Hunter or Scavenger? A Look at the Exploitation of Marine Mammals During the Upper Palaeolithic
Exciting archaeological techniques could solve this debate once and for all, providing new insights into human evolution.
Remember The Flintstones? With Wilma and Fred, and their neighbours Barney and Betty Rubble? Well, it is pretty clear that this Stone Age characterisation of Middle America is not particularly accurate—not by any stretch of the imagination. But they did get one thing right: evidence indicates that people during the Upper Palaeolithic (50,000 - 12,000 BP)—contrary to popular belief—were socially complex, efficient hunters with a deep knowledge of their territories and available resources.[1] While they clearly did not have access to a ‘Flintstone Flivver,’ they nevertheless had the ability to travel long distances, exchange information, and plan seasonal (as well as situational) moves. Therefore, so much for the insult ‘you’re like someone from the stone age!’ They were, in fact, just as culturally and socially complex as people are today, but without all the technological advancements.
Before the development of agriculture—roughly 10,000 to 15,000 years ago[2]—humans acquired food through a combination of hunting, scavenging, and gathering. It is generally thought that Western European hunter-gatherers in the Upper Palaeolithic targeted primarily land game, meaning that zooarchaeological research has tended to focus on terrestrial fauna. However, the picture is far more complicated than that.
The North Sea, North-Eastern Atlantic, and Mediterranean coastlines provide an abundance of evidence attesting to the subsistence and economic importance of marine resources in Europe, including personal ornamentations of pierced shells and teeth,[3] fish and marine mammal bones, and barbecued whale barnacles.[4]
Two procurement modes are popularly considered as possibilities: systematic hunting or opportunistic scavenging. But an either/or supposition is likely far too simplistic. Material evidence indicates that they had an arsenal of hunting tools at their disposal, including harpoons, lances, clubs, and projectiles—all perfectly capable of acquiring marine mammals—and people living in coastal areas could have performed a combination of both on a need-to basis.
Pinnipeds (seals and walruses) are believed, due to their large size and relative clumsiness on land, to have been particularly attractive and vulnerable prey to early coastal hunters[5] and, despite some individuals in the Arctic still using this very method to secure pelts today, it is difficult for many of us to imagine catching a seal by simply striking it on the head.[6] As for cetaceans, it is proposed that, if strandings were as common then as they are today, people could have utilised beached whales before they had the technology or desire to actively hunt them.[7]
Definitive evidence of either hunting or scavenging during the Upper Palaeolithic and early stages is pretty much archaeologically invisible. And while depictions of marine mammal hunting—as shown in the later petroglyphs at Bangudae (8,000 - 3,500 BP) and Lake Onega (6,000 - 4,000 BP)—would be able to settle the debate once and for all, examples from the Upper Palaeolithic are still yet to be discovered.
Additional complications are posed by the fact that many sites, particularly during early investigations, have not been excavated to their base layers, resulting in only surface deposits and upper layers being recorded, coupled with older deposits being more likely to suffer from erosion. The post-glacial sea-level rise must also be mentioned, with many coastal sites now submerged in water. As such, the remains of marine mammals could be disproportionally over-represented in more recent periods.
The deliberate hunting of marine mammals during the Upper Palaeolithic is generally dismissed due to a lack of evidence, despite the relative ease of pinniped procurement. And while behaviours and material cultures closely associated with hunting—tools, butchery, and systematic disarticulation – are easily identifiable in the archaeological material available, it is difficult to determine how anthropogenic marks on bones were made or what the tools were actually used for.
For the scavenging hypothesis, the fluctuating climate during this time period precipitating an increase in cetacean standings, is a main component,[8] with parallels drawn with what is being seen today. Recent isotope studies have identified marine mammal signatures in humans and other terrestrial mammals, providing evidence that marine mammals were a regular dietary occurrence, but how they were actually procured is still speculation.
The main obstacle to finding conclusive evidence is the actual identification of marine mammal remains in the archaeofaunal assemblage. Butchery methods and natural erosion often result in the fragmentation and degradation of marine mammal bones beyond visual recognition. This has left many archaeological cetacean and pinniped specimens being generically labelled as ‘whale’ or simply ‘marine mammal.’ Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry (ZooMS)[9]—an exciting method of collagen fingerprinting, with demonstrable success—allows for efficient and low-cost identification of a wide range of marine mammal species.
Many cetacean and sirenian species have also been hunted to extinction—in the case of the Steller’s Sea Cow[10]—or close to extinction—for example, the North-Eastern Atlantic population of the Right Whale. Identifying the species of marine mammal can allow us to discover how humans both adapted to and exploited different resources. This is because we would then be able to distinguish seasonality and therefore acquisition strategy, providing important information for the debate on whether cetaceans and pinnipeds were acquired through natural strandings, opportunistic capture, or organised and specialist hunting.[11] And so, recent research has moved towards developing techniques to identify previously indistinguishable marine mammal samples.
Butchery—and potentially hunting—marks remaining on bones are another key piece of evidence. Harpoon fragments from the historic whaling industries of the 11th - 20th centuries have been discovered embedded in the bones of recently deceased cetaceans.[12] This raises a remote, but very real possibility, of determining harpoon-related injuries in archaeological specimens. All we need to do now is develop the technology.
