
93.0
55.6
41.8
85.8
40.4
72.3
44.1
133.4
50.4
71.2
93.4
107.0
90.2
137.7
128.0
76.6
57.9
44.8
70.2
104.5
24.9
28.0
75.9
15.5
13.6
Blue Marlin
21.8
30.4
49.7
54.3
57.1
50.0
61.6
86.2
94.8
87.8
84.4
58.0
76.6
76.7
64.5
90.8
43.9
80.8
86.6
33.2
53.5
67.0
38.8
9.2
29.2
59.5
10.7
The Pelagics Plan Team reports include information on effort, including estimated
number of trolling boats, estimated number of trolling trips, estimated number of trolling
hours, estimated trip length, and catch per unit effort (CPUE) in terms of pounds per
hour. Table 38 shows the catch rates from 1982 through 2006.
The Pelagics Plan Team reports also include economic data including average
price per pound of pelagic species, annual consumer price indexes (CPI) and CPI
adjustment factors, inflation-adjusted commercial revenues, annual estimated inflationadjusted average prices, and annual estimated inflation-adjusted revenue per trolling trip.
Pelagic fishing is seasonal with mahimahi and wahoo caught during the winter
months, while skipjack, yellowfin, and marlin are most abundant during the summer
months. Table 39 shows the average of 26 years of monthly estimated commercial
landings. These data are from the WPacFIN web site.
91
Table 38. Trolling catch rates (pounds/hour) for Guam, 1982-2006. From Pelagics Plan
Team and Council Staff (2007).
Year
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
25 Year
Average
Standard
Deviation
Mahimahi
3.8
4.9
0.9
2.0
2.7
2.3
5.7
1.9
2.9
9.4
2.0
5.4
3.0
5.7
5.0
4.6
4.2
2.8
1.6
3.2
4.2
2.6
5.6
4.1
5.6
3.8
Skipjack
4.3
3.1
7.5
2.9
2.0
1.8
3.6
2.5
3.1
2.7
2.8
2.5
4.1
3.1
3.7
3.8
3.2
2.1
5.0
5.8
4.3
5.7
4.8
3.8
5.0
3.7
Wahoo
1.9
2.8
1.9
3.5
1.8
2.5
1.7
2.5
1.8
1.3
1.9
1.4
1.1
1.3
2.3
1.1
2.5
1.3
1.3
2.1
1.7
2.0
3.5
1.7
3.6
2.0
Yellowfin
3.8
2.2
2.3
2.5
1.4
1.2
1.5
0.8
1.5
1.0
3.0
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.4
1.0
1.1
2.2
3.0
0.9
0.9
1.7
1.9
1.4
0.7
0.8
Blue Marlin
0.7
1.0
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.0
1.7
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.3
1.7
1.3
1.0
1.6
0.7
1.4
1.6
0.6
1.3
2.1
1.1
0.4
1.0
1.3
0.5
Table 39. Average monthly estimated commercial landings of pelagic fishes by 1000
pounds in Guam, 1980-2005. From WPacFIN web site.
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Mahimahi
12.87
18.33
20.93
13.86
4.91
0.85
0.26
0.21
0.33
2.03
3.35
5.79
Skipjack
2.80
2.59
3.49
5.32
7.94
6.59
6.30
4.74
4.27
3.25
2.75
1.87
Wahoo
3.88
4.80
6.78
5.06
1.87
0.99
1.23
2.02
2.72
3.54
9.52
5.84
92
Yellowfin
2.88
2.21
2.62
3.48
4.43
4.98
5.08
3.71
3.37
3.03
2.38
2.15
Marlin
0.64
0.66
0.77
2.27
4.19
6.38
8.15
5.67
4.53
4.22
1.46
0.93
The DAWR data prior to 1982 are less reliable than the data from 1982 on.
Nevertheless it appears that there was a change in the relative abundance of skipjack tuna
and mahimahi caught around Guam prior to 1982 and from 1982 on. In 11 of the 14
years for which there are data from 1963 through 1981 (Table 36), more skipjack was
caught than mahimahi. Mahimahi was more abundant than skipjack in only three of the
14 years. In 1982, Amesbury and Myers (1982:119) reported “The Skipjack Tuna is
harvested in greater quantities than any other fish on Guam (except in years of
exceptionally large Mahimahi runs).”
However in 14 of the next 25 years from 1982 through 2006 (Table 37), more
mahimahi was caught than skipjack. This may be related to the increased use of FADs
for fishing for mahimahi and also to the lower price and shorter shelf life of skipjack
compared with mahimahi. See the interview with Guam fisherman, Peter Plummer, in
Chapter 5.
Secretariat of the Pacific Community Oceanic Fisheries Programme—1981-present
The Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP) of the Secretariat of the Pacific
Community (SPC) collects, compiles, and disseminates catch and effort data on the poleand-line, purse seine, and longline fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific. Public
domain data on these fisheries can be downloaded from the SPC web site. This report
will not cover purse seining and longlining, as the data from those most recent methods
of fishing have been available to fisheries scientists for some time. However, we will
cover pole-and-line fishing in order to follow through with the pre-war pole-and-line
fishery data from the Northern Marianas (below). The SPC data are grouped by fivedegree squares of latitude and longitude. Table 40 shows the annual pole-and-line
catches made by foreign vessels, mostly Japanese, in the vicinity of Guam from 10°-15°
N and 140°-150° E.
93
Table 40. Annual catches of skipjack and yellowfin tuna made by foreign vessels doing
pole-and-line fishing in the vicinity of Guam (10°-15° N, 140°-150° E). Public domain
data from SPC web site.
Year
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
34 Year
Average
Skipjack
(mt)
585.6
Skipjack
(1000 lbs)
1,291.0
Yellowfin
(mt)
4.1
Yellowfin
(1000 lbs)
9.0
756.8
198.1
1,706.3
193.4
3,858.3
1,753.1
5,214.1
1,273.8
588.7
910.8
2,011.9
199.0
279.8
3,739.9
9,126.3
840.4
205.1
3,307.1
1,138.6
282.0
3,225.0
2,295.1
2,919.1
318.5
178.0
867.8
7.0
562.0
553.1
2,793.8
874.0
433.8
3,553.2
1,669.1
1,668.5
436.7
3,761.7
426.4
8,506.1
3,864.9
11,495.1
2,808.2
1,297.9
2,008.0
4,435.5
438.7
616.9
8,245.1
20,120.0
1,852.8
452.2
7,290.9
2,510.2
621.7
7,109.9
5,059.8
6,435.5
702.2
392.4
1,913.2
15.4
1,239.0
1,219.4
6,159.3
1,926.8
956.4
7,833.5
3,679.7
8.9
0.9
1.1
2.9
3.4
14.3
6.6
3.5
3.3
4.4
18.3
15.2
12.6
38.8
23.9
17.8
5.4
14.8
11.0
0.0
18.2
15.2
57.9
3.7
3.6
13.6
0.0
2.8
1.0
4.3
2.0
1.2
5.5
10.0
19.6
2.0
2.4
6.4
7.5
31.5
14.6
7.7
7.3
9.7
40.3
33.5
27.8
85.5
52.7
39.2
11.9
32.6
24.3
0.0
40.1
33.5
127.6
8.2
7.9
30.0
0.0
6.2
2.2
9.5
4.4
2.6
12.1
22.0
94
GERMAN PERIOD IN THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS (1989-1914)
The Northern Mariana Islands were purchased by Germany in 1899 and remained
in German hands until 1914 when the Japanese took the islands.
Georg Fritz—1899-1907
Georg Fritz spent eight years on Saipan as the District Officer of the German
Mariana Islands from 1899 to 1907. In addition to acting as a capable administrator,
Fritz wrote a history and ethnography of the Chamorro people entitled Die Chamorro,
which was published in 1904 in the German journal Ethnologisches Notizblatt. The
English translation by Elfriede Craddock (Fritz 2001) affords us a look at the customs of
the turn-of-the-century Chamorros and, to a lesser extent, the Carolinians of the Northern
Marianas.
Concerning fishing, Fritz (2001:68) wrote,
Naturally, fishing provides the main source of food for the island
inhabitants. However, fishing takes place only inside the reef. Only the
Carolinians sometimes go on the high seas to visit Aguiguan 25 sea miles away
from Saipan, and dive for trepang (balate) which they sell to the Japanese. They
also catch turtle (haggan) and utilize weir traps inside the reef, a fishing technique
not practiced by the Chamorros.
Although Fritz said that the Carolinians went to Aguiguan (or Aguijan on Fig. 1),
he doesn’t say they engaged in pelagic fishing. By Fritz’s time, the Chamorros no longer
built or sailed the flying proas. Fritz (2001:73-74) wrote,
With the demise of the brave [Chamorro] nation, these ocean craft
disappeared. Only the Carolinians who migrated to the Marianas in the 19th
century, whose canoes and sails had the same form and construction as the canoes
from the Marianas, resumed the traffic among Guam, Rota, Tinian and Saipan.
[These voyages were stopped as a result of Spanish] government policy because
of a few accidents. The last sagman is supposed to have arrived in Guam from
Saipan in 1892.
According to Freycinet (2003:178), sagman is the Chamorro word for the largest
proas. Fritz did not state clearly whether the last sagman to sail from Guam to Saipan in
1892 was sailed by Chamorros or Carolinians, but it appears that he meant it was sailed
by Carolinians. He said the Chamorros’ ocean-going craft disappeared with the demise of
their nation, which took place as a result of Spanish conquest in 1695, and that the
Carolinians resumed the inter-island traffic in the 1800s. Fritz (2001:74) said, “The
Chamorros now use - solely for fishing within the reef - outrigger canoes made of dugdug
[seeded breadfruit, Artocarpus mariannensis] or lemai [seedless breadfruit, Artocarpus
altilis]. They are from three to six meters in length and are called galaide.” (English
names and species names of breadfruit added by Amesbury).
95
Fritz described the use of nets and other methods of reef fishing, including the use
of fish poison from the fruit of a tree, also described by Safford (1905) in Guam at about
the same time period (above).
Fritz wrote that two ancient types of fishing, both of which had been described by
Freycinet (1824), had been preserved on Rota. These were the use of the hemispherical
stone and half coconut shell in fishing for hachuman (Decapterus sp. or opelu in
Hawai’i), and the use of a lure fish in fishing for parrotfish.
Fritz (2001:71) used the term atcho poco for the stone and guiguas for the half
coconut shell. He added two details not previously mentioned by Freycinet (1824). The
coconut shell was fastened to the stone with gum from the sap of the breadfruit tree.
After attracting the fish with ground coconut meat (mahan), the fisherman might catch
the fish with hook and line, as well as with the net described by Freycinet.
JAPANESE PERIOD IN THE NORTHERN MARIANAS (1914-1944/45)
Japan controlled the Northern Marianas beginning in 1914. Saipan and Tinian
were taken by the U.S. in 1944, but Rota continued to be occupied by the Japanese until
the end of World War II in 1945.
Beginning in the 1920s and ending in 1944, the Japanese operated a pole-and-line
fishery for skipjack and yellowfin tuna out of Saipan. This was the first large scale
commercial fishery in the Marianas. With PFRP funding for the present project, MARS
sent Wakako Higuchi, a Japanese-speaking Research Associate of the Micronesian Area
Research Center, University of Guam, to Japan to research documents there. Her detailed
report on the Japanese fisheries in Micronesia is included as Appendix C of this report
and has now been published in Immigration Studies the journal of the Center for
Migration Studies, University of the Ryukyus, Nishihara, Okinawa (Higuchi 2007).
In addition to Higuchi’s report, there are reports in English to the League of
Nations from the South Seas Bureau.
Reports to the League of Nations—1920s and 1930s
During most years of the 1920s and some years of the 1930s, the South Seas
Bureau produced an Annual Report to the League of Nations on the Administration of the
South Sea Islands under Japanese Mandate. The islands under Japanese mandate
included the Northern Marianas, the Carolines, and the Marshalls. All of the reports
contain information about fishing; however, only the reports made during the 1920s have
the information divided by island. The reports made during the 1930s give statistics on
fishing for all the Japanese mandated islands combined.
Table 41 presents information from the reports to the League of Nations on the
quantity and value of fish caught off Saipan during the 1920s. By 1926, tuna (bonito and
tunny) accounted for more than 90 percent of the total quantity and value of fish caught.
96
Table 41. Quantity and value of marine products from the Saipan District during the
1920s. Quantity is given in kilograms for every year except 1923 when it is given in
Kwan. Value is given in Yen. From the Annual Reports to the League of Nations on the
Administration of the South Sea Islands under Japanese Mandate.
Fishes
Bonito (1)
Tunny (2)
Horse
Mackerel (3)
Mackerel (4)
Gray Mullet
(5)
Shark (6)
Other
Mackerel-like
Sawara (7)
Total
Fishes
Other Marine
Products
Sea slugs
Green turtles
Other
Manufactured
Products
Dried sea slugs
Dried bonito
Dried tunny
Shark fins
Other
Total Value
Quantity
Value
Quantity
Value
Quantity
Value
Quantity
Value
Quantity
Value
Quantity
Value
Quantity
Value
Quantity
Value
Quantity
Value
Quantity
Value
Quantity
Value
Quantity
Value
Quantity
Value
1923
750
2,250
334
888
495
990
5
14
76
152
26
26
3,560
5,357
1925
14,805
6,348
1,402
749
2,610
1,392
787
210
127
46
1,023
273
352
234
386
228
5,246
9,677
1923
13,139
7,997
1924
21,140
9,246
1925
2,500
750
15
375
171,281
4,586
---2,612
1924
26,451
964
(#) 125
1,595
21,918
6,935
1925
35,460
16,420
855
2,508
2,967
2,798
484
1,292
364
364
75
150
1923
Quantity
Value
Quantity
Value
Quantity
Value
Quantity
Value
Quantity
Value
1924
9,097
6,065
1,537
1,025
570
304
45
30
16
15
1,522
324
320
760
11,562
34,487
22,980
1926
44,843
17,937
2,314
1,235
1,481
665
690
369
150
80
2,348
313
94
51
51,920
20,650
1926
(#) 78
780
24,008
6,387
1926
3,293
8,780
19
50
188
375
37,022
1927
1928
1929
34,377
13,167
1927
25,417
21,029
1928
46,417
16,833
1929
8,310
279
33,000
2,426
75,870
1,821
---5,971
1927
---1,036
1928
---975
1929
1,965
1,598
1,976
5,270
11,610
9,288
885
2,360
8,820
4,704
---190
26,475
36,139
24,333
1. Bonito = skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis); 2. Tunny = probably yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares);
3. Horse Mackerel = scad mackerel or muroaji (Decapterus muroadsi), round mackerel or maruaji
(Decapterus maruadsi), and jack mackerel or maaji (Trachurus japonicus) (Anon. 1977); 4. Mackerel =
Japanese mackerel or masaba (Scomber japonicus) and spotted mackerel or gomasaba (Scomber
tapeinocephalus) (Anon. 1977); 5. Mullet = family Mugilidae; 6. Shark = more than one family;
7. Sawara = Scomberomorus niphonius (Masuda et al. 1984).
97
From Appendix C: Pre-war Japanese Fisheries in Micronesia by Wakako Higuchi
Table 42 shows the Japanese pole-and-line catch of bonito (skipjack tuna) and
tuna (probably yellowfin tuna) from Saipan District for the years 1922 through 1941.
Higuchi refers to the years 1922-1931 as the “Experimental Period,” and the years 19311941 as the “Rise of Fishing Industries." The bonito catch peaked in 1937 at over eight
million pounds. Tuna peaked in 1936 at over 330,000 pounds.
Table 42. Bonito (skipjack tuna) and tuna (probably yellowfin tuna) from Saipan
District, 1922 through 1941. Based on Tables 5 and 6 of Appendix C by Higuchi.
Year
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
Average
Bonito
(mt)
2.4
2.8
9.1
14.8
44.8
28.1
26.5
24.7
258.0
564.3
1,309.7
1,762.3
2,516.0
1,786.0
1,696.0
3,697.3
2,592.0
1,297.4
3,379.0
1,297.4
1,115.4
Bonito
(1000 pounds)
5.2
6.2
20.1
32.6
98.9
62.0
58.4
54.4
568.8
1,244.0
2,887.4
3,885.2
5,546.8
3,937.4
3,739.1
8,151.1
5,714.4
2,860.2
7,449.5
2,860.2
2,459.1
Tuna
(mt)
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.4
2.3
2.9
1.3
0.6
4.5
16.7
48.2
9.6
27.3
42.9
151.0
88.9
33.9
not available
84.5
33.7
29.1
Tuna
(1000 pounds)
2.9
2.8
3.4
3.1
5.1
6.4
2.8
1.2
10.0
36.9
106.4
21.1
60.2
94.6
332.9
195.9
74.8
not available
186.3
74.2
64.3
For the most part, the statistics from the Annual Reports to the League of Nations
on the Administration of the South Sea Islands under Japanese Mandate (Table 41
above) correspond with the statistics Higuchi obtained from Japan (Table 42 above and
Appendix C). There are occasional discrepancies. For example, the 1929 League of
Nations report shows 885 kg of dried bonito in 1928 (Table 41 above), while Higuchi’s
tables (Appendix C, Tables 4 and 5) show 2,235 kg of dried bonito in 1928.
Certain differences in the numbers within Higuchi’s report appear to be due to the
difficulty of distinguishing between the numerals 3 and 8. For example, Higuchi’s Table
3 (Appendix C) shows 14,305 kg of bonito from Saipan in 1925, but her Table 5
(Appendix C) shows 14,805 kg for that year.
98
The Japanese pole-and-line fishery employed Japanese and Okinawan people.
According to Bowers (2001:189), “No natives were employed in the industry, neither on
the boats nor in processing plants, and native fishing continued in its traditional function
of providing day-by-day food supply.” The local people were involved in reef fishing for
subsistence. However Alfonso C. Reyes, who was born on Saipan in 1924 and
interviewed there in 2005, was quite clear in stating that some local people were
employed by the Japanese in the tuna fishery (see Chapter 5).
Hans G. Hornbostel—1931
In an article published in the Guam Recorder in 1931, Hans G. Hornbostel
confirmed that the fishing stone, the poio, originally described by Freycinet (1824:436),
was still in use on Rota. Hornbostel’s description of hachuman fishing varied little from
Freycinet’s. Hornobstel’s article verifies Fritz’s (2001) statement that this ancient type of
fishing was preserved on Rota.
AMERICAN PERIOD IN THE NORTHERN MARIANAS (1944-PRESENT)
From 1944 to 1947, the U.S. Naval Military Government administered the
Northern Marianas. From 1947 to 1976, the Northern Marianas was part of the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands. In 1975 the voters of the Northern Marianas chose to
join the U.S. as a commonwealth (U.S. Government 1975:6), and in March 1976 the U.S.
Congress and the President approved the Marianas Commonwealth Covenant (U.S.
Government 1976:7, 20). The government of the Northern Mariana Islands was
separated administratively from the Trust Territory government effective April 1, 1976
(U.S. Government 1977:1, 14), and the new Northern Marianas Commonwealth
government was installed January 9, 1978 as Dr. Carlos S. Camacho took office as the
first governor of the CNMI (U.S. Government 1978:5).
Neal M. Bowers and Rohma Bowers—1947-1948
Alexander Spoehr—1949-1950
Shortly after the war, three American scholars resided in Saipan for nearly a year
each and wrote about the problems encountered at the end of the war. Neal Bowers and
his wife Rohma were geographers affiliated with the University of Michigan, whose
work of investigating the problems of re-establishing the economy of the Northern
Mariana Islands after the war was part of the Coordinated Investigation of Micronesian
Anthropology (CIMA), a research program administered by the Pacific Science Board of
the National Research Council. The Bowers arrived in Saipan in July 1947 and remained
for ten months. Bowers’ research resulted in his Ph.D. dissertation. Problems of
Resettlement on Saipan, Tinian and Rota, Mariana Islands was first published in 1950
and republished by the CNMI Division of Historic Preservation in 2001.
Alexander Spoehr, an anthropologist with the Chicago Natural History Museum,
was on Saipan from November 1949 to October 1950 doing both archaeology and
ethnology. His study of the indigenous Chamorro and Carolinian cultures, Saipan, the
99
Ethnology of a War-Devastated Island, was first published in 1954 as Volume 41 of
Fieldiana: Anthropology. It was republished by the CNMI Division of Historic
Preservation in 2000. Both Bowers and Spoehr wrote about fishing immediately after the
war.
Toward the end of the war, the Japanese fishing boats were unable to leave Saipan
lagoon due to American submarines. At that time they fished inside the lagoon using
dynamite (Bowers 2001:30). The end of the war in Saipan was also the end of the
Japanese fishing industry. “American attack on the islands completely wrecked the
Japanese fishing industry. All shore installations were destroyed and the boats either
sunk in the harbor or beached and destroyed by fire” (Bowers 2001:189).
Soon after the end of hostilities, the sunken hulls were raised from the lagoon and
reconstructed by Japanese and Okinawan carpenters, prior to the removal of Japanese
nationals early in 1946 (Bowers 2001:189, 65). American diesel engines replaced the
Japanese engines, which made the boats faster and more easily repaired with American
parts. Four boats were restored for use in Saipan and Tinian.
A fishing base was established at Garapan, Saipan, and another on Tinian in the
embayment north of the harbor (later the site of the Trust Territory Leprosarium shown
on the 1983 USGS map). In addition to offshore fishing, a seine crew operated in Saipan
lagoon. The fish caught were distributed to the interned civilians. The base on Tinian
was abandoned when the island was left uninhabited by the repatriation of the Japanese
nationals (Bowers 2001:189).
After the repatriation of the Japanese, a cooperative of indigenous fishermen was
formed on Saipan to engage in commercial fishing. The Saipan Fishing Company was
the larger of two indigenous commercial fishing operations in the Trust Territory. The
other was in Truk (Bowers 2001:242). A small group of Carolinian men who were
employed as policemen started the Saipan Fishing Company and provided the capital.
Shareholders increased to 173 people. Only a half dozen were Chamorro; most were
Carolinian (Spoehr 2000:129).
Post-war production of the commercial fishing industry was greatly reduced from
the pre-war Japanese production. More than 4,000 tons of bonito were harvested in 1937,
compared with fewer than 100 tons in 1948 (Table 43). Spoehr (2000:129) reported that
by 1950 the Saipan Fishing Company was on the verge of bankruptcy. Only twelve tons
of fish had been caught in the first nine months of 1950, and more than two tons had been
lost to spoilage.
100
Table 43. Pre-war and post-war production of the commercial fishing industry, Saipan
District. From Bowers (2001:191).
Marine Products
Fish
Bonito
Tuna
Mackerel
Mullet
Shark
Other fish
Total Fish
Other Marine Products
Trepang
Trochus
Turtle
Lobster
Total Other Marine
Products
Grand Total
1937 (tons)
4,075.64
97.99
15.98
.22
6.39
168.98
4,365.20
24.34
1948 (tons)
89.45
24.34
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.44
0.47
4,389.54
89.92
Spoehr (2000:129-130) cited four factors in the demise of the Saipan Fishing
Company. The fishermen were more familiar with reef and lagoon fishing than deep-sea
fishing for bonito and tuna. Maintenance of the fishing boats was a problem.
Management of the commercial venture was lacking. There were difficulties in
transporting the fish to market in Guam and in marketing the fish there.
Two men, Rafael Rangamar and Lino Olopai, whose fathers were part of the
Saipan Fishing Company, were interviewed on Saipan in 2005 (see Chapter 5).
Reports of the CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife—1978-present, Western Pacific
Fishery Information Network—1981-present, and the Pelagics Plan Team of the
Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council—1987 to present
The CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) distributes and collects invoice
books from participating fish purchasers on Saipan. In this way approximately 90
percent of the commercial landings are recorded. The data collection system has been in
operation on Saipan since the mid-1970s, but only the data from 1983 on are considered
accurate. Tinian and Rota are in the process of establishing similar data collection
systems. Table 44 shows commercial landings of pelagic fishes on Saipan from 1983
through 2006.
101
Table 44. Total commercial landings of pelagic fishes by 1000 Pounds in Saipan, 19832006. From Pelagics Plan Team and Council Staff (2007).
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
24 Year
Average
Percent
of Five
Species
Skipjack
Yellowfin
Mahimahi
Wahoo
183.4
290.8
177.3
254.4
161.5
266.5
257.7
148.0
115.8
82.3
97.3
92.2
131.4
165.0
133.4
167.1
106.3
140.4
133.8
180.0
171.6
148.3
260.6
265.8
172.1
21.3
19.6
12.5
16.9
10.5
15.4
10.1
10.5
13.0
25.7
14.9
13.4
20.9
38.0
21.4
14.6
24.4
17.7
14.5
30.0
26.0
27.5
52.0
42.0
21.4
13.9
7.6
13.0
17.8
9.5
30.8
7.3
10.4
33.8
26.3
37.5
15.1
23.3
35.7
31.3
25.4
12.9
7.3
14.2
18.0
7.4
35.8
26.9
17.2
19.9
8.8
14.1
18.3
9.1
13.4
11.7
1.6
3.5
1.5
17.2
2.8
3.9
5.7
10.8
7.6
6.3
8.1
4.1
4.6
8.2
8.0
6.9
3.3
3.1
7.6
Blue
Marlin
3.8
1.5
1.9
2.7
2.5
1.3
5.7
2.0
1.6
6.6
3.7
2.6
6.6
8.6
7.1
4.2
3.5
3.6
1.9
1.3
1.1
2.0
1.6
1.4
3.3
76.7
9.5
8.9
3.4
1.5
The Pelagics Plan Team reports contain information on effort, including number
of fishermen landing pelagic species, number of trips catching any pelagic fish, and the
trolling catch rate in terms of pounds per trip. For skipjack tuna, there are catch rates
based on the commercial invoices and based on creel survey. Table 45 shows catch rates
from 1983 through 2006.
The Pelagics Plan Team reports also contain economic data including the value of
commercial landings and average price per pound by species, annual consumer price
indexes (CPI) and CPI adjustment factors, annual inflation-adjusted average price per
pound, annual inflation-adjusted commercial revenues, and annual inflation-adjusted
revenues per trip.
102
Table 45. Trolling catch rates (pounds/trip) for Saipan, 1983-2006, based on commercial
invoices, except where specified as creel survey data. From Pelagics Plan Team and
Council Staff (2007).
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Average
Standard
Deviation
Skipjack
104
144
114
150
130
164
166
133
93
46
57
61
61
59
52
60
48
54
49
78
80
45
72
102
88
40
Skipjack
Creel Survey
49
112
104
51
60
106
110
62
68
95
123
104
134
106
101
113
94
27
Yellowfin
Mahimahi
Wahoo
12
10
8
10
8
9
7
9
10
14
9
9
10
14
8
5
11
7
5
13
12
8
14
16
10
3
7.92
3.76
8.36
10.50
7.66
18.98
4.71
9.40
27.03
14.80
21.89
9.89
10.84
12.68
12.25
9.13
5.86
2.80
5.23
7.87
3.43
10.94
7.43
6.58
10.00
5.85
4.98
6.95
11.77
5.35
10.81
7.21
1.01
3.12
1.22
9.68
1.62
2.54
2.66
3.84
2.97
2.27
3.67
1.56
1.67
3.58
3.71
2.12
0.93
1.19
4.02
3.12
Blue
Marlin
2.15
0.76
1.20
1.57
1.98
0.81
3.67
1.83
1.26
3.72
2.15
1.73
3.08
3.06
2.77
1.51
1.61
1.38
0.71
0.55
0.53
0.61
0.44
0.54
1.65
1.01
Table 46 shows the average of 25 years of monthly estimated commercial
landings. These data are from the WPacFIN web site. Skipjack is abundant year round,
but is most abundant in April through August. Mahimahi is highly seasonal and caught
during the first four months of the year, especially February and March. Yellowfin is
most abundant June through October. Wahoo is most abundant in March and April.
Billfish are most abundant May through October.
103
Table 46. Average monthly estimated commercial landings of pelagic fishes by 1000
pounds in Saipan, 1981-2005. From WPacFIN web site.
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Skipjack
9.24
8.84
13.54
16.29
16.65
16.11
15.00
14.93
13.59
12.71
11.31
10.01
Mahimahi
3.22
4.99
4.98
2.79
1.02
0.21
0.08
0.12
0.05
0.22
0.38
1.14
Yellowfin
1.56
1.24
1.41
1.41
1.50
1.72
1.76
1.76
1.87
1.82
1.53
1.61
Wahoo
0.59
0.69
1.27
1.31
0.50
0.23
0.21
0.25
0.46
1.02
0.73
0.50
Billfish
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.11
0.33
0.50
0.47
0.49
0.38
0.44
0.22
0.15
Secretariat of the Pacific Community Oceanic Fisheries Programme—1981-present
Public domain data on the pole-and-line fishery for skipjack and yellowfin tuna in
the vicinity of the Northern Mariana Islands was downloaded from the SPC web site.
Table 47 shows the annual pole-and-line catches made by foreign vessels, mostly
Japanese, in the vicinity of the CNMI from 15°-25° N and 140°-150° E.
SUMMARY
At the start of the 20th century, there was virtually no pelagic fishing in the
Marianas. There had been little or none since the mid-1700s. During the 1800s, it was
only the Carolinians that had ocean-going canoes. Just after the start of the 20th century,
Fritz mentioned that Carolinians from Saipan sometimes sailed to Aguijan to dive for
balate or trepang (sea cucumbers). They also caught turtles, but if they caught pelagic
fishes, Fritz didn’t mention it.
Japan took control of the Northern Marianas in 1914, and beginning in the 1920s
they developed the first commercial fishery in the Marianas. This was a pole-and-line
fishery for skipjack and yellowfin tuna employing mostly Okinawans and Japanese. The
skipjack catch peaked at over eight million pounds in 1937.
At the same time in Guam (1933-1937), the U.S. Navy conducted a fishing school
for Chamorro men. For safety’s sake, instruction took place within view of a fishing
lookout at Orote Point, and each boat carried trained homing pigeons to carry messages
in case of emergency. Off shore fishing did not develop in Guam at that time due to a
lack of boats.
World War II and the U.S. capture of Saipan in 1944 put an end to the Japanese
pole-and-line fishery in Saipan. From 1946 to 1950, a cooperative of Carolinian men
known as the Saipan Fishing Company tried to revive the fishery. Their total fish catch
in 1948 was less than 100 tons.
104
Table 47. Annual catches of skipjack and yellowfin tuna made by foreign vessels doing
pole-and-line fishing in the vicinity of the Northern Mariana Islands (15°-25° N, 140°150° E). Public domain data from the SPC web site.
Year
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
34 Year
Average
Skipjack
(mt)
6,652.1
7,415.3
4,872.5
6,022.4
3,106.0
3,135.2
4,399.1
6,236.6
5,245.8
6,980.6
7,550.5
6,931.6
17,568.6
4,978.5
3,813.3
5,706.6
4,834.4
6,216.1
6,451.4
3,569.0
3,645.7
5,276.6
3,281.1
4,322.1
2,103.8
802.7
2,108.8
236.5
560.7
932.2
1,773.4
4,666.7
931.5
900.3
4,506.7
Skipjack
(1000 lbs)
14,665.4
16,347.9
10,742.0
13,277.1
6,847.6
6,911.9
9,698.4
13,749.3
11,565.0
15,389.6
16,646.0
15,281.6
38,732.1
10,975.7
8,406.9
12,580.9
10,658.0
13,704.2
14,222.9
7,868.3
8,073.4
11,632.9
7,233.6
9,528.6
4,638.1
1,769.7
4,649.1
521.4
1,236.1
2,055.1
3,909.7
10,288.3
2,053.6
1,984.8
9,936.6
Yellowfin
(mt)
76.5
345.5
329.8
273.3
310.0
454.0
423.8
509.3
217.6
373.3
193.4
327.7
536.6
345.2
313.7
82.5
285.8
184.0
119.8
202.2
87.6
123.7
125.1
190.4
60.3
66.7
62.8
59.3
32.7
19.5
35.4
58.4
39.2
72.6
204.1
Yellowfin
(1000 lbs)
168.7
761.7
727.1
602.5
683.4
1,000.9
934.3
1,122.8
479.7
823.0
426.4
722.5
1,183.0
761.0
691.6
181.9
630.1
405.7
264.1
445.8
193.1
272.7
275.8
419.8
132.9
147.0
138.5
130.7
72.1
43.0
78.0
128.7
86.4
160.1
449.9
As the post-war economy improved in the 1950s and 1960s, the local people in
the Marianas began to buy boats and troll for pelagic species. The year 1956 was the first
year for which the catch of tuna was recorded in Guam. From 1959 on, the records show
a trolling catch in Guam.
105
Now hundreds of thousands of pounds of pelagic fishes are landed annually. The
composition of the Saipan trolling catch is very different from that of the Guam trolling
catch. Figure 16 compares the 25-year average total landings in Guam (from Table 37)
with the 24-year average commercial landings in Saipan (from Table 44). The Saipan
catch is more than 75 percent skipjack, while the Guam catch is more evenly divided
between the five most abundant species. It is possible that the preference for skipjack in
Saipan is a result of Saipan’s history with the pre-war Japanese pole-and-line fishery.
180
160
1000 pounds
140
120
100
80
Guam
Saipan
60
40
20
0
M
S
W
Y
M
Mahimahi, Skipjack, Wahoo,
Yellowfin, Marlin
Figure 16. Composition of the trolling catch in Guam and Saipan, based on the average
annual catches shown on Tables 37 and 44.
On Guam, the average annual total trolling catches of mahimahi and skipjack
exceed 160,000 pounds each. The average annual trolling catches of wahoo, yellowfin,
and marlin range from 87,000 to 59,000 pounds each.
106
On Saipan, the average annual commercial trolling catch of skipjack exceeds
170,000, but yellowfin, mahimahi, wahoo, and marlin average less than 22,000 each.
Japanese pole-and-line vessels still fish in the vicinity of Guam and the Northern
Marianas. Skipjack catches from 1972 through 2005 average more than 3.5 million
pounds per year in the vicinity of Guam and nearly 10 million pounds per year in the
larger area around the CNMI. Yellowfin catches from 1972 through 2005 average
22,000 pounds per year in the vicinity of Guam and nearly 450,000 pounds per year in
the larger area around the CNMI.
107
108
CHAPTER 5. INTERVIEWS
By Judith R. Amesbury
INTRODUCTION
Fishers from each of the four major islands of the Marianas were interviewed.
After the interviews were written, they were mailed to the fishers for their comments or
corrections. When the fisher used a Chamorro name for a fish, the author matched that
name with the scientific names in Amesbury and Myers (1982), Amesbury et al. (1989),
and Kerr (1990). The interviews are presented by island (Guam, Saipan, Tinian, and
Rota) and by alphabetical order within each island.
GUAM
Manuel P. “Manny” Duenas II
On April 7, 2008, Judith Amesbury and John Calvo, Guam Coordinator for the
Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, interviewed Manuel P. Duenas
II at the Guam Fishermen’s Cooperative Association in Hagåtña, Guam (Photo 4).
Duenas is President of the Co-op.
Photo 4. Manny Duenas at the Guam Fishermen’s Cooperative Association in Hagåtña,
Guam, April 2008. Photo by John Calvo.
109
Duenas was born in Sinajaña, Guam in 1958, and he is Chamorro. His father,
Manuel Duenas, was born in Guam in 1926. Manny’s father was in the military for seven
years and served in the Korean War. Other than those years in the military, he lived on
Guam and was mostly a farmer in Inarajan. Manny’s grandparents had a farm in Inarajan
where they raised cows, pigs, and horses. Manny’s father died in 2003.
Manny’s mother was born in 1932 and is living in Sinajaña, Guam. She lived in
Colorado for a year during high school, but she has lived on Guam the rest of her life.
Her parents ran a grocery store in Inarajan before and during the war. Later they
established a garment store when the family moved to Hagåtña.
When Manny was growing up, people in Guam did mostly reef fishing, especially
for the seasonal runs of atulai (big-eye scad, Selar crumenophthalmus, commonly called
mackerel on Guam), mañahak (juvenile rabbitfishes, Siganus spinus and Siganus
argenteus), i’e (juvenile jacks, such as Caranx melampygus), and ti’ao (juvenile
goatfishes, family Mullidae). Manny said ti’ao was never as abundant as the others.
Manny and his friends were spear fishermen and shoreline fishermen. They
fished for atulai. Manny would cast the line out and then rewind it on the neck of a Coke
bottle; there were no rod-and-reels readily available back then.
Manny’s uncle, his father’s brother Roy Duenas, was a fisherman who was born
and raised in Inarajan. He moved to Hagåtña a few years after he married and then to
Agana Heights where he lives now. In the late 1970s, Roy purchased a second-hand boat
with cash and fixed it up. He fished for pelagic species and bottom fish on the offshore
banks. At first he would go out for only a few hours at a time, but then the hours became
a full day and finally a couple of days. Fishermen from Guam were not used to being out
at sea, but Roy was an officer in the Merchant Marines. The Co-op was incorporated in
1977, and Roy Duenas was a member. For a few years, he was President of the Co-op.
In the late 1980s, Manny joined Roy in fishing for pelagics and bottom fish.
International reels replaced the Penn Senators, and the handline basket was replaced by
electric reels. The use of landmarks was replaced with the use of GPS and depth
sounders. However, the new technology could not replace experience and instinct in the
art of catching fish. Manny said many factors affect the fisherman’s catch: “lure size,
wire or mono, overcast or sunny, moon phase, tidal changes, and ocean depth.”
Amesbury asked how Manny became President of the Co-op. Manny said one
night the fishermen were gathered complaining about the price of fuel, availability of gas,
amount of fish sold, and the price of fish. Manny had 20 years of experience with a nonprofit civic organization, so the fishermen asked him to read the Co-op by-laws and
figure out how to change things. Many Co-op fishermen were unaware that there was
supposed to be an annual meeting every January. The Co-op members forced the issue of
having the meeting. The meeting was held and resulted in Manny being elected to the
Board along with six other new members. Manny has been with the Co-op since 1995.
110
At that time some people, most of them with business experience, said the Co-op
wouldn’t last six months. They thought it was not salvageable.
Manny said that when he took over, the Co-op was more than $250,000 in debt.
The Co-op owed the fuel company about $100,000; they owed the fishermen another
$100,000, and other vendors the difference. There was no money in the Co-op account.
Day-to-day operations were paid for on a cash-on-delivery basis. The Co-op was reorganized and a management regime put in place. Priorities were set with re-establishing
credit, increasing sales, and more importantly increasing members’ confidence. Manny
said the reason the Co-op works now is because he works 12 to 18 hours per day and
operates a true co-op benefiting its members. After fourteen years, he still works seven
days a week. In 1995 there were only three employees. Now the Co-op has a manager
hired by the Board and 20 full-time employees. In 1995 sales were approximately
$650,000. Today they are $2.1 million.
Accountability is another reason the Co-op has been successful. At night the
cashiers do their sales reports and cash counts. Those are verified by another cashier.
The next morning the administrative assistant verifies the reports and makes the deposits.
All of that is verified by the manager, the bookkeeper, the treasurer, and Manny. The
financial reports are presented to the Board monthly and to the members of the Co-op at
the annual meeting.
In 1997, the Co-op began requiring members to sign a marketing agreement. The
agreement spells out what the Co-op does and what the members do. Members sell their
catch to the Co-op. For fish brought in from the 1st to the 15th of the month, they are paid
on the 10th of the following month. For fish brought in the second half of the month, they
are paid on the 25th of the following month. Members know when they will receive their
checks. Other benefits for Co-op members are that they can charge their fuel at a lower
price than at the gas station, and they can charge ice at a lower price as well. When the
fishermen are paid for their fish, the Co-op deducts the amounts charged for fuel and ice.
A major factor in the Co-op increasing its market base is that the Co-op has
applied fish handling requirements to its members. The fish harvested must exhibit
proper handling by the fisherman. First, the fish received must meet the maximum
temperature requirement. Second, each fish is tagged to identify which fisherman caught
the fish. During the processing the fish is filleted, and the color and texture must meet
Co-op standards. If any fish fails any portion of this in-take process, the fish is either
returned or destroyed. Co-op consumers receive on-premises education about the high
quality standard. In one instance a consumer argued that the mahimahi in the display
case was not fresh because the flesh was not white. Co-op employees showed her the
mahimahi from the freezer and compared the two shades of color, and the consumer was
astonished.
Manny said there has been a lot of fishing pressure by large scale commercial
fishing around here. This is the most productive and most impacted area in the Western
Pacific. Purse seiners have had the greatest impact. Purse seining started here in the
111
1970s and continued until 1990. A man named Zuanich operated U.S. purse seiners out
of San Diego. His was the largest and most modern fleet in the U.S. with about 10
vessels. The three main ships were named for his daughters. His company held a record
for the largest catch in a single set of the net. The catch was approximately 130 metric
tons (mt). For comparison Manny said a small boat from Guam catches 35 mt in a year.
Manny believes that the U.S. purse seiners fished within Guam’s Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ), the waters from 3 to 200 miles out. Foreign purse seiners have visited but
supposedly never fished in the EEZ.
Purse seining in the Western and Central Pacific is limited by the number of
vessels, but not by the capacity of the vessel. The capacity of a purse seiner used to be
800 to 1200 mt, but now they are double that. Some have a capacity of 3000 mt.
Zuanich used helicopters to find the fish. Now purse seiners use fish aggregating devices
(FADs). They catch everything. Around the Western Pacific, they catch both yellowfin
and skipjack along with a large quantity of by-catch (mahimahi, wahoo, and rainbow
runner), because the schools are mixed. In 2006, the purse seiners in the Western and
Central Pacific caught 2.1 million mt. That is more than 50 percent of the world’s tuna
market.
