Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 03-12
A taxonomy of world whaling: operations, eras, and sources
by Randall R. Reeves1 and Tim
D. Smith2
1Okapi Wildlife Associates, 27 Chandler Lane, Hudson, Quebec,
Canada J0P 1H0; 2National Marine Fisheries Serv., Woods
Hole Lab., 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543
Print
publication date August 2003;
web version posted September 15, 2003
Citation: Reeves, R.R.; Smith, T.D. 2003. A taxonomy of world whaling: operations, eras, and data sources.
Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 03-12; 28 p.
Download complete PDF/print version
| NOTE: This document is to appear ultimately
as a chapter in: Estes, J.A.; Brownell, R.L.; DeMaster, D.P.; Doak,
D.F.; Williams, T.M., editors. Whales, whaling and ocean ecosystems.
Berkley, CA: University of California Press. |
ABSTRACT
The history of whaling spans the entire globe and reaches more than
a millennium into the past. All species of large cetaceans have been
hunted by industrial whalers for commercial purposes, and several species have
also been subject to small-scale whaling for domestic use (“subsistence”). Because
whaling has been conducted using an evolving variety of technologies
and methods, which were themselves developed and applied in geographically
diverse circumstances, it has proven difficult to obtain a systematic,
overall view of the enterprise. We propose a hierarchical taxonomy to
better understand the history of whaling and improve our ability to analyze
its ecological importance. As the fundamental unit in this taxonomy,
a whaling operation is defined on the basis of who was involved,
what was caught, where the whaling was carried out, why whales were taken,
when the whaling took place, and how it was conducted. Approximately
120 such operations are provisionally identified here, and their major
features are summarized and discussed. Each of the operations is assigned
to one of 14 proposed eras. An era is defined principally in relation
to the technology or method used to kill, secure, and process whales.
Consideration is also given in this paper to data sources, and specifically
to those sources needed to reconstruct catch histories of whale populations.
Four time periods are identified for which the types of sources differ.
INTRODUCTION
World whaling has involved most of the 14 mysticete (baleen) species,
many of the 28 or so medium- to large-sized odontocetes (toothed whales),
and numerous geographically distinct populations of those species
(at least dozens). The scale of world whaling has been truly global,
spanning bays and gulfs, continental and island shelves, and pelagic
waters. Whaling began in antiquity (more than a thousand years ago) and
continues to the present. Numerous maritime societies, from all inhabited
continents and many oceanic islands, have been engaged in whaling at
one time or another. The technologies employed to kill, secure, and process
whales have ranged from primitive and non-mechanical to technically sophisticated
and industrial. The economic complexities associated with whaling have
been diverse, encompassing fluctuations in production rates, product
valuation, operation costs, labor characteristics, etc.
Whaling has been conducted in all ocean basins, often intensively, over
at least the last 500 years. Because somewhat more than 70 percent of
the planet’s surface is covered by water, whaling ranks along with some
pelagic marine fishing as the world’s most spatially extensive form of
exploitation of wild living resources. Therefore, understanding the history
of whaling is essential to any analysis of the role of humans in modifying
the marine ecosystems of the world.
Whaling is here defined as the purposeful killing of large cetaceans
to obtain economically useful products. It therefore embraces both “commercial” and “subsistence” whaling
(Reeves 2002). We define the large cetaceans to include all species of
baleen whales (mysticetes) and the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus).
In addition, we consider the hunting of some of the larger beaked whales
(Baird’s beaked and northern bottlenose whales - Berardius bairdii and Hyperoodon
ampullatus, respectively) and other medium-sized toothed whales (e.g.,
killer and pilot whales, belugas, and narwhals - Orcinus orca, Globicephala spp., Delphinapterus
leucas, and Monodon monoceros, respectively) to be relevant
in the present context, as it is often ancillary to the hunting of large
cetaceans and involves similar technology and markets.
The literature on whaling is voluminous. Most of it follows disciplinary
lines - biological, economic, technical, historical, anthropological/archaeological,
political/regulatory, and even literary. Major works tend to be limited
in scope, reflecting the author’s interest in a particular nation, region,
period, species, or fishery. While some studies that focus on a single
region or whale population are rigorous and data-rich (e.g., Henderson
1972; Ross 1975; Bockstoce and Botkin 1983; Mitchell and Reeves 1983),
overviews of the entire history of whaling are rare (e.g., Jenkins 1921;
Spence 1980; Francis 1990; Ellis 1991). The monograph by Tønnessen and
Johnsen (1982; also Tønnessen and Johnsen 1959-70) is singularly comprehensive
in its coverage of “modern” whaling.
In the present paper we attempt to provide a systematic overview of
world whaling. Our approach has been to work toward a unified taxonomy,
or classification system, of whaling activities that would help order and
manage investigations of whaling history. A preliminary attempt at such
a taxonomy was described in a series of papers concerned solely with
the exploitation of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the
North Atlantic Ocean (Smith and Reeves 2002, in press; Reeves and Smith
2002). In that case, it was possible to fit all of the relevant whaling
activities into a reasonably complete and coherent framework of named “fisheries” and “subfisheries.” The
heuristic value of this framework was considerable when dealing with
a single ocean basin and, indeed, a single species within that basin.
However, in attempting to apply a similar approach on a broader scale,
we found the fisheries/subfisheries concept less useful.
As an alternative to our fisheries/subfisheries approach, here we have
attempted to group whaling activities or enterprises into operations,
and to group operations, based largely but not solely on whaling methods,
into eras. We begin by explaining how operations were defined,
and by reviewing them briefly. We then describe the 14 eras that were
defined after inspecting the characteristics of the operations. Finally,
we review the nature of sources of whaling data. The proposed taxonomy
is offered as a way of organizing and evaluating patterns, trends, and
relationships among the world’s whaling enterprises.
OPERATIONS
AND ERAS
Operations - Mitchell and Reeves (1980) proposed
what appeared to be a simple scheme for classifying various types
of whaling - who, what, where, why, when, and how? Although each of these
variables is multidimensional, and no single one can be used to define
any particular category unambiguously, the basic scheme seems useful.
As a first-order attempt to break down world whaling into manageable
units, we propose the term operation as an alternative to fishery or subfishery (per
Reeves and Smith 2002). An operation can be defined on the following
basis:
A. Who refers to the ethnic or national group involved. A
whaling operation could be defined by ethnic or national origin of
the people who kill the whales, by the nation on whose land a shore
station is situated or under whose flag a ship operates, by who provides
the capital, by who governs the waters where whaling is conducted,
or by who profits from use or sale of the products. We indicate Who in
terms of the geographic location, either the geographic region where
the catches were taken or the nationality of those pursuing the operation.
B. What refers to the targeted species. The capability of
whaling for different species or groups of species varies with certain
aspects of an operation - e.g., the technology required to catch,
tow, and process the whales; the types and amounts of products that can
be obtained; the importance of a species to the operation (i.e., principal
or supplemental); and the seasonality and location, according to the
animals’ movement patterns. Often multiple species are targeted and
additional species are taken opportunistically or during periods when
the principal targets are unavailable. Also, there has been a typical
pattern of shifting from more to less valuable or accessible species over
time as targeted species become increasingly scarce or elusive. A clear
example in which the targeted species help to distinguish the character
of the operations is Arctic whaling, where the three Arctic species
- bowhead, narwhal, and white whale (beluga) - have formed the basis
for both “subsistence” and “commercial” whaling on a circumpolar scale
(Vaughan 1984). Operations involving multiple target species pose special problems
because the focus of the hunting process often varies across years
as well as seasons, making analyses based on search effort (catch-per-unit
effort) difficult. At a minimum, such analyses require a firm understanding
of preference ranking (sometimes reflected in bounty payments or bonus
schedules for gunners), seasonal trends in whale availability or market
value, and species differences in handling and processing times. We
listed the species known to have been taken, distinguishing between
those that were principal and the supplemental targets for an operation.
C. Where refers not only to the geographical location of
the whaling, but also to whether it is local or distant from the
whalers’ residences.
This latter question has numerous implications, not least that it
largely determines whether an operation is considered shore-based,
coastal,
or pelagic. The variable where can be described at varying
geographic scales, including ocean basin or region within an ocean
basin, such
as a whaling ground or an island area. The American open-boat pelagic
whalers had the habit of naming grounds that were often visited on
a predictable circuit, reflecting seasonal movements of the whales,
wind and current patterns, ambient conditions for conducting whaling
operations, and access to port facilities to obtain supplies (food,
water, wood), recruit crew, and transship oil and baleen (Clark 1887;
Townsend 1935). Such grounds have been used to delineate study areas
for a number of analyses of catch history and trends in abundance (e.g.,
Bannister et al. 1981; Hope and Whitehead 1991). In the present context,
a change in geographic location may imply the need to designate a new operation,
especially for coastal whaling or a land station, but for a pelagic
operation such a change may be interpreted as a mere adjustment in
strategy within the same operation. As a result, the geographic scope
of some pelagic operations has been vast, almost global. We summarized Where in
terms of ocean basin (North and South Atlantic and Pacific, Indian,
Arctic and Antarctic, and identified regions within those basins where
shore or coastal operations occurred.
