The Ichthyoarchaeology of Batanes Islands, Northern Philippines

The Ichthyoarchaeology of Batanes Islands,
Northern Philippines
Fredeliza Z. Campos
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science in Archaeology
Archaeological Studies Program
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City
July 2009
Abstract
This research establishes the basic capability for an in-depth analysis and
interpretation of tropical fish remains in Philippine archaeology. This primarily involved
the construction of a facility for the identification of fish bones with a sizeable number of
modern specimens. The applicability of the collection is determined through the analysis
and interpretation of fish remains from Batanes Islands, northern Philippines which date
between 3500 and 600BP. The subsequent results show continual exploitation of marine
inshore fishes and a proclivity towards pelagic fishing for the common dolphinfish
Coryphaena hippurus (Coryphaenidae), a taxon rarely found in archaeology. Methodical
treatments in ichthyoarchaeology were employed to assess differences in preservation
conditions and different recovery methods between the three sites covered in this study:
a wider selection of fish taxa and sizes figured for the Savidug and Pamayan sites where
sieving has been done and preservation conditions were more favourable than Anaro
hilltop site. Significant fish bone anthropogenic signatures were observed and reported
for the first time in the Philippines. These were primarily recorded on Coryphaenidae
and suggest the removal of meat through scraping along the vertebrae and transverse
cutting of individuals into pieces as evidenced by the numerous cut marks and chop
marks found. The methods of fish processing drawn from the analysis suggest
similarities to those practiced by the local inhabitants of modern-day Batanes which
propel further investigation.
~i~
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Victor Paz and Mr. Angel Bautista, and my thesis
adviser, Dr. Jack Medrana for guiding me through the conception and writing of this
thesis.
I am most sincerely grateful to Dr. B. Foss Leach for sharing everything I need to
know about ichthyoarchaeology and for providing me with primary data on Pacific fish
remains and for sending voluminous materials on the subject.
I thank the faculty members of UP-ASP, Dr. Armand Mijares, Dr. Alfred Pawlik,
Mr. Wilfredo Ronquillo, Prof. Wilhelm Solheim II, and especially Dr. Eusebio Dizon for
their trust;
My heartfelt thanks to Dr. Philip Piper for his unfaltering support and for
patiently teaching me all the basics of zooarchaeology and reading through all my drafts;
To my thesis committee, Dr. Perry Ong, Dr. Zandro Villanueva and Dr. Grace
Barretto-Tesoro for their valuable comments and suggestions.
I am deeply grateful to Prof. Peter Bellwood for giving me the opportunity to
conduct the fish bone analysis for the Batanes archaeological research project and for
providing additional information and comments on my study.
I thank my colleagues, Jennifer Guman, Anna Pineda, Archie Tesoro, Sandy de
Leon, Edwin Valientes, Michael Herrera, Yvette Balbaligo, Jeffrey Almonte, Vito
Hernandez, Myra Lara, Jane Carlos, Sharon Teodosio, Pamela Faylona, Elle Lim, Jessica
Pea, Aya Ragragio, Roel Flores, Emil Robles, Janine Ochoa, Tara Reyes, Nena de la
Concepcion, Nan de la Paz, Migs Canilao, Pauline Basilia, Hermine Xauflair, and my
batchmates Archie Tiauzon, Donna Arriola, Taj Vitales, Andrea Jalandoni, and Arissa
Nalangan. This research would not have been possible without their encouragement,
support and their generous share of ideas. Their company has also been most welcome as
I was preparing the specimens for the comparative collection. My special thanks to Aya,
Roel, Donna, Tara and Michelle for taking some of the photographs of the collection.
I especially thank Leee Neri, Jane Alejandro, Cyril Calugay, Mick Atha, Kennis
Yip, Michelle Eusebio and Mindy Ceron for their untiring support and belief in me.
I am most grateful to Danny Galang for the wonderful fish gourmet and for
sharing his valuable ideas on fish processing;
To Arnold Azurin, for our insightful conversations on history and ethnography;
To Mervy and Noelle El Farrol for giving great advice on illustrations and
computer graphics;
To Miles Perigo for drawing the fantastic Batanes DEMs in this research.
~ ii ~
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Rintaro Ono, Ingvar Svanberg, Judy
Amesbury, Hsiao-chun Hung, Shawna Yang, Vincent Hilomen, Roger Blench, Katherine
Szab, Jennifer Harland, Bill Jeffrey, Arturo Morales and particularly Gerry Paz and
Cynthia Neri Zayas for providing important literature on fish and fishing and for sharing
their ideas on ichthyology, maritime anthropology and ichthyoarchaeology.
I am deeply grateful to Prof. Ramon Santos, Chino Toledo and Christine Muyco,
and to my other family, the U.P. Center for Ethnomusicology and my music colleagues
who also taught me novel ways to do research.
The preparation of the reference collection was made possible through partial
funding from UP-ASP and Dr. Philip Piper, and the accommodation of the UP-ASP staff.
I am deeply indebted to Ate Aida Tiama, Ate Digna Jacar, Joe Pagulayan and family, and
the Paz family.
While I was in the process of writing this, my dearest friends have come running
to my rescue for even the most menial of tasks: Shirley Zearosa-Tamayo and family,
Anna Espina, Mirasol Telen, Josie Leen Ilagan, Joy Baragan, Aileen Raterta, Cecille
Santos, Maddelynne Guirao, Anne Papasin, Marjorie Villareal, and Amy Martelino, thank
you so much for listening to me.
My gratitude forever to my mother, Eliza and my father, Fred, my brothers
Frankie and Edward, my sisters-in-law, Glenda and Josephine, my wonderful cousins
and my Titos and Titas, who all gave me so much energy and nursed me back to health
that allowed me to do archaeology;
To my nephews, John Paul, Christopher and Edward Joseph, who continue to
awe and inspire me every day.
Lolo and Lola, thank you for being my biggest champions.
~ iii ~
Table of Contents
Abstract
Acknowledgements
ii
List of Tables
vi
List of Figures
vii
Chapter One: INTRODUCTION
1.1
Research Aims and Objectives
1.2
Scope and Limitations
1.3
Relevance of the Study
1.4
Archaeological Context
Chapter Two: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
12
2.1
Ichthyoarchaeology: Historical Overview
12
2.2
Modern Fish Bone Comparative Collection
13
2.3
Fish Remains and the Interpretation of the Past
16
2.4
Ichthyoarchaeological Concepts
20
Chapter Three: METHODOLOGY
26
3.1
The Modern Comparative Collection
26
3.2
Analysis of the Assemblage
29
3.3
Comparative Collection Rating
33
3.4
Measurements and Counts
34
3.5
Coryphaenidae Size Estimation
35
3.6
Usage of Terms
35
Chapter Four: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
37
4.1
Assemblage Count
37
4.2
Analysis Levels
37
4.3
39
4.4.
Anaro Taxon Accounts
45
4.5
Savidug Taxon Accounts
47
4.6
Pamayan Taxon Accounts
49
4.7
Dolphinfish Size Estimates from Vertebrae
51
4.8
Relative Abundance by Weight
52
4.9
Fish Bone Taphonomy
55
4.10 Anthropogenic Signatures
61
Chapter Five: DISCUSSION
69
5.1
The Five-Paired Bone System
72
~iv ~
Table of Contents
5.2
Comparative Rating Scheme
74
5.3
The Identified Fish Taxa of Batanes
74
5.4
Taphonomy
79
5.5
Coryphaenidae in the Savidug Assemblage
80
5.6
Fish Processing
82
Chapter Six: CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
85
References
88
Appendices
104
The UP-ASP Fish Bone Comparative Collection
II
Teleost Osteological Elements
III
IV
C. hippurus Estimated Weights and Lengths
F-0003 Coryphaenidae Complete Measurements (Vertebrae)
VI
Butchery Information
VII
Fish Bone Data Sheet
VIII
Sample Bagging Slip
~v~
List of Tables
1.1
Radiocarbon dates covered in this study (from Bellwood et al. 2007b; de Leon,
2008).
11
3.1
Useful skeletal elements in ichthyoarchaeology. These elements were especially

segregated and labeled during the preparation of the modern comparative.
28
3.2 Comparison rating system used for identifiable elements.
34
4.1
38
Summary of identification levels from the three sites analysed.
4.2 Summary of fragment counts and NISPs showing the percentage of each
element identified to taxa. Overall percentages with asterisks are elements
identified to just one taxon.
40
4.3 Computed lengths and weights of F-0004 and F-0005. The last two columns
show the difference from the actual TL and weight of the said individuals.
52
4.4 Summary of anthropogenic marks observed within the fish bone sample; n.d.
taxon was not determined.
61
5.1
Summary of average lengths and widths of fragmented and non-fragmented

fish bones.
70
5.2
Smallest and largest fragmented and non-fragmented fish bones.
70
5.3
Summary of identified taxa in Anaro, Savidug and Pamayan and the

corresponding habitat of each taxon.
75
~ vi ~
List of Figures1
1.1
The Batanes group of islands showing Sabtang where Savidug dune site and
Pamayan site is located, and Itbayat where Anaro hilltop site is located.
1.2
The Batanes Islands in the northernmost part of the Philippines showing

neighboring areas.
1.3
Itbayat Island and the locations of Anaro and Torongan cave archaeological
sites (Bellwood, et al. 2007b) .
1.4
Plan of Anaro site showing excavation areas (from Bellwood, et al. 2007b).
1.5
Possible settlement patterns at Anaro site showing Anaro 3, Anaro 6,

Anaro 2 and Anaro 4, see Fig. 1.4 for Anaro 1 and Anaro 5 (from Bellwood,
et al. 2007b).
1.6
Sabtang, Ivuhos and Dequey Islands (from Bellwood, et al. 2007a)
1.7
Plan of Savidug showing excavation areas (after Bellwood, et al. 2007a)
10
1.8
Stratigraphic profile of Trench QR7/9 where numerous fish bones were

recovered (after Bellwood, et al. 2007a)
10
2.1
Linnaean classification of Chordates (after Hickman, et al. 2001). The

highlighted shows fish lineage.
22
2.2
General types of fish morphology (classification from Cech and Moyle 2000)
23
2.3
General morphological features of a teleost. The fish is from the reference

collection (F-0077 Sparidae).
25
3.1
Standardized measurements taken for all specimens in the comparative

collection (F-0019 Haemulidae).
27
3.2
Skeletal elements of a teleost head, slightly modified to show particular

elements.
30
3.3
Unidentified cranium fragment (SB341) compared with four different taxa

from the modern collection.
33
3.4
Identified Labridae pharyngeal plates (AN104, AN113, AN107) compared

with the modern specimen (F-0087).
34
4.1
The total number of fragments analysed from the three sites covered in this
study: Anaro (fTNF=183), Savidug Dune/Dune Site (TNF=1310), and
Pamayan (fTNF=1328). The smaller plot details the general constituents of
the Savidug assemblage. Anaro and Pamayan sites comprise solely of fish
bones. Overall TNF=2821.
37
4.2
The percentage of fish bone samples from the three sites covered in this
study excluding non-fish materials from Savidug Dune site.
Unless otherwise cited, all maps and figures are drawn by the author.
~ vii ~
38
List of Figures
4.3
Lower pharyngeal plate of a Scaridae from Pamayan (PM384); specimen on

the left side is comparative F-0025.
41
4.4
Left toothed upper pharyngeal of a Scaridae from Pamayan as compared with

modern comparative F-0025.
41
4.5
Lower pharyngeal plate of a Labridae from Savidug (SB233) compared with

F-0087.
41
4.6
Labridae toothed upper pharyngeal bone from Anaro with comparative

F-0087 on the left; note the slight difference of teeth size and form, due
to species differentiation which occurs heavily in this taxon.
42
The two different types of dermal spines from Tetraodontiformes; the smaller
specimen has been observed in the present-day Batanes intentionally being
removed and buried (Paz, et al. 1998).
42
The distinct Carangidae pterygiophore and spines. The archaeological

material is from Anaro (right) compared with modern material on the left
(F-0049).
43
4.9
Acanthuridae pterygiophores from Pamayan compared with the first dorsal

pterygiophore with attached dorsal spine of comparative F-0033.
43
4.10
The first (dorsal) pterygiophore of a Balistidae from Savidug. Inset shows the
attachment of the 1st dorsal spine in Fig. 4.11.
44
4.11
The first dorsal spine of a Balistidae. Archaeological specimen (right) is

from Savidug.
44
4.12
Cephalic vertebra (i.e., 1st, 2nd and 3rd vertebrae after the atlas) of a
Coryphaenidae found in Sabtang that completely matched the comparative
material F-0003 (vertebra still attached to the atlas). Cephalic neural spines
are morphologically distinct from the more tapered abdominal neural spine
in Fig. 4.14.
45
An example of a caudal vertebra of a Coryphaenidae from Sabtang (right)

with F-0003 comparative. Note the fused haemal spine which differentiates it
from the abdominal or pre-caudal vertebra. For this taxon (and for most
taxa), the 1st caudal vertebra has a slightly distinct haemal spine to show the
attachment of the hypaxial muscle.
45
4.14
The abdominal or pre-caudal vertebra of Coryphaenidae.
45
4.15
Fish bones from Anaro (fTNF=183). specific=10; family=55; element=69;

indeterminate=49.
46
4.16
MNI and NISP of Anaro fish bone assemblage
47
4.17
Components of the Savidug fish bone assemblage. fTNF = 885.
48
4.18
Overall NISP and MNI profiles of Savidug; note the marked difference of the
NISP of Diodontidae due to the numerous dermal spines recovered from the
site.
49
Partial NISP of Savidug with dermal spines of Diodontidae calculated with an

NISP of 1 to show the relative abundance of the other taxa in the assemblage.
49
4.7
4.8
4.13
4.19
~ viii ~
List of Figures
4.20 The composition of Pamayan assemblage. fTNF=1328
50
4.21
MNI and NISP of Pamayan showing the over-representation of Diodontidae

due to its numerous dermal spines.
50
4.22
MNI and NISP of Pamayan with dermal spines of Diodontidae reduced to

51
4.23
Fragment weights in grids A-C and QR7-9 showing concentrations in the

upper layer (A-C) and mid-to-lower layer for QR7-9.
53
4.24
Trench A-C showing consistency in the sizes of fragments in areas with heavy
concentration of bones (between 40 and 60 cm). A drop in the number of
fragments in 70-80 and at the same time a rise in weight shows a
concentration of vertebrae which are relatively heavier than other fish
skeletal elements.
53
4.25
QR7-9 showing the concentration of fish bones between depth 100 and
140cm.
54
4.26
Anaro 3 fragment counts per layer and its corresponding weight and size.
54
4.27
A heavily abraded and weathered Diodontidae dentary from Anaro. Note that
the abrasion created severe rounding that cause the lost of morphological
information.
55
4.28 Levels of abrasion showing most of the samples are slightly abraded (66%),
11% is heavily abraded and 22% show no abrasion.
56
4.29
56
Percentage of observed pitting among fragments.
4.30 Slight pitting on a urostyle.
57
4.31
Severely pitted fin spine.
57
4,32
Percent of varying degrees of weathering on fish bones analysed.
58
4.33
A slightly weathered and slightly abraded neural spine from Pamayan.
58
4.34
The number of calcined and charred bones in Anaro, Savidug and Pamayan.
59
4.35
Calcined Elasmobranch vertebra from Anaro.
59
4.36
Charred rib or fin fragment from Pamayan.
59
4.37
Unidentified calcined atlas from Pamayan.
60
4.38
Calculated average of the taphonomic indicators in Anaro, Savidug and

Pamayan. The index represents the combined averages of abrasion, burning,
weathering and pitting as measured in each fish bone fragment.
60
AN5 vertebra showing the oblique chop mark which removed the entire
posterior end of the bone.
62
4.39
4.40 AN7 vertebra showing a modern chop mark.
62
4.41
Diodontidae dermal spine showing deep cut marks made on its spinous
process.
63
4.42
Balistidae dorsal spine with a deep cut located near the base of the spine and
64
~ ix ~
List of Figures
a smaller cut superior to it, both on the right facet.
4.43
Coryphaenidae cephalic vertebra (SB168) showing the dorsal side being cut
off, possibly during decapitation with the chopping action coming from the
left lateral aspect through the ventral margins.
65
SB100 showing severe cut marks and scrape marks. Arrow indicates the
clean chop mark coming from the left lateral aspect through the right facet
removing the zygapophysis and posterior end of the vertebra.
65
4.45
Scrape marks on a caudal vertebra on the left lateral facet.
66
4.46
A straight cut mark on the ventral facet near the posterior end, lighter
portions surrounding the cut are modern signatures.
66
4.47
SB190 showing cuts on the ventral aspect near the anterior end of the
abdominal vertebra.
67
4.48 Deep scrape marks on the dorso-lateral facet of the caudal vertebra, direction
of the scraping motion is towards the anterior end (right to left hand motion).
68
4.44
4.49
Coryphaenidae vertebra with scrape marks similar on Fig. 4.48 on the dorsal
and left lateral facet with minor cut marks.
68
5.1
Proportion of elements analysed including those identified to taxa (NISP).

Overall proportion of element and above-element identification is 80.81%.
70
5.2
Left maxilla, premaxilla, dentary and quadrate of a Serranidae (F-0024).
73
5.3
Left lateral aspect of an unidentified but distinctive cranial fragment.
74
5.4
Combined MNI of Anaro, Savidug and Pamayan fish bones.
76
5.5
Combined NISP of Anaro, Savidug and Pamayan fish bones.
76
5.6
Digital elevation map (DEM) of Sabtang. The lighter green regions show the
shallow reefs surrounding the islands and the light and dark blue areas
indicate the deeper oceans. DEM by M. Perigo.
78
5.7
DEM of Itbayat. The light yellow and green regions show the shallow reefs
surrounding the island while the darker blue areas indicate the increasing
oceanic depths. DEM by M. Perigo.
78
DEM of Batanes Islands. The light green regions surrounding the islands
show the shallow reefs and the light and dark blue the deeper oceans. Drawn
by M. Perigo.
79
Modern-day processing of dried Coryphaenidae. Photograph courtesy of Roel

H. Manipon.
84
5.8
5.9
~x~
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Fishing is among the most ancient form of human subsistence that holds
economic and cultural prominence in the Philippines. Having a large aquatic resource
base and belonging to the triangular marine zoogeographic area formed with the Malay
Peninsula and New Guinea termed as the Indo-Malayan Region (Ekman 1953) or the
Indo-Pacific Region (Briggs 1974), the Philippines is at the peak of the most diverse fish
communities in the whole world (Carpenter and Springer 2005). Fishbase, an online
database regularly updated by leading ichthyologists worldwide has documented 31200
species of fish worldwide, with more than 75% found in the Indo-Pacific region, of which
approximately 60% can be seen in the Philippines (Froese and Pauly 2009). Thus as an
easily accessible food source for archipelagic communes, fish constitute a big portion of
the diet of people, and probably accounts for the persistent presence of the fauna in the
archaeological record.
However, the exhaustive study of fish remains in the Philippines and in island
Southeast Asia is very scarce. This is not to say that marine exploitation in the country
has not generated much interest. Studies on fishing practices have been conducted but
they are mostly historical and ethnographic in nature (Eder 2003; 2005; Mangahas 1994;
1996; 1998; 2008; Umali 1950; Ushijima and Zayas 1994; Yamada 1967).
In the
archaeological record, fishing-related artifacts such as fishing sinkers (Yang 2006) and
preliminary investigations on fish hooks (Szab 2007) have also been done but the thin
data on what is actually being fished leaves discussions on early fishing practices in the
Philippines somewhat speculative. Furthermore, because the fish bones recovered from
archaeological contexts have not been systematically studied in detail, generalizations on
fish subsistence have been made solely on the types of artifact recovered from
archaeological sites (Alba 1988; 2000; Bautista 1988). This study acknowledges the need
for the systematic analysis of fish remains to elaborate on fishing strategies and
subsistence.
archaeology as compared with mammal remains (Lyman 1994). Moreover, in cases

where fish bones are included in faunal studies (e.g., Mudar 1997; Szab, et al., 2003),
there is no sufficient modern reference collection that can be used for the analysis in the
Philippines. Until the present study, for which an entirely new comparative fish bone
collection is developed, the only way fish bones recovered from archaeological sites in the
Chapter One : Introduction
Fish bones, however conspicuous are not always found in abundance in
Philippines could be identified was by utilizing collections housed in overseas institutions

or using a few provisional modern specimens collected from the site.
1.1
Research Aims and Objectives

This research aims to develop the basic capability that will allow an in-depth
study of ichthyoarchaeological materials.

The applicability of this facility is determined by addressing the following
objectives:
1.1.1
To identify the hunted marine fish taxa in the cultural past of

Batanes Islands.
1.1.2
To understand fish processing patterns through the examination of

anthropogenic modifications.
1.1.3
Differentiate various preservation conditions and the effects of

recovery techniques as represented by the Anaro hilltop site, Savidug
dune site, and the Pamayan shell midden site.
1.2
Scope and Limitations

The study focuses on the analysis of fish remains recovered from excavations
done in Batanes Islands between 2004 and 2007 from three specific sites: the Savidug
dune site and Pamayan shell midden site, both located in Sabtang Island and the Anaro
hilltop site in Itbayat Island (Figure 1.1). Although fish bones were sporadically recovered
and reported from other excavations and other sites in Batanes (e.g., Paz, et al. 1998;
Szab, et al. 2003), these were not analysed for this study.
The fish bones were primarily identified through a direct comparison with a
reference collection that has been built up by the author for the Bioarchaeology
Collection of the Archaeological Studies Program (Campos 2007; UP-ASP 2009) and
additions were thus continuously made to specifically address the objectives of this
research. The analysis was done by the researcher in the laboratory where the reference
collection is stored, which commenced in June 2007.
The set timetable to collect and prepare the specimens and allocated funds for the
answer the research questions presented in this study. However, due to logistical
constraints the collection is not exhaustive and rather focuses on modern commercial
fish stocks that can be found primarily in Metro Manila markets where generally
representative tropical fishes can be bought (Umali 1982). This limited the size and range
and the variety of fishes to some extent but instead featured on economically important
project made it possible to construct a modern fish comparative collection sufficient to
fishes. It does presuppose that certain

fish taxa from the assemblage might
not have the corresponding collection
to compare it with, and would cause
identification to be limited to a certain
taxonomic level, particularly genera or
species identification.
The choice of specimen for the
comparative collection is targeted to
those which are most likely to be
hunted
by
people
Ethnography
Hornedo
in
the
(Gonzales
1976;
2000;
area.
1966b;
Mangahas
2006; 2008), previous archaeological

excavations
(Bellwood
and
Dizon
2005) and the geological nature of the

sites in this study suggests that marine
fishes are far more abundant than
freshwater fishes due to the scarcity of
perennial rivers (de Ocampo 1994).
Therefore, preparation of the modern
reference collection is predisposed
towards the identification of marine
fishes although previously prepared
freshwater fishes from the collection
Fig. 1.1 The Batanes group of islands showing

Sabtang where Savidug dune site and Pamayan site is
located, and Itbayat where Anaro hilltop site is
located.
were also utilized.

1.3
Relevance of the Study

Fish remains are continually being uncovered in Philippine archaeology but never
fully utilized for the wealth of information they can provide. The study will make a
significant contribution to our understanding of human subsistence patterns on the
bones can present to us the types of fish that were part of the Filipino diet in the past. It
is only through the examination of signatures on the bones can we understand fish
processing and butchery patterns. Their study can also present novel ideas on marine
subsistence strategies and technology. These are important cultural concepts that can be
fully explored through the analysis of this fauna.
islands and how these changed through time. At its most basic, the identification of fish
Fishing implements such as net sinkers have been found and examined from
previous excavations in Batanes (Szab, et al. 2003; Yang 2006). Other excavations in
the nearby areas such as Nagsabaran in Cagayan Valley have yielded fishing gorges
(Piper, et al., 2009), all of which attests to the age-old presence of fishing in northern
Philippines. This research will certainly augment similar studies and support central
ideas on human fishing strategies in the region. The study of similarities in marine
subsistence strategies and associated technologies between communities can generate
novel ideas that can aid in our understanding of cultural connections and interactions in
the past.
Reconstructions of fisheries catches have recently figured in marine conservation
efforts and as one way of clearly understanding the growing issues on overfishing (Pauly,
et al., 1998; Zeller and Pauly 2007). Proponents advocated archaeology as an important
resource in understanding human impacts on marine environments (Erlandson 2008;
Pauly 2004; Pauly, et al. 2002). Through the examination of fish bones, archaeology can
be seriously considered as a vital source of information in finding alternative solutions to
the growing problems in overexploitation of fish stocks and its long-term effects in the
environment.
Lastly, this research establishes the first modern comparative collection in the
Philippines specifically designed for ichthyoarchaeology. It is reinforced by a
methodology for tropical fish bone identification with a substantial library of highresolution images of modern specimens and the additional archaeological data generated
in this study. Its importance for both specialists and non-specialists in archaeology is
unquestionable. It is also hoped that the resulting archaeological and modern data that
will be generated in this study can set the groundwork for similar studies not only
valuable for Philippine archaeology, but for research in other regions of Southeast Asia.
1.4
Archaeological Context
The Batanes group of islands is the northernmost tip of the Philippines situated in
the Luzon strait and the southern tip of Taiwan (Figure 1.2). The province comprises ten
islands, of which only the three biggest, namely Batan, Sabtang, and Itbayat are
South China Sea in the west, the Pacific in the east and separated from Taiwan through
the Bashi Channel and from the rest of Luzon by the Balintang Channel and Babuyan
Islands.
The islands are volcanic in nature and generally have rugged and rocky coastlines
surrounded by lofty cliffs abruptly dropping into the sea (Gonzales 1966). Batanes is
inhabited (Figure 1.1). These islands together with a number of islets are bordered by the
frequented by strong winds and typhoons, and the rough waters separate the various
islands from each other (Llorente 1983). There are two distinct seasons, which the
Ivatans, the inhabitants of the islands call rayun for summer and amian for winter .
Summer, bringing in southwesterly winds, begins in March and ends in May, while
winter with the prevailing northeasterly winds is from November to February. The rest
are rainy months with some brief spells of warm weather between September and
October (Provincial Government of Batanes 2000).
Although rodents and
bats are probably the most
abundant
animals
on
the
islands (Gonzales, et al., n.d.),

William
Dampier,
seventeenth century explorer

of the islands, observed the
abundance of goats and hogs
and some few small birds
(Blair and Robertson 190309:99;
Dampier
1937).
Chickens were introduced in

1720 by Fr. Juan Bel, O.P.
(Order
of
Preachers)
and
other Catholic missionaries

introduced cattle to improve
Fig. 1.2 The Batanes Islands in the northernmost part of

the Philippines showing neighbouring areas.
the food supply and add to the means of livelihood on the islands (Llorente 1983).
Currently, the principal base of the economy of Batanes is agriculture, along with fishing,
and cattle- and goat-rearing (Hornedo 2000).
Various archaeological reconnaissance and excavations were conducted in the
Batanes Islands. The first was conducted by Solheim (1960) in his investigation of dunes
in northern Luzon. It was then followed by a team of Japanese archaeologists and
anthropologists in 1982 which chiefly covered the distribution and characteristics of the
succeeding archaeological excavations were conducted by the National Museum of the
Philippines and the Archaeological Studies Program of the University of the Philippines
(UP-ASP), primarily following on the drilled columnar stones and prehistoric ijangs
documented by Dampier, and dunes and boat-shaped burial markers (Dado 2004; Dizon
prehistoric sites in northern Luzon and its neighbouring islands (Koomoto 1983). The
2000; Dizon and Barretto 1995-1997; Dizon and Cayron 1998-2003; Dizon and Santiago
1994; Faylona 2003; Lacsina 2004; Paz, et al. 1998).
Between 2002 and 2007, collaborations of the National Museum of the
Philippines, Australian National University and UP-ASP have covered investigations of
the dispersal of the Neolithic cultures between Taiwan and the Philippines (AFAP 2002;
Bellwood, et al., 2001; Bellwood, et al., 2003; Bellwood and Dizon 2005; 2008;
Bellwood, et al., 2007a, b; Dizon, et al., 2005). Carbon-14 dating of charcoal and marine
shell from the Sunget site in Batan Island established the possible arrival in the islands of
the first colonizers at least 4000 years ago. These excavations included the unearthing of
a significant number of animal bones containing more than 2000 fragments of fish bones
recovered from three specific sites, namely, Anaro site in Itbayat Island, and the Savidug
dune site and the Pamayan site, both in Sabtang Island (Bellwood, et al. 2007a; b).
Figure 1.3 shows the Anaro site which consists of several excavation sites located
on a high hilltop in the center of Itbayat separated by about 500m from the southeastern
edge of Mayan township by a
normally dry valley. The sites
cover the top and upper terraces
of a promontory of raised coral
and limestone, about 150m long
in
northwestsoutheast
direction.
The
hilltop
is
approximately 40m wide and

the upper terraces between 3
and 5m wide. Human activities
on the site have flattened the
top of the promontory and the
terraces,
probably
for
the
construction of house platforms

(Bellwood, et al. 2007b).
The use of digging sticks
the site has re-worked artifacts
in some areas so that they occur
all the way through the deposits
to bedrock. The re-distribution
of artifacts was confirmed by the
Fig. 1.3 Itbayat Island and the locations of Anaro and

Torongan cave archaeological sites (after Bellwood, et al.
2007b).
in contemporary cultivation of
re-fitting of three sherds of pottery from the same vessel at different depths in the Anaro
3 trench. The archaeological investigations undertaken at Anaro during 2004, 2005, and
2006 consisted of a series of one-metre squares. Twelve different locations were explored
(Figures 1.4 and 1.5) but apart from Anaro 3 and 6, most of these squares had shallow
deposits over bedrock and had been severely disturbed through cultivation in the past
(Bellwood, et al. 2007b).
Small numbers of fish bones were recovered from various trenches, but the most
significant assemblage was produced from Anaro 3 (designated Anaro 3A3G), a small
rockshelter 1.2m deep and 2.5m long, and had been formed long ago by the oceans in the
hillside (Bellwood, et al. 2007b). The original height of the shelter was 1.5m from
bedrock to ceiling and it is unlikely it was ever used for habitation. This was the only site
at Anaro that remained undisturbed by tree roots and cultivation and on excavation
proved to contain deposits in excess of 1m deep. The excavations produced an abundance
Fig. 1.4 Plan of Anaro site showing the excavation areas (from Bellwood, et al., 2007b).
of pottery and ceramic figurines (Ibid.).
Fig. 1.5 Possible settlement patterns at Anaro site showing Anaro 3, Anaro 6, Anaro 2 and
Anaro 4, see Fig. 1.4 for Anaro 1 and Anaro 5 (from Bellwood, et al. 2007b).
The trenches Anaro 6 and the middle layers of Anaro 3 have Carbon-14 dates on
organic residues identified on the interior and exterior of pottery sherds to between
AD400 and 900. Along with red-slipped pottery, the lower layers of Anaro 3 produced
the characteristic green Fengtian nephrite and slate while the deposition of the material
occurred between 2500 and 2000BP (Bellwood, et al. 2007b). Figure 1.6 shows the
Savidug dune site in Sabtang Island. Both sites yielded numerous fish bones in varying
preservation conditions. Carbon-14 dates have been secured and is thus presented in
Table 1.1.
Savidug village is
located halfway down the
eastern coast of Sabtang;
the
island
is
mainly
volcanic but no longer

active (Bellwood, et al.
2007a).
The
central
portion of the east coast

consists of a high terrace
dissected by a number of
west-to-east
orientated
stream beds that are dry

Savidug village lies just to
the north of a stream bed
called Padudugan. On its
southern side lies the
Fig. 1.6 Sabtang, Ivuhos and Dequey Islands (from Bellwood et al.,
2007a)
most of the year (Ibid.).
Savidug dune site, with Savidug ijang occupying a volcanic outcrop in the next valley.
The Savidug dune site is situated in a 120-150m wide sand dune that runs for about
800m to the valley that contains the ijang. The archaeological site lies at the northern
end of the dune, close to where it abuts an 8m cliff formed by volcanic deposits and
raised coral (Bellwood, et al. 2007a). A road cutting 2m deep formed by foot and cart
traffic transects the sand dune. First observed in 2003 were at least nine projecting
dunes exposed by erosion on either side of the track way (Ibid.).
Archaeological investigations commenced in 2006, with the excavation of a 2x1m
trench in a field on top of the dune, about 8m west of the road (Figure 1.7) (Bellwood, et
al. 2007a; b). The excavations produced a sequence of five layers, beginning with 4070cm of loose plough soil (Layer 1) over a dark grey sandy loam about 20-30cm thick
(Layer 2). Layer 2 contained material culture similar to that observed at the site of
Pamayan. Beneath Layer 2 was a sterile dune horizon (Layer 3) capping a humic sandy
sediment (Layer 4) with its upper surface 1.4m below modern ground surface. Layer 4
contained high concentrations of cultural material that included red-slipped pottery. A
C14 date taken from the base of the layer, and in association with a fragment of circlestamped pottery produced a date of c.1000BC. Beneath Layer 4 lay another sterile sand
dune deposit. A similar but slightly more complex stratigraphy was identified in
subsequent excavations on the site (Figure 1.8).
The dunes were found to have their bases embedded in the upper surfaces of
Layer 4, and to be completely encased in the sterile sand. This suggests that the jars were
originally visible above ground and were subsequently buried within the sand dune. By
the time cultural Layer 2 was deposited, most of the dunes would have already been
buried. All dunes were devoid of associated artifacts, except one possible inclusion of a
nephrite lingling-o that was buried just to the side of the base of a jar. Charcoal in the
immediate vicinity produced a date of 500-400BC (Bellwood, et al. 2007a). It appears
that the dunes commenced towards the end of the phase of deposition of Layer 4, which
has been dated by C14 to c.1000BC (Ibid.). Other artifacts recovered from Layer 4
include baked clay lingling-os, Trochus niloticus bracelets, shell spoons, double-sided
notched pebble net sinkers and nephrite, including debitage from the production of
De Leon (2008) made a detailed comparative study of the pottery from Anaro and
Savidug dune sites on Itbayat and Sabtang respectively. She concluded that similarities in
pottery styles and forms during the early phases of occupation around 3000 years ago
suggested close island interaction and connections. By 2700 2000BP this interaction
appears to have diminished and similarities in pottery morphologies in the two locales
lingling-os (Ibid.).
start to diverge. Between 1000 and 600BP contact diminished further and pottery is
produced locally and rarely exchanged.
Located behind Savidug village, the Pamayan shell midden was first discovered in
2003 when it was exposed by a road-cutting along the base of a limestone hillside
(Bellwood, et al. 2007a). Two small trial trenches just 80cm x 60cm were excavated, 16m
apart into a section of the exposed shell midden in the road cutting. The shell midden has
a maximum depth of 1.5m beneath the topsoil. The midden itself consisted almost
exclusively of broken small cowrie shells. Pottery was fairly evenly distributed
throughout the midden, and included small fragments of imported Chinese wares to a
depth of 95cm. A C14 sample from the base of the cultural layer produced a date of
41841 BP.
Fig. 1.8 Stratigraphic profile of Trench QR7/9 where numerous fish bones were
recovered (after Bellwood et al. 2007a)
Fig. 1.7 Plan of Savidug showing excavation areas (after Bellwood et al. 2007a).
10
Table 1.1 Radiocarbon dates of sites covered in this study (from Bellwood, et al. 2007b; de Leon 2008).
SITE
OXCAL, 2
SIGMA
CONTEXT
DATE BP [LAB NO.]
Savidug Dune Site