Guam has never had a longline fishery within its EEZ, but we’ve had many
foreign longliners fishing outside the 200-mile limit. According to a Coast Guard report,
last year five longliners were discovered on the boundary. Two were fishing and three
were in transit. One longliner was fined $130,000 for fishing in the EEZ of the CNMI.
The foreign longliners transship their fish through Guam. The peak year for that was
1995 when 500 vessels used Guam for their port-of-call. They offloaded 15 to 30 mt per
night of rejects (an average of 15% of their total catch).
The United Fisheries Corporation (UFC) used to buy the rejects and freeze them
with three 40-foot blast freezers and export the fish to other fish processing plants in
China, Taiwan, and the U.S. The U.S. companies complained about the quality of the
fish, so the U.S. Food and Drug Administration enforced Hazard Analysis and Critical
Control Point (HACCP) requirements, which affected the reject industry. UFC complied
with the requirements, but other companies didn’t, and enforcement wasn’t consistent.
UFC is still here, but in 2002 the fisheries leveled off. Since the decline in the number of
foreign longliners, the UFC just places the reject fish in cold storage due to the low
volume.
The Shark Finning Prohibition was enforced in 2005. Manny said the
Taiwanese were bringing in both the carcass and fins; the Japanese were landing only the
fins, which could go undetected more easily. The Coast Guard cracked down and said
the fins can weigh no more than 5 percent of the weight of the carcass. But the
Taiwanese use the shark belly for bait and cut too deep when removing the fins, so the fin
weight was 8 or 9 percent of the carcass weight. Manny said the 5 percent limit doesn’t
work. The Taiwanese left the island about 2005-2006, which resulted in one of the
largest companies that dealt with them shutting down.
112
There are still 75 longliners, mostly Japanese and a few Taiwanese, fishing in the
vicinity of Micronesia and sometimes just outside the Guam EEZ. There is a Japanese
pole-and-line fishery for skipjack and yellowfin, but Manny said those boats usually fish
farther north.
Manny said the effort of purse seiners should be reduced by 50 percent. He said
that 200 purse seiners in the Western and Central Pacific harvest 70-75 percent of the
tuna-like fish caught. The other 25-30 percent is caught by all other boats, about 40,000
or more boats in the Western and Central Pacific. Manny said we can’t really blame the
longliners. He welcomes the ban on purse seining in Guam’s EEZ, which was recently
voted on by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, because it will
also protect the seamounts from possible damage.
With regard to mahimahi, Manny thinks the biggest problem is coastal pollution.
In the 1980s you could catch mahimahi right outside the Hagåtña Boat Basin channel, but
that changed when the sewer pipe broke. Now that it’s repaired, they’re coming back.
Also there are only a couple of FADs out around Guam now where there were 15 total a
few years ago.
The FADs attract mahimahi, blue marlin, and wahoo. Blue marlin are caught on
FADs, but more striped marlin are caught on seamounts according to fishery statistics.
According to the Pacific-wide stock assessment, the striped marlin is in trouble. Last
year was a really bad year for blue marlin. Usually more than 50,000 pounds are caught
around Guam, but last year less than 20,000 pounds were caught.
Manny is pessimistic about the future of fisheries on Guam. He thinks they’ll be
gone in ten years. There’s a new mindset that says fishing is destroying the environment.
The lack of government support is a problem. The Co-op used to have contracts with the
Department of Education and the Department of Corrections, but those food services
have been privatized. Although the private companies were mandated to buy locally, that
is not enforced.
Manny said the charter boat business has been declining. It used to be a $6
million a year industry, but now it is about a $1 million industry. There used to be 12
companies, but now there are six. He said that compounding the poor fishing situation is
the fact that Guam is not getting the high-end tourists from Japan. The tourists who are
coming now spend less and are more frugal. Also the cost of operation and maintenance
of the boats has gone up, especially the price of fuel. Manny said the offshore banks, like
45 Degree Bank and Rota Banks, are not as productive as they once were. Seasonal fish
are not there. Manny said, “Even the unavoidable skipjack tuna is difficult to catch.”
Peter Plummer
On April 1, 2008, Amesbury and Calvo interviewed Peter Plummer at Chamorro
Village in Hagåtña, Guam (Photo 5). Plummer is a Caucasian American who has lived
and fished in Guam for more than 30 years. His wife is Chamorro.
113
Photo 5. Peter Plummer at Chamorro Village, April 2008. Photo by John Calvo.
Plummer’s father, who was British and Spanish, grew up in Trinidad where
Plummer’s grandfather had a sugarcane plantation. Plummer’s father moved to the U.S.
in 1932 when he was in his 30s. Plummer’s mother, who was Latvian, moved to the U.S.
as a teenager about 1927 or 1928. Peter Plummer was born in Summit, New Jersey in
1941.
Plummer said his father filled his head with island stories, and Plummer lived and
fished in the Virgin Islands and American Samoa before coming to Guam. He was
recruited in San Francisco to teach in Guam in 1976. He taught Health and Physical
Education at John F. Kennedy High School until 1981.
Plummer grew up doing recreational fishing on the east coast of the U.S. in New
Jersey. He caught blue fish and flounder. It was in the Navy that he learned to fish for
pelagic species. As a Boatswain’s Mate stationed in Key West, Florida from 1959-1961,
he was put in charge of sport fishing for the naval officers. They caught sailfish and
mahimahi. Plummer did commercial fishing in Alaska during the summers of 19631974. He worked on small purse seine and gill net boats that caught pink salmon in the
summer and silver salmon in the fall.
Within one month of arriving on Guam, Plummer bought a small Boston Whaler.
Over the years here, he has owned six boats. The boats he owns now are Mamulan I, a
31-foot Shamrock, and Mamulan II, a 35-foot Viking. He operates a charter business.
Ninety-five percent of the time is spent trolling for pelagic species. In the winter they
114
catch bonita, mahimahi, and wahoo. In the summer, they catch marlin, yellowfin, and
bonita. They also do some bottomfishing on request in the summer.
[Note added by Amesbury: In Guam and the Northern Marianas, skipjack tuna,
Katsuwonus pelamis, is referred to as “bonito” and “bonita” both. The sources quoted in
Chapter 4 spelled the word “bonito,” but the fishers interviewed in Chapter 5 used the
word “bonita.” That is why the word is spelled differently in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5.]
Plummer’s customers are 90 percent Japanese tourists, who he says are very
respectful and never complain. Plummer is under a contract with Japan Travel Bureau.
The other 10 percent are military and local people. Military customers may increase after
the military build-up over the next six years.
Plummer sells his fish to the Guam Fishermen’s Cooperative Association. He
doesn’t sell fish off the boat. Co-op members sign a marketing agreement to sell to the
Co-op. Sometimes Plummer takes a fish home for his family. He and his wife are semivegetarians since he had bypass surgery three years ago. They eat sashimi, or kelaguen,
or his wife bakes the fish.
When asked how fishing has changed in Guam, Plummer said one species in
particular, yellowfin tuna, has almost disappeared. In the 1970s there were schools of 60100 pound yellowfin off the points around Guam, like Ritidian. In those days, you didn’t
have to go to Rota Banks or Galvez Banks. Until the mid-1980s, he was still catching
good-sized yellowfin, but he hasn’t caught a 100-pound yellowfin for ten years now, and
he fishes every day. Both the number and size of yellowfin have decreased. He said that
if records do not show that, then it’s because the records have not been kept well. The
yellowfin he catches now are 30 pounds. Plummer said even the longliners are catching
bonita.
When asked why yellowfin have decreased, Plummer said, “Overfishing.” He
said throughout the years he’s been fishing in Guam, there have been at least 165 mostly
foreign longliners transshipping through Guam. During the early or mid-1980s, there
were also purse seiners. Zuanich, the owner of the purse seiners left, because there were
no more yellowfin. Plummer said, “They have to make a profit. When they start
catching more cat food than yellowfin tuna, it’s time to leave.” By “cat food” he said he
meant bonita.
Mahimahi run in cycles according to Plummer. About every three years, there is
a good year, followed by two so-so years. In a good year, his charter boat catches 20
mahimahi in three hours. This year they caught only one to three mahimahi in three
hours. Fish aggregating devices (FADs) increase mahimahi by 200 percent, but there are
only a couple FADs out around Guam now. Mahimahi are attracted to floating logs also.
During the full moon, mahimahi come in close and feed on reef fish. They can be caught
in 60 to 100 feet of water. As the day goes on, the mahimahi move out to deeper water.
Plummer said, “They are eating machines. That’s why they’re so easy to catch.”
115
Amesbury remarked that since about the beginning of the 1980s, more mahimahi
have been caught around Guam than bonita, but earlier more bonita were caught.
Plummer said the fishermen could still catch more bonita, but they don’t do that due to
the price. The Co-op pays a higher price for the first 100 pounds of bonita, but after 100
pounds, the price drops to 50 cents a pound. Plummer said he could catch 300 to 400
pounds a day at Rota Banks, but the fuel is too expensive to spend catching 50-cents-apound fish. Also bonita has a shelf life of only three days, whereas mahimahi can be
frozen and it’s good for six months to a year. The Co-op doesn’t drop the price of
mahimahi part way through the day. There is a set price for mahimahi for that day.
Plummer sells mahimahi to the Co-op for $1.50 to $2.25 a pound, but that is the same
price that he was getting 20 years ago. The local fishermen are competing with fish
coming in from the Philippines at $1.00 per pound.
Marlin sizes and numbers have been pretty consistent. Plummer said that you
can’t sell marlin on the east coast of the U.S. You have to release it. He said if you want
to implement catch-and-release in the Pacific, you’d have to take the selling price off
their heads. In June 2001, his boat caught a 700-pound marlin, which is the largest ever
caught on a charter in Guam.
Over 30-some years, Plummer has hooked and released about five turtles. The
largest was right outside the Hagåtña Boat Basin. Others were at Galvez Banks.
Plummer said there used to be a lot of turtles in Apra Harbor when he windsurfed there in
the 1970s.
All of Plummer’s children and grandchildren fish. His son, who is the captain of
Mamulan I, will eventually take over the charter fishing business from him. They may
add a third boat if his oldest grandson wants to fish.
Masao Tembata
On April 1, 2008, Amesbury and Calvo interviewed Masao Tembata at his office
on Marine Corps Drive in Anigua, Guam (Photo 6). Tembata was born in Japan in 1951,
and he is Japanese. He came to Guam, because his father had a business here. Tembata’s
father was on the inaugural flight of PanAm from Tokyo to Guam in 1967. Governor
Guerrero spoke to the group and encouraged the businessmen to invest in Guam.
Tembata was 16 when he first came to Guam and 18 when he came to stay. Tembata
showed the interviewers a photo of himself when he was five years old with his mother in
a chartered Chris-Craft boat in Tokyo Bay. He said that was the start of his love affair
with boats.
Tembata attended the University of Guam and graduated with a degree in
Business Management in 1975. He had been a skin diver in Japan, and he won trophies
for spearfishing in the 1971 and 1972 Charter Day activities of the University of Guam.
In 1972 Kuni Sakamoto joined Masao’s father’s company, Tenbata Guam, Inc.
Sakamoto was manager of the auto repair shop for four years from 1972 to 1976.
116
Sakamoto had come to Guam in 1966 under contract with the Division of Fish and
Wildlife in order to provide training in small boat fishing methods, particularly
bottomfish handlining and atulai (big-eye scad, Selar crumenophthalmus) jigging, and to
survey the waters around Guam for fishery resources. Tembata showed the interviewers
a 1970 paper co-authored by Sakamoto entitled “Exploratory Fishing Survey of the
Inshore Fisheries Resources of Guam” (Ikehara et al. 1970). Sakamoto and Tembata ate
together every night, and Sakamoto taught Tembata everything about fishing. Tembata
referred to Sakamoto as his “fishing master.” (For an interview with Sakamoto, see
Amesbury and Hunter-Anderson 2003).
Photo 6. Masao Tembata at his office in Guam, April 2008. Photo by John Calvo.
In 1972 Tembata bought a 12-foot boat, and he and Sakamoto did deep bottom
fishing in Agat, not in open water. In 1974 Tembata bought a 16-foot boat with two
engines. That is when he started doing pelagic fishing. He had done bottomfishing and
shoreline fishing in Japan, but he had never done trolling in Japan. Now he fished twice
a week at Rota Banks, catching yellowfin, mahimahi, and marlin. He also fished for the
deep bottomfish, silvermouth or lehi (Aphareus rutilans) and onaga (Etelis coruscans).
In 1975 Tembata bought an 18-foot boat. He caught a 146-pound yellowfin and a 413pound marlin. He said there were plenty of fish at Rota Banks.
In 1983 Tembata became a charter boat captain and started his business, Ten Boat
Charter, with a 22-foot boat purchased from MarBoats in Guam. He bought the boat with
a bank loan, and then used the money he made with the charter business to pay off the
loan. Then he bought the next boat and kept moving up. To make a long story short,
Tembata said he bought 23 boats from 1972 to 2007. The largest was a 46-foot boat he
117
no longer owns. Now he owns three American boats, Ten, Ten II, and Ten III. The first
two are 36 feet and the third is 38 feet.
During the 1980s, Tembata went to Hawaii every year to learn about the charter
boat business and to buy lures from Joe Yee (Joe Yee Custom Lures). He said the
Japanese love to fish in Kona. The fish are bigger in Hawaii. They are different
populations there.
Since 1987, Tembata has been going to Ft. Lauderdale, Florida to the boat shows.
He bought his boats there. Also he wanted to learn about tag-and-release and how to be
more professional.
In 1995, Tembata needed a walk-around boat for casting (for mahimahi, bonita,
and yellowfin) and jigging (for dogtooth tuna), so he had one made. It is the 38-foot
boat. It has a well for live bait, so he can do bottom fishing with live bait.
Tembata’s charter boats here do 60 percent trolling, 30 percent bottomfishing, and
10 percent jigging. Tembata said they catch everything. The customers are mostly
Japanese tourists, but there are also Chinese from Hong Kong. Three groups of Chinese
come every year and do bottomfishing for three days. Ten Boat Charter has few military
customers, because their price is higher than other charter boats.
When asked what has changed over the years he has fished in Guam, Tembata
said the big change is the decrease in yellowfin due to overfishing. Back in the 1970s
during the summers he could catch 100-pound yellowfin. Small yellowfin were so easy
to catch, it was embarrassing. They were like trash. By handlining for an afternoon at
Rota Banks, he could fill a cooler box with bonita, and there were ten boats at Rota
Banks all the time.
At that time, Tembata didn’t appreciate marlin. He considered it a waste of time,
because it was a cheap fish, and he wanted tuna. He would hook big marlin (500-700
pound) a couple times a year off Ritidian or at Rota Banks. He couldn’t handle that big a
fish, couldn’t land it. Now he doesn’t even hook those. The ones he hooks now are
below 400 pounds. Tembata said even 10 years ago, one of his boats would land 20-30
marlin and lose 50-80 marlin in a year. Now one boat lands two to ten marlin and loses
five marlin a year.
Tembata said 80 percent of the marlin they catch are tagged and released. He’s
been doing that for 18 years, first with a California tag, and now with the Billfish
Foundation in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. If one of his tagged marlin is recaptured and
reported, he receives a letter and a T-shirt from the Billfish Foundation.
This year was a bad year for mahimahi. Guam didn’t have a winter season, and
the fish didn’t come this year. Tembata said that’s due to global warming. Normally the
typhoons in the Pacific form southeast of Guam around Chuuk and move northwest over
Guam, but this past year they formed around Guam and moved west from here. Japan
118
has more hot days than before. It’s two or three degrees warmer in Japan and here. The
ice is melting at the poles.
Tembata said he’s not worried about longlining or harpooning, but purse seining
is a problem. Amesbury mentioned that the Western Pacific Regional Fishery
Management Council recently voted to exclude purse seining from Guam’s EEZ (out to
200 miles), but Tembata said the problem is at the lower latitudes, closer to the equator,
where the spawning populations of tuna are. He said the fish are getting scarce.
SAIPAN
Mike Fleming
On February 27, 2005, Amesbury and Hunter-Anderson interviewed Mike
Fleming (Photo 7) at his home in Saipan. Fleming is both a fisherman and an
archaeologist. He obtained a Master’s degree in Anthropology from the University of
Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. His thesis about archaeological fishbone is entitled The
Scaridae Family in Pacific Prehistory (Fleming 1986).
Photo 7. Mike Fleming at his home in Saipan, February 2005. Photo by J. Amesbury.
Mike Fleming has lived in Saipan for 25 years, but he is originally from Tinian.
His parents still live in Tinian, and we interviewed his father Alfred Fleming there. Mike
is Chamorro, though his great grandfather, Henry Gordon Fleming, was European.
Mike’s wife is Carolinian, and he says his children are “Chamolinian.”
119
Mike was born August 20, 1953. His father is Alfred Flores Fleming, born
January 1, 1922, and his mother is Rosalia Concepcion Aldan, born November 9, 1924.
Both of Mike’s parents were born in Yap, but they came to Tinian after the war in 1948.
Mike’s father is now the oldest man in Tinian. Mike is one of six children of Alfred and
Rosalia. However, Rosalia was married earlier to a man who died, and they had two
daughters, so Mike has two older stepsisters.
Mike’s mother says that Mike has a special relationship with fish. She tells of
how they picnicked at Unai Dangkolo when he was about five or six years old, and Mike
speared a fish with a tangan-tangan (Leucaena leucocephala) stick. Mike’s mother and
Carmen Sanchez’s mother are sisters. Carmen Sanchez is another person we interviewed
on Tinian.
Mike’s father was a trolling fisherman who caught mahimahi, marlin, tuna and
wahoo, but he also worked for Public Works in Tinian. Because the job occupied a lot of
Mike’s father’s time, it was Mike’s uncle, Justo Sanchez, the father of Carmen Sanchez,
who taught him how to fish. His uncle taught him all methods of fishing—everything
from using the throw net and spearfishing to fishing in the deepest ocean. Justo taught
Mike about the phases of the moon and the tides.
Mike said he has 40 years of experience fishing. For the last 12 years, he has kept
records of where he fishes, what he catches, the number of pounds caught, the phase of
the moon and the tide. He uses GPS to identify his location, and he knows 300 places to
fish. He can fish in a different place every day of the year. He prefers bottom fishing at
depths of 200 to 1000 feet. Mike is especially known for his ability to catch onaga
(Etelis coruscans). He once caught 67 onaga in one day. He also catches opakapaka
(Pristipomoides flavipinnis) for weddings. He said he sometimes targets a certain species
for weddings or other occasions. In 2003 Mike won the grand prize in the fishing derby
with a 280-pound marlin.
Mike’s boat is a 20-foot Wellcraft, named Bunita. He likes it, because it is a dry
boat; he doesn’t get wet. Mike went out fishing by himself for 15 years, but he doesn’t
go by himself any longer. He has a house in Saipan and a house in Tinian. When he
fishes going south to Tinian, he gives his fish to his father. When he fishes on the way
back to Saipan, he gives his fish to his wife’s relatives. He also sells fish to the fish
market, and he has a freezer for personal use.
The evening that we talked to Mike, he served us yellowfin sashimi, plus
opakapaka (Pristipomoides flavipinnis), gindai (Pristipomoides zonatus), kalikali
(Pristipomoides auricilla), and ehu (Etelis carbunculus) grilled outdoors. (The last four
fishes are all snappers—family Lutjanidae.)
Rafael I. Rangamar and Lino M. Olopai
On February 25, 2005, Amesbury and Hunter-Anderson interviewed Rafael
Rangamar and Lino Olopai (Photo 8) at the Seaman’s Restaurant in Saipan.
120
Photo 8. Lino Olopai (left) and Rafael Rangamar at the Seaman’s Restaurant, Saipan,
February 2005. Photo by J. Amesbury.
Rangamar is a Saipanese Carolinian. He was born in Garapan, Saipan in 1936.
Rangamar’s parents and grandparents were also born in Saipan. It was his greatgrandparents who immigrated to Saipan. His mother’s side of the family was from
Satawal, and his father’s side was from Pulusuk.
In 1937 Rangamar’s family moved to the northern island of Asuncion. When
asked if the Japanese required them to move, Rangamar said no, they chose to go to
Asuncion to work in the copra industry. They worked there for the NKK (Nan’yō
Kōhatsu Kaisha or South Seas Development Company). Rangamar is the oldest of 11
children, six boys and five girls. Three of the children, two boys and one girl, were born
in Asuncion.
According to Rangamar, there were about seven families on Asuncion at the time
his family was there. Most of those people returned to Saipan before the war. There
were also some Japanese civilians on Asuncion. When the Americans bombed Maug, the
Japanese there escaped to Asuncion. In 1945, the U.S. military moved everyone off
Asuncion, and Rangamar’s family returned to Saipan.
Lino Olopai is also Saipanese Carolinian. He was born in Saipan in 1940, the
second of five children, one girl and four boys. Olopai’s parents were also born in
Saipan. His family was originally from Satawal, but his grandfather was from Pulusuk.
Olopai is described in the book A Song for Satawal by Kenneth Brower (1983). He has
been involved in the renewed interest in traditional Carolinian navigation. Olopai sailed
121
from Saipan to Satawal with five Satawalese in 1974 and lived in Satawal for most of the
next three years. The canoe route between Satawal and Saipan had been reopened in
1970 after a 70-year hiatus (Brower 1983).
Rangamar and Olopai talked about the Saipan Fishing Company, which was
formed right after the war in 1945 and of which both their fathers were a part. Olopai’s
father was one of the Carolinian policemen who provided the capital for the fishing
company (see Spoehr 2000:129). Rangamar’s father was captain of one of the boats.
The three boats were known by their numbers, 1, 6, and 7, with the numbers
pronounced in Japanese. Boat 1 was captained by Bwabwa Rabauliman, Boat 6 by Pedro
Apolisan, and Boat 7 by Ernesto W. Rangamar, the father of Rafael Rangamar. Ernesto
Rangamar became the captain of Boat 7, when Juan Olopai, the uncle of Lino Olopai,
retired from that position. Ernesto Rangamar had such good vision that he could spot a
school of fish miles away. People said the ocean spirits liked him. He could bring in two
loads of fish per day when the other boats brought in one load per day.
Both Rangamar and Olopai went out on the boats when they were children.
Olopai said that his parents sent him out with different boats, and since he was thought to
bring luck to the fishermen, they fought over him.
The two men described a day of fishing with the Saipan Fishing Company, which
caught mostly skipjack. Very early in the morning, they set out for Tinian or Aguijan
(Goat Island) to catch bait. The bait was a small silver-colored fish, known in Japanese
as iriko. The boats would drop men off in the water while it was still dark, and the men
would move toward the cliff concentrating the small fish as they moved. They used a
fine, long net tied against the wall of the cliff with weights to hold it down. The men on
board the boats would pull the net in and scoop the baitfish into the boats. On the boats
were saltwater containers to hold the live bait.
When a school of fish was spotted, the captain brought the boat up toward the
school and slowed the boat down. The fishermen threw a couple handfuls of bait into the
water. When the school of fish moved in, the boat was stopped. The boats had diesel
engines. The boat pumped saltwater and sprayed it out to camouflage the boat and
fishermen. (Another Saipan fisherman, Mike Fleming, said there are no boats like that in
Saipan now, but he said the Hawaiian fisherman Henry Pelekai has a boat that sprays
water like that.)
The fishermen used bamboo poles, which they worked on in their spare time. The
line they used was from Japan. The hooks had metal heads and no barbs. There was no
need to unhook the fish. A fisherman would pull in his pole and flick it or snap it to
release the fish. They fished with unbaited hooks. One man would move about the boat
throwing bait into the water as the others fished and called out for bait as necessary.
There were 15 men per boat, and they could fill the boat in 30 minutes. Olopai and
Rangamar estimated the catch at 60 tons per boat. (Amesbury notes that figure is high
122
compared with data in Bowers [2001:191].) They caught bonita, yellowfin tuna, and
wahoo. The men mentioned rainbow runner, but said it was not so abundant.
In the heat of the day, from about 10:00 am to 2:00 pm, the fish would stop biting.
Then the fishermen would do bottom fishing or trolling. About 2:30 or 3:00 pm, the
fishermen would resume pole-and-line fishing until the sun went down. The fishermen
sold their fish in Saipan, Tinian, Rota, and Guam. It was a long day by the time they had
delivered their fish and returned home. The boats came in by the lighthouse. There was
a walk-in refrigerator at Garapan, and several of them near Kristo Rai.
Olopai said that sometimes the fishermen played jokes on him. They would fling
their fish way back in the boat, then look around surprised and ask what happened to it.
Olopai said his uncle would sometimes break into a Carolinian dance to rejoice over the
catch or some accomplishment of Olopai’s. Both men said they were lucky to grow up in
those times, because the families were very close back then.
When the Saipan Fishing Company ended about 1950 or soon after, the men
fished for their own families. Rangamar and Olopai said that the Carolinians also grew
taro, sweet potatoes, and bananas, but fishing was the major source of food. They said
taro was grown in the swampy area near Chalan Kanoa, and sweet potatoes were grown
inland of San Antonio. The Carolinians prefer taro to rice. A man named Villagomez,
the father of Justice Villagomez, grew rice in the As Lito/Finasisu area.
Rangamar and Olopai said the Carolinians like to eat turtle. When a female turtle
came in to lay her eggs on the beach, they would catch it by turning the turtle over on her
back. They said it was possible to catch a turtle in the water by chasing it with a
motorboat, and then jumping into the water and catching it when it came up for air. They
caught the turtles for subsistence or for fiestas, but not for commercial purposes. They
said it was possible to catch six turtles in a day. They knew the turtles’ resting grounds
on high reefs and what kind of algae the turtles ate.
Olopai said he owned two turtles as pets. Rangamar’s father caught one and
drilled the shell and put a swivel and rope on it, so the turtle could swim. Olopai said he
lost the first turtle when a big wave came in. He ran to the beach, but the turtle had
gotten loose. This was near Chalan Kanoa. He later had a second turtle for a pet.
Rangamar and Olopai told how they had an aunt who was close to animals. She
had a pet pig that would follow her to the beach when she bathed. The aunt used coconut
on her hair and skin after bathing in the ocean, and the pig stood guard over the coconut
to prevent the dogs from taking it.
The men told how they dried fish. They cut the fish in half and salted it and dried
it in the sun for a day or two. Then they put the fish in a bucket and covered it with
leaves, and put weight on it. When they took it out, they put it on a screen and smoked it.
The smoked fish lasted longer than dried fish. They said the fire was always going in a
Carolinian outdoor kitchen. Fish that was not dried was eaten raw, as sashimi,
123
barbecued, or cooked in a soup. When a large amount of food was prepared for a big
gathering, the um or underground oven was used. The um was used for turtle or pig.
Sometimes two um were used for a big gathering with a separate um for breadfruit.
After this interview, Olopai’s (2005) book, The Rope of Tradition, was published
in Saipan. The book discusses some of the same things he talked about in this interview.
Alfonso C. Reyes
On February 26, 2005, Amesbury and Hunter-Anderson interviewed Alfonso
Reyes on the beach by the Dai Ichi Hotel in Garapan, Saipan. He was working with his
daughter and son-in-law in a business called Ben and Ki Watersports.
Reyes was born September 18, 1924. His father was Jose Reyes Coloma, and his
mother was Maria Palacios Cabrera. Jose Reyes Coloma was from Santiago, Chile. He
came to Saipan during the German Period (1899-1914) when he was 19 years old. He
was on a ship that caught fish and sold them in Japan. Alfonso Reyes’s mother was
Chamorro. Reyes joked that he got his nose from his father, who had a large nose. He
was one of two children—a boy and a girl. Reyes’s father owned three houses in Saipan,
one of which was rented by the Japanese governor during the Japanese Period (19141944). Reyes’s father died about 1976.
Reyes said he was never involved in pelagic fishing, because he gets seasick.
However, he remembered the pre-war tuna fishery in Saipan. He said there were five
tuna companies. Their dock was where the Hafa Adai Hotel is now in Garapan. He said
the fish was dried and taken to Japan, though some was sold locally. Reyes was very
clear in stating that some local people worked for the Japanese in the tuna fishery.
During the war, Reyes worked as a lookout for the Japanese on Mount
Takpochao. He said he sometimes saw planes, but he didn’t want to record them. He
also worked on the airport, repairing the runway for the Japanese, and at Mañagaha
Island, loading ammunition and supplies.
Reyes was injured during the U.S. bombing of Saipan in 1944. He showed the
interviewers scars on his legs. He said there was no medicine available at that time. He
used only his own saliva to treat his wounds. He hid in the jungle for 18 days during the
U.S. bombing.
In 1945 Reyes became an ambulance driver for the Americans. After that he went
to school for one year to become a mechanic. The training conducted by the Americans
took place where American Memorial Park is now. After the training Reyes worked as a
mechanic at Kobler Field in San Antonio. Because Reyes had work as a mechanic, he
didn’t spend time fishing or farming.
In 1953 Reyes married. A photograph of his wife and brother-in-law is found on
the cover of the second edition (2001) of Bowers’ 1950 book, Problems of Resettlement
124
on Saipan, Tinian and Rota, Mariana Islands. The photo was taken soon after the war,
about 1948. Reyes’s wife and their ten children are all alive. One son is a priest in
Menlo Park, California.
Reyes’s descendants did not inherit his seasickness. His daughter Ki told us that
her son, Lawrence Concepcion, has a Boston Whaler named Relax. In 2002, Lawrence
caught a 954-pound marlin, but he came in 30 minutes too late to win the fishing derby!
Juan San Nicolas
On March 2, 2005, Amesbury and Hunter-Anderson interviewed Juan San
Nicolas on Saipan. He is the President of the Saipan Fishermen’s Association. The
Association has a web site (http://saipanfishermen.org). He is also the Resident
Executive of the Indigenous Affairs Office.
San Nicolas was born May 16, 1947. Both his parents were Chamorro. His father
Herbert San Nicolas died eight years ago at the age of 72. His mother Ignacia Manibusan
San Nicolas died three years ago at age 75.
San Nicolas said he has been fishing for more than 25 years, since about 1972.
He learned from a friend. The friend was out of work, and they wanted to make some
income, so San Nicolas bought the boat, and the friend taught him how to fish. They
shared equally in what they made after expenses.
The boat was a 21-foot Bayliner with a 135-horsepower outboard motor. He
bought it at Joeten in Saipan. The men caught skipjack tuna by trolling and onaga (Etelis
coruscans) and opakapaka (Pristipomoides flavipinnis) by bottom fishing. They had no
GPS to help them locate their fishing spots. They used landmarks, or if they were caught
in a rainstorm, they used a compass.
San Nicolas had two big refrigerators, and people would come to buy fish from
him. They sold tuna for 35 cents a pound and bottom fish for less. At that time, Palau
was sending fish to Saipan cheap. He said tuna is now $3.00 a pound.
San Nicolas became the first president of the Saipan Fishing Co-op in about 1976.
He said the problem with the Co-op was that the fishermen caught more than they could
sell. They had agreed not to sell outside the Co-op, but the Co-op couldn’t market all the
fish. San Nicolas said that at that time there were only two hotels (Royal Taga and Hafa
Adai Hotel), and there were few outsiders in Saipan. Saipan was still part of the Trust
Territory. The population was small and their buying power was weak.
The next president of the Co-op did not succeed in getting the cooperation of the
fishermen. The fishermen kept on fishing, but bypassed the Co-op. So the Co-op ended
two or three years later.
125
San Nicolas said that when he fished on Sundays, he made it a point to give the
catch to his family members. His friends did the same thing. But he said fishermen can’t
afford to give their catch away now, because of the price of gas. Eight hours of fishing
costs $100 in fuel. That’s why you don’t see fish at fiestas as much anymore. He said
many fishermen are “weekend warriors.” They work for the government during the week
and fish on the weekends only.
San Nicolas did not know about the Japanese tuna fishery in Saipan, because that
was before he was born. But he said the Japanese had a way of catching flying fish at
night with lights and gill nets. The fish will approach the light and get caught in the net.
Flying fish can be used as bait for mahimahi and marlin.
San Nicolas said that he never took turtle. He is “strictly a fish fisherman.” But
he described a Carolinian technique for taking turtle. The Carolinians took turtle near the
Grotto (on the northeast end of Saipan) at 4 am, when the turtles were eating sea grass.
Two men were in the water and one in the boat. One man in the water used a scuba tank
and a long pole with a marlin hook. He hooked the neck of a turtle. The hook was
attached to a rope, which was attached to a float on the surface. The boatman pulled in
the rope, and the men in the water assisted.
TINIAN
Ana Pangelinan Cruz
On February 28, 2005, Amesbury and Hunter-Anderson interviewed Ana
Pangelinan Cruz (Photo 9) at the Aging Center in Tinian. Cruz spoke partly in
Chamorro, and Carmen Sanchez translated into English for the interviewers. Cruz was
born on the northern island of Pagan on June 13, 1936. Her parents were born in Saipan,
but they moved to Pagan in 1933 to work for the Japanese in the copra industry. Cruz
said that at that time there were only Chamorros and Carolinians on Pagan. They left
Pagan before the Japanese soldiers arrived there. They returned to Saipan in 1937.
Cruz said that on Pagan her parents fished, using the talaya (throw net) and gill
nets. They also did spearfishing and trolling, using a canoe. The canoe was made of
plywood and tin. The fishes Cruz named that were caught in Pagan include guili
(Kyphosus cinerascens), kichu (Acanthurus triostegus), hamoktan (Acanthurus guttatus),
mañåhak (juvenile rabbitfishes, Siganus spp.), and laiguan (mullets, family Mugilidae).
Her parents would catch a lot of fish and share with their neighbors or trade for other
things. They also dried the fish with salt they made from seawater. When someone built
a house in Pagan, all the neighbors would help. The women would share in the cooking.
Cruz said that her parents caught turtles in Pagan, and the turtles were bigger in
those days. They would catch a female when she came up on to the beach to lay her
eggs, and there were a lot of eggs inside the turtle.
126
Photo 9. Ana Pangelinan Cruz at the Aging Center, Tinian, February 2005. Photo by J.
Amesbury.
Cruz’s late husband did trolling and bottomfishing around Tinian. He started
fishing in 1959, because there were no jobs available. He bought his boat, a fiberglass
Sea Hawk, in Saipan. Cruz still owns the boat. She said her husband caught mafuti
(Lethrinus rubrioperculatus), lililok (Lethrinus olivaceus) matait (Epinephelus faciatus),
pulonnon (triggerfishes, family Balistidae), sawara (Scomberomorus niphonius), wahoo
(Acanthocybium solandri), and mahimahi (Coryphaena hippurus).
Leonardo Flores Diaz
On February 28, 2005, Amesbury and Hunter-Anderson interviewed Leonardo
Flores Diaz at the Aging Center in Tinian. Diaz spoke mostly in Chamorro, and Carmen
Sanchez translated into English for the interviewers. Diaz is a Chamorro born in Yap on
November 26, 1931. He came to Tinian on April 14, 1948. He was a part-time
fisherman, but he didn’t go out by boat because he gets seasick. He fished with a line
from Suicide Cliff in southeast Tinian. He caught bottom fishes, matanhagan (Monotaxis
grandoculis), mafuti (Lethrinus rubrioperculatus), lililok (Lethrinus olivaceus) and
sagamilon (squirrelfishes, family Holocentridae). (The first three fishes named are
emperors, family Lethrinidae.) Diaz said he also fished with a throw net.
Alfred F. Fleming
On February 28, 2005, Amesbury and Hunter-Anderson interviewed Alfred
Fleming (Photo 10) at his home in Tinian. Alfred is the father of Mike Fleming, whom
127
we interviewed in Saipan, and the uncle of Carmen Sanchez, whom we interviewed in
Tinian. Alfred told us the history of their family.
Photo 10. Alfred Fleming at his home in Tinian, February 2005. Photo by J. Amesbury.
The original Fleming in Micronesia was Alfred’s grandfather, Henry Gordon
Fleming. Henry was from Scotland, and he was in the British navy. He was part of the
crew of a navy schooner. Henry Gordon Fleming married a high-caste Marshallese
woman from the DeBrum family. Alfred showed us a photo of Legamzo DeBrum
Fleming with her sisters taken in 1895. He also showed us a photo of his grandfather and
grandmother, Henry and Legamzo, with four children. One of the boys in the photo is
Alfred’s father.
Alfred’s father was Henry Gordon Fleming, Jr., who worked as an accountant for
O’Keefe in Yap. O’Keefe was an Irish-American sailing captain and successful
businessman in Yap (see Klingman and Green 1950). Henry Jr. married a Chamorro
woman, Consolacion Aguon Flores, in Yap. (Mike Fleming told us that Consolacion had
13 sisters and 4 brothers, but she was the last to die, and she died in Tinian.) Henry Jr.
and Consolacion had 9 children, one of whom was Alfred, born January 1, 1922.
Alfred’s wife is Rosalia Concepcion Aldan, who was also born in Yap on
November 9, 1924. Alfred and Rosalia came with the Chamorros from Yap to Tinian in
128
1948 and married in Tinian on January 27, 1949, when Alfred was 27. Rosalia had been
married earlier to a man who died, and she had two daughters. Alfred and Rosalia had
six more children, including Mike Fleming.
Alfred also showed us a photo of himself with his godmother, Mrs. Scott, the
daughter of O’Keefe. He didn’t know her first name because he called her Nina
(godmother). Alfred said the year was 1936, and he was 16. (However, if Alfred was
born in 1922, he was 14 in 1936, or if he was 16, it must have been 1938.) Alfred
accompanied Mrs. Scott to the island of Mapia, an island north of New Guinea, which
was controlled by O’Keefe. Some of Mrs. Scott’s siblings were in Mapia.
Alfred and Mrs. Scott traveled on Japanese ships. On the way there, they were
detained on an island between the Philippines and Borneo and stayed a month and a half.
This was the time when war was breaking out between Japan and China. Alfred stayed
three months in Mapia. Then he continued on to New Guinea, Palau, and back to Yap.
Alfred showed us a map of the Pacific with his travels drawn on it.
Mapia is made up of three islands. There were people on one island and animals
on the other two. There were so many chickens, one had to be careful not to step on the
eggs. Alfred said there were many turtles in Mapia. At night people would go out with a
torch of coconut leaves, not to attract the turtles, but to be able to see them, and they
would spear the turtles. By day, people could capture a turtle by jumping on it and
holding it.
Before the war, Alfred worked on a Japanese ship. Every two years they went to
Yokuska, Japan, for dry dock and stayed three months. It was not a fishing ship; it was
an NKK (Nan’yō Kōhatsu Kaisha or South Seas Development Company) ship. Once a
month, the ship went back and forth between Yap and Palau. Palau was the capital of the
Japanese district.
Alfred said Yap was very poor, not like Palau. In Yap, the fishing was not year
round. It lasted only a few months of the year. But in Palau there was year round
fishing, and there were hundreds of fishing boats. The Japanese fishing company dried
the fish. They also had a refrigerated ship to take tuna to Japan. The tuna was packed in
ice. Hundreds of tons of fish were taken to Japan. There were thousands of vessels in the
harbor in Palau before the war.
Alfred stayed in Yap during the war. It was hard to earn a living then. He said it
didn’t matter how much education you had, the Japanese would not promote you. During
the war, he worked under the military, not on a boat, but supplying food for the military.
He was First Level and received no pay. He had to look for his own food. The Japanese
headquarters were in Colonia, where Alfred stayed. He said the Japanese had a
warehouse with a bamboo floor. Inside the warehouse were sacks of rice, and people
could steal rice by poking a hole in a sack with a piece of bamboo. During the American
bombing of Yap at the end of March 1944, Alfred and two friends went into the
mountains and stayed in the jungle. Colonia was wiped out.
129
When Alfred moved to Tinian, he worked first for the naval administration, then
for the Trust Territory Public Works. Public Works was in charge of the water,
electricity, roads, and airport. He retired from Public Works in 1980. He sometimes
fished at night, either on the pier or from a boat outside the reef. He had a small 14-foot
boat he got from an American. He bought an outboard motor and trolled between Tinian
and Saipan. He also did bottom fishing and caught onaga (Etelis coruscans) at depths of
800 to 1000 feet. He used shrimp and small tuna, not mackerel, as bait for bottom
fishing. He didn’t catch turtles. Alfred emphasized that the fishing is not as good in the
Marianas as in Palau. He said he also hunted fruit bats for food.
Lino Lizama
On March 1, 2005, Amesbury and Hunter-Anderson interviewed Lino Lizama at
his home in Tinian. Lizama is a Chamorro born in Saipan in 1947. His parents were also
born in Saipan, but went to Yap. Most of Lizama’s brothers and sisters were born in
Yap. We asked Lizama how he happened to be born in Saipan in 1947, if the Chamorros
returned from Yap in 1948, but he was unsure how to explain that.
After the war, the U.S. military approached the Chamorros in Yap, and said there
was an uninhabited island in the Marianas. The military brought Lizama’s father and a
few other men to look at Tinian. When the men returned to Yap and talked to the other
Chamorros, they decided to move to Tinian. (For more on this subject, see Farrell
1992:71.) In April 1948, a U.S. Navy LST carried the people and their cattle to Tinian.
They landed near the old sugar refinery.
When the Chamorros came to Tinian, there was no employment. The men were
self-employed as farmers and fishermen. Lizama’s father obtained a Grumman
aluminum canoe from a U.S. military man. Lizama still has the canoe (Photo 11). It is so
lightweight that only two people can carry it, but it will hold four people. At either end
of the canoe are air pockets, but the plugs are now missing. The manufacturer’s plate on
the canoe reads as follows:
Grumman Air
Eng. Corp. (In between these two abbreviated words is a symbol of a globe.)
