The role of cetacea in prehistoric and historic Atlantic Scotland

International Journal of Osteoarchaeology Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 12: 34–48 (2002) DOI: 10.1002/oa.611 The Role of Cetacea in Prehistoric and Historic Atlantic Scotland JACQUI MULVILLE* Department of Anthropology, King Alfred’s College, Winchester, SO22 4NR, UK ABSTRACT Whalebone has been recovered from many archaeological sites in Atlantic Scotland. Through an examination of material excavated from the Western Isles (Outer Hebrides) this paper explores the methods by which whales and whalebone were procured. Using historical and ethnographic data the possibility that cetaceans were naturally stranded or actively hunted is considered, and for the latter the methods of capture are discussed. The ways in which whale carcasses were utilized: as meat, blubber, skins, artefacts and as an architectural material, is examined through the analysis of archaeozoological material. Using these data the value of whales and whale bone in the islands can be determined. The potential for further study is discussed in the light of the growing volume of material available for study and advances in scientific techniques such as DNA analysis. Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key words: cetacean; Atlantic Scotland; prehistoric; Norse; zooarchaeology; bone working Introduction The role of cetaceans within the island communities of Atlantic Scotland can be explored through the archaeologically recovered osteological remains. Cetacean bone from a number of sites in the Western Isles (Outer Hebrides) is considered in the light of biological, historical and ethnographic data on whales and whaling. An analysis of the species, relative size, and parts of these animals brought onto site throughout pre- and later history reveals details of their exploitation. This paper considers how such animals were procured. The evidence for the various methods of capture of cetaceans is examined, in particular any evidence that may suggest the active hunting and capture of whales or dolphins. In addition, the role that these animals play in domestic life is evaluated. The cetacean carcass can provide meat, skin, blubber/oil and bone. Cetacean bone has been extensively utilized in the construction Correspondence to: J. Mulville, Department of Anthropology, King Alfred’s College, Winchester, SO22 4NR, UK. e-mail: jacqui.mulville@oum.ox.ac.uk, j.mulville@wkac.ac.uk ∗ Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. of a range of artefacts, in specific architectural contexts and also as fuel. Throughout this paper the term whale will be used as a general term for all cetaceans, unless specific references to whales as being distinct from dolphins and porpoises is made. It is the small yet consistent proportion of whale bone found on archaeological sites that has led to a debate on the procurement of whale bone (Clark, 1947; MacGregor, 1985; Hallen, 1994; Smith, 1998). In essence all have been considering the same question: are the remains of animals found on settlement sites from hunted or stranded animals? This is a difficult question to answer. Even on Arctic sites with large quantities of whale bone, the debate continues (McCartney, 1980; Savelle, 1997). Also, if whales were deliberately procured, what methods were used? We have historic evidence for a range of techniques: the capture of individual whales with hand harpoon from the shore, from boats, by driving ashore and actively hunting whales at sea. To address these questions a number of lines of evidence can be examined—the species present in Received 7 August 1999 Accepted 11 December 2000 Cetacea in Scotland the area and found on site, their ages, the skeletal elements, the artefacts and technology present, evidence from other sites and from ethnographic and historical data. The location The Western Isles are an archipelago situated 60–80 km off the north west coast of mainland Scotland. They are separated from the mainland by the Sea of the Hebrides in the south and the Little Minch and Minch in the north. Due to excellent preservational conditions the archaeology of the Isles is particularly rich; a number of sites have provided a wealth of archaeological information that includes large assemblages of animal bone. The cetacean bone examined in this analysis comes from seven different sites situated on South Uist, Pabbay, Sandray and Mingulay at the southern end of the Western Isles. The sites all lie within 0.5 km of the present day shoreline on a coastal grassland plain. The machair grassland is established on shell sand and the calcareous nature of these deposits has provided an excellent environment for the preservation of bone. At the earliest site, Cladh Hallan, South Uist a series of Bronze Age and Early Iron Age round and figure of eight houses have been excavated (Marshall et al., 1999). There are five later Iron Age sites: two brochs at Dun Vulan, South Uist (Parker et al., 1999) and Dunan Ruadh, Pabbay (Mulville, 2000) and possible wheelhouses at Bornish, South Uist (Sharples, 2000), and at sites on the islands of Mingulay (Mulville, 2000) and Sandray (Mulville, 2000). The Iron Age settlement at Bornish is succeeded by a Norse longhouse, with two further Norse longhouses constructed nearby. The original house is dated to the 11th century AD (Sharples, 2000), with the later structure suggesting occupation up to the 14th century AD. Norse material has also been recovered from the site of Kilpheder (Brennand et al., 1998). This is a series of longhouses and associated out-buildings overlying each other, dated from the late 10th/early 11th century to the mid 13th century AD. The assemblages recovered from these sites, in this limited geographical area, span two millennia. We can compare the Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 35 cetacean bone found on the later prehistoric sites with those in the historically attested Norse period. Considerable changes in technology, social organization and economies occurred over this time and may have affected how cetaceans were procured and what they were used for. Analysis of the faunal assemblages on some of these sites is completed, notably Dun Vulan (Mulville, 1999) whilst the majority of the material is still undergoing study. Preliminary analysis has revealed that all sites had a mixed farming economy within which marine resources (cetaceans, pinnepeds, fish, shellfish, crustaceans and marine birds) had a significant role to play. The Western Isles are only one of three major groups of islands lying off Scotland to the north and west. The Northern Isles, Orkney and Shetland, lie to the north and also have rich archaeological assemblages. Although this paper is primarily concerned with the Uists, most notably South Uist where the Sheffield Environmental Archaeological Research Campaign in the Hebrides (S.E.A.R.C.H.) has been running for over a decade, information from the other Northern and Western Isles is considered where appropriate. Evidence is emerging of differences in animal husbandry strategies between the Northern and Western Isles and the mainland (Mulville, 1999). Future work will allow comparisons between these different areas. The history of whale use The use of whales in prehistoric Europe was last reviewed in full by Clark (1947), and further considered by McGregor (1985) and Hallén (1994). In the Western and Northern Isles the excavated sites with cetacean bone stretch back through history to prehistory. Cetacean remains have also been recovered from archaeological sites of all periods in the rest of Britain, from the Bronze Age (Scilly Isles (Ratcliffe & Straker, 1996)) through the Iron Age (Scotland (Clark, 1947); Dorset (Mulville, 1999)), Romano-British (East Lothian (Hambleton & Stallibrass, 1997)), medieval (Gardiner, 1997) and post-medieval periods (Luff, 1993). Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 12: 34–48 (2002) J. Mulville 36 For the historic period there are numerous written records throughout Atlantic Europe indicating that whales were highly prized and thoroughly used whenever they could be obtained (Gardiner,1997; Jenkins,1921; Evans, 1996). The earliest references to the use of sea mammals come from Bede writing in 731, ‘the island is rich in crops.. . . seals as well as dolphins are frequently captured, and even whales (Colgrave & Mynors, 1969). Whale bone is found in AngloSaxon artefacts; for example the Franks Casket, a box constructed of whale bone in around AD 700. This was apparently made from a stranded individual as the inscription on it records the animal as having ‘‘swam onto the shingle’’ (Gardiner, 1997). Records state that porpoises were caught off the coast of Ireland in c. 827 by ‘foreigners’, who may have been Vikings (Gardiner, 1997). There is also evidence in Aelfrics Colloquoy (Gardiner, 1997), written in the late tenth century, of fishermen refusing to catch whales because they were dangerous and likely to sink the boats sent to catch them. In England records indicate that fisheries for porpoise were well established by the 11th century (Clark, 1947). On the other side of the Channel whaling appears to have been widespread from at least the ninth century along the coast of France between Normandy and Flanders. There is also evidence that whales were hunted on the Norwegian coast (Gardiner, 1997; Jenkins, 1921). Towards the end of the ninth century Othere travelled beyond the North Cape to Perm. In his description to King Alfred of this journey Othere tells of how, with five companions, he killed 60 whales. Further evidence exists for whaling off the Biscay coast of France and Spain. Fischer (1881) dates the inception of the Basque fishery to the tenth century, and Ducéré in 1911 (Jenkins,1921) stated that it was still possible to trace the remains of the watchtowers and furnaces of the whalers along the shores of the Bay of Biscay. Whales that approached the shore were killed and the body towed to land to extract the oil. Later on rowing boats were fitted out and whales killed on the open sea. There are references to harpoons and lances employed by Flemish fisherman in c. 1115 (Gardiner, 1997). Small whale drive fisheries have persisted in local coastal communities for centuries on an Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. opportunistic basis. They are recorded from the Western Isles, Shetland and Orkney, but ceased in the latter part of the 20th century (Evans, 1996). In the Faeroe Islands pilot whaling continues today. Commercial whaling in British waters started by hunting the slow-moving coastal species. As whale numbers declined, British whalers travelled further afield to Arctic waters; however coastal whaling continued operating from shore stations in Shetland, the Outer Hebrides and western Ireland (Evans, 1996). Species present There are 23 species of cetaceans found in British waters, all of which are reported from around the Western and Northern Isles (Evans, 1996). From 1973 onwards the Cetacean Group within the Mammal Society has been collecting information from free-living animals and reports on cetacean sightings in the British Isles are available (Evans, 1996). Records of stranded whales, dolphins and porpoises have been kept by the British Museum (Natural History) since 1913 (Harmer, 1914; Fraser, 1934, 1946, 1953, 1974; Sheldrick, 1979). Although of interest, stranding data are of little value in estimating the size or composition of the whale population found in the prehistoric/historic period. Firstly, the population size of cetacea in the oceans has been reduced due to whaling activity in the 19th and 20th centuries. For example, estimates of the populations of northern right whales (Eubalena glacialis) and blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus) are now as low as 200–500 individuals. The small size of the northern right whale population probably accounts for their absence from stranding records; none has been reported since 1913. Secondly, the frequency of stranding is not a reliable estimate of the number of animals in the sea, as some species strand more frequently. Thirdly, the recording of stranding data has only recently become widespread and the recording of all stranded animals remains problematic. Strandings of large whales or pods are more often reported than smaller groups or single animals, and many stranding remain unreported simply due to the low population density of some areas. Finally there have been climatic and oceanic changes over the past few Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 12: 34–48 (2002) Cetacea in Scotland thousand years which may have affected the distribution of cetacea. However stranding data can provide useful information. An analysis of the data indicates that the majority of stranding events consists of a single animal and that they occur throughout the year. The numbers increase in the late summer/autumn and reach a peak over the winter. This earlier increase is probably a result of the increase in population due to summer migrants whilst the later peak may be a result of winter weather conditions. Species exploited As noted above, a wide range of cetacea has been actively hunted either for subsistence or more recently by large-scale commercial fisheries. The behaviour of some species means that they were preferentially targeted; for example two of the larger baleen whales, the slow-moving coastal northern right whale (Eubalena glacialis) and the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) rarely swim faster than 12 km/h. The right whales can be taken with quite simple tackle. In Greenland Inuit hunted the bowhead, or Greenland right whale, in umiaks, skin-covered boats (Murdock, 1982). The whale was struck with a heavy harpoonhead mounted on a detachable shaft and attached to floats. Each time the whale surfaced more harpoons and floats were attached and a heavy lance mounted with a flint head would eventually dispatch the animal. The humpback whale could be hunted inshore, but would sink once dead and necessitated a wait for it to refloat to bring ashore. Early whalers mostly neglected the rorquals (Balaenoptera) as their speed made them difficult to catch. For example, the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) can reach up to 55 km/h. It also has a tendency to sink once dead. In general, they were only hunted once ship and harpoon technology had improved. The small minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), however, was caught in Norway. Hunters sealed off inland bays with nets, fired arrows at the trapped animals, and then dispatched them with harpoons and knives. The large sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) was considered dangerous and pursuit of it did not start until 1713 (Clark, 1947). The northern bottlenose Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 37 whale (Hyperoodon ampullutus) was comparatively easy to catch and they congregated in large numbers in the ‘Dogling field’, between Shetland, the Faroes and JanMayen (Clark, 1947). However Debes (Clark, 1947) noted that ‘the flesh or fat of these doglings are not good to eat’. Non-commercial use of cetaceans has generally focused on the smaller whales, in the Arctic the beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) and narwhal (Monodon monoceros), whilst in Norway, Faeroes and Scotland long finned pilot (Globicephala melas) and minke whales were targeted (Evans, 1996). The common porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) (Fischer, 1881), atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) and killer whale (Orcinus orca) (Clark, 1947) are also featured in descriptions of whale hunting. These species congregate in large schools and during historical times were contained with nets before being driven or dragged ashore. The opportunistic use of mass strandings and the deliberate stranding of animals cannot be distinguished. We have historical evidence for the use of both. Martin Martin (1716) reports that on one occasion ‘about one hundred and sixty little whales ran themselves ashore on the island of Tiree, and the natives did eat them all’. The same author describes the hunting of pilot whales by driving an individual or a small group into inlets and then ashore. The whale(s) would be wounded and the other members of the shoal would run themselves onto the shore. Such scenes are depicted in early prints of the Uist coast (Tinker, 1988). Zooarchaeological data Cetacean bone has been recovered from the seven sites on South Uist, Pabbay, Sandray and Mingulay. Larger fragments of cetacean bone were separated out during excavation, and this has allowed their analysis to be undertaken in advance of the main assemblage. A total of 568 fragments of cetacean bone were examined. All were recovered from domestic contexts and the majority of pieces are worked or burnt, with little left unmodified. The high degree of modification makes identification difficult. Further small fragments of cetacean bone still remain within the excavated assemblage, Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 12: 34–48 (2002) J. Mulville 38 Species recorded but as these are not likely to be identified to element or species on morphological criteria their absence in this part of the analysis is not considered significant. The contribution that cetaceans make to the assemblages has yet to be assessed. Such an assessment is difficult, as the established methods of calculating the relative abundance of species—the number of identifiable specimens and minimum number of individuals—may be inappropriate for this class of material. The extracted material was taken to the British Museum (Natural History) where, with the aid of Richard Sabin (Keeper), identification of all bone to element and species was attempted. Material that could not be assigned to a species was placed in a size class: small, medium or large cetacean; that which remained unidentified to element was only recorded as cetacean. This data is presented in Table 1. Of the 568 whales bones examined only 30 could be identified to species (Table 1). Eight species were identified which range from the large blue whale through to the relatively small bottlenose dolphin. No one species dominates; a group of bottlenose dolphin bone is from a single individual and context. Many of the species present are those which can be hunted from small boats, netted or driven ashore. There are, however, species present which could not have been captured by these methods, in particular the blue and sperm whale. There is a broader range of species found in the Norse sites considered here. Although there are problems in quantifying whale bone, there also appears to be a greater proportion Iron Age (Dun Vulan, Bornish, Pabbay, Mingullay and Sanday) Norse Blue whale (Kilpheder and Bornish) Sperm whale Minke whale Bottlenose whale Killer whale Pilot whale Baleen whale Large cetacean Small cetacean Cetacean Total 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 5 1 13 1 4 3 6 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 Total 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 5 14 2 6 220 222 1 475 568 1 1 Unidentified 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 3 9 2 1 2 11 6 3 244 267 2 2 Pelvis Carpals Phalanx Metacarpal Humerus, prox epip Long bone (Scapula?) Rib Vertebral spine Vertebral epiphysis Vertebra Thoracic vertebra Axis Sperm whale Bottlenose whale Small cetacean Medium cetacean Large cetacean Cetacean Sperm whale Minke whale Bottlenose whale Bottlenose dolphin Small cetacean Medium cetacean Cetacean Atlas Late Bronze Age (Cladh Hallan) Mandible Species Occipital Period Skull fragment Table 1. Summary of species and elements recovered from seven sites on South Uist, Western Isles 4 3 2 5 2 2 5 1 1 10 29 20 4 15 1 1 1 1 1 Head 7: spine/ribs 80: limbs 6. Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 12: 34–48 (2002) Cetacea in Scotland of whale bone and a larger range of artefacts recovered from the Norse settlements. This could suggest a larger number of stranded animals, the more active procurement of whale, a greater length of occupation at the site or a larger settlement size. This is particularly interesting when contrasted with the Greenland Norse who made little use of the available cetaceans. They adopted some of the native Inuit patterns of species exploitation in hunting seals, but in general they seemed reluctant to use the marine mammals to the same degree (McGovern, personal communication). When the bone identified only to size class is included it becomes obvious that the large whales dominate the Norse whale bone assemblage. Elements present By far the most abundant element on the seven sites is the vertebra. Table 1 these are the most numerous part of the whale’s skeleton and the islanders seem to have developed a specialized use for the unfused vertebral epiphyses (see below) with many modified to some degree. Also found in large numbers are the ribs of larger whales, mostly worked into tools. The most interesting find was a number of mandibles of the larger baleen (Balaenoptera) whales. This element is easily recognized through its density and the characteristic foramen that run along the lateral/dorsal edge. Other elements were only represented singly: skull fragments, the proximal epiphysis of a humerus, a metacarpal and a group of carpals. Age of individuals Examining the state of fusion of the bone can assess the age of the specimens—the majority of vertebral epiphyses were unfused, as was the blue whale humerus, indicating younger animals. Although it should be noted that some of the larger whales could be as old as 20 or 30 and still have unfused vertebra (Tinker, 1988). The dominance of young animals could suggest a higher rate of infant/juvenile mortality or a propensity to strand in younger and inexperienced Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 39 animals. Alternatively these could be evidence of the preferential hunting and capture