Anthropological Research on Whaling : Prehistoric, Historic and Current Contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prehistory and history of whaling is first summarized.This includes a review of archaeological approaches to prehistoric whaling.Next, whaling is situated within the current international political climate vis-à-vis the International Whaling Commission and the 'whaling problem'.To establish the context for the papers that follow, we present an extended essay on Japanese contributions to both the anthropology of whaling and the current international discourse on the 'whaling problem'.The three most impressive petroglyph examples are the Bangu-dae archeological site near Ulsan, in southeast Korea (Nelson 1993), the series of sites near Alta, Norway (Helskog 2004), and the series of sites bordering the White Sea in the Belomorski District of Russia (Lobanova 1995(Lobanova , 2007)).All these depict whales or dolphins, boats, and/or apparent whale hunting scenes, and have been suggested to date to approximately 8000, 6000, and 5000 years B. P., respectively.Unfortunately, an inherent problem in accepting such early evidence of active as opposed to opportunistic whaling is that none of these depictions have been dated directly.Instead, the dates are based on the probable dates of associated prehistoric settlements that investigators link to the petroglyphs.Given that in most such cases associated settlements or settlement complexes span several millennia (at the Alta sites, for example, associated sites span the period 6000 to 2500 B. P.), these do not constitute unequivocal evidence for the earliest active whaling societies.Evidence for active whale hunting, although still sometimes problematical, generally rests on more robust evidence.Glassow (2005), for example, presents convincing evidence of dolphin hunting at the Punta Arena site on Santa Cruz Island, California, between approximately 6300-5300 B. P., based primarily on the changing relative abundance of dolphin remains (and thus changing importance in the diet) through a stratigraphic sequence.Although the material came from two small test excavations (0.25 x 1.5 m each), if the interpretations are confirmed by additional research, this would represent the earliest active whale hunting known anywhere in the world.Otherwise, the earliest sites with strong evidence for active whale or dolphin hunting are concentrated primarily in the North Pacific Rim and adjacent Arctic regions.At the Early Jomon Mawaki site on the Noto Peninsula, Japan, which has been securely dated to approximately 5000 years B. P. (Hiraguchi 2002;Itoh et al. 2011), the remains of at least 286 dolphins have been found in one stratum associated with a village and ceremonial complex, and are presumably the result of a drive hunt(s).At this site there is evidence of ritual treatment of the dolphin remains, and associated features and artifacts all indicate a mixed maritime/terrestrial diet.Elsewhere in the Pacific Rim, a whaling scene incised on walrus ivory recovered from a dwelling at the Un'en'en site on the Chokotka Peninsula, Russia, was found beneath the collapsed roof of a dwelling dating to approximately 3000 B. P. (Odess et al. 2008).The scene includes an illustration of men in umiaks (large open skin boats) harpooning large baleen whales, which suggests a sophisticated whaling adaptation presumably targeting bowhead and gray whales.Archaeological sites on Vancouver Island, Canada, have also yielded strong evidence of whaling, possibly as early as 3000 B. P. (Dewhirst 1980(Dewhirst , 1982;; Monks 2001: 137).Although both the Punta Arena and Mawaki sites seem to represent active and possibly low-level logistically-organized hunting, continuation of such hunting in their respective areas (California and Japan) is sporadic.However, this may be a result more of the patchiness of the archaeological record than a cessation of such activities per se.Whaling, primarily dolphin hunting, apparently continued throughout Japan following its initial appearance in Early Jomon (Hiraguchi 1991(Hiraguchi , 1992(Hiraguchi , 2003a(Hiraguchi , 2003b(Hiraguchi , 2004(Hiraguchi , 2009;;Tatehira 2003).It is certain that by approximately 1500 B. P. active whaling had become
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".