Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros166Dossier. La chasse aux mammifères...Visual narratives and the depicti...

Dossier. La chasse aux mammifères marins

Visual narratives and the depiction of whaling in north European rock art: the case of the White Sea

Dr Liliana Janik
p. 51-63

Résumé

The rock art petroglyps of the White Sea represent possibly the earliest depictions of whaling in the world and allow us to understand the 6,000-years-old relationship between whales and human communities. This paper will argue that the complexity of this relationship is multifaceted and socially underpinned, and goes beyond simple killing of the whale. A number of strands in the interpretation of prehistoric images are explored: traditional indigenous knowledge; ethnographic and historical evidence; visual clues and archaeological interpretation of rock art. Hunting for whales required input from a number of individuals who did not deliver the killing blow, but without whom the whale could not be killed and fully appropriated. The whale itself can be seen as a visual localiser of community cohesion, the focus for community members and their practices (Janik 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020).

Haut de page

Entrées d’index

Index by keyword:

Rock art, whaling, White Sea

Index géographique :

Russie
Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

1The rock art of the White Sea is located in 3 distinct areas: Onega lake, estuary of the Vig river and the islands of Kanozero lake at the Kola Peninsula (Fig. 1). There are dated for around 6,000 years old. Each location provides us with the unique inside into the life of past communities that include their link and the relationship to the sea, what allows us the archaeologists to access into the past sea exploitation, marine fishing and hunting techniques and the role of the sea mammals in community constitution.

Fig. 1. White Sea rock art. Triangle: Onega lake; circle: the estuary of the Vig river; square: the islands of Kanozero lake at the Kola Peninsula.

Fig. 1. White Sea rock art. Triangle: Onega lake; circle: the estuary of the Vig river; square: the islands of Kanozero lake at the Kola Peninsula.

2At the Onega lake rock art area, the images of marine hunting are only once present while at the Vig river estuary and Kanozero we find a number of beluga’s images either as individual depictions or a part of hunting scenes. In general, the whale’s projection in the majority of the cases are aerial as if looking from the top down. There are, however, few images that show belugas from their site, those images are rear and in particular, at Vig rock art they are placed in the specific context.

3Some of the oldest depictions of whales and whaling come from the White Sea rock art complex in the estuary of the Vig River, which flows into the White Sea in north-western Russia. Fourteen locations have been recorded since 1936 at this complex. Two of these sites are of particular importance to this paper: Besovey Sledki and Zalavruga (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. The distribution of beluga whale in the Northern Hemisphere and the locations of rock art sites in the White Sea region numbered in chronological order. 1/ Erpin Pudas III, 2/ Besovy Sledki South (S), 3/ Besovy Sledki South (N), 4/ Erpin Pudas I North (N), 5/ Erpin Pudas II, 6/ Erpin Pudas IV, 7/ Erpin Pudas I South (S), 8/ Nameless Islands IV, 9/ Nameless Islands III, 10/ Zalavruga, 11/ Nameless Islands I, 12/ Zolatec, 13/ Nameless Islands II South (S), 14/ Nameless Islands II North (N).

Fig. 2. The distribution of beluga whale in the Northern Hemisphere and the locations of rock art sites in the White Sea region numbered in chronological order. 1/ Erpin Pudas III, 2/ Besovy Sledki South (S), 3/ Besovy Sledki South (N), 4/ Erpin Pudas I North (N), 5/ Erpin Pudas II, 6/ Erpin Pudas IV, 7/ Erpin Pudas I South (S), 8/ Nameless Islands IV, 9/ Nameless Islands III, 10/ Zalavruga, 11/ Nameless Islands I, 12/ Zolatec, 13/ Nameless Islands II South (S), 14/ Nameless Islands II North (N).

4They are both dated by correlating the isostatic White Sea shore oscillation and C14 dates related to specific rock surface elevations (tab. 1).

Tab 1. Dating of the rock art (Janik 2010).

Tab 1. Dating of the rock art (Janik 2010).

5Bone preservation is very poor in Russian Karelia, hence the knowledge what was most probably eaten comes from the presence of particular creatures in the rock art. What it means that other food staffs have been consumed however, we have no records of it. Rock art in this case gives us the unique insight into the part of the fisher-gather-hunters diet as well as food procurement at the sea and land. Here, in this paper, I focus at the marine aspect of the creatures that have been ‘captured’ in the rocks. I will trace a number of tangible activities in the depictions of the White Sea rock art complex as well as used in interpreting the role of the whale in the community constraction. The technical ‘know-how’ required to kill a beluga is deeply embedded in the social and symbolic dimensions of the hunting practices, and the use of visual clues in the rock art indicate that whaling in prehistory was just as complex a business as it was in historical times.

6Rock art of the White Sea as much as imagery created in the other areas of Europe or the world brings the basic question into the interpretation of choices made by prehistoric carvers, what was and what was not depicted. In the case of Vig and Kanozero, other marine mammals, beyond whales, were excluded, despite that a number of seal species inhabit the White Sea. In contrast to beluga that is not present in during winter, the ringed seals and bearded seals are permanent residents of the White Sea (Belikov and Boltunov 2001; Potelov 1998), while the harp seals leave the White Sea in May for the Barents Sea (Nilssen et al. 1995). It is difficult to say with certainty if seals were consumed by the prehistoric communities, I suggest, they were. There is no indication of their hunting shown by prehistoric carvers, the rock art is ‘silent’, it is therefore very difficult to evaluate economic activities inferred based on particular imagery among the carvings. Hence the interpretation of the rock art imagery presented in this paper goes beyond what we see was possibly hunted to be consumed, to the broader understanding of the relationship between the whale and humans as socially underpinning community construction.

Ethnographic and historical evidence

7Several different sorts of evidence are available to provide information on prehistoric whale hunting. The structuring of the visual composition of rock art allows us to understand the activities and participants linked with the hunt. The ethnographic and historical evidence as well as traditional indigenous knowledge help us build a comprehensive understanding of prehistoric whaling. While ethnographic and historical analogies in interpreting the meaning of archaeological data can be misleading, they give us indications of the know-how and complexity involved in whale hunting in prehistory. What we can see archaeologically is the notion of the hunt as “attracting, killing, butchering, transforming the animal into food and clothing (which attracts), and following the proper rituals…” (Bodernhorn 1990: 64).