Bethpage, New York
2424A-5-17
(The web site of Marathon Boat Group www.marathonboat.com/history2.htm
says the first aluminum canoe was produced at a Grumman aircraft plant in Bethpage,
Long Island in 1945. It was 13 feet in length, but the line was expanded to include 15foot, 17-foot, 18-foot, 19-foot and 20-foot canoes. We contacted Marathon Boat Group,
and they said the serial number indicates this canoe was the 2,424th canoe built for sale by
Grumman, and it is the 17-foot model. They said it was built in 1946 or 1947.)
130
Photo 11. Lino Lizama in his yard in Tinian with a Grumman aluminum canoe built in
1946 or 1947. Photo by J. Amesbury.
Lizama said his father fished using the throw net and long net for reef fishing and
using the canoe for bottom fishing, but not in deep water. The canoe was also used to
harvest atulai (big-eye scad, Selar crumenophthalmus) from fish traps made of wire. The
chamber of the trap in which the fish were caught, Lizama called apusento (Chamorro for
bedroom, room). Sometimes moray eels got into the fish traps and ate the fish. Lizama’s
father took the atulai to Saipan in coolers on Pangelinan’s boat. Carmen Dela Cruz
Farrell’s father fished with Lizama’s father. They had a small organization for atulai
fishing.
Lizama’s sister, Rita, who was present for part of the interview, said she used to
steal the canoe and go out to fish near the dock with her girlfriends. She said now that
area is polluted with cans and bottles, tires, and other trash.
In the mid-1960s, Lizama’s father found a large quantity of brass left by the U.S.
military from machine gun shells. This was in a location called Dumpcoke, where the
military dumped Coke bottles and other things. Lizama’s father tied a weapons carrier to
a big tree and used the winch on the weapons carrier to raise the drum cans of brass. He
sold the brass and used the money to buy a boat and engine. He had five sons who fished
with him.
131
Dumpcoke is on the northwest coast of Tinian in the vicinity of Lamonibot.
Lizama said Lamonibot is the Carolinian word for the place that the Americans called
Earle Point. He said they sometimes found unopened bottles of Coke there. If they still
fizzed, they drank them.
The boat Lizama’s father purchased was an 18-foot wooden boat locally built in
Saipan by Lizama’s father’s brother-in-law, Pobio Cabrera. (Pobio Cabrera’s wife was a
cousin of Lizama’s father.) Cabrera worked for Public Works as a carpenter, but he also
built and sold many boats. The engine was a 40-horsepower Evinrude. The name of the
boat was Bithen de Carmen.
Lizama said his father and brothers caught all kinds of tuna and mahimahi. There
were only three or four boats on Tinian by the mid-1960s. Lizama said the boat once
crashed on Goat Island. He couldn’t remember what happened to it in the end. He said
his family didn’t own other boats after that.
Carmen Sanchez
On February 28, 2005, Amesbury and Hunter-Anderson interviewed Carmen
Sanchez (Photo 12) on Tinian. Sanchez is the Historic Preservation Coordinator for
Tinian and Aquijan. She is the cousin of Mike Fleming, and it was her father who taught
Mike how to fish. Carmen’s mother and Mike’s mother are sisters. Carmen’s father was
Justo Lewis Sanchez, who was born in Yap on February 2, 1920, and is now deceased.
Photo 12. Carmen Sanchez on Tinian, February 2005. Photo by J. Amesbury.
132
Carmen told us about the Chamorros coming to Tinian from Yap in 1948. They
first lived at what she called Fisher Village, the site of the immediately post-war
Okinawan fishing base and the later Trust Territory Leprosarium. Later they lived in the
old village, the abandoned Japanese town of Churo. Then they were awarded agricultural
homesteads. They built houses from materials salvaged from the U.S. military. The
military had left buildings, vehicles, and tools on island after the war. In 1959-60 Microl
Corporation came to Tinian and took scrap metal from the island. The people of Tinian
didn’t move to San Jose, the main village by the harbor, until the 1960s.
Carmen’s father was a mechanic. In 1948-49, he worked for the Navy as a
plumber at Marbo. He then went to Guam to learn English. In the 1960s, Justo started to
work at the Tinian power plant. That was when the island first had electricity. Justo
earned $20 for every ten days of work. Before work he fished with a throw net and
caught mullet (family Mugilidae) at Unai Dangkolo and other places. He had 12 children
to feed.
Carmen said the fish were more abundant and less afraid in those days. She said
you don’t see that anymore. She said there are outsiders on island now (Chinese people
who work for the casino or farm land for the Chamorros, and Filipino construction
workers) who catch anything they can eat. She said they even break the corals to take out
fish or invertebrates, such as sea cucumbers. There is not enough enforcement of the law.
The outsiders do not practice conservation on land either. They lease land inexpensively,
for $1000 per year, and when the land is no longer good, they lease another piece of land.
Carmen said there is only one Chamorro person selling produce on island. Most of the
Chamorros can’t compete with the outsiders.
In the early 1970s, Justo bought a Bayliner. He sold land in order to buy the boat.
He went out on the boat on weekends and nights. He caught yellowfin and skipjack tuna,
mahimahi, barracuda, and onaga (Etelis coruscans). Carmen said Mike Fleming uses
shrimp to chum for onaga. Carmen said her father caught dolphin and ate it. We went
back and forth about whether she meant dolphinfish (mahimahi) or dolphin (subfamily
Delphininae), but she said he caught and ate both—mahimahi and dolphin.
Carmen said that red snapper is poisonous in Tinian, but not in Yap and Palau.
She attributed that to the military dumping on Tinian. (It may be due to ciguatoxins.
According to Amesbury and Myers [1982], Lutjanus bohar is the most frequently
ciquatoxic fish in the Indo-Pacific region. It is banned from sale in many places.)
Justo once caught a turtle so large that they couldn’t lay it down flat in the pickup
truck bed. Carmen said the turtle is a special animal. She said the old people say the
turtle has three hearts—a heart for fish, a heart for humans, and a heart for itself. She
said actually it has three parts to its heart.
In a certain season, Justo caught ti’ao (juvenile goatfishes, family Mullidae) with
a throw net, and Carmen had to preserve them. She used six large containers, pots left
behind by the U.S. Navy, to salt and store the fish. After one week, she would drain it,
133
then boil it. After another week, she would boil it again. She did this three times. Then
the fish would last for a long time. This was necessary, since there was no electricity.
Carmen said it was the more well-to-do families that purchased the first refrigerators.
Justo traded fish for beef, pork, and taro. Carmen said they seldom ate rice, but
they ate taro, breadfruit, and banana. They used coconut oil for cooking.
ROTA
Antonio “Tony” Mesngon Sr.
On February 18, 2006, Amesbury and Hunter-Anderson interviewed Antonio
“Tony” Mesngon Sr. (Photo 13) at his home on Rota. Mesngon is a Chamorro, born and
raised on Rota. His father and mother were from Rota, but one grandmother, his
mother’s mother, was from Guam. His great grandfather was from the Philippines.
Photo 13. Antonio Mesngon Sr. at his home on Rota, February 2006. Photo by J.
Amesbury.
Mesngon was born in 1945. His father died before he was born, but he did not die
as a result of the war. Mesngon lived with his stepbrothers, the Calvos. Roberto Calvo,
an hachuman fisherman that Stan Taisacan mentioned, was a stepbrother of Mesngon.
Mesngon went to high school in Guam. He returned to Rota in 1965 to help his
mother with a bakery business. He also worked for the Trust Territory, starting at 50
cents an hour. In 1966-67 he worked for the Municipal Office and in 1967 for
134
Continental. In 1968 Mesngon began his career as a policeman. He retired from that
work after 25 years in 1993.
All of the years that Mesngon worked, he also fished. Roberto Calvo taught his
nephew Onecimo Atalig, another relative Pedro Atalig, and Mesngon how to fish. Back
in the 1960s only a few people (about four) owned boats on Rota. Pedro Atalig and
Onecimo Atalig built a 12-foot plywood boat with a 10-horsepower engine. Later they
had a 20-horsepower engine.
They made their own lures for trolling out of chicken feathers, cloth, and a shiny
white plant called leerio (Crinum asiaticum). (See Amesbury et al. 1989:54, 62-65.)
They trolled for mahimahi, skipjack, yellowfin, and wahoo. They didn’t catch marlin.
Mesngon said that rainbow runner was rare. You were very lucky if you caught one.
You had to have the right lure.
They bought hooks and monofilament line from Dejima’s on Guam. Dejima’s
used to be on Marine Drive.
Mesngon said they found fish by watching the birds. A certain white bird
indicates the presence of rainbow runner. A black bird, maybe it’s a frigate bird,
indicates mahimahi mixed with yellowfin. Another black bird indicates skipjack.
Mesngon said they did not go too far offshore, only a couple miles. Twelve
gallons of gas was enough for one day. The gas was 75 cents a gallon. They could catch
enough fish in a couple hours. They sold the fish to stores for 50 cents a pound.
Sometimes customers were waiting on the beach for them.
Now Tony and his son have a 22-foot boat with a 130-horsepower engine. That
takes a lot of gas. Tony fishes for fun now, but his son is making money, concentrating
mostly on onaga (Etelis coruscans). Tony helped his son get the needed equipment. The
son also works for Department of Youth Services.
When Mesngon was a child, his uncle found turtles laying eggs on the beach right
near his house, but he warned Mesngon not to go near or touch the eggs. Mesngon said
he never tried turtle meat, but he tried the eggs. He said when you boil the eggs, the shell
stays soft.
When asked how fishing has changed, Mesngon said it was easier back in the
1960s. He said it was very easy to catch mafuti (Lethrinus rubrioperculatus) back then.
He attributed the difference to the crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci). A
crown-of-thorns outbreak in the late 1960s or early 1970s damaged the corals.
Estanislao “Stan” Taisacan
In August 2002, Amesbury met Estanislao “Stan” Taisacan of Rota, who said that
his father was the last fisherman in Rota to use the poio to fish for hachuman (Decapterus
135
sp., opelu in Hawai’i). Amesbury interviewed Stan in two long distance phone calls in
April 2003.
Stan was born in 1954, and he has lived in Rota all his life, except that he
attended George Washington High School in Guam. He returned to Rota in 1973 and
worked for the government for 24 years, including 12 years for the Division of Fish and
Wildlife in Rota. He retired from the government in 1997.
Stan’s father was named Clemente Saralu Taisacan. He was born in Saipan but
moved to Rota in the late 1920s. Clemente’s father was Chamorro and his mother was
Carolinian. Saralu is the Carolinian maiden name of Clemente’s mother. Clemente was
born February 11, 1922, and died December 16, 1980.
Clemente’s fishing partner was Tobias Songao Maratita, Stan’s mother’s
stepbrother. Tobias Maratita built a canoe that he and Clemente used for fishing. The
canoe was carved from a seeded breadfruit tree (Artocarpus mariannensis). The canoe
was lost during Typhoon Karen in 1962. After that, they used a rowboat built of marine
plywood.
Clemente made his own nets with nylon string. He made the talaya (throw net)
and the lagua’ hachuman (hachuman net). The lagua’ hachuman had a six to eight foot
radius and a rim of bamboo. The net was eight to ten feet deep from the rim to the
bottom. Stan still has the stone poio used by Clemente.
Clemente did all kinds of fishing. The hachuman fishing was done each year
from about March through June. The fishermen would chew up young coconut of a
certain stage of ripeness to use as bait. Using the poio and shortening the line a little each
day, they fed the fish in a certain spot every day for about a week. After a week, as soon
as the canoe reached the spot, the fish would be splashing around near the surface where
they could be easily netted. The fishermen could fill the canoe, which Stan estimated
was about 16 feet long, 2 feet wide and 2 feet deep. After netting the fish, the fishermen
would have to paddle back with their feet over the sides of the canoe, because the canoe
was so full of fish.
They fished for hachuman in the bay south and east of Songsong. From the East
Harbor, they would paddle out only five to ten minutes or maybe 20 minutes. If they
fished from the West Harbor, they would paddle out 30 minutes. Stan said the fishermen
had to be consistent about the time of day they fished, for example, 6-7 am or 3-4 pm.
They marked their spot in the water by tying an old coconut to a white stone from the
beach. The coconut floated beneath the surface of the water.
The fishermen used a glass-bottomed box to look into the water. Stan said they
looked for a certain kind of unicorn fish found at that distance offshore. If they saw the
unicorn fish, they knew that the hachuman were near. The fishermen began by lowering
the poio to a depth of about 90 feet, but by the end of one week, they were lowering it to
a depth of 40 feet.
136
Stan helped his father with the hachuman fishing, which they did until the late
1960s (about 1967 or 1968). He said they sometimes slept on the beach to watch who
was going out and to guard their fish (the fish they were feeding). Stan said it would be
considered a crime for another fisherman to steal their fish from the water where they had
been feeding them.
The catch was shared with family members and salted and dried or pickled to
preserve it. Prior to the 1960s, only a few places on Rota had iceboxes. Electricity was
available on Rota by the late 1960s, but it was shut off at 8 pm. It was not until the 1970s
that everyone on Rota had 24-hour-a-day electricity.
On February 18, 2006, Amesbury and Hunter-Anderson visited Stan in Rota. On
the beach, he showed us two paddling canoes (galaide in Chamorro), which he and his
son had carved from Hernandia logs (Photo 14). Stan said a Japanese group had been to
Rota to film him teaching his children how to make the canoe. One canoe is named
Marifega, after the daughter of a Chamorro chief. The other is Taihagan, after a rock
that protrudes from the ocean and is used to indicate how high the tide is. Stan’s Uncle
Tobias Maratita named the rock Taihagan, which means “no turtle” or “not a turtle” in
Chamorro. The larger of these two canoes is about 14 feet long. It is not as long or deep
as Stan’s father’s canoe.
Photo 14. Estanislao Taisacan with two canoes he and his son carved from Hernandia
logs in Rota. Photo by J. Amesbury.
At his home, Stan showed us the poio he uses for hachuman fishing (Photo 15).
One is the original poio used by his father and two are replicas Stan made using modern
tools including a grinder and sander. He said that rather than chewing the coconut meat,
they sometimes use a food processor, and they use rice, as well as coconut.
137
Photo 15. Estanislao Taisacan with two poio (fishing stones), one old and the other a
replica. Photo by J. Amesbury.
Stan showed us the lagua’ hachuman (hachuman net) (Photo 16). The
monofilament net has a PVC rim. He also showed us the “look box” made from a bucket
with Plexiglas across the wide, open end of the bucket and an opening cut in the bottom
of the bucket. The fisherman holds the Plexiglas end of the bucket under the water and
puts his face up to the open end of the bucket in order to see below the surface of the
water.
Stan talked about the late Roberto Calvo, an hachuman fisherman from Rota who
had an aluminum canoe made from an airplane wing float. An opening was cut in the
float and wood was put around the opening in order to convert it into a canoe.
When asked about turtle, Stan said they used to catch turtle, but he didn’t eat it.
His father had weirs made from chicken wire and rebar, and they sometimes caught
turtles in the weirs by accident. Stan’s father was half Carolinian, and Stan said the
Carolinians celebrated with turtle once a year. He said the turtle was put on the table, and
the children were lined up and made to take a sip of the turtle blood through a papaya
straw stuck in the turtle. The turtle was still alive and flapping, and Stan did not want to
drink the blood, but his uncle stood there with a stick to make the children take a sip.
The turtle blood was thought to cure asthma.
138
Photo 16. Stan Taisacan’s son holding the lagua’ hachuman (hachuman net). Photo by
J. Amesbury.
Stan said he ate turtle eggs. His grandmother (the foster mother of Stan’s
mother), a Chamorro woman named Eliza Maratita Dim, was a suruhana (traditional
healer) and a midwife. He said she was very strict and taught him that if you find a nest
of turtle eggs, you don’t tell anyone. Stan would show her the eggs, and they would take
a couple eggs, then use a branch to erase their steps so that other people would not find
the nest. They would boil and eat the eggs, but they would never take more than a couple
eggs and they would never show anyone else the nest. This grandmother is the one who
named Estanislao after a Polish priest in Rota.
Stan bought his first boat in 1984. It was an 18-foot boat with a 150-horsepower
engine. He bought it to take divers around the island. He emphasized that it was so easy
to catch fish back then. He did trolling, shallow bottom fishing for mafuti (Lethrinus
rubrioperculatus), and deep bottom fishing for opakapaka (Pristipomoides flavipinnis),
gindai (Pristipomoides zonatus), kalikali (Pristipomoides auricilla), and onaga (Etelis
coruscans).
In those days, the fishermen didn’t use GPS. He said now they use GPS to find
their spot and then they “hammer it.” They fish that spot to the maximum. Stan said
there are some “weekend warriors,” fishermen who come up from Guam on Fridays and
fish all day on Saturdays and Sundays.
When asked about changes in fish abundance, Stan said there has been a very
rapid depletion of fish, both inside and outside the reef, since the mid-1980s. He
attributed this to the H-2 workers on island, immigrants from the Philippines and
Bangladesh, who take even tiny fish and tiny crabs. He said there are more Asians on
139
island now for the airport expansion. Stan said the marine resources are not being
managed correctly, and the island needs better enforcement of the laws.
Stan suggested that having open and closed areas would be one way to preserve
the resources. He said it is the people that need to be managed. He said the local people
have trained the immigrants to obtain various resources, and now the immigrants are
doing it themselves. For example, the Bangladeshis are hunting coconut crabs and
selling them to the Chamorros. Stan said the Chamorros should not have taught the
immigrants to do that.
Francisco “Frank” Toves
Amesbury and Hunter-Anderson interviewed Frank Toves (Photo 17) at his home
on Rota on February 18, 2006. Toves is a Chamorro born on Rota June 8, 1946. Both
his parents were Chamorro.
Photo 17. Frank Toves at his home on Rota, February 2006. Photo by J. Amesbury.
Toves learned to fish from his father and other older people. His father worked
for the government, but he also fished to get food. His father was an agriculturalist in
charge of the Department of Agriculture and also the quarantine inspector. He had 11
children, two sons and nine daughters.
Toves’s father raised chickens and pigs and cattle. He had 100 cattle and 200
chickens. Toves said there are not many cattle on Rota now. An invasive plant species
known as masigsig (Chromolaena odorata) has spread in the pastures, and the cattle
won’t eat that plant.
140
Toves’s father had a 14-foot Yamaha boat with a 25-horsepower Evinrude engine.
He did bottomfishing, trolling, and spearfishing.
After Toves married, he fished on his own. His father gave him a boat. Toves
worked for a while as a policeman with Tony Mesngon and sometimes went out fishing
with him. He fished all around the island. Toves also worked as head of the quarantine
section, and he was the Director of Department of Land and Natural Resources from
1975 to 1977.
Toves fished with a handline. He bought hooks and line mostly from Guam.
They were less expensive in Guam than Saipan. He said that back in the 1970s and
1980s, you didn’t have to go far to catch wahoo, mahimahi, skipjack, and yellowfin.
He fished for his family, but sometimes sold fish when he caught a lot. He also
dried fish. He had a kerosene-operated refrigerator. Electricity on Rota was not 24hours a day until the 1970s. Before that, it went off at midnight.
Toves said he didn’t take turtle, because his family didn’t like it.
Toves said there are not as many fish now as there used to be in the 1970s and
1980s. He said you very seldom catch mahimahi now. His uncle recently went out for
two hours and caught only one wahoo. Toves said it may be that something has
happened to the food supply of the fish, or that the weather has changed. He said he
doesn’t want to point to a cause, but there are more fishermen now.
SUMMARY
The authors interviewed 16 people—three on Guam, five on Saipan, five on
Tinian, and three on Rota. The oldest individual was born in 1922 and the youngest in
1958. Most of the people interviewed are Chamorro or part Chamorro, but one is a
Caucasian American, one is Japanese, and two are Saipanese Carolinians.
Almost all of the fishers interviewed said the fish are not as plentiful as they were
in the past, but they offered various reasons for the change, including overfishing by
purse seiners and longliners, global warming, coastal pollution, damage to corals by
crown-of-thorns starfish, improper use of the marine resources by immigrants in the
CNMI, and lack of law enforcement. Two of the Guam fishermen stressed that the
biggest change has been in the number and size of yellowfin caught.
Stan Taisacan of Rota is unique among the fishers interviewed in that he is still
using tools and methods first described in the early 1800s. Stan and his children are
perpetuating the use of the poio and lagua hachuman in fishing for hachuman
(Decapterus sp. or opelu). They have also built their own canoes.
141
Alfonso Reyes remembered the pre-war Japanese fishery on Saipan. He
contributed information not found in the history books when he stated that there were
local people working in the Japanese fishery.
Rafael Rangamar and Lino Olopai of Saipan remembered the Saipan Fishing
Company that attempted to revive the pole-and-line fishery after the war, because their
fathers were part of that Carolinian fishing cooperative and they went out on the boats as
children.
Some of the people interviewed on Tinian had been born in Yap. They told how
the Chamorros who came to Tinian from Yap in 1948 occupied an island left vacant by
the repatriation of Japanese subjects, including Okinawans and Koreans, which was
completed by the end of 1946.
After the war, people in the Marianas began to buy boats. Lino Lizama on Tinian
still owns a Grumman aluminum canoe built in 1946 or 1947. His family later owned a
wooden boat built on Saipan. According to Lizama, there were only three or four boats
on Tinian by the mid-1960s, and Tony Mesngon said there were only about four boats on
Rota in the 1960s. It was not until the 1970s that there was electricity 24 hours a day on
Rota.
In the last few decades, the Chamorros have reclaimed their heritage as
outstanding pelagic fishermen. Men like Mike Fleming in Saipan, and Tony Mesngon
and his son in Rota earn their living or supplement it with their fishing. Long-term
residents of Guam, Peter Plummer and Masao Tembata operate successful charter boat
businesses primarily for the Japanese tourists.
Manny Duenas on Guam told how he runs what is probably the only successful
fishing cooperative in Micronesia. He attributes the success to long hours, financial
accountability, proper fish handling, and education of the consumers. He operates a true
co-op that benefits its members.
Each of the interviews contributes to our understanding of fishing during the 20th
century in the Mariana Islands.
142
REFERENCES CITED
Allen, Jim and Chris Gosden (eds.) 1991. Report of the Lapita Homeland Project.
Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National
University, Canberra.
Amesbury, Judith R. 2007. Mollusk collecting and environmental change during the
Prehistoric Period in the Mariana Islands. Coral Reefs 26:947-958.
Amesbury, Judith R. 2002. Bone Artifacts; Marine Shell Artifacts; Faunal Remains. In
Results of Monitoring and Data Recovery at Villa Kanton Tasi, Tumon Bay, Guam, by
Darlene R. Moore et al., pp. 35-39, 48-59, 76-81. Prepared for Beachfront Development
LLC, Tamuning, Guam. Micronesian Archaeological Research Services, Guam.
Amesbury, Judith R. 1999. Changes in species composition of archaeological marine
shell assemblages in Guam. Micronesica 31(2):347-366.
Amesbury, Judith R. and Rosalind L. Hunter-Anderson. 2003. Review of
Archaeological and Historical Data Concerning Reef Fishing in the U.S. Flag Islands of
Micronesia: Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Prepared for Western Pacific
Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu. Micronesian Archaeological
Research Services, Guam.
Amesbury, Judith R. and Rosalind L. Hunter-Anderson. 1989. Native Fishing Rights
and Limited Entry in Guam. Prepared for Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management
Council, Honolulu. Micronesian Archaeological Research Services, Guam.
Amesbury, Judith R., Rosalind L. Hunter-Anderson, Eleanor F. Wells. 1989. Native
Fishing Rights and Limited Entry in the CNMI. Prepared for Western Pacific Regional
Fishery Management Council, Honolulu. Micronesian Archaeological Research
Services, Guam.
Amesbury, Judith R., Darlene R. Moore, and Rosalind L. Hunter-Anderson. 1996.
Cultural adaptations and Late Holocene sea level change in the Marianas: Recent
excavations at Chalan Piao, Saipan, Micronesia. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory
Association 15(2):53-69.
Amesbury, Steven S. 1989. Fish Remains at NAVFAC, Ritidian Point. In
Archaeological Investigations at the Naval Facility (NAVFAC), Ritidian Point, Guam,
Mariana Islands, by Hiro Kurashina et al., pp. 212-220. Prepared for Department of the
Navy, Officer in Charge of Construction, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Contracts, Marianas. Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam, Mangilao,
and Applied Research Group, Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
143
Amesbury, Steven S. 1987. Analysis of the Fish Remains from the Tarague
Archaeological Excavation. In Understanding the Origins of Human Settlement in
Micronesia: Interdisciplinary Investigations at Tarague, Guam, Mariana Islands, by Hiro
Kurashina et al., pp. 193-205. Prepared for The National Geographic Society,
Washington, D.C. Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam, Mangilao.
Amesbury, Steven S., and Robert F. Myers. 1982. Guide to the Coastal Resources of
Guam: Vol. 1, The Fishes. University of Guam Marine Laboratory Contribution
Number 173. University of Guam Press, Mangilao.
Amesbury, Steven S., Frank A. Cushing, and Richard K. Sakamoto. 1986. Guide to the
Coastal Resources of Guam: Vol. 3, Fishing on Guam. University of Guam Marine
Laboratory Contribution Number 225. University of Guam Press, Mangilao.
Anderson, Atholl, Stuart Bedford, Geoffrey Clark, Ian Lilley, Christophe Sand, Glenn
Summerhayes and Robin Torrence. 2001. An inventory of Lapita sites containing
dentate-stamped pottery. In G. R. Clark, A. J. Anderson, and T. Vunidilo (eds.), The
Archaeology of Lapita Dispersal in Oceania, Papers from the Fourth Lapita Conference,
June 2000, Canberra, Australia. Terra Australis 17. Pandanus Books, Research School
of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra.
Anonymous. 1977. Distribution of resources and fishing grounds. Yamaha Fishery
Journal 1:11.
Anson, Dimitri. 1983. Lapita Pottery of the Bismarck Archipelago and its Affinities.
Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Sydney.
Anson, Baron George. 1748. A Voyage Round the World (1740-1744). Compiled by
Richard Walther, London.
Barratt, Glynn. 1988. H.M.S. Centurion at Tinian, 1742: The Ethnographic and Historic
Records. Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report No. 26, Saipan.
Bayliss-Smith, Tim. 1975. The price of protein: Marine fisheries in Pacific subsistence.
Paper presented at Pacific Science Congress, Vancouver, B. C.
Bellwood, Peter. 1987, Revised Edition. The Polynesians, Prehistory of an Island
People. Thames and Hudson, London.
Bowers, Neal M. 2001 (First published 1950). Problems of Resettlement on Saipan,
Tinian and Rota, Mariana Islands. Occasional Historical Papers Series No. 7, CNMI
Division of Historic Preservation, Saipan.
Brower, Kenneth. 1983. A Song for Satawal. Harper and Row, Publishers, New York.
144
Bulmer, Susan. 1999. Revisiting the red slip: The Laloki style pottery of southern Papua
and its possible relationship to Lapita. In The Pacific from 5000 to 2000 BP,
Colonisation and Transformations, edited by J-C Galipaud and I. Lilley, pp. 543-577.
IRD Editions, Paris.
Butler, Brian M. (ed.) 1995. Archaeological Investigations in the Achugao and Matansa
Areas of Saipan, Mariana Islands. Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report No. 30,
Division of Historic Preservation, Department of Community and Cultural Affairs,
Saipan.
Butler, Brian M. (ed.) 1988. Archaeological Investigations on the North Coast of Rota,
Mariana Islands. Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report No. 23 and Southern
Illinois University at Carbondale Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional
Paper No. 8.
Butler, Virginia L. 1995. Fish Remains. In Archaeological Investigations in the
Achugao and Matansa Areas of Saipan, Mariana Islands, edited by Brian M. Butler, pp.
305-310. Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report No. 30, Division of Historic
Preservation, Department of Community and Cultural Affairs, Saipan.
Carano, Paul and Pedro C. Sanchez. 1964. A Complete History of Guam. Charles E.
Tuttle Company, Rutland Vermont.
Carucci, James. 1993. The Archaeology of Orote Peninsula: Phase I and II
Archaeological Inventory Survey of Areas Proposed for Projects to Accommodate
Relocation of Navy Activities from the Philippines to Guam, Mariana Islands. Prepared
for Belt, Collins and Associates, Honolulu. International Archaeological Research
Institute, Inc.
Chevalley, A. and M. Chevalley. 1966. The Concise Oxford French Dictionary. Oxford
University Press, London.
Clark, G. R., A. J. Anderson, and T. Vunidilo (eds.) 2001. The Archaeology of Lapita
Dispersal in Oceania, Papers from the Fourth Lapita Conference, June 2000, Canberra,
Australia. Terra Australis 17. Pandanus Books, Research School of Pacific and Asian
Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra.
Craib, John L. 1998. Archaeological Excavations in the Uyulan Region of Rota.
Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report No. 33, Division of Historic Preservation,
Department of Community and Cultural Affairs, Saipan.
Craib, John L. 1993. Early occupations at Unai Chulu, Tinian, Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands. Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin 13:116-134.
145
Craib, John L. 1990. Archaeological Investigations at Mochong, Rota, Mariana Islands.
Submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands. Department of Archaeology, La Trobe University, Melbourne.
Craib, John L. 1986. Casas de los Antiguos: Social Differentiation in Protohistoric
Chamorro Society, Mariana Islands. Doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney,
Australia.
Crozet, Captain. 1891. Crozet’s Voyage to Tasmania, New Zealand, the Ladrone
Islands, and the Philippines in the Years 1771-1772. Translated by H. Ling Roth.
Truslove and Shirley, London.
Crumley, Carol L. 1995. Heterarchy and the analysis of complex societies. In
Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies, edited by R. Ehrenreich, C.
Crumley, and J. Levy, pp. 1-5. Papers of the American Anthropological Association 6,
Washington, D. C.
Crumley, Carol L. 1979. Three locational models: An epistemological assessment for
anthropology and archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory Vol.
2, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 141-173. Academic Press, New York.
Dampier, William. 1937. A New Voyage Round the World. Adam and Charles Black,
London.
Davidson, Janet and Foss Leach. 1988. Fish Bone. In Archaeological Investigations on
the North Coast of Rota, Mariana Islands, edited by Brian M. Butler, pp. 335-356.
Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report No. 23 and Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 8.
Davis, Bertell D., Myra J. Tomonari-Tuggle, and Stephen Wickler. 1992.
Archaeological Investigations at the Leo Palace Hotel Site, Naton Beach, Tumon Bay,
Guam. Volume I: Archaeological Data Recovery, Burial Recovery, and Monitoring.
Prepared for Sumitomo Construction Company, Tamuning, Guam. International
Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., Honolulu.
de la Corte y Ruano Calderón, Felipe María. 1970. Descriptive and Historical Report on
the Mariana Islands. Translation courtesy of Micronesian Area Research Center,
University of Guam, Mangilao.
Dickinson, William R., Brian M. Butler, Darlene R. Moore, and Marilyn Swift. 2001.
Geological sources and geographic distribution of sand tempers in prehistoric potsherds
from the Mariana Islands. Geoarchaeology 16(8):827-854.
Dilli, B.J., A.E. Haun, S.T. Goodfellow, and B. Deroo. 1998. Archaeological Mitigation
Program, Mangilao Golf Course Project Area, Volumes I through V. Prepared for Mr.
Jetan Sahni, GMF, Guam.
146
Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources. 1956-present. Annual Reports. On file at
Government of Guam Department of Agriculture, Mangilao, Guam.
Driver, Marjorie G. 2005. The Spanish Governors of the Mariana Islands. MARC
Educational Series No. 27, Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam,
Mangilao.
Driver, Marjorie G. 1989. The Account of Fray Juan Pobre’s Residence in the Marianas
1602. Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam, Mangilao.
Driver, Marjorie G. 1988. Fray Juan Pobre de Zamora: Hitherto unpublished accounts of
his residence in the Mariana Islands. Journal of Pacific History 23(1):86-94.
Driver, Marjorie G. 1983. Fray Juan Pobre de Zamora and his account of the Mariana
Islands. Journal of Pacific History 18(3):198-216.
Ehrenreich, R., C. Crumley, and J. Levy (eds.) 1995. Heterarchy and the Analysis of
Complex Societies. Papers of the American Anthropological Association 6, Washington,
D. C.
Farrell, Don A. 1992. Tinian. Micronesian Productions, CNMI.
Fleming, Michael A. 1986. The Scaridae Family in Pacific Prehistory. M. A. thesis,
Anthropology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Freycinet, Louis Claude de. 2003. An Account of the Corvette L’Uraine’s Sojourn at the
Mariana Islands, 1819. Translated and prefaced by Glynn Barratt. Occasional Historical
Papers No. 13, CNMI Division of Historic Preservation, Saipan, CNMI.
Freycinet, Louis Claude de. 1943. Voyage Autour du Monde. Unedited translation,
Human Relations Area Files, Yale University, New Haven.
Freycinet, Louis Claude de. 1824. Voyage Autour du Monde. Pillet Aine, Paris.
Fritz, Georg. 2001. The Chamorro, A History and Ethnography of the Mariana Islands.
Translated by Elfriede Craddock, edited by Scott Russell. Third English edition.
Occasional Historical Papers Series, No. 1, CNMI Division of Historic Preservation,
Saipan.
García, Francisco. 1985. The Life and Martyrdom of the Venerable Father Diego Luis
de Sanvitores. Translated by Margaret Higgens. Nieves M. Flores Memorial Library.
Agana, Guam.
147
Gosser, Dennis C., Jane Allen, Richard C. Nees, Karen Aronson, Constance R. O’Hare,
and Mary F. Riford. 2002. Final Report, Cultural Resources Survey of the Military
Leaseback Area, Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Volume 4:
Laboratory Analyses. Prepared for Department of the Navy, Pacific Division, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor. Ogden Environmental and Energy
Services, Co. Inc., Honolulu.
Governors of Guam. 1951-1970. Annual Reports. On file at Micronesian Area
Research Center, University of Guam, Mangilao.
Graves, Michael W., Terry L. Hunt, and Darlene R. Moore. 1990. Ceramic production
in the Mariana Islands: Explaining change and diversity in prehistoric interactions and
exchange. Asian Perspectives 29(2):211-233.
Grayson, Donald K. 1984. Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Academic Press, Inc.,
Orlando, Florida.
Haddon, A. C. and J. Hornell. 1936. Canoes of Oceania, Vol. 1, The Canoes of
Polynesia, Fiji, and Micronesia. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 27.
Honolulu.
Haun, Alan E., Joseph A. Jimenez, Melissa A. Kirkendal, and Susan T. Goodfellow.
1999. Archaeological Investigations at Unai Chulu, Island of Tinian, Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands. Prepared for Commander, Pacific Division, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.,
Hilo.
Higuchi, Wakako. 2007. Pre-war Japanese fisheries in Micronesia: Focusing on bonito
and tuna fishing in the Northern Mariana Islands. Immigration Studies No.3, pp. 49-68.
Center for Migration Studies, University of the Ryukyus, Nishihara, Okinawa, Japan.
Holstrum, Shawn, Martin Boudreau, and Susan T. Goodfellow. 1998. Non-ceramic
Artifact Analyses. In Volume II: Data Analyses, Archaeological Mitigation Program,
Mangilao Golf Course Project Area, by Dilli et al., pp. 186-240. Paul H. Rosendahl,
Ph.D., Inc., Hilo, Hawaii.
Hornbostel, Hans G. 1931. Trained fish and stone bait. Guam Recorder 8(9):426-427.
Hornbostel, Hans G. 1924-25. Unpublished field notes, on microfilm, Micronesian Area
Research Center, University of Guam, Mangilao.
Hsu, Y.C. 1982. Yami Fishing Practices: Migratory Fish. Southern Materials Centre
Inc., Taipei.
148
Hunter-Anderson, Rosalind L. 1989. Archaeological Investigations in the Small Boat
Harbor Project Area, Agat, Guam. Prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Pacific
Ocean Division, Ft. Shafter, Hawaii. International Archaeological Research Institute,
Inc., Honolulu.
Hunter-Anderson, Rosalind L. and Brian M. Butler. 1995. An Overview of Northern
Marianas Prehistory. Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report No. 31, Saipan.
Ikehara, Isaac I., Harry T. Kami, and Richard K. Sakamoto. 1970. Exploratory fishing
survey of the inshore fisheries resources of Guam. Proceedings of the Second CSK
Symposium, Tokyo, pp. 425-436.
Kano, T. and K. Segawa. 1956. An Illustrated Ethnography of Formosan Aborigines,
Volume 1: The Yami. Maruzen Co. Ltd., Tokyo.
Karolle, Bruce. 1997. Second Edition. Atlas of Micronesia. Bess Press, Honolulu.
Kerr, Alexander M. 1990. Chamorro fish names. Micronesica 23(2):93-118.
Kirch, Patrick V. 1997. Lapita Peoples: Ancestors of the Oceanic World. Blackwell
Publishers, Cambridge.
Klingman, Lawrence and Gerald Green. 1950. His Majesty O’Keefe. Charles
Scribner’s Sons, New York.
Knudson, Kenneth E. 1987. Non-Commercial Production and Distribution in the Guam
Fishery. Contract WPC-0983, Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council,
Honolulu.
Kurashina, Hiro with Col. Erwin Ray, Russell N. Clayshulte, Steven Amesbury, Richard
Randall, Barry Smith, and Rebecca A. Stephenson. 1987. Understanding the Origins of
Human Settlement in Micronesia: Interdisciplinary Investigations at Tarague, Guam,
Mariana Islands. Prepared for The National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.
Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam, Mangilao.
Kurashina, Hiro, Jeannette A. Simons, James A. Toenjes, Jane Allen, Steven S.
Amesbury, Gary M. Heathcote, Richard H. Randall, Barry D. Smith, Rebecca A.
Stephenson, Eleanor F. Wells. 1989. Archaeological Investigations at the Naval Facility
(NAVFAC), Ritidian Point, Guam, Mariana Islands. Prepared for Department of the
Navy, Officer in Charge of Construction, Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Contracts, Marianas. Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam, Mangilao,
and Applied Research Group, Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
Lander, Mark A. 1994. Meteorological Factors Associated with Drought on Guam.
Water and Energy Research Institute of the Western Pacific Technical Report No. 75,
University of Guam, Mangilao.
149
Leach, B. Foss and Janet M. Davidson. 2006b. Analysis of Faunal Material from an
Archaeological Site at Ylig, Guam. Technical Report 39, Museum of New Zealand Te
Papa Tongarewa.
Leach, B. Foss and Janet M. Davidson. 2006a. Analysis of Faunal Material from an
Archaeological Site Complex at Mangilao, Guam. Technical Report 38, Museum of New
Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.
Leach, B. Foss, Michael Fleming, Janet M. Davidson, Graeme K. Ward, and John L.
Craib. 1990. Appendix C, Prehistoric Fishing at Mochong, Rota, Mariana Islands. In
Archaeological Investigations at Mochong, Rota, Mariana Islands, by John L. Craib, pp.
C-1 to C-34. Submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation, Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands. Department of Archaeology, La Trobe University,
Melbourne.
Leach, B. Foss, Michelle Horwood, Ian Smith, and Rick McGovern-Wilson. 1989b.
Chapter 6, Analysis of Faunal Material from Songsong Village. In The Archaeology of
Songsong Village, Rota, Northern Mariana Islands, by Francis P. McManamon, pp. 6-1
to 6-29. Unpublished report on file at Micronesian Archaeological Research Services,
Guam.
Leach, B. Foss, Angela Boocock, and Michelle Horwood. 1989a. The Afetña Fauna. In
Afetña: The Prehistory of South West Saipan, by Rick McGovern-Wilson, pp. 71-113.
Prepared for InterPacific Resorts and Historic Preservation Office, Saipan. Anthropology
Department, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Lévesque, Rodrigue (compiler and editor). 1995b. History of Micronesia, A Collection
of Source Documents, Volume 5—Focus on the Mariana Mission, 1670-1673. Lévesque
Publications, Québec, Canada.
Lévesque, Rodrigue (compiler and editor). 1995a. History of Micronesia, A Collection
of Source Documents, Volume 4—Religious Conquest, 1638-1670. Lévesque
Publications, Québec, Canada.
Lévesque, Rodrigue (compiler and editor). 1993. History of Micronesia, A Collection of
Source Documents, Volume 3—First Real Contact, 1596-1637. Lévesque Publications,
Québec, Canada.
Lévesque, Rodrigue (compiler and editor). 1992b. History of Micronesia, A Collection
of Source Documents, Volume 2—Prelude to Conquest, 1561-1595. Lévesque
Publications, Québec, Canada.
Lévesque, Rodrigue (compiler and editor). 1992a. History of Micronesia, A Collection
of Source Documents, Volume 1—European Discovery, 1521-1560. Lévesque
Publications, Québec, Canada.
150
Li, K. 2002. Prehistoric marine fishing adaptation in southern Taiwan. Journal of East
Asian Archaeology 3(1-2):47-74.
Li, K. 1997. Change and Stability in the Dietary System of a Prehistoric Coastal
Population in Southern Taiwan. Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.
Liston, Jolie. 1996. The Legacy of Tarague Embayment and Its Inhabitants, Andersen
AFB, Guam, Volume I: Archaeology. Prepared for 36 CES/CEV, Unit 14007,
Environmental Flight, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. International Archaeology, Inc.,
Honolulu.
Marck, Jeffrey C. 1978. Interim Report on the 1977 Laulau Excavation, Saipan,
Northern Mariana Islands. Contract No. 577-015, Historic Preservation Office,
Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas.
