2008/12/01 by Chilla Bulbeck, Sandra Bowdler · 7 citations
Health Professions · Earth and Planetary Sciences · Social Sciences · #Indigenous Studies and Ecology #Archaeology and ancient environmental studies #Pacific and Southeast Asian Studies #Whale #Whaling #Indigenous #Livelihood #Opposition (politics) #Human settlement #Fishery #Geography #Political science #Ethnology #History #Agriculture #Archaeology #Law #Ecology #Biology
paper · doi:10.1080/03122417.2018.12033732
published in Australian Archaeology 67(1), 53-60 (Taylor & Francis)
openalex publication_date 2008/12/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/06/11
The intense debates between whale-hunting and whale-protecting nations (such as Japan and Iceland versus Australia and the USA) reveal the difficulties of communication between those who derive a livelihood from the products of the environment and those who wish to preserve it, but who do not always live in the same locale. This is demonstrated with a review of some Australian instances of relations between those in the conservation movement and 'locals' on the ground, including Indigenous Australians. In relation to whaling, in particular the pilot whale drive in the Faroe islands, after opposing it fervently in the early 1980s, Greenpeace has withdrawn its opposition. In particular, Greenpeace was persuaded by claims that pilot whale hunting (Grindadráp) was a 'traditional' activity. The archaeological evidence for whale hunting and eating whale meat in the Faroes and other Norse settlements is discussed, followed by an analysis of the resolution of the disagreement between Greenpeace and the Faroes government.