of juveniles due to their ease of handling, as noted in the Thule arctic sites (Savelle & McCartney, 1999). Comparisons with atlantic Scotland Cetacean bone has been recorded on Atlantic Scotland sites from the Mesolithic onwards. There are over 70 other sites in Scotland with cetacean bone (Hallen, 1994; Smith, 1998; Mulville, 1999, 2000; Bond, personal communication; Callander & Grant, 1933; Campbell, 1991; Ceron, personal communication; Childe, 1931; Curle, 1982; Finlay, 1984, 1991; Grigson & Mellars, 1987; Halstead, forthcoming; Harman, 1983; Hamilton, 1968; Hedges, 1987; Macartney, 1984; MacGregor, 1974; McCormick, 1991; Morris et al., 1995; Noddle, 1974, 1981, 1982, 1987; Richie 1976; Serjeantson, n.d.; Smith, 1994; Sullivan, 1997; Young & Richardson, 1960). At only 13 has it been possible to identify any bone to species and the most commonly identified element is vertebra. Species recorded are the sperm whale, northern right whale, sei whale, bottlenose whale, minke whale, killer whale, pilot whale, Cuvier’s beaked whale and bottlenose dolphin. The range of the species recovered reflects both the recent stranding data and those species likely to be procured. There is no dominance of any one species, although again quantification is problematic. There are many records simply of large whales; whether these are the easily captured northern right whale/humpback whale, or the difficult to capture and faster rorquals, or the dangerous sperm whale we do not yet know. The significance of the proportion of larger whale bone recovered from sites is discussed below. The complete absence of the right whale—so called because it was the right whale to capture—is surprising. Historical whaling records indicate that this was the preferentially exploited species in European waters (Jenkins, 1921). Archaeological evidence shows that the right whales’ more northerly relative, the bowhead or Greenland right whale, was commonly exploited by arctic communities. The absence of right whales reported in this and nearly all other Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 12: 34–48 (2002) J. Mulville 40 Scottish cetacean bone assemblages is therefore surprising and may be a result of problems in cetacean identification. category: fuel utility. We can consider the material from the Hebrides in each of these ways. Meat utility Whale bone–a valuable resource The presence of whale bone on site, particularly from large animals, is indicative of the value placed on the bone itself. It is possible to fully butcher a whale, without needing to remove the large and heavy bones. Ethnoarchaeological investigations of modern Inuit beluga and narwhal hunting have revealed that the highly valued mattack (the hide and associated blubber) can be easily separated from the carcass (Savelle & Friesen, 1996). For meat, the portions removed are restricted to the easily detached axial muscle tissues associated with the vertebra. The presence of bones of the larger bowhead whale on prehistoric Thule sites has lead Savelle (1997) to consider the elements represented in terms of both formal architectural and meat utility. The bones of this large whale were used in construction by the Thule and an examination of a range of sites: houses, burials, umiak rests, and processing areas revealed a strong correlation with architectural utility at the first three and with meat utility at the latter. However bones with the lowest utility index were underrepresented at every site. Whales were processed on ice, in shallow water and/or at low tide, and no substantial carcass portions were bought above the high tide levels for their food value alone. The presence of bones at the processing sites reflects their additional architectural utility. Hallén (1994) notes that cetacean bone has highly desirable properties of strength and resilience that were exploited in artefact production. The large amount of worked cetacean bone on Scottish sites reflects this, and demonstrates the need to consider cetacean bone additionally in terms of artefactural utility. Unworked cetacean bone often shows evidence of intense burning (as opposed to the scorch marks found on worked bone). This, combined with ethnographic evidence for the use of cetacean bone as a fuel (Clark, 1947), suggests another Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. There is little evidence of the removal of bone to site as part of joints of meat. This is only likely to occur for the smaller species, and few were present on site. The single instance of a number of thoracic vertebrae of a bottlenose dolphin is an exception. As noted above, the vertebrae were found in a single context and are likely to derive from a single animal. They show chop marks to the transverse processes that are more consistent with rapid butchery than careful working. This is supported by Savelle and Friesen’s (1996) work on the meat utility index for the harbour porpoise. This suggested that vertebrae had the third highest meat utility index, and if any bone is removed to the settlement with joints of meat, it is likely to be these. Architectural utility In Savelle’s (1997) work on the architectural utility of the Bowhead whale, bones were grouped into either frame utility (long and thin, used for roofs) or bulk utility (compact and sturdy, used in walls). Elements with the highest architectural utility are the ribs, maxilla and mandible for frame utility and the vertebrae for bulk utility. Although ribs, mandibles and vertebrae have been recovered from the seven sites they played no obvious architectural role. There are, however, two examples of whale bone used in an architectural context. A large fragment of sperm whale skull was incorporated into the cover for a stone drain at Iron Age Dun Vulan (SF1219) and part of a blue whale humerus was incorporated within the stone wall of a building at Kilpheder (SF1487). There are also smaller fragments of cetacean bone that may have been used in construction: roughly chopped lengths of ribs and other elements shaped into stakes and pegs. Whale bone appears to have been used in an architectural context at the Neolithic site of Skara Brae in Orkney (Childe, 1931). The jaw bones of a large whale were found lying Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 12: 34–48 (2002) Cetacea in Scotland across the hearth of hut 1, as if they had fallen in from above. Childe inferred that, in the absence of suitable timber, the roof had been made of whale bone rafters supporting perhaps slate or thatch. Decayed whale bone was also found in a small aperture in passage C, again interpreted as roofing material. A whale skull, which appeared to have a two inch hole bored in it, was found lying in the midden over passage A. Other possible architectural uses for whale bone have been suggested at Freswick, where a small whale skull had been built into the west wall of building VII (Curle, 1982). At A’Cheardach Mhor (Young & Richardson, 1960), two hollowed out vertebrae were set in clay-lined holes at either side of the hearth and were interpreted as post supports. At the broch of Scalloway Smith (1998) identified five objects of whale bone that could have been used as stakes and supports for internal fixtures and fittings as an alternative to wood. Jones (1998) has examined the placement of animal bone within chambered