2006
Layer 5, 180 cm below surface, charcoal with

Sunget style pottery (AMS)
282837 [Wk 19711]
1114-901 BC
Savidug Dune Site

2007
R7-9, Layer 5, 220 cm below surface, food

residue on sherd (AMS)
287030 [Wk 21810]
1130-930 BC
Savidug Dune Site

2007
R7-9, Layer 5, 210 cm below surface,

charcoal (AMS)
241630 [Wk 21808]
360-50 BC
Savidug Dune Site

2007
R7-9, Layer 4, 135 cm below surface,

charcoal near jade ornament (AMS)
241630 [Wk 21809]
560-390 BC
Pamayan shell midden

(Sabtang)
Square A, 100-105 cm, below surface (AMS)
41841 [Wk 13170]
AD 1420-1630
Savidug (Sabtang)
Below ijang, square C, 100-110 cm
740180 [ANU 12070] AD 850-1650
Savidug Ijang*
Level D, 10-30 cm, Sung ceramic sherd
SABTANG ISLAND
AD 12th century
ITBAYAT ISLAND
Anaro
2A, 15-20 cm, food residue on sherd (AMS)
187641 [Wk 14643]
AD 53-238
Anaro
3, 90-95 cm, food residue on sherd (AMS)
136039 [Wk 14645]
AD 607-768
Anaro
3, 95-105 cm, food residue on sherd (AMS)
277050 [OZH 774]
1038-813 BC
Anaro
3A, 80-90 cm, food residue on sherd (AMS)
209545 [OZJ 692]
349 BC-AD 4
Anaro
3A, 100-110 cm, food residue on sherd (AMS) 247545 [OZJ 693]
767-414 BC
Anaro
3B, 65-70 cm, food residue on sherd (AMS)
128045 [OZJ 694]
AD 657-866
Anaro
208045 [OZJ 695]
338 BC-AD 21
Anaro
137545 [OZJ 696]
AD 583-768
Anaro
151060 [OZJ 697]
AD 427-644
Torongan Cave
Food residue on sherd at 55-60 cm (base of

cultural layer) (AMS)
386070 [OZH 771]
2562-2066 BC
Torongan Cave
Tectarius shell at 55-60 cm (AMS)
388040 [OZH 772]
2025-1721 BC
Torongan Cave
Food residue on sherd at 55-60 cm (AMS)
332040 [Wk 14642]
1726-1503 BC
Torongan Cave
Turbo shell at 55-60 cm (AMS)
249637 [Wk 15795]
339-47 BC
Torongan Cave
Turbo shell at 50-55 cm (AMS)
335235 [Wk 14641]
1384-1095 BC
Torongan Cave
Thais shell at 45-50 cm (AMS)
366341 [Wk 15794]
1737-1456 BC
Torongan Cave
Marine shell at 40-45 cm (AMS)
347050 [OZH 773]
1522-1217 BC
Torongan Cave
Food residue on sherd at 15-20 cm (AMS)
52070 [OZH 775]
AD 1287-1613
Torongan Cave (not

C14)
0-5 cm. Coin of the Ming ruler Wan Li
not applicable
(AD 1573-1620)
*date from associated Chinese Sung dynasty collection sherd (Dizon and Santiago 1994)
11
CHAPTER TWO
Review of Related Literature

Ichthyoarchaeology or the study of fish remains has been incorporated into many
archaeological investigations since the nineteenth century (Brinkhuizen and Clason
1986; Colley 1990; Jones & Nicholson, 1997; Wheeler and Jones 1989), although it did
not receive as much attention as that of other faunal studies (Colley 1990; Shackley
1981). Pioneering work in the identification of fish bones recovered from excavations
were performed by zoologists and were usually devoid of an anthropogenic focus so that
its significance to archaeological research was never realized early on (Wheeler and
Jones 1989). The forerunner of these studies was the recognition that associations of
human bones or stone tools with extinct animals were authentic (Daniel 1976, p. 25).
These were generally conducted by naturalists with minimal involvement in
archaeology. Their primary contribution was the generation of taxonomic information
and nominal lists of fauna; a practice which predominantly carried on until the midtwentieth century (Bogan and Robinson 1978; Brewer 1992; Reitz and Wing 1999).
2.1
Ichthyoarchaeology: Historical Overview

During the mid-19th century, a small percentage of zoological studies on fish, such
as the works of Ludwig Rtimeyer (1861) and Jeffries Wyman (1868a; b; 1875), who both
attempted seasonal dating based on the fish species identified from assemblages, show a
clear appreciation of the fact that animal bones had the potential to be a rich source of
information on past human behaviour and environments. These early studies with
similar observations consequently established zooarchaeology as a discipline in its own
right. For a comprehensive discussion of early zooarchaeological work and its
development in archaeology see Brewer (1992), Reitz and Wing (1999), and Davis (1987).
A number of these early studies had a notable impact in the grounding of
ichthyoarchaeology. For instance, in 1842, Hermann Schlegel identified a number of fish
Siluris glanis. The identification of the wels catfish proved to be very significant as this
catfish was later discovered to be an endemic of the Netherlands (Brinkhuizen 1979;
Clason 1986; Wheeler and Jones 1989). Beginning 1870, the prolific work of French
palaeontologist Henri . Sauvage on ancient animal remains as reported by Casteel
(1976) yielded valuable information on fishes, especially his investigations on human
Chapter Two : Literature Review
taxa from the Dorestad excavations that included the sturgeon, pike, and the wels catfish
12
subsistence and settlement patterns in the Upper Paleolithic cave sites of Dordogne,
France.
The pioneering efforts of Kamakichi Kishinouye (1908; 1911) on prehistoric
fishing in Japan set a new standard in the study of fish remains in archaeology.
Kishinuoye (1911) enumerated in detail the procedures he carried out in the analysis of
various fish bones, including otoliths and scales to estimate fish sizes and categorize
different fish taxa he recovered from shell-mounds. As Casteel (1976) noted, his efforts
were milestones in zooarchaeology because he performed his own faunal analysis, which
was not very common at that time and he was the first to apply wet-sieving and
microscopic analysis. However, Kishinuoyes initiatives in East Asia did not seem to
create the same level of enthusiasm in nearby Southeast Asia; whereas fish bone analyses
had flourished into an energetic sub-field of zooarchaeology in other regions early in the
20th century.
Fish bones from archaeological sites in Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) were
essentially examined by animal bone specialists as part of a bigger faunal assemblage.
The lack of specialism for this fauna has commonly resulted in a minimal if not
ambiguous catalogue of fish remains present in the area. Aside from a select few papers
that feature an in-depth analysis of fish bones (Li 2001; Ono 2003; 2004),
ichthyoarchaeology in Southeast Asia was far behind Europe where it was first
established (discussed in this chapter), or the Pacific where works such as that of Foss
Leach have been very vigorous since the early 1970s (e.g., Davidson, et al., 2000; Leach
1973; 1979; 1986; 1997; 2006; Leach and Anderson 1979; Leach and Boocock 1993; 1994;
Leach and Davidson 1977, 2001, 2006; Leach, et al. 1984).
2.2
Modern Fish Bone Comparative Collection

In the Indo-Pacific region, there are prepared modern comparatives that may
perhaps be useful in naming certain taxonomic groups of fishes found in the Philippines.
For instance, the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa in Wellington1, the Bishop
pers. comm.) have well-built fish comparative collections that can be made available to
both students and specialists alike. But because of the exceptional diversity of this faunal
group and various logistical problems posed in accessing other modern comparatives,
scrupulous identification to allow a more substantial archaeological interpretation in a
particular site might not be possible without having to build ones own. This is a practical
1
Fish comparative collection database courtesy of Carolyn McGill from Zooarchaeology Division and Foss Leach.
Museum University of Hawaii (2001), and the Sabah Museum (Peter Molijol, 2008,
13
advice which can never be reiterated enough in nearly all available literature that tackle
methods on fish bone analysis (i.e., Barnett 1978; Casteel 1976; Chaplin 1971; Colley
1990; Davis 1987; Leach 1997; O'Connor 2000; Reitz and Wing 1999; Wheeler and Jones
1989).
This is also being done among lesser known fishes from tropical freshwater lakes
and streams which are far more complex than marine fishes when it comes to feeding
and reproductive behaviours (Moyle and Cech 2000). In one of the archaeological
investigation at Angkor Borei, Cambodia, more than 12000 fish bones dominated the
faunal assemblage (Stark and Bong 2001; Voeun and von den Driesch 2004; von den
Driesch and Voeun 2003). Of these, 2802 bones were identified to 17 different families
(Voeun 2003), and many of which were cited in the resulting ichthyoarchaeological guide
on Mekong River (Voeun 2006). For the analysis of this assemblage, 130 modern species
were utilized as comparatives (Voeun 2003), out of more than 1200 reported species
(Mekong River Commission 2003; Poulsen, et al. 2004). This drives the project for
collection of more modern comparatives in the area keeping in mind those that were
most likely been hunted in the past, hence, targeting specific families that have most
chance of appearing in the archaeological record.
In the Philippines, the identification of fish was confined to a few easily
recognizable bones such as the cartilaginous vertebra and loose teeth of sharks and rays,
the diagnostic pharyngeal teeth of Scaridae (parrotfish) and Labridae (wrasse) and the
dermal spines and teeth of Diodontidae (porcupinefish). The lack of a comprehensive
study was primarily due to lack of a substantial comparative collection for fish (Angel
Bautista, 2008, pers. comm.). This is primarily the reason why establishing a
comparative collection that specifically addresses the identification of archaeological fish
bone assemblages in the area was constructed for this and for future projects.
However, a number of extensive excavations conducted in the country, combined
with international collaborations that perhaps facilitated access to modern comparative
collections outside the Philippines allowed noteworthy family-level identifications. An
joint project between the National Museum of the Philippines and Tokyo University of
Foreign Studies (de la Torre 2002; Ogawa 2000; Ogawa and Aguilera 1992) wherein
fishing from the nearby rivers was suggested based on the identification of Cyprinidae,
Siluridae, Sparidae and Mugilidae (de la Torre 2000; Garong 2006; Garong and Toizumi
2000). The last two taxa, though marine fishes, can also be found in brackish estuaries.
example is the archaeological investigations of the shell middens of Lal-lo Cagayan by a
14
One important study that contained identified fish remains as part of an in-depth
investigation on faunal utilization in the Philippines was done by Mudar (1997). The
faunal assemblage from four archaeological sites were analyzed with the principal aim of
understanding the varying cultural roles different animal resources have played in
human economies from as early as 10500 BP. Identified fish taxa were mostly marine,
namely,
Acanthuridae,
Ariidae,
Balistidae,
Dasyatidae,
Labridae,
Lutjanidae,
Pomadasidae, Scianidae, Scaridae, Serranidae, Sparidae and Tylosauridae, the latter

erroneously tagged for Tylosaurus sp. which is under Belonidae (longtoms or
needlefishes). Studies of fish remains from Bukit Tengkorak by Ono (2003; 2004) and
from Taiwan by Li (1989; 1994; 2000; 2001) identified fish taxa that reflect present-day
fishing activity in their respective regions. These studies all demonstrated that human
populations had access to marine resources almost the whole year through and showed
the nature of the hunted fish community, i.e.., whether it consisted of inshore, offshore,
or deep water taxa. Unfortunately, similar in-depth studies on fish remains within the
region have not been undertaken, a deficiency in archaeological research that this project
will redress.
On a more global scale, the continuing progress in the study of fish remains has
solidified its important place in the field of zooarchaeology. A clear indication of this
advancement is the establishment of the Fish Remains Working Group (FRWG) under
the International Council for Archaeozoology (ICAZ) by way of its first meeting in 1981
(Fish Remains Working Group n.d.; Muiz 1996). A rundown of papers presented since
then show a precocious consideration on standardization of analytical techniques (e.g.,
Desse 1980; Heinrich 1981; Morales and Rosenlund 1979). As Muiz (1996) pointed out,
the meetings were mostly held in Europe and the number of participants from farther
afield did not rise as it should have done over time, which unwittingly narrowed down
and concentrated discussions and research on European issues.
This regional tendency in ichthyoarchaeology is an outstanding issue yet a logical
one in the academic realm. For instance, many notable fish specialists such as Jones,
to Europe, just like Leach in the Pacific, Li in Taiwan, Zohar in Middle East and Butler in
North America (see FRWG website for a list of key publications of its members). In time,
as the list of FRWG members grows, studies on fish remains also diversified into topics
such as environmental reconstruction and climate change, experimental archaeology,
fish biology and taphonomy (e.g., Bullock and Jones 1987; Colley 1987; Enghoff 1987;
Zohar, et al., 2001). This growth and diversification of FRWG now interlaces with many
Muiz, Noe-Nygaard, Barrett, Harland and the likes are confined by their research focus
15
areas of archaeological inquiry, a feat that is yet to be witnessed in Southeast Asia, and
creates a growing need for this specialism in the Philippines.
2.3
Fish Remains and the Interpretation of the Past

Aside from validation of fish subsistence in antiquity, the corpus of archaeological
literature on fish bone analysis builds on two general themes in prehistory: palaeoecology
and human behavioural studies. From a prcis by Reitz and Wing (1999), these two
correlated themes can be further elaborated from the identification of fish taxa and their
relative frequencies, the taphonomic processes that have affected the accumulation and
preservation of fish bones in the archaeological record and anthropogenic modifications
made on the bones.
The taxonomic framework of fish bones from archaeological assemblages
provides details on past marine or freshwater ecology and the general environmental
conditions. Furthermore, like other small vertebrates and invertebrates, the relatively
small size of fish bones makes it more sensitive to temperature fluctuations and
environmental changes which in turn can be reflected through microgrowth increments
(Rhoads and Lutz 1980). Similar with ring-width variations in trees, the analysis of fish
bones bearing patterns of growth rings in skeletal elements such as the otolith, scales, the
opercular series, cleithrum, vertebrae and even fin spines can help determine patterns of
stress during the life of the fish that can be very useful to palaeoecological studies
(Casteel 1974; 1976; Lock 2004; Mellars and Wilkinson 1980; Monks 1981; Rhoads and
Lutz 1980; Spangler 2000; Weisberg 1993). However, Van Neer, et al. (2004) pointed
out that these studies might not be applicable to a tropical climate such as that in
Southeast Asia as changes between seasons are not as distinct and enough samples ideal
for palaeoecological studies are not yet available.
Particular events that occurred in the environment can be traced from the
chemical and morphological changes in fish bones. This would prove helpful in
understanding natural environmental processes and temperature fluctuations. For
increments to support evidence of agricultural activities and past flooding in a Bronze
age site at West Row, Mildenhall, Suffolk. This was also a recurring theme in Allen, et al.
(1990) wherein samples of fish bones supported by GIS mapped out past floods and land
formations. The study further elaborated that the small islands during the floods became
a temporary habitation site and fishing became a source of subsistence when crops are
not yet ready for harvesting (Allen, et al. 1990; Greene 1996).
instance, Murphy (1983) synthesised data from botanical remains and fish bone
16
The demographic profile of the fish assemblage in itself contains vital

environmental information. In a summary of fish catches in New Zealand by Leach and
Boocock (1993), the prominence of the snapper Pagrus auratus in the earlier sites and
its subsequent absence later on (Anderson and McGlone 1991) could possibly have been
caused by the slow retreat of the Tasman Bay over time as Anderson (2008) inferred
based on additional data from Barber (1994) and Anderson (1997). The same
reservations were raised by Vouen (2003) on finding shark vertebra and teeth among a
huge assemblage of freshwater fish from the Mekong and Tonle Sap river systems. Their
discovery substantiates the changing landscapes in the past with possibly cultural choices
leading their enigmatic presence in some reliefs of Angkor Wat (Voeun 2004; Voeun and
So 1999). Through a conscious integration of information gathered from the analysis of
fish bones and other pertinent data, it is possible to generate a novel reconstruction of
both past marine and freshwater environments.
The small, isolated islands of the Batanes archipelago represent a unique
opportunity to study how the long term effects of human predation has influenced the
structure and composition of marine fisheries. The respective fish bone assemblages of
Savidug, Anaro and Pamayan cover the period from approximately 3500 years ago until
just before European contact. This presents a chance to observe potential changes in
human fishing strategies and targeted taxa and the effects on the marine ecology across
space and time. Connections between the Philippines and neighbouring regions, such as
Southern China can also be explored as prehistoric interactions between these two have
been suggested in the study of net sinkers (Yang 2006) and in human migration patterns
(Bellwood 1987; Bellwood and Dizon 2005; 2008).
The availability of fish bones for study all depends on its preservation in the
archaeological record and the ensuing recovery techniques utilized to ensure complete
retrieval of the bones. Different environmental conditions can be directly correlated with
the state of the bones recovered but in general, the shorter the length of time an organic
material is buried after death, the greater would be its chance of survival in archaeology
involving geological, biological, faunal and anthropogenic aspects leading to four
potential effects categorized by Lyman (1994) as fossilization, disarticulation, dispersal
and mechanical alterations. Lymans model is a simplistic view of taphonomic effects
since many underlying factors are at play that it is difficult to make clear-cut predictions
between different organisms, environments and situations.
(Nicholson 2001). The archaeological record involves complex taphonomic dimensions
17
An important factor in fish taphonomy is the differential preservation of skeletal

elements within an individual and between individuals from different taxa, as well as
compared with other vertebrate fauna. Taphonomic processes are empirical, regardless
of its faunal group, but Wheeler and Jones (1989) infer that fish bones are generally
more fragile than mammal bones. Between different fish taxa, certain diagnostic or
special bones are more solid and larger (Colley 1990) and thus more often found in
archaeology, i.e.., dentition of parrotfishes, porcupinefishes and wrasses. Schfer (1972)
even went as far as saying that even in similar conditions fishes (of different taxa) do not
decay at the same rate which he reasoned out as due to the body mass of the individual.
This can inevitably affect quantification of body part representation and interpretation of
human butchery patterns and cultural choices.
Logically, smaller and thinner skeletal elements are more likely the first to perish
over time, notably the head of the fish where less dense bones are located. Under
controlled environments, this was proven by Lubinski (1996) in salmonid bones wherein
the vertebra proved more durable. This study parallels results on the scarcity of
archaeological salmon head bones in North America wherein the more dense vertebra
outweighed the other elements (Butler and Chatters 1994). However, a number of cranial
bones do survive well in archaeology and some are even diagnostic for identification
(Casteel 1974; 1976; Colley 1990; Hildebrand 1974; Leach 1986; Romer and Parsons
1977; Wheeler and Jones 1989) but not without considering other factors such as high
temperature and alkalinity (Butler and Chatters 1994).
This disparate difference on the preservation of fish bones between taxa also
makes it harder for the analyst to say which were actually caught more often. This has
been the case in Rocky Cape North Cave in the investigation of Tasmanian aborigines
where hundreds of small fish bones were found (Hiscock 2008). Many were fragile and
those naturally robust ones that preserved well, such as the wrasses cannot directly
represent the groups generally minimal diet on fish (A.K.G. Jones, 1984).
The effect of human and animal digestion on fish bones were investigated by
than 85% of the fish bones were destroyed through mammalian digestion with varying
degrees of destruction between skeletal elements. The studies however could not present
any conclusive parameters on differentiating the digestion of fish bones made by a
human being or an animal.
Nicholson (1993), Butler and Schroeder (1998), and A.K.G. Jones (1983; 1986). More
18
Compared with other fauna, butchery marks on fish bones are less frequent
(Colley 1990; A.K.G. Jones, 1990; Lyman 1994). The inconsistent frequency of these
signatures is attributed to both cultural and natural factors, and the anatomical and
biological features of the fish. Investigating the effects of fishing, processing and
consumption of fish, Willis, et al. (2008) designed a series of experiments using stone
and metal tools. It was interesting to note that the hand-held stone tools left more cut
marks, but for both tools, the signatures were mostly seen on vertebral spines and
pterygiophores, as well as ribs. The majority of cut marks were shallow and small which
might have been missed in archaeology due to taphonomic processes. This could possibly
explain the paucity of cut marks on archaeological fish bones.
Data generated in the analysis of fish bones can elaborate further the subtleties
within ethnohistographic records and other archaeological materials such as fish hooks
and net sinkers. In an investigation of Tasmanian aborigines, archaeological data and
ethnography seemed unresolved as to whether the technology used for fishing were
either flexible nets (Bowdler 1979; 1980; Bowdler and Lourandos 1982) or box traps
installed in the rocky reefs (Colley and Jones 1987). An analysis of fish bones show
dominance of wrasses (Labridae), leatherjackets (Monacanthidae), lings (Lotidae) and
conger eels (Congridae), all of which can only be caught by these special traps as inferred
by Colley and Jones (Ibid.).
This research will address a number of taphonomic issues raised by the
composition and condition of the faunal remains recovered from the Batanes Islands.
This will principally focus on the anthropogenic and natural causes for variation in the
state of preservation between different bone assemblages and differences in fragment
size. The effects of preservation may have had on taxonomic identification and the
resultant community structure of the archaeological material will also be considered. All
evidence of butchery will be carefully analysed and evaluated in detail to untangle
similarities and differences in processing techniques and cultural choices through space
and time.
insights into past human adaptations and behaviour. Three general types of aquatic
environments are primarily humans source for fish: freshwater, inshore and offshore
marine waters. Identification of fish bones indicates human exploitation of any of these
environments and consequently leads us into constructing these environments in the
past. Certainly, investigating the intricacies of how humans actually utilized and asserted
The primary objective of archaeologists analyzing fish bones is to get clear
19
their dominance on these habitats outside theirs is even more provocative, however
patchy it may seem in the current ichthyoarchaeology in this region.
2.4
Ichthyoarchaeological Concepts
In a general sense, fishes are gill-breathing vertebrates that possess an efficient
network of integumentary and skeletal systems adapted to a completely aquatic life.

These characteristics ascertain their dominance over an exceptionally wide array of fresh
and salt water habitats which notably put their adaptive value as a group as among the
highest in the animal kingdom. They can thrive in waters with temperatures that range
from -1.80C to nearly 400C and pH values between 4 and 10+, and at a maximum depth
(with associated pressures) of up to 7000 meters (Davenport and Sayer 1993; Jobling
1996). See fish bioquads in FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2009) and information on the
worldwide diversity of marine and freshwater fishes (Moyle and Cech 2000; Spalding, et
al. 2007).
However, the concept of fish as a taxonomic unit is contentious due to the
polyphyletic nature of their origin (Bone, et al., 1995; Enger and Ross 2000; Hickman
and Roberts 1995; Hickman, et al. 2001; Moyle and Cech 2000). The earliest fishes and
the putative ancestors of vertebrates originated from sessile chordates with a freeswimming larval stage. Related to these are the ostracoderms, which seem to have
evolved more than 460 million years ago (Forey and Janvier 1994; Hickman, et al. 2001;
Jobling 1996; Moyle and Cech 2000). Proponents such as Forey and Janvier (1993; 1994)
ascertain that these fossils show a number of characteristics such as its bony armour that
can be directly compared with jawed vertebrates, though not with lampreys. This creates
ambiguity as to how these living agnathans actually relate to jawed fishes, stressing out
what has been noted previously among a number of fishes with characteristics that are
more similar to mammals than other fishes (Nelson 1984) and the disputed position of
lampreys in fish phylogeny (Miller and Harley 2001). However problematic, what
remains important for this discourse is the central role of fishes in understanding the
evolution of jawed vertebrates from the lower or ancestral phylogeny that later developed
Under the more traditional Linnaean classification, fishes occupy four of the eight
vertebrate clades, and make up more than half of all the living vertebrates in the world
(Hickman and Roberts 1995; Hickman, et al. 2001; Nelson 1984). Furthermore, class
Pisces is a palimpsest with this scheme (Cuvier 1834; Cuvier and Valenciennes 1828)
and the recent cladistics on the paraphyletic nature of fishes. The chordates are branched
the physiology for adaptation to a terrestrial environment.
20
into two major groups as based on the absence of jaws, i.e.., Agnatha, and those that bear
jaws, the Gnathostomata. The jawless fishes are divided into two distinct and as cladists
contend, divergent zoological groups, the lampreys (class Cephalaspidomorphi) and
hagfishes (class Myxini), while the gnathostomes are all jawed fishes, as well as where the
rest of the vertebrates belong.
Approximately, more than 70 extant species of agnathans can still be found
(Jobling 1996; Moyle and Cech 2000) while the rest of the jawless vertebrates became
extinct nearly 350 million years ago (Hildebrand and Goslow 1998). In archaeology, the
jawed fishes are the only ones particularly relevant. These are the cartilaginous class
Chondrichthyes (sharks, rays, and chimaeras), and the most extensive Osteichthyes;
fishes that have calcified bones grouped into Actinopterygii (ray-finned fishes), and the
ancestral Sarcopterygii (lungfishes and lobe-finned fishes). The remaining four clades are
the terrestrial vertebrates, i.e.., class Amphibia (frogs, toads, and salamanders), class
Reptilia (snakes, lizards, and alligators), class Aves (birds), and class Mammalia
(mammals).
The classification of Phylum Chordata in Figure 2.1 (after Hickman, et al. 2001)
places fish and its subgroups within Subphylum Vertebrata or Craniata. These lineages
lead one into understanding the adaptive radiation among fishes, beginning evolution of
many groups during the Paleogene exemplified by the bulk of derived marine fishes
(Gregory 1951; Hildebrand 1974). Moreover, the phylogenetic line of fishes establishes
that closely-related species naturally share similar morphological, physiological and
behavioural traits which predispose habitat and trophic use within communities (Gatz
1979).
21
Protochordata
(Acraniata)
Subphylum
Urochordata
Superclass
Agnatha
Subphylum
Class
Cephalaspidomorphi
Class Myxini
Cephalochordata
Subclass
Elasmobranchii
Phylum
Chordata
Class Chondrichthyes
Craniata
Subphylum
Vertebrata
Class
Osteichthyes
Superclass
Gnathostomata
Class
Amphibia
Class Reptilia
Subclass
Holocephali
Subclass
Sarcopterygii
Subclass
Actinopterygii
Infraclass
Chondrostei
Infraclass
Holostei
Infraclass
Teleostei
Subclass
Anapsida
Subclass
Diapsida
Subclass
Synapsida
Subclass
Archaeornithes
Class Aves
Class
Mammalia
Subclass
Neornithes
Subclass
Prototheria
Subclass
Theria
Infraclass
Ornithodelphia
Infraclass
Metatheria
Fig. 2.1 Linnaean classification of Chordates (after Hickman, et al., 2001). The highlighted shows
fish lineage.
2.4.1 General Morphological Characteristics

While the range of morphology of fishes are as diverse as their population and
that their sizes and shapes are the most varied among all vertebrates, certain
designs. An example is the generalized category provided by Moyle and Cech (2000) as
shown in Figure 2.2. This classification of body shapes is loosely based around their
trophic needs in conjunction with their habitat.
Rover-Predators: These fishes are always on the move actively searching for their
prey. A number of sharks have this shape and most carnivorous teleosts (e.g., tunas and
mackerels), as well as freshwater fishes such as carps and minnows (Cyprinidae). This is
morphological patterns can be assumed truncated by similar behavioural and ecological
22
the common streamlined torpedo fish shape called the fusiform, which is ideal for fast
swimming and easy manoeuvre.
Lie-In-Wait Predators: This group of predators also have a fusiform body but
relatively longer than rover-predators. As they ambush their prey, the rather
dorsolaterally thin and camouflaged body makes it easier for them to hide among
crevices and attack oblivious preys at high speed. Many are voracious piscivores with
large mouth and serrated teeth such
as
barracudas
needlefishes
(Belonidae),
(Sphyraenidae),
or
longtoms
and
barramundis
(Centropomidae).
Surface-Oriented
Fishes:
The
relatively smaller fishes belong to the

surface-oriented group. They are
generally
herbivores
and
well-
adapted to feeding on insects and

small fishes found near the waters
surface. Halfbeaks and flying fishes
(Exocoetidae) and many freshwater
and brackish water fish that surface
for oxygen represent this form.
Deep-Bodied Fishes: A laterally
flattened (compressiform) and stout
body as illustrated by triggerfishes
(Balistidae)
and
porcupinefishes
(Diodontidae) have body depths of at

least a third of their standard lengths.
They usually have small, protractible
moving around tightly-closed areas.
Other deep-bodied fishes have a
relatively condensed body, such as
surgeonfishes
(Acanthuridae)
butterflyfishes (Chaetodontidae).
and
Fig. 2.2 General types of fish morphology
(classification from Cech and Moyle 2000).
mouths and are extremely good at
23
Eel-Like Fishes: Typified by freshwater eels (Anguillidae) and hairtails (Trichiuridae),

eel-like fishes have extremely long and thin bodies, coupled with either blunt or tapering
heads. They are well-adapted to entering very small crevices found at the bottom of
corals but may be found swimming as well in the open sea.
Bottom-Dwellers: The bottom-dwelling fishes have the most diverse type of body
forms, further subdivided according to their biology: bottom rovers, bottom clingers,
bottom hiders, flatfish, and rattails. Catfishes (Ariidae and Plotosidae) and sturgeons
(Acipenseridae), as well as many sharks are bottom rovers. They usually have inferior
mouths, barbels, small but well-developed eyes, flattened heads, enlarged pectoral fins,
and humped backs, suited for sucking on food found in the bottom. The bottom clingers
and bottom hiders are usually small fishes that have elongate bodies and small heads and
notably have suctions cups, such as the gobies (Gobiidae) which they can use to attach
themselves in the bottom during strong currents. The bottom hiders like the blennies
(Blennidae) feed on benthic algae and can stay still under rocks or crevices or in the
bottom. The flounders (Pleuronectidae) and skates and rays (Chondrichthyes) are
characteristically depressiform for gliding underwater and have a mouth precisely
situated for bottom-feeding while the rattail shape is best exemplified by stingrays
(Dasyatidae) that bear wide pectoral fins and long tails, thriving mainly by way of deep
sea feeding on benthic invertebrates.
Aside from its general body shape, other morphological characteristics are equally
relevant in identifying and understanding how fishes function. Although they share many
characteristics with other tetrapods, i.e.., bilateral symmetry, a network of autonomic
nervous systems, and a body plan that consists of an endoskeleton with a well-developed
cranium, trunk, and postanal tail, fishes have reasonably distinctive morphological
features (Bone, et al. 1995; Spalding, et al. 2007). These anatomical and morphometric
characteristics are most especially important in identification of species between
taxonomic groups and would prove indispensible for building a comparative collection.
Figure 2.3 shows the basic anatomy of a teleost from Family Sparidae (sea bream).
24
Fig. 2.3 General morphological features of a teleost. The fish is from the reference collection (F-0077
Sparidae).
Fish morphology and its consequent swimming patterns are primarily due to its
skeleton and the corresponding attachments of cartilages. A number of these
morphological features are particularly relevant since a number of these can survive in
archaeology (see list from Colley 1990). This is also relevant not just for the identification
of fish bones from faunal assemblages but also for the preparation of a modern
comparative collection. Fish bones and its associated structures are normally divided
based on its orientation, which is, appendicular or axial. It is also of importance for the
zooarchaeologist to be acquainted with these structures as to whether they are paired or
not as this would prove relevant in getting its quantitative value as an assemblage.
25
CHAPTER THREE
Methodology
The study was effectively divided into two stages. First, a modern comparative
collection was established for the identification of the archaeological fish bones. This
commenced in 2004 prepared for the Archaeological Studies Program as part of the
authors research on fish bone identification through a high-resolution analysis of fish
teeth morphology (Campos 2004). The build up of the collection was continued on in
June 2007 to specifically address this research.
The second part of the research involved the analysis of the fish assemblage
recovered from excavations in three archaeological sites in the Batanes Islands, namely,
Pamayan shell midden and the Savidug dune sites on the island of Sabtang and the
Anaro site located in Itbayat island (Figure 1.1) under the direction of Prof. Peter
Bellwood of the Australian National University and Dr. Eusebio Dizon of the National
Museum of the Philippines (AFAP 2002; Bellwood, et al., 2003; Bellwood and Dizon
2005; Bellwood, et al., 2007a; 2007b). The bones were recovered through handcollection and dry sieving using net sizes ranging from 3mm to 5mm (Bellwood, et al.
2007a; b).
3.1
The Modern Comparative Collection