Marden, Luis. 1986. The first landfall of Columbus. National Geographic 170(5):572577.
Masuda, H., K. Amaoka, C. Araga, T. Uyeno, and T. Yoshino. 1984. Fishes of the
Japanese Archipelago. Tokai University Press.
McGovern-Wilson, Rick. 1989. Afetña: The Prehistory of South West Saipan. Prepared
for InterPacific Resorts and Historic Preservation Office, Saipan. Anthropology
Department, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
McManamon, Francis P. (ed.) 1989. The Archaeology of Songsong Village, Rota,
Northern Mariana Islands. Unpublished report on file at Micronesian Archaeological
Research Services, Guam.
McNamara, Teresa and Brian M. Butler. 1988. Shell and Bone Artifacts. In
Archaeological Investigations on the North Coast of Rota, Mariana Islands, edited by
Brian M. Butler, pp. 279-299. Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report No. 23 and
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale Center for Archaeological Investigations
Occasional Paper No. 8.
Meacham, William. 1984-85. On the improbability of Austronesian origins in south
China. Asian Perspectives 26(1):89-106.
Miller, James G. 1965. Living systems: Basic concepts. Behavioral Science 10(3):193411.
Moore, Darlene R. 2002. Guam’s Prehistoric Pottery and its Chronological Sequence.
Prepared by Micronesian Archaeological Research Services, Guam, for International
Archaeological Research Institute, Honolulu.
151
Moore, Darlene R. 1983. Measuring Change in Marianas Pottery: The Sequence of
Pottery Production at Tarague, Guam. M. A. thesis, Behavioral Science, University of
Guam, Mangilao.
Moore, Darlene R. and Rosalind L. Hunter-Anderson. 1999. Pots and pans in the
intermediate Pre-Latte (2500-1600 BP), Mariana Islands, Micronesia. In The Pacific
from 5000 to 2000 BP, Colonisation and Transformations, edited by J-C Galipaud and I.
Lilley, pp. 487-503. IRD Editions, Paris.
Moore, Darlene R. and Rosalind L. Hunter-Anderson. 1994. Summary of sites and
feature descriptions. In Archaeology in Manenggon Hills, Yona, Guam, Vol. III, Results
of Analyses, edited by R. L. Hunter-Anderson, pp. 1.1-1.43. Prepared for MDI
Corporation, Yona, Guam.
Moore, Darlene R., Rosalind L. Hunter-Anderson, Judith R. Amesbury, and Eleanor F.
Wells. 1992. Archaeology at Chalan Piao, Saipan. Prepared for Jose Cabrera and the
Historic Preservation Division, Department of Community and Cultural Affairs,
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Saipan. Micronesian Archaeological
Research Services, Guam.
Moore, Philip H. and Patrick D. McMakin. 1979. Plants of Guam. Cooperative
Extension Service, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Guam,
Mangilao.
Myers, Robert F. 1984. Pelagic fish feeding study. In Aquatic and Wildlife Resources
Division Annual Report—Fiscal Year 1984, pp. 68-83. Department of Agriculture,
Mangilao, Guam.
Nelson, Joseph S. 2006. Fishes of the World. Fourth Edition. John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Olive y García, Francisco. 1984. Mariana Islands:1884-1887. Translated and annotated
by Marjorie G. Driver. Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam,
Mangilao.
Olopai, Lino M. with Juliana Flinn. 2005. The Rope of Tradition: Reflections of a
Saipan Carolinian. Northern Mariana Islands Council for the Humanities, Saipan.
Olmo, Richard K., Tina Mangieri, David J. Welch, and Thomas S. Dye. 2000. Phase II
Archaeological Survey and Detailed Recording at Commander, U.S. Naval Forces
Marianas (COMNAVMARIANAS) Communications Annex (formerly Naval Computer
and Telecommunications Area Master Station, Western Pacific [NCTAMS WESTPAC]),
Territory of Guam, Mariana Islands. Prepared for Department of the Navy, Pacific
Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. International
Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., Honolulu.
152
Pelagics Plan Team and Council Staff. 2007. Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific
Region, 2006 Annual Report. Prepared for the Western Pacific Regional Fishery
Management Council, Honolulu.
Pellet, M. and A. Spoehr. 1961. Marianas archaeology: Report on an excavation on
Tinian. Journal of the Polynesian Society 70(3):321-325.
Perez, Rodrigo D., III, Rosario S. Encarnations, and Julian E. Dacanay, Jr. 1989. Folk
Architecture. GCF Books, Quezon City.
Pulliam, H. R. 1996. Sources and sinks: Empirical evidence and population
consequences. In J. Olin, E. Rhodes, R. K. Chesser, and M. H. Smith (eds.), Population
Dynamics in Ecological Space and Time, pp. 45-70. University of Chicago Press.
Pulliam, H. R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist
132:652-661.
Rainbird, Paul. 2004. Archaeology of Micronesia. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Rappaport, Roy. 1969. Some suggestions concerning concept and method in ecological
anthropology. In David Damas (ed.), Contributions to Anthropology: Ecological Essays.
National Museums of Canada Bulletin 230, Anthropological Series No. 86.
Ray, Erwin R. 1981. The Material Culture of Prehistoric Tarague Beach, Guam. M. A.
thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe.
Reed, Eric E. 1952. General Report on Archaeology and History of Guam. Department
of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
Rogers, Captain Woodes. 1928. A Cruising Voyage Round the World. Longmans,
Green and Co., New York.
Rogers, Robert F. 1995. Destiny's Landfall, A History of Guam. University of Hawaii
Press, Honolulu.
Safford, William E. 1910. A Year on the Island of Guam: Extracts from the Note-Book
of a Naturalist on the Island of Guam. Typescript copy of Safford’s diary as published in
the Guam Recorder from 1933-36. On file at Micronesian Area Research Center,
University of Guam, Mangilao.
Safford, William E. 1905. Useful Plants of the Island of Guam. Contributions from the
United States National Herbarium Volume IX. Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C.
153
Sanchez, Pedro C. 1984. Guam 1941-1945: Wartime, Occupation, and Liberation. Star
Press, Tamuning, Guam.
Sanchez, Pedro C. 1979. Uncle Sam, Please Come Back to Guam. Pacific Island
Publishing Company, Tamuning, Guam.
Shutler, Richard, Jr. 1999. The relationship of red-slipped and lime-impressed pottery of
the Southern Philippines to that of Micronesia and the Lapita of Oceania. In J-C
Galipaud and I. Lilley (eds.), The Pacific from 5000 to 2000 BP, Colonisation and
Transformations, pp. 521-529. IRD, Paris.
Solheim, Wilhelm G. II. 2002. Revised Edition. The Archaeology of Central
Philippines: A Study Chiefly of the Iron Age and its Relationships. Archaeological
Studies Program, University of the Philippines-Diliman.
Solheim, Wilhelm G. II. 1984-85. The Nusantao: The origin and spread of Austronesian
speakers. Asian Perspectives 26(1):77-88.
South Seas Bureau. 1923-1929. Annual Reports to the League of Nations on the
Administration of the South Sea Islands under Japanese Mandate.
Specht, Jim and Chris Gosden. 1997. Dating Lapita pottery in the Bismarck
Archipelago, Papua New Guinea. Asian Perspectives 36(2):175-199.
Spoehr, Alexander. 2000 (Second Edition). Saipan: The Ethnology of a War-Devastated
Island. N.M.I. Division of Historic Preservation.
Spoehr, Alexander. 1957. Marianas Prehistory. Fieldinana: Anthropology Vol. 48.
Spoehr, Alexander. 1954. Saipan: The Ethnology of a War-Devastated Island.
Fieldiana:Anthropology 41, Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago.
Stuiver, M. and G. W. Pearson. 1986. High-precision calibration of the radiocarbon time
scale, AD 1950-500 BC. Radiocarbon 28(2b):805-838.
Stuiver M. and P. J. Reimer. 1993. Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14C
age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35:215-230.
Summerhayes, Glenn R. 2000. Far Western, Western, and Eastern Lapita: A reevaluation. Asian Perspectives 39(1-2):109-138.
Terrell, John E. 1977. Geographic systems and human diversity in the North Solomons.
World Archaeology 9(1):62-81.
Terrell, John E. and Robert L. Welsch. 1997. Lapita and the temporal geography of
prehistory. Antiquity 71(273):548-572.
154
Thiel, Barbara J. 1980. Subsistence change and continuity in Southeast Asian
Prehistory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Thompson, Laura Maud. 1932. Archaeology of the Marianas Islands. Bernice P. Bishop
Museum Bull. No. 100.
U.S. Naval Government of Guam. 1901-1941, 1946-1950. Annual, Quarterly, and
Monthly Reports on Guam. On file at Micronesian Area Research Center, University of
Guam, Mangilao.
U.S. Government. 1948-1978. Annual Report to the United Nations on the
Administration of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Prepared by the Department
of the Navy 1948-1951, by the Department of the Interior 1952-1953, and by the State
Department 1954 through 1978.
Ward, Jerome V. 1995. Appendix B: A Holocene pollen record from Laguas River,
Guam. In Archaeology in the Marine Drive Corridor from Agana to Agat, Guam, by
Eleanor F. Wells, Usha K. Prasad, and Rosalind L. Hunter-Anderson, pp. 205-224.
Prepared for Guam Department of Public Works, Agana. Micronesian Archaeological
Research Services, Guam.
Weaver, Guy. 1988. Stone and Coral Tools. In Archaeological Investigations on the
North Coast of Rota, Mariana Islands, edited by Brian M. Butler, pp. 279-299.
Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report No. 23 and Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 8.
White, Joyce C. 1995. Heterarchy and socio-political development in Southeast Asia. In
Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies, edited by R. Ehrenreich, C. Crumley,
and J. Levy, pp. 101-123. Papers of the American Anthropological Association 6,
Washington, D.C.
155
156
APPENDIX A
ANALYSIS OF FAUNAL MATERIAL FROM
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE COMPLEX
AT MANGILAO, GUAM
By
B. F. Leach
and
J. M. Davidson
This project was funded (or partly funded) by Cooperative Agreement NA17RJ1230
between the Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research (JIMAR) and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The views expressed
herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any
of its subdivisions.
Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa
Technical Report 38
Analysis of Faunal Material from
an Archaeological Site Complex
at Mangilao, Guam
Leach, B.F.
Davidson, J.M.
Honorary Research Associates,
Museum of New Zealand, Te Papa Tongarewa
April, 2006
Not for citation without permission of the authors
This is an unrefereed report intended for limited distribution. Copies or further information may be
obtained either from the senior author at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, PO Box
467, Wellington, New Zealand; or from Micronesian Archaeological Research Services, A Guam
Non-Profit Educational and Scientific Corporation, P.O. Box 22303 GMF, Guam, 96921 USA.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Page 2
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
CURATORIAL DETAILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
METHODS OF FISH BONE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8
BASIC RESULTS OF FISH BONE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8
THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF FISHING AT MANGILAO SITE 25 . . . . . . . Page 15
FISH REMAINS FROM SITES 253 AND 667 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 20
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 20
REFERENCES CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 20
APPENDIX: Detailed Results for Fish Analysis from Mangilao . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 4: Mangilao Site 25 MNI All Assemblages Combined . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 5: Mangilao Site 25 MNI For Four Time Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 6: Mangilao Site 25 MNI For Western, Central and Eastern Areas
Table 7: Mangilao Site 25 NISP by Taxon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 8: Mangilao Site 253 NISP by Taxon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 9: Mangilao Site 667 NISP by Taxon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 10: List of Identifications of Fish Remains from Mangilao Site 25 .
Table 11: List of Identifications of Fish Remains from Mangilao Site 253
Table 12: List of Identifications of Fish Remains from Mangilao Site 253
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
22
22
26
30
34
35
36
37
44
45
ANALYSIS OF FAUNAL MATERIAL FROM
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE COMPLEX
AT MANGILAO, GUAM
Leach, B.F., and Davidson, J.M.
Archaeozoology Laboratory
Museum of New Zealand, Te Papa Tongarewa
ABSTRACT
A collection of approximately 8,000 fish bones from an archaeological site complex at Mangilao
on the island of Guam was analysed. Identifiable bones were found in 127 different assemblages.
In total, these bones produced a Minimum Number of Individuals of 267 fishes (NISP=394). There
were also a few bones of rats, birds and flying fox in the collections, but details of these are
reported elsewhere.
The collections were examined for possible changes through time and from one area to another,
without showing signs of significant variation.
Although 20 different families of fish are represented in these collections, all assemblages are
dominated by fish belonging to the Scaridae family (parrotfish). This is similar to most other
archaeological collections throughout the Pacific. Second in importance are fish belonging to the
Coryphaenidae family (dolphinfish), and fifth in abundance are significant quantities of fish in the
Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae families (swordfish and marlins). It is exceptional to find these species in
archaeological sites in the Pacific; the bones from Mangilao are matched only in other sites in the
Marianas chain of islands.
A few bones were found from at least 5 species which are not present in the comparative collection
at the Archaeozoology Laboratory at the Museum of New Zealand.
Keywords: ARCHAEOLOGY, ARCHAEOZOOLOGY,
DOLPHINFISH, SWORDFISH, MARLIN
FISH,
GUAM,
MARIANAS,
INTRODUCTION
The results of the analysis of archaeological fish bone from numerous small excavations at Mangilao
on the island of Guam are reported here.
The sites were excavated as part of mitigation during preparations for a golf course. The fish
remains from these excavations were sent to the author by Micronesian Archaeological Research
Services for identification using the comparative collection and other facilities at the Archaeozoology
Laboratory, Museum of New Zealand. This report presents the results of this work.
Figure 1 shows the location of Guam at the bottom end of the Marianas chain of islands. Figure 2
is a map of Guam, and Figure 3 shows the area on Guam where the investigations were carried out.
The three excavated sites from which fish bones were recovered are highlighted.
CURATORIAL DETAILS
On arrival at the Archaeozoology Laboratory all faunal material was re-bagged. Figure 4 shows a
typical original bag containing the bones. This bag has numerous items of information written on
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Figure 1: Map of the Mariana Islands with Guam at the extreme south
Page 2
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Figure 2: Plan of Guam. The Mangilao area is on the east coast
Page 3
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Page 4
Figure 3: Map of the Mangilao Project area. Numbered locations are specific archaeological sites.
Note the location of sites 25, 253 and 667.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Page 5
it, which would be impossible to replicate many times as individual bones are removed, re-bagged,
and identified. It is a fundamental curatorial procedure in archaeology never to destroy locational
information relating to any item recovered. Fortunately, this information is available in a database
(Excel files) held by Micronesian Archaeological Research Services, cross-referenced by a unique
accession number which appears on each bag. In Figure 4 the bag is labelled #2559. The database
listing for #2559 shows the following:
Catalogue Number
Site
Unit (Square)
Strat. (Layer)
#2559
25
420
IIIb
These details constitute the minimum information required for curation. In particular the Site, Square
and Layer information constitutes a unique location in time and space known as an Assemblage.
This assemblage is the unit used for calculation of MNI (minimum number of individuals during
faunal analysis). For example, if one right dentary of Monotaxis grandoculis is found in one such
assemblage, and a left dentary of Monotaxis grandoculis is found in another discrete assemblage,
then this would count as MNI=2 for this species. Conversely, if one right dentary of Monotaxis
grandoculis is found in one such assemblage, and a left dentary of Monotaxis grandoculis is found
in the same discrete assemblage, then this would count as MNI=1 for this species, regardless of how
big or small the two bones are. Clearly, the identification of what constitutes an assemblage is a
very important matter during faunal analysis. Our usual procedure is to define one square metre of
one individual layer as an assemblage and use that to define assemblages. In the case of the
Mangilao collection, many of the Excavation Units (EUs or Squares) were one metre square,
although others were larger than this.
Since the catalogue number was uniquely cross-referenced to Site, Square and Layer, using the
database, this number is ideal to use during re-bagging, to ensure that locational information is not
lost. It was therefore written on all bags during the re-bagging process to preserve original
provenance information (See Figure 5). One bag, on which the accession number had been
incorrectly transcribed, was excluded from the analysis.
Almost all of the fish remains derives from Site 25. In the body of this report, results are reported
only for Site 25. In the Appendices, identifications are also given for bones from Site 253 and Site
667.
The bones in each original bag were tipped out in a sorting tray and sorted into basic categories:
fish, bird, rat, flying fox, turtle, crustacea, and separately re-bagged in self-sealing plastic bags. The
non-fish remains consist mainly of fragmented bones of rat and flying fox. There was also a
considerable number of crustacean parts. In the case of fish remains, these were sorted into
anatomical parts which are useful for identification to species, genera, or family, and separately rebagged, and the original unique catalogue number written on each bag. Unidentifiable fish remains
were returned to their original bags. More than 90% of archaeological fish bones are fragments of
vertebrae and spines, and not normally used for quantitative analysis. However, they certainly have
other scientific value, such as growth rate studies of ancient fishes, and for this reason are kept for
posterity after excavation.
Identification of the fish remains was made using comparative material held at the Archaeozoology
Laboratory, Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. As each identification was made, the
anatomy (for example 2 LD = 2 Left Dentaries) and the taxon identified were written on a
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Page 6
Figure 4: Copy of a typical original bag before re-bagging, including catalogue number #2559
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Page 7
Figure 5: A typical self-sealing plastic bag after re-bagging. The original catalogue number #3053
preserves the unique location details. The identification is written on a removable label on the
outside of the bag.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Page 8
removable label which was stuck on the bag. At a later stage, when information was entered into
a computer database (known as Kupenga), a reference number was allocated from the database, and
this is written on the bag, and circled. This process ensures that there is a direct link between the
two databases and every single bag. Should a more precise identification be made at some later
stage, or an error identified in anatomy or species, one can return to the precise point in the
database, make any corrections necessary and then update all tables using suitable software held by
the authors.
In a few cases bones belonged to species not present in the Archaeozoology Laboratory. When this
happens ‘Unidentified Species A’ is entered. In the case of Mangilao, six different unidentified
species were found, and labelled A to F respectively. These occur in the category Teleostomi in
Tables in this report. Only a few of the standard fish bones from Mangilao could not be identified.
METHODS OF FISH BONE ANALYSIS
The methods of analysis closely follow the technique developed in New Zealand for the treatment
of archaeological fish bone assemblages from the Pacific Islands generally. This has been described
elsewhere (Leach and Davidson, 1977; Leach 1986, 1997) so only a few details need to be given
here. The assemblages covered in this report are quite small and make it difficult to observe
significant temporal variation.
The identifiable fish bones were sorted anatomically and re-bagged. Taking each part of the anatomy
in turn, bones were then sorted into taxonomic categories, and identified with reference to the
comparative collection, which contains mounted bones of over 300 Pacific species. The
nomenclature and taxonomy largely follow Munro (1967).
It is important to note that all identifications are made to the lowest taxonomic level possible. The
level at which tropical Pacific fish bone can be identified varies greatly. For example, amongst the
Holocentridae family, the cranial anatomy, particularly the dentary, of Ostichthys murdjan is very
distinctive. Holocentrus ruber is also fairly distinctive, but a bone apparently belonging to this
species would not be entered as such on a bag. Instead the identification would be entered as
Holocentrus cf. ruber, indicating that this species is the most similar in the comparative collection,
but although the genus is certain the species is not. Other bone specimens belonging to this family
can only be identified to the level of Holocentrus sp. At the other end of the scale, with one
exception, cranial bones of the Scaridae family are not identified to a level lower than family. The
exception is Bolbometopon muraticum, which is of exceptional size. Fleming has shown that close
familiarity with the cranial anatomy of the Scaridae permits identification to sub-family without
great difficulty, and that the bucktooth characteristics of Calotomus spp. are also distinctive
(Fleming, 1986: 167 ff.). However, the different Scaridae species have similar habitats and are
caught by similar methods. From the point of view of studying human behaviour, identifying to
species is therefore of little value.
The calculation of minimum numbers follows the general technique of Chaplin (1971), and is further
discussed by Leach (1986, 1997). No attempt is made to increase MNI by taking into account
observed size mis-matches. For comparative purposes, NISP values were also calculated and given
in this report.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Page 9
BASIC RESULTS OF FISH BONE ANALYSIS
Some 394 bones were able to be identified from 127 different assemblages from Site 25 at
Mangilao. The Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) for each type of fish was calculated and
these details are provided in the Appendix, and summarised by family in Tables 1, 2 and 3 (see also
Figures 5, 6 and 7). The bones were generally in good condition. However, a few premaxilla of
Diodontidae (pufferfish) were very weathered and may not represent food remains. They have,
however, been included in the analysis.
TABLE 1
Mangilao Site 25 Total MNI by Family
All Assemblages Combined
Family Name
Scaridae
Coryphaenidae
Coridae/Labridae
Lethrinidae
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Epinephelidae
Elasmobranchii
Diodontidae
Balistidae
Acanthuridae
Nemipteridae
Lutjanidae
Acanthocybiidae
Teleostomi
Carangidae
Coridae
Scombridae
Echeneidae
Holocentridae
Kyphosidae
Total
MNI
97
41
21
20
14
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
267
%
36.33
15.36
7.87
7.49
5.24
4.12
3.75
3.37
3.00
2.62
2.25
1.87
1.50
1.50
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.37
0.37
100
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
6.0
4.5
3.4
3.3
2.9
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.9
Confidence limits are provided for each percentage in this and other Tables in this report. A percentage statistic (or
proportions, whose sum=1.0) is a measure of relative abundance in the sense that when one percentage changes, so do
all the others, so that the sum remains 100.0. The significance of any difference in relative abundance between two sets
is easily tested by calculating the error range of each percentage (or proportion) to see if the two sets overlap or not.
The calculation of the confidence limit of a proportion is as follows (Snedecor and Cochran 1967: 210–211; Leach and
de Souza 1979: 32):
C = K * (P * (1.0 - P) / N)0.5 + 1 / 2N
C is the confidence limit, P is the proportion, N the sample size, and K is a constant related to the chosen probability
level (= 1.96 for 95% confidence, following the distribution of Student’s t). The factor 1/2N is added as a correction
for continuity, which is important for small samples. For example, If N=128 and there are 7 items with some
characteristic, then P=0.054688, and C=0.0433. So the 95% confidence range can be expressed as 5.47% ± 4.33%. For
small samples, the distribution of Student’s t must be consulted to adjust the value of C accordingly. For example if
N=35, C will be 2.02, not 1.96.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Figure 6: The abundance of different families of fish at Site 25, Mangilao.
Page 10
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Page 11
TABLE 2
Mangilao MNI and Percent by Family
Assemblages Combined into Four Periods
1=Early, 2=Middle, 3=Late, 4=Historic
Family
Scaridae
Coryphaenidae
Lethrinidae
Coridae/Labridae
Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae
Epinephelidae
Elasmobranchii
Balistidae
Diodontidae
Acanthuridae
Lutjanidae
Acanthocybiidae
Nemipteridae
Teleostomi
Coridae
Scombridae
Echeneidae
Carangidae
Holocentridae
Kyphosidae
Totals
1
6
1
1
1
1
10
Family
Scaridae
Coryphaenidae
Lethrinidae
Coridae/Labridae
Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae
Epinephelidae
Elasmobranchii
Balistidae
Diodontidae
Acanthuridae
Lutjanidae
Acanthocybiidae
Nemipteridae
Teleostomi
Coridae
Scombridae
Echeneidae
Carangidae
Holocentridae
Kyphosidae
Totals
1
60.0±39.1
10.0±25.9
10.0±25.9
10.0±25.9
10.0±25.9
100.0
2
33
21
14
11
3
8
6
4
2
3
3
3
4
1
2
2
1
121
3
43
18
4
5
9
2
2
2
6
2
2
1
1
1
1
99
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
7
2
3
4
27.3±8.3 43.4±10.4 28.6±46.5
17.4±7.2 18.2±8.2
11.6±6.1 4.0±4.4 14.3±37.6
9.1±5.5
5.1±4.9
2.5±3.2
9.1±6.2 14.3±37.6
6.6±4.8
2.0±3.3
5.0±4.3
2.0±3.3 14.3±37.6
3.3±3.6
2.0±3.3
6.1±5.3 14.3±37.6
1.7±2.7
2.0±3.3 14.3±37.6
2.5±3.2
2.0±3.3
2.5±3.2
1.0±2.5
2.5±3.2
1.0±2.5
3.3±3.6
0.8±2.0
1.7±2.7
1.7±2.7
1.0±2.5
0.8±2.0
1.0±2.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
84
39
19
16
13
11
10
7
7
5
5
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
237
%
35.44
16.46
8.02
6.75
5.49
4.64
4.22
2.95
2.95
2.11
2.11
1.69
1.69
1.69
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.42
0.42
0.42
100
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Figure 7: Relative abundance of fish at different Time Periods at Mangilao.
Page 12
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
TABLE 3
Mangilao MNI and Percent by Family
Assemblages Combined into Three Areas
1=Western, 2=Central, 3=Eastern
Family Name
Scaridae
Coryphaenidae
Coridae/Labridae
Lethrinidae
Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae
Epinephelidae
Elasmobranchii
Diodontidae
Balistidae
Acanthuridae
Nemipteridae
Lutjanidae
Acanthocybiidae
Teleostomi
Carangidae
Coridae
Scombridae
Echeneidae
Holocentridae
Kyphosidae
Total
1
23
6
1
2
7
2
5
1
1
1
1
50
2
5
3
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
21
Family
Scaridae
Coryphaenidae
Coridae/Labridae
Lethrinidae
Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae
Epinephelidae
Elasmobranchii
Diodontidae
Balistidae
Acanthuridae
Nemipteridae
Lutjanidae
Acanthocybiidae
Teleostomi
Carangidae
Coridae
Scombridae
Echeneidae
Holocentridae
Kyphosidae
Totals
1
46.0±15.1
12.0±10.2
2.0±5.0
4.0±6.6
14.0±10.8
4.0±6.6
10.0±9.5
2.0±5.0
2.0±5.0
2.0±5.0
2.0±5.0
100.0
2
23.8±21.7
14.3±18.2
19.0±20.2
9.5±15.7
4.8±12.0
4.8±12.0
4.8±12.0
4.8±12.0
4.8±12.0
4.8±12.0
4.8±12.0
100.0
3
69
32
16
16
7
8
5
8
6
5
5
4
3
4
2
1
2
2
1
196
3
35.2±6.9
16.3±5.4
8.2±4.1
8.2±4.1
3.6±2.9
4.1±3.0
2.6±2.5
4.1±3.0
3.1±2.7
2.6±2.5
2.6±2.5
2.0±2.2
1.5±2.0
2.0±2.2
1.0±1.7
0.5±1.3
1.0±1.7
1.0±1.7
0.5±1.3
100.0
Total
97
41
21
20
14
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
267
%
36.33
15.36
7.87
7.49
5.24
4.12
3.75
3.37
3.00
2.62
2.25
1.87
1.50
1.50
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.37
0.37
100
Page 13
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Figure 8: Relative abundance of fish at different areas at Mangilao.
Page 14
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Page 15
The time periods represented in Table 2 and Figure 7 were arrived at with advice from Micronesian
Archaeological Research Services. The groupings suggested were:
Historic
Late Period
Middle Period
Early Period
Layers I and II
Layer IIIa
Layers IIIb to IIIf
Layer IIIg (only present in the western area)
Some identified bones were from mixed or uncertain contexts. These are excluded from Table 2 and
Figure 7.
The split into three areas in Table 3 and Figure 8 follows clear divisions of excavated squares.
These are listed in Table 6 in the Appendix. Statistical errors for each percentage are given in
Tables 2 and 3 (for details of this see below Table 1). These assist evaluation of the significance
of any observed difference between time periods or areas. For example, it will be noticed that in
the case of swordfish and marlin there is an apparent rise in abundance through time.
Historic Period
Late Period
Middle Period
Early
14.3%
9.1%
2.5%
0.0%
Such an inference, however, must be tempered by the statistical error margins around these
estimates, which are: 2.5±3.2, 9.1±6.2, and 14.3±37.6 respectively. Clearly, these margins overlap,
and the inference fails to be confirmed. With much larger samples it is possible that this apparent
trend through time could be confirmed; on the other hand, it may be quashed.
Careful examination of both Tables 2 and 3 will show that no changes in time or from one area to
another can be confirmed.
THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF FISHING AT MANGILAO SITE 25
The fish remains at Mangilao belong to at least 20 different families (Figure 1). This is fairly typical
for Pacific Island prehistoric people. The catch is also dominated by only a few species, four or five
at most. Again, there is nothing unusual about this. The most common type of fish in almost all
archaeological sites in the Pacific belong to the Scaridae, and once again Mangilao is no exception.
One interesting find at Mangilao is the presence of two right maxillae of some species of tuna,
unfortunately not able to be identified other than to family. Tuna are rare in Pacific island
archaeological sites.
It is also notable that there are examples of both the humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) and
the humphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum). This is unusual in our experience of Pacific
archaeological fish bone collections. These fish grow to considerable size (humphead parrotfish to
about 1.2 metres, and humphead wrasse to about 1.8 metres) and are very strong animals. If they
are speared and not killed outright they will instantly dive taking both the spear and the fishermen
to depths. They would also make a mess of any net they become entangled in. It is uncertain how
these fish would have been caught in prehistoric times.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Figure 9: The dolphinfish and several species of swordfish and marlin
Page 16
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Page 17
However, the most unusual aspect of the fish remains at Mangilao is the presence of significant
numbers of dolphinfish and one or more species belonging to the Istiophoridae or Xiphiidae families
or both (Figure 9).
Dolphinfish were mainly identified from their distinctive vertebrae, although a few cranial bones
were also present. These fish are quite numerous at Mangilao, and catching them shows great
enterprise on the part of the prehistoric people on Guam. Dolphinfish are very strong and can reach
great speed in the water. One of their favourite foods is flyingfish, which they are able to follow
underwater as they fly overhead, capturing them as they re-enter the water.
Mention must be made of the systematic hunting of dolphinfish in recent times by the Yami people
of Botel Tobago, off the south-east coast of Taiwan (Hsu 1982: 116 ff.; Kano and Segawa 1956:
186). However, several archaeological sites at O-Luan-Pi on the southernmost tip of Taiwan suggest
a more convincing link with the Marianas (Leach et al. 1988a: 37, 53; Li 1997). These sites in
Taiwan date from about 2,000 to 5,000 BP and possess notable similarities with sites in Guam and
elsewhere in the Marianas. People in both these areas possessed highly specialised fishing skills, not
seen in any other part of Oceania.
Dolphinfish are migratory, and are most abundant in the Guam waters from February to April
(Amesbury and Myers 1982: 49); there is an even shorter period when they can be taken in the
waters about Botel Tobago — during May and June (Kano and Segawa 1956: 186). These authors
also note (ibid.) that the fish when caught has a special hook placed in its mouth and this is then
tied tight to the tail. The fish is literally bent to death in this manner (see also Hsu 1982: 296). This
seems a very odd way of killing a fish, since a cut through the arteries at the base of the operculum
kills even large fishes very quickly. It is noteworthy that this same method of constraining the fish
was used in Tahiti (see Nordhoff 1930: 170), although the hook which actually caught the fish was
used. Nordhoff also makes an important remark in passing that “in the old days, before
Micronesians and Cook Islanders taught the Society Island people how to catch flying fish by
torchlight… ” (ibid.: 169), they were caught during the day. This remark confirms a suspicion, now
difficult to document, that during the historic period in the Pacific, there was a great deal of
exchange of knowledge on different fishing methods. This makes it very difficult now to evaluate
from historic records what are genuinely ‘traditional’ methods. Nevertheless, there could be some
significance in the parallel between Botel Tobago and the Marianas and Guam when it comes to
dolphinfish.
Unfortunately, comparative material is not available which would assist with identification of marlin
or swordfish from Site 25 even to the correct genus. Although our database is coordinated with the
family organisation of Munro (1967), the most cited authority on the higher level taxonomy of
fishes is Nelson (1994) who divides the family Xiphiidae into two subfamilies: Xiphinae (swordfish)
and Istiophorinae; the latter having three genera: Istiophoris (sailfishes), Tetrapturus (spearfishes)
and Makaira (marlins) (Nelson 1994: 428–429). The distribution of these fishes is complex, varying
both seasonally and geographically. It is always tempting to assist identification of archaeological
fauna using modern distributional data; however, there is a problem associated with this approach
— over archaeological time there can be significant changes in climate and oceanic current
circulation patterns, which have a dramatic affect on the distribution of many animals, fishes
included. This temptation should therefore be resisted and bones identified from their unique
anatomical details alone.
There are a number of parts of the anatomy which are highly distinctive of marlin and swordfish.
Their mouthparts are obviously unusual, but so are their vertebrae, which are considerably elongated,
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Page 18
Figure 10: The relative abundance of swordfish/marlin and dolphinfish. Only 7 sites of more than 70
in the database have significant archaeological remains of fishes of these families.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Page 19
with an hourglass shaped interior. They also possess a partly ossified secondary shell inside the
vertebral cavity. Finally, the zygapophyses are greatly elongated, acting as anchoring plates for their
strong back muscles, which assist high speed in the water when hunting. Therefore, fragments of
both vertebrae and zygapophyses may be identified to this group of fishes. Finally, the caudal
peduncle of this group of fishes is again highly distinctive, and since there is only one per fish is
ideal for calculating MNI.
Although it is not possible at the moment to identify which kind of swordfish or marlin was being
caught at Mangilao, at least two species were certainly present. The database of fish remains from
Pacific archaeological sites in the Archaeozoology Laboratory contains information from 74 sites
scattered across the Pacific. Only seven sites have evidence of swordfish/marlin fishing, and these
are shown on Figure 10. Other than Motupore near Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea, these sites
are all located in the Marianas chain. The presence of prehistoric big-game fishing for
swordfish/marlin, dolphinfish and tuna has been noted before at archaeological sites on the island
of Rota: at Mochong (Leach et al. 1988a), at Songsong (Leach et al. 1988b), and on the road to the
airport on the north coast between these two (Davidson and Leach 1988), on Tinian at Tachogna
(Leach et al. 1988a), and at the Pagat site on Guam (Craib 1986: Table C-3).
There are far too many bones of these fish in increasing numbers of archaeological sites for them
to have been simply isolated examples washed ashore; rather it seems fairly certain that they were
being systematically hunted in prehistoric times. One possibility is that these people learned how
to catch them after specimens were hooked on dolphinfish lines. Pollard (1969: 70 ff.) has some
useful comments to make on marlin habits. He notes that small black marlin will take lure hooks,
but that it is almost impossible to get a large marlin to accept a lure. Instead, bait trolling is
required, and the bait should be sizeable — bait fish as large as 3.5 to 4.5 kg are very effective. If
flying fish were used for bait trolling for dolphinfish, then it is quite feasible that some smaller
marlin were hooked in this way. Once people learned how to catch small specimens, then it is
possible that experimentation with different kinds of bait trolling might result in the capture of large
specimens. In this respect, Zamora had some useful comments to make in AD 1602 on the Marianas
fishermen in the historic period. It appears that flying fish was a very important target of their
fishing:
the first flying fish is eaten raw; the second is baited on a large hook attached to a line that
is cast over the stern of the boat. Many dorados [mahimahi; dolphin fish; Coryphaena
hippurus], agujas paladares [possibly blue marlin, or Makaira higricans [sic, nigricans]], and
other large fish are caught in this manner (Driver 1983: 208).
The social importance of these large fish is also recorded by Zamora, and he describes various
aspects of associated ceremonial behaviour and salting of the meat for preservation. One interesting
story, reminiscent of Ernest Hemingway’s tale of the ‘Old Man and the Sea’, is recounted as
follows:
…a very large blue marlin [aguja paladar] took the hook. His line was very thin and, as he
did not want to break it, he hesitated to pull it in. Yet he was very anxious to land the fish;
therefore, he very cautiously began playing and tiring it. This took a long time. Meanwhile,
a large shark appeared and attacked the blue marlin in the midsection of its back. In order
not to let go of his line, the indio allowed his boat to capsize. Then he tied the end of his
line to the capsized funei, followed the line through the water to the shark, and diverted him
from his catch. Then he brought the blue marlin back to his boat, righted the craft, and
sailed home, flying a woven mat as a banner from the masthead. Once ashore, he began to
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Page 20
tell us what had happened and, like a person who believes he has accomplished a great feat,
very proudly strutted pompously along the beach (Driver 1983: 209).
To catch and land a swordfish or marlin, weighing at least several hundred and possibly as much
as a thousand kilograms, from a dugout canoe, is a considerable achievement, and must have been
a spectacular sight. However the Mangilao fishermen were catching these fish it would have been
a very dangerous pastime for people in a canoe, as these fish will readily attack their persecutor.
There is a record of a swordfish penetrating boat decking to a depth of 27 inches; the specimen is
on display in the British Museum of Natural History (Pollard 1969: 68). Another possibility is that
these fish were caught with harpoons, while they basked on the surface. This would also be a
dangerous method, possibly resulting in immediate retaliation on the part of the fish, unless it was
killed outright. In this respect it is worth noting that the modern fishermen of Ulithi usually cut a
line once they know they have hooked a marlin, with the simple comment “too dangerous”. The
prehistoric fishermen of Mangilao deserve our admiration.
FISH REMAINS FROM SITES 253 AND 667
Only a few fish bones were identified from these two sites, and do not merit separate comment. The
identifications are provided in the Appendix in Tables 8, 9, 11 and 12.
CONCLUSIONS
This collection of fish remains from numerous small excavations at Mangilao on the island of Guam
has revealed some interesting aspects of prehistoric fishing behaviour. In particular, the presence of
big-game fishes well back into the prehistoric period extends our knowledge of this activity further
south in the Marianas chain.
REFERENCES CITED
Amesbury, S.S. and Myers, R.F. 1982. Guide to the coastal resources of Guam. Volume 1, the
fishes. University of Guam Marine Laboratory, Contribution Number 173. University of Guam Press.
Chaplin, R.E. 1971. The study of animal bones from archaeological sites. Seminar Press, London.
Craib, J.L. 1986. Casas de los antiguos (Houses of the ancients): Social differentiation in
protohistoric Chamorro society, Mariana Islands. Unpublished PhD thesis, Anthropology
Department, University of Sydney.
Davidson, J.M. and Leach, B.F. 1988. Chapter 15: Fishing. pp. 335–356 In: Butler, B.M (ed.)
Archaeological investigations on the north coast of Rota, Mariana Islands. Micronesian
Archaeological Survey Report No. 23. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Centre for
Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper 8.
Driver, M.G. 1983. Fray Juan Pombre de Zamora and his account of the Mariana Islands. Journal
of Pacific History 18 (3): 198–216.
Fleming, M.A. 1986. The Scaridae family in Pacific prehistory. Unpublished MA Thesis,
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Page 21
Anthropology, University of Otago.
Hsu, Y.C. 1982. Yami fishing practices - migratory fish. Southern Materials Centre Inc. Taipei.
Kano, T. and Segawa, K. 1956. An illustrated ethnography of Formosan aborigines. Volume 1: The
Yami. Maruzen Co. Ltd., Tokyo.
Leach, B.F. 1986. A method for analysis of Pacific island fishbone assemblages and an associated
data base management system. Journal of Archaeological Science 13 (2): 147-159.
Leach, B.F. 1997. A guide to the identification of fish remains from New Zealand archaeological
sites. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology Special Publication. 129 pp.
Leach, B.F. and Davidson, J.M. 1977. Fishing methods and seasonality at Paremata (N160/50). New
Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 20 (3): 166-175.
Leach, B.F. and de Souza, P. 1979. The changing proportions of Mayor Island obsidian in New
Zealand prehistory. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 1:29-51.
Leach, B.F., Fleming, M., Davidson, J.M., Ward, G.K. and Craib, J. 1988a. Prehistoric fishing at
Mochong, Rota, Mariana Islands. Man and Culture in Oceania 4: 31-62.
Leach, B.F., Horwood, M., Smith, I.W.G. and McGovern-Wilson, R. 1988b. Analysis of faunal
material from Songsong village, Rota, Mariana Islands. USA Historic Preservation Office.
Li, K-T. 1997. Change and stability in the dietary system of a prehistoric coastal population in
southern Taiwan. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Arizona State University.
Munro, I.S.R. 1967. The fishes of New Guinea. Department of Agriculture, Stock and
Fisheries, Port Moresby, New Guinea.
Nelson, J.S. 1994. Fishes of the World. John Wiley, New York.
Nordhoff, C. 1930. Notes on the offshore fishing of the Society Islands. Journal of the Polynesian
Society 39 (2): 137-173; 39 (3): 221-262; 39 (4): 380.
Pollard, J. (ed.) 1969. Australian and New Zealand fishing. Paul Hamlyn Ltd. Sydney.
Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G. 1967. Statistical methods. Iowa State University Press.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Page 22
APPENDIX: Detailed Results of Fish Analysis from Mangilao
The Tables in this Appendix are printouts from the Kupenga Fishbone Database in the Archaeozoology Laboratory at
the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa and should be read as follows:
Tables 4 to 7 and 10 provide details of the identifications of fish remains from Site 25.
Table 4 provides totals for the whole site.
At the head of each Table appears a list of the assemblages (space/time units) which have been combined together to
form each column in the table. Referring to Table 4, an example is:
( 498,
3) = GOLF004 Square 208, Layer IIId
‘GOLF’ is the code in the Kupenga Fishbone Database for Mangilao site 25. ‘498, 3’ is the code in the database which
identifies the unique space/time assemblage in Mangilao Site 25 which is Square 208, Layer IIId. The code ‘004’
attached to GOLF shows that Square 208 is the fourth spatial unit listed for Site 25. Any codes appearing as either ‘999’
or with a ? symbol refer to an unknown provenance in the site.
