Abstract
Humans have altered marine ecosystems over very long-time scales and historical data is often needed to understand the true magnitude of human impacts. The Southwest Atlantic Ocean has a long history of large-scale removal of marine vertebrates due to whaling, sealing, and fishing in the past three centuries. Historical catch records are crucial in assessing the conservation status of these historically over-exploited populations and setting suitable recovery goals. However, several gaps in the history of exploitation of many populations limit our ability to judge recoveries success. This study examines the history of the Spanish fishing company, the Real Compañía Marítima (Royal Maritime Company), and reconstructs its catches of marine mammals in Patagonia and on the north coast of the Río de la Plata. The analysis of a wide range of historical sources reveals that, between the years 1790 and 1804, the Company extracted less than 100 southern right whales Eubalaena australis, some 200,000 South American fur seals Arctocephalus australis and South American sea lions Otaria flavescens, and a few southern elephant seals Mirounga leonina. Although the Company’s whale catch is negligible compared to that of other nations in the same whaling grounds, the amount of fur seals and sea lions removed from the ecosystem deserves attention. This historical survey provides us with the first estimate of the catches made by the Real Compañía Marítima. However, these figures only represent a small part of the extractive activities that took place in the region and further research is encouraged to assess the true dimension of human impacts on Southwest Atlantic ecosystems. The incorporation of retrospective data into ecological studies can be laborious and may have inherent biases, but it also provides valuable information for comprehending modern ecosystems and formulating appropriate conservation plans.
Keywords
Introduction
The Southwest Atlantic Ocean (Figure 1a) has a long history of large-scale removal of marine vertebrates due to whaling, sealing, and fishing activities carried out between late 18th and mid 20th centuries. As consequence of hunting, populations of southern right whales Eubalaena australis, southern elephant seals Mirounga leonina, South American fur seals Arctocephalus australis, and South American sea lions Otaria flavescens were heavily reduced from the South Atlantic waters. By the 20th century, these species were legally protected throughout almost their entire range in the South Atlantic. The capture of right whales was internationally prohibited in 1935 (Gambell, 1993). Hunting of pinnipeds was banned in most countries of South America between 1920s and 1970s; although the Uruguayan Government continued to kill sea lions until the mid-1980s and fur seals until 1991 (Bastida et al., 2007). After the implementation of these and others conservation measures, most marine mammal populations have begun to increase in number but are still far from their historical abundances (Baylis et al., 2015, 2019; Crespo et al., 2015, 2019; Ferrari et al., 2013; Franco-Trecu et al., 2019; Romero et al., 2017, 2022; but see Franco-Trecu et al., 2015). Currently, these four species are listed as Least Concern on the List of Threatened Species (the Red List) of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN], 2023). However, the lack of historical reference points often makes it difficult to assess the magnitude and success of recovery of these previously over-exploited populations (Jackson et al., 2001; Lotze et al., 2011).
Maps of the study area. (a) The Southwest Atlantic coast with geographical references mentioned in the text. The areas delimited by the white dashed line rectangles are enlarged in the images on the right. (b) Detail of the north coast of the Río de la Plata (Maldonado Department, Uruguay). (c) Detail of the Patagonian coast (Santa Cruz province, Argentina). Images modified from Google Earth Pro.
Retrospective data (i.e. prehistoric and historical) is relevant for understanding human impacts on marine animal populations and ecosystems; and can be used to estimate quantitative baselines for historically exploited marine animals and to provide perspective on past ecosystem states (Braje and Rick, 2011; Erlandson et al., 2015; Jackson et al., 2001; Lotze et al., 2011; McClenachan et al., 2012; Rick et al., 2009, 2011). Two notable examples demonstrate the utilization of historical data in assessing the population dynamics of overexploited marine mammals in the Southwest Atlantic Ocean. Firstly, the catch history of southern right whales from 1670 to 1973 has been reconstructed using different literature sources (Romero et al., 2022). Secondly, information on leather exports has been employed to estimate the annual harvest of sea lions along the northern and central Patagonian coast between 1929 and 1960 (Romero et al., 2017). Nevertheless, catch records frequently suffer from imprecision or incompleteness, both in terms of accurately identifying the hunted species and determining where they were obtained. Moreover, catch records are not always available, and even when they do exist, they are often fragmented and scattered, resulting in gaps in the reconstruction of historical catches. These challenges, characterized by the inaccuracy, lack of records and dispersed documentation, are particularly prominent when examining the killing of pinnipeds from the late 18th to the early 20th centuries (Dickinson, 2007; Richards, 1993; Soluri, 2013). Limited information has survived from that period, as those who benefited from hunting marine mammals rarely disclosed the locations of their successful harvests. The intense commercial competition resulted in a protective secrecy surrounding valuable capture spots, often involving the deliberate spread of misleading information and even the falsification of routes. In fact, it was common for such data to remain concealed (Piana, 2006).
During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the Real Compañía Marítima (Royal Maritime Company), a Spanish fishing company specializing in whaling and sealing, operated in Patagonia and along the northern coast of the Río de la Plata with the support of the Spanish Crown. While certain aspects of the Company’s history have been examined and occasional catch data have been documented (e.g. Deodat, 1945; Díaz de Guerra, 2003; D’Ambrosio, 2014; Fernández Díaz and Martínez Shaw, 1991; González Echegaray, 1978; Lenzi, 1980; Ratto, 1984 [1943]; Silva, 1978), no comprehensive effort has been made to reconstruct the overall catch of marine mammals. The lack of information and the scattered nature of available records are likely the primary reasons why a detailed reconstruction of the Company’s catch has not been undertaken. The poor-quality record-keeping of the Company’s catches could be attributed to the inefficient administration during its early years and the disruption of its operations caused by war (Silva, 1978).