The fish bone reference collection utilized for this study has a total of 88
specimens, of which 42 individuals were identified to species, 39 were identified to

genera and 7 specimens have no information above family level. Altogether, 39 different
families of fishes were covered in the collection and were utilized in the identification of
the archaeological fish bones. Out of the 39 taxa, 23 are inshore fishes, while 10 are
offshore and the remaining 6 are freshwater fishes (Appendix I). Supplementary
elasmobranch specimens outside the collection were also used for the few distinctive
cartilaginous fragments in the assemblage. Ideally, specimens accurately identified to
species should comprise the collection but this is not always the case since some taxa,
between species so that the highest achievable identification, even in modern specimens
is their genera (Allen 2000; Broad 2003; Moyle and Cech 2000). These specific
differences are mostly based on colour patterns, meristic traits and other morphological
characteristics that would not be reflected in the archaeological record.
Chapter Three : Methodology
such as Exocoetidae (flyingfishes) have extremely subtle morphological differences
26
Most of the specimens were purchased from various Metro Manila fish markets,
while a number were collected from sites or were donated. Specimen provenance was
noted and complete measurements were taken whenever possible. Using various
literature on Philippines and Southeast Asian fishes (Allen 2000; Broad 2003; Conlu
1986; Froese and Pauly 2009), the specimens were identified to specific level, if not, to
the next highest taxonomic level possible, i.e., genus or family. Pertinent information
such as local name, location where the fish were caught and the method used to catch the
fish was obtained from the vendor or from the source of the specimen. Other
information, if available, such as how the fish is usually cooked and how often it is being
sold in the market was also noted. The specimens were then brought to, and processed in
the laboratory, taking into consideration suggested procedures outlined in various
literature sources (Casteel 1976; Dye and Longenecker 2004; Hamilton and Ruesch 1970;
Wheeler and Jones 1989).
Following conventions on fish image presentation (Hodges 2003), photographs of
the left lateral side with the anterior end or the mouth facing left were taken before
maceration, while the ungutted weight of each individual was determined using a digital
weighing scale. However, unusually shaped individuals, such as flounders and the
dorsoventrally flattened rays were treated differently to show best its morphological
features. Meristic traits most relevant in zooarchaeology were noted and selected
morphometric measurements were taken following conventions in ichthyology (Cailliet,
Fig. 3.1 Standardized measurements taken for all specimens in the comparative collection
(F-0019 Haemulidae).
et al. 1986) (Figure 3.1).
27
Samples of scales were also removed before the specimen was heated over a low
flame with a weak mixture of water and detergent. The data was recorded using the
Reference Collection Data Sheet (Appendix VIII) so that additional illustrations and
pertinent information can be noted as the fish was being de-boned. This was particularly
important for diagnostic characteristics and elements that somewhat vary in shape. A
separate collection of otoliths was prepared but these will not be utilized in this study
since there were none from the archaeological assemblage.
Since more than 90% of the collection was purchased, the market value was
determined based on the price it was actually bought. Unless it was collected some other
way (i.e., personal acquisition, donation, or on rare instances, found lifeless on the shore)
the market value was indicated on the data sheet and used as a guide to determining the
economic importance of the fish. The specimens
stored in self-sealing plastic bags and clear
containers. As of this writing, the UP-ASP Faunal
Comparative
Collection
has
two
sets,
fish
Table 3.1 Useful skeletal elements in

ichthyoarchaeology. These elements
were especially segregated and labeled
during the preparation of the modern
comparative.
PAIRED
UNPAIRED
premaxilla
atlas
maxilla
cephalic vertebra (1st to 3rd

vertebra after atlas)
A-0001).
dentary
abdominal vertebra
Available literature in fish osteology was used to
articular
caudal vertebra
segregate and tag bony elements based on general
quadrate
urostyle
features and attachments (Figure 3.2) (Cailliet, et
hyomandibular
hypural
al. 1986; Dye and Longenecker 2004; Leach 1997;
opercular
supraoccipital
Wheeler and Jones 1989). Different elements were
preopercular
vomer
bagged according to locales and where applicable,
ceratohyal
parasphenoid
paired bones were separated according to both left
cleithrum
pterygiophores
and right sides of the body. A number of elements
supracleithrum
urohyal
found in archaeology and thus believed to be
coracoid
fin spines and rays
useful in identification have been enumerated
basipterygium
scales
independently by Leach (1986), Masse (1986), and
posttemporal
ribs
Wheeler (1978), which was later on synthesized by
frontal
branchiostegal rays
Colley (1990). These elements were summarized
otolith
other cranial parts
in Table 3.1 and together with other elements
ethmoid
bearing
exoccipital
specimens with a code starting in F followed by

the four digit ID (F-0001, for example) and the
non-fish fauna that begins with A and the
corresponding
numerical
distinctive
ID
features
(i.e.,
were
specially
segregated and labelled for each specimen in the
epihyal
were assigned with a unique specimen ID and
28
modern comparative. Illustrations using the Data Sheet (Appendix VII) were constructed
if necessary to indicate these diagnostic skeletal elements.
All fish anatomical
terminology follow Harder (1975) and Cailliet, et al. (1986; and references therein).
3.2
Analysis of the assemblage

Leach recommended a detailed approach in handling fish remains for analysis in
the laboratory (Dye and Longenecker 2004; Leach 1986; 1997; 2006; Leach and
Davidson 1977). This primarily involves segregation of fish bones into certain identifiable
elements and other diagnostic bones that can potentially be used for family or abovefamily levels of identification. This was loosely termed the five-paired bone system.
However, the system was designed for large assemblages and concentrated on specific
elements, namely, the dentary, premaxilla, articular, maxilla, and quadrate, and some
special diagnostic bones within taxa and limited to an extent the number of taxa that can
be identified (Vogel 2005).
Certainly, taxonomic identifications will be done after determining which skeletal
element is represented, but the bones for this study are generally in good condition and
the relatively manageable size should allow the author to go beyond the five-paired bone
system and exhaust all possible identifiable osteological characteristics of the fish as one
of the main goals of this study was to test the effectiveness of the prepared comparative
collection for zooarchaeology. Likewise, ichthyoarchaeological manuals (i.e., Cannon
1987; Dye and Longenecker 2004; Leach 1997; Wheeler and Jones 1989) were consulted
when necessary but were not utilized as primary identification tools.
Each fragment was recorded with a unique specimen number and analysed with
the following details:
1. Identification category
a. Specific: fish bones identified to either genus or species.
b. Element: fish bones identified to skeletal element; the terms element or
bone, tooth, scale.
c. Teleost: fragments determined to be fish bones and not any other type of
vertebrates. This covers all highly fragmented bones lacking landmarks
(indeterminable) and diagnostic fragments that cannot be placed as an
element (unidentified).
skeletal element here pertain to any discernible anatomical unit, i.e.,
29
d. Non-Fish Vertebrate: all vertebrate fragments apart from fish.

e. Vertebrate: all bone fragments that cannot be tagged as either fish or nonfish vertebrates.
f.
Invertebrate: all invertebrate fauna.
g. Others: other artifacts such as pottery.
Fig. 3.2 Skeletal elements of a teleost head, slightly modified to show particular elements.
30
2. Specimen number: each fragment was given an identification number which

contains a three-letter code for the three sites followed by its numerical ID. All
specimens are referred here with this unique specimen number:
a. ANXXX for Anaro fish bones
b. SBXXX for the Savidug fish and non-fish bones
c. PMXXX for Pamayan fish bones
3. Site Details: This covers the details from the original bagging slips, i.e., square
number, accession number, and depth in centimetres from surface.
4. Measurements: the dry weight and linear dimensions of fragments were taken
using a high precision digital weighing scale and a digital Vernier Caliper with an
accuracy level of 0.02 mm. In addition, particular fish bone elements in good
condition were measured using a system modified after Enghoff (1994), Jones
(1991), and Morales and Rosenlund (1979) and Watt, et al. (1997).
a. Maximum fragment (or non-fragmented) length
b. Maximum fragment (or non-fragmented) width
c. Additional vertebrae measurements (centrum):
i. Anterior medio-lateral width and dorsoventral depth
ii. Posterior medio-lateral width and dorsoventral depth
5. Osteological determination
a. Element
b. Anatomical locale and orientation: unpaired, paired, left, right, n.d., for
c. Taxon, if determined for fish: Class/Subclass/Infraclass, Family, or

Genera/Species
6. Taphonomic analysis: a low power binocular microscope supplemented with
Olympus SZ-STU2 stereomicroscope for higher resolution analysis and imagecapture will be utilized in the examination of particular fragments for
not determined, n.a., for all non-fish bone fragments
31
taphonomic marks, with each fragment (identifiable or not) getting a rating of

1 for any slight modification and 2 for severe modifications. Definition and
description follows Piper (2003) and the high resolution images contained
therein:
a. Abrasion: wearing away of the bone surface causing a loss of the
morphological integrity of the fragment; extensive rounding and severe
loss of morphological characteristics of the fragment will be marked 2.
b. Burning: temperature and/or the length of exposure time to the heat
source which caused the bone to progress from being charred black (rated
as 1) to completely incinerated or calcined bone (rated 2) which is
characterized by a bluish-white or grey hue (Stewart 1979; Ubelaker 1978).
c. Pitting: obvious pits or indentations on the bone surface, generally
caused by sedimentary particulates being forced into the cortical bone
surface by compression or trampling.
d. Weathering: physical and chemical disintegration of fragments caused
by prolonged exposure to surface weathering which usually appears as
fine longitudinal splitting of cortical bone surfaces.
e. Anthropogenic marks: includes bone tool modifications, cut marks,
chop marks and scrape marks identified according to the conventions
established by Potts and Shipman (1981) which occur as single or multiple
sub-parallel, linear incisions into the cortical surface of the bone, typically
displaying a regular V-shaped profile, sometimes tapering to one or both
ends of the cut where the tool hit the surface. Under high magnification,
cut marks also often exhibit fine parallel striations along the walls of the
cut, the product of the irregularities along the cutting edge of the
implement used (Olsen and Shipman 1998). Chop marks, by contrast, are
characterized as deep singular or multiple indentations in the surface of
(Potts and Shipman 1981). The length of the resulting mark is a product of
the length of the contact line (i.e., the amount of tool edge hitting the
bone) and the curvature of the bone surface. Given that chop marks may
be delivered vertically or at an angle to the bone surface, the V-shape of
the impressed cut is more asymmetrical than that observed on cut-marks
the bone and are the result of impact from the edge of a heavy implement
32
and lacks the internal longitudinally aligned striations that are associated
with cut marks (Fisher 1995; Reitz and Wing 1999).
f.
Post-excavation or modern marks: These are modifications that

occur to the bone during excavation or processing and often appear as
very different, new and fresh damage compared to modifications that
occurred to the bone during its post-depositional history.
7. Taphonomic indication: numerical average of all the taphonomic

descriptions under item 6 with 2.0 as the highest possible mark and would thus
be the most severe taphonomic state of a fragment. All non-fish fragments will
not be measured nor analyzed further.
3.3

The subtle morphological differences of
skeletal elements between species and taxa make

the identification of fish bones challenging.
Fragments for identification for this study,
particularly those in good condition and those
that were not taxonomically identified will be
further analyzed and compared with a number of
specimens from the modern collection. Using the
criteria in Table 3.2, both identified and
unidentified bones will be assessed with different
taxa by ranking morphological characteristics
from 4 being an exact match to a rating of 1
having no similar characteristics, if not present at
all, i.e., Diodontidae dermal spine. As an
example, Figure 3.3 shows an unidentified
cranium fragment as compared with other taxa
from the modern comparative. Using this
similar, save for the slight difference in the
supraoccipital area, thus it was marked as 3.
Lethrinidae was marked 2 having some features
similar with the fragment while Carangidae and
Acanthuridae were marked 1 as seen from their
Fig. 3.3 Unidentified cranium fragment

(SB341) compared with four different taxa
from the modern collection.
scheme, Balistidae appeared to be the most
33
Table 3.2 Comparison rating system used for

identifiable elements.
very
different
anatomically
shapes,
similar
yet
enough
still
to
conclude that their of the same element.
Rating
Identification
Level
Description
identical
very similar or having

about 90-100% similar
features
similar
about 75% similar

features
slightly similar
with some degree of

similarity or having less
than 50% similar
features
element level
identifiable to element
only or not present
Figure 3.4, on the other hand shows

that the Labridae comparative is slightly
different from the archaeological ones,
but because the similarities between the
3.4
specimens are more than 90% and the

differences could be attested to interspecific variations, they were all still
rated as 4.
Measurements and counts

The
primary
aim
of
the
statistical
treatment of the assemblage was to expound on

fish utilization of the people in Batanes over time.
Particularly useful for taphonomy and size and
age estimation, maximum linear length and width
was measured using a digital vernier calliper as
discussed previously in this chapter and were
applied
to
both
identified
elements
and
indeterminable fragments.
The structure of the fish population and
how it was utilized was presented through species
and element representation, and the common
quantification calculations of the Minimum
Identified Specimens (NISP). The total number of
fragments (TNF) refers to both the entire
assemblage
and
the
fragments
from
the
Fig. 3.4 Identified Labridae pharyngeal

plates (AN104, AN113, AN107)
compared with the modern specimen
(F-0087).
individual sites, with n being used for any given

number of sample or fragments. TNF as referred here may or may not contain non-fish
bone materials, while the total number of fish bones is referred to as fTNF from here on.
Number of Individuals (MNI) and Number of
34
3.5
Coryphaenidae Size Estimation

The specific identification of Coryphaena hippurus permitted size estimation of
well-preserved vertebrae recovered from the three sites in Batanes. Casteel (1976)
proposed five basic methods of estimating fish sizes under the premise that the size of the
skeletal elements is directly proportional to the size of the individual. The single
regression method and the double regression method predict the size of the individual
based on statistical treatments of a large collection of comparative data from species of
varying sizes. Simpler methods, such as the Whites method and the Cook and Treganza
method which do not require comparative materials are assessed (by Casteel) as having
poor results.
For this study, the proportional method was used, which Casteel (Ibid.)
recommended as the best alternative after regression analysis. This can be done with a
single specimen, using the anterior medio-lateral width of the vertebral centrum. The
method was appended to include any of the five measurable dimensions of the vertebra
carried out in this study, namely, the non-fragmented antero-posterior length of the
vertebra, and both the anterior and posterior medio-lateral widths and dorso-ventral
depths of the centra. The modern comparative specimen was used to estimate the total
length and weight of the archaeological dolphinfish vertebrae. Appendix V presents these
measurements, showing the different regions and measurements of the vertebral column
(i.e., atlas, cephalic, abdominal, and caudal).
The average of available measurements, including the weight, was then used for
the proportion (after Casteel 1976):
L1Q1=L2Q2,
where:
L1 is the unknown total length (TL) or weight of the excavated fish; Q1 is any of the
dimensions covered from the excavated fragment; L2 is the known TL (or ungutted
weight) of the modern comparative; and Q2 is the corresponding measurement of its
skeletal element, in this case the vertebra. The estimated length (or weight) was then
calculated: L1 = Q1 L2 Q2.
Usage of terms
The binomial classification of fishes follow Allen (2000), Broad (2003), and
Conlu (1986) while Cailliet et. al. (1986) and Harder (1975) will be used for the
morphological characters and osteological nomenclature.
The author has no
grammatical contentions in the usage of the words fish and fishes. It has been widely
accepted and thus will be used herein for the same reason, that fish pertains to a single
3.6
35
fish individual or a group of individuals belonging to the same group or taxon whereas
fishes concerns a group of individuals of different types or from different groups or taxa.
In reference to the phylogeny of specific fish, conventions on the use of ancestral as
opposed to the more derived fish groups will be used instead of the terms primitive and
advanced that connote ascendancy on traits other than lineage.
36
CHAPTER FOUR
Results and Analysis

This section covers all research data and analytical findings generated from the
identification of the fish bones recovered in Anaro, Savidug and Pamayan sites in
Batanes Islands.
4.1
Assemblage Count
The total number of fragments (TNF) recovered from the three archaeological
sites and analysed for this study is 2821. The Anaro hilltop site contained 183 (6.49%)
fish bones while Pamayan site has 1328 fTNF (47.08%). Savidug was the only assemblage
that was partially un-sorted and contained both fish and non-fish materials (TNF=1310)
which comprise 46.44% of the entire assemblage (Figure 4.1). In addition to the fish
bones (fTNF=885), 3 potsherds, 95 invertebrates, 165 indeterminate vertebrate
fragments and 162 bones from other vertebrate fauna were recorded. After preliminary
identification and recording, this non-fish bone sample was excluded from further
analysis. Figure 4.2 shows that in terms of fish bone sample sizes, all three are relatively
disparate, with Pamayan having the biggest sample, followed by Savidug, and Anaro was
the smallest.
Pamayan
47.08%
Savidug
46.44%
Non-Fish
Fig. 4.1 The total number of fragments analysed from the three sites covered
in this study. Anaro and Pamayan sites comprise solely of fish bones while the
Savidug Dune site included 425 non-fish bones. Overall TNF=2821.
4.2
Analysis Levels
As summarized in Table 4.1 the largest identified sample as a proportion of the
TNF recovered from Batanes is from Savidug with a total of 424 (47.68%) fragments
(specific=97; family=327). This is followed by Anaro, having 65 fTNF (specific=10;
Chapter Four : Results & Analysis
Anaro
6.49%
37
family=55), and lastly, Pamayan containing just 355 (26.73%) (specific=3; family=352)
identified fragments from an entire assemblage of 1328 fragments. From all three sites, a
total of 1143 fish bones were identified skeletal elements, of which, 844 were identified to
taxa (NISP) 0r 42.53% of the fTNF.
Total Number of Fish Bones (fTNF)
Pamayan
55.43%
Savidug
36.94%
Anaro
7.64%
Fig. 4.2 The percentage of fish bone samples from the three sites covered
in this study excluding non-fish materials from Savidug Dune site.
Overall fTNF = 2396.
NISP can vary considerably irrespective of the number of complete bones and
indeterminate fragments in an assemblage (Reitz and Wing 1999). What generally
influence the levels of identification are the types of skeletal elements represented and
the availability of comparative materials for the taxon present, and not necessarily the
level of fragmentation of the sample. For example, an assemblage with high numbers of
highly fragmented but distinctive Diodontidae dermal spines or Labridae pharyngeals
will most likely have a higher proportion of NISPs than an assemblage of better
preserved but with less diagnostic skeletal elements, e.g., fin spines or ribs from closely
related taxa. In addition, in this study the indeterminate category likely includes a few
fish bone fragments that may have been identified if a suitable modern comparative
specimen was available.
IDENTIFICATION LEVEL
ANARO
SAVIDUG
PAMAYAN
fTNF
Specific
10
97
110
4.59
Family
55
327
352
734
30.63
Element
70
351
722
1143
47.70
Indeterminate Fish
48
110
251
409
17.07
fTNF
183
885
1328
2396
100%
Table 4.1 Summary of identification levels of fish bones from the three sites analysed.
38
4.3

To substantiate identification of fish bones based on the modern material
prepared for this study, a system of comparison rating was used on selected fragments.
Some taxa have very distinctive skeletal elements that could be easily matched with their
counterparts in the comparative collection while others have subtle similarities and
differences that may not be easily identifiable (see Appendix III). For both the rating
system and those shown in Table 4.2, fragments that hit the 100% identification marks
owing to their characteristic morphology and their high survival in archaeology are the
toothed pharyngeal bones of Scaridae and Labridae, Diodontidae dermal spines, and the
distinct axial spines and pterygiophores of Acanthuridae, Carangidae and Balistidae
(Figures 4.3 to 4.11). In addition, Balistidae opercle and basipterygium are especially
distinctive and comparably robust among other bones recovered from Pamayan.
A number of completely identified elements (i.e., caudal vertebra and its hypurals
and urostyle, cephalic vertebra and its neural spines, and other vertebra spines) are from
Coryphaenidae which generally has characteristic fibrous bone porosity (Figures 4.12 to
4.14). The characteristic morphology of Coryphaenidae is a rare and special case and
many of the skeletal elements identifiable to this taxon are not so easily identified within
other taxa in the archaeological record. This variation in levels of identification has
obvious repercussions when quantifying and comparing the representations of different
taxa in archaeological assemblages.
Other skeletal elements, such as the paired bones of the dentary, premaxilla,
maxilla, articular, and quadrate (five-paired bone system) proved identifiable to various
taxa using the comparative collection. In contrast, some skeletal elements have much
more subtle differences that make them much more difficult to distinguish to taxon such
as the opercle, subopercle, preopercle, hyomandibular, cleithrum, basipterygium, and
ceratohyal, and as a result have a lower percentage success for identification. A number
of unidentified elements were also rated to show levels of resemblances with different
taxa in the collection.
39
Table 4.2 Summary of fragment counts and NISPs showing the percentage for each element
identified to taxa. Overall percentages with asterisks are elements identified to just one taxon.
nasal
fTNF
1
Anaro
NISP
0
ID%
fTNF
3
Savidug
NISP
ID%
0
0.00%
0.00%
fTNF
3
Pamayan
NISP
ID%
0
0.00%
0.00%
fTNF
6
4
OVERALL
NISP
ID%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
vomer
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
premaxilla
18
15
83.33%
40
34
85.00%
10
80.00%
68
57
83.82%
maxilla
37.50%
13
38.46%
17
23.53%
38
12
31.58%
articular
100.00%
17
13
76.47%
10
60.00%
31
23
74.19%
dentary
100.00%
40
37
92.50%
55.56%
56
49
87.50%
upper ph teeth
100.00%
13
13
100.00%
100.00%
15
15
100.00%
lower ph plate
100.00%
10
10
100.00%
100.00%
17
17
100.00%
100.00%
*100.00%
66.67%
50.00%
14
57.14%
ph teeth
dentition fragments
50.00%
loose teeth
25.00%
0.00%
0.00%
11
9.09%
quadrate
0.00%
16
50.00%
100.00%
21
12
57.14%
14.29%
0.00%
11.11%
21.43%
hyomandibular
opercle
0.00%
37.50%
0.00%
14
preopercle
0.00%
13
15.38%
17
0.00%
35
5.71%
subopercle
0.00%
50.00%
0.00%
11.11%
ceratohyal
0.00%
40.00%
0.00%
10
20.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
branchiostegal ray
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
atlas
0.00%
0.00%
14.29%
abd vertebra
50.00%
caud vertebra
0.00%
vertebra
25
17
hypural
urohyal
20.00%
100.00%
*100.00%
27
20
74.07%
53
3.77%
84
24
28.57%
88
37
42.05%
38
2.63%
131
38
29.01%
0.00%
0.00%
68.00%
88
30
34.09%
30
0.00%
143
47
32.87%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
33.33%
urostyle
50.00%
0.00%
16.67%
caud vertebra spine
100.00%
*100.00%
ceph neural spine
100.00%
*100.00%
17.65%
ceph vertebra
ultimate vertebra
neural spine
50.00%
28.57%
0.00%
17
haemal spine
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
28.57%
last haemal spine
100.00%
*100.00%
neural/haemal spine
11
18.18%
100.00%
15
40.00%
14
14
100.00%
100.00%
20
20
*100.00%
*100.00%
82
39
47.56%
*100.00%
1st dorsal spine
100.00%
dorsal spine
100.00%
pterygiophore
dorsal spine &
pterygiophore
rib/fin spine
pectoral fin w/ fin
rays
basipterygium
0.00%
23
81.25%
100.00%
141
0.00%
65
26
40.00%
0.00%
614
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
16.67%
supracleithrum
0.00%
0.00%
postcleithrum
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
13
450
16
100.00%
cleithrum
dermal spine
0.00%
0.00%
20.00%
12.50%
444
444
*100.00%
100.00%
156
156
100.00%
285
285
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
49
0.00%
110
0.00%
251
0.00%
410
0.00%
183
65
35.52%
885
424
47.68%
1328
355
26.73%
2396
844
35.23%
scales
indeterminate fish
TOTAL
Skeletal
Element
frontal
40
Fig. 4.3 Lower pharyngeal plate of a Scaridae from Pamayan (PM384);

specimen on the left side is comparative F-0025.
Fig. 4.4 Left toothed upper pharyngeal

of a Scaridae from Pamayan as
compared with modern comparative F0025.
Fig. 4.5 Lower pharyngeal plate of a Labridae

from Savidug (SB233) compared with F-0020.
41
Fig. 4.7 The two different types of dermal

spines from Tetraodontiformes; the smaller
specimen has been observed in the presentday Batanes intentionally being removed and
buried (Paz, et al. 1998).
Fig. 4.6 Labridae toothed upper pharyngeal bone from

Anaro with comparative F-0087 on the left; note the
slight difference of teeth size and form, due to species
differentiation which occurs heavily in this taxon.
42
Fig. 4.9 Acanthuridae pterygiophores from Pamayan compared with

the first dorsal pterygiophore with attached dorsal spine of
comparative F-0033.
Fig. 4.8 The distinct Carangidae pterygiophore and spines. The

archaeological material is from Anaro (right) compared with
modern material on the left (F-0049).
43
Fig. 4.11 The first dorsal spine of a Balistidae.

Archaeological specimen (right) is from Savidug.
Fig. 4.10 The first (dorsal) pterygiophore of a Balistidae from Savidug. Inset shows the
attachment of the 1st dorsal spine in Fig. 4.11.
44
Fig. 4.12 Cephalic vertebra (i.e., 1st, 2nd and 3rd

vertebrae after the atlas) of a
Coryphaenidae found in Sabtang that
completely matched the comparative
material F-0003 (vertebra still attached to
the atlas). Cephalic neural spines are
morphologically distinct from the more
tapered abdominal neural spine in Fig. 4.13.
Fig. 4.13 An example of a caudal vertebra of

a Coryphaenidae from Sabtang (right) with
F-0003 comparative. Note the fused haemal
spine which differentiates it from the
abdominal or pre-caudal vertebra. For this
taxon (and for most taxa), the 1st caudal
vertebra has a slightly distinct haemal spine
to show the attachment of the hypaxial
muscle.
Fig. 4.14 The abdominal or pre-caudal

vertebra of Coryphaenidae.
Anaro Taxon Account

Out of 183 fish bones recovered from Anaro, 10 bone fragments (5.46%) were
identified to species level, which is the common dolphinfish. This is remarkable among
tropical fishes since the large number of different species within various fish families can
be problematic as it reduces the level of confidence in identifying archaeological
materials using the comparative collection. For instance, the very diagnostic toothed
lower and upper pharyngeals illustrated in Figures 4.5 and 4.6 are clearly from Labridae
4.4
45
but slightly morphologically different and are from two different species 1. There are
reportedly 132 species of Labridae in Philippine waters (Broad 2003) while the reference
collection has just three none of which positively matched the archaeological
specimens beyond family level. Even if all 132 species were collected for the comparative
collection, it is likely that several different closely-related species will have only subtle
morphological features in the soft tissue that are used by ichthyologists for classification
which would not be apparent in the more conservative skeletal structures.
However, there are particular taxa with one or two species such as the singlespecies Menidae and Coryphaenidae which has two known species (Palko, et al., Broad
2003; Froese and Pauly 2009; 1982), namely, Coryphaena hippurus (common
dolphinfish)
and
Coryphaena
equiselis
(pompano
dolphinfish).
The
external
morphologies of the two species vary in the amount and shape of fin rays, vertebrae and
dentitition (Palko, et al. 1982). Although the comparative collection lacks C. equiselis, the
confidence level of the identification with the common dolphinfish (one male and two
female modern comparatives), is high as all 10 fragments (5.2%) completely matched
that it suffices to say they are of the same species. Coryphaenidae is the only species-level
identification made in this study.
Fifty-five fragments (30.05%) were identified to family, 69 (37.70%) were
determined to skeletal element and the rest of the Anaro assemblage were indeterminate
fish bones (n=49; 26.78%). Within this assemblage, 10 bones were recovered from
Torongan cave, of which 6 fragments were identified to element and family while the
remaining four are indeterminate fish bones (Figure 4.15).
Sixteen taxa from
Anaro Fish Bones
three different taxonomic

orders were identified in
cartilaginous
fishes
Indeterminate
Teleost
26.78%
arbitrarily grouped under

Suborder
Elasmobranchii.
Labridae
and
Coryphaenidae
highest
have
NISPs
the
also
Identified Taxa
35.52%
Element
37.70%
Specific
while
Balistidae and Lethrinidae

were
Family
relatively
Fig. 4.15 Fish bones from Anaro (fTNF=183). specific=10;

family=55; element=69; indeterminate=49.
This has been verified by Foss Leach through photos sent by the author to him for this study.
the Anaro assemblage with
46
common (Figure 4.16). The majority of the identified taxa however is represented by just
a single individual, i.e., Diodontidae, Tetraodontidae, Scombridae, Sphyraenidae,
Siganidae, Sparidae, Haemulidae, Lutjanidae, Coryphaenidae, Serranidae, and either a
shark or ray.
MNIs are calculated based on the summarized elements in Table 4.3. This also
shows the relative abundance of particular skeletal elements within the taxon with the
vertebra of Elasmobranch (n=11) and dolphinfish (n=8) as highest NISPs. Figure 4.17
presents the MNI to NISP ratio for each taxon showing the highest ratio for singular
elements and lowest among taxa with numerous and redundant body parts such as that
of vertebrae and spines.
Anaro MNI and NISP
Elasmobranchii
Serranidae
Carangidae
Coryphaenidae
Lutjanidae
Haemulidae
Sparidae
Lethrinidae
Labridae
Scaridae
Siganidae
Sphyraenidae
Scombridae
Balistidae
Tetraodontidae
Diodontidae
0
MNI=27
NISP=65
10
12
Fig. 4.16 MNI and NISP of Anaro fish bone assemblage.
4.5
Savidug Taxon Accounts
The Savidug sample (TNF=1310) has a mixed assemblage of fish bones (fTNF=885) and
non-fish materials that included 3 ceramic body sherds, 162 non-fish vertebrates, 165
indeterminate vertebrates and 95 invertebrate fragments (Figure 4.21). A total of 424 fish
Coryphaena hippurus, 327 fragments could be identified to family level, 351 were
skeletal elements not determined any taxa and the remaining 110 were indeterminate
fish bone fragments.
Based on the number of identified specimens (NISP), the taxonomic composition
of Savidug is dominated by Diodontidae followed by Coryphaenidae. The high NISP of
Diodontidae is a result of the 184 dermal spines recovered from the deposits. Dermal
bones were identified to taxa, of which 97 fragments were identified to the species
47
spines are highly specialised and distinctive scales which are rarely found in other
teleosts. Even so, MNI calculations also show a predominance of Diodontidae together
with Balistidae and Lethrinidae. Thus two graphical representations are made to show
the relative abundance of all the taxa from Savidug.
Figure 4.18 includes Diodontidae dermal spines and presents the overall NISP
for Savidug, while Figure 4.19 shows the effect of removing the spines on the overall
quantification. The MNI to
NISP ratio shows how the
Savidug Fish Bones
proportions of those taxa

identified
skeletal
by
multiple
elements
that
could be from the same

individual
vertebrae
Diodontidae
spines)
are
quantifying
number
Element
39.66%
(e.g.,
Coryphaenidae
or
Indeterminate
12.43%
dermal
affected
either
of
Family
36.95%
Specific
10.96%
by
the
individual
specimens or determining
the number of individuals
represented.
Fig. 4.17 Components of the Savidug fish bone assemblage.

fTNF=885.
For this study, redundant skeletal parts such as fin spines and vertebrae were not
primarily identified. The morphological differences of these parts between taxa are so
subtle that it would require a more focused study for taxonomic identification. The
exception, the distinctive character of the Coryphaenidae vertebrae (n=75) made it easily
identifiable in the archaeological assemblage as previously pointed out. The most
common taxa identified at Savidug are the common dolphinfish Coryphaena hippurus,
Diodontidae, Scaridae, Lethrinidae, Serranidae, Labridae and Balistidae. Also
represented by one or two individuals are the Elasmobranchii, Carangidae, Lutjanidae,
Haemulidae, Siganidae, Acanthuridae and Scombridae.
48
Savidug MNI and NISP

Elasmobranchii
Serranidae
Carangidae
Coryphaenidae
Lutjanidae
Haemulidae
Lethrinidae
Labridae
Scaridae
Siganidae
Acanthuridae
Sphyraenidae
Scombridae
Balistidae
Diodontidae
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
NISP=424
MNI=73
Fig. 4.18 Overall NISP and MNI profiles of Savidug; note the marked difference of the
NISP of Diodontidae due to the numerous dermal spines recovered from the site.
Savidug MNI and NISP (Diodontidae dermal spine NISP=1)

Elasmobranchii
Serranidae
Carangidae
Coryphaenidae
Lutjanidae
Haemulidae
Lethrinidae
Labridae
Scaridae
Siganidae
Acanthuridae
Sphyraenidae
Scombridae
Balistidae
Diodontidae
0
20
40
MNI
60
80
100
NISP
Fig. 4.19 Partial NISP of Savidug with dermal spines of Diodontidae calculated with an
Pamayan Taxon Accounts

The Pamayan shell midden site at the back of Savidug has a total of 1328 fish
bones, 26.73% (n=355) of which were identified to taxa, including three Coryphaena
hippurus vertebrae. 54.37% of the assemblage (n=722) were identified to element level
and the other 251 (18.9%) specimens were indeterminate fish bone fragments (Figure
4.20). The most common specimens were the dermal spines of Diondontidae that
accounted for 285 (81%) of all identified specimens. The summary of MNI and NISP for
this site is presented in Figure 4.21.
4.6
49
Pamayan Fish Bones

Indeterminate
Fish
18.90%
Element
54.37%
family
Identified
Taxa
26.73%
species
Fig. 4.20 The composition of Pamayan assemblage. fTNF=1328.
As pointed out in the Savidug fish bone assemblage, to better show the relative
abundance of other taxa, Figure 4.22 presents NISP=1 for Diodontidae dermal spines.
In total 15 different fish taxa were identified in the assemblage, of which Acanthuridae
appear to be the most abundant. Almost all taxa were represented by just one or two
individuals. This included Serranidae, Carangidae, Coryphaenidae, Lethirinidae
Lutjanidae, Labridae, Scaridae, Siganidae, Scombridaae and Balistidae. Two families not
recorded at Anaro or Savidug but are present in the Pamayan assemblage are Belonidae
and Nemipteridae.
Pamayan MNI and NISP Profile

Belonidae
Serranidae
Carangidae
Coryphaenidae
Lutjanidae
Lethrinidae
Nemipteridae
Labridae
Scaridae
Siganidae
Acanthuridae
Scombridae
Balistidae
Tetraodontidae
100
200
MNI=24
300
NISP=355
Fig. 4.21 MNI and NISP of Pamayan showing the over-representation of Diodontidae due to its
numerous dermal spines.
Diodontidae
50
Pamayan MNI and NISP

(Diodontidae dermal spine NISP=1)
Belonidae
Serranidae
Carangidae
Coryphaenidae
Lutjanidae
Lethrinidae
Nemipteridae
Labridae
Scaridae
Siganidae
Acanthuridae
Scombridae
Balistidae
Tetraodontidae
Diodontidae
0
10
MNI=24
15
20
25
NISP=71
Fig. 4.22 MNI and NISP of Pamayan with dermal spines of Diodontidae reduced to
4.7
Dolphinfish Size Estimates from Vertebrae

