MarxSchmarx
4th April 2013, 13:57
A really neat study came out that showed that apparently this thing:
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0059855.g001&representation=PNG_I
proves the aptly named shark Carcharhinus obscurus
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRV5uACgw8K3qBLCDDv-m0SidgdPkL6t8dLA5LVmQO3sARvlSZ4
infested the waters off an island called Gilbert in Kiribati in the 1800s:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22005634
Apparently the shark isn't found in these areas anymore, but the group scoured ethnographic collections to identify archeological artifacts of humans using the remnants.
I think botanists have been doing stuff like this for a while now, but I thought this was really cool. The authors main point - that these tools and artifacts are underutilized in historical biogeography, seems very correct.
Read the original research study (which is quite accessible to non-technical audiences, at least as far as these things go) here:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0059855
The authors do go on to say in the fine print that it's possible the teeth didn't originate locally, but arrived at through trade. They do give suggestive evidence why this might not be very likely, but it would be interesting if more definitive answers could be found in this direction.
While doing this research, we made the assumption that the shark teeth present in the weapons were derived locally. Although it is possible that there was trade between the Gilbertese people and those living in areas where C. obscurus and C. sorrah are currently found, it is likely that these fish were collected by the Gilbertese people. Two lines of evidence support this claim. First, there are no records among the historical, archaeological, or linguistic literature of exchange among the Gilbert Islands and people in the Solomon Islands (the nearest location for C. sorrah) or Fiji (for C. obscurus). Second, the Gilbertese had a well-developed shark fishery using a variety of techniques and exploiting a variety of habitats, reducing the need to import a locally obtainable resource. These techniques included deep water hook and line fisheries, including some hooks being set at over 300 fathoms (549 m), which is well within the depth ranges of all these species. This lack of evidence of trade from areas where the sharks are currently found, combined with a well-documented material technology and methodology for capturing sharks in situ suggest that the simplest explanation for the presence of these teeth in Gilbertese weaponry is that they were harvested locally.I'm not sure appeals to parsimony are adequate here (considering the species can't be found in the islands) but it's at least curious.
Hard to say what this means for the struggle for working class liberation, but I thought it was a really interesting result.
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0059855.g001&representation=PNG_I
proves the aptly named shark Carcharhinus obscurus
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRV5uACgw8K3qBLCDDv-m0SidgdPkL6t8dLA5LVmQO3sARvlSZ4
infested the waters off an island called Gilbert in Kiribati in the 1800s:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22005634
Apparently the shark isn't found in these areas anymore, but the group scoured ethnographic collections to identify archeological artifacts of humans using the remnants.
I think botanists have been doing stuff like this for a while now, but I thought this was really cool. The authors main point - that these tools and artifacts are underutilized in historical biogeography, seems very correct.
Read the original research study (which is quite accessible to non-technical audiences, at least as far as these things go) here:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0059855
The authors do go on to say in the fine print that it's possible the teeth didn't originate locally, but arrived at through trade. They do give suggestive evidence why this might not be very likely, but it would be interesting if more definitive answers could be found in this direction.
While doing this research, we made the assumption that the shark teeth present in the weapons were derived locally. Although it is possible that there was trade between the Gilbertese people and those living in areas where C. obscurus and C. sorrah are currently found, it is likely that these fish were collected by the Gilbertese people. Two lines of evidence support this claim. First, there are no records among the historical, archaeological, or linguistic literature of exchange among the Gilbert Islands and people in the Solomon Islands (the nearest location for C. sorrah) or Fiji (for C. obscurus). Second, the Gilbertese had a well-developed shark fishery using a variety of techniques and exploiting a variety of habitats, reducing the need to import a locally obtainable resource. These techniques included deep water hook and line fisheries, including some hooks being set at over 300 fathoms (549 m), which is well within the depth ranges of all these species. This lack of evidence of trade from areas where the sharks are currently found, combined with a well-documented material technology and methodology for capturing sharks in situ suggest that the simplest explanation for the presence of these teeth in Gilbertese weaponry is that they were harvested locally.I'm not sure appeals to parsimony are adequate here (considering the species can't be found in the islands) but it's at least curious.
Hard to say what this means for the struggle for working class liberation, but I thought it was a really interesting result.