Once each column has been defined in this manner, this is followed by the listing of the Minimum Number of
Individuals (MNI) according to taxon and the percent MNI of each taxon for each of the columns identified at the head
of the Table.
Database codes for Taxon and Family also appear in the Tables below. For example, In Table 4, Taxon #1 =
Acanthocybium solandri. Further down in the Family tabulation Family #140 refers to Scaridae.
The figures are then presented according to family in decreasing order of abundance (as in Table 1 and Figure 6). The
last part of this Table shows the systematic error associated with each percentage.
Tables 5 and 6 present the same information, now broken down into four time periods and three spatial divisions, as
described in the text. In Table 5, 1 = Early Prehistoric, 2 = Middle Prehistoric, 3 = Late Prehistoric, and 4 = Historic
and Recent. In Table 6, 1 = Western, 2 = Central and 3 = Eastern.
Table 7 presents NISP (number of identified specimens) from Site 25 according to taxon and family, and shows the
breakdown by anatomy of identified specimens of the most common family (Scaridae).
Table 10 lists all individual identifications from Site 25 according to excavations unit (square), layer, anatomy and taxon.
Tables 8 and 11 provide details of identifications from Site 253.
Table 8 presents NISP by taxon and family, and by anatomy for the most common family, Scaridae.
Table 11 lists all individual identifications from Site 253 according to excavation unit (square), layer, anatomy and taxon.
Tables 9 and 12 provide the same information for Site 667.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Table 4: Mangilao Site 25 MNI All Assemblages Combined
Column Numbers and Equivalent
Column 1
= ( 495,
= ( 495,
= ( 498,
= ( 498,
= ( 499,
= ( 506,
= ( 510,
= ( 511,
= ( 511,
= ( 512,
= ( 514,
= ( 514,
= ( 515,
= ( 516,
= ( 516,
= ( 517,
= ( 519,
= ( 526,
= ( 533,
= ( 534,
= ( 535,
= ( 536,
= ( 537,
= ( 538,
= ( 539,
= ( 539,
= ( 540,
= ( 541,
= ( 541,
= ( 542,
= ( 543,
= ( 544,
= ( 545,
= ( 546,
= ( 547,
= ( 549,
= ( 550,
= ( 551,
= ( 552,
= ( 553,
= ( 554,
= ( 560,
= ( 562,
= ( 562,
= ( 563,
= ( 564,
= ( 566,
= ( 569,
= ( 570,
= ( 570,
= ( 571,
= ( 571,
= ( 571,
= ( 571,
= ( 572,
= ( 572,
= ( 573,
= ( 573,
= ( 573,
= ( 574,
= ( 574,
= ( 574,
= ( 574,
= ( 575,
= ( 575,
= ( 575,
= ( 575,
Assemblage Reference Numbers
1) = GOLF001 Square 999, Layer
2) = GOLF001 Square 999, Layer
3) = GOLF004 Square 208, Layer
4) = GOLF004 Square 208, Layer
1) = GOLF005 Square 210, Layer
2) = GOLF012 Square 233, Layer
1) = GOLF016 Square 240, Layer
1) = GOLF017 Square 241, Layer
3) = GOLF017 Square 241, Layer
1) = GOLF018 Square 242, Layer
1) = GOLF020 Square 244, Layer
3) = GOLF020 Square 244, Layer
2) = GOLF021 Square 245, Layer
1) = GOLF022 Square 246, Layer
2) = GOLF022 Square 246, Layer
2) = GOLF023 Square 247, Layer
4) = GOLF025 Square 249, Layer
2) = GOLF032 Square 260, Layer
1) = GOLF039 Square 271, Layer
1) = GOLF040 Square 272, Layer
2) = GOLF041 Square 273, Layer
2) = GOLF042 Square 276, Layer
2) = GOLF043 Square 278, Layer
1) = GOLF044 Square 282, Layer
1) = GOLF045 Square 283, Layer
2) = GOLF045 Square 283, Layer
1) = GOLF046 Square 284, Layer
2) = GOLF047 Square 285, Layer
3) = GOLF047 Square 285, Layer
1) = GOLF048 Square 286, Layer
1) = GOLF049 Square 287, Layer
1) = GOLF050 Square 288, Layer
2) = GOLF051 Square 289, Layer
1) = GOLF052 Square 291, Layer
1) = GOLF053 Square 292, Layer
2) = GOLF055 Square 294, Layer
1) = GOLF056 Square 297, Layer
1) = GOLF057 Square 298, Layer
2) = GOLF058 Square 299, Layer
2) = GOLF059 Square 300, Layer
1) = GOLF060 Square 301, Layer
1) = GOLF066 Square 400, Layer
1) = GOLF068 Square 402, Layer
2) = GOLF068 Square 402, Layer
1) = GOLF069 Square 403, Layer
1) = GOLF070 Square 409, Layer
1) = GOLF072 Square 411, Layer
1) = GOLF075 Square 414, Layer
2) = GOLF076 Square 416, Layer
3) = GOLF076 Square 416, Layer
1) = GOLF077 Square 417, Layer
2) = GOLF077 Square 417, Layer
3) = GOLF077 Square 417, Layer
4) = GOLF077 Square 417, Layer
1) = GOLF078 Square 418, Layer
2) = GOLF078 Square 418, Layer
2) = GOLF079 Square 419, Layer
3) = GOLF079 Square 419, Layer
4) = GOLF079 Square 419, Layer
1) = GOLF080 Square 420, Layer
2) = GOLF080 Square 420, Layer
3) = GOLF080 Square 420, Layer
4) = GOLF080 Square 420, Layer
1) = GOLF081 Square 421, Layer
2) = GOLF081 Square 421, Layer
3) = GOLF081 Square 421, Layer
5) = GOLF081 Square 421, Layer
?
IIIa
IIId
IIIe
IIIa/b
IIIe
IIIc
IIIe
IIIg2
IIIe
IIIe
IIIg2
IIIg2
IIIe
IIIg1
IIIg2
IIIg2
IIIa
Ib
IIIa
IIIb
III
Ic
IIIa
IIIa
IIIb
IIIa
IIIb
IIIe
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIb
IIIa
IIIa
IIIb
IIIa
IIIa
IIIb
IIb
IIa
IIIb
IIIa
IIIb
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIb
IIIc
IIIa
IIIa/b/c
IIIb
IIIc
IIIa
IIIb
IIIa2
IIIa3
IIIb
IIIa
IIIb
IIIc
IIIc1
IIIa
IIIa/b
IIIb
IIId
Page 23
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
576,
577,
577,
578,
578,
578,
578,
579,
579,
580,
581,
581,
582,
582,
584,
584,
584,
585,
585,
586,
587,
588,
593,
594,
599,
600,
601,
601,
601,
602,
602,
602,
603,
604,
605,
606,
607,
608,
609,
610,
611,
612,
614,
617,
617,
617,
619,
620,
621,
621,
623,
624,
624,
625,
625,
625,
626,
627,
627,
628,
2)
1)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
1)
3)
1)
1)
2)
3)
4)
1)
2)
5)
1)
2)
1)
2)
2)
2)
1)
1)
1)
1)
3)
4)
2)
3)
4)
1)
1)
1)
1)
2)
1)
1)
1)
2)
1)
1)
1)
2)
3)
2)
1)
1)
2)
2)
1)
2)
1)
3)
4)
1)
1)
2)
1)
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
GOLF082
GOLF083
GOLF083
GOLF084
GOLF084
GOLF084
GOLF084
GOLF085
GOLF085
GOLF086
GOLF087
GOLF087
GOLF088
GOLF088
GOLF090
GOLF090
GOLF090
GOLF091
GOLF091
GOLF092
GOLF093
GOLF094
GOLF099
GOLF100
GOLF105
GOLF106
GOLF107
GOLF107
GOLF107
GOLF108
GOLF108
GOLF108
GOLF109
GOLF110
GOLF111
GOLF112
GOLF113
GOLF114
GOLF115
GOLF116
GOLF117
GOLF118
GOLF120
GOLF123
GOLF123
GOLF123
GOLF125
GOLF126
GOLF127
GOLF127
GOLF129
GOLF130
GOLF130
GOLF131
GOLF131
GOLF131
GOLF132
GOLF133
GOLF133
GOLF134
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
422,
423,
423,
424,
424,
424,
424,
425,
425,
426,
427,
427,
428,
428,
430,
430,
430,
431,
431,
432,
433,
434,
439,
440,
445,
449,
450,
450,
450,
451,
451,
451,
452,
453,
454,
456,
457,
458,
459,
460,
461,
462,
464,
468,
468,
468,
470,
471,
472,
472,
474,
475,
475,
476,
476,
476,
477,
478,
478,
479,
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
IIIa2
IIIa1
IIIb
IIIa
IIIa2
IIIb
IIIc
IIIa
IIIc
IIIa
IIIa
IIIb
IIIc
IIId
IIIa
IIIa/a1
IIIc
IIIa
IIIb
IIIa
IIIb
IIIa
Id
Id
IIIa
IIIb
999
IIIb
IIIc
IIIa
IIIb
IIIc
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
Id
IIIb
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIb
IIIa
IIIa
999
IIIa
IIIb
IIIb
IIIa
999
IIIa
IIIb
IIIa
IIIb
999
IIIb\c
IIIc
IIIa
IIIa
IIIb
IIIa
Overall Totals for these Assemblages by Taxa
Taxon #
Taxon Name
MNI
%
-----------------------------------------------------------------1
Acanthocybium soland
4
1.50
2
Acanthuridae
6
2.25
4
Acanthurus sp.
1
0.37
14
Balistidae
8
3.00
20
Carangoides laticaud
1
0.37
Page 24
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
25
Caranx sp.
1
0.37
30
Cheilinus undulatus
2
0.75
32
Coridae/Labridae
21
7.87
33
Coryphaena hippurus
41 15.36
35
Diodon sp.
9
3.37
36
Elasmobranchii
10
3.75
38
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
11
4.12
44
Holocentrus sp.
1
0.37
45
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
14
5.24
48
Kyphosus sp.
1
0.37
50
Lethrinidae
20
7.49
52
Lutjanus sp.
5
1.87
58
Monotaxis granoculis
6
2.25
78
Scaridae
90 33.71
85
Teleostomi Species A
1
0.37
86
Teleostomi Species B
1
0.37
87
Teleostomi Species C
1
0.37
88
Teleostomi Species D
1
0.37
92
Thunnidae/Katsuwonid
2
0.75
96
Remora sp.
2
0.75
113
Bolbometopon sp.
7
2.62
-----------------------------------------------------------------Totals
267
100
Taxon
1 Totals
-----------------1
4
4
2
6
6
4
1
1
14
8
8
20
1
1
25
1
1
30
2
2
32 21
21
33 41
41
35
9
9
36 10
10
38 11
11
44
1
1
45 14
14
48
1
1
50 20
20
52
5
5
58
6
6
78 90
90
85
1
1
86
1
1
87
1
1
88
1
1
92
2
2
96
2
2
113
7
7
-----------------Totals 267
267
Overall Totals for these Assemblages by Family
Family #
Family Name
MNI
%
---------------------------------------------140
Scaridae
97 36.33
85
Coryphaenidae
41 15.36
222
Coridae/Labridae
21
7.87
114
Lethrinidae
20
7.49
221
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
14
5.24
97
Epinephelidae
11
4.12
192
Elasmobranchii
10
3.75
175
Diodontidae
9
3.37
180
Balistidae
8
3.00
159
Acanthuridae
7
2.62
Page 25
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
110
Nemipteridae
6
2.25
106
Lutjanidae
5
1.87
73
Acanthocybiidae
4
1.50
197
Teleostomi
4
1.50
88
Carangidae
2
0.75
138
Coridae
2
0.75
72
Scombridae
2
0.75
174
Echeneidae
2
0.75
57
Holocentridae
1
0.37
124
Kyphosidae
1
0.37
---------------------------------------------Total
267
100
Family
1 Totals
-----------------140 97
97
85 41
41
222 21
21
114 20
20
221 14
14
97 11
11
192 10
10
175
9
9
180
8
8
159
7
7
110
6
6
106
5
5
73
4
4
197
4
4
88
2
2
138
2
2
72
2
2
174
2
2
57
1
1
124
1
1
-----------------Totals 267
267
Family %
1
-----------------------140 36.3+- 6.0
85 15.4+- 4.5
222
7.9+- 3.4
114
7.5+- 3.3
221
5.2+- 2.9
97
4.1+- 2.6
192
3.7+- 2.5
175
3.4+- 2.4
180
3.0+- 2.2
159
2.6+- 2.1
110
2.2+- 2.0
106
1.9+- 1.8
73
1.5+- 1.6
197
1.5+- 1.6
88
0.7+- 1.2
138
0.7+- 1.2
72
0.7+- 1.2
174
0.7+- 1.2
57
0.4+- 0.9
124
0.4+- 0.9
----------------------Total
100.0
Page 26
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Table 5: Mangilao Site 25 MNI For Four Time Periods
Column Numbers and Equivalent
Column 1
= ( 516,
= ( 511,
= ( 514,
= ( 515,
= ( 517,
= ( 519,
Column 2
= ( 535,
= ( 539,
= ( 541,
= ( 545,
= ( 549,
= ( 552,
= ( 560,
= ( 562,
= ( 570,
= ( 571,
= ( 572,
= ( 573,
= ( 574,
= ( 575,
= ( 577,
= ( 578,
= ( 581,
= ( 585,
= ( 587,
= ( 600,
= ( 601,
= ( 602,
= ( 607,
= ( 611,
= ( 617,
= ( 619,
= ( 623,
= ( 624,
= ( 627,
= ( 625,
= ( 510,
= ( 570,
= ( 571,
= ( 574,
= ( 578,
= ( 579,
= ( 582,
= ( 584,
= ( 601,
= ( 602,
= ( 625,
= ( 574,
= ( 498,
= ( 575,
= ( 582,
= ( 498,
= ( 506,
= ( 511,
= ( 512,
= ( 514,
= ( 516,
= ( 541,
Column 3
= ( 495,
= ( 526,
= ( 534,
= ( 538,
= ( 539,
= ( 540,
= ( 542,
= ( 543,
= ( 544,
Assemblage Reference Numbers
2) = GOLF022 Square 246, Layer
3) = GOLF017 Square 241, Layer
3) = GOLF020 Square 244, Layer
2) = GOLF021 Square 245, Layer
2) = GOLF023 Square 247, Layer
4) = GOLF025 Square 249, Layer
2) = GOLF041 Square 273, Layer
2) = GOLF045 Square 283, Layer
2) = GOLF047 Square 285, Layer
2) = GOLF051 Square 289, Layer
2) = GOLF055 Square 294, Layer
2) = GOLF058 Square 299, Layer
1) = GOLF066 Square 400, Layer
2) = GOLF068 Square 402, Layer
2) = GOLF076 Square 416, Layer
3) = GOLF077 Square 417, Layer
2) = GOLF078 Square 418, Layer
4) = GOLF079 Square 419, Layer
2) = GOLF080 Square 420, Layer
3) = GOLF081 Square 421, Layer
3) = GOLF083 Square 423, Layer
3) = GOLF084 Square 424, Layer
2) = GOLF087 Square 427, Layer
2) = GOLF091 Square 431, Layer
2) = GOLF093 Square 433, Layer
1) = GOLF106 Square 449, Layer
3) = GOLF107 Square 450, Layer
3) = GOLF108 Square 451, Layer
2) = GOLF113 Square 457, Layer
2) = GOLF117 Square 461, Layer
3) = GOLF123 Square 468, Layer
2) = GOLF125 Square 470, Layer
2) = GOLF129 Square 474, Layer
2) = GOLF130 Square 475, Layer
2) = GOLF133 Square 478, Layer
3) = GOLF131 Square 476, Layer
1) = GOLF016 Square 240, Layer
3) = GOLF076 Square 416, Layer
4) = GOLF077 Square 417, Layer
3) = GOLF080 Square 420, Layer
4) = GOLF084 Square 424, Layer
3) = GOLF085 Square 425, Layer
3) = GOLF088 Square 428, Layer
5) = GOLF090 Square 430, Layer
4) = GOLF107 Square 450, Layer
4) = GOLF108 Square 451, Layer
4) = GOLF131 Square 476, Layer
4) = GOLF080 Square 420, Layer
3) = GOLF004 Square 208, Layer
5) = GOLF081 Square 421, Layer
4) = GOLF088 Square 428, Layer
4) = GOLF004 Square 208, Layer
2) = GOLF012 Square 233, Layer
1) = GOLF017 Square 241, Layer
1) = GOLF018 Square 242, Layer
1) = GOLF020 Square 244, Layer
1) = GOLF022 Square 246, Layer
3) = GOLF047 Square 285, Layer
2) = GOLF001 Square 999, Layer
2) = GOLF032 Square 260, Layer
1) = GOLF040 Square 272, Layer
1) = GOLF044 Square 282, Layer
1) = GOLF045 Square 283, Layer
1) = GOLF046 Square 284, Layer
1) = GOLF048 Square 286, Layer
1) = GOLF049 Square 287, Layer
1) = GOLF050 Square 288, Layer
IIIg1
IIIg2
IIIg2
IIIg2
IIIg2
IIIg2
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb\c
IIIc
IIIc
IIIc
IIIc
IIIc
IIIc
IIIc
IIIc
IIIc
IIIc
IIIc
IIIc1
IIId
IIId
IIId
IIIe
IIIe
IIIe
IIIe
IIIe
IIIe
IIIe
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
Page 27
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Column
4
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
546,
547,
550,
551,
562,
563,
564,
566,
569,
571,
572,
574,
575,
578,
579,
580,
581,
584,
585,
586,
588,
599,
602,
603,
604,
605,
608,
609,
610,
612,
614,
617,
620,
621,
624,
626,
627,
628,
584,
577,
573,
576,
578,
573,
533,
537,
593,
594,
606,
554,
553,
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
2)
1)
2)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
2)
1)
2)
1)
1)
1)
1)
2)
1)
2)
2)
2)
3)
1)
2)
2)
1)
1)
1)
2)
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
GOLF052
GOLF053
GOLF056
GOLF057
GOLF068
GOLF069
GOLF070
GOLF072
GOLF075
GOLF077
GOLF078
GOLF080
GOLF081
GOLF084
GOLF085
GOLF086
GOLF087
GOLF090
GOLF091
GOLF092
GOLF094
GOLF105
GOLF108
GOLF109
GOLF110
GOLF111
GOLF114
GOLF115
GOLF116
GOLF118
GOLF120
GOLF123
GOLF126
GOLF127
GOLF130
GOLF132
GOLF133
GOLF134
GOLF090
GOLF083
GOLF079
GOLF082
GOLF084
GOLF079
GOLF039
GOLF043
GOLF099
GOLF100
GOLF112
GOLF060
GOLF059
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
291,
292,
297,
298,
402,
403,
409,
411,
414,
417,
418,
420,
421,
424,
425,
426,
427,
430,
431,
432,
434,
445,
451,
452,
453,
454,
458,
459,
460,
462,
464,
468,
471,
472,
475,
477,
478,
479,
430,
423,
419,
422,
424,
419,
271,
278,
439,
440,
456,
301,
300,
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa/a1
IIIa1
IIIa2
IIIa2
IIIa2
IIIa3
Ib
Ic
Id
Id
Id
IIa
IIb
Overall Totals for these Assemblages by Taxa
Taxon #
Taxon Name
MNI
%
----------------------------------------------------------------1
Acanthocybium soland
4
1.69
2
Acanthuridae
4
1.69
4
Acanthurus sp.
1
0.42
14
Balistidae
7
2.95
25
Caranx sp.
1
0.42
30
Cheilinus undulatus
2
0.84
32
Coridae/Labridae
16
6.75
33
Coryphaena hippurus
39 16.46
35
Diodon sp.
7
2.95
36
Elasmobranchii
10
4.22
38
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
11
4.64
44
Holocentrus sp.
1
0.42
45
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
13
5.49
48
Kyphosus sp.
1
0.42
Page 28
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
50
Lethrinidae
19
8.02
52
Lutjanus sp.
5
2.11
58
Monotaxis granoculis
4
1.69
78
Scaridae
78 32.91
85
Teleostomi Species A
1
0.42
86
Teleostomi Species B
1
0.42
87
Teleostomi Species C
1
0.42
88
Teleostomi Species D
1
0.42
92
Thunnidae/Katsuwonid
2
0.84
96
Remora sp.
2
0.84
113
Bolbometopon sp.
6
2.53
-----------------------------------------------------------------Totals
237
100
Taxon
1
2
3
4 Totals
-----------------------------1
3
1
4
2
1
2
1
4
4
1
1
14
1
4
2
7
25
1
1
30
1
1
2
32
- 11
5
16
33
- 21 18
39
35
6
1
7
36
1
6
2
1
10
38
1
8
2
11
44
1
1
45
3
9
1
13
48
1
1
50
- 14
4
1
19
52
3
2
5
58
3
1
4
78
4 31 41
2
78
85
1
1
86
1
1
87
1
1
88
1
1
92
2
2
96
2
2
113
2
2
2
6
-----------------------------Totals 10 121 99
7
237
Overall Totals for these Assemblages by Family
Family #
Family Name
MNI
%
---------------------------------------------140
Scaridae
84 35.44
85
Coryphaenidae
39 16.46
114
Lethrinidae
19
8.02
222
Coridae/Labridae
16
6.75
221
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
13
5.49
97
Epinephelidae
11
4.64
192
Elasmobranchii
10
4.22
180
Balistidae
7
2.95
175
Diodontidae
7
2.95
159
Acanthuridae
5
2.11
106
Lutjanidae
5
2.11
73
Acanthocybiidae
4
1.69
110
Nemipteridae
4
1.69
197
Teleostomi
4
1.69
138
Coridae
2
0.84
72
Scombridae
2
0.84
174
Echeneidae
2
0.84
88
Carangidae
1
0.42
57
Holocentridae
1
0.42
124
Kyphosidae
1
0.42
---------------------------------------------Total
237
100
Page 29
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Family
1
2
3
4 Totals
-----------------------------140
6 33 43
2
84
85
- 21 18
39
114
- 14
4
1
19
222
- 11
5
16
221
3
9
1
13
97
1
8
2
11
192
1
6
2
1
10
180
1
4
2
7
175
6
1
7
159
2
2
1
5
106
3
2
5
73
3
1
4
110
3
1
4
197
4
4
138
1
1
2
72
2
2
174
2
2
88
1
1
57
1
1
124
1
1
-----------------------------Totals 10 121 99
7
237
Family %
1
2
3
4
-----------------------------------------------------------140 60.0+- 39.1 27.3+- 8.3 43.4+- 10.4 28.6+- 46.5
85
- 17.4+- 7.2 18.2+- 8.2
114
- 11.6+- 6.1
4.0+- 4.4 14.3+- 37.6
222
9.1+- 5.5
5.1+- 4.9
221
2.5+- 3.2
9.1+- 6.2 14.3+- 37.6
97 10.0+- 25.9
6.6+- 4.8
2.0+- 3.3
192 10.0+- 25.9
5.0+- 4.3
2.0+- 3.3 14.3+- 37.6
180 10.0+- 25.9
3.3+- 3.6
2.0+- 3.3
175
6.1+- 5.3 14.3+- 37.6
159
1.7+- 2.7
2.0+- 3.3 14.3+- 37.6
106
2.5+- 3.2
2.0+- 3.3
73
2.5+- 3.2
1.0+- 2.5
110
2.5+- 3.2
1.0+- 2.5
197
3.3+- 3.6
138 10.0+- 25.9
0.8+- 2.0
72
1.7+- 2.7
174
1.7+- 2.7
88
1.0+- 2.5
57
0.8+- 2.0
124
1.0+- 2.5
------------------------------------------------------------Totals
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Page 30
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Table 6: Mangilao Site 25 MNI For Western, Central and Eastern Areas
Column Numbers and Equivalent
Column 1
= ( 498,
= ( 498,
= ( 499,
= ( 506,
= ( 510,
= ( 511,
= ( 511,
= ( 512,
= ( 514,
= ( 514,
= ( 515,
= ( 516,
= ( 516,
= ( 517,
= ( 519,
= ( 526,
= ( 533,
= ( 534,
= ( 535,
= ( 536,
= ( 537,
= ( 538,
= ( 539,
= ( 539,
= ( 540,
= ( 541,
= ( 541,
= ( 542,
= ( 543,
= ( 544,
= ( 545,
= ( 546,
= ( 547,
= ( 549,
= ( 550,
= ( 551,
= ( 552,
= ( 553,
= ( 554,
Column 2
= ( 587,
= ( 588,
= ( 593,
= ( 594,
= ( 599,
= ( 603,
= ( 604,
= ( 605,
= ( 608,
= ( 609,
= ( 610,
= ( 614,
Column 3
= ( 560,
= ( 562,
= ( 562,
= ( 563,
= ( 564,
= ( 566,
= ( 569,
= ( 570,
= ( 570,
= ( 571,
= ( 571,
= ( 571,
= ( 571,
= ( 572,
= ( 572,
= ( 573,
Assemblage Reference Numbers
3) = GOLF004 Square 208, Layer
4) = GOLF004 Square 208, Layer
1) = GOLF005 Square 210, Layer
2) = GOLF012 Square 233, Layer
1) = GOLF016 Square 240, Layer
1) = GOLF017 Square 241, Layer
3) = GOLF017 Square 241, Layer
1) = GOLF018 Square 242, Layer
1) = GOLF020 Square 244, Layer
3) = GOLF020 Square 244, Layer
2) = GOLF021 Square 245, Layer
1) = GOLF022 Square 246, Layer
2) = GOLF022 Square 246, Layer
2) = GOLF023 Square 247, Layer
4) = GOLF025 Square 249, Layer
2) = GOLF032 Square 260, Layer
1) = GOLF039 Square 271, Layer
1) = GOLF040 Square 272, Layer
2) = GOLF041 Square 273, Layer
2) = GOLF042 Square 276, Layer
2) = GOLF043 Square 278, Layer
1) = GOLF044 Square 282, Layer
1) = GOLF045 Square 283, Layer
2) = GOLF045 Square 283, Layer
1) = GOLF046 Square 284, Layer
2) = GOLF047 Square 285, Layer
3) = GOLF047 Square 285, Layer
1) = GOLF048 Square 286, Layer
1) = GOLF049 Square 287, Layer
1) = GOLF050 Square 288, Layer
2) = GOLF051 Square 289, Layer
1) = GOLF052 Square 291, Layer
1) = GOLF053 Square 292, Layer
2) = GOLF055 Square 294, Layer
1) = GOLF056 Square 297, Layer
1) = GOLF057 Square 298, Layer
2) = GOLF058 Square 299, Layer
2) = GOLF059 Square 300, Layer
1) = GOLF060 Square 301, Layer
2) = GOLF093 Square 433, Layer
2) = GOLF094 Square 434, Layer
2) = GOLF099 Square 439, Layer
1) = GOLF100 Square 440, Layer
1) = GOLF105 Square 445, Layer
1) = GOLF109 Square 452, Layer
1) = GOLF110 Square 453, Layer
1) = GOLF111 Square 454, Layer
1) = GOLF114 Square 458, Layer
1) = GOLF115 Square 459, Layer
1) = GOLF116 Square 460, Layer
1) = GOLF120 Square 464, Layer
1) = GOLF066 Square 400, Layer
1) = GOLF068 Square 402, Layer
2) = GOLF068 Square 402, Layer
1) = GOLF069 Square 403, Layer
1) = GOLF070 Square 409, Layer
1) = GOLF072 Square 411, Layer
1) = GOLF075 Square 414, Layer
2) = GOLF076 Square 416, Layer
3) = GOLF076 Square 416, Layer
1) = GOLF077 Square 417, Layer
2) = GOLF077 Square 417, Layer
3) = GOLF077 Square 417, Layer
4) = GOLF077 Square 417, Layer
1) = GOLF078 Square 418, Layer
2) = GOLF078 Square 418, Layer
2) = GOLF079 Square 419, Layer
IIId
IIIe
IIIa/b
IIIe
IIIc
IIIe
IIIg2
IIIe
IIIe
IIIg2
IIIg2
IIIe
IIIg1
IIIg2
IIIg2
IIIa
Ib
IIIa
IIIb
III
Ic
IIIa
IIIa
IIIb
IIIa
IIIb
IIIe
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIb
IIIa
IIIa
IIIb
IIIa
IIIa
IIIb
IIb
IIa
IIIb
IIIa
Id
Id
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIb
IIIa
IIIb
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIb
IIIc
IIIa
IIIa/b/c
IIIb
IIIc
IIIa
IIIb
IIIa2
Page 31
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
573,
573,
574,
574,
574,
574,
575,
575,
575,
575,
576,
577,
577,
578,
578,
578,
578,
579,
579,
580,
581,
581,
582,
582,
584,
584,
584,
585,
585,
586,
600,
601,
601,
601,
602,
602,
602,
606,
607,
611,
612,
617,
617,
617,
619,
620,
621,
621,
623,
624,
624,
625,
625,
625,
626,
627,
627,
628,
495,
495,
3)
4)
1)
2)
3)
4)
1)
2)
3)
5)
2)
1)
3)
1)
2)
3)
4)
1)
3)
1)
1)
2)
3)
4)
1)
2)
5)
1)
2)
1)
1)
1)
3)
4)
2)
3)
4)
1)
2)
2)
1)
1)
2)
3)
2)
1)
1)
2)
2)
1)
2)
1)
3)
4)
1)
1)
2)
1)
1)
2)
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
GOLF079
GOLF079
GOLF080
GOLF080
GOLF080
GOLF080
GOLF081
GOLF081
GOLF081
GOLF081
GOLF082
GOLF083
GOLF083
GOLF084
GOLF084
GOLF084
GOLF084
GOLF085
GOLF085
GOLF086
GOLF087
GOLF087
GOLF088
GOLF088
GOLF090
GOLF090
GOLF090
GOLF091
GOLF091
GOLF092
GOLF106
GOLF107
GOLF107
GOLF107
GOLF108
GOLF108
GOLF108
GOLF112
GOLF113
GOLF117
GOLF118
GOLF123
GOLF123
GOLF123
GOLF125
GOLF126
GOLF127
GOLF127
GOLF129
GOLF130
GOLF130
GOLF131
GOLF131
GOLF131
GOLF132
GOLF133
GOLF133
GOLF134
GOLF001
GOLF001
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
419,
419,
420,
420,
420,
420,
421,
421,
421,
421,
422,
423,
423,
424,
424,
424,
424,
425,
425,
426,
427,
427,
428,
428,
430,
430,
430,
431,
431,
432,
449,
450,
450,
450,
451,
451,
451,
456,
457,
461,
462,
468,
468,
468,
470,
471,
472,
472,
474,
475,
475,
476,
476,
476,
477,
478,
478,
479,
999,
999,
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
IIIa3
IIIb
IIIa
IIIb
IIIc
IIIc1
IIIa
IIIa/b
IIIb
IIId
IIIa2
IIIa1
IIIb
IIIa
IIIa2
IIIb
IIIc
IIIa
IIIc
IIIa
IIIa
IIIb
IIIc
IIId
IIIa
IIIa/a1
IIIc
IIIa
IIIb
IIIa
IIIb
999
IIIb
IIIc
IIIa
IIIb
IIIc
Id
IIIb
IIIb
IIIa
999
IIIa
IIIb
IIIb
IIIa
999
IIIa
IIIb
IIIa
IIIb
999
IIIb\c
IIIc
IIIa
IIIa
IIIb
IIIa
?
IIIa
Overall Totals for these Assemblages by Taxa
Taxon #
Taxon Name
MNI
%
----------------------------------------------------------------1
Acanthocybium soland
4
1.50
2
Acanthuridae
6
2.25
4
Acanthurus sp.
1
0.37
14
Balistidae
8
3.00
20
Carangoides laticaud
1
0.37
Page 32
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
25
Caranx sp.
1
0.37
30
Cheilinus undulatus
2
0.75
32
Coridae/Labridae
21
7.87
33
Coryphaena hippurus
41 15.36
35
Diodon sp.
9
3.37
36
Elasmobranchii
10
3.75
38
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
11
4.12
44
Holocentrus sp.
1
0.37
45
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
14
5.24
48
Kyphosus sp.
1
0.37
50
Lethrinidae
20
7.49
52
Lutjanus sp.
5
1.87
58
Monotaxis granoculis
6
2.25
78
Scaridae
90 33.71
85
Teleostomi Species A
1
0.37
86
Teleostomi Species B
1
0.37
87
Teleostomi Species C
1
0.37
88
Teleostomi Species D
1
0.37
92
Thunnidae/Katsuwonid
2
0.75
96
Remora sp.
2
0.75
113
Bolbometopon sp.
7
2.62
----------------------------------------------------------------Totals
267
100
Taxon
1
2
3 Totals
-------------------------1
1
3
4
2
1
1
4
6
4
1
1
14
1
1
6
8
20
1
1
25
1
1
30
1
1
2
32
1
4 16
21
33
6
3 32
41
35
1
8
9
36
5
5
10
38
2
1
8
11
44
1
1
45
7
7
14
48
1
1
50
2
2 16
20
52
1
4
5
58
1
5
6
78 20
5 65
90
85
1
1
86
1
1
87
1
1
88
1
1
92
2
2
96
2
2
113
3
4
7
-------------------------Totals 50 21 196
267
Overall Totals for these Assemblages by Family
Family #
Family Name
MNI
%
---------------------------------------------140
Scaridae
97 36.33
85
Coryphaenidae
41 15.36
222
Coridae/Labridae
21
7.87
114
Lethrinidae
20
7.49
221
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
14
5.24
97
Epinephelidae
11
4.12
192
Elasmobranchii
10
3.75
175
Diodontidae
9
3.37
180
Balistidae
8
3.00
159
Acanthuridae
7
2.62
Page 33
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
110
Nemipteridae
6
2.25
106
Lutjanidae
5
1.87
73
Acanthocybiidae
4
1.50
197
Teleostomi
4
1.50
88
Carangidae
2
0.75
138
Coridae
2
0.75
72
Scombridae
2
0.75
174
Echeneidae
2
0.75
57
Holocentridae
1
0.37
124
Kyphosidae
1
0.37
---------------------------------------------Total
267
100
Family
1
2
3 Totals
-------------------------140 23
5 69
97
85
6
3 32
41
222
1
4 16
21
114
2
2 16
20
221
7
7
14
97
2
1
8
11
192
5
5
10
175
1
8
9
180
1
1
6
8
159
1
1
5
7
110
1
5
6
106
1
4
5
73
1
3
4
197
4
4
88
2
2
138
1
1
2
72
2
2
174
2
2
57
1
1
124
1
1
-------------------------Totals 50 21 196
267
Family %
1
2
3
----------------------------------------------140 46.0+- 15.1 23.8+- 21.7 35.2+- 6.9
85 12.0+- 10.2 14.3+- 18.2 16.3+- 5.4
222
2.0+- 5.0 19.0+- 20.2
8.2+- 4.1
114
4.0+- 6.6
9.5+- 15.7
8.2+- 4.1
221 14.0+- 10.8
3.6+- 2.9
97
4.0+- 6.6
4.8+- 12.0
4.1+- 3.0
192 10.0+- 9.5
2.6+- 2.5
175
4.8+- 12.0
4.1+- 3.0
180
2.0+- 5.0
4.8+- 12.0
3.1+- 2.7
159
2.0+- 5.0
4.8+- 12.0
2.6+- 2.5
110
2.0+- 5.0
2.6+- 2.5
106
4.8+- 12.0
2.0+- 2.2
73
4.8+- 12.0
1.5+- 2.0
197
2.0+- 2.2
88
1.0+- 1.7
138
2.0+- 5.0
0.5+- 1.3
72
1.0+- 1.7
174
1.0+- 1.7
57
0.5+- 1.3
124
4.8+- 12.0
----------------------------------------------Totals
100.0
100.0
100.0
Page 34
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Table 7: Mangilao Site 25 NISP by Taxon
1
2
4
14
20
25
30
32
33
35
36
38
44
45
48
50
52
58
78
85
86
87
88
92
96
113
Total
Acanthocybium soland
Acanthuridae
Acanthurus sp.
Balistidae
Carangoides laticaud
Caranx sp.
Cheilinus undulatus
Coridae/Labridae
Coryphaena hippurus
Diodon sp.
Elasmobranchii
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Holocentrus sp.
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Kyphosus sp.
Lethrinidae
Lutjanus sp.
Monotaxis granoculis
Scaridae
Teleostomi Species A
Teleostomi Species B
Teleostomi Species C
Teleostomi Species D
Thunnidae/Katsuwonid
Remora sp.
Bolbometopon sp.
4
6
1
8
1
1
2
26
92
18
11
11
1
36
1
23
5
7
125
1
1
1
1
2
2
7
394
NISP by Family
57 Holocentridae
1
72 Scombridae
2
73 Acanthocybiidae
4
85 Coryphaenidae
92
88 Carangidae
2
97 Epinephelidae
11
106 Lutjanidae
5
110 Nemipteridae
7
114 Lethrinidae
23
124 Kyphosidae
1
138 Coridae
2
140 Scaridae
132
159 Acanthuridae
7
174 Echeneidae
2
175 Diodontidae
18
180 Balistidae
8
192 Elasmobranchii
11
197 Teleostomi
4
221 Istiophoridae/Xiphii
36
222 Coridae/Labridae
26
Total
394
------------------------------------------------------NISP by Anatomy for Family of Interest =
1
2
4
7
8
10
11
12
13
Left Dentary
Right Dentary
Right Articular
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Maxilla
Inferior Pharyngeal Cluster
Right Superior Pharyngeal Cluster
Left Superior Pharyngeal Cluster
140 Scaridae
11
10
1
15
12
1
35
30
17
Page 35
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Table 8: Mangilao Site 253 NISP by Taxon
32
33
35
38
58
78
Total
Coridae/Labridae
Coryphaena hippurus
Diodon sp.
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Monotaxis granoculis
Scaridae
1
6
2
1
2
5
17
NISP by Family
85 Coryphaenidae
6
97 Epinephelidae
1
110 Nemipteridae
2
140 Scaridae
5
175 Diodontidae
2
222 Coridae/Labridae
1
Total
17
------------------------------------------------------NISP by Anatomy for Family of Interest =
8 Right Premaxilla
11 Inferior Pharyngeal Cluster
12 Right Superior Pharyngeal Cluster
140 Scaridae
2
1
2
Page 36
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Table 9: Mangilao Site 667 NISP by Taxon
25
28
32
33
36
38
45
50
52
78
Total
Caranx sp.
Cheilinus sp.
Coridae/Labridae
Coryphaena hippurus
Elasmobranchii
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Lethrinidae
Lutjanus sp.
Scaridae
1
1
8
6
1
1
1
1
4
18
42
NISP by Family
85 Coryphaenidae
88 Carangidae
97 Epinephelidae
106 Lutjanidae
114 Lethrinidae
138 Coridae
140 Scaridae
192 Elasmobranchii
221 Istiophoridae/Xiphii
222 Coridae/Labridae
Total
NISP by Anatomy for Family of Interest =
2
3
6
8
11
12
13
Right Dentary
Left Articular
Right Quadrate
Right Premaxilla
Inferior Pharyngeal Cluster
Right Superior Pharyngeal Cluster
Left Superior Pharyngeal Cluster
6
1
1
4
1
1
18
1
1
8
42
140 Scaridae
1
1
3
2
6
4
1
Page 37
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Page 38
Table 10: List of Identifications of Fish Remains from Mangilao Site 25
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
457
289
402
450
461
421
420
428
417
468
424
418
450
421
433
241
294
402
420
457
424
451
417
427
419
242
244
400
451
450
451
468
428
420
424
420
417
476
470
294
417
430
424
424
450
402
475
427
424
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIId
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIe
IIIb
IIIb
IIIc
IIIb
IIIc
IIIb
IIIc
IIIb
IIIb
IIIe
IIIe
IIIb
IIIc
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIId
IIIc
IIIb
IIIb
IIIc
IIIb\c
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIc
IIIc
IIIb
IIIc
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIc
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Buckler
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Zygapophysis
Left Articular
Left Articular
Left Quadrate
Left Quadrate
Left Quadrate
Left Quadrate
Left Quadrate
Right Quadrate
Right Quadrate
Right Quadrate
Left Maxilla
Right Maxilla
Right Maxilla
Right Maxilla
Right Maxilla
Right Maxilla
Left Superior Pharyn
Left Superior Pharyn
Left Superior Pharyn
Acanthuridae
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Elasmobranchii
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Elasmobranchii
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Lethrinidae
Teleostomi Species B
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Lutjanus sp.
Lutjanus sp.
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Lethrinidae
Lethrinidae
Lethrinidae
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Lethrinidae
Teleostomi Species D
Thunnidae/Katsuwonid
Thunnidae/Katsuwonid
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
425
283
418
475
423
470
285
208
427
240
424
476
449
450
240
420
420
433
420
449
430
476
474
430
416
450
420
478
427
420
425
420
420
449
428
417
418
241
416
425
450
416
450
299
421
431
424
418
416
433
420
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
IIIc
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIe
IIIb
IIIc
IIIb
IIIc
IIIb
IIIb
IIIc
IIIc
IIIb
IIIb
IIIc
IIIb
IIIc
IIIb\c
IIIb
IIIc
IIIc
IIIc
IIIc
IIIb
IIIb
IIIc
IIIc
IIIc
IIIc1
IIIb
IIIc
IIIc
IIIb
IIIe
IIIc
IIIc
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIId
IIIb
IIIc
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Left Dentary
Left Dentary
Buckler
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Dorsal/Erectile Spin
Dorsal/Erectile Spin
Dorsal/Erectile Spin
Dorsal/Erectile Spin
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Tooth/Dental Plates
Tooth/Dental Plates
Tooth/Dental Plates
Tooth/Dental Plates
Tooth/Dental Plates
Tooth/Dental Plates
Tooth/Dental Plates
Tooth/Dental Plates
Right Articular
Left Premaxilla
Left Superior Pharyn
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Page 39
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Acanthocybium soland
Acanthocybium soland
Acanthurus sp.