There was good a correspondence between the real weight of specimen F-0003
and the estimated values from its vertebrae. To test the method further, using the same
values, the overall lengths and weights of two other Coryphaenidae comparative
specimens (F-0004 and F-0005) with known measurements was estimated (Table 4.3).
The resulting data suggest that the length is subject to approximately a 100 mm
variation on the estimated value. The weight estimate has an accuracy of 0.7kg for both
the modern comparative specimens.
Based on the calculated weights and lengths, 44 out of 46 of the archaeological
specimens are larger than F-0003 (Appendix V). Most of the Coryphaenidae would have
had an estimated length between 1m and 1.4m and a total weight of 4.5 7kg. The largest
individual was estimated to be over 2m in length and weighed in excess of 8kg. The
reported maximum size of the common dolphinfish is 2m which is rarely witnessed
commercial market, the size of the common dolphinfish being sold ranges from 0.6m to
just over a metre.
(Allen 2000; Broad 2003) and based on a recent survey done by the author in a
51
Posterior
Centrum
AVERAGE
dorsovental
depth
mediolateral
width
dorsoventral
depth
Anterior
Centrum
mediolateral
width
anteroposterior
Length
Vertebra Type
Table 4.3 Computed lengths and weights of F-0004 and F-0005. Last two columns show the
difference from the actual TL and weight of the said individuals.
F-0004 (Actual Measurements Total Length: 970 mm
TL
(mm)
Weight
(kg)
Difference
from
Actual TL
(mm)
Difference
from
Actual
Weight
(kg)
Ungutted Weight: 4.5 kg)
atlas
8.06
13.77
16.73
13.45
15.65
854.59
3.94
-115.41
-0.56
ceph
17.68
15.22
13.12
14.51
14.59
964.65
4.44
-5.35
-0.06
abd
19.02
15.37
13.53
15.64
14.18
904.90
4.17
-65.10
-0.33
caud
24.02
19.79
18.1
19.13
18.57
1020.75
4.70
50.75
0.20
Ave. Difference
from Actual
33.78
0.19
F-0005 (Actual Measurements Total Length: 640 mm

atlas
8.85
8.62
9.45
10.54
ceph
9.93
10.85
9.58
abd
13.86
11.38
10.3
caud
16.01
12.81
11.69
4.8
Ungutted Weight: 2.31 kg)
9.79
611.87
2.82
-128.13
0.51
11.11
9.47
651.39
3.00
-88.61
0.69
11.21
10.35
665.06
3.06
-74.94
0.75
13.42
11.81
672.92
3.10
-67.08
0.79
Ave. Difference
from Actual
89.69
0.68
Relative Abundance by Weight

Figure 4.23 presents the relative abundance of fish bones in Savidug Dune site
between trenches A-C and QR7-9. The planar nature of the site defines a relatively
similar stratigraphic profile between grids with a concentration of fish bones in the upper
layer on grid A-C while the concentration lies in the lower layers of QR7-9. To see if
these concentrations are due to the number of fragments and their respective sizes the
two grids are presented in Figures 4.24 and 4.25 showing fTNF and the average fragment
lengths and widths for each layer.
The fragment size is generally consistent so for trench A-C, a rise in weight in
layers 50-60 and 90-100 is expected with the increased concentration of fragments. For
layer 70-80, a marked decrease in the number of fragments and increased weight is
caused by a significant number of relatively large vertebrae present within this layer. Fish
relatively denser, hence, heavier. The lower layers of QR7-9 are marked by a heavy
concentration of pottery (de Leon 2008) which parallels the increase in fish bones, both
in weight and in number. Note that the particularly high fragment count in layer 120-130
is due to the numerous Diodontidae dermal spines which hardly affected its collective
weight.
vertebra compared to other skeletal elements such as fin spines and cranial bones are
52
Savidug Weight Distribution
weight (mg)
140
120
A-C
100
QR7-9
80
60
40
20
0
50
100
200
depth (cm)
Fig. 4.23 Fragment weights in grids A-C and QR7-9 showing concentrations in the upper layer (A-C) and
mid-to-lower layer for QR7-9.
Savidug A-C
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
50
100
150
depth (cm)
Length
Width
fTNF
Fig. 4.24 Trench A-C showing consistency in the sizes of fragments in areas with heavy concentration
of bones (between 40 and 60 cm). A drop in the number of fragments in 70-80 and at the same time a
rise in weight shows a concentration of vertebrae which are relatively heavier than other fish skeletal
elements.
Weight
53
Savidug QR7-9
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
50
100
Weight
Length
150
Width
fTNF
Fig. 4.25 QR7-9 showing the concentration of fish bones between depth 100 and 140cm.
With the exception of Anaro 3 all the other trenches contain too few fish bone
fragments to justify quantification. In Anaro 3 there appears to be a slight concentration
of fish bones between 30cm and 45cm and again a slight rise in the total number of
fragments, weight and lengths at 80cm-85cm (Figure 4.26). These concentrations match
known increases in pottery and other material culture at Anaro 3 (de Leon 2008).
Calibrated C-14 dates have also been secured for Anaro 3, 3A and 3B with the oldest
layer, 100-110 (cm) dating from 767-414 BC and up to the youngest (upper) layer to AD
53-238 (Bellwood, et. al, 2007b).
Anaro 3 Concentrations
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
30
50
70
90
depth (cm)
weight (g)
length (mm)
width (mm)
fTNF
Fig. 4.26 Anaro 3 fragment counts per layer and its corresponding weight and size.
54
At Pamayan A there is a marked increase in fragment count below 30m, with a

peak at 40-45m. The small increase in weight suggest that fragment size is very small
throughout the stratigraphic sequence and the bone weights only vary marginally even
with quite a large change in fragment count. At Pamayan B the highest concentrations of
bones are recorded between 20cm and 35cm and again at 40-45cm. The increase in
length and width but low weight at 35 40cm reflects the presence of just two large but
relatively light Diodontid dermal spines.
4.9
Fish Bone Taphonomy

Four taphonomic indicators, abrasion, burning, weathering and pitting are
presented in Figures 4.27 to 4.38 showing that the fish bones were in varying states of
preservation on excavation. Each of these types of signatures provides information on the
biostratonomic and post-depositional histories of bone fragments and the effects that
have influenced the survival and destruction of bones in the archaeological record.
Abrasion is the mechanical grinding and polishing of a bone, resulting in the
rounding of bones causing the loss of surface detail (Figure 4.27). This is generally
caused by movement and other interactions with the abrasive soil surrounding a bone
and is often an indication of post-depositional transportation, trampling and sediment
re-working (Piper 2003). In total 66% of all the fish bones from the three sites are
abraded though this is not evenly distributed between assemblages. The fish bone
assemblage from Anaro contains
the highest proportion of heavily
abraded fragments with 19% of
the accumulation demonstrating
considerable rounding of fracture
surfaces and loss of structural
morphology (Figure 4.28). At the
other end of the scale, the Savidug
dune site assemblage has in excess
demonstrating no evidence of
modification associated with postdepositional mechanical abrasion
and the lowest value for slightly
abraded bones.
Fig. 4.27 A heavily abraded and weathered Diodontidae

dentary from Anaro. Note that the abrasion created
severe rounding that cause the lost of morphological
information.
of 38% of the fragments recovered
55
Abrasion
0.80
0.70
0.60
ANARO
0.50
SAVIDUG
0.40
PAMAYAN
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
NO ABRASION
SLIGHTLY ABRADED
HEAVILY ABRADED
Fig. 4.28 Levels of abrasion showing most of the samples are slightly abraded
(66%), 11% is heavily abraded and 22% show no abrasion.
Pitting is another modification commonly associated with the mechanical action

of sediment against the surface of a bone. This type of damage manifests as bone surface
pitting and flaking, caused by the loss of isolated areas of the cortical bone surface (Piper
2003). The pits are rarely large or deep, are fairly irregular in shape and have smooth
rounded edges (Figures 4.30 and 4.31). The numbers of bones affected within an
assemblage often has a direct relationship with severity and intensity of abrasion. Pitting
appears to be a relatively rare modification at all three sites with only 201 bone fragments
demonstrating this type of surface damage, most of these slightly pitted with only six
fragments showing more
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
intensive
modifications
ANARO
(Figure 4.29). Only at
SAVIDUG
Anaro
PAMAYA
N
substantial
was
there
number
of
slightly pitted bones in the

assemblage corresponding
to the high proportions of
no pitting
slighly pitted
heavily pitted
Fig. 4.29 Percentage of observed pitting among fragments.
abraded bones.
Pitting
56
Fig. 4.30 Slight pitting on a urostyle.
Fig. 4.31 Severely pitted fin spine.
Bone surface weathering is a result of extended exposure to the environment

prior to burial. The visible modifications consist of the longitudinal cracking of the
cortical bone surfaces due to rapid changes in moisture content. In more severe cases
following lengthy subsurface exposure within particularly destructive environments the
thin cracks expand eventually causing loss of cortical bone surfaces and destruction of
the less dense bone at the articular ends (Behrensmeyer 1978).
Of the Batanes
particularly intensive (Figures 4.32). This is followed by Pamayan and Savidug with less
than 50% of the assemblage demonstrating any modifications associated with subsurface
weathering.
assemblages over 60% of the Anaro bones show some degree of weathering though not
57
Weathering
0.70
0.60
ANARO
0.50
0.40
SAVIDUG
0.30
PAMAYAN
0.20
0.10
0.00
no weathering
slightly weathered
heavily weathered
Fig. 4.32 Percent of varying degrees of weathering on fish bones analysed.
Fig. 4.33 A slightly weathered and slightly abraded neural spine from Pamayan.
The relative intensity of burning and the temperature and duration of exposure dictates
whether a bone will be charred black or completely incinerated which causes the
fragment to having a calcined blue-white hue (Stewart 1979; Ubelaker 1978). Burnt bones
were rare on all three sites with a total of just 2% of the entire assemblages
demonstrating this type of modification (Figure 4.34). Most of the charred bones were
from Anaro while the calcined ones mostly came from Pamayan (Figures 4.35 to 4.36).
Charring and calcining of bone is caused by direct exposure to heat, usually fires.
58
Burnt Fragments
18
16
14
12
10
calcined
8
6
charred
4
2
0
ANARO
SAVIDUG
PAMAYAN
Fig. 4.34 The number of calcined and charred bones in Anaro, Savidug and Pamayan.
Fig. 4.36 Charred rib or fin

fragment from Pamayan.
Fig. 4.35 Calcined Elasmobranch vertebra from

Anaro.
59
Fig. 4.37 Unidentified calcined atlas from

Pamayan.
The numerical average of these four common indicators of post depositional

processes was then calculated for each fragment and the subsequent overall average for
the site estimated to provide an indication of which assemblages demonstrated the
greatest intensity of taphonomic indicators. Figure 4.46 shows that Savidug has the
lowest average which means that the environmental conditions of the site are relatively
more favourable for bone preservation than Pamayan and Anaro - the latter, having the
highest average.
Taphonomic Indicators
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0
average
anaro
savidug
pamayan
0.54
0.33
0.44
Fig. 4.38 Calculated average of the taphonomic indicators in Anaro, Savidug

and Pamayan. The index represents the combined averages of abrasion,
burning, weathering and pitting as measured in each fish bone fragment.
0.1
60
4.10
Anthrophogenic Signatures
A total of 28 fragments were observed to contain anthropogenic marks (Table
4.4). Majority of the butchery marks were found on vertebrae (n=15), twelve of which
were Coryphaenidae, while the remaining four were not identified to any taxa. Other
skeletal elements included Balistidae 1st dorsal spines (n=4), one Diodontidae dermal
spine, one Carangidae quadrate and one Coryphaenidae dentary, together with
unidentified fin spines (n=2) and haemal spines (n=2). Two bone point implements
fashioned from Coryphaenidae neural and haemal spines were also found (see Appendix
VII for the full data).
Site
Butchery
Element
Taxon
Anaro
vertebra
n.d.
Savidug
1st dorsal spine
Balistidae
Savidug
abdominal vertebra
Coryphaenidae
Pamayan
abdominal vertebra
Coryphaenidae
Savidug
atlas
Coryphaenidae
Savidug
caudal vertebra
Coryphaenidae
Savidug
fin spine
n.d.
Savidug
fin spine
Coryphaenidae, bone tool
Savidug
neural spine
Coryphaenidae, bone tool
Savidug
R dentary
Coryphaenidae
Savidug
vertebra
n.d.
Pamayan
dermal spine
Diodontidae
Pamayan
haemal spine
n.d.
Pamayan
L quadrate
Carangidae
10 elements
4 taxa
TOTAL
28
For Anaro, one vertebra fragment was cut obliquely, completely chopping off the
dorso-anterior end of the centrum and the entire posterior end of the vertebra (Figure
4.39). This is the only anthropogenic mark from the site aside from another vertebra
(AN7) that clearly is a modern cut which was probably made during excavation (Figure
4.40).
Table 4.4 Summary of anthropogenic marks observed within the fish bone sample; n.d. taxon
was not determined.
61
Fig. 4.40 AN7 vertebra showing a modern

chop mark.
Fig. 4.39 AN5 vertebra showing the oblique chop
mark which removed the entire posterior end of
the bone.
Pamayan, on the other hand, has 6 fragments with observed anthropogenic

marks. PM1130 is a Coryphaenidae vertebra with the anterior end chopped off probably
as a result of decapitation of the fish. Another unidentified vertebra (PM527) contained
an oblique cut 5.77-mm long located on the posterior end and a small cut on the central
part, both on the left lateral aspect. A Carangidae left quadrate (PM37) shows a deep cut,
5.65-mm long along with other smaller cuts near the proximal end of the lateral facet of
the bone. Another interesting element that was found in Pamayan is a dermal spine of a
Diodontidae (PM264) possessing four cut marks about 2.61 mm in length near the
central shaft of one of its spinous processes (Figure 4.41). This is the only instance and
only in this site that a Diodontidae spine was found with anthropogenic damage which
probably parallels ethnographic accounts in which spines are deliberately removed
(PM801 and PM1328) contain smooth transverse cuts. There are also deep incisions on
the lateral aspect in one of the specimen (PM1328).
during butchery and buried in the sand (Paz, et al. 1998). Lastly, two haemal spines
62
Fig. 4.41 PM264 Diodontidae dermal spine showing deep

cut marks made on its spinous process.
Savidug contained a more substantial sample of human-modified bones (n=21),

both in quantity and contextual aspects. This is the only assemblage that includes four
Balistidae dorsal spines with distinct cut marks indicating attempts to cut the prominent
spine off. SB172, a particularly large individual based on the size of the spine has a deep
10.81mm cut near the base of the right postero-lateral facet (Figure 4.42). This area
articulates to the pterygiophore and should be the most strategic area to target for
removing the spine. This is the same with the two other dorsal spines, SB490 and SB886
which showed cut marks near the proximal end. The remaining specimen, SB1216, and
the smallest among the four spines, has had its tip removed about 4 mm from the base by
and SB75) show similar patterns of cut marks, possibly executed for the same reasons.
a straight chop mark on the left lateral facet. Two other unidentified fin spines (SB174
63
Fig. 4.42 SB172 Balistidae dorsal spine with a deep cut

located near the base of the spine and a smaller cut
superior to it, both on the right facet.
Five Coryphaenidae abdominal vertebrae and an atlas show cut marks of varying
degrees which appear to be associated with decapitation and de-boning based on their
features and locations. The atlas (SB109) has a 12.66-mm scrape mark on the anterodorsal aspect of the centrum. Its posterior end was completely chopped off suggesting the
removal of the head of the fish during processing. SB168 also shows similar evidence of
decapitation, with the bone being cut off from the dorsal side, with right hand rotation
through the left lateral aspect and the ventral margins (Figure 4.43). The right side of
the bone is damaged.
Five vertebrae have signatures found on the left lateral aspect. SB100 is an
end has been chopped. In addition, the bone has a deep 7.36-mm oblique cut on the
central portion of the left lateral aspect and another cut near the posterior end (Figure
4.44). Cut marks and scrape marks on the left lateral aspect of SB489 are concentrated
on the central part of the vertebra and a long (14.55 mm) scrape mark around is visible
the anterior of the centrum (Figure 4.45).
abdominal vertebra with scrape marks on its antero-lateral aspect while the posterior
64
Fig. 4.44 SB100 showing severe cut marks and scrape marks. Arrow indicates the clean chop
mark coming from the left lateral aspect through the right facet removing the zygapophysis
and posterior end of the vertebra.
Fig. 4.43 Coryphaenidae cephalic vertebra (SB168) showing the dorsal side being cut off,
possibly during decapitation with the chopping action coming from the left lateral aspect
through the ventral margins.
65
Fig. 4.45 Scrape marks on a caudal vertebra on the left lateral facet.
Other cut marks on the

left lateral facet are found on
specimens SB19 and SB31 while
similar minor cut marks on the
right lateral aspect are seen on
SB106
and
SB146
vertebrae
(Figures 4.47 and 4.48). Two

abdominal
signatures
vertebrae
on
their
bear
ventral
mark (13.39 mm) at the posterior

base of its haemal spines to cut
the vertebra (or the individual)
into pieces (Figure 4.46) while
SB190 bears transverse cuts near
the anterior end (Figure4.47). A
Fig. 4.46 A straight cut mark on the ventral facet near the
posterior end, lighter portions surrounding the cut are
modern signatures.
aspects. SB512 has a long cut
66
small unidentified vertebra (SB126) bears a distinct oblique chop mark which removed
its posterior end. The straight, vertical edges of the incisions suggest a very thin, sharp
implement, most likely fashioned from metal rather than stone. Aside from vertebrae
and fin spines, the only other element found with cut marks is the right dentary of a
Coryphaenidae which showed a severe 7.25-mm cut on its medio-lateral aspect (SB1263).
Lastly, two bone point implements (SB1043 and SB589) were also incorporated in this
sample. Both points appear to have been ground obliquely on all surfaces to produce the
desired shape. There is no evidence of surface polish or striations that would indicate use
as something like a boring tool or needle.
Fig. 4.47 SB190 showing cuts on the ventral aspect near the anterior end of the abdominal
vertebra.
67
Fig. 4.49 Coryphaenidae vertebra with scrape marks similar on Fig. 4.48 on the dorsal and
left lateral facet with minor cut marks.
Fig. 4.48 Deep scrape marks on the dorso-lateral facet of the caudal vertebra, direction of the
scraping motion is towards the anterior end (right to left hand motion).
68
CHAPTER FIVE
Discussion
In the analysis of fish bones, there can never be a better substitute to the complete
access to a suitable reference collection to aid in the identification of the archaeological
fauna. Ideally, the collection should contain all possible taxa that existed and were
hunted in the past, but particularly for fish, their great diversity in the region makes this
standard impossible to achieve. Thus, the relevance and applicability of the collection all
depends on the judicious choices made on the taxa that should be included in the
collection.
The fish bone comparative collection specifically established for this study can
substantiate identification of thirty-six different fish taxa, all of which are economically
relevant in the present. The selected taxa are also known to have been found in
archaeology based on previous studies in the country (de la Torre 2002; Garong 2006;
Mudar 1997; Paz, et al. 1998; Szab, et al. 2003) and in island Southeast Asia (Li 2001;
Ono 2003; 2004). In the analysis of the fish remains of the three different sites in
Batanes covered in this study, 4.59% was identified to species, while 30.63% of the entire
assemblage was identified to family (Table 4.1). These are proportions of identified fish
remains never before generated in Philippine archaeology that may well be primary
sources of information on past fish subsistence and strategies.
In total, element-level identification among fishes including those identified to
taxa comprised 80.81% of the assemblage with just 19.19% judged to be unidentifiable
fish bones (Figure 5.1). Despite the small percentage of complete or non-fragmented
bones and relatively small fragment size of fish bones, the determination of skeletal
elements (to generic or family level) remained low. Moreover, the completeness and size
of fish bones in this study does not directly relate to its identifiability or determinability
to skeletal element. As shown in Table 5.2, the smallest non-fragmented or almost
complete fish bone in this study is an unidentified vertebra from Pamayan, while a
slightly smaller and fragmented dermal spine was identified to Diodontidae. Certainly,
there were more identified (to taxa) fragmented fish bones in this study than nonfish bones at 12.16% (n=112) (Table 5.1) yet 81.10% of its fish bone sample were either
identified to taxa or at least to element. Although all were determined to skeletal
elements, only 45% (n=51) were identified to taxa. For all three sites, fragmentation or
wholeness of fish bones, regardless of size, resulted in 100% determination to elements
but not to taxa as this depended on the adequacy of the modern specimens.
Chapter Five : Discussion
fragmented ones. For instance, Savidug has the largest proportion of non-fragmented
69
Table 5.1 Summary of average lengths and widths of fragmented and nonfragmented fish bones.
FRAGMENTATION
Pamayan
Savidug
Anaro
%non-fragmented
10.62%
12.66%
8.74%
%fragmented
89.38%
87.34%
91.26%
Average Non-Fragmented Length (mm)
13.17
5.18
14.71
StDev Non-Fragmented Length
5.18
9.44
13.23
Average Non-Fragmented Width (mm)
4.5
3.26
11.14
StDev Non-Fragmented Width
3.26
7.75
9.08
Combined Non-Frag Length and Width
8.83
12.93
17.04
Average Fragmented Length (mm)
10.8
8.69
8.25
StDev Fragmented Length
8.69
9.59
-7.94
Average Fragmented Width (mm)
6.33
8.56
7.69
StDev Fragmented Width
8.56
5.24
-4.28
Combined Fragment Length and Width
8.63
7.97
26.78
Determined Elements
Pamayan
27.03%
Savidug
Pamayan
Indeterminate
19%
Savidug
29.19%
Anaro
Anaro
24.59%
Fig 5.1 Proportion of elements analysed including those identified to taxa

(NISP). Overall proportion of element and above-element identification
is 80.81%.
Table 5.2 Smallest and largest fragmented and non-fragmented fish bones as based on their greater
lengths.
non-fragmented gLength
shortest
longest
fragmented gLength
shortest
longest
Anaro
unidentified vertebra
(4.7mm)
Labridae lower ph
plate (59.65mm)
Elasmobranch
vertebra (4.20mm)
branchiostegal ray
(44.05mm)
Savidug
Elasmobranchii
vertebra (2.95mm)
Coryphaenidae caud
vertebra (36.37mm)
Diodontidae dermal
spine (1.54mm)
Lethrinidae L
premaxilla
(155.61mm)
Pamayan
unidentified abd
vertebra (1.59mm)
Tetraodontidae L
dentary (61.59mm)
rib/fin spine (1.88mm)
Indeterminate
fragment (37.11mm)
SITE
70
The actual creation of the comparative in itself familiarizes the specialist with
both the more obvious and subtle morphological differences in elements between
different fish families. Although they are not generally common among teleosts, finding
the more diagnostic elements in an archaeological assemblage justifies why these robust,
distinct elements survive well over time. These are the upper and lower pharyngeal teeth
of Scaridae and Labridae and the specialised dermal spines of the Diodontidae and
Tetraodontidae. Some elements shared among all teleosts were easily identified to
particular taxa because of their distinct morphology, such as the axial spines and
pterygiophores of Balistidae, Carangidae and Siganidae and the dentition of Sparidae,
Scaridae and Labridae. Many of these are referred to as special bones by Leach (1997) in
the five-paired bone system of identification. The uncommonness of these elements may
mean a slightly biased suite of taxa and should serve as a word of caution when it comes
to the absence of other reef fishes with less robust features: their nonappearance or
minimal presence should not be immediately translated to their absence in the past, both
culturally- and ecologically-wise.
Aside from the general fibrous character of fish bones that set them apart from
other fauna, Coryphaenidae have an especially distinct porosity that count towards its
identifiability. It should also be noted that among fishes, the fibrous calcareous bone of
teleosts is easily differentiated from the cartilaginous nature of Elasmobranchs, which
accounts for its high identifiability but the absence of sufficient comparatives render
inadequate information about the actual species represented. The adequacy of modern
comparative collection is an outstanding issue in ichthyoarchaeology (Bilton 2001; Masse
1989; Vogel 2005; Walter, et al. 1991). As summarized in Table 4.2, there are elements
identified to family or genus but were below a 100% positive identification suggesting
that these could have been identified to lower taxonomic level with the availability of
suitable comparative specimens. Among these elements are the premaxillaries, and
maxillaries,
articulars,
dentaries
and
other
dentition
fragments,
quadrates,
hyomandibulars, bones of the opercular system, ceratohyals, basipterygia, and cleithra.

The morphological features of these elements are relatively distinct between taxa and for
some, however fragmented contain identifiable features that could possibly be identified
to taxa with a sufficient reference collection.
collection for ichthyoarchaeology (as opposed to comparatives for gut contents analysis
on predator-prey systems) allows careful storage of skeletal elements sometimes
overlooked or destroyed in the process of maceration that could be found in
archaeological specimens. Even the smallest loose teeth were preserved in the
Nonetheless, the novelty of specifically preparing a modern comparative
71
archaeological record and its potential for identifying fish to taxa has been explored
(Campos 2004). Portions of the fish cranium were found (SB341, SB513, SB946, SB1080,
AN127) and although these were not identified to taxa, the availability of comparative
elements and as based on the comparative ranking made, the continuous addition of new
specimens eventually would lead to its proper identification.
Although
substantial
results
have
been
generated,
the
study
of
ichthyoarchaeology in the Philippines is still in its initial stages. The state of the current
collection is certainly far from sufficient. Metro Manila markets have been practically
exhausted that it is crucial to find new areas where other specimens can be acquired. The
Navotas Fishing Port Complex, which is the largest fish supplier in Metro Manila and all
the other regional fishing ports in the country (Israel and Roque 2000) can provide
economically important fishes, and larger individuals and less frequently caught fishes.
Focus on such specimens will surely expand the collection and increase its capability for
identifying those found in archaeology. Another option in expanding the collection where
funds are not readily available is through collaborations with other institutions such as
the Institute of Biology and Marine Science Institute at the University of the Philippines
(U.P.), College of Fisheries in U.P. Visayas and the Zoology Division of the National
Museum.
5.1
The five-paired bone system

Five cranial bones are highly utilized in the Pacific for identification of fish bones
in archaeology (Leach 1986; 1997). These are the paired bones of the maxilla, premaxilla,
dentary, articular and the quadrate (Figure 5.2). The effects of restricting the
identification using these paired bones has been demonstrated to have an equivalent
limiting effect in the identification of taxa (Vogel 2005). This study made use of all
skeletal elements available in the comparative collection to identify the fish bones from
the archaeological record. Outside these five paired bones, elements that were identified
in this study were dorsal spines and pterygiophores, the three types of vertebrae named
here as the cephalic (first four vertebrae including atlas), abdominal and caudal
vertebrae, hyomandibular, preopercle, opercle and subopercle, ceratohyal, hypural and
urostyle, haemal and neural spines, basipterygia, cleithrum and dermal spines, as well as
would all have been missed had the system of determination centred on these five
skeletal elements alone.
other elements previously discussed to have high potentials in identification. These
72
However, paired bones in fish are the

best
materials
quantification
that
of
can
be
individuals
used
for
within
an
assemblage since there are elements, such as

vertebrae or fin spines and pterygiophores that
are numerous in a single individual. As shown
in Figures 4.18 and 4.19, the numerous dermal
spines overrepresented the Diodontidae in the
archaeological record. A single individual
possesses large numbers of these specialised
scales and it is possible that they all came from
just one or two individuals, whereas a pair of
any of the cranial (five-paired) bones most
certainly account for one fish. There are at least
50 paired bones in fish in which half can be
frequently found in archaeological sites. Hence,
aside from taxonomic applications, going
beyond these five skeletal elements also
increases quantification parameters.
Nonetheless, the expediency of adapting
the five-paired bone system lies in its high
retention of diagnostic features amidst severe
fragmentation. Note that in Table 4.2, their
high TNFs resulted to a greater variety of
identified taxa as compared to other bones at
their smallest fragmented length. In the
Savidug assemblage, apart from loose teeth and
fragments of dermal spines, the smallest
identified paired bone was a Serranidae
the five-paired bones reaching up to over
16mm. This is the same with the two other
Fig. 5.2 Left maxilla, premaxilla, dentary,

articular and quadrate of a Serranidae
(F-0024) .
sites, Pamayan with a highly fragmented

Scombridae right articular at 7.47mm and in Anaro, a 11.41mm left dentary of a
Lutjanidae. This is in contrast with the paired bones of the opercular system, wherein the
smallest identified bone was a Balistidae opercle with a length of 18.21mm.
quadrate at 9.55mm followed by either one of
73
5.2

Based on morphological similarities, the rating scheme provided additional
information on the presence or absence of particular features such as the dermal spines
of Diodontidae or toothed pharyngeal bones of Scaridae and Labridae. These are
obviously seen with all modern
specimens bearing a rating of 1
while those containing said features
are tagged 4 for identical specimens.
The ranking system also facilitated in
showing
similarities
of
certain
elements between closely-associated

taxa
such
as
Carangidae
or
Scombridae
those
in
and
similar
ecological niches such as Lutjanidae

and Serranidae.
Since all identified taxa were
limited to the ones in the collection,
the inclusion of rated unidentified
skeletal elements in this scheme can
be useful for its further analysis since
Fig. 5.3 Left lateral aspect of an unidentified but

distinctive cranial fragment.
the system shows which are the taxa

that are somehow similar with the
unidentified element. For instance, PM1141 in Figure 5.3 is a cranial fragment
(articulated frontals and supraoccipital) that did not have a complete match with the
modern comparative. However, the well-preserved bone did have similarities and was
ranked 3 accordingly with Acanthuridae, Menidae and Carangidae. It is possible that the
specimen could either be a different genus or species of either of the three or a closelyassociated taxa having similar behaviour. Compared to another cranial fragment, SB341
in Figure 3.6, which has an entirely different morphology, taxa that have slight
similarities were Balistidae and Lethrinidae. Although nothing can be conclusive, the
rating system used in this study documented the degree of morphological differences and
of
fishes
from
different
taxa
which
can
be
useful
in
future
ichthyoarchaeological research.
5.3
The Identified Fish Taxa of Batanes

Nineteen different groups of fishes were identified in this study (Table 5.3). With
the exception of fragments from subclass Elasmobranchii wherein family-level
similarities
74
identification cannot be made due to lack of sufficient comparatives, general information

on the identified taxa can contribute to the existing body of knowledge on past marine
subsistence and strategies in Batanes. Figures 5.4 and 5.5 show the taxa with highest
MNI and NISP.
Table 5.3 Summary of identified taxa in Anaro, Savidug and Pamayan and the corresponding habitat
of each taxon.
Anaro
Savidug
Pamayan
TOTAL
HABITAT
MNI
NISP
MNI
NISP
MNI
NISP
MNI
NISP
Elasmobranchii
12
16
offshore/inshore
Belonidae
inshore/pelagic
surface
Serranidae
23
31
Inshore/offshore
Carangidae
15
offshore
Coryphaenidae
10
97
110
offshore
Lutjanidae
13
20
inshore/brackish
Haemulidae
inshore
Sparidae
inshore
Lethrinidae
10
21
15
32
inshore
Nemipteridae
inshore/benthic
Labridae
11
15
15
31
inshore
Scaridae
21
11
28
inshore
Siganidae
inshore
Acanthuridae
14
23
37
inshore
Sphyraenidae
inshore/coral reef
edges
Scombridae
offshore
Balistidae
14
17
20
29
inshore
Tetraodontidae
inshore
Diodontidae
13
184
288
16
474
inshore
TOTAL
27
124
844
73
24
Taxon
75
Balistidae
Diodontidae
Labridae
Lethrinidae
Scaridae
Acanthuridae
Serranidae
Lutjanidae
Total MNI=124
Carangidae
Coryphaenidae
Scombridae
Sphyraenidae
Siganidae
Tetraodontidae
Haemulidae
Elasmobranchii
Nemipteridae
Sparidae
Belonidae
10
15
20
Fig. 5.4 Combined MNI of Anaro, Savidug and Pamayan fish bones.
Diodontidae
Coryphaenidae
Acanthuridae
Lethrinidae
Labridae
Serranidae
Total NISP=844
Balistidae
Scaridae
Lutjanidae
Elasmobranchii
Carangidae
Siganidae
Tetraodontidae
Scombridae
Sphyraenidae
Haemulidae
Nemipteridae
Sparidae
Belonidae
100
200
300
Fig. 5.5 Combined NISP of Anaro, Savidug and Pamayan fish bones.
400
500
76
Particularly among fishes, assessing the relative abundance of fishes can be more
problematic because aside from comparably numerous elements with smaller sizes than
mammal bones, fish bones are also more susceptible to many taphonomic processes
including digestion, trampling and cooking (Jones 1984; Wheeler and Jones 1989).
Although MNI cannot accurately demonstrate taxonomic proportions within an
assemblage (Banning 2000; Grayson 1984; Lie 1980), it does suggest what were the
hunted communities of fishes.
It also recognizes, together with NISP particular elements and taxa that preserve
well over time and as what Figure 5.5 effectively demonstrates, those taxa that have more
representative elements. Diodontidae clearly show prominence for both NISP and MNI
because of its well-preserved dentition and numerous dermals spines. Coryphaenidae on
the other hand, has well-preserved, relatively large number of vertebrae but because the
element is not a reliable MNI parameter, the number of individuals were lower.
Balistidae on the other hand show a high MNI calculation because of its prominent
dorsal spine while the same can be said of Acanthuridae pterygiophores and spines.
MNI calculations in Figure 5.4 show the highest representations were perennial
inshore fishes suggesting that marine exploitation occurred significantly on the coastal
shelves (see the Digital Elevation Maps in Figures 5.6 to 5.8). Pelagic fishes figure in
their diet with Scombridae, Carangidae and the prominent presence of Coryphaenidae in
the Savidug assemblage (see Table 5.2 for habitat classification while the general ecology
of these taxa are presented in Appendix I). As of 2000, no studies have been conducted
on the composition of the maritime resource base of Batanes which cover 450000
hectares of maritime territorial waters (Mata n.d.). The archaeological composition
however implies that the inhabitants consumed both coral reef and pelagic fishes.
Present-day inhabitants involve fishing as a main livelihood (Gonzales 1966; Hidalgo
1996; Hornedo 1976; 2000) with traditional technology overriding commercialized ways
to their economic detriment (Provincial Government of Batanes 2000).
Insights on their past fishing technology can be gleamed based on the hunted taxa
and the contours of the waters surrounding it. Coral reefs form within 10000 years and
so thus the fish communities remain consistent within this period (Jackson, et al. 2001;
resource can be found at depths less than 50m surrounding Sabtang island. The geologic
nature of the island affects this area of abundant coral reefs as the depth rapidly changes
to deeper much turbulent waters where Coryphaenidae and other fast swimming pelagic
fishes can be found. Itbayat Island (Figure 5.7) and all the rest of Baranes group of
islands (Figure 5.8) show the rapid change in depth that during seasons of rough seas,
Wilkinson 2008). Figure 5.6 shows the coral reef areas where the most abundant
77
sailing from one island to another could have been very difficult, including fishing
offshore.
Fig. 5.7 DEM of Itbayat. The light yellow and green regions show the shallow reefs
surrounding the island while the darker blue areas indicate the increasing oceanic depths.
DEM by M. Perigo.
Fig. 5.6 Digital elevation map (DEM) of Sabtang. The lighter green regions show the
shallow reefs surrounding the islands and the light and dark blue areas indicate the
deeper oceans. DEM by M. Perigo.
78
Fig. 5.8 DEM of Batanes Islands. The light green regions surrounding the islands
show the shallow reefs and the light and dark blue areas are the deeper
oceans. Drawn by M. Perigo.
5.4
Taphonomy
Bones primarily survives in archaeology when the fauna identified was a regular
part of the diet and when butchery and consumption were undertaken near the site and
where the skeletal elements were eventually buried (Grayson 1984; Shotwell 1958).
Overall the bone assemblages studied in this project were in relatively good condition.
Based on the taphonomic indices of the three sites in Figure 4.46, the fish bones from
Anaro were the least preserved due to the concurrent exposures to geological and human
activities. In general, the site has a bigger proportion of weathered and abraded
fragments while Savidug shows the smallest proportion of fragments showing effects of
taphonomic agents.
Shell middens in general have better organic preservation properties due to the
high levels of calcium carbonate that protects the bone from the effects of weathering and
degradation in acidic soils. Pamayan is a very good example of this (Bellwood, et al.,
1000 fragments measuring less than 20mm in length compared to around 500 fragments
in Savidug with a similar size range. This is related to two aspects of the recovered
archaeological assemblages. Firstly, the recovery strategies employed to collect fish bones
from Savidug and Pamayan might have varied with smaller mesh sizes and more
intensive recovery at the latter site accounting for the high concentrations of small
2007a). The bones from Pamayan are smaller than those from Savidug with more than
79
fragments. Secondly, however, this does not account for what must be a genuine lack of
bigger skeletal elements from the larger fish that occur in the older Savidug assemblage.
Aside from the average size, a number of hunted taxa in the area are also smaller
in nature, such as Nemipteridae, Belonidae, smaller Scombridae and Carangidae.
Pamayan is at earlier cultural sequence and the resource depletion that might have
occurred as shown in fish subsistence parallel those that were posited in marine shells
utilization (Szab, et al. 2003) and the ensuing over-population and political conflicts in
the islands based on ethnographic accounts (Blair and Robertson 1903-09). Anaro was
the only site with purely hand-collected fragments due to unavailability of water on the
site (Bellwood, et al., 2007b) and this difference in the recovery of the bones accounts for
their relatively larger size, ranging from 5mm to 40mm, whereas Savidug and Pamayan
contained numerous fragments less than 4mm in length.
5.5
Coryphaenidae in the Savidug Assemblage

