Thread by @Paracelsus1092

*The Tasmanian Fish Question*

The enduring story of Tasmanian aboriginal cultural decline includes the fact that they stopped eating fish around 2000 BC, or worse - that they lost or forgot the skills to do so.

Let's examine this claim 🧵

The origin of the claim is two-fold, firstly ethnographic evidence from Europeans on Tasmania, who observed that the inhabitants ate no fish, and secondly an absence of fish in the archaeological record starting around 1,800 BC.

The famous researcher, Rhys Jones, excavated two caves at Rocky Cape on Tasmania's northwest coast during the 1960's, concluding that seal and fish bones were predominant in older middens, but absent later on. This was corroborated elsewhere on the island.

We should clarify though what the problem is here - specifically that the decline of fishing in Tasmania was maladaptive. This of course ignores many options including alternative food sources and methodological problems with the evidence.

The strongest version of the claim probably came from Joseph Henrich, who integrated a number of data points to make the case for total cultural decline on Tasmania. Just about every point in his argument has been contested but we'll stick with fishing.

So, is it true that the Tasmanians stopped fishing around 2,000 BC?

It certainly seems the case that scaled fish were absent in the diet whilst Europeans could observe it, even if some instances exist the general rule seems strong, although they ate shellfish and seals

Is the archaeological evidence robust?

Here I'm not sure. Fish bones are notoriously difficult to spot during excavations and typically teams will sieve the removed soil and organic remains to catch them - however - sieving was and is not always standard practice.

Jones has revisited the Rocky Cape sites and expressed surprise that other researchers have taken his evidence at face value - even just one additional excavation revealed many more fish species than previously believed in the Tasmanian middens.

I can't find any new radiocarbon dating work or midden studies, so we can accept the result for the moment but I suspect it might change if someone wanted to explore the archaeology again.

With the current evidence it does seem that there was an abrupt end to Tasmanian fishing practices. But did they ever exist in the first place? At least one researcher has suggested that midden fish bones come from the stomachs of butchered seals, not from fishing directly

Assuming that the Tasmanians did fish at some point, we are left with the question - did they forget how to fish, or choose to stop?

As strange as it seems, there is good evidence from other prehistoric societies that abandoning fishing is not an isolated phenomenon.

Fish taboos, or the rejection of fish by certain human groups is not unheard of. One of the great problems of European prehistory is assessing why Neolithic and later farming communities, even on islands, didn't eat much fish.

Of course, those taboos are typically found where a new group wants to define themselves against another by way of diet, so it may not apply to Tasmania, they may have just had enough food elsewhere to get by.

Exactly how they did fish prior to 2000 BC is also an interesting question, since the fish species themselves throw up problems relating to lack of technology for spear fishing or baited traps and the efficacy and even existence of tidal traps.

It does appear that Tasmanians stopped fishing many millennia ago, this could be revised by more detailed archaeology. As for the claim of forgetting, personally I doubt it since they were still utilising marine foods, but it can't be totally ruled out.