tombs, graves and settlement middens in Neolithic Orkney and concludes that the definition of place involved the incorporation of animals, including whales, within that place. At Skara Brae, as discussed, the presence of whale bone was interpreted as having architectural utility in the absence of suitable timber. At the Iron Age site of Dun Vulan and the Norse site of Kilpheder the use of whale bone to define place may be more convincingly argued. In these cases the incorporation of whale bone cannot be explained simply as a shortage of building material. The presence of plenty of suitable stones in the surrounding area suggests that the bone was a deliberate choice. The incorporation of a fragment of human mandible within the drain at Dun Vulan is also of interest (Chamberlain, 1999). Does the use of whale signify, as Jones 1998 suggests, ‘the most obvious aspects of the sea’? Do they express the close relationship between the site inhabitants, their location and marine resources? A more detailed discussion of the incorporation of whale and other bone in an architectural context is outside the scope of this paper (Mulville, forthcoming). Further research must consider that, in addition to having utility, animal bones also hold meaning. Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 41 Artefact production At Hebridean and other Scottish sites very little cetacean bone is unmodified. From the high proportion of worked bone it could be concluded that the primary purpose was for artefact production. The interpretation of artefacts is a specialist subject (MacGregor, 1985; Smith, 1998; Sjovold, 1971; Foxon, 1991) and can only be touched on here. As noted above, the seven sites have an abundance of vertebrae, both the vertebral bodies and the unfused epiphyses. Most of the vertebrae are modified, the spine and lateral processes have been removed and in a number of cases some attempt to hollow out a part of the vertebra has occurred. Other vertebrae are sliced laterally to produce sections, these segments often being pierced. All the larger whale epiphyses are worked to some degree, many are smoothed on the unfused surface, shaped and rounded on their outer edge, and a large proportion of them have central holes (about 20 mm in diameter). Some of them also show scorching around their edges, and have been interpreted as ‘pot lids’. Ribs and other parts of the skeleton have also been modified into tools. The mandibles of Balaenoptera were often used to produce artefacts. Much whale bone is made of cancellous bone with a very thin compact bone layer; the mandibles, however, have a very dense and robust structure. These bones are composed almost entirely of solid cortical bone and near the articulation with the skull forms a solid slab of parallel-sided bone (O’Connor, 1987). This is known as ‘jaw pan’ and its strength and utility were exploited by a number of whale bone utilizing communities in the northern and southern hemispheres. Maori carvers preferentially use this bone to produce finely worked tools (Marshall pers. comm.). This also seems to be the case at the Norse sites of Kilpheder and Bornish—where the most finely worked tools—two possible flax beaters (scutching knives), a scraper and a pierced plaque—have been produced from the mandible (Figure 1). As yet no tools produced from this element have been identified in the Late Bronze Age or Iron Age assemblages. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 12: 34–48 (2002) J. Mulville 42 0 1 3 0 5 cm 5 cm 0 2 5 cm 0 5 cm 4 Figure 1. Norse whalebone artefacts produced from the mandible. 1. Possible flax beater; Bornish 1354; 2. Pierced plaque, Bornish 1034; 3. Scraper, Kilphaeder 2157, 4. Possible flax beater, Kilphaeder 1848. The foramen is visible as a groove on artefacts 2,3 and 4. Table 2 (Hallen, 1994; Smith, 1998; Mulville, 1999, 2000; Bond, personal communication; Callander & Grant, 1933; Campbell, 1991; Ceron, personal communication; Childe, 1931; Curle, 1982; Finlay, 1984, 1991; Grigson & Mellars, 1987; Halstead, forthcoming; Harman, 1983; Hamilton, 1968; Hedges, 1987; Macartney, 1984; MacGregor, 1974; McCormick, 1991; Morris et al., 1995; Noddle, 1974, 1981, 1982, 1987; Richie 1976; Serjeantson, n.d.; Smith, 1994; Sullivan, 1997; Young & Richardson, 1960) is a very brief summary of the types of artefacts recovered from Scottish sites. This demonstrates the large amount of cetacean bone present, the level of its utilization and the degree of tool standardization. Hollowed-out vertebrae are a Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. characteristic find on sites of the Atlantic Iron Age (Smith, 1998). They are produced from a wide range of cetacean vertebrae sizes. On some sites they have been identified as basins and cups (Skara Brae (Childe, 1931)), vessels (Clickhimin (Hamilton, 1968); Gurness (Hedges, 1987); Sollas (Campbell, 1991)) or lamps (Smith, 1998), whilst at others they have been interpreted as door posts (A’ Cheardach Mhor (Young & Richardson, 1960)). These finds appear to be limited to the Early and Middle Iron Age and have not yet been recorded at Later Iron Age sites (Smith, 1998). Pierced unfused vertebral epiphyses—‘pot lids’—are also commonly reported from prehistoric sites. The identification of the ‘pot lids’ possibly derives from the identification of slate Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 12: 34–48 (2002) Cetacea in Scotland 43 Total number of sites 1 3 1 1 31 27 1 2 2 4 2 1 2 Total Iron Age Bronze Age 1 1 27 5 40 2 Norse Combs Plate/Plaque Mattocks Mallet Scutching knife Peg Smoothing Board Chopping block Weaving tablets Vertebral vessels Worked vertebra Pierced vertebral epiphyses Worked vertebral epiphyses Worked ribs Neolithic Artefact Mesolithic Table 2. Number of sites with each type of artefact/element present 1 2 1 1 2 2 28 7 42 4 2 3 3 2 2 34 3 28 3 9 1 2 2 3 1 3 59 10 References: (Hallen, 1994; Smith, 1998; Mulville, 1999, 2000; Bond, personal communication; Callander & Grant, 1933; Campbell, 1991; Ceron, personal communication; Childe, 1931; Curle, 1982; Finlay, 1984, 1991; Grigson & Mellars, 1987; Halstead, forthcoming; Harman, 1983; Hamilton, 1968; Hedges, 1987; Macartney, 1984; MacGregor, 1974; McCormick, 1991; Morris et al., 1995; Noddle, 1974, 1981, 1982, 1987; Richie 1976; Serjeantson, n.d.; Smith, 1994; Sullivan, 1997; Young & Richardson, 1960) pot lids with a similar form at Skara Brae; at Gurness the cetacean epiphyses were interpreted as the lids, for vertebra vessels (Hedges, 1987). The link between the ‘lids’ and the cetacean vessels is as yet unproven; on the South Uist sites no cetacean vessels of a size or form on which such lids could be used have been recorded. Another common use of whale bone, generally the ribs, is to produce large blade-like tools which have been interpreted as rasps, weapons, blubber mattocks, peat spades, ards and weaving swords to name a few items. The identification of some tools as blubber mattocks has contributed to whaling debate. Clark (1947) first noted the similarity between the large blade-like tools found at Scottish sites and the blubber mattocks of the North Canadian Inuit. Rees (1979) considered the usewear on these tools and has concluded that some could be bone ard shares or mattocks whilst others were consistent with blubber removal (see Hallén, 1994, for further