The Savidug fish bone assemblage contained 97 skeletal elements of
Coryphaenidae. Unlike inshore fishes which can be caught anytime of the year, catching
the migratory dolphinfish would have been done in the summer months between March
and May, primarily using flying fishes caught at night as bait (Hornedo 2000; Li 2001;
Severino 2003). Another variation of surface lures for dolphinfish are colourful floating
objects such as shells or wooden corks to run a course until it attracts the fish (Gabriel,
et al., 2005; Von Brandt 1960).
Fishing in the open water is relatively more labour-intensive than inshore fishing
and requires a different level of technology as it involves confronting the turbulent seas
and a specialized acuity to catch a powerful fast swimmer that occasionally surfaces such
as the Coryphaenidae. The estimated sizes of the fish in the archaeological record (Table
4.7) suggest that the majority were bigger than one person could handle, therefore bigger
boats were required, with corresponding hook-and-line or nets (van der Elst 1988).
Ethnographic studies present details of a special reverence for the fish marked by rituals
to start the fishing season in March (Mangahas 1994; Severino 2003). However, the
migratory behaviour of the fish and its presence in Batanes waters within a year is not
easily forecasted as it has worldwide distribution and known to follow warm waters (FAO
It is of interest to note that Coryphaenidae is only common in the Savidug

assemblage. The neighbouring shell midden at Pamayan, though later in chronology
included just three Coryphaenidae vertebrae as opposed to the 75 vertebrae in Savidug,
well spread across time from its oldest layer dated to around 3000BP. The absence of
n.d.).
80
Coryphaenidae from Pamayan is difficult to interpret but is almost certainly not related
to differences in bone survivability in the archaeological record. Undoubtedly,
Coryphaenidae are still common in the seas around the Batanes Islands today so it
cannot be related to absence of this resource. Perhaps it is related to the political conflict
and overpopulation reported in early accounts of European visitors to the islands
(Bellwood, et al. 2007a; Blair and Robertson 1903-09). For example, there may have
been restrictions or problems in accessing the offshore fishing grounds where the said
fish are found.
Pelagic fishes in Batanes is abundant even at the present time, but the
treacherous waters that surround the islands marked with powerful underwater currents
make it particularly hard for small boats to fish further in the sea (Provincial
Government of Batanes 2000). As previously stated, the archaeological record does not
support vigorous fishing offshore, at least not for the larger-sized fast swimmers, but for
a highly specialized one to catch Coryphaenidae. Although the fish could be easily
considered an omnivore (Oxenford and Hunte 1999) and can be expected regularly in
warm seasons, this taxon is not easily found in archaeology. Apart from Batanes, the
occurrence of the dolphinfish in the archaeological record has never been reported in the
country considering its highly distinct morphology.
Despite its commonness in the worldwide pelagic warm waters, the systematic
hunt for the Coryphaenidae and its seeming rarity in Philippine archaeology as well as in
other cultures throughout Island Southeast Asia suggests possible linkages to the few
areas bearing the same fauna. For instance, the nearby Botel Tobago off the southeast
coast of Taiwan has ethnographic evidence of dolphinfish hunting (de Beauclair 1986;
Hs 1982), and in the archaeological record from O-Luanpi on the southernmost tip of
Taiwan (Campos and Piper 2009; Li 2001) there is a good record of catching
Coryphaenidae and other large pelagic fishes at least 3500 years ago. Other studies
throughout the Pacific have shown that fishing for Coryphaenidae and other large open
ocean fishes such as sailfish and tuna are absent, except in the Marianas where the
practice has been recorded on numerous archaeological sites from about 3500 years ago
(Amesbury 2008; Leach and Davidson 2006; Leach, et al., 1988; Li 1997). All sites
mentioned, including Batanes, date from about 2000 to 5000BP and all three manifest
of hunting for Coryphaenidae demonstrates exchanges between groups from Taiwan, the
northern Philippines and the Marianas may well have occurred in the past.
detailed traditions that seem to encompass the hunt for this fauna. Perhaps the traditions
81
5.5
Fish Processing
Though generally rare in archaeological fish bones (Colley 1990; Lyman 1994), at
least 28 fragments bearing anthropogenic signatures were recorded in this study and the
first ever to be reported in the Philippines. Cut marks, chop marks, and scrape marks
were seen on vertebrae, haemal and neural spines, 1st dorsal spines and fin spines, and on
a dermal spine, dentary and quadrate. These further verify human consumption of
Carangidae, Diodontidae, Balistidae and a good number of Coryphaenidae individuals
from the older lower layers reaching 3500BP up to the younger upper layers.
However, the absence of signatures on fish bones does not denote nonexistence of
careful preparation for human consumption. In fact, it could be the contrary as the
appearance of numerous anthropogenic marks on bones in some cases imply attempts
made by a novice totally unfamiliar with fish internal organs and hard structures
(Campos, et al., 2008). Taphonomy and considerations on the characteristic porosity of
fish bones compared with other faunal material may also be at play in the paucity of
these marks since the data shows abundance of cut marks on Coryphaenidae in Savidug,
and minimal presence in Anaro where bones have been exposed to more taphonomic
agents.
Cut marks on bones involve slicing actions with the blade of the tool through
overlying tissues reflected on the bone on either transverse or along its natural parallel
striations while chop marks involve shorter but forceful points of contact (White and
Folkens 2005). Synthesizing the data presented in Appendix VII involving fish
preparation processes, cut marks and chop marks suggest association with division of
meat and individuals into pieces while scrape marks are more likely involved in removing
the meat attached close to the bones. In the preparation of the reference materials for
this study which have exposed the researcher with more than a hundred fishes of various
forms and sizes, common fish processing techniques included removal of gill rakers,
internal organs, and other soft parts, hard parts such as scales, rays and fin spines, and
intermuscular bones. It also involved scraping meat off the bones, decapitation and
cutting the individual into pieces. Skeletal areas more often hit by these activities are
bones such as the cephalic vertebrae and the opercular series, and the mid lateral
Removal of fish spinous structures, such as the 1 st dorsal spine of Balistidae and
the Diodontidae dermal spines as well as haemal and neural spines elucidates that the
cut marks recorded in this study were comparable to those recorded under controlled
environments (Willis, et al., 2008) and the immediate removal of poisonous spines such
as that of the freshwater fishes of Mekong River in Cambodia (Voeun and von den
vertebrae.
82
Driesch 2004).
The most striking marks were on the Coryphaenidae vertebrae that clearly show
variations of cut marks, scrape marks and chop marks. Decapitation and dividing
individuals into pieces by chopping or cutting between vertebrae could possibly explain
the presence of complete chop marks on either end of the vertebrae and the failure to
locate the gap between vertebrae where it is easiest to cut through. No other element was
recorded for scrape marks except the vertebra and the majority of these marks were
found on the left lateral aspect of the individual suggesting a right-hand motion.
Although it cannot be absolutely postulated how Coryphaenidae were processed
in the past, the importance of this fish among the inhabitants of present-day Batanes and
how it is being dried as one way of preserving the fish implicates that similar marks as
found in the assemblage could possibly be created. As Figure 5.9 shows, the meat is
separated laterally leaving the vertebrae and the rest of its axial skeleton behind.
Scraping could have been done on both sides and decapitation along the first few
abdominal vertebrae or cephalic vertebrae could possibly account for the chop marks
found.
Synthesizing these signatures, a pattern seems to surface as to how they were
situated in reference to the person cutting it. With the unique morphology of the fish, it
can be surmised that in scraping meat off these vertebrae or cutting through its tissues, a
right-handed person would need to lay the fish flat with its head being held by the weaker
left hand as the stronger hand holds the cutting tool. The cut mark on Sb100 (Figure
4.50) and the scrape marks on Figure 4.51 show that both motions were directed towards
the left side, suggesting that the tool was held by the right hand while the left hand holds
the head or the anterior part of body of the fish to hold it in place. The cut mark on the
ventral facet of SB190 (Figure 4.59) also shows the same right hand cutting action based
on the direction of imprints on the bone but this time with the fish laid flat on its dorsal
side.
83
Fig. 5.9 Modern-day processing of dried Coryphaenidae. Photograph courtesy of

Roel H. Manipon.
84
CHAPTER SIX
Conclusion and
Recommendations
The specialism in ichthyoarchaeology in the Philippines is initiated and explored
in this study through the establishment of the most important facility in the
identification of fish remains: the modern comparative collection. The utilization of
thirty-six economically important fish taxa allowed for a significantly high confidence
level in the determination of fish skeletal elements. The highest level of identification was
made on one taxon, the Coryphaenidae or the common dolphinfish, Coryphaena
hippurus at 4.59%, while 30.63% family-level and 47.70% element-level identification
was made. This demonstrated that 35.22% of the fish bone sample was identified to taxa.
The applicability and effectiveness of the collection allowed for the substantial
identification and interpretation of the especially dense fish bone assemblages recovered
from Savidug, Pamayan and Anaro sites in Batanes Islands. The modern comparative has
been particularly helpful in the identification process of some diagnostic elements that
are unique among particular taxa, and given additional specimens, could even be more
capable of a high level of confidence in species-level identification as that made on the
common dolphinfish, Coryphaena hippurus.
The direct comparison of modern materials with the archaeological ones was
systematically performed showing that through the ranking system formulated in this
study, subtle and marked differences between paired bones beyond the established fivepaired bone identification scheme commonly practiced in the Pacific increases the
number of identified taxa and facilitates in the subsequent MNI calculations. The rating
scheme also permits unidentified fragments to be ranked with the known comparatives
to assess closeness of match. This can serve as a benchmark for future research and
archaeological materials, both identified and unidentified can serve as guides in adding
new specimens. Additional specimens should be added until there is a sufficient number
of different species in each of the existing families in the collection, with skeletal
elements disarticulated and properly labelled.
The taphonomic assessment of the fish remains indicated that several factors had
been involved in the preservation and recovery of bones from the three archaeological
sites. The high levels of bone surface abrasion and weathering suggests that the Anaro
assemblage was the poorest preserved with a number of re-worked bone fragments. In
addition, due to difficulties in excavating on the Anaro hilltop, recovery was restricted to
Chapter Six: Conclusion & Recommendations
continuous expansion of the modern comparative collection while the documented
85
dry-sieving and hand collection, whereas more stringent recovery using sieves was
observed at Pamayan and Savidug. This difference between recovery methods is clearly
evident in both the small numbers of bones retained from Anaro and the marked variety
of fragment sizes and types of taxa represented. Whereas Savidug and Pamayan
assemblages comprise a variety of different families of fish, Anaro is restricted to the
easily identifiable and durable dental elements of taxa such as Scaridae and Diodontidae.
This has inevitably biased the recorded fish assemblage in the archaeological record. It is
recommended that wherever possible high-resolution recovery strategies using fine mesh
sieving should be employed to maximise the recovery of smaller-sized fauna such as fish
remains from archaeological sites. This will markedly increase our understanding of
human subsistence and resource procurement strategies in the past.
The utilization of paired and unpaired bones in the identification of skeletal
elements yielded information on hunted fish communities in the area marked by 19
different taxa, dating from 3000BP to 600BP. The composition suggests that the
inhabitants hunted for a variety of available inshore fishes found on the coastal shelves
which include Scaridae, Labridae, Balistidae, Diodontidae, Lethrinidae, and Siganidae,
among others.
The archaeological record shows that fishing for Coryphaenidae has a long
tradition in the Batanes Islands stretching back at least 3500 years, as evidenced by the
presence of dolphinfish skeletal elements in some of the earliest deposits at Savidug
Dune Site. Through utilization of a size estimation method that involve direct proportion
calculations with some margin of error of less than 10% (based on the calculated
estimates of size and weight of the modern comparatives), the Coryphaenidae caught in
the past were slightly larger than those presently being sold in commercial markets. The
average total length could have ranged between 1m and 1.4m with weights reaching up to
7kg. The biggest and heaviest specimen in the assemblage based on the measurements of
The absence of Coryphaenidae bones at Anaro and Pamayan, with the exception
of a few vertebrae recovered from close to the modern ground surface remains somewhat
of an enigma. The vertebrae are large, robust and easily identified and would almost
certainly have been recovered from the archaeological record if they were present. The
Pamayan shell midden and fish bones accumulated around 500 years ago, just before the
arrival of the first European travellers who recorded that the islands were heavily
populated and inter-group conflict was common. Perhaps this period of conflict
restricted regular access to fishing grounds which has been insinuated in modern-day
Batanes as something sacred for the inhabitants. Alternatively, it might simply be
a caudal vertebra had a total length of 2m and weighed more than 9kg.
86
vagaries resulting from small scale archaeological excavation. Nevertheless, the effects of
human population increases on the resource availability on small islands such as Batanes
would be a useful avenue of research to be pursued in the future both for archaeology and
outstanding issues in fisheries.
Evidence of butchery and food processing practices in fish bone assemblages are
rare (Colley 1990; Lyman 1994) and this study presents the first record of such
signatures on fish bones in the Philippines, and among the very few in ISEA. Particularly
in the Savidug Dune site assemblage, multiple cut marks, chop marks and scrape marks
indicated that there was a practice of removing the head of the dolphinfish and the flesh
through cutting and scraping from the bone, and predominantly from the left side of the
fish, possible by a right-handed person. These are practices that could have similarities
among the current inhabitants. Contemporary fishermen on the islands have much
reverence for this particular fauna so much so that traditional fishing is maintained and
that the modern-day Batanes stresses its cultural value (Mangahas 1994; Severino 2003).
It is conceivable that this practice has a long history that extends back over 3000 years,
but this requires further research in the future.
Ichthyoarchaeology can raise provocative issues and answer outstanding ones on
past marine subsistence and strategies if the necessary methodological focus is granted.
The most salient starts in the continuous build up of the modern comparative collection
in conjunction with the growing archaeological data in the region. Specimens purchased
from local fish retail markets guide the collection to the more economically relevant ones
but due to the increasing demand, fishes no longer reach its full adult size thereby some
skeletal elements may not be completely ossified, consequently creating a higher
challenge of identifying archaeological materials. Other possible sources could be
exhausted such as the Navotas Fishing Port Complex which is the main fishing port in
Metro Manila (Medina-Pizzali, 2001) or provincial fish markets where larger or less
institutions such as the University of the Philippines (U.P.) Marine Science Institute, U.P.
Institute of Biology, U.P. Visayas College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, Southeast
Asian Fisheries Development Center or with the Zoology Division of the National
Museum of the Philippines where fish specimens are also collected for various studies on
fish biology and fisheries research.
Finally, ways to address the seemingly paucity of fish bones should not be totally
attributed to natural factors or cultural choices. To begin with, it should be addressed in
archaeology with field recovery techniques that has careful consideration of the
important presence of this fauna.
common fishes could be found. Collaborative arrangements can also be structured with
87
References
Alba, E. (1988). Modified bones and shells from Philippine archaeological sites.
National Museum Papers, 8(1), 45 - 80.
Alba, E. (2000). Preliminary survey of the endemic fauna of Jolo. National Museum
Papers, 10(2), 51-68.
Allen, G. (2000). Marine Fishes of Southeast Asia. Singapore: Periplus.
Allen, K. M. S., Green, S. J., & Zubrow, E. (Eds.). (1990). Interpreting Space: GIS
and Archaeology. London: Taylor and Francis.
Amesbury, J. R. (2008). Pelagic fishing in prehistoric Guam, Mariana Islands. PFRP
(Pelagic Fisheries Research Program) Newsletter, 13(2), 4-7.
Anderson, A. (2008). Short and sometimes sharp: human impacts on marine
resources in the archaeology and history of south Polynesia. In T. C. Rick & J.
M. Erlandson (Eds.), Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems: A
Global Perspective (pp. 21-42). London, England: University of California
Press.
Anderson, A.J., & McGlone, M. S. (1991). Living on the edge: prehistoric land and
people in New Zealand. In J. Dodson (Ed.), The Naive Lands: HumanEnvironmental Interactions in Australia and Oceania (pp. 199-241). Sydney:
Longman Cheshire.
Anderson, A. J. (1997). Uniformity and regional variation in marine fish catches from
prehistoric New Zealand. Asian Perspectives, 36(1), 1-26.
Asian Fore-Arc Programme (AFAP). (2002). Report on archaeological and
reconnaissance excavation in Batanes Province, Northern Philippines,
February 14 to March 14, 2002. Canberra: Australian National University.
Banning, E. B. (2000). The Archaeologist's Laboratory: The Analysis of
Archaeological Data. New York: Springer.
Barber, I. (1994). Culture change in northern Te Wai Pounamu. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Otago, New Zealand.
Barnett, G. (1978). A Manual for the Identification of Fish Bones. Canberra:
Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian
National University.
Behrensmeyer, A. K. (1978). Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone

weathering. Paleobiology, 4(150-162).
References
Bautista, A. P. (1988). The exploitation of animals in the neolithic of the Philippines.

Archaeozoologica, II(1/2), 349-366.
88
Bellwood, P. (1987). The prehistory of Island Southeast Asia: a multidisciplinary

review of recent research. Journal of World Prehistory, 1(2), 171-224.
Bellwood, P., Anderson, A. J., & Dizon, E. Z. (2001). Report on archaeological
reconnaissance in Cagayan, Ilocos Norte, and Batanes Provinces, Northern
Philippines, January to February 2001. Manila: National Museum of the
Philippines.
Bellwood, P., Anderson, A. J., Stevenson, J., & Dizon, E. Z. (2003). Archaeological
and palaeoenvironmental research in Batanes and Ilocos Norte Provinces,
Northern Philippines. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association, 23,
141-162.
Bellwood, P., & Dizon, E. Z. (2005). The Batanes archaeological project and the "Out
of Taiwan" hypothesis for Austronesian dispersal. Journal of Austronesian
Studies, 1(1), 1-32.
Bellwood, P., & Dizon, E. Z. (2008). Austronesian cultural origins: Out of Taiwan, via
the Batanes Islands, onwards to Western Polynesia. In A. Sanchez-Mazas, R.
Blench, M. D. Ross, I. Peiros & M. Lin (Eds.), Past Human Migrations in East
Asia. Matching Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp. 23-40). New York:
Routledge.
Bellwood, P., Dizon, E. Z., & De Leon, A. S. (2007a). Archaeological investigations at
Savidug, Sabtang Island. Unpublished report.
Bellwood, P., Dizon, E. Z., & De Leon, A. S. (2007b). The excavations at Anaro and
Mitangeb, and their cultural sequences as defined from pottery. Unpublished
report.
Bilton, M. (2001). Taphonomic bias in Pacific ichthyoarchaeological assemblages: a
Marshall Islands example. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Otago.
Blair, E. H., & Robertson, J. A. (Eds.). (1903-09). The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898
(annotated ed.). Cleveland, Ohio [accessed online from the University of
Michigan Library: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/philamer/]: The A. H. Clark
company.
Bogan, A. E., & Robinson, N. (Eds.). (1978). A history and selected bibliography of
zooarchaeology in Eastern North America. Miscellaneous Paper no. 2:
Tennessee Anthropological Association.
Bone, Q., Marshall, N. B., & Blaxter, J. H. S. (1995). Biology of Fishes (2nd ed.).
London: Chapman & Hall.
Bowdler, S. (1979). Hunter hill, hunter island. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Australian National University, Canberra.
References
Bowdler, S. (1980). Fish and culture: a Tasmanian polemic. Mankind, 12, 334-340.
89
Bowdler, S., & Lourandos, H. (1982). Both sides of bass strait. In S. Bowdler (Ed.),
Coastal Archaeology in Eastern Australia (pp. 121-132). Canberra:
Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian
National University.
Brewer, D. J. (1992). Zooarchaeology: method, theory, and goals. In M. B. Schiffer
(Ed.), Archaeological Method and Theory (Vol. 4, pp. 195-244). Tucson: The
University of Arizona Press.
Briggs, J. C. (1974). Marine Zoogeography. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brinkhuizen, D. C. (1979). On the finds of European catfish (Siluris glanis L.) in the
Netherlands. In M. Kubasiewicz (Ed.), Archaeozoology I. Proceedings of the
Third International Archaeozoological Conference held 23-26th April 1978
(pp. 256-261). Szczecin.
Brinkhuizen, D. C., & Clason, A. T. (Eds.). (1986). British Archaeological Reports
Series, No. 294. Oxford.
Broad, G. (2003). Fishes of the Philippines: A Guide to the Identification of Families.
Pasig City, Philippines: Anvil Publishing Inc.
Bullock, A. E., & Jones, A. K. G. (1987). Dispersal of fish waste: a modern midden
experiment. Paper presented at the ICAZ Fish Remains Working Group
Fourth Meeting.
Butler, V. L., & Chatters, J. C. (1994). The role of bone density in structuring
prehistoric salmon bone assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science, 21,
413-424.
Butler, V. L., & Schroeder, R. A. (1998). Do digestive processes leave diagnostic
traces on fish bones? Journal of Archaeological Science, 25(10), 957-971.
Cailliet, G. M., Love, M. S., & Ebeling, A. W. (1986). Fishes: A Field and Laboratory
Manual on Their Structure, Identification, and Natural History. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Campos, F. Z. (2004). The identification of fish by dentition. Unpublished paper.
University of the Philippines, Quezon City.
Campos, F. Z. (2007). The UP-ASP faunal comparative collection. Testpit, 11, 23-26.
Campos, F. Z., & Piper, P. J. (2009). A preliminary analysis of the animal bones
recovered from OLPII Site 2006, southern Taiwan. A report written on behalf
of T. Cheng and H.-c. Hung of Academia Sinica, Taiwan. Quezon City:
Archaeological Studies Program, University of the Philippines.
References
Campos, F. Z., Eusebio, M. S., & Xauflair, H. (2008). Cut and cooked: an
experimental archaeology on fish and pork. Paper presented at the KAPI
Conference 2008: Range and Relevance: State of Philippine Archaeology,
December 12, 2008.
90
Carpenter, K. E., & Springer, V. G. (2005). The center of the center of marine shore
fish biodiversity: the Philippine islands. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 72,
467-480.
Casteel, R. W. (1974). On the remains of fish scales from archaeological sites.
American Antiquity, 39(4), 557-581.
Casteel, R. W. (1976). Fish Remains in Archaeology and Paleo-Environmental
Studies. New York: Academic Press.
Chaplin, R. E. (1971). The Study of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. London
and New York: Seminar Press.
Clason, A. T. (1986). Fish and archaeology. In D. C. Brinkhuizen & A. T. Clason
(Eds.), Fish and Archaeology (pp. 1-8). Oxford: British Archaeological
Reports Series, No. 294.
Colley, S. M. (1987). Cooking fish on a fire: an experiment in differential burning.
Paper presented at the ICAZ Fish Remains Working Group Fourth Meeting.
Colley, S. M. (1990). The analysis and interpretation of archaeological fish remains.
In M. B. Schiffer (Ed.), Archaeological Method and Theory (Vol. 2, pp. 207253). Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Colley, S. M., & Jones, R. (1987). New fish bone data from Rocky Cape, North West
Tasmania. Archaeology in Oceania, 22, 67-71.
Conlu, P. V. (1986). Fishes (Vol. IX). Quezon City: Natural Resources Management
Center, Ministry of Natural Resources, University of the Philippines.
Cuvier, G. (1834). The Class Pisces. London: Wittaker and Company.
Cuvier, G., & Valenciennes, A. (1828). Histoire Naturelle des Poissons. Paris: F.G.
Levrault.
Dado, A. F. (2004). Ivatan Vernacular Architecture: Understanding the Racuaydi
Nakavajayan. Unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of the Philippines,
Quezon City.
Dampier, W. (1937). A New Voyage Round the World. London: A. and C. Black Ltd.
Daniel, G. E. (1976). A Hundred and Fifty Years of Archaeology. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Davenport, J., & Sayer, M. D. J. (1993). Physiological determinants of distribution in
fish. Journal of Fish Biology, 43 (suppl. A), 121-145.
Davis, S. J. M. (1987). The Archaeology of Animals. New Haven: Yale University

Press.
References
Davidson, J. M., Leach, B. F., Greig, K., & Leach, P. (2000). Pre-European Maori
fishing at Foxton, Manawatu, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of
Archaeology, 22, 75-90.
91
de Beauclair, I. (1986). Ethnographic Studies. The Collected Papers of Inez de

Beauclair. Taiwan: Southern Materials Center, Inc.
de la Torre, A. A. (2000). Preliminary report of the Lal-Lo, Cagayan Archaeological
Project: Clemente Irigayen property site.
de la Torre, A. A. (Ed.). (2002). Lal-Lo Cagayan archaeological project 2000:
archaeological exploration of sites (Sept. 5 - Oct. 4, 2000) Tokyo: Dept. of
Philippine Studies, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
de Leon, A. S. (2008). Pottery and cultural interaction from 3000 to 600 BP
Batanes, northern Philippines. Unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of
the Philippines, Quezon City.
de Ocampo, R. S. P. (1994). Preliminary report on the recoinnaissance geology of
Sabtang and vicinity, Batanes. Ivatan Studies Journal, 1, 49-62.
Desse, J. (1980). Presentation of a new method of discrimination by x-ray
diagnostics. Paper presented at the First Fish Osteoarchaeology Meeting,
Copenhagen, August 1980.
Dizon, E. Z. (2000). Archaeology of Batanes province, northern Philippines: the
1996-1997 status report. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association,
19 (Melaka Papers, Vol. 3), 115-124.
Dizon, E. Z., & Barretto, G. D. (1995-1997). Archaeological test excavation of a stone
boat-shaped burial at Locality II, Nakamaya, Basco, Batan Island. Ivatan
Studies Journal, 2, 3, 4, 82-103.
Dizon, E. Z., & Cayron, J. (1998-2003). Archaeological excavation of a stone boatshaped burial no. 7 at Locality 1, Nakamaya, San Antonio, Basco, Batanes.
Ivatan Studies Journal, 5-10, 19-28.
Dizon, E. Z., de Leon, A. S., Lacsina, L. S., & Bautista, G. (2005). A brief report on the
2005 archaeological exploration and excavation of Itbayat Island, Batanes.
Test Pit, 7.
Dizon, E. Z., & Santiago, R. (1994). Preliminary report on the archaeological
exploration in Batan, Sabtang and Ivuhos islands, Batanes province. Ivatan
Studies Journal, 1, 7-49.
Dye, T. S., & Longenecker, K. (2004). Manual of Hawaiian fish remains:
identification based on the skeletal reference collection of Alan C. Ziegler and
including otoliths: Society for Hawaiian Archaeology.
Eder, J. F. (2003). Of fishers and farmers: ethnicity and resource use in coastal
Palawan. Philippine Quarterly of Culture & Society, 31(3), 207-225.
Ekman, S. (1953). Zoogeography of the Sea. London: Sidgwick and Jackson.
References
Eder, J. F. (2005). Coastal resource management and social differences in Philippine

fishing communities. Human Ecology, 33(2), 147-170.
92
Enger, E. D., & Ross, F. C. (2000). Concepts in Biology (9th ed.). Boston: McGrawHill.
Enghoff, I. B. (1987). Rare species of fish in the mesolithic Bjrnsholm shellmidden,
Denmark - indicators of a warmer climate. Paper presented at the ICAZ Fish
Remains Working Group Fourth Meeting.
Enghoff, I. B. (1994). Fishing in Denmark during the Erteblle period. International
Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 4(65-96).
Erlandson, J. M. (2008). Archaeology, marine ecology, and human impacts on
marine environments. In R. C. Torben & J. M. Erlandson (Eds.), Human
Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems: A Global Perspective. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
FAO. (n.d.). Species fact sheets: Fisheries and Aquaculture Dept., Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Faylona, M. G. P. (2003). The Dipnay Supuan jar burials in Batanes. Philippine
Quarterly of Culture & Society, 31, 119-219.
Fish Remains Working Group. (n.d.). Home page of the ICAZ Fish Remains Working
Group. 2009, from http://www.cs.otago.ac.nz/research/foss/ICAZ/
Fisher, J. W., Jr.,. (1995). Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 2, 7-68.
Forey, P., & Janvier, P. (1993). Agnathans and the origin of jawed vertebrates.
Nature, 361, 129-134.
Forey, P., & Janvier, P. (1994). Evolution of the early vertebrates. American Scientist,
82, 554-565.
Froese, R., & Pauly, D. (Eds.). (2009). FishBase: World Wide Web electronic
publication. www.fishbase.org, version (04/2009).
Gabriel, O., Lange, K., Dahm, E., & Wendt, T. (Eds.). (2005). Von Brandt's Fish
Catching Methods of the World (4th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Garong, A. M. (2006). Reconstruction of the subsistence strategies and deciphering
shell midden formation of the prehistoric shell-gathering people in northern
Philippines. Paper presented at the The First Philippine Studies Conference of
Japan. "The Philippines and Japan in the Global Context: Making
Multicultural Societies in the Asia Region" November 11-12, 2006.
Gatz, A. J., Jr. (1979). Community organization in fishes as indicated by

morphological features. Ecology, 60(4), 7111-7118.
References
Garong, A. M., & Toizumi, T. (Eds.). (2000). The archaeological excavation of the
shell midden sites in Lal-Lo, Cagayan. Tokyo: Dept. of Philippines Studies,
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
93
Gonzales, J. C. T., Afuang, L. E., & Lacaste, A. V. (n.d.). Batanes Islands biodiversity
survey: identifying conservation priorities for terrestrial vertebrate fauna
withing Batanes Islands, Northern Philippines [online]. date accessed May
22, 2009: from http://www.quantumconservation.org/BatanesSurvey20082.htm.
Gonzales, P. J. (1966). The Batanes Islands. Manila: University of Santo Tomas
Press.
Grayson, D. K. (1984). Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Orlando, Florida: Academic
Press.
Greene, K. (1996). Archaeology: An Introduction. The History, Principles and
Methods of Modern Archaeology (3rd ed., illustrated). New York: Routledge.
Gregory, W. K. (1951). Evolution Emerging. New York: MacMillan.
Hamilton, C. E., & Ruesch, C. A. (1970). The preparation of skeletal fish to
understand the prehistoric past. Unpublished manuscript.
Harder, W. (1975). Anatomy of fishes. Stuttgard: E. Schweizerbart
Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Heinrich, D. (1981). Standardization of measurements and size/weight
reconstructions of fish Proceedings of the Fish Osteoarchaeology Meeting
(pp. 11-12). Copenhagen.
Hickman, C. P., Jr., & Roberts, L. S. (1995). Animal Diversity. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C.
Brown Publishers.
Hickman, C. P., Jr., Roberts, L. S., & Larson, A. (2001). Integrated Priciples of
Zoology (11th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Hidalgo, C. (1996). The Making of the Ivatans. Pasig: Cognita TRC.
Hildebrand, M. (1974). Analysis of Vertebrate Structure. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Hildebrand, M., & Goslow, G. (1998). Analysis of Vertebrate Structure (5th ed.):
John Wiley and Sons.
Hiscock, P. (2008). Archaeology of Ancient Australia. New York: Routledge.
Hodges, E. R. S. (2003). The Guild Hanbook of Scientific Illustration. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Hornedo, F. H. (2000). Taming the Wind: Ethno-Cultural History on the Ivatan of

the Batanes Isles. Manila: UST Publications.
References
Hornedo, F. H. (1976). Batanes Ethnographic History: A Survey. Manila: Ateneo de