This study delves into the history of the Real Compañía Marítima, undertaking a comprehensive reconstruction of its marine mammal catches through the analysis of various dispersed historical sources. Furthermore, the ultimate goal of this research is to provide valuable insights and new information that will contribute to the advancement of reconstructing the historical abundance levels of over-exploited marine mammals in the Southwest Atlantic Ocean.
A brief historical overview and the evolution of the Real Compañía Marítima
During the 18th century in Spain, under the Bourbon reforms, the monarchy promoted various fishing projects to take advantage on the abundant marine resources of Spanish America. The Crown promoted the revival of the fishing industry in order to counter the dominance of the English in the supply of salted fish, primarily sourced from the fishing banks of Acadia and Newfoundland. These territories were ceded by the Spanish Monarchy with the signing of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 (Fernández Díaz and Martínez Shaw, 1991; Silva, 1978). The magnitude of the problem was so significant that, due to domestic shortages and the decline in national fishing activities, Spain had to rely heavily on imported salted cod and whale and seal oil, particularly from England. With the contradiction that England was able to obtain many of these resources in seas that theoretically belonged to Spain (Silva, 1978). In this way, the interests of the Spanish Crown were focused on the coasts of Patagonia, where the productive aspect could be complemented by political aspects such as territoriality, colonization, and defense of waters considered to be under its exclusive domain against foreign powers, primarily England (Silva, 1978).
In this context, on 19 September 1789, King Carlos IV of Spain established the Real Compañía Marítima with the purpose of acquiring salted fish, whale products, and seal products in the seas under his domain (King Carlos IV of Spain, 1789). While the Company conducted its political-administrative activities at its headquarters in Madrid and regional branches located in various port cities of the Iberian Peninsula (e.g. Santander, La Coruña, Cádiz), whaling and sealing operations took place in the waters of the Southwest Atlantic Ocean (Silva, 1978). The factories were established in Patagonia (Puerto Deseado and Isla de los Reyes–currently Pingüino Island–; Province of Santa Cruz, Argentina; Figure 1c) and on the northern coast of the Río de la Plata (Maldonado town, Gorriti Island, Punta Ballena and Lobos Island; Maldonado Department, Uruguay; Figure 1b) (Martínez Shaw, 2008; Silva, 1978).
The Company’s stations processed the whales for their oil and baleen, and the pinnipeds for their oil and skins. Based on the methods and technology reported in literature (Sañéz Reguart, 1792), the whaling operations carried out by the Company can be classified as Basque style (Reeves and Smith, 2006). The Basque method is characterized by the use of open-boats, hand and sail propelled, deployed from shore or from ships along shore or in bays; hand-harpoon whaling; whales either towed to shore for processing, or stripped of blubber at sea, with blubber stowed on-board ships and delivered to processing sites on shore (Reeves and Smith, 2006). On the other hand, sealing took place on the islands. It involved the separation and encirclement of seal groups, followed by killing them with blows to the head using wooden clubs topped with a small iron weight (Sañéz Reguart, 1793; Figure 2).
Hunting of fur seals and sea lions carried out by workers of the Real Compañía Marítima on the Pingüino Island, ca. 1791 (taken from Sañéz Reguart, 1793, t.4, lám XXI).
During the Company’s operations, the factories faced various challenges and restrictions in whale hunting. Consequently, the focus shifted primarily to the hunting of fur seals and sea lions, which proved to be more productive and profitable. Sealing activities required fewer industrial resources compared to whaling and offered the convenience of being conducted on land, thanks to the proximity of seal colonies to the establishments (Silva, 1978).
Despite the weak production structure of the Company, some products were shipped to Spain; however, the commercial operations did not yield the expected success. Various internal factors, including the Company’s constitution for multiple purposes, inadequate planning, administrative and logistical issues, as well as poor execution of activities, along with external factors such as the River Plate idiosyncrasy and the Anglo-Spanish War (1796–1802), influenced the failure of this venture (Martínez Shaw, 2008; Silva, 1978). Consequently, on 10 July 1803, the dissolution of the Real Compañía Marítima was decreed.
Methods
The catch history of the Company was reconstructed by combining information from various sources (historical documents, early 19th century newspapers, scientific articles and books). Bibliographic items were researched in both physical and electronic formats, utilizing web searches with various combinations of keywords related to the Real Compañía Marítima (e.g. exploited resources, names of individuals, locations, vessels, and dates). Electronic archives such as Google Scholar and Books, as well as libraries and digital newspaper libraries, were accessed. From the bibliographic sources, all records containing qualitative or quantitative information regarding the exploitation of marine mammals, along with their corresponding locations, dates, and any other relevant details, were extracted.
The records were categorized according to the species or taxonomic groups and their origin, and then arranged chronologically. The common names of marine mammals found in Spanish texts were attributed to the following species: “Ballenas” = southern right whale (E. australis), “lobos marinos” = South American fur seal (A. australis), “leones marinos” = South American sea lion (O. flavescens), and “elefantes” = southern elephant seal (M. leonina). However, it was also considered that the Spanish term “lobos marinos” could be used in a broader sense to refer to both species of otariid or “eared seals” (i.e. A. australis and O. flavescens; see Discussion).