8There are good historical and ethnographic accounts of beluga hunting (Belkovitch & Shekotov 1993; Svetochev & Svetocheva 2013), which emphasise the importance of collaboration carried out in silence to avoid scaring the noise-averse beluga away, and the associated significance of non-verbal communication among the hunting crews. These accounts also demonstrate that whale hunting is a complex affair, comprising a number of discrete stages (Belkovitch & Shekotov 1993; Friedman 2006; Lucier & Vanstone 1995; Maksimov 2014). As will be shown in this paper, some of these stages take on particular symbolic significance and are repeatedly represented in the prehistoric depictions of whaling in the White Sea.

9We know number of historical and ethnographic description of the hunt for belugas (Belkovitch and Shekotov 1993; Friedman 2006; Lucier and Vanstone 1995; Maksimov 2014), the most interesting historical and ethnographic record about the beluga whales’ exploitation comes from Maksimov (2014) who in the late 18th century visited the White Sea and recorded the beluga hunt for the purpose of extraction of the fat to produce the oil when the meat was used to feed dogs and the local population hunt when a whole mammal has been used as food, a source food, material to construct tool, clothing material, etc.

10According to the Maksimov (2014) hunting for belugas by local population can be divided into two strategies (Fig. 3): ‘First, 10 boats with 4 people on each boat are needed: 1) the boats circulate around a pod of whales, 2) the net was passed from one boat to the other to enclose the belugas, 3) the net was released by the boats with whales trapped inside, 3) the belugas were struck at the blowing hole at the top of the head with the long handle implement with a number of spikes at one end like a harpoon, and pulled out instantly, 4) the whales were finished by being clubbed to death using a heavy long wooden tool. This type of hunting brought great rewards since a number of whales could be killed at once, but it requires a number of boats being available at the same time.

11The second way belugas were hunted was conducted by a smaller number of boats and involved the presence of hunters on the shore: 1) two to three boats are linked by nets with floats closing the escape route for the whales, 2) the ends of the nets are passed to the people standing on the shore blocking any means of escape at the sides, 3) the people pull the nets with the trapped whales towards the shore, 4) the whales are killed’ (Janik 2017: 174).

Fig. 3. Schematic illustrations of traditional hunting techniques with the use of nets: 1) hunting at sea; 2) pulling belugas to the shore.

Fig. 3. Schematic illustrations of traditional hunting techniques with the use of nets: 1) hunting at sea; 2) pulling belugas to the shore.

Janik 2017, Fig. 5.

12If we rely only on the ethnographic and historical know-how in interpreting the description of beluga hunts on the rock art we might be mislead. It does not mean, however, that such way of hunting was not practice, but it is not shown in the rock art, hence there is no direct link between the know-how of the past and the ethnographic and historical records.

13What we see e.g., in Maksimov’s description of the hunt is a lack of a harpoon or a float use as a part of hunting at deep-sea visible in the rock art of the Vig river estuary and Kanozero. The use of multi-barbed harpoons and float gives us an indication of the deep-sea hunting and the know-how absent from historical and ethnographic records (Janik 2017, 2021; Likhachev 2010, 2018). Further, what is important to stress here, is the age of those depictions, which are possible the oldest we know up to date as well as the importance of not equating the techniques of whale hunting in the past of what we know in the present.

The whale

14As identified by Ravdanikas (1938) and Savvateev (1970), the beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) is the most frequently depicted marine mammal in the rock art of the White Sea by the past communities. All depictions of the whale at the Vig river estuary have been interpreted as such using two arguments: their shape and seasonal abundance in the White Sea. Whales’ depictions from Kanozero are not ascribe by types, but looking at their bulky shape, rounded fins, and the ample presence of the whale in the summer at the White Sea indicate that we look here also at the white whales.

15Belugas (derives from Russian word for white) are also known as white whales since when adult their turns from being grey to white. Despite beluga being considered a whale, it belongs to the genus Delphinapterus, which in practice means that it is a dolphin rather than one of the large whales like an orca (killer whale) or humpback whale that belong to the genus Orcinus and Megaptera. If we compare the adult belugas to the killer whale we can see how the hunting strategies might be implied. Adult individual weight might reach 1,500 kg, while its length varies between 2.6 m and 6.7 m. (O’Corry-Crowe et al. 2000; Stewart & Stewart 1989), while orca reaches size between 9.0 m to 7.7 m in length and weigh over 6,000 kg. Belugas inhabit circumpolar waters, there differ in size and type of food it consumes (Belkovitch & Shekotov 1993; Friedman 2006; O’Corry-Crowe et al. 2000; Stewart & Stewart 1989). Beluga whales are generally smaller than those occupying North America and the Amur river. They do not follow salmon into the estuary of big rivers as e.g. Lawrence or Amur, since there is no salmon in the White Sea region. What in turn again indicates the type of hunting that might be employed by the past communities. Further, in the summer they move into the shallow coastal areas to molt, breed and give birth, which would provide an advantageous setting for hunting. At present, as in the past belugas are congregate in the areas of relative vicinity to the rock art locations in Onega Bay by Myagostrov, Solovetskii and Zhizhgin Islands and Glubokii Cape (Alekseeva et al. 2013, Krasnova et al. 2012: 223).

16The presence of the belugas is seasonal. The whales follow Navaga (Eleginus nawaga) and White Sea herring (Clupea pallasii marisalbi) or smelts (Osmerus eperlanus) (Belkovitch & Shekotov 1993; Svetochev & Svetocheva 2013). It moves around the coast providing opportunities of its catchment depending on their movement in different part of the summer (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Seasonal movement of belugas in the While Sea basin (amended after Svetochev & Svetocheva 2013). The location of the White Sea rock art complex is marked by the dot, while the Kanozero rock art is marked by the square.