Manila University.
94
Hs, Y.-c. (1982). Yami Fishing Practices: Migratory Fish (1st ed.). Taipei: Southern
Materials Centre Inc.
Israel, D. C., & Roque, R. M. G. R. (2000). Analysis of fishing ports in the
Philippines Makati City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
Jackson, J. B. C., Kirby, M. X., Berger, W. H., Bjorndal, K. A., Botsford, W. L.,
Bourque, B. J., et al. (2001). Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of
coastal overfishing. Science, 293, 629-638.
Jobling, M. (1996). Environmental Biology of Fishes. London: Chapman and Hall.
Jones, A. K. G. (1983). Some effects of the mammalian digestive system on fish
bones. Paper presented at the 2nd Fish Osteoarchaeology Meeting.
Jones, A. K. G. (1984). Some Effects of the Mammalian Digestive System on Fish
Bones. In N. Desse-Berset (Ed.), 2nd Fish Osteoarchaeology Meeting (pp. 6165). Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Centre de Recherces
Archeologiques Notes et Monographies Techniques 16.
Jones, A. K. G. (1986). Fish bone survival in the digestive systems of the pig, dog and
man: some experiments. In D. C. Brinkhuizen & A. T. Clason (Eds.), Fish and
Archaeology: Studies in Osteometry, Taphonomy, Seasonality, and Fishing
Methods (pp. 53-61). Oxford.
Jones, A. K. G. (1990). Experiments with fish bones and otoliths: implications for the
reconstruction of past diet and economy. In D. E. Robinson (Ed.),
Experimentation and Reconstruction in Environmental Archaeology (pp.
143-146). Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Jones, A. K. G. (1991). The Fish Remains from Freswick Links, Caithness.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of York.
Jones, A. K. G., & Nicholson, R. A. (1997). Fish remains and humankind. from
http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue3/jones_index.html
Kishinouye, K. (1908). Notes on the natural history of the sardine (Clupea
melanosticta Schlegel). J. Imp. Fish. Bureau Tokyo, 14(3), 71-105.
Kishinouye, K. (1911). Prehistoric fishing in Japan. Journal of the College of
Agriculture, Imperial University of Tokyo, 2(7), 327-382.
Koomoto, M. (1983). General survery in Batan island. In K. Shanikahara (Ed.), Batan
Island and Northern Luzon: Archaeological, Ethnographical and Linguistic
Survey (pp. 17-68): University of Kumamoto, Faculty of Letters, Japan.
References
Lacsina, L. S. P. (2004). An examination of the archaeological features of Batanes,

northern Philippines: Ijangs, Nakavajayans, and Burials. In A. A. De la Torre
& V. J. Paz (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society of Philippine Archaeologists
(Vol. 2). Manila, Philippines: The Katipunan Arkeologists ng Pilipinas, Inc.
95
Leach, B. F. (1973). Fishing tackle in New Zealand a thousand years ago. Kilwell
Catalogue, 57-59.
Leach, B. F. (1979). Fish and crayfish from the Washpool midden site, New Zealand:
their use in determining season of occupation and prehistoric fishing
methods. Journal of Archaeological Science, 6, 109-126.
Leach, B. F. (1986). A method for the analysis of Pacific island fishbone assemblages
and an associated database management system. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 13, 147-159.
Leach, B. F. (1997). A Guide to the Identification of Fish Remains from New Zealand
Archaeological Sites. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Journal of
Archaeology Special Publication.
Leach, B. F. (2006). Fishing in Pre-European New Zealand. Wellington: New
Zealand Journal of Archaeology (spl. pub) & Archaeofauna (vol. 15).
Leach, B. F., & Anderson, A. J. (1979). The role of labrid fish in prehistoric economics
in New Zealand. Journal of Archaeological Science, 6(1), 1-15.
Leach, B. F., & Boocock, A. S. B. (1993). Prehistoric Fish Catches in New Zealand.
British Archaeological Reports, International Series No. 584.
Leach, B. F., & Boocock, A. S. B. (1994). The impact of Pre-European Maori
fishermen on the New Zealand snapper, Pagrus auratus, in the vicinity of
Rotokura, Tasman Bay. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology, 16, 69-84.
Leach, B. F., & Davidson, J. (2001). The use of size-frequency diagrams to
characterize prehistoric fish catches and to assess human impact on inshore
fisheries. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 11, 150-162.
Leach, B. F., & Davidson, J. (2006). Analysis of Faunal Material from an
Archaeological Site Complex at Mangilao, Guam. Technical Report No. 38,
Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.
Leach, B. F., & Davidson, J. M. (1977). Fishing methods and seasonality at Paremata
(N160/50). New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter, 20(3), 166175.
Leach, B. F., Fleming, M., Davidson, J. M., Ward, G. K., & Craib, J. L. (1988).
Prehistoric fishing at Mochong, Rota, Marina Islands. Man and Culture in
Oceania, 4, 31-62.
Leach, B. F., Intoh, M., & Smith, I. W. G. (1984). Fishing, turtle hunting, and
mammal exploitation at Fa'ahia, Huahine, French Polynesia. Journal de la
Socit des Ocanistes, 79, 183-197.
References
Li, K.-t. (1989). Prehistoric fishing activities in the Oluanpi Park area. Pingtung:
Administrative Bureau of the Kenting National Park.
96
Li, K.-t. (1994). Coastal adaptation in southern Taiwan: a case study of Kuei-shan
site. Kaohsiung: The Planning Bureau of National Marine Biology Museum.
Li, K.-T. (1997). Change and stability in the dietary system of a prehistoric coastal
population in southern Taiwan. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Arizona State
University.
Li, K.-t. (2000). Change and stability in the dietary system of prehistoric O-luan-pi
inhabitants in southern Taiwan. Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bulletin
20, 4(Melaka Papers), 159-165.
Li, K.-T. (2001). Prehistoric marine fishing adaptation in southern Taiwan. Journal
of East Asian Archaeology, 3(1/2), 47-74.
Lie, R. W. (1980). Minimum numbers of individuals from osteological samples.
Norwegian Archaeological Review, 13, 24-30.
Llorente, A. M. M. (1983). A Blending of Cultures: The Batanes, 1686-1898. Manila:
Historical Conservation Society.
Lock, C. (2004). Crawling through time: fish bones reveal past climate change.
Science News.
Lubinski, P. (1996). Fish heads, fish heads: an experiment on differential bone
preservation in a Salmonid fish. Journal of Archaeological Science, 23(2),
175-181.
Lyman, R. L. (1994). Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mangahas, M. F. (1994). Mataw, Amung Nu Rayon, Anitu/Man, the 'Fish of
Summer', and the spirits. an ethnography of Mataw fishing in Batanes.
Unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of the Philippines, Diliman,
Quezon City.
Mangahas, M. F. (1996). Mataw fishing in Batanes. Aghamtao, 8, 1-12.
Mangahas, M. F. (1998). The Mataw fishers of Batanes. In F. G. S. Casal, E. Z. Dizon,
W. P. Ronquillo & C. G. Salcedo (Eds.), Kasaysayan: The Earliest Filipinos
(Vol. 2). Hong Kong: Asia Publishing Company Limited.
Mangahas, M. F. (2006). Gear conflicts and changing seascapes in Batanes,
Philippines. Paper presented at the Eleventh Biennial Globe Conference of the
IASCP, "Survival of the Commons: Mounting Challenges and New Realities".
Masse, B. W. (1986). A millenium of fishing in the Palau Islands, Micronesia. In A. J.

Anderson (Ed.), Traditional Fishing in the Pacific. Honolulu: Bernice P.
Bishop Museum.
References
Mangahas, M. F. (2008). Making the vanua: collective fishing technology in Batanes

and an Austronesian archetype of society. Philippine Studies, 56(4), 379-412.
97
Masse, W. B. (1989). The Archaeology and Ecology of Fishing in the Belau Islands.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern Illinois.
Mata, E. (n.d.). Batanes, Philippines. Quezon City: Raintree Publishing, Inc.
Medina Pizzali, A. F. (2001). Low-Cost Fish Retailing Equipment and Facilities in
Large Urban Areas of Southeast Asia. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.
Mekong River Commission. (2003). Biodiversity and Fisheries in the Mekong River
Basin. Phnom Penh: Mekong River Commission.
Mellars, P. A., & Wilkinson, M. R. (1980). Fish otoliths as indicators of seasonality in
prehistoric shell middens: an evidence from Oronosay (Inner Hebrides).
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 46, 19-44.
Miller, S. A., & Harley, J. P. (2001). Zoology (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Monks, G. (1981). Seasonality studies. In M. B. Schiffer (Ed.), Archaeological
Method and Theory (Vol. 4, pp. 177-240). Tucson: The University of Arizona
Press.
Morales, A., & Rosenlund, K. (1979). Fish Bone Measurements. An Attempt to
Standardize the Measuring of Fish Bones from Archaeological Sites.
Copenhagen: Steenstrupia.
Moyle, P. B., & Cech, J. J., Jr. (2000). Fishes: An Introduction to Ichthyology (4th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mudar, K. M. (1997). Patterns of animal utilization in the holocene of the
Philippines: a comparison of faunal samples from four archaeological sites.
Asian Perspectives, 36(1), 67-106.
Muiz, A. M. (1996). The evolution of the I.C.A.Z. Fish Remains working group from
1981 to 1995. Archaeofauna, 5, 13-20.
Murphy, P. (1983). Studies on the environment and the economy of Bronze age fenedge site at West Row, Mildenhall, Suffolk: a preliminary report. Circaea,
1(2), 49-57.
Nelson, J. S. (1984). Fishes of the World (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Nicholson, R. A. (1993). Investigation into the effects on fish bone of passage through
the human gut: some experiments and comparisons with archaeological
material. Circaea. Circaea, 10(1).
O'Connor, T. P. (2000). The Archaeology of Animal Bones. Gloucestershire: Sutton

Publishing.
References
Nicholson, R. A. (2001). Taphonomic investigations. In D. R. Brothwell & A. M.

Pollard (Eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Sciences. Chichester: John Wiley
& Sons.
98
Ogawa, H. (Ed.). (2000). Excavation of the Lal-lo Shell Middens. Tokyo: Dept. of
Philippines Studies, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
Ogawa, H., & Aguilera, M. L. J. (1992). Data report on the archaeological
explorations in the lower Cagayan river, northern Luzon, Philippines. Journal
of Institute of Religion and Culture, 10, 41-113.
Olsen, S. L., & Shipman, P. (1998). Surface modification on bone: trampling versus
butchery. Journal of Archaeological Science, 15, 535-553.
Ono, R. (2003). Prehistoric Austronesian fishing strategies: a comparison between
island Southeast Asia and the Lapita Cultural Complex. In C. Sand (Ed.),
Pacific Archeology: Assessments and Prospects (Proceedings of the
International Conference for the 50th anniversary of the First Lapita
Excavation. Kone-Noumea 2002).
Ono, R. (2004). Prehistoric fishing at Bukit Tengkorak, East Coast of Borneo Island.
New Zealand Journal of Archaeology, 24(2002), 77-106.
Oxenford, H. A., & Hunte, W. (1999). Feeding habits of the dolphinfish (Coryphaena
hippurus) in the eastern Carribean. Scientia Marina, 63(3-4), 303-315.
Palko, B. J., Beardsley, G. L., & Richards, W. J. (1982). Synopsis of the biolgocial data
on dolphin-fishes, Coryphaena hippurus Linnaeus and Coryphaena equiselis
Linnaeus. NOAA Technical Report NMFS Circular 443, FAO Fisheries
Synopsis No. 130.
Pauly, D. (2004). Archaeology: much rowing for fish. Nature, 432, 813-814.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., & Torres, F. J. (1998). Fishing
down marine food webs. Science, 6, 860.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Gunette, S., Pitcher, T. J., Sumaila, U. R., & Walters, C. J.
(2002). Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature, 418, 689-695.
Paz, V. J., Mijares, A. S. B., Barretto, G., Cayron, J., Hara, Y., & Galang, D. (1998).
Batanes expedition report. Quezon City: Archaeological Studies Program,
University of the Philippines.
Piper, P. J. (2003). Rodents, reptiles and amphibians: a palaeoecological and
taphonomic study of the micro-faunal remains recovered from
archaeological settlement sites. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
York, York.
Piper, P. J., Campos, F. Z., & Hung, H.-c. (2009). A study of the animal bones
recovered from pits 9 and 10 at the site of Nagsabaran in northern Luzon,
Philippines. Hukay, 14, 47-90.
References
Potts, R., & Shipman, P. (1981). Cutmarks made by stone tools on bones from
Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Nature, 291, 577-580.
99
Poulsen, A. F., Hortle, K. G., Valbo-Jorgensen, J., Chan, S., Chhuon, C. K., Viravong,
S., et al. (2004). Distribution and ecology of some important riverine fish
species of the Mekong River Basin. Cambodia: Mekong River Commission.
Provincial Government of Batanes. (2000). Batanes 2000.
Reitz, E. J., & Wing, E. S. (1999). Zooarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rhoads, D. C., & Lutz, R. A. (1980). Skeletal Records of Environmental Change. New
York and London: Plenum Press.
Romer, A. S., & Parsons, T. S. (1977). The Vertebrate Body (5th ed.). Philadelphia:
W. B. Saunders Company.
Rtimeyer, L. (1861). "Die fauna der Pfahlbauten in der Schweiz. Untersuchungen
ber die Gieschichte der wilden und der Haus-Surgerthiere von MittelEuropa. Bahnmaier, Basel.
Schfer, W. (1972). Ecology and Palaeoecology of Marine Environments. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Severino, H. G. (Writer). (2003). "Ginto ng Dagat": the chase for dorado [video
documentary, 30 mins], iWitness: the GMA documentaries. Philippines.
Shackley, M. (1981). Environmental archaeology. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Shotwell, J. A. (1958). An approach to the paleoecology of mammals. Ecology, 36(6),
327-337.
Solheim, W. G. I. (1960). Jar burial in the Babuyan and Batanes Islands. Philippine
Journal of Science, 89(1), 115-148.
Spalding, M. D., Fox, H. E., Allen, G. R., Davidson, N., Ferdaa, Z. A., Finlayson, M.,
et al. (2007). Marine ecoregions of the world: a bioregionalization of coastal
and shelf areas. BioScience, 57(No. 7), 573-583.
Spangler, G. R. (2000). Developing a biochronology from fish growth increments:
Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Minnesotta.
Stark, M., & Bong, S. (2001). Recent research on the emergence of early historic
states in Cambodia, Lower Mekong Delta. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific
Prehistory Association, 21(5), 85-98.
Stewart, T. D. (1979). Essentials of Forensic Anthropology. Springfield, Ill.: Charles
C. Thomas Co.
Szab, K., Ramirez, H., Anderson, A., & Bellwood, P. (2003). Prehistoric subsistence
strategies on the Batanes islands, northern Philippines. Bulletin of the IndoPacific Prehistory Association Bulletin 23, (Taipei Papers) Volume 1, 163-171.
References
Szab, K. (2007). Shell fishhooks in the Pacific and island Southeast Asia, Lecture
presented in Brownbag Talk Series, University of the Philippines, Diliman.
100
Ubelaker, D. H. (1978). Human Skeletal Remains. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.

Umali, A. F. (1950). Guide to the Classification of Fishing Gear in the Philippines.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Umali, A. F. (1982). Choice fishes of Manila. In M. A. Mercado (Ed.), The Filipinas
Journal of Science and Culture (Vol. 3, pp. 56-64). Manila: Filipinas
Foundation Inc.
University of Hawaii. (2001). List of hish in the University of Hawaii archaeology
labs: fish bone reference collection. [accessed from
http://www.archaeology.hawaii.edu/collections/fishbone.htm, 4 January
2009].
University of the Philippines - Archaeological Studies Program (UP-ASP). (2009).
Bioarchaeology Collection [online]
http://www.upd.edu.ph/~asp/bioarchaeology.html, accessed last August
2009.
Ushijima, I., & Zayas, C. N. (Eds.). (1994). Fishers of the Visayas: A Study of
Visayan Maritime Communities. Quezon City: College of Social Sciences and
Philosophy, University of the Philippines.
van der Elst, R. (1988). A Guide to the Common Sea Fishes of Southern Africa. Cape
Town: Struik.
Van Neer, W., Ervynck, A., Bolle, L. J., & Millner, R. S. (2004). Seasonality only
works in certain parts of the year: the reconstruction of fishing seasons
through otolith analysis. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 14(6),
457-474.
Voeun, V. (2003). Fishbones from archaeological remains from Angor Borei. In A.
Karlstrom & A. Kallen (Eds.), Fishbone & Glittering Emblems: Southeast
Asian Archaeology 2002, Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities. Stockholm:
Ostasiatiska Musee.
Voeun, V. (2004). Description of bas-relief carvings of fish at Angkor Wat and the
Bayon. Bulletin of the Students of the Department of Archaeology (Royal
University of Fine Arts), pp. 39-55.
Voeun, V. (2006). Osteological Guide of Fishes from the Mekong System in
Cambodia. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Fish Bone Collection.
Voeun, V., & von den Driesch, A. (2004). Fish remains from an Angkor Borei
archaeological site in the Mekong Delta, Cambodia. In V. J. Paz (Ed.),
Southeast Asian Archaeology: Wilhelm G. Solheim II Festschrift. Diliman,
Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.
References
Voeun, V., & So, P. (1999). A comparative collection of fish bones for archaeology
and the significance of some Angkorian fish reliefs. Unpublished B.A.
dissertation, Royal University of Fine Arts, Phnom Penh.
101
Vogel, Y. (2005). Ika. Unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of Otago, Dunedin,

New Zealand.
Von Brandt, A. (1960). Fishing methods in world sardine fisheries Proceedings of the
World Scientific Meeting on the Biology of Sardines and Related Species (Vol.
II, pp. 563623): FAO.
von den Driesch, A., & Voeun, V. (2003). Preliminary report on the fishbone from
Angkor Borei at the Mekong Delta. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Walter, R., Weisler, M. I., & Smith, I. W. G. (1991). The Pacific fish bone reference
collection at the University of Otago. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology,
15, 131-159.
Watt, J., Pierce, G. J., & Boyle, P. R. (1997). Guide to the Identification of North Sea
Fish Using Premaxilla and Vertebra. Denmark: ICES.
Weisberg, S. (1993). Using hard part increment data to estimate age and
environmental effects. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci., 50(6), 1229-1237.
Wheeler, A. (1978). Problems of identification and interpretation of archaeological
fish remains. In D. R. Brothwell, K. D. Thomas & J. Clutton-Brock (Eds.),
Research Problems in Zooarchaeology (pp. 69-76). London: University of
London.
Wheeler, A., & Jones, A. K. G. (1989). Fishes. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
White, T. D., & Folkens, P. A. (2005). The Human Bone Manual (1st ed.). London:
Elsevier Academic Press.
Wilkinson, C. (Ed.). (2008). Status of Coral Reefs of the World. Townsville,
Australia: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest
Research Center.
Willis, L. M., Eren, M. I., & Rick, T. C. (2008). Does butchering fish leave cut marks.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 35, 1438-1444.
Wyman, J. (1868a). An account of some kjoekkenmoeddings, or shell-heaps, in
Maine and Massachusetts. Ameican Naturalist, 1(11), 561-584.
Wyman, J. (1868b). On the fresh-water shell-heaps on the St. John's River, eastern
Florida. Ameican Naturalist, 2, 393-403, 449-463.
Wyman, J. (1875). Fresh-water shellmounds of the St. John's River, Florida. Mem.
Peabody Acad. Sci., 1(4), 1-94.
References
Yamada, Y. (1967). Fishing economies of the Itbayat, Batanes, Philippines with

special reference to its vocabulary. Asian Studies, 5(1), 137-219.
102
Yang, H.-Y. (2006). Fishing sinkers in the Batanes Islands (Philippines) and
Taiwan, and further relationships with East Asia. Unpublished M.A.
dissertation, The Australian National University, Canberra.
Zeller, D., & Pauly, D. (Eds.). (2007). Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for
key countries and regions (1950-2005) Vol. 15 (2). Vancouver, B.C. (Canada):
Fisheries Centre Research Reports (FCRR).
References
Zohar, I., Dayan, T., Galili, E., & Spanier, E. (2001). Fish processing during the early
holocene: a taphonomic case study from coastal Israel. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 28, 1041-1053.
103
APPENDIX I: The UP-ASP Fish Bone Comparative Collection
Abbreviations:
Bc: Bicolano
Il: Ilocano
Ig: Ilonggo
It: Itbayat
Iv: Ivatan
Taxonomic classification follows Eschmeyer and Fong (2009)

while binomen and all other information were taken from
Allen (2000), Broad (2003), Conlu (1986) and Herre (1948;
1953).
KT: Kayanin, Tagbanwa

Tg: Tagalog
Vs: Visayan
Body Width
Body Depth
Head Length
Habitat/ Ecology; Diet; Species

description
Standard
Length
Family
Edibility /
Economic
Importance
Total Length
Specimen No.
Local Name
Common Name
Ungutted
Weight (kg)
Measurements (cm)
Acquisition
Details
Collector/s
Date
Collected
Class ELASMOBRANCHII
Order RAJIFORMES
Dasyatidae
F-0018
Dasyatis kuhlii
(Muhller & Henle,
1841)
Pagi, Dahunan (Tg, Bc);

Paging-dahonan,
Daragon, Kuyampo (Bc);
Pasa-Pasa, Pantikan
(Vs)
Blue-spotted Maskray/
Stingray
Approx. 7 species in the Philippines out of 81 valid species; width (body depth) ranges from 24 to 180 cm while total length can be from 45 to 400
cm; small mouth, angular to rounded body; pectoral fins form part of the body; tail is slender, whip-like with poisonous spines on upper surface;
inhabits coastal waters, river mouths, off beaches and on sand or mud, rarely in coral reefs; feeds on sand and mud-dwelling animals, such as
crabs, prawns, fishes, snails and worms
Palos (Tg); Burirauin,

Kasili (Bc); Bais, Kasili,
Sili (Vs) ; Igat (Tg, ll);
Hayman, Tona (It);
Aymang (Iv)
Approx. 5 species in the Philippines; medium to large in size measuring 50-90cm in length. Very elongate with a small head, slender body and
small scales. Dorsal fin starts well back from the pectoral fin and the anal and dorsal fins are conjoined to tail. Inhabits freshwater streams, rivers
and lakes but spawns in deep ocean waters. They feed on worms, crustaceans and small fish.
Good food fish
Inhabits sand bottoms, frequently in the

vicinity of coral reefs; sometimes buries
itself with only the eyes protruding above
the sand; distinguished by blue spots and
frequently has scattered black spots on
disc
2.27
44
32
15
42
Bought
from
Farmers
Market,
Cubao,
Q.C.
(PhP110/
kg)
Iza
Campos,
Phil Piper;
June 13,
2007
Class Osteichthyes
Subclass Actinopterygii
Order ANGUILLIFORMES
Anguillidae
~ 104 ~
Appendices
F-0082
Anguillidae
Freshwater eel Elvers

a few milimetres in
length: soft bodies
Specialty food
fish
Inhabits freshwater streams, rivers and

lakes but spawns in deep ocean waters.
They feed on worms, crustaceans and
small fish.
N/A
N/A
General: Lao-lao,
Manansing laot, Tamban,
Lagare, Batang (Tg);
Hawo hawo, Mangsi (Vs);
Gonu, Marut, Pakot-pot,
Tapuyok (Sb); lokton;
yoyono; serer (It)
Sprats: Tulis (Tg);
Tamban, Tulisan (II);
Tamban helos,
Malabubgas (Vs)
Herrings, Sprats and
Sardines
Approx. 23 species in the Philippines. Found in all warm and cold seas. They are small to medium-sized 5 25cm in length. The body is
silver/silver blue and elongate with a small terminal mouth and a single dorsal fin without spines located in the middle of the back.. The anal fin is
positioned well back on the bodyand the pelvic fin is positioned on the belly below the dorsal fin. The pectoral fins are low on the side jut behind the
head and the tail is short and forked. They inhabit shallow fresh and marine waters, inshore and reefs and feed on plankton.
Important
economic fish
They inhabit shallow fresh and marine

waters, inshore and reefs and feed on
plankton.
0.05
Herrings, Sprats and

Sardines
Important
economic fish
They inhabit shallow fresh and marine

waters, inshore and reefs and feed on
plankton.
0.4
24
18.5
Karpa (Tg); Babangan

(MST)
Body, oblong and compressed with a length normally three times its depth. Body covered in large cycloid scales which do not extend to the head.
The snout is relatively blunt and the mouth protractile with two barbells on each side of the upper jaw. Pharyngeal well-developed and strong molarlike teeth. Dorsal and anal fins have three spines anteriorly of these posterior is the longer and more serrated. Caudal fin moderately forked. They
are benthic and omnivorous, feeding on protozoa when young and small crustaceans, insects and decaying plankton when older.
Common red carp
Excellent food
fish
Hito; Ito (Pm); Pantat (Bc,

Pn); Alabiyog, Kawatsi
(KT); Alimudan (Vs)
Body elongate and somewhat compressed in the tail region. Head is depressed and covered in bony plates. The genus has a pair of nasal,
maxillary barbells and two pairs of mental barbells. Supraoccipital process more or less angular with a round tip. The upper jaw has two groups of
teeth, the premaxillary band teeth and the second group forming a crescent-shaped band. Pectoral fin does not extend to vertical origin of dorsal
fin, finely serrated. Caudal fin free and rounded. Classified as carnivorous with the adults feeding on insect larvae, shrimps, worms, fish and
whatever organic debris occurs on the bottom of the river.
Order CLUPIEFORMES
Clupeidae
F-0068
Clupeidae
F-0074
Clupeidae
Calucub
II,
Batangas
Quezon
City
PhP90/kg
Iza
Campos,
May 2,
2008
Iza
Campos,
June 2008
Order CYPRINIFORMES
Cyprinidae
F-0060
Cyprinus carpio
Inhabits shallow areas, especially near the

embankment of lakes, rivers and
inundated lands that overflow with water
during floods.
Metro
Manila
market
Iza
Campos
June 2004
Order SILURIFORMES
Clariidae
~ 105 ~
Appendices
F-0044
Clarias sp.
Freshwater Catfish
Suitable of
cultivation
economic
importance
The catfish is a bottom-dweller and

prefers muddy rather than clear waters. It
inhabits rivers and lakes and sometimes
ponds can tolerate slightly brackish
water
38
Bought in
Manila
Market
Iza
Campos;
August
2004
Bought in
Farmers
market
(PhP198/
kg)
Iza
Campos,
Phil Piper;
Jan. 31,
2008
Order SALMONIFORMES
201 valid species; freshwater and anadromous; or farmed; northern hemisphere
Salmonidae
F-0043
Black Salmon head
Very good
food fish
Most likely farmed
0.6
18
Haba, Kambabala (Tg);

Daal, Dual, Patlay (Bc);
Bala, Baa, Dugsa,
Ganggang, Baya (Vs);
Layalay (Il)
Flat-Tailed Longtom
Approx. 9 species in the Philippines, 34 valid species; size reaches up to 100 cm; extremely long jaws with many small sharp teeth; very slender
body with small scales; live at the surface, camouflaged by colour
Order BELONIFORMES
Belonidae
F-0070
Platybelone
platyura (Bennett,
1837)
F-0071
Platybelone
platyura (Bennett,
1837)
Exocoetidae
Flat-Tailed Longtom
Balang, Buladol, Bulador,

Iliw, Isdang Lawin (Tg);
Iliu, Siliu (Bc); Tirong (Il);
Aliponghok, Bangsi (Vs);
Tarig-Tarig (KT); Bingki
(MST)
Good food fish
Inhabit offshore waters; distinguished by

0.6
Iza
flattened (dorsoventrally) tail base; found
Campos,
throughout the region; Indo-C. Pacific; to
March,
40 cm
2008
Good food fish Inhabit offshore waters; distinguished by
0.57
67
59
16
8
5.6
flattened (dorsoventrally) tail base; found
throughout the region; Indo-C. Pacific; to
40 cm
Approx. 17 species in the Philippines out of 67 valid species; difficult to identify to species level; reaches up to 30 cm; with large eyes and long,
slender body; single dorsal fin and pelvin fins at the back of the body and huge wing-like pectoral fins; color is dark blue at the back and silver
below; usually live in deep water, but may be seen close to the outer edges of coral reefs over deep water; pectoral fins are held flat against the
body when swimming; these help them to glide as far as 300 m. on the water surface to escape from predators; feeds on tiny, planktonic
organisms.
~ 106 ~
Appendices
F-0007
Cypselurus sp.
Flyingfish
Fairly edible;
some species
marketed
fresh or dried
Inhabits oceanic waters, frequently well

offshore; distinguished by wing-like
pectoral fins and elongated lower tail lobe
which facilitate long gliding flights over the
sea surface; throughout SE Asia; to 27
cm.
cm.
cm.
0.07
20
16.5
3.8
2.5
0.07
20
17
3.8
2.5
0.07
20.5
17.3
3.5
Bought
from
fisherman
in Opol,
Misamis
Oriental
Bought
from
fisherman
in Opol,
Misamis
Oriental
Bought
from
fisherman
in Opol,
Misamis
Oriental
Phil Piper;
May 2008
F-0008
Cypselurus sp.
Flyingfish
Fairly edible;
some species
marketed
fresh or dried
F-0009
Cypselurus sp.
Flyingfish
Fairly edible;
some species
marketed
fresh or dried
Isdang Buaya (Tg); Itang

(Bc); Lubalob (Tg, Bc);
Sunog (Tg, Bc, Vs);
Sunugan (Vs); UramUram (Il)
Bar-Tailed Flathead
Approx. 23 species in the Philippines out of 70 valid species; size ranges from 27 to 70 cm; head is flattened with spines and bony ridges; large
mouth; body is elongate and very flattened from top to bottom; two dorsal fins that are close together; tail is truncate or rounded; lives on seabed
and often not noticed because they lie buried in the sand or rubble; feeds on small fishes, crabs and prawns; lack distinctive markings and usually
difficult to identify to species level
Phil Piper;
May 2008
Phil Piper;
May 2008
Order SCORPAENIFORMES
Platycephelidae
F-0010
Platycephalus
endrachtensis
(Quoy & Gaimard,
1825)
Good food fish
Inhabits sand bottoms; distinguished by

black stripes on tail with yellow blotch; 7
dorsal spines, 13 soft rays, no anal fin
0.85
50
43
10
Bought
from
Fairview
Market
(PhP82/k
g)
Iza
Campos,
Phil Piper;
November
15, 2008
Order PERCIFORMES
Serranidae
Alatan, Kaltang, Kulapo, LapuLapu; Baraka, Inid, Kigting,

Kugtung, Pugaipo (Tg, Bc);
Sigapo, Kugtong; Abo-Abo,
Bantol,, Iner, Jahong, Kugtong,
Labungan, Lilug, Mamonbong,
Ogaw, Pugapo, Pugayo,
Salingukod, Sibog, Subla,
Tabadlo, Tangk-an, Ting-ad (Vs)
Approx. 73 species in the Philippines out of 513 valid species; Serranids vary so much that it is difficult to characterize them; size ranges
from 7 to 270 cm; large mouth with more than one row of teeth; lower jaw projects beyond upper jaw; most species have canine teeth at
the anterior end of the mouth/premaxilla; most species have three spines on the cheek usually serrated (toothed); has small scales, single
dorsal fin with stout spines, forked or lunate tail; diverse habitats from a few metres to more than 200 m depth; carnivorous, mainly small
fishes and crustaceans; soap fishes (subfamily Grammistinae) have a skin toxin (grammistin) which acts as protection against predators;
Serranids are hermaphrodites, starting mature life as females and then changing into males later
~ 107 ~
Appendices
F-0021
Plectropomus
oligocanthus
(Bleeker, 1854)
Vermicular Cod/ Highfin

Coral Trout
Very good
food fish
F-0022
Cephalopholis
igarashiensis
(Katayama, 1957)
Garish Rockcod
Good food fish
F-0023
Cephalopholis
cyanostigma
(Valenciennes,
1828)
Blue-Spotted Rockcod
Good food fish
Grouper (head only)
Good food
fish, sold dried
in the market,
cut in half
F-0024
Carangidae
F-0047
F-0048
Caranx
melampygus
(Cuvier, 1833)
Damis Lawin, Pampano,

Talakitok (Tg); Dalupani
(Bc)
Inhabits offshore coral reefs; distinguished

by bright pinkish-red colour; blue spots of
which some are elongated on body and
fins; and relatively tall dorsal and anal fins;
offshore reefs of N.W. Australia, Great
Barrier Reef and throughout SE Asia; to
56 cm.
Inhabits deeper reef areas, distinguished
by bright pattern of yellow, red, and
orange bars.
0.93
41
33.5
1
0
0.8
31
27
12
1
4
Inhabits coral reefs, often in lagoons or

seagrass beds; distinguished by brown or
orange-brown coloration with numerous
blue spots on head, body, and fins, a
white halo surrounding each spot on
body; juveniles are plain grey brown with
yellow fins; Great Barrier Reef, offshore
reefs of W. Australia, and throughout SE
Asia; W.Pacific; to 35 cm.
0.4
19.5
16.5
5.5
1.8
Bought
from
Farmers
Market,
Cubao
(PhP290/
kg)
Bought
from
Farmers
Market,
Cubao
(PhP250/
kg)
Bought
from
Farmers
Market,
Cubao
Iza
Campos,
Phil Piper;
June 21,
2007
Iza
Campos,
Phil Piper;
Oct. 30,
2008
Iza
Campos;
August
2004
Bought
Danny
from
Galang;
Cebu City November
market
2007
(prepared
dried)
Approx. 56 species in the Philippines, 148 valid species; sizes ranges from 20 to 100 cm; some larger species often have rounded head profile;
inhabits open water, but also common on steep outer reef walls of coral reefs; feeds on fishes, molluscs, crustaceans, scads, and planktonic
invertebrates; powerful swimmers
Jack or Trevally
Very good
food fish
Bluefin Trevally
Very good
food fish
Head and top of body yellowish blue; near

coral reefs, in groups
25
20
4
.
5
25
20
4
.
5
Bought
from
Farmers
Market,
Cubao
Bought
from
Farmers
Market,
Cubao
Iza
Campos;
July 2004
Iza
Campos;
July 2004
~ 108 ~
Appendices
F-0049
Caranx
sexfasciatus
(Quoy & Gaimard,
1824)
Bigeye Trevally
Very good
food fish
F-0050
Parastromateus
niger (also called
Formio niger in
Family
Formionidae)
(Bloch, 1795)
Black Pomfret
Very good
food fish
Coryphaenidae
Dorado, Mahi-Mahi;
Arayu (Ivatan)
F-0003
Coryphaena
hippurus
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Common Dolphinfish
(male / bull)
F-0004
Coryphaena
hippurus
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Common Dolphinfish
(female / cow)
Found near coral drop-offs, in groups;

blue green on back, slivery white on belly;
small black spot near upper end of gill
cover; second dorsal fin with white tip
3.5
70
56
17
19
2
0
Bought
from
Farmers
Market,
Cubao
Bought
from
Farmers
Market,
Cubao
(PhP140/
kg)
Iza
Campos,
Phil Piper;
June 28,
2007
Iza
Campos,
Phil Piper;
June 21,
2007
inhabits offshore waters of continental