Coridae/Labridae
Coridae/Labridae
Teleostomi Species A
Balistidae
Balistidae
Balistidae
Balistidae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Cheilinus undulatus
Monotaxis granoculis
Coridae/Labridae
Coridae/Labridae
Elasmobranchii
Elasmobranchii
Elasmobranchii
Elasmobranchii
Elasmobranchii
Lutjanus sp.
Lethrinidae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
470
285
273
208
420
468
468
416
457
424
425
476
417
424
246
416
417
418
430
450
433
475
416
417
431
416
424
450
416
416
233
424
476
421
457
417
450
420
292
411
424
414
292
422
425
402
422
417
431
427
288
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
IIIb
IIIe
IIIb
IIId
IIIc
IIIb
IIIb
IIIc
IIIb
IIIc
IIIc
IIIb\c
IIIc
IIIb
IIIe
IIIb
IIIc
IIIb
IIIc
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIb
IIIe
IIIc
IIIc
IIId
IIIb
IIIc
IIIb
IIIc
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa2
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa2
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
5
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Left Dentary
Left Dentary
Left Dentary
Right Dentary
Right Dentary
Right Dentary
Right Dentary
Right Dentary
Left Dentary
Right Dentary
Left Dentary
Left Dentary
Left Dentary
Right Dentary
Right Dentary
Left Dentary
Left Dentary
Right Dentary
Right Dentary
Right Dentary
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Page 40
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Teleostomi Species C
Coridae/Labridae
Coridae/Labridae
Coridae/Labridae
Coridae/Labridae
Coridae/Labridae
Coridae/Labridae
Coridae/Labridae
Lethrinidae
Lethrinidae
Lethrinidae
Lethrinidae
Lethrinidae
Lethrinidae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Bolbometopon sp.
Bolbometopon sp.
Remora sp.
Remora sp.
Holocentrus sp.
Monotaxis granoculis
Monotaxis granoculis
Acanthocybium soland
Coridae/Labridae
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Lethrinidae
Lethrinidae
Lethrinidae
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
409
402
462
419
424
424
417
417
453
424
292
459
292
427
298
284
403
417
451
451
288
283
283
422
298
468
462
287
462
272
297
418
423
417
419
291
475
418
472
420
421
260
471
432
417
417
445
427
417
460
453
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa3
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa2
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa2
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa1
IIIa
IIIa3
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Zygapophysis
Zygapophysis
Zygapophysis
Zygapophysis
Dorsal/Erectile Spin
Buckler
Buckler
Tooth/Dental Plates
Tooth/Dental Plates
Tooth/Dental Plates
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Left Superior Pharyn
Left Superior Pharyn
Left Superior Pharyn
Left Superior Pharyn
Left Superior Pharyn
Left Superior Pharyn
Left Superior Pharyn
Left Superior Pharyn
Left Superior Pharyn
Page 41
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Balistidae
Acanthuridae
Acanthuridae
Monotaxis granoculis
Elasmobranchii
Elasmobranchii
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Bolbometopon sp.
Bolbometopon sp.
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
423
472
417
472
418
479
422
999
431
421
453
454
431
454
458
459
460
426
426
427
432
414
430
417
409
999
422
286
283
283
283
283
283
417
292
478
478
423
423
427
427
424
424
430
430
426
426
283
464
460
472
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
IIIa1
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa2
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa2
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa1
IIIa1
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Inferior Pharyngeal
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Dentary
Left Dentary
Right Dentary
Right Dentary
Page 42
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Kyphosus sp.
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Lethrinidae
Lethrinidae
Coridae/Labridae
Coridae/Labridae
Coridae/Labridae
Coridae/Labridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Diodon sp.
Diodon sp.
Diodon sp.
Diodon sp.
Diodon sp.
Diodon sp.
Diodon sp.
Diodon sp.
Diodon sp.
Diodon sp.
Diodon sp.
Diodon sp.
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Acanthocybium soland
Lutjanus sp.
Lutjanus sp.
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
403
432
460
427
462
417
471
282
420
477
420
454
426
460
424
288
419
418
421
417
452
421
434
454
246
247
245
244
249
241
241
241
241
244
244
244
999
417
999
999
999
999
999
999
999
999
999
999
999
999
999
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa2
IIIa
IIIa/b
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa/b
IIIa
IIIa
IIIg1
IIIg2
IIIg2
IIIg2
IIIg2
IIIg2
IIIg2
IIIg2
IIIg2
IIIg2
IIIg2
IIIg2
?
IIIa/b/c
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
6
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
Left Dentary
Left Dentary
Left Dentary
Left Dentary
Left Dentary
Left Dentary
Left Dentary
Left Dentary
Right Dentary
Right Dentary
Right Dentary
Right Dentary
Left Maxilla
Left Maxilla
Left Maxilla
Left Maxilla
Right Maxilla
Left Quadrate
Left Quadrate
Right Quadrate
Left Articular
Left Articular
Right Articular
Right Articular
Tooth/Dental Plates
Inferior Pharyngeal
Caudal Peduncle
Vertebra
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Premaxilla
Left Superior Pharyn
Right Superior Phary
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Zygapophysis
Zygapophysis
Vertebra
Page 43
Caranx sp.
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Coridae/Labridae
Coridae/Labridae
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Coryphaena hippurus
Scaridae
Lethrinidae
Lethrinidae
Coryphaena hippurus
Lethrinidae
Coridae/Labridae
Coridae/Labridae
Lethrinidae
Balistidae
Scaridae
Cheilinus undulatus
Elasmobranchii
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Scaridae
Scaridae
Bolbometopon sp.
Scaridae
Scaridae
Bolbometopon sp.
Scaridae
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
999
450
999
999
468
417
999
999
472
999
999
210
999
430
468
476
999
450
476
999
276
999
999
468
999
999
450
468
450
468
999
999
999
999
424
999
440
439
439
300
301
456
271
278
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
?
999
?
?
999
IIIa/b/c
?
?
999
?
?
IIIa/b
?
IIIa/a1
999
999
?
999
999
?
III
?
?
999
?
?
999
999
999
999
?
?
?
?
IIIa
?
Id
Id
Id
IIb
IIa
Id
Ib
Ic
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
Buckler
Caudal Peduncle
Dorsal/Erectile Spin
Right Articular
Left Superior Pharyn
Left Superior Pharyn
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Right Premaxilla
Left Dentary
Left Maxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Inferior Pharyngeal
Vertebra
Dorsal/Erectile Spin
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Left Superior Pharyn
Zygapophysis
Left Maxilla
Tooth/Dental Plates
Right Dentary
Page 44
Acanthuridae
Acanthuridae
Balistidae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Bolbometopon sp.
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Coridae/Labridae
Coridae/Labridae
Scaridae
Monotaxis granoculis
Scaridae
Carangoides laticaud
Monotaxis granoculis
Monotaxis granoculis
Coridae/Labridae
Coridae/Labridae
Coridae/Labridae
Coridae/Labridae
Diodon sp.
Diodon sp.
Diodon sp.
Diodon sp.
Scaridae
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Acanthuridae
Diodon sp.
Diodon sp.
Scaridae
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Lethrinidae
Elasmobranchii
Scaridae
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Mangilao
Page 45
Table 11: List of Identifications of Fish Remains from Mangilao Site 253
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Mangilao
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
Square
185
164
3
3
92
92
1
92
92
8
92
92
92
183
175
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
Layer
IIIa5
IIIa1
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
999
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa
IIIa2
IIIb1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Right Dentary
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Inferior Pharyngeal
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Left Maxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Monotaxis granoculis
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Monotaxis granoculis
Diodon sp.
Diodon sp.
Coridae/Labridae
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
APPENDIX B
ANALYSIS OF FAUNAL MATERIAL FROM
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
AT YLIG, GUAM
By
B. F. Leach
and
J. M. Davidson
This project was funded (or partly funded) by Cooperative Agreement NA17RJ1230
between the Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research (JIMAR) and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The views expressed
herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any
of its subdivisions.
Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa
Technical Report 39
Analysis of Faunal Material from
an Archaeological Site
at Ylig, Guam
Leach, B.F.
Davidson, J.M.
Honorary Research Associates,
Museum of New Zealand, Te Papa Tongarewa
April, 2006
Not for citation without permission of the authors
This is an unrefereed report intended for limited distribution. Copies or further information may be
obtained either from the senior author at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, PO Box
467, Wellington, New Zealand; or from Micronesian Archaeological Research Services, A Guam
Non-Profit Educational and Scientific Corporation, P.O. Box 22303 GMF, Guam, 96921 USA.
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
CURATORIAL DETAILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5
METHODS OF FISH BONE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8
BASIC RESULTS OF FISH BONE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9
Table 1: Total MNI by Family for the Ylig Site, All Assemblages Combined Page 9
Table 2: MNI and Percent by Family for the Ylig Site Assemblages Combined
into Two Periods, and Mixed Provenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 11
THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF FISHING AT THE YLIG SITE . . . . . . . . . . Page 13
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 16
REFERENCES CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 17
APPENDIX: Detailed Results of Fish Analysis from Ylig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page
Table 3: Ylig MNI All Assemblages Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page
Table 4: Ylig MNI in Three Groups: Latte, Pre-Latte, Mixed . . . . . . . . . . . Page
Table 5: NISP by Taxon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page
Table 6: NISP by Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page
Table 7: List of Identifications of Fish Remains from Ylig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page
Table 8: Analysed Fish Remains from Sites in the Tropical Pacific and New
Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page
18
19
21
23
24
25
28
ANALYSIS OF FAUNAL MATERIAL FROM
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
AT YLIG, GUAM
Leach, B.F., and Davidson, J.M.
Archaeozoology Laboratory
Museum of New Zealand, Te Papa Tongarewa
ABSTRACT
A collection of approximately 2,000 fish bones from an archaeological site at Ylig on the island of
Guam was analysed. Identifiable bones were found in 59 different assemblages. In total, these bones
produced a Minimum Number of Individuals of 95 fishes (NISP=170).
Although 15 different families of fish are represented in this collection, all assemblages are
dominated by fish belonging to the Coryphaenidae family (dolphinfish). This is highly unusual
compared to all other archaeological fish collections so far examined from the Pacific region. These
collections are usually dominated by Scaridae. At Ylig, fishes of the Scaridae family are second in
abundance. Also notable at Ylig is the presence of fish in the Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae families
(swordfish and marlins). It is exceptional to find these species in archaeological sites in the Pacific;
the bones from Ylig are matched only in other sites in the Marianas chain of islands. The recovery
method was not systematic for all parts of the excavation, so there could be some bias in the relative
abundance of different species.
The collection was examined for possible changes through time, but did not show signs of
significant variation.
Keywords: ARCHAEOLOGY, ARCHAEOZOOLOGY,
DOLPHINFISH, SWORDFISH, MARLIN
FISH,
GUAM,
MARIANAS,
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the analysis of archaeological fish bone from an excavation at a
site near the mouth of the Ylig river on the east coast of the island of Guam. The fish remains from
this excavation were sent to the authors by Micronesian Archaeological Research Services for
identification using the comparative collection and other facilities at the Archaeozoology Laboratory,
Museum of New Zealand.
The site was excavated as part of mitigation during reconstruction and widening of the road from
Yona to Ylig bridge. The initial focus of the excavation was the recovery of burials; collection of
faunal material was not part of the brief. As the work progressed, however, more midden was
encountered. Systematic recovery was carried out only for the lower (earlier) deposits.
Figure 1 shows the location of Guam at the bottom end of the Marianas chain of islands. Figure 2
is a map of Guam showing the location of the excavation at Ylig, and Figure 3 shows the precise
area on the roadway where the investigation was carried out.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Figure 1: Map of the Mariana Islands with Guam at the extreme south
Page 2
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Figure 2: Plan of Guam. The Ylig area is on the east coast
Page 3
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Page 4
Figure 3: Map of the Ylig Road Widening Project area. The archaeological excavation is marked
‘Burial Site’ on the south-east side of the road.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Page 5
CURATORIAL DETAILS
On arrival at the Archaeozoology Laboratory all faunal material was re-bagged. Figure 4 shows a
typical original bag containing the bones. This bag has the original locational information written
on it, which would be difficult to replicate many times as individual bones are removed, re-bagged,
and identified. It is a fundamental curatorial procedure in archaeology never to destroy locational
information relating to any item recovered. Fortunately, this information is available in a database
(Excel files) held by Micronesian Archaeological Research Services, cross-referenced by a unique
accession number which appears on each bag. In Figure 4 the bag is labelled #686. The database
listing for #686 shows the following:
Catalogue Number
Site
Test Type [Square]
Time Period [Layer]
#686
Ylig
Between B-39 and B-40
Pre-Latte
These details constitute the minimum information required for curation. In particular the Site, Square
and Layer information constitutes a unique location in time and space known as an Assemblage.
This assemblage is the unit used for calculation of MNI (minimum number of individuals during
faunal analysis). For example, if one right dentary of Monotaxis grandoculis is found in one such
assemblage, and a left dentary of Monotaxis grandoculis is found in another discrete assemblage,
then this would count as MNI=2 for this species. Conversely, if one right dentary of Monotaxis
grandoculis is found in one such assemblage, and a left dentary of Monotaxis grandoculis is found
in the same discrete assemblage, then this would count as MNI=1 for this species, regardless of how
big or small the two bones are. Clearly, the identification of what constitutes an assemblage is a
very important matter during faunal analysis. Our usual procedure is to define one square metre of
one individual layer as an assemblage and use that to define assemblages. In the case of the Ylig
collection, we used the spatial designation in the Excel spreadsheet provided by Micronesian
Archaeological Research Services.
Since the catalogue number was uniquely cross-referenced to Site, Square and Layer, using the
database, this number is ideal to use during re-bagging, to ensure that locational information is not
lost. It was therefore written on all bags during the re-bagging process to preserve original
provenance information (See Figure 5).
The bones in each original bag were tipped out in a sorting tray and sorted into basic categories,
such as fish, bird, turtle, crustacea, and separately re-bagged in self-sealing plastic bags. The nonfish remains consist mainly of fragmented parts of crustacea, of which there was a considerable
amount. In the case of fish remains, these were sorted into anatomical parts which are useful for
identification to species, genera, or family, and separately re-bagged, and the original unique
catalogue number written on each bag. Unidentifiable fish remains were returned to their original
bags. More than 90% of archaeological fish bones are fragments of vertebrae and spines, and are
not normally used for quantitative analysis. However, they certainly have other scientific value, such
as growth rate studies of ancient fishes, and for this reason should be kept for posterity after
excavation.
Identification of the fish remains was made using comparative material held at the Archaeozoology
Laboratory, Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. As each identification was made, the
anatomy (for example 2 LD = 2 Left Dentaries) and the taxon identified were written on a
removable label which was stuck on the bag. At a later stage, when information was entered into
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Page 6
Figure 4: Copy of a typical original bag before re-bagging, including catalogue number #686
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Page 7
Figure 5: A typical self-sealing plastic bag after re-bagging. The original catalogue number #104
preserves the unique location details. The identification is written on a removable label on the
outside of the bag (Right premaxilla Caranx sp.). The circled number 94 is the bag number in the
Kupenga fish bone database.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Page 8
a computer database (known as Kupenga), a reference number was allocated from the database, and
this is written on the bag, and circled (See Figure 5). This process ensures that there is a direct link
between the two databases on every single bag. Should a more precise identification be made at
some later stage, or an error identified in anatomy or species, one can return to the precise point in
the database, make any corrections necessary and then update all tables using suitable software held
by the authors.
In a few cases, bones belonged to species not present in the Archaeozoology Laboratory. When this
happens ‘Unidentified Species A’ is entered. In the case of Ylig, two different unidentified species
were found, and labelled A and F respectively. These occur in the category Teleostomi in Tables
in this report. Only a few of the standard fish bones from Ylig could not be identified.
METHODS OF FISH BONE ANALYSIS
The methods of analysis closely follow the technique developed in New Zealand for the treatment
of archaeological fish bone assemblages from the Pacific Islands generally. This has been described
elsewhere (Leach and Davidson, 1977; Leach 1986, 1997) so only a few details need to be given
here. The assemblages covered in this report are quite small, which makes it difficult to observe
significant temporal variation.
The identifiable fish bones were sorted anatomically and re-bagged. Taking each part of the anatomy
in turn, bones were then sorted into taxonomic categories, and identified with reference to the
comparative collection, which contains mounted bones of over 300 Pacific species. The
nomenclature and taxonomy largely follow Munro (1967).
It is important to note that all identifications are made to the lowest taxonomic level possible. The
level at which tropical Pacific fish bone can be identified varies greatly. For example, amongst the
Holocentridae family, the cranial anatomy, particularly the dentary, of Ostichthys murdjan is very
distinctive. Holocentrus ruber is also fairly distinctive, but a bone apparently belonging to this
species would not be entered as such on a bag. Instead the identification would be entered as
Holocentrus cf. ruber, indicating that this species is the most similar in the comparative collection,
but although the genus is certain the species is not. Other bone specimens belonging to this family
can only be identified to the level of Holocentrus sp. At the other end of the scale, with one
exception, cranial bones of the Scaridae family are not identified to a level lower than family. The
exception is Bolbometopon muraticus, which is of exceptional size. Fleming has shown that close
familiarity with the cranial anatomy of the Scaridae permits identification to sub-family without
great difficulty, and that the bucktooth characteristics of Calotomus spp. are also distinctive
(Fleming, 1986: 167 ff.). However, the different Scaridae species have similar habitats and are
caught by similar methods. From the point of view of studying human behaviour, identifying to
species is therefore of little value.
The calculation of minimum numbers follows the general technique of Chaplin (1971), and is further
discussed by Leach (1986, 1997). No attempt is made to increase MNI by taking into account
observed size mis-matches. For comparative purposes, NISP values were also calculated and given
in this report.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Page 9
BASIC RESULTS OF FISH BONE ANALYSIS
One hundred and seventy bones were able to be identified in 59 different assemblages from the Ylig
site. The Minimum Number of Individuals (MNI) for each type of fish was calculated and these
details are provided in the Appendix, and summarised by family in Tables 1 and 2 (see also Figures
6 and 7). The bones were generally in good condition.
Table 1: Total MNI by Family for the Ylig Site, All Assemblages Combined
Family Name
Coryphaenidae
Scaridae
Acanthuridae
Epinephelidae
Lethrinidae
Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae
Lutjanidae
Carangidae
Coridae/Labridae
Elasmobranchii
Teleostomi
Sphyraenidae
Balistidae
Diodontidae
Holocentridae
Total
MNI
37
18
8
6
5
4
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
95
%
38.9
18.9
8.4
6.3
5.3
4.2
4.2
3.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
100
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
10.4
8.5
6.2
5.5
5.1
4.6
4.6
4.1
3.4
3.4
3.4
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
Confidence limits are provided for each percentage in this and other Tables in this report. A
percentage statistic (or proportions, whose sum=1.0) is a measure of relative abundance in the sense
that when one percentage changes, so do all the others, so that the sum remains 100.0. The
significance of any difference in relative abundance between two sets is easily tested by calculating
the error range of each percentage (or proportion) to see if the two sets overlap or not. The
calculation of the confidence limit of a proportion is as follows (Snedecor and Cochran 1967:
210–211; Leach and de Souza 1979: 32):
C = K * (P * (1.0 - P) / N)0.5 + 1 / 2N
C is the confidence limit, P is the proportion, N the sample size, and K is a constant related to the
chosen probability level (= 1.96 for 95% confidence, following the distribution of Student’s t). The
factor 1/2N is added as a correction for continuity, which is important for small samples. For
example, If N=128 and there are 7 items with some characteristic, then P=0.054688, and C=0.0433.
So the 95% confidence range can be expressed as 5.47% ± 4.33%. For small samples, the
distribution of Student’s t must be consulted to adjust the value of C accordingly. For example if
N=35, C will be 2.02, not 1.96.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Figure 6: The abundance of different families of fish at the Ylig site.
Page 10
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Page 11
Table 2: MNI and Percent by Family for the Ylig Site Assemblages Combined into Two
Periods, and Mixed Provenance.
1=Pre-Latte, 2=Latte, 3=Mixed
Family
Coryphaenidae
Scaridae
Acanthuridae
Epinephelidae
Lethrinidae
Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae
Lutjanidae
Carangidae
Coridae/Labridae
Elasmobranchii
Teleostomi
Sphyraenidae
Balistidae
Diodontidae
Holocentridae
Total
Family
Coryphaenidae
Scaridae
Acanthuridae
Epinephelidae
Lethrinidae
Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae
Lutjanidae
Carangidae
Coridae/Labridae
Elasmobranchii
Teleostomi
Sphyraenidae
Balistidae
Diodontidae
Holocentridae
Totals
1
5
3
2
1
1
1
1
14
2
14
9
5
4
2
1
2
1
1
1
40
1
35.7±30.9
21.4±26.9
14.3±23.5
7.1±18.2
7.1±18.2
7.1±18.2
7.1±18.2
100.0
3
18
6
3
3
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
41
Total
37
18
8
6
5
4
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
95
2
35.0±16.4
22.5±14.5
12.5±11.8
10.0±10.8
5.0±8.2
2.5±6.2
5.0±8.2
2.5±6.2
2.5±6.2
2.5±6.2
100.0
%
38.95
18.95
8.42
6.32
5.26
4.21
4.21
3.16
2.11
2.11
2.11
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
100
3
43.9±16.8
14.6±12.3
7.3±9.4
7.3±9.4
7.3±9.4
2.4±6.1
4.9±8.0
4.9±8.0
2.4±6.1
2.4±6.1
2.4±6.1
100.0
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Figure 7: The relative abundance of fish at different time periods at Ylig.
Page 12
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Page 13
Statistical errors for each percentage are given in Tables 1 and 2 (for details of this see Table 1).
These assist evaluation of the significance of any observed difference between time periods. Careful
examination of Table 2 reveals that no change in abundance from Pre-Latte to Latte period is
significant.
THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF FISHING AT THE YLIG SITE
The fish remains at Ylig belong to at least 15 different families (Table 1, Figure 6). This is fairly
typical for a relatively small Pacific assemblage. However, the composition of the collection is most
unusual. It is completely dominated by dolphinfish (Coryphaenidae), with only one other family,
parrotfish (Scaridae), contributing more than ten percent of MNI. Scarids are usually the most
common type of fish in archaeological sites in the Pacific. The six most common fish families at
Ylig are shown in Figure 8.
Is the high relative abundance of dolphinfish real? There are two possible reasons why the number
might be inflated: preferential collection of large vertebrae, and the use of vertebrae to calculate
MNI. The dolphinfish at Ylig were mainly identified from their distinctive vertebrae, although some
cranial bones were also present (listed in Table 7 in the Appendix).
Although faunal material was not systematically collected throughout the excavations, recovery from
the earlier, deeper deposits was consistent. The policy was to keep all material retained by a quarterinch-mesh sieve (Yee 2006: pers. comm.). The relative abundance of dolphinfish in the earlier ‘PreLatte’ time period is not biased by preferential collection. Figure 7 shows a consistently high
representation of dolphinfish in the three sub-collections (Latte, Pre-Latte, and Mixed), providing
confidence that the high relative abundance throughout the site is not a result of preferential
collection.
In calculating MNI, it is preferable to use only cranial bones or other special bones such as caudal
peduncles, where one bone equals one fish. Items such as vertebrae, teeth, and some spines can
cause MNI to be inflated. However, such bones are sometimes the only evidence of the presence
of certain species. In the case of dolphinfish, which are so rare in Pacific archaeological sites, we
identify the distinctive vertebrae, bearing in mind the possibility of inflated MNI. We apply the
same methodology to all assemblages, so that if there is bias, it is consistent from layer to layer and
site to site. In any one site, such as Ylig, the method should reveal any changes in relative
abundance through time, even if the overall relative number is inflated. The same applies to intersite comparisons. One could also argue that the heads of some of these large dangerous fish might
be cut off before bringing the fish home, thereby greatly reducing the number of cranial bones
deposited in the midden.
Therefore, although it is possible that the MNI of dolphin fish is inflated at Ylig, there is no doubt
that these fish were being systematically taken in some numbers by the inhabitants throughout the
period of use of the area excavated. Dolphinfish are migratory, and are most abundant in the Guam
waters from February to April, although a few may be taken all year round (Amesbury and Myers
1982: 49). The most effective way of catching them is by trolling a bait or lure over deep offshore
waters.
It is notable that the Ylig collection also contains at least one species from the
Istiophoridae/Xiphiidae families (marlin and swordfish). These fishes were also identified mainly
from their distinctive vertebrae and zygapophyses, but again, one cranial bone was present.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Page 14
Figure 8: The most abundant types of fish at Ylig come from six families, examples of which are
shown here.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Page 15
Figure 9: The relative abundance of swordfish/marlin and dolphinfish. Only 8 sites of more than 70
in the database (Table 8) have significant archaeological remains of fishes of these families. The Ylig
site has by far the greatest abundance of dolphinfish so far seen in Pacific island archaeological
sites.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Page 16
We have previously discussed in some detail the prehistoric capture of marlin and dolphinfish in
the Marianas (Davidson and Leach 1988; Leach et al. 1988a, 1988b; Leach and Davidson 2006).
Ylig provides further supporting evidence that this big game fishing was the rule, rather than the
exception in these islands (Figure 9).
Despite the importance of large game fish at Ylig, there are no tuna remains among the identified
bones. This is in keeping with other assemblages from the Marianas, in which tuna are uncommon.
Another large fish represented at Ylig is the humphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muraticus). This
is also unusual in our experience of Pacific archaeological fish bone collections. It is not clear how
these fish, which grow up to about 1.2 m and are very strong, were caught in pre-European times.
Acanthuridae (unicornfish) are the third most numerous family at Ylig. These fish are present in
many Pacific assemblages, but not usually in such high relative abundance. The only effective way
of catching them is by netting in inshore waters around coral thickets. It is likely that most of the
scarids and Balistidae (triggerfish) were also taken in this way.
Epinephelidae (groupers and rock cod), Lethrinidae (emperorfish), and Lutjanidae (Pacific snapper
and sea perch) are usually taken on a baited hook. Although this method was obviously used by the
people of Ylig, it was apparently not as important as netting and pelagic trolling. Coridae/Labridae
(wrasses and tuskfish) were probably also caught by baited hook, although netting would also
capture them.
Of the other fish at Ylig, Carangidae (trevallies) and the single barracuda (Sphyraenidae) would be
taken by trolling and the Diodontidae (porcupinefish) and Holocentridae (squirrelfish/soldierfish) by
general foraging.
Figure 7 shows the relative abundance of fish from the Latte and Pre-Latte periods and from ‘Mixed
contexts’. The last include assemblages from contexts described as Latte?, Latte/Disturbed,
Latte/Pre-Latte, Pre-Latte/Disturbed, Disturbed, and ?.
There are no discernible differences between the three subgroups. The Latte subgroup is smaller than
the other two, because midden was not collected from upper layers during the first phases of the
project. The relatively large subgroup from Mixed (or disturbed) contexts is due to the nature of the
project. However, the similarity between the three groups suggests that fishing practices at Ylig were
probably consistent throughout the use of the site.
CONCLUSIONS
This collection of fish remains from a mitigation project at Ylig on the island of Guam has added
further support to our understanding of prehistoric fishing behaviour in the Mariana Islands. In
particular, the Ylig assemblage reflects a strong emphasis on the hunting of dolphin fish and some
hunting of marlin/swordfish throughout the occupation of the site. Netting, fishing with baited hook
and trolling for smaller pelagic fish were also practised at Ylig.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Page 17
REFERENCES CITED
Amesbury, S.S. and Myers, R.F. 1982. Guide to the coastal resources of Guam. Volume 1, the
fishes. University of Guam Marine Laboratory, Contribution Number 173. University of Guam Press.
Chaplin, R.E. 1971. The study of animal bones from archaeological sites. Seminar Press, London.
Davidson, J.M. and Leach, B.F. 1988. Chapter 15: Fishing. pp. 335–356 In: Butler, B.M (ed.)
Archaeological investigations on the north coast of Rota, Mariana Islands. Micronesian
Archaeological Survey Report No. 23. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Centre for
Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper 8.
Fleming, M.A. 1986. The Scaridae family in Pacific prehistory. Unpublished MA Thesis,
Anthropology, University of Otago.
Leach, B.F. 1986. A method for analysis of Pacific island fishbone assemblages and an associated
data base management system. Journal of Archaeological Science 13 (2): 147-159.
Leach, B.F. 1997. A guide to the identification of fish remains from New Zealand archaeological
sites. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology Special Publication. 129 pp.
Leach, B.F. and Davidson, J.M. 1977. Fishing methods and seasonality at Paremata (N160/50). New
Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 20 (3): 166-175.
Leach, B.F. and Davidson, J.M. 2006. Analysis of faunal material from an archaeological site
complex at Mangilao, Guam. Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Technical Report 38.
Leach, B.F. and de Souza, P. 1979. The changing proportions of Mayor Island obsidian in New
Zealand prehistory. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 1:29-51.
Leach, B.F., Fleming, M., Davidson, J.M., Ward, G.K. and Craib, J. 1988a. Prehistoric fishing at
Mochong, Rota, Mariana Islands. Man and Culture in Oceania 4: 31-62.
Leach, B.F., Horwood, M., Smith, I.W.G. and McGovern-Wilson, R. 1988b. Analysis of faunal
material from Songsong village, Rota, Mariana Islands. USA Historic Preservation Office.
Munro, I.S.R. 1967. The fishes of New Guinea. Department of Agriculture, Stock and
Fisheries, Port Moresby, New Guinea.
Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G. 1967. Statistical methods. Iowa State University Press.
Yee, S. 2006. Personal Communication, 19 April 2006. Supervisory Archaeologist, Guam Office,
International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Page 18
APPENDIX: Detailed Results of Fish Analysis from Ylig
The Tables in this Appendix are printouts from the Kupenga Fishbone Database in the
Archaeozoology Laboratory at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa and should be read
as follows:
Tables 3 to 7 provide details of the identifications of fish remains from Ylig.
Table 3 provides totals for the whole site.
At the head of each Table appears a list of the assemblages (space/time units) which have been
combined together to form each column in the table. Referring to Table 3, an example is:
( 694,
1) = YLIG002 above B-52 fill, Latte/Pre-Latte
‘YLIG’ is the code in the Kupenga Fishbone Database for the Ylig site. ‘694, 1’ is the code in the
database which identifies the unique space/time assemblage in the Ylig Site: ‘Above B-52 fill,
Latte/-Pre Latte’. The code ‘002’ attached to YLIG shows that this spatial provenance is the second
spatial unit listed for Ylig in the database. Any codes appearing with ‘?’ symbol refer to an
unknown stratigraphic provenance in the site.
Once each column has been defined in this manner, this is followed by the listing of the Minimum
Number of Individuals (MNI) according to taxon and the percent MNI of each taxon for each of
the columns identified at the head of the Table.
Database codes for Taxon and Family also appear in the Tables below. For example, In Table 3,
Taxon #6 = Agrioposphyraena barracuda. Further down in the Family tabulation Family #65 refers
to Sphyraenidae.
The figures are then presented according to family in decreasing order of abundance (as in Table
1 and Figure 6). The last part of this Table shows the systematic error associated with each
percentage.
Table 4 presents the same information, now broken down into two time periods and mixed
provenance, as described in the text. In Table 4, 1 = Pre-Latte, 2 = Latte, 3 = Mixed Provenance.
Table 5 presents NISP (number of identified specimens) from the Ylig site according to taxon.
Table 6 presents NISP according to family and shows the breakdown by anatomy of identified
specimens of Scaridae.
Table 7 lists all individual identifications from the Ylig site according to excavation unit, layer,
anatomy and taxon.
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Page 19
Table 3: Ylig MNI All Assemblages Combined
Column Numbers and Equivalent
Column 1
= ( 694,
= ( 698,
= ( 700,
= ( 701,
= ( 702,
= ( 703,
= ( 704,
= ( 705,
= ( 706,
= ( 709,
= ( 710,
= ( 711,
= ( 712,
= ( 712,
= ( 714,
= ( 715,
= ( 717,
= ( 721,
= ( 722,
= ( 723,
= ( 725,
= ( 727,
= ( 728,
= ( 730,
= ( 730,
= ( 730,
= ( 731,
= ( 731,
= ( 731,
= ( 732,
= ( 732,
= ( 732,
= ( 732,
= ( 734,
= ( 739,
= ( 740,
= ( 741,
= ( 742,
= ( 743,
= ( 744,
= ( 745,
= ( 746,
= ( 749,
= ( 751,
= ( 753,
= ( 753,
= ( 753,
= ( 754,
= ( 757,
= ( 760,
= ( 761,
= ( 762,
= ( 764,
= ( 765,
= ( 766,
= ( 767,
= ( 769,
= ( 770,
= ( 771,
Assemblage Reference Numbers
1) = YLIG002 above B-52 fill, Latte/Pre-Latte
1) = YLIG006 B-40 pit, Pre-Latte
1) = YLIG008 B-52 fill, Pre-Latte
1) = YLIG009 B-54 fill, Pre-Latte
1) = YLIG010 B-55 fill, Pre-Latte
1) = YLIG011 below B-52 in ashy soil, Pre-Latte
1) = YLIG012 Between B-39 and B-40, Pre-Latte
1) = YLIG013 Clear above B-38 pit, ?
1) = YLIG014 East Test Trench, ?
1) = YLIG017 ETP Test Trench 3 meters W of ETP 20, Pre-Latte
1) = YLIG018 ETP Test Trench S of GPA pole, Pre-Latte
2) = YLIG019 ETP-1, Latte
1) = YLIG020 ETP-10, ?
2) = YLIG020 ETP-10, Disturbed
1) = YLIG022 ETP-11, Disturbed
1) = YLIG023 ETP-15, Latte/Pre-Latte
1) = YLIG025 ETP-17, Latte
2) = YLIG029 ETP-27-29, Latte?
1) = YLIG030 ETP-29, Disturbed
1) = YLIG031 ETP-30, ?
1) = YLIG033 ETP/WTP-21 B-34, Landslide above
1) = YLIG035 Near B-38, Pre-Latte
1) = YLIG036 ST-20, Disturbed
1) = YLIG038 TU-1, Latte
2) = YLIG038 TU-1, Latte/Pre-Latte
3) = YLIG038 TU-1, Pre-Latte/Disturbed
1) = YLIG039 TU-2, Disturbed
2) = YLIG039 TU-2, Latte
3) = YLIG039 TU-2, Latte/Pre-Latte
1) = YLIG040 TU-3, Disturbed
2) = YLIG040 TU-3, Latte
3) = YLIG040 TU-3, Latte/Disturbed
4) = YLIG040 TU-3, Latte/Pre-Latte
1) = YLIG042 TU-6, Latte
1) = YLIG047 WTP 8-10, ?
1) = YLIG048 WTP-11, Pre-Latte
1) = YLIG049 WTP-11-15, ?
2) = YLIG050 WTP-12, Latte
1) = YLIG051 WTP-13, ?
1) = YLIG052 WTP-13-15, Pre-Latte
2) = YLIG053 WTP-14, Pre-Latte
2) = YLIG054 WTP-15, Pre-Latte
1) = YLIG057 WTP-17, ?
1) = YLIG059 WTP-19, ?
1) = YLIG061 WTP-2, ?
3) = YLIG061 WTP-2, Latte/Pre-Latte
4) = YLIG061 WTP-2, Pre-Latte
1) = YLIG062 WTP-20, ?
1) = YLIG065 WTP-22, ?
1) = YLIG068 WTP-25, ?
1) = YLIG069 WTP-26, ?
1) = YLIG070 WTP-27, ?
1) = YLIG072 WTP-28-30, Disturbed
1) = YLIG073 WTP-30, Pre-Latte
1) = YLIG074 WTP-39, Disturbed
2) = YLIG075 WTP-8, Pre-Latte
1) = YLIG077 WTP-8-9, Pre-Latte
2) = YLIG078 WTP-9, Pre-Latte
1) = YLIG079 WTP-9-10, Pre-Latte
Overall Totals for these Assemblages by Taxa
Taxon #
Taxon Name
MNI
%
----------------------------------------------------------------2
Acanthuridae
8
8.42
6
Agrioposphyra barrac
1
1.05
14
Balistidae
1
1.05
25
Caranx sp.
3
3.16
32
Coridae/Labridae
2
2.11
33
Coryphaena hippurus
37 38.95
34
Diodon hystrix
1
1.05
36
Elasmobranchii
2
2.11
38
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
6
6.32
44
Holocentrus sp.
1
1.05
45
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
4
4.21
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
50
Lethrinidae
5
5.26
52
Lutjanus sp.
4
4.21
78
Scaridae
17 17.89
85
Teleostomi Species A
1
1.05
90
Teleostomi Species F
1
1.05
113
Bolbometopon sp.
1
1.05
----------------------------------------------------------------Totals
95
100
Taxon
1 Totals
-----------------2
8
8
6
1
1
14
1
1
25
3
3
32
2
2
33 37
37
34
1
1
36
2
2
38
6
6
44
1
1
45
4
4
50
5
5
52
4
4
78 17
17
85
1
1
90
1
1
113
1
1
-----------------Totals 95
95
Overall Totals for these Assemblages by Family
Family #
Family Name
MNI
%
---------------------------------------------85
Coryphaenidae
37 38.95
140
Scaridae
18 18.95
159
Acanthuridae
8
8.42
97
Epinephelidae
6
6.32
114
Lethrinidae
5
5.26
221
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
4
4.21
106
Lutjanidae
4
4.21
88
Carangidae
3
3.16
222
Coridae/Labridae
2
2.11
192
Elasmobranchii
2
2.11
197
Teleostomi
2
2.11
65
Sphyraenidae
1
1.05
180
Balistidae
1
1.05
175
Diodontidae
1
1.05
57
Holocentridae
1
1.05
---------------------------------------------Total
95
100
Family
1 Totals
-----------------85 37
37
140 18
18
159
8
8
97
6
6
114
5
5
221
4
4
106
4
4
88
3
3
222
2
2
192
2
2
197
2
2
65
1
1
180
1
1
175
1
1
57
1
1
-----------------Totals 95
95
Page 20
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Page 21
Family %
1
--------------------85 38.9+- 10.4
140 18.9+- 8.5
159
8.4+- 6.2
97
6.3+- 5.5
114
5.3+- 5.1
221
4.2+- 4.6
106
4.2+- 4.6
88
3.2+- 4.1
222
2.1+- 3.4
192
2.1+- 3.4
197
2.1+- 3.4
65
1.1+- 2.6
180
1.1+- 2.6
175
1.1+- 2.6
57
1.1+- 2.6
--------------------Totals
100.0
Table 4: Ylig MNI in Three Groups: Latte, Pre-Latte, Mixed
Column Numbers and Equivalent Assemblage Reference Numbers
Column 1
= ( 711,
2) = YLIG019 ETP-1, Latte
= ( 717,
1) = YLIG025 ETP-17, Latte
= ( 730,
1) = YLIG038 TU-1, Latte
= ( 731,
2) = YLIG039 TU-2, Latte
= ( 732,
2) = YLIG040 TU-3, Latte
= ( 734,
1) = YLIG042 TU-6, Latte
= ( 742,
2) = YLIG050 WTP-12, Latte
Column 2
= ( 698,
1) = YLIG006 B-40 pit, Pre-Latte
= ( 700,
1) = YLIG008 B-52 fill, Pre-Latte
= ( 701,
1) = YLIG009 B-54 fill, Pre-Latte
= ( 702,
1) = YLIG010 B-55 fill, Pre-Latte
= ( 703,
1) = YLIG011 below B-52 in ashy soil, Pre-Latte
= ( 704,
1) = YLIG012 Between B-39 and B-40, Pre-Latte
= ( 709,
1) = YLIG017 ETP Test Trench 3 meters W of ETP 20, Pre-Latte
= ( 710,
1) = YLIG018 ETP Test Trench S of GPA pole, Pre-Latte
= ( 727,
1) = YLIG035 Near B-38, Pre-Latte
= ( 740,
1) = YLIG048 WTP-11, Pre-Latte
= ( 744,
1) = YLIG052 WTP-13-15, Pre-Latte
= ( 745,
2) = YLIG053 WTP-14, Pre-Latte
= ( 746,
2) = YLIG054 WTP-15, Pre-Latte
= ( 753,
4) = YLIG061 WTP-2, Pre-Latte
= ( 765,
1) = YLIG073 WTP-30, Pre-Latte
= ( 767,
2) = YLIG075 WTP-8, Pre-Latte
= ( 769,
1) = YLIG077 WTP-8-9, Pre-Latte
= ( 770,
2) = YLIG078 WTP-9, Pre-Latte
= ( 771,
1) = YLIG079 WTP-9-10, Pre-Latte
Column 3
= ( 721,
2) = YLIG029 ETP-27-29, Latte?
= ( 732,
3) = YLIG040 TU-3, Latte/Disturbed
= ( 694,
1) = YLIG002 above B-52 fill, Latte/Pre-Latte
= ( 715,
1) = YLIG023 ETP-15, Latte/Pre-Latte
= ( 730,
2) = YLIG038 TU-1, Latte/Pre-Latte
= ( 731,
3) = YLIG039 TU-2, Latte/Pre-Latte
= ( 732,
4) = YLIG040 TU-3, Latte/Pre-Latte
= ( 753,
3) = YLIG061 WTP-2, Latte/Pre-Latte
= ( 730,
3) = YLIG038 TU-1, Pre-Latte/Disturbed
= ( 705,
1) = YLIG013 Clear above B-38 pit, ?
