The 'Fishermen' Frescoes in the Light of the Fish Bone Evidence

The 'Fishermen' frescoes (Doumas 1992, figs. 18 and 19; Pls. 5 and 7) from the West House, Akrotiri, are probably the first images that come to mind when archaeologists talk about fishing in the Bronze Age of the Aegean. They have been repeatedly commented on, and various interpretations have been presented as to their meaning and function within the pictorial programme of the West House. They have also been interpreted in the light of the broader iconographic schemes used in Akrotiri wall painting.

The meaning we choose for the 'Fishermen'⁽¹⁾ frescoes is, of course, coloured by the way in which we perceive the image and interpret its individual parts (see Morgan 1985). In this paper we shall investigate how various scholars have treated the 'Fishermen' representations and how they 'read' their various elements. In addition, we shall attempt to explore the frescoes in the light of the fish bones found at Akrotiri, with reference to ichthyofaunal evidence from other sites in the Aegean and relevant fish representations. Artefacts related to fishing, such as fish hooks, net weights etc., form another category of evidence which will not be examined here.

THE FRESCO FISH: IDENTIFICATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS

The late Spyridon Marinatos (1974, 29-30) was the first to identify the fish held by the best preserved 'Fisherman' (hereafter the first 'Fisherman') as dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), even though he was confused by the ichthyological taxonomy and assigned the species to the Scombridae family (Coryphaenidae is the family to which dolphinfish belong). He was also the first to appreciate the mixed characteristics of the second group of fish held by the less well preserved fisherman (hereafter the second 'Fisherman'). Nevertheless, he identified the fish as mackerel (Scomber scombrus). J.A. Sakellarakis (1974, 381 n.16) accepted Marinatos's identifications, and most of the other scholars who worked on the 'Fishermen' frescoes⁽²⁾ followed the same lines.

Mark Rose (1994, 152) reconsidered the fresco fish identifications. He recognised the fish of the first 'Fisherman' as dolphinfish, while he identified the second group as small sized tunnies, in other words bullet tunny (Auxis rochei) or little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus). He noted that the shape of the body was too stocky for mackerel, but that the anatomical details would fit both the small sized tunnies mentioned above. One of the three fish held by the second 'Fisherman' has less precise features and could be identified as a small tunny species with some Coryphaenidae characteristics.

The 'Fishermen' from the West House have also provoked some comments on the possible fishing methods used by them in order to secure their catch. Judith Powell (1992, 311) believes that the 'Fishermen' from the West House held a catch obtained by hook and line fishing. Presumably, the line holding the fish together is taken as evidence for this⁽³⁾. Of course, as Rose (1994, 160) points out, even though all of the fish depicted on the two frescoes could be caught by hook and line, the string that holds them together is somewhat irrelevant to the method by which they were caught. Most probably, it is just a convenient way to hold and carry large slippery fish.

More direct, however, is another reference to fishing methods which is found in the miniature fresco (Doumas 1992, fig. 38) (Pl. 3, 2.60-3.60 m.). On the south wall, outside Town V, two figures are climbing up the hill, each holding what is apparently a paddle on his shoulder. From each of these paddles is slung an object which could be either a net or a bag made of netting (Morgan 1988, 164, pl. 136; Televantou 1994, 113; Rose 1994, 160-161). It seems very possible that these two figures are fishermen.

A small graffito on the first 'Fisherman' fresco, showing a fish with a line coming out of its mouth (Marinatos 1974, 30), is also very interesting (Fig. 1). This fish representation was probably not part of the intentions of the artist and the commissioner of the pictorial programme in the West House. However, it is very likely that it represents a fish caught by line and it gives us a glimpse of the way people perceived the paintings of the 'Fishermen'.

The two 'Fishermen' frescoes from the West House have been interpreted in various ways. Sakellarakis (1974, 376-377) described the frescoes, together with several other representations of human figures holding fish, and attributed to them the symbol of 'the return of the fishermen'. G. Säflund (1981) thought that the 'Fishermen' were "real persons in the Goddess's service", while Nanno Marinatos (1984, 35) interprets them as adorants holding their offerings. Their figures had been drawn on the wall to perpetuate an act that occasionally took place in that room. According to C.G. Doumas (1987), they are boys who are taking part in rites of passage. Their catch is probably the proof that they have successfully accomplished one of the rites, namely proving their fishing abilities. Televantou, in her extensive study of the West House pictorial programme accepts Doumas's scheme and suggests that the presence of the 'Fishermen' in Room 5 adds an extra dimension to the theme of the sea, which is also expressed in the West House by the miniature fresco and the 'cabin' decoration in Room 4 (Televantou 1992, and 1994 for a more analytical work on the West House wall paintings).