Two geographical areas were taken into account corresponding to the locations of the Company’s two factories and their respective areas of influence: the “Patagonian coast” (between 42° and 48°S, including Pingüino Island and Puerto Deseado; Argentina; Figure 1c) and the “Northern coast of the Río de la Plata” (Punta Ballena, Maldonado Bay, Gorriti, and Lobos islands; Uruguay; Figure 1b). On the other hand, there are several records regarding the transportation and storage of products (such as skin, oil, and baleen) where the origin of the kills could not be determined. This is particularly true for certain figures derived from the record of skins of fur seals and sea lions. These skins were either stored on Gorriti Island, shipped to Spain, or transported from the port of Maldonado to Montevideo, without specific references to the seal colony from which they originated (i.e. Pingüino or Lobos islands). These records have been grouped into a third category named as “Records of shipments and storage of products of uncertain origin.”
Quantitative records, including the number of captured whales, baleen yields, or the count of fur seal and sea lion skins obtained, were utilized to estimate the minimum number of animals captured. In order to reconstruct the whale catch, the number of whales “struck and lost” was taken into consideration (Richards, 1993; Vighi et al., 2021). To account for the worst-case scenario, a maximum lost rate similar to the global rate calculated for right whale species during the years 1783–1898 was assumed (LRmax = 1.46; based on the International Whaling Commission (1986) in Vighi et al. (2021). Consequently, the total estimate of the whale catch is derived by multiplying the data obtained from historical records by 1.46 to account for “struck and lost” whales. Furthermore, the reports on baleen yields were converted into individuals using the estimates provided by the Company Commissioner (e.g. 20 whales could yield 100 quintals of baleen; Supplemental Information S1, available online), while considering the weight measurement equivalences of that period (Barba, 1999).
Regarding fur seals and sea lions, the recorded figures of seal skins were considered as the minimum number of animals killed by the sealers. However, these figures may increase when taking into account unrecorded seal catches. In addition to potential gaps in the written records, unregistered skins could arise from the following sources: (i) skins that were spoiled during the skinning process or while in storage awaiting shipment. The exact number of wasted skins is generally unknown, but according to Richards (2003), it would be reasonable to consider a minimum of 10–15%; (ii) seals killed solely for their oil, such as in the case of sea lions, whose skins were not as highly valued as those of fur seals; (iii) skins used for domestic purposes, specifically for covering the Company’s buildings (such as salting sheds, warehouses, barracks, and houses) in Puerto Deseado and Pingüino Island (Martínez Shaw, 2008). Therefore, in the total estimation, a margin was allowed to account for these unrecorded skins.
Given that the Company’s operation and production were influenced by the political and economic circumstances of the time, when necessary, a brief historical context is provided. Furthermore, relevant historical quotes containing data were translated from Spanish to English, while the original Spanish quotes can be found in the Supplemental Information S2, available online.
Results
Patagonian coast (1790–1798)
On 26 February 1790, the expedition of the Company aboard the frigates El Rey Carlos and La Reina Luisa reached and settled in Puerto Deseado (Figure 1c). In early March 1790, after a few days, hunting activities for pinnipeds commenced on Pingüino Island (Braun Menéndez, 1947; Deodat, 1945; Figure 2). On the other hand, whaling was limited by the inexperience and the lack of adequate tools for the development of the industry (Silva, 1978). After suffering great dangers and material losses, they managed to harpoon four whales, of which only one calf was killed and processed in the San José Gulf, the remaining three whales were struck and lost (Sañéz Reguart, 1792). As a result of these tasks, on 23 October 1790, the frigate El Rey Carlos was dispatched from Puerto Deseado to Spain loaded with “100 pipes of blubber and 10000 skins” (Deodat, 1945; Supplemental Information S2 #1, available online). The frigate made a stopover in the Río de la Plata, where it completed its cargo with skins (presumably bovine hides) taken from the squares of Buenos Aires and Montevideo. Then, set sail from Maldonado on 3 August 1791, and arrived in Santander on 25 October 1791 loaded “in much of the oil and skins of those amphibious” (Deodat, 1945; González Echegaray, 1978; Supplemental Information S2 #2, available online).
Sealing activities on Pingüino Island continued in 1791, as indicated by the recorded partial figures of approximately 600 seals killed (Silva, 1978, 1985). However, no cargo records or other information is available for this year. Based on the available data, it is plausible that the production from 1791 was accumulated and shipped in the subsequent year, coinciding with the Company’s recorded shipments of skins from Puerto Deseado.
By 1792, the Company made three shipments from Puerto Deseado. The first shipment is registered on 31 March, when the schooners Lobo Marino and Ballena set sail with cargo for Maldonado (Deodat, 1945; Lenzi, 1980; Supplemental Information S2 #3, available online). During their stopover at this port, the schooners loaded 1290 baleen and then continued sailing course to La Coruña port (Deodat, 1945). Complementarily, data from the export records made at the port of Montevideo seem to refer to this same shipment, although without mentioning the name of the ships. According to this, in 1792 two vessels belonging to the Company departed from Montevideo to La Coruña with a cargo of “17,561 seal skins, 35 lion skins, 3602 viertels of seal blubber, 534 viertels of whale blubber and 200 arrobas of whale baleen” (Azara, 1850; Bertocchi Morán, 1986; Silva, 1985, 1993; Supplemental Information S2 #4, available online). A second and third shipment is recorded, respectively, in May and October, both made by the schooner La Unión, carrying “some whale blubber and seal skins, cargo of skins and seal oil” (Deodat, 1945; Supplemental Information S2 #5, available online). According to Deodat (1945), it is possible that these two shipments had transported the 11,467 seal skins, later marketed in Maldonado and Montevideo with a profit of 3631 pesos (also in Lenzi, 1980).