= ( 706,
1) = YLIG014 East Test Trench, ?
= ( 712,
1) = YLIG020 ETP-10, ?
= ( 723,
1) = YLIG031 ETP-30, ?
= ( 739,
1) = YLIG047 WTP 8-10, ?
= ( 741,
1) = YLIG049 WTP-11-15, ?
= ( 743,
1) = YLIG051 WTP-13, ?
= ( 749,
1) = YLIG057 WTP-17, ?
= ( 751,
1) = YLIG059 WTP-19, ?
= ( 753,
1) = YLIG061 WTP-2, ?
= ( 754,
1) = YLIG062 WTP-20, ?
= ( 757,
1) = YLIG065 WTP-22, ?
= ( 760,
1) = YLIG068 WTP-25, ?
= ( 761,
1) = YLIG069 WTP-26, ?
= ( 762,
1) = YLIG070 WTP-27, ?
= ( 712,
2) = YLIG020 ETP-10, Disturbed
= ( 714,
1) = YLIG022 ETP-11, Disturbed
= ( 722,
1) = YLIG030 ETP-29, Disturbed
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
=
=
=
=
=
=
(
(
(
(
(
(
728,
731,
732,
764,
766,
725,
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
1)
=
=
=
=
=
=
YLIG036
YLIG039
YLIG040
YLIG072
YLIG074
YLIG033
ST-20, Disturbed
TU-2, Disturbed
TU-3, Disturbed
WTP-28-30, Disturbed
WTP-39, Disturbed
ETP/WTP-21 B-34, Landslide above
Overall Totals for these Assemblages by Taxa
Taxon #
Taxon Name
MNI
%
----------------------------------------------------------------2
Acanthuridae
8
8.42
6
Agrioposphyra barrac
1
1.05
14
Balistidae
1
1.05
25
Caranx sp.
3
3.16
32
Coridae/Labridae
2
2.11
33
Coryphaena hippurus
37 38.95
34
Diodon hystrix
1
1.05
36
Elasmobranchii
2
2.11
38
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
6
6.32
44
Holocentrus sp.
1
1.05
45
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
4
4.21
50
Lethrinidae
5
5.26
52
Lutjanus sp.
4
4.21
78
Scaridae
17 17.89
85
Teleostomi Species A
1
1.05
90
Teleostomi Species F
1
1.05
113
Bolbometopon sp.
1
1.05
----------------------------------------------------------------Totals
95
100
Taxon
1
2
3 Totals
-------------------------2
5
3
8
6
1
1
14
1
1
25
1
2
3
32
2
2
33
5 14 18
37
34
1
1
36
1
1
2
38
2
4
6
44
1
1
45
1
3
4
50
2
3
5
52
1
2
1
4
78
2
9
6
17
85
1
1
90
1
1
113
1
1
-------------------------Totals 14 40 41
95
Overall Totals for these Assemblages by Family
Family #
Family Name
MNI
%
---------------------------------------------85
Coryphaenidae
37 38.95
140
Scaridae
18 18.95
159
Acanthuridae
8
8.42
97
Epinephelidae
6
6.32
114
Lethrinidae
5
5.26
221
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
4
4.21
106
Lutjanidae
4
4.21
88
Carangidae
3
3.16
222
Coridae/Labridae
2
2.11
192
Elasmobranchii
2
2.11
197
Teleostomi
2
2.11
65
Sphyraenidae
1
1.05
180
Balistidae
1
1.05
175
Diodontidae
1
1.05
57
Holocentridae
1
1.05
---------------------------------------------Total
95
100
Page 22
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Family
1
2
3 Totals
-------------------------85
5 14 18
37
140
3
9
6
18
159
5
3
8
97
2
4
6
114
2
3
5
221
1
3
4
106
1
2
1
4
88
1
2
3
222
2
2
192
1
1
2
197
1
1
2
65
1
1
180
1
1
175
1
1
57
1
1
-------------------------Totals 14 40 41
95
Family %
1
2
3
----------------------------------------------85 35.7+- 30.9 35.0+- 16.4 43.9+- 16.8
140 21.4+- 26.9 22.5+- 14.5 14.6+- 12.3
159
- 12.5+- 11.8
7.3+- 9.4
97 14.3+- 23.5 10.0+- 10.8
114
5.0+- 8.2
7.3+- 9.4
221
2.5+- 6.2
7.3+- 9.4
106
7.1+- 18.2
5.0+- 8.2
2.4+- 6.1
88
2.5+- 6.2
4.9+- 8.0
222
4.9+- 8.0
192
7.1+- 18.2
2.4+- 6.1
197
7.1+- 18.2
2.4+- 6.1
65
2.5+- 6.2
180
7.1+- 18.2
175
2.4+- 6.1
57
2.5+- 6.2
----------------------------------------------Totals
100.0
100.0
100.0
Table 5: NISP by Taxon
2
6
14
25
32
33
34
36
38
44
45
50
52
78
85
90
113
Total
Acanthuridae
Agrioposphyra barrac
Balistidae
Caranx sp.
Coridae/Labridae
Coryphaena hippurus
Diodon hystrix
Elasmobranchii
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Holocentrus sp.
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Lethrinidae
Lutjanus sp.
Scaridae
Teleostomi Species A
Teleostomi Species F
Bolbometopon sp.
11
1
1
3
2
99
2
2
7
1
5
5
4
24
1
1
1
170
Page 23
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Table 6: NISP by Family
57 Holocentridae
1
65 Sphyraenidae
1
85 Coryphaenidae
99
88 Carangidae
3
97 Epinephelidae
7
106 Lutjanidae
4
114 Lethrinidae
5
140 Scaridae
25
159 Acanthuridae
11
175 Diodontidae
2
180 Balistidae
1
192 Elasmobranchii
2
197 Teleostomi
2
221 Istiophoridae/Xiphii
5
222 Coridae/Labridae
2
Total
170
--------------------------------------------------NISP by Anatomy for Family of Interest =
1
2
4
8
11
12
13
Left Dentary
Right Dentary
Right Articular
Right Premaxilla
Inferior Pharyngeal Cluster
Right Superior Pharyngeal Cluster
Left Superior Pharyngeal Cluster
140 Scaridae
2
3
1
4
3
5
7
Page 24
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Page 25
Table 7: List of Identifications of Fish Remains from Ylig
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
WTP-14
Near B-38
ETP Test Trench 3 me
below B-52 in ashy s
WTP-14
WTP-15
WTP-9
WTP-13-15
ETP Test Trench S of
WTP-15
WTP-11
ETP Test Trench S of
B-52 fill
WTP-8-9
WTP-8
WTP-14
B-55 fill
WTP-8
B-40 pit
ETP Test Trench 3 me
below B-52 in ashy s
Near B-38
ETP Test Trench S of
WTP-15
B-54 fill
WTP-14
ETP Test Trench S of
WTP-9-10
WTP-8-9
WTP-8-9
WTP-11
WTP-11
WTP-30
Near B-38
Between B-39 and B-4
ETP Test Trench S of
WTP-14
WTP-14
Between B-39 and B-4
WTP-15
WTP-8
ETP Test Trench S of
WTP-2
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
Pre-Latte
1
5
1
3
3
13
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Left Superior Pharyn
Left Superior Pharyn
Left Superior Pharyn
Left Superior Pharyn
Right Superior Phary
Right Superior Phary
Caudal Peduncle
Buckler
Buckler
Buckler
Buckler
Left Dentary
Right Dentary
Right Dentary
Right Dentary
Right Dentary
Left Dentary
Left Dentary
Left Dentary
Left Dentary
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Acanthuridae
Acanthuridae
Acanthuridae
Acanthuridae
Acanthuridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Lethrinidae
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Agrioposphyra barrac
Lutjanus sp.
Coryphaena hippurus
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Scaridae
Lethrinidae
Acanthuridae
Caranx sp.
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Near B-38
Pre-Latte
WTP-14
Pre-Latte
B-55 fill
Pre-Latte
WTP-11
Pre-Latte
WTP-8-9
Pre-Latte
Clear above B-38 pit ?
TU-2
Latte/Pre-Latte
ETP-11
Disturbed
WTP 8-10
?
ST-20
Disturbed
ETP-11
Disturbed
WTP-2
?
WTP-28-30
Disturbed
TU-3
Latte/Pre-Latte
WTP-13
?
TU-1
Pre-Latte/Disturbed
ETP-10
Disturbed
WTP-2
Latte/Pre-Latte
ETP-10
Disturbed
TU-3
Latte/Pre-Latte
WTP-26
?
ETP-10
?
WTP-19
?
ETP-29
Disturbed
ETP-27-29
Latte?
WTP-25
?
WTP-39
Disturbed
WTP-20
?
WTP-11-15
?
ST-20
Disturbed
TU-3
Latte/Pre-Latte
ETP-15
Latte/Pre-Latte
WTP-27
?
WTP-17
?
TU-2
Disturbed
TU-2
Disturbed
TU-3
Disturbed
TU-3
Disturbed
TU-2
Disturbed
ETP-30
?
ETP/WTP-21 B-34
Landslide above
above B-52 fill
Latte/Pre-Latte
East Test Trench
?
WTP-22
?
TU-2
Latte/Pre-Latte
TU-2
Latte/Pre-Latte
1
1
1
1
1
2
6
8
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Left Articular
Left Articular
Right Articular
Left Maxilla
Left Maxilla
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Zygapophysis
Buckler
Buckler
Caudal Peduncle
Vertebra
Caudal Peduncle
Right Dentary
Left Premaxilla
Left Superior Pharyn
Right Superior Phary
Left Superior Pharyn
Right Superior Phary
Inferior Pharyngeal
Inferior Pharyngeal
Tooth/Dental Plates
Left Dentary
Right Dentary
Right Dentary
Right Dentary
Left Premaxilla
Page 26
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Coryphaena hippurus
Scaridae
Holocentrus sp.
Lutjanus sp.
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Acanthuridae
Acanthuridae
Acanthuridae
Caranx sp.
Coridae/Labridae
Teleostomi Species F
Istiophoridae/Xiphii
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Scaridae
Elasmobranchii
Scaridae
Coridae/Labridae
Lethrinidae
Lethrinidae
Coryphaena hippurus
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
Ylig,Gua
TU-3
TU-3
TU-3
WTP-20
ETP-10
ETP-30
TU-3
TU-2
TU-3
TU-1
TU-3
ETP-1
TU-3
TU-6
ETP-17
TU-2
TU-2
ETP-1
ETP-1
TU-1
TU-6
ETP-1
WTP-12
ETP-1
TU-1
Latte/Pre-Latte
Latte/Pre-Latte
Latte/Disturbed
?
Disturbed
?
Latte
Latte
Latte
Latte/Pre-Latte
Latte
Latte
Latte
Latte
Latte
Latte
Latte
Latte
Latte
Latte/Pre-Latte
Latte
Latte
Latte
Latte
Latte
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Vertebra
Left Superior Pharyn
Tooth/Dental Plates
Dorsal/Erectile Spin
Right Dentary
Right Dentary
Left Maxilla
Left Maxilla
Left Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Right Premaxilla
Page 27
Diodon hystrix
Diodon hystrix
Lethrinidae
Lutjanus sp.
Caranx sp.
Scaridae
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Coryphaena hippurus
Bolbometopon sp.
Elasmobranchii
Balistidae
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Scaridae
Teleostomi Species A
Lutjanus sp.
Epinephelus/Ceph sp.
Scaridae
Scaridae
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
Page 28
Table 8: Analysed Fish Remains from Sites in the Tropical Pacific and New Zealand
Fish remains from these archaeological sites have been analysed using strictly controlled methods,
and the results are contained in the database at the Archaeozoology Laboratory, Te Papa Tongarewa
Museum of New Zealand.
1: Tropical Pacific Islands
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Abbrev.Site Name
ANAI Anaio, Ma’uke, Cook Islands
KALO Kaloko, Hawaii
DONG Dongan, Papua New Guinea
MOT2 Motupore, Papua New Guinea (Groube)
NGAA Ngaaitutaki, Mangaia, Cook Islands
TEPA Tepaopao, Mangaia, Cook Islands
ERUA Erua, Mangaia, Cook Islands
FAIS Fais, Caroline Islands
TIWI Tiwi Cave Site, New Caledonia
KIRI Nikunau Island, Kiribati
HANE Hane, Ua Huka, Marquesas
VATA Vatcha Site Ch1 New Caledonia
VATB Vatcha Site Ch2 New Caledonia
VATC Vatcha Sondage A New Caledonia
VATD Vatcha Sondage B New Caledonia
VATE Vatcha Sondage C New Caledonia
LAPI Lapita, New Caledonia, Sand
FAHA Fa‘ahia Sinoto Excavation
FAHB Fa‘ahia Navorro Excavation
PWEK Pwekina, New Caledonia
LOYA Mouli A, Loyalty Islands
LOYB Mouli B, Loyalty Islands
LOYC Hnenigec, Loyalty Islands
LOYD Peete, Loyalty Islands
LOYE Hnajoisisi, Loyalty Islands
LOYF Keny, Loyalty Islands
LOYG Nonime, Loyalty Islands
CIKO Cikobia, Site 006, Fiji
GAAS Mangaas, Efate, Vanuatu
IFOO Ifo, Erromango, Vanuatu
PONA Ponamla, Erromanga, Vanuatu
MAL1 Ndavru, Malekula, Vanuatu
MAL2 Malua Bay, Malekula, Vanuatu
MAL3 Woplamplam, Malekula, Vanuatu
MAL4 Wambraf, Malekula, Vanuatu
MAL5 Yalu, Malekula, Vanuatu
MAL6 Navaprah, Malekula, Vanuatu
CIK1 Cikobia, Site 001, Fiji
CIK2 Cikobia, Site 005, Fiji
NAVA Navatu, Fiji
CIK3 Cikobia, Site 04, Fiji
CIK4 Cikobia, Site 090, Fiji
CIK5 Cikobia, Site 037, Fiji
CIK6 Cikobia, Site 047, Fiji
CIK7 Cikobia, Site 087, Fiji
KURI Kurin, Loyalty Islands
LOYH Hnajoisisi, Hna Cave, Loyalty Islands
ARAP Arapus, Efate, Vanuatu
TIO1 Tiouande Site 5, New Caledonia
50 TIO2 Tiouande Site 14, New Caledonia
51 KULU Kulu, Beqa, Fiji
52 BUAN Buangmerabak, New Ireland
53 URUN Urunao, Guam
54 MANGMangaia Mound, Tongatapu
55 GOLF Mangilao Golf Course, Site 25, Guam
56 GOLG Mangilao Golf Course, Site 253, Guam
57 GOLH Mangilao Golf Course, Site 667, Guam
58 YLIG Ylig,Guam
59 XXXX Balof Cave, New Ireland, Papua New
Guinea (White)
60 XXXX Pagat, Guam (Craib)
61 XXXX Kapingamarangi, Caroline Is (Leach)
62 XXXX Leluh, Kosrae (Cordy)
63 XXXX Motupore 1, Port Morseby, Papua New
Guinea (Allen)
64 XXXX Nan Madol, Ponape (Athens)
65 XXXX Nukuoro, Caroline Is (Davidson)
66 XXXX Palau (Masse)
67 XXXX Ponape (*)
68 XXXX Te Ana Pua, Ua Pou, Marquesas (Ottino)
69 XXXX RF2 Reef Islands, Solomons (Green)
70 XXXX Mochong, Rota, Mariana Is (Craib)
71 XXXX RotaSIU, Mariana Is (Butler)
72 XXXX Songsong, Rota, Mariana Is
(McManamon)
73 XXXX Taumako, Solomons (Leach)
74 XXXX Tinian Mariana Is (*)
75 XXXX Vaito‘otea, Huahine, Society Is (Sinoto)
76 XXXX Afenta, Saipan, Mariana Is (McGovern
Wilson)
2: New Zealand
1 BRE1 B r e a k s e a S o u n d 1 , D i s c o v e r y
Cove,(BSS/1)
2 BRE2 Breaksea Sound 2, Chatham Point 3,
BSS/2
3 CASC Cascade Cove, Dusky Sound (CC/1)
4 CHAL Chalky Is, Chalky Inlet, Southport CH/1
5 COOP Coopers Island, Dusky Sound, (CI/1)
6 DUND Davidson Undefended Site, Motutapu Is
7 FOXR Fox River, Te Onumata, Potikohua River
8 FOXT Foxton
9 GARD Garden Island, Chalky Inlet, Southport
10 GLEN The Glen, Tasman Bay
11 HARWHarataonga Bay W Midden, Gt Barrier Is
12 HOTW Hot Water Beach, Coromandel Peninsula
13 HUDS Hudson’s Site, Goose Bay, Kaikoura
14 IKAE Te Ika a Maru, Eastern Flat
15 IKAF Te Ika a Maru, Flat at Base of Pa
16 KAHN Kahiti North, Hansons Bay, Chatham Is
17 KAHS Kahiti South, Hansons Bay, Chatham Is
18 KIRI Te Kiri Kiri, Ruapuke Island, (KK/1)
Leach and Davidson: Analysis of Fish remains from Ylig
19 LEEI Lee Island Site, on Ruapuke Island, LI/1
20 LOBE Long Beach, Dunedin
21 LONG Long Island, Dusky Sound, (LI/1)
22 LUND Leahy Undefended Site, Motutapu Island
23 MAKB Makara Beach Midden
24 MAKT Makara Terrace Midden
25 MILF Milford
26 NGAI Te Ngaio, Petre Bay, Chatham Island
27 OHIN Ohinemamao, Petre Bay, Chatham Island
28 OMIH Omihi, Kaikoura
29 PAPA Papatowai, Catlins
30 PARA Parangiaio, Ruapuke Island, (PP/1)
31 PARE Paremata
32 PCR1 Port Craig Cave, Foveaux Strait, (PC/1)
33 PCR2 Port Craig Dry Rock Shelter 1, Foveaux
34 PCR3 Port Craig Dry Rock Shelter 2, Foveaux
35 PCR4 Port Craig Midden, Foveaux Strait, PC/4
36 PEKP Peketa Pa, Kaikoura
37 PJAC Port Jackson, Coromandel
38 POKI Pokiakio, Petre Bay, Chatham Islands
39 ROSS Ross Rocks, Otago
40 SAN1 Sandhill Point 1, Foveaux Strait, SHP/1
41 SAN2 Sandhill Point 2, Foveaux Strait, SHP/2
42 SAN3 Sandhill Point 3, Foveaux Strait, SHP/3
43 SAN4 Sandhill Point 4, Foveaux Strait, SHP/4
44 SOU1 Southport 1, Fiordland, (SP/1)
45 SOU4 Southport 4, Cave Site, Fiordland, SP/4
46 SOU5 Southport 5, Cave Site, Fiordland, SP/5
47 SOU6 Southport 6, Fiordland, (SP/6)
48 SOU7 Southport 7, Fiordland, (SP/7)
49 SOU8 Southport 8, Fiordland, (SP/8)
50 SOU9 Southport 9, Cave Site, Fiordland, SP/9
51 STAT Station Bay Pa, Motutapu Island
52 SUND Sunde Site, Motutapu Island
53 TAIA Taiaroa Head, Otago Peninsula
54 TAKA Takahanga Post Office Site Kaikoura
55 TITC Titirangi Cattleyards, Marlborough
56 TITG Goose Bay Midden, Titirangi,
Marlborough
57 TITP Titirangi Pa, Marlborough Sounds
58 TITS Titirangi Sandhills, Marlborough Sounds
59 TIWA Tiwai Point, Bluff Harbour
60 TUMB Tumbledown Bay, Banks Peninsula
61 WAKAWakapatu, Western Southland
62 MANAParewanui Midden, Bulls, Manawatu
63 SHAG Shag River Mouth
64 KOKO Kokohuia, Hokianga
65 MATA Midden 8, Matakana Island
66 WASH Washpool Site, Palliser Bay
67 MAK3 Makotukutuku M3 Fort Site, Palliser Bay
68 MAK1 Makotukutuku M1 Camp Site, Palliser
Bay
69 BLR2 Black Rocks BR2 Pond Midden, Palliser
70 BLR3 Black Rocks BR3 Black Midden, Palliser
71 BLR4 Black Rocks BR4 Crescent Midden
Palliser
72 BLR5 Black Rocks Fan
73 MAN1 Mana Island South Midden R26/141A
74 MAN2 Mana Island North Settlement R26/141
Page 29
75 ANDR Andrewburn, Fiordland
76 HURI Huriawa Peninsula. Areas A,B,Salvage
77 KELL Kelly’s Beach, Stewart Island
78 OLDP Old Pier Point Avoca, Kaikoura
79 OMIM Omimi, Otago
80 OTOK Otokia Mouth, Brighton Beach, Otago
81 POUN Pounawea, Otago
82 PURA Purakanui Inlet, Otago
83 RIVE Riverton, Southland
84 ROTO Rotokura, Tasman Bay
85 WAIA Waianakarua Mouth, North Otago
86 HARP Harataonga Bay Pa, Great Barrier Island
87 SLIP Slipper Island, Near Tairua Harbour
88 TAIR Tairua, Coromandel
89 WHANWhangamata Wharf, Coromandel
90 CROS Cross Creek Site
91 WAIH Waihora, Chatham Islands
92 CHAA CHA, Chatham Islands
93 CHBB CHB, Chatham Islands
94 CHCC CHC, Chatham Islands
95 PANA Panau, Canterbury Peninsular
96 TWIL Twilight Beach, Northland
97 AUPO Aupori Dune Middens 90 Mile Beach
98 HOUH Houhora
99 WAIP Waipoua
100 NHBWNorthland Harbour Board Site,
Whangaraei
101 SUN2 Sunde Site Oyster lens
102 SUN3 Sunde Site soft shore midden
103 WES1 Westfield N42/941
104 HAML Hamlins Hill N42/137
105 HAHE Hahei N44/215
106 HARS N44/97
107 ORUR Oruarangi N49/28
108 RAUP Raupa N53/37, T13/13
109 AOTE Aotea N64/25
110 KOHI Kohika N68/104
111 AWARAwaroa N26/18
112 BARB N26/214
113 BARK Bark Bay
114 TAUP Taupo Point
115 APPL Appleby
116 HAUL Haulashore Island
117 BRUC Bruce Bay
118 TIRO Tiromoana N135/1
119 PAR2 Pararaki Wall, Pararaki North N168-9/41
120 PLE1 Pleasant River (Anthropology) S155/8
121 PLE2 Pleasant River (Smith)
122 TUMA Tumai, Pleasant River Mouth South
123 MAPO Mapoutahi S164/13
124 PUKE Pukekura Pa, Tairoa Head
125 PAP2 Papatowai S184/5
126 WES2 West Point WP/1, Ruapuke Island
APPENDIX C
PRE-WAR JAPANESE FISHERIES IN MICRONESIA
FOCUSING ON BONITO AND TUNA FISHING
IN THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
By
Wakako Higuchi
This project was funded (or partly funded) by Cooperative Agreement NA17RJ1230
between the Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research (JIMAR) and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The views expressed
herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any
of its subdivisions.
Pre-war Japanese Fisheries in Micronesia
—Focusing on Bonito and Tuna Fishing
in the Northern Mariana Islands—
Wakako Higuchi
Research Associate
Micronesian Area Research Center
University of Guam
January 15, 2006
For
Micronesian Archaeological Research Services
A Guam Non-Profit Corporation
P.O. Box 22303, GMF, Guam 96921
Pre-war Japanese Fisheries in Micronesia
—Focusing on Bonito and Tuna Fishing
in the Northern Mariana Islands—
Introduction
As a participant in World War I, Japan took control of the German colonies in
Micronesia in 1914, and called them the South Sea Islands — comprising Saipan, Palau,
Yap, Chuuk (formerly Truk), Pohnpei (formerly Ponape) and the Marshalls. The
Japanese Navy administered the islands until 1922. Later, the civilian-run South Seas
Bureau governed the islands as a League of Nations mandate. By the mid-1930s, the
navy again became politically and militarily involved in the administration of the islands.
As seen in Graph 1 below, the fishing industry in Micronesia increased rapidly
throughout the 1930s, becoming one of the major economic achievements in the islands
during Japanese rule, along with the sugarcane, copra, and phosphate industries. The
main marine product was bonito caught by pole-and-line.
This report will review records of the bonito and tuna fisheries in the South Sea
Islands during the South Seas Bureau administration. The review is divided into three
periods: 1922–1931, 1931-1941, 1941-1942. The period 1922-1931 can be termed the
Experimentation Period. The next period, 1931-1941, saw the rise of fishery industries in
the South Sea Islands. The last period covers fisheries during the early Pacific War,
1941-1942. There are no South Seas Bureau fishery statistics available between 1943
and 1944. Fishing efforts in the Saipan district will be examined separately, since the
other areas within the South Sea Islands are not pertinent to the present project.
Japanese references compiled prior to 1951 do not specify each kind of bonito and
tuna caught. They simply identify fish as either bonito (katsuwo) or tuna (maguro).
According to Okamoto Hiroaki, National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries, Japan,
when “bonito” pole-and-line fishery is discussed in Japanese references, the species taken
included mainly Katsuwonus pelamis (skipjack, or katsuwo), also Auxis thazard
(hirasôda) and Auxis rochei (frigate mackerel, or marusôda); and probably Euthynuus
affins (suma) and Sarda orientalis (bonito, or hagatsuwo). Japanese fishing grounds until
then were limited to the western and central Pacific north of the equator. 1
In the same way, the term, “tuna” includes the following species: Thunnus
thynnus (Pacific bluefin tuna), T. alalunga (albacore), T. obesus (bigeye tuna), and T.
albacares (yellowfin tuna).
1
Okamoto Hiroaki, “Taiheiyô sensô izen oyobi shûsen chokugo no Nihon no maguro gyogyô dêta no
tansaku (Search for the Japanese Tuna Fishing Data Before and Just After World War II),” Suisan Sôgô
Kenkyûjo Sentâ Kenkyû Hôkoku 13 (Shizuoka: Suisan Sôgô Kenkyû Sentâ, 2004): 18.
2
Gra p h 1 Ja p a n e se Fish e ry in t h e Sou t h
Se a I sla n d s: Va lu e p e r Ye a r, 1 9 2 9 - 1 9 4 1
( Ye n )
8, 000, 000
7, 000, 000
6, 000, 000
5, 000, 000
4, 000, 000
3, 000, 000
2, 000, 000
1, 000, 000
0
To t al Fish Cat ch
Pro ce ssed Marin e Pro d uct s
Source: Nan’yôchô, Daisankai, Nan’yôchô tôkei nenkan (Tokyo: Nan’yôchô, 1935), p. 124-126; and Nan’yôchô,
Nan’yô Guntô yôran, 1929-1942.
Fisheries during the Experimentation Period (1922-1931)
With two fishery regulations — the Regulations for the Fishery Industry in the
South Sea Islands (1916), and the Regulations for Encouragement of Fishery Industry in
the South Sea Islands (1922), the South Seas Bureau’s policy was always to promote and
support fisheries in the islands. In 1925, the South Seas Bureau launched the research
ship Hakuômaru (10 tons), and began ocean research on bonito pole-and-line fisheries.
Catches were poor in spite of the observation of large schools of fish. Though attempts at
encouraging fisheries were made, they failed for a variety of reasons. The most serious
problems throughout the pre-war years were difficulties in handling and marketing the
fish — preservation, lack of local markets in the islands, a small Japanese population in
the islands, and inadequate transportation to Japan.
Bonito Fishing in the South Sea Islands: It appears that the bonito fishery in the
South Sea Islands first began in the 1920s. An individual by the name of Uehara Kamezô
hired five Okinawan fishermen and an Okinawan-style large canoe on Saipan. In late
1925, he took akadoro (the general term for Apogonidae, Amia, Apogon, and
Chilodipterus), small baitfish on the reef at Palau. They caught bonito — 50 to 100
bonito per day — two to three miles distant from the eastern channel and off the
lighthouse at Palau. 2
2
Marukawa Hisatoshi, “Nan’yô Guntô no suisan (2)” Nan’yô Suisan 5, no. 3 (March 1939): 8.
3
Similarly, Taiyô Suisan Kabushiki Kaisha (Taiyô Marine Products Company) on
Saipan hired Okinawan fishermen and caught bonito, also in the Palau area. However,
because of lack of bait and the strong trade winds, the catch was poor. Taiyô Suisan also
took bonito using the South Seas Bureau’s Hakuômaru for two years, but the poor
catches resulted in the dissolution of the company.
In Chuuk, Okinawan fisherman, Tamashiro Eishô, began a bonito fishery around
1918. Fishermen from Shizuoka also engaged in fishing. While other fishermen from
Shizuoka failed, Tamashiro succeeded. The reason for Tamashiro’s success was that his
Okinawan employees were skillful at catching the bait needed for a good haul in the
South Seas.
Two things were required for successful fishing: quantity and quality of bait, and
skilled Okinawan fishermen. 3 Bonito fishing was totally dependent on the right kind of
bait. In Palau, there was abundant baitfish — kibinago (Stolephorus delicatulus
[Bennett]), and especially nan’yo katakuchi iwashi (Engraulis heterolobus [Rueppel]).
Although the latter was the best bait for bonito pole-and-line fishing, these small fish
could not be caught in waters around Saipan. Instead, akamura (Caessio chrysozoma
[Kuhl & Hass], maaji (Trachinrus japonicus [Temm. & Schl.]), meaji (Trachurops
crumenophthalma [Bloch.]), shimaaji (Caranx malabalicus [Cuv. & Val.]), and another
kind of horse mackerel (C. leptolepis [Cuv. & Val].) were used on Saipan. 4 For catching
bait, Okinawan divers were necessary. In the 1920s, bonito fisheries were gradually
centered around the waters of Palau, and Saipan. 5 Okinawan fishermen, mainly from
Itoman, Okinawa, were recruited to work in the South Sea Islands. Out of a total of
1,336 workers engaged in the fisheries industry in 1932, 405 worked out of the Saipan
district (30%), 425 in the Palau district (32%), 234 in the Chuuk district (18%), 178 in the
Pohnpei district (13%), 83 in the Yap district (6.2%), and 11 in the Juluit district (0.8%). 6
Table 1 below shows the number of fishing permits issued by the South Seas
Bureau. The permits for bonito fishing slowly increased in the Saipan district from the
1920s on, but the number of permits was still fewer than 8 by 1931.
Table 2 below shows that there were 23 permitted vessels in the Saipan district,
with 167 fishermen as of 1930. According to Table 3, the total value of the Saipan fish
catch increased from 19,627 yen in 1929 to 70,296 yen in 1930, owing to the
employment of four vessels of 20 tons and more.
Also, as seen in Table 3, the bonito catch in Saipan district increased from 24,690
kg in 1929 to 258,004 kg in 1930, an increase of more than 10 times. Because of the
3
Marukawa Hisatoshi, ibid., p. 12.
Marukawa Hisatoshi, “Nan’yô Guntô no suisan (4)” Nan’yô Suisan 5, no. 5 (May 1939): 4-9.
5
The total Japanese population in the South Sea Islands in 1929 was 16,202 (male: 10,291, and female:
5,911). Of them, 8,289 were from Okinawa – 51%. 7,754 Okinawans (94%) lived on the Saipan District,
while 347 Okinawan (4%) lived on the Palau District. Nan’yôchô, Nan’yôchô tôkei nenkan (Palau:
Nan’yôchô, December 1934), pp. 34-39.
6
Nan’yôchô, Dainikai, Nan’yôchô tôkei nenkan (Palau: Nan’yôchô, 1934), p. 54.
4
4
increase of motorized vessels on Saipan, bonito catches rapidly increased to 564,258 kg
by 1931, 23 times more than in 1929. These increases were catches by vessels from
Yaizu, Japan, which organized as Nan’yô Suisan Kigyô Kumiai (South Seas Fishery
Companies’ Association, later Nankô Suisan) in 1931. In 1925, bonito catches made up
14% of the total fish catch in the South Sea Islands (33% in the Saipan district). This
increased to 55% in 1929, 78% in 1930 and 73% in 1931 (53%, 87%, and 90% in the
Saipan district respectively). As a result, bonito fishing became a major industry on
Saipan, as well as in other parts of the South Sea Islands. And owing to the increase of
bonito fish catches, dried bonito production also increased accordingly, as seen in Table
4.
Tuna Fishing: The South Seas Bureau Marine Laboratory reported in 1938 that
the density of tuna schools in the South Sea Islands was the same as for bonito. 7
However, processing of tuna after catch was more difficult than bonito because tuna
needed icing to keep it fresh. Further development of the tuna fisheries had to wait for
construction of necessary refrigeration, ice storage, and processing facilities. As
mentioned above, island conditions — such as distance from Japan's markets, and limited
local consumption in the South Sea Islands — were also a detriment to growth of the tuna
fishery. There were only three longliners for tuna fisheries, and these were only at Palau
as late as 1935. Table 3 shows increasing tuna catches starting in 1930. Nan’yô Suisan’s
pole-and-line vessels probably took these tuna.
During the Experimentation Period, Japanese bonito fisheries focused on the seas
of Palau, Chuuk, and Saipan districts. Fishing grounds located near the outer islands and
far seas had been untouched. The South Seas Bureau wrote in 1935 that there was plenty
of scope for the fishing industry in the South Sea Islands, if fishing methods were
improved and fishing grounds expanded. However, it also added, “excluding of areas of
poor condition such as Saipan.” 8 For increasing the catch of fish in the islands and
because Saipan appeared more developed with many Okinawan immigrants, bonito
fishery in the Saipan district water was necessary and important. However, in the long
term Saipan was not expected to yield as much fish as other islands along the equator
would likely do.
7
Nan’yôchô, Nan’yôcho Suisan Shikenjô yôran (Palau: Nan’yôchô, December 1938), p. 35.
Nan’yôchô, “Takumu daijin seigi Nan’yôchô bunai rinji shokuin secchi sei chû kaisei no ken,” April 18,
1935.
8
5
Table 1 Fishing Permits Issued by the South Seas Bureau (S: Saipan District = Saipan, Tinian, and
Rota)
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
Total
Fixed
Net
Raising
Hawksbill
38
S: 9
43
S: 10
55
S: 15
90
S: 31
86
S: 18
94
S: 21
94
S: 21
94
S: 23
87
S: 16
74
S: 9
103
S: 22
124
S: 47
---
2
1
Tectus
maximus,
Pearl
Oyster
3
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
3
2
2
5
6
---
2
10
8
1
2
9
7
2
2
8
7
2
2
6
6
2
2
5
4
1
2
4
1
1
2
3
4
1
S: ---
1
S: ---
5
S: ---
2
S: ---
Bonito
Other
Fish
Trepang
Coral
Whaling
1
S: 1
2
S: 1
3
S: 2
4
S: 3
11
S: 6
12
S: 6
12
S: 5
17
S: 6
24
S: 8
36
S: 7
37
S: 10
51
S: 16
21
S: 7
23
S: 7
31
S: 10
50
S: 24
35
S: 9
44
S: 11
48
S: 14
46
S: 15
37
S: 7
21
S: 1
47
S: 11
56
S: 30
9
S: --10
S: 1
13
S: 2
19
S: 2
18
S: 1
17
S: 2
13
S: --13
S: --13
S: 1
9
S: 1
9
S: 1
8
S: 1
1
S: 1
1
S: 1
1
S: 1
1
S: 1
1
S: 1
1
S: 1
1
S: 1
1
S: 1
--S: ----S: ----S: ----S: ---
------1
S: 1
1
S: 1
1
S: 1
1
S: 1
1
S: 1
--S: ----S: ----S: ----S: ---
Source: Statistics 1922-1932: Nan’yôchô, Dainikai, Nan’yôchô tôkei nenkan (Palau: Nan’yôchô, 1934), pp. 348; and
Statistics 1933: Nan’yôchô, Daisankai, Nan’yôchô tôkei nenkan (Palau: Nan’yôchô, 1935), pp. 126
Table 2 Fishing Vessels and Fish Catch in the South Sea Islands (S: Saipan District = Saipan,
Tinian, and Rota)
Total Fishing
Vessels
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1,044
S: 35
846
S: 34
1,007
S: 23
1,041
S: 40
1,116
S: 92
376
S: 90
Fishing Vessels
Non-Motorized Vessels
Motorized Vessels
Total <5
5-20
>20
Total
Steam
Motor
tons
tons
tons
Engine
<20
>20
<20
>20
tons
tons
tons
tons
1,031 1,031
----13
----13
--S: 32 S: 32
S: --- S: --- S: 3
S: --- S: --- S: 3
S: --825
825
----21
----21
--S: 32 S: 32
S: --- S: --- S: 2
S: --- S: --- S: 2
S: --979
975
--4
28
----23
5
S: 19 S: 15
S: --- S: 4
S: 4
S: --- S: --- S: --- S: 4
980
980
----61
----57
4
S: 22 S: 22
S: --- S: --- S: 18 S: --- S: --- S: 18 S: --1,053 1,053
----63
----62
1
S: 75 S: 75
S: --- S: --- S: 17 S: --- S: --- S: 17 S: --314
314
----62
----62
--S: 73 S: 73
S: --- S: --- S: 17 S: --- S: --- S: 17 S: ---
Crew
Total Fish
Catch
(yen)*
1,781
S: 102
1,665
S: 105
1,861
S: 167
2,599
S: 324
2,933
S: 498
1,882
S: 492
247,933
S: 24,490
305,849
S: 19,627
488,487
S: 70,296
850,490
S: 141,013
1,252,121
S: 374,564
1,790,322
S: 406,964
Source: 1928-1932 Statistics: Nan’yôchô, Dainikai, Nan’yôchô tôkei nenkan (Palau: Nan’yôchô, 1934), p. 349; and
1933 Statistics: Nan’yôchô, Daisankai, Nan’yôchô tôkei nenkan (Palau: Nan’yôchô, 1935), p. 126
* Some of these statistics are not consistent with the grand total in Table 3.