ICHTHYOFAUNAL EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE 'FISHERMEN' FRESCOES

When we discuss the floral and faunal elements of wall paintings in Akrotiri, we have the advantage of being able to complement the pictorial evidence with information about the actual plant and animal remains from the site. Akrotiri is one of the few Bronze Age sites in the Aegean where special collection techniques have been applied to ensure the recovery of small, or even macroscopic, biological remains. Among them, the fish bones form one category of bio-archaeological data.

The Akrotiri fish bone assemblage was collected partly by hand during the excavation, but mainly by water flotation of large soil samples from archaeological strata, thereby ensuring the retrieval of fish bones as small as 1 mm. in length. The fish bones were collected mainly from storage jars, floors, fills, sewers and hearths in domestic contexts. The preservation of organic materials at Akrotiri is, in most cases, exceptionally good. As far as fish remains are concerned, osseous parts, cartilage and scales are all preserved, indicating a balanced representation of species with both soft and harder bone tissue.

We can thus consider the majority of the fish bones as food waste, and the species composition of the assemblage representative of the ordinary catches at Akrotiri.⁽⁴⁾ Fish bones from the West House are excluded from the following description.⁽⁵⁾

In the Akrotiri fish bone assemblage a wide range of fish is represented. These are boque (Boops boops), common sea bream (Pagrus pagrus), striped sea bream (Lithognathus mormyris), common pandora (Pagellus erythrinus), annular sea bream (Diplodus annularis), salema (Boops salpa), picarel (Maena smaris), parrot fish (Sparisoma cretense), damsel fish (Chromis chromis), white grouper (Epinephelus aenus), dusky grouper (Epinephelus guaza), comber (Serranus cabrilla) and shark (cf. Isurus oxyrinchus).

The above identifications probably do not cover the whole range of fish caught at Akrotiri, as the analysis has not yet been completed. However, some general features of the assemblage are interesting for our study.

     a)    The vast majority of the recovered bones come from small to very small fish. Six per cent of the cranial bones belong to fish larger than 30 cm..

     b)    Very few of the vertebrae represent large fish and, among those, almost all belong to either Sparidae (the sea bream family) or Serranidae (the grouper family). No vertebrae of fast swimming, pelagic fish (like tunnies) have been recovered so far.⁽⁶⁾ Even among the small vertebrae, however, no fast swimming fish (like chub mackerel, Scomber japonicus) have been recovered.

     c)    Among the fish so far identified, almost all are littoral species living in shallow and medium deep waters.⁽⁷⁾

It seems that most of the fishing at Akrotiri was done from the shore or from a boat, in shallow waters, as was indeed the case throughout the Bronze Age Aegean.⁽⁸⁾ Some of the boats depicted on the miniature fresco possibly illustrate this (Pl. 3, 2.60-3.60 m.).⁽⁹⁾ The same may be true in the case of the two figures holding a paddle from which a net or net bag is hung. If fishing in Akrotiri was limited to inshore waters, and the migrating fish did not approach Thera, the scarcity of large, fast swimming fish, like dolphinfish and small tunnies, might be explained.

One should, of course, consider the possibility that the lack of bones of these particular species is the result of taphonomic factors. Dolphinfish vertebrae, for example, are very fragile with a low potential for survival. However, the generally good preservation of bones and cartilage makes such a possibility somewhat unlikely.

DISCUSSION

The fish depicted on the 'Fishermen' frescoes are therefore either unique or very rare species in the Bronze Age fishing repertoire. As far as the dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) is concerned, the Akrotiri fresco is in fact the only evidence which associates the species with human activities. Two other fish representations on sealstones, which have been identified as dolphinfish (Gill 1985), namely a seal from Knossos (Evans 1921, fig. 202b, Hieroglyphic Deposit) and a second seal of unknown origin (Betts 1980, no. 247), are too schematic to permit any certain identification. The small tunnies (Auxis rochei or Euthynnus alletteratus), on the other hand, have been recorded only once, from Pefkakia, Thessaly (Lepiksaar 1975; Rose 1994, 317-342). In this case, one bone of bullet tunny (Auxis rochei) and thirteen bones of little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus) were recovered from Early Bronze Age contexts.⁽¹⁰⁾