D. Why refers to the products of the hunt (e.g., oil, baleen,
meat, ivory) and thus the incentive(s) driving it. Market factors
are crucial in determining the intensity of whaling, species preferences,
and, ultimately, the degree of stock depletion. In fact, in some
population
studies it has been difficult to determine whether reduced whale
abundance (i.e.,
depletion) or market conditions (e.g., a change in product prices)
were most responsible for the decline or cessation of a fishery (e.g.,
Best 1983; Davis et al. 1997). The traditional distinction between “commercial” and “subsistence” whaling
hinges primarily on this variable (why), although the how element
has also played a prominent role (Mitchell and Reeves 1980; Reeves
2002). The uses of whale products have shifted through time according
to cultural preferences, availability of less expensive substitutes
(e.g., spring steel replaced baleen as a garment stiffener in the early
1900s; Bockstoce 1986), and technical innovations (e.g., hydrogenation
of fluid oils to produce margarine dramatically enhanced the value
of baleen whale oil in the 1920s and 1930s; Tønnessen and Johnsen
1982). Nevertheless, a change in this variable alone would not necessarily
be the basis for defining a new whaling operation, and we did not
systematically
record this characteristic.
E. When refers mainly to the years or decades in which the
whaling took place, although it can also refer to seasonality. The
latter might determine whether or not a given operation affects a
migratory whale population. The temporal history of some whaling operations
is
imprecise or incomplete, and in a few cases it is lacking altogether.
In many instances, especially involving shore-based operations, whaling
has been episodic, punctuated by years or decades of closure. For
example, modern whaling factories were opened, closed, and relocated
periodically
in Newfoundland and Labrador (Mitchell 1974), Iceland (Sigurjónsson
1988), northwestern North America (Pike and MacAskie 1967; Reeves et al.
1985; Webb 1988), and southern Africa (Best 1994). Although we described
the temporal span of an operation simply as starting and ending years,
we recognize that this can mask differences through time in the intensity
of whaling (effort), catch composition (species or age/size class),
catch level, and other features of interest.
F. How refers to the equipment, methods, and techniques
for taking and processing the whales. The distinction between shore-based
and pelagic operations is relevant here, as are questions of whether
powered or sailing vessels are employed, which weapons are used to
capture and kill the animals, and how those are delivered (e.g., manually
or mechanically) (Mitchell et al. 1986). Specific aspects of this
variable can be in an almost continuous state of flux as whalers experiment
and innovate, as regional availability of the targeted whale species
varies, and as product, labor, and capital markets fluctuate. Best
(1983), for example, described eight major improvements in vessels
and gear that emerged in the American pelagic sperm whale fishery between
the 1760s and 1850s, quoting Scammon’s (1874) observation that “there
is hardly a fixture, or an implement, pertaining to the outfit that
has not been improved upon….” While it is generally assumed that such
improvements would have made whaling more profitable, they also may
have allowed vessel owners to “get by” with less proficient crews,
contributing to lower voyage productivity (Davis et al. 1997). Technology
and practices determine to a considerable degree how efficient an operation
is, efficiency being defined in terms of hunting loss, humaneness,
or profitability (e.g., O’Hara et al. 1999). Hunting loss (hidden mortality,
as when animals are seriously injured or killed but not secured) can significantly
affect the magnitude and rate of removals and therefore must be taken
into account in population analyses that are premised on the availability
of complete catch histories. We recorded the mode of operation as shore,
coastal or pelagic and whether mechanical power was used. We also
recorded the tool used in killing and the method of delivery of that
tool.
Understanding changes in these six variables, and their collinearity,
is essential to defining whaling operations. The complexity of the relationships
among the variables has meant that some of the decisions concerning which
changes do and do not justify the designation of a “new” whaling operation
are somewhat arbitrary, especially where our access to the source material
has been limited.
Using the above criteria, we identified
somewhat more than 120 whaling operations worldwide. For each operation,
we attempted to identify the catching method (e.g., harpoon, poison dart,
net), delivery method (e.g., hand-thrown, deck-mounted cannon), “platform” (shore,
coastal, or pelagic), propulsion method (non- powered or powered), cumulative
secured catch level (to order of magnitude for all species, combined), start
and end years, species (primary and supplemental), ocean basin, regions
within ocean basins, and relevant data sources. The approximate location
of each of the shore and coastal whaling operations and the ocean basins
used by the pelagic operations are shown in Figure
1. The operations are indicated by the operation sequence numbers,
which are defined in the Appendix Table. That
table lists the operations by sequence number, and includes some of
their characteristics.
As with any effort of this kind, there is an inherent tension between “lumping” and “splitting.” Our
bias has not been consistently in either direction. On one hand, too
much lumping would gloss over a multitude of differences (in Who, What,
Where, Why, When, and How), some and perhaps many of which would be meaningful
and important in certain types of analyses. On the other hand, too much
splitting would defeat the purpose of attempting to organize a highly
fragmented, almost chaotic body of information on world whaling activities.
One example can be used to illustrate this point. The spread of Norwegian
mechanized shore whaling in southern Africa between 1908 and 1930 might
be seen as a single integrated operation involving primarily Norwegian
capital and personnel (see Best 1994). The various stations used essentially
identical technology, targeted roughly the same suite of species, and
served similar product markets. We nevertheless “split” these activities
into different operations according to the national jurisdictions (using
present-day political geography) in which the shore stations were sited
(e.g., Gabon, Angola, South Africa, Mozambique). This decision is not
entirely satisfactory, for it obscures the interesting and useful fact,
for example, that the whaling station at Cap Lopez (present-day Gabon)
and the moored floating factory at Sao Tomé (offshore of Gabon) were
run during the 1950s by a Norwegian-French company (Tønnessen and Johnsen
1982:654). Similarly, a shore station in Namibia in 1913-1914 (then German
Southwest Africa) was established largely by German initiative and capital
combined, as usual, with Norwegian expertise (Barthelmess 1993). In the
20th century, Japanese personnel and capital became closely
involved in whaling with “partners” in the waters of other countries
(Kasuya 2002), and again, we ascribed these joint ventures to the host
nation-states as separate operations rather than to Japan as extensions
of it mechanized shore or pelagic operations.
Eras - Having established a rationale and procedure for naming operations (which
can be viewed as parallel to species within a biological
taxonomy), we needed to devise at least one higher level of organization
to capture patterns or trends in our whaling taxonomy. The concept of era is
a familiar one for geologists and historians who frequently organize
chronological data on such a basis. We used one of the Oxford English
Dictionary’s definitions: “… a portion of historical time marked by the
continuance throughout it of particular influences, social conditions,
etc.” As demonstrated earlier in our attempt to define operations, chronology
alone is not an adequate basis for defining eras. The history of whaling
is marked most notably by changes in technology - e.g., transitions from:
spear-and-salvage to harpoon-line- float techniques (Lindquist 1993);
stripping whales at sea and carrying the blubber home for processing,
to using on-board tryworks and converting blubber to oil at sea (Ashley
1928; Whipple 1979:54); hand lance to shoulder- or darting-gun (Brown
1887); and sail to steam power (Bockstoce 1986; Webb 2002). While the
timing of such developments can usually be specified or reasonably approximated,
their adoption has been highly variable in both space and time. As one
graphic example, Alaskan Eskimos have continued to use open skin-covered
boats (umiaks) and other ancient or transitional implements and techniques
to hunt bowhead whales (Stoker and Krupnik 1993), even while modern factory-ship
whaling for other species in other ocean areas has arisen, peaked, and
declined to relict status (Tønnessen and Johnsen 1982).
We attempted to organize the history
of whaling on the basis of 14 different eras, each defined in a multivariate
manner (Table 1). The temporal boundaries of most
of the eras are reasonably clear (prehistoric and other “ancient” eras
excepted, of course). Figure 2 shows the approximate
temporal limits of the eras, with those that began in antiquity denoted
by the letter A on the left and those that include one or more continuing
whaling operations with right-pointing arrows. The temporal overlap of
several of the eras is a significant feature of world whaling.
The spatial boundaries of eras often overlap substantially as well.
This spatial overlap is less amenable to graphic portrayal and is, therefore,
only noted here with two (of many) examples. Firstly, American Pelagic
and American Shore whaling were frequently being pursued in the same
bays at the same times during the 19th century. In fact, the term “bay
whaling,” as used by Bannister (1986) and Dawbin (1986) in reference to
near-shore whaling for right whales and humpback whales in Australia,
Tasmania, and New Zealand during the 19th century, embraces
activities of both shore-based whalers and pelagic whalers anchored in bays.
Secondly, Norwegian Shore and Factory-ship whaling took place alternately
or concurrently in numerous areas of the Southern Hemisphere (Best 1994;
Findlay 2000) and North Pacific Ocean (Ohsumi 1980; Webb 1988; Brownell
et al. 2001).