6
Table 3 Fish Catch in the South Sea Islands: Quantity and Value (S: Saipan District = Saipan,
Tinian, and Rota)
Grand Total
1922
113,596 yen
S: 4,961 yen
1923
175,609 yen
S: 10,202 yen
1924
115,178 yen
S: 15,192 yen
1925
204,452 yen
S: 18,740 yen
1926
254,372 yen
S: 27,817 yen
1927
232,725 yen
S: 19,417 yen
1928
277,933 yen
S: 24,490 yen
1929
342,659 yen
S: 19,627 yen
1930
510,767 yen
S: 70,296 yen
1931
871,490 yen
S: 141,013 yen
1932
1,266,866 yen
S: 374,564 yen
1933
1,790,322 yen
S: 406,964 yen
Total
Fish Catch
360,653 kg
90,062 yen
S: 8,741 kg
S: 4,961 yen
304,740 kg
78,525 yen
S: 19,680 kg
S: 9,677 yen
252,593 kg
82,173 yen
S: 19,261 kg
S: 10,447 yen
251,445 kg
93,453 yen
S: 43,061 kg
S: 16,181 yen
399,349 kg
142,884 yen
S: 75,813 kg
S: 27,022 yen
380,467 kg
136,378 yen
S: 51,416 kg
S: 18,263 yen
583,995 kg
166,045 yen
S: 57,855 kg
S: 21,028 yen
850,129 kg
215,432 yen
S: 46,416 kg
S: 16,832 yen
1,719,870 kg
413,129 yen
S: 297,938 kg
S: 68,430 yen
3,873,968 kg
787,888 yen
S: 628,255 kg
S: 139,448 yen
5,797,617 kg
1,181,693 yen
S: 1,577,385 kg
S: 372,021 yen
7,725,086 kg
1,708,886 yen
S: 1,902,707 kg
S: 405,715 yen
Bonito
9,713 kg
6,770 yen
S: 2,363 kg
S: 1,890 yen
7,305 kg
5,068 yen
S: 2,813 kg
S: 2,250 yen
17,741 kg
11,580 yen
S: 9,097 kg
S: 6,065 yen
36,319 kg
17,520 yen
S: 14,305 kg
S: 6,348 yen
92,284 kg
42,282 yen
S: 44,842 kg
S: 17,937 yen
52,954 kg
23,781 yen
S: 28,110 kg
S: 10,778 yen
163,714 kg
48,644 yen
S: 26,494 kg
S: 10,219 yen
469,511 kg
126,937 yen
S: 24,690 kg
S: 9,876 yen
1,335,720 kg
327,861 yen
S: 258,004 kg
S: 56,142 yen
2,816,808 kg
622,983 yen
S: 564,258 kg
S: 122,022 yen
4,861,263 kg
944,261 yen
S: 1,309,725 kg
S: 317,916 yen
6,889,401 kg
1,512,631 yen
S: 1,762,300 kg
S: 370,184 yen
Tuna
6,075 kg
3,730 yen
S: 1,312 kg
S: 875 yen
6,652 kg
3,673 yen
S: 1,252 kg
S: 888 yen
11,951 kg
5,971 yen
S: 1,534 kg
S: 1,024 yen
12,229 kg
4,557 yen
S: 1,403 kg
S: 749 yen
55,534 kg
22,423 yen
S: 2,314 kg
S: 1,235 yen
54,266 kg
24,327 yen
S: 2,906 kg
S: 1,475 yen
164,182 kg
38,629 yen
S: 1,260 kg
S: 618 yen
172,001 kg
31,825 yen
S: 562 kg
S: 300 yen
111,997 kg
13,947 yen
S: 4,534 kg
S: 2,493 yen
211,910 kg
29,898 yen
S: 16,734 kg
S: 5,622 yen
361,445 kg
50,801 yen
S: 48,244 kg
S: 15,438 yen
374,796 kg
59,811 yen
S: 9,584 kg
S: 2,908 yen
Mackerel
13,399 kg
3,573 yen
S: --S: --7,110 kg
4,121 yen
S: 19 kg
S: 14 yen
11.944 kg
9,545 yen
S: 45 kg
S: 30 yen
7,725 kg
5,760 yen
S: 787 kg
S: 210 yen
31,043 kg
15,813 yen
S: 690 kg
S: 369 yen
4,586 kg
1,834 yen
S: --S: --4,380 kg
1,805 yen
S: --S: --9,784 kg
3,910 yen
S: --S: --2,993 kg
714 yen
S: --S: --888 kg
189 yen
S: --S: --341 kg
137 yen
S: --S: --4,154 kg
788 yen
S: --S: ---
7
Table 3 Fish Catch in the South Sea Islands: Quantity and Value (S: Saipan District = Saipan,
Tinian, and Rota) (Continued)
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
Horse
Mackerel
31,875 kg
11,018 yen
S: 1,275 kg
S: 680 yen
19,695 kg
8,364 yen
S: 1,856 kg
S: 990 yen
22,087 kg
13,523 yen
S: 570 kg
S: 304 yen
27,697 kg
17,462 yen
S: 2,610 kg
S: 1,392 yen
24,637 kg
9,056 yen
S: 1,431 kg
S: 665 yen
61,601 kg
25,224 yen
S: 1,560 kg
S: 599 yen
40,192 kg
16,223 yen
S: 3,037 kg
S: 1,201 yen
29,599 kg
11,396 yen
S: 2,100 kg
S: 840 yen
32,554 kg
7,616 yen
S: 244 kg
S: 82 yen
75,970 kg
16,983 yen
S: 187 kg
S: 60 yen
180,849 kg
50,762 yen
S: 86,671 kg
S: 14,795 yen
62,413 kg
20,771 yen
S: 6,683 kg
S: 2,704 yen
Spanish
Mackerel
----S: --S: --49 kg
34 yen
S: 49 kg
S: 34 yen
668 kg
363 yen
S: 349 kg
S: 233 yen
1,642 kg
563 yen
S: 386 kg
S: 228 yen
1,425 kg
406 yen
S: 94 kg
S: 51 yen
581 kg
155 yen
S: --S: --2,449 kg
845 yen
S: 615 kg
S: 245 yen
926 kg
241 yen
S: 105 kg
S: 50 yen
1,796 kg
243 yen
S: 75 kg
S: 36 yen
5,230 kg
652 yen
S: 907 kg
S: 352 yen
1,583 kg
627 yen
S: 1,508 kg
S: 603 yen
2,118 kg
380 yen
S: --S: ---
Grey
Mullet
10,500 kg
4,200 yen
S: --S: --6,473 kg
2,627 yen
S: 285 kg
S: 152 yen
4,613 kg
1,632 yen
S: 19 kg
S: 15 yen
2,606 kg
1,187 yen
S: 127 kg
S: 46 yen
9,225 kg
3,479 yen
S: 150 kg
S: 80 yen
16,796 kg
6,410 yen
S: --S: --13,264 kg
4,990 yen
S: --S: --34,005 kg
5,409 yen
S: 337 kg
S: 108 yen
48,176 kg
4,721 yen
S: --S: --269,610 kg
16,052 yen
S: --S: --55,272 kg
3,529 yen
S: --S: --29,957 kg
6,713 yen
S: 250 kg
S: 50 yen
Shark
----S: --S: --2,471 kg
566 yen
S: 97 kg
S: 26 yen
6,356 kg
1,969 yen
S: 1,519 kg
S: 324 yen
5,269 kg
1,949 yen
S: 1,024 kg
S: 273 yen
3,941 kg
653 yen
S: 2,347 kg
S: 313 yen
2,419 kg
447 yen
S: 1,800 kg
S: 315 yen
12,900 kg
1,006 yen
S: 1,031 kg
S: 124 yen
2,186 kg
337 yen
S: 1,612 kg
S: 215 yen
5,445 kg
760 yen
S: 4,871 kg
S: 638 yen
24,010 kg
1,357 yen
S: 3,854 kg
S: 503 yen
6,055 kg
626 yen
S: 6,055 kg
S: 626 yen
1,704 kg
253 yen
S: 1,704 kg
S: 253 yen
Other
Fish
289,091 kg
60,771 yen
S: 3,791 kg
S: 1,506 yen
254,985 kg
54,072 yen
S: 13,309 kg
S: 5,323 yen
177,233 kg
37,590 yen
S: 6,128 kg
S: 2,452 yen
157,958 kg
44,455 yen
S: 21,919 kg
S: 6,935 yen
181,260 kg
48,772 yen
S: 23,895 kg
S: 6,372 yen
187,264 kg
54,200 yen
S: 17,040 kg
S: 5,096 yen
182,914 kg
53,903 yen
S: 25,418 kg
S: 8,621 yen
132,117 kg
35,377 yen
S: 17,010 kg
S: 5,443 yen
181,189 kg
57,267 yen
S: 30,210 kg
S: 9,039 yen
469,542 kg
99,774 yen
S: 42,315 kg
S: 10,879 yen
330,809 kg
130,950 yen
S: 125,182 kg
S: 22,643 yen
360,543 kg
107,539 yen
S: 122,186 kg
S: 29,616 yen
Shellfish
Others
23,534 yen
S: --97,084 yen
S: 525 yen
33,005 yen
S: 4,745 yen
110,999 yen
S: 2,559 yen
111,488 yen
S: 795 yen
96,347 yen
S: 1,154 yen
111,888 yen
S: 3,462 yen
127,227 yen
S: 2,795 yen
97,638 yen
S: 1,866 yen
83,602 yen
S: 1,565 yen
85,173 yen
S: 2,543 yen
81,436 yen
S: 1,249 yen
Source: 1922-1932 Statistics: Nan’yôchô, Dainikai, Nan’yôchô tôkei nenkan (Palau: Nan’yôchô, 1934), pp. 350-353;
and 1933 Statistics: Nan’yôchô, Daisankai, Nan’yôchô tôkei nenkan (Palau: Nan’yôchô, 1935), pp. 124-125.
8
Table 4 Marine Products in the South Sea Islands: Quantity and Value (S: Saipan District = Saipan,
Tinian, and Rota)
Total
1922
19,957 yen
1923
20,353 yen
Dried Bonitos
Dried Tuna
120 kg
160yen
S: ------S: ---
----S: ------S: ---
1,095 kg
3,404 yen
S: 855 kg
S: 2,508 yen
1,560 kg
4,116 yen
S: 484 kg
S: 1,292 yen
9,543 kg
28,540 yen
S: 3,293 kg
S: 8,780 yen
4,751 kg
12,445 yen
S: 1,976 kg
S: 5,270 yen
18,893 kg
37,805 yen
S: 2,235 kg
S: 5,960 yen
104,310 kg
138,122 yen
S: 2,580 kg
S: 6,885 yen
232,825 kg
434,743 yen
S: 13,654 kg
S: 21,425 yen
842,210 kg
997,840 yen
S: 68,044 kg
S 94,236 yen
972,875 kg
917,989 yen
S: 192,172 kg
S: 210,072yen
1,305,290 kg
1,662,066 yen
S: 297,654 kg
S: 379,650 yen
1,030 kg
3,744 yen
S: --S: --1,061 kg
2,264 yen
S: --S: --16,054 kg
38,541 yen
S: 19 kg
S: 50 yen
6,169 kg
13,160 yen
S: --S: --28,219 kg
45,160 yen
S: --S: --33,735 kg
48,629 yen
S: --S: --22,954 kg
28,815 yen
S: 113 kg
S: 255 yen
42,665 kg
44,388 yen
S: 755 kg
S: 855 yen
73,746 kg
55,985 yen
S: 3,152 kg
S: 3,278yen
68,626 kg
76,410 yen
S: 4,100 kg
S: 3,493 yen
S: 760 yen
1924
38,480 yen
S: 19,290 yen
1925
18,997 yen
S: 4,240 yen
1926
77,414 yen
S: 9,205 yen
1927
40,940 yen
S: 7,058 yen
1928
111,424 yen
S: 19,808 yen
1929
220,209 yen
S: 12,348 yen
1930
484,547 yen
S: 23,730 yen
1931
1,064,341 yen
S: 97,466 yen
1932
981,634 yen
S: 214,213 yen
1933
1,747,595 yen
S: 383,173 yen
Trepang
21,011 kg
19,797 yen
S: --23,149 kg
20,353 yen
S: 1,200 kg
S: 760 yen
57,859 kg
30,969 yen
S: 35,460 kg
S: 16,419 yen
25,196 kg
12,072 yen
S: 2,966 kg
S: 2,798 yen
14,861 kg
9,958 yen
S: --S: --9,326 kg
11,437 yen
S: 1,965 kg
S: 1,598 yen
35,520 kg
27,453 yen
S: 18,210 kg
S: 13,688 yen
48,480 kg
27,399 yen
S: 9,885 kg
S: 5,273 yen
31,271 kg
16,928 yen
S: 1,140 kg
S: 1,520 yen
14,213 kg
6,829 yen
S: 2,760 kg
S: 2,106 yen
3,412 kg
2,266 yen
S: 1,087 kg
S: 725 yen
5,216 kg
2,623 yen
S: --S: ---
Shark Fin
----S: ------S: --S: --364 kg
363 yen
S: 364 kg
S: 363 yen
75 kg
150 yen
S: 75 kg
S: 150 yen
188 kg
375 yen
S: 188 kg
S: 375 yen
128 kg
190 yen
S: 128 kg
S: 190 yen
289 kg
415 yen
S: 75 kg
S: 160 yen
203 kg
190 yen
S: 203 kg
S: 190 yen
668 kg
530 yen
S: 668 kg
S: 530 yen
794 kg
541 yen
S: 386 kg
S: 269 yen
206 kg
138 yen
S: 206 kg
S: 138 yen
60 kg
30 yen
S: 60 kg
S: 30 yen
Canned
Tuna
----S: ------S: --S: ------S: --S: --30 kg
15 yen
S: --S: ------S: --S: ------S: --S: ------S: --S: ------S: --S: ------S: --S: ------S: --S: ------S: --S: --?
6,466 yen
S: --S: ---
Source: 1922-1932 Statistics: Nan’yôchô, Dainikai, Nan’yôchô tôkei nenkan (Palau: Nan’yôchô, 1934), pp. 354-355;
and 1933 Statistics: Nan’yôchô, Daisankai, Nan’yôchô tôkei nenkan (Palau: Nan’yôchô, 1935), p. 126.
9
The Rise of Fishing Industries (1931-1941)
As seen in Table 4, the value of marine products in the South Sea Islands rapidly
increased after 1930 — 2.2 times, 4.8 times, and 7.9 times in 1930, 1931, and 1933
respectively, compared with 1929. The industry that once concentrated on tortoise and
other shells changed its focus and half the total catch was a single product — bonito.
Hara Kô’s bonito fishing efforts had success after his experience in 1927 and
1929 in the South Sea Islands. Hara, from Makurazaki, Kagoshima, showed that bonito
fishing in the South Sea Islands could be highly profitable, and his efforts attracted other
bonito fishermen from Japan.
In 1931Anbara Ichizô organized Nan’yô Suisan Kigyô Kuniai, a business
association for bonito and tuna industries in Yaizu, Shizuoka. Nan’yô Suisan established
a fishing base at Malakal, Palau, opened a Saipan office, and began bonito fishing. The
company also purchased bonito caught by Okinawan fishermen.
Seeking more investment, Anbara asked Nan’yô Kôhatsu President Matsue Haruji
for financial support. Originally a sugar growing and processing company, Nan’yô
Kôhatsu established a fishery department within the company to support Nan’yô Suisan’s
fishing activities. In January 1935, Anbara and Matsue established the Nankô Suisan
Kabushiki Kaisha or Nankô Marine Production Company, capitalized with 1.2 million
yen. The president was Matsue, and the vice President was Anhara, with headquarters at
Palau. An office on Saipan was opened as well. Photo 1 shows Nankô Suisan’s
fishermen doing pole-and-line bonito fishing.
10
By 1938, there were two more bonito fishery and canning companies — Kimi
Suisan at Palau and Hamaichi Shôji at Palau and Chuuk —in addition to Nankô Suisan.
Nankô Suisan mainly employed fishermen from Okinawa and Yaizu, and it was the only
bonito fishery and processing company on Saipan. By 1942, Nankô Suisan was
responsible for 90% of bonito caught in the South Sea Islands. 9 As to the background of
the monopoly, Nankô Suisan’s business was strongly supported by the South Seas
Bureau, the Overseas Affairs Ministry (an upper body of the South Seas Bureau), and the
Japanese Navy, which was responsible for the South Sea Islands ocean area.
The South Sea Islands Ten-Year Development Plans (1935): With Japan’s
withdrawal from the League of Nations in 1935, the Overseas Affairs Ministry of the
Japanese government prepared a comprehensive ten-year development plan for the
islands. The plan designated the islands as part of Japan’s outer defence system, and as
an advanced base for future planned expansion to the south. The development plan
called for construction of infrastructure, particularly at Saipan and Palau, which included
harbour facilities, roads, communication facilities, water supply systems to vessels, and
housing — all of which were also necessary for the improvement of fisheries. The plan
also budgeted 4.4 million yen for marine research and for the fishing industries (water
service for fishing vessels, ice manufacture, cold storage, oil storage, shipbuilding,
ironworks, and repair facilities at fishing ports). The plan also promoted excursions into
new fishing grounds at New Guinea, and in the Arafra, Banda, Celebes, Sulu, and Flores
Seas. The advance base for all of this expansion was designated the South Sea Islands.
Fisheries as National Policy: Because of Japan’s worsening international
reputation, and isolation in the early 1930s, Japanese fishing vessels were shut out from
the major southern fishing grounds near the Dutch East Indies. 10 In order to achieve
some sort of breakthrough, the government designed the “Fundamentals of National
Policy” in August 1936. The policy called for expansion into new fishing grounds south
of the South Sea Islands. Accordingly, the South Seas Bureau established the Marine
Laboratory at Palau in 1937, for research on fishing, fish processing, and fishingtechniques.
Marine resources research focused on the bonito fishery grounds in the Western
and Central Caroline Islands. Also in 1937, Nan’yô Takushoku Kabushiki Kaisha (South
Seas Colonization Company) was established to carry out government policy under the
guidance of the Overseas Affairs Ministry, and Nankô Suisan was purchased and
operated by this semi-governmental company. With the financial assistance of Nan’yô
Takushoku, Nankô Suisan increased its capital from 2.5 million yen in 1937 to 5.0
million yen in 1939, for the purchase of equipment for the tuna industry, expansion of
existing facilities, and construction of a tuna-canning factory at Palau. The company’s
capital was again increased to 10 million yen in 1941, to build a ship for longline fishing
only, and a refrigerator ship as well as to install ice manufacture, freezing, and cold
storage facilities. In addition to bonito fisheries, Nankô Suisan began tuna fisheries.
9
Nan’kô Suinsan Kabushiki Kaisha, Nan’kô Suisan Kabushiki Kaisha gaiyô, October 1942, p. 6.
Gotô Ken’ichi, “Gyôgyô, nanshin, Okinawa,” in Iwanami kôza: Kindai Nihon to shokuminchi 3,
Shokuminchika to sangyôka (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1993), pp. 166-167.
10
11
This entailed purchase of tuna and operation of transportation facilities and related
businesses (shipbuilding, ironworks, and finance) — all with government assistance.
Bonito Fisheries: The bonito catch in the Saipan district was always ranked third
behind Palau and Chuuk. Saipan had two characteristic disadvantages. One was the lack
of bait. As mentioned above, Saipan lacked baitfish, nan’yô katakushi iwashi (Engraulis
heterolobus [Rueppel]). Instead, young fish, akamuro (Caecionidae), were used at
Saipan. Every September, schools of akamuro approached the west coast of Saipan. For
one month while akamuro stayed at depths of 15 to 25 meters in rocky coral areas,
vessels stopped fishing for bonito. Okinawan divers searched the bait area and used
stretch nets called chûsô shikiami (25 meters height, and 12 meters width) amongst the
rocks in 15 meters depths. The akamuro were chased by the divers into the nets. The
live akamuro, 10-centimeters long, were kept alive in submerged fishnets (katsusuami)
for 30 to 40 days. Only skilled Okinawan divers could catch akamuro using this method.
Another disadvantage was that the bonito-fishing season in waters around the
Saipan district was shorter than at Palau and Chuuk, because of Saipan’s higher latitude.
In comparison to the open ocean fishing (yûri gyojô) in the waters around Palau, Saipan’s
fishing grounds were close to the reef that rose steeply from the ocean bottom and
neighboring areas (sone gyojô) where bonito were always found though the number was
not large. Therefore, the catches at Saipan were not big takes. During the off-season
around Saipan, pole-and-line fishing was conducted north of Anatahan, especially in the
area of Maug Island. However, the conditions in the waters around Maug Island — sone
gyojô — were the same as at Saipan so that the catch was limited. Fishing vessels also
found schools of migratory fish and fish congregating near drift timbers and caught
them. 11
As of 1935, Nankô Suisan’s Saipan office (5,600 square meters) in Garapan
owned four bonito vessels (17 tons each) and contracted with another four vessels for
purchase of fish, for a total of eight vessels. All bonito caught were transported in
lighters from the fishing vessels at the port and unloaded at the wooden pier that jutted
out 40 meters from the beach. All fish were then taken to the factory by handcart.
Processing capacity at the factory was 20 tons/day. Ice manufacturing was 5 tons/day. In
1936, a new factory was built alongside a quay at Chikkô (Tanapag), north of Garapan.
It included an ice manufacturing facility (15 tons/day), refrigeration facility (5 tons/day),
cold storage facility (5 tons/day), and ice warehouse (400 tons). The Saipan factories
processed fresh bonito into toasted, dried, and shaved dried bonito. Ironwork for
repairing fishing vessels was done at the Nan’yô Kôhatsu’s factory.
For processing bonitos caught by three fishing vessels operating in the outer
ocean north of Saipan, a branch factory was built at Pagan Island. The factory was able
to cut and process bonito into rough dried bonito (arabushi) before sending it to the
Saipan factory for completion of the process.
11
Marukawa Hisatoshi, “Nan’yô Guntô no suisan (2)” Nan’yô Suisan 5, no. 3 (March 1939): 12-13.
12
Table 5 shows the bonito fishery catches at Saipan. After Nan’yô Suisan began
business on Saipan, the catches reached 3,697,298 kg in 1937, up from the 564,258 kg
caught in 1931 — a 6.6 times increase in six years. The 1937 catch was the peak of that
four-year fishing cycle. The catch at Saipan also more than doubled in between 1936 and
1937. After that, the catch decreased for two years, but reached 3,379,048 kg in 1940.
A Nankô Suisan publication, Nan’kô Suisan no ashiato (Nan’kô Suisan’s
Footmark), reported that 1941 was the peak of the next four-year bonito cycle. Again,
according to the publication, the total value of the bonito catch in 1941 was worth
6,159,000 yen, and dried bonito was worth 6,816,000 yen. 12 However, corroborating
data were not found in the South Seas Bureau’s handbook. Therefore, in Table 5 note
***, the claim that 1941 was a bumper year cannot be verified.
Again, referring to Table 5, the total number of bonito vessels in 1937 and 1938
was 145. Of these, Saipan had 36 in 1937 (25% of the total), and 34 in 1938 ( 23% of the
total). Weight of Saipan’s bonito catch was 11% of the total in 1937, and 17% in 1938.
Catch per vessel at Saipan was less than the average catch in the South Sea Islands
because of poor fishing grounds around Saipan, as mentioned before.
More than 90% of the bonito caught was processed into dried bonito, called
“nankô bushi” (Nankô’s dried bonitos). Of that total, Nankô Suisan’s factories produced
nearly 80% of the total dried bonito. After processing, all dried bonito was shipped to
Japan, amounting to about 60% of the total consumption of dried bonito in Japan in
1937. 13 In Photo 2, Nankô Suisan employees pack dried bonito in wooden boxes.
12
13
Kawakami Zenkurô, Nankô Suisan no ashiato (Tokyo: Nankô Suisan, 1995), p. 284.
Nan’kô Suisan Kabushiki Kaisha, Nan’kô Suisan Kabushiki Kaisha gaiyô, pp. 6-7.
13
In contrast, the Japanese residents in the islands consumed fresh fish such as horse
mackerel, Spanish mackerel, striped mullet and other reef fish (meyasu, sunakuchi,
kamasu, and itoyori).
The fishing industry’s exemption from fuel taxation was abolished in 1937
because of the costly Japan-China War. The price of fuel suddenly rose in Japan and
influenced fishery operations in the South Sea Islands. In October 1937, the South Seas
Bureau promulgated “Regulations on Financial Assistance to Fishery Management” that
subsidized 30% to 50% of the cost of the fisheries. One of the reasons for this large
government assistance was the importance of dried bonito to support the food
requirements of the Japanese military in China and at home.
Tuna Fisheries: Until the mid-1930s, Japan’s tuna fisheries were secondary and
seasonal operations. Tuna was occasionally caught during pole-and-line bonito fishing.
After some home-based longliners began catching tuna near the Western Caroline Islands
in 1938, tuna fishing became a year-round industry in the South Sea Islands.
Some records show that in 1938, Daini Shinkômaru (118 tons), belonging to
Tôhoku Shinkôsha, was loaded to capacity with Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis)
and yellowfin, 200 nautical miles east of the Mariana Islands and returned to Japan. In
autumn of the same year, Fukujumaru (80 tons), from Wakayama, operated tuna fisheries
off Saipan. Hideyoshimaru (99 tons) from Hiyori Fushimaru port, Wakayama, returned to
its homeport in Japan with a full load of tuna after 60-70 days of operation in the “South
Seas.” Such good catches attracted tuna fishermen from all over Japan.
In 1938, the South Seas Bureau Marine Laboratory found a new yellowfin fishing
ground near the north equatorial current. It was estimated that the value of catches in
these waters would be close to 20 million yen. By 1939, the number of Japanese
longliners fishing the grounds south of 20-degree north latitude was 76. 14 Although
Japan had been exporting albacore to the U.S., it suddenly became more difficult after
1938, because the U.S. imposed custom duties of 30% to 45% and then 75%. 15 Partly as
a result of these increases, the Japanese long-liners, which were used for taking albacore
in Japan’s eastern fishing ground, changed their grounds to the south, aiming at
yellowfin. Through this effort, the Japanese fisheries expanded from Saipan, south to
New Guinea, New Britain, and the Solomon Islands.
As mentioned above, one of the greatest problems these vessels faced was how to
keep tuna fresh during the long return voyage to Japan. Wooden ships of less than 100
tons did not have an ice machine. As a result, Saipan became an important supply base
because Nankô Suisan had ice making machines and cold storage there. In addition, fresh
water and food were located at Saipan.
14
Dômei Tsûshinsha, Sekai no umi ni: Katsuo maguro gyogyô no subete (Tokyo: Dômei Tsûshinsha,
1974), p. 35.
15
Nan’yôchô, “Takumu daijin seigi Nan’yôchô bunai rinji shokuin secchi sei chû kaisei no ken” October 1,
1940.
14
Table 5 Bonito Catches and Dried Bonito Production in the South Sea Islands (S: Saipan District =
Saipan, Tinian, and Rota)
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941*
1942
Permits of Bonito
Fishery
1 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 1
2 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 1
3 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 2
4 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 3
11 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 6
12 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 6
12 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 5
17 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 6
24 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 8
36 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 7
37 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 10
51 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 16
76
S: 23
67
S: 17
87
S: 19
145
S: 36
145
S: 34
135
133
S: 25
129
S: 26
113
S: 27
Bonito
Catches (kg)
9,713 kg
S: 2,363 kg
7,305 kg
S: 2,813 kg
17,741kg
S: 9,097 kg
36,319 kg
S: 14,805 kg
92,284 kg
S: 44,842 kg
52,954 kg
S: 28,110 kg
163,714 kg
26,494 kg
469,511 kg
S: 24,690 kg
1,335,720 kg
S: 258,004 kg
2,816,808 kg
S: 564,258 kg
4,861,263 kg
S: 1,309,725 kg
6,889,401 kg
S: 1,762,300 kg
8,956,411 kg
S: 2,516,000 kg
11,722,284 kg
S: 1,785,977 kg
14,265,772 kg
S: 1,696,006 kg
34,060,809 kg
S: 3,697,298 kg
14,958,592 kg
S: 2,592,029 kg
19,019,188 kg
S: 1,297,354 kg
18,233,967 kg
S: 3,379,048 kg
11,545,053 kg
S: 1,297,354 kg
14,872,781 kg**
S: ---
Bonito
Catches (yen)
6,770 yen
S: 1,890 yen
5,068 yen
S: 2,250 yen
11,580 yen
S: 6,065 yen
17,520 yen
S: 6,348 yen
42,282 yen
S: 17,937 yen
23,781 yen
S: 10,778 yen
48,644 yen
S: 10,219 yen
126,937 yen
S: 9,876 yen
327,861 yen
S: 56,142 yen
622,983 yen
S: 122,022 yen
944,261 yen
S: 317,916 yen
1,512,631 yen
S: 370,184 yen
2,205,050 yen
S: 503,200 yen
1,317,919 yen
S: 420,983 yen
1,468,996 yen
S: 220,481 yen
2,833,905 yen
S: 382,210 yen
1,356,969 yen
S: 315,411 yen
2,462,707 yen
S: 358,996 yen
4,430,385 yen***
S: 721,560 yen
2,918,934 yen***
S: 358,996 yen
--S: ---
Dried Bonito
(kg)
120 kg
S: ----S: --1,095 kg
S: 855 kg
1,560 kg
S: 484 kg
9,548 kg
S: 3,293 kg
4,751 kg
S: 1,976 kg
18,893 kg
S: 2,235 kg
104,310 kg
S: 2,580 kg
282,825 kg
S: 13,654 kg
842,210 kg
S: 68,044 kg
972,875 kg
S: 192,172 kg
1,305,290 kg
S: 297,654 kg
1,594,170 kg
S: 419,512 kg
2,097,388 kg
S: 264,133 kg
2,422,856 kg
S: 425,072 kg
5,812,745 kg
S: 626,176 kg
2,501,222 kg
S: 451,883 kg
3,229,686 kg
S: --2,973,270 kg
S: 561,122 kg
1,333,840 kg
S: 182,152 kg
1,905,130 kg**
S: ---
Dried Bonito
(yen)
160 yen
S: ----S: --3,404 yen
S: 2,508 yen
4,116 yen
S: 1,292 yen
28,540 yen
S: 8,780 yen
12,445 yen
S: 5,270 yen
37,805 yen
S: 5,960 yen
138,122 yen
S: 6,885 yen
434,743 yen
S: 21,425 yen
997, 840 yen
S: 94,236 yen
917,989 yen
S: 210,072 yen
1,662,066 yen
S: 379,650 yen
1,714,590 yen
S: 470,469 yen
2,127,424 yen
S: 360,593 yen
2,671,357 yen
S: 581,628 yen
5,081,774 yen
S: 601,738 yen
2,429,521 yen
S: 426,657 yen
4,963,052 yen
S: --5,193,000 yen
S: 1,190,146
4,250,434 yen***
S: 491,227 yen
5,307,063 yen**
S: ---
Sources: 1922-1932 statistics: Nan’yôchô, Dainikai, Nan’yôchô tôkei nenkan (Palau: Nan’yôchô, 1934), pp. 348-355;
1933 statistics: Nan’yôchô, Daisankai, Nan’yôchô tôkei nenkan (Palau: Nan’yôchô, 1935), p. 125-126.
1934-1942 statistics for bonito fishery permits: Nan’yôchô, Nan’yô Guntô yôran, 1934-1942.
1934-1937 statistics for fisheries except for bonito fishery permits: Nan’yôchô, Nan’yôchô Suisan Shinkenjô yôran
(Palau: Nan’yôchô Suisan Shikenjô, 1938), pp. 42-58.
1938, 1940, and 1941 statistics: Nanyôchô, Nan’yô Guntô yôran, 1939, 1941, and 1942.
1939 and 1942 statistics: Ôkurashô Kanrikyoku, Nihonjin no kaigai katsudô ni kansuru rekishiteki chôsa: Tsûkan dai
nijûissatsu Nanyô Guntô hen daini bunsatsu: Dainibu Nan’yô Guntô keizai sangyô, 1949, p. 86-87, and pp. 147-148.
* All statistics for bonito fishery for 1941 and 1942, printed in 1942 and 1943 editions of Nan’yô Guntô yôran,
respectively, are identical. The statistics for 1941 are used in this table.
** This statistics were cited from the text of Ôkurashô Kanrikyoku publication.
*** According to Kawakami Zenkurô’s Nankô Suisan no ashiato, the bonito catch in 1940 was 5,255,000 yen in value;
6,159,000 yen in 1941; and the value of dried bonito in 1941 was 6,816,000 yen.
15
Table 6 shows tuna catches in the South Sea Islands. In 1939, 40 longliners (120
tons) from Japan, mainly from Misaki, Kanagawa, and 10 from the South Sea Islands,
caught 41,400,000 kg. However, because of their small size and low numbers, ships from
the South Sea Islands caught only 1.3% (551,250 kg) of total tuna catch for 1939. 16
Nankô Suisan became involved in tuna fisheries after contracting with longliners
in Fukushima in November 1939, and in Miyagi in 1940. It purchased bait — nakaba
iwashi (one of the sardines) — in Misaki, and caught yellowfin tuna and bigeye tuna in
the seas near Palau. The company began a full-scale tuna fishery in 1941, once it was
determined that the catch would remain fresh after long-distance transportation.
Yellowfin tuna and bigeye tuna were the two major tuna fisheries in the South Sea
Islands, but total catch of the former was considerably larger than the latter. The
longliners also caught striped marlin, bonito and shark. Flying fish (tobiowo), and
brown-striped mackerel scad (muroaji) were the main baitfish on Saipan, while brownstriped mackerel scad (muroaji) and sardine (iwashi) were used in the waters around
Palau.
According to Table 6, tuna caught by longliners in the South Sea Islands
increased from 858,793 kg in 1940, to 1,023,093 kg in 1941, after Nankô Suinsa began
its tuna fishery. However, the catch in waters around the Saipan district decreased
rapidly from 84,506 kg to 33,699 kg for unknown reasons.
In September 1941, a tuna-canning factory was opened on Malakal Island, Palau,
after the catch of yellowfin started looking up. In December 1940, cans of tuna in oil
were exported to New York from Palau, via Java in order to get around the high tariff
imposed on Japanese marine products. Mitsubishi Shoji, a major trading firm in Japan,
also exported 10,000 cases of canned tuna to Germany during this same period. Frozen
fillet of yellowfin and bigeye tuna were also exported to the Chinese cities of Tientsin
and Beijing. There are no details on tuna caught in waters around Saipan during this time
period.
Graph 2 presents data on bonito and tuna catches in the Saipan district during
1922-1941. Note that the marked increase in bonito in the early 1930s is not matched by
a similar increase in tuna. In all years, the bonito catch greatly exceeded the tuna catch.
Furthermore, bonito was cyclical in that every three or four years the catches were huge,
viz, in 1932, 1935, and 1939.
16
Ibid.
16
Table 6 Tuna Catches and Dried Tuna Production in the South Sea Islands (S: Saipan District =
Saipan, Tinian, and Rota)
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
Permits of
Tuna Fishery
1 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 1
2 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 1
3 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 2
4 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 3
11 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 6
12 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 6
12 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 5
17 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 6
24 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 8
36 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 7
37 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 10
51 (Bonito & Tuna)
S: 16
1934
1935
13
S: 10
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
7
S: 3
8
S: 2
Japan: 40 Ships (120
tons), South Sea
Islands: 10 Ships (20
tons)*
23
S: 2
Tuna Catches
(kg)
6,075 kg
S: 1,312 kg
6,652 kg
S: 1,252 kg
11,951 kg
S: 1,534 kg
12,229 kg
S: 1,403 kg
55,534 kg
S: 2,314 kg
54,266 kg
S: 2,906 kg
164,182 kg
S: 1,260 kg
172,001 kg
S: 562 kg
111,997 kg
S: 4,534 kg
211,910 kg
S: 16,734 kg
361,445 kg
S: 48,244 kg
374,796 kg
S: 9,584 kg
427,041 kg
S: 27,289 kg
480,014 kg
S: 42,915 kg
587,116 kg
S: 151,019 kg
681,176 kg
S: 88,876 kg
270,899 kg
S: 33,920 kg
Japan & SSI
41,400,000 kg*
SSI: 551,250 kg*
SSI: 361.530 kg**
Japan & SSI:
64,875,000 kg*
SSI: 858,793 kg
S: 84,506
1,023,093 kg
S: 33,669 kg
Tuna Catches
(yen)
3,730 yen
S: 875 yen
3,673 yen
S: 888 yen
5,971 yen
S: 1,024 yen
4,557 yen
S: 749 yen
22,423 yen
S: 1,235 yen
24,327 yen
S: 1,475 yen
38,629 yen
S: 618 yen
31,825 yen
S: 300 yen
13,947 yen
S: 2,493 yen
29,898 yen
S: 5,622 yen
50,801 yen
S: 15,438 yen
59,811 yen
S: 2,908 yen
116,449 yen
S: 9,366 yen
105,501 yen
S: 15,530 yen
110,160 yen
S: 52,857 yen
90,828 yen
S: 27,121 yen
42,934 yen
S: 11,786 yen
Japan & SSI
16,560,000 yen*
SSI: 98,500 yen*
SSI: 93,043 yen**
Japan & SSI:
25,950,000 yen*
SSI: 306,126 yen
S: 34,787 yen
315,705 yen
S: 19,913 yen
Dried Tuna
(kg)
--S: ----S: --1,030 kg
S: --1,061 kg
S: --16,054 kg
S: 19 kg
6,169 kg
S: --28,219 kg
S: --33,735 kg
S: --22,954 kg
S: 113 kg
42,665 kg
S: 755 kg
73,746 kg
S: 3,152 kg
68,626 kg
S: 4,100 yen
93,329 kg
S: 3,160 kg
102,404 kg
S: 6,264 kg
71,972 kg
S: --384,011 kg
S: --49,127 kg
S: 675 kg
SSI: 54,831
kg**
Dried Tuna
(yen)
--S: ----S: --3,744 yen
S: --2,264 yen
S: --38,541 yen
S: 50 yen
13,160 yen
S: --45,160 yen
S: --48,629 yen
S: --28,815 yen
S: 255 yen
44,388 yen
S: 855 yen
55,985 yen
S: 3,278 yen
76,410 yen
S: 3,493 yen
85,237 yen
S: 2,293 yen
99,485 yen
S: 5,172 yen
75,172 yen
S: --381,377 yen
S: --41,634 yen
S: 608 yen
SSI: 66.777
yen**
85,496 kg
S: 101 kg
119,140 yen
S: 284 yen
21
66,719 kg
129,882 yen
S: 2
S: --S: --SSI: South Sea Islands
Sources: 1922-1932 statistics: Nan’yôchô, Dainikai, Nan’yôchô tôkei nenkan (Palau: Nan’yôchô, 1934), pp. 348-355;
1933 statistics: Nan’yôchô, Daisankai, Nan’yôchô tôkei nenkan (Palau: Nan’yôchô, 1935), p. 125-126.
1934-1942 statistics for tuna fishery permits: Nan’yôchô, Nan’yô Guntô yôran, 1934-1942.
1934-1937 statistics for fisheries except for tuna fishery permits: Nan’yôchô, Nan’yôchô Suisan Shinkenjô yôran
(Palau: Nan’yôchô Suisan Shikenjô, 1938), pp. 42-58.
1938, 1940, and 1941 statistics: Nanyôchô, Nan’yô Guntô yôran, 1938, 1940, and 1941.
*1939 statistics: “Takumu daijin seigi Nanyôchô Suisan Shikenjô kansei chû kaisei ni kansuru ken” October 1, 1940.
**1939 statistics: Ôkurashô Kanrikyoku, Nihonjin no kaigai katsudô ni kansuru rekishiteki chôsa: Tsûkan dai
nijûissatsu Nanyô Guntô hen daini bunsatsu: Dainibu Nan’yô Guntô keizai sangyô, 1949, p. 86-87, and pp. 147-148.
* 1940 statistics: “Takumu daijin seigi Nanyôchô Suisan Shikenjô kansei chû kaisei ni kansuru ken” October 1, 1940.
*** All statistics for tuna fishery for 1941 and 1942, printed in 1942 and 1943 editions of Nan’yô Guntô yôran,
respectively, are identical. The statistics for 1941 are used in this table.
1941***
17
Gr a ph 2 W e igh t of Bon it o a n d Tu n a Ca t ch e s
in Sa ipa n D ist r ict , 1 9 2 2 - 1 9 4 1 ( k g)
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
40
19
38
19
36
19
34
19
32
19
30
19
28
19
26
19
24
19
19
22
0
Bonit o Cat ch ( Pole- and- Line)
Tuna Cat ch ( Pole- and- Line and Longline)
Source: See Table 5 and Table 6.
War and Fishery: 1941-1944
Because of the long-term Japan-China War that began in 1937, the Japanese
government tightened material controls starting in late 1939. This caused a shortage of
fuel and supplies for some fisheries. In particular, the shortage of fiber nets and line was
serious. After the Pacific War broke out in December 1941, fishing vessels, along with
their crews, were gradually requisitioned for military service. As of 1942, Nankô Suisan
had offices in Tokyo, Saipan, Chuuk, Pohnpei, Kosrae, Jaluit, Dalian (China), Yaizu, and
Okinawa. There were also offices at Guam, Ambon, Rabaul, Kavieng (New Ireland), and
Manila — areas that Japanese forces had taken. However, because of the war, Japan’s
commercial fishing activities in the South Sea Islands declined.
After the outbreak of war with the U.S., the Nankô Suisan Saipan ice plant and
cold storage facility were taken over by the Japanese Navy. All fresh and semi-processed
bonito were distributed for military use. Dried bonito was also supplied to the military.
In June 1942, 8,000 dried bonitos — emergency food for 4,000 military personnel —
were distributed to the Japanese troops on Saipan. Some 10,000 additional Japanese
army troops were landed on Saipan and Tinian after March 1944, and the factories and
attached buildings of Nankô Suisan in Garapan were taken over completely by the
military. The company employees, except for those engaged in fishing, were mobilized
for construction work on airfields and fortifications, and fishing activities in the Mariana
Islands ended completely when U.S. forces approached the islands in mid-1944.
Guam, a U.S. territory in the Mariana Islands since 1898, was occupied by Japan
on December 10, 1941. According to Japanese Navy orders, Nankô Suisan’s Saipan
office established its Ômiya (Guam) Branch Office in Agana. Two bonito pole-and-line
18
vessels from Saipan started fishing off Guam and supported the military’s selfsufficiency efforts on the island. These vessels were later used to patrol around the island
in anticipation of a U.S. attack, and fishing activities were dramatically reduced. The
following is a summary of the Japanese Navy’s Civil Administration Department report
on Nan’kô Suisan’s fishing on Guam between 1942 and 1943:
“The company began bonito fishing with two 21-ton ships southwest of
Matsuyama (Merizo), in the southern part of the island, and between Guam and
Rota. A dried bonito factory was built to process 60 kan (225 kg) of bonito per
month, but the result was disappointing, with ‘no hope of increasing production’
because of an unfavorable period of migratory fish, and few schools of baitfish in
the Guam and Saipan areas. Large catches were not expected because of the
influence of seasonal winds and rough waters. The catch for 1942 was 82,170 kg
of bonito and 7,230 kg of other types of fish, totalling 89,400 kg. There was no
catch of other fish in July, October, and December. Since no bonito was caught
between January and April, and between June and July 1943, the total fell to
7,340 kg for that year. Other fish catches also decreased to 45,465 kg. After the
Daini Tôkaimaru, a cargo-passenger ship and a commercial cruiser, was sunk in
Apra Harbor in January 1943, the fisheries rapidly declined.” 17
Conclusion
During the Experimentation Period, 1922-1931, fishing permits, total fish catches,
including bonito catches, in the South Seas Islands increased markedly during the 1920s
and early 1930s (Table 1-3). As well, the Saipan district went through an historic change
in 1930 and 1931. The Saipan district caught a large percentage of bonito (20% in 1931,
27% in 1932 and 26% in 1933) in the South Sea Islands, even though the seas around
Saipan were regarded as poor fishing grounds. This increase in bonito catches resulted
from the introduction of motorized vessels and increased Japanese government support
(Table 2-3).
From 1931-1941, the government’s national fisheries policy was directed at
increasing the amount of fish caught and processed for consumption in Japan and China.
Catches of bonito rose markedly in the 1930s, but the Saipan district’s contribution
actually declined percentagewise (Table 5 and Graph 2). This shows that the fishing
grounds expanded in both the South Sea Islands and further south to newly occupied
areas.
In the period from 1941 to 1942, fisheries in the South Sea Islands collapsed due
to the Pacific War. Fisheries in the Saipan district were no exception.
In conclusion, it should be pointed out that from the 1930s through to the 1940s,
the fisheries in the South Sea Islands were influenced not only by the coming of war, but
by Japanese government policy, both in terms of financial assistance and administrative
policy.
17
Sanbô Honbu, Ômiyatô heiyô chishi shiryô, 1944, p. 60.
19