Fig. 4. Seasonal movement of belugas in the While Sea basin (amended after Svetochev & Svetocheva 2013). The location of the White Sea rock art complex is marked by the dot, while the Kanozero rock art is marked by the square.

Janik 2017, Fig. 4.

Visual clues and traditional indigenous knowledge as a methodological approach to rock art interpretation

17Visual clues are central to engaging with traditional indigenous knowledge to inform us about hunting belugas in prehistory, as well as provide us with the methodological tool in rock art analysis. The killing require hunters to focus on the whale body, the number of boats taking part in the hunt conection between the boat and the whale, as well as the use of the flat and the harpoon, as suggested by Aksel Blymann (personal communications), an experienced hunter and member of the Organisation of the Fisherman and Hunters in Nuuk, Greenland. My discussions with him about the traditional whaling practices made me realise several aspects of the hunt previously overlooked in interpretations of rock art depictions of whale hunting: the importance of picturing the areas of the body of the beluga targeted by the hunter; the number of hunters in the boat; and the existence, or lack, of the connection between the whale, boat and/or hunter.

18In this paper, all drawings and their interpretation are based on recordings conducted during a number of research seasons led by the author, in the context of often not being able to verify published recordings (Savvateev 1970) due to rock surface weathering or not being certain of what was carved.

Body area – Visual clues

19To kill beluga requires striking the whale in two specific areas of their body; (1) heart/lung and (2) two centimetres below the blowhole at the head (Fig. 5). The hit in the first area gives best success if delivered at 45 degrees, the strike at the head is most successful at the angle of 90 degrees. Frequently, the additional to the hit to the heart/lungs area, the blow is deliver at the beluga’s head to ‘finish’ the whale.

Fig. 5. Two specific areas of beluga’s body (defined); heart/lung and two centimetres below the blowhole. Whale towing directions, by the tail, by the face/snout area of the head.

Fig. 5. Two specific areas of beluga’s body (defined); heart/lung and two centimetres below the blowhole. Whale towing directions, by the tail, by the face/snout area of the head.

Janik 2017; Fig. 6.

Number of hunters in the boat

20To successfully hunt a whale, even one as small as a beluga, there need to be at least two individuals in the boat: one to deliver the blow and the second to navigate the boat. Large numbers of people in the boat can cause its destabilisation and accident, and the vessel can easily be turned over.

Connection between the whale, the boat and the hunter – visual clues

21Another aspect of a successful hunt is the ability to maintain a connection between the boat and the whale without endangering the boat. Holding the line that secures the harpoon to a live whale is very dangerous since it can pull or turn the boat. The use of floats is therefore important, since by being attached to the harpoon point by the line, a float can show the location of the whale even if it dives and it also serves as a drag to slow the whale and force it to the surface.

22The second aspect of the link between the whale and the boat is the direction of the boat, attached line and the position of the whale. The towing rope is always used to pull the whale rather than the harpoon line, which is not as strong. In addition the use of the rope prevents loss of the harpoon, which is valuable equipment. The whale might be towed to the shore by being pulled either by the tail or the area of the cheek/snout (Morseth 1997). In either instance the whale is pulled behind the boat/s. To keep energy expendature low while towing the whale, especially when small boats are used, the boats are tied one after another.

23I suggest those three aspects of relationship between the whale and the boat/s or/and hunter/s create the visual clues, indicating in particular the towing scenario, shown in the prehistoric rock art.

Analysis and results of the visual clues interpretation

24Looking at the images ranging in date from c. 5,500 till 3,500 years ago, the beluga whale is represented in a number of contexts, often alongside terrestrial hunting scenes. In the archaeological literature a number of authors have interpreted the numerous whaling scenes as depicting whale hunts where the creature is killed (e.g. Gjerde 2016; Savvateev 1970; Lihachev 2018). The analysis presented in this paper proposes different interpretations of what we see: while some of the imagery shows simply the individual beluga whales, three distinctive aspects of the marine hunt can be established. The first focuses on the act of killing; the second focuses on the activity of towing the whale towards the shore; and the third, combines the first two. The last two aspects can be interpreted as part of the hunt, but not the act of killing per se; however, they are integral to the hunt. While some of the images can be interpreted as depicting real events, some of them point more towards symbolic visualisation of the whale hunt.

Kill

25Overall the number of images showing only killing of the whale is small, but the scene persists in all phases. In phase 1 of White Sea rock art creation we have very clear visual clues where one line is linked with the heart/lung area, while the second line is attached to the body of the whale in the head area.

26The Besovy Sledki locations represent some of the oldest carvings in the White Sea rock art complex, dated c. 5,500 years ago. In the past, two locations were recorded, but unfortunately the carvings of Besovy North were covered by construction associated with a hydroelectric power station and only Besovy Sledki South can be seen today.

27As in Besovy Sledki North, the carvings at Besovy Sledki South depict both single animals and pods of whales. The Besovy Sledki North carvings include the first depiction of an attempt to kill. I propose that this might be an attempt to emphasise the relationship that links the whale and the harpoon. It depicts a beluga’s silhouette. Among all the images of whales in the White Sea rock art complex, only two are whales shown from the side versus shown from the above. The harpoon touches the beluga seemingly without being deeply embedded in its back. The image is very well preserved and the execution of the carving is expertly done giving us an unambiguous image of a whale with a biserial (two barbs on each side) harpoon touching its back. The harpoon line leading to the whale connects to the float rather than the boat. An unsuccessful kill is further emphasised by another visual clue, the angle of around 30 degrees between the harpoon and the whale’s back, rather than the 45 degrees required for an effective kill. It is the only depiction a harpoon in all known White Sea rock art.

28The image of the beluga is carved, emphasising the harpoon and suggesting the intention of the carver to focus on the harpoon and not the kill of the whale per se.

29This focus on the harpoon is also seen in the slightly later carvings of the Korean rock art site at Bangudae and the carvings on the Kola Peninsula at Kanozero (Fig. 6) (Janik 2017; Lee 2011; Lihachev 2010, 2018), providing us with additional information about technical know-how in the past.

Fig. 6. Harpoons in the carvings of: a) Besovy Sledki, Russia; b) Kanozero, Russia; c) Bangudae, Korea.