In 1793, the focus was primarily on the reorganization and planning of the Company, although some industrial tasks were still being carried out (Silva, 1978, 1985). On June 13, the schooner La Unión set sail from Puerto Deseado carrying “skins, seal blubber and salt” (Deodat, 1945; Supplemental Information S2 #6, available online). No quantitative data was found for this year.
In the next 2 years, the schooner La Unión registered two more trips departing from the Patagonian station to Maldonado Bay. On 28 September 1794, she anchored in the port of Maldonado, carrying a cargo of “10,161 seal skins” and “37 casks of seal oil” (Lenzi, 1980; Supplemental Information S2 #7, available online). On 13 February 1795, the schooner left Puerto Deseado to Gorriti Island loaded with “11,098 salted skins of fur seal and sea lion” and “29 sacks of seal oil” (Lenzi, 1980; Supplemental Information S2 #8, available online).
The final recorded cargo from the Patagonian station dates back to the year 1796. The schooner Lobo Marino left Puerto Deseado in May and anchored in Maldonado Bay on June 4 with “15,000 salted skins of pinniped” and “100 casks of oil” (Lenzi, 1980; Silva, 1978, 1985; Supplemental Information S2 #9, available online). On the return journey, most of the factory workers embarked due to the scarcity of food they experienced in the colony. Only five individuals and the military detachment remained at the Patagonian station (Silva, 1978).
In addition, the historical studies of Cappa (1893) and Díaz de Guerra (2003) reveal extracts of an anonymous and undated text (probably written ca. 1795), from which the annual production of the different factories of the Company can be sourced. Regarding Puerto Deseado, it is mentioned: “So far, the only thing that the island of Reyes [Pingüino Island] has produced for the Company’s establishment in Puerto Deseado has been about 60 pipes of blubber, and from 10 to 12,000 skins a year” (Cappa, 1893; Supplemental Information S2 #10, available online). Based on this information, an estimated 70,000–84,000 seals were hunted between 1790 and 1796, aligning with the cargo data obtained from the vessels mentioned above.
Data is limited during the period of the armed conflict between Spain and Great Britain, which took place from August 1796 to March 1802 and primarily unfolded in the Atlantic Ocean. The outbreak of war effectively halted the company’s operations and disrupted communication between Puerto Deseado, Río de la Plata, and Spain (Martínez Shaw, 2008; Silva, 1978). The voyage diary of the North American Ebenezer Townsend, aboard his sealing ship Neptune (Capt. Daniel Greene), provides some information about the operation of the factory in Puerto Deseado during the season 1797–1798. According to this, in September 1797: “On their first arrival on the coast they [Captains Greene and Bunker] found a few Spaniards sealing on an island [Pingüino Island], near the mouth of Port Desire River” (Townsend, 1888). In a second visit, between 1 January and 16 February 1798, the Neptune made an agreement with the authorities of the Company for sealing on Pingüino Island. According to Townsend (1888), the Company’s productive activities were in charge of a commissioner and about 20 men for sealing, who performed tasks in an “indolent manner.” In addition, the exchange of products obtained by the Company with a crewmember of the Neptune is mentioned: “Our carpenter has contrived to purchase toward 200 skins and paid but trifling in old clothes and trifles” (Townsend, 1888).
Afterward, little information is available regarding seal hunting and the storage of products, if any took place. The Patagonian station experienced a decline, enduring hardships due to shortages and isolation resulting from the war. Following the signing of the Peace of Amiens on 25 March 1802, there was an attempt to revive activity in Puerto Deseado, but it did not yield the expected outcome. Finally, on 10 July 1803, the Company’s extinction was officially declared (Martínez Shaw, 2008; Silva, 1978).
Based on the analysis conducted thus far, it can be determined that the Company only captured one calf and three whales were struck and lost in the waters of Patagonia. Regarding the seals (Table 1), data obtained from the vessels’ cargoes strongly suggest that no fewer than 75,287 seals were hunted on Pingüino Island during the period of 1790–1796. The missing data for the cargo of the schooner La Unión in 1793 can be estimated by considering the annual production figures provided by Cappa (1893), which indicate an additional 10,000–12,000 skins. Information becomes scarce during the final phase of the Company between May 1796 and July 1803, being the only record the acquisition of 200 skins by a crew member of the Neptune (Figure 3). Hence, when taking into account unrecorded seal skins as well, it is reasonable to estimate that approximately 100,000 fur seals and sea lions were hunted during the Company’s operations in Patagonia.
Skins of fur seals and sea lions obtained on Pingüino Island and dispatched from Puerto Deseado by the Real Compañía Marítima between the years 1790 and 1798.
Note. †According to the sources of the time, the estimated annual production for Pingüino Island was 10,000–12,000 skins of fur seals and sea lions.
Seal skins obtained in Patagonia (black) and the northern coast of the Río de la Plata (white) by the Real Compañía Marítima between the years 1790 and 1803.
Northern coast of the Río de la Plata (1790–1803)
Since its inception, the Company used the town of Maldonado on the north coast of the Río de la Plata to support its activities on the Patagonian coast, but gradually, the advantages of this port became evident. Maldonado is close to the port cities of Montevideo and Buenos Aires, it has a pleasant climate, seal colonies are nearby, and in the late 18th century, whales were abundant in Maldonado Bay (Liniers ‘Conde de’, ca. 1791; Martínez Shaw, 2008; Silva, 1978). In the winter of 1790, the frigate El Rey Carlos arrived in Maldonado, coming from Puerto Deseado, and harpooned four whales in the bay. According to Sañéz Reguart (1792), “In the Bay of Maldonado, our people harpooned four not very large whales: the three were caught, and each gave 22 pipes of blubber. The other could not be collected, because the harpoon broke” (Sañéz Reguart, 1792; Supplemental Information S2 #11, available online).
