Late Iron Age Whaling in Scandinavia

Abstract

The use of marine mammal bone as a raw material in the manufacturing of gaming pieces in the Scandinavian late Iron Age has been observed and discussed in recent years. New empirical studies have created a chronology as well as a typology showing how the design of the gaming pieces is tightly connected to different choices of raw material; from antler in the Roman and Migration periods, to whale bone in the sixth century, and walrus in the tenth century. Macroscopic examination can, however, rarely go beyond determining that the material is ‘cetacean bone’. The following article presents the taxonomic identifications of 68 samples of whale bone gaming pieces, determined using Zooarchaeology by mass spectrometry analysis. The results demonstrate the consistent use of bones from Balaenidae sp. most probably the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). This paper presents strong evidence for active, large-scale hunting of whales in Scandinavia, starting in the sixth century. The manufacture of gaming pieces was probably not the driver for the hunt, but merely a by-product that has survived in the archaeological record. Of greater importance were probably baleen, meat, and blubber that could be rendered into oil. This oil might have been an additional trading product in the far-reaching trade networks that were developing during the period. This study supports previous studies suggesting that Iron Age and medieval trade and resource exploitation had a much more severe influence on ecosystems than previously expected. It adds additional insights into anthropogenic impact on mammal populations in prehistory.

Palaeoproteomic identification of a whale bone tool from Bronze Age Heiloo, the Netherlands

“…The large increase in the production of whale bone gaming pieces across Scandinavia, as well as an increase in blubber processing pits indicates a significant increase in the exploitation of whale resources (Hennius et al 2018). Additionally, most of the whale bone species were assigned to Balaenidae sp., again suggesting a hunting preference for a particular taxon (Hennius et al 2023). For the mediaeval active whaling cultures of the Basques and Northern Spaniards and the Dutch there are also historical sources attesting to active whaling next to the archaeological bone assemblage.…”

“…It is impossible to determine if a single bone is derived from a beached or hunted animal, but several characteristics have been proposed that would suggest it is more likely that a whale bone assemblage was obtained by active whaling rather than opportunistic scavenging. Active whaling assemblages are thought to be relatively limited in taxonomic diversity (van den Hurk et al 2023; Wellman et al 2017), whale remains must be abundant and there must be some form of industry associated with the whale remains, such as bone artefact production or blubber processing (Hennius et al 2018, 2023; Wellman et al 2017). A potential side-effect of this requirement is that active whaling purely for consumption becomes more difficult to detect archaeologically than whaling to acquire resources for product manufacture.…”

Species identification of ivory and bone museum objects using minimally invasive proteomics

“…This saddle is even more complex in manufacture, being assembled materials. The species identification of ivory objects can also provide context and insight related to the societies from which they originate, such the queen chess piece made of whale ivory (2021.364, 13th century), originating from Scandinavia, a region that has a history of nautical exploration, including whale hunting ( 64 ). Another example is the Hawai’ian pendant (1979.206.1587, United States, Hawai’i, 18th to 19th century), which was also identified to be made from whale ivory, reflecting the nautical history of Hawai’i ( 65 ).…”

The prelude to industrial whaling: identifying the targets of ancient European whaling using zooarchaeology and collagen mass-peptide fingerprinting

“…Zooarchaeology by mass spectrometry (ZooMS) has been shown to be an excellent method for identifying whale bone specimens to family or species [ 8 ]. Relevant European-focused ZooMS case studies exist regarding Scotland [ 16 – 19 ], Norway [ 20 ], France [ 15 , 21 ], Spain [ 10 , 22 ], Iceland [ 16 ], Morocco [ 10 ], Italy [ 15 ], the Low Countries [ 23 ] and Scandinavia [ 24 ]. Here, we greatly expand on this work by contributing 719 new ZooMS analyses of subfossil specimens that cross the spatial and/or chronological boundaries of previous research.…”