A central objective in defining eras was to provide a framework for
organizing the whaling operations such that a given operation could only
be attributed to one era. Some of these assignments were not straightforward.
As observed by Best and Ross (1986:276), whaling activities often do
not fall neatly within the parameters assigned to a particular category: “Towards
the end of the open-boat whaling era, and before modern whaling proper
began, some ‘intermediate’ technology was adopted, including the use
of small, mounted harpoon guns and some powered craft such as launches….” In
fact, “experimental” whaling was particularly intensive in the North
Atlantic from the late 1850s to early 1870s as American and European
whalers competed to invent ways of killing and retrieving the fast-swimming
rorquals (Schmitt et al. 1980; Tønnessen and Johnsen 1982). While our
designations of American Shore, American Pelagic, and Transitional Steam
eras were intended to accommodate much of the activity involving “intermediate” technology
and “experimental” whaling, we stress that our assignments were meant
to reflect central tendencies rather than clean lines of distinction.
Implicit in some of the distinctions that we have made between eras
are assumptions about technology invention or transferal. We recognize
that such assumptions are just that - assumptions - and that the origins
of whaling in some areas and times are unknown. For example, it is uncertain
whether, or to what degree, the Basque method of open-boat, hand-harpoon
whaling influenced, or was influenced by, the Eskimos’ use of skin boats
and hand-thrown implements to capture large whales. Numerous uncertainties
surround the origins of “aboriginal” whaling operations, but it seems
likely that the ability to kill and secure whales developed independently
in more than one place and time. Thus, Barnes (1996) has pointed out
that the people of Lamalera, Indonesia, were hunting whales long before
they were visited by American and European whalers in the late 18th century.
The unique design of local whaling boats and sails, and the islanders’ way
of leaping from a boat onto a whale’s back to secure the harpoon, clearly
distinguish this warm-water “aboriginal” whaling operation that targets
sperm whales, from the cold-water operation of the Eskimos that targets
bowhead whales. The Indonesian operation probably has a closer affinity
to that of the people of Pamilacan, Philippines, who also leaped from
their boats to embed a large hook in the back of their prey, mainly Bryde’s
whales (Balaenoptera edeni/brydei) (Dolar et al. 1994). This method
dates back more than a century and has no obvious link to the activities
of visiting foreign whalers.
A common theme in efforts to establish when active whaling began is
the problem of “drift” whales, that is, whales that came ashore dead
or dying (“stranded”) or that were discovered as floating carcasses in
coastal waters (Freeman 1979; Little and Andrews 1981; McCartney 1984).
In some instances, the salvage of drift whales can be interpreted as
a step preceding the invention of whaling, per se, while in other
contexts it seems clear that drift whales resulted from the active pursuit
of and attempts to kill whales, i.e., they were part of the struck-but-lost
component of the fishery.
SYSTEMATIC
SUMMARIES OF ERAS
1. Prehistoric Unspecified - Determinations concerning the nature,
or even the existence, of ancient whaling operations are generally
fraught with uncertainty. Thus, while Heizer’s (1968) bibliography provides
tantalizing references to whaling in Zanzibar in 1295, in “Arabia” in
the 9th century, in Tierra del Fuego in the 1600s and 1700s,
and in Mozambique (apparently meaning Madagascar) at some time in the
ancient past, we have not been able to obtain and evaluate his sources.
Even in some instances where an in- depth analysis has been conducted
by an ethnographer (Lindquist 1993) or archaeologist (McCartney 1984),
many aspects of the timing and nature of the origins of ancient whaling
remain obscure. This era should be regarded as a holding bin for operations
that date far back in time, are not known to have continued into the
19th or 20th century, and are poorly documented.
We have no good basis for judging the species composition or numbers
of animals that might have been removed by these operations.
2. Poison - This era is defined entirely on the basis of how the
catching or killing was accomplished. Poison whaling consisted
of two main approaches, one using aconite (from the monkshood plant)
and the other using bacillus (from necrotic tissue of a dead animal).
There appear to have been multiple inventions of poison techniques at
different times and in geographically distant places. Aconite poison
whaling was used across the northern rim of the North Pacific (Heizer
1938; McCartney 1984; Crowell 1994), while bacillus poison whaling was
practiced in Iceland and Norway (Heizer 1968). The latter involved the
impoundment of whales in bays using barrier nets, then darting them with
a crossbow and waiting for septicemia to debilitate or kill the animal
(Jonsgård 1955). A certain amount of experimentation with “prussic [hydrocyanic]
acid harpoons” took place during the 19th century, but with
little reported success (Brown 1887:248-249).
Two key features of poison whaling are: (1) any species or size/age
class that could be approached closely enough to dart could be targeted,
and (2) the killed:secured ratio could be very high. Crowell (1994:229)
supposed that fin and humpback whales were targeted by North Pacific
poison whalers on the premise that these species were more likely to
be available in bays during the late spring and summer months when whaling
was practiced. Other authors have argued that gray whales, right whales,
and possibly minke whales were targeted (Mitchell 1979). Norwegian bacillus
whaling is said to have targeted minke whales primarily (Jonsgård 1955).
Because no attempt was made to fasten to the whales, and it took several
days for them to die (McCartney [1984:85] referred to this as the “lance-and-wait” technique),
hunting loss was very high in North Pacific poison whaling. The shut-in
method practiced in Norway and Iceland probably involved much less hunting
loss.
It is impossible to even guess reasonably at the numbers of whales killed
by the poison whalers, and if it were possible, the allocation to species
would be largely speculative.
3. Net - Like poison whaling, net whaling seems to have originated
independently on several different occasions in different areas.
Whaling with leather nets in Kamchatka is poorly documented but was active in
the 1730s-1740s (Krasheninnikov 1972) and supposedly targeted gray whales
(Rice and Wolman 1971). Japanese net whaling for humpback, right, gray,
Bryde’s, and probably other whale species is remarkably well documented,
considering that it began in the 17th century and ended before
1900 (Omura 1984, 1986). Although some authors (see McCartney 1984:86)
have suggested that net whaling was introduced to Japan by the Dutch
or Portuguese, it seems clear that the technique evolved locally as a
way of improving the efficiency of traditional Japanese harpoon whaling
(Kasuya 2002). Whaling for humpbacks in New Zealand with steel nets
was conducted from 1890 to 1910 (Dawbin 1967). We attributed the use
of nets to block the escape of whales from bays in Norway and Iceland
to the Poison era rather than the Net era. It also should be noted that
barrier, or shut-in, nets have been used extensively to catch belugas
(white whales) in the Arctic and Subarctic, but these fisheries are
not included among the operations recognized here in view of the emphasis
on large whales (see Introduction)
4. Arctic Aboriginal - Whaling by Eskimos centered on the bowhead
whale probably began roughly 2,000 years ago (Stoker and Krupnik
1993). The basic approach involved hand-paddled skin boats launched from
shore or ice, hand-thrown harpoons with rawhide lines attached to inflated
sealskin floats, and hand lances. Unlike the Basque- and American-era
whalers (see below), the Eskimos did not get “fast” to the whale, i.e.,
keep the harpoon line attached to the boat as the whale attempted to
escape. Rather, they depended on the float to tire the animal and to
allow them to track it so that additional harpoons-line-float arrays
could be brought to bear and they could get close enough to lance the
whale. A prominent feature of Eskimo whaling has been its selective incorporation
of new technologies. Thus, the present-day bowhead hunt in Alaska incorporates “modern” (e.g.,
shoulder gun, bomb-lance, even the occasional use of aircraft for spotting)
as well as traditional equipment and techniques (skin-covered boats for
attacking and towing whales).
While recognizing that the original distribution of Eskimo bowhead whaling
was “neither continuous nor homogeneous” (Stoker and Krupnik 1993:591),
we also note that the archaeological and ethnographic records of cultural
exchange and transfers of technology imply circumpolar linkages. It is
generally believed that the Thule whaling culture originated in the
Bering Strait region and that there was “an unbroken technologic sequence
which lasted for almost two millennia” across the Arctic from Siberia
eastward to Greenland (McCartney 1984:80). Separate operations have been
provisionally defined on the basis of political geography. Thus, we have
divided Siberian (Russian/Soviet), Alaskan (American), Canadian, and
Greenlandic whaling into different operations within this era. In doing
so, we recognize that these “operations” are not monolithic or homogeneous,
nor are they altogether distinct from one another historically or culturally.
In the Russian Far East, both bowhead and gray whales have always been
primary targets (Krupnik 1987), and in Greenland both bowhead and humpback
whales were important historically (Kapel 1978; Caulfield 1997).
Few rigorous attempts have been made to quantify removals for this era.
Stoker and Krupnik (1993:604) cite estimates of 790 bowheads secured
in Alaska between 1910-1969, and 15-20/year between 1914 and the 1980s.
Totals for the era would be at least hundreds of thousands of large whales,
and probably millions of belugas and narwhals.
5. Temperate Aboriginal -We have generally followed McCartney
(1984) in proposing the Temperate Aboriginal era to distinguish
operations in southern Alaska, the Aleutians (including Kodiak Island),
and the “Northwest Coast” of North America from those in higher latitudes.