The uniqueness of the particular fish is also reflected in the way in which the fish are painted. The best preserved fish can be attributed with complete certainty to the Coryphaena hippurus species, as the details of their anatomy and colouration (within the limits of the painting conventions of the time) are correct (Economidis this volume). The same is possibly true of the fish held by the second 'Fisherman', even though their poor preservation poses some problems and exact identification is not possible.⁽¹¹⁾

Among the Bronze Age pictorial representations of fish on various media, such as sealstones, pottery and frescoes, very few examples can readily be identified. Usually, fish can be identified as such, but no attribution to species is possible, as their features are too mixed and/or too rudimentary. Even in exceptional cases, like the Flying Fish fresco from Phylakopi (Atkinson et al. 1904, pl. III), recognition of the depicted creatures as flying fish is in spite of an accurate or even consistent representation of one species (Gill 1985, 65, fig. 42). The Phylakopi flying fish possess characteristics which vary from figure to figure.

All this means that the painter of the West House 'Fishermen' was able to examine and draw real fish. It could also mean that there was a reason behind the intention to represent specific fish with such accuracy.

According to the above analysis, we can 'read' the 'Fishermen' frescoes as follows. Two boys each hold several large fish (the first dolphinfish, and the second small tunnies). The fish were special because they were rarely, if ever, eaten by the ordinary residents of Akrotiri (and indeed of the whole Aegean). The special character of the fish is further implied by the fact that they were painted with an accuracy so far unique in Aegean Bronze Age fish representations.

The reasons for the depiction of such special fish in such a special way could indeed vary. The fish could be special because they were offerings to a goddess (or conversely, became offerings because they were special). They could also be proof of the fishing abilities of the 'Boy Fishermen', as their capture requires special skill in fishing techniques, thus enabling them to succeed in one of the rites of passage. Finally, they could also be a symbolic image, suggesting activities related to the sea.

Whatever the intention behind the depiction of this particular subject in the West House may have been, one of the wall paintings provides an interesting clue as to the way in which the frescoes were perceived by their viewers. The small graffito at the righthand edge of the fresco of the better preserved 'Fisherman', depicting a little fish with a line coming out of its mouth, shows that what these frescoes evoked in the minds of their viewers was probably just 'fishing'.

(1).     The term 'fishermen', as used in this paper, is conventional and does not include any implication as to the age of the two figures holding fish. Some scholats have used the term 'fisherboys' (Davis 1986; Morris 1989), implying the young age of the figures.

(2).     Gill 1985, 65 (who also suggested that one of the fish held by the second 'Fisherman' might be a pilot fish (Naucrates ductor)); Powell 1992, 311; Televantou 1994, 184-185.

(3).     Even though this interpretation is not offered for this particular representation, it is given explicitly by Powell in the case of some sealings with the same motif, i.e. a human figure holding fish strung on a line (as above).

(4).    In this paper quantitative data are not given, since they relate not only to the choices of fishermen and consumers but also to taphonomic and recovery factors. Such a detailed study of the assemblage has not yet been completed.  

(5).     The fish bones from the West House have been studied by Trantalidou (forthcoming).

(6).      Vertebrae of fast swimming fish have strongly developed prezygapophyses, which lock the vertebrae together facilitatingthe fast movement of the fish (Wheeler and Jones 1989, 107).

(7).      Information about the habitats, ethology and special characteristics of the Aegean species are taken from Papanastasiou n.d..

(8).      A detailed examination of the available Bronze Age fish bone assemblages from sites around the Aegean has been carried out by Rose (1994).

(9).      They are small, one or two oared vessels, anchored in the bay of the Arrival Town. Televantou (1994, 278) classifiedthem as boats type I. See also Morgan 1988, 121.

(10).    The large tunny species like Thunnus thynnus, however, were quite commonly caught in the Aegean in Paleolithic and Neolithic times (for example, at Franchthi cave (Rose 1986) and Saliagos (Renfrew, Greenwood and Whitehead 1968)). They are also reported from several Bronze Age sites (see Rose 1994 for references).

(11).     See Rose 1994 for a critique of earlier identifications by various authors.

-----------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------