By 1791, the Company captured between 12 and more than 30 whales –variable figures depending on the source consulted– in the waters off Maldonado. According to Company letters dated 18 November 1791: “it is known that 12 other whales have been caught in the same Bay [of Maldonado]” (Sañéz Reguart, 1792; Supplemental Information S2 #12, available online). On the other hand, a memorial written by the Count Enrique de Liniers to the Count Floridablanca circa late winter 1791, states: “The whales retreat to this [Maldonado port] in winter and in 1791 more than 30 could be captured” (Liniers ‘Conde de’, ca. 1791; Supplemental Information S2 #13, available online).
In mid-1792, the Company relocated its operations center from Puerto Deseado to Maldonado Bay. The new station, established on Gorriti Island, served as the administrative hub of the enterprise and the storage facility for processed goods destined for shipment to Spain. Moreover, sealing activities commenced on Lobos Island while whaling operations continued in Maldonado Bay (Martínez Shaw, 2008; Silva, 1978). As mentioned about, the schooners Lobo Marino and Ballena loaded 1290 baleen at Maldonado and then sailed to Spain (Deodat, 1945).
Although data is scarce between the years 1793 and 1796, the exploitation of marine mammals seems to have continued on a regular basis. The year 1793 was mainly destined to the reorganization of the Company (Silva, 1978). In 1794, the Company managed to catch and process 10 whales in Maldonado Bay, as well as kill seals on Lobos Island and obtain a yield of “43 casks of blubber and the corresponding skins” (Silva, 1978; Supplemental Information S2 #14, available online). No catch records were found for the years 1795 and 1796.
Nevertheless, three documents of the time report the estimated annual production of the Company (Supplemental Information S1, available online). Based on these sources, no more than a dozen whales were captured annually in Maldonado Bay and some 10,000–12,000 fur seals and sea lions on Lobos Island. In addition, some elephant seals were killed from time to time. Consequently, assuming that the exploitation of marine mammals developed regularly between the years 1792 and 1796, it is possible to infer a catch of no more than 60 whales and some 50,000–60,000 seals for this period.
In 1797, the sealing season was lost due to damage caused on Lobos Island by an English frigate in the framework of the military conflict between Spain and Great Britain (Cabañes, 1797). The following year, in July 1798, the commissioners of the Company in the Río de la Plata requested funds from the viceroy to take advantage of the sealing season on the Lobos Island that same year. Although the answer was affirmative and 800 pesos were disbursed for such purpose (Pesado Riccardi, 2016; Silva, 1978), in this study no records were found on the actual performance of the sealing tasks that season. Likewise, the lack of data on the hunting activities of the Company extends to the years 1799, 1800, and 1801.
For the last 2 years in which the Company operated, 1802 and 1803, there are records of the products obtained from the harvest of fur seals and sea lions on the Lobos Island. In the sealing season carried out between May 16 and November 3, 1802, 17,766 skins of fur seals and sea lions were obtained, and the corresponding production of oil and blubber (Table 2). The following sealing season, conducted between June 1 and November 9, 1803, yielded 11,551 skins of fur seals and sea lions, and the corresponding oil (Table 3). While the item “Salted skins of sea lions, and large fur seals” does not provide a breakdown of figures by species, it can be inferred that over 80% of the animals slaughtered during those 2 years were fur seals, with the remaining fraction (less than 20%) consisting of sea lions, although the exact proportion is unknown (Tables 2 and 3).
Production of the Real Compañía Marítima on the Lobos Island, year 1802.
Sources: Anonymous (1802: 96, 1803a: 420–421).
Production of the Real Compañía Marítima on the Lobos Island, year 1803.
Source: Anonymous (1803b: 103).
Analyzing the records thus far for the northern coast of the Río de la Plata, it is documented that in 1790, three whales were captured (with four harpooned), between 12 or possibly more than 30 whales in 1791, and an additional 10 in 1794. Assuming an average catch of 10 whales (based on the statement “as there has not passed a year with more than a dozen captured”; see Supplemental Information S1, available online) for the years 1792, 1793, 1795, and 1796 (for which no data was found), the total number of whales captured during the Company’s operation period ranges from 65 to 83. Regarding seals, combining the estimated figures for the period 1792–1796 with the registered data for 1802–1803 yields an approximate total of 79,317–89,317 fur seals and sea lions, along with a small number of elephant seals, harvested on Lobos Island (Table 4, Figure 3). Unfortunately, no sealing data is available for the years 1798–1801, although it is possible that seals were captured in 1798. Taking into account unrecorded seal catches due to various factors, the total number of fur seals and sea lions harvested by the Company on the northern coast of the Río de la Plata could reach up to 100,000 individuals.
Skins of fur seals and sea lions obtained on Lobos Island by the Real Compañía Marítima between the years 1792 and 1803.
Note. †According to the sources of the time, the estimated annual production for Lobos Island was 10,000–12,000 skins of fur seals and sea lions.