It is important to recognize that the activities of some Eskimo societies
fall within this era (e.g., the Chugach Eskimos in the Gulf of Alaska),
and also that there was considerable overlap, at least spatially if not
also temporally, in the use of poison by kayak whalers (Poison era) and
the use of standard harpoon-line-float arrays by whalers in open dugout
or skin boats (this era).
Our distinction between the Arctic era and this one is not clearcut,
particularly in the North Pacific basin. As observed by McCartney (1984:80)
in reference to what he called “Arctic” and “Subarctic” aboriginal whaling, “to
review the antiquity, spread, and patterns of whaling … is very much
a matter of interpreting fragmentary evidence.”
Principal target species appear to have been humpback and gray whales
in the eastern Pacific, while the North Pacific right whale was likely
a primary target of aboriginal whalers in the western Pacific.
6. Tropical Aboriginal - Relatively few operations have been
identified that arose from local initiative and invention in
tropical latitudes. We have provisionally included only operations in
the North Atlantic (Florida) and the Indo-Pacific (Indonesia, Philippines).
Operations in low latitudes that were (or in a few cases are) essentially
extensions of the American 19th century open-boat fishery
were considered to belong in the American Shore era rather than this
era (see below). Thus, for example, the shore whaling for humpback and
sperm whales in several parts of the West Indies and for humpback whales
in Tonga and Equatorial Guinea are not considered part of the Tropical
Aboriginal era, while those that arose independently in Indonesia and
the Philippines are. We recognize that this classification is likely
to arouse controversy because it is not entirely consistent with the
IWC’s terminology and management system for “aboriginal subsistence” whaling (Reeves
2002). Humpback and sperm whales are the principal species involved,
except in Lamakera, Indonesia, where other rorquals are (or were) the
primary targets (Barnes 1991).
7. Basque Shore - The Basque approach to shore whaling generally
involved lookouts on cliffs or other high-elevation positions.
Pursuit of the whales in small open boats, and attacking them with hand
harpoons and lances, was the basic technique used by the Basques and
their successors for many centuries, and possibly for more than a millennium.
Shore whaling in Brazil was inaugurated by Basques in 1603 (Peterson
1948), and we have provisionally assigned this and ensuing Brazilian
primitive shore enterprises to a single operation that extended temporally
far beyond the end of the Basque Shore era. Similarly, we have provisionally
assigned the brief attempt at shore whaling in the Canary Islands between
1778-1799 (Aguilar 1986) and the poorly documented shore whaling in the
Cape Verde Islands from 1690-1912 (Hazevoet and Wenzel 2000) to this
era, while recognizing that new information will likely lead us to reconsider
and perhaps subdivide such operations, particularly the latter which
may have been strongly influenced by American (“Yankee”-type) whaling
(see below).
For the most part, Basque Shore whaling was confined to the North Atlantic
and targeted right whales. The Brazilian operation is the only major
one outside the North Atlantic. It presumably targeted southern right
whales through the 1820s (Peterson 1948), after which time humpback and
sperm whales may have become more prominent. Although total annual
catches may not have exceeded a few hundred animals during much of this
era, its long duration means that the total cumulative removals were
at least in the tens, or more likely hundreds, of thousands.
8. Basque Pelagic - Basque Pelagic whaling, as defined here,
took place only in the North Atlantic (including the adjacent
Arctic regions). The distinction between shore and pelagic operations
is not always straightforward, as the Basques (and others who adopted
the Basque approach) ventured to distant regions where they set up permanent
or semi-permanent shore stations for processing whales. In general, we
provisionally assigned such operations to this era rather than the Basque
Shore era. In addition to the Basques, the era includes whaling by British,
Dutch, Danish, German, and other European nationalities. Often, an operation
mounted with foreign capital depended upon Basque crew with specialized
expertise (Aguilar 1986).
It is difficult to determine when this era would have begun. However,
if one includes “seasonal trips” by the Basques to southern Ireland,
the English Channel, Iceland, and eventually Newfoundland and Labrador
in this category, it would be some time in the 14th century
(Aguilar 1986). The last Basque ship was sent to the Arctic in 1753 (Aguilar
1986). In our classification system, however, we have considered the
Arctic whaling conducted from the 16th through much of the
19th century by sailing ships from Great Britain, France,
Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and other European countries to have
belonged to this era.
The frequently quoted description of British whaling in the Greenland
Sea in 1671 by Frederic Martens (e.g., in Scammon 1874) defines the
basic methods and techniques that characterized this era. A whale was
sighted from the mother ship, oar-powered boats were launched in pursuit,
and the whale was harpooned. The boats were thus made fast to, and often
towed by, the whale, sometimes over considerable distances. After being
killed with lances, the whale was itself towed to the mother ship and
flensed alongside. Blubber was packed as cargo on-board the ship and
delivered, eventually, to cookers on shore. These shore cookeries could
be either in the home country or at remote sites near the whaling grounds
(e.g., Spitsbergen, Labrador). Basque ships, alone among the Arctic
fleet, supposedly often cooked their blubber on-board, despite the fire
hazards, to avoid paying taxes for setting up their tryworks on shores
claimed by European powers (Aguilar 1986; see Ellis 2002a for discussion
of whether this really happened). In areas such as Labrador, however,
the normal procedure was for galleons to anchor in harbors while their
boats were sent away to search for and catch whales, which were then
towed to shore for flensing and trying-out of the blubber (Aguilar 1986:195).
The bowhead and the North Atlantic right whale bore the brunt of whaling
during this era. Sperm and humpback whales, together with narwhals, belugas,
and other smaller sorts, are best regarded as supplemental targets. Aguilar
(1986) estimated that 25,000-40,000 balaenids might have been taken off
Newfoundland and Labrador by the Basques between 1530-1610. Other rough
calculations indicate that perhaps 15,000 bowheads were taken around
Svalbard between 1610-1669 and more than 85,000 between 1669-1800 (Hacquebord
1999); many tens of thousands more were taken in Davis Strait and Baffin
Bay between the 1720s and early 1900s (Mitchell and Reeves 1981). Catches
of balaenids over the entire era (5- plus centuries) were in the hundreds
of thousands, although it is important to recognize that some of the
whaling operations assigned to the Basque Shore era or the American Pelagic
era contributed to these catch estimates.
9. American (“Yankee”) Shore - Whalemen of this era employed
the basic Basque techniques of killing and processing whales.
They sighted whales from lookouts on shore, pursued them in open boats,
and attacked them with harpoons and lances, at least initially. However,
the era was characterized by innovation, transition, and participant
diversity as described more fully below for the American Pelagic era.
The essential elements of open-boat whaling as practiced during this
era persisted at the Azores until 1984, Tonga until 1981, and the West
Indies to the present day (see Reeves 2002). These and many of the other
operations assigned to this era incorporated firearms, explosives, and
mechanized vessels to some degree.
Primitive open-boat shore whaling in the United States from the mid-17th century
to 1924 is assigned to this era (Edwards and Rattray 1932; Sayers 1984;
Reeves and Mitchell 1986, 1988; Reeves et al. 1999), as are similar operations
in Bermuda from the early 17th century to 1941 (Mitchell and
Reeves 1983), Australia and New Zealand from 1805-1932 (Baker 1983;
Bannister 1986; Dawbin 1986) and South Africa from 1789-1929 (Best and
Ross 1986, 1989). As indicated above, some operations that have been
classified recently in other contexts as “aboriginal” or artisanal (Bequia,
Tonga, Azores) are here assigned to this era in view of their direct
historical links to the American open-boat fishery (Clarke 1954; Reeves
2002).
Right and humpback whales were the primary targets in this era. Off
western North America, gray whales were also important, as were sperm
whales in those areas with deep water close to shore (e.g., the Azores,
Madeira, and the West Indies). Many hundreds of thousands of whales were
taken altogether.
Although this era eventually gave way during the second half of the
19th century to the Transitional Steam and Mechanized Shore
eras, it did so incompletely. For example, the shore whalers on Long
Island (New York) and the Outer Banks of North Carolina continued to
launch their hand-powered open boats into the surf in pursuit of right
whales, which they killed and processed in the old-fashioned manner,
until the early 20th century (Reeves and Mitchell 1986, 1988).
9. American (“Yankee”) Pelagic - This era represents a transitional
phase following the period when European whalers and Basque methods
and techniques predominated. It has relatively precise start and end
dates, as it began in approximately the middle of the 18th century
and ended with the last American voyages in the 1920s.
The American era’s most striking aspect is rapid expansion, both in
terms of geography and in terms of the size and capacity of whaling
fleets. Basque Pelagic whaling was confined almost entirely to the North
Atlantic
Ocean, including the Arctic Atlantic, while American Pelagic whaling
spanned the globe. The Basque era was dominated by European nations,
while the American era was dominated by the United States. Invention
of on-board tryworks (by 1762; Ashley 1928) facilitated the high-seas,
long-distance voyages that typified the era (Ellis 2002b). We emphasize
the transitional nature of the era and the fact that whaling equipment
and practices were in an almost constant state of flux. Best (1983),
for example, identified seven important innovations, in addition to
on-board tryworks, including the addition of sails to whaleboats in the
1820s,
the toggle harpoon in 1848, and perfection of the bomb-lance in 1852.