discussion). The final common class of artefact is long-handled or weaving combs Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (MacGregor, 1985) which were used to prepare wool and in the weaving process. Artefactual evidence has been used to address the question of whale procurement. MacGregor (1985) considers that the development of standardized tools of cetacean bone found in the Late Iron Age of Northern Scotland would have required a more steady supply of material than that produced by strandings alone. Sjøvøld’s (1971) analysis of Norwegian material of the sixth to ninth century date considered whale bone ‘weaving swords’, plaques/smoothing boards and cleavers. He also concluded that the standardization of tools would have required a regular supply of whale bone. Few of these artefacts are found before the sixth century and he suggests that whaling did not begin until then. However the majority of these tools were recovered from burials, and it was only from the Merovingian period onward that ordinary tools were deposited in graves. In Scotland, although worked whale bone is recovered from the majority of Norse sites, in many cases the full reports are still in preparation (e.g. Bostadh Beach on Lewis, Pool and Tofts Nest, Brough of Birsay and Earls Bu in Orkney) and a full examination of the whalebone artefacts is yet to be completed. Hallén (1994) points out that the assumption of active whale hunting as a prerequisite for the manufacture and development of standardized types of cetacean bone tools seems to ignore the time span of sites. Although the number of whale bone objects seems large, there is a large amount of bone present in an individual whale. Whilst this argument cannot be faulted, the spread of the bone of different species of whale through different phases of the same sites does suggest the presence of bone from more than one or two stranded individuals. There is a lack of evidence for the trade of cetacean bone in prehistoric times; all the sites where it is present lie within a few kilometres of the sea (Clark, 1947). Fuel utility The high oil content of cetacean bone makes it a useful fuel. In the Faeroes fresh cetacean bone was used as an alternative to peat at the turn of the century (Clark, 1947). The proportion Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 12: 34–48 (2002) J. Mulville 44 of burnt whale bone at the South Uist sites is unquantified, however it is present on all seven sites. At Iron Age Bornish a large number of burnt whale bone fragments are associated with metalworking. Other Atlantic Scottish sites also show potential evidence for whale bone fuel. At Neolithic Skara Brae the area in front of the hearth at Hut 8 was covered with a mass of burnt whale bone, mixed with shells and other bone (Campbell, 1991). A burnt layer containing possible fragments of whale bone fuel was noted at the Iron Age broch at Scalloway, Shetland (Smith, 1998). Burnt whale bone was found at the Norse settlement at Freswick, Caithness (Curle, 1939). McGovern’s (1992) review of Norse Icelandic sites noted that bones of all species were burnt with some degree of selection in favour of sea mammals. Whaling versus stranding We can further consider the evidence for whaling with reference to the debate on the use of the bowhead whale by the Thule (McCartney, 1980; Freeman, 1979) Freeman (1979) considers that although bowhead whale bone is abundant at Thule sites it should not be assumed that these animals were hunted. He suggests that the bone found on the sites may have come from stranded animals. McCartney (1980) counters this argument through a number of points; direct evidence for whale hunting from artefacts and depictions, indirect evidence in the prerequisite whaling and circumstantial evidence from the ethnographic continuity of whaling. It is possible to consider the case for whaling in the Western Isles using these criteria. There is no direct evidence of artefacts or depictions of whale hunting nor indirect evidence of prerequisite whaling gear. No harpoons or whaling implements have been recovered from any of the sites. The only bladed tools are the knives and cleavers evidenced by butchery marks. There is also no direct evidence for boats. However, people must have transported themselves and their animals a minimum of 19 km across the Minch. In Britain the Bronze Age Dover boat is Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. the first evidence of a vessel with channel crossing capability. However the introduction of domestic livestock to Britain suggests that people in the Neolithic already had the skills and boats needed to transport stock across the sea. This seafaring ability is also demonstrated in the human activity recorded on St Kilda from the Neolithic onwards (Emery, 1996). This is a group of islands 72 km to the west of the Western Isles, situated in particularly treacherous seas. To reach these islands would have called for significant maritime skill. For later periods the maritime skills and boat building capabilities of the Norse are well attested. Their boats, built out of radially split timbers, were as good as those used by whalers in the 16th century (Adams, pers. comm). Finally, from the Inuit of the Canadian Arctic, we know it is possible to hunt whales from skin-covered umiyaks. There is circumstantial evidence from the ethnographic continuity of whaling. As mentioned previously historical and ethnographic evidence for whaling exists, both in the Hebrides, Shetland, and Orkneys and further afield in the Faeroe Islands and Scandinavia. Some of these records predate the Norse (Gardiner, 1997) but whether this link could be argued over the period of time covered by the sites is questionable. Conclusions After examining the whale bone found on sites we can draw a number of conclusions. Whale bone was a valuable resource; in Scotland from the Neolithic onwards it was sought after for it’s architectural, artefactual and fuel utility. From written descriptions and illustrations it appears that there was some degree of tool standardization that spanned from prehistory through to the Norse period. There is evidence for the standard use of whale bone as vessels and ‘pot lids’ during the prehistoric period, and during the Norse period the mandibles of whales were preferentially used in tool construction. The nature of whale bone, its size and density, and the ease with which the mattack and meat can be removed while the bones are left intact, will always hamper any analysis of the meat Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 12: 34–48 (2002) Cetacea in Scotland utility of whales. Even in contexts where large amounts of whale bone have been recovered it is becoming obvious that, for the larger species at least, whale bone is only present on site because of its intrinsic worth (Savelle, 1997). It is rarely carried to settlements in joints of meat. Zooarchaeological evidence at present neither confirms nor denies the possibility of active whale procurement. An analysis of the species and size categories of animals found on South Uist and the other Scottish sites indicates both animals that could have been captured and those that were stranded. There is evidence for the utilization of stranded animals as it is unlikely that the large blue and sperm whales were actively procured. However, sick or