Records of shipments and storage of products of uncertain origin (1790–1804)
In addition to shipments made to Spain on the frigate El Rey Carlos in 1790 and on the schooners Lobo Marino and Ballena in 1792 (Deodat, 1945), there are records that at least four more ships were dispatched with merchandise from the Río de la Plata during the period 1793–1796. In October 1793, the frigate El Pájaro set sail for Spain chartered to third parties producing a profit of 25,000–28,000 pesos fuertes (Ratto, 1984[1943]; Silva, 1978, 1985), although no reference is made to the shipment of Company products. In May 1794, the brig San Blas was dispatched from Maldonado to Cádiz loaded with “79 casks of seal and whale oil” and “800 seal skins” (Cappa, 1893; Supplemental Information S2 #17, available online). By May 1795, the frigate El Pájaro was dispatched from Maldonado to La Coruña and Santander with a cargo of “450 casks or pipes of whale and seal oil, (. . .) 24,023 salted skins of fur seal and sea lion, (. . .) some 30 quintals of whale baleen” (Cappa, 1893; Supplemental Information S2 #18, available online). On 29 September 1796, the frigate La Posta de Buenos Aires was dispatched from Montevideo bound for Santander loaded with: “raw skins, tallow and other effects,” arriving at its destination on 12 January 1797 (González Echegaray, 1978; Supplemental Information S2 #19, available online).
In 1798, despite the Company being paralyzed, substantial quantities of manufactured products were stored in the warehouses on Gorriti Island and Puerto Deseado (Silva, 1978). Through the inventory conducted by Commissioner Juan Gutierrez de la Concha, the stored products of the Company as of 25 July 1798, can be identified (Table 5).
Production stored by the Real Compañía Marítima until 25 July 1798.
Sources: Mariluz Urquijo (1956: 99); Pesado Riccardi (2016: 211–212); Silva (1978: 287–288); Silva (1985: 528).
Furthermore, records of shipments of sealskins, blubber, and oil made on behalf of the Company from Maldonado to Montevideo can be found in the auxiliary books of sales tax guides of the Caja Real de Maldonado. According to the study made by Biangardi (2018), shipments included: 63,257 skins between the years 1793 and 1804; 22 barrels and 158 casks of blubber in the years 1797–1799 and 1804; and 292 barrels of oil during the years 1797 and 1798, plus another six oil barracks sent in 1804.
Unfortunately, the sealskin records compiled here do not contain information on their origin, making it challenging to include them in the analysis. On the contrary, it is possible to obtain a figure of the captured whales from the baleen records. The sum of the baleen yielded in the years 1792 (200 arrobas = 50 quintals), 1795 (30 quintals) and those stored in 1798 (46 quintals + 80 pounds + 12 arrobas = 49.8 quintals) indicates the catch of 26 whales. Considering the limited progress of whaling activity in Puerto Deseado during that period, it is reasonable to attribute these baleen yield records to whales captured in the waters off the northern coast of the Río de la Plata.
Discussion
The present study brings together, from a wide range of scattered sources, all the historical references found so far on the harvest of marine mammals carried out during the operation of the Real Compañía Marítima in the Southwest Atlantic Ocean, between the years 1790 and 1804. The results reported here reveal that some 200,000 South American fur seals and sea lions, less than 100 whales, plus a few southern elephant seals were extracted by the Company from both the Patagonian and northern coast of the Río de la Plata marine ecosystems. However, it is important to point out that because the historical record imposes some restrictions for the reconstruction of the harvests and there are some information gaps, the figures generated here should be regarded as estimates, indicative but not precise.
The identity of the marine mammal species captured by the Company is not always well described in the texts. In the case of the whales, there is consensus that the southern right whale was the species targeted (Costa et al., 2023; Richards, 1993). This is supported by the historical abundance of the species in the region during winter and spring (Richards, 2009) and the whaling techniques used by the Company (Reeves and Smith, 2006). According to de Morais et al. (2017), the Basque style used by the Portuguese at the shore stations called armações in southern Brazil, around the same time the Company operated, only allowed the capture of southern right whales, humpback whales, and sperm whales. However, like the Portuguese (Ellis, 1969), the Spanish were not very interested in hunting sperm whales and obtaining spermaceti (Valdés Hansen, 2014). Another source of evidence on the capture of southern right whales as a target species comes from the coat of arms of the city of Maldonado (Figure 4). By 1803, the Town Hall of Maldonado adopted a new heraldic shield showing a whale with a double spouting falling on both sides of its body and an anchor “as characteristics of the city, where Your Majesty have the famous whale oil fishing, which is carried out by the Real Compañía Marítima” (Seijo, 1999; Supplemental Information S2 #20, available online). The aforementioned v-shaped spout from their blowhole is one of the key features to distinguish southern right whales from any other whale (Carwardine and Camm, 1995). Therefore, it is safe to assume that the southern right whale was the species targeted by the Company.
Coat of arms of the city of Maldonado since 1803 (taken from Intendencia de Maldonado, 2021).
The estimated number of whales caught provided here is based on records of individuals captured (n = 66–84), baleen yield (n = 26) and the Company’s estimated annual production for the years 1791–1796 (n = 10–12 per year). However, it is important to note the disparity in historical sources on reporting the total number of whales caught in 1791. Given the operational possibilities of the Company, the figure expressed by the Count Enrique de Liniers, that more than 30 whales were caught in the Maldonado Bay that year, seems exaggerated. On the other hand, the catch of 12 whales in 1791 reported by the director of the Company (Sañéz Reguart, 1792), besides being an authoritative opinion on the subject, agrees with the rest of the bibliography surveyed. Therefore, if we weight this last figure (i.e. 12 whales in 1791), the estimated number of whales caught during the period that the Company operated can be calculated in 66 individuals.