He also identified the demand for sperm oil in the manufacture of candles
as a critical motivating force (also see Ellis 2002b).
There was substantial interpenetration and integration between the American
Pelagic and American Shore whaling operations, so that in a sense these
could be viewed as comprising a single fishery (see Brown 1887; Clark
1887). New methods invented and adopted in one sector of the fishery,
such as the shoulder gun and bomb-lance, soon found their way into the
other.
We call this the American era because the United States provided most
of the capital, manpower, and expertise that defined it. In 1846, near
the chronological middle of the era, the world whaling fleet was estimated
at approximately 1,000 sails, of which 729 were U.S.-registered (Clark
1887:192), and some of the vessels sailing under other nations’ flags
had American masters and were underwritten at least partly by American
capital (Stackpole 1972; Du Pasquier 1982). By the 1880s, crews, even
on American ships, were extremely diverse. As Brown (1887:218) put it, “A
more heterogeneous group of men has never assembled in so small a space
than is always found in the forecastle of a New Bedford sperm whaler.”
Several distinctions merit particular explanation and comment. Whaling
historians recognize two distinct, partly concurrent British whale
fisheries: the northern fishery, meaning voyages to the Arctic Atlantic
(the Spitsbergen
and Davis Strait subfisheries) in pursuit of bowhead whales, and the
southern (or south-seas) fishery, meaning voyages to anywhere except
the Arctic in pursuit of sperm and right whales (Jenkins 1921:210).
We regard the northern fishery - not only that of Great Britain, but
also
those of France, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, and other European
states - as part of the Basque Pelagic era, whereas the southern fishery
(again including those of Great Britain, France, Germany, Denmark,
the Netherlands, and other European states) is subsumed under our American
Pelagic era, as is American sailing-vessel whaling in northern regions.
The sperm whale was the focal species of the American Pelagic era as
a whole, followed closely by the right whales (Eubalaena spp.).
Bowhead, humpback, and gray whales were primary targets in particular
areas and seasons. Importantly, the latter two species were hunted mainly
on their winter calving/breeding grounds. Pilot whales were a significant
supplemental target. Several authors have attempted to estimate total
catches for large portions of this era. For example, Best (1987) estimated
that American-registered vessels secured about 30,000 bowhead whales,
70,000-75,000 right whales, 14,000-18,000 humpback whales, and 2,500-3,000
gray whales between 1804-1909. Scarff (2001) adjusted Best’s results
for the North Pacific by incorporating information on non-American fleets
and by applying a loss rate factor to account for hunting loss, producing
an estimate of 26,500-37,000 North Pacific right whales killed between
1839-1909. Detailed studies by Bannister et al. (1981), Best (1983),
and Hope and Whitehead (1991) provide important empirical and methodological
background for global or basin-wide estimation of sperm whale catches
in this era (e.g., see Whitehead 2002; Smith and Reeves 2003).
11. Transitional Steam - Steam power to propel whaling ships
was introduced to the British Arctic fishery in 1857 and to the
American Arctic fishery in 1866 (Brown 1887:237-238). While its initial
appeal was in the way it improved navigation of ice-infested waters
in high latitudes, steam was also introduced to coastal whaling operations
in New England in 1880 (Clark 1887; Webb 2001). There, it facilitated
the killing of fin and humpback whales in what has been described as
a “shoot-and-salvage” fishery, characterized by high rates of hunting
loss (Reeves et al. 2002).
The scale of catches attributed to this era is relatively small. By
the time steamers were used in the Arctic, the stocks of bowheads
had been greatly depleted, so only a few thousand bowheads, as well
as tens
of thousands of northern bottlenose whales, belugas, and narwhals were
taken by the American and British steam fleets. Steam whaling vessels
that cruised throughout the Gulf of Maine for fin and humpback whales
from about 1880-1896 killed hundreds of fin and humpback whales (Reeves
et al. 2002).
12. Norwegian (Mechanized) Shore - By the time the Norwegian
inventor Svend Foyn had perfected the modern basis for mechanized
catcher-boat whaling in the late 1860s, the “infrastructure” and motivation
were already in place for its global proliferation. Many of the same
sites where Basque Shore and American Shore whaling had taken place
previously became the sites of “modern” land stations (e.g., in Australia
and New Zealand; Tønnessen and Johnsen 1982:220-221). With innovative
technology that allowed the exploitation of blue and fin whales, however,
opportunities arose to establish whaling stations in new areas as well,
most notably on the subantarctic islands, of which South Georgia was
by far the most noteworthy. Norwegian skill and enterprise were as central
to this era as Basque and American contributions had been to earlier
eras. We have defined operations largely on the basis of where the whaling
took place (i.e., national jurisdictions), but it important to stress
that Norway provided the capital and expertise for many of the shore
stations, even as recently as the 1960s and early 1970s (e.g., Webb 1988).
After the Second World War, the export of whale meat and blubber to Japan
became a central feature of many shore-based whaling operations, particularly
in South and North America and eastern Asia.
The numbers of whales killed in this era would total many hundreds of
thousands, perhaps millions if one takes into account all species, including
minke, killer, pilot, and other “small” whales that were supplemental
to many of the operations. All commercially valuable species were hunted
from shore stations. The numbers of right whales taken were relatively
low because they had been depleted everywhere before this era began,
and also because they were legally protected from the mid-1930s onward.
13. Factory Ship - The modern era of factory ship whaling began
when the Newfoundland steamer Sobraon visited the South Shetland
Islands in 1907 (Tønnessen and Johnsen 1982:106). The first factory ships
operated essentially as floating shore stations, however, moored or anchored
in bays while the catcher boats fanned out in search of prey (Best and
Ross [1986] classified these as “shore-based establishments”; see Tønnessen
and Johnsen [1982:503, 654] regarding the legal and biological implications).
It was not until 1923 that truly pelagic factory ship whaling was underway
in the Southern Ocean, and the stern slipway was not introduced until
1925/26 when the Norwegian ship Lancing operated off the Congo,
in the Antarctic, and off Patagonia (Tønnessen and Johnsen 1982:354-55).
The capability of catching and processing with no links to shore stations
gave the industry access to the final, and most profitable, whaling frontier:
the Antarctic. Over the course of the 20th century, factory
ship operations from at least 15 countries (not counting so-called “pirate” operations)
accounted for more than a million whales worldwide (see Clapham and Baker
2002). Relatively little factory ship whaling occurred in the North Atlantic
(Jonsgård 1977), and most of it in the South Atlantic was centered along
the African coast or near the offshore subantarctic islands (Findlay
2000). The Antarctic and North Pacific were, by far, the most productive
grounds during this whaling era, each yielding many hundreds of thousands
of baleen and sperm whales. The last Soviet expedition to the Antarctic
took place in 1981/82. Only Japan has continued to engage in factory
ship whaling since the 1982 IWC moratorium, taking roughly 400 minke
whales annually.
14. Mechanized Small-type - For this era, we relied largely upon
the IWC’s formal definition of small-type whaling: “… catching
operations using powered vessels with mounted harpoon guns hunting exclusively
for minke, [northern] bottlenose, [long-finned] pilot or killer whales” (IWC
1977:34). We used a somewhat broader interpretation so as to encompass
not only the Norwegian hunt for those four species in the northern North
Atlantic (clearly the intended subject of the IWC’s schedule amendment
in 1976), but also the Japanese mechanized shore-based hunts for minke,
short-finned pilot, killer, Baird’s beaked, and other beaked whales in
the western North Pacific (Kasuya 2002). Although we recognize that there
were extensive British and Norwegian fisheries for northern bottlenose
whales from the 1860s to early 1900s, using steam power and mounted harpoon
guns, these pelagic operations were assigned to the Transitional Steam
era. The Mechanized Small-type whaling in Japan (Ohsumi 1975), Iceland
(Sigurjónsson 1982), and Greenland (Caulfield 1997) has been entirely
shore-based, whereas Norwegian small-type whaling was and continues to
be both coastal and pelagic (Christensen 1975). The total numbers of
whales taken by these operations are at least in the 100,000s for the
North Atlantic and the North Pacific.
DATA SOURCES
The discipline of history is founded upon sources,
and an appreciation for the nature of sources is essential if we are
to grasp both the limits and the possibilities for reconstructing whaling
catch histories. From a biological and ecological perspective, the ultimate
goal is to have definitive quantification of fishery removals from biological
populations. Therefore, the raison d’etre for our proposed whaling
taxonomy is really to provide a way of identifying, obtaining, and organizing “catch
statistics” that can be used in population and ecological analyses. For
fisheries generally, three periods have been identified in this regard:
historical, proto-statistical (approximately 1850-1900), and statistical
(since approximately 1900) (Holm et al. 2001). Sources of whaling catch
data can be classified in a broadly similar manner. Thus, we suggest
that whaling sources can be placed in four categories: archaeological,
ethnographic/historical, production-centered, and whale-centered. These
periods have approximate time boundaries (with some overlap) and can
be characterized by representative source types (Table
2).