Fig. 6. Harpoons in the carvings of: a) Besovy Sledki, Russia; b) Kanozero, Russia; c) Bangudae, Korea.

30At Zalavruga, the longest used site of the White Sea rock art complex, carving took place over 1.000 years. On the basis of correlations between changing land elevation caused by isostatic sea movements in the White Sea region close to the rock art sites and existing C14 dates, the chronology of the Zalavruga carvings is divided into seven phases (Janik 2010). Only the first five phases, however, include marine hunting scenes (tab. 2).

Tab. 2. Number of carving according to different elements of the hunt at Besovy Sledki and Zalavruga.

Tab. 2. Number of carving according to different elements of the hunt at Besovy Sledki and Zalavruga.

31The earliest scene of a successful whale kill (Fig. 7a) is dated to the Phase 2, when the land became open due to water levels dropping and the carvings began to be made at the Zalavruga location. We see one depiction of a hunt from a single boat where the line connects the boat/hunter on the boat with the hunted whale in the area of lung/heart, producing a depiction of a ‘textbook kill’. The images discussed below have been interpreted by Aksel Blymann as associated with killing without looking at the angle between the whale’s body and the harpoon since the piercing of the heart/lung area does damage that causes the death of the mammal.

Fig. 7. Single boat carvings. Images a and b are dated for the Phase 2, Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex

Fig. 7. Single boat carvings. Images a and b are dated for the Phase 2, Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex

32The next depiction of a whale being hunted from a boat is of particular interest since it shows the possible use of a float (Fig. 7b). The line linking the hunter on the boat and the whale reaches the beluga’s lower middle body—the muscle area—which potentially indicates an unsuccessful hunt. The trajectory of the line indicates throwing a harpoon with a float attached (indicated by the oblong object in Fig. 7b). This can be interpreted in two ways: one suggesting missing the ‘kill’ zone of heart/lungs resulting in the harpoon lodging in the muscle part of the whale’s body; the second implies an intent to strike the animal with the purpose of slowing it down by attaching the float to it. This would make the beluga slow down, facilitating the kill while making it more difficult for the whale to dive. This type of technique is often used in deep-sea whale exploitation. It is especially significant as a visual clue pointing for the first time to whale hunting in the open waters of the deep seas over 4,500 years ago.

33The largest number of images showing the act of killing whales occur during the Phase 3.

34Figure 8a shows a number of attempts marked by three lines from boat B: two have not reached the whale; the one that one has is located in the muscle area above the tail. The killing blow is delivered from boat A in the area of heart/lungs.

35The next image (Fig. 8b) shows three boats. We see possibly three individuals sitting and standing in boat B, the line linking the person standing at the front with the lower part of heart/lung area of the whale. Boat C is also connected to this part of the beluga’s body but from the opposite side. Lastly it seems as if boat A also delivered a blow to the heart/lung region but slightly higher, by the fin. Any of these three single blows could have delivered the kill.

Fig. 8. Multiple boat carvings. Images a and b are dated for the Phase 3. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.

Fig. 8. Multiple boat carvings. Images a and b are dated for the Phase 3. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.

36The next five carvings (Fig. 9) show perfectly executed hunts conducted from individual boats. Three images described below show the delivery of a single killing blow into the heart/lungs area. One of the lines links the whale with the person on the boat, indicating the use of a float (Fig. 9a). The angle between the harpoon and the beluga is about 45 degrees, suggesting an instant kill. The boat at figure 9d is linked with the whale’s snout by one line while the other almost touches the heart/lung area. It is unclear which line is the first to reach the beluga. If the line connected to the whale’s head was the first, it could indicate an unusual kill delivered below the blowhole. Equally, however, this might be the ‘finishing blow’.

37The last image of a kill comes from the Phase 5, depicting a successful kill executed by a single person (Fig. 9e). The line leading from the individual to the whale is shown by a series of carved dots.

Fig. 9. Single boat successful whale kill carvings. Figures a, b, c, d are dated for the Phase 3. Figure e is dated for the Phase 5. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.

Fig. 9. Single boat successful whale kill carvings. Figures a, b, c, d are dated for the Phase 3. Figure e is dated for the Phase 5. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.

In-between carvings

38There are two carvings that might be evaluated as either being kill scenes or preparation to tow, due to the way the image shows the relationship between the front of the whale and the boat. The first image comes from the Phase 2, the next one from the Phase 3.

39One depiction (Fig. 10a) shows the whale being hunted from two boats, with lines reaching the lower part of the heart/lung and head body regions. The whale is killed from boat A with the line connecting the lower part of the heart/lungs area. We can see the moment the person throws the harpoon and is connected to the whale. A second harpoon thrown from boat B at the head area either assures the death of the whale, or is part of the preparation to tow the whale.

40Looking at figure 10b we see at the lower part of the image of a line (possibly terminated by a float) causing the death of a beluga. I assume that at the end of the line, unseen to us, is a harpoon lodged in the heart/lungs area of the whale’s body. It is possible that the line was released from boat C. The line linking the whale and the second boat B is depicted as being the most successful and delivers the kill in the heart/lung area, the angle between the harpoon and the boat around 45 degrees. Boat A either ends the kill by the execution of a finishing blow to the head, or as in the previous example might be in the process of preparing to tow the beluga to the shore.

Fig. 10. Scenes of kill or preparation to tow carvings, figure a is dated for the Phase 2; figure b is dated for the Phase 3. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.

Fig. 10. Scenes of kill or preparation to tow carvings, figure a is dated for the Phase 2; figure b is dated for the Phase 3. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.

Preparation to tow

41Among all imagery related to the whale hunt the depictions of preparation to tow are the most common and account for 12 carvings, while we have 9 killing scenes and only one depiction related to the towing scene per se.