Furthermore, to reconstruct the impact of whaling on cetacean populations it is essential to consider the number of whales “struck and lost” (Richards, 1993; Vighi et al., 2021). References to four whales harpooned and then lost by the Company in 1790 were found in this study, although without information of their likely fate (i.e. whether the whales survived or were fatally injured). Unfortunately, this data is insufficient to calculate a “struck and lost” rate for the Spanish whaling stations. Anyway, assuming the worst scenario that all lost whales were fatally injured, then we can use the maximum lost rate estimated for right whale species at that time. In this way, based on an estimated total catch of 66 whales and multiplied by a factor of 1.46 to account for the number of “struck and lost” individuals, the figure would increase to some 96 whales. To give a broader understanding, out of an estimated 35,000–74,000 southern right whales taken from the Southwest Atlantic Ocean between 1670 and 1973 as a result of whaling operations (Romero et al., 2022), a total of 9541 whales were caught during the period from 1790 to 1804 (Richards, 1993). Therefore, the impact the Company had on the population of southern right whales can be considered negligible.
Regarding seals harvested by the Company, except for a reference to some southern elephant seals caught occasionally on Lobos Island, the bulk of the catches corresponded to South American fur seals and sea lions. Unfortunately, the sources gathered in this study did not allow us to know in what proportion these two species of otariid were captured. In most cases, the literature reviewed does not distinguish between the species harvested and refers to the catches of “lobos marinos” in a broad sense (i.e. catches of fur seals and sea lions without species discrimination). Nevertheless, fur seals are expected to have comprised most of the catch on the two islands where the Company operated, given the higher value of their skins in the market (e.g. Seijo, 1999). This is further supported by the skin production data from Lobos Island for the years 1802 and 1803, which indicate that over 80% of the captures were fur seals, while the remaining percentage consisted of sea lions.
In this study, it is estimated that the Company harvested around 200,000 fur seals and sea lions on Pingüino and Lobos islands between the years 1790 and 1803. Unfortunately, contextualizing the Company’s production in comparison to other contemporary companies’ yields is challenging due to the limited data on seal catches in the Southwest Atlantic Ocean. Only two studies are available to provide some context for the hunting efforts of the Company. According to Richards (1993, 2003), between 1792 and 1796, British whaleships and vessels engaged in sealskin trade imported a total of 309,589 sealskins from Brazil and Patagonia into the London market. There are also records that, between 1796 and January 1799, the Spanish settlement of Carmen de Patagones produced 26,484 skins of fur seals and sea lions obtained from the coasts of the San José Gulf and the mouth of the Río Negro (Silva, 1978, 1985). Thereby, by adding the Company’s total catch reconstructed in this study to the figures reported by Richards (1993, 2003) and Silva (1978, 1985), it is estimated that over half a million eared seals were harvested along the Southwest Atlantic coast during the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. Although this calculation says nothing about the captures made by the British and American itinerant sealers of the time, whose records are scarce and scattered in diverse historical sources (e.g. Townsend, 1888), and require further examination.
At present, marine mammal species that were targeted by the Company are found in the marine ecosystems of the Southwest Atlantic Ocean, although with contrasting trends and widely different population sizes (Baylis et al., 2015, 2019; Crespo et al., 2015, 2019; Ferrari et al., 2013; Franco-Trecu et al., 2015, 2019; Romero et al., 2017, 2022). Nevertheless, the present distribution of some of these species is still far short of that recorded in historical records (e.g. southern right whales and South American fur seals; Richards, 2009; Vales, 2015). Regarding the islands where the Company established its sealing stations along the northern coast of the Río de la Plata, Lobos Island remains home to all three species of pinnipeds, including breeding rookeries of fur seals and sea lions, with occasional sightings of elephant seals (Vaz-Ferreira, 1950). Similarly, the three species of pinnipeds can be found in Patagonia as well. According to the latest censuses, the north coast of Santa Cruz province, spanning from latitude 47° 10′′S to 48° 20′′S, harbors 18,591 sea lions distributed in 10 colonies, including a non-breeding colony on Pingüino Island (Grandi et al., 2015). Conversely, within the same area, approximately 500 fur seals were recorded on two small rocky islets named Cabo Blanco and Islote del Cabo, but not on Pingüino Island (Crespo et al., 2015). However, this pattern of occupancy seems to be changing in the last decade, as there have been regular sightings of fur seals resting on a small rocky islet within the archipelago of Pingüino Island. Since 2012, Pingüino Island has been designated as a marine protected area known as ‘Parque Interjurisdiccional Marino Isla Pingüino’. As a result, the pinnipeds and other marine species residing in the archipelago are now safeguarded under its protection (Government of the Argentine Republic, 2012).
Based on historical and archeological evidence, the recent reappearance of fur seals in the Pingüino Island archipelago can be regarded as a reoccupation of their historical range following a prolonged absence resulting from overharvesting in the 19th century. During the 20th and 21st centuries, pinniped monitoring censuses only recorded sea lion rookeries on the island (Carrara, 1952; Crespo et al., 2015; Grandi et al., 2015). However, the presence of both species of eared seals in Puerto Deseado and its surroundings is referred in historical accounts by several 18th century Spanish expeditions (e.g. Joaquín de Olivares y Centeno in 1745–1746, Antonio de Viedma in 1780 and Ramón de Clairac in 1789, 1746; Vales, 2015) and during the time the Company was in operation (Sañéz Reguart, 1793). Contemporaneously to the Company, fur sealing was also performed by British and American vessels (Maeso Buenasmañanas, 1999; Silva and Tejerina, 1996; Townsend, 1888). According to Townsend (1888), after sealing for six weeks on and around the Pingüino Island in the summer season of 1797/1798, they left the place after they “have taken all the seal worth staying any longer for.” And even though “They had examined the coast to the southward for six or eight leagues, (. . .), found considerable many hair seal [sea lions], but not fur [seals].”