Most of the representative source types in Table
2 would be considered primary sources,
i.e., sources of original or “raw” data. Although published lists (e.g.,
Starbuck 1878; Hegarty 1959; Whalemen’s Shipping List; International
Whaling Statistics) and maps (e.g., Maury 1852; Townsend 1935) have often
been used as primary sources for analyses (e.g., Best 1983, 1987; Mitchell
and Reeves 1983; Bockstoce and Botkin 1983; Scarff 1991; Smith and Reeves,
in press), it is important to recognize that they are in fact secondary sources
derived from primary sources such as voyage logbooks or journals and
customs-house or company records. In evaluating the nature, reliability,
and completeness of any source, it is necessary to consider who created
it and for what purpose, and why the artifact or document has survived
to the present day.
The absence of sources for a particular fishery, area, or time
period also needs to be considered. Gaps in the catch history cannot,
for example, be treated as “no catch” in population analyses unless there
is positive evidence for the suspension of whaling activities for the
fishery, area, or time period in question. When sources of data are insufficient
or lacking entirely, it is often necessary to fill gaps through interpolation
or extrapolation. Failure to account for such gaps could help explain
the failure of population models to “fit” observed or estimated values
for current abundance or population growth rates, e.g., in the case of
eastern North Pacific gray whales (IWC 1993:248-250). Even when a coarsely
compiled catch history seems sufficient to support modeling of hemisphere-wide
trends, as in the case of southern right whales (IWC 2001), the need
to estimate abundance and trends for individual “management units based
on breeding stocks” (IWC 2001:26) creates a requirement for finer-scaled
catch histories. Smith and Reeves (2002) attempted to complete the interpolations
and extrapolations, and to provide the fine geographic scale, needed
for a “complete” catch history of humpback whales in the North Atlantic.
It remained unclear in that instance, however, whether the failure
of the model to fit the data was due to problems with the catch history,
estimates of current abundance and rates of increase, or the structure
of the model itself (IWC 2002, in press).
Secondary sources are adequate, in some cases, for supplying the data
needed to support analyses. However, in those cases where (a) there
is reason to believe that the data derived from secondary sources are
either incomplete or ambiguous (e.g., in regard to species taken, loss
rates, etc.), (b) spatial resolution is critical, or (c) information
on statistical precision is important, the need to consult primary sources
may be inescapable. For example, Best (1983) provided an extremely useful
summary of American Pelagic era sperm whaling based on various secondary
sources, one of which (Lyman in IWC 1969) gives decadal production-derived
catch estimates for sperm whales from 1800-1910. However, not only are
those estimates negatively biased because of failure to account fully
for non-U.S. voyages (Best 1983:43), but also there is no way to disaggregate
the data so that catches can be estimated at a less than global level.
Further, the secondary source material is not amenable to quantification
of bias or measurement of statistical precision. In an important recent
analysis of the effects of whaling on world stocks of sperm whales, Whitehead
(2002: his Fig. 1) appears to have derived his global catch series for
the “open-boat hunt” between 1800 and the 1920s from either IWC (1969)
or Best (1983), or a combination of the two. As Whitehead acknowledges
(p. 302), certain of his modeling results conflict with the evidence
in primary sources (logbooks) concerning rates of decline in regional
sperm whale abundance (Tillman and Breiwick 1983; Whitehead 1995). It
is difficult to see how understanding of the ecological effects of whaling
at the population or ecosystem level can be greatly improved without
more studies of primary sources (e.g., Bannister et al. 1981; Hope and
Whitehead 1991; see Smith and Reeves 2003). However difficult and time-consuming
it may be to extract and analyze data from whaling voyage logbooks (which
can be defined as either Production- or Individual Whale-centered
sources; Table 2), the primary data embedded in Archaeological and Ethnographic/Historical
sources are even more difficult to use for estimating catch series.
In some instances, e.g., Prehistoric Unspecified era operations, such
sources may yield nothing beyond confirmation (or supposition) that
whaling took place.
Even when quantified or quantifiable data exist, the validity of the
sources may be in doubt. For 20th century examples, the primary
data submitted from some Soviet pelagic expeditions (Best 1988; Zemsky
et al. 1995a, 1995b; Mikhalev 1997) and some Japanese (Kasuya 1999) and
possibly South African (Best 1989) shore stations are known to have been
falsified in one way or another. Although alternative “actual” catches
have been reported for some of the falsified Soviet expeditions (e.g.,
Clapham and Baker 2002: their Table II), it remains unclear how the
other unreliable or invalid data might be corrected.
CONCLUSIONS
In designing and developing our proposed taxonomy of world whaling,
we conducted a relatively superficial review of whaling literature. We
would expect that, after a more thorough study, some of the operations
provisionally defined here will need to be split apart or combined, and
perhaps assigned to different eras. We would also expect to make some
revisions in the ways that we have defined the eras, although the number
and nature of eras are likely to be more “stable” than those of operations.
The temporal, geographical, technological, and “platform” (i.e., shore
vs. pelagic) differences used to distinguish eras are sharper and less
subject to interpretation (or misinterpretation) than many of the differences
used to define operations.
Our main goal in this paper has been to establish the conceptual utility
of our proposed taxonomy. Once this has been established, it will be
necessary to refine the working set of operations and eras through a
broader and more intensive review of the whaling literature and through
extensive consultations with individual historians, anthropologists,
archaeologists, and biologists who have particular kinds of expertise.
For example, it will be important to have the assistance of Japanese
scholars in establishing the character and timing of whaling operations
in East Asia, and in determining whether all such operations can appropriately
be assigned to our provisional eras. Similarly, we would expect archaeologists
and anthropologists whose research has centered on the development and
spread of whaling in the northern North Pacific and Arctic regions to
be able to improve our understanding of the Arctic Aboriginal and Temperate
Aboriginal eras and of the operations that should be assigned to them.
A structured taxonomy such as the one proposed here should be useful
to those interested in the history of whaling on any scale of time or
space. It should also be helpful to those wishing to analyze the effects
of whaling, whether at a species, population, or ecosystem level. Although
it may not be possible to make reliable estimates of removals, or indeed
to identify the species taken, in all whaling operations or eras, a first
step must be to determine what is known, what can be known, and what
is essentially unknowable. Describing what is known should be relatively
easy for the operations and eras for which Individual Whale- centered
data sources exist (Table
2), with the caveat that not all primary sources
are reliable, as discussed above in relation to the Soviet Union, Japan,
and South Africa. In many instances where the principal data sources
are Production-centered, those sources have yet to be explored systematically
and thoroughly. The feasibility and desirability of such exploration
will depend in large part on the question or questions that one wishes
to address (e.g., the degree of spatial resolution required, distance
into the past deemed relevant, etc.) (e.g., see Smith and Reeves 2003).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge the financial support of the Alfred E. Sloan Foundation
through the History of Marine Animal Populations project of the Census
of Marine Life. This paper was presented by invitation at the Whales
and Ocean Ecosystems workshop held in Santa Cruz, California, in April
2003, sponsored by the Pew Foundation, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, and the University of California at Santa Cruz. It has been
submitted for inclusion in the planned volume: J.A. Estes, R.L. Brownell,
Jr., D.P. DeMaster, D.F. Doak, and T.M. Williams, editors. “Whales,
Whaling, and Ocean Ecosystems” to be published by the University
of California Press. We also thank Elizabeth Josephson for her assistance
in preparing Figure 1, and Fred Serchuk for a helpful review.
LITERATURE
CITED
Ashley, C.W. 1928. The Yankee whalers. George Routledge and Sons, London.
156 pp.
Baker, A.N. 1983. Whale and dolphins of New Zealand and Australia: an
identification guide. Victoria University Press, Wellington, New Zealand.
133 pp.
Bannister, J.L. 1986. Notes on nineteenth century catches of southern
right whales (Eubalaena australis) off the southern coasts of
Western Australia. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special
Issue) 10:255-259.
Bannister, J.L., S. Taylor and H. Sutherland. 1981. Logbook records
of 19th century American sperm whaling: a report on the 12
month project, 1978-79. Report of the International Whaling Commission
31:821-833.
Barnes, R.H. 1991. Indigenous whaling and porpoise hunting in Indonesia.
Pp. 99-106 in S. Leatherwood and G.P. Donovan (eds.), Cetaceans and cetacean
research in the Indian Ocean Sanctuary. United Nations Environment Programme,
Nairobi, Marine Mammal Technical Report 3.
Barnes, R.H.1996. Sea hunters of Indonesia: fishers and weavers of Lamalera.
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Barthelmess, K. 1993. A century of German interests in modern whaling,
1860s-1960s. pp. 121-138 in B.L. Basberg, J.E. Ringstad, and E. Wexelsen
(eds.), Whaling and History: Perspectives on the Evolution of the Industry.