42The first depiction of preparation to tow comes from Besovy Sledki (fig. 11). It shows a spectacular carving of two individuals in a boat. The person at the front holds both arms up while holding a line that leads to the muscle part of the whale’s body by the tail. In the middle of the line we see the float that in real life would allow the hunters to see where the harpoon line is. The location of the boat indicates that the depiction shows the preparation to tow, not the towing itself. The boat is facing the whale, rather than dragging it behind as we would expect when transporting a dead beluga to the shore. This is the third image indexing deep-sea exploitation by the use of a float.

Fig. 11. The preparation to tow scene. The carving is dated for 5,557 – 5,379 yr BP. Besovy Sledki, White Sea rock art.

Fig. 11. The preparation to tow scene. The carving is dated for 5,557 – 5,379 yr BP. Besovy Sledki, White Sea rock art.

43At Zalavruga the scenes of preparation to tow appear earlier than those of the kill, dating to the Phase 1 (Fig. 12).

Fig. 12. Preparation to tow carvings. Image a, dated for the Phase 1, Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex, amended after P. Saila, Epic Whale Hunt (2015). Image b, re-drawn and amended by K. Szczęsna.

Fig. 12. Preparation to tow carvings. Image a, dated for the Phase 1, Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex, amended after P. Saila, Epic Whale Hunt (2015). Image b, re-drawn and amended by K. Szczęsna.

44The next carving (Fig. 12a) displays a complex scene of the preparation to tow, indicating a variety of activities, some of them related to the previous activity, the kill. Boat B is connected to boat A. They are possibly in the process of arranging to tow the beluga. Boat A is connected to the beluga’s muscle area: on the opposite side above the fin two lines are lodged in the heart/lung area of the whale. On the left side of beluga, the line looks like an extension of the fin, but it could be also the line disconnected from the harpoon and leading to the heart/lung area, and so indicating the kill. It is difficult to explain what this means in terms of delivering a successful blow, but the line is carved as if touching the whale under the angle might suggest the tilting of the harpoon point and missing the effective harpoon delivery. It could also indicate the possibility of the harpoon being lodged into the mammal to fix the float for the purpose of holding the whale’s body on the surface and preventing it from sinking.

45A related illustration of such a scene can be seen in a picture by P. Saila, Epic Whale Hunt (Fig. 12b), where we see part of a whale larger than a beluga being struck by a number of harpoons with floats attached. It is essential to acknowledge in the case of the Epic Whale Hunt that the harpoons are used to deliver floats not to kill, hence the target is the muscle area of the whale’s body, not the heart/lung region.

46Figure 13a shows either a scene of preparation for towing or the towing scene itself. Boat B is preparing to tow the beluga towards the coast. While boat C might be towing the whale, the damage to the carving due to weathering makes this interpretation inconclusive. The whale is attached to both boats by the cheek/snout region, while boat A is connected to the muscle part of the whale’s body, as if preparing to tow. The same can be said about the line secured to the whale but not the boat close to the beluga’s tail. The short line on the other side of boat A might have the same purpose.

47The next carving shows towing and a possible kill (Fig. 13b). It looks as if the whale might have been killed by a blow from boat C into the lower part of the heart/lung area. The trajectory of the line, however, indicates a pulling movement, rather than killing. Further, the blow executed from boat D could also have delivered the fatal blow or ensured the kill. On the other hand, looking at the way the boat is placed in the composition and the direction it is pointing may suggest that the boat’s crew is preparing to tow the whale by attaching a rope to the cheek/snout region. It also looks as if boat A is preparing to tow the whale, although the length of the line is too long for a successful tow, while boat B is attached to the line connecting boat A with the beluga. Why this is happening remains unclear, since if the whale was a beluga it would not need so many boats to tow it to shore. If the whale was not a beluga, but instead a larger whale like orca or humpback, which appear sporadically in the White Sea (Chernetsky et al. 2011), more boats would be needed. Looking at the size of the whale versus the dimensions of the boats, as well as the number of people in each boat, the whale seems small, suggesting a beluga. The seemingly excessive number of boats for towing such a small whale, can be explained as artistic license.

Fig. 13. Preparation to tow or the towing scenes. Both images a and b are dated for the Phase 1. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.

Fig. 13. Preparation to tow or the towing scenes. Both images a and b are dated for the Phase 1. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.

48The use of boats is shown in the carvings from the Phase 2 at Zalavruga. One image shows two individuals in a boat holding or pulling a beluga by a line attached to the tail fin (Fig. 14a). The direction of the boat and the location of the whale’s body indicate the preparation to towing action, explaining why the boat is facing the whale.

49As with kill images, the Phase 3 contains the largest number and possibly the most interesting examples, of carvings showing the preparation to tow activity (Fig. 14b and c). Two carvings show one boat attached by a line to the tail of a whale while, however, the number of individuals on the boats differs dramatically, from one to twelve. The prows face the belugas, indicating preparation to tow rather than towing. Figure 16c is difficult to categorise since it shows neither hunting nor towing. The boat is too large to be used for hunting: it holds too many people, making the hunt dangerous (as explained above). Further, if we take into account the size of the whale and the humans, we see that the humans are too large in relation to the boat and the whale. I have included this carving in my analysis since, if we formally analyse the image, we see that the boat is facing the whale and the person at the front is holding a line attached to the beluga’s muscle area. Also significant is that the harpoon line is being folded, not stretched as in other all images: there is no tension in the line as there would be if it was pulling the whale. Interpretation varies from just a hunting scene (Savvateev 1970) to a scene of initiation (Gjerde 2016 after Stolar), where the younger members of the community (smaller individuals) join the adults (larger figures) in the boat and hunt for the whale. None of these explanations is based on the actual act of hunting for beluga, and I suggest that this scene is best considered as depicting the preparation to tow.

Fig. 14. Preparation to tow, image a is dated for the Phase 2; images b and c are dated for the Phase 3. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.

Fig. 14. Preparation to tow, image a is dated for the Phase 2; images b and c are dated for the Phase 3. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.

50The images of the hunt shown in Figure 15 come from the third phase and most likely represent the preparation to tow. In scene 15a, boat B is linked by a line to the harpoon lodged in the tail part of the beluga. The line is thrown by the individual positioned at the prow. It seems as if he or she has also released a second line but it has not reached the whale. Two other individuals are also present in the boat. The second boat A is connected to the cheek/snout part of the mammal. As in boat B, the person connected to the whale is the individual sitting at the front. We can see two people in boat A. The direction of both boats facing the whale indicates preparation to tow, rather than towing itself.

