Periodic Reporting for period 1 - WHALEBONE (The Early Exploitation of Cetacean in Western Europe during the Late Upper Palaeolithic)
Período documentado: 2023-09-01 hasta 2025-08-31
Human-whale interactions have deep historical roots extending back thousands of years, although their prehistoric origins remain largely understudied. Due to their massive size, whales have long served as substantial sources of meat, blubber, baleen, bone, and teeth for prehistoric coastal populations. Yet, reconstructing the deep history of whale exploitation is challenged by the conspicuous absence of these marine giants in the archaeological record, a pattern particularly pronounced in Paleolithic contexts. Most of the evidence for the presence of cetaceans in the European Paleolithic has been discovered over the last two decades in Magdalenian collections (between around 21 and 13 ka cal. BP), particularly in the Iberian Peninsula. Among direct evidence, 95 objects (mainly weapons and tools) were visually identified in several stages as being made from the longest and straightest parts of whale skeletons (probably ribs and jaws) at 31 Magdalenian sites, mainly located along the Pyreneo-Cantabrian region. Of these 95, 71 were subsequently confirmed by ZooMS (Zooarcheology by Mass Spectrometry), revealing the exploitation of at least six different cetacean species at this time – i.e. in decreasing order: sperm whale, fin whale, gray whale, bowhead/right whale (indistinguishable with ZooMS), blue whale, porpoise –, most of them previously unknown in the Bay of Biscay. Suspected of having appeared in the Cantabrian region around 20 ka cal BP (during the Cantabrian Lower Magdalenian), this industry reached its peak during (the recent phase of) the Middle Magdalenian culture, between 18 and 16 ka cal BP. It was at this time that the objects’ circulation networks were at their most extensive, including continental transport along the Pyrenees chain, as well as occasional inputs further north.
However, there are still a number of grey areas surrounding this phenomenon, such as (1) on the composition of the range of known and exploited species. As these whale-bone objects, which have travelled inland, are almost exclusively highly processed, it was not possible to sample them all with ZooMS to determine species, especially as the least invasive sampling method known at the time (rubbing with an eraser) proved inoperative on this material. (2) The lack of investigation from other chronological contexts (i.e. ante and post-Magdalenian) deprives us of verifying whether this is an exclusively Magdalenian activity or whether it may have had a longer trajectory and greater chronological depth. (3) The absence of systematic geographical survey deprives us to know whether the use of whale bone as a raw material was a strictly Atlantic activity limited to the society of the south-eastern part of the Bay of Biscay, or whether it was more widely shared by other European Upper Paleolithic (UP) foragers. Therefore, we do not know whether the use of cetacean bone, by promoting communication networks, also affected other European territories, and if so, when and in what way.
However, there are still a number of grey areas surrounding this phenomenon, such as (1) on the composition of the range of known and exploited species. As these whale-bone objects, which have travelled inland, are almost exclusively highly processed, it was not possible to sample them all with ZooMS to determine species, especially as the least invasive sampling method known at the time (rubbing with an eraser) proved inoperative on this material. (2) The lack of investigation from other chronological contexts (i.e. ante and post-Magdalenian) deprives us of verifying whether this is an exclusively Magdalenian activity or whether it may have had a longer trajectory and greater chronological depth. (3) The absence of systematic geographical survey deprives us to know whether the use of whale bone as a raw material was a strictly Atlantic activity limited to the society of the south-eastern part of the Bay of Biscay, or whether it was more widely shared by other European Upper Paleolithic (UP) foragers. Therefore, we do not know whether the use of cetacean bone, by promoting communication networks, also affected other European territories, and if so, when and in what way.
To overcome these limitations, a multi-proxy analysis (combining new proteomics sampling, stable isotopes, and radiocarbon dating) was conducted by examining bone artifact assemblages from 50 Upper Paleolithic sites in south-west Europe including both the French and Spanish Mediterranean coasts, the Atlantic coast of Portugal, as well as the north of the Aquitaine Basin.To expand our study corpus, we have used a new minimally invasive proteomic LC-MS/MS technology to identify species. As it leaves no visible trace on the surface of objects, it enabled us to integrate 18 additional Magdalenian objects, previously visually identified as whale bones in the Cantabrian region, for which we have not received authorization to carry out more destructive ZooMS analyses, as well as one specimen already identified as BW/NARW using ZooMS from Las Caldas (Asturias, Spain). However, the challenge was made all the greater by the fact that this new method had never before been applied to such ancient Paleolithic artefacts. Then, we also searched for cetacean-bone artefacts in other archaeological contexts, through a wide-ranging survey including the bone industry collections of several Pre-Magdalenian sites from the Iberian Peninsula (i.e. Cueva del Ángel, Altamira, El Pendo, Vale Boi, Aitzbitarte III), as well as Magdalenian sites located outside the Pyreneo-Cantabrian region and close to the palaeocoast. As most of these collections come from old excavations with low chrono-stratigraphic resolution, we decided to radiocarbon date certain artefacts directly (combined with stable isotope analysis).
The results of the WHALEBONE project have broad implications across palaeoecological, archaeological, and conservation disciplines. By observing an expansion in the known range of marine mammals exploited in the Bay of Biscay during the Upper Paleolithic, the project highlights the rich marine biodiversity of the North Atlantic at that time, while confirming the existence of glacial conditions at the end of the last ice age. The certified presence of bowhead whales in the Bay of Biscay during Heinrich Stadial 1 (HS1) suggests the presence of surface drift ice in these waters, which would have triggered numerous cascading effects on marine ecosystems. The presence of killer whales (and the occasional use of their bones) is also highlighted, reaffirming just how productive the cold, deep waters of the Cantabrian Sea were. This comprehensive review not only confirms that the Bay of Biscay played a central role in the early use of whale resources in Europe – several millennia before the advent of active whaling – but also pushes back the timeline for the appearance of this opportunistic Atlantic practice along the Cantabrian coast by at least 8,000 years up to 30-29,000 cal BP. The rare discovery of whale-bone artifacts in the Dordogne region (France) further indicates a limited, yet recurring, northward spread of these artifact distribution networks, centered around key sites like La Madeleine. In this inland region, whale bones used as tools appear to have been used with those from large terrestrial mammals found locally, especially mammoths, likely among the last of their kind in southwestern Europe. Ultimately, this study highlights the effectiveness of this innovative proteomic technique, which enables the identification of a broad range of species through minimally invasive means, paving the way for new avenues of research that will serve both conservation efforts and the scientific community.