Publication No. 29, Kommandoer Chr. Christensens Hvalfangstmuseum, Sandefjord,
Norway. 214 pp.
Best, P.B. 1983. Sperm whale stock assessments and the relevance of
historical whaling records. Report of the International Whaling Commission
(Special Issue) 5:41-55.
Best, P.B. 1987. Estimates of the landed catch of right (and other whalebone)
whales in the American fishery, 1805-1909. Fishery Bulletin 85:403-418.
Best, P.B. 1988. Right whales at Tristan da Cunha - a clue to the ‘non-recovery’ of
depleted species? Biological Conservation 46:23-51.
Best, P.B. 1989. Some comments on the BIWS catch record data base. Report
of the International Whaling Commission 39:363-369.
Best, P.B. 1994. A review of the catch statistics for modern whaling
in southern Africa, 1908-1930. Report of the International Whaling Commission
44:467-485.
Best, P.B., and Ross, G.J.B. 1986. Catches of right whales from shore-based
establishments in southern Africa, 1792-1975. Report of the International
Whaling Commission (Special Issue) 10:275-289.
Bockstoce, J.R. 1986. Whales, ice, and men: the history of whaling in
the western Arctic. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Bockstoce, J.R. and D.B. Botkin. 1983. The historical status and reduction
of the Western Arctic bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) population
by the pelagic whaling industry, 1848-1914. Report of the International
Whaling Commission (Special Issue) 5:107-142.
Brown, J.T. 1887. The whale fishery. Part 2. Whalemen, vessels and boats,
apparatus, and methods of the whale fishery. Pp. 218-293 in G.B. Goode
(ed.), The fisheries and fishery industries of the United States. Section
V. History and Methods of the Fisheries. Vol. 2. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
Brownell, R.L. Jr., Clapham, P.J., Miyashita, T., and Kasuya, T. 2001.
Conservation status of North Pacific right whales. Journal of Cetacean
Research and Management (Special Issue) 2:269-286.
Caulfield, R.A. 1997. Greenlanders, whales, and whaling: sustainability
and self-determination in the Arctic. University Press of New England,
Hanover, New Hampshire. 203 pp.
Christensen, I. 1975. Preliminary report on the Norwegian fishery for
small whales: expansion of Norwegian whaling to Arctic and northwest
Atlantic waters, and Norwegian investigations of the biology of small
whales. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32:1083-1094.
Clapham, P.J., and Baker, C.S. 2002. Whaling, modern. Pp. 1328-1332
in W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig, and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia
of marine mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Clark, A.H. 1887. History and present condition of the fishery. Pp.
3-218 of Part XV, “The Whale Fishery,” in G.B. Goode (ed.), The Fisheries
and Fishery Industries of the United States, Section V. History and methods
of the fisheries, Vol. II. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Crowell, A. 1994. Koniag Eskimo poisoned-dart whaling. Pp. 217-242 in
W.W. Fitzhugh and V. Chaussonnet (eds.), Anthropology of the North Pacific
Rim. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Davis, L.E., Gallman, R.E., and Gleiter, K. 1997. In pursuit of leviathan.
technology, institutions, productivity, and profits in American whaling,
1816-1906. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Dawbin, W.H. 1967. Whaling in New Zealand waters 1791-1963. Extract
from: An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, Government Printer, Wellington.
7pp.
Dawbin, W.H.1986. Right whales caught in waters around south eastern
Australia and New Zealand during the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue)
10:261-267.
Dolar, M.L.L., Leatherwood, S.J., Wood, C.J., Alava, M.N.R., Hill, C.L.,
and Aragones, L.V. 1994. Directed fisheries for cetaceans in the Philippines.
Report of the International Whaling Commission 44:439-449.
Du Pasquier, T. 1982. Les baleiniers français au XIXéme siécle 1814-1868.
Terre et Mer, Grenoble. 256 pp.
Edwards, E.J., and Rattray, J.E. 1932. “Whale off!” The story of American
shore whaling. Frederick A. Stokes, New York.
Ellis, R. 1991. Men and whales. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Ellis, R. 2002a. Whaling, early and aboriginal. Pp. 1310-1316 in W.F.
Perrin, B. Würsig, and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of marine
mammals. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Ellis, R. 2002b. Whaling, traditional. Pp. 1316-1328 in W.F. Perrin,
B. Würsig, and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of marine mammals.
Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Findlay, K.P. 2000. A review of humpback whale catches by modern whaling
operations in the Southern Hemisphere. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum
47:411-420.
Francis, D. 1990. A history of world whaling. Viking, Penguin Books
Canada, Markham, Ontario. 288 pp.
Freeman, M.M.R. 1979. A critical review of Thule Culture and ecological
adaptation. Pp. 278-285 in A.P. McCartney (ed.), Thule Eskimo culture:
an anthropological retrospective. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series,
Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 88.
Hacquebord, L. 1999. The hunting of the Greenland right whale in Svalbard,
its interaction with climate and its impact on the marine ecosystem.
Polar Research 18:375-382.
Hazevoet, C.J. and Wenzel, F.W. 2000. Whales and dolphins (Mammalia,
Cetacea) of the Cape Verde Islands, with special reference to the humpback
whale Megaptera novaeangliae (Borowski, 1781). Contributions to
Zoology 69(3):197-211.
Heizer, R.F. 1938. Aconite poison whaling in Asia and America: an Aleutian
transfer to the New World. Bulletin of the Bureau of American Ethnology
133:417-468.
Heizer, R.F. 1968. A bibliography of aboriginal whaling. Journal of
the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History 4(7):344-362.
Henderson, D.A. 1972. Men & whales in Scammon’s Lagoon. Dawson’s
Book Shop, Los Angeles, CA.
Holm, P., Starkey, D.J., and Smith, T.D. 2001. Introduction. Pp. xiii-xix
in P. Holm, T.D. Smith, and D.J. Starkey, eds., The exploited seas:
new directions for marine environmental history. International Maritime
Economic
History Association/Census of Marine Life, St. John’s, Newfoundland.
Hope, P.L. and H. Whitehead. 1991. Sperm whales off the Galápagos Islands
from 1830-50 and comparisons with modern studies. Report of the International
Whaling Commission 41:273-86.
IWC. 1969. Report of the IWC-FAO Working Group on Sperm Whale Stock
Assessment. Report of the International Whaling Commission 19:39-83.
IWC. 1993. Report of the Special Meeting of the Scientific Committee
on the Assessment of Gray Whales. Report of the International Whaling
Commission 43:241-259.
IWC. 2001. Report of the Workshop on the Comprehensive Assessment of
Right Whales: a worldwide comparison. Journal of Cetacean Research and
Management (Special Issue) 2:1-60.
IWC. 2002. Report of the Sub-committee on the Comprehensive Assessment
of North Atlantic Humpback Whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management
4 (Supplement):230-260.
IWC. In press. Report of the Sub-committee on the Comprehensive Assessment
of North Atlantic Humpback Whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management
5 (Supplement).
Jenkins, J.T. 1921. A history of the whale fisheries from the Basque
fisheries of the tenth century to the hunting of the finner whale at
the present date. Kennikat Press, Port Washington, New York. 336 pp.
Jonsgård, Å. 1955. Development of the modern Norwegian small whale industry.
Norsk Hvalfangst-tidende 44(12):697-718.
Jonsgård, Å. 1977. Tables showing the catch of small whales (including
minke whales) caught by Norwegians in the period 1938-75, and large whales
caught in different North Atlantic waters in the period 1868-1975. Report
of the International Whaling Commission 27:413-426.
Kapel, F.O. 1978. Exploitation of large whales in West Greenland in
the twentieth century. Report of the International Whaling Commission
29:197-214.
Kasuya, T. 1999. Examination of the reliability of catch statistics
in the Japanese coastal sperm whale fishery. Journal of Cetacean Research
and Management 1:109-122.
Kasuya, T. 2002. Japanese whaling. Pp. 655-662 in W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig,
and J.G.M. Thewissen (eds.), Encyclopedia of marine mammals. Academic
Press, San Diego, CA.
Krasheninnikov, S.P. 1972. Explorations of Kamchatka: North Pacific
Scimitar. [Opisanie Zemli Kamchatki. Report of a journey made to explore
eastern Siberia in 1735-1741, by order of the Russian Imperial Government.]
Translated with Introduction and Notes by E.A.P. Crownhart-Vaughan. Oregon
Historical Society, Portland.
Krupnik, I.I. 1987. The bowhead vs. the gray whale in Chukotkan aboriginal
whaling. Arctic 40:16-32.
Lindquist, O. 1993. Whaling by peasant fishermen in Norway, Orkney,
Shetland, the Faeroe Islands, Iceland and Norse Greenland: mediaeval
and early modern whaling methods and inshore legal regimes. pp. 17-54
in B.L. Basberg, J.E. Ringstad, and E. Wexelsen (eds.), Whaling and
History: Perspectives on the Evolution of the Industry. Publication
No. 29, Kommandoer
Chr. Christensens Hvalfangstmuseum, Sandefjord, Norway. 214 pp.