wounded individuals of the larger species could have been driven onshore. The high proportion of unfused bone may suggest the active selection of young animals for capture. Also the greater range of species and proportion of whale bone found on the Norse sites indicates a rise in cetacean utilization, which could reflect an increase in procurement. It is unfortunate that so little bone can be identified; demonstrating the deliberate selection of easily captured species would indicate whale hunting. The distribution of elements on site adds little to our knowledge of whale procurement. As noted, most of the bone removed to site is that with a further use. It is hoped that further analysis and particularly better species identification will shed more light on cetacean use. The body of ethnographic and biological evidence suggests that the Hebrideans had the opportunity, the maritime skills and technology to actively hunt cetaceans from shore or from boats. Archaeological evidence indicates the dispersion of people to the islands by sea and suggests that settlements were large enough to provide a boat crew. It can be argued that the inhabitants of these Isles, who were aware of the use, value and methods of exploitation for all other local resources (Mulville, 1999), would not ignore the potential food, fuel and material source that cetacea represented. Rather than waiting passively for chance strandings, we can envisage the seafaring islanders setting out to actively capture cetacea. Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 45 Future work There remains much work to be undertaken on whale bone recovered from archaeological sites. The nature of the material, its large size, the predominance of bone that has been worked into artefacts and the lack of researchers with ‘hands on’ experience has made the identification of cetacean material difficult. The proliferation of modern excavation techniques and the volume of material being brought to light should result in a more detailed and planned analysis of the available material. A research campaign to identify cetacean material using ancient DNA has commenced; information from archaeological material could also prove to be a valuable resource in examining the genetic history of whales and dolphins. Other work is being undertaken to identify whale lipids and proteins in pottery and floor layers, and to examine the contents of cetacean vertebral vessels. This, combined with a re-examination of previously reported material, will help to add detail to the picture of whale bone use. In particular the identification of fragments of whalebone from the larger species may help to answer questions of cetacean procurement. Acknowledgments I would like to thank Historic Scotland for funding the excavation and post excavation analysis; the other leaders of the project: Mike Parker Pearson, Niall Sharples, Helen Smith, Mark Brennand, Peter Marshall, Claire Ingrem and also all the students who have helped to excavate the sites. Mary Harman (Scottish Nature) helped to identify some of my stranded species; Richard Sabin and Pauline Jenkins at the British Museum (Natural History) allowed me to use their reference collection and gave up their time to assist me. Special thanks are due to Richard for drawing my attention to the use of the mandibles. The members of the European Cetacean Society mailing list have patiently answered my queries. A number of people provided information on their unpublished work: Julie Bond, Ruby CeronCarrasco, Ellen Hambleton, Ingrid Mainland, Sue Stallibrass and Vicki Szabo. Tom McGovern supplied information on the Greenland Norse. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 12: 34–48 (2002) 46 Yvonne Marshall and Jon Adams helped me with discussions on whalebone use and boat technology respectively. Sophie Jundi and Ian Dennis produced the illustrations. Finally thanks to Andrea Smith, Jerry Herman, Dale Serjeantson, Adrienne Powell and the referees who provided much needed comments on my text. References Brennand M, Parker Pearson M, Smith H. 1998. The Norse Settlement and Pictish Cairn at Kilphaeder, South Uist. Excavations in 1998. Sheffield: Department of Archaeology & Prehistory, University of Sheffield. Callander JG, Grant WG. 1933. The broch of Midhow, Rousay, Orkney, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 122: 444–516. Campbell E. 1991. Excavations of a wheelhouse and other structures at Sollas, North Uist, by R.J.C. Atkinson in 1956. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 121: 117–73. Chamberlain A. 1999. The Human Skeletal Remains. In Between Land and Sea: Excavations at Dun Vulan, South Uist, Parker Pearson M, Sharples N, Mulville J, Smith H (eds). Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield. Childe VG. 1931. Skara Brae: A Pictish Village in Orkney. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., Ltd: London. Clark G. 1947. Whales as an economic factor in prehistoric Europe. Antiquity 21: 214–232. Colgrave BC, Mynors RAB. 1969. Bede’s Ecclesiastical history of the English people. Clarendon Press: Oxford. Curle AO. 1939. A Viking settlement at Freswick, Caithness. Report on Excavations carried out in 1937 and 1938. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 73: 71–100. Curle CL. 1982. Pictish and Norse finds from the Brough of Birsay 1934–75. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Monograph Series 1, Edinburgh. Emery N. 1996. The Archaeology and Ethnology of St. Kilda No. 1. Archaeological excavations on Hirta 1986–1990. The National Trust for Scotland and HMSO: Edinburgh. Evans PGH. 1996. Dolphins and Porpoises: Order Cetacea. In The Handbook of British Mammals, Corbett GB, Harris S (eds). Blackwell Science Ltd: Oxford, 299–350. Finlay J. 1991. The animal bone. In E. Campbell, Excavations of a wheelhouse and other Iron Age structures at Sollas, North Uist by R J C Atkinson in 1957, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 1121: 117–173, fiche 1:D-3F10. Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Mulville Finlay J. 1984. Faunal Evidence for Prehistoric Economy and Settlement in the Outer Hebrides to c. 400 AD. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Edinburgh. Fischer P. 1881. Cétacés du sud-ouest de la France. Actes de la Société Linnéenne de Bordeaux, 34. Foxon A. 1991. Bone, antler, tooth and horn technology and utilisation in prehistoric Scotland. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Glasgow. Fraser FC. 1934. Report on cetacea stranded on the British Coasts from 1927–32. British Museum (Natural History): London. Fraser FC. 1946. Report on cetacea stranded on the British Coasts from 1933–37. British Museum (Natural History): London. Fraser FC. 1953. Report on cetacea stranded on the British Coasts from 1938–47. British Museum (Natural History): London. Fraser FC. 1974. Report on cetacea stranded on the British Coasts from 1948–66. British Museum (Natural History): London. Freeman MMR. 1979. A critical view of Thule culture and ecologic adaptation. In Thule Eskimo Culture: an anthropological perspective. Archaeological Survey of Canada: Hull, Canada, 278–285. Gardiner M. 1997. The Exploitation of Sea Mammals in Medieval England: Bones and their Social Context. Archaeology Journal 154: 173–95. Grigson C, Mellars PA. 1987. The mammalian remains from the middens. In Excavations on Oronsay: Prehistoric Human Ecology of a Small Island, Mellars P (ed.). Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, 243–289. Hallén Y. 1994. The use of bone and antler at Foshigarry and Bac Mhic Connain, two Iron Age sites on North Uist, Western Isles. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 124: 189–231. Halstead PJ. Forthcoming. The mammal bones. In Bronze Age Farms and Iron Age Farm Mounds of the Outer Hebrides, Barber J (ed.). Scottish Trust for Archaeological Research Monograph 4: Edinburgh. Hambleton E, Stallibrass S. 1997. Faunal Remains from Fisher’s Road East. University of Durham: Durham. Hamilton JRC. 1968. Excavations at Clickhimin, Shetland. Edinburgh: Ministry of Public Works Archaeological Report. Harman M. 1983. in Ritchie, JNG, Welfare, H. Excavations at Ardnave, Islay. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 113: 302–366. Harmer SF. 1914. Report on cetacea stranded on the British Coasts from 1913–1926. British Museum (Natural History): London. Hedges JW. 1987. Bu, Gurness and the Brochs of Orkney Part II. British Archaeological Reports: British Series: Oxford. Jenkins JT. 1921. A History of the Whale Fisheries. HF and G. Witherby: London. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 12: 34–48 (2002) Cetacea in Scotland Jones A. 1998. Where eagles dare; Landscape, Animals and the Neolithic of Orkney. Journal of Material Culture 3(3): 301–324. Luff R. 1993. Animal bones from excavations in Colchester, 1971–85. Colchester Archaeological Trust Ltd: Colchester. Macartney E. 1984. Analysis of faunal remains. In Excavations at Crosskirk Broch, Caithness, Fairhurst H (ed.) Society of Antiquaries of Scotland: Edinburgh, 133–147. MacGregor A. 1974. The broch of Burrain, North Ronaldsay, Orkney. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 105: 63–118. MacGregor A. 1985. Bone, Antler, Ivory and Horn. The Technology of Skeletal Materials Since the Roman Period. Croom Helm: Beckenham. Marshall P, Mulville J, Parker Pearson MI, Smith H, Ingrem C. 1999. The late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Community at Cladh Hallan, South Uist. Excavations in 1999. Unpublished internal report. University of Sheffield. Martin M. 1716. A description of the Western Isles of Scotland. Bell: London. McCartney AP. 1980. The nature of Thule eskimo whale use. Arctic 33(3): 517–541. McCormick F. 1991. The mammal bones from Cnip wheelhouse, Lewis. Unpublished manuscript. McGovern T. 1992. Bones, buildings, and boundaries: palaeoeconomic approaches to Norse Greenland. In Norse and later settlement and subsistence in the North Atlantic, Morris CD, Rackham DJ (eds). Department of Archaeology, University of Glasgow: Glasgow, 193–230. Morris C, Batey C, Rackham J. 1995. Freswick Links, Caithness: excavation and survey of a Norse settlement. Sutton, Stroud. Mulville J. 1999. The Mammal Remains. In Between Land and Sea: Excavations at Dun Vulan, South Uist, Parker Pearson M, Sharples N, Mulville J, Smith H (eds). Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield. Mulville J. 1999. Worth Matravers: Assessment of Animal Bone. Southampton: Faunal Remains Unit, University of Southampton. Mulville J. 2000. The mammal bone from Pabbay, Mingulay and Sandray. In From Barra to Berneray: the Archaeology of the Southern Isles of the Outer Hebrides, Vol. 4. Brannigan K, Foster P (eds). Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield. Mulville J. Forthcoming. Quarters, Arcs and Squares: Human and Animal Burial in the Western Isles. Proceedings of ‘Sea Change: Orkney and Northern Europe in the Late Iron Age.’ Conference 2001 Kirknall Orkney. Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 47 Murdock J. 1982. Ethnological results of the Point Barrow expedition. Washington: Government Printing Office, 19–441. Noddle B. 1974. Report on the animal bones found at Dun Mor Vaul. In Dun Mor Vaul: an Iron Age Broch on Tiree, Mackie EW (ed.). University of Glasgow: Glasgow, 187–198. Noddle B. 1981. A comparison of mammalian bones found in the ‘midden deposits’ with others from the Iron Age site of Dun Cul Bhuirg. In Excavations in Iona 1964 to 1974, Reece R Institute of Archaeology Occasional Publication 5: London, 38–50. Noddle B. 1982. Animal bone from Dun Cul Bhuirg. In GM Ritchie and AL Lane, DunCul Bhuirg, Iona, Argyll. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 110: 225–227. Noddle B. 1987. The larger animals and human bone. In Bu, Gurness and the Brochs of Orkney, Hedges J (ed.). British Archaeological Reports (British Series): Oxford, 163: 123–125. O’Connor S. The identification of Osseous and Keratinaceous materials at York. In Archaeological Bone, Antler and Ivory. Occasional Papers number 5, Starling K, Watkinson D (eds). United Kingdom Institute for Conservation: London, 9–21. Parker Pearson M, Sharples NI, Mulville J, Smith H. 1999. Between Land and Sea: Excavations at Dun Vulan, South Uist. Sheffield Academic Press: Sheffield. Ratcliffe J, Straker V. 1996. The Early Environment of Scilly. Truro: Cornwall Archaeological Unit, Cornwall County Council. Rees SE. 1979. Agricultural Implements in Prehistoric and Roman Britain. British Archaeological Reports: British Series: Oxford. Richie JNG. 1976. Excavations of Pictish and Vikingage farmsteads at Buckquoy, Orkney Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 118: 174–227. Savelle JM, Friesen TM. 1996. An Odontocete (Cetacea) Meat Utility Index. Journal of Archaeological Science 23: 713–721. Savelle JM. 1997. The role of architectural utility in the formation of zooarchaelogical whale bone assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 24: 869–885. Savelle JM, McCartney AP. 1999. Thule Eskimo bowhead interception strategies. World Archaeology 30(3): 437–451. Serjeantson D. n.d. Mammal, bird and fish remains from the Udal (North), N. Uist: interim report. Unpublished report. Sharples N. 2000. The Iron Age and Norse settlement at Bornish, South Uist: An interim report on the 2000 excavations. University of Wales (Cardiff): Cardiff. Sheldrick MC. 1979. Cetacean strandings along the coasts of the British Isles 1913–1977. In Biology of Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 12: 34–48 (2002) 48 Marine Mammals: insights through strandings. U.S. Marine Mammal Commission: Washington, DC, 35–53. Sjøvøld T. 1971. Whale Bone Tools in the Iron Age of North Norway. Actes du VIIe Congres International des Sciences Prehistoriques et Protohistoriques, Prague 21–27 Aout, 1966. Prague, 1200–4. Smith AN. 1998. The worked bone and antler. In Scalloway: A Broch, Late Iron Age Settlement and Medieval Cemetery in Shetland, Sharples N (ed.). Oxbow Books: Oxford. Smith C. 1994. The animal bone report. In Howe: Four Millennia of Orkney Prehistory, Ballin Smith B Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Mulville (ed.). Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph Series 9: Edinburgh, 139–153. Sullivan T. 1997. Upper Scalloway: mammal and bird bone report. In Excavations at Upper Scalloway, Shetland, Sharples, N (ed.). Oxbow: Oxford. Tinker SW. 1988. Whales of the world. E.J. Brill: New York. Young A, Richardson KM. 1960. A’ Cheardach Mhor, Drimore, South Uist. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 93: 135–173. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 12: 34–48 (2002)