51In the Phase 4 we have only one carving related to whale hunting (Fig. 15b), and I suggest that this is one more scene depicting the preparation to tow. On the left at the front of the boat we see an individual holding a line attached to the lower part of heart/lung area, possibly delivering the kill. On the other side, we see another boat facing the beluga, attached by a line to the upper part of the tail region as well as possibly the tail itself. The location of the carving indicates the tail, even though its shape is not apparent. Overall, however, the carvings appear to represent a scene showing preparation to tow.

Fig. 15. Preparation to tow scenes, figure a is dated for the Phase 3; figure b is dated for the Phase 4. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.

Fig. 15. Preparation to tow scenes, figure a is dated for the Phase 3; figure b is dated for the Phase 4. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.

52Perhaps the most elaborate carvings showing the preparation to tow scene come from the Phase 3 and Phase 5 (Fig. 16a and 16b).

Fig. 16. Preparation to tow scenes, image a is dated for the Phase 3; image b is dated for the Phase 5. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.

Fig. 16. Preparation to tow scenes, image a is dated for the Phase 3; image b is dated for the Phase 5. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.

53The central image in Fig. 16a is a large, presumably adult whale accompanied by a smaller one by its right fin. This scene suggests a female adult accompanied by her calf. Boats B, C, D and E are connected by harpoon lines to the muscle area of the adult whale; none of the blows delivered by these boats would cause death. Only boat A, despite being the smallest, possibly delivered the kill. Boat A is connected to the lower part of the heart/lung zone of the whale, while boat F, located under the whale, could be related to the short line visible by the left side of the whale’s tail. The size of the whale is questionable since, if it is indeed a beluga, despite the shape of the carving, the number of lines attached to it at once is too large, and would have caused collisions between the boats. The person standing at the front of boat D is holding a line joined to the tail of the whale, suggesting preparation to tow. In boat B we can see eleven individuals, and eight in boat E. The important thing about this composition is its focus on the symbolic nature of the hunt. As in the Figure 16c, the number of individuals present in some of the boats is excessive to safely realise a successful kill and towing.

54The composition carved during the Phase 5 is the most complex and consists of scenes showing a number of different activities that comprise separate parts of the hunt (Fig. 16b). The first scene represents the preparation to tow. The person standing at the front of the biggest boat A delivers the kill above the beluga’s fin. There are also another three people on board. The smaller boat B has a line indicating a further blow to the head, or preparation to tow. The person in boat C appears to have released the line that is lodged in the muscle part of the whale. The line is broken, however, and consists of three parts: one held by the individual on the boat; one connected to the whale; and the third in the middle seen as broken from the two previous parts. It is difficult to assess the importance of the beluga carved above boat C, since it is not connected by any carving to any boat. On the other side of the whale we see another broken line leading to the heart/lung area, suggesting the kill. This is connected to boat D and the second scene in the composition.

55In the different part of this image, we see boats D and E being connected to the tail of the whale. It is difficult to conclude whether this is a scene of towing or preparation to tow. Although we see the prow of the boat D facing the whale, there is no indication of where boat E’s prow is located. Of particular interest are the lines extending above the prow of boat D, while at the same time there is another line starting from above the prow and ending at tail of the whale. The third line comes from boat D and extends to the carving connecting the prow and boat E.

Towing

56The only scene that we can attribute to the act of towing comes from the Phase 3 (Fig. 17).

Fig. 17. Tow scene, the carving is dated for the Phase 3. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.

Fig. 17. Tow scene, the carving is dated for the Phase 3. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.

57The carving of what has been described as a beluga (Savvateev 1970) is attached to the rear of a boat as if being tow ed behind. The carving is, however, unfortunately greatly damaged by weathering, so the interpretation of these figures is tentative at best.

Whaling and the rock art

58In summarising the prehistoric imagery at Zalavruga, we can see that the techniques portrayed in the carvings are not the same as shown in historical and ethnographic records for the region, except scenes of preparation to tow or towing. Further, contrary to assumptions made in the archaeological literature, they do not focus on the killing of the whales (Gjerde 2016; Savvatejev 1970). The rock art shows the complex process of the hunt, and the largest amount of imagery relates to the process of towing the whale (Fig. 14c).

59In general the overwhelming majority of the kill images focus on the actions of single individuals and single boats, where the act of killing has been successful. Only one unsuccessful kill is shown, relating to the image of a beluga silhouette which was not attached to the boat from which the harpoon was thrown.

60Some of the images exaggerate the size of the beluga in the relation to the boats. Belugas in the White Sea belong to a smaller variety than those in other parts of the world (O’Corry-Crowe et al. 2000; Stewart & Stewart 1989). In most cases this is not reflected in the carvings. We cannot necessarily expect that prehistoric carvers kept the proportions between boats, whales and humans correct. This was not important in conveying the visual narrative of the carvings.

61Highlighting particular individuals in the kill scenes is in contrast to scenes that depict preparation to tow. The number of scenes involving multiple engagements of boats is equal to those showing the kill. Half of these carvings show at the same time the engagements of boats and individuals in the act of a kill. These are the most complex not only visually, but also in terms of showing the engagement of a number community members at once.

Community construction and the whale

62Carvings of whales on one hand provide us with visual clues concentrating on individuals and their achievements in successful hunts, while on the other acts as visual clues of the practices that brings community members together. From staying silent, killing the whale, cutting and consuming the meat, using bones to makes tools, etc. create the relationship of praxis where the whale is a center of community construction (Janik 2018, 2019). These collective actions can be seen as part of realistic depictions (preparation to tow) as well as being visualised with the use of ‘artistic licence’. I suggest that these symbolic portrayals of the preparation to tow with or without a kill is a part of the visual story-telling, in which community members can be seen as joint participants in the activity of the whale hunt, where the whale is the center of the story.

