Abstract
The archaeological evidence from faunal analyses in the Pacific suggests an emphasis on inshore fish and fishing strategies. In contrast, the faunal evidence for offshore fish such as tuna is slight. Several sites in East Polynesia with high proportions of tuna are unusual in this regard. Yet ethnographic accounts of fishing in the Pacific region often contain detailed descriptions of offshore fishing expeditions to catch pelagic fish, including tuna. These fish continue to occupy a significant place in the cultural life of many Pacific island communities.
The uneven representation of tuna in archaeological sites is not thought to derive from any known taphonomic process, but fairly represents the relative abundance of tuna in catches throughout the Pacific. Discontinuities in catch frequency do not follow any known variations in natural abundance, and the preferred explanation is cultural choice. Moreover, in sites where tuna were a major component of the catch, there appears to be a small but consistent decline in their relative abundance, once again believed to reflect culture-historical rather than natural processes. The ethnographic and archaeological evidence is reviewed for several areas in the Pacific where tuna were more commonly caught. The evidence from faunal analyses is considered for four archaeological sites, Hane and Te Anapua in the Marquesas Islands, Fa' ahia in the Society Islands and Motupore in Papua New Guinea, where tuna were caught in relatively high abundance. Techniques are described for reconstructing size-frequency information from archaeological bones from these sites. It is argued that the social importance as well as economic aspects of tuna fishing need to be incorporated in explanations for the presence of tuna in archaeological sites.