Little, E.A., and Andrews, J.C. 1981. Drift whales at Nantucket: the
kindness of Moshup. Man in the Northeast 23:17-38.
McCartney, A.P. 1984. History of native whaling in the Arctic and Subarctic.
Pp. 79-111 in H.K. s’Jacob, K. Snoeijing, and R. Vaughan (eds.), Arctic
whaling: proceedings of the international symposium Arctic Whaling
February 1983. Arctic Centre, University of Groningen, Netherlands.
Mikhalev, Y.A. 1997. Humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae in
the Arabian Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 149:13-21.
Mitchell, E. 1974. Present status of Northwest Atlantic fin and other
whale stocks. Pp. 108-169 in W.E. Schevill (ed.), The whale problem:
a status report. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Mitchell, E. 1979. Comments on the magnitude of early catch of East
Pacific gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). Report of
the International Whaling Commission 29:307-314.
Mitchell, E., and Reeves, R.R. 1980. The Alaska bowhead problem: A commentary.
Arctic 33:686-723.
Mitchell, E., and Reeves, R.R. 1981. Catch history and cumulative catch
estimates of initial population size of cetaceans in the eastern Canadian
Arctic. Report of the International Whaling Commission 31:645-682.
Mitchell, E. and R.R. Reeves. 1983. Catch history, abundance, and present
status of northwest Atlantic humpback whales. Report of the International
Whaling Commission (Special Issue) 5:153-212.
Mitchell, E.D., Reeves, R.R., and Evely, A.E. 1986. Bibliography of
whale killing techniques. Report of the International Whaling Commission
(Special Issue 7),160 pp.
O’Hara, T.M., Albert, T.F., Oen, E.O., Philo, L.M., George, J.C., and
Ingling, A.L. 1999. The role of Eskimo hunters, veterinarians, and
other biologists in improving the humane aspects of the subsistence harvest
of bowhead whales. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
214:1193-1198.
Ohsumi, S. 1975. Review of Japanese small-type whaling. Journal of the
Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32:1111-1121.
Ohsumi, S. 1980. Catches of sperm whales by modern whaling in the North
Pacific. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue)
2:11-18.
Omura, H. 1984. History of gray whales in Japan. pp. 57-77 in M.L. Jones,
S.L. Swartz and S. Leatherwood (eds.), The Gray Whale Eschrichtius
robustus. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. 600 pp.
Omura, H. 1986. History of right whale catches in the waters around
Japan. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue)
10:35-41.
Peterson, B.W. 1948. South Atlantic whaling: 1603-1830. Ph.D. thesis,
University of California,. 144 pp.
Pike, G.C., and MacAskie, I.B. 1967. Marine mammals of British Columbia.
Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Bulletin No. 171, 54 pp.
Reeves, R.R. 2002. The origins and character of ‘aboriginal subsistence’ whaling:
a global review. Mammal Review 32:71-106.
Reeves, R.R., Breiwick, J. M., and Mitchell, E.D. 1999. History of whaling
and estimated kill of right whales, Balaena glacialis, in the
northeastern United States, 1620-1924. Marine Fisheries Review 61(3):1-
36.
Reeves, R.R., Leatherwood, S., Karl, S.A., and Yohe, E.R. 1985. Whaling
results at Akutan (1912-39) and Port Hobron (1926-37), Alaska. Report
of the International Whaling Commission 35:441-457.
Reeves, R.R. and Mitchell, E.1986. The Long Island, New York, right
whale fishery: 1650-1924. Report of the International Whaling Commission
(Special Issue) 10:201-220.
Reeves, R.R. and Mitchell, E. 1988. History of whaling in and near North
Carolina. NOAA Technical Report NMFS-65.
Reeves, R.R., and Smith, T.D. 2002. Historical catches of humpback whales
in the North Atlantic Ocean: An overview of sources. Journal of Cetacean
Research and Management 4:219-234.
Reeves, R. R., T. D. Smith, R. L. Webb, J. Robbins, and P. J. Clapham.
2002. Humpback and fin whaling in the Gulf of Maine from 1800 to 1918.
Mar. Fish. Rev. 64(1):1-12.
Rice, D.W. and Wolman, A.A. 1971. The life history and ecology of the
gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). American Society of
Mammalogists, Special Publication No. 3.
Ross, W.G. 1975. Whaling and Eskimos: Hudson Bay 1860-1915. National
Museums of Canada, National Museum of Man, Publications in Ethnology
No. 10, Ottawa. 164 pp.
Sayers, H. 1984. Shore whaling for gray whales along the coast of the
Californias. pp. 121-157 in M.L. Jones, S.L. Swartz and S. Leatherwood
(eds.), The Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press,
Orlando, Florida. 600 pp.
Scammon, C.M. 1874. The marine mammals of the north-western coast of
North America, described and illustrated with an account of the American
whale-fishery. John H. Carmany and Co., New York.
Scarff, J.E. 2001. Preliminary estimates of whaling-induced mortality
in the 19th century North Pacific right whale (Eubalaena
japonicus) fishery, adjusting for struck-but-lost whales and non-American
whaling. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management (Special Issue
2):261-268.
Schmitt, F.P., De Jong, C., and Winter, F.H. 1980. Thomas Welcome Roys:
America’s pioneer of modern whaling. University Press of Virginia,
Charlottesville. 251 pp.
Sigurjónsson, J. 1982. Icelandic minke whaling 1914-1980. Report of
the International Whaling Commission 32:287-295.
Sigurjónsson, J. 1988. Operational factors of the Icelandic large whale
fishery. Report of the International Whaling Commission 38:327-333.
Smith, T.D., and Reeves, R.R. 2002. Estimating historical humpback whale
removals from the North Atlantic. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management
4 (Supplement):242-255.
Smith, T.D. and Reeves, R.R. (eds). 2003. Design of a program of research
on sperm whale catch history: results of a workshop. Available from
the Census of Marine Life, History of Marine Animal Populations website: http://www.hmap.cmrs.dk.
Smith, T.D., and Reeves, R.R. 2003. Estimating historical humpback whale
removals from the North Atlantic: update. Journal of Cetacean Research
and Management 5 (Supplement): 310-311.
Spence, B. 1980. The story of whaling. Conway Maritime Press, Greenwich,
UK.192 pp.
Stackpole, E.A. 1972. Whales & destiny: the rivalry between America,
France, and Britain for control of the southern whale fishery, 1785-1825.
University of Massachusetts Press. 427 pp.
Stoker, S.W., and Krupnik, I.I. 1993. Subsistence whaling. pp. 579-629 in J.J.
Burns, J.J. Montague, and C.J. Cowles, eds., The Bowhead Whale. Society
for Marine Mammalogy, Special Publication No. 2, Allen Press, Lawrence,
Kansas.
Tillman, M.F. and J.M. Breiwick. 1983. Estimates of abundance for the
western North Pacific sperm whale based upon historical whaling records.
Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue) 5:257-269.
Townsend, C.H. 1935. The distribution of certain whales as shown by
logbook records of American whaleships. Zoologica 19, 50 pp., 4 charts.
Tønnessen, J.N., and Johnsen, A.O. 1959-1970. Den moderne hvlfangsts
historie. opprinnelse og utvikling. Vol. 1 (by Johnsen in 1959), H. Aschehoug & Co.,
Oslo; Vols. 2-4 (by Tønnessen in 1967, 1969, and 1970), Norges Hvalfangstforbund,
Sandefjord, Norway.
Tønnessen, J.N., and Johnsen, A.O. 1982. The history of modern whaling.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Vaughan, R. 1984. Historical survey of the European whaling industry.
Pp. 121-134 in H.K. s’Jacob, K. Snoeijing and R. Vaughan (eds.), Arctic
whaling: proceedings of the international symposium. University of
Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. Works of the Arctic Centre,
No. 8.
Webb, R.L. 1988. On the Northwest: commercial whaling in the Pacific
Northwest 1790-1967. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.
Webb, R.L. 2001. Menhaden whalemen: nineteenth-century origins of American
steam whaling. American Neptune 60(3):277-288.
Whipple, A.B.C. 1979. The whalers. Time-Life Books, Alexandria, Virginia.
176 pp.
Whitehead, H. 1995. Status of Pacific sperm whale stocks before modern
whaling. Report of the International Whaling Commission 45:407-412.
Whitehead, H. 2002.Estimates of the current global population size and
historical trajectory for sperm whales. Marine Ecology Progress Series
242:295-304.
Zemsky, V.A., Berzin, A.A., Mikhaliev, Y.A., and Tormosov, D.D. 1995a.
Soviet Antarctic pelagic whaling after WW II: review of actual catch
data. Report of the International Whaling Commission 45:131- 135.
Zemsky, V.A., Berzin, A.A., Mikhalyev, Yu.A., and Tormosov, D.D. 1995b.
Soviet Antarctic whaling data (1947-1972). Center for Russian Environmental
Policy, Moscow. 320 pp.