63The significances of the hunt itself, as I have illustrated by ethnographic examples, might not be accessible to us due to the complexity of related identities and meanings, for example where the wife is regarded as the good hunter and the husband just kills the whale. We should look for the diversity of interpretations the prehistoric carvings allow us to pursue. These scenes are much richer in the stories they tell than is reflected in historical or ethnographic examples. They are not about the kill per se: rather they are about the community and its members’ practices. Furthermore , these carvings give tangible visual clues about techniques vital in the deep-sea exploitation of whales, including the use of harpoons and floats. Without them we cannot understand the origins of the technical know-how used until today.

Conclusion

64By employing different strands of rock art interpretation—including traditional indigenous knowledge, ethnographic and historical evidence—in looking for visual clues, this paper shows the complexity and the need of a combined approach in the understanding of whaling as an activity carried out over millennia. The White Sea carvings are witness to the long history of deep-sea exploitation of whales using harpoons and floats, depictions of which provide visual clues as to the possible symbolic and social significance of these practices in antiquity. The use of numerous boats, with many individuals in them, and the location of the harpoons attached to the belugas’ bodies, indicate the symbolic visualisation rather than the actual kill which would end the whale’s life. Moreover, by approaching the rock art from the perspective of the whale hunt as a multipart activity performed by one or a number of community members at once, this paper has proposed a new interpretation of whale hunting, based on the identification of different elements of the hunt, including the kill itself to the process of towing. In all of this, of course, we must recognise that some aspects of the hunt may never be accessible to archaeologists, but we cannot allow this to constrain our interpretations.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Alekseeva, Y. I., Panova, E. M. & Belkovich, V. M. 2013. “Behavioral and acoustical characteristics of the reproductive gathering of Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in the

vicinity of Myagostrov, Golyi Sosnovets, and Roganka Islands (Onega Bay, the White Sea)”, Biology Bulletin, no. 40(3): 307–317. Original russian text © published in Izvestiya Akademii Nauk, Seriya Biologicheskaya, no. 3: 345–356. 920130. doi:10.1134/S1062359013030023.

Belikov, S. E. & Boltunov, A. N. 2001. “The ringed seal (Phoca hispida) in the western Russian Arctic”, NAMMCO Scientific Publications, no. 1: 63–82.

Belkovitch, V. M. & Shekotov, M. N. 1993. The Belukha Whale: Natural Behavior and Bioacustics, translated by M. A. Svanidze, edited by J. C. Haney & C. Recchia C. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. DOI:10.1575/1912/75

Bodernhorn, B. 1990. “‘I’m Not the Great Hunter, My Wife Is’: Iñupiat and anthropological models of gender”, Études/Inuit/Studies, no. 14(1/2): 55–74.

Chernetsky, A. D., Krasnova, V. V. & Bel’kovich, V. M. 2011. “Studies of the structure of the Solovetsky reproductive gathering of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in the White Sea using the photo identification method”, Oceanology, no. 51(2): 275–280. Original russian text © published in Okeanologiya, 2011, no. 51(2): 286–292.

Friedman, W. R. 2006. “Environmental adaptations of the beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas)”, Cognitive Science, no. 143 (accessed PDF 12 April 2017).

Gjerde, J. M. 2016. “Marine ventures in Stone Age rock art of Fennoscandia”, in: H. B. Bjerck et al. (eds), Marine ventures: archaeological perspectives on human-sea relations, Sheffield, Equinox Publishing: 337–354.

Janik, L. 2010. “The development and periodisation of White Sea rock art carvings”, Acta Archaeologica, no. 81: 83–94.

—. 2017. “Rock art as an independent evidence of prehistoric marine hunting”, in: Sangmog Lee (ed.), Whale on the Rock, Ulsan, Ulsan Petroglyph Museum: 169–182.

—. 2018. “The unique and the common: The rock art of the White Sea”, in: L. Janik (ed.), Rock Art of the White Sea, Uslan, Uslan Petroglyph Museum (in English and Korean): 52–68.

—. 2019. “The ontology of praxis: hard memory and the rock art of the White Sea”, Time and Mind, no. 12(3): 207–219.

—. 2020 The Archaeology of Seeing. Science and interpretation, the past and the contemporary visual art, London/New York, Routledge.

Krasnova, V. V., Chernetsky, A. D. & Kirillova, O. I. 2012. “The dynamics of the abundance, age, and sex structure of the Solovetsky reproductive gathering of the beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas (Onega Bay, White Sea)”, Russian Journal of Marine Biology, no. 38(3): 218–225. Original russian text © published in Biologiya Morya.

Lee, S. 2011. Chasseurs de baleines. La frise de Bangudae, Paris, Errance.

Likhachev, V. A. 2010. Kanozero: portret v prostranstve i vremeni. Kolskiy Sbornik. IIMK RAN. Sant-Petersburg.

—. 2018. “Kanozero petroglyphs as a part of the White Sea rock art tradition of the sea mammal hunters”, in: L. Janik (ed.), Rock Art of the White Sea, Uslan, Uslan Petroglyph Museum (in English and Korean): 168–176.

Lucier, C. V. & Vanstone, J. W. 1995. “Traditional Beluga Drives of the Iñupiat of Kotzebue Sound, Alaska”, Fieldiana. Anthropology, new series no. 25.

Maksimov, S. V. 2014. God na Severe, Moskva, Direkt-Media.

Martin, A. 1996. Beluga whales, Stillwater, Voyager Press.

Morseth, M. 1997. “Twentieth-century changes in beluga whale hunting and butchering by the Kaŋiġmiut of Buckland, Alaska”, Arctic, no. 50(3): 241–255.

Nilssen, K. T., Haug, T., Potelov, V., Stasenkov, V. A. & Timoshenko, Y. K. 1995. “Food habits of harp seals (Phoca groenlandica) during lactation and moult in March-May in the southern Barents Sea and White Sea”, ICES Journal of Marine Science, no. 52(1): 33–41.

O’Corry-Crowe, G., Suydam, R., Quakenbush, L., Smith, T. G., Lydersen, C., Kovacs, K. M., Orr, J., Harwood, L., Litovka, D. & Ferrer, T. 2000. “Group structure and kinship in beluga whale societies”, Scientific Reports, no. 10, 11462. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67314-w.