On the other hand, archeological data has emerged as a crucial source of evidence in the field of historical ecology, particularly in the study of pinnipeds. Faunal remains found in archeological sites offer extensive information regarding the composition, biogeography, and abundance of animals that lived in the past (Braje and Rick, 2011; Erlandson et al., 2015; Rick et al., 2009, 2011). Late Holocene archeological sites along the north coast of Santa Cruz contain bone remains of fur seals, sea lions and elephant seals (Beretta et al., 2011; Bogan et al., 2007; Castro et al., 2004; Moreno, 2008; Zubimendi et al., 2011). One site stands out due to the remarkable abundance of pinniped bone remains in comparison with other resources. At the Cueva Del Negro site, fur seals were found to be more abundant than sea lions, as indicated by measures of taxonomic abundance such as the number of identified specimens (NISP) and the minimum number of individuals (MNI) (Beretta et al., 2011). This finding is interesting because, assuming that humans would have hunted/scavenged prehistoric pinnipeds in direct proportion to their natural abundance (Rick et al., 2011), it suggests that Late Holocene fur seals were more abundant than contemporary sea lions; a pattern that contrasts with the modern abundance of these otariids in the region. Undoubtedly, the field of historical ecology concerning pinnipeds will benefit from further advancements in zooarchaeological research conducted in the region. In particular, the study of new zooarchaeological assemblages that include pinniped bones identified by species, age category and sex determination will enable the inference of various aspects, including the relative abundance of pinnipeds in the past and the existence of ancient reproductive rookeries.
In most cases, the implementation of hunting bans, coupled with effective management and conservation plans have enabled an increase in the abundance of historically over-exploited marine mammals in the Southwest Atlantic Ocean. However, it is important to note that the growth of depleted populations does not imply a return to former or historical levels of abundance (Lotze et al., 2011). Through the utilization of population models and incorporating estimates of present species abundance, historical catch data, and some information on life history, it has been estimated that the current populations of southern right whales and sea lions represent less than 10 and 40%, respectively, of their pre-exploitation abundances (Romero et al., 2017, 2022). To make further progress, it is still necessary to reconstruct the historical catches of fur seals, elephant seals, and sea lions (prior to the 20th century) in order to evaluate the recovery status of their populations. In response to this need, the present study contributes with historical evidence regarding the extraction of marine mammals, particularly eared seals, from Patagonia and the Río de la Plata region by the Real Compañía Marítima (1790–1804).
Prehistoric and historical data provide essential information about past abundance and exploitation of species and the states of ancient ecosystems (Erlandson et al., 2015; Jackson et al., 2001; McClenachan et al., 2012). However, the integration of prehistoric, historical and ecological data into conservation and management frameworks poses challenges. This is because retrospective data is often difficult to obtain, vary greatly in format and quality, and has been collected less consistently compared to modern quantitative data (Ferretti et al., 2015; Jackson et al., 2001). For instance, historical data (e.g. narrative accounts, trade records and old newspaper news, among others) is scattered across archives worldwide, with varying degrees of accessibility, may exist in different languages and is time-consuming to review (McClenachan et al., 2012). Some of these challenges are being addressed through the advancement of statistical modeling frameworks that integrate various types of historical data into quantitative reconstructions for marine species (Ferretti et al., 2015) and the widespread availability of digitized books and documentary archives via the internet. This is encouraging, especially considering that in many regions, such datasets are the sole sources of information available about past populations or ecosystems, and their analysis is worthwhile (Ferretti et al., 2015). In summary, the integration of retrospective data into ecological studies of the Southwest Atlantic can be a laborious task and may have inherent biases. However, it offers valuable insights for assessing the status of modern populations and developing historically referenced recovery goals.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-hol-10.1177_09596836241231444 – Supplemental material for A reconstruction of the marine mammal harvest by the Real Compañía Marítima through the analysis of historical sources (AD 1790–1804)
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-hol-10.1177_09596836241231444 for A reconstruction of the marine mammal harvest by the Real Compañía Marítima through the analysis of historical sources (AD 1790–1804) by Damián G Vales in The Holocene
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
With grateful thanks to María Virginia Fuente (SECEDOC, CCT-CONICET-CENPAT), Lucía Fernández Granados (Departamento de Historia Marítima, Museo Marítimo del Cantábrico, Santander) and Jorge Horacio Bello for helping to locate hard-to-find bibliography and, to Ariel Serra (Parque Interjurisdiccional Marino Isla Pingüino, APN) and Kily Durante (CESIMAR, CONICET) for providing updated information on the recent presence of fur seals on Pingüino Island. I would like to extend my thanks to Kike Crespo (CESIMAR, CONICET) and Luis Cardona (UB) for introducing me to the historical ecology of marine mammals and, to Julieta Gómez Otero (IDEAus, CONICET) for encouraging me to publish this manuscript. Thanks to María Florencia Grandi (CESIMAR, CONICET), Florencia Borella (INCUAPA, CONICET-UNICEN) and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on a preliminary version of the manuscript. Finally, thanks to the editors of the ’Zooarchaeological perspectives in the framework of Anthropocene: contributions to ecological, environmental and conservationist studies from South America’ for inviting me to participate in this edition.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was partially funded by the PADI Foundation [app # 40457]; and the Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica, Argentina [PICT N° 2018-3115 and 2019-2407].
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