Archaeologists have attempted to identify butchery marks since the 1800s, and current techniques range from naked eye qualitative assessments to high-powered microscopy.[13] While we are not quite there yet, researchers at Purdue University have made a leap forward with the development of a new system using 3D imaging, shape analysis, and Bayesian statistics (technology similar to what engineers use to measure scratches on microchips) to distinguish between cut marks—which often are just a few centimetres long and a fraction of a millimetre deep—and markings from natural causes. And, with methods improving over the decades, the approach of these researchers has an 88% success rate and will likely see improvements in the coming years.[14]
In conclusion, it is important to decipher how marine mammals were exploited during the Upper Palaeolithic, as it is an essential ingredient for uncovering insights into human technological and cultural advancements. But this is just the tip of the now post-glacial iceberg. The utilisation of marine mammal resources has been directly linked to the successful human colonisation of the High Arctic[15] and potentially initiated our ability to conquer the seas. And so, by carefully exploring these same resources, researchers will ultimately build a more complete picture of human evolution, one tiny puzzle piece at a time.
Article tags: | -ism | archaeology |
Definitive evidence of either hunting or scavenging during the Upper Palaeolithic and early stages are pretty much archaeologically invisible. And while depictions of marine mammal hunting—as shown in the later petroglyphs at Bangudae and Lake Onega—would be able to settle the debate once and for all, examples from the Upper Palaeolithic are still yet to be discovered. Image source: FMNATION / a photograph highlighting the petroglyphs at Bangudae
Many cetacean and sirenian species have been hunted to extinction—in the case of the Steller’s Sea Cow—or close to extinction—for example, the North-Eastern Atlantic population of the Right Whale. Identifying the species of marine mammal can allow us to discover how humans both adapted to and exploited different resources. Image source: Wikimedia Commons
It is generally thought that Western European hunter-gatherers in the Upper Palaeolithic targeted primarily land game, meaning that zooarchaeological research has tended to focus on terrestrial fauna. However, the picture is far more complicated than that. Image source: The Wall Street Journal
Evidence indicates that people during the Upper Palaeolithic (50,000 - 12,000 BP)—contrary to popular belief—were socially complex, efficient hunters with a deep knowledge of their territories and available resources. Image source: Warner Bros. Television Distribution
Search by Tag
-
While it may be unbeknownst to some, references to Greta Thunberg's U.N. Climate Action Summit address as a "meltdo… https://t.co/5kEEFQELep
Related articles
Sources Cited
[1] Jennifer R Jones and others, ‘Adaptability, Resilience and Environmental Buffering in European Refugia During the Late Pleistocene: Insights from La Riera Cave (Asturias, Cantabria, Spain)’ (2020) 10(1217) Scientific Reports <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-57715-2> accessed 6 May 2020.
[2] Glynnis Chantrell (ed), The Oxford Dictionary of World Histories (3rd edn, OUP 2002)
[3] Jean-Marc Pétillon, 'Circulation of Whale-Bone Artifacts in the Northern Pyrenees During the Late Upper Paleolithic' (2013) 65(5) Journal of Human Evolution <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.06.006> accessed 6 May 2020.
[4] Jan Storå and Lembi Lõugas, ‘Human Exploitation and History of Seals in the Baltic During the Late Holocene’ in Gregory G Monks (ed), The Exploitation and Cultural Importance of Sea Mammals (Oxbow Books 2005) 95.
[5] Torben C Rick and others, ‘From Pleistocene Mariners to Complex Hunter-Gatherers: The Archaeology of the California Channel Islands’ (2005) 19 Journal of World Prehistory 169, 186.
[6] Tristin Hopper, ‘The Hunt Canada Loves: Why Seal Clubbing will Never Die’ (National Post, 3 April 2018) <https://nationalpost.com/news/canada-is-never-ever-going-to-stop-killing-seals-your-tell-all-guide-to-the-seal-hunt> accessed 26 August 2020.
[7] Steven Acheson and Rebecca J Wigen, ‘Evidence for a Prehistoric Whaling Tradition Among the Haida’ (2002) 36 Journal of Northwest Anthropology 155, 160.
[8] Marcello A Mannino and others, ‘Climate-Driven Environmental Changes Around 8,200 Years Ago Favoured Increases in Cetacean Strandings and Mediterranean Hunter-Gatherers Exploited them’ (2015) 5(16288) Scientific Reports <https://doi.org/10.1038/srep16288> accessed 5 May 2020.
[9] Michael Buckley, ‘Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry (ZooMS) Collagen Fingerprinting for the Species Identification of Archaeological Bone Fragments’ in Christina M Giovas and Michelle J LeFebvre (eds), Zooarchaeology in Practice (Springer International Publishing 2017) 227.
[10] Josh Davis, ‘Steller’s Sea Cow: The First Historical Extinction of a Marine Mammal at Human Hands’ (National History Museum) <https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/stellers-sea-cow-first-historical-extinction-of-marine-mammal-at-human-hands.html> accessed 26 August 2020.
[11] Michael Buckley and others, ‘Species Identification of Archaeological Marine Mammals Using Collagen Fingerprinting’ (2014) 41 Journal of Archaeological Science 631, 638.
[12] Sarah Knapton, ‘“Lifespan Clock” Reveals Bowhead Whales Live to 268…the Oldest Mammals on Earth’ (The Telegraph, 12 December 2019) <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/12/12/lifespan-clock-reveals-bowhead-whales-live-268the-oldest-mammals/> accessed 27 August 2020.
[13] Erik Otárola-Castillo and others, ‘Differentiating Between Cutting Actions on Bone Using 3D Geometric Morphometrics and Bayesian Analyses with Implications to Human Evolution’ (2018) 89 Journal of Archaeological Science <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2017.10.004> accessed 28 August 2020.
[14] ibid.
[15] Meghan E Marrero and Stuart Thornton, ‘The Gray Whale: Past, Present, and Future’ (National Geographic, 28 June 2019) <https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/gray-whale-past-present-and-future/7th-grade/> accessed 26 August 2020.