Potelov, V. A. 1998. “Pinnipeds. Cetacea”, in: N. M. Polezhaev, V. A. Potelov, A. N. Petrov, A. N. Pistin, N. D. Neifeld, S. M. Sokolsky & B. N. Turnin (eds), Fauna of the European Northeast of Russia, vol. 2(2) Mammals: 7–32, 190–242.

Ravdanikas, V. I. 1938. Naskalnye izobrazhenia Belogo Moria, vol 2, Moscow/Leningrad, Academy of Sciences Press of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Savvateev, Y. A. 1970. Zalavruga, Petroglify, Leningrad, Nauka.

Stewart, B. E. & Stewart, R. E. A. 1989. “Delphinapterus leucas”, Mammalian Species no. 336: 1-8.

Svetochev, V. N. & Svetocheva, O. N. 2013. “Summer migration activity of the beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas in Dvina Bay, the White Sea”, Doklady Biological Science, no. 448: 17–21. Original russian text © published in Doklady Akademii Nauk, no. 448(1): 113–117. DOI:10.1134/S0012496613010031.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1. White Sea rock art. Triangle: Onega lake; circle: the estuary of the Vig river; square: the islands of Kanozero lake at the Kola Peninsula.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/nda/docannexe/image/13517/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 328k
Titre Fig. 2. The distribution of beluga whale in the Northern Hemisphere and the locations of rock art sites in the White Sea region numbered in chronological order. 1/ Erpin Pudas III, 2/ Besovy Sledki South (S), 3/ Besovy Sledki South (N), 4/ Erpin Pudas I North (N), 5/ Erpin Pudas II, 6/ Erpin Pudas IV, 7/ Erpin Pudas I South (S), 8/ Nameless Islands IV, 9/ Nameless Islands III, 10/ Zalavruga, 11/ Nameless Islands I, 12/ Zolatec, 13/ Nameless Islands II South (S), 14/ Nameless Islands II North (N).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/nda/docannexe/image/13517/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 727k
Titre Tab 1. Dating of the rock art (Janik 2010).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/nda/docannexe/image/13517/img-3.png
Fichier image/png, 389k
Titre Fig. 3. Schematic illustrations of traditional hunting techniques with the use of nets: 1) hunting at sea; 2) pulling belugas to the shore.
Crédits Janik 2017, Fig. 5.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/nda/docannexe/image/13517/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 578k
Titre Fig. 4. Seasonal movement of belugas in the While Sea basin (amended after Svetochev & Svetocheva 2013). The location of the White Sea rock art complex is marked by the dot, while the Kanozero rock art is marked by the square.
Crédits Janik 2017, Fig. 4.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/nda/docannexe/image/13517/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,3M
Titre Fig. 5. Two specific areas of beluga’s body (defined); heart/lung and two centimetres below the blowhole. Whale towing directions, by the tail, by the face/snout area of the head.
Crédits Janik 2017; Fig. 6.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/nda/docannexe/image/13517/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 606k
Titre Fig. 6. Harpoons in the carvings of: a) Besovy Sledki, Russia; b) Kanozero, Russia; c) Bangudae, Korea.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/nda/docannexe/image/13517/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,3M
Titre Tab. 2. Number of carving according to different elements of the hunt at Besovy Sledki and Zalavruga.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/nda/docannexe/image/13517/img-8.png
Fichier image/png, 459k
Titre Fig. 7. Single boat carvings. Images a and b are dated for the Phase 2, Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex
URL http://journals.openedition.org/nda/docannexe/image/13517/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 607k
Titre Fig. 8. Multiple boat carvings. Images a and b are dated for the Phase 3. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/nda/docannexe/image/13517/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 676k
Titre Fig. 9. Single boat successful whale kill carvings. Figures a, b, c, d are dated for the Phase 3. Figure e is dated for the Phase 5. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/nda/docannexe/image/13517/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 675k
Titre Fig. 10. Scenes of kill or preparation to tow carvings, figure a is dated for the Phase 2; figure b is dated for the Phase 3. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/nda/docannexe/image/13517/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 362k
Titre Fig. 11. The preparation to tow scene. The carving is dated for 5,557 – 5,379 yr BP. Besovy Sledki, White Sea rock art.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/nda/docannexe/image/13517/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,3M
Titre Fig. 12. Preparation to tow carvings. Image a, dated for the Phase 1, Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex, amended after P. Saila, Epic Whale Hunt (2015). Image b, re-drawn and amended by K. Szczęsna.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/nda/docannexe/image/13517/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 777k
Titre Fig. 13. Preparation to tow or the towing scenes. Both images a and b are dated for the Phase 1. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/nda/docannexe/image/13517/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 606k
Titre Fig. 14. Preparation to tow, image a is dated for the Phase 2; images b and c are dated for the Phase 3. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/nda/docannexe/image/13517/img-16.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 670k
Titre Fig. 15. Preparation to tow scenes, figure a is dated for the Phase 3; figure b is dated for the Phase 4. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/nda/docannexe/image/13517/img-17.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 701k
Titre Fig. 16. Preparation to tow scenes, image a is dated for the Phase 3; image b is dated for the Phase 5. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/nda/docannexe/image/13517/img-18.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 421k
Titre Fig. 17. Tow scene, the carving is dated for the Phase 3. Zalavruga, White Sea rock art complex.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/nda/docannexe/image/13517/img-19.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 180k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Dr Liliana Janik, « Visual narratives and the depiction of whaling in north European rock art: the case of the White Sea »Les nouvelles de l'archéologie, 166 | 2022, 51-63.

Référence électronique

Dr Liliana Janik, « Visual narratives and the depiction of whaling in north European rock art: the case of the White Sea »Les nouvelles de l'archéologie [En ligne], 166 | 2022, mis en ligne le , consulté le 28 mars 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/nda/13517 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/nda.13517

Haut de page

Auteur

Dr Liliana Janik

Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge. lj102@cam.ac.uk

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search