0.64
32
25
6
17
5
shelf, frequently in schools; feeds on
.
crustaceans and small fishes;
5
distinguished by equal-shaped dorsal and
anal fin with triangular anterior lobe;
colour ranges from silvery-grey to bluishbrown; found throughout SE Asia; Indo-W
Pacific; to 55 cm and 2.55 kg.
1 genus with 2 species in the Philippines and worldwide; inhabits mainly oceanic waters well offshore; feeds on fish, particularly flying fish and
squid; distinguished by elongate, compressed body, long-based dorsal and anal fins, and steep forehead profile; female is less colourful and lacks
a distinct hump on the forehead; found throughout SE Asia; worldwide tropical and subtropical seas; to 200 cm and 22.4 kg.
Very good
food fish;
valuable
commercial
fish locally, in
China, Japan
and Hawaii,
and also an
important
sports;
marketed
mostly fresh
Very good
food fish;
valuable
commercial
fish locally, in
China, Japan
and Hawaii,
and also an
important
sports;
marketed
mostly fresh
Long pectoral fin more than one half head

length; back brilliant metallic bluish green,
yellowish underneath; colors fade to
silvery gray with black spots and dark fins
soon after death
3.96
86
71
14
18
1
5
Bought
from
Farmers
Market
(PhP100/
kg)
Iza
Campos,
Phil Piper;
June 28,
2007

soon after death
4.6
97
75
17
19
1
6
Bought
from
Farmers
Market
(PhP100/
kg)
Iza
Campos;
September
29, 2007
~ 109 ~
Appendices
F-0005
Coryphaena
hippurus
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Menidae
F-0045
Mene maculata
(Bloch &
Schneider, 1801)
F-0046
Mene maculata
(Bloch &
Schneider, 1801)
Lutjanidae
F-0051
Lutjanus
timorensis (Quoy
& Gaimard, 1824)
Common Dolphinfish
(female / cow)
Chabita, Huvas,
Sapatero, Tabas, Bilongbilong (Bc); Bete-bete
(MST); Zapatero (Pn);
Habas (Vs); Bilong-bilong
(Ic)
Spotted Moonfish
Spotted Moonfish
Very good
2.31
74
60
12
14
5 Bought
Iza
food fish;
from
Campos,
valuable
Farmers
Michelle
commercial
Market
Eusebio,
fish locally, in
soon after death
(PhP120/
Hermine
China, Japan
kg)
Xauflair;
and Hawaii,
July 25,
and also an
2008
important
sports;
marketed
mostly fresh
Single species in family; up to 25 cm.; head small, rounded profile, small highly oblique protrusible mouth; body round, deep bodied, very flattened
from side to side; very long pelvic fins; short pectoral fins; long-based anal fin; tail deeply forked; inhabits deeper coastal waters; sometimes
estuaries; feeds on small invertebrates
Good food fish
Good food fish
Alsis, Bambangon, Matangal, Mayamaya,

Pargito, Managat, Gingau (Tg, Bc); Agbaon, Awnan, Bad-lisan, Bangayau,
Katambak, Kanulo, Labongan, Langisi,
Mandagat, Mayaguno, Puga, Pulahan,
Saiya, Tabon (Vs); Sidinean (Ic); Admon,
Dalangdang, Dapak (In)
Timor Seaperch
Very good
food fish
Inhabits deeper coastal waters;

24
18.5
5
14
3 Bought
Iza
sometimes enters estuaries; distinguished
.
from
Campos;
by oval shape, protrusible jaws, very low
5 Farmers
August
dorsal and anal fins; and silvery colour;
market
2004
SE Asia, Indo-W. Pacific; to 24 cm.
Inhabits deeper coastal waters;
19
16
3.5
11
3 Bought
Iza
sometimes enters estuaries; distinguished
from
Campos;
by oval shape, protrusible jaws, very low
Farmers
August
dorsal and anal fins; and silvery colour;
market
2004
SE Asia, Indo-W. Pacific; to 24 cm.
Approx. 52 species in the Philippines, 108 valid species; size ranges from 25 to 100 cm; cheek has scales (Lethrinidae does not
have); body round to elongate, robust, large, course scales; dorsal fin is single, may be notched; some species have deep
incisions in the membrane between spines; most species live in shallow waters ranging to depths of 100 m. around reefs; often
form large groups of several hundred individuals feeding above coral reefs; active predators feeding mainly at night, mostly on
other fishes but also on crabs, shrimps, snails, cephalopods, planktonic organisms
Reddish color, long sloping forehead,
whitish spot below end of second dorsal
fin with darker area behind, usually with
black spot at base of pectoral fin; inhabits
coral reefs and rubble bottoms below 15
m. depth.
1.01
40
31
11
15
Bought
from
Farmers
Market,
Cubao
(PhP198/
kg)
Iza
Campos,
Phil Piper;
June 21,
2007
~ 110 ~
Appendices
F-0052
Lutjanus
rufolineatus
(Valenciennes,
1830)
Yellow-Lined Seaperch
F-0053
Lutjanus sp.
Snapper
F-0074
Lutjanus sp.
Snapper
Caesionidae
F-0016
Caesio cuning
(Bloch, 1791)
F-0017
Caesio cuning
(Bloch, 1791)
Haemulidae
F-000
Plectorhinchus
lineatus
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Syn: P. goldmanni
Bidlawan, Lapas,
Molong, Morong, Muong
(Tg); Dalagang Bukid
(Tg, Bc); Lila, Sorib,
Boyobod (Vs); Alimoking,
Baranti (Il); Sinao-an (Sb,
Vs)
Red-Bellied Fusilier
Red-Bellied Fusilier
Alatan, Bakoko,
Goliabao, Gulyabau,
Isdang sabato, Labian,
Samaral (Tg); Nabilan,
Kiskisan, Pasingko (Bc);
Alatan, Gabilan, Lifte,
Silay (Vs); Sidingan (Il)
Diagonal-Banded
Sweetlips
Very good
food fish
Series of faint yellow bars on side, deep

notch in rear margin of cheek; often has
dark spot on back; offshore reefs to depth
of 50 m.
0.9
38
27
11
14
4
.
5
Bought
Iza
from
Campos;
Farmers
September
Market,
2007
Cubao
(PhP200/
kg)
Very good
Metro
Iza
food fish
Manila
Campos,
markets
July 2008
Very good
Metro
food fish
Manila
markets
Approx. 14 species in the Philippines out of 22 valid species worldwide; size ranges from 15 to 30 cm; has small, terminal mouth with highly
protractible upper jaw; body is slender and streamlined with small scales, single dorsal fin; often seen in groups on edge of outer reef walls, usually
midwater; feeds on zooplanktons and swim constantly and rapidly; closely related to snapper (Lutjanidae)
Good food fish
Inhabits coral reefs, forming midwater

schools; has pair of yellow stripes on
upper side; to 28 cm
0.5
29.5
26
1
4
Good food fish
Inhabits coral reefs; distinguished by

combination of oblique black bands,
black-spotted yellow fins, and yellow lips;
Se Asia to Melanesian archipelago, W.
Pacific; to 50 cm
2.1
52
44
13
16
Bought
Iza
from
Campos;
Divisoria
June 2008
Market
Good food fish Inhabits coral reefs, forming midwater
0.4
27
24
4
7
1 Bought
Iza
schools; has pair of yellow stripes on
4 from U.P. Campos;
upper side; to 28 cm
Coop
Aug. 12,
(PhP120/
2007
kg)
Approx. 23 species in the Philippines out of 128 valid species worldwide; size ranges from 30 to 100 cm; small mouth set low on head with thick
lips; single, continuous dorsal fin; many species have long pectoral fins with truncate or emarginated tail; mostly nocturnal and feeds on benthic
invertebrates; closely related to snapper (Lutjanidae) but have smaller mouths, lower on the head and thicker lips; can be heard underwater
grunting using special teeth in the throat
Bought
from
Farmers
Market
(PhP79/k
g)
Iza
Campos,
Phil Piper;
June 30,
2007
~ 111 ~
Appendices
Bakoko, Chinese Besugo
(Tg)
Sparidae
F-000
Argyrops spinifer
(Forsskl, 1775)
Lethrinidae
F-0028
Lethrinus
olivaceus
(Valenciennes,
1830)
Long-Spined Snapper;
Sea Bream, Chinese
Besugo (Metro Manila)
Bitilya, Bakutut (Tg);

Mamlagaas (Bc);
Bagangan, Bilason,
Geging, Katambak,
Kirawan, Madas, Quiros
(Vs); Bugsi (Il); Bali-agus
(Sb); Kilawan (Ilonggo)
Long-Nosed Emperor
Approx. 7 species in the Philippines, 125 valid species; inhabits coastal waters and deeper trawling grounds, can live in brackish estuaries;
juveniles of 5-10 cm are sometimes extremely abundant in very shallow water in sheltered bays; feeds on bottom-living invertebrates; produces
pelagic eggs with no parental care; distinguished by filamentous dorsal spines and angular head profile; head and body mainly silvery with red
iridescence, particularly on upper sides and head, all fins red; found throughout SE Asia; Indo-W Pacific; all tropical and temperate seas; to 65 cm.
and at least 2 kg.
Very good
Inhabits coastal waters and deeper
2.1
45
38
11
20.5
6 Bought
Iza
food fish
trawling grounds; distinguished by
from
Campos,
filamentous dorsal spines and angular
Farmers
Phil Piper;
forehead profile; SE Asia, N.W. Australia,
Market
June 30,
N. Indian Ocean and W. Pacific; go 45 cm
(PhP105/
2007
kg)
About 26 species in the Philippines, 41 valid species; size ranges from 25 to 90 cm; terminal mouth with thick lips; no scales on cheek; dorsal fin
single, continuous; spines of anal fin are obvious and the fin shape is elongate, not rounded; tail is variable, from emarginated to forked; most
species found in shallow water on the sand or rubble edges of reefs bet. 5 and 30 m. depth; many species nocturnal; feeds on invertebrates in sand
snails, worms, crabs, prawns and starfish; some larger species eat other fish; most species live at least 15 years, some may reach about 30 yrs.
Very good
food fish
Inhabits coral reefs; distinguished by

pointed snout and overall grayish colour;
SE Asia, W. Pacific; to 80 cm. at least 5
kg.
5.3
75
64
25
32
1
6
Bought
from
Farmers
Market
(PhP119/
kg)
Iza
Campos,
Phil Piper;
Feb. 8,
2008
Nemipteridae
F-0064
Nemipterus
nematopus
(Bleeker, 1851)
Yellow-Tipped Threadfin
Bream
Banak
Mugillidae
Good food fish
Found in trawling grounds; distinguished

16
13.5
4
8.7
Bought
Iza
by bright yellow lips, thin yellow stripes on
from
Campos,
sides and pair of thin stripes on dorsal and
Farmers
July 2004
anal fins; N.W. Australia, Philippines; to
market,
40 cm
Cubao
Approx. 14 species in the Philippines; found in all tropical and temperate seas, even estuaries, but usually near the shore and often in groups;
feeds mainly detritus and algae from bottom sediments; found throughout Indo-Pacific; distribution; to 55 cm
~ 112 ~
Appendices
F-000
Ellochelon
vaigiensis (Quoy
& Gaimard, 1824)
Synonym: Lisa
vaigiensis
Diamon-Scale Mullet
Good food fish
Tilapia
Introduced for
cultivating
Cichilidae
F-0083
Tilapia sp.
Labridae
F-0020
Bankilan, Bungat, Isdang

bato, Maming, Mulmul
(Tg); Maringyan (Bc);
Hipos (Bc, Il)
Choerodon
schoenleinii
(Valenciennes,
1839)
Blackspot Tuskfish
Choerodon
anchorago
Anchor tuskfish
F-0087
F-0088
Inhabits coastal waters including

estuaries; distinguished by square-shaped
tail
0.61
35
31
Bought
from
Farmers
Market,
Cubao
(PhP82/k
g)
Iza
Campos,
Michelle
Eusebio,
Hermine
Xauflair;
July 25,
2008
Body compressed and oblong. Upper profile of the head is concave and snout rounded. The teeth are small and in several series. Dorsal and anal
spines are strong with the posterior portion of rays reaching beyond the caudal base. Pectoral fins as long, or a little longer than the head, reaching
the origin of the anal fin. Ventrals reaching beyond the anus and the caudal is sub-truncate. The body is greenish olive to black or brownish. All
Tilapia species have been introduced to the Philippines from Africa.
The species are freshwater or euryhaline
and some reproduce just as well in
brackish as freshwater. Classified as an
omnivore it feeds on plankton, rice and
bran etc.
Approx. 132 species in the Philippines out of 506 valid species worldwide; size ranges from 7 to 60 cm; usually terminal mouth with teeth often
protruding, many species have thick lips; variable shape from slender to deep body; has single, continuous and unnotched dorsal fin; fins are
usually truncate or rounded, some species with long tail lobes, active during the day; most species over sand, rubble, weed or coral and from a few
centimeters to at least 100 m; feeds on benthic invertebrates, fishes, plankton, coral (omnivores); swim with pectoral fins, using the tail only when
more speed is needed
Very good
Inhabits sand and weed areas adjacent to 1.36
40
33
14
6
9 Bought
Iza
food fish
coral reefs; overall bluish colour and black
from
Campos,
spot at base of middle of dorsal fin;
Farmers
Phil Piper;
throughout SE Asia, mainly W. Pacific; to
Market,
May 7,
80 cm, 9 kg.
Cubao
2008
(PhP
272/kg)
Very good
Incomplete head only
(PhP
Iza
food fish
0.9/kg)
Campos
Very good
Inhabits coral reefs, frequently seen on
0.48
27
23
10
4
8 Bough
Iza
food fish
silty inshore reefs distinguished by a
.
from
Campos,
pale diagonal bar at level of the pectoral
7 Farmers
Phil Piper;
fin Found throughout Southeast Asia;
Market,
April 21
grows to 38cm
Cubao
2009
(Php60/kg
)
~ 113 ~
Appendices
Scaridae
Loro, Luro, Lutiin,

Aliyakyak; Angol, Asul,
Bon-ak, Bunog na angol,
Maming (Tg, Bc);
Aliyakyak, Bungalog (Vs);
Mulmul (Bc, Vz, Ic);
Buyos (Sb)
Ember Parrotfish (male)
approx. 34 species in the Philippines, 96 valid species worldwide; inhabits coral reefs, usually seen on outer slopes; feeds on corals;produces
pelagic eggs; female distinguished by bright red fins and prominent reticulated pattern due to dark scale edges; male has blue or green stripes
above and below eye, on chin,and on margins of all fins except pelvics, also has exceptionally long pointed lobes on tail; Great Barrier Reef and
throughout SE Asia; Indo-C Pacific; to 45 cm
Very good
food fish
Inhabits coral reefs; male distinguished by

blunt snout and bicolour pattern; female
by red colour with irregular dark stripes;
SE Asia, Indo-E. Pacific; to 65 cm
55 cm
(approx)
Inhabits coral reefs; male distinguished by

orange patch on cheek, wavy lines on
snout, and light yellow-green colour of
pectoral fins; females are variable, but
generally very pale; SE Asia, mainly
W.Pacific; to 45 cm.
F-0025
Scarus
rubrioviolaceus
(Bleeker, 1849)
F-0026
Scarus rivulatus
(Valenciennes,
1840)
Surf Parrotfish (male)
Very good
food fish
F-0027
Scarus tricolor
(Bleeker, 1847)
Tricolor Parrotfish
Very good
food fish
Ephippidae
Alibangbang, Bayang,
Dahong-gabi, Darapugan
(Tg); Kulyong, Paras
(Bc); Bonak, Buna
(MST); Mayang (Pn);
Dalipugan, Diapugan,
Talokogon (Vs)
20
(approx.)
32
29
11
Bought
from
Farmers
Market,
Cubao
for PhP50
Bought
from
Opol,
Misamis
Oriental
(PhP120/
kg)
Bought
from
Farmers
Market,
Cubao
(PhP119/
kg)
Iza
Campos;
July 2004
Phil Piper;
May 2008
Inhabits coral reefs; usually seen on outer 1.6

38
25
8
19.5
6
Iza
slopes; female distinguished by bright red
.
Campos,
fins and prominent reticulated pattern due
5
Phil Piper;
to dark scale edges; male has blue or
June 13,
green stripes above and below eye, on
2007
chin and on margins of fins except pelvics,
also has exceptionally long pointed lobes
on tail; Great Barrier Reef and throughout
SE Asia, Indo-C. Pacific; to 45 cm.
Approx. 4 species in the Philippines, 14 valid species worldwide; size ranges from 45 to 60 cm; small, terminal mouth with distinctive body shape,
deep, nearly circular but very flattened from side to side and has small scales; single, continuous dorsal fin with long and flowing fins, tail truncate
or rounded; color is often silvery with dark bars; found in sheltered and offshore reefs, often hovering near coral heads or on steep walls; feeds on
benthic invertebrates and zooplanktons; related to surgeonfishes (Acanthuridae), may approach people underwater
~ 114 ~
Appendices
F-0006
Platax batavianus
(Cuvier, 1831)
Scatophagidae
F-0039
Scatophagus
argus (Linnaeus,
1758)
Siganidae
F-0040
Siganus guttatus
(Bloch, 1787)
F-0041
Siganus
vermiculatus
(Cuvier &
Valenciennes,
1835)
Hump-Headed Batfish
(subadult)
Bayang (Bc); Kitang (Tg,

Bc); Kikiro (Tg, Bc, Vs);
Akikiro, Kikilo, Lankia,
Ngisi-ngisi (Vs); Malaga
(Il)
Spotted Scat
Good food
Inhabits coral reefs, adult distinguished by
3.96
86
71
14
18
1 Bought from
Iza
fish; well
humped forehead and relatively elongate
5 Farmers
Campos,
flavoured and
body of adult; found throughout the region;
Market
Phil Piper;
free from
small juveniles have spectacular zebra-like
(PhP100/kg) June 28,
bones but not
markings; SE Asia, Indo-Australian
2007
commonly
archipelago; to 50 cm.
sold in the
market
1 species in the Philippines, 14 valid species; reaches up to 30 cm; small head, small, terminal mouth; deep-bodied, flattened from side to side,
angular body, tiny scales; single notched dorsal fin with very small pectoral fins; lives in mangroves, freshwater streams, estuaries; feeds on
seaweeds and organisms found on weed, human faeces; related to surgeonfishes (Acanthuridae)
Good food fish
Alama, Barangan, Indongan (Tg); Balawis

(Tg, Bc); Samaral (Tg, Vs); Batataway,
Batwayi, Kitong, Moblad,Taragbago, Toros
(Bc); Dangit, Turos (Vs); Bayag bago,
Buras, Dayagbagu, Kitang, Kitong, Layap,
Mandalada, Tabago, Tayog (Vs); Padas
(Il); Tambago (Ig)
Gold-Saddle Rabbitfish /
Good food fish
Golden Spinefoot
Vermiculated Spinefoot
Good food fish
Greenish silver with large black spots on

18
14
3.5
4.5
1 Bought
Iza
body; white below; black spines in anal,
0 from
Campos;
second dorsal fins & tail; dark streak in
.
Farmers
August
pectoral fin; inhabits brackish mangroves;
5 market,
2004
freshwater streams, estuaries; to 33 cm.
Cubao
Approx. 15 species in the Philippines, 32 valid species; size ranges from 30-55 cm; small, terminal mouth, upper lip broader than
lower; deep-bodied, flattened, from side to side; has venomous forward facing spine in front of dorsal fin; spine at each end of
pelvic fin, separated by 3 rays, all dorsal, anal and pelvic fin spines venomous and can inflict very painful woulds; tail truncate to
deeply forked; slender tail base; feed during the day, often foraging in large groups over seagrass beds and seaweed flats;
herbivorous, eating algae and seagrasses, occasionally tunicates and sponges
Inhabits coral reefs and lagoons,
frequently among mangroves and
brackish water; distinguished by spotted
pattern and large golden spot below
posterior part of dorsal fin; throughout SE
Asia; E Indian Ocean and W Pacific; to 42
cm.
2.72
33
25
13
Bought
from
Farmers
market,
Cubao
(PhP65/k
g)
Iza
Campos;
August 30,
2007
Inhabits shallow coastal reefs and

brackish areas, usually seen in small
aggregations; distinguished by
vermiculated colour pattern
2.72
33
25
13
Bought
from
Farmers
market,
Cubao
(PhP65/k
g)
Iza
Campos;
August 30,
2007
~ 115 ~
Appendices
F-0042
Siganus lineatus
(Linnaeus, 1835)
Sphyraenidae
F-0011
Sphyraena
barracuda
(Walbaum, 1792)
F-0012
Sphyraena jello
(Cuvier, 1829)
Trichiuridae
F-0063
Trichiurus sp.
F-0069
Trichiurus
lepturus
Golden-Lined Spinefoot
Good food fish
Inhabits coral reefs and mangrove

24
18
5.5
9
4 Bought
Iza
estuaries; distinguished by yellow-orange
from
Campos;
lines and large spot below rear part of
Farmers
July 2004
dorsal fin; N. Australia, New Guinea,
Market
Philippines, mainly W.Pacific; to 30 cm.
Asugon, Balyos, Bikuda, Kitil, Rompe kanado,
Approx. 8 species in the Philippines out of 28 valid species, size ranges from 50 to 180 cm; large mouth, pointed snout
Siga-sigaro, Tigao, Ti-ig, Trosilyo, Tursilyo, Ugoy
with protruding lower jaw with many long, sharp-edged teeth of unequal size; body is very elongate and cylindrical
(Tg); Batig, Bule-os, Dugso (Bc); Mangaiho,
anteriorly with small scales; two dorsal fins that are widely separated with small pectoral, pelvic and anal fins; forked tail;
Tabanko, Tunong-tunong (Vs); Babayo, Babayote
common on coral reefs, often in schools on the outer edge of reef walls; some species are nocturnal; piscivores
(Il);
Great Barracuda
Fairly edible
Inhabits coastal waters and offshore reefs; 0.8
55
48
13
8
9 Bought
Iza
Silvery with faint dark oblique bars on
.
from
Campos;
upper back with pointed tail lobes, attacks
5 Farmers
Sept. 17,
on humans have nearly all occurred in
Market
2007
murky water or when fish was provoked;
(PhP150/
found throughout SE Asia, to 180 cm.
kg)
Pickhandle Barracuda
Good food fish Inhabits coastal waters and offshore reefs; 0.4
23
19
8
2.7
6 Bought
Iza
silvery underneath and on sides, with
.
from
Campos,
about 20 dark wavy bars that extend just
5 Bulalacao Leee Neri;
below lateral line, yellowish tail; found
market,
April 2006
throughout SE Asia, Indo-W. Pacific; to
Oriental
150 cm.
Mindoro
Balila, Espada, Ispada,
Approximately 8 species in the Philippines. They are of medium size, up to 60cm with a pointed head and large mouth and big teeth on the upper
Lahing, Laying (Tg);
jaw. The body is very elongate, very flattened from side to side and ribbon-like. Hairtails have a single dorsal fin running from behind the head to
Sikwan (Bc); Langkoy,
the tail, short pectoral fins, no pelvic fins and an anal fin that consists of separate spines. The tail is very thin and pointed.
Liwit (Bc, Vs),
Bolungonas (II)
Hairtail
Found at midwater in deep waters, on the
bottom and in estuaries. Depth ranges
from extremely shallow to at least 100m
Longhead Hairtail
Found at midwater in deep waters, on the
bottom and in estuaries. Depth ranges
from extremely shallow to at least 100m
caught with hook and line
Scombridae
~ 116 ~
Appendices
F-0054
Rastrelliger
brachysoma
(Bleeker, 1851)
Short-Bodied Mackerel
F-0055
Thunnus obesus
(Lowe, 1839)
Bigeye Tuna
F-0056
Euthynnus affinis
(Cantor, 1849)
Mackerel Tuna
Istiophoridae
Very good
food fish
Inhabits coastal waters between 10 & 50

m. depth; deep body, dorsal fins yellowish
with black edge; tail & pectoral fin yellow;
back bluish green with dark spots, sides
and belly siver, anal and pelvic fins pale.
Bought
Iza
from San
Campos,
Teodoro
Leee Neri;
market,
April 2007
Oriental
Mindoro
Very good
Very large eyes, long pectoral fin,
1.2
45
37
10.5 10
1 Bought
Iza
food fish
reaching to base of second dorsal fin,
5 from
Campos,
dorsal fins close together 8 to 10 finlets;
Farmers
August
offshore, usually in groups
Market,
2007
Cubao
(PhP125/
kg)
Very good
Inhabits coastal waters and near offshore
2.3
85
78
24
24
1 Bought
Iza
food fish
reefs in groups; distinguished with dark
9 from
Campos,
blue wavy lines from middle of first dorsal
.
Bulalacao Leee Neri;
fin to tail
5 market,
May 2006
Oriental
Mindoro
These fishes range widely in tropical and temperate seas of the Indo-Pacific region. At certain times of the year they migrate to spawning grounds
on the edge of continental shelves or off ocean islands. The Indo-Pacific blue marlin is the largest species, reported to reach unofficial weights in
excess of 906kg.
F-0076
Makouira mazara
(Jordan and
Snyder, 1901)
Blue Marlin
High
economic
importance
consists of two
precaudal
vertebrae.
The blue marlin is a swift predatory

inhabitant of the open oceans and is
generally found well off shore.
F-0085
Istiophorus
platypterus
(Shaw and
Nodder, 1792)
Indo-Pacific Sailfish
The sailfish is a swift predatory inhabitant

of the open oceans and is generally found
well off shore.
F-0086
Istiophorus
platypterus
(Shaw and
Nodder, 1792)
Indo-Pacific Sailfish
High
economic
importance
consists of 9
caudal
vertebrae
High
economic
importance;
Partial head
only
The sailfish is a swift predatory inhabitant

of the open oceans and is generally found
well off shore.
2.7
7.3
2.8
2.3
3
.
6
Bought
from
Farmers
Market,
Cubao
(PhP303/
kg)
Bought
from
Farmers
Market,
Cubao
Iza
Campos,
31 Jan
2008
Bought
from
Farmers
Market,
Cubao
Iza
Campos,
Phil Piper
Iza
Campos,
Phil Piper
~ 117 ~
Appendices
Channidae
Bangus, Sabalo (Tg);

Banglos (Bc); Banglis,
Banglos, Banato
(spawner); Banglot,
Bangos (Il); Awa
(spawner, Vs, Il)
Milkfish
F-0029
Chanos chanos
(Forskl, 1775)
F-0030
Chanos chanos
(Forskl, 1775)
Milkfish (no head)
F-0031
Chanos chanos
(Forskl, 1775)
Milkfish
F-0032
Chanos chanos
(Forskl, 1775)
Milkfish
Acanthuridae
F-0033
Acanthurus mata
(Cuvier, 1829)
Syn: A. bleekeri
Labahita, Dabahita,
Saging-saging, Samaral;
Komang (Tg, Vs);
Gurisan, Indangan,
Pugpugot (Ig); Pilo-pilo,
Bagis, Tudlo-an (Sb)
Elongate Surgeonfish
One species in family; size ranges from 50 to 180 cm; flattened, pointed head, small mouth with no teeth; no scales on head; elongate, streamlined
body with small scales; dorsal fin is single, triangular in middle of back; deeply forked tail; habitat is variable freshwater, mangroves, coral reef
lagoons, outer reef slopes, and more often, silty environments than clean waters; spawns March-July; feeds on plants, benthic invertebtrates
Very good
food fish
Inhabits coastal waters near reefs;

distinguished by small mouth and scissorlike tail; SE Asia; Indo-W. Pacific; to 120
cm.
0.7
27
Very good
food fish
Inhabits coral reefs areas; distinguished

by narrow stripes on side and yellow
bands in front of eye; sharp spine on each
side of tail base; N.W. Australia, SE Asia,
Indo-C. Pacific; to 50 cm
0.5
27.5
23
Bought
Iza
from U.P. Campos;
Coop
Aug. 16,
(PhP120/
2007
kg)
Very good
33
Bought
Jack
food fish
distinguished by small mouth and scissor(approx)
from
Medrana;
like tail; SE Asia; Indo-W. Pacific; to 120
Metro
year 2006
cm.
Manila
market
Very good
0.6
25
22
4
6
3 Bought
Iza
food fish
distinguished by small mouth and scissorfrom U.P. Campos;
Coop
Aug. 16,
cm.
(PhP120/
2007
kg)
Very good
0.8
28.5
22.5
4.5
8
4 Bought
Iza
food fish
distinguished by small mouth and scissorfrom
Campos;
Maypajo
August
cm.
Market
2004
Approx. 46 species in the Philippines, 81 valid species; two subfamilies, Acanthurinae with single spine that folds into a groove and Nasinae
(Unicornfish) with 1 or 2 fixed spines on each side of the tail base; size ranges from 21 to 90 cm but most species is from 24 to 40 cm; eyes high on
head with small terminal mouth, many Unicornfishes have horn-like spike on head; deep-bodied, flattened from side to side, round to elongate with
tough skin and minute scales; dorsal fin is continuous and unnotched; anal fin is long with one or more scalpel-like spines on tail base; tail truncate,
emarginated or lunate but never forked; sleep in small caves or coral crevices at night; most species are herbivorous grazing on algae.
19.5
3
.
5
5.5
8.5
Bought
from
Divisoria
market,
Manila
(PhP100/
kg)
Iza
Campos;
March 8,
2008
~ 118 ~
Appendices
F-0034
Acanthurus mata
(Cuvier, 1829)
Syn: A. bleekeri
Very good
food fish

0.5
30
21
10.5
F-0035
Acanthurus mata
(Cuvier, 1829)
Syn: A. bleekeri
Very good
food fish

0.9
37
28
4.5
15
Surgeonfish (prepared
dried and sold in the
market no head)
Very good
food fish
Incomplete; vertebra only
inhabits coral reefs; feeds on algae and

invertebrates; produces pelagic eggs;
distinguished by bulbous snout and plain
greyish colour; pair of sharp spines on
each side of tail base, and elongate tail
filaments; Great Barrier Reef, NW
Australia, and throughout SE Asia; found
throughout SE Asia; Indo-W Pacific; to 60
cm.
Large forehead spine, juvenile with white
ring on tail base, 2 spines on tail base;
overall greenish brown or bluish grey;
subadult tail with whitish outer margin and
black edge
F-00356
1.8
37
28
4.5
15
05
29
24
1
1
Bought
from
Divisoria
market,
Manila
(PhP100/
kg)
Bought
from
Farmers
Market,
Cubao
(PhP100/
kg)
Bought
from
Cebu City
market
Bought
from
Farmers
Market,
Cubao
(PhP78/k
g)
Iza
Campos;
March 8,
2008
Bought
from
Farmers
Market,
Cubao
Iza
Campos;
August
2004
Iza
Campos,
Phil Piper;
June 13,
2007
Danny
Galang;
November
2007
Iza
Campos,
Phil Piper;
June 21,
2007
F-0037
Naso tuberosus
(Lacepde, 1801)
Humphead Unicornfish
Very good
food fish
F-0038
Naso annulatus
(Quoy & Gaimard,
1825)
Whitemargin Unicornfish
Very good
food fish
Viichan (It)
The flatfish group includes seven families with about 540 species. Approximately five species are known from Philippine waters. Most are marine
fishes, inhabiting continental shelves and slopes, but fresh and brackish waters are also inhabited. The flatfishes have highly compressed bodies
and both eyes oddly situated on the same side of the head. Being bottom-dwellers they use an amazing ability to change colour and merge with
the sediments to avoid predators.
PLEURONECTIFORMES
Pleuronectidae
F-0072
F-0073
F-0075
Pleuronectidae
Pleuronectidae
Pleuronectidae
Flounder
Flounder
Flounder
~ 119 ~
Appendices
TETRAODONTIFORMES
Balistidae
Papakol (Tg); Pugot,

Ampapagot, Pagsagot,
Pakol, Subagyo (Vs);
Pakoy, Pogot (Sb)
approx. 17 species in the Philippines with size ranging bet. 20 and 60 cm. approx. 17 species in the Philippines; size ranges from 20 to 60 cm;
eyes set high on head, long tapering snout, small terminal mouth, jaws very powerful with strong, sharp teeth; skin is rough and leathery with nonoverlapping, large scales; deep-bodied, flatted from side to side; two dorsal fings ad 3 dorsal spines which fold into a groove; anal fin has only soft
rays, no spines; pelvin fin reduced to small knob on pelvic bone; tail is truncate, rounded or lunate
Very good
food fish
F-0001
Abalistes stelaris
(Bloch &
Schneider, 1801)
Starry Triggerfish
F-0002
Canthidermis
maculatus
(Bleeker, 1865)
White-spotted Triggerfish
Tetraodontidae
F-0014
Botite (Tg); Botiti,

Tamburaunan (Bc);
Langigidon, Tikong (Vs);
Tungkan (Si)
Pufferfish
Buteteng Laot, Butete

(Tg); Duto (Vs)
Diodontidae
subadult; max. size is 60 cm, 2.4 kg.;

0.5
34
27
7
12 5 Collected
Iza
found in mud or silty sand bottoms and
from
Campos,
coral reefs; inshore, usually solitary; active
Calubcub II,
Phil Piper;
during the day; feeds on zooplankton,
San Juan,
May 3,
crabs, molluscs, sea urchins, benthic
Batangas
2008
algae; swim by moving second dorsal and
(PhP25.00/k
anal fins, only using tail when speed is
g)
needed; may attack humans and give
painful bite; found throughout SE Asia,
Indo-W. Pacific
Good food
adult, max. size is 35 cm.; inhabits sleep
0.5
30
26
9
10 4 Collected
Phil Piper;
fish though
outer reef slopes, sometimes seen far out
. from Opol,
May 2008
earlier thought to sea around logs or other floating debris;
5 Cagayan de
to cause
distinguished by relatively elongate body,
Oro
virulent
triangular dorsal and anal fins, rounded
(PhP80.00/k
poisoning
caudal fin with upper and lower lobes
g)
slightly elongate, often with small white
spots covering head and body; found in
islands adjacent to deep water throughout
SE Asia; Indo-C. Pacific
Approx. 22 species in the Philippines out of 185 valid species worldwide; size ranges from 7 to 90 cm; beak-like mouth with tough skin but no
scales and ribs; single, short-based dorsal fin that is positioned well back on body; fins have no spines, no pelvic fins; tail is rounded; habitat is
variable but generally inshore in shallow coral reefs, sand or silt areas or seagrass beds; feeds on algae, tunicates, sponges, corals, invertebrates
(including crown of thorns starfish); able to increase body size by swallowing water when alarmed; the tetradontoxin poison comes from algae
eaten by the fish
Poor edibility
Grayish brown, lighter underneath
11
10
4
3.5 1 Collected
Iza
from Laiya
Campos,
Aplaya, San
Phil Piper;
Juan,
May 2,
Batangas
2008
Approx. 5 species in the Philippines out of 18 valid species; size ranges from 30 to 70 cm.; eyes are larger than pufferfishes and with powerful
jaws; sharp spines on the head and body which can inflict painful wounds; Genus Diodon has movable spines that become erect when the fish is
alarmed; Burrfishes have fixed spines that are always erect; the spines are modified scales; one dorsal fin with broader pectoral fins than
pufferfishes, rounded tail; mostly nocturnal, hide in caves or under ledges during the day; feeds on sea urchins, snails and crabs; may have
tetradontoxin in their tissues, although less common in pufferfishes; capable of inflicting a severe bite
~ 120 ~
Appendices
F-0013
Burrfish
Poor edibility
but some can
be used as
fishmeals
Inhabits shallow rocky seas; carnivorous;

breeds in shallow areas and produces
demersal, non-adhesive eggs
0.05
10
6
.
5
F-0015
Porcupinefish
Poor edibility
Inhabits coastal waters in the vicinity of

reefs.
0.1
14
12.5
F-0081
Porcupinefish
Dermal spines
only
Inhabits coastal waters in the vicinity of

reefs.
Collected
from
Calubcub II,
San Juan,
Batangas
Collected
from
Calubcub II,
San Juan,
Batangas
Batanes
Iza
Campos,
Phil Piper;
May 2,
2008
Iza
Campos;
April 15,
2008
Victor Paz,
1998
~ 121 ~
Appendices
APPENDIX II: Teleost Osteological Elements
(Includes elements relevant in archaeology synthesized in Colley 1990; fish osteology terms after Cailliet, et al. 1986)
REGION
ELEMENT
DESCRIPTION
Mesethmoid
Medial bone lying between nasal capsules
Lateral ethmoids
a pair of bones in the ethmoid region with separate the olfactory capsule for the orbit
Vomer/Prevomer
A median bone usually bearing teeth at the anterior extremity of the roof of the mouth
Preethmoids
Paired bones in the floor of nasal capsules
Nasal
A pair of small tubular bones lying on the sides of the anterior tips of the frontals
Frontals
A pair of bones that form most of the dorsal surface of the cranium
Sclerotics
Pair of hemispherical cartilages surrounding the eyeballs
Suborbitals
A series of paired bones around the margin of the orbit; usually six or less and bear the suborbital lateral line canal
Pterotics
Paired bones each enclosing the horizontal semicircular canal of the inner ear
Prootics
Paired bones each forming the base of the otic capsule; join pterosphenoid in front and exociipital beneath.
Epiotics
Paired bones each enclosing the posterior semicircular canal
Exoccipitals
Paired bones at back of skull; form the sides of the foramen magnum
Supraoccipital
Median bone forming posterior root of the skull
Supratemporals
Paired bones covering the pterotic; contain part of lateral line and articulate with the posttemporal bone of the pectoral girdle
Parietals
Paired bones on roof of the skull behind the frontals
Basioccipital
Bone forming posterior base of skull, articulating with centrum of the first vertebra
Basisphenoid
Small, median, Y-shaped bone in rear of orbit
Parasphenoid
Long, unpaired bone running midline below the orbits; between prevomer and basioccipital
Foramen Magnum
Posterior opening in cranium through which the spinal cord passes as it leaves the brain
Premaxillaries
Toothed paired bones forming front of gape
Maxillaries
Paired bones behind or above premaxillaries
Supramaxillaries
One or two pairs of bones above the maxillaries; in ancestral teleosts
Axial Skeleton
Olfactory Region
Orbital Region
Otic Region
Branchiocranium
Upper Jaw
~ 122 ~
Appendices
Lower Jaw
Suspensorium
Articulars/Angulars
With retroarticulars in derived teleosts; paired bones occupying part of the posterior end of the lower jaw
Retroarticulars
Paired bones each at the lower posterior corner of the articular/angular
Dentaries
Large paired bones forming the front of the lower jaw and fused at the front with the ossified tip of the sesamoid angular (Meckels cartilage)
Sasamoid Angular (Meckels Cartilage)
Paired bones each inside of articular and involved in the attachment of mandibular adductor muscle
Palatines
Paired bones forming the most anterior component of the pterygoquadrate arch
Entopterygoids
Paired, articulating with palatine in front and joining metapterygoid behind
Metapterygoids
Paired bones, each joining the entopterygoid in front and articulating with the hyomandibular
Ectopterygoids/
Pterygoids
Paired bones, each joining entopterygoid above and the quadrate behind; between palatine and quadrate
Quadrates
Paired bones, each joining the ectopterygoid in front, the entopterygoid above and articulating beneath with the articular
Hyomandibulars
Paired bones each articulating above with the otic capsule and the symplectic below.
Symplectics
Small paired bones each at the lower tip of the hyomandibular
Opercles/
Opercular Series
Operculars
Flat paired bones comprising most of the gill cover
Preopercles/
Preoperculars
Paired bones ahead of opercle, partially cover hyomandibular and carry a branch of lateral line canal
Interopercles/
Interoperculars
Paired bones lying below preopercles separating them from the subopercles
Subopercles/
Suboperculars
Paired bones lying below opercles and overlapping the branchiostegal rays
Subtemporals/
Hyoid Region
Suprapreopercles
One or more small paired dermal tube bones carrying the lateral line canal between the preopercles and supratemporal
Interhyals
Small paired cartilage bones each connecting the epihyal beneath to the symplectic or hyomandibular above
Epihyals
Paired bones each joining the ceratohyal beneath; bear three pairs of branchiostegal rays
Ceratohyals
Paired bones joing the hypohyals infront and bearing branchiostegal rays below
Hypohyals
Paired set of bones joining the ceratohyal behind and joining with the glossohyal medially
~ 123 ~
Appendices
Glossohyal/
Branchial Region
Basihyal
Unpaired bone lying just above the junction of the lower hypohyals with front end free
Urohyal
Unpaired bone behind and beneath the glossohyal; it arises in a septum between the longitudinal throat muscles
Branchiostegal Rays
From 6 to 34 pairs of rays arising from the ceratohyal or epihyal and forming the floor of the branchial chamber
Pharyngobranchials/Dorsal Ph Plate
Paired bones forming upper members of the first four branchial arches, the fourth sometimes bear teeth
Pharyngeal Plate
Three pairs of small, toothed dermal plates that are found in gills
Epibranchials
Paired cartilage bones beneath pharyngobranchials
Ceratobranchials
Paired bones beneath epibranchials on all five arches; the fifth sometimes bear the lower pharyngobranchial teeth
Hypobranchials
Paired bones beneath ceratobranchials of the first four arches
Atlas
1st vertebra, articulates to the base of the skull
Cephalic
2nd to 4th vertebra after atlas (authors term used only for this study)
Vertebral Column
Vertebrae
Abdominal/
Precaudal
Generally all vertebrae anterior to the 1st caudal vertebra; open haemal spines
Caudal
1st caudal vertebra and all posterior to it, marked by fused haemal spines
Ultimate Vertebra
Preural vertebra
Penultimate Vertebra
Preural II vertebra
Epineurals
Appendicular Skeleton
Median fins
Caudal Fin
Epurals; Uroneurals; Urostyle; Hypurals; Parhypural
Dorsal fin and
Paired Fins
Anal fins
Fin rays; Interneurals; Interhaemals
Pterygiophores;
Support the dorsal and anal fins comprises of round distal bone, short horizontal middle bone, long pointed proximal bone
Pelvic Fins
Basipterygium (Pelvic Bone); Pelvic Fin Rays
Pectoral Fins
Posttemporals; Supracleithrum; Postcleithrum
~ 124 ~
Appendices
Element
Taxon
Anguillidae
Cyprinidae
Belonidae
Exocoetidae
Platycephelidae
Serranidae
Carangidae
Coryphaenidae
Menidae
Lutjanidae
Caesionidae
Haemulidae
Sparidae
Lethrinidae
Nemipteridae
Mugilidae
Labridae
Scaridae
Ephippidae
Scatophagidae
Siganidae
Acanthuridae
Sphyraenidae
Trichiuridae
Scombridae
Balistidae
Pleuronectidae
Diodontidae
Tetraodontidae
APPENDIX III: Comparative Rating Scheme
premaxilla
Carangidae
premaxilla
Diodontidae
premaxilla
Labridae
premaxilla
Lethrinidae
premaxilla
Scaridae
AN143
premaxilla
Scombridae
AN175
premaxilla
Serranidae
AN26
premaxilla
SB911
maxilla
AN129
maxilla
Sparidae
Coryphaenid
ae
Haemulidae
AN71
maxilla
Lutjanidae
maxilla
upper
pharyngeal
teeth
upper
pharyngeal
teeth
Serranidae
Labridae
Scaridae
Labridae
Scaridae
Carangidae
Coryphaenid
Sp No
AN149;
AN155
SB114;
SB163;
SB1276
AN138;
SB557;
SB1244
AN93;
AN166
AN174
AN148
AN135;
SB185;
SB235
PM379
AN104;
AN107;
SB635;
SB652
lower
pharyngeal
plate
SB859
lower
pharyngeal
plate
dentary
AN144;
dentary
PM385
~ 125 ~
Appendices
SB1263
SB13;
SB178;
SB597
AN27;
AN80
SB213;
SB525
AN95;
AN141;
SB559;
SB560
PM381;
PM384
ae
dentary
Diodontidae
dentary
Labridae
dentary
Lethrinidae
dentary
Lutjanidae
dentary
Scaridae
AN134
dentary
SB699
articular
SB1197
articular
SB320;
SB465
AN106
Sphyraenida
e
Carangidae
Coryphaenid
ae
articular
Lethrinidae
articular
Lutjanidae
AN89
AN74;
AN117
SB956
articular
Scaridae
articular
Serranidae
articular
unidentified
SB1076
articular
unidentified
SB696
quadrate
unidentified
SB1272
unidentified
Lethrinidae
SB1083
quadrate
hyomandib
ular
opercle
SB322
opercle
SB1013
opercle
Balistidae
Coryphaenid
ae
Lethrinidae
SB1011
preopercle
unidentified
preopercle
unidentified
preopercle
unidentified
SB341
frontal
unidentified
PM1141
frontal
unidentified
SB1003
SB550;
SB948
SB1077
~ 126 ~
Appendices
SB109
SB2;
SB35;
SB446
SB1;
SB3;
SB50
SB32
SB572
SB30;
SB31
AN119;
AN120;
SB57;
SB151;
SB186;
PM2
AN29
SB156;
SB208;
SB1254
; PM359
AN77
AN86;
AN87
SB1132
PM3;
PM1327
AN29
atlas
Coryphaenid
ae
cephalic
vertebra
Coryphaenid
ae
abdominal
vertebra
Coryphaenid
ae
Haemulidae
Carangidae
Coryphaenid
ae
Balistidae
Siganidae
Acanthuridae
Diodontidae
Balistidae
Siganidae
abdominal
vertebra
caudal
vertebra
caudal
vertebra
1st dorsal
spine
dorsal
spine
dorsal
spine and
pterygiopho
re
dermal
spine
dermal
spine
ceratohyal
pterygiopho
re
pterygiopho
re
Tetraodontid
ae
Carangidae
~ 127 ~
Appendices
WEIGHT
AVE TL
DEPTH
DORSO-VENT
BASED ON POST
MED-LAT WIDTH
BASED ON POST
DEPTH
DORSO-VENT
BASED ON ANT
LAT WIDTH
BASED ANT MED-
LENGTH
BASED ON
VERTEBRA TYPE
VENT DEPTH
POST DORSO-
WIDTH
POST MED-LAT
DEPTH
ANT DORSO-VENT
WIDTH
ANT MED-LAT
LENGTH
GRID
FLENGTH
SPNO
DEPTH
APPENDIX IV: C. hippurus Estimated Weights and Lengths
SB489
C-11
50-60
39.69
33.96
33.12
ABD
N.A.
1999.01
2067.00
N.A.
N.A.
2033.01
9.36
SB98
B-10
70-100
17.20
29.14
28.32
N.D.
N.A.
1597.22
1690.16
N.A.
1643.69
1643.69
7.57
SB99
B-10
70-100
22.88
27.12
23.64
SB130
B-11
80-90
35.68
SB18
A-9
90-100
34.04
SB102
B-10
70-100
36.27
SB131
B-11
80-90
29.24
SB168
C-10
20-40
18.94
SB171
C-10
40-50
25.71
SB319
C-10
70-80
30.83
24.67
SB146
B-11
90-100
31.67
25.81
SB446
C-11
20-40
17.44
SB2
A-9
60-70
18.84
SB487
C-11
50-60
SB68
B-10
50-60
SB195
C-10
60-70
26.47
23.36
CEPH
N.A.
1616.30
1599.56
1563.48
1580.61
1589.99
7.32
24.55
24.84
ABD
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
1424.63
1545.76
1485.19
6.84
CAUD
1484.50
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
1484.50
6.84
CAUD
1581.75
N.A.
1385.43
N.A.
1408.03
1458.41
6.72
ABD
N.A.
1412.14
1450.39
N.A.
N.A.
1431.27
6.59
ABD
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
1480.92
1365.92
1423.42
6.55
CAUD
0.00
1362.10
1377.66
N.A.
N.A.
1369.88
6.31
25.84
CAUD
1344.51
1270.43
N.A.
N.A.
1442.08
1352.34
6.23
23.51
CAUD
1381.15
1329.14
1275.57
1381.42
1312.04
1335.86
6.15
20.12
21.37
CEPH
1168.10
N.A.
1361.38
N.A.
1445.96
1325.15
6.10
21.98
19.42
19.95
CEPH
1261.87
1309.97
1314.02
N.A.
1349.88
1308.93
6.03
24.03
21.67
N.D.
0.00
1317.13
1293.28
N.A.
1305.21
1305.21
6.01
32.86
23.53
22.86
CAUD
1433.04
1211.72
1268.36
N.A.
N.A.
1304.38
6.01
25.98
21.07
20.75
ABD
1345.95
1240.26
1294.99
1219.78
1343.52
1288.90
5.93
24.97
23.99
25.23
23.24
25.52
26.45
17.81
21.95
24.83
22.99
26.52
21.02
21.59
~ 128 ~
WEIGHT
AVE TL
DEPTH
DORSO-VENT
BASED ON POST
MED-LAT WIDTH
BASED ON POST
DEPTH
DORSO-VENT
BASED ON ANT
LAT WIDTH
BASED ANT MED-
BASED ON LENGTH
VERTEBRA TYPE
DEPTH
POST DORSO-VENT
WIDTH
POST MED-LAT
DEPTH
ANT DORSO-VENT
WIDTH
ANT MED-LAT
LENGTH
FLENGTH
DEPTH
GRID
SPNO
Appendices
SB100
B-10
70-100
25.39
23.08
20.72
20.18
20.49
ABD
1315.39
1358.58
1293.12
1171.04
1275.07
1282.64
5.91
SB66
B-10
50-60
26.30
20.82
20.23
20.87
20.67
ABD
1362.53
1225.54
1262.54
1211.08
1286.27
1269.59
5.85
SB3
A-9
60-70
25.08
20.37
20.41
21.23
20.91
ABD
1299.33
1199.06
1273.77
1231.97
1301.20
1261.07
5.81
SB30
B-9
50-60
28.94
24.58
25.12
20.91
22.22
CAUD
1262.09
1265.80
1393.75
1089.19
1240.05
1250.18
5.76
SB69
B-10
50-60
23.35
22.93
CAUD
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
1216.29
1279.68
1247.98
5.75
SB35
B-9
70-80
19.41
18.08
CEPH
1415.92
N.A.
1182.75
1146.47
1223.35
1242.12
5.72
SB155
B-11
60-70
25.53
24.03
22.34
CAUD
N.A.
1237.47
1239.51
N.A.
N.A.
1238.49
5.70
SB65
B-10
50-60
25.60
23.38
22.90
CAUD
N.A.
1204.00
1270.58
N.A.
N.A.
1237.29
5.70
SB503
F1-9
SP 2
19.84
19.14
ABD
1314.35
1167.86
1194.51
N.A.
1221.55
1224.57
5.64
SB167
C-9
40-50
28.23
23.29
22.52
CAUD
N.A.
1199.37
1249.50
N.A.
N.A.
1224.43
5.64
SB148
B-11
90-100
24.47
20.77
19.53
ABD
N.A.
1222.60
1218.85
N.A.
N.A.
1220.73
5.62
SB190
C-10
40-60
20.77
20.38
ABD
N.A.
1222.60
1271.90
1186.13
1202.26
1220.72
5.62
SB123
B-11
50-60
24.56
N.D.
1213.19
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
1213.19
1213.19
5.59
SB147
B-11
90-100
29.46
23.03
22.91
21.28
CAUD
1284.77
1185.98
1271.14
1108.47
N.A.
1212.59
5.58
SB50
B-10
20-40
19.69
20.57
20.02
22.58
19.29
ABD
1020.08
1210.83
1249.43
1310.31
1200.39
1198.21
5.52
SB67
B-10
50-60
28.53
21.88
21.62
21.28
21.55
CAUD
1244.21
1126.75
1199.56
1108.47
1202.66
1176.33
5.42
30.01
21.14
25.37
17.48
19.63
20.44
19.32
~ 129 ~
SB197
C-10
60-70
24.55
SB1
A-9
50-60
22.35
SB48
B-9
80-90
25.47
SB109
B-11
40-50
SB31
B-9
50-60
SB599
QR7-9
30-50
SB192
C-10
50-60
SB149
B-11
90-100
27.24
SB101
B-10
70-100
26.82
SB4
A-9
60-70
24.27
SB150
B-11
90-100
22.63
SB51
B-10
50-60
SB64
B-10
50-60
SB740
QR7-9
110-120
13.92
22.36
18.81
23.23
20.83
21.45
WEIGHT
AVE TL
VENT DEPTH
BASED ON
POST DORSO-
WIDTH
BASED ON
POST MED-LAT
DEPTH
DORSO-VENT
BASED ON ANT
WIDTH
MED-LAT
BASED ANT
LENGTH
BASED ON
TYPE
VERTEBRA
VENT DEPTH
POST DORSO-
WIDTH
POST MED-LAT
VENT DEPTH
ANT DORSO-
WIDTH
ANT MED-LAT
LENGTH
FLENGTH
DEPTH
GRID
SPNO
Appendices
21.03
CAUD
1070.64
N.A.
1240.62
1210.04
1173.64
1173.74
5.40
16.98
ABD
1157.89
1107.23
1299.99
0.00
1056.64
1155.44
5.32
21.15
CAUD
1110.76
N.A.
N.A.
1117.32
1180.34
1136.14
5.23
ATLAS
N.A.
938.44
1317.78
N.A.
N.A.
1128.11
5.19
CAUD
1129.08
1109.76
1155.73
1098.05
1056.44
1109.81
5.11
19.86
19.92
21.55
20.83
16.34
22.23
19.14
CAUD
N.A.
1144.78
1061.96
N.A.
1103.37
1103.37
5.08
12.48
21.22
20.06
CAUD
N.A.
1092.77
1113.01
N.A.
N.A.
1102.89
5.08
20.03
19.69
25.89
26.18
18.93
20.56
19.93
CAUD
1187.95
1031.49
1092.48
1070.96
1112.25
1099.03
5.06
19.53
19.55
CAUD
1169.63
N.A.
N.A.
1017.31
1091.04
1092.66
5.03
18.47
18.11
CAUD
1058.43
N.A.
1019.79
962.10
1010.68
1012.75
4.66
CAUD
986.91
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
986.91
4.54
ABD
N.A.
984.20
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
984.20
4.53
CAUD
692.54
809.02
N.A.
800.10
769.59
767.81
3.54
N.D.
N.A.
451.65
514.45
N.A.
483.05
483.05
2.22
AVE.
1243.39
5.73
16.72
15.88
7.89
18.38
21.08
15.71
8.24
15.36
8.62
13.79
~ 130 ~
Appendices
APPENDIX V: F-0003 Coryphaenidae Measurements (Vertebrae)

WEIGHT
(kg)
3.96
v2 length
10.90
v5 length
14.47
v8 length
16.05
v11
length
17.46
1st
caudal
length
18.76
4caudal
length
19.21
7caudal
length
20.78
10caudal
length
21.70
13caudal
length
18.73
antepen
length
14.53
10.38
atlas antdorsoven
tral
12.98
atlas antmedlateral
15.21
v3 antdorsoven
tral
12.70
v3 antmedlateral
14.85
v3 postdorsoven
tral
12.69
atlas
postdorsoven
13.48
tral
v3 postmedlateral
14.19
v6 antdorsoven
tral
13.49
v6 antmedlateral
14.39
v6 postdorsoven
tral
13.26
v6 postmedlateral
14.13
v9 antdorsoven
tral
13.73
v9 antmedlateral
14.66
v9 postdorsoven
tral
14.46
v9 postmedlateral
14.54
v10
length
v12 antdorsoven
tral
14.53
v12 antmedlateral
14.89
v12 postdorsoven
tral
14.32
v12 postmedlateral
15.08
v13
length
2caudal
antdorsoven
14.73
tral
2caudal
ant-medlateral
15.99
2caudal
postdorsoven
14.70
tral
2caudal
postmed16.03
lateral
3caudal
length
5caudal
antdorsoven
50.89
tral
5caudal
ant-medlateral
16.62
5caudal
postdorsoven
15.80
tral
5caudal
postmed16.99
lateral
6caudal
length
8caudal
antdorsoven
17.25
tral
8caudal
ant-medlateral
18.14
8caudal
postdorsoven
17.19
tral
8caudal
postmed17.94
lateral
9caudal
length
11caudal
antdorsoven
16.55
tral
11caudal
ant-medlateral
17.21
11caudal
postdorsoven
15.85
tral
11caudal
postmed15.03
lateral
12caudal
length
14caudal
antdorsoven
14.94
tral
penultim
ate ant11.40
dorsoven
tral
14caudal
ant-medlateral
14.86
14caudal
postdorsoven
13.77
tral
penultim
ate post10.64
dorsoven
tral
14caudal
postmed13.63
lateral
penultim
ate post11.73
medlateral
15caudal
length
TL
SL
BD
BW
HL
atlas
length
860
710
180
140
140
v2 antdorsoven
tral
13.58
v2 antmedlateral
13.33
v2 postdorsoven
tral
12.75
v2 postmedlateral
14.56
v5 antdorsoven
tral
13.39
v5 antmedlateral
14.22
v5 postdorsoven
tral
13.99
v5 postmedlateral
14.62
v8 antdorsoven
tral
13.34
v8 antmedlateral
14.66
v8 postdorsoven
tral
13.25
v8 postmedlateral
14.67
v11 antdorsoven
tral
14.09
v11 antmedlateral
14.91
v11 postdorsoven
tral
14.23
v11 postmedlateral
14.88
v12
length
1st
caudal
ant14.80
dorsoven
tral
4caudal
1caudal
ant-medlateral
15.46
1caudal
postdorsoven
14.52
tral
1caudal
postmed16.03
lateral
2caudal
length
antdorsoven
15.08
tral
4caudal
ant-medlateral
17.10
4caudal
postdorsoven
16.11
tral
4caudal
postmed16.54
lateral
5caudal
length
7caudal
antdorsoven
17.19
tral
7caudal
ant-medlateral
17.95
7caudal
postdorsoven
16.71
tral
7caudal
postmed18.09
lateral
8caudal
length
10caudal
antdorsoven
18.02
tral
10caudal
ant-medlateral
17.76
10caudal
postdorsoven
16.30
tral
10caudal
postmed16.70
lateral
11caudal
length
13caudal
antdorsoven
14.79
tral
antepen
ant12.51
dorsoven
tral
13caudal
ant-medlateral
14.98
13caudal
postdorsoven
14.55
tral
antepen
post10.74
dorsoven
tral
13caudal
postmed14.61
lateral
antepen
post12.31
medlateral
14caudal
length
15caudal
ant-med14.16
lateral
v3 length
13.56
v6 length
15.68
v9 length
16.88
18.32
18.73
20.11
22.14
20.26
17.79
penultim
ate
12.88
length
penultima
te ant12.62
medlateral
atlas
postmed14.90
lateral
v4 length
14.67
v7 length
16.59
17.52
18.75
19.53
20.74
22.18
19.35
16.45
ultimate
length
26.33
(millemetres)
v4 antdorsoven
tral
13.80
v4 antmedlateral
14.78
v4 postdorsoven
tral
12.74
v4 postmedlateral
14.29
v7 antdorsoven
tral
13.37
v7 antmedlateral
14.22
v7 postdorsoven
tral
13.47
v7 postmedlateral
14.61
v10 antdorsoven
tral
14.00
v10 antmedlateral
14.52
v10 postdorsoven
tral
13.91
v10 postmedlateral
14.72
v13 antdorsoven
tral
14.72
v13 antmedlateral
15.70
v13 postdorsoven
tral
14.48
v13 postmedlateral
15.67
3caudal
antdorsoven
14.39
tral
3caudal
ant-medlateral
16.44
3caudal
postdorsoven
15.06
tral
3caudal
postmed16.94
lateral
6caudal
antdorsoven
16.16
tral
6caudal
ant-medlateral
17.58
6caudal
postdorsoven
16.19
tral
6caudal
postmed17.70
lateral
9caudal
antdorsoven
17.84
tral
9caudal
ant-medlateral
18.39
9caudal
postdorsoven
16.65
tral
9caudal
postmed17.66
lateral
12caudal
antdorsoven
15.92
tral
12caudal
ant-medlateral
15.84
12caudal
postdorsoven
15.29
tral
12caudal
postmed14.71
lateral
15caudal
antdorsoven
12.85
tral
ultimate
ant11.43
dorsoven
tral
15caudal
ant-medlateral
14.19
15caudal
postdorsoven
12.49
tral
15caudal
postmed13.97
lateral
penultim
ate
ant10.32
medlateral
~ 131 ~
Appendices
Element
Taxon
Description
Locale
3B
70-75
vertebra
n.d.
clean oblique chop mark that completely cut off the specimen beginning from the dorsoanterior end towards the ventro-posterior end
dorso-ventral
direction
SB109
B11
40-50
atlas
Coryphaenidae
12.66mm scrape marks on the antero-dorsal aspect of the centrum and chop mark coming
from the dorsal aspect that completely cut off the posterior end of the specimen
antero-dorsal facet
SB172
C10
40-50
1st dorsal spine
Balistidae
SB174
SB190
C10
C10
40-50
40-60
fin spine
abd vertebra
n.d.
Coryphaenidae
SB168
C10
40-60
abd vertebra
Coryphaenidae
SB512
G10
Sp4
abd vertebra
Coryphaenidae
SB489
C11
50-60
abd vertebra
Coryphaenidae
SB490
C11
50-60
1st dorsal spine
Balistidae
SB31
B9
50-60
caud vertebra
Coryphaenidae
SB75
SB1043
B10
B10
50-60
50-60
fin spine
neural spine
n.d.
Coryphaenidae
SB1216
C10
50-60
1st dorsal spine
Balistidae
scrape mark/s
Depth
SpNo
cut mark/s
SqNo
chop mark/s
APPENDIX VI: Butchery Information
ANARO
AN5
SAVIDUG
10.81mm severe cut mark near the proximal end of the right lateral aspect; 2.22mm cut
mark on right postero-lateral facet; distinct cut mark, note relatively large size of the fish
prob. on its max size
oblique 3.66mm cut mark on the distal end
5.53mm and 2.95mm cut marks on the ventral aspect near the anterior end
oblique chop mark that completely cut off the posterior end of the specimen; 13.79mm cut
mark on the left mid-lateral facet and minor cuts on the anterior end
3.39mm cut mark on the ventral left lateral aspect of the specimen
14.58mm scrape mark on the mid-anterior end of the left lateral facet; 9.58mm scrape
mark on the left mid-lateral aspect; mid-left side of the vertebra's body ; combination of
chopping-scraping motions
3.84mm and 3.25mm cut marks on the right postero-lateral facet; marks indicates
attempts to cut off the hard spine
16.63mm and 8.65mm cut marks near the anterior end of the left lateral aspect; modern
marks on the left mid-lateral aspect
2.95mm and 2.1mm cut marks on the lateral aspect near the proximal end
bone tool; non-modified spine
cut to remove the tip/dorsal end of the spine from left side; a few cut marks beside the cut
end
right lateral facet
distal end
ventral facet
posterior end
left lateral facet
left lateral facet
right lateral facet
left lateral facet
left lateral facet

n.a.
distal end
~ 132 ~
Depth
Element
Taxon
Description
Locale
SB1263
B11
50-60
R dentary
Coryphaenidae
7.25mm severe cut mark with numerous small cut marks on the antero-medial aspect
antero-medial
aspect
SB126
B11
70-80
vertebra
n.d.
SB589
L28
70-80
fin spine
n.d.
SB100
B10
70-100
abd vertebra
Coryphaenidae
SB102
B10
70-100
caud vertebra
Coryphaenidae
SB146
B11
90-100
caud vertebra
Coryphaenidae
SB19
A9
90-100
caud vertebra
Coryphaenidae
SB886
A9
90-100
1st dorsal spine
Balistidae
oblique chop mark coming from the left lateral aspect completely cutting off the posterior
end of the vertebra
bone point implement; missing tip, transverse shaft fracture, appears to be ground
obliquely, no evidence of polish
deep 7.36mm oblique cut on the left mid-lateral aspect; 6.21mm cut on the left posterior
lateral aspect; 5.97mm cut on the left dorso-lateral aspect proximal end of the neural
spine; scrape marks on the right posterior lateral aspect possibly as a result of chopping
off the posterior end of the vertebra to cut the fish through its dorso-ventral axis; posterior
end of the vertebra was completely cut off; cutting and chopping action coming from the
left lateral side of the fish done to cut the specimen into pieces; chopping off completely
the posterior end of the vertebra
15.13mm scrape marks with minor cut marks on the anterior end of the right lateral aspect
possibly to debone the fish
12.44mm scrape marks on the inferior right lateral aspect; 8.51mm scrape marks on the
left antero-dorsal aspect near the anterior proximal base of the neural spine
7.93mm and 3.26mm cut marks on the left mid-lateral aspect combined with severe
scrape marks
6.45mm cut mark on the anterior aspect near the proximal end; looks like a cord was tied
around it and pulled out
PAMAYAN
left lateral facet
scrape mark/s
SqNo
cut mark/s
SpNo
chop mark/s
Appendices
n.a.
left and right lateral

facets
right lateral facet

facets
left lateral facet
antero-proximal
end/base
PM1130
PM264
PM527
A
A
A
15-30
25-30
50-55
abd vertebra
dermal spine
vertebra
Coryphaenidae
Diodontidae
n.d.
chop mark that completely cut off the posterior end of the vertebra
2.61mm four small cut marks near the central shaft
5.77mm oblique cut mark on the posterior end of the left lateral aspect
posterior end
PM37
65-70
L quadrate
Carangidae
5.65mm deep cut mark with small, numerous ones near the antero-mid lateral aspect
PM801
65-70
haemal spine
n.d.
4.71mm and 6.09mm cut marks on the lateral aspect
right lateral facet
PM1328
95-100
haemal spine
n.d.
small transverse cuts

facets
left lateral facet

anterior mid-lateral
facet
~ 133 ~
APPENDIX VII: Fish Bone Data Sheet
APPENDIX VIII: Sample Bagging Slip
~ 134 ~

The Ichthyoarchaeology of Batanes Islands, Northern Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Ichthyoarchaeology of Batanes Islands, Northern Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Ichthyoarchaeology of Batanes Islands,

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Chapter One: INTRODUCTION

Research Aims and Objectives

Scope and Limitations

Relevance of the Study

Chapter Two: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Ichthyoarchaeology: Historical Overview

Modern Fish Bone Comparative Collection

Fish Remains and the Interpretation of the Past

Chapter Three: METHODOLOGY

The Modern Comparative Collection

Analysis of the Assemblage

Comparative Collection Rating

Measurements and Counts

Coryphaenidae Size Estimation

Chapter Four: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Comparative Collection Rating

Anaro Taxon Accounts

Savidug Taxon Accounts

Pamayan Taxon Accounts

Dolphinfish Size Estimates from Vertebrae

Relative Abundance by Weight

Fish Bone Taphonomy

4.10 Anthropogenic Signatures

Chapter Five: DISCUSSION

The Five-Paired Bone System

Comparative Rating Scheme

The Identified Fish Taxa of Batanes

Coryphaenidae in the Savidug Assemblage

Chapter Six: CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

The UP-ASP Fish Bone Comparative Collection

Teleost Osteological Elements

Comparative Rating Scheme

C. hippurus Estimated Weights and Lengths

F-0003 Coryphaenidae Complete Measurements (Vertebrae)

Fish Bone Data Sheet

Sample Bagging Slip

Useful skeletal elements in ichthyoarchaeology. These elements were especially

3.2 Comparison rating system used for identifiable elements.

Summary of identification levels from the three sites analysed.

Summary of average lengths and widths of fragmented and non-fragmented

Smallest and largest fragmented and non-fragmented fish bones.

Summary of identified taxa in Anaro, Savidug and Pamayan and the

The Batanes Islands in the northernmost part of the Philippines showing

Possible settlement patterns at Anaro site showing Anaro 3, Anaro 6,

Sabtang, Ivuhos and Dequey Islands (from Bellwood, et al. 2007a)

Plan of Savidug showing excavation areas (after Bellwood, et al. 2007a)

Stratigraphic profile of Trench QR7/9 where numerous fish bones were

Linnaean classification of Chordates (after Hickman, et al. 2001). The

General morphological features of a teleost. The fish is from the reference

Standardized measurements taken for all specimens in the comparative

Skeletal elements of a teleost head, slightly modified to show particular

Unidentified cranium fragment (SB341) compared with four different taxa

Identified Labridae pharyngeal plates (AN104, AN113, AN107) compared

Lower pharyngeal plate of a Scaridae from Pamayan (PM384); specimen on

Left toothed upper pharyngeal of a Scaridae from Pamayan as compared with

Lower pharyngeal plate of a Labridae from Savidug (SB233) compared with

Labridae toothed upper pharyngeal bone from Anaro with comparative

The distinct Carangidae pterygiophore and spines. The archaeological

Acanthuridae pterygiophores from Pamayan compared with the first dorsal

The first dorsal spine of a Balistidae. Archaeological specimen (right) is

An example of a caudal vertebra of a Coryphaenidae from Sabtang (right)

The abdominal or pre-caudal vertebra of Coryphaenidae.